Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

result of all my studies and researches, was a clear and deep conviction that, more or less, in all Protestantdom, the doctrines and commandments of men had usurped and maintained the place of the Oracles of God. In conclusion of this long, protracted, and devout examination, in company with my father, and sundry other staunch Presbyterians and Congregationalists, I became an immersionist, as ecclesiastically interpreted.

After still farther deliberation and investigation, we adopted the old apostolic platform in all its distinctive characteristics, which, in a few years, the denominational and sectarian Baptists could not, and would not, acknowledge.

It was well for the cause of Original and Primitive Christianity that they did not. Indeed, they were merely immersed Congregationalists or Methodists, contemplated as "Regular" and "General” Baptists, equally sectarian, denominational, and intolerant.

Having carefully and devoutly surveyed all the premises, we set about, and instituted a new investigation of our duties and obligations in that crisis. We found that ancient Israel had apostatized; and that God, in his covenanted mercies, had raised up and commissioned a class of men, properly called reformers. Their history became to us newly and peculiarly interesting. We studiously read anew the Old Testament, to ascertain how God's ancient people—the seed of Abraham, his friend-stood at the close of the Jewish canon, and then retraced their defections up to their commencement.

Two passages in Malachi, at this crisis, greatly interested and instructed, and directed us. The causes of the rejection of the old Israel of God became a grave study. Malachi thus sums them up, chapter iii. 7-"Even from the days of your fathers you are gone away from my ordinances, and have not kept them." This was the cause of their calamitous dispersion and national ruin.

And what, then, would have been the remedy?

"Return unto

But did

me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts."* they obey this oracle? They did not; but insolently said—“Wherein shall we return?"—! "They robbed God," and denied it.†

More than a century before this, Zechariah speaks in the same terms "Be not as your fathers, to whom the former prophets have cried, saying "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Turn you now from your evil ways, and from your evil doings. But they did not hear nor listen to me, saith the Lord."

Again he says "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also

Mal. iii. 7.

† Mal. iii. 8.

Zech. i. 3-4,

judge my house and keep my courts, and I will give thee places to occupy," or rank among the noble.

There was, indeed, even in that age of apostacy, a remnant; and there is still a people, though a small remnant, that will honor God and his institutions.

Hence it is written of that time-"They that feared the Lord spake often one to another; and the Lord hearkenod and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord and thought upon his name," (that reverenced his institutions and his authority.) "And they shall be mine, saith the Lord, in that day when I will make up my jewels; and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him." Then the difference between those that fear God and keep his commandments, and those that do not, will be manifest; for "then shall you return and discern between the righteous and the wicked-between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not,"*

"Now," according to Paul, "the things that happened to them, happened as examples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."t

David, by the Spirit, speaking of his son, once said "The zeal of thine house hath consumed me." Hence, the only act of violence exhibited in the whole life of the great Teacher, was that perpetrated by him in the temple in Jerusalem, when he scourged those trafficking therein; "converting the house of God iuto a den of thieves."

Seldom or never, in the history of reformations, have those contending for "the faith originally delivered to the saints," been met on the real issues in debate. This is peculiarly characteristic of the volume before me, titled, "Campbellism Examined." A discriminating reader might read this volume of 369 pages once every year of his life, and, at the consummation of his threescore years and ten, could not know what "Campbellism" is. In Dr. Jeter's optics, chameleon like, that lizzard thing is all colors in an hour. He begins in chaos, and ends in night.

But requested by twelve men, some of them renowned for their opposition to "Campbellism," and perhaps all of them, certainly a majority of them, opposed to Revisionism and progress, he could do no less than make a book on "Campbellism." He has, too, been extolled for having succeeded so well, not only by some anti-revisionists, but even by other denominational veterans in the same crusade against this nondescript, victimized "Campbellism;" which, though seven times slain, has always risen from the dead, with accumulated

[blocks in formation]

energy and power. But the "Campbellism" that he has exposed and massacreed, is the creature of his own brain. The cause which we plead-the principles for which we contend, are of quite a different origin, and, consequently, of quite a different character. And this we confidently expect to render so distinct and clear, that every honest and uncommitted reader will clearly and fully appreciate it. But prior to this, we must expose the mistakes and fallacies, and consequent misrepresentations of my endorsed and elected reviewer. His title-page reads, "Campbellism Examined, by Jeremiah B. Jeter, of Richmond, Va." He was elected by twelve Rabbis to the chair of reviewer and critic. His qualifications for such a task he himself exhibits on page 11th. They are five:

1. "I first saw Mr. Campbell in 1825.”

2. "Since that time I have been a careful observer of his course." 3. "I have watched the gradual development of his principles, and marked their influence on the churches."

4. "I have read most that has been published by him and his opponents, on the various points in debate."

5. "I have conversed much with persons embracing and zealously supporting the Reformation."

Such are his five specific qualifications. There are, indeed, myriads of men, as well as he, of whom these five points could be affirmed. These qualifications are very modest and very common. But on page 20th, he gives a few specimens of his assumed fitness for the task:

1. He prejudges my motives. For while admitting that my rule is to give to my readers both sides of all discussions, he imputes this to mere policy.

His words are "Policy frequently assumes the garb of libe rality." Page 20.

2. Again he says-"Mr. C. handled a ready pen, and was desirous to gain notoriety." Page 20.

3. "He was desirous" "to promote the circulation of his paper." Page 20.

4. Controversy was the pabulum on which he lived and thrived." Page 20..

Most men, it is said, are accustomed to assign to others the motives which prompt and actuate themselves. This, then, is a fair sample of my friend Mr. Jeter's qualifications for the work which he undertook.

But to complete his five points, he adds-"Mr. Campbell aspired to the honor of being a Reformer." Page 25.

From these five presumptions and insinuations, our readers can form a fair appreciation of Dr. Jeter's qualifications for an examinator,

an unprejudiced reviewer or critic. We, therefore, submit them without comment.

And yet, strange though it appears, he concedes the necessity and demand for a reformation. "The pious and intelligent fathers, before Mr. C. was heard of," he affirms, "saw, confessed, and lamented these evils, and sought, in a kind and faithful manner, to correct them." Page 26.

And farther still. He admits that the clergy, the teachers of religion, at that time, greatly needed reformation. He gives no less than twelve specifications, and divides them into four classes. "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." Page 28. These concessions of Mr. Jeter amply justify all that I have ever said or written of them. Indeed, it would seem that he transcends any views that I have ever printed or published concerning the clergy. He is a superior judge, having long been conversant with them. He is not speaking of Romanists, but of Protestants. It ought also to be noted, that he speaks of Protestant, and not of Papal clergy.

If he could

He was, therefore, on his own showing, an accomplished calumniator of the clergy during the period of the Christian Baptist. And, improving on the practice, he has become a superlative calumniator of the Disciples of Christ, with whom we commune. thus speak of the clergy-of whom some, at least, of the twelve categories concurred in doctorating him-it is not marvelous that he should so defame us. But we must leave our readers to their own inferences, from the premises which he himself has furnished, and proceed to a formal review and exposition of his best efforts in the case.

To follow in the wake of Dr. Jeter, in reviewing his book and exposing the injustice he has done us and the great principles and issues involved in the controversy, would be, to our constant readers, a work of supererogation. But to a portion of our contemporaries, it is at least a duty we owe to them to emasculate it of any power to preju dice, in their esteem, the cause we plead. And this we may accomplish by selecting its strong points, and weighing them in the balance of the sanctuary of historic truth, human and divine.

We shall commence with Mr. Jeter's concessions. On the subject of Reformation, or of a Restoration of Original Christianity, our first, and most rudimental and radical conception and position, was expressed in the following words-That nothing, not as old as the New Testament, should, in any Christian community, be submitted as an arti

cle of faith, a rule of practice, or a term of communion among Christians. Dr. Jeter admits this in theory. As proof that he admits it, he imme. diately appropriates it, with a declaration, "that it was the doctrine-the main pillar of the great reformation led on by Luther and Calvin, and other worthies in the 16th century." p. 15. He has, then, fairly committed himself. We, then, ask him, Where find we in the Christian Scriptures, a theoretic and dogmatic creed, or platform, as a constitution of the Christian church, or as a term of union, communion, and cooperation among Christians? Does he quote from Luther, Calvin, or St. Augustine, any such proposition as that propounded by us? He does not he cannot!

That any elementary view, tantamount to such a proposition, was indicated by any reformer before the end of the 18th century, is not probable. We have never seen it-never read it. We must call upon Dr. Jeter for a direct reference to it-volume and page. Till he show it, we will risk the assertion, that neither St. Augustine nor St. Jerome, of the 4th century; neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin, of the 16th; neither Whitfield nor the Wesleys, of the 18th centuries, nor any reformer of those epochs, ever did entertain or propose such a foundation of church union, communion, and co-operation, as that which Dr. Jeter affirms to have been the main pillar of the great Lutheran and Calvinian movement.

This is not an auspicious omen of Dr. Jeter's accomplishments for the office to which twelve anti revision, anti-Bible Union scribes, elected and invited him.

So far were the inspired ministry of Jesus Christ-his apostles, evangelists or teachers-from proposing the abstractions of such philosophers as Luther, Calvin, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Barnabas, or St. Clement, that they simply proclaimed Christ's person, office and work, as the foundation of a sinner's trust and hope in God, and as the only name given under heaven by which any sinner could be saved. It seems as though Mr. Jeter had never noted the fact, that the foundation of the sinner's hope, and the foundation of Christ's church, so far as faith is concerned, are identically one and the same. This is a lesson-amongst the first lessons of Christianity-which he has not yet learned. It is, nevertheless, true; for Jesus Christ himself preached and taught that he would build his church upon Peter's confession made at Cesarea Philippi. This, and not the Thirty-Nine Articles, nor any Five Points of doctrine, church polity, or any Christian experience, is the immovable basis of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

The Messiah's kingdom was neither reformed Judaism nor philosophy of any kind. It is a kingdom founded upon himself-upon his

« ZurückWeiter »