|
|
|
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 |