■♦■;,'>r^-^ ' #^ rEINCETON, N. J. Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agnc-cv Coll. on Baptism, No. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/debatebetweenrevOOca A DEBATE BETWEEN REV. A. CAMPBELL AND REV. N. L. RICE, ON THE mm, SUBJECT, BESIGI KM ADMWflSTMTOR OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM; ALSO, ON THE CHARACTER OF SPIRITUAL INFLUENCE IN CONVERSION AND SANCTIFICATION, AND ON THE EXPEDIENCY AND TENDENCY O F ECCLESIASTIC CREEDS, ASTEBMSOF UNION AND COMMUNION: HELD IN LEXINGTON, KV., FROM THE FIFTEENTH OP NOVEMBER TO TEIB SECOND OF DECEMBER, 1843, A PERIOD OF EIGHTEEN DAYS. REPORTED BY MARCUS T. C. GOULD, STENOGRAPHER, ASSISTED BY A. EUCLID DRAPIER, STENOGRAPHER, AND AMANUENSIS. PUBLISHED, LEXINGTON, KY. : BY A. T. SKILLMAN & SON; CINCINNATI : J. A. JAMES ; LOUISVILLE : D. S. BURNETT ; NEW YORK : R. CARTER ; PITTSBURG: T. CARTER. Stereotyped by J. A. James, Cincinnati. 1844. Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1844, BY JOHN H. BROWN, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Kentucky, Btereotyped by J. A. James, Cincinnati. CERTIFICATE. Cincinnati, March 6th, 1844. Havino carefully examined the Report of the within discussion, furnished by Messrs. Gould, of Cincinnati, and Drapier, of Louisville, and compared it with our notes and memoranda ; we hesitate not to authenticate it, and to commend it to the public, as a full exhibition of the facts, documents, and arguments used by us on the several questions debated. A. CAMPBELL. N. L. RICE. CORRESPONDENCE Richmond, Ky, September 19, 1842. Mr. Campbell: I should have addressed you at an earlier date, but my engagements have been such as to utterly forbid. Upon reflection, I have concluded to leave the questions involved in our contemplated discussion, with other prelimi- naries, to a committee, which can meet, probably, at an early day in November. The brethren who will engage in the discussion, so far aa the Presbyte- rian church is concerned, wili be selected during the sessions of the synod, which will commence at Maysville on the 18th proximo. Of how many shall this arranging committee consist — two or three on each side ! When and where shall they meet — Lexington 1 say November any time before the .5th or after the 17th. This committee will be empowered to fix the time (Lexington being the place agreed upon) of debate, form of questions, rules, moderators, and make arrangements for one or more competent stenographers to take down the debate preparatory to publication, as agreed by the committee. To shorten our correspondence, I hope you will fix the number of the arranging committee, at either two or three, as you may prefer ; also the day of meeting, within the time specified. I hope to receive an answer before I leave for synod, so that all our arrangements and appointments can be made while there. I consider our correspondence as private until con- sent is given for publicity. Yours, fraternally, JNO. H. BROWN. Bethany, October 5, 1842. Mr. John H. Brown: Dear Sir — Yours of the 19th ult., mailed the 20th, is to hand. From the earnestness with which, while I was in your town, you sought a discus- sion of certain points at issue between Presbyterians and those christians called Reformers, and from the proposition to address me in writing, soon after my arrival at home, about the end of August, I had promised myself the pleasure of an early communication from you relative to the proposed discussion, and a more ample interval for settling, the propositions for dis- cussion, as well as other preliminaries, before the meeting of the synod. But from your delay, no doubt occasioned by an unavoidable expediency, you now propose, "upon reflection, to leave the questions involved in our contemplated discussion, with all other preliminaries, to a committee, which can meet, probably, at an early day in November." You then ask me of how many shall this arranging committee consist, &c. &c. To all which I beg leave to respond, that I do not think that any committee, which I could nominate, in conjunction with such a one as yon might raise, could so satisfactorily to the parties arrange all these matters, as we ourselves, who enter into the discussion. I prefer to express my own propositions, in my own words ; and in all such matters, where the prin- cipals can so easily act, I do not think it expedient to employ attornies or U 12 CORRESPONDENCE. proxies. As to the appointment of moderators and the adoption of the rules of discussion, these are minor matters, compared with the propositions to be discussed ; still, they are important, and, while I would not pertinaciously object to any equitable arrangement of such matters, my conscientiousness and my prudence alike forbid the selection of propositions by a committee on which to form an issue, unless after their submission to my consideration and adoption. This would require time, and, probably, occasion a long delay. But it is competent to the synod to select its own propositions, and to propound in its own terms what it wishes. I will therefore suggest what I think will meet your views, as expressed during our interview. 1st. You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural sub- ject of baptism. We deny it. 2nd. You affirm that sprinkling water upon any part of an infant or adult is scriptural baptism. We deny it. 3rd. You affirm that there is no indispensable connection between bap- tism and the remission of sins, in any case. We affirm that there is. 4th. You affirm that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is founded on the New Testament. We deny it. 5th. You affirm that the doctrinal portions of the Westminister confes- sion of faith are founded on the Scriptures of truth. We deny that they all are. In this form, or by dividing the propositions into affirmatives and nega- tives, so as to give to each party an equal number, we can soon form a just and honorable issue. In one word, I will defend what I teach and practice, in plain and definite propositions, and on your agreeing to do the same, the whole matter may be arranged in the most satisfactory manner by corres- pondence, the only alternative that I can at this late period think of. Very respectfully and fraternally, your obedient servant, A. CAMPBELL. Richmond, October 22, 4842. Eldek A.Campbell: Dear Sir — Yours of the fifth was received previous to my leaving for synod, also a duplicate copy while at Maysville attending its sessions. There is evidently a misapprehension, on the part of one of us, as it regards our interview at Richmond, in August last. You seem to intimate that I, with earnestness, sought a discussion of certain points at issue between Presbyterians and those christians called Reformers. Let the facts speak for themselves. They are briefly the following : At the close of your address in Richmond on the 3rd of August, your friend, Mr. Duncan, approached me and asked my opinion as to the address, which I gave with as much candor as it was sought. After other interrogatories were propounded and answered, he inquired, if I thought discussion advisable ; to which I gave an affirmative reply. He ihen remarked, that he had engaged to dine with you, and would ascer- tain your feelings and wishes on the subject. All this occurred before we left the church. About 4 o'clock in the after- noon Mr. Duncan sought a second interview with me, and requested me to call in company with him at your room, stating that you desired an inter- view with me on the subject, about which he and I had conversed in the forenoon. I conformed to his wish, and accompanied him to your room, which ulti- mated in a mutual agreement to discuss certain points of difference for the edification of the church and the prosperity of the cause of Christ, with a definite and expressed understanding that neither was to be considered the challenging party. You further intimate that my delay in commencing the correspondence was doubtless "occasioned by an unavoidable expediency." Tliis I consider a very unkind and unfraternal insinuation, and one which I had not expected CORRESPONDENCE. ] ?, from your urbanity as developed in our interview, and especially after recognizing me as a " brolker" in the close of your epistle. It is a plain intimation that the correspondence was procrastinated solely on the ground of expediency, when I had expressly placed it on another and a very dijj'er- enl ground. I also understood it to be settled, in case toe did not agree as to the form of the propositions, that this, with all other preliminaries, was to be left to a committee, selected from ten chosen individuals, composed of an equal number from each side. Your reply is evidently a departure from this agreement. You say, no committee could so satisfactorily arrange the i)ro- positions as we ourselves could. You add, " I prefer to express my own propositions in my own words ;" " My conscientiousness and my prudence alike forbid the selection of propositions by a committee on which to form an issue, unless after their submission to my consideration and adoption." You further state, " It is competent to the synod to select its own propo- sitions, and to propound in its own terms what it wishes." The competency of the synod to express its wishes on this or any other isubject, I presume, would not be questioned. But the synod is not a party in this matter, and, as such, has no propositions to make. According to our arrangement, they were to be agreed upon by you and ^nyself, and, in case of our disagreement as to their form, the committee, referred to above, was to arrange the whole matter. You present five propositions, which " you think will meet my views, as expressed during our interview." The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of these propositions embrace points of discussion agreed upon in our interview. The 4th and 5th not only embrace subjects agreed, but every thing else we, as a denomination, believe and teacli. In the .5th, you put us upon the defence of the entire confession of faith. To this I do not object, because of its indefensibleness, but on the ground of its not being one of the agreed points of discussion, and introducing far more than was, at the time, con- templated either by you or myself. Your 1st proposition, in the following words, "You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism," is accepted without any modification or alteration. Your 2nd, in these words, " Your affirm that sprinkling water upon any part of an infant, or adult, is scriptural baptism," I accept with only a slight verbal alteration, viz: I affirm that sprinkling, or pouring, water on a suitable subject is scriptural baptism. You deny. I might justly have required you to take the affirmative and prove immer- sion only to be baptism, but I would not pertinaciously stand out for the mere verbiage of a proposition, but only for its substantiality. Your 3rd proposition is, "You affirm that there is no indispensable con- nection between baptism and the remission of sins in any case." Strange as it may be, you make me, in this proposition, affirm a nega- tive. I therefore substitute another, which, while it will in its discussion involve substantially your proposition, presents as the main point, a ques- tion on which we differ widely, and one which you urge in your various works as of primary importance. The proposition is as follows: 3rd. You affirm that the new birth, as mentioned in John, third chapter, is a change of state, and not a change of heart. I deny. I now propose a substitute for your 4th and 5th propositions, covering the agreed points of discussion, and to which you will not object, as they are taken substantially, if not verbally, from your own publications. 4th. Y'"ou affirm that the use of creeds, or confessions of faith, is contrary to the Scriptures, and destructive of the unity and perpetuity of the church of Christ. We deny. 5th. You affirm that all the converting and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit is contained in the Divine Word. We deny. 14 CORRESPONDENCE. Upon these several propositions an equitable issue can be taken, and the whole matter speedily arranged for full and free discussion. On my part the men are selected : — Brethren Jno. C. Young, R. J. Breckenridge, N. L. Rice, J. F. Price, and myself, will engage in the dis- cussion. Brother Rice and myself have been selected as a committee of arrangement, to meet such committee as may be selected on your part, to settle preliminaries, at some suitable time and place, agreed upon by you and myself. I would suggest Lexington as the place, and the 21st of No- vember next as the time. In liope that the issue is now made, and that the preliminaries may soon be settled, I subscribe myself, respectfully, yours, JNO. H. BROWN. Baltimore, JVov. 17, 1842. Elder John H. Brown, Dea7- Sir — Your favor of the 22nd ult., addressed to me at Bethany, Va., having been, by my orders, copied by my clerk, was duly forwarded to me at this point, and received by me on my arrival here. Such, however, have been my engagements with the public, (having had to deliver a public address for every day during the last three weeks, on a tour in eastern Virginia, and to this city) that I could not find a leisure hour to reply before this date. Of this tour, I gave you some intimation when you proposed to me your views and wishes relative to a public discussion. To proceed, then, to the contents of your favor, now on my table, allow me to say, that the narrative you now give of the occasion of your soliciting a discussion, is as curious as it is novel and unexpected. The fact of your soliciting a public conference, with no other preamble to me expressed, than " that once yourself and your brethren had not been friendly to public debates, out that now you have changed your ground, being convinced that the stale of society and religious opinion demanded it," is all that I thought important to the arrangements proposed, without the details of the mere occasion of your personal application to me. As to the definite and express under- standing that neither should be regarded as the challenging party, I have no distinct recollection. I do, indeed, remember that you emphatically spoke of your desiring a friendly discussion ; and, if the phrase " challeng- ing party," was expressly used, of which I cannot say I have any recollec- tion, it could, in the connection of ideas, by you suggested, intimate no more than that you did not desire to be contemplated in the light of a challenger, but as of one desiring an amicable discussion ; to which I fnlly accorded, as in courtesy bound. Still, however, our respective positions to the fact of a discussion must stand, now and forever, different. You as the originator and propounder of it ; I as accepting, and agreeing to, your proposition. No complimentary or courteous disclaimer of the technical- ities or usual compellations on such occasions, could possibly change our positions to the fact of a discussion. I admit the ambiguity of the phrase, at which you demur, in my former communication to you, viz. " Your delay in reply was, doubtless, occa- aioned by an unavoidable expediency." But I left it with you to interpret it ; and as you now say, the expediency was not of choice but of necessity, I am perfectly willing to accord to you in the case, the most ingenuous conduct. I wonder, however, how you could construe this into a discre- pancy with my subscribing myself yours, '^ fraternally," inasmuch as I have often heard, in synods and councils of your own church, much less complir mentary interpretations of actions pass most fraternally amongst the min- istry. You next proceed to say, that you " understand it to be settled, in case we do not agree as to the form of the propositions," &c. I, indeed, as you will, I doubt not, remember, stated distinctly, that as our conversation in Rich- mond was wholly extemporaneous and fugitive, that I would expect from CORRESPONDENCE. 15 you a written statement of all matters, as you proposed them, on my return, which communication should be regarded as an original document, and as the basis of our correspondence relative to a discussion, and, therefore, I considered nothing as hxed about it, further than, / did agree to meet at Lexington, Kentucky, in conference, with such persons as the synod of Ken- tucky would appoint — provided they would select certain persons to meet a delegation to be appointed by our brethren in Kentucky ; but that I would agree to debate, not as one of a conference, but with one responsible person only, and then named President Young, as such a person. You imme- diately responded, I should have him, as you did not doubt the synod would select him. As for propositions, on my inquiry, you went on to name those concerning baptism, &c. I emphatically say, that I then considered, and now consider, every thing else as open to our future arrangements, not as arranged. True, indeed, as a conference was spoken of, without any dis- tinct understanding of the mode of procedure, or of the topics to be intro- duced into it, it might have been said, that a committee might arrange such matters; but as to a personal discussion, on my part, with any reputable and authorized disputant, I repeatedly said, that I went for single combat ; and on premises explicitly stated, propositions clearly and fully expressed, before we met upon the ground. And this is all for which I now feel it my duty to contend. I am happy, indeed, that there appears, on the principal points, named by you, at our interview, so nearly a perfect agreement. I cheerfully accept your amendment to the second proposition, and will agree to place the third in an affirmative form. The three propositions would then read, 1st. The infant of a believing parent, is a scriptural subject of baptism. 2nd. The sprinkling, or pouring water, upon any part of an inlant, or adult, is scriptural baptism. 3rd. There is a scriptural connection, of some sort, between baptism and the remission of sins of a believing penitent. These three cover all the ground of debate between us, on christian baptism. If you insist upon five propositions only, I shall not insist upon any more. One of these would respect the Holy Spirit ; the other, human creeds as the causes of schisms among christian professors. Touching your suggestions of a proposition, embracing the difference between us, on special influence, I have not much objection to either of them, as contain- ing, in the connections, and with the modifications, always contemplated by me, a just view of the matter. Still, they cover not the whole ground of debate. We both agree, that the Holy Spirit is given to all who believe and obey the gospel. But, with regard to the influence of the Spirit in converting sinners, there is some discrepancy. We teach, that the Holy Spirit operates on sinners only through the Word, and not without it. Your denomination teaches, that the Spirit, without the Word, regenerates the sinner. Thus, the Word contains the converting power — and regenera- tion is a change of heart and life by the Word. But the 3rd and 5th contemplate a change of state, in reference to the kingdom of heaven, therein referred to. I will then offer two propositions, expressive of our ceal position. 4th. The Spirit of God regenerates sinners, without the Word. 5th. Human creeds have always occasioned and perpetuated divisions among christians, and are barriers in the way of their union. To this I would add a 6th — " The celebration of the Lord's death is essential to the sanctification of the Lord's day, by a christian community." Of these six propositions, I affirm three, and you affirm three. You affirm the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. I the 3rd, 5th, and 6th. I will discuss these in single debate with Mr. Young, provided the conference, you contemplate, do not agree on these points. It will then be necessary for me to have a distinct understanding upon this view of the matter. All the preliminaries, for such a discussion, must 16 CORRESPONDENCE. be agreed upon before I leave home. Such as, 1st. The proposition. 2nd. The order of discussion on tlie affirmative and negative sides. 3rd. The board of moderators. 4tii. The stenographer, and the mode of publishing said discussion. 5th. The disposition of tlie avails of said publication. I will select for the conference, Elders James Shannon, Dr. James Fish- back, Aylett Rains, and John Smith, of Kentucky, as associates in the conference. The two first shall be my committee of arrangements as to the conference ; and as to the debate, they shall be my moderators, to meet two of your choice ; these four clioosing a president moderator. If these matters are thus despatched, as aforesaid, I see no great need of delay in securing a stenographer, and in agreeing to bestow the avails of the publi- cation, half and half, to the two Bible Societies. So soon as I hear from you satisfactorily, I will address Messrs. Shannon and Fishback, on the subject of meeting your committee at Lexington. Very respectfully, yours fraternally, A. CAMPBELL. Richmond, Ky., Dec. 8, 1842. Elder A. Campbell: Your favor of the 22nd ult., is now before me. After the explicit state ment, in my last letter, of the circumstances which led to our interview in Richmond, and which resulted in an agreement to have an amicable discus- sion of the points of difference between us ; I deem it unnecessary, at present, to say any thing more on tliat subject. In regard to the points to be discussed, I hope we shall be able, without serious difficulty, to make a fair and honorable issue. You say " I cheerfully accept your amendment to the 2nd proposition," and yet you immediately present it again, without that amendment. This, I presume, was done through mistake. The proposition, with my amend ment, which you have accepted, reads as follows, " I affirm that sprinkling, or pouring water, on a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism. You deny." Concerning the 3rd proposition, as presented in my last, you say nothing, but present another, as follows : " 3rd. There is a scriptural connection, of some sort, between baptism and the remission of sins of a believing penitent." This proposition is an exceedingly indefinite sort of thing, and ra, therefore, decidedly objectionable. I can see no possible objection to the following proposition, as already offered you, viz : " 3rd. You affirm that the new birth, a» mentioned in John, 3d chapter, is a change of state, and not a change of heart. We deny." With you, baptism is the new birth, so that the proposition, above stated, presents for discussion Ihe design of christian baptism, and this is what we desire to embrace in the proposition. Your 4th proposition, of which you expect us to maintain the affirma- tive, is as follows : *' The Spirit of God regenerates sinners, without the Word." This is not the doctrine of the Presbyterian church. We main- tain, that in the conversion of men, there is an operation of the Spirit, distinct from the Word, but not in ordinary cases, without the Word. I propose, as a substitute for your 4th, the following proposition, taken ver- batim from your Christianity Restored, p. 350. " 4th. The Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and sanctifying power, in the words which it fills with its ideas." The 4th proposition, as contained in my last, is, I think, preferable to your 5th, on the subject of creeds ; and mine certainly is not stronger than the language you have on that subject. The sixth question, which you propose, I think, does not present a differ- ence of such importance, as to make it a point of discussion. If a 6th question be desirable, (though not embraced in our original agreement) I propose the following : CORRESPONDENCE. 17 6th. None, except ordained ministers, are by the Scriptures, authorized to administer baptism. There is now no probability that Brotlier Young will be able to enter into the discussion with you. He has, for several weeks, been confined to a sick bed, and, when last heard from, was dangerously ill. Should he recover, the condition of his lungs would not admit of his engaging in a pro- tracted discussion. You shall, however, be met by "a reputable" disputant. It is my duty, also, to state, that tlie name of Rev. R. J. Breckenridge, was placed among those selected by me, without his knowledge. He informs me, that he cannot be in Kentucky at the time the discussion will take place. In his place, therefore, I will name the Rev. J. K. Burcli. Rev. N. L. Rice, and myself, will meet your committee of arrangement. Rev. J. K. Burch, and myself, will be moderators. Other matters, such as the order of discussion, &c., I presume can be settled by the committee of arrangements. If you object to this, you can make, in your next letter, any proposition which you may think important. I hope to hear from you, at your earliest convenience. If you agree to the propositions for discussion, as now presented, other necessary arrange- ments can be made, I presume, with little difficulty. Very respectfully, yours, JNO. H. BROWN. Bethany, Va., Dec. 15, 1842. Elder Brown, My Dear Sir — Yours of the 6th ult., was received yesterday. My acquiescence in the proposition you were pleased to make in August, touching an amicable discussion of points at issue, between our respective denominations, was given with a reference to two great objects. The first, the prospect of having the main topics of difference fairly laid before the community, with the reasons for and against — the second, that the argu- ments, on both sides, might go to the world with the authority of the denominations, so far as their selection and approval of the debaters were concerned. Only on these grounds, and with these expectations, could I have been induced to participate at all in any oral discussion, after all that I have written and spoken on these subjects ; and, therefore, it is essential to my Dosition and aims in this affair, that the preliminaries be so arranged as to secure these objects. I should think, indeed, that, to you, these points are equally interesting and important. Allow me, then, to say, that the three great topics which have occupied public attention for some twenty-five years, so far as our purposed reforma- tion is concerned, are, 1st. The ordinances of Christianity. 2nd. The essential elements of the gospel itself. 3rd. The influence of imman creeds as sources of alienation, schism, and party ism in the church. Now, in some points, only, of these three categories do we differ from Presbyterians, and other Pedo-baptist professors. These are baptism, the Lord's supper, spiritual influence, as connected with the use of the word " regeneration,^'' and human creeds. You selected baptism, and I alluded to the others. On baptism we agree, that, both logically an.d scripturally, there are three distinct proposi- tions. The action, the subject, and the design. On the Lord's supper there is one — on regeneration one, and one on the subject of human creeds. In all six. According to our respective teaching and practice, these six propositions are as follows : 1st. Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism. 2nd. The infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism. 2 B 2 18 CORRESPONDENCE. 3rd. Personal assurance of tlie remission of past sins, to a believing' penitent, is the chief design of baptism, or, if you prefer it, ^'■Baptism is for the remission of sins.'''' 4th. Ill all christian communities the Lord's siqjper should he observed every Lord's day. 5th. The Word, as well as the Spirit of God, is, in all cases, essential to regeneration ; or, some persons are regenerated by the Spirit, without the Word believed. 6th, Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are, necessarily , heretical and schismatical ; or, human creeds, as bonds of union, arc essen- tial to the unity and purity of the church. You atfirm the 1st and 2nd positions on baptism, and, also, the two last versions of the 5th and 6th. I mean to say, your printed creed and party do so. I affirm the 3rd and 4th, and the 1st version of the 5th and 6th. We can, therefore, easily find each three affirmative propositions, such as Vie are accustomed to teach and to defend. Now, sir, as I said before, I am prepared and willing to deiend what I teach, on my affirmatives. Are your party ! If so, then I am not fastidious about a word. I regard the above as a candid and definite expression of our relative positions on these six points: and these involve our whole systems of christian doctrine and teaching. As you have led the way in baptism, I claim as many proposi- tions on the other points at issue. You have extracted some two or three propositions from my writings; and, in return for these, I might select as many from your creod, which is still of higher authority than the writings of any individual — and, although you may believe tliem, such as some articles on effectual calling and election, yet they are not such propositions as convey all that you would affirm on those themes. This is just my case. These propositions are expounded in their contexts, and they need their contextual adjuncts. I, therefore, prefer independent, clear, and definite expressions of great principles. I have no doubt that you, too, will prefer these, to such passages as those to which I have alluded. After this full expose of propositions, I have only to advert to the second great object of such a discussion, viz. the authority with which it addresses the community. You cannot have forgotten that the express condition of my taking part in any oral debate with your denomination on such topics, was, that the synod, to whose timous meeting you alluded, should select, or approbate, such persons as might be supposed able and competent to enter into such a discussion, to make it as much as possible an end to the contro- versy. You first alluded to synodical arrangements, and this suggested to me the necessity of stipulating for Mr. Young, president of the Centre College, at Danville, because I regarded him as a gentleman, and a scholar of high standing, who had the double stake of a theological and literary reputation, to stimulate and govern his efforts on the occasion. You immediately rejoined, I should have him. Now, sir, allow me to say, that having consented on this condition, and only on this condition, to attend such a discussion as you proposed, I could not be expected to engage with any other person, unless in one of two events ; — that Mr. Youno- continued to be physically unable to attend in person, within some reasonable term, or, in case of his ultimate inability, that the synod have appointed some person in whose ability the community might confide. It will, therefore, on your part, as well as mine, be expected that I should be assured of the fact, that Mr. Rice, or Mr. Burch, or some other person, has been selected, or appro- bated, by the synod, to represent the party in the contemplated discussion. The propositions being agreed upon, and the person with whom I am to contend, selected by the proper authorities, those other matters, as to a stenograplier, and the rules of discussion, &c., &c., can be easily arranged. I do hope, then, kind sir, that you will embrace your earliest convenience in responding to such items, in the communication, as may demand your special attention. With the kindest regard, I remain, as ever, yours. A. CAMPBELL. CORRESPONDENCE. 19 Richmond, Jan. 3, 1843. Elder Campbell ; Dear Sir — Yours of the 15th ult., was received on the 22nd, and would have been answered earlier, but protracted religious exercises prevented. One point only, in your last, demands present attention. Until that is understood and agreed, all efforts to settle the questions for discussion, and arrange preliminaries, will be unavailing. I allude to synodical action. I understand you to take the ground that you will not debate, unless the individual is appointed, or approbated, by synod. In your first communication you intimated as much. In reply, I stated definitely, that the synod neither was, nor could be, a party in the contem- plated discussioH. I also stated, that the persons selected, were chosen, not by the synod, but in conference, and, that some of them were known and acknowledged to be the most prominent men in our church. All these facts were before you, yet, in your reply, you do not make a single objection, but pass the whole matter in silence. Surely, if you intended to object on this ground, tlieyi was the time, and there the correspondence would have terminated. My understanding was, that the persons engaging in the discussion would be agreed upon at the meeting of synod, not that there would be a synodical appointment. I well knew that such an appointment, for such an object, was not within the legitimate power of any of our ecclesiastical judicatories. Even had the synod possessed the power, and exercised it, and appointed the requisite number of men, there appears to have been no appointment by any body of men on your side. If the appointment, on your side, had been made by a body of men, con- voked for the purpose, still, that body would sustain to your church no such relation as our synod does to ours, and, therefore, we would not stand on equal footing. Perfect equality is that for which we will most certainly insist. If your object be to give importance to the discussion, we will agree to add, 5, 10, or 15, to the number on each side, with the understanding, that the debater, on each side, be selected by them. We fear not discussion, and are willing to do all that is equal and honora- ble, but, if you insist on making unequal or impracticable terms of debate, the matter, of course, must terminate. I await your response. Very respectfully, yours, JNO. H. BROWN. Bethany, Va., Jan. 13, 1843. Elder Brown : Dear Sir — Yours of the 4th inst., was received on the 11th ult. My engagements yesterday forbade an immediate reply. You say one point only demands present attention, viz. — synodical action. The idea of synodical action was suggested by yourself at our interview, and again presented in your first written communication, in the words following, to-wit : — "The brethren, who will engage in the discussion, so far as the Presbyterian church is concerned, will be selected during the sessions of the synod, which will convene at Maysville, on the 13th prox- imo." This, though strong enough, is not quite so expressive of synodical action in the case, as your original, verbal declarations, in the presence of our mutual friend, Mr. Duncan. Your next epistle, after tlie meeting of synod, contained the ambiguous phrase, that the synod were not " to be a party" in the debate. I did not then contemplate them in the light of a party ; but while I hesitated what euch a phrase could mean, after our previous interchange of views and intentions, I concluded, for the moment, to reserve it for future explanation. On learning, from your last, that certain persons were to be withdrawn, 20 CORRESPONDENCE. and certain new persons were to be appointed in their stead, I ask, what could have been more natural, with all these references to synodical arrangements, before made, than to recur to original propositions, both verbal and written, as to this thing of synodical, or confidential, selection and approval. I have done so, and find your present communication makes new propositions and arrangements, never before contemplated. Really, I was not prepared for this. My participation in any discussion was asked by you, and stipulated by me, on the assurance that I should have certain persons, some of them then named ; and that too, with the concurrence of your church met in synod. Whether the thing was to be transacted in condone clerum, ex cathedra, or in various conferences, gave me then no concern ; provided it had the con- current approbation of your church. You positively said, I should have the persons named, and, that you doubted not that the synod would agree to it. Such were the clearly expressed premises on which I assented to be present. If you have changed your views of the expediency of such an arrange- ment, or, if the persons, then agreed upon, will not attend, you are at perfect liberty to withdraw your propositions. But I will make no new covenant, the first having been abandoned. I am perfectly willing to meet the persons named by you, in your first communication after the synod met, at our mutual convenience, believing that they were agreed upon at the meeting of the synod. But I cannot admit of your substitutes for them. I care not who the Presbyterian church appoints, nor in what form it be done, provided, the persons appointed are known to be the selection of the denomination. The reasons I have always given, for any preference, were, that I desired a final discussion of those litigated points ; and such a dis- cussion as would have the highest authority, that our respective denomin- ations could confer upon it. If our brethren, in Kentucky, prefer any other person to me, I yield the arena in a moment. But, friend Brown, I go not in pretence, but in fact, for equality. Let your church sanction, in any way you please, some new man, or give me those you promised, and I am perfectly satisfied. You say you fear not discussion, and are willing to do all that is equal and honorable. This is just what I wish to hear you say. I only ask you to redeem the pledge, and shew your faith by your worlds. Very respect- fully and benevolently, your friend, A. CAMPBELL. Richmond, Madison Co., Ky., March 8, 1843. Elder A.Campbell: Serious inflammation of my eyes has prevented me from writing for several days past, but for this your communication would have been an- swered at an earlier date. In reply to my last, on the subject of synodical action, you thus remark : " The idea of synodical action, was suggested by yourself at our interview, and again presented in your first written communication." The language I employed at our first interview, which made the impres- sion of synodical action, I know not. I may have expressed myself incau- tiously, and, possibly, I employed such language as would authorize such an inference. But, manifestly, the language of my first written communi- cation, quoted in your last, and now before me, does not authorize such a deduction. Whatever may have been your previous understanding of synodical action, and whatever requisitions you may have been disposed to make, relative to this point, I am gratified to find the whole difiiculty obviated by the follow- ing declaration in your last, viz. " I am perfectly willing to meet the persons named by you, in your first communication, after the synod met, at our mutual convenience, believing that they were agreed upon at the meeting of the synod. But I cannot admit of your substitutes for them." CORRESPONDENCE. 2] Your perfect willingness to meet those individuals, is '\xv full view ot the fact definitely stated, in my former communication, that they were not appointed by the synod, but only agreed upon at the synod. In a former communication, I suggested that one of the men selected at synod, lived in a distant state, and, that when written to, he found it utterly impracticable to attend. You certainly cannot object to one being chosen to fill his place, by the other ybur, inasmuch as this plan was agreed upon at synod, in case the individual, who was absent, could not come, and, especially so, when the men, on your side, (and you go for equality) have not been selected " in condone clerum, ex cathedra, or, in various conferences." You are aware, also, of the fact, that the synod cannot meet again till next autumn, and, therefore, an individual to fill the vacancy, cannot be chosen at synod. The difficulty you make (surely without tlie slightest reason) seems equivalent to a declinature of the discussion. But, if you still object to our selecting an individual to fill the vacancy, then thefour, who were named in the letter, after the meeting of synod, will meet you and three of the men selected by yourself, and go on with the debate. The health of brother Young is much improved since I last wrote, and this impediment would, therefore, be removed. If you agree that the vacancy shall be filled by the four, originally appointed, (it being understood at the time that they would exercise this power) — or, if you are v/illing to proceed with four on each side, then the way will be open for the settlement of the three remaining questions, pre- paratory to discussion. I await your response, and shall be governed accordingly. Respectfully yours, JNO. H. BROWN. Bethany, Va., March 17, 1843. Dear Sir — Yours of the 8th inst. was received on the 15th, and, though not in very good health to-day, I hasten to reply in a few words to the favor before me. Waiving any comment on your explanations and historic allusions to our correspondence, I hasten to say, that I have no objection to the choice of a fifth person, in room of Mr. Breckenridge, by the four gentlemen agreed upon at synod ; especially, as you say, that it was an understanding at synod, that should any one fail in attendance, the others might elect a substitute. 1 sincerely hope, that in all despatch, you may be enabled to respond satisfactorily on the propositions already offered, so that time may be re- deemed, especially as now full two months have been consumed in getting an answer to my former letter. Should matters progress so slowly on the propositions, and other details, it will require a full year, at least, to settle the preliminaries. I think, indeed, it is very prudent, nay, absolutely necessary, to have every thing clearly understood, and plainly stated in writing, before commencing, as nothing more directly tends to preserve good temper, and to prevent a mere logomachy, than clear and definite propositions, good rules and equal terms. In this, I feel a very special interest, also, as the debate contemplated will, according to our previous understanding, be immediately between Mr. Young and myself, supported, as we shall be, by our respective friends on each side. Please then afford all facilities for a consummation so devoutly to be wished, and as promptly as possible. With all respect and benevolence, I remain your friend, A. CAMPBELL. 22 CORRESPONDENCE. Georgetown, April 8, 1843. Elder A. Campbell: Dear Sir — Yours of March 17th, post-marked 20th, is received. You agree that the four individuals, selected al synod, rnay select a tifth in lieu of Rev. li. J. Breckenridge. We, therefore, select Rev. Jas. K. Burch, as before mentioned. Although the health of brother Young has improved, as stated in my last, so that he can be present as one of the five, there is scarcely any probability that he will be physically able to go through with a debate so protracted as the one we have in contemplation. I did agree, in our first interview, that he should be one of the five, but not by any means that he should be the only debater, for I did not at that time, suppose that the discussion would be confined to two individuals, but tliat all on each side would take part; however, I will not object to such an arrangement, if you desire it, only reserving the right, in case of physical inability on the part of brother Young, to select one from our number to debate with you. With regard to the questions, I hope we shall have but little further difficulty. As to the mode and subjects of baptism we are agreed. Your 3d proposition, as stated in your letter of Dec. 15, is objectionable in both of its forms. In the first form, because your full ground is not occupied ; and, in the second, because in scriptural language, concerning which we would probably difter. I must, therefore, insist on imj 3d, as presented in my communication, of Dec. 8th, viz. 3d. " You affirm that the new birth, as mentioned in John, 3d chapter, is a change of state, and not a change of heart." We deny. This embraces the difference between us, the design of baptism; for baptism, is, with you, the new birth. To this proposition you have pre- sented no objection, thougli you offered another in its place. Your 4th is as follows, " In all christian communities, the Lord's supper should be observed every Lord's day." This is objectionable, because comparatively unimportant. If any church, or denomination, choose to observe the supper every Lord's day, then be it so. We do not consider it a matter of sufficient importance to demand discussion. We have already suggested a much more important subject, involving the validity of baptism, which we off'er as the 4tii proposition for discussion, viz. 4th. " None except ordained ministers are, by the scriptures, authorized to administer baptism." We affirm. You deny. Your .5th proposition is objected to, because it affirms less than in your publications you have affirmed, and does not fully present the diflerence between us. We hope you will agree to discuss the proposition already submitted, taken verbatim from your Christianity Restored, p. 350, which, we present as the 5th proposition. 5th. " The Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and sanctifying power in the words which it fills with its ideas." To this you certainly cannot object. It is in your essay on Divine Influence, italicised, and therefore the cream, the very essence of the whole thing. You can, of course, refer to your writings in illustration of your doctrines. Your 6th proposition is as fellows, " Human creeds, as bonds of union and comnuinion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical." We do not under- stand exactly what you mean by the phrase " bonds of union and commu- nion ." We, therefore, suggest the following alteration or amendment, viz. 6th. " The using of creeds, except the Scriptures, is necessarily heretical and schismatical." You affirm. We deny. As soon as we shall agree on these, or other propositions, involving the difference between us, on the agreed points of discussion, brother Rice and myself will meet your committee in Lexington, and arrange preliminaries preparatory to discussion, at our earliest mutual convenience. Very respectfully, JNO. H. BROWN. CORRESPONDENCE. 23 Bethamj, Va., April 24, 1843. Dear Sir — Yours of tlie 8th inst., pnst-inarked 10th, arrived here on the 19th inst. Business of much importance, and obligations various and numerous, prevented my careful reading' of it till to-day. You inform me that the improvement of i\Ir. Young's health is not such as to warrant the hope that he will be physically able to endure the fatigue of a protracted discussion. My consent to participate in a public conference, was given upon the solemn i)ledgc on your part, that if single combat sliould be the result of our interview, I should have Mr. Young. This has again been stated in our correspondence, and fully assented to by yourself. A rumor has more than once or twice reached my ears, that this pledge on your part, was never to be redeemed ; and that in the well known policy and etyle of ecclesiastic diplomacy, in a protracted correspondence, you would manage it to substitute Mr. Rice for Mr, Young ; and thus in any issue of the affair, Presbyterianism would stand eitlier upon her reserved learning and talents, or upon the triumphs of the said Mr. Rice. Reluctant though I have been to listen to such a rumor, so discreditable to your candor and christian sincerity, I confess, tilings begin to wear an aspect somewhat ambiguous, squinting, at least, in that direction. I am not a man to be managed just in that way, and have replied to madam rumor, that the moment you presented Mr. Rice, you have forfeited every claim upon my attendance ; and that unless the denomination, in some way, selected him in preference to Mr. Young in scholarship and discursive talent, I sliould have nothing to do with the affair. True, indeed, I should not insist upon Mr. Young's presence if he was physically unable — but I am often physically unable myself, to do justice to any sub- ject, in the way of even a single speech, much more to questions of protracted discussion, and, therefore, make my appointments and arrange- ments accordingly. The time has been so long protracted already, that it will not greatly affect your reputation, should it be made to suit the health and convenience of Mr. Young. Mr. Rice may be as learned, and as able a disputant, for any thing I know to the contrary, as Mr. Young; but he stands not so high with the community either as a polite gentleman or a scholar ; and I presume, is discreetly located at Paris, while Mr. Young exmerito presides at Danville. The reasons given by me first and last for taking part in such a discussion, compel me to demand the fulfillment of at least the two essential conditions on which my consent was obtained; — the first, that there should be a full discussion of the main points between us ; — the second, that I should have the disputant named, in order to give it authority with the whole commu- nity. The moment you recede from this ground, you have released me from every pledge and obligation that I have given. You need not repeat to me that I ask from you conditions which you have not propounded to me, as you have done on a former occasion. We do not meet exactly upon that ground. My presence was demanded, even after I had said that Kentucky had talent and learning enough to maintain the reformation cause against every denomination in the state : and it was promised on those conditions, AND THOSE CONDITIONS ONLY. If then yourself and your brethren are not willing to meet on the conditions stipulated, you will please so inform me, and the matter ends. With regard to the propositions, I am not a little surprised at the reluc- tance you manifest to discuss the desii^n of baptism, indubitably one of the main issues and point? advanced in the pending reformation controversy. Would you have me and the public to think that you wish to slur and blink that question ? If not, why propose such a substitute for the main point of debate? You offer the new birth for the design of baptism!! and then again, bring up spiritual influence and converting power in another propo- sition. If you do not design to evade the design of baptism altogether, why create the suspicion by such an indirect and ambiguous mode of proce- 34 CORRESPONDENCE. dure ! This will never do, Mr. Brown. You and your party have assailed our views of the design of baptism a thousand times ; and, depend upon it, you must not shrink from it now. I have often told you I must defend what I preach; and as your party oppose my views behind my back, you must in honor, do it now before my face ; if not for my sake, at least for your own. Unless then you concede that our views are correct on that subject, you must debate it ! As you refuse to take up the whole confession of faith, I cannot but admire your generosity in putting me on the defence of all my writings, and your calling out such insulated and detached sen- tences as you tliink most favorable to your intentions. I see you have formed high conceptions of my magnanimity. Still I would have you take care of your own. Do not say, nor even think, that I refuse the examina- tion of those sentences ; you can bring them forward under their proper heads. Bat through respect for the literary character of our discussion at the bar of public opinion, I would noi appear as a logician in defence of a sentence or an individual expression, while the whole category to which it belongs is unassailed. Let us prove the genus — or the species — and then we shall not contend about the individual. Your calling a sentence the cream and essence of a whole system, because it is italicised, is an aberra- tion of reason of the same character. Divine influence — creeds, and the ordinances of the supper — are points at which we are at issue. We must have propositions setting forth our respective views on these topics. I deny abstract spiritual influence in conversion and sanctification. You affirm it. The jn-opositions submitted by me, are indicative of our respective views, as I understand them. So of creeds. If you choose to add another propo- sition, concerning who may administer baptism, I have no objection— rather than substitute any one of these offered by any other you can devise. I will discuss as many more as you please, essential to our respective systems. But the four questions of baptism, regeneration, the Lord's supper, and creeds, are great, essential points of discussion : and the six propositions furnished by you and myself on these topics, must, according to our agree- ment, be debated, unless you concede some of them. The time is already past in which this meeting was, according to our Richmond conversation, to have taken place. Our college vacation is in July and August. I do hope then you will accommodate me and the public, 60 far as to have it either in the end of July or first of August. You may, in a single letter, now settle all these points on fair and honorable princi- ples. It is in your power. We must have stenographers secured as soon as possible, or we must sell the copy-right to some good house in the East, who will send on a stenographer, and so have matters speedily arranged. The propositions, and the main points settled, our committee can soon adjust other matters. Please answer this immediately. In all benevolence, yours, &c. A. CAMPBELL. Richmond, Ky,, May 15, 1843. Elder Campbell t Yours of the 24th ult. is before me. Its contents present too much evidence of what I have for some time apprehended, that you are resolved to avoid the proposed discussion. I gave no pledge of any kind, that Mr. Young should be your opponent, but only that he should be one of the five in debate ; but if I ha,d, physical inability is, I believe, universally admitted to excuse. Mr. Young has for months been in feeble health ; and there is no probability of his being able to engage as the only debalant, in such a discussion as the one proposed. He is now able to preach only occasionally. But when you are imformed of this fact, you insult me by speaking of your reluctance to listen to a rumor, " so discreditable to my candor and christian character!" Yet you say, "True, indeed, I should not insist upon Mr. Young's presence if he ■were physically unable." CORRESPONDENCE. 25 Well, sir, he is physically unable to go through with such a debate. Still he is able and willing to be present as one of the./iT>e on our side. If then you are resolved to debate with no other man, the matter is at an end. Ordinary courtesy, I suppose, would have forbidden the introduction of the name of Mr. Rice, as you have thought proper to introduce it. It would have been quite time enough for such remarks, wiien his name had been mentioned by me, as the disputant on our side. I do not wonder at your reluctance to meet Mr. Rice. He has health to go through such a discussion, and is accustomed, as well as yourself, to public debate. But it seems his standing in the community " as a polite gentleman," is not high enough for you ! With all deference, I beg leave to say, I am not aware that his standing, in this respect, is inferior to Mr. Campbell's. As to his learning, it is sufficient that Presbyterians are willing to risk their cause in his hands, even against Mr. Campbell. Whilst it is unnecessary for me to Bay any thing about the comparative merits of Messrs. Young and Rice, I may smile at the ground on which your opinion is founded, viz. that the one is at Danville, and the other at Paris. I am not aware that the stand- ing of Mr. Campbell "as a polite gentleman," or "a scholar," is much higher since he became President oi^ his college, than before. We offer you a Presbyterian minister as your opponent, who shall be selected by us precisely in accordance with the arrangement made at synod, viz. that we would select one of our number to meet you in debate. Now you have vour choice to retreat or accept. I have manifested no reluctance to discuss the design of baptism. I have simply presented it precisely in the form in which you yourself have constantly presented it in your publications. With you baptism is the new birth, and it is designed to effect a change of state. This is precisely what we propose to discuss. Yet you seem to be in great wonderment that I should " offer the new birth for the design of baptism !" But I am not particular as to the precise statement of the question. All I ask is that you take the whole ground in debate, which you have taken in your publications. This you have not ventured to do, and I fear you never will. The moment you do, we shall accede to your proposition. On the influences of the Spirit, I have offered you a proposition in your own language, and you refuse to discuss it. When you find a clear proposition in our " Confession of Faith," which we ret\ise to discuss, you may then proclaim to the world that we have retreated. The proposition I have offered you is clear and full, embodying avowedly 3/our faith on this point ; whilst those you offer us, throw both sides off their true ground. What you mean by " abstract spiritual influence," I do not know ; but if you mean spiritual influence without the word, you must know, if ever you read our Confession, that we hold no such thing, except in cases where the word cannot be received. State a proposition containing your real views, and making a fair issue, and it will be accepted. But if you retreat from your own language, the reason will be understood. In regard to the Lord's supper, we have objected to discussing your pro- position, simply because we deem it of minor importance, and because our church, in her confession of faith, neither affirms nor denies. It is silent on that point. We are not, therefore, disposed to discuss such a question. The question concerning the administrator of baptism, is quite as impor- tant as either of the others, involving the validity of the ordinance. Your reluctance to discuss it, is, I fear, another evidence that you have published important things which you would rather not defend. We are ready for you, just so soon as you are willing to meet a man who is " physically able " to go through with the debate, and to defend your published doctrines. Respectfully yours. JNO. H. BROWN. 26 CORRESPONDENCE. Bethamj, Va., May 24, 1843. Elder Brown : Dear Sir — Yours of the 15th, came by to-day's mail. You now say that it " presents too much evidence of what you have for some time appre- hended, that I have resolved to avoid the proposed discussion." This conclu- sion makes me curious to know your premises. Nothinjr that I have said or done, would seem to me to authorize such an inference. The proposi- tions which constitute your premises, are most likely those which you are now about to offer, at which you thought I would most probably revolt. Circumstances appear to favor this presumption. Hence, ever since you thought of offering them, you have apprehended that I " would avoid the proposed discussion." When seeking to withdraw the man of my choice, promised by yourself, and to dictate all the terms, propositions, and conditions of debate, it is natural for you to expect, that as an honorable man, I should decline taking any part in such a discussion. I demanded your most gifted, learned, and accomplished man as my opponent, in case of a debate. Nothing mentioned at our personal interview, is more distinctly remembered, nothing is more frequently alluded to in our correspondence, and never contradicted by yourself, than that I should have Mr. Young for my opponent, if it came to single combat, as I then affirmed my convictions, and expressed my desire that it would. You now seem to deny any such pledge, or agreement on your part. Your words are, " You shall have him." If these words do not constitute a pledge, pray what language could be so construed 1 Nor is this fact, though deeply engraven on my memory, depending on that alone for its certainty. In my letter of Nov. 16, it is written " I will debate with one person only," and then named president Young as such a person. You immediately responded, " You shall have him, as you did not doubt but the synod would select him." This is freely admitted in your reply of Dec. 8, stating at the same time that " there is now no probability that brother Young will be able to enter into the discussion with you." Do not these words affirm that he was to have " entered into the discussion" with me ! Surely you will not stultify yourself. You know the meaning of words too well, to plead ignorance of the import of your own language. But you are even still more explicit in declaring your understanding of the pledge, for you speak of his engaging in a protracted discussion with me, for which you alledged "the state of his lungs would disqualify him." In these words, you admit the pledge, or agreement, which through the trea- chery of your mem.ory you now seem to deny. Again, my dear sir, may I not ask why you did not attempt to undeceive me when, in my letter of Dec. 15th, I stated my reasons for preferring Mr. Young ; reminding you also of the fact, that you stood pledged to have him for my opponent, and that I could not be expected to engage witli any other, unless on conditions then proposed. In your reply to this letter, Jan. 3d, you do not demur at all to this view of the matter in any one par- ticular. You merely inform me that the appointment was not made by, but at the meeting of synod. Again, in your letter of March 8th, after quoting my words indicative of my willingness to meet such a conference raised at the synod, you informed me " that brother Young's health is much improved, and that, therefore, this impediment would be removed." Now, after all this, to say that there was no such agreement or pledge, on your part, indicates it not that some of your mental powers have given way, and that you ought to be allowed the bene- fit of retraction ? "Well, but if you did so agree, you may ask — indeed, you have virtually asked, would I insist upon having an opponent physically unable] No, indeed ; I want a full grown man, of good natural and acquired ability, and also in good plight. But Mr. Young was such a man last August, and be may be such a man again next August, or soon after. I have long since CORRESPONDENCE. 27 resolved never to debate with an inferior man when a superior can be had. I prefer to await his perfect recovery, rather than to enter the list with an inferior man. My object has been so often stated to you, that I deem it almost needless again to say, that neither my own honor nor interest demand this, but the interest of the whole community. That, sir, now calls for the best man in your ranks. True, I am so sensible of the strength of my position, that however inferior I may be in other respects, I am willing to meet the strongest man in Christendom on those points at issue between us. If, then, I am constrained to refuse your new proposition, it is not because the man offered is so formidable, so mighty and argumentative, but because he is not by the community judged to be equal, much less superior, to the persons named. At least such are my impressions. If, however, in this I am mistaken, I am open to conviction.. I say again, sir, I desire your strongest and most accomplished man, whether in Kentucky or out of it. I desire to make an end of tjie controversy, so far as I am concerned, and, therefore I desire an opponent beyond whom your community cannot look with either desire or expectation. There are but two ways you may drive me from this discussion. You can, indeed, accomplish your predictions of my avoiding the discussion by one of two expedients. You may offer a disputant of inferior rank, or you may refuse the discussion of the real issue, and offer substitutes that meet not the subject proposed. You say something of my speaking discourteously of Mr. Rice, and of rather insulting you in my allusions to certain rumors. To each of which inacceptable imputations I desire to plead not guilty. If, sir, I should say that lord Brougham is not so courteous a gentleman as sir Robert Peel, do I insult lord Brougham ! It is, methinks, somewhat prudish to affect such a sense of honorable courtesy. With me there yet remain three degrees of comparison, but with you it seems there is no comparison at all that is not discourteous. I believe, sir, all Kentucky, in so far as Messrs. Rice and Young are known, will award to the latter a comparativg superiority in courtesy, as well as in some other points of comparison. And, sir, as your denomination is to be represented on the occasion, I put it to your good sense, whether a very courteous gentleman be not, other things bein^ equal, a desideratum to you, as well as to me. But as I speak from report, and not from personal acquaintance, I am in this always pervious to new light. And with regard to tlie second item in your late bill of indictment, my insulting you by speaking of my reluctance to listen to a rumor discreditable to your candor and christian courtesy, I confess myself so obtuse as not to per- ceive the precise point that impinges upon your honor in the form of insult. If the report were false there was no insult in alluding to it, and if true, you will admit, on reflection, there could be no insult ; because the truth in Buch a connection, never can be an insult. Would it not, however, be discred- itable to your candor and christian character, to believe that you had decided at synod, that Mr. Rice should be the man of your choice, and for almost a year to hold up the words of promise to my ear, that I should have Mr. Young. Nay, farther, would it not be still more discreditable for you to have so designed, and then afterwards nominate and appoint Mr. Rice one of the committee to make out the propositions and details of debate, when you calculated on my not being one of that committee. I shall present you a dilemma tor your grave consideration. Either you agreed at synod tiiat Mr. Rice or Mr. Young should be the man ; if the latter, then I am right, yourselves being judges, in waiting for him ; but if you agreed on Mr. Rice, you are wrong on two accounts. 1st, for holding up Mr. Young at all to my car, and in the 2nd place, for appointing 3Ir. Rice one of the committee of arrangement, in this clandestine and cunning way. Extricate yourself if you can ! Or do I insult you by declaring my reluctance to believe another report 28 CORRESPONDENCE. that has reached me, from various sources, that you never intended a debate with me on the points proposed, but only intended to appear willing and ready for such a discussion, and tiicn, by so managing the matter, as to compel me to back out, or to secure to you such advantages as would sus- tain your standing with the community. Such reports have almost since the date of your first overtures reached my ear from difi'erent sources ; and shall I be regarded as insulting you either by mentioning them, or by affirming my reluctance to believe them. Is it not rather kind for me to state them fully, when your proceedings assume a form squinting so much in that direction. It is, metliinks, due to you, to allow opportunity for you to take such a course as will thoroughly refute imputations so discreditable' and so usually regarded dishonorable. It was, indeed, as I imagined, kind to apprize you of such reports, and to afford you opportunity to refute them by your actions. You very politely, on the heels of this double imputation, say, " I do not wonder at your reluctance to meet Mr. Rice. He has health to go through such a discussion, and is accustomed, as well as yourself, to public debate." This, of course, is neither discourteous nor insulting!! Why, sir, in thus saying, you have called my attention to Mr. Rice, under a new angle of vision. If I regard your voice as that of the denomination, I have no diffi- culty as to my course. You have elevated Mr. Rice to a position greatly superior to that occupied by Mr. Young. You cannot but admit that the reputation of Mr. Young, for learning and talent, has not terrified me so as to evince any reluctance to meet him in debate: but in your esteem the fame of Mr. Rice is so superlatively formidable, that I am fearful of en- countering him. Convince me, sir, that this is his true position in the denomination, and I at once accept him as your strongest man. I desire, however, at least another witness or two of this fact, especially since read- ing a letter written by yourself, setting forth your triumphs in a discussion in which you have been engaged not many moons since. From that docu- ment, it would seem that your imagination sometimes leads captive your reason, at least; in the opinion of many impartial and independent men. A word or two as to the propositions for discussion. You manifest a singular pertinacity in selecting fragments of my views, and also in imput- ing to me a reluctance to defend what I have written. Have I thus assail- ed you ! The propositions touching the action and the subject of baptism, are as you would wish them, and have been frequently so discussed by your denomination. The design of baptism is the only one on that subject peculiar to the present controversy. I have ofi'ered a proposition that covers the main ground occupied by me in my writings : for which you offer a most ridiculous substitute. " With me," you say, " baptism is the new birth, and it is designed to effect a change of state." If it be the new birth, can the new birth be the design of it J That it changes the state, is your own belief, and what controversy is there on this point! I must have a clear enunciation of the design of baptism. The propositions offered on that subject are such as to cover the real ground of difference between you and us. I shrink from nothing I have written. You have no reason to say so. You may protract the time, but I will never debate a proposition that does not meet my views. I have just as good a right to select from my writings as you have, and I can select a score on this subject that cover the real ground of debate. Christian baptism is designed to confer personal assurance of the remis- sion of sins on every legitimate subject. Or, Clirislian baptism is for the remission of past sins. This is my doctrine on the subject: and this I will defend. You may use all that I have written upon the subject, if you please ; but such is the concentrated view which I propose. On the influences of the Spirit — / teach that in sanctif cation it operates only through the written vjord. You teach that in some cases, it operates viihout the word. I, therefore, affirm that the Spirit of God operates on CORRESPONDEISCE. 29 sinners and on saint only Ihrongh the word. You affirm that it regenerates and sanctities, in innumerable instances, without the word. Here is the gist of the controversy. All that I have written, and every thing in your creed, comes up under this proposition. As you admit tliat our views of the weekly celebration of the Supper are scriptural, so far as your creed affirms, I shall not pi"ess that proposition farther upon your attention. Touching your new proposition, about the administration of baptism, I regard it as a very small affiiir. I teach that for good order's sake, persons ouglit to be appointed to baptize, but that ba|)tism by the hand of a layman, as you call him, when no other can be had, is just as valid as that of the pope, or your ministers. You can produce no divine precept nor precedent confining baptisui to bishops, or ciders — nor of their baptizing as such. That human creeds, added to the Bible, arc now and always have been unauthorized by God, roots of bitterness, apples of discord, necessarily tending to schism, and always perpetuating it, I affirm to be a great practi- cal truth, deeply atiecting the very existence of pure religion, and essen- tially obstructing the union of cliristians. These are main points of difierence between us, and such as we have agreed to discuss — baptism, the work of the Spirit, and creeds. You may, in your reply, settle tlie whole' matter of the propositions, or you may pro- tract the subject for months, t must have some two months interval, after all things are agreed upon, to make i)reparations for leaving home. Such are my duties and my numerous responsibilities, that I cannot in a few days obtain leave of absence. I intimated to you my desire of having the discussion during our vacation : but you seem to pass it over without notice. I must make my arrangements \n a i'cw days for the vacation, and it will depend upon the promptness and the distinctness of your reply, whether my arrangements can be made to permit my attendance during vacation or after it, sooner than late in September or October. I am pleased to be able to say, from the retrospect of the past, that this long delay in bringing these matters to a close, is neither of my option nor creation. With all due respect, I remain yours, &c. A. CAMPBELL. Elder A. Campbell : — Yours of the 24th has been received. You are anxious to know the premises from w^hich I concluded that you are resolved to avoid this discussion. It is, I believe, universally admitted that a man can give no more unequivocal evidence of his purpose to avoid a contest, than by insisting on extraordinary and unequal terms of fight. This evi- dence you have abundantly afforded. You assert that I, in our interviev*^ at Richmond, gave a pledge that Mr. Young should be your opponent, in case of a debate occurring. I will dis- prove this assertion by your own testimony. In your Harbinger for Novem- ber, you state, that you consented to attend the meeting at Lexington, " provided only, that if we should go into a regular debate, that out of the most respectable of said delegation one be selected whose authority with the people was highest in the state — such as the president of their college at Danville, and with such a person I would go into a regular debate," &c. Is this not singular language in which to express the fact, that you were to debate with president Young, and no other ■? Why did you not say '• Provided only, that if we should go into a regular debate, I should have the president of their college as my ojjponent .'" This would have been a totally different thing, for then there could be no selection at all, " out of the most respectable of said delegation." But you have recently given a second version of this matter, plainly contradictory of the first. In the Harbinger for April, you say — " And in the event of the conference not coming to an agreement, I would go into single combat with a certain gentleman then named," Ace. Now, Mr. Campbell, can you reconcile these two statements? According to the first, the debater on our side was to be selected out of the c2 3 CORRESPONDENCE. most respectable individuals of the delegation; according to the second, there was to be no such selection, but you were to debate with a certain gentleman then named. It is absolutely impossible that both can be true. Your first version is doubtless nearer the truth, and it plainly contradicts your assertion concerning a pledge, that jMr. Young should be your opponent. The following declarations are certainly marvellous. " In my letter of Nov. IGth, it is written, 1 will debate with one person only, and then named president Young, as such a person. You immediately responded, you shall have him, as you did not doubt but tlie synod would select him." Now, Mr. Campbell, the synod met early in October. How then could I have answered your letter of Nov. 16, by saying, I did not doubt that the synod would appoint brother Young, one month after its adjournment I In my letter, Dec. 8th, I stated as a reason why we could not accommodate you in your wish to debate with i\Ir. Young, that there was at that time, no proba- bility of his being able to engage in such a debate with yon, and this you (by what process I cannot imagine) convert into an affirmation that he was to liave done sol And you ask why I did not nndccive you, when in your letter of December 15th, you brought up this matter ! Why, sir, by exam- ination of the Harbinger for November, you could easily undeceive yourself. Besides, in that letter you placed an obstacle in the way. which I supposed would prevent the proposed discussion, and speedily close our correspon- dence ; which was a sufficient reason why I deemed it unnecessary to say any thing about tlie particular arrangement, until your objection should be withdrawn. In March I informed you, that brother Young's health was much improved, and, therefore, he would be able to be present as one of the five on our side, the only thing I have pledged him to do ; and this again is strangely perverted. But your first version of the matter, may stand against what you now say. But you have, as you imagine, placed me in quite a sad dilemma, and with an air of triumph, you say, " extricate yourself if you can." You begin tluis : " Either you agreed at synod that Mr. Rice or Mr. Young should be the man ; if the latter — " Stop, Mr. C, we did not agree at synod either that Mr. Rice or 3Ir. Young should be the man. One of the five selected at synod lived at a distance of several hundred miles, and we did not choose to appoint one of our number to debate without conferring with him. On writing to him, we ascertained that he could not be with us at the proposed discussion ; and you objected to our filling his place with ano- ther man ; we, tlierefore, could not properly appoint a debater until our number was complete ; so your dilemma disappears. To your charge, that I have, for almost a year, held up the word of promise to your ear, that you should have Mr. Young, I plead not guilty, and prove that I have done no such thing by Mr. Campbell himself. As early as December 8, yourself being witness, I informed you that there was no probability that you could have him. The man who can convert such a statement into a word of pro- mise, must possess some extraordinary powers. It is, indeed, amusing to see you insisting upon meeting no man, whom you are not pleased to think, " all Kentucky " considers the very politest and most accomplished gentleman in the Presbyterian ranks. With you, it is not enough that your opponent should be regarded by his church as a scholar, a theologian, and a christian gentleman : he must be superlatively polite and accomplished ; and we must produce witnesses to prove him such!!! Really, sir, tliis strikes me as an extraordinary, and, I think, a most ridiculous demand — a demand too, which necessarily implies a claim on your part, to be superlatively polite and accomplished. In view of such claims, I presume we must all on our side, retire from the contest, since we claim to be nothing more than christian gentlemen. But if I can under- stand you, you do not insist now upon meeting Mr. Young — you desire our "strongest and most accomplished man, whether in Kentucky or out of it." Well, are you to select the man, or to judge who shall defend our cause ; or CORRESPONDENCE. 31 shall we ? If you say you are to select him, there is an end of the matter. Why, sir, if you will allow me to get your chief men into a discussion, and then select from your body the man whom I may choose to consider emi- nently polite and accomplished, &c. ; I can demolish your cause at any time. I can select a man, as you insist on doing, whose want of health makes it impossible for him to do justice to it ; or who from some other cause, is inadequate to the work. I have never known a man who had not courage enough to light, if he might be permitted to select his man. You may very safely propose to wait till Mr. Young's health may enable him to go through such a debate, since he has long been in feeble healtii, and more than once at death's door ; and since there is no probability that at any early day he will be able to encounter such labors. But if you say, we are to select the man, who sliall defend our cause, we are ready for you. But you desire ■' at least another witness or two," that he is our strongest man ; and the reason you assign for this wish, may constitute a part of the evidence of the propriety of your claim, to meet no man who is not exquis- itely courteous and polite I I cannot so far forget what is due to myself, as to reply to your remarks. But, sir, we are Jive in number, and the gentle- man who is ready to debate with you, has been selected by four of us, of whom Mr. Young is one. So you have quite as many witnesses as you desire. If you say, you will not condescend to meet the man of our selec- tion, you at once close the correspondence. The matter may as well be settled at once. We have selected the man, to whose hands we think proper to commit the defence of our cause. His standing is well known, both in Kentucky and out of it. We will not select another. You can either debate with him, or retreat from the discussion. As to the propositions for discussion, whilst we should have been pleased to see you willing to defend your doctrines, as stated by yourself; perhaps, however, we ought to give you some advantages — we will, therefore, accept of your proposition on tlie desig-ii of baptism, and on the influences of the Spirit — with a slight verbal alteration of the latter, reserving, of course, the right to explain the meaning of the questions by your publications. The proposition on tlie design of baptism, which we accept, is as follows: 1. Ckrisliaii baptism is for Ike remission of past sins. The question on the influence of the Spirit, we accept, as follows : 2. Tke Spirit of God operates on persons, only through the Word. I hope you will not shrink from the defence of your doctrine, in regard to the administrator of baptism. It involves the validity of the ordinance. How you can consider it as " a very small aifair " I do not know, 'i'he Pres- byterian church certainly regards it as of very great importance. From a remark in my last letter, your deduction relative to the comparative merits of Rev. Mr. Young, if at all allowable, is not such as I intended. Unac- customed to polemic correspondence, I may have expressed myself ambigu- ously or incautiously, in many respects. I recognize no man as his superior. Tis true, his experience in oral controversy is not equal to some others, yet if his health would justify, the cause of truth could not be committed to abler hands. You seem in a late publication to congratulate yourself, in view of the fact, that the discussion has not been procrastinated by any delay on your part, (one instance only excepted, and that unavoidable,) but tiiat the delay is wholly attributable to me. I presume the correspondence, (if ever publish- ed) will present the facts. However, I do not suppose tiiat even Mr. Camp- bell himself, would expect one who is neither a president, nor the occupant of a point more prominent than Paris, but only a village Pastor, inexpe- rienced in ecclesiastical polemics, to compete with hitn, either in despatch, or any Iking else involved in such a correspondence. But, sir, if the discus- sion has not been delayed by you for this reason, the community may yet have the opportunity of juHging whether other, and more important reasons, of delay are not attributable to Mr. C. himself. 32 CORRESPONDENCE. I do not think it important to reply to your tedious remarks, in defence of your offensive language in a former letter. Perhaps I ought to be amused at your gravely talking about rumors, that I never intended to debate with you. Rumors about what I intend ! ! .' I rather think you are pretty thoroughly convinced, that the rumors about my intentions, so far as the debate is concerned, are untrue. Respectfully, JNO. H. BROWN. Bethany, Va., June 25, 1843. Elder J. H. Brown : Dear Sir — Yours of the 16th lies before me. Our college examination prevented my reply on the day of its arrival. I hasten, however, to re- spond before our next mail. I know not whether the imputation of my insisting on "extraordinary and unequal terms of fight," or the evidence by which you would sustain it, be the more eminently amusing and ridiculous. You cannot, Mr. Brown, make even one Presbyterian in a hundred believe it. That you gave a pledge that I should have I»Ir. Young for an opponent is just as certain to me as that I saw you in Richmond last August ; and you have not brought, nor can you bring, one particle of evidence to disprove it. The passages quoted from the November and April Harbinger are most illogically applied. No passage of Scripture, alledged in proof of transub- stantiation or infant affusion, was ever more glaringly perverted and mis- construed than tliose two passages. In the general and passing notice of your call upon me at Richmond, to which you allude in the November num- ber, is it not distinctly stated that I specified Mr. Young as, in my esteem, the most prominent man in your denomination, and named him as a condi- tion of my attendance on the proposed discussion J And had you quoted in your epistle, evidently designed for the public eye, the whole passage, it would have been an evidence of, and not against, the truth of my present position. The very next sentence says, " To all of which Mr. Brown most readily assented." To have been more definite or precise in such a notice would have been wholly out of place. It seems to me, at least, rather singular, amongst candid and honorable men, that Mr. Brown> while deny- ing the pledge, should so accidentally suppress the sentence that affirms it. But to make out of this a contradiction from any thing written in my April number, would seem to require the genius and the daring of Ignatius Loyola himself. Without note or comment, the words themselves clearly indicate all that I have constantly affirmed. " And," said I, " in the event of the conference not coming to an agreement, I would go into single com- bat with a gentleman then named.''^ Now I ask every candid man of every party, in what terms could I have more perspicuously affirmed the essential provision, that I should have Mr. Young, and your assent to it, than in the words above quoted, in all the circumstances which called them forth? The recklessness of these attempts at constructive contradiction is only surpassed by the still more glaring attempt to make my November letter read as though it had been written before the meeting of synod. My state- ment of what was agreed upon on a prior occasion, is converted into a new proposition then presented ! ! Surely, Mr. Brown, you do great injustice to your own understanding. Why, sir, it looks more like the trick of a schoolboy than the grave and self-respectful product of a Presbyterian cler- gyman. Yet you are constrained to admit that you suffered the illusion to deceive me till in your March letter, written after full two months' delibe- ration ! But you get out of the dilemma by breaking its horns : you deny that either Mr. Rice or Mr. Young was selected at the meeting of synod — absolutely, you must mean ; for that such was the understanding you will not certainly deny. All reflecting persons will understand how you get out of this dilemma: — It is one thing absolutely to say that Mr. Rice or Mr. Young should be the man ; and another, to have an understanding that in a certain event he should be the man. Is not this the truth, Mr. Brown) CORRESPONDENCE. 33 You have been most singularly unfortunate in every attempt, in this most elaborate apologetic epistle, to extricate yourself from the unenviable atti- tude in which you must appear to stand before a discerning community. Your uncalled for quizzical allusions to the "very politest gentleman" in your ranks, is worthy of the ingenuity that placed allusions to antecedent matters, in my November Harbinger, in the attitude of present history. FiVery thing else being equal, I do certainly prefer, in an antagonist, a courteous well bred christian gentleman, and I care not who knows it. If such be the character of Mr. Rice, or any one else elected by your church, I shall be happy to meet him. If he be not, you are just as much disgraced as I may be annoyed by his rudeness. The perfection of your climax of suicidal aberrations, as it seems to me, is vour representation of me as seeking a weak man instead of a strong one. Mr. Young must certainly be indebted to you for the new honors you have added to his doctorate. I choose a weak man then, it seems, like a coward, in choosing Mr. Young ! and you want to give me a strong man ! ! As I before said of Mr. Young, if withdrawn on the ground of ill health, I sym- pathize with him, and am willing to wait his recovery. But recollect, sir, the plea of physical inability will not stand in the presence of a proposition to await his restoration to such health as he enjoyed when first you ofi'ered him. The public will no doubt properly estimate the matter. Well, now, as you have finally tendered your grand ultimatum, an une- quivocal sine qua 7ion, uncommitted and untrammeled as I am, I cannot but feel the responsibility in which you place me. The case, as you now make it, is : Five men were chosen by the ministers of the Presbyterian church of Kentucky, met at synod last October, and these five have chosen one of themselves, by agreement of said ministers at synod, to represent the de- nomination, supported by themselves, in council assembled, in a discussion of the leading points at issue between Presbyterians and our brethren in that state and elsewhere. And this arrangement, or no discussion, being now tendered, I have to choose between these alternatives. In view of all my responsibilities, I resolve, the Lord willing, to meet said representative of that church and conference, (my brethren in Kentucky so concurring,) to discuss those points at issue, as comprehended in the following six pro- positions, four of which are now agreed upon, viz. : I. I affirm that immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the action ordained by Jesus Christ as the one only christian baptism. This you deny ; affirming that sprinkling or pouring water, on a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism. II. You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism. This I deny ; affirming that a professed believer of the gospel is the only proper subject of baptism. III. I affirm that, to a believing penitent, baptism is for the remission of past sins. This you deny. IV. You affirm that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained presbyter. This I deny. V. I affirm that the Spirit of God, in conversion, operates on persons only through the word of truth. VI. You affirm that the constitution of the Presbyterian church ia the constitution of Christ's church: or, you affirm that a human creed, such as the Westminster, is essential to the existence, unity and peace of the church. Both of these I deny. Thus, sir, I have conceded to you the proposition concerning the admin- istration of baptism, and have arranged them in the natural and logical order of debate : — 1st, the action, or thing to be done, in the name of the Lord ; 2d, the person on whom; 3d, the design ybr which ; and 4th, the per- son by whom it may of right be performed. To this order I presume no person can object. I have also, to expedite an issue, conceded another point, viz. the omission of the question about the Lord's supper. I have, 3 34 CORRESPONDENCE. in thus drawing them out, supplied the ellipsis, but have not changed a. single iota known to me in our respective positions to these great ques- tions. As the arrangements concerning the taking down of the discussion and the publication of it, are not only important, but may require some time, may I expect a speedy answer to the above. I must moreover decide upon my course of action during vacation in a few days. I therefore earnestly request an immediate answer. If it arrives not in the same space of time occupied by my reply to your last, I cannot possibly attend to the discus- sion during vacation. JNIeantime I will write to my brethren in Kentucky, for their acquiescence on the first subject as aforesaid. Other preliminary rules are to be adopted, and arrangements made for conducting the debate with all decorum, which will require some time. Respectfully, your friend, A. CAMPBELL. » Richmond, Ky,, Juhj 7, 1843. Elder Campbell — Yours of June 25th is received. If you should ever be able to reconcile the statement, that of five men, one was to be selected to meet you in debate, with your recent declaration, that there was to be no selection at all, but that a certain individual then named, was to meet you, I shall be constrained to acknowledge, that you possess some original pow- ers of mind ! That I agreed that you should have Mr. Young, as one of the five individuals on our side, is not denied ; but to prove that, Vvithout ever having conferred with him on the subject, I pledged him to go through such a discussion as the one contemplated — a kind of employment in which he head never engaged, and for which his feeble health would, to a great extent, disqualify him — will require more evidence than you will ever be able to produce. When you represent me as intimating or admitting, that in choosing Mr. Young, you chose a " weak man," can you imagine, that any one, on reading this correspondence, will believe what you say "J My re- marks in previous letters, flatly contradict it; and his reputation makes a defence of his talents and scholarship wholly unnecessary. Your willing- ness to await his recovery, after what you knew of the state of his health, only proves your disposition indefiKitely to postpone the discussion. Since your fancied "dilemma" disappeared upon the statement of the facts, in reference to the selection of Mr. Rice or Mr. Young at synod, you resort to a most singular expedient to sustain your position. You say " That such was the understanding, [that Young or Rice should meet you] you certainly will not deny. Is not this the truth, Mr. Brown '?" When a gentleman undertakes to place another in a dilemma, by assuming things to be true of which, in the nature of the case, he can know absolutely nothing, and when, on finding his mistake, he resorts to catechising in order to elicit something favorable to his wishes ; I rather think, he is, if not in a " dilemma," at least in an unpleasant predicament '. I am truly gratified, however, that you have at length felt constrained to withdraw your extraordinary claim to select your opponent in debate, and to agree to meet the man of our selection, without further testimonials in regard to his ability, or his extraordinary politeness! ! We will endeavor to accommodate you with " a courteous, well-bied, christian gentleman" — ojie, who we trust and believe, will not mortify us by so far disregarding the established rules of courtesy, as Mr. Campbell has repeatedly done in this correspondence. In regard to the selection of the individuals on our part, my statements have been so repeated and so distinct, that I cannot imagine any thing more necessary on that point, however objectionable some of your representations may be. Your 6th proposition, in both forms, is decidedly objectionable. We choose to debate it as presented in your letter of Dec. 15th, viz; " Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and CORRESPONDENCE. 35 schismatical " — unless you agree to the modification already suggested, viz: "The using of creeds, except the Scriptures, is necessarily heretical and schismatical." We prefer the modified form of it ; but if you object, we will not insist upon it. Then, in order to give an equal number of affirm- atives and negatives to each party ; the first question can be thrown into the form already agreed upon, viz: " Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism." Your fifth proposition is not quite satisfactory. We are willing to take it as presented in your last letter, with a slight verbal alteration suggested in my reply, and which you have made. Then it will stand thus : " The Spirit of God operates on persons only through the Word." Now, since you have all the propositions, in almost the precise language chosen by yourself, I hope this matter may be considered as settled. Brother Rice will withdraw from the committee of arrangements, and brother J. K. Burch and myself will constitute that committee. Tiiis change is made in view of remarks made in your letter of May 24th — and in view of the fact, that Mr. Rice will be your opponent in debate. We are prepared to meet your committee, at any time mutually agreed upon, and to make all necessary arrangements. Respectfully, &c. JNO. H. BROWN. Belhany, Va., July 13, 1843. Elder Brown : Your very courteous letter of the 7th inst. lies before me. Your reitera- tion concerning Mr. Young, and your polite allusion to my reasonable demands for a respectable opponent, I shall hereafter expect as a part of every epistle for the next six months. To these matters I shall hereafter pay no attention. If any testimony is wanting concerning your promises in reference to Mr. Young, I have recently learned that such testimony (living and unexceptionable) to all my allegations can be had. I have said, for the next six months ; for it appears nothing is yet fixed. The arrangement of the propositions concerning baptism, it would seem from allusions to the first, found in your letter before me, is yet to be made. In endeavoring to find our relative positions to points at issue, — what you affirmed and what I atTirmed, — and thus to ascertain the subjects and num- ber of topics, I did not imagine that either the order in wiiich these sub- jects were named, or the affirmative or negative forms in which they were expressed, was to be that of discussion. Hence, in my last, after hearing all the explanations, statements, amendments and objections, I drew out in order and form the propositions, and our positions to them, which fairly ex- hibit our standing before the community on these points. These six propositions were : I. I affirm that immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the action ordained by Jesus Christ as the one only christian baptism. II. You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject Df baptism. III. I affirm that, to a believing penitent, baptism i^ for the remission of past sins. lY. You affirm that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained presbyter. V. I affirm that, in conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God ope- rates on persons only through the word of truth. YI. You affirm that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is the constitution of Christ's church. To the last you object, and prefer an expression of my views of creeds found in former communications. That expression covers not the whole ground of my dissent from creeds ecclesiastic. You will then affirm your views of your creed as essential to the unity, purity and peace of the 36 CORRESPONDENCE. church, and I will take the negative. This is the only point undefined be- tween us, so far as the six propositions go. I desire the privilege of affirm- ing what I teach in my own words, and extend the same to you. But on those points on which we have fully expressed our views, — namely, the first Jive propositions, — I think it is time we had done. You need not protract the time for the sake of any changes in the propositions, since I will sus- tain my real position and no other. Besides, no committee shall choose propositions for me, nor the mode of discussing them. You have more than once offered your sine qua non, your grand ultimatum : it is time for me to commence. As I expect to be in Lexington from the 1st to the 6th of August, I have no objections to your making Mr. Rice one of ihe committee to meet my- self and another person or two for arrangements of the laws and etiquette of the debate, as well as the mode of reporting and publishing. This will save much time in correspondence. Please address me there, to the care of Mr. Ficklin. In very much haste, and with all due respect, A. CAMPBELL. Richmond, July 29, 1843. Elder A. Campbell: Dear Sir — Your communication of the 13th is now before me. Only the closing paragraph demands attention. In this you propose that Mr. Rice be made one of the committee, to meet you, and another person or two, in Lexington, between the 1st and 6th of August, for the arrangement of pre- liminaries, preparatory to discussion. To this proposition I am requested to address you at Lexington, to the care of Mr. Ficklin. I have postponed a reply, awaiting the return of Mr. Rice from Nashville. I expected him to have been at my house on the 27th, to assist me in the services of a protracted meeting ; but in this I have been disappointed, his stay at Nashville having been unexpectedly protracted. I still expect him, and hope he will arrive to-day. If so, the arrangement you propose will be acceded to. If not, Mr. Burch and myself will meet your committee at Lexington, on Friday, the 4th of August, if in accordance with your wishes. I have postponed a reply to the last hour, expecting the arrival of Mr. Rice. Time, therefore, will allow me to reply only to this single pro- position ; other matters in your communication will be attended to at no very distant day. Please reply by return of mail. Respectfully, JNO. H. BROWN. Richmond, July 31, 1843. Elder A. Campbell— Since I replied to your last letter, brother Rice has returned from Nashville, and in accordance with your wish, he will be added to the committee on our part, and he, Mr. Burch, and myself, will meet you and your committee in Lexington, on Thursday afternoon, at 3 o'clock, P. M. Until I received your last letter, I supposed the propositions for disciission might be considered as settled, since I had accepted them as stated by your- self, with merely slight verbal alterations, to almost all of which you had agreed. But I am not a little surprised to learn from your last letter, that you are unwilling to debate your own propositions ! '. ! On the mode of bap- tism you proposed the following, which, with a small change, to which you agreed, was accepted by me, viz: " Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism." You now, after both parties have agreed to the above proposition, offer another quite different in form. What does this mean] In relation to the subject, the design, and the administra- tor of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, we are agreed on the proposition to be debated. On the subject of creeds, we have agreed to discuss your own proposition. CORRESPONDENCE. 37 viz : " Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical." But you now inform me, that this proposi- tion, stated by yourself for discussion, covers not the whole ground of your dissent from " creeds ecclesiastic,"' and you propose the following: " You [I] affirm, that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is the constitu- tion of Christ's church." And does this proposition really cover the whole ground of your objection to creeds ecclesiastic ! Is it true that all that you affirmed against creeds, amounts only to this — that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is not the constitution of the church of Christ 1 Or have you not gone on a crusade against all creeds, because they " supplanted the Bible, made the Word of God of non-effect, were fatal to the intelligence, purity, union, holiness, and happiness of the disciples of Christ, and hostile to the salvation of the world ]" — Chris. Sys. p. 9. These and many such things, you have affirmed concerning the use of creeds. You say, " I desire the privilege of affirming what I teach." Now, my dear sir, we have accepted your own proposition, thus affording you the opportunity oi' affirm- ing and proving, what you have so constantly, and so loudly, affirmed and taught; and mirabile dictuJ — you decline affirming, or attempting to prove it, and desire us to affirm a totally different proposition, not at all covering the ground of your published sentiments ! This procedure does strike me as marvellous in the extreme. You have before declined discussing the doctrine of the influences of the Spirit, as published in one of your most important books; and now you are unwilling to discuss a proposition of your own forming! I must insist now, that you defend your own proposi- tion. I cannot accept a totally different one in place of it. But it seems that all this while we have been engaged, not in settling propositions, as they were to be debated but only in " hearing all the explanations, statements, amendments, and objections." Yet propositions were stated, verbal or other alterations suggested and agreed to. Still, although the precise language of the propositions was agreed upon, you now feel at liberty to begin de novo, and restate them in different form ; or to state entirely new propositions ! To this twisting and turning you must allow me decidedly to object. In a word, we have accepted your propositions, and we are now prepared to arrange other preliminaries, and to enter upon the discussion at the earliest convenience of the parties concerned. In regard to the testimony, of which you speak, in reference to your allegation, I will now only say, I am prepared to meet it. Hoping to see you on Thursday next, I remain yours, &c. J- H- BROWN. N. B. We will be at the residence of Rev. J, K. Burch, at the hour specified above, and will receive any communication you may deem expe- dient. Lexington, Ky., August 2, 1843. Elder J. H. Brown: Dear Sir — Yours of the 31st ult. is just to hand. I am not unwilling to debate my own propositions. Propositions submitted by me to elicit your position, and to ascertain your views, are not, however, my own proposi- tions. Had you been willing that I should have debated my own proposi- tions, a single letter would have been sufficient to settle the whole issue of debate. In the six propositions, so often and so variously propounded to ascertain the true issue, but one of them is exactly my own proposition. True, I hs,ve elicited the attitude you wish to maintain, and eucli as you would desire me to maintain ; but this is a very different thing from my having obtained my own propositions, or my having absolutely agreed to discuss a single proposition, the verbiage of which you have at all inter- fered with. My approval of any proposition, so far as expressed, has al- ways been prospective of the amicable settlement of the whole issue. 1 was willing, however, and am still willing, to distribute the four proposi- tions on baptism as expressed in my last, which are in exact accordance D 38 CORRESPONDENCE. with our respective positions as before defined ; but I am not willing to give you three affirmative propositions out of four, and even then not have my single affirmative in my own words ! ! I confess I was not prepared to expect such exorbitant demands at the hands of my Presbyterian friends, especially after conceding so much to their views of expediency. Called upon for a discussion of my views as opposed to Presbyterianism, and pressed into this debate, as I have been, by your importunities, I was prepared to expect the privilege of propound- ing my ovv'n propositions in my oioii words, and to expect that such chival rous spirits as the sons of the Solemn League and Covenant would manfully stand up to their own tenets and defend their own true and veritable position before this community, and allow me to defend and assail in regular turn. But what is my disappointment, after one years diplomatic negotiation, to find tiiem claiming three out of four propositions, and thus refusing me an opportunity to sustain my proper attitude in this long protracted contro- versy. I never can yield to demands so arbitrary and unequal. If, then, I have given opportunity and latitude to ascertain what advantages would be sought, and how promptly you and your brethren would assume the defence of your own tenets and assail mine, I am not to be understood as agreeing to place myself three times in the mere negative of your tenets on baptism, since I have been summoned by yo2i to stand up to the defence of ray own teaching. I must affirm my views on at least the two main points in which I have been most assailed by Presbyterians. This is not only just and equal, but it is my special right, coming into this discussion as I do. Besides all these considerations, obvious and imperative though they be, I have others, affecting not only these, but the other propositions submit- ted, which in harmony with our original stipulations, are entitled to your special regard. You represent a denomination : so do /. You have had frequent consultations among yourselves : I have not had one with my brethren till my arrival in this city. From them I have learned how we, as a denomination, have been assailed, both in Kentucky and Tennessee, by your representative Mr. Rice. From the facts stated, and the represen- tations given, to meet the objects of this discussion, it will also be expe- dient and necessary that the proposition concerning the Spirit, and that concerning creeds, shall be more full than before propounded. Accord/ing to the views of such as have conferred with me, it is requisite that your views of Spiritual influence, regeneration, &c., so far as they difi^er from ours, should be fully developed and discussed. I should, therefore, amplify the proposition already before us, so as to bring all our views, and yours, fully before the community, thus: The Spirit qf God, without any previous, special, separate, spiritual operation on the mind, illumination, or call, is known, believed, received, and enjoyed, through the word of God; which word is the only and all-sufficient instrument through which sinners attain the knowledge of God, are converted, sanctified, and obtain the true religion As respects creeds, I affirm that human, authoritative creeds, superadded to the Bible, are an instill to its Author, unphilosophical in their nature, schis- matic in their tendencies, and retard the conversion of the world. But as you may claim a negative attitude in the discussion of this point, I consent to your framing any proposition that precisely and fully negatives the above. I should be pleased to add one or two other propositions : — one concern- ing the weekly observance of the ordinance of the supper ; and one con- cerning the constitution of the Presbyterian church ; but leave this mat- ter wholly to your own discretion. I am sorry to state that the misconstructions and misrepresentations which have reached my ears from various quarters, together with the spirit and details of your letter now lying before me, recommend to me the expe- diency of settling all the important preliminaries by writing, rather than by a personal interview. I therefore state distinctly, that of the six propo- sitions I claim the 1st, 3d and 5th, as before stated, viz.: CORRESPONDENCE. 39 I. That the immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the one only apostolic or christian baptism. III. That, to a pi-oper subject, baptism is for induction into the christian covenant, or for the remission of sins. V. "The Spirit," &c., as above expressed. Should you think proper to place my proposition on creeds before that on the Spirit, and allow me to affirm it, and then select one indicative of your full views on the Spirit expressed in your own words, or in those of your creed, and allow me to negative it, you shall have my consent. As I sin- cerely desire a frank, candid and friendly interview, I am willing to allow you a full expression of your tenets in the best terms you can select. I only state distinctly, that if there be but six propositions, I shall have three affirmatives, as aforesaid, and that you shall have three. I claim the action and design of baptism, and either that on the Spirit or creeds, as you please. If to these lair and equitable terms you agree, I am prepared to go into other preliminary arrangements immediately. If not, say so, and the matter ends. I sincerely and solennily profess to go for truth, and not for victory, — for truth indeed, and victory, — for the Bible, and its triumph over all rivals. And if you can concur with us in such views and feelings, I think we ought to agree to spend the day antecedent to the commencement of the discus- sion in prayer and fasting. All of which is respectfully submitted. Please address me at Mr. Henry Bell's. With all due respect, yours, &c. A. CAMPBELL. Lexington, August 3, 1843. Elder A. Campbell — Yours of the 2nd is before me. It contains information curious, \^ not instructive, viz: that propositions submitted for debate by Mr. Campbell, are nest his own propositions ! ! ! Then, pray, whose are they "? But it seems, that you submitted them to elicit my posi- tion, &c. Is it true, then, that you submitted for my consideration propo- sitions which you knew did not correctly present our relative positions, in order to ascertain my views 1 If they do correctly represent the ground of dilFerence, why do you now insist on changing them 1 If they do not, why were they offered ? Why did you not offer such propositions as you were willing to discuss'? This is, indeed, a new species of military tactics ! But surely your memory fails you ; for in your letter of Nov. 17, you state six propositions for debate, and then remark, " I will discuss these in single debate," &c. Again, in your letter of Dec. 15, after stating six proposi- tions yon say, " I regard the above as a candid and definite expression of our relative positions on these six points," &c. And yet you tell us, these are not your own propositions ; and some of them you refuse to debate ! Nay more, we accepted your sixth proposition, in the letter of Dec. 15th, with- out even insisting on the slightest verbal alteration, and then, behold, Mr. C. informs us, " that expression covers not the whole ground of his dissent from creeds ecclesiastic," and proposes to introduce another proposition, wholly different, which does not even touch the question of the lav/'fulness of creeds ! ! ! Again, in yours of July 13th, you state, that the only point really undefined between us is that concerning creeds, on which we had accepted your own proposition! — and then remark, "but on those points on which we have fully expressed our views — namely, the first ytye proposi- tions, I think it is time we had done." But what do I see in your letter now before me'! Another proposition on the work of tlie Spirit, entirely new and wholly unintelligible in its phraseology ! Your next epistle will, probably, insist on other propositions, different from all these} Alas for the cause that requires such manoeuvring extraordinary to sustain it. But can we understand you 'J You tell me you did not absolutely agree to discuss a single proposition, the verbiage of which I have at all inter- fered with. Of course, then, you are absolutely pledged to discuss those 40 CORRESPONDENCE. questions, the verbiage of which we have not interfered with, except with your consent ; for when you accepted proposed amendments, the propositions as amended, were your own — such as you were bound to discuss. Now look at the following : 1. Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural bap- tism. To this proposition, as originally offered by you, we proposed a verbal alteration, to which you cheerfully agreed. This proposition, therefore, according to your own showing, you are bound to debate. 2. The infant of a believing parent, is a scriptural subject of baptism. This was accepted without alteration. Of course, it is settled. 3. Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. This also had been accepted without change — it is settled. 4. Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop, or ordained Presbyter. Accepted in your own language, without change — it is settled. 5. In conversion and sanctification the Spirit of God operates on persons only through the word of truth. Accepted in the precise language used in your letter of July 13th. This is settled. 6. Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical. Accepted in the precise language of Mr. Camp- bell, (see his letter of Dec. 15th) without the slightest change ; and that language Mr. Campbell has declared to be " a candid and definite expres- sion " of our differences on this point. This, too, is settled. Every propo- sition has been accepted, either in your precise language, or with slight verbal changes, to which you have agreed! Yet Mr. Campbell is not satis- fied! ! ! But you say, you are not willing to give us three affirmative propositions out of four, on the subject of baptism. Yet, in your letter of Dec. 15th, you say, there are three great topics, which have occupied the public atten- tion for some twenty-five years, so far as your reformation is concerned^ viz : the ordinances of Christianity, the essential elements of the gospel itself, and the influence of human creeds, &c. On precisely the point relative to baptism, on which your reformation has been most assailed, you have the affirmative. On the 2nd great point, the woi-k of the Spirit, you have the affirmative — and on the 3d great point, creeds, you have the affirmative ; yet you are not satisfied with your affirmatives ! ! ! ' Your reformation does, indeed, call for sympathy, if it cannot sustain itself, even in the hands of Mr. C, without such advantages as he demands. And, be it observed, the matter in dispute is not merely nor chiefly the affirmative and negative forms of the propositions. In your letter now be- fore me, after having previously stated that on five points the propositions were fully agreed on, you refuse to debate them, though proposed by your- self, and present three new propositions : — one relative to the Spirit, which no man who wishes the people to understand him would discuss ; one rela- tive to the design of baptism, making it perfectly ambiguous ; and one rela- tive to creeds, which assigns them a place (if your language is intelligible) which no Protestant denomination ever did assign to them. And what has led Mr. Campbell to such an unexpected and unheard of course "! Why he has heard how Mr. Rice has assailed his denomination in Kentucky and Tennessee ! Ah, what a dangerous man this Mr. Rice must be, that in prospect of meeting him even Mr. C, after stating and re-stating his pro- positions during twelve months past — propositions containing " a candid and definite expression of our relative positions," finds it necessary once more to re-state and mystify them as far as possible ! ! • To these new and most extraordinary claims of Mr. C. wo cannot accede. We have accepted his own propositions, in his own language, or slightly modified with his own consent, and in his own order ; we having three affirm- atives, and he precisely as many ; he having affirmatives on the precise points on which his reformation has assailed Protestant Christendom, and on whirh it has in turn been assailed. Now, Mr. C. tells us, unless we will let him CORRESPONDENCE. 41 change his own propositions and his own arrangement, he will not enter into the discussion. If we will not consent to his demands, such as in public debate were never before heard of, "the matter," says he, '■^ ends.'''' Well, it is just what we have for some time anticipated. So, after all you have said of the fear of light among " the clergy," — after all this boasting of the reformation of the nineteenth century, — you, the leader of the host, thus signally retreat ! ! ! We press the matter no further. If Mr. C. fears to debate his own pro- postiioiis, we are willing that the matter shall end, and that the world shall know the grand result ! But upon Mr. Campbell himself the entire respon- sibility of its termination must ever rest. Yours, respectfully, JNO. H. BROWN. P. S. — Mr. Campbell is now at liberty, should he think proper, to publish the correspondence. J. H. B. Lexington, Ky,, August 4, 1843. Mr. Brown : Sir — Your letter of last night, though it fulfills the predictions of almost all the prophets that have spolien to me concerning the contemplated dis- cussion, is nevertheless a development which I could not have expected from even Mr. Brown in reply to the epistle I have just addressed to him. I do not exaggerate when I say, that of the scores of persons that have, since my arrival in this state, spoken to me concerning your proposition for a debate, almost all have said, that either I must concede to your party all that you demand, or that I should be quibbled out of a discussion. Nay, eome have said, that Mr. Brown himself was actually engaged a few days since in efforts to retract his having solicited and challenged my attendance to debate the points at issue between us and Presbyterians, it was believed with a reference to some immediate publication of our correspondence, in anticipation, I presume, of the license you have now given me to publish the correspondence ! Be it so, then. But, before the final adieu, I shall add one letter more, which must first go to the public before the whole cor- respondence can appear. I will not be at pains to review the letter lying before me at this time. I have neither the time nor the documents. On leaving home, I forgot to bring with me a single letter of our correspondence, though it had occupied ray attention almost at the moment of departing. And to undertake to un- fold the perplexities, and to expose the dexterous and ingenious manoeuvres and subterfuges with which it seems to abound, without these documents, would be as imprudent, as it is now unnecessary. To enlighten one who could confound the submission of a proposition with the approval of it, or an agreement to discuss a special proposition, as one of an issue, in anticipation of a fair and equitable adjustment of the whole issue, as absolutely binding, whether the issue be as anticipated, or to convict me of dishonorable inten- tions by such a mode of retreat from a debate solicited by himself, would require more details than at present I have leisure for. Again, to repre- sent one as introducing new propositions, when only changing an affirma- tive to a negative, or a negative to an affirmative, and to make what he says of topics of debate equivalent to what he says of propositions of debate, and to make a single word indicating his attitude to a question identical with the question itself, are efforts of ingenuity and dexterity, that require corresponding efforts on the part of him who would expose them, beyond the common limits of an ordinary letter. The matter then ends here. Presbyterians proposed a discussion, and promised that each party should have an equal chance in defending what it taught. In making out the issue, they assign the representative of the other party just as many affirmatives and negatives as they please, on what topics they please, and in what order they please! They tell him: "Sir, every proposition you afiirm during the whole correspondence with a refer- d2 43 CORRESPONDENCE. ence to that issue, must be considered as your own ; and in the end we will choose such of them as we please, arrange them as we please, — and if you will not debate them, we will report and denounce you as a coward, and claim for our party a glorious victory ] !" This is no exaggeration. It is but a fair representation of the case, which, when requisite, I will fiilly demonstrate. I again affirm, before heaven and earth, I did not contemplate such a de- velopment. As a christian man, I sincerely desired to discuss with chris- tian men what I regarded to be the true and principal points of difference. I sought no advantage ; I desired no advantage. I supremely desired the true issue, and sought for propositions to elicit it. If I have from time to time, during the incidents and labors of a year, in reply to various com- munications, proposed various forms of expressing the difference, it was purely for the sake of having it clearly, tangibly and fully set forth. I acted as a party in forming a covenant, during the negotiation of which numerous stipulations and re-stipulations are offered, canvassed, accepted, rejected, amended, &c. &c. ; but all in reference to a final agreement. Nothing is binding till the whole understanding is perfect and complete. Precisely so stands this matter with me. The propositions offered yester- day are not new propositions. They are mere amplifications of those al- ready offered, at the suggestion of those who have a right to be repre- sented in this discussion, with a reference especially to this community. I could not have imagined that intelligent. God-fearing and truth-loving men, sincerely desirous of coming to the light, would seek by quibbles and evasions to dodge the proper issue, or to retreat from the proposed debate, unless every word was so arranged and modified as to suit their party, or to render ambiguous, conceal, or metamorphose the proper issue. My time of life, business obligations — all forbid the waste of time in engaging in frivolous or mere verbal criticisms. I was pleased to be called upon by a party, for which I have always cherished a high respect, for a full, manly, frank and christian-like discussion of all the great points be- tween us. For this I am prepared ; but not for a mere logomachy — a wran- gle— a system of special pleading, for party and sinister ends. If any point were misstated, distorted, or suppressed, 1 desired to have it disentangled, disintricated, or set forth in its proper colors and proportions. Any thing from you with such intentions would, at any time, have commanded my attention and acquiesence. But, sir, to come to a close, you either intended, in the letter before me, to COMPEL me to come up to your terms, or have no discussion. You are prepar- ing for a publication of the correspondence, and to represent me as backing out, because, forsooth, of the prodigious champion and defender of the faith, who is to represent your denomination. Do you think, Mr. Brown, you can make any intelligent Presbyterian in Kentucky believe it ? If you do you are more credulous than I thought. Having, then, so far committed yourselves, as to avow that you will not debate the propositions, as amplified in my last, and as I introduced no new ground in the effort to present them in a more extended form, I will take, rather than have no debate, the whole six propositions, as drawn up in your letter before me, with the simple change of the first, on the action of bap- tism, as proposed in my last. Or, if you will not grant that, and take for it the negative form of the proposition on creeds, I will propose to take the whole six, as you have quoted them, by changing simply the order of them, which, I presume, you will not pretend to have ever been arranged. Place the proposition on creeds first — that on the Spirit next — and then the four on baptism. I have not, as before intimated, the correspondence with me; but of two things I feel perfectly certain, that the whole six propositions, as you have stated them, were never all agreed upon as containing the whole issue, nor was there ever an agreement as to the order of the topics of debate. It is then wholly at your own option to do one or the other. CORRESPONDENCE. 43 But certainly you will not make the order of the questions, nor the change of the form of a proposition, a sina qua non. Please inform me of your determination at as early an hour as suits your convenience. Respecfully yours, A. CAMPBELL. Lexington, Aug. 5, 1843. Elder A. Campbell — We were a good deal surprised at receiving from you, on yesterday afternoon, between one and two o'clock, another letter, which is now before me. We were surprised, first, because your previous letter declared positively, that unless we acceded to your new propositions, the matter was at an end. We supposed that you meant what you said, and, therefore, as we could not yield to your demands, considered the cor- respondence closed. We were surprised, secondly, because you had delayed to so late an hour. We were in Lexington by your invitation, to have with you a personal interview. Yet after inviting us to meet you here, you, in palpable violation of ordinary rules of courtesy, refused such inter- view, throwing out as a reason for your course, some undefined, intangible insinuations. Nevertheless, we sent a reply to your long letter in a few hours after receiving it. The committee were in Lexington till 1 o'clock, P. M., without hearing a word from you. I then left for Frankfort, expect- ing, of course, no reply to my last. After tedious delay, however, it came to hand. This fact will account for the delay of my reply. In regard to the predictions of your " prophets," and the surmises of ^ the scores of persons " that have spoken to you, together with what " some have said" of me, I hold them all in very low esteem. There always have been men who prophecied concerning things of which they were profoundly ignorant; individuals, even "scores" of them, who judge others by them- selves, and false acccusers. That such a man as Mr. C. should condescend to retail such trash, can be accounted for only on the supposition, thai he is greatly at a loss. We stand ready to be judged by our conduct. A part of your epistle is inimitably confused. A reply to that portion is unnecessary. When you come to sum up the matter, however, the mist disappears ; and we think we get your ideas. You tell us, that in making out the issues for this discussion, we assign to you just as many affirmatives and negatives as we please. What is the fact 1 We have precisely as many affirmatives and negatives as Mr. C, and no more ! But you say, we assign you the affirmatives and negatives on what topics we please. What is the fact "? We have three affirmatives on precisely the topics on which Mr. C. gave them to us. On the mode, the subject, and the administrator of baptism, you never once offered us a negative, until after we had ac- cepted the wliole of your six propositions ! Then you began to place new obstacles in the way. You further say, we give such affirmatives and negatives in what order we please. What is the fact T We have them precisely in the order in which they were offered us repeatedly by Mr. C ! How do these indisputable facts look by the side of your charges ! ! ! No, sir, our offence consists in the fact, that we expect Mr. C. to discuss his own propositions, with his own affirmatives and negatives, and in his own order ; and when he positively refuses, we charge him with re- treating. You say, " The propositions offered on yesterday, are not new proposi- tions ; they are mere amplifications of those already offered." So long as we understand the meaning of words in our own language, it is vain for Mr. C. to tell us, that those propositions are the same as those previously offered. But if they are the same, why am/j/;/// them 1 We had thought that it was desirable to have propositions for discussion presented in as few words as would definitely express the difference between the parties. ^\hen you come to close your letter, your remarks are quite as curious as those already noticed. You say, " You either intended, in the letter before 44 CORRESPONDENCE. me, to COMPEL me to come up to your terms, or have no discussion " Now, sir, look at your letter to which mine was a reply. After stating your new propositions, and making your new demands, you thus remark, " If to these fair and equitable terms (!) you agree, I am prepared to go into other pre- liminary arrangements immediately. If not, say so, and the matter ends" The fact turns out to be, that Mr. C. intended by his letter to force us to his terms, or have no debate. We took him at his word, and not choosing to be forced, we supposed the matter at an end. I repeat it, all we ask of Mr. C. is, to debate his own propositions, in his own language and order. But you now say, " I will take, rather than have no debate, the whole six propositions, as drawn up in your letter before me, with the simple change of the first on the action of baptism, as proposed in my last." In view of the fact, that we have accepted your own propositions in form and order, and in view of the further fact, that you have i-eceived none of our propositions, we are under no obligation to allow any change whatever. In your letter, of May 24th, you say, " You may, in your reply, settle the whole matter of the propositions, or you may protract the subject for months." How could I settle the whole matter, unless by accepting your propositions then and previously offered] They were accepted; and thus the whole matter, as I had a right to believe, was settled. Now you refuse to abide by the settlement called for by yourself! We will, however, ac- commodate you in this matter. We accept your new proposition, on what you call the action of baptism, giving you the affirmative you desire, pro- vided that all the propositions be discussed in the order in which you have repeatedly stated, and we have accepted them, and that the other proposi- tions remain unaltered. As to the order in which the propositions should be debated, we have simply agreed to the order repeatedly presented by yourself. In your letter of June 25th, you present the propositions, perhaps, for the third time, in the order in which we are willing to debate them. And in your letter of July 13th, you say, in reference to that of June 25th, " Hence in my last, after hearing all the explanations, I drew out in order and form the propo- sitions," &LC. We see no possible reason now for changing the order which heretofore you have uniformly considered the best. We have now conceded all that we intend to concede in this matter. We have taken your own propositions, in your own order, and we now agree to accommodate you in the change of one of the most important of them. We have been unnecessarily detained by your refusal of a personal interview, to which you invited us. Two of us are obliged to leave Lex- ington this afternoon at 2 o'clock. If you agree to go into the discussion, as now agreed to by us, we shall expect to be informed of your determina- tion before that hour. Concerning our motives, in this whole affair, we choose to say nothing. We are willing to have our conduct indicate them. Respectfully, &c. JNO. H. BROWN Lexington, Ky., August 5, 1843. Elder J. H. Brown : Sir — It is now within a few minutes of twelve o'clock, and your letter of this morning is just received. You request an answer in two hours ; and in the midst of company, and various engagements, I cannot formally reply to all that is in your letter.. The complimentary part of it, indeed, especial- ly so much of it as you very courteously devote to my " palpable violation of ordinary rules of politeness," would seem to demand a very special and cor- dial acknowledgment. But as I have not recognized your pretensions to that chair of instruction, and consequently have not placed myself under your special tuition, you will please excuse my further palpable violation of your rules of politeness in not thanking you for the compliment. In our CORRESPONDENCE. 45 code of good manners, Mr. Brown would have called to see me, especially- after my journey of almost four hundred miles to see him. But I excuse him, Oil the ground that ministers of religion frequently study the theology of tlie dark ages, and have as good a right to freedom of opinion on this, as on other subjects. As to those dark and inscrutable portions of my epistle, it seems they have answered their purpose so well, that it would be superfluous now to explain them. Touching one point, however, I must say a word or two, viz. " the end of the matter.''^ I presumed that enough had been said on the propositions of debate, and that the matter was never to end, unless I gave you such a letter as that which elicited your throwing the responsibility of no debate on me. This you did in such an urbane, respectful and gentle- manly style, that you constrained me to re-consider the matter, especially as you threw so much light upon the subject from my former letters. But had you not, indeed, produced those documents, and offered me such a responsi- bility, after the just and honorable issue I had offered, I certainly would not have responded to yours of the 3d inst. You, however, changed my premises, and of course I changed my purposes. Although, then, I do not cordially approve of the issue, as formed, it not being equal, still, as it is this or nothing, I consent to the discussion of the propositions as you have stated them, — I having the affirmative on the ac- tion of baptism, as before stipulated. Touching all the forms of expression in which these propositions have been offered, we shall, in the course of the debate, fully explain ourselves. I answered your letter of yesterday in about as many hours as you spent on mine. I received it at bed time, and from breakfast to one o'clock, the period spent on mine, furnished a reply. I am obliged to leave on Monday evening, and will now request it as a favor to have other matters attended to immediately. I shall be glad to see you at four o'clock, if possible, at Mr. Henry Bell's ; or I will wait upon you, at any place you may appoint, at that hour, or on Monday morning. Please favor me with an immediate reply, at Dr. Fishback's. Respectfully, A. CAMPBELL. Lexington, Ky., August 5, 1843. Elder A. Campbell : — Yours of this date is before me. It is indeed well that we have no written, authoritative code of politeness, as to some whose theology wears a modern garb, it might be more intolerable than even creeds. It is well, as it turns out, that I did not call to see Mr. Camp- bell, since, in his existing state of mind, having just heard divers things terrific, he would have declined a personal interview. Ignorant, however, of all such rumors, I expected, on reaching Lexington, at the hour and the place mentioned in my letter, to receive a note from Mr. C, informing the committee where they might see him. I did receive a letter, declining the interview proposed by himself! We are quite happy in witnessing the effects of our epistle of the 3d inst. But for that, it seems, we should have had no debate. The propositions, as tc language and order, having been agreed upon, we are prepared to at- tend to other preliminaries. We cannot, however, meet you this after- noon, as two of us have appointments for Sabbath, in order to fill which we must immediately leave Lexington. We will meet you, God permitting, on Monday morning at eleven o'clock, at the house of Dr. Bell, on Hill street, unless you prefer some other place, of which you will of course irt- form us. We desire now to suggest the propriety and importance of publishing our correspondence as soon as possible, without note or comment. We deem this course desirable, to prevent the circulation of false rumors, which may be inj irious to either party or to both. Respectfully, J. H. BROWN. 46 PRELIMINARIES. Lexington, Ky., August 7, 1843. Elder Brown — Your proposition to publish immediately our correspon- dence touching the contemplated discussion, without note or comment, has been duly considered. In the first place, it is unusual to publish such correspondence before the debate is published. In the second place, not having the correspondence with me, and believing that the representations in your letter of the 3d inst. are not in exact accordance witii it, I could not consent to its publica- tion till I have examined it. And in the third place, that those who may assemble to hear the discussion may hear with candor and impartiality, it is, in my judgment, better that they should not read the correspondence till they have heard the discussion. For the above reasons, I cannot consent to the proposition to publish at this time. I expect to meet you to-day, at the time and place appointed. Respectfully, A. CAMPBELL. PRELIMINARIES. Reformed Church, Lexington, Kentucky, ) Wednesday Morning, lOi o'^clock, J^ov. 15, 1843. \ This being the time and place appointed for a commencement of the dis- cussion between the Rev. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, and the Rev. Nathan L. Rice, of Paris, Kentucky: the president, moderators, debators, stenograpliers, committees, and an audience of some two thousand persons, having, in pursuance of previous notice, assembled on this inter- esting occasion ; and a copy of the programme, presenting the points at issue, having been placed in the hands of the moderators, the Honorable Henry Clay, president of the board, rose and remarked as follows : It is presumed that the object for which this assembly is now convened, is known to every person in attendance. I understand, that the gentlemen who are to discuss the highly interest- ing topics, embraced in this printed programme, are now prepared to proceed to the discussion. Before they do so, however, on an occasion so grave, so interesting, and one in which there should be perfect order, it is proper to observe, that it is the prevailing usage every where ; it is accord- ing to the sense of religion, with which this subject is so intimately con- nected, that there should Ije no confusion: and I trust, there will be a preservation of order, and undivided attention during the whole progress of the debate. In the mean time, one of the clergymen present is prepared to invoke the blessing of heaven. Whereupon, the Rev. Joseph Bullock being called upon, arose and prayed as follows : O, thou Great and Eternal God, who art the Creator, the Preserver, and the Governor of the universe, we desire this morning to look up to thee for thy blessing to rest upon us. We pray that we may be under the guidance of thy Holy Spirit ; and that thou wouldst enable us, while assem- bled together, to give heed to the discussion, which is about to take place in our hearing. We pray that all may have a sincere desire to know the truth : and when the truth is proclaimed, we ^ray that we may be enabled to receive it in the love of it, and that it may spring up and bring forth fruit unto eternal life. Our Father, we pray that our meeting may not be in vain, but that PRELIMINARIES. 47 much good may be done in the name of thy Son. May the cause of truth, and of righteousness, and of holiness, be advanced. And may the discus- sion which is now being entered upon, be followed by great and manifold blessings, not only to the assembly now present, but to those who may attend trom time to time. Especially, may those engaged in this discussion be guided by that wisdom which cometh down from above ; which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated ; full of mercy and good fruits ; without partiality, and without hypocrisy. We beseech thee, our Father, to keep us all from error and delusion, and guide us in the right path — in that straight and narrow path which leads to heaven and to God. Wilt thou be with us all, not only while assembled here, but be our guide and our support through all the journey of life ; and when we come to lie down upon our beds of death, grant unto us the unspeakable consolations of thy gospel, and finally receive us all into thy kingdom above, to dwell with thee through ceaseless ages of eternity. We ask for Christ, our Redeemer's sake. Amen. RULES OF DISCUSSION. 1. The debate shall commence on Wednesday, 15th November. 2. To be held in the Reform Church. 3. Judge Robertson, selected by Mr. Rice, as moderator. Col. Speed Smith, selected by Mr. Campbell. And agreed that these two shall select a president-moderator. In case of either of the above named gentlemen declining to act. Judge Breck was selected by Mr. Rice, as alternate to Judge Robertson — and Col. Caperton as alternate to Col. Speed Smith. 4. In the opening of each new subject, the affirmant shall occupy one hour, and the respondent the same time ; and each thereafter half hour alternately to the termination of each subject. The debate shall commence at 10 o'clock, A. M., and continue until 2 o'clock, P. M., unless hereafter changed. 5. On the final negative no new matter shall be introduced 6. The pz-opositions for discussion are the following: I. The immersion in water of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the one, only apostolic or chris- tian baptism, Mr. Campbell affirms — Mr. Rice denies. II. The infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism. Mr. Rice affirms — Mr. Campbell denies. III. Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. Mr. Campbell affirms — Mr. Rice denies. IV. Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained pres- byter. Mr. Rice affirms — Mr. Campbell denies, V. In conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God operates on persons only through the word of truth. Mr. Campbell affirms — Mr. Rice denies. VI. Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessa- rily heretical and schismatical. Mr. Campbell affirms — Mr. Rice denies. 6. No question shall be discussed more than three days, unless by agree- ment of parties. 7. Each debatant shall furnish a stenographer. 8. It shall be the privilege of tlie debaters to make any verbal or gram- matical changes in the stenographer's report, that shall not alter the state of the argument, or change any fact. 9. The nett available amount, resulting from the publication, shall be equally divided between the two American Bible Societies. 48 PRELIMINARIES. 10. This discussion shall be conducted in the presence of Dr. Fishback, President Shannon, John Smith, and A. Raines, on the part of the Refor- mation ; and President Young, James K. Burch, J. F. Price, and John H. Brown, on the part of Presbyterianism. 11. The debatants agree to adopt as " rules of decorum " those found in Hedges' Logic, p. 159, to-wit : Rule 1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the point at issue, should be clearly defined, that there could be no misunder- standing respecting them. Rule 2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing of equality, in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and a desire for truth with himself; and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right. Rule 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. Rule 4. Personal reflections on an adversary should, in no instance, be indulged. Rule 5. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. Rule 6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor ; and any attempt to answer an adversary by arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavilling or ridi- cule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy. [Signed.] A. CAMPBELL. N. L. RICE DEBATE . ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Wednesday, Nov. 15, 1843 — 10 o'clock, A. M. [mvi. Campbell's opening address.] Mr. President, — I feel myself peculiarly happy in being specially called, in the good providence of God, to appear before you, sir, and your honorable associates, in the midst of this great community, to act an hum- ble part in that long-protracted controversy, commenced more than three centuries ago, when the Genius of Protestantism first propounded to Europe and the world the momentous and prolific questions, Is the Bible an intelligent document ? Is it a book to be read by all the people ? Does it fully contain and clearly reveal the Avhole duty and happiness of man ? The bold and intrepid Luther promptly responded in the affirma- tive ; and immediately a numerous host gave in their adhesion, seconded his efforts, erected their standard, unfurled their banners, and rallied under the sublime motto. The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the religion of Protestants. The pope, his cardinals, and his lordly prelates, heard, with a scornful and indignant smile, this bold and comprehensive declaration of indepen- dence. Little did his Roman holiness, Leo X., and the lions around him imagine what mighty revolutions of empire, civil and ecclesiastical, were concealed under those symbols. No one, indeed, then living, compre- hended that motto in all its amplitude. None saw that the regeneration of a world was in it. None anticipated the mighty impetus it was about to impart to the human mind, to the cause of human government, to the advancement of civilization, to the eternal redemption of the Avorld from ignorance, error, and crime. It was not merely a renunciation of popery — of all sorts of popery, ecclesiastical and political ; it was not merely a renunciation of despotism, of tyranny, of anarchy, of misrule, of every species of cruelty and op- pression on account of opinions, on account of human traditions or polit- ical interests ; it asserted the rights of man — liberty of thought, liberty of speech, and liberty of action. It asserted that God had no vicegerent on earth, no representative amongst men ; that he alone is Lord of the con- science. From that moment to the present the march of mind has been onward and upward. The mighty spell that had for ages held all Christendom in abject slavery to kings and priests, those demigods of human admira- tion and Avorship, began to be broken. Opinions held sacred from times immemorial began to be discussed ; learning awoke from the slumber of 4 E 49 50 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. centuries ; science assumed her proper rank : the arts, both useful and ornamental, began to be cultivated with new vigor ; and Protestant socie- ty, at least, laid aside the austere sanctimoniousness of a religious grimace, put off' the cowl of superstition, and appeared in the more pleasing cos- tume of an open countenance, a smiling face, a generous heart and a more spiritual devotion. Still, however, all error was not detected, discussed, and repudiated. The human mind, like the human body, takes but one short step at a time ; and that step rather indicates the decrepitude and feebleness of age than the vigor and energy of youth. Unfortunately, Protestantism soon obtained favor at court, and immediately mounted the throne of the great- est empire in the world : and in doing this, she had to retain so many of the traditions and doctrines of the fathers as secured the favor of kings and princes, and flattered the pretensions of bishops, archbishops and their dependents, who in affection were wedded to Rome ; whilst they abjured her power merely because it eclipsed and diminished their own. The leaven of popery, sir, still works in both church and state. The hierarchies of England, Scotland, and Protestant Germany, alas ! too fully substantiate the allegation. Oxford is not the only university, nor her tracts the only documents which show a professed sympathy with some of the bolder attributes and views of the Papal power. That sym- pathy is clearly evinced on the continents of Europe and America ; and what strange involutions and evolutions may yet farther characterize its movements, the pages of the future alone can disclose. The power of Protestantism in some important points of view is com- paratively feeble — greatly feeble. Its strength lies in the leading truths of the system. Its feebleness is wholly owing to errors long cherished, and still sought to be maintained as fundamental tmiths, by many of its warmest friends and admirers. These errors make parties. For, while truth is essentially attractive and conservative, error is necessarily repel- lant and divisive. Numerous as the sects, that have impaired the Protest- ant influence and power, are the errors that have generated them. Every party has its truth, and, probably, its error too. For, even wlien truth makes a party, eiTor not only occasions it, but infuses itself into the sys- tem. Good and wise men, of all parties, are turning their attention more and more to the causes and occasions of schism ; and that, too, from an ardent wish to fathom the occult causes of so much discord amongst brethren ; in the hope, too, of discovering some grand scheme of union and fraternal co-operation in the cause of our common Christianity. The last century terminated with the downfall of consolidated Atheism in France, after a reign of terror, the darkest and most desolating on the rolls of time. All Europe stood aghast at the awful spectacle, and saw in it developments of the tendencies of sectarian discords, that suggested to the reflecting and intelligent, the necessity of some very important changes in the social system. One of the results was, that the present century was ushered in with the formation of one grand Bible society, composed of various denominations, cherishing the truly magnanimous and splendid scheme of giving the Bible, without note or comment, to the whole family of man ; so that every man might read in his own language the wonderful works of God. This truly henig^nant scheme has, in various ways, already contributed greatly to tlie introduction of a brighter and a better era. The project of divesting the mai-gin of the sacred writings of prophets and apostles of DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 51 the cumbrous inscriptions of sectarian tenets and traditions — the dogmata of all schism — under the insidious pretence and tides of Notes and Com- ments on the Sacred Text, has given a new impulse to the mind, because it has proposed the Bible to mankind in harmony with the great Protes- tant motto. A new and improved system of Hermaneutics is another happy effect of the attempt to make man, more or less, his own interpre- ter of the testimonies of God. The improvements in sacred criticism, and in biblical philology in general, have already elevated the present century above the last, as the sixteenth excelled the fifteenth in the grand developments of truth, and of the elementary principles of a new order of things. No living man can fully estimate the exact momentum of the principles at work in his own time. The objects that obtrude upon his considera- tion are too near him to be seen in all their just proportions. Time, that great revealer of secrets and infallible exponent of the wisdom of all hu- man schemes, must pass its solemn verdict upon every human enterprise before its proper character can be fully and justly appreciated. The points of debate on the present occasion may, to some minds not conversant with such matters, appear to embrace points extremely frivo- lous and unimportant. The question, for example, of baptism, as re- spects its action, whether it shall be understood to mean sprinkling or immersing, is frequently made to assume no higher importance than that of a mere scufHe about the difl'erence between a large and a small basin of water. It is, indeed, an elementary question ; yet it may possiblv have much of the fortunes of Christendom in its bosom. It stands to the whole christian profession as circumcision to a Jew, as hereditary de- scent to a British lord, or the elective franchise to an American citizen. Let no one undervalue the points at issue in the present controversy. Let no one be startled when I afhrm the conviction, that, in the questions to be discussed on the present occasion, the fortunes of America, of Eu- rope and the world, are greatly involved. Can that be regarded by the mere politician (to say nothing of the philanthropist or the christian) as a minor matter which gives to the pope of Rome one hundred millions of subjects every three and thirty years; and that, too, without a single thought, volition or action of their ov/n? Can any one regard that as a very unimportant ceremony, which binds forever to the Papal throne so many of our race, by five drops of water and the sign of a cross imposed upon them with their christian name ? The omission of an h in pro- nouncing a word became, providentially, the occasion of the slaughter of forty-two thousand Ephraimites in one day ; the conversion of an o into an i divided the ecclesiastic Roman empire into two great parties, which disturbed its peace, fostered internal wars, and exhausted its blood and treasure for a succession of several imperial reigns ; and the eating of an apple brought sin and death into our world, and has already swept the earth clean of all its inhabitants more than one hundred times. Let no one, therefore, regard anything in religion or morals as excessively minute, or unworthy of the highest conscientious regard. There is some- times more in a monosyllable than in a folio. A Yes, or a No has slain millions ; while a thousand volumes have been written and read without any visible disaster to any human being. The greatest debate in the annals of time, so far as consequences were involved, was upon the proper interpretation of a positive precept. The fortunes, not of a single nation, of an empire, or of an age, but of a 52 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. world were staked upon its decision. The parties consisted of two persons : the word in debate was Die ; and because of the misrepresen- tation of it one of the parties lost paradise, and gained labor, and sorrow, and death. In this world we have great little matters, as well as little great matters. To the former class belongs the affairs of kingdoms, em- pires and of all time : to the latter, individual purity, holiness, happiness. To infinite space, an atom and a mountain bear the same proportions. In the presence of endless duration, a moment and an age are equal. If, then, by a drop of water and the sign of the cross, Gregory XVI. sits on yonder gorgeous throne in the midst of the Vatican, worshiped by more than one hundred millions of human beings; and if the Protestant Pedo-baptist churches in America annually increase more by the touch of a moistened finger than by all the eloquence of their seven thousand ministers ; then, I ask, is not so much of the present discussion as per- tains to that single rite of transcendent importance to this nation and peo- ple, whether contemplated in their ecclesiastical or political character? In justice to my respondent and his church, I must distinctly state that this community are not at all indebted to me for the present discussion. It originated with our zealous and indefatigable Presbyterian brethren, who have ever been forward in the great and good work of religious con- troversy ; and, as an apostle commands us to render honor to whom honor is due, we must award to them the honor of the present debate and all its happy influences. The present interview, when solicited by Mr. Brown, [Rev. John H. Brown, of Richmond, Ky.,] was indeed acceded to on my part with an express and covenanted understanding, that it was to be a frank, candid, full, and amicable discussion of the great points of difference between us ; that each party was to afiirm and maintain what it taught, and thus give to our respective communities authentic views of our peculiar tenets, so far as they may materially conflict with each other; and thus furnish the public with a book containing the numerous and various arguments by which our respective tenets may be assailed and defended. That the discussion might have all authority with the people, it was stipulated that, in case of a single combat, one person should be chosen as the oracle of the parly, with whom I would enter into a formal debate on all these questions; and that other ministers should be present as helps and counsellors. I am happy in having the assurance that my friend [Mr. Rice] appears here, in consequence of that agreement, as the elect debatant, chosen by his brethren while assem- bled at synod — being not only one of the five persons chosen at the meeting of the synod, but also the one chosen by the other four, and com- mended to my acceptance by Mr. Brown, one of his electors, in the words following: " We have selected the man into whose hands we think proper to commit the defence of our cause. His standing is well knowB in Kentucky and out of it. We will not select another." To add to mj satisfaction, he [Mr. Rice,] is also aided and sustained by a learneii cohort of divines of high standing in the Presbyterian church ; and not by these only, but doubtless by many others, present and absent. Such an array of talent, learning, and piety would seem to authorize the confident expectation that, if those tenets of his party from which we dissent can be convincingly maintained and made acceptable to this community, it will now be done. In addition to all this, I am now assured that my friend [Mr. Rice] is not compelled into this discussion by the mere authority and importunity DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 5S of his brethren, but that he enters into the business as one that long and ardently panted to render some distinguished service to the church of his ancestors and of his adoption, and to deliver himself on the great ques- tions now before us. It is our singular good fortune to meet on this arena a gentleman exceedingly zealous for the doctrines and traditions of his church, and who, for one year at least, if not for several years past, has been in habitual preparation for such an occasion as the present. So desirous of merited applause, and so untiring in his zeal and devotion to ancient orthodoxy, he has been in one continued series of conflicts, wrest- ling with tongue and pen — entering the lists with all sorts of disputants, Baptists and Reformers, old and young, experienced and inexperienced, and, in amicable discussion, breaking numerous lances upon the brazen shields and steel caps of such members of the church militant as either foreordination or contingency threw in his way — and on these very sub- jects now before us. Neither his devotion to the cause of truth nor his labors of love, have been confined to Kentucky ; but, in his pious oppo- sition to heresies and heretics, like one of old, he has pursued them into foreign cities. Nashville yet resounds with the praises of his zeal and the fame of his achievements in the cause of Presbyterianism. If, then, flaw or weakness there be in that series of arguments and evidences that I am prepared to offer on the present occasion, or if my facts and docu- ments are not true and veritable, I have every reason to expect a full and thorough exposition of them. But should they pass the fiery ordeal of the intense genius and vigorous analysis to which they are now to be subjected, may I not, in common with those who espouse them, repose on them as arguments and proofs irrefragably strong and enduring? The questions to be discussed on the present occasion are, it is con- ceded on all hands, not only elementary and fundamental, but of vital im- portance to every saint and sinner in the world. They alike enter into the peculiar essence and living form of the christian religion. Accurate and comprehensive views of them, not only promote the purity and hap- piness of the individual, but also conduce to the union of christians and the conversion of the world. So long as we have in the christian profes- sion two faiths, two baptisms, and two Spirits, we shall have a plurality of bodies ecclesiastic arrayed in open hostility to each otlier ; and by con- sequence, the whole train of evils and misfortunes incident to alienated affections and rival interests. I rejoice in the present discussion, because it strikes at the three main roots of modern partyism — the creeds, the baptisms, and the spirits of moral philosophy and human expediency. Before a holier and a happier era, we must resume the original basis of one Lord, one Creed, one Baptism, one Spirit. United on these we stand : divided we fall. These opinions, creeds, baptisms, and spirits must be repudiated. Hence the necessity of discussion. Either there must be a conviction of those errors and a repudiation of them, else an agreement to regard them as matters of opinion, as matters of forbear- ance, and take no account of them. One of these results is essential to union. "With these views and convictions, and with a supreme desire for holy union, harmony, and love in the truth, and for the truth's sake, with all them that believe, love and obey it, I consent unto the present discussion. The two baptisms, the human and the divine, are first in order. In dis- tributing the subject into its proper parts, four questions arise : What is the action called baptism ? who is the subject? what its design? and e2 54 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. wlio may administer it? Without further introduction, I proceed to the first proposition : and may the Spirit of all wisdom and revelalion direct our deliberations, subdue all pride of opinion, restrain every illicit desire of human approbation, inspire our souls vvith the love of truth rather than of victory, lead our investigations to the happiest issue, and give to this discussion an extensive and long-enduring influence in healing divisions, in promoting peace, and in extending the empire of truth over myriads of minds enthralled by error and oppressed with the doctrines and com- mandments of men ! My proposition is. That immersion in i.cater, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is the only christian baptism. In the commission which the Messiah gave to his apostles for convert- ing the nations, he commanded three things to be dene, indicated by three very distinct and intelligible terms, to wit: matheteusate, baptizontes, didaskontes. Unfortunately, one of these three Greek words has become a subject of much controversy. While all agree that the first term may be literally and properly rendered "make disciples," and the last "teach- ing them," the second, not being translated but transferred into our lan- guage, is by some understood to mean sprinkling, hy oi\vexs pouring, by a third class immersing, and by a fourth class purifying them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Fortunately, the meaning of any word — Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English — is a question not of opinion, but a question of fact ; and, being a plain question of fact, it is to be ascertained by competent Avitnesses, or by a sufficient induction of particular occurrences of the word, at different times on various subjects and by different persons. All good dictiona- ries, in all languages, are made upon a full examination of particular occurrences — upon a sufficient induction of distinct instances — and con- vey the true meaning of a word at any given period of its history. The action, then, which Jesus Christ commanded to be done in the word baptizo, is to be ascertained in just the same manner as the action enjoined in matheteuo, or that commanded in didusko, its associates in the commission. We ask no other law or tribunal for ascertaining the meaning of baptizo than for ascertaining the sense of matheteuo or didasko. They are all to be determined philologically, as all other for- eign and ancient terms, by the well established canons of interpretation. From a candid, judicious, impartial application of these laws, there is not the least difficulty in the case. There is, indeed, less difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of the word baptizo, than that of either of the other words standing with it in the commission ; because it is a word moi'e restricted, more circum- scribed and appropriated in its acceptation than either of its companions ; because, moreover, it is a word of specification, and not so general and undefined as matheteuo or didasko — " making disciples," and " teachnig them." It indicates an outward and formal action into the awful name of the whole divinity; and consequendy, a priori, we would be led to regard it as a most specific and well defined term. The action was to be performed by one person upon another person, and in the most solemn manner. Besides, it is a most peculiar and positive ordinance. All admit that baptism is a positive ordinance, and that positive precepts, as contradis- tinguished from moral precepts, indicate the special will of a sovereign ia DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 55 some exact and well defined action ; the nature, form and necessity of which arise not from our own a priori reasonings about utility or expedi- ency, but from the clearly expressed will of the lawgiver. It is farther universally agreed that circumcision was a positive and not a moral insti- tution— made right and obligatory by the mere force of a positive law. It enjoined a specific act upon a specific subject, called for exact obedi- ence, and was therefore definitely set forth by a specific and not by a gen- eric term. This fact will not, I presume, be disputed. Baptism, then, like circumcision, must have the specific action to be performed implied and expressed in it. That baptism is such a term, if it be disputed, the sequel will, we presume, abundantly prove. Meantime, before hearing the witnesses or submitting the induction, it may not be uninteresting to pursue the analogy a iitUe lardier, and to sliow, a priori, that such a spe- cific precept is to be expecteih Will it not be conceded by all, that whatever good reason can be given why, not a general but a specific word was chosen by God in command- ing circumcision to Abraham and his posterity, the same demands a term as specific and inteilififible from the Christian Lawgiver in reference to the institution of baptism ? Now, as Jesus Christ must have intended some particular action to be performed by his ministers and submitted to by the people, in the command to baptize them, it follows that he did select such a word, or that he would not or could not do it. This is a dilemma from which escape is not easy. If any one say that he could not, then either the language which he spake or his knowledge of it was defective. If the former, then the language was imfit to be the vehicle of a divine communication to man; if the latter, his divine character and commission are direcdy assailed and dishonored. Or, if any one say he could have done it but would not, he impeaches either his sincerity or benevolence, or both : his sincerity, in demanding obedience in a particular case, for which he cares nothing ; his benevolence, in exacting a particular service in an ambiguous and unintelligible term, which should perplex and con- found his consciencious followers in all the ages of the world. Follows it not, then, that he could, that he would find such a word ; and that he has done it ; and that baptizo is that specific word 1 Before summoning our most authoritative witnesses to the meaning of this important word, [baptizo^ I shall assert a few facts, which, I pre- sume, will not be denied by any one properly acquainted with the origi- nal language of the New Testament: 1. Baptizo is not a radical, but a derivative word ; 2. Its root \J)aplo~\ is never applied to this ordinance ; 3. In the Common Version hapto is translated both in its simple and com- pound form, always by the word "dip:" 4. Baptizo is never translated by " dye," " stain," or " color;" 5. Baptizo, with its derivations, is the only word used in the New Testament to indicate this ordinance ; and 6. The word baptize has no necessary connection with water, or any liquid whatever. Now, from these indisputable facts, hereafter to be developed, some corollaries are deduced; such as — baptizo indicates a specific action, and consequently, can have but one meaning. For, if a person or thing can be immersed in water, oil, milk, honey, sand, earth, debt, grief, affliction, spirit, light, darkness, &c., it is a word indicating specific action, and specific action only. Baptizo, confessedly a derivative from bapto, derives its specific meaning, as well as its radical and immutable form, from that word. Ac- 56 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. cording to the usage of all languages, ancient and modern, derivative words legally inherit the specific, though not necessarily the figurative meaning of their natural progenitors ; and never can so far alienate from themselves that peculiar significance as to indicate an action specifically different from that intimated in the parent stock. Indeed, all the inflec- tions of words, with their sometimes numerous and various families of descendants, are but modifications of one and the same generic or speci- fic idea. We sometimes say, that words generally have both a proper and a fig- urative sense. I presume we may go farther and aflarm, that every word in current use has a strictly proper and a figurative acceptation. Now, in the derivation direct, (for there is a direct and an indirect derivation,) the proper and natural or original meaning of the term is uniformly transmit- ted. Let us, for example, take the Saxon word dip through all its flex- ions and derivations. Its flexions are, dip, dips, dippeth, dipped, dip- ping. From these are derived but a few words, such as the nouns, dip- ping, dipper, dip-chick, dipping-needle. Now in all the flexions and derivations of this word, is not the root [dip^ always found in sense as well as in form ? Wherever the radical syllable is found, the radical idea is in it. So of the word sj)rinkle : its flexions are, sprinkle, sprinkleth, sprinkling, sprinkled ; and its derivatives are the nouns sprinkling and sprinkler. Does not the idea represented in the radical word [sprinkle^ descend through the whole family ? We shall visit a larger family. From the verb read, whose flexions are, reads, readeth, reading ; come the descendants, reading, (the noun,) readable, readableness, readably y reader, readership. The radical syllable is not more obvious than the uniformity of its sense throughout the whole lineage. Let us now advance to the two Greek representatives of the words dip and sprinkle. These are ancient families, and much larger than any of the modern. Bapto, the root, has some seven hundred flexions, besides numerous derivatives. We shall only take the indicative mood, through one tense and through one person :• Bapto, ebapton, bapso, ebapsa, ebaphon, ba- pho, bebapha, ebebaphein. Its derivatives are baptizo, and its regular flexions — more than seven hundred, including all its forms of mood, tense, participle, person, number, gender, ease : from which spring baptismos, baptisma, baptisis, baptistes, baptomai, baptizomai, baptos, daptisterion, bapha, baphikos, bapheis. These, through their some two thousand flexions and modifications, retain the bap, and, as uniformly, the dip represented by it. The same holds good of its distant neighbor, raino, " I sprinkle." It has as many flexions and nearly as many deri- vatives as bapto. It has raino, rainoinai, rantizo, rantismos, rantisma, ranter, rantis, rantos, with their some two thousand flexions. These all exhibit the radical syllable rain or ran, and with it the radical sprinkle. Now, as it is philologically impossible to find bap in rain, or rain in bap; so impossible is it to find dip in spnnkle, or sprinkle in dip. Hence the utter impossibility of either of these words representing both actions. It is difficult to conceive how any man of letters and proper reflection can for a moment suppose, that bapto can ever mean " sprin- kle," or raino " dip." This my first argument is, I own, a work of supererogation : inas- much as all admit that baptizo, and not bapto, is the word that the Mes- siah chose to represent the action he intended, called baptism ; and all the learned admit, that its primary, proper, and unfigurative meaning is» DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 57 " to dip." Hence if all that I have said on flexion and derivation were grammatically and philologically heterodox, as well as illogical, my cause loses nothing. I feel so rich in resources, that I can give this and many such arguments for nothing, and still have much more than a com- petency for life. But, be it all strictly and philologically true and solid, (as I unhesitatingly affirm it,) this single argument establishes my first proposition without farther eflbit. For, as all allow that dip is the pri- mary and proper meaning of bapto, and color, stain, dye, wet, its figurative or secondary meanings ; and, as all admit that baptizo is the word that the Christian Lawgiver consecrated to indicate this ordinance; and, as it is incontrovertibly derived from bapto, and therefore inherits the proper meaning of the bap, which is " dip ;" then, is it not irresisti- bly evident that baptizo can never authorize or sanction any other action than dipping, or immersion, as found in Christ's commission ? Such is my first argument ; which, if false, I lose nothing ; which, if true, my proposition is already established. But we must have arguments and illustrations for the unlearned as well as for the learned. Before we advance to our second argument, founded on baptizo itself, I shall, in three English words, selected at random, show that neither number nor variety of derivations from a common stock, can ever nullify the original idea or action suggested. I take a verb, a noun, and a preposition, with their whole families. I open at the verb, adduce: duce, (from duco, "I lead,") is the root. The family lineage is, abdiice, adduce, conduce, deduce, educe, induce, introduce, obduce, produce, reduce, seduce, traduce, circumduction, deduction, induction. Next comes the noun, guard, from which the verb, guard, guarding, guarded, guarder, guardly, guardedness, guardship, guard- able, guardful, guardage, guardance, guardiant, guardian, guardian- ess, guardianship, guardianage, guardless. And finally, we open at the preposition, up, whence springs upon, upper, uppermost, tipperest, upivard. Now, can any one for a moment doubt, that, in all these three examples, the radical syllables, duce, guard, or up, retain the same sense, whatever it may be, generic or specific, through every branch of their respective families ? Ancient Greek grammarians sometimes arranged their verbs in the form of trees, making the origin of the family the root ; the next in im- portance the trunk ; the next the larger branches, and so on to the top- most twig. In this way both flexions and derivations were occasionally exhibited. This fact I state, because it suggests to me a new form of presenting this my first argument, to the apprehension of all my hearers. A great majority of our citizens are better read in forests, fields and gar- dens, than in the schools of philology or ancient languages. Agricultu- rists, horticulturists, botanists, will fully comprehend me when I say, in all the dominions of vegetable nature, untouched by human art, as the root, so is the stem, and so are all the branches. If the root be oak, the stem cannot be ash, nor the branches cedar. What would you think, Mr. President, of the sanity or veracity of the backwoodsman, who would affirm that he found in a state of nature, a tree whose root was oak, whose stem was cherry, whose boughs were pear, and whose leaves were chestnut ? If these grammarians and philologists have been happy m their analogies drawn from the root and branches of trees, to illustrate the derivation of words, how singularly fantastic the genius that creates a philological tree, whose root is bapto, whose stem is cheo, whose 58 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. branches are rantizo, and whose fruit is katharizo! Or, if not too ludic- rous and preposterous for English ears, whose root is dip, whose trunk is pour, whose branches are sprinkle, and whose fruit xs purification ! My first argument, then, is founded on the root, bapto, whose proper signification, all learned men say, is dip, and whose main derivative is baptizo — which, by all the laws of philology, and all the laws of nature, never can, never did, and never will signify " to pour" or " to sprinkle." I now proceed to baptizo itself — the word pre-ordained by the Messiah, to indicate his will in this sacred ordinance. Meanwhile, I have not for- gotten in this long preamble, that the meaning of baptizo as well as bapto^ is a question of fact, to be decided by impartial and disinterested wit- nesses, whose testimony is to be fairly stated, candidly heard, and impar- tially weighed, before the case is finally adjudicated. My v/ilnesses are so numerous that I must call them forth in classes, and iiear them in detail. I shall first summon the Greek lexicographers, the most learned and most competent witnesses in this case, in the world. These gendemen are, and of right ought to be, inductive philosophers. Philology is the most inductive of all sciences. The meaning of a word is ascertained by the usage of those writers and speakers, whose knowl- edge and acquirements have made them masters of their own language. From this class of vouchers we derive most of our knowledge of holy writ, and of all that remains of Grecian literature and science. We, indeed, try the dictionaries themselves by the classics, the extant authors of the language. We prove or disprove them by the same inductive ope- ration, by which we ascertain the facts of any science, mental or physical. I rely exclusively upon the most ancient, the most impartial, and the most famous lexicographers. I therefore prefer those on my respondent's side of the question, to those on my own ; and I prefer those who lived and published before the controversy became so rife, as it has been during the present century. 1. We shall first hear the venerable Scapula, a foreign lexicographer, of 1579. On bapto, the root, what does this most learned lexicographer depose? Hear him: " bapto — mergo, immergo item tingo (quod sit im- mergendo,") To translate his Latin — To dip, to immerse; also, to dye, because that may be done by immersing. Of tlie passive, baptoinai, he says, " Mergor item lavor" — To be immersed, to be washed. Of baptizo — " Mergo sen immergo, item submergo, item abluo, lavo" — To dip, to immerse ; also, to submerge or overwhelm, to wash, to cleanse. 2. Next comes the more ancient Henricus Stephanus, of 1572. Bap- to and baptizo — " Mergo seu immergo, ut quse tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus" — To dip or immerge, as we dip things for the purpose of dyeing them, or immerge them in water. He gives the pro- per and figurative meanings, as Scapula gives them. 3. We shall next hear the Thesaurus of Robertson. My edition was printed at Cambridge, 1676. It is the most comprehensive dictionary I have ever seen. It contains eighty thousand words more than the old Schrevelius. It is indeed, sometimes titled, Cornelii Schrevelii Lexicon Manuale Grseco Latinum Copirossissimi Audactum. His definitions are generally regarded as the most precise and accurate. He defines bap' tizo by only two words — mergo and lavo — one proper and one figurative meaning — to immerse, to wash. 4. Schleusner, a name revered by orthodox theologians, and of envia- ble fame, says, (Glasgow Ed. 1824,) " 1st. Proprie, immergo ac intingo, DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 59 in aquam immergo. Properly it signifies, I immerse, I dip, I immerse in water. 2d. It signifies, I wash or cleanse by water — (quia hand rare aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet ut lavetur) — because for the most part, a thing must be dipped or plunged into water, that it may be washed." Thus he gives the reason why baptizo figuratively means " to wash," — because it is frequently the effect of immersion. 5. After Schleusner, we shall hear the distinguished Pasor. My copy is the London edition of 1650. " Bapto et baptizo — mergo, immergo tingo quod sit immergendo, difiert a dunai quod et profundiun petere est penitus submergi." Again he adds — " Comparantur alflictiones gurgiti- bus aquaram quibus veluti merguntur qui miseriis et calamitatibus hujus vitas conflictantur ita, tamen merguntur ut rursus emergant." All of which we translate as follow : '* To dip, to immerse, to dye, because it is done by immersing. It differs from dunai, which means to sink to the bottom, and to be thoroughly submerged." Metaphorically, in Matthew, afflictions are compared to a flood of waters, in which they .seem to be immersed, who are overwhelmed with the misfortunes and miseries of life ; yet only so overwhelmed as to emerge again. 6. After these venerable continental authorities, we shall now intro- duce a few English lexicographers, both general and special. Park- hurst's lexicon for the New Testament deposes, that baptizo first and pri- marily means to dip, immerse, or plunge in water ; but in the New Testa- ment it occurs not strictly in this sense, unless so far as this is included in " to wash one's self, be washed, wash the hands by immersion, or dip- ping them in water." Mark vii. 4 ; Luke xi. 38. To immerse in water, or with water, in token of purification from sin, and from spiritual pollution ; figuratively — " to be immersed or plunged into a flood or sea, as it were, of grievous affliction and sufferings." So the Septuagint and Josephus use it. He anomai me baptizei — Iniquity plunges me into terror. 7. Next comes Mr. Donnegan, distinguished and popular in England and America. " Baptizo — to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to sub- merge, to sink thoroughly, to saturate; metaphorically, to drench with wine, to dip in a vessel and draw. Baptismos — immersion, submer- sion, the act of washing or bathing. Baptiztes, (a baptist) — one who immerses, submerges. _ Baptisma — an object immersed, submerged, washed or soaked." 8. Rev. Dr. John Jones, of England, deserves the next place at least in rank. Bapto, he defines, "I dip, I stain;" and baptizo, "I plunge, I plunge in water, dip, baptize, bury, overwhelm." 9. Greenfield, editor of the Comprehensive Bible, the Polymicrian New Testament, &c. &c., whose reputation as a New Testament lexicog- rapher is well known, says, " Baptizo means to immerse, immerge, sub- merge, sink," — "I. N, T. — To wash, to perform ablution, cleanse, to immerse, baptize, and perform the rite of baptism." 10. Two Germans of distinction may be next heard. Professor Rost, whose reputation is equal to that of any other German linguist, in his Standard German Lexicon, defines bapto by words indicating to plunge, to immerse, to submerge. 11. Bretschneider, said to be the most critical lexicographer of the New Testament, affirms that " an entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism." He defines it, " Proprie, saepius intingo, ssepius lavo," and adds, " This is the meaning of the word : for in baptizo is contained 60 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. the idea of a complete immersion under water : at least, so is baptisma in the New Testament." But more fully he explains as follows : Baptizo, in N. T. non dicitur nisi de submersione solemni et sacra qua utebantur Judaei, ut vel ad vitse emendationem aliquem obstringerent, vel peccato- rum ejus culpam delerent. Ritu solemni submergo aquis, baptizo (ut patres Latini loquuntur,) et legitur in N. T. simpiicitur ; activum : bap- tizo aliquem, Jo. i. 25, &;c. — passive immergor in aquas solemni ritu, baptisma initior, Matt. iii. 16; Marc i. 4, &c.; Rom. vi. 2; osoi ebap- tisthemen ; quotquot sacra submersione obstricti sumus Christo, etiam obstricti sumus, ut in consortium mortis ejus veniamus, i. e. moriamur pec- cato, ut ipse pro peccatis mortuus est. Baptisma, immersio, submersio ^ in N. T. tantum de submersione sacra, quam patres bapiismum dicunt. Dicitur de Johannis baptisrao. Sic. In the New Testament baptizo is not used, unless concerning the sacred and solemn submersion which the Jews used, that they might oblige an individual to an amendment of life, or that they might release him from the guilt of his sins. In the New Testament, without any adjunct, it means, I baptize in water in the solemn rite, (as the Latin Fathers use it.) Actively, I baptize one — passively, I am immersed into water in the solemn ordinance — I am initi- ated by baptism. Matt. iii. 16; Mark i. 4 ; Rom. vi. 2. Baptisma, immer- sion, submersion. In N. T. it is used only concerning the sacred submer- sion, which the Fathers call baptism. It is used concerning John's baptism. 12. Bass, an English lexicographer for the New Testament, gives baptizo^ "to dip, immerse, plunge in water, to bathe one's self; to be immersed in sufferings or afflictions." If Pickering could be regarded as a new or distinct lexicographer, we should add his testimony, as it is corroborative of the above. He gives '■'■ Baptisma — immersion, dipping, plunging ; metaphorically, misery or calamity with which one is over- whelmed." 13. I shall conclude this distinguished class of witnesses from the nigh school of lexicography with the testimony of Stokius, who has furnished us with a Greek clavis and a Hebrew clavis — one for the Hebrew and one for the Greek Scriptures. My edition is the Leipsic of 1752. This great master of sacred literature says, " Generatim ac vivi vocis instictionis ac immersionis baptizo notionem obtinet. Speciatim proprie est immergere ac intingere in aquara ;" which we translate, " Baptizo generally, and by the force of the word, indicates the idea of simply dipping and diving; but properly, it means to dip or immerse in water." He defines baptisma in like manner — " It generally denotes immersion and dyeing ; but by the innate force of the term, it properly imports immersion or the dipping of a thing in water, that it may be Washed or cleansed." And mark especially, the following frank declara- tion of this distinguished theologian and critic: "The word is trans- ferred to denote the first sacrament of the New Testament, which they call the sacrament of initiation ; viz: baptism. In which sacrament those to be baptized were anciently immersed in water, as now-a-days they are only sprinkled with water, that they may be washed from the pollution of sin, obtain the remission of it, and be received into the covenant of grace, as heirs of eternal life." So depose these thirteen great masters on the native, original and proper meaning of the word in debate : to whose testimony I might add that of another thirteen dictionaries, both classical and theological, Greek and Latin ; such as Wilson's Classic Dictionary, 1678; Bailey, of 1772 ; DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 61 Robertson; Hedericus, 1778; Ash, 1775: Charles Richardson; Cal- inet; Schcettgenius, 1765; Suicerus; Schilhornius ; Cliznetus, 1661; Leigh's Critica Sacra: and Tromius' Concordance. These all are re- spectable authorities, and some of them, indeed, rank with those of the first class. They all concur with Suicerus, in defining baptizo as pro- perly denoting immersion or dipping into. But as they are in general but a mere monotonous repetition of the first thirteen, I shall not quote them in extenso. But, to sum up this class of evidence, and to show, from the highest source of American theological authority, that I have neither misquoted nor misinterpreted the verdict of this illustrious jury of thirteen unchal- lenged judges, I will quote the words of Prof. Stuart, of the Andover Theological School: '■'■ Bapto, baptizo, mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note, are agreed in this." — Bib. Repos. 1833, p. 298. Professor Stuart is my American apostle, standing to this argument, as Paul stood in comparison to the original twelve — himself the only apostle to the gentiles, though the thir- teenth, as respected the original twelve, selected of and for the Jews. Before dismissing this class of witnesses, it is pertinent to my proposi- tion, that I state distinctly three facts: 1. These lexicographers were not Baptists, but Pedo-baptists ; 2. Not one of them ever translated any of these terms by the word sprinkle; 3. Not any one of them ever trans- lated any of these terms by the word pour. Consequently, with all their prejudices they could find no authority for so doing, else doubtless, they could have done it. I hope my hearers will pardon the introduction of so many Greek and Latin words. The occasion demands it. From the course pursued by our neighboring denominations, we are compelled to lay the corner-stone of our superstructure, not only deep in the earth, but upon a solid Greek basis. The foundation being laid upon a Grecian rock, and the wall above-ground, our labors will, we hope, be more intelligible, and conse- quently more agreeable and more interesting to us all. We have, then, the unanimous testimony of all the lexicographers known in Europe and America, that the proper and everywhere current signification of baptizo, the word chosen by Jesus Christ in his commis- sion to the apostles, is, to dip, plunge, or immerse ; and that any other meaning is tropical, rhetorical, or fanciful. This being so, then our first proposition must be undoubtedly true. But, besides these, I have vari- ous other classes of witnesses to adduce, in solemn confirmation of the testimony of this most learned, veritable and venerable class of men. Before I sit down, permit me to assure you, Mr. President, and through you, my friend, Mr. Rice, and this great concourse, that it is by constraint, and not willingly, I have summoned those witnesses whose testimony you have already heard, and others from whom you are yet to hear in the pro- gress of this discussion. It is our Pedo-baptist friends who have imposed on us this task. It is they and not we, that are demanding new transla- tions, ingenious and learned criticisms. It is they who call for dictiona- ries and grammars, for divers versions, for ancient fathers, for the venera- ble decrees of synods and councils, and for all manner of extrinsic helps and vouchers. I have had the misfortune, sir, to be represented times without number, as desirous of introducing a new version of the New Testament, to favor my peculiar views and tenets. But, sir, a more unjust and unfounded F 62 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. assertion has rarely been circulated among the American family. So far as my peculiar tenets are involved, the common Testament and common sense are all-sufficient. I ask no other earthly auxiliaries. In proof of this declaration, I now say, in your presence, gendemen, and in the pre- sence of this great congregation, that if my friend Mr. Rice, dare risk his cause on that version of the Scriptures read in his own church, I will meet him on that book alone, and from its plain grammatical construction, sus- tain not only the propositions before us, but every other doctrine I believe and teach ; and that too without substituting one new reading, change or alteration from what is presented by the authority of Queen Victoria, or the General Assembly of the Scotch and American Presby- terian Church. Now, sir, when it is known, as we presume it will be, before this debate closes, that the Bishops' Bible published in the tenth year of Queen Elizabeth, and on which so much of the present King James' Bible, as appertains to the action of baptism, is especially based, was got up by the present Pedo-baptist authority, at the very crisis when immersion was being repudiated to make way for affusion in both Scotland and England, it will doubtless appear that I make a most liberal offer, when I agree to risk the defence of those propositions touching baptism, exclusively on that version, founding upon it every scriptural argument Avhich I shall offer in the support of each and every one of those propositions. One point, at least, I must gain from this overture, whatever be its reception on the part of my respondent. If he accede to it, I, in common with the audience, will gain much time in coming to a satisfactory issue ; if he do not accede to it, I shall never need another argument to prove, whether Reformers or Presbyterians have the greater confidence in, or afiection for, the common version, so far at least as the establishment of our respective tenets are concerned. It is now, Mr. Presi- dent, entirely in tiie hands and at the option of Mr. Rice, whether before an English audience, we shall exclusively employ an English Bible, and the common version, as tiie standard of orthodoxy, and the ultimate appeal on every proposition ; or whether we shall abandon it as a whole, and only use it in a discretionary way, just as we may regard it favora- ble to our respective tenets. I am, however, prepared for any course the gentleman pleases. I have just as many learned authorities, as much documentary evidence of all sorts around me, or at my disposal on the premises, as I desire, or can expect to use in the most protracted discussion. On him then be the entire responsibility, and not on me, for the direction which the present controversy may take. But while I do, ex-animo, adopt the common version, as all-sufficient, and alone sufficient for my use in this debate, I would not be understood, as at all approving of it as the most faithful, correct and intelligible trans- lation of the original Scriptures, which we have or can have, in our ver- nacular. It is however with much pleasure, that after having more or less examined many versions, and possessing, as I do, some fifteen or twenty varieties of them, I can and do avow my full conviction, that by a candid person, of the most ordinary, or extraordinay attainments, the way of salvation, our whole duty and happiness, can be learned with the greatest certainty and assurance, from the most imperfect version I have ever seen. I am therefore willing, if circumstances should command me, to meet any virtuous man, on any version extant, and maintain all that I now stand pledged to maintain on the present occasion. — [Time expired. DEBAl'E ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 63 Wednesday, Nov. 15 — 11 1 o' clock, A. M. [mr. rice's first reply.] Mr. President — With regard to the reformation of the sixteenth cen- tury and its glorious results, I perfectly agree with my friend, whose address you have just heard. And I am truly happy to appear before this large audience to-day in the defence of the great doctrines and truths elicited by the investigation of those eminent men, who were the hon- ored instruments of rescuing the Scriptures from ecclesiastical despot- ism, and proclaiming to the world the fundamental truth, that the Bible teaches all that is necessary to be believed, or to be done, to secure eternal life. I am perfectly aware of the disadvantage under which I attempt to per- form this duty, partly from the fact, that I meet in debate one so much ray senior, whose arguments and statements may be supposed to have an authority which cannot accompany such as I may offer. Besides, I meet a gendeman who has been engaged for thirty years past in discussing the very points now at issue — one who, if not the originator, is certainly the leading man of a numerous body of professing christians, by whom he is regarded almost as an oracle. In the opinion of many I shall doubtless be chargeable with presumption in venturing, under such circumstances, to become his opponent. But when I consider what multitudes of the wisest and best men, in past ages and in the present, have maintained and do maintain the principles for which I now contend ; and when I remem- ber that my friend himself, when perhaps younger than I, ventured to wage war upon the christian world, I think I may justly claim acquittal of the charge. It is true, as he remarked, that in the Reformation all error was not detected and repudiated ; but it will scarcely be denied, that so much of the truth was discovered and embraced as was essential to the existence of the church and the salvation of the soul. And if this be admitted, the doctrine of my worthy friend cannot be sustained ; for certain it is, that the Reformers did not ascertain that immersion into water is the only apostolic or christian baptism. If, then, the Scriptures do teach this doc- trine, they failed to discover one of the most important features of the christian system ; and they and their followers were alike unbaptized, and were aliens from the church of Christ. Nay, if this doctrine be true, there is not now a true church on earth, save the few who have been so happy as to make this remarkable discovery ! A word in regard to the origin of this discussion. We are unwilling to receive any credit not due us, however disposed my friend Mr. C. may be to award it to us. It is more than doubtful whether he has given a correct account of the matter. I will read an extract from the second letter of Rev. Mr. Brown to Mr. Campbell, which places the subject in a very different light. '* There is," says Mr. B., "evidently a misappre- hension on the part of one of us as it regards our interview at Richmond, in August last. Let the facts speak for themselves. They are briefly the following : At the close of your address at Richmond, on the 3d of August, your friend Mr. Duncan approached me, and asked my opinion as to the address, which I gave with as much candor as it was sought. After other interrogatories were propounded and answered, he inquired if I thought discussion advisable, to which I gave an affirmative reply. He then remarked that he had engaged to dine with you, and would ascertain your feelings and wishes on the subject. All this occurred 64 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. before we left the church. About four o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Duncan sought a second interview with me, and requested me to call in company with him at your room, stating that you desired an interview with me on the subject about which he and I had conversed in the forenoon. I conformed to his wish, and accompanied him to your room, which ultimated in a mutual agreement to discuss certain points of difference, for the edification of the church and the prosperity of the cause of Christ, with a definite and expressed understanding that neither was to be considered the challenging party." From this letter it appears, that the debate originated with Mr. Dun- can, Mr. Campbell's friend, and not with Presbyterians. With its origin, it may be proper for me to say, I had nothing to do. It was agreed upon before I heard of it. I was afterwards requested, and con- sented to be one of the five who should undertake to conduct it. My friend in his address paid me quite an unmerited compliment. I regret that I had not written something, as he has done, that might be considered a suitable return. But I am so little accustomed to writing speeches, and withal am so poor a reader of them, that I shall be under the necessity of returning the compliment as well as I can extempo- raneously. He has represented me as extremely anxious to press into this discus- sion. The truth, however, is, that I nominated successively two indi- viduals to manage the debate, both of whom declined. I had had as much public discussion as I desired ; but my brethren have thought proper to devolve upon rc\Q the duty of defending our views on this occasion. But Mr. C. would liave you believe that I am quite a furious warrior — that, like the persecuting Saul, I have pursued the Reformers to strange cities, even as far as Nashville. I have had, it is true, more frequent discussions than most of my brethren, owing chiefly to the peculiar situation in which, in the early part of my ministry, I was placed. Providentially, I was settled where Romanism exerted a pre- vailing influence. It became necessary for me to engage in a war against that system, which continued for some seven years. During that period, I was employed in defending those great principles of the Refor- mation on which Protestant Cliristendom are mainly agreed. With the followers of Mr. C. I have not sought controversy. The first discussion I ever had with a Reformer, occurred in Stanford, Ky., where, at the close of a sermon I preached on the mode of baptism, a Mr. Kenrick arose and requested the privilege of replying, which was granted. I had previously received from him a challenge to a discus- sion, of which I took no notice. My second discussion was with President Shannon, who visited Paris — the place of my residence, and made a public attack upon our Confession of Faith ; to which, as in duty bound, I responded. This led to a rather informal controversy, which resulted in a written discussion. In Nashville, it is true, I had a discussion with one of Mr. Campbell's friends. I visited that city in fulfillment of a previous promise, to hold a protracted meeting. Whilst there I was requested by a number of the citizens to preach on the subject of baptism. I consented, and the appointment was announced. On the next morning I was called on by four prominent and very respect- able Reformers, who gave me a challenge to meet in debate their most prominent man. I informed them, that as I was a stranger in Nashville, having no particular responsibility there, I should leave my friends to DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 65 determine whether I ought to accept their invitation. My friends deci- ded that it was my duty to accept. I accordingly did so, and, having but four days to remain, engaged in a brief discussion with Mr. Fanning. These facts show how I have persecuted the Reformers, even to strang-e cities ! Mr. Campbell has published the charge against me of waging furious war against his church ; but let facts be known, and tb'» charge is refuted. This discussion, it should be known, is in no sense an ecclesiastical affair. The synod of Kentucky could not become a party to it ; nor had that body any authority to appoint a representative to conduct such a discussion. It is, therefore, strictly an individual concern. It is true, some of my brethren have devolved upon me the important and difficult task of defending what we believe to be revealed truth ; but I claim not the high standing in my church which my friend has been pleased to assign me. Whilst, however, I occupy an humble place amongst the minsters of the Presbyterian church, I have no fears of being unable to sustain the principles in regard to which so great a part of Christendom are agreed. A large portion of the speech of my friend was occupied with matters in which we are all deeply interested, concerning which he has said much that is true ; but certainly those tilings have no immediate connec- tion with the subject now under discussion. I will, therefore, proceed immediately to the matter in hand. Let the audience distinctly understand the proposition which Mr. C. affirms. He undertakes to prove, not that immersion is the best mode of administering baptism, nor that in the days of the apostles it was sometimes practiced, but that it is absolutely essential to the validity of the ordinance — that nothing short of the entire submersion of the body in water is apostolic or christian baptism ; and consequently, that the whole christian world not thus immersed, are unbaptized, and are out of the church of Christ. It is an arduous undertaking ; but my friend has bound himself to sustain this proposition. If this doctrine is true, it is certainly one of the most singular truths discovered in any age of the world. The Bible is, especially on all important points, a plain book. This Mr. C. acknowledges. Then how shall we account for the fact, that not more than one in a thousand, from the days of the apostles to the present time, has ascertained that immersion is essential to christian baptism ? From a very early period it is certain that different modes were practiced. In the writings of the christian fathers we read of three immersions, and of partial immersions — ter caput mergitare — to immerse the head thrice. And it is fact, that as far back as history can take us, pouring and sprinkling were practiced ; and baptism thus administered was universally considered valid. Now if those who practiced trine immersion, whose prejudices were all in favor of immersion, and whose vernacular tongue was the Greek, could not see that immersion only is christian baptism ; I am obliged to doubt whether Mr. Campbell or any other man at this day will be able to prove it. I cannot believe that he can now make it clear, that the most learned, wise, and good men, who for long years studied the Bible on their knees, have lived and died in the firm belief that they had been baptized and were members of the church of the great Redeemer, when in truth they were unbaptized, afiiJ *' aliens from the commonwealth of Israel !" 5 f2 66 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It strikes me, that if all those of whom I have spoken, failed to dis- cover in the Bible this important doctrine, it must be taught, if taught at all, most obscurely. If Mr. C. hnd taken the ground, that it is really taught in the Scriptures, though with much obscurity ; there might have been perhaps some plausibility in the declaration, at least a possibility, that he is in the right. But when he asserts, that it lies upon the very surface, that it is so clearly taught, that nothing but folly or perverseness can prevent the discovery of it; we are bound to believe, either that he is ■wholly mistaken, or that the multitudes of apparenUy wise and good men of whom I have spoken, were in truth most perversely rebellious or most profoundly stupid! When we read of such men as the celebrated Commentator, Dr. Thomas Scott, (and he is one among hundreds) who for long years carefully searched the Scriptures, that he might know the truth on this subject, coming finally to the clear conclusion that baptism is scripturally performed by pouring or sprinkling; shall we be told, that the Bible most plainly leaches, that nothing short of immersion is christian baptism? I repeat it — this discovery, if indeed it be true, is certainly the most singular of all the discoveries made since the commence- ment of the christian era ! Three things, and only three, have been commonly regarded as essen- tial to the validity of baptism, viz : 1st. That it be performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ; 2d. That it be ad- ministered by an ordained or properly authorized minister of the Gospel ; and, 3d. That water be the fluid employed. The precise mode of apply- ing the water has been regarded as essential by only a mere handful!, compared with even Protestant christians. I shall indeed be surprised if Mr. C, should now make it manifest, that they were all deceived in a matter so important as he regards this. My worthy friend has proposed to take the common translation, (King James',) and rest the whole controversy upon it. But he was careful not to make this proposition, until he had appealed to the Greek lexi- cons, ancient and modern! But having first adduced these authorities, and having heretofore proclaimed from Dan to Beersheba, that the com- mon version is not a translation, but a gross perversion of the original Greek ; he gravely proposes to determine the whole controversy by the English translation ! If he had ventured to make this proposition at first, I might witii perfect safety have accepted it. But he has appealed to the Greeks, and to the Greeks we will go, though, I think, with less obscu- rity of criticism than has characterized his remarks. The evidence in support of his views, he would have us believe, is so abundant, that he has a great deal to spare. I am inclined to think, that he will need it all. Perhaps it would be wise in him not to be too gene- rous. Much of his criticism I am obliged to consider wholly incorrect. If I can understand him, he maintains, that when a word has in it a leading syllable, as bap, in the word bapto, it never in any of its inflexions loses the original or radical import — that bap expresses dip, and consequently, wherever you find bap, you find the idea of dipping or immersing. Now it is certain, (and I can prove it by some of the most learned men on his own side of the question,) that there is no such general rule. Take, for example, the English word prevent. It is derived from the Latin words p)-e and venio, and signifies literally to come before ; and then to anticipate, and in this sense it was first employed in the English DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 67 language. But is this the sense in which it is now used by correct wri- ters and speakers ? The word retains the leading syllable vent; but, I ask, has it not entirely lost its original meaning? Is it not now univer- sally employed in a secondary sense, to hinder? When Mr. C. was about to give a new translation of the New Testament, he asserted that this word had lost its original meaning, and, to prove it, quoted the pas- sage— " Mine eyes prevent the dawning of the morning." And this was one of the evidences of the necessity of a new translation. I agree with him, that this word has lost its original meaning. Again — what is the literal or radical meaning to the word conversa- tion? It signifies turning about from one thing to another. Hence it was formerly used to signify conduct; and in this sense it is almost uni- formly used in our translation of the Bible. But is this its present mean- ing? Has it not lost its original import and assumed a meaning quite different? It is now certainly used in the sense of talking — oral com- munication. Mr. Carson, one of the most learned critics who has written in favor of immersion, fully sustains the principle for which I am contending. He asserts, that words very often lose entirely their original signification, and a secondary meaning comes to be the true and proper meaning. It is not true, therefore, that words of any class always retain their original philological import. On the contrary, their meaning is perpetually changing; and usage only, as the ablest critics declare, can determine it. But as I shall have occasion to revert to this point, and to read some of Mr. Carson's remarks upon it, I will for the present pass it. I must not omit to notice a remark of my friend in regard to new translations. The Pedo-baptists, he says, and not the immersion- ists, call for new translations. I had not learned that they have either made or desired a new translation. I knew that Mr. Campbell had made one, and that in every case but one he had translated the word baptizo, to immerse. I was also aware, that our Baptist brethren had got a translation of their own, in which they rendered the word to im- merse in all cases except two. But I did not know, that the Pedo-bap- tists desired any change. I had supposed, that they were well satisfied with the common version. In the further discussion of this subject, allow me to turn your atten- tion to the words bapto and baptizo. It is admitted on all hands, by im- mersionists, that the controversy turns mainly on the meaning of these words. The main battle, as they themselves admit, is to be fought on this ground. And let it be particularly remarked, that it is acknowledged by the advocates of immersion, that these two words, so far as mode is concerned, have precisely the same meaning, viz : to immerse. So says Mr, Carson. My friend has appealed to the lexicons, as the highest authority, and has quoted a number of them in support of his views. I will appeal to the same lexicons. He attaches great importance to the fact, that some of them are ancient lexicons. And yet on another occasion he main- tained, that in these latter days we enjoy superior advantages, and hare consequendy more light on these subjects — that we have ail the light possessed by the older critics, with the addition of all the improvements of later times. And he offered this as one of the reasons in favor of a new translation. If this be true, I do not know why the modern critics should possess less authority with the gentleman, than those of more an- 68 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. cient date. But I will appeal to the ancient, as well as the modern lexi- cons. I will commence with Hedericus, who defines the word bapto — Mergo, immergo, (2) Tingo, intingo, (3) Lavo, &c., — to immerse, to plunge, to dye — to wash, &lc. Scapula defines it — Mergo, immergo — Item tingo — inficere, imbuere — Item lavo — to immerse, to plunge — also, to stain, dye, color — also, to wash. Coulon — Mergo, tingo, abluo — to immerse, to dye, to cleanse. Ursinus — To dip, to dye, to wash, to sprinkle, (abluo, aspergo.) Schrivellius — Mergo, intingo, lavo, haurio, &c., to dip, to dye, to wash, to draw water. Groves — To dip, plunge, immerse, to wash, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, to steep, imbue, to dye, Sic. Donnegan — To dip, to plunge into water, to submerge, to wash, to dye, to color, — to wash, &c. The lexicons, you will observe, not only define the word bapto, to dip, plunge, dye, but also lavo, to wash. Now every one at all acquainted with Latin, knows that lavo signifies simply to wash, without regard to mode — that it never expresses mode. Scapula defines this word not on- ly to dip, dye, &c., but to loash, (in any mode ;) and he is one of the first authorities adduced by Mr. Campbell. Groves goes even further, and defines it to wet, tnoisten, sprinkle, &c. How ignorant he must have been, not to have learned Mr. Campbell's rule, that wherever you find bap you find also the idea of dipping! How strange that he should have been so unwise as not only to define it to wash, but also to wet; not only to wet, but to moisten ; not only to moisten, but to sprinkle! But in due time I will prove that wiser men than Groves have done the same thing. To wash, every one knows, does not express mode, neither do the words dye, color. Each of the lexicons just quoted gives several defini- tions of bapto } at least two of which, to wash and to color, exclude the idea of mode ; whilst some of them define it to moisten, to sprinkle. I have not seen the tree of which my friend has spoken ; but it is certain, unless the lexicographers are all in error, that bapto does not uniformly signify to immerse. Even Carson, the great Baptist critic, admits that il does not always express mode. I will read on pages 62, 63, 64 : "A word," says Mr. Carson, "may come to enlarge its meaning, so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious to every smatterer in philology. Had it been attended to. Baptists would have found no necessity to prove that bapto, when it signifies to dye, always properly signifies to dye by dipping ; and their opponents would have seen no ad- vantage from proving that it signifies dying in any manner.''^ Again, ^'^ Bapto signifies, to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping; though originally it was confined to the latter." Again, "Nor are such applications of the word to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale as- serts. They are as literal as the primary meaning. It is by extension of literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words come to de- part so far from their original signification." Observe, Carson says, bapto originally signified to dip, then to dye by dipping, and then to dye in any manner, even by sprinkling. Now if it signifies to dye by sprinkling, why can it not signify to wet by sprink- ling? Is there any rule or principle of interpretation, which teaches that a word may denote the sprinkling of a colored fluid, and be incapable of expressing the sprinkling of a colorless fluid ? If there is, let it be pro- DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. (Jy duced. If there is not, bapto will express the sprinkling of water, as well as of any other fluid. Mr. Carson, moreover, declares that such applica- tions of the word are not to be accounted for by metaphor ov figure, as Dr. Gale, another learned immersionist, maintained, but that they are as liter- al as the primary meaning — that it is by the extension of the literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words depart so far from their original significatioa. The word bapto, therefore, not only expres- ses the application of a fluid by sprinkling, but this is a /i7era/#signi{ica- tion. Now Carson, who was a zealous immersionist, did not intend to concede any thing more than candor and truth demanded. We have, therefore, evidence conclusive that bapto signifies not only to dip, plunge, &c., but to wash and to sprinkle. We will now examine the testimony of the lexicons concerning the word baptizo, the word uniformly used in the New Testament to express christian baptism. Scapula, one of the old lexicographers to whom Mr. C. appealed, thus defines the word baptizo : "Mergo, seu immergo — Item tingo: ut qufe tin- gendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus — Item mergo, submergo, ob- ruo aqua — Item abluo, lavo, (Mark 7, Luke II,) to dip or immerse — al- so, to dye: as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing them ; also, to plunge, submerge, to cover with water; also, to cleanse, to wash. (Mark 7, Luke 11.) JJaptismos, he thus defines : "Mersio, lotio, ablutio, ipse immergendi, item lavandi seu abluendi actus," (Mark 7, &c.) Immersion, washing, cleansing, the act itself of immersing ; also of ivash- ing, or cleansing,'" (Mark 7, &c.) Hedericus i\\VLS i\e^nes baptizo: "Mergo, immergo, aqua abruo, — (2) Abluo, lavo; (3) Baptizo, significatu sacro"— To dip, immerse, to. cover with water ; (2) to cleanse ; to ivash ; (3) to baptize in a sacred, sense. Stephanus defines it thus : " Mergo, seu immergo, ut quae tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus — Mergo, submergo, obruo aqua; abluo, lavo^' — To dip, immerse, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing; to merge, submerge, to cover with water — to cleanse, to wash. Schleusner defines baptizo, not only to plunge, immerse, but to cleuiise, wash, to purify with water ; (abluo, lavo, aqua purgo.) Parkhurst defines it: "To immerse in or wash with water in token of purification." Robinson defines it: "To immerse, to sink; for example, spoken oi ships, galleys, &c. In the New Testament, to wash, to cleanse by wash- ing— to wash one's self, to bathe, perform ablution,''^ &.c. Schrivellius defines it: "Baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo — to baptize, to immerse, to cleanse, to wash." Groves — " To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge ; to wash, cleanse., purify — Baptizomai, to wash one's self, bathe," &;c. Bretschneider, — "Proprise sepius intingo, sepius lavo ; deinde(l) lavo, abluo simpliciter — medium, &-c.; lavo me, abluo me:" properly often to dip, often to wash; then (1) simply to wash, to cleanse; in the middle voice, " I wash or cleanse myself." Suidas defines baptizo, not only to sink, plunge, immerse, but to wet, wash, cleanse, purify, &c., (madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo.) fVahl defines it, first — to wash, perform ablution, cleanse; secondly, to immerse, &;c. Greenfield defines it: to immerse, immerge, submerge, sink; and in the New Testament, to wash, perform ablution, cleanse; to immerse. 70 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. I have now adduced the principal lexicons, ancient and modern ; and it is a fact, that with remarkable unanimity, they testify that the word baptizo signifies not only to sink, dip, plunge, &c., but/o ivash, to cleanse, to purify. Scapula, the learned lexicographer, to whom Mr. C. ap- pealed with so much confidence, defines it not only to dip, plunge, &c., but to wash, to cleanse; and, mark the fact, he rei'ers to the New Testa- ment as the place in which we find the word used in the sense of wash- ing, clejyising. Now every one at all acquainted with Latin, knows that the words lavo and abluo, — to wash, to cleanse, — do not express mode. They signify washing and cleansing in any mode. Let me here distinctly remark, that 1 am not contending that the word baptizo definitely expresses pouring or sprinkling. I maintain that, as used in the Scriptures, it expresses the thing done — the application of water to a subject — but not the mode of doing it; that the mode in which baptism was administered cannot be determined by the word, but must be learned from the connection and circumstances, or from other sources. Hedericus defines the word — first, to immerse or plunge, and second- ly, to ivash, cleanse, without reference to mode. Schleusner, besides the definition to plunge, &c., gives three others, which express the thing done, but not the mode of doing it: viz. abluo, lavo, aqua purgo — to cleanse, to wash, to purify with water. Parkhurst makes it mean either to immerse in, or wash with water. Robinson, one of the first lexico- graphers, first gives the definition to immerse, to sink, &c., but in the New Testament the first meaning he finds is to wash, to cleanse by washing, to perform ablution. Bretschneider gives as the general mean- ing oi baptizo, " Proprie sepius intingo, sepius lavo" — properly often to dip, often to wash — thus putting these two definitions upon a perfect equality with each other. This is all for which I contend. But as his is a lexicon of the New Testament ; x\\e first meaning he there finds, is " lavo, abluo sempliciler;" simply to wash, to cleanse. Here, certainly, is no immersing. I deem the authority of Bretschneider more important, not only because he is one of the most learned lexicographers, but because he was evidently partial to immersion. Yet, as a scholar, he was con- strained to give lavo, abluo, to wash, to cleanse, as a literal meaning of baptizo. Suidas, one of the oldest lexicographers, as we have seen, de- fines it not only to plunge, sink, &c., but to wet, wash, cleanse, &,c. and every one knows that a thing may be wetted, washed, or cleansed, without being immersed. Greenfield defines it, as you see, to sink, to wash, &c. Now let it be remarked, that each of these lexicographers, ancient and modern, establishes all for which I contend. With entire unanimity they declare that the word baptizo does not signify simply and only to im- merse, but that it means also to wash, cleanse, &c. It certainly has these different meanings. Now if my friend, Mr. C, can prove that the Savior and the inspired writers employed it in the sense of immersing, he will have gained his point. But if he cannot prove that it was used by them in the specific sense of immersing, and not in the general sense of washing, cleansing, he is defeated. For if it should be true, that they used it in the general sense of washing, &-c., how can Mr. C. prove, by the force of the word, the doctrine for which he is contending? I main- tain that they did use it in the general, and not in the specific sense ; and I expect to prove it by the Scriptures. My friend says, the ordinance of circumcision required to be expressed DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 71 by a specific term. Now I would like to see any man attempt to deter- mine by the Greek or the Hebrew word employed, what was the pre- cise modus operandi of circumcision. lie could not do it. I should like to see any one attempt to give those words, as applied to denote circumcision, a literal translation. Such a translation, I presume, would appear rather ludicrous. But mark this fact: a number of washings are commanded in the Old Testament, the mode of performing which is not specified. The word employed both in the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint is a generic term, signifying simply to ivash. The washing, therefore, might be performed, (and the command obeyed,) in different modes ; because no particular mode was prescribed. In these instances the thing to be done was important, but the mode of doing it was not. My friend, Mr. C, maintains that the mode of baptism is essential to the ordinance, and that the command to baptize must have been denoted by a specific term. Let him first prove that it cannot be validly admin- istered but in one particular mode ; for until he has established this posi- tion he cannot prove, a priori, that the Savior must have used a specific term. He might as easily prove, that in appointing the washings of the Levitical law, just mentioned, Moses must have used a specific term; which is contrarj' to fact. I do not, however, maintain that the mode in which baptism is to be administered is unimportant, though I do contend that it is not essential. But though the word baptizo does not definitely express the mode, it may be learned from the design of the ordinance, and from the circum- stances attending the administration of it; and these evidences are deci- dedly in favor of pouring or sprinkling. Let the facts now established be remembered, viz : that the words bapto and baptizo have several meanings — that they are used sometimes in the sense of dipping, plunging, sinking ; sometimes in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying; sometimes in the sense of pouring, sprinkling. In the classics I can prove, that four times in five baptizo expresses sinking to the bottom. Let it be remembered, too, that the lexicons refer to the Bible for the use of baptizo in the general sense of washing, cleansing. Perhaps I ought not to anticipate my friend in his argument. He has appealed to the lexicons ; and I have now proved that they do not sustain his doctrine. I might admit, that the primary or original meaning of baptizo was to immerse, though it cannot be proved. I can admit this, and still prove, that there is not the slightest evidence that such was its meaning among the Jews, as used to denote their religious washings, I am willing, at any time, to go with my friend to classic usage, and to prove that it will not sustain him. I am also prepared, and it is my pur- pose, to go to the usage of the word in the Bible; and this, according to the decision of the best critics, must, after all, determine the meaning of the word. Thus I expect to make it manifest, that baptism is validly and scripturally performed by pouring or sprinkling. I am gratified to learn the estimation in which x\Ir. C. holds professor Stuart, whom he styles his .American apostle. He tells us, Stuart admits that all critics and commentators of any note agree in defining baptizo to dip, to plunge. This is true, but is not the Avhole truth. Let us have the whole testimony of this apostle. Stuart also says, baptizo means to overwhelm, which certainly is not identical with dip, plunge. He goes 72 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. further, and tells us that it signifies to wash, to cleanse ; and maintains, that there is no satisfactory evidence that, as used among the Jews, it sig- nified to immerse ; and he gives several examples in which it evidently has not that meaning, but signifies to wash by applying water to the sub- ject. I am willing to take tiie testimony of our American apostle. He does, indeed, say, i\\^i baptizo signifies to dip, to plunge; but he does not admit tliat such is its ordinary meaning in the Scriptures. Nay, he positively denies that there is in the New Testament a single command to immerse any one, and calls upon those who say there is, to produce it. I will, if it should be necessary, turn to the pages and read the declara- tions to wliich I refer. I am willing, if Mr. C. wishes it, to appeal to critics and learned men; and I will find as many to sustain me, as he can produce against me. Or I am willing to appeal directly to the Bible. But for the present I close my remarks. — [_Time expired. Wednesday, Nov. 15 — 12i o'clock, P. M. [mr. Campbell's second address.]] I think it is usual, Mr. President, and a rule in all scholastic discus- sions, that the respondent shall confine himself to the arguments of the affirmant, on whom the omis probandi rests. Till the affirmant has offered all his proofs, it is not usual for the respondent to anticipate him. His duty it is to respond to such arguments as he relies on, rather than to those which he has not brought forward. However, as these intro- ductory speeches are usually more general than special in character, I am willing to overlook the aberrations observable in the desultory re- marks of my worthy friend. It may occasionally become necessary for me to advert to the com- ments of the gentleman upon the arguments which I shall off'er as we pro- ceed. He begins by declaring himself, if not relevantly, at least, clearly and forcibly, on the premises. He observes, that large majorities of learned men are against me. I will however show, at the proper time, that every reformer is agreed with us as to the antiquity and propriety of immer- sion, as well as in the etymology of the terms in debate — his own Cal- vin, and all the rest. As to the great superiority of numbers on the side of the Pedo-baptists, it is a great mistake. I have been often surprised to find that this groundless opinion should have obtained so generally in this country. Talk about the immense numbers of Pedo-baptists, aS contrasted with those who practice immersion! The gentleman must certainly have forgotten his ecclesiastical readings. He ought to know very well, that the great mass of Christendom have always immersed. He speaks in his hyperbolical way, of a thousand to one against the im- mersionists. I will not be so particular as to state the fractional ratios of all ages, but in the bold style of my friend, I will say that the whole christian world for the first thirteen centuries, and for the last five, at least one half have immersed. I repeat, sir, almost the whole church immersed for the first thirteen hundred years, and at least one half of it for the last five hundred years. So that the gendeman is entirely mista- ken in representing us as in a fearful minority. So far as numbers are concerned, we have in all time, a decided and overwhelming majority. But, at present, I lay no stress upon numbers, I have said thus much with reference to the emphasis my friend appeared to place upon the antiquity and universality of his views. His views and practice are neither so DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 73 ancient nor so universal as ours. I now pledge myself to sustain this assertion at the proper time. With regard to the origin or occasion of this discussion, it is alledged that my friends had something to do with it, of which I know nothing, and for which, were it so, I am not answerable. I was asked by a friend, while in Richmond, August, 1842, whether I was willing to have an mterview with Mr. Brown, should he call upon me touching my sermon delivered in that place? To which I promptly assented. After an introduction to Mr. Brown, he observed that he desired to know whether I would be willing to go into a discussion of the points of difference between Presbyterians and us. To which I assented on certain conditions. One of the most prominent of which was, that it should have the authority of both parties, and come out under their denominational sanctions. To which he consented. Mr. Rice has represented this as a mere personal affair. I do not so understand it. I know that in my interview with Mr. Brown, it was proposed that the Presbyterian synod of Kentucky should make the se- lection of a debatant to meet me in the discussion of these questions. I did not think, at the time, and I presume he did not, that the synod had no authority to select any person to represent the Presbyterian church on such an occasion; that when assembled together in synod, they could not ecclesiastically make such a nomination. I am, however, officially informed, that a conference relative to this discussion, was actually held while the synod was in session ; that five persons were selected for this occasion, one of which was to be the debatant. I will, however, read the result of this conference in letters received from Mr. Brown. Under date of January 3d, 1843, Mr. Brown writes as follows: — "I also stated that the persons selected were chosen, not by the synod, but in conference, and that some of them were known and acknowledged to be the most prominent men in our church." Again, under date of the 8th of March, the Rev. Mr. Brown says : — " Your perfect willingness to meet those individuals, is in full view of the fact, distinctly stated in my former communication that they were not appointed by the synod, but only agreed upon at the synod." With regard to filling vacancies, it was also agreed that any vacancy occurring' " should be filled by the five originally appointed." This is again reiterated under date of the 15th of May : — " We offer you a Presbyterian minister as your opponent, who shall be selected by us, precisely in accordance with the arrangements made at synod, viz : — that we should select one of our number to meet you in debate. Now you have your choice to retreat or to accept." Once more, under date of June 16th, 1843 : »' But, sir, we are five in number, and the gentleman who is ready to debate with you has been selected by four of us, of whom Mr. Young is one : so, you have quite as many witnesses as you desire. We have selected the man into whose hands we think proper to commit the defence of our cause. His stand- ing is well known both in Kentucky and out of it. We will not select another; you can either debate with him or retreat from the discussion." Mr. Rice is then the elect Presbyterian clergyman — elected, not by, but at synod, in conference of the ministry, and that is enough for me. I care not how the ministry elected him ; the fact of his election is incon- trovertible. It is not therefore a personal affair between Mr. Rice and myself. G 74 BEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. With regard to the lexicographic authorities we have quoted, I am glad to find that the gentleman, £!VIr. Rice] has not excepted to one of them. I have proposed a very respectable class of witnesses, but I have not yet begun to descant upon their testimony. I had intended also to have quoted some thirteen other authorities, of the same class, and coi'^ roboralive of the same position. [He gives the dates of the imprints of several lexicons, some thirteen, which !ie. might have adduced, and says:] These all concur with those already quoted : and sustain my criticism on the words bapto and haptizo. I have examined, in all, some thirty- five ainhorities of this class, ancient and modern, and, in regard to the whole family of words, they exhibit a concurrence of testimony uniform and perfect as can be found on any other word in the language. My iriend did not seem to understand my criticism on the syllable hap. I did not, nor do I argue, that words never change their meaning — never depart from their etymological import. Nay, I have often asserted that an almost infinite variety of changes has occurred, and will occur, in the words of all living tongues. These were substantially my own words, quoted by my friend to show that the meanings of words are constantly undergoing change in the current usage of a living language. I presume that the gentleman did not intend to misrepresent me in this. I affirmed that the meaning of the radical syllable of a specific word re- mains the same in its various flexions; and also that all words originally specific, never so change their meaning as to lose their original import — that terms expressing specific action never change. And I now call upon the gentleman to produce an exception to this rule. That, however, is what I am persuaded he cannot do. With me, Mr. President, all active verbs indicate either generic or specific action. Generic words are frequendy changing their import;— they are such words as informally express action passion or emotion. For all words of mode, as Mr. Caison would call them, (thereby impro- perly admitting, in this case, that there may be a mode of baptism,) have but one meaning. His words of mode are all included in my specific terms ; words indicating specific forms of action. It is essential that it be singular, in order to its being specific. If, therefore, I establish the fact, tliat haptizo is a specific word, indicating specific action, then all its other meanings are figurative ; and so I shall prove with reference to this word. ^, Every person who pays attention to the etymology and philology of language, knows that all words are used figuratively. Not even the name of the Deity is exempt from this law of language. The word God is transferred to any thing that can be deified — to men's appetites and passions. There is no word so sacred as to be exempted from the pos- sibility of being accommodated in this way. But no specific word, (thoiigh it may be used figuratively) can be made to have a signification specifically different from the proper idea or action for which it origin- ally stood ; for the moment you change it, it forever loses its first 'mean- ing. For example — if you prove that haptizo originally signifies to dip, you cannot by any possibility make it signify to sprinkle or to pour. For were we to make immersion an indictable offence, as it has been, and suppose that A was indicted for having immersed B, but during the trial it appeared in evidence that he only poured a little water upon him, either pouring or immersion must cease to be specific actions, and mean DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 75 the same thing, or A would be discharged, and the complainant would pay the costs. For that would destroy its specific character — its first meaning ; and besides, such a liberty would destroy the precision and utility of speech. Before entering further into these matters, or bringing it to a close, there are some things of secondary importance bearing upon it, adverted to in the speech which you have just heard, to which I will briefly allude. The reason I prefer the older lexicons is this : they were made before this controversy had become rife. For example: Mr. Groves, a late lexicographer, or some other person, has foisted the word sprinkle in- to his Greek and English dictionary, as one of the meanings oibap- tizOi a most daring innovation I Whether Groves or some other person has interpolated it we know not ; the person to whom it is attributable is unknown to us. And yet, I dare say, the editor, whoever he was, did it conscientiously. I even presume that my friend, [Mr. Rice] were he to make a dictionary of the Greek language, would also insert the word sprinkle as one of its meanings. Such is the force of prejudice and usage on the minds of men, that many good Pedo-baptists, in their preachings, always give the words pour and sprinkle as meanings of baptizo. I have been astonished at the liberty taken with the older lexicons by some of our modern editors. For example : The lexicon of Schrevellius has passed through seventeen editions ; it gave but two meanings to baptizo, to wit — mergo, lavo ; but now, in four recent editions, somebody has presumed to increase the meanings of this word to four. It is on this account that I prefer the earlier lexicons. These give the definition of words as they were used before this controversy began. With regard to the meaning of the word baptizo, I request the par- ticular attention of the audience ; for it is on this point, as the gentleman has correctly observed, the controversy must be decided. It shall be my purpose and object then, to establish the fact, that baptizo is a specific word, and as such, can have but one proper, original, and literal meaning. Asserting that the action of baptism is not implied in the word, my friend has said, that no man could learn the action of circumcision from the word. Strange indeed! Is not ^'■cutting roicnd''^ its meaning, its specific meaning? Certainly that is as expressive of the action as any word can be. True, the history and precept of the ordinance shows us on what part of the body the action was performed. A positive ordi- nance, binding on the nation of Israel, under the penalty of death, it was expedient and necessary to indicate by a specific term, so plain and so definite that it would be impossible to misunderstand it; and because circumcision is exactly such a term, this is the best and the only reason that can be given for its selection. Hence, it is reasonable to suppose, that when the Great Lawgiver of the christian religion came to the conclusion that he would institute the ordinance of baptism, he had some specific idea in his mind. Indeed, it is impossible to suppose that he had not. He must have intended some particular thing to be done. He must have had some specific design in his mind ; and he could not have been consistent with himself, had he not selected a word expressive of that specific design. How, then, could the anther of this institution do otherwise than select a specific word'^ the best word in human speech to express his design? Having it wholly in his power to select his own term, would it have been consistent, rea- 76 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. soiling a priori, for him to select the word pouring-, when he intended immersion ? or the word immersion, when he intended sprinkling ? No, reasoning from analogy, evident it is, that the Author of our religion would give a term essentially specific. But now there are three words submitted to us by our Pedo-baptist brethren, which are alledged to express this design : they are sprinkle, pour, dip. These are all specific words. Sprinkling is well defined and understood amongst all men; so is pouring; so is dipping. Is it not impossible to conceive that each of these terms has been chosen to express the same specific idea and design 1 Could the Messiah, to express and define one action, have selected a word signifying three dis- tinct actions ? I cannot admit it. No three actions can be more differ- ent than sprinkling, dipping, pouring. When we sprinkle an individual, we put something upon his person ; and when we immerse an individual, we put the person into something. In the former case, we change the position of the matter with regard to the person ; and in the latter case, we change the position of the person with regard to the matter. In baptism, we have an inward spiritual intention and transition, or a passing from one state to another ; and if the outward action is to exhibit the intention and transition, how, I ask, are we to regard these three terms, sprinkling, pouring and dipping, as expressive of the same inten- tion ? They are each specifically dilferent from the others. No one term could express the meaning of these three. Every one of them has its representative in the original. There is no opposing these lexicons. They universally agree with us in determining the primitive meaning of the word baptizo. That the original meaning of the term is to dip, to immerse, is, indeed, a matter hardly to be debated at this day ; and 1 was glad to hear my friend admit, what is univei'sally admitted and agreed to, that this word had but one meaning. Now tins being conceded, how comes it to pass, that, in pro- cess of time, the word has come to signify a plurality of actions ! But I can tjemonstrate that the term has uniformly meant the same thing, from the earliest ages of the world, in its religious as well as in its classical usage. In the law of Moses we have an ordinance for cleansing a leper ; and I presume that my friend will admit that the cleansing of a leper from his disease, was indicative of the cleansing of a sinner from his sins. Well : this ceremony is solemnly put to record in Lev. xiv. ; and it is remarka- ble, that, in a single sentence of this chapter, the three words which are sometimes called baptism, are brought together in solemn contrast. They are all found in the law for purifying the unclean, and cleansing the leper. Blood was to be sprinkled, oil was to be poured, hysop was to be dipped, and then, after these ceremonies, the unclean was to bathe. In giving a detailed account of these ceremonies, the inspired writer has presented these words in contrast thus : " And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, and shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." In cleansing from the leprosy, the way is prepared by first sprinkling with blood seven times, then the priest was to dip his finger in the olive oil, and sprinkle the olive oil seven times before the Lord. First, blood was sprinkled upon the unclean, then oil was poured upon his head, and afterwards he was com- manded to wash his clothes, shave his hair, and bathe himself in water, that he might be clean. DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 77 This is from the oldest record in the world. We have no writings more ancient than the five books of Moses. These have fixed an ever- lasting contrast between the words sprinkle, pour, and dip, — so that each must forever indicate a distinct action, fixed among the legal ceremonies of a t^'pical people. Since the time when the leper was cleansed by hav- ing blood sprinkled upon him, oil poured upon him, and his flesh bathed in water — from that time till now, these words have been used as distinct in meaning, and as immutable as the law of Moses. In the case of cleansing an unclean person, made so by the touch of a dead animal, a positive ordinance was got up. It is recorded in the xix. of Numbers. The manner of preparing the water of separation to be used for such purification is very minutely set forth. The ashes of a red heifer, with- out spot, and upon which never came yoke, were to be kept for the con- gregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation ; and the text says : *' It is a purification for sin." »'And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and run- ning water shall be put thereto in a vessel ; and a clean person shall take hysop and dip it in the water ; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day : and on the seventh dav he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe him- self in water, and shall be clean at even." I can conceive of no authority more sacred than this. Here the individual is commanded to observe three things ; and they are to be done in reference to the cleansing of his person from legal impu- rity, or from a disease that indicates sins. Can any one say that these are not separate and specific actions ? With regard to the translation of the word baptizo by the term sink, my friend remarked that he could bring many respectable authorities to prove that this was a legitimate and proper meaning of the term : that it means going to the bottom ; and hence the person baptized must be sunk to the bottom. It is not true that immersion is such a very general terra; and I would remind my fellow-citizens that the question in debate is not whether we shall dip to the bottom, nor whether we shall perform only a partial dipping; it is not whether we ouglit to dip so far, or so deep, but whether immersion simply, to the bottom or not, is the action comman- ded. We have, however, an exemplification at hand, which ought forever to settle this matter. It is a case in which the word baptize is used in a contrast that forbids sinking to the bottom. It is a remarkable passage found in one of the sybilline oracles, a poetic prediction concerning the fortunes of the ancient city of Athens. The poet says: ^8skos baptizee dunai cle toi ou Ihemis esti — "Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder! but thou art not fated to sink:'''' showing that in ancient times, it was a part of the signification of baptizo to emerge again, as well as to immerge, ma- king it equivalent to kafadiisis and anadusis combined. Certainly and clearly it is that the word baptizo never meant to sink to the bottom, ex- cept by chance. Bapto may leave the substance some considerable time underwater or any liquid: indicating that a change might come upon the substance, and that it might acquire some new matter which it had not before, being put into the liquid. But baptizo permits the subject to stay under the water but a very litde time, and then emerge again. In the etymology and philology of the Greek language, the word baptizo never g2 78 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. can be shown to mean going to the bottom and staying there. Duoo dunai, and their compounds indicate that. It would be entirely impertinent, before such an audience as this, to en- ter into any discussion and criticism upon the meaning of the termination zo ; a question upon which philologists and critics have written much. Grammarians and critics have speculated on the termination zoo with great freedom. Some make it the symbol of frequent action, and call those verbs so ending, frequentatives : others, of diminished action, and call them, diminutives. They make a few specifications. But they seem not to remember that a change on the end of a word, when agreeable to the ear, soon loses its meaning by being extended to many words, for the sake of euphony. So of the termination zoo. I can give as many specifications of rapid action, if required, as can be given of frequent ac- tion in words of this ending. I have a new theory of my own upon this subject, or rather it is a the- ory adopted from an old one, as it ought to be called. It goes to explain a material fact in the history of hapto. My idea is that the word originally meant, not that the dipping should be performed frequendy, but that it indicated the rapidity with which the action was to be performed ; that the thing should be done quickly ; and for this reason the termination zo is never used when the word is employ- ed in connection with the business of dyers and tanners. But the word baptizo is always used to express the ordinance of baptism. This is the best reason I can give for the change of the termination into zoo. With regard to the frequent occurrence of this word in the New Tes- tament usage, I said that there might be some good reason given. And that reason is found in the fact that bapfo means to dip, without regard to continuance long or short, but baptizo intimates that the subject of the action is not necessarily long kept under that into which it is immersed. — [^Time expired. IVednesday, Nov. 15 — \2h o'clock, P. M. [mr. rice's second reply.] Mr. President: — 1 have no objection to the rule suggested by my friend, Mr. C, requiring the respondent to follow the affirmant, provided there be also a rule obliging the latter to proceed in the argument. But I must protest against being required to say but litde on the subject in hand, because the affirmant has done so. With regard to the ecclesiastical character of this discussion I remark, that there are but two ways in which things of this kind can be done, viz : either by the church as a body, or by individuals. The synod of Kentucky had no authority to select persons for such a purpose. My appointment to conduct this debate, therefore, could not have been made by that body. And if all the elders and ministers of the synod had, as individuals, agreed to select me, it would have been only the act of so many individuals, for which the Presbyterian church in Kentucky would have been no more responsible than if it had been done in England. The debate is, therefore, an individual affair. It has never been stated by us how many persons were consulted about it, or what number agreed to my appointment to conduct it. Nor does it appear by how many my friend was appointed, or whether he was appointed at all. There is no ecclesiastical body connected with his church, sustaining the same rela- tion to it, which is sustained by the synod of Kentucky to our church. DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 79 His appointment, therefore, must have been simply by individuals. How many have been concerned in it, or what importance his church may attach to it, I know not. But I am not wiUing to involve ecclesias- tical bodies in matters with which they have nothing to do. My worthy friend made a statement concerning the early reformers which is calculated to make an impression favorable to his cause. He says that all the early reformers were immersionists, and that the great majority of christians have always practiced immersion; that I must have forgotten my reading. I presume I was understood by the audi- ence. I said, not that nine hundred and ninety-nine in every thousand were opposed to immersion, but that they did not believe immersion essential to the validity of the ordinance — that they never did make the discovery which my friend has made, that nothing short of immersion is baptism. And if he can name one of the reformers who made the dis- covery for which he is now contending, that immersion only is christian baptism, I hope he will not fail to do it. In the third and immediately following centuries trine immersion was practiced, the subjects being divested of their garments. Yet those who adopted this practice never learned that baptizo means only to immerse. Gradually again pouring and sprinkling became most common. Yet immersion continued to be very frequently practiced even to the times of Luther ; but all conceded the validity of pouring and sprinkling. None disputed what had been so long admitted. But my friend Mr. C. has said, that as biblical criticism progressed, we have gained more light on such subjects. So it appears, that as'more light has been obtained, the great majority of christians have abandoned the defence and the practice of immersion. He cannot, however, point to one reformer, of any considerable standing, who maintained the doctrine for which he is contending. However favorable some of them may have been to the practice of immersion, not one of them ever admit- ted that our Savior commanded immersion only. They with one con- sent admitted sprinkling and pouring to be valid baptism ; and they re- garded themselves as obeying the command of Christ — "Go teach all nations, baptizing them" — when they administered the ordinance by sprinkling or pouring. Having been baptized by sprinkling, they lived and died in the belief that their baptism was valid. Both modes were anciently practiced. And if our immersionist friends had continued on the ground of the old immersionists — if they had simply maintained that immersion is the iireferable mode, they might have enjoyed their opinion without controversy. But when they contend that all who have received the ordinance by pouring or sprink- ling are unbaptized, and that sprinkling is a human invention, they assume a position occupied by very few ; and we are constrained to demur. Let me revert to the principle advanced by Mr. C, that specific words having a leading syllable, in all their inflections retain their original import. Language, he admits, is always changing; and usage only determines the meaning of words. But the principle he now inculcates is, that specific words retain their original meaning. If, for example, the original idea was dip, the word retaining the leading syllable, will retain also this idea, in all its combinations. Now I stand in opposition to this principle. There is no such principle recognized. There are facts (and I will pro- duce them) in the very face of it. For example, the word bapto, as Mr. 80 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. C. and immersionists generally contend, contained originally the idea only of immersing. I now understand him to abandon this ground. He now says, that literally it signifies to dip, and figuratively, to dye. For this I should like to see some authority, because Mr. Carson says it signifies to dye as literally as to dip ; and he asserts, that the history of a thousand words proves the principle. He gives an example, which I will read. He says, (p. 60,) that " Hyppocrates uses bapto to denote dyeing by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed : » When it drops upon the garments, (baptetai,) they are dyed.' This," says he, " surely is not dyeing by dipping." What is there figurative here 1 There is a literal fiuid, dropped upon a literal garment; and when a thing is dyed by dropping or sprinkling, it is dyed as literally as if done by dipping. I will, if necessary, furnish other examples. On the 61st page Carson gives another — " Nearchus relates, that the Indians {baptontai) dye their beards." There are many similar examples. Dr. Gale maintained, that when bapto signified to dye, it retained the idea of dipping ; but Mr. Carson differs from him, and says, the history of a thousand words proves that it signifies to dye by sprinkling as literally as by dipping. Till my worthy friend produces some authority in support of the princi- ple he has advanced, I must beg leave to dissent from it. Mr. C. says, if he can prove that baptizo expresses a specific action, he proves that it has but one meaning — and, therefore, that it can never express the act of pouring or sprinkling. Carson maintains, that bapto expresses a specific action; and yet he proves, that it has another mean- ing which is literal, viz : to dye by dipping or by sprinkling. And if it expresses the coloring of a thing by dropping or sprinkling, it has cer- tainly not the original idea of dipping. Let it be remembered, we are not contending that baptizo expresses definitely the act of pouring or sprinkling. The circumstances and the connection sometimes prove, that sinking or plunging is the thing done; sometimes thatpouring or sprinkling is the thing done; sometimes that^jar- tial dipping or ivetthig is meant. It is a universal rule of language, that when a word has several meanings, the connection in which it occurs, must determine, in any given case, which is the true meaning. For example, the word faith has in the Scriptures three distinct meanings. It denotes the act of believing, or the exercise of the mind in believing, as in the passage — "By grace are ye saved through faith." It denotes the truth or doctrines believed, as when persons are said to "make shipwreck of the faith," And it signifies fidelity or faithfulness, as when it is said, " What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God of non-effect?" Now how are we to determine, in any particular case, which of these meanings is the true one? Evidently by the connection. Dr. Geo. Camp- bell says the word fiesh has in the Scriptures six meanings, not more than one of which is found in any classic writer. How shall we determine, in any particvdar case, which is the true meaning, but by the connection? We are not contending that baptizo never signifies to immerse, but that it does not definitely express mode. It expresses the thing done; the circumstances and the context may determine the mode of doing it, though the word itself does not. It is true, as my friend says, that if a man were indicted for dipping a person, and it were proved that he had only sprinkled him, the action could not be maintained against him. This, however, only proves what no one denies — that dipping is not sprinkling. But let him prove that DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 81 baptizo signifies only to immerse, and I will yield the point. That it is sometimes used in the sense of dipping I admit, and that it is sometimes used in the sense of pouring, or sprinkling, I can prove. That it some- times signifies simply to wash, I can demonstrate by the very highest authority. Each of these statements I will establish in due time. But I fear my friend, Mr. C, will consider me as anticipating his argu- ment. If he will not again prefer this charge against me, I will state, as I am prepared to prove, that three of the oldest and best versions have rendered the word bapto to sprinkle ; and one of the most learned of the Greek fathers gave it the same signification. SchriveUius, Mr. C. says, originally gave to the word baptizo but two meanings — mergo and lavo — to immerse and to wash. AVell, this is all I contend for. For if it sometimes signifies to dip, and sometimes to wash, how shall we determine in any case which is the true meaning ? Mergo and lavo are the Latin words by which it is defined, and we know that lavo signifies to wash in general, without reference to mode. The most ancient lexicographers, moreover, define baptizo to cleanse, no mat- ter in what mode it is done. If, then, this word has sometimes one meaning, and sometimes another, how can it be a specific term expressing a definite action ? If Mr. C cannot prove that it is always used in the definite sense of immersing, he must give up the argument. It is true, as he says, that the word circitmcision signifies cutting round ; but who, I ask, could have imderstood by this word alone, how the ordinance was to be administered ? By the accompanying directions it might be known, but I atfirm that no man could determine by the word alone, what precisely was the action to be performed. Again — take the word deipnon, sometimes used to denote the Lord's supper. From this word we could not determine what element should be used, in what quantity it should be received, or in what manner the ordinance should be observed. Yet my friend, Mr. C, labors to prove, that when our Savior employed a particular word to denote an ordi- nance, it must necessarily express the mode in which it is always to be administered and received ! He says, he is glad to hear me express my conviction, that the original meaning of baptizo was to immerse. I did not say so. I said, I coidd safely admit it, though he could not prove it. Critics are not agreed, whether to dip or to dye was the original meaning. Professor Stuart expresses the opinion, as far as he can judge, that to dip was the original sense, and to dye a secondary meaning. Others, however, contend that to dye was the primary or original meaning. The word bapto, as far back as we can trace it, was used in both senses. It may be true, there- fore, that to dye or color was the original meaning, and to dip a second- ary meaning. Critics have not determined this question ; nor can they prove, that to immerse was the original meaning of the word. But, as I before remarked, I can concede this point, and yet fully sustain my posi- tion. Still Mr. C. cannot prove it, and therefore I shall not admit it. Mr. C. asks, how could baptizo, if it signify specifically to dip or im- merse, come to express an entirely diflerent action ? I answer, it does not definitely express dipping or immersing. The lexicons, as we have seen, define it to u'ash as well as to immerse. Suppose, then, you direct your son to wash his hands, and he has water poured on them ; does he not obey your command ? Or suppose he dips them in water, does he not obey you ? He does. You direct him to do a certain thing, but do 6 82 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. not prescribe any particular mode in which he must do it. He may, therefore, select any mode he prefers. So the word baptizo expresses the application of water to the person or subject; but the precise mode of its application must be determined by the circumstances and the design of the ordinance. JMy friend gave us a dissertation on the words dip, bathe, pour, and sprinkle, as they occur in Leviticus. If he would not consider me as anticipating him, I could prove, that the word bapto is used in the Bible in several senses — dipping, partial dipping, wetting or smearing. Thus it is said, the priest shall " dip his linger /rom (cipo) the oil," &c. Is it true that he did literally dip his finger /ro?}! it? Does such an expression signify to dip in ? Or does it not rather mean, as professor Stuart says, to ivet or smear by means of the oil ? There is, properly, no dipping in the case. The priest was simply to moisten or wet his finger with the fluid, so as to sprinkle it. If my friend will not charge me with antici- pating him, I will say, that the word bapto occurs in the Scriptures again and again in connection with the preposition apo, from; and evidently in such cases it does not express mode. There are in the Greek language words that definitely signify to im- merse, and words which signify to pour, and to sprinkle; but I deny, that bapto or baptizo definitely expresses the one or the other of these modes. I can find a Greek word that does uniformly signify to im- merse ; but baptizo is not the word. The word baptisma is the name of an ordinance instituted by our Savior for the benefit of his church. It denotes the application of water to a proper subject, in the name of the Trinity ; but it does not express the precise mode of applying the water. But Mr. C. has insisted so much on the necessity of employing a spe- cific term, expressing a definite action, to denote a religious ordinance, that I must read a passage in Numbers xix. 19, in which we find men- tioned one of the washings to which I have before referred : " And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even." Here we find sprinkling, loashing, and bathing. I invite your attention to the phrase — "■he shall bathe himself.''^ The Hebrew word translated bathe, is rahats, which is a generic term signifying simply to ivash ; and it is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word louv, to wash. Here the unclean person is commanded to do a certain thing — to wasli himself; but does the word employed prescribe the m.ode in which he is to do it 1 It does not. But my friend insists, that the word employed must express a definite action — that it must precisely expres.g the manner in which the ordinance is to be performed. I can find many examples similar to the one just adduced. Now, if his rule requiring a specific term is good in one instance, why not in another? But I can point to other rites, the mode of administering which is not expressed by the word employed. My friend, Mr. C., admits that baptizo may mean sinking to the bot- tom; but he seems disposed to contend, that it more properly implies that the thing immersed is again raised out of the water. And he refers to the language of a Greek writer concerning Athens, which he ex- plains to mean — that Athens might be overwhelmed, but not destroyed. But if I understand the word overwhelm, I should think a city over- whelmed is well nigh destroyed. But by an appeal to classic writers, I DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 83 can prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in which it is supposed to favor immersion, it signifies sinking to the bottom. Suppose, then, an individual should understand the command to be baptized in the sense of sinking ; what could be the result ? To sink is the common meaning of the word in the classics. But if you substitute the word sink for baptize in every place where baptizo occurs in the Scriptures, it makes nonsense. As to the idea advanced by my friend, that the syllable zo in baptizo implies that the action is to be performed quickly, I know of no evidence whatever that it is true. Dr. Carson (I believe that he is a doctor,) says, that baptizo denotes the putting of a thing into water ; but vi^hether it is raised out again or sinks to the bottom, cannot be ascertained by the word, but must be learned from the circumstances. ■ But I should be pleased to see some few examples adduced from the classics, in which the word baptizo expresses the action contended for by Mr. C. as essential to baptism. For I believe there is scarcely an in- stance in which it expresses the actions he performs in baptizing. [ — Time expired. Wednesday, Nov. 15 — H oclock, P. M. [|mr. Campbell's third address.] Mr. President — An objection to the use we make of the testimony and criticism advanced from Pedo-baptist authority, now offered by my friend, Mr. Rice, reminds me of an objection advanced by some modern sceptics against the arguments generally relied on, in proving the resurrection of the Messiah. They say, your testimony is all one-sided. Produce any one of the ancient sceptics who admitted the fact. Unfortunately your testimony is all on the wrong side. Produce only one witness who was not himself a believer. That is indeed impossible; inasmuch as such an admission would have made the witness a christian. So in the present case. If those Pedo-baptist lexicographers and critics adduced, had en- tertained no excuse for their position, (either in the metaphorical mean- ing of the word, or in the unimportance of the mode,) they would have been Baptists ; and then their testimony would have been more plausibly repudiated, because indeed one-sided. So much with reference to the remarks made on professor Stuart's tes- timony, adduced some time ago. Mr. Stuart is a Pedo-baptist, and prac- tices sprinkling ; although he has said as much for immersion as any man could say, and yet continue where he is. It is indeed most true, as the gentleman presumes, that he [Prof. Stuart] is wholly indifferent as to the mode. He, in common with many others, says that immersion was the ancient mode ; nay, he is compelled to admit that it was almost the universal practice in the ancient church; yet still he thinks with Calvin that mode is of no importance, and that we may alter and amend, accord- ing to circumstances, so that we do not make it a new rite. The same is true with regard to all the authorities brought forward by my worthy friend. Their testimony is, indeed, in one sense, ex parte. They are all of his own party, not of mine. Every dictionary he has quoted is a Pedo- baptist dictionary ; and yet most of them have said all that is possible to be said by persons not wholly with us ; while indeed they all give the true original and proper meaning of the word, they are sure to give a tropical meaning, that squints to their own position. They must do tliis or abandon tlieir position. They all believed in this practice of sprinkling; while as scholars, in their definitions, they have told the truth, with one or two exceptions, AViih one consent they all give to dip, or to immerse, as the 84 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. proper original meaning of the word baptizo. Not a single exception. Many of them give the reason for other meanings ; such as — to wash, to cleanse, to color. They all concur in this, that such meanings are the effect, or the names of the effects of immersing. Not one of them says that it means to wash or cleanse in any mode, but only as the effect of dipping or immersing. Do they say it means to wash, &c., they im- mediately add, because it is done by immersing. This fact cannot be made too prominent. But what have we to do with the effects of an ac- tion, of an ordinance of God, in ascertaining the form or mode of the or- dinance itself! ! Hence all the learned abjure the rhetorical use of words in expounding laws, statutes, and ordinances, as we shall show in its proper place. I wish, at this particular crisis of the discussion, to make a single im- pression, clearly and indelibly, upon the minds of the audience. It is this : there is not a word in universal speech that is absolutely incapable of a figurative use. Hence, if we may take the figurative meaning for the true and proper, there is an end to all discussion in ascertaining posi- tive statutes and precepts ; for, I repeat it, there is not in universal speech a noun, verb, or adjective, that may not be used figuratively. In verbs, very often, these figurative meanings are the results of specific ac- tions. Hence where dyeing, washing, cleansing, are given as meanings of bapto or baptizo, lexicographers usually give the reason why a specific word could have such vague and general meanings. I have said, in my introductory address, that the word baptizo has no more reference to water, than it has to oil, or sand, or any thing else ; that it has reference to action onl)% and consequently can have but one meaning, which is most obvious, if the lexicons can be taken as authority. I again say there is neither water nor washing in the word baptizo. Any thing dipped into any thing, and covered over with it, fluid or not, is, in all propriety, said to be baptized, whether in oil, sand, wax, tar, milk or water. Why persons or things are said to be washed or cleansed by being immersed, is because generally they are immersed into clean water. Otherwise it could not be said that baptizo means to wash or cleanse. It would be as proper to say it means to pollute, to mire, to *laub, if persons and things were generally immersed in mud, and mire, and unclean fluids. Hence some things dipped are said to be dyed, others colored, others cleansed, others washed, according to the material into which they are immersed. No figure of speech more common than a metonomy of the effect for the cause. Now what relation has the spe- cific action to the effect produced by it? Can one word mean to wash, to mire, to cleanse, to pollute? Such is the logic of that whole school against which we contend. But the question recurs whether in laws or ordinances we are to take the figurative or the literal meaning of words. This is the great question. I am happy to say that I have the concurrence of all the learned men of the world known to me, who have written on the subject, in the opinion that we are not to take the figurative meaning. All writers on law say, with Blackstone and Montesquieu, that in the interpretation of laws and statutes, terms are not to be taken rhetorically, but literally. Both in the enactment and in the interpretation of laws, the common meaning of words is to be regarded, and not the remote or figurative. A number of distinguished names Avill, at a more convenient season, be presented in proof of fliis conclusion. DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 85 With regard to the passage quoted from Mr. Carson, if the gentleman had just read a page or two further he would have shown his author was a little more consistent. It is of little consequence to us to ai-gue and reply to conclusions drawn from the figurative use of the word. It has been already distinctly stated that baptizo is the only word used to express the christian ordinance ; and that for some reason (most probably the one I have given) it never signifies to dye. Bapfo, however, tropic- ally signifies to dye. Now although Dr. Carson argues that bapto means to dye, without regard to mode, he expressly traces the origin of this sense to a figure — the effect for the cause. His words are, page 60, "From signifying to dip it came to signify to dye by dipping, because tliis was the way in which things were usually dyed." This is my argu- ment concerning both these words. The effect of dipping, for a length of time, is, in some substances, coloring or dyeing; the efiiect of dipping in clear water, for a short time, is washing, cleansing. Mr. Carson goes farther, it is alledged, and says that bapto and its family means dye or color, without any regard to the manner in which it Avas effected. This is then making the figurative the proper meaning of the word, — from this I dissent. But if Mr. Rice rely on Carson in this case, why not rely upon him in the case of the word used in the ordinance, which, according to him, signifies to dip, and nothing else ? I most readily admit, that, in the language of poetry and of imagination, objects are said to be painted, colored, dyed, not only in this mode, and that mode, but without any mode at all. Thus we have ornis baptos, the colored bird, of Aristophanes; the pi cts: volucres, the painted birds, of Virgil; and Milton, in describing the wings of Raphael, sings of "colors dyed in heaven." In the same license Homer, in his reputed battle of the frogs and mice, represents a whole lake as tinged with the blood of a mouse. But what does all this prove ? That because birds, flowers, clouds, and angels' wings, are said to be colored, dyed, or painted, with- out reference to any mode, that in the language of narrative, of precept, and of positive law, a person is baptized without any mode at all ! ! I have only one remark to make on all these cases and usages of bapto, that in the passive form things are said to be dyed, not with respect to the mode in which the process was completed, but with respect to the effect or result of the process ; and again, nothing is said to be dyed, painted or colored by bapto, in its various forms, that is not, at the time of which it is spoken, covered over with the dye color. This is enough on this subject so far as the root bap, or the Avords bapto and baptizo are concerned. In all this there is a perfect conformity to the established laws of language in all similar cases. I wish Mr. Rice had read a little more from Mr. Carson — such as, from the same pages he has quoted, " With regard to the other side, (Pedo- baptist) to say nothing of the straining to squeeze out of the word the several meanings of sprinkling, pouring, washing, wetting, &;c., for which there is not any even plausible ground, the obvious fact that it signifies dyeing by any process has been uncritically pressed to prove that when it relates to the application of pure water it denotes all modes equally." We may, however, hear Mr. Carson a little further on this subject, (page 59,) "If it be possible," says he, after giving many examples from Hip- pocrates, " to setde the meaning of a common word, surely this is suf- ficient to fix the meaning of bapfo beyond all reasonable controversy. In the words of the Father of Medicine, in which he has occasion to H 86 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. treat of every mode of the application of liquids, and which consists of no less than five hundred and forty-three closely printed folio pages, all the words of mode are applied, and bapto invariably is used when he designates immersion." Other criticisms and reasonings from my friend Mr. Rice, not included in those remarks, shall be taken up in their proper place. We must not forget that we are furnishing a new book on baptism, and other matters connected therewith. We must, therefore, have supreme regard to that as we proceed. So far as I lead the way, I propose the following method : — On rising I shall attend to so much of my respondent's speeches as are relevant to the premises I have offered. While affirmant, it is my privilege to lead the way. Whatever my respondent advances, relative to my arguments, shall be immediately attended to. Other matters, calling for any special attention, shall be attended to at proper and pertinent seasons. Should any thing of this sort, which Mr. Rice deems important, be overlooked or forgotten, I request him to bring it up to my attention, and I shall give to it all due regard. I shall then immediately proceed with my arguments, in numerical order, to which, of course, I shall expect a particular atten- tion in the same order. As the matter now stands, my second argument, drawn from the Greek lexicons, is fully stated and considerably illustrated. Not one of my au- thorities being challenged, I shall hereafter, in the discussion, always take for granted that bapfizo, the word in debate, does, by consent of all the lexicons oft'ered on the occasion, originally and properly signify to dip or immerse ; that these words, in our language, properly represent it in its primitive and unfigurative import ; and that to wash, or cleanse, are acci- dental and figurative meanings of the word : that dip and immerse are specific terms, and that, as Carson observes, when any word once signi- fies to dip, it never can signify to sprinkle or pour, any more than black never can signify white, nor white black, being specific and not general terms. To proceed argumentatively and logically, it now becomes my duty to examine the foundation on which these dictionaries depend. III. Arc. This, for method's sake, I shall call my third argument; for though intimately allied to lexicography, it is nevertheless a separate and distinct argument. Dictionaries being founded on the usage of the best writers in the language of which it is a dictionary, we must look to them for the authority of the lexicons. We shall then appeal to the classic authors, to sacred and biblical usage to sustain the definitions already given. This is going to the proper foundation. Dictionaries are not the highest authority only in so far as they are the exponents of the classic, or most learned and approved use of words — we correct the dic- tionaries by the classics, and not the classics by the dictionaries. They are therefore the ultimate and supreme tribunal. Hence the importance of particular attention to the age in which a lan- guage was best understood, and to the time and persons which gave us dictionaries. There is one fact of special importance here. Dictionaries frequendy give the particular usage of the times of their authors ; for ex- ample— Webster explains baptism by the word christen, because that was a common use at the time he made his dictionary. Hence, the par- ticular age in which a dictionary is made may, more or less, affect the meaning of its words. Now, had it been the object of those who made Greek lexicons to do as Richardson, Johnson, Webster and others have DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 8? done, that is, to £^ive also the popular meaning' or use of their own time, finding persons baptizing by sprinkling or pouring, like Groves, they would have, no doubt, made pouring or sprinkling the sixth or seventh meaning of the word. My preference for the lexicons made before sprink- ling became rife will, therefore, be most apparent without further exposi- tion. No Greek lexicon down to the 19lh century, ever gave sprinkle or pour for baptism. I will shew the reason of this by a few specimens out of a mighty multitude prepared for this occasion. I need scarcely add that the Greek is now a dead language. Its words are, therefore, in meaning, all stereotyped in the classics and sacred wri- tings. This usage, therefore, is all we have to inquire into. Take, then, the following instances : 1st. Of the proper meaning of baptizo : — " Lucian, in Timon, the man-hater, makes hira say — ' If I should see any one flioating toward me upon the rapid torrent, and he should, with out- stretched hands, beseech me to assist him, I would thrust him from me, baptizing' [baptizonta) him, until he would rise no more.'" " Plutarch, vol, x. p. 18, 'Then ^/(i/(^tH^ [baptizon) himself into the lake Copais.'" " Strabo, lib. 6, speaking of a lake near Agrigentum, says — 'Things that elsewhere cannot float, do not sink [baptizesthai.) In lib. 12, of a certain river he says — 'If one shoots an arrow into it, the force of the water resists it so much, that it will scarcely sink [baptizesthai.) " "Polybius, vol, iii. p. 311, ult. applies the word to soldiers passing through water, immersed [baptizomenoi) up to the breast." "The sinner is represented by Porphyry, p. 282,, as baptized [baptizetai) up to his head in Styx, a celebrated river in hell. Is there any question about the mode of this baptism!" "Themistius, Orat. iv. p. 133, as quoted by Dr. Gale, says, 'The pilot can- not tell but he may save one in the voyage that had better be drowned, [bap- tisai.) sunk into the sea,' " " The Sybilline verse concerning the city of Athens, quoted by Plutarch in his life of Theseus, most exactly determines the meaning of baptizo. As- kos baptizee dunai de tot ou themis esti.''"' " Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder ! but thou art not fated to sink." " For our ship," says Josephus, " having been baptized or immersed in the midst of the Adriatic sea." " Speaking of the murder of Aristobulus, by command of Herod, he says, ' The boy was sent to Jericho by night, and there by command having been immersed [baptizomenos) in a pond by the Galatians, he perished.' The same transaction is related in the Antiquities in these words : 'Pressing him down always, as he was swimming, and baptizing him as in sport, they did not give over till they entirely drowned him,' " *' Homer, Od. i, 392: As when a smith dips or plunges [baptei) a hatch- et or huge pole-axe into cold water, viz : to harden them." *' Pindar, Pyth. ii. 139, describes the impotent malice of his enemies by representing himself to be like the cork upon a net in the sea, which does not sink : As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so am I unplunged [abaptislos :) on which the Greek scholiast, in commenting, eays : ' As the cork ou dunei^ does not sink, so I am abaptistos, unplunged, not immersed. The cork remains abaptislos, and swims on the surface of the sea, being of a nature which is abaptislos ; in like manner I am abaptis- tos.^ In the beginning of this explanation the scholiast says : ' Like the cork of a net in the sea, ou baptisomai, I am not plunged or sunk.'' The fre- quent repetition of the same words and sentiment, in this scholium, shows, in all probability, that it is compiled from difierent annotators upon the text. But the sense of baptizo in all is too clear to admit of any doubt." "Aristotle, de Color, c. 4, says ; By reason of heat and moisture, the 88 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. colors enter into the pores of things dipped into them, {tou baptomenou.) De Anima. iii. c. 12, If" a man dips [bapsei) any thing into wax, it is moved so far as it is dipped. Hist. Animal, viii. c. 2, speaking of certain fish, he says : They cannot endure great changes, such as that, in the summer time, they should plunge {baptosi) into cold xoater. Ibid. c. 29, he speaks of giv- ing diseased elephants water to drink, and dipping [baptouies) hay into honey for them." "Aristophanes, in his comedy of The Clouds, Act i. scene 2, represents Socrates as gravely computing how many times the distance between two of its legs, a flea could spring at one leap ; and in order to ascertain this, the philosopher first melted a piece of wax, and then taking the flea, he dipped ov plunged [enebaphes) two of its feet into it, &c." " Heraclides Ponticus, a disciple of Aristotle, AUegor. p. 495, says: When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire, B.nd plunged in the water, [udati baptizetai,) the hea.t, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the water, ceases." " Herodotus, in Euterpe, speaking of an Egyptian who happens to touch a swine, says : Going to the river [Nile] he dips himself [ebaphe eauton) with his clothes." " Aratus, in his Phsenom. v. 650, speaks of the constellation Cepheus, as dipping [baptoon) his head or upper part into the sea. In v. 858 he says : If the sun dip {baptoi) himself cloudless into the western flood. Again, in V. 951, If the crow has dipped [ebapsato) his head into the river, &c." *' Xenophon, Anab. ii. 2, 4, describes the Greeks and their enemies aa sacrificing a goat, a bull, a wolf, and a ram, and dipping [bapiontes] into a shield [filled with their blood,] the Greeks the sword, the Barbarians the spear, in order to make a treaty that could not be broken." "Plutarch, Parall. Grsec. Rom. p. 545, speaking of the stratagem of a Roman general, in order to insure victory, he says: He set up a trophy, on which, dipping his hand into blood, [eis to aima — baptizas) he wrote this inscrijition, &c. In vol.vi. p. 680, (edit. Reiske) he speaksof iron ^Zw«^ed [baplomenon) viz. into water, in order to harden it. Ibid, page &'33, plutige [baptison) yourself into the sea." " Hcraclides, AUegor. says. When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire and plunged [baptizetai) into water." " Heliodorus, vi. 4. When midnight \\d,A. plunged [ebaptizon) the city in sleep." FIGURATIVE USE. "Plutarch. Overwhelmed with debts, [bebaptismenon.y^ " Chrysostom. Overwhelmed {baptizomenos) with innumerable cares. *' Lucian iii. page 81. He is like one dizzy and baptized or sunk {hebap- tismeno) — viz. into insensibility by drinking." "Justin Martyr. Overwhelmed with sins [bebaptismenos.y " Aristotle, De Mirabil. Ausc. speaks of a saying among the Phenicians, that there were certain places beyond the pillars of Hercules, which, when it is ebb-tide, are not overJiowed\me baptizesthai,) but at full-tide are over- Jlowed [katakluzesthai;) which word is here used as an equivalent for bapti- zesthai.^^ "Plato, Conviv. page 176. I myself am one of those who were drenched or overwhelmed [bebaptismenon) yesterday, viz. with wine. In another place : Having overwhelmed [baplisasa] Alexander with much wine. Eu- thydem. p. 267, ed. Heindorf, A youth overwhelmed (baptizomenon) viz, questions." " Philo JudaeusjVoL p. ii. 478, I know some, who, when they easily be- come intoxicated, before they are entirely overwhelmed {jprinleleos baptis- theiiai,) viz. with wine." " Diodorus Siculus, tom. i. page 107, Most of the land animals that are intercepted by the river [Nile,] perish, being overwhelmed [baplizo- mena;) here used in the literal sense. Tom. i. page 191, The river, borae **■ DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 89 along by a more violent current, overwhelmed [ebaplise) many ; the literal signilication. Tom. i. p. 129, And because they [the nobles] have a sup- ply by these means [presents] they do not overiohelm their subjects with taxes." It were easy to increase this list by quotations from other Greek wri- ters, authors, poets, scholiasts, critics and Greek Fathers, all in fur- ther [)roof of the same import of the word in question — such as Ana- creon, Moschus, Calliraachus, Theocritus, Dionysius Halicarnassus, on the 16th Iliad, v. 333; Demosthenes, Dio Cassius, Lycophron, So- phocles, Esop, Libanius, Pseudo-Didymus, Heliodorus, Aphrodetus, Lac- tantius, Alcibiades, Josephus, Symmachus, Athenaeas, Porphyry, Mar- cus Anotoninus Pius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory Nazianzen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Theophylact, Basil, Trypho the Jew, in Justin Martyr, Origen, &c. I regard it as more pedantic, than necessary, to display so many au- thorities. I may, however, say that I could read scores of such as you have heard, all in perfect concurrence with those read. We have the entire phalanx of all classic authority — poets, philosophers, orators, his- torians, metaphysicians, critics, shewing one perfect agreement in their use of baptizo and its derivatives. It has been a question amongst theologians, whether the sacred use, that is, the Jewish and Christian, agrees with the classic use of this word ; whether in one sentence the New Testament writers use bapti- zo, as do all other writers of that age ; a most singular question in such a class of words — words indicating outward physical specific action. Such words are not the subjects of idiomatic and special law. It would be indeed adopting a very dangerous principle and precedent, that this word means one thing out of the New Testament, and another in it. The usage of the age and the context must in all cases decide the precise meaning of any word — a law of philology which I have published as often as any of my contemporaries, not only in this case, but in all others. Speakers, by a particular emphasis and tone, are capable of making a particular word mean just what they please. I have known some of this class of persons who could make a word mean what they pleased by emphasis, tone and action. There are, too, writers in every age, who use terms in a sense very remote from the true. But whether the apostles were such men; or whether we, in a grave discussion like this, are to decide upon the meaning of a word by such corruptions, and li- cences, or whether we shall accept the sense in which a word was used by those who lived contemporaneously with the apostles, will hardly admit of question, or of doubt. I am one of those who admit, and can prove, the most exact agreement between the classic, the New Testament, and the Septuagint use of this word. These perfectly corroborate each other. All use the word as indicative of the same action, universally expressed by those classic writers adduced. We have the entire cohort of classic, apostolic, and Jewish writers, as well as the more ancient christian fathers, all concurring in the same view. And now the question is, whether we shall take a meaning univer- sally maintained and admitted, or whether we shall now invent a new one, never found amongst the proper and fixed meanings of the term. Any one who carefully reads the commission — " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and u2 90 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. is baptized, shall be saved ; and he that believeth not shall be con- demned," might infer from the solemn position of the word baptism, and the emphasis placed on it — from the fact of its intermediate position between faith and salvation — that it is one of the most definite, clear, and intelligible terms in the world. I solemnly affirm it now, as I have before affirmed it, and, as I believe, already shown it, that there is not now, nor has there ever been, at any past period, a term in universal speech, more definite and more fixed in its meaning than this same specific term baptism, now before us. And this 1 further argue from the fact, that no sacred writer has ever defined the word. Our Savior did not define it; John the Baptist did not define it; the Apostles never defined it. Must it not therefore have been used by them, in the established meaning of the time in Avhich they lived and taught the christian religion! — [Time expired. (^The hour having now arrived for the close of the session, at the sug- gestion of the presiding moderator, (Hon. H. Clay,) Mr. Rice waived his right of reply till to-morrow morning ; and the adjournment was accord- ingly announced in form.] Tlmrsday, Nov. 16 — 10 o'clock, A. M. [mr. rice's third reply.] Mr. President — It is exceedingly important in this discussion, that we distinctly understand the point in controversy. I will again read the prop- osition, that all may hear it: " The immersion in water of a proper sub- ject, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the one, only, apostolic and christian baptism." This Mr. Campbell affirms, and I deny. I desire the audience to mark distinctly what he undertakes to prove, viz: that the entire submersion of the body in water, is absolutely essential to christian baptism ; that nothing short of this is baptism : and, consequently, that all who have received the ordinance in any other mode, are unbaptized, and are not in the church of Christ. This is the position of my friend. And, as I remarked on yestetday, so I say again — if this discovery, of recent origin, be real, and not an entire mistake, it is one of the most remarkable discoveries made since the days of the apostles. For I repeat the fact, that nine hundred and ninety-nine in every thousand of those in favor of immersion, as well as of those against it, have failed to see in the Bible this doctrine which Mr. C. says, is so plainly taught, that he that runs may read and under- stand it ! Mark again how he undertakes to prove this important proposition. His main argument is founded on the meaning of the words hapto and baptizo. To determine the meaning of these words his first and main appeal has been to the lexicons, as being the highest authority. Now observe this fact : by the same lexicons to which he has appealed, ancient and modern, I have proved that they have other meanings, essentially different from that which he attaches to them. He, let it be noted, is bound to prove, that they signify to immerse, and only to immerse ; for if they have other meanings, the connection must determine, in any given case, which is the true meaning. The sense must be determined by the connection, and not simply by the words. But I have proved by the lexicons, ancient and modern, that these words have several distinct meanings. His argument, therefore, has wholly failed. I have proved that these words signify to sink, (and the word sink is DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 91 quite different from immerse,) to plunge, to dip, to dye, stain, color, to wash, to cleanse, to wet, to moisten, to sprinkle. All these definitions have been found in the different lexicons. And, observe, I have proved this, not by the modern lexicons only, which Mr. C. considers of less authority than the ancient, but hy both ancient and modern; such as Hedericus, Scapula, Stephanus, Suidas, Schleusner, Schrivellius, Bret- schneider, Parkhurst, Robinson, Greenfield, Wahl, &c. &c. I have ap- pealed to all these, and every one of them declares, that the words bapto and baptizo signify not only to dip, to plunge, &c., but also to wash, without reference to mode. My friend has told you that modern legicographers, such as Groves, add new meanings to Greek words — that Webster, for example, defines the word baptize to christen. I had supposed that the business of a Greek lexicographer was, to ascertain, not what meanings persons in modern times attach to Greek words, but in what senses they were used by Greek writers. And if so, no modern lexicographer will give to a Greek word a meaning which he does not believe to have been attached to it by Greek authors, Webster was defining an English word ; and he gave it such meanings as he found attached to it by those who speak the English language. Mark again — these lexicographers do not define the words iopfo and baptizo to dye and to wash only by immersion. There is not one amongst them who confines tliem to washing or dyeing by immersion. They generally agree with Bretschneider, who defines baptizo, " propr. sepius intingo, sepius lavo" — properly often to immerse, often to wash; and in the New Testament, first, " lavo, abluo simpliciter'' — simply to wash, to cleanse. Schrivellius defines it, mergo, abluo, lavo — to im- merse, to cleanse, to ivash. They do not, then, say, that these words signify to wash or to dye only by dipping. Nor, allow me further to remark, do the lexicographers say, that the words in question signify to wash figuratively. There is not a lexi- cographer, ancient or modern, on the face of the earth, who says that baptizo means to wash figuratively. It would indeed be marvellous to say, that ivashing or sprinkling is figurative immersion. It is true, these and all other words may have a figurative sense ; and I have given an example in which the word sprinkle is figuratively used, viz : in the Epistle to the Hebrews: '.'Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- science." Here we know the word is employed figuratively, because a literal fluid is not supposed to be used. But when Ezekiel says, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," the word is employed in a literal sense, because literal water is supposed to be used. Every figure must bear some resemblance to the thing of which it is the figure. But what resemblance is there between sprinkling and immersing? or between washing and immersing? Washing may be a consequence of immersion, but certainly it cannot be -a figure of it. We go for the literal mean- ing ! And all these lexicons define baptizo, to wash, cleanse, purify, in a literal sense, I appeal to Carson, one of the most zealous immersionists. He de- clares, that the word bapto signifies literally to dye in any manner. (P. 64.) " Nor are such applications of the word (bapto) to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale asserts. They are as literal as the primary meaning. It is by extension of literal meaning, and not by figure of any- kind, that words come to depart so far from their original signification." 92 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Professor Stuart has been styled by my friend, Mr. C, his American apostle. Now, let us have the whole testimony of this apostle. Stuart does, indeed, say, that boptizo signities to dip, to plunge, as Mr. C. has stated. But let him speak for himself. On page 29, he speaks of the word as used in the New Testament ; and the Jirst meaning he gives is to wash, not figuratively, but literally — " to wash in a literal sense." But my friend has told us, that Stuart acknowledges that the ancient church immersed. He does say, that the ancient church (in the third century) immersed three times, divesting the persons of all their gar- ments. But he does not admit, that Jesus Christ ever commanded any one to be immersed. I will read a paragraph from his work on baptism : (p. 18,) " But we have already seen, in numbers 6, 7, above, respecting classic usage, that bapto is employed in the sense of bathing the surface of any thing with a fluid, and also of washing it. We have seen in numbers 2, 5, 6, of examples from the Septuagint and Apocrypha, that the word baptize sometimes means to ivash, and bapto to moisten, to wet, or bedew. There is, then, no absolute certainty, from usage, that the word baptizo, when applied to designate the rite of baptism, means, of course, to immerse or plunge. It may mean washing ; possibly (but not probably) it may mean copiously moistening or bedewing ; because words coming from the common root bap, are applied in both these senses, as we have seen above." There is Stuart for you. And I can, and, if necessary, will turn to the page where he declares, that there is not in the New Testament a command that persons should be immersed. Now mark what I have proved ; for I intend that every hearer shall understand my arguments on this subject. I have proved, that bapto and baptizo signify not only to sink, dip, plunge, but to wash, to cleanse, to purify, to wet, to moisten, and even to sprinkle; and I will yet prove, by even higher authority than the lexicons, that they have these mean- ings. Now the question is — did our Savior and his apostles use the word baptizo in the sense of plunging ? or did he use it in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying? If Mr. C. can prove, that he used it in the sense of plunging, he will have gained his point ; if he cannot, his ' argument fails and he is defeated. I defy him to point to one passage in the Scriptures in which it signifies to plunge or immerse. We have now gone through with the examination of the lexicons, and we have found them testifying that the word baptizo signifies literally to wash, to cleanse, as well as to plunge, to dip. Now, my friend, Mr. C, must be in error, or all the lexicographers must have been very stupid. He has told us, that wherever we find bap, we find also the idea of dip- ping. The lexicographers do not say so, and I have proved that it is not true. He informs us, that he is now going to pursue a regular course in his argument. He appeals to the classics. I also go to the classics, and I will prove that they do not sustain him. But why does he appeal to the classics, unless he wishes to prove the lexicons wrong ? He has admitted, however, that they are correct; and I maintain, that they have correctly defined the words in question. Their definitions are founded upon a careful examination of classic usage ; and if they have all erred, it is scarcely probable that we shall ascertain the truth. But I am prepared to go to the classics. My friend, Mr. C, admits, that so far as mode is concerned, bapto and baptizo have the same meaning. Now let me quote a sentence from DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 93 Hippocrates. He, as we have seen, uses the word bapto to denote dye- ing a garment by dropping upon it the coloring fluid. " When it drops upon the garments, (baptetai) they are dyed," or as perhaps my triend woukl say, they are immersed.' Then, when water is poured upon an individual, of course he is immersed ; and this is all Mr. C. could ask ! Carson quotes the following sentence from Arrian's Expedition of Alexander the Great: " Nearchus relates, that the Indians (baptontai) dye their beards ;" and he remarks — " It will not be contended that they dyed their beards by immersion." — So Mr. Carson is with us again. ^lian, speaking of an old coxcomb who endeavored to conceal his age by dyeing his hair, says, " He endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair, by dyeing it" — (baphe.) " Baphe,'" says Carson, " here denotes dyeing in general ; for hair on the head is not dyed by dipping." Homer, in his Battle of Frogs and Mice, uses the following language: "He breathless fell, and the lake was tinged (ebapteto) with blood." Or would you say, the lake was immersed in his blood ! Aristophanes says, " Magnes, an old comic actor of Athens, used the Lydian music, shaved his lace, and smeared it over (baptomenos) with tawny washes." On this passage, Dr. Gale remarks, " He speaks of the homely entertainments of the ancient theatre, where the actors daubed themselves with lees of wine and many odd colors, before iEschylus reformed it, and introduced the use of masks and vizors. Aristophanes expresses this by baptomenos, batracheiois, not that he supposes they dipped their faces into the color, but rather smeared the color on their faces." Bejlec. on WaWs Hist, of Inf. Bap., v. iii. p. 109. Aristotle speaks of a substance, which, " if it is pressed, dyes (baptei) and colors the hand." I could produce many other examples of the use of bapto, where it cannot mean to dip, or immerse ; but it is unnecessary, since Mr. Carson, the learned Baptist critic, admits that it signifies to dye by sprinkling as literally as by dipping. If, then, the words bapto and baptizo agree in meaning, so far as mode is concerned ; what becomes of the argu- ment of Mr. C. for immersion, derived from the meaning of baptizo ? Let me now turn your attention to the classic usage of the word bap- tizo. And here I repeat what I have before asserted, that, if necessary, I will prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in the classics which are supposed to favor immersion, this word signifies sinking to the bottom. And is that the actios for which my opponent is contending ? But here is a passage in which baptizo signifies moistening or wet- ting. Plutarch, relating the stratagem of a Roman general a little before he died of his wounds, says: "He set up a trophy, on which, having baptized (baptisas) his hand in blood, he wrote this inscription," &c. Did he immerse his hand in blood in order to write ? Is not baptizo here used simply in the sense of ivetting or moistening ? Hypocrates directs, concerning a blister plaster, if it be too painful, " to baptize or moisten it with breast milk or Egyptian ointment." Did he intend, that the plaster should be immersed in breast milk? Is this the direction which physicians are accustomed to give concerning blister plasters ? Evidently, the word is here used in the sense of moistening. Dr. Gale, n learned immersionist, furnishes us Avith an example in which the word baptizo certainly does not express the action for which my friend, Mr. C, is contending. Aristotle says, "The Phenicians, who inhabit Cadiz, relate, that sailing beyond Hercules' Pillars, in four 94 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. days, with the wind at east, they came to a land uninhabited, whose coast was full of sea-weeds, and is not overflowed (haptizesthai) at ebb ; but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered." On this passage, Dr. Gale thus remarks : " Besides, the word baptizo, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as, in general, a filing's being in that condition ; no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes on it.'* — Eejlec. on iValVs Hist. vol. iii., p. 122. The land, we are told, was not baptized at ebb, but was overflowed by the tide. Is the land put into the water, or does the water flow over it? Gale certainly gives up the question ; for he says baptizo does not so ne- cessarily express the action (the very thing my friend is contending for) of putting into water, as in general a thing's being in that stale, no matter how it comes so. We have now gone somewhat into the classics ; and I care not to what extent the investigation may be pursued : for, as before remarked, I will, if necessary, prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in which the use of the word is supposed to favor immersion, it occurs in relation to the sinking of ships, the drowning of men, &c. Surely these are not the actions for which the gendeman is contending. There are, moreover, as we have just seen, examples in which this word comes far short of immersion. One of the most serious errors of the gendeman, and of those who agree with him on this subject, is' their undue reliance upon classic usage to determine the meaning of words found in the Scriptures. The pagan Greeks are certainly unsafe guides in the exposition of the language of the New Testament; so the best critics declare. And it is on this ac- count, that we have Lexicons of the New Testament. To give a single example. Dr. Geo. Campbell says, the wovd Jlesh has, in the New Testa- ment, six meanings, not more than one of which is found in classic authors. The principle holds good in regard to hundreds of words. I am, therefore, inclined to come to the Bible usage — and since our, friends (the reformers,) boast of going by the Book, I would a litUe prefer appealing to it. I am prepared to prove by the ablest critics, that the usage of the Bible, and of the Jews in their religious writings, is the only tribunal by which to determine the meaning of words in the New Testa- ment ; and, in these writings, I can prove that the word baptizo rarely, if ever, signifies to immerse. [Mr. Rice here asks the moderators whether his time has expired; and being informed that he might yet occupy two minutes, he proceeds :1 Before sitting down I will state two facts, which go to prove that classic usage cannot determine the meaning of words used in the New Testament: — First — The inspired apostles did not speak or write classic Greek. They were .Tews ; and, as critics tell us, they not only could not speak classic Greek, but they could not have understood it. Second — The character, manners, habits, customs and religion of the Jews were loidely different from those of the pagan Greeks; hence the usage of ttie latter cannot determine the meaning of words employed by the former. It is, moreover, a fact, that the pagan Greeks never employed the word baptizo with reference to religious washings, but always with reference to things in common life. And it is a fact, that the Jews DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 95 (except Josephus, who sought to imitate the classic Greek,) never used it in their rehgious writings, in relation to matters of common life, but always in relation to religious washings. Now, it is a principle of inter- pretation, that words often have one meaning in matters of common life, and quite a different meaning in matters of religion. Consequently, even if the word baptizo had, in classic usage, the meaning for which my friend (Mr. C.) contends; it would by no means follow, that it has the same meaning in the New Testament. — [Time expired. Thursday, Nov. 16— lOA o'clock, A. M. \w9.. Campbell's fourth address.] Mr. President — I am much gratified, sir, to observe the improve- ment in the health and energy of my friend, Mr. Rice. He seems to have slept profoundly on the work of yesterday, and appears refreshed and invigorated, and eager for the work before him. His speech this morning is, however, but a reiteration of the developments of yesterday. It amounts to neither more nor less tlian this ; The word baptizo some- times signifies to ivash. He talks of other meanings. They amount, however, to no more than this. I concur with him, indeed, in the necessity of an occasional recapitula- tion, and in the propriety of keeping the main question before us. It is important to have frequent recurrence to the points at issue, and to the progress made. What then is the question — the main issue ? Not whe ther we Baptists are right? That is not the question. Mr. Rice himself concedes that we are right in the practice of immersion. Greek and Ro- man, ancient and modern christians, all sects and parties, agree that im- mersion is good and valid baptism. That is not the question, nor the point to be discussed and decided here. We have a tremendous, an over- whelming majority of those who so believe. Tlie question is, whether our Pedo-baptist friends are right? Whether there are two distinct bap- tisms ; one immersing, the other sprinkling or wetting a person by Divine authority. Methinks it would suffice to prove to ordinary minds that immersion is baptism; and then, as there is but one baptism, sprinkling cannot be that one baptism. But let me ask, what are the essentials of baptism ? They are usually said to be four : 1. A proper subject — 2. A proper action — 3. The Divine formula of words, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; and 4. A proper admin- istrator. These are the sole and necessary requisites. A failure in any one of these may aflfect the validity of baptism. The question now before us concerns the action — the thing command- ed to be done. This is, of course, the most important point — the signi- ficant and all-absorbing point. Paul gives it high rank and consequence when he says, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism." There are not two modes of any one of these. When we have ascertained that one action called baptism, there can be no other. I said yesterday, and I re- peat it this morning, that it is wholly sophistical to talk of two modes of baptism, unless, indeed, it be two ways of immersing a person. In this sense there may be a plurality of modes. A person may be immersed backwards or forwards, kneeling or standing. Other modes than these there cannot be. Sprinkling is not a mode of immersing ; neither is im- mersion a mode of sprinkling. If sprinkling, pourmg, and immersion be modes of baptism, then, I ask, what is the tiling called baptism ? Who can explain this? Of lohat are these three specifically different actions, 96 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. \i the mode ? If sprinkling be a mode, and pouring a mode, and immersing a mode, tlien baptism is something incognito — something which no phi- lologist, or lexicographer can explain. I pronounce these modes an un- meaning, sophistical jargon, which no one can comprehend. Baptism is not a mode — it is an action. The word that represents it is improperly, by Mr. Carson, called a word of mode. It is a specific ac- tion ; and llie verb that represents it is a verb of specific import; else there is no such verb in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. I had the iionor of tirst exposing the sophistry of this word mode, and of publicly repudiating it some twenty-three years ago, in a debate on this same question. I showed the superior prowess of the Pedo-baptist in introducing this term. He gained half the controversy by calling immer- sion a mode of baptism. When the honest and unsuspecting Baptist re- ceived the imposition, he was half defeated. He felt that he had but a mode, and the Pedo-baptist had another mode, and they both had bap- tism! The controversy was then reduced to a question of mere mode; whereas the true and real debate is about a thing, an action, and not at all about a mode. The Messiah commanded a solemn and most signi- ficant action, and not a mode. Since 1820 the word action is being sub- stituted for mode. The gentleman has given yon several quotations from classic authors, a number of which I intended to have read, and some of them belong not to the word in debate. For good reasons our Lawgiver chose the word baptizo, not bapto. The former is therefore found 120 times, in some of its Hexions and forms, in the New Testament, while we have the lat- ter only six times. They are both said to be specific words by Mr. Car- son ; whilst he most singularlv, it would seem, gives bapto both a speci- fic and generic meaning. It is impossible that any word can be both spe- cific and generic. Dyeing, coloring, staining, and dipping, are not of one class of words. Dyeing may be done many ways ; so may coloring, staining; but dipping can be done but one way. Therefore no one word can be specific, which represents them both, in its true and proper meaning. Our issue, says Mr. Rice, after all, depends upon the lexicographers. They are, no doubt, a proper c6urt of appeal, but they are not tlie su- preme court of appeal. They have themselves to appeal to the classics and approved writers for their authority. They are often wrong. Mr. Carson says thev are all wrong in affirming that tcash is a secondary meaning of baptizo. We all appeal from them to the classics. No learned man will ever rest his faith upon dictionaries. He will appeal from them, in very many cases, to their teachers, the classics. They often interpolate their own caprices, and insert their own whims and prejudices. Yet with all their prejudices and caprices, no lexicographer has been pro- duced, nor can there be one now produced, who during 1800 years, (and before that time we have none,) translated baptizo by sprinkle or poitr; while they all, without one single exception, have translated the word im- merse, or dip, or plunge, or immerge, words of one and the same signi- fication. Nor can any classic author be produced in which 6a7?/«co means to sprinkle or pour. This is full proof of my proposition, let men assert what they please. Many Pedo-baptists think it means to sprinkle, and therefore they so practice. But for this, I again say, they have no au- thority, classic, lexicographic, or sacred. After all, this is a question of authority. My friend, Mr. Rice, has his DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 97 opinion, and other men have their opinions. Every man's opinion is equal to the amount of his intelligence and his honesty. The opinions of lexicographers are to be estimated as other opinions. My opponent says he has proved from the lexicons, ancient and modern, that baptizo has several distinct meanings, therefore I have failed in proving that it has but one proper meaning. All this is easily said, and quite as easily repeated. But it is only an opinion, and of course I, as well as many others, am of a different opinion. And we have our reasons for these opinions. I have, indeed, as yet, only offered a portion, a very small portion of my evidence; still from that I opine it is quite obvious that there is no authority for his opinion. I have been quoting all my proofs from Pedo-baplists, from dictionaries made by them, both classi- cal, and also theological. They generally, indeed, give wash, or cleanse, or some purifying word, after giving ihe proper meaning. They always and universally, however, despite of their prejudices, give dip as the pro- per and native meaning of the word. The other definitions, as we shall still more fully show, are accidental or contingent acceptations, rather than meanings of the word. The difference between our witnesses then is this ; Mr. Rice is maintaining his opinions by witnesses selected out of his own Pedo-baptist parly, while I am quoting his own witnesses, and never once using any one of my party, ancient or modern. He might as well quote the clergymen in this house, of his own church, as the authors he has already quoted, to maintain his conclusions ; and I might as well quote them too, to prove mine, as most of those whom I do quote. If from such testimony I have already adduced an unanswer- able phalanx of proof, how strong must be the evidence in favor of our practice ! But you shall yet have much more of it. I yesterday proposed an English discussion for an English audience. Mr. Rice ingeniously refused it, on grounds so transparent that all could see through them. I had read a few lexicon authorities, which would and could have all been withdrawn in a moment. I was willing to rest the whole affair upon the common English version — the Pedo-baptist version of the Old and New Testaments. I presumed, however, that a majority preferred the present method of proceeding, else I might more amply have shown how easily a few lexicographers of his own school might have been disposed of. The excuse was, as all saw, more ingeni- ous than solid ; the responsibility, then, rests upon himself. I shall, therefore, patiently proceed with the various arguments pre- pared for the occasion. But for the remainder of this address, I shall glance at some things not yet understood by all present. I desire all to see the precise point in this branch of the evidence: In the first place, then, all the lexicons give dip or immerse as the true, proper, primitive and literal meaning of baptizo. They give wash, wet, moisten, &c., as the secondary meanings, or the effects of dipping, immersing, &;c. Mr. Carson, who in the judgment of Mr. Rice, is a profound critic of the Baptist school, utterly repudiates the idea of wash, wet or moisten, as meanings of a word that has not in it one drop of moisture, fluid, or liquid of any sort. He disdains such lexicography as makes a word of mere mode, as he calls it, mean two things ; and, especially, seeing that any thing being immersed or even sprinkled may be polluted by the action. Now that a word can mean to cleanse and to pollute, to wash and to daub, is with him wholly inadmissible. But I am willing to say that metonymically or tropically, baptizo sometimes may mean to wash 7 I 98 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. or 10 cleanse ; still as that can be no other than an accidental circum- stance, it cannot in strict propriety be called a meaning, and by no means a jiroper meaning of the word. But even were it shown to be a fixed meaning of the word, it being so by a figurative, and not by any proper intrinsic force, another question of paramount importance must be estab- lished before that would relieve my friend in the least, viz : Has ever a positive ordinance been enacted by the figurative meaning of a word ? Mr. Carson is, indeed, a profound linguist and an able critic ; and was himself once a burning and a shining light in the Presbyterian church. He is also well esteemed by the Edinburgh reviewers. He, however, is not the only eminent critic who argues for but one meaning for haptizo. It is becoming fashionable among learned men, true philologists, to give to specific verbs but one meaning, and I shall, at a proper time, produce one of America's most distinguished classic scholars, in concun-ence with Mr. Carson and myself, on tliis subject. But in reason's name, had the Messiah commanded his apostles to wash the nations, while converting them ; why did he not take the word louo^ which all the then living world, Jew and Gentile, would have instantly understood ? If he had meant loash the face, why not have taken nipto ? If he had meant to V!et, why not hrecho — if to sprinkle, why not raino? These words exactly indicated those meanings — and our friend, Mr. Rice, says that baptizo is a word of diverse senses ! ! 1 have examined, one by one, all the passages in the Old and New Testaments in which the words nipto, pluno, louo, raino, cheo occur, and have made some valuable discoveries, as to the singular definiteness and precision of the Greek writers, of which I shall iiereafter speak. At present I will only say, that when applied to persons louo, washes or bathes the whole body ; nipto, only the face, hands or feet, and pluno, invariably cleanses the garments. They are never, in any case, substituted the one for the other. I ask my friend for a single exception In the Bible. They irequently occur in the same line, on the same occasion, in the same verse, and touching the same person, but are never confounded. If,^ then, three kinds of washing are defined by these words, in laws canon- ical, how can it be reconciled to the Divine character, and to that of His moral government, to have chosen for the one baptism a generic word, that may mean any thing which any one may please to affix to it? Mr. Rice has repeatedly said that wash is a meaning of baptizo, and that wash is certainly not a word of mode. But there is no philology in the observation. The effects of a specific action may be very numerous and diverse — dip, for example, may heat or cool, cleanse or pollute, wash or daub a subject : — follows it, then, that these are all specific words of the same significance, because the meanings or effects of one specific action ! But to return to his favorite louo, tvash. I think I can satisfy even himself, that as a meaning of baptizo, wash is so only as an effect of the ac- tion. Allow me to prepare the way by the statement of a philological law. In a logical definition, the term and its definition must be convertible^ To speak to every person's apprehension — the definition, when substi- tuted for the term expressed, must always make good sense. Philanthro- py is the love of man — the love of man is philanthropy — are converti- ble propositions. So are — man is a rational animal, and a rational ani- mal is a man. Louo and baptizo must be convertible terms, if the one fully defines the other. But is that the fact ? He may find baptizo re- presented by tvash in some of our dictionaries, but in not one of them DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 99 can he show wash represented by bapto or haplizo. I say no< one; a clear proof that the one is not the definition of the other. Take, how- ever, dip, immerse, and he will find baptizo representing them in every Greek and English dictionary, but never ivash and baptizo .' To those who comprehend it, this is an unanswerable refutation of the assumption that baptizo means to wash, or that Avash and baptizo are convertible terms. I wish my friend, Mr. Rice, would demonsti-ate a little more and assert a little less, and make an effort to sliow how immersing a person in mud could cleanse him; or how immersing a person in pure water could color him ; or how immersing one in sand could wet him. And yet immersion means washing, and washing means immersion. Credai Judseus Appella, non Ego. Yet in baptizing, Mr. R. neither washes nor immerses. I am told, however, I am not fully understood on the oft repeated and all-important distinction of generic and specific terms. I shall, therefore, once for all, more fully deliver myself on this essential difference — a point in this discussion of no ordinary importance. Tree, for example, is a generic term, because it comprehends under it many species of trees. We have the species oak, hiekoiy, ash, maple, &c., all included under the term tree. Animal is a genus, under which we have the species man, horse, sheep, dog, &c. Now a specific term includes but one class — and not two under it ; whereas a generic term may have two or three hundred species under it. To travel is a generic term ; because there are various ways of traveling ; such as walking, riding, sailing, &c. Now, the reason why specific terms can have but one meaning is apparent from the fact, that a second meaning would destroy the first. For exam- ple— if to walk means both to ride and walk, when told that a person was walking, how could we distinguish the action performed ? It is a common observation, that the genus includes the species, but the species does not include the genus. Thus, the word animal includes all manner of quadrupeds, but the word quadruped does not include all manner of animals. Washing is a generic term, under which sprinkling, pouring, dipping, may be specific terms. Not necessarily, but accident- ally they may be specific terms; for it depends upon what is sprinkled or poured upon, or what a thing is dipped into, whether or not it be washed. But suppose they are all three modes of washing, then they arc all specific words. And if the Lord chose any one of them in preference to the others, then that, and that only, will be agreeable to his will. Now that baptism is a specific action, and can be performed acceptably only in one way, methinks will appear very obvious to all candid persons on a little reflection. Jesus, our Savior, must have had all these three actions of sprinkling, pouring, and immersing in his mind before he or- dained any one of them. It is impossible to suppose, that of three, or even two, he would have no preference. No rational being can think of any two ways of effecting any object, without preferring the one to the other. Now, the Lord must have preferred one of these actions to the other, and havmg a specific object and intention, he had not only the will but the authority to demand and enforce it. Well, now it will, it must be conceded, that he chose one, and but one, out of two or three possible ways of accomplishing that end. Suppose, then, the object to have been washing, of which you may suppose there were three practicable ways. Of these, we are constrained to conclude that he preferred one; and that he would and could specify that one, no one can deny. Fol- 100 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. lows it not, then, that he has chosen and commanded one specific act to be performed in the most solemn manner? Whosoever, then, has not been a subject of that act, is, of course, unbaptized. I see no way of evading this. AVill my friend, Mr. Rice, show some way of escape from these conclusions ? He says that washing is a generic term ; then these three, sprinkling, pouring, and dipping are specific, himself being judge. If, then, dip is specific in English, it is so in Greek ; and if baptizo means dip, as all the world agrees, then follows it not that baptizo is a specific word, and has but one meaning? Had the Messiah, in giving the commission, said, " Travel into all nations and preach the gospel," then, this word being generic, his apostles could have obeyed the precept by walking, riding, sailing, or any other mode of traveling. But had he said, " Walk through all the world," &;c., he could not have been obeyed by riding. He, however, gave them specific directions what they should do in executing his will. He made three words pregnant with their whole du- ties as his functionaries. They were to disciple, baptize, and teach all nations. He gave then the two generic words mathetcuo and didasko, and the one most specific, because it required an outward, formal, and well defined action, by which they were to be publicly recognized and known as his followers. True faith and true obedience will always exact a lite- ral compliance with this divine institution. — \^Time expired. Thursday, Nov. 16 — 11 o'clock, A. M. [mr. rice's fourth reply.] Mr. President — I am happy to return the compliment of my worthy friend. I conclude that he has slept as soundly as myself. For I must acknowledge, I was somewhat disappointed in the display he made on yesterday. But I am happy to see him coming to the work this morning with so much energy. I desire to get into the heat of the battle — the warmer the better, provided we have the suaviter in modo, fortiter in re — soft words and hard arguments. He is certainly mistaken when he represents us as admitting that im- mersionists zxe in the right. We do admit the vo/iV/iV?/ of baptism by immersion; but we admit it, only because we do not believe the 7«o(/e of administering it essential to the ordinance. If he will convince me, that the mode is essential, I will promptly deny the validity of immersion. But when we, for such a reason, admit that baptism by immersion is valid, we certainly do not thereby acknowledge that it is performed in the right mode. On the contrary, we contend that the scriptural mode of admin- istering baptism is by pouring or sprinkling. The gentleman tells us, the question is, whether there are two bap- tisms; and he thinks it enough for him to prove that immersion is valid baptism. But if, as he maintains, the precise mode is essential to the or- dinance, he will find it difficult, if not impossible, to prove that immersion is baptism. Precisely on this point he will fail. He assumes the posi- tion, that the mode, or as he expresses it, the action is essential to the validity of the ordinance. This is one of tlie points he came here to prove. He tells us, the phrase mode of baptism is a perfect sophism — perfect gibberish; that it is as absurd as to talk of the mode of sprinkling. He takes for granted the precise point in debate, viz : that the word bap- tizo signifies simply and only to immerse. But that is to be proved; and it is precisely what he cannot prove. We are as much disposed as he. DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BArTISM. IQI and those who agree with him, to obey the command of our Savior to be baptized; but we differ from them as to the mode of applying the water. Now if, as the lexicographers declare, baptizo means to wash, to cleanse, and if the Savior used it in this sense, there is no absurdity in speaking of the mode of baptism. Are there not different modes of wash- ing? May I not wash my hands by pouring water on tiiem, or by dip- ping them into water? Let the gendeman first prove that the mode is es- sential to the ordinance, and lha\. baptizo means only to immerse, and then he may pronounce the mode of baptism a sophism, unmeaning " gib- berish." The gentleman passes over ray quotations from the classics, by saying they are irrelevant ; that bapto is not the word in debate. He has, from the commencement of this discussion, admitted that bapto and baptizo have the same meaning, so far as mode is concerned ; that these words express the same specific action. Now, when I prove by reference to the classics, that bapto is not a specific term — that it does not definitely signify to immerse ; he replies, that bapto is not the word in debate ! This assuming a position, and then retreating from it, strikes me as rather singular, particularly in so old a warrior! Really I was not prepared to expect this, I supposed that when he put his foot down, he would stand firmly. But when I prove that the dyeing of a garment, by dropping upon it a coloring fluid, is expressed by the word bapto ; and that the dyeing of the hair or heard, or the smearing of the face, is denoted by the same word; what is his reply? 0, says he, bapto is not the word in dis- pute— the references to the classics are all irrelevant !!! But he cannot so easily escape the difficulty; for both Dr. Gale and Carson, learned and zealous immersionists, maintain that, so far as mode is concerned, bapto and baptizo have precisely the same meaning. Mr. Carson says — " The learned Dr. Gale, in his Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, after giving a copious list of quotations, in which bapto and baptizo are used, says: "I think it is plain, from the instances already mentioned, that they are {isodunamai) exactly the same as to signification." "As far," says Carson, " as respects an in- crease or diminution of the action of the verb, I perfecfly agree with the writer. That the one is more or less than the other, as to mode or fre- quency, is a perfectly groundless conceit;" p. 12. Now, if these learn- ed immersionists are correct, when I prove that bapto is employed by the Greeks to express the dropping of a fluid upon a garment, I have also proved that baptizo, which has the same meaning, does not definitely signify to immerse. Dr. Gale contended, that in all cases in which bapto signifies to dye, it retains the idea of dyeing by dipping ; but Mr. Carson contradicts this position, and maintains, that it means to dye by sprinkling as literally as by dipping. Thus these learned immersionists, while they come to the same conclusion, cross each other's path in reaching it. Indeed, Carson charges Gale with giving up the question ! So far, however, as relates to an increase or diminution in the action of these words, they are perfectly agreed. They agree in affirming that these words express the same spe- cifi,c action. What, I ask, was the specific action in the dropping of a coloring fluid upon a garment? or in coloring the beard, or the hair? or in smearing the face with tawny washes ? Carson asserts, that bapto means literally to dye by sprinkling. Then why may it not mean to wet by sprinkling ? Where is the rule of language which teaches that a word i2 102 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. may express the sprinkling of a colored fluid, and yet be incapable of ex- pressing the sprinkling of a colorless fluid? But my friend (Mr. C.) was mistaken, when he told you, that in all my examples from the classics, bnpto and not baptizo was the word used. I adduced several examples of the use of baptizo where evidently it does not mean to immerse. I referred you to the case of the Roman general men- tioned by Plutarch, who, when dying of his wounds, baptized (baptisas) his hand in blood and wrote on a trophy. I read to you the direction of Hippocrates, that the blister-plaster should be baptized (baptizein) with l)reast-milk and Egyptian ointment; and I asked my friend (Mr. C.) whether he supposed, that the plaster was to he plunged into breast-milk and the ointment? Does not the word baptizo, in these cases, express a partial wetting or moistening? I produced an example from Aristotle, in which it is impossible that this word could express a specific action. And I proved, that Dr. Gale, one of the most learned and zealous immer- sionists, admitted that it does not, perhaps, so necessarily express the ac- tion of putting under water, as in general a thing's being in that stale, no matter how it comes so. But the action of putting under is the very thing my friend (Mr. Campbell) is laboring to prove by this word. Now, which of these Doctors shall we believe ? [y. laugh] No ! my friends, the classics do not sustain him. But what about the lexicons? They, it seems, are all wrong to-day; though yesterday my friend told you, they were the very highest author- ity ! And he mustered so many of them, that they appeared quite formi- dable enough to terrify a small man like myself. But I took up the very weapons with which he expected to overwhelm me, and turned them against him! I proved that the old lexicons, of whose authority he boasted, define the word baptizo by the generic terms lavo, abluo — to ■wash, to cleanse. Mr. Campbell replied, that they gave to wash, to cleanse, asjignrative meanings of the word. This allegation was imme- diately disproved. I proved to you, that the learned Bretschneider de- i\nes baptizo, " propr. sepius intingo, sepius lavo" — properly, often to dip, often to tvash ; and in the New Testament, first, "lavo, abluo sim- pliciter" — simply to wash, to cleanse. What reply does he make to these facts? Why, he abandons the lexicons, and says, they are wrong; and he abandons the word bapto. So far, so good ! We are making- encouraging progress. Two of the strongest positions are abandoned! My friend (Mr. C.) has told you, that no lexicographer has defined the word baptizo, to sprinkle. But some of them have defined bapto to, sprinkle, as we have seen; and I am prepared to prove, that some emi- nenfly learned men, who lived hundreds of years before the oldest lexi- cons extant were made, did tl}e same thing. They lived and wrote when the Greek was a living language, spoken all around them. Surely they had the means of ascertaining whether bapto was ever used by Greek writers and speakers in the sense of sprinkling. I am not much alarmed at the host of Pedo-baptists with whose conces- sions my friend (Mr. Campbell) threatens me. I know something of them. It ought to be known, that many Pedo-baptists have been, in their views, decided imn"iersionisls. A Pedo-baptist is one who believes in the baptism of infants. Yet in the minds of many persons the name of Pedo-baptist is inseparably associated with the idea of sprinkling; and the declarations of those Pedo-baptists who are decidedly favorable to immer- sion, are often paraded before the public as the concessions of the advo- DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 103 cates of pouring and sprinkling, which their candor or their regard for their reputation forced them to make ! But I will be with the gentleman when he brings up this formidable host. I have something to say con- cerning them. He tells us, that the lexicographers are all Pedo-baptists. I have not taken the trouble to inquire to what denomination they belonged, or whether they were all professors of religion. But if the fact be as he states it, I can account for it only on the supposition, that there has always been more learning amongst the Pedo-baptists, than amongst their oppo- nents. If it were otherwise, surely we should have had soiive one or two lexicons by immersionists. It strikes me, however, as very remarkable, that on a subject such as this, the unlearned should always have been in the right, and the learned always in error ! But it matters not to what denomination of christians the lexicographers may have been attached. They had a reputation to sustain ; and they risked it upon the correctness of their definitions. Public sentiment has sustained them ; and their lexi- cons have become standard works. Their reputation is established ; and no criticisms of my worthy friend can bring them down from the emi- nence on which an enlightened public have placed them. But I have not relied exclusively upon Pedo-baplist authorities. I have adduced, against my friend, (Mr. Campbell,) the authority of immer- sionists ; and I have shown you how immersionists, in discussing this subject, came into collision with each other. Mr. Campbell repeats the statement, that he was willing to have risked the decision of this controversy upon the English version of the Bible. Why did he not sooner make this proposition ? He first attempts to overwhelm us with the abundance of his Greek, and then gravely says to us, please now to confine yourself to the English version ! This is, indeed, a singular manoeuvre. I cannot believe, that the gentleman ex- pected me, after his appeal to Greek, to accede to his proposition. He thinks, Mr. Carson did not intend to admit, that all the lexico- graphers and commentators were against him in his views of the word baptizo. Carson's language is as follows : — "My position is, that it [baptizO~\ ALWAYS SIGNIFIES TO DIP ; NEVER EXPRESSING ANY THING BUT MODE. Now, OS / luive all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of the lexicons," p. 79. Yes — all the lex- icographers, ancient and modern, were against him ! I leave this intelli- gent audience to determine, whether it is not far more probable, that Mr. Carson, a man zealously laboring to establish a favorite tenet, is in error on this subject, than that all the lexicographers and commentators should have failed to learn the meaning of this word. My friend (Mr. C.) threatens to bring forward a very learned gentleman, who sustains Mr. Carson in his position. We will attend to him when he is brought up. We have heard the voice of distant thunder before. He asks, why did not our Savior use the word louo, which every body knew meant ?o wash? or nipto, which means to wash the hands, &c. ? I answer, the reasons are obvious. Loieo was a word in constant use in reference to ordinary washings. Baptizo had been long in use among the Jews to express their religious ivashings of all kinds. Our Savior found it thus employed, and therefore selected it to denote the ordinance of baptism. He did not use nipto, because the water was to be applied to the person. Baptism is not the washing of the hands or feet; it is the 104 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. consecration of the person to the service of God. But I am not con- cerned to answer such inquiries, though these reasons are abundantly sufficient. Let Mr. Campbell, if he can, disprove the facts I have estab- lished concerning the word baptize. Did I correctly understand the gentleman as saying, that the word lavo never expresses the washing of the ivhole body? [Mr. Camp- bell : No sir — I said nipto signifies a partial washing.] Oh, I have not the least use for nipto. [a laugh.] To prove that baptizo does not properly mean to wash, Mr. Camp- bell asserts, that the word louo, to ivash, is never defined by baptizo; and, therefore, they are not synonymous. The reason is perfectly obvi- ous. Baptizo means more than louo. It signifies to wash, (louo ;) but it has also other meanings. It is, of course, not allowable, in defining a word, to employ another word of more extensive meaning than the one to be defined. But, says Mr. C, baptizo cannot properly mean to wash; because it does not necessarily imply the use of water — it may be used with equal correctness with reference to any other fluid. But let it be remembered, that the question under discussion is not concerning the use of any par- ticular fluid, but concerning the mode of applying it. When the Roman general baptized his hand in his blood, and wrote on a trophy ; the hand or writing instrument was not immersed in blood, but only moistened or wetted with it. And, besides, Virgil uses the Latin lavo, which certainly does mean to ivash, to denote smearing with blood. Mr. Campbell thinks the Savior must have preferred some one mode of baptism. So I think ; and I am prepared to show what that mode was. I am not, however, disposed to enter upon the proof just now. I am, at present, clearing away the rubbish ; for a large amount of Greek rubbish has been thrown around this subject. When I shall have re- moved it, I shall be prepared to sprinkle ray friend in English [laughter.] I will give him a plain English argument, untrammeled with Greek words; and, I think, I can make it so plain, that all will understand it. Yet I do not admit the correctness of the logic by which he attempts to prove, that our Savior must have preferred some particular mode. For I have already proved, that in the Levitical law, (Num. xix. 19,) a washing is commanded, and no mode specified. If my friend had lived in the time of Moses, perhaps he would have proved that rahatz, the He- brew word used in this passage, meant to dip, though it is uniformly used in the general sense of washing. For he would have insisted, that the Lord must have preferred some one mode, and that mode must have been expressed by the word employed ! I have now answered the arguments of my friend as far as he has gone. Perhaps I may as well now produce some further evidence of the incorrectness of his exposition of the words bapto and baptizo. Be- foire I do this, however, allow me to refer to one or two authors to prove, that the classic Greek is an unsafe guide in expounding the Greek of the New Testament. I will read from Ernesti, as published with notes by Professor Stuart, p. 14:— " The question as to the idiom of the New Testament, turns on the use of such words and phrases as designate those objects that the Greeks are accustomed to designate ; and the question here must be whether such words in the New Testament are used in the same sense which the Greeks at- tach to them ; and whether phrases not only have the same syntax as that DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 105 of the classic Greek, but also the same sense as in the Greek authors : for this is essential to the purity of language," &c. "The question being thus stated and defined, we deny without hesitation, that the diction of the New Testament is pure Greek, and contend that it is modelled after the Hebi-ew,not only in single words, phrases, and fig- ures of speech ; but in the general texture of the language. This can be established by clear examples, more numerous than those who agree with us in opinion have supposed," &c. "It is no small argument for the Hebraistic style of the New Testa- ment, that many parts of it can be more easily translated into Hebrew, than into any otiier language; as Erasmus Schmidius confesses, though a strenuous defender of the classic purity of the New Testament. Nay, many parts of the New Testament can be explained in no other way than by means of the Hebrew. Moreover, in many passages there would arise an absurd and ridiculous meaning, if they should be interpreted according to a pure Greek idiom ; as appears from the examples produced by Wer- enfels," &;c. — Ernesti, pp. 56, 57. If this author is worthy of credit, they spoke an idiom of the Greek language different from that spoken by the pagan Greeks. Dr. George Campbell, whom my friend considers as a very learned critic, also con- firms the testimony of Ernesti. He says : "But, with the greatest justice it is denominated a peculiar idiom, being not only Hebrew and Chaldaic phrases put in Greek words, but even single Greek words used in senses in which they never occur in the writings of profane authors, and which can be learned only from the extent of signi- fication given to Hebrew or Chaldaic words corresponding to the Greek in its primitive and most oi'dinary sense." — Prelim. Dissert, vol. i. p. 32. "It is true, that as the New Testament is written in Greek, it must be of consequence that we be able to enter critically into the ordinary import of the words of that tongue, by being familiarized to the genius and char- acter of the people who spake it. But from what has been observed it is evident, that, though in several cases this knowledge may be eminently use- ful, it will not suthce ; nay, in many cases it will be of little or no sig- nificancy. Those words, in particular, which have been in most familiar use with the old interpreters, and have been current in the explanations given in the Hellenistical synagogues and schools, have, with their natura- lization among the Israelites, acquired in the Jewish uses, if I may be allowed the expression, " an infusion of the national spirit." "Classical use, both in the Greek and in the Latin, is not only in this study sometimes unavailable, but may even mislead. The sacred use and the classical are often very different." Ibid. pp. 57, 58. Prof. Stuart, also, agrees with Ernesti and Campbell. If, then, the Jews and inspired writers did not speak and write classic Greek ; if they used words in a sense not found in any classic author; how can it be certain, that they attached to the word bciptizo the same mean- ing it had among the pagan Greeks ? Are we to be told, that it is certain, that words, used by two diflerent nations, speaking different idioms of the same language, of different manners, habits, customs, and religion, have precisely the same meaning! The Greeks, it is admitted, never used the word baplizo in a religious sense: the Jews never used it in any other than a religious sense. The only way satisfactorily to determine the meaning of the word, is to examine into its use amongst the Jews, as applied to their religious washings, and by the inspired writers, previous to the time and at the time our Savior appropriated it to the ordinance of baptism. I am prepared to come to " the Book,''^ and to prove clearly, as I think, that there is not an instance from Genesis to Revelation, in which haptizo can be proved to mean to immerse. — [Time expired. 106 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Thursday, Nov. 16 — 111 o'clock, A. M. [mr. Campbell's fifth address.] Mr. President — As we are in quest of more light on this great sub- ject, and as an increase of light is desirable not only for ourselves but also for others, we sincerely wish Mr. Rice all possible success in his endeavors to acquire and communicate it ; and certainly he will afford us new light, when he proves his last assumption, that baptizo never means to immerse in all the Bible. In this attempt, he will have to conflict not only with us and all Bap- tists, but with the most enlightened and distinguished men of his own denomination, and of all the Pedo-baptist world. True, like Mr. Stuart, whom I have allegorically called my American apostle, and to whom I take pleasure in giving rank and honor, though I swear to the words of no master, and, like Calvin, also, while admitting both the true meaning of the word, and the antiquity, and generality, if not universality of the practice, they considering mode, as they call it, a thing of no consequence, said as much as they could in favor of sprinkling, but have never presumed to say that baptizo did not signify immerse in all the Bible. That Mr. Stuart sometimes errs — that he has been guilty of oversights and omis- sions, and that especially in his article on baptism, I, in common with others, have noted and recorded. But neither he nor any reputable wri- ter has ever gone this far. Mr. Rice seems not to appreciate nor comprehend the ground on which I stand, both as respects the lexicons and the difference between bapto and baptizo. He would represent me as retreating from the positions which I assumed on yesterday. Is this candid ? Does any gentleman pres- ent understand me as taking back a single word or position assumed or uttered on the whole premises before us ? I sincerely think, not one. Nor does Mr. Rice really believe it. Does not the gentleman distinguish between accepting a witness as evidence and authority in a question of fact, without endorsing for all his views and opinions. Why should I, sir, object to the lexicons? They are all with me in asserting the true' and proper meaning of the words bapto and baptizo. Not one of them asserts that to wash, to cleanse, is either a proper or a primitive mean- ing of these words. Perceiving, however, as I thought, that the gentle- man was seeking to impair the testimony of the classics by aggrandizing that of the lexicons, I desire to give to both, as two separate classes of witnesses, their proper weight and authority. I adopted the lexicons as my first class of witnesses because, indeed, they are supposed to be the exponents of the meaning of the classics. I did not, as Mr. Rice says, represent them " as the highest authority," No sir. In my first speech I held them subject to the classics ! I regard the authors of classic literature as second in order of interrogation, but as first in point of authority. They are both ivith me. In other words^ I assert what they both depose. I say the dictionaries are sometimes wrong, and that I can prove. So say all philologists and critics of emi- nence. The lexicons frequently contradict each other on various points. I therefore, in common with all philologists, constitute the classics the supreme court of appeal. But I have also retracted my position on bapto ! Does the gentleman intend to annoy me, and retard my progress ? I suspect it. What have I retracted ? Have I said that it is not the root of baptizo ? that it does not signify to dip ? that it is not a specific word ? that it has more proper DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 107 meanings than one ? or that wherever we find hap, there we shall find dip? No sir. If I had, I should be desirous to hear by what force, argument, or evidence I did so ! Does the gentleman assume that he has compelled me ? I am glad that in my work on baptism, now partly printed, though not yet published, I have fully expressed the very sentiments delivered here. I will frequendy cite from it in the discussion. It will protect me from such imputations, as well as save time and protracted discussion. To express myself fully and once for all on these words, I repeat, that bapto, metonymically, means to dye — baptizo, never. This is the differ- ence asserted in my first speech. The reason for this difference, as it appears to me, I have given. It is expressed in the form of the two words — the former indicates such an immersion as, from its continuance under water or any fluid, may give color; the latter indicates rapidity of action, and, therefore, produces not the elTect of dyeing. This is my own criticism, be it ^rwe or y«/se. I will hereafter give specifications. But nothing depends upon it here. The classics never give dye or color to baptizo. The dictionaries sometimes do. Again, bapto is never used in any case connected with christian baptism ! There is some reason for this. There is then a difterence of some sort between the words— and this difference occasions a considerable variety of figurative use. Hence all figures of color came from bapto ; generally those of cleansing from baptizo. But, sir, I do differ from Mr. Carson in some of his remarks on bapto. With him, and Dr. Gale, and with me also, it is a specific word — and as such, with me and Dr. Gale, it can have but one proper meaning. I trust my friend, Mr. R., will not again cause me to consume so much of my time in replying to assertions made by him without any authority whatever. I will not soon again reply to any such unfair imputations — a simple denial is all the honor I shall confer on them. As to Gale and Carson crossing each other's path, I think the sequel will show that they are not the only eminent men in the world that have crossed each other's path, and sometimes their own. This is a common sin amongst the most eminent Pedo-baptists. It comes with an exceed- ingly ill grace, from Mr. Rice, to accuse Baptists of this sin, in arriving at diverse conclusions, sometimes from the same, and sometimes from dif- ferent premises. There are not two respectable writers on infant bap- tism, or affusion, that agree either in the topics of debate, of argument, or in the mode of reasoning from them. I am acquainted, more or less, per- haps, with some fifty writers on infant sprinkling, and at present I do not know any two of them that agree more fully than Drs. Gale and Car- son. And notwithstanding the hundreds of tracts, and the scores of vol- umes, and the countless hosts of pleaders for infant rantism, or baptism, that have Avritten on the subject, every new year gives us a new book on the subject. Taylor's new work, a part of which I thoroughly refuted in my McCalla debate, just came to my hand a few days ago, fresh from the New York press — a new work and a new tract unoccupied by any previous writer. It is indeed a whimsical affair, and looks as if the cause, 01 the author, was in a state of dotage. But Mr, Rice, with dauntless boldness, reasserts that baptizo is not a specific word, that it is even more general than louo, an assertion never before made, and quotes the classics to prove that it does even signify to dip, among them ! ! He adduces examples, the strongest of which, in appearance, is Plutarch's Roman general, who, when dying of his 108 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. wounds, dipped his hand or finger in his blood and wrote on a trophy, &c., and something, I know not what, from Hippocrates. If then I dispose of this, the strongest case in appearance, I may be presumed to have an- swered all the subalterns. I will then take the general's casC' — and in it, despatch them all. I shall dispose of them by one canon of criticism, a principle universally conceded by all critics — viz : certain words of cur- rent and accommodated use, are often employed without their regimen — (i. e. the word they govern;) in all such cases the whole object on which they terminate is understood; when any special object is denoted, it is expressed : for example — we say a person bathed, without adding the word, himself ; but if it is not taken in its whole objective sense, the limitation is defined: for example, he bathed his feet, his head, &e. Every one comprehends this. So in the case cited. The general dipped, not himself, but his hand or finger in blood, and wrote, &c. Can the gentleman have forgotten this ! He is refuting himself in saying that baptizo is not specific. He has said that dip is a specific word, and he admits that baptizo is its Greek representative. Why then make the same action specific in one language and general in another ! But to make an end of all his special pleading — for various and numer- ous meanings and acceptations of words — I shall at once summon a few umpires, judges of the highest legal, literary, and theological eminence, and leave them in the hands of my opponent and this community. I have only to shew that baptizo, generally, not universally, means to dip, according to them, to gain my cause before this tribunal. "It is with the proper and unfigurative, and not with the fanciful and rhetorical meaning of words, we have to do in all positive institutions. Sir William Blackstone has truly said, (and who is higher authority than he'!) — ' The words of a law are generally to be understood in their usual and MOST KNOWN SIGNIFICATION ; Hot SO much regarding the propriety of gram- mar, as their general and popular use ; but when words bear either none or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little devi- ate from the received sense of them.'* Bishop Taylor has also well said, ' In all things where the precept is given in the proper style of laws, he that takes the first sense is the likeliest to be well guided. In the inter- pretation of the laws of Christ the strict sense is to be followed.' Dr. Jonathan Edwards, the greatest of American Presbyterian thelogians, has truly said, ' In words capable of two senses, the natural and proper is the primary ; and therefore ought, in the first place, and chiefly to be re- garded.' A greater still, Vitringa, has said, ' This is accounted by all a constant and undoubted rule of approved interpretation, that the ordinary and most usual signification of words must not be deserted except for sufficient rea- sons.' To similar effect declare Sherlock, Waterland, Owen, and Dr. Gum- ming, as quoted in Booth's Defence of his Pedo-baptism Examined, vol. iii., London, 1792, pp. 253—256. Before dismissing this subject we must yet hear Turretine, the systema- tic standard theologian of the orthodox schools of Presbyterianism. He has stood on my shelf for more than thirty years. His words fairly translated are, ' It is acknowledged by all that we should never depart from the pro- per and native signification of words, except for the weightiest and most urgent reasons. 'f We shall conclude with Dr. Benson, another favorite : — * What can be more absurd than to imagine that the doctrines or rules of practice which relate to men's everlasting salvation, should be delivered in * Com. vol. i. sect. 2. f De Satisfactione Cbristi, part ], sect 23. DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 109 such ambiguous terms as to be capable of many meanings.' Well does the English Pirie say, ' Law requires words and phrases of the most ascer- tained and unequivocal sense.' If seven such names as here given are not valid authority on the proper interpretation of laws and positive institutions, to whom shall we hearken 1 Their testimony being admitted, and the plain and unanimous testimony of the lexicographical jury above given, on the proper, current, and popular use and meaning of baptizo, can any one show reason why we should not, a second time, regard my first proposition as fully proved 1 All the dictiona- ries give dip or immersf as the proper, common, and current use of baptizo, and all our quotations from numerous classic authors, as well as the canonical Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament, sustain them in so do- ing. And that the proper, common, and current use of words is to be always preferred and adopted in the interpretation of laws and ordinances, is attested by a host of witnesses of the highest authority, and sustained by Home and Ernesti in their canons of interpretation. I repeat — must we not then conclude that immersion, and immersion only, is christian baptism, according to the rnind and will of our Lawgiver and Judge?" Before stating my fourth argument, I must anticipate, that as Mr. R. has not yet given any special preference to any '■'■mode of baptism," im- mersion with him being valid only because water is applied, it is pre- sumed sprinkling and pouring may be valid for the same reason. Still as wash is generic, yet included in dip, {baptizo being with him generic, and louo specific ! !) we are not certain, in his particular case, which he may choose. We think it likely he will go for the Illinois, (Dr. Beecher's) theory of purification. He, benevolent man, makes us all right, Bap- tists, Presbyterians, &;c. though we seem ungrateful to him, and contend that there cannot be two right ways of obeying a positive command. I will request, then, Mr. Rice to shew how the precept of Christ is to be obeyed — if he meant and said wash the nations into the name — purify them into the name of the Father, &;c. I opine such a precept could not be obeyed without a special form accompanying. Again, as there are but three kinds of uncleanness, from which anyone can be purified — physical, legal, moral — b)-^ what symbolic or figurative term, shall purification from these be properly indicated ? Did any one ever wash away physical impurity by sprinkling or merely wetting the unclean part? Has legal or ceremonial uncleanness ever been removed in this way? Never, I say again, never. Since time began its career, no Divine Lawgiver, Jewish or Christian, ever commanded any priest, Levite, or minister to cleanse, wash, or purify any one from any sort of impurity by pouring or sprinkling ivater upon him I From which fact I yet intend to deduce an argument, in this discussion, and therefore wish Mr. R. to be prepared for it by opposing facts and documents. It may, indeed, be the first time this fact has been publicly announced in discus- sion; therefore I desire to have it thoroughly tested. If true, I need not say that it alone nullifies the logic of all the sprinklers, pourers, and wel- ters of faces in Christendom. I am now prepared to state my fourth argument. My second argument, deduced from all authoritative lexicons down to the present century, is, that they all, without one single exception, give dip, immerse, sink or plunge, synonymously expressive of the true, proper, and primary signification of baptizo ; not one of them giving sprinkle or pour as a meaning of it or any of its family. My third argument has been drawn from the classic use of the word. They sustain the lexicons except in one point. They never give to K 110 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. baptizo the sense of dyeing, &c. They never use it either to represent the actions of sprinkling or pouring. Every attempt to make out, by construction, a single instance of this sort, has been a total failure. IV. Argument. My fourth argument is deduced from the ancient, and especially from the modern versions of the New Testament. Before stating it, I must premise a few words — Mr. Rice alledges a difference between sacred and classic use, to which I have paid litde attention. Under this argument it is fully met and refuted by the highest authority. In some instances there is a difference in idiom, in particular phrases, and words. But such differences never occur in words indicating common physical actions. There may be many good reasons why the words flesh, faith, laiv, &c., should differ in Jewish and Gentile style ; but none why to walk, to eat, to drink, to dip, to jjour, to sprinkle, &c., should differ. I accord with all that you have heard from Ernesti and Campbell — Campbell's version, and all the versions made by the canons of Home. Ernesti and Campbell thoroughly refute the imputation, that any one of them ever regarded baptizo as a word of private interpretation. These translators well understood all these matters ; therefore their prac- tice is worth many a splendid controversial theory. I have studied the difference between sacred and classic usage, under these great masters, and I can solemnly say, that in the words at issue here, the difference between them is just nothing at all; save that baptisma, in the sacred Scriptures, always represents immersion into the Lord. We are making a book for the illumination of a portion of the com- munity ; and, consequendy, what I say here, is said very solemnly and publicly, and under the conviction of all my responsibility. I affirm, that so far as the ancient versions are understood by me, through the medium of learned controversy on the question, and so far as I have had time and leisure to examine the moderns, especially those in our mother tongue, they all agree on this general predicate. None of them has ever translated baptizo by the word sprinkle, pour, or purify. We have here a critical exhibit of some fifty of them on this very word; and, if we may believe the greatest masters in these ancient languages and criticisms, they have generally selected a word that intimates immersion ; or, if they have not, they certainly either have adopted the Greek or Latin names, or never used a word intimating the idea of sprinkling or pouring. Of these the oldest is the Peshito Syriac version, supposed to have been completed early in the second century, if not at the close of the first. Dr. Henderson, a learned Pedo-baptist, gives it as his opinion, that when the Lord gave the commission to baptize, being himself a Syro-Chaldaeic, he used the word amad. But we shall first give an exhibit of them all. VERSION. DATE. WORD EMPLOYED. MEANING. SYRIAC : Peshito, 2d cent. amad. immerse. Philoxenian, 6th cent. amad. immerse. ARABIC : Polyglott, 7th cent. amada 47 times. immerse. Propaganda, 1H71 amada immerse. Sabat, 1816 amada. immerse. PERSIC ; 8th cent. shustan 6/- shuyidan. wash. ETHIOPIC : 4th cent. shuslan. immerse. Amharic, 1822 shustan. immerse. EGYPTIAN. Coptic, 3d cent. tamaka. 3 immerse ( plunge. DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Ill VERSION. BATE. iVORD EMPLOYED. HBANING. Sahidic, Basmuric, 2d cent. j 3d cent. J baptizo. immerse. ARMENIAN : 5th cent. mogridil. immerse. SLAVONIC: 9th cent. krestiti. cross * Russian, 1519 Polish, 1585 Bohemian, Lithuanian, 1593 1660 same root. (C Livonian or Lettish, 1685 Dorpat Esthonian, &;c. &c. 1727 GOTHIC : 4th cent. daupjan. dip. German, 1522 taufen, dip. Danish, 1524 dobe. dip. Sweedish, 1534 dopa. dip. Dutch, «Scc. &c. 1560 doopen. dip. Icelandic, 1584 skira. cleanse. ANGLO-SAXON : 8th cent. dyppan ,fu Ihan, \ dip, ( cleanse. LATIN : Of the early Fathers, 8th cent. tingo. immerse Ante-Hieronymian, 3d cent. baptizo. Vulgate, 4th cent. baptizo. French, 1535 bapiiser. Spanish, 1556 baptizar. Italian, &c. ^c. 1562 bapttezzare. English: Wicklif, 1380 wash, christen, baptize , Tindal, 1526 baptize. Welsh, 1567 bedyddio. bathe. Irish, 1602 baisdim. Gaelic, 1650 baisdeam. Here, then, we have sixteen ancient versions, six of them in the 2d and 3d centuries, and ten of them completed before the close of the 9th, indica- tive of immersion — one, from the sign made in baptism by the Romanists, is rendered cross. From the 9th century we have twenty more, all indica- tive of the same fact. In all these we have thirty-six foreign, and many of them ancient versions, in proof of our first proposition. In all these it is not once rendered by the word sprinkle or pour. The investigation of Mr. Gotch goes to show, moreover, that the notion of either transferring the original word into translations, or of manufacturing new words, has no countenance from these thirty-six ancient and modern versions. He very justly observes : "Our investigation, then, shows. that it has not been the practice of translators, until in quite recent times, to adopt the plan of 'transference' in respect to the word baptizo. The word has been translated, in most instances, by a term strictly native; or where the term has been derived from the Greek, it appears to have become naturalized in the respective languages before the translation was made. There is no instance, until of late years, in which it can be shown that the translators made the word ; and it well deserves the consideration of all who are engaged in translating, or disseminating translations of the word of God, how far such a plan is justifiable. " It may, indeed, be said, that though the word baptizo has not been thus transferred, other words have ; and that thereby the principle of transfer- ence is countenanced by former translators. It is certain that such words as proper names, and designations of things which are not known, and * The Slavonians have adopted the word Cross, to designate the ordinance of bap- tism, from the fact, that whenever they receive baptism they always cross themselves, dec 112 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. therefore have no word by which they can be expressed, must be so ren- dered : but what proof is there of translators, in general, carrying transfer- ence further than this! Let it be remembered, that the Greek language was closely united to the Latin, to which the appeal has been frequently made ; and that on this account Greek words were continually naturalized in it. Such words we may expect to meet with ; but to prove that transla- tors transferred words in the modern sense of the term, it must be shown that words, the meaning of which might have been expressed in the language, were given, not only by terms derived from the Greek, but without meaning — being made for the occasion, and purposely left without definition. It will not surely be said that the word baptizo has no meaning — that a command involving, as most christians believe, a thing to be done by or for every disciple, yet conveys no definite idea of what is to be done. We are not now inquiring what that meaning is; every one who attempts to translate the word of God, is bound to judge for himself on that point. Let him so judge, and give the result of his judgment." To all which we cheerfully assent. Now, inasmuch as some branch of this family of words occurs one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament, is it not an over- whelming argument against sprinkling and pouring, that in no one in- stance any of these thirty-six versions should ever have translated any one of them by the words sprinkle or pour, if that was at all the sense of the original? — [Thne expired. Thursday, Nov. 16 — 12 o^clock. [mr. rice's fifth reply.] Mr. President — My worthy friend seems disposed to keep us in terror of that host of Pedo-baptists, whose concessions he threatens to bring forward. I know them, and, therefore, am not at all alarmed. When he produces them they will be attended to. In the meantime I feel quite at ease. If he can find any two of them who sustain the doc- trine for which he is contending, I will acknowledge that I had not heard of them. But I pledge myself to give him the concessions of immersion- ists in return — of Greek immersionists, who well understood the language.^ The gentleman says, he has not taken back one single assertion he has made. This I am not so well able to understand. In the early part of this discussion he told us, that specific words, retaining the leading sylla- ble, never lose their original meaning; that whenever you find bap, (as inbapto,) you find the action of dipping. I produced several examples from the classics, in which bapto is used, where, in the nature of the case, there could be no dipping. What was his reply? These examples he said, were irrelevant, because bapto is not the word in debate. This appeared to me very much like giving up the argument from bapto. Yet he says he has not changed his ground. He, at first, informed us, that the lexicons were the highest authority by which the meaning of the words in controversy could be determined ; and now he is going to prove that they are all wrong ! Well, if he should prove that all the lexicographers have erred, he will do a great work ! I still believe they have defined the words correotly ; and I have proved, not only by the modern lexicons, but by the most ancient, of whose au- thority my friend spoke so highly, ihzt baptizo signifies to wash, cleanse, as well as to sink, plunge, &c. But if Mr. C. has not given up the argument from the word bapto, why has he not attempted to reply to the argument against his position, founded on several quotations from the classics? " When the coloring fluid drops upon the garments, [baptelai) they are dyed." Here is the bap, but DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 113 where is the dip? Will my friend say, when the fluid drops upon the garments, they are immersed? Where was the immersion when the In- dians dyed their beards ? Mr. Campbell thinks the termination zo, in the word baptizo, expresses the rapidity of the action; and he supposes that the Savior selected this word, in preference to bapto, for that particular reason ; that bapto may signify sinking to the bottom, and hence baptizo, expressing the idea of raising out of the water, was preferred. But Carson admits, that bap- tizo does not express the raising of the thing immersed out of the water. "The word" says he, "has no reference to what follows the immersion; and whether the thing immersed lies at the bottom, or is taken up, cannot be learned from the word, but from the connection and circumstances," p. 91. That it is constantly used by the classics in the sense of sinking to the bottom, I am prepared to prove. I will give a few examples : Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of animals in water, says : " When the water overflows, many of the land animals, [baptizomena) sunk in the river, perish." Strabo, speaking of the lake near Agrigentum, says : " Things which otherwise will not swim, do not sink [baptizesthai) in the water of the lake, but float like wood." Again, speaking of the lake Sirbon, he says : *' If a man goes into it, he cannot sink [baptizesthai,) but is forcibly kept above." I might quote many other examples, but really I deem it unneces- sary. Josephus, who sought to imitate the classic Greek, uses the word repeatedly to signify the sinking of ships, the drowning of persons, &c. It is, then, certain that baptizo is constantly used by the classics in the sense of sinking — that this, in the examples supposed to favor im- mersion, is its common meaning. It is not true, therefore, that the Sa- vior selected this word, because it expressed putting in and taking out of the water quickly ; for it does not at all express the action of raising out of the water. Yet this is as essential to baptism by immersion as the putting under — the latter being supposed to represent the burial of Christ, and the former, his resurrection. The gentleman tells us, that according to an established rule of lan- guage, the definition, if substituted for the word defined, will make good sense. Let us apply this rule, substituting the wor hich deny it. Scapula, one of the gentleman's favorite authorities, gives os the first meaning of eis, ad, to. Bretschneider, whom lie admits to b ■ one of the most critical lexicographers, gives to [ad) as its first and U iding meaning; and Stuart agrees with him. Bullman, whose large tireek grammar is a standard work, gives its leading signification, to, into. Other authorities will be produced, if necessary. 1 will even mal.i the genUeman himself my witness. In his translation of the New Teslunent he has, in very many instances, translated it to, not into. In a niiinber of places where, in the common version, it is translated into, he renders it to. I will, if he desire it, refer to the passages. The rule observed by the Greeks in relation to the preposition fis, is this : when they wished by force of the luords definitely to express the idea of going into, they prefixed the preposition to the verb, as eiserchomai eis, or embaino eis. If Mr. C. will tell us, how many times the prepo' sitions eis and en precede the verb, where in our version eis is translated into; we will venture to compare numbers with him. In some cases, the connection shows that it means into; in other cases, that it means simply to. But, for the sake of argument, I will admit, though it cannot be proved, that Philip and the eunuch went literally into the water. The question then arises, what did Philip do after they got in? Did he immerse the eunuch? My friend says, yes; but where is the evidence? He in- fers, that the eunuch was immersed, from the fact of their going into the water. The inference, however, is not certainly legitimate ; for he might have gone into water and had it poured on him. Besides, there are strong reasons for believing, that he was not immersed. The place was" desert; and it is not at all probable, that they found sufficient water there for an immersion. Moreover, it is not probable, either that tiie eu- nuch undressed in the public road ; or that he traveled on with his gar- ments perfecdy wet. The same remarks may be made concerning the people baptized by John. Did the multitudes, male and female, continue dressed in their dripping garments ? Regard to health and to decency would forbid it. Yet we read nothing of clianges of raiment, or of accom- modations for changing, even if they had with them other garments. But at a later day, when immersion prevailed, we find baptisteries, napkins, towels, changes of garments, &c. Since, however, we read of no such things in the days of John, or of the apostles, we conclude they did not practice immersion. But let me again turn to Bloomfield, whom my friend quoted as in favor of immersion. Commenting on Acts viii. 38 he says : " Ebaplizen auton (he baptized him) — no doubt, with the use of the pro- per form ; but whether by immersion or by sprinkling is not clear. Dodd- ridge maintains the former ; but Lardner ap Newc. the /a«er view ; and 1 conceive, more rightly. On both having descended into the water, Philip seems to have taken up water with his hands, and poured it copiously on the eunuc/is head." Bloomfield was with my friend yesterday ; but he seems to have been eonverted, for he is with us to-day. My friend has referred to but one DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. I93 example of christian baptism, which seems to favor immersion ; and this will not sustain him. John, it is true, was baptizing in Enon near Salim, because there was much water there. But did he want much water to baptize in ; or did he want it for other purposes? As I have already stated, multitudes of the Jews who resorted to him, remained together several days at a time. They must observe their daily ablutions. For these and for ordinary purposes they needed much water ; but it cannot be proved that John wanted the water for the purpose of baptizing. The expression, ^^ much water,'''' moreover, literally translated, is many waters (pclla hudata.) I will read the remarks of Prof. Stuart on this expression. After narrating the facts, he remarks : "Now .John was baptizing in (or at) Enon, near Salim, hoti hudata polla en ekei, for there was MUCH WATER there ; or (more literally,) there were MANY WATERS there. The question is whether John baptized at Enon, near Salim, because the waters there were abundant and deep, so as to afford convenient means of immersion, or whether the writer meant merely to say, that John made choice of Enon, because there was an abun- dant supply of water there for the accommodation of those who visited him for the sake of being^baptized, and hearing the powerful addresses he made to the Jews. The former statement makes the much waters, or many waters necessary, or at least convenient and desirable, for the purposes of the bap- tismal rite ; the latter, for supplying the wants of the multitudes who attend- ed the preaching of .Tohn. It has always seemed to me a very singular mode of expression, if the sacred writer meant to designate the former idea, to say fioti hudata polla en ekei. Why not say, because the water was deep or abundant simply ] A single brook of very small capacity, but a living stream, might, with scooping out a small place in the sand, answer most abundantly all the purposes of baptism, in case it were performed by immer- sion, and answer them just as well as many waters could do. But, on the other hand, a single brook would not suffice for the accommodation of the great multitudes who flocked to John. The sacred writer tells us that "there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region of Jordan," Matt. iii. 5; and that they were baptized by him. Of course, there must have been a great multitude of people. Nothing could be more natural than for John to choose a place that was watered by many streams, where all could be accommodated. " The circumstances of the case, then, would seem to favor the interpre- tation which refers the mention of the many waters to the wants of the peo- ple who flocked to hear John." — Stuart on the Mode of Baptism, pp. 37, 38. He gives from the Old Testament an example of the use of polla hudata to signify many springs or streams of water. When the country was invaded, and Jerusalem was likely to be besieged, it is said — " So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, why should the king of Assyria come, and find much water ? " [polla hudata.) 2 Chron. xxii. 4. Here evidently the expression means many fountains or email streams, not deep water. But my friend, Mr. C, infers, that John immersed, because he went where there was much water. Is this inference legitimate ? Is there any certainty that he wanted much water for the purpose of baptizing? I think it is by no means certain, and, when all the circumstances are considered, by no means probable. I have now, I think, without having had the opportunity to lurite a speech, met the arguments of the gentleman, and showed their weakness. I have wished, and the audience, I think, have desired to see him enter 13 R 194 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. the Bible. I am gratified to see, that there is some prospect of his doing so. I design, to-day, making an argument directly in favor of pouring and sprinkling. I should have done so on yesterday, but my friend was too far behind. I have met and answered his arguments, and kept ahead of him ; and, unless he shall hereafter travel faster, I apprehend that he will remain quite in the rear. — [Time expired. Saturday, Nov. 18—11 o'clock, A.M. [mr. Campbell's thirteenth address.] Mr. President — Were I to touch on so many topics, and have them so singularly assorted as those which you have just now heard from Mr. Rice, in one short speech, I should expect to make but little progress through the day. My reading, it seems, is a great annoyance to my friend. The more concentrated arguments, exhibited in that form, re- quire a more special attention than, as yet, he has bestowed on any thing I have advanced ; for, indeed, the gentleman asserts much more than rea- sons, and affirms more than he proves. His gifts are rather of that order. I have no preference for reading, as all who know me, I presume, will admit. But I cannot, at present, indicate my course farther than to say, that one great reason of my presenting some of these arguments in this form is, that they abound in criticisms and matters somewhat minute, re- quiring great accuracy, and which no stenographer in Christendom could rationally be expected to report accurately. To take down so many foreign words, pronounced so rapidly, and to place them in their proper order, in such a disquisition, is, I think, impossible. For this reason, I prefer to read a few items of critical analysis. I am neither to be allured nor driven from my course, to suit the convenience of my worthy friend. He knows full well how his desultory and incoherent mode of speaking will appear in print, especially upon subjects demanding a close and neat analytic and sometimes synthetic arrangement. He had better, however, attend to the argument, and he shall have speaking to satiety, in proper time and place. I am one of those who can afford to read ; I fear he cannot. I do not fully comprehend some of his allusions to myself, or my method, or both; especially his remark that I " have imposed myself upon you by my reading." I do not comprehend this. He is certainly doing himself great injustice, if, indeed, he have anything better to offer, especially in the reckless and unauthorized assertions which he has made ; provided, only, that there be either philosophy or good sense in the fol- lowing remarks, whicli I will read for his especial benefit, from that eminent Presbyterian doctor and critic. Dr. George Campbell : " I have heard a disputant, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament, baptizo, means more proper- ly to sprinkle than to plunge ; and, in defiance of all antiquity, that the former was the earliest, and — the most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner, never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend: and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold as- sertions generally succeed as well as argument, and sometimes better; yet, a candid mind will always disdain to take the help of falsehood, even in the support of truth." So speaks Dr. Campbell. How pertinent these remarks are to the whole case before us, mothinks requires neither note nor comment. I must, it seems, again refer to the word specific. It is not at all incom- patible with the special character of an action, that it must be always DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 195 performed in the same way. That there are various ways of reading, militates not with the iact that reading is a specific action. The pro- nunciation, tone, time, cadence, &c., may vary ; still, reading is neither singing, nor speaking, nor writing. So of dipping, sprinkling, pouring. These actions may all be performed different ways : still, they retain their peculiar and incommunicable difference. No one with whom it has been my good fortune to discuss any question, appears to have made more pro- ficiency in the art of making, perhaps sometimes inadvertently, false issues. I am now, according to him, proving that baptizo is only used in one acceptation — that it is not used figuratively. I am not affirming nor proving that baptizo never means anything but dip, in any accepta- tion of usage. It has this only as its literal, natural, original, and proper meaning ; and never means any thing, even figuratively or in a secondary sense, incompatible with this sense. All our most learned lexicographers say this. With Mr. Anthon, they say, if it ever have any other sense than dip, it is one analagous to, or compatible with this, its proper and perpetual meaning. Even "wash and cleanse" are noted as its figura- tive meaning in some of our best lexicons. Have I not said that any specific action may yield a thousand results ? Has the gentleman forgot- ten the instances given in reference to the word kill? Mr. R. either forgets or misquotes the lexicons. He says some of them give wash and cleanse as the proper or literal meaning of baptizo. Now I have frequently controverted this, and shown that some of them positively declare that it is a figurative meaning. Schleusner represents washing as the effect of dipping ; and Bretschneider does not say that " it simply means to wash, to cleanse," in the New Testament — that is a particular case. No dictionary has ever said, what I have sometimes heard from my friend, that it signifies " to wash in any mode." Have I not read from Beza and others, that it so signifies only by consequence? Such, indeed, is the definition of the distinguished Schleusner, in his lexicon. His words are, jam, quia hand raro aliquid immergo ac intingi in aquam solet ut lavetur. Because it frequently occurs that a thing is to be immersed or dipped into water that it may be washed. I therefore speak in harmony with all the dictionaries, when I say that cleansing, washing, &;c., is the effect of the action baptism, and not the act itself. He would, in his paradoxical mood, this morning, have it, also, that he had quoted Baptist authority against me ! If, indeed, he had, what then ? They are not infallible ! But who are they? Dr. Carson, and who else? There is no discrepancy between Messrs. Gale, Carson, or any other Baptist, and myself, on the action of baptism. They all subscribe, exari- imo, to the proposition I am sustaining. They all affirm the solemn con- viction, that immersion is the only christian baptism. They have no more faith in sprinkling, or pouring, or wetting the face, than they have in the salt, and spittle, and sign of the cross, formerly attached to the cer- emony? They all say thai baptizo means dip, immerse, and that only in its true, and proper, and christian, and Jewish, and classic acceptation. We are all of one heart and soul on this proposition. Messrs. Gale, and Carson, and myself may differ on some critical matters. I certainly dis- sent in some matters of that sort. But these do not, in the least, afl'ect the issue here, any more than an Indian mound affects the sphericity of the earth. Better, too, that Mr. R. had quoted Baptist writers against me, than that I had quoted them in my favor. 196 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, Mr. Rice spends his strength on matters as frivolous as the Apocryphal cases of Judith and Sirach — as ivhen the former immersed herself; and how an unclean person was cleansed from contact with the dead ! mat- ters as intelligible as the laws of purification, so often explained, as if his inability to find the precise place where Judith went into the water, must change the meaning of the word ! ! These matters have been disposed of a thousand times ! " Mr. Carson says the dictionaries are all wrong," and proves, by the classics, that they are so in his view of the secondary meaning of this word. He also will extend the meaning of bapto without the interposi- tion a of metonymy. I differ from him in this particular. But that avails not one atom in the great conclusion to which we have come. I agree with him, that we have just as good right to judge the dictionaries by the classics, as the makers of them had to judge the classics. With regard to the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the Vulgate, and some other ancient versions, on which my friend, Mr. Rice, loves to dwell, I have time to make only a remark or two. In these days it is easy to fill a volume with dissertations on such learned matters, for the benefit of common people. I have many volumes of this kind of learning at my disposal — but what avail such disquisitions here I I have, indeed, affirm- ed that none of all these versions has ever translated baptizo to favor Pe- do-baptist practice. I examined them carefully enough to come to this conclusion. Now, after all that has been said by Mr. Rice on some dozen of them, has he even pretended to quote one instance of any one of them ever translating it by any word averring his practice? We might speak for a week upon them — upon the Hebrew tabel and rahnZy upon the Syriac amad, and the Arabic mnada, &c. Testament sense. 3. Tropicall)^ and by a metalepsis, it means to wash, to cleanse, because a thing is usually dipped or immersed in water that it may be washed, that it may be cleansed. Its general sense is to dip. Its proper sense, to dip in water. Its figurative sense, to wash, to cleanse. This is a true version of this great author; and it is exactly what I believe and have taught from the beginning. Have I not, then, in my own time and way, after giving him full space to develop himself and his argument, clearly shown that he has misconceived, mistated and greatly misrepresented the Greek lexicons, and especially those on the New Tes- tament. He has often vauntingly asked for a New Testament lexicon, that gives immerse as the proper and primary meaning of baptizo. He has got it now ! Indeed, they all do so, that define its proper meaning. Mr. Rice. I will fix that directly. Mr. Campbell. I wish to have it explained now, ox fixed, as the gen- tleman says. I pause for a reply. Mr. Rice. I will shew from Ernesti, that tropical words sometimes become proper ones, and a secondary meaning is used for the first : " But there are several different points of light in which tropical words are to be viewed. For, first, the primitive or proper signification, strictly understood, often becomes obsolete, and ceases for a long period to be used. In this case, the secondary sense, which originally would have been the TROPICAL one, becomes the proper one. This applies especially to the names of things. Hence there are many words which at present never have their original and proper sense, such as etymology would assign them, but only the secondary sense, which may in each case, be called the proper sense ; e. g. in English, tragedy, comedy, villain, pagan, knave, &c. " Secondly, in like manner, the tropical sense of certain words has be- come so common by usage, that it is better iinderstood than the original sense. In this case, too, we call the sense proper ; although strictly and technically speaking, one might insist on its being called tropical. If one should, by his last will, give a library [bibliothecam^ to another, we should not call the use of bibliotheca tropical ; although, strictly speaking, it is so ; for biblio- theca originally meant the shelves, or place where books are deposited." — Ernesti, pp. 23, 24. Mr. Campbell. I am sorry that my confidence in the candor of my friend is somewhat diminished by this manouvre. Mr. Rice. Tropical words, with the critics, are not figurative words. Mr. Campbell. I should like to refer the decision of the translations which I have given, to classical gentlemen present. Mr. Rice says, a tropical word, or, as I understand it, a word used tropically, is not a figurative word with the critics. This is a new doctrine in the schools. "Whence comes the word that indicates figurative use ? Comes it not from tropos, and that from trepo, to turn ? To turn a word from its proper signification, is to make it a trope ; and that is what we call a figure. There is no dictionary of credit that otherwise explains and de- fines these words, or that distinguishes tropical from figurative language, as used in the schools of logic and rhetoric. But this is not mere infer- ence or conjecture in this particular case. Stokius gives the name of the figure. He calls it a metalepsis. So the matter is ended with him as respects Ernesti — Ernesti's remarks and the question before us, belong not to the same class. They are wholly misapplied. They belong to another subject. But why this excitement about Stokius? He is only a little plainer 208 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. than some of the others. He goes no farther than Schleusner and Bret- schneider. He gives the name of the figure, and calls it a melalepsis, which transfers the name of an effect to its cause. They explain it as a figure or trope, without naming it. My ear has been pained — repeatedly pained, with the manner that some dictionaries are quoted by my friend. I do not like to go into expositions of this sort ; nor into debates about foreign languages before a popular assembly. But really, I am obliged to say, that Schleusner and 13retschnieder are as much with me as Stoki- us, and as much mystified by my respondent. Hear Schleusner's own words. The question is, when and how comes baptizo to mean wash, cleanse? He says : 1. Jam quia haud rnro aliquid itnmergi ac intingi in aquam solet, ut lavetur hinc. 2. Ab- luo lavo aqua pergo notat. Because a thing must be dipped or immersed into water that it may be washed. Hence comes the sense, I wash, I cleanse. Now he might as well have called it a metonymy ; for he de- scribes the figure without calling its name, while Stokius does not. The gentleman also knows, that Bretschneider so understands it. He knows that he defines baptisma, in the New Testament, to mean nothing but "immersion, or submersion;" and why he should so often quote a special clause, '■'■lavo aliio siinpliciter,^^ in direct contravention of this definition, is of the same category with the two still more venerable names of Schleusner and Stokius. Now these are all New Testament lexicographers, well acquainted with the Jewish idiom of which Mr. R. speaks so sensitively, and they are still more decidedly with us, though Pedo-baptists, than any one, or all of the classic dictionaries. This is the first and the only time, since our commencement, that we have had any debate ; and it is upon the real gist of the whole contro- versy. I stake the whole cause of immersion on this single point, for this is just the point on which the whole baptismal controversy turns. I am willing, then, to give it all the conspicuity it deserves — to open up the case, and place it fairly before the community. Mr. Rice has been con- strained to admit, on the testimony of three New Testament lexicons, as well as upon that of many others, that baptizo properly, originally, and primarily signifies to dip ; but he also contends that it properly, primarily, and originally signifies to ■wash. He will not, indeed, say, that it means to sprinkle, or pour. It properly, however, signifies to wash. Now this wash, he says, is a generic word, as we all admit. Next he has got three modes of umshing ; he will take sprinkling, and give us dipping, on condition that we say that his is baptism. This is a fair narrative of the case, as he will admit. Well then, of course this word wash is the struggle. The whole battle is about wash. He says it is the proper, primary, and original meaning — at all events, he sometimes, rather in a faltering tone, says, it is certainly a proper meaning of the word. Now, then, we have got the great New Testament lexicons, as well as some other great authorities, deposing that it does not at all properly mean to wash, but only so by accident, by trope or figure ; and that, too, only as an effect of immersion. I contend, before Christendom, that the question is now decided. That plainer proof cannot be afforded on any literary question now before the schools. This is just what ought to be. The debate is now brought down to one clear, tangible, appreciable point, which all may see and all may comprehend. If the Savior spoke plainly upon a point which involves the salvation DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 201 of the world, we ought to speak plainly upon every thing connected with it. I ask all persons of reflection, if the Savior spoke tropically or figu- ratively, when giving laws, involving the salvation of the world, when he should have spoken plainly, and without a figure ? Do men, in dictating or in writing their last wills and testaments, speak figuratively and rhe- torically ? Surely, then, we cannot take shelter in a trope, in a metaphor, or figure of speech, when discussing the most sacred and solemn of ordi- nances enacted by the savior of men- To leave this matter for a moment, I have been invited by my friend, to pay more attention to the Jewish use of this word than to the classical; as if I had not given it the first part of my attention ; or as if there were some real, undefined difference between the Jewish and classical style. I would not care to write a book on such questions, for those who might have leisure, or taste, to read it; but, really, to throw dust in the eyes of a plain and unsophisticated popular assembly, by such verbose and inter- minable jargon, I could not endure. Did I not, however, begin with Jewish use ? Did I not take the types in the law, and shew from the Septuagint how dip, sprinkle, and pour were contrasted, at the veiy fountain head of precision? But my prudent and calculating friend would not wait for me. He gave us Josephus in anticipation. At least he concurred with the learned Wall, and the more learned Stuart, that Josephus wrote Greek very clas- sically; but then, the misfortune is, that this proves nothing for us; for the cunning, artful Josephus imitates the Greeks, for the sake of gaining Gentile favor! Instead of using his Hebrew Greek style, the shrewd Jew laid it aside, and, it seems, preferred to mimic the Gentiles. There is no conquering such logicians. They ivill have the advantage. Josephus, and all the Greeks contemporary with the apostolic age, used this word Just as Stokius, Schleusner, and Bretschneider use it ; as Wall, Camp- bell, McKnight, and a thousand others have contended that it should be used. All the difference, according to Stuart, is, that the Jews did not, in one book, the Bible, use bapto and baptizo in as many acceptations as can be found in all the classics. He found no new or special use of the word in the Bible. Not one. He thought that the Jews used wash more frequently than the Greeks. But that was only an opinion. Dr. Wall found no difference. But then Mr. Rice says he was an immer- sionist ! He did not like to oppose Dr. Gale on that subject. He only gave one tenth of his book to immersion, and nine-tenths to the babes ! How singularly men's prejudices pervert their optics ! But I could have brought many passages from Josephus, who, in fifty places probably uses the word, and always uses it to signify immerse, as Stuart, Carson, and Ewing have shewn. But this would be in vain. If I say Jose- phus lived contemporary with the apostles, that he was well acquaint- ed with both Hebrew and Greek, and that it is certain he used the word just as the Greeks always used it — I am anticipated. I am told by Mr. Rice, that this was through his affectation of Grecian learning!! I repeat it, no one could prove to such men that which they are determined not to believe. Did not Stokius, Schleusner, Bretschneider, McKnight, Wall, Campbell, &,c., understand the Jewish idiom? But to return to the New Testament lexicons. I have said that Sto- kius is not alone in his definitions. Take a little specimen. [Here Mr. Campbell, taking up Dr. Wall's work in answer to Dr. Gale, and insert- ing his fingers between the leaves.] Here is just the one-tenth oi the 14 s2 SIO DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. book, according to the optics of my friend. If, my fellow-citizens, this be one-tenth of ihe whole, do apply the same doctrine of ratios to the assertions and reasonings of my friend, Mr. Rice. [A iaugli.] Mr. Rice says, by way of apology for the strong and honest sayings of Wall, Campbell, McKnight, Bretschneider, that they were immersionists ; he does not mean Baptists, but only theoretically with us. This is one of my friend's ingenious arts of getting ahead of me. He took Josephus, Judith, and Naaman, and now he will take all these great christian Rabbis b)' some manoeuvre. I could bring scores Jrom the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches, all concurring with these; but my quoting them, or even his apprehension that I am about to quote them, will instantly con- vert them into immersionists ! Should he admit the true meaning of a word in the Koran, would that constitute him a Turk ? Their philological, ex cathedra admissions and concessions do not convert them into Baptists. With me, a christian is one who practices Christ's precepts, and an im- mersionist is either an immersed man, or one who immerses others. Calvin, Stuart, Wall, Campbell, McKnight, and many such distinguish- ed men, thought it an enlargement of soul, a generous and magnanimous liberality not to be so scrupulously exact as to contend for a strict obedi- ence to all matters of clear theological accuracy, reposing upon the easy couch that the church, from the beginning, assumed to herself, " the right of changing the ordinances somewhat, excepting the substance." But I must risk the charge of illiberalily in avowing my conviction, that there is nothing within human power so terrific and appaling, as any attempt to touch the ark of the Lord, by accommodating any of Christ's ordi- nances to the pride, the caprice, the vanity, or apathy of any man or set of men. There is one sentence in the sermon on the mount that keeps tingling in my ears when I hear men talk so — Jesus said, "Whosoever shall violate one of the least of these my commandments, and shall teach others to do so, shall be of no account in the kingdom of heaven." In my esteem the highest style, and honor, and dignity of man, is to know, to teach, and to practice the institutions of Jesus Christ. I am zealous for the letter ; for although a man may have the letter and the form with- out the spirit, he cannot have the spirit without the letter and the form of godliness. To neglect, to disparage, or corrupt the ordinances of God never were, in any age, small matters in the sight of God. Isaiah, in his twenty-fourth chapter, saith — "The land shall be emptied and utterly spoiled — the earth mourneth — the world languisheth and fadeth away — the liaughty do languish — the earth is defiled under the inhabitants there- of; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the oroinaxck, broken the everlasting covenant." This is enough for one lesson on the solemnity of the ordinances. My friend, Mr. Rice, gives me no reason to hope favorably in his case. He does not say, yet indicates as much as, that he will never sufTer him- self to change, and that I never knew any one of his class to change. This is dangerous ground. Popes have changed. Liberius changed four times during his life, yet was always infallible. I would not for this commonwealth say that I will never change. God gave us tvvo ears, Mr. President, and he put one on each side of our heads. I move, sir, that we keep them there, and do not put them botli on one side. I believe, sir, that we should not only hear on both sides, but ihut we ought to hear both sides, and whenever enligiitened, act. The paf- self, but being high priest that year, he prophecied that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only." Loud as a voice from heaven these words demonstrate that the office was as sacred as ever— - though the officer was instigated by Satan. I am sorry to be doomed, in the prosecution of any argument, to have to notice so many matters, so irrelevant, and so little interesting. I may pass over something, nay, I must pass in silence various such matters. I might spend a month in this way, and then not reply formally to every thing the gentleman may throw out. I will keep my eye on all matters that may afl'ect the real issue. Others may stand for what they are worth. The gendeman has, then, so far utterly failed to point out any spiritual privilege connected with circumcision — and, I presume, will indeed be as much perplexed and embarrassed, to show that his infant baptism secures any thing more to its subjects, than did circumcision secure to Jacob or Esau, Isaac or Ishmael. But he says, that probably they had faith before they were circum- cised. Grant that sometimes they had — the fathers of proselyte families for example. What then ? Was circumcision a seal from God in illus- tration of the peculiar character of the faith of each individual prose- DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 32I lyte ? Who ever heard such logic ? What does the term seal mean ? A confirmative mark, or a mark approbatory ? We have seals to bonds, and we have seals to diplomas and credentials. Surely the gentleman does not properly understand the word seal in this case, if he make it represent to every proselyte that God gives this as a proof of the genu- ineness and excellency of his faith ! ! Will Mr. Rice say, that circum- cision was to each believing proselyte, a mark approbatory of his particu- lar belief? Again — the logic is still more evidently at fault in another particular. It is a sophism of the most palpable character to argue from a special to a general law or fact. And would it not be arguing from a special to a general law or fact, to say that circumcision was to a thousand, what it was to one individual of a thousand? In the Jewish history, the number of proselytes, it is presumed, in all time, did not average one to a thous- and born within the covenant. Now, who would reason on any other subject in this way? Who would affirm that circumcision, as a Divine institution, took its character from one subject in a thousand, rather than from the nine hundred and ninty-nine ? Such, however, is the logic of all Pedo-baptists that found their usage on Calvin's assumption. Better take the Roman Catholic, or the Episcopalian, or any other ground than this; for, as it appears to me, this is superlatively the most untenable of them all. It behooves my friend to pay more attention to the fact, that circum- cision was not the door into the Jewish church ; that Jews brought forth Jews ; that natural, and not supernatural, birth was the wide door into the Jewish churcli. Why then call baptism the door ? The palpa- ble fact already suggested, is unanswered and unanswerable, viz : that circumcision was administered to Jewish infants, not to bring them into the church of Abraham, but because they Avere in it. How then could it be a door? Is not the gentleman now obliged to give up circum* cision, or to afHrm that we are born members of Christ's church, just as we are born into the world ? And whence comes the necessity of the sec- ond or new birth ? When my friend shall have proved, that circumcision was a door into a house four hundred years before the house was built ; that when the house was built, and the children born in it, they still had to come in by the door of the house, he will have gained a victory over reason and palpable fact, hitherto unachieved by all his predecessors. This, too, is the main gist of his discussion of baptism in room of cir- cumcision ! The radical misconception of all Pedo-baptists is, that the Jewish com- monwealth and the christian church are built on the same principle ; and that that principle is flesh. That if faith be at all necessary, it is not personal faith, nor personal conviction — it is hereditary faith. And yet they cannot see, that circumcision is at war with them on one side, while they imagine it favorable on the other. It shows that the nature of the ne- cessity of parental faith, or immediate ancestral belief, is a perfect dream. No child descended from a Jew, was ever inhibited from circumcision be- cause his parents were both reprobates. Not one instance can be shown. There is some policy on tiie part of my friend, in seeming to disparage circumcision, while, nevertheless, building on it. In Judaism rights to ordinances were hereditary ; in Christianity they are personal. It is now, therefore, /oi7/t and noi flesh ; then it was flesh and not faith. When shall my Pedo-baptist friends learn this lesson ? — Christianity is a per- 21 322 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM, sonal affair. Those called sons of God, are all bom again. The sons of Abraham were born of the flesh, and therefore, only once bom. Christians are born of tlie Spirit after they are born of the flesh. Will my friend pay no attention to such declarations as these. To as many as (and to no more than) received him, he gave the privilege of becoming the sons of God ; to them that believe on his name who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Why should not these words of the Messiah, along with those spoken to Nicodemus, decide this subject forever ? Did he not say to the ruler of Israel, " You must be horn again?'''' You cannot enter into my church, or the kingdom of heaven, of which I speak, Nicode- mus, unless you are " born from above, born of water and of Spirit." Nicodemus, " that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT." You must bc borti again. Mr. Rice says, you need not be born again to get into the church : but you may be born again after you get into it ! But unfortunately for you, my friends, Mr. Rice is but a mere professor of the faith, and neither a lawgiver nor king in Israel. He can never dispose of this case of Nico- demus. No one can imagine two societies founded upon more opposite principles than faith and flesh, or spirit and flesh. Now when we look at two societies, pure and unmixed, built upon the two principles, we shall see a very different result. In the one, " all know the Lord, from the least to the greatest ;" all have God's law written in their hearts ; all enjoy his favor and protection; all rejoice in hope of the glory of God. In the other, it is a kingdom like Spain, Portugal, Italy, France — every thing that liveth and moveth upon the face of the earth ! Allow the members in each to be sincere in their profession, Avhen existing and contemplated apart from each other, the difference is no less striking ; because the great majority in every Pedo-baptist community are necessarily unconverted persons. My friend has several times called for help this morning, in the form of a request to furnish some evidence from the Bible, that the old Jewish state of things has been done away, and substituted by another. I shall certainly attend to this request as a matter of generosity. It is his place to show that Christianity is but a continued and improved form of Juda- ism, and not a 7iew institution, built upon a new and better foundation than the mere flesh, blood, and bones of father Abraham. Before I set down, I shall advert for a moment to the two institutions. Paul contrasts them in good style, 2 Cor. 3d chapter. The one that is " done away," and the one " that remaineth ;" the letter and the spirit ; the law and the gospel. The Jewish institute was necessarily tempora- ry and preparatory. It was confined to one nation and people. Its pro- per boundaries were Palestine. Judea, Jerusalem, and its temple, were the theatre of all its glories. Christianity is the religion of humanity It was intended for the whole human race. It excludes neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free. It throws the wide arms of its philanthropy around the whole human race. It embraces with equal cordiality, " the frozen Icelander and the sun-burned Moor." It pays no homage to sceptered royalty, to ancient heraldry, to castes, ranks, or con- ditions of men. It invites all, makes provisions for all, and tenders the same conditions to all. It addresses every man as responsible for him- self. It recognizes the most perfect free agency and responsibility. It proposes the same conditions to the prince and the beggar. It demands DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 323 from all, faith, repentence, and unreserved obedience. It must have the same voluntary devotion to God, as w^as manifested in the free and volun- tary devotion of the Messiah to the salvation of man. He freely came down from heaven to earth, and we must freely ascend from earth to heaven. A christian people are essentially a free people : they are, indeed, the only free people. The son of God makes nren free indeed. No one can be physically or metaphysically brought into, or cast out of, Christ's church. We must know the Messiah, believe in him, acqui- esce in his mission, reverence his official fullness and glory, and adore his person as God with us. We must solemnly bow to his authority, submit to his government, walk in his ways, and follow his example. Then, and only then, can we claim the honor of the christian name, and of a place in the church of the living God, "the pillar and the sup- port of the truth." There is, too, an inexpressible pleasure in act- ing for one's self in making the christian profession. The feeling of our own responsibility, and of our coming, under a sense of it, into a new and an everlasting relation to God, to angels, and to men. We feel a thousand times more awful pleasure and high dignity, treating in our own person with our Redeemer, without any interfering earthly me- diator or negotiator. It is the highest enjoyment of personal liberty ever attained by mortal man, to have the privilege of signing the covenant •with his own hand, and vowing with his own lips, eternal allegiance to him that has redeemed him, and tendered to him an everlasting life, through his death, by a patient continuance in well doing, seeking for glory, honor, and immortality. — [_Time expired. Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 10 o'clock, A. M. j^MR. rice's fourth ADDRESS.] Mr. President — Before proceeding immediately to the subject under discussion, I wish to read from Calvin the passage to which Mr. Camp- bell has so repeatedly referred, in which he represents him as having claimed the right to change the ordinances appointed by Christ. He read, from his Debate with McCalla, the following passage, taken pro- fessedly from Calvin's Commentary on the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles : " The church did grant liberty to herself, since the begin- ning, TO CHANGE THE RITES SOMEWHAT, excepting the sub- stance." And he called on me to say, whether these are not the words of Calvin. I answer, they are not. He has quoted from Calvin only a part of a sentence, without its connection ; and he has given a very in- correct translation even of this fragment. I have here Calvin's Com- mentary on the Acts, from which I take leave to read the whole sentence, with its connection. After admitting what I, of course, do not admit, that immersion was the general practice in the apostolic age, he thus remarks : " Cseterum, non tanti esse nobis debet tantillum ceremonise discrimen ut Ecclesiam propterea scindamus, vel rixis turbenius. Pro ipsa quidem bap- tismi ceremonia, quatenus nobis a Christo tradita est, centies potius ad mortem usque digladiandum, quum ut earn nobis eripi sinamus : sed quum in aquse symbolo testimonium habemus tam ablutionis nostrae, quam novae vitee : quam in aqua, velut in speculo, sanguinem nobis suum Christus repriEsentat, ut munditiem inde nostram petamus : quum docet nos Spiritu 8U0 refingi, ut mortui peccato, justitiaj vivamus ; nihil quod ad baptismi eubstantiam faciat, deesse nobis certum est. Q,uare ab initio libere sibi permisit ecclesia, extra banc substantiam, ritus habere paululum dissimiles : nam alii ter, alii autem semel tantum mergebant,' " &c. — Com. on Acts viii 324 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. "But so small a difference of the ceremony ought not to be considered oy us of so great moment, that on that account we should divide the church, or disturb it with dissensions. As to the ceremony itself of baptism, in so far as it was delivered to us by Christ, it were a hundred times better that we perish by the sword, than permit it to be taken from us : but when in the symbol of water we have the testimony as well of our cleansing as of our new life : when in water, as in a mirror, Christ represents to us his blood, that thence we may seek purification : when he teaches us to be renewed by his Spirit ; that being dead to sin, we may live to righteous- ness : it is certain that we lack nothing which appertains to the substance of baptism. Wherefore from the beginning the church has freely allowed herself beyond [extra] this substance to have rites a little dissimilar: for some immersed thrice, but others only once. Wherefore there is no reason why, in things not really essential, we should be too illiberal : only let them not pollute the simple institution of Christ by adventitious pomp." You perceive that, though Calvin admits what I think is not true, he does not claim for the church any power to change what Christ has de- termined concerning the ordinances. On the contrary, he maintained, as I have before stated, that our Savior did not prescribe any particular mode of baptizing, but left that matter to be determined by circumstances. Whilst I do not agree with Calvin in all he has said on this subject, I am unwilling to have misrepresentations, so injurious to the reputation of a great and good man, pass uncorrected. I have no doubt, that this piece of a sentence, incorrectly translated and published by Mr. Campbell, has made many false impressions. I have a Baptist author who refers to the same passage, thus : " The church (that is, Presbyterianism,) hath granted to herself the liberty to change the ordinances, except the substance, that is, the words !" I think I have given the precise words of the author. This is a specimen of the perversions of authors which often are imposed on the public. I wish to present to the minds of the audience the ground over which we have passed. As a strong presumptive evidence in favor of infant baptism, I have stated that the overwhelming majority of the wise and the good, of all ages, have believed that it is taught in the Scriptures. And since the Bible is a plain book, especially on important points, it is not probable that such immense multitudes have misunderstood its teach- ings on a subject so essential to the very existence of the visible church. I turned to the commission, and showed that it is not a commission to commence a new organization, but to extend the limits and privileges of the existing church; that it specifies, as proper subjects of baptism, neither adults nor infants ; that disciples were to be made by baptizing and teaching; and that it does not say that teaching must, in all cases, precede baptism. It is admitted, that all who are entitled to membership in the church, ought to receive baptism. The great question, then, is, who, according to the law of God, are entitled to membership in the church of Christ? To determine this question, we go to the organiza- tion of the church. A church I defined to be a body of people, called out from the world, for the service of God, with ordinances of divine appointment, and a door of admission, or a rite by which membership may be recognized. This, it is not denied, is a correct definition of the church of Christ. We findl in the family of Abraham, precisely such a people — a people separated from the world, for the service of the true God ; with ordinances of di- vine appointment, and an initiatory rite, to wit: circumcision — distin- guishing them from all other people, as being in covenant with God. From DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 325 that time onward, God speaks of them as " My people." Believers and their children, were put into this church by positive law, and there they remained till the time of giving the commission by our Savior. There is no law excluding them. Since, then, we have put them in by positive law, I call upon my friend to put them out by a law as clear and positive. I have shown, most conclusively, that the church of Christ is the same which was organized in the family of Abraham. You remember the il- lustration of the principle of identity, drawn from the commonwealth of Kentucky. Now, I will produce three times as much evidence to prove that the christian church is the same body that was organized in tiie family of Abraham, as can be produced to prove that the commonwealth of Kentucky is the same political body that existed under that name forty years ago. Under both dispensations, the church serves the same God, obeys the same moral law, and trusts for salvation in the same gospel ; all the prominent doctrines of which are contained in the Old Testament. The christian church, I have proved, is enjoying her blessings under the same covenant, of which two promises have been fulfilled ; but the great promise is yet only in part fulfilled — a covenant confirmed in Christ and containing the gospel ; a covenant which is never called old, and which, in the Scriptures, is never said to pass away ; a covenant which makes Abraham the father of all believers. It is new only in the mode of its administration. But, I might go even as far as my friend desires, and admit that the Abrahamic covenant has passed away, and yet sustain my argument : for I have shown from the epistle to the Hebrews, (ch. viii.) that a new covenant (even if literally new) was to be made with the same people — THE SAME CHURCH. Now, believers and their children were put into this church by positive law, and there is no law to exclude the one or the other. There is, therefore, just as much authority for excluding believers, as for excluding children. I wish now to notice some few objections, urged by my worthy friend, in his last speech on yesterday. I must confess, however, that I was at a loss to know what he was trying to prove. He attempted to show that there were several covenants made with Abraham. To this, I replied, that the Bible speaks of but one covenant with Abraham. The following passages are conclusive on this point : — i- Exodus ii. 24 : " And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant \v\\\\ Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob," &c. Acts of' the Apostles iii. 25 : " Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Here the word covenant is used in the singular number; and there is not a passage in the Bible which speaks of more than one covenant with Abraham. The same promises, as we have seen, were contained in the I2lh, I5th, and 17th chapters of Genesis. The promises first made in the 12lh and 15th, were ratified and sealed by circumcision, as recorded in the 17th. Now, to have three covenants, and the same promises in each, would be marvellous indeed ! It is true, my friend said, there was no land promised in the 12th chapter; but what says the first verse ? — " Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee," And when he reach- ed the land, the promise was repeated, so that in each of these three «hapters we find the same promises. 2E 326 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. But I do not care, so far as my argument is concerned, if my friend finds half a dozen covenants with Abraham ; for the covenant of circum- cision contains the promise of spiritual blessings, which was the great promise, I will read a few verses in the seventeenth chapter, which, I think, will convince every one that such is the fact : " I will make my cove- nant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." Again, in the fifth verse: "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made thee." With this last verse we will compare the language of Paul, in Rom. iv. 16, 17 : " Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be of grace ; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed : not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations.") Here, you observe, the apostle refers to the covenant of circumcision, as containing the promise of spiritual blessings to the gentiles as well as Jews. Again, Gen. xvii. 7 : " 1 will establish my covenant be- tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee — to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." What more do we want, than that he should be our God, and the God of our seed? and that we should be the children of Abra- ham, and be blessed with him ? We have, then, the promise of spiritual blessings in the covenant of circumcision. We are, therefore, under the same covenant, which was sealed by circumcision, and which made Abra- ham the father of all believers. Take away that covenant, and how is Abraham my father any more than Enoch or Noah ? The second objection was, that circumcision was not a door of entrance into the church. Now, I will read to you the language of the great An- drew Fuller upon this subject — a man who did not intend to favor our views, — vol. V. p. 155: " This ordinance was the mark by which they [Abraham and his seed] were distinguished as a people in covenant with Jehovah, and which bound them by a special obligation to obey him. Like almost all other positive institutions, it was also pre-figurative of mental purity, ' or putting off the body of the sins of the flesh.' " — Lecture on Gen. xvii. What is baptism ? Is it not the ordinance which distinguishes chris- tians as a people in covenant with Jehovah ? by which they are bound ta him, and obliged to obey him? All who received circumcision were pe- culiarly bound to serve God ; and so are all who receive christian baptism. I remark again ; in Ex. xii. 48, we are particularly informed how gentile proselytes m4ght enter the church, if they wished to partake of the passo- ver. All the males of the family were required first to be circumcised. Compare this with Gal. v. 3 : " For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." He has all the privileges, and he is bound to perform all the duties of the law ; and that is door enough for me. But my friend's next objection is, that the church was not organized till the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai. To prove this, he quotes the language of Stephen, in Acts vii. 38 : " This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel which spake to him," &c. Stephen, it is true, speaks of the church in the wilderness ; but he does not inti- mate that it was organized in the wilderness. His argument is, there- fore, wholly without force. But the gentleman has told us, that a constitution was adopted, and that all were called upon to vote for it , and this was the national organizatioiu DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 327 Paul, however, teaches a very different doctrine. He sa3's, " Wherefore then serveth the law ? It was added, because of transgression," &c. Paul does not represent the law as the constitution, nor does he say any thing of an organization of the church. He says, " The law was added/^ To what was it added ? Of course, to the Abrahamic covenant ; for it could be added to nothing else. The law at Sinai was an additional enactment for the benefit of a church already organized, designed to answer a spe- cific purpose, till Christ should come. Circumcision, the genUeman insists, did not require piety in those who received it. Then did God enter into covenant with wicked men without requiring them to abandon their sins I It will not do to confine the cov- enant to Abraham ; for it is certain that God entered into covenant with him and his seed in their generations. If, then, those who were cir- cumcised, were not required to be pious ; the conclusion is inevitable, that God made a covenant with the wicked, and did not require them to serve him ! Believe it who can ! Paul, as I have proved, says, " Circumcision profiteth, if thou keep the law," but not otherwise. The law, as ex- pounded by our Savior, requires man to love God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength, and his neighbor as himself. Could the Jews observe such a law, and yet possess no piety? But the gentleman talks about Jigurative circumcision, and appeals to the corruption of the Jewish church at the advent of our Savior and afterwards, to sustain his untenable position. It is true, the Jewish church was, to a great extent, apostate, when our Savior appeared on earth. Yet there were some pious souls, here and there an aged Simeon and an Anna, who waited for " the consolation of Israel ;" and they re- ceived him with open arms. And notwithstanding the corruption of the mass, he still granted to those who received him, the privileges of sons. But if the Jewish church became very corrupt, is it not also true that the christian church has been almost inundated with error and impiety? You might as logically maintain, therefore, that baptism does not require piety, as that circumcision did not. The gentleman has mustered in fearful array j?/(fem arguments, to prove that baptism did not come in place of circumcision. On that subject, as I have repeatedly said, I feel very little concern. I will now, I think, sat- isfy the audience, that the defence of infant baptism does not require me to prove, that baptism came instead of circumcision. I have proved that the children of believers have a right to membership in the church ; that God did, at the organization of his church, put believers and their children in together. This point is setded. It is also an indisputable fact, that under the Old Testament adults and infants, parents and children, en- tered the church by the same door — had their membership recognized by the same ordinance. If children have still the right to a place in the church, it is certain that they have the right to enter by the door. Under the former dispensation there was but one door, through which all en- tered. Under the present dispensation there is but one ; and all who have a right to membership, must, of course, enter through it. You may tell me the door is not now precisely where it was formerly. Very well : I care not whether it is on this side of the house, or on that. Children have the right to enter; and if you will find a door for adults, I will find one for their children; for they have always entered by the door. Whilst, therefore, I can prove, that baptism answers the same ends under the new dispensation, tliat were answered by circumcision under the old ; I 328 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. am not concerned to do it; for the defence of infant baptism requires it not. There is only one more point in the gentleman's speech which I wish to notice. He has told us how much infant baptism tends to corrupt the church ; but I have appealed to \\\e fact, which he will not dispute, that the Pedo-baptist churches that have long practiced the baptism of infants, are quite as pure as the purest Anti-pedo-baptist churches. He has rep- resented infant baptism as the secret of the pope's tyrannical power ; but he has not proved, nor can he prove, that such is the truth. He told us an anecdote of a little Romish boy, who, whilst on a journey, became greatly attached to a gentleman to whose care he was committed ,• but on ascertaining that he was a Protestant, he told him, he would certainly go to hell. When asked how he knew ; he replied that his mother told him so. And this occurrence is held up before the audience as demonstrative of the horrors of infant baptism ! It is, of course, clear as light to the gentleman's mind, that the Popish mother never would have instilled such errors into the mind of her child, if he had not been baptized ! ! The water of baptism produced this sad effect ! ! ! It is a little remarkable, that sometimes apparently opposite courses of conduct seem to lead to the same results. I recently heard of a little girl belonging to the gentle- man's church, who made to an old lady of another church just such a remark as fell from the lips of the Romish boy ! Shall we hold up this case and say, behold the fruits of immersion ? The simple truth is, that children very naturally imbibe the errors of parents, whether baptized or not. Such anecdotes are poor arguments — very poor. The audience must now judge for themselves, whether Mr. Campbell has answered any one of my arguments. I have put children into the church by positive law ; and I have called upon him, so far in vain, to produce the law for putting them out — for depriving parents and children of privileges which God in his mercy has given them. If he can pro- duce a "thus saith the Lord" for it, I will agree to put them out; but I must protest against the attempt to exclude them by far-fetched inferences, contrary to every principle of law. I have several more arguments, which demonstrate yet more fully the identity of the church under the Jewish and christian dispensations ; but I shall have quite sufficient time to present them. The only difference, so far as this discussion is concerned, is to be found in the passing away of the civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews, added to the Abrahamic covenant, for a particular end, and for a limited time. And as no man in his senses would maintain, that the commonwealth of Kentucky is not the same political body, because certain temporary laws expired at the end of the period to which they were limited ; so no man can consistently contend, that the passing away of the civil and ceremonial laws of the old dispen- sation, annihilated the church of God. He might as well assert, that I am not the same man, because I have put on a new coat ! The truth is, that God has never inculcated but one religion. The re- ligion of the heart — the great matter, after all — was the same in Abra- ham's day as now. External ordinances have changed, but the church is the same — true piety is unchanged. The religious exercises of Abra- ham, of David, and of all the saints of the Old Testament, correspond substantially with the experience of all christians. The saints of the foi-mer dispensation looked forward through prophecies and sacrifices to a Savior to come. The saints, under the new dispensation, look back through DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 329 inspired history, and the sacraments, to a Savior who has come. The eyes of all have been fixed upon the same glorious object; and, through him, upon the same blessed heaven. Ordinances have been changed ; but the conditions of salvation — faith, repentance, and holy living, have been to all the conditions of salvation. Having now put the children of believers in the church, by clear and positive law, I shall wait for the gentleman to produce the law for exclud- ing them. — l^Time expired. Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 10^ o'clock, Jl. M. [mr. Campbell's fourth reply.] Mr. President — I have often had occasion to observe and remark, that a man can assert and deny more in half an hour, than he can prove in a whole year. To review in special detail the points which my friend says he has proved, and those which he means to prove, as now stated, it will require more time than has been allotted to the discussion of this proposition. All that was said yesterday, has been repeated this morn- ing. Indeed, I believe that all that has been said now, was said by my friend in his first speech. It is not to be expected, therefore, that I will merely reiterate as well as he, especially as I have much new matter yet to offer. It is necessary to advance into the main points of evidence and argument, upon which ultimately this subject must rest in the minds of this community. My friend began by reading to you a passage out of Calvin, and his translation of it ; to which I will first advert, lest my silence be construed into an admission that I did not read the whole section, but suppressed some part of it from improper motives. I did not, nor do I usually in debate, read the whole section or passage from which I may quote a fact or an argument ; but what I do read, I read in the full light of its own context, and intend that it shall fully contain a fair and honest representa- tion of the mind of the writer. In this instance, I contend that I have done so to the letter. I will put the question — I will ask, whether what was read this morning does, in the part quoted or in the whole, in the least change the sense of what I read on yesterday ? This manoeuvre seems to be intended for efiect — to make you believe that I left out some- tliing of great importance, or changed the sense. If the gentleman will give me the book from which he has translated this passage, I will show that there is not in it a single idea repugnant to what I have read. Cal- vin does claim that the church has taken this liberty, extra the substance. No Presbyterian supposed that the church is bound to walk by the exact letter, but may change and modify the ordinances according to expedi- ency. In my view, indeed, the Presbyterians have always done so; and in some instances much more grossly than in the case now before us. They have rites " a little dissimilar," as Mr. Rice reads it. It is not necessary that I should read the whole page from an author, when a shorter extract will give the whole spirit and force of his argument. My friend says he has "put children" into the church, according to law. I suppose he means infants ; for we are all children. He certainly believes that infants ought to be in the church with their parents. We all believe that children ought to be in the church as soon as they know the Lord. But that is not the argument. It is. Are the offspring of profes- sing parents, soon as born, by virtue of their parentage, — because of their being of the same flesh and blood, entitled to be in the church ? Is the 2 E 2 330 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. infant born of a Presbyterian father or mother, by virtue of that natural birth, that accident, necessarily, and by Divine authority, a member of the church of Christ? The gentleman is certainly throwing dust in your eyes. Who denies that children should be in the church ? The question is as to whether the infant progeny are born members of Christ's church, because their parents were professors of the faith ? If he should speak, as he has been speaking, through a thousand years, or through as many volumes as com- poses the Vatican library, it would not reach this question at all. I ask him to show, by one single passage, where infants are placed in Christ's church ? He cannot do it. There is not in the Old Testament nor in the New, one single passage indicating any such thing. As I intend to occupy a part of this day in answering minor matters, having nothing else, indeed, to answer, I will now, in order that you, may have the whole subject before you, read a passage from Gal. iii. accom- panied with a remark or two. I do it rather to exhibit the unfortunate obliquities in the reasoning of my opponent, than because of the validity of the argument, or the importance of the point in issue ; for I had rather charge it to an unhappy obliquity, than to any disposition on his part to sophisticate or interpolate the sacred text. My friend says " the law was added to the covenant." But the apostle does not happen to say so. It is not so written in the Old Testament or in the New. I have the Bible before me, and I say the law was not added to the covenant. "It was added to the pro7nise.^^ Now this promise had reference to a single point — that of possessing the land of Canaan. It was not added to the covenant, for that would be to add the law to itself, or a covenant to itself. The argument proves this beyond a doubt. Need I show that the Jews never inherited Canaan by, or in consequence of, their own works ? They were on their way to the promised inheritance before the law was promulged. Therefore, the law has nothing to do with the inheritance. The law, indeed, was added to the promise, concerning the inheritance. It was solemnly covenanted to Abraham's family four hundred years be- fore the law was given. Hence, the addition of the law gave no addi- tional right to the inheritance. " For if the inheritance came by the law," says Paul, " it is no more of promise." But God gave it to Abraham by promise. The addition of the law was, therefore, for a different purpose, for reasons stated by the apostle. I now design requesting your especial attention to a passage in Gal. iv.; I shall read it : " My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice ; for I stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ? For it is written, that Abra- ham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh." My friend asks for a repudiation of the old covenant, and infant membership. I in- tend to assist him with an argument from this passage. Here is the first point in the argument : " But he Avho was born of the free woman was by promise." Here, then, are two births ; the one by virtue of the flesh, the other by virtue of a promise. Now, says Paul, these things are an allegory. " For these are the two covenants ; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar ; for this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem, which is above, is free, DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 33I which is the mother of us all. For it is written, " Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not ; for the de- solate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as, then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture ? Cast out the bond-woman and her son ; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." That I may place the precept of repudiation fairly before you, and con- clusively show that the children of the flesh are no longer " counted for the seed" I shall require your particular attention to an analysis of this much neglected passage. The four principal tropes in this allegory are Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah, Isaac, a sort of dramatis personse, were it a sce- netic representation. These two women represent two covenants — the consummated covenants of which I have spoken ; the one from Horeb, the other from Jerusalem. The two sons of one father, Abraham, repre- sent the children of the two covenants ; Ishmael the Jews, and Isaac the christians. Now, the question is, in how many points do the two women represent the two covenants, and the two sons the two kinds of children under these institutions ? They represent them in the four following par- ticulars : 1. In the conception of their offspring. Hagar's was wa^Mra/, Sarah's was supernatural. Hagar was a young woman, Sarah was sup- erannuated ; and, as Paul says, as " good as dead." Hence the births, or offspring, were essentially different. That of Hagar was according to the Jlesh, that of Sarah according to the spirit. The birth of Ishmael was natural, that of Isaac was as much above nature, as the conception of the Messiah, on the part of Mary, was supernatural, in one point of view. 2. In the condition of their offspring. Hagar was a slave, and Sarah a free woman. Now the issue always follows the mother, when contem- plated according to property. If the mother he free the offspring is free — if a slave, her oflispring is a slave. Hence Ishmael was a slave, and Isaac was free born. 3. In the spirit of their offspring. Not only in personal freedom, as respected condition, but in the spirit of freedom. There is a free, gener- ous, noble, and magnanimous spirit ; and there is a slavish, low, and mean spirit, which is homogenous with the condition. Isaac was do- cile, pious, and elevated above the flesh — a spiritual man. Ishmael was selfish, envious, and rude — an animal man. 4. In the inheritance of their oflspring. Hagar had no property, not being the proper wife of Abraham. She had only a slave's portion- bread and water. Hence a loaf of bread and a bottle of water constituted her whole fortune, and Ishmael's inheritance. But Isaac was an only son of his mother, and also in the marriage covenant. He was the only child of Abraham by Sarah, and the rightful heir of his vast estate. But in one point of comparison, under the allegory, the contrast is most strik- ing, viz. the casting out of the bond-woman and her son, and the perpe- tual enjoyment of the inheritance at home, by Isaac. We now have sufficient specifications and dates, not only to give a clear and unambiguous precept of that precise meaning, sought after by Mr. Rice, but also to sanction, as well as to illustrate, and even farther develop, the views and conceptions given on this proposition. There are, then, two 332 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. church covenants. The two women, says Paul, are the " two covC' nants.^^ These, then, are well defined covenants. The one is from Mount Sinai — "Agar in Arabia," the Jewish church covenant beyond a doubt; the other is from "Jerusalem above," the new christian constitu- tion or covenant, first promulged and sealed in Jerusalem. " This is the new covenant in my blood," said Jesus in Jerusalem. Hence the " word of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem " to all the world. The christian church is married to the Lord, through this new covenant, as certainly as the Jewish church was by the former covenant. "I was an husband to you," says the Lord. Need I farther show, that the children of Israel, compared to Ishmael, were, as church members, only '^ born of the flesh?" Is it not indis- putable 1 Paul says, the first covenant children Avere born " after the FLESH," and the second covenant children are born " o/Ver ^/ie Spirit." This single passage, this most graphic allegory, these most appropriate tropes and images, it seems, go all the length and breadth of my views of the proposition now before us. While we have, in our Testaments, this illustration of the objects of the two institutions, Jewish and Chris- tian, my friend's notions of church identity and infant membership, found- ed on ancient covenants, have not one inch of ground. Old Testament or New. The two principles oi flesh and Spirit, natural and supernatural birth, are now clearly shown to be the diflerential character of the two institu- tions. We have, then, two communities, under two very distinct consti- tutions, of very diflerent spirit, character, and circumstances. On these we have no time to expatiate. He that vi^as born after the flesh perse- cuted him that was born after the Spirit, is, however, a point so promi- nently characteristic of the two communities, as to be worthy of notice. It occasioned the rejection of Ishmael from the privileges of Abraham's family, and elicited that identical precept for which Mr. R. inquires — "Cast out the bond-woman and her son," "for the son of the bond- woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." " So then," says Paul, "brethren, we are children, not of the bond-woman, but of the free." Christians are under a new covenant, have a new spirit, and are heirs of a better inheritance than that of the old covenant. Abraham, the prince and distinguished patriarch, was called upon, by Divine authority, to hearken to Sarah and cast out the bond-woman and her son. That a king, so rich in gold and silver, in flocks, and herds, and servants ; so generous too, should have given her no more for her- self and her son, than one loaf of bread and one bottle of water, is not to be explained upon any other principle than that God intended it to be an allegoric representation of the difference between these two covenants ; two births, two spirits, two characters, two inheritances, as well as a sol- emn warning to those who will cleave to the letter rather than to the Spirit — to the Old Testament rather than to the New. Let him, then, who will be under that covenant, follow Hagar into the desert. Let him contemplate her, poor and homeless, parched with thirst, without bread, her son almost dying under a shrub for lack of the com- forts of life — let him listen to her complaints, and survey her wretched condition, and ask why all this suffering, almost under the eye of Abra- ham. And when he learns that all this happened for an example to those who will cleave to the old order of things rather than to the new, and seek to confound and identify things which God has separated, let him DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 333 at once desist from a course of action so dishonorable to the Divine wis- dom, and so fatal to himself. The gentleman has now the precept sought, and I feel that my pledge is redeemed. And should he ask for a second, he shall have it as soon as he shall have disposed of this allegory, and the argument deduced from it. I presume, however, that this will be so satisfactory to him, that he will not ask for another, pending the present proposition. I wish the gendeman would dipense with the sowing of assertions in this broad-cast style, and make an issue upon some point or other. He may have the allegory, or the covenants, or the identity, if he will only debate them. I will risk my cause upon such an issue. In this way of scattering assertions, no opportunity is afforded to test or decide any thing. A person of very little address can assert more in half an hour, than he can prove in an age. Mr. R. argues that the Jewish and christian churches are identical. But he seems to confound similarity and identity. They are, indeed, very different predicaments. There is some similarity between a man and a tree — but much more between a man and a monkey, yet they are not identical, [a laugh.] He argues for the identity of the church, and its rights of membership in all ages. But when I asked him for the door by which infants entered during the first 2000 years, he could not tell, but concluded that if I should tell how adults entered he might then find a door for infants. Well, I will now try. Adults entered God's church, so far as he had any on earth, during the first 4000 years, by faith and obedience, or if he prefer the phrase, by an active and operative belief of God's testimonies and promises. A beautiful passage in Isaiah, in prospect of the calling of the gentiles, seems clearly to refer to this transaction. It was designed to show that finally the children of Sarah would greatly outnumber those of Hagar : that is, that the spiritual children of Sarah and Abraham would incompar- ably transcend their fleshly progeny. I shall paraphrase as I read it. It immediately follows the sufferings of Christ, foretold in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, and is here quoted and applied by Paul to the offspring of Sarah. " Rejoice, thou barren, (Sarah) that bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for the desolate (deserted for Hagar) has many more children than she (Hagar) who had a (Sarah's) husband." Hence we boast of Sarah, the mother of us all. I will give you a sample of his argument for identity. He says that the .Tewish and Chrisuan churches are the same, because they have the same moral code. Massachusetts colony for a time adopted the law of Moses for her law. Was Massachusetts and the Jewish church, there- fore, identical ? They have, also, adopted the same code of morality in Kentucky : but is this commonwealth and the chrisUan church identical ? Upon that principle, Free Masonry and Christianity are identical ; because they have adopted something in common. But again — the same God reigns over both churches. Does not the same God reign over Kentucky and Jerusalem ? The same God reigns over the Ottoman empire and the United States ; are they, therefore, the same people ? He also argues die identity of the ancient and modern churches, because they have the same gospel. But this is noi strictly true : they have not the same gospel, unless upon the principle, that France and England have the same language, because they have the same alpha- bet. The christian gospel is not that the Messiah is to come; yet that 334 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. was the Jewish gospel. Paul calls the promise concerning Canaan, a gospel — so says Dr. McKnight — just as we have a gospel concerning a rest in heaven. We have, then, two gospels: the one earthly, fleshly; the other, heavenly. My friend says that both churches have the same ordinances. I should like to see him attempt to prove that the Jewish and Christian ordinances are the same. Is baptism and circumcision identical ? Is the passover and Lord's supper identical ? He says they have the same king. Not exactly the same king ! Messiah is now king. All power and authority in this universe,arenowin his hands. It was not so in the Jewish church. There was a change in the government when the Messiah was exalted. Who was it that placed the crown upon the head of the exalted Messiah ? Who placed him upon the throne, and said, " Reign in the midst of thine enemies?" It was that God that governed the Jews — the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. But he made Jesus Christ the rightful Sovereign over heaven and earth ; over all au- thorities, principalities, and powers. Peter said, " Let all the house of Israel know that Jesus is Lord and Christ." Therefore, it is not strictly true, that the government is in the same person, and in the same hands now, that administered it during the Jewish theocracy. Jesus was not then born, much less king. My friend says, the Mediator is the same. Moses was the mediator between God and the people. Gal. iii. 19, " Wherefore then serveth the law ? It was added because of transgres- sions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made ; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." In the hand of the mediator, Moses. Is Moses and the Messiah the same ? Paul to the Hebrews, says, " Having obtained a more excellent ministry than Moses and Aaron, he is the mediator of a better covenant." Christ's church is a spiritual community — a community of persons in- telligent, believing, loving, fearing and serving God in the hope of eternal life. They are possessed, every one, of God's Spirit, else they are not his. The church is the temple, the house of the living God, the dwelling place of the Most High. It is not a community of speechless babes and carnal, sensual men. Its members are all born again, born of the Spirit, born of God. I have one question to ask, itself a full refutation of the assumed iden- tity of the two institutions, the Jewish and the Christian. Was not Nic- odemus a proper, an honorable, an official member of Mr. Rice's Jewish identical christian church? And did not the Master say to him — Nico- demus, unless you, sir, " are born again" — or from above, " you cannot enter into my kingdom, or church, as almost universally understood? Did not John the Baptist come preaching the necessity of faith, repent- ance, and baptism, to the Jewish people ; even to prepare tliem for admis- sion into the kingdom of God ? Did not John tell the Jews that Abra- hamic descent would now profit nothing ; that they must not think that, having Abraham to be their father, would avail any thing, without a new faith, a real reformation — a new birth ? I have shown that some six or seven of his points have no identity. I would be willing to rest the whole controversy upon his ability to make them out points of identity. If, now, he will stake the whole case upon a thorough syllogistic canvassing of identity, I will meet him upon that single question. I predict that he will not do it. As I have said before, I am willing to take any number of points. It is his method to say that he has proved, or will prove so and so ; but DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 335 there is not much light, conviction, or evidence in such promises and as- sertions. I will show, at the proper time, as I have already in part, that the churches are not at all identical, even in his own specifications ; that in his examples, he has failed to prove any identity ; nay, I have showed that they had not the same constitution ; that they had not the same laws, came subjects, same observances, same promises, &;c. &c. How much better is Presbyterian flesh and blood than Jewish — than Roman Catholic flesh and blood ? Why should Protestants demand for their flesh and blood, what they would not extend to a Jew, a Mussul- man, or a pagan ? " God has made of one blood all nations of men," Why prefer one child of the flesh to another — baptize one and repudiate another ! ! It is a remarkable fact, that the New Testament begins with a repudia- tion of national and fleshly descent, of all family aristocracies in religion. ♦' Think not, men of Israel, to say that you have a covenanted father Abraham !" A proclamation of repentance is made to all men. Did they not baptize all the circumcised Jews that repented ? What comes of cir- cumcision as the door now? Two doors into Christ's house ! ! one by circumcision and one by baptism. This is an insuperable argument against identity. No man can dispose of it. There is, indeed, but one door into the world, and but one door into Christ's church. There is no back nor side door into either. Men can- not cut doors into Christ's house just when and where they please. Re- member, the King himself has said, " Ye must be born of water and of the Spirit." You must repent, and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. You must come to him, believe on him, receive him, or he will not give you the privilege of becoming children of God. So John the Harbinger, the Messiah himself, and his apostles, preached to the Jewish church, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. — [^Time expired. Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 11 o'clock,^. M [mr. rice's fifth address.] Mr. President — I decidedly object to Mr. Campbell's quotation from Calvin, for two important reasons. 1st. He has given part of a sentence without its connection ; and 2d. The part he has given is very incorrect- ly translated, so as to make the impression that Calvin claims for the church the authority to change the ordinances appointed by Christ ; when in truth he only maintains that the mode was not prescribed. So far as the gentleman's side of the question is concerned, it may be true, that there has been no debating. Such is certainly the fact, if by debating be understood the making of a fair issue on the points in controversy. I think it likely that many will be of opinion that he has left my most important arguments untouched. He would fain have me confine myself to some few points. It would, no doubt, be of great ser- vice to his cause, if he could exclude a large portion of the evidence bearing on the question. I prefer, however, concentrating, as far as pos- sible, the whole teaching of the Scriptures relative to it, and if he fails to answer my arguments, I cannot help it. He tells you that I am throwing dust in your eyes, by using the word children instead of infants. Does he really believe that any one, even the most ignorant, misunderstood me 1 The genfleman, who does not speak for present effect, seems to think that the audience cannot understand me. I am, however, disposed to presume somewhat upon their intelligence. 336 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. He calls on me to show where the children of believers were put into the church under the new dispensation. But I call on him to prove that the new dispensation has put them out. I have put them into the only church that ever did exist on the earth ; and let hira prove, if he can, that the passing away of the ceremonial law did put them out. If he cannot do this, (and I say, he cannot,) he must let them still enjoy their privi- leges. The law, my friend says, was not added to the Abrahamic covenant ; but to the promise with reference to the land of Canaan. Yesterday I thouglit he had three covenants, and that this was one of them. Let me turn to the Scripture (Gal. iii.) which he read upon the subject. The fact is, that Paul does not mention the land of Canaan in this whole chapter. He is writing against false teachers, who sought to be justified by the deeds of law ; and he proves that even Abraham did not pretend to be justified by the law, but by faith ; that he is introducing no new doctrine, but is teaching that which was believed by the father of the faithful himself. Gal. iii. 11 : " But that no man is justified by the law, in the sight of God, is evident ; for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith ; but the man that doeth them [the deeds of the law] shall live in them." Verse 13 : " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law; being made a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree : that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Does this prove that Paul was speaking of the land of Canaan ? So far from it, the apostle is teaching, that we receive not only justification, but a promise of the Spirit, through faith in the Lord Jesus, according to the Abrahamic covenant. But I will read a lit- tle farther : verse 15: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men ; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disan- nuUeth or addeth thereto." Again, verse 16: " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Compare with this the declaration of the apostle in the Heb. xi. 8 : " By faith, Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." This was the bright inheritance to which Abraham and his children were looking. Again, Gal. iii. 19 : " Wherefore, then, serveth the law ? it was added because of transgres- sions ; till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was made." The law was added — added to the Abrahamic covenant, which is the subject of Paul's whole discourse. The land of Canaan is not once mentioned in the epistle. The law at Sinai was, therefore, neither the constitution of the Jewish church, nor an addition, simply, to the promise of the land of Canaan ; but an addition to the Abrahamic cove- nant, made for a specific purpose, till Christ should come. I am quite pleased, that the gentleman has introduced the passage in the fourth chapter of the epistle to the Galatians; for it establishes most con- clusively the very doctrine for which I am contending. I will read from the twentieth verse : " I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice ; for I DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 337 stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law T For it is written, that Abraham had two sons ; the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was born of the bond-woman was born after the flesh ; but he of the free \voman was by promise. Which things are an allegory ; for these are the two covenants ; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is from above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written. Rejoice thou barren that bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not : for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture ! Cast out the bond-woman and her son : for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." Here we have distinctly presented, the two covenants ; the one with Abraham, which is represented by Sarah and Isaac; and the other at Sinai, represented by Agar and Ishmael. The Jews who clung to the law given at Sinai, as a temporary addition to the Abrahamic covenant, and rejected the Messiah promised in that covenant, were in bondage. Christ "came to his own, and his own received him not." The glorious Redeemer, the seed promised to Abraham, had appeared in Judea ; but the great body of the Jews rejected him, and turned to seek justification and salvation in the types and shadows of the Levitical law. They, in consequence of their apostasy from the Abrahamic covenant, were in bondage. Yet the promised Messiah was not rejected by all the Jews. The olive-tree still had some living branches. The great majority were broken off because of unbelief; but many who received the Divine Sa- vior, remained. Those who despised him and trusted in the law, were cut off; as Agar and Ishmael were removed from Abraham's family. Those who received him, still constituted his church, the Jerusalem which is from above, the mother of us all. That such is the true meaning . of the passage, is made perfectly clear by the quotation given by the apostle from Isaiah liv. 1. I will read sev- eral verses, that the connection may be understood: — " Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear ; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child : for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations : spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes : for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left ; and thy seed shall inherit the gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed : neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame : for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." I was somewhat amused to hear the gentleman quote this prophecy as an address to Sarah — Rejoice, 0 barren Sarah ! Whence he derives his authority for this singular interpretation, I know not, unless he considers Sarah the church. God did not represent himself as the husband of Sa- rah, but as the husband of the church. This prophecy is certainly addressed to the church under the old dis- pensation. It was intended to comfort her in a period of prevailing wickedness, and approaching calamity, by pointing her to a brighter day 22 2F 338 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. in her future history — a day when her children should be greatly multi- plied, and she should infierit the gentiles. Here is an unanswerable argument for the identity of the church under the Jewish and christian dispensations. For if, as Mr. Campbell contends, the Jewish church ceased to exist as the church of God, at the commence- ment of the new dispensation ; I call on him to tell us when these prom- ises were fulfilled. When did the Jewish church, to which they were addressed, lengthen her cords and strengthen her stakes ? When did she inherit the gentiles? When did she rejoice in the multitude of her chil- dren ? It is certain that these promises were never fulfilled under the old dispensation ; and if the christian church is not the same church under another dispensation, they never have been, and never can be fulfilled! When the apostles went forth to proclaim to the gentiles " the unsearch- able riches of Christ ; " when " the middle wall of partition " was broken down ; then it was that the church, which had for centuries been oppressed and afHicted, began to lengthen her cords and strengthen her stakes, and to receive the gentiles as her children. I am gratified that the gentleman turned our attention to this most interesting portion of Scrip- ture. We here find promises, great and precious, made to the church in the days of Isaiah, which received their fulfillment under the new dis- pensation. Thus we have evidence, the most conclusive, that the church is the same under both dispensations. The identity of the church under the Jewish and christian dispensa- tions, is also clearly proved by the prophecies, in the 60th chapter of Isaiah : " Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people : but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." When did the gentiles come to the light of the Jewish church ? When did kings come to the brightness of her rising? Was it under the old dispensation ? No : it was when the gospel went forth in triumph and glory, from nation to nation, and gathered its thousands into the church of the Redeemer. Then it was that the gentiles came to the brightness of her rising. Then kings shut their mouths, for that which they had not heard, was told them. Again, ver. 4 : " Lift up thine eyes round about and see : all they gather themselves together, they come to thee : thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thy heart shall fear, and be enlarged ; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the gen- tiles shall come unto thee." Now, when was the abundance of the sea converted to the Jewish church ? and when did the gentiles pour into it? Here are promises that could not be fulfilled under the Old Testament. The christian church, therefore, is the same which received the promises ; or if not, God made promises that never were and never can be fulfilled ! I might read the whole of this chapter ; but allow me only to read the verse 10: "And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favor have I had mercy on thee." Did the sons of strangers (gentiles) ever build up the walls of Jerusalem? Were these promises ever fulfilled to the church ? Never^ never : unless the christian church is identical DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 339 with the Jewish. And certainly it will not be denied, that the church which received the promises, lived to see their fulfillment. My friend has told us, that Christ's church is a spiritual church. I admit that it is a spiritual church, and so was the Jewish church intended to be spiritual. Hence no adult ever entered into it, according to God's law, without pro- fessing to be a believer ; and its members were required to worship God in spirit and in truth. Nicodemus was not a worthy member of that church. My friend says, that before the new dispensation, repentance was not preached. David said, " A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." God, speaking by Isaiah, said, " To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trerableth at my word." What did Isaiah say — 54th chapter? " Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Were not repentance and reformation then taught as conditions of salvation? I will answer, very briefly, if I have time, some of my friend's further remarks. In relation to the church for two thousand years before Abra- ham, he asks, if there was a church, how did infants get in? He asserts that adults entered by faith. I desire the proof of this : I call for the proof that faith, before the days of Abraham, ever constituted an individ- ual a member of the visible church. That there were many pious people, and that they exercised faith, is certainly true ; but did faith constitute them members of a visible church ? The gentleman cannot find a church of God, in which the children of believers did not enjoy the same privi- leges granted to believers, so far as they were capable. If he will show how adults entered a visible church, before the time of Abraham, by the Bible, and not by assertion, I will attend to his arguments. I have proved that the church is the same, under both dispensations, from the fact, that she receives and obeys the same moral laiv. My friend replies, that the state of Kentucky has adopted the code of laws taught by Moses. I did not know it; and I very much doubt whether the state of Kentucky professes to receive and obey Moses' law. I knew that she had borrowed a great deal from the Bible ; but that she had adopted the moral law of God, and professed to be governed by it, is one of the things that I did not know. I am equally ignorant of the fact, if it be a fact, that Massachusetts ever adopted the moral law as a rule of ac- tion. If it were true, however, it would prove that there is a sameness in one point. But, the gentleman says, if I had maintained that the Jewish and Chris- tian churches were, in many respects, similar, he would have admitted it. I said precisely what I meant, and what is literally true. Under both dispensations the church worships and serves the same God — not a simi- lar God. She obeys the same (not a simitar) moral law. She receives the same (not a similar) gospel ; and she enjoys her blessings under the same (not a similar) covenant. I am not speaking of similarities, but of identity. The Free Masons, the gentleman tells us, have adopted the moral law. If he will prove that there are as many and as important points of same- ness between the Masons and the christian church, as I have shown be- tween the church under the old dispensation, and under the new, I will recognize them as a part of the church of Christ. But he will not at- tempt it. 340 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. In reply to the fact I have stated, that under both dispensations the church worships and serves the same God, he says — the same God reigns over Kentucky and over Jerusalem ! Can he see no difference between a revolted province and a people obedient to the laws of their sovereign ? I did not say, simply, that the same God controls all things, under both the Old and the New Testaments, 6i that the nineteen examples, being just alike, amounted to only one! But when I give, as an example, one household baptism, he is quite amused, that the subject is touched so lightly ! I have, he says, assumed that Lydia had a husband and children, &c. I have assumed nothing. I have no occasion to draw upon my imagina- tion, as did Mr. Campbell and father Taylor, to supply the defects of sa- cred history. I state simple, indisputable facts — that the Evangelist states that Lydia believed, and that she and her family were baptized ; but he did not say that her family believed. I say, we write as Luke wrote ; and anti-Pedo-baptists do not thus write. I cheerfully leave the audience to decide, in view of these facts, whether we, or the gentleman and those who agree with him, practice as Luke and the apostles did. Mr. Campbell quotes Dr. Neander's opinion, that Christ did not ordain infant baptism, and also a statement concerning the history of it. Dr. Neander lives at too late a period to be admitted as a witness, only as he gives authority for his statements. We are not, however, discussing the question, whether Christ ordained infant baptism. That he instituted DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 40I the ordinance of baptism, all admit. But the question arises, viz. to whom is baptism to be administered? We prove, at least to our own satisfaction, that adult believers and their children, are scriptural sub- jects of this ordinance. Our Savior did not ordain /ema/e communion. He did, however, appoint his supper to be observed in all future time ; and, although there is no precept for admitting females to commune, it can be proved to be their privilege and their duty. And so it is with in- fant baptism. Dr. Neander, though a great man, does not always reason as conclu- sively as he might, as we may see by an extract which I will read from his history of the church : " But immediately after Ireneus, in the latter years of the second cen- tury, Tertullian appeared as a zealous opponent of infant baptism, a proof that it was not then usually considered as an apostolic ordinance, for in that case he would hardly have ventured to speak so strongly against it."— CA. Hist. p. 199. According to his logic, infant baptism could not have been usually con- sidered an apostolical ordinance ; or Tertullian would not have ventured to speak so strongly against it. But did he not speak as strongly against the baptism of young and unmarried persons? And are we thence to conclude, that the baptism of such persons was not usually considered as of divine authority ? The reasoning would be quite as conclusive in the one case as in the other. The children of believers, the gentleman tells us, are, according to Presbyterian doctrine, born in the church ; and, therefore, baptism cannot be to them a door of entrance. I am not at all tenacious about the particu- lar word door, which, however, when figuratively used in regard to the church, is correct. Baptism is a rite by which membership in the church of Christ is recognized. The children of Jews were, by birth, entitled to membership in the church ; but they could not partake of the passover nor enjoy the privileges of the church, till circumcised. Precisely so the children of believers cannot enjoy the privileges of the church, until their membership is recognized by baptism. By the way, the gentleman says, he has more to say on the history of infant baptism, than I will be inclined to hear. I am prepared to listen patiently to all the history he can produce ; and I will be with him when- ever he chooses to enter upon it. He is again descanting on the covenants with Abraham. He found fault with me for going to the Qld Testament in support of infant mem- bership ; and yet admitted that the New Testament could not be under- stood without the Old. Still, however, though he has continued to ■wander through the Old Testament, he fails to find more than one cove- nant with Abraham. And if he could find half a dozen, my argument would not be affected by the discovery ; since it is certain that the cove- nant sealed by circumcision, contains the promise of spiritual blessings, and, as Andrew Fuller says, constituted him the father of the church of God in future ages. I have repeatedly called on the gentleman to prove, that any adult ever entered the Jewish church, according to God's law, without professing faith in the God of Abraham. He failed to produce an example ; but he thinks he has found one to-day. My friend will rally sometimes. He has brought forward the case of the Shechemites, whom two of Jacob's sons induced to be circumcised, that they might murder them, because of 26 2l2 402 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. an insult offered their sister by a son of the prince ! And this ungodly trick, resorted to by two wicked young men, ibr purposes of revenge, and severely condemned by Jacob, is brought up by Mr. Campbell, as an example of the scriptural administration of circumcision ; to show that adults, without professing faith, might be circumcised according to the law of God ! ! ! His cause is surely laboring under great difficulties, or he would not have attempted to sustain it by such means. Let him show, if he can, that the Shechemites were circumcised according to God's law. The kingdom of heaven, the gentleman says, was to be taken from the Jews and given to the gentiles. But, if it be true, as he contends, that a 7iew religion was given to the gentiles, and a new church established among ihem, what, I ask, was taken from the Jews, and given to the gentiles? The kingdom of Christ — the church, with its privileges and blessings, was taken from the former, and given to the latter ; and this adds strength to the argument, proving the identity of the church. It is vain for Mr. Campbell to attempt to evade the force of the argu- ment afforded by the olive-tree, (Rom. xi. 16 — .) He cannot deny that, by the olive-tree, is meant the christian church ; but he says, the first fruit, of which the apostle speaks, were the ^rs^ converts to Christianity. If this be true, how is it that the unbelieving Jews were broken off from it, as the apostle declares ? Were they broken off from the first converts to Christianity ? ! The olive-tree is the church, from which the Jewish nation (so far as they rejected Christ) were broken off; into which the believing gentiles were grafted, and into which the Jews, when converted to Christianity, shall be again introduced. The conclusion is inevitable, that the church to which the Jews belong, is the same into which the gentiles were brought, and to which the converted Jews, with their chil- dren, shall return. I wish the gentleman would have told us how the unbelieving Jews were broken off from the first converts to Christianity; but he seemed to forget to remove this difficulty ! He says, I stated, that the moral law is the constitution of the chriS' tian church. I did not say so. I said, the moral law may be consid- ered, in a sense, the constitution of God's moral government ; inasmuch as it defines the duties of the subjects to the great King, and their duties, rights, and privileges relative to each other. So he is again mistaken, and has spent some time in disproving what I never thought of affirming. I will now resume the argument for infant baptism, derived from his- tory. I have quoted Ireneus, the discriple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John the apostle, and have proved that he speaks of infant baptism, so as to make the clear impression, that, at that very early period, it was universally believed and practiced, as of divine institution. That, by the language he used, he meant baptism, I can prove by Mr. Camp- bell himself and by Dr. Neander, whom he has quoted as a very learned man. I have also given the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, of Tertul- Uan, Origen, and of Cyprian and the council of sixty-six bishops. I will now give you the testimony of Augustin and Jerom, two of the most learned of the christian fathers, who flourished in the latter part of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries ; and who speak of infant baptism, not only as in their day universally practiced by the whole church, but as having ever been regarded as of divine authority. I will first quote a passage from the writings of Jerom. DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 403 ♦' This is said of those that have understanding of such as he was, of whom it is written in the gospel, He is of age, let him speak for himself. But he that is a child, and thinks as a child, (till such time as he come to years of discretion — and Pythagoras' letter (Y) do bring to the place where the road parts into two,) his good deeds, as well as his evil deeds, are im- puted to his parents. Unless you will tliink the children of christians are themselves only under the guilt of the sin, if they do not receive baptism ; and that the wickedness is not imputed to those also who would not give it them, especially at that time when they that were to receive it, could make no opposition against the receiving of it," &c. — [Epist. ad Letam.'] Wall. vol. i. p. 240. Augustine thus comments on 1 Cor. vii. 14: " Fo7' an unbelieving husband has been sanctified by his believing wife, and an unbelieving wife by her believing husband. I suppose it iiad then happened that several wives had been brought to the faith by their believing husbands, and husbands by their believing wives. And though he does not mention their names, yet he makes use of their example to confirm his advice. Else were your children unclean, but now arc they holy. For there were then christian infants that were sanctified, [or made holy, i. e. that were baptized] some by the authority of one of their parents, aome by the consent of both ; which would not be, if as soon as one party believed, the marriage were dissolved," &c. — De Strmone Domini in MotUe. Again, — p. 251 : *' So that many persons, increasing in knowledge, after their baptisna, and especially those who have been baptized either when they were infants, or when they were youths ; as their understanding is cleared and enlighten- ed, and their inward man renewed day by day, do themselves deride, and with abhorrence and confession renounce their former opinions which they had of God, when they were imposed on by their imaginations. And yet they are not, therefore, accounted either not to have received baptism, or to have received a baptism of that nature that their error was," &c. Again — p. 254 : " And as the thief, who by necessity went without baptism, was saved; because by his piety he had it spiritually : so where baptism is had, though the party by necessity go without that [faith] which the thief had, yet he is saved. Which the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them, in the case of little infants baptized : who certainly cannot yet believe with the heart to righteousness, or confess with the mouth to salvation, as the thief could," &c. * * * " And if any one do ask for divine authority in this matter: though that which the whole church practices, and which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered [or ordered] by authority of the apostles: yet we may besides take a true estimate, how much the sa- crament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God?8 former people received." — De Baptismo cont. Donatistas. Augustine, you observe, states, that the whole church practiced infant baptism, and that it was never instituted by councils. I will read one or two more extracts, (pp. 382, 383.) Having quoted some passages from the writings of Jerome, he remarks as follows : " And now some people, by the boldness of I know not what disputing humor, go about to represent that as uncertain which our ancestors made nse of as a most certain thing, whereby to resolve some things that seemed uncertain. For, when this began first to be disputed, I know not : but thia I know, that holy Hierome, whose pains and fame for excellent learning in ecclesiastical matters is at this day so great, does also make use of this as a thing most certain, to resolve some questions in his books," &c. 404 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. Then having quoted some passages out of St. Hierome on Jonah, he proceeds : " If we could with convenience come to ask that most learned man, hovr many writers of christian dissertations and interpreters of holy scripture in both languages could he recount, who from the time that Christ's church has been founded, have held no otherwise, have received no other doctrine from their predecessors, nor left any other to their successors'! For my part, (though my reading is much less than his,) I do not remember that I ever heard any other thing from any christians that received the Old and New Testament, non solum in Catholica ecclesia verum eliam in qitalibet hceresi vel schismate constitutis : neither from such as were of the Catholic church, nor from such as belonged to any sect or schism. JVbm memini me aliud legisse, &c. I do not remember that I ever read otherwise in any writer that I could ever find treating of these matters, that followed the canonical Scriptures, or did mean or did pretend to do so." Such is the testimony of two of the most eminent fathers of the chris- tian church. There not only was, in their day, no controversy on the subject of infant baptism, but they declare that there never had been any difference of opinion in regard to it. I now invite your attention to the testimony of Pelagius. And let it be remarked, his testimony is peculiarly valuable, not only because he was a man of extensive learning, but especially because the doctrine of infant baptism was plainly inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of his system — the denial of original sin ; and with this difficulty he was constandy pressed by his opposers. He had, therefore, every motive to deny the doctrine, and to prove it an innovation in the church. But hear what he says : " Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, or did promise the kingdom of heaven to some persons without the redemption of Christ : which is a thing that I never lieard, no not even any wicked heretic say. For who is there so ignorant of that which is read in the gos- pel, as (I need not say to affirm this, but) in any heedless way to say such a thing, or even have such a thought," &c. — Wall, vol. i. p. 450. Now look at the strength of this testimony. I began with Ireneus, almost in sight of the apostle John. Then came Tertullian and Origen, a few years later; then Cyprian and the sixty-six bishops; then, at a later period, Jerom and Augustine ; and, finally, Pelagius — all testifying to the universal prevalence of infant baptism. Now, if any fact can be established by history, it is the fact, that this practice prevailed from the days of the apostles themselves. I have another interesting portion of history, which I will present for your consideration. Mr. Campbell, and other anti-Pedo-baptists, have claimed the Waldenses and Albigenses, (those witnesses for God and the truth, in the 3ark ages, when Christianity seemed almost lost from the earth,) as anti-Pedo-baptists. This claim is set up by Mr. Jones, the Baptist historian, of whose history Mr. Campbell has spoken in the highest terms ; yet in his account of the Waldenses, though quoting avowedly from Perrin's history, he left out every thing that squinted at infant baptism 1 Perrin was a descendant from these people, and he took the pains to visit them, and obtained their confessions of faith, and other books and documents, from which he wrote their history. Their enemies, (the Roman priests,) did charge them with denying the baptism of infants ; and Mr. Jones published the charge as if it were undoubted- ly true. In reply to it John Paul Perrin, their historian, thus r&- marks: — (Book i. ch. iv. p. 15.) DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 405 "The fourth calumnie was touching baptisme, which, it is said, they [Waldenses] denied to little infants : but from this imputation they quit themselves as followeth : — The time and place of those that are to be bap- tized is not ordained, but the charitie and edification of the church and con- gregation must serve for a rule therein, &c. ; and therefore, they to whom the children were nearest allied, brought their infants to be baptized, as their parents, or any other whom God hath made charitable in that kind." Again: (Perrin, book i. chap. vi. pp. 30, 31.) " King Lewis XII, having been informed by the enemies of the Walden- ses, dwelling in Provence, of many grievous crimes, which were imposed [charged] upon them, sent to make inquisition in those places, the lord Adam Fumee, Maister of Requests, and a doctor of Sorbon, called Parne, who was his confessor. They visited all the parishes and temples, and found neither images, nor so much as the least show of any ornaments be- longing to their masses and ceremonies of the church of Rome, much lesse any such crimes as were imposed [charged] upon them ; but rather that they kept their Sabbathes duely, causing their children to be baptized ac- cording to the order of the primitive church, teaching them the articles of the christian faith and the commandments of God." Now let us see how faithfully the historian, Mr. Jones, who has been recommended by my friend, has quoted Perrin: (Church Hist. p. 348.) " Louis XII, king of France, being informed by the enemies of the Wal- denses, inhabiting a part of the province of Provence, that several crimes were laid to their account, sent the Master of Requests and a certain doc- tor of the Sorbonne, who was confessor to his majesty, to make inquiry into the matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any of the ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance of bap- tism according to the primitive church, instructed their children in the arti- cles of the christian faith, and the commandments of God." — Joachim Camerarius, in his History, p. .352, quoted by Perrin, book i. chap. v. Here Mr. Jones, when he came to infant baptism, wholly omitted it ; and instead of saying, as did the author he quoted — " causing their chil- dren to be baptized " — he says, " observed the ordinance of baptism ac- cording to the primitive church ! ! !" Thus the Waldenses are proved to be anti-Pedo-baptists, by concealing their testimony. A more glaring falsification of history I never saw ! I have a great deal more testimony upon the same point, only part of which I can present; I will read some passages from their confessions of faith. Perrin, book ii. chap. iv. pp. 60, 61 : " Touching the matter of the sacraments, it hath been concluded by the Holy Scriptures, that we have but two sacramental signes, the which Christ Jesus hath left unto us ; the one is baptisme, the other the eucharist, which wee receive to shew what our perseverance in the faith is, as wee have pro- mised when wee were baptized, being little infants : as also in remembrance of that great benefit, which Jesus Christ hath done unto us, when bee died for our redemption, washing us with hie most precious blood." — Con/, of Faith, Art. 17. " Amongst others there appeared a poore, simple, laboring man, whom the president commanded to cause his child to be re-baptized, which had lately been baptized by the minister of Saint John, neere Angrongne. This poore man requested so much respite, as that bee might pray unto God before bee answered him, which being granted with some laughter, he fell downe upon his knees in the presence of all that were there, and his prayer hsing ended, he said to the president, that hee would cause his childe to be 406' DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. re-baptized, upon condition, that tlie said president would discharge him by a bill signed with his owne hand, of the sinne which hee should commit in causing it to be re-baptized, and beare one day before God, the punish- ment and condemnation which should befall him, taking this iniquity upon him and his. Which the president understanding, hee commanded him out of his presence, not pressing him any farther." — Perrin, book ii. p. 64. Doctrine of the Waldenses and ALbigenses, book i. ch. vi. p. 43. — "Now this baptisme is visible and materiall, which maketh the partie neither good nor evill, as it appeareth in the Scripture, by 8imon Magus and Saint Paul. And whereas baptisme is administered in a full congregation of the faith- full, it is to the end that hee that is received into the church, should be reputed and held of all for a christian brother, and that all the congregation might pray for him, that he may be a christian. And for this cause it is, that wee present our children in baptisme : which they ought to doe, to whom the children are neerest, as their parents, and they to whom God had given this charitie." "The things that are not necessary in the administration of baptisme. are the exorcismes, breatliings, the sigue of the crosse upon the forehead and breast of the infant, the salt put into his mouth, spittle into his eares and nostrills, the anoynting of the breast," &c. — Book iii. ch. iv. p. 99. The Waldenses and Albigenses, whilst they boldly and fearlessly testi- fied against all the corruptions of popery, still contended for the scripture doctrine of infant baptism. We have now a connected chain of evidence in favor of this doctrine., extending from the Waldenses and Albigenses, up through Pelagius, Au- gustin, Jerom, Origen, Cyprian and the council at Carthage, and Tertul- Uan, to Ireneus ; between whom and the apostle John there was but a single individual. I will now read to the audience the conclusion to which Dr. Wall, af- ter long and careful examination, was induced to come. — [^Time expired. TJ'ednesday, Nov. 22 — 12,1 o'clock, P. M. [mr. Campbell's tenth reply. 3 Mr. President — IMr. Rice has to address us but once more on this proposition. It is, therefore, incumbent on me to give him all the points on which I rely. I will premise on the identity question, and on some one or two other matters, a few items, that he may be prepared to respond in his next speech. He commenced, and he seems disposed to conclude, his defence of infant affusion by an appeal to maternal tenderness, or that it some way takes hold of the conscience and obliges parents to do for their offspring more than either nature or the precepts of Christianity would or could possibly accomplish. Thus he infuses into infant sprink- ling a moral power of constraining parental affection, or obliging parents to do for their children what, without these vows and protestations, they could not otherwise be induced to do. Well, now, the first question is — Is this fact? I shall make ray appeal at once to christian mothers. I put the question to every christian mother, whether her maternal affections for her own offspring, and her christian obligations to the Lord, growing out of his love and authority, commanding and enjoining her to bring up her children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, can be augmented and enhanced by a promise extorted from her without any authority for it in the Bible, to do what the Divine impulses, the motherly instincts, which the God of love and sympathy has planted with his own hand in her bosom; and the pure, and holy, and authoritative precepts of the Savior that bought her, cannot accomplish ? I have no doubt of the issue of such DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 407 an appeal. Nature is stronger than the artificial vows appended to the rite of initiation — and so reads the history of the world, so far as it details the experience of all ages and nations. You cannot exercise maternal affection if you would lead every mother to the altar and make her swear seven times to do her duty to her children, after you have laid before her the precepts of Christ. Why did my friend stop with the case of Lydia? Why went he not round all the other households, as usual? Why did he not, when asked, produce the case of Stephanus and his house, of Cornelius and his house, of the jailor and his iiouse? He thought it enough to try the strongest case, and failing in that, despaired of the others. He makes so many assumptions, he has not time to defend them. He would, in Parthian style, say, as he moves along, that there is no precept for female commu- nion. This objection is a surrendering of the plea for any authority pre- ceptive of infant baptism; and then by way of reprisals, to gain conces- sion, says — You have no precept nor example for female communion! Well, as there is neither male nor female communion, but christian com- munion— proving the latter, we prove both male and female. But as he will not ask for proof on tiiat point, I will refer him especially to Acts, 1st and 2d chapters. He will find that one hundred and twenty men and women were in communion in Jerusalem, before the first Pentecost. He will, also, find that three thousand were added to them on that day; and he will next find that these three thousand one hundred and twenty disciples, male and female, continued in all christian communion, and among the rest, in breaking the loaf. Here is a Divine warrant for male and female communion in the loaf. Give only one such case of infant baptism — we ask no more ! Well, we have gained another point of some importance. He now says that baptism is not the door. I congratulate him in giving that up. He has no use for a door in getting into his church. He rather needs one to get out of it. Indeed, none of us imagines that there is any thing in the form of a door into a Christian or Jewish community. We use the term meta- phorically. By initiation, entrance, and door, we mean the same thing. Infant baptism, then, does not initiate into the christian church on the principle of identity, for circumcision did not initiate. No initiation, no door. So that matter is also settled. If he should ever speak of baptism as a door or an initiation, I will again request him to tell us into ivhat does it initiate a child ; or into what is it a door? I might advert to the new version of the commission, given from Mark, though he has not replied to the other versions — Mark's version and Luke's version. What does Mark say: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature ; he that believelh and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned." Luke is still more clear. Here the Savior commands that "repentance or refor- mation and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." That single word, reformation, in- cludes the whole — among all nations. Faith, first; repentance, next, and baptism next. These versions we plead in explanation of the words, disciple them. With regard to the Schechemites — I know it was an ugly affair; but if circumcision had required a confession of faith, I am persuaded that the whole clan never could have been prevailed upon to submit to the rite. It could not be supposed that advantage was taken of their ignorance. No 408 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. one ever thought of such a thing as professing faith in order to circumci- sion. Can the gentleman name any one who was ever called to make profession of faith in order to circumcision ? There is the breadth of the heavens of difference between circumcision and baptism ; otherwise, there would be some passage found, or some precept, saying — '^Believe, and be circumcised.''^ The gentleman did say that we are under the same moral law ; for I wrote it down as he uttered it, and I have company in this assertion. I have others with me who heard the satne. I said in replication, that Massachusetts and Kentucky had the same moral law. It is so written out in so many words in my notes, and I am particular in writing down every important matter. As to Mr. Jones and this accusation, I have nothing to say at this mo- ment. He is an honest historian, as I believe, though he does not agree with me in some matters. His reputation as an historian stands very high. The gentleman might have saved himself the trouble of quoting many authorities in favor of infant baptism. Against his doctrine of identity I offer the following arguments, alrea- dy hinted, though not fully developed. The Savior has positively said, " The law and the prophets were (in authority, or were public instruc- tors) your teachers till John came. Since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and all men press zn/o t7," Lukexvi. 16. What language could be more clearly expressive of the cessation or withdrawal of one class of teachers, and the introduction of a new institution ? The law and prophets were the Old Testament; but now a new institution into which, out of some other one, all the conscientious press. The Jews' religion was corrupted, the gentleman says ; but so has been the christian. The Jews' religion was once reformed, so has the christian, nominally, been reformed at sundry times. But this is more than reformation ; it is the kingdom of God that is preached, and men are now leaving the law and the prophets, and that institution, and pressing into it. There were many pious Jews amongst that people, like Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth — and even Saul of Tarsus, who was so pious and zealous for the religion of his fathers, and of the law and the prophets, that he per- secuted the christians, because they had got up, as he understood it, a new religion. It would be impossible to conceive of one so learned as Paul, and so discriminating, as not to have seen that Christianity was only reformed Judaism, if that were its real character. Again, the church is said to be " built on the foundation of the apos- tles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." Were these the foundation of the Jewish church ? Was it built on this foundation? Did Jesus Christ live cotemporary with Moses, and the an- cients who prophecied of him ! ! Into what wild extremes are we driven, in avoiding the truth, whether the evasion be voluntary or involuntary! Another proof 1 have always deduced from Daniel. This most cele- brated of Jewish prophets foretold, that in the time of the Romans, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, a new institution of course ; for who SETS UP an old institution already existing ? How could that king- dom be set up, while that of Moses was standing? Will God have two kingdoms on earth at the same time? Messiah, the prince, then, was to come first, and then his kingdom. Certainly Daniel foretold a new insti- tution— a kingdom of God. Who can plausibly show that the kingdom of God; to be setup, was the identical Jewish church? in its national DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 409 and wordly form, too, for that was an essential element of its constitution ! Isaiah, also, is indisputably with us. He says, or rather the Lord says by him, chap, xxviii., Thus sailh the Lord God, "Behold I lay in Zion, for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation." 'I'his is the foundation of all those brilliant passages, read from the prophets, in proof of identity. Every bright scene of the future glory of the true Israel of God, is drawn from the visions of the Messiah and his saints, then in the flesh, of the Jewish ceremonial. All the bright scenes are, by the apostles, applied, in this way, to Him who, at first, was a stone of stumbling, and a rock of off"ence. I need not say, for no one will debate it, that this passage is quoted and applied by the apostles to Jesus Christ, who appeared in the days of the Caesars; consequently it must be conceded, that ike foundation of the new institution was not laid, while, as yet, the Mosaic was standing. Evident, then, it is, that the kingdom of the Messiah is radically, es- sentially, and formally different from the Jewish theocracy, from the pa- triarchal, and every other religious institution on the earth. It was to be builded on an entirely new foundation, and to consist of a spiritual peo- ple, whose nativity should be spiritual and heavenly. Since the world began there never was, till the day of Pentecost, a society of men who met together, purely upon spiritual grounds ; never a church of God, in the New Testament acceptation of that most abused word. On that com- menced a new society, who met together purely on the ground of a spiri- tual faith, hope, and love. These were believers in Christ, converted men. No such a separate society was ever before convened. The fam- ily religion of the patriarchal age had natural bonds of association, and was necessarily mixed in its character. The Jewish religion was nation- al, and therefore mixed in its very nature and constitution. But the church is neither natural nor national ; but supernatural, spiritual, and divine. That there were saints among Jews and patriarchs, by myriads, I believe and hope. But there was no church, such as Christianity con- templates, at all. Nothing like it. If Christ's church be a continuation of the Jewish, then it must be national! Defection and corruption, alas, follow men every where on earth — in paradise and out of it; under all dispensations and administrations. Out- side of the New Testament there is no church authority whatever; no christian authority. The arguments heard are no earlier than the third cen- tury— for, indeed there is no vestige of infant baptism till in the third — Ter- tullian is the first person that names it. But suppose it were found in the second century, evident as any other historical fact whatever, what then ? It is, in the judgment of the most learned Presbyterian doctors now liv- ing, of no value or authority whatever. You shall now have these words fully confirmed, by one of the most virulent opponents of the Baptists now living ; one of the greatest devotees to Presbyterianism, and one who has, for his opportunities, said and written as bitter things against myself, as any other doctor of divinity in that church ; I mean Dr. Miller, of Princeton Theological school, and professor of ecclesiastic history, and, of course, he ought to know what such evidence as you have just heard from Mr. Rice is worth. I am sorry I have not time to read so much from him as I could wish. Dr. Miller says : (Letters on Epis. pp. 290, 291.) " We are accustomed to look back to the first ages of the church with a veneration nearly bordering on superstition. It answered the purpose of 2M 410 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. popery, to refer all their corruptions to primitive times, and to represent those times as exhibiting the models of all excellence. But every repre- sentation of this kind must be received with distrust. The christian church, during the apostolic age, and for half a century, did indeed present a venerable aspect. Persecuted by the w^orld on every side, she was favor- ed in an uncommon measure with the presence of the Spirit of her divine Head, and exhibited a degree of simplicity and purity, which has, perhaps, never since been equalled. But before the close of the second century, the Bcene began to change ; and before the commencement of the fourth, a deplo- rable corruption of doctrine, discipline, and morals, had crept into the church, and disfigured the body of Christ. Hegesippus, an ecclesiastical historian, declares that the " virgin purity of the church was confined to the days of the apostles." " I shall not now stay to ascertain what degree of respect is due to the writings of the fathers in general. It is my diity, however, to state, that we do not refer to them, in any wise, as a rule either of faith or practice^ We acknowledge the Scriptures alone to be such rule. By this rule the fathers themselves are to be tried; and of course they cannot be considered as the christian''s authority for any thing. It is agreed, on all hands, that they are not infallible guides : and it is perfectly well known to all who are acquainted with their writings, that many of them are inconsistent, both with themselves and with one another. We protest, therefore, utterly against any appeal to them on this subject. Though they, or an angel from heaven, should bring us any doctrine, as essential to the order and well- being of the church, which is not to be found in the word of God, we are bound by the command of our Master to reject them." Dr. Miller, in his Letters on Epis. pages 164 and 149, says: " Even supposing you had found such declarations in some or all of the early fathers ; what then ] Historic fact is not divine institution." Once more : " Suffer me, my brethren, again to remind you of the principle on which we proceed, in this part of our inquiry. If it could be demonstrated from the writings of the fathers, that in one hundred, or even in fifty years, [in four years, or four centuries, he remarks in another place,] after the death of the last apostle, the system of diocesan episcopacy had been gene- rally adopted in the church, it would be nothing to the purpose. As long as 710 traces of this fact can be found in the Bible, but much of a directly opposite nature, we should stand on a secure and immovable foundation. To all reasonings, then, derived from the fathers, I answer with the vene- rable Augustine, who, when pressed with the authority of Cyprian, replied, * His writings I hold not to be canonical, but examine them by the canoni- cal writings : and in tliem, what agreeth with the authority of divine Scrip- ture, I accept, with his praise ; what agreeth not, I reject with his leave.'" I have a liberal set of extracts from Taylor's Ancient Christianity here, prepared for this place ; but I have not time to read nor comment on them. Those of Mr. Miller, then, must suffice for the present. And the words of no man in America can be read with more acceptance, I pre- sume, by Mr. Rice. I must treat you to a word or two from that St. Cyprian, of whom you heard so much in commendation from Mr. Rice, who, in his council of si.Kty-six African bishops, decided in favor of infant baptism. He was one also of Mr. Rice's learned men, that decided that sprinkling water or sand made good valid christian baptism. He was an advocate for infant communion, and for many other such human traditions. I am sorry that I can read but one such extract as the following, for every ten that I might read, and that ought to be read, with notes and comments, especially adapted to the ears of Pedo-baptists. I admit, that from St. Cyprian's DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 41 1 time, kifant baptism and infant communion were very common ; for they began about the same time, and continued for centuries, as true and faith- ful companions. But let us hear this saint. I quote from Wall's History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. pages 482-3 : " St. Cyprian says : I will tell you what happened in my own presence. •The parents of a certain little girl, running out of town in a fright, had for- got to take any care of their child, whom they had left in the keeping of a nurse. The nurse had carried her to the magistrates : they, because she was too little to eat the flesh, gave Iier to eat before the idol some of the bread, mixed with wine, which had been left of the sacrifice of those wretciies. Since that time her mother took her home. But she was no more capable of declaring and telling the crime committed, than she had been before of understanding or of hindering it. So it happened that once when I was administering, her mother, ignorant of what had been done, brought her along with her. But tiie girl, being among the saints, could not with any quietness hear the prayers said; but sometimes fell into weeping, and sometimes into convulsions, with the uneasiness of her mind: and her ignorant soul, as under a rack, declared by such tokens as it could, the conscience of the fact in those tender years. And when the service was ended, and the deacon went to give the cup to those that were present, and the others received it, and her turn came, the girl by a divine instinct turn- ed away her face, shut her mouth, and refused the cup. But yet the deacon persisted ; and put into her mouth, though she refused it, some of the sacra- ment of the cup. Tlien followed retchings and vomiting. The eucharist could not stay in her polluted mouth and body ; the drink consecrated in our Lord's blood burst out again from her defiled bowels. Such is the power, such the majesty of our Lord: the secrets of darkness were discovered by its light : even unknown sins could not deceive the priest of God. This happened in the case of an infant, who was by reason of her age incapable of declaring the crime which another had acted on her." From such teachers and doctors, who, in the name of reason, would expect to find any authority to infiuenee christians in the performance of the most solemn acts of religion — the administration of baptism, and the supper ! That infant communion was as common as infant baptism, I say again, can be fully proved, as Mr. Rice very well knows, or ought to know — and that from the same sources, too. I must give one or two short extracts : — "St. Austin says: The christians of Africa do well call baptism itself, one's salvation ; and the sacrament of Christ body one's life. From whence is this, but, as I suppose, from that ancient and apostolical tradition, by which the churches of Christ do naturally hold, that witliout baptism and partaking of the Lord's table, none can come either to the kingdom of God, or to salvation and eternal life] For the Scripture, as I shewed before, says the same. For what other thing do they hoh!,that call baptism salva- tion, than that which is said, ' He saved us by the wasliing of regeneration:' and that which Peter says, ' The like figure whereunto. even baptism, doth now save us!' And what other thing do they liold, that call the sacrament of the Lord's table, life, than that which is said, I am the bread of life, &c. and The bread which I will give is my flesh, wliicii I will give for the life of the world ; and. Except ye eat the flesh of tlie Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you] If then, as so many divine testimonies do agree neither salvation nor eternal life is to be hoped for by any without baptism, and the body and blood of our Lord ; it is in vain promised to infants without them."— /Fa//, pp. 485, 486. " Innocent L, Bishop of Rome, does indeed, A. D. 417, plainly and posi- tively say, that infants cannot be saved without receiving the eucharist; 412 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. and that in a synodical epistle written to the fathers of the Milevetian coun- cil. The council had represented to him the mischief of that tenet of the Pelagians, that unbaptized infants, though they cannot go to heaven, yet may have eternal life ; which the Pelagians maintained on this pretence : that our Savior, though he said, '//e that is not born of water cannot enter the kingdom,^ yet had not said he cannot have eternal life. To this, Inno- cent's words are — ' That which your brotherhood says that they teach, that infants may without the grace of baptism have eternal life,' is very absurd. Since, ' Except they eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, they have no life in them.' His meaning is plainly this : they can have no eternal life without receiving the communion; and they cannot do that, till they be baptized.' * * * And it is true what Mr. Daille urges, 'That St. Austin says the same thing eight or ten times over, in several places of his books.' And some of these books are dated a little before the letter of Innocent." — Wall, vol. i. p. 484. •' It is a brave thing to be infallible. Such men may do what they will, and it shall be true. What is a contradiction in other men's mouths, is none in theirs. Pope Innocent, in a synodical letter sent to the council of Milevetia, says — " If infants do not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, [meaning the sacrament,] they have no life in them.' Pope Pius, in confirming the council of Trent, says, ' If any man say so, let him be anathema." — Wall, vol. i. p. 489. I have one fact to state, that says more than a hundred volumes can say, against placing any confidence whatever in any document outside of the New Testament, so far as countenance, support, or authority is regarded, for any tenet, practice, or tradition, not found endorsed by some one or more of the apostolic school. It is a fact, clear and indisputable, that in less than fifteen years after the ascension of the Messiah, circumcision would have been imposed on the gentile christians, by a large and re- spectable number of ministers and others, even from the mother church and city of Jerusalem too, had the apostles been then dead. The case is this : certain men came down from Judea to Antioch, in Syria, a very large and respectable church, and there, in the presence of Paul and Bar- nabas, boldly debated, and for some time with considerable warmth dis- puted with them, in support of the proposition that — The gerUile breth- ren ivho had been baptized must be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, on peril of damnation. One thing is as clear as the sun from this fact ; that not yet in Judea, nor Jerusalem, nor ..Antioch, was ths notion that baptism came in the room of circumcision, else such a ques- tion never could have arisen ; or if it had, could have been very easily decided. It seems that the church in Antioch was not fully .satisfied on hearing the whole debate between these great men, but sent Paul and BaF- nabas, and others with them, up to Jerusalem, to have a grand confer- ence on the question, in the presence of apostles, elders, and the whole church assembled. There was a meeting held for the purpose, and a considerable debate, in which Peter, Paul, and James distinguished them- selves. It was decided that those brethren from Judea, that had gone down to Antioch, were wrong. Yet it called for a general epistle, dic- tated by James, and borne by chosen messengers, to disabuse the churches of this mistake. From this whole incident, and the transactions there- apon, I learn two important facts : — 1st. That either the idea of baptism in room of circumcision had not yet been born, or if it had, the whole assembly in Jerusalem, apostles and all, were miserable debaters, for it would have at once settled the dis- pute, had Paul or any other aposde stood up and said ; " Brethren, do DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 413 you not know that baptism now stands in the place of circumcision; and, therefore, it is preposterous to circumcise those persons who have re- ceived it already in the christian form?" Circumcision is done away, and baptism has just come to fill its place in the new institution. Every man of any intelligence or reflection will feel this argument, and feel, too, that it is a triumphant refutation of that notion. In writing the letter to the Greek churches, would it not have occurred to some of the twelve apostles, or those present, to say : Brethren, do you not know that as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have also been spiritually circumcised ? for circumcision is now substi- tuted by christian baptism. But the second and most important inference before us now, is — that there is no authority to be placed in the very highest antiquity — I will say, not in any document only five years after the apostolic age ; for if, while the apostles, with a single exception, were all living, and their per- gonal con/erts settled in myriads all over Judea, Samaria, and Syria, &c., (fee, a new institution was brought in, by persons of so much learn- ing and influence as to call forth such an array of wisdom and learning, who will confide in any tradition not evidently apostolic, because we can find distinguished names advocating it in the first and second centuries ? I have yet one argument, out of many more not stated, which I hope to have time to state before my time expires. It is, that circumcision never was done away by any apostolic word or action. The Jews practiced both circumcision and baptism in theirfamilies during the apostolic age — a matter which would have been intolerable, had the one been divinely ordered in lieu of the other. The proof of this fact which I have to offer, is from Acts xxi. It is full, clear, and, to my mind, perfectly con- clusive. Paul, after an absence of fourteen years, visits Jerusalem, after having been in the apostleship to the gentiles seventeen years. On his arrival, he was waited upon by a portion of the brethren, who accosted him with the following words : " Thou seest, brother, how many thous- ands of the Jews believe, and they are all zealous of the law ; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the customs. What is it therefore ? The multitude will hear that thou artcome,"&c. They proceed to request Paul to take upon him a vow — to purify himself, to shave his head, and to be at charges with some others ; and all this for the purpose of showing to the Jews, that all that they had heard was nothing, (not true,) but that he walked after the customs. They also added, that, as " for the gentiles who believe, we have written to them that they observe no such things." Here, then, it is declared that the gentiles, but not the Jews, had been discharged from such observances. Now, either Paul falsified, or he had not taught the Jews who believed, to cease from circumcising their chil- dren— and not Paul only falsified, but all the brethren who advised this course. They all conspired to deceive the church in Jerusalem, touching Paul's customs, or he had not interfered with the circumcision of the children of believing Jews. The proof, then, that circumcision was not done away by any apostolic enactment or teaching, is irresistible ; and, therefore, it cannot be believed that the apostles either believed or taught that baptism had taken the place of circumcision among the Jews. These two arguments, adduced from Acts, 15th and 21st chapters, are alone suf- ficient, in mj' humble opinion, to settle this question with every one who 2if2 414 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. ean understand them. I hazard nothing in avowing my belief that they will never be answered. I have now attended to all the prominent points of Mr. Rice's argu- ment, and have given him a few new ones, by way of objections to his propositions, that he may have an opportunity to answer them in his last speech. I call his attention to these most prominent and palpable facts, any one of which is fatal to his assumptions. I hope he will also ex- plain the appendages to infant baptism, the meaning of the exorcism, chrism, and holy salt and spittle, and the opening of the ears, so early associated with infant baptism. I would have been pleased to read from Mr. Taylor some of the copious evidence he affords, that the papal sy*. lem originated in its elementary principles about the time that infant baptism came into being. The authors of the papal system, according to this most deservedly distinguished opponent of the Oxford tracts, and of infant baptism, if not the same identical persons, were certainly their cotemporaries. But my time is expired. Wednesday, Nov. 22 — 1 o'clock, P. M, [mr. rice's closing address.] , Mr. President — When I sat down, I was about to read to you a kind of epitome of the leading facts in the history of infant baptism, embody- ing Dr. AVall's conclusions, founded on long and thorough examination. It is as follows : Wall, vol ii. eh. x. p. 501. — " Lastly, as these evidences are for the first fbur hundred years, in which there appears one man, Tertullian, that ad- vised the delay of infant baptism in some cases ; and one Gregory that dicL perhaps, practice such delay in the case of his children, but no society or men so thinking, or so practicing ; nor no one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants : so in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much aa one man to be found, that either spoke for, or practiced any such delay. But all the contrary. And when, about the year 1130, one sect among the Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion ; and they of them that held that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared ; there being no more heard of holding that tenet, till the rising of the German anti-Pedo-baptists, anno, 1522." Such, briefly, is the testimony of faithful history. There were some remarks and statements in the gentleman's last speech, which, when fairly exposed, must astonish this audience. I shall notice them presently. Infant baptism, he tells us, cannot increase maternal affection, and therefore, there can be no necessity that mothers shall solemnly covenant with God to train their children for his service. Why, then, I ask, doea he, in his writings, put forth so many complaints that parents do greatly neglect the religious training of their children, and so repealed exhorta- tions to greater fidelity ? Will his complaints and exhortations have greater influence with parents, than a solemn promise to God to do their duty, and the encouragement derived from his promise of the needed as- sistance ? Why, according to his logic, it was wholly unnecessary that God should ever have made a covenant with men. For it certainly is their interest to serve him ; and self-love cannot be increased by a promise or a covenant ! But the truth is, that neither parental affection in the onfl case, nor self-interest in the other, is sufficient to induce the regular and faithful discharge of difficult duties. In regard to female communion, I will only remark, that if the gentlo DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 415 man will point out to us the passage of Scripture which either directly commands it, or records a clear example of it, I will be prepared to at- tend to it. He tells you, I admitted that baptism is not a door into the church. I admitted no such thing. I said, that I was not at all strenuous about the use of that particular word ; though I did not admit that it had been in- correcdy employed. Baptism, I have repeatedly said, is a rite for the recognition of membership in the church of Christ. Whether the word door is correctly employed in regard to it, is a very unimportant matter. The circumcision of the Shechemites by Jacob's sons, brought forward by Mr. Campbell to prove that this ordinance did not require of adults, a profession of faith, he acknowledges, was a very ugly affair. Still, he is strongly disposed to urge, that it was scriplurally done ! He cannot bring himself to believe, that those young men, with hearts burning with revenge, would have circumcised the Shechemites in order to be able to kill them, if they had known that faith was a pre-requisite to its recep- tion ! ! ! And this is the only instance he has been able to produce to sustain his assertion, that circumcision did not require piety in adult per- sons— an assertion, as I have proved, directly contradictory to the teach- ings of the inspired Paul. Paul says, " Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumci- sion is made uncircumcision." Again ; he teaches, contrary to the doc- trine of Mr. C, that " he is not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit; whose praise is not of men, but of God." The clear meaning of this language is, that the external rile was worth nothing without the inward grace — true piety. But the gentleman (who finds many cunows Jig ure/i) told us, circumcision was here used figuratively. But when Paul said, ♦* circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law,'''' did he mean figtb- rative circumcision ? How the cause of my friend labors ! He says, I certainly asserted that the christian church was under the moral law. I certainly said, that the moral law is obligatory on the church — that under both dispensations, it has been received and obeyed. But he charged me with having said, that the moral law is the constitu- tion OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Can he see no difference between its being obligatory on the church, and its being the constitution of the church ? I should, indeed, be astonished if he were so blind. To disprove the identity of the church under the old and new dispen- sations, Mr. Campbell quotes the passage: "The law and the prophets were until John : since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it," Luke xvi. 16. But has not he published it as his faith, that the christian church, which he seems here to understand by the kingdom of God, was not set up till after Christ had risen from the dead ? How, then, could men press into it before it existed ? So the gen- tleman is obliged to cross his own track, and to twist and turn in all direc- tions to keep his head above water, fond as he is of water. — [A laugh.] The phrase " kingdom of heaven," which commonly has the same meaning as the kingdom of God in this passage, is translated by him, " the reign of heaven ; " and he has told us that a reign is one thing, and a kingdom quite another. The expressions "kingdom of heaven," or " kingdom of God," are frequently employed with reference to tha more spiritual modes of worship under the new dispensation. 416 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. I am quite pleased to hear him quote the passage from Daniel's proph- ecy : "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." I was looking for him to bring forward this passage ; for I had read his debate with McCalla, and had seen the words " set up " printed in capitals. He was careful, how- ever, to pay no attention to the inspired explanation of the expression which I had previously read. In the council at Jerusalem James said: " And to this agree the words of the prophets ; as it is written, after this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up ; that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things," Acts XV. Here we learn that the tabernacle which had fallen down was to be re-built. Does this look like building ^ new tabernacle? It is worthy of remark that the Hebrew word used by Amos, in the passage quoted by James, the Chaldaic word used by Daniel, and the Septuagint translation, all have the same meaning, viz. : to cause to stand. The meaning of the passage then is : that God would raise up and establish his church which had been so long oppressed and down-trodden. Mr. Campbell has made a most violent attack upon the old fathers. I will not quote Dr. Miller ; though I am confident that his views were misrepresented. I will read, however, from anotlier author of very high authority with my friend : I mean Mr. Campbell himself: Testimony of Christian Fathers. — " Though no article of christian faith, nor item of christian practice can, legitimately, rest upon any testimony, reasoning, or authority out of the sacred writings of the apostles, were it only one day after their decease ; yet the views and practices of those who were the contemporaries, or the pupils of the apostles and their immediate suc- cessors, may be adduced as corroborating- evidence of the truths taught, and the practices enjoined by the apostles ; and as such may be cited ; still bearings in mind, that, where the testimony of the apostles ends, christian faith ne- cessarily terminates." — Christian System, p. 227. This is not all. Mr. Campbell has actually introduced, as a good and competent witness, Origen, one of those " old wives," whose testimo- ny he now contemns. He says : " Origen, though so great a visionary, is, nevertheless, a competent witness in ajiy question of fact.'' ^ — Ibid. p. 233. And did not I introduce him simply as a witness to prove a matter of fact ? Cyprian, too, whom he now pronounces so great a simpleton, is one of the important witnesses introduced by Mr. Campbell to prove his doc- trine o{ baptismal regeneration I These fathers were excellent witnesses when he could make capital of their testimony ; but now it is not worth a straw '. I am not through with Mr, Campbell yet. In the Milennial Harbin- ger, vol. ii. Extra pp. 37, 38, he reproves a Mr. Broaddus for discrediting the testimony of these very fathers, in the following style : — " But would it not have been more in accordance with reason, and more satistiictory to his readers, to have adduced, or attempted to have adduced, some contradictory testimony, or some document to set aside or impair my eleventh proposition"! Is all antiquity so silent on the views of my opponent, as not to furnish one document, hint, or allusion in vindication of his views of the point at issue] [Argumentum ad hominem.'] My eleventh proposition is in the following words: ' All the apostolical fethers, as they are called, all the pupils of the apostles, and all the ecclesi- astical writers of note, of the first four centuries, whose writings have come down to us, allude to and speak of christian immersion, dec. as the regenera- DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 417 tion and remission of sins spoken of in the New Testament.' This proposi- tion I have sustained, Andrew Broaddus himself being judge : for he has not brought a shadow of proof to the contrary. But there is a paragraph pre- ceding this proposition in the Extra, which I must transcribe for the sake of those who may not have it to refer to. It explains the use, the sole use, we make of the numerous and decisive witnesses we summon to sustain this proposition. It reads thus — " [Already quoted.] To discredit the testimony of these venerable ancients, as they are called, my friend alledges their opinions on other matters, showing how whimsical they were in some things. Grant it : and what then ! Does any man's private opinion discredit his testimony on any question of fact? If so, how do we receive the canonical books of the New Testament ! Upon the very testi- mony here adduced, so far as we regard human testimony at all. Andrew does not see where his imputations terminate. [Nor my friend, Mr. Camp- bell, neither !] But he admits them to be competent witnesses of facts, and would take them out of our hands by this question, ' When Origen testi- fies that infants were baptized for the remission of sins, does he not as clearly testify that infants were baptized, as that they were baptized for the remission of sins V I say, yes : and who says, no ! And have I not always admitted that in Origen's time, infants were immersed ! have I not affirm- ed, upon the testimony of Tertullian and Origen, that in Tertullian's time, infants, in some cases, began to be immersed!! How impertinant to the subject are these allegations against the formidable host of witnesses during four hundred years ! And is this all that can be offered upon or against my eleventh proposition 1" Here we have Mr. Campbell directly against Mr. Campbell! I am amazed to see such a man as Mr. Campbell place himself in such a pre- dicament as this ! It is most astonishing indeed ! The gentleman has told us, that, but for the opposition of the apostles, circumcision would have been introduced into the christian church, with- in fifteen years from the day of Pentecost; and he thinks, if baptism came in place of circumcision, certainly the apostles, assembled at Jeru- salem to determine the question concerning circumcising the gentile be- lievers, would have so stated. It was wholly unnecessary that they should say so. They decided, that circumcision, the old seal, was no longer binding — that only baptism, the new seal, was now obligatory. But, as I have repeatedly said, I might admit that baptism did not come precisely in place of circumcision, and yet triumphantly defend the doctrine for which I am contending. My friend, Mr. C, says, he could defend the reputation of Mr. Jones, as a faithful historian. No man, I assert, can successfully defend him from the charge of having most grossly garbled the testimony of Perria. It is absolutely certain, as I have proved, that he, in quoting that author, omitted infant baptism, and supplied " baptism according to the primitive church;" in order to conceal the- fact, that the Waldenses were Pedo- baptists ! An attempt to defend such conduct, would very nearly make tlie gentleman himself particeps criminis. I will now close my address by a brief recapitulation of the argument. I^rst — As strong presumptive evidence in favor of the doctrine of infant baptism, I stated the fact, admitted by Mr. Campbell, that the overwhelm- ing majority of Christendom, in all ages, so far back as history can in- form us, not of the ignorant and superstitious only, or chiefly, but of the wise and the good, have firmly believed it to be taught in the Bible. The Bible, as Mr. C. admits, is, on all important points, a plain book. The fact, then, that it has been so universally understood by those who have 27 418 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. carefully studied it, to teach this doctrine, is very strong presumptive evi- dence in its favor. Second — Concerning the commission given the apostles, I have stated several facts. 1. That it is not a commission to organize a neiv church, but to extend the boundaries of one already in existence. 2. That it does not specify infants or adults as proper subjects of baptism, but says, " Go make disciples of all nations — baptizing them — the nations." 3. That it does not say, that in all cases, or in any case, teaching must precede baptizing ; and, therefore, this question must be determined from other sources of evidence. 4. That it does require all to be baptized who are, by God's law, enthled to membership in the church. This Mr. C does not deny. The great question, then, is — who, or what characters are entitled to membership in the church ? To find an answer to this question we went to its organization. The church I defined to be a body of people, sepa- rated from the world, for the service of God, with ordinances of divine appointment, and a door of entrance, or rite, for the recognition of mem- bership. To this definition, or description, Mr. C. has not objected. Now consider the following facts : 1. It is a fact, that we find such a body organized in the family of Abraham, the father of believers. From the time of this organization, God spoke of them as '^ my people ;^^ and the inspired writers call them the church. 2. It is a fact, indisputable, that believers, and their chil- dren, were constituted members of this church. 3. It is a fact, that they remained together in the church to the moment when our Savior gave the commission to the apostles to preach the gospel to every crea- ture. 4. It is a fact, that the commission does not exclude the chil- dren of believers. This is an important fact ; because we know, that the apostles had grown up in a church which embraced the children of professed believers ; and we know, that their Jewish prejudices were exceedingly strong. Yet, notwithstanding their prejudices, which must have inclined them still to retain, children in the church, our Savior gave not the slightest intimation of a purpose to alter the law of membership. I have found a positive law for putting the children of believers into the church. fPliere, I ask, is the law for excluding them? The gentle- man has not produced such a law ; and he cannot. Consequently, they still are entided to membership ; and, of course, to baptism — the initiato- ry ordinance. I have proved, that the christian church is the same into which God did put the children of believers. What do we understand by ecclesias- tical identity? I illustrated this point by the principles o( political iden- tity. How do we know that the commonwealth of Kentucky is the same political body that existed under this name forty years ago ? Be- cause "the sovereign people" still reign; and the constitution, in all its essential features, is the same. Apply the same principles to the identi- ty of the church. Let me again state the incontrovertible facts which prove the church to be the same under the Jewish and Christian dispen- sations : 1. It is a fact, that, under both dispensations, the church worships and serves the same God. 2. It is a fact, that she receives and obeys the same moral law. 3. It is a fact, that, under both dispensations, tbe church receives and trusts in the same gospel. Paul teaches, that the Gospel was preached DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 419 to Abraham, (Gal. iii. 8,) and to the Jews in the wilderness, (Heb. iv, 2.) And it is a fact, that all the prominent doctrines of the gospel are taught in the Old Testament — such as the divinity and humanity of Christ, the fall and depravity of man, the atonement, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, future rewards and punishments, the resurrection ; repent- ance, faith and reformation, as conditions of salvation. Every important doctrine of the gospel is taught in the Old Testament. 4. The conditions of membership in the church are the same under both dispensations. Adults, as I have proved, were required to profess faith in the true God, and a purpose to serve him, before they could be cir- cumcised ; and then they brought their children into the church with them. Precisely so it is in the christian church. 5. I have proved, that the christian church enjoys her spiritual bless- ings under the covenant made with Abraham. This I proved by several incontrovertible /ac^s ; 1st. The covenant with Abraham was confirmed in Christ; (Gal. iii. 17.) 2d. It contained the gospel; (Gal. iii. 8.) 3d. It constituted Abraham the father of all believers — the father of the christian church ; (Gal. iii. 29.) 4th. It is never in the Scriptures called old, and never said to have passed away. The covenant at Sinai, the temporary addition to it, is called old ; because, as Paul says, it " decay- eth and waxeth old," and "is ready to vanish away;" Heb. viii. 13. But the Abrahamic covenant is never represented as vanishing away. This covenant originally embraced believers and their children ; and, of course, it embraces them still. 6. I turned to the prophecies, and proved, that promises great and pre- cious were made to the church under the old dispensation, to comfort her in her affliction, which never were, nor could be fulfilled until the new dispensation was introduced. And if, as Mr. Campbell contends, the Jewish church ceased to exist as the church of God, at the commence- ment of the new dispensation ; those promises never were, and never can be fulfilled ! The only reply the gentleman has made to this unanswera- ble argument, is — that these prophecies are irrelevant ! ! ! 7. I proved the identity of the church unanswerably by the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. The olive-tree, it is admitted, means the christian church. Now it is a fact, that from this church the unbelieving Jews were broken off — excommunicated; and the believing gentiles were grafted into the same tree — introduced into the same church. And when the Jews shall be converted, they are to be again grafted into their own olive-tree, of which they were the natural branches — into their own church, from which they were expelled. The church under both dis- pensations is the same. I have now produced much more evidence to prove the identity of the church under the two dispensations, than can be brought forward to estab- lish the identity of the commonwealth of Kentucky during the last forty years. Now mark the fact — Believers and their children were put into THIS church by positive LAW OF GoD. There is no law for excluding either the one or the other. The children of believers, therefore, still are entitled to membership in the church, and consequently to baptism, the initiatory ordinance. The commission requires their baptism. The only difl'erence between the two dispensations, so far as the present discussion is concerned, is — that the civil and ceremonial laws of the old dispensation liave passed away, and given place to a few simple ordi- 420 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. nances, adapted to the extension of the church to all nations. Those laws, as I have proved, were added to the Abrahamic covenant for a spe- cific purpose — "because of transgression" — and for a limited time — till the promised seed should come. When Christ came and died on the cross, the civil and ceremonial laws of the church expired by virtue of their own limitation ; and the officers appointed to execute them, went out of office. Just so the legislature of Kentucky might enact a number of laws to meet a particular exigency, to be in force twenty years. At the end of that period those laws would cease to be binding, having answered the purposes for which they were enacted ; and all officers appointed to carry tliem into effect, would go out of office. But no man in his senses would pretend, that the expiration of those temporary enactments could destroy the identity of the commonwealth. No more could the passing away of the ceremonial laws of the old dispensation, affect the identity of the church. The evidence is, therefore, most conclusive, that the church of Christ is the same church into which believers and their children were introduced by God, and from which neither have ever been excluded. I have invited your attention to household or family baptisms. I con- fined my remarks to the family of Lydia. The inspired historian says, that Lydia believed, and that she and her household were baptized ; but he does not say, that the household believed. We write like Luke, whether we act like him or not. Our opponents do not write like him ; and the conclusion is obvious, that they do not practice as he and the apostles did. I have proved by the history of the church, that for fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ, not a writer can be found maintaining, that the baptism of infants was unscriptural, excepting, perhaps, a small sect called Petrobrussians. Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disci- ple of the apostle John, speaks of it as a matter universally understood and admitted. Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, opposes it, but does not venture to pronounce it either unscriptural, or contrary to the universal practice of the church. His opposition, therefore, makes him a more important witness to us ; for certainly he would oppose it with the strongest arguments he could command. Origen, a few years later, whose talents, learning and piety are so highly commended by Jones, my friend's favorite historian, testifies thai the whole church, from the time of the apostles, and by their direction, did practice infant baptism. No man could have possessed more fully the qualifications necessary to give weight to his testimony. He had traveled extensively, had resided in Alexandria, in Rome, and in Pales^ tine ; he was a man of great learning and great celebrity. If any man in that day knew what had been the practice of the church, he was the man. And my friend himself admits, that as to matters of fact, he was a competent witness. Cyprian, and the council at Carthage, Jerom, Augustine, Pelagius, and many others, bear similar testimony. They tell us they never heard of any controversy about it, or of a contrary practice. Pelagius, though a denial of the doctrine would have relieved him from serious embarrass- ments, was constrained to testify that he had never known even the most impious heretic to deny it. The Waldenses and Albigenses — those eminent witnesses for th© truth in the dark ages — complete the chain of testimony from the aposr ties to the Reformation of the 16th century. With the exception of the DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 42I insignificant sect called Petrobrussians, all admitted infant baptism to be according to the Scriptures. Here is evidence conclusive from the Scriptures and from history. I have omitted much that might have been introduced, because I conceived it unnecessary to multiply arguments. One good argument my friend has told us is enough. I have given many. In conclusion, I offer one more argument. It is this — if it should turn out that infant baptism is unscriptural, and that Mr. Campbell's views of immersion as the only valid baptism, are true ; we are forced to the con- clusion, that for several centuries there was no church of Christ on earth! From a very early period the great body of christian ministers received baptism in infancy, and, of course, were unbaptized. As we descend in the history of the church, infant baptism becomes the only bap- tism administered. Dr. Gill, I think, has admitted that for several centu- ries there were no adult baptisms ; and it is not denied that from the thir- teenth century baptism was verj'^ commonly administered by pouring and sprinkling. So that, by the prevalence of infant baptism, and of pour- ing and sprinkling, christian baptism was lost, if the doctrine of Mr. C. be true, and there was on earth no church of Christ. We are, then, obliged to believe that the Savior's promise has failed ; and " the gales of hell " did prevail against his church ! ! ! Robertson, the celebrated anti-Pedo-baptist historian, says: "Baptism rose pure in the east, rolled westward, obscured in lustre, and was finally lost amongst attenuated particles, shades, nonentities, and monsters ! " I think I have given his words exactly. Mr. Campbell will say that the Greek church has always immersed, and has preserved scriptural baptism. But if his doctrine be true, the Greek church is not a true church, for she has always practiced the bap- tism of infants. The conclusion, then, returns upon us, that for centu- ries there was not a church of Christ on earth ; and the promise of the Savior has failed ! In the Milennial Harbinger I observe, that Mr. Campbell proves, that there are some christians among "the sects" by this very argument. For, he argues, if there are not, the church of Christ has ceased to exist ; which, he says, it will not do to admit. Now, he informs us, that he has proved immersion to be the only apostolic or christian baptism, and infant bap- tism to be a human tradition. Then he has proved, that the ordinance of baptism has been lost. And who, I ask, had the authority to restore it ? An unbaptized person certainly is not authorized to administer baptism. The gentleman has labored faithfully to destroy the validity of his own baptism ! If baptism by pouring or sprinkling is not valid, and if infant baptism is worthless, his own baptism is not worlli a straw ; for it has descended from infant baptism and from pouring. If the fountain be corrupt, is not the stream equally so ? So it would seem, he has succeed- ed in demonstrating, that our Savior has failed to fultill his promise, and that he himself and all his church are unbaptized ! If he maintains, that an unbaptized man maj'' administer baptism, I call for the passage of Scripture that authorizes it ; and he professes always to give a " Thus saith the Lord," for his faith and his practice. I now cheerfully leave the audience to judge of the force of the facts and arguments I have presented, and to decide, in view of their responsi- bility to God, whether I have proved that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism. — \_Ti7ne expired. 2N 422 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. Wednesday, Nov. 22 — U o'clock, P. M. [mr. Campbell's closing reply.] Mr. President — I am peculiarly gratified to hear so much read from the Christian System and Milennial Harbinger. I did not expect to hear so much from these works, in such ample and perfect confirmation of what I am now endeavoring to sustainj The gentleman will, I hope, frequently assist our eff'orts in this way. I have, occasionally, to complain of his singular talent and proficiency in the art of forming false issues. What, sir, was the issue formed on the extracts read from Miller, Cyprian, and others? — that their testimony on matters of fact transpiring in their times, is i??credible ! ! Mr. Rice has been laboring to prove that their testimony is credible. Is that the issue ? No, sir; you know, and this audience and Mr. Rice know, that I admit their testimony, when fairly made out, on questions of fact. There is no issue — no controversy, on that subject, at all. In all my debates, with infidels, Romanists, and sectarians, I have admitted their testimony on questions of fact. Was there any other fact in the extract from St. Cyprian, but that he was a dupe of the most visionary and romantic character ! Mr. Rice. Allow me to ask a question. Did not I say, distinctly, that I introduced these fathers as witnesses to facts? Mr. Campbell. If the gentleman did so, I do not oppose them as such. I oppose them as authorities for opinions or religious institutions ; and for this purpose, and no other, read I the extracts from Dr. Miller, all of which went to prove, that, outside of the Bible, of the New Testa- ment, there is no dependence to be put in them, for any of their opinions, customs, usages, ordinances, ceremonies whatever. I will receive the solemn affirmation of a Quaker, in support of a fact which he saw, de- spite of all his visions and imaginations in matters of religion. But, neither St. Cyprian, nor any of the fathers, can depose to facts that hap- pened in other countries, or before they were born : therefore we have no issue of that sort before us. I contend that infant baptism, like infant communion, grew out of the reasonings, or inferences, or dreams of such men. No one testifies that he saw an apostle baptize an infant. No one, for two hundred years after Christ's birth, has even named infant baptism. There is not a book on earth that can be produced — no Greek or Latin father of that period, that has recorded the words, ^'■infant baptism,''^ or ever used baptism with allusion to an infant. Tertullian, Mr. Rice says, was opposed to it. He is the first writer in all the annals of the church that has named it ; and no one can tell whether he meant babes or boys. Pelagius, who lived two hundred years after Tertullian, is frequently quoted by Pedo- baptists, with approbation of his great talents and great learning, as de- posing that he never heard of any one, that he never knew any one, who denied infant baptism. Ifso, thenhe proves himself ignorant of church history : for Tertullian opposed it, as Mr. Rice says, and as I affirm. No one can explain the institution of the catechumens, trained in the early christian churches, for baptism, on the ground of the practice of infant baptism. But when I hear Mr. Rice and others talking about the probable high antiquity of infant baptism, tracing it up to Ireneus' or TertuUian's time, I am struck with the singular illusion that flits before their fancy. They speak of one or two hundred years as a period of short duration — as if, in so short a time after Christ, any great errors, or DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 423 apostasies, or innovations could have occurred ! What a delusion! — two hundred years ! Why, sir, our federal government, our very national existence, is less than the lil'e of one man ; and what changes ! — what innovations ! — what departures from first principles ! — what corruptions ! — how many political castes, sects, parties, shibboleths ! — and what con- structions, and interpretations, and debates about the meaning of some parts of the constitution, the bills of rights, and even our declaration of independence ! How few men could now relate, from his memory or his own reading, the great political events of this period — the public assem- blies, conventions, and changes ! And yet we live in an age of books, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, issuing irom all sorts of printing presses, and in such numbers and sizes that Kentucky might all be car- peted with the millions of sheets that issue in almost one year from the American press. When to this we add our canals, rivers, rail-roads, steam-boats, and steam-ships, (by which we have reduced time and space to the mere tythe of other times and spaces,) and contrast all these advan- tages with an age of a few books and parchments, without printing offices, post-offices, post-roads, &-c., &c., what shall we think of the mental hal- lucination of those who talk of one, two, or three hundred years after Christ, as necessarily a more cnliglitened, pure, and incorrupt period of Christianity, than the present ! It is a monstrous delusion. Taylor and others have shown that all the abominations of popery were hatched in the second century ; and Paul, of still higher authority and greater learn- ing, says, " even already the mystery of iniquity inivardly works!!'''' The gentleman has at length responded something to the question about the door : but yet the mystery remains ! I still ask — but I ask in vain — If Presbyterian infants are born in Christ's church, by virtue of the flesh of one of their parents ; and if baptism be still regarded sub- stantially as a door, into ivhat does it introduce them?" Whenever he answers this, he will have annihilated at least one half of all his logic and rhetoric upon this question. This is an argumentum ad hominem. It is, in this case, as will probably appear in my next proposition, however, a good and valid argument. Mr. Rice assumes the identity of " the commonwealth of Israel" and the christian church as one church of God, one and the same ecclesiastical institution, on which to found the right of infants of a certain class of parents to baptism ; and proceeds to prove that identity by sundry argu- ments, such as : — 1st. That the same God reigns over the Jewish and Christian commu- nities. This, if true, we showed, constitutes no proof of the identity of any two communities or their institutions : because it proves too much. The same God reigns over Massachusetts, Kentucky, and old England ; and does that prove that these communities are one and the same insti- tution ? But we do not admit, and have demonstrated that they have not the same identical king : for Jesus Christ was born to be a king, and was not a king before he was born — John xviii. 37. God himself was king over Israel, as the God of the Hebrews ; but his Son is now made king — made Lord and King. It is not abstract Divinity, nor Trinity, but Jesus the Messiah, that is king of the church. All autiiority was given to him for this purpose. 2. But they have the same moral law, or fundamental code. This, if admitted, is as true of the patriarchs. New Englanders, and Pennsylvani- ans. They acknowledge the same great principles, and are obliged by 424 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. them; but that does not make these all one and the same body politic, the same identical, political communities. 3. But the Jews and Christians have the same gospel. Few men dare make such an assertion. The patriarchs, Jews and Christians, have one gospel : as England and France have one alphabet, but not one and the same language. The ceremonial of the Jews had the types of our gos- pel. But the christian gospel is based on three facts which transpired at the end of the Jewish dispensation ! These are the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. "And in the end of the Jewish age did the Mes- siah put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." We have had various gospels in the history of religion. The Jews' gospel, as preached to file Jews in the wilderness, Paul shows, Heb. iv., was the rest in Canaan- Ours is the antitype of Canaan, and so throughout. Having the same gospel does not, however, make the communities one ; for then England, the United States, patriarch and Jews, are one community. But the gentleman descends into special points of resemblance, from which he next seeks to prove the churches identical. He obviously needs something more specific than these three vague generalities. He aUedges : 1. The Jews and Christians have the same mediator. Is this true? Moses mediated that covenant; but Paul says, " Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises." Neither was Aaron the high-priest and standing mediator between Israel and God, the same identical mediator with the high-priest of our religion. Jesus is a better high-priest, lawgiver, and mediator, than Moses, Aaron and his sons. If Mr. R. looks beyond the Jewish dispensation for his idea of a mediator, it will prove too much : for then, patriarchs, Jews, and Christians are identically the same community. He then instances, in his second and third items, the same doctrine of justification, and the same doctrine of sanctification — but these extend through all dispensations, so far as there is any identity, and Avould make them all one and the same community. And certainly the apostles give us quite a dissertation on the difierence between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith. He will also add to his list of iden- tity, the resurrection of the dead and eternal life, with all the same condi- tions of salvation ! ! Until, indeed, he has falsified the sayings of Paul and the other apostles, who teach that we have a " better covenant,'''* " better jnomises,''' a " better mediator,'''' a better high-priest, a better inheritance, better sacrifices, better altars, and a new institution. Yet, with Mr. Rice, they are all identically the same ! ! Paul, moreover, argues from the change in the christian priesthood, being such as it is, there must also be a change in the law and constitu- tion of acceptance. He establishes this not only in the seventh chapter, but throughout all the epistle to the Hebrews. Can any one conversant with the doctrines taught by John the Baptist in preparing the way for Christ's religion, and the contrasts drawn by Jesus himself between the teachings of former times and his own, and the glorious developments of the apostles after they received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit^ that the Old Testament presents the same conditions of salvation as the New. Could any one be saved now, who disdains the christian ordinan- ces — and are these the same as the Jewish ? But, chief of all, the gentleman appeared to rely upon the assumed fact, that they have the same covenant or constitution. This is, indeed. DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 425 the main point — for if all other points of similarity and coincidence were the same, a change here Avill be fatal ; and this is just tVie very point ia which he, and all others on his side of the question, have always pre- eminently failed. I think it of no consequence to trace other matters of alledged similarity or identity. It is here the work of refutation is always complete, and to all minds intelligible. God found fault with the Jewish institution and the people under it, and solemnly promised to make a new constitution seven hundred years before the christian era. Now all the logic and rhetoric in the world will not prove that a new and an old constitution are identically the same thing. In every single pro- vision of the New, it is a perfect contrast, as we have shown, with all the provisions of the old. It has even changed the very names '■'■Isra- el " and " the children of Abraham^'' so far as to make the former and the latter indicate a spiritual people, believing Jews and gentiles, for " th^ children of the flesh are no longer counted for the seed." It is, then, a new covenant, new promises, a new people, new institutions, new laws, new terms of communion, a new inheritance; "All old things," indeed, "have passed away, and, behold, all things have become new:" for a Jew in Christ is just as new a creation, as a gentile in him. But of this, more in the sequel. Knowing, however, that the design of the argument for identity was to establish an identity of infant church-membership, as they call it, on the alledged identity of circumcision and baptism, I especially labored that point. For here is the whole true issue of the question of identity. All intelligent Pedo-baptists know it, and multitudes of them candidly ac- knowledge it : for this very reason, Calvin took this ground. I, therefore, drew out in extenso, no less than sixteen points of essential difference between circumcision and baptism, in the faith and practice of even Pedo- baptists themselves. And, to ray no little surprise, the gentleman waived this, the main issue of the whole matter, and contented himself with some few vague generalities, which, were they all true and veritable, fall short, by a hundred particulars, in making out the case of identity. These es- sential points of dissimilarity, you will remember, are : 1. Only males were subjects of circumcision. It belonged, then, to but half the Jewish church. 2. Infant males were circumcised the eighth day. 3. Adult males circumcised themselves. 4. Infant males were circumcised by their own parents. 5. Infant and adult servants were circumcised neither on ^^sA nor yai7^, but as property. A point, this, which Mr. Rice strangely overlooked. 6. Circumcision was not the door into the Jewish church. It was four hundred years older than the Jewish church, and introduced neither Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, or Esau into any Jewish or patriarchal church. It never was to a Jew, its proper subject, an initiatory rite. 7. The qualifications for circumcision were flesh and property. Faith was never propounded, in any case, to a Jew or his servants. 8. Circumcision was not a dedicatory rite. The rites of the dedica- tion of a first-born son, were different in all respects. 9. Circumcision requiring no moral qualification, neither could nor did communicate any spiritual blessing. No person ever put on Christ, or professed faith in circumcision. 10. Idiots were circumcised ; for neither intellect itself, nor any exer- cise of it, was necessary to a covenant in the flesh, 2x2 426 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 11. It was a visible, appreciable mark, as all signs are, and such was its main design. 12. It was binding on parents, and not on children. Circumcise your children. 13. The right of a child to circumcision, in no case depended upon the faith, the piety, or the morality of parents. 14. Circumcision was a guarantee of certain temporal benefits to a Jew. 15. It was not to be performed in the name of God, nor into the name of any being, m heaven or on earth. 16. The subject of circumcision was a debtor to do the whole law. These sixteen indisputable facts, are truly distinct and demonstrable attributes and properties of circumcision ; each of which differs ; and, of course, the aggregate differs from baptism as now administered by Ro- manists and Protestants. Had we deemed it at all important, we could as easily have, in all the other alledged points of identity, made out lists of specifications, either more or less numerous than the preceding. But that being only to multiply words to no profit, I am content to annihilate infant church-membership, as founded upon the identity of signs and seals. A thousand vague generalilies are worth nothing — absolutely worth noth- ing in a question of identity. Circumcision conferred no spiritual benefit on the Jew, as Paul himself declares ; inasmuch as he makes its chief benefit, that " unto the nations were committed the oracles of God.'''' " What profit is there in circum- cision ?" was the question which Paul propounded to himself, and an- swered, " Chiefly because they had the oracles of God.'''' This was the best thing Paul could say: certain it is, it was the best thing he did say of circumcision and the Jews' religion. Salvation was in the Jews' re- ligion, in its ceremonial, and 'n\ prophecy : but not really nor truly. In Christianity, salvation is literally, substantively, and truly. Its civil ad- vantages were numerous. Its direct benefits were all temporal and earthly. Suppose, for example, A induces B to migrate from the mountains of Kentucky into Lexington, to superintend his business, and promises him a thousand dollars a year for so doing ; but adds, as a further inducement, the social benefits, the literary, scientific, and moral advantages he may enjoy in this Athens of Kentucky. Would not the actual remuneration, temporal and financial, be the direct and main inducement to his migra- tion and change of residence ? Just so the direct and immediate advan- tages to the Jew were all fleshly and temporal ; the spiritual benefits derived to any were altogether exclusive of the covenant and its circumcision, and were derived from the " good things to come," of which it was but a faint, a very faint shadoiv, and not even, as Paul says, " an exact image." It is scarcely necessary again to allude to the conflict we have had about his capital assumption concerning one only, Abrahamic covenant; which, next to circumcision is, indeed, the main point in this discussion. His view is one covenant with Abraham, and that an ecclesiastic one, hav- ing the seal of circumcision ! He thus puts infants into the church, and now he asks for a precept to put them out. That there were three dis- tinct covenants made with Abraham, based on three promises — two made in Urr of Chaldea, primary and all-comprehensive, and one in Canaan — has been fully proved. These three covenants are different in name, time, •place, and circumstances, recorded in Gen. 12th, 15th, and 17th chapters, commented on by Paul to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. These DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 427 covenants were not made with all Israel as a national covenant ; but a na- tional covenant based on two of them was developed, proclaimed, acceded to, and ratified with all Israel at Horeb. Therefore, all the other covenants belonging to the seed of Abraham, besides this one with all Israel, are properly called covenants made with Abraham, covenants of promise, as denominated by Paul to the Romans and the Ephesians. These cove- nants were severally made with Abraham in the 75th, 86th, and 99th year of his life ; the first of them 430 years before the law or national covenant at Horeb, to which circumcision and the passover were finally added with the law of dedication. In his last speech the gentleman has made another effort to sustain his position, that the Jews and christians have the same moral law, as a con- stitution. That the moral principles contained in the decalogue are im- mutable principles, and that they are, and have always been, the supreme law of mind, in every portion of God's moral creation, I, in common with all intelligent christians, have not only admitted, but always plead. But that they are, as promulged by Moses, and incorporated on Mount Sinai with other enactments and ordinances, the special constitution of Christ's church, as they were then of the commonwealth of Israel, is what he seeks to maintain, and what I deny. This is the only issue in the case ; because they were, as principles of piety and humanity, as much the law of paradise, or of the patriarchal institution, as of the Jew- ish or christian. The gentleman's argument would prove the identity of all dispensations, as well as that of the Jewisli and christian. And with him, too, the doctrine of eternal life, and a future state of re- wards and punishments, was identically the same among Jews and chris- tians. There is no greater mistake in all his assumptions than this one: Moses has not incorporated one expression, in all the Jewish institution, on the subject of a future state. It is neither named, nor alluded to, from the Exodus to the last word of Deuteronomy. Bishop Warburton, than whom, in his day, the church of England had no man of superior learning or talents, the greatest antiquarian and archaeologist amongst English pre- lates, in his truly learned treatise on the divine legation of Moses, a work which every student of theology ought to read, has, I do not say how logically constructed, an argument, in proof that God sent Moses ; mere- ly, from the fact, that in all the Jewish institution proper, as given by Moses, there is not one word about a future state. TJie fact is true, but whether his argument be true is another question. The knowledge of a future life the Jews had; but not from their covenant nor from Moses, but from the patriarchs. Enoch prophesied of the final judgment. The patriarchs and christians are rather more identical in the fact, though not in the development of it, than the Jews and christians. I am taught by my friend, Mr. Rice, to omit nothing in a general recapit- ulation, at least of his failures to notice my issues and arguments. Many present will recollect the capital he made out of my omission to notice a few specifications oi baptizo in his concluding speech on Saturday night. My not showing to his satisfaction how Judith, in the Apocrypha, bathed in the camp, at a fountain of water; and of how litde profit a bath was to Sirach's legally unclean person, if afterwards he touched a dead body ; and how a plaster could be dipped in breast-milk, in the days of Hippoc- rates, who also commanded the same preparation to be dipped in white Egyptian oil, and flies into the oil of roses! Because I omitted to honor these, and some other matters equally minute and insignificant, with a 428 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. formal notice and refutation, a matter to which a school-boy is competent, the gentleman mustered them in his final cloud of witnesses, of his tri- umpliant refutation of immersion ! I do not say, however, that I shall follow his example, in attending to matters eqiially minute and irrelevant, when I state the fact, that in no one case in the discussion of this propo- sition, would the gentleman meet mc on any issue tendered bv me — such as circumcision a seal to Abraham ; the holy children of parents not both in the church; household baptism; baptism in room of circumcision; and most of all remarkable, the precept for rejecting, or casting out from a church relation, the children of the flesh. After so many demands and vauntings on that subject, that the gentleman should have been so per- fectly confounded with the case of Hagar and Ishmael, and the precept " TO CAST OUT THE OLD COVENANT, AND THE CHILDREN UNDER IT," aS never to presume to reply to it, is really no ordinary occurrence in de- bate. Had he made any pretence to answer it, it would not have been quite so singular. But to have passed it in total silence, must have no little surprised you all. The fact was, in this case, most triumphantly established ; viz. that those born merely of the Jlesh, shall not associate nor inherit with those born of the Spirit. This is the law of the chris- tian dispensation. But I was not content to show that his attempt to make out identity was abortive in the aggregate and in the detail ; that his logic proved too much for him in all cases. But I gave an induction of particular proofs, that the christian church is a new institution. Amongst those proofs were the following: 1. According to the last chapter of Malachi, and the ministry of John the Baptist, " the law and the prophets," or the Jewish institution, was to continue only till the preaching of John. " The law and the prophets were your instructors until John," said Jesus, " but now the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it," Matt, xi., Luke xvi. 16. 2. God promised, through Isaiah, chap, xxviii. 16, to lay a new foun- dation for that glorious church, which, according to the predictions read from the prophets by Mr. Rice, God was to bring out of the seed, the nucleus, in the Jewish kingdom. That promise is " Behold I lay in Zion, for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation. He that believeth shall not make haste." The gen- tleman cannot see that all the glorious things spoken by the prophets concerning the building of the church, and the calling of the gentiles, that the enlargement of the church of which he spoke, all these splen- did things have their foundation intimated here and in other similar pas- sages. The foundation stone of this new institution God would bring out of the old Zion. So says Daniel. 3. In the days of the Roman empire, or of its kings, according to Dan- iel, God promised to set up a kingdom. "In those days," said he, " shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." Of course it could not be the Jewish; for that had been set up nine hundred years before Dan- iel was born. 4. On hearing Peter's confession, Matt, xvi., Jesus promised he would build his church upon it. This was the foundation laid in Zion, on which the christian church was then about to commence. How the gentle- man slurred over, and passed by these great arguments, you have, doubt- less, all observed. DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 429 5. Paul says, the church is " builded on the foundation of apostles and prophets." Who were the apostles, and who the prophets on which the Jewish church Avas builded ? Is not this as clear as demonstration itself, that the Jewish institution and the Christian church are not identical ? 6. Paul taught the Ephesians, and other christians, that Jesus Christ was then making a new man, a new body ; by uniting believing Jews and Gentiles in one grand association. This was, itself, a reason for changing the covenant of peculiarity, and instituting a new initiation, if I may so speak, for believing Jews and Gentiles. 7. Hence, the New Testament commences with the proclamation of a new institution — a new church; "The kingdom of heaven is at kand." Was this the Mosaic institution that was now coming! As before showfi, we must conclude, that " The church of Jesus Christ is a society of faithful men and women, compactly united as one body in Christ Je- sus— having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one spirit, one hope, one and the same God and Father ;" a new society that began on the day of Pentecost, and never before. 8. I have also shown, from the 11th Romans, from the figure of the olive-tree, that the manner of incorporation, or bond of union, in the christian church, is radically and essentially new ; that faith is substituted for flesh, and that the natural branches are broken off— every one broken off"; and that Gentiles and Jews are now grafted by faith, and both stand by faith. 9. But not to be tedious on this head — we farther demonstrated, that, if the two institutions had been, as they certainly are not, identical, still it was compatible with Mr. Rice's own notions of political and ecclesias- tic identity to change the right of suffrage, the whole law of naturali- zation. 10. Was it not shown, from Acts xv., that the idea of baptism comiug in room of circumcision was never thought of in the apostolic age ? 11. And was it not fully demonstrated, from Acts xxi., that the Jews, with apostolic approbation, continued to circumcise their children during the apostolic age 1 A fact that flatly contradicts and nullifies the whole Pedo-baptist assumption, that " circumcision is done away, and baptism come in room of it." To these last facts Mr. Rice prudently made no response. But to conclude, as I have not time to recapitulate and notice every tiling, Avhen urged that none were to be baptized but disciples, Mr. Rice found an infant disciple, of eight days old, in the fact, that Peter asked the Judaizers why they should " tempt God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples ;" this yoke Mr. R. supposed to be circumcision, al- though we are told, Acts xv. 5., it was " the law of Moses." The law of Moses was the yoke, and not circumcision, which neither they nor their fathers, as 7nen, and not as babes, could endure. In refutation of 4II such fallacious hypothesis, from the commission itself it was shown, ihat infants are positively prohibited from baptism, inasmuch as all com- missions, laws, and statutes, specifying qualifications for any office or privilege, positively exclude all persons not so possessed : as, for exam- ple, the law requiring a properly qualification in order to suff'rage, by making such a requisition, prohibits all persons from that right not pos- sessed of such qualifications. Faith, then, being, in any case, required ia order to baptism, not only according to a fair construction of the com- 430 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. mission, as reported by all the evangelists, but also in particular cases— as in the case of the eunuch — positively inhibits infants and untaught per- sons from christian baptism. Not having, then, precept or precedent for infant baptism, nor any fact to support it, may we not conclude with Ne- ander, that — "It is certain Jesus Christ did not ordain infant baptism?" Had I time, I should have spoken a few things on the degrading and enslaving tendencies of infant baptism, as respects the subject of it in af- ter life ; but I see my time is more than expired. Mr. Rice. May I be permitted to ask a question ? Mr. Campbell. Certainly. Mr. Rice. I wish to ask, whether my friend has not published that Ireneus means baptism when he uses the word regeneration ? Mr. Campbell. I believe that the word regeneration was used both before and after Ireneus, as equivalent to baptisrn, ; but whether, in this case, it does certainly so mean, it would be impossible to prove. Still, tliat the fathers, as they are called, both Greek and Latin, did generally so use the word, I believe. TertuUian, hoAvever, who lived after Irene- us, some twenty years, is the first person known on earth who ever men- tioned infant baptism. [By permission of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Rice now read the following extract from the Milennial Harbinger, vol. ii. Extra, pp. 28, 29.] " In my debate with Mr. Walker and Mr. McCalla, 1 objected to the sub- stitution of the word regenerated for immerse, in the extract from Ireneus, and other of the primitive fathers, as they are called, on the ground of their not being exactly representatives of the same ideas universally. I admit- ted that sometimes they used the word regenerated for baptized, but not al- ways ; and, indeed, not at all, ia the popular sense of regenerated. Well, now it comes to pass, that I represent all the primitive fathers as using the term regenerated as equivalent to the term baptized. All this is true ; and what thenl Why, at that time I used the word regenerated as expres- sive of a spiritual change, and found that these fathers spoke of a spiritual change as well as we. I could not therefore reconcile this to the exclusive application of the term regenerated to the act of immersion ; but on a more accurate and strict exajninalion of their ivritings, and of the use of this term ill the JVew Testament, I am assured that they used the term, regenerated as equivalent to immersion, and spoke of the spiritual change iinder other terms and modes of speech,^'' &lc. Mr. Rice, my friends, will have the last word ; affirmative or negative, he must have the last word. Now this is all for effect. There is no- thing in it whatever. Suppose I admit that all the fathers, from Justin Martyr down to Theodoret, 423, used baptism and regeneration as sy- nonymous, and Ireneus generally with the others, though he lived A. D. 178 ; Avhat does it prove in the case before us ? That infant baptism is a Divine institution ; because it is probable, even certain, that Ireneus re- ferred to it, under another name, at the close of the second century !— [Time expired. [end of the second proposition.] PROPOSITION THIRD. Christian Baptism is for the Remission of Past Sins. Mr Campbell affirms. Mr. Rice denies. Thursday, Nov. 23—10 o'clock, A. M. [mr. Campbell's opening address.] Mr. President — and fellow-citizens: the subject before us this morn- ing, I regard as the most important of any that has yet occupied our at- tention : it is the design of baptism. It must be obvious to all, on the slightest reflection, that the importance of right views on the action and on the subject of baptism, depends wholly on the design and meaning of the ordinance : but still, in order to secure its great and manifold advantages, it behooves all, as accountable agents, to proceed intelligently, with refer- ence both to its action, subject and design. Having seen the action of christian baptism in immersion; the subject of it, in the penitent believer; we shall proceed to consider its design, which, we say, is for the remis- sion of past sii^s. These are the terms of the proposition before us, to which we respectfully invite your attention. Baptism is a divine institution ; and, like all other divine institutions, it is both wise and good. It is wise ; because it secures some end which could not have been secured so well without it. It is good ; because it tends to human happiness. These two attributes must belong to baptism, because they belong to the institution of Christianity, which is both wise and good in the aggregate, and consequently, in all its parts. But these attributes belong to all divine institutions. Nature, in all its innumerable systems — in all its primary and secondary ordinances — is one vast sys- tem of benevolent and wise adaptations, the supreme end of which is the happiness of sentient, intelligent and moral beings. It is the part of wisdom to gain the greatest and best results in the shortest possible time, and by the fewest and most simple means. This, and this only, is wisdom. It is the part of benevolence to diffuse as much good over the largest field of existence, and for the longest duration pos- sible, and compatible with the fountain whence it emanates. We must, therefore, regard every means employed, or every ordinance of God (for all means are ordinances, and all ordinances are means) as an essential part of the system, without which it would have been deficient — conse- quendy imperfect. Our mundane system needs a moon as well as a sun. It needs the companionship of six planets, to give it, not merely the number of per- fection, but the perfection of adaptation. Destroy any one of these, and philosophy with her ten thousand tongues would proclaim the ex- tinction of our race. Take away the atmosphere, the water, the light, the caloric, the electricity — take away any of these, and leave all the others, and who of all mankind would live to report the disastrous con- sequences ! 431 432 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. From all the realms of nature, then, we must infer that there is no re- dundancy, no superfluity in any divine system, and especially in the moral and spiritual, which is the highest and best of all. Baptism is, therefore, as essential to Christianity, as the moon is to our earth, or as the ocean is to the vegetable and animal kingdoms. In saying that any one ordi- nance is essential to the perfection of any one system, as some other ordinance is to the perfection of some other system, we do not, however, mean to say, that these ordinances severally occupy exactly the same place in their respective systems : only that they are each equally indis- pensible to the system of which they are each an integral part. Baptism is therefore essential to Christianity, were we to reason only from the analogies of all the systems that comprise one grand universe. But the precept of Jesus Christ alone, gives it essentiality, authority, and value, without any other consideration whatever. He has solemnly and expli- citly commanded faith, repentance and baptism to be preached, in his name, to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. He has commanded it [baptism] to be preached for some specific end- That end is clearly stated, and often alluded to, in the gospel of the king>- dom over which Jesus reigns, and in which alone the hope of immortal- ity flourishes. We have but three, or perhaps at most four, authentic res- cords of the commission authorising this institution. We shall compare them, and compare them in the order in which they stand. Matthew reports only the things to be done by the apostles, in estab- lishing the church. " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The things commanded them to teach are not developed here ; nor is the end of any one of the duties prescribed so much as named. Mark expresses it differently: " Go you into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature." This does not indicate what the elements of the gospel are. It, however, adds, that the reception of it will save every one. The reception of the gospel is thus expressed : " He that believetb and is baptized shall be saved." Unbelief, or a rejection of it, secures condemnation. A belief of it, and baptism into it, secures salvation. Sio the Evangelist Mark represents it. Luke gives the substance of the commission in his own words. He mentions neither gospel, nor faith, nor baptism, but simply says, " Hb commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached, in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Repentance and remission of sins, with him, then, stand for the whole gospel — for the faith and bap- tism of the Evangelist Mark. Repentance is, however, but the adjunct of faith, as the remission of sins is of baptism. In preaching repentance and remission, according to Luke, the apostle must therefore have preach- ed faith, repentance, baptism, and remission ; for all these terms, or their equivalents, are found in the three versions of the commission now quoted. There remains yet the testimony of John the aposfle. It is more con- centrated and laconic than any of the preceding. I shall read the whole passage. John xx. 21 — 23: On one occasion, Jesus (after he aros^ from the dead) said to the apostles, "Peace be to you : as my Father cont- missioned me, so I commission you." Having spoken these words, he immediately breathed on them, saying, " Receive the Holy Spirit." Then he added, " Whose sins soever you remit, they are remitted ; and whose sins soever you retain, they are retained." They were, then, evangelic- DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 433 ally to remit sins and to retain them. How this was clone, the history of the apostles, after the descent of ihe Holy Spirit, must explain. Guided, then, by the four evanjrelists, as they have placed the commis- sion before us, we shall open the Acts of Apostles, and attempt a special analysis of the first gospel sermon, reported by Doctor Luke in his Acts of the Apostles. Before proceeding to the analysis, with a special reference to this grand commission, amplified and spread out before us verbally, by these inspired promulgers of the christian system, we are called upon to state the reason why so much stress ought to be placed upon the second chapter of the A(?ls — upon the day of Pentecost — upon Peter's sermon — and upon the other scenes and transactions of that day. This is all important to the due appreciation of the argument to be deduced from this portion of the in- spired documents which constitute our premises in this argument. The three divine institutions, of nature, of law, and of gospel, have each a commencement homogeneous with itself. To commence any in- stitution, and to continue it, are very different manifestations of divinity. Creation and Providence, are, therefore, different developments of the divine Father. Hence, the glory of God as Creator, Lawgiver, and Re- deemer, appears in perfect harmony with the institutions of nature, of law, and of gospel. From nature we learn wisdom, power and goodness; from law, justice, truth and holiness; from gospel, mercy, condescension, and love; from all these, the eternity, immutability, and infinity of God. The brightest display of each class of perfections was seen in the setting up of these three grand dispensations. The morning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted for joy on witnessing the first. Mount Sinai, the theatre of the second, sur- rounded by three millions of Jews, displayed the fearful grandeur and aw- ful majesty of the second. Jerusalem, filled with the pentecostal conven- tion of the world, with the litUe family of Christ hailing the resurrection morn, saw the superlative displays of the spirit of holiness and of grace on opening the new administration of the remedial system. Jesus himself inhibited the removal of the apostles from their own me- tropolis— from the scenes of his humiliation and death — till they were en- dowed with power from on high — till, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and endowed with all manner of supernatural aids, they could, in good keep- ing with the genius and character of the reign of grace, set forth the supeF- lative excellencies and claims of the evangelical administration. The time when, the place where, and the persons by whom this new and transcendantly glorious display of the whole divinity should be de- veloped, had been the subject of prophecy, both verbal and typical. The clear and luminous Micah, the evangelical Isaiah, had, some seven centu- ries before Messiah was born, explicitly declared, in immediate reference to his time, " That out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jei'usalem." That these predictions, (uttered Isa. ii., Mic. iv.,) had respect to the commencement of the new reign, Jesus himself, the great Expositor, clearly intimates in his conversation after his resur- rection. " Thus," says he, " it is written, (in the prophets already alluded to,) and thus it behooved the Messiah to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginnins; at Jeritsalem.^^ Jerusalem was then the place where the new law was to commence. And as to the time, it was to be in the last days of the Jewish state, as 28 2 0 434 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. the same prophets declare. The interval between the passover and the giving of the Jewish law, is more especially prophetic of the precise time of the promulgation of the new law. The passover was certainly a type of Christ's death. So the apostles distinctly represented it. The giv- ing of the Jewish law succeeded that sacrifice on the fortieth day. The Lord descended on that day to Mount Sinai, and spake in mortal ears all the words of that law of piety and morality which became the covenant, or constitution, of the typical nation. The promulgation of that law occa- sioned the death of three thousand persons. Now, Jesus died at the time of the passover sacrifice : he arose on the third day ; he ascended on the forty-third day ; and in one week, and on the first day of that week, the Spirit descended and spake the new law before the world — which occa- sioned the salvation from death of three thousand persons. No typical prophecy in the Bible, received a more exact accomplishment in its anti- type than this one. Besides, Jesus himself foretold, before he left the earth, that in a few days he would send the Spirit down and introduce the new kingdom. The person by whom this new age was to be introduced was undoubt- edly Peter. The Messiah, to sanction his confession of faith, and to communicate it to all men in all ages, promised to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that he should open it, and remit and retain sins with all authority. His words are, (Matt, xvi.) " He saith unto them. But who say ye that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah : for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you, but my father which is in heaven. And I say unto you, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Again — Jesus makes another promise indicative of ihe same commencement of his kingdom. (Acts i.) " You shall receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you ; and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth." Are we not, therefore, by the highest authority, con- strained to look to Jerusalem, to the day of Pentecost, to the apostle Pe- ter, to understand what the new law is ; what the gospel means ; and how sins are to be remitted to men of all nations during the present ad- ministration ? No wonder, then, that we have given a new emphasis to the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, inasmuch as the Messiah and his prophets send us to Jerusalem, to Pentecost, and to Peter for the law of remission. Can we, then, possibly err in regarding Peter's ser- mon as the opening speech of the gospel age ? We must, then, examine it with the greatest care. The synopsis given of it by Luke is very brief, yet it gives the great points. These are the death of the Messiah, his resurrection, ascension, and glorification, with the descent of the Holy Spirit. These five points are all set in a clear, distinct and authoritative form before the great assembly. By the revelations of that day, three thousand are convinced of sin, righteousness and judgment ; and, with the most intense and agonizing interest and feeling, inquire what they shall do under the new aspects opened to their consideration. The an- swer given is such a one as would have been given to the whole world, had it been present and united in the all-engrossing question propound- DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 435 ed. It is the gospel in its preceptive form, with its promises amiexed. Having ah-eady believed the facts stated — the testimony of the Holy Twelve, sustained by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit — the impera- tives uttered by Peter, fore-ordained to open the nevv^ reign, indicate al' that was necessary to be done to secure the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection — pardon, justification, and the Holy Spirit. The answer, given by Peter, (Oh that it were written in all languages, and proclaimed in every human ear, with all the authority of apostles and prophets,) was in these words: " Reform and be immersed, every one of you, in the NAME OF THE LoRD JeSUS, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HoLY SpiRiT." To encourage them, he adds, " For the promise is unto you and to your posterity, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." This is, when fully and intelligently considered, a synopsis of the whole evangelical economy. It is based on three facts which transpired on earth — the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah ; and on three facts which transpired afterwards — his ascension, coronation, and reception of the Holy Spirit, lor the consummation of the objects of his reign. The pre- cepts are also three — believe, repent, and be baptized. The promises are three — remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. This classification is not merely to assist the memory, (though in tliat point of view it is invaluable,) but simply and clearly to set forth the facts, the precepts, and the promises of the evangelical system. It is, therefore, an admirable opening speech. I only wonder tiiat a thousand volumes, in this book-making age, have not been written upon it. " With many other words," indeed, than those written here, we are informed that Peter " testi- fied and exhorted, saying. Save yourselves from this untoward generation." A precept in this discourse is the subject of my proposition — "^e baptized for the remission of sins." We, of course, presume that the person so commanded, has believed and repented. Peter connects these two in the precept — Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins. Hence I argue, that, what God has joined together, man ought not to separate. If, upon any other subject in the world, a precept of this plainness were promulged, all men, methinks, would in- terpret it as I have done. AVere a physician asked by a rheumatic inva- lid. What shall I do to be healed ? and the physician should answer, Go to the Virginia AVhite Sulphur Springs, drink of the waters and bathe in them, for the removal of your pains, and you shall enjoy a renovated con- stitution ; would not such a patient rationally conclude that it were neces- sary not only to drink the water, but to bathe also, in order to the enjoy- ment of the remission of his pains, and that the reception of a renovated constitution would be the consequence of his obedience ? Some of our ardent opponents, indeed, in the blindness of their zeal, have said, that it ought to be read, because your sins are remitted. But, in the case before us, would not the people laugh the doctor to scorn, who should say to the aforesaid invalid. Go to the White Sulphur Springs and drink the water, and bathe in it, because your pains are remitted? But, perliaps my respondent may devise some better way of disposing of the difficulty, and I shall not anticipate him. Peter, then, as we conclude, like an honest man, spake just as the Spirit gave him utterance ; and expressed, in a plain, unfigurative style, such as a popular audience of several thousand couUi comprehend, what ought to be done by those that heard him declare the glorious fact, that 436 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. God had raised the crucified Messiah to the throne of the universe. He commanded them to repent, and be baptized, in the name of the Lord, for the remission of sins. This single passage, when duly estimated, is, of itself, enough to establish the affirmation I have made of the design of baptism. I am sustained by the identical words of holy writ. True, I have inserted one word, and but one, among the words that Peter spake ; but that word was not inserted to obviate a mistake. Some have af- firmed, that, like John Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism, we preached baptism for the remission of future sins, as well as for the remission of past sins. That I might not, then, be regarded as a genuine Presbyter- ian, of the pure, primitive, Calvinistic school, I inserted the word past. My learned Calvinian opponent has taken the negative in some sense ; or, perliaps, he only means to advocate pure, ancient, uncorrupted Calvin- ism, by denying that the virtue of baptism is only retrospective — he affirm- ing that baptism is for the remission of all sins, past, present, and future. He [Mr. Kice] can, as a christian man, only demur at the word past } for, if that word were expunged, my proposition is then expressed in the identical words of the king's own version — a version completed by forty- .seven good, learned, pious, Episcopalians. We command inquiring pen- itents, in the very words of Peter, " Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins:" in doing which, we exactly conform to the very words of inspiration. Our proposition, then, is incontrovertibly true ; provided only, Peter knew what he said, and said what he meant. My second argument is deduced from Mark's version of the commis- sion— " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved" — taken in connection with Peter's response to the thousands in Jemsalem. These passages mutually explain each other. Here is given to baptism a most imposing character. Along with faith, and as the adjunct of faith, it saves penitents. That it has power to save one from any thing else than sins, is not to be imagined : inasmuch as Ave have three distinct salvations expressed in the Bible — the first, a salvation of the body from the ills and evils, the accidents and dangers of this life ; the second, a salvation of the soul, from the guilt and pollution of sin ; the third, a salvation of both body and soul — of the whole man in heaven forever. Now, the salvation of the soul being distinguished from the salvation of the body, and from the eternal salvation of tiie whole man, must simply indicate the remission of sin, its guilt and its pollution. And so it would seem that Peter and Mark must have been guided by the same spirit, in expressing the mind of Christ under the remedial economy : the latter, by connecting it with salvation, and the other, with remission of sins This harmonizing of the two witnesses, leaches the true doctrine of Chris- tianity, to wit : that a saved man is one whose sins are pardoned. To say, then, that a sinner is saved, is equivalent to saying that he is par- doned. He that is pardoned, is saved ; and he that is saved, is pardoned. But, whether the saved person shall hold fast his begun confidence un- shaken to the end, and finally obtain the salvation to be revealed when the Lord comes, depends not upon faith, repentance, or baptism, but upon -' yielding the fruits of holiness, and thus having tlie end everlasting life." Luke so used the word saved, when closing the narration of the christian Pentecost. "And," says he, "the Lord added daily the saved to the congi-egated." The saved were those who had confessed their sins, had repented, and were baptized. DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 437 My third argument is derived from the fact, that the baptism of John, as well as that of the Messiali, was connected witli the remission of sins. So reads the divine testimony — " In tliese days came John the Baptist — preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Nor is this the peculiar style of John Mark. Luke, also, speaks of the design of John's baptism in almost identical words. He says, " And he came into the country bordering on the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repent- ance foi the remission of sins," (iii. 3.) Again ; that John's baptism had special reference to remission, appears from the fact recorded by Matthew, "All Judea and Jerusalem were baptized by him, confessing their sins.^^ The confession of sins amongst the Jews was necessary to remis- sion ; and generally enjoined with special reference to it. When the ad- ministrator baptized for the remission of sins, and the subject received baptism confessing his sins, have we not reason to believe that sins were pardoned in the act of baptism? A certain prediction concerning this extraordinary minister, uttered by his father about the time of his circumcision, is, of itself, sufficient to war- rant the conclusion, that the ministry of John had peculiar reference to some new doctrine of remission. What could be more pointedly said to communicate that impression, than the following words? "And thou, child, shall be called the Prophet of the Highest; for thou shall go before the Lord to prepare his way — to give knowledge of salvation to his peo- ple in the remission of their sins." Literally, it reads — the knowledge of salvation in the remission of their sins. That this refers to baptism is not only evident to my mind, from my own reasoning, but it is the judgment of our most profound critics and authors, of marginal readings and refer- ences. Mill and Wetsten on tliese words refer to Mark i. 4: and to Luke iii. 3, which we have belbre quoted. So do various versions hav- ing references. In this way John's baptism prepared the way for that of the Messiah. Again; this is the peculiar distinction between the new salvation, and the ancient salvations, most usual among the sons of Abraham. Their deliv- erance was from temporal grievances, and from the tyranny of oppressive enemies; but the new salvation of the gospel is a salvation consisting pri- marily of the actual, real, and personal remission of sins. Hence, John's baptism was for the remission of sins. That there should be a more se-n- sible, evident, and satisfactory remission of sins under the new dispensa- tion, and that baptism is an ordinance especially designed for that pur- pose, will appear still farther evident from other declarations found in the first discourses on the opening of the new reign of grace. From the ex- position of the transactions which occurred in heaven immediately after the ascension, we therefore deduce Oar fourth argument. — On entering the heavens, Jesus was constituted Lord and Christ. This was the last act in the sublime drama of man's de- liverance; so far as the means of his redemption from sin and death are contemplated. Hence, this same Peter, when opening and announcing the reign of the Messiah, repeatedly alludes to this glorious consummation of the gospel facts. On the day of Pentecost he said, " Let all the house of Israel know, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Again : in his second sermon, reported in the next chapter, he says to the believing thousands, "Repent and be con- verted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that seasons of refreshment may come from the presence of the Lord; and he will send Jesus Christ, 2o2 438 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. who was beibre preaciied unto you, whom the heavens must retain until the times of the restitution of all things." Antl again, and still more strikingly illustrative and confirmatory of the fact before us, is the annunciation made to the council of the nation, with the high-priest in the chair : " God hath exalted this Jesus to his right hand, a prince and a Savior, to give repen- tance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Princes, when exalted, dis- pense favors witli a more munificent hand than during their minority, or before their accession to a throne. Jesus being constituted Lord as well as Christ; being invested with universal riches, power, and glory, opens his reign by forgiving, through faith, repentance, and baptism, three thou- sand rebels, many of whom had thirsted for his blood — "Of whom," said Peter, "you have been the betrayers and murderers." His exaltation to the throne of the universe, is declared to be with a special reference to the dispensation of repentance and remission. Of course, then, these go hand in hand, and are dispensed under new conditions, and in a new, more striking, vivid, and soul-exhilarating manner than formerly. Hence the superabundant joy of the new converts, compared with that of the old saints. There v^^as not merely a freshness and a beauty in those brighter displays of divine philanthropy; but there was a more substantive and real blessedness imparted, in having an institution dispensed to them, that permitted them to be buried in Christ, and to rise in him, as well as with him, and to receive a personal, plenary, and sensible remission, by and through their faith, repentance, and baptism. There are, then, in the new dispensation of the better covenant, established upon richer and bet- ter promises, good reasons why those who now submit to Jesus, the great and mighty Savior, should formally and really receive a purification from sin, unknown in its amplitude and assurance to those under former dispensations. Paul to the Hebrews, argues its superiority in sundry points of view, but most clearly and convincingly by reference to remis- sion. The conscience was never made perfect in any remission of sins, dispensed through Jewish ordinances ; for the worshipers, though often cleansed, still had a consciousness of sins ; which consciousness of sins is thorougly removed in those who truly understand, and cordially em- brace the gospel of the glorified Messiah. These, indeed, have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and their bodies washed in the clean water of christian purification. From the stress laid upon the ex- altation and coronation of the Messiah, and the new dispensation of favor entrusted to him, we are led to expect such change in the conditions and forms of remission, as are indicated in these three words — faith in Jesus as the Messiah, repentance, and baptism. The order and the change of words in Acts iii. " Repent and turn to God, or be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," &c., is merely exegetical, or farther declarative of the answer given a few days before, on the opening of the new kingdom. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, is now expressed — " Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." I hope my respondent will make an eflbrt to show, that these words can be otherwise understood than as pre- cisely equivalent to Acts ii. 38. Our fifth argument shall be deduced from the fact already assumed and demonstrated in the case of circumcision ; that, whatever circumcision was to any one of the descendants of Abraham, whether infant or adult, it was of the same importance and significance to all. This is a point of great consideration on the subject of all divine institutions. It was true DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 439 of all the patriarchal and Jewish ordinances. To every proper subject of any one of them, the observance secured the same advantages. This is equally true of all the christian ordinances. To him who is a proper candidate for baptism, for the Lord's supper, or for any christian institution, the ordinance conveys the same blessings. This being so, whatever baptism was to the three thousand Pentecostan converts, to Saul of Tarsus, to Cornelius, or to any believing penitent in the age of the aposdes, it is to every human being at the present time. Paul assures us that there is but one christian immersion — " one Lord, one faith, one baptism.''^ Now, if our 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. Our sixth argument is drawn from the words uttered in the ears of Paul, by a messenger specially called and sent to him from the Lord^ Paul was novv a believing penitent, a proper subject of the grace of bap- tism : for baptism has its peculiar grace, as well as prayer or fasting. Paul had inquired of the Lord, what he should do. The Lord commis- sioned Ananias to inform him. He went to Paul's room, and proved his mission by restoring him to sight: and instanUy commanded him to rise, be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. Now, the washing away of his sins was certainly to be accomplished through the water of baptism, according to the language of the highest authority in the universe. Jesus Christ had so commanded. Neither his faith nor his repentance had washed away his sins, in the sense of the precept of the Messiah. In any other case, the literary world would in- terpret this phrase as I have done. In circumcising adult proselytes, when connecting themselves with the Jewish nation, it was usual for them to wash off the blood occasioned by the performance of the rite. From which fact, some of the Rabbis, one thousand years ago, got up the notion of Jewish baptism, as before intimated on another question. Suppose, then, an Hebrew should address a newly circumcised Pagan in these words : " Arise, sir, go to the bath and wash away your blood," would not the whole world understand it, not merely as a necessary pre- cept, but that the washing away of the blood was not in the act of rising nor of going to the bath, but in the bathing ? But when we place this saying of Ananias to the penitent Saul of Tarsus, along with that of Pe- ter to the penitent Pentecostans, " Be baptized for the remission of sins ;" " Be baptized and wash away your sins ;" although spoken by different persons, at different and considerable intervals, what reasonable doubt can remain, that all the aposdes taught, and all the christians believed, that the remission of sins was through faith, repentance, and baptism ? On this remarkable passage, Calvin observes, " That you may be assured, Paul, that your sins are remitted, be baptized ; for the Lord promises re- mission of sins in baptism : receive it and be assured." (Inst. 4, sec. 15, De Baptism.) This is the answer that Calvin gives to the question: " Why did Ananias tell Paul to wash away his sins by baptism, if sins are not washed away by virtue of baptism ?" This is scarcely modest enough! Bucer, the great reformer, " the very learned, judicious, and pious Bucer," as bishop Burnet calls him, the amiable companion of Me- lancthon, the student of Luther, the associate of Zuinglius, whose body 440 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. the bloody Mary had dug up and burned five years after his death; the man whose very bones were a terror to a Catholic queen, said of this pas- sage, " In those words, then, there is ascribed to baptism the effect of re- mitting or washing of sins." — (Bucer in loco.) Not to quote all the ancients, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, &;c., &c., I shall only add, from Wesley's Notes, Acts xxii. 16: "Baptism, administered to a real penitent, is both a means and a seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow this on any, unless through this means." It calls for a greater than Wesley to prove that he acts otherwise in the modern church ! My seventh argument is deduced from the conversion of Cornelius and his gentile friends. His excellent moral character and his great devotion to prayer and alms-deeds, had not yet saved him. The message re- ceived from God directed him to send for the man who had the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who could " tell him words by which he and his family and friends might be saved." I need not relate the whole story, as it is represented in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts. Peter, in relating the matter afterwards, as reported in the eleventh chapter, devel- ops more fullv the intention of the mission, and details some of tlie in- cidents more at length. Particularly, in the fourteenth verse, he gives an account of the necessity of his sermon — as "words whereby Cornelius and all his family might be saved." He also states, that, as he began to speak these words — as soon as he got to remission of sins through the name of the Lord Jesus — at that moment, the Spirit, in its miraculous attestations, fell upon all the gentiles present, as it had done in the bap- tism of the Jews on Pentecost. Cornelius and his friends of the gentile world, as the one hundred and twenty Jewish friends (assembled on Pen- tecost) of the Jewish world, were best prepared for the coming of the new reign — a people prepared for the Lord — it pleased God to admit them both by the same glorious, sensible and visible displays of his grace in the gift of tongues. Soon, then, as Peter saw all this, he asked the believing Jews, who had accompanied him from Joppa, whether they could, on any account, refuse them the grace of baptism. No demurrer having been instituted, he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Thus, also, were the gentiles saved by faith, repentance and baptism. Seven such arguments as tliese are enough for one speech. The first, indeed, is itself alone sufficient, so far as authority goes, to command and enforce the institution upon the attention and observance of all. The others, besides their individual weight, explain its meaning and impor- tance, and go to shew what its true construction is. The authority of Him, in whose name believing penitents are to be baptized, is not sus- ceptible of augmentation by the suffrages of an universe, nor by the addi- tion of all the names amongst the celestial and terrestrial hierarchies. He alone is the peerless One, by whom kings reign and princes decree jus- tice. It was he who first marshaled the morning stars, and gave to them laws which they have never transgressed, during all the contingen- cies of untold ages, and the movements of all the agencies of creation. It was his fiat that made darkness the parent of light, and that caused nothing to become the origin of all things. When made Head and Law- giver of the Church ; when constituted both Lord and Christ; when ex- alted a Prince and a Savior, after sending down his Spirit from his throne, and animating his apostles by his presence and power, the first DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 441 precept given to the first inquiring penitents was, " Repent and be bap- tized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of your sins." On that precept the first church acted with joyful haste and implicit confidence. On that precept the Jerusalem church was founded : and no good reason can ever be given by any man, why the same precept should not be given to every inquiring penitent now, henceforth, and till the Lord shall come again. Thus far I had prepared my opening address. My time, however, not yet being expired, I sliail proceed to another argument. One clause of the commission, not commented on during our discussion of the previous proposition, now demands a few remarks as the basis of a neVv argument, in support of the present proposition, which, of course, I shall call my eighth argument. 8. " Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.^^ No language could more clearly indicate a change of state than the phrase just now read. The prominent design of baptism is thus fully expressed by the transition spoken of in the words, " baptizing iiito the name." The subject is here represented as in some way enter- ing hito the name, or into the persons represented by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This may be supposed to resemble the act of naturali- zation, in the fact that a person in that process is inducted into the posses- sion of the rights of citizenship under a political institution. So Christ commanded the candidates to be immersed into the name of the whole Divinity ; that is, into the privileges and immunities of the new kingdom over which the Messiah now presides, by the authority of the Father through the Holy Spirit. It is, then, a solemn and sacred enfranchise- ment of a believer with all the rights and privileges of Christ's kingdom. This argument rests on the autfiority of the new version of eis by into. When I published my edition of the New Testament, (which many per- sist in calling my translation.) feeling myself authorized by the original, and the style of the New Testament, I departed, in this instance, as well as in several others, from Dr. Campbell, and all other translations then known to me. This, indeed, was but a verbal matter. Yet, when the whole world. Catholic and Protestant, were following Jerom's vulgate, it was a great innovation, on my part, and so regarded by others. Since that time, however, I have ascertained that in one of T. Dwight's sermons on the commission, he took the same view of it, and contended that it ought to have been so rendered. And still more recently, and with more authority, archbishop Whateley, of the province of Dublin, both in his logic, and also in a recent work on the kingdom of Christ, has not only sanctioned this version, but defended it with zeal. These two names are as authoritative as any other two names which could be selected in Eu- rop3 or America. The new version of this passage will certainly grow into fashion at no very distant day. I find other distinguished names in favor of it. All feel the diflerence between " in the name of the Lord,'''' and " into Christ." The former denotes aufhnri/i/, alone — the latter intimates union and rela- tion. " In the name of the commomvealth,'''' is very different from being inducted info the commonwealth. Into always denotes change of posi- tion ; a transition from one state to another. It marks boundaries, A person enters into, not in, matrimony. A person is baptized in water, into Moses, into Christ, or into his death, &c. This solemn and significant moral change or transition out of the world 442 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. into Christ, is consummated in the following manner: — The gospel is proclaimed to them without the kingdom. Men have it, believe it, be- come penitent, and are "baptized in water, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.^'' They have then put on Christ, are bap- tized into Ciirist, and are henceforth in him a new creation. Baptism, my fellow-citizens, is no mere rite, no unmeaning ceremony, 1 assure you. It is a most intellectual, spiritual and sublime transition out of a sinful and condemned state, into a spiritual and holy state. It is a change of relation, not as respects the flesh, but the spirit. It is an introduction into the mystical body of Christ, by which he necessarily obtains the remission of his sins. No one can understand or enjoy the sublime and awful import of a bu- rial with Christ ; of a baptism into death, who does not feel that he is pass- ing through a most solemn initiation into a new family ; high and holy relations to the Father, as his Father and his God — to the Son, as his Lord and his Messiah — to the Holy Spirit, as his sanctifier and comforter. He puts ofl'his old relations to the world, the flesh, and Satan. Consequent- ly, that moment he is adopted into the family of God, and is personally invested with all the rights of a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. But this ordinance is monumental also. It is always a monument and an attestation of the burial and resurrection of the Lord. No one can sensibly contemplate one exhibition of it, without remembering the burial of the Messiah, and his glorious resurrection, by the power of his Fa- ther; for it is the administrator that raises from the watery grave the bu- ried saint. With the vividness of a sensible demonstration it strikes not only the eye, but the heart, of an intelligent spectator. It is not only a commemorative institution, but also it is prospective of our future desti- ny in the new relation ; that when we die, and are buried in the earth — when the Administrator of the new and everlasting institution revisits our earth, he will raise from their graves all his dear brethren, and glorify them with his own immortal beauty and loveliness. How appropriate the symbol of the new birth, this washing of regeneration! How kind that the precept, on which man's enjoyment of salvation rests, should com- memorate the Lord's burial and resurrection, shovfld prospectively antici- pate our own, while it inducts us into Ciirist and invests us with all the privileges of citizenship in his kingdom ! — [Time expired. Thursday, Nov. 23 — 1 1 o'clock, A. M. [iwR. rice's first reply.] Mr. President — In the previous part of this discussion, it has been my business to advocate views in regard to which we difl'er from some of our christian brethren of evangelical churches. I am happy, this morning, to take my stand on the broad ground on which the great body of Protestant christians are united. The discussion on which we now enter, is designed, on my part, to present the great doctrines of the cross in their proper relation to each other, and to exhibit the ordinances con- nected with them in their true nature and design. I regret that my friend, Mr. Campbell, did not, in his address, more distinctly state the point at issue. It is, however, a common misfortune of those who write speeches, to give rather more attention to the forma- tion of beautiful sentences and well-turned periods, than to tiie clear pre- sentation of the subject under investigation. In the discussion of the subject before us, as indeed of all others, it is of the first importance that DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 443 the audience understand distinctly wherein we differ, and what is the precise point in dispute. The proposition is as follows : " Christian BAPTISM is for the REMISSION OF PAST SINS." This Mr. C. affirms, and I deny. That the audience may distinctly see the point in debate, it is impor- tant to remark, that we are not discussing the question, whether one who contemns, or wilfully neglects, the ordinance of baptism, can have evi- dence that his sins are remitted. We all agree, that he who despises, or designedly neglects, any one command of Christ, gives clear evidence lliat he is destitute of true piety, and, consequently, is not pardoned. But the question is, whether n penitent believer is unpardoned until he is baptized, or, as my friend would say, 'wimersed: whether an individual who to-day becomes truly penitent, and believes on Christ with all his heart, but has no opportunity to be baptized till the next week, is, till the next week, condemned, and is pardoned only in the act of receiving bap- tism— or whelhei", if he have no opportunity to be baptized the next week, or if he never have such opportunity, he must live and die unfor- given — or whether, if he have mistaken something else for baptism, and thus substituted a human tradition in its stead, he must die condemned and be lost. In a word, the question is, whether a penitent believer is, under all circumstances, or under any circumstances, unpardoned, until he is baptized? To this question, Mr. C. would give an affirmative answer. He maintains, that the sins of a penitent believer are forgiven, not before baptism, but in the very act of being baptized. That I may be certain of representing his views correctly, I wdll read from his Christ- ian Baptist, pp. 416, 417 : " In the third place, I proceed to show tliat we have the most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name's sake of his Son, or when the name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion : — that in, and by, the act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put tinder water, at that very in- stant oxir former , or ' otd sins,^ are atl washed away; provided only, thai we are true believers. This was the view and the expectation of every ont; who was immersed in the apostolic age : and it was a consciousness of having received this blessing that caused them to rejoice in the Lord, and, like the eunuch, to 'go on their way rejoicing.' When Jesus commanded reformation and forgivcnetjs of sins to be announced in his name to all na- tions, he commanded men to receive immersion to the confirmation of this promise. Thus we find that when the gospel was announced on Pentecost, and when Peter opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, he commanded them to be immersed for the remission of sins. This is quite sufficient, if we had not another word on the subject. I say, it is quite suihcient to shew that the forgiveness of sins and christian immersion were, in their first proclamation by the holy apostles, inseparably connected together. Pe- ter, to whom was committed the keys, opened tlie kingdom of heaven in this manner; and made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness. * * =f= I am bold, therefore, to affirm, that every one of them who, in tlie belief of what the apostle spoke, was im- mersed, did, in the very instant in wliicJi, lie ivas put under water, receive the forgiveness of Ids sins, and the gift of the holy Spirit. If so, then, who will not concur with me in saying, that christian immersion is the gospel in water 1" — Editor. Such is the doctrine of my friend. I will now read a passage or two from liis Christianity Restored, in which he avows the same doctrine. I read on pages 196, 197: " A thousand analogies might be adduced, to shew that though a change of state often, nay, generally results from a change of feelings, and this 444 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. from a change of views ; yet a change of state does not necessarily follow, and is something quite ditferent from, and cannot be identified with, a change of heart. 80 in religion, a man may change his views of Jesus, and his heart may also be changed towards him ; but unless a change of state ensues, he is still unpardoned, unjustijied, unsanclificd, unreconciled, unadopt- ed, and lost to all christian life and enjoyment. For it has been proved that these terms represent states and not feelings, condition and not character : and that a change of views, or of heart, is not a change of state. To change a state is to pass into a new relation, and relation is not sentiment, nor feeling. Some act, then, conslitulional, by slipulalion proposed, sensible, and manifest, must be performed by one or both the parlies before such a change can be accomplished. Again ; whatever the act of faith may be, it necessarily oecoraes the line of discrimination between the two states before described. On this side or on that, mankind are in quite different stales. On the one side, they are pardon- ed, justified, sanctifed, reconciled, adopted, and saved: On the other, they are in a state of condemnation. This act is sumetimes called immersion, regener- ation, conversion," 6,c. Here, then, you have distinctly stated the doctrine of my friend, against which I protest. He maintains, that the sins of penitent believers are remitted in the act of ijmner-non — never before ; that all who have not been immersed, however pious and holy, are still unpardoned ; and living and dying without immersion, they live and die unforgiven and are lost. Here I join issue with him. So far as his remarks bear upon the question before us, I shall no- tice them as I pass. He has said some things that are true, and others that, as I suppose, are not true; but as they have no immediate bearing on the question in debate, I do not deem it proper to reply to them. Before stating my objections to his doctrine, it is important to remark, that the Bible is consistent with itself. This the gentleman will not deny. If, then, his interpretation of Peter's sermon be found directly to contradict other portions of the Scriptures ; it will appear, to the satisfac- tion of all, that it is entirely erroneous, and that we must look for a dif- ferent exposition. I, then, offer the following objections to his doctrine and to his interpretation of Peter's sermon : First : It flatly contradicts the express declarations of Christ and the apostles. I refer you to John iii. 18 — the very chapter in which we find the new birth, on which Mr. C. has so largely commented in his wri- tings. Let us hear John speak ; or rather, let us hear our Lord speak in language so perfectly clear, that no difficulty can be felt in ascertaining his meaning, and no criticism can evade it : " He that believeth on him is not condemned." The meaning of this declaration evidently is, that every believer in Christ is pardoned ; for to say he is not condemned, is the same as to say he is pardoned — his sins are remitted. But my friend says, he that believes and is immersed, is not condemned ; if not im- mersed, he is condemned ! Here is a flat contradiction of the Savior ; for he says as plainly as language can express it, concerning every be- liever, he is not condemned. Again, verse 36, " He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." The Savior does not say, he that be- lieveth may or shall have life, if he will be immersed ; but he hath everlasting life — he has it now in actual possession. Look now at the predicament in which Mr. Campbell is placed. He asserts, that, until immersed, the believer is condemned, and, of course, has 7iot everlasting life. What says our Lord ? " He that believeth, hath everlasting life." My friend will not immerse an individual till he professes to believe. He DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 445 asks him the question, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ? He answers in the affirmative. Now if he has told the truth, he has everlasting life, and his sins are remitted. My friend cannot, on his hypothesis, get him to the water until his sins are forgiven, and he is in the actual possession of life everlasting. The passage calls for no criti- cism— it is perfectly plain. Again, I read, chap. vi. 29, " Jesus answered and said unto them. This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." This is the work. Every thing else follows, when faith is exercised. Faith produces good works ; and he who has the princple in him, will be found walking in obedience to the commandments of God. Again, verses 35, 40 : " And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me, shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst. * * * And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life : and I will raise him up at the last day." Could language be more perfectly unambiguous ? Is it possible to express more clearly and strongly the truth, that every true believer is pardoned and accepted of God? He that believes, shall never thirst — he shall ever drink of the water of life. It is the will of God that he have everlasting life ; and Christ will raise him up at the last day. Nay, he is now in the actual possession of eternal life. Then are not the sins of all such persons pardoned ? It w^ill not be denied that there have lived multitudes of believers who were never immersed ; and yet, according to the teaching of our Lord, they are in possession of eternal life. I read once more, verse 47 : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, hath everlasting life" — is in the actual possession of it, baptized or not, immersed or not. It is wholly unnecessary to go to critics, to interpret language as clear as the light of the sun. I will now turn to the third chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Here we find the doctrine of justijication very fully exhibited. The apostle's object was, to teach men how they might certainly obtain the remission of their sins and acceptance with God : and it is a remarkable fact, that bap- tism is not mentioned, nor even alluded to, in the whole connection. " Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteous- ness of God without the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets : even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no dif- ference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus * * * Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law." — Verses 20 — 24, 28. In this and the two following chapters, we have an argument clear and complete, designed to explain the doctrine of justification, to teach men how their sins may be remitted ; and yet baptism is not mentioned, till the apostle reaches the sixth chapter, and then only by way of answering a Jewish objection to the doctrine he was teaching. But while he is explaining the doctrine of justification, he does not even allude to baptism. He teaches, that the righteousness of God by faith is laifo and xipon all them that believe; and again, that a man is justified by faith. He does not say, as Mr. Campbell does, that a man is justified by faith and baptism. No — bap- 2P 446 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. tism is not even alluded to. If, then, his doctrine is true, Paul must have practiced an avi'ful deception upon those whom he professed to teach the way of life ! It is, then, most evident, that baptism does not secure the remission of sins ; and that it is not a pre-requisite to pardon. Secondly. My second objection to Mr. Campbell's doctrine is de- rived from the fad, that all persons ivho are begotten of God, do enjoy remission of sins. He, let it be understood, maintains that all believers are begotten of God, whether they have been immersed or not; though, until immersed, he would say, they are not born again. Now, I assert it as a fact, which I will prove by the plainest declarations of the Scrip- tures, that every one who is begotten of God, is a child of God, and, con- sequently, enjoys the remission of sins. In the Bible, none but true chris- tians are ever said to be begotten of God. This is proved by the follow- ing passages, 1 Pet. i. 3 : " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible," &c. Observe, those here spoken of were begotten unto a lively hope; and the object of that hope is " an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for them." They were true christians. Again, James i. 18: " Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures." Indeed, the word begotten is the word usually employed in the Scrip- tures, where reference is made to the father of children. Thus in Gen- esis we read, that sucb a man lived so long, and begat sons and daughters. And our Savior is called " the only-begotten of the Father." The word is ordinarily used to express the idea, that in some sense the child derives its nature and its life from its father. In the following passages I shall use the word begotten, instead of born, not because I consider it more correct, but because Mr. C. prefers it. J intend to disprove his doctrine by his oivn translation. I read, 1 John iii. 9, " Whosoever is begotten of God doth not com- mit sin; for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God." But if a man cannot commit sin, he is a holy man; and I will leave my friend to prove, that holy men may be condemned and eternally lost! Again, {verse 10) "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." Here observe, they who are, in the 9th verse, said to be begotten of God, and are, therefore, holy, are, in the 10th, called the children of God; and they are distinguished by their righteousness from the children of the devil. If a man is a child of God, are not his sins remitted? John found but two classes among men — the children of God and the children of the devil. Surely Mr. C. will not venture to say that they who are begotten, of God, can be the children of the devil! John most clearly teaches us, that all who are begotten of God, are his children ; and " if children, then heirs," says Paul, " heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ," Rom. viii. 17. Let us read again, 1 John iv. 7, "Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God ; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God.''^ Compare this with the gospel by John, chap. xvii. 3, ♦' And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Now observe, every one who DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 447 loves, IS begotten of God ; every one vi'ho is begotten of God, knows God ; and to know God is to possess eternal life. And who are they that on the day of judgment will be condemned? Paul the aposUe answers the question — " The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that KNOW NOT God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. They who know God, obey the Gospel, and have eternal life. They cannot be condemned. Since, then, all who are be- gotten of God, do know God ; is it not clear that their sins are remitted ? We will now notice what is said in the 5th chapter of this epistle, concerning those who are begotten of God. " Whosoever believetli that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten of God : and every one that loveth hira' that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God," Sic, The obvious meaning of which is, that every believer is a child of God, and loves all God's children. Again, " Whosoever is begotten of God overcometh the world." Now what has our Savior promised those who overcome the world ? " He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches : to him that overcometli, will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God," Rev. ii. 7. Again, (verse 11) " He that overcometh, shall not be hurt of the second death." Again, (verse 17) " To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth, save he that receiveth it." Now mark the fact : every one that is begotten of God, overcometh the world ; and to every one that overcometh, our Lord has promised that he shall eat of the tree of life in the paradise of God ; that lie shall not be hurt of the second death ; in a word, that he shall possess eternal happiness in heaven. Are not the sins of such remitted ? I am not quite through with this argument. In the 18th verse of the same chapter, John says, " We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." Every one who is begotten of God, ceases to sin, and keeps himself, so that the devil does not touch him. Are such persons condemned ? All must say, they are not — their sins are remitted. * Now you see the insuperable difficulty in which Mr. Campbell's doc- trine involves him. He will baptize none but believers ; and all believers, he admits, are begotten of God — " Whosoever believetli that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten of God." They are begotten before he can baptize them by pouring, sprinkling or dipping. And if begotten, they are God's children, have ceased to sin, have overcome the world, and, therefore, have the promise of eternal blessedness in heaven. He admits, that they are begotten before they are to be baptized; and these scriptures abun- dantly prove, that they are God's children and heirs of eternal glory, and, consequendy, that they do, before baptism, enjoy remission of sins. His doctrine, therefore, does most manifesdy contradict a large number of the plainest declarations of our Savior and his apostles. Thirdly. My third objection to the doctrine of Mr, Campbell is founded on ihefact, that those ivho are born of God, enjoy the remis- sion of sins. The Scriptures teach us, that the new birth is not con- nected with baptism, but many are born again before being baptized. The new birth is first mentioned by the aposde John, ch. i. 11 — 13, " He 448 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as re ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It is impor- tant here to notice the difference between birth and adoption- By our birth we derive from our parents our life and human nature — we are like them, ^y adoption, privileges are secured, to which the adopted person was not before entitled. Birth has relation to life and nature : adoption to privileges. Now observe, John says, that all who received Christ, or believed on him, were born of God, not might be born. They were born of God, had their hearts renewed, had the disposition of children ; and, therefore, they received Christ. And to all who, in the exercise of the disposition or spirit of children, received him, he gave the privileges of children, the blessings of adoption. I will now prove by a number of facts, that persons are born of God, before they are baptized, or independently of baptism — that the new birth is not at all essentially connected with baptism. 1. In the passage in the gospel by .John, just now read, where the new birth is first mentioned, not a word it said about water, or about baptism. It is simply stated, that they who received Christ, were born of God Now if the water of baptism had been essential to the new birth, would it not have been mentioned, when first the birth is spoken of? 2. It is a fact, admitted by Mr. Campbell, that where the conversation occurred between our Savior and Nicodemus, when the subject is again presented; christian baptism was not in existence, (John iii. 1 — 12.) The first remark he made to Nicodemus, was, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see tlie kingdom of God." Nicodemus did not understand his meaning. He explained, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now the question is, whether, by the water, the Savior meant christian baptism. It is an admitted fact, that at this time, christian baptism had not been instituted. Now we are certainly safe in presuming, that the Savior intended that Nicodemus should understand him. But if he alluded to an ordinance, not then in existence, and of which Nicodemus could know nothing, how was it possible that he could understand him ? and how could he consistently reprove him for not understanding liim ? For, 3. It is a fact, that our Lord did reprove Nicodemus for his ignorance of this doctrine. "Jesus answered and said unto him. Art thou a master Qeacher] of Israel, and knowest not these things ?" v. 10. He seems to remark it as a strange inconsistency, that Nicodemus should be a teacher, an expounder of the Old Testament, and yet be ignorant of this doctrine. It is, then, certain that the doctrine here taught by the Savior, is taught in the Old Testament. Baptism, in order to the remission of sins, is not found there ; but the necessity and nature of a change of heart, of regen- eration, is. Ezekiel said, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit w^ill 1 put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh," &c. ch. xxxvi. 26. Again, David prayed, " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me," Ps. li. 10. It is evident that the Savoir did not allude to baptism for the remission of sins, which is not taught in the Old Testament, but that he spoke of the renewing of the heart by the Holy Spirit, which is here taught. DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 449 4. It is a fact, that after christian baptism was instituted, it never was by the inspired writers called a birth. Not an example of the kind can be found. And if our Lord and his apostles never did speak of it as a birth, we cannot safely so denominate it. 5. The reason assigned by tlie Savior, why the new birth is necessary, proves unanswerably, that it is simply a change of the heart — a change from sinfulness to holiness. It is this : " That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." We must be born again, born of the Spirit, because we were born of the flesh. What are we to understand by the woxA flesh, in this passage? The answer to this question is found in Galatians v. 19, 20, 21, " Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these : adultery, fornication, unclean- ness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murder, drunkenness, revell- ings, and such like." Again, Roman viii. 8, 9, " So then they that are in the flesh, cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." The wordflesh, when used with reference to moral character, is constantly employed, as these and other scriptures abundantly prove, in the sense of depravity, moral corruption. The meaning of our Savior's language, therefore, is, that they who are born of corrupt or sinful parents, are themselves sinful ; and they who are born of the Holy Spirit, are holy. By the natural birth, we are like our parents, sinful; by the spiritual birth, we are like the Spirit, holy. The new birth is, therefore, a change of heart from sinfulness to holiness, not as Mr. C. contends, a change of state, affected by baptism, from condemnation to justification. The fact that a man is condemned, is a good reason why his state or condition should be changed ; but the fact that he is sinful, is a good reason why his heart, his moral nature, should be changed. The fact that a man is diseased, is the reason why he needs medicine; and, of course, the medicine is intended to heal his disease. If then, the necessity of the new birth, as our Lord teaches, arises from the fact of our being depraved, the new birth must be designed to remove that depravity. It is, then, simply a change of heart, from sinfulness to holiness, by the Spirit of God; and, therefore, it is not essentially, or at all, connected with baptism. 6. The mystery connected with the new birth, confirms the view of it which I have just presented : "The wind bloweih where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit;" vs. 8. What is the meaning of this language ? The Savior had presented to Nicodemus the doctrine of the new birth. He objects, that it is very mysterious. The Savior admits that it is mysterious, but proves that this is no valid objection against it; for the works of nature are full of mysteries. We know, that the wind blows, for we can see and feel its effects; but how it blows, " whence it cometh, and whither it goeth," we do not know — it is mysterious. So the fact, that the Holy Spirit renews the heart, we know, for we experience the effects of the change, and wit- ness them in others ; but how the Spirit operates on the mind we know not — it is mysterious. But if the doctrine of Mr. Campbell is true, this allusion to the blow- ing of the wind, as mysterious, was altogether out of place. For, if God should declare his purpose to remit the sins of every one who, upon evi- dence, would believe that Jesus Christ is his son, and be immersed, there 29 2 p 2 460 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. would be nothing mysterious about it. It would be one of the simplest things imaginable. But it' the views, Avhich I have presented, be true, the allusion to the blowing of the wind was peculiarly appropriate. It was a complete answer to the objection offered by Nicodemus. The evidence is thus strengthened, that the new birth is a change of heart. 7. That our Savior had no allusion to christian baptism as essential to the new birth, is further evident from the fact, that water is mentioned but once, and then dropped. The inspired writers were constantly in the habit, in speaking of spiritual things, of connecting the emblem and the thing signified, or of substituting the former for the latter, as illus- trating its nature. Thus Ezekiel, in the passage repeatedly quoted — " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," believe, did not mean what he said ; but Peter meant precisely what he said! True, words may be understood in a figurative sense, when the connection requires it; but when Christ says, he that believeth, hath everlasting life, the language is perfectly plain, and the meaning mos- obvious. I must, therefore, believe it. To say, that a man has a thou- sand dollars, and that to say that he may get a thousand dollars, are very different propositions. One of his illustrations of this new meaning of the word hath, was particularly unfortunate. It was this : a man, when naturalized, has the rights and immunities of a citizen ; but whether he will improve them, depends on himself. Very well. So when a man believes, he is natural- ized, and has all the blessings of Christ's kingdom, of which one of the most important is remission of sins ; but still he must persevere unto death. This, I should consider a very unhappy illustration of his doc- trine, that a man is not naturalized in the kingdom of Christ, and enjoye none of its blessings, until he is baptized. But Mr. C. used another illustration, which I think is no better than the one just noticed. He quoted the passage, " The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests ; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head." How this 464 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. passage proves, that the word hath means may have, I am unable to see. The foxes have holes. Does this mean, they may have holes ? — there are holes into which they may run ? The birds of the air have nests — that is, according to the genUeman's logic, they may have nests — there are nests into which they inay go ?! The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head ; that is, he may not have where to lay his head ! The passage confirms all tliat I have said. The birds have — are in possession of, nests. So he that believeth, hath — is in possession of, eternal life. The expressions are precisely similar. But this is not all. The argument does not depend on this single ex- pression, though it is perfectly clear. The Savior stated the same truth in another form ; " He that believeth on the Son, is not condemned,'''' John iii. 18. But Mr. C. says, he that believeth is condemned, unless he have been immersed ! — a flat contradiction. For he does not deny, that a great many have believed on the Son, who never were immersed ; and all such, according to his faith, are condemned. I cannot see how he could more directly contradict our Lord. I hope he will consider this an answer to his argument, sufficiently direct. I was gratified to hear him admit, that the word translated begotten, is the same which is translated born. I used the former word, because he had done so in his translation ; and I intended, as I said, to disprove his doctrine by his own translation, I will now, in view of his admission, put the word born instead of begotten, 1 John v. 1, " Whosoever be- lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." Now, my friend will not immerse a man, till he professes to believe that Jesus is the Christ ; and John the aposile says, he that believeth is born of God. He is born — is a child of God, before he can get him to the water ; and if he is born of God — if he is a child, then he is an heir of God, (Rom. viii. 17) and his sins are, of course, remitted. I am quite pleased, that my friend has admitted so much of the truth. I will, however, take either translation, begotten or born, and prove, that his doctrine of baptism in order to the remission of sins, directly contradicts the Savior and the apostles. But the gentleman, who would have us believe that he never makes false issues, has told us, that the issue is .this : that /believe in baptismal purification without i-i\\\\; and he believes in baptismal purification byia\i\\\ I have said not a word about baptismal purification. What is the propo- sition before us ? The question is, whether baptism is necessary in order to secure the remission of sins. I discover, he is disposed to divert our attention from the subject in hand, to something as distant from it as the poles from each other. He is evidently anxious to say something more on infant baptism. I know, he is not well satisfied with his defence of his views on that subject; or he would not injure himself by thrusting it into the discussion of a different subject. He feels that he is involved in serious difficulties. Well, if he is not satisfied, I cannot help it. According to my doctrine, he says, faith secures to us every thing; and there is no need of prayer, baptism, or any thing else. He is quite mistaken. I hold, that by faith alone we receive the Lord Jesus Christ, as our " wisdom, righteousness, sanctifieation and redemption ;" and as soon as we receive him, our sins are pardoned, and we are accepted of God. But we are not yet perfectly holy. The good work is commenced, but not completed. We still need to pray, as did David, " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Thus, Paul DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 465 prayed for the Ephesian christians, whose sins had certainly been for- given, that God would grant them " according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man," ch. iii. 16. And he prayed for the Philippians, because he was confident " that He which had begun a good work in them, would perform it until the day of Jesus Christ," ch. i. 6. The believer, though his sins are remitted, needs baptism, the Lord's supper, and all the appointed means of grace, as helps to him in his weakness, as means in the use of which God has promised to bless him. True faith, moreover, always produces good works. That faith which results not in good works, as James teaches, is dead, being alone : it cannot secure the remission of sins. The faith of the gospel answers two important purposes in the plan of salvation. It receives Christ as the Savior, through whose righteousness only men can be juslilied; and it overcomes the world. " For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith,'''' 1 John v. 4. Such is the faith for which we plead — a faith that receives Christ, and, through him, immediate remission of sins, and pre- sents before the mind all the motives which God offers to enable us to rise above the temptations of earth. Infant baptism, as well as that of adults, becomes a means of grace; for when they who are baptized in infancy arrive at years of discretion, they, under the influence of divine grace, acknowledge the obligations assumed by their believing parents in connection with their baptism, and seek the blessings sealed by ihat ordinance. We, then, do not plead for faith alone, but for faith, repentance, and conversion, which are inseparably connected — for faith, and the good works to which it prompts. My friend said something about the difficulty under which his doc- trine labors, from the fact, that it sends to hell many who, though entirely disposed to obey God, had not the opportunity to be baptized ; and he expressed the opinion, that under certain circumstances, unbaplized per- sons may get to heaven. But if his opinion is true, his doctrine is false; and if his doctrine is true, his opinion is false. His doctrine is, that baptism is necessary in order to the remission of sins. The pagans, he seems to think, are sent to hell for a very small mat- ter; only because they have not rags, oil, and lamp-black! I had sup- posed, that they were pretty well furnished with rags, and perhaps with oil and lamp-black, I have never heard any complaint on that score. [A laugh. J But if the gentleman says they have not, I have nothing to say. [[Continued laughter.] If he chooses to represent the Bible as only rags, lamp-black, and oil, let him do so. The pagans, however, are responsi- ble only for the light they have. He attaches considerable importance to the expression, baptizing into the name of the Father, &c. I have no particular objection to that trans- lation of the word eis. It does not, however, seem to me to have any direct bearing on the question before us. Faith unites us spiritually to Christ, and gives us an interest in the plan of salvation ; baptism is the external ordinance by which we become visibly united to him, and bound to devote ourselves to his service. Baptism is the external sign, faith is the internal grace. The latter unites us to Christ really, the former con- nects with him formally ; but the piety of the heart is, in the Word of Crod, always represented as the great matter. 30 466 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. In reply to the fact stated by me, that in Peter's second discourse baptism was not mentioned as a condition of pardon ; Air. Campbell says, Peter's having taught a doctrine once, is sufficient — it is not necessarry that he shall i-epeat it in everv discourse. Yes — if he will prove, that in one instance Peter taught that baptism is necessary to the remission of sins, we will give up the question. But 1 have proved, that his interpretation of Peter's language contradicts many other declarations of Scripture ; and therefore Peter could not liave said, that baptism is a prerequisite to the remission of sins. He said, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins ; and in other portions of Scripture, we learn that repentance does secure the blessing, of which baptism is the outward sign and seal- The difficulty, therefore, is not that we claim a repetition of Peter's teaching before we will believe it, but that the gentleman makes Peter contradict the Savior and the other apostles ; whilst the exposition for which we contend, is perfectly consistent with the uniform teaching of the Scriptures. True, as he says, it is not necessary to preach the same tnith in every discourse. But if I to-day preach to a company of ignorant persons in answer to the question, what must we do to be saved 1 I am bound to tell them all that is necessary to be done that they may be saved. Then if, on to-morrow, I preach to another company twenty miles distant, in answer to the same inquiry, I am obliged to teach them precisely the same truths. But suppose I should, in directing these last inquirers, omit one of the most important conditions of pardon; and when inquired of concerning the matter, should justify myself by saying, I mentioned that to the people in Lexington, and it is unnecessary always to say the same thing ; would anv one regard me as a faithful minister ? A company of emigrants come to our country from Europe, and inquire what course they must pursue in order to be naturalized. You give them all necessary infor- mation. Another company comes and ask the same question. You omit, in your reply, one of the things absolutely necessary to be done ; and excuse yourself, because you gave full information to the preceding com- pany ! I profess not to see the consistency of the gentleman's reasoning. The truth is, the apostles, whenever they stated to inquiring minds tlie conditions of salvation, told them all that was really necessary ; and inasmuch as Peter did not mention baptism as a condition of remission, either in his second discourse, or in his third at the house of Cornelius ; and as Paul, in answering the same momentous inquiry made by the jailor, omitted to do it ; it is clear that Mr. Campbell's doctrine is not tiue. I was truly surprised to hear the gentleman assert, that he had never said, that conversion and baptism, as used by the aposdes, mean the same tiling. I have read his writings with some care ; and, if I do not greatly err, he has so said. I will read from his Clirislianity Restored, (pp. 201, 202,) where he is laboring to prove that Peter, in his second discourse, (Acts iii.) preached baptism for the remission of sins, as in the first. He gays : — " The unbelieving Jews, soon after Pentecost, knew that the disciples called the immersed ' converted ;' and immersion being the act of faith, which drew the line of demarcation between Christians and Jews, nothing could be more natural than to call the act of immersion the converting of a Jew. The time intervening between these discourses was long enough to introduce and familiarize this style in the metropolis ; so that when a Christian said, ' Be converted,' or, ' Turn to God,' every Jew knew the act of putting on the Messiah to be that intended. After the immersion of DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 467 some gentiles into the faith, in the house and neigrhborhood of Corncrms, jt reported that the gentiles were converted to God. 'J'hus tiie apostles, in passing through the country, gave great joy to the disciples from among the Jews, ' telling them of the conversion,^ or immersion of the gentiles." Again : " One reason why we would arrest the attention of the reader to the suh- stitution of the terms convert and conversion for immerse and immer- sion, in tile apostolic discourses, and in the sacred writings, is not so much for the purpose of proving," &c. Now, I ask, does he not make these two words mean the same thing ? Does he not assert that convert and conversion were, by the inspired writers, substituted for immerse and immersion? When Peter said, " Repent and be converted," he meant, according to Mr. Campbell, re- form and be immersed .' And yet there are not two words in the Bible more widely diflerent in their meaning. In translating the word metanoia reformation, instead of repentance, he says he is sustained by the most learned men now living, or that have ever lived. This I am disposed to dispute. We want the proof. It is truly remarkable, that in starting a new reformation, which makes war upon all the christian world, the gentleman has, on almost every point, all the most learned men with him !!! All are wrong ; yet all are with him ! I am not disposed to take his broad assertions, without proof. The literal meaning of the word metcmoia, as he has admitted, is a change of mind : and such being its meaning, how can it be correctly translated reforma- tion— a word which, in common use, refers more immediately to the ex- ternal conduct ? The expressions used in Peter's first discourse and in Matt, iii, 11, are, as I have remarked, precisely similar ; and I asked Mr. C, whether, as he made Peter say, be baptized (eis) in order to obtain remission of sins, he also understood John to say, I baptize you (eis) in order that you may repent. He says, John baptized the Jews, in order to reformation. But there are very serious difficulties in the way of this rendering ; for Peter required reformation (if this be a correct translation) in order to baptism; and John baptized in order to reformation ! How is it that he makes these inspired teachers thus contradict each other ? He must be in error ; for they did not thus cross each other's path. But there is another difficulty in his way. John, he says, baptized in order to reformation. Now let us turn to Peter's second discourse, Acl« iii. 19 : " Reform ye, therefore, [I give Mr. C.'s translation,] and be con- verted, that your sins may be blotted out," Sic. Reform and be converted. Will he please to tell us the difference between reformation and conver- sion? To be converted, is to turn from sin to holiness — from the service of Satan to the service of God ; and to reform is precisely the same thing. So that he makes Peter say to those whom he addressed, reform and reform! or, convert and be converted! The common translation labors under no such difficulty ; neither does our doctrine. Repentance is a change of mind — a change of views and feelings ; and conversion is tlie effect or consequence of that change. The former has direct reference to a change of mind ; the other to a change of life. But the gendeman's doctrine forces him into these absurdities. The Bible contains no such contradictions, and no such tautology. You see the inextricable difficulty in which tlie doctrine of my friend is involved. To sustain his interpretation of Peter's language, lie must «ither make John baptize the Jews in order to make them rcnent, or in 468 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. order that they might reform. In either case he makes John contradict Peter, who required repentance or reformation in order to baptism ! He quotes Luther as favoring his views of this doctrine. It may be possible that Luther attached an undue importance and efficacy to bap- tism. In regard to the Lord's supper he differed from the other reform- ers, rejecting /m??substantiation, but holding the almost equally unreason- able doctrine of co'isubstantiation. It would not be surprising, if a man so much in error in regard to one of the sacraments, should attach an un- scriptural efficacy to the other. The Protestant world have rejected Lu- ther's dogma of consubstantiation. I have not particularly examined his views concerning the doctrine now under discussion; and, therefore, shall for the present pass them. The gentleman seeks to obtain from the Confession of Faith — a book 1 love to defend — some countenance for his doctrine. Where it teaches that baptism is a sign and seal of our ingrafting into Christ, he makes it mean, that none are in Christ, until baptized. I have repeatedly told you, that he does not understand Presbyterianism. Baptism, according to the confession, is a sign and seal of our ingrafting into Christ. la the sign of a thing the thing itself? Is the sign necessary to the thing? The seal fixed to a document — is it not designed to give it notoriety ? It is first written and confirmed ; then sealed. There is a vast difference between the sign and seal of regeneration, and regeneration itself; and be- tween the sign and seal of remission, and remission itself. The believer is first pardoned, and then receives the sign and seal. Baptism is a pledge, so to speak, that God will forgive the sins of those who comply with the conditions set forth in his Word. But the sign or seal is not the thing or document, nor essential to it. — [Time expired. Thursday, Nov. 23 — 1 o'clock, P. M. [iMR. Campbell's third address.^ Mr. President — It is always an unpleasant task to expose any thing which is incompatible with the genius and character of honorable discus- sion, and especially in matters of religion ; for if there be any subject under the canopy of heaven, which men ought to discuss with superlative candor, and witli supreme regard to the principles of truth and honor, it is the subject of religion. It is, therefore, with no pleasure, but with much pain, that I am constrained to notice tlie very unfair and ungener- ous conduct of my reverend respondent. There is not a soul in this house, who did not understand me to say, that the Bible, as to the mate- rials of which the book is made, and in that point of view alone, consists of rags, lamp-black, and oil. I ask, then, how Mr. Rice, a professed christian minister, could, in your presence, represent the Bible, with spe- cial reference to my remarks, as nothing but rags, lamp-black, and oil! What, sir, are we to expect from other men, in the private walks of life, if, on this stage, and in the presence of this great assembly, when I brought up his own argument, what signifies water? what avails any material thing, or any ordinance consisting of sensible materials, in order to remis- sion of sins, or any spiritual blessings? I said he might also speak of the Bible, the word ot' life, in the same style, and thus depreciate its indis- pensable importance. I record this, as an exhibit of the manner of spirit with whom I have to contend for the ordinances of Christ. He repre- sents me as saying the Bible was mere rags ! and disdainfully asks if the pagans have no rags, oil, or lamp-black ? If, in representing even a portion DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 469 of a community, so respectable as the Presbyterian church, such morality and logic, meet its conscicniious approbation, and obtain its admiration, I must say I am greatly mistaken. I dislike to waste my time in ad- verting to matters so unwortliy of the occasion, and so utterly incompati- ble with the subject and the argument before us. If I do not again allude to matters of this sort, it will not be because I do not observe them, but because my time is too precious to be thus squandered away on an occa- sion so solemn and important. In looking over my notes, the next thing that occurs is another false issue. I said it was not necessary for the apostles to preach the same sermon, in the same words, on all occasions. My special friend then makes out a special case — a new ship-load of immigrants arrives in a new country — and now I am represented as forbidding the same identical words to be uttered to them ! Nay, worse than that ; I am made to argue that the same gospel which was preached to the first ship-load, should not be preached to the second. Then, to meet his views, one sermon should have been cast in the same identical words, and but one gospel sermon ever preached ! ! I have preached faith, repentance, and baptism, times innumerable; and I am sure that I have never made two sermons on the subject that were not more dissimilar than that recorded in Acts ii., and that pronounced in Acts iii. I presume many of us here could tell the same story, and yet we all preach the proposition which I now defend ! But such is the gendeman's way of responding to my arguments. But I am setting one apostle against another, and ihe same apostle against himself, because of my remark on the phrase, " He that believeth, hath eternal life," &c. My remarks on "Aa//j" and "is," on '■'■Jiath eter- nal life," and "is not condemned," &Lc. have called forth a reiteration of the former assertions. But without at all impairing the force of the cri- tique offered, I need only exemplify the principle a little farther; the ar- gument, it appears, cannot be weakened. The position is, that in Scrip- ture, and even in common style, we often hear persons speaking of them- selves, or spoken of, as having what they have not in actual possession, but in promise, in expectation, in grant, or in hope. Hence, persons are said, at one time, to have that which they are seeking for at another. Take an example: Jesus, as already quoted, said, " He that believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life — is passed from death to life." Again he says, " Whosoever believeth on him liath eternal life," &;c. Now these same believers are, in other portions of Scripture, represented as not yet having it; but seeking and looking for it, and as about here- after to have it. Paul, Rom. ii. says, " To them, who by a patient con- tinuance in well-doing, are seeking for glory, honor, and immortality, he will bestow eternal life !" Now had these persons, in grant, or in pos- session, eternal life ? Again, he says to Titus, we are made heirs " according to the hope of eternal life." What a man hafh, why doth he yet hope for! We are said to be " looking for eternal life." What a man seeth, why doth he yet look for ! I shall henceforth regard this point as settled. I have another remark to make on such passages as these : " He that believeth in him, is justified," (fee. In all these instances the Savior, who spoke before the new institution was set up, as well as the apostles afterwards, speak of a true, real, active faith, which would always lead to obedience. These are actual believers, who will do what they are bid. I did not say that the whole learned world agree with me. I wish the 2R 470 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. gentleman would reply to what I do say, and not spend our time so much in replying to what I do not say. But I do say, snd the gentleman knows I can prove it, that I have not only such men as Luther, and Calvin, and Witsius, hut all the Greek and Latin fathers, for the first four centu- ries, concurring with me in my views of John iii. 5., and Titus iii. 5., as well as the Westminster Assembly ; and, besides, a mighty host of the reformers, in their individual capacity, avowing the proposition which I am now sustaining. Here is a volume from one of the most learned men (of Oxford, in England,) in the world, in the primitive fathers' Greek and Latin, wlio is, now, an overmatch for any other individual man in Great Britain, on this question, for whose opinions I by no means endorse, but for whose immense researclies and exact knowledge I do — Dr. Pusey is his name. And here is one volume of the Oxford tracts, giving the views of the design of baptism, held by the whole ancient church ; and, although T am very far from being a Puseyite, nevertheless I must respect the ac- cumulated testimony collected here, a considerable portion of which I have used for years, and so has this same Dr. Wall, but all of which I have never seen before collected together. And what is the sum of it? That in this one thing of the action of baptism and the design of it, there was but one opinion, from the day of Pentecost down to St. Athanasius — down to the fifth century. But we must hear Calvin, the great reformer. Mr. Rice says, that Luther believed in consubstantiation. I will let you hear Calvin, chap. xv. I will read the context : " BaptisDfi is a sign of initiation by wliich we are admitted into the soci- ety of the church, in order that being incorporated into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God. Now it has been given to us by God, for these ends, which I have shewn to be common to all sacraments; first, to promote our faith towards him ; secondly, to testify our confession before men. We shall treat of both tliese ends of its institution in order. To begin with the first: — From baptism our faitli derives three advan- tages, which require to be distinctly considered. The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol and token of our purification ; or to express my meaning more fully, it resembles a legal instrument properly attested, by which he assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced, and obliterated, so that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance, or be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be baptized fur the remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagin- ed that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as a mark of their protession, have not considered that which was the princi- pal thing in baptism ; which is, that we ought to receive it with this pro- mise, ' He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved,' Mark xvi. 16. 2d. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ sanctifieth and cleanseth the church ' with the washing of the water by the woi-d,' Ephes. v. 2Q ; and in anotiier place, that ' according to his mercy he saved us, by tlie wasliing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,' Tit. iii. 5; and by Peter, that ' baptism doth save us,' 1 Pet. iii. 21. For it was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to purify, regenerate and renew ; nor did Peter mean that it was the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is received in this sacrament: wliich is sutRciently evident from the words they have used. For Paul connects together the ' word of life' and ' the baptism of water ;' as if he had said, that our ablution and sanctification are announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that ' baptism doth save us,' immediately adds, that it is DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 471 * not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,' which proceeds from faith. But on the contrary, baptism promises us no other purification than by the sprinkling of tlie blood of Christ; which is emblematically represented by water, on account of its resemblance to washing and cleansing. Who, then, can pretend that we are cleansed by that water, which clearly testifies the blood of Christ to be our true and only ablution? So that, to refer the error of those who refer all to the virtue of the water, no better argument could be found, than in the signification of baptism itself, which abstracts us, as well from that vis- ible element, which is placed before our eyes, as from all other means of salvation, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone. 3d. Nor must it be supposed that baptism is administered only for the time past, so that for sins into which we fall after baptism, it would be necessary to seek other new remedies of expiation in I know not what other sacraments, as if the virtue of baptism were become obsolete. In conse- quence of this error, it happened in former ages, that some persons would not be baptized except at tiie close of their life, and almost in the moment of their death, so that tiiey might obtain pardon for their whole life ; a pre- posterous caution, whicli is frequently censured in the writings of the an- cient bishops. But we ought to conclude, that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified for the whole of life. Whenever we have fallen, tiierefore, we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the consideration of it, that we may be always certified and assured of the remission of our sins. For though, when it has been once administered, it appears to be past, yet it is not abolished by subse- quent sins. For the purity of Christ is otfered to us in it ; and that always retains its virtue, is never overcome by any blemishes, but purifies and ob- literates all our defilements." I am in good company in the use of the woi'd preposterous, notwith- standing Mr. Rice's objections to the word. 1 am more of a Calvinian than he is. I certainly am in good company when I liave Luther on my right hand and Calvin on my left, on the design of baptism. I liave not yet done witli the confession of faith, it does not refer to circumcision, either in the first, second, or third sections. But observe, the confession of faith says, " It is a confirmauve mark of regeneration — of remission of sins, a mark confirmative." Can any language be more conclusive ? The confession of faith represents baptism as a confirmative mark, a confirmative, too, of our pardon and admission into the family of God. I have never spoken more clearly, or more forcibly, on baptism for the remission of sins, than did the great founder of Presbyterianisrn. I have the two greatest names in Protestant Christendom atHrming my proposition. Let it be remembered, then, that, in addition to the arguments offered from the Scriptures, we have all the Greek and Latin fathers, williout one exception, the two great founders of Protestantism, tlie Westminster divines, and the Scotch Confession of Faith, down to the present century. The present century is really retrograding in the understanding and ven- eration of the ordinances, both of the communion and of the rite of ini- tiation. America is beliind the age, beliind Christendom on this subject. The reason is. Baptist views are so prevailing here, that Pedo-bapUsts are always seeking to defend themselves, and not candidly and persever- ingly searching the Scriptures. Dr. Chalmers, of Scotland, is a century ahead of American Presbyter- ians. The English and tlie Germans are leaving us behind. The great- est ecclesiastic historian living, Neander, and the most eminent philolo- gists in Germany, are greatly in advance of any American Pedo-baptisi 472 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. theologians, philologists, historians, and critics, both on the nature and design of baptism. If we go back to the old creeds, the Nicene and the Athanasian, they put us to shame. The Nicene was a symbol and exponent of the faith of the whole world at the beginning of the Ibiirth century. It says : "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." The Athanasian, on which the Roman and English hierarchy rested for so long a time, says : " We confess one baptism for the remission of sins," 'J'he church of England still has in her Common Prayer the Nicene and the Athanasian ; while her American daughter, more rationally has expunged the Athanasian, because of a more doubtful ancestry. But, Mr. President, not any of these authorities, nor all of them combined, led me to the belief of the true meaning and design of baptism. I studied under greater masters than any of these. Some twenty years ago, when preparing for a debate with Mr. McCalla, I put myself under the special instruction of four Evangelists, and one Paul, of dis- tinguished apostolic rank and dignity. I had for some time before that discussion, been often impressed with such passages as Acts ii. 38 ; and that providential call to discuss the subject with Mr. McCalla, compelled me to decide the matter to my entire satisfaction. Believe me, sir, then I had forgotten my earlier readings upon the subject; and upon the sim- ple testimony of the Book itself, I came to a conclusion alledged in thait debate, and proved only by the Bible, which now appears, from a thou- sand sources, to have been the catholic and truly ancient and primitive faith of the whole church. It was in this commonwealth that this doc- trine was first publicly promulged in modern times : and, sir, it has now spread over this continent, and with singular success, is now returning to Europe, and the land of our fathers. My faith in it, sir, rests, however, neitlier upon the traditions of the church, nor upon any merely inferential reasonings of my own, nor those of any other man ; but upon the explicit and often repeated declarations and explanations of the prophets and the apostles. In maintaining this all-important position, however, I build neither upon the ancients nor the moderns ; neither upon creeds, synods, councils* nor fathers. If it be not found within the limits of the Book, let it perish from our memory and from our hearts. With pleasure. I can place hu- man authority against human authority, writer against writer, and coun- cil against council. They neutralize, correct or annihilate one another. But wo stand on the Bible, the whole Bible, and notliing but the Bible, in our foith and in the evidences that support it. Here, sir, we have the blood-sealed charter of immortality to man. " He that believetli and is baptized, shall be saved. The young, the old, the middle aged — the young athletic sinner, and the hoary chief in the ranks of infidelity — have felt the heart-stirring, soul-subduing, transporting efficacy and at- tractiveness of this message of philanthropy to a bewildered, lost, and ruined world, and have gladly and humbly bowed to Prince Messiah, and gone down into the mystic waters of holy baptism for remission, and have risen to lead a new, an elevated, a heaven-directed life of purity and hu- manity. Thousands, sir, tens of thousands have been brought into the fold of God, through the insirumentalitv of this glorious development of ancient Christianity. Many are our fellow-laborers and helpers and fel- low soldiers in this great work, and wide-extended field of labor. Around me are a host of men, fired with the ancient enthusiasm of converting my- DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 473 riads by the pure, original gospel of the apostolic ministry. Our success, in comparison with any other experiment in the memory of living men, is truly wonderful and animating. Here is ilie Presbyterian church with its eighty ministers, its eight thousand and less members, after the labors of more than half a century. In one third of that lime the cause we plead, notwithstanding our feeble- ness, and all the errors and accidents incident to a new commencement, and without colleges and schools of learning, without the aids of hoary veterans in policy, prudence and sage experience — by the force of this simple story of God's Messiah, and his love, depicted in this mighty Pen- tecostan gospel, and under the star of Jacob; led, guided, aided and bless- ed, from nothing have, in less than twenty years, outnumbered this old, learned, and well-disciplined host, some five to one. And what is the cause ? It is not talent, learning, and an efficient general organization. It is truth, sir, God's mighty truth, that has gone forth like a river and overflowed this land like a wave from the ocean! What argues all this, fellow-citizens ! That its destiny is to go forward in its glorious career, building on Divine facts, precepts, and promises — appealing to reason, conscience, the affections, and conquering myriads by its rich, full, free, efficacious grace. The doctrine works well. It is wisdom, righteous- ness, holiness, and redemption to all that believe it. Those wlio plead this cause in ancient times, I call, a sacrameiUal host. And may those who now plead it, guided, strengthened, animated by tlie strength of Ja- cob, the Lord of hosts, go on conquering and to conquer ! But what is baptism? The Westminsters say — It is a sacrament, a sign of regeneration, a seal of engrafting into Christ — the covenant of grace, of remission of sins — an engagement to be the Lord's. What a rich cluster of blessings are hanging upon baptism, then, according to the creed! Is this true of all, of any infant subject? Are these blessings all sealed to them by it? Then let them have it by all means. But first be assured that this is the fact, else you delude and ruin them, and plant in your own bosoms an everlasting agony. If its design is thus to signify and seal their engrafting into Christ, the Living Vine, what a blessing! But that it is not so, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, I appeal ti> your own experience — I address myself to your common sense, your own observations. Surely you will say it is not so ! Do you teach this catechism to your children ? Teach them the Scrip- tures— the book that God has written. Let their minds be early and deeply imbued with these holy lessons. They came from God's love, and they open and sanctify the heart. Your children cannot digest such crude, indigestible and unhealthy viands ; the stale, metaphisical abstru- sities of old quaint divinity. Give them God's own Book. Let them learn the lesson there, tiiat God is love — and when they understand it, and believe it, then put his holy name upon them, and let them feel that they, and not you, believe for themselves, the gospel of salvation. This book so read, so learned, and so believed, will accomplish for them a glorious disenthralment from evil passions. They will feel that it is a soul-illuminating, reviving, redeeming, and exhilarating volume, full of grace and full of truth. By it they will be prepared for all earth's for- tunes, good or bad, prosperous or adverse. They will rise above vulgar prejudices and errors, and will pant after the fruition of the sweet and holy communion of heaven's purest, holiest, happiest, and most exalted intelli- gences, A deep, heartfelt conviction that such are its tendencies, is one 2r2 474 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. of our most urgent reasons for contending, with so much zeal, for its or- dinances, its precepts, and its promises as God gave them ; believing that it is able to make us all wise unto salvation — useful, honorable, and happy on earth, and prepared for the seraphic intimacies and friendships, among the favored circles of heaven. — \jrime expired. Thursday, Nov. 23— U o'clock, P. M. [mr. rice's third reply.] Mr. President — I will not violate the rules by which we hare bound ourselves to be governed in this discussion, by speaking of the gentle- man's "obliquities," as he has so repeatedly done. If he choose to dis- regard the rules of decorum, I will not imitate his example. He tells you, I have greatly misrepresented him in the matter of the rags, oil and lamp-black. The Bible, he now says, is, in one view of the subject, only oil, rags, , and Titus iii. 5, refer to baptism, and espe- cially bearing testimony to the propriety of our interpretation of Acts ii. 38. The church of England still avows the ancient faith. The creed of St. Athanasius says, " We confess one baptism for the remission of sins." The creed of Nice says, " We believe in one baptism for remis- sion of sins." I am, if in error on this point, in good company, as Mr. Rice would say. All the old creeds, the modern creeds, the ancient fathers, the modern reformers, Luther and Calvin, and names the most learned, the most honorable, the most venerable, the most admired, and the most beloved, are all with me on this point. No one can assemble such a host in support of any one dogma, proposition, doctrine, or tradi- tion, as I can bring up in attestation of baptism for remission of sins. But all this with me weighs nothing, not a feather, had I not Paul, and DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 523 James, and John, and Peter, the high functionaries and administrators of the kingdom of heaven. As to what my friend says of outward, external ordinances, I need only remark, that I know of no such institutions of Christ. Prayer, praise, eating the supper, baptism, fasting, &c., are all alike bodily, mental, spir- itual, outward and inward. Such language is that of Ashdod, and not of Canaan. I go for that religion with all my heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. Still, without the head, there can be no heart-religion. With- out light there can be no love. If there be any externals in religion, I care nothing for them. It helps devotion to bow the knee, to stand up, to speak solemnl3% to fast, to use words full of spiritual feeling. What act of religion so solemn as being buried with the Lord ? What seizes the soul of man with such power, as the mighty, soul-subduing fact that we are entering into an everlasting covenant with the Supreme Divinity ; vowing eternal faithfulness to the Messiah ; putting on Christ as our wisdom, jus- tification, sanctification, and redemption ? What reflections touch the fountains of our moral sympathies with such awakenings, meltings, ecsta- sies, as these heaven-begotten emotions, rising within us when we per- sonally rise with Jesus, and, in our affections, mount to heaven? How sweet the thought, too, that the Messiah himself led the way ; that he put his body into the hands of John, and suffered him to accompany him into the mystic Jordan, and bury him there in solemn anticipation of his future interment in the bosom of his own earth. If my friend, Mr. Rice, could speak experimentally on the subject of christian immersion, he would tell you that there is no action ever com- manded of God of more solemn significance than holy baptism ; that it operates powerfully upon those who are rightly exercised therein. What feeling like that of having the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the* Holy Spirit put upon a person by the authority of our Redeemer, Law- giver and King? What singular associations spring up within us, when we t^el ourselves enter into a relation that makes God our Father, Jesus our S& "ior, the Holy Spirit our Guest, Instructor and Guide ; that connects with thi hierarchies of heaven — its angels, authorities, principalities and powers ; that emboldens us to draw near to God, having our hearts sprink- led from a guilty conscience, and our bodies bathed in the pure water of sanctification? No one could institute such an ordinance, filled with such honors, blessings, joys and transports, but Emanuel. My friend still talks of what he has done. No doubt it is both neces- sary and expedient that he should do so. You will all judge of what I have done. But I will tell you, while he keeps talking thus, I am thinking of one saying of the Messiah, which always overwhelms me especially, when I think any one makes little of any of the commandments of the Lord. It is a saying of the Great King : " Whosoever shall break one of the least of these, my commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be of no esteem in the kingdom of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be of high esteem in the kingdom of heaven." Nothing is little that my Lord Messiah ever thought, said, commanded, or did. To stand up for him, and for his ordinances, and to plead the necessity of obeying to the letter, of honoring and magnifying him, of worshiping and adoring him, is my greatest honor, and my highest ambition. Heaven has yet revealed to me no higher honor, than to stand up for the honor of his commandments. I disclaim all merit; all claims of praise, honor or reward from him, I most cordially renounce. It is an act of mercy on his 524 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. part to accept our purest offerings. Did we live the life of a Methusela, and devote all its hours to him, it would constitute no ground of boasting, no claim for his favor. We are saved by grace ; still, our happiness and our honor are necessarily dependent upon our usefulness, our faithfulness to God, and our active and practical benevolence towards man. To walk by faith, is to walk with God. A heart and lip devoted to his will, is the highest style, dignity and happiness of man. — [^Tijne expired. Friday, Nov. 24 — 1^ o'clock, P. M. [mr. rice's seventh reply.] Mr. President — I wish, in commencing my reply, to read a brief ex- tract from two of the gentleman's books, that you may be able to deter- mine how far I have misrepresented him. I will read first from his de- bate with McCalla : " The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed ; yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism." Let us compare with this his doctrine, as taught in the Christian Bap- tist, p. 422. " That such was the universally received sense of immersion amongst the teachers and preachers of Christianity, is most certain from express declaration and incident. For example : when Paul was immersed, it was declared and understood by the parties, that all his previous sins were wash- ed away in the act of immersion." Again : " What made the eunuch go on his way rejoicing'? Was it because he had some difficult texts explained J Or was it because he had some distant hope or remote prospect of enjoying pardon and acceptance after death, or after the lapse of certain years of travail and of trial ! No, indeed : he '.^ad found what thousands before him had experienced, peace with God, f om a conviction that his sins had been actually forgiven in the act of immersion. Indeed, the preaching of all the apostles, as well as all their writings, embrace this as a fact never to be called into question." Now if any one can reconcile these doctrinal statements, he possesses more ingenuity than has fallen to me. In the debate with McCalla the gendeman said distinctly, that Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed. In the Christian Baptist we learn, that they were washed away in the act of immersion, and that the sins of the eunuch were actually forgiven in the act of immersion ! I cannot put these things together. I presume, however, that if Paul was really pardoned when he believed, he had evidence of that fact. If Mr. Campbell could ascer- tain it, (and he has asserted it,) certainly Paul himself might. I will read again on the next page : " In the ancient gospel, it was first a belief in Jesus; next, immersion; then, forgiveness; then, peace with God; then, joy in the Holy Spirit." Now observe, in the ancient gos- pel we are told, it was first belief, then immersion, then forgiveness ; but, in the debate with McCalla, Mr. C, tells us, in the case of Paul it was first faith, then real pardon, then immersion and formal pardon ! I leave those who can, to reconcile these contradictory views. But as the gentle- man is, in one statement of his views, precisely with me, I shall insist on keeping him on my side. But he tells us, the confession of faith has been mended; and, there- fore, he may be permitted to change his views. The confession consists of two parts : first, an outline of the doctrines of the Bible ; secondly, DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 525 a form of chiu-ch government. The latter has been altered in some im- important particulars ; but the former has not, as the gentleman certainly ought to have known. I have said, that God never made the remission of sins depend upon an act which a man cannot do for himself, but which must be performed by another. Suppose, for illustration, one of Mr. Campbell's New Tes- taments to be given to a man in Africa. He reads it, believes, and de- sires to obey it ; but there is no one to immerse him, or, as it may often happen, not sufficient water in which to immerse him. Now if immersion is a prerequisite to the remission of sins, though his heart is right, though he is truly penitent and disposed to do his whole duty, he cannot be par- doned. He must live and die condemned, only because it was impossi- ble that he should be immersed! Can any one believe, that such absurd- ities can belong to God's plan of salvation ? The gentleman has, indeed, expressed the opinion that the sins of such a person might be pardoned, and that he might be saved ; but his opinion contradicts his doctrine ; and if the latter be true, the former is false, and vice versa. He holds it to be a doctrine of revelation, that the remission of sins is secured only in immersion. Then let him point us to the place where God has made an exception to the general rule, and I will show him the passage which refutes his doctrine. His opinion and his doctrine cannot both be true, for in the Christian Baptist he asserts, that Peter made " repentance, or reformation and immersion equally ne- cessary TO forgiveness ;" p. 417. Does he believe, that any adult will be pardoned and saved without repentance, or, as he calls it, reforma- tion ? I presume he does not. Then, if repentance and immersion are equally necessary, how can any be pardoned and saved without immer- sion ? I repeat, his opinion or his doctrine must be abandoned. They cannot stand together. But he tries to place me in a similar predicament. He says, that, according to my views, men must be ordained before they can preach ; and many may be lost because their salvation depended on acts to be per- formed by others. I answer, the salvation of none depends on their hear- ing the Word preached. They can read the Bible, or hear it read, and thus become wise unto salvation. And tliose who have not the Bible, are accountable only for the light they have. God has never suspended the salvation of a soul upon an action which must be performed by another, and which circumstances may make it impossible to have performed. He ■whose heart is right, who believes in Jesus Christ, and is, consequently, disposed to obey his commandments, has the best assurance that his sins are remitted. The gentleman has appealed to tlie Leviiical law to sustain him. When he gives us the chapter and verse, which I hope he will do in his next speech, I will prove, that it aflbrds him no support. [Mr. Camp- bell replied — 6th chapter.] He says, it is in the 6th of Leviticus ; and I say, when he reads it I will reply to it. Mr. Campbell strangely attempts still to prove, that Calvin held the doctrine for which he is contending, and that he has not misrepresented him. Calvin says, " Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the society of the church, in order that, being incorporated into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God ;" and he says, it secures to us three advantages : 1st. It is a symbol, or token, of our purification, &c. I deem it unnecessary again to read what I have 526 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. already read in your hearing. I will, hoAvever, turn to the 4th section of the 15th chapter, which the gentleman read: " I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is afterwards obtained by repentance and tlie benefit of the keys. But the advocates of this opinion have fallen into an error, for want of considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, is so dependent upon baptism that it cannot by any means be separated from it," &c. It is certainly remarkable, that the gentleman should have read as the real sentiments of Calvin, a statement he made of a popish error, which he immediately proceeded to refute ! Again, Calvin says : " In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ sanctifies and cleanses the church ' with the washing of water' by the word, (Eph. v. 26;) and in another place, that ' according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,' (Tit. iii. 5;) and by Peter, that ' baptism doth save us,' (1 Pet. iii. 21.) For it was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to purify, regenerate, and renew ; nor did Peter mean that it was the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is received in this sacrament; which is sufficiently evident from tlie words they liave used. For Paul connects together ' the word of life ' and ' the baptism of water ;' as if he had said, that one ablution and sanctification are announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that baptism doth save us, immediately adds, that ' it is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God ;' which proceeds from faith. But on the contrary, baptism promises us no other purification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ ; which is emhlcmaticaliy represented by water on account of its resemblance to wash- ing and cleansing.'''' Calvin speaks of baptism as an emblem of sanctification and as con- firming to us the message of salvation. Mr. C. represents baptism as SQcmmg justification. Again, speaking of the baptism of Cornelius, Calvin says — " We see this exemplified in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after having received the remission of sins and the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, was bap- tized ; not with a view to obtain by baptism a more ample remission, of his sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an increase of confidence from that pledge." Observe, Calvin says distinctly, his sins were first remitted, and afterwards he received baptism. Could he possibly have employed language more flatly contradictory of the doctrine of Mr. Campbell? And why was he baptized? " Not with a view," says Cal- vin, " to obtain a more ample remission of his sins, but a stronger exer- cise of faith and an increase of confidence from that pledge." Accord- ing to Calvin, Cornelius first believed and received the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and then received baptism for the pur- pose of strengthening his faith. But let us hear Calvin once more. I read in his Commentary on Acts viii. 38, the passage so lengthily commented upon by Mr. Campbell : '• Tametsi in contextu verborum baptismus remissionem peccatorum hie praecedit, ordine tamen sequitur : quia nihil aliud est, quam bonorum, quae per Christum consequimur, obsignatio, ut in conscientiis nostris rata sint." Although, in the arrangement of the words, baptism here precedes remission of sins, yet, in the order [of their occurrence] it follows: because it is noth- ing else than a seal of the blessings which we obtain through Christ, that they may be confirmed in our consciences. DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 527 According to Calvin, then, when Peter said, " Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins;" although baptism is mentioned first, yet re- mission of sins is really first in the order of occurrence. Sins are first remitted, then baptism is administered. And he gives the reason why remission is properly first, viz : because baptism, so far from securing to us remission, is only a seal of the blessings we obtain through Christ. Such is the doctrine of Calvin. True or false, it is directly opposed to the doctrine of Mr. Campbell. I will cheerfully admit, that the whole world sustains him as fully as does Calvin. 1 gave up Luther into his hands yesterday, not having particularly ex- amined his views of the design of baptism; but I must take him back into our ranks to-day. 1 will read from his commentary on the epistle to the Galatians ii. 16. *• Here it is to be noted, that these three things, faith, Christ, accepta- tion or imputation, must be joined together. Faith taketh hold of Christ, and hath him present, and holdeth him inclosed, as the ring doth the pre- cious stone. And wliosoever shall be found having this conndence in Christ appreliended in the heart, him will God account righteous. This is the mean, and this is the merit, whereby we obtain the remission of sins and righteousness. Because thou believcst in me, saith the Lord, and thy faith layeth hold upon Christ, whom I have freely given unto thee that he might be thy mediator and high-priest; therefore be tliou justified and righteous. Wherefore God doth accept or account us as righteous, only for our faith in Christ." Such is the doctrine of Luther, and such the doctrine for which I am contending. Justification, he teaches, is obtained by faith only, not by baptism. I will give you Wesley's doctrine on this subject, this even- ing, and will prove that he does not sustain Mr. Campbell. He attempts to reconcile the contradictory doctrines he has published, by saying, that when an individual believes, he receives the remission of sins in anticipation; that his fears and distress subside, and he rejoices with joy unspeakable. But how his fears can subside, or how he can rejoice, when he is yet condemned and exposed to eternal ruin, I cannot imagine. I see no possible foundation for comfort in the condition of one whose sins are yet upon him. For Mr. Campbell has said — the unimmersed per- son, however his views of Christ may be changed, and his heart re- newed, " is still unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, un- adopted, and lost to all christian life and enjoyment!'''' — Christ. Restored, p. 196. What good has such a person received in anticipation? How utterly inconsistent this declaration with that which I read from his de- bate with McCalla, in which he declared, that Paul's sins were really jiardoned ivhen he believed.' He would have you believe that his views are very catholic — not abso- lutely universal ; but that all denominations agree with him on the sub- ject. This I deny, and call for tiie evidence. He has told us, that our confession of faith teaches his doctrine, and that Calvin taught the same. I have proved that Calvin held just tiie doctrine for which I contend. That our confession teaches his views, I and all Presbyterians deny. In- deed, if a Presbyterian minister were known to preach such doctrine, he would soon cease to exercise the office of the ministry in our church. It is true, our confession, in the article on baptism, quotes John iii. 5, Colossians ii. 10, 11, &;c., because, as I have before remarked, under both the old and new dispensations water was religiously used, .is an emblem of spiritual cleansing, or sanctification. But it is not true, that it 528 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. says, that our Savior, in speaking of the new birth, referred to christian baptism ; nor is it true, that either the framers of the confession, or Cal- vin, understood baptism, or the new birth, as effecting a change of state, as securing the remission of sins. By the new birth they understood a change of heart, or regeneration, of which water is the appointed em- blem. But with Mr. Campbell, the new birth is not a change of heart, but a change of state from condemnation to justification. They did not adopt the views he entertains. Neither did the old christian fathers teach his doctrine. Dr. Wall does not say they did. True, they used the word regeneration for bap- tism ; but by regeneration they did not mean what Mr. C. means — mere- ly a change of state, but a change of heart, which they believed to be effected in baptism, as well as consequent remission of sins. The fathers do not sustain him. He cannot prove that any of them taught his doc- trine. If he can, I hope he will do so. He says, he has no faith in outtvard forms merely. But it certainly is true that he has very strong faith in forms ; for he teaches that an exter- nal ordinance, which an individual cannot administer to himself, is essen- tial to the remission of sins, and, of course, to the salvation of the soul. It matters not, in his theology, how entirely changed the heart may be, how sincerely a man loves and trusts in Christ — all is vain and worthless without baptism, and even without immersion! Even a mistake about the m^ode of applying the water is fatal ! I verily believe that the Jews, with all their zeal for external rites, and their confidence in their efficacy, would not have maintained that a man with a wicked heart could be saved. The gentleman seems to attach quite as much importance to bap- tism, as they did to circumcision, or to their various ablutions. But that the audience may see how extremely he has magnified the importance of baptism, I will read a proposition which is very promi- nently stated, and argued at length in his Christianity Restored. It is this: " That the Gospel has in it a command, and, as such, must he obeyed,'''' p. 196. A command, that is, one command! The Gospel has in it one command ! ! Now, I presume, he did not mean to say, that the Gospel has in it only one command ; but certainly such language can mean nothing less, than that the command alluded to, is the great com- mand in the Gospel, more important than any other. That command, Mr. C. tells us, is immersion, which, he says, " necessarily becomes the line of discrimination between the two states before described. On this side, and on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side they are pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; on the other, they are in a state of condemnation." In this same book, as well as in the Millenial Harbinger, and other writings of the reformers, I find immersion called obeying the Gospel, obedience of faith, &c. When, in these writings, it is said, that persons have '■*■ obeyed the Gos- pel,'" or " made the good confession," I find that it is meant, that they have been immersed.' Did the inspired writers ever say that the Gospel has in it .^command? Did they ever represent being baptized as obeying the Gospel, as the obedience of faith ^^ Never — not in a solitary instance ! But we are told by these modern theologians, that we must obey before we can be pardoned. This is true; but believing is as truly obedience to Christ, as being baptized. God commands men to believe and to repent ; and those who do believe and repent, obey his commands as truly as when they receive baptism. It is not true, therefore, that the DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 529 gospel is obeyed in nothing before baptism is received. Yet, according to Mr. C,immersion is the act of faith, by which alone persons can be pardoned ! This is what I consider ascribing an unscriptural importance and efficacy to an external ordinance. The ordinances instituted by Christ are important in their place, but when removed from the place in the system of truth, which he has as- signed them, and made to answer purposes for which they were never designed, the consequences must be ruinous. This, as I have said, was one of the capital errors of the Jews. The Savior often rebuked and condemned them, not for strict observance of divinely appointed ordi- nances, but for having substituted them for " the weightier matters of the law ;" for attaching to them undue importance, and ascribing to them an efficacy they did not possess. The whole christian church, as I have before remarked, at an early day, was corrupted in the same way ; and vita! piety was buried and almost extinguished under a multitude of forms and ceremonies. Both baptism and the Lord's supper were perverted, so as to become a curse instead of a blessing. In the close of this address, I am constrained to declare it as my clear and solemn conviction, that the views on this subject, published by Mr. Campbell, have fatally deceived thousands of souls. They have been taught to believe, that in order to secure the remission of sins and accept- ance with God, it was only necessary for them to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and to be immersed. When they have made " the good confession," as it is called, and been plunged under the water, they are induced to believe, that their sins are actually pardoned, and th^t they are saved. They go on through life, fondly dreaming that all is well, and that they are on their way to heaven. Thus they are under a fatal delu- sion ; for it is certain, if we regard the plainest declarations of God's Word, that their belief of the fact, that Christ is the Son of God, and being immersed, afford no evidence of remission of sins, or acceptance with God. The doctrine, therefore, deludes many into the belief that they are safe, when in truth they are under the curse of God. This belief that their sins are forgiven in the water, produces a feeling of security, and prevents all further investigation, and those who embrace it, are likely to die in the delusion. I do not say, that all who have followed Mr. C, are thus fatally deceiv- ed ; for I doubt not, many sincerely and truly pious persons have been led astray, without perceiving the dangerous character of the error, who yet look to the cross of Christ as the ground of their hope of pardon and acceptance. But I do say, ray solemn conviction is, that the ten- dency and, in thousands of instances, the effect of this doctrine is to induce persons to believe that they are pardoned and saved, when, in truth, they have not one scriptural evidence on which to base such belief. They have been immersed, and they are told, that in being immersed they obeyed the gospel, and are consequently safe. I am constrained to lift my voice against this soul-destroying doctrine, that finds evidence of pardon and acceptance with God in an external ordinance. — \_Tline ex- fired. Friday, Nov. 24—6 o'clock, P. M. []mr. Campbell's eighth address.] Mr. President — It has been asserted and re-asserted that such pas- sages as, "he that believeth is not condemned," and "he that believeth is passed from death to life," and " he that believeth hath eternal life," 34 2Y 530 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. &c. conflict with, and refute the whole doctrine of baptism for the remis- sion of sins. Mr. Rice urges them with such a vehemence as though he believed them to be invincible proofs, that a man may be safe from con- demnation and ruin if he only believe, without obedience to the truth believed. For that is the case before us? When the Savior spoke of him that believeth, he did not mean a disobedient, ignorant, and lawless believer: one that said he had faith, but one who practically, really, sin- cerely believed his gospel. On many occasions, it is true, our Lord spake prospectively of his kingdom, as he did of his death, burial, and resurrection ; and so I understand his discourse with Nicodemus. And then the phrase, "he that believeth," and such like, do neither indicate a mere act of the mind, nor a mere state of the mind ; but an actual, practi- cal recognition of the precepts addressed to belief. When, then, the Sa- vior ascribes any good effect, any salutary or saving efficacy to faith, or to any other principle, he not only supposes it to be genuine, active, and operative ; but that, also, it is associated with all other principles that lead to a practical acquiescence with the whole existing will of God as revealed. To conclude this subject of faith, I will only add, that even on the sub- ject of justification by faith, I am, in reference to baptism, in good com- pany with John Calvin. I must read another short passage or two from the great Presbyterian reformer. The gentleman told you I had mistaken the drift of one passage read from Calvin. But he might have observed that 1 only began to read the wrong section, which was occasioned by a wron^ marginal reference ; and, therefore, I made no use of the passage. But you shall have an extract in direct harmony with my views, and also indicative of Calvin's own views of the connection between justifi- cation by faith, and baptism. He observes: — "I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is afterwards obtained by repent- ance and the benefit of tlie keys." — Calv. Inst. vol. ii. b. iv. ch. 15, \ 4. " As if baptism itself were not a sacrament of repentance ; but if repent- ance be enjoined upon us as long as we live, the virtue of baptism ought to be extended to the same period. Wherefore it is evident that the faithful, whenever in any part of their lives they are distressed with a consciousness of their sins, may justly have recourse to the remembrance of baptism, in order to confirm themselves in the confidence of their interest in that one perpetual ablution which is enjoyed in the blood of Christ." — Ibid, In the same section from which I have read these extracts, he further says : — " It is true that the sinner receives remission by the ministry of the church, but not without the preaching of the gospel. Now what is the na- ture of that preaching — that we are cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ? what sign and testimony of that ablution is there but baptism ]" Yes, I ask Mr. Rice, and every other Presbyterian, this question, which their own Calvin asked — " What sign and testimony of that ABLUTION IS THERE BUT BAPTISM?" This was the passage intended to be read. I have now given what I conceive a fair exhibit of the views of Calvin, on the proper province of faith and baptism, as connected in the remission of sins, through the blood of Christ. To these testimonies given, from Luther and Calvin, I might add many such from Turrentine and from other continental reformers ; but there is one man, who, above all others, stands next to Calvin ; nay, indeed, in my esteem, above Calvin, both for learning and talents, and great mental DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 531 independence. A greater luminary, as a tvriter, than Witsius, in the esteem of the best judges, has not arisen in the ranks of Protestant refor- mation. His reception in England by the people, the clergy, the arch- bishop of Canterbury, when sent upon a special mission, on a very important occasion, is said to have been of the most complimentary and flattering character enjoyed by any merely ecclesiastic character of that day. We shall now hear him for a few minutes speak for himself: — Dr. Witsius, on the Economy of the Covenants, London, 1837, 2 vols. 8vo. — ii. vol. p. 429, says : — " 18. The thing signified by baptism in general, is the reception into the covenant of grace, as administered under the New Testament." Again on same page : " Moreover, that reception into the covenant of grace imports two things: 1st. Communion with Christ and his mystical body, and consequently a par- ticipation of all his benefits. 2ndly. An engagement to incumbent duty. Both are signified and sealed by baptism. In respect to the former, we are said 'to be baptized into one body,' 1 Corinthians xii. 13; and 'saved by baptism,' Titus iii. 3, 5, 1 Peter iii. 21. With respect to the latter, baptism is called sun eideeseos agathees eperoteema eis Thcon — ' the answer of a good conscience towards God," 1 Pet. iii. 21. Volume ii. pages 432, 433 : " 26. First, therefore, the immersion into the water represents to us that tremendous abyss of divine justice, in which Christ was plunged for a time, in some measure, in consequence of his undertaking for our sins; as he complained under the type of David, Psalms Ixix. 2: ' I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing. I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.' But more particularly, an immersion of this Ivind deprives us of the benefit of the light, and the other enjoyments of this world ; so it js a very apt representation of the death of Christ. The continuing how short soever under the water, represents his burial, and the lowest degree of humiliation, when he was thouglit to be wholly cut off" while in the grave, that was both sealed and guarded. The emersion or coming out of the water, gives us some resemblance of his resurrection or victory, obtain- ed in his death, over death, which he vanquished within its inmost re- cesses, even the grave : all these particulars the apostle intimates in Rom. vi. 3, 4. " 27. Moreover, baptism also signifies those blessings which believers obtain in Christ; and these are either present or future. Among the pre- sent, is fellowship in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ ; and the consequence of it, viz: the mortification and burying of our old man, and the raising of the new, by the efficacy of the blood and Spirit of Christ. For, the immersion into the water represents the death of the old man, even in such a manner that it can neither stand in judgment to our condem- nation, nor exercise dominion over our bodies, that we should serve it in the lusts thereof. In the former respect, the death of the old 'man apper- tains to justification ; in the latter to sanctification. The continuing under the water, represents the burying of the body of sin, whereby aJl hopes of a revival are cut off"; so that after this, it is neither able to con- demn nor rule over the elect. For, as in burying, the dead body, which is covered over with earth, is removed from the sight of men, and so weighed down by the earth thrown upon it, that should we suppose some life to re- main in the buried person to be bestowed upon him anew by a miracle, yet it cannot fail to be stifled by the load of earth lying upon it, nor recover to any degree of permanence. In the same manner, when in baptism the per- son, sunk under the water, is for some time detained therein ; this signifies and seals to us, that cur sins are removed from the view of the divine justice, never to be imputed to our condemnation : or as Micah 632 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. speaks, chap. vii. 19, ' he will subdue our iniquities, and cast all our sins into the depth of the sea ;' likewise, that the power of sin is so depressed and weakened, that it can no longer drive us at its pleasure, or hinder our salvation, or be able to resume the power which it has once lost, in order to bring us again under its dominion. The emersion out of the water is a symbol of the revival of the new man, after our sins are now sunk to a spiritual life by the resurrection of Christ. And this also the apostle de- clares, Rom. vi. 3 — 6, and Col. ii. 11, 12, where he intimates that our baptism is such a memorial of the things that happened to Christ, as at the same time to seal our communion with him in all these things, and our union as it were into one plant." Vol. ii. page 434, § 31 : " Thus far concerning the rites of immersion and emersion. Let us now consider the ablution or washing, which is the effect of the water applied to the body. In external baptism there is '• the putting away the filth of the flesh,' 1 Peter iii. 21, which represents the ablution or washing away the filth of the soul contracted by sin ; Acts xxii. 16, ' Arise and be bap- tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' But the filth of sin may be considered either with respect to the guilt, which is an- nexed to the filth or stain, and so it is removed by remission, which is a part of justification ; or with respect to the stain itself, or spiritual defor- mity and dissimilitude to the image of God, and so it is taken away by the grace of the sanctifying Sprit ; and both are sealed by baptism. Of the former Peter speaks, Acts ii. 38, ' Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.' Concerning the latter, Paul writes, Ephes. v. 25, 26, ' Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it ; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.' And they are laid before us both together, 1 Cor. vi. 11, ' But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.' Ye are washed sacrament- ally in baptism, which washing is a symbol of the mystical washing : but the mystical washing comprehends both justification and sanctification, both which are performed in the name of the Lord Jesus, — that is, by tlie efficacy of his merits, and by the Spirit of our God, which effectually applies the merits of Christ to the elect." Numerous passages might be read from this distinguished master in the Pedo-baptist Israel. From these two, however, his views may be pretty fairly estimated. The passages from John iii. and Titus iii., to which Mr. R. so often alludes, and which I have shown the Pedo-baptists almost universally refer to baptism, are not yet disposed of fully to his satisfaction. It is denied by him that baptism is ever called a " birth" and that these passages are so universally regarded as relating to baptism. I say again, that Dr. Wall, from whom he has taken so much argument on this occasion, says : " There is not one christian writer of any an- tiquity, in any language, but who understands the new birth of water, (John iii. 5,) as referring to baptism ; and, if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give any account how a person is born of water, any more than born of wood." — Vol. i. p. 110. Again, he says, after quoting Justin Martyr : " We see by him, that they understood John iii. 5, of water baptism, and so did all the tvriters of those four hundred years, not ONE MAN EXCEPTED." Is not this clear and intelligible talk ? — who can misunderstand it ! " Not one man excepted " of all the writers of the first four hundred years. All proclaim the conviction that born of water means baptism ; and, in- deed, the same host go for " baptism for the remission of sins,''^ " not one man excepted.'''' I say again, because of strangers present, that I DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 533 quote these authorities, not to sustain my views, but to disprove those of my opponent. The Bible supports me ; and those " fathers," to whom some people look with so much veneration, sustain us, and oppose them, in these two important particulars, as well as in some others. I could read you, from my Essay on Remission, (Christian System,) many such authorities, but as they are now common property, I will only add a few not quite so common. I may add a few words from so great a man as John Wesley. 1 quoted him as a distinguished reformer in that treatise, affirming that, *' baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and a seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow pardon on any, unless through this means." But I shall quote him again more at large, from another work than his commentary. I am sorry, indeed, that he uses the word primitive before church ; as that would indicate that God forgave sins diversely in the modern church. This is an extract from a treatise on baptism, found in doctrinal tracts, published by order of the General Conference, New York, 1825. " What are the benefits we receive by baptism 1 is the next point to be considered. And the lirst of these is, the washing away the guilt of origi- nal sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death." — p. 4. "■ By baptism we, who were ' by nature children of wrath,' are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which our church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the church, though commonly connected therewith ; being ' grafted into the body of Christ's church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.' This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, John iii. 5, ' Ex- cept a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into kingdom of God.' By water then, as a mean, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again : whence it is also called by the apostle, ' the washing of regeneration.' Our church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism, than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which added thereto makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long continued wickedness." — p. 5. Mr. Wesley (pp. 7, 8,) says: " If infants are guilty of original sin, unless this be washed away by bap- tism, it cleaves to them." [And several other matters indicative of the obscurity of his mind on the subject.] There is a singular eccentricity in the minds of Pedo-baptists on this subject. In this controversy they refuse a positive precept in one case, and build a positive institution in another, without any pretension of a positive precept. There is not in the king's English a more clear, defi- nite and positive precept, than " Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins." Can •an)' one state a more explicit and intelligible positive precept than this one ! Now when Pedo-baptists argue with us, you will occasionally ask for a positive precept. We give it in all cases requiring it But when we produce one to them, they will not yield to it. We only ask them to give us a positive example — one single precedent of a domestic or an infant baptized on the faith of the household or parent ; and promise to submit to it the moment it is offered. Yet they do not, because, indeed, they cannot, give one such case in the Bible. They ask subordination from us, when the)'- produce what they call a fair inference ; and will act yield to us, when we produce a thus saith the Lord in so many 2y2 534 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. words. I began, the gentleman says, with " a thus saith the Lord," for all acts of worship ; and we still continue to act upon that principle. In the midst of the most solemn scenes, since Jesus Christ left this earth, when the Holy Spirit was in Jerusalem, Peter uttered the oracle — " Re- pent and be baptized, every one of you;" (not formerly circumcised,) no, but every one in this house, circumcised or not, in heart or in body, and "be baptized for remission." Well, now, why will not the Pedo- baptists give up and obey it! But the gentleman demurs at our use of the phrase " obey the gospel." It is solemnly written by Paul, that " all shall be punished with an ever- lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power, who obey not the Gospel." We neither believe nor teach that the phrase, "obedience of faith," means one single act; or that obeying tlie Gospel is one solitary deed. Certainly they do not " obey the Gospel" who do not obey the iirst precept ; any more than they who obey the first, and afterwards apostatize. The Gospel calls for perpetual obedience, or a life of conformity to its pure and elevated piety and humanity. It is only to them, who, by a patient continuance in doing well, are seeking for glory, honor, and immortality, God will reward or bestow eternal life. Still there is one act, the most solemn, significant, and sublime, which may emphatically be called obeying the Gospel — an act of homage the most profound, of devotion the most pure, of aspiration the most heavenly — when we confess the Lord, die on that confession to sin, and are buried into his death, and rise with him to newness of life. It is then the Sov- ereign of the universe says, " Thy sins be forgiven thee : go in peace. Pardon is no quality of the mind, nor remission of sins a virtue. It is a sovereign act of favor on the part of the offended. "Justification is an act of God's free grace," as the old catechism says. It is no process; it is done in a moment — it is an act — a single act — a word — a volition. The persons to whom Peter spoke the precept, were believers. Their asking, " what shall we do ?" was a confession of the facts alledged in the speech. Peter did not command them to believe — a proof that they had believed. Now I ask, how could he command believers to seek remis- sion of sins, if pardon and faitli were simultaneous ? Nor did he say, " Be baptized, because your sins are forgiven you." The words used by our Lord in instituting the cup. This is my blood, shed for (not because of) the remission of sins. Why hold out the idea of baptism for the remission of sins, if the act was passed? ! It might have been the intention of one or both parties to speak prospectively, but to speak of remission as past or present, entered not into the conceptions of either. Moreover there must be some reason for the act of pardon which did not exist before the moment that it passed. There is nothing done by God our Father without a proper reason. Man desires, and God promises, an assurance of pardon. If any thing ought to be secured, this ought. If any covenant ought to be sealed, this most certainly has superlative claims. A covenant which involves one's present peace and his eternal destiny,- ought to be made sure ; solemnized and sealed in the most authoritative, formal, and sensible manner. For this, probably, among other sublime reasons, are we to be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The terms of such a pardon should be clear and definite ; they ought to be felt and understood in all their mysterious significance. The act of sol- emnization should be the most imposing in sacred grandeur ; and the seal DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 535 of confirmation no less than the sign manual of God's Spirit, and his own immutable promise and inviolable oath. All men desire such a pledge in the direct ratios of their convictions of sin — of its deep, dark, and soul-ruining malignity. In the direct ratios of their apprehensions of the immaculate holiness, inflexible justice, and awful dignity of Him against Avhom it is comuiitted, do they long for an acquittal, as evident and sure as tlie veracity of Him that cannot lie, can make it. It is, more or less, the desire of every awakened sinner, under heaven. Cornelius, too, and the best of the Jewish and gentile world, have sought it with a promptness, assiduity, and earnestness, equal to all their prospects and hopes of attaining it. The joy of pardon, of assured pardon, through tlie blood of the slain Lamb of God, is the purest, holi- est, highest joy, that ever swelled the grateful heart of an adoring saint. It is, indeed, a joy unspeakable and full of glory. I cannot think that He that swore to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, could withhold from his children, raised up to him from Abraham's son and heir, a pledge of his love, as strong as that he gave the father of this illustrious and most honorable family. The gendeman spoke of a delusion to which this doctrine is some way favorable. But he uttered it, as I thought, in terms unkind, uncharita- ble, and ambiguous. The delusion, so far as expressed, seemed to be that many concluded that in one act they had obeyed the gospel, and hence, that all was forever safe. I have never yet found any one who thought so. Such a case is possible — as possible as that thousands may imagine themselves to be " ingrafted into Christ,'''' and " in covenant with God," in consequence of one drop of water put on their face while a sleeping babe, in the adorable name of the Almighty. AVe teach pub- licly and privately, that all the baptized must give all diligence to make tlieir calling and election sure ; must add to their faith courage, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and philanthropy. Persons, I again say, may be deluded under the best systems — under all systems. Possibly a few may be so deluded amongst us. But the question is, which system is most naturally and obviously tending that way — ours, or that which teaches thousands, millions, to regard them- selves born, or initiated, into God's family, or sealed members of Christ's church — regenerated unto God, having received " a sign and seal of the covenant of grace of their ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration and the remission of sins," through the faith of a god-father, or an own father: one drop of water and the name of God, without any act, or deed, or word, or thought, or volition, or desire of their own? Whether such a system is more pregnant with delusion, or one that calls for personal knowledge, faith, repentance, and baptism, with all corresponding piety and humanity, I leave to you, sir, and this attentive and intelligent audi- ence to decide. — [Time expired. Friday, Nov. 24—6^ o'clock, P. M. [mr. rice's eighth reply.] Mr. President — Before proceeding to reply to m)' friend's last speech, I will read a few passages from the Confession of Faith: " Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the vis- ible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk iu newness of life," 636 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. dec. chap, xxviii. sec. 1. Again, (sec. 5,) " Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so insep- arably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved with- out it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." Baptism, we are here taught, is an ordinance for the solemn admis- sion of persons into the visible churchy that it is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, &c. It is an outward sign of regeneration and of remission. The confession does not say, that remission of sins is granted in the act of receiving baptism, and never before. An instrument is first written, then sealed. So a believer is first pardoned, and then receives the seal; or, more properly, the blessings promised in the covenant of grace, of which baptism is the seal, are enjoyed, when the conditions of the covenant are complied with. The believer is pardoned and justified, so soon as he exercises faith in Christ. Those baptized in infancy enjoy remission of sins, so soon as they, having come to responsible age, receive Christ as their Savior; and henceforth they enjoy all the spiritual blessings pro- mised in the covenant of grace, sealed by christian baptism. But Mr. Campbell holds, that remission of sins and justification are obtained in the act of receiving baptism, never before. Now what says our confession on this subject? "Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone." — Shorter Catechism. The confession does not say, we are justified by faith alone, as the gentleman intimates, but that we are justified for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. Yet it also says, "that faith is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but work- eth by love," chap. xi. Mr. Campbell tells us, that all this he learned when a child. Certain- ly, if he did, he should have better remembered it, and have known, that the confession does not countenance the doctrine for which he contends. He has quoted Mr. Wesley as having taught his doctrine of baptism, in order to the remission of sins. It is possible that Wesley, who was an Episcopalian, wrote some things in the early part of his ministry, which savor of baptismal regeneration ; but if he did, he certainly afterwards entertained very different sentiments. I am not willing that the views of that great man shall be misrepresented, and made to favor dangerous errors. If, then, he, in his youth, entertained on this subject erroneous views, and afterwards, upon more mature examination, renounced them, it is important that this should be known. I will read an extract from his sermon on justification: — (Vol. i. p. 147.) " Faith, therefore, is the necessary condition of justification : yea, and the only necessary condition thereof. This is the second point carefully to be observed ; that, the very moment God giveth faith, (for ii is the gift of God ) to the ' ungodly,' that ' worketh not,' that ' faith is counted to him for righteousness 1' He hath no righteousness at all, antecedent to this, not so much as negative righteousness, or innocence. But ' faith is imputed to him for righteousness,' the very moment that he believeth. Not that God (as was observed before) thinketh him to be what he is not. But as 'he made Christ to sin for us,' that is, treated him as a sinner, punishing him for our sins ; so he counteth us righteous, from the time we believe in him : that is, he doth not punish us for our sins, yea, treats us as though we were guiltless and righteous. Surely the difficulty of assenting to the proposi- tion. That faith is the only condition of justification, must arise from not DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 537 understanding it. We mean thereby thus much, that it is the only thing that is immediately, indispensably, absolutely requisite, in order to pardon. As on the one hand, though a man should have every thing else without faith, yet he cannot be justified : so on the other, though he be supposed to want every thing else, yet if he hath faith, he cannot but be justified. For sup- pose a sinner of any kind or degree, in a full sense of his total ungodliness, of his utter inability to think, speak, or do good, and his absolute meetness for hell fire ; suppose, I say, this sinner, helpless and hopeless, casts him- self wholly on the mercy of God, in Christ, (which, indeed, he cannot do but by the grace of God,) who can doubt but he is forgiven in that moment V &c Such is the doctrine of John Wesley. I leave the audience to deter mine whether it is the doctrine for which Mr. Campbell contends. He has certainly succeeded in proving, by Dr. Wall, that the ancient fathers used the word regeneration for baptism ; but the misfortune is, that by regeneration they did not mean what he means. They believed that the heart was changed by the Holy Spirit at the time when baptism was administered, and, therefore, that remission of sins was then secured. This is not what he means by regeneration. But I am not concerned to go into an investigation of the opinions of those fathers ; for though they were excellent witnesses as to matters of fact, I agree with Mr. Campbell in saying, they were rather poor theologians. He has told us, that with him their authority is worth little; and with me it is worth no more. The papists alone, I believe, feel bound to regard, as infallible, their "unanimous consent." My friend discovers in Pedo-baptists a singular eccentricity. He says, they refuse to receive a positive precept — baptism in order to the remis- sion of sins, and yet baptize infants without a positive precept. But this eccentricity entirely disappears when facts are known. I produced a posi- tive precept for putting the children of believers into the church by the initiatory rite; and he was unable to find any thing like a precept for ex- cluding them. This is a plain matter of fact. But, is it true that we refuse a positive precept in regard to the design of baptism ? No ! our eccentricity consists in this : we refuse to take Mr. CamphelVs interpretation of a positive precept. We refuse to inter- pret Peter's language as he interprets it. And have we not as good rea- son to charge him with refusing to regard a positive precept, because he differs from us as to its meaning, as he has to make a similar charge against us for differing from him, because we cannot acknowledge him infallible, and agree to see with his eyes ? I have a remark or two to make concerning obeying the gospel. Mr. Campbell says, the first act of subordination to Christ is called obedience to the gospel. But where in the New Testament is baptism called obe- dience to the gospel ? The gentleman commenced his reformation with the avowed purpose of repudiating what he called " the language of Ash- dod," and of speaking of Bible truths in Bible language — but you perceive, that when the language of the Bible does not suit him, he is quite willing to employ language of his own selection. Being baptized is never, in the Scriptures, called obeying the gospel ; not an instance can be found of any such language. The very first command of the gospel, to all who hear it, is to believe; and the exercise of faith, and not being baptized, is the first act of subordination. Christ commands all to believe the gospel. Then when I do believe, do I not obey the gospel? He commands all to repent. When I repent, do I not obey the gospel ? I obey the gospel in the act of believing and repenting ; and if, as Mr. Campbell says, the first act of 538 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. subordination to Christ secures remission of sins, it is certain that faith and repentance secure this blessing; and if so, his doctrine of the necessity of baptism, in order to remission, is false. But he tells us, pardon is an act performed by God at a certain moment, and there must be some reason for performing that act, which did not pre- viously exist. What better reason can there be, than that the individual, under a deep sense of his guilt, falls into the arms of his compassionate Redeemer, and, like Peter, says — "Lord save, or I perish ?" If he receives Christ as his wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, this is rea- son enough why his sins should be blotted out. But, says my friend, surely there ought to be a seal of remission. We contend that bap- tism is the sign and the seal ; but we deny that it is the procuring cause of remission. What is the design of a seal ? An instrument ad- mitted to record is just as valid as showing the intention of the parties before the seal is added, as afterwards ; so a man's sins are pardoned when he believes, and the seal is applied afterwards. A seal is intended, not to give validity to the instrument, but to give it notoriety. I did not say, that the members of Mr. C.'s church are taught, that they have nothing to do after baptism. I said, they are taught to believe that they were pardoned when they were immersed ; and if it should turn out, as I solemnly believe it will, that such is not the truth, they are fatally deceived. They believe they are pardoned, when they arE yet in their sins. This is the delusion of which I spoke. I am under a dangerous delusion, if I believe that I am pardoned, when in truth I am condemned. My friend institutes a comparison between his teaching and ours, viz : whether his is more delusive than that of those who teach, that the sins of infants are remitted in baptism. We teach no such doctrine, as he ought to know. He says, he understands Presbyterianism. Now I make the unqualified assertion, that he cannot produce one respectable Presbyterian, in ancient or modern times, who ever taught, that infants had their sins remitted in the act of baptism. No child is taught so. I never saw a Presbyterian writer, nor heard a Presbyterian preacher who tlius taught. If I knew a minister, in our church, who entertained such views, I should be prepared to table charges against him before his pres- bytery. I am sorry 1o discover that my friend knows so little of Pres- byterianism. As I have only one more speech upon this proposition, you will allow me now to give a brief recapitulation of the arguments. Let us place be- fore our minds distinctly the point in debate. This is the more impor- tant, inasmuch as I believe it is impossible to determine, from what my friend has said, what he really believes. The question is not, whether one who contemns the ordinance, or wilfully refuses lo be baptized, can be saved ? for he who deliberately refuses to obey any command of Christ, proves that he has not true faith or piety. Nor is the question, whether we can become members of the visible church without baptism? for neither of us maintains that we can. Nor yet is it, whether baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration and of remission of sins ? This is admit- ted. But the question is this: whether a penitent believer is condemned till he is baptized, and is actually forgiven only in the act of being bap- tized ? This proposition my friend affirms, and I deny. According to his doctrine, every man has his sins upon him through DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 539 life and in death, if he has not submitted to baptism, and that administered by immersion. That this is his faith on the subject before us, I have proved by his own writings. My Jii'st argument against this doctrine, is, that it flatly contradicts the plain and positive declarations of our Savior and the apostles. What says our Savior on this subject ? " He that believeth on him is not con- demned." To this important passage, which of itself is an unanswer- able refutation of his doctrine, I have not been able to arrest the attention of my friend ; and I am afraid, he will not see it : I have again and again presented it before him, but he cannot see it. His doctrine (which direct- ly contradicts the declaration of our Savior,) is — that he that believes is condemned, unless he have been immersed ! He says, however, that faith is a principle in the heart — (he is getting quite orthodox) — that this faith would lead to obedienice, and thus, in obeying by being immersed, the sins of believers are remtted. But he has also said, that an angel might mistake the meaning of a command ; and though a believer should sin- cerely desire to obey every command of Christ, and should fail to be immersed only through a mistake of the head, or the impossibility, under existing circumstances, of being immersed ; this will not save him from eternal death. But the glorious Redeemer taught a very different doc- trine. He said. Whosoever believes, is not condemned ; every such person is justified. There is no qualification of the language ; and it requires no criticism or comment — it cannot be misunderstood. Again : " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." He now has life in actual possession. But see how variously the Savior expressed him- self upon this subject 1 as if it were known to him, as certainly it was, that some would attempt to evade the force of his language. In John vi. 29, we read, " Jesus answered and said unto them. This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Again, 35th verse : "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life : he that com- eth to me shall never hunger ; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." The conclusiveness of my argument depends not upon the word hath, in the passage " He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." The Savior varied his mode of expression, and said, "And he that believeth on me shall never thirst." He shall receive abundantly the water of life. But Mr. C. teaches, that he that believeth shall thirst, unless he have also been immersed ! These plain, unequivocal and pos- itive declarations of our Lord, will stand against all the criticism the gentleman can bring to bear upon the subject. Our doctrine is fully sus- tained by more than one positive " Thus saith the Lord." He may appeal to all the critics and translators, but he cannot refute it. My second argument is the fact, that all who are begotten of God, do enjoy remission of sins. The gentleman admits, that every believer, before baptism, is begotten of God ; and John the apostle says — " Who- soever is born [or begotten, as Mr. C. would read it] of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is born of God," (John iii. 9.) Every one who is begotten of God, has ceased to be a sinner, is holy in heart and in life. Are such persons condemned ? But in the very next verse those begotten, are said to be children of God. " In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil : whoever doeth not righteousness, is not of God," &c. But if they are children of God, they are " heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ," (Rom. viii. 17.) Their sins are remitted. Here 540 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. we have no need of criticism on the word eis, or any other disputed term. The language is perfectly plain. Again — " Every one that liveth is born [or begotten] of God, and knoweth God" (1 John iv. 7.) Compare this with the gospel by John, eh. xvii. 3, " This is life eternal, that they might knotv thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Every one who loves,- is begotten of God, and knows God ; and every one that knoivs God, has eternal life. His sins are remitted. Again — " Whoever is born of God overcometh the world ; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith," (1 John v. 4.) What are the promises made to those who overcome? " To him that overcometh, will I give to set with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." " He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death," (See Rev. ii. and iii.) The sins of such persons are remitted. Again — " He that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not," vs. 18. Look at all these plain and positive dec- larations concerning those who are begotten of God, and those glorious promises to them, and tell me, whether they do not enjoy remission of sins. Once more — (1 John v. 1,) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born [or begotten] of God : and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him." Every believer is begot- ten of God, and is a child of God. Mr. C. will not immerse an individ- ual until he professes to believe, that Jesus is the Christ; and if he does believe, John says, he is begotten of God, and, of course, enjoys all the blessings and promises just mentioned. Mr. Campbell cannot get him into the water, on his principles, until he is begotten of God, and conse- quently enjoys remission of sins. One such plain, unequivocal declara- tion of inspiration, is worth a thousand criticisms on eis, or any other disputed word. My tklrd argument is this: All who are born of God do enjoy the remission of sins ; and the new birth is in no sense essentially connected with baptism. That all who are born of God, are pardoned, Mr. Camp- bell admits, as you will see by the following declaration in his Christi- anity Restored, p. 208. " Those who are thus begotten and born of God, are children of God. It would be a monstrous supposition that such persons are not freed from their sins. To be bom of God, and born in sin, is inconceivable. Remission of sins is as certainly granted to ' the born of God,'' as life eternal and deliver- ance from corruption will be granted to the children of the resurrection, when born from the grave." Now that baptism is not essential to the new birth, I have proved by a number of plain, incontrovertible facts : I. When the new birth is first spoken of, (John i. 11 — 13) water is not mentioned at all. Believers are said to have been " born of God.''' Surely if water-baptism had been essential, it would have been alluded to, when the new birth is first men- tioned. H. When the conversation occurred between our Savior and Nicode- mus, (John iii.) christian baptism had not been instituted. How, then, can it be proved, that our Savior had reference to an ordinance not then in existence ? Certainly if he had such allusion, Nicodemus could not be expected to understand him. Moreover, by the same mode of argu- mentation adopted to prove, that the Savior referred to christian baptism, DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 541 the papists have attempted to prove, that in John vi. he spoke of his sup- per, because he makes the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood essential to salvation ; and thus they attempt to sustain the doctrine of transubstantiation. III. My third fact is, that when christian baptism was instituted, it was never, by the inspired writers, called a birth. Not an instance of such a mode of expression can be found. Then it is fair to conclude, that it is not a birth. IV. The reason given by our Savior why men must be born again, proves, that the new birth is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, and not, as Mr. C. teaches, a change of state effected by baptism. What is the reason given ? " For that which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John iii. 6.) The word ^esh, when employed with reference to moral character, as in this pas- sage, as I have proved, signifies depravity. The Savior's meaning, therefore, is — that by the natural birth we are like our parents — sinful; and by the spiritual birth we are like the Spirit — holy. The new birth is, therefore, a change from sinfulness to holiness, from the image of man, to the image of God, and not, as Mr. C. strangely imagines, a pass- ing through water from a state of condemnation to a state of justification. V. That the Savior had no reference to baptism as essential to the new birth, is evident from the fact that he reproved Nicodemus for not under- standing the doctrine — "Art thou a master [^teacher] of Israel, and know- est not these things ?" This reproof shows, that the new birth is taught in the Old Testament, of which Nicodemus was a professed expounder, and which he ought therefore to have understood. Baptism in order to remission of sins is not there taught, but the doctrine of a regeneration by the Holy Spirit is. " A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." It is, therefore, clear, that the new birth is a change of heart, not a change of state. VI. '1 fie mystery connected with the new birth, proves that it is not a change of state eff'ected by baptism. Nicodemus objected to the doctrine as mysterious. The Savior admitted that it is so, but proved that this is no valid objection against it ; because even the blowing of the wind is equal- ly mysterious — " The wind bloweth where it listeth ; and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit." Now, if the doctrine of Mr. C. be true, this illustration from the blowing of the wind is entirely inap- propriate ; for there is no mystery in the fact, (if it be a fact,) that God has said, he will pardon those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, and are immersed. It is one of the simplest things imaginable. The refer- ence to the blowing of the wind, or, as Mr. Campbell strangely translates it, the breathing of the Spirit^ is, therefore, out of place. But if the doctrine for which I contend is true, the allusion was most appropriate ; for the operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart, is as mysterious as the blowing of the wind. VII. It is a fact, that the inspired writers weifl constantly in the habit of connecting the emblem and the thing signified — the water and the Spi- rit. The Savior was speaking to a Jew who was familiar with all the ablutions of the I3W ; and, therefov-e, he illustra^d the nature of the new birth by reference to water, the embJem of purification. VIII. That the new birth is a change of heart, and not a change of state, is proved by the scnptural evidence of persons having been born again — 2Z 542 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. " For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," Rom. viii. 14, All who are led by the Spirit of God, whose hearts and lives conform to the gospel, are the children of God. The apostle does not say, they who have been baptized are the children of God. See, also, 1 John iii. 9. 10. These plain, incontrovertible facts and arguments prove conclusively, that the new birth is a change of heart by the Spirit of God — not a change of state, effected by baptism. Consequently, when a man's heart is changed so that he loves God supremely, and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, he is born of God, is a claild of God, and an heir of eternal life ; his sins are remitted, and he may approach God as his Father, and may rationally rejoice in the certain anticipation of the bliss of heaven. M-Y fourth argument against Mr. Campbell's doctrine is — that the lan- guage used by Peter in Acts ii. 38, does not teach the necessity of bap- tism in order to remission of sins. But I have not time now to proceed further. — [Time expired. Mr. Campbell said, that he would not be able to get through with his argument in one speech of half an hour. Mr. Rice. How much time will you need? Mr. Campbell. Two half hour speeches will be sufficient. Mr. Rice. Very well, sir. Friday, Nov. 24—7 o'clock, P. M. [mr. Campbell's ninth address.] Mr. President — My friend, Mr. Rice, and myself have not been taught in the same school, nor studied under the same masters. I com- menced in the Presbyterian school, but he has continued longer in it than I did. One of the first discoveries I made, of real and abiding advantage to me, was the licentious manner in which the}'' quote and apply the Scriptures in their pulpits, and in their books. I see they have not im- proved much since I left them, if Mr. Rice is a fair sample of the Presby- terians that now are. When I commenced preaching it was usual to quote, in a single sermon, almost a hundred texts of Scripture. Each head of discourse had its own list of authorities. In my youthful salliea I was accustomed to quote ten texts, as we called them, for one I now cite. There is no greater delusion than an array of verses, torn out of their respective contexts, and arranged in a new connection in support of some view or tenet, that was not before the mind of the inspired author, whose words we thus take without his consent, to illustrate or prove that which, were he present, he would most explicitly repudiate and disallow. The number of parallel texts, like synonymous words, is much smaller than, perhaps, any one of us would allow. There is some shade of difference, some little peculiarity, more striking and appreciable than the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation, both of which dogmata are sometimes proved by the same texts. Mr. R. has quoted various passages in development of the phrases " begotten," and " born of God." His object was to shew the attributes of these subjects. Now, mark it well, as respects this debate, every one of those texts have been perverted and misapplied, for one fact, which all who think must perceive, viz. that all those persons had been baptized of whom the apostle spake. Hence the subject of John's proposition was one born both of water and of the Spirit, while the subject of Mr. Rice's proposition is one, as he conceives, born of the Spirit only; con- DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 543 sequently his reasonings are most fallacious and deceitful. There was no such ecclesiastic personage in those days. To illustrate and confirm this we shall attend to John's discriminating mode of address. He says : " I have written to you, little children, young men, and fathers. To you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you, on account of his name." If baptism had not, in those days, been regarded as a pledge of remission, in reason's name, how could John have said that the least in years, in the christian church, had their sins forgiven 07i account of his name! ! No man can explain these words, but upon the admission of my premises. It is as if John said, you have only been baptized — you have just been born of water and Spirit. They had as yet formed no charac- ter, on account of which he could commend them. And to the next class : "I have written unto yon, young men, because you are strong, and the Word of God abidelh in you, and you have, [in the heat of youth and passion,] overcome the world." To the fathers he says, "I write unto you, fathers, because you have known*him [the Messiah] from the beginning." You still hold on your way and acknowledge him. If these views of this beautiful and instructive passage needs any other con- firmation, you have it in the Hiphil or Hebrewistic form of the verb know, which is equivalent to acknowledge, or make known. I have written to you, little children, he says a second time, because you have acknowledged the Father — which, of course, all did in baptism. In a very wholesale way the gendeman makes quotations, and in this whole- sale way do I dispose of them. The proof now given of the apostolic style in this case of being begotten and born, on which he has been occa- sionly entertaining us for two days, takes from him his whole premises, and exposes thes perfect nudity of his position. My friend has repeatedly objected to our mode of designating persons by representing them as having obeyed the gospel. I will only add on this subject, that in using it in this style, we are perfectly evangelical. In the apostolic age they were thus accustomed to speak of the baptized. How soon after Pentecost it got into use we may learn from the fact, that we have the conversion of the priests set forth in this language: "A great company of the priests became obedient to the faith." After the people left the priests, the priests followed them. They have seldom, in great companies, obeyed the truth, until deserted by the people. When the people are converted in great numbers, there is much reason to expect a large conversion of the clergy. Speaking of the gospel, Paul says, it is made known to all men, "for the obedience of faith;" and to the Romans, speaking of the unbelieving Jews, he says, " they have not obeyed the gospel," &c. But, of the brethren, he says, " you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, [the gospel] delivered to you." We are then in good company, though not with Mr. Rice, in so speaking of the converted. I have already said, perhaps, enough on the tendency of our respective systems towards delusion. The Scriptures say, " with the mouth con- fession is made unto salvation" — " with the heart man believes unto jus tification ; but with the lips confession is made to salvation." Infants cannot confess to salvation, nor can they believe in the heart to justifica- tion. Paul never contrasts the head and the heart, as modern preachers do. He contrasts the mouth and the heart, which modern preachers do not. Now we ask for both — a belief in the heart and a confession with the mouth, as necessary to salvation, in the ordinary dispensations of 544 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Providence. This public oral confession is a very strong defence against imposition and delusion, compared with carrying in our bosoms sleeping infants to receive holy baptism, and to put on Christ. As many as were baptized into Christ in old times, had put on Christ. I have just as much reason to speak of the soul-ruining doctrines of Pedo-baptism, as he has to speak of the evil tendencies of mine. Again : we assail not the passions. We address the understanding, the conscience, the affections. We assail the intellectual powers and moral feelings of our nature. Animal excitement, and all the fleshly appliances of the present age, we abjure. We regard every invention of that sort as human, and not divine — a new device in Christianity. It was as perfect as the sun at first ; and, like its Divne Author, " it is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." Our system of conversion is in this .point freer from delusion than any other known to me. Still I preach to all professors, " Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith. Know you not that Christ is in you, except you be reprobate ?" Touching the quotations from Mr. John Wesley, I presume they spake his sentiments when he wrote them. I desire not to tax the large and respectable denomination that has risen up under his auspices, with any views which they disallow. Both Messrs. Clark and Wesley have at times crossed their own paths, and each other's paths, very palpably, on this, as well as on some other points. The book from which those ex- tracts were read, was printed not more than eighteen years ago, by au- thority of the denomination, and was then judged worthy of their patron- age. Eighteen years, however, now-a-days produce great revolutions; for much light has gone forth into the land. Mr. Wesley, it will be re- membered, has said on Paul's conversion, that " baptism is both a means and a seal of pardon," and that, in the primitive age, it was the ordinary way of receiving remission. .Tohn AVesley's mother, an admirable lady, said, " Sinners obtain remission by baptism, and christians by confession." The references to Wall, on the use of the word regeneration, do not authorize Mr. Rice in saying, or in insinuating, that I have given any change or coloring whatever to his views touching the universality of bap- tism for remission, or as equivalent to "being born of water and of the Spirit," amongst all the ancients. I believe that almost all, if not abso- lutely all, the fathers, Greek and Latin, used regeneration and baptism as representative of the same action and event. I do not, however, approve the phraseology used by them on this subject. I call baptism " the washing of the new birth," rather than the new birth itself. So I think Paul most learnedly denominates it. But our opponents have done us a great deal of injustice, in represent- ing us as pleading for " water regeneration.'''' They have endeavored to preach us down, and sing us down, and write us down, by holding us up to public reprobation, as advocates of a mere baptismal regeneration ; but they have not succeeded, nor can they succeed, with any who will either hear us or read us on these subjects. No man believes more cor- dially, or teaches more fully, the necessity of a spiritual change of our af- fections— a change of heart — than I do. I have said a thousand times, that if a person were to be immersed twice seven times in the Jordan for the remission of his sins, or for the reception of the Holy Spirit, it would avail nothing more than wetting the face of a babe, unless his heart is changed by the word and Spirit of God. I have no confidence in any instrumentality, ordinance, means, or observance, unless the lieart is DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 545 turned to God. This is the fundamental, the capital point ; but, with these, every other divine ordinance is essential for the spiritual enlarge- ment, confirmation, and sanctification of the faithful. Mr. Rice says I sometimes use the language of Ashdod. No doubt of it. When communicating with those who do not understand the lan- guage of Canaan, we must accommodate our style to their education. There is no scriptural authority for calling a change of heart, the nevf birth, or regeneration. I doubt not that all the intelligent and conscientious, when their hearts are first turned to the Lord, unless deluded into the belief that they have been baptized, desire baptism. It is as natural for those who read the book, to desire baptism, as it was to the eunuch to exclaim, "See, here is water : what doth hinder my being baptized ?" All whose hearts are touched from above, pant for baptism. They long for it — they de- sire it. It is only after they have been prevailed upon to believe that they have been baptized, that they can give up the anticipated plea- sure. Many of them, too, give it up with reluctance ; and I do know so much of human nature, and of the human heart, too, that no one sprinkled in perfect infancy, or who, on the testimony of some friend, believes he was, is ever so well satisfied, so perfectly pleased with him- self and at rest, as he that on his own confession has voluntarily placed himself under the Lord by a baptism unto his death. A striking proof of this has occurred in death-bed scenes, in the numbers which I have seen and of which I have heard. No one has been found, as I believe, peni- tent or grieved in the immediate prospect of death, because he had been, on his own confession, buried with the Lord in baptism for the remission of his sins ; but many of those who only believed that they had been sprinkled in infancy, on some other person's faith than their own, have died overwhelmed with unavailing penitence. Again I say, no death-bed penitent has ever lamented that he obeyed the Lord for himself. I will, in reply to various vague generalities, Avhich cannot be easily grouped under any one category, read a few passages, with a few re- marks, from a name dear to many good Presbyterians in this city, not only inscribed upon a monumental church in the neighborhood, but em- balmed in the memory of many yet living in the midst of us. I need scarcely add, I am about to read a few extracts from the Reverend James McCord. We shall commence with a passage on page 162. '* That is, in other words, if the testimony of Jesus Christ deserves con- eideration, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation without the limits of the church of God. I know that the statement of such a sentiment is far from flattering to those who wish to be saved, but in a way and upon principles very different trorn those to which the page of inspiration points us. And I expect to be assailed at once with questions from all quarters — ' What, then, will the heathen AoV ' What must become of many amiable and deserving people, who act in a way decidedly superior to many christian professors, although they are not of the church !' ' Wliy do you attach so much importance to mere externals, when every body knows that tlie essence of true religion consists in the dispositions of tlie heart 1' We have not leisure to answe'r all these questions : nor do we deem an answer necessary." — Last Appeal^ p. 162. Is not this writer as uncharitable as a reformer? Complain not, my Presbyterian friends, of our uncharitableness, since one of your most gift- ed, and pious, and exemplary preachers, speaks as strongly and as uncom- 35 2z2 546 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. promisingly as any staunch reformer in the commonwealth of Kentucky. He lells you, that there is to you who have the Bible " no reasonable prospect of salvation but in connection with the church of Christ. There is," he adds, " no ordinary possibility of salvation without the precincts of the christian church." But let us hear him on baptism. " You will not, therefore, deem it an unreasonable statement, that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation without the precincts of the christian church, if once we can clearly make it out to you, that the churcli is the great mean of etlecting man's salvation. This is not one of those questions that are only to be settled by long' and difficult argument. It is a question of fact ; and you will find the decision vvritten as with a sunbeam in every page of Scripture. Wlien the Savior gave commandment to his apostles to proclaim his great salvation to all people under heaven, what was the declaration that accompanied this com- mandment? 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' When those apostles made the first proof of their ministry, in the city of .Jerusa- lem, on the memorable day of Pentecost, what was their answer to the ago- nized multitudes who felt convicted of the sin of crucifying God's own Mes- siah, and cried out in horror, ' Men and brethren, what shall we dol' ' Re- pent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' Thia was their answer to the eager inquiry. When the apostles went abroad among the gentile nations, what other prescription did they ever give for attaining to God's salvation ! ' Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ :' ' believe and be baptized:' 'the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart — that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'" — Last Appeal, pp. 165, 166. "And this is harshness 1 The God of immensity tenders you salvation; and you say you would gladly have it. But he tenders it in connection with that great society of which his own Messiah is the liead and king ; and you say you do not wish to be connected with his churcii. He tenders you his Spirit with the water of his baptism ; and you say you liad rather be saved without that baptism. He tenders you salvation, if yon will submit to all his government, if you will wear his yoke, if you will learn of him ; and you refuse to learn of him, you refuse to wear his yoke. You must be saved in your own way, not in God's way. You must be saved when it suits you to submit to his appointments, and not just when he invites you. And it is cruel in God's Messiah to withhold his great salvation from the little, piti- ful, short-sighted, but self-suliicient being, who refuses to seek for it in the way he has directed ? And it is harsh in me to tell you, that in acting thus perversely you trifle with your peace !" — pp. 170, 171. " Incense, as we have already seen, is a symbol of the prayers of the saints. It is only in the true spiritual church that such prayers are offered; and they are symbolized by the incense burnt upon the golden altar in the holy place." — p. 184. Could any one accustomed to hear our brethren speak, distinguish this address from those which they are often accustomed to hear from them in their discourses upon the gospel ? He tliat could distinguish them, must have a more discriminating ear than I have. The second of the Acts, and the third of John, passed through his hands as diversely from the comments of Mr. Rice, as Mr. Rice's comments differ from ours. But Mr. R. makes his grand defence of his interpretation of John iii. 5, on a very singular assumption, viz., that as christian baptism was not then instituted, our Savior could have no allusion to it. He could, then, during his whole ministry, have no allusion to anything not then actually exist- DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 547 ing, if the principle be sound. Our Lord spake, both in figure and without figure, prospectively of his death, burial, resurrection, kingdom, and cause in the world; and even ordained the supper prospectively. Mc(Jord, in his Last Appeal, reprobates these views of Mr. Rice, and corroborates mine. But look for a moment at the style. ''Yoii must be born its^ahi''' — as introductory to the kingdom of God. Again, and in the same discourse, he says, " the Son of Man must be lifted up,'' &c. Now Mr. Rice will admit, that '^ must be'' in this case indicates what was then prospectively future: and why not admit that the same style, I'rom the same speaker, and in the same conversation, may not also mean what was then pros- pectively future ? In the original, the word and construction are iden- tically the same, in verses 7 and 14. Evident, then, it is, as almost all truly learned men agree, that the whole discourse wiUi Nicodemus was prospec- tively delivered. If time admitted, it were easy to give much more evi- dence of this sort. What I have stated, cannot easily be refuted. If Mr. R. however, will not hear the Westminster divines, and his friend Dr. Hall, he would not be persuaded though I gave a hundred other proofs. I read these passages from Rev. McCord, not so mucli to corroborate either my views of .lolin iii. 5, or Acts ii. 38, or of Mark xvi. 10, as to shew how exceedingly incongruous is the ciiarge of uncharitable ccnsori- ousness, so frequently and so pertinaciously exhibited against us by our opponents. If Presbyterianism were to be redeemed from its humilia- tion in this commonwealtii, by arraigning our piety or our benevolence — more vigorous and resolute attempts to represent us as opposed to a change of heart, or as so exclusive in our views and feelings, as to deny the possibility ot salvation beyond our own communion — could not have been devised or prosecuted, than on the present occasion. To fasten these imputations upon us, rather than discuss the doctrinal issues be- tween us, seems to be the great desideratum of my respondent. And to me the marvel is, that a denomination the most exclusive in all the com- munity, if its standards are to be relied on, should presume to accuse us of views excessively exclusive, while seeking at other times to reproach us with the most indefinite latitudinarianism. Indeed, McCord's views, before expressed, are but a development of one or two passages in the cotdession. I have time but for tlie two followmg: " Others not elected, altiiough they may be called by tlio ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of liie Spirit, yet tliey never truly come to Christ, and thcrotbre cannot bo saved ; nmoli less caii, men not proje.isviff the cfirisliim religiuii bo saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to tlie liglit of nature, and the law of that religion tliey do profess: and to assort and maintain that they may, is very pernicious and to be detested." — p. (>5. sec. 4. " The visible church, which is also catliolic or universal under the gospel, (not confined unto one nation as before under the law,) consists of all those throughout tiie world that profess tiie true religion, together with their child- ren ; and is the kingdom of tiie Lord Jesus Christ, the chosen family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." — p. I'M. sec. '2. This is, to say the least, quite as uncharitable as any thing we have said or written on the subject. Especially, as we know that those whose confession this is, pretend to regard and represent us in this community as not professing the true religion. Presbyterians, like my friend, of the true, genuine color, never change. They are all immutable. These sen- timents, then, are essential to them all ; and, of course, they can neither blame nor censure us, on the ground of uncharilableness. 548 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. I can neither advert to all the peculiar absurdities of the system I op- pose, nor respond to every thing foreign to the question, deduced from my own writings or any other source, in the time allotted us ; but I must notice the singular caprice that gives an ordinance to one because one of his parents is a professor, and withholds it from a child whose parents are more virtuous and benevolent than he, though not professors in their sense of the word — especially if they regard the ordinance of any salu- tary efficacy whatever. — [Time expired. Friday, Nov. 24— 7^ o'clock, P. M. [yiR. rice's ninth reply.] Mr. President — The gentleman seems to abound in matter of one kind or another. I had expected to close the argument on this subject this morning ; but, as on the mode of baptism, so on the design, he was so far from having proved his doctrine to his own satisfaction, that, at his request, I agreed to continue the discussion tivo hours this evening ; and yet he calls for more time ! ! '. Well, I have given him another speech, for I wish him to have full time to deliver himself on this whole subject. I desire it to be understood and known, that the clergy are not afraid of the light which he can throw around them ; we are willing to meet his argu- ments in their undminislied strength. He pretends, that the passages I quoted from the epistle of John, prov- ing that all who are begotten of God, enjoy remission of sins, are all misap- plied, because those tilings are spoken concerning baptized persons. It is truly astonishing, that any man should be willing to expose himself by assuming a position so perfectly untenable and absurd. No one who will read those passages, can doubt that John was giving general descriptions of christian character — pointing out the peculiar character of true chris- tians. Let us, for a moment, examine those passages: " AVhosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." The expression is absolutely univer- sal, not limited to those immersed, or baptized. Again, verse 10: "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." In what are they manifest? Not in the fact, that the one class have been baptized, and the other not, but in the fact, that the children of God do righteousness and love their brethren. All, therefore, who work right- eousness, are the children of God, baptized or not. Again, 1 John iv. 7 : "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and every one THAT LovETH is bom of God, and knovVeth God." Again, chap. v. 1 : "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; and EVERY ONE that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him." Now what shall we speak of the interpreter of God's word, who will gravely tell us, that these universal expressions are to be confined to those who had been immersed? The expression ' whosoever,'' and ' every one,' are as universal as any terms in any language can be. " JJliosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet Mr. Campbell, to sustain his cause, feels obliged to de- clare, that these expressions are to be limited to those who had been immer- sed ! Sorely, indeed, must the cause be pressed, that cannot sustain itself, without resorting to perversions of God's word so glaring and so reckless ! I called on the gentleman to produce a passage of Scripture, which represents being baptized, as obeying the gospel. He refers us to Acts vi. 7: " And a great company of priests were obedient to the faith." And what has this passage to do with the question, whether being baptized is DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 549 called obeying the gospel ? Does he expect us to take it for granted, that baptism is meant, where it is not even distantly alluded to ? The inspired historian says, the priests became obedient to the faith — but he says not a word about baptism. The gentleman asserted most boldly, the other day, that the promise in Galatians iii., referred to the land of Canaan, though Canaan is not mentioned in the whole epistle ; and why should he not find baptism where it is not even hinted at? He has found another passage in Rom. vi. 17 : " But God be thanked that we were the servants of sin ; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." Here, strange to tell, he thinks that to obey the form of doctrine delivered to them, though it is just the opposite of serving sin, is to be immersed ! Obedience to the form of doctrine taught by Paul, is immersion; obedience to the faith is immer- sion; the name of the Lord refers to immersion; sanctification is immer- sion ; every thing in the New Testament is immersion ! ! What a watery affair he would make the gospel ! By the way, he still keeps up the old song about infant baptism. Now if he is really suffering under the conviction of having been defeated in his war against infant baptism, we will give him another trial ; but I am not disposed to discuss two subjects at once. But he finds another passage in Rom. x. 10, v/here baptism is called obeying the gospel ; it is this : " With the heart man believeth unto righteousness Qhat is, unto justification, which is obtained by faith] ; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Yes, confession with the mouth means immersion! Why, the question is not any longer, what passages speak of immersion, but where are any that do not! Having read from Wesley's sermon on justification his real views, I leave Mr. Campbell to make what capital he can by claiming him. He must be in great need of arguments, or he would not drag in those whose views are precisely the opposite of his. Even Calvin cannot escape, although he said in so many words, that Cornelius first obtained remission of sins, and was afterwards baptized, " not with a view to obtain by bap- tism a more ample remission of sins;" and again, that baptism, though mentioned by Peter before remission, really succeeds it ! After all, we are to believe, that Calvin agrees perfecdy with Mr. Campbell, who main- tains that remission of sins is actually obtained in baptism, not before ! The gentleman tell us, he believes in a change of heart. We shall have occasion, in a short time, to inquire into his views on that subject. For the present, therefore, I pass it without particular remark. Every believer, he informs us, will be immersed, unless beguiled by some one to believe that sprinkling is baptism. Who would not sympa- thize with such men as Calvin, Luther, Owen, Scott, and a multitude like them, who spent their lives in the prayerful study of the Scriptures, and, at last, were beguiled into the belief that sprinkling is baptism ? They wished to know and do their duty ; but somebody, it would seem, beguiled them. The Scriptures, we are told, do most clearly teach, that nothing but immersion is baptism ; but such men as those, could not see it. They were beguiled ! ! ! When I hear men uttering such sentiments, I am disposed to think, they prove very conclusively, that they have an €xalted opinion of their own wisdom, and not much correct knowledge of human nature. The gentleman says, he was a Presbyterian, till he was twenty-one years of age; and he imagines, tliat he understands the whole s^'slem q£ 550 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Presbyterianism. Many young men, at that age, think themselves quite profound theologians. He retains the recollection of those youthful con- ceits ; and seems still to think that he had, at that early period, made himself a rallier uncommon divine ! But I am constrained still very much to doubt, wheliier he ever knew mucli of Presbyterianism. But he says, he has met with numbers who, on their death-beds, regretted that they had not been baptized on their own responsibility. This is indeed news ! He is the first man I ever heard say, that he had met with even one case of the kind. I have visited the death-beds of a good many ; and I am acquainted with many ministers who have been in the ministry longer than Mr. C. had lived, when he left the Presbyterian church, at twenty-one ; and I have never heard from any of them of even one such case. Yet Mr. Campbell has met with numbers ! Well, he has seen strange things, and met with singular people in this world ! He quotes McCord as saying, there is no ordinary possibility of sal- vation out of the church. I have no objection whatever to this doctrine. For he who refuses to become a member of the church of Christ, know- ing that God has commanded him to do so, gives evidence, clear and decisive, that he has no true piety, and, of course, cannot be saved. But did McCord say, that the sins of believers are remitted only in bap- tism ? He did not. The gentleman's running after helps so perfectly flimsy, shows how well he understands Presbyterianism, and how deeply he feels that his cause is sinking. These remarks are a sufficient answer to his comments on the language of our confession of faith. As to the doctrine of election, if he really desires to discuss it, I will meet him at a proper time, and give him a fair opportunity to demolish it. I will not now be diverted from the subject before us ; but if he wishes a discussion of that subject, he shall have it. He still magnifies his charity. Let me give you some little evidence of the liberality and charity he exliibits : Christianity Restored, p. 240; "Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent pagans, wherever they can be found, wiili. all the pious Pedo-baptists, we commend to the mercy of God." Again, an objection is presented and answered as fol- lows: "But do not many of them [unimmersed persons]] enjoy the present salvation of God?" Mr. C. answers, " How far they may be happy in the peace of God, and the hope of heaven, I presume not to say. And we know so much of human nature as to say, that he that imagines himself pardoned, will feel as happy as he that is really so» But one thing we do know, that norie can rationally, and ivith cer- tainty, enjoy the peace of God, and the hope of heaven, but they who intelligently, and in full faith are born of water, or immersed for tlie remission of their si/js." The gentleman is quite charitable indeed, and pious too; for he com- mends pious Pedo-baptists, infants, idiots and pagans to the mercy of God ! But he tells us, the pious Pedo-baptists cannot rationally and with certainty enjoy the hope of heaven! 'J'iiere is, it seems, no cer- tainty that their sins are remitted. Like "his holiness," the pope, he is disposed to admit the possible salvation of the incorrigibly ignorant! The great ignorance of some may put them in a liopeful condition ! If this is liberality and charity, he is welcome to the credit of it. He has read to you some extracts from Witsius on the covenants. I subscribe very cordially to the views expressed by Witsius. He tells us, that baptism, as a seal of the covenant, binds those who receive it, ta DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 551 a holy life — that it is a significant ordinance, pointing to spiritual bless- ings, the putting off the old man, spiritual resurrection, (fee. But does he say, as Mr. C. says, that the sins of the baptized are actuaUij re- mitted in the act of being baptized? He does not — he believed no such thing. The gentleman must be in trouble, or he would not attempt to sustain himself by the authority of men whose views were the antipodes of his, and whose writings are regarded in all our theological seminaries as standard works. The simple truth is, there is just as great (Utference be- tween his views and theirs, as there is between actual remission of sins, and the outward sign and seal of remission. I will now resume the recapitulation of the argument. I have proved, that Mr. C.'s doctrine of baptism in order to remission of sins, Hatly contradicts the repeated, clear, and unequivocal declarations of Christ and his apostles. I have proved it false by the fact, that all who are begotten of God do enjoy remission of sins. The gentleman admits, that all who believe are begotten of God — that they must be begotten before they are baptized. But John the aposde teaches, that every one that is begotten of God, does know God, overcome the world, and has the promise of eternal life. They are, therefore, pardoned before he can get them into the water. I have disproved his doctrine also, from the fact, that all who are born of God do enjoy remission of sins; and the new birth, as 1 have proved, is not essentially connected with baptism, but is a change of heart. This has been proved by a number o^ facts which he has not attempted to deny. He has said, and reiterated, that the confession of faith makes John iii, 5, refer to baptism ; and he charges me with abandoning the creed I have solemnly adopted. But does the confession say, that this passage means christian baptism ? Not a word of it. In the chapter on baptism it does refer to this passage, as illustrating the connection between the emblem and the thing signified. But in the same chapter it refers to Rom. iv. 2, " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had — being yet uncircumcised," &c. £Mr. Campbell. It is not in the same section.] I care not what sec- tion he read. He asserts, that the confession makes John iii. 5, rel'er to baptism, because in the chapter on baptism this passage is quoted ; but I prove, that in the same chapter on baptism, the confession refers to Rom, iv. 2, where the apostle is speaking of circumcision. So, according to the gentleman's logic, the confession makes circumcision mean baptism ! The argument is as conclusive in the one case as in the other. But, if he had been as familiar with Presbyterianism as he would have us believe, he would have known, that in adopting the confession of faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, we do not say, that every reference to Scripture is precisely appropriate. AVe adopt its doctrines as true, but not every reference as correct. I fear the gen- tleman will lind it necessary to go over his theological training again, be- fore he will understand Presbyterianism. It is, then, clear, that the new birth is not at all essentially connected with baptism — that it is a change of heart; that, when the heart is re- newed, the individual is born of God, is a child of God, and an heir to the heavenly inheritance. His sins are remitted. My fourth argument is, that the language of Peter, in Acts ii. 38, does not teach the necessity of baptism in order to remission. Peter said to the inquiring Jews, " Repent, and be baptized in the name of the 552 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Lord Jesus for the remission of sins." Mr. Campbell has said in his Christianity Restored, that "immersion for the forgiveness of sins was the command addressed to these believers;" but this is a very great mis- take. Peter commanded repentance and baptism. Now the question arises, whether repentance or baptism secures remission, or whether both are equally necessary. To determine this question, it becomes necessary to examine several other passages. We will suppose, for the sake of argument, that Peter meant to say, be baptized for or into (eis) the re- mission of sins. Does the word eis, translated for, mean in order to ? Mr. Campbell affirms that it does. I admit, cheerfully, that it sometimes has this meaning, but such is by no means its uniform signification. Let us, then, examine another passage in which we find a precisely similar expression; Matt. iii. 11, •' I indeed baptize you with water inta (eis) repentance." I asked the gentleman whether he believed, that John baptized tlie Jews in order that they might repent — be sorry for their sins 1 He says, no — but he baptized them in order to reforma- tion. But here he meets an insuperable difhculty, making John and Peter contradict each other. John, he says, baptized the Jews in order to reform.ation ; and Peter commanded them first to reform, in order tO' receive baptism ! Did John and Peter thus contradict each other ? If they did not, Mr. Campbell's exposition of their language is certainly- most erroneous. Our interpretation of their teaching makes them per- fectly harmonize. John baptized the Jews into repentance. They came to him confessing their sins, and professing repentance ; and into that professed repentance he baptized them. So on the day of Pentecost the converted Jews, hearing tlie offer of remission of sins through Jesus Christ, and professing to believe ihe proclam.ation and to receive Christ as their Savior, were baptized into this faith, received the sign and seal of that remission, obtained simply by faith. But there is another insuperable difficulty in the way of Mr. C. If,. as he says, the word translated repentance means reformation, and John said, I l^aptize you unto reformation, how are we to understand Peter's second discourse, in which he says — '■'■Reform and be converted?" I have called on the gentleman to tell us, (but I apprehend, he never will do it,) what is the difference between reformation and conversion? In. his translation he has it — " reform, and be converted." I hope he will endeavor to tell us the difference between reformation and conversion. We wish to know, whether Peter said in efiect, reform and be reformed ; or, convert and be converted. Such are some of the iivsuperable diffi- culties attending the doctrine of Mr. C. I have also presented for your consideration a sixth argument against his doctrine and against his interpretation of Peter's language, viz : Faith,, repentance, and conversion mutually imply each other; and, therefore^ remission of sins is promised indiscriminately to each of these graces. It is impossible that any one should have repentance — a change of mind — without conversion — a change of life; and it is impossible that there should be true faith without repentance and conversion. In a word,, where there is repentance, there is faith ; and where there is repentance and faith, there is conversion. These, then, like faith, hope, and charity^ are uniformly found in the same heart. I have asked the gentleman^ whether they can exist separately ; and he pretends not to say, they can. Then, inasmuch as faith, repentance, and conversion uniformly exist together, remission of sins may with perfect propriety be promised to DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 553 either, or to all of them. Accordingly, we do in fact find the inspired writers promising remission to every penitent, to every converted person, to every believer. In the following passages, the remission of sins is pro- mised to repentance: Luke xxiv. 46, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Again — Acts v. 31, "Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. ^^ Again — Acts xi. 18, " When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying. Then hath God also to the gentiles granted repentance unto lifeJ'^ In each of these passages, repentance and remission of sins, or repent- ance and life, are connected together; so that every penitent may be assu- red that his sins are remitted. Remission of sins is also promised to con- version. Matt, xviii, 3, "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Every one, then, who is converted, will enjoy the blessings of God's kingdom. The fact that repentance, faith and conversion, mutually imply each other, and are always found associated, explains the reason why remis- sion of sins is promised indiscriminately to each of these graces. It also reconciles most fully the different directions given to inquiinng minds by Peter and the other apostles. In Peter's first discourse (Acts ii.) he promised remission to those who repented. In his second, (Acts iii.) preaching to another company of inquirers, and, of course, telling them all the conditions of remission of sins, he said, " Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Here baptism is not mentioned, nor is it necessarily implied in repentance and conversion, more than any other duty. Hence the conclusion is most obvious, that Peter did not regard baptism as a prerequisite to the remission of sins. The jailor (Acts xvi.) was commanded simply to believe, and on this one condition salvation was ])romised. It is, then, clear, that forgiveness of sins is promised indiscriminately to repentance, conversion, and faith ; but bap- tism is never mentioned as a prerequisite to remission. When Peter preached to Cornelius, he said not a word about baptism in order to remission of sins. On the contrary, he declared in the most unqualified terms, " In every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him ;" and again — " To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (verses 35, 43.) Did the prophets testify, that remission of sins should be enjoyed through immersion ? From the first discourse of Peter to the end of the New Testament, you cannot find one word about baptism in order to remission of sins. As John baptized into a profession of repentance for remission of sins ; so did Peter baptize into repentance and faith in Christ for remission ; and both John and Peter directed the faitli of the baptized to Christ. But Ananias' language to Paul is brought forward to sustain Mr. C •' Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." But this language is fully explained by the fact staled and proved, that the inspired writers, both of the Old and of the New Testament, constantly connect together the emblem of sanctification with the grace of sanctification — water with the work of the Spirit. This fact aff'ords a satisfactory explanation of all the passages of the New Testament, which have been supposed to favor the doctrine I am opposing. 3A 554 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. My seventh argument against Mr. C.'s doctrine is this: If it be true, multitudes of the most pious and godly persons live and die condemned, and are forever lost. None but immersed persons, he most unequivocally teaches, can have rational evidence of remission. Sins, according to him, are remitted only in baptism. He does, indeed, express the opinion that some unimmersed persons, excluded from the kingdom of God here, may enter the kingdom of glory in heaven. But this opinion is perfectly ab- surd. The Scriptures no where teach, that any whose sins are not remit- ted in this life, will be pardoned in the next. I say, then, if Mr. Camp- bell's doctrine be true, hell will be full of the most godly people who have lived on earth I We have often stood by the dying beds of those who, according to Mr. C.'s views, were never baptized; and we have witnessed their calmness in immediate view of death, the heavenly peace which passeth under- standing, the joyful anticipation of speedily beholding their Redeemer's face without a veil to obscure his glory. We have seen them in this happy frame of mind, bid adieu to all they loved below, and sweetly fall asleep in Christ. But if Mr. C.'s doctrine be true, all this was delusion ; for their sins were yet upon them, and their hopes were speedily blasted ! This doctrine is most palpably contradictory of the Scriptures, which every where promise eternal life to all the righteous, and threaten des- truction only to the wicked. My eighth argument is — that Mr. C.'s doctrine ascribes an unscriptural importance and efficacy to an external ordinance. The Scriptures, as I have proved, every where declare, that the religion of the heart is the one thing needful, and the only thing essential to salvation. On this point I quoted a number of passages, to which the gentleman has attempted no reply. Circumcision was once delayed for forty years with the approba- tion of God, and, therefore, was never considered essential to salvation. Mr. Campbell has but fallen into the common error of human nature. The religion of all pagans consists chiefly in forms and ceremonies. The Jews lost sight of the cross of Christ, to which their bloody sacrifices pointed them, and clung to the mere shadow. They denied the agency of the Holy Spirit, of which their ablutions were but emblems, and fondly imagined that by their multiplied washings they might be acceptable to God. They were assiduous in cleansing the outside of the cup and the platter, leaving the inside polluted and defiled. It is, I say, the error of human nature. Our Savior never found it necessary to reprove the Jews for undervaluing external rites ; but often did he condemn them, for ascribing to them an efficacy they did not pos- sess. The christian church was filled with corruption by the same error. The bread and the wine in the Lord's supper, designed to be a memorial of his death, were supposed to have attached to them some mysterious effi- cacy ; the partaking of them was deemed necessary to salvation ; and, finally, men, in the perfection of their folly, imagined that the bread and wine were actually changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ! They lost sight of the cross and the atonement; and their faith terminated on the mere symbols. By a similar process and from a similar cause baptism began to be thought essential to salvation ; then an efficac)^ was ascribed to it in secu- ring the purification of the soul from sin ; and to add to its virtue, water was consecrated, that the ordinance might be administered with holy ivater. Such is the progress Rome has made in making a Savior of external rites. DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 555 I have been surprised, in looking through Mr. Campbell's writings, to discover, how large a portion of the New Testament he makes to speak of immersion, and what efficacy he ascribes to it. In his debate with McCalla he declares, tliat the immersed believer comes up out of the wd- ter, pure as ait angel! And in looking over his Christianity Restored, I happened to notice liis remarks on Heb. x. 14, " For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified," and I found him para- phrasing it thus: "By one offering up of himself, he has perfected the conscience of the iinmersed or sanctified!'''' p. 247. Yes — he has per- fected forever the immersed! ! ! Sanctification means immersion, and indeed, with him, every thing seems to run into the water ! — [Time ex- pired. Friday, Nov. 24—8 o'clock, P. M. [mr. Campbell's tenth address.] Mr. President — This is my last address on this proposition, and having to touch upon numerous topics, I must, therefore, touch upon them lightly. Most of the important matters have been repeatedly ad- verted to, and are gone to record; therefore little need be said upon them. Whatever replies have been made to my regular arguments, if I have not adverted to them, it is because I have not noted them down, or supposed them to be worthy of any special attention. On this question, as generally before, we have had no real debate. The main points op which I relied, stated in my first speech, and in some of the others, are unreplied to, and some of them almost, if not altogether, unnoticed. My friend sometimes assumes to be facetious, and sometimes acrimonious ; but in his last essay has addressed himself rather to your liumor, than to your judgment or conscience. The following items have been repeatedly adverted to, or hinted at, during the investigation of this question 1. While we regard immersion, or christian baptism, as a wise, bene- volent, and useful institution, we neither disparage, nor underrate, a new heart, repentance, or faith ; nay, we teach with great clearness and defi- niteness, that unpreceded by faith and repentance, it is of no value what- eoever. These two constitute a change of heart, a mental conversion ; for all believing penitents have a new heart, and are prepared for being born into the kingdom of God. 2. But in the second place, we insist upon the essential importance of baptism, as a divine institution, because Jesus Christ enacts no superflui- ties. In his religion there is not one ordinance tliat is not essential for some purpose ; all-important to christian life, health, or usefulness. Not one of them, therefore, can with safety be dispensed with. Who, then, think you, acts more rationally ; he that practically maintains faith, re- pentance, and baptism ; or he that dispenses with any one of them, as, in his judgment, unnecessary or inexpedient? The strongest argument for any thing, and the best reason for doing any thing, is, that the Lord Jesus Christ has commanded it. A sound discretion, and a sound judg- ment, give to every thing its proper place, and no more. Neither faith, nor repentance, nor baptism, severally, nor altogether, are every thing in religion. But each one of them is indispensable, and no one of them can be a substitute for another. A person is not to be justified nor saved by faith alone. No man can trifle with baptism, so long as he remembers that Jesus said, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." What God has joined together, let no man separate. During the controversy on the design of baptism, up to this moment. 556 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. we have not heard of any benefit whatever which it confers upon an in- fant. While I have been elaborating the important design of baptism, I had hoped that, if my opponent would not accede to my views on that subject, he would, at least, give us a clear numerical statement of the practical benefits resulting to his subjects of baptism. He has not been able to mention one benefit which baptism confers upon his true and pro- per subjects of it; for baptism, to an unconscious babe, imparts neither knowledge, nor faith, nor repentance, nor forgiveness, nor health, nor I'iches, nor long life, nor any good thing, temporal, spiritual, or eternal. In the name of common sense and reason, then, what has this controver- sy been about? If my friend triumphs, who has gained any thing? It re- cognizes a right ; but then the right is there, whether recognized or not It is born in the church, and, therefore, baptism is not a door into any thing — and what are all church birthrights to it ! They guaranty nothing. It is a grand superlative nullity. I do beseech and implore the gentle- man to stand up to his task now, and tell us what are the advantages, be- nefits, and privileges of infant baptism ? When he recounts them, fellow- citizens, mark them down, and ponder them well. 4. " Them that honor me," says Jesus, " I will honor." Now there is a pleasure, an ineffable pleasure, in obeying Jesus Christ. In magnifying his institutions we honor him, and we are honored ; in magnifying them we cannot err. It was " his meat and his drink to do the will of him that sent him." One of the benefits of the institution is, that it affords a person a fine opportunity to honor the Lord. The more shame, reproach, and contumely, the better. And if there be none of these, then there is the pure, unalloyed joy of sincere personal consecration ; of giving one's self away to the Lord ; of entering into a solemn and everlasting covenant with the Lord. Millions of ages to come, there will be millions in para- dise who will be delighted to revert to some river, or pool, or fountain, in which they put on Christ, and vowed eternal allegiance to him. 5. Mr. Rice says, many good and pious persons live, die, and go to hell, on my principles. On his own fallacious inferences, he should have said. This is, truly, an astonishing conclusion. It is, certainly, the result of a morbid state of the system. I should prescribe medicine, rather than ar- gument, in this case. We send none to perdition but those who disbe- lieve and reject the gospel. And is it an unfavorable aspect of our reli- gion, that it does not promise eternal life to those who disbelieve and disobey it! No good — no religious, moral, or virtuous man, can perish through our views or principles. Our theory thunders terrors to none but the self-condemned. Human responsibility, in my views and doctrines, al- ways depends upon, and is measured by, human ability. It is so, cer- tainly, under the gospel. The man born blind will not be condemned for not seeing, nor the deaf for not hearing. The man who never heard the gospel, cannot disobey it; and he who, through any physical impos- sibility, is prevented from any ordinance, is no transgressor. It is only he who knows, and has power to do, his Master's will, that shall be pun- ished for disobedience. None suffer, in our views, but those who are wilfully ignorant, or negligent of their duty. Natural ability, time, place, and circumstances, are all to be taken into the account ; and none but those who sin against these, are, on our theory, to perish with an ever- lasting destruction, "from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." Infants dying, need neither faith, repentance, nor bap- DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 557 tism, in order to their salvation, according to the Bible. They died in the first Adam, but the second Adam died for them, and they shall live with him. 6. Great men often believe great nonsense. St. Peter's church is filled with the busts of a thousand saints who were learned and pious teachers of transubstantiation, auricular confession, and purgatory ; who prayed to the Virgin Mary and to dead men. There are learned Protestants, and there are learned Papists, but the latter are more numerous than the for- mer; consequently, neither learning, nor genius, nor talent, nor numbers, are tests of truth, or a proof that any tenet, custom, or tradition is ca- nonical or useful. 7. Another particular observation in this summary which, I presume, you have made, and which I am sorry to be constrained to make, is the manner of proof adopted by Mr. Rice. He and I calculate very differ- ently on the audience. I have been accustomed to give scriptural and rational proof of every proposition to those who wait on my ministra- tions ; but it appears that he is accustomed to inform his audience that he has proved his proposition, and seems to regard the phrases "it is so " and " it is not so," as most satisfactory evidence. Can any of you, my friends, recollect a proposition agreed upon, which he attempted to prove by any regular train of reasonings or facts ; or any one of mine, that has been assailed by him in any other way than by assertions and denials ? If you do, I must say I do not remember it. 8. I need not attempt a recapitulation of the arguments offered on this occasion. It would be to reiterate much of my first address, as well as portions of others. Of the fourteen arguments advanced on this subject, not one has been formally assailed. A few of them have been noticed in an allusive manner, but perhaps one half of them has not been even allu- ded to. Assumed contradictions in my writings and Mr. R.'s theory of Uie new birth, matters wholly foreign here, left but little time for the pro- per business of my respondent. I made the precepts and positive decla- rations of the New Testament, the basis of all my arguments. Several of them were direct precepts — each of them a formal " thus saith the Lord." The first of these, introduced by the Holy Spirit himself on the day of Pentecost, is itself alone sufficient, when all its circumstances are maturely considered. The solemn precept, obeyed by three thousand in one day, has itself alone satisfied many myriads now living and millions dead. And had it been proclaimed to all the world and been believed, would not the result have been the same ? Peter inseparably connected repentance and baptism, as necessary to a plenary remission of sin. It is still the same as at the beginning — the law has not been changed. 9. The Messiah himself, too, connected faith, baptism, and salvation together in the commission, as reported by John Mark. Is he not paramount authority ? What better guaranty than, "//e that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?'''' Who can ask more. The heavens will fall before the Lord's word will fail. Thus saith the Lord, "jHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved^ 10. This is a saying for which Mr. R. has yet had no use. Peter's sayings and those of the Lord Jesus are not for one age, nation, or condi- tion of men ; but for all nations, ibr all ages, for the human race. Jesus commanded this annunciation to be made to every creature — preach the tame gospel to the four quarters of the world. 11. When Jesus sent Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, he also instructed 3a2 558 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. him to say to the anxious and inquiring Paul, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, caUing upon the name of the Lord." Does not this also indicate a clear fixedness of plan, a Divine uniformity in administer- ing remission and salvation in the gospel age ? 12. But take one more, and leave all the other arguments. Take the aged, venerable, authoritative Peter in the prospect of soon seeing the Lord. Peter, in his catholic epistle, does more than John the apostle. John only alludes to the subject of baptism, but Peter strongly maintains his Pentecostal address. He says, speaking of Noah's salvation in water and by water, that we are saved in water and by water, as Noah in the ark was saved through the deluge. To which salvation, neither to the ark nor to the water alone, baptism corresponds as an antitype to a type, in saving those who enter the water as Noah entered the deluge, relying upon God's promises — thus seeking and obtaining the answer of a good conscience towards God ; always the effect of remission, through faith in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He who cannot find a good foundation on such authorities as these, to name no other, is not to be reasoned with by moral arguments. Neither Peter nor the Messiah was afraid of any unfavorable inferences from their use of the word saved. Some have wondered why our Lord did not place some of the social virtues immediately in association with faith, when he said, " He that believeih and , &c., shall be saved." None of our opposing cotemporaries would have supplied the blank with the words " and is baptized." Peter, then, and his Master, sustain our use of this style of address, and authorize our conclusions also. Should I err in following such authorities, I place between me and my Lawgiver and Judge the fact, that I stand behind all the apostles. What I say to my hearers, I have caught from the lips of those inspired pillars of the christain temple. When any one asks me ivhat he must do to be saved? so soon as I ascertain his position, whether he be a believer, an unbeliever, or a penitent, I tender to him some one of the answers given by the authority of the Lord. I do not give the same answer to every inquirer, because the apostles did not. Their respective characters call for answers suited to them. To every believing querist, I give the answer that Peter gave on the ever-memorable Pentecost, believing that if the whole world had then been present, and joined in the same query, he would have given the same answer to all. Men had better take care how they handle coals of fire. The word of God is not to be misapplied with impunity. Has he said, and shall he not do it ? Has he spoken, and shall it not come to pass ? The heavens and earth may pass away, but his word will never pass away. I should become a Presbyterian before to-morrow's dawn, if the book of God com- manded me. My religion changed me once, and it would change me ten times, if I could only find one, ''thus saith the Lord'''' for it. I set out to know the truth, the whole truth, and to obey it in all things. I have consecrated myself to its maintenance, and vowed to follow where it leads the way. 13. As to our charity — what an insulted word! As to our charity! Then, if charity consist in firmly and affectionately stating the truth to those who design to know it, we are most charitable. But, if charity mean flattery — saying to all, you are right — you are in the way to bles- sedness, whether or not, then are we most uncharitable, for we will not say so. And if charity mean hoping all things, I am willing to say, that DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 559 I do sincerely rejoice, that simple, honest mistakes, where they are not the result of corruption of heart, will not, in my opinion, preclude any Pedo-baptist from heaven, although on earth he should, through his mis- takes, never enjoy the full reign of heaven in his soul. The Judge of all the earth will do right. I circumscribe not the Divine philanthropy — the Divine grace. I dare not say that there is no salvation in the church of Rome, or in that of Constantinople ; though, certainly, Protestants do not regard them as churches builded upon the foundation of apostles and pro- phets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone. In all the Protestant parties there are many excellent spirits, that mourn over the desolations of Zion — that love the gospel and its author most sincerely. My soul re- joices in the assurance that there are very many excellent spirits groaning under the weight of human tradition and error, who are looking for re- demption from these misfortunes before a long time. I do not believe that pagans or infants will be condemned for not believing the gospel. Nay, my exposition of that document, given in this debate, confines it only to those who hear it. Still, I must say, that, in my full conviction, and as- surance of faith, it is only the man who believes and obeys the original gospel, who repents of his sins, and is immersed for the remission of them, that can enter into the full and true enjoyment of the reign of God within the heart. 14. I said nothing on the subject of election, to call for any expression on the form of a challenge for the discussion of that question. The gen- tleman has, I think, enough on hand at present, without the burthen of Calvinian election. His proposition to debate that subject was wholly gratuitous and uncalled for. 15. There are yet one or two points that I shall touch very lightly. There is one good effect in christian baptism, on which 1 have not dwelt. It is its direct influence upon the baptized. It gives, indeed, a very strong impulse to the intelligent subject of it. He feels a solemn transition from one state to another. It is most solemnly impressive, inasmuch as he feels himself voluntarily putting on the Lord and Savior of the world ; he feels himself partaking with the Savior in his death, burial and resurrection, and giving himself away to the Lord for time and for eternity — an event wor- thy of everlasting remembrance. It, therefore, gready exercises the faith, hope, love and zeal of every intelligent and conscientious subject of it. I would not deprive my son, or my daughter, by my ofRciousness, from this most sublime pleasure, for all the honors, emoluments and privileges of the Roman hierarchy. I will teach them its meaning, its importance, its rich and liberal blessings ; I will then leave it to themselves to act, to choose the time, and the place, and the circumstances. I will tell them of that preparation of heart necessary to a proper reception of it, and of the sweet peace, and joy, and love, which follow in its train, and then leave them to the Lord and themselves. My time, almost expired, admonishes me to say a word upon the catholicity of our views. We have an eye single to the union of all chris- tians on the old foundations. I would not hold an heretical or schis- matical tenei for any consideration that could be presented to me. Now it so happens, that, although my very worthy friend, Mr. Rice, would represent me as most exclusive in my views and feelings ; nay, as con- signing to perdition all who are not immersed ! I am, on the whole doctrine of baptism, action, subject, and design, much more catholic in every respect than he. 660 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Suppose now, one great convention of the christian world had met to fix upon some basis of" union and communion, and that they had agreed upon one single point, viz : — that wliatever views were most generally- believed, and first those that were universally believed, should be accept- ed and incorporated, instead of those believed by a minority. Baptism comes before the convention: the question is first upon the action ; a part vote for sprinkling, as valid baptism, a part for pouring, but all agree that immersion is valid baptism. It is, therefore, put down as catholic, and the other two as sectarian. Next comes the subject of baptism : a part admit that an infant, without faith, is a proper subject, but only a part. But when the question is put, Is a professed, penitent believer, a proper subject, all the world says, Yes. This, then, is catholic; while an infant, as a subject, is sectarian. Finally, the design of baptism is canvassed. Some say it is a door into the church ; others, a recognition that one is a member of the church ; a third, that it is for the sake of christening, or giving a name. In none of these is there any approach to catholicity. But when its being for a " pledge of remission of sins, and of our in- grafting into Christ," is offered, the whole world, Greek, Roman, and all, unite in that view of it. This, then, is catholic, and the others sectarian. Are we not, then, most catholic on this subject? Why not, then, sacra- fice that which is so sectarian, and unite in one Lord, one faith, and one immersion ? Finally, fellow-citizens, it is the immediate duty of all who have not been immersed, to be immersed into the sacred name, for this richest of heaven's blessings, the privileges and immunities of the new kingdom and constitu- tion. It is a matter, if neglected, sometimes of long and bitter repentance, but when submitted to in faith, it is never to be repented of. No one has yet said, on a dying bed, that he regretted his having been immersed, while thousands have repented at last, that they had not so honored the Lord. I have time only to add my unfeigned desires, that you may solemnly weigh all that you have heard on the present occasion, bring it all to the solemn and ultimate judge of all controversies, that holy Oracle, and speedily decide for yourselves, what you ought to do. It is all-important that you know the truth — that you obey the truth — and that you send it, with your commendations, to all your friends, neighbors, and fellow- citizens, and that this be done immediately. All of which I submit, with my kindest wishes, for your individual happiness, temporal and eternal. [Time expired. Friday, Nov. 24—85 o'clock, P. M. [mr. rice's concluding reply. 1 Mr. President — It is one of the most difficult Aings imaginable to nnswer an exhortation. Indeed I do not know that it is necessary to answer the gentleman's exhortation to us, not to pervert the Bible. It was well enough, only very much out of place. Who claims the right to pervert the Bible, or to alter what God has said ? His pathetic exhor- tation certainly implies, that every one is guilty of the awful sin of per- verting the Bible, who ventures to demur to his interpretation of it. This, I presume, is not quite true. I think it within the bounds of pos- sibility, that a man might ditTer from him on some important points, and yet be not guilty of wresting the Scriptures. I have preached so much •gainst the infallibility of uninspired men, that I cannot now consent to DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 561 place my friend, Mr. C, in St. Peter's chair. I denounce no man be- cause he does not think precisely as I think, and teach just as I teach. "To his own Master he standeth or falleth." Nor do I intend to make an exhortation which would imply such a charge. On this occasion, I prefer argument to declamation. Mr. Campbell commenced his speech by asking, which is the safer course, to take repentance, faith, and baptism, or to say that baptism is a matter of no importance ? This question, if it has any pertinency, im- plies, that we regard it as a matter of indiiference, whether persons sub- mit to baptism or not. But does not every body know, that such is not the fact? What says our confession on this subject? "Although it be at great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenera- ted or saved without it," &c. Do we maintain, that it is a matter of in- difference ? Have I not repeatedly said, that the man who wilfully ne- glects the ordinance of baptism, proves thereby that he is destitute of piety, and cannot be saved ? Why does the gentleman indulge in repre- sentations so contrary to our known views ? What does he expect to gain by it ? Faith alone, he 'says, never secured pardon to any one. If by faith alone he means faith that produces no obedience, we hold to no such faith. Our confession, as I have proved, says, that faith is never alone, but is ever accompanied by other graces, and leads to good works. By faith we receive the Lord Jesus as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctifica- lion, and redemption ; and repentance and conversion, as I have proved, universally accompany faith. " This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." .1 have said nothing about faith alone, but faith that works by love, and leads to uniform obedience. I can conceive of no reason for such representations as the gentleman has made, unless it be, that he has no arguments to offer. But on the subject of baptism, in order to the remission of sins, he breaks out in a pious strain, and tells us, that he cannot honor his Mas- ter too much by magnifying the value of his ordinances. True, he can- not honor Christ too much; and we are not at all sensible that we dis- honor liim, when we differ from Mr. C. concerning the relation baptism sustains to the plan of salvation. Allow me to illustrate the force of his pious remarks. An architect is erecting a splendid building. The materials are all collected together; and the building is going up. One of the workmen insists on making a pillar of a piece of timber intended for a rafter. Another, better skilled in the science of architecture, remonstrates against this course; but his zealous fellow-lal)orer replies — 'I cannot honor my employer too much. He is a wise and good man; and the more importance I give this piece of timber, the more I shall honor him.' The reasoning of the misguided architect would be just as good as that of my friend. We are trying to ascertain the place, in tlie temple of trulli, which baptism was designed, by the Great Master, to occupy ; but my pious friend is disposed to in- dulge his good feelings, and he exclaims — ' Oh, I cannot honor my Mas- ter too much. The greater the importance and the efficacy we ascribe to it, the move we shall honor him !' Such appeals may work on the minds of the weak, but they are not argument, nor do they prove, that we lienor our Savior by assigning to baptism a place he did not design it to occupy. The gentleman tells us, he knows the strength and the weakness of 36 562 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Presbyterianism. He may, on this occasion, have learned something of its strength: but I doubt whether he has discovered its weakness. I can scarcely bring myself to believe, that at the age of twenty-one he was so profound a theologian as he seems to imagine. Doubtless he thinks, that he knows the strength and the weakness of our cause ; and doubtless he is mistaken. This is sufficiently evident, from the repeated and glar- ing misrepresentations of our doctrine he has made during this discussion. He intimates, that for conscience' sake he gave up a very flattering re- ligion. I will not charge him with being influenced by unworthy mo- tives ; but, most certainly, he has gained vastly more fame and applause, than he ever could have secured, had he become a Presbyterian minister. Whether he was seeking fame, is not for me to decide ; but that he has adopted the very best plan to gain it, is certain. So that, as things have turned out, he cannot be considered a martyr, nor even accounted a sufferer by his change. As to his charity, of which he entertains a very exalted opinion, I will refer the audience to the opinion of his brother, Dr. Fishback, who pronounces his views, on this subject, more sectarian and illiberal, than entertained by any person known to him ! His opin- ion is entitled to consideration ; for he is not under the influence of un- kind feelings toward Mr. C. If I had expressed such an opinion, you might, with some reason, suspect that it was the efiect of prejudice ; but, when it is expressed by an intimate friend, there is every reason to be- lieve it to be well founded. I make against him no heavier charge, than his own friends prefer. It is admitted, he has expressed the opinion that it is possible for some unimmersed persons to be saved ; but it is certain that his doctrine and his opinion are contradictory — both cannot be true. His doctrine is, that baptism is necessary to the remission of sins ; and his opinion is, that in many cases it is not necessary. The question then arises — i)i what cases is baptism necessary, since he admits it is not necessary in all? It would certainly be difficult to decide. I cannot reconcile his faith and his opinion ; but I am now concerned only with the former. Peter, the gentleman correctly supposes, would have preached to all the world the same doctrine he preached on the day of Pentecost. True : but he did not always or ever teach that baptism is necessary to remis- sion of sins. I have said, and I think I have proved, that the Lord never did suspend the salvation of a soul upon an external ordinance. Ordi- nances are important in their place. They are designed to be means of grace — aids to lead to holiness of heart and life. But it will scarcely be denied, that persons may by the grace of God be sanctified without the privilege of participating in all the ordinances appointed for the edificati !>n of the church. And if the end be secured with a part of the means which might assist us, who shall say that the soul will be lost ? The gentleman's own friends have proclaimed him inconsistent in hi? different publications. Some time since, he expressed the opinion that there were some christians amongst " the sects." A zealous sister in his church was rather disturbed by this charitable announcement, and forth with wrote to him for an explanation. He still adhered to his charitable view ; whereupon a number of his friends found much fault with him, and charged him with having abandoned his former ground and weakened their efforts in the good cause of reformation. They continued to press him rather severely, and at last he was brought so nearly to what they deemed orthodoxy, that he only gave it as his opinion that the salvation of DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 553 unimmersed persons is '■'■ possible " writing the word in italics! His charity, which at first appeared somewhat expansive, dwindled down to a mere point, a bare possibility ! ! ! He says, he is not accustomed to make assertions without proof, and expect the people to believe him. It was very important, indeed, that he should inform the audience of this fact ; for very many are of opinion, that he has abounded in unproved assertions during this discussion. If he had not informed them to the contrary, they would, in all probability, have concluded that such is his general practice ; and indeed if it is not-, he has certainly done himself injustice on this occasion. Another piece of information which was much needed, is, that I have not answered one half of his arguments. I am quite certain that a large number of intelligent persons really believed, that I had answered the whole fourteen ; though I did not number them one, two, three, &c. But every passage of Scripture on which he relied to prove his doctrine, I think I have fairly examined, and have proved that it will not sustain his ar- gument. He has relied mainly on the language of Peter, (Acts ii. 38 ;) and I have proved, as I think, that Peter did not teach that baptism is necessary to the remission of sins. I maintain, that he preached the same condi- tions of remission in his second discourse, where baptism is not men- tioned, as in his first; and the same to Cornelius as to those at Jerusalem. The question is, not whether we shall believe Peter, but ivhat did Peter say ? The gentleman seems disposed to make the impression, that we are refusing to believe Peter's doctrine. What did Peter say ? Accord- ing to Mr. C.'s interpretation, he made baptism as necessary as repent- ance to remission of sins — necessary, of course, in all cases, for no ex- ception is intimated. Then if we are to take Peter's doctrine, let us take all that he taught. But this Mr. C. will not agree to do; for whilst his interpretation of Peter's language makes baptism necessary to remission in all cases, he now declares his belief, that it is necessary only in some cases, and in others it is not ! I maintain that what God has declared without qualification to be neces- sary to salvation, is necessary in all cases. Mr. C has said, that God made repentance and immersion equally necessary to remission of sins. But if immersion and repentance are equally necessary, how can he now admit that the former is necessary only in some cases, and not in all ? Moreover, in his debate with McCalla, as I have proved, he declared his belief that Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed. He does not profess to have changed his views on this subject. He has admitted every thing for which I am contending, and yet he says I am in the wrong, and he in the right ! I cannot reconcile his sayings and doings. But I quoted, amongst others, one passage of Scripture which is of itself, if there were not another, a full and complete refutation of the gentleman's doc- trine ; and I have not been able to get his attention to it, even to this good hour. Indeed, I had but little hope that he would see it, for none are so blind as he who will not see. The passage is this — " He that beUeveth on him is not condemned," He tells us, that he will place the apostles between him and the Judge, when he shall account for the doctrines he has preached. Such language may, perhaps, be an evidence of his sincerity in believing them ; but it is no argument to prove them true. He reiterates the declaration, that when John the apostle says, 564 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God," the word whosoever must be confined to the members of the church ; that is, whosoever in that church believed! Let me read one passage in that episde, that you may judge of the correctness of this principle of inter- pretation. Chapter iii. 10: "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." That is, according to Mr, C.'s interpretation, whosoever of the immersed persons, members of the church, doeth not righteousness, is not of God ! But we are not, accord- ing to him, to apply this language to any but church members ! I am truly surprised that any tolerable scholar should attempt to put such a construction upon the plainest language. - When I say, whosoever takes arsenic will die, I do not mean persons in Kentucky or America simply, but the whole human race. John Avas describing christian character, and he said, whosoever of the human race believes that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. Whosoever — why, it is the most comprehensive ex- pression in any language. And this is the only method he coidd devise, to evade the force of the fact, that all who are begotten of God, bap- tized or not, are children of God, and enjoy remission of sins, a7id pro- mise of eternal life J ! ! My friend, Mr. C, seems not to be able to see any advantage to be derived from the ordinance of baptism, unless it be necessary to secure re- mission of sins. He might as well take the same position in regard to the Lord's supper. I might ask him, of what use is the Lord's supper, if remission of sins can be obtained before partaking of it ? What is the use of prayer, preaching, and other appointed means of grace ? Much is to be done for us, and by us, after our sins are forgiven, before we can be prepared for heaven. Baptism, therefore, may and does answer im- portant purposes, both to adults and to infants, though remission of sins is not obtained in the act of receiving it. It is the seal of the covenant of grace — a pledge to infant and adult, that so soon and so long as the conditions of that covenant are complied with, remission of sins shall be enjoyed. It is, then, a means of confirming and strengthening our faith. I must now notice the vote proposed by the gentleman to prove the catholicity of his principles. As he, the other day, engrossed three cov- enants in two ; so, on this occasion he has engrossed the three subjects we have discussed, in one. He tells us, if the question be put to all Christ- endom— Is pouring or sprinkling right? — many will vote in the negative ; but put the question — Is immersion right ? — and all, he says, will say. Yes. I do not think they would. I rather think that there are vast mul- titudes who would say, No, very decidedly. If the question were, whether remission is valid, there might be a tolerably unanimous vote ; for many would vote that it is valid, who do not believe that it is the scrip- tural mode. But if they must vote whether it is right or ivrong, they will vote in the negative ; and, if the gentleman would convince them that the mode is essential to the validity of the ordinance, and then put the question — Is immersion valid? — they will say, No. Again, he puts the question. Is adult baptism right? All, as he truly says, vote in the affirmative. But I do not like the form of the question. Let us state it a little differently, thus : Is it right for believing parents to neglect or refuse to have their children baptized ? From east, west, north and south, a thousand to one, they ansAver, No. The Greek church, with ten thousand tongues, and almost all the christian churches on earth, DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. ^Q^ say, No. Put the question in the other form — Is it the duty of believing parents to have their chiklren baptized ? — the same immense muhitude answer, Yes. Are we, then, to do violence to our judgment and our conscience, to neglect or refuse to do what we believe God commands, in order to bring about a union with the few who differ from us ? Shall the consciences of the thousand yield to the scruples oi one? The ques- tion is not, whether adult baptism is right ; but whether it is the solemn duty of believing parents to give their children to God in the ordinance of baptism ? and on this question, we shall outvote the gentleman by an overwhelming majority. The third question was put as unfairly as the others. He would have us vote, whether a baptized believer is pardoned. But let the question be stated fairly. It is this : Is a penitent believer condemned until he is immersed ? The vote will be, ten thousand to one, against the gentleman. Is the man forgiven, who is sincerely penitent, confesses and forsakes his sins, and with an humble faith casts himself at the feet of Jesus, and, like the publican, prays — " God be merciful to me a sinner ?" Let this ques- tion be put to vote, and from east and west, north and south, all, with the exception of a mere handfuU, who profess to take the Bible as their infal- lible guide, will vote in the affirmative. Present the case of the man who lies on his sick bed, and never can, or never will be immersed, but who exercises an humble faith in Christ, as his wisdom, righteousness, sanc- tification, and redemption, and ask the christian world — those whose in- fallible guide is the word of God, whether the Scriptures contain a pro- mise of salvation to such an individual ? And again the almost unbroken voice is in the affirmative. And this decision, let it be noted, is not given as an opinion, but as the clear and uniform teaching of the word of God. The hopes of such an individual are based on promises too clear to be misunderstood; and though he cannot, or believes he should not be immersed, he can safely rest on those promises, and rejoice in his dying hour. Let the question be fairly stated, and we are ready to take the vote. The genUeman, not- withstanding his remarkable catholicity, will be found in a very, very small minority. I have now given Mr. Campbell full time to bring forward all his ar- guments. I could have sustained the doctrine for which I contend, in a shorter time. You have now heard him at length ; and the plain facts which I have presented, proving his doctrine unscriptural, are before you. It certainly contradicts a large class of the plainest declarations of Christ and his apostles ; " He that believeth on him is not condemned." Every believer is pardoned and justified. Such is the language of our Savior. It requires no criticism ; it admits of but one interpretation. Language cannot be plainer. The book of revelation is like the book of nature. The most unlettered man can learn when to sow, what to sow, and when to reap ; and how to protect himself and his family from the in- clemency of the season. So in the word of God, the conditions of pardon and salvation are presented with so much simplicity and clearness, and are so variously illustrated, that the wayfaring man, though unlearned, need not err. When persons of common understanding, not blinded by prejudice, read those plain declarations of our Savior, what do they un- derstand him to mean? " He that believeth on him is not condemned." *' He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." " He that believ- eth, shall never thirst," "He that believeth hath everlasting life, and 3B 566 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." These, and a multitude of passages like them, are too plain to be misun- derstood. They directly contradict the doctrine, that baptism, especially immersion, is necessary in order to receive remission of sins. The plain facts I have presented before you, sustained by a large num- ber of scriptures, prove, conclusively, the erroneousness of the doctrine of Mr. Campbell. The period is not distant when we, speakers and hearers, shall stand before the Judge of the living and the dead, to give account of our faith and our lives. I desire you, my friends, to examine this subject, as for eternity. Your eternal interests are as intimately con- nected with it, as mine. I leave you to make your decision, whether the gentleman has proved, that baptism is necessary to secure the remission of sins — whether the penitent believer is condemned, until he is immers- ed ! — [Time expired. ^END OF THE THIRD PROPOSITION.] PROPOSITION FOURTH. Baptism is to he Administered only by a Bishop or Ordained Presbyter. Mr. Rice affirins. Mr. Campbell denies. Saturday, Nov. 24 — 10 o'clock, A. M. [mr. rice's opening address.] Mr. President — The proposition for discussion this morning, is the following: Baptism is to he administered only by a bishop or ordained presbyter. This I affirm, and Mr. Campbell denies. In explanation of the proposition, allow me to state, that the terms bishop and presbyter we regard as two Scripture names for the same office. The word episcopos, translated bishop in the New Testament, signifies an overseer ; and it seems to have been used to denote the min- isterial office, because the presbyters or ministers of Christ are required to watch over the interests of his church and people. The proposition before us assumes, that presbyters and bishops hold the same office in the church. The doctrine, then, for which I feel bound to contend, is — that the Scriptures authorize none but bishops or presbyters, properly ordained, to adi«inister the ordinance of baptism. The audience perceive, at once, the precise point in debate. Mr. Campbell maintains, that every member of the church, male and female, young and old, has the right to adminis- ter this solemn and important ordinance. Against this latitudinarian doc- trine I enter my protest, and offer my reasons. As we have agreed to occupy but a single day in the discussion of this proposition, I design to present very briefly the arguments which appear to me to sustain the proposition I affirm. The baptism of an individual, especially of an adult, on profession of his faith, I think it will be admitted, is an important event in his life ; whether considered with reference to himself, or with reference to the interests of the church of Christ. Considered with reference to himself, it is important, for several reasons : 1. Baptism is an ordinance by which he who receives it, on profession of his faith, is recognized as a disciple of Christ, and admitted to a stand- ing in his family. If he be a true christian, his spiritual interests are f»romoted by the reception of the ordinance ; but if he be deceived, he is ikely to be confirmed in his error. He persuades himself that he has obeyed an important command of the Savior. He is recognized by chris- tians as a brother. His conscience ceases to warn him of his guilt and danger; his fears of future punishment subside; and he cherishes a delu- sive hope, perhaps, to the last moment of his life. Or, overborne by the temptations and unhallowed influences of the world, he turns again to his former course, and his conscience is " seared as with a hot iron." Such an individual has received an irreparable injury. 2. Baptism introduces the professed believer to privileges in the 567 568 ' DEBATE ON THE church which, without true piety, he cannot enjoy or improve to his spiritual edification. Attendance upon the ordinances of God's house with an impenitent, unbeUeving, unrenewed heart, will involve him in guilt far more aggravated, than if he had remained in the world. Of the Lord's supper, to which of course he approaches, it is said — " He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to him- self." Equally true is it of all other privileges enjoyed by the church of Christ, that they prove a curse, not a blessmg, to him who possesses not the spirit of the gospel. 3. As baptism introduces the professed believer to privileges which an unbeliever cannot improve ; so it devolves upon him duties which none can discharge, but they who have been born again. He sustains new relations to the church and to the world ; out of these relations arise du- ties, the proper discharge of which is most important. Not one of those duties can he discharge, unless he be a true disciple of Christ. Conse- quently he is involved in the double guilt of partaking of ordinances he cannot improve, and of binding himself more solemnly to the duties he cannot perform. He is greatly injured. If we consider the baptism of a professed believer with reference to the interests of the church of Christ, it is an important matter. For, 1st. The Head of the church requires that, as far as possible, it shall be kept pure — composed of worthy members. He who, whilst an unbeliever, seeks and obtains admission into the church, not only involves himself in greater guilt, and exposes himself to an aggravated condemnation ; but he contributes in no small degree to draw upon it the frowns and the judg- ments of God. The greatest caution which human wisdom can observe, will not preserve the church entirely free from unconverted communi- cants ; but so long as we remember, that one Achan in the camp of Israel drew upon the whole body the severe chastisements of God ; we cannot but feel, that it is alike the duty and the interest of the church to see to it, as far as possible, that her communicants shall be true believers. 2d. Baptism identities the professed believer with the church. He is regarded by the world as a christian ; and it is a fact, that the great major- ity of unconverted persons form their opinions of Christianity, not so much from what they hear or read of its pure and sublime truths, as from what they see in the conduct of those who profess to have embraced it. They are expected in their daily conduct to illustrate the character and spirit of the gospel on which they profess to rely for salvation. They who are acquainted with the state of things at the present day, must know, that no one cause so retards the progress of the gospel, as the un- godly lives of professors of religion. Multitudes of men are disgusted with religion, and confirmed in infidelity, only or chiefly because they see many occupying a respectable stand as members in real or pretended churches of Christ, whose conduct is, in many respects, more exception- able than that of multitudes who make no pretensions to religion. These things being so, it will not be denied, that it is of the greatest moment to individuals, to the church, and to the world, that as far as possible the doors of the church be guarded, so as to exclude all unworthy persons. In view of these incontrovertible truths, the importance of which we cannot now fully estimate, I emphatically ask. Is it probable that the all- wise and benevolent Savior of men has given to the most ignorant, the most superstitious, and the most rash, as well as to the wisest, the mo&i ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 569 pioKS and prudent members of his church, the right to introduce to its felloivship just such characters as they may choose to baptize? Can any one for a moment believe, that He, who regards the church as the apple of his eye, who has manifested his purpose to make it a pure church — a light of the world — has indeed put the keys of the kingdom into the hands of every individual who may have been admitted to its fellowship, however inexperienced, ignorant or rash ? I might almost venture, without further argument, to pronounce the idea an impossibility. What must inevitably result from granting such authority to every member of the church? Can it be otherwise, than that the church will be speedily filled with unworthy and ungodly persons, who cannot be excommunicated? A single rash, ignorant, or unworthy member, may baptize hundreds like himself, or still worse. These persons must be recognized as members of the church. Consequently its spirituality is gone ; its light is extinguished ; and the curse of God is upon it. Is it within the bounds of possibility, that our Savior, when he sent forth the apostles, so eminently qualified for their responsible work, to baptize and teach, did at the same time throw wide the doors of his church, and commit its purity, and even its existence, to the hands of every man, woman, and child, who might be recognized as a member of it? Do civil governments proceed upon such principles ? Have they not ever found it absolutely necessary to have officers properly appointed to perform every public duty. May every citizen of this commonwealth take it upon himself to act as sheriff, mayor, judge, or president, as he may think proper? Have not all civil governments found it necessary to have officers, whose qualifications are defined by their constitution and laws, appointed to discharge the duties appertaining to every department ? How long would our government exist, if any citizen might, on his own responsibility, presume to act as sheriff, judge, president, &;c. ? How long would it be, till we should be involved in anarchy, war, and blood ? If civil governments cannot subsist without offices, and officers regularly appointed to discharge the duties connected with them, how can the king- dom of Christ on earth prosper, or even exist, if every member may, on his own responsibility, perform the duties connected with its most impor- tant offices ? If the doctrine of Mr. Campbell be true, the church contains within itself the elements of its own destruction. The doctrine is, that every member of the church may administer bapfism. A child of six or eight years of age may believe in Christ, and be admitted to membership in his church. Now for a moment contemplate the possible results of the doctrine of the gentleman. There is a little girl ten years of age, who has been baptized, and is a member of the church. She, according to this doctrine, has the right to baptize other litde girls of ten, eight, or six years of age. And that little boy, of similar age, may baptize his comrades of the same age, or younger, as his prudence may dictate ! The servant, who was baptized last sabbath, though profoundly ignorant of almost the alphabet of Christianity, may, on the next sabbath, baptize as many of his fellow-servants as he can induce to say, they believe that Christ is the Son of God ! All this and more may occur, according to the doctrine of my friend, without the violation of one law of the king- dom ! ! ! The little girl, the boy, and the servant, have only exercised their inalienable rights. There is not only no law against what they have done, but the law of Christ authorizes it ! What a spectacle the church of Christ would soon exhibit, if this doctrine should prevail ! 3b2 570 DEBATE ON THE Without any further direct appeal to the Scriptures, we may venture to say, it is incredible, absolutely incredible, that our Savior should have taught such a doctrine — that he should so unnecessarily have exposed his church to almost certain ruin. But let us appeal directly to the law and the testimony. The commis- sion given by our Savior to his apostles, confines both baptizing and preaching to them, and to those ordained after them, to the ministerial office. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." — Matth. xxviii. 19, 20. This commission invested the apostles with the most important and re- sponsible office ever conferred on any human being. They were author- ized to ordain others properly qualified to the same office. Now, it is a principle universally recognized, that whei-e an office is established, and certain specified duties annexed to it, no one but he who has been prop- erly appointed to fill the office, can discharge any one of its duties. This principle is recognized by all civil governments. Suppose a private citi- zen— one of the wisest and most respectable, if you please, should un- dertake to act as sheriff for a few days ; or suppose he should take the seat of the judge, even though, for the time being, vacant; what would be the consequences ? Why, in the first place, all his acts would be pro- nounced null and void. No human being would be bound to regard them. In the second place, he would be punished as a violator of the laws of the land. Yet there is no law forbidding him, in so many words, to do what we suppose him to have done. The very fact, that such offi- ces exist, and that particular duties are assigned to those who fill them^ constitutes a prohibition of all other persons from interfering with those duties. The same common-sense principle must be recognized in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. The sacred office of the ministry has been established by him, for the edification of the church. The qualifications of those who are to be invested with it, are detailed ; and certain most important duties, on the proper discharge of which depend the purity and prosperity, if not the existence, of the church, are connected with the office, and en- joined most solemnly on those who fill it. Is it not, theo, perfectly clear, according to the principle already stated and universally admitted, that the King of Zion intended to confine the discharge of those duties to the men who should fill the office ? The very appointment of the office, and the solemn command to those invested with it, to baptize and preach, constitute a law against lay-baptisin. And, as in civil government, so in the church of Christ, he who, without being invested with the office, pre- sumes to exercise its functions, performs acts which are null and void, and makes himself a transgressor. Will it be pretended, that the Savior was less wise in his legislation, or less careful to preserve the peace and purity of his church, than civil legislators ; who guard against the evils of anarchy and oppression, by establishing offices and appointing men properly qualified to transact pub- lic duties ? Unless the gentleman is prepared to cast upon him this im- putation, he must abandon the doctrine, that every member of the church may of right administer the ordinance of baptism. Let me here present distincdy the broad principle on which Mr, Camp- ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 571 bell professes to have set out in his reformation. I hope that, on this occasion, he will be willing to act in conformity with it. I quote from the Christian System, p. 6 : " A deep and an abiding impression that the power, the consolations, and joys — the holiness and happiness of Christ's religion, were lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculations and conjectures, in the feuds and bick- erings of sects and schisms, originated a project many years ago for uniting the sects, or rather the christians in all the sects, upon a clear and scriptu- ral bond of union — upon having a ' thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms, or i?i approved precedent, for every article of faith, and item of reli- gious practiced Now observe, the gentleman's reformation started* upon the principle of having a "Thus saith the Lord" for every article of faith and every item of practice. I now call upon him to produce a " thus saith the Loud," for his doctrine of lay-baptism. Let me state fully his doc- trine on this subject, as exhibited in the Milennial Harbinger, (vol. iii. pp. 236, 237.) Here I find some seven questions propounded by a correspon- dent, and answered by Mr. Campbell; one of which is as follows — "Are all immersed persons, male and female, to be so considered ?" That is, are they legal administrators of baptism ? Another is as follows — " Can an unimmersed person be so considered under any circumstances ?" To these and other questions, Mr. C. replies as follows : " Answers to questions 2, 3 and 4. — There is no law in the christian Scrip- tures authorizing any one class of citizens in the christian kingdom to im merse, to the exclusion of any other class of citizens. Apostles, evangelists, deacons, and unofficial persons, are all represented as immersing when oc- casion called for it. Paul, though not sent to immerse, yet did it when no other person was present. Philip immersed the eunuch ; Ananias immersed Paul ; Peter's deacons or attendants from Joppa immersed Cornelius and his friends. So that if we have no law enjoining it upon one or any class of citizens, we have examples so various and numerous as to teach us that any citizen in the kingdom is an acceptable administrator when circumstances call upon him. How far expediency may suggest the propriety of a congre- gation making it the duty of one or more persons to attend upon such as are to be introduced into the kingdom, is a question which a respect to circum- stances may decide ; but on the ground of scriptural authority, every male citizen in the kingdom is an acceptable and authorized administrator. As to female citizens immersing, we have no example of the sort on record. But as in the kingdom there is neither male nor female in the Lord, should any circumstance require it, there is no law or precedent which would condemn a sister for immersing a female were it to become necessary. Even the church of Rome, the most enslaved to priestly suprem- acy and official holiness, allowed females to baptize in certain cases. * * But we might as rationally and as scripturally talk about a legal admin- istrator of prayer, of praise, or of any religious service which one can ren- der to, or perform for, another, as for baptism. Expediency, however, may in some circumstances decree that persons may be appointed by a congre- gation to preach and baptize." According to the gentleman's doctrine, you perceive, thsit females have a right to administer baptism ; and yet he acknowledges, that for this he cannot find a " Thus saith the Lord," nor a precedent in the New Testa- ment! Even persons who never were baptized, he, in the same article, admits, may, in certain cases, administer the ordinance ; though for such a practice he pretends not to find one word of authority in the Scriptures ! Here we find in his writings, and of course in the practice he encourages, a most glaring departure from the fundamental principle of his reforma- 572 DEBATE ON THE tion ! The principle is, to have a " Thus saith the Lord," in so many words, for every item of faith and practice, or a clear and certain prece- dent. Yet here he advocates a doctrine, and authorizes a practice, for which he acknowledges himself unable to find in the Scriptures either precept or precedent ! — a direct and palpable departure from his published principles. I am not the first to discover the inconsistency, and to point out the danger of his doctrine on this subject, as you will see by a letter, from which I will read an extract, written by one of his correspondents, and published in the Millenial Harbinger, (vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.) The wri- ter says : " Now, if I understand you, you say, there is no law making it the duty of one to immerse, to the exclusion of others; therefore, no disorder for any one in the kingdom to immerse : and it is also to be understood that every immersed person is in the kingdom. Let us now see the dilemma to which this would lead. And first, let it be noted that men, women, children, and servants, are understood to be in the kingdom. Men, women, children, and servants, are all then authorized to immerse ; yea, they are commanded to baptize, one as much as anotlier, and this command is directly from tlie King himself. No disorder then for Jane, twelve years old, who was bap- tized yesterday, to baptize her schoolmate Mary, eleven years old, to-day ; and Mary, to-morrow, may, without disorder, baptize her little sister Judy, nine years old ; and the day following, Judy baptizes Harriet, six years old ; and Harriet baptizes all the little girls in the neighborhood, that she is able to manage, and that will say they believe in the heart, &c. All this is per- fect order in the kingdom, if there is no law authorizing one class, to the exclusion of another, to immerse. I think it unnecessary to carry this mat- ter further. We might adduce many more cases into which such an order, or rather disorder, would run. We will admit, that if every person, so soon as baptized, were filled with the spirit of wisdom and prudence, and the understanding of men, then there would be no such danger. But this is not the case ; nor is it likely ever to be so. As long as baptism is to be ad- ministered, as long as there are sinners to be converted and baptized, there will be found babes, young men, and old men, in experience, prudence and knowledge." The writer of this letter, who signs himself Barnabas, is Avell spoken of by Mr. Campbell, and, I presume, is a member of his church. Still, with all his prejudice in favor of the gentleman, he could not but see the dreadful disorder and confusion which such a doctrine, carried out in practice, Avould introduce into the church With great propriety he re- marks, that if every one became wise and prudent, as soon as baptized, such a principle might be tolerated. But little boys, girls, and servants, might take it into their heads, that it is a gi-eat thing to be engaged in mak- ing and baptizing converts ; and they can do so, according to Mr. Camp- bell, in perfect consistency with the law of Christ ! Should more prudent and considerate persons object to having the ordi- nance administered, and members introduced into the church, by such children, or by others equally ignorant and rash, they are prepared with a very conclusive answer. It is perfectly certain, they might say, and by all admitted, that it is the duly of some persons to baptize. Mr. Camp- bell teaches, that no one class of members of the church is authorized to do it, to the exclusion of others. Therefore, say they, it is as truly our duty as yours, to administer the ordinance. Consequently, every member of the church, old and young, ignorant and wise, boys, girls, and serv- ants, may go to work^ and immerse all around them who will submit to ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM, 573 the operation! ! ! I now call on my friend Mr. C. to produce a " Thus saith the Lord," or a clear precedent for such a practice. If he can find the one or the other, it is contained in a portion of the New Testament which I have entirely overlooked. It is not difficult to ascertain the cause of the adoption of principles and practices so unauthorized, and so ruinous to the church and to the souls of men. No one, taking the Bible as his only infallible guide, ever could have thought of adopting them. The gentleman is a great enemy of creeds. Yet, when he finds his system laboring under difficulties for which the Savior did not provide, he will make such addi- tions as the exigency demands ! Where shall we look for the origin of the doctrine and the practice oilay- haptism? It originated in the unscriptural doctrine of baptismal regen- eration. The belief became common, at an early period in the history of the church, that baptism is essential to salvation — that all who died unbaptized, would be lost. In consequence of this error, difficulties im- mediately arose ; for, in multitudes of cases, ordained ministers could not be found to administer baptism to the dying. It became necessary, con- sequently, to provide for exigencies which, it would seem, our Savior never saw ; for which, at any rate, he made no provision, and for the best of reasons, viz : they grew out of a doctrine which he never taught. It was, therefore, determined, that, in cases of urgent necessity, when a bishop or presbyter could not be obtained, the ordinance might be admin- istered by laymen. It was thought better that a layman, in the absence of a minister, should be permitted to baptize, than that a soul should be lost. As yet, however, the church had not proceeded quite so far as my friend Mr. Campbell. They were not prepared to permit all the mem- bers of the church indiscriminately to baptize. The false principle which they had adopted, however, soon carried them further. It was seen, that cases might, and did occur, in which male members could not be present; and the souls of many might be lost, for the lack of an external ordinance. Another step was taken, and females were authorized, in such cases, to baptize. This practice, however, for some time, met with opposition. But even this extension of the privilege of administering the ordinance, did not entirely compass the object, for cases might occur, in which neither male nor female members of the church could be present. The church of Rome, therefore, in the boundlessness of her cliarity, decided, that baptism might be validly administered by unbaptized persons, and even by Jews, infidels and Turks, providing only that they intended to do what the church does ! Such was the origin, and such is the history of this singularly absurd and injurious doctrine. The same opinions which originally suggested the necessity of lay -bap- tism, I doubt not, have induced my friend, Mr. Campbell, to incorporate it in his creed. He does not think it at all certain that persons can be saved without bap- tism. He desires, of course, to save as many as possible. A preaching brother cannot, at all times, be had to administer immersion. Sometimes it may occur, that a male member of the church cannot be obtained. He has been charitable enough, therefore, to believe and teach \\\2iX females may baptize, and that it is the right of all members of the church, little and big, old and young. Still, the difiicult cases were not all provided for. For example, there is a man who has repented, and believed, and desires 574 DEBATE ON THE baptism, but no person, who has been immersed, can be found to admin- ister the ordinance to him. In such cases, my friend believes that an unimmersed person may officiate, and the baptism will be valid. With this last provision, however, he is not quite satisfied ; yet it will answer. The doctrine of Mr. Campbell on this point is precisely the doctrine of the church of Rome ; and with him, as with "holy mother," it originated in another unscriptural tenet, viz : that the soul without baptism is in dan- ger of being lost. Their common faith placed them in a common dilemma. They must either leave souls of even penitent believers in danger of being lost, because they could not receive an external ordinance, or they must authorize a practice, for which they could find neither precept nor example in the word of God. The principle on which it is based, is false. Our Savior did not authorize it. If the principle be not false, how, I ask, did it happen that He and his apostles never provided for these cases ? Such emergencies must have occurred more frequently in the days of the apos- tles, than at the present time ; for their doctrine spread rapidly, and there were but few ministers. How did it happen, then, that they gave no inti- mation that unordained persons, and even females, might validly baptize ? Evidently no such difficulties were known to them. If the doctrine be true, it is most marvellous, that from the beginning to the end of the New Testament, we find not a trace of it. If such emergencies do really exist, it is passing strange that our Savior made no provision for them. My friend has been engaged in providing for emergencies which the Bible did not contemplate — endeavoring to remove difficulties the Savior never dis- covered. Yet he proclaims, that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants I Now I go for the Bible, and I am prepared to acquiesce in the administration of baptism by males and females, boys and girls, if he will give me a " Thus saith tlie Lord," for it. In his reply to the letter, from which I read an extract, the gentleman states, that deacons and unofficial persons, in the apostolic age, adminis- tered baptism. I hope he will adduce some proof of the truth of this de- claration. I have found no example of the administration of baptism by a deacon, or an unofficial person. There is, indeed, an example of a man baptizing who had once been a deacon, but was afterwards an evangelist But, even if at the time he administered the ordinance, he was only a dea- con, still he was an officer in the church of Christ. But I find not an in- stance in all the New Testament, in which deacons, or other unordained persons, ever baptized. If the gentleman can enlighten us on this subject, I hope he will not fail to do it. If he intends still to adhere to the funda- mental principle of his reformation, every one must admit that he is bound either to abandon his doctrine, or produce a "Thus saith the Lord," in so many words, or a fair precedent, to sustain it. I am prepared to yield the question in a moment, if he will show me his authority. And it behooves him more especially to be careful on this point ; for he believes baptism necessary, in order to remission of sins. If I believed that all who are not validly baptized, are in danger of losing their souls, I should desire to be very certain, that I encouraged none to administer or to receive a baptism which is not scriptural. Convince me that a man is in danger of losing his soul, if he is not baptized, and I will be very care- ful whom I authorize or encourage to officiate in the administration of the ordinance. I would desire the authority to be as clear as language can make it. We know that an ordained minister has the right to bap- tize. To this all agree. But if you put the question to Protestant Christ- ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 575 endom, whether laymen have the right, the almost unanimous decision will be, that they have not. Then, according to my friend's principles of catholicity, he must give it up. I never would, with my present views, unite Avith a body of professing christians, who permit all their members — even boys and girls — to introduce into the church whom they please. If the gentleman desires christian union, he will find it necessary to abandon this unscriptural doctrine : it will ever be a stumbling block : the great majority of Bible readers cannot be persuaded that baptism by a layman is christian baptism. He is certainly bound, on his own prin- ciples, to sustain his views, by a " Thus saith the Lord," or a fair and clear example, or abandon them. I do not know that it is necessary to proceed farther with this argu- ment. The doctrine for which I contend is so obviously correct, that it does not admit of much discussion, especially if we confine ourselves to the Bible. I know that my friend can find some authority for part of his practice, among the christian fathers of the third and following centuries, and that he can find some episcopal ministers who have favored lay-bap- tism ; but both they and he must rely for support on tradition, not on the New Testament. They can find nothing there that even remotely hints at it. The whole difficulty, as before remarked, originated in em- bracing first an unscriptural doctrine, and then founding upon it an un- scriptural practice. Thus one error leads to another, and that again to a third. He who tells a falsehood, finds it necessary to tell a second to conceal the first; and a third to reconcile the second. So it is with error: it is always inconsistent. The first step in the path of error, creates a difficulty ; then a second is introduced to remove it ; this makes the diffi- culty still greater, and a third becomes necessary, and so on ad infinitum. There is no telling where this downward course will terminate. False doctrines necessarily lead to unscriptural practices ; and both corrupt the church, and ruin the souls of men. My friend has embraced the errone- ous doctrine, and is now defending the ruinous practice based upon it. [[Here Mr. R. sat down, having occupied but forty minutes of the sixty to which he was entitled.]) Saturday, Nov. 25 — 1 1 o'clock, Ji. M. [mr. Campbell's first reply.] Mr. President — Mr. Rice is quite generous this morning. He has kindly tendered me just twenty minutes of his hour ; rather, I presume, as a bonus than that I should assist him in proving his proposition. The affirmative does not suit my friend. He soon gets out of breath. To deny is easy, but to prove is hard: hie labor hoc opus est. Aye, this is the drudgery, this is the toil. The onus probandi is, to some minds, a burdensome afiair ; especially when the case is knotty and rugged, as at present. It is rolling a large rock up a steep hill. He proposes to prove that the administrator of baptism must always be an ordained elder or bishop. I did expect, however, the form of argument, the appearance of proof; especially as this has long been a darling topic to the priesthood, to the dergy, descended in any way from the family and lineage of Gregory XVI. I need not tell you, my friends, that the failure has been as com- plete in argument, as in filling up his time. You have all heard the head and front of his proof, and you all can witness that he has not ad- duced one " Thiis saith the Lordf one precept or precedent from the Bible in proof of his proposition. That the gentleman should have spo- ken to you forty minutes without quoting one verse in proof of his posi- 576 DEBATE ON THE tion, is my first argument that tlie ground he assumes is untenable, whol- ly untenable. He has, in the most satisfactory way, disproved his pro- position. He sought to fill up his time, and to amuse you, by reading various extracts from my correspondents and my writings. But it did not take. The amusement was all in his own imagination. Whoever read of a minor child baptizing a minor ! It was too extravagant, even to amuse. He is creating a phantom, that he may destroy it. Our views have done no such mischief. I have, indeed, an easy task — nothing to do on this question ; no arguments to repel, no facts to oppose. Still I must speak for an hour ; and as I shall not find very much claiming my attention in what was said, I must draw upon my own resources. His observations were sometimes just. He said that baptism was impor- tant to the subject and to the church. It adds another to her members, and only such as the Lord approves should be admitted. Well, now, if such may be the dangers to the individual and the church, from an im- prudent and unauthorized administrator ; if both parties may suffer so much from an improper baptism, how does this reasoning bear upon the former questions of debate ? How does it aflect the infant and the church ? The gentleman does not see where the logic strikes. He has wounded his own cause in this remark, more than he can aid this assump- tion of the clergy. He argues, that the mal-administration of baptism, on the part of some novice, may subject the person baptized to an eternal injury. Of course, that must arise from his ignorance and unbelief. What a wound has he thus inflicted on the whole Presbyterian church ! Had I said, that it is possible, through the ignorance and unbelief of the subject, to subject him to an eternal detriment; I might have been accused of the want of charity. But when Mr. Rice thus admits the hazard to the individuals and the church from the baptism of improper subjects, does he not more than substantiate all that I have said against infant bap- tism, as corrupting to the church and injurious to the child? For can there be any person less qualified for baptism, than those wholly destitute of knowledge and of faith? In the report of additions made to the church of my friend last year, I observed three hundred and sixty-five infants were discipled. Were not they added without knowing anything at all of the meaning of the ordinance ? And are they not consequently exposed to the danger and jeopardy of which he has been speaking? Now I contend, that inasmucii as the ordained elders of the church do tlius injudiciously administer baptism, they are fully as dangerous to the church and to the individuals as those minors, concerning whom the gen- tleman drew so largely upon his imagination, who should, with all pre- sumption, administer the ordinance to improper subjects. His argument, then, in this case, is doubly fatal : it is fatal to the cause of infant bap- tism, and fatal to the ordained eldership. But it will be said, the gentle- man quoted one verse. Yes — but that verse was not to the point. He quoted a verse on which prelates depend for their glebes, and popes for their thrones. A verse, indeed, containing a commission to apostles, but mentioning neither bishop, elder, nor deacon ; consequently, not pointing out any of their duties. The gendeman's logic in this case, resembles that of a captain, who, when asked for his commission, refers to that of a general. By what kind of logic does a captain's commission prove that he had to perform the duties of a general ? Precisely so, our friend, Mr. Rice, when asked for a commission authorizing him, as a bishop, to baptize, throws down that of an apostle. ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 577 But I have said that the gentleman has not quoted a verse on the sub- ject before him. We have no controversy about apostles, but we have about bishops, deacons, and private members. He must show, in all logic and in all law, a commission authorizing bishops or elders to bap- tize, before he asks for a commission for a deacon or private member to baptize. His loose declamations aboiU civil officers, and the necessity of them, &c., is wholly inapposite and inconclusive here. They have commissions, and can show them. This apostolic commission, he very well knows, has been claimed by the popes ; and Protestants have, in all times, opposed their pretensions. Now, every argument urged by them against the lordly pretensions of the pontiffs, equally bears against his as- 8umpli(m. They argue that apostles were a class of officers not designed nor needed to be continued ; that their office and work was incommuni- cable, consequently intransmissible to successors. All Protestants agree that aposdes neither had, nor could have successors. They derived their commission direct from heaven, and held it from the Lord in person. I presume and hope, that I shall not have to argue this question here ; and yet it would seem as if Mr. R. holds his claim on apostolic grounds, olTering, in proof, an apostolic commission. If he persists in this, we shall require of him to show that apostles could have successors ; whether they were needed; and then, whether we have any possessed of plenipo- tentiary powers. Some years ago, when matters were in their incipiency here, I deliver- ed several discourses on the subject of this commission ; setting forth the important fact — that in the commencement of all institutions, extraor- dinary ministers and agencies had been employed, because always neces- sary. Creation and providence are different works — essentially different, and fully represent what we mean. Moses and the apostles were crea- tors of new institutions. But other classes of officers, priests, judges, ministers, of various orders and courses, preserve, manage and direct them. The creators have no successors — they cannot have. Their work is soon done. God created the present heavens and earth in six days ; but how many agencies have been employed in preserving them during six thousand years ? Mr, Rice ought to have set the matter more clearly and logically be- fore us. He ought to have shown us the different work and character of ambassadors, prime functionaries, ministers extraordinary, such as law-givers, apostles, and prophets, in contrast with the work and offices of ordinary ministers, such as bishops, evangelists, and deacons; calling them by scriptural names, and opening out their respective duties. Again, he ought to have shown the difference between what is requisite to the validity of ordinances, and what is merely necessary to the good order of christian communities ; and then, perhaps, there would not only have been a clearer intelligence of the question in issue, but also, very proba- bly, an agreement in all that is essential to the prosperity and happiness of the church. I may do this for him, perhaps, by reading an extract from a Presbyterian paper, the Protestant and Herald, of his own church, under date of October 26. It is a communication from a Mr. Smith. Under the caption of the " Ordination of Calvin," the question was, and yet is, whether John Calvin, one of the founders of Presbyterian power, was ever, himself, ordained to the office of an elder or bishop ? a ques- tion, by the way, which seems highly doubtful — much more so than I had formerly been accustomed to think. After giving the views and doo 37 3C 878 DEBATE ON THE trines of several Presbyterians on the subject of ordination, the writer goes on to show, that ordination does not confer vaUdity on the adminis- tration of the ordinances and observances of the church ; but is simply necessary to secure good order and decency in the observance of them. My text is in the following words : " Ordination by the imposition of hands, is not essential to the validity of church ordinances, but for the regularity and good order of the christian community." [We are sorry to say that we have lost the copy of the above newspaper, from which those extracts were read, and can therefore only give the substance, from our notes, as argued in the debate.] It is conceded, that whether Calvin was ordained or not, is entirely immaterial; that ordination is not neces- sary to give either efficacy or validity to any christian ordinance. It is only essential to having the ordinances duly kept, and properly attended to ; and that, therefore, it is not a question at all affecting validity, but order and propriety of administration. As we desire to furnish elements of thought for those who can think, and desire to think for themselves, I shall treat the audience to a more rich and valuable extract from the pen of the aforesaid good Dr. Carson, of Tubermore, Ireland ; from wJiose learned Baptist pen, so profoundly immersed in Grecian lore and hoary antiquity, Mr. Rice has learned and quoted so much. Mr. Carson is a good, orthodox Baptist minister, whom I have seen and heard in my youthful days. He is the pastor of a country congregation of several hundred members, who practice weekly commu- nion, and, also, to some extent, free communion. He is a clear, argu- mentative, and vigorous speaker ; more distinguished for acuteness and profoundness, than for eloquence. He is so orthodox as to be often called upon, on great occasions, such as anniversaries, pentecosts, and jubilees, by the Established Church, and by Dissenters of different com- munions. I believe he does not like me very well, because he took it into his head that I must be (from various evil reports) imbued with Uni- tarianism ; but, on this point, I am just as orthodox as he is, and as ver- acious and unambiguous, also. He is, indeed, a paragon of orthodoxy ; is sometimes annually sent for to preach in London and in Edinburgh. But here comes an extract from a jubilee sermon : " The duty of exertion to propagate, the gospel extends to all christians without exception. Every christian is a soldier, and every christian soldier must fight to put his Lord in possession of his rightful dominions. More is required of some than of others, but something is required of every one. The great body of christians may not be able to address public assemblies, but there is not one of them who may not tell his neighbor the way to heaven. Cannot the simplest man make known to others the ground on which he rests his own hope of salvation'! If he knows the truth so as to be saved by it, he may declare it to others so as to save them. What can make it improper for an uneducated man to speak to his companions on the one thing needful ? Can he speak to them on matters of worldly business, and can he not speak to tliem on the truth that saves the souH Can he teach the mysteries of his trade, and can he not teach the way in which God's justice and mercy harmonize in the justification of the ungodly by fb.ith in Christ Jesus'! Uneducated christians, even the poorest, have in private life more favora ble opportunities of communicating the gospel to their associates, than the most learned and the most elevated in rank. The manners of the world make it difficult, if not impossible, to introduce the gospel into certain cir- cles. When the rich wish to preach the gospel, they must in general go to the poor They seldom have actess to the ear of their own circle. Even ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 579 the highest christian nobility will find their efforts impeded by innumerable obstacles in the forms of life in the upper ranks. When God designed that Caesar and the migiity men of Rome should hear the gospel of Paul, he sent him as a prisoner to stand for his life before the emperor. Had Paul gone to Rome as a preacher, though he had been a Demosthenes, he might never have gained a hearing from Cajsar. Priests and princes would have repre- sented him merely as a fanatic, and the ear of majesty might never have heard the gospel from his lips. In proportion to a man's elevation in rank is he shut out from the gospel ; and in this respect tlie poor have the high- est privileges. They hear and are saved, while the rich and the mighty perish without hearing it, though it may sound every where around them. How is this manifested and confirmed by town missionaries ! The word of life can be sent into the hovels of vice, while the lordly palace, which has perhaps more need of it, must be passed by. The poor are always accessi- ble, and the poorest christian may have, every day, opportunities of declar- ing the truth, from which the highest christian may be excluded. If the people about him are wicked, still he may find means to gain their ear about the value of the soul, and the redemption that is in Christ. The poorest and weakest member of a church may have access to innumerable persons from whom the pastor is entirely shut out, and will be heard when the pastor would give intolerable ofl^ence. The deadly heresy which confines the preaching of the gospel to office cronveyed by a certain succession, is an infernal machine for destroying the souls of men. It is one of the great artifices of Satan to spike the cannon on the gospel batteries. What can more effectually serve the kingdom of light] But it is as unscriptural as it is irrational. The scriptures know nothing of such a succession. It is the invention of the man of sin, calcu- lated to extinguish the light, and promote the empire of darkness. And whatever may be the mode of conveying office, the preaching of the gospel, either publicly or privately, is not confined to office. Every christian has a right to preach the gospel, and according to his opportunities and his abili- ties it is his duty to preach it. This vile dogma of Oxford is self-evidently false. If the gospel is true, can there be any danger of sin in proclaiming its truths'? If the gospel is salvation, and if God wills the salvation of men, can it be sinful to tell them of that which saves from helH What would you think of a senator who should rise up in the British senate house, declaring that no watchmen ought to be employed in the city of London but those who have a regular succession from the watchmen who lived at the foundation of the city, and that, though the city were fired at innumerable points, no man had a right to cry, 'Fire! fire!' but the legal watchmen 1 It is only in religion that the effusions of folly and absurdity are dignified as wisdom." I have read this pithy extract from the Millenial Harbinger, from which* there are so many excellent things read you by my worthy friend — and in which there are many other good things to be read by others as well as he ; and, I hope, for other purposes. The doctrine of the extract, my readers need not be told, is mine. I subscribe to it every word, and have long since, even in the days of the Christian Baptist, expressed them under other images. That the official grace and jus divinum of the clergy, is a gratuitous assumption, I believe all sensible men of much intelligence very well know. I do certainly know it, and have long since exposed it : still I am a cordial friend of good order and of a christian ministry. As Mr. R. has preceded my way into political society, I will take a little excursion with him, and endeavor to illustrate my position, by a very intelligible comparison or two. Man, in the state of nature, if any one ever saw him there, is a very 580 DEBATE ON THE free and sovereign kind of a dependent. He is as free as Ishmael, though the slave of a hundred wants and tyrannic passions ; but, like the deer of the forest, he roams at large. At last, tired of his wanderings over nature's wilds, he courts society, and would fondly purchase it at some price. He is asked to surrender so many of his assumed natural and inalienable rights and liberties, for the sake of other advantages found in the fellowship and intercommunication of co-ordinate beings. He agrees to sell so many rights for so many privileges. The bargain is now closed, and is called a constitution. From the day it is signed, he uses those surrendered rights no more. To use those sold rights, would now be politically wrong. He has got for them a full price, and there- fore they are no longer his. He still reserves the right of looking at the sun, of breathing the air, of eating and drinking earth's bounties, of walking on the earth, at least on the high-roads. He claims as much of mother earth as he can cover with his person, and never parts with the power of talking, nor sells the dear liberty of speech. But the law-giv- ing power, with the power of judging and government, he has sold ; aiKl therefore, he can, of right, use these functions no more, unless they are granted to him by the persons with whom he has identified his fortunes. From the moment the social compact political is formed, society being organized, its organs dispense all its special privileges according to law. Then no man takes upon himself any honor, office, or work, without a special call and appointment. Just so is it in the church. When there is no church, but disciples of Christ scattered abroad, not organized, there can be no officers. When then any one desires baptism, any one to whom he applies may administer it. When a few brethren in one family, or neighborhood, organize themselves to meet once a week to shew forth the Lord's death, to read the Scriptures, sing and pray together, having no ordained officer among them, they appoint one of themselves, to break " the loaf of blessings," and to distribute " the cup of salvation." All this the New Testament, reason, common sense approve. But when societies are formed, christian communities created, and a church organization established by agreement; then, indeed, all offices are filled by the voice and ordination of the people. When that is accomplished, no one has a right, either inherent, natural, or divine, to discharge social duties, without a call and appointment from his compeers and associates. Do not Presbyterians, sensible, intelligent Presbyterians, assent to these views? I sincerely think they do. They have no faith in the doctrine of hereditary grace — of official power transmitted from age to age, through the leaky and crazy corporations of human bodies. Sup- pose a solitary Testament was borne on the wings of the wind to some savage island, filled with inhabitants. A first picks it up, reads, under- stands it, believes it. He communicates its intelligence to B, C, and D ; they also receive it with joy. Presently, the hills and dales echo with the name of the Lord. They tell the glad tidings. Hundreds believe ; they baptise them — consecrate them. They all decide that Christianity is essentially a sooial system ; that its tendency is to form a grand commu- nity— intelligent, pure, holy, happy, and co-extensive with humanity. Soon as they have organized and understood their calling, they elect and solemnly devote to the work by prayer and the imposition of the hands of a few, appointed by the many. A, B, C, and D, to the work of the min- istry among them, in whatever departments of labor they may require. Henceforth all public social duties are performed by this ministry, whom ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 581 practice makes more perfect in the work. These persons publicly preach, baptize, or preside in their assemblies, teach and govern, as the case may be. I aim not at a perfect picture ; I only give a sketch, a rude outline, that my views and my argument, or rather objection, to the position of Mr. R., may be appreciated. I do not say his arguments, but his posi- tion ; for argument, or proof, from him I have not yet heard. These views must be, perhaps they are already, approved by my Presbyterian friends. My regular readers will recognize them, as hav- ing been taught by me from my firat visit to this commonwealth. They are held in various forms in the Christian Baptist. I am peculiarly grat- ified to say, that they are views very generally diffused throughout this great continent, and especially, to have recently read them from the pen of one of the greatest men of the age — and a very high functionary in the Episcopal church of England — no less a man than archbisliop Whateley, of the province of Dublin; whose fame as a scholar is in all our colleges, and as a nervous, vigorous, and clear writer, has few superiors at the present time. I shall read a few pages from his recent work on the kingdom of Christ. I adopt it as a part of my argument, and commend it especially to my Episcopal and Presbyterian friends in Kentucky, and every where. " Suppose, for instance, a number of emigrants, bound for some colony, to be shipwrecked on a desert island, such as afforded them means of subsist- ence, but precluded all reasonable hope of their quitting it: or suppose them to have taken refuge there as fugitives from intolerable oppression, or from a conquering enemy, (no uncommon case in ancient times) : or to be the sole survivors of a pestilence or earthquake which had destroyed the rest of the nation : no one would maintain that these shipwrecked emigrants or fugitives were bound, or were permitted, to remain — themselves and their posterity — in a state of anarchy, on the ground of there being no one among them who could claim hereditary or other right to govern them. It would clearly be right, and wise, and necessary, that they should regard them- selves as constituted, by the very circumstances of their position, a civil community; and should assemble to enact such laws, and appoint such magistrates, as they might judge most suitable to their circumstances. And obedience to those laws and governors, as soon as the constitution was settled, would become a moral duty to all the members of the community : and this, even though some of the enactments might appear, or might be (though not at variance with the immutable laws of morality, yet) conside- rably short of perfection. The king, or other magistrates thus appointed, would be legitimate rulers; and the laws framed by them, valid and bind- ing. The precept of ' submitting to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake,' and of ' rendering to all, their due,' would apply in this case as com- pletely as in respect of any civil community that exists." — Wliateley's Kiiigdom of Christ, New York, 1843, 12mo. p. 193. " But it would be absurd to maintain, that men placed in such a situation as has been here supposed are to be shut out, generation after generation, from the christian ordinances and the gospel covenant Their circum- stances would constitute them (as many as could be brought to agree in the essentials of faith and christian worship) a christian community; and would require them to do that which, if done without such necessity, would be Gchismatical. To make regulations for the church thus constituted, and to appoint as its ministers the fittest persons that could be found among them, and to celebrate the christian rites, would be a proceeding not productive, as in the other case, of division, but of union. And it would be a compli- ance— clearly pointed out to them by the providence which had placed them in that situation — with the manifest will of our Heavenly Master, that 3c2 582 DEBATE ON THE christians should live in a religious community, under such officers and such regulations as are essential to the existence of every community. To say that christian ministers thus appointed would be, to all intents and purposes, real legitimate christian ministers, and that the ordinances of such a church would be no less valid and efficacious (supposing always that they are not in themselves superstitious and unscriplural) than those of any other church, is merely to say in other words that it would be a real christian church ; possessing consequently, in common with all communities of whatever kind, the essential rights of a community to have officers and by-laws ; and possessing also, in common with all christian communities, {i. e. churches) the especial sanction of our Lord, and his promise of ratify- ing (' binding in heaven') its enactments. It really does seem not only absurd, but even impious, to represent it as the Lord's will, that persons who are believers in his gospel should, in con- sequence of the circumstances in which his Providence has placed them, condemn themselves and their posterity to live as heathens, instead of con- forming as closely as those circumstances will allow to the institutions and directions of Christ and his apostles, by combining themselves into a chris- tian society, regulated and conducted, in the best way they can, on gospel principles. And if such a society does enjoy the divine blessing and favor, it follows that its proceedings, its enactments, its officers, are legitimate and apostolical, as long as they are conformable to the principles which the apostles have laid down and recorded for our use : even as those (of what- ever race ' after the flesh') who embraced and faithfully adhered to the gos- pel, were called by the apostle ' x\braham's seed,' and ' the Israel of God.' The ministers of such a church as I have been supposing, would rightly claim ' apostolical succession,' because they would rightfully hold the same office which the apostles conferred on those ' elders whom they ordained in every city.' And it is impossible for any one of sound mind seriously to believe that the recognition of such claims, in a case like the one here sup- posed, affords a fair precedent for men who should wantonly secede from the church to which they had belonged, and take upon themselves to ordain ministers and form a new and independent church according to their own fancy." — p. 197. I will yet read two other extracts ; one showing that there is no cer- tainty whatever in any pretended succession from the apostles. A lay- man may have baptized us all, for any thing which the rolls of time or the annals of the church can sliow. It is a proverb incontrovertibly true, "the stream can rise no higiier than the fountain." Myriads of chil- dren, some of whom became priests and Levites, deacons and bishops, were sprinkled by private men and women, during hundreds of years, by the Romanists. There is not a man in Kentucky can trace his baptism back to any thing better than a lay origin, if archbishop Whateley told the truth. " If, as has been above remarked, a man is taught that view of apostolical succession which makes every thing depend on the unbroken series between the apostles and the individual minister from whom each man receives the sacraments, or the individual bishop conferring ordination, (a fact which never can be ascertained with certainty,) and he is then presented with proofs, not of this, but of a different fact instead — the apostolical succession, generally, of the great body of the ministers of his church ; and if he is taught to acquiesce with consolatory confidence in the regulations and ordi- nances of the church, not on such grounds as have been above laid down, but on the ground of their exact conformity to the model of the ♦ ancient church,' which exact conformity is in many cases more than can be satis- factorily proved, and in some can be easily disproved ; the result of the at- tempt so to settle men's minds must be, with many, the most distressing doubt and perplexity. And others again, when taught to ' blend with Scrip- ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 583 ture,' as a portion of revelation, the traditions of the first three, or first four, or first seven, or fifteen centuries, may find it difficult to understand when, and where, and why tliey are to stop short abruptly in the application of the principles they have received: why, if one general council is to be admit- ted as having divine authority to bind the conscience and supersede private judgment, another is to be rejected by private judgment ; and that too by the judgment of men who are not agreed with each other, or even with them- selves, whetlier the council of Trent, for instance, is to be regarded as the beginning of the Romish apostasy, or as a promising omen of improvement in the church of Rome. That man must be strangely constituted, \vh: can find consolatory security for his faith in such a guide ; who can derive satis- factory confidence from the oracles of a Proteus !" — King: of Christ, p. 20.'i. *' A member of the Anglican church, (I mean a sincere and thoroughly consistent member of it,) ought to feel a full conviction — and surely there are good grounds for that conviction — both that the reforms they introduced were no more than were loudly called for by a regard for gospel trutii ; and that the church, as constituted by them, does possess, in its regulations and its officers, ' apostolical succession,' in the sense in whicii it is essential that a christian community should possess it, viz. in being a regularly con- stituted christian society, framed in accordance with the fundamental prin- ciples taught by the apostles and their great Master. Successors, in the apostolic office, the apostles have none. As witnesses of the resurreclixjn, as dispensers of miraculous gifts, as inspired oracles of divine revelation , they have no successors. But as members, as ministers, aa governors of christian communities, their successors are the regularly ad- mitted members, the lawfully ordained ministers, the regular and recog- nized governors, of a regularly subsisting christian church; especially of a church which, conforming in fundamentals, — as I am persuaded ours does, — to gospel principles, claims and exercises no rights beyond tiiose whicli have the clear sanction of our great Master, as being essentially implied in the very character of a community." — pp. 240, 241. Here, then, is indisputable evidence from one of the most learned pre- lates of the Church of England, who is a fair exponent of the accumula- ted intelligence of that enlightened community — a community as well read in the true archeology of Christianity as any church establishment in the world, that ordination descent from apostolic limes is a mere figment of the human brain, and that no such doctrine is taught in the Bible. With archbishop Whateley, we say — "that a regularly constituted chris- tian society, framed in accordance with the fundamental principles taught us by the apostles, and their great Master," has the only true, real apos- tolic succession of divine authenticity, and, therefore, we, as a christian community, have it. Whenever, then, a christian community legitimately arises out of such circumstances, as already described, sanctioned by the New Testament — that is, holding the same doctrines and ordinances, customs and usages, when it appoints officers, and when they dispense ordinances, they are as divine and authoritative as any other ofiicers and ordinances in any christian community on earth. This, we regard, as our true position as a community of churches — and all those passages read from our writings in their contextual meaning, do neither more nor less than set forth these views with a reference to christian society and its various circumstances. Among the eccentricities of orthodoxy, I am called to notice one that is not among the least. Mr. Rice said something about graceless men, wicked knaves or hypocrites, that might baptize thousands under our system of operations. Well ; exaggeration does better in poetry than in prose, and in florid and highly impassioned eloquence than in a frigid 584 DEBATE ON THE and dry logical analysis. But to afford the gentleman all the advantages of his hypothesis, admit some persons possessing true faith were baptized by graceless administrators ; what then? Would official grace, his eccle- siastic authority, have made it any better? And more important still- would the faith, piety, and benefit of the subject, be either injured or an- nihilated by the character of the administrator ! ! But yet the eccentricity is not fully stated Ordained men, I mean in Mr. Rice's own views of ordination, are sometimes graceless men. And private members are pometimes men of unquestionable piety and moral worth. Now, sup- pose an unordained saint baptize A B, and an ordained reprobate baptize C D, why should the want of ordination on the part of the saint im- pair his act ; and the want of piety on the part of the sinner, not impair his act ? Is not that to place official grace above the true and real grace of God ? Bring up the case before judge Orthodoxy, and he will decide for the official against the real grace of God, so far as the act of officiation is concerned ; and hence many would rather take the eucharist loaf from the hands of a church dignitary, though evidently graceless, than from the hands of a saint of the purest excellence, on whose pate was not laid the hands of some prelate or presbytery. Protestants have sometimes said, that as christian ordinances receive not any virtue, neither do they lose any efficacy or spiritual benefit, from the hands of him that does adminis- ter them. So I teach. With regard to the extracts I'ead from the Millenial Harbinger, as usual, they are misapplied. The very commencement of them indicates that, viz : " There is no law in the christian Scriptures authorizing any one CLASS OF CITIZENS hi the christian kingdom to immerse to the exclusion of any other class of citizens. Apostles, evangelists, deacons, and un- official persons are all represented as immersing, when occasion called for it." Now, the question here is not about adults and minors — nor about males and females, but about classes of persons. It is not sexes nor ages, nor conditions, but classes of persons — apostles, evangelists, deacons, and unofficial persons. We affirm that there were no classes. We have given " express precedents'^ of all classes baptizing, and that is all our principles call for. Whether intentional or not, a person may read extracts so as not to give a fair representation of the views of a wri- ter. We never, by word or action, sanctioned either females or minors as baptists. These come not under the head of those classes of which we were writing. We spoke of official classes. We have laymen, and deacons, deaconesses, elders, evangelists, pastors, besides apostles and prophets. There is no " Thus saith the Lord," in precept nor precedent, conferring baptism to, nor enjoining it upon, any one of these classes. Mr. Rice cannot shew a case, not one word or example of the sort, in the whole New Testament. I challenge him to produce one single verse, containing in it a clear, or even an obscure " 77ms saith the Lord.'' I predict he will not even make the attempt. He need not tell you it is not necessary, for it is necessary ; especially in the case of a bishop. That is essential to his affirmation. I call upon Mr. Rice to furnish any precept in the New Testament authorizing or enjoining a bishop or an elder to baptize any one. I call upon him to produce an example of a bishop or an elder baptizing, as such, officially, if he pleases. lie cannot do it. Now, the proposition which he has undertaken to sustain, calls for this. He affirms that an ordained bishop or elder has a right to administer the ordinance of bap- ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 585 tism. He affirms more than that — for he undertakes to prove that only he has a right to baptize. If he cannot prove the first, certainly he can- not prove the second. Well, now, it lies upon him by every principle of logic, of reason, and of law to produce their commission. I will admit that such a commission will setde the matter, if it only says in effect — Let the elders baptize. 1 have said he can produce no example of any bishop baptizing any one as such ; nor a precept so enjoining ; and, there- fore, it is impossible to prove that they only have a right to baptize. / care not about views of expediency, I go for law. But he delights in forming and displaying extreme cases of the extension or of the abuse of a principle. He will have boys baptizing men, and females baptizing females, as the result of a universal license. We, however, neither ac- knowledge nor grant such licenses. Yet I would like to put an extreme case: — Here is a father of fifty, with a son of fifteen, who have just escaped to a desert island from the wreck of a ship. They have carried with them a Bible. The son had been baptized and was a member of, church one year before he was taken by his father to sea. The old gen- tleman had long been a sceptic. His misfortunes brought him to reflect, and called his attention to the Bible. His daily readings and the conver- sation and excellent demeanor of his son, overcame his scepticism. The Lord opened his mind, he believed the gospel, and became anxious to be baptized. After much deliberation and painful reflection upon his cir- cumstances, he one day asked his son to accompany him to the sea-shore and baptize him. He did so. Was it wrong? I am now prepared to say, in view of all the circumstances, that it was right, perfectly right. But now suppose any one should publish through this community that I taught that boys might baptize men, and sons their parents ; and that I said that persons might be so appointed by churches; would that person do me justice or injustice? would he publish truth or falsehood ? The principle involved in this case will one day condemn many for their very injurious calumnies and slanders, based on still more slender and unjustifiable grounds. The case of "Roger Williams and eleven others with him, was brought forward the other day. There was not an immersed believer in all Pro- vidence plantation, in all the district of country known to any of this lit- tle band of believers. The question with them was, " What shall we do? We all believe the gospel, we all desire to be baptized, but there is no one to baptize us, Shall we go or send one to England to be immersed, and await his return, or now immediately baptize each other and form a church ?" They decided to obey the Lord promptly. One of the twelve immersed Roger Williams, then Williams immersed the eleven. So commenced American immersion ! Well, now, I am such a radical, and yet I go as much for order as any man ; I fearlessly give my opinion that they did right. Mr. Rice, probably, would have got up a mission, and despatched one of the company to Rome, or Constantino- ple, or London, and imported oflicial grace! They obeyed common sense and the Bible, and left behind them a noble triumph of mental in- dependence. Had the patriarch of Constantinople, or the pope of Rome, or his grace the archbishop of Canterbury, been present, or any other ecclesiastic in the world, and performed the service, it would, to say the least, have been no better done. But if asked, would such a course of things be orderly or christian-like, at this lime, in this country ? I de- cidedly say, No : it would be superlatively incongruous and disorderly. 586 DEBATE ON THE Simpletons and odd fellows always argue from extreme cases. Supreme necessity gives law, and iucontrollable circumstances must control us. Our method is, so far as known tome: churches appoint all their officers, their bishops, deacons, and evangelists. They authorize some one to be the baptist for the congregation. Sometimes, generally indeed, he is the evangelist, or an elder, or a deacon ; he is, for the most part, some one of the ministry of the church. Comes it not, however, with an ill grace from Mr. R., to be fastidious about the administrator of baptism ; com- ing as it does in room of circumcision ? The gentleman adroitly converts all my allusions to the action or subject of baptism into a proof of my not being satisfied with the discussion of them. This is to prevent the proper use of them as illustrations, and, indeed, as part of the evidence of the design of baptism. I have not, however, exhausted any of these subjects by a great deal. Enough, indeed, has been said to meet the case and dispose of all that Avas alledged on the opposite side. Such, at least, is my opinion. I will, then, recur to circumcision for an illustration of the case before us. The gentleman will have baptism in place of circumcision. Now, as Zipporah circumcised the son of Moses, and parents generally circum- cised their children, why be so fastidious about the administrator of bap- tism 1 So complaisant am I, for the sake of argument, I will make another extreme case. Suppose two ladies in a foreign land, one a christian, the other not, should be sold into slavery among Turks, or pagans as barba- rous as they. Their misfortunes soften the heart of the non-professor, and become a cause of her devotion to the Bible. She believes and re- pents. At her earnest solicitation her companion baptizes her, and she assumes the christian profession. Certainly Mr. Rice, with mother Zip- porah in his eye, will not demur ! I will not repudiate even this extreme case. I am of the opinion it was all right. But who thence infers, that I would license the sisters to baptize, does me no more justice than Mr. Rice. These concessions are free-will offerings, uncalled for ; but I desire to express more fully than on any previous occasion, my liberty in the gos- pel, and also my devotion to the most perfect good order in the christian community. I must then add, that those things, lawful and expedient in extreme cases, would, in my judgment, be both unlawful and inexpedi- ent in our circumstances. Still, be it observed, that the efficacy arid salutary power of ordinances is in God and in the recipient, not in the hu7nan mediator. The faith and preparation of heart, on the part of the recipient, is every thing ; and the Lord's promises are to him directly, without any human instrumentality. You will recollect that Mr. Rice read some extracts from Perrin, or some other historian, on the subject of succession, and made an attack upon the reputation of Mr. Jones, the Baptist historian, whose history of the Waldenses I commended some years ago, over whose shoulders the gentleman, in his friendship, hurled a javelin at me, for the sin of recom- mending said work, because it had traced up, or furnished a part of the train of succession of baptized churches, from the christian era to the present day. The work was first introduced and recommended to the community by elder Spencer Cone, of New York. I recommended, and still recommend it, not because of any particular respect for its author, nor from any indebtedness to the Baptists that introduced it : for neither Mr- Jones nor they have any claims upon my generosity whatever. It ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 587 was then a tribute to truth, and to the oppressed cause of the only true baptism. But I did not happen to have the proper documents before me the other day, and could not at that time disprove the allegation. This Mr. Jones is now charged by Mr. Rice, with a willful, perverse suppression of the truth, and thereby making Perrin bear testimony on the wrong side of the question. Before attempting the defence of Mr. Jones from the aspersions thrown upon his reputation, the subject of a succession of churches practicing the christian ordinances, without any connection with the gospel establish- ment— themselves contending for views similar to those I am offering on Uiis subject — demands a remark or two. I make these remarks. In reference to the subject of succession as respects the question before us, let me be permitted to say, that since the days of bishop Sylvester till now, there have been immersed multitudes of persons not members of the church of Rome. They have been called by many names, such as Danites, Paulicians, Henricians, Novatians, Petrobrusians, Waldenses, Albigenses, 688 DEBATE ON THE istered only by an ordained minister. I read from Jones, a paragraph, to prove tliat in quoting Perrin's iiistory, he left out what related to infant baptism, and inserted in its place, " baptism according to the primitive church." I have repeatedly expressed the conviction, that Mr. C. was dissatisfied with his efforts on the subject of infant baptism. Now, if he is anxious to discuss that subject again, let him say so, and let the neces- sary arrangements be made. I do protest against the introduction of the subject of infant baptism, whilst another, and totally different subject, is being discussed. I will discuss but one subject at a time. I really pity the cause that requires a man of the standing of my friend to violate our rules, by again introducing, and attempting to discuss a subject, after it has been disposed of. He must, indeed, be in an awful case, that he can- not get along without perpetually harping upon that subject. But, he says, he had not his books when the subject was under discussion. Why did he not have them ? I trust the question of infant baptism, and of the faith of the Waldenses, will not be again introduced, until he is prepared to enter into arrangements for a new discussion of it. He asserts that there were anti-Pedo-baptists in all ages. If this were even true, what has it to do with the proposition now before us? I would tread the cause of Pedo-baptism under my feet, if I could not defend it without resorting to such means. If it will not bear fair and honorable discussion; if it cannot be sustained without the violation of the rules which I have bound my- self to regard, I will abandon it forever. I will debate but one subject at a time ; I will not allow myself to be diverted from the proposition before us, to a second debate, on a subject fully discussed several days since. I will now resume the discussion. My friend says, that I have pro- duced no passage of Scripture to sustain the proposition that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or presbyter. The question in debate is not whether ordained ministers may baptize, but whether others, not ordained, are authorized to administer the ordinance? He does not deny that bishops or presbyters have the right to baptize ; but he maintains, that all the members of the church have the same right. If they have, let it be proved ; if my friend cannot find the Scripture authorizing them to baptize, it follows, of course, that lay-baptism is wholly without an- thority ; and if without authority, it is not valid. Again ; the question is not, whether a regular succession from the apostles is essential to ordination ; but whether private members of the church, persons admitted to be unordained, may administer baptism ? My friend says, as soon as a church is organized, it ought to appoint persons to administer the ordinance. This strikes me as being not ex- actly consistent with the sentiments set forth in his Harbinger; his lan- guage is as follows : " But we might as rationally, and as scripturally, talk about a legal administrator of prayer, of praise, or of any religious service which one can render to, and perform for, another, as for baptism. Expediency, however, may, in some circumstances, decree that persons may be appointed by a congregation to preach and baptize.^' — Millen. Harb. vol. iii. p. 237. Does he here say that suitable persons ought gen- erally, or universally, to be appointed to administer baptism ? No. But he says expediency may, in some circumstances, require such a course. Is this the general law of which he was speaking? He says, I misrepresented his views, as expressed in the Harbinger, where he states, that the administration of baptism is not confined to any c/ass of citizens of the kingdom. But the difficulty is, that he contends ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 589 that females have the right to baptize, and yet acknowledges that he finds neither precept nor example authorizing them to do so. This is not all. He maintains, in so many words, that " there is no law in the christian Scriptures, authorizing any one class of citizens in the christian kingdom to immerse, to the exclusion of any other class of citizens ;" and that " there is neither male nor female in the Lord" — that consequently, a female may immerse a female, " were it to become necessary." And now, I ask, who is to judge when circumstances require that females, or other unordained persons, shall baptize? Is the church to be called together, to determine this question ? This is not pretended. Does it not, tlien, follow, that every one is to judge for himself? If a little girl thinks it right to baptize her little associates; or if a little boy think? proper to baptize his play-fellows ; or a servant, his fellow-servants ; who, but themselves, is to judge of the circumstances? If the doctrine of Mr. Campbell be true, that every citizen of the kingdom, every church- member has the right to baptize — the license is, of necessity, universal. Each individual must act, in these matters of such momentous interest to the church, and to the eternal happiness of individuals, on his own res- ponsibility. But Mr. C. tells us, that no case has ever occurred, of minors under- taking to administer the ordinance of baptism. This may be true ; but it is not because the doctrine he advocates, has prevented it ; but because the people have had better sense than to carry it into practice. It is not the soundness of the doctrine that has prevented his church from being corrupted and disgraced by such disorders ; but the fact, that common prudence has kept the members within narrower bounds than the faith he has inculcated. But when I have shown, that if the doctrine were fully carried out in practice, it would lead to results the most disastrous to the church, as well as to individuals, I have given evidence the most conclu- sive, that it cannot be of divine authority. It will not answer, to say that nobody has yet carried the practice as far as the doctrine authorizes ; that does not prove that the doctrine is sound. I am looking at what would be the result, if it were fully carried out in practice, and showing that evil, and only evil, would result to the church. And Mr. Campbell at- tempts to evade the force of the argument, by saying, those disorders have not actually occurred ! The apostolical oflice, he tells us, is incommunicable; and the apostles had no successors. This is true, so far as the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed required extraordinary gifts and authority ; but so far as baptizing and preaching are concerned, it is not true. It is admit- ted, that the apostles were ordained to baptize and teach ; this, no one, with the Bible in his hand, can dispute. Nor can it be denied, that those who were ordained by them, were authorized to perform those duties. I do not say, that Timothy and Titus were, in every sense of the word, their successois ; but that they were appointed to teach and baptize, none certainly will deny. But I will not discuss the doctrine of the succession, because it is not the question before us. There are two questions confusedly introduced into the gentleman's speech. The first is, whether a regular line of succession from the apostles to the present day, is essential to the validity of ordinor lion; and the second, whether a man must be scripturally ordained, be- fore he is authorized to administer baptism. If you say, that a particular church, assembled for the purpose, has the right to ordain presbyters, I 3D 590 DEBATE ON THE will not oppose it now. If you maintain, that a man is lawfully ordained, when the members of the church set him apart to the ministerial office, so far as this debate is concerned, I will not call in question the correctness of your opinion. But the simple and only question now before us, and the only question I vvill now discuss, is, whether a man, in order to bap- tize, must be scriptitrally ordained. Now, all that my friend read from archbishop Whateley, was upon another subject — the doctrine of succes- sion; and he might as well have read us a dissertation on the mountains of the moon, or the climate and productions of Africa. The archbishop is proving, that a regular succession from the apostles is not necessary to the validity of ordination, and that no man can trace such succession. It is not at all necessary for me to controvert his position. But does he maintain, that every citizen of the kingdom, every church-member, has a right to baptize ? He does not say so. He supposes a company of chris- tians cast upon an island, without an ordained minister, and desiring to enjoy the ordinances of God's house; and he contends, that ministers ap- pointed by them are lawful ministers. I am not going to dispute the cor- rectness of the position now, though I might on another occasion. The question before us, let me again say, is not how ministers are to be lav?- fully ordained, but whether, in order to administer baptism, they must be ordained at all. Concerning the question, whether individuals selected and set apart to the office of the ministry, by a company of christians on an island, would be validly ordained, I have nothing to say. But, what- ever scriptural ordination may be, the question is, whether that is neces- sary, or essential to the proper and scriptural administration of baptisna. Bishop Whateley is discussing one subject, and we are discussing another. Let us, then, keep distinctly in view, the subject in debate. My friend endeavors to confound these questions, but it is merely to conceal the weakness of his cause. Mr. Smyth, from whose writings Mr. Campbell quoted an extract, is, like myself, comparatively a young man. We were in the theological seminary at the same time. I might, perhaps, not agree with every sen- timent contained in the passage quoted. It is, however, of no service to Mr. Campbell's cause. Mr. Smyth expresses the opinion, that the mere ceremony of laying on hands is not essential to the office. There maybe a question, whether the laying on of hands is necessary, or whether the mere selection of men to perform the duties of the office, is sufficient to constitute them ministers of the Gospel ; but that question is not now before us. Neither have I any thing to say about Mr. Carson's views of the doe- trine of succession. His bare assertions, however, even if they related to the subject before us, I should not regard as authority. If he will pro- duce the Scriptures in support of his views, I will weigh his arguments with candor ; but when he gives his opinion, I am willing to let it go for what it is worth. The gentleman is of opinion, that on the subject under discussion he and Presbyterians do not differ very materially. I believe, however, that they do differ from him toto ccelo. They will never admit, that all the members of the church, male and female, old and young, may, under any circumstances, administer the sacrament of baptism. By way of illustrating his views, he refers to civil society, and says correctly, that in an unorganized state, individual rights are more exten- sive, than after the civil compact has been formed. In the former he ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 591 may, of right, do many things which become unlawful, when he has be- come a member of an organized society. 1 am very much pleased with the illustration. And now, if you can find the period when the christian church was in an unorganized state, I will cheerfully admit, that there has been a time when unordained persons might baptize, as circumstances seemed to require. But the truth is, it never was in an unorganized state. Our Savior, at a very early period in the history of the world, organized his church ; and from that day to this it never has been in an unorganized state ; and consequently there never has been a time when laymen might baptize. I admit that my friend's church is unorganized : for he has informed us, that such is the fact. And he has been writing and laboring faithfully for two years past to get up an organization of some kind ; but he has not yet succeeded. But the church of Christ is not unorganized. It has never been in an unorganized state. And as in an organized civil society no man may venture to discharge the functions of an office with which he has not been lawfully invested ; so, for reasons far more important, can no man perform the duties of an office in Christ's church, which he has not been appointed to fill. It would be just as pro- per and as lawful for a man, on his own responsibility, to act as sheriff, judge, or president, as for one who is a private member of the church of Christ to officiate either in preaching or baptizing. It is just as right in the one case as in the other. Since the church has been organized, laws enacted, and the necessary officers appointed by the King himself, no in- dividual has a right to perform the duties of an office with which he has not been invested. With regard to the supposed case of persons cast upon an island, who might, by accident, find a copy of the New Testament; it is one of those improbable cases, which, so far as my information extends, has never oc- curred, and is never likely to occur. But should such a thing happen, it will then be quite time enough to take it into consideration. Jesus Christ does not leave his people to the workings of blind chance. There is a providence over them, special as that which watches the falling of the little sparrow. It is not for us to imagine difficulties which in eighteen hundred years have never occurred, and in all probability never will occur, and undertake to legislate for them. The fact, that no provis- ion seems to have been made by the all-wise Redeemer for such an exi- gency, should be considered a sufficient reason why we may not attempt it. The principles advocated by Whateley may be correct. He does not, however, advocate the doctrine of Mr. C, that every member of the church may baptize and preach, but only such as have been selected and set apart to that office. As before remarked, he was discussing a subject entirely different from that now before us. Mr. Campbell considers it a singular paradox in our creed, that we admit the validity of baptism, administered by an unconverted minister, if he be properly ordained, and yet refuse to recognize it when adminis»- tered by a pious but unordained man. I should suppose, that, to a man at all acquainted with the most common principles of government, there would appear to be nothing paradoxical in this. Every officer in our civil government ought to be an honest man. Yet if, after a man has been in office for years, it appears, that he was most dishonest and un- worthy of the trust reposed in him, his official acts are as valid in law as if he had been an example of virtue. However unworthy he may be pep- sonally, he is rectus in officio — a lawfully appointed officer. But one of 592 DEBATE ON THE the most virtuous and worthy private citizens might perform the same official acts, and no one would recognize them as valid in law. This principle is absolutely essential to the order, if not to the very existence, of civil government; and, for reasons equally clear and no less important, it must be recognized and acted upon in ecclesiastical government. I am not able to perceive wherein I either misconceived or misrepre- sented the gentleman in regard to the principles advocated by him in the Harbinger. He now seems disposed to confine the right of females, and other unofficial persons, to baptize, to extreme cases. But it is not so presented in the article from which I read an extract. With the case of Roger Williams I am not, at present, concerned. I find nothing in the Scriptures to countenance the singular course pursued by him and his friends. I presume, he had been truly and validly bap- tized before. He became dissatisfied with his baptism ; and this error placed him in the unpleasant predicament. Had he been satisfied with a scriptural baptism, he might have avoided both his difficulties and his absurdities. But many persons in this audience, I donbt not, are astonished to find Mr. Campbell abandoning the very fundamental principle of his boasted reformation, which is — to have a " Thus saith the Lord," or a clear scriptural example for every article of faith, or item of practice. One of the prominent and most important articles of his faith is — that every member of the church, male and female, old and young, has the right to administer baptism. On this doctrine he encourages his people, as cir- cumstances may require, to practice ; and upon the truth of it, if his views of the design of baptism are correct, depends the salvation of souls. Has he produced a solitary passage of Scripture to sustain it ? He has not. Yet it is with him a matter o^ faith. Where is the divine testimo- ny on which it is founded ? The gentleman has read extracts from the writings of archbishop Whateley, Thomas Smyth, D. D., and from some- body else. These are his authorities ; but from the word of God he has given us neither precept nor example ! Here is an article of his faith, on the truth of which depends the salvation of the soul, for which he is unable to produce even one precedent ! ! Thus is the fundamental prin- ciple of his reformation abandoned. I set a very low estimate upon a reformation, which is of a character so accommodating, that it will take the Scriptures when they sustain its principles, and abandon them when occasion requires. But, strangely enough, the gentleman calls on me to produce a passage of Scripture which says, that none but a bishop or ordained presbyter may baptize. I doubt very much, whether you can find in our civil code a law forbidding any man, who is. not a sheriff, to perform the duties be- longing to that office. You may find a law which defines the duties of those who fill the office ; and it is a principle of common sense and of com- mon law, that no private citizen, nor any one not invested with that office, may interfere with its functions. So I have proved, that our Savior ap- pointed twelve men to a high and responsible office; and that he author- ized them to ordain others to the same office. 'J'he great duties required of these officers, were to preach and baptize. No other persons were ever commanded or authorized to do the one or the other. Here, then, is an office established in the church, provision made for the regular ap- pointment of officers to fill it, and its duties clearly defined. These, ac- cording to the universally admitted principle just mentioned, no one, not ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 593 regularly inducted into this office, can discharge the functions connected with it ; and if any one, in his rashness, attempt it, his acts are null and void. Yet.ihe gentleman would have you believe, that I am bound to point to the Scripture, which, in so many words, forbids an unordained person to administer baptism ! I assert, that a bishop or presbyter has the right to baptize. He admits it. Then, so far as my faith and my practice are concerned, I have nothing to prove. But he maintains, that unordained persons, and even females, may of right baptize. I call upon him to prove it. Surely it is but reasonable, that a man, especially one who boasts that he goes by the Bible, should prove the truth of that which he believes, and the lawfulness of his practice. But he wishes me to prove a negative, viz : that unordained persons, females, &c., have not the right to baptize ! Why, he cannot find a passage in the Bible that, in so many words, forbids horse-racing, or card-playing. Yet he will admit, that I can prove both to be wrong. So I cannot produce a passage in the New Testament, that says, in so many words, that an unordained, or even an unbaptized person, shall not baptize; but I can prove by clear decla- rations of Scripture, that bishops or presbyters, and they only, were au- thorized to administer the ordinance ; and that, so far as we can gain in- formation from the inspired records, no others ever ventured to do it Now if Mr. Campbell asserts, that unordained persons are authorized to baptize, it behooves him to adduce the proof. lie admits the truth of all for which weC contend, viz: that bishops or presbyters are authorized to baptize. Then, unless he can prove, that others have the same right, his doctrine must be abandoned ; or if he still adheres to it, his reformation should, in consistency, be given up, for its fundamental principle is repu- diated, and he is found in the ranks of those who substitute tradition for the Bible. Would it not be wiser in him to abandon this unscriptural tenet, than trample under foot his own principles ? Is it indeed so very important for him to adhere to a doctrine and a practice for which he can find in the Bible not the slightest authority ? Would it not be better for him, and better for his church, at once to abandon it? He thinks it wise to change ; and he tells us, he has very greatly changed his views. One more change, especially if it bring him nearer the Bible, will not hurt him. Let him bring this doctrine to the test — "to the law and to the testimony." I desire a "Thus saith the Lord" in support of it, and I must have it, or I shall still protest against it. At least, let us have a fair and clear precedent. In reply to one of his correspondents, who made several inquiries on this important subject, he stated as a fact, that in the New Testament "Deacons, and uuolficial persons, are all represented as immersing, when occasion called for it." I expected him to produce the evidence on which he founded this important assertion. I supposed that he would feel himself bound to bring forward tlie very passages ; but, as yet, we have not been permitted to see even one of them ! Alas ! what is to become of that great truth in which he would appear so much to glory — The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants ? The ladies, too, he believes, may baptize when circumstances require it; and each lady must, of course, determine for herself when circum- stances do require her thus to ofiiciate. For this item of his faith, the gentleman does not pretend to find either precept or precedent. Yet he believes it! 38 3d2 594 DEBATE ON THE An unscriptural doctrine has given rise to these unscriptural and injuri- ous practices. Better give up the doctrine ; and the practices will, of course, be abandoned. According to our views, there is no necessity to provide for any cases for which the law of Christ does not providq. We do not believe, that penitent believers will be lost, even though they have not the opportunity to receive baptism. Consequently we have no occa- sion to call on the ladies and children to officiate in any case. " He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." My friend, Mr. C, em- braced one false doctrine ; and to meet the difficulties growing out of this error, he embraced another, and upon these two errors based a most un- scriptural practice. But alas ! for his reformation ; for it is unable to find precept or precedent for one of its most important doctrines. Mr. Campbell says, I have given him considerable time, inasmuch as I occupied in my introductory speech hnt forty minutes. Well, I can spare him time. My doctrine and my practice on this subject he acknowledges to be scriptural. I can give him time to find and bring forward those scriptures which teach that laymen and women may baptize. I will give him as much time as can be deemed necessary, if he will produce just one passage of the kind. I see no propriety in making long speeches, when my doctrine is ad- mitted, and he produces no proof of the truth of his. It appears useless to reply to his quotations from archbishop Whateley and others, when they are discussing other subjects. It would be cruel, indeed, to continue warring against a man when he has no sword, no weapons, and can get none ! I do not like to fight with a man in that condition. I think it is better to close the war. I cannot consent to contend with an unarmed man. When he can get a sword, I will again be with him; but I hope he will no longer rely on human authority. It is, indeed, most incon- sistent in a man like Mr. C, who has waged a long and furious war against all bishops and presbyters, now to rely on them alone for support. I will wait for the Scripture.' — [^Time expired. Saturday, Nov. 25 — 121 o'clock, P. M. [mr. Campbell's second reply.] Mr. President — I am sorely pressed sir! I am sorely pressed, fellow- citizens ! I am grievously oppressed ! Alas for me ! alas for reformation ! Such exclamations have become familiar as household words ; you all understand them. When the gentleman has nothing to say, then I am just got into some dreadful predicament ; when he has nothing to say, then my case is sure to be sorely pressed. Yes, my fellow-citizens, I am truly hard pressed ; for to speak against nothing, is one of the hardest tasks that can be imposed on me. If any one sees any relevancy in the remarks of my opponent to the question before us, I must envy him his powers of discrimination. I see nothing relevant — call it my obtusity, if you please — but I must say, that I see nothing at all relevant to the proposition. In his first speech, he spoke forty minutes and sat down. Brought he one passage of Scripture that could be predicated of the subject of his pro- position ? Did he bring one verse, intimating that bishops and ordained ministers had a prescribed right to baptize ? Is it not necessary to prove that they have a right to baptize, before we prove that none else have such a right? I said he could not produce one such text; and now you all see that my prediction was true ; he did not, he could not, he has not brought ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 595 the first word, declarative that bishops have a special right to baptize. All the passages of Scripture which I alledged, gave them the right to bap- tize, only in common with other persons ; it was never associated with them, nor committed to them, as bishops. If other persons may baptize on particular occasions, and by the force of special circumstances, so may they ; but as to an official and divine right, there is no evidence. Apostles baptized with all the authority of their high office, which gave them uni- versal and supreme superintendence. Mr. Rice, it seems, is resolved that I shall not defend Mr. .Tones from the violent assault made upon his reputation the other day, in the presence of this great concourse. I do not introduce this subject because of any personal feeling, or by way of reprisal for his censures upon me, for re- commending his history of the Waldenses. I do it as an act of justice to an injured man, and to an injured community. I have the documents to show, that the statements made here are a base aspersion of an unoffending man. But Mr. Rice refuses to hear them read. On him, then, be the responsibility. This matter has been inquired into, and refuted. To return to our immediate subject. I was pleased to hear Mr. Rice admit, at last, that there was a perfectly organized society in the apostolic age. The aposdes must then have had power to organize such a com- munity. Now we have always contended, that Christianity, being a mo- ral positive institution — a special providence — it must have for all its essential provisions, the warrant of a divine precept — of a "■ Thus saith the Lord." What the aposdes did as plenipotentiaries of the kingdom of hea- ven, is just as exemplary and authoritative as a divine command. To show that any thing was done in the presence of the apostles, with their approbation, is all-sufficient to warrant us to go and do likewise. When, then, any one claims official or special power, or privilege, we ask him for the authority — for a warrant from the ministers of the Great King. As the gentleman admits every thing was done in good order in the apostolic church, and in conformity with the law of God, I need only show what that church did to obtain from him the concession that we may go and do likewise. I will, then, proceed to read a sketch of the way and manner things were done in the mother church, at Jerusalem, while all the apostles were yet living. After that the church in Jerusalem had in- creased to many thousands, a very fierce persecution arose : Stephen was slain, and all were dispersed, except the aposdes. It reads in the fol- lowing manner: Acts viii. 1 : " And at that time there was a great perse- cution against the church, which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the aposdes. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentations over him. As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, enter- ing into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison. Therefore, they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." Here, then, we have the church of so many thousands dispersed. Those scattered abroad, we are told, went every where through Judea and Sama- ria, preaching the word. Here, then we have a divine precedent. The historian gives us the history of one of these preachers, from whose career we may learn something of that of the others; his name was Philip: "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles, which he did. And 596 DEBATE ON THE when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of tlie Lord Jesus, they were baptized, both men and women." He next gives the history of two distinguished persons — Simon Magus, and the Ethiopian eunuch. From these particular cases, we may learn much of the details of Christianity. On account of the minute statements concerning the Samaritans, Simon and Philip, the eighth chapter of the Acts of Apostles is, to us, an invaluable document. We have, then, the .adventures and success of Philip detailed to the end of that chapter. The gospel was carried by him into Samaria ; and was successfully preached to the Samaritans. Many of them heard, be- lieved, and were baptized. The historian tells us, that many men and women were baptized. How particularly minute in detailing these, to us apparently very minor matters ! It is evident, then, that the church in Jerusalem was not Presbyterian : for they licensed persons to preach, and withheld not from them the right to baptize. They may enlighten, and, as they say, convert the people, but must not baptize them. Philip bap- tized. No such licentiates were in the apostolic age. What a singular caprice of learned men ! A preacher is licensed to go out into the wide world to preach the word; and, should he make a hundred converts in a day or a year, he has not power to baptize one of them ! The apostolic commission was, " convert and baptize," according to him ; and yet he asks for authority for these thousands to baptize. We have the adven- tures of only one of them given ; and evident it is, that he both preached and baptized. AVhat he did, we are compelled, by every principle of reason, to believe the others did. There were not two laws, two castes of preachers in those days. Philip's history is given, for one of two rea- sons : either because he was a very distinguished man among those preach- ers, or because of the important fact that the distinguished city of Samaria was visited, Simon the Sorcerer vanquished, and the arch-treasurer of queen Candaces' empire was converted. But those facts and incidents, which respect the man and his success, do not at all give him a new or different office. We still have preachers of different ranks of talent, honor, and usefulness ; but they are all equal in office. While we have these scriptural facts and documents before us, it may not be improper to note this fact also, that light is scattering over this land, and men in all parties begin to see it. Here is a book called " Ba- con's Manual." It came from the east. Wise men come from the east, even in this country. Light has broken out even in New Haven. We shall read a few sentences : " As to the persons by whom this ceremony of baptism was performed, I will say, in one word, that this, evidently, was deemed a matter of little consequence. Paul thought, that the ordinance of baptism was among the least of his duties as a minister of the gospel; 1 Cor. i. 14 — 17. I find no- thing in the Bible, and nothing in what I have seen of the earliest chris- tian writers, which implies that it was the peculiar duty, or the peculiar honor, of this or that officer, to administer baptism." — Bacon's Manuel, page .58. " The Lord's Supper. — Where there were church officers, there the bish- ops presided over this, as over every other part of public worship. To pre- side over the church, at the Lord's table, belongs to their office, as obvious- ly, as to preside over the prayers of the church, or over the public reading and expounding of the Scriptures, or over the debates of a meeting for church business. But where there were no officers, the organization of the churcli being, as at Corinth when Paul wrote his epistles, not yet completed ; ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 597 there is no evidence that this commemoration of Christ was omitted, any more than prayers and singing. Ordination was simply the public inauguration of a man to a particular work or office. It seems to have been done uniformly with prayer and the laying on of hands. The imposition of hands is an ancient oriental form of benediction. Thus 'Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph.' Thus, little children were brought to Jesus in the days of his flesh, ' that he should put his hands on them and pray,' and after reproving his disciples for their in- terference, ' he laid his hands on them.' This benediction, this solemn commendation of the individual to the grace and blessing of God, is all that was meant by the imposition of hands in the inauguration of church offi- cers, or, in the setting apart of a christian teacher to the sacred employ- ment of preaching the gospel. The idea of any sacerdotal power, or di- vine virtue, transferred into the candidate, through the hands of the ordain- ing bishop or the presbytery, is a popish fancy, unworthy of an ' age of Bibles,' and unknown to the simplicity of the primitive times." — lb. p. 59. Thus speaks Leonard Bacon, pastor of the First Church in New Ha- ven : second edition, New York, 1841. Without special call, or official designation, this gentleman argues, men holding private stations in the church may baptize, and not only that, but may also even dispense the supper — a matter, by some weak and superstitious minds, regarded as still more solemn and official. This is the doctrine of" the reformation," as Mr. R. denominates it. It is so, indeed. And it was the original and true doctrine of Protestantism ; and, better still, it is the true doctrine of the Scriptures, which has been asserted in every age, and received by all who have opposed the hanghty pretensions of those who presumed to arrogate to themselves an exclusive right to mediate and negotiate be- tween God and man. While we build only on apostles and prophets, we are pleased to see men of all parties opening their eyes to the primi- tive simplicity and high authority of die inspired Scriptures. In the New Testament, we never read of any one waiting for an ad- ministrator, for the presence of an officer to dispense any ordinance whatever; nor do Ave read of their ever sending abroad for any such func- tionaries. The most convenient person is always sent for as the operator. Witness the conversion and baptism of the apostle Paul. Not far from Damascus, in Syria, on the public highway, Paul saw the Lord, and be- lieved his voice. He was led into the city. And who baptized the great apostle of the gentiles? Surely they must send to Jerusalem for bishop James, a prince among the apostles ! — or for Peter, the grand prelate and president of the whole college of apostles ! Nay, verily. There hap- pened to be living in Damascus, just at that time, a " certain disciple," never before heard of, " named Ananias." We have no evidence that he ■was an official character of any sort; and, consequently, that he ivas, is not to be assumed. Those who say that he was, must prove it. The Lord sent him to a certain place in Damascus, to inform this Saul of Tarsus, what to do for his own special salvation. The Lord had told him what to do for him as a witness and a minister; but he did not preach to him the details of his own personal duties, under the Messiah's reign. This he left to some one v/ho had received it from that Peter, to whom he solemnly and irrevocably had consigned the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Now, as Paul's case was to be a remarkable one, this Ananias had a vision too, to dispose him to go to the house of one Judas, with whom Paul was then lodging. He was carefully directed to Straight Street, 598 DEBATE ON THE and to the house of Judas, and entering m, he found Paul yet blind. He laid his hands upon him in the name of the Lord, that he might re- ceive his outward sight, and be inwardly filled with the holy Spirit. He then baptized him, " He received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." With such iacts as these before us, why arraign our brethren, and censure them for following such examples as those already given ? In censuring us, our friends censure the primitive church and the apostles themselves. If Paul had been converted by any man according to the usage of that age, he would have been baptized by that man. But the Lord having taken the work entirely into his own hand, furnished a " certain disci- ple for administrator. We must all admit, that matters Avere well understood at Jerusalem before the dispersion, and that the church there had been properly or- ganized. Hence, their practice and example are all important to us. In that church, nor in any other, do we ever read of any special provision having been made for baptizing. This is a singular fact — a fact that ought to be, in this age of clerical pride and assumption, deeply engraved upon all minds — that neither in Jerusalem, nor in any church, city, or province, where cliristianity was planted in the days of the apostles, did there ever arise any question, or originate any law or precept, on the sub- ject of an administrator of baptism nor of the holy supper. Even when specifying the qualifications of elders, or bishops, and deacons, and when assigning them their duties, the apostles never once mentioned any thing about the dispensation or administration of ordinances ! There never arose any question on this subject, nor any difficulty calling for one line or word from any New Testament writer. Paul himself spent eighteen months in Corinth. "Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized." Paul baptized but a very few of that immense multitude. Nor are we even informed who baptized any of them. Paul made oth- ers attend to this matter. He must have distributed it amongst others of inferior rank. When Peter was sent by a Divine oracle from Joppa to Cesarea, to the house of the famous gentile centurion, Cornelius, to announce to him, his family, friends, and neighbors, the glad tidings ; wlien, too, the Spirit of God was liberally, in his miraculous gifts, bestowed on that commu- nity, the apostle commanded others, who accompanied him, to baptize those gentiles. To change the style of Luke, the narrator, who preserves the third person; I say change it into the first — let Peter in his own person be heard, and it would read thus : Can any of you Jews, [six brethren, who accompanied him from Joppa ;] can any of you forbid water, that these should be baptized as well as we ? When no one re- sponded, Peter said, In the name of the Lord, baptize them. In the third person it reads, " Then he commanded them to be baptized." Here, then, were neither bishops nor ministers ; they were simply six brethren. They were not officials — there is no sort of evidence that they were. The presumption is, that they were not; and, of course, we cannot argue from them in any other light than that they were merely "six brethren.''^ There is not, then, either in the case of the Samaritans, nor of the gentiles, nor even among the Jews, a single indication of any concern about the rank of an administrator of baptism or any other ordinance. Such questions Avere not then agitated, and of course the New Testa- ment is wholly silent on the whole subject of official administrators of ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 599 baptism, farther than we learn incidentally from the examples before us. I am singularly fortunate in being able to produce such instances of what, now-a-days, would be called lay -baptism, just under the eyes and direction of such churches, apostles, and prophets. It is wholly a work of supererogation. I am not required by any law of discussion to produce such evidence. But what should we have had to talk about in this case, if I had not found these documents. Mr. Rice has nothing to offer. He has been dipping buckets into empty wells and drawing nothing out. It is not any defect in his genius or invention. He has rather too much of that. It is the sterility, the barrenness of the soil. Having, then, found no precept or precedent for episcopal or Presby- terian baptism ; no authority for such classic and clerical administrations ; but, on the contrary, having produced clear and indisputable cases of lay- baptism, under the inspection and by the authority of the Lord and his aposdes; may we not regard the subject as clearly, satisfactorily and finally settled ? With regard to the good order of religious society, Mr. R. seems to represent us as having little or no regard for it. This is very far from fact. No one admires good order more than I, and no one, I think, is more ready to sacrifice his own opinions to obtain it. The beauty of the universe is its good order. A community without it must go to ruin. We are not, however, without church organization. We have hundreds of congregations, with their bishops and deacons, in as good order as, perhaps, any Presbyterian community in the commonwealth. But Ave have not any general system of organization, no system of general co-op- eration. Tliis is, indeed, true. But, even in this respect we are now as all other societies have been in their incipiency. Presbyterian society was much longer than our whole existence in getting organized. They were so much perplexed and distracted about organization, that in the time of Knox there passed at one time eighteen years without a case of ordination by imposition of hands. The long reign of Elizabeth, and that of Edward VI., were spent in organizing, changing, and new-modi- fying that national institution called Episcopalianism. The Congrega- tionalists, or Independents, were also in a transitive state for years. And Wesley's discipline and order was changed some seventeen times in his own life-time. The apostles were not very precipitate in this work. It Avas upon the second tour of Paul and Barnabas, that they set things in order and or- dained elders in every city. Paul left Timothy in Ephesus, not merely to keep the order established by Paul, but to set things in order as he had appointed him. The apostles were governed by circumstances, and had to wait for the developments of society. They did not enact nor legislate in anticipation, but in retrospection of difficulties and disorders. We have been occasionally writing on order for many years. We have secured a good deal of it at many points, and still hope to secure it at more. The wliole christian community should be perfectly organized and compacted together, and combine their energies and means in one grand system of redeeming man from ignorance, guilt, and bondage. But instead of mocking our efforts, as did certain persons of old the rebuilders of Jerusalem, our friends should rather commend us for what we have done, than censure us for what we have not done. And here I am led to notice a statement of Mr. Rice that startled me no litde. He says, that we have promulged a doctrine authorizing all 600 DEBATE ON THE persons to baptize. He can produce no siich document. It is a gross I sliall not name it. It is at least a misconception of his own. I have ah-eady expressed myself fully on that point. We ought always to assail the proper ground occupied by those we oppose, and not make for them such arguments as we can easily refute. I do not demur to any man assailing me through my own arguments, while I must always com- plain of his putting into my mouth propositions or aguments which I did not use. Nor is it lawful to accuse me of maintaining the inferences which Mr. Rice chooses to draw from my arguments. This is neither the part of candor nor of moral rectitude. I will not consent to be responsi- ble for his inferences, nor for those of any other man. I defend what I have written, and not his inferences from it. — [Time expired. Saturday, Nov. 25 — 1 o'clock, P. M. |]mr. rice's closing address. 3 Mr. President — 1 have a remark or two lo make with regard to Jones' history. I read it to the audience in connection with that of Perrin, for the purpose of proving, that in quoting Perrin he threw out what his author said of baptizing infants, and substituted in its place a statement which was wholly different. The gentleman may apply to my conduct in this matter what epithet he pleases ; but I will, at any proper time, meet him, and give him a fair opportunity of exposing it. I never shrink from such responsibilities. My friend, Mr. C, regrets (so he would have us think) to be obliged to speak against nothing. When a man is called upon to produce a " Thus saith the Lord" for his doctrines and practices, and is unable to do it, I think a complaint that he has nothing to do, comes with a poor grace from him. It looks very much as if he were speaking against the Bible! I have been prepared to examine all his Bible authorities; but, strange to tell, he has not produced one that is even plausible. He maintains that there is no passage of Scripture authorizing bishops to baptize, and calls on me to produce one. I will prove by Mr. Camp- bell himself, that every ordained presbyter is auliiorized to administer baptism. I will read in the MiUenial Harbinger, vol. iii. p. 475: — "No person can be sent specially to baptize without preaching, nor to PREACH WITHOUT BAPTIZING. But baptizing was the inferior of the two, and, therefore, Paul says, in the Hebrew idiom, he was sent to preach rather than baptize. This is precisely his meaning — nay, it is precisely what he says, when his Jewish idiom is understood." The gentleman has called on me to prove, that bishops are authorized to baptize ; and yet he has himself declared, that no one can be sent specially to preach imthout baptizing .'.' ! He must certainly have forgotten much that he has written. I have very'recently been looking through his writings, and perhaps I have a more distinct recollection of many of them than he has. I have not said, as he seems to intimate, that no particular church was ever in an unorganized state. My remark was made distinctly concern- ing the church of Christ. I said, it has never been in an unorganized state, so as to make it proper or lawful for private members to assume to perform one of the functions of the ministerial office. Moreover, when any particular church is to be organized, it should be done by properly appointed officers. But let us examine the Scriptures to which the gentleman has appealed in support of his doctrine of lay-baptisra. He refers to Acts viii. 4, ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 601 " Therefore they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word." The word here rendered preaching, signifies telling good news ; and it is admitted, that all christians have the right to tell to others the good news concerning salvation through Christ. As the christians at Jerusalem were scattered abroad by persecution, they went forth, telling their fellow-men these glad tidings. Such seems to be the meaning of the passage. But if the gentleman insists that the word euangelizomenoi, translated preaching, means in this instance preaching in the official or technical sense of the word ; he must admit, that the women as well as the men, became public preachers ! This, I think, he will scarcely maintain. The inspired historian tells us, that the women as well as the men were scat- tered abroad, preaching ; yet Mr. C. will confine the preaching to the men. Then how can he be sure, that it is not confined to ordained men ? The word, however, does not mean preaching in the official sense, as I suppose, but telling the good news of salvation, as private christians may do. But after all, there is not in this passage, nor in the connection, one word about baptizing. The question under discussion is, whether pri- vate members of the church may baptize; and to prove, that they have the authority, Mr. C. triumphandy adduces a passage in which there is not a syllable concerning baptism ! It is one thing to inform an inqui- ring mind how he may be saved through Christ, and quite another to in- troduce him into the church of Christ, and thus afford him the opportu- nity, if he be an unworthy member, greatly to dishonor and injure the church and the cause of truth. The introduction of persons into the church by baptism, is no mere personal or private matter. One unworthy member can do more injury to the church and to the cause of Christ, than a dozen like him, who remain in the world. Hence our Savior was care- ful to whom he committed the keys of the kingdom. He did not author- ize every member of the church who might choose to be officious, to initiate into the church whom he pleased. Tlie passage, I repeat, says not a word about baptizing — the only sub- ject now before us. You perceive how the genUeraan shifts and turns to save his unscriptural tenet. I call for a passage of Scripture to sustain his doctrine, that private members of the church may baptize ; and he points us to one which speaks of persecuted christians wandering to and fro, and telling to their fellow-men the good news of salvation through Christ, but which says not a word about baptizing ! His next proof of lay-baptism is tlie fact, that Philip baptized the eu- nuch. But we have some information concerning Philip, which com- pletely nullifies this argument. In Acts xxi. 8, we read as follows: " And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Cesarea; and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which ivas one of the seven, and abode with him." Philip was first elected and ordained to the office of deacon at Jerusalem, but afterwards became an evangelist. After receiving this last office it was, doubtless, that he went forth preaching and baptizing. There is not the least evi- dence that he was only a deacon when he baptized the eunuch. On the contrary, inasmuch as we know that he was ordained as an evangelist, the evidence is decidedly in favor of the opinion that he had received this office before he baptized the eunuch. Mr. Campbell's third argument for lay-baptism is the fact, that Ananias 3E 602 DEBATE ON THE baptized Paul; and he says, the presumption is, that he was not ordained to the office of the ministry. But does he know, that he was not or- dained ? Has he the slightest evidence on which to found the presump- tion, that he was not? This is an important question; for he cites Ana- nias as an instance in which an unordained man administered baptism ; and he says, in all probability he was a private member. Has he the least evidence in the world on which to found such an opinion ? He has not. Then what is his argument worth? Absolutely nothing. His fourth argument in favor of lay-baptism is derived from the bap- tism of Cornelius and his family, (Acts x.) Certain brethren went with Peter to the house of Cornelius, and Mr. C, supposes, that some one of them, and not Peter, baptized him and his family. And he says, the presumption is, that they were unofficial persons. But on what evi- dence, 1 emphatically ask, is this presumption founded ? I venture the assertion, that there is not the slightest evidence to support such a pre- sumption. Some one or all of them may have been, and probably were ordained ministers of the gospel. But the gentleman has appealed to these six brethren as proof positive, that unordained persons did administer baptism in the apostolic age. I ask, does he know, that they were unordained ? He acknowledges that he does not. But he says, the presumption is, that they were unofficial persons. I reply, that there can be no presumption without some evi- dence. What evidence has he ? None — absolutely none. Then, I again ask, what is his argument worth ? His Bible evidence in favor of the right of unordained males and fe- males to baptize, has disappeared. He is not able to produce a " Thua saith the Lord," or a clear precedent to sustain it. Yet he has taught this doctrine, and encouraged thousands to practice accordingly ; and al- though, according to his views, the salvation of the soul depends on the validity of baptism, he is now unable to sustain it by either precept or example from the Scriptures ! But he appeals to Leonard Bacon, of New Haven, as favoring his views. Dr. Bacon, if I am correcdy informed, is, comparati^ 2ly, a young man — a Congregationalist. I do not know, whether his reputation as a profound theologian would constitute him an authority. In the ab- sence of all Scripture authority for lay-baptism, perhaps I ought not to attempt to rob him of this human authority. The gentleman is evident- ly in great difficulty ; and he appeals to Dr. Bacon to help him out. He set out in his reformation on the safe principle of having for every article of faith, or item of practice, a " Thus saith the Lord," or a clear and cer- tain precedent. In his present difficulties he finds, that he has not the Bible to sustain him ; but he has got Leonard Bacon. — [A laugh.] He tells us, that there is in the New Testament no law regulating the administration of baptism ; and yet in his Harbinger we are told, as I have proved, that every man who was specially sent to preach, was also sent to baptize ! Yet, strangely enough, he appeals to the fact, that Paul was not sent particularly to baptize, as evidence that the administration of baptism was not assigned to any particular class of persons ! I rather think, however, that he has given a better reason than this, why Paul was not accustomed to baptize. In the Millenial Harbinger, (vol. ii. Extra, page 36,) he says — " He [Paul] was no fisherman like the twelve. He was not of that robust constitution. My bodily presence is weak, says he: and history gives him not size enough to baptize !" I know not to what ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 603 history the gentleman had reference ; but certaiflly the reason here assigned for his not being accustomed to baptize, is better than the one he now offers ! Paul was not big enough to baptize ! ! ! Then, indeed, it was very important he should have others to do it for him ! With regard to the organization of Mr. Campbell's church, I have no- thing to say at present. That subject will be fully discussed under the proposition concerning creeds. He charges me with a crime which he could not venture to name, for having said, that, according to his doctrine, every member of the church has the right to baptize. I am responsible for all the statements I make. I will prove the truth of the fact I stated, by Mr. Campbell himself! I will read in his Christian System, (p. 85,) " A christian is by profession a preacher of truth and righteousness, both by precept and example. He may of right preach, baptize, and dispense the supper, as loell as pray for all men, when circumstances demand it.'''' Now who, I ask, is to determine when circumstances require a private member of the church to baptize ? Has the gentleman's church ecclesiastical bodies by which the matter may be determined ? He acknowledges that it has not. He wages an exterminating war against ecclesiastical courts. Each in- dividual, therefore, must judge for himself or for herself, when he or she ought to administer baptism. For, as Mr. C. teaches, each may of right preach, baptize, &c., and none have authority to dictate to, or control him in the matter. Does not this completely sustain all that I have aihrmed? In the passage I read in the Harbinger, a short time since, he teaches that females may baptize, when circumstances require it ; and yet he acknowledges, that he can find neither precept nor example to sustain him in the position. He even goes further, and maintains that an imbaptized person may, under certain circumstances, baptize. But who, I again ask, is to determine when circumstances do require such persons to venture upon a work so solemn and so responsible ? There is no body, or court, to which the matter can be referred. The good lady, the little boy or girl, must determine, in any exigency, what is duty. This is the worst I have said of the genUeman's principles ; and all this, as he must admit, is precisely according to the New Testament, It is so, if his doctrine is true. As this is the last speech I shall make on this question, I must now, very briefly, sum up the argument. The commission given by our Savior, I maintain, is a clear prohibition of lay-baptism. " Go ye," said he to the twelve, " and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." We know that the aposUes were authorized and commanded to baptize and teach. But this is not all ; the promise extends to the end of time. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." It is, then, clear, that till the end of time, there is to be a class of men, solemnly invested with the ministerial office, whose business it shall be to preach the gospel, and to administer baptism. This cannot be success- fully controverted. But Mr. Campbell teaches, that not only bishops or presbyters, but private members, and even females, may of right baptize. I maintain, that ihi.* commission confines both preaching and baptizing to those who are clothed with the ministerial office. Here, you observe, we find a most important oflice, established in the church by Christ himself, designed to 604 DEBATE ON THE be perpetual. Twelve men, qualified for their responsible work by the King, are solemnly charged with the duties of the office; they are author- ized and required to ordain others to engage in the same work ; they are directed to look well to the character and the qualifications of those on whom they lay their hands, to whom they entrust the interests of the king- dom of God. As we read in the Acts of the Apostles, a brief history of their labors, we find them, in obedience to the authority of the Redeemer, ordaining other men to go forth and baptize, and to teach the mysteries of the kingdom. But from the time when the commission was given, and the apostles inducted into their responsible office, we find not one instance of the ad- ministration of baptism by an unordained person. We do, indeed, read that baptism was administered, in some cases, by persons whose official character is not mentioned ; but this fact proves nothing against the position I am maintaining, and nothing in favor of the doctrine of Mr. Campbell. For if I state, that an individual was baptized in one of our churches, on a certain day, it is wholly unnecessary for me to mention the fact, that the administrator was an ordained minister, because our views and our prac- tice are generally known. For the same reason, it was not necessary that Luke, in writing the Acts of the Apostles, should, in recording a bap- tism, state that an ordained minister officiated ; nor does his silence on this point, in any number of cases, afford the least ground of probability that those who administered the ordinance were private persons. The fact, then, is, that the New Testament gives not a solitary instance in which baptism was administered by a person known to be unordained. There is neither precept nor precedent. Then Mr. Campbell is bound, according to the fundamental principle of his reformation, to abandon the doctrine, and the practice of lay-baptism. In every government, civil and ecclesiastical, there must be offices es- tablished, and officers appointed to transact public business. And when particular duties are, by law, connected with a particular office, it is, as I have said, a principle universally admitted, that no individual, whatever his standing may be, can discharge the duties, until he is clothed with the office. Indeed, it is a principle, the necessity of which must be manifest to every one. For if every private individual may, on his own responsi- bility, transact public business, no government on earth, civil or ecclesias- tical, can exist. Perfect anarcliy must result in church and in state, from the adoption of such a principle. Whether, therefore, we regard the inte- rests, present and future, of individuals, or the purity and peace of the church of Christ, and the honor of his cause, it is absolutely necessary that none but men properly qualified, and solemnly ordained to the minis- terial office, should be permitted to administer the ordinance of baptism, and introduce persons to the fellowship of the church. Every one must see, that if each individual member may open the door, and admit into the church whom he pleases, consequences the most disastrous must follow. The wisdom of the Redeemer is manifested by the fact, that he commit- ed the work of teaching and baptizing to those who were qualified for the proper performance of it, and directed them to ordain others to the office, but to "lay hands suddenly on no man." There were most important rea- sons why he pursued this course. He intended not to have a church containing within itself the elements of its own destruction — leaving the male, the female, the j^oung, the old, the rash, the superstitious, the ignorant, to throw wide its doors, and introduce just whom they might think proper. ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 605 It is a happy circumstance, that the doctrine of Mr. Campbell has not been fully and eilensively carried out in practice. The preservation of his church, from " confusion worse confounded," is owing, he must ad- mit, to the prudence and good sense which have prevented tlie members from acting in accordance with his doctrine, not to the soundness of the doctrine itself. If each member had undertaken to administer baptism, as, he says, each may of right do, the church, thougli now sufficiently involved in confusion, would have been in a condition far worse than it is. I must here reply to one of the gentleman's arguments, which I forgot to notice in the proper place. He says, my objection to the right of females to baptize, comes with an ill grace from me, as a Pedo-baptist, since mothers, of olden time, circumcised their children. The Scriptures do not inform us that mothers had any such authority. The conduct of the wife of Moses is not approbated; and the temper she displayed on the occasion, does not evince that she was actuated by proper motives. There is not another example of the kind in the Bible. But God might have permitted unofficial persons to administer that ordinance under the old dispensation, and yet, when the church extended her boundaries over the earth, and was, of course, placed in circumstances greatly different, there would be reasons of greatest importance for confining the adminis- tration of the initiatory ordinance to men properly qualified, and set apart to the work. Under the old dispensation he did not say to the priests, or the prophets, " Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, cir- cumcising them." Had such a commission been given, there would have been good reasons for confining the authority to circumcise to the prophets and the priests. But under the new dispensation, the church was to lengthen her cords and strengthen her stakes. All nations were to be invited to participate in her privileges and blessings. The Savior then said to men qualified for the responsible work, " Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Thus he connected the work of baptizing and teaching, with the office of the ministry, and commanded those invested with the office, to discharge those duties, and to ordain others to the same work. He committed it to no private hands. There is, I repeat it, neither precept nor precedent in the Scriptures, authorizing any but bishops or presbyters to baptize; and no private member dare attempt it, unless he, or she, is willing to tram- ple under foot the authority of heaven. Such are the views I entertain on this important subject; and such are some of the plain and obvious reasons by which they are sustained. I leave you, my friends, to determine, in view of your responsibility to Christ and his church, whether I have established the truth of the propo- sition, that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or presbyter, acripturaUy ordained. — \_Time expired. Saturday, November 25 — 1| o'clock, P. M. [mr. Campbell's closing reply.] Mr. President — The gentleman has, for once at least, sat down with- out telling us what he has done. You all see what he has not done. Notwithstanding the indisputable evidence of his failure, I will respond to what has been offered. Baptism is to be administered only by an or- dained bishop or elder ! ! So he affirms : but where is the proof? His 3e2 606 DEBATE ON THE former speeches give us neither precept nor precedent. In my first reply, I once and again called for evidence ; bat I have called in vain. Finally, he gave an extract from the Millenial Harbinger. Now listen to his authority — vol. iii. p. 475 : *' No person can be sent specially to baptize without preaching ; nor to preach without baptizing. But baptizing was the inferior of the two, and therefore Paul says in the Hebrew idiom, he was sent to preach rather than to baptize. This is precisely his meaning — nay, it is precisely what he eays, when his Jewish idiom is understood !" Admit it all, does this prove that elders and bishops are sent abroad to preach as apostles ? ! And will it not also prove that all persons ordained or unordained, that preached, were accustomed to baptize ? ! The Millenial Harbinger proves that Paul was not sent with special reference to baptize, but to preach. Was Paul a bishop? — a presbyter? Any proof short of proving Paul to have been an elder or a bishop, falls short of the proposition. As it is, it comes not within a thousand miles of the question. By the Harbinger, he cannot prove that Paul was a bishop or an elder of any church. He says he has read it more recently than I have. It is quite probable. Yet he has not found that in it. I wish the gentleman had read his Bible a little more. He confesses that I gave a good reason why Paul baptized but a few. Truth will some- times force for itself an utterance. The gentleman, imperceptibly to him- self, perhaps, has conceded that Paul practiced immersion : for surely he must admit that Paul had strength and size enough to sprinkle. Inciden- tal arguments are generally both convincing and strong arguments. I will give another incidental argument. Paul said, he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. Baptizing, then, is inferior to preaching ; yet Paul some- times baptized. He baptized without a special commission, then ? Was he right or wrong ? We cannot choose the latter. He was right — was he not? Follows it not, then, that it is right to baptize without a com- mission— without a special license in some cases ? ! Paul, then, it seems, as any disciple may, on some occasions, baptized without a special com- mission. His case is then decidedly against Mr. Rice. The gentleman is out at every angle on this proposition. He now stands in an open field, in Avhich there are no hiding places. What those skilled in the laws of debate may say, on hearing Mr. Rice plead, that he is not bound to prove that every one who baptized was a bishop, when proving that none but a bishop may baptize, I presume not to conjecture; but certainly they will smile at his calling upon me to prove that Philip was or was not a bishop, while he affirms that he was ! I adduced several instances of persons baptizing, as well as Philip. How has he disposed of them? One of them was a very clear case, but he has not deigned to consider them. He admits, however, that all who preach, ought to baptize ; and thinks it was so from the beginning. Wliy, then, license ministers to preach, and re- strain them from baptizing ? ! Acts, eighth chapter, as before shown, is an overwhelming instance of preaching and baptizing, without such licenses as are now deemed es- sential. The church in Jerusalem certainly amounted to many thousands before Stephen was slain. After that persecution, the church, with the exception of the apostles, was driven from the city. They continued at the metropolis. These dispersed brethren, we are told, " went every where preacliing the word." That they baptized the converts, is most evident from tlie fact, that we are told of the baptism of the Samaritans, ■*:■> ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 607 and of the eunuch, by one of them ; and it is further evident from the con- cession of Mr. R.. that, from the beginning, those who preached the gos- pel, baptized. But, says Mr. Rice, Philip might have been a bishop. Yes, might have been! And he adds, that we have reason to believe that he was an evangelist; but that he was an evangelist, specially so called, and appointed to the work, is yet to be proved. He might have been a bishop — he might have been an evangelist, &c. &c., is poor logic. Let us read the passage : — " And at that time there was a great persecu- tion against the church which was in Jerusalem, and they were all scat- tered abroad through Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.'' — " They that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word ;" and Philip went down to Samaria, Sic. It is, then, indisputably evident that they all preached and baptized their converts. " But he might have been a bishop !" Well, let him prove that what might have been, actually teas. Ananias might have been a bishop, too. All the persons named in the New Testament might have been any thing wiiich partyism demands ; but this species of logic, on this occa- sion, is wholly reprobate and inadmissible. From the origin of baptism till now, no one superior to a disciple was called upon to administer it. The baptism of John was, indeed, from heaven, though some will have it, from men, and will have John to bap- tize as a Levite. Yet even this was administered by the disciples of Je- sus— for "Jesus baptized not, but his disciples baptized." A commu- nity properly organized, will doubtless set apart some baptists, Avho will attend to this ordinance in a becoming manner, persons of discrimination, judgment, and responsibility of character. The first gentile baptisms, it has been proved, and we now see it can- not be withstood, were performed by laymen. Peter took with him from Joppa to Cesarea *' six brethren.'''' They had no ofhcial designation whatever. They Avere Jews by nation, and brethren by faith in Jesus Christ. These were commanded to baptize the first fruits of the gen- tile world. Unofficial persons, in the New Testament, are in distinction from those in office, usually called " brethren." Thus they stand forever stereotyped in the Jerusalem letters to the gentiles — " The aposdes, elders, and brethren send greeting." Peter, then, and the six brethren, were the only baptized persons on the ground. Peter did not baptize, but com- manded them to be baptized. The case is made out — and the negative side of the question sustained by arguments invincible — by facts indis- putable. The gendeman observes, there is no council to decide when circum- stances make such baptists necessary or expedient. There is no need for such deliberations. The common sense of a community, and the good sense of aged and experienced brethren, will be a much safer palladium than ecclesiastic or synodical action. My general observation on this subject is, that any disciple or brother may baptize, only when circum- stances require and authorize it. If the circumstances are mistaken, no very great danger may ensue ; for, indeed, there is much less depending on the operation than any other circumstance, so far as the enjoyment of the blessing is regarded. We have not experienced much trouble or dan- ger on that account, although the license has been carried farther by us, tlian any denomination in Christendom. It is now, indeed, much less fre- quent than formerly, and will become still less so, as we advance to a more complete organization. We cannot, then, in justice, be represented 608 DEBATE ON THE as teaching that every person, or any person, amongst us has a general right to administer baptism. Mr. Rice takes pleasure to say and to reiterate it, that when he asserts any proposition or fact, he is always prepared to prove it. This is a fair and plausible saying. It sounds well. But the fact of its performance is better than the profession. How far it has been redeemed in this case, as ■well as on other occasions, you all perceive. What proof has been ad- vanced on the present proposition ? Does any one remember a verse in the Bible, or a fair and plausible inference ? I do not. The gentleman complains of my bringing books here to prove my ■views — and has frequently before complained of my reliance upon learned authorities, and upon numbers of witnesses, as if I were in those in- stances inconsistent with myself. He takes pleasure in the attempt to prove inconsistencies. Witness his readings from my writings. But how complete the failure, you have all doubtless observed. But do I use those books instead of the apostles ? Do I rely upon the number or learning of my witnesses and vouchers? No. The Book of God is my magazine of arguments and proofs. I use these authorities to expose the nakedness of the land, and to show how empty the pretence of numbers and learning against us. He demurs at the testimony of Leonard Bacon, and would have you believe that I substitute him for the apostles. Who believes it? No one — not even Mr. Rice! Did I so use archbishop Whateley, or Mr. Smyth, or any one else ? I only used these to show, that our views are not singular, and that light was breaking into his own church, or the Pedo-baptist societies upon these subjects, on account of which we have been so repudiated by such men as Mr. Rice. The gentleman will, if possible, blur the face or the character of a witness whom he cannot at all dispose of. He is sometimes a young man, or he is on the wrong side, or some other demur. I was too young when I renounced Presbyterianism — yet some twenty-four years old ! and Mr. Bacon is too young a man, though as old as my opponent! Strange logic. But when evidence is wanting for a proposition, it is politic to attempt to weaken the authorities on the other side, especially when their arguments cannot be at all encountered. But the embodiisent of learn- ing and good sense in the writings of these persons whom I adduce here, will obtain for them as much esteem and authority as I desire them to have. Mr. Bacon speaks with as much internal evidence of good sense, sound discretion, and intellectual endowment, as my opponent, or any other writer of his denomination in the country. Whateley is a giant intellect, and of attainments of the highest order. Weak minds are the slaves of old times, and of old customs. They need the crutches of antiquity, and human authority. But men of vigor- ous minds ask, what is truth? not who says it. True, the lesser lights must yield to the superior. The moon will not contend with the sun, nor twilight with the risen day. But it is an evidence, to my mind at least, that a man has some intelligence, and some force of intellect, when he has so much mental independence as to think for himself. Mr. Rice seems peculiarly fond of speaking of my church, or of •' his friend's church." This is very well understood here. The gentleman knows, however, that I have no church, and claim no such thing. 1 am a member of Christ's church, and no more. I have presumed to lift up my voice for reformation, and multitudes have responded to it. But we are not our own church, nor our own people, but the Lord's. The au- ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 609 thority we possess is not personal, nor official. It is the authority of the truth — the great truths elicited, or developed, in ihe current controversy, and reformation. Light has been elicited by the collision and co-operation of many minds ; and it is gone forth, and going forth, with a power aS irresistible as the light of God's sun. We began at the right place, and at the right time — Jerusalem, and the descent of the Holy Spirit. One party begins at Rome, another at Con- stantinople, another at Geneva, Amsterdam, or Westminster, We begin at Jerusalem. Others began wrlli Luther, with Calvin, or with Wes- ley. Some with this synod, and some with that. But we begin with the twelve apostles assembled in Jerusalem. We must, Mr. President, go beyond the reigns of king Henry VHL, prince Edward, and the mighty tyrant Elizabeth. We must, sir, go beyond St. Athanasius, St. Augus- tine, and the council of Nice. We must go up to Jerusalem and the holy twelve. Bishop Purcell, as all the Catholic bishops, gloried in Rome, and in St. Peter. He has a line, or lineage, of bishops made out, from Peter to Gregory XVL, a splendid hoax, a golden dream. Those who have the idea of succession and hereditary grace in their heads, cannot dispense with it. So much of the pope as there is in every man's stomach, so much depends he upon this chain of so many links, not noticing how many wooden ones are interposed. Is not Rome the mother and mis- tress of all churches ? exclaims the prelate — the learned prelate of Cin- cinnati! Was not Peter the first bishop of the imperial and eternal city? We say prove it, and we will believe it. But never was there a greater failure I ! He could not prove that Peter was ever at Rome ; and if he had — that he planted that church, and presided over it, is wholly out of the question. But we argued then as now, and triumphed then on this ground — and on this ground must always triumph, that Jerusalem is the mother of all true churches, and the mistress too, if we must have a mis- tress rather than a lord. We know that Peter was there, and set up the kingdom there, and that all the holy twelve were there, and that the first and last apostolic council was there ; and letters patent issued thence in favor of all the gentile churches, and one grand act of incorporation emanated thence. To Jerusalem, then, we make our first and last ap- peal. Whenever Mr, Rice turns his eyes towards that ancient city, more ancient, by a thousand years, than Rome ; more venerable, too, for a thousand reasons; he will give up his baptism — subject, action, design, and administrator, too. He will, indeed, allow a bishop to baptize a proper subject, but he will permit a deacon, too. From Jerusalem sounded out the word of the Lord. It was the radi- ating centre of Christianity. Great was the multitude of them that pub- lished it. The brethren from that point peranibulated Judea, Samaria, Syria, Scrij)tures require all men to " honor the Son even as they honor the Father;" Jolin v. 28. Can a Unitarian do this? If he be- lieves him to be a creature, will he not honor, or ratlier dishonor, him as a creature ? I care not for the difference between Arianism and Socinian- ism. There is an infinite distance between the most exalted finite being and the infinite and eternal God. Both Arianism and Socinianism rob Christ of all his glory. The Bible knows nothing of christian union with persons hokiing sentiments so erroneous, so dishonoring to God, and so fatal to the hopes of men. — [Time expired. Friday, Dec. 1— U o'clock, P. M I^MR. Campbell's seventh address.] Mr. President — It is sometimes expedient and necessary to carry the war into Carthage, and try what sort of a defence the Carthaginians can make at home. From the assaults made upon us, and the defence of creeds, you might imagine that the Westminster confession produced the most perfect harmony of views, and the most cordial attachment amongst all its members — that it was a palladium, a sovereign shield against error, heresy, and schism. Well now, is such the fact? Are they who sub- scribed it perfectly united in opinion, and in an affectionate and holy co- operation ? Nothing is more contrary to fact than such an assumption ! I have some little acquaintance with a few distinguished men of that denomi- nation, and I am acquainted with many of tiieir writers, (being a constant subscriber to some of their most po[)ular and authoritative works.) I there- fore speak advisedly on this subject. I shall quote one of their most dis- tinguished men who, before he left them and joined the Episcopalians, occupied a very high place in the esteem of the denomination. I allude to Andrew Wylie, D. D., president of the college at Bloomington, Indi- ana. I have had some acquaintance with this genUeman for thirty years; having been my neighbor, while president, first of Jefferson, and then of Washington college, Pennsylvania, both of them under Presbyterian in- fluence. This gentleman, a few years since, published a tract on creeds ; in which he says, he never knew a Presbyterian minister, who believed all the Westminster confession of faith, taking the words in thejr fair 4b2 846 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. constructive sense. So speaks one of the most gifted men, whose an- cestry, for I know not how long back, were strict Calvinists, of the old Presbyterian order- Perhaps not one minister in one hundred of that denomination, believes all that book, called the Westminster Creed — the constitution of the Pres- byterian church. Now, if they, notwithstanding all these differences of opinion and modes of interpretation, can still unite and co-operate in one community, why may not those who take the Bible, and yet do not agree in ail their opinions, co-operate in one society? But, of those who concur with Dr. Wylie, I must quote some others. Hear a few words from Dr. Bishop's Plea for United Christian Action. The Doctor says : " To what extent diversity of opinion as to doctrines exists among the ministers of the Presbyterian church of tlie present generation, very few, I am persuaded, are prepared to say with any degree of exactness. But were we to compare the present state of opinion with what is known to have been the state of opinion among the divines of a former generation, who are now admitted to have been orthodox, the result likely would be, that we are not more divided on any of the leading doctrines of the West- minister confession of fiiith, than the fathers of that age themselves were. Baxter and Owen, for instance, are readily appealed to by almost every min- ister of the Presbyterian church, as standards of correct theological opin- ion ; and yet these men have given very different explanations of some of the most important doctrines of the Westminister confession ; and neither of these men went in all things with the assembly. Nor have we any rea- son to believe that the divines of the assembly themselves, in their final vote upon the most of the articles in the confession, were agreed upon any other principle, than the principle of compromise. An approximation to- wards unity of opinion as to the best modes of expressing our individual views of divine truth, is all tliat ever can be obtained in our adherence to a public creed." — Beecher's Trial, p, 18. But who is it that has read iVeale's history of the Puritans, that does not know that even the authors and finishers of the Westminster faith, deliv- ered two hundred years ago to the British parliament, did not themselves believe it? Perhaps, amongst them all, the whole of it was believed; while not one man believed it all. It was adopted, item per item ; some dissenting here, and some dissenting there, while for each there was a majority in the detail; and upon the final vote in the aggregate, a majority for all, upon the principle of compromise. Hence the confession Avas never signed by the men who made it ! But it may be said, that while the authors of that document, and those who subscribed to it, differ as to their opinions on various points within it, still they love one another and co-operate in a christian spirit, while maintaining and teaching the grand doctrines of the book. Very far from it! I will give a specimen from a book that I hold in my hand, in which are found many savory morsels of this sort. It is Dr. Beecher's trial. His good bi-other. Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, in a very fraternal way, commends his reverend brother Beecher as being addicted to the sins of falsification and hypocrisy. These are but two of six grievous chcrges brought against Dr. Beecher by his good brother Wilson, as follows : IV. Specification: " I charge Dr. Beecher with the sin o? slander : viz , In belying the whole church of God, by bringing odium on all who sincerely receive the standards of the Presbyterian church," &c., &c., &c. VI. Specification: " I charge Dr. Beecher with the sin of hypocrisy ; I mean dissimulation in important religious matters :" " In entering the Presbyterian church, without adopting her standards," &c., &c. DEBATE ON HITMAN CREEDS. 847 As this is no very pleasant task imposed on. me, I will make as little do as possible. I merely design to show how these bonds of union and communion work in the details of ecclesiastic co-operation, and how much they promote brotherly kindness and charity. But we are represented as having in our community persons who hold and teach very different doctrines on important subjects : such as total de- pravity, Unitarianism, &c. Suppose this were the fact, we are only neighborlike, it would appear. But the gentleman has not proved this yet. He speaks, indeed, of different views of the phrase " total deprav- ity,''^ as found amongst some of us. But this is a question of the schools, and not found in our confession of faith at all ; and therefore some of our preachers have, it would seem, spoken irreverently of this doctrine of the schools, and without any fear of the clergy before their eyes. One says it is total, and another says it is not total. One speaks of its totality as respects the whole man, in all his parts, body, soul, and spirit ; another as respects its degrees: one affirming that persons may grow worse in one sense ; another, that they are, in another sense, so depraved at first, that they cannot deteriorate, &c., &c. Some of our brethren, too, accuse the Presbyterians of denying the doctrine of total depravity ; because they assign to fallen man the power of acquiring the knowledge of God, without revelation, &c., &c. All this may suit very well, to show off signs of conflict between our theory and practice ; but it is, so far as our principles are implicated, wholly unimportant and irrelevant. It is, I say, unimportant ; because one speaks of total depravity as in the confession ; another of total depravity as in the Bible : and both discuss the doc- trine only as an index of theological opinions amongst the sects ; while all agree, that man is fallen and depraved, and without the interposition of the Messiah and the Holy Spirit, cannot be saved. But Unitarianism is also preached amongst us. So says Mr. Rice. If so, I know it not. For my part, I know and acknowledge no man as a brother, preaching Unitarianism amongst us. I say again, that I nei- ther know of any such person, nor do I acknowledge any such person as a fellow-laborer with me. I must have the case made out — fully made out before it is tried. We have, indeed, in our communion, persons who have been Unitarians, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Deists, sceptics, &c. But that they are such now, is not true. And should any one accuse us of holding communion with those who teach Romanism, Methodism, Unitarianism, or scepticism, we charge him with bringing against us a railing accusation. But the gendeman flings out in broad cast his calumnies, rather than his arguments, and endeavors to merge the whole question of creeds in attempts to arraign our profession, and our efforts at reformation. He has just now read a short passage out of this book, a notice of the union of the Burghers and of the Anti-burghers — and alledges either as a fact or an argument, rather as both, that as they were separated by the confession of faith, they have been united and reconciled by it. I presume that I know the history of that matter a litde better than his author or himself. It was not the confession that has brought them together. But so far as they have been brought together, it was the Regium donum, this royal bounty, or bonus, that accomplished it. Some thirty-five years ago, it was proposed by the government of England, in order to loyalize the dissenters from the by law-established creed and government church, to confer upon them some annuity, or sum of money, to be distributed amongst 848 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. the congregations, on condition that they would be reconciled to each oth- er, and unite as one denomination. And as these two bodies of Presby- terians could not obtain the Regium donum in any other way, after some considerable sparring, they made such legal approaches to each other, as secured the royal salary. But that it extended no farther, is apparent from the fact, that where there was no bounty, there was no union ; for in this country, the same two denominations, here known as Unionists and Seceders, are not yet united. The union was effected no farther than the Regium donum was concerned. It was the sole cause, and the whole extent of that union. Some conscientious ministers held out against it, some two or three of both denominations. But they got no guineas. Til] finally besieged into acquiescence, they all, with one exception, took the bonus, and then politically united. So much for the gentleman's con- fession of faith having re-united the Burghers and Anti-burghers of Scot- land and Ireland ! ! The gentleman is not yet satisfied with his former attempts at defence from the denial of the Westminster confession, as the constitution of the Presbyterian church in the United States. He will balance the account by a critique on the outside cover title of this volume, called "Christian- ity Restored." That is not the title affixed by me on any book written by me. The book-binder's label on the cover, and the author's title page, are very different facts, in reason and in law. That is no sort of ofTset; and, certainly, there is not the same excuse and explanation with refer- ence to the constitution of the Presbyterian church. Because, in the pro- ceedings of the supreme courts of tliat church, it is frequently so denom- inated— I say, that the general assembly itself has so denominated it in its various enactments upon the subject. The synods and councils of that church do not, as before said, call the confession of faith, or a portion of it, the constitution of the Presbyterian church ; but the forms of discip- line and government, together with the confession, form the constitution of the Presbyterian church of North America. It is so regarded and universally received. Destroy this constitution, and the Presbyterian church is no more. That such is the constitution of the Presbyterian church, Mr. Rice, however adverse to the disclosure of the fact, cannot possibly escape from it. We sometimes condemn christians for going a begging to the world — to Satan's kingdom, to raise means and facilities for supporting the church of God. But the Presbyterian church has greatly transcended any other denomination in this particular — that they get the constitution of their church from the world — from a political government. If there be any world beyond the church, or any kingdom of Satan in the world, then, in- deed, their constitution came from tiiat department. I ask the question, who made this book? The answer is, the Westminster assembly. And who were the Westminster assembly 1 The answer is — a body of one hundred and twenty men, elected, summoned, convened, arranged, direct- ed and paid by the parliament of England. There were put into it, as a component part of it, ten lords, twenty commoners. No council, church, or association ecclesiastic, elected, appointed or commissioned any one to have any thing to do in it. The parliament had its own political views and designs, and it elected just such persons as it regarded favorable to these policies and designs. Of the whole number of clergy selected, scarcely more than sixty were in regular attendance. The parliament not only set a guard over them in the ten lords and twenty commoners, DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 84$ but they would not allow them to choose their own speaker or chairman. When they met, they had not the selection of a single topic, nor the dis- cussion of a single subject left to their discretion. All was prescribed to them by their pay-masters in parliament. They were told when and where to begin, and where to stop. They gave them for a commence- ment, the thirty-nine articles to masticate and digest. They spent ten long weeks in debate upon some fifteen of these. They laid aside that subject and took up another, when parliament bade them. But, after some one thousand and ten sessions, at four shillings sterling per diem, they drew out their splendid constitution of the Presbyterian church — though, even then, parliament would not disperse nor adjourn them — for the truth is, they neither adjourned themselves, nor were adjourned accor- ding to law. After a change of government, or the restoration of Charles, each man returned quietly home to his own place. The gentleman says, it has not been much amended ; at least, he so considers it. Of course, then, his church has got its constitution from the celebrated Rump parlia- ment, as it was afterwards most scientifically called. That it was made by men in the flesh, and of the flesh, not like our con- stitution, v/ill appear still more evident from an examination of the spirit infused into the old Presbyterians, who first adopted it. In their history we shall clearly see how it operated. It is true, that some Episcopalians were summoned, and some Independents, and some Eraslians. But onlj' one bishop attended, I think, for one day. Five Independents, indeed, continued almost all the time. But two Erastians were present, (and the great Selden, the greatest man in that body, was one of them,) because the parliament that dictated to them and controlled them were Erastians, whose distinguishing maxim was : Tliat there was no Divine right for any kind of church government; that whatever form the state enacted was best; and that, therefore, it was a state affair, and ecclesiastically indif- ferent. I am glad to see a new work, recently from the American press, giving an account of these matters in part, M-ith which I found it neces- sary, in the commencement of our efforts against these human inventions many years ago, to make myself familiar. I have said, that neither the Episcopalians nor Independents had much to do in furnishing these documents; and, therefore, we must look to Presbyterians to understand the spirit of the constitution of that society. That it was heretical, schismatical and, withal, proscriptive, even to per- secution, I am constrained to show, in support of my thesis. In the ratio of tkeir power, the majority of that assembly and the clergy in London, and round the county, who sympathized with them in doc- trine, associated to proscribe, and did for a time succeed in prohibiting the reading of the liturgy of the English church ; and, indeed, by statutory law, inhibited it in all public assemblies. Not content with this, Neale says, vol. iii. p. 291 : " The Presbyterian ministers, despairing of success with the commons, instead of yielding to the times, resolved to apply to the house of lords, who received them civilly, and promised to take their request into consider- ation ; but no advances being made in two months, they were out of all patience, and determined to renew their application ; and to give it the greater weight, prevailed with the lord mayor and court of aldermen, to join with them in presenting an address, which they did, January 16 — " For a speedy settlement of church government, according to the covenant, and that no toleration might be given to popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, profaneness, or any thing contrary to sound doctrine, and that all private as- 54 S50 DEBATE ON HUMAN CTREEDS. semblies might be restrained." The lords thanked them for their zeal, au'' recommended it to the city magistrates to suppress all such unlawful assem blies ; but the houses were not to be moved as yet by such disagreeable impos- tunity ; however, this laid the foundation of those jealousies and misunder- standings between the city and parliament, which in the end proved the ruin of the Presbyterian cause. " Matters were still carried farther. They went against toleration, as a sin not to be endured. They represent it as a sort of Pandora's box, preg- nant with all errors and sins. Neale says, vol. iii. pp. 386, 387 : " The last error they witness against, and in which all agree, is called "the error of toleration, patronizing and promoting all other errors, heresies and blasphemies whatsoever, under the grossly abused notion of liberty of conscience;" and here they complain as a very great grievance, 'That men should have liberty to worship God in that way and manner as shall appear to thera most agreeable to the word of God ; and no man be punished or discountenanced by authority for the same ; and, that an enforced uni- formity of religion throughout a nation or state confounds the civil and religious, and denies the very principles of Christianity and civility.'" Again and still worse : I must read another extract from Neale ; and 1 shall give no other comment on it than what that candid and impartial historian himself gives by way of preamble to it in the words following, to wit: pp. 483, 484. " To return to the parliament, which was now recruited with such Presby- terian members as had absconded, or deserted their stations, while the army was quartered in the neighborhood of the city ; these gentlemen, finding they had the superiority in the house, resumed their courage ; and took the opportunity of discovering their principles and spirit, in passing such a law against heretics as is hardly to be paralleled among Protestants. It had been laid aside by the influence of the army for above nine months, till May ist, when it was voted that all ordinances concerning church government referred to committees, be brought in and debated; and that the ordinance concerning blasphemy and heresy be now determined, which was done ac- cordingly. This was one of the most shoclcing laws I have met with in restraint of religious liberty, and shows that the governing Presbyterians would have made a terrible use of their power had they been supported by the sword of the civil magistrate. Tlie ordinance is dated May 2nd, 1648, and ordains, " That all persons who shall willingly maintain, publish or de- fend, by preaching or writing, the following heresies, with obstinancy, shall, upon complaint and proof, b}- the oaths of two witnesses, before two jus- tices of the peace, or conlession of the party, be committed to prison, with- out bail or mainprize, till tiie next jail delivery ; and in case tlie indict- ment shall then ba found, and the parly upon his trial shall not abjure his' said error, and his defence and maintenance of the same, he shall sutler the pains of death, as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy ; and if he re- cant or abjure, he sliall remain in prison till he find sureties that he will not maintain the said heresies or errors any more ; but if he relapse, and ia convicted a second time, he shall suffer death as before. The heresies or errors are these following eight, of which I only mention the 7th & 8th. 7th. The denying that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- ments are the word of God. 8th. The denying of the resurrection of the dead, and a future judg- ment. " Such was that love of civil liberty and toleration infused into the good old orthodox Presbyterians, wlio, as my friend Mr. R. says, never clianged, and who have always been distinguished for their love of liberty! I do not think, indeed, that these men would attempt such things now. They DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. S51 iiave read Locke on Toleration, and the spirit of the age has dispossessed the demon of partizaa zeal to a very great extent; at least, it has taken away the horn of his power. The papal see itself, in the day of its glorious power, went no farther in black-letter, than did the creed-party in the day of their strength. The parties were then in power, and they forgot right. The truth of this reason is incontrovertible; it is a part of English histor)% and found in the rolls of her parliamentary acts. Other points of error were punished by other penalties not quite so severe. " The ordinance proceeds to specify some other errors of less demerit, and says: Tiiat whosoever shall maintain or defend thern shall, upon convic- tion by the oaths of two witnesses, or by his own confession before two jus- tices of peace, be ordered to renounce the said error or errors in the public congregation of the parish from wiience tlie complaint comes, or where the offence was committed, and in case of refusal he shall be committed to prison till he find sureties that he shall not publish or maintain the said error or errors any more. The errors are these following : — being sixteen in number, of which I only mention the 11th, because it respects one of our proposi- tions. 11th. That the baptism of infants is unlawful and void ; and that such persons ought to be baptized again. " Various other passages are marked here, to the same effect. I will read them if necessary. I only, however, desire a clear and full sample — a mere proof of my position. That human creeds are heretical and schis- matical is clearly evinced, I should judge, is fully demonstrated by these effects before us. Such demonstrations are not, indeed, confined to Pres- byterians. The Episcopalians also took a hand in this game. Baptists were persecuted, even unto death, in some periods of their reign. In England every proscriptive edict, in some six months after its passage, was imported into New England or Virginia, and re-enacted here under similar pains and penalties. I am sorry to find, in some of the antique specimens of Virginia Episcopal proscription, the following statute enact- ed against the poor old Baptists of the Old Dominion: *^Copy of a Law found in Hen7iing''s Stahites at large, vol. 2, page 165, Dec. 1662, Uth Charles II. "Article III. — Against persons that refuse to have their children bap- tized. " Whereas many schismatical persons, out of their averseness to the or- thodox established religion, or out of the new fangled conceits of their own hercticall inventions, refuse to have their children baptized — Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid. That all persons that, in contempt of the divine sacrament of baptism, shall refuse, when they may carry their child to a lawful minister in that county, to have them baptized, shall be amerced two thousand pounds of tobacco — halfe to the informer and half to the publique. " This goes to prove, that the Presbyterian creed is not the only one that has, on both sides of the Adantic, been schismatical, proscriptive, and her- etical, in the highest degree. Could Mr. Rice reconcile these acts of Pres- byterians with the love of civil liberty and equal rights, of which he has spoken, he ought to do it. But whether he does or not, I must again ex- press my conviction tliat they would not now, as a denomination, if even they had the power which they once had, but which they never can here- after regain, do as their fathers did. Many of them, in my acquaintance, love liberty, and are willing to extend it to others, as well as to enjoy it themselves. Touching the word tantamount, in allusion to a subject before-mention 9S2 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. ed, may not one say that a certain principle of Calvinism is tantamount to paganism or lieathenism, without incurring;- the charge of having said that Calvinism is atheism or heathenism, &c. ? — \_Time expired. Friday, Dec. 1 — U o^ clock, P. M. [mR. rice's seventh REPLY.l Mr. President— 'The gentleman tells us, that Dr. Wiley has said^ that he never saw a Presbyterian who believed the whole of the confes- sion of faith. I have seen many that believe it. When men become dissatisfied with their church, and abandon it, they very frequently jus- tify themselves by making charges which they cannot prove. Such, we have reason to believe, was the fact in regard to Dr. W. Dr. Bishop's remark bears not on the subject before us. We do not pretend to think precisely alike on every point in theology. Our confession of faith con- tains an outline of the system of truth taught in the Scriptures, and we believe it. But in Mr. C.'s church I have found Unitarians, Universal- ists, and Materialists. Can he find, in the Presbyterian church, any such differences, concerning the essentials of Christianity ? I defy him to find any thing of the kind. Still, he says, there are differences, and the au- thors of the confession did not believe it. Let him state them definitely, and I will give them due attention. I have nothing to say concerning Dr. Wilson's charges against Dr. Beecher. It has nothing to do with the lawfulness of creeds. Dr. Beech- er might be guilty of the charges, and still professedly receive the confes- sion of faith. Whether such was the fact, I pretend not to decide. But if arguments of this kind had any thing to do with the question before us, I could produce documents which would bear somewhat severely upon Mr. Campbell. I have a pamphlet recendy published by a Mr. McVay, who has been for years a preacher in this reformed church, in which he prefers, against Mr. C. and Mr. Smith, his friend, very serious charges. I will balance the charges of Dr. Wilson against Dr. Beecher, with the charges of McVay against Mr. Campbell, and, so far as the lawfulness of creeds is concerned, the one will weigh as much as the other — for nei- ther has any thing to do with it. The old adage has wisdom in it — ■ " Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones." The gentleman makes a vain effort to reconcile the doctrine of Mr. Raines and Dr. Fishback. Mr. Raines, he says, pronounces the doctrine of total depravity, as taught in the confession of faith, a libel on human nature, but not the doctrine as held by Dr. Fishback. Let us compare Dr. F.'s views of total depravity, with those presented in the confession. " The original creation of man in the image and likeness of God ; his fall, and the loss of that image, together with the loss of union and commu- nion with God ; and that by sin man became involved in pollution and death ; as by it all his posterity have begun to exist out of fellowship with God, and have come into the world without the knowledge or love of him, and without power, moral or natural, to relieve themselves from that state of ignorance, casualty, and death. This is what we call total depravity, (and which I would call '■'•hereditary depravity :") all that makes man to dif- fer from this state for the better, is owing to the interposition and effect of divine grace and mercy." This is the Doctor's creed. It is extremely orthodox ; for it denies to man all ability, natural or moral, to relieve himself from his ignorance, pollution, carnality, and death. Let us now read the passage from our confession, so positively denounced by Mr. Raines : DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 853 "The sinfulness of that estate whereunto men fall, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly in- clined to all evil, and that continually." I should like to see the gentleman point out the difference on this point, between Dr. Fishback's creed and ours. Now hear what Mr. Raines says on this subject : '■'■This doctrine is a libel on human nature, of the grossest kind^ Here is christian union and unity of faith for you! The gentleman says, there are no persons amongst his people, preach- ing Unitarianism and Universalism ; but he does not deny, that there are many who believe these ruinous errors. If he can induce them so to compromise matters with their consciences, as that they will refuse or neglect to preach what they believe to be taught in the Bible, and can secure union by such means, I am willing that his reformation shall have the full credit of it. They believe those doctrines ; but they are required to call them opinions, and to keep them to themselves. Mr. Stone, though a decided Unitarian, dares not preach Unitarianism ! So it would seem. I would leave the society of all men, before I would promise not to preach truths which I conscientiously believe to be taught in the word of God ; for all its doctrines are profitable, and every faithful minister is solemnly bound to declare the whole counsel of God to men. If there is union in a body of men composed of materials so utterly discordant, most assuredly it is not christian imio7i. I have said, there is infinite difference between the faith of Messrs. Stone and Campbell. I wish now to prove the truth of this statement. In an article from the pen of Mr. Stone, published in the Christian Bap- tist, the writer takes Mr. C. to task, for having published something in- dicating a belief in the Divinity of Christ. Having presented seven ar- guments against this doctrine, he remarks: " If these observations be true, will it not follow indirectly, that the Word [di Iioii,) by whom all things were made, was not the only true God, but a person that existed with the only true God before creation began ; not from eternity, else he must be the only true God ; but long before the reign of Augustus Caesar 3" p. ?u9, Mr. Stone denies that Christ is the only true God, or that he existed from eternity. Consequently there must have been a period when he began to exis*. And since he could not have been the author of his own existence, he must have been a creature. Those gentlemen differ no less on the subject of the atonement — the very foundation of the gospel. Mr. C. contends, that Christ did bear the punishment of our sins in his cross ; and Mr. Stone denies it. The views entertained by Mr. Stone on this subject are thus presented by him in a discussion with Mr. Campbell : [Millenial Harbinger, New Series, vol. V. pp. 63, 64.) " How the death of Christ bears away our sins, or takes them away, I will endeavor to illustrate by. a figure. In the early settlement of Ken- tucky, a colony resided on the border of that country, continually exposed to the bloody incursions of the Indians. In this colony was a man of mark- ed benevolence and goodness : he was wealthy, and had a care over all, that none should want the necessaries of life. He had a son, the very image of himself. Among them also lived a man of opposite character — of marked malevolence and wickedness. He hated this good man and his son, and en- deavored to injure them in their persons, property, and character, though of 40 854 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. their beneficence he shared in common with others. A banditti of Indians passed by, and apprehended this wicked man, and hurried him off to the wilderness. The good man with pain and sorrow heard the news : he call- ed his son and told the distressing situation of his neighbor. My son, will you at the exposure or sacrifice of your own life, rescue him { I go, father ; and instantly stalled — found the trace — rapidly pursued, and overtook them. He saw the trembling wretcii bound to a tree, and the pile of wood around him ready to burn him, and the Indians preparing to dance to his shrieks and cries. The son rushes to the tree, cuts with his tomahawk the cords that bound him : in an instant the man flees and evades the torture. But the son is apprehended and burnt. The wicked man now sees the great love and goodness of the father and of the son. He is convioiced of his sins against them, and repents ; he hates his sins, and his hatred to the good man and his son is slain, taken away — he is reconciled. He feels constrained to go to the father, confess his sins, and plead forgiveness. He goes weeping, humbly confessing his sins, and asks forgiveness. I forgive you, said tlie father joyfully, well knowing when be gave his son that notiiing else could save the poor man, destroy his enmity, and reconcile him. Surely it was the love and goodness of the father and his son, and this love seen in the death of the son, that effected this great change in the man — that brought him to repentance, and consequently to forgiveness. Now what efTects did the death of the son produce in the father'! Did it produce in him love, favor, or good-will to the wicked man? No: these were in him before. Did it dispose or make him more willing to pardon him! No : he was always willing to pardon him whenever he repented or came within the sphere of forgiveness. It had no direct effect on the fath- er ; it directly affected the wicked man to a change and repentance ; it in- directly effected pleasure and joy in the father at the ciiange and repentance indirectly effected in the man by the death of his son. The application to our heavenly Father and to his Son is easy, and sliows how repentance, forgiveness, redemption, sanctification, and the bearing away of sin, are effected by love to the believing obedient soul. This fig- ure is introduced only to show what principle leads to repentance and for- giveness— the goodness of God." In reference to this subject, Mr. O. remarks, in one of his replies to Mr. Stone: — '•^Bi~other Stone — We are discussing the greatest question in the world-- For what did the Jlessiah die?" p. 258. On page 538, of tlie same volume, liaving copied into the Harbinger an article from the Messenger, Mr. Stone's paper, in which he proposes to close the discussion, Mr. Campbell thus remarks : — "Since the above was written, I have had the painful intelligence that Elder Stone has been stricken with the palsy, and is not likely to recover. From recent accounts, indeed, it is probable that ere now he has passed the Jordan and gone to rest. Under all the circumstances, I conceive it inex- pedient to prosecute the subject farther at present. The discussion, on my part, was undertaken with a reference to two points: The first, the trans- cendent importance of the question itself — For what did Christ die 1 The second, a very general misconception and consequent misrepresentation of our views of it. I did, I confess, expect that brother Stone would have more fully and satisfactorily relieved himself and the cause of reformation from the imputation of some of our opponents on the subject of Unitarian- ism in its sectarian acceptation. In this respect, though measurably disap- pointed, I am persuaded it will not be without advantage to ihe cause of reformation, that so much has been written on the subject in the way of discussion — with one, too, ^vho had spent so many years in debates and dis- cussions on that or some kindred branch of the same subject." DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 855 I have read these extracts to show how fundamentally the two most prominent men in this reform church differ from each other on two of ihe most important doctrines of the gospel — the character and the work of Christ. In regard to both, my friend Mr. C. admits, that we have Scrip- ture testimony, clear and strong. Both are, then, matters o( failh, not of opinio)!. In their faith concerning them, they differ radically ; and yet they are united in the same church, and pi'ofess to have the one faith ! In such union I have no confidence ; and to it the Bible gives not the least countenance. The clergy, the gentleman says, will unite if you give them money. I presume he ought to know by what motives he is influenced in his reli- gious career; and we know iiow very natural it is for men to judge others by themselves — to suppose others to be under the influence which con- trols them. When a man makes such charges against others, without the slightest evidence of their truth, we are constrained to suspect, that he knows something experimentally on the subject. I pretend not to sit in judgment on the motives of Mr. C. ; but it is a remarkable fact, if I am correctly informed, that he has, by his various labors and offices, accumu- lated more wealth than any one of the vejial clergy, as he considers them. I venture to assert, that there is not in this country a Presbyterian minis- ter who has, by his ministerial labors, accumulated the one-tenth part as much as has Mr. Campbell. And yet he has not failed to denounce the clergy as a most corrupt and venal set of men ! ! ! Destroy the confession of faith, says Mr. C, and you cannot find the Presbyterian church. We could find a body still of quite as much con- sistency, far more harmonious in its views, than his own church. There are hundreds of little independent democracies scattered through the coun- try, wholly independent of each other in government and in doctrine, which are claimed by him as constituting his church. If our confession were destroyed, we should still have a much more homogenous and united body. The Westminster confession, he says, was a political invention, gotten up for political purposes. It is true, the parliament of England did ap- point a large number of learned and godly men to prepare a creed accord- ing to the Word of God ; and they, after long and prayerful deliberation, drew up the Westminster confession. It is also true, that our Bible was translated by order of King James. If, then, we are to denounce the confession, because its framers were called together by political men, we must, for the same reason, denounce our translation of the Bible! The argument is as conclusive in the one case, as in the otlier. But when I have compared the confession with the Word of God, and found it to state, with remarkable clearness and correctness, its great doctrines and truths, I am not disposed either to denounce or to reject it, because the Westminster assembly of divines was controlled by parliament. The genUeman has labored to make the impression, that creeds in ge- neral, and the Westminster confession in particular, are persecuting in their character and tendency. It is true, that in the day in which the Westminster assembly met, few men understood the rights of conscience. I am not prepared, however, to admit the correctness of all that Mr. Neale has written concerning Presbyterians. He was a zealous Congregation- alist, and, of course, somewhat under the influence of his feelings. I cheerfully admit, that there were some Presbyterians who did not fully understand the rights of conscience; but in this respect they were by no 856 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. means peculiar. It was the error of the age. All were, more or less, un- der its influence. But was this error caused by creeds ? Mr. C. ha& told us, that he does not believe that Presbyterians would now persecute. Yet they have their creed still, which, he says, is the cause of persecution ! It is true, that Mr. C.'s church has never literally persecuted men unto death ; but it is also true, that it has never had the opportunity to perse- cute. It is yet quite a beardless youth — only about sixteen years old I It does not look well in a youth in his teens to denounce older persons, and to boast what he would do, when he has never been tried. I do not charge the reformers with a disposition to persecute ; but I think it out of place, that they should boast before they are tried. I have proved, that there are in Mr. C.'s church, Universalists and Uni- tarians. I will now prove, that there are Materialists — men who deny that man has a soul. Dr. Thomas, formerly of Virginia, since of Illinois, one of Mr. C.'s gifted preachers, published a paper called the Gospel Ad- vocate^ in which he set forth and zealously defended the doctrine, that man is composed of body, blood, and breath — that the word soul, in the Scriptures, means breath — that the righteous sleep in their graves till the resurrection — and pagans, infants, and idiots, are annihilated ! I will not take time to prove these facts, unless they are called in question. Mr. C, opposed these notions of the Doctor ; but he refused to heark- en to the voice from Bethany. At length he held a public discussion with one of our ministers, in which he defended these heresies, and was about to publish it in a book. Mr. C. then renounced fellowship with him, and called on his church to excommunicate him. This, of course, was not schismatical ! It was done quite ecclesiastically ! ! All that Mr. C. deemed necessary, was to renounce and denounce him ! Thus things went on for a time; when the two gentlemen met, and held a public discussion of three days ; and, neither of them being con- vinced, they became reconciled, and agreed to co-operate in the good cause of reformation. So brother Campbell and brother Thomas went forth to enlighten the people, by preaching the gospel ! ! [Mr, Campbell here denied that they went forth together, and called for proof.] I will read the account of their reconciliation, and agreement to co-operate, as copied from Dr. Thomas' paper into the Millenial Harbinger, New Series, vol. iii. pp. 74, 75. " We, the undersigned brethren, in free consultation, met at the house of brother John Tinsley Jeter, at Paineville ; and after frankly comparing our views, unanimously agreed upon the resolution subjoined, and submitted the same for the consideration of brethren Campbell and Thomas ; and bro- ther Thomas agreeing to abide the same, all difficulties were adjusted, and perfect harmony and co-operation mutually agreed upon between them. Resolved, That whereas certain things believed and propagated by Dr. Thomas, in relation to the mortality of man, the resurrection of the dead, and the final destiny of the wicked, having given offence to many brethren, and being likely to produce a division amongst us; and believing the said views to be of no practical benefit, we recommend to brother Thomas to dis- continue the discussion of the same, unless in his defence when misrepresented. Signed by — Wm. A. Stone, Thomas E. Jeter, et als. The resolution being agreed upon by the brethren, brother C. and myself were requested to appear before them. The result of their deliberations was reported to us ; we acquiesced in the recommendation after a few words of mutual ex- planation ; and having recognized our christian fraternity, the brethren gave in their names to brother Stone to be appended in the order affixed. Paineville, Amelia, Va., Nov. 15th, 1838." DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 857 Here we have the reconciliation and agreement to co-operate. But the gentleman says, they did not travel the same road together! No: Dr. Thomas remained in Virginia, and still maintained his old sentiments. If any thing could prove that a man has no soul, it would be the fact that he held such doctrines as those held by this reform preacher ! Dr. Tho- mas held sentiments which are subversive of all religion ; and yet he was recognized by Mr. Campbell as a brother and a minister of the gospel; and they go forth co-operating in the work of preaching the gospel, and "restoring the ancient order of things!!!" And to this day, Thomas, if he has not of his own accord abandoned the church, continues to hold the rank and office of a preacher. Here is christian union with a witness. Trinitarians, Unitarians, and Materialists, all preaching the gospel together ! Why, then, should the gentleman attempt to exclude any thing from such a church 1 For it is scarcely possible that any should wander farther from the truth than some of these. But in the gentleman's committee, selected to aid him in this debate, we have an illustration of the unity in faith of his church. Mr. Campbell holds, and has labored faithfully to prove, the doctrine of baptism, in or- der to the remission of sins. Dr. Fishback denies it. Dr. F. holds the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Shannon deny it ; and Mr. Raines says, " it is a libel on human nature of the gross- est kind." Mr. Shannon believes, that the Scriptures are adequate to the conversion of men, without any superadded spiritual influence. Mr. Raines says he does not believe it ! So they go. Here we have a most edifying illustration of what the gentleman calls christian union. The very committee who have come up to war against Presbyterians and " the sects," are forced to contradict each other, and to differ radically in regard to the most important doctrines of the gospel ! May we ever be preserved from such union ! The inspired writers know nothing of it. it has no countenance from the Word of God. And mark it ! — This is the latest and best edition of a crtuRCH WITHOUT A CREED ! Let US gain from Mr. Campbell some further infor- mation concerning its present state and prospects. I know he would not slander his own church. DoubUess his strong partialities would prevent him from seeing and exposing many existing evils. We will hear his testimony: " But there is a still more delicate and responsible species of communion, sometimes called ministerial communion, on the proper exercise of which most essentially depends the character, dignity and success of the christian ministry, to which we more especially invite the attention of our brethren. I lay it down as a maxim not to be questioned, that where there is christ- ian communion of any sort, special or common, there must be an amenabili- ty of the participants to some common tribunal, and a mutual responsibili- ty to watch over, and nourish, and comfort one another. Suppose, then, (but indeed we have not to suppose such a case; for it too often happens,) that numerous communities, each upon its own responsi- bility and its own discretion, sends abroad public ministers of the Word, without proper regard to tiie character and attainments of such public func- tionaries ; and that, in their various and extensive peregrinations, they visit the churches and commune with them ; will it not follow that, either direct- ly or indirectly, such evangelists and missionaries are responsible to those churches, and to be as subject to reproof, admonition, and general supervis- ion as they are entitled to the aids, encouragement, and christian hospitali- ties of the congregations they visit? But is it so amongst usl Are all our 4c2 858 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. public men of such a character, call and mission, as we approve'? Or are not some of them their own messengers, or the apostles of irresponsible communities — without piety, moral character or intelligence worthy of the countenance, esteem, support or affection of the christian communities'! And shall we commune with them and recognize them as ministers of Christ, or the messengers and evangelists of his church, merely because they had either the vanity, self-esteem, or boldness to assume an office and a character which neither the church on earth nor in heaven awards to them '? ! The cause of reformation has suffered more from this portion of its pre- tended friends than from all its enemies put together. This state of things is indeed generally attendant on the incipiency of all public and social insti- tutions. But we have had a very large portion of this unhappy and mischiev- ous injluence to contend with. Every sort of doctrine has been proclaimed by almost all sorts oj" preachers, under the broad banners and with the supposed sanction of the begun reformation. We arc glad to follow, rather than to lead public opinion amongst ourselves on this subject. Experience teaches with effect, what theory could not accomplish." — Jlill. Harb. vol. vi. No. 2, pp. 63, 64. Mr. Campbell says there must be mutual accountability, where there is christian communion of any sort; but Mr. Fishback seems to go for strict independency. But I will read more of this to-morrow. — [Time expired. Saturday, Dec. 2 — 10 o'clock, Jl. M. [mr. Campbell's eighth address.] Mr. President — Having so often spoken of the Westminster in such high terms of admiration as, upon the whole, with all its faults, one of the best creeds in Christendom ; and having read so much from it already, I shall voluntarily read but one other extract; which I do for tlie sake of giving it conspicuity, and for the sake of commending it to the especial con- sideration of my Presbyterian friends, and especially of my friend, Mr. Rice, as constituting one of my main arguments against creeds : "9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture it- self; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. 10. The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doc- trines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sen- tence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." — Confession of Faith, chap. i. sec. 9, 10, p. 14. In the course of my remarks and responses to the allegations brought for- ward by my friend, some matters transpired yesterday of a very important character, respecting what is here called '■'■the constitution of the Presbyte- rian church.'" Mr. R. would represent me as exonerating the confession of his church from that persecuting spirit which characterized the framers of it, and the parliamentary acts which enforced it; alledging, moreover, that it has lost its persecuting spirit. That is not the interpretation I put upon it, nor is it the true one. I believe the same document, under fa- vorable circumstances, would still operate in the same way. The people and the spirit of the age have changed, but the spirit and body of the con- fession is still the same. I wish it to be distinctly understood, that my opinion is, that the same document in a society of the same, or of a simi- lar character, would produce the same effects now as then. I ascribe the change not to the document, nor to the party, but to the spirit of tiie age, and the superior light that has gone forth into the land. The spirit of a DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 859 sectary is naturally and necessarily an intolerant spirit, and the creed is the great means of cherishing, developing, and maturing it. Hence we say, the persecution is in the document, when we ought rather to say, it is in the man that solemnly subscribes and obliges himself to believe and teach it. Light, spiritual and divine, is not to be confined by the landmarks and boundaries of human legislation. No legislative ordinances, no human enactments, can restrain the rising of the sun or the free communication of its animating and salutary influences. No more can ecclesiastical canons, or the penal statutes of kings or priests, shut out from our eyes the direct and reflex light of Bible truth, which is now pouring forth its benign influences upon the whole social system in this our favored land — in this our happy age. The blighting influences, of which we have been complaining, are, therefore, not so much to be feared now, as in days of yore. Sectarianism has, indeed, been cherished by this document, and is still kept alive by it in many hearts, that else had melted, under the ge- nial influences of gospel grace, and overflowed in all the holy sympathies and tender affections of christian benevolence. It aflbrds me no plea- sure to have to go into details of facts explanatory of the melancholy re- flection, that still the old leven works, and that the spirit which party creeds infuse, is wholly alien from the kind and generous spirit that breathes in the holy faith, once delivered to the saints. Sorry indeed I am, that the course pursued by my friend yesterday compels me again to advert to this ungrateful theme. The gentleman is making rather a licentious use of my writings. He brings up matters wholly extraneous of our agreement by correspon- dence, and not authorized by our rules. In any matters, relevant to the matter on hand, I am pleased to hear so much of them transferred into this discussion ; but to read what has been said against us by our oppo- nents, and matters entirely remote from the question on hand, is rather unauthorized either by usage or by agreement. What has the document read, concerning Dr. Thomas or his views, to do with the subject before us ? Do we fraternize with persons denying the resurrection of all the dead, or that there is a spirit in man ? I do not. The agreement was made, and so far as I assented to it, was entered into, upon the conces- sions made by Dr. Thomas, and the opinion then entertained by me, that he was himself really grieved in spirit for his course ; and had also resol- ved, from conviction of its folly and inutility, to abandon it altogether. I trusted that he had seen how unfounded were his views, and so informed my friends, whose hopes of his future course were not so sanguine as my own. It has, indeed, since appeared that he has not abandoned them : and, in violation of that agreement, has gone on to promulge them, both by word and writing. I cannot honor such a mode of warfare as that pursued against our prin- ciples, by calling it legitimate argumentation. There is much of the non causa pro causa in it, of the substitution of false causes, and of false ef- fects. It is indeed possible by assuming lor facts, things that never hap- pened, and by reasoning from them eitlier in the way of illustration or confirmation of our assumptions, to make a shew of reason and of evidence, when there is neither the one nor the other. But if the gentleman is determined to go into the private details of such incidents, by way of oppugning us, I must shew what the tendency and practice of his church and principles have been in matters of this sort. 860 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. He is only ministering to me superior weapons against himself. I must, therefore, again illustrate the mutual complaisance and reciprocal esteem of Presbyterian doctors for one another, in a letter from Rev. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, as introduced into Beecher's trial and acquittal. We have a character of Presbyterian ministers, living in holy communion, that startles me, not a little, to see printed in a Presbyterian book. " Dr. Miller's letter," says Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, page 82, " is truly cha- racteristic. It exhibits the urbanity of Dr. Miller to the life. It proves the courtesy and kindness of that distinguished man, who wrote letters to Presbyterians /^rori/ig- that some of our ministers were guilty of offences in the church as heinous as swindling, forgerv, and perjury in civil society, and at the same time protesting against a separation from such men" ! ! ! With how good a grace a reproof comes from such a quarter for our winking at doctrinal errors ! ! Is not the above an effectual reply to all such imputations ? If such be the men, matured and perfected, un- der a matured and perfected system, now almost two centuries old ; and, if they are by its operation constrained to keep, not only members, but MINISTERS, of such character as depicted by these pious and exemplary doctors, are we to be upbraided by them for having some bold youthful speculators, upon some untaught questions ! ! What are these opinions, compared with ci'imes as base as " swindling, forgery, and perjury?" We reprobate these opinions and speculations, and regard those as schis- matics and heretics who seek to propagate them. There is no society on earth, all of whose members can be perfectly approbated. If principles are thus to be tested, no arguments could sustain any cause . Even in the apos- tolic age, the conduct of every christian professor could not be approbated. But we must have at least two witnesses to the truth, in attestation of tlie operation of the creed system — I mean its whole operation in doors, on the faith, union, harmony, and brotherly kindness of the creed sys- tem. I am obliged to go into this matter fully once for all. " Preamble and resolutions adopted by the church of Harmony, December the 'M, 1840. — Determined to preserve the spirit and principles of our stand- ards, as well as the name of Presbyterianism, at a called meeting on the 3d of December, 1840, well attended, the members present unanimously sub- scribed the underwritten document. "The members of the church of Harmony, having met for the purpose of deliberating upon the alarming posture of affairs in our ecclesiastical con- nection, after mature reflection, and after solemnly invoking Divine counsel, adopted the following preamble and resolutions : We have viewed with deep regret the spirit of encroachment upon what we conceive to be our rights, as members of the old school Presbyterian church. We have been pained to witness, since the unparalleled stretch of power by the general assembly in the sessions of '37 and '38, that the spirit of which we complain has been so actively and injuriously at work : That our ecclesiastical courts, in place of being as bulwarks, set up for the protection of our religious privileges, and for the defence of the Gospel, -ave been converted into engines of oppression Have repeatedly disregarded the claims of justice — violated the constitution of our church — and exhibi- ted feelings at variance with the religion of Christ, and in conformity to the carnal policy of men, seeking rather to promote the purposes of party than the glory of God." Observe, that those Presbyterian congregations are taught to regard the confession as " the co7istitution of their church." Why should they thus so denominate the book, at this time, if they were not accustomed, in all their courts, so to denominate it? DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS 861 In proof of what we assert, we would refer, say they, " I. To the deposition and excomniunicalion of the Versailles session — a sen- tence inflicted without trial, and through an exertion of usurped potaer, not to be borne by the citizens of a free country.'''' " Usurped power, not to be borne by the citizens of a free country." Now, if Presbyterians can, ^^ ivithout trial,'''' thus "usurp power" not to be endured, even themselves being judges, "by the citizens of a free country," for the sake of sustaining the creed and the form of govern- ment, have we, in the least, exaggerated the tendency of the system of human creed government, in representing it as necessarily prescriptive, tyrannical, and schismatical? Nothing is always tyrannical. No despot- ism is forever active. Even the papal tyranny itself sometimes sleeps. It is only occasionally that the most iron despotism lays upon its subject the rod of its anger. Occasion must call it forth into action. It is then, and only then, when roused into action, that all its power and tendencies are fully developed. "II. We refer to the ground assumed by the leading men in synod, when that case was taken up by appeal — viz. That presbytery had the right to cut off the session without trial ; and that synod might proceed in a simi- lar manner against presbytery, if circumstances made it necessary. III. We refer to the public, repeated and undisputed assertion of one of the leading men in our church, '■Hhat the dominant party felt themselves bound to protect their minorities'''' — a principle at war with the genius and spirit of our institution ; and which acted out, has led to a series of judicial investi- gations the most partial, and ice loould add, the most disgraceful ever placed upon the records of any court i?i our country, cither civil or ecclesiastical." "Judicial investigations, the most partial and, as we believe, the most disgraceful ever placed upon the records of any court in our country, either civil or ecclesiastical.'^^ If the Presbyterians themselves so speak of their own government, of the acts of their own beloved ministry, and of the bearings of their own system, may we not use this document in full illustration and development of the truth of our positions on this question ? " IV. We refer to the trial and suspension of the Rev. J. C. Stiles, — a proceeding, in our view, attended with circumstances of unexampled con- tempt of every rule of decorum, and in violation of the constitution, laws and usages of the Presbyterian church. 1st. Because the mind of tlie religious community, a few weeks before the trial came on, was poisoned by a scandalous publication from the pen of the Rev. Mr. Rice, editor of the Protestant and Herald — whose gross mis- statements and perversions of fact tended to prejudice the cause of the ac- cused, and served to stimulate presbytery to a deed, which may be regarded as the consummation of intemperate zeal and party violence." I am not the only person, then, that accuses my friend, Mr. Rice, with " gross perversions of fact," and " gross misstatements too." His zeal for the old-fashioned and immutable Presbyterianism, without any evil intention on his part, betrays him into such a course of action, as his brethren feel themselves, at times, authorized, according to their views, to call "gross perversions of fact," and "gross misstatements of fact." " 2d. Because, according to their own decision in reference to the Ver- eailles session, presbytery had no jurisdiction in the case — presenting them- selves and acting in the fourfold capacity of prosecutors, judges, witnesses and jurymen,''^ Presbytery, it seems, then, in the judgment of Presbyterians them- selves, can act in the fourfold capacity of prosecutors, judges, witnesses, and jury ! I have always heard this objection to the courts of that comrau- 862 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. nity, in such cases. It is one of the standing objections to tlie operations of the system, so far back as the records of its proceedings have reached us. "3d. Because the verdict was contrary to evidence; as the only cliarge proved against him was the public discussion of the Reform measures ; in which he stands justified by ihe free constitution of our church. 4th. Because they did not grant him the righl of appeal from their first sentence, of which, according to our booiv of discipline, he might avail liira- self at any time within ten days : but immediately proceeded to pronounce a higiier degree of censure, and suspend liim from all the functions of the gospel ministry — they say, Ibr " contumacy " — because he " refuses to sub- mit" "?(ow)" to a "decision" declared above. In view of these facts, therefore, Resolved, I. That the members ot the Harmony church do avow it as our solemn belief, that tlie hig-li handed measures of our ecclesiastical courts, have inflicted a deep wound upon the cause of religion in our land : — that their attempts to repressy)-cf(/o??i of discussion is a blow aimed at our repub- lican institutions ; and that were we to submit amj longer to these assumed powers, we should consider ourselves as standing- in the altitude (f foes to hu- man liberty.''^ Here, then, is " the solemn beUef'' of the member? of the Harmony church, that a new institution ought to be got up ; that they would be '■'■foes to liberty'''' if iliey sliouhl any longer submit to " attempts to re- press freedom of di>iCi(!isio7i,^^ and " to blows aimed at our republican in- stitutions." Yet Mr. Rice would have us believe that the love of liberty, of freedom of debate, and of free institutions, were of the very spirit and essence of Presbyterianism ! This may serve as a specimen of the operations of Presbyterians in the United States, for some iew years past, especially since the commencement of the distinctions between new and old school in that denomination. " II. Resolved, That we disclaim all connection with the old school Pres- byterian church; and that we consider it an imperious duty, at the present crisis, to form a distinct presbytery — with a view, at some future period, of connecting ourselves with a Western and Southeim Presbyterian ciiurch, provided such an one can be organized free from the taint of abolitionism. III. Resolved, That the session of the Harmony church attend the convention to meet on the 18th of this month at Lexington, to represent and attend to the interest of this church." I will only add to this chapter of details of the creed system a single incident which quite recently occurred during, and in the last ses- sion, of the synod of Kentucky, in this very city. A worthy brother minister, the Rev. Mr. Preston, of the Presbyterian church, had, during this last year, presumed "to break the loaf'' some once or twice with our brethren at Georgetown. Having been arraigned before presbytery for this great ofience, from whose decision he appealed to synod, his case came up in order at last session. Wliile it was before synod, and in course of trial, a veneralile and worthy gentleman of many years experi- ence in the ministry, arose, and among other very acceptable Avords, said, that he had never heard these people (reformers) preach, nor would he allow his children to hear them preach. He judged it a profanation of the sabbath to hear them ; and that, " so long as he was able to wear a blue stocking, he never would hear them." Yet he could denounce them as guilty of heresy and profanation. All this was said in the city of Lex- ington, in the year of grace, eighteen hundred and forty-three. Go, sir, not to Westminster, but to Rome, and ask, what proscriptive and denuncia- DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 863 tory measures — what haughtier pretensions to infallibility, could have emanated from the genius of popery itself! But the synod presented the following resolution : [A copy of the resolution could not be obtained by the reporters.]] The synod sustained the views of the presbytery, and the gentleman withdrew from its jurisdiction. 1 shall not expatiate on this trial. There is one point in it to which, however, I must advert. It is the fact, that when this conscientious and independent brother was arraigned for trial, being seized with hemoptysis, and unable to speak, he was not allowed a single day to prepare for the investigation of his case. Since the days of the Star Chamber and High Court of Commission, daring the reign of Elizabeth, I doubt whether any thing so small as this affair, was treated more in the spirit of those days of ecclesiastic tyranny and domination. Here, then, is an intelligent and useful member of the church, and min- ister of religion, set aside merely for the sin of celebrating the Lord's supper with a people whom the synod thought proper to denounce as holding errors. They seem to have forgotten that they themselves had all been denounced by other synods and councils, as reprobate in doc- trine and unworthy of the name of christians. Orthodoxy is, indeed, very arbitrary and whimsical in its decisions. To-day it reprobates what it commended yesterday, and will to-morrow reprobate what it approves to-day. Power and numbers consecrate every thing : hence, while par- ties are weak and struggling into power, they are always erroneous and heretical by those in authority; but when they triumph over their rivals, the sin of heterodoxy no more adheres to them. I blame the system, not the men. These creeds have always operated in this way. It is in this view of the subject, in contrast with those who hold the Book alone, that we pronounce them to be of schismatical ten- dency, and ultimating in tyranny and oppression. Had I time to accomplish ii this morning, I should glance at the whole history of the practical operations of the Westminster creed, from its origin till now. But that is at present out of the question. I shall, therefore, only glance at its actual effects in this western country ; almost exclusively, indeed, in this commonwealth, in the memory of one generation. Only one class of Presbyterians were liere at the commencement of the pres- ent century. In 1803, did not the oppression of some of its technical ab- stractions on Trinity, cause the disseverance and disruption of the denomi- nation? Arianism, or Unitarianism, as Mr. Rice calls it, was the result of the agony of that day. The whole Springfield presbytery was severed from the denomination, a part of it turning Arian, and another part termi- nating in Shakerism. I call these results by the names which the people of that day imposed on them. An abstract, dogmatic and erroneous nom- enclature, gave birth to these new forms, by whatever name they should be called. Indeed, this unscriptural vocabulary, this metapliysical jargon, has been the occasion of much the larger part of all the strife and partyism of Protestantism. Think only of the unscriptural terms, 'Eternal Son,' 'eternal (generation,' 'eternal procession,' ' eternal justification,' ' Trinity,' ' Triune God,' 'con-substantial,' 'co-eternal,' &c. &c. Here are terms and phrases no inspired man ever used, and no sane man ever understood. These v/ild abstrusities beget a speculative habit; and men, with a little conceit, and a litUe pliilosophic pride, getting into controversy on tiiese mystic points, soon generate feuds ; and, if they are only a little self- willed and conscientious, a new sect or party will be the result. Latitu- 864 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. dinarian comments, and new modes of construction, gave birth to those two American parties, called " Newlights," and " Shakers." Extremes beget each other. Only contemplate the fanaticism of the Shakers, growing out of a Presbyterian education. They supposed them- selves moved by the Holy Spirit, in some new, direct or immediate way ; and, therefore, commenced hoAvling, barking, leaping, jerking, and other spasmodic operations. No pagan fanaticism ever did transcend some of the scenes said to have been transacted at the commencement of the pres- ent century, in this good commonwealth, under the reaction of the creed- system. A latitudinarianism of interpretation, of thinking, speaking, act- ing, rarely equalled, never surpassed, was the genuine revulsionary opera- tion of the then reigning system, upon that peculiar class of mind subjected to those influences. Like combustion, fanaticism cannot be developed, without the proper materials and circumstances. I am not speaking of the Scotch Cameronians, the good old solemn league and covenant Covenanters, nor of other English, Scotch and Irish Presbyterians — I am speaking of the Kentucky Presbyterians of the pres- ent century. And whence came the Cumberlanders — the Presbyterians on the Kentucky and Tennessee sides of that sacred river ? Was it not the oppression of the creed, in some of its doctrinal and disciplinary parts ? Was it not the high ground taken by some, and the efforts to impose their views and constructions upon others ? The same causes, operating upon diflerent minds, on particular subjects, generally terminate in the formation of some new denomination, and that, too, upon some particular point or points. This new denomination, if I am rightly informed, now nearly equals the old Presbyterians in the same districts of country. When to these you add the late general schism, which is not confined to Kentucky or Tennessee, but whicli extends over all the states, where Pres- byterianism exists, and count the sixty thousand new-school neuclens and the old school, we have four schisms in forty years ; or rather, for one old Presbyterian church we have, through the instrumentality of one party and its creed, no less than five communities. Has not the Westminster wrought well in the way of increase of parties in this valley ? ! A fruitful mother of discords truly ! ! This is a proof, strong and clear, within the memory of the living men around us. Contemplate Shakerism, New- lightism, Cumberland Presbyterianism, New-schoolism and Old-school- ism, and what a powerful argument to sustain my position, that human creeds are heretical and schismaticalJ It was the creeds and their inter- pretation that caused all this discord and strife. Every one of these par- ties began about something within the creed. How, in reason's name, can these facts be disposed of! ! Many things in the development of social life, I verily believe and teach, ought to be let alone. When men indulge in speculations, so long as they do not presume to propagate them, better to let them alone. What v/ould Mr. Rice have done with such persons as Dr. Thomas ? What would our Westminster divines have done with Elder B. W. Stone ? They would, according to their construction of his opinions, certainly have either cut off his head or hanged him by the statute read from Neale. I do not say the Kentucky Presbyterians would now do this. I speak of their fathers, about the year 1648. I read you on yesterday an act which said that Unitarians should " die without benefit of clergy." Under that statute, it would have gone equally hard with the Materialist. But as the DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 865 Savior said he came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them ; so we prefer to save men's lives by the gospel rather than to destroy them. Hence I sought to save some of those speculators, until my friends sup- posed I almost sympathized with their opinions. I cheerfully say, I do not approve of all that Barton W. Stone has written and said, yet I believe our society has been, and is pursuing a most salutary and redeeming pol- icy. Whither has fled the Newlightism of former days ? How long will its speculations be remembered, that lloated on the winds of thirty years ? ! Presbyterians, and all the other parties in the field, could not dispose of it, till the pleaders for the reformation arose in the length and breadth of the land. They have indeed disposed of it in such a way, as to lead the honest and candid into more scriptural and consistent views and practices, and to paralyze and silence the uncandid declaimers upon these specula- tions. New generations will now grow up under new influences. The off- spring of those persons propagating erroneous speculations, will grow up under new influences. The Bible and its facts, and new associations, will make of them a new people. They will rally round the banners of the ori- ginal institutions of Christ. They will place themselves upon the naked book of God alone. If they err and do wrong, the Bible will set them right again. They may go wrong for a time, but they are in the safe- keeping of apostles and prophets, while at school with the Great Teacher and the holy Twelve. These teachers, should they err, will set them right again. I believe we have done a good work, for which even the Pres- byterians should thank us, in removing out of their way what they could not; and for correcting errors growing out of their own misinterpretations of the Directory of God, Avhich, with all their learning, ability and zeal, they failed to vanquish! — \_Time expired. Saturday, Dec. 2 — 10| o'clock, A. M. [mr. rice's eighth reply.] Mr. President — My friend, Mr. C., who would seem to know intui- tively what errors will die, if let alone, and which must be killed ; also sees with no less clearness, that under certain circumstances, the West- minster confession would lead to persecution. Will he please to put his finger on one passage or sentiment in it, that even distantly looks towards persecution ? From the first chapter to the last, there is not one that con- tains an illiberal or persecuting tenet. I deny that it ever did, in any age, induce any man or class of men to persecute. No creed produces perse- cution, unless it embodies persecuting principles. It would be as unwise, and as decidedly wrong, to attempt to force men, by civil penalties, to embrace the Bible, as to compel them to re- ceive a creed ; and both have been, at difierent times, attempted. Our Savior was condemned to death by an appeal to the Bible, not to a hu- man creed. The Jews appealed to the law of Moses against blasphemy, and said to Pilate, " We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, be- cause he made himself the Son of God," John xix. 7. Never were there more malignant persecutions than have been carried on in the name of the Bible, without a human creed. The infidel might as plausibly maintain, that Christianity itself persecutes, as Mr. C. that creeds are necessarily in- tolerant. Had the Anabaptists of Germany a written creed ? They had not. Yet where, in the bistory of the christian church, can you find a 55 4D 866 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. more fanatical and intolerant sect than they ? The infidels of France hail no creed, but where, in the history of man, can you find such a scene of diabolical persecution, as characterized "the reign of terror" — the period of the revolution ? If, then, it be true, that in different ages and nations men have perse-* cuted, in the name of the Bible, without a creed, and even without a reli- gious belief of any kind; who can believe in the philosophy of my friend, when he makes creeds the cause of persecution ? There is no error more common amongst men, than that of ascribing eflects to wrong causes. Each party, political and religious, is disposed to attribute existing or ap- prehended evils to causes which they dislike. In their judgments they are often controlled by prejudices, contrary alike to philosophy and to fact. The gentleman says, creeds lead to persecution. Let him, if he can, prove, or give even the shghtest evidence, that a creed not embody- ing persecuting principles, leads to persecution. If men hold intolerant opinions, they will persecute, whether those opinions are committed to writing or not. The gentleman has repeatedly expressed his particular gratification at my reading so much from his various publications. Then, again, he complains bitterly, as if I were doing him serious injustice. This morn- ing he tells you, that he never gave me the right to read his books on every subject. I ask him no favors on this matter. I have the right to read any thing he or any one else has written, bearing on the subjects un- der discussion. He has the right to quote tlie confession of faith, or any author he may fancy. I have the same right; and, therefore, do not ask his permission to read any or all of his books, as I may choose. He may complain if he will. I know he feels unpleasantly at having the contradictions and absurdities of his books exposed; but I cannot help it. I was not a little surprised to hear Mr. Campbell say, tliat he thought Dr. Thomas, the Materialist, had abandoned his errors. 1 will again read from the Millenial Harbinger, that we may see whether there was the sliglitest foundation for such an opinion : - " We, the undersigned brethren, in free consultation, met at the house of brother John Tinsley Jeter, at Paineville ; and after frankly comparing our views, unanimously agreed upon the resolution subjoined, and submitted the same for the consideration of brethren Campbell and Thomas ; and bro- ther Thomas agreeing to abide the same, all difficulties were adjusted, and perfect harmony and co-operation mutually agreed upon between them. Resolved, That whereas certain things believed and propagated by I>r-^ Thomas, in relation to the mortality of man, the resurrection of the dead, and the final destiny of the wicked, having given offence to many brethren, and being likely to produce a division amongst us, and believing tlie said views to be of no practical benefit, we recommend to brother Thomas to discontinue the discussion of the same, unless in his defence when misrepre- sented." Signed by some twenty-four persons. This is the document ; and you observe that, so far from confessing and abandoning his errors, Dr. Thomas expres.sly retained the right to discuss them in his defence, lohen misrepresented. If, afterwards, there- were mutual explanations, in v/hich he retracted his errors, why was not the paper altered by striking out the part which granted him the right to defend them? I prefer to take the document itself, which concedes the right, and in connection with which, he declared positively that his views remained unaltered. Dr. Thomas has been, for a number of years, advo- cating those errors ; and, if I am correctly informed, is yet a member and DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 867 a preacher in Mr. C.'s church. Certainly he is, unless he has volunta- rily withdrawn. . The gentleman seems to be quite pained by the necessity of referring to certain personal difficulties between several ministers, which have no- thing whatever to do with the subject in hand. How he feels about such matters now, I pretend not to know ; but I do know that his Christian Baptist abounds with just such attempts to injure the reputation of the clergy of all denominations. Dr. Miller, he informs us, charged certain men, formerly in our church, with dishonesty, in adopting our confession of faith. This may all be true, and yet creeds may not be heretical and schisraatical. Creeds are not designed to detect dishonest men. I pre- sume the gentleman will not deny, that men may be dishonest in profess- ing to receive the Bible as their only infallible guide. But what is the difference between Mr. Campbell's church and ours, with regard to errorists and unworthy men ? As in the time of the apos- tles, some crept in unawares, so now, some dishonest men may gain ad- mittance into our church. But in his, are found Arians, Socinians, Uni- versalists, Materialists, who have entered in perfect consistency with the principles of the church. The door is wide enough to receive them, and the foundation broad enough for them to stand on. My friend Mr. C. says, he will receive Unitarians and Universaiists. It is one thing for errorists to gain admittance to a church under the garb of a false profes- sion, and quite another for them to be received, whilst avowing their erro- neous faith. [Mr. Campbell. I never said so.] The gentleman now says, he has never said that he would receive a Unitarian or a Universal- ist ! I will prove that he has said he will receive them, if they will use the Bible words, and hold their errors as opinions. I will read in his Christianity Restored, (pp. 122, 123 :) " I will now show how they cannot make a sect of us. We will acknowl- edge all as christians who acknowledge the gospel tacts, and obey Jesua Christ. But. says one, will you receive a Unitarian 1 No ; nor a Trinita- rian. We will have neither Unitarians nor Trinitarians. How can this be ! Systems make Unitarians and Trinitarians. Renounce the system, and you renounce its creatures. But the creatures of other systems now exist, and some of them will come in your v/ay. How will you dispose of them 1 T answer. We will unmake them. Again I am asked, How will you unmake them "? I an- swer, By laying no emphasis upon their opinions. What is a Unitarian J One who contends that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. Such a one hos denied the faith, and therefore we reject him. But, says a Trinitarian, many Unitarians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God \n a sense of their ov/n. Admit it. Then I ask, How do you know they have a sense of their own'? Intuitively, or by their words'? Not intuitively, but by their words. And what are these words] Are they Bible words'? If they are, we cannot object to them — if they are not, WG will not hear them ; or, what is the same thing, we will not discuss them at all. If he will ascribe to Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works, and worship, we will not light with him about scholastic words: but if he will not ascribe to him every thing that the first christians ascribed, and wor- ship and adore him as the first christians did, we will recoct him, not be- cause of his private opinions, but because he refuses to honor Jesus as the first converts did, and withholds from him the titles and honors which God and his apostles have bestowed upon him. In like manner we will deal with a Trinitarian. If he will ascribe to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all that the first believers ascribed, and nothing more, we will receive him — but we will not allow him to ipply 868 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. scholastic and oarbarous epithets to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spir- it. If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him— n&t be- cause of hia opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to lord it over God's heritage. And will you receive a Universalist too"? No ; not as a Universalist If a man, professing Universalist opinions, should apply for admission, we will receive him, if he will consent to use and apply all the Bible phrases in their plain reference to the future state of men and angels. We will not hearkeo to those questions which gender strife, nor discuss them at all. If a per- son say such is his private opinion, let him have it as his private opinion ; but lay no stress upon it : and if it be a wrong private opinion, it will die a natural death much sooner than if you attempt to kill it." If the Universalist says, he holds his errors as private opinions, the gentleman says, he will receive him, and let him hold them still. This is precisely what I have asserted. I think he ought to have felt unpleasantly, when he read a document passed by a new school church in this vicinity. What had it to do with the question, whether creeds are heretical and schismatical ? Absolutely nothing. But it contains some personal imputations against myself, thrown out under the excitement arising from the suspension of a minister to whom they were attached ; and therefore it was, that he read it ! If I were inclined to return evil for evil, I would read the pamphlet I hold in my hand, published by a Mr. McVay, one of the preachers in his church, preferring against Mr. C. very serious charges. It contains a number of certificates, signed by respectable persons. This document would be a fair match for the Harmony paper. But my cause requires no such defence. In regard to Mr. Preston's case, various false statements have been pub- lished in the Harrodsburg Christian Journal, by certain anonymous wri- ters. The gentleman, by way of showing the intolerance of the synod of Kentucky, states that Mr. Preston, though in bad health, was not allowed a day to prepare his defence. The facts of the case are these : Mr. Preston had two or three times communed with the reformers — at which conduct some of his brethren were grieved. He came before the presbytery, and asked their opinion of his conduct. He had not been ar- raigned— and was not called before that body to answer to charges pre- ferred against him. He stated the fact, that he had communed with a church known not to be acknowledged by ours, and asked their opinion. They were prepared to give it ; and, after hearing his reasons, they said to him — "We think your conduct is highly censurable." He appealed to synod. That body heard him fully in defence of his conduct, and then expressed the same opinion. He was not excommunicated nor suspended. This is all. If the gentleman can prove us intolerant by such evidences, he is most welcome to do so. But, to cap the climax, and to prove unanswerably how much Presby- terians are bent on persecution, the gentleman told you, that there is living in this city a Presbyterian minister who said, he had not heard these re- formers preach, and did not wish to hear them. I supposed, that in this free country, a man had a right to hear, or refuse to hear, whom he pleased, without being justly chargeable with intolerance. But I now learn, that all who think they can better employ their time, than by going to hear Mr. C. or his preachers, are to be branded as persecutors ! It is, indeed, a singular species of persecution, which consists in letting men alone ! I think it within the bounds of possibility, that the minister allu- ded to has read enough concerning the principles of this new reformation. DEBATE ON HUiMAN CREEDS. 869 to determine that he may spend his sabbaths more profitably than by seeking edification from that quarter. But Mr. C. boasts of his liberality. Yet when a gentleman in England inquired of him, whether his churches admit unimmersed persons to com- munion, he answered in the most unqualified terms — " Not one of them, as far as known to me." Presbyterians are chargeable with a persecuting spirit, if they refuse to allow their members to commune with the reform- ers ; but the reformers are quite charitable in refusing to permit any unim- mersed person to commune with them ! ! ! My friend has often displayed the extent of his charity and liberality in bold relief. A specimen of the kind is found in his Christian Baptist, (p. 23.) " Thirdly, the worshiping' establishments now in operation throughout Christendom, increased and cemented by their respective voluminous con- fessions of faith, and their ecclesiastical constitutions, are not churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of that Mother of Harlots, the church of Rome." Let me give another specimen from the Millenial Harbinger, (vol. i. p. 349.) " This respectable sect, [Presbyterians,] respectable not so much for its humility, spirituality, and piety ; but respectable for its numbers, its wealth, and learning; for its ancient foundation, being only the second daughter of the second marriage of the kings of the earth with Mistress Roma Baby- LONA, now in her third century, is annually publishing to the world, how illy she is adapted to our government, to the salvation of this community, temporally, spiritually, or eternally, to the spread and progress of the chris- tian religion," &c. Thus he speaks of Presbyterians ; and yet he tells you now, that he is quite willing to have those children of Mistress Roma Babylona com- mune with him ! ! ! The gentleman sometimes hints remotely at the question before us. Creeds, he says, produced Arianism, and Shakerism, bowlings, barkings, &c., in our own country. Did not Arius teach his heresies ; and did they not rapidly spread through the church before a creed was adopted ? How, then, could the creed have produced it ? Did the efiect exist before the cause ? And \\o\v did the creed produce Shakers ? How did it make people howl and bark ? I am really curious to understand the philosophy of this matter. It is true that the Shakers carried their reforynation rather too far for my friend; but still they were reformers. One of the advan- tages secured to our church by our creed is, that we are enabled, with some despatch, to get rid of all such errorists. We desire not to have in our communion, men who reject the fundamental principles of the gospel, hov/ever respectable in character or in numbers. But did the ism of my friend produce the Materialism of Dr. Thomas, or the part3dsm of McVay ? Let him answer the question ; and he will refute his charges against our creed. But he asks, what would the old Presbyterian fathers have done with Dr. Thomas ? Certainly they would not have retained him in their com- munion. But T do not admit that Presbyterians in England and Scotland were inclined, generally, to persecute. There doubtless were some of all parties who did not understand the rights of conscience, and who desired a church establishment. But that Presbyterians were in fiivor of killing those who dift'ered from them, is not true. Presbyterians did not consti- tute the parliament, to whose persecuting laws the gentleman has re- 4d3 870 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. ferred. Whether there was any considerable number of Presbyterians it that parlianaent, I know not. Anabaptists, and others, have violently per* secuted without a creed. How, then, can it be made appear, that the in- tolerance of any age or country, was caused by the existence of creeds ? The gentleman has now informed us of one great good growing out of his reformation. But for it, he says, there would have been in the West a body of Unitarians for a hundred years to come ! If it is any credit to his reformation, that it has embraced in its bosom multitudes who rob Christ of his glory, by denying his divinity ; and the sinner of hope, by denying his atonement ; he is most welcome to it ! His foundation is broad enough for all such; but the Bible knows nothing of such compro- mises of the truth, to effect union with those who deny tl:e Lord that bought them. I will now proceed to give some further development of the true char- acter and condition of Mr. C.'s church, by reading a few extracts w'hich I commenced on yesterday afternoon ; (Millenial Harbinger, vol. vi.. No. 6, pp. 243, 244 :) - • - . . '^How few public preachers and teachers at this day are there, that need not to be ashamed of their aptitude to discriminate and apply the holy ora- cifis ! Ought not many to blush who presume to speak by a divine call spe- cially to them addressed, for their ignorance of all the laws of language, the force of words, the logical point in an argument, the meaning of the sacred style, and their inaptitude to expound and apply the word of truth ! How many ought to blush for their irreverent manner of speaking in the divine presence — their vapid and most irreligious way of pronouncing the divine names and attributes — their profanation of the privilege of prayer in the most undevout style of addressing God, and of speaking to him merely for the sake of speaking to men — correcting what they deem popular errors, and eulogizing kindred spirits, while addressing the awful throne of God ! The times are sadly out of joint in all these respects. Public prayers are some- times mere sermons preached to God — critiques on doctrine, satires on rival dogmas, protracted efforts at saying something commendable, random at- tempts to be eloquent, monotonous gibberish, empty, loud, and vehement vociferations. For all this insolence to heaven, and for all these lamentable defects, we have neither jurisdiction nor tribunal ! We certainly have not, if every individual may send himself and authorize his own acts ; or if a small, weak, irresponsible community may send out whom it pleases into the world. The cause of reformation would ere now have overrun the whole commu- nity, but for two causes. One is, the great masses of neglected new con- verts, who are not taught the christian religion in scriptural churches, and who consequently Icse confidence in themselves, return to the world, or re- main dry and barren branches in the mystic vine. The other is a class of unsent, unaccomplished, uneducated advocates, who plead it ; amongst whom, too, have been found a number of persons of immoral character, who have assumed the profession as a cloak of covetousness — as means of impos- ing themselves on the unsuspecting and benevolent. ****** We have bled at every pore through the lacerations of many such. And had not our cause possessed more than mortal strength — had it not been of celes- tial origin and divine power, it had long since been prostrate through trait- ors, pretenders, incompetent disciplinarians, and impotent administrators." What a picture this of the preachers and members of this boasted church — the latest and best edition of a no-creed church ! The evils are not exaggerated. The picture is drawn by the gentleman himself; and we know that he would not slander his own church. He says — " We have bled at every pore through the lacerations of many such "—that is, of their own preachers [ Why, if 1 were to see a man bleeding at every DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 87 ^ore, I should be sure that he would die, if the doctor did not speedily come to his relief. And if he were thus bleeding from self-inflicted wounds, I should certainly think, that he ought to be confined in a straight' jacket ! But if I were told, that he was the only sane and healthy man in that community, I should regard it as a horrible place. I should make a speedy retreat from amongst them. But let me read a litde further on page 245. '• But we have not yet laid open the great defects of our evangelical min- istry. There are the belligerent theorists, whose special care it is, in every serraon, or on all public occasions, to disinter the remains of some fallen or decayed system, exhibit its bones and putrid remains, and then to bury it again with all the honors of an ecclesiastic war; and, in contrast with it, to unfold the charms of a wiser and better theory. Alas ! what pranks are play- ed on earth, in the presence of mourning angels, by those whose undertak- ing it is to persuade sinners to turn to God and live forever ! Another portion of our more gifted and ingenious cohorts have addicted themselves to the enviable task of public censors of the senior theologians. Boys in their teens, or youths who, for years to come, would not have been permitted to lay a shoulder of mutton on God's ancient altar, are now grave- ly and learnedly exposing the errors of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the sy- nods of Dort, Westminster and Trent, cum multis alliis, with as much seli- approbation and secret relish as the most exquisite sensualist devours a fa- vorite dish when his appetite is stimulated with the pickles of Macenas and a fast of full twelve hours. These are the wild beasts of our Ephesus, with whom it is more difficult to conflict than with those with whom Paul fought at the capital of Asia. Yet these are workmen who are never ashamed, but always glory in their success in what they call preaching tlie gospel of peace. ... Of these profanations of the evangelical office, and of these flagrant aberrations from good sense, good taste, and approved models, the more in- telligent and pious communities are always complaining; but without per- ceiving that they have the power of preventing the evil. They flatter themselves that Time, the great teacher, innovator, and reformer, will, of iis own accord, correct these evils. But \\'\\\ it save the multitudes that are fatally injured in the meantime while the experiment is in progress! And has the Lord commissioned Time and Experiment as his reforming agents?" . . Such is the account of the present state and prospects of his church, given by the gentleman himself. Again, he says, " Every sort of doc- trine has been proclaimed by almost all sorts of preachers, under the broad banner and with the supposed sanction of the begun reformation ;" (Mil. Harb. vol. vi. No. 2, p. 64.) If the leading man in the church feels constrained to portray its condition in such language, how dark would be the picture drawn, in its true colors, by an impartial hand ! Who would desire to enter such a church? Who could regard it, with all its errors and its confusion, as " the pillar and ground of the truth ?" Let me remain among "the sects" where such men are not tolerated, and where such errors are not cherislied to the ruin, present and eternal, of multitudes. Another argument I shall urge against the gentleman's plan of christian union, is, that he has felt constrained radically to change his ground since he commenced his reformation, and is noiv advocating the very principles he once boldly denounced.' In the beginning of his ca- reer he denounced all denominations for doing precisely what he is now himself doing. He began with taking the New Testament as the only constitution of tht churches. Now he is offering them, and urging upon 872 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. ihem, several articles, written by himself, as the basis of a general organ- ization ! Many of his friends and followers have been alarmed at the progress he seems to be making towards "Babylon;" and well they may be. — \_Time expired. Saturday, Dec. 2 — 1 1 o^ clock, A. M. [mr. Campbell's ninth address.]] Mr. President — Mr. Rice, it seems, has left the argument, and is de- termined to proceed in his begun course of calumniating the community with which I stand connected. He will not provoke me to reply to such calumnies, in any other way than I have already done. I have shown that the apostle Paul said full as much against his brethren, as I have ever said against mine ; nay, much more than I have yet said. I have given a few examples of the manner in which he inveighed against some whom he himself had converted from Judaism and Paganism to Christ. Every so- ciety has to contend with unprofitable and unworthy members. Of all the churches in Galatia, Paul said more than I have ever said of all the churches in Kentucky, or of any one state of this Union, Of them, Paul said — '■'■ I stand in doubt of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." — "Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" — "I call God to witness, that you would, at one time, have plucked out your eyes, and have given them to me." Any one disposed to calumniate Paul and his labors, from his own writings, would have had a fine oppor- tunity from his letter to the Galatians, as well as from those to Timothy and the Corinthians. But it is not only of the dereliction of these churches that great apostle complains. He says not only " Demas has forsaken me," but "all in Asia have forsaken me." " I pray God not to lay this sin to their charge." Mr. Rice, had he been in Paul's place, would not have told over these apostasies and obliquities of his brethren. He would have concealed them. He would not have published their imperfections as I have done. Stood he in the same relations to community, he would not, as I still do, expose the frailties and errors of those associated with him. Which of us seems, in these specifications, to walk more after the exam- ple of Paul ? I feel myself in duty bound to remonstrate against the er- rors of my brethren, as against the errors of other men — nay, more. I may have, indeed, said of them things more severe than I should have said. Still, I glory in the fact, that my prejudices and partialities have not hid their frailties from my eyes, nor sealed my lips in reproving them. Mr. R. confers upon me an honor of which I am proud, really proud. He honors my candor, my impartiality, and my love of truth. I shall, then, always persevere in this course of reproving defects in friend or op- ponent. We have reformed, and are reforming, and still will reform. We have placed before ourselves and brethren a very high standard of perfection, and to this we must still direct our eyes. I hope the very censures of our ardent and devoted friend, Mr. Rice, will still admonish ns to ascend still higher in our aspirations after christian excellence. I have been endeavoring to relieve my Presbyterian friends from the imputation, that those deeds of intolerance and persecution which history records against their fathers, were the workings of their system, rather than of any personal or ancestral depravity of nature ; that the system, and not the people, was to blame for it. This is, indeed, my real con- viction. But he will not let the creed have it. He admits that they have done those deeds ; and, as one endorsed by Presbyterians, he can do no DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 873 less than admit it. Neale is candid, honest, and impartial. He was re- commended to my early readings, by some of the best Presbyterians I have ever known. Not only he, however, but all our historians, and religious dictionaries and encyclopoedias, attest the fact, that all creeds, since that of Nice and saint Athanasius, have been baptized in blood. The Bible and its friends have killed no person. Martyrologists say that creeds have made in various forms, and in all time, their fifty millions of martyrs. Christians do not kill christians. Never, never ! Jesus said, "All who take the sword, shall perish with the sword." Doubdess in defence of religion. The gendeman says, the Anabaptists persecuted ! That has been often said. But what have we to do with the Anabaptists ? It is, indeed, one of the brightest glories of the Baptists, the pure immersionists, that they have never shed one drop of blood in defence of their creed or practice. I am not speaking of the Munster fanatics — but I speak of those properly called Baptists, in contrast with the Pedo-baptists. I know the gentleman will tell you that they never had it in their power. Roger Williams and his colony might have done it. Persecutions might have been introduced into Rhode Island, as easily as into Connecticut or Massachusetts. But the founders of those colonies were of different views. I have said the confession has been changed, altered, and improved, in some particulars. The article on the power of the civil magistrate has, indeed, been much improved in our American Westminster confession. It does not now, as formerly, authorize the sword to serve at the altar. It does not now constrain any man to lift up his hand and swear, by high heaven, that he will "extirpate popery and prelacy by all civil pains;" as did the solemn league and covenant. You have read the history of the holy and bloody wars of orthodoxy for forty years ; and did I not read the solemn decree of the men who made that creed ? It is indeed possible that it might be the men and not the principles. I have known some men that would never persecute others on any account, or in any way. The milk of human kindness flowed too freely though their veins. No system, the most intolerant, could make them cruel. Still I opine, it was their principles, and not the peculiarity of a bilious or atrabilious temperament. The spirit, the very genius of a human bond of union, a human standard, around which the human aff'ections are taught to revolve, is as certainly exclusive as there is self-love in man, and a love for one's own opinions. When men, under the influence ot a creed, oral or written, can pass a law to hang men for an opinion, for a theory or a doctrine, there must be an attachment to opinions of a very morbid and predominating character. To imprison one for immersing or refusing to sprinkle an applicant, certainly evinces not only the fact of the previous existence of an opinion favorable to sprinkling, but of an undue attachment to it, and it moreover exhibits a theory of human nature, of civil rights, of rational liberty, wholly incompatible with our views of justice, reason, and conscience. I have before said, that I am under no necessity whatever, in my own defence, to take this view of the subject, in the maintenance of my posi- tion on the use and tendency of human tests of orthodoxy. I take this ground on principles of respect for my Presbyterian contemporaries, to relieve them as men from the spirit of the system. They have caught the spirit of the age, of our free institutions, and they cannot think or act as their fathers did. There is too much Bible reading in this land, and 874 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. intercommunication with other denominations, with men of piety and ele^ rated conceptions of human rights, and liberty of thought, of speech, of conscience and of action. I do not think that the people are now so intolerant. I will therefore blame the system rather than the people. . Still, Mr. Rice will excuse the creed rather than the men. I blame the system, but he blames the men. It is true that men made the law to pun- ish heretics and the heterodox with death ; and that these men had those principles within them before the statute which they had just enacted. But these men were themselves the creatures of other systems of the same kind which they had now ordained. It was then the system tha't made them pass such laws. I do not, as I before said, think that the men of this age, the Presbyterians around me, would persecute any of us to death. Light has become too strong, and public opinion has been revoli>- tionized, and one of the most dangerous articles in the creed has been reformed. Still there is a species of newspaper defamation, of pulpit and synodical calumny, of religious neighborhood gossiping, that murders men's reputation, slays their usefulness, and as effectually, in certain re- gions, restrains their influence, as would banishment or imprisonment By turning over to the article on persecution, in that encyclopoedia lying beside him, the gentleman will find enough on that subject to satisfy any reasonable man, that I have not exaggerated the matter at all ; — and that although we have not persecutions of the first class, v/e still have of all the subordinate ranks enough to sustain our position, that creeds are still schismatical and heretical. . This being the last day of our discussion, I am resolved to confine myself to such topics as directly illustrate and establish the proposition. I did not, through this discussion, nor do I now, respond to every thing the gentleman has introduced. I have already given my reasons why 1 am not only not obliged to do it, but why it ought not to be done. I an- swer every thing that I remember of consequence, or in any direct way affecting the proposition. On this subject I have used no stronger terras than have the Presbyte- rians themselves. One of their correspondents in this commonwealth, as I learn from those who read it in the denominational press, calls his owa church "a stripling of Rome.'''' All indeed are striplings of Rome who are not purified from her errors. Between England and Rome they were wont to say, there was but a paper wall. If so, betvveen England and Scotland there is a still thinner paper wall. If the establishment of England be the first in descent, that of Scotland may be regarded as the second in descent from the mother and mistress church, and as possessing a little of the body and the spirit of the old queen. I do, indeed, believe, that so long as persons become members of a church without their own personal responsibility, while natural genera- tion, without personal regeneration, makes members, we must have a com- munity carnal, intolerant, and proscriptive. I have often said so, I have so written, and I still believe it. It has ever been so. All the ecclesi- astic persecutions have, as before shown, emanated from such communi- ties. But I have other points on which I must offer a few connected remarks. And first, we invite your attention to an historical glance at schism. I said yesterday, or the day before, that Satan was the first sectary io the universe, and that the first schism occurred in heaven. The Messiah informs us that Satan '■^ abode not in the truth.'''' He departed from it DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 875 and became a liar and a deceiver. That truth was doubtless a revelation of good things to come in some of the other dominions of God. But so it was, the lofty seraph did not choose to acquiesce in it. He became disaffected towards it, apostatized, and became a heretic and hereeiarch. For this, he and all who rallied around the new principle of disloyalty, were exiled from heaven. This was a tremendous heresy and fall. On discord bent, the great schismatic plotted the severance of man from God's covenant of life. The ruin of our race was fully plotted, the scheme matured, and inexperienced Eve was selected for his victim. He succeeded. He turned away her ear from God's word, substituted a commentary upon it which made it void ; and she, believing the lie, put forth her hand and plucked down ruin upon herself and all her child- ren. This was the second schism. After a full development of this sad catastrophe and a judgment held, God, in the fullness of his philanthropy, set on foot a remedial system. He promised a victorious Redeemer, and set up a sacrificial institution. Adam and Eve brought up their family under that dispensation. They had their altar, their victims, their sabbath, and their family worship. Cain and Abel, their eldest sons, followed their example, and each one brought his offerings to the Lord. Abel believed the promised Lamb of God, and brought from his flock a sin-offering. Cain, regardless of lire necessity of a Mediator, and a bloody victim, brought merely his thank- qffering, the first fruits of his harvest. Having disdained the remedial system, God disdained him, and would not receive his offering by such token of his regard as he had shewn to that of Abel. Cain's proud and unbelieving heart was filled with rage, and turned away from God and his own brother. They went into a debate — Cain's anger was kindled into a rage, and, incensed with pride and envy, he rose up against Abel and slew him. He left his father's house, became a vagabond or wanderer, and roamed abroad to the land aflerv/ards called Nod, and there set up an institution of his own. Thus commenced the second schism in the family of man. Cain is a full developed schismatic now, and how like the grand apostate ! He became a liar and a murderer. Falsehood, heresy, schism and persecution seem to commence and travel together in one sad league of ruin. Virtue, alas! piety itself, becomes obnox- ious to the wrath of the schismatic ! " Wherefore slew he him ?" said John, " because his own works were evil, and his brother's right- eous." We must not pause here. We must pursue the history of schism farther. Marriage was a divine institution. And equal matches, as respected piety and faith, have always been the law of heaven. A wiser and a holier institution is not inscribed upon the rolls of time. But from that covenant too, man apostatized, and polygamy and unequal matches com- menced in the time of Seth. This consummated the wickedness of the old world, and God fixed a day for its destruction. The intermarriage of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" made the cup of antediluvian impurity overflow, and one tremendous deluge destroyed the whole race, one family alone excepted. But though a world is drowned, and only one family saved, still in it are all the seeds of human depravity, and the remembrance of the sins of a former world. God makes a new covenant with Noah and his offspring — of which one is selected as the root of blessings to the new world. Time roUea on, and families are formed and multiplied. A distribution of the earth was 876 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. about being made ; and, it seems, the whole family of man engaged them- selves in the plains of Shinar, in constructing one new bond of union, in raising up one tower to heaven, in opposition to divine revelation from God. The Lord descends ; in the style of metaphor, the Lord descends — frowns upon their toils — divides their speech, and sets them all adrift; scattering them according to their families, their nations and languages. This was the schism of schisms. God had said that he would bless Shem — that he would enlarge Ja- phet, and curse Canaan, for reasons which, to his wisdom, were all just, righteous and merciful. Shem was, however, made the depository of the promises of the world's redemption. The Lord God of Shem is the Bene- factor of our world ; and our eyes are directed to him as the hope of the race. From this family God raised up, called and separated, Abraham ; made him the father of nations, and of the Messiah ; cut him off from all the world by circumcision, making him a pilgrim for life. He gave him new promises, and confirmed wiih him " the covenant concerning the Mes- siah." Time advanced. Four hundred years of discipline and various misfortunes, fitted his posterity for a new dispensation. The Lord sent Moses, and led them out of Egypt — conducted them into the desert — made of them a wonderful nation — supported them by miracle for forty years, and threw such a hedge around them as, methinks, ought to have kept them a separate and distinct people, pious and devout above all peo- ple, and for all generations. But, to preserve unity, he gave them but one mediator, one grand national covenant, one altar, one law, one tabernacle, one high priest, and one common inheritance ; all of which was given to them in one book — the book of the covenant, or constitution of Israel. A strong foundation was thus laid to preserve unity of faith, feeling, and action in this one grand national family. Time rolled on through four centuries of judges, until the age of kings came — until, in the days of Solomon the wise, the nation gained its zenith glory, and still preserved its ancient institutions, all of which were firmly established by this great prince in one august temple, the most magnificent building ever erected by the hand of man. Judah reigned. David, the son of Jesse, was its first king ; Solomon the second ; and then came the weak, and foolish, and tyrannical Rehoboam. Then came the great schism in the symbolic and picturesque nation — the many-tongued schism, replete with much instruc- tion to all the world. It is the grand national schism, whose whole his- tory is not yet fully written. For the sin of David, God rent the kingdom in part from the house of David, and gave almost ten tribes to Jeroboam the son of Nebat, " who made Israel to sin.''^ This cunning and potent rival of Rehoboam, from motives profoundly political, machinated a grand schism in the established worship, in order to produce an abiding schism in the affections of the people. He reasoned thus : So long as the people worship at one altar, through one priesthood, and in one temple, they will naturally coalesce again in one common- wealth and serve one king. Such was the philosophy of Jeroboam, and all history has proved it true. He therefore made new places of worship, on the plea of convenience and expediency ; and had two golden calves cast and finished ; one for Bethel, sacred from the days of Jacob ; and one for Dan, at a convenient distance. Instead, then, of going up to one altar, one temple and one high priest, to worship God and commune with their brethren, they heretically set up for themselves — and thus alienation DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 877 and strife commenced. Again we see, on a larger scale, and for a longer continuance, falsehood, heresy, schism and persecution, marching in co- partnery through the land of Israel, until, in one rencounter, more than a million of warriors are slain in a single day ! This was the era of state religion f and it was the era oi false gods, false altars and false worship. Golden calves are easily converted into idols ; and mercenary priests will serve at their altars, under the smiles of an approving monarch. But what was the consequence? The kings of Israel were a wicked dynasty, and the people, though in tribes almost four to one, in some two centuries were reduced to slavery, and carried out of their own country, and never since have been gathered. So ended the schism of Jeroboam, and those who with him united around the schismatic altars that he had reared. The land of Canaan and the sceptre continued, with the true altar and temple, in the families of Judah and Benjamin, though a small number of tribes worshiped there ; and although often chastised for their follies, they were never abandoned till the Messiah came and set up his institution among them. Let us now collect these facts and views together, and give them their true and proper significance and emphasis. We have seen in all these schisms, from that of Satan down to that of Jeroboam, the true nature, character and consequences of schism. When we have before us the vic- tims of all these several schisms grouped together ; Satan and his angels — Cain and his posterity, down to the deluge — the Babel builders and their nameless misfortunes— the national schism of Israel and all its untold calamities — methinks, we have a^ lesson, the clearest, the most forcible, and the most appalling that could be given to mortal man. He that doubts the connection between schism, rebellion, persecution and murder, is not to be rationally convinced by human power. Christianity contemplates the obliteration of all these schisms. It contemplates the completion of one great family, gathered out of all families ; built upon one grand foun- dation, having one temple, one altar, one law, one faith, one high priest, one spirit, one inheritance. Every thing in it is unity and community. It contemplates one nation, out of all nations ; one people, out of all people ; one Book, one law, one Savior, one worship, one Judge and one heaven, as the only means of rescuing man, and saving him from the numerous and various misfortunes and calamities, that one grand schism has entailed upon our world, for thousands of years past, and for an eternity to come. Now, in tracing out this glorious scheme of Heaven, we discover that God has been consolidating and harmonizing our race upon one faith and one hope ; upon a few simple, well-defined, and strong principles ; and that he has regarded as treasonable every defection from them, stamping upon every apostasy the clearest, broadest, and most enduring marks of his fiercest indignation. In every age ignorance, cruelty, and persecu- tion have followed in the train of schism ; so that we doubt not, could any one trace all human miseries to one common and prolific fountain, that fountain would be religious discords. Hence we infer that those modes of exhibiting and teaching Christianity, and those modes only, which accord with these important and fundamen- tal views — which seek to discover to man the true centre of attraction, to rconcile man to his God and to his fellow-men, by obliterating and anni- hilating every cause of division, every source of discord — are most accept- able to God, most sanctifying to the church, and most persuasive and 4E 878 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. converting as respects the world. Some grand fundamental principle, harmonizing all human hearts, uniting all souls, and preventing all rival- ries, jealousies, and envyings, must be projected, in order to this glorious consummation. That grand principle, whatever it be, must possess the sanction of di- vine authority. It must have more to commend it than the mere ra- tionality, beauty, and simplicity of the scheme. It must have a para- mount, a Divine authority. Nothing addressed to human genius, to fancy, to imagination, to mere reason, will ever command the admiration or acquiescence, or the conscience, or the love of man. God in Christ must be perceived, regarded, and felt as the author of any scheme or sys- tem that contemplates the union, harmony, and co-operation of all the christian profession. It must have the awful, sublime, and adorable sanc- tion of the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, to it. It must have his sign manual, and the seal of supernatural power and grandeur. The fact that all synods, councils, and convocations are, by Protestants, acknowledged to have erred, will forever stain the pride of all their boasted glory, impair their authority, and convert their Avisdom into folly. Whenever the time comes for the one fold, the one shepherd, and the one holy and beloved brotherhood, to combine all their energies in the holy cause, they will as certainly reprobate all human devices, and rally on the identical ground originally consecrated by the feet of all the apostles. If, then, there is to be any raillenium, any thousand years of triumphant Christianity before the Lord comes, these systems must all be abjured, and men must place the church exactly on the ground, the identical ground, on Avhich she stood at the beginning. This was my first, and it is my present capital objecion to all partizan schemes, that they are. not made for man, but for one class ; not for all ages, but for one age ; not for all countries and climes, but for some one latitude of humanity. They are not adapted nor framed for the human race. Now, the Nev/ Testa- ment is just that very sort of document ; and it is the only one that ever was, or is, or evermore shall be. It can make of discordant sects what it once made of Jews and Gentiles, one new man, slaying the enmity and making peace. Christianity, allow me to reiterate it again and again, in all its pris- tine characteristics, is directly and supremely adapted to the genius of human nature ; not to the people of one quarter of the world, of one race, or of one age, but to all quarters of the globe, to all races of men, and to all the ages of time. It takes hold of man with the grasp of omnipo- tence, because it contemplates him at once in the light of his whole des- tiny, as he was, as he is, and as he must hereafter be. Its philosophy of happiness is the subordination of all our passions, of all our desires, and all our volitions, to the will, and pleasure, and dictation of Jesus tlie Messiah. It proposes a glorious leader, a mighty and triumphant prince, as our chief, as our captain and commander ; whose charms and accomplishments are so grand and fascinating, as to attract the admiring eyes and enraptured hearts of tlie true aristocracy and nobility of the universe. Men must have a leader. The genius of humanity calls for it. Chris- tians cannot have a human leader. They must have a Divine leader. Leaders, rather than creeds, make parties and keep them. So Paul un- derstood the matter when he said, " One says, I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ," &c. Satan made a party in DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 879 heaven ; Cain made a party ; Nimrod made a party ; Caesar made a party, as well as Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. Lead- ers are first in making parties, and creeds are second. Attachment to the man generally precedes attachment to the principles — the leader while he lives, and his principles and views when he is dead. There is much more truth in the adage "Jim and not principles ," than in that which says, " Principles and notnieny I presume he is the wise man who goes for both " Principles and men.'''' We would not presume, on such an occasion, to give the history of at- tachments to human leaders, originating the present parties. But this we may say, that if any one will be at the pains to read the history of creeds and councils, with this idea in his mind, he will find that, nine times in ten, in the history of the church, and often in the state, attachments to men's persons precede attachments to abstract principles. True, indeed, that principles and their parties are so often identified, that we more frequently contemplate them together than apart : so it comes to pass, that one says, I am of Calvin, and I of Luther, and I of Wesley, and I of Christ. ■ • Seeing, then, that things are so, and have worked so, in all the records of the past, we have long since resolved to guard against schism, and all tlie causes and occasions thereof, by calling no man on earth master, or father, or leader ; and by acknowledging one teacher, the Messiah — one another as brethren in him. United in him, we stand for ever ; alien- ated from him, we fall into everlasting ruin. — \_Time expired. Saturday, Dec. 2 — 111 o^ clock, A. M. [mr. rice's ninth reply.] Mr. President — It is true, that Paul complained of false brethren gaining admittance into the church in his day, and leading many astray. But there is one very great difference between the church of my friend, Mr. C, and Paul's church. If errorists and unworthy men entered Paul's church, they were obliged to creep in iinaivares ; but Mr. C. re- ceives them, when they openly avow their errors, provided only that they will call them opinions. They need practice no concealment in order to enter his church. He has a door wide enough to admit them with all their errors. Such was not Paul's church ; and such were not Paul's principles. There is, therefore, no similarity between the two. I am willing to award to the gentleman due credit for his candor in ex- posing the condition of his church ; but I am not sure, however, that he was not rather more influenced by a desire to alarm them, and thus to in- duce them to come into his measures, than by his extraordinary candor. He could prevail on them to organize on his constitution, instead of the New Testament, only by showing them, that they Avere on the borders of anarchy and ruin ! He thinks, that if I had been in his place, I would have concealed these evils. However that might be, I incline to the opinion, that he would better have followed the advice given to one of his brethren, who had divulged the state of things in a particular church. The church numbered about two hundred members. A very respecta- ble old gentleman, one of its members, in conversation with one of our ministers, happened to express the opinion, that of the two hundred, per- haps twenty-Jive or thirty, judging by their lives and conversation, were truly pious. He was arraigned and tried for slandering the brethren But on his trial he said, his mind was changed since he made the remai'K. 880 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. and his opinion was, that there were not more than four or Jive who were pious ! Finding him not inclined to retract, the preacher said to him — " Well, brother, if you think thus badly of us, don't tell our enemies. If general Jackson had told Packenham his weak points, he'd never have gained the battle of New Orleans. Brother, don't tell Packenham." The gentleman has told Packenham his weak points, and he cannot won- der if they are noticed. Neale, he says, is endorsed by Presbyterians, and is placed in the hands of candidates for the ministry. Hume's history of England is often placed in the hands of young men ; but we do not endorse all that he has written. Neale's is a valuable history; but we do not endorse every thing he wrote. His judgment was doubtless sometimes swayed by prejudices. The fact is — Presbyterianism was never actually established by law in England ; and, therefore, Presbyterians had not the power to persecute. Yet the gentleman says, persecuting laws were enacted by the very men who made the Westminster confession. This is not correct. The con- fession was drafted by a body of learned and godly ministers, called to- gether by parliament. They were not members of parliament. When fiiey had agreed upon a confession of faith, embracing an outline of the doctrines and ti-uths of the Bible, their work was done. The objectiona- ble laws, of which the gentleman has spoken, were not made by them. The gentleman does not deny, that the Anabaptists persecuted, and were guilty of many acts of violence, though they had no creed ; but he says, pU7'e immersionists never persecuted. This may be true. It is also true, that those whom he calls pure immersionists, never had the op- portunity to persecute. Whether they would have persecuted, if power had been in tlieir hands, or whether their sufferings had taught them to respect the rights of conscience, I pretend not to determine. It is enough, however, as an offset to the gentleman's argument, to prove the fact, that some of the most terrible persecutors have been men without a written creed. No creed ever led to persecution, unless it embraced persecuting tenets. I have called on the gentleman to point out one intolerant princi- ple in our confession. He has not attempted it. Its principles are of precisely the opposite character; so that no one who truly embraces them, can persecute. Mr. C. charges us with persecuting his church by misrepresentation and slander — the only way, he says, in which men in this country can persecute. If misrepresenting and caricaturing the principles of men be persecution, then is he the greatest persecutor of the age ! He has pub- lished against the clergy, of all denominations, multitudes of charges which are not true, and which, therefore, he cannot possibly prove. I do not say, that he knew them to be false ; but I do say, they are not true. And, so far as our church is concerned, he is the less excusable, because we have a creed which presents clearly our principles, and with which he professes to be familiar. But in his church he has told us, that all sorts of doctrine have been preached by almost all kinds of men. I can scarcely think it possible to slander a body of people who have amongst them persons holding all sorts of doctrine ; for, though it might be slan- dering some of them to charge them with holding almost any one doc- trine, yet, since all sorts are held by one or another among them, we can- not but represent some of them correctly. By the way, I desire to see the Presbyterian paper, referred to by the gentleman, which represents our church as a stripling of Rome, DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 881 Pedobaptism, (the old subject again,) the gentleman says, brings a great deal of carnality into the church. I should think that such men as Dr. Thomas, the Materialist, would cause his church to abound in carnality ; for he makes men nothing but carnality, except their breath! Yet he and his followers and adherents have for years remained in connection with Mr. C.'s church ! But, as I have before remarked, I am prepared, at any time, to compare churches with him, both as to soundness of faith and purity of life. Mr. C. has been laboring to prove, that human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical. His course of argument in his last speech was truly singular. He commenced in heaven with Satan, the first heresiarcli and schismatic. But did Satan prepare a creed, and induce the angels to adopt it? If not, how does this case of schism prove that creeds are ne- cessarily heretical and schismatical ? The second schism mentioned by the gentleman, was in the family of Adam. Here Cain was the schismatic; but had he a written creed ? He was also a persecutor ; but, so far as my information extends, Cain had no creed. If my friend has ascertained that he had a creed, the argu- ment will be pertinent; but if he has not, it is against him. The third schism, he tells us, was at the tower of Babel, where God confused their tongues, and the people were scattered abroad. Was this schism caused by a written creed ? No : the Lord confused their lan- guage. According to the philosophy of Mr. C, the most effectual means of separating them, would have been to give them a creed. Some have supposed that their language was confused, not by causing them to use words not before known, but by confusing their minds in re- gard to the meaning of the words before employed; so that, if one called for a brick, another would bring him a trowel. If he called for a trowel, a hammer was brought. Thus they used the same words, but gave them en- tirely different meanings. Whether the confusion was caused in this way, I pretend not to decide ; but, seeing the endless confusion in Mr. C.'s church, caused precisely in tliis way, I am the more inclined to think the theory correct. Thus all, for example, call our Savior " the Son of God ;" but this language one understands to teach that he is God, equal with the Father; another, that he is a super-angelic creature ; and a third, that he is a good man. All use the same language, but attach to it different and even opposite meanings ! This looks very much like Babel. The next schism mentioned by the gentleman, was that caused by the apostasy of the ten tribes of the Jews under Jeroboam. Did Jeroboam write a creed, and compel them to adopt it? Here we have another great schism where there was no human creed. Mr. Campbell commenced with the rebellion in heaven, and mentioned every important schism that occurred amongst the people of God during four thousand years ; and not one of them teas caused by a creed! Yet his object was to prove, that human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical. But instead of this, he proved conclusively that there have been many schisms, where there were no creeds. How, then, I ask, does it appear that the schisms in the christian church were caused by creeds ? The gentleman has proved just the opposite of what he intended, viz : that heresies and schisms are to be ascribed, not to creeds, but to other causes. He says, the Savior gave his church but one faith. AVhat does he mean by one faith ? They who have one faith, of course believe the same important and essential truths. In his church, one believes in a Sa- 56 4e2 Sm DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. vior, who is " the mighty God ;" another, in a Savior who is only a crea- ture. One honors the Son, even as he honors the Father ; another ho- nors, or dishonors, him as a creature. One believes that he died to atone for our sins ; another, that he died to cause men to repent. One be- lieves, that the wicked will be turned into hell, and punished forever ; ano- ther, that they will be taken to heaven, and made forever happy. Have all these one faith ? Far, very far, from it. Yet this is the unity in the gen- tleman's church ! ! ! I can prove, and I will do it before this discussion closes, that the different evangelical denominations have more unity of faith — are nearer together, than these modern reformers are to each other. Partyism, says the gentleman, arises from attachment to some chief or leader. He never said a truer thing. But if partyism comes from attachment to a chief, it is not caused by creeds. The Westminster con- fession was not made by a chief. We are, it is true, sometimes called Calvinists ; but although we believe that Calvin was a great and good man, whose views of divine truth were generally correct, we have never adopted his Institutes as our creed, nor do we believe all that he taught. For example, he contended that John's baptism was christian baptism, but Presbyterians believe no such thing. We have no chief. In the days of the apostles there was no human creed, and yet there were parties formed. One was of Paul, another of Apollos, a third of Cephas, and a fourth of Christ. The gentleman has almost saved me the trouble of offering further arguments against his proposition. He began in heaven, and gave us some account of all the important schisms down to the christian era; and it appeared, that no one of them was caused by a creed. Yet his object was to prove, that human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical. I will now offer another argument to prove, that the principles advo- cated by Mr. C. are wrong. It is this : He has himself radically changed his ground, since he commenced his reformation. He began with main- taining, that the New Testament is abundantly sufficient to guide the churches in faith and practice, without any articles of faith, or rules of church government, drawn up by men. Yet, as I have proved, he has actually drafted a constitution of some six articles, and offered it to his churches, as a basis of a general organization ! The churches have not received it ; and many consider him, in offering such a constitution, as palpably inconsistent with his published principles. If time permitted, I should like to read several extracts from the Christian Baptist, (pp. 25, 73, 531,) where the gentleman contends, "that every such society [indi- vidual church] with its bishops and deacons, is the highest tribunal on earth to which an individual christian can appeal ; that whosoever will not hear it, has no other tribunal to which he can look for redress." " That an individual church, or congregation of Christ's disciples, is the only ecclesiastical body recognized in the New Testament — is the highest court of Christ on earth:" "that wherever they [the churches] form a quorum, and call for the business of the churches, they are a popish calf, or muley, or a harmless stag, or something akin to the old grand beast with seven heads and ten horns:" "that every christian community must settle its own troubles — no appeal from one congregation to ano- ther." Yet, in the Millenial Harbinger, he contends most earnestly, that the right of prayer is not more natural, nor necessary, nor expedient, than the right of appeal ;" that " there is no government, or stale, or fam- ily, that can subsist without it;" that " every church that departs from DEBATE OJN HUMAN CREEDS. 883 the faith, or from the discipline of Christ's kingdom, or that unrighteously or unwisely administers its affairs to the great detriment of individual members, a particular congregation, or the whole church of Christ, must be tried by some tribunal ;" that " if any one or more of these churches err from the faith, or from the discipline, or from a just, impartial, and christian administration, they are amenable to the rest, and will be judged some way or other, and disallowed." — (New Series, vol. v. pp. 38 — 47.) This is approximating the true principles of church order. But whilst individuals, in his churches, may claim the right of appeal, there is no tribunal to ivhich they can appeal. Our church has a very great advan- tage over his. We claim the right of appeal, and there are tribunals re- gularly constituted, to which every member may appeal; and no minister or private member can be finally excluded from our church, until the general assembly of the whole church has heard, and decided upon his case, if he choose to bring it before them. Thus the rights and immuni- ties of individuals, and of particular churches, are as completely protect- ed, as in the nature of things they can be. The difference between Mr. C and us is, that he admits the right and the absolute necessity of ap- peals, but cannot exercise that right; we claim the right, and have an or- ganization that secures the exercise of it. I desire, now, to present one more argument very distinctly. It is this : Jifter all the gentleman^ s declamation against creeds, his churches actually have a creed. They have not adopted the constitution he offer- ed them, but still they have a creed. It is short — containing two articles, the substance of which is — 1st. That immersion only is baptism ; 2nd. That infant baptism is not to be tolerated. They will receive no one into the church who has not been immersed, and ihey will not permit their members to have their children baptized. But in having such a creed ihey are most inconsistent with their own principles. They have proclaimed to the world, that they go by the New Testament alone ; that they pretend not to judge of men's opinions ; that they require those who wish to unite with them, only to say, that they believe Christ to be the Son of God, and are willing to be baptized. They do not profess to take the New Testament, as Mr. Campbell inter- prets it; nor as each little church interprets it; but as each individual understands it. Now, suppose I should take the gentleman upon his own principles, and apply for membership in his church. He would ask me, ' Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God V I answer in the affirmative. He would ask again, 'Are you willing to be baptized?' I answer, I have been baptized. Will he receive me ? He will not. He demands that I shall be immersed. But I understand the Scriptures to authorize the administration of baptism by pouring or sprinkling; and I solemnly believe, that I have been scripturally baptized. But Mr. C. and liis friends say, ' We understand the New Testament to require immer- sion;^ and ihey positively refuse me admittance into their church, unless I will take their opinion concerning this matter. I must be baptized again to accommodate them. Now, I ask, are they not seeking to impose on me their opinions? Are they not making their opinions a term of membership in the church ? Does not their creed operate as effectually to exclude believers from their communion, as any other creed on earth? Again, I wish to have my children baptized. They tell me I cannot be permitted to do so. But I understand the Bible to require it. They tell me, they do not so understand it ; and I must go by their interpreta- 884 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. tion. Do they not again make their opinion concerning the meaning of the Scriptures, a term of communion ? Now, observe how much greater importance is attached by Mr. C. to external ordinances, than to the fundamental truths of Christianity. Even the mode of applying the water in baptism is made more important than the true character and work of Christ. Here comes a man asking ad- mission into his church, and declaring his opinion that Christ is not equal with the Father — that he did not exist from eternity. So believes Barton W. Stone : yet they receive this man as a christian brother, if he will be immersed, and will not have his children baptized ! The same individual declares his belief, that Christ died only to cause men to repent, not to meet the demands of God's broken law. Still they receive him. An- other comes and declares his belief in the doctrines of Universalism. They will take him, if he will call his eiTor an opinion, and will not prop- agate it! Now, I ask any thinking man to say, whether the mode of applying the water in baptism is more important than the character and work of the Son of God. Mr. C. AviU not admit a man into his cimrch without immersion, even though he would call his views concerning sprinkling an opiiiion; but he will receive those whose opinion is — that Christ is a creature ! 1 ! He will allow those to enter his church, who rob Christ of all his glory; but he will not receive one who would diminish, in the slightest degree, the quantity of water to be used in baptism ! He will permit men to enter his church, who deny that Christ bore the punish- ment due to our sins ; and affirm, that he died only that, by witnessing or hearing of his sufferings, men's hearts might be melted and brought to repentance. He will permit them to take away the glorious foundation laid in Zion, on which the church stands ; but he will not allow me to diminish aught from the quantity of water in baptism ! Is it true that God has revealed so much more clearly the mode of baptism, than the true character and work of his Son, that men may deny the latter with impunity, but must hold the former on pain of excommu- nication? Has he not distinctly and emphatically required " that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father ?" And has he not added, " He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him ?" John v, 23. But does not the gentleman make it more important that men should be immersed, than that they should honor the Son of God, as he has commanded, and trust in his glorious work of atonement, as it is exhibited in the Scriptures 1 Again, Mr. C. will receive into his church those who avow their belief, that the wicked, as well as the righteous, will go to heaven. Is it possible that the mode of baptism by immersion is so much more clearly revealed, than the eternal punishment of the wicked, that we may safely deny the latter, but must hold the former, or be excluded from God's kingdom ? Does not the gentleman and his friends attach wonderful importance to an external ordinance, and a strange insignificancy to the character and work of the glorious Redeemer ? Is this the faith taught in the Bible ? Do the inspired writers so exalt the mode of baptism? Do they so dis- regard the character and work of the Son of God — the foundation laid in Zion? Is a itnion founded on such views truly christian union? I will offer but one more argument against the proposition, that human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical. It is this : There is more real christian union amongst Presbyterians, Methodists, Cumber- DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 885 land Presbyterians, CongregationaUsts, Baptists, and other evangelical denominations, than there is among these modern reformers. These de- nominations, I mean to say, have more unity of faith — are much nearer to each other in their views of the great doctrines of Christianity, than the reformers are to each other. If tlie time shall ever come, vi^hen the Me- thodists, or any one of these denominations, will deny that Christ is God equal with the Father ; or that he bore the punishment due our sins ; or when they will admit to their communion and their ministry men avowing such opinions, we will bid them a linal adieu. We will never again ac- knowledge them as christian brethren, or liold christian fellowship witii them. There is an intinite distance between the most exalted finite being and the intinite and eternal God. There can be no comparison between finite ^i\A infinite ; between creature and Creator. Hoav can two per- sons, whose faith is infinitely different — who build on foundations as un- like as the creature and the Creator — -walk together? How can it be said with truth, that they have " one Lord, one faith, one baptism ?" How can they be said to receive the same gospel? No — should any one of these denominations so exalt the mere mode of an ordinance, or the ordinance itself, and so disregard the character and work of Christ, we will never again acknowledge them. With them all we agree in the essential doctrines of Christianity. They believe in the fiiU and total depravity of man ; and so do we. They believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and in the divinity of Christ, and the per- sonality and divinity of the Holy Spirit ; and so do we. They believe that Christ died for our sins, bearing them in his own body on the cross; and so do we. They believe that regeneration by the special agency of the Holy Spirit, is absolutely essential to salvation ; and so do we. They believe in the resurrection of the body, and eternal rewards and punish- ments ; and so do we. They call on men to believe, repent and obey all God's commands ; and so do we. These denominations differ on some points of doctrine and church order; but they agree in holding the great doctrines of the gospel, which are essential to a compliance with the con- ditions of salvation. Every system of truth has its fundamental principles, which are essen- tial to it; and minor points, in regard to which those holding the same system, may differ. The Newtonian philosophy has its fundamental principles, which are believed by all who hold the system. But there are many points connected with it, concerning which they do differ. This is true, also, of the sublime system of truth revealed in the Scriptures. Every truth is important in its place ; but the knowledge and belief of every truth is not essential to salvation. Evangelical denominations are united in holding every doctrine which the Scriptures make essential to 3 compliance with the conditions of salvation. They can, therefore, pray together, and rejoice in each others' success in extending the knowledge of Christ and his glorious gospel; and they can truly thank God, that they are united in their efforts to make known to the heathen " the unsearcha- ble riches of Christ ." The real difference between Mr. Campbell's church and the evangelical denominations, so far as christian union is concerned, is this : He and his churches have union in name, and radical disunion in fact. We have different denominational names, but union in fact. We have " unity of faith," — they, unity in name. There is, I repeat it, vasdy more real christian union — union in faith — amongst the evangelical denominations, 886 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. than amongst the reformers themselves. We are actually nearer together, than they are to each other. We agree in faith more nearly with Meth- odists, Baptists, Episcopalians and other evangelical denominations, than Dr. Fishback with Mr. Campbell. Mr. C. believes, and has labored to prove, that baptism is necessary in order to remission of sins. Dr. F. de- nies it. Dr. Fishback avows his belief in the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. Mr. Campbell denies it. [Mr. C. It is not so.] I will read an extract from his Christian System, that the audience may judge whether it is so, (pp. 29, 30 :) " Still man, with all his hereditary imbecility, is not under an invinci- ble necessity to ein. Greatly prone to evil, easily seduced into trans- gression, he may or he may not yield to passion and seduction. Hence the difference we so often discover in the corruption and depravity of man. All inherit z. fallen, consequently a sinful nature ; though all are not equally de- praved. Thus we find the degrees of sinfulness and depravity are very dif- ferent in different persons." Dr. Fisliback says, all men are so totally depraved, that they have no power, either natural or moral, to avoid sinning, or to help themselves out of their deplorable condition ! Here are Mr. Campbell and his committee of four prominent preach- ers, who have come up to war against us ; and yet it is a fact, as I have fully proved, that they differ from each other more, concerning the great doctrines of the gospel, than we difl'er from the Methodists, the old Bap- tists, or any other evangelical denomination ! We are nearer to each of those bodies, than these gentlemen are to each other ! We are infinitely nearer to each other, than Mr, C. professes to be to B, W. Stone, or to any of his members who deny the divinity of Christ, or the eternal pun- ishment of the wicked. Yet the gentleman calls on us to give up our union, which is real, for theirs, which is merely nominal! Call not on us to abandon our creeds, which serve to show us how near we are to each other, and to promote christian confidence and co-operation, to enter a body, where the most important truths of Christianity are compromised and sacrificed for a name ; where, in the awful name of God, all sorts of men are preaching all sorts of doctrine. Alas ! for such christian union ! I have formed a far higher opinion of christian union. I rejoice in believ- ing, that the church of Christ is really and truly one ; that all of whom it is composed, do hold the head, Jesus Christ, and do maintain all the fun- damental doctrines of the Bible. They have one faith ; they build on the same foundation, and constitute one spiritual temple. — \_Timc expired. Saturday, Dec. 2 — 12 o^clock, M. [mr. Campbell's tenth address.] Mr. President — It is, sir, a painful task to have to respond to such a speech as you have just heard. For many years, sir, I have been accus- tomed to hear addresses upon all sorts of subjects, and from almost all sorts of men ; but such a tissue of misrepresentation and abuse, from any one professing piety, I have not heard in all my life, so far as my present recol- lections testify. It is too, sir, to be called an argument! ! Argument! ! ! If this be logic, argument, rhetoric, religion, or morality, 1 confess I know not the meaning of those words. If this be a fair, honorable, and chris- tian discussion of principles — of great sectional divisions of thought and language, I do acknowledge myself to be unacquainted with the signs of ideas and the elements of things literary or moral. I will, however, sir, in my usual calmness, endeavor to make a few remarks upon the more promi- nent topics of abuse. DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 887 The gentleman commenced by telling you of his views of the difference between the reformation for which we plead, and the character of the primi- tive church ; alledging. that while certain errorist and improper persona crept in among them unawares, we, knowingly, willingly, and designedly, take them in openly ! That is to say — that when immoral persons, and those avowedly erroneous in the grand fundamental points of religious faith, present themselves for admission, we receive them, as Universalists, Arians, Unitarians, &c. &c. only on condition that they will be immersed ! I ask, is not this the impression the gentleman would make upon your minds ; are not these the views he seeks to communicate to your understandings in tlie speech which you have just now heard! As truly, as honestly, he might say, we open our churches to Mahometans, Mormons, and infidels ! Yes, sir, there would be just as much truth in the one imputation as in the other. His allegation, sir, to speak in the mildest terras, is without fact, without authority, without any sort of evidence — written, spoken, or pub- lished, by any man belonging to our community. We disclaim the whole as imputations most unjust and ungenerous — as the distorted imaginations of his own bewildered head. It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of our pleadings for re- formation, that our press has always been open to our enemies. From the 4th day of July, 1823, till now, I have conducted a printing press which has issued a volume every year, and a number every month, without a sin- gle failure ; and, sir, those volumes are filled with communications from our enemies, to speak in sectarian style, as from our friends. I believe, sir, mine is the only press in this nation that has systematically and undevia- tingly given both sides on every question, and opened its pages to all sorts of opponents — Romanists, Protestants, infidel or sectarian, provided only he paid a decent regard to the laws of grammar and politeness. I believe, sir, I ma}'' go farther and say, that my periodical was the first and the only x-eligious periodical in the world which has pursued that course. They were, in those days, all pledged to some creed or party — all one sided. I have been shut out of all their pages. Tiiey dared not to admit my es- says. They feared to let their readers hear from me on those subjects which they were inculcating. To those very persons that shut us out, we have tendered them page for page, line for line, word for word in our vol- umes. Some of them have accepted, some of them have declined. We have then, sir, nothing secret, nothing clandestine. We have called for investigation, for documents, arguments, and evidence. On our pages all parties have been heard and responded to, so that our constant readers are the most intelligent persons in the religious world. They know both sides. What, may I ask, is the augury of this ! Does it omen the fear of light, or the love of darkness'? Indicates it the fear of man, or the consciousness of truth and its eternal strengths Is this the way that conscious error or weakness intrude themselves upon the public ear? No, sir. No, fellow- citizens, you know it is not. You cannot, with all your various and multi- farious modes of thinking, imagine a course more creditable, more just, more candid, more honorable before heaven and earth than the course I have pursued, for the last twenty years, in conducting this great discussion of principles. We impute to no man. to no party, principles that they disa- vow. We fearlessly open and avow our own. We say to every man — hear, examine, judge, and decide for yourself. Every distinguishing principle of this reformation has passed through an ordeal of the most fiery discrimina- tion. And, sir, as soon will the arm of mortal arrest the rising eun, or stop the planets in their course, as any mind stay the progress of truths that have been so clearly spoken by prophets and apostles, and that have passed through such a burning furnace unscathed and unimpaired. What you have just heard from my opponent is not true. It is a fabrica- tion— the whole of it, sir. I have never received a Unitarian, nor a Uni- versalist, as such, knowing them to be such in the common acceptation. It 883 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. is easy to put a false gloss upon any thing, even sometimes without design- ing it. A fool's cap may be put upon the head of a wise man. It is easy to be witty, too, without much wisdom, and to arraign opinion against faith, and faith against opinion. We, however, have no such contrast nor difficulty, because we never have both faith and opinion on the same subject. Should I hear a man say, that he thinks all men will ultimately be holy and happy, I respond, the Scriptures do not say so. The Scriptures posi- tively say — '' They that know not God, and obey not the gospel, shall be punished with an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and tiie glory of his power." He says, I admit all that ; I believe it will be just so with the v/icked, but I do not think it will be eternal, absolute duration without end. Well, your think so and your faith may be at vari- ance ; but the word of the Lord must be acknowledged and taught, and only on that ground can 1 fraternize with you. Suppose, then, he accede to this proposition, and thus renounce the inculcation and belief of that opin- ion, is he a Universalist ! Mr. Rice has used and eulogized saint Origeii, and some other saints who, like him, abjured eternal misery. Does he not know, that Origen, his own learned, eloquent saint Origen, was of the opinion just now quoted ! Among the ancient fathers, Greek and Latin, and amongst the moderns, I could bring up many scores of them, in full communion with the orthodox, as Sabellian, as Universalian as any of the persons ever were to whom allusions have been just made, if time and prudence would author- ize the digression. But I neither choose nor need to run that race. The gentleman knows, that many of our greatest and best men have taught and practiced upon this principle, and sometimes actually entertained the very tenets which both he and I reprobate as unscriptural and dangerous. It is, sir, all for effect the gentleman thus manoBuvres. But, sir, I feel myself standing in the midst of a great community. I disdain any thing and every thing but fair, manly, candid and honorable discussion. I know how this community already feels, and will feel, upon this subject, when it is all laid before them. 1 have had no respondent. We have never met in the field of fair debate, of fair and manly discussion and argument. Not a point has been canvassed in a way like debate, ex- cept a portion of the first question on bapiizo. I was frequently admon- ished that I must come here prepared for another sort of work and defence, than that implied in those propositions; that I should need other weapons than logic, and the Bible, and good sense. I could not yield to it, believing that the self-respect of those who selected Mr. Rice for their champion, would not dishonor their profession before the face of all men, saints and sinners. I begin to see there was some truth in the prediction. I pro- posed to meet any honorable antagonist selected by the denomination on fair logical, scriptural ground, believing that our views had not yet been fairly heard in much of this community. Many thousands have had their ears turned away from us by the most gross and palpable misrepresenta- tions. The gentleman cannot secure his hold upon many of this class but by misrepresenting our real views and practices. I once said to a Presby- terian minister, my neighbor in Virginia, who I thought occasionally mis- represented me: Sir, I learn that you have proposed to preach a few ser- mons to your people on infant baptism. " Yes, sir ;" said he, " the times seem to require it." Well, said I, do they not all believe that doctrine] "• O yes, O yes ; they all believe it," he rejoined. Well, said I, we have a church here that does not believe it, and you would likely do more good by preaching a lew sermons to them on the subject; and in the mean time, while you occupy our desk, I will occupy yours, if you please ; and in a neighborly way deliver as many discourses to your people on believer's baptism. " Ah, sir," said he, " I do not think that would suit just quite so well." No, Mr. President, that course does not suit quite so well. But, sir, ic DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 889 always suits me very well. I will freely make exchanges of tins sort any where, every where. We are not afraid that our brethren either read c" hear the other side of this or any other question. A person may so often, and for so long a time, misrepresent the: views of another, as to mistake his own misrepresentations for the truth itself. It is in this way, and only in this view of the subject, that I can excuse much that has been said, and more that has been insinuated, on the present occa- sion. Nay, this state of mind, when perfected, condemns in advance of evi- dence. For example : — It came in my way the other day to advert to the fact that a respectable minister of the Lutheran Reformed church, on the weight of the evidence adduced on the subject of immersion, was so fully convinced of the truth as candidly and promptly to obey and honor the Lord, by being immersed into his deatli. How, let me ask, did the gentleman ad- vert to this fact ? In substance he said : — " Aye, there are many persons now-a-days, who, tired of the narrow way of truth, prefer the broader and smoother way of going to destruction !" Is not this the fair construction of his remarks on that event] Such was the charitable construction put upon the character of a gentleman and a minister, concerning whose moral charac- ter he knew just nothing at all. Now I ask, was it comely, was it honora- ble, was it christian-like, and worthy of the standing of Mr. Rice with this community, to thus arraign, before an immense assembly, the motives, and to reprobate the character, of an unotfending, a conscientious and highly re- spectable christian minister; whose credentials and standing are just as respectable as that of Mr. Rice or any other minister of his age in this assembly! It was well for this intrepid, conscientious, and exemplary brother, that he happens to have at his command honorable testimonials, both from Union college. New York, and from the theological seminary at Gettysburgh, Pennsylvania, and of his connections ecclesiastic in this state up to the present hour. Yet no sooner is this fact announced here than the sectarian breath of invidious misrepresentation would blast his fair reputation, and consign him to the society of those who apostatized from the way of righteousness into the much frequented path of ruin ! ! " Yes," says Mr. Rice, " there are many who are seeking a broad and easy way to ruin !" And still worse, in the next sentence of this defamatory speech, the gen- tleman has said, we cannot be misrepresented in this latitude and in this age. Fellow-citizens, do you knovv^ your neighbors and your fellow-citi- zens, with whom you daily converse'? Look around you; can you accord with such calumnies as these J Have you not lived long enough with us to know that our views, our principles, and our proceedings can be misrepresent- ed— most wantonly and perversely misrepresented ] There are few men, that a truthful man would say, on proper reflection, cannot be misrepresented. Have you not heard them much misrepresented on the present occasion? When shall this savage warfare against us have an end 'J Are there no boundaries, no limits, to the tongue or to the peni If we are thus to be perpetually maligned and opposed by such weapons, and such means, we de- sire to know it. I did not expect such gross misrepresentations of views, and tenets, and persons, and practices ! In his allusions to my remarks on schism, the gentleman knows he is not within a thousand miles of the point. I was defining schism by the facts and documents which the Bible furnishes. I was developing its workings by the details of those most fearful schisms, of such tremendous results and consequences, as to involve innumerable masses of intelligence in all man- ner of wretchedness, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. Our Savior has in- formed us, that Satan apostatized from the truth. This is a clear indica- tion that there was truth propounded ; that Satan was once in that truth ; that he proposed something else, and united upon that with other spirits ; and thus made a party, which, when consummated by some overt act of disloyalty, caused his excommunication from the heavens. This was, in- 4F 890 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. deed, the original schism, and in every great point of analogy, comes up to the ecclesiastic schisms, in consequence of creeds, oral or written. Creeds are nuncupative, as well as written. Hence they have made divisions be- fore any of them was formally written out. Their being written is only necessary to give them permanency, and more extended sway. They are, however, as powerful to divide before, as after written. The creed system was just as well developed in the first, and in the last, of that series of an- cient schisms, as it was at Nice, or Rome, or Constantinople, under the christian dispensation. In Jeroboam's time, the established creed had the golden calves of Bethel, and of Dan, and a priesthood ordained by law, as its symbol. It was a rival principle against the one Divine ritual, high priest and Mediator That is the great point in them all, the essential and characteristic point — they are rival systems. I care not whether the articles be one or one hundred. They are, one and all, in essence and form, rival institutions. This great fact the gentleman seems to have forgotten, or overlooked. Every schism, from that of Satan down to New Testament times, and since, has been a rival institution to the one set up by God ; and, therefore, they are all the same in essence, spirit, and tendency ; obnoxious to the displeasure of heaven, and injurious to the peace and prosperity of Zion. Our Savior was himself a great reformer ; certainly the greatest that ever lived. " He came to his own and they received him not." Still, he went to the synagogue, and, as long as he lived, coi/'-^rmed to the usages and cus- toms that were established in the nation and in the synagogue. I have ventured to say, that he was a regular reader in the synagogue of Nazareth. He went into tiie synagogue of Nazareth, and, as his manner was, stood up for to read. I need not say to this audience how he inveighed against the scribes, pharisees, and ecclesiastics, as we would call them, of that day. Did lie, on account of the diverse theories of that age, abandon the temple or the synagogue, or any of the existing religious institutions 1 Did he not sit and worship in the same synagogue with Pharisee, and Sadducee, and Herodian ] He did not, so far as they had any Vi'orship, or public institu- tion of religion, abstain from them on account of those different and discord- ant theories. Although he sometimes severely inveighed against those same pharisees, scribes, and rulers, who sat in Moses' chair, he neverthe- less frequented the ordinances, visited the synagogues, and commanded the people to listen to those men who sat on Moses' seat. It is true he gathered around him a company of friends and disciples ; but both he and they conformed to the Jewish institutions down to the moment of the last supper. His party was never regarded as a sect or a schism, during his life ; neither were the disciples of John. In those days they did not make unity of opinion, nor oneness of theory the bond of union. A new institution they did, indeed, establish upon new principles, under a new, an entirely new dispensation of things. My time will not allow me to do more than notice a few of the more prominent points in the last speech. A volume of such declamations may, indeed, be replied to in a few specifications. I should be glad, however, to expatiate upon them, severally, in detail. Meanwhile I have hut one half hour more to speak, and as I have yet another new argument to offer, I shall in the first place, attend to it. According to Mr. Rice, creeds are more needed and more used, as stand- ards by which to measure the teachers, and as a test of ministerial commu- nion, than for tlie common or private members of a church. Suppose, then, an Arminian minister sue for admission into the Presbyterian church, to be- come a member of that churcli, will they receive him and retain him, though sound in every thing but the single theory of Arminianisml This question answered, and we shall find a new proof that creeds, even as tests of minis- terial communion and co-operation, are necessarily heretical and schismat- ical. If Presbyterianism has not changed, or the people called Presbyte- DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 891 rians have not changed, and if the creed be not schismatical, will Mr. Rice explain to js how fite hundred churches and sixty thousand members have been separated from the general assembly ! Was not Arminian doctrine among the exciting, and moving, and efficient causes of this schism 1 Some might imagine that such is the benevolence, and liberality, and christian charity of Presbyterians, that they would gladly unite with Meth- odists, Baptists, Episcopalians, &c. Why can they not unite first among themselves ! ] They would not, indeed, exclude those persons, if they will sit still and be silent. But preachers will not be silent ; they must speak, and they must speak out their Arminianism,and their peculiarities ; and the consequence will be, they will make a party. Then, indeed, the creed will be brought to bear upon them, and they will be cast out, as have been all other ministers, in all past time, down to the late five hundred non-conform- ists. I do hope the gentleman will attempt to show that the creed is not necessarily heretical in this case. The gentleman, in his warmth and impassioned style, says I have written a thousand things that are not true. This is easily said. He might as well have said ten thousand ; and then I could balance the account, by say- ing he had said ten thousand things that were not true, and that would be quite as logical a refutation ! Among other strange things, and new arguments urged by the gentleman, is the intelligence given us that there is much union and unanimity be- tween Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, &c. Well, in truth I sincere- ly wish that all the Pedo-baptists would unite. I have often said, that they ought all to have united long ago. I think we are likely to be instrumen- tal in uniting all these Pedo-baptist parties in one grand co-operation ; and that, perhaps, upon a principle very like that which united Herod and Pontius Pilate, in days of yore. I say again, the whole Pedo-baptist de- nomination should form one great Pedo-baptist union. What is the use of ten kinds of Presbyterians, such as we now have in England, Scotland, and the United States ] I earnestly desire that all these parties should amalgamate, coalesce, and be one ; and that all the Baptists of all the earth would also unite and make one great party. Then we should have but two ecc^siastic armies in the field. Between them, then, the battle and the war would be ; and that settled, the profession would be one and undivided ; and is not that a consummation most devoutly to be wished"? And why can they not unite 1 They occasionally do unite. They make a truce of ten or twenty days, for the sake of great effect upon the commu- nity. They cry out, union and co-operation, for the sake of one grand cam- paign. They go into the field of action with a well understood stipulation, that they are not to preach their peculiarities during the truce ; and at the end of the battle, they agree to divide the spoil, in as equal shares as the peculiar tastes of the new converts will admit. If this can be done in all godly sincerity and in all conscientiousness, for ten days, why not for a hund- red— for r :housand — for life ] But, if all these parties unite in opposing us, we shall really become the greatest of reformers. If we, with no creed but the Bible, unite them all in one human creed, we will even then have done a great work. I think, indeed, that this is quite as practicable as to put us down. Nay, they will all unite before that point is gained. The more they oppose us, if we may reason from the past, the better. That system has been tried, and we are well pleased with the result. No combination can harm us. The elasticity of our principles and our efforts, will always be in the direct ratio of con- federated opposition. For the sake of the truth, then, I desire union among ourselves, and union against us. We have eternal truths in charge — they cannot be overcome. Men may kick against the goads, but they will spill their own blood. They may fight against the Rock of Ages ; but they will be broken to pieces. What millions of millions of mighty billows have dashed upon the rock of Gibraltar and yet it stands unshaken ! What 892 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. fierce tempests have burst upon its summit, and yet it stands unbroken! What mighty thunders have rolled over it, and lightnings played around it. and yet it is unscathed! So stands the man of truth, upon the rock of truth, while trusting in the God of truth, undaunted, unappalled, uncon- quered. So stand we, in the midst of this savage warfare, which to-day you have heard and seen, as strong, as sanguine, as confident, as when we tirst began — nay, much more so. We have heard the concentrated acquisi- tions of the whole party in opposition. This but reveals our strength, and stimulates our exertions. A thousand volumes of such abuse would only inspire more zeal, and invigorate our eiforts in a cause of so much promise, and of so much honor to God and man. I am pleased to hear all that can be said against us. I hope that where there is any justice in the remarks, and even in the reproaches offered, that we shall all profit from them. If any of you, brethren, have given occasion to the adversary to speak re- proachfully, you will, no doubt, stand admonished and corrected. Truth is truth, though an enemy say it; and sometimes we are indebted more to our enemies than to our friends. Our principles, however imperfectly carried out, are now, I sincerely think, shown to be insuperable, invulnerable. They have long and often been as- sailed ; but, like the pure gold, they have always came out of the furnace with brighter lustre. You have seen by what means they are now assailed — and that neither Scripture, nor reason, nor argument, can be offered against them. Truth, my friends, holy truth, stands upon the Rock of Ages. It lifts its head above the clouds — above tlie stars. It communes with God. It holds sweet converse with the hierarchs around the throne of the Eternal King; with those elders, sons of light, and with the spirits of the mighty dead. It is the bright etiiuence of the bright essence of the uncreated mind. God spoke, and Truth was born. Its days are the years of God. Embodied in the Word of God, it came down from heaven and became incarnate. It is, therefore, immortal, and cannot be killed. It will survive all its foes, and stand erect when every idol falls. No one knows its gigantic strength. It has been often cast down, but never destroyed. For ages past, it has been gathering strength and preparing for a mightier conflict yet, than time re- cords. It needs no fleshly wisdom, nor worldly policy, to give it power or gain it victory. It is itself redeeming, soul-redeeming, and disenthralling. It has passed through fire, and flood, and tempest, and is as fresh, as fair, as beautiful, and as puissant, as ever. I feel myself peculiarly happy in being permitted, in being honored, to stand up for it, when most insulted and disparaged by its professed friends. He that defends it, feels the strength of mountains, as though girded with the everlasting hills. It gives him more than mortal strength, and enlarges his benevolence wide as humanity itself, I am sorry that I have been so much disappointed in the promise of an ho- norable, high-minded, and dignified investigation of its great principles. But, though assailed with unbecoming rudeness, it cannot be destroyed. It is self-preserving and recuperative. Conceived in the bosom of everlasting love, its aspirations are to its native heaven. Light and fire, earth's purest elements, are but the shadows of its glory. The tongues of lambent flame that sat upon the heads of the apostles, were but indicative of its irradiating and consuming potency. But its language is that of love, of purity, and peace. It reviles not again. Hence, those holy men that heaven commis- sioned to promulge and to defend it, spake it in love, and in meekness, while their lips were hallowed, and their tongues were touched with live coals from the altar of Jehovah. — Time expired. Saturday, Dec. 2 — 12* o'clock, P. Jil. [MR. rice's tenth REPLY.] Mr. President — I have observed, from the commencement of this dis- cussion, how much better my friend, Mr. Campbell, succeeds in declamation and exhortation, than in argumentation. The very best speeches he hns DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 893 made, are those in which he has ceased to argue the question before us, and delivered eulogies on truth in general. Truth, we all admit, is, in value, above all price ; and we believe and teach, that it is mighty, and will pre- vail. But the question is, what is truth? Mr. C, in all his declamations, assumes that it is with him ; but we also profess to hold and to love the truth. But what, I ask, have these pretty eulogies on truth to do with the ques- tion, whether human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismaticall I admire the beauty of the gentleman's speech ; but the logic of it is, indeed, poor. It has no bearing on the only point at issue. We want argument, as well as pretty speeches, handsomely delivered. He seemed about to commence an argument, but flew off at a tangent, and soared aloft amid the sublimities of truth in general. His starting point was indeed sufficiently low. He began by telling, as usual, how painful it is to respond to such a speech, as you had heard, a tissue of abuse and misrepresentation. I say again to the gentleman, that he cannot excite me. I never have been excited in debate ; and he will utterly fail to throw me off my guard. He is at liberty, therefore, in his closing speech, to say just what he pleases. A dozen such epithets as he has repeatedly used, will fall powerless as empty air. He denies receiving Universalists into his church. Well, whenever he denies a fact which I state, I will certainly prove it true. I read, on yes- terday, from one of his own books, a declaration, that he would receive Univei-salists, if they would agree to hold their errors as opinions, and not propagate them ; and I proved from the Millenial Harbinger that he had actu- ally received a Universalist preacher, Mr. Raines, who declared that on that subject, his sentiments remained unchanged. What is Universalism ? It is the belief that all men, righteous and wicked, will be saved. Against this doctrine, Mr. C has contended zealously ; yet he received a man as a preacher of the gospel, who declared openly his belief of it. I will here take occasion to read Mr. Raines' statement concerning his position and belief, when received into Mr. C.'s church : (iMill. Harbinger, vol. i. p. 390 : " At the Mahoning Association, about five months after my immersion, I was publicly questioned relative to my sentiments ; and from a bench on which I stood, I did not hesitate to declare to the whole congregation, that it was still my opinion that all men would finally become holy and happy. This fact can be proved by scores of witnesses." This is an extract of a letter from Mr. Raines ; and he informs us that, when questioned concerning his views, he did not hesitate to declare to the whole congregation, that it was still his opinion, that all men would finally become holy and happy — that he was still a Universalist in sentiment ; yet Mr. C. charges me with slandering him, when I state this incontrovertible fact ! In regard to Barton W. Stone, I desired him either to admit or deny that he is a Unitarian. Let me again read an extract from a letter of Mr. Stone to Mr. Campbell, in which he condemns Mr. C.'s apparently Trinita- rian notion, and avows openly his Unitarian faith ; (Chris. Bap., p. 379:) " If these observations be true, will it not follow undeniably, that the Word (di'hou) by whom all things were made, was not the only true God, but a person that existed with the only true God before creation began ; not from eternity, else he must be the only true God ; but long before the reign of Augustus Csesar!" Mr. Stone, you observe, positively denies that Christ is the only true God, or that he existed from eternity. But if he existed not from eternity, there was a period when he began to exist. Did he then create himself? This, no one believes. Then he was created by God, and is as truly a dependent creature as any angel in heaven! Mr. Stone, therefore, makes the Savior a creaiure, I care not whether he considers him a super-angelic creature or a mere man. The difference is not worth contending about ; for there is an infinite distance between the most exalted creature and the infinite Je- hovah. These Universalists and Unitarians have been received into the 4f2 8&4 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. gentleman's church with open arms ; and yet he says, I abuse him and hia church, when I state, and prove from his own books, these incontrovertible facts! !'! To show his great love of truth, and his impartiality in giving to all a fair hearing, he states that he has opened his columns to free discussion ; but that the editors of the " sectarian" papers have refused him a hearing in their columns. Reformers, who originate new notions, or revive old ones, I believe, are generally anxious to engage in controversy ; and, for the sake of getting their notions into other papers, are willing to open their own to discussion. But editors generally, I presume, were not particularly interested in the gentleman's discoveries ; and their readers, satisfied with the faith they had, did not wish to see them. They might, therefore, with propriety, decline filling their columns with such discussions ; even though they were not afraid of the light. Recently, however, you have had the opportunity of seeing a written discussion between myself and the Presi- dent of Bacon college, which was published in the Presbyterian paper. But I think the gentleman must, in all candor admit, now and hereafter, that " the clergy" are not so much afraid of the light, as he had imagined. If they had been, you would not have seen me on this occasion, as the op- ponent of the champion of this reformation — a man of no inconsiderable learning and talent — one of the first debaters of the day — who has been, for thirty years, debating the precise points embraced in this discussion. When I was in a country school, learning the first rudiments of an English edu- cation, he was becoming known as a reformer and a man of war ! I am happy, on this occasion, to give to the public evidence the most conclusive, that we fear not the light, nor tremble to meet the champion of this refor- mation of the 19th century ! I am one amongst a thousand. He is the leader, and is admitted to be the strongest man connected with his church. Yet we feared not the contest. But he says, his friends told him he needed not argument to meet me, but something of a very different character. He seems, indeed, to have be- lieved what they told him, if we are to judge by the amount of argument compared with something else, which he has abundantly employed. I have always observed that men, when sinking under the weight of arguments they cannot answer, are likely to resort to the means of defence adopted by the gentleman ; but I do not remember to have seen any one descend to such abuse, so long as he had any thing in the shape of arguments to offer. He seems, indeed, to have been, from the beginning, anticipating a defeat; for he told us the other day, that on reaching Lexington, he had made particu- lar inquiries concerning the editors of the city. He was quite apprehen- sive that they would give out a bad report of his success. I made no in- quiries of the kind, perhaps because I did not expect to be defeated ; and I supposed that the editors were gentlemen, and would publish nothing con- trary to fact. Finding no danger to be apprehended from the editors, his imagination filled the city with men under Presbyterian influence, running to and fro, manufacturing public sentiment, and cheating the people out of their wits ! ! ! All this may pass for what it is worth. It is understood. Another evidence of his magnanimity and love of truth, is found in the fact, which he stated, that he had insisted on a Pedo-baptist minister preach- ing in his pulpit, on infant baptism. We care not to go into his pulpit ; but we are happy to have the privilege of meeting him here, where he is under no restraint from the rules of courtesy, but is fully at liberty to expose our arguments, if he can. But the gentleman is quite offended at my remarks in allusion to a young Lutheran preacher he has immersed. The case, I knew, was brouglit up for effect ; and therefore I stated, what we all know to be a fact, that there is a class of roving preachers who go from church to church, as they may find inducements. With these floating gentry, changes are easily made. Their principles are not in their way. But it is but right that it should be DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 895 known, that this gentleman has not been converted by the power of Mr. C.'s arguments on this occasion : for he himself stated, an evening or two since in a sermon, that he had for some time entertained his present views. So I learn from the very best authority. But the gentleman deprecates this savage war/are, which consists, in part, in stating important facts, and proving them from his own writings. Yet he has long been accustomed to charge upon the clergy of all denomi- nations, the most heinous crimes, without one particle of evidence. Did you not hear him, on yesterday, attributing to them the basest principles'? Did he not assert, that, ybr money, they would compromise or abandon their principles, and unite in one body 1 It is perfectly right in his eyes, that he should be permitted to abound in such unproved charges ; but it is out of the question that I should state facts, and prove them by his own wri- tings ! Let me give you another specimen of the mode of dealing adopted by the gentleman. In his Christian Baptist, (pp. 166 — 168,) I find an infi- del publication, entitled " The third Epistle of Peter, to the Preachers and Rulers of Congregations. — A Looking-glass for the Clergy." This publi- cation, the work of some scoffing infidel, is headed by Mr. C. with the fol- lowing remarks : " One of the best proofs that a prophecy is what it purports to be, is its exact fulfillment. If this rule be adopted in relation to the " Third Epistle of Peter," there can be no doubt that it was written in the true spirit of prophecy. We thought it worthy of being preserved, and therefore have given it a place in this work. — Ed. C. B." I read from this document a single extract, as follows : " ' In all your gettings,' get money ! Now, therefore, when you go forth on your ministerial journey, go where there are silver and gold, and where each man will pay according to his measure. For, verily I say, you must get your reward. " Go you not forth as those that have been sent, ' without two coats, with- out gold or silver, or brass in their purses ; without scrip for their journey, or shoes, or staves;' but go you forth in the good things of the world. " And when you shall hear of a church that is vacant, and has no one to preach therein, then be that a call to you, and be you mindful of the call, and take you charge of the flock thereof and of the fleece thereof, even of the golden fleece. '■ And when you shall have fleeced your flock, and shall know of another call, and if the flock be greater, or rather if the fl.eece be greater, then greater be also to you the call. Then shall you leave your old flock, and of the new flock shall you take the charge." This is but a specimen of this miserable document, which the gentleman dignifies as a prophecy which has been actually fulfilled. He thinks no- thing of making, against tlie ministers of the Gospel, of all denominations, charges like these. I have frequently observed, that those persons who are most fond of throwing out "railing accusations" against others, are most impatient when the truth is told concerning themselves. Christ, the gentleman says, was a great reformer. It is true. But he never did admit to his church those who denied his Divinity and his atone- ment. Moreover, he excommunicated the whole Jewish nation, who re- fused to receive him in his true character, and thus he made what the Jews called a great schism. And they charged the schism upon Christianity about as correctly as the gentleman has charged certain other schisms upon creeds, and confessions of faith. He asks, whether the Presbyterian church would retain, in its commu- nion, an Arminian preacher. We differ on several points from our Metho- dist brethren ; and whilst we can sincerely acknowledge them as christian brethren, and their ministers as christian ministers; and whilst we can occa- sionally preach with them, we, and they, believe, that we can labor more harmoniously in different organizations, than if thrown into one body. It 896 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. would not be wise to have these United States thrown into one consolidated government. It is much better, under existing circumstances, that each state shall have its own constitution and peculiar laws ; while the whole forms but one general government. Perhaps Mr. C. would think it wise to have all the state constitutions abolished. The twelve tribes of Israel jour- neyed together in great harmony towards the promised land, yet each re- tained its distinct organization and its appointed place. So the different denominations of christians, so long as there are differences in some im- portant points, will co-operate in the general cause more harmoniously, by retaining each its separate organization. But the gentleman thinks he has succeeded in producing among " the sects" a new kind of union — a union between Presbyterians and Methodists, and others, which heretofore has not existed. So far back as my acquaint- ance with Presbyterianism, in this country, extends, our church has always acknowledged the denominations called evangelical, as constituting a part of the church of Christ. It is true, we cannot unite with Unitarians, Uni- versalists, and such gross errorists, and all profess to preach the same gospel. It is the peculiarity of Mr. C.'s church, that it can unite things diametri- cally opposite, and have men preach the gospel, who deny its fundamental doctrine. This, however, is not christian iinion. Having now duly noticed all the small matters which constituted the gen- tleman's speech, I wish, in the way of recapitulation, to present before your minds the whole ground over which I have traveled in the discussion of the question before us. Let us remember distinctly the point at issue. The question before us is not, whether any particular creed is good or bad, true or false; nor is it, whether we have the right to force our opinions upon others. We all agree that we have no right to attempt to compel men to receive either the Bible or a creed. " God alone," says our confession, " is Lord of the conscience." In matters of religion, every individual must judge for himself, being respon- sible for his opinions and views only to God. Persecution in every form is abominable. This, then, is not the question. But the question is, whether hitman creeds are necessarily heretical and schismalical — whether it is at all lawful to have a creed. This is an im- portant question — especially so in Mr. C.'s theology ; for the using of a creed, according to his views, amounts to apostasy ; and he excommunicates and denounces all bodies of christians who perpetrate the awful crime of making a creed — of committing to writing an outline of what they under- stand the Bible to teach, and holding this epitome as a creed ! To determine whether creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical ; whether they are lawful or unlawful, I stated distinctly what purposes they are designed to answer. I. They are not designed to be a substitute for the Bible, nor an addition to it. Our confession of faith commences with declaring that, " The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's sal- vation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men," — that "the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners." II. Creeds are designed to be a public declaration of the principal doc- trines and truths, which those who adopt them understand the Scriptures to teach. I have stated the fact, which Mr. C. has not denied, that it is im- possible to know what a man believes, by the mere fact that he professes to take the Bible as his only infallible guide. Not because the Bible is either obscure or contradictory, but because men have perverted its language, and attached to it various contradictory and absurd meanings. The phrase '< Son of God," as used in the Book, has a clear and definite meaning. It is inten- ded to express the true and proper Divinity of Christ. But the Arians and DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 897 Socinians use it in a sense infinitely different. If, then, it be true, that we cannot know a man's faith by the fact that he professes to go by the Bible, it becomes very important that every denomination of professing christians should give a public declaration of the doctrines which they understand the Bible to teach. 1. It is necessary for the reformation of those who desire to become mem- bers of the church of Christ. I have said, and I repeat it, that no prudent man will join any society of people, and more especially a religious society, until he is acquainted with their principles ; until he knows what are the great doctrines which they understand the Scriptures to teach. This infor- mation any one can give concerning the Presbyterian, the 3Iethodist and oiher churches, by examining their creeds. Every one has thus the oppor- tunity, not only of knowing what we teach, but of comparing our doctrines with the Word of God — the infallible standard, that he may determine whether he can conscientiously unite with us. 2. Creeds are also important for the information of other christian com- munities. All true christians desire to knov/ and acknowledge all Christ's disciples ; and, so far as they can, to co-operate with them in promoting the common cause. The question then arises : Skall we recognize as christian brethren, as a church of Christ, a certain body of professi^ig christians? We cannot determine to acknowledge them, until we know their principles — until we know how they understand the Scriptures. The respective creeds of the different denominations afford the desired information. They show how near they are to each other in their views, and wherein they differ. They can thus determine whether they can recognize each other as chris- tians, and how far they can harmoniously co-operate. 3. These public declarations of our faith also afford important information and instruction to members of the church ; and serve to correct misrepresen- tations of our doctrines. Can the gentleman offer any valid objection to a creed for these purposes 1 I asked him, in ray first speech on this proposition, whether he would be- come a member of any church on their declaration, that they take the Bible as their infallible guide, without inquiring further into their principles. He gave me no answer. I have also asked him, and I now repeat the question — to what source of information would he direct a man who desired to know how his church, as a body, understood the Bible J Would he direct him to the Bible ] All profess to go by the Bible ; but the inquirer wishes to know what his church, as a body, understands the Bible to teach. When this question was propounded to him by a man in England, he did not direct him to the Bible, but gave him a detailed account of his faith. Will the gentleman please to tell us where euch an inquirer as I have supposed, would gain the desired information? I know very well where I may ascertain what Mr. Campbell teaches ; but where I can be informed what his church, as a body, teaches, I confess I do not know. Here we see his strange inconsistency. He has published his ".Christian System," as he says, for the purpose, among other things, of "exhibiting a connected view of the whole ground we [reformers] occu- py." Why did he not direct those who wish to knov/ their whole ground, to the Bible ? This would not answer. He felt constrained to make a pub- lic declaration of their faith. But here is thoi difficulty attending this Christian System. It entirely fails to give the needed information. It informs the public what Mr. C. believes and teaches ; but does his church, as a body, believe just as he does ■? They do not. Many differ from him on very important points. Then, I ask again, where shall we ascertain what his church, as a body, under- etand the Bible to teach] Is there any source of information on this im- portant point J III. Creeds. I have said, are designed to be a standard of ministerial qualification, as well as of the qualifications of other officers in the church. 57 898 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. The gentleman does not deny that those who become preachers of the gos<- pel, ought to possess some qualifications. He does not deny that they are required to have some education ; that the Bible requires that they " hold fast the faithful word." He will not deny that they should give satisfactory evidence of possessing true piety ; nor will he deny that all churches are solemnly bound, and that it is their true interest, to see to it, that only those properly qualified, enter the ministry. Now, it is a fact which I have stated, and which he has not denied, that the Scriptures, whilst they require the church to ascertain the qualifications of those who seek to enter the ministry, prescribe no particular method by which this should be done. We are, therefore, left free to select the method which may seem to us most wise, and best adapted to secure the object. Our church has deemed it wise to draw up and publish an outline of the sys- tem of divine truth, which we understand the Bible to teach, and by means of this creed to secure throughout the church some good degree of uniform- ity, not only in the faith, but in other qualifications for the ministerial office. Our responsibility to God, and our regard for the interests of the church and of the souls of men, alike forbid us to ordain and send forth as preach- ers of the gospel, men of whose soundness in the faith we are not satisfied, or who have not such qualifications as will make them " apt to teach.** Q,uacks in medicine kill the body : quacks in theology kill the soul ! IV. Creeds, I have said, are not designed to be a condition of member- ship in the church. The pupil, on entering the school, is not expected to be as well instructed as his teachers. We require those who desire to en- ter our church, sincerely and intelligently to adopt the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and to give satisfactory evidence of possessing true piety. According to the Scriptures, there are certain qualifications necessary to membership in the church ; and other stronger qualifications to enter the ministry. Now, I ask, where in the Bible is there a solitary passage that forbids the use of creeds for these purposes ? The gentleman has not produced one, and he cannot. I ask not for a text that says, in so many words, creeds are unlawful ; but I call for one which by any fair construction condemns them. He and his friends insist, that all who use creeds, are apostates, and are to be excommunicated. It behooves him, then, to produce the law against them. He has told us, that there is in the Bible no command to make a creed. But is every thing unlawful, which is not directly commanded in the Bible 1 Is everything not specially commanded, necessarily heretical and schismatical] He has said, that creeds axe fallible. But is every thing unlawful that is fallible I Then it is wrong to have fallible teachers. If we act upon the principle, that whatever is fallible, is unlawful, let us give up all fallible things. If the precept is sound in one case, it is so in all. He has said, that making a fallible creed tends directly to produce schism. But I can prove, that the publishing of books, which were not creeds, has often caused schisms, even as extensive and mischievous as any ever pro- duced by a creed. The truth is, schisms and heresies have generally ori- ginated with such publications, not with creeds. Creeds may einbody eiToi ^ but they cannot originate it. He has said, creeds lead to persecution ; but I have stated, and proved, that some of the most abominable persecutions the world has ever witness- ed, were instigated by those who had no written creeds. Such were the persecutions suffered by our Savior and his apostles, and by the primitive christians. He has urged against creeds Paul's exhortation to Timothy, to " hold fast the form of sound words." But we take the Bible just as it is. We, how- ever, take the liberty to say, and to write, vv'hat we understand the Bible to teach. Let the gentleman prove, if he can, that this is inconsistent with holding the form of sound words. He brings forward the exhortation of Jude, to christians, to contend for DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDvS, 899 the faith once delivered to the saints ; but he cannot possibly prove, that when we hold and contend for the truths of the Bible, we do not contend for the faith. He has told us, it is not lawful to make a constitution for the church. My leply is — that we have not made a constitution, but have only collected and arranged in a few chapters, the doctrines and principles of church order, taught in the Bible. This he cannot prove to be unlawful. How, then, does this objection prove, that creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical ! He has said, there was no creed for the first two centuries of the christ- ian era. But I have stated, and he has admitted, that during that time the church was overrun with error. Does not this fact rather prove the necessity of a creed clearly defining the doctrines of the Bible, and guard- ing against the admission of errorists into the bosom of the church 1 I defy the gentleman to point to an instance in which a creed has pro- duced a schism in a church ; or in which a creed not containing intolerant principles ever produced persecutions. We have had our attention directed to a number of schisms, and a number of persecutions ; but it is yet to be proved, that creeds produced either the one or the other. In the commencement of the discussion of this proposition I pressed on the gentleman a question which I wish once more very distinctly to pre- sent, viz. : What is the standard of ministerial qualifications in Mr. Camp' belVs church, as to education, soundness in the faith, and personal piety ? — [Time expired, Saturday, Dec. 2 — 1 o''clock, P. JV[. [mr. Campbell's closing address.] Mr. President — I regret to see so little regard to truth and decorum manifested in reference to the gentleman immersed the other evening, whose case happened to be alluded to. It seems as though his very virtues were to be converted into faults, by the scowls of sectarianism. I did not know, till this moment, that he was in the house, to hear this most unjustifiable attack upon his reputation. He has just sent up to me the following note, which I beg leave to read ; " I never said, that I had not changed my course on the subject of infant baptism, since I have been here. Many of the sentiments held by the ad- vocates of the reformation, I have long held and taught ; but, on the subject of infant baptism, I have changed my course since I have been here, and in consequence of this debate. Wm. R. McChesney." I do hope, that a brother of such reputation in the community, and in a very respectable portion of the church militant, will be allowed to follow out his convictions of truth and duty, without being thus wantonly assailed. The gentleman has given me a few things to note. He has adverted to the regium donum bond of union amongst Burgher and Anti- burgher Pres- byterians. It is true that I made a remark, in reply to his remark, upon the powers of the confession to heal divisions, and to unite belligerent par ties ; upon its powers of consolidation, and harmonizing of discordant and disaifected brethren ; and, by a fact of which he seemed to be ignorant, shewed that money had done what he supposed the Westminster creed had done ! He does not seem thankful for the information ; nevertheless, I will give him a little more on the subject. The Burghers, or Unionists, of Amer- ica, were the most numerous party of the two, and most interested in the affair. They moved first, and sent off three ministerial delegates to wait on the parliament, to secure for the two parties, now united, (especially be- cause neither could be gifted without the other,) the royal bounty. I re- member, for it happened in my youth, to have heard them say, the Burgh- ers were most active and most avaricious in the affair ; and after they suc- ceeded in getting the bounty, did not please the others with a fair division of the spoil. It so happened, however, in the course of divine Providence, that in about the space of one year, the whole three delegates died, without once having drawn their quota ! Some of the disaffected hesitated 900 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. not to call it a judgment from heaven upon them, for their dereliction of principle, and their unbecoming cupidity in managing the affair. The con- fession of faith had nothing to do with their union. It was gold, sir, and not faith, tha'.: harmonized them. I know, indeed, there are some few men who cannot be bought or sold. The gentleman's remarks, both upon myself and concerning others, were as uncalled for as they were inaccurate and invidi ous. I do not say, that all the priests or flergy were mercenary. Still, however, although there are some ministers that a mountain of gold could not buy over to an opinion, or an ignoble deed, the majority could be bought for a much less sum, as all history and all time have written. It is lamen- tably true, that venality has been the standing frailty of the priesthood in all ages. Hence, as the majority rules, I still opine, that if the whole com- munity would withhold their regium donum until all the parties in this com- monwealth, or any other, would unite ; in a very few years they would be all of one heart and soul, in pleading a common cause. I do not wish to swell the union party, however, by such an acquisition, and am pleased to think that the friends of union will not be entrammeled with any such alliance. To return to my last argument. When asked whether he would retain an Arminian preacher in his church, Mr. Rice, as you all saw, evaded the question ; and taking the manner of his answer and the answer together, it is very obvious to you all that he would not retain him. The creed, indeed^ calls for his expulsion, and Mr. Rice goes for the creed. Well, now, this ex- cluded Arminian preacher (I mean excluded from tlie Presbyterian church,) will not be silent, when turned out. His opinions are now more sacred. He has been wedded to them by persecution, as he will call it. He pro- mulges them, and makes a party. Are not these creeds, Mr, Rice himself being judge, heretical and schismaticall Every one, in this case, can see it. And in this way all the Protestant parties began. If Mr. Rice's system is true, it is much older than he is. But not so much as you might suppose. He must have lived in the time of reforma- tion. It must have occurred to him as well as to you, and to all persons that think that this boasted union and co-operation, of which he sometimes speaks, for the last ten or twelve years, is quite a new thing. Some think it is a good omen of the millenium. But the fact is, that it is an opposition union— a union got up to oppose us. It is a sort of holy alliance against a cause, for which they are too weak in detail. I repeat my wishes, that they may still more closely unite, and that they may in truth harmonize forever. We shall then have been instruments of harmony, and of much good. Had I time, I could give you some amusing speculations of these saints, Origen, Augustine, TcrtuUian and Cyprian, by way of an offset to those figments detailed by my firiend. But I have but a few minutes, and can employ them better. I shall now give you a rapid sketch of the prominent arguments and points submitted in the development and confirmation of this proposition. I call them arguments, because used as such, though, because of the broad cast miscellanies of my friend, they were neither counted out, nor so for- mally discussed as I could have desired. Still, the half of them is more than enough for my purposes. I beg your special attention to this grand preliminary fact so often stated, but not respected by Mr. Rice, that written creeds were the causes of all schism, or of all persecution. I never thought it, said it, or wrote it. They are the cause of much sectarian schism, when oral, and when written. In- deed, oral or noncupative creeds were the causes of persecutions and schisms before the era of written creeds, as we have shown. Alcohol has slain its millions, but it is not the only cause of death. Again, when I speak of creeds, I speak of them as ecclesiastic documents, set up as explained in my first lecture. I. My first argument was, that they are without any Divine authority whatever. God commanded no one to make them, no one to write them, DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 901 and no church to receive them. This argument has not been answered by any fact or example indicative of any such authority. And did ilr. Rice tallt for an age he could not find one — not one Tli^is smith the Lord, for any synopsis, formula, or precedent of the sort. Had the apostles put any thing of the sort at the close of the volume, it would have been a satire upon the whole book. It would have been a sort of labor-saving machinery which the book does not sanction, or it would have been a sort of acknowledgment that the book was not well adapted in the aggregate to the wants of so- ciety. God intended that it should cost much personal labor, much read- ing, thinking, praying, searching, meditating, conversing about it. He intended to keep the mind of man much in company with himself, by giv- ing him a book which he might read for a thousand years, and still find something new. I have sometimes said that a fortune left to a child is the greatest misfortune that can befall it. It almost universally proves itself to be so. Whatever lifts a young man's mind above the employment of hie own energies — robs him of the employment and enjoyment of himself, and lets him down to ennui, or uselessness, or dissipation, or premature ruin. But hereditary orthodoxy is still a greater misfortune. That often ruins a man in his best interests, and always prevents him the pleasure of search- ing for the truth, of musing, reflecting, and acting for himself. II. Creeds have often operated, and their tendency in time of defection is, to cast out the good, the intelligent, the pure, and to retain those of a contrary opinion. They are great strainers, which retain the lees and rack off the pure wine. They killed our Savior, the apostles, and prophets, the saints and the non-conformists of all the ages, since the days of Daniel the prophet. III. They have generally been prescriptive and overbearing. This needs no demonstration. IV. They are treasonable attempts to dethrone the liege king, lawgiver and prophet of the church. We are divinely commanded to hear him. He is the supreme head of all authority and power, and "' the Author and the Fin- isher of the faith.'''' He must, then, regard all other authors of faith as rivals of his, else why substitute a fallible for an infallible! V. Creeds are divinely prohibited by several precepts, such as — "Hold fast the form of sound words, which you have heard from me," says Paul to Timothy. Again, says Jude — " Contend earnestly for the faith formerly delivered to the saints." — " Hold fast the traditions which you have heard from us, whether by word or by our epistle." So Paul commands the Thes- salonians; '* This is my beloved Son, hear him,'''' &c. &c. These and such like passages, by enjoining the sacred Scriptures upon us, as the documents to be held fast in form, earnestly contended for, and submitted to, clearly inhibit all rivals, substitutes, summaries, and so forth. If they command to hear, Christ forbids a rival Lord ; so does the command to hold fast the form of v/ords, the traditions, the faith delived once for all to the saints. VI. We desire to lay much emphasis upon this important fact, that the interval from the death of the apostles to the year two hundred, the purest, and most harmonious, united, prosperous and happy period of the church, had no creed whatever but the apostolic writings. It is admitted that there were plain declarations of faith made at baptism, but nothing formal or ex- ed, either oral or written, for two hundred years. It is also admitted, that in the third century, men began to have oral creeds, and controversies about ordinances and observances, and that, therefore, before written creeds were issued, the very formulas discussed and commended began to produce here- sies and divisions before the grand Nicene development. If Dr. Miller and Dr. Mosheim, Waddington, and many other such are riglit, the purest period of Christianity was when they had the book and the book only. No creeds no parties, is as true as one faith one baptism. VII. They necessarily become constitutions of churches, and as such, embody and perpetuate the elements of schism, from generation to genera- tion. A society built upon a religious controversy is a sort of a commemo- 902 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS, rative institution, cherishing^ in the minds of those in succeeding ages those ancient animosities, and making them love and hate artificially and irration- ally. In that point of view, the principle of attachment is not Christ, but an opinion. VIII. As constitutions of churches, they are unfriendly to that grow^th in christian knowledge, and the development of the social excellencies of our profession, which, in the apostolic age, were presented by the voice of in- spiration, as the paramount objects of christian attainment. By attaching- the mind to the party shibboleths, they detach it from a free and unrestrain- ed consecration of itself to the whole truth of God's book. They continually confine the mind to a certain range of tenets and principles, which have ac quired an undue and contingent importance ; giving to thirty-nine or thirty three points a fictitious importance, and thus, in a certain sense, oblitera ting the proper distinctions between children, young men and fathers, in tho christian church. IX. They are unfavorable to spirituality. By presenting truth in the cold, anatomical, formulary outlines of speculative propriety, they call for a merely intellectual effort of the understanding, and touch not the moral feel- ings of the heart. Hence no one can be converted or sanctified through them. They are the mere mummies of the life-inspiring truths of the Bible, which breathe with living efficacy and the warmth of Divine love upon the soul- No one ever fell in love with a skeleton, however just its proportions, or however perfect its organization ; and no one ever will fall in love with the anatomical abstractions of a creed. X. They falsely assumed to be a proper exponent of Scripture doctrine ; and to be plainer and more intelligible than the Bible. This is as deroga- tory to the honor of the Bible, as it is false in philosophy and fact. They are the veriest jargon of abstract terms, compared with the clear, intelligi- ble and admirable simplicity and beauty of the christian and divine writings. Take the word election, or the phrase Son of God, as explained in the creed, and in the Bible, and can any one imagine a greater contrast in all that is plain, intelligible and beautiful] Is not the Spirit of God the Spirit of elo- quence, of clear conceptions, and of appropriate, beautiful and sublime lan- guage ? I would not believe an angel, if he stood before me, and presumed to improve the diction of the apostles and prophets. The Spirit of the living God is the Spirit of revelation, of all wisdom and utterance. We are al- ways infinitely more safe under its guidance, than under that of any man. XI. They have been peculiarly hostile to reformation, by ejecting godly and intelligent ministers of religion. This has ever marked their progress, from the days of the apostles till now. All the great reformers of the world have been excommunicated persons. No eminent religious reformer has ever been permitted to exercise his ministry in the church in which he com- menced. They have always been cast out of synagogues, rejected and dis- allowed by the leaders of the people, and by their creeds. XII. They are wholly superfluous and redundant, so far as the detection of either error or errorists is implicated. The greatest plea for them has always been their importance and utility, as the means of detecting heretics and heresy But this is wholly an assumption, without the authority of reason or of fact. The seven Asiatic epistles, addressed by the Lord to those ancient and renowned societies, are a thorough refiitation of this pre- tence. To one of these societies the Lord says, " Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast proved them liars," ciplcB they have adopted. DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 911 I. Mr. C. contends, that when persons desire membership in the church, we have no right to ask them more than two questions, viz : 1st. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God] 2d. Are you willing to be baptized] If they answer these questions in the affirmative, he holds, that they are to be admitted without further inquiry. Now, we know that error- istg of all grades will answer these affirmatively ; consequently the door is open for them all to enter. II. Mr. C. has said that he will receive into his church persons who hold Universalist and Unitarian sentiments ; and I have proved, by his own pub- lication, that he has, in fact, received such. But, mark the strange mix- ture of latitudinarianism and tyranny in his principles. He will receive a Unitarian or a Trinitarian ; but he says, they shall not be permitted to ap- ply to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, " scholastic and barbarous epithets." That is, they are not to use language which he choses to call scholastic and barbarous. But where has God forbidden men to use any words which convey not erroneous sentiments'! By what authority does Mr. C. undertake to dictate to men what words they may use to express their ideas ? This is not all. He will receive a Universalist, for example, only on condition that he will hold his faith as an opinion, and abstain from all at- tempts to propagate it. But how can any conscientious man be reduced to promise not to propagate truths which he honestly believes to be taught in the Bible ] Yet he must sacrifice his conscience, or he will not be received ! Mr. C, as I have proved, received into his church B. W. Stone, though he openly denies the Divinity and the atonement of Christ ; and he received Dr. Thomas, though he denied that men have souls ! Mr. Stone and Mr. Camp- bell differ infinitely in their faith — the one denying the Divinity of Christ, and the other asserting it ; the one denying the atonement of Christ, and the other contending for it. Still they united ! Mr. C. makes an important difference betv/eenyaz/^ and opinion. I called on him to inform us precisely where faith ends and opinion begins. He told us, that when we have the testimony of the Scriptures concerning any point, it is a matter of faith. I then proved that he had disregarded his own principles ; for he admits that we have clear testimony concerning the character and work of Christ, and yet he has received those who deny both. He admits that we have testimony concerning the eternal punishment of the wicked ; and yet he has received those who deny it. He contends that we have testimony concerning the design of baptism ; and yet he has re- ceived a prominent man who denies his doctrine on this subject ! III. I have read the testimony of Mr. C. concerning the present state of hie church ; and from it we learn that they have all sorts of doctrine preach- ed by almost all sorts of men ; and that it is bleeding at every pore by the lacerations of its own preachers and teachers ! — and worse still, they have no way of preventing such disorders! ! Yet this is the model church of the nineteenth century ! This church receives into its capacious bosom errorists of all grades, if only they will be immersed and give up infant baptism. IV. Mr, C, after all, has a creed — a most exclusive creed. He requires all to adopt his opinion concerning the mode of baptism. All must be immers- ed. He will allow them to think as they please concerning the character of the Son of God and his glorious work ; or concerning the eternal state of the wicked ; but they must be immersed! Thus you perceive that the gen- tleman attaches more importance to the mode of an external ordinance, than to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel ! ! V. I have proved that there is more real christian union among " the sects," as the gentleman calls them, than amongst the reformers themselves. We differ not from Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, or any evangel- ical denomination, half so widely as Mr. Stone differs from 3Ir. Campbell ; or as Messrs. Campbell, Fishback, Raines and Shannon, difier from each other! VI. I have proved that Mr. C. has radically changed his ground on this subject ; and is now advocating principles of church government which he once decidedly condemned. 912 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. The argument on this subject is now closed. I ask you, my friends, in view of all you have heard, has Mr. C. succeeded in proving that all who use a creed are guilty of heresy and schism ] Has he proved-that they are apostates from Christ, and rebels against him, and that they are worthy of excommunication from his family'! Decide for yourselves, for you are as deeply interested as I. Has he proved his proposition, that human CREEDS ARE NECESSARILY HERETICAL AND SCHISMATICAL 1 My friends, throughout this discussion I have defended doctrines which I solemnly believe to be taught in God's holy word. I have sought to sustain them by arguments, which, in my judgment, demonstrate their truth. We shall all, ere long, stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that we may answer for our faith and our practice. Then it becomes us to search for the truth, as for hidden treasures, and to pri^e it more than gold — yea, than much fine gold. I solemnly believe that my friend, Mr. Campbell, is in error, seriously in error. Thousands of men, wiser than I, believe the same. It is i^r you to determine, so far as your duty and your interests are concerned, whether his doctrines are sustained by the word of God. If there is a man living who could overthrow our doctrines, and establish those for which he has contended, he is the man. That he is a man of talents, and of considerable learning, all admit. He has been a man of war from his youth. For thirty years he has made himself thoroughly acquaint- ed with the subjects we have discussed. He has for his opponent one, who, as he has more than once intimated, is greatly his inferior in talent and learning ; so much so, that he could gain no new laurels by vanquishing him. Now has he sustained any one of his propositions'! Has he gained a victory on a single proposition ! To what conclusion must this intelligent audience come, after seeing the mighty chieftain falling under the blows of one so much his inferior. I have the right, in view of his claim to superiority, to ascribe the suc- cess which has attended my efforts, in this discussion, to the strength of my cause. Even a weak man may, under the banner of truth, urge a suc- cessful war against a giant, who has not the truth to sustain him. I will not make this discussion a personal matter. I am the enemy of no man. Boldly and fearlessly I must and will defend what I believe to be God's precious truth ; but I am not the personal enemy of Mr. Campbell. I will yet be on terms of friendship with him, if he will permit me. I would not designedly or unnecessarily wound his feelings, or the feelings of others. I close this discussion with the kindest feelings towards my oppo- nent and his friends. My prayer is, that God, in his mercy, will hasten the day, when true christian union — unity of the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, may universally prevail ; when all the disciples of Christ shall be more nearly alike, and shall be able, more harmoniously and efla- ciently to co-operate in spreading over the earth the knowledge of the glo- rious Gospel ; when they will present to the powers of darkness an unbroken phalanx. May all who bear the christian name, build on the Rock of Ages, that they may be able to stand, when the earth shall be shaken to its centre. Gentlemen Moderators — I return to you my sincere thanks for your kind- ness and patience, in consenting to occupy so much of your time in attend- ing upon our investigations, and for the dignified and impartial manner in which you have presided over this debate. May God, of his mercy, bestow upon you his richest blessings ; and may you, having enjoyed the honors our country has conferred, and may yet confer upon you, attain to the un- ■^peakably higher honor of being owned as children of God, and heirs of eternal felicity. — [Tims expired, {Elder Jacob Creath then arose, and pronounced the following benediction •] Father of all our mercies ! God of all consolation and favor ! We pray that thy blessing may rest upon us all, and upon all those, in every place, who, with us, love and fear the Lord. Amen.