Ai 
 
 ^%^ 
 
 ^%. 
 
 ^0^ 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 / 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 4^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 IIM IIIM 
 
 1^ 
 
 liii^ 
 
 2.2 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 ^=^ 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 |2£ 
 
 1 - ' ' ■■ 51. 
 
 1.8 
 
 1-4 11.6 
 
 VJ 
 
 
 'c^l 
 
 >^ ? 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 / 
 
 
 %' 
 
 '^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 G 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color4es, tachetdes ou piqu^es 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le lo.ig de la marge 
 int^rieure) 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur examplaire 
 qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 d6fauts susceptible^ de nuire d la quality de la 
 reproduction sont not^s ci-dessous. 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 u 
 b 
 f( 
 
 □ 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes gdographiques manquent 
 
 n 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppidmentaires 
 
The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol — »• (meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 The oriqinal copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la der- 
 nidre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: 
 le symbole — »► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g4n6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prSteur 
 suivant : 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper Ifift hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 fol wing diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour Stre 
 reproduites en un saul clich6 sont filmdes d 
 partir de Tangle sup^rieure gauche, de gauche d 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n^cessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la methode : 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
te« 
 
 ll> 
 
 ^i 
 
k? 
 
 DEBATE 
 
 / 
 
 ON THE 
 
 IS 
 
 I joints of jjifmnt^ in JhI!!\ mtl :mti\c^ 
 
 BETWEEN THE TWO RELIGIOUS B0DIE8 KNOWN AS THE 
 
 K I 
 
 DISCIPLES OF CHRIST 
 
 AND 
 
 THE REGULAR BAPTISTS; 
 
 EMBRACINQ 
 
 THE SUBJECT OF CALVINISM AND THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Held in the Village of Springfizld, in the County of 
 
 Elgin, Ontario, from the ioth to the 
 
 I2TH September, 1874, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 Prof. CRAWFORD, Woodstock, Ont., 
 
 AND 
 
 Elder JOHN S. SWEENY, Paris, Kentucky, U.S. 
 W. E. MURRAY, Esq., Aylmer, President. 
 
 Reported by Mr. Geo. Etvel, of the "Journal," St. Thomas. 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY EDMUND SHEPPARn. 
 
 1875. 
 
 # 
 
I 
 
 • / 
 
 \'. 
 
 t 
 
 TORONTO : 
 PRmrRD AT THE OFFICE OF THE MONETARY TIMFfI, 
 
 64 ANr> 68 CHUiiCH stuert. 
 
 <i 
 

 ./ 
 
 ^O 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 
 
 It is right that the readers of this debate should 
 know the reasons why it is not published jointly by 
 the two religious bodies reprefjented in the contro- 
 versy. 
 
 It was tuutually agreed upon before the discussion 
 commenced that the services of a reporter should be 
 obtained, and that one-half of the expenses incurred 
 for the stenographic report should be paid by each 
 party, and that in the event of either afterwards 
 declining to proceed with the publication, the report 
 should be handed over to the other party. 
 
 At the close of the debate, before the audience dis- 
 persed, the writer, on behalf of the Disciples, publicly 
 stated that it was the desire of his brethren tha*^. the 
 addresses should be printed. Mr. Holmes, of Aylmer, 
 as the representative of the Baptists, also publicly an- 
 nounced that they desired the publication of the debate. 
 
 Two or three days after the discussion closed, the 
 following note was addressed to Mr. Holmes, which was 
 copied and attested by Bro. T. C. Scott, of Toronto : 
 
 KiNGSMiLL, 15th Sept., 1874. 
 
 Dear Sir, — Since you have stated that your brethren are 
 ivilling to publish the debate recently held in Springfield, 
 I write to ascertain whether you will find responsible per- 
 sons to pledge themselves to meet one-half the expenses 
 of reporting and preparing the said debate for the press. 
 
 The expense of reporting, already incurred, is twenty- 
 four dollars ;* the reporter's charge for writing out and 
 
 ^ThiB amount was afterwards reduced to eighteen dollars. 
 
IV 
 
 PUBLISHER 8 PREFACE. 
 
 F'#^ 
 
 fitting for publication will be about one liumlrcd dollars 
 more. 
 
 I further wish to find out wlietlier you will agree to the 
 appointment of a committee of five persons whose busi- 
 ness shall be to make all necessary arrangements con- 
 nected with its publication : the committee to consist of 
 two Baptists, two Disciples, and a fifth party chosen by 
 these four. If there are any other and better arrange- 
 ments that you can suggest, please to do so. 
 
 You will oblige by answering by first mail. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 E. SHEPPARD." 
 
 This not«3 was nover answered, and as wo indirectly 
 learned that the Baptists had abandoned all thouglit of 
 publication, our brethren appointed a comniittoe often 
 who directed tlie re})orter to proceed with his work. 
 
 As the expenses incurred were (juite heavy, an ap- 
 peal for j)ecuniary aid, was made to some of our 
 churches in the Provinces-., which appeal was so nobly 
 and generously responded to, that the writer ftdt safe 
 in complying with the request of the committee, and 
 taking the whole responsibility of the publication into 
 his own hands. From Mr. Holmes' letter which is 
 quoted in Mr. Sweeny's first speech, it will be seen 
 that all the arrangements for the debate were ex 2)artc. 
 The Disciples were not allowed to have a voice in the 
 matter. The positions for debate were all definitely 
 and uncliangeably arranged by Mr. Crawford, — this 
 will account for frequent references to those positions 
 in the course of the discussion. 
 
 The debate will speak for itself. Some of the issues 
 are of vital importance and call for a careful consider- 
 ation. 
 
 The writer concludes by calling the attention of 
 every reader to the following noble thoughts of Arch- 
 bishop Whately, on the subject of " The liove of Truth 
 in Religious Enquiry." 
 
publisher's preface. 
 
 I 
 
 % 
 
 k 
 
 I 
 
 " As any one may bring himself to believe almost 
 iuiything that he is iiielined to believe, it makes all the 
 (liftereuce whe^ther we hcfjhi nr r/nf with the enquiry, 
 ' What is truth f 
 
 There should be an endeavor to preserve the indif- 
 ference of the judgidcnt, even in eases where the ivlll 
 cannot, and should not, be indifferent. 
 
 The judgment is like a pair of scides, and evidences 
 like the weights ; but the will holds the balances in 
 its hand, and even a slight jcjrk will be sullicient, in 
 many cases, to nuike the lighter scale appear the heavier. 
 
 Men are too apt to ask as the first question, not liow 
 far each doctrine is agreealjle to Srr/'/iftirc, hut to fhem- 
 sclves ; not whether it is conformald" tu (lod's will, but 
 to their own. 
 
 When comparing opinions or practices with the 
 standard of God's Word, we nunt beware, lest we suf- 
 fer these opinions or practices to head the rule by which 
 they are to be measured. 
 
 Some j)ersons follow the dictates of their con.science, 
 only in the sanu^ sense in which a coachman may be 
 saiil to follow the horses he is driving. 
 
 It makes all the difference, whether we pursue a 
 certain course because we judge it right ; or judge it to 
 be right because we pursue it" ; and to the still nobler 
 words of a higher authority : " Prove all things ; hold 
 fast that which is ifood." 
 
 EDMUND SHEPPARD. 
 
 January 21st, 1875. 
 

PROF. CRAWFORD'S PREFACE.* 
 
 According to agreement I have the privilege of pre- 
 fixing a brief preface to this controversy ; but as 
 neither party is at liberty to insert any debatable mat- 
 ter, I feel it to be unnecessary to write more than a 
 few words. 
 
 In revising lu)* addresses I observed some portions 
 which I would have liked to enlarge and improve were 
 this admissible ; but, as both parties are to abide by 
 the reporter's copy, unless with such slight revision as 
 he may sanction, it must go to the press just as 
 delivered, according to his im})artial verdict. 
 
 I do not make this remark by way of apology ; as I 
 do not wish to see any alteration made in the argu- 
 ments which I employed in debate, as I believe them 
 to be held in strict harmony with the Word of God, 
 whatever they may lack in finish, owing to their being 
 necessarily delivered extempore. 
 
 I would observe that in my last address, being anxi- 
 ous to introduce another important topic before the 
 termination of the debate, viz : the nature of saving 
 faith, I was obliged to leave some of Mr. Sweeny's 
 arguments, which he delivered in his preceding ad- 
 dress, unanswered ; but no argument I think of any 
 importance. As he was, according to arrangement, 
 
 *NoTB. — When Prof. Crawford learned that the debate was to be 
 published he asked the privilege of 'STfiting a preface for insertion in 
 the work, which privilege was granted, and though it will exceed 
 the space asked for, it ia given entire. E. S. 
 
 ft^^ 9t..9ram 
 
Vlll 
 
 PROF. CRAWFORD S PREFACE. 
 
 entitled to close tlip debato, 1 had, of course, no oppor- 
 tunity of replying to Ids last address. 
 
 Throiigliout tlic controversy also, I was obliged to 
 pass by some points of minor importance, simply for 
 want of time. 
 
 I would say that when requested to enter upon this 
 debate, I yielded, from an urgent sense of duty, and 
 not b(;causu I have any delight in controversy for its 
 own sake. I honestly believe that the doctrines main- 
 tained l)y my opponent are both dishonoring to God 
 and ruinous to the souls of men. I op})osed them, 
 therefoi-e, with ail iny ability ; but it is far from my 
 intention to entertain any hostile feelings either to- 
 wards him or towards tliose who hold his views. If 
 my language, in any part of the debate, may a})})ear 
 strong, I wish the reader to set it down to my hostility 
 to the doctrines which T opposed, and not to those who 
 hold them. 
 
 I would remark with i-espect to the numerous quota- 
 tions which 1 have made from the woiks of the late 
 Mr. Alexaiid(H- Campbell, that they have all been 
 quoted before by Dr. Jeter, in his " Oampbellism Ex- 
 amined," and that during the life-time of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, although he revi(nved Dr. Jeter's work, in the 
 " Millenial Harbinger," he never complained of mis- 
 quotation. The quotations which I made from Mr. 
 Fi-ankliu are all from his volume of sermons now in 
 extensive circulation. 
 
 It will be observed tlitit I have employed the term 
 Campbelli nn in this debate ; although I consented, for 
 the time being, in order to avoid a needless waste of 
 time in disputing the propiiety of using this appella- 
 tion, tc employ instead of it the word " Disciples." 
 
 V 
 
 
PllOF. CRAWFORD S PREFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 I would say, however, in tlie wonis of Dr. Jeter, 
 that " tlu! term Oampbellism lias been used, not as a 
 term of reproach, but of distinction." '* Prom the word 
 Disciple, indelinite as an a})p«!llative, no t(;rm can be 
 derived to signify the views of those who adopt the 
 na:ue." 
 
 The system which [ have o[)posed has been, and I 
 think with great propriety, termed Campbellism, from 
 the late JVIr. Alex. Oam[)b(!ll, the author and most 
 eminent proclaimer of the peculiar .system of doctrines 
 rej)resenccd by the term. I have not, however, used 
 the word either for the purpose of irritating my op- 
 ()onents or doing tliem any injustice, but si.nply for 
 want of a more approjjriate distinctive a})pellation. 
 
 I have, I think, endeavored to realize throughout this 
 controversy, a sense of my responsibility to my 
 Heavenly Master. It is, indeed, a very small matter 
 to be judged of man's judgment; but we must all 
 stand before the judgment seat of Christ. I commend 
 my part in this controversy to Him. May He be 
 pleased to cni}>loy it for His own glory, for the ad- 
 vancement of His truth, and for the salvation of souls. 
 
 JOHN CRAWFORD. 
 
 Woodstock, Ont., Dec. 4th, 1874. 
 

 ■■Hi 
 
 11 
 
 
 m 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 Thursday, 10th Sept., 10 o'clock, A.M. 
 (PROF. Crawford's first address.) 
 
 Professor Crairford. — It is unnecessary for me 
 to occupy any time in the beginning of this de- 
 bate, in stating the reasons why we have entered 
 upon it. I may say, briefly, that a challenge was 
 given by Mr. Shej^pard to Mr. Holmes, wlio, 
 along with others of my ministerial brethren, re- 
 quested me to take it up. My hands were full, 
 for I don't think there is a man in Canada who 
 works harder than I do ; but after taking a few 
 days to deliberate, I thought it my duty to accede 
 tothe request. In order that I might know ex- 
 actly what I was to do, I examined carefully the 
 doctrines held by the Campbellites, and laid 
 down certain positions that will cover the whole 
 ground they occupy. I shall not, at this time, 
 encumber myself with minor points, upon which 
 even all Baptists are not agreed, but shall pass 
 on to the consideration of the more imj^ortant 
 questions of difference between the Campbellites 
 and myself. 
 
 It will be my duty and endeavour to show in 
 the first place, that certain doctrines constitute 
 Campbellism ; and secondly, to show that these 
 doctrines are false. It will be the part of my 
 opponent to show, either that these doctrines are 
 
T 
 
 12 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 not Campbellism, or, if they are held by that 
 body, to show that they are true. 
 
 I feel the full weight of the responsibility 
 which rests upon mo in this matter. I trust I 
 have not come here merely to show my debating 
 powers, but as a servant of Christ, to vindicate 
 what I firmly believe to be the truth, and to expose 
 what in my inmost soul I am convinced is un- 
 sound. I come here earnestly desiring to imitate 
 the spirit of my Master, determined to say or do 
 nothing unworthy of a Christian or a gentleman ; 
 and I believe my opponent will be guided by the 
 same determination. I sincerely hope I, and all 
 present, feel our responsibility, and that we are 
 here to examine with devout impartiality the 
 truths of God's word. The subjects of the debate 
 upon which we are entering are not of little im- 
 portance ; thej^ are the very kernel of the Truth, 
 and therefore we ought to proceed in prayerful 
 dependence upon Almighty God, remembering 
 that we must all stand before the great judgment 
 seat to answer for what we say and for what we 
 hear in this house. I would simply say, Hbefore 
 proceeding to the disc ission which has brought 
 us togei her, that I shall utter nothing that I do 
 not utter with the full persuasion that it is per- 
 fectly true. I shall not employ a single sophis- 
 tical argument, that I know to be sophistical. I 
 say let Christianity be banished from the earth 
 rather than that its advocates should employ 
 arguments which they know to be false, in order 
 to defend it, or to gain a victory over an oppo- 
 nent. 
 
 First, then, as to the doctrine of the Spirit's 
 influence. We hold that God by His powerful 
 influence, acting directly upon the soul, and 
 using the Truth as His instrument, converts the 
 sinner. Their view is that God works in man's 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 18 
 
 conversion, simply through the Truth : that is, 
 that the Truth is the power ; that there is no 
 influence of the Spirit to make the sinner's soul 
 willing to receive the Truth. I will first estab- 
 lish that this is Campbellite doctrine, and then 
 endeavour to show^ from God's Holy Word that 
 it is unsound. I will read extracts from the 
 writings of Alexander Campbell, the founder of 
 the sect, to prove my lirst position. Mr. Camp- 
 bell was President of their College for the train- 
 ing of their young preachers. 
 
 " Christianity Restored," page 348 : — 
 " Because arguments are addressed to the 
 understanding, will and affections of men, they 
 are called moral, inasmuch as their tendency is 
 to form or change the habits, manners, or actions 
 of men. Every spirit puts forth its moral power 
 in words ; that is, all the power it has over the 
 views, habits, manners, or actions of men is in 
 the meaning and arrangement of its ideas ex- 
 pressed in words, or in significant signs, ad- 
 dressed to the eye or ear." 
 
 Aga4n, he says on page 349 of the same work : 
 " The argument is the power of the spirit of man, 
 and the only power which one spirit can exert 
 over another is its arguments. How often do 
 we see a whole congregation roused into certain 
 actions, expressions of joy or sorrow, by the spirit 
 of one man. Yet no person supposes that his 
 spirit has literally deserted his body and entered 
 into every man and woman in the house, though 
 it is often said he has filled tliem with his spirit. 
 But how does tliat spirit located in the head of 
 yonder little man, fill all the thousaiuls around 
 him, with joy or sadness, with fear and trembling, 
 with zeal or indignation :i the case may be ? 
 How has it displayed sucn power over so many 
 minds ? By words uttered by the tongue ; by 
 

 14 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 idea9 r^oinmuiHcuti^d to th'- itiindH of tlK^ licarerH; 
 111 fliiH way only can nioial powc^u 1)( (liHi)lay(Ml." 
 
 Tli(! writcr'h nuianln;^' in unnilHtakahlo ; that 
 IH, tliat it Ih Hinij)ly tlio ])ow('r tliat in in tin; wohIh 
 of Truth ; Jio jXMVcr of th(! Sjjirit of (iod, to 
 aj)|)ly tliat truth to tlu; Houl. il<! j^'ooh on : — 
 
 '' l^'roni Hiich ))r('niiH(:H wc may Kiiy that all the 
 niorfil ])<)\V(;r which can Im (^verted on human 
 hciiiif^^H, iw, and of ncc(;ssity miiHt he, in tin; iir^^ii- 
 mcntH addrcHSijd to them. No other powor than 
 nioritl power ciui oj)eriit(! on mindH; and this 
 )ow(;r must iilwavH h(;(dothe<i in words addrc^HHcd 
 
 1 
 
 to th(i (!y(! or ear. Thus we reason when rcvida- 
 tion is altojjjetlier out of view. And when \\v. 
 think of the ])ower of tin; Spirit of (iod, (;xerted 
 nj)on the mind of human sjiirits, it is im])ossihle 
 for IIS to imajj^iiH! that ilw power cjin consist in 
 anythinj^f els(! hut words or ar<^Miments^ Tiius in 
 tlui nature of thini^'s, we ar<! prei)ar(!d to expt^ct 
 verhal connniinications from the S|)irit of (iod, 
 if that S|)irit o))erii,teH at all on oin- spirits. As 
 the moral [)ower of man is in his a,r}^njments, so 
 tli(! moral pow<'r of the S|)irit of (Iod is in His 
 ar^uimtiits." 
 
 Th 
 
 )f tl 
 
 le nieaniiif.^ ol lUese paHsa;^es is very clear 
 from the illustration which tin; writer uh(;s. 'I'he 
 man who movt;H an ainliciijce moves it only hy 
 his arj^mments; his own spirit does not leave; his 
 hody to ^'o into the audience, hut simply the 
 
 [)ow(!r wnicli js ni nis words. 
 
 A^'ain, in "(Christianity llcjstorcul," pa^'eJjr>l: - 
 " We phiad that all the convertinj^ |)ow(;r of tin; 
 
 Holy Spirit is (;xhihite(l in th(! divim; record." 
 
 And on pa;^<! JUJO of the same work : 
 
 " Hence it follows that to he lill(Mi with iiw- 
 Spirit, and to have; the word of (Jhrist dwellin/.; 
 richly in ont% are of tho wame import in Paurs 
 mind." 
 
 ,«/ 
 
 <\r 
 
DEBATK. 
 
 15 
 
 Af^ain, on priffcs l{(»'2, ){(il, jiiid '.U}f> : — 
 
 " All iln' power of (Jod or mjin i'h cxliihited ii> 
 tlic. frill li Nvliicli llicy i;roi)Oric. Tli(r(;IV)ro wo may 
 Hay tliat if th<; li^^lit or IIk; li'iiili contain all i]\c 
 moral ))o\v<r of (io(l, llicn truth uloru! is all thiit 
 \H ncccKSiiry to tin; conversion of men, for w(! 
 Jijivc bcfor*; ;i,rj^u<'<l and proved <li;it tli<' convert- 
 i'l^' [)o\ver is moral power." 
 
 " Assistance to l)eliev(! ! This is a metaphysi(;al 
 dream. I low can a pj^rson })e assisted to believe ? 
 What sort of help Jiiid how miicli is wanting? 
 Assistance to heliev<! must he either to create; a 
 power in man whi(di he hiid not hefore, or to rc- 
 |iair ;i, hrokeii [)ower. « f * * 
 
 The, Holy S[jirit was not /^'ivcn until the; day of 
 l*(!ntecost. Hence, if the Holy Spirit aidcid imTi 
 to heli(!V(! in .Jesus ('hrist, it must have been siih- 
 se(juent to tliiit date." 
 
 As i wis!) to he clear that this doctrim; is tauf^lit 
 hy Mr. Campbell, let us liavc; anotiier quotation : 
 
 " ('hristian liaptist," pap^e 520: — 
 
 " ('an men, just as they are found wlien tln^y 
 hear the (iospel, Ixdieve ? I jinswer boldly— -yes, 
 just as easily as I can ))elieve the well attested 
 facts (ioncernin^^' tli(! pcTHon and M,c}ii(!vements uf 
 General (jr(!org<! Washington. I must hoar tlie 
 facts cl(;arly statfid, and well auth(!nticat(;d, Ixdoro 
 I am able to Ixdiftvo thom. The; man who (;an 
 beli(!V(j one fact W(;ll attested, can b('li(!V(! any 
 oth(;r fact equjilly well atlostod." 
 
 Th(! next quotation, and the last I shall give 
 from Mr. ('am])heirs works, is on page 5J5U of 
 "Christianity llestorod." 
 
 " Ah tlio spirit of man piitH forth all its moral 
 powor in the words which it fools with its id(;aH ; 
 HO the Spirit of God puts forth iill its converting 
 and sanctifying powor in tlu; words which it foolB 
 

 lt> 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 with its ideas. ***** 
 ff the Spirit of (iod lias spoken all its; av*j;u- 
 ments ; or, if the New and Ohl Testaments con- 
 tain all the arjjjuments which ean he offered to 
 reconcile man t(» God, and to purify them who arc 
 reconciled, then all the poircr of the Holy Spirit 
 which can operate on the human mind is spent ; 
 and he that is not sanctified and saved hy these, 
 cannot he saved hy angels or spirits, human 
 or divine." 
 
 I shall give you one quotation from Mr. James 
 Hemshill's ''Scripture Reformation, " page 23: — 
 
 "If they (the Samaritans) were converted he- 
 fore haptism, they were converted without the 
 Holy Spirit, for they had heen haptized, and yet 
 the ' Spirit had fallen upon none of them.' * * 
 This passage (Gal. 2, 2.) ought alone to decide 
 this controversy ahout the work of the Spirit. 
 The passages are ahundant which teach the 
 nature of the Spirit's work, and all are like the 
 ahove, conclusive to the fact that the Holy Spirit 
 dwells in the saints, and that he does not come 
 to sinners to convert them." 
 
 That is, the Samaritans were haptized ; they 
 Were helievers, justified, washed in the hlood of 
 Christ ; they had all this, hut not the Spirit of 
 Christ ; therefore they were " none of his," (Rom. 
 8, 9.) I leave my Camphellite brethren to recon- 
 cile these two views. When the Apostle John 
 says: — ** The Holy Ghost was not yet given, 
 because that Jesus was not yet glorified," (John 
 8, 39.) he does not refer to the ordinary gracious 
 operation of the Holy Spirit ; but to the fuller 
 measure of Holy Spirit, consequent upon the 
 completion of Christ's finished work and as-ien- 
 sion, by which the fuller revelation objectively 
 made on the cross of Christ was to be applied. 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 17 
 
 BelieverR had the gracious oponitiou of the Divme 
 Spirit in tho past dispensation, as well as in this, 
 lience David prays, Make not thy Holy Spirit 
 iVom me," (Psalm 51 , 2.) The writers of the Old 
 Testament, moreover, were inspired, for in that 
 dispensation, accordinf:,' to the Apostle Peter, 
 "holy men of God spake as tliey were moved hy 
 the Holy Ghost," (2 Peter 1, 21.) 
 
 I shall quote nc^xt from the sermons of Mr. 
 Franklin, whose doctrines have never yet heen 
 disavowed l)y the Camphellites, for the quotations 
 are mad(^ from the seventh editi<ni of his works 
 in full circulation. I understand, also, tliat Air. 
 Sheppard does not hesitatt; to acknowh.^do;t! his 
 belief in the soundness of Mr. Franklin's 
 teachings ; and I contend, that if I show 
 that, in these modern days, tliese doctrines 
 of the early Cam])bellites are accepted and 
 preached ])y tho Camphellites, I have shown 
 what Camphellism is. In looking over this hook 
 I was anxious to ascertain whether the doctrines 
 set forth hy Mr. Campbell have ever been repu- 
 diated, especially tlui doctrine that a man is con- 
 verted without tlie direct inHuence of the Holy 
 Spirit. I have, with tliis object in view, made a 
 careful search, and I jind that his views are one 
 with Mr. Campbell's on this doctrine and have 
 never been repudiated by their followers. I will 
 read you a quotation from Sermon III, page 57, 
 7th edition: 
 
 " There are two theories about this" (viz : How 
 persons are made believers,) **so widely different 
 that if either one of them is right the other is 
 wrong. One of tliese theories asserts that God 
 puts forth an immediate power or influence of His 
 Spirit from Himself, or a direct influence to the 
 soul of the unbeliever and makes him a believer. 
 The other theory asserts that God puts forth His 
 
 j"- 
 
^ 
 
 
 L 
 
 18 
 
 DKHATE. 
 
 ]K)Wf!r or infhicnco throu^li (JliriKi, ilid ApoHtloH, 
 tlir.)U|.^li tlio Holy S|)irit, Hint WiiH in ilu! iiiHplriid 
 A|»oHil<!H, and iiiukcs IxiliovcrH. TIi(!H(! two 
 tli(;ori(!H }ii» wliolly irn'(!on(!iliil»l(!. If ilio ono is 
 cori'oot tli(! olluir in ii <l(!liision, ji dccMrption, ii 
 cheat." 
 
 TliiMioxt quotation in from S(;rmon III, |)af,'o 
 50 :— 
 
 " \V(; all admit that Hod mal.' -i hclidvcrH hy 
 His Holy Spirit. Nor is it wlifithcr Ik; docs it 
 hy His power. W(! all admit that Hod makes 
 lielievers hy His j»o\V'e/. ..U\i does He |)iit forth 
 His povv(!r throiif^h Christ, throii^^di the Aposths, 
 throuf^di th(; Spirit in the A|)oslles, throii^^di the 
 (jlosj)el pr(!a(died hy, the A))ostles ? Or docH He 
 |)ut forth his |)o\ver or inlhienee to make helie\ 
 ers, immediately from llimsidf to the soul of th(! 
 simi(;r, not throui^h ('hi'ist, nor throii<.^h the 
 Apostles, nor the Word V This is the (piestion 
 to h(! seethul hy Seriptiiro. 
 
 I liav(3 mad(! this (jiiotation not so nnieli to 
 hrinj^ out tlie author's views on the suhjectt as to 
 show liow very unfairly he states om' sid(! of th(! 
 <|uestion. He speaks ii,s if we ])(!li(!ved that Hod 
 did not (tonv<'rt the; soul tljrou}.^h (Jhrist, ihrou;^di 
 His tea(;liin{^fs and that of the Aposthis; in short, 
 throu^di the Truth ; whereas, W(! helieve tliat a 
 ref^enenite miin is horn of the " uneorrujitihh; 
 se(!(l of th(3 Word ;" hut tin; question is, does not 
 tlie power of the Spirit a(;('<)inpany this Word ? T 
 lind tluit this kind of on(!-Kid(!(hiess prtjvails wher- 
 (!Ver he pre'tends oi- attempts to state our vi(!ws, as 
 thou;.5lj we entertained tli(; h( lief that a tmui eould 
 he Haved without the njception of the Truth. I 
 say if hv. did not know our Ijelicd' he should not 
 hav<; att<;mpted to ^o"v(^ it ; iind if lie did know it, 
 li(.' should have stjitod it fairly. I would not 
 attempt to review Cumphellism if I was not pre- 
 
 
 f 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 19 
 
 ii('\ 
 
 r)rt, 
 
 it ii 
 
 hl(; 
 
 not 
 
 I 
 
 icr- 
 :i.H 
 iiild 
 
 I 
 not 
 
 it, 
 lot 
 
 parfMl to hIiov exactly what it i'h. I know wliat 
 CampbolliHin in, and aftci* Htatin^ what it i'h, I 
 Hhall revi<!W it in th«! ii^ht (»r (Jod'H Word. 
 
 Ii. th(! Hani'' Horiiioii, wht ii (romnicutiiij^' oii 
 Actnll, 1 1, " Wlicii lie JH come H(! nhall tell you 
 wordn wlicrchy thou and thy hoiiKoHJiall he Sii,v<!d," 
 li(! ^'ocH on to Hay, "Any llnory pi'oposin;^' to 
 inako hclicvd'H and Have men without woidn, cjin- 
 not Ix; r((!(!iv(!d, whih; the Lord's Hyntcni, in 
 wlii(di men art! navcd hy wordn iH rc^irded. TIk! 
 (|U(!Htion is not wln-ther the liord can navo nuju 
 without woj'ds, hut whether lie donH in the Hyn- 
 teni revealed in the liihie. 'I'Ikj iinL,'el HJiys />// 
 ivordii, '.i\\(\ let him wlio nayH wilhonl iconlH hrinj^ 
 liin proof. And in tlic; H!i,ni(! nernion, vvlu^n din- 
 courni/'^ on Kom. 10, 17: "Shall th( j^reat 
 Apontie of the OentileH heealle*! to ie-Htify in tin; 
 eaHe as to how faith (toineH ? lie; nayn in lt(;in. 
 10, 17: 'So th«!n faith eonietli hy heiirin{^', and 
 hearing hy th(; Word of (jod.' If he hiid Hiiid 
 faith eorncH hy feelinj^, hy an ininuMiiate intliieneo 
 of tile S[)irit, or hy anything' (Ise bcHulcH juuirhu), 
 it would liavii been junt an easy ho to 'pre-aeli." 
 
 Here iigain, jh yon will oliHervj;, In; niisHtatiiH 
 our viewH, wlnither pui'jiosely or not I cannot Hjiy. 
 The (juestion in not whe'ther a nian cannot he 
 Haved witlioiit the Word ; we helieve that tin; 
 Word Ih Uficded in tin; Halvation of HinneiH ; hut 
 the qu(!Htion in, can a man he; Haved without tin? 
 Spirit ojieratin*/ upon his liciirt and preparinj^ it 
 for th(! r<!eeption of the 'I'ruth ? Ih not Hueh 
 want of candor on tint part of oik; (daimin;^' to 
 he an expounder of tin: 'I'mth, to say the leant of 
 it, very unhecomiii}^? in p:i^<' aft(!r pa|^(! ho 
 gocH on to attrihut(! to uh doctrine-s that have no 
 existeiKM! Hav(; in hiH own hrain. In the name 
 volume, in diHcourning upon lioiiiaiiH 10, 17 : 
 " Bo then faith cometh hy hearing and hearing 
 
20 
 
 ORB ATE. 
 
 by the Word of God," ho argues that ht'causo 
 the Apostle uses the word " lR'ariii<;," and does 
 not say that faith conicth l)y fcelin}^ or by the im- 
 mediate inthience of the Si)irit, therefore a man 
 can ))e saved by hi'arin;^' and nothing else, — no 
 influence of the Spirit of God. Then in Sermon 
 III., pages 00 and 07, he says : 
 
 " But was it not granted at the outset tliat he 
 makes behevers l)y the Holy Spirit ? It was, 
 and without tiny reservation. He unquestion- 
 al)ly does it by the Holy Spirit. But can it not 
 be that hv makes l)rlievers tlu'ough the Gospel 
 and by the Holy Spirit ? There can be no difli- 
 eulty in this, for the Gospel itself was preached 
 by the Holy Spirit sent down from Heavcin, 
 which things the angels desire to look into. See 
 I Peter, 1, 12. Paul says of these things, ' But 
 God has revealed them to us by His Spirit ; for 
 the Spirit searches all ^'ungs, yea, the deep 
 things of God.' See Cor. 2, 10, The very same 
 gospel preached by the Apostles was preached 
 also by the Holy Spirit, speaking in them. In- 
 deed it wiiH not the Apostles that spake, but the 
 Spirit that spoke in them ; and tlu; person who 
 believed the words which the TIoli/ Spirit spoke, 
 certainlji was made a helierer In/ tJie Ifoh/ Spirit. 
 The Holy Spirit operates on men by words or 
 through words." 
 
 Here I would observe that I hold as high views 
 on the doctrine of inspiration as Mr. Franklin or 
 the Campbellites possibly can. I believe and 
 teach that every w^ord of Scripture both of the 
 Old and New^ Testaments as they camc^ originally 
 from the pens of the inspired writers were not 
 their words only but also the w^ords of the Holy 
 Ghost, by wdiom they weie inspired. But the 
 question is not whether the Truth is of God, but 
 whether that Truth alone can convert. The 
 
 I 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 21 
 
 ]lie 
 
 ho 
 
 ke, 
 
 it. 
 
 or 
 
 or 
 11(1 
 ;lie 
 
 le 
 lit 
 le 
 
 Word iH tli(! (liviiiff instruincnt and ifi aclmirahly 
 adapted to its work ; I)iit can tlic inHtriiment 
 alono, liowrvor cxcollcnt, ptTrorni the work 
 rxct'Utcd l»v itw instrununtalitv ? True, the 
 Apostles pr('ii('h('(] tlic Word of (iod; or rather 
 Die Ilolv (lliost tlnit was in them preached 
 throuirh thcni. But it is also necessarv that the 
 sanie Spirit, operatinjj; upon the souls of men and 
 hrinj^iujj; the truth home to tlieir hearts and con- 
 sciences, converts them. The Word is the divine- 
 ly ap])oiiited instrument; hut the Word does not 
 [)t'rf()rm the work of conversion only instrument- 
 ally. We mij^ht as well say that the man who 
 makes an axe cuts down tlie tree that another 
 chops down with it as to say that a man is con- 
 verted hy the Holy Ghost when no j»ower of the 
 Spirit is exerted hut only the power of Truth, the 
 divine instrument. 
 
 And on page 09, of the same sermon • — 
 
 "The influence or power, then, of these words 
 of the Holy Spirit, is the iniiuence or power of 
 the Holy Spirit, and a man made a hdlever hij 
 these words of the Spirit, is made a believer hy 
 the llohf Spirit:' 
 
 Again on page 71 : — 
 
 ** Is the power that God exercises m making 
 believers, and turning men to God, the power of 
 intelligence addressed to the human understand- 
 ing *? Or is it a sulitle power of the Spirit, imme- 
 diately from God, that takes effect on man, as 
 lie«t. cold, or electricity, not in words addressed 
 to the human understanding, that makes be- 
 lievers, and turns men to God ?" 
 
 Again, page 75 : — 
 
 ** But some one objects saying, * Do you think 
 there is power in the mere Word to quicken a 
 sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, and turn 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 liim to God ?* Men of fuith never say * the mere 
 Word,' nor the 'bare Word,' when npeaking of 
 the Word of God, which is (luick and powerful, 
 and nhariK'r tlian a two-edged sword, l)iit call it 
 the Wonl of God. 'The power of God in in it, 
 the power of Christ ; and the jjower of the Holy 
 Ghost is in it." Here I would remark *hat 
 when we charge the Cam[)l»(lliteK with te^. . \n; 
 that a man is converted hy the ''mere Woid 
 or " mere Truth," we mean the mere Word or 
 Truth of God, or mere Word of the Holy Ghost. 
 And in this do we misrepresent their views ? If 
 conversion is effected hy tlie operation of God's 
 Truth alone, without any direct or immediate 
 operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart, what 
 is this hut the operation of the " mere Word" of 
 God? 
 
 I 
 
* the mere 
 leaking of 
 
 powerful, 
 l)iit call it 
 I in in it, 
 
 the Holy 
 iiarl< +hat 
 
 te>.. .. ^fT 
 re Woni ' 
 I Word or 
 )ly Ghost, 
 iews ? If 
 
 of God's 
 rnniediate 
 art, what 
 Word" of 
 
 J 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 Thuvfidmj, 10th Sept., 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 (MR. sweeny's first REPLY.) 
 
 Mr. Sireeni/. — I accord fully and heartily with 
 the gentleman whom I am to call my opponent 
 in the discussion upon which we are entering, in 
 hip. remarks as to the spirit and manner in which 
 such discussions should he conducted. I would 
 not have you construe anything I may say, in 
 tli(^ huiTy and heat of dehate, as intended to 
 offend any one, whether agreeing with me or not ; 
 whether Christian or not ; for I shall certainly 
 say nothing intentionally to offend any one who 
 may listen to us. I think T can also join my 
 opponent in earnest and heartfelt prayer to 
 Almighty God, that His hlessing may attend us 
 both while contending for what we believe to be 
 His Truth, as well as all who shall hear us. 
 
 We were informed that this discussion was 
 originated by a challenge given by my Brother 
 Sheppard to the Baptist Pastor at Aylmer. Well, 
 as I understand the matter. Brother Sheppard 
 did (after some antecedent correspondence or 
 other communication between them, that need 
 not be now recited,) formally challenge the 
 Aylmer Pastor to discuss a proposition relating 
 to Spiritual influence in conversion, and the chal- 
 lenge was accepted, and while as yet no prelimi- 
 naries had been agreed upon, such as the time 
 when the discussion should begin, how long it 
 should be continued, who should be the repre- 
 sentative men in the discussion, and all such 
 matters as in which, of course, both parties have 
 
24 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 rights, BroL sr Sbcppard received notice from 
 the A3^hiier Pastor that all these matters had 
 been arran<,^ed, and that he had nothing to do 
 but come to time, and in a very short time at 
 that. That this may appear, and that all pres- 
 ent may understand the exact attitude of my 
 brethren in the discussion, I will read the letter 
 of the Aylmer Pastor, together wiih that of Pro- 
 fessor Crawford, asking you to bear in mind that 
 it came to Bro. Sheppard just at the time when 
 he was ex]jecting something as to the prelimi- 
 naries to the discussion of the propositions he 
 supposed were to be debated. But here is the 
 letter : 
 
 Aylmer, August 31, 1874. 
 
 Eev. — Sheppard : 
 
 Dear Sir : I regret that my engagements are 
 such as to prevent me coming personally to see 
 you. I enclose the positions Prof. Crawford is 
 prepared to take. They embody clearly the 
 matter in dispute between the two bodies and 
 involved hi this controversy. In refo'ence to them, 
 I have to say that the Professor will consent to 
 no modification or alteration ; they are ucjinite 
 and clear, and the Professor calls upon you to 
 meet and defend them. 
 
 We have fixed Thursday, September 10th, 
 1874, as the date of the controversy, and on that 
 day the Professor will be in Springfield at ten 
 o'clock in the morning, prepared to make good 
 his positicms, whatever your decision may be. I 
 will read a copy of this and the propositions at 
 Springfield to-night, and also give notice as 
 above. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 Geo. Holmes. 
 
Dtice from 
 liters had 
 ling to do 
 rt time at 
 t all pres- 
 de of my 
 the letter 
 at of Pro- 
 mind that 
 ;ime when 
 e prelimi- 
 sitions he 
 ire is the 
 
 I, 1874. 
 
 Luents are 
 illy to see 
 •awford is 
 parly the 
 xlies and 
 to them, 
 3nsent to 
 uc/inite 
 m you to 
 
 er 10th, 
 on that 
 at ten 
 ike good 
 y be. I 
 itions at 
 otice as 
 
 LMES. 
 
 DEBATtl. 
 
 25 
 
 llere is the Professor's letteil, Containing his 
 positions : 
 
 Woodstock, 29th August, 1874. 
 
 I undertake to prove, and defend, in public 
 debate, the following positions. 
 
 1. That the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, 
 by his actual personal agency, on the human 
 soul ; opening the heart to the cordial reception 
 of Divine Truth, and enlightening the mind, 
 through the instrumentality of that Truth, is in- 
 disj^ensably necessary, in the conversion of a 
 sinner to God. And therefore. 
 
 That the Word of Truth alone, or mere moral 
 suasion without direct si:)iritual agency, cannot 
 effect the renewal or conversion of a soul, dead in 
 trespasses and sins ; and also 
 
 That the teaching of the late Mr. Alexander 
 Campbell, President of Bethany College, Vir- 
 ginia, and his followers, is, upon this vital doc- 
 trine of the Christian religion, unsound, evasive, 
 and contradictory. 
 
 2. That no person is a fit and proj^er subject 
 of Christian Baptism who has not previously be- 
 come the subject of converting and regenerating 
 grace, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, 
 through the instrumentality of Divine Truth ; 
 and that, therefore, baptism is not conversion, nor 
 regeneration, although this ordinance represents 
 this spiritual change in a figure ; nor do we re- 
 ceive the remission of sins in and through bap- 
 tism, only in a figure. 
 
 8. That the teaching of Mr. Campbell and his 
 followers, on the import and use of Christian 
 baptism, is unsound, evasive, and contradictory. 
 
 4. That the basis of Christian faith and hojie, 
 as set forth by Mr. Campbell and his associates, 
 is, as such, in the highest degree defective and 
 delusive. 
 
^f^ 
 
 ■p 
 
 2$ 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 I! 
 
 5. That the tendency of the so-called ** Refor- 
 n^' 'ion," originated by Mr. dampbcdl, and car- 
 m by him and his associates, is to substitute 
 a Heartless, formal religion, for true spiritual 
 piety ; and to sow the seeds of many pernicious 
 errors. 
 
 John Cuawford. 
 
 The letter of Mr. Holmes shows that he and 
 Prof. Crawford took the whole mutter of prelim- 
 inaries and propositions into their own hands, 
 rather arbitriirily, not to say arrogantly, extend- 
 ing but the conrtvsy of ten days previous notice 
 to my bretlu'en. T'hey are, therefore, responsible 
 for the somewhat novel character of our debate ; 
 which, it seems, is to be a discussion without a 
 distinct logical proposition. 
 
 The letter of Mr. Crawford is, " s ppose, to be 
 the ground of our discussion. " at letter con- 
 tains some things in which I suppose, he and I 
 agree, and some concerning which we differ. He 
 proposes to make an attack all along the line of 
 what he chooses to call Campbellism ; while I 
 will, of (u:>urse, defend at only such points as I 
 shall feel that the interests of the cause I advo- 
 cate requirt^ me to defend. I shall resist him 
 only where I shall believe him to be wrong. He, 
 of course, has his points of attack well in mind, 
 his method of attack all planned, and his mate- 
 rial and munitions arranged ; while I am to 
 watch my whole line, and be ready, without a 
 moment's notice, to defend it at any point. But 
 I don't complain. I feel no fears. I shall aim 
 to advocate only truth, and that is easily de- 
 fended. Who wars against that cannot have 
 enough advantages to put firm upon an equal 
 footing with his opponent who stands for its de- 
 fence. I would, however, much prefer having 
 distinct propositions, setting forth, singly and 
 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 27 
 
 !, to be 
 er oon- 
 and I 
 r. He 
 line of 
 vhile I 
 ts as I 
 advo- 
 5t him 
 He, 
 mind, 
 mate- 
 im to 
 loiit a 
 But 
 aim 
 ly de- 
 have 
 equal 
 ts de- 
 laying 
 y and 
 
 11 
 
 clearly, the points of difference between us ; but 
 this I cannot hove. I would also like to know 
 how lonfj; the discussion is to be continued — how 
 lonjj; the lire is to be kept up — but even this is 
 denied me. This, however, I have the satisfac- 
 tion of knowing : That the debate opens to-day, 
 and that^l am to have the liberty of replying to 
 every sjieech my opponent shall make. I shall 
 try to be ready to say clone when lie shall say 
 close, and, God willing, to go on as long as he 
 shall say go on. This only I ask of my hearers, 
 that they make some allowance for what may 
 seem to them to be short or abrupt, in my re- 
 plies, as I shall not know what I am to talk 
 about in any speech I shall make till I have 
 lieard the speech to which I shall have to reply. 
 As I am here, I should like to have an opportu- 
 nity to affirm and try to establish those points 
 of teaching that constitute the peculiarities of mj'' 
 brethren, and upon which many good people 
 esteem them so frightfully heterodox. Though 
 J sliall not have an oi3portunity to do this to my 
 satisfaction, under the present arraiig(^ment, I 
 shall try to make the very best of the opportun- 
 ity. I hope also to have an opportunity to hold 
 my opponent to account for some of his errors — 
 upon the points of difference between his bretiiren 
 and mine. 
 
 The Professor tells us that his first work will 
 be to show "what Campbellism is," and to that 
 work most of his opening speech was devoted. 
 But he. will never tell us "wdiat Campbellism is." 
 There is no such thing, sir! "Campbellism is 
 a myth ! He speaks of Mr. Campbell as "the 
 founder of the sect." Mr. Campbell never found- 
 ed any sect. He spent most of his life in both' 
 writing and preaching against founding sects. 
 The great work of his life — that for which thous- 
 
 m 
 
f 
 
 28 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 It 
 
 f 
 
 ill 
 
 ands now hold his memory in such high esteem, 
 and for which the future will rise up and hless 
 him — was earnest and ])()werful opposition to 
 " sects" among the people of God. Nor are Mr. 
 Campbell's writings \A all authoritative among 
 us. That great man never intended his writings 
 to be authoritative anywhere. No one ever 
 laboured more earnestly against all human 
 authority in religion than he. People used to 
 talk so of ^Ir. Campbell's writings in the States, 
 but that sort of talk has died out pretty generally. 
 No body of people can be found in this country 
 whose members profess to be " Campbellites." 
 We, as a people, have never accepted that name. 
 Mr. Campbell never intended that we should. 
 My opponent can so designate us if he choose. 
 I shall not be offended at it, though I may think 
 it a little discourteous. I deem it of just suffi- 
 cient importance to say that, hereafter if he calls 
 us by that name he must do it against my pro- 
 test. I think, however, he did it oftener in his 
 first half-hour speech than he will in the whole 
 of the last day of our discussion. 
 
 My opponent says he proposes to show you, 
 first, *' What Campbellism is," and, secondly, 
 "That its teachings are false." By " Campbell- 
 ism," I shall assume that he means Christianity, 
 as understood and propounded by our people, 
 specially those matters wherein we differ from the 
 popular denominations of the day. And he 
 begins with the question of Spiritual influence, in 
 conversion. On this question he makes copious 
 quotations from Mr. Campbell and others. I am 
 not bound by what Mr. Campbell or Mr. Frank- 
 lin has said, though I think our people do 
 generally agree with them on this question. Mr. 
 Campbell may have used many expressions that 
 I would not prefer; expressions not the very 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 29 
 
 1(1 
 nee in 
 >pioiis 
 
 lam 
 rank- 
 
 e do 
 Mr. 
 
 that 
 
 very 
 
 4 
 
 liappit'st, and, takeu out of their connection, 
 may seom to mean what I do not believe, and 
 even wliat he liiiiiself did not believe. This is 
 true of Mr. I'raidvHn, and other editors amon^ us, 
 as it is also of Baptist scribes. Eminent Bap- 
 tists have said and written many thinp^s that my 
 opponent would not endorse, as we shall see in 
 the future of our discussion. On this question, 
 ho\v(!Ver, 1 do, in th(> main, cndors*' Mr. Camp- 
 l)eirs views, as I understand Iheni. So do my 
 l)rethren generally. And I am ready to defend 
 them. Mr. Campbell taii.^dit that the Holy Spirit 
 converts men, l)ut that it does it always through 
 the instrumentality of th(> Truth, or ])y the Gos- 
 pel ; that in conversion the Spirit operates, but 
 not directly or iinNtcdiiitcli/, but mediately; not di- 
 rectly, as my liand operates upon this book, when 
 I bring my hand in immediate contact with it ; 
 but mediately, and the medium used is tlie Gos- 
 pel. That's what Mr. Campbell taught upon 
 this question ; that's what our people generally 
 believe ; that's what I believe and teach and what 
 I am willing, and, I trust, shall be able to defend. 
 I should like to iind a proper gentleman in 
 Canada willing to afBrm, in a distinct, loj^ical 
 form, that in the conversion of a sinner, the 
 Holy Spirit operates directly or imincfriafrli/ wpon 
 his heart. I would like for my oppc^nent to come 
 squarely up to the discussion of that (piestion, 
 for I consider it no unimportant one. I do not 
 think Mr. FrankLn was so unfair as my opponent 
 seems to think, in bis presentation of the two 
 theories of Spiritual influence. I will quote an 
 author on my friend's side of this question, that 
 you may see what is taught as to immediate 
 spiritual influence. I will read from the book 
 written by the author, and then lay it before my 
 friend, as I should like to have him do, instead of 
 
8a 
 
 DEBATE, 
 
 reading scraps, without producing the books from 
 which lie reads. I rt^ad from Mission of tlu; 
 Spirit, by Bev. L. li. ])min, a work that lias 
 received high and ext(aisive endorsemrnt by the 
 orthodox press ; pp. 194-95. 
 
 "Even where the Hglit of the Gospel does not 
 shine, and the institutions of the Gospel are not 
 enjoyed, there thi! Spirit acts directly upon man's 
 heart and conscience, writes the law of God upon 
 his mind, gives liim the sense of sin and the need 
 of forgiveness. Jlence, wlier(iver man, redeemed 
 man, is, there th-/ comforter is at work upon his 
 lieart and mind * * * "'' This 
 
 divine intiuence is imparted niiconditionallt/ and 
 irrcsistihlij. * * * * r^^^^, Holy 
 
 Spirit is ever emidoyed to bring man back to 
 God ; and ivJtetJirr he desires it or not, whether he 
 is willing or unwilling, still the comforter comes 
 to him with his heavenly illumination, his divine 
 influence, convincing him of sin, and his con- 
 seijuent need of the nnu'cy of God. May I not 
 truly say that man really lias no choiee in the 
 matter as to whether he will or will not have this 
 divine inlluence upon his soul. He is, he must be 
 enlightened and convinced n^hether he will hear or 
 forbear, whether Ik; will be saved or damned. 
 He cannot prevent the entrance of the Spirit into 
 his heart." " Universal," "unconditional," "im- 
 mediate," and "irresistible," "even where the 
 light of the Gospel dors not shine," upon the 
 hearts of men who would be saved and upon the 
 hearts of such who would prefer to be damned ! 
 Such is tite theory ire oppose. " The Gospel is 
 the power of God for salvation ;" and I say fear- 
 lessly, and proudly — gratefully to God — that it 
 will save every one that rciceives it. If I repeat 
 it, it is because I believe it most masculinely. 
 
 My opponent read something from James 
 
 **• 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 81 
 
 Iloiishall, 1 believo, uboiit the Samarituu coji- 
 verts. I am not certain 1 understood just what 
 it was, but 1 suppose if it was anythinj^ l)t'aring 
 upon the question of spiritual inHuenco in con- 
 version, it was most likely in harmony with what 
 I have said. 
 
 Prof. Crawford's lan<^'ua^'e upon the point 
 before us is a little like, he thinks, the doctrines 
 of " Campbellism" are — ^,just a little "evasive 
 and contradictory." So, at least, it strikes me. 
 In his letter, which I have referred to as the 
 ground of our d('])ate, he speaks of "the durct 
 operation of the Jloly Spirit, by his actual pcsr- 
 sonal agency, on the human soul — ()i)ening the 
 heart to the cordial rect^ption of Divine Truth, 
 and enlightening the mind, throuj/h tlw uiHtni- 
 menfdUli/ of that TriitJt.'' This would seem to 
 indicate that he b(;li(!ves the sinner is converted, 
 or, at least, enlightened, through the instru- 
 mentality of the Truth, but tliat there is an 
 antecedent work of "opening the he'irt," done 
 by the Spirit dh'iicthi, in his own person. Will 
 my opponent at'tirm all this in debate ? 
 It is certainly easier to talk about "Camp- 
 bellism " in a g<Mi(;ral way, than to jirove 
 such a doctrine ; but will he try it '? I 
 have here also a volume, (>ntitled 'Hie Bdptiat 
 Pulpit, containing extracts from sermons by 
 eminent Baptist divines, and their pictures. I 
 will read, on page 44, an extract from a sermon 
 by J. W. Hayhurst, on the; " Holy Spirit in Con- 
 version." lie says: — "God has given us no 
 means by which the conversion of sinners, or the 
 general revival of religion; can be effected, irre- 
 spective of the direct agency of the Spirit. The 
 Gospel itself will not do it." This author denies 
 that the Gospel will efi'ect the conversion of the 
 sinner, and says w^e have no means that will hut 
 
 'i 
 
 •4' 
 
82 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 1^ 
 
 the dhrct arfcncy of the Spirit. On the contrary, 
 we believe that the Gospel will effect the con- 
 version of the sinner, if ho will hear and receive 
 it, and that he can do so if he will ; and if he 
 will not, we d.iiy that the Spirit will operate on 
 his heart at all, and call for the proof. Here is a 
 clear issue raised ; will my friend undertake to 
 prove the doctrine to which he stands as affirmant ? 
 If so, then we may have an interesting and a 
 profital)l(! discussion. There is no good to be 
 effected by his attempting to show that our peo- 
 ple are, in teaching, "unsound, evasive and con- 
 tradictory." I think I could do quite as much 
 for Baptist teachers, and if we are to have that 
 kind of debate, I will do it. It would be useless 
 for me to repeat and nojice in detail all the quo- 
 tations he made froiv. Mr. Campbell, Franklin 
 and others, to show what we teach, on this ques- 
 tion, even if I had the books here, and the time 
 to do so. The sum of the matter is, that we be- 
 lieve the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Truth ; 
 yiat he is ever present with the Truth — never 
 out of it ; that no one can receive the Truth 
 and not be influenced by the Spirit ; that 
 no one is converted to Christ by the Spirit 
 without the Truth ; that every one who is con- 
 verted to Christ is converted by the Spirit 
 in the Truth. Not that we believe, as we are 
 sometimes misrepresented, that the Truth is the 
 Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is simply the 
 Truth. But whom the Truth effects, and what 
 the Truth effects, that the Holy Spirit effects ; 
 because it is the Spirit of the Truth — ever pre- 
 sent in the Truth, and efficient wherever and in 
 whomsoever the Truth is received. In whom the 
 Word of God dwells richly tlie Holy Spirit dwells 
 also, just as my opponent read from Mr. Camp- 
 bell. This is what I believe, and this I think our 
 
^ 
 
 ij£BATE. 
 
 88 
 
 people do generally believe , and this I am wil- 
 ling to defend. You can call it '* CampbelliKm" 
 if you choose — call it what you like — I believe it 
 to l)e the truth of God, and will defend it. But 
 again he says, in the same letter, that no one is 
 a tit subject of bajitism who has not previously 
 been the subject of converting and regenera- 
 ting Grace, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, 
 through the instrumentality of Divine Truth. 
 This would seem to indicate that the sinner is 
 converted, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, 
 through the Truth ,- which is sound and Scrip- 
 tural. And in his speech he talked of the Spirit 
 "acting (Virectlji upon the soul, using the Truth 
 as his instrument." Does he mean to say, that, 
 in conversion, the Spirit operates immediately, 
 throufjh a medium ! That's a contradiction in 
 terms. So is it, also, to say the Spirit acts 
 directly upon the soul, irith an instrument ! When 
 the gentleman talks of the influence of the Spirit 
 " through the Truth," affirmatively, as he has 
 done, he thereby consents to our teaching uj^on^ 
 the subject ; but when he talks of its direct, or 
 immediate, influence, he goes beyond what we 
 teach or believe ; and I hope he will, for my sake, 
 be a little more explicit. What does the Spirit 
 do when He acts directly, personally, immediate- 
 ly, upon the sinner's heart ? What is the necessity 
 for such operation ? He has said the mind is 
 enlightened by the Spirit, through the Truth ; 
 now what, if any, antecedent or subsequent work 
 has the Spirit to do in conversion, that must be 
 done by it in its own person, acting immediately 
 upon the heart ? You can readily see, my friends, 
 that there are two theories upon the question of 
 spiritual influence ; and from what I have read, 
 you can see that Mr. Franklin was not so unfair 
 in his statement as Mr. Crawford seems to t.hink. 
 
84 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 ii 
 
 ^Fr. Crawford sooms to got a little iiiixod, and 
 nocds to oxplain a little, tliat we may know just 
 what he does believe ujion the subject. Does he 
 believe the Spirit rcf^enerates, or converts, the 
 sinner, by His own jxrsonal, direct, innnediato 
 act upon the soul ? If not, then I don't see that 
 he need liave any dispute witli what he calls 
 " Canipbellisni,' upon this subject. ]5ut if ho 
 does so believe, 1 deny it, and our work is laid 
 out, and we should go at it, at once. My first, 
 chief, and most comprehensive objection to that 
 theory is, that, so far as the conversion of the 
 world is concerned, it sweeps away the whole 
 OosiK'l, with Christ, and all that He did and suf- 
 fered, in it ! This \ conci'ive to b(; a fcivrfully 
 mischievous error ! I Ixdieve that God, by the 
 Holy Si>irit. approaclu's men, througli Christ; 
 that men are l)r()Ught to God only through 
 Christ. Jesus said of the Spirit, wdien He pro- 
 mised to send it to His Disciple;'', as their Com- 
 forter, and through th«'ni to act upon the world, 
 " He shall testify of vie ;" " He shall not speak 
 of Ubiiiidf;'' " He shall glorify mc, for he shall 
 receive of miiu; and shall show it unto you." 
 The i^hilosophy of conversion is simple, sublime- 
 ly and beautifully simple ; as simple as that of a 
 mother who Avould induce her little child to let 
 go an ugly and dangerous knif(% by handing it 
 an apple, or something more beautiful than the 
 hurtful thing, knowing that to take hold of the 
 one it must let go the other. Christ is preached, 
 by the Holy Spirit, to the sinner. He is i)rettier, 
 lovelier, better than sin. To receive Him, one 
 nnist let go sin. As he enters the heart, sin goes 
 out of it ; and while He remains in it, sin must 
 remain out. There is something far more beau- 
 tiful in Jesus than there is in sin, and whoever 
 will look can see it. He came down from the 
 beauties and bliss of Heaven, took our nature 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 85 
 
 upon him ; our whole nature became more human 
 thrai any man ; lived in a world of sin, want and 
 wretclicdnesK ; was hungry, thirsty and weary, 
 often ; carri<'d us, with all our wants and wo(-s, 
 upon His great and loving heart ; tasted our 
 every cup of bitterness, and carried our griefs ; 
 His heart ached ; he sighed and wept, sutVered 
 and died. He did it all willingly and lovingly, 
 too, for Hiiinfrs .' Look at Him in flis whole life, 
 so full of cares, anxieties, heaviness, tcmptii- 
 tions, sadness and sorrows ; look at lliui among 
 the poor and the suffering ; by the grave side, 
 mingling His tears with such as overwhelmed 
 with sorrow, were crying to Heaven for relief. 
 In all His sorrows, conflicts, woes, He only once 
 asked relief. When in the Garden of Gethsem- 
 ane, made the symbol of sorrows, He Sc'w (h-atli 
 just before Him, he cried out "0 my Father ! if 
 i^; be possible, let this cup pass from me ; never- 
 theless not as I will, but as thou wilt." 77//.s' 
 cup, just this one ; every other bitterness \\c 
 taste, he tasted, without a word. And of this 
 
 terrible one he said- " if this cup may not ])ass 
 
 away from me, except I drink it, thy will be 
 done." Then he went out of that Garden. 
 
 " O Garden of Olives I thou dear lioiionr'd spot, 
 The fiiino of thy wonders sliall ne'er be forgot; 
 The theme most transportin<j[ to seraphs above ; 
 The triumph of sorrow, tlio triumpli of love." 
 
 He went out ])y the Cross, on which He died for 
 sinners. All the shame and suffering of the 
 Cross He endured for sinners. And now He 
 lives, the sann^ loving .Tesus, offering pardon and 
 eternal life freely to all who will obey Him. This 
 is God's argument and exhortation to the simier. 
 This was, and is, the plea of the Spirit, to touch 
 and turn the hearts of men back to God. There 
 is no "unconditional and irresistible " power in 
 this ; but it is God's power for salvation. 
 
ADDRESS. 
 
 Ill 
 
 I 
 
 Friday, Sept. llth, 11 a.vi., 
 
 (prof. Crawford's skcond addresh.) 
 
 Prof, Crawford. — ^[y opponent complains- that 
 I have acted unfairly \\\ laying down certain pro- 
 l)ositioiiH which I intend to prove and defend. 
 But I fail to see that there is anything unfair in 
 taking this course. I have laid down one pro- 
 position, that I am to show what the prevalent 
 doctrines of the Camohellites are. If I fail in 
 doing so I am heaten vj j that point ; hut if I suc- 
 ceed in proving what are the accepted doctrines 
 of Camphellism I ha\e estahlished my tirst pro- 
 position. Secondly, I shall attempt to prove 
 these doctrines to he unsound and untru>,'. If 1 
 fail in doing so, theii I am heaten on that point. 
 But if I succeed in proving my propositions then 
 I shall have beaten my opponent. Here, then, 
 there is a definite programme before us. The 
 reason I laid down these propositions is simply 
 this : — I have found in my experience with 
 Campbellites that they can scarcely be tied down; 
 it is hard to get them to say what they are, and 
 what they are not ; what they do believe and 
 what they don't. I have examined their current 
 and received writings for the purpose of showing 
 what their real belief is. I consider many of 
 their teachings contrary to the Word of God, and 
 I shall prove them so I hope before this discus- 
 sion closes. It is my opponent's duty to defend 
 them if he can, and he surely cannot complain 
 of any unfairness in my requiring this. His next 
 complaint is that we call them Campbellites. I 
 would say it was very far from my intention to 
 
 I 
 
 
 .; 
 
DEHATH. 
 
 37 
 
 and 
 
 insult or irritato thoni hy xmwy this dosif^nation. 
 I used it because tliey avi' very ^oncmlly known 
 by that name and ])t't'ausi' it was the ono that 
 naturally occurred to my mind in si^eaking of 
 them. 1 shall, however, endeavour in future not 
 to speak of them as Campbellites, though if i 
 should make a slip of the tongue, the}' nuist not 
 attribute it to any intention of giving offence. 
 They say they arc Christians. 1 say [ am a 
 Christian too, and to assume thev are the onlv 
 Christians is to beg the question. They call 
 th(.'mselves Disciples of Christ. I claim to l)e a 
 Disciple of Christ, and 1 think 1 have as good a 
 claim as they have to that title. 1 think it will 
 be seen before the discussion is over that our 
 claim to be called Disciples of Christ is equally 
 as good as theirs. They say they are not a sect. 
 I may be wrong but 1 consider that when a cer- 
 tain num])er of people unite in holding certain 
 views, unite in proclaiming these views, 
 and in Church Fellowship they are fully 
 entitled to be called a sect. Thev sav they are 
 not bound by tlu^ creed of any man. I know 
 that, but I wish to draw their attention to the 
 fact that Mr. Campbell was cut ot^" from the Bap- 
 tists for holding these very doctrines I am op- 
 l)osing. lie complained that it was not right 
 for us to withdraw from him. We considered 
 many of the doctrines he advocated heresies, and 
 we could not, regarding them as such, act other- 
 wise than we did. Mr. Campbell is the best ex- 
 ponent of their views ; he is the founder of the 
 sect, the man who led away the party in that 
 direction. lie was, moreover, appointed Presi- 
 dent of their College, and a teacher in the Col- 
 lege. I say then I don't think I have done any- 
 thing wron^ in bringing his arguments forward 
 and saying they are so and so, and that the great 
 
c 
 
 ^5^^«r^ 
 
 Bin 
 
 88 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 bulk of the Campbellites — I beg their pardon— - 
 the Disciples, believe in the very same views. 
 Then with regard to Mr. Franklin's book ; it is 
 one in wide circulation among them at the pre- 
 sent day, and I think if I show what these men 
 advocate, I shall have come pretty near deihiing 
 what Campbellism really is. More than that I 
 have had a good deal to do with Campbellites, 
 and I think I know what their doctrines are. 
 
 My opponent denies that there is anything 
 more than the power of the Truth exercised in 
 the work of conversion — no direct influence of 
 the Spirit acting upon men's souls to bring them 
 to acknowledgement of the Truth. You perceive 
 thten that he is a believer in at least one of the 
 views brought out in the quotations I gave from 
 Mr. Campbell's works, so that I cannot see that 
 much fault can be found by my opponent with 
 the quotations given from Mr. Campbell. The 
 difference between my views and those of my op- 
 ponent on this point is simply this : He says the 
 Gospel and nothing more is necessary to effect a 
 change of heart. I saj^ and I believe I can 
 establish it, that some other influence is essen- 
 tial. 
 
 With regard to their assuming the name of 
 " Christians " and " Pisciples," I would just take 
 the liberty of reading an extract from a handl)ill 
 which has been circulated in his neighborhood. 
 It says that "a discussion on the influence of 
 the Holy Sinrit will take place at Springfield be- 
 tween Prof. Crawford, of the Baptist Church, 
 anf] J. S. Sweeney, a Disciple of Christ," etc. 
 Now, that may do very well in ii Cainpbellite 
 community, but a great many i)eople will think 
 it is just a good big swagger ! Eemember, Mr. 
 Crawford is not of the Christian Cluu'ch ; he is a 
 Baptist; while his oi)ponent, Mr. Sweeney, is a 
 " Discipje of Christ." 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 39 
 
 :i 
 
 
 They say there is no salvation out of proper 
 Campbellism ; that we are saved by baptism into 
 certain views, therefore I say that this bill is only 
 in keeping with their own doctrine. The Church 
 of Eome says that their's is the only Church of 
 Christ, and our friends the Campbellites have 
 the snme (-pinion of their CJiurch. Then they 
 say that if, according]; to our views, men are con- 
 verted by the direct influence of the Sjiirit, there 
 is no occasion to preach the Gospel to the 
 heathen. I preach nothing of the kind about the 
 souls of the heathen. We are commanded to 
 preach the Gosj^cl to the 1. oath en, and that those 
 who receive that Gospel will be saved ; those who 
 reject it will be damned. We are not told, nor db 
 we teach that the heathen will be saved without 
 the Gospel. That is not the point at issue. The 
 real question is, will the Gospel alone, the mere 
 words of Truth without their being accompanied 
 by the Spirit's power, save the sinner ? I say 
 not, and that is the doctrine upon which my oj)- 
 ponent should take issue with me instead of at- 
 tributing views to us which we do not hold. Let 
 me proceed with two niorj quotations and then 
 to the proof of our views. 
 
 Franklin — Page 7i : — 
 
 " Is the power that God exercises in making 
 believers and turning men to God the power of 
 intelligence addressed to the human understand- 
 ing? Or is it a subtle power of the Spirit, 
 immediately from God, that takes effect on man, 
 as heat, cold, or electricity, not in words 
 addressed to the human understanding that 
 makes believers, and turns men to God ? " 
 
 Page 75 : — 
 
 " Do you think there is power in the mere 
 Word to quicken a sinner, dead in trespasses and 
 
40 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 St! 
 
 I: 
 
 sins, and turn him to God ? Men of faith never 
 say * the more Word,' nor the * iiare Word,' 
 when speakinfl; of the Word of God, which is 
 fjuick and powerful, and sharper than a two- 
 edged sword, hut call it the Word of God. The 
 power of God is in it, the power of Christ, and 
 the power of the Holy Spirit is in it. It would 
 he |Ti'ecisely the same power if put forth imme- 
 (Vuitchi. Men must l)e deluded beyond descrip- 
 tion if tlu y cannot see that it is neither more 
 nor kss than the power of God for salvation 
 that is put forth in the Gospel. No one argues 
 that sinners can he quickened without the Power 
 of God, but the Gospel is the power of God." 
 
 The point at issue between us is surely very 
 })]ain now. With regard to the irresistible 
 ))ower of the Holy Spirit, I would say that there 
 is a sense in which the Spirit of God may truly 
 be said to be irresistible. For instance, we 
 often find men stu])l)ornly opposed to the Truth, 
 unwilling to receive it, but by the operation of 
 the Holy Spirit in their hearts, making them 
 willing in the day of His power, their stubborn 
 wills are subdued, and an entire change of heart 
 takes i^lace. 
 
 Before proceeding to give proofs from the 
 Holy Scriptures, I would say that indejiendently 
 of the fact that the teachings of Mr. Campbell 
 and the Camphellites are opposed to the Word 
 of God, they are also inconsistent with facts and 
 principles admitted on all hands. The denial of 
 the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and the 
 belief that moral power consists merely in the 
 arguments presented to the mind, is inconsistent 
 in the first place wdth the creation of man in 
 the moral image of God. The Scriptures say 
 God created man in His own image, fashioned 
 him like himself, morally. x\ud was not this 
 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 41 
 
 r 
 
 h never 
 Word; 
 liich is 
 a two- 
 [. The 
 st, and 
 would 
 imnie- 
 lescrip. 
 more 
 Ivation 
 argues 
 Power 
 bd." 
 y very 
 sistible 
 t there 
 y truly 
 !e, we 
 Truth, 
 ;ion of 
 I them 
 Libborn 
 f heart 
 
 m the 
 dently 
 npbell 
 Word 
 fcs and 
 lial of 
 id the 
 n the 
 listent 
 an in 
 s say 
 ioued 
 b this 
 
 2)erformed, by a direct or iiinuodiate operation 
 of His Spirit, witliout even thf instrumentality 
 of Truth? It is also inconsistent with the 
 incarnation of Christ. Our Lord was to be 
 born of a virgin, a weak, fallen woman, like the 
 rest of the human race. But the Spirit of God 
 was to form in, and bring a holy tiling from her : 
 "Therefore, also, that holy thing, which sliall be 
 born of thee, shall bo called the Son of God." 
 Was not this niiracuk)us conception hy the 
 direct influence of ihv. Holy Spirit, not only 
 this fashioning of the bod}', but the forming of 
 the human soul of the Saviour in the W(mib of 
 the virgin ? And is not this doctrine that there 
 is no innnediate power of the Spirit of God 
 working through, and by the instrumentality of 
 the Truth, inconsistent with the idea of Satanic 
 influence ? Is it by the mere force of argu- 
 ment, or by direct and immediate; i ifhi- 
 ence, that Satan captivates and (Misnares tlie 
 Bouls of men ? J)oes not he act innnediately 
 upon the human mind, making evil suggestions, 
 stirring up evil passions and leading men on in 
 rebellion against God. kin\ if Satan acts direct- 
 ly and immediately upon the human soul for 
 evil purposes, shall we deny Almigbty God, a 
 similar power for good '? Then again the doc- 
 trines of the Disciples on this point is inconsist- 
 ent with a belief in the salvation of infants ; 
 because infants, as we hold, are brought forth in 
 sin and shapeii in iniquity ; th(\y have a moral 
 taint from the very woml). I know that on this 
 point the author from whom I have been quot- 
 ing, I mean JSIr. Franklin, will not agree with 
 me, for he goes right into Pelagianism. But 
 we and th(3 majority of evangelical sects believe 
 that we are sinners from the very woml). And, 
 according to Campbell's ])elief, how are these 
 
42 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 infants ever to get into heaven ; they must either 
 he changed or go there in their unrcc/cnerate nature. 
 The hitter supposition we cannot entertain for a 
 moment. And if a change is to he made, is it, as 
 Mr.Camphell and his friends would say, l)y the mere 
 power of argument ? It is ridiculous to talk of 
 the power of argument u]_>on an infant, so we 
 must accept the helief that infants are changed 
 and made meet for the inheritance of the saints 
 hy the direct, immediate influence of God's 
 Spirit. Mr. Camphell attempts to explain this 
 hy saying that man is composed of three parts, 
 soul, hody and spirit, and that the Pncunut, or 
 spirit, is not contaminated hy sin. He says 
 that the Psifche only is defiled, and that as in- 
 fants have not used the VhiicIic, having died he- 
 fore it came into operation, therefore tliey have 
 died without sin. He denies that there is any 
 sin in the Pncuma, or intelligent part. T would 
 like to ask Mr. Camphell where he got hold of 
 that very ingenious theory. He and his follow- 
 ers speak much ahout restoring a pure speech, 
 Bihle language, l)ut they use ahout as much 
 metaphysics and hair-splitting as any one else. 
 Whenever you piu a Camphellite down or 
 corner him he will cry out, "Bihle language; 
 give me the very words in the Bihle." He may 
 flourish away as nnich in meta]»hysics as he 
 pleases, hut he will tie you down to the very 
 words of the Bil)le. You may l)e sure when a 
 Camphellite talks in this way lie is cornered. We 
 must rememher that we have only a translation 
 in common use, and that if we must be tied down 
 to the very words of the Bible, we must go to the 
 Greek, the Chaldee, and the Hebrew. I contend 
 that an inference fairly drawn from Scripture has 
 the same weight as Scripture language itself. 
 The Sadducees denied the resurrection of the 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 43 
 
 (lead and they were held accountable for their 
 unbelief, because God had said, " I am the God 
 of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob." There 
 was no positive declaration of the resurrection 
 here, but because this sect did not accejit the 
 legitimate inference from tlu) lani^uaf^e, they were 
 held as responsible as if the (ioctrine was con- 
 tained in so many words. The Almighty had 
 not declared " I was the God of Abraham, c*cc," 
 but " I (I HI the Go^"" " which implies that 
 although these patriarchs were dead they 
 still lived to God ; and, therefore, that there 
 nnist be a future state, or an existence after 
 death. But the Campbellite says, you must 
 give me the exact language ; I will have none of 
 your inferences. For my part, I will never iind 
 fault with an argument if it is a fair, legitinuite 
 infi'rence from the language of the Bil)le, even if 
 it is not in the exact words. I am not necessar- 
 ily wrong in my argument, even if I don't quote 
 the exact language of Scripture, provided I reason 
 legitimately from it, and do not misrepresent it. 
 But with respect to this theory of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, til at no moral taint adheres to the Pncniiid 
 or spir't, but only to the Psi/chr, or soul, it is con- 
 trary to reason. Surely if sin attaches to any 
 part of our nature, it must be to the Pncunid or 
 rational, and consequently responsil)le part. Be- 
 sides, does not the Apostle saj to the Corinthians 
 (II Cor. vii. 1) : " Let us cleanse ourselves from 
 all filthiness of the flesh and ' spirit' " or Pneiinia^ 
 Moral evil then does adhere to the Pneuniawh'vih 
 has to l)e purged away. Another proof of the 
 influence of the Spirit in the woik of conversion 
 is the comparatively small success that attended 
 Christ's labours. No one will say that he did 
 not preach the truth in all its power and purity, 
 he tliat " spake as never man spake," and yet 
 
I I 
 
 t 
 
 44 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 l'|: 
 
 i('i 
 
 
 there ^yere perhaps more conversions on the day 
 of Pentecost than l)y all the preaching:? of Chris* 
 Why ? Because God had reserved for that day an 
 ahundant outpouring of his Holy Spirit. Again, 
 their views on this suhject are inconsistent with 
 the idea of prayer for the conversion of souls. If 
 the mere preaching of the Gospel is all that is re- 
 quired to l)ring sinners to a knowledge of the 
 truth as it is in Jesus, what is the use of praying 
 that men's hearts may he changed ? If the power 
 of the Spirit is all spent in giving the mere ideas 
 contained in the I'rutli, there is no use in pray- 
 ing that conversions may take place. On this 
 hypothesis God has done all that he ever will do 
 for the conversion of the world when he inspired 
 the Scriptures. For what then do we pray ? 
 Furthermore, this view of the Camphellites is in- 
 consistent with the views taught hy Mr. Camphell 
 himself, that after haptism men receive the Holy 
 Spirit which dwells and operates in them. They 
 admit, then, that after haptism the Spirit of God 
 does dwell and tahernacle in the souls of men. 
 But if after haptism, why not hefore ? Why not 
 in the heginning of the good work as well as in 
 its future progress ? But Mr. Camphell says, God 
 has never promised the spirit to any l)ut heliev- 
 ers. If we never received more from God than 
 what he has actually promised we would, I fear, 
 fall far short. He gives us all he has promised, 
 and far more. It is true that it is not until man 
 believes that he has an interest in the promises 
 of the covenant, and can plead them at a throne 
 of grace ; yet it does not follow from this that 
 God may not, in His Sovereign grace, touch his 
 heart, and bring him into the covenant by inclin- 
 ing him to lay hold of Christ in faith. Mr. 
 Campbell has another argument from analogy. 
 He says it is an easier matter to enlist in the 
 
' 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 45 
 
 i 
 
 army than to become a good soldier ; easier to 
 start in the race than to run and obtain the 
 Crown. I can bring analogy on the other side 
 of the question. Suppose we try. 
 
 "^r 
 
REPLY. 
 
 Fr'uhnj, Sept. llth, 11.30 a.m. 
 (MR. Sweeney's second reply.) 
 
 Mr. Sircenejf. — My opponent tells us that he 
 has had a good deal to do with " Camhellites," 
 and that he tinds them pretty hard to *.' tie 
 down." No donht of it ! 1 agree with him that 
 the j)eople whom he call:: Camphellites are pretty 
 hard to " tie down." But I do not think they 
 are generally haril to be brought up to the 
 defence of their positions, and that is what he 
 means. In that S( use, I should like to see him 
 '' tied down." A\ by would he not agree to 
 affirm in a distinct proposition, that in conver- 
 sion the Holy Spirit operates immediately upon 
 the human soul ? AVas it because he was too 
 hard to be tied down ? I say the Spirit operates 
 mediately; he will not deny it. He contends 
 that it operates immediately ; this I deny, and 
 now let us tie down to the work at once. The 
 brother sitting by him says that's right — that 
 he would meet that single issue — but he is not 
 in the discussion, and Professor Crawford is. 
 And the Professor tinds it easier to talk about 
 Campbellism than to meet a plain issue. 
 
 My friend says God created man in his own 
 image, and that Campbellism is inconsistent 
 with that fact. Indeed ! Does it follow from 
 that fact, that in conversion the Holy Spirit 
 operates immediately upon the sinner's heart ? 
 If so, I confess my inability to see how it so 
 follows. He says our teaching is inconsistent, 
 'also, with the incarnation. How is it so? Was 
 the incarnation the conversion of a sinner? 
 
 J ■•?^=^&ay-glV/flV^'g'/'JgLj&3£S 
 
 m 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 47 
 
 a.vi. 
 
 that he 
 bcllites," 
 
 to Vtif 
 him that 
 re pretty 
 ink they 
 ) to the 
 what he 
 see him 
 agree to 
 
 conver- 
 ?ly upon 
 
 was too 
 operates 
 contends 
 ?ny, and 
 
 e. The 
 ht — that 
 e is not 
 I'ford is. 
 Ik about 
 
 his own 
 msistent 
 ow from 
 y Spirit 
 3 heart ? 
 ow it so 
 nsistent, 
 .? Was 
 sinner ? 
 
 Surely not. !Must the conversion of a sinner 
 necH'SHurily be accomplished, just like the mir- 
 aculous conception ? I think not. Ii3 it a ques- 
 tion of power we are discussing ? Haves I said 
 that the Spirit cannot operate without the Truth ? 
 No, sir ! Nor do I intend to say so. 
 
 Then he savs that our view is inccmsistent 
 with ])elief in tlu; devil's immediate operations 
 upon the souls of men. But, to make an argu- 
 ment of this, for his own or against my position, 
 he must establish two things : First, that the 
 devil does so operate ; and, secondly, that in 
 conversion the Spirit must necessarily ojDerate 
 just as the devil does in tempting men. As to 
 the first position, I shall not be very dogmatic, 
 not being positively certain that I know just 
 what is true in the case. And as to the second, 
 I deny squarely that it is true. He thinks that 
 if the devil o])erates immediately u])on the 
 hearts of men, for evil, we ought not to deny 
 God a similar power for good. But is it neces- 
 sary for God to operate in the same maimer for 
 good, that the devil does, for evil? Let me 
 remind you again that we are not discussing a 
 question of power, but rather one of fact. Not 
 what can, but what does the Spirit do? — in the 
 conversion of sinners. 
 
 Next we are told that the doctrine of the Dis- 
 ciples on this point is inconsistent with a belief 
 in the salvation of infants. Well, what have 
 we in the Bi])le about the salvation of infants — 
 in the sense of conversion? Let him put his 
 finger on the passage. Jesus *' came to save 
 that which was /o,s*f." Were infants lost? I 
 deny that they were, or that they are. It is not 
 enough, for me, for the gentleman to say that a 
 majority of evangelical sects believe that we are 
 sinners from the very womb. A majority of 
 
4d 
 
 bKfiATW. 
 
 
 evangelical sectH cannot dctormine Buch ques- 
 tions for nie. 'Jrsiis siiid, to men, " Except ye 
 be convc; cd, and become as little ebildren, ye 
 sliall not enter into (be Kin}j;d()ni of Heaven," 
 and tbat's better iUitbority tban tbat of <ill '' tbe 
 ovan^'elical sects." If my friend is ri«j;bt, tbat 
 infants are sinners, tlien we must understand 
 tbe Saviour as teacbinjj; men tbat tbey must *' be 
 converted, and Ix'coine as little" — n'uincrsf to 
 enter into tlie Kiii,u;dom of Heaven! My friend 
 tells us bow iMr. CaHi[)l)ell attempted to evade 
 tbe force of tbis argunu'iit, and bow be would 
 like to ask JVfr. Campbell a question al)0ut it. I 
 feel no concern about Mr. Campbell's tbeory ; 
 nor would 1 fear for Professor Crawford to ask 
 bim many questions, were be bere. No doubt 
 tbe Professor eould profit by tbe answers. Tbe 
 gentleman tells us tbat tbe Bible says, " Tbey 
 go astray from tbeir motbcr's womb." Yes ; it 
 says tbey do so, " apcalx'ing lies." Wben ebild- 
 ren can speah- Urn tbey '' f/o astray." Of course, 
 tlien, tbey are not horn astray, as be would liave 
 us believe. 
 
 My opponent adduces anotber argument for 
 tbe direct operation of tbe Spirit, from wbat be 
 is pleased to call tbe comparatively small suc- 
 cess tbat attended Cbrist's labours. Tbis 
 assumes tbat tbe labours of Cbrist were com- 
 paratively a failure. Tben, of course, be did 
 not acc(miplisb wbat be d'uned to accomplisli ; 
 and be failed because tbe Holy Spirit did not 
 co-operat(^ ^vitb bim ! Tbe Second i^erson in tbe 
 Trinity, for want of tbe co-operation of tbe 
 Tbird person, failing ! Was tbe Godbead 
 divided? liatber line tbeology, tbat ! Cbrist's 
 work was preparatory to tbe subsequent work of 
 tbe Spirit, tbrougb tbe Apostles. Wbat success, 
 suppose you, would bave attended tbe labours of 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 49 
 
 the apostloa after tlio coniinf^ of the Holy Spirit 
 upon them, but for th(! previous and preparatory 
 labours of Jusus ? What did the apostles preach 
 on the day of Pentecost, when speakin^,' as tho 
 Spirit gave them utterance, that reached tho 
 hearts of their hearers, and yielded such grand 
 results ? Was it not irhnt Jesun hail done ^ Did 
 they preach the comparative failure of Jesus? 
 No, indeed ! Jesus came to lay the foundation 
 for the future success of the Gospel. The argu- 
 ment here, by the svay, turns with tremendous 
 force against my friend's theory. What was it 
 that pricked the people to the heart on the day 
 of Pentecost, and caused them to yield to the 
 claims of Jesus ? Evidently, it was what the 
 apostles preached ? And what did they preach ? 
 Facta that Jesus did not declare — that, indeed, 
 had not transpired — during his personal min- 
 istry among the people. The grand results of 
 Pentecost, and of subsequent apostolic preach- 
 ing, are to be attributed to what was preached 
 concerning Jesus — concerning his life, death, 
 burial, resurrection, ascension, and lordship in 
 Heaven. But if the Spirit converts men, as my 
 friend supposes, without the Gospel, without 
 preaching, by his own direct action upon their 
 hearts, then I submit, he might have done his . 
 work just as well before these facts transpired as 
 after, and without any reference to them what- 
 ever. Again. Where is the proof that the 
 Spirit exerted any influence upon the hearts of 
 the people on the day of Pentecost, other than 
 through what was preached ? Nowhere. I will 
 immediately yield the point in controversy, if 
 the gentleman will show, even by a fair infer- 
 ence, that the Holy Spirit did operate immedi- 
 ately upon the heart of one of the thousands 
 that were converted on the day of Pentecost — or 
 ever afterward. r 
 
W (T 
 
 60 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 I 
 
 \i 
 
 1 f 
 
 1 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 . 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Again, wo arc informed that our view of the 
 subject in hand is inconsistent with the idea 
 of prayer for tlie conversion of the sinner. I 
 think not ; but I do think my opponent's view 
 is inconsistent with prayer, or anything else man 
 can do, for the conversion of sinners. This, I 
 predict, will be clearly developed as we proceed. 
 But I do pray for the conversion of sinners, 
 whether consistently or inconsistently, without 
 expecting it to 1)0 accomplished in the manner 
 my friend thinks it is ; just as we both pray, 
 *• Give us this day our daily bread," without ex- 
 pecting our bread to come, already baked, directly 
 from heaven. 
 
 The gentleman thinks my brethren inconsist- 
 ent in allowing that the Spirit does dwell in and 
 immediately influence the hearts of Christians, 
 while we deny that he so influences the hearts 
 of sinners. I don't know that they are. The 
 relation of Christians to the Holy Spirit, to 
 Christ, to God, and to all the blessings of the 
 Gospel, and that of aliens are not the same. The 
 distinction, however, is one I don't care to spend 
 time on. What does the Spirit do, even in the 
 sanctilication of Christians, without means ? 
 " Sanctify them through Thy truth," prayed the 
 Saviour; and thromjli the truth is mediately. 
 And I suppose that is the way Christian sancti- 
 fication is carried on. 
 
 I was surprised to hear my friend say that we 
 teach that there is no salvation out of proper 
 Campbeliism. His mistake here is a most egre- 
 gious one. It is positively amusing ! No, no ! 
 We teach that there is salvation in Christ ; and 
 that persons are saved by being baptized into 
 him. 
 
 But the gentleman seems just a little irritated, 
 because we wish to be called simply "Chris- 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 61 
 
 view of the 
 ith tho idea 
 e sinner. I 
 loneni's view 
 linf^ else man 
 fs. This, I 
 
 we proceed. 
 . of Hinners, 
 Litly, without 
 
 the manner 
 ) both pray, 
 ' without ex- 
 laked, dlrectlif 
 
 en inconsist- 
 i dwell in and 
 )f Christians, 
 )S the hearts 
 )y are. The 
 3ly Spirit, to 
 ssings of the 
 le same. The 
 care to spend 
 even in the 
 out means '? 
 ," prayed the 
 is mediately, 
 istian sancti- 
 
 I say that wo 
 •ut of proper 
 
 a most egre- 
 Lg ! No, no ! 
 
 II Christ ; and 
 baptized into 
 
 ittle irritated, 
 mply "Chris- 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 tians," or " Disciples of Christ," and refuse to 
 wear any party name ; because we profess to 
 belong to " tlio Church of Christ," and to no 
 party. He tliiuKs this "just a good l)ig swag- 
 ger." Well, let us see about that. Does he not 
 claim to hv a "Christian," or " Discipk; of 
 Christ? " And does he not claim also to belong 
 to " the Church of Christ ? " lie certainly does ; 
 and 'is that "just a good big swagger?" 1 cer- 
 tainly do not deny that he is a Christian, or 
 Disciple of Christ ; that he l)elongs to the 
 Church of Christ ; neither does the handbill, 
 with which he seems so displeased. 15ut his 
 pretensions, are greater than mine ; he |)retends 
 to be more than a Christian, and to belong to 
 one Church more than the Church of Christ ! 
 He claims to be a Baptist, and to belong to the 
 Baptist Church. This is more than I claim for 
 myself, and yet I award it all to him, and say 
 nothing about it being a bigger swagger than 
 mine? The handbill says nothing but what 
 is true; it says, "Professor Crawford of the 
 Baptist Church," and he will not deny that he is 
 " of the Baptist Ciuu-ch," But, then, he says, 
 " Eemember, Mr. Crawford is not of the Chris- 
 tian Church ! " But the handbill doesn't say 
 that ; nor can the Professor deduce that conclu- 
 sion from what it does say, unless he can show 
 that being " of the Baptist Church " is entirely 
 inconsistent with one's being at the same time 
 " of the Christian Church." And, by the way, I 
 should like to hear from him on this point. 
 Then, the handbill says, " J. S. Sweeney, a 
 Disciple of Christ," and I see nothing about 
 that, for J. S. Sweeney professes to be " a disciple 
 of Christ " — an humble one. I claim to belong 
 to the " Church of Christ ; " and if I do not be- 
 long to it, then I belong to no Church. The 
 
 i' 
 
 il 
 
 ;i 
 
n 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 gentleman can say I belong to none if he chooses, 
 though I hardly believe he will. 
 
 The question is [simply this': Have we the 
 right to refuse to be called anything else than 
 Christians, or^DisciplesJof Christ, or'J[other Scrip- 
 ture name, and to pretend to belong to no other 
 Church thanltho Church of Christ ? That's it. 
 I say we have. I will take^no'party^name upon 
 me ; of course you can call me a " Campbellite" 
 if 3'ou choose^; ityou could call ^me'^Satan if you 
 would, but without my consent, I shall insist 
 that it would be at least just a trifle impolite. 
 My mother's people were called Methodists, and 
 I speak of them as such because they chose that 
 name. My father was once called a Baptist, be- 
 cause he chose to be soJdesignated';|but now he, 
 with many others has laid off [that^party name, 
 and wishes to be called by no other than a Scrip- 
 ture name ; and I*ibelieve he has that right. I, 
 of course, have no unkind^feelings toward people 
 who choose to wear'party names ; I only refuse 
 to wear one|myself. The Master was called 
 Beelzebub without his approval, and I would try 
 patiently to bear even as much myself, for the 
 sake of doing what;I conceive'to be my right and 
 duty. If my opponent wishes to be called a 
 " Christian " or "Disciple of Christ," and not a 
 Baptist, let him only say so, and I will not call 
 him a Baptist again, unless it should be a slip 
 of the tongue ; and I -think, that, in this parti- 
 cular, I could control my tongue better than 
 some have done. 
 
 The gentlemanjpersists in his effort to make^ 
 the impression^thav the writings of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, and those of Mr. Franklin, are of greater 
 importance^among'jus^than'we^^are willing to at- 
 tach to them. True, Mr. Campbell was Presi- 
 dent of Bethany College, and editor of a paper 
 
 :1 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 53 
 
 e chooses, 
 
 ! we the 
 else than 
 ler Scrip- 
 no other 
 That's it. 
 [ime upon 
 ipbellite" 
 m if you 
 all insist 
 impolite, 
 lists, and 
 hose that 
 ^ptist, be- 
 t now he, 
 \v name, 
 1 a Scrip- 
 right. I, 
 rd people 
 dy refuse 
 IS called 
 vould try 
 for the 
 right and 
 
 called a 
 nd not a 
 
 not call 
 a slip 
 lis parti- 
 ter than 
 
 to make^ 
 Camp- 
 greater 
 ig to at- 
 is Presi-^ 
 a paper^ 
 
 r 
 
 )e 
 
 that circulated largely among our people ; but 
 to neither of these positions was he appointed 
 l)y any concerted action of our people, so as to 
 make us responsible for what he wrote. In the 
 main, our people do accord with what he wrote 
 and taught, and now that he; is dead we honor 
 his memory as that of a ?/?«?« and a great teacher. 
 And while I would rather undertake to defend 
 his writings, as a whole, than tlie writings of any 
 other uninspired man ; nevertheless, nothing he 
 ever wrote is our creed. Nothing lie ever wrote 
 is authoritative with us. And the book Mr. 
 Franklin wrote and publishes, from which my 
 friend quotes, Mr. Franklin is alone responsible 
 for. These remarks I make solely for the benefit 
 of such persons as may need and desire informa- 
 tion upon the subject, and not because our peo- 
 ple do not in the main believe what those men 
 have written. Has the gentlemanfproduced any- 
 thing from Mr. Cami^bell or Mr. Franklin with 
 which my position, as I have defined it in this 
 debate, does not harmonize ? I think not. I 
 think the point of difference between us is quite 
 clearly made out. We teach, afitirmatively, that 
 in conversion the Spirit operates through the 
 truth ; my friend agrees to this. But he goes 
 further, and says it also operates without the 
 truth ; that is, by its own immediate personal 
 presence in the sinner's heart ; and this immedi- 
 ate and unconditionaraction of the Spirit, he 
 holds to be necessary to " open the heart " and 
 *' make the sinner willing to receive the truth."' 
 This I deny. Now let us have the Scwpture 
 upon the subject. We have had the gentleman's 
 inferences ; they have been tried and, I think, 
 found wanting. 
 
 Will the gentleman plant himself upon the 
 case of Lydia ? Will he say that her heart was 
 
 ■ if 
 
.1- 
 
 I 
 
 '.I'l 
 
 1(1 
 
 54 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 opened, and that she was made able and willinf? 
 to receive the truth, by such an interest as he 
 contends for ? If so, there I'll meet him. 
 
 One word as to the quotation I made from 
 Dunn's book — the '' Mission of the. Spirit.'' When 
 I read that quotation, and emphatically denied 
 what it said, the gentleman by my opponent's 
 side, or somebody else in that vicinity, muttered, 
 "infidel." [Here the gentleman referred to, a 
 minister, said, "it Avasl."] Very well; he thinks 
 I am " infidel " because I deny the teaching of 
 that quotation. Now, I put it to Professor Craw- 
 ford, will he endorse the doctrine of the quota- 
 tion ? Will he ? I say he will not. In fact, he 
 has already repudiated it. Will his brother call 
 him " iniidel '? ' I pause just a moment to listen. 
 I don't hear any one say " iniidel." 
 
 Upon another point raised l)y my opponent, I 
 wish to say a few words, and will begin by read- 
 ing a passage from Dr. Lumkin, in "The Baptist 
 Pulpit,'' page 83. 
 
 " The word of God is that ' sword of the spirit' 
 which God has directed to be used by all his ser- 
 vanes, and on which, under his direction, they 
 are to depend for success in all their labours. 
 * For the word of God is quick and powerful, and 
 sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even 
 to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and is 
 a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the 
 heart.' But they cannot use this powerful, this 
 efficient weapon, unless they have a knowledge of 
 the word of God." 
 
 I make this quotation from this distinguished 
 Baptist divine because he understands as I do 
 the two passages of Scriptures which he uses in 
 the extract I have read. One of the passages 
 calls the word of God "the sword of the Spirit," 
 and Christians are told to " take " the sword of the 
 
 i 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 65 
 
 [ willing; 
 it as ho 
 
 de from 
 ," When 
 y denied 
 ponent's 
 uittered, 
 •ed to, a 
 le thinks 
 ching of 
 [)!• Craw- 
 B quota- 
 L fact, he 
 ther call 
 to listen. 
 
 3onent, I 
 by read- 
 c Baj)tist 
 
 :ie spirit' 
 . his ser- 
 on, they 
 labours. 
 H'ful, and 
 ing even 
 t, and is 
 s of the 
 ^•fid, this 
 vledge of 
 
 1 
 
 giiished 
 
 as I do 
 3 uses in 
 passages 
 
 Spirit," 
 rd of the 
 
 Spirit, which is the word of God, and use it in 
 the Christian warfare. We are not to exi)ect the 
 Spint to take up and use this weapon, as my 
 friend seems to understand the matter ; but ica 
 are to use it. So Dr. Lumkin understands it, 
 for he says, "the word of God is that sword of 
 the Spirit w^licli God has directed to 1)0 used hi/ 
 all his semoits.'' Then, after quoting the other 
 passage, which says, "the word of God is Ur'uifi 
 and poicerfid, and shar[)er than any two-edged 
 sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of 
 soul and spirit," the Dr. calls the word of God 
 " this powcrfid, this clJicient weapon." Certainly 
 it's powerful. The; ])Ower in it is divine power, 
 " tlie power of God," " the power of God unto sal- 
 vation." It is " able to save; your souls." Certainly 
 it's '' rjjicleiit'' because the j^ower of the Holy 
 Spirit is in it — alicaijs in it — and not now in it, 
 and then out, as my friend seems tio understand 
 the matter. Wh(;n, therefore, one si)eaks of the 
 "mere word," the word withoiU the S2)lrit'H 
 power," he assumes what is never true. The 
 word of God is never the word ivithotU the spirit, 
 any more than Professor Crawford is himself 
 without his spirit. In the sense of being without 
 the spirit, without the divine and almighty 
 energy, there is no such thing as " the word 
 (done," or " the mere word." The divine power 
 for conversion and sanctification is always in the 
 Gospel. I trust I am understood on this point. 
 If my opponent is prepared to show that the word 
 of God is sometimes dead, as the bodj^ without 
 the spirit is dead, let him do it at once ; and not 
 persist in using such phrases as assume what he 
 cannot show ever to be true. I do most earnest- 
 ly protest against Christians ever using such 
 phrases as " the word of God alone," " the mere 
 word," in the sense I understand the Professor to 
 use them. Heaven and earth may fail, but that 
 
 
 ; ■. 
 
 Ml 
 
1' 
 
 56 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 ,li 
 
 word shall )ievcr fail. Does my friend believe 
 there is to be a resurrection from the dead ? 
 Does he believe there is a heaven ? Shall I say 
 he has nothing for these but the word of God 
 alone, the mere word ? 
 
 While my opponent will not endorse Dr. Dunn 
 outright he preaches nearly the same thing. He 
 believes in the Gospel, he says, but the sinner 
 will not and cannot receive it till the ISpirit goes 
 before and enables him to receive it and makes 
 him willing. The sinner, he thinks, is opposed 
 to God, resists the truth with all his might, pre- 
 fers to remain in sin ratlu^r than be saved ; but 
 the spirit, despite his resistance, breaks in ujion 
 his heart, crnshinri down all resistance, and 
 ''makes him willing" to receive the Gospel! 
 Well, after all, that looks very much like an irre- 
 sistible operation. Now, it looks to me, that if 
 God will thus irresistibly break in upon his own 
 image, and crush down man's selfhood, to save 
 him, he might better have thus prevented him 
 from sinning in the first place, and saved the 
 world all the sufferings and sorrows brought in 
 by sin. But where is the Scripture for this 
 divine violence in conversion ? We have yet to 
 hear it, I think. Jesus says : " Behold, I stand 
 at the door, and knock ; if any man hear my 
 voice, and open the door, 1 will come in to him, 
 and will sup with him, and he with me." What 
 is it to *' oj)en the door " unto the Lord '? Here is 
 the answer : "He that hath an ear let him hear 
 what the spirit sa'ttJi to the churches." But Pro- 
 fessor Crawford doesn't believe in knocking and 
 waiting for the door to be opened by him who 
 dwells within. He believes that while the sin- 
 ner bars the door against the Spirit, resisting his 
 entrance with might and main, the S])irit will 
 break in, like " the thief or robber," only more 
 boldly! 
 
 % 
 
 ■I 
 
 I 
 
 •I 
 
 (>■• • 
 
ADDRESS. 
 
 -,},'■ 
 
 Thtirsdaif, 10th Sept., 2 o'clock, P.M. 
 (professor Crawford's third address.) 
 
 Professor Crawford — My opponent complains 
 very much at ray still employing the term Camp- 
 l)ellites, and wishes to have the nnme of Disciples. 
 Well, I don't want to irritate or lairt the feelings 
 of anybody, and I shall, if my memory serves 
 me, give them that name — though, I must say 
 that I do so under protest, as I think I have as 
 much right to the name as they have. 
 
 Mr, Siceencj/ — Well, I will call you by that 
 name if you desire. 
 
 Professor Crairford — I wish my opponent not 
 to make any remarks while I am speaking. He 
 complains also of my saying that Campbell was 
 the founder of the sect. By this I mean that 
 Campbell began to write and advocate what he 
 called the ancient Gospel until others took it up 
 and formed what I think we have the right to call 
 a sect, I regard as a sect any section of a pro- 
 fessing church, and I claim that they are entitled 
 to that name. Mr. Campbell was the founder of 
 that sect, and acted as their leader for many 
 years, and was recognized as such by his follow- 
 ers. My opponent asks who ajipointed him to 
 the presidency of their College ? I presume it was 
 the trustees of the College who sustained him, 
 and "paid the piper." It was certainly not the 
 Presbyterians, the Methodists, nor the Baptists 
 who supplied the funds. No, it was the Camp- 
 bellites — the Disciples — and, therefore, I main- 
 tain he was just as much a professor for that 
 body as I am for the Baptists at Woodstock. He 
 
 :( 
 
 ? 
 
r 
 
 58 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 i i 
 
 may not have been appointed to liis professorship 
 directly by the l)ody, but by the trustees acting 
 for them, though it Avas doul)tless the people who 
 supplied the " sinews of war." Though I was not 
 placed in my office by the whole body of Baptists, 
 but by the Trustees of the College acting for 
 them, yet I am recognized by the churches of 
 our (^(iuomination as an exponent of doctrines 
 generally held by them. So with Mr. Campbell, 
 and I don't think I have done anything unfair in 
 quoting from Mr. Campbell's works to show what 
 the views of the Cami)bellites or Disciples are. 
 Some complaint has been made because some 
 members of this congregation have seen lit to 
 express their feeliiigs b}' applauding the speakers. 
 I think there has been very little of that ; in fact, 
 they have behaved througliout remarkably well. 
 It is my wish, however, that they should not say 
 a single word when either of us is speaking, or 
 manifest their feelings in any w;iy ; and I would 
 say further, that I think it scarcely fair for my 
 opponent to ask me questions when he is speak- 
 ing, and when he knows I have no opportunity 
 of answering them. Then, in his reasoning he 
 seems to speak as though I undervalued the 
 Gospel by saying that something more than the 
 mere preaching of the Word was necessary to 
 the saving of sinners, namely, the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit. I firmly believe that tlie whole 
 of the Scriptures were dictated to the Prophets 
 and the Apostles by the direct inspiration of the 
 Holy Spirit. We believe that in these Bivine 
 Oracles God has revealed His holy will and pur- 
 pose ; that they reveal the only method by which 
 sinful men may find acceptance in the eyes of his 
 Maker — by the Fountain opened in the House of 
 David for sin and uncleanness. Let not my op- 
 ponent speak as if we set a low value upon God's 
 
"^ 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 59 
 
 Holy Word : we yield not to bim in our rever- 
 onco for, and belief in, its inspired utterances. 
 And tben in speaking of tbe work of tbo Spirit 
 it seems to me my opponent is just a little dis- 
 posed to lead us off tbe track. Wben I was a 
 loolisb young fellow I used to spend a good deal 
 of my time in galloping after a pack of bounds. 
 I used to notice tbat tbe young dogs \\ re very 
 apt to get on tbe wrong track, to get oft* tbe scent 
 and get after a berring instead of following up 
 in pursuit of tbe game. But tbe old dogs never 
 got off tbe scent. It seems to me tbere is a little 
 of tbis inclination "to get oft* tbe scent" on tbe 
 part of my opponent, wben be goes away to tbe 
 bcatben and speaks of tbe influence of tbe Spirit 
 in tbeir conversion. I don't know tbat tbe bea- 
 tben are converted witbout tbe Gospel : it is not 
 my idea on the subject, and is not taugbt at 
 Woodstock nor in tbe Word of God. Tbe ques- 
 tion is not wbat takes place wbere tbe Gospel is 
 not preaclied : it is, does God convert men by 
 t\w Words of Trutb alone or by tbt; influence of 
 His Spirit working along witb tbe Word ? I say 
 tliat tbe Spirit does act directly and immediately 
 upon tbe soul, making men willing to receive tbe 
 Trutb, opening tbeir bearts for its reception. 
 Tbe Spirit operates upon tbe souls of men, and 
 using tbe Trutb as its instrument, converts and 
 sanctities tbem. My o])ponent also misstates 
 my argument witb regard to the creation of man 
 in tbe moral image of God. My argument was, 
 that as God acted directly and immediately in 
 moulding tbe liuman soul into His own moral 
 image, so He can in tbe work of conversion and 
 Siinctification. To deny its possibility in one 
 case is to deny it in tbe otber. And I also 
 argue tbat as Satan acts directly and immedi- 
 ately upon tbe souls of men for his evil pur- 
 
 ! ! 
 
r 
 
 1 
 
 ,J; 
 
 t 
 f 
 
 
 60 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 
 poses, SO the Almighty can and does act in ac- 
 complishing the salvation of the sinner. But 
 my opponent says, it is not what God can do ; it 
 is, what (Iocs He do? But Mr. Camphell himself 
 explains this matter: He says *'If the Spirit 
 of God has spoken all its arguments ; or, if the 
 New and Old Testaments contain all the argu- 
 ments which can he offered to reconcile man to 
 God, and to ])urify them who are reconciled, then 
 all the poire)' of the Holy Spirit which can oper- 
 ate on the numan mind is spent ; and he that is 
 not sanctified and saved hy these, cannot he 
 saved by angels or spirits, human or divine." 
 
 You observe it is not what " will " or " does " 
 operate, but what " can " operate. His doc- 
 trine is that no moral effect can be produced but 
 by moral means, that is, by the Truth : whereas, 
 I have shown by these examples that God has 
 produced moral effects, witliout any means, that 
 is, directly ; and if in these cases, why not in 
 others? Why not in conversion? I think this 
 quotation from his own author is a sufficient 
 answer to that argument. 
 
 When I had to leave off in my last speech, I 
 was referring to the arguments used by Mr. 
 Campbell, who, reasoning from analogy, said it 
 was easier to believe than to become sanctified ; 
 easier to enlist in the army than to become a 
 good soldier ; easier to start in the race than to 
 win the crown. I was just going to say that we 
 could bring arguments, by analogy, from the 
 other side of the question, in fact, such argu- 
 ments are only the shadow of reasoning. I 
 might ask was it easier for Lazarus to awaken 
 from the sleep of death, than afterwards to walk 
 about in his grave-clothes ? And when Christ 
 brought the maiden to life, was it an easier 
 thing for her to rise and sit up in bed, than to 
 
T 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 61 
 
 rat afterwards ? Or was it oasior for the son of 
 the widow of Naiii to sit u\) in the hicr, than 
 afterwards to speak to the inultitude'? So you 
 see this arguing from analogy is not worth a 
 straw ! The Eoman CathoUcs tell us ahout St. 
 Dennis, that when his head was cut off, he took 
 it under his arm and walked a thousand miles ! 
 It seems a pretty hig thing to walk a thousand 
 miles, hut it's not quite so hig a thing as having 
 his head cut off, to pick it up, and take the first 
 step ! 
 
 Let us now find what the Word of God has to 
 say on this suhject of the S})irit's influence. 
 Ezekiel 3G, 2G, and 27 : '* A new heart also will 
 I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within 
 you ; and I will take away the stony heart out 
 of your flesh, and I will give j'ou an heart of 
 flesh. And I will put my Spirit witlnn you, and 
 cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall 
 keep my judgments and do them." Here then, 
 He is to " put a new Spirit " within them, and 
 to put His Spirit within them. What does that 
 mean, but that the Spirit of the living God, 
 would take up its abode in their souls, md being 
 there would work a mighty change in them, 
 causing them to walk in His statutes. Perhaps 
 my opponent will say the Spirit enters by the 
 Word. I admit it. I believe when the Spirit 
 enters into the heart of n man, He uses the 
 Divine Word as His instiument. But it is, 
 nevertheless, the Spirit acting upon the soul, 
 causing it to embrace the Truth, which effects 
 the change of heart. Again 11. Cor. 3, 14-16 : 
 "But their minds were blinded; for until this 
 day remaineth the same veil untaken away in 
 the reading of the Old Testament ; which veil is 
 done away in Christ. But even unto this day, 
 when Moses is read the veil is upon their hearts. 
 
fW 
 
 1. 
 
 .?= . 
 
 ':fl 
 
 ::;? I 
 
 C2 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Ncvcrtlu'loss, when it shall turn to tlie Lord, the 
 veil shiiil ])c taken away. Now the Lord in that 
 Sph-it," I'v.'c. lie is here speaking of the Jews. 
 The Truth was ]tresented to them, Ijut still the 
 veil r(>niaine(l hefore their eyes ; they heard the 
 Truth, hut they could not know or understand 
 until God would take; away the veil ; then they 
 would turn to llim. My opponent will say the 
 veil was taken awayhy the Truth, hut the Truth 
 was the very thing they had heard, and read, 
 and rejected, for it was when Moses was read to 
 them that the veil of prejudice was on their 
 hearts. How is the Truth to enter until the 
 Spirit shall take away the veil? Again in 
 Ephesians, 2, 10 : '* For we are his workman- 
 ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
 which God hath hefore ordained that we should 
 wallv in thtm." The discii)le's idea is that wo 
 are His workmanship, inasmuch as God has 
 made the "Word, and that Word alone converts 
 the soul. It is just the same as saying that the 
 man who makes the axe, cuts down the tree. 
 They leave out the real agent in the work, and 
 take only the instrument used hy that agent. 
 Again, Ephesians 2, 4-5 : " But God, who is rich 
 in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved 
 us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quick- 
 ened us together with Christ, (hy grace ye are 
 saved)." Here then, you see, we were all dead 
 in sins, hut God has quickened those who helieve 
 together with Him. I ask can a dead man he 
 quickened without Divine power? I say not. 
 My opponent will perhaps say it is a figure. I 
 admit that the language is figurative ; hut there 
 is a meaning in the figure. There is a moral 
 and spiritual death, and just as the mere words, 
 " Lazarus come forth," would not of themselves, 
 without Divine influence, have hrought the dead 
 
 

 DEBATE. 
 
 68 
 
 man to life, so the Truth, \vitliout hciuf* accom- 
 panied by the Spirit's inHiicnce will not brin*^ 
 the soul into the newness of spiritual life. 
 Then in [. Cor. Ji-f), 7 : " I have planted, Apollos 
 watered; but Clod j^'ave the inereiis(>. So then, 
 neither is he that phmteth anything;, neither ho 
 that watereth ; but God that {jjiveth the increase." 
 Paul i)lanted the ^'ood seed of the W(n'd, and by 
 it the Church; Apollos ciinie after and watered, 
 but without otlier inlluence tliere would be no 
 increase. The farmer may sow his seed ; the 
 dews and rains of Kcjiven may water the ground, 
 l)ut it is the Almi<j;lity power of God that causes 
 it to grow. Is there any innate power in the 
 seed itself ? Certainly not : we must not con- 
 found these two things. We talk of seed grow- 
 ing, but it is only God's way of carrying on his 
 work. God's power is just as necessary to make 
 it grow as it was to create it in the first place. 
 But, according to Mr. Campbell, the power of 
 the Spirit is spent in the planting and watering. 
 Whence then does the increase come ? I. Peter, 
 1-22 : '* Seeing ye have purified your souls in 
 obeying tlic truth through tlie Spirit, unto un- 
 feigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one 
 another with a pure heart fervently." Here, you 
 observe, they had obeyed the truth, how ? 
 '* Through the Spirit." There would be no 
 meaning to these words if the truth was all that 
 was required, but both are necessary. I will 
 read next, Ezekiel 86, 27 : " And I will put 
 my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in 
 my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments 
 and do them." A. change was to be wrought 
 among them : **they wereto walk in his sta- 
 tutes and keep his judgments," but how was this 
 change to be brought about. " I will put my 
 Spirit within you, and cause you to do so." The 
 
 |i 
 
•r 
 
 04 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 
 W 
 
 'i 
 14' 
 
 I '• 
 
 Spirit was necessary to cause or induce them to 
 obey the Truth. 'Then in TTcl). 8, 10 :" For 
 thin is thc! covi'iiiiut tliat 1 will make with the 
 House of THracl after those days, saith the Lord ; 
 I will put my hiws into their mind and write 
 them in their hearts; and I will be to them a 
 God, and they shall bt! to nn^ a people." His 
 laws were not only to be put into their mind ; 
 they were to l)o irrittcn in their hearts; not 
 merely the words of this law to be clearly pre- 
 sented to the mind, something more was re- 
 quired. It does not say that the Truth will 
 write itself in their hearts, or that they them- 
 selves were to do this, but "/will write it." 
 Romans 8, 0, '* But ye are not in the flesh, but 
 in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God 
 dwell in you. Now if any man have not the 
 Spirit of God, he is none of His." Here then 
 the Sjiirit of God is to dwell in them. My o]}- 
 ponent and Mr. Campbell say that all that is 
 meant is that the words of the Spirit dwell in 
 the man, and that to be filled with the Spirit is 
 to have the Word of God dwell richly in them. 
 We say that the Spirit of God dwells in them, 
 and I appeal to common sense if that is not 
 plainly the meaning of the passage. I ventm-e 
 to say that ninety-nine out of every hundred 
 unprejudiced men would say that this is the only 
 interpretation of which the words are susceptible. 
 We must get a new vocabulary if we take any 
 other meaning out of these plain words. I will 
 read next I Cor. vi. 19: "What! know ye not 
 that your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost 
 which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye 
 are not your own ?" What do we understand by 
 our being the Temples of the Holy Ghost? Does 
 it not mean that the Holy Spirit is in us ? Not 
 merely that the words are there, but the actual 
 
 r 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 ' 
 
 65 
 
 Spirit? I will illustrate: Supposo yon oay Mr. 
 Crawford was at such a house on a "certain day. 
 I say, "No, I tlnnk I can prove an alihir But 
 says my Disciple hrother, "Yes, you were there, 
 for if you were n(jt personally, your worda were 
 there, for they were reading \)ne of your ser- 
 mons." I hold that no reasonahlo person can 
 take any other meaning from the text I have 
 quoted than the one I have given it. It means 
 more than the mere words of the Holy Ghost. 
 
« 
 
 BWRW 
 
 ■■ 
 
 f'' 
 
 
 It 
 
 li! 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 Thuvsday, Sept. 10th, ^1^ p.m. 
 (MR. Sweeney's third reply.) 
 
 Mr. Sweeney — I trust that we have come 
 together this afternoon prepared to xnu'sue the 
 discussion profitabl3^ 
 
 I take occasion, first, to remove an impression 
 that was probably made ujDon the audience, by a 
 remark that my friend made a'^out tlio behaviour 
 of the hearers. He said that the audience had 
 behaved remarkably well, and from this it miglit 
 be inferred that I had complained of the conduct 
 of the audience; but I certainly have not. True, 
 there was a brother, sitting near my friend, who 
 spoke a time or two, and nodded oftener, this 
 forenoon, and some member of the congregation 
 complained of it. That was all. In this con- 
 nection my friend also complained of my speak- 
 ing to him while delivering his speech. Ho 
 should not have begun it. I will try not to speak 
 to him again, however, while he is speaking, as 
 I certainly have no desire to interrupt him. And 
 v>'hen I ask him a question, in the course of my 
 speech, I don't wish him to answer it at the time 
 but desire him to bear it in mind and answer it 
 when his time comes. I refer to these little mat- 
 ters merely that no capital may be made out of 
 them. 
 
 The gentleman says he will call us Campbell- 
 ites no more, if his memory serves him well. It 
 seems to me his memory is a little bad. I fear, 
 too, tliere is something else at fault ; for he says 
 that while he shall call us Disciples, he will do 
 so under protest. Now, as I have said alreadj^ 
 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 67 
 
 when we ask to be called Disciples of Christ, we 
 do not mean it to be implied that we are the only 
 Disciples of Christ, or that he is not one. By no 
 means. Yet he will call us Disciples under pro- 
 test ! He is something like Galileo, who said the 
 world tm'ned round the sun, when ifc was a new 
 doctrine, and being pressed he retracted the 
 statement, but it is said that as he turned away 
 from where the retraction was extorted from him, 
 he nodded his head significantly and said, in a 
 low voice, "But it does turn, though." I am 
 afraid the professor feels that we ''are Camp- 
 bellites, though." I would rather not have him 
 convinced so against his will. 
 
 The gentleman tells us that M . Camp])ell 
 founded a sect by going out from among tlie 
 Baptists. By the way, he has improved his 
 statement as to the separation of Mr. Campbell 
 from the Baptists, since this forenoon.* Then, if 
 my memory serves me well, he had it that the 
 Baptists "cut him off." But that is immaterial. 
 He thinks Mr. Campbell went out from the Baj)- 
 tists and formed a sect, while Mr. Campbell 
 claimed that he went out from the Baptists that 
 he might occupy the simple, primitive, unsecta- 
 rian, apostolic ground. 1 believe, too, that he 
 was, to say the very least, less a sectarian after 
 he laid off the Baptist name and party peculiari- 
 ties than he was while wearing and maintaining 
 them. In this particular, at any rate, Mr. 
 Campbell became more apostolic. 
 
 I would like to hold my friend to one point at 
 a time. Whether we are a sect, in the current 
 sense of that word, has no bearing upon the 
 question between us, as to spiritual influence in 
 conversion. Let us stick to that point for the 
 present. 
 
 The gentleman tells us that the question is, 
 
68 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 (I 
 
 .11 
 
 r 'ill : 
 
 
 l|! 
 
 in m 
 
 % 
 
 
 Does God convert men by the Word of Truth 
 alone, or by the Spirit working with the Word ? 
 I deny that that is a fair statement of the ques- 
 tion. "Word of Truth alone'' is his language, 
 not mine. I deny that any of my brethren 
 would accept that statement: for, by ''alone" 
 he evidently means to exclude from the truth 
 the power thereof. He means by that word to 
 exclude the power that we hold is ever present 
 with it, and essential to it, and, indeed, insepar- 
 able from it. Then, he states his side of the 
 question as being, that the Spirit works along 
 with the Word. I thought he believed that the 
 Spirit works u-'ithnut the Word — works where Mie 
 Word can't work. To say that the Spirit works 
 wwiediatdy "along with the Word" is to contra- 
 dict one's self in the very statement, as I have 
 already said. We believe the Spirit is the Spirit 
 of the Truth, is ever present with that Truth, is 
 ever efficient where that Truth is received, and 
 consequently the Truth does nothing without the 
 Spirit — does not even exist without it, any more 
 than my body is J. S. Sweeney without the spirit. 
 Let not our position be misunderstood. Does 
 my friend believe the Spirit does desert the Gos- 
 pel and leave it powerless ? — that it is in the 
 Gospel sometimes, making it efficient, and at 
 other times out of it, rendering it inefficient ? 
 If this is his position, I am solicitous that he 
 should say so. It is not mine. I believe in no 
 such Divine inconstancy. I believe that the 
 Gospel, the Word of God, is not occasionally, but 
 always, "the power of God," always "quick and 
 powerful." 
 
 My notes bring me back to Mr. Campbell 
 again. Now, I have not objected to my friend's 
 quoting from Mr. Campbell, to show what our 
 people generally believe on this question or that, 
 
 1 \ 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 69 
 
 at, 
 
 but I have objected to his calling him the found- 
 er of what he is plaased to call a sect, and being 
 an authority among us, I believe that Mr. 
 Campbell and others abandoned their respective 
 sects and returned to primitive Christianity. At 
 any rate, they aimed to do so. And if the gen- 
 tleman thinks they failed to do this, and thinks 
 he can show that they only founded another sect, 
 let him do so. I am certainly not conscious of 
 trying to maintain a mere sect. If I were con- 
 vinced that I am engaged in such a work, I 
 would abandon it at once. Let the gentleman 
 proceed to show us wherein we have failed and 
 do fail to occupy primitive apostolic ground, and 
 I will consider his effort a friendly one and try 
 to profit by it. I have never claimed perfection. 
 Possibly we have failed to do the thing we have 
 aimed to do, and done the very things we aimed 
 not to do ; and when I am convinced this is so, 
 I will try again. If he thinks, now, that he can 
 show that we do not come nearer to primitive 
 Christianity, in our teaching and practice, than 
 others, let him do it. I only ask that we have 
 credit for trying to do so, and for believing that 
 we do. 
 
 The gentleman says, very emphatically, that 
 he and his brethren do not undervalue the Word 
 of God. Well, of course, what I said upon that 
 point I said in reference to their tJieorij of con- 
 version, and not respecting their intentions. Did 
 I not read from a distinguished Baptist preacher 
 that God has given us " no means " for the con- 
 version of sinners, " irrespective of the direct 
 influence of the Spirit ?" Now, while I do not 
 say that its advocates intend it, I do say that 
 this theory undervalues the Gospel, which Paul 
 calls the power of God for salvation. So it 
 seems to me. Suppose some man manufactures 
 
"pi! 
 
 T! 
 
 70 
 
 DEBATE., 
 
 a machine for cutting wheat, and sells it to a 
 farmer; and then I say to that farmer, "you 
 have no means for cuttin}:^ wheat, irrespective of 
 cDwther machine whose claims I may be advocat- 
 ing." Do I not undervalue the one he has just 
 bought ? What would the manufacturer who 
 had furnished the machine the farmer had, 
 think about the force of my remark '} As to the 
 conversion of the sinner, my friend's theory 
 says, " the Gospel will not do it" — will not do 
 the very thing it is, in my judgment, intended to 
 do; the very thing it is called "the power of 
 God" to accomplish! That's what I mean to 
 say, and the gentleuuxn can lix it up to suit him. 
 
 My friend thinks I wish to get him away from 
 the question — want to get him off the track. He 
 says when he was a foolish boy he used to go 
 hunting. I shouldn't wonder ! And he knows 
 that young pups may be drawn off the trail of 
 the game, by herring being drawn across the 
 trail. But he is not to be tricked in that way ! 
 No sir ; not he ! He, I suppose, is " an old dog," 
 and means to keep track. Perhaps, he might 
 better be looking after the "pups," if there are 
 any in the chase, lest tliey be led astray by my 
 tricks. But more seriously. Have I attempted 
 to shun the discussion of a point of difference 
 between us ? 
 
 The gentleman says the question is not as to 
 the conversion of heathens, but of people in 
 Gospel lands. Very well ; let him show that the 
 Spirit operates, as he says it does, anywhere. 
 Leave the heathen out of the question ; though 
 I think Eev. Mr. Dunn, from whom I read in my 
 first speech, is more consistent than he. If the 
 Spirit operates anywhere witliout the Gospel, 
 why not where the light of the Gospel doesn't 
 shine ? 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 71 
 
 )g» 
 
 my 
 )ted 
 
 I must again remind our hearers that the 
 question between us is not one of power, but one 
 of fact. Does the Spirit so act in conversion '? 
 Not, rail it so act ; I would consent to discuss no 
 question as to the power of the Spirit. My friend 
 thinks Mr. Campbell argued that the Spirit can- 
 not act directly ; I suppose the gentleman does 
 not understand Mr. Campbell's argument. Mr. 
 Campbell never limited the Divine power, I sup- 
 pose, though his argument may have limited the 
 powers of man as to moral effects. I, however, 
 feel no concern about Mr. Campbell's arr/umcnts. 
 Professor Crawford is too late to debate with 
 Mr. Campbell, that much abused man. I sup- 
 pose if he had come along about fifty years ago 
 Campbollism would have been wiped from the 
 earth in its very inci])iency ! 
 
 I care nothing about the question as to wheth- 
 er it was easier to raise Lazarus from the dead 
 or for him to walk after he was raised. The 
 raising of the dead body of Lazarus was one 
 thing and the conversion of a soul to God is 
 another and quite different one. The effect in 
 the one case was purely physical, and in the 
 other as purely moral. If Mr. Crawford was re- 
 plying to some of Mr. Campbell's analogical 
 arguments, why that's an affair I am clean out 
 of, and about which, consequently, I feel little 
 or no concern. 
 
 But I must now give attention to the passages 
 of Scripture quoted in my friend's last speech, 
 in support of his view of 4ihe subject. Ezekiel, 
 36, 26-27 : "A new heart also will I give you, 
 and a new Spirit will I put within you ; and I 
 will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, 
 and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will 
 put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk 
 in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments 
 
72 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 N 
 
 .m 
 
 
 Mi 
 
 and do them." Now, I can see nothing in this 
 passage ahout the kind of influence in question. 
 Granting tliat the prophet was speaking of con- 
 version, that is of individual conversion, which 
 he certainly was not, he does not say how it was 
 to be accomplished. All that God said he would 
 do could he done in perfect harmony with our 
 view of spiritual influence. My opponent as- 
 sumes the very point, and the only point, in con- 
 troversy ; he assumes that the work here sj)oken 
 of was to be done by the Holy Spirit acting 
 d'irecth/ upon the heart, whereas that is the only 
 point in question between us. 2 Cor., 3, 14-16 : 
 " But their minds were blinded ; for until this 
 day remaineth the same veil untaken away in 
 the reading of the Old Testament ; which veil is 
 done away in Christ. But even unto this day, 
 when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. 
 Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the 
 veil shall be taken away." Just what my friend 
 sees in this Scripture to support his theory is 
 more than I can tell. The apostle is speaking 
 of the Jews, in the passage ; and he says that 
 when they read the Old Testament their minds 
 are blinded by what he calls a veil ; that veil, 
 doubtless, was, and is, a false theory of interpre- 
 tation. If the Jews were rightly to interpret the 
 Old Testament they would, of course, all become 
 Christians. When they turn to Christ then they 
 will see clearly what has all along been obscure 
 in their own Scriptures. This veil is done away 
 in Christ ; Christ solves the mysteries of the 
 types and prophecies of the Old Testament. But, 
 rejecting Him, the Old Testament is dark, ob- 
 scure. But does the apostle say this veil will be 
 removed by an immediate operation of the Spirit ? 
 Nothing of the kind. '* When they turn to the 
 Lord,'' receive him as answering to the types and 
 
 ",:"t 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 73 
 
 shadows, as the fulfilment of the prophecies, of 
 their Scriptures, then the obscurity will be gone. 
 Why, my opponent reads this very passage with 
 a veil over his mind ! He is looking for a doc- 
 trine in it that's not there, and hence it is all 
 obscure to him. The Old Testament is not the 
 only book that is so read, nor are the Jews the 
 only people that read with a veil over their 
 minds. Eph. 2, 10 ; " For we are his workman- 
 ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
 which God hath before ordained, that we should 
 walk in them." I believe all that is taught in 
 this passage as firmly as my opponent can. 
 Those Ephesian Christians were " created in 
 Christ " — of course they were, but how? That's 
 the question we are discussing ; and that's the 
 question about which nothing is said in the verse 
 quoted. It only states the fact. But let us turn 
 back to chapter 1 and verse 10, where we have 
 something to the point: "In whom ye also 
 trusted, after that ye heard the Word of Truth, 
 the Gospel of yoiir salvation ; in whom also after 
 that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy 
 Spirit of promise." This touches the point in 
 question. Here we learn that the Ephesians 
 trusted in Christ after they "heard the Word of 
 Truth," which the apostle calls the Gospel of 
 their salvation. Then, after they helieved, they 
 were *' sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." 
 Does this look like the doctrine Professor Craw- 
 ford preaches, concerning the Holy Spirit ? My 
 friend quotes also the 4th and 5tli verses of the 
 second chapter, wherein the apostle says the 
 Ej^hesians "were dead," but had been "quicken- 
 ed together with Christ," and asks if a dead man 
 can be made alive without Divine power ? There 
 is, I submit, no question between us as to the 
 
 necessity for Divine power in conversion ; but 
 4 
 
 'K 
 
■H^W 
 
 74 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 (• ' 
 
 J'' i r 
 
 f ', 
 
 t ! 
 
 the question is as to how that Divine power is 
 exerted. If my friend means to assume that the 
 Ephesians were, or that other unconverted per- 
 sons are, dead in such a sense as that Divine 
 power could not be exerted upon tliem through 
 the Gospel, then I deny it and call for the proof. 
 It may not he amiss just now and here to say a 
 word or two about figurative language, as it will 
 not be denied that the apostle here speaks figur- 
 atively. When one thing is called by the name 
 of another, in some respects different thing, this 
 is a figurative speech. One thing may be called 
 by the name of another when the two are alike 
 in one particular, or more; if the two were alike 
 in every particular they would, of course, be the 
 same thing. With these remarks about figures 
 of speech, that will not be called in question by my 
 learned opponent, I raise this question : in what 
 particular is the state, or condition, of an un- 
 converted man like that of a dead man ? If my 
 friend says they are alike in that, that neither 
 of them can hear, or reason, or 'believe, or will, 
 or act, I deny it, and am ready for the question. 
 If he cannot make this out, then of what use is 
 this passage in his cause, in this controversy '? 
 None whatever. 1 Cor. 3. 6 : "I have planted, 
 Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." 
 Here my friend has the veil over his mind again. 
 He understands the " planted," " watered," and 
 **made to grow," (for that is the meaning of 
 ** gave the increase ") to be predicated of the 
 Word of God ; that is, he understands Paul to 
 mean, "I have planted the Word of God, Apol- 
 los watered the Word of God, but God made the 
 Word to grow." How did Apollos water the 
 Word of God ? Is that the way the Professor 
 teaches Biblical interj)retation at Woodstock? 
 Why, the Word of God that Paul preached at 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 75 
 
 Corinth took root and grew before ever Apollos 
 went there : for we read that when Paul first 
 went there, "Crispus, the chief ruler of the syna- 
 gogue, believed on the Lord with all his house ; 
 and many of the Corinthians hearing believed 
 and were baptized" (Acts xviii, S). What, then, 
 was it that Paul planted, Apollos watered, and 
 God made to grow? It was the cause — the 
 Christian community — the Church, in that city. 
 So, it turns out that the Apostle was not talking 
 about conversion in the sense we are at all ; and 
 even if he were, he says nothing about the kind 
 of influence my friend is contending for. He, of 
 course, is trying to find it in the phrase ''God 
 gave the increase." But, allowing his own inter- 
 pretation or application of the passage, it says 
 nothing as to how "God gave the increase." 
 
 But now, having confined myself thus far in 
 the discussion to the speeches of my opponent, 
 and having, at least to my own satisfaction, re- 
 plied to his arguments, in the remainder of my 
 time in this speech I propose to notice a passage 
 of Scripture or two that I believe to be irrecon- 
 cilably opposed to the theory my friend advo- 
 cates. Matt, xiii, 15, " For this people's heart is 
 waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, 
 and their eyes they have closed ; lest at any time 
 they should see with their eyes, and hear with 
 their ears, and should understand with their 
 heart, and should be converted, and I should 
 heal them." To be healed, one must be convert- 
 ed; to be converted one must understand with 
 the heart ; to understand with the heart, one 
 must see and hear : this is the Lord's order. 
 But the people of whom he was speaking were 
 not healed. Why ? Because they were not con- 
 verted. Why were they not converted? Be- 
 cause they had not seen with their eyes and 
 
M 
 
 > } 
 
 ■i 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 
 76 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 heard with their ears. But, why had they not 
 Reen with their eyes and heard with their ears ? 
 Let the Lord answer: ** Their ears are dull of 
 hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at 
 any time they should see with their eyes and 
 hear with their ears." One more question may 
 be asked : Why were their ears dull of hearing 
 and their eyes closed ? Were they or were they 
 not responsible for it ? If my friend says it was 
 a matter over which they had no control, then 
 he denies all just responsibility and sweeps away 
 all foundation for praise or blame, vice or virtue : 
 and I shall treat him hereafter as a regular 
 Calvinist. 
 
 But the Lord says of these people, "Their eyes 
 thej/ have closed, lest at any time they should see 
 with their eyes and hear with their ears, and 
 understand with their heart, and should be 
 converted, and I should heal them." This justly 
 throws the responsibility upon them. But when 
 you say the closing of their eyes was a matter 
 over which they had no control, and the opening 
 of them a thing they could no more do than they 
 could open heaven, you relieve them of all just 
 responsibility. This seems to me as clear as a 
 sunbeam. I believe men have the power of 
 choice — that they can hear or they can refuse to 
 hear — that they can see or refuse to see : I be- 
 lieve God has made them so. I believe a man 
 may go down to perdition before God will violate 
 the laws of His happiness and of His being — be- 
 fore He will break down the dignity of His own 
 image to save him. God will never convert a 
 man whether he is willing or not. 
 
 ;H ;ii 
 
 n 
 
iy not 
 ears? 
 lull of 
 est at 
 s and 
 1 may 
 Daring 
 e they 
 it was 
 i, then 
 J away 
 ,drtue : 
 •egular 
 
 ir eyes 
 aid see 
 cs, and 
 uld be 
 5 justly 
 t when 
 matter 
 pening 
 m they 
 ill just 
 ir as a 
 wer of 
 use to 
 I be- 
 a man 
 violate 
 ig— be- 
 lls own 
 ivert a 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 Thiirsdat/, Srpt. 10th, Sp.m. 
 
 (prof. Crawford's fourth address.) 
 
 Prof. Crdwford — We have licard that Mr. 
 Campbell has been very much abused. Now, 
 when 1 l)ring forth the arj.!;uments used by Mr. 
 Campbell in order to show tbat they are wrong, 
 t don't think I lay myself open to the charge of 
 having abused him. I do not wnut to hurt the 
 feeHngs of, or insult, any onr, but I do say that 
 he taught what I regard us heresy. JMy oppo- 
 nent says that I will not affirm that the Holy 
 Spirit acts directly and immediately upon the 
 soul. Have I not time and again affirmed that 
 it operates directly upon the soul in taking away 
 the veil ? In the text in which it speaks of the 
 veil being taken away, who is it that is to take 
 away the veil ? God himself, of course. He 
 will fulfil this premise. And is not this by the 
 immediate operation of the Spirit upon the soul, 
 taking away the veil of sinful prejudice, and 
 preparing the heart for the reception of the 
 Truth ? Let me not be misunderstood : I say 
 I the Holy Spirit does act immediately in prepar- 
 ing for the entrance of the Truth, and in carry- 
 ing on the work of grace thus begun it uses the 
 Truth as its instrument. My opponent tries to 
 evade the question. He says it is the Holy Spirit 
 operating through the Truth, but when you come 
 to examine his words you find that it is not in 
 the sense of the Holy Spirit using the Truth as 
 its instrument. I think the audience clearly 
 understand my position in this matter without 
 
 i 
 
 
 I 
 
f\ -"^-"^ 
 
 I 
 
 78 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 i ' 
 
 mj' being obliged to repeat it again and again to 
 satisfy my opponent. There is such a thing as 
 having a knowledge of the Truth merely as a 
 matter of fact or history, without being in 
 possession of a " saving knowknlge of the 
 Truth." I may believe the words of the (lospel, 
 but yet my heart may not l)e optnied so as to see 
 its beauty, and accept it as the means of saving 
 my soul. I may look at it through a perverting 
 medium of prejudice, and it requires the influ- 
 ence of God's Spirit to n^move this prejudice and 
 to show mo the Truth in all its loveliness, and 
 apply it to my heart and conscience so as to con- 
 vert my soul. It is like viewing a beautiful 
 landscape through crooked glass ; there is no 
 beauty thus to be seen in it, no loveliness, noth- 
 ing to please the eye or the fancy. Everything, 
 however, that is necessary to inspire pleasure 
 and delight is there ; I see every tree? and every 
 house, I see it all, but everything is twisted and 
 contorted by the crooked medium through which 
 I view it. So it is with the human mind until 
 the Spirit of God operates upon the soul. There 
 is an obscurity, a veil of prejudice before the 
 understanding; but whenever the Spirit of God 
 takes away that veil, removes that prejudice, the 
 soul sees Christ in all his loveliness and beauty. 
 He becomes then for the first time "the chief 
 among ten thousand, the altogether lovely." 
 
 Here is where I find the greatest fault with 
 the doctrines of the Disciples : they think if they 
 can by arguing, by using logic wath a man, get 
 the Truth to lodge in his mind, the w^ork is done. 
 I believe that is the kind of doctrine that makes 
 stony-ground hearers of the Word; that gives 
 the form of godliness without the power. I 
 doubt very much if that kind of doctrine will 
 have any very great effect ; it will not only make 
 
 
 s 
 
[ain to 
 ing as 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 79 
 
 y aft a 
 iiig ill 
 )f tho 
 Tospcl, 
 
 i to HOC 
 
 saving 
 voi'tiug 
 ) indu- 
 ico and 
 ss, and 
 to con- 
 i^aiitiful 
 e is no 
 s, noth- 
 L-ything, 
 Dleasure 
 id overy 
 ttid and 
 ;h which 
 id until 
 There 
 ore the 
 of God 
 lice, the 
 heauty. 
 le chief 
 
 ly-" 
 
 ult with 
 V if they 
 man, get 
 is done. 
 Lit makes 
 at gives 
 ower. I 
 rine will 
 ily make 
 
 the Einner fool .self-sufficient, l)ut will puff up the 
 preacher with a sort of self-sufficiency. For if 
 he can only hy tho dint of reasoning, or by his 
 eloquence, get men to acce})t tho Gospel as dry 
 facts, just as t'lcy would believe any other book, 
 they would fool tluit they had saved their souls, 
 and that their work was done, instead of feeling 
 their dependence upon God and giving him all 
 the glory. But it is only when the veil is taken 
 away by the Spirit of the living God, and when 
 God puts His Spirit into men's hearts, that they 
 see the Truth in all its loveliness. It is then 
 that their hearts l)ecomo melted into submission 
 to his will. It is then that the sinner is con- 
 strained to abandon his evil ways, and consecrate 
 himself, body and soul, to the service of Christ. 
 I think it is now pretty clear what are the views 
 I and my opponent hold respectively on this 
 subject, without our paddling over the same 
 ground again and again. 1 think, too, you will 
 perceive that when I quote from the works of 
 Mr. Cami)bell and Mr. Franklin to show their 
 views, I am not very far from the doctrines held 
 by the Disciples, as well as by my opponent. 
 And it is scarcely fair for him to accuse me of 
 not sticking to the ju'opositions I first laid down, 
 for I don't think lie can show where I have 
 deviated from them in a single instance. I find 
 no fault with the quotation he givas from a Bap- 
 tist author (J. W. Hayhurst): "God has given 
 us no means by which sinners can be converted, 
 or a general revival take place, irrespective of 
 the direct agency of the Spirit." Why, instead 
 of finding fault with that doctrine, it is just what 
 I have been trying to make you understand is 
 my position. I hold that without the Spirit of 
 God accompanying the Truth and using it as its 
 instrument, there is no salvation for the sinner. 
 
 •t 
 
I 
 
 
 %i A 
 
 m 
 
 2f 
 
 41 
 
 t \ 
 
 
 80 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 The Gospel cannot of itself do it ; it requires 
 the Spirit of God to aj^ply it. The preacher 
 cannot do it ; it is true that the Bible speaks in 
 some passages as if the soul was converted by 
 the preacher, but we all know tht^t the preacher 
 is only the subordinate agent. And »o it some- 
 times speaks as if conversion was effected by the 
 Gospel, but the meaning is that the Gospel is but 
 the instrument in the hands of the Spirit. 
 
 With reference to the passages of Scripture he 
 has quoted as, " I will put m^ Spirit within 
 you," I would ask what is God 'i. Spirit but the 
 Holy Ghost *? And when God's Spirit is said to 
 be in a man, there is nothing to ,^how that it ia 
 in him, merely by the words of the Spirit being 
 in him, any more than that I am ma room if 
 my sermons are read there. I don't deny but a 
 man may at the same time have the Words of 
 the Truth in him or in his heart, but when God 
 says He will put His Spirit in them it means not 
 that the words aloiie are there, but the Spirit is 
 there in His actual presence. T again appeal to 
 common sense whether any other meaning can 
 legitimately be drawn from, the words. 
 
 Then in regard to that passage (2 Cor. 3, 15- 
 16) where it speaks of the veil being tdken ?.way, 
 he asks who takes the veil a\^ay ? He hns not 
 explained who takes it away if it is not God. In 
 order to weaken the force of that passage he 
 must explain how the veil is taken away if not 
 by the influence of God's Spirit. It is merely 
 evading the point to ask this question without 
 producing anj^thing to show that my exposition 
 of the text is not the correct one. Wliy is it that 
 the Aposllo gives us the promise of God that 
 the veil shall be taken away ))y God himself? 
 
 With regard to Lydia's case, I don'i think he 
 has shown that it conflicts in the least with what 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 81 
 
 I have been saying. I say that the veil that had 
 hidden the Truth from hor heart was taken away 
 hy the power of God's Spirit. Speaking of hor 
 the Apostle states: ** Whose heart the Lord 
 opened, that she attended unto the things which 
 were spoken of Paul." Nothing can be plainer 
 than this language. God had to " open her 
 heart" before the Truth was received by her. 
 Speaking of the passage where it says: "You 
 hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses 
 and sins," my opponent asserts that in using a 
 figure it is not necessary that the figure shall 
 cover every quality on the thing prefigured. I 
 admit this. I do not say that in every respect 
 those who are unconverted, those who are dead 
 in trespasses and sins, are the same in every 
 respect as a corpse in the grave ; but I do mean 
 to say that there is a moral death, resembling 
 essentially, in many particulars, physical disso- 
 lution ; and it is death inasmuch as God alone 
 can quicken or bring to life the soul in such a 
 case. I say that a man without any theory or 
 prejudice upon this subject, reading in the pass- 
 age of which I am speaking, that men *'are dead 
 in trespasses and sins," would say it must be a 
 very great depravity indeed when men are said 
 to be detul to all that is good. Surely there is 
 something very strong and inveterate where such 
 a figure as this is employed. 
 
 My opponent, speaking of I Cor. iii. 6 : "I 
 have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the 
 increase," says the planting and the watering 
 means the planting and taking care of Churches. 
 I think it is more natural to take it as referring 
 to the planting and watering of good seed in 
 individual hearts, and by th- 1 seed as the instru- 
 ment, planting the Church. But whatever view 
 you may take in that respect, the fact remains, 
 
 I ii 
 
82 
 
 DEBATC. 
 
 • \ 
 
 
 S3., 
 
 " God gave the increase." Paul says that they 
 had done their share of the work ; they had 
 planted and watered, hut something else was 
 necessary before the harvest could be reaped. It 
 is our duty to preach the Gospel, to warn sin- 
 ners, to point out to them the happiness of the 
 Christian's life, and the folly and guilt of unbe- 
 lief, but the success must come from God. But 
 according to the views of the Disciples, when I 
 have lodged the words of the Gospel in my hear- 
 er's hearts that is all that is required — it is the 
 Truth alone working that gives the increase ; but 
 the Bible says that the increase comes from God. 
 I will now refer to a few passages upon which 
 my opponent has not touched. Romans viii. 9 : 
 " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if 
 so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, 
 if any man have not the Spirit of God, he is 
 none of his." I ask if there is anything more 
 in this than that the words of the Truth dwell in 
 the man ? The Apostle speaks distinctly of the 
 Spirit of God dwelling in them. I think in this 
 case also we can appeal to common sense as to 
 the meaning of the passage ; the language is 
 unmistakable. Again, I Cor. vi. 19: "What! 
 know ye not that your body is the temple of the 
 Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of 
 God, and ye are not your own?" Surely there 
 is here the Holy Spirit abiding and working per- 
 sonally in the soul ; it is not merely that the 
 Spirit or meaning of the Truth is there. I think 
 there can be no other explanation given of this 
 passage. Suppose we use an illustration to 
 make it still plainer, though the words are cer- 
 tainly plain enough. If you employ a tailor 
 to make you a coat, and when it is finished he 
 leaves it at your house and retires : could j^ou 
 with any propriety say that because the coat 
 
 II 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 83 
 
 It 
 
 g pei'- 
 lat the 
 
 think 
 If this 
 Ion to 
 |e cer- 
 
 tailor 
 led he 
 Id you 
 coat 
 
 made by the tailor was in your house the tailor 
 himself was in the house ; or, if you put on the 
 coat could you say that the tailor was on your 
 back. So it would be no more proper to say that 
 the Holy Spirit was in your heart as in a temple, 
 if no more was meant than that your words were 
 in your heart. 
 
 I would refer you next to Philippians ii. 13 : 
 *' For it is God which worketh in you both to will 
 and do of his good pleasure." More than the 
 words of the Truth, or the spirit or meaning of 
 the words, is required ; God himself must work 
 in you even to will and to do. And in II Tim- 
 othy ii. 25, 26 : '* In meekness instructing those 
 that oppose themselves ; if God peradventure 
 wil] give them repentance to the acknowledging 
 of the Truth ; and that they may recover them- 
 selves out of the snare of the devil, who are 
 taken captive by him of his will." Here, then, 
 you observe that it is necessary for "God to give 
 them repentance." It was the duty of the 
 preacher or apostle to instruct the people in 
 meekness, but God had to give them repentance 
 before their hearts could be changed. Here, for 
 instance, I hold that I am contending for the 
 truth to-day, but my opponent will not acknow- 
 ledge it, without divine help. So strongly do I 
 believe in the doctrine I am advocating that I 
 am fully persuaded that unless the Spirit make 
 him willing, he will not acknowledge the Truth. 
 
 ^!;l 
 
 J 
 
i 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 f ; 
 
 ) I 
 
 
 < t 
 
 |i 
 
 I 
 1 » 
 
 i i 
 
 i 
 
 Thursday, Se])t. 10th, Sh j^.m. 
 (MR. Sweeney's fourth reply.) 
 
 Mr. Siceeneii — How the sinner could be justly 
 blamed or held responsible for not receiving the 
 Truth, if he has not the power to do it, is to me 
 profoundly mysterious. But I will go over the 
 gentleman's speech in the order in which it was 
 delivered, as nearly as possible, if order may be 
 used in such connection. 
 
 He told us that he had not abused Mr. Camp- 
 bell. I have not accused him of it. I did not 
 mean to use the word abuse in its worse sense 
 either, in what I did say. A man is abused in 
 one sense, when he is misrepresented, whether 
 it is done intentionally or unintentionally. In 
 the sense of being misrejjresented, few men have 
 been more abused than Mr. Campbell, in my 
 judgment. He is not often right fairly repre- 
 sented by those who differ from him. But what 
 we call prejudice is a wonderful something ! 
 
 My friend still reads the third chapter of second 
 Corinthians with the veil untaken away from his 
 mind. He thinks the veil must be removed from 
 the minds of the Jews by an immediate operation 
 of the Holy Spirit, before they can turn to the 
 Lord, notwithstanding the passage itself says 
 ** which veil is done away in Christ," and that 
 "when it [Israel] shall turn to the Lord, the veil 
 shall be taken away." He is contending that it 
 must be taken away by a direct action of the 
 Spirit, before it can turn to the Lord." Well, I 
 certainly have no power to remove the veil from 
 
 ■f 
 
DEBATE* 
 
 35 
 
 the Professor's mind by an immediate operation, 
 an^, therefore, I suppose it must remain untaken 
 avi'av. It is certain that Paul did not understand 
 that the veil was to be removed l>y the Spirit 
 going before the Truth, for he goes right on to 
 say, "But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them 
 that are lost ; in whom the God of this world 
 hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, 
 lest the lUjht of the (jlorious Gospel of Christ, who 
 is the image of God, should shine unto them." 
 Why, if Paul believed as my friend does, did he 
 not explain that Israel could not receive Clirist 
 till the Spirit had taken away the veil, by a di- 
 rect action upon their hearts ? I think my opjjo- 
 nent is pretty fully committed to one position — 
 that the direct influence of the Spirit, for which 
 he contends, goes before the Truth, and is neces- 
 sary to enable the sinner to receive the Truth. 
 The sinner, bethinks, is both unable and unwill- 
 ing to receive the Truth till this direct operation 
 is performed. I suppose, of course, that the pro- 
 fessor would not, if he knew it, iireach the Gospel 
 to any who had not been enabled and made will- 
 ing to receive it. This operation for which he 
 contends, goes before all preaching ; and, so far 
 as the sinner is concerned, is necessarily both 
 unconditional and irresistible. It comes while 
 the sinner is unable to ask for it, and unwilling 
 to receive it ! Is the effect of this influence 
 regeneration ? If so, the sinner is uncondition- 
 ally and irresistibly' regenerated. If not, then 
 this influence is not an influence in regeneration 
 or conversion, after all ; but an influence before 
 that change. And as the genilcinau seems to 
 believe that after this direct operation, which 
 enables and makes the sinner willing to receive 
 the truth, the Spirit operates through the truth, 
 he is with me at last, that, in conversion, the 
 
 .1 . ■ 
 
 
 ,1 
 
 f*'!Jf 
 
i; 
 
 i 
 
 
 ! 
 
 \ 1 
 
 ! 
 
 : 1- 
 ' 1 ' 
 
 ! 
 
 ^''' s 
 
 !•- 
 
 111 1! ^ 
 
 |l! 
 
 i; i 
 
 , 
 
 iiii' 
 
 tip 
 
 (W 
 
 86 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Spirit operates through the truth. The difforence 
 bctwoon us, it seems, is simply about this crush- 
 ing work of the Spirit that he contends for, going 
 before all preaching, all faith, or repentance, or 
 any other condition on the part of the creature. 
 Now, the point on which I wish the professor to 
 be explicit is this : When this immediate act of 
 the Spirit passes upon the heart of a sinner is he 
 not then regenerated or converted ? I hope the 
 gentleman will, for my benefit, make himself 
 fully understood on this point. 
 
 But again : Is this unconditional and irresistil)le 
 operation universal ? If anyone dies without it 
 he must either be taken into heaven in his sins, 
 or sent to hell for what he could no more do than 
 he could dethrone the God of the universe. If 
 this influence is universal, then all will be saved, 
 for it will make all both willing and able to 
 receive Christ, and, of course, my friend will not 
 allow that any one can fall from grace. So that, 
 it seems to me, my opponent must advocate 
 either universalism, or unconditional election and 
 reprobation. I presume that he will come out a 
 Calvin ist. 
 
 Now, I deny that the Scriptures teach any such 
 Spiritual influence as that contended for. I deny 
 also that there is any necessity for it. The 
 sinner can receive Christ, when He is preached 
 to him, if he will. There is something sublimely 
 beautiful in Christ, even to the sinner, if he will 
 look at him. I know when I did not profess to be 
 a Christian, and was not a Christian ; but I can't 
 say that there ever was a time, since I heard His 
 story, that there was not something lovely and 
 beautiful in Christ. Any man can see it if he 
 will. If he will, the sinner can see something 
 better in Christ than there is in sin, and can 
 receive him. This makes him justly responsible. 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 87 
 
 or 
 
 uch 
 
 eiiy 
 
 The 
 
 hed 
 
 aely 
 
 will 
 
 be 
 
 aii't 
 
 His 
 
 and 
 
 f he 
 
 But on my friend's theory, men will be damned, 
 if any are damned, for no other reason than that 
 the Spirit did not enable and make them willing 
 to do what they could not do without liis uncon- 
 ditional assistance. Now, if this has any justice 
 in it, it takes Calvinism to sec it ; with the senses 
 God has given them, common men cannot. If I 
 ever see it I suppose I will have; to be perverted 
 in my vision by some such iniluence as the 
 gentleman contends for. It is certainly useless 
 for him to try to make any one see it by preach- 
 ing it to him. If I am to be damned for what I 
 could not do, or for what I could not help doing, 
 just because I was made to be damned, I suppose 
 I couldn't more than be damned for saying that 
 the thing is unjust. I should think so in hell 
 forever, unless there I should experience the 
 operation the Professor contends for, and I should 
 say so too ; and I should have the satisfaction, 
 even in hell, of ringing it round the dark walls 
 of my prison, "unjust, unjust." . 
 
 Let it be borne in mind that my friend's theory 
 places every sinner just where he can do nothing, 
 absolutely nothing, in the matter of his salvation. 
 He must wait for the Holy Spirit to come ; and 
 he can't even pray for that ; can't even desire it ; 
 cannot, indeed, but resist it ; and yet if he dies 
 in that condition he will be sent to hell for ever, 
 because — because — because what ! I hope the 
 Professor will tell us if he can. Or, will he say 
 that there is something one can do in the case ; 
 that he can seek the needed influence ; that he 
 can put himself in a state of receptivity and in- 
 vite the Spirit into his heart, as Arminianism 
 teaches ? This would, at least, place the sinner 
 in the predicament of the traveller, who wanted 
 to cross the river , and to whom the ferryman 
 sagely announced, that he could'nt cross without 
 
 |i 
 
\9 
 
 n! 
 
 ■i!!: 
 
 88 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 the boat, and that he couldn't p,ei the boat with- 
 out going across ! But according to my oppo- 
 nent's theory a man couldn't even irnnt to cross.' 
 
 But, now, I should like to have the passage of 
 Scripture that teaches this doctrine. I only want 
 one passage. Where is it ? Where ? and only 
 echo answers back, Where ?" 
 
 The gentleman quotes certain passages that 
 speak of the Spirit's influence in the Church, 
 upon Christians ; these I need not notice ; for 
 you will remember that he has told you already 
 that we believe the Holy Spirit dwells in the 
 hearts of Christians as it does not in the hearts 
 of aliens. The Saviour, too, made this distinct- 
 ion when he promised the Spirit to his disciples. 
 The passage that says God works in you to will 
 and to do of his good pleasure was spoken to and 
 of Christians. And even if it were spoken to 
 sinners it would afford my friend's theory no sup- 
 port, as it says nothing as to the manner of God's 
 working in persons to will and to do. 
 
 As to Lydia's case, I think my friend assumes 
 the very thing to be proven. True, " the Lord 
 oi3ened Lydia's heart that she attended to the 
 things spoken by Paul;" but he did not open her 
 heart tJiaf she mifiht receive the word, for Paul 
 had preached to her before it is said *'the Lord 
 opened her heart, that she attended to the things 
 spoken to her." Then, how did the Lord open her 
 heart ? The gentleman assumes that it was by 
 Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit acted immediate- 
 ly upon her heart. Now, I will admit that it 
 was done by the Spirit, but 1 deny that it was in 
 the manner contended for. liet that be proven, 
 not assumed. There is a man in Lexingtc i, Ky., 
 representing the University there, who came into 
 Bourbon county and raised one hundred thou- 
 sand dollars for that institution ; and I remem- 
 
 
DGBATE. 
 
 89 
 
 ime3 
 ord 
 the 
 her 
 
 Paul 
 ord 
 
 ber hearing him say that *' thr Lord opened the 
 hearts of the people of that eoiinty," that they 
 responded thus liberally to his plea ; but I don't 
 suppose he ever dreamt that it ^vas done by an 
 immediate act of the Spirit upon their hearts. 
 My friend reads this passage, too, ^ith a veil 
 upon his mind ! He overlooks what is in it, and 
 sees, or thinks he sees, what is not in it. lie 
 overlooks that important fact, tiiat Paul had 
 spoken to Lydia and she had heard the Gospel — 
 which is the means through which God opens 
 people's hearts — before it is said the Lord opened 
 her heart. Then he thinks he sees the immediate 
 operation of the Spirit in the passage, when in 
 fact it does not even so much as mention the 
 Holy Spirit itself. 
 
 The gentlemen comes back to his lame argu- 
 ment drawn from the passage that speaks of the 
 unconverted as " dead in trespasses and sins." 
 He admits that the language is figurative, and 
 does not deny what I said as to the interpretation 
 of such language. The point, therefore, to be 
 settled is this : In what respect, or respects, is 
 the conversion o'f a sinner like the resurrection 
 of the dead ? He admits that the conversion of 
 a sinner is a moral change, and I hardly think 
 he will deny that the literal resurrection of the 
 dead is a physical one. In this important res])ect 
 therefore the two things are difierent. He thinks 
 the use of the figure certainly indicates great de- 
 pravity. I admit it. He claims that the uncon- 
 verted man is dead to all that's good. This I do 
 not believe. It would be hard to convince me 
 that there is a man in all the Queen's dominions 
 who is, both in fact and conception, dead to all 
 that is good. You may take the hardened sin- 
 ner on examination, and you will find that in the 
 depths of his sinful heart he cherishes the 
 
90 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 ill 
 
 
 >■' I 
 
 ! J' 
 
 § I-l 
 
 =iii 
 
 thoiipjht of Home things that are good. Can any 
 man hear of Christ's siifforiugs through liis life 
 and on the cross and remain unmoved ? There are 
 unregenerate persons who love their wives, their 
 ehildren, their friends and their homes, and for 
 them woukl shed their heart's bk)od : and is there 
 not something good in even these unregenerate 
 ones ? Christians are, in Scrijiture, represented 
 as "dead in sin," "dead from the rudiments of 
 the world;" but are they cis dead, in conception 
 and in fact, to these, as the l)ody of Lazarus was 
 to the things on the earth ? I think not. True, 
 the alien is not living to God, not an heir of God 
 in Christ, as the Christian is, not liaving l)een 
 born again, or adopted into the family of God, as 
 the Christian has been. But that he is dead in 
 such a sense as to be beyond the reach of the 
 Gospel is the thing I deny, and this is the very 
 thing my opponent needs to prove. I Ix^lieve the 
 alien is " dead in sins;" but I believe the Gospel 
 is God's means of quickening him. I believe he 
 needs to be born again ; but I believe he is to be 
 " born of incorruptible seed, by the Word of God 
 which lives and abides for ever." 
 
 j\[y opponent thinks the preaching of my 
 brethren very dangerous preaching ; he thinks 
 its effect will be to make both preacher and peo- 
 ple feel self-sufficient and proud — the preacher, 
 because he has the power by his logic to convert 
 the people : and the people, because they have 
 the intelligence and understanding to receive the 
 truth. Well, I don't know but poor humanity de- 
 serves and needs a little encouragement ; it has 
 been long and soundly berated, and traduced ; and 
 I am inclined to speak just a word or tv/o in its 
 favor, poor, and sinful, and wretched as it is. The 
 preacher should preach Jesus, and not his lOgic. 
 The people can and should save themselves, by 
 accepting Jesus. We should all feel humbled in 
 
 
 ''1 
 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 91 
 
 i peo- 
 laelior, 
 
 have 
 Ive til 8 
 
 \iy tie- 
 it lias 
 
 |1 ; and 
 
 in its 
 
 . The 
 
 lOgic. 
 
 \es, by 
 
 lied in 
 
 view of our sins, feel proud and sufficient in 
 Christ. Poor, and sinful, and wretched, and 
 dead, as unregeiierated men are, God loves them,* 
 and Jesus died for them. And it was not a mass 
 of seething putridity, or pile of di'ad men's bones, 
 that thus \vork<'d the love of heaven ! No, in- 
 deed ! There is something in a iiiiin, though he 
 be not regenerated, more than was in the grave 
 of Lazarus ! True, he is lost, uiid in one sense 
 dead ; but he is a man, endowed with reason and 
 volition; he is the image of Almiglity God, and 
 is capable of enjoying God and lloavini forever ; 
 hence Jesus died to reclaim him. And by preach- 
 ing this stupendous display of love to him his 
 heart may be reached and touched and turned 
 back to God and Heaven. 
 
 Just here I desire to call attention to the lan- 
 guage of our Saviour, bearing directly upon the 
 point of difference between us. John xiv, 1()-I7 : 
 " And I will pray the Father, and He shall give 
 you another Comforter, that He may abide; with 
 you forever ; even the Spirit of Truth, whom the 
 world cannot receive." Now, I hold that the 
 Professor's theory is in direct conflict with this 
 teaching. Here the Lord says of the Spirit, 
 " whom the world cannot receive ; " while my 
 friend says the world can and )ntist recei\'T3 it, be- 
 fore it can receive the Truth ! This is a flat con- 
 tradiction. The Saviour teaches that the world 
 can receive His Word, but cannot receive the 
 Spirit ; while Professor Crawford says the world 
 cannot receive the Word, but can and must re- 
 ceive the Spirit ! Choose ye, my friends, this 
 day, whom you will believe. I say to you, my 
 friends, and to my opponent, that when any 
 theory I hold throws me upon such desperate 
 courses I shall very seriously fall out with it, to 
 say the least. Candidly, my friends, the point 
 of difference between us seems ^so plainly made 
 
^2 
 
 .%.. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 A 
 
 ^/ 
 
 f ^^ ///// 
 
 N J^ €J>. 
 
 '^s "^"^"^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 |5 
 
 i.8 
 
 1.25 
 
 1-4 IIIIII.6 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 iV 
 
 <N 
 
 % 
 
 ^ 
 
 n:^ 
 
 %^ 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 r..» 
 
 ^j 
 
 % 
 
 %^ 
 
 ra 
 
L<? 
 
NT 
 
 HI 
 
 . m 
 
 III \ 
 
 92 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 out, and my opponent's effort to make out his 
 case seems so clearly a failure, that I feel that 
 'I might just as well quit. To argue the question 
 further upon what my friend has adduced in 
 favor of his theory looks like presuming a want 
 of Scripture intelligence upon your part that I 
 am sure is not just to you. 
 
 My notes upon the gentleman's speech hring 
 me hack to L3^dia's case, "whose heart the Lord 
 opened that she attended to the things spoken 
 by Paul." But what need I further say upon that 
 point ? Have I not already shown that there is 
 nothing in it to support my friend's heterodox 
 notion of spiritual influence in conversion '? 
 
 But the gentleman quotes Rom viii., 9, and 
 calls upon me to reply to what he calls his argu- 
 ment thence derived, and as I have nothing else 
 to do I will turn and read the passage at an^ 
 rate, that you may see its entire want of per- 
 tinence to the question in hand. "But ye a\3 
 not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so he that 
 the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any 
 man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of 
 His." Now, what, pray you, is there here bear- 
 ing upon the point of difference between us ? I 
 believe the Spirit of God dwells in the hearts of 
 His child) en. In another letter this same apostle 
 says, " Because ye are sons God hath sent forth 
 the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying 
 Abba Father." I believe also, that " if any man 
 have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." 
 There is no controversy about this. Professor 
 Crawford needs a passage that will say, if any 
 man be not Christ's he has His Spirit, neverthe- 
 less ! Why, if the gentleman's theory is correct 
 how would one's having the Spirit of Christ in 
 his heart be evidence of his sonship? When 
 we differ about spiritual influence in conversion. 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 93 
 
 
 
 why does the gentleman brinpj forward passages 
 speaking of the Spirit in Christians? Is this 
 logic ? It's a burlesque of it. 
 
 My friend seems to think there is about the 
 same intimacy of relationship between a tailor 
 and the coat he makes, that there is between the 
 Gpirit and the Truth, and that the dwelling of 
 the Holy Spirit in the heart of a Christian is 
 just like the dwelling of a tailor in the house ! 
 Is that so ? Let us see. IIow many houses can 
 a tailor b in at the same time ? One. How 
 many heaits can the Spirit work in at the same 
 time ? To ask these two questions shows the 
 pointlessness of my friend's tailor-illustration. 
 By all means let us have the tailor's goose in the 
 next. God, Christ, and the Spirit, are said to 
 be in Christians, but thjy are not there like a 
 tailor is in a house. They can be in the Gospel, 
 too, wherever it is preached, but a tailor can not 
 be with every coat he makes wherever it goes. 
 Illustrations are good things when fairly and 
 skillfully used. Working upon minds and hearts 
 and wills, is different from working on coats ! 
 A tailor can be in but one shop at a time, and 
 can work on but one coat at a time ; but even a 
 man can work ui3on thousands of hearts at once. 
 God works in Christians, and sinners too, to 
 will and to do. But He does it by means, and 
 not by a personal presence, as a tailor works on 
 a coat. God works in us to will and to do, 
 much as we work in one another to will and to 
 do ; by using motives. I presume that if I were 
 to assure my opponent that be would receive 
 five thousand dollars for going with me to Ken- 
 tucky, that would work in him to will and to do 
 — to will and to go. The Spirit, on the day of 
 Pentecost worked upon at least three thousand 
 hearts at once, and worked effectually, worked in 
 them to will and to do. 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 u 
 
 
»^^WI 
 
 mmmK^ 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 ^l 
 
 Thursday, 10th Sept., 4 o'clock, P.M. 
 
 (PROFEssoB Crawford's fifth address.) 
 
 Professor Crawford. — My opponent wants to 
 make you believe that a man, accorcHng to my 
 doctrine, is not guilty if he rejects the Truth ; be- 
 cause the S])irit of God has not operated upon his 
 heart. Now, while it is true that a man cannot 
 be converted unhss the Spirit of God makes him 
 willing to receive the truth, it is also true that 
 the Truth is what we ought to receive without 
 any Divine aid. We ought to receiv*^ it ; and the 
 reason why we don't is because of the opposition 
 and sin of our hearts. The Truth itself ought to 
 be received, and it would be received if the 
 carnal mind were not enmity against God. 
 Therefore, 1 hold that a man is guilty if the 
 Truth is set before him and he rejects it, for it is 
 worthy of our acceptance. But man will not 
 have the Truth, and therefore we say the Spirit 
 of God is necessary to make him willing to 
 receive it. My opponent says every man hearing 
 the Gospel must be affected by it in the right 
 way. He asks, can any man hear of Christ's 
 sufferings, of the blood flowing from his wound- 
 ed side and hands, of all the pain he endured for 
 mankind during his life and while on the Cross ; 
 can he hear this story unmoved ? I say yes. I 
 hold that men have heard the Gospel story in all 
 its beauty and pathos, have heard its truths ex- ^. 
 pounded with iidelity and love, and yet have gone 
 away scoffing, abandoned to sin and unbelief. I 
 appeal to those who have heard the Gospel 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 95 
 
 preached and witnessed its effects. Some have 
 fallen in with the offers of mercy, others have 
 gone their way hlasphemiiifj;. Who madt: tliem 
 to differ ? God in the one case has given rv'pent- 
 ance to the acknowledgment of the truth, and in 
 the other he has left them to follow the prompt- 
 ings of their own rehellious hearts. But yet man 
 must be held accountable if he fails to receive 
 the Truth, for it is worthy of his reception, and 
 it is because of his enmity that he does not accept 
 it. We have no power in ourselves; it is "by 
 grace we are saved through faith, and that not Cx 
 ourselves ; it is the gift of Grod, not of works lest 
 any man shouF boast." (Eph. 2, 8-9.) If God 
 saves a man !/y Christ, it is a free, unmerited 
 favour, just as it was a free, unmerited favour on 
 His part to send His Son to this lower world that 
 he might obey and suffer and die in our room and 
 stead. Then, with respect to the freedom of the 
 will. In one sense man is free to accept or reject ; 
 in another he is not. His heart is evil and 
 because it is so prejudice is there, and he is 
 swayed by that prejudice. But man's inal)ility 
 is, after all, a moral, not a physical, inability, 
 and, being so, it leaves him responsible if he does 
 not accept the offers of mercy which are freely 
 tendered to him. Some will say that there is no 
 distinction between moral and pli3'sical inability, 
 but a simple illustration will show the difference. 
 A man is in prison because he has been a rebel 
 against his country. His sovereign comes to 
 him and says, ** I will give you a free, uncon- 
 ditional pardon, I will allow you to go" ; but at 
 the same time he leaves the prison doors closed 
 and bolted, so that the man cannot depart, no 
 matter how willing he may be to leave his cell. 
 This is physical inability. But suppose the king 
 says, " I will allow you to go, if you will only 
 
 ! ' 
 
mnm 
 
 96 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 «y 
 
 1 f 
 
 
 Mfo 
 
 I j^ 
 
 
 , t 
 
 acknowledge your offences, and beg your sove- 
 reign's pardon. But if the man, being a rebel 
 at heart, and holding relentless and ])itter enmity 
 to tl.i.e king, refuses to acknowledge his offences 
 or to ask forgiveness, but would rather die than 
 thus submit. Such is the man's inveterate en- 
 mity to his sovereign that you may say he cannot 
 humble liimself to ask his forgiveness or acknow- 
 ledge his offence. This is moral inability. There 
 is inability in both cases, but there is this vast 
 difference, that in tho second case, the man could 
 have regained his freedom but for the inherent 
 enmity of his own wicked heart. We say, then, 
 our doctrine is not an unreasonable one in this 
 respect. The exceeding sinfulness of the sinner's 
 heart leaves him so entirely unable to do any- 
 thing for himself, that he can be saved by noth- 
 ing short of God's Holy Spirit working in that 
 wicked heart. God alone can overcome his 
 reluctance or inability, and if God does so, it is 
 13urely and solely an act of grace. It would have 
 been no injustice on the Almighty's part if he had 
 left us in our rebellion; man could not justly 
 have found any fault with his Maker if he had 
 never sent his Son to suffer and die for us. There 
 would have been nothing unjust in this, so that 
 it was a i)ure act of grace on God's part to pro- 
 vide a means of saving sinners ; there was no 
 obligation on his part to do so. This is our 
 doctrine on this subject, and I do not wish to 
 have it misrepresented. 
 
 My opponent says every man must and does 
 see a beaut}^ in the Gospel and in Christ. What 
 does the Word of God say on this subject ? 
 Isaiah liii. 2 : " He hath no form nor comeliness; 
 and when we shall see him, there is no beauty 
 that we should desire him." This throws us 
 back on the question. How does this desire for 
 
% 
 
 V 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 97 
 
 iove- 
 
 rebel 
 
 mity 
 
 3iices 
 
 than 
 
 e en- 
 
 mnot 
 
 riierc 
 
 3 vast 
 
 L could 
 
 lerent 
 
 then, 
 
 11 this 
 
 liner's 
 
 ) any- 
 noth- 
 
 n that 
 
 le his 
 
 p, it is 
 
 d have 
 
 he had 
 justly 
 
 le had 
 There 
 
 10 that 
 pro- 
 as no 
 is our 
 ish to 
 
 Id does 
 What 
 jibject ? 
 (Uness ; 
 [beauty 
 )ws us 
 sire for 
 
 
 him come? Why cunnot man in his natural 
 state see any beauty in } 'm ? Simply because 
 his heart is enmity again . God. Romans viii. 7. 
 My opponent says our doctrine amounts to this 
 that God will repent for the sinner. We never 
 dream of such a thing. The sinner repents, and 
 it is God gives him that repentance — gives him 
 that state of mind in which his Hins appear in 
 their true colours. Repentance to what ? To 
 the acknowledgment of the Truth. Here is the 
 Truth laid before the sinner, but he will not re- 
 ceive it until God, through His Spirit, works 
 upon the heart, bringing repentance, and prepar- 
 ing it for the reception of that Truth. Let us 
 now proceed to the consideration of some more 
 passages of Scripture. I Cor. ii. 14: "But the 
 natural man receiveth not the things of the 
 Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him ; 
 neither can he know them, because they are 
 spiritually discerned." He ** receiveth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God." All will admit 
 that the "things of the Spirit" means the Truth 
 that the Spirit has handed unto us in the Holy 
 Scriptures; yet the natural man "will not re- 
 ceive it." Now, he cannot be converted by the 
 Truth if he will not receive it. If it is foolish- 
 ness to him how can it convert him ? Surely he 
 must receive it, it must have a lodgment in his 
 heart before it can operate to conversion. And 
 how does he receive it ? By the Spirit of God, 
 because these things " are spiritually discerned." 
 I will read next Acts v. 31 : " Him hath God ex- 
 alted with his right hand to be a Prince and a 
 Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and for- 
 giveness of sins." It was not mereli/ the Truth 
 that was to be instrumental in working this re- 
 pentance. The Truth had already been laid 
 before them, but I apprehend that it was the 
 
 5 
 
 ill 
 
 
';. . 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Spirit of God that was to prick them to their 
 hearts, and thus prepare them to receive the 
 Truth. Then in Acts xi. 17, 18: "Forasmuch 
 then as God gave them the hke gift as he did unto 
 us, who heUeved on the Lord Jesus Christ, what 
 was I, that I could withstand God ? When they 
 heard these things they hehl their peace, and 
 glorified God saying : ''Then hath God also to 
 tlie Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Here 
 the passage refers to the occasion when Peter 
 was preaching to Cornelius, telling hnn that 
 through Christ then' was remission of sins ; and 
 while he was expounding the Truth the Holy 
 Ghost fell upon them and they glorified God. 
 Zechariah iv. G : " Then he answered and spake 
 unto me, saving, This is the Word of the Lord 
 unto Zerul)hahel, saymg. Not by might, nor by 
 power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of Hosts." 
 The meaning and intention of this passage is 
 made doubly clear from the illustra+ion which 
 accompanies it. There was seen in the accom- 
 panying vision the candlestick of gold, with a 
 bowl upon the top of it, seven lamps thereon, and 
 seven pipes to the seven lamps. There were two 
 olive trees, one on each side, supplying oil to the 
 lamps. The angel explaining the vision says, "Not 
 by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit." More 
 is evidently meant by this representation than 
 the mere power of Truth. It is the power of the 
 Spirit employing the Truth. The wick of the 
 lam]) is necessary, which may represent the 
 Divine Truth, but without the oil, or the Holy 
 Spirit, it would be of no avail. The Spirit of 
 God must work with that Truth, applying it to 
 the soul, or there can be no conversion or sanc- 
 tification. Matt. 28 : 18, 19, 20, " All power is 
 given unto Me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 
 S 
 
1 
 
 I to their 
 ceive tlio 
 orasmucli 
 e (lid unto 
 rist, what 
 ^hen they 
 eace, and 
 d also to 
 fc!." Here 
 hen Peter 
 liim that 
 sins ; and 
 the Holy 
 Ified God. 
 and spake 
 ' the Lord 
 ht, nor by 
 of Hosts." 
 passage is 
 ion which 
 the accom- 
 >ld, with a 
 lereon, and 
 e were two 
 T oil to the 
 says, *' Not 
 it." More 
 tion than 
 )wer of the 
 ick of the 
 L'esent the 
 the Holy 
 Spirit of 
 ying it to 
 Li or sanc- 
 1 power is 
 1. Go ye, 
 Izing them 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 99 
 
 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 1 am with you al\va3% even unto the end 
 of the world." The Ai)ostlGs were commissioned 
 to go and preach the Gospel, but He was to be 
 with them alway. His l>iviiie power had to 
 accom})any the Word to give its effect in the 
 conversion of soul's. l^)m. 8, '20: "Likewise 
 the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities ; for we 
 know not what we should pray for, as we ought ; 
 but the Spirit also maketh intercession for us 
 with groanings that cannot be uttered." Here 
 then you see the Spirit maketh intercession with 
 groanings that cannot be uttered. The Spirit 
 operating upon the man's soul prompts him to 
 prayer ; while he cannot adequately express his 
 feelings, but by "groanings that cannot be 
 uttered." This is the effect produced ui)on the 
 man by the Spirit. H this does not prove that 
 some other power than the Word itself is pre- 
 sent, then I don't understand the English 
 language. If it was the mere Word, it is a lan- 
 guage that might l)e uttered ; but when the 
 Spirit operates it is with groanings that <;((!> not 
 be uttered. I appeal again to common sense, if 
 this passage does not prove plainly the presence 
 and power of the Holy Spirit. Psalm 110: 1, 
 2,3: "The Lord said unto my Lo}-d, sit thou 
 at My right hand, until I make thin(i enemies 
 thy footstool. The Lord shall send th(^ rod of 
 thy strength out of Zion ; rule thou in the midst 
 of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in 
 the day of thy power, in the beauty of holiness 
 from the womb of the morning ; thou hast tlu; 
 dew of thy youth." Men are naturally unwilling 
 to receive the Gospel ; oftentimes they repel it 
 with blasphemies ; but they shall be willing that 
 
 V- 
 
rr^ 
 
 100 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 •i 
 
 i 
 
 is made willing in the day of His power. Wil- 
 ling to do what ? To receive the Gospel. 
 
 T think these passages we have quoted clearly 
 show that it is God's Holy Spirit that opens the 
 heart to the reception of the Truth, and employs 
 that Truth in the sanctification of the soul. 
 
 Let us now look at some passages upon which 
 my opponent evidently relies in attempting to 
 estahlish his case. Rom. 1 : 16, 17 : " For I am 
 not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the 
 power of God unto salvation, to everyone that he- 
 lieveth ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For 
 therein is the righteousness of God revealed from 
 faith to faith ; as it is written, the just shall 
 live hy faith." Here the Gospel is said to be 
 the power of God unto salvation, because in it 
 the righteousness of God is revealed. That is 
 the righteousness which God has provided for 
 man's justification ; that is the obedience unto 
 death of Jesus Christ, man's divine surety. Man 
 of himself has no justifying righteousness ; he is 
 shapen in sin and brought forth in iniquity ; but 
 by Christ's righteousness His obedience is im- 
 puted to the believer, and so he finds acceptance 
 with God. And it is in the Gospel that God re- 
 veals his righteousness. But the part of the 
 passage that my opponent dwells upon is this : 
 "it (the Gospel) is the power of God unto salva- 
 tion," and he attempts to prove from this that 
 the Word alone can do the work. It does not 
 say that the Gospel is ** the power unto salva- 
 tion." It is the ^^ jfoicer of God.'' We often 
 speak figuratively of the power of the tongue, 
 but does that mean the mere physical power of 
 the tongue itself ? Certainly not ; it means the 
 power of the mind finding utterance through the 
 organ of speech. We talk of the power of the 
 press, but we do not mean by that the mere 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 101 
 
 er. Wil- 
 1. 
 
 d clearly 
 
 ^pens tho 
 
 employs 
 
 BO 111. 
 
 on which 
 
 ipting to 
 
 For I am 
 
 r it is the 
 
 3 that be- 
 
 eek. For 
 
 aled from 
 
 list shall 
 
 5aid to be 
 
 luse in it 
 
 That is 
 
 vicled for 
 
 nee unto 
 
 pty. Man 
 
 ss ; he is 
 
 lity ; but 
 
 ce is im- 
 
 ceptance 
 
 t (rod re- 
 
 of the 
 
 1 is this : 
 
 to salva- 
 
 this that 
 
 does not 
 
 ) salva- 
 
 e often 
 
 tongue, 
 
 ower of 
 
 ans the 
 
 ugh the 
 
 r of the 
 
 he mere 
 
 pow*i- of the actual machine used in printing ; 
 Wo nicaii the intellectual aiid moral power which 
 finds expression by means oi the printing-press. 
 So with the Gospel ; It is not the power itself ; 
 the power is of God, and the Gospel is the in- 
 strument he employs in applying that i)ower. 
 Another illustration suggests itself : we frequent- 
 ly hear of the " power of the sword " ; but there 
 is no power in the sword itself, it is merely the 
 instrument in the hands of those who wield it. 
 The figure used in the passage I have quoted is 
 one of great beauty and eli'ect, and the man who 
 cannot see its beauty and effect cannot see very 
 far. Acts ii. 11,13,14 : "And he showed us how 
 he had seen an angel in his house which stood 
 and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call 
 for Simon, whose surname is Peter, who shall 
 tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house 
 shall be saved." There is nothing in this pass- 
 age conflicting with the doctrine I am advocat- 
 ing, namely that the Word is the instrument in 
 the hands of the Spirit, whereby men are saved. 
 Let us illustrate : a man is in the water in danger 
 of drowning ; I throw him a rope, which by his 
 taking hold of it — by my pulling him to land, he 
 is saved. There would be nothing wrong in say- 
 ing that the rope had saved the man, though in 
 reality it was I who rescued him, the rope being 
 merely the instrument used. The very same 
 figure is employed in the passage which 1 have 
 quoted. We hold as well as my opponent that a 
 man is saved by the Word, just as the man was 
 saved by taking hold of the rope. But the Word 
 is the instrument in the hands of the Spirit as 
 the rope was the instrument in my hands by 
 which I saved the man. The question is this, Is 
 the Word all that is necessary to man's salva- 
 tion ? We say not. 
 
 If 
 
 
 U 
 
BE PLY. 
 
 Thin-sdiiji 10th Sept., i.HO p. vi. 
 MR. Sweeney's fifth reply. 
 
 Mr, Siccoiet/ — My frioiul has gotten into the 
 myBteries of Calvinism. He is fully committed 
 to it, and it is Calvinism— regular old angular Cal- 
 vinism—that we are tu discuss now, instead of 
 Camphellism. Well, this will certainly he refresh- 
 ing. 
 
 He tells us that the unregenerated man cannot 
 receive the truth ; that he can neither understand 
 it or love it ; that ho can never he converted till 
 the Spirit of God makes him willing to receive the 
 truth ; that all this is hecause of the essential 
 and necessary opposition of his heart to the 
 truth ; and yet he says, he ought to receive the 
 truth ; that he is responsihle for rejecting it ; that 
 he is justly guilty hefore God. In other words, 
 the sinner ought to do w hat he can't do ! that he 
 is responsihle, justly, for not doing what he is 
 utterly unahle to do ! that is, guilty for not doing 
 what God will not permit him to do ! That's it. 
 That is what my friend offers you in opposition 
 to what he calls " Campl)ellism." I would rather 
 have "Camphellism " — and that's a myth — than 
 Calvinism. 
 
 The gentlemen can see nothing in the cross of 
 Christ to affect the unconverted man. The story 
 may he told to him, over and over ; hut, plainly, 
 because God does not do his work the man goes 
 away from the preaching of the gospel, blasphem- 
 ing and gnashing his teeth, with rage and 
 devilish fury. While another man, upon whose 
 heart the Spirit does his work, hears the same 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 108 
 
 /). W. 
 
 into the 
 iimiitted 
 ilarCal- 
 steatl of 
 refresh - 
 
 11 cannot 
 
 lerstand 
 
 'i-ted till 
 
 ceive the 
 
 essential 
 
 ; to the 
 
 eive the 
 
 it ; that 
 
 ■ words, 
 
 that he 
 
 lat he is 
 
 ot doing 
 
 hat's it. 
 
 position 
 
 Id rather 
 
 -than 
 
 [cross of 
 lie story 
 [plainly, 
 iin goes 
 
 sphem- 
 
 Ige and 
 
 whose 
 
 le same 
 
 story at the same time, and he goej? his way 
 " in-aising God." And the gentlemen tells us, 
 " it was God who made them to differ." God 
 made one to blaspheme and the other to praise 
 }Iim ! Well, perhaps blasphemy is just as good 
 as praise, after all ; and we have only been 
 wrongly taught to suppose that there was a great 
 diffeience in favor of praise ! If man has no 
 power of choice, and can only be, and do, evil, 
 till the Holy Spirit is sent directly from heaven 
 to enable him, and " msike him willing," to 
 l)e and to do othersvise, then what we call evil is 
 the divine choice ! and, I submit, that we have 
 no right to murmur or complain about it, or even 
 to wish it were otherwise than as it is. We 
 should accept blaspliemy and cursing as of divine 
 appointment. If, tb(H-efore, I understand my 
 opponent correctly, he is inconsistent in iinding 
 fault with " Camp])ollism," or any other "ism" un- 
 der the sun. Still, my friend says the sinner is 
 to "blame," is "guilty," and " will be responsi- 
 ble for not receiving the truth, because it is 
 worthy of acceptance." But crn/ he receive it? 
 No. Must he not necessarily resist it, till the 
 Spirit " makes him willing " to receive it ? Yes. 
 Then, plainly, my friend believes that God will 
 punish a man in hell for ever for not steing what 
 lie refused to let him see, and for not receiving 
 what he would not let him receive ! He thinks 
 God has a right 1 > do this. Well, of course, I 
 would not be found disputing with God about his 
 right to do this or that thing ; but this I will say, 
 and do say, that if it is right for God to punish a 
 man for not doing what he of his own choice 
 withheld from him the power of doing, then I am 
 utterly unable to decide that anything is wrong. 
 If that is just, will the learned gentleman please 
 to name one thing that he conceives to be unjust 
 
 _J — : 
 
If 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 ! 
 
 !•■ 
 
 m 
 
 
 I'll 
 
 
 Si ' 
 
 ;! ! 
 
 it 
 
 II r^ 
 
 )!■ 
 
 I 
 
 1Q4 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 1 should consider a man liitlo better, if any, 
 than a brute that would treat his child in that 
 D^anner. I remember once stepping into a news- 
 depot to get a paper, and about the time I called 
 for my paper the dealer directed his little boy to 
 bring in a stick of wood, that be pointed out, 
 lying in the back yard ; and, casting m\ eye in 
 that direction, I decided at a glance that the 
 stick would be too much for the boy, unless he 
 was an extraordinarily stout one. So not being 
 in a hurry, I lingered a moment to see if I had 
 missed my guess. The little boy worked man- 
 fully for a considerable time at the log, but hon- 
 estly failed. It was too much for him. Mean- 
 while, the dealer was busy with his customers. 
 But when he had a little leisure he turned to his 
 boy, and asked, Why did you not bring in that 
 stick of wood, as I told you ? The little boy 
 looked up innocently, and honestly, into his 
 father's face, and said — " Father, I couldn't.'' 
 Then his father, cruelly — I will sa}^ at a venture 
 — smote him on the face, and with angry words, 
 ordered him out of his presence. Now, I felt in- 
 dignant at the brutal conduct of the news-dealer, 
 and after that got my papers elsewhere, I quit 
 him. If I should be convinced that the conduct 
 of that man toward his child was godlike, then 
 all my conceptions of God would be utterly con- 
 founded ; and my notions of right and wrong, of 
 justice and injustice, completely upset; and I 
 should be j^iepared to call anything right and 
 anything wrong; everything just, and everything 
 equally unjust. But, my friends, the ^,'G:'thy 
 gentleman is wrong. I think ho feels that he is 
 trying to manage a tough cas;^ What one can- 
 not do, that he ought to do ! What he cannot do, 
 that he must do ! Good heavens ! Does God re- 
 quire us to do, or be eternally damned, what he 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 105 
 
 J con- t 
 
 ng, of L 
 and I 1 
 
 t and \ 
 
 ^tiling 1 
 he is 1 
 
 knows we cannot do ; what he witholds from us 
 intentionally the power to do ; what he knows we 
 cannot but resist with our whole nature ? It 
 cannot be true. It's false ! It's from beneath, 
 and not from the Word of God. Doubtless my 
 friend very sincerely believes it, but he is mis- 
 taken. He has read God's Word with a false 
 philosophy in his mind ; with a ** veil " over his 
 understanding, as the Jews read Moses. 
 
 We are told that the Holy Spirit "makes the 
 sinner willing." Makes him willing? That seems 
 to me a contradiction in itself. The ivill com- 
 pelled ?■ That's not according to my notion of 
 volition. The will can't be compelled, and that's 
 the ground of man's just accountability. True, 
 God works in us *' to [induce us to] will and to 
 do," but we do the willing and the doing our- 
 selves, when it's done at all. Nor do I believe 
 that he works in ub otherwise than by offering 
 incentives to the right and laying restraints upon 
 the wrong, leaving us free to act or not act, as 
 we may freely choose. To induce repentance and 
 obedience, God offers the sinner pardon. To in- 
 duce him to persevere in his begun confidence he 
 offers him a home in Heaven, where there shall 
 be no more sin, nor sorrow, nor tears, nor death. 
 A home without tears! Oh, yes! God has 
 written over the gate to Heaven, in letters of 
 golden light, "There shall be no more tears." 
 And for that blissful abode of the faithful and 
 the true, I will dare and do what I can in life. 
 Here we weep bitter tears of sorrow. Here our 
 mothers weep on our breasts. Our dearest ones 
 weep; but there "jthere shall be no more tears." 
 Thus, dear, sinning, sorrowing, dying man, God 
 would "work in you to will and to do" ; thus he 
 would work in you to induce you to " strive to 
 enter in at the strait gate"; to "do his com- 
 
 If 
 
I 
 
 (f!fr^ 
 
 msmm 
 
 106 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 mandments, that you may have a right to the . 
 tree of life, and may enter through the gates into 
 the city." 
 
 The gentleman infers that man does not and 
 cannot repent of his sins, from the language of 
 Peter, Acts xi. 18: "Then hath God also to the 
 Gentiles rfranted repentance unto life." Now, 
 Peter meant no more than that God had extended 
 to the Gentiles the privileges and hlessings of 
 the Gospel ; that he had offered to them as well 
 as to the Jews, life, iqinn the condition of their 
 repentance. '* Repentance" in the passage is 
 used metonymically, the means, or condition, is 
 put for the end. The meaning is obviously that 
 God hath extended the offer of life and salvation 
 to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, upon the 
 condition of their repentance. It's a monstrous 
 perversion of this Scripture to use it to prove 
 that one cannot repent, wdio has heard the Gos- 
 pel, until God sends the Spirit to make him do 
 it! 
 
 To prove that the unrtsgenerate man cannot 
 receive Christ, my opponent ouotes Isaiah liii, 1, 
 " And when we shall see him there is no beauty 
 in him that we should desire him." But the pro- 
 phet here speaks of Christ, as he appeared to the 
 Jews, before his death, burial, resurrection and 
 and ascension to Heaven. He does not speak of 
 Him as He is presented to men in the Gospel. 
 The prophet does not say that there is no beauty 
 ir Him that we should desire Him, since "he 
 hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" ; 
 since " he was wounded for our transgressions," 
 and " bruised for our iniquities" ; since "he was 
 brought as a lamb to the slaughter ; and as the 
 sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened 
 not his mouth." No, no ! It was by all this 
 that he was made to us the chief among all the 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 107 
 
 t to the . 
 itos into 
 
 not and 
 ;uage of 
 ) to the 
 ' Now, 
 'xtenclecl 
 sings of 
 
 as well 
 of their 
 5sage is 
 lition, is 
 sly that 
 alvation 
 pon the 
 9nstrous 
 to prove 
 he Gos- 
 
 him do 
 
 cannot 
 
 |h liii, 1, 
 
 beauty 
 
 the pro- 
 
 d to the 
 
 on and 
 
 peak of 
 
 Gospel. 
 
 beauty 
 
 cc "he 
 
 rows" ; 
 
 sions," 
 
 he was 
 
 as the 
 
 opened 
 
 11 this 
 
 all the 
 
 
 tens of thousands, and the one altogether lovely. 
 I say that the sinner can, if he will, see this 
 beauty in Him. But he can also shut his eyes to 
 it all. 
 
 Grave as is the subject we are discussing, I 
 confess to having been amused at my friend's 
 cifort to relieve his doctrine of some of its hard- 
 est features. He admits that he teaches the 
 sinner's utter inability to do anything to prevent 
 his damnation, and yet contends that his dam- 
 nation is just ; and he attempts to relieve the 
 case by drawing a fine distinction between 
 ''moral" and "physical inability" — as if it 
 would make any difference to a man in hell 
 whether he was there on account of the one or 
 the other kind of inability to prevent it ! Did 
 any sinner maki' his moral condition what it is ? 
 My friend says no. Has he not told us that 
 even infants are in this moral condition, out of 
 which only the direct operaticm of the Holy 
 Spirit can bring them from tlieir lUiW birth ? 
 Then tlie fact is that according to his teaching 
 the sinner comes into this world with this 
 "moral inability " ; 'Ge didn't make it, nor can 
 he remedy it. If, therefore, the Spirit doesn't 
 "make him able and willing to receive the 
 truth " he can't do it, and he will be eternally 
 damned for not doing what he was, by no fault 
 of his own, utterly unable to do. Now, it may 
 do very well, as a mere intellectual exercise, for 
 my friend up at Woodstock, before his class of 
 young divinity students, so draw out and illus- 
 trate such distinctions between the "moral" 
 and the "physical," but reall}^ it would be of 
 little consequence to me if 1 were to be -condemn- 
 ed without the ability to accept the ans of 
 salvation, whether my inability were moral or 
 physical. I hold that accountability can be 
 
 i 
 

 108 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 
 
 
 'I 
 
 [■>■ -i: 
 
 4 
 
 l*'i 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^ i\ 
 
 I 
 
 -'111 : 
 
 m :i ■ 
 
 
 ir 
 
 justly grounded only in ability. If, therefore, 
 one is morally unable, lie is not justly morally 
 accountable. But my opponent says the sinner 
 is morally unable to rec.uve the truth, and yet 
 morally accountable for not doing it. 
 
 The gentleman quotes 1 Cor. ii., 14 : " The 
 natural man receiveth not the things of the 
 Spirit." But, when the Apostle uses this lan- 
 guage, is he talking about conversion? And 
 does he mean to say that the unconverted man 
 can not receive the truth ? I deny that conver- 
 sion is the subject of which the Apostle is speak- 
 ing, and that he means to teach that unconvert- 
 ed men cannot receive the truth. He is speaking 
 of inspiration. The spiritual men of the passage 
 are inspired men, and the *' natural man " is the 
 uninspired man. " The things of the Spirit " 
 are the revelations of the Spirit, which, of course, 
 the natural, or uninspired man, does not receive. 
 But, if the Apostle is talking of conversion, and 
 means to say that the unconverted receiveth not 
 the Spirit's influences, then, I submit, that the 
 passage is as much against my friend's theory 
 as mine. Is not the immediate influence of the 
 Spirit, for which he contends, as much one of 
 *' the things of the Spirit " as the mediate influ- 
 ence for which I contend ? Certainly it is. 
 Indeed, it is more "immediately" so. What- 
 ever the passage means, therefore, it has no 
 bearing against my view of the Spirit's influence 
 that it does not have equally against my friend's. 
 I believe as firmly as my opponent does that 
 the " carnal mind [the mind of the Jiesh] is en- 
 mity against God"; that "it is not subject to 
 the law of God, neither indeed can be." But 
 this affords no ground for the doctrine he preaches. 
 The Apostle does not say that what he calls "the 
 carnal mind " will be subjected to the law of 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 109 
 
 iect to 
 But 
 
 Lclies. 
 
 law 
 
 God by an immediate operation of the Holy 
 Spirit. Christians will have to contend with the 
 " carnal mind " as long as thev are in the tiesh. 
 Paul himself had to do it. Christians must be 
 led by the Spirit, and *'keep the body under"; 
 but they will tind the flesh lusting against the 
 Spirit, as long as they live in the flesh. " It's 
 the Spirit that's born of the Spirit" that's regen- 
 erated ; the flesh is not. ''Flesh and blood can- 
 not inherit the kingdom of God." The resurrec- 
 tion will put an end to the war between the 
 "carnal mind" and " the mind of the Spirit." 
 So this passage contains nothing to the Profes- 
 sor's purpose. 
 
 My friend quotes Acts v. 31 : " Him hath God 
 exalted with his right hand, a Prince and a 
 Saviour, to, give repentance to Israel, and for- 
 giveness of sins." He quotes this because it 
 speaks of Christ as (jivlnfi repentance. I suppose 
 that repentance is used here for the end it aliraijs 
 looks to. Kepentance looks to pardon and peace ; 
 and this Jesus gives to those who repent. This 
 is not an uncommon form of expression. We 
 often meet with it in Holy Scripture, as well as 
 in other writings. But please to notice, my 
 friends, that nothing is said as to how Jesus 
 gives repentance, in the passage. The goodness 
 of God leads men to repentance, we are taught ; 
 and, I think, his goodness is displayed in the 
 Gospel of his Son. If my friend had read the 
 next verse in this passage he would have learned 
 to whom God gives the Holy Spirit : " The Holy 
 Ghost whom God hath given to them that olwi/ 
 him.'' 
 
 I presume few of you failed to see Prof. Craw- 
 ford's trouble with the case of Cornelius. He 
 quoted Acts xi. 17, 18. " Forasmuch then as 
 God gave them the like gift as he did unto us. 
 
•iiii 
 
 In i 
 
 ill 
 
 iii 
 
 
 i 
 
 m tf I, 
 
 ' 'Hll 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 r,v 
 
 110 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 who belicvod on tlio Lord Jesus Christ, what was 
 I thcit I could withstand God?" TJiis is the 
 language of Peter, after he had preached to the 
 Gentiles in the house of Cornelius. He refers to 
 the hestownient of the Spirit upon the Gentiles. 
 ilv says, " God gave them the like gift as he did 
 unto us (Jews) irJio hcUcved on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ." This tells us whom among the Jews 
 God gave the Spirit to. It was to them " who 
 believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." But my 
 friend is trying to prove that God Ijestows the 
 Spirit directly upon unhellcverHl This passage 
 is not his witness ! The Professor told you cor- 
 rcH'tly I think, that Peter referred to the occasion 
 wluii he was preaching to Cornelius and those 
 assembled in his house. Let us therefore turn 
 l)ack to the tenth chapter, where that preaching 
 and its circumstances are recorded. In the 44th 
 vi'rse we learn the fact of the hestowment of the 
 Spirit upon the Gentiles. It is given in these 
 words : ** While Peter yet spake these words, the 
 Holy Ghost fell on all them whidhlieardthe word. 
 Upon whom ? " Upon all them which heard 
 the word.''' Then hv reading a few of the 
 preceding verses, we learn that Peter preached 
 to them Jesus, before the Holy Spirit '' fell 
 on them." But mv friend tliinks it utterly 
 useless to preach the Gospel to a man upon 
 whom the Holy Spirit has not alrendii come ; 
 as it must go before "and open the heart," and 
 " make persons willing to receive the word," he 
 tliinks. 
 
 But again. This case is altogether against the 
 Professor's theory. Before Peter had come to 
 his house, and after he came, and before the 
 llohj Spirit was ji'ivcn, Cornelius Vv'as willing, 
 anxious, and waiting to hear and receive the 
 Word which God had sent unto the children of 
 
 I 
 
 t ': 
 
 ■?' A i 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 Ill 
 
 he 
 
 ist th 
 
 Uie 
 
 to 
 
 the 
 
 liliing, 
 
 |-e the 
 
 L'en of 
 
 Israel, preachmg peace by Jesus Christ. But 
 my frirnd tells rs the imregeneraie man is 
 neither able or willing to receive the Truth till 
 the Spirit comes and inakes him so. There is no 
 comfort in this case for the gmtlcman's theory. 
 In this connection the gentleman quoted at 
 some length from the fourth chiii»ter of the pro- 
 phecy of Zechariah. The quotation contained 
 this expression : " Not by might, nor by power, 
 but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts." 
 Does Professor Crawford really beliove there is 
 anything in this passage that supi)orts his view 
 of spiritual influence in coiiversion? JVIiat i.s it 
 that is " not by might, nor by power," but by 
 the Spirit of God ? Is it conversion '? And if 
 so, liow is it by the Spirit of God ? If I were 
 denying that God does aiujih'uuj in tini/ manner, 
 by His Spirit, then this passage would be per- 
 tinent. The gentleman had something to say 
 about the seven lamps the Prophet saw. He 
 thinks the wick represents the Word, and the 
 oil the Holy Spirit ; and concludes that as with- 
 out the oil the wick would be of no avail, " so 
 without the Spirit the V» urd would be of no 
 avail." Well, that's spinning the prophecy out 
 pretty fine. I don't think there is any authority 
 for saying that the Word and Spirit of God are 
 represented by the wick and oil of a lani}). At 
 any rate such fanciful interpretations are not 
 admissable in a debate. By the way, though, if 
 the wick does represent the Word of God, and 
 the oil His Spirit, what sort of a light would my 
 friend have without any wick *? W^ere he to 
 touch off the oil " invnicdiatehi,'" without any 
 wick, he would, if he survived this " immediate 
 operation" long, very sot)n conclude that he had 
 better always have wick iu his lamp. 
 
 ■aw 
 
^ 
 
 
 112 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 '1; 
 
 The worthy gentleman quoten ilio, promise of 
 the Siivioui- to His Apostles, foPowing the Great 
 commission, given in Matthew. 28th chapter — 
 " Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end 
 of the world." J hit if he sees anything in this 
 ahout any immediate operation of the Spirit in 
 the conversion of sinners, I should like to know 
 what it is. It seems to me there would have 
 })een more propriety in my bringing this pp/isage 
 into the discussioji as against his position. 
 Christ says, " Lo, I am with you alway," but 
 he is not personally and immedirtely present 
 always with his disciples. Well, if he can be 
 with his disciples ever, without being personally 
 and immediately present, then why may not the 
 Holy Spirit work also without being personally 
 and immediately present ? The only pertinent 
 inference to be made from the passage is against 
 my opponent. 
 
 The gentleman quotes Eom. viii. 26, "Like- 
 wise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities." 
 This is spoken to Christians, and of them ; and 
 therefore has no reference to the question of 
 Spiritual influence in conversion. 
 
 Psalm ex. 3, " Thy people shall be willing in 
 the day of Thy power." This speaks of the 
 Lord's people, and not of the unregenerate, and 
 says nothing about the Spirit, by direct, personal 
 influence, compelling any one's will. " Shall 
 be " is not in the original, and therefore — 
 
 •i ,:i 
 
Be of 
 
 jreat 
 
 ter — 
 
 ; end 
 
 L this 
 
 rit in 
 
 know 
 
 have 
 
 ssage 
 
 ition. 
 
 " but 
 
 cesent 
 
 an be 
 
 Dnally 
 
 ot the 
 
 onally 
 
 tinent 
 
 gainst 
 
 f Like- 
 ;ies." 
 and 
 iion of 
 
 ADDPESS. 
 
 3f 
 
 ing in 
 the 
 , and 
 sonal 
 Shall 
 
 Fridai/, ScjU. 11///, 10 d.in. 
 
 (prof. Crawford's sixth adi)Rp:ss.) 
 
 Prof. Crawford — I wonlci just say with respect 
 to the arrangements for this meeting, as to time, 
 &c., they were made by the nuitual agn^ement 
 of both sides, and we are now carrying them out. 
 My oi)i)onent still goes on to speak of the sinner 
 being irresponsible when he docs not receive the 
 Truth, since we say the Spirit of God is necessary 
 to make him willing to receive that Truth. I 
 don't think it is ujcessary to spend much more 
 time on that point, as I think it was made plain 
 enough, and proven clearly enough in iny last 
 address. He argues if a sumer, according to our 
 doctrine, is not saved, it is not his fault, but 
 God's. We say it is not so. As I said before, his 
 inability springs from his corrupt heart ; it is a 
 moral, not a physical inability. God is under 
 no obligation to save the sinner ; it is purely an 
 act of grace if he does so. But I do say that 
 without the Divine power of His Spirit the sinner 
 cannot be saved, even with the Word, owing to 
 his enmity to Divine Truth through the sin of 
 his rebellious heart ; but the giving of that Spirit 
 is an act of grace — nothing more. It was grace 
 that contrived the plan of salvation in the coun- 
 cils of eternity ; it was purely an act of grace 
 for God, in due time, to send His Son to suffer 
 and die for sinners, and if a single soul is saved 
 from everlasting damnation, it is only through 
 God's sovereign grace. My opponent has said a 
 good deal about the passage where it refers to 
 
114 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 1^ 
 
 men being made ** willing in the day of his 
 power." Ilero I contend that it is Christ's power 
 tliiit is referred to, and that it is 1)V the exertion 
 of tliat i)ower tliat tliey shall he made willing. 
 I lind that the Greek word psiichikos employed in 
 1 Cor. ii. 14, and rendered '* ntitnral" " the 
 natural man r(K*eived not the thinj^^s of the Spirit 
 of God ; for they are foolishness to him ; neither 
 ean he l-now them, l)eeause they are spiritually 
 discerned," is employed in the New Testanntnt 
 to signify man in his natural state l)y virtue of 
 his union with Adam. The 4r>th and lOth verses 
 of the le')tli chapter of this very epistle shows the 
 meaning which the apostle attaches to this word. 
 Th(^ first man, Adam, was made a living soul 
 {jtiiiichc): the last Adam was made a quicken- 
 ing spirit ipiuuinui). Ilowbeit that was not first 
 that was spiritual {pnctimatikon), but that which 
 was natural (psiichikon), and afterwards that 
 which was spiritual. T. : first word is here 
 used in speaking of man in his natural state, as 
 lie is in Adam ; the second is applied to the man 
 wliose nature has l)oen quickened and renewed 
 l)y his union with Christ. He says in the pre- 
 ceding verse, that God revealed his truth to the 
 a]M)stles; he goes on to say that a man in his 
 n:'tural state receives not this very truth thus 
 revealed, for it is foolishness to him. And the 
 reason he docs not receive it is because it is spiri- 
 tually discerned. We hold that unless it is re- 
 ceived and " disi'erned " bv the influence of the 
 Spirit, conversion and sanctification cannot fol- 
 low. jNIy oi)ponent quotes a passage in which it 
 speaks of the sinner closing his eyes against 
 the Truth. He asks if there is a sense in which 
 the sinner can be spoken of as denying the truth. 
 Certainly there is ; but does that prove that God 
 cannot open his eyes? He next refers to the 
 
DEPiTE. 
 
 115 
 
 case of Lyflia, and asks if alio did not hear tlie 
 words first ? Certainly she did ; hut the passage 
 reads, "A certain woman named Lydia, heard 
 us ; whose heart the Lord opemd that she attend- 
 ed unto the thinj^s which were sjxtken of Paul." 
 She had listened to Paul's pre.iciiing, hut l)el"()ro 
 the Gospel he preached could hv of any avnil, 
 the Lord had to open her hcait for its reception. 
 This is just what I* have hecai contending for all 
 along, and no power on earth can explain away 
 the meaning of that passage. Let us read 
 Isaiah liii. 2, " For he shall grow up hefore 
 him as a tender plant, and as a root out 
 of a dry ground ; he hath no form nor come- 
 liness ; and when we shall see him there is 
 no heauty that we should desire him." lie is 
 hefore them, hut when they hehold him they see 
 no beauty in him that they should desire him. 
 Their understandings are so darkened that his 
 loveliness is not apparent until the Spirit 
 shows him to them in all his heauty. I 
 say then that I did not misquote or pervert 
 the passage, hut gave what I considered to he its 
 true meaning. This expo^'tion of the pash'age is 
 supported hy the Saviour s own words in John 
 iii. 19 ; " And this is the condi'mnation that light 
 is come into the world, and men loved darkness 
 rather than light because their deeds were evil." 
 The light of the Gospel which reveals Christ in 
 his beauty is shining around them, but by the 
 natural tendencies of their wicked hearts men 
 love the darkness ; they cannot endure the light. 
 Is not this the case ? Men hear the Truth, and 
 hearing, hate it. And what overcomes this 
 hatred of the Truth ? I hold — and I think I 
 have already shown from the Bible that ray view 
 is the correct one — that nothing can do it but 
 the Divine power of God's Spirit, acting upon 
 
 :!:!! 
 
I 
 
 m 
 
 
 116 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 the soul through tlio medium of the Truth. Turn 
 next to John vi. 43-44: " Jesus therefore answer- 
 ed and said unto them, murmur not among your- 
 selves. No man can come to me, except the 
 Father which hath sent me draw him : and 
 I will raise him up at the last da}^?" Here 
 you see Christ wjis pr(!aching to these peo- 
 ple ; hut they murmured and rejected him. 
 But he says, do not murnuu" ; no man can 
 come unto nw. except the Father draw him. My 
 opponent will perhaps quote the remainder of 
 the passage hut he cannot make very much of 
 that. Christ goes on to say, "It is written in 
 the Prophets, And they shall he all taught of 
 God. Every man therefore that hath heard and 
 hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." 
 Christ does not say that those who liearthe word 
 shall come unto him. It it those "that have 
 heard the word and have learned of the Father.'' 
 What further testimony can any man require 
 that the power of God's Spirit must accompany 
 the hearing of the Word ? Bear in mind that 
 they were not only to hear of the Father, they 
 were to he taught of TTlm. Another passage much 
 relied on hy the Disciples is, John vi. 63 : " It is 
 the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profitcth no- 
 thing : the words that I speak unto you they are 
 Spirit, and they are life. But there are some of 
 you that helieve not." I ask does the word 
 " Spirit," here mean the Holy Ghost '? Grant 
 for the sake of argument that it does. The word 
 in this case cannot be taken literally. It would 
 he evidently absurd to say that the words of 
 Christ could be literally spirit, words are not 
 spirit in any literal sense. If the word here 
 means the Holy Spirit, Christ's words are only 
 said, in a figure, to be spirit inasmuch as they 
 are the instrument by which the Spirit of God 
 
 5 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 117 
 
 13 
 LIO- 
 
 lare 
 of 
 rd 
 mt 
 
 not 
 lere 
 
 ey 
 
 rod 
 
 works. Something in said of the instrument 
 which is mount in roaUty of the agent, whoso in- 
 strument the truth wliicli (Jlirist jn'oached is. T 
 would mak(! a simihir r(>mark respecting the word 
 Ji/(\ It would l)e evidently more ahsurd to say 
 that our Lord's words were literally life. I might 
 explain the ligure here employed hy the language 
 of every day life or hy quotations from authors in 
 every age. Take for example this passage : Deut. 
 21, (), *' No man shall take the nether or the ujiper 
 millstoiK^ to pledge ; for he takeuh a man's life 
 to pledge." Does that mean that the nether or 
 the upper millstone is literally a man's life ? 
 Certainly not ; no one will claim this interpre- 
 tation of the passage. It means that as the Jew 
 according to the custom of the country, required 
 to grind his own corn and by hand, if you took 
 away his millstones you took away that which 
 was a means of sustaining life ; hence, in a 
 figure, the millstone is said to be his life. Now, 
 in like manner, as the truth which Christ i)reach- 
 ed is the only instrument by which eternal life is 
 conveyed to perishing men, these words are said 
 by metonymy to be life. But I contend that the 
 word " Spirit " in the text does not signify the 
 Holy Spirit but the spirit of the law as contrast- 
 ed with the letter of the law. We frequently in 
 conversation speak of the spirit and the letter of 
 the law. We sometimes say the law is kept in 
 the spirit if not in the letter. Our Tjord, as you 
 may see from the context, was controverting 
 with the cavilling Jews, who contended for the 
 letter of the law but w^ho could not see that that 
 law pointed to Christ who wast he spirit of that 
 law. When Christ, therefore, says to these cav- 
 illers and sticklers for the letter of the law who 
 yet rejected Christ who was the substance of it, 
 ** The words that I speak unto you they are 
 
 11] 
 
 ■ i 
 
118 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 j'i I 
 
 Spirit ; " He evidently means that the words 
 which He taught respecting himself and His 
 kingdom were the very Sftirit or soul of that law 
 for which they were so zealously contending. 
 Our Lord here speaks of the law under a figure, 
 as though it was made up of two parts, the body 
 or flesh, and spirit ; hence the meaning of the 
 words in the text, " It is the Spirit that quicken- 
 eth, the flesh profiteth nothing." In order that 
 
 1 may explain this somewhat more fully, turn to 
 
 2 Cor., 3, 6 : Who also halh made us able min- 
 isters of the New Testament, not of the letter, 
 but of the spirit ; for the letter killeth, but the 
 spirit giveth light."' You see the very same idea 
 is brought out in this passiige. The letter of the 
 law is here contrasted witli the sj^irit of the law. 
 It was not by the ])lood of bulls or goats, but by 
 the spirit of all the ceremonial observances — the 
 truth that was embodied in that law, that God 
 would work in this dispensation. The law given 
 from Mount Sinai was engraven on tables of 
 stone, but the spirit of the law, the Truths of the 
 Gospel, must be written and engraved on the 
 fleshly tables of the heart. The giving of God's 
 law was accompanied by great glory. When 
 Moses came down from the Mount, the children 
 of Israel could not behold his face for the glory 
 of his countenance; "'which glory was to be 
 done away, and to be succeeded by that which 
 was still more glorious." Paul goes on to ask, 
 ** If the ministration of death was glorious, how 
 shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather 
 glorious ? " Here the letter of the law was glor- 
 ious, but ' the flesh or body of the law profiteth 
 nothing in the salvation of the soul. If the 
 body had no power, the spirit of the law had the 
 
 power. Tiie Apostle goes on to 
 ministration of condemnation 
 
 say, "^or if the 
 be glory,, much 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 119 
 
 given 
 
 es of 
 
 fthe 
 
 the 
 
 od's 
 
 hen 
 
 Idren 
 
 glory 
 
 be 
 ivhich 
 
 ask, 
 , how 
 ather 
 
 glor- 
 )iiteth 
 [f the 
 id the 
 
 1 if the 
 much 
 
 more doth the ministration of righteousness 
 exceed in glory. The ministration of righteous- 
 ness here means the Gospel, for in it is the right- 
 eousness which God has provided for the sin- 
 ner revealed. For even that which was made 
 glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason 
 of the glory that excelleth. For if that which 
 IS done away was glorious, much more that 
 which remaineth is glorious." The fourteenth 
 and following verses bring out the idea still more 
 clearly: "But their minds were blinded; for 
 until this day remaineth the same veil, untaken 
 away in the reading of the Old Testament : 
 which veil is done away in Christ. But even 
 unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is 
 upon their hearts. Nevertheless, when it shall 
 turn to the Lord the veil shall be taken away. 
 Now the .^ord is that Spirit, or tJie Spirit (pneuma); 
 and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is lib- 
 erty." Tlie term Lord is here undoubtedly ap- 
 plied to the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore Christ 
 is the Spirit of the Law. Now let us look at the 
 passage referred to by my opponent, and on which 
 we are commenting. John vi. 63: "It is the 
 Spirit that quickeneth ; the fleszi profiteth noth- 
 ing ; the words that I speak unto you, they are 
 spirit and they are life." The meaning is that 
 the words of Christ concerning himself and his 
 kingdom are the true spirit of the Jaw for the 
 body or letter of which these Jews were so fiercely 
 contending; ad that these words of truth are 
 the only instrument which God has appointed 
 for conveying eternal life to perishing sinners. 
 Now I ask does this passage teach according to 
 my opponent that the truth alone, without the 
 accompanying power of the Holy Spirit, can and 
 does impart spiritual life '? If my interpretation 
 be the correct one it only teaches that the words 
 
 Mi 
 
Ji I 
 
 ty.i 
 
 li! 
 
 ; : 
 
 ■ i 
 
 120 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 of the Gospe^ which in the spmt of the law, be- 
 come the ' 'um through which Hfe is imparted 
 to perinhin^ ...uiiers. 
 
 The next passage is Heb. iv. 12: "For the 
 Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper 
 than a two-edged sword, piercing even to the 
 dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the 
 joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the 
 thoughts and intents of the heart." Now their 
 argument is this, that because the Word is de- 
 clared to be quick and powerful, therefore there 
 is nothing more than this Word necessary to the 
 conversion of the sinner. What does it mean 
 by saying the Word is "quick and powerful, 
 sharper than any two-edged sword?" Now I 
 ask him can a sword be truly called " quick (or 
 live), and powerful" in itself? Is ther( n .y 
 life or power in a sword itself ? Must it no be 
 used as an instrument in the hands of an agent ? 
 We say a sword is "quick" and "powerful," 
 but we use the figure of metor.ymy, and mean 
 that the sword possesses those qualities only 
 when used as an instrument in the hands of him 
 who wields it. Then I. Peter, 1, 23; Being 
 born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
 ruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and 
 abideth forever." The Aj^ostle here, in carrying 
 out the figure, says the change effected in con- 
 version — the second birth — is not of corruptible 
 seed, as was the first, but of incorruptible seed, 
 the Word of God. He likens the Word of God 
 to seed, but as I said in a previous address, the 
 seed may be planted in the ground, but of itselj 
 it will not germinate ; a Divine influence is 
 required. There is nothing more in this pas- 
 sage than what I have contended for all along, 
 i.e., that the Word is the instrument by which 
 the Spirit works. We believe as well as our 
 
 I ! 
 
 I i 
 
 i \ 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 121 
 
 opponent that the Word is required. The differ- 
 eiu'e in our doctrine is this : we say that the 
 Spirit uses the Word as the instrument, just as 
 a soldier uses the sword, hut the Divine Power 
 Hes in the Spirit, as the sword of itself is not 
 ihe power, hut the man who uses it. Our 
 opponents say that the Word is the Power. This 
 is just where we differ. ^Ir. Camphell says that 
 we are " hegotten of the Word, but horn in 
 baj)tism," but this curious distinction between 
 begotten and born is not in the original, as the 
 same word {(fennao) is used to express both. We 
 must look into the original, for the whole argu- 
 ment here depends on it. 
 
 5omg 
 incor- 
 and 
 [•rying 
 con- 
 )tible 
 seed, 
 God 
 , the 
 itself 
 Ice is 
 pas- 
 |long, 
 Ivhich 
 our 
 
 t 
 
 6 
 
mm 
 
 '^Fmmii 
 
 
 HE PLY. 
 
 ■Li ;: 
 1 1 
 
 
 S ;! 
 
 ! 
 
 y 
 
 « 
 
 
 ■fi 
 
 
 'i 
 
 l^ 
 
 ■■* 
 
 i', 1 
 
 1' '^ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I' I' 
 
 
 MR. 
 
 Friday, Scjif. 11th, 10.30 a.m. 
 Sweeney's sixth rei'LY. 
 
 Mr. Sirceuci/. — My opponent is inclined to 
 complain of my still goinp; on to speak of 
 the same tliinf^s. lie is in the lead. He 
 has heon in the lead all the time. He has had 
 his own way ahout almost everything? connected 
 ^vith the dehate. I have simply suhmitted to 
 what he has dictated. I claim the right to reply 
 to his speeches in my own Avay. If he " repeats 
 himself, I shall follow him round and round." 
 I am following him. I am a little like the old 
 servant who was told hy his master to plough a 
 furrow across the field in the direction of a red 
 cow ; ho ploughed toward the cow ; the cow got up 
 and moved, and he kept on ploughing toward 
 the COW'. The cow kept going ** round and 
 round," and he kept ploughing toward her. Of 
 course he made a pretty crooked furrow, hut he 
 ploughed toward the cow. Sd I am following, 
 and I mean to follow my opponent. If he goes 
 "round and round " why, I sh;ill go "round and 
 round," too. I wanted to alHrm my helief on the 
 points of difference hetween us where I am logi- 
 cally in the affirmative, in (dear and distinct 
 form ; and I wanted my opponent to affirm his 
 belief in distinct propositions. He refused, prefer- 
 ring such a debate as we now have. I reluctantly 
 consented ; but now we are in for it. My friend 
 must allow me to plough around after him ; where 
 he goes there will I go also. I must hold him to 
 his doctrine. He says that one man blasphemes 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 123 
 
 and 
 
 the 
 
 ogi- 
 
 tinct 
 
 his 
 
 lefer- 
 
 Liitly 
 
 [ioud 
 
 here 
 m to 
 
 mes 
 
 and ^niHshefi his teeth in rage and fury on hear- 
 ing the (lospel, l)0('aiise the Spirit does not do 
 for him that wliicli he ahme can do, and without 
 which the man cannot hut hlaspheme and rage ; 
 while another man gives praises to (lod l)ecause 
 the Spirit did for liim unconditionally what he 
 would not do for the other. Without the Spirit's 
 aid hoth men were utt(>riy unahl(> to receive the 
 Truth, and hound to resist it. They were hoth 
 horn so ; neither of them desired to be otherwise. 
 The Spirit "enables" and "makes one willing" 
 to praise God, and leaves the other to blaspheme 
 and gnash his teeth with rage and bitterness. 
 If this be true it must be the will cl' God that the 
 one should blaspheme and rage, as much as that 
 the other should praise Him ; and if it be the 
 Divine choice, it must be better that he should 
 l)laspheme than that he should praise. A doctor 
 finds two men alike diseased ; neither wishes to 
 be healed ; he unconditionally heals one and 
 leaves the other, wdien it would have cost him 
 no more to heal both. Would we not conclude 
 that he only wanted one healed *? This is the 
 gentlenum's notion of regeneration and salva- 
 tion. This, too, is just where the doctrine of 
 immediate spiritual influence in converKi-n will 
 land any man who undertakes to defend it. My 
 friend has done about as well with it as any ^ne 
 man can, I suppose. 
 
 The Professor came down here from Wood- 
 stock to demolish what he .alls " Campbellism," 
 and at the close of the first day he finds hims(df 
 crowded into his own works, and back into the 
 last ditch, trying in vain to maintain his position 
 there! Where is "Campbellism" now? We 
 hear nothing of it. The gentleman is manfully 
 labouring to make his own "ism" look respectable. 
 
 My opponent sometimes astonishes me. I 
 
 I, ; 
 
 
 
 
 ' 1 
 
 
 ■ i 
 
 
 ' ! 
 
 
 Vh 
 
 
 ! 
 
r 
 
 B 
 
 124 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 confess it. I thought the point of difference be- 
 tween us was clearly made out, and fully under- 
 stood. I was, therefore, astonished to hear him 
 say in his last speech that his position is that 
 the natural hatred of the Truth in the sinner's 
 lieart can only he overcome by the Divine Power 
 of God's Spirit, acting upon the soul, fJiroin/h the 
 mcdinin of the Truth. I say this astonislics me. 
 I thought he was contending for an hnnwdiate 
 action of the Spirit upon the soul. If he does 
 really believe that the enmity of the human 
 heart can be overcome by the Spirit, acting 
 through the medium of the Truth, whv has he 
 been contending for a previous direct operation 
 of the Spirit "to open the heart," and "enable 
 and make the sinner willing to receive the 
 Truth ? " The gentleman ought not to take both 
 sides of the question in the same speech. Let 
 it be borne in mind that 7 believe the Divine 
 Power of the Spirit overcomes the enmity of the 
 human heart, })y acting upon it through the 
 medium of Divine Truth. That's my position. 
 I contend for the sufficienc3% therefore, of the 
 Truth, of which the Holy Spirit is always the 
 spirit, to accomplish the conversion and sancti- 
 ficaiion of sinners. And I deny that the moral 
 condition of men is such that they cannot receive 
 it. They can receive it, but are not compelled 
 to, and are, therefore, justly responsible. I be- 
 lieve in salvation by grace, as much, I think, as 
 my opponent does, and more. I believe the 
 grace of God brings salvation for, and offers it 
 alike unto, all men. Christ died for all. God 
 has concluded all under sin, and offers mercy 
 unto all. 
 
 My friend still contends that in the second 
 chapter of I Cor. " the natural man " means the 
 unregenerate, and the " spiritual " means the 
 
1 the 
 ition. 
 f the 
 Is the 
 Imcti- 
 noral 
 eeive 
 )ellefl 
 I hc- 
 \i, as 
 the 
 rs it 
 God 
 ercy 
 
 pcond 
 [s the 
 the 
 
 DEB^ 
 
 TE. 
 
 125 
 
 regenerate ; that the contrast thtre is between 
 the re<j;enerat(' and tlie unregenerate ; and that 
 the A]»ostIe means to teach, therefore, that those 
 who are unn';j;tiR'rate cannot receive the truth. 
 Here, as I have said, he is wronj:^. Tlie subject 
 of •which the Apostk^ treats is insph'dtlon, and 
 the contrast is between the insj)iir(l and the iin- 
 i)i.y>'m:d ; and "the thinf,'s of the Spirit" are 
 nrrl(iti()U!i. The inspired man knows the thin<j;s 
 which hitherto eve had not seen, nor ear heard, 
 the uninspired cannot know them. That is 
 what the A2)ostk' means to teacli. Let us 
 read — " But the natural man receiveth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God, for they are foohsh- 
 ness unto him ; neither can he know them, beciiuse 
 they are s])iritually discei-ned. Jhit he that 
 is spiritual that is inspired jud^eth all things." 
 Do Christians — all Christians, discern all things 
 hitherto unrevealed ? I think not. But in the 
 lirst verse of the next chapter the Apostle says, 
 " And I, brethren, could not si)eak unto you (is 
 unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." Certainly, 
 the Corinthian Church members were regenerat- 
 ed persons; yet they were not " spiritual." This 
 shows that the gentleman is wrong in saying 
 that the subject is conversion, and the contrast 
 between the converted and unconverted. The 
 Apostle meant to say here, I think, that unin- 
 spired men could not know what the apostles 
 and prophets of Christ knew ; for those things 
 were "spiritually discerned " — that is discerned 
 by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But, as I have 
 said before, if the Apostle was talking of conver- 
 sion, and meant by "the things of the Spirit " 
 the Spirit's influences in conversion, then the 
 direct influence for which my friend contends 
 being as much one of " the things of the Spirit " 
 as his mediate influence, the passage is as mu-ih 
 
 \': 
 
Tk 
 
 mTT"iiii i —Ls aa 
 
 (ill 
 
 i : i 
 Is' > ■ I 
 
 W' 
 
 
 
 
 126 
 
 DEMTE. 
 
 opposed to his theory as it is to mine. Why docs 
 not my opponciiit ^\\v attention to this ? 
 
 He comes hack to the case of Lvdia. Now, 
 bear in mind that his position is that Lydia was 
 an unregenerate person, and " blind to all that 
 is good," until the Spirit opened her h'.>:irt. Jiut 
 the Scripture says of lu'r before anythinij; is said 
 about her lu^art l)ein<^' opened, that sin- '' wor- 
 shipped God; and that she "heard" i'aul. 
 After this it is said, "whose heart the Lord 
 opened, that she attended unto thinfijs that were 
 spoken of Paul." Now, certainly I have as much 
 right to assume that her heart was opened 
 through what she heard, as my friend has to as- 
 sume that it was l)y an immediate operation of 
 the Sj)irit, when the Jloly Spirit is not named at 
 all in connection with the effect. So my friend 
 fails here, manifestly. And here he is l^efore us, 
 at the close of a whole day's debate, with his 
 cause pitifully, and vninly, and I. think, hope- 
 lessly, crying out for a siugle passage of Scrip- 
 ture to support it. Where is the passage that 
 says the Holy Spirit ever did operate immedi- 
 ately in the conversion of a sinner ? Where is 
 the passage; that says it ever will so operate ? 
 Wliere the passage that teaches the necessity for 
 such an operation ? W^here is the Scripture fact 
 from which such necessity can be fairly infer- 
 red ? 
 
 He still hangs on the passage in Isaiah — " But 
 when we shall see Him there is no beauty in 
 Him that we should desire Him." Now, as I 
 have said, there is spoken of Jesus, as to the 
 humble manner in which He came into the 
 world, falling so far beneath the high expecta- 
 tions of the Jews, as to power, grandeiu', and 
 glory ; that they would not desire Him. It is 
 not spoken of Him as He is now preached to sin- 
 
But 
 
 ty in 
 
 as I 
 
 the 
 
 the 
 ecta- 
 
 and 
 It is 
 
 sin- 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 127 
 
 ners in the GoHpoL In fact, oven in His first 
 apiDearanco in the world tlie piiliHcans and sin- 
 ners saw more ])eauty in Ifim, and dc^sircd Him 
 more tlian tlie Jews. ]iut tlie passage (h)es not 
 say wiuit tlie Professor says, hy any means. Tit; 
 wants a passaj^'e to say that there is heauty in 
 Jesus, hut sinners can't see it, till vep;enerated. 
 Whereas this passajjje says, *' When we shaU .svw 
 Hini tliere is no hcdiiti/ in Ifim, that we should 
 desire Him." The ht^auty that theiv is in Jesus 
 did not ai)])ear, until his life and death and 
 resurrection, were accomplished, and hence Jesus 
 was not preached to sinners till all this was 
 linished. 
 
 The fjjentleman also (|Uot(!S that '* IMen love 
 darkness rather than li}j;ht, hccausc their deeds 
 are evil." Why do men whose deeds arc evil 
 love darkness rather than light ? My friend says 
 it is hecause they are naturally and necessarily 
 hlind to all that is good. Then why should they 
 shun the light ? Why prefer darkness '? If tlu-ir 
 evil deeds appear good to them, and in what is 
 })eautiful and true they can see no Ix^auty, why 
 do they shun the light and seek the darkness '? 
 The very fact that men whose deeds are evil do 
 prefer darkness to light, upsets my friend's 
 theory and proves the just responsibility of the 
 evil-doers. W hy do they hide — hide from their 
 fellows, hide from themselves, attempt to hide 
 from God '? Why, if they are utterly hlind ? 
 Think of a man, " hlind as a bat," and knowing 
 no difference between good and evil, seeking the 
 darkness in which to hide, because his deeds are 
 evil ! I am glad my opponent has appealed to 
 tliis passage. Why do evil-doers seek the dark- 
 ness ? It is because their deeds are evil ! But 
 why seek darkness because their deeds are evil 
 if they don't know it ? Ah ! they do know it, 
 
 i'l ■ 
 
 fS' 
 
^9 
 
 I I 
 
 
 'if 
 
 li-t 
 
 M 
 
 1, 
 
 ^1 
 
 VIS 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 and that's wliy thoy love darkncRH ; ** Tliis is tlic 
 condciiiHarKm of the world, that lif^dit lias conn' 
 into the worhl, and men hn'c darknoss rather 
 than li^lit hccaiisc their (h'cds are evil " — (nnl 
 tlu'i/ know if. liut my frii'nd jij)<)loij;i/es for tlio 
 siinier ; he says he cannot see the li;,dit ; he says 
 lie does not know his deeds are evil ; cannot see 
 what is }^'0()d, cannot repent of his sins, cannot 
 ask for nurcy and panh)!! ; that the whole mat- 
 ter rests upon (iod ; and that if lie (diooses to 
 save one and have another to danuiation he will 
 do it ; in fact, he says God does so do. Why, 
 then, should ln' ]»rea,ch to a sinner'.* Why ex- 
 hort him? Why hlaine him? Whv should 
 anyhody hlame him or punish him for anything 
 he does, if my friend's (loctrine he true? I can- 
 not see how the j^ciii. Kinan should consent to the 
 punishment of an unre<J!eiu^rate man for any- 
 thint^, unless it should he f(jr doiii;^^ rij^ht ? He 
 might, with some show of consistency, hlame a 
 siinier for doinj.^ I'ij^ht, as he thinks he is natur- 
 ally o]>pi>s('d to all that is ri<T;ht — and for him to 
 do rinht would he sinninj^ aj^ainst nature. 
 
 1 would likt; for the learned .L,'entleman to tell 
 us what all the invitations of the Gosi)el mean. 
 Why are sinners invited, exhorted, entreated ? 
 Does the Gospel mock men in tht'ir wretchedness 
 and misery ? I read a touching account several 
 years ago of the falliif^ and hurning of the Pem- 
 herton ]\[ills, in the J'^astern part of the United 
 States. In tlie fall and wreck scores of young 
 wonun, who were employed there, were caught 
 in the nooks and corners of tin; ruins ; many 
 were killed, and many were penned u\) alive. 
 The v»'reck took tire ; the alarm reached the ears 
 of those poor girls who were i^enned up and help- 
 less ; brave men, with axes and all other avail- 
 able implements, ran into the smoke and heat 
 
ling 
 
 lai's 
 jlp- 
 liil- 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 129 
 
 and cut a way for their escape, and then called 
 upon them to come out : " Fire ! fin; ! Escape 
 no'v with your lives ! Bun from this huniiuf,' 
 \vr( ck ! " and many cscajK'd. The conduct of 
 iliosc men wns heroic and deserving of t}i(> high- 
 est praise ; hut let us supi)os(' that, without any 
 effort whatever to remove the o])structions which 
 those poor women could never have overcome, 
 those men had stood hack and cried, " Fire ! 
 fire ! Come out and live, f(.r why will you die? 
 Save yourselves." Tlow would most peo])h! liave 
 looked upon their conduct ? Would they not 
 have called it cowardly, misanthropic, mean, 
 dastardly, devilish ? Would Professor Crawford 
 have said that was just and (iodlike / Would he 
 have said that if any one of those poor girls wu ^ 
 saved it would he solely a matter of grace, and 
 therefore any one left to perish would have no 
 right to complain ? Or will he say that in this 
 case the inability of the women was of the 
 ''phi/s'tniV kind? 
 
 My friends, I do most candidly look upon 
 the theory of my opponent as infinitely worso 
 than heterodox. It seems to me that it scandal- 
 izes the Gospel ; that it is a scandal on the 
 character of God, as revealed in Christ. 1 may 
 not understand it. 1 may have no right concep- 
 tion of justice and goodness. It may not he 
 God's will that I should have. Anyhow, my op- 
 ponent cannot complain that I thus express my- 
 self. If my whole nature is opposed to the Truth, 
 I can't, in his view of the subject, help myself ; 
 and, of course, he will not complain at me. What 
 I say can make me no worse than I am by nature, 
 according to his theory. 
 
 John vi. 4-1 : " No man can come unto me ex- 
 cept the Father which hath sent me draw him ; 
 and I will raise him up at the last day." But 
 
isaa 
 
 I- 
 
 : "■ 'h 
 
 i: 
 
 1^ 
 
 180 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 how (looK tlie Father draw pooplf t« Christ ? My 
 ^riond, of coiirsr, thinks ho does it uncondition- 
 ally and i/rcsistihly. But tho paBRaf^c says noth- 
 ing; of tli«' kind, ilv ri^^htiy antiripatod that 1 
 would roid the connection to show how persona 
 are drawn to Christ. The; next verse tells it, I 
 think, plainly enou{j;h. " It is written in the 
 pro])hets, and they shall all he tau;^lit (»f God ; 
 every man, therefore, that hath learned of the 
 Father cometh to nic" CJod draws men to 
 Christ l)y trdcli'mn. This is just what J have 
 heen contending for all the time. AVhen, there- 
 fore, Jesus had linished the work of liis personal 
 ministry, when lie had risen from the dead, claim- 
 injj; all authority in heaven and c:n'th, he said to 
 his apostles, "Go" — not to a silect few — not to 
 any kindred — not to Jews and Samaritans — "Go" 
 — wherever man is found— whi^re kin^s sit on 
 thrones in regal splendour, and where slaves toil 
 in chains. " Go," said He, hreathing the sjiirit 
 of universal henevolence — the) Spirit of Christian- 
 ity — ** Go, preach the Gospel to everi/ n-eainrc ; 
 he [or whoever' that hclieves and is hiptized 
 shall he saved." " Go, teach all nations. ' That's 
 it. That's God's method of drawing men to him. 
 My friend's error is not a harmless one. Many 
 honest souls who have imhibed it — notwithstand- 
 ing my friend teaches that the unregenerate can- 
 not receive the truth — have l^een kept waiting, 
 waiting, waiting, for this irresistible drawing. 
 Some have died waiting for it. Some have gone 
 to lunatic asylums waiting for it. Of the last, 
 I have an instance in mind now. No, it is not 
 harmless. It's a pernicious error. I know, my 
 friends, as some have said, that 1 am at times 
 almost " vehement" in my style. My apology is 
 that I am in earnest. If I talk " loudly" it is 
 because I feel deeply. I ought to talk louder, 
 
 11 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 181 
 
 lor ; 
 lizcd 
 lat's 
 
 lim. 
 
 any 
 
 uul- 
 icaii- 
 
 ing» 
 
 JJOllO 
 
 ast, 
 not 
 my 
 me 8 
 yis 
 t is 
 der, 
 
 much louder, than my oj)ponent ; l)ecau8e I be- 
 lieve much more in talking,' than he does. In- 
 deed, if I helievcd as he does, T don't know that 
 I should talk on religion at all. I know T shvHild 
 not attempt to prench to the unregenerate. It 
 would be a waste of breath and time. 
 
 Failing to liiid any Scripture in support of his 
 own theory, my oppcment spent a portion of his 
 liist half hour reading sonu' passages of Scripture 
 that, he t<'lls you, I rely up(Mi as sui)[)orting my 
 view of the Spirit's influence in conversion. Well, 
 I do rely on the passages he quoted, and more 
 too. H(3 takes the pains to give you my con- 
 struction of the ]>assages, as if 1 were not com- 
 petent to do that myself. I am much obliged to 
 him. ]Uit if it becomes necessary for me to com- 
 ment upon any passages of Scripture I chosen to 
 use in the discussion of this question, or any 
 other, I feel competent to do so for myself. I am 
 here to represent myself and my^ brethren. But 
 our teaching upon the question of the Spirit's in- 
 fluence is not under discussicm. How manv times 
 has my opponent told you the " the Spirit oper- 
 ates through the medium of Truth?" Does he 
 not believe this ? Certainly he does. He be- 
 lieves more. He believes "the Spirit goes before 
 the Truth," and operates without it "to enable 
 and make the sinner willing to receive it." This 
 I deny. This is the matter under discussion. 
 My affirmative teaching upon the subject is un- 
 questioned. To the extent that we differ, I am 
 in the negative. I simply deny mj' friend's un- 
 scriptural theory and ask for the proof. And lie 
 Vv'ould make you believe, I suppose, by examining 
 certain Scrijitures which he tells j'ou I rely upon, 
 that I am advocating some questionable theory 
 of Spiritual intiue'ice. No, indeed ! Nobody 
 questions the correctness and Scripturalness of 
 my affirmative teaching upon this subject. 
 
 t '' 
 
it*r^7W8aras3B2^-7ci:.i 
 
 1 ' ' 
 
 
 K j- J. r' : 
 
 It ■; 
 
 f 'it ■,■■ i 
 
 hi ,' ' 
 
 , 1 |! 
 
 ■:^ I 
 
 m r 
 
 '' -'it 
 
 j)-, j.i- 
 
 •- 
 
 
 II 
 
 11 i 
 
 
 ,'. 
 
 DEBATE, 
 
 A large portion of the gentleman's speech, 
 specially that portion wherein he was comment- 
 ing upon certain passages that he sa^'s I rely on, 
 needs no reply. 
 
 In commenting ui)on that passage which 
 speaks of the Word of God as " the sword of the 
 Spirit," the gentleman informs us that the 
 " Word is only the instrument," while the 
 '* Spirit is the agent that must wield it," in the 
 work of conversion. I deny that the Word of 
 God is called the sword of the Spirit, hrcause the 
 S2)irit itself ic'u'hh it. As I have ah-eady shown, 
 the Ap». otle, in the only passage in which this 
 figure is used, tells Christians to "take the sword 
 of the Spirit," and use it. It is the duty of 
 Christians to wield this sword. True, the Holy 
 Spirit is ever in the truth and ever in the church, 
 and may thus mediately be said to use the word 
 of truth as a sword. But independently of the 
 ministry of the church, and of the church itself, 
 I deny that the ''Holy Spirit even uses the truth 
 in converting sinners. 
 
 In the few minutes of time left me I wish to 
 call attention to a case of conversion recorded in 
 Scripture, not as confirming my view of Spiritual 
 influence, as that needs no confirmation, but as 
 precluding the proof of my opponent's theory. 
 The case is recorded in the eighth chapter of Acts 
 of Apostles. To begin, I'll read the 29th verse : 
 " Then the Spirit said unto Philip, ' Go near and 
 join thyself to this chariot.' " Philip, to whom 
 the Spirit thus spoke, was a preacher of the Gos- 
 pel. He had come to the place where he now 
 was, by the direction of an angel. In the chariot 
 was an Ethiopian, servant to Candace, queen of 
 the Ethiojjians, who was reading a prophecy 
 concerning Jesus, as he rode along in his chariot. 
 " And Philip ran thither to Him, and heard Him 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 133 
 
 ' Under- 
 lie Slid 
 
 1 to 
 I in 
 ual 
 as 
 
 cts 
 
 read the prophet Esaias, and said, 
 Btandest thou what thou readest '.'' And 
 how can I except some man shouhl p;uid(' me ? 
 And he desired Philip that he would come up 
 and sit with him." Here the passage that he 
 was reading is given, and tlie narrative proceeds : 
 " Then Philiji opened his mouth, and hegan at 
 the same Scripture, and preached unto him 
 Jesus. And as they went on their way they 
 came unto a certain water ; and the eunuch 
 said, ' See water ; what doth hinder me to 
 he haptized ?' And Philip s .id, * If thou 
 hehevest with all thine heart thou maj'est.' And 
 he answered and said, I helieve that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God. And he commanded the 
 chariot to stand still ; and they went down hoth 
 into the water, hoth Philip and the eunuch ; and 
 he haptized him. And when they were come up 
 out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught 
 away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more ; 
 and he went on his way rejoicing." Here we 
 have the New Testament secret of a case of con- 
 version. What was the work done hy the Spirit 
 by his own personal presence? ''Then the 
 Spirit said to Philip [the preacher] , Go near, 
 and join thyself to this chariot." Philip did so, 
 vad asked the unconverted man, who was read- 
 ing a prophecy concerning Jesus, " Understand- 
 est thou what thou readest?" The man 
 answered, "How can I, except some man should 
 guide ? " If Professor Craw'ford had been the 
 preacher, doubtless, he would have said, " You 
 cannot at all; neither can any ninn guide you ; 
 3'OU must wait for the Holy Spirit to come in his 
 own person, and by a direct act upon your heart, 
 to open it and prepare the way for instruction." 
 But what did Philip do ? He " opened his moutli 
 and began at the same Scripture, and preached 
 
 u- 
 
,,>:./>.; 1-yi.imBirapa^iWHW 
 
 ^Miam 
 
 nnr- 
 
 * .i 
 
 184 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 I6li 
 
 ?^ /ii?/i Jesus.'^ The man was converted. Then, 
 the Holy Spirit said to the preacher, "Go," to 
 the man to he converted ; now, my friend would 
 say to the Spirit, you must go and open his 
 heart. In New Testament times men were con- 
 verted hy preaching ; they were not told to wait 
 for tlic Spirit to come and open their hearts. 
 The preachers did not preach to the people that 
 they could not understand peaching ; did not 
 teach the people that they could not })e taught. 
 
 ■ f 
 
m 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 FvidiUf, Sept. llfJi, 11 </.?». 
 
 (prof. Crawford's seventh address.) 
 
 Professor Cniir/ord. — In my last address T dis- 
 tinj^uislied between moral and physical inability, 
 and showed that the sinner's inability to receive 
 the Truth hoiu^ ft moral and not a physical one, 
 sj)rir';;inp; from the enmity and wickedness of his 
 own heart, he is fully responsible if he fails to 
 accept that Truth. My opi)onent endeavoured to 
 show that, according to Calvinism, the sinner is 
 entirely exonerated from l)lame, if he does not 
 become a converted man. He brings forward a 
 number of illustrations in his attempts to show 
 this ; but you will please observe that every one 
 of these illustrations bears on plnis'iad and not 
 on moral inability. For instance, when he speaks 
 of a number of persons beinj^' in a fire, they are 
 told to escape but cannot. Anyone can see that 
 that is a case of physical, not of moral, inability. 
 Yet ho dwells on this case with wonderful elo- 
 quence, as if it were a very powerful arfj;ument 
 for his side of the question. I say, without the 
 least hesitation, that they w'ere not responsible 
 in that case. And when he speaks of the 
 boy who was attemptinf^ to roll a large stick — 
 one that was beyond his strength to move — 
 that does not bear on the point at issue ; that 
 was purely a case of physical inability, and I 
 hold, as well as my opponent, that the 
 boy was not responsible. But Mr. Sweeney 
 should bring forward a case of moral inability, 
 and then let him show from this, if he can, that 
 

 136 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 
 111 
 
 
 ill 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 man is not rcsponsiblo. He would then hit the 
 nail on the head ; but g<Mn}j; on as he is now, he 
 is merely fi.^htin^Lj; a man of straw. He was try- 
 ing to show what Calvinism is, but he only suc- 
 ceeded in presenting a caricature^ of the system. 
 Mr. Sweeney savs, if he were a. believer in that 
 doctrine, h(> would sit perfectly still, for he would 
 not be ])l!nneable if he did go on in his evil 
 courses Jhit in what, I would ask, does man's 
 inability consist'? It lies in the sinful state of 
 his own heart. He says, "I will not receive the 
 truth,' ' I will not have this man Christ Jesus to 
 rule over me,' yet, I am not resi)onsible because 
 the Spirit has not made me willing." Is our doc- 
 trine as my opponent has represented it the 
 Calvinism we believe and teach, the Calvinism 
 of the Word of God '? We say the individual is 
 responsible. Why does he reject the truth ? 
 Why does \w not accept .Tesus Christ as his 
 Saviour'? The inal)ility, I admit, is a strong 
 one, but at the same time, he is held responsible, 
 simply because his own evil heart prevents him 
 from accepting the truth. There is no physical 
 impossibility preventing his reception of the truth 
 and therefore, he is held guilty in God's sight, if 
 he rejects it. J3ut if he is ever delivered from 
 his inability, it is solely by the grace of God, 
 operating in his heart, disi)osing him to accei)t 
 the truth, making him willing in the day of his 
 power. 
 
 I Nvould like to dwell on some of the passages 
 of Scripture bearing on this point, but it will be 
 almost impossibh', unless we prolong this debate 
 for six weeks or so, to get over all our ground. 
 Let US take an example or two : He dwells for a 
 long time on the case of Lydia ; his argument 
 was that she was a worshipper of God before 
 " the Lord opened her heart, that she attended 
 
 ii* 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 137 
 
 rod, 
 
 5ept 
 his 
 
 Lges 
 be 
 )iitc 
 lid. 
 ■)r a 
 ent 
 ore 
 Ided 
 
 unto the tliiiif^'s which were spoken of Pjuil." 
 True; but it remains for liiin lo sliow whether 
 she was a worsliipper of God in the same sense 
 in Avliich Simon Ma;.^iis v/as said to beHevc. But, 
 f^rantiu}^ that she was it true worshipper of God, 
 there is nothinj,' in the passa<j;e re<;ardinfj; lier 
 which j^'oes in the hast a<j;ainst our side of tlie tir- 
 gument. AVe say that even bc.'hevers must liave 
 their hearts opened l)y Divli inlhu nee Ix fore 
 they can receive tlie truth. The passage says 
 that ''whose lieart the Lord opened, so tliat she 
 attendi'd unto tlie things wliicli were spoken of 
 PauL" What could he plainer :* 'i'he ingenuity 
 of Satan himself cannot e\[)lain this passage 
 away. This passage asserts n direct Divine 
 operation upon the human heart, resulting in 
 the recei>tion of truth ; whicli doctrine my 
 opponent denit.'S. Then, again, he refers 
 to the passage where it speaks of the veil 
 being taken away ; (rod promises to take 
 this veil away. lie gets over this by re- 
 minding us that the veil was taken away in 
 Christ. Very true. The veil that was on the truth 
 concerning the promised ]\ressiah during the 
 past dispensation was done away in the death of 
 Christ. Th(!n this veil was ri'iit ; but the latter 
 part of the verse, and the part to which my argu- 
 ments applied, speaks of tinother veil, tiit; veil 
 which was upon the heart of the Jewish people 
 when the truth of Closes was read to them in 
 the Synagogue. This is the veil which God 
 promises to take away ; not the veil which was 
 upon the truth which was alrea<ly done away in 
 the death of Christ. I contend, indei'd, that this 
 promise is to be fuUilled ]>y the operation of 
 God's Spirit o])ening their heai'ts, as in the case 
 . Mr. Sweene 
 
 Lyi 
 
 'J: 
 
 try: 
 
 quotes the words " When it shall turn to the 
 
 y \ 
 
 (<£<! 
 
138 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 n-n 
 
 H : ' 
 
 
 Lord the veil shall he taken away," and from 
 them he contends that it is not the Holy Spirit 
 l)ut their own turning,' to the Lord that is to take 
 away the veil. To this I would reply that neither 
 our word "when" nor the oiiginal word neces- 
 sarily has the meaning which my opponent 
 claims for it in this passapje. It is commonly a 
 mere adverh of time, as in the precedinjj; verse, 
 " When Moses is read." Let me illustrate this 
 hy an example or two. Suppose I should say 
 " The stahle door was thrown open irJioi the 
 horses escaped." Do I mean hy this that the 
 escape of the horses was the cause of the stahle 
 door heing thrown open ? Or sui)])()se 1 should 
 say " The shutters were thrown open, irJien the 
 light entered the apartment," would this mean 
 that the entrance of the light was the cause of 
 the shutters heing opened ? Certainly not. In 
 like manner the words " When, it shall turn to 
 the Lord the veil shall he taken away," does not 
 necessarily signify that their turning to the Lord 
 is the cause of the veil heing taken from 
 their hearts. On the contrary the whole reason- 
 ing of the Apostle as well as the circumstances 
 of the case prove just the reverse. The word 
 " when " is here merely an adverh of time. 
 
 I will give one more passage upon which to 
 
 exercise his ingenuitv : — 1 Tliess. 
 
 1-b 
 
 For 
 
 our Gospel came not unto you in word onhi, hut 
 also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in 
 much assurance." The last clause is exegetical 
 of the one coming before ; no ingenuity or so])his- 
 try can explain away the force of that passage. 
 Then with reference to another passage ; it was 
 John 14, lG-17: "And I will pray the Father, 
 
 and he shall give you another Comforter 
 
 with you forever ; even 
 whom the world cannot 
 
 that He may abide 
 the Spirit of Truth, 
 
rfwi 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 139 
 
 to 
 'or 
 nut 
 
 in 
 leal 
 lis- 
 
 lo 
 
 Viis 
 [er, 
 Iter 
 roll 
 Lot 
 
 recclvo, becaiiso it soctli Iliiu not, noithcr kn<nv- 
 oth ITim ; but yv know ITim, for He dwelletli 
 witli you and shall ])e in you." That in, tlie 
 peoi)le of tlie world, in their natural state, eannol 
 receive tlie Spirit of Truth ; there is a nioial 
 inability on their part, ihey resist its influeme. 
 But it is an entirely ditferent (piestion whether 
 or not that S[)irit can force a ii;issaf!;e into the 
 human mind by causin^jj the olxlurate heart to 
 relent. That is God's work, the other is man's. 
 The one is a question of moral ahility onthe part of 
 men in their sinful state ; the other is a question 
 of abiljty on the part of God's Jioly Spirit ; and 
 who will deny the power of Almij^dity God ? That 
 my interpretation of the passage is t)ie correct 
 one, and that while the world cannot receive the 
 Holy Spirit, those whose hearts God opi'us can, 
 is evident from the remainder of the verse, viz : 
 " But ye know Him, for He dwelletli in you." 
 
 Let'us look at Ezekiel 30, 27: '' And / wUI put 
 iiijf Sjurit Within yon, and cause you to walk in 
 my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments 
 and do th(;m." Here it is said that "God will 
 put His Spirit within them." But according tc 
 my opponent's version of the other passage, the 
 world cannot receive the Spirit. Either my view 
 is correct, that though man in his natural state 
 is morally unable to receive the Spirit, that S[)irit 
 can force its way into his heart ; I say either this 
 view is correct or there is a flat contradiction in 
 the two passages. Whatever my opponent may 
 ])elieve, I believe that the Word of God, never, if 
 we read it aright, contradicts itself. 
 
 He has tried very hard to bring me into the 
 doctrine of the Divine Decrees or Election. I 
 have tried to avoid it. simply because I don't think 
 it is necessary in conducting this controversy ; 
 but as the matter now stands, I cannot omit it 
 
 ir 
 
•*p 
 
 140 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 1 ii 
 
 [ . h 
 
 '! 'I 
 
 I/: f> 
 
 . m 
 
 ^vitllollt (loiii^ iiijustico to myscdf jiiid to my argu- 
 ment. I don't want you to imagine that I am 
 afraid or ashamed of this doctrine, though I 
 thought it would he as well to leave it out, hecause 
 we had jilenty of ground to go over without it. 
 But he has forced it upon me, and I must take it 
 up in justice to my cause, though it must he very 
 briefly. This being the case I cannot follow my 
 antagonist in every remark and insinuation he 
 throws out ; I am content to let the people judge 
 of the respective merits of our argume'iits when 
 they come out in print. Tliere will not ♦^^iien be 
 quite so much noise to draw them off the real 
 points at issue ; they will he enabled to stud}- the 
 matter calmly and dispassionately. 
 
 In entering upon this point I would commence 
 by saying that man is by nature a sinner ; he is 
 " shapen in sin and l)rought forth in iniquity." 
 When a child is born, it is not the crcatum of a 
 spirit, for this would make God create an un- 
 clean spirit. We hold tliere is a connection with 
 Adam, both as regards the soul and the bod}-. 
 You ask me, do you understand this ? I do not 
 understand it. There are things revealed in the 
 Word of God that we are not competent to un- 
 derstand. I was in the loins of my father Adam 
 the covenant-head. When he sinned, and I 
 sinned in him. Here then is n, direct issue with 
 the views brought forth by my opponent. He 
 says a child is not shapen in sin and brought 
 forth in iniquity ; but that it is holy at its birth. 
 I would ask him why does a child suffer and die 
 then, for do not suffering and death of intelligent 
 responsible creatures both come by sin ? When 
 children arrive in heaven according to his view, 
 they cannot join in the grand chorus, "Thou 
 has redeemed us to God by Thy blood," for they 
 never sinned, and were never redeemed bv the 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 141 
 
 a 
 
 lie 
 |nt 
 len 
 Iw, 
 
 Ion 
 
 ley 
 
 he 
 
 blood of Christ. We say lot tho.so hold this view 
 who please, hivi it seems rather stranjjje that 
 there will he in heaven some of th(^ human 
 family ^vllo were never redeemed hy Christ, 
 and who had no interest in his atoning- work. 
 We hold, too, tluit man is a transgressor in his 
 own person. The Apostle thus sums up this argu- 
 ment l)y which he would prove the universal guilt 
 of miiiikind. "Now, we kr.ow that what things 
 soever tlie lawsaith,it saitli tothem who are under 
 the law, that every mcnitli may he stopped, and all 
 the world may become guilty before God." The 
 question is. Is (lod under obligation to provide 
 salvation for these transgressors? He might 
 have left us to the operation of His justice, 
 but grace comes in. The provisions of the 
 covenant of grace interpose. God, in accordance 
 with thjit covenant, sends His Sou to make an 
 atonement for sin. He commissions His Apos- 
 tles to ''preach tlie gospel to every creature." 
 It was an inlhiite atonement, because nothing 
 short of an infinite atonement — an atonement 
 made by a divine person — could save even one 
 man. Shall man, then, receive the benefit of 
 that atonement ? It is a Jact that all men do 
 not receive the gospel. The question is, Could 
 God make all men receive that gospel ? Surely 
 no one will deny that. But if he has not done 
 so, it was his purpose to bring some to the re- 
 ception of that gospel, because His grace would 
 have it so ; and to allow others to be lost 
 because infinite justice would have it so. See 
 how our Lord reasons upon this in the par- 
 able of the laborers in the vineyard. The 
 man who worked all day, and the man who 
 worked an hour, each received a denarius. Some 
 complained that this was not just. What is the 
 reply ? Have I done thee any harm ? Did I 
 
 i'i 
 
 1:'. 
 i - 
 
 I 
 
» 
 
 II i 
 
 
 ; 'i : 
 
 
 pHf: 
 
 142 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 not n^ree witli you for a penny ? 'Vnkv it, then. 
 If I clioose to inuke him equal with 
 you have I not i ii;^'lil to do wliat 
 I will witli my own ?' Let us read Kome 
 passafj;eK t»f Holy Wilt that l»ear upon this 
 (|Uestion. liomaiis viii, 2H, 'lU-'M), " And we 
 know tiiat all thin^^s work to;^'ethei" for «;ood to 
 them who are called aeeording to his purpose. 
 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predesti- 
 nate to he eonfonncd to the imaj^e of his Son, 
 that he mi^jht he the iirst-horn amoji;j; uiany 
 hrethreu. Moreover, wIkuu he did predestinate, 
 tlu'm he also ealh'd. and whom he called, them 
 he also jiistilii d, and whom he justilied, them he 
 also gloritied." He foreknew them, predestinated 
 them, called, justilied jind f;loritied them "ac- 
 cording to his purpose." J would refer you next 
 to 1 Cor. i, 2()-'27, for we have time to do little 
 more than reiid the i)assages. " For ye see your 
 calling hrethren, how that not many wise men 
 after the tiesh, not many mighty, not many 
 nohle, are called ; hut God hath chosen the 
 foolish things of the world to confound the things 
 which ar(> mighty." Here you see God has 
 chosen, and this gracious choice was not deter- 
 mined hy anything in man ; rather the other 
 way, he chose the " weak things " that the glory 
 might he his. Matt, xxiv, 24 : '* For there shall 
 arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall 
 show great signs and wonders; insomuch, that 
 if it were possihle, they shall deceive the very 
 elect." He says "if it were possihle," but it is 
 not possihle, for he has chosen them. 1 Peter i, 2: 
 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God 
 the Father, through sanctification of the spirit 
 unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of 
 Jesus Christ : grace unto you and peace be mul- 
 tiplied." Then Romans xi, 7 ; "What then? 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 143 
 
 rery 
 lit is 
 i,2: 
 iGod 
 pirit 
 i\ of 
 lul- 
 ien? 
 
 Israel hath not obtained that which he aeeketh 
 for ; hut the ohn'tion hath ()1)tjiined it, and the 
 rest were hliinU'd." We sliall not spend time at 
 present in ur^'uin^' Jaur tlirs ean l)e in liarniony 
 with tlic divine perft-ctions, hut tlie I'arf is there. 
 Epli. i 3-G : "iJh'Ssed he th<' God and Father of 
 our Lord Jesus (Jhrist, wlio liath hlessed us with 
 all spiritunl hlessinu;s in heavenly places in 
 (Jhrist : According' as he hath chosen us in TFini 
 hefore the foundation of the world, tliat we 
 shouhl he holy and without hlanin before Him 
 in love : llavinif predestinated ns unto the adop- 
 tion of children by .Tt'sns Christ himself, accord- 
 ing^ to the ^ood pleasun; of His will to the praise 
 of the i^lory of His ^race wherein he hath made 
 us accepted in the beloved." There is no uncer- 
 tain sound in these words. They were chosen 
 not because he foresaw that they would be holy. 
 but in order that they might be holy. Eph. i, 
 11 : ''In whom also we have obtained an inher- 
 itance, bein<j; predestinated according to the pur- 
 ])0se of him wlio worketh all things after the 
 counsel of his own will." This also requires no 
 explanation to make it plain. II Thess. 2, 13: 
 "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God 
 for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, be- 
 cause God hath from the beginning chosen 
 vou to salvatitni thnmgli sanctification of 
 the Spirit and the belief of the Truth." They 
 were chosen to salvation from the beginning, 
 even before they had an existence. And how 
 was this salvation to be effected ? Through 
 sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth, 
 John xvii, 2. "As thou hast given Him power 
 over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to 
 as many as thou hast given Plim." Not all but 
 as manj as God in His eternal purpose had given 
 Him. Acts xiii, 48 : "And when the Gentiles 
 
144 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 lu'iird this they wort* «^'l}i(l uiid ^'lorifird Ww Word 
 of the Lord; and an nuiuy aH were ordained to 
 eternal life believed. "It was not beeanse tbeyl)e- 
 lieved iliat tbev were ordain<'d to eternal life, but 
 "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." 
 Iknowtliey will try to explain iiwiiy tlie necessity 
 of tbe word " ordained," but I v/ill (|iiote all 
 tbe passa«jjes in \vlii(di tbe same word in tbe 
 origii>al, wbieli is bere translated ** ordained," 
 oecurs, so as to sbow its meanin/j;. INFatt. xxviii, 
 1(», " Tben tbe eleven discij)les went away into 
 Galilee, into a mountain wbere .Jesus ba(V^/7>- 
 ]>ointrd tbem." Luke vii, 8, " For I also am a 
 man set iinflir autliority." Acts xv, 2, '* Tbey 
 determined tliat Paul and Barna})as sbould go up 
 to Jerusalem." Acts xxii, 10, " Tbcre it sball 
 be told tbee of all tbi.igs wbicb are appo'tnted for 
 tbee to do." Acts xxviii, 23, ''And wben tbey 
 bad uppo'inted Him a day tbcre can'c to Him, 
 into His lodging," &c. Rom. xiii, 1, " Tbe pow- 
 ers tbat He ordained of God." I Cor., xvi, 15, 
 ** They bave addieted tbemsolves to tbe ministry 
 of tbe Saints." Tbese and tbe passage I first 
 read (Acts xiii, 48) are tbe only passages in wbicb 
 tbis word is used in tbe original. You see from 
 tbese tbe true meaning of tbe word, and, tbere- 
 fore, tbat it is properly translated " ordained" in 
 tbe text I quoted, " As many as were ordained to 
 eternal life believed." Tbe next passage is II 
 Timotby 1, 9 : " Wbo batb saved us, and called 
 us with an boly calling, not according to our 
 works, but according to His own purpose and 
 grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before 
 the world began." Here you observe we were 
 called not according to our works, but according 
 to his o\\n 2^ it'^ose and grace which he had given 
 before the world began. The last passage I sball 
 quote in this connection is Rom. 9, from verse 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 14! 
 
 ore- 
 "in 
 jd to 
 is II 
 tiled 
 our 
 antl 
 iiove 
 Iwere 
 Idiiig 
 liven 
 ^liall 
 rerse 
 
 11 : " For the children Ijciii^' not yet horn, neither 
 havinjj; donc^ any {^'ood or evil, that the pur))ose of 
 God ac(^ordin«j; to eleetion nii^'ht stand, not of 
 works, l)iit of him that ealleih. It was said unto 
 her, tlie ehler shall serve the y()un<j;er. As it is 
 written, Jacoh have I loved and V.Aiin liave I 
 hated. What shall we say then? Is there nn- 
 ri{j;hteousness with (iod ? God forhid. For he 
 saith to Closes, I will have mercy on whom 1 will 
 have mercy, and 1 will have compassion on whom 
 I will have compassion. 8o then it is not of him 
 that willeth, nor of liim that runneth, hut of God 
 that sheweth mercy." Both Jacoh and Esau 
 were sinners, hut God saw Jacob in Christ and 
 had chosen him, in him viewed in Christ, clothed 
 in his righteousness and Vvashed in liis atoning 
 blood, Jacol) was worthy of God's love ; whereas 
 Esau, viewed as he was in himself, a sinful 
 creature, was a fit object of God's disapprobation. 
 It was God's electing love, therefore, according to 
 the Apostle, and not anything originally gcod in 
 Jacob that made them to differ. 
 
 ^w 
 
 v^: 
 
msatmsm..^ 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 yi'i 
 
 Fridaij, Sept. 11th, 11.30 a.vi. 
 (MR. Sweeney's seventh reply.) 
 
 Mr. Sweeney. — T congratulate you this morn- 
 ing, friends, as recipients of the Divine fa- 
 vour. We are, T trust, hecomingly grateful 
 that v;e have heen preserved through the night 
 and permitted to come together this morning to 
 resume the discussion. I feel somewhat disposed 
 also to congratulate myself ; I came here, you 
 know, to defend what my opponent calls " Camp- 
 bellism," as he had come to show what that 
 thing is in the first place, and prove it false in 
 the second. We have been here now but one 
 day, and instead of making headway with his 
 proposed work of exposition and destruction, the 
 worthy gentleman has been thrown back upon 
 the defence of his own works ; instead of demol- 
 ishing " Cami)bellism " he is making an almost 
 desperate struggle to make his own doctrine look 
 respectable. You remember, of course, the pro- 
 gramme upon which he set out : he was going to 
 show us just what this thing called '' Campbefl- 
 ism " is, and then, secondly, he was going to at- 
 tack it — was going to attack it all along its front 
 line ; but he has been driven back, and back, 
 and back, until he is now desperately trying to 
 defend his own doctrine concerning the Divine 
 decrees. Well, I shall follow him up, and show 
 that that position cannot be maintained. I only 
 ask you to note the fact that it is not " Camp- 
 bellism " that is on trial, but Calvinism. 
 
 The gentleman saw fit in his last to indicate 
 
 % 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 147 
 
 to 
 [lie 
 low 
 
 ip- 
 
 Lte 
 
 that I quibble and swagger, rather than meet his 
 ar,L:uments fairly. Now, I respectfully submit 
 that he might l)etter let the people judge and 
 decide as to such matters ; I think they are less 
 partial if not better qualified than he. The peo- 
 ple will hear us both, if he is a professor in 
 Woodstock University, and I, as he would have 
 you l)elieve, a nierc^ quib])ler and swaggerer. I 
 am willing for our speeches to go to the world, 
 and we shall see whether his brethren or mine 
 are better satisfied when it comes to the matter 
 of publishing our debate in a book. 
 
 The gentleman stoutly contends, that while the 
 sinner is utterly unable to turn to Christ, his in- 
 ability is *' moral and not physical," and that be- 
 cause his inability is moral he is justly respon- 
 sible. But I am utterly unable to see what dif- 
 ference it makes as to what kind of inability it is, 
 so long as the sinner is uttt^rly unable to, turn to 
 Christ. Call it moral inability if you please. 
 Does that relieve the sinner ? Is he not unable 
 to believe, to nqient, to pray, to do anything, ac- 
 cording to my friend's theory '? Yes. Is he not 
 as unable to turn to Christ as he is to create a 
 planet '? Yes. Then why is he responsible in 
 the one case and not in the other, because the one 
 may be called a moral affair, and the other a 
 phj'sical one ? Does not ail responsilnlity grow 
 out of ability ? Moral responsibility grows out of 
 moral ability, and physical responsibility out o' 
 physical ability, if we make the finest distinctions. 
 But such abstruse and metaphysical distinctions 
 arc not to the purpos-? in the matter in hand. I 
 hold that no being on earth, or {i.nywhere else, 
 can justly lie held accountable and punished for 
 not being or doing what he was wholly unable to 
 be or do. Will my opponent take issue with me 
 here right squarely, or will he proceed further to 
 
 I': , iii 
 i i -■ 
 
 I'll 
 
 :. ill 
 
 % 
 
i" 
 
 k; 
 
 1» 
 
 'i M 
 
 
 
 148 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 inform us that there is a difference between moral 
 and physical inability ? 
 
 Now, if I understand the position of my op- 
 ponent, it is briefly alxnit like this: Every one 
 is born utterly depraved, and is conse([ently from 
 his birth exposed to the wrath of God. No one 
 can be saved without regeneration. lUit regen- 
 eration is ('llVeted by an innnediate operation of 
 the Holy Spirit upon the heart. No one can do 
 anything whatever, to su|)erinduce, or invite, 
 sucli an operation. Neither can any one resist 
 it. li any one is regenerated, tlierefore, it is 
 not because he wants to l)e, but l)ecause he can't 
 liel]^ himself. And, further, every such regener- 
 ated one must go to Heaven, willing or unwil- 
 ling ; for no regenerated person, according to 
 Calvinism, can by any possiltility, ever l)e lost. 
 So that no person in Heaven will ever be able to 
 say, " 1 am here partly because J desired to 
 come ;" l)ut every one will have to say, " I am 
 here because I could not go elsewhere, f am 
 liere in spite of all the resistance I could make 
 to the Divine violence by which I was overcome." 
 I'hat's it ! No man is to be regenerated because 
 he desires to be. No man whom God regener- 
 ates can ever be lost. The matter of being saved 
 is a good di'al like ))icking up sticks. Men have 
 no more will or voice in the matter tlian the 
 sticks that are picked up or those that are [)assed 
 by. And my opponent thinks that is the Gos- 
 pel of Christ ! But, now, if this be true, what 
 does it matter what one does or refuses to do ? 
 Might not one as well,- if he feels like it, defy as 
 to im])lore Heaven ? Might not one as w^ell curse 
 as pray ? I, foi* one, can't believe any such 
 thing. Will my friend blame me for it '? Yes : 
 He says I. am justly blameable because my in- 
 ability is of the moral and not of the physical 
 
y '^s 
 
 lurHe 
 iucli 
 'es : 
 in- 
 
 hical 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 149 
 
 kind. ! I could more easily be a Uiiiversalist. 
 Indeed, Universalism, is almost infinitely more 
 reasonable than the theory my friend advocates. 
 For if the whole matter of salvation depends 
 upon God alone, then in my humble Judj^anent it 
 does llim more honor to say lie will save us all 
 finally, than to say He will danni ji ]iorti(ni just 
 for His j,'lory ! Grim glory, indeed; so it seems 
 to me. 
 
 The gentleman comes back to the case of 
 Lydia ; he admits she was a devout woman and 
 a worshipper of God. Then she was not so de- 
 praved as to need the operation of the Spirit for 
 which he contends before slie could bel'eve ; but 
 he says everybody — even Cljristians, if I didn't 
 misunderstand him — must have this direct oper- 
 ation upon the heart, to mable them to 
 receive the truth. But die! he show that there 
 was any such operation upon Lydia's heart ■' I 
 deny that he did ; he assumed the very identical 
 thing '.e should have tried to prove. He as- 
 sumes that Lj'dia's heart was opened by an im- 
 mediate operation of the Spirit, when, in fact, 
 there is nothing said about the Holy Spirit in 
 the wholti record of the case ! The passage cer- 
 tainly teaches that Paul preached to Lydia and 
 that she " heard " — and "heard" is evidently 
 used here in the sense of heeded or hearkened — 
 and that the Lord opened her heart, " that she 
 (ittcndcd to the things spoken by Paul." It is 
 not said that her heart was opened so that she 
 could receive the truth, so that she could believe. 
 No, no ! The Word was spoken to her and she 
 heeded, or hearkened to, it, and after this her 
 heart was opened, so that she attended to — or 
 obeyed — what was spoken by Paul. How did the 
 Lord open her heart ? It is assioncd that it was 
 done by an immediate interposition of the Holy 
 
J^^aBEESKaOBCssEif. 
 
 160 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 31: t 'jI,; 
 
 'i 
 
 
 1 
 
 Mji 
 
 *"■ 'I 
 
 II 
 
 ■•■,r , -I 
 I i 
 
 \\ 
 
 If i 
 
 Spirit. Biit that is the very thing that ought to 
 be proved, l)ec'aiise it is the very thing I dciiy. 
 Indeed, it is the very point in dispute. Now, it 
 was certainly possil)le lor the Lord to open her 
 heart by means of what she saw in tht- Gospel 
 which she had heard, and I shall claim tliat it 
 was actually done in that way. I am not out of 
 the record, either. We know that the (tos|).'1 is 
 " Quick and powerful ; " we know it was preach- 
 ed to her, and that she heard it ; and when I 
 assume that her heart was opened by means of 
 what she saw in the Gospel, I do not travel out 
 of the record as the professor has to do in order 
 to press the passage into the unreasonable ser- 
 vice of his cause. 
 
 The passage in '2 Corinthians, 3rd chapter, 
 wherein the Apostle speaks of the " veil " over 
 the hearts of the Jews when they read Moses 
 has really no bearing whatever upon the point 
 of difference between us, there being no reference 
 in it to any operation of the Spirit whatever. 
 INIy friend reads with a veil over his heart, just 
 as the Jews read Moses. He reads it with a 
 false theory in his mind ; reads it to see 
 what is not in it, and not to see what is 
 in it. So the Jews read Moses ; they had a false 
 theory of interpretation. Hence, when the 
 Christ came they could not see him. The whole 
 dispensation of Moses was but a grave mystery, 
 without Christ ; it was like a great shadow that 
 could be traced to no substance, or a type an- 
 swering to no antetype. The Jews came down 
 the shadow looking for a substance so different 
 from the meek and lowly Jesus that they could 
 not see Him when they came to Him. When 
 Israel shall look at Jesus as the fulfilment of all 
 the types, as the substance of all the shadows of 
 the former dispensation, then the veil will disap- 
 
2i? 
 
 f 'I 
 
 lat 
 m- 
 
 flit 
 lid 
 jen 
 lall 
 of 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 151 
 
 poar and tlioy will soc moaning in their Scrip- 
 tures, that v>'ith()ut Christ must remain a 
 mystery. Jesus is a solution of the mysteries of 
 Mosaism, as well as many of the mysteries of 
 nature itself. What is there in the passage 
 ahout the kind of Spiritual influences Professor 
 Crawford is contending for ? Just nothing ! 
 Was the Apostle discussing the ([uestion of 
 Spiritual influence in this passage :* Of course 
 not. 
 
 The gentleman's criticism of " wlien," and his 
 horse and stahle illustration need to he lahored 
 further, l)efore an answer can l)e reasonal)ly 
 called for. 
 
 Next, tlie gentlenum cites the words of Paul, 
 1 Thess., i, 5. " For our Gospel camt* not unto 
 you in word only, hut also in power, and in the 
 Holy Ghost, and in much assurance," etc. I 
 suppose the Apostle means nothing morC than 
 he says, here. He simply reminds the Thessal- 
 onians that the Gospel, when it was preached 
 to them was confirmed hy manifestations of 
 Divine power ; by manifestations of the Holy 
 Spirit. The Apostles did not simply preach the 
 Gospel in the beginning, at Thessalonica, nor 
 anywhere else, expecting the people to receive 
 it simply upon their word ; but they spoke it, 
 " God also bearing them witness both with signs 
 and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts 
 of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will." 
 There is, in this passage also, nothing about the 
 Spiritual influence my friend contends for ; and 
 it is, in tliis respect, just like all the others he 
 has quoted. Nor do I claim to have exercised 
 much ingenuity in discovering the fact. 
 
 The gentleman admits that the world cannot 
 receive the Spirit of Truth ; but he thinks " the 
 Spirit can force a passage into the heart," and 
 
 li 
 
162 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 'I 'f 
 
 
 ^^1 
 
 ,i : 
 
 cause man's obdurate opposition to relent. 
 ** Fnrct; a j>r(.s,sri//f? /" Of course the Holy Spirit 
 could Ijreak in upon any liunian heart, and viol- 
 ently erush out its opposition. I should not 
 question the Spirit's ]»ower to do so ; hut to call 
 such an operation coiinTsioii, in the New Testa- 
 ment sense, would he, in my judgment, a mons- 
 trous hurlesque on conversion. What was the 
 use of Christ dying for the world ? What's the 
 use of the Gospel? What is the use of anything 
 but the J)ivine crushing, violence of the Spirit, if 
 that is the way regeneration is elTected '? In the 
 light of such teaching how would it sound to say, 
 *'\Ve love him because he first loved us?" Why? 
 According to my friend's notion it would l)e better 
 to say we love Ilim because the Holy Spirit 
 forced a passage into our hearts and crushed 
 them into love for Him. 
 
 The gentleman seems to think that when God 
 said b}' Ezekiel, " I will put my Spirit within 
 you, and cause you to walk in my statutes," He 
 meant He would do so forcihli/. Wliat sort of 
 ohetlience would that be, thus compelled ? Would 
 it be the obedience of the Gospel? Surely not. 
 The passage in Ezekiel is a promise ; not a 
 threat. And the passage in John simply means 
 that the world God opposed — that is, sinners — 
 cannot, <(>; fnieJt, receive the Holy Spirit, which 
 was sent to be a comforter in the Church, and 
 through the Church, by means of the Gospel, to 
 convert the world. 
 
 But if God " forces a passage " into one heart 
 why not into another? Why not into all ? .Here 
 we see the gentleman runs right into the old, 
 hard, angular doctrine of unconditional election 
 and reprobation. There is no. avoiding it ; he 
 should not scold me about it, I can't help it. 
 That's where his own doctrine lands him, and he 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 153 
 
 to 
 
 id, 
 1)11 
 lie 
 lit. 
 lie 
 
 would do quite as well to keep cool over it. So 
 he starts out on the doctrine of the Divine D«^- 
 crees, as he mildly puts it, hy asserting tlii' doc- 
 trine (if hereditary total depravity. With him 
 all are horn sinners ; God elected some from all 
 eternity to eternal life, others lie left to V ^ tor- 
 mented forever in hell. Wonder if any non-elect 
 infants die ? They used to die, and j^o off to 
 hecome small flre-hrands in hell ; hut of late we 
 are told none of that class passed hy in Divine 
 mercy ever di(^ in infancy ! But what is the 
 difference? According to the gentleman's teach- 
 ing, an infant is as much a sinner as an adult 
 person, and no more innocent or helpless : and 
 if an adult person is to he damned sim])ly he- 
 cause he is of the non-elect why not an infant as 
 well '? He tells you that J say infants are 
 holy ; wi'll, Paul said so, and I helieve it. Just 
 what I'aul meant 1 may not (Certainly know ; hut 
 of this I am quite certain, I do not helieve that 
 infants are in any sense (itiiltii of sin, or in any 
 danger of heiiig lost. There is no Scripture sup- 
 port for this horrid notion — a conception of the 
 darkest ages, and of Africa. I do not helieve in 
 a God whose wrath hums with furnace heat 
 against an infant for the nature with which it 
 was horn, or who hrought one such little one 
 into heiiig to hurn it forever in hell. No, no ! 
 My friend misunderstands the passages that he 
 supposes teach such a doctrine ; he reads them 
 with a veil over his heart, that's the trouhle. 
 He tells us that infants are, souls and hodies, in 
 the loins of their parents, and thus partakers of 
 their sins. Well, if this he so, why not allow 
 that they partake also of the justilication and 
 sjinctification of their parents, and so have it 
 that the infants of justified persons are horn 
 justified. He argues further that infants are 
 
'saSBsamiSii 
 
 h'l' 
 
 IV 
 
 Iff 
 
 1 I 
 
 164 
 
 debatp:. 
 
 fiinnei-K, from the fact that thoy Buffer and die ; 
 but tlint ]>roves too much. Horses and sheej) 
 die; arc^ tliey sinners? God said, "Cursed is 
 the earth for thy sake," and tluit smote with 
 death everytliin*:; that is of the (>arth ; hut there 
 is a vast difference Ix'tween that and sendin<,' 
 immortiil souls to hell forever for llis own plea- 
 sure, as Calvinism re])resents God as doin<:;. 
 
 Tlie ffenth>man"s doctrine of fattilism, or 
 " Divine ])ecrees." as he calls it, i<j;n()res all 
 differences between nuitter ;ind mind, as respects 
 the {Jiovernment of God. It has Go.l operating 
 upon mind ])recisely as he does upon matter, 
 governing it by sheer force ! The doctrine is as 
 absurd as it is d(!stitute of 8crii)ture support ; 
 it is dish()noral)le to God, in that it destroys the 
 chief dift'erence between his inuige and a stone ; 
 and degrading to man, in tluit it annihilates the 
 law of his happiness, which is the consciousness 
 of doing what he believes to be right from choice. 
 In denying to man the power of choice it robs 
 him of any happiness higher, less sellish, or less 
 aniinal, than that of a brute. And surely Scrip- 
 tures suppos(Ml to give support to such a theory 
 must be wrongly interpreted — must be read with 
 a veil upon the heart — by him who so reads 
 them. 
 
 The gentleman made the leap— plunged head- 
 long into the doctrine of unconditional election 
 and reprobation. He quoted the same old pas- 
 sages that have been quoted since the time 
 of Augustine. Of course, he v>ill not expect me 
 to take up each passage separately and show 
 that it does not teach his doctrine, as he himself 
 did not have time to try to show that any one 
 passage he read does not teach the doctrine he 
 adduced it to jn'ove ; he only had time to read 
 the passages. Well, I shall not waste the time 
 to read them all ; it would be useless. 
 
 1 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 155 
 
 lead- 
 itioii 
 pas- 
 Itimo 
 It mc 
 show 
 Inself 
 one 
 V. ho 
 L'ead 
 I time 
 
 The Bible certainly teaches the doctriue of 
 election. Yes, I will ^o further ; it teaches un- 
 conditional election — in the ordinary acceptation 
 of the word unconditional. Such election is no 
 doubt taught in some of the passages ho read to 
 us. The i3il)le also teaches conditional election ; 
 tliis will not ho. denied, it need not be. I repeat, 
 then, that tlic Bible teaches both conditional and 
 unconditional election. But the Bibh^ is not 
 self-contradictory ; how, then, is it to be inter- 
 preted in this subject '? I '^-ubmit this as a pretty 
 good rule to l)e governed by when r(^ading th(^ 
 Bible, upon the sul)ject of election : Whenever 
 we come to a case of election recorded in tln^ 
 Bible let us ask ourselves this question, To irhut 
 were the persons named elected ? I ap})rehen(l 
 tliat if we would observe this rule strictly it 
 would aid ns much in understanding the subjcM't. 
 Now, that my friend may go to work under this 
 rule, I demand of him the passage; of Scripturi; 
 that teaches the unconditional election of any 
 one to per.soiKtl aahuition or cvfrhifitin;! lij'r. Will 
 he produce it '? Let liim try. 
 
 I know that in laying the foundation and 
 developing the great scheme of human redemp- 
 tion, there were many elections that God made, 
 and many of them were, in the ordinary sense, 
 unconditional. But when it coines to pemmal 
 election to salvation, to individua' hap])iness, in 
 this scheme, no one is so elected unconditionallv. 
 Just as a i)arent may iirovhle for the happiness 
 of his children -that is, lay his plans looking to 
 that end — inespective of their choice — without 
 consulting them — before they are born, it may 
 be — yet when it comes to the personal oijoj/nient 
 of each child in the parental scheme, each child 
 has the power of choice, as many parents 
 proudly know ; and, alas ! many painfully know 
 
 m. 
 
m 
 
 0, 
 
 ' 
 
 156 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 y^m^ 
 
 if; 
 
 r('ii= 
 
 1 ■ !l 
 
 1 !t 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 it. Men arc not cruHhcd into personal happiness, 
 tlioufjjli tlic* mcnuH of being happy may l)e uncon- 
 ditionally provhlcd fur us. Now, in the light of 
 these remarks, let uh notice a single case of 
 unconditional eU'ction, one much relied U]>on hy 
 my opponent; that of Jacob and Esau, recorded 
 in the Dtli of llomans. I admit that Jacd) was, 
 without respect to conditions in him that we can 
 see, preferred ov^i Esau. This ])reference was 
 made known, too, licforc the children were Ixtrn. 
 Jacob was elected and Esau was not. But now, 
 to nhat was Jacob elected ? To personal sal- 
 vation ? To eternal life ? I deny that he was. 
 He was elected to a place in the scheme God was 
 developing, which scheme lo(»ked to the salvation 
 of the world — looked to, and provided for the 
 descendants of Esau as well as those of .Jacob. 
 In this sense Jacol) was the elect. In this sense 
 Israel was God's elect. In this sense Christ was 
 the elect of God. In this sense there were the 
 elect angels. In this sense the Apostles were 
 elected and predestined. JMy friend's mistake is, 
 in seeing Heaven and Hell in all these cases. 
 He reads them with that veil untaken away. 
 
 Now wdien we come to j^crsoiial election to ever- 
 lasting life, we find it always conditional, as for 
 instance, in this passage : "Wherefore the other 
 brethren give diligence to make your calling and 
 election sure; for if you do these things | things 
 above enumerated] ye shall never fall ; for so an 
 entrance shall be ministered unto you abun- 
 dantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ." — II. Peter, i., 10, 11. 
 
 This passage speaks of election, personal elec- 
 tion, to everlasting life ; and does it not make 
 that election depend upon the persons elected, in 
 part at least ? What mean the phrases, " make 
 your calling and election sure " — " if ye do these 
 
nEBATE. 
 
 167 
 
 }'>y>n, etc ; I my. wlmt in,,ni tlu.s,. |,|„,,s,l 
 
 iHit, in.v friends, wlim,. s •• C'iiini)l„.|lis,„ •• 
 
 Imt n,yln™,l can,,. In-iv t„ ,1,.,,, ' ' 'w 
 
 Ifft "lit or ti<. /i.-lit is it nof> I "• ,'.' '3 
 
 tl.o Rontl.nmn l.adau u " t .li e '••'' n''™" 
 
 iiiuit. Iljjs poople (lidn'fc coiiu; here to J, <.•..• ., 
 
 
 
 ?l 
 
V" 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 u 
 
 
 mi\ 
 
 i^ ' 
 
 m 
 
 % 
 
 1"; 
 
 Frhhiif, Sept. Will, '2 p.m. 
 
 (I'ROF. CRAWFOKD'h EIliirTri A1)1>UKSS.) 
 
 Professor Crawford. — My opponent still over- 
 looks the (liffeience between niorul and physical 
 inability; or rather he makes none. With him, 
 the man who is in j:,'aol and cannot come out, is, 
 as it regards responsibility, the same as the man 
 whose heart is so wicked and rebellious a,u;ainst 
 his sovereign that he will not subnn"t or consent 
 to do that which would bring him out. ^J'lu? 
 whole of the argument hinges u])on this, l)ut he 
 overlooks it entirely. Let him show me a single 
 example of moral inability where there is not 
 resjionsibility, and ho will liave proved some- 
 thing, lie has hardly looked the passage in the 
 face which I gave on the Divine; D(!crees. My 
 opponent must meet my arguments on every 
 passage. Any one of these Scriptures is able to 
 sustain the whole weight of this doctrine, for it 
 is the words of the God of Truth. On speaking 
 of the passage with reference to Jacob and Esau, 
 he says the choice was to temporal blessings and 
 not to eternal life. Now I don't think so, but 
 whether this is so or not does not make very 
 much difference as far as my argument is con- 
 cerned, for Paul, in speaking of the case, 
 undoubtedly uses it in illustration of the bless- 
 ings of eternal life. Let us grant, for argu- 
 ment's sake, that temporal blessings instead of 
 eternal life were meant, yet in Jacob's case, 
 according to the Apostle, we have at least an 
 illustration of eternal election. First, I will 
 
PHDATK. 
 
 169 
 
 u, 
 id 
 ut 
 
 of 
 
 Ian 
 
 read tlio passaj^v : ** For the cliiMrcn hc'in** not 
 yet l)()ni, iiciUicr liiivin^' done any ^'ood or 
 evil, tliiti the piir[)oso of (iod Mccordin;^ to 
 election, nii^^dit stand, not of works, })ut 
 o\' liiiii that callctli." Now, it' it was, as 
 Mr. Sweeny contends, luijiist for (Iod, be- 
 fore the ehihiri'n were Ixn-n, io ordain one to 
 eternal Hfe iiiid not the other, 1 eainiot see liow 
 tile ease is materially altered, if we siipposi* that 
 teni})oral hlessinj^'s alone were meant. If there* 
 is injustice in one case then; is injustice in the 
 other. " It was said unto Jier, The elder shall 
 servo the younger: As it is written, .lacoh have? L 
 loved but Esau luive 1 hated." None of us have 
 uny claim upon God ; if we had all been eter- 
 nally lost, no hlanie could have been thrown npon 
 the Almifj;lity. "What shall we fnxy then? Is 
 their unrij^hteousness with God ? God forbid. 
 For he saith to Moses, I >v'ill have mercy on whom 
 I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on 
 whom 1 will have compassion. So it is noi of 
 him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of 
 God that slioweth mercy. For the Scripture 
 saitli unto Pliaroali, Even for this same purpose 
 have I raised thee up, that I might show my 
 2)0 wer in thee, and that my name might be 
 declared throughout all the earth. Therefore 
 hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and 
 Avhom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then 
 unto him, " AVhy doth he yet find fault; for who 
 hath resisted his will '?" This is the objection 
 my opponent raises to God's plan, and it has 
 been the objection of the carnal mind in every 
 age. Mark the Apostle's rej^ly : "Nay, but, 
 man, who art thou that repliest against God ? 
 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 
 it, Why hast thou made me thus ? Hath not 
 the potter power over the clay, of the same 
 
 is 
 
tne: 
 
 160 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 y^,: 
 
 V'i ! 
 
 H 
 
 
 lumps to make one vessel unto honour, and an- 
 other unto dislionour? What if God, willing to 
 show his wrath, and to make his ])Ower known, 
 endured with much long suffering the vessels of 
 wrath fitted to d(>struction ; And that he might 
 make known the riches of his glory on the vessels 
 of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 
 even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews 
 only, hut also of the Gentiles ?" I have given my 
 int('rj)retations of tliese passages ; it remains for 
 my opponent to upset it if he can, for if one 
 passage stands, it carries the whole thing with it. 
 If the doctrine 1 have laid down be t^'ue, it carries 
 the whole of our controversy. For ii, as I con- 
 tend, the carrying out of God's eternal purpose 
 is that which brings salvation, how is it to be 
 carried out \^ God's ])o\ver must he exercised in 
 bringing it to pass, therefore I am right in my 
 views on election, I am right in saying there is a 
 Divine power exercised in the work of conversion. 
 Now with regard to the subject of Baptism. We be- 
 lieve that no person is a fit and proper subject 
 for Christian baptism, who has not previously 
 become n subject of the converting and saving 
 grace through the influence of the Holy 
 Sjiirit ; and that therefore baptism is in no 
 wav a regeneration, although it represents 
 gure the change effected by Divine 
 nor do we receive the remission of 
 sins througli l)aptism only in a figure. I will 
 give the disciples' views upon this subject, as 
 shown in jNIr. Campbell's writings. In his Chris- 
 tian system page 193 he says :—" Whatever the 
 act of faith may l)e it neccessarily becomes the 
 line of discrimination between the two states be- 
 fore described. On the one side they are pardon- 
 ed, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted and 
 saved ; on the other they are in a state of con- 
 
 .; 
 
 m a 
 grace 
 
 Irff . '-• 'i > 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 IGl 
 
 demnation. This act Is sometimes ealk'd im- 
 mersion, re^oiieratioii, coiiversioii." 
 
 Here we have the boundary line separatinj^- 
 those who are, and thosi^ who are not }nirdone(l, 
 justified, reconcik-d, adopted and saved, and this 
 boundary aecordinj^; to Mr. Campltell is not faith, 
 l)ut what he calls the act of faith, that is, innner- 
 sion ; and the immersion is, in the lan<;uage of 
 the Bethany reformation the same as conversion 
 or regeneration. This passage gives no uncertain 
 sound. If any man l)e not l)aptised, he is nei- 
 ther pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, 
 adopted, regenerated nor saved. 
 
 Then on page 203 : 
 
 "These expressions" (immersed, con"' jrted, 
 regenerated) " in the Apostles' style dene e the 
 same act." 
 
 According to this quotation, conversion, regen- 
 eration and immersion are one and the same 
 thing. 
 
 And on page '200 : 
 
 '■ For if immersion be equivalent to regenera- 
 tion, and regeneration be of the same im})ort 
 with being born again, then being born again 
 and being immersed are the same thing." 
 
 The meaning here cannot be mistaken. The 
 new birth and baptism are one and the same 
 according to the "ancient Gospel." This looks 
 to me like "another Gospel which is not an- 
 other." 
 
 Page 202 of the same book : 
 
 "The Holy Spirit calls nothing personal regen- 
 eration except the act of immersion." 
 
 Here it is again. Nothing is personal regen- 
 eration but baptism ! 
 
 Then in the "Millennial Harbinger," Vol. I., 
 page 136 : 
 
 " The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless 
 
 It: 
 
 ::i^' 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 ■ j 
 
fm r 
 
 «ae« 
 
 SSSB 
 
 SkBS^^k!^ 
 
 I' 
 It 
 
 H^ 
 
 iS*. 
 
 I' i."i 
 
 
 ■«-:f!. 
 
 r-i'^-H-; 
 
 162 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 babe never moved it one inch in the way to 
 Heaven, and never did change its heart, charac- 
 ter, or relation to God and the Kinrrdom of 
 •Heaven. But not so a believer immersed as a 
 vohmteer in obedience of the Gosix-l. He has 
 put on Christ." 
 
 The act of "faith," or baptism, according to 
 Mr. Campbell can change the heart and charac- 
 ter of a man, and that without the Spirit i)f 
 God ; for, according to him, the Spirit of God 
 never operates on a man's heart in conversion." 
 
 ''Christian System," page 233 : 
 
 *' There are three births, three kingdoms, and 
 three salvations ; one from the Avoml), one from 
 the water, and one from the grave. We enter a 
 new world on, and not before each birth : the 
 present animal life at the first birth ; the spiri- 
 tual, or the life of God in our souls, at the second 
 l)irth ; and the life eternal in the presence of 
 God at the third birth. And he who dreams of 
 entering the second kingdom, or coming under 
 the dominion of Jesus without the second ])irth, 
 niny, to complete his error, dream of entering 
 the kingdom of glory without a resurrection from 
 the dead." 
 
 According to this passage, ba|)tism is the 
 secvmd birth ; and without this birth or baptism 
 it is as vain to expect " spiritual life, or the life 
 of God in the soul," as it would be to expect an 
 entrance into the kingdom of glory without a 
 resurrection from the dead ! 
 
 And " Christianity Restored,"" page 206 : 
 
 " Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God 
 impregnated by the Word, and born of the water. 
 In one sense, a person is born of his father, but 
 not until he is first born of his mother ; so in 
 every place where water and the Spirit, or water 
 and the Word, are spoken of, the ivater stands 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 163 
 
 first. Every child is born of its father when it 
 is born of its motlier. Heii'vC the Saviour put 
 the mother ih'st, and the aposth's foUow Him. 
 * * * * Now, as soon a,s, and not ])efore, a 
 disciple who has been be^jjotten of (rod is born of 
 water, he is born of God or of tii;' Spirit, llc- 
 (jeneratloii h, flierrforc, the '' ttcf of' hr'nif/ horn.'' 
 
 It was the; l)()ast of the Bethany reformation 
 that it was to restore to Christianity a pure 
 speech. To use this (piotation, and a very large 
 portion of Mr. Campbell's teachings, do not ap- 
 pear to be in th<' pure dialect of Canaan. It 
 sounds more like the speech of Ashdod. This 
 fif^ment about the distinction of the hciictthin and 
 hirth I have already refuted, ])y showiuf;- that for 
 both the sauK; word (GeniKis) is employed in the 
 original. 
 
 And in the " Debate with Eice," page />()() : 
 " The Apostles never supposes such a case as 
 is often before our minds— al)elieving unba]ttized 
 man. Such a being could not have been found 
 in the whole apostolic age." 
 
 Did not the Eunucli l)elieve before riiilii) 
 would baptize him ? See here is water, wiiat 
 doth hinder me to l)e baptized ? And Philip 
 said, "if though Ix-lievest with all thy heart thou 
 mayest." Acts, viii., 30, Sea. Did not the dying 
 thief believe, and that with the faith of God's 
 elect, although he never was l)aptized'? Did not 
 Cornelius and his household l)t'lieve and receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost l)efore Peter ordered 
 their ])aptism. The Ai)ostle said, " Can any 
 man forbid water that these should not be bap- 
 tized which have reciived the Holy Ghost as 
 well as we? " 
 
 " Christian Baptist," pages 41(1. 417 : 
 " Peter, to whom was committed the keys, 
 opened the Kingdom of Heaven in this manner, 
 
 
 <i 
 
 il^ 
 
 
 ftl ! 
 
 V ■ 
 
 3- 
 
1G4 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 ?•*■ 
 
 -sj)/ 
 
 1 ^' 
 
 i , 
 
 I* 
 
 and made repentance qv ref on nation nwiX Ininiersion 
 EQUALLY ucces.sai'fj to foni'icciu'.ss. * * When 
 a person is imniersod for tlic remission of sins 
 it is just tlio sanio as if exin'essod 'ni ordrr to 
 obtain the rcniis^ion of sins. * * I am bold, 
 tlierofore, to aflirni tliat every one of tlicni ^vllo, 
 in the belief of what the Apostles spalvc, was 
 immersed, did in the very instant in which he 
 was put under water, reeeive the forgiveness of 
 his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 This is plain speaking. Ptepentance or refor- 
 mation, and immersion, are equally necessary to 
 forgiveness. If there hv, no forgiveness without 
 immersion, of course there can be no salvation 
 without it. In the moment that the candidate 
 is put under the water, Jnit only then does lie 
 receive the pardon of his sins and tlie gift of the 
 Holy Ghost ! This is pretty strong doctrine for 
 a Pedobaptist. These are not the views held b}- 
 Mr. Campbell alone ; they are hcdd by the whole 
 body. Only the other evening in making arrange- 
 ments for this meeting they were avowed by a 
 Campbellite who is now present. 
 
 I will quote next from " Christianity Pie- 
 stored," page 198 : 
 
 "It is not faith, but an act resulting from 
 faith, which changes our state, we shall now 
 attempt to prove." 
 
 It would seem that the Apostle was wrong 
 when he taught the lloman Christians that "a 
 man is justified by faith without the deeds of 
 the law." Eom. 3. 28. Perhaps he had not 
 found the ancient Gospel discovered by Mr. 
 Campbell and the Bethany reformers. 
 
 "Christian Baptist," page 520 : 
 
 " I assert that there is but one action ordained 
 or commanded in the New Testament to wliich 
 God has promised or testified, that he will for- 
 
h1 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 165 
 
 give our sins. This action is Cbristiiin immer- 
 sion." 
 
 That is, God lias given no promise nor held 
 out any jjjround of Iiope of salvation to any 
 nnl)aptized man. Tliis is plain talking. 
 
 "C'liristi:ui System," pag(^ 233 : 
 
 "Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, inno- 
 cent Pagans, wherever they can l)e found, with 
 all pious P(edo])aptists, we commend to the mercy 
 oi' God." 
 
 Here, my I'u'dohaptist brethren, are some 
 crumbs of consolation for you frcmi the Camp- 
 beJlites' table. You may come in for your share 
 of the inicovenanted mercv of God with "itdants, 
 idiots, deaf and dunil) persons, and innocent 
 Pagans wherever they can be found." It seems 
 that you ought to be devoutly thankful for small 
 mercies. There is, however, no uncertain sound 
 here. There is no salvation accordnig to l\[r. 
 Cam2)bell, for the unbaptized, h(jwever pious, 
 unless it be in the unconvenanted mercies of 
 God. We have not a scrap of evidence, however, 
 in the Word of God, tliat he will ever save a sin- 
 gle soul l)ut according to his revealed plan. 
 
 " Chistian Baptist," vol. vi, page 1(30: 
 
 " If men are conscious that their sins ai'e for- 
 given, and that they are pardoned before they are 
 immersed, 1 advise them not to go into the water, 
 for they have no need of it." 
 
 Are we. then, to do nothing for God but what 
 is essential to salvation ? If not essential to 
 salvation may the thing not be essential to loving 
 obedience ? Is it not enough for vxcvy child of 
 God to know^ that the Heavenly Father has com- 
 manded it '? Cornelius was a saved man before 
 his baptism. His prayers and almsdeeds were 
 accepted; but "without faith it is impossible to 
 please God." He had, moreover, received the 
 
 ' II 
 
 i 
 
 >, 
 
 'f-- " 
 
 !i' f 
 
 ''% 
 
 i|. 
 
166 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Hi. 
 
 1 ' 
 
 ;'l 
 
 pjift of the Holy Ghost hcforo Peter had ordercnl 
 his haptiBiii. ls\i'. Cani[)bc'll Avould have advised 
 the ceiitnriaii and his pious fri«>nds '" not to ^o 
 into the \vater, for they li;i,d no in'cd of it." 
 
 Let us now sec what Mr. Franklin lias to say 
 upon this sul)je('t: Sermon 1, pages 88 and 80. 
 
 " Peter says 1 Peter iii. *il. J>aptis)n (h)th also 
 now save us. TJiis is ii, <j;('ni'ral statement, not 
 of a special few l)ut o^ all .sdrcdor jiisti/icd. They 
 are saved by baptism. It is present in tln^ justi- 
 fieation of every person. It is never omitted." 
 
 This is a very sweeping assertion, .ill who 
 are saved and justilied are l)aptize'd. In tliecase 
 of the saved tiiis ordinanec; " is never omitted." 
 This is plain enough. On the meaning of the 
 passage here (pioled 1 shall s]teiik when I come 
 to examine the Scripture evidence. My ol)ject 
 at present is only to show what the Disci])les' 
 doctrine really is. T'here is no doubt about the 
 meaning of this. It is honest at all events. 
 Then in Sermon iv., page 90. 
 
 "Do they say that persons may be i)ardoned, 
 and the Lord receive them without baptism ? 
 Then they differ from the Lord and require some- 
 thing more than the Lord does before they will 
 receive them. But who is received of the Lord ? 
 Every justified or pardoned person. His terms 
 of justirication or remission of sins are precisely 
 the same as his terms of admission into his body 
 or kingdom. He receives into his kingdom every 
 justified person and no other." 
 
 This also is plain (^nough. It is simply this : 
 There is neither pardon nor justification without 
 baptism ; and Christ w ill receive none but the 
 pardoned and justilied. Therefore there is no 
 salvation w^ithout baptism. 
 
 And in the same Sermon page 95 : 
 
 " Baptism performs no such part as this at all, 
 
 £ I 
 
vm 
 
 all, 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 1G7 
 
 produces no change in the heart or life ; but 
 changes the relation, initiates the man previously 
 changed in heart and life into a new state or re- 
 lation, into the body of Clirist. It transfers the 
 man into a new state or relation. In tliis new 
 state he comes to the blood of Christ whicli per- 
 forms another ])art of the work, without which 
 he would be lost. It takes away his sin, cleanses 
 or washes him from the guilt of sin. The Holy 
 Spirit, his advocate in the Church announces 
 him justilied." 
 
 Here, then, . baptism does not change the 
 heart ; that takes place previously. A man is 
 changed in heart and life, yet because* he is not 
 baptized he has no access to the blood of Christ, 
 no partlou or justification. Surely this is a 
 strange doctrine, that a man is changed in heart 
 and life before baptism, yet has no access to the 
 l)lood of Christ, no share in the justification 
 which comes by faith. A man changed in heart 
 and life, and yet lost ? 
 
 Then in Sermon VI, page 149 : 
 
 *' There will be no difficulty in seeing that the 
 remission of sins and sins blotted out amount to 
 the same. But some will be troubled to see how 
 ' be immersed ' and ' l)e converted ' or ' turn ' 
 amount to the same ; yet this is the case." 
 
 Then Sermon XII, page 29*2 : 
 
 " The sum of it is then that the Lord taught 
 by the figurative expression, ' Except a man l)e 
 born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter 
 the kingdom of Cxod.' The same he did aftisr- 
 wards literally in the words, ' He who believes 
 and is immersed shall be saved,' — or except a 
 man shall believe and be immersed he cannot 
 be saved." 
 
 That is, no salvation without baptism. You 
 now know exactly where they stand upon this 
 
 U; 
 
mn 
 
 168 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 If'- »!■ 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 
 ji ; 
 
 f! I 
 
 m* '\ 
 
 'i;^:llci I 
 
 i' mi 
 
 subject. Lot us now proceed to find how these 
 views imd iiitcrprctiitions tally with the Word of 
 God: John 1, 12, "lint as many as received 
 Him to tlann ^^'avc Ih' power to become the sons 
 of God." Here, yon sec, there is salvation to 
 those that believe, and I think we are safe in 
 calling a believer a saved man; but, ac(;()rding 
 to their views, he is rioi a saved mini thouj^h he 
 is a believer until he is btipti/ed. 1 John, 2, 
 29: " If ye know that he is ri,tj;hteous, ye know 
 that every one that doeth righteousness is born 
 of TTim." You observe; there is n different birth 
 from the birth of liajitism ; he is l)orn again if he 
 is a righteous man, if his heart is changed. But 
 the Disciples say he has no access to the Idood 
 of Christ unl(»ss he is biiptized. 
 
 1 John, 1, 0: " If we confess our sins, he is 
 faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
 cleai]se us from nil unrighteousness." 1 John' 
 4, 7 : " Beloved, let us love one another, for love 
 is of God ; and every one that loveth is born of 
 God and knoweth God." Here, you see, if we 
 love God it is a proof that we have received His 
 Truth in its love and power. The promise is 
 inseparable from love of God and faith in Him ; 
 it is not inseparable from baptism. 1 John, 5, 
 1: ''Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
 Christ is born of God ; and so every one that 
 loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that 
 is begotten of Him." Take the case of the 
 dying thief. He was not baptized ; he appear- 
 ed on the cross a. hardened criminal, but when 
 he expressed his belief in the Saviour, Christ 
 said, " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." 
 He was saved, justified, sanctified and admitted 
 to Paradise, yet he was not baptized. Either the 
 Saviour's promise that the thief should be with 
 him in Paradise was not fulfilled, or, if the Camp- 
 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 169 
 
 ' r« 
 
 bellite doctrine be true, an unsaved and uncon- 
 verted, unpardoned, unjustified man was admitted 
 to Heaven. James i, 18 : — Of his own will begat 
 he us of the word of Truth, that we sliould be a 
 kind of first fruits of his creatures." Titus iii, 5 : 
 " Not by works of righteousness which we have 
 done, l)ut according to his mercy he saved us, by 
 the washings of regeneration and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." This is one of the favourite pas- 
 sages witli the Disciples. The question is what 
 is meant by the washing of regeneration and the 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost ? We contend that 
 the washing refers to the cleansing of the soul 
 from sin by the influence of the Holy Spirit lead- 
 ing the sinner to the l)lood of Christ and to the 
 fountain opened for sin and uncleanliness. But 
 if it means, according to their view, simple bap- 
 tism, then all I have to say is, it is directly oj)- 
 posed to all the teachings of the word of God 
 upon this subject ; but God's word cannot con- 
 tradict itself. It is consistent. Truth is one. 
 
 I ! 
 
 
 in, 5, 
 
 :iH 
 
 8 
 
11 IT; 
 
 BE PLY. 
 
 
 If? 
 
 
 i 
 
 ;■ i 
 
 Friday. Sept. 11th, 2.30 /)j//. 
 
 MR. Sweeney's EiaiiTn hei'Ly. 
 
 Mr. Sweeney. — My opponent says that f must 
 examine every text he adduces and show that it 
 docs not mean wliat he chiims it (h)es, or I shall 
 be defeated in the discussion. Well, really, I 
 hadn't understood the matter just that way be- 
 fore. I think h(! started out to prove that my 
 brethren are v/rong on tlie question of spiritual 
 influence in conversi(m, in that we deny that 
 *' the Spirit operati'S innnediately upon tlie sin- 
 ner's heart." He undertook to shov; that we are 
 thus "wrong l)y proving that the Spirit docH so 
 operate. Now, I submit that when lie adduces a 
 passage to prove; tliis doctrine, he must show that 
 it does it instead of calling upon me to show that 
 it does not. Suppose my friend were to go into 
 court as ])laintift" in a cause, and were to call in 
 a dozen witnesses, and then claim that the jury 
 must find for him unless the defendant should 
 show that the witnesses do not prove what plain- 
 tiff introduced them for ! What would the court 
 think ? Would not plaintiff be required to show 
 that the witnessas do prove what he had l)rought 
 them forward to prove '? He has been trying in 
 his last two or three speeches to prove the doc- 
 trine of unconditional election to salvation, and 
 reprobation to damnation ; but he has intro- 
 duced no Scripture that, fairly interpreted, comes 
 within a thousand miles of it. This I showed 
 in my last speech, I think. Did he show that- 
 the elections spoken of in the passages he 
 
li'l 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 171 
 
 adduced wow to porsonal sMlvation. or otortial 
 lilV ? Wliiit (lid lie do with flic case of Jacob? 
 l>i(l !n' sliow tliiit he was elected to eternal life, 
 and that Ksau was reprol)!it(>d to eternal damna- 
 tion ? Can h(^ doit? I think not. He says 
 that if Jacob's eUetion was only to temporal 
 blessin<^s — which he doubts -that tlu- principle 
 is the same, l^iut he did not show that Jacob 
 was unconditionally elected even to any temporal 
 blessin;j;s. Jacob's unconditional election was as 
 much for my happiness and salvation as for his 
 own. vVs to personal salvation and eternal life, 
 Jacob and Esau will have to meet at the judp;- 
 ment where every man will ho. rewarded accord- 
 ing <'is his works shall have ])een. 
 
 As the }j;entleman se(>med to rely very confi- 
 dently upon the passage in the lirst chapter of 
 Ephesians, I will notice that brieily. Take your 
 Bibles at leisure, my friends, and begin at the 
 first of the chapter and read to the llJth verse; 
 and you will lind that before you come to the 
 18th verse, the Apostle speaks of the choosing 
 and predestination, using the; ])ronouns of the 
 
 first person, "we 
 
 and " us." 
 
 Then at the 
 
 13th verse he addresses tlie Ephesian Christians 
 directly, using the 2)ronoun of the second person, 
 thus — " In whom i/c also trusted, after that ije 
 heard the word of Truth, the Gospel of your 
 salvation ; in \vl>.oni also after that ye believed, 
 j/e Avere scaled with that Holy Spirit of promise." 
 Now this change from the first person to the 
 second, and tiien the manner in which the 
 Apostle speaks of the salvation of the Ephesian 
 Christians shows quite conclusively that ho Avas 
 not speaking of election and i)redestination 
 merely to personal salvation in the former part 
 of the chapter ; and that quite upsets the gen- 
 tleman's interpretation of the passage. Possibly 
 
 i* !. 
 
 I i 
 
 l"«; 
 
\i" 
 
 i 
 
 172 
 
 DEliATE. 
 
 IH ;■ 
 
 i Uf- 
 
 the "we " and **iis" in tho former part of this 
 chapter incJudct only tho Apostles and their pre- 
 destination tr) the Apostleship, is particularly 
 emphasized lit r(\ They filled their place in the 
 scheme, which looked to tin; world as much as to 
 them. 
 
 My friend (pioted other Scriptures that he sup- 
 poses teach his doctrine. 1 rememher, now, a 
 passable, and it is often used by Calvinists : "It 
 is not of him that willeth, nor of him that run- 
 neth, hut of God that showeth mercy." — liom. 
 ix. 10. HIkU, I ask, "is not of him that 
 wilh^th?" Personal salvation? Eternal life? 
 I deny it. I think, if I had the time, and it 
 were necessary, I could show by an analy.sis of 
 the Apostle's argument in this portion of the 
 Eoman letter, that he was arguing ar/<i}n.sf a sort 
 of Jewish Calvinism, and vindicating the justice 
 of God in oiTering mercy to the Gentiles who 
 were considered the non-elect, as well as to the 
 Jews, who were considered the elect people of 
 God. But such a work is not logically required, 
 and will not be expected of me in a discussion of 
 this kind. It is not quite suflticient for the Pro- 
 fessor to simply read such passages of Scripture 
 as have long been used by some persons as he 
 uses them, and then claim that I must show 
 that they do not teach what he supposes they 
 do. When he introduces a passage, for instance, 
 to prove his doctrine of election, he must show 
 that it teaches it. It will not answer for him to 
 read a passage that simply teaches election, or 
 one that teaches unconditional election. No, 
 no ! He must find one that teaches uncondi- 
 tional election to personal, or individual, salva- 
 tion, or eternal life. This he will not be able to 
 do. I call for the passage. One will do me. 
 Let him point it out, and I promise to give it 
 respectful attention. 
 
 i^ 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 173 
 
 The ^'ontlcinaii coincs to htijttiHtii. He tells us 
 iirst what ho hcliovrs and what lu' doesn't believe 
 ahout it, vci'V hrielly, and thru piocccds to <j(ive 
 you tlic l)is(*i[»I(''s view, us he linds it in the 
 M'ritin^^s of Mi\ Cainphell, and of some of his co- 
 adjutors. 
 
 1 should ]ike it if he would produce tin; hooks 
 he reads from ; not that 1 now (jucstion the cor- 
 rectness of any of his quotations ; hut 1 should 
 like to have tlu'm for cross examination. Per- 
 haps I ]night he able to explain sonu' of tlu! 
 scraps he has <fiven us, by readin,'^ them in their 
 proper connection. Great injustice may ])e done 
 to an author witliout misquotinj.;; him. You know 
 the old illustration from Scrii)lure : " Judas 
 went and han|.^ed himself. Go thou likewise ; 
 now is the accepted time." Now, I mirjht ajiply 
 this to my opponent, and claim to have proved 
 that he ouglit to go right now and hang himself. 
 But you would say my scripture is made of 
 scraps, and misreijresents the Bible. So it does. 
 And so Mr. Campbell has been misrepresented, 
 time and again, aiid time out of mind. It 
 seemed to me that it was the Professor's purpose 
 in his last si^eech, when he came to baptism to 
 make the impression that Mr. Campbell taught 
 that baptism is regeneration ; that the two things 
 are exactly equivalent. Also that baptism is 
 conversion. This was the impression doubtless 
 that some of you received. I will, therefore, 
 read an extract or two from Mr. Cam]>bell that 
 will throw some light upon the matter. In his 
 " Christian System,'' page 273, and speaking of 
 Rt'fienemtion, he says, "Regeneration literally 
 indicates the whole process of renovating or new- 
 creating man. This process may consist of 
 numerous distinct acts ; but also in accordance 
 with general usage to give to the beginning, or 
 
 
 •llf 
 
 i'PI 
 
liri T^JS™ 
 
 m 
 
 174 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 \(i I: 
 
 f i. 
 
 r-^; 
 
 ' 
 
 i I 
 
 li! 
 
 f, } 
 
 consummating act, the name of the wlioh> pro- 
 cess. For the most part, however, the name of 
 the whole process is given to the consmn- 
 mating act, hecau.ie tlie process is always 
 supposed incomplete until that act is 
 performed." Then after giving some illus- 
 trations of the truth stated, he proceeds : 
 *'By Uhc hath of rcjirjicmtion' haptism is not 
 meant the first, second or third act ; but the 
 lant act of regeneration, and is, therefore, used to 
 denote the new birth." So Mr. Campbell, by 
 what he calls " a figure of speoch, justified on all 
 well established principles of riietoric," uses 
 baptism to express regeneration, or the new birth, 
 simply because it is the last act of the process. 
 He never taught that regeneration, s;) far as it is 
 an internal work, a moral change, a purification 
 of the heart, is accomplished by l)aptism, or in 
 baptism. • Far from it. Hear him on this point : 
 " All that is done in us l^efore regeneration [using 
 regeneration to express the eonsunnnatioul God 
 our Father affects ])y the Word, or the Gospel as 
 dictated and conlirmed by tlie Holy Spirit." 
 Christian S/istfrn, page 278. Tlu^n again on page 
 282, he expressly rebukes such as charge him 
 with " aiming at nothing but the mere immer- 
 sion of persons as alone necessary to the whole 
 process of conversion or regeneration, in their 
 acceptance of these words." 
 
 I read once more, page 288 : 
 
 " For, as oiitii before stated, our oj)ponents 
 deceive themselves, and their hearers, by repre- 
 senting us as ascribing to the word immersion, 
 and the act of immersion, all that tJici/ call 
 regeneration. While, therefore, we contend that 
 being born again, and being immersed, are, in 
 the Apostle's style, tw'o names for the same 
 action, we are far from supposing or teach'iig, 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 175 
 
 that in forming the new man tlierc is nothing 
 necessary hut to he horn.'' Tliis shall suffice. 
 Anything read from Mv. Camphell, in which he 
 uses the words regeneration, conversion, and 
 l)aptism, in some sort interchangahly, must l)e 
 interpreted in the light of his own explanations 
 that I have read you. To this every fair minded 
 person will agree. Mr. Camphell believed that 
 the ** whole process " of renewal, or conversion, 
 is essential to the enjoyment of remission of 
 sins. He believed that baptism is the '* last act 
 of that process;" and, therefore, that is for the 
 remission of sins. Hv did not l)elieve that it 
 in any sen^e procures remission, but that it is 
 a means of enjoyment of remission, i)rocured by 
 the death of Christ. It may not be amiss, and 
 as all love to do justice to the dead, I will read 
 a few lines from that great man upon tliis point, 
 also: "All the incnns oj sdlrntion are means of 
 enjoyment, not of proenrenunit. Birth itself is 
 not for procuring, but for enjoying the life pos- 
 sessed before the l)irth. So in the analogy— no 
 one is to be ba^jtizevl, or to be buried with Christ; 
 no one is to be put under the water of regenera- 
 tion for the purpose of proeurhuj life, but for the 
 purpose of enjoylny tlie life of which he is pos- 
 sessed." Chriiit'uoi System, page 277. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, as ai)pears from this reading, 
 did not believe thnt l)aptism does in any sense 
 procure pardon ; nor do my brethren. We 
 believe that as an act of faith, it is a means of 
 appropriation and enjoyment. Nor do we be- 
 lieve that it is even a means of appropriation 
 enjoyment in the very nature of things ; but it is 
 made so by divine appointment in the Gospel of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Now if the gentleman wishes to meet me more 
 fairly and squarely upon this position, I am 
 
 yn 
 
 M ii 
 
 Hi 
 
176 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 li *■ 
 
 m I! 
 
 ready for its defense. I hold that the enjoyment 
 of salvation is conditional ; that we appropriate 
 to ourselves and enjoy the salvation of the Gospel 
 ))y faith ; and that baptism is an act of faith for 
 the remission of sins ; that according to the 
 Gospel, and in the Gospel Scheme, it is the 
 ordained crjirrHsion of faith, and, therefore, the 
 place where faith takes hold of the promise of 
 remission. Just here I am reminded of the 
 Professor's little whim for pedo-haptist sympathy. 
 He says we turn all the honest and pious unim- 
 mersed [)ersons over to the uncovenanted mercies 
 of God; and then reminds them that a "half 
 loaf" is better than no bread at all. Well, if 
 it comes to " hrcdd," no bread is just what he 
 gives the unimmersed. He will give them fair 
 promises, but no hrcatL But I stand not here 
 angling for sympathy. I believe that baptism is 
 for the remission of sins, as I have defined the 
 matter, and am willing to be held respoiisible for 
 the position, and whatever legitimately flows out 
 of it. I want, before proceeding fartlier, to notice 
 my friend's speech, to make one matter a little 
 plainer. When I say baptism is for remission of 
 sins, I mean that that is the Gospel rule simply, 
 and that is all I mean. We have to do with the 
 Divine law in the case. How many cases pro- 
 perly fall into the Divine equity I don't pretend 
 to say, neither do 1 profess to practice in that 
 court. Now, to justify the distinction .1 here 
 make, I will read two or three distinguished 
 authoiities, Baptist and Bedo-ljaptist. Dr. John 
 Gale, that great English Baptist, in his Keflec- 
 tions on Walls History of Infant Baptism, says: 
 "Baptism, I grant, is of great necessity ; and 
 though I dare fix no limits to the infinite good- 
 ness and mercy of God, which I am confident He 
 will give mighty proofs in great instances of 
 
 1 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 177 
 
 kindness toward all sincere, though mistaken 
 men ; however, the Gospel rule is, aocordinp; to 
 the doctrine of the Apostle, to rrpcnt and he htp- 
 fised for the irmissirni of sins. We should he 
 very cautious, thc^refore, of making any change 
 of these things, lest we deprive ourselves, through 
 our presumption of that title to pardon, without 
 which there is no salvation." W(dl'i'' Histori/ of 
 Infant Bajitism, vol. iii, page 83. Dr. Wall 
 says: "If they fear from hence [/.^'. that John 
 iii., 5, refers to water haptism,' will follow a 
 ground of ahsolute despair for any new convert 
 for himself, and for any parent in respect of his 
 child dying before he can be baptised ; is it not 
 natural to admit of the same cpieikein a Greek 
 word meaning about what we m.ean by equity,^' 
 and allowance in these words, as we do, and 
 must do, in many other rules of Holy Scripture ? 
 Namely, to understand them thus, that this is 
 God's ordinani rule, or the ordinary condition of 
 salvation, but that in extraordinary cases, (where 
 his providence cuts off all opportunity of using 
 it,) he has also extraordinary mercy to save with- 
 out it." Ibid, vol. ii, page 187. 
 
 JoJtu JVesU'!/ said: "It is true, the Second 
 Adam has found a remedy for the disease which 
 came upon all by the offence of the first. But 
 the benefit of this is to be received through the 
 means which He hath appointed ; through bap- 
 tism in particular, which is the ordinary means 
 He hath appointed for that purpose ; and to 
 which Ha hath tied us, though he may not ha.ve 
 tied himself. Indeed,, where it cannot ])e had, 
 the case is different ; but extraordinary cases do 
 not make void a standimi nde.'" ^Treatise on Bap- 
 tism, c. vi., sec. 2. 
 
 I might read to the same purport from many 
 other distinguished authorities, but it would be 
 
 p' ' '.■ 
 
 fc-i I 
 
 m ;■ 
 
 V'\.. 
 
 Ii 1; ' 
 
 
m 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 If 
 
 IH 
 
 Ml 
 
 
 178 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 useless to do so. I think that ]\Ir. Campbell did 
 several times in his life give expression to the 
 same sentiment. I think our jicople generally 
 accord with these great men upon this point. I 
 do. We believe that bai)tism is for remission of 
 sins, as a rule, in the Gospel Scheme. If the 
 gentleman thinks we are in error here, let him 
 proceed to show it. Let him meet the question 
 squarely, however, and not go off hunting for 
 some exceptions to the rule. Does the Gospel 
 require believing ])enitent aliens to be baptised 
 for the remission of sins ? That's the question. 
 Is this the rule ? I should not tliink of discus- 
 sing any questions as to exceptions. That would 
 be puerile. The gentleman thinks it "a strange 
 thing " that persons should be changed in mind, 
 and heart, and will, and yet not pardoned,, as 
 some of my brethren have taught. Well, it 
 doesn't seem so very strange to me. Such a 
 thing is not at all shocking to reason, after all. 
 Suppose for illustration, tliat a number of the 
 subjects of the Queen in this Province were to 
 rebel against Her Majesty's Government, and 
 were to join its enemies in making war upon it, 
 and then suppose Her Majesty's Government 
 were to issue a proclamation to the effect that all 
 such as would lay down their arms, and return 
 to her realms, and there subscribe a certain oath 
 of loyalty, should be pardoned ; and then sup- 
 pose tliat some of said rebels undergo a change 
 of mind, heart, ;ind will, but have not yet sub- 
 scribed the required oath : Do they yet enjoy 
 pardon? Certainly not. Well, is there any- 
 thing remarkably "strange" about the case? 
 I think not. My friend looks even at this matter 
 with that " veil " over his mind. 
 
 Then my friend proceeded to quote certain 
 passages of Scripture to show that we are wrong. 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 179 
 
 Some few of them have a slight bearing upon 
 the question, and others have none whatever, 
 that I can see. I shall notice all such as in mv 
 judgment have any relevancy to the question; 
 others I shall certainly not conpnme time 
 even in reading over. 
 
 John i. 12. This passage simply says that 
 Jesus gave to such as believed on him the power, 
 or privilege, to become the sons of God. This I 
 believe, of course, as stoutly as my opponent 
 does. The passage does not say that- anybody 
 did, or that anybody can, become a child of God, 
 simply by believing, in the sense in which my 
 friend uses the word faith. No, no. It simply 
 teaches that the believer, of whatever nation- 
 ality or blood, has the power or the ]>rivilege of 
 becoming a child of God. 
 
 Now it is useless, as it appears to me, for Pro- 
 fessor Crawford to (piote such passages as predi- 
 cate justilicatioii, pardon, salvation, eternal life, 
 of faith, without naming anything ])ut faith. In 
 such passages faith is given as the i>rhiri})U's 
 upon ichich persons are justilied and saved ; but 
 it certainly never was intended by the speakers 
 or writers that their language should be used to 
 exclude everything but mere belief, as a convic- 
 tion, or a psycological condition. Surely not ! 
 For instance, when justification, or the new 
 birth, is predicated by faith — and both are — are 
 we to understand that it is by faith without 
 repentance , without confession, vrithout prayer — 
 without any sort of profession of faith ? Surely 
 not. Such a method of interpretation would 
 ruin the Bible ; and surely a "Professor of Bib- 
 lical Interpretation " ought to see it. 
 
 ** The thief on the cross. Tlie thief on the 
 cross. The thief on the cross. The gentleman 
 says he was not baptised, and yet he was saved. 
 
 ifr: 
 
 rill 
 
 

 Il I 
 
 180 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 h i: 
 
 ' 1 
 
 il 
 
 fi I 
 
 What of it ? Grant that he was nevei' haptised 
 — though he might have hoeii — grant that he 
 was saved — though he might not have been — 
 Then what? '' Therefore r Well, therefore 
 what ! Wh.y, therefore, Judas did not mean 
 what he said, when, after he had risen from the 
 dead, he wm\, ■ ' Go preach the Gospel to every 
 creature ; he that believes and is baptised shall 
 be saved." Why is that tliief on the cross 
 always and everywhere brought into the discus- 
 sion of this question'? I have discussed it a 
 good many times in a good many i)ortions of the 
 country with a good mnny men ; and I have yet 
 to discuss it with one without having "the thief 
 ©n the cross " brought in. I think if I were on 
 the other side of the question 1 would discuss it 
 once without naming the thief on the cross, for 
 the sake of orujinaUtij. Just for the novelty of 
 the thing. What bearing has the case upon the 
 question ? In the first place, the thief lived and 
 died before the Christian Dispensation began. 
 Nothing is clearer than this. And in the second 
 place, if he had lived and died in the Christian 
 Dispensation his case would not have fallen 
 under the rule, but under the head of exceptions. 
 Whenever, in a discussion as to a rule, you see 
 a party back out of the fight, and begin to hunt 
 up exceptions, you may pretty safely set him 
 down as consciously defeated. 
 
ADDKESB. 
 
 (prof. CRAWFOrtD's NINTH ADDRESS.) 
 
 Frhhii/, nth Sept., 3 o\'h)vk, P.M. 
 
 Prof, ('nurjord. — Mr. Sweeney says that I have 
 quoted a luiniber of passages of Scripture to 
 prove tlie doctrine of the Divine Decrees or Elec- 
 tion, and that he flatly denies that they contain 
 such views as I have drawn from them. He 
 says, therefore, that he has little to do with 
 them, and nothing to prove regarding them. I 
 did quote a numl)er of passages, and I gave them 
 the only interpretation of which their language 
 will admit, and it is now his duty to show that 
 interpretation to he wrong. It's all very well for 
 him to deny an interpretation flatly ; it is an 
 entirely different thing to disprove it. It is his 
 place, I maintain fully, to confute my interpreta- 
 tion, for if one of these passages stands micon- 
 futed the doctrine for which I contend to prove. 
 Nor do I ask him to do anything here which I 
 will not do myself, for I shall follow the rule of 
 not flatly denying any interpretation which he 
 may put upon certain passages, without produc- 
 ing the proof. 
 
 He has brought forth a number of passages to 
 prove that we are saved in baptism, and I shall 
 proceed to prove that this interpretation of these 
 passages is wrong ; but in return I hope he will 
 bring forward his disproofs of my interpretation 
 of God's Word in relation to election. Let him 
 take up one text after another, and show wherein 
 I have misinterpreted them, for as I observed 
 before, if but one of these passages stands un- 
 
 
 ^t^ 
 
BSaESfesdSBOssaai 
 
 
 182 
 
 DEPATE. 
 
 
 
 ';;j.5 
 
 ■1 
 
 ' II 
 
 ih 
 
 J 
 
 ji 
 III 
 
 
 I 
 
 I,! I: 
 
 confuted my side of the question is established. 
 Moreover, if I have established the doctrine of 
 the Divine decrees, I have proved the necessity 
 of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the 
 \vork l)oth of repjonoration and sanctification. 
 If there be a Divine decree to ho executed, its 
 execution cannot Ix; left to mere human contin- 
 gency ; l)ut must b(^ accomplished by Divine 
 power. If I thought at first of omitting the 
 discussion of this question, it was simpl}' on the 
 ground that most of those present, who in the 
 main sym[)athise with me in this discussion, do 
 not agree with me on this doctrine ; and I thought 
 I would conduct the debate without entering upon 
 its discussion. But this doctrine bears with 
 great weight upon our controversy concerning 
 the necessity of the Holy Si^irit's operation in 
 the work of conversion. In fact the two doc- 
 trines stand or fall togetlier • and now that this 
 ])oint has been introduced, my opponent cannot 
 excuse himself from fairly grappling witli it. If 
 he fails here he has virtually given up the con- 
 troversy concerning the Spirit's operation. 
 
 In referring to one of the passages which I 
 quoted, he seems to have misunderstood my argu- 
 ment, and he endeavoured to impress upon the 
 congregation a version of my remarks which is 
 far from correct. I refer to John, i, 12 : " But 
 as many as received Him, to them gave He the 
 power to become the sons of God, even to them 
 that believe on his name." Here he says they 
 have the power or "privilege" (for I have no 
 objection to accept his translation of it) to be- 
 come the sons of God. That is, as I understand 
 it, by believing the}' have this privilege, irithoiit 
 baptism. That was my argument, and what 1 
 wish him to consider, instead of putting argu- 
 ments into my mouth which I never used. It is 
 
 i 
 
 )l! 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 183 
 
 i 
 
 his place to show, if ho can, that wo havo not 
 the privilege of boconiinjj; the sons of God unloHS 
 we are baptized, or that we are not regenerated 
 until we rocoive that ordinance. 
 
 He refers also to I. John, 1, 7 : " Jjoloved, let 
 us love one another ; for love is of (lod ; and 
 every one that lovetli is born of (iod, and know- 
 eth God." My opponent uses tlu' argumont that 
 we can all love. But can all love in the sonse in 
 which the word is used in the passage '? If all 
 can, then all are believers and ])orn of God? He 
 must take the real meaning of the passage, or 
 his argument is of no value. Love, as I under- 
 stand its meaning in the i)assage, springs from a 
 right perception of God's character, for he who 
 thus loves " knoweth God." When we havo his 
 image impressed upon our hearts, w'o pass from 
 death unto life. If we can all love in this way, 
 then are w'e all born of God, according to this 
 text, and that even before baptism. 
 
 My opponent gives a little twit upon the mat- 
 ter of close communion. But does not he as well 
 as myself hold close communion ? Does he re- 
 ceive unbaptiscd persons to the Lord's Supper ? 
 He does not, therefore he should not twit me 
 about the matter. We think that according to 
 the right construction of Christ's command, no 
 one should be received to the Lord's Supper wlio 
 has not submitted to the ordinances of baptism, 
 but we don't say as my opponent that there can 
 be no salvation without baptism. AVe are not 
 alone in holding this view ; almost all the leading 
 Protestant denominations do the very same thing, 
 although they differ from us in regard to wnat 
 baptism is. 
 
 He takes up the question of the dying thief — 
 rather a stiff one for the Disciples to get over — 
 and we are told, forsooth, that the thief was 
 
 [i 
 
 r l^i 
 
I'' 
 
 V^VWHIIcSwwiwwSJJ 
 
 u 
 
 184 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Ilij 
 
 ! 
 
 t 
 
 '1 
 
 m 
 
 ^ii' 
 
 savod without bnl)tism hccauHe it was before the 
 coniMiiind to l)}iptize was pfiven. Was it l)efore 
 th(! time our Lord liad said to Nicodemus that 
 unless ii, num l)e horn of water and of the Spirit, 
 he sliould not enter into the kinfj;(h)m of God. 
 And was not 'haptisni instituted l)y the Ijord him- 
 self before the; commission. That eonfcrerice 
 with Nieodemus took phice long before the death 
 on the cross. 
 
 My opponent says baptism by water is indis- 
 pensably necessary to salvation. I wouhl like 
 him to exphiin how, if baptism is 'tn(}\^)cnHablii 
 nccvHSdrij to salvation, how or why the dying 
 thief was saved icithoiit this baptism '? He must, 
 to argue consistently, either say the thief was 
 not srved or give up his interpretation of the 
 Gospel on the subject. 
 
 He says that 1 have charged ^Ir. Campbell 
 v.ith teaching l»aptismal regeneration. I did not 
 do so ; for 1 know Mr. C!am]tl)eirs doctrines bet- 
 ter than that. ]\[r. Campbell does not sav we 
 are regenerated by baptism, but he says baptism 
 in regeneration ; that's the difference. Listen to 
 his own words on this subject : " Christian Sy- 
 stem," ])age 19;-^ — " This act is sometimes called 
 immersion, regeneration, conversion." Page 203 : 
 " These expressions (immersed, converted, regen- 
 erated) in the apostle's style, denote the same 
 act." Page 200 : " For if immersion be equival- 
 ent to regeneration, be of the same import with 
 l)eing l)orn again, then being born again and 
 being immersed are the same thing." Page 202 : 
 " The Holy Spirit calls nothing personal regen- 
 eration excejit the act of immersion." Now, I 
 hardly know which is the most unscriptural 
 baptismal regeneration, or to teach that baptism 
 and regeneration are one and the same thing. 
 Can we take any other meaning than the one I 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 185 
 
 
 have f:;iv('ii from these words ? W*' are Ixxiiul to 
 take his words as they stand ; I know that lie 
 speaks inconsistently witli liis own views as given 
 in other phices, hut 1 say the whoK) system is a 
 contradiction from hcf^inning to end. But the 
 ([notations 1 have j^iven sliow that I htive matle 
 no false char^^'cs against ]\[r. Cam[)hell. 
 
 My opponent also accuses me of ;j;arl)lin«j; 
 quotations from Mr. Caniphell's works. He says 
 I do it on the samt? princi[)le as he proved that 
 this audience oujj;ht to fj;6 and hang themselves, 
 viz., hy ([noting "Judas went out and hanged 
 himself," and then " (to thou and do likewise ! " 
 I would ap[)eal to the audience if 1 hiive ([uoted 
 unfairly from Camithell's works, or garl>h'd his 
 remarks. I have given tlie name of the hooks and 
 the page on whicli my quotations are to he found. 
 Nor have I quoted mere detached clauses and 
 parts of sentences, hut whole sentences and 
 paragra])hs, in which theri' can l)e no mistake 
 ahont his meaning. And why does my opponent 
 complain, or charge me with garhling the quota- 
 tions, when he himself defends these very views 
 as taught hy Mr. Camphell \> If I have garhled 
 these quotations it's a very easy matter to prove 
 it, and that's what my opponent should do hefore 
 he makes such a charge. 
 
 He then gives a quotati(jn from Dr. Gale, and 
 tries to make it appear that the Doctor teaches 
 the same as Mr. Camphell ahout the necessity of 
 haptism. Dr. Gale says : " Bai)tism, I grant is 
 of great necessity ; and though I dare fix no 
 limits to the inlinite goodness and mercy of God, 
 whicli I am contident he will give might}^ prcofs 
 of, in great instances of kindness towards all sin- 
 cere, though mistaken men ; however the Gospel 
 rule is, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, 
 to repent, and be }>aptised. for the remission of sins. 
 
 I i 
 
.•iu 
 
 ^-^> 
 
 ,n,.. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 LI 
 
 1.25 
 
 If: ilM 
 
 t 1^ 
 
 M 
 
 "2.2 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 mil 1.6 
 
 % 
 
 <? 
 
 /} 
 
 / 
 
 O^M 
 
 <?>4 
 
 m,. 
 
 
 0^ V^ 
 
 -s^\>y 
 
 
 
 
 7W 
 
 /A 
 
^" 
 
 
186 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 N 
 } 
 
 ll-j! 
 
 li ', 
 
 We should be very cautious, therefore, of making 
 any change in these things, lest we deprive our- 
 selves, through our presumption, of that title to 
 pardon, without which there is no salvation." 
 Here vou see the whole amount of this 
 quotation is that God requires us to be bap- 
 tized ; it is His rule and He requires it if w^ 
 would be fully obedient to that rule. We, 
 as Baptists, believe that, but we don't think 
 that no man can be saved without it. We 
 say that a man can be savingly converted with- 
 out observing this ordinance ; that God over- 
 looks the omission. 
 
 Now I say that every disobedience to God's 
 commands endangers our salvation. I say it is 
 no trifling thing to omit obedience to any ordin- 
 ance or command that Christ has given. That 
 is just what this v/riter says, and he puts it 
 strongly. But the view my friend wants to force 
 upon us is not legitimately in the passage. It is 
 not believed by respectable Baptist authors, and 
 though he may pick out some who hold it, or 
 who have employed an unguarded expression, it 
 is not believed by the denomination. But even 
 if Ihe writer did believe in that view, that 
 is not the question. I am not bound, nor 
 is the Baptist denomination bound to de- 
 fend, any extra vagrant or inconsistent ex- 
 pression which may perchance be discovered 
 in the works of Dr. Gale, or any other writer. 
 The Baptists as a body repudiate such a doc- 
 trine as no salvation without baptism, whereas 
 Mr. Campbell and his followers distinctly teach 
 it. Does not my opponent as well as Mr. Camp- 
 bell and Mr. Franklin take this ground? Does not 
 Mr. Campbell tell us plainly in the *' Chris- 
 tian Baptist," page 416, that the apostle Peter 
 to whom was committed the keys of the kingdom 
 
i 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 187 
 
 of Heaven, has " made repentance or reformation, 
 and immersion e(jiiaUy necessary to forgiveness "? 
 Again as he not said on page 5'2(), " That there 
 is but one action ordained or commanded in the 
 New Testament to which God has promised, or 
 testified, that ho will forgive om* sins. This act- 
 ion is Christian immersion.'' ^h\ Franklin is' 
 equally exi^licit. " They are saved by baptism " 
 says he. It in prcaent hi tlic jii^fijicatlon of r/vr// 
 2>crson. It is never omitted. Sermon iv. p. 81). 
 And in his 12th Sermon p. 29*2 does he not inter- 
 pret the comnlission to be tantamount to, " e.^- 
 cept a man shall believe, and he immersed he 
 eannot he sdved "? Very evidently the teaching 
 of the Campbellites is that we cannot be convert- 
 ed, justified or saved without baptism, and that 
 is the point upon v/hich v/e take issue with them . 
 We say that if a, man believes on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, he shall be saved. 
 
 Let us now consider some passages of scripture 
 bearing on this point. I may state that 1 am 
 glad my opponent has gone before me over this 
 ground, for, on the other points in dispute he 
 had the advantage of me in that respect. We 
 now see exactly what he teaches, aixl I know ex- 
 actly what I have to rebut. I shall first go on 
 to give proof for our doctrine, namely, that we 
 are justified by faith. John iii. 18: "He that 
 ))elieveth on him is not condemned, but he that 
 believth not is condemned already, because he 
 h[ith not believed in the name of the only begot- 
 ton Son of God." Now I ask if salvation is not 
 here promised by faith : "he that l)elievetli in him 
 is not condemned," therefore we say if we believe 
 in him even if we should not be baptized we are 
 saved. Acts 10 : 43 : " To Him give all the pro- 
 phets witness, that through His name whosoever 
 believeth on Him, shall receive remission of 
 
 Ift '■ , i: ' 
 
 M 
 
 1 1- 
 
 .1* 
 
 ■ i' 
 
 i%\ 
 
188 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Hi! 
 
 till 
 
 l« ! 
 
 sins." llfTo you observe remission of sins is 
 promised through his name, to all who believe 
 on him. But my oi^ponent says that a man's 
 sins are not ixsmitted until he is baptized. He 
 says that Baptism is implied in faith, just as 
 lo^e, repentance, and other virtues are included 
 in faith. But there is a vast difference. Love 
 and other virtues are luaeparnJ)!}! counecied with 
 faith, there can be no true faith without them ; 
 they arc so spoken of in various passap-es in 
 Scripture. But I say that Baptism, being an 
 external ordinance, and not in itseff a Chrisitan 
 grace or virtue, is not c^fioitiall}/ connected with 
 faith. It is his part to show that baptism is 
 inscparaJdii connectiul with, and included in faith, 
 else I have gained the point. This is the very 
 point which he has to establish. Acts 13 : 88, 
 39 : "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and 
 brethren, that through this man is preached unto 
 you the forgiveness of sins ; and by him all that 
 believe are justilied from all things from which 
 ye could not be justilied by the law of ]\[oses." 
 Here the proQiise is made to Faith. Romans 4: 
 2 : " For if Abraham were justified by works he 
 hath wherof to glory. But not before God. For 
 what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, 
 and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 
 Now to him thai worketh is the reward not 
 reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that 
 worketh not, but believeth on Him that justilied 
 the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous- 
 ness." You see, " his faith is counted for righte- 
 ousness ;" there is not a word of baptism. Gal. 
 v., 6 : "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision 
 availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; but faith 
 which worketh by love." It is not works ; not 
 bai)tism, but "faith which worketh by love." 
 Bom. iii, 28. " Therefore, we conclude that a 
 
1 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 180 
 
 man is justified by faith wit) lOut the deeds of the 
 law." Surely if l)aptisni were essentially neces- 
 sary it would have bc^en mentioned, luit the 
 Apostle tells us that " a man is justiCfed by faith 
 without the deeds of tlu! law." Acts xvi., 30, 
 81, "And brouji^ht tli(>m out, and said, 'Sirs, 
 what must I do to be saved '?' And they said, 
 ' Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
 shalt be saved, and thy house.' " They are not 
 told that they cannot l)e saved unk^ss they are 
 baptized. "Believe, and tbou shalt be saved." 
 John iii., li, 15, l(i, " And as Moses lifted up the 
 Sv'rpent in the wilderness, ev n so must the son 
 of num be lifted up ; that whosoever ))elieveth in 
 Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 
 For God so loved the world, that He p;ave His 
 only begotten Son, that whosoever Ixdieveth on 
 Him should not perish but have everlastintf life." 
 Just as the simple looking at the brazen serpent 
 in faith saved the Israelites, so he that looks in 
 faith upon the Saviour, is saved by that look. 
 John vi., 47, " Verily, verily I say unto you, he 
 that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." He 
 does not say that after he is baptized lie shall 
 have everlasting life, but "he that believeth on 
 Me liatJi everlasting life." I might quote a great 
 many other passages to prove this point, but I 
 think those which I have given make it suffi- 
 ciently clear. 
 
 Let us now consider some of the disputed pas- 
 sages. John 3, 3-8 : " Jesus answered and said 
 unto him. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except 
 a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom 
 of God. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a 
 man be born when he is old ? Can he enter the 
 second oime into his mother's womb and be l)orn ? 
 Jesus answered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
 except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, 
 
 ,t;'ir 
 
 : :. ' t |i|| 
 
190 
 
 DEBATE. • 
 
 
 
 he cannoA rnter into the kiiip^doni 
 which is born of the flesh is iiesh ; 
 is born of the Spirit is si)irit. M 
 said unto thee, Ye must i)e bo.vn 
 
 of God. That 
 and that which 
 irvel not that I 
 a^'ain." This 
 
 I. 
 
 passage is admitted on all hands (exc(>])t the Dis- 
 ciples) to be a "very dil'ticult one ; they are very 
 clear about it. They niiy that tlie l)eing bom 
 of water liere referred to means baptism ; there- 
 fore, say they, unless a man is ba])tized he can- 
 not be saved, for he cannot enter the kingdom of 
 God, and there is no salvation out of it. They 
 see right thrriugh the thing; like the owls, they 
 seem to see b'jst in tlie dark. Let us look at this 
 passage : '' I'lxci'pt a man be born of water and 
 of the Spirit ht( cannot enter the kingdom of 
 God." Tlu're an; several interpretations given 
 by commentators ; 1 will give you some of them. 
 Some say that the passage should be rendered, 
 *' Excej)t a man be ])orn of water, cren the Spirit, 
 he cannot, &c." The word in the Greek (kai) 
 which is here used is often translated in that 
 way. They say that water is here employed as 
 a symbol of the Si)iril . and therefore the symbol 
 and the thing symljoli/ed are both put together, 
 the one exegetical of (lie other. 
 
 Others again say tliat the being born of water 
 refers to baptism, but that it is here put for what 
 baptism represents, the burial and resurrection 
 of the believer with Clirist, a union which is the 
 real source of their new life. We often find in 
 the Word of God cases in which something is 
 said of the type that is not true of it, but of the 
 antitype; and sometlihig said of the symbol 
 which is true only of the thing symbolized. 
 David says: "They pierced my hand and my 
 feet," and again, " they gave me vinegar to 
 drink." Here David affirms things of himself 
 which were only applicable to his great antitype. 
 
^ 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 191 
 
 The Scriptures frequently view the typo and the 
 antity])e as one. Again our Lord sa.>s of the 
 hread in he au2)per. " This is My hody." He 
 affirms comething of th(> symhol which is true 
 only of the thing symholizcd. 
 
 I shall only mention one other interpretation 
 of the passage. It is that heing " horn of 
 water" means Christian l)aptism ; and that our 
 Lord in addressing this -Jewish ruler informs him 
 that there were two things necessary in order to 
 an entrance into that kingdom which Ht; had 
 come to set uj^ in visihle form upon the earth ; a 
 new hirth by the operati(m of the Spirit of God, 
 as well as an initiatory ordinance, which repre- 
 sented the way in which this new life is obtained; 
 namely, by a union with Christ, in His death, 
 burial, and resurrection. Li other words that 
 they only have entered Christ's Kingdom, as it 
 is fully and visibly set up by Him upon earth, 
 who have been the subjects of regeneration and 
 baptism. As none could enter tlie Kingdom of 
 Israel but by circumcision, so none can enter the 
 Kingdom of Christ as it is visibly set up by 
 Clirist, unless born both of " water and of the 
 Spirit." But this does not by any means imply 
 that none but those who have entered the visible 
 kingdom in the prescribed manner can be saved. 
 There were many in Old Testament times, who 
 never entered the Kingdom of Israel by circum- 
 cision, who were nevertheless the worshippers of 
 Jehovah, proselytes of the gate, so there are 
 multitudes of true worshippers now, who, like 
 the dying thief, never enter Christ's visible king- 
 dom of baptism. 
 
 IS . 
 
 %: 
 
 m 
 
 ill 
 
 ■ f 
 
■ tl! 
 
 r 
 
 '•* '\\ 
 
 i 
 
 KEPLY. 
 
 Fruhii/, Sept. nth, n.no p.m. 
 
 (i\iR. sweenf.y's ninth reply.) 
 
 I shall cndoiivour lo review my opponent's 
 siieecli in the order in which it was delivered, as 
 nearly as T can. lie still insists that I am hound 
 to tak<:: up e^•ery passa,(>-e he has l)ron,u;ht forward 
 h(>arinjj; n])on t);e doctrine oi'the " divine decrees," 
 and show that it does not ]U'ove what iic claims 
 it docs, or 1 am defeated. Why ! 1 am not hound 
 to discuss tlie '/nr//v'//r of the "divine decrees" 
 at all, much less to notice every ])assage that he 
 may think hears upon the suhject ! What did 
 we come here to discuss ? Has he forgotten *? 
 Did lu^- not cmue here a'"d set out to show us, 
 first, what " Camphellism" is, and then to show 
 that it is u.nsound and false ? And he attacked 
 what he calls Camphellism as to its teaching up- 
 on the question of Spiritual influence in conver- 
 sion, and was driven l)ack step hy step till he 
 landed ujion his own doctrine of decrees, or un- 
 conditional election : and now he tells you that 
 if I do not notice every passage ho may quote as 
 hearing upon that doctrine I am defeated ! The 
 man is hewildered ! I am defeated ! I sa}'' the 
 Holy Spirit, in the conversion of a sinner, oper- 
 ates through the truth, and he has admitted it, 
 repeatedly. That's the only point in issue, so 
 far in our discussion, to which I sustain an 
 ailirmatrve relation. He affirms that the Holy 
 Spnit also operates uiinwduitelij in the work of 
 conversion. This I have denied. This is the 
 only issue yet made out. He has been fighting 
 
m 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 193 
 
 and retreating all the while. The doctrine of 
 divine decrees is just a]>out the "last ditch;'' 
 and whether to follow him into that is a question 
 I am at perfect liherty to decide for myself, and 
 can do so either one way or the other with per- 
 fect safety to my own position. But, hy the bye, 
 I believe I have examined about all the passages 
 he has adduced even bearing upon election, and 
 shown that his construction of them is not only 
 not necessary, but not even the most natural one. 
 I may have omitted a few, — one occurs to me 
 just now. Acts xiii. 48. " iVs many as were 
 ordained to eternal life believed." This passage 
 he quotes, coming down with tremendous empha- 
 sis upon the word " ordained," as if it were here 
 taught beyond all question, that no one can 
 possibly believe who was not chosen from all 
 eternity and unconditionally ordained to eternal 
 life. But no such thing is here taught. The 
 Greek word Lasso, translated in the common 
 version of the Scriptures "ordained" may just 
 as well be translated " disposed," or " determin- 
 ed," or even "inclined:" so that the passage 
 only teaches that such Gentiles as "were deter- 
 mined u^Don eternal life, believed." This same 
 word is translated in the New Testament both by 
 " determined " and " addicted," as the gentleman 
 well knows — as, for instance, (1 Cor. xvi. 15) 
 whe'e it is said of certain persons, " they have 
 addicted themselves to the ministry." I believe 
 myself that one must be disposed to, or determin- 
 ed upon eternal life, before he will believe in Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 When the gentleman says thai; the doctrine 
 of Divine decrees has necessarily an important 
 bearing upon the question of Spiritual influence 
 in conversion, he is manifestly in error. The 
 doctrine of Divine decrees, as he holds it, might 
 
 ; . i- 
 
 ■ i-'l 
 
 
 V i 
 
At 4 
 
 f 
 
 rr 
 
 194 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 I Hi 
 
 ?<■•! 
 
 be true, and yet his affirmation, that the Spiiit 
 operates immediately in conversion, he false. 
 Coukl not God dccne the salvation of certain 
 men \\'ithont such an operation of the Spirit as 
 the genth'nian contends for ? It seems to me 
 that he could, and could save them ^\ithout the 
 Holy Spirit altoj^ether, if He chose to do so. So 
 that if the ;^('ntleman had proved his doctrine of 
 dec;:'ees, he would 3'et have to prove his docrtrine 
 of spiritual iuliuence in conversicm all the same. 
 His theory of conversion involves the doctrine of 
 un( t)iiditional election, I grant ; but the thing 
 doesn't work the other ^va.y. The doctrine of 
 unconditional elet'tion, if true, would not involve 
 the truth of his theory of spiritual influence in 
 conversion ; I have run him into unconditional 
 election and am satisfied, without s])ending much 
 time on that old error. Who believes that old 
 doctrine now ? And if it be true — that is, his 
 doctrine of the divine decrees — why need he try 
 to convince anybody, or fear the effect of any- 
 thing I can say ? 
 
 The Professor comes back to John i., 12. He 
 admits that the passage teaches only that be- 
 lievers have i\iQ pnvilcrie of hcconiiiKj sous of God. 
 But he says he quoted the passage to show that 
 believers become the children of God without 
 baptism. But, I submit, that the passage says 
 nothing about how believers become children of 
 God. It only says that all who believed received 
 the power, or privilege, to become the Sons of 
 God. The language of Paul (Gal. iii., 26, 27) 
 might throw a little light upon the question as 
 to how believers become children of God : " For 
 ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ 
 Jesus ; for as many of you as have been baptized 
 into Christ have put on Christ.'' How are these 
 persons said to have put on Christ ? How did 
 
dp:bate. 
 
 195 
 
 they put on tho now man ? IIow dici they hc- 
 roiuc children of God in Christ Jesus ? By being 
 " l)aptiz>''d into Christ." Faith is often spoken 
 of in the New Testament as the principU' upon 
 wliich persons are justilied and accepted as op- 
 posed to " ])lood," or ''works of law," that is, 
 perfect obedience ; but it is never o[)posed to re- 
 pentance, (U' confession, or baptism, or any actsi 
 iif/ditli. On th(! other hand it includes all these. 
 Faith is not unfrenuently put for the whole Gos- 
 pel system, as oppese;! to the law. We are 
 justilied upon the principle of faith, as opposed 
 to tlie ]U'inciplc of works. We are justified by 
 faith, rather than law. We are the children of God 
 by faith, rather than liy tiesh or blood. But faith 
 is never opposed to the appointed acts and ex- 
 pressions of faith. On the other hand, when it 
 is said that any one is justilied by faith, faith 
 always implies, or includes, such acts as are 
 necessary to its (wtual, real existence. Faith 
 that is not (ictntil is no faith at all. It's dead. 
 Faith unexpressi'd is as a thing unborn. And 
 tnis brings me to two passages of Scri[)ture to 
 which I am specially solicitous of his attention : 
 James ii, 20, " But will tliou know, vain man, 
 that faith without works is dead?" 
 
 1. Now, James is not speaking here of " works 
 of law," to which Paul opposes faith ; but of 
 works of faith. He is speaking of such acts as 
 are necessary to its real, nvtaal, and objective 
 existence ; as are, in fact, part of itself. 
 
 2. He speaks of faith (jcneralbj. He does not 
 say a CJirlslldii's faith, a church member's faith, 
 or anybody else's faith in i:)articular; but faith — 
 faith wherever and whosoever it may be — faith 
 anywhere and everywhere — iclthout workfi Is dead. 
 Whose faith '? Faith. What faith ? Faith, all 
 faith, without works is dead. That's it, 
 
 
 I ! 
 
 
 1 
 
196 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 m 
 
 M 
 
 >l : 
 
 ni'ii 
 
 ill 
 
 Now, the second passage is John xii, 42: 
 " Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many 
 believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees 
 they did not confess him, lest they should be put 
 out of the Synagogue ; for they loved the praise 
 of men more tlian the praise of God." Now 
 will Professor Crawford say that these persons, 
 who were afraid of the Pharisees, afraid of })eing 
 put out of the Synagogue, and who loved the 
 ])raise of men more than that of God, were jus- 
 tified and saved ? I hardly think he will. But 
 they "heliei'ed on him" — that is, on Jesus. One 
 of two things is true, then. Either, first, more 
 than simply believing on Jesus is necessary to 
 justification ; or, secondly, these persons were 
 justified in their miserable, craven, cowardice. 
 What shall we say ? It will not do to say that 
 the persons here named didn't believe; for that 
 would be a square contradiction of the inspired 
 writer, and I will not look for that from a Pro- 
 fessor of Biblical Interpretation in Woodstock 
 University. Now, one of these passages lays 
 down a rule, namely, that "faith without works 
 is dead ; " and the other furnishes a plain case 
 under the rule — in which persons believed, but 
 would do nothing, and hence were not justified. 
 The gentleman must give attention to these pas- 
 sages, as I hold that they do, bej^ond question, 
 preclude the possibility of his proving that per- 
 sons are justified by faith, without any expression 
 of it, or profession of it — by faith, without any 
 action of faith ; and hence by faith that is not 
 actual faith at all. These passages certainly do 
 lie in the way of any such a doctrine. I submit 
 the following passages now for my learned 
 friend's consideration, as opposed to his doctrine 
 of justification without baptism. John, iii,, 5 : 
 "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 197 
 
 be cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." 
 That "born of water" bere means baptism 
 needs not to bo argued. It never was questioned 
 for hundreds of years after the Saviour uttered 
 tlio bmguage. It is not questioned now by the 
 best critics, and most candid scholars. It is 
 only questioned by men in controversy when it 
 gets in their way. There is no other fair and 
 honest interpretation of tlie passage, than that 
 which makes " l)orn of water " mean baptism. 
 The passage looks to the future, vrhen the King- 
 dom should be established, nnd the Gospel 
 preached to Jews and Gentiles. *' The Kingdom 
 of God" is a state of justification, or salvation 
 from sin ; and hence the passage teaches bap- 
 tism in order to justification or salvation. 
 Mark xvi., 10: "Go ye into all the world, and 
 preach the Gospel to every creature ; he that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Here 
 is the same doctrine without a figure. He who 
 believes and is baptized is born of water and of 
 the Spirit. And here salvation is promised to 
 the person who believes and is baptized. Com- 
 ment couldn't make it plainer. 
 
 Acts ii., 37, 38. " Now when they heard this 
 they were pricked in their heart, and said unto 
 Peter and the rest of the Apostles, men and 
 brethren, what shall we do ? Then Peter said 
 unto them, ' Repent and be baptized every one of 
 you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
 sioi! of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost.' " Here, persons who have been 
 tau'^ht, and who believe, and ask for their duty, 
 are told to repent and be baptized in the name 
 of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. I have 
 now only a word or two upon this passage. It 
 teaches beyond all question baptism for the re- 
 mission of sins in some sense. This, it were folly 
 
m^l 
 
 198 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 m 
 
 '■■i \<\ 
 
 
 i . 
 
 to (l(!iiy. ('iiii it 1)(! (l(;t< 17111)10(1 l)y tlif; p.aBKii.^0 
 itself in what KeiiHC; it iiinkcH ])a))tiKiii_/o/' iv-mis- 
 Hion '? I tliiiik it can. You will ohHorvc that 
 th(!ro arc; two i:ii)>('nitiv(!S in tin; passa^M! two 
 things tin; A])Ostl<! coninmndcd the jicoj)!*- to do 
 — to ''rcjii'iif and he lnij)li:j<(l.'' T!i(ht; two tl)in<^'s 
 were to \h'. done ^'Jor remission." " For," tlieii, 
 expreKKeH not only the relation of haptisin to r* - 
 miKsion. hiit that of repentance also. Now as to 
 the relation of repentance to remission of sins we 
 have no controv<;rsy. it <^oes hefoi'e remission 
 always. Its relation to remission is that of an 
 antecedent. And so must he that of l)ii[)tisni, 
 for it is expressed by the same word, in the saint; 
 place, and at the saim; time, " ]''or " stands 
 here h(;tween the two im))eratives, rep(;niance 
 and baptism, telliii,,^ their relation lo remission 
 of sins : (Jan it at once mean /'// onlcr lo as re- 
 Hpects repentan(!<- and sonielhin;^ wholly different 
 as respects baptism? Impossi'de ! TIk; j^entle- 
 man will not say it can. Then lh(^fact that re- 
 pentaiKMi is in this ])assae;<: coupled with baptism, 
 determines the relation of the latter to nfinisBioii 
 to be that of an antecedent. Ao.l that's exactly 
 what my brethi'en tea(di, 
 
 'i'itiis iii., 5, " Not by works of ri^diteoiisness 
 which we hav(; done;, but accordinjj; to his mercy 
 he waved lis, ])y the washing' of rej^'eiieration and 
 the rene\Sing of the Jloly (ihost," 
 
 All critics are a^re( d that by " the wasliin;^of 
 re^'eneration " JK'n; the Aposth; means JJaptism. 
 Tills passa<^'(; settles t'vo thin^js, then : I. 'i'liat 
 l)aptisni is not to l)e classed with what Paul call- 
 ed '* works of rii^hteousnesK ;" for here lie (tlearly 
 sets them over against eacli otli(;r : Not l)y 
 works of rij^hteousness, but by (the washin<4 of 
 regeneration) — Ijaiitism. This is the language 
 of contradiHtinctiou. Very well, then : Wiien the 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 199 
 
 iptisiii. 
 
 . 'riiiit 
 
 ul call- 
 
 cli'iirly 
 
 Not ])y 
 
 i'm«f of 
 
 lien the 
 
 \ 
 
 Apostle cxpresHly oxchidv.H " workH of ri^liteouH- 
 neHH," *' workw of law," " workH " from jiiKtifK^a- 
 tion, li(! (lociH not mean thereby to exclude haj)- 
 tiwrn. This pasKaj^*; Kettles that queHtion. 2. 
 It alHo Hays " If(i (God) sarrtl us hy tin- washin*,' 
 of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost." This coiniects haptisni with salvation, 
 as a means. And if we would know liotr this is 
 BO, wo have only to look l)ack at the ])aKsages 1 
 have already cited : " Jvveept a man h(; hoj-n of 
 ictiier and of the Spirit, he camiot <'nter into the 
 kingdom of God ;" '* H(} that helieveth and is 
 ha]>ti/ed shall hit .sarcd;'' " Kepent and he haj)- 
 tized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
 Clirist, ,/or the imi'msion of hIhh ;" " For as many 
 of you as hav(! he(;n htiptL^cd into t'hri.st have put 
 on Christ," t}i(;s(; passages, 1 sa}', show clearly 
 en(jugh, it seems to uie, how " He saved us hy 
 ]>aptism." Now, that, hy " the \\ashing of re- 
 generati<m," the ApostU; meant haptisju, there iH, 
 I think, hut (nu; voice among all the lirst-idasH 
 critics —su(;h as Hloomheld, J)ean Alford, Mac- 
 knight, and on down to Weslt^y. 
 
 The Professor persists in an eifoi't to nuik(i the 
 impresK.ion that Mr. (.amphell taught that " hap- 
 tism Ih regeneration," in the present curnMit 
 sense of tin; word regeneration. This, I think, 
 is at the exjx'iisc of his own re})utation for fair- 
 ness. Did I not read yoii from Mr. (Ja»u[)hell 
 that when In; usis baptism for reg(!n<ration, or 
 conversion, it is upon tlie well recognized princi- 
 ple of rhetiU'ic, that the last act of a proceHs may 
 Ijo put for the irlioU; process '? 1 have to say, and 
 1 wish to say it very emphatically too, and onc(? 
 for all lime in this discussion, that Mr. ('ampbcdl 
 never taught that reg(!n<;ration, in so far as it is 
 an Internal, or moral change, is effected hy bap- 
 tism. He did'nt believe it. Ho taught quite 
 
 i' '•', 
 
 \ ;' 
 
 
 ^^ii 
 
 ', ■ ■■ 
 
 .,-1.' ' 
 
 \ 
 
i;::jTg-— -rw-r^-.:- 
 
 200 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 r! r 
 
 distinctly otherwise. And so do my brethren 
 generally. 
 
 Why does the Professor persist in quoting such 
 Scriptures as predicate justification or salvation 
 of faith, without naming any other cause or 
 instrumentality? Does he not know that if such 
 passages exclude baj^tism because they do not 
 name it, that they exclude everything else that 
 they do not name also ? But he tells us that 
 repentance, love, prayer, and everything of which 
 salvation is predicated, excepting o)ilij baptism, 
 is essentially connected with faith, and therefore 
 understood or implied in such passages! In- 
 deed ! Who said so ? Why, he did ! That's all 
 the authority we have for so arbitrary a state- 
 ment. I freeh^ a<lmit that where justification or 
 salvation is predicated of faith without naming 
 repentance, that re2)entance is implied — implied 
 because elsewhere in Scripture it is made a con- 
 dition of salvation. And just so of everything 
 else, not excepting baptism. If there is but one 
 passage that teaches that a given thing is a con- 
 dition of pardon in tlie Gospel plan> that given 
 thing is implied in every case of pardon, accord- 
 ing to the Gospel plan, whether named or not. 
 If this is not true the Bible can be ruined in an 
 hour in the estimation of intelligent people. Of 
 course, Paul told the jailer at Philippi to 
 " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he should 
 be saved." But did he tell him to believe and 
 stop there and he should be saved ? To believe 
 was the first step in the process, and the step 
 without which he could take no other, and with- 
 out which it would be useless for him to be told 
 any other. But when Paul had spoken to him 
 the Word of the Lord, the means of faith, then 
 did he not at once take other steps, even "the 
 same hour of the night ? ' Why then should 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
:ill 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 201 
 
 this case be cited to prove salvation by faith, as 
 a mere conviction, without anything else ? If 
 the jailer had believed and done nothing else his 
 case would have been like that of those gentle- 
 men referred to in John xii. 42., and as little 
 would he have attained to the salvation he sought. 
 I can't get my opponent to see this. I would 
 like it even if I could get him to see it ** in the 
 dark ;" for I hold that it is better even to ** see 
 like an owl" than not to see at all. 
 
 Now, it is known to every thoughtful scripture- 
 reader that justification or salvation is by the 
 divine writers and speakers, predicated some times 
 of one and some times of another of the causes 
 or instruments of salvation, just as the one or 
 another of these causes or instruments may be 
 under consideration at the time of writing or 
 speaking. If, for instance, Grace is the matter 
 under consideration, it is said, ** For by Grace 
 are ye saved" — if Faith, it is said, " Being justi- 
 fied by faith ;" if Hope, it is said, " We are 
 saved by hope ;" .if Eepentence, then it is said, 
 " Except ye repent ye shall perish," implying 
 that we are saved by repentance. And if bapt- 
 ism comes prominently forw?ird, the inspired 
 writer says, " Even baptism doth also now save 
 us." Now, if a farmer were at one time to say, a 
 certain Jield had yielded him so much corn ; at 
 another time so much seed corn had done it ; at 
 another, two horses had done it ; at another, two 
 hoi/s had done it; at another, two plows had done 
 it ; just as he chanced to be speaking of the one 
 or another of the causes at the time, would we 
 have any difficulty in interpreting him ? When 
 he i^redicated the whole result of the field with- 
 out then naming a) " other cause, would we argue 
 that he meant to ex. iide other causes because he 
 did not name them ak that time, though he had 
 
raili'l.. 'i.ilini I--.;: 
 
 202 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 'Wr 
 
 U 
 
 ,j» m 'J 
 
 named them at other times ? Surely not. If 
 he were to say that one bushel of seed corn had 
 brought him so much crop, would we understand 
 him that the seed corn alone had yielded the 
 crop ? without any land, or plows, or work of 
 man, or beast ? Oh, no ! We should none of 
 us have any difficulty with a matter of the kind, 
 take it out of theology and into farming. When 
 salvation is predicated of Grace, nothing is ex- 
 cluded that is not crpressli/ excluded, or that is 
 not necessarily opiiosed to Grace. So, when it is 
 predicated of the blood of Christ, or of Faith, or 
 of Obedience, or of anything else. It seems to 
 me that an owl ought to see this, even in day- 
 light ! 
 
 What wonderfully mysterious language that 
 in John iii., 5, has got to be ! And there are so 
 many plausible interpretations of it ! And the 
 Profes&or don't know which is most plausible ! 
 How long has this passage been so profoundly 
 mysterious ? How long have these various in- 
 terpretations been in existence ? Not very long. 
 Ages and ages rolled away into the past, before 
 this passage had but one interpretation. The 
 ''water" part of the passage meant baptism 
 without a question, for centuries upon centuries. 
 The Baptists never had any trouble with it till 
 they got heterodox upon the subject of Baptism 
 — till they entered into a tacit agreement with 
 Protestant pedo-Baptists to call Baptism a " non- 
 essential," for the sake of making a show of 
 unity upon the essentials in Christianity. Dr. 
 Gale and Baptists of his day had no trouble with 
 the passage. The troubles of Baptists began 
 after they departed from the Truth. I have no 
 trouble with it. It is in perfect harmony with 
 all the unfigurative teaching of Scripture as to 
 the design of baptism. Is it not in harmony 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 203 
 
 Vv'itli the commission, " He that believeth and is 
 haptized shall be saved?" Is it not in harmony 
 with Peter's first discourse under this commis- 
 sion, wherein he told believers who desired to 
 know what to do, to ''Repent and be ])aptized 
 in tlie name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
 sins ?" Indeed it is in the most perfect harmony 
 with the whole New Testament teaching upon 
 the subject. What necc.ity, then, is there for 
 all the different interpretations to which the Pro- 
 fessor treated us ? Could not any passage in the 
 Bible be treated in the same way ? 
 
 The gentleman severed the kingdom of God in 
 twain, and made two births of one to break up 
 the force of this passage ! What authority is 
 there for saying there are two kingdoms, th(> 
 visible and the invisible, and two births, one " of 
 the Spirit " into the invisible kingdom, and an- 
 other " of water," into the visible kingdom '? 
 Where is there anything in Scripture about all 
 this ? Nowhere ! Nor is there one word of truth 
 in it. Has God ever revealed anything about the 
 *' invisible kingdom " the Professor talks about ? 
 Has ho ever seen this iurisible kingdom ? Cer- 
 tainly not. Then, if such sheer, bold assump- 
 tion is received by any one for argument, that's 
 a case I can't reach. I give it up. Such a case 
 is beyond any treatment I know. 
 
 )n- 
 of 
 )r. 
 th 
 an 
 no 
 ith 
 
 5 to 
 
 Dny 
 
i8gKrr,,sKi;.ai 
 
 
 1 f 
 
 
 iiwi 
 
 ADDEESS. 
 
 (prof. Crawford's tenth address.) 
 
 Friday, 11th Sept., 4 o'clock, P.M. 
 
 Prof. Crawford. — My opponent Jigain refers at 
 the beginning of his speech to the Divine 
 Decrees. He says it is unnecessary for him to 
 discuss that point, or to disprove the doctrine of 
 election ; because that in introducing this topic 
 I have got off the true question at issue, the doc- 
 trine of the Spirit. AVhy, then, did he drag me 
 into the question at all '? Why ? Just because 
 he thought justly that if my doctrine be true on 
 that point it is true also on tlie other — the doc- 
 trine of the Spirit's influence. If I prove the 
 one I necessarily prove the other ; if the one be 
 admitted, so must the other. I say, then, if he 
 intends to disprove my views as to the influence 
 of the Spirit, it will be necessary for him to go 
 through all the passages I have brought forward 
 in support of the doctrine of the Divine Decrees. 
 He has also spoken of faith ; I maintain tbere is 
 a wide distinction between a dead and a living 
 faith, between a mere historical belief in the 
 facts of Christianity and that belief which im- 
 plies Divine light, and which brings eternal life. 
 Many in the world believe in the former sense, 
 but yet have no saving knowledge of the Truth ; 
 have not that Truth which brinies salvation. So 
 that we are agreed on this that faith implies 
 everything that is necessary to salvation. This 
 is implied in the very idea of faith. 
 
 He dwelt for a long time on the many virtues 
 that are essentially connected with faith, and I 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 205 
 
 the 
 
 admit them alL His ilhistration al)oiit the 
 farmer who raised so much corn I will also ad- 
 mit so far jis it justly applies, but it is scarcely 
 appropriate to this matter, inasmuch as baptism 
 IS not one of those virtues inseparably connected 
 with faith. I admit that all the graces upon 
 which my opponent has been spreading himself 
 to such an extent are essentially connected with 
 and implied in faith ; but there is just this screw 
 loose : he will have to show that baptism is one 
 of these implied graces, for that is just what I 
 deny. To take this for granted is to beg the 
 whole question. What is the real object of this 
 faith, the real ground of the sinner's justifica- 
 tion ? It is the righteousness of Christ Jesus. 
 The sinner needs this righteousness to make him 
 just, to enable him to stand justified before the 
 Throne of God. And what is the great instru- 
 ment which God has appointed to enable the 
 sinner to connect himself with tliat righteous- 
 ness ? What is essentially necessary to connect 
 him with that righteousness ? We say it is 
 faith. 
 
 My oppenent has failed entirely in proving that 
 I was wrong in any one of the interpietation.i I 
 gave of that passage in John. I take the inter- 
 pretation that makes it refer to water baptism. 
 He says that all the passages refer to baptism. 
 I say they do not. But if in this case it refers 
 to water baptism when it says, "Except a man 
 be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter 
 the kingdom of God." What is meant by the 
 kingdom of God ? I say that it cannot refer 
 to the inward and invisible kingdom of God, be- 
 cause there are many passages in the Scripture 
 where admittance to this kingdom is promised 
 without water baptism — in fact, where the mean- 
 ing is plainly and undoubtedly the inward king- 
 
 i''l 
 
 
 N X, 
 
206 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 i 
 
 dom, baptism in not mentioned as indispensable. 
 It is " Believe on the Tjord Jesus Christ and thou 
 shall be saved." The simple act of faith is 
 necessary and sufficient to secure eternal life, 
 and to make us true subjects of Christ's spiritual 
 and everlasting kingdom ; but, as we understand 
 it, baptism is an ordinance, a figure of the 
 believer's union with the Saviour in his burial 
 and resurrection, and is used in connection with 
 the kingdom of God in this world as the initia- 
 tory ordinance of the Christian Church. Most 
 Christian denomi lations so regard it, and will 
 not, therefore, admit to the privileges of church 
 membership such as have not been in their 
 esteem baptised. 
 
 I will now refer to some of the presages of 
 Scripture which have been quoted against me : 
 Titus 3, 5 : *' Not by works of righteousness 
 which we have done, but according to His mercy 
 He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost." I admit that in 
 this passage the commentators generally are 
 against me, but that does not make their inter- 
 pretations true. I might show many views and 
 interpretations held for ages, which are now 
 generally admitted to be wrong. The fact that 
 commentators hold certain views on certain pas- 
 sages does not prove these views to be correct, 
 and I am not bound to accept their views. I say 
 that it is more natural to suppose, taking the 
 other passages bearing on the subject into con- 
 sideration, that the washing of regeneration here 
 refers to the cleansing of the soul, by the applica- 
 tion of God's word and spirit, in the fountain 
 opened in the House of David for sin and unclean- 
 ness, than that it means water baptism. This 
 v/ashing in the blood of the Saviour is inseparably 
 connected with regeneration ; the other, I have 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 207 
 
 shown from many passages, is not. As this is 
 one of iny opponent's proof-texts, I have gained 
 my point if 1 submit an inter])rctation as natural 
 and as likely tc be correct as his. As he is atlirma- 
 tive m regard to this question, the burden of 
 proof lies on him to demonstrate that his inter- 
 pretation is necessarily the correct one. But 
 su})pose we admit, lor argument's sake, that 
 baptism is here meant. Let us read the i)assage 
 again, " According to His mercy lie saved us by 
 the washing of regener;ition and the renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost." The question then comes 
 up, is the washing of regeneration used in a 
 literal or in a figurative sense. If we take 
 it in its literal sense then we may just 
 as well take in its literal sense the passage where 
 Christ says " This is my body." But we never 
 think of saying that Christ literally means His 
 body when He uttered these words ; I say I don't 
 believf» there is any baptism referred to in this 
 passage ; but, if so, it is merely that figuratively 
 baptism washes. Does bai)tism save effectually 
 or merely in a figure ? Moreover, granting that 
 baptism is necessary, something else is neces- 
 sary, namely, the renewing of the Holy Ghost. 
 But according to the view of the Disciples, con- 
 sidered in the early part of this debate, there 
 is no renewing of the Holy Ghost in the 
 question. There is no Divine in^uence ac- 
 cording to their doctrines. So that even on 
 his own interpretation my opponent gets himself 
 either on one horn of the dilemma or the other. 
 The next passage quoted by my opponent is the 
 commission given to the apostles : Matt. 28, ID, 
 ** Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz- 
 ing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Mr. Campbell, in 
 explaining this passage, (and my opponent agrees 
 
Ifli^ 
 
 wit 
 
 iii 
 
 I !i 
 
 208 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 with him) Hays the commission for converting 
 the world teaches that immersion is indis- 
 pensahl(( to salvation. ilr says we have an 
 imperative mood: "Go ye, therefore, and 
 teach all nations," followed hy an active parti- 
 ciple, " liaptizing them, cl-c." He claims 
 that in all cases in which the imperative 
 is followed hy th? active participle, the latter 
 shows the manner in which the command is to 
 he carried out. He says he knows no exceptions 
 to this rule. He gives as examples, " Cleanse 
 the house sweeping it," and " clean the garment 
 washing it." These he gives in support and il- 
 lustration of his view. Suppose, on the same 
 principle, we say, " Cleanse the house hatting 
 it," would he argue from this that the manner 
 of cleaning the house is hy hatting it ? Yet we 
 have here the active p,"- ticiple following the im- 
 perative mood. Let us take the other case. 
 Suppose we say, '* Cleanse the garment, putting 
 a frill upon it," does the active participle in that 
 case indicate the manner in which the command 
 is to be carried out ? You thus see that Mr. 
 Campbell's rule, involves a false principle of in- 
 terpretation, and would lead to very ridiculous 
 mistakes. I say that there is no such meaning 
 in the passage as that drawn from it by Mr. 
 Campbell. Jesus says, '* Go ye, therefore, and 
 teach (or make disciples of) all nations, baptiz- 
 ing them." Does that mean that the apostles 
 were to baptize <ill natloua ! Certainly not. 
 Any man with even a smattering of Greek will 
 not give the passage that ipterj)retation, for the 
 word " nations" is in the neuter gender, while 
 the pronoun is masculine. " Go and make dis- 
 ciples, haptiz'uig them,'' that is the disciples, not 
 in order to make them disciples, for they were so 
 by supposition already. They are made disci- 
 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 209 
 
 plcH by the infliionco of tliu Holy Spirit, throiirjh 
 the preachin<jj of tlie Gospel, before ])ai)tisiii and 
 not by being bapti/ed. Then Acts 2, 88., " Then 
 Peter said unto them, ll"pent and be baptized 
 ever}' one of you in th(* name of Jesus Christ for 
 the remission of sins, and y<* shall receive the 
 gift of the Holy (Jhost." The argument of the 
 disciples is that the baptism brings about the re- 
 mission of sins. The question is this, When we 
 are baptized, does the baptism procure for us the 
 remission of our si)is, or is the remissi(m of sins 
 only signified figuratively in baptism ? We say 
 that baptism in a figure places us in the position 
 of being one with Christ, " buried with him by 
 baptism, and so justified and pardoned in him." 
 It is just the same as when we eat the Lord's 
 flesh and drink his blood in a figure ; though He 
 says, ** This is my body." We do not believe 
 that is literally the l)ody of the Saviour that we 
 eat at the Lord's Supper. I hold that the Ro- 
 man Catholics are far more consistent in this 
 matter than are th(> Disciples. They take the 
 literal meaning of both passages, while the Dis- 
 ciples accept the figurative meaning in one case 
 and reiect it in the other. The word rendered 
 for in mis passage is the preposition, the pri- 
 mary meaning of which is Intn or iDtto. The be- 
 liever, therefore, according to this passage, is re- 
 presented in his baptism, as being placed in a state 
 of union with his once crucified but now risen 
 Lord ; and by virtue of that union, as obtaining 
 remission of sins. We have a parallel passage in 
 the Gospel of Matthew; one which will assist us in 
 the inte."pretation of the one under consideration. 
 Mat. iii., 8 to 11," " Bring forth, therefore, 
 fruits meet for repentance : And think not to say 
 within yourselves, We have Abraham to our 
 father ; for I say unto you, that God is able of 
 
^1^: 
 
 210 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 I;'; 
 
 . ,'''1 
 
 •i'l! 
 
 
 these stones to raise up children unto Ahraham. 
 And now also the ax is hiid unto the root of the 
 trees : therefore every tree which hringeth forth 
 not good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the 
 tire. I indeed baptize you with water unto re- 
 pentance : l)ut he that cometh after nie is might- 
 ier than I, whose shoes I nm not wo" ^sv to hear : 
 he shall baptize you with the Hol^ _. lost, and 
 with fire." In the words " unto repeuuu ce," the 
 very same proposition is used as in the other 
 passages quoted. Where it is rendered "/or," 
 John baptized them hitn repentance, just as in 
 the other jjassages they w^re baptized into re- 
 mission of sins. But observe that these whom 
 John baptized into repentance, were required by 
 him, to be true penitents before he would baptize 
 them. *• Bring forth," said he ** fruits meet for 
 repentance." His baptizing them unto repent- 
 ance, therefore, did dot make them penitents, 
 Imt only in a figure, represented them as already 
 brought into the state of penitents. lie says 
 "bring forth fruits meet for repentance, for I 
 cannot baptize you till you show the fruits of 
 sincere penitence for sin." Just as I or any 
 other minister would not think of receiving into 
 church membership, or of baptizing any one 
 without his bringing forth fruits meet for repent- 
 ance. I say to every applicant manifest by your 
 works, or give full and satisfactory evidence that 
 you are truly penitent, and then I will represent 
 you as washed from your sins, by the figure or 
 symbol of baptism. Now just as John's baptism 
 to repentance did not make the subjects of it 
 penitents ; but only in a figure represented them 
 to be such, so to baptize a believer for (or unto) 
 the remission of sins does not give him pardon, 
 but only represents what, in reality, he had re- 
 ceived when first he believed the Gospel. Bap- 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 211 
 
 any 
 nto 
 one 
 epent- 
 y your 
 e that 
 )resent 
 rure or 
 aptisni 
 of it 
 1 them 
 unto) 
 lardon, 
 ad re- 
 Bap- 
 
 
 tiF 1 rcpivsonts him as one unto Clirist in IIIh 
 death, hurial, and rcHurrrftion ; and hv tliis 
 union he ()l)tains hotli pardon and justification. 
 But when ;lid tliis union really tiike plaee '/ "Wan 
 it not when he heVtircd ! It is faith not ))aptisin 
 which unites us with Christ ; l»y whom wc oh- 
 tain hoth pardon and justification, and eternal 
 life. " Pie that holievetli on the Son hath eter- 
 nal life." John iii., 36. Paul was a converti'd 
 man hefore he received the command, " Arise 
 and he hapti/ed a id wash away thy sins." He 
 was converted on the way to Damascus when tlie 
 Lord appeand unto liim in the way, and changed 
 his hostile and persecuting heart. So that when 
 Ananias came to him he addressed him as a 
 hrother. Surely it does not mean that his sins 
 were not pardoned, or that his sins w'ere literally 
 to he washed away hy water baptism. Nothing 
 but the blood of Christ can wash away sins, and 
 it is all sufficient for that purpose. The com- 
 mand given to Paul was as much as to say " Thy 
 sins have been forgiven thee through thy faith, 
 but now thou must obey God's connnand, {ind 
 profess that Faith l)y submission to his ordin- 
 ance of baptism, by whicli is figured the cleans- 
 ing of thy soul from sin through the Saviour's 
 blood. It is my opponent's place to show that 
 baptism is not a figure or symbol. Until he has 
 done this he has failed to prove his doctrine from 
 these texts. 
 
.!!* 
 
 
 ! !• 
 
 w 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 (mr. Sweeney's tenth reply.) 
 
 Friday, Sept. 11th, 4.30 j). "in. 
 
 Mr. Sweeney. — One thing, I think, is becoming 
 quite clear as our discussion progresses, and that 
 is, that my ojiponent is satisfied he is not going 
 to sustain his cause without " works." I think 
 he is pretty tkoroughly aroused on that point. 
 AVell, I like to see a man in earnest when de- 
 fending his faith. I like to debate with a man, 
 when I do debate, that rubs me closely. 
 
 Now that he is on baptism he would like to 
 get me to remain on election, it would seem. 
 Well, I am not going to do it ; I am going to be 
 with him along the whole line of his attack upon 
 my works. lie has now attacked what he calls 
 *' Campbellism " on the doctrine of " baptism for 
 remission of sins," and there 1 am ready to meet 
 him, and mean to meet him. 1 am perfectly 
 satisfied with what has been said on the ques- 
 tion of ** Spiritual influence in conversion." The 
 gentleman has about convinced me that he is 
 not a safe reasoner. He says that if the doc- 
 trine of " divine decrees," as he holds it, be 
 true, then his doctrine of immediate Spiritual 
 influence in conversion follows. But this is a 
 blunder. Could God have decreed the conver- 
 sion of certain persons from all eternity only by 
 an immediate operatloK of the Holy Spirit!^ 
 Could he not have decreed that sinners should 
 be converted by means of the Truth ? The Pro- 
 fessor is confused. He did not expect to get into 
 the doctrine of " election " when he began the 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 213 
 
 discussion of Spiritual influence ; he tokl us so. 
 Indeed, in his last speech, he says I "dragged " 
 him into the "divine decrees." And now he 
 wants me to "drag" him out; I can't do it. 
 The fact is, he found himself forced hack into 
 the doctrin< of " decrees " in his effort to defend 
 his own position on Spiritual influence ; and now 
 he thinks the doctrine of decrees ought to force 
 him hack again, to the point from which he 
 started ! He thinks, 1 suppose, that it is a 
 " poor rule that will not work Ijoth ways." Well, 
 that's just the kind of rule he is working by. It 
 only works one way, and that's directly into 
 fatalism ; and then it will not work back. 
 
 But the gentleman seems to assume that he 
 made an argument for the doctrine of election, 
 or Divine decrees, as he holds it, that I have not 
 replied to. But I deny that this is so ; I claim 
 to have defeated him even on that remote ques- 
 tion, in a very few words. 
 
 The Professor says I must show that baptism 
 is " essentially connected" with salvation. 
 
 Professor Craicford — (correcting) — I say, and 
 have proven, that repentance and other virtues 
 are essentially connected with salvation ; and it is 
 your duty, in order to maintain your views, that 
 you should show that baptism is essentially con- 
 nected with faith. 
 
 Mr. S. — I don't know that I understand the 
 gentleman. He claims anyhow, that I must show 
 that baptism "is essentially connected with faith." 
 Will he deny that it is ? Is there any such thing 
 as Christian bax)tism without faith ? It is not 
 always and everywhere essentially connected 
 with faith, I grant. Neither is repentance. One 
 can believe without repenting. But in the plan / 
 of salvation about which we are contending they 1 
 are all connected together, and all connected with * 
 
 K r' 
 
' ,, -^ 
 
 214 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Ut 
 
 m 
 
 f; 
 
 ;,,F 
 
 Balvation ; find they are so connectr d l)y tlie word 
 of God. And " v.liut God liatli joined together 
 let no man put asunder." I have not said that 
 ba]»tism is " rHseiifi'ilI// conuicted" with salvation. 
 Nor has he shown that faith is. And when he 
 does show it he will tljen and thereby show that 
 all infants, according to his view of their natural 
 condition, are damned. Will he not? 
 
 I>y tli(! way, the gentleman Iims repeatedly 
 spoken of the cirtiirH of repentance, faith and so- 
 forth, and 1 refer to this little matter only to say 
 that 1 do not njiprove of the language. In a 
 very limited sense tlu! language may he admis- 
 sible, but I i)refer not to use it. 
 
 The Professor tells us that the question is, 
 " Can a man be saved without baptism ?" I ask 
 his pardon ! I am disc^sug no such ([uestion. 
 J suppose God could savt. one without faith, re- 
 l^entance, or baptism, or any other condition upon 
 the part of the creature. I would discuss no 
 such question. But 1 suppose that in the Gospel 
 God luis submitted a plan upon which he pro- 
 poses to save men ; and 1 deny that men are at 
 liberty to depart from that plan. In that plan I 
 contend that baptism, with other things, is by 
 the divine authority connected with the remis- 
 sicm of sins. That's the question. The gentle- 
 man admits that some things are in the Gospel 
 connected with salvation ; but denies that bapt- 
 ism is. Now, I put this to him : Let him show 
 Avhere anything — 1 will not except the blood of 
 Christ — is connected with remission of sins in 
 language stronger than that by which baptism is 
 so connected. Here is work for him. Let him 
 go at it. When we talk about what God c<in 
 do, or cannot, or wdiat is, and what is not, cssc7i- 
 t'hdbi connected with salvation, we are simply 
 wasting time and breath. Wliat has God said, 
 as to the matter iu hand. That's the question, 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 215 
 
 m 
 
 riie gentleman tells us there is a vast difference 
 Ix'tween mere "historic faith" and "saving 
 faith." Of course, Ik^ sees a clear distinction 
 here. He can tell just wlu^re " historic faitli" 
 leaves off and " saving faith" sets in. I ^visll, 
 now, I could pet him to see the Scripture distinc- 
 tion hetwi'i'U living faith and dead faith. He can 
 see a clear distinction wlien; the Bihlc makes 
 none, hut where the Bihle makes a clear distinc- 
 tion he sees none ! Isn't tl at just a trifle queer '? 
 
 He says faith is cssrnt'utJli/ connected with our 
 justification, hecause we are justilicdhy the right- 
 eousness of Christ, and that faith is the instru- 
 ment of our connection with Christ. Well, I 
 grant that faith is the instrument of our connec- 
 tion with Christ, hat dead faith is not. Will 
 faith, without repentance, connect us with Christ ? 
 I think not. And I am slow tol)elieve that sinctj 
 Jesus said, "He that ])elieves and is haptized 
 shall he saved," any one can helieve and stop 
 there, refusing to he haj)tized, and hy such faith 
 he connected with Christ. Baptism is faith 
 acting and connecting the penitent alien with 
 Jesus Christ. Many people have heen taught to 
 look upon the doctrine of ha])tism for the remis- 
 sion of sins as opposed to justification hy faith ; 
 whereas the fact is that hiiptism for remission of 
 sins in justification hy faith. What is l)aptism 
 disassociated from faith ? It is nothing. What is 
 Scriptural haptism hut faith in Christ acting, 
 reaching out and taking hold of Christ? When 
 you see a person Scripturally haptized you .sec 
 faith in Christ. 
 
 The Professor tells us that persons are " saved 
 hy baptism in a Jifnirc.'' What does he mean ])y 
 that? Does he mean to fufure away this Divine 
 ordinance ? I Hope not. Who said that the re- 
 lation of baptism to remission is a figurative 
 
r 
 
 21G 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 If, 
 
 one '? Have we any sufficient authority for sucli 
 a Btatement ? Sui)pose I were to say that we 
 are saved hy the blood of Christ "in a figure ; " 
 and then s'lpj^ose my o])ponent were to ask nie 
 to prove it ; and suppose I were to say tlie proof 
 of it is in the sauK^ chapter and in the verse fol- 
 h)winfT; the one that says, " we are saved by bap- 
 tism in ^Jiijurc.'' Then what do you suppose 
 he would say next ? In this manner, my friends, 
 every doctrine, every fact, if not every person of 
 the Bible might ])e Jinnrcd airai/ ! The Univer- 
 salists figure away the Divinity of Christ, figure 
 away the devil, and figure away hell and heaven, 
 before getting more than fairly started to figur- 
 ing away ! Men begin this figuring business 
 generally who get into close places trying to 
 defend their errors. Was Peter talking Jhjura- 
 tlrdij to those people at Jerusalem who wanted 
 to know what to do to be saved, when he said, 
 *' Eepent and be baptized every one of you in the 
 name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ?" 
 That looks very little like figurative speech to 
 me. Nor was it a suitable occasion for figurative 
 speech. The apostle had before him tliousands 
 of men who were in their sins, and whom he had 
 convinced of the fact, and who had just asked 
 him and the rest of the apostles what they must 
 do, desiring to be saved ; and he told them lit- 
 erally. It might be said with as much reason, 
 and quite as much truth, too, that the relation 
 of repentance to remission here is only a figura- 
 tive one. 
 
 " Born of water," in John iii. 5, he tells us 
 may mean baptism ; but in that case it is only 
 the visible, outward kingdom that is entered 
 thereby. But I suppose that if it could be deter- 
 jnined that *'born of water" means something 
 else in the passage, then the kingdom of God 
 
IB 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 217 
 
 it ^ve 
 ire; 
 ik me 
 proof 
 H' fol- 
 1 bap- 
 Lj^^.'pose 
 iencls, 
 son of 
 [iiiver- 
 ligure 
 eaven, 
 ) ligur- 
 isiness 
 ying to 
 Jhjnra- 
 wanted 
 le said, 
 I in the 
 sins / 
 eech to 
 jurative 
 )usands 
 he had 
 it asked 
 y must 
 icm iit- 
 reason, 
 relation 
 I tigura- 
 
 tells us 
 is only 
 entered 
 le deter- 
 niething 
 of God 
 
 need not be split — then it might moan the whole 
 kingdom ! Truly, the conception of the "visible" 
 and the " invisil)le " kingdoms is a convenient 
 one, when one gets into a close place. 
 
 The Professor admits that most of the com- 
 mentators and critics are against him on Titus iii, 
 5, when he denies that the "washing of regener- 
 ation " means l>ai)tism. And so they are. 
 Reason and common sense are against him too. 
 And what is still worse for his cause, the general 
 teaching of the New Testament upon the subject 
 is against him, with tremendous force. And it is 
 just because of the general teaching of Scripture 
 upon the subject, and because all writers of the 
 early centuries -interpreted the phrase "washing 
 of regeneration," or " lairr of regeneration," of 
 baptism, that all respectable critics and com- 
 mentators do so interpret it now. And is it not 
 in perfect harmony with all the other passages 
 I have cited ? Is it not in harmony with 
 
 John 
 
 ni. 
 
 5, 
 
 (( 
 
 born of water and of 
 
 the 
 
 Spirit ;" with the commission, " He that be- 
 lieves and is baptized shall be saved ;" with Acts 
 ii., 38 : " Eepent and be baptized every one of you 
 in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
 sins ;" with Acts xxii., IG, " Be baptized and 
 wash awaj^ thy sins, calling on the name of the 
 Lord." It certainly is. But then the gentle- 
 man says, that if he can ^lame another interpre- 
 tation that seems to him natural, I am bound to 
 give un mine — the one universally received in all 
 ages— because I am in the affirmative as to the 
 passage ! That's a singular rule, indeed. And 
 if, after all, the phrase in question does mean 
 baptism, then the salvation in connection with it 
 is only "figurative." But supposing the phrase 
 " washing of regeneration " to refer to the w^ash- 
 ing of the soul in the fountain opened in the 
 10 
 
 II 
 

 0' 
 
 ■ >• 
 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 house of David for sin and uncleanness, as he 
 thinks it does, then what about the salvation in 
 connection with it ? Then I suppose, it is literal ! 
 Now, isn't the ** figurative " method of interpre- 
 tation of great service to my opponent *? When 
 baptism is found in connection with salvation in 
 a passage he ''figures" out the baptism always 
 first, if he can ; but if he fails in that, then he 
 "figures" the salvation! He interprets a good 
 deal as the hunter shot, when somewhat in doubt 
 as to whether his game was a deer or a calf, and 
 he aimed so as to hit if it was a deer, and miss 
 if it was a calf. When salvation is connected 
 with baptism, he allows the salvation to be 
 literal if he can figure away the 1)aptism, but if 
 he can't do that, then the salvation is a figura- 
 tive one, even though it be connected with re- 
 pentance, or the renewing of the Holy Spirit, in 
 the very same passage. So, I suppose, he 
 teaches "Biblical Interpretation" in Woodstock 
 University. 
 
 The gentleman took up Matthew's record of the 
 commission, and dwelt upon it at length as one 
 of my proof-texts, when I had not referred to it 
 at all. I read only Mark's record of it. He told 
 you what Mr. Campbell had said upon the pas- 
 sage — misre^nTsenting him, as usual — and then 
 proceeded to reply to him. He says Mr. Camp- 
 bell holdw t lat in the phrase, " Teach all nations, 
 baptizing them," and in all such constructions, 
 the participle explains the manner of performing 
 the thing indicated by the verb. I think that 
 Mr. C. did not say that such is always the case. 
 However, that's immaterial. Mr. C. gave illustra- 
 tions, as, for instance, " cleanse the house, sweep- 
 ing it" — that is, by sweeping it.. But how does 
 the Professor upset the rule ? Why, by applying 
 it to a phrase that has no sense in it! That's 
 
he 
 
 in 
 alt 
 »rc- 
 aen 
 \ in 
 'ays 
 1 he 
 rood 
 Dubt 
 
 and 
 misB 
 3cted 
 be 
 but if 
 gura- 
 ;h re- 
 rit, in 
 ie, he 
 istock 
 
 of the 
 19 one 
 to it 
 told 
 e pas- 
 then . 
 
 Camp- 
 ations, 
 ictions, 
 brming 
 ik that 
 case. 
 Uustra- 
 sweep- 
 H)W does 
 pplying 
 That's 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 219 
 
 le 
 
 decidedly rich ! Such phrases as he named are 
 not to be interpreted by any rule. However good 
 a rule may be for interpreting language, it must 
 not be expected to bring sense out of nothing ! 
 
 But my opponent thinks a fair interpretation 
 of the Commission by Matt, would give us about 
 this : *' Make disciples of all nations, baptizing 
 them ;" that is l)aptizing the disciples. Well, I 
 am inclined to think he is not far wrong in this 
 interpretation. I tbink persons are first to be 
 taught, instructed, made believers, and then to 
 be baptized. I deny, however, that the word we 
 here render disciples, or make disciples, necessar- 
 ily involves pardon, or salvation. Indeed, we 
 know it does not ; for Mark, in his record of the 
 Commission, while he, like Matt., has teaching 
 or instruction before baptism, puts salvation after 
 baptism. " Preach the Gospel to every creature; 
 he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.'" 
 What the Professor said about the gender of 
 ** nations" {ethnas), and '' i\\em" {autous), is cor- 
 rect. " Them" cannot refer to " nations,'' as 
 its antecedents, because autoits (them), is mascu- 
 line, Sindethna (nations), is neuter. But all that 
 doesn't affect the question between him and my- 
 self, as to the design of baptism. 
 
 I have already given you my criticism of Acts 
 ii. 38, ** Eepent and be baptized in the name of 
 Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.'' I want, 
 now to show you that I am sustained in this posi- 
 tion by the very best critics of Europe and Am- 
 erica. I will read first Dr. Hackett ; first be- 
 cause he is a scholar, and secondly because he is 
 a Baptist. In his commenting on the Acts, of 
 the Greek phrase rendered in our version " for 
 the remission of sins," he says, giving the Greek 
 phrase : *' aphesin hamartioon, in order to the for- 
 giveness of sins (Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Luke jii, 3.) 
 
220 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 n m 
 
 We connect, naturally, with both the preceding 
 verbs. This clause states the motive or object 
 which should induce them to repent and be bap- 
 tized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one 
 part of it to the exclusion of the other." I might 
 read to the same purport Dr. Barnes, Olshawsen, 
 Lange, and others, ]jut I will not consume time 
 to do so unless ni}^ statement that they agree 
 with Dr. Ilackett, substantially, shall be ques- 
 tioned. Why does the gentleman tell you that I 
 only (iH.snnie that baptism is one of the things 
 connected with remission of sins '? Is it so, that 
 I only assume this? There is not the "screw 
 loose" about my argument that he seems to 
 think there is. But he getn on, and at once 
 slides away from this passage to another one, 
 and these are very smoky' as to the meaning 
 even of the other passage ! But did I not show 
 that the two imperative verbs, " repent" and be 
 " baptized" are mtluH])a>8S\i^!,c connected toc/cthcr, 
 and then the relation of both to remission ex- 
 pressed by the same preposition ? Why does 
 he not notice this fact ? I tell him again, that 
 whatever the relation of repentance to remission 
 is, in this passage, that must he the relation of 
 baptism. Does "for" here mean one thing for 
 repentance and another for baptism ? It cannot 
 be so ? 
 
 I invite my friend's attention now to Acts xxii. 
 16. " And now why tarriest thou ; arise and be 
 baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
 name of the Lord. This is [the language of An- 
 anias to Saul. You are all doubtless familiar 
 with all that had gone before this in Saul's con- 
 version. A few days before he had left Jerusa- 
 lem for Damascus a virulent and furious foe of 
 Christ and his disciples. On the way, Jesus 
 himself appeared to him, and in such a manner 
 
 y^ 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 221 
 
 erusa- 
 foe of 
 Jesus 
 
 aanner 
 
 as to convince him that he was alive, and was 
 the Christ indeed and in truth. Saul fell upon 
 his face hefore the p;loriouK and divine presence ; 
 and, like the hravc and true man that he always 
 was, cried out, " Lord, what wilt thou have me 
 to do ? " The Lord told him to arise and ^o into 
 Damascus, and there it should he told him what 
 lie " iniiat do.'' Saul arose and went. Then 
 the Lord appeared to Ananias and directed him 
 to go to Saul, " For," said he, '' hcjiold he 
 prayeth." Now, Saul was three days in Damas- 
 cus waiting to he told what he " must do;" and 
 when Ananias cjime, he told him, as we have 
 read, " Arise and he haptized, and wash away 
 thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." But, 
 was not Saul a heliever hef(n-e this ? Was he 
 not ajJ<??i/7cH^ heliever hefore this'? Did he not 
 pray hefore this ? Did not the Lord hear his 
 prayer before this ? " Behold he prayeth,'' said 
 the Lord to Ananias, when he sent him to Saul. 
 Then, what have we in this case ? We have a 
 believer, a jpenitent believer, a praying, penitent 
 believer, a praying, penitent believer, whose 
 prayer the Lord had heard ; such an one told 
 to " arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
 sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Profes- 
 sor Crawford believes, and preaches, that if a 
 penitent believer prays, the Lord will hear him 
 and pardon him, without his being baptized ; 
 and he wants me to believe and preach so, too ! 
 He will have to get this case of Saul's out of the 
 book before ever I can do it, however. Wliy did 
 not the Lord pardon Saul when first he be- 
 lieved ? Was not Saul a believer when, upon 
 his face, he cried, " Lord, what wilt Thou have 
 me to do?" Yes. W^as he not penitent ? Yes. 
 Did he not pray ? Yes. Did not the Lord hear 
 this prayer ? Yes. Then, why did he not par- 
 
 /- 
 
222 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 
 'Mi 
 
 : mh 
 'If I 
 
 don him then ? Why must Sanl wait to Boe a 
 preacher, and ])e haptized ? Why, ho might 
 have died within that three days ? Well, we 
 may ask as many questions as we please, my 
 friends, and still here are the facts — the stnl)- 
 born facts — of this case. The man was not par- 
 doned till he was haptized, though he had be- 
 lieved, and was penitent, and had prayed for 
 three days before. And, by the wav, the Baptist 
 brethren want me to believe that this same Saul 
 afterward in his letter to the Romans, and in 
 other letters, taught justiiication by Faith only ; 
 taught that persons might believe and be par- 
 doned without being baptized ! Surely there is 
 some mistake about that ! The Apostle could 
 have never so taught without forgetting, or pal- 
 pably contradicting, his own personal experience. 
 Did he ever so entirely forget that three days of 
 prayer and waiting for Ananias, as to teach 
 other sinners only to believe, and thus would be 
 pardoned without baptism ? It cannot be so. 
 And I would advise Professor Crawford, and 
 these other preaching brethren who agree with 
 him, hereafter to interpret Paul's doctrine upon 
 this point, in his epistles, in the light of his ex- 
 perience. They believe in " experiences ;" so 
 they must not object to my pressing upon them 
 Saul's experience, as calculated to throw much 
 light upon his teaching on those very matters in- 
 volved in his experience. 
 
 I can think of but one reply to. the argument 
 from Saul's case, and that is the " figurative 
 one." That would come in here most hand- 
 somely. 
 
 Now, I feel that the passages I have cited clearly 
 teach that for which my brethren tiave been 
 judged heterodox, that is, baptism for remission 
 of sins. Yet the Professor tells you I have not 
 
1 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 223 
 
 96 a 
 
 ight 
 wo 
 
 , niy 
 itub- 
 
 Diir- 
 (\ be- 
 l for 
 iptist 
 Saul 
 ,nd in 
 mly : 
 3 par- 
 3re is 
 could 
 )r pal- 
 :ience. 
 lays of 
 teacli 
 luld be 
 Ibo so. 
 and 
 with 
 upon 
 his ex- 
 ;" so 
 them 
 much 
 tors in- 
 
 ^ument 
 
 urative 
 
 hand- 
 
 clearly 
 
 re been 
 
 Imission 
 
 lave not 
 
 11 
 
 shown, and cannot show, that hai^tism is con- 
 nected with salvation in any hcuhi'. Lot uh try 
 a simple illustration. Suppose that a man of 
 this community, of ^reat wealth and Htrictest in- 
 tegrity, were to issue a prorlaniiition that who- 
 ever believes in him and is hapti/ed shall have 
 ten thousand dollars ; do you think anyone would 
 deny that ha])tism is in any way connected with, 
 or necessary to, th(( enjoyment of the ten thou- 
 sand dollars ? I think not. Just put ten thou- 
 sand dollars in place of salvation, or remission 
 of sins, in the passages I have quoted, and all 
 my opponent's diiliculties will disapi)ear as the 
 frosts before the rising sun. "He that believes 
 and is baptized shall have ten thousand dol- 
 lars ;" '* liepent and be baptized every one of 
 you in the name of Jesus Christ for ten thousand 
 dollars." Now, if the passages read so, would 
 any of us have any difliculty about how to get 
 the money. Would we listen to Professor Craw- 
 ford, or to anyone else, who would endeavour to 
 dissuade us from being baptized ? Would the 
 Professor endeavour to do so ? I think he would 
 conclude that the language does, some how, es- 
 tablish some sort of connection between baptism 
 and the money. I don't think he would even 
 trouble us even with the " figurative" method of 
 interpretation. lie would conclude that the con- 
 ditions upon which so much money is to be en- 
 joyed, would barely be put in figurative lan- 
 guage. 
 
 m 
 
 '! 
 
ADDRESg. 
 
 Friday, Sept. llth, C j).in. 
 
 (prof. Crawford's eleventh address.) 
 
 Prof. Crawford: — My opponeut has never 
 toucbod upon tlio argument I ])rought forward 
 +liat the promises of salvation are made only to 
 Faith and to virtues that are necessurt/ to, and 
 esse lit idllt/ coinieeted with Faith. For instance, 
 salvation is }>romised to repentance, but repen- 
 tance is ess'-ntially and necessarily connected 
 with Faith, — in fact there could not be Faith 
 without it — and it is by Faith we are justified. 
 And, therefore, we might say that we are saved, 
 when we are truly penitent, because we cannot 
 have true repentance without at the [same time 
 having that faith that produces repentance, and 
 by which we are justified. Faith in the Saviour 
 is the very foundation of our salvation. We 
 have no righteousness of our own ; we have sal- 
 vation only through the righteousness of Christ. 
 But how is the sinner's soul to reach and get 
 hold of the Saviour's righteousness ? How is he 
 to connect himself with that righteousness ? By 
 Faith. Just as the Israelites who were bitten by 
 the fiery serpents were saved by even a single 
 look on the brazen serpent, so the sinner is 
 saved by looking to Christ in Faith. Therefore, 
 we are justified by Faith — a living Faith. 
 Not the mere historical Faith which Simon 
 Magus had, but the Faith that James speaks 
 of as a Faith that " wrought with works, 
 and by works was made perfect." We freely 
 admit, therefore, that salvation is promised 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 225 
 
 ten by 
 single 
 
 to everything that is cssentialhj connected with 
 Faith. Now, if my opponent wishes to show 
 that baptism is necessary to secure eternal life, 
 he will have, in tlie first place, to ])rove mat 
 baptism is Cfiscntidlh/ connected with or insejmr- 
 able from Faith. I will show you instances 
 where Faith is not connected with baptism, and 
 yet Faith, as we have seen, secures eternal life. 
 Acts 10. 43, 48, '' To Him give all tlie prophets 
 witness, that through His name ichoaocrcr be- 
 licveth on Him shall receive remission of sins. 
 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy 
 Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word. 
 And they of the circumcision which believed were 
 astonished, as many as came with Peter, because 
 that on the gentiles also Avas poured out the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak 
 with tongues and magnify God. Then answered 
 Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these 
 should not be bajitized, which have received the 
 Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded 
 them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 
 Here you perceive that these gentiles had the 
 Word preached to them ; they had received the 
 Holy Ghost, they spake with tongues and magni- 
 fied God, while yet unbaptized. Does the Al- 
 mighty give the Holy Ghost and the gift of ton- 
 gue, and give Grace to enable man to magnify 
 Him, and yet the recipients of these blessings 
 are unsaved men ? Their sins must have been 
 remitted, for *' whosoever believeth on his name 
 shall receive remission of sins ;" they believed, 
 for the Holy Ghost fell upon them, and they 
 magnified God. Yet it was after and apart from 
 this that Peter says, " Can any man forbid 
 water ?" Does not this show plainly that bapt- 
 ism was not a virtue essentially connected with 
 Faith, but an ordinance that was administered 
 
 ti 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 after they had believed, and received the remis- 
 sion of sins. Will any one say that if these men 
 had died after they had received the Holy Ghost, 
 spoken with tongues and magnified God, before 
 they were baptized, that they would have been 
 lost. That's the point we arc contending for. 
 If baptism is essential to salvation, they cer- 
 tainly would have been lost, although true be- 
 lievers, and although they had received both the 
 gift and Grace of the Holy Ghost. And in the 
 case of the thief on the cross ; was there not 
 here also saving faith unconnected with baptism? 
 Yet the Saviour's own promise was, " To-day 
 shalt thou be with me in Paradise." But if 
 baptism is essentially necessary to salvation, 
 eternal life would have been impossible. My 
 opponent has never even made an attempt to 
 meet this case. I say it is as clear as any de- 
 monstration in Euclid, both from the case of 
 Cornelius and that of the dying thief, that eternal 
 life may be obtained without baptism. Both men 
 had every qualification which God has declared 
 essentially necessary to eternal life, the one be- 
 fore and the other without baptism. 
 
 Let us take another case, for I want my op- 
 ponent to face this point squarely, instead of 
 beating around it, and leaving it untouch 3d as 
 he has been doing so far. Take the case of 
 Philip and the Eunnch, Acts 8. 27, 39. In the 
 35th verse it is stated, ** Then Philip opened his 
 mouth and began at the same Scripture, and 
 preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on 
 their way, they came unto a certain water ; and 
 the Eunuch said. See, here is water ; what doth 
 hinder me to be Ijaptized ? And Philip said, If 
 thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. 
 And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus 
 Christ is the Son of God." You see that Philip 
 
ly op- 
 ad of 
 »3d as 
 ase of 
 n the 
 led bis 
 , aud 
 lit on 
 ; and 
 ,t doth 
 aid, If 
 ay est. 
 Jesus 
 Philip 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 227 
 
 would not baptize him without faith, but he had 
 believed before he was baptized, and God's Word 
 declares that whosoever believes shall be saved. 
 Faith and baptism are here plainly shown to be 
 two things which may exist separately. The 
 latter is not essentially connected with the 
 former. Here is the point that has been evaded 
 all along, though a great deal of time has been 
 spent talking about it. This is my argument, 
 that the pi-omise of eternal life is made to many 
 virtues that are necessarily and essentially con- 
 nected with spving Faith. I have proved, on the 
 other hand, from several j)assages, that baptism 
 is not essentially connected with saving Faith. 
 All that fine illustration about the farm^er's plow, 
 &c., amounts to nothing. It is quite inaplicable 
 and a waste of time. There is just one link 
 lacking in my opponent's argument ; he has not 
 shown that baptism is essentially connected with 
 saving Faith. Whenever the sinner's mind is 
 drawn away from the great Truth, that Faith, in 
 the blood and righteousness of Christ, is the 
 ground of his justification, and the importance of 
 baptism is unduly magnified, his soul's safety is 
 endangered. I teach baptism, I urge baptism 
 to those who believe, and whose sins are already 
 remitted, but if a sinner becomes anxious about 
 salvation, is troubled about his sins, wants to 
 know what he is to do to obtain eternal life, I 
 say, '* Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
 shalt be saved." Christ must bo held up to him 
 as his only hope ; ordinances are of no avail. 
 It is in this that I find such fault with the doc- 
 trines taught by the Disciples, that thoy have a 
 tendency to draw away the sinner's attention 
 from his only hope of acceptance with God, Faith 
 in the crucified and risen Saviour. 
 
 He has called on me to prove my views from 
 
 li 
 
■iaiSJ 
 
 228 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 I 
 
 writers and commentators. Now, I have just to 
 HJiy that 1 l)in(l my J^'aith to no man's cym'A. Let 
 God ])e true and every man a liar. Yet I will 
 enf,'af;e to luring forward quotations from many 
 commentators and eminent scholars and critics 
 who regard baptism as a figure, or symbol. But 
 1 never expectcjd to have; such a prei)osterou3 de- 
 mand made by my opponent ; or I would have 
 come furnished with tlie j)roof. Instead of my 
 views being a novelty, it would he, difficult to find 
 any respectable Prot<;stant author or commenta- 
 tor who do(!S not treat baptism as a figure, or 
 symbol. The only author at present within my 
 reach is Dr. Adam Clarke, who, in commenting 
 on Tit. 3. 5, says, " ]iaptism is only a sifpi, and, 
 therefore, should never be separated from the 
 thing signified." Here, you s(!(!, that ])r. Clarke 
 makes baptism only a sign or symbol, lie dif- 
 f(!rs from us, indeed about what the sign or sym- 
 bol signifies ; but, nevertheless, he makes it a 
 symbol. He takes it to symbolize; the o])eration 
 of the Spirit ; we, the union of the believer 
 with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. 
 The candidate is put under the wat(!r, which 
 figurativ(dy sets f(jrth our death and burial with 
 Christ ; we have him in a figure, not literally, 
 buried with Christ. And when he is raised out 
 of th(! water it signifies, figuratively, his being 
 raised with Christ. My opponent may deride 
 the idea of a figure or symbol if he chooses ; it 
 is just the same plan as the Papists adopt. 
 When we say that Christ's words, " This is my 
 body," is to be tak(;n in a figurative sense, they 
 sneer at us. The mind which cannot S(;e that it 
 is a figure is very obtuse indeed. I will engage 
 to get plenty of our Ijest writers who treat bapt- 
 ism as a figure, but I will now give you a better 
 authority than any of them. 1 Peter 3. 20, 21, 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 229 
 
 " Which sometime were diH()l)e(lient, when once 
 the lonj^'Hufferinf^f of (Uh\ waited in tli<; diiyH of 
 Nouli, whih' tlie ark was i)r('})arin^', wlierciin 
 few, tliat is, (d^dit souls were saved l)y wati.-r. 
 7'lie like Jhjurc, wliereunto (!ven baptism doth also 
 now sav(i us (not the putting' away the filth of 
 the flesh, hut the answer of a ^ood conscience 
 towards Ood) l)y tlie resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ." I think that is autli(n-ity whicli my 
 opponent will scarc(dy dispute. Aftc^r speakiii<f 
 of the ei^dit souls that were saved in the; ark, h<! 
 goes on, " the like fif^^ure wlKreunto even bapt- 
 ism doth also now save us." '* 'J'he like fif^'ure" 
 — no languaf^e could h(! phiiner. What was the 
 fifijnre in the case of tin; ark ? A jndj^nricnt for 
 sin Iiad fallen upon th(! world. Those that (Al- 
 tered the ark were lifted out of th(! water, in 
 which the rest of the world were destroyed. Of 
 what is this a fi^'ure ? The xiood — a type of the 
 final judf^mfnt — and their deliverance fnmi th(! 
 flood was a type of our deliv(!rance from the con- 
 sequences of sin, throuj^di union with tin; Sa- 
 viour. We are saved ]>y virtue of our union with 
 the risen Christ, just as they w(!re saved in the; 
 ark as it ros(; out of the waters of the flood. 
 ]iut, says my opi)onent, " baptism doth also 
 now save us." Yes, of course, /;// a like. Juinre we 
 are not efficiently saved by this ordinance, only 
 in afigure. ile says, " Oh, y ^u say it's a fi^'ure." 
 Of course I do, for the tcixt says so. Just a like 
 fif^ure ! Here we have him forced to admit it, 
 for the Holy Spirit, speakin^j by Peter, says, It 
 is a figure ; the tem.poral d(div(>ranc(; was a 
 figure of the eternal, and this is a like on(;. 
 There are only two figurative or symbolical ordi- 
 nances in th<; Christian Church, bai)tism and 
 the Lord's Supper. Baptism sets forth how we 
 obtain life ; we obtain it by virtue of our union 
 
aBM 
 
 230 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 ..^ 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 with Christ in his doath, burial, and resurrec- 
 tion. The other ordinance shows how this life 
 is to be sustained, and they are both figures or 
 symbols. As the elements of bread and wine do 
 not in themselves, but in a figure, sustain our 
 spiritual life ; so baptism does not, in itself, se- 
 cure to us that life, but in a figure. Then, with 
 regard to the passage in Titus, where it speaks 
 of the " washing of regeneration;" it yet re- 
 mains for my opponent to prove that baptism is 
 meant here. I say it means the regeneration, 
 not by water, but by the word and spirit of God, 
 applying the blood of Christ — their being made 
 the sons of God, and it would be a misnomer to 
 call it baptism. It means the change that is ef- 
 fected by the Holy Spirit, acting upon the soul 
 through the instrumentality of the Truth. I do 
 not care a straw for the opinion of commenta- 
 tors, when they outrage common sense and the 
 Word of God ; they are but men, and we are to 
 call no man our father. I claim that this inter- 
 pretation which I have given of the passage is 
 the most natural and most in accordance with 
 the teachings of God's Word on this subject in 
 other passages. And as this is one of his own 
 Ijroof texts, it is only necessary for me to show 
 that his rendering of it is not sufHcient to carry 
 the point he is trying to prove. If I show that 
 it possibly means a washing in the blood of 
 Christ by the instrumentality of his word and 
 aj)irit, instead of water baptism, he has failed in 
 his argument. 
 
 Then, with regard to the commission given to 
 the apostles, " Go and make disciples, baptizing 
 them," I showed that by the Greek, the word 
 them could not refer to nations, one word being 
 in the masculine, the other in the neuter ; but 
 ? that the meaning of the passage was that bapt- 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 231 
 
 life 
 !S or 
 e do 
 . our 
 ', Be- 
 witli 
 leaks 
 )i re- 
 mi is 
 ttion, 
 God, 
 made 
 Lier to 
 is ef- 
 D soul 
 
 I do 
 lenta- 
 id the 
 are to 
 inter - 
 lage is 
 e witli 
 ject in 
 is own 
 
 show 
 
 carry 
 that 
 3od of 
 
 d and 
 iled in 
 
 yen to 
 
 3tizing 
 
 word 
 
 heiug 
 
 ; but 
 
 t bapt- 
 
 e 
 
 ism was to be administered after they were made 
 disciples and, of course, saved. I do not wish 
 to overlook any passages he may cite in support 
 of his views. I want to face them all. 
 
 He alludes to the passage where Peter says : 
 " liepent and be baptized every one of you for the 
 remission of sins." The primary meaning of 
 the Greek word here rendered "for," is "into," 
 so that the ])assage properly reads, "Repent and 
 be bapti^jd every one of you into, or unto, the 
 remission of sins." The question is, is this 
 ** baptizing tliem into the remission of sins" a 
 figure, or is it to be taken in a Hteral sense. It 
 must be understood either one way or the other, 
 and there is a vast difference in the meaning. 
 I hold that the baptism into the remission of 
 sins is a figure ; the text I cited from Peter, "the 
 like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 
 now save us," I think plainly proves this. And 
 the very same })reposition (eis) is used in the 
 original where John the Baptist says, " I indeed 
 baptize you vrith water unto repentance." The 
 passage from Peter, if nothing more was given, 
 shows that in this as in the other case the 
 baptism was merely a figure. The evident sig- 
 nification is, that as a person in baptism is 
 plunged into or buried in the water, so the 
 believer is in renUty by his faith made one with 
 him who was crucified and buried, but who on 
 the third day arose triumphant. 1 take the 
 Greek preposition in its all but universal mean- 
 ing, as any Greek scholar knows, and I give the 
 passage a perfectly natural interpretation. The 
 baptism of John " unto repentance" was unques- 
 tionably only figurative, as we have seen that 
 genuine repentance was required of them by 
 John before he would baptize them. So I main- 
 tain that Christ requires no less than John. He 
 
 ^ 
 
232 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 requires in every candidate for his baptism sav- 
 ing faith and genuine repentance. No,, when 
 those believers are baptized they are not literally 
 but figuratively placed in the position of par- 
 doned and justified, for these they have already 
 by faith to which the Holy Scriptures invariably 
 ascribe eternal life. 
 
 € 
 
^A 
 
 ima 
 
 sav- 
 rhen 
 rally 
 par- 
 eady 
 lably 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 (MR. Sweeney's eleventh rki'Ly.) 
 
 Friday. Sept. llth, 5.30;).??/. 
 
 3/?'. Sweeney — I am not certain that I inuler- 
 stand just what my opponent moans by what ho 
 calls virtuos that aro " nocossary to" and "osson- 
 tially connected witli faith." Ho says " salva- 
 tion is promised to faith," and therefore only 
 such things as are essentially connected with it 
 are necessary to salvation ; l)ut baptism is not 
 essentially connected with faith ; therefore, bap- 
 tism is not necessary to salvation. That's about 
 what he calls his arfj;ument, as I understand it. 
 Now, it is true that salvation is promised to faith, 
 but never to faith onhi. Salvation is promised 
 to obedience, is it not '? It is promised to bap- 
 tism in the very same language, in the very same 
 verse, in which it is promised to faith. '* He 
 that believes and /.s' baptized shall be saved." 
 There it is. Now, why should my opponent say 
 that it is promised to faith any more than it is 
 to baptism'? Then again, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, Peter told believers to "repent and be bap- 
 tized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
 sion of sins," wliich shows that although one 
 believes, in so far as faith is a mere psychological 
 condition, he must yet repent and be baptized for 
 remission. What, therefore, the gentleman calls 
 his argument here turns out to be nothing but 
 an assumption. He assumes that faith secures 
 salvation ; that salvation is promised to faith for 
 its own sake, and that anything else can be 
 necessary to salvation only as it may be related, 
 
 i^ 
 
i: 
 
 ■I 
 
 >■.:. 
 
 Irs ■ ■ 
 
 234 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 and necessary, to faith. This is not only an 
 assumption, but it is directly in the teeth of 
 adverse facts, as I think I have quite sufficiently 
 shown. He tells us the faith he is talking about 
 is not mere historic faith ; not such faith as 
 Simon Magus had. How did he Ihid out what 
 kind of faith Simon Magus had, I should like to 
 know ? The Holy Spirit says he "believed," and 
 the Holy Spirit used the same word it uniformly 
 used to express ''believed." Now Professor 
 Crawford asi^umes that he had a different kind 
 of faith from the '^ther people who believed the 
 preaching of Philip at Samaria. It would per- 
 haps be well for him to tell us all ti])ont what 
 the Holy Spirit omitted to mention as to Simon's 
 faith. The Professor says the faith to which 
 salvation is promised is that faith James speaks 
 of, that is "m<t(le perfect hy works.'" That sounds 
 pretty well. Now, would he be willing for it to 
 begin to work, and hence begin to be made per- 
 fect, in haptism. That's the first act assigned to 
 it in the Great Commission. If faith is to be 
 made perfect by works, as James and Professor 
 Crawford both say, and if it is to begin where 
 the Lord assigns it its first act, that will bring 
 baptism in before salvation in spite of every- 
 thing ! 
 
 Then the gentleman goes to Acts x. 43, to show 
 that salvation, or remission of sins, was secured 
 by faith without baptism. But the passage 
 teaches nothing of the kind. He read, " To him 
 give all the prophets witness, that through his 
 name whosoever believeth in him shall receive 
 remission of sins." Now, does this passage teach 
 that whoever believes in Jesus Christ, shall, 
 without repentance, without any public profession 
 of faith, without prayer, without anything but 
 bare belief, receive remission of sins ? No ; the 
 
ly an 
 th of 
 icntly 
 about 
 ith as 
 : what 
 like to 
 ," and 
 formly 
 ofessor 
 t kind 
 ed the 
 Id per- 
 il what 
 jimon's 
 
 I which 
 speaks 
 
 , sounds 
 for it to 
 ide per- 
 igned to 
 is to he 
 )fessor 
 
 II where 
 11 bring 
 
 every - 
 
 to show 
 secured 
 passage 
 To him 
 aigh his 
 
 receive 
 lae teach 
 shall, 
 fofession 
 ^ing but 
 
 [o ; the 
 
 I 
 
 DEBATE. 235 
 
 gentleman himself does not believe it. Then 
 why quote it ? Simply, I suppose, because remis- 
 sion of sins is mentioned in connection with faith, 
 and ba'^tism is not named in the; same verse ! 
 The language only teaches that whoever believes 
 in Jesus Christ shall receive remission of sins 
 " throufih Ilia name,'" without specifying every- 
 thing that is to be done. Did ii(^+ the Apostle 
 immediately after command the \, sons to be 
 baptized in the name of Jeauft CJirht ! By the 
 way, I suppose the gentleman knows that there 
 is pretty good proof that this forty-eighth verse 
 of the chapter, in the oldest manuscripts, reads 
 thus : ** And he commanded them to be baptized 
 in the name of the Lord /or the remission of siufi/' 
 Irenseus so understood and so wrote it, and lie 
 must have read from manuscripts one hundred 
 and fifty years older than any we now have. 
 
 But the gentleman dwells with emphasis upon 
 the circumstance that the Holy Spirit fell on 
 Cornelius and others, who with him heard the 
 word, before they were baptized. Does that 
 prove that they were pardoned before they were 
 baptized ? I think not. The gentleman assumes 
 th*t it does, but it is only assumption. I sup- 
 pose that this miraculous outpouring of the Holy 
 Spirit was meant to signify to Peter and the Jew- 
 ish Christians who were with him, that the 
 Gentiles upon whom God now sent the Spirit 
 were to be baptized and received into the King- 
 dom of Christ, and made partakers of the bless- 
 ings thereof, one of the first of which was 
 remission of sins. They were baptized into Christ 
 after this miraculous testimony of the Spirit, and 
 you know it is ** i/i him we have redemption 
 through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." 
 
 The gentleman says " the point he is contend- 
 ing for " is that if these persons at the house of 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
i-'i: !i! 
 
 I'!"' 
 
 ■. i I 
 
 
 
 236 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Cornelius had died before they could have been 
 baptized they would not have been lost. Well, 
 that's not the point I am contendiiif? about. The 
 point is this : Did they come to the provilse of 
 salvation, or remission, before they were bap- 
 tized ? That's it. Peter was preaching on this 
 occasion under a commission whose express terms 
 are, '•'he that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved ;" and under this commission he said to 
 the people in his first discourse, who wanted to 
 know what to do, "Repent and be baptized every 
 one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
 remission of sins." Now, did he promise these 
 persons at the house of Cornelius remission upon 
 their faith witJiont hapthm .^ I can't believe it. 
 The fact is he had no right to do so. Here, we 
 have the commission under which Peter preached 
 to both Jews and Gentiles ; let the gentleman 
 show that it authorized Peter to preach as he 
 supposes he did. He cannot do it. 
 
 The Professor gets back to the thief on the 
 cross. Here he thinks he has a case of pardon 
 without baptism. He thinks also that 1 have 
 not attempted to reply to his argument derived 
 from this case. I think differently. Is Urns a 
 case under the Gospel rule ? Had Christ given 
 the commission that sent his Apostles with the 
 terms of salvation to all nations, when the thief 
 died ? No ! Then why go to this case to learn 
 the plan of salvation ? And, as I think I have 
 already said, even if the thief had lived and died 
 in the Christian dispensation, becoming a believer 
 as he did when it was impot-sible for him to be 
 bai3tized, his case would hardly fall under the 
 rule ; but would be considered one falling within 
 the divine equity rather than the law. 
 
 Next the gentleman calls our attention to the 
 case of the Ethiopian eunuch, converted on the 
 
been 
 Well, 
 The 
 lise of 
 ) bap- 
 m this 
 , terniH 
 lall be 
 ;aicl to 
 itecl to 
 1 every 
 'or the 
 ! these 
 Li upon 
 ieve it. 
 ere, we 
 eachetl 
 tleman 
 
 as he 
 
 Ion the 
 pardon 
 1 have 
 derived 
 ildn a 
 given 
 th the 
 le thief 
 learn 
 I have 
 fid died 
 )eliever 
 1 to be 
 er the 
 within 
 
 to the 
 on the 
 
 3 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 237 
 
 way from Jerusalem to Gaza. But what he sees 
 in that case bearing upon his cause is more than 
 I can see. Of course the Ethiopian l)elieved, in 
 so far as faith is a conviction of the mind and 
 heart, Ix-fore he was })aptized. But was he par- 
 doned l)efore he was baptized ? IMd the gentle- 
 man show tliat ? No. Wliy then did he bring 
 up this case ? Does he think my brethren do 
 not require sinners to l)elieve with all the heart 
 before admitting them to baptism ? If so, he is 
 wrong. We require them to believe with all the 
 heart l)efore baptizing them, and before pro- 
 mising them pardon we require them to believe 
 with all the heart and bodi/ too. There is no evi- 
 dence that the eunuch was pardoned before his 
 baptism. The presumption is against it, in fact. 
 The fact that he desired to be baptized so soon 
 after hearing the word, and the fact that he 
 "went on his way rejoicing'' after his baptism, 
 are both proofs that Philip preached in accord- 
 ance with the commission that says, *' He that 
 helieveth and is baptized shall be saved." 
 
 The gentleman thinks our teaching has a ten- 
 dency to draw the mind and heart of the sinner 
 away from Christ to the ordinances. Does he 
 understand us to teach that a sinner should be 
 baptized for the remission of sins without refer- 
 ence to Christ ? Surely not. The ordinances of 
 the Gospel, properly observed, direct the mind 
 and heart to Christ. Indeed this is their chief 
 design. Baptism is for remission only as it is 
 "in the name of Jesus Christ," and "into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit," only as it proclaims the penitent 
 believer's faith in the burial and resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ. Does the Professor think that we 
 hold baptism for the remission of sins disso- 
 ciated from Christ ? I suppose not. 
 
ismammm 
 
 238 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 
 iw 
 
 i! 
 
 ■m- 
 
 He tells you that ho believes in baptism him- 
 self ! ludeed ! I Huppose he felt that it was 
 7ieces8((ry for him to tell you so. Jle "urges 
 bai)tism upon those whose sins are already 
 remitted." But who authorized him to do so? 
 Where is his commission for baptizing such as 
 are alreathj saved / 1 want it. 1 demand the 
 document. Who authorized him to ba])tize par- 
 doned persons ? Where is his example in the 
 New Testament? Where is an example there 
 for commanding persons who are saved to "repent 
 and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for 
 the reviifiSion of s'uis." And where is there an 
 example for commanding a pardoned believer to 
 "arise and be ])aptized and icash awaij thy sins, 
 calling on the name of the Lord." And there is 
 a precedent there for teaching that "baptism 
 doth p.lso now sarc us." But where is the 
 authority for baptizing a person already saved ? 
 That's what I want. 
 
 There is this thing that seems strangely incon- 
 sistent in my friend's tlieology. He will have it 
 that persons are pardoned before baptism, not 
 merely in exceptional cases, but as a rule ; that 
 persons are saved and fit for Heaven without 
 baptism ; and yet he will not receive them into 
 the Baptist Church without it. There is just 
 that one good and holy place that no one can 
 enter without baptism. It is true, in a most lit- 
 eral sense, that " except a man be born of water 
 and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the " — 
 Bn)tist Church! 
 
 The Professor is in trouble with his " figura- 
 tive " method of interpretatiion. The Saviour 
 said of the loaf, "this is my body," and Protes- 
 tants generally deny that he meant to be under- 
 stood in a strictly literal sense ; therefore we are 
 at liberty, the Professor seems to think, whenr 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 239 
 
 ever a pasHage doefl not suit our theory, just to 
 say it is fij^'urative ! And that difiposos of the 
 troubk'Honu! passage effectually ! What a tine 
 thing it is for schismatics iind errorists among 
 Protestants, that tho Saviour said of the loaf, 
 "this is my body," and of the cup, "this is my 
 blood." The circumstance bridges all the rivers 
 of their difficulties ! 
 
 The gentleman produces one commentary 
 (that of Dr. Adam Clarke, by which almont any 
 doctrine can be proved) that calls baptism a 
 " sign," or symbol," and although he does not 
 agree with his witness as to what baptism is a 
 *' symbol" of, he claims that he has proved that 
 the relation ofbaptls^ii to remission of sins is only 
 a figurative one ! Does his witness say that ? 
 The question is not as to whether baptism itself 
 is a sign, or symbol, of something ; but whether 
 all those passages that connect it with salvation 
 or remission are only figurative. For instance, 
 ** Kepent and be baptized in the name of Jesus 
 Christ for the remission of sins ;" is that figura- 
 tive language ? Does '* for remission" here ad- 
 mi^*; of the " figurative" interpretation '? If so, 
 then repentance is for remission only figuratively; 
 and are we ready for that conclusion? *'For" 
 can't be interpreted here as expressing a figura- 
 tive relation to remission as to baptism, and a lit- 
 eral one as to repentance. That would be worse 
 than nonsense. As to the passage in 1 Peter iii. 
 21, ** The like figure whereunto baptism now saves 
 us ;" it certainly does not say that the relation 
 of baptism to salvation is only figurative. In- 
 deed, it does not call baptism a ''figure." The 
 Greek word from which the word " figure" in 
 the common version comes, as I suppose the 
 Professor knows very well, is antitiqwn, and 
 might better be translated anti-type than figure. 
 
 I 
 
fi 
 
 ' ! 
 
 
 ^i 
 
 -f 
 
 240 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 What I object to in not his fiayinp that baptiflm 
 has a syiiiliolic cliarfictfr, or tliiit it iw u Kign ; 
 but T do r»l)j(!(;t to his makin^; fill the hui^Mia{^(! 
 whicli connects it witli r<anissioii or salviition 
 fif^urative hinj^uagc ; as if every jiroinise con- 
 nected with it can b(! enjoyed as well without it, 
 it being desij^ned merely to signify tlie fact that 
 such ])romises, or blessings, ar(^ already pos- 
 sessed and (-njoycd. And this h<' scenis inclined 
 to do, and to do, as it seems tojne, arbitrarily — 
 that is, simply Ijecause his theory makes it ne- 
 cessary. I a.m certain that ])aptism was not ho 
 looked upon jn-imitively. It was ]mt in connec- 
 tion with Faith in the commission by our Lord, 
 and l>otli it and ]'\aith were, as antecedents, con- 
 nected with siiJvation. ft was accordingly, by 
 the Apostl(;s, r(;quired of all pi nitent lielievors, 
 and connected with remission, or salvation, l)y 
 the same words that Faith and r(;pentance were, 
 as I think I have shown. Then, where the 
 Apostles preaclied the Gospel and persons be- 
 lieved, we find that they were baptized straight- 
 way — on the highway, or the same hour of the; 
 night, in Scripture sty](!, " Wlirn fhci/ heilevcd 
 they were ]>apti/ed, l.)ot]i men and women." And, 
 furthermore, when any joy, or rr'joicing, arci 
 mentioned it comes in invariably after Ijaptism. 
 It was after tiie Samaritans were baptizc-d that 
 there " was great joy in that city." it was after 
 the Ethiopian nobleman was baptized that ho 
 ** went on his way rejoicing." It was after the 
 Philipian jailor was baptized — having been ])ap- 
 tized "the same hour of tin; night" in which Ik; 
 believed — that h(! set meat before Paul and Silas, 
 and "rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
 house." All this and more that might l)e noticed 
 is entirely inconsistent with my opponent's notion 
 of the ordinance, while it is entirely consistent 
 
DKIiATK. 
 
 '241 
 
 ptiBtn 
 Hi^^n ; 
 
 ! con- 
 out it, 
 ;t that 
 
 f pOH- 
 
 iclinocl 
 
 iivily— 
 
 -i it nc- 
 not HO 
 
 •.OTlTlOfi- 
 
 r Lord, 
 
 itH, C'Oll- 
 
 ilievers, 
 tion, by 
 c(. were, 
 I ere the 
 ;onB l)e- 
 traight- 
 of the 
 believed 
 " And, 
 ri<r, art! 
 [japtism. 
 ('d that 
 an after 
 that he 
 fter tlie 
 en hap- 
 hich he 
 id SilaH, 
 all his 
 li notieed 
 H notion 
 nsi stent 
 
 with mine. And in this connection I wish f.o say 
 thui my fViciHrs view is comparatively u new 
 one. i kijow it is now the vi(;w of nnjst of the 
 liir;_^; hodics of J'rotitstanis, hut non(} of thi.'m have; 
 lon^' entertain(,'d it. Afy learned o[)pone)it will 
 not d(!ny that all the Ai)ostolic fathe-rs, and all 
 the church fathers, for centuries after, tauglit 
 Ijaptism for remission of sins. Nor will he deny, 
 1 presume to say, tiiat the doctrine is in the lit<'rii.- 
 ture, and even the creeds of the churcluis 
 (jf to-day. Luther and Calvin hoth taiij^ht 
 it, and ho did hoth Wall and Oale. 'i'rue, 
 Lutlier tauj^ht the <h)ctrin(; of justification 
 h}' faitli only, hut he did not mean l)y 
 "only" to exclude ha/ttisin froni faith, ijct us 
 hear the ^reat lieformer on this jioint : -" Paul 
 saith, ' All ye that are baptised hav(! put on 
 Christ.' Also, 'According to his mercy he saved 
 hy the washing of re{^'(;?i.;ration and renewing (d" 
 the Holy Ghost"- Titus iii, r,. For hesides that 
 they who are haptized an; regenerate juid nmew- 
 ed hy the Holy Chost to a heavenly righteous- 
 ness and to eternal lif(;, tlu^re riseth in tliem also 
 a new light and new flame ; there ris(!th in them 
 new and holy affections, as the fear of Cod, true 
 faith, and assured hopes. . . . Therefore, 
 the righteous of the law, or of our own works, 
 is not given unto us in ]>aptiHm, hut Christ him- 
 self is our garment. . . . \Vheref(jre, to he 
 appareled with Christ accoiding to the Gospel is 
 not to he appareled with thci law or with works, 
 hut with an incomparable gift ; that is, with re- 
 mission of sins, righteousness, peace, consolation, 
 joy of spirit, salvation, life, and Christ himself." 
 Luther on Galations : Phila., 1801, 8vo., p. 1302. 
 Calvin taught haj^tism forremissiou in language 
 very much stronger than that of Luther, as I 
 
 preBume my opponent very well knows and will 
 11 
 
M^^^H^KSZSZS^S 
 
 242 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 
 1 
 
 f^flF^ 
 
 V 
 
 '■'ft" 
 
 
 not deny. And we have already seen that Dr. 
 John Gale, the great English Bai)tist, taught the 
 same thing, and is hence so iinaefeptublc to 
 the Professor, ]3osidL's, why is it that the 
 Baptists generally to this day refuse to commune 
 with iKvsons who have not heen immersed ? Is 
 there any reason in it, if, as Professor Crawford 
 contends, baptism is in no essential sense con- 
 nected with the Kingdom of God, with remission 
 of sins, or even with faith itsllf ? Certainly not. 
 But, my friend, this custom of the Baptists comes 
 down to us from a time when tliej' looked upon 
 this ordinance as of some real, unfigurative, and 
 essential importance ; as connected with the 
 Kingdom of God ; as, indeed, the initiatory rite 
 of the Kingdom, and hence necessary to the re- 
 mission of sins and Christian fellowship and com- 
 munion. Baptist doctrine, upon this point, has 
 undergone a change. That's the trouble. 
 
 I don't know that I am prepared here and now 
 fully to prove it, but I will, nevertheless give my 
 oj^inion as to the reason of this change. It was 
 gradually made. It was made in a spirit of what 
 is called char'it}/. It was made in order to a show 
 of Christian unity; that it might be said Baptists 
 and Pedobaptists are one in all essentials, differ- 
 ing only as to non-essentials. Eomanists, you 
 know, have all along paraded their unity — a sort 
 of slavish unit}', a sort of unity such as we may 
 find in grave-yards, it is — as an evidence that 
 they constitute the true Church of *God. They 
 could tell Protestants, you are divided — divided 
 about the ver}^ initiator}- rite into the Church — 
 and hence you are wrong ; are not the Churcli of 
 God. To meet this, Protestants have come to 
 claim a unitv in all essentials of the Church of 
 God, and to make this claim good it must, of 
 course, be agreed that baptism is a non-esaeu- 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 243 
 
 ,t Dr. 
 it the 
 l)l(' to 
 t the 
 imune 
 . ? Is 
 iwford 
 t3 cou- 
 lission 
 ly not. 
 comes 
 I upon 
 ,'e, and 
 bh the 
 »ry rite 
 the re- 
 id com- 
 mt, has 
 
 ,nd now 
 irive my 
 It was 
 of what 
 a show 
 Baptists 
 differ - 
 ts, you 
 a sort 
 we may 
 ice that 
 They 
 divided 
 lurch — 
 lurch of 
 ome to 
 lurch of 
 must, of 
 -essen- 
 
 tial. So they have a sort of show of unity — 
 better than that of Romanism, I grant — but it 
 has been reached at the expense of about all that 
 is real and significant in the divine ordinance of 
 baptism. Yes ! Baptism with them is now but 
 an empty shell — and the Pedobaptists have given 
 up nearly all the sbell itself ! Well, 1 love 
 union ; but I am not willing to Inive it in that 
 way. The Word of God, in every jot and tittle, 
 must be maintained 7/V,s^ Tlien union upon that 
 is desirable. If the ordinance of baptism, as con- 
 nected with remission of sins, or salvation — as 
 the initiatory rite of the Church — may be 
 " figured" out of the New Testament, then any- 
 thing and everything else it teaches may be 
 figured out by the same method. And then 
 what would unity be worth ? 
 
If' 
 
 ADDKESS. 
 
 ;- ' 
 
 (prof. Crawford's twelfth address.) 
 
 Saturday, \^fh Sept., 10 o'clock, a.m. 
 
 Prof. Crawford. — The topic of this debate as it 
 now stands is : Whether we can be saved without 
 baptism, Whether the omission of that ordinance 
 is damnation to the soul ; that is the point to be 
 decided. 1 atHrm that while God expects his 
 people to obey every command which he has laid 
 down, and that baptism is one of his require- 
 ments, yet if through ignorance his people omit 
 that ordinance, just as they may not from a sim- 
 ilar cause obey other commands which he has 
 given, they are not, on that account, condemned 
 to all eternity. We say that faith in Jesus 
 Christ as the Son of God, and in his offices as 
 the Saviour of men, is the only essential require- 
 ment for the sinner's acceptance with God. 
 This is a reasonable doctrine. The sinner is 
 lost and ruined for w\ant of righteousness ; he has 
 none of his own. Christ died on the cross as 
 the substitute for the sinner ; ** by his stripes we 
 are healed." It is only by having imputed to 
 him the righteousness of the liOrd Jesus Christ, 
 that the sinner can find accejitance at the throne 
 of God ; and faith is the only means by which 
 the sinner reaches and appropriates the right- 
 eousness of the Saviour. My opponent has tried 
 to show that this is not sufficient to save the 
 soul, and because certain virtues, as love, charity, 
 patience, &c., are essentially connected with 
 faith, and consequently have the promise of life 
 attached, ho claims that baptism, too, is included 
 
i.rn. 
 
 :e as it 
 without 
 inance 
 t to be 
 ;ts hia 
 las laid 
 equire- 
 le omit 
 a sim- 
 he lias 
 lemned 
 Jesns 
 Tices as 
 equire- 
 God. 
 mer is 
 he has 
 •OSS as 
 |ipes we 
 Lited to 
 [Christ, 
 throne 
 which 
 right - 
 IS tried 
 Lve the 
 [harity, 
 Id with 
 of life 
 icluded 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 245 
 
 in saving fait)i. I have shown that this or-li- 
 nance is not essentially connected with faith, that 
 there can be faith without ])ai)tisni, wliile the 
 other virtues cannot exist without faith. I have 
 demanded of liim some proof, something more 
 than the mere assertion that baptism is essential- 
 ly included in faith. lie lias failed to produce 
 any proof of this, and I say that as his whole 
 argument is l)ased on this assertion, if it is not 
 established lii^ ntire fabric falls to the ground. 
 He has indeed brought forward some passages of 
 Scripture, l)ut not one of them proves or hints 
 that a man is dsnuned if not bujitized. 
 
 He says that 1 ailirm that rei)entaiice is essen- 
 tial to faith : and if there lie "ternal life promised 
 to faith, and rejx'ntance is included, he says 
 without repentance we are lost. jNfost certainly, 
 but not without baptism, it is true, he asserts, 
 that we are saved through faith ; l)ut what, he 
 asks, becomes of infants? I hold that this is 
 merely shulHing the question before us ; we al'e 
 speaking of tliose to whom the Gospel comes. 
 I might ask him, if we are saved through the 
 preaching of the word and baptism, how is the 
 salvation of infants accomplished ? If there be 
 any difficult}' it bears equally upon his views. 
 We believe that they are saved through the in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit without means, apply- 
 ing the merits of Christ. We believe that faith 
 is necessary in the case of those to whom the 
 Gospel is sent. 
 
 He says are there not some persons who are 
 said to have faith without having repentance ? 
 And here he quotes John yiii. 31, where those 
 Jews whom our Lord addressed are said to have 
 believed, and yet he tells them in verse 44 : '* Ye 
 are of your father the devil." It is said that 
 many believed and yet went away, for they were 
 
246 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 'rNt- 
 
 h'Jm 
 
 not true penitents. When T was on that ])oint I 
 said that pjenuine saving faith is implied when 
 life eternal is promised ; it must he more than 
 mere historical faith, the faith of a Simon Magus. 
 We are not talking of that land of faith ; we all 
 know that that dead faith will save no man. It 
 is *' Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
 shalt have eternal life," and this must l)e more 
 than a mere historical helief. Spiritual laiow- 
 ledge of Christ, the ohject of faith, is here 
 implied. Such a misinterpretation of my evi- 
 dent meaning as my opponent has taken up is 
 merely for the sake of making capital : it is 
 scarcely fair. Then he says you cannot prove 
 that Cornelius was saved ])efore he was haptized. 
 He says this hecause the Bihle does not assert in 
 so many words that Cornelius was saved. Yet he 
 had that faith to which the Bihle time and again 
 promises eternal life ; the Holy Si)irit had fallen 
 upon him; he " had spoken with tongues," and 
 magnilii'd God. Besides, it was said of the 
 Koman centurion, hefore his haptism, that his 
 "prayers and his almsdeeds had come up for a 
 memorial l)efore God ;" hut "without faith it is 
 impossihle to please God." If this he not genu- 
 ine saving faith having eternal life attached, I 
 would like to know who has got saving faith ? 
 I ask any unprejudiced man if this is not 
 plain — so plain that we can scarcely call it 
 an inference — that Cornelius was a saved 
 man. I say that most undouhtedly he was 
 in the condition of saving grace, and that 
 this is a plain case of a man receiving eternal 
 life hefore haptism. I helieve, on the authority 
 of Holy Scripture, that he would have gone to 
 heaven just as surely as the dying thief did, and 
 we have the Saviour's own words for that : "To- 
 day shalt thou he with me in Paradise." The 
 
 ■i 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 247 
 
 )oint I 
 [ when 
 than 
 Jagus. 
 we all 
 m. It 
 (1 tbou 
 more 
 know- 
 is here 
 ny evi- 
 n up is 
 . : it irt 
 )t prove 
 Liptized. 
 bssert in 
 Yet he 
 id again 
 id fallen 
 >s," and 
 of the 
 hat his 
 Lip for a 
 th it is 
 )t genu- 
 kched, I 
 |g faith ? 
 is not 
 call it 
 saved 
 I he was 
 lid that 
 eternal 
 iithority 
 [gone to 
 lid, and 
 "To- 
 The 
 
 case of Philip and the eunuch is another proof of 
 the same fact, that men can h(\ saved without 
 baptism. He believed in Jesus Christ, the Son 
 of God, and liad r(>ceived eternal life l)efore he 
 went into the water. My opponent says that I 
 cannot give proof that the dying thief had saving 
 faith. I reply that '^Uirist himself recognized 
 faitli expressed in the rebuke; which tlie thief gave 
 the other malefactor, and in liis prayer, "Lord, 
 remember me when thou coinest unto thy king- 
 dom." He acknowledges his belief in the Saviour's 
 power to save him when he uses these words. He 
 believed in him ; he had that faith that l)rings 
 eternal life, and the Saviour, recognizing this, 
 says, *' To-day shalt thou l)e with meiii Paradise." 
 My opponent says i);^ain, How do we know he was 
 saved ? Can he want any stronger proof of that 
 than the promise of Christ himself? " To-da}^ 
 shalt thou be with me in Paradise." He certainly 
 could not get to Paradise if he was not a saved 
 man. He asks again, " How do you know he was 
 not baptized ? One thing is certain, he was a 
 malefactor, living in a state of open rebellion 
 against God and His baptism, if he had ever 
 been baptized while living in that state would be 
 but a inockerv of God's ordinance and not Chris- 
 tian baptism. What good would such a baptism 
 be? This style of (juibbling is unworthy of an 
 honest dis|)utant, and surely the side which my 
 opponent is here to defend must be a very weak 
 one, when it obliges him to resort to such sliutH- 
 
 mg. 
 
 He takes another little fling at close " com- 
 munion." The evident object of this is to get a 
 little sympathy from our Pedobaptist friends. 
 Because he, as a Cami3bellite, would allow them 
 to sit with liini at the Lord's Supper, although I 
 must confess that I did not know before this that 
 
248 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 I. I 
 
 P 
 
 .I'M' 
 
 pm 
 
 jp 
 
 the Disciples were open coniniunionistK, I con- 
 fess that 1 have my doiihts about this ; and if 
 my doubts are well founded my opponent is dis- 
 honest in wishinj^ to leave this impression on the 
 mind of the audience ; but if he would receive 
 them to the Su[)4)er then 1 say the mon' shame 
 to him if they are, accordin;^ to his doctrines, 
 damned individuals. flow could he allow them 
 to the (Communion with him if he believes them 
 unpardoned, unsaved '.^ 'i'he reason we don't 
 allow Pedobaptists to sit down at Communion 
 with us is simply because we have no authority 
 in God's Word for so doinj:,'. According to his 
 own doctrine if men are not baptized they are 
 not saved, they are not justlied or sanctified, 
 they have no access to the blood of Christ, yet 
 he would allow them to the Table of the Lord — 
 unsaved men at the Lord's I'able. ]>ut he says, 
 I must show that the term rej^eneration is Jip- 
 lied to the inward change. Suppose we take 
 just this ])assage : 1 John 4. 7, " Beloved, let us 
 love one another ; for love is of Goil ; and every 
 one that loveth is born of (lod, and knoweth 
 God." 
 
 Mr. Sweeiiei/. — Thr- word "regenerate" is not 
 in the passage at all. 
 
 I^rof. ('vatr/ortL — You say always "give me 
 Bible words." I say that when a man is hoDi again 
 he is regenerate ; the word means exactl}^ the 
 same thing, and what else can it mean ? It refers 
 to the new birth ; that is, regeneration. Besides 
 in the original the word is the same. 1 could 
 ask him of a grejit many things wliicli he believes 
 but for which he could not give me the exact 
 Bible words. The S.idducees said to Christ, you 
 cannot show us that the resurrection of the dead 
 is taught in the Scriptures. But though the 
 exact words were not there they were held ac- 
 
I cou- 
 aml if 
 is (lis- 
 )U the 
 cccive 
 shame 
 triiioH, 
 ,' them 
 ■> them 
 
 don't 
 mm ion 
 thority 
 r to his 
 ley are 
 ictified, 
 ist. yet 
 Lord — 
 le says, 
 1 is ap- 
 e take 
 
 let us 
 \ every 
 noweth 
 
 s not 
 
 IS 
 
 ive me 
 ■II (Hjain 
 ■iW the 
 tt refers 
 Besides 
 |l could 
 believes 
 exact 
 st, you 
 [le dead 
 gh the 
 eld ac- 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 249 
 
 countable for their unbelief, because God had 
 said, "I am the God of Abraham and of Isaac 
 and of Jacob, and he is not the God of the dead 
 but of the living." They would say as my 
 opponent says, that's an inference and we will 
 have nothing to do with inferences. Yet they 
 were held responsible for their unbelief and 
 " not knowing the Scriptures." Here is an- 
 other passage, John v, 18: "We know that 
 whosoever is l)orn of God sinneth not : but he 
 that is begotten of (lod keepeth himself, and the 
 wicked one toucheth him not." 1 contend thnt 
 regeneration means the second birth, the l)eing 
 '•' born of God." And then he said that no respect- 
 able authorities could be produced who regarded 
 bafitism as a figure. He made quite a swagger 
 over it. I could produce a hundred authorities 
 who so regard it, and can give him a dozen of 
 them to-day. lie knew very well that I had not 
 the books by me at the time, as I never dreamed 
 that he would ([uestion this, hence his swagger. 
 I could puzzle him very easily in the same way. 
 Suppose I assert here to-day that Napoleon was 
 never banished to the Island of Elbii. He be- 
 lieves he was, but can he produce the proofs ? 
 This just shows his plan of argument, when he 
 knows I had not the books at my hand. It does 
 not look like a man contending for the truth, but 
 as if his: cnly object was to get his antagonist 
 in a close p^ace, a thing very easily done if one 
 does not happen to have at hand every authority 
 that may possibly be required, but which no one 
 would expect to be needed. I will first quote 
 from the works of John Bunyan : " Ileason of 
 my practice and worship." Question — " But why 
 then were they baptized?" Answer — "That 
 their own faith by Unit ti(ju re maybe strengthen- 
 ed in the death and resurrection of Christ." 
 
ki i 
 
 I' 1 
 
 .,!' t 
 
 i.''^ 
 
 I 
 
 vs^ 
 
 -r^ 
 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 Here it is, you see, in the very words. John 
 Milton held the same view, as the following 
 quotations from his works will show: — "Hence 
 appears that l)aptism was intenrled to repre- 
 sent JifiumtinJfi the painful life of Christ, his 
 death and l)urial, in which he was immersed." 
 
 I will next quote from the " Baptist Quarter- 
 ly : " — ** When John the Bai)tist is said histori- 
 cally to have baptized his converts in the Jordan, 
 literally dipped them into Jordan, we liave the 
 hare and literal fact. When he is said to l)ap- 
 tize into repentance we have a tmpiral use of the 
 very sanif! language." 1 would here ol)serve 
 that 1 have made this quotation from an article 
 in the "Baptist Quarterly," in which some pages 
 are occupied in proving the absurdity of X)r. 
 Hackett's translation of the preposition cis, in 
 Acts 2, 38. He translates the passage, as Mr. 
 Sweeney has told you, " Repent and be baptized 
 every one of you, in order to the remission of 
 sins." This translation the article in the Quar- 
 terly most justly condemns, and shows that if 
 the preposition were translated so in every place 
 in the New Testament where it is construed with 
 the word haptho it would make perfect nonsense. 
 Were Dr. Hackett here I would rebuke him for 
 this translation, and I would demand of him a 
 single example in the Greek tongue where the 
 preposition eis must necessarily have this mean- 
 ing ; I give it here its common and appropriate 
 meaning, and I don't believe it has any such 
 meaning as that assigned to it in this jmssagc 
 by Dr. Hackett. But, even if we must accept of 
 this rendering, " Repent and be baptized in 
 order to the remission of sins," I would still ask 
 Is it the repentance or the baptism by which 
 this repentance is expressed in a symbol, that 
 would secure the remission of sins ? Most un- 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 251 
 
 John 
 owing 
 ilence 
 L'epre- 
 t, his 
 
 3d." 
 
 larter- 
 istori- 
 ordan, 
 ,ve the 
 o hap- 
 of tho 
 ihserve 
 article 
 j pages 
 of i)r. 
 cis, in 
 as Mr. 
 aptized 
 ision of 
 Quar- 
 :hat if 
 phicc 
 d with 
 isense. 
 dm for 
 him a 
 cro the 
 mcan- 
 opriatc! 
 y such 
 )assagc 
 cept of 
 zed in 
 ill ask 
 which 
 that 
 )st un- 
 
 questional)ly it is the repentance and not the 
 baptism. 
 
 1 will quote next from " Wliedon's Comment- 
 ary " : *' ' Wash away thy sins.' By the external 
 symbol just as the Holy Spirit has already done 
 the work in the eternal reality." 
 
 Then in the ** Madison Lectures " : lecture 
 IV. by Dr. Boardman, " Baptism is a symbol, 
 not a power ; a shadow, not the substance." 1 
 might give hundreds of the same kind, but 1 
 have not the works here. Instead of iindiug any 
 difliculty in ihiding an autlior who treats bap- 
 tism as a figure orsyml)ol, I have scarcely found 
 a sensible Protestant author who regards it 
 otherwise ; the Disciples stand almost alone 
 here. He savs the Weslcvan bodv do not tench 
 that it is a ligure. Let us see what the great 
 founder of IMethodism, Wesley himself, says on 
 the sul)ject : " Father Wesley," if he desires him 
 to be called l)y that nunie, though my opponent 
 is only using it to get a little sympathy ; for, 
 according to his own views, Wesh-y was a lost 
 man ; he was unl>aptized, therefore unsaved ! 
 ''Wesley's Works," vol. 6, p. 10 : " This clearly 
 represented the cleansing from sin which is^?^- 
 tired in baptism." 
 
 Another from Wesley : — Vol. G. p. 14 : 
 
 " Even to give them a clean heart and a new 
 spirit, to sprinkle clean water upon them (of 
 which the ba])tism is only a figure)." So you 
 see Father Wesley does not teach as my oppo- 
 nent does on this matter. And in the Wesleyan 
 Discipline, 17tli Article, page 7 : — "Baptism is 
 not only a sign of profession and mark of difl'er- 
 ence whereby christians are distinguished from 
 others that are not baptized, but it is also a sign 
 of regeneration or the new birth. Hence it 
 appears that baptism was intended to represent 
 
Ir fi 
 
 25'2 
 
 DKUATK. 
 
 P 
 
 ■1^ 
 
 II 
 
 I 
 
 fu/uratirelfi the paiul'iil life of Christ, his burial, 
 in which he was immers(Hl as it were for a sea- 
 son." It is calh'd here a sign : just what we are 
 contending for. But suj'pose these authorities 
 had Ix'cn against me ; that is of little consequence. 
 ^^^' must go to tlie liilile for the best proof. My 
 opponent contends that the washing of regener- 
 ation, spoken of in Titus iii, />, is baptism. I say 
 that baptism is never siwlviii of in the i3ible as 
 regeneration, and liave shown furthermore, that 
 there are no other washings si)oken of in the 
 Bible besides baptism. But this is one of my 
 opponent's proof texts : it is liis place as he 
 alHrms to prove it. I have given an interpretation 
 natural, and more in accordance with the teach- 
 ings of God's word elsiiwhere. It is his duty to 
 disprove my interpretation. Tlien Mr. Camp- 
 bell's argument regarding tlie Divine commission, 
 which my opponent accepts, vi/. that the active 
 principle after the imperative denotes the man- 
 ner of carrying out the command goes for nothing. 
 They were made disciples first, and being dis- 
 ciples they were afterwards Ijaptized. This my 
 oppoiient has at last been forced to admit, but 
 says that although they are disciples before bap- 
 tism ; and are baptized as disciples, they are not 
 regenerate disciples until baptized. AVell, sup- 
 pose we grant this for arguments sake, can we 
 not see that he has* by this admission given ui) 
 the argument about the active participle follow- 
 ing the imperative. All the time taken up 
 therefore in defending Campbell on this point 
 has been wasted ; for he now abandons the whole 
 thing. They were not made disciples he now 
 admits by baptism, but they were first made dis- 
 ciples ; and then, as such, were baptized. But 
 he still maintains that they were not regenerate 
 disciples before baptism. This is just what he 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 253 
 
 burial, 
 a Bca- 
 we are 
 loritios 
 [iionce. 
 f. My 
 pgeiier- 
 Isay 
 ible as 
 L'e, that 
 in the 
 
 I of my 
 as he 
 
 •etation 
 teach - 
 Uity to 
 Cami)- 
 nissioii, 
 e active 
 ,0 luan- 
 jothing. 
 
 II g dis- 
 his my 
 
 iiit, but 
 ire bap- 
 ire not 
 11, sup- 
 can we 
 ven up 
 follow - 
 ken up 
 point 
 whole 
 le now 
 tie dis- 
 . But 
 uerate 
 hat he 
 
 has to prove, and to assert it without proof is 
 just aini])ly to beg the entire (piestion. 
 
 Then Mark xvi, 15, 1(1, and lie said unto thi-ni 
 *'Cio ye into all the woild, iiiiil preach the (Jos- 
 pel to every creature. lie that believeth and is 
 baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned." It does not say that he 
 that is not baptized shall be damned, but it is he 
 that believeth not. God expects us to obey Him 
 by observing His ordinance of baptism, Imt He 
 does not say that all who neglect to do so from 
 inadvertence or ignorance shall be damned. 1 
 do not (piote this as a proof text in support of 
 my doctrine ; it is one of his, and it is therefore 
 his duty to show wherein it proves his doctrine. 
 Sui)pose I am called to the bedside of a dying 
 sinner, an unconverted man. I would like to 
 unfold the truths of the Gospel to him, to point 
 him to the Cross of Christ, and tell him the blood 
 of the Saviour cleanses the soul from all sin. 
 But there is no means of baptizing the man — it 
 is imjiracticable, — and what is the use of tantal- 
 izing him by directing him to the Cross of Christ, 
 if he cannot be saved without baptism. This 
 may be Campbellism, but it's another Gospel ; 
 It's certainly not God's Word. You remember 
 the Israelites tried to make an idol out of the 
 brazen serpent and it was taken away fromtl nn, 
 but this is making an idol of baptism. I do not 
 undervalue baptism, but it will never save the 
 soul, and I wish to assign to it its proper place. 
 Then with regard to that passage, Acts ii., 38, 
 " Then Peter said unto them, "Kepeiit and be 
 baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
 Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The Greek 
 preposition eis occurs in the original, and I defy my 
 opponent to show that there is any such mean- 
 
254 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 hi 
 
 ing as "in order to" given to that word in the 
 whole Greek language. The writer in the Quar- 
 terly as we have seen, rebukes Hackett for ever 
 giving it such a translation. The g- eat question 
 is this : Does baptism really -wash aw'ay sin or 
 only in a figure. The general opinion of the 
 Christian Church is that it is only in a figure, 
 and that nothing but the blood of Christ ap- 
 plied by the Word and Spirit, can cleanse the 
 soul from sin. The Jews have just as valid right 
 to contend that the blood of bulls and goats 
 really washed away the sins of the people be- 
 cause they a"o frequently said to make an atone- 
 ment, but we imow that these were only types of 
 the great sacrifice on the Cross. '' The blood of 
 bulls and of goats cannot take away sins." So 
 with baptism ; it is a figure of the believers 
 burial with Christ, and afterwards rising with 
 Him ; but no more than the Jewish sacrilices 
 can'it take awav sin. 
 
■ 
 
 1 the 
 
 '^uar- 
 
 ever 
 Dstion 
 sin or 
 •f the 
 igure, 
 it ap- 
 ie the 
 [ right 
 
 goats 
 )le he- 
 atone- 
 ypes of 
 lood of 
 ,." So 
 ihevers 
 ig with 
 Lcrilices 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 (MR. Sweeney's twelfth reply.) 
 
 Saturdaij, Sept. 11th, 10.30 a.yn. 
 
 Without any preliminaries I shall address 
 myself to the speech of my opponent, to which 
 yon have just listened to so patiently. And, first, 
 1 may be allowedja remark or two as to its spirit, 
 which, I am sorrv to say, was not the very best. 
 My friend is evidently not in a good humour this 
 morning. If he \v, d made use of those hafd 
 words yesterday in the heat of the day and in 
 the heat of discussion, I could jliave made greater 
 allowance for them. But they come in his 
 speech this morning, after a night's rest and 
 sleep, and after a pleasant ride in the cool morn- 
 ing air ; and hence seem studied. I fear he has 
 been out of temper all night. [ have no doubt 
 he is worried, and I am heartily sorry for him : 
 but 1 can't help him out of his trouble. He is 
 cont'-nding against the Truth, and tliat will give 
 any man trouble. He is off after the '* her- 
 ring" he told us about, having fallen back into 
 the *' foolishness" of his boyish days, and fol- 
 lowed the ''pups'" off ! 
 
 He says the " topic" of this discussion is, 
 *' Can any one be saved without baptism ?" 
 What a mistake ! Did I not correct him yester- 
 day as to this matter ? He thinks that, while 
 God expects of us obedience to all his command- 
 ments, yet if on account of honest ignorance or 
 other cause over which he has no control, one 
 fails to be baptized he may yet possibly be saved ; 
 and he would have you believe I am here to deny 
 
256 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 that. No indeed. The debate is about, or should be 
 about, the place of baptism in the Gospel plan of 
 salvation. I affirm, as my })rethren do generally 
 in preaching upon the subject, that it is connected 
 with salvation or remission of sins as an ante- 
 cedent, just as faith and repentance are ; while 
 Professor Crawford liolds that it is — well, the 
 fact is, I should not like to have to tell just what 
 he does hold, further than that most pp,ssages of 
 Scripture in which it occurs are /ifjurativc. He 
 holds that faith, and only faith, is "essentially 
 connected with salvation" ; and he thinks this 
 quite reasonable, while it would be shockingly un- 
 reasonable to have baptism so connected. Whif 
 unreasonable that baptism should be for remission? 
 Oh, he thinks some honest soul *' might through 
 ignorance omit the ordinance," and then, of 
 course, he must be lost eternally ! Well, I won- 
 der if no honest soul in this world will ever 
 through ignorance fail to believe ! But he in- 
 forms me that he is not talking about infants and 
 heathens that can not believe ; but about persons 
 who can believe — faith is essential to their salva- 
 tion. Very well : I accept that quahlication of 
 his doctrine. Now, will he allow me to tell him 
 again, that when I say baptism is for the remis- 
 sion of sins, I mean to such as can be baptized ; 
 and my affirmative goes no further than this. 
 What did I read Hall, Gale and others for, in my 
 first speech on this question, but to show that 
 extraordinary cases do not make void a standing 
 rule. 
 
 He thinks — why I do not know — that to main- 
 tain my position, I must show that "baptism is 
 essentially connected with faith." Has he shown 
 that nothing is necessary to salvation that is not 
 necessarily and essentially connected with faith '? 
 He has not. He never will. But he says he has 
 
 'i ■ ' 
 
Duldbe 
 plan of 
 nerally 
 mected 
 1 ante- 
 ; while 
 all, the 
 st what 
 iages of 
 ve. He 
 ;entially 
 iks this 
 ngly un- 
 . Whji 
 nission? 
 through 
 then, of 
 1, 1 won- 
 vill ever 
 it he in- 
 fants and 
 t persons 
 ?ir salva- 
 tiatiou of 
 tell him 
 10 rcmis- 
 )aptized ; 
 lan this, 
 or, in my 
 10 w that 
 I standing 
 
 to main- 
 Japtism is 
 Ihe sliown 
 liat is not 
 [th faith ? 
 [ys he has 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 257 
 
 sliown that there can be faith without baptism. 
 Who ever questioned it ? Of course, tliere can 
 be faith witliout ])aptism. And what's di-ath to 
 his cause is, there can be faith withoKt siilration. 
 Have I not shown it '? ]5ut be tells us tbat in 
 such cases the faitli is not genuine saving faith ; 
 but is "dead, Simon ]\Iagus" faith. Very well; 
 what kind of faith is " genuine faith ?" We have 
 agreed already, I think, tliat it is faith made 
 perfect hif irork^i. But faith cannot work 
 without doing something. Abel's faitb was 
 made perfe>?t at tbe altar, when he offered 
 more excellent sacrifice than Cain ; because he 
 did what God required of him. Abrabam's 
 faith was made perfect when be offt^red up bis 
 sou upon the altar, " and tbe Scripture wus ful- 
 filled which saitb, Abraham believed God and it 
 was counted to liim for righteousness ;" and his 
 faith was thus made perfect because lif' did what 
 God required of bim. Now, where shall a sin- 
 ner's faitb be made perfect '? Jesus said, " Go 
 ye into all the world jind preach tbe Gospel to 
 every creature ; he that belie veth and is Ixiptized 
 shall be saved." Now, we are agreed tbat tbe 
 sinner's faith must worh before he will be justi- 
 fied. I say that to be baptized is tbe liri-t act of 
 Faitb that is required of him. Will Professor 
 Crawford tell us wliat work is required of Faith 
 before baptism ? If he knows be ought by all 
 means to tell, else the people will begin to sus- 
 pect that he is defeated. For he is compelled to 
 say tbat Faith tbat does not work is dead ; tbat 
 Faitli is made perfect by works ; now be must 
 show us in what Faith works before l)aptism, 
 under the Gospel. There is no use for bim to 
 talk about mere historic Faitb, and genuine sav- 
 ing Faith, as it is unscriptural language, and as 
 we are agreed on what is Scriptural — " Faith 
 
' »r 
 
 25$ 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 lu 
 
 :f 
 
 f* 
 
 
 
 
 
 if ' 
 ■ ■M4. 
 
 made perfect by works," and *' Faith without 
 works is dead, l)eing alone." This all can under- 
 stand, and then as it is confessedly and exjiressly 
 Scriptural, it is sure not to mislead anyone. 
 But the gentleman amused me when contending 
 that it was unreasonable that ])a2)tisni should be 
 for remission, because that some one might 
 through ignorance omit tliat ordinance, and so 
 be lost eternally. I wonder if he had forgotten 
 his doctrine of " divine decrees" — of " uncon- 
 ditional election and reprol)ation ?" Of course, 
 that's altogether reasonable ! ]3ut, is it not 
 amusing that the Professor should think it quite 
 unreasonable that the scheme of salvation should 
 be such as that one might possibly be lost on 
 account of an unintentional omission ; that is, 
 might be lost for not doing what, under the cir- 
 cumstances, was impossible ; when at the same 
 time he believes that every man's fate was de- 
 creed from all eternit}^ " without any foresight 
 of Faith or good works," or anything else in the 
 creature ? I suppose that, to him, looks alto- 
 gether reasonable ; though I say to you that to 
 my eyes reason turns pale in its presence. 
 
 He says that not one of the passages I have 
 quoted to prove baptism for remission sa.ys or 
 hints that a man will be damned if he is not 
 baptized. But, I beg him to bear in mind that 
 I am not trying to tell anybody how to be damn- 
 ed. To refuse to l)e baptized is not the only way 
 to be damned. The passages I have referred to 
 speak of the connection of baptism with salvation 
 or remission of sins. If the Professor wants to 
 get into a discussion as to what is and what is 
 not a condition of damnation, he can for the pre- 
 sent, have it all his own way. 
 
 I showed that according to my opponent's doc- 
 trine as to infants, and that which he advocates 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 259 
 
 'ithout 
 
 uiulc'i'- 
 
 prcssly 
 
 iiyoue. 
 
 eliding 
 
 3uld 1)0 
 
 might 
 
 and so 
 rgottcii 
 
 line on - 
 
 course, 
 
 it not 
 
 it quite 
 1 should 
 ' h)Bt on 
 
 that is, 
 
 the cir- 
 he same 
 ' was de- 
 foresight 
 
 e in the 
 oks alto- 
 that to 
 
 I have 
 says or 
 le is not 
 ind that 
 )e damn- 
 )iily way 
 'erred to 
 salvation 
 wants to 
 wliat is 
 the pre- 
 
 iit's doc- 
 Idvocates 
 
 as to faith — tliat it is necessarily and cHsoitiallii 
 connected with salvation — they will all be lost. 
 And he says that I am in the same difficulty, 
 Well, if I am I am unconscious of it. I have not 
 said that infants are sinners, or that they are 
 lost; neither have 1 said that faith is necessarily 
 and essentially connected with salvation, ilis 
 assertion, therefore, that I am in the same dil'ti- 
 culty that these two doctrines involve him in, 
 needs to he labored a little, to make it plain. 
 
 The Professor comes back to the case of Cor- 
 nelius the centurion, to tinker u]) his argument 
 thence derived. What I said l)efore I repeat 
 substantially. The gentleman argued that Cor- 
 nelius and those with him were saved before 
 their baptism from the fact tliat the Holy Si>jrit 
 came upon them in miraculous power before. 
 Now, the miraculous gift of the Hoi}' Spirit, was 
 confined to primitive time's, and had no particU' 
 lar place, in reference to the remission of sins, or 
 to baptism, in the scheme of salvation. At 
 Jerusalem the first disciples received this gift 
 after they had been bajDtized and were saved 
 persons. But at the house of Cornelius the case 
 was different. The persons there receiving it, 
 being Gentiles, Peter would evidently have hesi- 
 tated to baptize and receive them into the church, 
 and the disciples generally, being all Jews up to 
 this time, would not have approved it, had not they 
 received this testimony from God, before they 
 were baptized. Peter so interpreted the matter 
 in his defence of his conduct, made afterward. 
 
 But in his last speech my friend argues that 
 Cornelius was saved before he sent for Peter, 
 from the fact that in the former part of the 
 chapter it is said of him that his prayers and 
 alms had gone up before God for a memorial. 
 He thinks that if that does not imply that he 
 
N '''! 
 
 )i: I 
 
 260 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 had saving faith it would bo very difficult to 
 know who has got it. Now, it is true, as he 
 says, that tho angel that appeared did tell him 
 that his prayers and alms had gone up for a 
 memorial before God ; but he did not tell him 
 that this was evidence that he was already a 
 saved man. On the contrary, he told him to 
 '* Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose 
 surname is Peter, who shall tell thee icorda 
 whereby thou and all tliy house sltall he saved." — 
 Acts xi, 13-14. Does not tliis imply that he was 
 not yet saved ? And yet, in the very teeth of 
 this language, the worthy gentleman infers that 
 he was a saved man already, because of what 
 was said of bis prayers and alms ! And what is 
 seriously damaging to his whole position upon 
 this question is, that he says if Cornelius did 
 not have saving faith before he sent for Peter 
 that it w^ould be difficult to know who has got 
 saving faith. Well, we have seen tliat he was 
 not saved at that time, but had yet to send for 
 Peter and hear words whereby he might be 
 saved ; and hence we see that with the Profes- 
 sor's view of the matter one cannot " know who 
 has saving faith." And this is because he is in 
 error, and error always brings confusion. 
 
 A word or two about "regeneration." I may 
 have said in the early part of this discussion that 
 the word regeneration is not used to indicate that 
 inward moral change that is now almost univer- 
 sally called regeneration. Anyhow, 1 think it is 
 a fact, whether I said it or not. Mr. Campbell 
 said something of the kind, too, I think, and you 
 know my distinguished opponent is debating 
 about as much with Mr. Campbell as with me. 
 I repeat that it is true, that the word regenera- 
 tion does not in the New Testament indicate in a 
 single instance what regeneration popularly means 
 
 I \ 
 
lilt to 
 as lie 
 11 him 
 for a 
 11 liim 
 3ady a ' 
 liim to 
 , whose 
 
 ^-ed." — 
 he was 
 ;eeth of 
 ers that 
 of what 
 what is 
 )n upon 
 liiis did 
 01- Peter 
 has got 
 
 he If (I a 
 lend for 
 liight he 
 \. Profes- 
 liow who 
 
 he is in 
 
 I may 
 liion that 
 bate that 
 univer- 
 link it is 
 Jamphell 
 land you 
 llehating 
 nth. me. 
 3genera- 
 ?ate in a 
 ly means 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 261 
 
 now. Now, do not understand, please, that I do not 
 believe in what is now called regeneration, for I 
 certainly do, and so do my brethren, and so did 
 Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell never questioned 
 the/(/c^ of the moral change now called regenera- 
 tion, but chose to designate it in other words, 
 using the word regeneration in what he believed 
 to be its Scriptural sense. The gentleman was 
 simply mistaken as to the word regeneration 
 being in the passage he read from John. Regener- 
 ation is not in the English of it, nor is the Greek 
 New Testament word for it in the original. The 
 Greek word translated " regeneration" occurs 
 but twice in the New Testament, is in both in- 
 stances translated regeneration, and in neither 
 means a personal moral change, such as is now 
 called regeneration. But this is a matter about 
 which I feel little concern, further than that you 
 should know that when Mr. Campbell used the 
 word baptize to indicate regeneration, he did 
 not mean to indicate regeneration in its present 
 current sense. It is but just to him that this 
 should be said. 
 
 The gentleman comes in with several quota- 
 tions from men somewhat distinguished in the 
 world of letters — none of them specially so, how- 
 ever, for criticism, that I have ever heard of — to 
 prove that baptism has a figurative or symbolic 
 import. But that's not the figurative question 
 between the Professor and myself. I do not deny 
 that it has both a symbolical and a commemora- 
 tive character. What I deny is, that it has only 
 a figurative or symbolic connection with remis- 
 sion of sins. I deny that such passages as 
 clearly connect it with remission of sins or salva- 
 tion are all to be interpreted as figurative pas- 
 sages. Baptism may be a sign or symbol of 
 something, and yet be really connected with re- 
 mission. 
 
262 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 lit > ' 
 
 ih 
 
 
 
 
 He tells us how some Baptist Quarterly has 
 shown the absurdity of Dr. Hackett's translation 
 and criticism of Acts ii., 38, and how that if he 
 had the Doctor here he would certainly rebuke 
 him. Well, fortunately for the Doctor, he is not 
 here. But did the Professor :^h()ir us the absur- 
 dity of Hackett's rendering and criticism ? Did 
 he even read it from the Baptist Quarterly ? 
 No. He only said the Qnartcrli/ had shown it, 
 and that if Hackett were here he would rebuke 
 him. The Doctor's book is here containing the 
 translaticm and criticism. Let the Professor 
 take hold of the nuittcr and show that the Doc- 
 tor blundered if he can. It amounts to nothing 
 to say that there are places in the New Testa- 
 ment where eis is construed with haptizo, where it 
 would do not to translate it in order to. No doubt 
 the Quarterly did this. So the Professor can do. 
 But this is not meeting the question. The ques- 
 tion is, how must ci.s' be translated in tliis pas- 
 sage ! It is not claimed that it should be so 
 translated in every passage. But in tJiis passage 
 eis means " in order to,'" and must be so inter- 
 preted, on account of its connection here with re- 
 pentance. 
 
 But the Professor says that even if the phrase 
 in Acts ii. 38. must be translated as Hackett has 
 translated it, then he would ask whether it is 
 the repentance or the baptism that is in order 
 to remission ? Well, I tell him both. That's 
 just the point of the criticism. Eepentance and 
 baptism are connected together in the passage, 
 and then the one preposition expresses the rela- 
 tion between both of them and remission of sins. 
 And, as it cannot be denied that repentance is 
 always in order to remission, it follows that in 
 this passage the preposition eis must have that 
 meaning ; and that makes baptism in order to 
 
PFBATE. 
 
 203 
 
 •/// has 
 slation 
 t if he 
 rebuke 
 ! is not 
 al)sur- 
 ? Did 
 rtcrb/ ? 
 own it, 
 ri'l)uke 
 ing the 
 •ofessor 
 tie Doc- 
 nothing 
 v Testa - 
 where it 
 [o doubt 
 can do. 
 be ques- 
 liis pas- 
 Id be so 
 passage 
 inter- 
 with re- 
 phrase 
 iett has 
 tier it is 
 n order 
 That's 
 ice and 
 )assage, 
 he rela- 
 of sins, 
 tance is 
 that in 
 ive that 
 )rder to 
 
 remission. Dr. Hackett sair this point ; some 
 people do not. Hence some people, and some 
 QudrtcrUcH even, nibble round the edges of the 
 question merely. 
 
 Next, the gentleman is found quoting from 
 Wesley to show that remission of sins is ligured 
 in baptism. This he quotes, of course, on ac- 
 count of the word figure. But did even Mr. 
 Wesley mean, when he said baptism was figura- 
 tive of remission, that it has no necessary or 
 real (jonnection with it '? Certainly not. His 
 quotation from Wesley, then, may keep company 
 with another from the same author: "Baptism, 
 administered to real penitents, is both a nicdns 
 and setd of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, in 
 the primitive church, bestoAv this on any, unless 
 through this means." — Wesleifs Notes, on Acts 
 xxii, 10. 
 
 I did admit that a fair interpretation of Matt, 
 xxviii, 19, yields the conclusion that the apostles 
 were to " make disciples of all nations, baptizing 
 them ; " that is, bai^tizing the lUaclples. This 
 has been my view of the passage for years. But 
 does it follow that when persons are taught so 
 far as that they may be called disciples that 
 they are therefore saved, or pardoned? I think 
 not. One may be a disciple in the sense of the 
 commission, and yet not bo saved. Mark's re- 
 cord of this commission throws sufficient light 
 upon the point of difference between us : instead 
 of "make disciples of all nations," as in Matt., 
 Mark says, " Preach the Gospel to every crea- 
 ture." These phrases must be equivalents to 
 harmonize the two records. What IVIatthew 
 means by " make disciples of all nations" Mark 
 expresses by the phrase "preach the Gospel to 
 every creature." But one maybe taucjht, as ac- 
 cording to Matthew, or preached to as according 
 
!j 1 
 
 264 
 
 DEBATE, 
 
 to Mark, iuul not yet be savocl. This is made 
 clear hy JMark, f(»i' he adds (having said jn'eaeh 
 the Gospel to every creature) " he that l)elieves 
 and is baptized sliall be sav(Ml." So we see that 
 the baptism comes in after the teaching, and 
 " saved ' still '.it'tcr thi* baptism. 
 
 i liopc the |;;i'ntieman will j^ive attention to 
 my ar;j;uments and criticisms, rather than spend 
 so much of liis time replying to Mr. Campbell. 
 Or, if he prefers to reply to Mr. Campbell, then 
 I hope he will iillow me to make use of my own 
 arguments rather tlian Mr. Cam])beirs ; I under- 
 stand them better, and can handle them with 
 greater safety. 
 
 Professor Crawford thinks Saul was pardoned 
 before he was baptized, because when Ananias 
 went to him he calkid him " Bro. Saul" before 
 baptizing him. Well ! that surprises me just a 
 little. Now, Professor, if you will turn and read 
 in the third chapter of Acts the account of 
 Peter's second sermon, you will find that he ad- 
 dressed his hearers as " brethren,'' and then after- 
 ward said : " Repent ye, therefore, and be con- 
 verted, that your sins may be blotted out." 
 
is iiiatle 
 
 1 preach 
 
 believes 
 
 see that 
 
 iiig, and 
 
 utioii to 
 till spend 
 anipbell. 
 )ell, then 
 my own 
 I under- 
 tieni with 
 
 pardoned 
 Ananias 
 il" before 
 me just a 
 and read 
 count of 
 at he ad- 
 len after- 
 d be con- 
 it." 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 Saturddj/, Sept. Vlfh, 11 ujii. 
 (prop. Crawford's THiUTEENxn address.) 
 
 Professor Crawford. Afy opponent says that 
 the three thousand on the day of Pentecost be- 
 lieved before they had repented ; and that, 
 therefore, Peter purged them to repent and be 
 baptized, after they had expressed their faith. 
 But wdiere does the passage inform us that they 
 had believed before the apostle had urged them 
 to repent? It says, indeed, that ** they were 
 pricked in their heart :" they were deeply con- 
 victed of their sin, in crucifying the Messiah ; 
 but conviction is not saving faith. It was not 
 when they'had believed ; but when, in their dis- 
 tress of mind, they cried out, " men and brethren 
 what shall we do " that Peter said, " Repent and 
 be baptized." They were first to repent, which 
 implies faith ; and then to profess that faith, and 
 repentance, in [the ordinance of baptism. This 
 is the scripture order, as well as the common 
 sense order. I emphatically deny, therefore, 
 that this passage, any more than the one w^hich 
 my opponent advanced from John's Gospel, or 
 any other passage in the word of God, proves 
 that there may be saving faith without repent- 
 ance. There may be a dead faith without repent- 
 ance : and there may be, and often is, baptism 
 without either. 
 
 Mr. Sweeney says that I omitted to come back 
 
 to the passage in Peter, where baptism is called 
 
 a ** like figure." He need not be the least afraid 
 
 that I am going to let his remarks on this pass- 
 12 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 Ni 
 
 I 
 
 af^e pass imrofuted. I was just coming to this 
 topic, wheu my address closed ; but I nhall exam- 
 ine his argumeiitH presently. 
 
 My opponent charges me witli making haptinm 
 a non-essential. I do not undervalue this ordi- 
 nance of our blessed Lord. It is very true tliat 
 I aftinn that baptism is not essential to salva- 
 tion ; although T believe, and teach, that the 
 observance of this ordinance is essential to good 
 obedience. I say, moreover, that the man who 
 neglects, or refuses to obey, this divine command, 
 imperils his soul's salvation. All sin, whether of 
 omission or commission, is perilous. But I do 
 not teach the unscriptural doctrine, that the 
 omission of baptism, from whatever cause, neces- 
 sitates a man's eternal damnation. 
 
 Mr. Sweeney perseveres in affirming that I can- 
 not produce commentators who regard baptism 
 as a figure or symbol. I have read several quota- 
 tions to this effect this morning, and I have quite 
 a number of others here v;hich I could read, if it 
 did not consume too much of my time. But, as 
 I liave said, the assertion of my opponent is pre- 
 posterous in the extreme, as any man, even 
 moderately acquainted with theological literature, 
 knows. Why, there is scarcely a respectable 
 Protestant commentator who does not treat bap- 
 tism as a symbol. I might ask my opponent if 
 he could produce any respectable Protestant 
 author who denies that baptism is a figure or 
 symbol ? I still maintain, therefore, that when 
 it is said, in Acts ii, 38, "Eei^ent, and be bap- 
 tised unto (eis) the remission of sins," the mean- 
 ing is, that baptism only symhollicalh) places the 
 believer in the condition of one whose sins are 
 remitted, by virtue of his union with Christ in 
 his death, burial and resurrection. I have shown 
 that John's baptism unto {eis) repentance, placed 
 
 i I 
 
DEIUTE. 
 
 267 
 
 those who pubmitted to it ' in the position of 
 penitents only in a symbol. It did not really 
 make them penitents ; and, for the very obvious 
 reason, that they were penitents before their bap- 
 tism ; for John would not reet'ive them to this 
 ordinance until they had first brou;^ht forth fruit 
 meet for repentance ; and, if John's baptism was 
 only a symbol, what reason have we to regard 
 Christ's baptism in any other light ? 
 
 Let us now turn to Eph. v, 25-27 : — " Husbands 
 love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
 Church, and gave himself for it : that he might 
 sanctify and clQiinse it, with tht? v;ashing of water, 
 by the word, 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." The Disciples make the "wash- 
 ing of water" baptism. Well, let us, for the sake 
 of argument, suppose that it is baptism. I still 
 ask, does baptism realb/ wash away sin, or only 
 smybollically ? I hold that sins are only washed 
 away through baptism in symbol ; and before my 
 opponent can build an argument on this passage 
 and it's parallels, he must show that baptism is 
 not a symbol ; and I am far mistaken if he does 
 not find, notwithstanding all his reckless asser- 
 tions, that nearly all Protestant theologians are 
 against him. 
 
 I contend, however, that baptism is not the 
 thing signified in the passage before us. The 
 Apostle is here employing a beautiful, but, in 
 Scripture, a common figure, in which he com- 
 pares the Church to a bride, prepared for her 
 husband. She is to be purified and presented to 
 Christ, without spot or wrinkle. It is not her par- 
 don, nor her justification, but her sanctification, 
 therefore, to which the Apostle refers. This is 
 evident, not only from the nature of the figure 
 
9 
 
 ! 1 
 
 I I 
 
 ■I J 
 
 f'; 
 
 
 I 1 . 
 
 i 
 
 i: 
 
 jji 
 'ii 
 !!i 
 
 268 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 employed, but it is equally obvious from the 
 word by which it is oxj^ressed. The word harflozeio 
 to sanctify, and the word hag'wH, holy, are in- 
 variably employed i i Scripture to signify sanc- 
 tification, and not justification, or pardon. 
 What, then, is the figurative bath, or washing, 
 by which the Church, as the bride of Christ, is 
 sanctified ? Why the Apostle himself explains 
 the figure. He says that is " hji the won],'' ver. 
 26. And this interpretation is also confirmed 
 by the words of our Lord himself, when he says, 
 " Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy word is 
 truth,'' John xvii. 17. 
 
 Let us now look once more at 1 Peter iii. 21 : 
 ** The like figure whereunto even baptism doth 
 also now save us." Mr. Sweeney quotes with 
 approbation, from Parkhurst, I believe, to show 
 that the word antitupon rendered in the text, "a 
 like figure," should be translated antitupe. To 
 this I would reply that we cannot, at all times, 
 follow the derivation of a word, as words very 
 frequently depart, in meaning, from their deriva- 
 tions. Take our word candlestick r*^ a familiar 
 example. At iirst it signified a stick to hold a 
 candle ; but, in process of time, the word was 
 applied to any candle-holder, whether of brass, 
 or silver, or glass, or earthenware. Now the 
 word antitype, although derived from anti and 
 tupon, has not the meaning of the Greek word 
 antitupon. And, I ask, is it not absurd to call 
 i)aptism the antitype of the salvation from thw 
 flood ? The salvation in the ark of Noah was 
 nc type of baptism. It was a type of our deliv- 
 erance from the final judgment, through our 
 union with the risen Saviour ; and baptism, as 
 the Apostle affirms, is a like figure, symbolizing 
 the same deliverance by ouv union with Christ, 
 in his death, burial and resurrection. 
 
 ,.-A t 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 269 
 
 was 
 
 leliv- 
 
 oiir 
 
 as 
 
 izmg 
 
 irist, 
 
 I defy my oppoaciit to produce a simple exam- 
 ple, either in the Greek classics, or in the New 
 Testament, where the word aiititupon has the 
 meaning of antitype. There is hut one other 
 passage in the New Testament, where the word 
 is found. Let us see what it's meaning is in this 
 passage, Hehrew ix., 24, " For Christ is not 
 entered into the Holy places made with hands, 
 which are the figures, antitiijxi, of tlu; true ; hut 
 into Heaven itself, now to appear in the pres- 
 ence of God for us." Here the meaning is evi- 
 dent. The Holy places made with hands are the 
 antitapa, or, ftgures of the true, or " Heaven it- 
 self." My opponent will hardly venture to argue 
 that the Holy places made with hands is the an- 
 titype of Heaven ! This passage, then, settles 
 the meaning of the word. It means, a type, 
 symhol, or figure, answeriiKj to the reality or 
 thing figured. This is the, true force of the pre- 
 position ant'i in composition. Is it not as 
 clear, therefore, as the light of Heaven, that hap- 
 tism is a figure, or symhol ? The ingenuity of 
 Satan could not set aside the meaning of the 
 word antitupon in this i)assage ; and there is ah- 
 solutely no exan\ple in the Greek tongue, where 
 it signifies antitype, the meaning for which Mr. 
 Sweeney contends. Baptism, then, only saves 
 in a figure, and should never he observed by any 
 man, who has not previously undergone that 
 saving change, of which it is the symhol ; other- 
 wise it would he hut an empty form, without the 
 power. It is union with Christ by Faith, 
 through the operation of the Holy Ghost, reveal- 
 ing that Saviour to the soul, that really sa\«.s; 
 and, without this, all the v/aters in the Atlantic 
 can never wash away sin. While we believe, and 
 teach, that baptism should always accompany 
 Faith ; or, in other words, all who believe sh'^uld 
 
SaSEHSESH 
 
 11 
 
 J 
 
 270 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 profess that Faith in the ordinance of Christian 
 baptism ; yet we believe there are, and liave 
 been, through false teaching on this subject, 
 thousands of excellent Christians, such as Luther, 
 Whitfield, Wesley, and Chalmers, who were never 
 baptized ; yet of whose salvation I have no doubt. 
 To deny salvation to these devoted servants of 
 Christ, because they were in error about the 
 nature, and obligation of Christian baptism, is 
 not only an unscriptural, but, in my opinion, an 
 ahominahle doctrine. However imi)ortant the or- 
 dinance may be, this is to make an idol of it ; 
 and the tendency of this doctrine is, to put bap- 
 tism in the place of that of which it is but the 
 symbol. 
 
 There will not bo time for me to follow up this 
 topic any farther, as I am anxious, before this 
 debate closes, to draw attention to another im- 
 portant error, held, and taught, by Campbell and 
 his followers. I refer to his views on saving 
 Faith. 
 
 Mr. Campbell teaches that all that is essential 
 to saving Faith is belief in the bare fact ''that 
 Jesus, the Nazarene is the Messiah." Had he 
 taught that the belief in the Truth, contained or 
 implied, in this statement, was saving Faith, I 
 would not have so much fault to tind ; for then 
 it would be implied that the man understands 
 who Jesus the Nazarene is ; and what is the 
 nature of his office, as the Messiah, the prophet, 
 priest and king of his Church! In other words, 
 this would imply that the man's mind has been 
 enlightened by God's Word and Spirit. But Mr. 
 Campbell has, when treating on this subject, dis- 
 tinguished between the Truth and the Jaet, and 
 it is belief in the fact, according to his doctrine, 
 which constitutes all that is essential to saving 
 Faith, Now, this I regard as another Gospel. 
 But let us hear Mr. Campbell himself. 
 
dstian 
 . have 
 Libject, 
 lUther, 
 i never 
 doubt, 
 mts of 
 ut the 
 ism, is 
 Lon, an 
 the or- 
 of it ; 
 it bap- 
 but the 
 
 up this 
 >re this 
 ler im- 
 3ell and 
 saving 
 
 isential 
 that 
 [ad he 
 lined or 
 I'aith, I 
 »r then 
 ■stands 
 is the 
 l-ophet, 
 1 words, 
 ,s been 
 lut Mr. 
 it, dis- 
 •t, and 
 jctrine, 
 javing 
 rospel. 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 271 
 
 ''Christianity Eestored," p. 118, 110: "The 
 grandeur, subHraity, and beauty of the founda- 
 tion of hope, and of ecclesiastical and social 
 union, established by the author and founder of 
 Christianity, consisted in this, that the belk'/ of 
 one fact, and that upon the best evidence in the 
 world, is all that h rcquhite, as far as faith (foes 
 to salvation. The belief in this one fact, and sub- 
 mission to one institution, expressive of it, is all 
 that is required of heaven to admission into the 
 church. A Christian, as defined, not by Dr. 
 Johnson, or any creed maker, but by one taught 
 from heaven, is one that believes this one fact, 
 and has submitted to one institution ; and whose 
 deportment accords with the morality and virtue 
 of the great jn'ophet. The one fact is expressed 
 in a single proposition, tliat Jesus, tJie Nazarene, 
 is the Messiah. The evidence upon which it is 
 to be believed is the testimony of twelve men, 
 confirmed by prophecy and miracles, and spiri- 
 tual gifts. The one institution is baptism, into the 
 name of the Father and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit." Here you see that all that is re- 
 quisite, '* as far as faith goes to salvation," is 
 belief in the bare fact " that Jesus, tJie Nazarene, 
 is the Messiah,'' and submission to one institution, 
 baptism. 
 
 Now, I maintain that, if this be sound doc- 
 trine, we are bound to receive Arians, Socinians, 
 Mormons, Christadelphians, and a host of other 
 heretics ; for thes6 all admit the one fact that 
 Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah ; and most of 
 them are quite willing to submit to the one 
 institutio)!, baptism. Indeed, Mr. Campbell ap- 
 pears willing to accept of this inference from his 
 teaching. Let us read again from " Christianity 
 Restored," p. 123: "What is a Unitarian'? One 
 who contends that Jesus Christ is not the Son of 
 
»i': 
 
 ll I 
 
 'i :• 
 
 ,;!' 
 
 *ii. 
 
 272 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 God. Such a one has denied the faith, and there- 
 fare we reject him. But, says a Trinitarian, many 
 Unitarians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the 
 Son of God in a sense of their own. Admit it. 
 Then, I ask. How do you know they have a sense 
 of their own ? Intuitively, or in words ? Not 
 intuitively, but by their words. And what are 
 these words ? Are they Bible Words I If they 
 are, we cannot object to them ; if they are not, we 
 will not hear them ; or, what is the same thing, 
 2i'e will not discuss them at all. If he will ascribe 
 to Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works and 
 worship, we will not fight with him about schol- 
 astic words ; but if he will not ascribe to Him 
 everything that the first Christians ascribed, 
 and worship and adore Him as the first Chris- 
 tians did, we will reject him ; not because of his 
 private opinions, but because he refuses to honour 
 Jesus as the first converts did." There is not 
 time to read the whole passage ; but it goes on 
 to deal in the same manner with the Universal- 
 ists. He is willing to receive, both to baptism, 
 and to the Church, Arians, Universalists, pro- 
 vided they only dissemble, or hold these soul- 
 destroying heresies as private opinions. 
 
 Then a large party of Unitarians, with their 
 leader and preacher, the Rev. Mr. Stone, who 
 had openly and in print, as I am prepared to 
 show, denied the proper Deity of Christ and the 
 doctrine of the atonement, were received ; and 
 Stone worked with Campbell, as a recognized 
 leader, in the Bethanv Reformation. 
 
 Indeed, these views were practically carried 
 out by Mr. Campbell. In the year 1828 a Uni- 
 versalist preacher, the Rev, Mr. Raines, was 
 received and baptized for the remission of sins, 
 and this with the full approbation of Mr. Camp- 
 bell ; and at whose suggestion it was resolved, 
 
id there - 
 n, many 
 st is the 
 Ulmit it. 
 ! a sense 
 ^ ? Not 
 what are 
 //' theij 
 3 not, we 
 cie thing, 
 l1 ascribe 
 orks and 
 ut schol- 
 3 to Him 
 ascribed, 
 •st Chris- 
 ise of his 
 bo honour 
 re is not 
 goes on 
 fniversal- 
 baptism, 
 sts, pro- 
 ese soul- 
 
 lith their 
 
 lone, who 
 
 Ipared to 
 
 and the 
 
 ed ; and 
 
 [cognized 
 
 carried 
 l8 a Uni- 
 jies, was 
 1 01 sins, 
 [. Camp- 
 resolved, 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 273 
 
 " That, if these peculiar opinions were held as 
 private opinions, and not taught by his brother, 
 he might be, and constitutionally ought to be, 
 retained." 
 
 Again, Dr. Thomas, the founder of that miser- 
 able sect of heretics, the Christadelphians ; who, 
 with other damnable heresies, deny the proper 
 deity of Christ, was a fellow labourer with Camp- 
 bell. Campbell called upon the Church of Dr. 
 Thomas to exclude him, not for his doctrines, if 
 he was only willing to hold them as iir'ivate opin- 
 ions ; but Thomas would teach them ; and his 
 Church would stick to him ; and, after Campbell 
 had debated w4th him for three days, he agreed 
 to a compromise, while each held to his own 
 opinions. 
 
 Indeed Campbell was less offended with the 
 heretical doctrines of Dr. Thomas than with his 
 insisting on re-baptism, in the case of those who 
 had not been baptized in order to the remission 
 of sins ; or, in other words, according to the 
 ancient Gospel restored by the reformers. Now, 
 while I entirely dissent from the views of both 
 Campbell and Thomas, I must say, that Dr. 
 Thomas w^as the more consistent. According to 
 Mr. Campbell's own teaching, Dr. Thomas was 
 right in insisting on re-baptism. 
 
 Let us hear Mr. Cami)bell. Debate with Rice, 
 p. 439. ** Now if baptism is for any other end or 
 purpose than was that to which Paul submitted, 
 it is another baptism, as much as bathing for 
 health is different from a Jewish ablution for 
 legal uncleanness, or impurity. The action has 
 a meaning and a design ; and it must be received 
 in that meaning, and for that design, else it is 
 another baptism." Now does it not follow from 
 this, that all those, who have not adopted the 
 peculiar views of the Bethany Reformation, have 
 
iS 
 
 I'lllf I 
 
 274 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 received a baptism, which, in the esteem of Mr. 
 Campbell, is of no more avail than a bathing for 
 health : but, according to his doctrine, baptism 
 is necessary to salvation. Therefore if theywere 
 to partake of salvation they ought to be re-bap- 
 tized as their first was invalid. 
 
 Here I would observe that, if his doctrine be 
 correct, Mr. Campbell ought to be re-baptized, as 
 he was baptized before he discovered the ancient 
 Gospel, before he could have been baptized with 
 the right object; and consequently, it was of no 
 more avail than bathing for health ! It would 
 appear, according to his own teaching that he is 
 lost, for he was never baj^tized in order to the re- 
 mission of sins ! 
 
 As the debate is drawing to a close, and my 
 time is nearly up, I feel that I cannot do justice 
 to this topic which I have thus introduced at the 
 close of the discussion, because I was unwilling 
 to omit it. It would in fact require a whole day, 
 fully to discuss this question of saving faith. 
 Besides, I find that the quotations, which I would 
 like to read, have got mixed up with others, 
 which there is not time to read during the few 
 minutes which remain. 
 
 I intended also to prove the inconsistency of 
 Mr. Campbell and his followers ; but I can do 
 no more than hint at a few things, which I could 
 prove by abundant documentary evidence, had 
 I time. I would briefly state, then, that when 
 Mr. Campbell lirst commenced his crusade 
 against the sects, he, in the most bitter manner, 
 condemned nearly all the evangelical institutions 
 of the day ; but, when he found himself 
 at the head' of a new sect, he adopted many 
 of the very things which he had before opposed. 
 
 Sabbath Schools and Bible Societies were de- 
 nounced by him and the reformers. " I have 
 
 :ii 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 275 
 
 for a long time," says he in the Christian Baptist, 
 p. 80, "viewed both Bible Societies and Sunday 
 Schools as a sort of recruiting establishments, 
 to fill up the ranks of those sects which take the 
 lead in them." 
 
 If time ])ermittod I could read several passages 
 to show tliat he also denounced Missionary 
 Societies ; and his denunciations were not with- 
 out effect. A Kentucky correspondent in the 
 Chr'tst'taii Baptist, p. 144, writes, " Your paper 
 has well-nigh stopped Missionarv operations in 
 this State." 
 
 Again, Mr. Campbell denounced colleges for 
 the education of young men for the Gospel 
 Ministry. Let us read one or two (juotations : 
 " Baptists, too, have got their schools, and their 
 colleges, and their Gamaliels, too — and by the 
 magic of these marks of the heast, they claim 
 homage and respect ; and dispute the high places 
 with those very Babbis whose fathers were wont 
 to (pin at their fathers." Again, " The sermon 
 is intended to proclaim that it is the duty of the 
 Church to prepare in her bosom pious youth for 
 the Gospel Ministry. Now, this is really a new 
 message from the skies ; for there is not one 
 word, from Genesis to John, which says that it 
 is the duty of the Church to prepare pious youth 
 for the Gospel Ministry." — Christian Baptist for 
 1826, p. 221. 
 
 Although both common sense and the Bil)le 
 teach that ministers of the Gospel should be 
 supported by the churches ; that " they who 
 preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel ; " 
 and "we are not to muzzle the mouth of the ox 
 that treadeth out the corn : " j^et Mr. Campbell 
 and his followers denounced, as hirelings, all 
 who received any remuneration for their evan- 
 gelical labours. " Every man," says Mr. Camp- 
 
' i» 
 
 ,rl 
 
 ', I 
 
 27G 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 bell, "who receives money for preaching the 
 Gosj^el, or for sermons, by the day, month, or 
 year, is a hireling in the language of truth and 
 soberness." And, even in the present day, we 
 hear the Disciples sometimes denounce, as hire- 
 lings, those who receive support for preaching. 
 And yet I think it is pretty well known that they 
 sometimes yield to common sense and Scripture 
 and support their preachers. I cannot sny what 
 my opponent's private circumstances are, whether 
 he has, or has not, property' of his own, to enable 
 him to labor without support from the churches ; 
 but I would ask him whether he can say, that he 
 receives nothing for his services from his church 
 in Chicago ? No, he cannot. Why, then, do 
 the Disciples denounce other donominations for 
 supporting their ministers, according to the 
 Word of God ? 
 
ag the 
 Qth, or 
 th and 
 ^ay, we 
 IS hire- 
 aching, 
 at they 
 :ripture 
 ly what 
 v'hether 
 ► enahle 
 arches ; 
 that he 
 
 church 
 hen, do 
 ions for 
 
 to the 
 
 KEPLY. 
 
 (MR. SWEENEY'S THIRTEENTH REPLY.) 
 
 Saturday. Sept. 12th, 11.30 a.m. 
 
 Mr. Sueencif. — The fact that the three thous- 
 and on the day of Pentecost ah-eady beheved 
 when Peter told them to repent and be baptized 
 in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
 sins, is in Professor Crawford's way, as I ex- 
 pected it would be when I called attention to it. 
 lie denies that it is a fact, as I thou^dit it quite 
 l)robable he would, and asks me where in the 
 record it is said that they believed when they 
 asked what to do. Well, it is not said at all. 
 But is that sufficient proof that they did not ? 
 If so, then it would be difficult to prove 'that 
 they believed at all before their baptism. Is the 
 proof ready for that ? "Where does the passage 
 say they believed " liefore they were baptized ? 
 It doesn't say it at all. We have to infer that 
 they did. And I offer two facts from which I 
 think we may very safely make the inference that 
 they believed before Peter told them to repent 
 and be baj^tized. First, the fact that they asked 
 Peter and the rest of the Apostles, "What must 
 we do ! " Would they have done this had they 
 not believed that Jesus whom they had crucified 
 "Was the Christ ? Did they ever consult these 
 friends and Apostles of Jesus before, as to their 
 duty. No ! they had crucified the Master and 
 stopped the mouths of his Disciples ; and had 
 they not been convinced — had they not believed 
 — that Jesus was risen, and made Lord and 
 Christ in Heaven they would never have " said 
 
^K" 
 
 I ' f 
 
 278 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 m 
 
 
 unto Peter and the rest of the Aposth^s, Men and 
 brethren, ^vhat shall wo do?" Secondly, we 
 may fairly infer that they believed from the fact 
 that Peter told them to ''repent and l)e baptized 
 in the name of Jesus Christ." Would he have 
 so instructed ^Hbelievers ? Will Professor Craw- 
 ford say he would ? It is certain that these per- 
 sons, when they asked what they must do, either 
 believed, or they did not. If they did not, as the 
 Professor contends, then Peter told unbelievers to 
 " repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus 
 Christ for the remission of sins," promising:; them 
 thereupon " the gift of the Holy Spirit ! ! " But 
 if they did believe, then Peter told believers to 
 "repent and bo baptized in the name of Jesus 
 Christ for the remission of sins," which is the 
 fact in the case. And from this fact two others 
 follow. First, that repentance comes after faith ; 
 and, second, that both repentance and baptism 
 come before remission of sins. But the Profes- 
 sor says that they did not believe, when they 
 "heard" and " wTro pricked in their heart;" 
 that they were only '* convicted of their sin, in 
 crucifying the Messiah." But I submit that this 
 could not have been had they not hellcred that 
 he whom they had crucified ivas the Messiah. 
 Truly, this passage is a hard one for my oppo- 
 nent ! 
 
 The gentleman denies that he makes " bapt- 
 ism a non-essential ;" but in the same breath 
 almost he says, "it is not esential to salva- 
 tion !" He only makes it " essential to good 
 obedience." Then, I suppose " good obedi- 
 ence" is not essential to salvation. That's it; 
 is it ? 
 
 Have I said that the " omission of baptism, 
 from whatever cause,'' necessitates one's eternal 
 condemnation ? Have I not particularly and re- 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 270 
 
 len and 
 (Uy, we 
 the fact 
 )aptized 
 le have 
 >r Craw- 
 ese por- 
 0, either 
 t, as the 
 ievers to 
 >f Jesus 
 n<jf them 
 !" But 
 tcvcrs to 
 )f Jesus 
 :h is the 
 o others 
 3r faith ; 
 baptism 
 } Profes- 
 en they 
 leart ;" 
 sin, in 
 lat this 
 ed that 
 essiah. 
 y oppo- 
 
 " bapt- 
 breath 
 salva- 
 
 ;o good 
 obedi- 
 
 at's it; 
 
 iptism, 
 eternal 
 and re- 
 
 peatedly denied that my brethren do so teach, or 
 that they ever did. I believe my opponent is 
 sincere, but he does 7)10^1 atranijchi misundorstand 
 me and my brethren. 
 
 The, gentleman ventures to translate an, in 
 Acts ii. 88, by the English preposition " unto." 
 This translation, with me, is not seriously objec- 
 tionable. Ikit 1 shall hold him to the fact that 
 baptism is unto remission of sins in the same 
 sense that repentance is. If vis is to be trans- 
 lated "unto" in the passage, then it will read, 
 " Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus 
 Christ unto remission of sins." Now, in what 
 sense must a sinner ripnit unto remission of 
 sins ? Must he not repent to hrimi him unto re- 
 mission ? Certainly. Then, so he must be 
 baptized unto remission. Does unto have two 
 different meanings in the one occurrence ? It 
 cannot. So the gentleman only shifts the difli- 
 culty, without getting rid of it. He might just 
 as well take Dr. Ilackc.'tt's rendering after all ; 
 for it is more elegant tliiin bis own, while it af- 
 fords him no less aid in his extremity. It mat- 
 ters very little how we interpret eh in the pas- 
 sage where it is said John baptized {e'lH) unto 
 repentance, so far as it respects our controversy 
 concerning its meaning in Acts ii. 38. I am not 
 bound to show that it means precisely the same 
 in both passages. I believe, however, that John 
 baptized the people into repentance ; repentance 
 in that case meaning a state of reformation, or 
 preparation, to receive the Christ when he should 
 come. 
 
 As to baptism merely " symbolizing" what 
 was possessed and enjoyed before and without it, 
 the learned gentleman has as yet proceeded no 
 farther than hare assertion. He haS found one 
 passage of Scripture that he thinks calls baptism 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 A 
 
 *// 
 
 V 
 
 
 i^W 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 lii IIIIIM 
 
 1^ IM 
 
 1^ 
 
 !!: 1^ 
 
 M 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 mil 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 W 
 
 ^ 
 
 iV 
 
 #N 
 
 ^ 
 
 iV 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 ^-b^; ^^^ 
 
 6^ 
 
Q>, 
 
280 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 t i 
 
 I I 
 I i 
 
 a ''figure" — "the like fipjure whereunto bapt- 
 ism (loth also now save us." Now, granting that 
 " figure" is a correct rendering of the Greek word 
 (intifupon, (though I do not believe that it is) it 
 does not get rid of the fact that baptism now 
 saves us." A thing may itself be a figure, or a 
 symbol, of something else, and yet be really con- 
 nected with salvation as a condition. The pas- 
 sage does not say, nor can it be be made to say 
 by any possible translation, that baptism is a 
 figure, or symbol, of salvation already possessed. 
 Then, how does all he had to say about antitn- 
 pon, even if correct, afford him any aid in his 
 effort to get rid of the connection between bapt- 
 ism and remission of sins ? Can any one tell ? 
 
 But I say that the Greek word antitiipon 
 does literally mean antitype. It means anti- 
 type in the passage in question, and it means 
 the same in the passage in Hebrews, to 
 which he referred with such emphasis. Let 
 us see if it does not have this meaning in 
 Heb. ix, 24. I admit that the gentleman is cor- 
 rect in saying that the Apostle there calls ** the 
 Holy places made with hands the antHupa of 
 Heaven_itself." But I do not agree with him 
 that it would be absurd to render antitupa, in 
 this place, antitypes. What is there so absurd 
 al)out it ? What is an antitype ? It is some- 
 thing which is formed according to a model or 
 pattern, and bearing strong features of resem- 
 blance to it. The model, or pattern, or type, 
 must always exist before there can be an anti- 
 type. Well, did not Heaven itself exist before 
 the Holy places made with hands ? And is it 
 absurd to say that the Holy place was modeled, 
 or patterned, in some sense, after Heaven itself ? 
 I cannot sec the absurdity. Indeed the Apostle 
 says as much in the ^verse next preceding this, 
 
3 bapt- 
 ig that 
 k word 
 b is) it 
 m now 
 :e, or a 
 ly con- 
 le pas- 
 to say 
 m is a 
 sscssed. 
 antitn- 
 [ in his 
 n bapt- 
 I tell ? 
 ititupon 
 s anti- 
 means 
 
 A'S, to 
 Let 
 
 ling in 
 is cor- 
 5 ''the 
 
 tupa of 
 
 th him 
 upa, in 
 absurd 
 some- 
 
 odel or 
 resem- 
 
 type, 
 
 anti- 
 hefore 
 I is it 
 deled, 
 itself? 
 Apostle 
 1, this, 
 
 IjESaTE. 
 
 281 
 
 in which he calls the Holy places ** autltupa of 
 Heaven." Let us read : " It was therefore neces- 
 sary that the patterns of tli'uuiH in the lieavens 
 should be purihed with these, : that is, with the 
 blood of animals; ])ut the heavenly things them- 
 selves with better saeriiices." So we are bound 
 to understand the word antitnpd in this piissag(> 
 in the sense of antitype. The Holy places nuide 
 Avith hands were ant'itiipes of things in the 
 heavens. And this is precisely the sense of the 
 word in 1 Peter iii, 21 : " Eight souls were saved 
 by wate ; the antitype to which, baptism, doth 
 also now save us." The eight souls were saved 
 by water before any one was ever saved hy bap- 
 tism. The salvation by baptism need not answer 
 to the salvation of eight souls by water in ereri/ 
 particular, any more than the Holy places made 
 with hands needed to answer to things in the 
 heavens in every particular. 
 
 Eph. V, 2G : ''Husbands love your wives as 
 also Christ loved the Church and gave himself 
 for her, that he might sanctify her, liaviuij purified 
 her by the laver of the water in the word." I 
 have read Dean Alford's translation in his critf- 
 cal New Testament ; and with it agree substan- 
 tially all the critics. Christ proposes to sanctity 
 [hacjiasee) the Church for the marriage of the 
 Lamb, havimj purified (katharisas) her l)y the 
 laver of water [baptinni) in the Gospel. This 
 makes the purification from sin perfect, and the 
 sanctilication present and future. All critics 
 known to me make the laver of water here mean 
 baptism. Among scholars there is just simply 
 no doubt about it. But the gentleman says "bap- 
 tism does not literallv wash away sins." Well, 
 does the blood of Jesus literally wash away sins ? 
 Blood literally washes nothing. But shall we, 
 therefore contend that the blood of Jesus is not 
 
 H 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 iff! 
 
 i 
 
% 
 
 282 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 really connected with remission ? Surely not. 
 The same may be said of baptism. 
 
 It matters not that the doctrine of baptism for 
 remission of sins is, in the gentleman's judg- 
 ment, "an abominable doctrine." That's a 
 matter of education. There havo always been 
 those in the world who have looked upon remis- 
 sion of sins by the cross of Christ as an unreason- 
 able and an abominable doctrine. But my 
 opponent and I suppose their education is wrong. 
 But why my opponent should be horrified at 
 baptism for remission, with his ''abominable" 
 view of election and reprobation is, to me, a little 
 mysterious. 
 
 Next the Professor takes up what he calls Mr. 
 Cami)beirs '* view of saving Faith.'' I regret 
 that we have so short a time left in which to 
 examine this question. 
 
 I shall not review the passages he read from 
 Mr. Campbell on this point. Suffice it to say, 
 that we require persons to "believe that Jesus 
 is the Christ, the Son of God," in order to bap- 
 tism, and reception into the Church. This is a 
 divine proposition. This is the creed of the 
 Church. When Peter said to Jesus, " Thou are 
 the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus 
 answered and said unto him, " Blessed art thou 
 Simon, son of Jona ; for flesh and blood hath 
 not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is 
 in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou 
 art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 
 church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it." (Matt. xvi. 10-18.) This teaches 
 that th(3 divine creed upon which the church is 
 founded is the divine proposition, " That Jesus is 
 the Christ, the Son of the Uriuif God.'' We do not 
 say this " bare " proposition ; but tliis imyposition 
 in all its length and breadth, heighth and depth ; 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 283 
 
 irt'ly not. 
 
 Lptism for 
 
 iri's judg- 
 
 That's a 
 
 ays been 
 
 on remis- 
 
 imreason- 
 
 But my 
 
 is wrong. 
 
 >rrifie(l at 
 
 minable " 
 
 le, a little 
 
 calls Mr. 
 
 I regret 
 
 which to 
 
 read from 
 
 it to say, 
 
 hat Jesus 
 
 r to bap- 
 
 This is a 
 
 d of the 
 
 Thou are 
 
 " Jesus 
 
 art thou 
 
 od hath 
 
 L' who is 
 
 hat thou 
 
 )uild my 
 
 |t prevail 
 
 teaches 
 
 hurch is 
 
 Jesus is 
 
 e do not 
 
 opositiQii 
 
 depth ; 
 
 in all its comprehensiveness and divine fulness, 
 is all that i;^ necessary, as to faith, in order to 
 baptism, and admission into the church. 
 
 When John had written his storv of Jtsus he 
 said, " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the 
 presence of his disciples, which are not written 
 in this book ; but these are written that ye 
 might believe That Jesus is the CJirist, the Son of 
 the liviiifi God ; and that believing ye might have 
 life through his name." (John xx. 80-81.) This 
 divine proposition contains all necessary truth. 
 It has life and death in it. It has Jesus in j, 
 as Prophet, Priest, and King. It involves the 
 truth of all hf ever said. It involves the truth 
 of all his insj.iod Apostles said. It involves the 
 truth of the Old Testament and the New. It is 
 the only divine confession of faith. It is the 
 creed given by God himself to men. It includes 
 what He holds to be essential as to faith, and 
 excludes what is really not essential. Men have 
 all adown the ages been disposed to make more 
 essentials than God has made, as to faith. This 
 has been the prime cause of most of the schisms 
 in the church, as well as of the mighty flow of 
 innocent blood. I am not only willing to defend 
 the position of my brethren upon this point, but 
 I am proud of it. I will baptize any one who 
 believes with all his heart that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God. I am not so 
 afraid of receiving " heretics " as my worthy 
 opponent seems to be. There has been too 
 much time worse than lost in legislating against 
 heretics. If a man believes in tfesus w^ith all his 
 heart, it is his right to be baptized, and so re- 
 ceived into the church. No man has the right 
 to hinder him one moment. When the Ethio- 
 pian nobleman said to Philip, " See water ; what 
 hinders me to be baptized?" the inspired 
 
ijliil 
 
 tl 
 
 fJ- '<ivl 
 
 ,^l. 
 
 284 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 preacher said, " If thou belie vest with all thine 
 heart thou mayest." Ard when the nobleman 
 said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God," the inspired preacher baptized him. So 
 all preachers should do now. We have no divine 
 authority for requiring more. When a man 
 requires more as to faith he i)resumes to inter- 
 meddle with what is strictly a divine preroga- 
 tive. 
 
 If Professor Crawford feels authorized, as I 
 doubt not he does, to require more of the sinner 
 than to believe with all his heart in Jesus, as the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God, I hope he will 
 find time yet to give us the passage in the word 
 of God upon which this feeling is grounded. I 
 want it. His brethren would, no doubt, like to 
 see it. His practice requires that he should pro- 
 duce it. 
 
 He thinks we are bound to receive Unitarians, 
 Universalists, Christadelphians, and other here- 
 tics, unless we require more than the simple faith 
 of the Gospel, as already noticed. Well, now, I 
 put the whole matter to Professor Crawford in 
 this way : 1. Is there any Divine authority for 
 requiring more of aliens, as to faith, than we 
 require ; that is, to believe with all the heart 
 that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living 
 God ? 2. Can a man believe in Jesus thus with 
 all his heart, and not be a Christinn at heart? 
 3. If one is dishonest, is really not a believer in 
 the Christ, but desirous of getting into the Church, 
 at least apparently, can it be hindered by requir- 
 ing more of him than the simple faith of the 
 Gospel ? If one will say he believes with all his 
 heart in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God, when he does not, then will he not 
 tell as many lies as you may require, if his object 
 
 ,70 -f: 
 
I all thine 
 nobleman 
 ihe Son of 
 him. So 
 3 no divine 
 m a man 
 s to inter- 
 e preroga- 
 
 :ized, as I 
 the sinner 
 33US, as the 
 )pe he will 
 I the word 
 ounded. I 
 ibt, like to 
 should pro- 
 Unitarians, 
 ►ther here- 
 imple faith 
 ell, now, I 
 awford in 
 lority for 
 than we 
 the heart 
 the living 
 thus with 
 at heart? 
 eliever in 
 e Church, 
 by requir- 
 Itli of the 
 Ith all his 
 In of the 
 111 he not 
 Ihis object 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 285 
 
 really be to get into the Church for some un- 
 worthy purpose ? 
 
 As to the reception of ixylett Raines, who had 
 been a Universalist, upon the profession of faith 
 in Jesus and a promise to hold his Universalism 
 as merely private opinion, 1 think that the church 
 in Paris, Ky., did exactly rignt. 
 
 As to the case of Dr. Thomas, I can not see 
 how our brethren could have gotten along with 
 him better or gotten rid of him easier, if they 
 had been governed by the best human creed and 
 Discipline in the world. Does the gentleman 
 mean to say that in respect to such matters, the 
 Baptists never have any trouble ? Do the par- 
 ties who have, wisely ao he supposes, adopted 
 human creeds to prevent heretics getting in 
 among them, and preventing difficulties ^with 
 troublesome men — never have any such troubles 
 as we had with Dr. Thomas, and have had with 
 a few others ? Ah ! it's an easy matter to point 
 at other's troubles, and if only this could prove 
 that we ourselves have none it would rid the 
 world of a world of trouble. 
 
 From the case of Dr. Thomas, Professor Ci aw- 
 ford switched off the track and got on baptism 
 again. He thinks Dr. Thomas was more con- 
 sistent than Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell, he 
 thinks, to have been consistent, *' should have 
 been re-baptized." But Mr. Campbell was not 
 re-baptized ; and I suppose, therefore, that he 
 did not see that his duty or his consistency re- 
 quired it of him. I suppose that Mr. Campbell 
 understood himself quite as well as the Professor 
 understands him. I suppose Mr. Crawford does 
 not perfectly understand Mr. Campbell's views 
 as to faith or baptism. I have learned already, 
 and I am not near as old a man as Professor 
 Crawford, that it is a very easy matter to sit in 
 
 ;:| 
 
 
 ,70 -f " 
 
.. t 
 
 286 
 
 DEDA.TB. 
 
 judgment on men, even great men, that are dead, 
 and to tell wherein they were and wherein they 
 were not consistent. And it is sometimes the 
 case that the less one knows of such grc^at dead 
 men the easier it is to pass judgment. 
 
 We are not hound to receive Unitarians, Mor- 
 mons, Christadelphians, or Trinitarians, an such, 
 hut all men <(s hcrirvcrs in Jesus ; and as helievers 
 in Jesus we are bound to walk together without 
 judging each other's doubtful private opinions. 
 If one believes with all his heart that Jesus is 
 the Christ the Son of God, and makes this con- 
 fession with his mouth, [ will receive him to 
 baptism and to fellowship, without requiring him 
 to tell just Jioic Jesus is the Son of God. 1 don't 
 believe Arius or Alexander either one knew just 
 bow Jesus is God's Son. I don't believe that 
 either Unitarians or Trinitarians can explain 
 this matter with infallible certitude. Indeed, I 
 doubt gravel}^ about even Professsor Crawford 
 being able to analyze the God-head, and tell us 
 just hotc this thing and that thing are thus and 
 so. We are authorized to require persons com- 
 ing to baptism to believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Son of the living God, but we are not auth- 
 orized to make them explain how it is so, or 
 endorse any of our theories as to the how of the 
 matter. Here is where the ** non-essentials " 
 come in. Untaught questions as to the hoiv of 
 the Truths and Facts of revelation are non- 
 essentials. 
 
 The Bible says God appeared to Moses in a 
 burning hush. I believe there was a bush there. 
 I am bound to believe that, for it is expressly said 
 that there was ; but I am not bound to accept 
 any man's theory as to what kind of a bush it 
 was. One man may very honestly think it was a 
 cedar bush ; another, with equal honesty, may 
 
 -'■.•|l 
 
are dead, 
 prein they 
 times the 
 ;reat dead 
 
 ians, Mor- 
 s, OS such, 
 s believers 
 er without 
 } opinions, 
 it Jesus is 
 i this con- 
 ve him to 
 Liiring him 
 d. 1 don't 
 knew just 
 elieve that 
 m explain 
 Indeed, I 
 • Crawford 
 md tell us 
 thus and 
 'sons com- 
 ;he Christ, 
 not auth- 
 is so, or 
 ow of the 
 sentials " 
 he how of 
 are non- 
 
 [oses in a 
 ish there, 
 jsly said 
 [to accept 
 la bush it 
 Ik it was a 
 Isty, may 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 287 
 
 hold that it was an oak; and my opponent might 
 possibly, v;ithout jeoparding his orthodoxy, hold 
 tamarach. It is essential that we should believe 
 it was a ])ush, for the Bible says so ; but, as the 
 Bible does not say what kind it was, I suppose 
 we are all at liberty on that point. God requires 
 us to believe that *' Jesus is the Christ, the son 
 of the living God," for ho has revealed that, and 
 demonstrated it; but as he has not told us just 
 liow Jesus is His son, I suppose it is not essential 
 that we should know. 
 
 But now a few words as to the '' inconsistenc}"- 
 of Mr. Campbell and his followers." The gentle- 
 man tells us that when Mr. Cam])bell started out 
 in his " crusade upon the sects," he, with great 
 bitterness, denounced Sabbath schools, theolo- 
 gical colleges, missionary societies, and the 
 salaried clergy ; but that we have turned 
 about, and now favour all these things ; 
 that is, we are doing among ourselves w^hat 
 Mr. Campbell denounced "the sects" for 
 doing. Well, I submit now, that after all, 
 there are two or three ways for accounting 
 for all the facts there are in the case without 
 making us out any worse than a (jrowing people, 
 at the very w^orst. 
 
 i. Possibly Mr. Campbell went to an extreme 
 in his opposition to tho 'e things, and afterward 
 modified his views of them. That, if true, 
 wouldn't make a very bad case of it. 
 
 2. Possibly Mr. Campbell aimed what he said 
 against such things, as thei/ existed and were used 
 at the time of his opposition, and not as they 
 were favoured afterward by himself and his 
 brethren. That might be the case. - 
 
 3. Even if our present position in relation to 
 matters named were w'holly different from, and 
 entirely inconsistent with, the early views of Mr. 
 
288 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 [i ^1 
 
 CamiDbell and his eo-adjutors, that would only 
 prove that wo have chanf^od a little in reference 
 to some matters of expediency. And even that 
 would not make out a very ugly case. 
 
 And now, will the ^'entleman deny that Baptist 
 views, in reference to the very same matters, have 
 undergone a change '? I think not. Have not all 
 Protestant i)arties developed the same or similar 
 phases in their history ? Then why does he 
 throw this thing in the face of my brethren par- 
 ticularly. Are there not Baptists now who "de- 
 nounce as hirelings all who receive anything for 
 preaching the Gospel ?" Certainly there are. 
 And when my opponent was on the ''divine 
 decrees" yesterday, I thought his " breath smelt" 
 very much like he belonged to that branch of his 
 " Father's children." If his doctrine of election 
 and reprobation be true, what need have we for 
 "Sabbath Schools," "Missionary Societies," 
 " Theological Schools," or a paid ministry. 
 
 But if I have brethren who refuse to support 
 the ministry, they are of all people most incon- 
 sistent and wrong, and I shall certainly not under- 
 take to defend them against any reasonable attack 
 the Professor may choose to make upon them in 
 that respect. I will remind him, however, that 
 he is the wrong man to lecture my brethren or 
 any other people for being anti-missionary ; and 
 that, even if he were the right man, he can find 
 plenty of that kind of work nearer home — even 
 among his Baptist brethren. 
 
 And has it come to this, that the Professor can 
 say nothing worse of what he calls " Campbell - 
 ism" than that Mr. Campbell and those he choses 
 to call his " followers" have, in their history, 
 developed some inconsistencies in reference to 
 Sunday schools, theological schools, missionary 
 societies, and a paid ministry ? It would seem 
 so ! 
 
, would only 
 
 in roferenco 
 
 id even that 
 
 HO. 
 
 that Baptist 
 latters, have 
 tlave not all 
 le or similar 
 •hy does he 
 L-ethren par- 
 w who "de- 
 mj^thing for 
 there are. 
 the "divine 
 L'eath smelt" 
 ranch of his 
 e of election 
 lave we for 
 Societies," 
 iiistry. 
 to support 
 nost incon- 
 not under- 
 able attack 
 1 them in 
 ever, that 
 rethren or 
 nary; and 
 can find 
 )me — even 
 
 ifessor can 
 jampbell- 
 
 Ihe choses 
 
 |i.' history, 
 jrence to 
 
 [issionary 
 lid seem 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 (prof. Crawford's fourteknth address.) 
 
 Prof. Crawford. — According to arrangements 
 I am entitled still to ten minutes before the 
 debate is brought to a close. I regret that we 
 have not a longer time, especially that we might 
 more fully discuss the last topic introduced. I 
 refer to the nature of saving faith. This is a 
 question of vital importance ; and I have had 
 barely time to hint at some of the errors involved 
 in the doctrine upon this subject, as held by Mr. 
 Campbell and his followers. I have furnished 
 myself with abundance of materials to establish 
 all that I have asserted upon this topic, but time 
 prevents me from exposing the erroneous views 
 of the sect upon the subject of saving faith. 
 
 I felt the difficulty of dealing with the mate- 
 rials which I had jirepared, especially in so short 
 a time as remained, and had to hurry in order 
 to bring forward as much as possible before clos- 
 ing. There are many things in my opponent's 
 last address which I should like to deal with, but 
 this is impossible. 
 
 He is very unwilling to give up I Peter iii. 21, 
 where baptism is called a "like figure." But I 
 ask has he to make my arguments ? As I have 
 said, he cannot produce a single example, either 
 in the Greek classics or in the New Testament, 
 where the word antitupon has the meaning of 
 our English word antitype. I have shown also 
 that the only other place where the word occurs 
 in the New Testament it means type or figure, 
 and is so translated. How could it be translated 
 
 13 
 
M 
 
 290 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 in any other way? Let us road the passage again. 
 " For Christ is not cntt-rt'cl into tlie holy phiccs, 
 made with hjinds, wliich are the lipjures {((ut'itupa) 
 of the true ; l)ut into heaven itself now to 
 a])pear in tlie presence of God for us." — lieh. ix, 
 21. Now, I ask, is it not as clear as day, tliat 
 the tahernaclc, or holy places made with hands, 
 istheiigure or type, and "heaven itself" the 
 anti-type ? But my opponent's interpretation 
 would reverse this order. According to the 
 meaning which he would force upon the word in 
 question, lieavcn would he the figure or type, and 
 the tahernacle, or holy places, made with hands, 
 would be the antitype ! This is certainly a new 
 order of interpreting types and figures ! It is 
 simply jireposterous to attempt thus to force a 
 meaning upon a word which it has not got in 
 the language, and which would make nonsense 
 if so translated, in the only other passage where 
 it occurs. No amount of ingenuity, therefore, 
 cjin silence the clear testimony of the passage 
 under consideration. Baptism, then, is a " like 
 Ji(jurG " to the typical salvation in Noah's ark. 
 That temporal salvation typified the still more 
 important salvation ])y Christ, and baptism also 
 sets forth this salvation in a " like figure." 
 Baptism saves, but only in a figure. The real 
 salvation is through our union with Christ, in 
 his death, burial, and resurrection ; of which 
 baptism is the figure. 
 
 It is a faith, not a dead faith, but faith 
 wrought by the Spirit of God, and through the 
 instrumentality of Divine truth, which unites us 
 to Christ ; and this faith we profess in our bap- 
 "sm. Hence, eternal life is inseparable from 
 having faith ; and is, consequently, promised to 
 faith, and also to repentance, as well as to every 
 grace or virtue, that is essential to, and insepar- 
 
 IL. 
 
' phlC'CH, 
 
 itfihtpa) 
 
 now to 
 
 lid), ix, 
 
 ly, that 
 
 hands, 
 
 If" the 
 
 fetation 
 
 to the 
 
 A'ord in 
 
 'pe, and 
 
 hands, 
 
 V a new 
 
 It is 
 
 force a 
 
 t ji^ot in 
 
 onsense 
 
 e where 
 
 lerefore, 
 
 Dassa^e 
 
 L '' like 
 
 I's ark. 
 
 11 more 
 
 m also 
 
 igure." 
 
 |ie real 
 
 |rist, in 
 
 which 
 
 faith 
 
 rh the 
 
 Ites us 
 
 bap- 
 
 from 
 
 sed to 
 
 levery 
 
 lepar- 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 291 
 
 ahle from, saviiif^ fuith. Tliero can he no 
 eternal life without faith, nor without repent- 
 ance, which is ever conjoined to faith ; because 
 there can be no union with Christ, the only 
 source of life, without these. IJut l)aptism and 
 eternal life are not inseparable ; nor art^ baptism 
 and saviu}^ faith inseparable. All believers, that 
 is, all who truly possess savin<j; faith, ought, 
 indeed, to profess that faith in the ordinance of 
 Ciuistian baptism, because Christ has appointed 
 it ; and he says, " If ye love me keep my com- 
 mandments ; " but many excellent Christian 
 people, owing to the confusion and darkness 
 which have gathered ar<Hmd this doctrine, 
 through the unfaithfulness of the Church, have, 
 unfortunatelv, misunderstood the design and 
 wish of God on this point ; yet, being, by Divine 
 grace, changed in heart and life, through the 
 belief of the truth, and by the operation of God's 
 Spirit, they are saved through the blood and 
 righteousness of the Saviour. 
 
 I have shown you that Mr. Campbell, when 
 he first commenced his reformation, attacked 
 nearly every evangelical movement : and, among 
 others, colleges for the education of pious young 
 men for the ministry, and which he denounced 
 as one of the " marks of the beast." But, let us 
 hear how inconsistently with this he writes, 
 when he felt the need of such institutions for his 
 own sect. 
 
 In the ''Millenial Harbinger" for 1854, he 
 tlius writes, in a letter addressed to his wife, p. 
 40 : — ** Since I last wrote to you I have been 
 almost constantly on the wing, pleading the 
 cause of man's redemption in the department of 
 an educated ministry. That this is one of the 
 Lord's ordinances cannot rationally be doubted 
 by an3^ student of nature and the Bible. . 
 
By. 
 
 i 
 
 292 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 We want not higher authority to teach or to con- 
 strain us to raise up — to educate and train men 
 in human and Christain science, that they may 
 he ahle to teach others also. ... We 
 
 are pleased to see that every form of Protestantism, 
 Quakerism alone excepted, is intent on the pro- 
 per education of its itinerent ministry." 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I 
 have only to remark that the Disciples cannot 
 say that they have not heen well represented in 
 Mr. Sweeney. They could not have procured the 
 services of an ahler advocate of their views. 
 
 I have, before sitting down, also to thank the 
 audience for their patient and orderly attention 
 to both speakers throughout this lengthened 
 debate. 
 
 I'll •' 
 J' 
 
 
f to COll- 
 lin men 
 ey may 
 . We 
 taiitism, 
 the pro- 
 
 dred. I 
 . cannot 
 }nted in 
 ured the 
 *vs. 
 
 ank the 
 ttention 
 ^thened 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 (xMR. Sweeney's fourteenth reply.) 
 
 Mr. Sweoici/. — ^The gentleman does not regret 
 more than I that we have so short a time for the 
 discussion of the question as to tJw Fd'ifh. But 
 he has had that matter all his own way. 1 have 
 not said anything as to how nuich time ^ve should 
 devote to the whole discussion, or how much to 
 any particular topic. Even yet he can decide 
 the question as to time, and I shall try to remain 
 till he is perfectly satisfied. 
 
 Still he hangs on nntitupon, denying that it 
 ever anywhere means antitype. Well, I say it 
 does always and everywhere mean antitype. It 
 occurs hut twice in the New Testament ; once 
 hesides in the passage in controversy, and I think 
 I showed in my last speech that it there most 
 unquestionahly means antitype. Any proper 
 authority upon such a question will tell us that 
 the type must always exist before there can he an 
 ansicer to it, or an antitype. And was not 
 heaven before the holy place made with hands ? 
 Was not the holv nlace made with hands vat- 
 terned after things in the heavens ? Paul says 
 so. My learned opponent tells us, howTver, that 
 the holy place made with hands was the type, 
 and heaven itself the antitype. Then, I suppose 
 the holy place made with hands was he/ore 
 heaven itself, and heaven was modeled after it ! ! 
 That's decidedly new. The gentleman calls on 
 me to show where in classic Greek literature the 
 word antitupon means antitype. I have neither 
 the time nor the Greek literature now at my dis- 
 

 \Wi 
 
 294 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 posaJ. This 1 will say, however; that all the 
 Greek lexicons give it that meaning, substantial- 
 ly, as any of you can see })y ((xamining them. 
 
 The gentleman says that "Baptism saves, hut 
 it saves only in a figure." Well, he only -sv/y/.s 
 that. It IS not in the Bible. I suppose he feels 
 at liberty so to interpolate God's AVord. I do 
 not. 
 
 He repeats again that it is Faith that unites 
 us to Christ — not dead Faith, but living Faith ;" 
 that " repentance is (essentially connected with 
 Faith," and, therefore, necessary to unite us to 
 Christ ; but that baptism is essentially connect- 
 ed neither with Faith nor salvation." I sup- 
 pose that looks very much to him like sound 
 teaching. But I pronounced it, as an argument, 
 untrue, and extempori/iMl. T ask again if Faith 
 is ncrcssdrili/ connected with salvation, what will 
 he do with infants, idiots, and all honest and 
 sincere persons who have died without P'aith ? 
 They will all be lost ! According to his view, 
 not an infant or an idiot will ever be saved. 
 That's a heresy equal to that of the " Christa- 
 delphians," at which he is so horrified. Faith is 
 liCcessary to salvation, because God requires it 
 in His Word, and not because God cannot save 
 without it. The same is true of repentance, con- 
 fession and baptism. 
 
 The gentleman tells us again that Mr. Camp- 
 bell in the beginning of his reformation " de- 
 nounced almost every evangelical movement;" 
 among other things, "colleges for the education 
 of pious young men for the ministry;" and yet, 
 afterwards, feeling the need of such things, he 
 became an advocate of them. Now, as respects 
 this mattet-, one of two things must be true, if 
 Mr. Campbell is fairly represented. Either, 
 first : Mr. Campbell's mind underwent a change 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 205 
 
 upon the siil)jcct, in the interim ; or, secondly : 
 the colleges ho advocated for the education of 
 younp; men for tlie ministry were not ihe kind of 
 iiiHtilnfioiis he had previously denounced. And 
 I suppose the latter is the fact in the case. I 
 have never read all Mr. Camphell's works, hut I 
 will venture to say that I cannot ]>e shown that 
 lie ever opposed the education of pious youn,c; 
 men to preach the Gospel. He may have criti- 
 cized the popular method of educating preachers. 
 He may have denounced tli(> divinity schools, as 
 conducted at that time, and he may never have 
 become an advocate of ."nich divinity schools in 
 all his life. But 1 do not believe it can be shown 
 that he was ever opposed to the proper education 
 of young men for the ministry. If it can, how- 
 ever, I shall not hesitate to say that I think he 
 was wrowj that time. 
 
 In conclusion, my friends, you hava heard 
 what my learned ojiponent could say against 
 what he calls '' Campbellism." You have heard 
 what he could say against the teachingof my breth- 
 ren, as to "spiritual inlluence " in conversion; 
 as to the dcsUfn of the ordinance of bajitism ; as 
 to " saving faith" : and you have heard what he 
 could say about our *' inconsistency." Imperfect 
 as have been the replies to his studied addresses, 
 I am not sorry that you have heard the discus- 
 sion. Take what you have heard home with you. 
 Ponder it well, and compare it with what you 
 read in the Bible, and I shall have no fears as to 
 the result of our discussion. 
 
 I thank you, one and all, for the good order 
 you have observed during our de])a> and for the 
 marked attention you have given to i.J we have 
 had to say. And should we meet on earth no 
 more — which is highly probable — may we all 
 meet in heaven to part no more, is my sincere 
 prayer in the name of the Lord.