|
|
|
Collections
Database |
A REVIEW
OF
JARRELL’S
"Gospel in Water."
BY
AUSTIN, TEXAS: EUGENE VON BOECKMANN, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER. 1890.
CHAPTER I.
In beginning the work of reviewing Mr. Jarrell's book, it is proper to give the book a brief introduction. It is called "Jarrell's book" because it contains a sample of his method of compiling quotations from a great many authors.
The book contains over six hundred pages, and I think it is a fair estimate to give Mr. Jarrell credit for one hundred pages of it. Giving Mr. J. one hundred pages composed of his own words, there are five hundred pages left, composed of the words of quoted authors. It is somewhat irksome to read a book of so many quotations, yet this is the only redeeming trait in the character of the work; but for this feature it would have been totally depraved. The second page of his introduction begins with an expressed anticipation of denunciation.
He says he judges from past experience. I think I may safely say that this is only part of the ground of his unpleasant anticipations. I am of the opinion that he wrote the introduction after he wrote the book, and therefore wrote said introduction in full view of the fact that the author of such a book deserved denunciation and that he had written of a people sufficiently just to give him his dues. Mr. J. records quite a list of denunciations from Lard, Hand, etc. Denunciations may be no sin; for instance, it is no sin to denounce the devil. The meanness of a falsehood is not measured by the meanness of its author, nor is the goodness of the truth only in the proportion of the goodness of him who tells it. Falsehood and misrepresentation are the measure of the meanness of the man who deals in them. Truth and veracity are the measure of goodness. Mr. J. is now on trial, and all
—4—
the dangers to which he is subject are those of his own words. The first charge I shall bring against Mr. J., is as follows: His style is illogical, and he has called the assistance of the grace of God to help him so to remain. Any man, speaking or writing, who refuses to be governed by the standard rules of logic, must be illogical in style. Mr. J. affirms that A. Campbell is the leader and founder of the church he so bitterly assails. In proof of this, he referred to the teaching of Mr. C. as being the teaching of the church, and therefore affirms that the church is a Campbellite church. In other words, Mr. J. persists in calling it a Campbellite church in consequence of its peculiar faith and practice. We will suppose for the present that Mr. J. has fairly stated our faith and practice (although he has by no means done so). Does it therefore follow that we are Campbellites? I assert that it does not so follow. But suppose it does, what then? Does it follow that we shall be held responsible for the consequences of the doctrine whether we expressly avow them or not? Mr. T. says we shall; Hedge's logic says we shall not. If Hedge's logic is logical, and says shall not, and Mr. Jarrell says shall, there is a square issue between Jarrell and Fledge. Hedge holds a not, against Jarrell Therefore Jarrell is not logical. But where is the testimony that makes out my case against him? Here it is. "The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them." Hedge's Logic, Rules of Controversy No. 6.
I have now established the charge against Mr. J., that he is a violator of the rules of honorable controversy. Has he called upon the grace of God to help him continue in violation of the law of honorable discussion? In his book, page 88, Mr. J. says: "They would have sealed the truth by their death. So, by the grace of God, will I do, before I will call the Campbellite church by any term which will commit me to its recognition as the scriptural church."
—5—
This language indicates that he intends to continue in his usual course. His usual course is to call us Campbellites. So, by the grace of God, he persists in calling us Campbellites, or, so, by the grace of God, he intends to practice dishonorable controversy. Mr. J. has the advantage of most religious people, because there are but few religious people in the world who have consciences that will allow them to call upon the grace of God to assist them in a dishonorable undertaking.
I am more than willing to admit that the people whom Mr. J. calls Campbellites, (in the main), accept the things taught by A. Campbell as being true, but they do not accept them as being true because Campbell taught them, but because these truths are found in, and are taught by the word of God. To call a body of people Campbellites, for no other reason than that they were taught the truths of the Bible by A. Campbell, is, in my humble judgment, a violation of all rules of common sense and common honesty. Preaching the truth is sowing the good seed of the kingdom (Mat. 13th chp.), no matter who does the preaching. The man is to be pitied who entertains the idea that the production of the seed partakes of the nature of the sower. Campbell was not author of what he preached; he preached that of which Christ was author. The result of his preaching, obedient believers, partook not of the nature of him who preached, but of the thing preached. Campbell preached Christ and him crucified. Christ preached, christians produced is the divine order. If Mr. Jarrell should find Mr. Johnson sowing timothy seed, and had no better conception of agriculture than he has of the plan of salvation, he would be sure to make a display of his learning by expressing himself as about to witness the production of a crop of Johnson grass.
Campbell preached the truth, therefore Campbellites. Johnson sowed timothy seed, therefore Johnson grass.
When Mr. Darwin selected the Moneron, for a basis upon
¾ 6¾
which to build the theory of evolution, he sets forth this basis as an organism of great complexity. His object was to lay a foundation for the theory of "survival of the fittest," and the provisional hypothesis of "reversionary action." So the Moneron in his estimation is a life form of the greatest complexity of organism.
When Mr. Haeckel starts out to lay a foundation for his theory of "spontaneous generation," he likewise starts with the Moneron, and degrades the thing until it is almost without body or parts. Darwin exalts the Moneron to lighten the work of establishing the system of evolution. Haeckel degrades it, to lessen the work of establishing the theory of spontaneous generation. Here is an ingenious trick that, perhaps, Mr. Jarrel understands as well as any man, living or dead, not even excepting the apostles of scientific infidelity.
Realizing that he has a hard task before him, that of showing the teaching of A. Campbell to be unscriptural, Mr. J. resorts to Darwin's and Haeckel's trick, that of making an effort to degrade the people and their faith and practice that he desires to assail. By calling these people Campbellites and by calling their faith and practice Campbellism, he seems to entertain the hope of alleviating his task. The frequency of the use of these terms in his book shows that he felt the inexorable necessity for the use of them, in a work that was beyond his power to accomplish. He quotes many scraps from various writers and speakers by which he hopes to force upon us the name "Campbellite."
On page 29 he quotes from 'F. P. Haley, intending to convey the idea that Haley acknowledged the name as a proper religious designation, but on page 3o, Haley says, ''which has been styled Campbellism." Who did the styling? Did Haley do it? Did any of our people do it? No. It was done by men like Jarrell, to some extent, not to the full extent like him, of course, for there are none such.
On page 20 of his book he quotes from Hon. Jeremiah
¾ 7¾
Black, ex-Attorney-General of the United States. But what does the Hon. Black say? Here it is: "The little band of disciples gathered around him at first and whom the world in derision call by his name." Does Hon. Black accept the name? No. Does he consider the name given in justice? No. Is it supposed that the Attorney-General of the United States knows what justice is' Certainly. Then it follows that Mr. Jarrell is convicted of injustice by the highest legal authority in the United States because he is guilty of calling us Campbellites through derision. This places him in the unenviable position of trying, by injustice, to degrade a faith and practice, and the people who hold them, for no other reason, so far as I can see, than that he may relieve himself of the enormity of his work.
We will now examine Eld. Jarrell's allegation from another standpoint. He alleges that A. Campbell is the founder of the church of which he writes. In support of his affirmation he cites many witnesses, the greater part of whom are not competent to testify in a matter of this kind, such as the editors of secular newspapers who know but little about church matters, and care less, and such others as speak in an accommodated style—accommodated to the popular conceptions of those who know not the teaching and are enemies to the people he misnames.
I will now introduce testimony acceptable in any court of justice relative to the allegation under consideration. Honest men will tell the truth when under only ordinary obligation to do so. When honest men are under oath they are doubly obligated. I will introduce Mr. L. L. Carpenter, of Indiana; "We never knew that our church was started by Mr. Alexander Campbell—that is new to us."—Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts, page 123. Mr. Carpenter was a leading preacher in the Church of Christ in Indiana, and as such was competent to know the truth of the things of which he testified.
—8—
We will next ask Mr. Carpenter to make a statement of the matter as to what it takes to fairly represent Mr. Alexander Campbell: "Alexander Campbell was not the founder of the Church of Christ (here Mr. Carpenter refers to the church of which he was a member, and says of it, that Campbell was not the founder), because the congregations he established were only local and under a standard already erected, (the Bible), upon a constitution already adopted, (Christ and His teachings through himself and His apostles,) and in a movement already inaugurated, (at Pentecost)." 'One who helps to carry on a movement already begun, under limitations already established, and under a standard already provider!, cannot be said to be the originator of the movement. That is Alexander Campbell!"—Orthodoxy in Civil Courts, page 131.
Here is a competent witness—unimpeached and unimpeachable—testifying under oath before a legal tribunal of justice, testifying that Alexander Campbell was not the originator of the church that Mr. Jarrell calls the Campbellite church. We want now to see what effect this testimony had in this trial. Had the witness testified that A. Campbell was the founder of this church, the heterodoxy of the church would have been established, but witness did not so testify. What then? The counsel for defendant conceded our orthodoxy and requested the court so to find.
I will state in this connection, that the term, orthodoxy, was defined before the court as, "sound in the faith." This court has passed judgment upon all men who assert that A. Campbell was the founder of a church. This court has also condemned Jarrell's book, and as a man cannot be separated from his works, it has condemned Mr. Jarrell. Do you ask, how can this be? The court says the church is orthodox-sound in the faith. This it could not be and be at the same time the product of a mere man, and thus be a Campbellite
—9—
church. We therefore find Eld. Jarrell's book completely set aside by a legal tribunal of justice.
In conclusion, hear these facts: That we do not believe that Christ is divided. Alexander Campbell was not crucified for us, we were not baptized in his name, and we are supported in the conclusion that we are not Campbellites. I. Cor. 1:13. "Is Christ divided, was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" For the reason that the Corinthians were not baptized in the name of Paul they were not to be called Paulites. So, for the reason that we were not baptized in the name of Alexander Campbell we should not be called Campbellites, Mr. Jarrell to tile contrary notwithstanding. I have shown that Mr. Jarrell is opposite to common sense, to law and to the gospel.
It is not the design of the writer to review Eld. Jarrell's book in the order in which it is written. To do so would be to write a disorderly review. About two hundred pages of Mr. J's. book is devoted to the origin of the Campbellite church, and is therefore the result of a distorted imagination. If I review this part of his book at all, my work will be only to recount his twisted conception of terms and principles that all may see the peculiar animus of the author of the book.
Up to the close of the 21 page of his book he gives us a view of his conceptions of physiology. If true, they would be hailed with pleasure by the scientific world as so many nuggets fresh from the great mine of truth, but as it is, they must be labeled "science falsely so called," and thus consigned to oblivion in a place among the rubbish heaped together by old Time.
Listen: "Infant baptism inherited by Stone from the Presbyterian church"—Gospel in Water, page 3. I cannot imagine how any one can inherit infant baptism. I have known for some time that Baptists believed the doctrine of inherited depravity, but I never knew before that, they believed that a —10—
After asserting that Stone inherited infant baptism from the Presbyterians, he then proceeds to quote from Neander, Hackett, Keenan, etc., to prove that infant baptism was not authorized by the Bible, to let his readers see that Stone did not learn it from that source. He then gives us to understand that the Romish church is the mother of the Presbyterian church and that Stone was a member of the Presbyterian church. What then? The Romish church originated the religious malady of infant baptism, inherently transmitted it to the Presbyterian church. He then treats us to the startling piece of intelligence that, Stone while a member of the Presbyterian church believed in infant baptism. What then? Why, inasmuch as the thing was a part of his nature and could not therefore be disposed of except through miraculous intervention, that therefore Stone, when he entered Jarrell's imaginary Campbellite compact, brought in all his vicious, Romish hereditaments. But Jarrell does not intimate in the connection that Stone brought these Romish taints with him. Granted. But he did much worse. He laid down the premises of a scientific fallacy, and slipped off in the dark, hoping that his readers would supply the conclusion for him.
On pages 4 and 5 of his book, Mr. J. asserts that Stone inherited church government and baptismal regeneration from the Presbyterians. These will receive attention farther on.
I now wish to pay some attention to a lisle piece of total depravity found on page 35 of "Gospel in Water:" "The
—11—
Campbellite church began as a mere experiment and project." The word, project, is used (according to Webster) in two different senses, in a bad sense and in a good sense. When used in a good sense it means a scheme. When used in a bad sense it means an idle scheme.
In Mr. Jarrell's estimation Alexander Campbell could hardly use a word in a good sense. Hence he compels the word project, to keep such company as will force it to yield the worst signification. He classifies thus: "Mere experiment and project." Oh, thou shrewdness, thou art become subservient to evil design! After forcing the word project, to become the equal of the word, experiment, he discovers, it seems, that experiment is not yet fitted for space in the "Gospel in Water," gives it a dip in his choice stain, and now when at the end of his vocabulary, he satisfies himself with, "mere experiment."
Mr. Jarrell quotes from A. Campbell, and like most of his quotations does not prove what he quoted it to prove. Here is the quotation: "None of us who got up or sustained that project, was then aware of what sad havoc that said principle, if faithfully applied, would have made of our views and practices on various points." At the close of the quotation, Mr. Jarrell notifies us that the italics are his. He does this to show how candid (?) he is. Mr. Campbell used the word project, as synonymous with the word, principle. Then what project, or what principle is referred to by Mr. Campbell? Let us turn to the book and page from whence Mr. Jarrell takes his quotation and see, "Christian System, page 6." A few lines above Mr. Jarrell's quotation, page 6, "Christian System," notice the following: "Originate a project * * for uniting all sects or rather the Christians in all sects * * upon having a thus saith the lord * * for every article of faith and every item of religious practice."
What is the project, or principle here referred to? It is the project of having a thus saith the Lord to rule in every article
—12—
of faith and practice. But I am not quite done with Eld. Jarrell yet. When he italicized the word, project, why did he not italicize its synonym, the word, principle? Let future developments decide.
"Whichever sense Mr. Campbell used the word, 'project,' is equally fatal to the claims of the Campbellite church, that it is the Christian church." "If in the better sense, surely it is fatal to the claim, since the Christian church was never 'got up’ by man and is not a human "scheme," "design," "contrivance." Gospel in Water, page 35.
Mr. Campbell used the word, project, as synonymous with the word, principle. Had Jarrell been just enough to have italicized the word, principle, he would have exposed himself. What was it that Campbell "got up?" Mr. Jarrell say s it was a church. Mr. Campbell says it was a principle. What was the principle? The principle of having a thus saith '[e Lord for every article of faith and practice. So it appears that Mr. Jarrell is guilty of gross misrepresentation. To say that this perversion was intentional is to accuse him of dishonesty. To say that it was unintentional is to accuse him of ignorance. Therefore I must remain silent upon this point, lest Eld. Jarrell should reply (as in his introduction, page 4), "Am I therefore your enemy because I tell you the truth?" Eld. Jarrell may be my enemy but certainly not for the reason he assigns.
CHAPTER II.
A witness in court whose testimony is found to be contradictory is equal in strength to the weakest point in his testimony and is therefore of the strength of a false witness. This is made so because it is just. Mr. Jarrell becomes so much confused in his effort to degrade a respectable people,
¾ 13¾
that he (Baptist like) contradicts himself and thus throws his own testimony out of court. I wish to place two quotations from his book side by side. In "Gospel in Water," page 25, we have the following: "To make this statement more evident, that Stone was the originator of the Campbellite church, no comment is necessary." Compare this with an extract from page 30, G. in W. "Alexander Campbell, * * * * is universally regarded by all honest, intelligent people as the father, founder or originator of the Campbellite church." "Thou art snared by the words of thy mouth." Mr. Jarrell is so fond of the syllogistic form of argument we will offer him one from his own words.
1st premise. All honest men regard Campbell as the originator of the Campbellite church. G. in W., page 30.
2d premise. Jarrell says Stone was the originator of the Campbellite church. G. in W., page 25.
Conclusion. Therefore Jarrell is a dishonest man.
Again, premise 1st. All intelligent men regard A. Campbell as the originator of the Campbellite church. G. in W., page 30. 2nd premise. Jarrell says Stone was the originator of the Campbellite church.
Conclusion. Therefore Mr. Jarrell is not an intelligent man.
If Mr. Jarrell told the truth, (as stated on page 25 of his book) that Stone was the originator of the Campbellite church, he did not tell the truth on page 30, when he said Campbell was the originator. I dislike to say anything bad of Elder Jarrell, and it is not necessary now, since he has convicted himself of dishonesty and unintelligence and has flatly contradicted himself and thrown his testimony out of court. I have already shown that A. Campbell was not a founder of a church. I will now proceed to show that his writings were not regarded as authoritative documents in the settlement of religious questions in the church of which he was a member. Our people have been entrusted with all positions of honor from President down, have reached a stand-
—14—
ard of intelligence as high as any other people have reached. If other people are honorable and intelligent enough to be allowed to say what they believe, so are we. If other people are allowed to say what they accept as standard authority among themselves, justice gives us the same right. Who knows more about what we believe than we know ourselves? Who knows more about the standing and authority of Campbell than his co-laborers? Not one man among his co-laborers ever uttered the sentiment that he was the originator of a church or that he was of any authority in the church. It is generally admitted that Campbell did originate something, but that something was not a church, as to what that something is, we reserve for another page. We will now inquire, what authority Campbell claimed for himself? "We speak for ourselves only, and, while we are always willing to give a declation of our faith and knowledge of the Christian System, we firmly protest against dogmatically propounding our views or those of any fallible mortal as a condition or foundation of church union and co-operation * * * * Those who do not like this will please show us a more excellent way." Christian System page 12. This extract shows that Campbell did not claim Amy authority in the church. Next we inquire: Did others (of his brethren) claim any authority for him? Q. "Have the writings of Alexander Campbell or any man in the disciples' or Christian church been adopted as its true doctrine and principles?" A. "No sir; the writings of Alexander Campbell are no more authoritative than my writings, or the writings of any other man, and no human production ever has or ever will be authoritative enough to become a standard—the Bible, and the Bible alone holds that place." Orthodoxy in Civil Courts, page 148. (Italics mine.) Here we have a reputable christian gentleman honor bound, and bound by an oath to tell the truth, testifying that Campbell's writings never have been, and never will become authoritative. If then, as I have shown, Campbell is not the
—15—
founder of any church and is not accepted as authority in any church, to call any people by his name, is to act without reason or without any foundation in fact or in truth. On pages 75, 76 and 77, of G. in W., Mr. Jarrel shows us what be has been feasting upon. He has caught some of our people engaging in a little humanism, or a little Baptistism, which is the same thing. These disloyal legislative meetings, such as are held by Baptist pastors on stated Saturdays, and such as are held by some of our brethren. Yes, Eld. Jarrel has found one of these, and not being satisfied with it as it is, he proceeds to blacken its already dingy countenance as follows: "Think of it. Here we are in the nineteenth century, and Christ's church in its infancy, laid in the lap of a convention to be named." G. in W., page 77. To be more certain to get at the truth of this matter, it will be best to bear in mind how Mr. Jarrel came in possession of the reputed facts in the case. He obtained his information from a Baptist Nutt, (McNutt), who was seated in the presence of an unauthorized convention, picking up such material as suited the taste of the author of the "Gospel in Water." Owing to the largeness, or some other feature, of this convention, the ponderosity of its proceedings lay upon the ground where they were made, until by special contrivance they were borne away by Mr. Jarrell's water craft. That the name of the church of Christ, or the name of any other church was laid on the lap of the convention is simply not true. That such conventions meet, and that such conventions talk about church names, state evangelists, state boards, etc., etc., is not denied, but the whole proceedings are without authority, without scripture support, and sometimes, perhaps, without brains. If Eld. Jarrell and McNutt had not already found it out, I would inform them that these little conventions, held by our brethren, are like Baptist associations, in that it is a rare thing that anything higher than a knowledge of parliamentary usage is brought
—16—
out. Sometimes young sprouts talk Greek for a certain purpose, but those of our brethren who are really talented who take part in these conventions, save their better thoughts for more worthy occasions.
Mr. Jarrel has so much to say, in his book, about the name. and the disagreement of our people respecting it, that we deem it proper to devote some time exclusively to this matter. Jarrel seems to intimate that if we were agreed among ourselves as to a name, that it might be proper to call us by the name according to agreement, but for the time being, he, "by the Grace of God (?) intends to call us Campbellites, a name that our people altogether refuse to wear. That there is so much disagreement about the name is not true. A little dispute in a little convention, such as Mr. Jarrel mentions on page 75 of his book, does not indicate the sentiments of our people as a body. Our brethren, as a rule, are willing to accept any name found in the Bible applied to the church as a body, or to individuals, members of that body. If there is any dispute respecting names, how do these disputes originate? Not that some one wants a Bible name and that some one else does not. What then? Partly concerning the application of the Bible names. Partly that some one is searching for a name that will stand the test of a fair deduction, and some one else is searching for a name that will stand the test of a thus saith the Lord. Some one finds a name based on a "necessary inference," and some one else who refuses to look at the matter from any standpoint other than that of a "thus saith the Lord," proceeds to take issue. If we were searching for a scriptural name for the church, we would not hesitate to say that the church of Christ, or church of God was that name. And taking this position, we would have no fear of any brother calling in question the correctness of the position. If I should speak of the church in view of the relation it sustains to Christ, I should call it the church of Christ.. If speaking of the Father of all, I should call it the
—17—
church of God. Again, if I should speak of the church in view of the characters of which it is composed, and in view of the relation these churches sustain to Christ as the anointed Son of God, I call it the christian church. (I spell christian with a little c for conscience sake.) If I speak of the church in view of the fact that it is composed of disciples, it is not offensive to our sense of propriety to call it the disciples' church. I should not say, christian church, to indicate that the church belonged to christians, but rather, that the church was composed of christians. I regard the expression, "christian church," as standing as high as fair scriptural deduction can place it. Why not call a church composed of baptized individuals the Baptist church? Because I have no scripture for the name Baptist to start with. The scriptures furnish us with the names, disciples and christians to begin with.
The question may arise in the minds of some: Can you say "christian church," without dishonoring God? Is there any reason for naming the church after those of whom it is corn posed? If I show that there is a reason for it, that will answer all questions, because it is not dishonoring to God to act reasonably.
1st Chr. Z9:10. "Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation." What did David say? Verse IT, David says, "Thine is the Kingdom, O Lord!" We introduce this scripture to prove that the Lord had a Kingdom, and that that Kingdom was composed of Israelites. David says it was the Lord's Kingdom for that is what David called it. Now read I Sam. 15:28: "And Samuel said unto him, the Lord hath rent the Kingdom of Israel from thee this day." That which David calls the Kingdom of the Lord, Samuel calls the Kingdom of Israel. David names it, indicating its relation to the Lord. Samuel names it, indicating those composing it. If the Lord's Kingdom could be named after those composing it—Kingdom of Israel, and that name given by a prophet; then we may follow the example of the prophet now
¾ 18¾
and call the Kingdom of Christ the Kingdom of Christians, or, (since the Kingdom and church are equal) the church of christians, or the christian church. For the benefit of those who may not have Hand's Expose of Ray, we will introduce the following from Hand's book: "The word chrematizo occurs, in the noun and verb form, ten times in the New Testament, and is in itself an expression of divine authority." The following expressions are the translations of the Greek word chrematizo; "Being warned of God," Matt. 2:12 and Matt. 2:22; ";Revealed," Luke 2:26 "Warned of God," Acts 10:22; "Shall be called," Rom. 7:3; "Answer of God," Rom. I 1 :4; "Was admonished of God," Heb. 8:5; "Being warned of God," Heb. II:7; "That spake," Heb. 12:25; "Were called," Acts 11:26. "How any man can fail to see that the name christian is of divine authority, after this scriptural array of testimony in its favor, is strange to me. When the sacred writers express the idea that God warned and that God admonished, and that God revealed, they used the word chrematizo indicating that the warning, admonition and revelation, were all divine. So in the scripture, "The disciples were called christians first at Antioch;" were called is from chrematizo and therefore an expression of divine authority." To say nothing about the force of chrematizo, the circumstances show that at that time the name christian would not have been used as a derisive name. Why? Because the enemies of the cause of Christ had already given to the disciples the most derisive name that they could find in their vocabulary. That name was Nazarenes. At that time the people regarded the city of Nazareth as Jarrel does the unregenerate, totally depraved. "And Nathaniel said unto him: Can there anything good come out of Nazareth," John, 1:46. Again, "For we have found this man to be a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes," Acts, 24:5. When Paul was under persecution, when hatred toward the
¾ 19¾
cause of Christ was at its highest degree, the deriding name given to the disciples was Nazarenes. Why did they give them this name? Because the name was derived from the meanest city, inhabited by the meanest people in the world —so mean, in their estimation, there was no good in it. It was a name indicating that the Nazarenes were regarded by the enemies of Christ as totally depraved, (i.e.) no good in them. To suppose that the name christian, a less offensive name than that of f Nazarene, was used by the enemies of Christ to deride His people, is not reasonable. To suppose that the enemies of Christ would seek another name for his people, after having found a name expressive of total depravity, is to suppose them to be like Jarrel, trying to make total depravity more so. The most reasonable conclusion is, that the name christian was given by divine appointment.
On a previous page we admitted that Alexander Campbell did originate something, but that that something was not a church. We promised then to tell what he did originate, and now proceed to make that promise good. For many centuries prior to the beginning of the nineteenth century, the church had been under the influence of the decisions of councils, and divided into many parties by the power of creeds and confessions made by uninspired men. As to the weight of the decision of councils, the historian, Mr. Jones (a baptist historian), says: "The scriptures were now no longer the standard of christian faith." "What was orthodox and what was heterodox was from hence forward to be determined by the decision of fathers and councils, and religion was propagated, not by the apostolic method of persuasion, accompanied with the meekness and gentleness of Christ, but by imperial edicts and decrees."—Jones, page 139. With regard to division, we will have to introduce some Baptist testimony concerning the condition of that church which Mr. Jarrell says cannot apostatize. "The Baptists, too, notwithstanding they
—20—
are viewed by the world as colleagued together to shut out all others from a participation of their privileges and enjoyments are mournfully severed and estranged from each other." "Those of the particular and general persuasion; Calvinist and Arminian; the Six Principle Order and the Five Principle Men; Sabbatarians and First Day people; Freewillers and Emancipators, all have their lets and their hinderances, and after baptizing in the same river, part forever on its banks."—Benedict's History of all Religions, page 27O 271.
From what we have learned from the above quotation from Jones history, we have just about established a necessity for speedy action looking to the turning to the word of God. For be it remembered that Jones says (at the close of the council of Nice): "The scriptures were now no longer the standard of christian faith." That quotation that concerns the baptists will be regarded by all baptisms as applicable to the church. Jones spoke of the church in a general sense, and Benedict spoke of all the baptists Then what was the condition of the church? The scriptures were no longer the standard of its faith, it was also destitute of charity, and had "become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." Mr. Campbell, finding things in such a condition as this, saw the necessity of reformation, and at once set to work to accomplish it. Efforts had been made to effect the needed reformation, but without success. In word, but not in deed, the foundation of the Bible, and the Bible alone, had been previously laid. Christian System, page 6, Mr. Campbell says: "In our ecclesiastical pilgrimage we have met with some vehement declaimers against human written creeds and pleaders for the Bible alone, who were all the while preaching up the opinions of Saint Arius or Saint Athanasius. Their sentiments, language, style, and general views of the gospel, were as human as auricular confession, extreme unction or purgatorial purification."
Those declaimers, referred to by Mr. Campbell, took the
—21—
Bible and measured it by a creed, and with this creed-measured Bible they attempted the work of reformation. Campbell inaugurated or originated the idea of working by the Bible, and it unmeasured by any human creed. Others had originated the Bible alone in word. Campbell originated the plan of taking the Bible alone in deed.
This plan finds a full expression in the one short sentence: "Having a thus saith the Lord," either in expressed terms or approved precedent, for every article of faith and item of religious practice." Any honest man who is so ignorant as to accuse A. Campbell of originating a church, is to be pitied, and any sensible man who has so far departed from the habit of telling the truth, is enough to excite the jealousy of Apolyon. Since the Bible, and the Bible alone, in deed and in truth, to supplant the evil influences of human written creeds, has been accepted as the original plan of the restoration movement inaugurated by Campbell and others, it has been constantly the effort of dishonest and ignorant men to suppress it. There are at least two things in the world that never get their growth. These are ignorance and dishonesty. Twenty-five years ago neither ignorance nor dishonesty ever thought of accusing the reformation of beginning with the evils from which it turned away. Infidelity has opposed the church of Christ for more than eighteen hundred years, and while bringing many unjust accusations against it, it has never once thought of accusing the church of Christ of beginning with Jewish imbecility, or that it begun in fruitless speculations, barren opinions and useless traditions of the Pharisees, nor yet that it began with the foundation of the Jewish Temple and that it was finally built of much of its material gathered by its founders from the ruins.
Infidelity has too much respect for truth and honesty, has too much pride of character to resort to any such trickery. Mr. Jarrell, on page 37 of his book, says: "Campbellite church began with fruitless speculation, barren opinions
¾ 22¾
and useless traditions." "Campbellite church began with infantile imbecility." "Campbellite church began with the foundation of the pedobaptist temple, and was finally built of much of its material, gathered by its founders from the
By turning to pages 9 and l0 of the Christian System, it will be seen that Campbell says that they turned away from all the things in which Mr. Jarrell says the church (?) began
Propriety will not allow me to decide whether Jarrell has shown to the world his stupidity, his ignorance or his dishonesty. If the reformation started by Campbell and others began with infantile imbecility, because they turned away from It, then the church of Christ began in Jewish imbecility because it turned away from `hat. If the reformation turned away from fruitless speculations, etc., and for that reason had its beginning with them, for the same reason the church of Christ began with the fruitless speculations of the Pharisees Again, if for the reason that the reformation repudiated the foundation of the pedobaptist temple, and won many others away from it, it had its beginning with it, for exactly the same reason the church of Christ began with the Jewish church. If that from which the church turns away is a part of it, the church of Christ, having turned away from the Jewish church is a part of it, according to Jarrell's reason(?). Mr. J. has thus reasoned out pedobaptist covenant identity for them and is about to "inherit" infant baptism, but certainly not from them, as he says Stone did, but perhaps from the reasonings of one of the colt's of the Wild Ass.
CHAPTER III.
In viewing Eld. Jarrel in the light of his book, it is fair to admit that he is quite a wonderful man. He has found that Campbell teaches so many things, and that he has so many
—23—
ecclesiastical relations. He has found that Campbell is by inheritance related to Pedo-baptists in his ecclesiastical vision he has strong marks of the Infidel family. Guiteauism is one of the elements that sport in the unoccupied fields of Mr. J's. cranium while he is originating the pedigree of the creature of his imagination. Campbellism, Mr. Jarrel thinks, partakes of the nature of Mormonism, and thus drew upon the future for a part of its deformity. But still not satisfied with his already conglomerated pedigree, Mr. Jarrel's imagination takes a flight back into the past where he discovers that A. Campbell has drawn a part of his inspiration from Pythagorus and imbibed the doctrine of the Trans-migration of souls. (If we believe this doctrine our first and greatest wonder would be, what animal that spirit occupied before it got into Eld. Jarrell) Indeed Mr. Jarrel has found a wonderful thing, such things are only discovered by wonderful men. What is it? Campbellism, Romanism, Pedo-baptistism, Spiritism, and Guiteauism. I believe that there is but one family in the world who believes Jarrel's book: Do you ask what family that is? It is the family of old Father Gullible. Having given Jarrel's book so far as it relates to the origin of the name Campbellite, all the notice, and even more than it deserves, and having also given it some notice respecting the origin of what Mr. Jarrel calls, the Campbellite church, we now turn our attention from that part of the book composed of the perversion of human testimony to that part of it more particularly composed of the perversions of God's word. On page 104, Mr. Jarrel informs us that inasmuch as many deny that the Bible teaches that the church should never apostatize, he must introduce an extensive argument. Eld. Jarrel first attempts to beg a little help, feeling assured that he will need it before he gets through with his work of the IX. Chaper of his book. In this he has two objects in view. 1st. To establish the fact that there has never been any apostasy, hoping thereby to establish the fact that
¾ 24¾
there has never been any reason for the restoration or reformation. 2nd. To pave the way so as to enable him to make a plausible failure to establish Baptist church succession. He first introduces the Greek work ekklesia, tells us what it means—that it means church in a local sense and that it means church in a general sense.
Seeing that Mesa used to denote church in a general sense, would serve him little or no purpose in his attempt to establish his church succession, then he attempts to narrow ekklesia so much as not to allow it to include more than the idea of a local congregation. Having tinkered ekklesia so as to exhaust its signification in a local congregation as the church, and church in this sense as the equal of kingdom, he can now quote Daniel's prophecy, "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed," with the hope that by putting Daniel's words in such connection, he could deceive some one and enforce the idea that the Baptist church had existed from the days of the apostles to the present. Mr. Campbell believed and our people do generally believe that the kingdom shall never be destroyed, and yet at the same time believe that it has, and even yet needs reformation. We believe that Christ died, we also firmly believe that the church once died, but we no more believe that because Christ died, he was destroyed, than we believe that the church was destroyed because it died. But we must notice some of Mr. Jarrel's proof texts against apostasy. His first from Jer. 32:40 "I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me." If there is anything in this passage that Mr. Jarrel thinks proves that the church cannot apostatize, it is certainly in the expression, " they shall not depart from m c." If there is any word in this expression that carries the weight of Mr. Jarrel's "idea it is certainly the word, "shall." If there is any support in this
¾ 25¾
word for Mr. Jarrel's Calvinistic theory, it is because "shall not', means cannot. That it means cannot, is mere guess work. So it seems our people are to be denominated infidels because they do not accept Mr. Jarrel's guess. But the worst of all for Mr. Jarrel's guess, is the Bible is against it. Moses in addressing the same people addressed by the prophet told them: "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him shall you hearken." Deut. 18:15. The Jews were not compelled to hear or hearken though the scripture says they shall hearken. "Jesus came to his own and his own received him not." Jno. 1:10. Shall is not a word that always indicates compulsion, and in such connections as those under consideration it never carries the idea of compulsion. We will now show up a crooked place in Mr. Jarrel's theology. He says the kingdom or church was set up at the beginning of John's ministry, (see page 177 of his book.) Of course Mr. Jarrel does not believe that there has been any apostatizing since. We introduce this matter to show what a terrible condition his ante-Pentecost church can get in and Mr. Jarrel still say there is no apostasy. Reader, please turn to the 14th chapter of Mark, from 66 to 71, inclusive, and read as we relate. When Jesus was arraigned before Pilate and on trial for his life, his disciples forsook him, but "Peter followed afar off," (see Luke 22:54.) All that church, (that Mr. Jarrel says began with the beginning of John's ministry,) except Peter has departed and he follows far behind—ashamed of his God. Mr. Jarrel says the church has not apostatized, yet there is but one member in it. "But a certain maid said, This man was also with him. And he (Peter) denied him, saying "Woman I know him not." Luke 22:56 57. Mr. Jarrel's church all departed but one and he has denied his Lord, and he says he knows him not. "But he began to curse and swear, saying, I know not this man of whom you speak." Mark
—26—
14-71. Mr. Jarrel’s ante-Pentecost church that can't depart, can't apostatize, all gone but one member and he has denied the Lord and cursed, swore because some one accused him of being a disciple. If this is not apostasy, it comes so close to it, it is hardly reasonable to accuse any one of being an infidel because he believes it is. If this is not apostasy perhaps Mr. Jarrel is right after all' for if it is not certainly there never will be.
I have paid but little attention to his authors so far, and will now offer only a specimen of his way of handling authors so as to give the reader an understanding of the amount of confidence to be had in Mr. Jarrell's book.
Gospel in Water, page 136, Mr. Jarrell says: "A. Campbell says that he originated the Campbellite church from 'a deep and an abiding impression that the power, the consolation and joys, the holiness and happiness of Christ's religion was lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculation and conjectures, in the frauds and bickerings of sects and schisms."' Christian System, page 6.
All the language attributed to Mr. Campbell is found on page 6, of Christian System, except that which Mr. Jarrel put in: "A. (Campbell says he originated the Campbellite church." This is a square flatfooted ¾ ¾ . Campbell never said any such thing.
Mr. Jarrell has fully established one thing in his book and that is, that he will misrepresent an author, and having established this one thing, those who put any confidence in his quotations from authors are willingly deluded.
But I must return to the subject of church apostasy. Mr. Jarrell's next proof is, Gospel in Water, page 112: "Upon this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," Matt. 16:18. Many authors are quoted to sustain the position taken by Mr. Jarrell, and certainly as many might lie quoted to sustain some other position;
—27—
in fact we know of no doctrine that does not receive this kind of support.
Universalist preachers quote many authors as on their side, and I notice too, that they quite frequently quote one of Mr. Jarrell's main witnesses, Dr. A. Clarke. Religious questions, such as pertain to Scripture interpretations are not to be settled in this way.
As to what it is against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, some say it is Christ, some that it is Peter, others that it is Peter's confession, and still others that it is the church. But after all, Mr. Jarrell stands alone, for he is of the opinion that it is the Baptist church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. If Mr. Jarrell is right and the word, hell, in the passage means, sure enough hell, perhaps Mr. Jarrell's idea is correct, on the ground that kin folks do not prevail one against another.
We will now examine the passage in the light of the word. Something is said to prevail not, and something else is said not to be prevailed against. This something that is said not to prevail is not hell, but the gates of it. The thing against which the gates do not prevail is the "it," but the question is, what is the "it"?
When Jesus said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against "it," He certainly spoke in view of a future struggle between the gates and the it. If the "gates" never had the chance to prevail against the it, there is no more reason for the expression than there is in the following: "Alexander the Great prevailed not against Washington." We take "gates of hell," to be gates of death. Death is within and the gates inclose it. Gates do not guard against ingress but against egress—do not guard against that which would enter death, but against that which would come out.
If the gates hold the "it," whatever it is, then the gates prevailed. But where do the gates try to confine the "it"? Certainly in death. Inside the death city the struggle takes
—28—
place: the ''it'' struggling to force the gates and the gates struggling to hold the ''it'' in confinement, in prison. Jesus predicted that the gates should not prevail, and therefore predicted that the ''it'' should prevail. If the "it" prevailed, it forced the gates, and therefore came out of death.
What then, or who, forced the gates? Certainly not Peter. Not the church for Mr. Jarrell says it never died and in his view of the matter never had the opportunity to force the gates. What then, can the ''it'' be? It was the chief corner stone, the rock, and that rock was Christ. Christ entered the death city, tried the power of the gates, broke them open, came forth a conqueror over that city. Christ prevailed against the gates. This could not have been true of Him had He not died.
If it was the church against which the gates of death prevailed not, then it was the church that prevailed against the gates of hell or death. This the church could not have done, without first entering hades because-in hades the struggle took place. So the passage that Mr. Jarrell introduces to prove that the church never died, proves the opposite, provided that in Matt. 16: 18, church is antecedent to "it", or that the "it" is a pronoun standing for church. If the rock, as Christ is the antecedent to "it", Mr. Jarrell's proof text gives his proposition no support. If the church is the antecedent to ''it''' as Mr. Jarrell contends' then the passage proves the opposite of his proposition, or proves that his proposition is false:
We have a few more things to say in this connection, concerning the Rock and Peter's confession. The Rock was the foundation and was Christ. So Christ is the foundation person. The confession that He is the Christ is the foundation truth' The Christhood of Jesus depended upon the result of the struggle in hades. The truth, that He is Christ, depended upon exactly the same thing. Hence the language of the apostle Paul Rom. 1:4, "And declared to be the Son of
—29—
God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead.'' The struggle ended in the resurrection of Christ. This resurrection declares the truth that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. Every time this truth is confessed there is a repetition of the declaration of the resurrection. Christ is the foundation person, that He is the Christ the foundation truth. These cannot be separated.
He that makes this confession, builds on the one foundation, but he that makes any other confession builds on some other foundation. If it be agreed that in consequence of the fact that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the foundation, i.e. Christ, it therefore cannot prevail against the church, I would reply, since the fact that the gates of hell did not prevail against Christ does not prove that Christ never died, the fact that the gates did not prevail against the church does not prove that the church never died. To affirm that the church died is not to affirm that it does not now exist, any more than to affirm that Christ died is to affirm that he does not now exist.
We believe that the church has died, in that sense or to that extent that made it necessary to reform or restore it. Daniel says: ''And he shall speak great words against the Most High and shall wear out the saints of the Most High and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time, times and the dividing of time,'' Dan. 7:27. Daniel says the saints were to be worn out, given into the hand of an evil one. Does not this mean apostasy? In answer to this question I prefer to borrow from a Baptist historian. I will introduce the testimony of Mr. Jones, and of this historian Mr. J. R. Graves says: ''That Jones' history is the only one deserving the name of church history written prior to Orchard's" (see J. R. Graves' introductory to Orchard' vol. I, page 12.)
Mr. Jones, in commenting on 2 Thes. 2:1-10, says: ''In
—30—
this representation of the apostasy from the purity of the christian faith and its influence which terminated in the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, we may notice the following particulars. ,"—Jones, l :23.
We analyze this statement as follows: 1. Mr. Jones says that there is an apostasy here. 2. That this apostasy is from the purity of the christian faith. 3. From the influence of that faith. 4. That it terminated in the man of sin sitting in the temple of God.
We here have a Baptist historian against Mr. ]arrel. The church has apostatized and become the man of sin—fell behind the deadline. But, perhaps this is one of Mr. Jones’ unguarded statements.
We will give the historian another chance: ''This, baneful change operated in darkening the human mind as to the real nature of true christianity, until, in process of time, it was lost sight of."—Jones, page 125. What is it that Jones says was lost sight of? True Christianity. Mr. Jarrel says the church can't apostatize. Mr. Jones says it has become the man of sin and has gone blind. J. R. Graves says, Mr. Jones is second to none as a church historian, except one, and that exception is not W. A. Jarrel. Mr. Jarrel has lost his case by the decision of a master Baptist historian. Has the question of apostasy now been fairly dealt with? I conscientiously say it has, with one exception. What is that? The most authoritative historian, according to Mr. Graves, has not been heard. When this historian is heard, all are heard. The historian, Mr. Orchard says, on page 51, vol. l. ''We have endeavored to detail, in the previous pages the features of the christian churches generally. * * * The churches during this early period were strictly Baptist in their practice and their constitution.''
The period referred to by Mr. Orchard was the first four hundred years of the christian era. Mr. Orchard drops back from this period to the middle of the third century, where he
—31—
professes to find a slight diverging line of church succession. Novatian became a dissenter from the church, separated himself from Cornelius' jurisdiction. ''Novatian was a presbyter in the church of Rome."—Orchard, vol. 1. page 53. The line running through Novatian is that real christian church which, Mr. Jarrel says, cannot apostatize.
It is proper to stop here long enough to investigate the question as to the teaching of these Novatians. Mr. Orchard says: ''There was no difference in point of doctrine between the Novatianists and other christians.''—Orchard, vol. I, page 54. What other christians does Mr. Orchard refer to? Certainly to the church of Rome. Mr. Jarrel admits that Rome is not the true church, and Mr. Orchard says the church of the Novatians does not differ from it in doctrine.
That we are correct as to the doctrine of the Novatians, we again refer to Jones, page 144: "The Novatians differed from the Catholics respecting matters of discipline only. We should remember that in A. D. 257, the Catholics and the Novatians made up the sum total of all professed christians.
We have established the fact as far as ecclesiastical history can establish anything, that the Novatians taught the same doctrine taught by the Catholics. Inasmuch as church succession depends so much upon the Novatians, it is necessary to examine their doctrine in one of its prominent details. If Novatian was a christian, and if those associated with him composed the christian church, then Mr. Jarrell and his brethren are forever cut off, for they are not of the same faith and order.
Mr. Buck, in his theological dictionary, describing the strict discipline of the Novatians, says: ''The Novatians did not deny that any person falling into any sin how grievous so ever, might obtain pardon by repentance in the strongest terms, but their doctrine was, that the church had it not in its power to receive sinners into its communion, as having no
—3 2—
way of remitting sins hut by baptism which once received could not be repeated." [Italics mine.]
The Novatians taught baptism for the remission of sins and are therefore no kin to the Baptists, (i.e.) provided Mr. Jarrell is a Baptist. In teaching baptism for the remission of sins, tines denied salvation by faith only, as taught by W. A. Jarrell & Co.
Mr. Jarrell admits that the Roman Catholic church is not the true church. The true church must, then, certainly be with the Novatians, or nowhere. If with the Novatians, the true church taught what Mr. Jarrell calls baptismal regeneration, and Mr. J., in fighting against baptism for the remission of sins, is cutting off his theological nose to spite his Baptist face.
One more reference to the history of these Novatians must suffice. Mr. Buck says: "In process of time the Novatians softened and moderated the rigor of their master's doctrine, and only refused absolution to very great sinners." [Italics mine.]
Remember, reader, that we are now examining Mr. Jarrell's church that he says is not dead—that he says has not, and cannot apostatize. Remember also, that Baptists have to find the living church with the Novatians, or not at all; for all the rest of the professed christians of that day belonged to the Catholics. Novatians taught baptismal regeneration (?) and in so doing denied salvation by faith alone, and still they get worse: "Only refused absolution to very great sinners." Here is a Novatian Baptist church claiming the power to grant absolution, and did remit the sins of all except "very great sinners."
To sum up on this point: All the professed christians from the middle of the third century to about A. D. 600, were either Catholics or Novatians, they all taught baptismal regeneration, according to Mr. J.’s understanding of it, and as a consequence all denied salvation by faith only. Both these
—33— .
churches claimed the power to pronounce absolution. Mr. J. says the Catholic is a false church, and the Novatians church is just like it—no difference in doctrine. Mr. Jarrell, where is your living church now?
Mr. Jarrell seems to be inclined at times, to affirm Baptist church succession, but again when his better judgment overcomes his inclination, he makes a hasty retreat to the wilderness and there sleeps under the sable curtains of the dark ages and dreams of the Baptist Church. But if he has ever dreamed of the Missionary Baptist Church, he has kept the dream to himself. In a foot note on page 126-127, "G in W," we notice the following: "The very difficulty which historians find in tracing the church in some periods of its history is an indispensable evidence of its being the true church and therefore of its succession." Mr. Jarrell is willing, it appears, to compromise this matter –admits that historians get into a difficulty when they endeavor to trace the line. Excuse us Elder Jarrell, we can not compromise on difficulty. The true phase might be better expressed, thus. The very failure which some have made in attempting to trace a line of Baptist church succession is one of the many evidences that the Baptist Church is not the true church. What a wonderful discovery Mr. Jarrell has made! The weaker the testimony, the stronger the faith. I was told a short time ago, that a prominent Baptist preacher, in a discourse at Alvarado, Texas, said: "The best evidence I have that Baptist doctrine is divine, is that it appears to be contradictory." This Baptist preacher and Mr. Jarrell are certainly brethren. Attention must now be given more directly to Baptist church succession. Mr. Jarrell on page 127, illustrates his idea of succession by the oceanic telegraph, "We cannot see it or hear it, save at each end." We suppose Mr. Jarrell thinks he can see the Missionary Baptist Church (one end of it), on this side of the dark ages, and the other end on the other side. We beg leave to differ with him. The church on the other
—34—
side of the dark ages compares to the Baptist church on this side, about as the Atlantic cable compares to a pumpkin vine. Certainly, no greater imposition has been offered to the people of the nineteenth century than that of Baptist succession. Mr. Orchard has given a history of the primitive Baptists for the first four hundred years, (see Orchard, vol. I, to page 51.) We begin our examination of Baptist succession here. Mr. Orchard calls these christians of the first 400 years Baptists, but no such a name was known among them or any other people of that age, not only so, but on page 12, Vol. I, Mr. Orchard says: "These circumstances occasioned dissidents, yet at this early period, each party tenaciously held the name of christian, and had strong aversions to any other." "This early period" referred to by Mr. Orchard was A. D. 70. Where is the Baptist church of to-day that has a strong aversion to any other name than the name christian? When we were discussing this question with Elder Swindall of the Baptist church he took the position that the name christian was not a Bible name and expressed aversion to this name. Politeness and other things, forced me to promise him that I would never call him a christian. Orchard, Vol. I, page 7, the historian says: "This church of Jerusalem was composed of those only who gladly received the word and were baptized. * * * This church so constituted is the acknowledged pattern or model." Mr. Jarrell does not find his pattern at Jerusalem. He finds the end of his Baptist cable sticking out of the Jordan at some one of the places where John baptized. Again page 8. "This christian assembly as it was the first, so it is the mother church in the christian dispensation." Mr. Jarrell says the Baptist church of which he is a member was born before there was any church at Jerusalem. Orchard, Vol. 2, page 31, "The first assembly, or church founded by the apostles was that at Jerusalem." Mr. Jarrell's church was not originated by the apostles. Mr. Orchard says the
—35—
first church that the apostles founded was at Jerusalem; the historian says this church is the mother church. Mr. Jarrell's church, he says, was born before this Jerusalem church. Then one of two things necessarily follows, either that Mr. Jarrell's church was not founded by the apostles or it was born before its mother. Mr. Jarrell and all Baptists whom it may concern may now have the privilege of answering a few questions.
Can a church be a Baptist church and have a strong aversion to the Baptist name? Can a church be a Baptist church, that was founded by the apostles first at Jerusalem? Is there a Baptist now in existence that can answer these two questions affirmatively? We turn again to Mr. Orchard's history of what he calls primitive Baptists. What do they believe as to the design of baptism? "We go down into the water full of sin and pollutions, but come up again bringing forth fruit having in our hearts the fear and hope which is in Jesus." Orchard, Vol. I, page 13. Mr. Orchard claims Barnabas as a Baptist preacher. Barnabas says he went down into the water full of sin. When he was baptized he certainly did not say: "God for Christ's sake has pardoned my sin." There is not a Baptist church in Texas that would allow Barnabas to preach for it. But we will hear Mr. Orchard again. "Before a man receives the name of the Son of God he is ordained to death, but when he receives that seal, he is freed from death, and delivered unto life, now that seal is water into which men descend under an obligation to death, but ascend out of it, being appointed unto life." Vol. I, p. 13. That quotation from Barnabas according to the historian dates back to A. D. 45, while that from Hermes dates back to 95, These Baptist ministers (?) as Orchard calls them taught baptism for the remission of sins. Of Barnabas, Mr. Orchard says of him, "Paul's companion, and like him, sound in the faith." Barnabas went down into the water full of sin, this he would not have done had he not believed bap-
—36—
tism for the remission of sins, but Orchard says he was sound in the faith. What have we now learned from Mr. Orchard's book? These primitive christians began at Jerusalem, wore the name christian to the exclusion of other names—were baptized for the remission of sins, not because of it, as Mr. Jarrell and all other Baptists of this day teach, but they went into the water full of sins—descended into it under obligation to death, ascended out of it being appointed unto life. Mr. Jarrell, what do you think of these primitive christians who taught baptismal regeneration? Were they Campbellites? Was this primitive church still alive? All heterodox on the name, heterodox on the origin of the church and heterodox on baptismal regeneration. Baptist historians failed to find church succession, but they have not failed to find that our modern Baptists have departed from the faith.
CHAPTER IV.
One of two things is certainly true. Our modern Baptists have departed from primitive Baptist faith, or Baptist church succession is a considerable cheat. Those claimed by Orchard and Benedict as Baptists, differ greatly from those represented by Mr. Jarrell. We find that in ten leading characteristics of the Baptists as given by Mr. Orchard, Mr. Jarrel and his followers hold but two of them, and those are, believers' baptism, and that by immersion. As to the name of the members, the beginning of the church, the confession precedent to baptism, the design of baptism, stated meetings on every first day of the week to break bread, the weekly contribution, plurality of elders, and lay administration, on all these last points Mr. Jarrel takes direct issue. We gave Mr. Orchard's testimony on three of these points: the name, the beginning, and the design of baptism. We now call the historian to the stand on the remaining points. Did those
—37—
primitive Baptists (as claimed by Mr. Orchard) relate an experience of grace before they were baptized? Mr. Orchard says: ''In apostolic days a simple expression of faith was required of each candidate, Acts 8:37, but in after-periods, to accommodate the ignorance of catechumens, short sentences were drawn up for the candidate to utter.') Orch. Vol. I., p. 65. The reader will please notice that Mr. Orchard says in after-periods other short sentences were drawn up to suit the ignorant. One of those short sentences, that was not known in the apostolic days, is, ''do you believe that God for Christ's sake has pardoned your sins?'' Is it not a fair deduction from Mr. Orchard's language that the experience of grace required by modern Baptists originated in ignorance? We especially call attention to the fact that, according to Orchard, the method by which modern Baptists prepare their candidates for baptism originated since the apostolic days. It is admitted by Mr. Jarrel that baptism administered to one not properly prepared, is a nullity. If those of the apostolic days were properly prepared, being prepared according to Act 8:37, then it follows that our modern Jarrelistic Baptists are not properly prepared, and their baptism is therefore a nullity, their church is also a nullity. What does Mr. Orchard say as to stated meetings and their objects? ''All christians were unanimous in setting apart the day of the week on which the triumphant Savior arose from the dead for the solemn celebration of public worship." Orch. Vol. II., p. 32. ''What was that worship? In their assembling, breaking bread, agreeable to christian appointment, Matt. 26, 26-28, appears a primary object and duty." Orch. Vol. II., p. 33. Again, ''The contributions for these purposes were commonly made in their religious assemblies on the first day of the week, according to apostolic direction." Orch. Vol. II., p. 38. On page 577 of Mr. Jarrel's book, he begins a number of arguments (?) in direct opposition to what Mr. Orchard says existed according to apostolic directions. The breaking of
—38—
bread, the first day contribution, Mr. Orchard finds to be the practice of all christians, even as far back as the second half of the first century. Mr. Orchard assumes that those people were Baptists, but if they were, they are not allied to Mr. Jarrel's sort, because they held to every leading characteristic held by the people who are called Campbellites by Mr. Jarrell. Page 555 of G. in W., Mr. Jarrel begins a chapter under this caption: ''Campbellism, anti-scriptural on the plurality of elders." We introduce this to show that Mr. Jarrel and his admirers are unlike those claimed by their best historian as primitive Baptists. ''In most of those christian congregations planted by the apostles, a plurality of elders, as may be traced in a later period." Orch. Vol. II., p. 238. While Mr. Orchard is making every effort he can to trace the line of Baptist church succession, Mr. Jarrel is equally active in breaking this imaginary line. When Mr. Orchard finds a people who hold the name, christian, Mr. Jarrel says they are Campbellites; when he finds a people who assert the church began at Jerusalem, Mr. Jarrel says they are Campbellites, or when Orchard finds people who taught baptism for the remission of sins, Mr. Jarrel denies that they are baptists, and thus breaks his chain of succession loose from the apostolic age. Baptists of the present day, of Mr. Jarrel's sort' ignore the good confession of the apostolic days, and substitute for it one of human origin, and thus disprove any relation sustained by them to Mr. Orchard's primitive church; and finally, Mr. Jarrel, in what he calls Campbellism, upsets his own historian on the three last named points of primitive practice, (viz): first day meetings, first day contribution, and plurality of Elders. If Mr. Orchard has drawn a correct statement of the primitive church, it is not like the Baptist church ministered to by Mr. Jarrell. Including lay administration, we have noticed ten characteristics of Mr. Orchard's primitive church. Modern Baptists agree with that church in only two of these characteristics, while the
—39—
people whom Mr. Jarrel calls Campbellites agree with that primitive church in every one of these items. The only points of doctrine advocated by that primitive church with which Mt. Jarrel agrees, is believers’ baptism, and that by immersion; but Mr. Jarrel repudiates immersion administered to one who goes down into the water full of sin, hence repudiates the immersion of the primitive church and inasmuch as those who went down into the water full of sin did not believe before they were baptized that God for Christ's sake had forgiven their sins, Mr. Jarrel also repudiates their faith.
From the facts now before us, it is plain that Mr. Jarrel's church does not get back to the apostolic days; but if the Baptist church is the only true church, as Mr. Jarrel contends, there was a time long since John's day, when no such a thing as a missionary Baptist church can be found. Mr. Jarrel has been round on the other side of the dark wave, and has found a cable, and then coming back on this side, he thinks he has found the other end; but it is just a case of mistaken identity. Mr. Jarrel's cable on this side amounts to nothing more than an elm root. We will examine this Baptist ecclesiastical cable as far as historians can trace it, beginning at the end on this side of the dark sea, or on this side of the dark age. In examining this chain on this side, call it chain, line or church, we expect to develop a lovely thing. If a chain, we will need a theological blacksmith; if a line, it will be composed of knots; if a church, it will be adorned with a coat of more than many colors. Possibly this Baptist herd is similar to that one watered by Jacob.
We have now to trace Baptist succession from the present, back a few centuries. Our work on this point, be it remembered, is to show up the characteristics of that church that never died—that has not and cannot apostatize. To be true to history we will be compelled to put Eld. Jarrel in communion, to say the least of it, with a motley group. The
—40—
first link in the chain on this side of the dark ages is a religious people known as Mennonites. These, the modern Baptists claim as their brethren. The Mennonites had their rise in 1536. Deriving their name from Menno Simon. This man had been a Roman priest, and became a public teacher in 1537. If there is not a broken link somewhere here, then Menno left the Catholics and joined the Anabaptists. Mr. Herman Schyn who has written a history of the Mennonites' maintains that they are not Anabaptist either by principle or origin. (See Buck's Theological Dictionary.) If the statement of this Mennonite minister is to receive credit, the Mennonites link to nothing. If the Baptists do not succeed the Mennonites' their line is broken, and if they do succeed' then the chain is broken just a link further back. Mr. Buck may not be regarded as good authority, but Mr. Benedict
will not be called in question by any one as a reliable Baptist historian. Mr. Benedict speaking of the Mennonites says: ''The mild and pious Mennonites, of Holland, according to Adam's Religious World Displayed, Vol. 3, p. 387, were Universalists, and have long held that doctrine.'' Benedict's History of all Religions, p. 244. The German Baptists were advocates of Universalism (see Ben. His. of all Religions, page 243.) Universalists teach that there is no hell. Universalism teaches that God is the author of sin. ''Pro and Con'' in ''Universalism against itself,'' as quoted) from page 287. "I have already considered of these viz, that it makes God the author of sin; and I now ask, how on any ground is this to be avoided? I assert moreover that it is plainly scriptural.', Universalism teaches that there is no hell, and that God is the author of sin, and Benedict says that the Mennonites and German Baptists held the doctrine. This is not like Mr. Jarrel's baseless deduction that culminates in Guiteauism, Transmigration, etc., but we have the support of a Baptist historian when we say that the Baptist chain has one link of pure Universalism. Universalists teach the univer-
—41—
sal fatherhood of God. My offspring. Jarrel teaches that all men are naturally the offspring of the devil, Mr. Jarrel is no kin to the Mennonites or German Baptists for they, being Universalists did not believe in Total Hereditary Depravity. ''Baptism by immersion is practiced by all parties of Baptists except the Dutch Baptists or Mennonites, who administer this rite by pouring.,' Ben. History of all Religions, p. 358. Mr. Stone and Mr. Campbell having once belonged to the pedobaptist church, Mr. Jarrel thinks is sure evidence of their heterodoxy. And now the Baptists have to trace their line of succession through affusionists or admit that their church hatched out somewhere in the swamps of Germany. Just before the origin of the Mennonites (prior to them) we find the Anabaptist link. Mr. Buck in his definition of Anabaptist doctrine says, that they practiced polygamy, and in giving an account of the doctrine of the Mennonites' he says their leader (Menno Simon) held the doctrine of the Anabaptists with the exception of polygamy. But as a key to the whole question of Baptist church succession we once more appeal to Mr. Benedict. ''The peculiar sentiments of this denomination having spread so much among people of all opinions, to affirm that a man is a Baptist proves nothing more' than that he rejects infant baptism, and holds to believes' baptism, by immersion; he may be a Calvinist or Armenian' a Trinitarian or Unitarian' a Universalist or Swedenborgian; for some of all these classes come under the broad distinction of Baptists.'' Ben. History of all Religions, p. 198. In Mr. Jarrel's book he charges Campbell and Stone of holding Unitarian doctrine, and for that reason calls theft doctrine infidel.
Se. (''G. in W." chp. 25.) Mr. Jarrel's own historian breaks down his glass house enough to learn Mr. Jarrel to quit throwing stones at Trinitarians through whom he traces his succession and to whom he owes, for his stream of official grace. The people denominated by his own historians as
—42—
Baptists were Unitarians. Mr. Jarrel says, in chapter 12, ''G. in W.'' ''The Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration, a fundamental doctrine of Campbellism." Orchard Vol. I, p. 39. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers in France prayeth, ''Oh, living Lord, preserve my faith, and the testimony of my conscience so that I may always keep what I have confessed in the sacrament of my regeneration when I was baptized in the name of thee,'' etc. Mr. Orchard on page 51, of Vol. 1, says, in the previous pages all were ''strictly baptist in practice and constitution." Here Mr. Jarrel is your-primitive Baptist, uttering in a prayer ''the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration." No chance to get out of this Mr. Jarrel for according to your brother Graves, Orchard is the best historian in the world. We will now sum up. This line of Baptist succession believes the following. 1st, Universalism—no hell, God the author of sin; 2d, Unitarianism; 3rd, Armenianism; 4th, Swedenborgianism; 5th, Polygamy; 6th, Administered baptism by pouring; 7th, Church began at Jerusalem; 8th, Had strong aversion to any other name than that of christian; therefore strong aversion to the name Baptist; 7th, Baptism for the remission of sins; 10th, The simple confession, Acts, 8:37, until ignorance produced other short sentences, such as, ''do you believe that God for Christ's sake has forgiven your sins?" 11th, First day communion; 12th, First day contribution; 13th, Plurality of elders; 14th, Lay administration. If Baptist historians tell the truth, there is not a more extensively hybridized fraternity in the world than the Baptist. Part Baptist, certainly, part Universalist, part affusionist, part Unitarian, part Swedenborgian, part Mormon (Polygamist), part Romanish and part Campbellite. Mr. Jarrel says Campbellites are no kin to Baptists, (see "G. in W.,, p. 50,) perhaps Mr. J. is right in this, if so, so much the better for the Campbellites. Baptist church succession is dead, and that kills the Baptist church according to Jarrel Ray, & Co. Mr. Jarrel says the church of Christ has a
—43—
continued succession. No Baptist preacher in Texas can show that the Baptists have succession. Therefore the Baptist church is not the church of Christ.
After a somewhat tedious and fruitless search after Baptist succession we return to examine some of Mr. Jarrel's scripture argument or rather some of his scripture perversions. Argument No. 4 is based on Matt. 28:18-20. Jesus came anal spake unto them, saying all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." ''Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world." Mr. Jarrel quotes this passage to prove that the church cannot apostatize, to disprove the necessity of reformation. The passage proves nothing about apostasy, either one way or the other. On what does Mr. Jarrel rely? On this, Jesus says, ''lo, I am with you always." In Mr. Jarrel's estimation the ''you" means the church. This is mere assumption; the ''you'' personates the apostles and it is bare assumption to say it personates anything more. We can conceive of but two ways in which Jesus can be with the apostles; 1st. in person, 2nd. in authority. Jesus has not been with the apostles personally, since his ascension, and in that sense he has not been with any one else. He has been with his apostles in His authority from the time that Peter broke the silence on Pentecost whenever and wherever the apostle's words were repeated. Mr. Jarrel intimates that Jesus is always present; but how he is present he does not think to inform us. It is true he quotes Bengle, who says, ''actually present', supposing; he has raised fog enough to hide the truth. Jesus is not always present in power when the gospel is preached, nor yet present in his influence, though the gospel is sometimes preached where it has neither influence nor power, but where the gospel is preached it is always by the authority of Christ.
—44—
Now Jesus said to the apostles, ''Go preach and I am with you always." My authority is with you in what you preach. My power and the power of God is in what you preach, ''The gospel is the power of God, * * to every one that believeth" Rom. 1:16. Where it is not believed there is no power, presence, or anything, from Jesus, save his authority. So much for argument 4, page 115 "G. in W." On page 115 he introduces another passage of scripture as a basis for argument 5, and proceeds to tell us what Bengle, Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke have to say about it, but even they do not snpport him. The passage is the following. ''For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body. * * * Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. * * * that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish." Eph. 5:23-29. Mr. Jarrel's argument is substantially this, it is only the lack of power that prevents the husband from saving his wife. Jesus being as a husband to the church and having all power cannot fail to save it. Therefore the church cannot apostatize. If salvation depended alone upon the power of Jesus, Mr. Jarrel's argument would be conclusive, but since it does not so depend, his (would be) argument is a miserable fallacy. Universalists argue as does Mr. Jarrell God so loved the world (all men) as to desire the salvation of all. God being all powerful can accomplish every desire. Therefore he will save all men. If a sinner obey the gospel, God can and will save him. If he does not obey the gospel, God (according to His own divine arrangement) cannot and will not save him. If the church continue in the faith, Jesus can and will save it, otherwise as of the Laodiceans, ''He will spew it out of his mouth," Rev. 3: 16.
Mr. Jarrel resembles his Universalian ancestors in that, they howl very much alike. Mr. Jarrel's sixth argument is
—45—
drawn from Eph. 2: 20, 21. The church was fitly framed to the foundation, and therefore cannot be moved, so argues Mr. J. The Laodiceans were fitly framed and were spewed out, so Mr. J's argument is all bosh.
Argument seventh is from Heb. 12: 28, ''Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved."—G. in W., page 117. The kingdom here referred to cannot be the kingdom that Mr. Jarrel says was established prior to Pentecost, nor the church (kingdom) that Mr. Orchard says was established by the apostles in Jerusalem. This kingdom was one that the people were receiving, in contradistinction to one already received. The one answering to the mediatorial kingdom which had been received, the other answering to the everlasting kingdom, 2 Peter 1:11, which was in process of development.
In verse 26th, preceding Mr. J.'s proof-text, Paul refers to the shaking of the heaven and earth and consequently of their removal. In 2 Peter 3: 16, the apostle refers to the passing away of the heavens and earth, the things shaken, in connection with that which cannot be shaken or moved, viz: the new heaven and new earth wherein dwells righteousness. Everlasting kingdom is equal to an immovable one, and they are therefore equal to each other. Eld. Jarrel's proof-text amounts to this: Wherefore we receiving an everlasting kingdom. The everlasting kingdom will be enjoyed after death. If Mr. Jarrel expects to prove anything about the church on earth, he had better not spend his time about things after death.
Mr. Jarrel's eighth is not an argument, but in his perverted judgment, an implication. G. in W., p. 117. Christ is the king of his church. Mr. Jarrel says, ''In no instance has a king ever lost his kingship except by being too weak to save it.''
There are many of Mr. Jarrel's arguments of the most miserable class of sophism, many of his statements without the
—46—
shadow of truth. ''No king ever lost his kingdom that had the power to save it." God was the first king of Israel. God says, ''they have rejected me that I should not reign over them,'' I Sam. 8:7. ''Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said: Nay, but we will have a king over us,'' verse 19. Samuel says to Saul: "The Lord hath annointed thee to be captain over his inheritance,'' I Sam. 10: 1. God had a kingdom. The people rejected Him as king, and God turned over his inheritance to a man. Now what do you think about it, Mr. Jarrel? Did God have the power to keep His kingdom? If you say no, you limit His power. If you say yes, you have put a terrible limit on your ability to make a correct statement.
God was as great a God after the people refused Him as their king as He was before. If Jesus was to lose his kingdom, what does Mr. Jarrel know as to the manner in which the loss would affect him as king? Just nothing at all. Mr. Jarrel you had better stay within the record, you are too awkward to speculate.
CHAPTER V.
We now dismiss Mr. Jarrell's book so far as what he has to say about church apostasy is concerned, and enter upon the examination and review of his tenth chapter. In this chapter he makes an effort to expose what he calls Campbellism on the subject of the beginning of the gospel, of the church, of the kingdom. Had Mr. Jarrel been writing a premium essay on the best method to darken counsel, he would have been most certainly entitled to the prize. The whole chapter is almost as clear as mud. Mr. Jarrel says. ''Campbellites agree that upon the day of Penteeost the gospel was first preached," page 143. On page 144 he defines gospel to be
—47—
good news, glad tidings, and then quotes four lexicons to prove what was never denied. That the gospel is good news no one denies, but must one conclude that he hears the gospel every time he hears good news? That the gospel was preached to Abraham, preached by the prophets, preached by John and Christ we most firmly believe. It would seem that Mr. Jarrel would have us to understand that the gospel preached to Abraham is a pattern for gospel preaching now. The gospel to Abraham was a promise made to him respecting his seed; Gal. 3:8. Suppose that same promise was preached to Mr. Jarrel, viz: ''In thee shall all nations be blessed.'' This promise to Abraham was gospel and was fulfilled. To preach this same gospel to Mr. Jarrel, would be preaching a falsehood, because it would be making a promise to Mr. Jarrel that would never be fulfilled. Did the apostles travel over the country, preaching and saying to the people: ''In thee shall all nations be blessed.'' Mr. Jarrel knows that their preaching was of a very different kind. When Jesus gave the first commission to his disciples He said: "And as you go, preach' saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand," Matt: 10:7. Did the apostles, after Pentecost, and after they had received the Spirit to guide them into all truth, ever preach to the people, ''The kingdom of heaven is at hand"? Mr. Jarrel knows that they did no such preaching. The good news on Pentecost and after it, was not a promise to Abraham—was not the kingdom at hand—but it was, Jesus is the Christ, was crucified, buried, and had arisen from the dead, etc. The Jews believed the promise to Abraham , but they did not believe in the resurrection of the Christ. The gospel to Abraham and the gospel preached by the apostles after the descent of the spirit was so different that the people might belive one and not the other. To preach that Jesus was to come of the seed of Abraham, is one thing. To preach that Christ died for sin, and arose again for our justification, is quite another thing. It is a poor, pitiful system
—48—
of religion that forces its adherents to raise fog to hide broad distinctions. Mr. Jarrel says: "The gospel was preached in Old Testament times," p. 145. Under this head he says; "It was preached in type." Did Peter preach types at Jerusalem, or did he say to the Jews: "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ," Acts 2 :36. Who preached that Jesus died in Old Testament times? Who preached Christ's death, as a fact, in John's day? Who are they spoken of in the New Testament as unbelievers on the morning of the first day after the resurrection? The two Marys told the apostles that Jesus was arisen from the dead; Luke 24:10. "And their words seemed to them as idle tales and they believed them not;" Luke 24:11. Mr. Jarrel, is your church still alive and doing well, every preacher in it an unbeliever? Not one who believed in the resurrection of Christ, and inasmuch as it took the resurrection to declare him to be the son of God;" Rom. 1:4, those who did not believe in the resurrection did not believe that he was the Son of God. Here, Mr. Jarrel, is your church, before Pentecost, without faith in the Son of God—without faith in the resurrection. Will Baptists say there was no church set up before the death of Christ? They say the church was in existence the day of the crucifixion—What was its condition? Not one in it who believed in the resurrection! Not one preacher in the church (provided there was any) who believed in the resurrection! A man cannot preach the gospel without preaching the resurrection. The apostles did not preach the gospel before they believed it themselves. On the morning of the first day of the week, after the death of Christ, there were none who believed. There was certainly no one to preach that which no one believed. When Christ appeared to the apostles and convinced them that he was arisen from the dead, according to Luke 24:47, He gave them commission to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name. As to the time when they
—49—
were to begin preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name, that was left indefinite. "Tarry at Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high;" Luke 24:49. They were not able to preach now, because they were told to wait for power. Power was what they were told to wait for. If there was any church here, it was a church without power to preach repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus. If there was no power to preach remission of sins, if there was any additions to the church, they were added without remission When did the power come? "But ye shall receive power; after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you;" Acts 1:8. When did the Holy Ghost come? On the day of Pentecost: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost;" Acts 2:4. Here Peter preached repentance and remission in His name, having tarried at Jerusalem, as the Lord had commanded. The Lord did not allow the apostles to preach the gospel from his resurrection to the time they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Moreover, from Matt., 16th chapter, we learn that the Lord did not allow them to preach it before His death. "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus, the Christ;" Matt. 16:20. They could not preach the gospel without preaching Jesus is the Christ. The fact that the apostles did not believe or understand the Savior's words concerning his resurrection, and the fact that the Savior forbid them to announce that he was Jesus the Christ, leaves that ante-Pentecost church of Mr. Jarrel's in a bad fix, to say the least of it.
On page 148, section 4, Mr. Jarrel begins a long and labored effort to prove that John preached the gospel. He says: "The gospel was preached between the birth of Christ and Pentecost." Mr. Jarrel says John preached the gospel. But John preached a preparatory gospel. The apostles after Pentecost did not preach as John preached. John preached "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Peter, on the day of Pentecost preached Christ and him crucified. When
—50—
John said, the kingdom is at hand, that was gospel suited to John's age. Peter preached, Christ and him crucified as suited to the age in which he ministered. We can make short work of Mr. Jarrel's, long and much labored argument, in this way. If "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is the form of the gospel suited to all ages, it was never preached by any one of the apostles after Pentecost. "If Christ and Him crucified" was the form suited to all ages it was never preached by any one before Pentecost. John's gospel was suited to the age in which he lived and to no other. Apostolic preaching was suited to no age prior to Pentecost. Since the expression, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand," is now before us we will notice Mr. Jarrel's criticism on engike. He admits that the word means to approach, but contends that since it is of the perfect indicative, it therefore means, has come. Mr. Jarrel is splendid (?) on grammar, he not only makes the perfect tense furnish the "has" but sends it off on a foreign mission and permits it to enter the domain of lexical authority and casts the word approached, (the meaning of engike) into his Baptist crucible and changes the word approached, into the word come, and thus obtains, has come, and therefore the kingdom has come. But after this theological assayist has drawn, "has come," from his crucible, we take a peep within to see what is left of the word, approached, and behold, there yet remains some pure metal which when added to "has come" makes "has come near," and therefore "the kingdom has come near." Mr. Jarrel please do not take quite so much toll and perhaps you may get more custom. Mr. Jarrel seems to have been more fortunate than all the translators; these when looking at engike saw has come near, has approached. The little word, near, and a certain element in has approached, was so poison to Mr. Jarrel's ante-pentecost church idea that he could not wait to see it all, so he called on Dr. Adam Clarke, (who never fails), to tinker his eyes a little so that he might see Baptist doctrine where there
—51—
was none. But we must not stop short of putting Mr. Jarrel's definition of engike to a scriptural test. I Peter 4:1, the apostle says: "But the end of all things is at hand."
The words "are at hand" is from engike. Mr. Jarrel says, engike means, has come, so Mr. Jarrel's position makes Peter say the world came to an end at the time he wrote his first epistle. We are thoroughly satisfied that either Mr. Jarrel or Peter did not tell the truth about this matter, and more thoroughly satisfied are we, that it was not Peter. Mr. Jarrel quotes or proposes to quote many authors as commenting on scriptures bearing on the subject of the establishment of the kingdom. On page 167 he quotes Clarke. "The law and the prophets continued to be the sole teachers till John came who first began to proclaim the glad tidings of the kingdom of God." A. Clarke on Luke 16:16. That the kingdom was in a certain stage of development during John's day we are not disposed to deny, and that people entered it in that development we most firmly believe, but the conditions upon which they entered it were not the same as the conditions upon which men entered the kingdom as developed on Pentecost. Those who entered that development of the kingdom of John's day, as stated and proved in a former chapter, did not enter by believing in the resurrection of Christ, but those who entered on Pentecost could not have entered without it. This ante-Pentecost development of the kingdom was but the near approach to that development of Pentecost. The preaching of pentecost was different in fact; the facts, Jesus died, Jesus was buried, Jesus arose from the dead. The preaching was in the name of Christ. On the day of Pentecost we find a complete development of the mediatorial reign of heaven. The next thing we find worthy of notice in Mr. Jarrel's book is on page 179. He stops to notice what he calls a Campbellite objection in these words, "I will, in the future build my church." Matt. 16:18. Mr. Jarrel's first reply is that, to make this mean to build in the sense of
—52—
organized would be a contradiction. Yes, of course it would, but Mr. Jarrel thinks it would be contradicting the scripture. No, no, not that; it would be contradicting Mr. Jarrel, and that would be equal to telling the truth. Mr. Jarrel gets in the mud on this objection and has to get a Stier to pull him out. Mr. Stier thinks it means to enlarge the kingdom. But the first trouble is, Jesus is speaking about that part of the work of building that goes next to the foundation, and so clears away all that part that Mr. Jarrel and Mr. Stiers thought had been built on it before. The next trouble is, in the same chapter (Matt. 16), the word of the Savior settles the question against Mr. Jarrel. "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matt. 16-28. Mr. Jarrel says there was a kingdom that came in John's day and gets Mr. Stier to help him say that it was being enlarged, this was not the kingdom that some of them should see before they died. But there is another kingdom, the ultimate kingdom of glory, this could not have been the one Jesus referred to, for it has not come yet. There is but one other left and that is that Pentecost kingdom. I cannot see but one chance for Mr. Jarrel to get out of this trouble, and that is by admitting that the kingdom which was then in existence was so small that it had to be enlarged before these people could see it. Elder Jarrel please give us a comment on the scripture, "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a mustard seed," it is the only text that you can torture into your support.
Mr. Jarrel wastes much space in his book telling us what he professes to know, and does not, about church meetings prior to Pentecost, and about the church making an apostle of Matthias, as though it was an unquestioned fact that the church had the power to make apostles, of which there is no evidence. The fallacy of all this bosh will be made plain as such in the review of section 8, page 198, to which we now
—53—
turn. Mr. Jarrel heads this section thus: "The different comings of the kingdom, with explanation of scriptures, over which Campbellites stumble." Under this section Mr. Jarrel admits that before Pentecost there was one coming; at Pentecost, another; that there will be in the future still another. We were hardly expecting Mr. Jarrel to commit suicide, but he has verily fallen upon his own sword. When Jesus comes, in Mr. Jarrel's third development of the kingdom, He will come "without a sin offering unto salvation." What use then for the second development of the kingdom—that of Pentecost? Will it be a time then to preach repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus? When Jesus comes again it will be at the end of the mediatorial reign, when it shall have served its purpose and passed away. When that development of the kingdom which came at Pentecost, was ushered in, what use was there for the things preached under that development of John's day? The things preached in that day were preparatory to the Pentecost development, then what sense is there in continuing the preparatory work when it has accomplished the end, for which it was ordained? We are not now engaged in doing the work ordained of God to develop the mediatorial reign, but we are in the mediatorial reign doing the work that God has ordained for the development of the coming age. Mr. Jarrel, may be, (but I doubt it,) such a preacher as deceived the twelve at Ephesus, who preached all he knew and that was John's baptism. Mr. Jarrel ought to learn from this example to quit studying his a b c's after he has learned to spell. After Mr. Jarrel completely upsets his own position over what he calls the Campbellite stumbling block, he proceeds to notice objections to his theory. He says "there are four objections for notice." Mr. Jarrel is conveniently situated, he can hear the call for notice of four objections and no more. We will endeavor to make some other objections call loud enough to be heard, even by Mr. Jarrell. On page 204 Mr. Jarrel gives attention
—54—
to his first noticed objection. It is the parable of the pounds, Luke 19:11-27. He does not give the scripture in his book, perhaps because he does not want his readers to see it, and may have indulged the hope that the reader would not lay down his book, get the Bible and read the connection. In the 11th verse Luke says that the Savior "added and spake a parable * * because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." In the 12th verse the Savior says: "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom." That this represents some feature in his kingdom is certain. He speaks of some one who went into a far country to receive a kingdom. Jesus had not yet received a kingdom, for the people addressed in the parable were looking for its immediate appearance, and if it had already come they did not know it, and the language of the Savior cannot be construed to indicate that it had come. The parable is against Mr. Jarrel, and he therefore calls for the help of the D. D.'s. Mr. Jarrel says: Trench testifies as follows, '`The parables may not be first sources of doctrine." Mr. Jarrel would have his readers to understand that we depend on parables, as first sources. There is not a word of it the truth, we depend upon parables as the last source, and rarely ever get to the parables at all, because we find objections enough without them to bury Mr. Jarrel's ante-Pentecost kingdom out of sight. When Mr. Jarrel gets into a tight place about his kingdom before Pentecost, it is easy for him to find Pedobaptist commentators who believed that the kingdom was set up in the days of Abraham, to help him, and he does not believe him self that they tell the truth. These garbled Pedo extracts are the best remedy he can find to relieve his sick missionary Baptist sprout. Mr. Jarrel notices three other objections. 2nd Jesus was crowned at his ascension, 3rd Heb. 9-16-17. The death of Jesus must have occurred before the gospel was preached, men were saved, the kingdom and the church
—55—
were set up. 4th. Mr. Jarrel says is a perversion of Isa. 2:2-3, Micah 4:1-2, Luke 24-46-47. "Gospel in Water," p. 208:210. As usual we here meet with Mr. Jarrel's first reply, that if these objections prove that there was no kingdom or church before Pentecost they contradict other scriptures. Who says so? Mr. Jarrel, that is all, but it is a mistake. It is only a contradiction of Mr. Jarrell. These objections numbered by Mr. Jarrel are only parts of one overwhelming objection. In conclusion, we will state the sum of the objections to Mr. Jarrel's doctrine. His church, if established at the beginning of John's ministry, was without a knowledge of the character of the kingdom. Did not know that it was necessary for Jesus to die, hence, says Peter, "be it far from thee, Lord." It tract not the benefit of the death of Christ in its origin. It came into existence without the blood of Christ. It lived without the spirit, because the spirit was not given until Jesus was glorified; Jno. 7:39. It was a body without a spirit, and therefore a dead body; James 2:26. It was a kingdom without a king, and one only in prospect. It was without a head. Christ was head after he arose from the dead; Eph. 1:20.22. It was not guided into all truth, "when the spirit comes, He will guide you into all truth;" John 15:13. I will not try to name all the defects of Mr. Jarrel's imaginary church. It is a kingless, spiritless, lifeless, bloodless, faithless, headless, dead thing, sporting in the brain of an unsuccessful Campbellite killer. Mr. Jarrel says: "Among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." Luke 24,:49, means that that there was the beginning of the preaching to the nations, and not the beginning of the church. Not a word of truth of what Mr. Jarrel says here. There was no nation at Jerusalem to preach to, except Jews. The beginning of the preaching of repentance and the remission of sins, in the name of Christ, to other nations, began at Cesarea, eight years after Peter first preached at Jerusalem. See Acts, 10 and 11 chapters.
—56—
CHAPTER VI.
Time and space both advise us to part with Mr. Jarrel's failure on the establishment of his church, and give notice to that part of the book beginning on page 218. Here Mr. Jarrel gives us a brief outline of his condition at birth, beginning with the admission that all men are born totally depraved. He never obeyed the gospel, has not been born again, and is therefore now totally depraved.
On page 221, Mr. Jarrel says, some Campbellites have been driven to accept the doctrine of total depravity. We do not know of but one case of this kind. When Bro. J. S. Sweeney was debating with Mr. Jarrel, at Ennis, he admitted that Mr. Jarrel was totally depraved, but denied that he was born so, affirming that he became so by his own actual sins. Bro. Sweeney said he was forced to make this admission, because he could not argue against demonstration.
In reviewing this part of Mr. Jarrel's book, it will be difficult to keep from misrepresenting, because he misrepresents himself.
On page 218, he says: "Baptists do not mean that man is by nature as wicked as he can be." On page 260 he says: "Inasmuch as children partake of the nature of their parents, and Satan is totally depraved, it is very certain that every one of his children inherit his totally depraved nature." Here Mr. Jarrel represents man as being exactly like the devil, and on page 218, he says man is not as wicked as he can be. By this we are to understand, if we are to understand anything at all, that the devil is not as wicked as he can be. Mr. Jarrel seems determined to prove total depravity, even if it compels him to debase man and exalt the devil.
Since Mr. Jarrel likes to feed on syllogisms, we will give him a little of his favorite nourishment, flavored with his own choice condiments. I. Man is of the nature of Satan. 2.
—57—
"Man is not as wicked as he can be." 3. Therefore Satan is not as wicked as he can be.
Any doctrine that will drive a man of sense into such a tangle as this, is unworthy the acceptance of any one, save, perhaps, the self-constituted Campbellite-killer.
Since total depravity is the foundation of Mr. Jarrel's whole doctrine, especially paving the way for his theory of regeneration by the direct impact of the Spirit, we must endeavor to ascertain fully his idea of the doctrine. We have already seen that he defines man to be as bad as the devil. That none may accuse us of misrepresenting him, we add one more quotation: "A being may be utterly destitute of good, and therefore totally depraved, (such it will be allowed is Satan), and yet capable of adding iniquity to iniquity without end."—pp. 219, 220. Total depravity means utterly destitute of all good, and such is Satan. Does Mr. Jarrel regard all men, at birth, as being as bad as the devil in every respect? We shall see.
Speaking of total depravity, Mr. Jarrel says: "Not one human spirit is born into this world without this corruption of nature." Page 224. (Italics mine.) This sets forth the human spirit as being as wicked as Satan. On page 249, he says of the understanding, feeling and the will: "These, by birth, man equally inherits. By birth, these are equally depraved." Again, on same page: "The sum total of the parts of man is depraved."
Man is composed of body, soul and spirit. These, all, are depraved. Why? Mr. Jarrel says, because they are of the nature of Satan. Why are they of his nature? Because he is the father of man thus composed. So Mr. Jarrel teaches that man is as bad as the devil in every respect.
When an infant is born into the world, who gave the body? Satan gave it, according to Mr. J. Who gave the life—the vitality—the soul? Who gave the immortal parts—who gave the spirit? Mr. Jarrel says Satan gave all these. What does
—58—
God give? According to Mr. Jarrell, He gives nothing. How many men has God created? According to this doctrine, He created Adam and quit, and has not created a body, soul or spirit since. What a miserable doctrine that robs God of the glory of peopling this earth, and gives that glory to Satan. Such is the doctrine of total hereditary depravity advocated by Mr. Jarrell.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecc. 12:7. Who gave the spirit, according to this Scripture? God gave it. God did not give man a totally depraved spirit, and the doctrine of total depravity is therefore false. Again, "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord." Prov. 20:27. How came the spirit of man to be the Lord's candle if Satan made the spirit of man, as Mr. Jarrel contends? If the spirit of man is totally depraved, how is it to give any light as the Lord's candle in searching the inward parts of man?
Mr. Jarrel's conscience gives him a great amount of latitude. The liberty he takes in the use of language would render it impossible for us to reply to him in a moderately respectful manner, were it not for the fact that we need not say that he lies (in order to truly represent him), for the reason that we can use the word misrepresent, which means the same thing.
On page 223, he quotes Lard, who says: "Nor, perhaps, will facts warrant the conclusion that this frailty is, even in our case, greatly increased." On page 222, he quotes Lard as saying: "But this frailty, or weakness, is not sin." Then by the law of total depravity, or no law at all, he takes the unsanctified liberty to exchange the words "wicked nature," for Mr. Lard's word "frailty," with his eyes wide open as to Lard's use of the word, and then he says, page 223, "Thus Mr. Lard's conclusion charges God with having created man with the wicked nature with which he is borne." The fact is, Bro. Lard has forever downed the doctrine of total de-
—59—
pravity, in spite of Satan and all those who advocate his universal fatherhood, and Mr. Jarrell does not like to see his father in the flesh losing his primitive glory and honor which the D. D.'s have attempted to filch from the archives of heaven and place in the keeping of the king of the bottomless pit.
Mr. Jarrel's attempt to blunt the point in Bro. Lard's argument is fruitless. He does not give the argument only in disconnected scraps, and these interspersed with such expressions as "Infidel," "shameful reflection," "ignorance." When Mr. Jarrel complains of the ignorance of such men as Mr. Lard it is about like an old fashioned Texas tallow candle complaining of the modern electric lights. Here is his wail: "Surely my readers do not expect me to reply to this wicked and shameful reflection on the righteous Creator," p. 223. All wickedness in this reflection originated among Baptist preachers, who assumed the office of Campbellite killer, perhaps for filthy lucre's sake. Here is the substance of the whole matter. Baptist preachers somewhat line Mr. Jarrel attempted to make an argument and as usual, made a fallacy. They argued that since men sinned, as a universal rule they therefore had a sinful nature and therefore, were totally depraved. They presented the commission of sin as an evidence of a totally depraved nature. This totally depraved nature they tell us, we inherit from Adam. It is asked, if sin is the evidence of inherited depravity and inherited depravity is the transmission of a corrupt nature from parent to child, since it is true that Adam sinned, from whence came his inherited corrupt nature, that forced him to sin? This question throws Mr. Jarrel into a theological spasm. Hence his piteous wail. It was not Bro. Lard that originated this "shameful reflection on the Righteous Creator," it was the Baptists who were guilty. Mr. Jarrel and his brethren before him argued that the sin of the son is evidence of the corruption of the father. Adam sinned and if Baptists
—60—
are right his sin was an evidence of the corruption of his Father. Whenever Baptists attempt to degrade man as to his nature they can succeed only by degrading man's Creator, the author of his nature. But we are not yet done with this shameful baptistic reflection. Mr. Jarrel argues in this manner: Satan is the father of all men, therefore all men sin. God was the father of Adam and Adam sinned. If the sin of all men is the evidence of the fatherhood of Satan, Adam sinned and his sin is evidence that Satan is his father. The Bible says God was the Father of Adam. Luke 3:38. What then? The consequences of Baptist doctrine contradict the Bible.
This doctrine of hereditary total depravity is wrong on both sides, representing man, as it does, of partaking of the corruption of satan in body, soul and spirit—representing man a child of Satan in every respect, and as being a child of God in no sense, it not only denies that God has created any human being since He created Adam, but it also virtually denies that if Satan ever deceived anybody, the deceived one was none the worse for the deception. Satan could not deceive an unregenerated sinner so as to make him believe a lie, for if totally depraved he had no power to believe anything else. Since by the power of the deception practiced on Adam, deception became a moral disease transmissible and transmitted to all men by nature, Satan might have been retired for want of a job. The devil is no fool. If all men are hereditarily conditioned so that they can believe nothing else but a lie, there is no inducement for the devil to deceive any one, for be it remembered that Baptists do not believe that Satan is capable of deceiving the regenerated. It has been said that the legs of the lame are unequal; but not so of total depravity for it is wrong in both legs. Total depravity involves the idea that God has not been the father of any human being since Adam. Total depravity shows its weakness at still another point. God gave Adam two pre-
—61—
cepts, which for the sake of distinction may be termed two laws. The first pertained to the forbidden fruit, which was violated, and by which violation Adam lost the way of the tree of life. The second was the law of procreation (i.e.) Let every thing bring forth after its kind or more particularly as applied to man. "Multiply and replenish the earth." This second law has never been violated, it is the law of the perpetuity of Adam's race and it is a law of God. What God does by his law, must be ascribed to him. For this reason He is the author of our being, and whatever we are by natural generation, that we are by the law of God. God works in our natural generation through His law, and the doctrine of total depravity ascribes the work of God through his law to Satan. Any doctrine that ascribes the work of God to Satan is shamefully wicked, and a doctrine that even Mr. Jarrel ought to be ashamed of. In the 3rd chapter of Luke we have the genealogy of Christ through Abraham back to Adam who was the son of God. According to the promise God made to Abraham, Jesus was the Son of Abraham, though many ancestors stood between. In the same way Abraham was the son of Gad. As Jesus bore a relation to Abraham by his ancestors, so Abraham bore a like relation to God by his ancestors. If this genealogical line broke any where between Abraham and Jesus, Jesus is not a son of Abraham and God's promise failed. If it broke anywhere between Abraham and God, Luke's genealogy is false. The doctrine of total depravity says it broke at Adam. Luke's testimony is certainly entitled to a place in the sacred canon, and total depravity is therefore false.
Mr. Jarrel's second proof of inherited depravity, page 225, is from Job 11:12: He quotes it thus: "For vain man is void of understanding, yea, man is born as wild ass's colt." My Bible does not so read, but so: "For vain man would be wise, though: man be born like a wild ass's colt." We think it would be better for "vain man" to quote the Scripture as it
—62—
is, although he may lose the idea that "man is void of understanding" by so doing But Mr. Jarrel perverts the point of comparison.
It is not the condition in which a man is born that is compared to the condition in which the ass is born, or the Bible does not teach that manhood and asshood are the same. Mr. Jarrel is confident that he is right in the point of comparison, we will present it as it really is, and leave it for public inspection.
The wild ass is born with a body and a soul (animal life). Mr. Jarrel is born as a wild ass, with a body and a soul (animal life.) The wild ass was born without a spirit. Mr. Jarrel was born without a spirit, or else he loses his point of comparison. Things equal to each other are equal to the same thing. Therefore Mr. Jarrel must be a wild ass, with this difference: Mr. Jarrel says the ass is red and that is not like him.
Next, Ps. 51:5, quoted on page 327. "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This iniquity and sin was not David's, but the iniquity and sin of his ancestors. This was none the worse for David. Four hundred and forty years after this God said, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father," Ez. 18:20.
So if man is totally depraved it is not owing to any iniquity of the father. In Old Testament times, there were two kinds of sin, actual sins and legal sins. In one of these kinds of sin was David conceived. In Deut., 23:2, we find this law: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth generation he shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." In the 38th chapter of Genesis, Moses gives an account of the illegitimate begettal and birth of Pharez, who was a son of Judah by Tamar, who was the daughter-in-law of Judah. Pharez was a bastard, and according to the law in the case, could not enter the congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth generation.
—63—
Please give attention to the count as taken from the first chapter of Matthew. We will number each name as it stands in the genealogy: Pharez 1. Esrom 2, Aram 3, Aminidab 4, Nasson 5, Salmon 6, Boaz 7, Obed 8, Jesse 9, David 10. Matt. 1:3-6. The sin and iniquity referred to by David was doubtless that of Judah and Tamar, entailed by special enactment upon Pharez and his line of posterity for ten generations, which reached to and included David. This is the history outlined, and it utterly destroys Mr. Jarrel's argument as drawn from Ps. 51:5. That law has been taken out of the way. "Blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it-to his cross." Cor. 2:14.
Mr. Jarrell can find inherited depravity in almost anything, because he has depravity on the brain. Page 227, "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Ps. 58:3.
Just one question is enough here. How do they go astray? The Bible says speaking lies. They were old enough to speak before they went astray. Where were they before they went astray? When did they leave their owner? The Bible says, when they lied. The devil did not own them before they lied, because it is not straying away from the devil to lie.
Mr. Jarrell seems to discover that this is the wrong scripture for him, and he gets A. Clarke to doctor it, and Clarke gets Kinnicott to help him, and they get it pretty well doctored up. But why do they thus tinker the passage? They are working up a basis for infant baptism. These pedobaptist doctors get infant regeneration by baptism out of the passage and Dr. Jarrel gets infant regeneration without baptism out of it. This Baptist theology seems to be solidified by pedobaptist thunder.
G. in W., page 231, Mr. Jarrel begins his sixth and last argument on inherited depravity. It is based on John 3:6,
—64—
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." He occupies about eighteen pages to develop the fog on this passage. Had he been trying to prove that he knew nothing about the passage we would admit the strength of his argument.
We first call attention to what Mr. Jarrel says of the unregenerate: "Without regeneration we are only 'flesh' in thought, 'flesh' in feeling, 'flesh' in will , 'flesh' in life, and as 'flesh perish in the death of deaths," page 240. If Mr. Jarrel believes whit he says, he regards man before regeneration a brute and nothing else,—flesh only. The conclusion follows , if man dies without regeneration, being only a brute he decays as a brute, and that is the last of him. What is in reserve for flesh only save decomposition? Is Mr. Jarrel an annihilationist? We suppose Mr. Jarrel will admit that flesh and blood cannot go to heaven. Will he then admit that it cannot go to hell? If the unregenerate is flesh only, will this mortal tenement of clay be sent to hell? If not, will any of the regenerate go there? Mr. Jarrel says, no.
In what part of his system does he make room for hell? There is none for the brute and none for the regenerate. As Mr. Benedict says, a man may be a Baptist and at the same time be a Universalist. Mr. Jarrel has theorized himself back into his old camp.
Page 241, Regenerated we are "'Spirit' in thought, 'Spirit' in feeling, 'Spirit' in will, 'Spirit' in life, 'Spirit' in glory, forever and ever." If Mr. Jarrel's language means anything at all, it means that a man by natural birth is only flesh, and by a birth of the Spirit is spirit only. Jesus says a man must be born of the Spirit and Jarrel says he becomes Spirit by his birth—spirit in thought, feeling, will, life, that means spirit all-the way. Born of the Spirit means, according to Mr. Jarrel, to change a man to a spirit. This is the nonsense of eighteen pages, condensed, and as to sense, there is none of that to condense.
—65—
Before dismissing the eighteen pages, it will be well to notice Mr. Jarrel's attempt to parry the force of an objection. "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 19:14. Mr. Jarrel says, "there is nothing there forbidding us from understanding that they were old enough to repent and believe," page 247. Nothing but common sense forbids it. If Mr. Jarrel is under no obligation to that, he can believe as he pleases, without regard to testimony. But here is the trouble. Mr. Jarrel has to represent these disciples (such as he claims as Baptists) as being such fools as to forbid those who were old enough to "repent and believe" to come to the Savior, to avoid admitting that they were babies. Mr. Jarrel has to accuse these Baptists of his of being fools, or admit that these little children were babies and that these little babies were like those of the kingdom, and that they were not (even before they were old enough to repent and believe), hereditarily depraved, and that the doctrine of hereditary depravity is false.
Mr. Jarrel says the passage "may allude to the glorious fact that heaven will be made up mostly of redeemed, regenerated infants," page 247. On page 248, "Infants dying before the age of accountability are doubtless washed in the blood of Jesus, so that they will not become sinners in glory." Reader, please give special attention to this bit of new revelation. Why are infants dying in infancy washed in the blood of Jesus? Mr. Jarrel says, "So that they will not become sinners in glory"—(italics mine)—become sinners in heaven. Of course they would not become sinners in heaven unless they were tempted, and could not be tempted without the tempter—the devil. Mr. Jarrel has worked so hard trying to prove inherited depravity, he has turned things upside down, and sent the devil to heaven.
What is it that goes to heaven? Mr. Jarrel gives us to understand that it is that which is prevented from becoming
—66—
sinful THERE by being washed in the blood of Jesus. It is not flesh. "Flesh cannot inherit the kingdom." No danger of the flesh becoming sinful in glory, for there it cannot go. What is it of the dying infant that goes to glory? It is certainly that emanation from God—that spirit that "returns to God who gave it."
I can't tell which is the worst, Mr. Jarrel's god or his devil. The emanation from God, he says, is so corrupt as to need a preventive to sin when it goes to glory. He says we are the natural offspring of the devil, and as he is totally depraved so are we. Man is depraved in all his parts, some of these parts are from Satan, and some from God. It does not matter, in Mr. Jarrel's estimation, where the parts are from, they are all depraved. Who can tell, so far as these emanations are concerned, which is the worst, Mr. Jarrel's god or his devil?
But we are not quite done with this bit of new revelation yet. What do we get by nature? Mr. Jarrel says we get total depravity. Does nature give us any more in birth than it takes away in death? Where is this natural depravity of which Mr. Jarrel speaks located? Certainly in the flesh. When the flesh goes back to dust, what becomes of the depravity that is part and parcel of the flesh?
Paul, in speaking of the sin of Adam, the ground of Mr. Jarrel 's depravity, says, (we quote from the Diaglott), Rom 5:19, For as through the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, so even by the obedience of one many will be constituted righteous." Since Adam sinned, we all die; since Jesus died, we shall all live again. All we lost in Adam, we gain in Christ. That inherited weakness is lost in the death by Adam. We gain life again by Christ but what that life shall be depends not upon our nature, but upon our own actions.
"Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
—67—
forth they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John 5: 28, 29.
CHAPTER VII.
We are now through with Mr. Jarrel on inherited depravity, and begin an examination of total depravity. Mr. Jarrel begins on page 248. For twenty-five pages now before us, we have a compound of quirks, quibbles, total depravity and false doctrine, destitute of nothing but truth and common sense.
His first sophism is drawn from an analysis of the human mind; his second is, as man is totally lost he is totally depraved. These are but one. Mr. Jarrell has no conception of the fact that there are degrees in depravity. He is constantly pressing the question, what part of man is it that is not totally depraved? We answer, that no part of man is 'totally depraved.. The meanest man that ever lived or died, even Mr. Jarrel, is not totally depraved.
Man is a finite being, and, as such, can no more reach infinite depravity than he can reach infinite goodness or holiness It is just as reasonable to suppose that Adam, in his primitive state, was as good as God Himself, as to suppose that, after the fall, he was as bad as the devil. God possesses goodness to the infinite degree; man, even the very best, cannot reach this degree. The devil is the only being in the universe who is infinitely depraved; man cannot reach this degree. Mr. Jarrel regards the best moral man as totally depraved, as bad as the devil. Page 264, he asks: "Think you it is regard for the law that prevents him from being a bad man? * * * No! a thousand times no!!" Then, we ask, what prevents him from stealing, lying, robbing, murdering, etc.? It is his natural sense of honesty. Mr. Jar-
—68—
rel would say, no, a thousand times no! His doctrine compels him to say no, and compels him to say that it was all through fear. Thus compelling him to assert that there is not a man in the world (unregenerated) who is, to the least degree, honest; that no unregenerate man will tell the truth because it is the truth. This is offering a gross insult to the naturally honest, truthful man. Any man who accuses everybody of dishonesty, is not likely to be honest himself. But it is not Mr. Jarrel who thus accuses, it is his doctrine. Then it is his doctrine that is dishonest and the offspring of the devil, instead of man.
On page 249, Mr. Jarrel says: "Nowhere do the Scriptures state or imply that either the understanding, the affections or the will are on the side of God." There is not one word of this true; but even if it were true, it does not follow that total depravity is true. Mr. Jarrel has been caught at his tricks so often that he knows how to hide issues, and thereby escape danger.
The issue is not that the understanding of man is not "on the side of God." The true inwardness of the doctrine of total depravity is, that man cannot understand the gospel. If Mr. Jarrel were to preach the gospel for the unregenerate, it would only prove that he was a simpleton for preaching to them that which they were, constitutionally, unable to understand. In this particular, Mr. Jarrel has sense enough not to act the dunce, because he does not preach the gospel at all.
But there is another thin place in this theological slop. When God made Adam, and said to him, he is very good, yet Adam heard and understood the devil; but since the fall when Adam and his race became very bad, Mr. Jarrel denies that man can hear and understand God.
The doctrine of total depravity, therefore, teaches that a very good man can hear and understand Satan, but a very bad man cannot hear and understand God—that Satan can deceive a very good man by a lie understood, but God can-
—69—
not undeceive a very bad man by the truth understood; or worse, that the devil has more power by his word to pervert the understanding of the good, than God has by His word to reach the understanding of the bad; or still worse, that the devil's word has more power to damn than God's word has to save, Contemptible doctrine, this, that the God of love has given the devil all the advantage of Him, and all for the damnation of Adam's race. This doctrine is not of God, but was begotten of misguided human reason, and born of the dark ages.
But Mr. Jarrell says: "The scriptures nowhere state or imply that the understanding and affections are on the side of God." When Paul was itemizing the defects of wicked men; one of the sins he alleged against them was that they were "without natural affection." Rom. 1:31. Natural affection is that which a man has from birth. Instead of God objecting to nature, He approved of it by objecting to their unnatural affection.
Again, when God by Paul was describing the qualities of men by nature, He said: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness and their thoughts accusing or else excusing one another.." Rom. 2:14-15. Here are men on the side of God, in action, in thought, and in conscience. And God says they were this by nature. Let it be borne in mind that these Gentiles did by "nature the things contained in the law." To do the things contained in the law is to do right. Therefore these Gentiles did right by nature.
When a man does right, he is not actuated by the devil. The actions of these Gentiles were not of the devil, they did not do his will. They were not, therefore, totally depraved by nature. The doctrine of total depravity is false and as
—70—
such it is the theology of Satan. The man who teaches it, is ministering the things of Satan, and of those who teach it, it would be scriptural to say, ye are of your father, the devil.
Mr. Jarrell's third argument has nothing in it worthy of notice, so we pass to the fourth. "That man is totally depraved is evident from his being a child of the devil," p. 257. If we were to admit that man by nature is the child of the devil, it does not then by any means follow that man is totally depraved. The best christian who now lives, though a child of God in the highest sense, is not totally pure, neither is the meanest man now living, though a child of the devil, totally depraved. As the most obedient child of God falls far short of being as pure as God, so the meanest child of the devil falls short of being as impure as the devil. This will do for the present, but more after a little.
On page 252 Mr. Jarrel undertakes to answer an objection, and makes such an ignoble failure, I am surprised that he did not have more sense than to undertake the job. Paul says, Acts 17:28, "For we are also His offspring." This passage so completely knocks the filling out of his theology that he hurries away into the Greek and calls piteously to the lexicon for help, but lexicons hear not sinners. Robinson's Lexicon, Genos, (offspring), "race, stock, lineage." Robinson does him no good. For we are his race, stock, lineage, not the race, stock, lineage of the devil, as Mr. Jarrel has been trying to prove.
Seing that Robinson will not help him, he directs his importunities to Liddell and Scott, and they, apparently ignorant of his wants, begin: Genos—race, stock, descent. So, after the lexicons have done all that they can do for him, it still stands: for we are His race, stock, descent, and not the race, stock, descent of the devil.
But Mr. Jarrel says: "Genos cannot be taken to denote the close relation of child to parent. without making it contra-
—71—
dict the Scriptures," page 252. It so happens that genos occurs again in the Bible: "I am the root and genos (offspring) of David," Rev. 22.16. If genos expresses the thought that Jesus was the son of David, it also expresses the thought that the Athenian poets were sons of God, and not sons of the devil.
Mr. Jarrel finally gets excited and knocks his own doctrine into pi. He says: "Offspring is an erroneous rendering of the passage. It means (he says) that we were created with the sense of understanding, feeling, willing, and with a nature to know right and wrong, with a moral nature, in the image of God, and that to him we owe our origin and our continuance," p. 254. I am now wondering what Mr. Jarrel thinks God has to do in giving "continuance" to the devil's posterity.
On pages 251-52, he says we are "fathered by the devil of the same moral nature." He then says, we owe God for our continuance, and since our continuance is in the moral nature of the devil, we owe God for the moral nature of the devil. Mr. Jarrel would rather put God and the devil in copartnership than to lose the doctrine of total depravity.
On page 260, Mr. Jarrel gives a sentence in capital letters. By this, we suppose, he would attract attention. Here it is: "That no one is naturally born a child of God—that only the regenerate are children of God, is as certain as that God in justice, warning and mercy, has spoken to a lost world."
How well Mr. Jarrel understands how to hide his glaringly false doctrine. In the above quotation he does not allow that man is a child of God, only as he is a christian, yet he had to admit (p. 254) that we are indebted to God for origin and perpetuity. If the devil is the author of our being, according to the flesh, how did we become debtors to God for our origin? Perhaps Mr. Jarrel would say, the devil captured the race since the origin. What about the perpetuity? God
—72—
has done nothing (so far as our nature is concerned), since the fall of Adam, but perpetuate total depravity.
Take a young man and a young lady, both christians. Let these be united in the bonds of wedlock, Mr. Jarrel officiating. Is the union according to the will of God? Certainly. Is their offspring legitimate or according to the will of God? Most assuredly it is. Here are husband and wife who are joined together in God's own appointed bonds, bearing children according to God's own law, ''multiply and replenish." God is the author of the union. He is the author of the law of reproduction. The product is a son or daughter. How in the name of common sense, reason and justice, can this son or daughter be a child of the devil? No wonder Paul approved the sentiment of the Athenian philosopher: "For we are also His offspring."
We are, according to the flesh, the children of God, and in a different sense we become children according to the gospel. We become the children of the devil by our own sinful deeds and in no other way.
This brings us to his argument No. 5: "That man is totally depraved is evident from his being a violator of, and guilty of violating the whole law of God," p. 260. A baser sophism than this was never, perhaps, printed on paper. It proves two things and only two:
1st. That man by nature was weak enough to violate. 2nd. That he was strong enough to violate.
But neither this weakness nor this strength is the weakness or strength of total depravity. Adam violated the whole law of God. Does that prove that he was totally depraved? Nonsense!
Jarrel's logic stands thus: All violators of the whole law of God are totally depraved. Adam was a violator of the whole law of God, therefore Adam was totally depraved. Mr. Jarrel says, this total depravity is inherited. If to violate the whole law of God is proof of total depravity, then, since
—73—
Adam violated the whole law of God, he was totally depraved; and all total depravity is inherited, so Adam must have inherited his from God, for Luke says, he was the son of God. This is the final end of Mr. Jarrel's logic that he did not want anyone to see.
Mr. Jarrel notices another objection and makes another failure. "To the objection that it is right to love our children, etc., and man proves himself not, totally depraved by doing so," page 266. It would have been some accommodation if Mr. Jarrel had told us what his etceteras contained, but since he did not we will do it for him. Some unregenerate men love their children, their wives and neighbors, love the truth and tell it, pay their debts, will not steal, will not cheat or swindle, do not oppress the poor. Just such men as Mr. Jarrel says are of the moral nature of the devil. One of two things must be true. Mr. Jarrel has a better opinion of the devil than anybody else, or he knows it is false. To say that all the good deeds of unregenerated man are but so many manifestations of the moral nature of the devil, is itself, an expression of the deepest depravity found among men, and as untrue as an inspiration from the bottomless pit. Mr. Jarrel, so determined to depreciate the good deeds of unregenerate men and make them as mean as the devil, says: "The faithful dog obeys his master, follows him to his grave. The tiger of the jungle dies for its young. What worldly man was ever more faithful to his kind?" page 266. This gives us to understand, by comparison, Mr. Jarrel's opinion of the unregenerate, as being by nature no better than a dog or a tiger. The fact that a dog obeys his master, and the tiger dies for its young, ought to convince any man of sense that even a dog, or a tiger, is not totally depraved. What gave the dog that good quality of obeying his master? What gave the unregenerate man hatred for a lie and love for the truth? The devil did not give man love for the truth, nor did he give the dog that good quality. It is but justice to God's
—74—
lower ordered creatures to defend even the dog against the horrible charge and doctrine of total depravity. Argument on page 258. "That man is totally depraved is certain from the regeneration which is necessary to fit him for the kingdom of heaven." This depends upon what his regeneration contains. On the same page he defines it to be ''generating a new creature, a new nature, a new life." To get any sense at all out of his definition, we are compelled to take it in a literal sense. Again, he says, ''the old nature, the old creature, and the old life, is irreclaimable," (my italics.) Take his expression in the first quotation, ''to fit him," and "irreclaimable," in the second and they are irrefitable. To talk about an irreclaimable thing made to fit that to which it is irreclaimable, is nonsense gone to seed. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Jarrel's regeneration is simply sending the old nature, old creature, old creation, old life, that cannot be reclaimed, to hell, and creating a new nature, creature and life, that cannot go anywhere else, but to heaven. Mr. Jarrel's regeneration has no salvation in it, because it does not reclaim anything, unless it reclaims the irreclaimable. When a man gets up a theory of regeneration, that has no salvation in it, the theory is false and the superstructure built upon it partaking of the nature of the foundation is also false. Such is total depravity. This brings us to Mr. Jarrel's seventh and last argument on total depravity drawn from Rom. 3:10-18. Mr.. Jarrel says: "The scriptures declare, "in so many words," that man is totally depraved," page 269. The ''so many words" are not in the passage. This language applies to the Jewish race, but does not prove that as a race they were totally depraved for ''seven thousand had not bowed the knee to Baal," Rom. 11:4. Mr. Jarrel is ruinously awkward in some of his criticisms. On page 271 is one of these displays. He comments on Genesis 8:21, "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." For "for the imagina-
—75—
tion," read ''though the imagination,'' as in the margin, and the passage yields its true sense. Mr. Jarrel sees that, ''evil from his youth," does not teach the kind or extent of the depravity for which he contends. The word, youth, is against hereditary depravity. Hence, Mr. Jarrel hitches his favorite Stiers to the Hebrew and stretches youth into infant. This is what we call critical awkwardness. To say, a man has an imagination is all right, and that a youth has an imagination is certainly true, but Mr. Jarrel tells us, that, "Naar, rendered youth, often means an infant just born." He says, yaster, ''means purpose, as well as imagination." By the power of this wonderful translation the passage now reads. "The imagination and purpose of an infant just born is evil." So intent was he to get hereditary total depravity out of this passage that he ran headlong into an absurdity, virtually accusing Moses of attributing purpose to an infant just born. Bob Ingersoll in his "Mistakes of Moses," never accused him of a grosser absurdity. Ingersoll, in order to destroy confidence in the Bible, accuses Moses of making mistakes, and Mr. Jarrel in order to establish hereditary total depravity, accuses Moses of ascribing purpose to an infant just born, which is a mistake.
So there are two things depending upon the mistakes of Moses. Destruction of confidence in the Bible, and hereditary total depravity. Any doctrine that drives a man of Jarrel's sense into such extremities carries its own refutation on its very face. It is as far removed from the truth as the east is from the west. It can only be received after reason and common sense have been consigned to the sepulcher of eternal night.
''Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."—Matt. 11:28. This language of the Savior is universally regarded as an invitation. The very form of the expression forces the conclusion. Who does the Savior invite? Sinners, because sinners only are heavy laden
—76—
and sinners are the only class that can be invited, since that is the only class that has not already come.
The Savior would not invite that class to come to him that he knew could not come, on account of weakness growing out of any form of natural depravity, whether total or partial. To accuse him of inviting a class to come that he knew lacked the power to accept the invitation, is an accusation detrimental to the character and honor of the Son of God. We therefore conclude that all sinners are invited, and that all sinners have the power to come, and that sinners are not totally depraved in power. If it is contended that all that are invited are regenerated, by which their depravity is removed, then, since Jesus invited all that are heavy laden, the whole world of sinners are invited, and are therefore regenerated, and there is left not one iota of total depravity in the world.
The word, come, in this invitation is a word expressing action. The Savior, therefore, invited sinners to act. This he could not have done had he known that they were not capable of performing an action. It is admitted, however, that sinners have the power to act as controlled or influenced by Satan, but certainly this is not the kind of action the Savior invited sinners to perform; but on the contrary he invited them to perform that action which was compatible with his infinite holiness. The Savior must have known that sinners had the power to act, therefore, sinners are not hereditarily depraved in action.
The action that the Savior invited sinners to perform was either a good action or a bad one. Since it is impossible for the Savior to invite the sinner to perform a bad action, it follows as a necessary conclusion, that the Savior invited him to perform a good action. This he could not have done had he known that sinners were constitutionally and naturally incapable of the deed. Since he did invite sinners as such to do good, it is absolutely certain that they, as sinners, had
—77—
this power. The conclusion is unavoidable that the sinner is not of the same moral nature of the devil, as Mr. Jarrel contends.
But there is an associate idea that must not escape this connection. It will not be contended that the sinner could come to the Savior without the will to do so. The invitation proves that the sinner has as the power to come, but since he could not come without the will, it also proves that he has the power to control the will. Had the Savior known that sinners had no power over the will, he could not have consistently invited them and that which he could not do consistently, he could not do at all.
But since he did invite sinners, therefore sinners have power over the will and are not totally depraved in will. Let the act of coming to Christ be viewed as one grand act. Then the sinner has the power to perform that act. Divide it into as many parts as will suit the most tasty metaphysician, then the sinner has the power to perform each one of these acts as being so many parts of the whole. No Baptist can, and we are persuaded that none will try, to answer this argument.
In the remaining space we make a brief recapitulation. Mr. Jarrel starts out on this subject with the statement that, ''Baptists do not believe that man is as wicked as he can be," but then, he says again, that man, by nature, is ''fathered by the devil of the same moral nature." Aagain, man is ''deceitful above all things fatally wicked." The language would well apply to Satan.
If Baptists do not believe that man by nature is as wicked as he can be, neither can they believe that Satan is as wicked as he can be.
Mr. Jarrel says the language of Jer. 17:9, expresses the total depravity of man, and applies well to Satan. How can man be described by a certain assemblage of words, and Satan described by the same words. and these words ar-
—78—
ranged in the description of man just as arranged in the description of Satan, and yet describe Satan as one thing and man as another?
It cannot be so. Mr. Jarrel has inadvertently assumed the consequences of his doctrine, at least in part, and that part is, that man by nature is as bad as the devil.
Since an infant has as much nature as a man, an infant must be by nature as bad as a man, or as bad as the devil. Things equal in nature are in nature equal to each other, therefore an infant just born is by nature equal to the devil. If this is not the consequence of your doctrine, Mr. Jarrel, get out of it if you can. If you cannot get out of it, just stand where you are and halloo ''Campbellite" till your natural father calls you home.
Mr. Jarrel says, the fact that man sins, is evidence of his inherent total depravity. Adam sinned and according to Mr. Jarrel, the sin was an evidence of total depravity, and that inherited. But there was none between Adam and his God. Mr. Jarrel's premises warrant the conclusion that God is totally depraved.
This is certainly an age of crazy theologians, when men who set themselves about the work of destroying Campbellism, never quit the destroying business till they destroy all distinction between a dog and a man, a man and a tiger, and publish premises for the inspection of an intelligent race, forcing the conclusion that God Himself is totally depraved; and, finally, laying their smutty theological fingers upon the innocent contents of the cradle, tell the mothers of America that their new born offspring is of the same moral nature of the devil.
CHAPTER VIII.
Baptist religion is a kind of ecclesiastical Trinity. A kind of three in one, and one in three. Of the same nature but
Pages 79-82 were missing from this document.
—83—
sition is false, and we will show it to be so, by the plainest testimony directly to the point. Paul in Galatians says: ''But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith," Gal. 3:23-24. Paul teaches that there was a time before faith came. If, as Mr. Jarrel contends, we are saved by faith alone, there being a time when faith had not come, during that time there were none saved. Paul determines that time to be when ''we were kept under the law." The law here referred to is the law of Moses, beyond a doubt. During the period, in which the law of Moses was in existence, the faith had not come. Therefore there were none saved during this time, or if there were any saved, they were saved without this faith, which had not come while the Jews were kept under the law.
If there were any saved during the Jewish economy, and that there were, will not be denied, they were saved by a different plan than that by which people are saved now. Therefore, Mr. Jarrel's proposition is false. But again. Paul says: The faith was revealed after the law, ''shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed," Gal. 3:23. This faith having been revealed after the law, was not known in any dispensation or age preceding the law. Hence none were saved by the faith before the law, none were saved by the faith during the law. None were saved by the faith from the beginning of time to the end of the law. All who have been saved since the law, have been saved by the faith. Therefore, the plan of salvation has not always been the same, and Mr. Jarrel's proposition is false.
Mr. Jarrel offers eight arguments in support of his proposition that now demand attention. Each argument is but a misapprehension of the question.
1st. ''Salvation means, primarily, to save, to save from sin," page 295. This is true enough. but he is talking about (or
—84—
ought to be talking about) how the saving is done. That salvation means saved from sin, is true, we believe, but that does not tell how the saving is done.
2nd. ''There is but one Savior of all men,'' page 296. Suppose there is but one Savior; does that necessarily prove that he must always save in the same way. The thing to be proved and the thing used to prove it, have no relation at all. Nothing is established except that Mr. Jarrel wrote a sophism.
3rd. ''Sinners of all ages have received the same regeneration," page 297. This is nonsense and sophistry combined, but if his nonsense was not nonsense, then it does not prove that regeneration is always effected in the same way.
4th. "Sinners of all ages have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit,'' same page. Just like the rest, a misapprehension of the question—a sophism. If the spirit regenerates at all, in all ages, which is not true' might it not regenerate differently in different ages? If Mr. Jarrel knows that it does not, why did he not tell us, how he knew it, instead of dealing in sophistry.
5th. ''In all ages the Holy Spirit has dwelt in, sanctified and preserved God's people," page 298. This only tells us that the spirit did something, and does not tell a word about how it does it, whether in the same way or in some other way. Just a sophism, that's all.
6th. "In all ages repentance has been necessary for God's pardon and favor." Did the children of Israel enter into covenant relation with God by repentance? No. They were born into Abraham's family or bought with his money, see Gen. 17:12. Is repentance all that is contained in Mr. Jarrel's plan. Were all that are saved of all ages required to believe that Jesus rose from the dead in order to salvation?
7th. "In all ages holiness has been indispensible for a man to be good and acceptable to God," page 298. This is a sophism No. 7.
8th. "Faith alone has brought the penitent sinner into for-
—85—
giveness, justification, the family and the peace of God, saved him," same page. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," James 2:24. Here is the issue. Jarrel says, by faith only. James says, not by faith only. James or Jarrel, one has written a falsehood, and I am satisfied, it is not James.
Mr. Jarrel's second section, "Old Testament testimony."—p. 299. His first argument under this head is drawn from the language of Paul. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God being witness in respect of his gifts."
Mr. Jarrel does not tell us that this scripture is in Heb. II: 4. But he proceeds to tell us what Matt. Henry and A. Clarke, in loco, have to say about Gen. 4:4. What have these commentators on Gen. 4:4 to do with Heb. 1l:4? The fact is, Mr. Jarrel saw that his proof text was powerfully against him, and he tried to cover it up and hide it under the rubbish of humanism.
The expression, "through which," Mr. Jarrel makes Bengel say, "means that, he by faith obtained both righteouness and the testimony of righteousness." Paul is better authority than all Bengel’s. Paul says God testified respecting the gifts. Jarrel's Bengel says, God testified of the faith. This is about all Mr. Jarrel and his commentators are good for, contradicting the apostles.
Mr. Jarrel's second is, "By faith Noah being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear prepared an ark to the saving of his house through which he condemned the world and became heir to the righteousness which is according to faith."—Heb. II: 7. Mr. Jarrel says the salvation did not depend on the ark at all, but upon faith. The building of the ark was the very embodiment of faith itself. Mr. Jarrel wants a faith like the creeds, without body or parts, Paul says, Noah "prepared an ark to the sav-
—86—
ing of his house." If the ark did not save Noah, then it all/' not do what he built it to do. Mr. Jarrel thinks it took Noah one hundred and twenty years to make a failure out of gopher wood. I am of the opinion that it took Paul much less time to make a failure of W. A. Jarrel and his doctrine of salvation by faith only.
Mr. Jarrel's third is the case of Abraham. "For what saith the scriptures. And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness."—Rom. 4: 3; Gal. 3:6
Mr. Jarrel undertakes to establish by this scripture that the plan of salvation has been the same in all ages. This he expects to accomplish by proving that Abraham was justified by faith only.
On page 305, Mr. Jarrel begs his Campbellite friends to reply to his argument before quoting what James says of Abraham's justification. If Mr. Jarrel is allowed to make an argument and then mark out the manner in which the reply is to be made, his success at deception will be sure. It would certainly be right to quote James in comparison with Paul to show that Mr. Jarrel’s doctrine is false, but we will accommodate him by noticing Rom. 4 first.
Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness. Then it was not righteousness, but was only counted for it. Since a thing is not the same thing for which it is counted, Abraham's faith was not righteousness. Mr. Jarrel says righteousness is the same as justification. Then Abraham's faith being counted for justification was not justification at all.
As a definition of righteousness, John says: "Little children let no man deceive you (not even Jarrel) he that doeth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous."—I John 3: 7. When Abraham believed, he had done nothing, and according to John's definition of righteousness, was not righteous. Why did he not do something? Because God did not see fit to tell him what to do. How long was his faith counted for righteousness? Until God told him to offer his son, and
—87—
now James comes to our relief, and to the destruction of ''faith alone.,' ''Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac, his son upon the altar? "— James 2: 27. Verse 23d, James says: ''and the scripture was fulfilled." What scripture was it that was fulfilled? ''Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." It was certainly not Abraham's faith that needed fulfilling, for Mr. Jarrel says, his was the faith of all ages. What then can it be? There is nothing else for it to be but Abraham's counted righteousness. Abraham obeyed God, and according to John became righteous.
For the sake of distinction we will say, Abraham's actual righteousness took the place of his counted righteousness, fulfilled it, and his counted righteousness became a thing of the past.
Faith partakes of the nature of the truth believed. Abraham believed God when he promised him a son. The faith necessary to salvation is in the saving truth that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God."—John 20: 31. To say that Abraham's faith in the promise of God concerning Isaac, and faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God are the same, is to say what is not true, and wonld never have been said but for the demands of the doctrine of justification by faith alone,
Why, then, it may be asked, does Paul introduce Abraham's faith, and why does James introduce his justification? His faith was, doubtless, a type of the faith of the gospel, and his justification a type of the justification of the gospel. Abraham's faith and justification are no more identical with the faith and justification of the gospel than the rock from which the children of Israel drank was identical with Christ.
Mr. Jarrel undertakes to show that James does not contradict what he tries to make Paul teach, and his effort and failure is a strong argument against his position. The hypothesis upon which he attempts to reconcile what he thinks
—88—
Paul teaches in Romans with James, is a blunder of huge proportions. He says James is talking about justification in one sense, and Paul is talking about justification in another sense. This is all stuff. Whose justification was James talking about? Abraham's. Whose justification was Paul talking about? Abraham's. No difference here. What justification of Abraham's is James talking about? That of Gen. 15 :6. What justification of Abraham's is Paul talking about? That of Gen. 15:6. Such a poor, poverty-stricken hypothesis as this! If it was dirt, it would be too poor to make brick.
Abraham was not the father of the faithful because he was the first man that believed. Eld. Jarrel says Abel was the first to believe. Abraham was the father of Isaac. Paul says: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Gal. 4:28. Are christians the children of Abraham in the same sense in which Isaac was his child? Certainly not. Christians are children of Abraham in the same sense in which they are related to Isaac. In what sense are they related to Isaac? In the sense that all christians are children of promise. Isaac stands as the type, christians as the anti-type. Abraham was the natural father of Isaac, he is the typical father of all christians. Hence Abraham's faith was a typical faith, his counted righteousness a typical righteousness and his actual justification a typical justification. Since type is not identical with anti-type, Abraham's faith, righteousness, nor justification are identical with gospel faith, righteous and justification.
THE FAITH THAT JUSTIFIES.
"Before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed * * * that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:23. It would take Mr. Jarrel, Clarke, Stiers and lo-co, all to solve the problem; how could any one during the law be justified by the faith that did not come after the law? Whatever the faith here referred to. is. it is the faith that justifies. As to
—89—
what it is, let Paul determine. ''Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 5:1. That we are justified by faith, this passage makes it certain. But faith means the same thing in all connections. Webster gives seven definitions to the term faith. The first and fourth definition of Webster are of most common use in the Bible. The first is, "the assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, etc." The fonrth is, "a system of religious belief of any kind, etc.'' When Paul said ''being justified by faith" which of these meanings, (if either) did he intend? Let the apostle answer the question himself, for his will be better than that of Tholuck, Bengle, Matt, Henry, Scott and all the rest of Mr. Jarrel's baby sprinkling assistants. Paul please tell us what faith it is by which we are justified. ''Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ." Gal. 2:16. Paul here says we believe in Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. Then it is by the faith of Christ that we are justified. Then Paul's language in Rom. 5:1, is to be understood in the light of his own explanation. "Therefore being justified by the faith of Christ, etc." What then is the faith of Christ? Certainly not his act of believing. Everything was before him, not as matters of faith, but as matters of absolute knowledge; he being infinite in knowledge makes it certain that believing in the sense of faith in Christ, can not be affirmed of him. ''Looking to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.'' Heb. 12:2, is a key to the difficulty. Jesus is the author and finisher of a system of faith, and that system is the gospel of which he is author. Therefore the gospel is the faith of Christ. Since Paul says we are justified by the faith of Christ we can now understand his teaching in Rom. 5:1 to be. "Therefore being justified by the gospel of Christ, we have peace with God." Jesus was not author of the gospel that was preached by John. John
—90—
lived and died during the existence of the law, but the faith revealed after the law by which Paul says, Gal. 3:23, we are justified is the faith of Christ. We are justified by the faith of Christ.
The faith of Christ or the gospel was not revealed till after the law. That which was not revealed till after the law is then that which, or the faith by which, we are justified. The faith that came since the law, is the justifying faith, not in type, but in reality. So Mr. Jarrel has already lost his case. We have law and works of law, and we have faith and works of faith. Abraham's typical justification was not of law and its works, but of typical faith and its works. Real justification is of real faith and its works. Real faith and its works amounts to the facts, commands and promises of the gospel. When Paul teaches that we are justified by the faith of Christ, he teaches nothing more or less than James, who teaches that we are justified by faith and its works. Mr. Jarrel while writing his sophistry respecting Abraham's faith is led into an unpleasant reflection of his past history. His mind is forced to recall one H. D. Bantau, with whom he debated, at a point not far from Weatherford, Texas. Mr. Jarrel says this argument crushed Bro. Bantau. He might, so far as truth is concerned, have told his reader that the rock of Gibraltar had been crushed by a single lash of the tail of a tadpole. We happen to have knowledge of some of the crushing that was done during that debate.. Mr. Jarrel is right only in part. He is right about the crushing, but wrong about the thing crushed. He is half right in this matter and that is rather extra for him. The church of Christ worshipping at Grindstone where the debate was held is a strong congregation, many of the members composing it, were members of the Baptist church prior to the time when the crushing took place. No wonder Mr. Jarrel cannot restrain a growl and shake of the mane when he repeats his twaddle about Abraham. In conclusion on the question of
—9l—
imputing righteousness, we offer the following. '' But unto us also it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." Rom. 4:24, Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness until the opportunity to obey was offered and accepted.
This answers the question respecting the man who became a believer and started to the water, but died before reaching it. God counts our faith for our righteousness until the opportunity to ''do righteousness" is offered, but no longer. This is true of a christian as well as of an alien and vice versa.
CHAPTER IX.
Part of this review must occasionally fall short of other parts, in interest, owing to the nudity of many of Mr. Jarrel's assertions; much of what he says of the teaching of those he calls Campbellites can be met only by denial. Under head of "Another Objection," pp. 318, he says the Campbellite argument is syllogyzed thus: "Whatever the Lord requires of Jews in order for the walls of Jericho to fall, He requires of us in order to salvation." If Mr. Jarrel did not know that there was not one word of truth in this statement, his ignorance is almost infinite, and if he did know it was false, his approximate infinity is entirely in a different direction. He did not make this statement in love for the truth in it, he therefore made it in the very opposite from the truth. It is sometimes argued by our people, that God's method of bestowing blessings upon man has ever been through man’s obedience to positive law, and the falling of the walls of Jericho is used as proof. It is sometimes asked (by simpletons who never read anything else but something like Mr. Jarrel's book) what natural relation does water have to our salvation? Our people answer, none whatever, but still contend that baptism is a positive command, is for the remission
—92—
of sins, and argue that as the walls of Jericho fell in obedience to the positive command, (blowing horns and marching) and as Naaman was cured in obedience to a positive command, so we receive remission of sins in obedience to a positive command and that command is baptism. Mr. Jarrel knew what our argument was, but he did not want the people to see it.
Page 320, he introduces the case of Cornelius, Acts 10th chapter. He asserts that Cornelius was saved by faith alone. The word alone, is not in the whole connection, neither is the idea. He undertakes to prove that the Gentiles were saved before they were baptized, and quotes a passage that shows that they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. His whole system is a fallacy and all his arguments are the same. He next introduces the third chapter of John and quotes all those passages that ascribe salvation to faith without mentioning any other condition, elsewhere mentioned as conditions of salvation. He not only contradicts the scripture, but he contradicts himself. Faith alone, is faith by itself, faith without repentance. Mr. Jarrel says faith and repentance are never separated. In one line he will tell us that faith is alone and in the next tells us that it cannot be separated from repentance. He puts his arguments on pages 325 and 326, in the form of syllogisms. They are all alike and therefore it suffices to notice just one. We take the first one based on John 3:18. ''Whatever saves from judgment or condemnation saves from sin. Believing in Jesus saves from judgment and condemnation. Therefore believing in Jesus saves from sin." p. 325. His conclusion lacks one word of containing his doctrine—the word "alone," and that word is in neither of his premises. The thing he intended to prove, salvation by faith alone, is the thing that is not in his proof-text, not in his premises, and not in his conclusion. The Bible speaks of faith alone, and it speaks of faith not alone. It defines each one of these faiths. Of
—93—
faith alone the Bible says, it is dead. James 2:26. Of faith with works, the Bible says it ''works by love." Gal. 5:6. Faith with works is living faith. Faith without works is dead. James 2:20. All the faith that Mr. Jarrel has in his system is dead faith. It does not work in repentance according to his doctrine, for repentance precedes it. Mr. Jarrel's doctrine is that as soon as faith comes, remission of sins comes. His faith does nothing till it saves and therefore saves while it is dead, saves before it works, saves without work, and without works is dead. But who does this faith save? He says, it saves the regenerate only. Then what does this regeneration do? His regeneration does nothing or his faith saves nothing. If regeneration produces a child of God, and precedes faith, as Mr. Jarrel contends, faith does not save any one but a child of God. What does faith save a child of God from? Not from hell, for his doctrine is that a child of God is in no danger of hell. His regeneration produces a new nature that cannot be lost and faith saves that nature which is already saved. The fact is, Mr. Jarrel is a hard-shell, but it has not enough cents in it to pull him over. Every passage of scripture that Mr. Jarrel can quote which ascribes salvation to faith, lacks the word alone, of teaching his doctrine. We will state a scriptural reason why this word is lacking. ''For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Rom. 1:16. Paul says the gospel saves the believer. The Gospel saves the unsaved. ''He came to His own and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed on His name." John 1:11-12. Jesus could not have given sons (as such) power to become sons. But he gave believers power to become sons. Therefore, believers (as such) are not sons. The fact that the scripture nowhere says that we are justified or saved by faith alone, and the fact that the above passages
—94—
of scripture assert that the believer is saved by the gospel, and that the believer (as such) receives power to become a son of God, makes it absolutely certain that the Bible gives no support to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.
From page 336 we will give a sample of Mr. Jarrel's stealing away the word. There is, perhaps, nothing so ignoble that he will not resort to it, if necessary to carry his point. He quotes Acts 14:27: ''They rehearsed all things that God had done with them and how he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles." His second premise, in first syllogism is, ''The door opened was the 'door of faith."' His second premise, in second syllogism, is ''The way is the door of faith." Now look out for the cloven foot. His first premise in his third syllogism, is "The door of faith is 'faith only' for the penitent." He put faith only, under quotation marks, as though he had found it in the Bible. He would not put faith only in his first syllogism, too close to the scripture he has quoted. His second syllogism is as follows: "The way of salvation is the only way by which the penitent is saved. That way is the door of faith. Therefore the penitent enters salvation by only the door of faith." [Italics mine.] He first says, "the only way" then he says "only the door of faith:" But all this will not quite do, and when he reaches the third syllogism he gets the "way" and the ''door" both out of the way, and now it is ''faith only." Mr. Jarrel seems to want two strings to his bow. He makes an effort to hide the dirty trick by which he drew ''faith only," out of the passage, but in case he should fail to do this, he marks it as a quotation, thinking to transfer all the blame to Luke. His proof text did not have ''faith only" in it; his first and second syllogisms have it not, all the rest have it, and when the judgment day comes the Lord will have it against Mr. Jarrel as a crime, augmented and aggravated by all that may be deceived by the unholy interpolation. Unfortunately for him, the passage of scripture intended by him to prove the doctrine of
—95—
salvation by ''faith only" proves the very opposite. It was not a literal door, certainly. This door must be the means of entering Christ. Mr. Jarrel says that faith alone is the means, but if so, the scripture should have said opened faith, instead of saying opened the door of faith. The word faith was used by Luke to tell what kind of a door was opened. It will not do to say the door was faith itself, for it would then read, opened the faith of faith. It takes action to enter by a door, but the action is one thing and the door is another. Faith is not by the door, nor is action the door. What then? The commands of the gospel are the door. Our actions in obedience to these commands are the actions by which we pass the door. If the commands of the gospel are the door, by substitution we have, instead of "door of faith," commandments of faith. The figure clearly aside, we have, how that God introduced the commands of faith to the Gentiles. Since these commands of the gospel are the door of faith, or the commands of faith, our obedience to them partakes of the nature of the commands, and is therefore obedience of faith. Our obedience is our action of faith—faith in action a living faith by which we are saved—faith in company with the deeds of faith, in contradistinction to faith alone. Mr. Jarrel says, p. 236: "Penitents of all ages are saved in the same way." This of course is by passing through the door of faith, or by obedience to the commands of the gospel. We would amend the statement by substituting the word sinners, for penitents, and striking out ''all ages." He has completely lost his doctrine of faith only, by his own awkwardness. Mr. Jarrel quotes several passages, in proof of salvation by faith only, which are all of a class and have all been misapplied in the same way. His 16th, p. 337, from Rom. 3:22, says "through faith," 17th, same page from Phil. 3:9 says, "by faith," 18th, p. 338, from Gal. 3:14, says, ''through faith," 20 p. 339, from Acts 15:9, says ''by faith," 24th, p. 342 from Gal. 3:26, says, "through faith." Here are
—96—
five passages, all alike, giving the expression ''through faith," or that which is the same "by faith." In the Common Version the article the is left out. The article in the original Greek is in every one of these scriptures. The expressions "through faith" and "by faith," should have been (and are in later translations) "through the faith," and ''by the faith." What then is the difference? It is this: The language, the faith, refers to that system of which Christ is author or to the gospel as a whole. To say that we are saved by that faith is the same as to say that we are saved by the gospel. Take Acts 15:9: "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by the faith"—purifying their hearts by the gospel. So Mr. Jarrel has misapplied all of these scriptures. His argument No. 19, is drawn from Gal. 3:22: ''The scripture hath shut up all things under sin that the promise of faith in [Diaglott renders, by Christ Jesus] Christ Jesus might be given to believers." What kind of believers are those to whom the promise is given? Not any of those seated on the stool of do-nothing, who are of the faith alone sort, but to those who possess the living faith—the active faith that has action enough about it to carry its possessor through the door of faith into Christ. Mr. Jarrel's argument on this verse is not an argument, but an addition of a few syllogisms, none of which contain his doctrine.
After quoting Gal. 3:26 and misapplying it, the 27 verse is close by and he saw it was so pointedly against him it made him sick, and immediately called in Dr. Clarke, who readily comes to his jug of all sorts, and administers anti-spasmodic. When a Universalist gets sick he calls for Dr. Clarke. When an Advent gets sick he calls for him, and the good (?) doctor always goes to them. But Mr. Jarrel calls for him oftener than all the rest, because he needs him oftener. ''For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," Gal. 3:27. A question or two will give Dr. Clarke another call. How many of the Galatians had put on
—97—
Christ? Exactly as many as were baptized into him. How many more had put him on? Not another one. The Galatians are not peculiar in this respect. If a man has not been baptized he has not put on Christ. If he has not put him on he is not in Christ. If not in him, he is not saved. The only thing that will now give Mr. Jarrel's doctrine even temporary relief is a copious bath of symbolics.
Page 353 of G. in W., Mr. Jarrel quotes I Cor. 1: 11: ''For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." He attempts to array this passage against us, as teaching that baptism is not for the remission of sins. He argues thus: Paul's special mission was to do whatever was essential to save men. Paul did not regard baptism an essential part of his work. Therefore baptism was not regarded by Paul as essential to save men. More trickery. Had Mr. Jarrel quoted this scripture to prove that it was not essential to valid baptism that it should be administered by Paul, the passage would have been to his hand. If the passage had read, Christ sent me not to preach baptism, but to preach the gospel, it would have been against baptism for remission of sins.
Much of what Mr. Jarrel says in his chapter on ''Baptismal Regeneration" must be passed by as not being worthy of notice. We only notice those arguments upon which he seems most to rely. Page 356, he begins a perversion of Rom. 3: 20, 3: 28, 4: 6, 12: 5, 11: 6, and Eph. 2: 9. We take the first and the last Rom. 3: 20: ''By works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Eph. 2: 9: ''For by grace have ye been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works that no man should glory." These passages are quoted by him to prove that baptism is not for the remission of sins. On page 567, he says: "Baptism is undeniably a work." This statement is false and deceptive. Not in a single instance is any act commanded in the gospel called the work of the law. If, because a thing is
—98—
to be done it is for this reason a work of the law, then faith is the work of the law, and if a man is not justified by works of the law, then he is not justified by faith; and the same is true of repentance, and Mr. Jarrel's false reasoning is even death to his own theory.
In the first chapter of John's testimony, the apostle says: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."—John 1:17. Baptism came by Jesus Christ. But grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, therefore baptism is of grace and truth. Moses was author of the law, and was author of no more than the law, so Jesus was author of grace and truth, and author of no more. Jesus is author of baptism, hence it is a part of that system of grace and truth. Since we are saved by grace, of which Jesus is author, baptism is one of the things by which we are saved, it being a part of the system of grace. Grace and truth cannot be separated. If grace saves, so does the truth. If grace sanctifies, so does the truth; "sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth."—John 17: 17. If I had been searching for nonsense gone to seed, when I first discovered Mr. Jarrel's book I should have cried with a loud voice, Eureka! Eureka!
On page 261, he offers to the public a syllogism that is a shame to the literary world, and beneath the dignity of a thimble full of good brains. His conclusion is: ''Therefore an unregenerate man can do no act acceptable to God." This is contradicted absurdity. It needs rarefaction so that the light of truth may penetrate so far as to reveal its gross component parts. An unregenerate man cannot believe. Why can he not? Because he was born of woman. This he could not avoid. Was man born of woman by mere chance, or in accordance with law? If not by chance, but by law, who is author of the law? If by law, what law is it? The law of nature, of course. Neither the devil nor the Wild Ass will deny this, Mr. Jarrel may, though he admits that in nature they are all brethren. If man is born of woman according to
—99—
nature's law, and God is author of that law, that law being an expression of God's will, man is born by the will of God, and what he is at birth he is all that by God's will. If God's will displayed in nature's law has withheld that power which, when developed, is a power to believe, all that God withheld He willed to withhold, and man born of woman is without the power to believe because God so willed. This is the legitimate deduction from Mr. Jarrel's doctrine.
Put that by the side of another doctrine. ''He that believes not shall be damned."—Mark 15: 15. What now? God willed in the book of nature that man should not have the power to believe, and He willed in the book of revelation that if he believed not he should be damned. According to Mr. Jarrel, if a man believes, he violates God's will in nature, and if he does not believe, he violates God's will in revelation. But here is another deduction: God's will is as good in one place as it is in another. If in nature he willed unbelief to man, and in revelation willed that he should believe, then it follows that unbelief is as good as belief. Inasmuch as each is to be measured by its consequences, unbelief (God's will in nature, sends a man to hell, and belief (God's will in revelation) sends a man to heaven, the conclusion is just, that hell is as good as heaven. If the expression of God's will in nature gave man unbelief, and that in utter helplessness, and man, for the want of God's regenerating power, dies before he gets out of this condition, having come into the world (as God willed he should) helpless, lived and died helpless, and at last receives God's omnipotent malediction that sends him to the bottomless pit, because he did not do what God in nature willed he should not do—if this is Mr. Jarrel's conception of God, I would advise the friends of Ingersoll to buy his book, just to see how far he outbobs Bob. But if every act of the unregenerate, is unacceptable to God, every act of such character is a sin. Every time an unregenerate man hears Mr. Jarrel preach, he sins, and every
—100—
time he asks an unregenerate man to hear him preach or read his book, he asks him to sin; and since he asks more to hear him preach than he converts, he does more harm than good. If it does an unregenerate man any good to hear him preach, since the acts of the unregenerate are all sin, Mr. Jarrel men to do evil that good may come.
As before shown, Mr. Jarrel obtains his definition of regeneration outside of the Bible—makes out his regeneration without a full view of all the difficulties and absurdities of his system. Latitude is what he wants, and latitude is what he must have. His first work is to analyze generation, and out of it he takes all that he needs in his regeneration. His regeneration contains just enough (and no more) to meet the demands of his theory. In what part of the Bible has he found a rule to govern us as to how far we shall make generation and regeneration alike? Certainly, in no part at all. If one sees fit to stop short of Mr. Jarrel's view, he cannot require him to go farther. If another sees fit to go farther than Mr. Jarrel goes in this matter he has no right to ask him to stop. As Mr. Jarrel has done this without regard to common sense or the Bible, we will carry this likeness farther until he gives a rule to stop us. Mr. Jarrel teaches that if there is no power to act before generation, there can be none to act before regeneration. If there is no power to act before generation, the fact equally excludes both good and bad actions. If there is no power to perform a bad act before generation, there can be no power to perform a bad act before regeneration. All bad or evil actions are sins. If a man cannot perform an evil act before regeneration, he cannot sin, and if he cannot sin before regeneration, he either goes to hell without sin or to heaven without regeneration. Mr. Jarrel says Campbellite baptism saves the children of Satan, (see p. 364.) Does that prove that Campbellite baptism is unscriptural? Of course Mr. Jarrel thinks it does. His regeneration saves a child of Satan then according to
—101—
his own reasoning his regeneration is unscriptural. He is only trying to carry his point by the emissions of a foul mouth. But this regeneration, if it saves at all, saves without faith or repentance. If it saves without faith it saves the infidel and since all who have no faith are children of Satan, it saves the children of Satan. Mr. Jarrel says p. 362. ''If baptism can save a child of Satan it should save the father—Satan." If regeneration saves the children of Satan, it should save the father—Satan.. Who then is responsible for his having knocked out his own brains? His awkwardness culminates in a case of theological suicide. Since Mr. Jarrel's regeneration is but a miniature of his whole system, we will take a view of it by some comparisons. On page 488 he tells us what faith is. "Faith is a loving reliance on and a loving acceptance of Christ." Be it remembered that Mr. Jarrel's order is regeneration before faith. His regeneration is before, and therefore without reliance, and since this reliance is loving, it is also without love. If regenerated before love or without it, is regeneration in hatred, which it must be, or be regeneration in nothing, since frequently some little time elapses between the coming of regeneration and that of faith, the doctrine is that a man may be regenerated and be in hatred to Christ. All haters of Christ are children of Satan. Regenerated, but yet without faith. Regenerated yet without love. Regenerated and therefore a child of God, yet in hatred to Christ, because destitute of faith and love. Being destitute of faith in Christ, reliance on him or love for him, and therefore a child of Satan. After Mr. Jarrel's doctrine has spent its entire force, it is impossible to determine whether it has produced a child of God, or a child of the Devil. This whole doctrine is crazy, and its advocate is performing his gladiatorial feats by beating the air, in which he thinks floats an imaginary foe of Campbellism. But after getting so muddy as to be mud itself, this doctrine, if possible, gets worse. In view of what has gone before, listen at
—102—
him define repentance. "Repentance is the digging up and the casting out of the way the offensive graves of the past, the turning from Satan to God, from sin to righteousness, * * * it is the battle, it is over sin, the victory of all victories." p.484. Keep in mind, reader, that his regeneration precedes repentance. Then regeneration digs nothing up, casts nothing offensive away, took nothing away from Satan, gave nothing to God, fought no battle, gained no victory. What is left for faith to do? It has no victory to gain, the victory was gained before it was born. No matter if John does say, ''this is the victory that overcometh the world even our faith." I Jo. 5:4. Mr. Jarrel says this is the victory even our repentance. What then does faith do? Oh, it loves and relies. Then repentance dug up and cast away that which it loved, turned from Satan whom it loves, and turned to God whom it hates. Fought without love for Christ, and therefore fought its friends. Fought a battle and gained a victory and had no reliance because faith was not in the fight, but came sometime after the battle was over and brought reliance and love. If repentance fights any battle what is the character of its foe, and where located? Is its warfare between flesh and spirit? Such is the warfare of which the scripture speaks. Mr. Jarrel tells us that regeneration imparts a new nature. This new nature cannot fail of heaven. It must then be an overwhelming force. Mr. Jarrel speaks of the victory of repentance as a great one, "it is the victory of victories." Regeneration imparts a new nature impervious (by God's own decree) to the darts of the wicked one. This new nature is entrenched, by the power of God in regeneration, within entrenchments infinitely wide and deep so that it is unassailed and unassailable. So his repentance gained a victory of victories. Why? Simply because it could not gain anything else.
If a man is justified by faith only as Mr. Jarrel contends, and regeneration is before faith regeneration is before justifi-
—103—
cation. If before justification then a man is regenerated and yet unjustified, and therefore condemned in sin. Now how does it look? Dead in trespasses and in sin, and alive in regeneration at one and the same time. What then does it take to make a Baptist? Equal parts of regeneration, condemnation, justification and death.
CHAPTER X.
Page 336, Mr. J. begins his work on the symbolic nature of baptism. He undertakes to show that it is a symbol of remission of sins, and fails, and then tries to show that since it is but a symbol it does not save, and fails again. He says, ''That we are not literally and physically baptized into Christ is certain.'' What then? He answers: "The very fact that it cannot, literally, wash away, remit, pardon, regenerate, is conclusive evidence that it cannot literally save." These words, "literally save," is some more of Mr. Jarrel's fog. So far as he is concerned he would not mind saying baptism cannot save, but for the fact that he knows some one will find that he literally contradicts Peter, who says, "Baptism cloth also now save us," I Peter, 3-21. The word "literally" is only used to cover up his infidelity, but it is by far too short and too narrow to do the work. But his argument (?) proves too much, and therefore, proves nothing. His logic must come to trial. That we are not literally and physically baptized into Christ, is certain; therefore, it is certain that baptism cannot literally save, and therefore, certain, that baptism does not save at all. If this is argument, so is this, that we do not literally and physically believe into Christ, is certain; that faith cannot literally save, is certain, and therefore, certainly does not save at all. A man who is born with the nature of a wild ass, and has cultivated that nature all his life, cannot reason only in accordance with his nature, so please excuse Mr. Jarrel for this wild caper. But he says, Mr. Campbell
—104—
and Mr. Lard admit that baptism is a symbol. Do they admit that it is a symbol of the remission of sins? Not a word of it. Campbell and Lard say, ''Wash away sins'' is a figurative expression. Does this prove that they say, baptism is a symbol? No. Mr. Lard says, "sins are washed away'" (that is) they are remitted. But if Mr. Jarrel is right that baptism is a symbol, because it is used in a figurative expression, and because it is a symbol, it does not, therefore, save. What follows? Acts 14-27, we have the expression, ''Opened the door of faith.'' This is a figurative expression; is faith, then, a symbol? If so, according to the reasoning of Mr. Jarrel; it cannot save. Twice he has tried to get baptism out, and in both attempts lost faith from his system. Paul says, ''The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance," Rom. 2-4. Does the goodness of God literally lead? Certainly not. It is, then, a figurative expression. Is repentance a symbol, and as such has it no power to save? It is hard for Mr. Jarrel to kick against the goods, for in trying to kick baptism out, he kicks out both faith and repentance. That baptism is a true representation of the burial and resurrection of Christ, will not be denied, and that baptism is a representation of the salvation of Noah, will also be admitted, but that baptism is a symbol of remission of sins, is not taught in the holy scriptures. As to Mr. Jarrel's witnesses among the D. D.'s of scholastic divinity, anything under the sun can be supported by these.
Turn now to the commission by Mark 16-15-16, and try Mr. Jarrel's symbolic argument. He that believeth and is baptized shall be symbolically saved. If saved is used in the symbolic sense, then baptism saves only symbolically; So Mr. Jarrel forces baptism out of his way. When he has determined baptism to be a symbol, and found thereby that "saved is not to be understood as a reality, but in a symbolic sense," he takes baptism out of his way. Does he change the sense in which the word saved is to be taken? If he does
—105—
not, since baptism is only a symbol' and nothing real about it, we can well afford to drop it from the commission. The commission then reads: He that believeth shall be saved. According to Mr. Jarrel, "saved" is to be understood symbolically. If saved symbolically, there must be a symbol to do the saving. Faith is that symbol now. If baptism, being a symbol, does not really save, so then faith, being a symbol, does not really save. Just about now Mr. Jarrel's symbolic twaddle comes to a close, and he is compelled to face a reality. That reality is the fact that his false reasoning has compelled him to drop "faith" out of his system, and, hence, he becomes an advocate of infidelity
We will now give a specimen of Mr. Jarrel's infidelity. Pages 492-3, Mr. Jarrel says: "The faith that believes the Bible true is only the faith of the flesh. . . . . Its essence is of a heart of hatred and disobedience to God, and it has eternal death as its destiny * * * * is of hell." The Bible is the word of God. It is a record of what God, says. Mr. Jarrel says, therefore, that the belief of God's word—of what God says—is death, hatred, is of hell. Mr. Ingersoll says, the Bible is all a lie. If the Bible is a lie, it is of hell. Mr. Jarrel says, the belief of it is of hell. The Bible does not produce anything unlike itself. If the product is of hell, so also is the producer. Mr. Jarrel and Mr. Ingersoll are agreed on one thing, that is, that the Bible is of hell. Does Mr. Jarrel believe the Bible? If he does, he is a hater of God and is destined to hell, and instead of persevering through grace to glory, he is persevering through disgrace to the devil. If Mr. Jarrel does not believe the Bible, he disbelieves it; and is a disgrace to his Brother Ingersoll in that that he professes to be a christian minister, when he is not; while Ingersoll, like Mr. Jarrel, disbelieves the Bible, but unlike Mr. Jarrel, (and more honest than he,) does not profess to be a christian minister. The difference between Mr. Jarrell and Ingersoll is simply a matter of honesty
—106—
—and the honesty is all on Ingersoll's side. On the same pages where he says "belief of the Bible is of hell," he says ''faith of the gospel has for its destiny eternal glory." Stand aside and see this ''wild ass" of baptist persuasion cut another logical (?) caper. I. Belief of the Bible is of hell. 2. Belief of the gospel is of eternal glory. Therefore, the gospel is not of the Bible. He presumes rather too much on the ignorance of his readers. If belief in the Bible means anything, it means belief of the whole Bible, and that means belief in all that the Bible contains. The Bible contains the gospel, and a belief of the whole Bible includes a belief of the gospel. So, if a belief of the Bible is of hell, as Mr. Jarrel says, inasmuch as the Bible contains the gospel, he virtually asserts that the belief of the gospel is of hell. I once heard of a ram that butted a broadax, but did not ruin the ax but ruined the sheep. Mr. Jarrel has made an effort to split hairs over belief of the Bible and belief of the gospel, and split his head. Showed himself to the world as an infidel, of whom Ingersoll ought to be ashamed.
We will now notice Mr. Jarrel's theology. Repentance before faith seems to be indispensable to Baptist life. On page 484 he says: Repentance is a "loving acceptance of God," and on page 488 he says: Faith is a "loving acceptance of Christ.'' So in Mr. Jarrel's estimation there is not one iota of difference between repentance and faith! This would not look any worse than many other things in his book, but for the fact, that he retangles the tangle. After defining faith and repentance to be exactly the same thing, then he proceeds to show the muddled condition of his brain by trying to put repentance before faith. The definition of a word is equal to the word defined. Repentance is acceptance of God, and faith is acceptance of Christ, and since Mr. Jarrel says, Christ is God, and God is Christ, so there is no difference between his repentance and his faith. What then? If repentance precedes faith, acceptance of God precedes ac-
—107—
ceptance of God. If a man cannot believe until he repents, then he cannot accept God until he accepts God. Here is a sample of Mr. Jarrel's theology.
This is certainly one of the greatest blunders of the nineteenth century. Mr. Jarrel has simply written a huge burlesque on Baptist doctrine, and shown himself to be destitute of the power to reason, and destitute of common sense. Page 484, Mr. Jarrel says: "Repentance is the proof of the possession of the new life.'' How is this? His idea is that regeneration, which is precedent to repentance, imparts the new life. Page 496, he says: "Hence, everywhere the scriptures represent the impenitent as hating God." If regeneration is before repentance then all the time elapsing between regeneration and repentance is a period in which the subject is a hater of God. Here is new life imparted to a hater of God. But Mr. Jarrel says, repentance is a witness to the fact that new life has been imparted. New life must therefore, be imparted before repentance, and therefore this Baptist repentance testifies that new life is imparted to a hater of God. But this is not all. He says: Repentance precedes faith. Before faith comes a man is an infidel, but repentance is proof, says Mr. Jarrel, of the impartation of new life. Then Mr. Jarrel thinks that new life comes to an infidel. Then suppose, the infidel was to die after he became penitent and before he believed. What then? Baptist repentance testifies that he has new life, and Jesus testifies: "He that believeth not shall be damned.'' Mark 16-16. Mr. Jarrel may be ignorant enough to think that his doctrine is consistent, but it grows worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
"For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of.'' 2 Cor. 7-10. That work- that produces repentance must precede repentance. If repentance precedes faith, as Mr. Jarrel holds, then this work precedes faith, and is therefore the work of unbelief, and if this work of unbelief produces repentance, the repentance is of like nature,
—108—
and is an infidel repentance or Baptist repentance. But according to Mr. Jarrel, godly sorrow must precede faith. As such, it must be the property of an infidel. Any doctrine that ascribes godly sorrow or anything else that is godly to an infidel as such, is not of the Bible. John says: ''He came to his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him to them, gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name.', John I-II-I2. Belief on the name of the Son did not make them sons of God, but only gave them power to become sons. It is evident, therefore, that since men do not become sons of God before they obtain power to become such, and do not obtain power until they believe' they are not sons before faith. If men repent before they believe, they repent before they receive power to become sons, and therefore before they are sons. If men repent before they are sons, the repentance is not the work of a son. If men believe before they become sons, and are regenerated before they believe, regeneration does not make a son. Mr. Jarrel's regeneration does not make a son, and his repentance is not the work of a son. According to Mr. Jarrel, repentance is the evidence of the possession of the new life, and according to the Savior's words. John I-II-I2. The want of faith is evidence that a man is not a son. Here is a new life but not a son. But Mr. Jarrel says, the new life precedes sonship, and that faith is the birth act. But he has his man, who is in possession of new life, and not yet born terribly at work. Notice what he says, repentance is, and remember that whatever it is, takes place before the birth. Page 484-5 he represents repentance as the digging up and casting away the offensive graves of the past—as a great battle and a great victory won, and he says, angels hang over the battlements of heaven and witness the struggle. By running this figure farther than inspiration ever intended, he has himself in a fix; has his imaginary spiritual embryo which answers to the physical embryo, dig-
—109—
ging up old graves and fighting before it is born, and if the word of God is true, the digging and fighting being before faith, and without faith, is sin. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom. 14-23. Mr. Jarrel's sky scraping over this struggling spiritual embryo is almost enough to make us think that he has a grand conception of it, but see how quick he spoils all the grandeur. Page 506 he says; "As this spiritual embryo grows, like the physical, it becomes active as well as passive, moves in the figuratively speaking—womb of grace. Its first movement is repentance." Now I must help Mr. Jarrel figure a little here just to show him what a simpleton he is. As the first move of the physical embryo must necessarily be the smallest move of life, so the first move of the spiritual embryo is the smallest move of life, but Mr. Jarrel says, (484), that this embryonic move is the victory of all victories. Mr. Jarrel's theology is wrong end up, upside down, wrong end foremost and frequently the middle of it hanging on each end—it is certainly the tangle of all tangle-ation
Page 448 Mr. Jarrel quotes the language of Mr. Lard: ''We shall frankly admit that our scheme makes no provision to secure the attention of many of the human family. We mention the following examples: 1. Such as will not come to Christ. 2. Such as hate the light and will not come to it. 3. Such as reject the counsel of God. 4. Such as judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. 5. Such as close their ears and shut their eyes. 6. Such as will not attend without a supernatural agency of the spirit." Mr. Jarrel makes this quotation to show that what he calls Campbellism does not save anyone. But why does it not save? Because it does not save all of the classes mentioned by Mr. Lard. Mr. Jarrel does not claim to have a system that saves all of these classes. He does claim to have a system that will save some of all of these classes. The difference between Mr. Lard's system or scheme and Mr. Jarrel's is, Mr. Lard's scheme will
—110—
save none of these classes, and Mr. Jarrel's scheme will save only a part of them. Mr. Jarrel's scheme will save some who will not come to Christ, who hate the light, reject the counsel of God, judge themselves unworthy of eternal life, close their ears and eyes, who will not attend without a supernatural agency of the spirit. Why will not his scheme save all of them, if any? or why will his scheme save any at all?
Mr. Jarrel asserts that all these classes are utterly powerless to be otherwise than what they are. That they were born in this condition, and could not avoid this condition. Then his scheme provides that God helps some of those helpless ones; but since he does not claim that God helps them all, his scheme provides that God does not help some of the helpless. If God is no respecter of persons why does He help some of the helpless, and not help all? Here Mr. Jarrel's scheme fails—fails to answer a vital question. Mr. Jarrel's scheme gives you this picture: Two men, both haters of God, were made so. God did not make them so, but the devil made them so. God took one piece of this workmanship away from the devil. Did He take the best piece? No, for they were both alike. Mr. Jarrel represents his God as making a choice where there was no ground for choice. When the devil came to the garden of Eden, he found the human family all alike, and there being no ground for choice he did not make any but took them all, but when Mr. Jarrel's God visits the realms of the devil, He also finds them all alike, and makes a choice without any ground for it, and thus Mr. Jarrel represents his devil as having more sense than his God. When the devil came to Eden, being energetic and honest to his profession, he captured all of Adams' race, because he could. Mr. Jarrel's God, less energetic and less honest to his profession, takes only a part of the devil's heritage, when he could have taken them all. The difference between his God and his devil is, that his devil could and did, his God could and would not. Since Mr. Jarrel does
—111—
not teach universalism there is a part of the human family, for which his scheme makes no provision. In this respect it is no better than Mr. Lard's. In another respect it is much worse. Mr. Lard's scheme makes no provision for those who refuse to be saved, while Mr. Jarrel's scheme provides a means by which those unwilling ones may be forced into measures, but his scheme makes no provision for such as Mr. Lard refuses to save. If a man is not saved, Mr. Lard's scheme makes him say that it is because man will not be saved, but Mr. Jarrel's scheme makes him say, it is because God was unwilling to save him. In short, Mr. Lard finds man's will to be the hindering cause, but the hindering cause in Mr. Jarrel's scheme is God's will. According to Lard's view man is in hell because he wills to be nowhere else, but according to Mr. Jarrel, he is in hell because God wills that he should go nowhere else.
On page 447 Mr. Jarrel says on the "work of the spirit": ''The scriptural teaching on inherent and total depravity clearly proves that if man is ever saved, a greater power than truth alone must save him." Where does Mr. Jarrel find that ''greater power"? He would have us believe that he finds it in the direct agency of the spirit. How does he know that there is a greater power in the direct agency of the spirit than that which resides in the word? This he does not know at all, and according to the very nature of the case, he can never know. No one but a simpleton will be willing to take Mr. Jarrel's guess as an oracle. Page 458 he says, ''In either case (natural or spiritual) the dead receive life by a miracle only." Page 461, "So miraculous power has made every christian." From these premises (which are false) he concludes that there is a necessity for direct agency of the spirit. Here he is guessing again, for this he does not know to be true, and never can know it. God worked a miracle when He called order out of chaos—when he said let there be light.—when he commanded, and it stood fast. Peter says,
—112—
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water," 2 Pet. 3-5. If God has created the heavens and earth by His word, and creation was a miracle, may not God yet perform a miracle by his word. The Bible teaches that God has worked miracles by the power of His word; then if Mr. Jarrel were right and conversion is a miracle, there is still no necessity for his direct agency. If the worlds were framed by the word of God, if land and sea exist by the word of His power; if earth's mountains rise and ocean's billows roll; if innumerable planets pass through infinite space, and suns beyond number light up unnumbered worlds, and these are all upheld by the word of His power, here is miraculous power ascribed to the word far beyond Mr. Jarrel's conception; yet he is sufficiently egotistic to virtually claim to have measured up all this power, and then to have measured that by which a christian is made and then to have compared the two powers, and has found the power of God's word wanting.
Mr. Jarrel, if you would make an argument, measure the infinite power of the infinite word of God by the power of your finite cymling, and tell us what you get as a result. If you can't do this, hide your face in shame, and acknowledge to the world that when your small stock of logic fails, that you have impudence enough to guess at the rest.
On page 464, Mr. Jarrel says that Campbellites evasively and misleadingly quote Rom. 1:16. Feeling that Rom. 1: 16. is exactly against his theory of spiritual agency, he tries to cover up the weakness of his doctrine by capitals: ''Let it be put in capitals. * * * Baptists hold, as a fundamental doctrine, that the gospel is a necessary instrumentality in the salvation of every adult sane person." Mr. Jarrel is mistaken if he thinks we will take his expression in capitals as equal to Rom. 1:16. He has it "a necessary instrumentality:" Paul has it ''the power of God." He says,
—113—
"Campbellites evasively quote." No, sir; you did the evading yourself. Not being satisfied with that, he accuses others of doing the same mean trick that he did himself. Had he said the necessary instrumentality, his evasion would not have been so bad; but this would have been bad on his doctrine, so he put in a necessary instrumentality, to make room for another instrumentality. Paul's expression "power of God," is about equal to Mr. Jarrel's "necessary instrumentality." I suppose, at any rate, that what his expression lacks may be made good by substituting Paul's language for his, then we have, "Power of God." Now we are ready for the comparison of the two:
A power of God.—Jarrel.
The power of God.—Paul.
Mr. Jarrel's language makes room for his direct agency of the Spirit. A power of God would not exclude the idea that there was still another power of God, neither would it exclude the idea that there are a half dozen different powers of God. Anyone can see (even the unregenerate) that Mr. Jarrel was compelled to pervert the truth to meet the demands of his theory of Spiritual influence. The expression: The gospel is the power of God, closes things up so closely that his Spiritual agency can't come in, and for this reason Mr. Jarrel slipped out the ''the," and put in the "a." The devil put in a word, ''not," (see Gen. 3: 4) and we think he is very mean. Mr. Jarrel also put in a word. What, then, is the difference? In this: the devil did not take out one, and Jarrel did.
Page 450: "If a christian cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit to make the word effectual, how can any one imagine that a poor lost sinner can be saved without Him." Sometimes Mr. Jarrel says that the Spirit operates on the gospel, at other times he says it operates on the sinner. Whether he means to teach the one or the other, or both, is difficult to determine. His words in the above quotation, ''to make the word effectual," clearly indicate that he thinks
—114—
there is something defective about the word. If the word is effectual in consequence of the Spirit's operation upon it, as a matter of course before that operation the word is ineffectual. Since the direct agency of the Spirit contended for by Mr. Jarrel has been represented by him as a means to remove total depravity, he certainly teaches that the word of God is totally depraved. Page 460: ''As well talk of a deaf ear hearing, by sound alone, or a blind eye seeing by light alone, as to talk of a sinner being saved by the unaided word." Mr. Jarrel's idea is not that the gospel is, but that the gospel will be the power of God when it receives aid. The difference between Jarrel and Paul is the difference between is and will be. Let it then be put in capitals that Baptists hold that the gospel when aided is the power of God unto salvation. The Bible teaches Baptist doctrine when aided by Mr. Jarrell As well talk of a deaf ear hearing by sound alone or a blind eye seeing by light alone as to talk of Baptist doctrine being taught by the bible unaided by Mr. Jarrel's additions and interpolations.
Mr. Jarrel is an extraordinary man when it comes to getting comparisons. Page 460, he says: ''In Gal. 4: 22-29, the miraculous birth of Isaac is an illustration of every christian's spiritual birth." Pape 461: ''As the miraculous power of the Spirit made these dead procreative powers alive, so miraculous power has made every christian." By what rule of interpretation Mr. Jarrel calls Isaac's birth a miraculous one, we are not informed. He quotes some scriptures that prove that miraculous power operated upon Isaac's mother in order to the production of Isaac, and then concludes that Isaac's birth was a miracle. As well might he say that because the earth and its powers were the result of miraculous power, that therefore every seed that germinates is a miracle. By this kind of nonsense, he shows that there is nothing that is natural, and that the natural has been swallowed up of the supernatural. The scriptures quoted by him to show that
—115—
Isaac's birth was a miracle, proves it not, but proves that those procreative powers were produced by the miracle, and that Isaac's birth was only a natural one after all. The power that produced Mr. Jarrell was procreative, and is no less miraculous because conferred upon the original pair, yet Mr. Jarrel's birth was not a miraculous one. He says that christians are made as Isaac was. What then? A miracle was wrought upon that which produced Isaac. But Mr. Jarrel says that the Spirit produces all christians by direct agency. Then it follows that since a miracle was wrought upon that which produced Isaac, a miracle must be wrought upon the Spirit which produces all christians. Perhaps Mr. Jarrel would say that the gospel produces all christians; but as those procreative powers that produced Isaac were made potent by the divine energy of the Spirit, so the gospel must be energized by the Spirit; and as the procreative powers of Isaac's parents were dead until the Spirit acted upon them, so the gospel is dead till the Spirit operates upon it. Then the gospel is dead, and Mr. Jarrel says the sinner is dead. If he preaches the gospel to sinners at all, and I think he professes to do so, he compares favorably to nothing but a man who shoots blank cartridges at dead ducks.
CHAPTER XI.
Page 465 Mr. Jarrel says: ''One purpose of Jesus going to the Father was to send the Spirit to make the word effectual." He draws this conclusion from John 16:7-11. Especially, he relies upon this: ''When he is come he will convict the world of sin." He then gives the comment of Mr. Stiers and drops the subject. Not one word is said in the passage about making the word effectual. Without regard to the facts in the case, Mr. Jarrel makes a guess and then quotes from Stiers, which proves nothing except that Stiers and Jarrel guessed the same thing. If Mr. Jarrel's proof text had said;
—116—
''When he has come he will make the word effectual" he would have made one effectual argument; as it is he has made nothing but a silly guess. If the expression, "convict the world of sin" means "make the word effectual," how did Jarrel find it out? This is but another culpable, palpable perversion of the truth that any one who was disposed to have been a disciple of Christ would have been ashamed to have made. The beginning of the work of convicting the world of sin is even date with the coming of the Spirit. ''When he is come he will convict." When did the Spirit come? On the day of Pentecost. This, then, is the day upon which the Spirit began the work of convicting the world of sin. How was the work done? Mr. Jarrel says the Spirit does this work by making the word effectual. Luke does not say any such thing. Luke says: ''When they heard this they were pricked in the heart.'' Acts 2-37. The work was done by what they heard, and that was the word of God. Jarrel says the Spirit goes before the word to enable the people to hear. Luke left this idea out. Jarrel talks more about things of which he has no means of knowing anything than he does about the things that are within. Peter made an argument to which the Spirit gave him utterance. The Jews were convinced of the truth of the claims of Jesus by this argument. Not one word is said about making the word effectual. The argument was made by the Spirit and the idea that the Spirit has to work a miracle on His own argument has no support from the Bible or common sense. Mr. Jarrel says, p. 466: ''If the word alone converts, pray tell us how it came to pass that under one sermon by Peter, who had denied his God more were probably converted than were converted during the three years of the ministry of Christ and His apostles." If he was as ignorant as this sad wail indicates, we would be liberal in the bestowal of sympathy and not to bestow it in this case is an evidence of our own hard heartedness or an expression of the fact that he is a hypocrite. But in case it
—117—
should be pure unadulterated ignorance on the part of Mr. Jarrel, we will offer him this bit of information. During the personal ministry of Christ, the proposition to be believed had not been declared to the world. The belief of that proposition was necessary to conversion. That proposition was that He was the Son of God. Paul says He was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, see Rom. 1:4. Peter's discourse was the first that was delivered after the resurrection, and for this reason were the people converted, and not for the reason (that did not exist) that the word was made effectual. Page 468 he quotes Acts 5-31 or a part of it, "Jesus is exalted to give repentance.'' He then says: "This passage cannot therefore mean to offer repentance, but must mean to, by the Holy Spirit, make the word effectual to their repentance." Be it remembered that Mr. Jarrel says that regeneration succeeds repentance and that it imparts a new nature. The old nature is destroyed, that is, total depravity is removed. Here then is a holy nature that cannot repent. Why? Because the word is not effectual. The creature is all right in consequence of having been regenerated—is holy in nature but can't repent.
According to this doctrine, the devil degenerated man and made regeneration a necessity. It now appears that the devil has had something to do with the word and it also has to be regenerated. First, man must be regenerated, by which repentance and faith are to be gotten, according to Jarrel's book, and the word of God has to be regenerated, or made effectual before repentance and faith can be born. Mr. Jarrel's regeneration makes the regenerated holy, but this holy one cannot believe the holy word of God until that holy word is made effectual. According to Mr. Jarrel, man as he is by nature cannot repent in consequence of depravity in nature, but when this depravity is removed by regeneration, then he cannot repent for the reason that the word is ineffectual. Before regeneration, Mr. Jarrel says, man cannot repent on
—118—
account of his defective nature. After his regeneration, he says he cannot repent on account of the defective word. Mr. Jarrel does not tell exactly when the word is made effectual unless he intended to, when he says: "Jesus was exalted to make the word effectual to their repentance." This language of his would indicate that he believes that since the exaltation of Jesus, that the word has continued to be effectual but on the same page (468) he knocks this idea into pi. On 2 Tim. 2:25, he says: "To secure the. repentance of the persons here spoken of, two things are equally necessary; first, that they be taught the truth; second, that God give them repentance, i.e. make the teaching effectual." From this we learn that Mr. Jarrel does not believe that the word is effectual only when special cases demand it. The Bible, in his estimation, is an ineffectual book. What is the character of the change when the word is made effectual? What is it after it is made effectual, that it was not before? It was the infinite truth of God before. What is it after? If Campbellism never dies till Mr. Jarrel answers these questions, it will be alive when he hears the sentence "Depart from me." When Stupidity becomes the sun-center of the religious world, then, and not till then, upon some eccentric orbit, in some dark corner of the theological universe, shedding sickly rays, borrowed from its center, may be found a star bearing the name of Jarrell.
Page 475 Mr. Jarrel says: "The apostle expressly contradicts the Campbellites." To prove this he quotes, I Thes. 1:4-5, "Knowing brethren beloved of God your election, how that our gospel come not unto you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit. Then he says: "If this language does not flatly contradict Campbellism, there never was and never can be a contradiction.''
This is no contradiction of the teaching of the people he calls Campbellites, but a flat contradiction of Jarrelism. We have always contended that the word of God came just
as this passage says, "in power and in the Holy Spirit." We have shown from page 468 of Mr. Jarrel's book that he teaches that the word comes, ineffectual, and after the word comes the Spirit in His power comes and makes the word effectual. The passage teaches that the word comes with power and that is exactly what we teach, that the word comes with power. The passage does not, therefore, contradict our teaching. Jarrel teaches that the word that comes is without power or ineffectual. The passage therefore contradicts Jarrell. So frequently does Mr. Jarrel make such awkward tumbles as this, he keeps on reminding us of some one who is drunk. In this case he reminds us of the man who said: "The next time that bed comes round, I will jump in it," and when he made the jump he said the floor flew up and hit him in the face.
Since Mr. Jarrel finds as on page 475 that the words came with power and on page 468 it must first be taught, and on page 469 be made effectual after having been taught, it follows that after it came and before it was taught it became ineffectual. Now he may sing the following doxology.
"Return, oh holy dove, return, To that dead word of thine; To make it what it was again To do the work divine. "
But after all, Mr. Jarrel's conception (of the power referred to in I Thes. 1:4-5), is false. He would have us to believe that this accompanying power is a necessity in every case of conversion. This is by no means the case. In I Cor. 2-4 the apostle presents the same thought. "And my speech, and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power." Here the apostle refers to a demonstration of power, and so it was a demonstration of power he referred to in his Thessalonian epistle. What was this demonstration of power? The same apostle tells in Heb. 2-4, ''God also bearing them witness,
—120—
both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will.
So the power referred to is the miraculous power with which God accompanied the apostles in his promulgation of the gospel. This power came once for all time. If Mr. Jarrel thinks differently, and that a repetition of this power is necessary in every case in conversion, he is in a fair state of mind to begin work under the auspices of some Salt Lake conclave. Page 475, in a foot-note, he gives an account of the conversion of a lady—a supernatural conversion. The facts in the case are these: While sleigh-riding on a certain river, the ice broke, and she went under, and while under the water she professed. Here is one instance where ice (eis) means, in order to. This is water regeneration to a higher degree than a Catholic ever taught it. The historian says, ''while she was falling, a most vivid and most impressive thought of death filled her mind." What made her think of death? Going under the water, not the Spirit. "This succeeded by the thought of her sins." What forced the thought? The thought of death by water. The apostle says: He shall convince the world of sin, because they believe not on me, but this lady was convinced of sin because the ice broke. When a Baptist preacher puts any one under the water (he says) a non-essential, but when one falls in accidentally, it is essential. I have often thought that their Baptist baptism was no better than accidentally falling in the water and now Jarrel's book is the authority for the documents that favor that accidentally falling in is by far the best. Since Mr. Jarrel delights so much in hunting up the scriptures that contradict our teaching, we will allot a little space here on Jarrel vs. Jarrel. Page 488 he says: "Faith is the proof of life.'' Page 5oo, speaking of baptism, he says, "it is symbolic of salvation which faith procured." If faith procured salvation, then it preceded it, but if faith is the proof of life, then life preceded faith. If Mr. Jarrel has not
—121—
contradicted himself then he holds that life is one thing and salvation is another, or that life preceeds salvation. Page 332 he says, ''by believing we have salvation. Whoever believes has life, in his name," and again, "Whatever gives life, gives salvation." From this we understand, that he believes that salvation and life are the same, and yet faith is the proof of life and at the same time secures salvation. "Believing you may have life." "Faith is the proof of life." Jarrel affirms both these propositions. In one he affirms life is before faith and in the other he affirms that life is after faith. If Mr. Jarrel is smart enough to affirm both these propositions, and not contradict himself, then he is smart enough to understand the dutchman's description of the animal of which he affirmed that "it was all over wite and all over plaek." No matter if Jesus does say, "He that believeth not shall be damned." Mr. Jarrel seems to know better than all this. If Paul does say, "belive on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." Mr. Jarrel professes to know that before faith came salvation was unalterably settled by the direct work of the spirit in regeneration. Seeing that he contradicts himself, he tries to cover it all up by an unauthorized distinction of, begotten life and born life. Sometimes he says faith saves, and sometimes he says it does not. Of this, more hereafter. He has no respect for his own words, and hence, no one else is under any obligation to respect them. A man who contradicts him has just as much respect for him as he has for himself.
Mr. Jarrel has at last found one particular in which natural generation and spiritual generation differ in their nature. Man is passive in generation, and therefore passive in regeneration. Inactive before generation, therefore inactive before regeneration. Generated by direct impact, therefore regenerated by direct impact. This is the style of his argumentation. But at last he has found one difference. He is
—122—
the potent generator of the idea, for the accommodation of his doctrine.
''No one is, in the Bible, called a saved one until after repentance and faith. Though there are no spiritual miscarriages or abortions, grace, as does the natural world recognizes the child chiefly after its birth." Page 509.
No spiritual abortions as there are natural ones. There is direct impact in both the natural and in the supernatural. So Mr. Jarrel's doctrine sometimes demands that generation and regeneration should be exactly alike, and sometimes that they should be exactly unlike. Mr. Jarrel's first care is to consult the demands of his doctrine, and then the D.D's. come to his assistance, and make the word effectual. Mr. Jarrel admits that the Bible calls no one saved until after repentance and faith, but then he gets a little ahead of the Bible, for he says regeneration precedes repentance and faith, and then says there are no spiritual abortions. Why does a man repent? Because he is regenerated. Why was he regenerated? Because he could not help it. God forced him into regeneration, and in this forced him into repentance. The question arises again: Why does man repent? Because God forced him to. Mr. Jarrel says it is the birth act. Here, in his judgment, natural and supernatural are alike again. Man is passive in the natural birth, and is passive in the supernatural. If man is passive in the supernatural birth, he must be passive in the supernatural birth act. Man is passive in faith. He believes because he cannot do otherwise. When it is all summed up, a man is forced into regeneration, forced into repentance and forced into faith, then forced into the kingdom and compelled to remain there till death, and finally forced to hear the welcome plaudit, ''Well done good and faithful servant.'' This is what has been called by some the benevolent side of Calvinism. The malevolent side brings the greater portion of the human family into the world dead to all that is good, active to all that is mean and devilish
—123—
born so, suffered to live so, to die so, and finally go to hell. Why? Because God would not regenerate them and force them to go to heaven. Such a doctrine as this is almost infinitely worse than universalism. It is as destitute of the principal of justice as the Wild Ass is of the immortal part, its whole vocabulary as dearth of any word equal to responsibility as the bramble is dearth of figs.
Mr. Jarrel tries to avoid these necessary consequences of his theology. Here is his dodge; chapter 21 of his book puts it in capitals: ''Campbellism is Guiteauism and infidel on the sinner's responsibility and the mysteries of grace." Page 515. He thought that such ugly names as Guiteauism and infidel would blind the world to all common sense, and put his bitter Calvinism into a capsule. All the Guiteauism is in his own doctrine. Guiteau professed to be following a direct impression of the Spirit. Mr. Jarrell contends for the direct work of the Spirit. He and Guiteau just alike. Mr. Jarrel says: ''In regeneration the soul is passive, except its being active against God." Page 505. Guiteau was one of the unregenerate. Jarrel says of such, they cannot be otherwise than active against God. Guiteau said he could not do differently to what he did. Jarrel virtually says the same thing. Here is your Guiteauism wrapped in your total depravity.
The court tried Guiteau as to whether he was capable of knowing right from wrong, and as to whether he was capable of choosing to do right. The court decided that he had the power to be active in the right. Jarrel says, he could not be active in the right. So Mr. Jarrel is against the court. Jarrelism and Guiteauism are about as much alike as Jarrel thinks generation and regeneration are. Guiteau, no doubt, expected money for his work. Jarrel, no doubt, had money on the brain, when he conceived the plan of the assassination of Campbellism. Mr. Jarrel has found one difference between generation and regeneration, and we find one between him and Guiteau. Guiteau did not fail in his wicked deed,
—124—
but Jarrel's book is the very embodiment of abortion. In noticing Campbellite objections, such as, "If a man is totally depraved, he is not responsible," page 515. Mr. Jarrel says, ''Then you will not only be a sinner but justify yourself because you are so heinous a sinner." Since Mr. Jarrel is so ignorant, or so much some other way, that he can't state the truth, we will state it for him. We believe and teach that the sinner—the unregenerate—has the power to do right. Jarrel claims, and teaches, that the unregenerate has not the power to do right. We base resposibility on ability. Jarrel bases it on inability. Jarrel teaches total depravity, or total inability, as the ground of ability. A man who could find common sense in such a doctrine as this, could find brains in a clam shell that has been on Chimborazo's summit since the deluge. Mr. Jarrel says, the attorney claimed that Guiteau was so crazy or wicked as not to be responsible; page 516. The attorney claimed that his client was so wicked that he could not do otherwise. Jarrel teaches the same thing. The difference is, the lawyer had more sense than to say, Guiteau was born so. If that lawyer had succeeded in proving that Guiteau was born without the ability to do good and was a child of the devil by birth and thus wholly inclined to all evil, he would have gone to the asylum instead of to his grave, and would have, by this time, been at large, holding the opinion of Mrs. Partington that "Total depravity is a good doctrine when we live up to it!"
Mr. Jarrel continues to talk on total depravity. Having begun that subject on page 218 of his book, still on page 518 he continues to take up total depravity. I suppose this is because baptist doctrine has nothing else in it.—Jarrel's sort of baptist doctrine. Beginning on page 505, he argues for fourteen pages, trying to show that total depravity is reasonable or that it is consistent with man's responsibility. On page 519 in a foot-note he comes to his senses or they come to him and he owns up like a man. After using up more than
—125—
half of his book on total depravity, like the blind serpent in dog days, he coils and bites himself, and dies of his own venom. Listen, reader, while he utters his dying groan: "He who knows anything of the history of either ethical or theological thought, painfully knows that the reconciliation of man's depravity and circumstances with his freedom and his responsibility has never been fully discovered. Every school of ethical and theological thought unhesitatingly acknowledges that the harmony is undiscovered," page 519. On the principal (as we suppose) that misery loves company, he calls in Dr. Greg, who ministers a lullaby and Mr. Jarrel swallows it down and is fast sinking behind the western horizon of total depravity. Mr. Greg says: "It has scattered those who have tried to master it [the work of reconciling total depravity and man's responsibility] as widely as the * * * tower of Babel. Some, it has driven into atheism, some into Manichism, some into the denial of the most obvious facts of life and nature, some into the betrayal of the most fundamental principles of morality," page 519. He is about like the wicked man who argued universalism for an hour and a half, and then closed by saying that he would give his boots to know that it was true. Page 519 he states a Campbellite objection: ''But God ought to have given the special call to all men." He gives this objection in a disconnected and isolated way so as to lessen its force. Yet this objection retains its legitimate association of ideas if Mr. Jarrel and his total depravity die hard. If God is no respecter of persons, and He says He is not, Acts 10:34-35, and if all men are alike totally depraved, incapable of doing right, and God calls some and does not call all, He is thus by the doctrine of total depravity represented as a respecter of persons. The objection with its connections, is, in view of the fact (if it be a fact) that since all men are alike in character—totally depraved upon the principle of justice and for the reason that God is no respecter of persons if He bestow any favor
—126—
on one individual, the same favor should extend to every other individual of like character. To blunt the force of the objection. he perverts the truth of the Bible relative to the Jews. He says: ''No more so than He ought to have called other than the Jews under the old dispensation." The Jews were a select nation because through it ran the lineal line of Christ the promised seed. The Jews was that nation which sprang from Abraham, to whom the promise was made. According to the very nature of things, Christ could not be of the seed of Abraham, and at the same time the seed of some one else. The Jews were called out and separated from other nations that the whole world might determine that Christ was of them, to show that God had kept his promise to Abraham. This the world could not have done had not the separation of them hindered their amalgamation with other nations. So it is plain to be seen that the salvation of the Jews was not the object of their call any more than it was the object of salvation of the Gentiles. But Mr. Jarrel makes the call of the Jews the same as the call under the gospel dispensation. The call of the Jews was in the promise to Abraham before Isaac was born. The gospel does not call any before they are born.
Page 520 he says: "He was under no obligation to do anything to save any one." No one affirms that He was. But God is under obligation to be just because he claims to be so. Through the Lord Jesus Christ, He has completed a plan by which He can be just in saving. Can God save without reason, and at the same time save with justice? God accepts man for a reason; that reason is that man fears Him and works righteousness, so says Peter. It is not reasonable to make acceptance depend upon a condition that man cannot perform, but God does make acceptance depend upon working righteousness, therefore man can work righteousness. Mr. Jarrel believes that God has completed a plan by which He can, in justice, save one totally depraved being. Can He
—127—
fail to save that one without injustice? Common sense says He cannot. What is necessary to save all totally depraved beings that is not necessary to save the one? Is not God's remedy capable of saving all as well as one? Is it not a specific for the moral malady? If God is just and total depravity true, it becomes the ground work of universalism; or if total depravity is true and all are not saved, the doctrine becomes the mudsill of infidelity and immorality just as Mr. Greg says. The fact is Mr. Jarrel reads the Bible with total depravity on the brain which renders him impotent to comprehend the truth. God has not arranged any plan to save man independent of man's will. Hence says the Savior: "And ye will not come unto me that ye might have life," John 5:40. Jarrel says man gets life by regeneration, that he may come, thus contradicting the Savior and rendering the scheme of salvation inconsistent. After rendering the whole plan of salvation irreconcilable, with the principles of common sense and the freedom of man's will by teaching the doctrine of total depravity he now says that the reconciliation has not been discovered. No wonder. I would as soon expect to find the throne of the king of the bottomless pit in heaven as to find a plan by which to reconcile total depravity with any thing kin to common sense or reason.
The idea of God making man a rational being and then placing him under an irrational system of religion is virtually the charge that Mr. Jarrel brings against God and he acknowledges it when he says that the reconcilation of his doctrine with the Bible has not been discovered.
CHAPTER XII.
Page 542, Mr. Jarrel continues to make his baseless charges ''Campbellism is but an attempt to rationalize grace —to run wish infidelity and hold with faith." The base-
—128—
lessness of the above charge consists in the expression ''to run with infidelity and hold with faith!'' Mr. Jarrel unwillingly reveals to us the character of the faith for which he contends. ''To rationalize grace" is what he calls ''running with infidelity." We are to understand from this that his faith is irrational and that the grace of his system is an irrational; that is to say, an unreasonable thing. Before having been called upon he has unconditionally surrendered everything rational and reasonable in his system to the Campbellites and infidels, hence, all that he has left is irrational grace, and all that he tries to do is to run with the superstitious and hold with stupidity and ignorance. Irrational grace and faith are two things. we must confess, we know nothing of, and would further confess to care as little as we know. When God said, ''Come let us reason together," He condecended not to stoop below the rational, and therefore, Mr. Jarrel and baptists of his type are not the subjects of His address.
''What does he mean when he says, ''to rationalize grace?'' He cannot mean anything else than that grace is not a subject to be reasoned upon? John says: "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John 1-17. Is Jesus author of an irrational dispensation? Paul says: "By grace are ye saved." Eph. 2-8. Peter says, "Give a reason for the hope within you." 1 Pet. 3:15. If it is wrong to rationalize grace by which we are saved, how shall we give a reason for our hope, which is that we are saved by grace and at the same time that grace is an unreasonable thing? To whatever extent we may become guilty (?) of rationalizing the things of the Bible, of one thing we are quite sure, we will never become guilty of rationalizing Mr. Jarrel's doctrine. "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men teaching us." Titus 2:11. Mr. Jarrel represents this teacher as irrational. What is an irrational ec her worth in a school composed of rational pupils?
—129—
When Baptist doctrine breaks down with the weight of inconsistency that weight is termed by them, ''the mysteries of grace." A few words to represent the scriptural view of grace will not be out of place in this connection. God is the giver of every good and perfect gift. Whether temporal or spiritual, every good gift is from above, not as a matter of merit on our part, but as a matter of grace on the part of God. We are clothed and fed by the grace of God. Grace came by Jesus Christ, so says the Apostle John, but men were fed and clothed by grace long before Jesus came into the world. How is this? Temporal blessings were provided for before Jesus came. The blessing of eternal salvation, which is of grace was not provided for till Jesus came. Proof. ''Though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salavtion unto all them that obey him;" Heb. 5:8-9. The grace of which Jesus was author, was not feeding grace. nor clothing grace, but that grace was saving grace. The Savior says, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth;" Math. 28:18. This language should be construed in view of the Savior's mission to earth. All power to save was conferred upon him. For this reason said he, ''Go ye therefore and teach all nations;" Matt. 28.19. For this reason said he, ''Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature;" Mark. 16:15. Why is the fact that Jesus has all power, a reason for sending the gospel to the whole world? Because the gospel is the power of God to save, which power was conferred upon Jesus. See Rom. 1:16. But what has all this to do with the subject of grace? Paul, Rom. 1:16, says, the gospel, the power of God, saves the believer. The same apostle says, Eph. 2:8, that grace saves through faith. The gospel saves the believer, and that means, that it saves through faith. Grace saves through faith, and that means that grace saves the believer. This shows that gospel and grace are identically the same thing. Where Paul says, Eph.
—130—
2:8, by grace are ye saved through faith, it is equivalent to saying, by the gospel ye are saved through faith. The gospel is the grace of God to save, because it is the power of God to salvation. It is certainly acceptable to say, that grace is the power of God to save, yet Paul says, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. There is nothing discrepant, provided gospel and grace are one and the same thing. The gospel must be believed. He that believeth not shall be damned; Mark 16:16. The gospel must be obeyed. ''Taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel;'' 2 Thes. 1:8. Here the apostle has not rationalized grace, but has shown that it is reasonable in itself. ''Mysteries of grace'' is an expression purely human, made for the express purpose of forestalling inquiry respecting total depravity, and direct operation of the spirit. If one should ask the question, "If all men are totally depraved, and therefore all alike; if the spirit operates on one, why not upon all?" the reply is, "This is the great mystery of grace." ''Mysteries of grace," is the sandbags of modern divinity that lie in heaps around to shield a weak garrison of theological speculators. When a man like Mr. Jarrel is forced to the point, where he has to acknowledge that the reconciliation of the several points of his doctrine has never been discovered, it certainly should be a sufficient hint to the wise. "The doctrine that He ''ought'' to save any, rests on the assumption that man could not be otherwise than a sinner." Page 521. Here Mr. Jarrel tries to make others responsible for his own God dishonoring doctrine. What is it that he calls an assumption? That man could not be otherwise than a sinner. Be it so, and then it is neither more nor less than Mr. Jarrel's own assumption. Jarrel says, man is a sinner by birth; then unless man could help being born, he could not help being a sinner. The legitimate conclusion from Mr. Jarrel's words is, that the doctrine that a man is a sinner by birth is a mere assumption. With one qualification, by way of amendment,
—131—
we accept his conclusion, and that is, it is a wicked assumption. Mr. Jarrel, please keep your wicked assumptions at home, where they belong, and not try to palm them upon decent people.
Mr. Jarrel's twentieth chapter, ironically speaking, is a beautiful thing. We refer to this part of his book, because it contains Baptist doctrine in a nutshell. His caption is "Universal and particular Operation of the Holy Spirit," page 512. He gives us three pages upon this wonderful subject. The number of pages, we suppose, indicates its depth, and since muddy water looks deep, this seems to be unfathomable. ''Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his own determined depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel." Same page. This gets things somewhat mixed. It will be necessary to notice this language a little closely. It is hardly possible that the depravity here spoken of can be total hereditary depravity, this sort of depravity Mr. Jarrel says we obtain by birth. The sort of depravity that prevents salvation is the sinner's "own determined depravity." The sinner's "own determined depravity" cannot be hereditary, unless he can determine the condition of his birth. This Mr. Jarrel may discover to be the case, since he has discovered that repentance is the first movement of the spiritual embryo in the womb of grace. If the sinner's "own determined depravity" is all that prevents his salvation, since he does not determine anything before his birth, hereditary depravity is perfectly harmless after all, and Mr. Jarrel has wasted over three hundred pages of his book in giving to the world the pedigree of a huge bugaboo. This is Baptist doctrine in a nutshell, because its first, last and intermediate characteristic is self-contradictory. Page 513, he says ''The general call is given in love and good faith. It is rejected in hatred and unbelief. The particular call is accompanied with the regeneration of the Holy Spirit." Again, page 512: ''Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit touches all
—132—
hearts." Here we have condensation of Baptist gospel. The Holy Spirit touches all hearts. This touch is sometimes accompanied by the Spirit, sometimes not. Sometimes it touches in an effectual way, sometimes in an ineffectual. When it touches effectually it is irresistible, when it touches otherwise it does no good. The touch in both cases is uninvited. Why not touch all alike? Ah! That is one of the mysteries of grace. Yes, that is it, provided the ''mysteries of grace" is the malevolent end of Jarrelism. But the ineffectual and and rejected call was made in good faith. Who made it? God made it, of course. Did He make this call with full knowledge that in consequence of man's condition by birth he was hereditarily bound to reject it? If so, it would be interesting to see how the ''good faith" comes in. Mr. Jarrel would be under some obligation to attend such demands, but by his own self-constituted judgeship, he says this is an infidel demand.
I am free to confess that this is the best way he can find to get out of the difficulty. The only thing new about this is that infidelity signifies absolute inability to find any consistency or common sense in Baptist doctrine. For his doctrine concerning the general and particular call, he depends upon the parable of the supper, Luke 14:16-24. In a former chapter of this review, we noticed Mr. Jarrel's comments on parables, in which he said parables should not be used to establish doctrine. The parable in the former case was so pointedly against him, he made this dodge. Now he must have the parable of the Great Supper, because it is this or nothing. But it does not quite fill the demand, and he goes into the Greek. Then the Greek fails him. Indeed, the way of the transgressor is hard. He says the word anagchazo signifies strong urgency, but the word angareno signifies to compel against the will. Anagchazo is the word in the Greek, and therefore does not mean compel against the will. So the parable gives no support to the doctrine of irresistible force.
—133—
We cannot imagine what he introduced this Greek criticism for, unless for the reason that he supposed that most of his ignorant readers would conclude that he had more sense than to go into the Greek unless the Greek was in his favor, that he would just take advantage of ignorance, and gain his point by it. We might suggest the adage to Mr. Jarrel that ''honesty is the best policy," but then he would perhaps say that this was an infidel adage, and was opposed to the ''mysteries of grace."
Again, on page 512, he says: "Baptists urge upon all the immediate duty and privilege of being saved." Page 514: ''As all men would reject salvation, He provided, by election, to regenerate some, so that they would be willing to come." It is certainly a feather in any man's cap to be called infidel, Campbellite, or even Beelzebub, by a man who would consent to be the author of such a doctrine as this. ''Provided by election to regenerate some." Is it possible for them to be saved without the provision of election? Baptists say no. Are all men elected? No. Baptists urge the privilege of salvation upon those who never had the privilege of being saved. To urge a man to perform an impossibility, is worse than hypocrisy. It always did fret us a little to see a pup chasing a flying buzzard, on account of the fruitlessness of the chase; but when a Baptist preacher can find time to urge salvation upon a man whom he knows cannot accept it on account of a defective constitution, we at least might be able to find a palliative for the pup's native ignorance. 'Tis a shame that the professed friends of the Bible should represent God as calling man, by nature lost, in such a way that it is impossible for man to heed the call, and then sending him to hell because he did not heed; and then calling others as bad by nature, and perhaps worse by practice, and that in such an irresistible way that they accepted the call because they could not avoid it, and went to heaven because they could not help it. Campbellism, infidelism, or any other
—134—
kind of an ism, is as good as this, and better too. It is a system of injustice, because it makes God do all the work, and charges Him with working without regard to character, sending some to heaven for His good pleasure, and sending others just as good to hell for that same good pleasure, and then with an air that might well be regarded as a condensation of the fumes from purgatory, and strutting about in the garb of bigotry and egotism, and like a whip-poor-will, repeating the choice note, ''Campbellite," "Campbellite," until death relieves nature of one of her greatest failures.
We come now to notice the 22nd chapter of ''Gospel in Water." Caption. ''Campbellism opposed to sorrow for sin and to the sinner praying." Mr. Jarrel tries to hide the true issue. The things to which those he calls Campbellites object, are keeping sinners at the mourner's bench, praying for the remission of sins when God has promised to remit sins upon the condition of obedience to the gospel. We will now enter upon an examination of a mourner's bench scene by which the ground of our objection will be drawn out. What, then, is Mr. Jarrel's mourner praying for? If for the remission of sins he prays without faith because Mr. Jarrel teaches him that faith and remission come simultaneously. If he prays without faith his prayer is fruitless and never reaches higher than his head. If he prays in faith he can not be praying for remission, because he is already pardoned on the condition of faith. If his prayer is before faith, it is without faith and cannot be heard, and is therefore good for nothing. If after faith it is after remission, and therefore not for remission, and again it turns out to be good for nothing. As reasonable people we claim the right to scoff at such useless, fruitless, good-for-nothing prayers, as abound at mourner's bench scenes. But if the sinner prays for remission who does it move upon? Not himself, for he cannot remit his own sins.: Not upon the church for the church cannot remit them. His prayer must be intended to move upon God,
—135—
because He alone can remit sins, prayer can only move God to do that which He has promised to do in answer to prayer. God having nowhere in the Bible promised remission of sins to the alien in answer to prayer the whole mourner's bench practice is unauthorized. This is our affirmation, and this is what Mr. Jarrel calls scoffing. Mr. Jarrel draws a greater part of his doctrine of regeneration from the natural laws of generation than from any other source. Before faith a man is not born again, because he says faith is the birth act. Before birth man is not in the kingdom of Christ, or else man is born into nothing. If a man is not in the kingdom of Christ before the birth act, he is in the kingdom of Satan, or in nothing. If in the kingdom of Satan before he believes, before he is pardoned or before he is born, what right of petition has he? Mr. Jarrel says faith enables the sinner to cry praise to God. ''The spiritual embryo believes, emerges into open life, comes with the cry of praise to God for redeeming grace," page 507. So if there was any prayer offered, it was offered by the spiritual embryo before it was sufficiently developed to cry Abba, Father. Do you ask how this is? Prayer for remission must be before faith, for Jarrel says faith brings remission. Then prayer before faith was a prayer that preceded the ability to cry Father, Father. Then to whom did Mr. Jarrel's embryo make his address? Not to God for he was not able to say Father, Father, until he believed, and therefore could not cry Father, Father, until his sins were remitted. Then, before remission he could not address the Father in prayer for remission, and it is hoped that any man who is amenable to any law, human or divine, has too much sense to pray for that which he already possesses.
Reasonable men scoff at unreasonable things, and there is no reason for the doctrine of prayer for the remission of alien sins even in Mr. Jarrel's choice system. Mr. Jarrel leaves out one of the qualifications we use relative to this matter.
—136—
We say alien sinners, Jarrel says sinners. After misrepresenting us by leaving out our qualifying term, he introduced the case of Simon, page 527, as a reply, not to our teaching, but to his own misrepresentation of it. Simon was not an alien sinner. His sin was that of a citizen of the kingdom of Christ. As a citizen, Peter told him to pray. Simon was a baptized believer who afterward sinned, for which sin Peter told him to pray that it might be remitted. Luke says Simon believed in the same manner in which the Samaritans believed. Luke does this in this way. After telling us that the Samaritans believed he says "Simon himself believed also." The word, also, shows that the faith of Simon was the same as that of the Samaritans, and therefore scriptural. Since Mr. Jarrel says, faith is the birth act, and since Luke says Simon had the true faith, according to Jarrel, Simon was born into the kingdom and was not an alien. Next Mr. Jarrel says, "Campbellites ridicule a feeling religion." page 525. If Mr. Jarrel had, before writing this sentence, informed us that his aim was to write a falsehood we would without hesitation declare his success, but since he gives us no prefactory remark that makes it certain as to what his aim was we yield to the demands of modesty, and call it a mistake, however, we must be allowed to insist that modesty must have perfected her code before the necessity for dealing with such men as Mr. Jarrel originated. If there is a people in the world who enjoy the religion of the Bible it is certainly those of whom Mr. Jarrel writes. The point of ridicule is not where he locates it. When a man depends upon his feelings as evidence of his acceptance with God his evidence is most assuredly a subject of ridicule. A man who honestly adheres to a false religion may have a feeling as strong as death, and may, as many have done, die happy amid the flames of persecution. We deny that feelings are any evidence of the correctness of a man's religious position. Feelings, if they are good feelings, can, according to the very nature of things, only be
—137—
evidence that he who has them is sincere in his belief. Since men are quite frequently sincere in the wrong, feeling can be no evidence of correctness. A simpleton may say I know I am right because I feel good, but a wise man will say I feel good because I believe that I have done right. Many Methodists, we have no doubt, feel as happy over the rantism of an infant as Eld. Jarrel does over the nonessential dipping of a regenerated son of Satan. When a man complies with the conditions of the amnesty proclamation of King Jesus he knows, as he knows that the proclamation is true, that he has done right, and to the same extent that he knows he has done right he feels right. Not unfrequently while at the mourner's bench perhaps one resolves to do right or to do good. This good resolve is necessarily followed by good feeling, and the resolve would many times be carried out but for the presence of a false teacher like Mr. Jarrel, who imparts the deception that this good feeling is the evidence of pardon when in fact it is only the evidence of the preceding resolve.
When Mr. Jarrel accuses us of teaching a strong compound of Transmigration of souls and Spiritism as he does on page 538, we cannot give the statement its true name without departing too far from the rules of common politeness. But what does he base this charge upon? Upon the fact that some of our people have said that demons are disembodied spirits. That demons were disembodied spirits, was the universally received idea in the days of the Savior and the apostles and they spoke of demons and did not contradict this idea, thus proving that the received idea did not need correction for the reason that it was true. Then because the Bible teaches that some men were possessed of demons and our people admit that the Bible teaches the truth, therefore we teach the doctrine of Pythagorus. If we loved the habit of nicknaming as well as Mr. Jarrel, we would approach as near the vocabulary of propriety as the subject would allow,
—138—
and dub him Dr. Puffstuff. This is more notice than his chapter on this subject deserves, so we will dismiss it with the single remark, decent people won't believe him, and no matter if indecent ones do. The next one Mr. Jarrel tells that is so different from the warp and woof of veracity, is on page 582: "Campbellism to a great extent Mormonism and Mormonism a sprout of Campbellism.'' Under this caption he gives a brief account of the origin of Mormonism. Speaking of Sidney Ridgon's conversion, he says: ''But there was so much miracle about his conversion, * * * that the pious and discerning pastor entertained serious doubts," p.586. This miraculous conversion was the first step in the development, according to the authority Mr. Jarrel cites, of Mormonism. Now let us hear from Baptist doctrine concerning miraculous conversion. "The very power which raised Jesus from the dead is required to make Christians,'' p. 473. "As the miraculous power of the Spirit made these dead procreative powers alive, so miraculous power has made every Christian," p. 461. "In either case the dead receive life by miracle only,'' p. 458. These quotations prove that every conversion is a miracle, not only this, but that they believe that every conversion is as great a miracle as raising Jesus from the dead. Certainly the conversion of Rigdon did not have more of the miraculous about it than the resurrection of Jesus, but according to Baptist doctrine it had to have that much. Rigdon's conversion, according to Mr. Jarrel’s own teaching, was a genuine Baptist conversion. Rigdon's miraculous conversion being the first step in the development of Mormonism it follows that Mormonism is a sprout of Baptistism. Mr. Jarrel says that polygamy was not in Mormonism in its origin, but came in later. By adopting Mr. Jarrel's course of reasoning, this is easily accounted for. The Anabaptists who stand in the line of Baptist succession and were, according to Baptist historians, Baptists, believed in and practiced polygamy. The Mormons finally developed
—139—
polygamy, showing their relation to their ancestors—to those historical Anabaptist Baptists. Here again we find that Mormonism is a sprout of Baptistism. If Mr. Jarrel does not like this method of reasoning let him stop his stale nonsense of hunting up strange compounds and kinship between religious bodies. Mr. Jarrel next proceeds to show how many particulars in which Mormons and Campbellites are alike, and then, contrary to all logic, concludes Campbellism is Mormonism. Jarrel has two eyes, so has a goat; he has two ears, so has a goat; he breathes, eats, sleeps, lies down, stands up, so does a goat; he wears beard, so does a goat; we may therefore conclude according to his logic that he is to a great extent, a goat. Mormonism contains both elements of strength and weakness. The truth it contains is its element of strength, its errors the element of weakness. If Mr. Jarrel wants to prove that Campbellism is wrong because, in some points, it resembles Mormonism, let him first prove that Mormonism is wrong in every particular. Until he does this, he shows himself to be a miserable failure in logic. Mormonism contains much truth and is to this extent exactly, strong. It contains much error, and is proportionately weak. Among that part of the Mormon church which repudiates polygamy, the leading peculiarity of doctrine is the advocacy of the continued existence of miracles. Mr. Jarrel accepts the Mormon position, except the extent of it. He says miracles do continue, for every conversion is a miracle.
Mr. Jarrel wants miracles at one point, Mormons want to stop at another, and he can't give a better reason for stopping at the Baptist point than Mormons can for stopping at their point. Mr. Jarrel has more of the traits of an old-time Texas ox-driver than Campbellism has of Mormonism. These, when engaged in administering a professional cursing to the oxen, ceased not until the last hard name was exhausted, and the misapplication of terms and epithets became the exponent of a professional ruffian. Mr. Jarrel has about closed out his
—140—
stock, and hence his book is about to close. He says of Campbellism, it is Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Rationalism, Infidelism, Pythagorianism, Spiritism, Guiteauism, Pirateism, Atheism, Arianism, etc., etc. Dr. Jarrel has made his pill so large that he has not enough sugar to coat it. One point in his education has been badly neglected. He does not know how to tell a falsehood small enough to wear the mantle of truth. The last charge we notice is, ''Campbellism is a nest . . . . of ecclesiastical pirates," p. 361. ''Pirates sail without colors, so do Campbellites." What does he mean by this? That Campbellites refuse to adopt creeds, and in so doing refuse to let the world know what they teach. He knows that this is a false accusation. We refuse to adopt any human written creed, because they are useless things. Those who have them are as much divided as those who have them not. Our position is as well known to the world as that of any body of religious people having a creed. Our position would be much better known than it is, but for the writings of such men as Jarrel and Ray, whose writings abound in more misrepresentation to the square inch than perhaps any others who have written during this century. Our candid opinion is that Mr. Jarrel has made a statement for every page of his book that is as far from the truth as that statement made by the devil in the Garden of Eden. If the devil does not smile when Jarrel writes, it must be because he does not express pleasure in the progress of his own business in that way.
According to the space allotted, we now come to the close of our review of Mr. Jarrel's book. Our mind has been for some time upon him, his book and his people. We have had a pretty fair chance to become well acquainted with each. Baptists, as a general rule, are certainly very far superior to their doctrine. Jarrel himself is worse than Baptist doctrine, for it, with all its malevolence, does not hold him under any obligations to misrepresent, as he does, his religious neigh-
—141—
bors. He is, at least, two degrees worse than Baptists in general. Baptist doctrine, if it has been fairly represented by Mr. Jarrel, is cruel to the extreme. It accuses man by nature as being morally helpless, at the same time holds him as morally accountable. He says, if the Campbellite objection against total depravity is well taken ''all that one has to do to save his neck, when he desires to murder, is to get so drunk as not to know what he is doing;" page 515. This is the dirt of sophistry, to hide the meanness of his doctrine. If a man was born drunk, and could not help it, there is no justice in earth or heaven that would hold him responsible for a deed of such drunkenness. If a man is born morally and totally depraved, there is no justice that will hold him responsible for the deeds of his condition by birth. When a man gets drunk he is himself the author of his evil condition. When he is born totally depraved, he is not the author of his evil condition. The difference is about this: When a man gets drunk he drinks the devil into himself of his own free will and accord, but when a man becomes totally depraved, and that before he becomes a man, the devil is put into him without his consent. Jarrel holds a man just as responsible for having the devil in him by birth, as he does the man who drinks him down, after he gets old enough to desire to murder. We have said but little in the review respecting Mr. Jarrel's doctrine of the design of baptism. He offers nothing new. His idea is the common baptistic idea. Baptist baptism, themselves being the judges, is altogether worthless. Not being necessary to salvation, it does not benefit man in any material sense. It is essential to baptist church membership, but since Baptists teach that men are saved ''then, there and forever," before they become members of the baptist church, it follows that Baptist baptism is essential to that only which is essential to nothing, or essential to a nonessential. It is fair to admit that when it comes to nonessentials, the Baptists can justly claim more of
—142—
them than any other religious body. Their preaching is not essential, because regeneration is effected without or independent of it. In regeneration, repentance and faith are begotten, and there can be, says Mr. Jarrel, no spiritual abortions. Their preaching is not, therefore, essential to either repentance or faith, and if repentance and faith are essential to salvation, their preaching is not essential to salvation. If, after a man is saved, he cannot be lost, as Baptists teach, their preaching is not necessary to the salvation of either saint or sinner. If generation is prior to all preaching, prior to all human activity, all Baptist preaching, Baptist administrations, the Baptist church and Baptist work, are all nonessentials. What did Mr. Jarrel write his book for? To be the means of regenerating some one? No. To make some one believe or disbelieve? No. The seeds of unbelief were sown in the human constitution. By regeneration the old constitution and the evil seed were supplanted by a new constitution and new seed. Mr. Jarrel, then, wrote his book for nothing, or for filthy lucre's sake. Why does he preach to the unregenerate who are constitutionally unable to understand? Why does he preach to the regenerate who are as sure of salvation without his preaching as with it? Jarrel himself must remain a nonessential, until he quits his present calling. Jarrel says, man must work because he is saved. Man does not, therefore, work for his own good. God is not benefited by the work, and if He require man to work at all, it is for nothing.
Mr. Jarrel represents God as having so arranged His plan as to cause man to work without pay or reward. God is not the author of this doctrine as He is not a tyrant. Mr. Jarrel considers the Bible a dead letter. It is, in his estimation, ineffectual until wrought upon by the spirit. He considers the sinner dead in the sense that he cannot hear, understand, appreciate, or obey the truth until he is wrought upon by the spirit. His doctrine is that the Bible is not suited to man as
—143—
he is, and that man is not suited to the Bible as it is. He tells us that man became degraded in the fall, but how the Bible became degraded he has not enlightened us. Man is to be wrought upon by the spirit, because of his depravity. For what reason then is the Bible to be wrought upon? Is it because the Bible is depraved? Perhaps so, since Jarrel says, "The belief of the Bible is of hell-" Man wrought upon by the spirit is not reinstated to his primitive condition, wherein he could hear and appreciate God's word. In man's primitive state in the garden of Eden he could appreciate a conversation with the Creator, but now the sinner and the word must be wrought upon. We have shown that according to Mr. Jarrel, that God made Adam and Eve, and quit, since then the devil has been the propagator of the race of man. That the devil is the author of man's nature. Every son of Adam though coming into existence by means of God's procreative law, is the devil's offspring. Jarrel does not hesitate to say, that man's nature is of the devil. The Bible does not hesitate to say that Jesus took upon himself our nature. Stop! Stop! ! Stop! ! ! Wait till Religious Ethics find the reconciliation!
We now lay Mr. Jarrel's book aside, an amalgamation of sophistry, misrepresentation and slander. It has certainly done the Baptist cause much harm in forcing them to the defense of the darkest shades of Calvinism.
|
|
