CE-04-Chapter IV.

ChapterIV.

OBJECTIONS OF MR. JETER TO THE PRECEDING DOCTRINE CONSIDERED.

Section I.

WE now proceed to consider the objections to the doctrine of the preceding chapter. But before doing this we think it important to have the precise point stated against which these objections are urged. The question of difference between Mr. Jeter and us is strictly a question of fact, but a question involving two facts. We both agree that in conversion the Spirit operates: what, then, is the difference between us? It is the difference between accomplishing a given result by one influence of an agent acting uniformly in one way, and by two influences of the same agent, acting, one uniformly in one way, the other indifferently in two ways. We maintain that conversion is effected uniformly in one way,—namely, through the Truth. To this limitation Mr. Jeter objects, and maintains that in conversion the Spirit operates not only through the Truth, but without it; and not only by all the power in the Truth, but also by another influence distinct from and above it. When, then, he objects to our doctrine, it is evident that he objects, not to what we do teach, but in reality to what we do not teach. For, so far as we do teach, he agrees with us; but he objects to our teaching only so far. In other words, when we deny that the Spirit operates in conversion except through the Truth, or exerts therein any influence above the Truth, he affirms that we deny falsely.

When, then, he urges objections against our teaching, we shall expect him to urge them against the single point now named,—to wit: our limitation. We shall expect him to show that this limitation is wrong,—not directly, certainly, but indirectly,—by showing that the Spirit does, at least in some cases, operate in conversion without the Truth; and that in all cases it exerts an influence distinct from and above it. With these preliminaries we shall now introduce Mr. Jeter’s first objection, which he thus states:—

Objection 1. "Mr. Campbell’s theory of conversion overlooks, or at, least underestimates, the inveteracy of human depravity."

It does not, then, it seems, overlook depravity, but only the inveteracy of it. It admits the existence of the thing, but denies that it exists in so intense a form as that for which Mr. Jeter contends. This is precisely the difference between him and us. He contends not merely that depravity exists, but that it exists in such a form or to such a degree that the sinner cannot be converted simply by the Truth; but that the Spirit must add to this—or exert without it—an influence distinct from and above it, and acting with immeasurably greater vital force.

Now, as not depravity, but this peculiar degree of it, is at the very bottom of Mr. Jeter’s whole system of spiritual influence, and, as we conceive the sole argument which he can urge in its defense, he should have been at great pains to establish it, if possible, even beyond a cavil. But, instead of this, he attempts to establish the existence of depravity simply,—a thing which is not in dispute. For the question between him and us is not whether depravity exists, but whether it exists to the degree contended for by him. The very thing which we utterly deny is, that any degree or form of depravity exists in the human heart which renders the sinner incapable of conversion by the Truth. Why, now, did he not attempt to establish this intense form or peculiar degree of depravity? To such a task he knew himself unequal. But a difficulty of this nature never strands Mr. Jeter. What he felt a conscious inability to prove, he felt a conscious ability to assume; and, accordingly, having assumed the existence of a form or degree of depravity which has no existence, he bases on this assumption an objection to Mr. Campbell’s theory of conversion. What, now, does this objection amount to? Simply to this:—that Mr. Campbell’s theory overlooks Mr. Jeter’s assumption,—a small matter, truly! It is not for Mr. Campbell to offset one assumption by another, but to abide by the Truth, and offset every assumption by a simple denial of its truth, until its truth is proved.

There are two forms of depravity in the existence of which we do not believe:—one, a form which makes it necessary to regenerate infants in order to their salvation; the other, a form which renders an influence distinct from and above the Truth necessary to conversion. And, should it be said that depravity exists in these two forms only, then we are prepared to deny the existence of the whole thing.

We agree to the mournful truth that man is depraved, 1:e. that his reason has been greatly clouded by the fall, that his tastes and feelings have been perverted, and that he no longer reflects the image—the moral image—of his great Original as he once reflected it; that he now reflects it only as a broken mirror reflects the image of the face before it. The three respects in which man has chiefly suffered by the fall, we conceive to be his subjection to mortality, his loss of the moral imago of a kind Creator, and his greater exposedness to temptation and sin. In some of these respects, certainly, his misfortunes may be, in great part, even in this life, repaired by the Remedial System; but the consummation will not be until he is quickened from the dead. But, as to infants, we believe that all they lost in Adam, even every whit, they gain in Christ without one vestige of influence from the Spirit, save quickening them from the grave. Neither in reason nor in revelation is there one trace of evidence that an infant was ever yet, from conception up, the subject of one ray of spiritual influence. The whole conception is a pure delusion.

We agree, further, that all (infants included) are so frail or weak that, after a certain period of life, they not only sin, but that they are even inclined to sin. But this inclination we believe to be owing, at first at least, rather to the force of temptation, and the feebleness of the resistance offered by an immature resisting will and untaught judgment, than to any thing in the form of an innate, inherited depravity so inveterate that resistance becomes nearly, if not quite, impossible. True, we all inherit that frail nature which renders us so extremely susceptible of temptation. Nay, we will even grant that we inherit it in an aggravated form, which is the only form in which, we do inherit it. But we inherit no form of depravity so inveterate as to affect the perfect freedom of the will, close the heart against the Truth, or render man insusceptible of being moved by motives; in a word, no form which renders him incapable of being converted by the simple, unaided light and force of divine Truth. But this frailty or weakness is not sin: it is only a condition without which there had been no sin. Nor is it a consequence of Adam’s sin. Adam possessed it before he sinned, else he had not sinned; hence, it is not a consequence of his sin. It is, however, a condition of sin, since without it Adam, could not have sinned; but it is only a condition. Nor, perhaps, will facts warrant the conclusion that this frailty is, even in our case, greatly increased. For greater weakness in sinning was never displayed than by Adam. He yielded to the first temptation ever presented to him, without, so far as we know, offering even the slightest resistance". No one of his descendants ever did more. But what has Mr. Jeter to urge in defense of this inveterate form of depravity? The following extract contains his plea:—

"The Spirit of inspiration has drawn the picture of man’s moral corruption in gloomy colors. He is utterly depraved,—fleshly, sensual, and impure. ’That which is born of the flesh is flesh:’ John 3:6. He is without spiritual life, without holiness, without moral worth,—’dead in trespasses and sins:’ Ephesians 2:1. He is alienated from God, and opposed to his law, and, consequently, to truth and righteousness. ’Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be:’ Romans 8:7. This depravity pervades and controls the whole man,—blinding the mind, perverting the affections, stupefying the conscience, making rebellious and obstinate the will, and prostituting the members of the body as the instruments of sin. And this moral corruption of human nature is universal. ’For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God:’ Romans 3:23."

There is here an obvious effort to overstrain the truth, which within itself is bad enough without any heightening. But all this over-coloring, which is nothing else than a species of falsehood, is designed merely to create the impression that there is a necessity for some very peculiar spiritual influence in conversion. But it is proper to descend to particulars.

1st. "He [man] is utterly depraved,—fleshly, sensual, and impure. ’That which is born of the flesh is flesh:’ John 3:6."

Now, we freely grant that that which is born of the flesh is flesh; but that flesh and utter depravity mean the same thing, or represent the same idea, is something we do not believe. To assume that they do is to assume the very question in dispute. That question is not whether that which is born of the flesh is flesh, nor even whether it is fleshly; but whether flesh means utter depravity, or implies a degree of it so inveterate that the sinner cannot be converted without a "supernatural agency." We repeat, there is no question between Mr. Jeter and us but a question of degree. He asserts not merely that man is depraved, but that he is utterly depraved. We deny that the term utterly is applicable: he affirms it. How, now, does he undertake to make his affirmation good? By assuming, in the first place, that the word flesh means fleshly; and, in the second, that to be fleshly is to be utterly depraved. But we deny the truth of his assumption in the first place and in the second. The passage does not say, that which is born of the flesh is fleshly, neither is this its meaning, but, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Neither does the word "flesh" imply utter depravity.

2d. "He [man] is without spiritual life, without holiness, without moral worth,—’dead in trespasses and sins:’ Ephesians 2:1."

Now, we admit that man, unregenerate, is without spiritual life, without holiness, but not quite that he is without moral worth; or, rather, we admit that man is unregenerate. But this is not the question at issue, neither does it imply it. Is a man who is admitted to be without spiritual life to be therefore deemed utterly depraved? This is the question. If to be destitute of spiritual life were a consequence of utter depravity, or necessarily implied it, then of course the existence of that would prove the reality of this. But, before such destitution can be so used, it must be shown to be such a consequence or to carry such necessary implication. But this is what Mr. Jeter has not attempted. The absence of one thing can never he used to prove the presence of another, unless the one cannot be absent without the other being present. Hence, the absence of spiritual life can never be used to prove the presence of utter depravity, unless that could not be absent without this being present. Nor would it be sufficient, to establish Mr. Jeter’s conclusion, to show that the absence of spiritual life implies the presence of depravity. It must be shown that it implies utter depravity, or a form of it so inveterate that conversion is impossible without a "supernatural agency.” For, as before remarked, we admit that the sinner is depraved, but still deny that any power besides the Truth is necessary to his conversion. The expression "dead in trespasses and sins," with which Mr. Jeter terminates the preceding extract, and upon which he rests its truth, proves nothing in his favor. If an absolute death were meant, then perhaps it might; but such is not the case. A man absolutely dead is as incapable of sinning as he is of being righteous, whether the death be that of the body or that of the spirit. Yet the persons alluded to were dead in sins,—that is, the sins which they were actually committing every day.

Indeed, the very power to sin involves a virtual refutation of one of Mr. Jeter’s chief objections to our theory of conversion,—to wit, the impotency of motives on the sinner’s will. The power to sin is not the mere physical power to sin, but the moral power. It Is the power to sin or not just as we choose. He who cannot choose between sinning and not sinning cannot sin. And the power to choose implies the power to choose for reasons, and this, of course, that he who chooses is susceptible of being determined by motives. This is all we contend for; but, in contending for this, it must be apparent that we contend not merely that the sinner can be determined by motives in some cases, but that he can be in all cases, and hence, of course, in that of conversion. In the expression "dead in trespasses and sins," the word dead is evidently employed not in an absolute, but in a relative, sense. A sinner, though dead in sins, is not absolutely dead, but only dead to righteousness: just as a righteous man, though dead in a sense, is not absolutely dead, but only dead to sin. And as the righteous man, though dead to sin, is not so far dead that he cannot be induced, by the force of temptation, to sin again, so the sinner, though dead to righteousness, is not so far dead that he cannot be induced, by the force of truth and motives, to mend his life: only there is this difference,—that, being more strongly inclined to sin than to righteousness, we need to be acted upon by more powerful motives in the one case than in the other. What now of utter depravity is deducible from the expression "dead in trespasses and sins"? Clearly none.

3d. "He [man] is alienated from God, and opposed to his law, and, consequently, to truth and righteousness. ’Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be:’ Romans 8:7." The carnal mind—or, emphatically, the mind of the flesh, which is here said to be enmity to God—is something which, in this life, is never subject to the will of God; indeed, it cannot be. No power can tame it. Hence it is as lawless in the saint as in the sinner. There is this difference:—the saint, by the Spirit, holds it in check; but the sinner is governed by it. Both can control it if they will, at least to a great extent; but neither can subdue it completely. The determination to control it, the effort to do so, and the partial success, make the difference between the Christian and the sinner.

But, Mr. Jeter will say, does not this prove that there is a work to be done in man which cannot be accomplished by the Truth? Certainly not. Indeed, it proves nothing about a work to be done in man, but rather that there is a work which cannot be done in him. It rather proves that there is a principle in him which cannot be subdued at all, cannot be subjected to the law of God, either by the Truth or by an influence distinct from and above it. It still leaves the question of his conversion by the Truth intact; for, even after his conversion, this principle remains the same, except that it is kept in abeyance.

Having thus complimented Mr. Jeter’s first objection far beyond what any person except himself will think it merits, we shall here dismiss it.

Section II.

Objection 2. "It [Mr. Campbell’s theory of conversion] is oblivious of the chief difficulty in conversion."

Now, all must admit that the chief difficulty in conversion is a serious one, and that any theory which overlooks it must be extremely defective. But in what consists this chief difficulty? We shall let the following language of Mr. Jeter explain:—

"Mr. Campbell maintains that ’the arguments which are written in the New Testament’ must be ’understood,’ in order to exert their influence on the human mind. (Christianity Restored, p. 350.) To understand these arguments requires attention, candor, and spiritual discernment. Men attend readily to what they delight in, and believe easily what is congenial with their tastes; but the ’natural man,’ the unrenewed, sinful man, has a deep-rooted aversion to divine Truth. This aversion is an element and a proof of his depravity. He may hear or read the arguments contained in the Scriptures, through curiosity, politeness, or a captious spirit; but to expect of him a candid, serious, docile, and obedient attention to them is to expect to gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles." The "chief difficulty," then, it seems, in conversion, is to understand the "arguments" of the New Testament; and of this "chief difficulty" Mr. Campbell’s theory is "oblivious:" at least such is the case if we are to credit the romancing of Mr. Jeter.

Now, three things, and only three, say all sensible and sober-minded men, (and the Bible says not to the contrary,) are necessary to understand an argument:—1st, that it shall be within itself intelligible; 2d, that we possess the ability to understand it; 3d, that we give it the requisite attention. Mr. Jeter does not pretend that the arguments of the New Testament are not intelligible, nor that we have not the ability to understand them.

What, then, lack we yet? "Attention, candor, and spiritual discernment," it would seem. First, then, it requires attention. Granted. Second, it requires candor. This is not true. If an argument be intelligible within itself, and a man possess the ability to understand it, and give it the requisite attention, understand it he will though he possess not one particle of candor. Without candor he may not acknowledge that he understands it; or, acknowledging it, he may not yield to it: but these are different matters altogether. Third, it requires "spiritual discernment." It requires common sense, and nothing more. What Mr. Jeter means by "spiritual discernment" he has not informed us; and, as we cannot conjecture, we shall pass the matter without further notice. But how shall we secure the sinner’s attention? For clearly, according to Mr. Jeter, this is the chief difficulty in the way of his understanding the Truth; and, indeed, according to our "scheme," if we are to believe him, it would seem insuperable. In the first place, we shall frankly grant that our "scheme" makes no provision to secure the attention of many of the human family. We mention the following classes:—1. Such as will not come to Christ that they might have life. 2. Such as hate the light and will not come to it. 3. Such as reject the counsel of God against themselves. 4. Such as judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. 5. Such as close their ears and shut their eyes, lest they should see and hear and be converted. 6. Such as will not attend without a supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. For securing the attention of these classes, we are free to confess, our "scheme" makes little provision; and we shall only add, the gospel makes none. No, gentle reader; it is Mr. Jeter’s "scheme" that makes provision for securing the attention and achieving the salvation of all these classes! Has it not boundless claims on your charity? But we have not yet answered the question, How shall we secure the sinner’s attention? We reply, Precisely as did Christ and his apostles:—by presenting to his mind, as supremely worthy of his attention, immortality and eternal life; and by showing him that these lie completely within his reach on condition that he submit to the Savior. If neither these nor the terrors of the Lord move him, the wrath of God rests on him, and he is lost. Neither reason nor revelation sanctions any other mode of securing the sinner’s attention.

Section III.

Objection 3. "Suppose this great difficulty obviated, the sinner’s attention arrested, and Truth brought clearly before his mind: would knowledge of divine Truth, without the special influence of the Spirit, secure his conversion?" To which, of course, the answer is, it would not. Now, we reply, if divine Truth, when known or understood, effects not the conversion of the sinner, then his conversion is provided for by no system of religion which is divine. At least, if the Christian religion has made such provision, the fact has never been discovered. Against this position, so strong because so true, no argument worthy of the name has ever yet been made. True, a thousand feeble sallies, such as those we are now considering, have been made against it; but as yet it has sustained no injury. It has its confirmation in the whole history of God’s dealings with the human family, and finds its sanction in the silent sense of the human soul.

But, after propounding the preceding objection in the form of an inquiry, Mr. Jeter adds, "If ignorance is the only evil with which the gospel has to contend, then, obviously, the illumination of the mind is all that is necessary for its removal. But ignorance, though it may be in itself criminal, is rather the effect than the cause of man’s depravity. There is a corrupt disposition which blinds the understanding. ’This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil:’ John 3:19. The love of darkness—which signifies ignorance or error—is the very root of man’s depravity. This love implies an aversion to light, truth, and holiness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance of divine things in the world." The love of ignorance, then, is the very root of man’s depravity,—a love which implies aversion to light, truth, and holiness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance of divine things in the world. These are certainly fearful results. But are they results of man’s depravity? We shall concede for the present that they are, and of that inveterate form of it for which Mr. Jeter contends. Now, is man the author of this form of depravity? The present generation at least is not, since it is inherited. Has he the power to modify its intensity or control it as a cause? Of course he has not. Is he, then, responsible for his love of darkness, his aversion to light, truth, and holiness, and his ignorance of divine things? It is impossible. Indeed, concede the existence of this form of depravity, and these results become harmless as the sigh of the wind. And this is a legitimate result from Mr. Jeter’s position. Deny it as he will, or explain it as he may, still it follows. Nor, indeed, is this all. The real conclusion from his position is, that man is the mere creature of necessity, with no more power to avoid being what he is, or doing what he does, than a stone at rest has to put itself in motion. We advocate no "scheme" of conversion certainly which provides a remedy for a case like this, alike disgraceful to the Author of man and destructive of human accountability. But will Mr. Jeter say that these, though results of depravity, are still to be regarded as sins? If so, then they happened by the sanction of the human will. Man might have prevented them, but did not,—not because he could not, but because he would not. All the difficulty this view of the case presents, we accept, and for it (in the view we take of conversion) make as complete provision as can be made.

We admit certainly that, in the presentation of the Truth, other and serious obstacles besides ignorance have to be encountered. Nay, more: we admit that many have to be encountered of a nature so serious that the view we take of conversion makes no provision whatever to overcome them, and that hence many of the human family will be lost. Does Mr. Jeter’s "scheme" make provision to overcome them all? There is something exceedingly perverse in his mode of treating our view of conversion. He treats it as if faulty because it makes not provision to overcome every conceivable obstacle in the way of conversion; and yet he presents a no more feasible plan. Does the Christian religion, we ask, contemplate the removal of all obstacles to conversion, and hence the conversion of all? But we do maintain that every removable obstacle in the way of conversion not only may be made to yield, but that it actually does yield, when it yields at all, to the Truth, and to the Truth alone. The inherent, brilliant light of the Truth, its searching heat and power, no obstacle can withstand, save the voluntary and deliberate resistance of man. And against this resistance no provision can be made.

Section IV.

Objection 4. "The theory under discussion is contradicted by numerous well-authenticated facts." In proof of which Mr. Jeter presents first this "fact:"—"If all the converting power of the Spirit is in the arguments addressed by him in words to the mind, then it follows that every minister of the word must be successful in converting souls to Christ in proportion to the distinctness with which he presents the arguments of the Spirit to the minds of his hearers. The same measure of power must, under similar circumstances, produce similar results. But does this conclusion agree with the experience and observation of Christian ministers?"

We reply, if the power be uniform, and the circum­stances precisely similar, then the results will be so too. Now, we maintain that the converting power is in the Truth, and, hence, that the power is uniform. But are the circumstances precisely similar? Mr. Jeter knew that they are not, and yet he has the front to put the case as against us. But are the circumstances so far similar as to justify the expectation of even nearly-similar results? They are not. But, on the contrary, they are so very dissimilar as to justify the expectation of the most dissimilar results. This is the conclusion which agrees with the experience and observation of Christian ministers.

Audiences vary in ways which are almost infinite; each one of which will serve to prevent a uniform result from preaching. ’No two can be found commanding precisely the same amount of intellect; and then in point of cultivation they differ most widely. These two circumstances of themselves are enough to account for the most dissimilar results. But, in addition to these, prejudices innumerable, and as various as numerous, have to be encountered. The resistance met with by the Truth from all these sources is such as to cause us rather to wonder that the results are so nearly uniform as they are than to expect them to be completely so.

But, in further proof of his objection, Mr. Jeter presents, second, this "fact:"—"But I need not appeal in this argument to questionable evidence. Christ was an unrivaled preacher of the gospel. Mark 1:1 : ’Never man spake as he did.’ .... But what was the result of his ministry? It was unsuccessful:—not wholly so;—but it produced no such results as from his pre-eminent qualifi­cations might have been expected; no great moral revolution, and no extensive revival of true religion."

Christ’s ministry, then, was unsuccessful; only it was not wholly so. Be it so, then. But was it unsuccessful because of any want of power in the Truth? If so, Mr. Jeter has not shown it. No. It was unsuccessful, as far as it was so at all, because of the deliberate resistance offered to the Truth by the Jews. This is the reason why it was unsuccessful.

Upon various occasions and in different language did the Savior account for his lack of success. Now, to what causes did he attribute it? Among others, we mention the following:—

But how does Mr. Jeter account for the Savior’s want of success? "The converting power of the Spirit," is his own language, "was not present,—was withheld in wisdom and righteous judgment." We blush for the pen that drew this libel upon the divine character. In charity let us hope its author penned it in haste, under the influence of some dreadful pressure, without stopping to reflect on his deed. The converting power of the Spirit was withheld, hence conversion was impossible; and yet the Savior said to the multitude, "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life," when he perfectly knew that they came not, not because they would not, but because they could not! The converting power of the Spirit was withheld, hence conversion could not be; and yet the unconverted were, by the high decree of heaven, doomed to perdition for refusing to be what they could not be! What is this but to tender to man a religion which he cannot accept, and then to damn him for rejecting it? And all this is coolly charged to the account of "wisdom and righteous judgment"!

Section V.

Objection 5. "Mr. Campbell’s theory of the Spirit’s influence is incompatible with prayer for the conversion of sinners." Has God but one way in which he can answer prayer for the conversion of sinners,—to wit, through an influence of the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth? If not, then the objection is void. Mr. Campbell’s theory is certainly incompatible with prayer for the conversion of sinners through a "supernatural agency," but not with prayer for their conversion in any way in which conversion ever happens.

1. Mr. Jeter is profoundly ignorant of the manner in which our heavenly Father answers, where he does so at all, the prayers of his children. We know not what we should pray for as we ought, and surely much less the manner in which these prayers are replied to. It is enough for us to know that "prayer for all men" has been made our duty. Hence we pray for them, not because it happens to be compatible with some theory, however wise, but because God has made it our duty to do so. All beyond a conscientious discharge of our duty we leave with Him who works all things after the counsel of his will. That he does, in the way which to him seems best, answer or not these prayers as they happen to accord or not with his gracious plans and to be for the good of his erring children, we profoundly believe. When, now, Mr. Jeter undertakes to set Mr. Campbell’s "theory of the Spirit’s influence" aside, after having so signally failed to do so in other ways, by an objection based on his profound ignorance of the manner in which God answers prayer, he compliments neither his head nor his heart.

2. There is no duty upon the propriety and necessity of which Christian men are more cordially agreed, than that of frequent fervent prayer for the conversion of sinners. Any system of religion which should ignore it would be justly exposed to the derision of all good men. Mr. Jeter knew, and admits, (reluctantly, we fear,) that Mr. Campbell and his brethren believe in and practice this duty. And yet he wished to expose us as a denomination to the odium which he knew could attach to a people only who repudiate the duty; and this he sought to do by an effort to. make it appear that our "theory" of spiritual influence is "incompatible " with prayer for the conversion of sinners. There is not a more unmanly thing in his book, numerous as such things are, than the preceding objection. But, in a work written to insult and not to refute, we could expect nothing better.

Section VI.

Objection 6. "Mr. Campbell’s theory of conversion is inconsistent with the introduction of the millennium." In support of this objection, Mr. Jeter has written some seven pages; and yet in not one line of the seven has he furnished a particle of evidence that his objection states the truth. It is an objection of a piece with the one immediately preceding it,—strictly, an objection based on his ignorance. It amounts to this:—Mr. Campbell’s theory of conversion is inconsistent with something of which little or nothing is known! Mr. Jeter does not know in what the millennium will consist, and certainly not how it is to be introduced. In regard to the former point, the Scriptures merely state the fact that there will be a millennium, with no full description certainly of what it will consist in; and in regard to the latter, if they are not wholly silent, yet are they silent, it appears to us, in regard to its being introduced by merely moral causes. It will not be thought disrespectful in us to dissent from Mr. Campbell in regard to a matter touching which he does not claim to be exempt from liability to err. We cannot therefore agree that Mr. Jeter has furnished the true view of the millennium in the short extract which he makes from Mr. Campbell’s writings to "define what he means" by the term. And still less can we concede to him the right to base an objection to our theory of conversion on a piece of information which he does not happen to possess. But it is proper to hear Mr. Jeter’s account of the manner in which the millennium is to be introduced. "It is," he observes, "most manifest that the millennium cannot shed its blessings on the world without some new agency or influence, or some great increase of existing influences. We need expect no new revelations for our instruction, no new powers to be imparted to the human mind, and no new means of spreading the gospel and enlisting attention to it. How then is the millennium to be introduced? By an increased efficiency of the divine word." The millennium, then, is to shed its blessings on the world by an increased efficiency of the divine word. Now, a more perfect conceit never haunted the brain of a Chaldean astrologer. But still, conceit as it is, it serves the purpose of a point on which to poise an objection against our view of conversion. Had Mr. Jeter stated that the millennium is to be introduced by magnetism or submarine telegraphs, he would, for any thing he knows, have come quite as near the truth. When he states that the millennium is to be introduced by an increased efficiency of the divine word, he states simply the case of a miracle, and then on this bases an objection to our theory of conversion, because it does not provide for the accomplishment of an event by ordinary means which, by his own showing, is to result from a miraculous cause!

Again, the objection obviously assumes that the millennium is to be introduced by conversion. But this we deny: hence, since it is not granted, neither proved, no objection can rest on it. If Mr. Jeter would make out his case, let him first show from the Bible that the millennium is to be introduced by conversion, and then, from any source, that our theory makes no provision therefor. Then we should have an objection indeed. But until then we are compelled to pronounce his present objection sheer nonsense.

Section VII.

Objection 7. "The assumption under consideration" (that the Spirit operates in conversion through the Truth only) "is incompatible with the salvation of infants They enter into the world, as Mr. Campbell admits, with depraved hearts. Dying before they attain to years of intelligence, they must enter heaven with their moral natures unchanged, which is impossible; they must be renovated by death, which is a mere figment; they must be renewed by the Holy Spirit without the word, the possibility of which Mr. Campbell cannot conceive; or they must be lost. I do not charge him with admitting this consequence; but it appears to be logically deduced from the position which he assumes, and all his ingenuity has not enabled him to escape from it." As a general rule, there is about as much connection between Mr. Jeter’s premises and his conclusions as between a cubic inch and the milky way; but in the present instance he seems to have stumbled upon something a little better. We do not hesitate to pronounce this the best argument, bad as it is, in his book. For that reason we have transcribed it entire.

How, now, must not all mothers be scandalized by the naughty doctrine which leads to such a conclusion! And Mr. Campbell, it seems, with all his ingenuity, is unable to escape it. Alas, poor man! What now must be done? If we admit Mr. Jeter’s premises, and if his argument is all valid, then are we forced to accept his conclusion. But—alas for his argument!—a single pass at it proves fatal. Mr. Campbell does not admit that infants are depraved in any sense which makes it necessary to regenerate them, either with or without the word, in order to their salvation. We regret to be compelled thus to spoil the best argument in Mr. Jeter’s book; but we are not permitted to spare it. When he puts his own false position in Mr. Campbell’s mouth, he must not expect to deduce from it conclusions which will render any one ridiculous but himself.

Section VIII.

Objection 8. "Mr. Campbell’s assumption" (the Spirit’s operating through the Truth only) "is wholly at war with the Scripture doctrine of Satanic influence." Satan and other evil spirits are represented in the Bible as exerting a mighty moral influence for the destruction of men. They tempt, deceive, enslave, and degrade mankind.

Satan is a mighty prince, and at the head of a great, spreading empire. But how do the evil spirits exert an influence over the minds of men? By arguments on motives addressed to them by words oral or written? Certainly not: but by a direct, internal, and efficient influence."

1. We deny utterly that Satan exerts any direct influence on the human mind. We do not say he cannot do it, for we know not the limit of his awful power. We deny that he does it. The question is a question of fact, which should not have been assumed, as it has been, but proved, or not made the basis of an objection. It is a sheer fiction invented for a special purpose.

2. But, conceding that Satan does exert a direct influence on the mind, what then? Why, that Mr. Campbell concedes to him and his angels a power which he denies to the Holy Spirit. But Mr. Campbell sets no limits to the power of the Spirit. He denies that it does act thus and so, not that it can. More than this he has never denied.

But, even granting, as already stated, that Satan does exert a direct influence on the mind, is it possible that Mr. Jeter can make this the ground of an argument as to what the Spirit does? Does he mean to teach, because Satan can do a thing, and does it for wicked ends because he can, that we are therefore to conclude that the Holy Spirit does the same thing? This is the pith of his argument; and yet he affects to be jealous for the "honor of the Holy Spirit." How dare he assert, conceding his position to be correct, that the enormity of Satan’s sin consists not in this very thing,—that he does, because he can, exert a direct influence on the mind? For aught he knows, this may make the great trenching difference between the Spirit’s intercourse with man and Satan’s,—a difference which makes the intercourse of the latter intensely wicked.

Scrappy as Mr. Jeter’s book is, we did not expect to meet this stale piece in it. Tor the last quarter of a century this argument has been kept on hand by none but the lowest class of Mr. Campbell’s opponents, until now it turns up in the tidy manual of the Rev. Mr. Jeter.

Section IX.

Objection 9. "The assumption that the Spirit can" (does) "operate on the soul of man in conversion only by arguments or words, is not only unphilosophical, but contrary to divinely-recorded facts. It is not true that physical power cannot produce a moral effect. . . . Christ was created holy. ’The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,’ said the angel to Mary, ’and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God:’ Luke 4:35. Was not the holiness of the infant Redeemer a moral quality? And was not this effect produced, not by arguments, persuasion, or words, but by the power—the physical power—of the Highest?" The holiness, then, of the infant Redeemer was created: was it? Created exactly as a brad or an oyster is created; created, too, by the physical power of the Almighty! It was then a mere created thing, and hence, per se, of no more value than the color of a goose

Now, in all the ranks of our brethren, where, we ask, is the man who has ever dared to utter even one sentence half so dishonoring to the divine Savior as this worse than Arian piece? And yet the author of even this—who is, too, so very orthodox withal—can cant of Mr. Campbell’s views of the divinity of Christ! We shall, however, do him the justice to suppose that he would not again repeat what he has here written. Can even he be capable of the deed? It is certainly a matter of wonder that an "assumption" which he deems to be so false should impel him to extremes so strange.

Section X.

Objection 10. "No writer has so bitterly denounced metaphysical speculations and mystic theology as Mr. Campbell. One great object of his reformation was to rescue the Scriptures from the glosses of sectarian theorizers. I must say, that I have met with no writer on the agency of the Spirit in conversion, who has indulged so much in metaphysical disquisition, labored so hard to establish a theory, or drawn such momentous consequences from his own fine-spun speculations." The charge that Mr. Campbell, while opposing the speculations of others, has himself turned speculatist, and that he has labored to establish a theory, is without foundation. Indeed, the very reverse is true. No author has labored more to keep free from speculation, and none, perhaps, has succeeded better; and, as to a theory on any subject, he has never penned a line to establish one. But sectarians are a peculiar race. When Mr. Campbell neither eats nor drinks, they say he has a devil; but when he both eats and drinks, they say he is a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. When Mr. Campbell refuses to speculate on the agency of the Spirit in conversion, they declare he denies that agency; but when, to please them, he consents to explain, then they clamor,—A speculatist! Truly, his taskmasters put him to a hard service. Mr. Campbell asserts that conviction is the work of the Spirit, and here would pause. But he is soon hurried from this position. He next asserts that sinners are quickened by the Truth; but this is unsatisfactory. He then explains; and now he is either a metaphysician or theorist. It is well that wisdom is justified by her children.

If there is any one singular trait in the teachings of Mr. Campbell,—and the same is true of the teachings of his brethren,—it is their simplicity and freeness from speculation. The facility with which audiences understand him, the delight with which the unbigoted listen to his clear, fine thoughts, the readiness with which they accept his expositions of Scripture,—at once so fair and natural,—is the best refutation of the charge that he is either a speculatist or a theorist. It is, however, not at all strange that Mr. Jeter, whose mind is a mere tissue of flimsy speculations, should, feeling himself rebuked in the presence of a man free from speculation, seek to implicate him in his own follies. Oblique talkers generally excuse their deeds by saying that other people do not always speak the truth.

Here, now, we close our examination of what Mr. Jeter has to urge in the way of objections to our view of spiritual agency and influence in conversion. And are these all? If so, till heaven and earth shall pass away will that view stand. We never felt more profoundly penetrated with the conviction of its truth than now. These feeble objections have melted at its base like snow at the foot of the Andes, and still it stands. Mists may gather around it and objections lie on its outskirts; but still it towers far up into a region where mists never gather and objections never collect. Its luster may be obscured for a day; but, like the sun marching behind a pavilion of cloud, it will gleam forth at last all the brighter for the transient obscurity. We commend it, therefore, to the confidence of all good men, and commit it to the safe-keeping of God.