BV 811 .' rA77 Terrell, Williamson, 1805- 1873. A debate on baptism . and the witness of the Holy Spirit DEBATE ON BAPTISM AND THE WITJNESS OF THE HOLY SPIKI HELD IN Fail-view, la. NoTembeir^ ]IS4'3'- BETWEEN HEV. WILLIAMSON TERRELL, Circuit Preacher of the Methodisi Episcopal Church, AND HENRY R. PRITCHARD, Evangelist of the Christian Church. Mr. Pritchard's speeches reported by himaolf, and Mr. by B. Franklin. MILTON, lA. PRINTED BY FRANKUN Be 8MIT». 1848. INTRODUCTION. In presenting the followina: debate to the public, it is thought necessary to make a few brief remarks by way of introduction. 1. The debate originated in the unprovoked attacks of Mr. Terrell upon our people, and especially upon brother A. Campbell, in the vicinity of Fairview, In- diana. After those attacks had been made, Mr. Pritch- ard, residing at that place, felt himself called upon, in justice to the common cause of our Master, to invite Mr. Terrell to a public discussion, of the proper issuer betw^een us and our Methodist friends. But even that was not done until he was dared by the friends cf Mr. Terrell. A correspondence ensued, in which Mr. Pritch- ard presented six propositions, which Mr. Terrell de clined debating. Mr. Terrell presented four proposi- tions, which Mr. Pritchard finally accepted, and agreed to debate under the usual and equal rules of contro- versy, which the reader will find on another page. Mr. Pritchard selected Mr. G. Campbell, and Mc. Ter rell selected Mr. J. Shields, as Moderators, and thes i two selected Mr. Burress as President Moderator. I: was also agreed by Messrs. Pritchard and Terrell thali the Moderators should make rules to govern the discufs • sion. 2. The profiers made Mr. Terrell for publishing xh. t debate will appear for themselves, as an explanation of Mr. Terrrli's not writing out his own speeches, I 4 INTllODlJCTION. i:n truly sorry that he could not be induced to do So, that the book might be endorsed by him. There are two reasons for the speeches of Mr. Terrell being so short. 1. He spoke slow, and consequently did not ut- ter near as much matter as Mr. P. 2. It w^as impossi- Me forme to get every remark he made. But I have !one the best I could to give all his argument.^, in the same order as deUvered. How well I have succeeded, ^ leave to others who heard to decide. B. Fkankll^. DEBATE. 1st. The propositions shall be discussed in the follow- ing order, viz. 1. "Immersion is essential to Chriatian Baptism." Mr. Phtchard af- firms. 2- "Infant children are proper subjects of Baptism;" or. "The in- fant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism ." Mr . Ter- rell affirms. 3. "Whenever the Gospel is pr3ached Water Baptism is essential t^. the pnrdon of past sins." Mr. P. affirnas. 4. 'The Holy Ghost bears an immediate, direct and personal tsstimon y to tile believer in Christ of his pardon."' Mr. T. affirms. 2d. The di-scussion shall be in the Meeting House in the village of Fairview Rush Co. la., and commence on the 3rd Tuesday in Nov. next and continue four days. 3d. The daily discussion shall commence at 9 A. IM. 0nd continue until 12; be resumed at 1^ P. M- and close at3i each proposition being the subject of discus- sion for one day only. The daily time may be changed by consent of parties. * 4th. The disputants shall occupy one half of an hour alternately during each day commencing with the atlir- mative. .5th. No new matter shall be introduced on the final negative except in reply to matter introduced for thf first time in the closingspeech of the affirmant. 6th. The parties should mutually consider each oth- er as standing on a footing of equality in respect to tin ^ 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. 7th. All expressions which are unmeaning or with- t) DEBATE ON BAPTISM out cfTect in regard to the subject in debate should be -trictly avoided. 8th. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged. 9th. As Truth not victory is the professed object of controversy whatever proofs may be advanced on either side should be examined v^'ith fairness and candor, and ;iny attempt to answer an adversary, by arts of sophis- Uy or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit cavil- ling or ridicule is a violation of the rules of honorable "'ontroversy. 10th. Any error in the statement of facts, (if such should be found, in this paper) shall be corrected by a reference to the written agreement entered into by the disputants atFairview. H. Nutting. Jonathan Shields, H. St. John Van Dakk. Tuesday, 9 o'clock, Nov. 16th 1847. , The president moderator arose and remarked as fol- lows: Gentlemen, and ladies: We have convened to-day for HO unworthy purpose; but for the discussion of several ij'i-eat points pertaining to the Christian religion. The object of every person present should be to enquire honestly after truth. Truth is or should be, the great f bject on all such occasions, and we should be careful not to be diverted from that object by extraneous cir- cumstances. 1 presume it is unnecessary to say any thing to the speakers who are to occupy the stand on this interres- ling occasion, as to what course they should pursue. — Vh^i dignity of the stations which they occupy, as min- isters of the gospel, will of course dictate to them bet- ter than any thing 1 could say, the gravity, candor and honesty which they should exhibit throughout. 1 deem it necessary and of first importance, for the au- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 7 iicnce to observe the most strict order. This i< a tc- igious meeting, and as such is protected by ihe laws t' our country, and consequently any disorderly persor»s niay expect to be punished. No indications ot' appro- bation or disapprobation should be manifested, as such is regarded by all well informed persons as indecoroizs. Let perfect peace and decorum prevail throughout the [mr. pritchard's first address.] Ccntlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 appear before you at this time, and in this place, 1o eontend for an item of that religious faith once deliver- < d to the saints ; and my prayer to the Author of rny 'teing and the Father of my spirit is, that I may speak, ;is I should speali, — that I may throughout this dlscus- ^i(m, be governed and guided by that wisdom, wh;.ch i< from above, which is first pure, then peaceable and irentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and of good Huit; and that you my Christian friends, may hef*r, with that impartiality, which become those, who a,r*i - and sleeping have. If he should tell you, that baptism means immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, and that Christ commanded them all to be done, it will follow, that no one is baptized in obedience to the Lord, until he is immersed, sprinkled and poured. If bap- tism means them all, and Christ commanded them all, what can be more certain, than that we are solemnly bound to do them all? If he should tell you, that Christ designed to establish on the earth, just such a church as the Methodist Church, in which some should be sprinkled, some poured, and some immersed, will he have the goodness to tell us, how we are to know^, w'ho to sprinkle, who to pour, and who to immerse? If he should answer that Christ designed every one to choose for himself; we will feel under everlasting obligations to him if he w^ill tell us, why he and his party have sub- verted the design of Christ, by sprinkling infants, and taking away from them, their right to choose for them- selves? As my friend Mr. Terrell has the reputation of being a good disputant, and is said, to be possessed of great reasoning powers, I hope he will bring them all to bear upon this subject to day, and remove some of these dif- ficulties out of his way. That I do not misrepresent the sentiments of Mr. Terrell, wdll appear from the fol- lowing passage, which I find in "Doctrinal Tracts on page 287. "With regard to the mode of baptizing, I would only add, Christ no where, as far as I can find, requires dip- ping but only baptizing: which word, many most emi- nent for learning and piety, have declared, signifies to pour on, or sprinkle, as well as to dip. As our Lord has graciously given us a word of such extensive meaning 10 DEBATE ON BAPTISM doubtless the parent, or the person to be baptized, it* lie be adult, ought to choose which way he best approves. What God has left indifferent it becomes not ma:^ to make necessary." This passage must be extremely interesting, and edi- fying, to all the members of the Methodist church! — The soul of my friend Mr. Terrell must "delight itself in fatness," when he reads, "Christ no where requires dippins^, but only hantizingy This never could have been intended for any accountable being in the world for it is certainly one of the most stupid things that f have seen in print. The meaning of it is, Christ did not require his command to be obeyed in English, but only in Greek. This writer says, the word baptize means to sprinkle, as well as to dip. If the word means to dip, Christ must have required dipping, unless our writer intends to say, Christ no ^vhere requires dipping, he only requires <^?)?. Now, let it be remembered, and never let it be for- gotten, that this standard work of the M. E. Church declares, that baptize means to sprinkle, pour, and im- merse. It gives to bapfizo three meanings, and gives not an intimation that it has any other meaning. Mr. Ter- rell then, is solemnly bound to defend his Methodism, if defended it can be. It will not do for him to resort to the common, but stupid plea, that he has nothing to prove for this will only prove to the audience that he knows he has nothing to prove, sure enough, and that he is conscious of being unable to prove any thing. I have never known any one offer that plea, who had any thing better to offer. To see a man stand up before an audience, and say, "My opponenthas all to do, and I have nothing," proves him to be a do little, know noth- ing sort of a thing, and with all a perfect nothing him- self. If Mr. Terrell is a man, and possessed of the r-ourage of a man, let him come up to the work, and prove, if he can, that baptizo means not only, to im- merse, but sometimes to sprinkle, and sometimes to pour AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1 1 There is no party in the world, that pretends to baptize in any way, but what practices, either sprink- ling, pouring or immersion. There is no party known to me, that claims that any other mode is baptism. — The issue then is, Doesbaptizo mean only to immerse, or does it mean to sprinkle as well as to immerse? I affirm the former, Mr. Terrell the latter. Before I proceed to the proof of my proposition, I must premise a little further. 1 wish to inform Mr. Terrell, and the audience, that haptizo is the only word about which, I affirm anything in the discussion of this proposition. I will defend bap- tizo but I will not defend any other word, belonging to its family. I know that many of the most eminent men that ever lived, have defended, successfully defen- ded, not only baptizo, as meaning to dip, but all of its relations; but this was a work which they were not called upon to perform. There are a great many reasons why the advocate of immersion is not called upon to defend every word, which belongs to the family of baptizo; some of which 1 will give. 1. It is not true of the words of any family, that ev- ery word in the family has precisely the same meaning; so of course, in defending one, you are not bound to defend all. Z. Primitive words very frequently have two or more meanings, while an instance cannot be found, in all the history of its derivative, where it has more than one of the meanings of the primitive word. This is the case with bapto, and baptizo. Bapto means to dip, and to dye; baptizo means to dip, but it never means to dye. o. A third, and still better reason, why I will not de- fend any other word, is, baptizo is the only word used, by Christ and the apostles to designate the ordinance of baptism. The reason they had for not using any oth- er word, is my reason for not defending any other. 4. We have not time to examine any other word; 1- DEBATE ON BAFTISM for Mr. Terrell has refused to debate this propositiou more than one day. If he should find himself hard pressed for something to sa)% and should manifest a dis- position to debate hapto^ instead ofbaptizo, Twill inform him now, that I am prepared to meet him^ at any con- venient time and place, and prove that bapto, has two meanings, and only two. The reason why I make these remarks is, I am well acquainted with the i/is, and oiUs of men v/ho have nothing to say in defence of their positions. You will hear my friend when he takes the stand, talk about every thing, except the practice of himself and party. He will make baptizo mean any thing, every thing, or nothing, to suit the conveniences of his Methodism. — Mark what I tell you; he will not dare to aflirm that it means to sprinkle. As the meaning of every word, in every language, is determined by its history in the language to which it belongs; my first argument in support ot ni}^ proposi- tion, shall be drawn from the Greeks themselves. I have great respect for the opinions of learned men, but I am not willing to sit down and say a thing is so, be- cause they say so. Dr. Carson says, and a greater than he, has not recently spoken; nor will there in my opinion, for some time to come. "The meaning of ev- ery word must ultimately be determined, by an actual inspection of the passages in which it occurs." Why should it not be so? Are not the people who speak alangnage, the best judges of the meaning of a word in their language? Both Mr. Terrell and mysell'. for want of more extensive reading, are compelled to rely on others for the testimony of Greeks. I will there- fore, proceed to lay before you their testimony, as it is given by Dr. Carson, in his able, and triumphant work on baptism. Polybius, applies the word to soldiers passing through water, ^^baptizcd up to the breast.-'' Surely the word baptizo cannot mean to spinkle AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 13 nerB. In wading a river men do not sprinkle but im- merse themselves up to the breast. That part only is baptized, which is iindtr water. The part above water was not baptized. If a little water, when sprinkled on the face, is baptism, why does Polybius say, that only is baptized, which is itndtr vater? Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general, dying of his wounds, says, "that having baptized his hand in blood, he wrote the inscription for a trophy."' Here the meaning of the word cannot be questioned. He does not mean that, he sprinkled his hand in blood; for that would make nonsense; biit that he dipped his hand in blood, to write the inscription. How do men write? When we write, we all know that we do not: sptiriklc, but dip the pen in the fluid. If dippinij; an in- strument into a coloringlluid is, by Plutarch called bap- tizing it; what can baptism be but immersion? Lucian, makes Timan the man-hater, say, that "If in winter the river should carry away any one with its stream, and the person with outstretched hands should beg to be taken out of the river, I would drive him from ihe bank, and baptize him headlong, so that he would not be able again to lift his head above water.'''' The meaning of baptize is fixed in this passage with- out doubt, to be immersion. If putting a man under water ^ so that he cannot lift his licad above it^ is baptizing him, what honest man can say, that any thing short of immersion is Christian baptism? Mr. Carson, remarks upon this passage from Plutarch, as follows. "To resist such evidence, requires a hardihood which I do not envy. Having such examples before my eyes, I cannot resist God to please men." From the examples already given, it may be seen, that when a part only is under water, that part only is .said to be baptized, and when the whole man is under, the whole man is said to be baptized. Thatow/^ is bap- tized, which is under water. Let that be remembered. Diodoras Liculus, speaking of the drowning of ani- l4 DEBATE ON BAPTISM mals in water says, that "When the water overflows the country many of the land animals baptized in the river perish." This needs no comment, to evince to the most unbelieving that immersion, and imm.ersion only, is the meaning of this passage. We all know how ani- mals perish, in the time of a great flood. No man who values his reputation, would say that animals perish in the time of a great flood, by having a little water sprinkled on their faces. The land animals, were not baptized until they were under the water. Strabo, says Dr. Gale, is very plain in several in- stances: speaking of the lake near Agiigentum,a town on the south shore of vSicily now called Gergenti, he says "Things which otherwise, will not swim, do not baptize in the water of this lake, but float like wood." "And there is a rivulet in the south part of Cappado- oia," he tells us, "whose waters are so buoyant th it ii' an arrow is thrown in, it will hardly sink, or be baptized into them." Jn another place, he says, "The bitumen floats atop, because of the nature of the water which admits no diving: for if a man goes into it, he cannot sink, or be baptized, but is forcibly kept above water.'" "Now in these several passages," says Dr. Carson, "the model meaning of the word is confirmed in so clear express, and decisive a manner, that obstinacy itself cannot find a plausible objection. Things which sink in other waters, will not sink or be baptized in the wa- ter of this lake. This is immersion, and nothing but immersion. Sprinkling, and pouring, and popping and wetting and washing and purifying, and embuing, and dedicating, consecrating, with the various mean- ings that have ever been forced on this word, are mean- ings invented merely to serve a purpose." Why cannot a man be baptized in the water of thib lake? Because the buoyfincj) of the water forcibly kept him above. That is, he cannot be baptized because he cannot go vnder the. water. Let that be remembered. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 15 Why cannot things which sink in other waters, be baptized in the waters of this lake? Because they ''"float like wood^''' do not go under the water, and of course cannot be baptized without going under. Let that be remembered. Why cannot the bitumen be baptized in this lake? — because it floats atop^^ and because of the "nature of the water, which admits no diving.'^ It cannot be bap- tized because it cannot go under the water ^ so as to be immersed. Let that be remembered. These passages from Strabo, not only prove that baptizo means to immerse, but that it never has any other meaning; for if it were possible to baptize a man without immersing him, Strabo never would have said> he cannot be baptized, because he cannot go under th'. water. If Strabo understood the Greek language, and if he was competent to decide upon the meaning of a Greek word, then my proposition is true, and immersion is e^- sential to christian baptism. Heradicles Pontieus, moralizing the fable of Mars being taken by Vulean, says, "Neptume is ingeniously supposed to deliver Mars, from Vulean, to signify that when apiece of iron, is taken red hot out of the fire, SLYid baptized into water, the heat is repelled and extin- guished, by the contrary nature of the water." If the iron, was baptized into water, so as to extin- guish the heat, it certainly was immersed. Themistius Orat, says, "The pilot cannot tell but he may save one in his voyage, that had better be bapiixed into the sea, and drowned." If putting a man under water, so as to drown him, is baptizing him, what can baptism be but immersion? The man, who can advocate sprinkling in the face of testimony like this, has a conscience wholly unlike mine , and can do, what I would tremble to do. Let Mr. Ter- rell produce a passage from any one of the classics. IG JDEBATE ON BAPTISM where baptizo has the meaning of sprinkle, or pour for which he contends. I boldly and fearlessly affirm, he cannot do it. I conclude my address in the languagt; of Dr. Carson, "Baptizo in the whole history of the Greek language has but one meaning. It not only sig- nifies to dip, or immerse, but it never has any other meaning." [mr. teerells first reply.] Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I feel myself in an attitude somewhat different from what I have ever before occupied. I never occupied precisely the same ground before, and consequently do not feel quite as much at home as I could wish, and as I hope to, after awhile. Our discussion is one most assuredly of the highest importance. Christian bap- tism is surely a subject of great moment, and one the proper understanding of which, is of the highest im- portance. It is a subject which is viewed by the com- munity at large, as one of great importance. For my own part, I felt willing to consider the question to be discussed to-day a settled question. The debate be- tween Mr. Campbell and Dr. Rice, in Lexington, Ken- tucky, I consider, and I think my brethren also consid- er an end to the dispute, and a final settlement of the whole question concerning the mode of baptism. My friend Mr. Pritchard seems to think otherwise, and in- sists on a discussion of the question. It is therefore simply to gratify him and his brethren, who appear not to be satisfied, that I have consented to go into the dis- cussion and not because there is any uneasiness in the Methodist church. It will be necessary for me to place the question fairly before you, and then I want you to keep it in your minds. He does not affirm that immersion is baptism simply; but his proposition is that "immersion is es.sen- tial to baptism." Our opposers say, that baptize is a spe AKD THE HOLY SpmiT. 17 eiHc action, and that it means to dip, plan^e, immerse^ and consequently all who have not been dipped, are Tiot baptized. Therefore, the gentleman is not to prove that immersion is baptism, for we all admit that, but he is to prove that immersion o?!-'?/ is baptism. This is what I think he never can do. The burden of proof rests on m}^ opponent, and on immersionists Vvdierever the subject is discussed. Mr. Campbell conceded this, in the debate with Rice. I will read you his proposition : '' 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." JMr. Campbell affirms— Mr. Rice denies. If Mr. Campbell was right, the whole burden of proof rests on my oppo- sient, and he has no last reason to complain of the pro- position. Mr- P. bias gone to heathen classics ! This, I con- less, was an uneYpected move, for such a New Testa- ment chanpion as he is. I expected that he would go into the bible, and that we should have line upon line and precept upon precept. In his resort to tine classics he is against Mr. Campbell, as 1 will show you, from the preface of his New Translation, which^ reads as follows: '' We would also remind the same class of readers, that an intimate acfjuarntance VvHth the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament, is of essential importance :.n translating]: the New. The seventy Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into the Greek lan- guage, gave to that- 1 ran. si at ion the idiom of their ver- nacular tonjrue. - Their translation, if I may so spenk, is a sort of Flebrew Greek. The body is Greek, hut the 3(yijl is Hebrevi' ; ~i\nA, in effect, it comes to this, that, as we have no other Ilrbrew by which to understand the Hebrew Scriptures, but the Hebrew of the Old Testa- ment ; so, we have no Greek by which to understand the apostolic writings'?, but the Greek of the Jewi.sh and B 13i DEBATE ON BAPTISM Christian Prophets. The parallelism is so nearly ex- .';ct, that it substracts but little from it to allow, that there is much advantage in having a correct knowledge of the Greek classics. The Septuagint being read for nearly three centuries prior to the Christian era, in aO the synagogues of the lielrnistic Jews, and being gen- erally quoted by our Lord and his apostles, must havr essentially eifliectcd the idiom of all the inspired wri- tings of the Christian Apostles; consequently, incom- piiiably more regard should be paid to the Septuagint, than to the classic use of Greek terms." x^ow unless he can show that he is a greater man» than Mr. Campbell. I cannot see how he will justify himself, in his resort to Greek classics! if i\lr. Camp- bell is right, Mr. P. is wrong. Mr. Campbell says, the Greek of the clatssics is not the same as the Greek of the Scriptures. Here then, the great leader of immer- sionism is against him, and on my side of the question. Yes, he says '- incomparably more attention should be given to the Septuagint of the Old Testament than tf^ the classics.'' But 1 consider the gentleman has failed in his refer- ence to the classics — signally failled, and he ever must fail to get any support from that direction. Cam- beilites say. baptize is an nUion. Well, let me refer t(* the classes and see what kind of an action. iiippocrates directs concerning a blister plaster, ifii be too painful:, " to bipdz' or jwnstcn it with breast milk or Egyption ointment." Did he intend, that the plas- ter should I e immer.sed in breast milk ? Is this th^ direction physicians are accustomed to give concern- ing blister plasters? Evidently the word is used a.-i having the sense o\ moistening. Now you will remember that the gentleman's pro- position is a universal proposition, and if I produCf> one case where the Greek word bopiizo does not meant, immerse, or one place where it means any thing else, he must most signally fail. That I have now producesfc AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, \9 one such a case, I think, every person present must be fully convinced. Aristotle fe;peaks of a substance, which, " if it is press- ed, dyes (baptei) and colors the hand." Here I find an- other exception to his universal proposition. All must see that there could be no immersion, and yet, rny friend affirms that immersion is essential to baptism. Helodorus says, '' Josephus baptized the city." Sure ly he did not immerse it ! What will my friend do with this case? Origin says, " the prophet hep'tzcd the wood upon the altar." There evidently was no dipping but pour- ing water upon the wood. He cannot make this case mean immerse. 1 want his special attention to this case, I have no disposition to stay amongst the classics long. I rely upon my bible for proof, and expected a bible argument from a man so habituated to extol the New Testament, and had made no calculation, to seo him leave his bible and resort to heathen WTiters. But I think, 1 have now fully met him with classics, and given several cases which must ever stand as unan- swerable objections to his universal proposition. If my friend is right, none are baptized but those who^ are immersed, and consequently that all the world are in error, except the few Baptists, who are contending for my friend's universal proposition. But I proved that he is mistaken, and that even a blister plaster wai^ said to be baptized, when it was clear that only a little breast milk had been sprinkled on it. And 1 now in- quire of the gentleman, what it is that causes a blister plaster to be painful? Surely it is because it becomes dry and hard, and requires to be moistened. And how is that done? by immer:.-ing it? 1 would inquire ot any respectable physician, in this large and rf?p acta- ble assembly, if he ever directed a blister plaster to b< immersed to soften it and cause it to become easy '> Physicians do not deal in metaphorical terms, but in plain literal language, which is easily understood, and 20 DEBATE ON BAPTISM remembered. Here then we have baptism, and no im- niersion, as clear and plain as language can make it. — And my friend can never get over it. Again ; Eusebius speaks o^hem^^^ baptized m tears.'* Will the gentleman say he w^as immersed in tears? — 1 think he will not. Then immersion is not essential to baptism, as he vainly affirms. Did you ever know a man to be immersed in tears ? This is no figurative use of the v»^ord, but a plain matter of history. His- torians do not deal in figurative language, but in the inost plain matters of fact. We all know what it is to •weep over a penitent son. It is nothing strange. AU know too, that there is no immersion about it. It therefore is a strong case against the arguments of my opponent and the uhole Baptist ranks, and one that can never be answered. it is not necessary for me to examine all the quotations be has made from the classics, for I admit the word laptA-io sometimes means immerse, or that that is one of its meanings ; but what I deny is that it universal- ly has that meaning. His finding an instance, there- fore, where it has that meaning, does nothing towards si4staining his proposition. I am therefore through with my reply to all he has said, which I think can at aJ«l bear upon the point. I have nothing further to do, unless I should ac^vanoe with counter-evidence ; but, as I see my time^is almost out, I Rhall not do this, and will give place, and hear what dispusition he will make of the cases I have in- troduced. [mr. PRlTCriARD's SECOND ADI»RE»58.] • Gentlemen Moderators : Mr. Terrell commenced his reply by informing you, that he was well satified with the way this eiTestioia has been settled by Mr. Kice, and (thers. Methodists are quite ea.sy, and well satified ; but myself and breth- ren are unea.sy and dissatisfied, and want discussion* AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. ^ 1 that we may save our cause. If Mr. Terrell is so well satisfied with the way the question has beeu settled, why did he commence the wa7\ by assailing us in this country without cause? Mr. Terrell did not expect you, my Christian friends, to believe this assertion ; for he knows that you all know better. If Mr. Terrell was really in good solid earnest when he made that assertion, I must confess that he and hi> party are more easily satisfied, than I and my brethren can possibly be. Mr. Ewing, an eminent defender of his rantis/n, says " Baptizo means to pop, ^^ Mr. Terrell says, '' I am weii islied.". Mr. Ewing says, "/?op means a small smart quick sound." Mr. Terrell says, " Methodists are well satisfied with that." Mr. Ewing says, " We should b« baptized by having a little water popped upon the turned-up face." Mr. Terrell says, " Methodists arc quite east/, and well satified." Mr. Beecher say.>, '• baptizo means to piu^ifyJ'' Mr. Terrell says, " I am well satisfied with that too ;" any way to keep from going ^^ down into the waler,''^ as the apostles did. And finally Mr. Rice, his great champion of washing mem- ory, says, the Avord in debate means, " to wash in any way." And Mr. Terrell sa3's that it is; we Metho dists are more than satisfied with the way that Mr. Rice has settled the question. For a man to be satisfied with all the ways that the question has been settled by Mr. Rice, and others, hi must have a time-serving conscience, that will stretch in any way. JMr. Terrell tells you, that he was surprised to see a A'ew Testament champion go to the classics, and not to the bible, to prove his proposition. And I too, am a> much surprised as he can possibly be, that the great champion of Methodism — the hero of the fraternity, who has been fighting the battles of his party all ove^' the State, for a number of years past, should not kaoAv that the classics are the highest authority in the world, ^2 &EBATE ON BAPTISM in determining the meaning of the word in debate^ I suppose the gentleman thinks that, as we have no •creed but the bible, we should not permit our children lo use any other book but the bible, in the study of Grammar, Mathematics, and Natural Philosophy. Bro. Campbell, the gentleman says, is against me in going to the classics, to find the meaning of words iu the New Testament. This is strange. I now ask Mr. Terrell, if Bro. Campbell has ever said, that biptizo, and all words indicating outward physical s^pecific action, mean one thing in the classics and another in the New Testament? Let Bro. Campbell speak for himself: "It has been a question amongst theologians, whether the s cred use, that is, Jewish and Christian, Jigrees with the classic use of this word ; whether in one sentence, the New Testament writers use baptizo, as do all other writers of that age ; a most singular question in such a class of words — words indicating out- ward physical specific action. Such words are not the subjects of idiomatic and special laic. It would be in- deed adopting a very dangerous principle and prece- dent 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 }iieaning of the 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." Lexington De- bate, p. 89. As I apprehend Mr. Terrell knows but little about the writings of Bro. Campbell, I feel inclined to read one more passage for his illumination : •' Mr. Rice, has no authority for claiming for baptizo a special court, or special code, or in any way to ex- (Miipt it fi'om the common rules of interpretation, it is not a word of idiom, as I have frequently observed, tu dip, to sprinkle, to pmr, like other outward, physical, and well defined actions, are not affected by any na- AND THE HOLY Sriftlf. 23 tional peculiarity. Men perform these actions in all ages, languages, and countries, in the same manner. — /^V7i^.9/2 has given him no law, any more than Gregory X. to interpret the word in dispute, in any shade oi -sense, diflering from Josephus, the Septuagint, or the Greek classics.'''' Debate, p. 182. If Mr. Terrell is as well acquainted with the writings of Bro. Campbell, as he pretends to be, how could he fnake the assertion that he is against me, in going to the classics ? Has he not read the debate ? If he has read the writings of Bro. Campbell, as he says he has, has he not seen where he has said again, and again, that bapiho is not a word oVidiom ? and that it means in the New Testament, what it means every where ehc? Mr. Terrell, in spending so much of his time, as ho did, in reading from Bro. Campbell, reminded me of the editor who was so h«'^rd pressed for matcriah to fill up his paper, that he said — " These two lines that look so solemn, Are jn.«t put here to fill the column." Bro. Campbell is not alone; for he is sustained by tlie most eminent men of all parties. Dr. Carson says : " The meaning of a word must ultimately be deter- :inined by an actual inspection of the passages in which it occurs^ Carson on baptism, p. 56. Ernesti says, " The sense of words depends on the usus loqmnidi. This must be the case, because the sense -of w^ords is conventional and regula.kd w.hohj hy ns'igc. Usage th n being understood, the sense of words is of course understood." Principles of Interpretation, p. 55. Again, Ernesti says : '' The principles of interpretation are common to saci-ed a7i I pj'ofane wri'irnrs. Of course the Scrij3tures are to be investigated by the same rules as other books."' Prof. Stuart, remarks upon this : " If the Scriptures be a revelation to men, then they are to be read and understood by men. If the same laws of language are not observed in this revelation ns 24 DEBATE ON BAPTISM are CGmrnon to men, then they have no guide to th« right understanding of the Scriptures." Thus speaks Carson, Ernesti, Stuart, and common sense. Indeed there is not one great man in the world except Mr. Terrell, but what agrees with Ernesti, and Stuart, that the usas In (/uaiuli is the highest authority in ascertaining the meaning of words. The reason doubtless, why Mr. Terrell regarded my appeal to the classics as an unexpected move was, be- cause he knew that the classics do not countenance his^ sprinkling, a^s a meaning of baptizo. All the reply he could make was to say, "it was an unexpected move." Mr. Rice, Mr. Terrell's favorite, instead ofsaying it was an unexpected move, said, "The apostles did not speak classic Greek; for they could not have understood it." The Apostles of Christ speaking as the Spirit of God gave them utteiance, and yet could not understand or speak the Greek language. What a pity it is, the Spi- rit of the Lord had not have had an opportunity of ta- king a few lessons in Greek, in the same School with Mr. Rice. Mr. Terrell it seems has found it very convenient notwithstanding my move was so unexpected, to favor us with a few passages from the classics. 1 am grati- fied to see the old bUstcr jjI aster of Lexington memory upon the carpet to day; fori apprehend it will draio i.:oi\i]y upon Methodism, before this discussion shall close. 1 will read you the remarks of Dr. Carson upon the blister plaster, about which Mr. Terrell has had so ma- ny tilings to say after Mr. Rice. "Hippocrates," says Carson, "uses this word some- times, and ahv'iys in the sense for wioh I contend. We have seen that he uses bapto very often: I have not found bapiizo more than four times. This circumstance sulli- cicntly proves, that though the words are so nearly re- lated, they are not perfectly identical in signification. The first occurrence of it is on page 254. ^'Baptize it again in brQa&t milk and Egyptian ointment." He is; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. JI5 speaking of a blister which was first to be dipped (bapto) in the ail of roses, and if when thus applied, it should be too painful, it was to be dij)pcd (baptizo) again iis the manner above stated/' Stronger evidence of immersion could not be desired. The blister plaster, if too painful, w^as to be baptr.ed in breast milk and Egyptian ointment; not the milk and ointment sprinkled upon the plaster. What can be plainer.? But, lest some should think that probably Hippocrates used this word in a sense, differing somewhat from oth- er writers of his age, 1 will let him decide in what sense he used it. Speaking of a ship sinking by being over- loaded, he says: "Shall I not laugh at the man who baptizes his ship by overloading it, and then complains of the sea, i/iat it cn^ulphs it with its curgo.^^ "Is it possible that a mind really thirsting for the knowledge of God's laws, can resist such evidence. — Such a baptism would surely be an immersion." Here we discover that the word baptize in the writings of Hip- pocrates, means not only to put in, but to put under the water. His second example was Eusebius's account ot the Apostate who was baptized in suffering and tears. Mr. Terrell certainly does not intend to say, that the suffer- ing and mental agony of that Apostate Avere so great that he shed two or three drops of tears. This would be sufficiently ludicrous without any reply. The fact is, if Eusebius did use the word baptizo, he could not have meant any thing else, but that the anguish of that A- postate was so great that he was overwhelmed in suffer- ing and tears. Baptizo literally means to immerse, and figuratively to overwhelm. The Greeks used the word baptizo just as we use the word immerse. How often do we say, "He is immersed in sufl'ering, immersed in debt, and immersed in busi- ness? I can produce examples numerous and various 26 DEBATE ON BAPTISM where the Greeks speak of persons baptized in sufferiiig, m debt, in calamity: but who would understand them lo mean anything differing from what we mean, by ^'immersed in debt, in calamity, and in business?" In looking over some of the works, published by the party to which Mr. Terrell belongs, I find where the writers give this from Eusebius among other examples from the classics; and while they give the original of other passages, not one of them has dared to give the original of this. This circumstance has led me to doubt whether Eusebius used the word ba. tizo. If he did not, the pa.ssage has nothing more to do with this discussion, than it has with a discussi'on on universal salvation. ] do not know what word he used, but I deny that he vi.sed the word taptizo. Let Mr. Terrell show that he did if he can. If Mr. Terrell should fail to show that T'^usebius used the word about which we are debating, what respect must this congregation have, for that which he manifests, when he makes Eusebius say, what he never did say. The passage from Ari.stotle has nothing to do with this discussion. Aristotle does not use the word bap- Hzo, about which we are debating. Bapto, the word used by him, means color as well as to dip. Baptho means to dip, but it never means to ador. The color- ing matter of which Aristotle speaks was in water, and when it was pressed down under the water with the hand, it would color the hand. He does not say the hand was immersed, sprinkled or poured, but that it was colored. But the fact is, the hand was both im- niersed and colored. I stated in my first speech, that biipio had two meanings, one to dip, the other to dye. — But with bapto we have nothing to do to-day. Baptize is the only w^ord used in the bible to denote the ordin- ance of baptism; so it is the only word, about which I affirm any thing in the discussion of this proposition. As I have proved that it means to immerse, let Mr. AND THE UOLY SPIRIT. Ifif Terrell prove that it means either to sprinkle, pour or color, if he can. Helodorus, Mr. Terrell says, speaks of "Josephus baptizing the city." If it were not for the seriousness of the subject 1 would laugh right out at this. I knew that Josephus, in speaking of a city being ruined or ^un'i b!j rabbe?^s, says, '-Those, indeed, even without faction, afterwards hapiized ike cihj in ruins f^ but that Helodorus, or any one else ever said, that "Josephus baptized the city," is something new. His last example is a clea-r case of immersion. The Prophet Elijah, as we learn from 1 Kings, \H chap., made an altar, and made a trench about the altar, put the wood in order, and poured twelve, barrels of water on the alter, and wood; so that the trench was filled, and the altar and wood covered with water. He then called upon the God of his Fathers, and fire fell from heaven and consumed the altar, the wood, and the sacrifice while immersed in water. Origin, in speaking of it, says, the fire came from heaven and •consumed the wood, while it was baptized in water. It would be a splended miracle to record, for Origin to say, the Prophet performed a mighty and stupend- ous work. Well, what did he do ? Why he caused wood to take fire and consume, upon which a few •drops of water had been sprinkled. Having shown that the reply of jMr. Terrell is no re- ply at all, and having proved that baptizo among the "classics means to immerse, and only to immerse, 1 will in the remiaining part of my address, ofier my second argument; which shall be drawn from the testimony of eminent men, on Mr. Terrell's side of this question. If he wishes to reply to this my second argument, let him show that my brethren are those who agree with me that immersion only is baptism, have said as much in favor of his sprinkling, as eminent men of his party liave in favor of the truth. As John Calvin seems to be closely related in some its DEBATE ON BAPTISM way to the Father of sprinkling, I will commence with him. Calvin. " The word baptizo signifies to immerse and the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church. Luther says : " Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse some- thing in water, that it may be loholly covered.'" Beza, says, " Christ commanded us to be baptized ; by which word, it is certain, immcrsvm. is signified." YiTRLNGA, says, " The act ol baptising is the immer- sion of be Ue vers in waters. This expresses the fora^ and mcaayng of ihe word, Tlius also it was performed by Christ and his apostles." HospiNiANAs, says, " Christ commands us to be bap- tized ; by which word it is ccrlain immersion is sig- nified." G RTLERiJs, says, " To baptize, among the Greeks, i^> undoubtevlly to immerse, to dip ; and baptism is im- mersion, dipping. The thing commanded by our Lord, is baptism, immersion into water." BuDDKus, says, " The words baptizein and baptisonos, are not to be interpreted of sprinkling, but always of immev:vion." Sa..m s'us, says, " Baptism is immersion, and was ad- ministered in former times, according to the force and meaiii"g of the word." Ve:;;cma, says, " The w^ord baptizein, to baptize, i.s nowhere used in the scripture for sprinkling." Having now heard nine of the German witers of the era of the lleformation, I shall next adduce th?^ opinivii; of the modern German critics or ecclesiasticai histo'iriiS. Proilosor Fritsciie, says, " That baptism was per- formed lio! by spiinkling, but by immersion, is evi- dent, not only from the nature of the word, but from Rom. vL i Aug ;3Tf, says, " Baptism, according to etymolopj and AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 29 dmge signifies to immerse, submerge, &c. ; and the choice of the expression betrays an age in which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced." Bf^ENNER, says, *' The word (baptizo) cor rosponds in signification with the German word, taufen, to sink in- to the deep." The author of the Free Inquiry respecting baptism, says, " Baptizo is perfect dly identical with our word immersion or submersion. Jf immersion underwater is for the purpose of cleansing or washing, then the word means cleansing or washing." Bretschneider, in his Theology of 1828, says, '' An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. — This is the meaning of the word." This writer is con- fessedly the most critical lexicographer of the New Testament. Paulus, says, " The word baptize signifies, in Greeks sometimes to. immerse, sometimes to .submerge." He does not say, with Mr. Terrell, it sometimes means to iiTimerse and sometimes to sprinkle. RiiEiNHARD, says, " In sprinkling, the symbolical meaning of the ordinance is wholly ioaty Sholz, says, " Baptism con.sists in the immersion of the whole body in water." Bretsghneider, says, " In the word baptizo and bap- tisma, is contained the idea of a complete immersion under water ; a.t least so is baptima in the New Testa- ment." I shall conclude the testimony of the modern Ger- xnan scholars by that of Neandcr, whose amiable can- dor adds lustre to his fame as a historian. In his letter to Mr. Judd he observes : " As to your question on the original rite of baptism, there can be no doubt what- ever, that in the primai;ive times it Vv-as performed by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the new principle of the divine life, which w\as to be im- parted by the Messiah." Henton's history of baptism, page 54 to 57. (Time expired.) g(J> DEBATE ON BAPTIBM [MR. Terrell's second reply.] Christian friends; I hope I shall not be understood by what Mr. ^- may say of me. He represents me as say- in^ the apostles couid not understand classic Greek. I hope 1 shall be able to make myself understood with- out your relying upon his representation. 1 have brought the leader of his party to show that apostl^^sdid not write classic Greek. But 1 did not say that they could not understand it. The gentleman read from Mr- Campbell, in the Debate with Mr. Rice, to show thai, what 1 said of Mr. Campbell was not correct. Accord - .ino- to the quotation he has made Mr. Campbell has crossed his own track. The reason perhaps, of his thu-i crossing his own track was, that he was hard pressed by Mr. iiice. but 1 am not done with hew Testament usage-- I will show you from the Debate— [Here Mr. T. took up the Debate between Cainpbell and Rice, and after tur- nin^^ the leaves back and forth closed it and said,] How- ever it is not necessary for me to read. Mr. Pritchard has told you what course I would pur- sue in this discussicn. I have known for .some time that he was a man of a great deal of sagacity, but I did not know that he was a prophet before. It does not require a great deal of sagacity, however, to tell what course he will pursue. He told you that the blister plaster is on the carpet.- 1 did not know the blister plaster was on the carpet be- fore, but thought it was on his immersion. I think yet that'itis on inimersion, and I am bound to makf ii stick. Hippocrates did not say it was to be d.p.cd, us the p-entlVman says. It was not customary to dij) plasters but to anoint them. Mr. Taylor, however, has made il anoear that it was not the i laster, but the blister—th*^ y pac^, on the man that was to be baptized. They did not dip the sore place, but washed ii, as was custo- mary in such cases. .- The gentleman tells you that baptism of tears is fig- AND THE HOLY 8PIR1T. 31 tirative. What is it a figure of? Is it a figure of im- mersion? It cannot be a figure of dipping. It is a fig- ure of sprinkling, if it be a figure at all. But it cannot favor immersion, whether it be figurative or literal. 1 then, contend that it is decidedly in my favor, and a- gainst Mr. P. Mr. P. differs from Mr. Campbell, for Mr. C. main- tain:^ that the word taptizo not only puts a person under water, but the the termination :o, brings him out again. If Mr. P. is right, the great leader of his party is wrong! Is Mr. P. a greater man than Mr. Campbell? His friends would hardly allow that he is. Be that as it may, they differ very widely, and I shall leave them to reconcile the difference among themselves. The gentleman tells you that I read from Mr. Camp- bell merely for the purpose of filling up my time. I confess that it is somewhat of a waste of time to read his productions, but on occasions like the present, it sometimes becomes necessar3^ His sentiments, I know, are erroneous, but owing to the importance my friend and his party attach to them, it is necessary occasional- ly to quote him. I will now read from the Debate, page 78: '*iMy idea is," says Mr. Campbell "that the word ori- ginally meant not that dipping should be performed frequently, 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 lo is never us when the word is employed in connexion with the business of dyers and tanners. But the word laptizo is always used to express the ordinance of bap- tism. This is the best reason I can give for the change of the termination into zo. "With regard to the frequent occurrence of this word in the New Testament usage, 1 said that there might be some good reason given. And that reason is fouad in the fact ili^tbapiA) means to dip, without regard to contin nance long or short, but bapiizo intimates the subject oil 32 DEBATE ON BAPTISM the action is not necessarily long kept under that into which it is immersed." To this Mr. Rice replied by saying, after showing tliat Joseph us speaks of the baptizing of a ship which sunk xo the bottom and never got out, "But the sinking of the ship, says my friend, Mr. Campbell, was merely ac- cidental. And so, if we are to believe Mr. Carson, is the raising the person out of water. For he says, 'whether the thing goes to to the bottom or is raised out of the water, cannot be learned from the word bapiv.o' But 1 ask is not the raising the person out of the water in essential part of his baptism? The gentleman, how- i3ver, dips them by the word^ and raises them out of the water by 'ccultntr ]f theship was baptized and sunk to the bottom, and the termination %o did not bring it out, as Mr. Campbell says. But, if Mr. Campbell is right, when it sunk to tlie bottom, they must in some way have got it out again. But Mr. P. says Mr. Campbell is wTong, and, as I said before, we will leave them to fight it out among them- selves. The gentleman ha« read from Martin Luther and others to prove his proposition. Notone of his witne»^:- es says, it means al -ays to immerse. xVTartin Luther does not say, that it always means to immerse, but that it seems to require immerse. This comes greatly below liis universal proposition, that baptize always mean- to immerse^ or that immerK^ion is essential to christian bap- tisin. I v.ill now read from several learned authorities, also to show what they have said on my side of the question. j will first read from Parkhurst: he defines the ^vord, baptize, "to immert^e m or wadi with uaicr m token of purification." Dr. Owen says, ''Bart ho signifies to wash^ as instan- ces out of all authors may be given." Adam Clark, says, "In v.hat form baptism was ori- ginally administered, has been deemed a subject w(?r- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 33 thy of serious dispute. Were the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is certain baplo and haptizo mean both." The gentleman says, I must not go to pedo-baptists, but to immersionists for authority on this question. It is absurd for him to require me to prove my practice from Baptist authorities, as that would contradict all their preaching. But he says, he proves his position by pedo- baptist authorities. But not one of his witness- es from the pedo-baptist ranks, sa3's that nothing but immersion is baptism. No, my Christian friends wo^ o?ir of them says any such a thing. He must then go to some place else for authority to prove his exclusive proposition. He believes that immersion alone is bap- tism, and this he has labored to prove, but in this attempt he must fail. Yes, my christian friends, he evidently must fail — there is no help for him. 1 will here present another argument. It is thi?: His doctrine contradicts the whole tenor of scripture. It excludes from the kingdom of God all who have not been immersed. I want him to show from God's Avord that immersion only is baptism. But I am certain that no man can show from that holy book any such an un- reasonable and exclusive doctrine. No, my christian friends, he can prove no such an absurd doctrine. On- ly think how many of the best, most pious and learned, in all denominations, such a doctrine at once cuts off from the mercy of God. He must be convinced that he cannot make out his. doctrine from the bible, and therefore has fled to the classic Greeks, and even there {have headed him, and brought good classic authority to show that the word baplizo means sprinkle and pour as well as immerse. And I have proved from Mr. Campbell the great leader of bis party, that the word did not mean the same among the Greeks it did amoni: the Jews. Mr. Campbell is then, against the gentleman. in going to the classics, to find the meaning of words In this Mr. Campbell has shown himself to be more cou C 34 DEBATE ON BAPTISSI sistent than the gentlemen, inasmuch as they are botli advocates of the bible, and while Mr. Campbell stick:-* to his bible, he depar1;s to the classics. Thus you see-, my christian brethren that I have already put one New Testament champion to llight, and pursued him to thf Greek classics, and then followed him up so closely thaJ he will now be compelled to leave them. I cannot teU where he will go to next. I have now shown that he is not sustained by the classics, that he is not sustained by pedo- baptist au- thorities and that he is not sustained by the bible. But^ brethren. I bless God, that Methodists draw their faith from God's holy book, and not from the Greek classics. As my time has now almost expired, and it is about noon, 1 will close till I hear from the gentleman. Adjourned to meet at half past 1 o'clock. [mr. peitghard's third address.] Gentlemen Moderators : Mr Terrell commenced his last speech by telling yos that I had misrepresented him in saying, that ke had said the apostles could not understand, or speak classic Greek, I am fearful his hearing is greatly at fault. — What did I say? I said that Mr. Rice, in his debate with Bro. Campbell said, the Apostles did not speak classic- Greek; for they could not have understood it. Now, if the gentleman will turn to his third speech on the ac- tion of baptism, he can sec it for himself. Mi'. Campbell, he ^ells you, has crossed his own track, in asserting one thing in the New Testament and ano- ther in his debate with liice. The difficulty is not that Bro. Campbell has crossed his own track, but that Mr. Terrell seems incapable of understanding him. Doom Bro. Campbell assert in the New Testament that bap- iizo and all words indicating outward, physical action, are subjects of ilioaiatic or special law? Mr. Terrell knows he does not. Does he in his debate witli Rict- ;assert, that such words as laiv^Jksh spirit, sacrum are AND THE ' HOLY SPIRIT. 3ft! -not the subjects of special law? Mr. Terrell knows h«^ says no such thing. In the New Testament Bro. Camp- bell was talking about the qualifications of a good Translator, and says, "that an intimate acquaintance wuth the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament is -of essential importance in translating the New." Bro. Campbell has always said in common with the most eminent men of all parties, that some words in the New Testament are the subjects of idomatic or special law. But that he eversaid that baptizo, or any other word indicating outward, physical, and well de- lined action is a word of idiom, to be tried in a special court, as a heretic is tried, by a special law is not true. Mr. Terrell has taken what Bro. Campbell said with special reference to one class of words and applied it to another class; and then with a look which seemed to indicate that he felt himself possessed of all wisdom, and all knowledge said, "Mr. Campbell has crossed hia own track." But the reason why he crossed his own track he tells us was, because he was hard pressed in the debate with Rice. Well, great men will disagree in opinion. His Bro.Jinkins, a Presiding Elder in the M. E. Church, in Tennessee, did not think Bro. Campbell very hard pres- sed; for when he had read the debate, he just put that thing called Melkodism down, came out, confessed and obeyed the truth, and "now preaches the faith which he once destroyed." Mr. Campbell must have been truly hard pressed. The gentleman made one effort in his last speech to be a little smart once in his life. I was highly pleased to see him^mi'^ at his own wxV, while the people present could see nothing worth smiling at. He never heard of a blister plaster on ihe carpet before. There are a great many things in this world he has not heard of — When 1 spoke of the blister plaster being on the carpel ;all present understood me, except Mr. Terrell. .Mr. Terrell now tells us, that it was not the bhstef 36 DEBATE ON BAPTISM plaster but the sore place on the man that was to be baptized. Is this true? Let us see. Hippocrates says, dip tl>c plaster in rose oil, and if when thus applied, it should be too painful, it must be taken off', and dipped (baptizo) again in breast milk and Egyptian ointment. That is according to Mr. Terrell, take all the sore place off of the man and dip it in rose oil; then apply it to the man and if it should be found to be too painful, take all the sore place oft" again, and dip it in breast milk and Egyptian ointment. This is too small for a great man like Mr. Terrell. He will have to get Mr. Taylor, or some one else, to help him to something better than that. Instead of proving as I called upon him to do, and as he is solemnly bound to do, that Eusebius used the word about which we are debating, he takes it for granted that he did and calls upon me to show what it was a figure of. It is certainly a very stupid act for a man in a discussion to take for granted, the very thing he has to prove. If Eusebius did use the word baptizo, it was a tigure of the same thing the baptism of Christ was, when he was baptized in suffering for the sins of the world. No man who loves the Redeemer will say, that when he was baptized in suffering, he only had a few drops of it sprinkled upon him. Luther, Mr. Terrell tells you, does not say the word baptize means only to immerse; but that it may be ti-an.slated immerse. He says more than that. WiM you hear him sir? "And although it( immersion) is almost wholly abol- ished (for they do not 6^7? the whole children, but only jjour a little water on them) they ought nevertheless ta be who bj imm'T.cd and then immediately drawn out, for that the etymology of the word seems to demand." The etymology of the word, he says, demands that the person to be baptized be wholly immersed and im- mediately drawn out. By the way, Mr. Terrell com- plained of me, for not adopting the view of Bro. Camp- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. S7 beli that b iptizo both puts a person under water and draws him out. Well, Bro. Campbell has Luther, and many of the most eminent men with him. While h«; is in such good company he has no nged of my de- fence. Mr. Terrell, I suppose, thinks that he has most tri- umphantly answered my second argument by readinii from Dr. Clark where he says, "baptizo means to sprin- kle as well as to dip''' He certainly deserves a v)le oi thanks from the Methodists, for proving that Methodism is right, by the testimony of Methodists. Why did he not if he wished to meet my argument fairly, show that men on my side of the question have said as much in favor of his practice of sprinkling as the most eminent men on his side have in favor of the truth. The whole of his reply amounts to about this: Methodists say, that Methodism is the truth; therefore Methodism is the truth. It is absurd, he tells you, for me to call upon him to read from Baptists in favor of his rantism. But why is it absurd'^ Have I not appealed to those who prac- tice sprinkling to prove, that the literal and proper mean- ing of baptizo is to immerse. It was absurd only be- cause he had nothing else to say. Not one of my witnesses he tells you, said that bap- tism always means immersion. Was it because he did not or could not hear, that he made this assertion? i\ seems to me, that he does not know half of the time what he does say. I have not time to read over and over again the samf^ things, for the benefit of my friend. He must pay bet- ter attention. I will however, for the purpose of show- ing you how unfounded his assertion was, repeat the testimony of one of them, and it is but the testimony of them all. Buddcus, one of my witnesses says, "The words bap- tizein and baptismos are not to be interpreted of sprink- ling, but always oi immersion.'' 38 DEBATE ON BAPTISM Can you hear his words sir, that baptizo the very word about which we are debating, is not to be inter- preted of sprinkling, but always of immersion. Mr. Terrell.becarae very religious towards the close of his last speech and said among other things. "1 draw uiy faith from God's holy book, and not from the clas- sics." I am unable to say, whether it was because we were going to dinner before he spoke again, or because he had nothing else to say to fill up his time, that he made this as.sertion. Nor am 1 right certain it is true. Will Mr. Terrell have the goodness if he pleases to tell us, in what part of God's holy book he finds his mourn- ♦t's bench, his class-meeting, and his band society? 1 think he will hardly afiirm in this discussion, that these }>rominent parts of his faith are drawn from God's holy book. He again reiterates the assertion that baptizo did not mean among the Jews what it did among the Greeks. We will let Josephus, a Jew, who wrote his history in^ Ihe Greek language in the days of the Apostles, decide this question for us. He certainly ought to know in what sense the Jews, used Greek words; better than any man now living can. He uses baptizo very often, and always in the sense of irnmension. Speaking of" the storm that threatened destruction to the ship that i'arried Jonah, he says; •When the ship was on the point of sinking-, or just about to be bap/ized.^^ Did this Jew who never used a Greek word in the sense of the classics, mean that, "When the ship was an the point of sinkino^, or just about to have a few drops of water sprinkled upon it?" If the ship was on the point of sinking unde?^ the water, 1 suppose it was just about to be immersed. What can be plainer? I could bring forward passages numerous and various from the writings of Josephus, equally as strong and decisive as this; but one or two more will suflice for the present. Speaking of some of the misfortunes of Ccs^ tius, he says; AND THE HOLY SPIMT. S§ ''After this misfortune of Cestius, maay of the Jews of distinction left the City, as people Swim away from SI baptizino; ship^ I wonder if the people in the days of Josephus were so silly, as to jmmp overboard and swim away from a ship, because it had a few drops of water sprinkled upon it! It must have been, if my friend Mr. Terrell's position be correct, that baptize means to immerse a- mong the Greeks and to sprinkle among the Jews. It iS vain for a man to reason against facts. We have had enough unfounded assertion. Let himgive us more argument and less assertion, and we will listen to him with more pleasure. Let him produce one example in the writings of any Jew, where baptize, means any. thing but immerse if he can. I fearlessly affirm he cannot do it. As this is a point upon which many graceless assertions have been made without any proof, i cannot dismiss Josephus without hearing him once more. Speaking of the drowning of Aristabulas by com- mand of Herod, he says; ^'Pressing him down always as he was .swimming, and baptizing him in sport, they did not give over till they entirely drowned him." Can anything be more express and exact than this? The boy was swimming in a pond, andthe Gallatiansby command of Herod, b/ptized him by pressing him down under water, so as to drown him. What can baptize mean anriongthe Jews but to \tui under water? Let it be remembered and never let it be forgotten that Josephus was a Jew, and wrote his history in the Greek language in the very days of the Apostles. The reason why Mr- Terrell and his party put in this miserable plea is, be- cause they know that the whole Greek world pronounce the condemnation upon their rantism. As enough has been said to convince any one, whose mind is blinded by the working of a per-blind theology, 1 will proceed to my third argument which shall be drawn from the use of the word in the bible. 40 * DEBATE ON BAPTISM ''Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that hke as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," Rom. vi: 4. ^^Buried with him in baptism^ wherein also ye are risen withhim.'^ Col. 11: 12. No language could be employed in human speech that could more definitely fix the meaning of this word, than the language of the spirit in these two passages. 1 solemnly think that the spirit of all wisdom inten- ded to /y<:'X:i^/> the meaning of this word, so that men who would practice sprinkling might be left without excuse — that they might do it knowing that the Spirit of the Lord had said, that when we are baptized, we are, ^^buried in bapiisiny I would not for a thousand worlds like this, have water sprinkled upon me in the name of my Lord, and then give the lie to common sense by saying, that this is what the Spirit of God mean^ by being buried in baptism. How can Mr. Terrell or any other man of his party* who has sprinkled into his congregation a hundred per- sons or more, stand up before them and read the word< of the Spirit ^''we are buried with him in baptism^'"' when he knows, and they know, that it is not true? He never can make it mean ^'buried with him in sprinkling.'''' Let it be remembered and never let it be forgotten by you. ihat the spirit of the Lord says, that Christians "are bn- rv'd with the Lord in baptism." I have only time to mention one more fact from the New Testament; and that is Christ did not command, the water to be bapivj^d upon the people, but the people to be baptized in the water. It was not the wa- ter that was to be baptized upon the people, bat the people were to be baptized in water. Now, the mis- take of Mr. Terrell and his party is, that they rantixf the water upon the people, instead of baptizing the peo- ple in water, as Christ commanded us to do. We can sprinkle water upon a man, but to sprinkle a man in water AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 41 i:i something that cannot be done . It will not do to say, they were sprinkled of him m Jordan, or joofirtf/ of him liL the river Jordan; but it will do to say, they were im- mersed of him i)i Jordan. As Mr. Terrell has repeatedly asserted that the word about which we are debating, does not mean in the TS'ew Testament what it does in the classics, I would be pleased to have him substitute his sprinkle instead oi baptizo in a few passages. I will risk the whole dis- cussion upon the assertion, that it will make the most perfect, or the most consummate nonsense in every passage where baptizo occurs. This fact alone ought to settle the question. If Mr. Terrell is unwilling to try his sprinkle or pour. as a translation of baptizo,! will risk the controversy upon the assertion, that the word immerse will make good sense in every passage, as a translation of baptizo. It will not do for Mr. Terrell to say, as some of his party have said, that the reason why baptizo cannot be translated sprinkle is, baptizo is a^^e/zerzc word, and sprinkle is specific ; for 1 defy him or any of his party to produce any word which expresses physical action, in any language, that will make ^^'wer/c i^ense, and sj,ecijic noiisensfi at the same time. Why does not baptizo make generic sense, and specific nonsense when it is translated immerse? Is immerse generic? I must now say a word or two on the preposition en, commonly translated in. In the discussion 1 had last winter with Mr. Manford, I affirmed what I sol- emnly believe to be true ; viz : that eii means m when it denotes the place, and by when it denotes t\\eagei:t. I defended this in the presence of the champion of U- niversalism of Indiana, and 1 am now prepared to do it in the presence of Mr. Terrell. My fourth argument in support of my proposition shall be drawn from the fact, that Christ has used the strongest word in the Greek language for the action of immersion, to denote the ordinance of baptism. If •12? DEBATE ON BAPTrsM baptize does iiot definitely express the action of im^ mersion for which 1 contend, then there is no word in' the Greek language that does. I suppose no one will; say the Greeks have no word for immerse. Let Mr. Terrell show what that word is, if baptizo is not the one. Let him show that the Greeks have a word which definitely expresses the action of immersion, if baptizo is not the word. I assert he cannot do it. — The Greek language has in it words which mean to nnk, to dive, but none of them can definitely express {he action of immersion, if baptizo does not. The Greek language also has in it words which mean to sprinkle, to pour, and to wash, but no one of them was ever used by the Redeemer to denote the ordinance of baptism. For the satisfaction of all desirous to be assured of the true meaning of baptizo, I will present some of the zither Greek words, which relate to the use of water : 1 . Lavo, to wash the body. 2. Pluno, to wash the clothes. 3. Nitito, to wash the hands, the face, the feet. 4. Ekkco, to pour. 5. Rnntizo, to sprinkle. If it had have been the design of the Lord to com- mand either sprinkling, pouring, or washing the facCy the Greek language would have furnished him with a/ word to express the very thing he designed. But it is known to every one M-ho knows the Greek Alphabet,, that neither niptn^ eklxo, nor rantizo was ever used by him to denote the ordinance of baptism : a clear proof that he neither commanded sprinkling, pouring, nor washing the face, as Mr. Terrell and his party do. As 1 have shown that the Greek language has in it words ior sprinkle, pour, and wash, will Mr. Terrell have the goodness to us, and kindness to his cause and people, to tell what word in that language definitely means to immerse, if baptizo is not the word. A fail- are here (and fail he must) will be fatal to his cause j.n this country. (Time expired.) AND TUB HOLY SPIRIT. 4^ [mr. Terrell's third reply.] Gentlemen Moderators — Christian Friends : I am liable to be mistaken. I might have misunder- stood the gentleman, in his representing me as saying that the apostles could not understand classic Greek. He now says Mr. Rice said they could not understand classic Greek, and not me. I did not quote from Mr. Rice but from Mr. Campbell. What has Mr. Rice to do with this discussion ? I shall not have much to say about my friend's last speech. Much of it was not to the point, and there- tbre, it is not necessary 1 should follow him in all his wanderings. I shall now notice the plaster and I think it will. stick. The gentleman will be glad to get this plaster off before we are done with it. I see it is already be- coming painful to him. As I told him before, it is not on the carpet, but on immersion. No plaster ought to be dipped to make it easy. As I said before, physicians do not order blister plasters to be dipped, but wet, in order to make them easy, when they become painful, by being, hard. The gentleman cannot get away from this plaster. The gentleman has been so kind as to tellyoa what course 1 would pursue. I have known for some time that Mr. Pritchard was a man of great sagacity, but 1 did not know before that he was^ a prophel ! I shall now notice the gentleman's argument on Ro. 6, and Col. 2: 12. In-order to sustain the doctrine of my friend, these passages should read dipped into wa- ter ; but this is not the language. But the apostle says they were " baptized into deatk,'^ and not dipped into water. If it was a literal burial, it was a literal resur- rection. But it cannot be a literal burial, for the resur- rection is by an action oi faith and not by an action of man. Many pedobaptists, it is true, admit this passage to be baptism by immersion. 1 will now notice Matthew 3. 1 am glad the gentle- 4^ DEBATE ON BAPTISM man referred to this passage. Here we are informed, that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Some might say they should be baptized iii the Holy Spirit, as Mr. Campbell did, but there was no literal immersion in fire. Where does he find the baptism of fire. Mr. Campbell says, the baptism of fire is hell. He therefore, has to go to hell to make out his exclusive immersion theory. The gentlemaii cannot find a clear case of immersion in the bible. The Jews said, to John the Baptist, " Why baptizeth thou if thou be not that prophet." But where did the Jews learn that that prophet should baptize? Why. the prophet Isaiah had said, " he shall sprinkle many nations ;" and the prophet Ezkiel said, " Then will 1 spiinkle clear water upon you." Heb. 10: 12. We have §n exposition of the language just quoted froiii the prophets. It reads thus : " Let us draw near witli a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Now, you can wash the body, by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. Sprinkling water is washing in a religious sense. 1 have now some counter arguments to offer, which 1 will introduce by a quotation from Mat. 3: 7, 11 : '• But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wratli to come ? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repent- ance ; and think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham for our father; for 1 say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up cliildren unto Abra- ham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fir(^ I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 1 am not able to bear : he shall baptize you with the Holv Ghost and with fire." The Savior also com- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 45 manded them to tarry in Jerusalem till they shouldbe baptized with the Holy Ghost. Mr. Campbell renders' this passage, " He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit." Was the baptism of fire by immersion? I quote Acts 2: 1,7, which I think will throw some light on the sub- ject : " And when the day of pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And sud- denly there came a sound from heaven, as a rushing of mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they wire sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and be- gan to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusa- •em Jews, devout men, out of every nation under hea- ven. Now when this was noised abroad the multitude same together, and were confounded, because they heard them speak every man in his own language. — And they w^ere all amazed, and marveled, saying one to another, Behold are not all these which speak Gali- leeans ? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein were born." This extraordinary event brought great multitudes ot the people together to hear the apostles preach. — This was that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, '^and it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh." Here is a case in which baptism was performed by pouring. — In this case it was administered by the Almighty him- self, and he certainly did it in the right way. God himself certainly could understand Greek, and knew what he meant by the word baptize, and in fulfilling his promise, that he would baptize with the Holy Ghost, shed forth this which they saw and heard — poured out the Spirit upon them. God's way of ad- ministering baptism was by pouiing, but the gentle- man's way is by dipping. Here 1 plant my stake.^ down, and from here I shall not be moved. I call the 4^ "DEBATE ON "BAPTISM gentleman's special attention to this argument drawn from God's Holy book. Will he say they were dipped -* If he does, I wish him to remember that Peter said, at the House of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning. God poured it out, shed if. forth, and it fell on them. This was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and there was no dipping or immersion in the case. This perfectly accords with Titus 3:5: " He saved us by the washing of regeneration and re- newing of the Holy Ghost." Mr. Campbell says the baptism of fire is plunging into hell, and if the termin- ation zo brings them out again, as he says, they will be plunged into hell and brought out again. Immer- sion must be substantiated, if he has to go to hell for the proof of it. "I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Mr. Campbell sends them to liell to get their baptism, and if they have to goto hell to get their baptism, it will do them no good. The legs of the lame are not equal. I suppose Mr. Campbell would say that haptizo takes them into hell and zo brings them out. Here I take my stand. From this stand I cannot be moved. The gentleman may bring all his strong forces, but he never can get over this. Here we have a definition of the Greek word hapti- to from God himself, and, as I said before, he under- gtands Greek. He never can get over this. If I could even believe that baptize is a specific action, I would not immerse, because the Lord has defined it to mean fow, which is also a specific action. Now, the gentleman claims to be a New Testament man. Let him then, come up to the work and meet me like a man. Let him leave the classics and come to his bible, or his friends will suppose him afraid of his bible, after all the flourishes he has made over it. 1 defend my cause by the word of God, and need no oth- er authority. The gentleman quotes many others. ) mippose he needs them, but I do not need them, and AND THB HOLY SPIHTT. 47 simply quote then?, to meet Greek with Greek and classics with classics. You can see now, Christian friends, what his loud claims stand upon. He depends upon Greek classics, and various uninspired authors, and nst on scripture. But I appeal directly to the word of God, and establish my position by the most clear language of scripture. I will now proceed directly to another passage of the word of God. It reads thus: "And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him : and he went in and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner." Luke 11: 37,38. I will als€ read you a passage from Mark 7.- 1,5: " Then came together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the traditions of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And m.any other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of ^cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." In the 4th verse where it is said, "when they come ^rom market, except they wash, they eat not," the •Greek is baptize. The gentleman would hardly say the cups, pots aiid tables were immersed ; yet it is baptize in Greek. Certainly they did not dip their ta- bles. Here baptize is properly translated wash, and the circumstances show that it would not have done to translate it immerse, I want the gentleman's atten- tion to this argument. Will he tell us whether he be- lieves the cups, pots, vessels and tables v\^ere immersed? He never can get over this. No, my Christian breth- ^rcn, he m*ust fail here, as he has already done on -every point we have had before the audience. J now com„e to another argument, founded upon th© 48 DEBATE ON BAPTISM baptism of the Jsraelits, in the cloud and in the sea. — Paul speaks of it thus : " Moreover brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all of our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2. Here was a baptism, but no immersion, for the scripture says they passed through the sea dri/ shod. — • I know that some men try to make it immersion, but if it was, it must have been an immersion on dry ground. There could have been no other kind. This passage has always stood in the way of immersionists, and th^ gentleman will find it in his way on this occasion. I see that my time is pretty near out, and I want to hear what my friend can say to these arguments, and therefore shall take my seat. [mr. pr[tchard's fourth address.] Gentlemen Moderators; Mr. Terrell has told you that he had known for some time that I was a man of grea.tsa£racity, but he had not learned that I was a prophet. Well, 1 do not profess to be either a prophet or the son of a prophet. A man who is acquainted with the history of the past can teU something of the future without being a prophet. — ■ When I told you that he would make baptizo mean any thing and every thing or nothing, to suit the convenien- ces of his party; was I not right? When I told you that he would affirm nothing and deny all in this dis- cussion; was I not right? When I told you that he would not try to prove that Eusebius used the word baptism ot suffering; was I not right? When I told you that he would not meet me upon the true issue, but would take a wild goose chase all over creation in search of materials to fill up his time; was I not right? If the exact fulfilment of a number of predictions he any proof to him, that a man is a prophet, I do not know but that I shall convince him that I am something •iND THE UOLY SPIRIT. 49 «f a prophet as well as a man of great sagacity. I hope iie did not use the word sagacity in its original signifi- cation. The word sagacity comes from the word sag, which signities a dug. I hope he did not mean that I am a man of great do^iistaken, in regard to the Apostles speaking classic Greek, and asks, what Mr. Rice has to do with this dis- cussion? Sure enough; what has he to do? Why did Mr. Terrell introdace him in this discussion, by telling of his mighty work? He has certainly forgotten that Mr. Rice's name filled an important place, in his speech- es. By repeating his name so often, Mr. Terrell re- minded me of an editor in Ohio, who had nothing on hand to fill up his paper; so he said, "1 cannot think of any thing to put in this place just now;" and these words just filled it up. Mr. Terrell, instead of telling you how he and his party are bitri"d in s rbikling, tells you that Rom. vi: 4, reads, we are baptized into death., not dipped in water . .This was a wonderful discovery. Wonder if it was o- riginal! It must be, for there are but very few great men on the earth who could conceive a thing so splen- did! It matters not so far as my argument is concern- ed, whether we are baptized into death., mud or 77iilk; for if we are buried when we are baptized into death, of course we must be when we are baptized in water.— Mr. Terrell- has certainly forgotten that it is the meaning of baptizo, and not water ^ we are looking after to day. The Spirit of God says, '-we are buried in bap- tism," and no man living op dead can make that name buried in sprinkling. But he says, we cannot be buried in a literal sens«, for the Apostle says, we are raised by failh. The Apos- tle says no such thing. His language is; "wherein al- so ye are risen v/ith him through the fa t) of the opera- tion of God ;" which means no more than that we aie introduced into a new life, after baptism, through faith D 50 DEBATE ON BAPTISM in Christ. Mr. Terrell has been so long in the practice of baptizing people without faith, that he seems to be incapable of understanding the Apostles, when they connect faith and baptism together. When we are baptized in water, into the death of Christ, it is always through faith in the Redeemer that we are raised to a new life. He says, I cannot find a clear case of im- mersion in the bible. Let him make some effort to dispose of the language of the Spirit w^hich says, we are buried in baptism, before he favors us with any more assertions of the kind. We greatly prefer mod- estly in assertion, and strength in argument, to seeing a man trample under his feet the language of the Spirit. Mr. Terrell quotes the words of the Prophet, " then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," as if that pass- age had any thing to do with baptism, more than it ha.s with the Lord's Supper, or feet washing. His ob- ject doubtless was, to have me spend my time in talk- ing about such little things, but I am not disposed to gratify him, for if he does not know that it has nothing to do with this discussion, he is more stupid than I think he is But he told you, that sprinkling a little water on the face was washing the body. This is so ludicrous of it- sell, that it needs no reply. If /«5 Methodism be true, Paul ought to have said, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our faces^ sprinkled with a little water. How can any subject under all these heavens be made plainer than the Apostles have made this, by first telling us, that we are buried in baptism, and then, that when we were baptized "our bodies were washed in pure water." I apprehend that the gentleman and his party will be as sick of the bible as they were of the classics, before this discussion shall end. But to prove'that "buried in baptism," means sprin- kled, or poured, or washed, or something else, the gen- tleman has in great haste loft every passage in th» AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 51 Xew Testament where the word baptize is found, and made his appeal to the second of Acts, and to the out- pouring of the Spirit, as if that out-pouring was ex^ pressed by the word about which we are debating. To appeal to things to find the meaning of words, is, in the language of Ernesti, most " egregious trifling.'' — Our knowledge of things depends upon the meaning of words, and not the meaning of words upon our knowledge of things. It is then, " deceptive, fallaci- ous, and most egregious trifling, to appeal to things to find the meaning of words." Ernesti says : " Language can be properhj interpre- ted o'lly in a philological way. Not much unlike thesc^ fanatics, and not less hurtful, are those who, from a similar contempt of the language and from that ignor- ance of them which breed.^ contempt, depend in their in- terpretations rather on things than on words. Nor will this mode of exegesis at all avail to con\mce gains ny ers, for they themselves boast of interpreting in like manner hy things/'* p. 27. Universalists sustain their dogma of universal salva- tion, by precisely the same kind of argumentation. — In a discussion I had with Mr. Manford, about one year ago, I had to meet the same arguments from him that I have from Mr. Terrell to-day. I affirmed that aion means absolute duration without end, and I proved il by the classics. Mr. Manford replied, that the classi- cal meaning of the word, had nothing to do with its- New Testament meaning ; for, said he, the Apostles did not speak classic Greek. If the word does mean duration without end in the classics, it can only mean a limited time in the New Testament. This is precise- ly the same course pursued by Mr. Terrell. If, says he, with Mr. Manford, baptizo does mean to immersr in the classics, it can mean nothing more than sprin- kle, or wet, OT' wash, in the New Testament ; for thr Apostles did not speak classic Greek. How admirably f these two yoke-fellows pull together. 52 DEBATE ON BAPTISM Mr. Manford, to sustain himself in his assumption, appealed to things not connected with the word in de- bate, as Mr. Terrell has done. God is too merciful and good to punish his creatures forever and ever. — God poured out the Spirit, says Mr. Terrell, therefore, buried in baptism can mean nothing more than buried in sprinkling, in weting, or bedewing. I hazard nothing in saying, that the most scandalous and ridiculous no- tions, the most shameful perversions of the word of God, and all the sentiment^ of infidels and sophists can be sustained, and are sustained, and kept up by the use of the same means. Universalists have sus- tained their miserable per-Mlnd theology, and gained over to it many honest well-meaning persons, by an argumeiitem ad homenem built upon a supposed charac- ter of God, which they have created in their own minds by the assistance of a distempered imagination. So Methodists have sustained their rantism by telling us that there is not water enough in some countries to im- merse — that Jordan is nothing but a " little loet water stream" — that in some parts of the world it is too cold to immerse — that it is iv.decent and immodest to im- merse a female — and finally that the Lord poured out the Holy Ghost, and therefore sprinkling is baptism : as if any or all of these things, had any thing to do with the meaning of baptizo. His argument is this : The Apostles were to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit w^as poured out from heaven. Therefore, pouring out, and baptism are one and the same thing. I must be permitted to make a few arguments of the sama kind for the edification of the audience, and the gratification of Mr. Terrell. 1. The Spirit was to convince the world of sin. But the Spirit was poured out from heaven. Therefore. pouring out, and convincing of sin are one and the same thing. 2. The H oly Spirit was to bring to the remembranct^ AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 53 of the Apostles all things that Christ had said unto them. But the Spirit was poured out. Therefore, bringing to remembrance, and pouring out are the same. 3. A penitent believer is to be immersed in the creek. But the water in the creek was poured out from the clouds. Therefore, pouring out from the clouds, and immersion in the creek are one and the same thing. Now, I ask, what has the pouring of the Spirit from heaven to do with the baptism of the Spirit, more than the pouring of the water from the clouds has to do with an immersion in water, after it came from the clouds? If you were to see a man, who, when he was informed that a person was immersed in the creek, would try to find the meaning of the word immerse, by finding hoiu the water got into the creek, you would think him a sim- pleton. Equally as profoundly learned and logical is that man, who, when he is informed that the Apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit, tries to find the mean- ing of the word baptize, by iinding how the Spirit came from heaven. By the way, I would like to ask Mr. Terrell, how he knows that the Spirit was poured? The classical meaning of the word translated pour is undoubtedly to pour; but words in the New Testament he says, do not mean what they do in the classics. If he should answer that this word (ekkeo) has not changed its meaning, I will be pleased to know by what law of philology he causes one word which expresses outward physical action to change its meaning, and not another of the same class. If the Greek word for immerse in the classics means pour in the New Testament, why may not the classic word for pour, mean immerse in the Testament ? I fear his argument will kill his proof. As Mr. Terrell has already distinguished himself in this discussion for learning and sagacity, I hope he will give a good reason why one of these words has changed its meaning and not the other. 64 DEBATE ON BAPTISM Having examined the logic of Mr. Terrell, and proved that his course is contrary to reason, to com- mon sense, and to all the established rules of interpre- tation. I will proceed to examine the passage upon which he relies to prove, that buried in baptism means to have a little water sprinkled on the face. When Pentecost had come, it is said, that, " sudden- i}^ there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing of mighty wind, and it fiUed all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven wngues like as of fire, and rr sat upon each of them.'' Now, here it is said, that the Spirit came from hea- ven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. If all the house was Jllled by the Spirit, of course they were immersed in it. But Mr. Terrell will tell you that it was the sou/id that Jilled the house. Was it the sound that mt upon them? It is said that, it filled the house, and it sat upon them? If sound is the antecedent of the it of the second verse, what is the antecedent of the it that sat upon them? It cannot be tongues, for tongues are in the plural num- ber. W^e can probably find the antecedent of 'it, by ihe language of the thirty-third verse, which reads: " Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which you now see and hear^ When did they see the Spirit? When it sat upon them. When did they hear the Spirit ? W^hen it came from heaven, as a rushing mighty wdnd. It was the Spirit which came from heaven ; it made the sound, it filled the house, it sat upon them, it they saa-, and it they heard. What can be plainer? There is no sense in saying the sound filled all the house, when it is known that it filled not only that house where they were sitting, but every other house in Jerusalem. Having finished his argument to prove that pabtize means to pour, Mr. Terrell proceeds immediately to prove that it means to wash. But if it means to pour, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 55 il does not mean to wash. Certainly he will not say, that pouring and washing are one and the same thing. is there an old lady in this county, who does not know that there is a vast deal of difference between pouring out clothes, and washing clothes ? His first proof for washing was, Mark, seventh, chap.: '• And when they came from the market, except they wash (Gr. baptize) they eat not." A Methodist Commentary which 1 have in my pos- session says, that the word baptize in this passage should be translated hathe^ or that, that is the meaning oi the word, and refers to Lev. 15: 11, to prove it. (Here Mr. Terrell said — Read it .sir.) Mr. Pritchard. I will with the greatest pleasure. — Benson, in his Commentary which I have in my hand says : '• And when they came from the market, excepi they wash, — Greek baptize — hathe themselves, as the word probably ought here to be rendered (see Lev. 15: II,) they eat not." Lev. 15: 11, to which he refers, re- quired a Jew, after he had touched a person who was unclean, as he always did at market, to go and wash his clothes, and lathe his whole body in water. A Jew bathed his body, by going under water, head and ears. This the New Testament calls baptizing. What can baptism be but immersion ? Mr. Terrell seems to think that I will hardly say, that the cw/;.«, and pots, and other ves.sels were immensed. Yes I will, and prove it too. If he will take up his bi- ble and turn to Lev. xi 32, he can see that they were taken to where there was plenty of water, and put in- to-^ and under the water, and remained immersed under watt^r till evening, that they might be cleansed. This the New Testament calls baptizing them. What can be stronger in favor of immersion? My Jift/i, and la.st n^irrcnt upon this propro- sition, shall be drawn from the well known fact, that ^immersion, and immersion only was practised by all Christians, east and west, for thirteen hundred years af- 5(> DEBATE OS BAPriBM ter Christ ; except in a few cases where the Pope, or some of his tribe, allowed pouring in danger of death, where immersion could not be had. I will sustain this argument by the testimony of some of the most em- inent men that ever lived. The Edinburgh Ency. de- serves to be heard first. It says : "In the times of the Apostles, the form of baptism, was very simple. The person to be baptized was dip- ped into a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered, and to express more fully his change of character, generally assumed a new name. The im- mersion of the whole body was omitted only m the case of the sick, who could not leave the beds. In this case sprinkling was substituted, which was called clinic baptism. The Greek church, as well as the Schisma- tics in the East, retained the custom o{ immcrsiny the whole body ; but the Western (Roman Catholic) church adopted, in the thirteenth century, the mode of baptism by sprinkling, has has been continued by the protes- tants, baptists only excepted." Art. Baptism. Bassuet : " The baptism of .Tohn the Baptist, which .served as a preparative to that of Jesus Christ, was performed by phinsiing. In fine, we read not in the Scripture that baptism was otherwise administered ; and we are abk to make it appear, by the acts of coun- cils, and by the ancient rituals, that for thir/ee7i hundj-ed years, baptism was thus administered throughout the yjhoJe church, as far as was possible." Dr. Whitby : " It being so expressly declared here, that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being hurifd under w^ater, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centnrhs ; and tlie change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of this institution, or any license from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the la- ity." Note on Rom. 64. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 57 Wilier, in his Lectures on Archaeology, saj-s, " Af- fusion was at first applied only to the 5zc/i:," (are Meth- odists all sick?) "but was gradually introduced for oth- ers after the seventh century, and in the thirteenth cen- tury became the prevailing practice in the West. But the Eastern church has retained immersion alone as valid." Van Caellu : " Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century ; but among the Latins it was dis- placed by sprinkling ; but retained by the Greeks." Professor Stuart : " We have collected facts enough to authorize us now to come to the following general conclusions respecting the practice of the Christian church in general, with regard to the mode of baptism, viz : that from the earliest ages of which w^e have any account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and down- ward for several centuries, the churches did generally practice baptism by immersion ; perhaps by immersion of the whole person ; and that the only exceptions to this rnode which were usually allowed, were, in cases of urgent sickness, where immersion could not be prac- ticed. It may also be mentioned here that aspersion and affusion, which had in particular cases been now and then practiced in primitive times, were generally introduced, and became at length quite common, and in the Western church, almost ijniversal, before the Reformation." (Time expired.) [mr. Terrell's FOurxTH reply.] Gentlemen Moderators — Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 am not surprised at the earnestness and zeal mani- fested by my friend, Mr. Pritchard, on the present occa- sion. The manifest failure he has made, and the circum- stances which surround him, are sufficient to create some warmth within him. He has considered himself the champion of immersion, and the open opponent of all the sprinklers in the land, and now having made such 58 * DEBATE ON BAPTISM an evident failure, it is quite sufficient to rouse up hb zeal. One thing I look upon as exceedingly unbecoming on an occasion like this, and not only so, but contrary to our rules of discussion. What 1 allude to is the fact, that he has charged me with attempting to deceive. 1 cannot look upon this in any other light, but as ungen- tlemanly and unchristian; as also conflicting with our stipulated rules of debate. I have tried to spare his feelings and the feelings of his friends, and hope to con- tinue so. My Christian friends, let us try to manifest at least a kind spirit. In regard to the baptism of the Holy Ghost I would ask this intelHgent audience, what has my friend, Mr. Pritchard, said? He has informed us very kindly and confidentially that Jesus says, "they shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit." This is exactly what this audience came here to hear him prove on this occasion. He has begged the whole question in controversy, and assumed ibr gianted the ver^ point in dispute. Wewant to hear liim prove that Jesus ever taught i?nmersion in the H0I3' Ghost. But 1 shall now leave his begging of the ques- tion,and call your attention to the very language of the sacred scripture. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing migh- ty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sit- ting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2: 1,4. This passage says, "And it filled all the house where they were sitting." I would ask what filled the house? The passage says, "and there came a. sound from hea- ven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting." Is it not clear that AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 59 **i/," the sound, filled the house? I maintahi that the word ".sow 716^" is the antecedent to the word '-it." But, my friend, Mr. Pritchard, wants to know what is the an- tecedent to the word "z7 in the third verse. I answer that "to/zowe" is the antecedent to the word '"zif." Not tongues, as the gentleman had it, but tongue. I argue that it was the sound that filled the house; and certain- ly they were not immersed in sound! This would be ridiculous. How would you go about it, to immerse in sound — for instance, how would you immerse in a clap of thunder? This would be a difficult task for immer- sionists to perform! How could any one be immersed by pouring? The gentleman did not tell us; but in the place of doing so got on to the word "/Y," and we had then nothing but it, it, IT. IT. I showed in my last speech, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was performed by pt.urlnj,;. The prophet said, ''it shall come to pass in the last days says God, that I \\\\\ puvj' out my Spirit." Now will the gentle- man be so good as to tell us how any one could be im- mersed, hy. pouring? This, I think, would be anew way of administering immersion. He ma} charge me with trying to deceive as much as he pleases. But I shall pay no attention to it; but shall just let it go for what it is worth. I have just quoted the word of God, and it says, the Holy Ghost shall be poured out. This is the scripture mode, and this is what 1 shall contend for. — The baptism of the Holy Ghost then, was administered by pouring, and the Savior does not say, as he has said, that they shall be immersed in the Holy Ghost. There is no such passage in the bible. His proposition is a universal proposition. He does not simply undertake to prove that immersion is baptism or that in some cases they immersed, in the apostolic age; but he contends that immersion was invariably practiced, and noihirig else. Yes, he contends that noth- ing else is baptism. But I have now found an exception 60 DEBATE ON BAPTISM to liis universal proposition, and that in the plainest and clearest language. The Lord himself said, when speaking of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, "it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour OUT my Spirit. Here I have planted my stake, and here 1 expect to stand. The gentleman cannot escape. He can never find any immersion in the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He may talk of their being baptized in the Holy Ghost, but he can find no immersion in the Holy Ghost. It was not a sound that was poured upon them, but it was the Holy Ghost. There was no im- mersion in the case. I could dwell much longer here, if I thought it neces- sary; but it is certainly not necessary. The passage 1 have now introduced is too clear to be misunderstood. My christian friends I feel that I occupy ground that cannot be shaken. My position is impregnable. Mr. Pritchard wishes me to give him a word from the Greek language that means to immerse if bapiho does not possess that meaning. To gratify the gentleman, J would say, then, that kataduno means immerse 1 sup- pose. But this word is not used in reference to bap- tism in the whole bible. I suppose this will satisfy the' gentleman. But baptize, they did not use in the sense of immerse. I will proceed to give the gentleman some more from the good book, seeing that he is a great man for scrip- ture. Heb. 9 10, we have the word baptisms where it cannot mean immersions. "Which .<-'tood only in meats and drinks and divers washings, and cardinal ordinan- ces, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Here we hsiY e washings from bapfi^ms, and I defy him to make immerse of it. He cannot show that this lan- guage requires immersions. Heb. 10: 22, lono is translated wash. Heb. 6: 2, we find the "doctrine of haptismt.^^ Mr. Campbell renders this, "doctrine of immersions." BiU AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 61 I deny the correctness of this rendering; it was not di- vers immersions, but divers washings. My argument on the baptism in the cloud and in the sea, remains untouched and unmoved. J have showed clearly that it could not have been an immersion in that case. They passed through the sea dry-shod. — Could they have been immersed and remain dry-shod. 1 think hardly. In this case they were evidently sprink- led. The rain from the clouds, fell upon them and bap- tized them. I invite the gentleman's special attention to this, and hope he will tell us hov/ they could have been immersed, and remained dry-shod. He must re- member that the water must have come from the cloud and that it could not have immersed them, for the wa- ter of the sea was parted, that they might pass through dru-shod. The gentleman tells you that there is nothing said in the scripture about bnngii.g water to baptize. — Well, can he refer to anyplace where it says any thing about going to a river or a pond to immerse. Kot one such a place can he find in the whole bible. Yet he makes it an argument against the sprinkling mode, be- cause we do not read of any place, which states in just so many words, that water was brought to baptize!— But I would inform the gentleman, that we have very good evidence that they did bring water for that pur- pose. The Philipian Jailor was baptized in the house, and if they did not bring water to baptize him, they baptized him with water that had been brought for some other purpose, and consequently was there ready for the purpose. The Jailor heard the word of the Lord and believed in the prison, and then was brought out into his own house, and was baptized with all his house. This case presents an unanswerable argument against immersion, and in favor of sprinkling. As he was baptized in his house, he could not have been immersed, but must have been sprinkled or poured. How will the gentleman get over this case? He never can get over it, but must make a complete failure. 6?J DEBATE ON BAPTISM The gentleman has followed in the common train of all immersionists, and in so doing, has repeated over the old assertion, that immersion was invariably prac- ticed during many hundred years. But in this he ha?^ overlooked one important consideration. He know» that clinic baptism was practiced during all that time. Clinic baptism was the baptism of sick and weakly per- sons who could not be baptized in any other way but by sprinkling or pouring. This shows that the gentle- man's exclusive immersion was not known, or believed during this long period. Let me here briefly rehearse the arguments, as they have been presented. He set out to establish that bap- tize meant exclusively to immerse. This he undertook to do first from the classics. But here he made a total failure. Among the authorities quoted to show that he is in error here, was one who speaks of baptizing with tears. This he has not shown to be immerse in tears and he never can. Another authority speaks of baptizing the blister plaster. This evidently meant wetting and not immersion. On this passage he has made a complete failure. When he found that he must fail on the classics, he turned to men of learning. — Here he also failed. He then turned to the bible. Wr here met him, with bible authority, and showed that pouring was the mode of administering baptism. 1 examined the divers baptisms, and showed that it could not be divers immersions, but that it must be diver;^ washings. The gentleman told us that we find no ac- count of bringing water to baptize. In reply 1 ask him to show an account where they are said to have gone to a river to baptize and produced the Jailor as an in stance where immersion could not have been practiced, as it was administered in the house. I now call the gentleman's attention to the baptism of Lydia. She was baptized on the bank of a river How will the gentleman make immersion in this case'* Could she have been immersed on the river bank?- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 6.^ Surely not. The plain state of the case is, that she was sprinkled. I will yet introduce one more case as an exception to the gentleman's exclusive immersion. I allude to the baptism of St. Paul. He was baptized standing up, which is clearly proved by the words of Annanias, '^ Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Here, my christian friends is a case that bids defiance to Mr. Pritchard. He could not have been immersed standing up. How would he immerse a man standing up. This language, is* wholly unlike that of immersionists. This, then forms another exception to the gentleman's exclusive immersion the- ory. And he never can get over it. [Time expired.] [mr. pritciiard's fifth address.] Gentlemen Moderators : Before noticing the few things which I have noted in the last speech of Mr. Terrell, I will finish the argu- ment I was upon when my time expired. You doubtless observed, that the passage which I read from Professor Stuart, stated, that sprinkling was "gradually introduced, and became at length quite tjommon, and in the Western church almost universal, before the Reformation." The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, from which we have already quoted, says : " In this country (Scotland) however, sprinkling was never used in ordinary cases till after the Reformation." Article Baptism. One says, it was introduced before, and the other that it was nev r used till aft^r the Reformation. Well, 1 care not which is right, for they both show that this thing called sprinkling was introduced a thousand or fifteen hundred years too late, to be a part of Christ- ianity. We will now hear the learned Basnage, who, in speaking of the answer which Pope Stephen gave the 64 DEBATE ON BAPTISM French clergy, about the lawfulness of pouring water on the sick, says: ''It allows sprinkling only incase of iminent danger ; that the authenticity of it is denied by some Catholics ; that many laws were made alter this time in Germany, France, and England, to compel dipping, and without any provision for cases of neces- sity ; therefore, that this law did not alter the mode of dipping in public baptisms ; and that it was not till five hundred and fifty-seven years after, that the legis- latui^y in the Council of Revenna, in the year thirtceH hundred and eleven, declared dipping or sprinkling in- different." Here is the authority for which Mr. Terrell has been looking all day; and it is the authority of a set of poli- tical demagogues who cared neither for God, religion. nor the bible. We frequently hear Methodists boast that they are more liberal than we ; for it is a matter o^ indifference wdth them, whether a man is sprinkled or immersed. This politico Ecclesiastic Council de- clared the same thing more than five hundred years ago. It is astonishing to see how precisely children ape their parents, and how apt they are to regard the language of their mothers, as the purest in the world. 1 will conclude this, my fifth argument, in the lan- guage of Dr. Wall, the great and distinguished Pedo- baptist historian ; than whom, but few, ever possessed more knowledge of the history of the Christian church. He says : " No branch of the nominally Christian church, however corrupt in other respects, has dared to change the law of immersion into sprinkling, except the Roman hierarchy, and those churches which derived sprinkling from that jo! luted .source.^' Again he says : " This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages," (that the primitive Christ- ians immersed) "that as one man cannot but piti/ the wTak endeavors of such Pedo-baptists as would main- tain the negative of it ; so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of ihe profane scoffs which some people AND THE HOLY SPIRIt. 65 ^ive to the English antipedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. =^ * * * * It is a great want of prudence, as well as Itonesty, to refuse to grant to an ad- versary what is certainly true, and may be proved 50." H. I. B.p. 462. It is true, he says, and may be proved true, that im* mersion was the primitive practice ; and it is a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to rufuse to grant what m.a}' be proved by an iifiwite number of passages. But I Avish you, my Christian friends, to remember, and never let it be forgotten by yon, that Dr. Wall, the mighty champion of pedobaptism, has declared that, '-No church, however corrupt in other respects, has ever dared to change the law of immer- sion into sprinkling, except the Roman hierarchy, and ihose churches" (such as the Methodist) " which de- rived sprinkling from that polluted sowce.^^ What can be plainer than, if Methodists derive their sprinkling from the Romish Church, the mother of all the modern sprinkling parties, they did not receive it from the Lord. I am indebted to Mr. Hinton, the author of this his- tory which I hold in my hand, for the testimony of most of the persons from whom I have read in sup- port of this my last argument. I come now to the last speech of Mr. Terrell. He commenced by telling you, that I had charged him with an attempt to deceive. It was Ernesti, and not me. Hear him again. "Any method of interpre- tation not pj/idological is fallacious. Moreover the method of gathering sense of words from thin;js is alto- getfier deceptive and fallacious^. It was Ernesti then, and not me who said, that his method of gathering the sense of words from things is deceptive, fallacious, and most egregious trifiihg. But he w^ants to know, who ever saw an immersion by pouring? I answer, just as many as have seen baptism by pouring. But 1 must ask another question. E 6$ • DEBATE ON BAPTISM Who ever saw a person hitried in pouring? or who ever saw a man's body washed in pure water, by having a few drops of water sprinkled upon his face ? But he wishes me to tell where I find the baptism of fire. He has told us that baptizo means to wasli, to loet, a.nd to moisten. Now, will he have the goodness to tell us where on earth he finds the Jii^e, in which he can either icet, ijioiskn, or wash sl man. You can nei- ther sprinkle, pour, moisten, wet, or icash a man in fire; but you can immerse him. Mr. Campbell, he says, goes to hell for his baptism. I have only time to say, this is not true. I Avill tell him all about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire when we come to debate the last proposition, if he dare introduce them where they properly belong. He says, it is not tongues, but one tongue, in Acts 2: 3^ and that this tongue is the antecedent of the it of the third verse. Mr. Terrell has certainly paid but very little attention to his bible. It is tongues, and I again ask how tongues can be the antecedent of it. That sound, I fear, has filled his eijcs, as well as his ears. It w^as the Holy Spirit which came from heaven, it made the sound, it filled the house, it sat upon them, it they saw, and it they heard. It will be impos.sible for any man now living to make it appear that it was not the Holy Spirit, but mere sound wdiich came from heaven, and filled the house. I called upon Mr. Terrell some time since to produce a word in all the Greek language, which definitely ex- presses the action of immersion, if baptizo does not. — After taking some time to think, he says, " kataduno I suppose will do." Well, kaiadvno I suppose will not do. Du7io, without the kata, means to sink, and katfi means down ; so the two words when put together. mean to sink down. Katahapto means to dip down, but kataduno means to sink down. Katabapto is used to ex- press the action of dipping down, or dipping deeply; but kataduno is applied to things w^hich sink of themselva-, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 67 as the apparent sinking of the sun in the ocean. We will hear Mr. Carson upon the difference between du- noj or dunein, or baptizo. '-The obvious and charac- teristic distinction," says he, " between the two words is, that dunein is a neuter verh^^ (a great word this, to definitely express the action of immersion) "signifying to sink^ not to cause something else to sink. But a thing that sinks of itself , will doubtless sink to the bot- tom. But baptism signifies merely to dip, without re- spect to depth or consequence." Duno then, never can be made to definitely express the action of immersion ; for it is a neuter verb, signi- fying to sink, not to cause something else to sink. What I have now^ said upon kataduno, I suppose Mr. Terrell will let pass without any notice, as he has everything else that I have said. If I were a man, 1 would be a man. When I enter into a discussion with a man, I will reply to what he says, or I will give it up and go home. To make out that baptizo means to sprinkle, pour, wet, w^ash, moisten, or something else, he quotes the divers baptisms, Heb. 9: 10. If he wall make himself acquainted with the law of Moses, he will find that all the Jews had to immerse themselves, their cups, pots, and everything that was used by them, every time they became unclean, as the last act of their cleansing. They had divers immersions; we have but one. A single Jew would, in all probability, have to immerse himself, or something that belonged to him, more than five hundred tim.es during the course of his life; which would certainly make " r/fwr* bap- tism" among them. If his sprinkling is alluded to in Heb. 9: 10, it certainly must be among the' ^^caiiial ordinances,''^ for it is not among the baptisms. The children oflsreal w^ere not immersed in the cloud . and in the sea, he says, for the ground was perfecth dry. I have often been made to smile when I havt heard Methodists say, they could not have been im- mersed for the ground was dry, and in less than ont ^8 * DEBATE ON BAPTISM minute turn to Psalms and read the passage, "The i^ky sent out a sound and the clouds poured out water'- to show how they were baptized. In one breath they {iay, the ground was perfectly dry, and in the next, that the clouds were pouring out uatcr upon it. I should take it, that the ground was very dnj while the clouds were pouring out water upon it. The fact is, there was no icater about their baptism. They were down in the sea, and the cloud came down upon them and covered them over ; and thus they were " baptized in the cloud, and in the sea, as the Spirit of God says they were. It was in the cloud, and in the sea, and not by water poured out of the cloud or sea that they were baptized. But there is no account, he says, in all the New Testament, of the Apostles going after water to bap- tize with. That is very true, and the reason of it is the Apostles were not Methodists. U they had been, they would have been telling us ail the time about the water they sent for, or had in the meeting house to sprinkle with. The New Testament says, they went to, and baptized in the river. That will do me. But Paul, he tells you, was baptized in a house standing up. It is true that Paul stood up to be bap- tized, but it is not true that he was baptized in the house. We always make the people stand up to be baptized, but Methodists make them kneel down. God {^ays, according to their own showing, stand ?//>, just as we do ; but Methodists, after proving that the Lord commands us to sto7idup, say, come and kneel down. — The Lord says, be baptized, but Methodists say, be sprinkled. It seems to me that they are determined ro obey the Almighty in nothing. But we are told by some of his party, that there is .10 " locomotive power in the word arise," and therefore it did not take him out of the house. I did not sup- pose that the word arise took him out of the house, but that it put him on his feet and he walked out. It was AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 69 not necessary to tell Paul to arise and go so far East, and so far West, till he came to water, and then he must go down into the water so deep to be baptized; for Paul was not a child, nor a/oo/; but knew all things that were essential to baptism before his conversion. When we talk to children or block-heads we express everything, but to talk to men of sense in that way, would be to offer them an insult; because things which are understood are seldom if ever expressed. To illustrate this, I will suppose Mr. Terrell to be sleep- ing in an upper room in some house in this place, and one of you go up in the morning and say to him, ai'ise and eat your breakfast. Now, it is not necessary to tell him all he has to do before he can eat his break- fast, such as get out of bed, dress yourself, come down stairs, wash your face, comb your head, come in, sit down to the table, and help yourself or be waited upoii by some one else, and be sure to chew your meat and bread before your swallow them. To tell him all this, would be to insult him. But suppo.^. he were disposed to carry out his beautiful logic, and instead of prepar- ing for breakfast would say, the word arise means to get up and stand right where you are ; so he gets up and stands up in bed. You wait some time, and final- ly go up to see what is confining him to nis bed, and to your utter astonishment you find him in bed, without his clothes, standing straight up. You say to him, why don't you come to breakfast ? He replies, you told me to arise and eat, and there is no locomotive pow- er in the word arise, it means to stand up v here you are. By thus carrying out his principles into practice, ke would cause you to think that hi.s Methodism had made him mad. It was enough to say to Paul, " arise and be baptized," for he understood all the rest. Paul, speaking of himself and others, says, " ?re are buried with Chi-ist in baptism." This will do me. But the jailer, he says, was baptized in the jail. — How can a man who has read his bible, make such 70' DEBATE ON BAPTISM an assertion ? Acts 16th says, that the jailer " brought them our of the jail, that Paul preached in his house, (not in the jail,) and after he had heard the word of God, " he took them" from his house and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he, and all his straightway. And after his baptism, " he brought them into his house" again. They were not in the jail when they preached, but in his house ; they were not in his house when they baptized, but went out to do it, and after baptism came back " into his housed If in a house is the place to baptize, why did the Apostle go out at midnight to baptize the jailer? I wonder if Mr. Terrell cannot make it appear that Philip baptized the Eunuch in some house, jail, or on ^/r// ground. If he can prove that coming out of the Jail and going to water to baptize, means to stay in jail, why not prove that going " down into the water" to be baptized, means to be baptized on dry ground ? He certainly can, if he will try, make it out that going down into the water means nothing more than sprin- kled in some house, or poured in some jail. I must now, in the remaining part of my address, recapitulate my arguments. 1. My first argument was, that baptize, in the whole history of the Greek language, has but one meaning. It not only means to immerse, but it never has any other meaning. This argument was sustained by the testimony of some of the wisest and most learned of the Greeks, and others who wrote in the Greek language ; who without exception declared that, that only is baptized which is under water. Indeed, some of them testified that a thing could not be baptized, because it could not go under walcr; showing beyond the reach of con- troversy, that nothing short of immersion can possibly be baptism. If the testimony of the whole Greek world is to be rejected, where shall we go to find the meaning of a A"ND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 71 Greek word ? If the Greeks do not understand their own language, pray tell me who does ? It is a little too silly to hear Methodists of this country say, that the Greeks are not competent to decide upon the mean- ing of a Greek word. The effort to show that the Greeks are not competent witnesses upon the meaning of baptizo, is all to serve a purpose ; for they know that the Greek world is against them. The testimony ofStrabo is of itself sufficient to settle the question; for he says, that in the water of a certain lake a man cannot be baptized, because he cannot go under the icater. Now, I ask any man of reason, if Strabo would have said that a man could not be baptized because he could not go under the luater, if he could have been baptized by having a few drops sprinkled upon his face ? Let Methodists decide, as they have to give an account to their God in the day of eternity. Mr. Terrell made no direct reply 't5 this my first argument ; but he tried to get rid of it by saying Bro. Campbell was against me in going to the classics. — .^ut 1 proved by Bro. Campbell, Prof. Stuart, and Er- nesti, that the " Principles of interpretation are com- mon to sacred and profane waitings, ' and that the word baptizo means in the New Testament what it means everywhere else. He said baptizo was a word of idiom. But I proved that words which express outward physical action, are not the subjects of idiomatic or special law ; and that they mean the same in all languages, nations, and •countries. To this Mr. Terrell has made no reply. His next effort to get rid of my argument was^ that words among the Jews did not mean what they did among the Greeks. But 1 proved by Josephus, a Jew, who wrote his history in the Greek language in the very days of the Apostles, that baptizo among the Jews, in the days of Apostles, meant to immerse, and only to immerse. To this he has made no reply. His first example for another meaning was from 73 DEBATE ON BAPTISM Hippocrates. But I proved by Hippocrates that the word baptizo in his writings meant to immerse, and only to immerse. " Shall 1 not laugh at the man," says he, "who baptizes his ship, by overloading it, and then complains of the sea, that it ini>u'fs it with its cargo."' The putting of a ship under water, he says, was baptizing it. This causes the old blister plaster to draw so severely upon his Methodism, that he found it very convenient to say nothing more about it. His second example was, the baptism of suffering and tears which he professed to quote from Eusebius. But I denied that Eusebius used the word baptizo, and call upon him again and again to prove that he did , but he has found it most convenient, and safe for him- self and cause, to say nothing more about it. This was another splendid failure, and a beautiful comment upon his honesty to boot. Thus my fifst argument stands unmoved, showing that baptizo before, and in the days of Christ and the Apostles, meant to immerse, and only to immerse. 2. My second argument was drawn from the testi- mony of the wisest, the most eminent, and learned pedobaptists of the world ; who, with one voice declare that my proposition is true ; and that " baptizo is not to be interpreted of sprinkling-, but always of immer- sion." A'ow, is there any reason why men should make the confession that they are wrong and others are right, if they knew that they were right and others wrong ? Who does not see that nothing but the force of truth, combined with honesty, could have caused them to confess that sprinkhng is not baptism, anc that baptizo always meant to immerse. To this argument Mr. Terrell rephed, that Dr. Clark. a Methodist, said, that it meant to sprinkle, as well as to immerse. For this argument he ought to be called Williamson Terrell the Great; for if a man can prove his principles right by one of his own party, he cer- tainly must be great. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 73 3. My third argument was drawn from the use of the word in the bible. I proved by the Apostles that when a man was baptized, he was " bin led in baptism.''^ This never can be made to mean buried by having a few drops of water sprinkled on the face. I also proved that Christ commanded the people to be bap- tized in water, and not the water to be baptized upon the people. Now, you cannot sprinkle a man, but you can immerse him; so it follows that immersion was the thing commanded by our Lord. You can sprinkle water upon a man, but you cannot sprinkle a man in water. Christ commanded the man, and not the water to be used. We can immerse a man in wa- ter, but we never can sprinkle him in water. This argument Mr. Terrell has said nothing about. It never has been, nor never can be answered. Let that be remembered. 4. My fourth argument was, that baptizo is the only word in the Greek language which can definitely ex- press the action of immersion; or if baptizo does not, there is no word in that language that can express the action of immersion. The Greek language has a word for sprinkle, a word for pour, and a word for wash, but none of them was ever used to denote the ordinance of baptism ; a clear proof that Christ neither com- manded sprinkling, pouring, nor washing. If he used the strongest word for immersion in the Greek lan- guage, what can be plainer than that immersion was the thing intended ? 5. My fifth and last argument, was drawn from the fact, that the whole Christian church, East and West, practiced immersion only, for thirteen hundred years after Christ. To this universal proposition the only exceptions are, .some two or three persons who were thought to be too sick to be imm.ersed,and consequent- ly the Pope, or some of his tribe allowed them to be sprinkled. The truth of this argument Mr. Terrell has not disputed, nor will he, for ie knows it is true. I 74 DEBATE ON BAPTISM have also proved in connection with this, that when the change was made from immersion to sprinkling, that it was done by the Western or Roman church. — Sprinkling is a part of CathoUcism. " No church," says Dr. Wall, " however corrupt in other respects, has ever dared to change the law of immersion into sprinkling, except the Roman hierarchy^ and those churches which derive their sprinkling from ihsit poUiiled source.''^ As you have all heard the arguments on both sides, we leave the question, without deciding upon the ef- fort of Mr, Terrell. What little he has said, you have all heard. I would however have been greatly pleas- ed, if he had only had manly courage enough to come up and meet my arguments fairly ; but I did not ex- pect it, and consequently am not disappointed. Meth- odists know that the best thing that can be done for Methodism is not to join issue with any one, upon any point. I thank you all for the candid hearing you have given us both. [Time expired.] [mr. Terrell's fifth reply.] Gentlemen Moderators — Ladies and Gentlemen: My friend, Mr. Pritchard makes a great parade over Dr. Wall, how great a man he was, what he knew of the history of the church &c. &c. Dr. Wall was an im- mersionist many other absurd notions, notwithstanding and held the gentleman speaks so highly of him. I wish to set the gentleman right, on the quotation from Acts 2. I did not say that tongues are not spoken of in the passage, or I did not wish to be so understood; bdt it was a tongue that sat upon each of them, and not /orto-we^, as he will have it. It was the tongue of fire that sat upon each of them. He says the same thing that sat upon each one of them, filled the house where they were sitting. I cannot understand him. Mr. Pritchard called fD THE HOLY SPIRIT. 81 ^-heir generations. *' This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me, and you, and thy seed after thee, Every man-child shall be circumcised." You will bear in mind, that it says this shall be an everlasting covenant, and not that it is to terminate. This is the Christian or the gospel covenant, spoken of in Galla- tians 3: 14, and reads as follows : " That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the man- ner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannuleth, or addeth thereto. A^ow 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. And this 1 say, that the promise which was confirmed before of vjlod in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make. the promise of none effect." Here the apostle pleads the claims of the Gentiles. This covenant was con- firmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, and pointed to the Christ- ian dispensation, and consequently was not done away, idthough " Christ was the end ot the law ', &c. Will the gentleman excuse this one, from the common wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and with- out God in the world : but now, in Christ Jesus, y^^ who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall ci partition between us : having abolished in his flesh the eumltv, even the law of commandments contained in ^.4 DEBATE ON BAPTISM ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both xmto G^od in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and come and preached peace to you that were afar off and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God ; and are built Upon the I'oundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple into the Lord : in whom ye are also building together lor aa habitation of God through the Spirit." As my argument is to be a scripture argument, I will read another passage from the 15th chapter of Acts : " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, harken to us: — Simeon hath declared how God at first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. — And to this agree the words of the prophet as it is writ- ten. After this 1 v/ill 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 ihe residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all ihe Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." Here, it is said, xhe Lord will build again his tabernacle — not build a :iew one, as my friend would have it, but build again ihat which lied fallctL down. God's church was that which had fallen down, and that w^hich he declared he would build again ; this he has done, and as his church is the same in all ages, and as children were put in by positive law, it follows that they are still entitled to membership, unless the gentleman can show positive law to exclude them. Till he shows this, they are en- titled to the ordinance of baptism. The olive tree spoken of was the church, and the Jews AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. »5 were cut off from the church, because of unbelief. — The Gentiles were brought in by faith, and are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow- citizens — members of the household of God. This shows that the church remains the same, and that the Gentiles were merely brought into it. (Time expired.) [.MR. PRITCHARD's FIRST REPLY.] Gentlemen Moderators — Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 agree with my friend Mr. Terrell that the proposi- tion to be discussed to-day is a very important one; but not more important than the one we discussed on yes- terday. That it is important, and very important to know who are the proper subjects of baptism, as well as of every other institution of the Lord all agree. — With me, baptism, prayer, the Lord's supper, and every other commandment of the Lord, have their proper subjects; and no man, woman, or child can submit to any of them in obedience to the Lord, but he who is prepared according to the word of God. Mr. Terrell, and myself seem not to have been taught in the samt- school — we have studied under ditferent teachers and consequently have come to different conclusions. It seems to be the opinion of himself and party, that a person can come to God and obey his commandments, as well without faith as with it; but I apprehend he will learn a lesson either in time or eternity, that I have long since learned from my old teacher, viz — "That he who cu7nes to God must believe'' before he can acceptably obt^y the Lord. The real issue between us upon this subject is, Does the Lord require those who neitlier believe nor understand the Gospel, to obey his comandments without faith. The law of the Lord, under which I feel solemnly bound to act, and under which, I think, every conscientious man who understands it will act, says, "He that bdlcveth and is baptized, shall be saved." "Ho DEBATE ON BAPTISM Mark the language! It does not say, that he wlio is bap- lized without faith, reason, or understanding, and af- terwards obtains faitli around a Jiiourneis-hcnch, or some other place, shall he be saved; but he that belic- i-eth first, and is then baptized, shall be saved. I will then, forever raaintain, that the very law of baptism itself, forever excludes from this institution all who do not believe. Mr. Terrell in his hurried and confused way of speaking, has said, in one half hour, almost every thing he has to say, in favor of his infant sprink- ling; and vrho, I am constrained to ask, but himself v/ould over have thought, that the passages which he has brought forward proved that infants were to be bap- tized vathout faith, reason, understanding, appreheu-- sion or comprehension? Not one of them, so far as I nov/ remember, speaks of infants, as the proper sub- jects of baptism, or of any thing else. It seems to be rather a difiicult matter for him to read )iis notes this morning, which by the by, if I am not mistaken in the writing, were supplied by some other hand. The embarrassment and confusion manifested by him this morning, 1 suppose arise from the fact, that he has something to prove to-day. Sonicthing to prove did I say? Something that he knows he cannot prove, I should have said: He commenced his address by an appeal to the vul- !.^ar feelings of fathers and mothers, as if the people of This country uere possessed of no more sagacity, than to be wheeled into his infant sprinkling dogma without reason, argument, or proof. I know the people now present too well to believe, that any thing short of evi- dence, reason, or necessity will turn them from ihe Old .fcrusalem Gospel, to the newfangled notions of mod- ern Pedo-baptists parties. The question, he says, is, shall we have our children baptized and brought into the church? or shall we leave them out of the church, ?rz7/w?/^ any jrovision for their the Christian Church and into the Christian covenant; for if I am not very much mistaken, he will find this into fatal to his cause, before this discussion shall close. • ■ But he told you that the church has been the same in all ages, and that infants always were in the Church and of right ought to be, where rt/on? there is safety. — But did he prove, or did he try to prove, that they were always baptized i//^o it, and that this baptism was e<- *^ential to their eternal well-being, in the world to r.ome? The door into the Jewish church was just as as wide, as the door into the w^orld; and all the Jewish children Sintered into that old fks.hli/ establishment, as they en- 88» DEBATE ON BAPTISES tered into the world by natural birth. But he asserted among the thousand and one assettions which he has made without proof, that the covenant of circumcision was the Christian covenant. Mr. Terrell had certain- ly forgotten that he said, but a few minutes before, that 1 agreed with him that when we enter into the Gos- pel covenant, we are baptized into it. Were the tieshly seed of Abraham baptized f?ito the covenant of circum- oision, Mr. Terrell? Error is an inconsistent thing, and. very disgraceful, and distructive to the understandings^ of those who hold it. But infants, he says, were in the Abrahamic covenant. The issue is not whether infants were in the Abrahamic or any other covenant; but whether they are proper subjects of baptism. To prove that infants were in the covenant, and that they entered into it without bap- tism, comes not within a thousand miles of his propo- sition. The argument is this: Children v/ere in the Abrahamic covenant. But they entered into it, not by baptism, but by nat- ural birih. Thei'efore, children cannot enter into the Abraham- ic covenant, without being baptizc^d into it ! ! Mr. Ter- rell must think that we are a silly stupid set. I must say a word or two more about the covenant of circumcision being the Gospel covenant. The cov- «:nant of circumcision excluded from the Jewish church, and put to death all uncircumcised male members: '•That soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant," says the Lord. Now, it is a fact, that the Christian covenant forbids any man to be circumcised; "If any man among you shall be cir- cumcumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing." See Gal. 5: 2. Now, if Mr. Terrell's position be true; then we have it, that, if you are not circumcised, you shall be cut off from the people of God, and if you are cir- cumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. That is, if you obo^y you shall be damned^ and if you do not AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, ^9> obey you shall be damned. Poor infant sprinkling, how art thou strained for proof? These infant sprinklers are lame both in their limds and their //rf/.v; they can neither see the inconsistencies, nor step around the difficulties, absurdities, and con- tradictions into which they have immersed themselves^ in their theological embarrassments. I do not recol- lect to have ever heard an argument in favor of infant sprinkling, but what directly contradicted the bible, or some item of the man's creed who offered it. Mr. Terrell, to prove the identitif of the Jewish and Christ- ian churches, said ; they are one and the same, because they both have the same name. This argument, which he seems to have borrowed from Mr. Mc'Cealla, is a strange thing under the sun. Two men are onrist ; for Abraham was ninely and nine years of age, when the Lord " gave him the covenant of circumcision." It cannot be the Christian covenant for the following reasons: 1 . Males only were required to obey it — •' Every man-child among you shall circumcised." But, fe- males, as well as males are required to obey the Christ- ^2 DEBATE ON BAPTISM ian covenant; for "In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heir5> according to the promise." 2. The covenant of circumcision, was a covenant 'hi the flesh — " My covenant shall be m your jlesh.'''' — The Christian covenant is not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. I defy Mr. Terrell or any other man of his party to show, that the new covenant is nov/, or ever was a covenant in the Jlesh. 3. The covenant of circumcision required every man- child to be circumcised, and he who was not circum- cised, was to be " cut off from his people." But the neio forbids any man to be circumcised — " If any man among you shall be circumcised, he will fall from grace, and Christ shall profit him nothing." 4. That covenant required Abraham to circumcise all that were born in his house, or bought with his mo- ney. But the new is not founded upon flesh nor property. but upon faith. " They that be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham." Now, I assert that Mr. Terrell will not dare to af- afiirm, that the new covenant is a covenant in the flesh. By what authority then does he say, that tjje covenant of circumcision is the Christian covenant? 1 will now proceed to show you, and I hope to suc- ceed in showing Mr. Terrell, that neither the one nor the other of these can be the new and everlasting cov- enant which the good Lord makes with Abraham's children according the Spirit. Something lil^e a thousand or twelve hundred years after all these covenants were made with Abraham, the Spirit of the Lord, speaking by the Prophet Jere- miah, said : " Behold the day comes, saith the Lord, when I ?/;/// makc''^ (not have made) " a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juclah." But Mr. Terrell says, That cannot be true ; for all the eov- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 93 ^2nants that the Lord ever made with the house of Is- rael, he made more than a thousand years before the days of Jeremiah:- for " the covenant of circumcision is the Christian covenant." The same Spirit, speaking by the prophet Isaiah, said : " IncHne your ear and come unto me : hear, and your soul shall live ; and I vAll make (not have made) " an everlasting covenant with you." But Mr. Terrell says, that cannot be true ; for the new and everlasting covenant was made more than a thousand years before Isaiah lived — " The covenant of circum- cision is the Christian covenant." But with whom does the Lord promise to make this everlasting covenant ? With such, and such only, as incline their ears and come to him ; and //ear, that their souls may live. Mr. Terrell, however, says, that can- not be true; for infants can enter into the new cov- enant by baptism, with inclining their ears, coming to God, or hearing that their souls may live. Which shall we believe, Mr. Terrell, or the bible? Paul says : '• But now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a hf iter covenant, which was established upon bdto' promises." But Mr. Terrell, presuming, I suppose, to understand the matter better than Paul, says : There is no belter covenant, established upon bet- ter promises ; for it is the same old covenant of circum- cision, made with Abraham. Paul says : " For if that Jirst covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.''' Mr. Terrell has discovered, what Paul did not know, that the Jlrst covenant was faultless. and that there is no second. Poor Paul, how little you knew about the covenants, when compared with the wandering circuitcers of the Methodist fraternity ! ! Paul ought to have attended one Methodist conference be- fore he died, that he might have been possessed of all wisdom, and of all knowledge ! 94 ' DEBATE OK BAPTISM In Speaking of the second or better covenant whicfj %vas established upon better promises, Pauls says, it shall be "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers." Mr. Terrell says, it is according to the covenant that he made with their fathers ; for it is the same old covenant of circumcision. We have now seen that it is a second and better covenant, established upon better promises, and that it is not according to the old ; but we have not seen what it is. Well, the apostle proceeds now to tell us : " This is the covenant that I will make with the housr of Israel after those days, saith the Lord." Well, what is it? Is it, that "in thee shall all the nation> of the earth be blessed"? Is it, that " I will give you this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river of Euphrates"? Is it, that "every man-child among you shall be circumcised"? It is, according to Mr. Terrell, but we all know better. Well, what is it then ? \Vhy, " I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people : and they shall no more teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be mer- ciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Here is the covenant that God makes with us, and it is neither the covenant of circumcision, nor the cov enant concerning the land of Canaan. Here let us pause and note some of the difterences between the new and the old, the better and the worse, the first and the last covenants, of which the apostle spcak-j. 1. And the first is: The new covenant is Z^t^//^? , and established upon better promises than the old. 2. The old had favJls, but the new is Ja'i't ess. 3. The new is said to be not accord m:^- to the old.-- It is wholly unlike it. 4. The old was written upon two tables ofstooe. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 9$ but the new is written upon the minds and hearts of God's believing children. 5. Into the old covenant children entered by natural birth ; and if they ever knew the Lord, they had to be taught to know him after they entered into it. But we enter into the new by spiritual birth, and consequently we are " no more to U-aW'' (in the new covenant as they did in the old) " every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord ; for all" (that are in the covenant) " shall know me, from the least to the greatest." " Incine your ear and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live," first, and then, " I will make an everlasting covenant with you." So we see they are taught to know the Lord before they enter the covenant ; and consequently have no need of be- ing taught to know him alter thpy are in. Mr. Terrell -knou's that this language was designed to cut off his infant membership, and his infant sprinkling, and this is the reason why he wants to take us back to circum- cision. It will not do ; for the \'eYy ka^t one in the Christian covenant is to know the Lord. Now, before hs asserts again that infants are in the Christian covenant, let him show in what sen.se these least ones, that he sprinkles into his Methodist covenant, can know the Lord. 6. In the old covenant, '* he who transgressed the law died without mercy ;^- but in the new, the j^ord says» ''1 will be merciful to their unrighteou:^ness." 7. In the old there was a " remembrance made again of sins every year;" and consequently the members of the Jewish church had to make offerings again and again for the sam^ sins. But when the conscience is purged from gilt, by the blood of Christ, llie great sin offering, and the body washed in pure water, in obe- dience to the Lord Jesus, the mediator of the new and better covenant, the Almighty says: '• Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.''' Now, 1 wish it to be remembered, 96 DEBATE ON BAPTISM 1. That all tliat are in the new covenant know the Lord, from the least to the great. 2. That every one in the new covenant was an un- righteous person, before he entered into it — " 1 will he merciful to their unrighteousness." This language cannot be applied to infants, for they are not un- righteous. 3. That they were all sinners, and guilty of doing iniquity before they entered into the covenant — " And their sins^^ (not sin) " and their iniquities''^ (not the in- iquity of Adam) will I remember no more." This shows too, that they were all pardoned persons. Now, is there a man in this house who does not see, that this language cannot be applied to infants who have never been guilty of one sin of their own. Now, if it is true that «// who are in the new covenant hiow the Lord, that they had all been sinners, that they had all been unrighteous, and that they had all received a free pardon of all their own sin^; does it not fellow, that in- fants were not among the number, and that Mr. Ter- rell's notion of infant membership is wholly outside of the Bible. Let him come to the New Testament and prove in his next speech, if he can, that Christ com- manded, and the apostles practised infant baptism. (Time expired.) [mr. Terrell's 2d address — >Jd prop.] j\ly Christian friends: I thank Mr. Pritchard for his allusion to my strength. It is very good to have strength, as he will learn before we get through. 1 expect to make my cau.se appear Stronger than the physical strength of him who advo- cates it. He also spoke of my notes not being in my own hand write. I would inform the geft- lleman that 1 can do my own writing. If I am not mistaken he can testify at least, that I can make wij mark.. He smiles and winks as if he expected to brow- beat me out of my arguments. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 97 [Here the president moderator said that was not rel- evant. Mr. Terrell proceeded.] Mr. Pritchard accused not only me, but my brethren also, of believing in infant damnation. He represe»- ted us as believing in the damnation of all unbaptized infants. This I deny, as a most ungrounded misrepre- sentation; and I call upon him for the proof. Let him prove it if he can. He tells us of three covenants fspoken of in the r2th, loth and 17th chapters of Genesis. In tliis he has ta- ken the same course Mr. Campbell did, and followed out that course almo.st to the letter. In doing this he has attelnpted to make three promises, all relating to the land of Canaan. But this I deny. 1 admit there were many temporal promises made in the covenant. AH these promises in the one covenant were tyipcal. There was but one land promised in the covenant, and that earthly land had reference to a heavenly land; hence Canaan was typical of a better country. Do the stars of heaven refer to the earihly Canaan. It is Mr. Pritchard that confounds law and Gospel, and not me. I know that m Hebrews 8: 6, 10, Paul speaks of two covenants, but this is the last chapter iVom which he should have quoted. The old covenant here referred to, means the old covenant, where God took the Isra- elites by the hand to lead them up out of Egypt. It has no reference to rescinding the law of jMoses. House of Israel means the family of Israel; and I know it does not mean the church, as my friend says. It means house, or household. 1 will make a new cove- nant with Abraham's household, or family. The gentleman quotes the words of the prophet; "all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." I un- derstand this to be coming into covenant relation with God — into the church. Mr. Pritchard contends that all their sins are forgiven in baptism; but the passage sa>K *' their sins and their iniquities will I remember r.o G 93. ^ DEBATE ON BAPTISM more." This passage teaches all, from the least to tl,.^- grealest shall know the Lord — that is ihey shall come into the church; yet the gentlennan would keep them out. I do not prostrate the plaUi^f pardon as the gen- tleman accused me. He speaks of the sins of babies, and questions me ir. regard to them. But I would say in the words of ait apostle "as all have sinned, all are condemned;" bu' we baptize infants because their sins have been par- doned, and not that they may be. We baptize then: because they are in the covenant, and not to puttheni into it. Baptism is a tok:m, or mark, which all are en- titled to who are in the covenant; and as inftmts havf: heen redeemed by the blood of Christ, they are enti- tled to this seal. We thus give them the seal to indue: them into the church, in view of religious instruction, and not to save them from eternal damnation, as thif. gentleman has falsely represented our church. The gentleman need not smile and wink then, as though he intended or expected to brow-beat me in this discus- sion, and thus get me off from the question, if thoC is his intention he has got the wrong man. it the covenant was not confirmed by circumcisiot^. let the gentleman tell what it was confirmed by. This is made clear by Romans 4th chapter and I4th verse, in the following words: for if they which are of the law by heirs, faith is Rriade void, and the promise made of none effect; because the lav/ worketh wrath; for uhere no law is, there is no transgression. Therefor'^ it is of faith, that it mighS be by grace, to the end tlu promise might be sure to a.11 the seed, not to that onl> v/hich is ol the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us ail, (as is within, I have made thee a father of many nations.) before hin^ whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth thr, dead, and calleth those things which be not as though, they were." Again we read in the 3d chapter and 29th verse .>: AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 99 Gallatians, where it is said, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according, to the promise." Yeslshmael andEson were included in the covenant, though they participated not in the temporal promises; yet they were embraced, as I have shown in the spiritual promises. But the gentleman thinks I follow Mr. McCalla. — Well, it is not very strange if I should! I suppose that the course of any intelligent preacher of my views would pursue; would bethe course mainlythey all would pursue; but I would inform the gentleman that although I havehadMr. Campbell's andMr. McCalla's debatelying in my house for some months, that I have not read ten pages in it. Therefore if I follow the course pursued by Mr. McCalla, it is only because I agree with him, and rely upon the* same evidences he did, and come to the same conclusions. Upon anti-pedo-baptist principles, the time will never come when all shall know the Lord, for they exclude infants from the church or from being recognized as knowing the Lord, and con.sequently as long as there are infants there will be of those who do not know the Lord. Upon the gentleman's principles then, the time will never come when all will know the Lord. But the true state of the case is, all in the church are recognized as knowing the Lord, and the prophet looked forward to the time when the church should be universal, when all should know the Lord from the least to the greatest. This will include all, both infants and!adults;in the place of being an argument against me, furnishes a strong argument in my favor. When that prophec^y shall be fulfilled alli\om the hast to the gj-ca test, shall know the Lord. Mr. Pritchard remarks that all entered the old church by a natural birth, and therefore all infants were in the church. Well, we baptize them because they are al- ready in the kingdom, and not to take them into the kingdom. The gentleman ha? become so accustome'l 100 DEBATE ON BAPTISM fio talking about baptizing into the kingdom that he keeps on in the same strain when he talks for me, but I wish him to remember, that we do not baptize persons hito the kingdom of God, but merely into our branch of The visible church. Let him remember this, and he will have enough to do without browbeating me. He need not think to get me off from the point by laughing, winking and nodding. Such deportment may suit his views and his cause [Here the president moderator said, I shall have to call you to order Mr. Terrell.] Mr. Terrell said 1 think I am as near in order as Mr. Pritchard was in his last speech. [President moderator said, That is true. You werr both out of order. Our being wrong yesterday, is no " eason w^hy we should continue wrong to-day. Mr, Terrell proceeded.] The gentleman confounds the making and the con- firming of the covenants. He makes one covenant at :he making of the covenant, and another at the confir- mation of the covenant. This 1 will now show by rea- fiing Genesis 17, beginning verse 2: ''And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply Lhee exceedingly. And Abraham fell on his face and God talked with him, saying. As for me behold my cov- enant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of n?any nations. Neither shalt thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I wilt make nations of thee and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establis/i my covenant between me and thee and thy seed aftc^f thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee. And 1 will give unto thee and thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, aJJ the land of Caanan for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou sbaltkeep my covenaTit. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 101 thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and thee and thy seed after thee; every man-child shall bi^ circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and itshall be a token of the covenant between me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, and every man-child in your generations; he that is born in thy house, or bought with thy money from any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shaH be cut off from his people; he hath broken my cove- nant."' This relates to the gospel covenant clearly, for it is mentioned, Gen. 14, Gen. 16, and Gen. 17, the lat- ter of which 1 have now read at full length. Is it not clear that he speaks of the same covenant all the time; and is it not equally plain that it is the gospel cove- nant? I affirm that it is, and all the distinctions the gentleman ever can make, by referring to different pla- ces where the covenant is spoken of, can never make it mean any thing else. Again, Gal. 3: 29, we are. informed that "if we be Christ's then are we Abraham's seed, and heirs accbi-ding to the promise." Thus you will discover, we are constituted Abraham's seed, and as baptism comes in the room of circumcision, we are required to have our children baptized. The gentleman says, I contradicted myself about the new name; but he is only in a mistake about that mat- ter. The fact that the clmrch was to have a new name, is very clear evidence of the continuation of the same church. I have now shown that when the gospel covenant was first made with Abraham that it included infants. God put them in the church by a positive law, and 1 ar- gue that they cannot be put out only by a positive law; A 02 DEBATE ON BAPTlSiM and the gentleman has shown no such law, and 1 pre- 'iume he will not show any such law. I have also shown that the same church organized in Abraham's day was to continue while time itself should 'Continue, and that infants were in it. in that day and that they cannot be excluded without positive law. — Mas he ever shown where they were excluded? Sure- ly he has not, and equally sure it is thatiie cannot. My christian friends, it was the intention of God, that you should give your children up to the Lord, in baptism, and that you should bring them up in the nur- ture and admonitions of the Lord. Mr. Pritchard has by no means convinced me that my children are exclu- ded from this privilege; nor do I believe he has suc- ceeded in convincing this audience, that their children are to be suffered to grow up in infidelity. I see that my time has almost expired, and I must bring my remarks to a close, and hear what my friend <*an say to these arguments. I hope he will come up to the point and meet the question fairly, and make the best elFort he is able to. MR. pritchard's second reply. Gentlemen Moderators — Mr. Terrell commenced his last address by inform- iitg you, than he expected to make his cause stronger than the physical strength of him who advocates it. — Well, if he does, I shall be mistaken. It, to me, re- jsembles more the " lean kinc'^ of Pharaoh, than the hearty and healthy appearance of my friend Mr. Terrell. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob looked for heaven, he says, and therefore, the covenant of circumcision was the Gospel covenant. U he w^ished to make his argu- ment complete, and put it beyond the reach of a reply, why did he not say, " Of the Jews five times Paul re- ceived forty stnpf^s save one ;" and therefore, the cove- nant of circumcision was the Gospel covenant ? AND tHE HOLY SPIRIT. 103 Feeling liimself unable to reply to my argument rom the 8th chap, of Hebrews, and knowing that it ibrever puts an end to the question, whether infants are members of the 7?/??/? covenant, or of the Christian hurch, he tells you that the covenant of which the apostle speaks is not yd inade, and will not be, till the world shall be converted and brought into the church. This ridiculous and unscriptural notion, so common amons: the advocates of Millcrism and infant sprink- ling, has been answered and refuted a thousand and one times by the advocates of truth. In the sixth verse. Paul says : " But now^^ (not ?/'///, when all the world shall be converted and brought into the church) •but now hath lie obtained a more excellent ministry, oy how much also he is (not will be, but is) the media- tor of a Letter covenant, which i^«.v" (not will be, but u-as) '• established upon better promises." In the last verse of the 8th chap, of Ileb. the apostle ■says the old covenant had " decayed, icaxed old, and was readif to vanish away " If it had decayed^ and was ? eady to vanish away in the days of Paul, it is certainly gone before this. Now, suppose we admit, for argument sake, that Paul was right in saying the old covenant had vanished away; and that Mr. Terrell is right in saying tliat the new is not yet made; and what fol- low^s? Why, if the old is gone, and the new not made, it w-ill follow, that we are without any covenant with ^Tod; and consequently without God, and without hope in the world. Mr. Terrell and his party \vould not only damn unbaptized infants, but all the rest of us. for the sake of their infant membership. By the way, Mr. Terrell told you, that I misrepre- sented him and his brethren, by saying they are be- lievers in infant damnation. Mr. Terrell himself de- clared this morning, in the presence of you all, that unbaptized infants are out of the church, without any provision for their et<'rnal loell-hnns:; so he believes it, and I will now prove that his brethren believe the 104 DEBATE ON BAPTISM same thing. I hold in my hand a book called " Doc- trinal Tracts," published in 1836, for the M. E. Church, " by order of the General Conference.*' This book it* intended to " explain severalimportant points of scriptural doctrine f^ so, of course, whatever it contains, we are to regard as an explayuition of some point of •' scriptural doctrine."' Well, wiiat does it say about the "Scrip- tural doctrine"' of infant damnation ! 1 read on page 251. "If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way they cannot he saved, unless this'''' (original sin) '^be Wished away by baptism. It has been already proved, that this original stain cleaves to every child of man ; and that hereby they are " children of wrath, and liable? to eternal damnation .^^ On page 247, I find the following : " It is certain, by God's word, that children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved.''' Now, from these two passages w^e learn the follow- ing facts, in relation to this " Scripture doctrine" of the General Conference : 1st. That all infants are guilty of original sin, and " cnniwl he samd unless this be wash- ed away by baptism." 2nd. That in consequenc^e of original sin, all infants are ^^ children of wrath ^ and lia- ble to eternal damnation.^'' 3rd. That all baptized in fants, who ^^ die before they commit actual sin, are saved."" Now, if it " is certain that baptized infants are saved, and that unbaptized infants ^^ caimut be saved ;'^ what can be plainer than that they must be damned ? In the "Discipline of the M. E. Church/' \ve have this awful notion of the party to which Mr. Terrell be- longs, equally as plainly and clearly taught. The minister, (as we learn from page J 03 and 104) after exhorting the members to "call upon God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, to grant to this chilrf^ (in bap- tism) "Mrt^ thing which by nature he cannot have/* AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 105 prays for " that thing'' himself, in the following man- ner : "We beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt look upon this child: wash him" (from original sin) " and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost ; that he being delivcrei from thy wrath,'' (a minister of Methodism praying to the Lord, that a little infant may be ''delivered from his wrath." May the good Lord have mercy upon such ignorance) '• may be received into the arlv of Christ's Church." Again, he prays : " O merciful God, grant that the dd Adam in this rhild may be so buried" (in baptism) " that the new man may be raised up in him. Grant that all carnal affections" {carnal aii'ections in a little infant) " may die in him," (what a powerful thing infant sprinkling is, to kill all cai-nal affections in a neic-born bate) '• and that ail things belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in him. Grant that he" (the little infant) " may have j)ower and strength to have victory" (so without bap- tism an infant cannot have victory) " and to triumjjk against the devil, the world, and the flesh." Now, my Christian friends, if any one should ever ask you again for the benefits and blessings of infant sprinkUng, just tell him that the " Discipline o[ our church" says : " It washes an infant from original sin, delivers it from God's ivra'h, buries the old Adam in ?7, kills all its carnal afiections, gives it power and strength to have victory, and power and strength to triumph against the devil, the world, and the Jlesh. If this is all true, who would not have his children sprinkled, and " dedicaU.d to tlie Lord by our office and our ministry., that they may receive such ' everlasting rewards.' " Mr, Terrell says, it is not true that there were three covenants made with Abraham, and calls upon me, af- ter I have done it, to prove that there were more than one. Well, as Bro. Campbell said to Mr. Rice, "I must tell him the story the second time. Paul to the Ro- mans, 9th chap., says : '^ To the Israelites pertain the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giv- 106 DEBATE ON BAPTISM ing of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;.'' There was, then, besides the law and the promises, a plurality of covenants given to Israel. This only proves a plurality of covenants. And to lind out the'amount of this plurality, I go to the history of the Jews, begin- ning, of course, w^ith the founder of the religion, or the lather of the faithful. God made but one covenant with all Israel, at llearah, therefore, that being also named, and covimants besides, we are obliged to look for a history of those transactions in the Abrahamic family, designated by that name. I have, then, clearly distinguished and documented with proof no less than three covenants, made with Abraham ; — two based on the first promise, and one on the second. The one on the second, is that which concerns us, because Paul calls it "the gospel, in its origin," and the first indica- tion of Gentile justification. Galatians iii. 8 : This is the gospel covenant, called by the sama apostle and in the same epistle, " the covenant concerning Chriat.^^ — The covenant is made out, denominated, and even dated by the same apostle. He says it was made four hundred and thirty years before the law — chap. iii. 15. He says — " Brethren, I speak after the manner of men ; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be corijirm- cl^ no man disannuleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, even to thy seed, which is the Christ. Now then, I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God. in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make th^ promise of non-elfect. Nothing can be more clearly expressed. Here is a covenant named, described, dated. We can have its date most accurately traced. Abraham was seventy-five years old when the two promises were given him ; one, concerning the Messi- .•«h, as aforesaid — and one, concerning his family, with a reference thereunto. He was one hundred years AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 107 ilcl when Isaac was born. Isaac was sixty when Jacob vvas born, and Jacob told Pharaoh, when he went down nto Egypt with his family, that he was one hundred and thirty years old. Now add the respective sums of 25X GOX 130-=215. Now, Sir Isaac Newton's Chro- nology, arch-bishop Vsher's the commonly received chronology, make the whole sojourning in Egypt 215 years, which two sums exactly make 430 years, from the covenant concerning the Messiah, to have trans- pired before the giving of the law, as Paul expressly declares. We have, then, one covenant indisputably made out and dated. We shall now look for a second. This we find amply delineated in the 15th chapter of Gene- '^is, about ten, or twelve years at most, after the for- mer. This covenant, as I have already stated, had respect to the promised inheritance. It was made to define, and secure the patrimony of the sons of Abra- ham in the line of the promised seed. While confirm- ing it over sacrifice, the Lord informed the patriarch, that his posterity should be sojourners, strangers and oppressed, for four hundred years. In the fourth gen- eration they shall come to this land again, for the cup of the Amorites is not yet full. " //z that same dai/,''^ says Moses, " the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphra- tes." Can any language more definitely designate the making of a covenant on a certain day than this? — Examine Gen. xv. 7, 21. I have fixed this covenant in the 8Gth year of Abraham, because immediately after it we are informed of the birth of Ishmael, who was thirteen years old at the date of the covenant of cir- cumcision, to which I next invite your attention. It will require no proof, I presume, to any one ac- quainted with ancient patriarchal history, that the covenant styled by Stephen, " the covenant of circum- cision," was made one year before the birth of Isaac, 108 DEBATE ON BAPTISM and in the ninety-ninth year of Abraham, twenty four or twenty-five years after the '^ covenant concerning Christ." We have all the dates given, the covenants detailed in the 17th of Genesis, and even down to- Acts vii. 8, denominated as follows : " And he gave him the covenant of circumcision, and then Abraham begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day." — We have, then, delineated three distinct covenants made with Abraham during the period of five and twenty years; and no man can connect these three in- to one covenant. The parties were always the same, but the stipulations, pledges, seals, objects, and datecs, are just as different as any three transactions ever made between one and the same two persons. Mr. Terrell told you, that I agreed with him that bap* tism is the act by wdiich we pass into the church, and into the gospel covenant. I replied, by showing that he, in this ^' agreement," refuted his notion of the iden- tity of the two churches, and of the two covenants; for it is manifestly plain, I think, to every one who has read the bible, that the Jews w^ere not baptized m/othe Jewish church and covenant. Now, if it is true, that they entered into the old covenant and Jewish church by natural birth^ and that we cannot enter into the new cov- enat and Christian church, but by baptism, does it not follow, that the two churches, and the two covenants, are not idenlicaUy the same ? But the gentleman dis- covering, in his last speech, the difficulties into which he had plunged himself by this '' agreement" of ours, told you that he does not baptize children to bring them into the church, but because they are in the diurc'i. In his first speech this morning, '• unbaptizcd infants were out of the church, without any provision for their eter- nal well-being;" and I agreed with him, he said, that no one can enter into the church, but by baptism. — But now, only one hour afterwards, he tells us, that he does not believe one word ol what he told us about this " agreement" between us ; for he does not baptize AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. WJ infants into the church, but becaus^' 'they are in the church hy natural birth. I think his brethren will hardly thank him for this defence of their Methodism ; for it is know to Mr. Terrell, and to every Methodist in this house, that he has, in his last statement of his faith, re- nounced and given up all the principles of his party upon the subject of baptism. Methodists believe, and have always taught, that by baptism we " enter into covenant with God," into the Christian church, and i«- to heaven hereafter. Upon this point, they not only '' agree" with us, but go beyond us, and are able at any time to out Campbell even Campbell himself. — Hear what the " General Conference" has published to the world, as the principles of the party, in " Doc- trinal Tracts :" " By baptism we are admitted iv.to the churchy and consequently made members of Christ, its head." The Jews were admitted into the church by circumcision, so are the Christians by baptism. "For as many as are baptized into Christ," in his name " have" thereby ^' put on Christ." Gal. iii. 27. Page 248. " Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto; if we repent, believe, and obey the Gospel : Supposing this, as it a^lmits us into the church here, so intogloiy hereafter^ p. 249. This, then, is Itlethedism ; but Mr. Terrell says he does not believe one word of it ; for he does not bap- tize people hito the Church, but because they are Ik the church. This thing, called the " Discipline of the M. K. Church" says, " None can cvder into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of laatcr and of the Holy Ghost;" but Mr. Terrell docs not be- lieve such Methodism as that. This book, (Doctrinal Tracts) not only teaches- that we enter into the church here, and into glory hereafter by baptism, but that it is by baptism that we enter into the new covenant, as I will show yoa. [Here Mr. V 110 DEBATB ON BAPTISM paused for a moment, looked at the book, and said] 1 cannot find the passage just now ; but I have a good memory, upon which I can depend, and from that, I feel certain, I can ^ive you the very lan- guage. It reads: "By baptism we ent^r into cov- enant with God ; into that everlasting covenant, whicl; he hath commanded forever.-' Let Mr. Terrell dis- pute, or call in question the correctness of this quota - tation if he dares, and it shall be forthcoming. Now I fearlessly affirm, that he has renounced Meth- odism — given up the principles of his party; and that he cannot find one respectable writer in the fraternity who agrees with him, that infants are baptized be- cause they are in the church. While the gentleman M^as laboring on this point, in his embarrassment, he found that the most conveniens way to get offirom it was, to turn aside and blackguard me for '^ smiling and jvin/.ing at my friends." That I smiled is true, but that I iiinked at my friends, or am one else, is not the fact. If we have, or ^\ish to have a pleasant discussion, I think it very important that 1 i!.hould smile occasionally ; for Mr. Terrell has looke«l more like a thunder- cloud since this discussion com- menced, than like a mild and pleasant gentleman, i always smile when I am pleased. Poor fellow, I knon he cannot smile, till he gets out of this discussion. The covenant concerning the land of Canaan, and the covenant of circumcision, he says, were not separ- ate and distinct covenants, but adjuncts to that con- cerning Christ. This is something the Redeemer did not know; for he supposed that they were adjuncts ti> the law of Moses: "You circumcise on the Sabbath day,'' said he to the Jews, " that ihii law of Pluses may not be Iroken.''^ If circumcision was not an '-adjunct" oi\the law, how could a man break the law by not be- ing circumcised? I nmst now notice some of the passages which he ha< brouiiht forward to prove the idtnity of the Jewish an I AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1 1 | Christian churches. Ephesiaus ii 14, 15, is one of hi> proofs for identity : " For he is our peace, who hath made both'' (Jews and Gentiles) ''one, and hath broken tlown the middle wall of partition between us; having^ abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of com- mandments contained in ordinances ; to make in him- self of tuain one new man, so making peace." This needs no comment. Christ broke down the law of commandments, and with it abolished the Jewish church, and the Jewish religion, that he might make of the tuain — Jews and Gentiles, " one new man^^ — a netc church, so making peace. Strange proof this for iden- tity. I now take this passage to myself, and shall for- ever maintain that it was intended to refute this very notion oiideniUy. It is not the old man or church of the Jews, but " one new man'' — a new body, a new church for God. 1 wish now to call your attention to a passage which Mr. Terrell has read from Romans, xi. chapter: '• And if some of the branches be broken off, and thoix being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among thenu and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast not against the branches. But if thois boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. — Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken of], that I might be graffed in. Well, because of unbehet they w^ere broken oft'; and thou standest by faith.'*— (Not by pedobaptism.) " Be not high-minded, but fear ; for if God spared not the natural branches, tak^=- heed lest he also spare not thee." Who, in all this world, i am constrained to ask, but him who has a purpose to serve, would ever think that this passage proved the identity of the Jewish anere- fore and tcacfi all nations, baptizing them, in the narnf of the Father, and of Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 1 have commanded you.*' Now, as infants had always been 116 DEBATE ON BAPTISM entitled to church membership, and had always been permitted to receive the seal of the covenant, it is proof that they are still entitled to church membership, and had always been permitted to receive the seal of the covenant, it is proof that they are still entitled to church membership, unless excluded by pos- itive law. If the Lord thought of excluding them, surely he would have said so, for theyiliad previously been entitled to that privilege. Let him show me, then, where the Savior or the Apostles ever excluded them, for if they are not excluded by positive law, or if the scripture is silent on the subject, it follows that children are yet entitled to church membership, and of course, to baptism the seal of it. The commission included ^^all mllon^y^ and children !i ad always been entitled to church membership, and 110 commandment in the New Testament is found to put them out or to prohibit them. And we have seen that they were put into the covenant by a positive law and I argue that they could not be put out or probibi- led fi'om church membership, without a positive law. This is strong ground and here I stand and expect to siand, unmoved by any effort the gentleman can make. When we compare this language with the language of the Savior before referred to, who can doubt that they brought little children to the Savior? He did teach '^suffer little children to come and forbid them not." — How could they come to Christ in Gods appointment, in baptism? Jf they were not to come unto the Savior he would not have told you to "suffer them to come.'* They came into the church and received baptism as a jeal, in view of being taught. This is a token that they are to be brought up in the nurture and admo- nitions of the Lord. Mr. Campbell says, ''the first thing is to come.'-- Not to have faith but to come. But the apostles who are much greater, and our Lord, say come, but Vn. f ritchard would sav, stay aw^ay. Well, baptism i^ -h*. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. IH first institution, and I ask, in what way are they ta come if it be not in baptism? Then, after baptism, teach all things which Christ commanded. This seems to accord with the commission, but the gentleman'.-* doctrine does not. But I must hasten on to my next proof. My next argument will be built upon the household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament. There are four households mentioned in the IN'ew Testament;, that were baptized. Now it is not likely that there were no children in all four of those families ; but oi> the other hand, it is almost certain that there were some children in some of them, at least. The sacred historian mentions the household ol Stephanos. He does not mention the names of the members of the family as a Baptist would have done. A Baptist would have mentioned the names, as John, James, &c. This case furnishes a plain and unan- swerable argument in favor of infant baptism, and one too that the gentleman can never get over. All that is necessary in the case of the baptism of Lydia and household, the Jailor and hi.s household, and the household of Stephanos, is simply to look carefully at the last named case. The apostle, speak- ing of it says, " I baptized none of you but Crispus, and Gains, lest any should say that 1 have baptiz^ed in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanos: besides, I know not whether I baptized any others." I Cor. 1: 14, 15, 16. This is as much a.< to say, Crispus and Gains, who were adults, I baptized — they were all. But his mind appears here to be re- freshed, and he adds, " also the household of Stephan- os.'' Now is it not clear that there were children here':* Surely it is. In the household of Stephanos were chil- dren, and they were baptized, and members of the church. Now I have got my argument pretty fully before the gentleman. ^Ye shall see what he will do with it. 1 S18 DEBATE ON BAPTISM expect; in the place of replying to my arguments, he will complain, as he did before, that I do not reply to his arguments. If he does I cannot help it. 1 have got my course marked out, and he cannot get me from it. I have my proposition to prove, and I did not ex- pect to be able to please him. He can take up his time in telUng how many posi- tions I have occupied, how many contradictions 1 have made, &c.; but the matter is for him to reply to my arguments if he can, and if he cannot to give it up. I see my time is not quite out, but I give the gentle- man the remaining two or three minutes. MR. TRITCHARD's THIRD REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators — This is certainly ihe most singular discussion I have ever been ejigaged in ; for never before did 1 meet a man who was unwilling to pay any attention to what I would say, or too cowardly to join issue with me up- on any point. While discussing the question of the action of baptism on yesterday, instead of meeting me upon the true issue, whether immerse is the literal and proper meaning of baptize, he would first inform the audience, that it was no use for him to reply to every thing 1 said, and then, as a kind o^ chorus, would say : *' Mr. Pritchard has failed," " signally failed," " utterly failed," "and l.re ever must fail;" as if the audience could not see, that his windy braggadocio style was do- ing nothing, and even worse than nothing in favor of his rantism. And now that he is the affirmant, and I have replied to ever}^ thing, great and small, which he has advanced— discussed, dissected, and scattered to the four winds of heaven, each, and every point; he pursues his onward course, asserting and reasserting the same thing over and over again, as if he felt it nei- ther necessary nor important to reply to any thing I say. If he did not intend to debate the proper issues between us with me, why did he consent to enter into AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1 19 this discussion with me ? If he dare not meet me, and discuss the proper questions with me, now that he is here, why did he not stay at home? If he dare not join issue with me, nor even attempt to reply to any thing I sa}', (and it is my solemn and conscientious ^'onviction that he knows he dare not) I must, I sup- pose, permit him to pursue his own course, and I must tr}^ to follow him. This I feel certain I can do. Before replying to the last speech of Mr. Terrell, which, indeed, was but little more than a reiteration of what we have heard, and replied to, I will call your attentions to the question ofidentUij, upon which 1 was speaking at the close of my last speech. I have a few arguments yet to offer, upon which I rely to disprove the identity of the churches and covenants; and to which, 1 hope, Mr. Terrell will have courage enough to reply, that I may have an opportunity of illustrating, defending, and showing their strength. Turn, if you please, to the 4th chapter of Galatians, and hear the apostle from the 21st to the last verse of that chapter. '- Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had tiLO sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free- woman. But he who was of the bond- worn an w-as botvi after the flesh ; but he of the free- woman was by promise. Which things are mi a/lcgojy: for these are the tuo 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 Jeru- salem which now is, and is in bondage with her chil- dren. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother oi^ 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 an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. — But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted iiim that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. [•20 DEBATE ON BAPTISM Nevertheless what saith the Scripture ? Cast out the bond- woman and her son : for the son of the bond- wo- man shall not be heir with the son of tlie free-woman So then, brethren, we* are not children of the bond- woman, but of the free." On this observe 1st that the law and the covenant of Sinai are considered one and the same. Being un- der the law, verse 21, and being under the covenant ii; the alleo;onj are considered by the apostle, as the same circumstance." 2d. Abraham's two waves, Hagar and Sarah reprc- sent the two covenants, the old and the new, " for these are the two covenants." 3d. There is just the difference between the old and new covenants, that there was between Hagar the bond-w^oman, and Sarah the wife of Abraham. When- ever a pedobaptist will prove to me that the two cov- enants are the same, I will prove that Abraham's .^/(n?^, and Abraham's wife, the free-woman, are one and the same. 4th. Ishmael and Isaac resemble or represent the people under the two covenants. Ishmael, the son oi the bond-woman, was loi^n. a slave; for a slave gen- dereth or bringeth forth slaves, not freemen. So did the old Testament or covenant, (see Gal. iv. 4: 7,) compared to Hagar, which is one of the names o! Mount Sinai in x\rabia ; and she, to vuit, Hagar, re- sembles the then present Jerusalem or Jewish Church, which was in bondage under the old covenant. Isaac, the son of the free- worn an, resembled or represented the people under the new covenant, which is called the Jerusalem from above, the Chriatian Church, be- cause proclaimed from heaven, by him who is in hea- ven ; not from Mount Sinai in Arabia, on the earth. 5th. As Ishmael was brought forth in the natural or ordinary means, he fitly denotes the natural descend- ants or fleshly seed of Abraham, who lived under the old covenant*, and constituted the Jewish church, tbe AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 121 members of which were such by natural bh*th. Again, as Isaac was brought forth, not by natural, but by su- j)ernatural means, by ja'uh in Grod's promise, when the bodies of his parents were, as to his production, as good as dead denotes the members of the Christian church Avhich are such not by natural generation, as the Jew- ish or pedobaptist members are, but by being born as Isaac was, by faith in God's promise, or by supernatur- al means. 6th. There is just the difference between the Jewish and Christian churches, that there is between Ishmael the son of the bond- woman, born " e/ftei' thejlesh,^' and Isaac the son of the free- woman, born " afte?^ the Spirit.'" Whenever Mr. Terrell will prove that the Jewish church and Christian church are one and the same, I will pledge myself to prove that Ishmael. born after the flesh, and Isaac, born after the Spirit or by fai/h, are one and ihe same child. Let that be remembered. 7th, As the children of the deserted woman Sarah, whose husband deserted her and associated with Ha- gar, are declared to be more numerous than the chil- dren of Hagar, who possessed the husband of the de- serted Sarah ; so the apostle argues that the spiritual seed, or children of Abraham by frith, born like Isaac, would be more numerous than his natural or literal descendants. 8th. That as Ishmael the child of the flesh, per.secu- ted, by railing and reviling, Isaac the child of promi.se, so the Jews, the natural descendants of Abraham, and tho.se who plead for church membership on the same ground of natural birth, then, and since, and now perse- cute, sometimes by railing and reviling, and in time past, by sword and fauot. those who have been born of the free- woman or the children of faith, the sons of the new covenant. 9th. But what saith the scripture ? Aye, this is the question. What did Sarah say? Mark it well my friends. Mark it well ye pedobaptists. O, it is an 122 DEBATE ON BAPTISM oracle you should never forget. What did Sarah say, as the scripture records? "Cast out," tremendous words, " Cast out the bond-woman,'^ the old covenant compared to Hagar, Disannul it, vacate it, lay it aside, reject it. Is that all ? No, no* Cast out the aon of Hagar also, the people of the old covenant, the Jew- ish church. Yes remember the allegory^ as the Spirit of inspiration has called and represented it. Ishmael denotes all that are merely the children of the flesh. — " Cast out the bond-maid and her son Isiimael." For what reason ? Because it is decreed of heaven, it is declared by God, that the son of the bond-woman, the people of the old covenant, shall not be members under the new covenant, shall not beheirs of the inheritance with the sons of the free- woman, the people who are the sons of Jerusalem which is above, the mother of all believers. 10th. The last item in this paragraph we shall no- tice now in this glorious truth, last verse. ''So then brethren we are not children of the hond-viaid'' — the old covenant, and consequently not the Jewish church, but 0^ th.e free -worn: I n — the new covenant, consequently the Christian church ; and like Isaac, children of Abraham hy faith. Heirs with Christ of an inheritance incorrup- tible, and unfading in the heavens. "If you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed." said an apostle, " and heirs according to the promise." Believers are the only children of Abraham under the Christian dispensation. 11th. Another fact of some importance, in under- standing this question, I will mention — viz : Ishmael the slave, and representative ot the fleshly seed of A- braham, or of the Jewish ehurch, was the clkr of the two. Isaac the son, and representative of the spiritual seed of Abraham, came into being hy faith, after the child according to the flesh was born. The cldi^j' was the servant, the younger the son. So the Jews, the children of the bond- woman, the fleshly seed, were the elder; but the Christians, the children of the frec-wo- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. . 123 man, the spiritual seed, are the younger; and like Isaac, the children of promise. Leaving the family of Abraham, and descending to ihe family of Isaac, we find two children there also pre- ♦iCnted, as the representatives of the Jewish and Christian people, or of the Jewish and Christian churches. When Rebecca had conceived by Isaac, the Lord said unto her, " Two nations are in thy womb, and TWO manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels ; and the one people shall be stronger than the o'her people; and the elder shall servs the ijOungcry — Genesis, xxv, 23. Here we discover that the representatives o{ two na- tions, or o{ two manner of people were to be separated from Rebecca. Now hear Paul in the 9th chapter of his epistle to the Romans: " They are not all Israel which are of Israel : neither, because the}^ are the seed •of Abraham, are they all children : but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is," (now mark) " they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God : but the children of the p7v?mse are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not . speaking to Rebecca, with special reference to these two nations or churches, declared, that they should be "two nations," not one and the same, " and two man- ner of people," people wholly unlike each other. Let Mr. Terrell mark that. I maintain that the Lord ha» declared in this, that the two churches are not one and the same church, but that they are " /wo manner oi people," differing from each other as widely as any two people ever did. Let Mr. Terrell drive me fron^: this, if he can. He may produce a great many proofs ^vhich go to show that the Methodist church, and this old ^^e.s///// establishment of the Jews, are one and the same , but that the Christian and Jewish churches are one, has not, nor never can be proved. I mustreturii and pay my respects to Mr. Terrell again. He says, he did not say that the covenant of Canaan, and the covenant of circumcision were both adjuncts to that concerning Christ, but that the one concerning Canaan was an adjunct, and that circumcision con- Jirmed the covenant. He told us but a short time since that the covenant of circumcision was the CTOspel cov- enant. But now he has discovered, it seems, that it is not the Gospel covenant, but only a mark, by which the Gospel covenant was confirmed. This is an im- portant improvement in his theology." As he has takers one step for the better, I must now try and cause him to take another, and I think he will be pretty nearly AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 125 Tight. That the covenant concerning Christ was not confirmed by circumcision, is evident, as will appear from the following reasons : 1st. The covenant of cir- cumcision was a separate and distinct covenant of it- self — a "covenant in the Jiesh,'^ as I have proved. — 2nd. The covenant concerning Christ was confirmed '■'four hundred and thirty years before the law." Gal. iii. 17. Now it is a fact, that Mr. Terrell ought to have understood, that circumcision was given only four hundred and six years before the law ; twenly- four years after the covenant concerning Christ wa>^ confirmed. It follov/S from this, that it w^as not con- firmed by circumcision. In his first speech he told us that he baptized infants to bring them into the church, where alone there is safety. In his second he told us that he baptized them, not to induct them in o the church, but because they were in the church. He now tells us that this is all wrong ; for, he said in his last speech, he baptizes them to iJiov". that they are in the church. If they are ia the church, and he knows that they are zti, I do not >;ee what/7roof he wants to convince him of it. There are three statements he has made, and only one of them -all can possibly be true. Which does ht? be'ieve ? Baptism, he says, is the seal which the Lord puts up- on his children. Paul did not so understand it, for in his epistle to the Epheslans, 1st chap., 13th verse, he said, " After that you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." Mr. Terrell says it was baptism ; but Paul says it was the Holy Spirit. Which shall we believe ? I wish you, my friends, to remem- ber this, for I shall have use for it, when we come to debate the last proposition. Methodists, he seems to think, are not alone in their belief of infant damnatioi ; for Dr. Thomas, a member of the Reformation, believed the same thing, he tells U5>. Dr. Thomas is not a member of the Reformation. Nor is it true that he believed in the damnation of in- 126 DEBATE ON BAPTISM fants, as Methodists do. He neither believed in dam- nation nor salvation. He was a destructibnist of the iigoled stamp — a blind zealot, immersed in one idea, de- voutly war- sprinkling the no-soul-god of his party ; and for his nolonous course, the brethren have long since " delivered him over to Satan for the destr-udion of the flesh." If Mr. Terrell thinks it any honor to be in company with Dr. Thomas, he is welcome to all such honor. Mr. Terrell has at length found his way into the New Testament. He quotes Mark, 10th chap., " Suf- fer the little children to come unto me," as if that pas- sage had any thing to do with the baptism of infants or adults. Does he not know that Christ did not baptize infants, or any body else? Does he not know that John says, "Jesus himself did not baptize"? (Here Mr. Terrell spoke and said — I know sir, as well as you do, that Jesus never baptized any body.) Mr. Pritchard said — For what then did he quote this pas- sage ? He quoted it to prove infant baptism, but nov.^ tells us, that he knew when he quoted it that Christ did not baptize any one ; and consequently that the passage had nothing to do with the subject on hand. — Are we not then authorized to charge him with icilfulbj and knowingly misapplying a passage of scripture? — (Here Mr. Terrell arose and said — I wish to make a point 0^ order.) Mr. Pritchard — 1 know it harts^y but I can't help it. (Mr. Terrell — No sir, it don't hurt, but I wish to know if the gentleman is not out of order, in charging me with wilfully and knowingly misapplying the scriptures?) Mr. Pritchard — Before the Modera- tors decide that, I wish them to decide another point. I want the Moderators to decide whether 1 was more out of order, in charging him with knowingly misap- plying a passage, than he was, in his closing speech last evening, representing me as an idling gadabout ? Such a stupid, contemptible insult, I regard as more, out of order, than saying a man did, what he confessed AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 127 Le did. (Mr. Terrell — I did not say he was an "idling gadabout ;" I only said, he might have plenty of time to spend in debating.) Mr. Pritchard — you said more than that — you said ' ^Iprobahlj/had nothing else to do.") (Mr. Burress said — It was by implication Mr. Terrell — it was clearly implied in what you said.) (Mr. Ter- rell—I did not intend it as an insult.) Mr. Pritchard — I probably should not have noticed it, if it had not have been for the fact, that you were guilty of the same thing once before. (Mr. Burress — x\s two wrongs cannot make one right, I suppose we will have to say, they were both out of order.) Mr. Pritchard then said — Thank you gentlemen. The Moderators have decided liS both out of order. So we are ju.stei;c7i. I must now return to the last speech of Mr. Terrell.; He told you, that if the New Testament was silent up- on the subject, it is the strongest evidence in the world of infant baptism. Do I understand the gentleman to mean, that if a thing is not commanded we know it ought to be done, but if it is commanded we know it ought not to be done. Is this his position ? My Bible reads, " Keep my commandments," and " nw unto the man who adds to them." He knows the New Testa- ment is silent, and for that reason he wishes to make it an argument in his favor. If I were determined to hold on to the ci-red of a party, without any regard for the Bible, I would tell all the world that such was my intention. I must now, in the remaining part of my time, notice his argument from household baptisms. The first is that of Cornelius, in Acts, 10th chapter. In the 2nd verse it is said, Cornelius " feared God with all his i-rousE." In the thirty-third verse, he said, " Now there- fore are we all hei-e present before God, to hear all THINGS that are commanded thee of God." In the for- ty-fourth verse, it is said, " The Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word." They cdl heard, and the Spirit fell on all who heard the word. But ho\\ 128 DEBATE ON BAPTISM did Peter and his companions know that the Spirit fell on them ? Why, " they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." They " all feared God," they all heard the word, the '* all spoke with tongue-, and mag- nified God." Whenever your children are old enough to fear God, hear his word, speak with tongues, and mag- nify God, baptize them ; but don't do it before. The next is the household of Lydia, Acts, 16th chap. It is not said, they feared God, heard his word, or spoke with tongues ; it is only said, they were baptized. But m the last verse we find this language: "And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the rkktiiren," (not infants) *' they coMF©RTED THEM, aud departed." From this we learn, that they were Brethren, capable of being com- forted by the zz;or^.? of the Apostles. Vv henever your children are old enough to be eomfortcd by the " ex- ceeding great and precious promises" of the Gospel, baptize them, but don't do it before. In the same chapter it is said, the Jailer and all his were baptized; and after his baptism, it is said, he " rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.'" They all believed, and all irjoiceij, and were all baptized. — More than that, " Paul preached unto him the word of God, and to all that were in his huusc.^' tV2d verse. — They all heard, they all telieixd, they were all baptized, .md they all rejoiced in the God of their salvation. — When your children can do all these things, baptize them, but not before. " I baptized also the household of Stephanos," sa\ s Paul. 1st Corinthians, 1st chap., 16th verse. In the last chapter of this same epistle he speaks of the same house. " Brethren," says he, " you know the house of Stephanos, and thy'^ (the household) ^' have a Idicttd ■hemsdves to the minjstry of the saints.'' Here we see. that these 2«/c^7i/5 of Stephanos were prcatheis of the Gospel. These were certainly the .swor/cs/ infants of whom I ever read. I really supposed that I had one ?.ND TK£ HOLY SPIRIT, 129 *fcf the smartest boys in all this country; but, I mast con- fess, that these babes of New Testament memory are ^.marter than mine. Yes, ihey are called by Pan], * the first fruits of yichaia," and after their conver- sion, '* they addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." When your children can become the fruit i:y'^ the incorruptible seed, and afterwards addict them- selves to the ministry of the saints, baptize them, but not before. Mr. Terrell had better abandon the New Testament, and return to the question of uleniiip. for upon that hangs his only hope. [Time expired.] Adjourned to meet at half past 1 o'clock. [mr. Terrell's 4th at/dress — 2d frof."; Gentlemen Moderators; Gentlemen and Ladies : i. wish to say once for all, and 1 wish it distinctly under- stood, that I am not the advocate of two covenants m Heb. 8th. The gentleman has misrepresented me .shamefully and wilfully on this point. I therefore wish. to set the matter right and let this audience know tne position I do occupy at ihe start, The gentleman speaks of the covenant menlioned Hcb., 8th chapter; but the covenant ifiere spoken of was made with the h- use of Israel, a,nd was not the covenant made with Abraham at all. if my friend will remember this it will save him of much diflicuity v/hich he must fall into, if he shall continue inattentive to this important point, Mr. Pritchard could not get ovor the household bap- tisms mentioned in my last spet-ch ; but still he ma^^t say something about them. The household of Ste- phanas is a very plain ca.-e, and a strong case, ciml the gentleman has made no offset to my argument on the baptism of that household. Paul says to the Cor- inthians, <^ I baptized none of you but Crispusand Gai- ns," and I remember no others. Yes, there v/as tIm household of Stephanos, besides v^hich I know not that I baptized any other. I 1 ;,'0 DEBATE ON BAPTISM xMr. Pritcliard allows that the language of scripture, if it proves infant baptism, also proves infant confimu- nion, and infant ministering to the saints ; for it says^ they addicted themselves to the ministering to the >Saints. IJut in all this he is mistaken again. They T,verc baptized among the first fruits of Corinth, and their ministering to the Saints, as mentioned ill scripture, was long enough after their conversion to have grown lip from infancy to the age when they would be capa- ble ofininistering to the Saints; In the providence of Godj this household was ad- dicted to ministering to the Saints, but that minister- ing did not, as Mr. Pritchard seems to think, consist in preaching the gospel to them. It evidently meant no- thing more than that they were kind and hospitable to tho.se whom they entertained. Tlie same as if the gen- tleman should say that Brother Shawhan is kind, hos- pitable, and ministers to the necessities of all in his power; or the household of brother Peck is addicted to ministering to the sick or needy. The passage has na reference to preaching whatever. ' I said our Savior received little children and blessed them. I did not intimate that he baptized them. I said no such thing. I know that our Savior did not baptize, and we all know that baptism was not then in.stituted'. Jesus merely blessed them. Parents then had a right and the privilege to bring their children to Christ; Such is the duty of believing parents now. Children had the privilege of having the arms of the church thrown around them, and being blessed by the Head of the church. This is all denied now. Mr. P. vv'ould have us believe that children are barred from the holy influences of the church. He has not told us what the kingdom of heaven means. He certainly knows that it was the church \ and if believing parents brought their children to the church then, we may now. He seemed puzzled and perplexed greatly on this point. Mr. Pritchard made an important admission in his- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 131 last speech. It was this : He says, "it is with the identity of the church this question stands or falls"? Yes, my fellow- citizens, it is with the identity o( the church this question stands or falls. I would refer vou again to the ItJth verse of the 15th chapter of Acts^: — •• After this I will return and build again the taberna- cle of David, which is fiillen down, and I •will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." Now is' it not plain, from this scripture, that the tabernacle and church is one and the same ? He says, "■ I build again," that " which is fallen down." We all know that tabernacle here means church ; hence he is going again to build thechurch. Does it say a new- one ? No. But the one that had fallen down. St. James applies this to the point in hand. The same taber- nacle that was fallen, down is built up again. The gentleman's gestures and boastful manner are very ludicrous truly. He boasts and talks very loud and knowing. He reminds me of a man who went down the river and, in trading, become unfortunate ; and, for fear his friends and creditors v/ould find it oirr, he borrowed a gold watch to wear home. This he did to keep up appearances. So it is with Mr, iPritch- ard. He boasts and exhibits all the strange gestures he can get iip to keep up appearances, and make the people believe he is doing great things when in reality he is doing nothing. I V, ill nov/ call your attention to another passage of scripture to prove the identity of the church. "Hea another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and and digged a Avine-press in it, and built a tovver, and let it out to husbandmen and went into a far country : and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen t©ok his sei-vants, and beat one, and killed another, and gtoned another," Mat. 21 : 33, 35. A^ain. he 132 DEBATE ON BAPriSM says, " Therefore, say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bring- ing forth the fruits thereof." Verse 43. Now fix your t'.ye on this passage, and see if it is not the same king- iiom or church that was taken from the Jews that was given to the Gentiles. Just as I showed you from Ro- mans, 1 Itbw chapter and 20th verse : "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off; and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed iest he also spare uot thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of the Lord; on them which fell, severity ; but towards thee, goodness ; if thou continue in his goodness : other- wise, thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in : for God is able to graff them in again." The kingdom of heaven, or the church of God, i,s like a nursery, and the child is like a young fig-tree, while it is a cion, planted from the nursery. So the child is taken from the nursery and planted in the church of God, where it is replanted, and in that fruit- ful soil and salubrious atmosphere, by the attentive hand of the husbandman, it is trained up in the way it should go ; and, under his superintendence, it is brought up in the nurture and admonitions of the Lord. We do not plant the seed, but we dig the pion from the uursery, and replant it in a better spot. Now the gospel covenant, made with Abraham, in- cluded children. They were made members of that covenant by positive law, and 1 have shown you that it would require positive law to exclude them. As Mr. Pritchard has not brought a " thus saith the Lord" ibr excluding them, it follows that they must still be entitled to church membership. I showed that it wa.s an everlasting covenant , but JMr. Pritchard is turnin" Universalist, for he says that everlasting does not mean .-always. So say the Universaiists. Mr. P. should remember that the apostle does not say AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. I'^S that the covenant was made and confirmed four hun- dred and thirty years before, but merely madr. "Ho must remember that it had to be conlirmed." The pro- per votes of the people of this^ tate entitle your legisla- tors to theirseats at thecapitalof theState; but although they receive the popular vote of the people, they have to place their cirtificates at the proper plade, be sworn into office, and thus pass througb a certain formula be fore they can legally act. So it was in the case before us. The covenant was made, but had to be confirmed four hundred and thirty years after. So thank God, the death of our Savior brings salvation to our children, and by his death they are pardoned, and they mvist go through a formula or rule — they have to receive the token of the covenant, which is baptism. When Mr. P. speaks of the branches being broken off he does not tell us what they were broken off from. If they were not broken off from the old church, I should like to know what they were broken off from. Is i*. not clear that they were broken off from the church and the Gentiles were grafted into the same church, and not a new one as the gentleman would have it. 1 want it understood that I do not mean the Jewish covenant, but the covenant that God made v.ith Abra- ham, which is the same covenant he has made with u.-<. The go.^pel was preached to Abraham, saying, in thee, and in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed. That is the covenant I am talking about, and not the Jevvisfi covenant at all. This covenant at the first included infants, and Icon- tend that as we have the same covenant yet, and as it contained infants at the beginning, and as they werc' put in by a positive law; and have never been put out by any law from God; that they are certainly in the covenant yet. And, as 1 have said before, the si- lence of the bible on the subject, from the enactment of the law including infants to the present time is ?i first rate argument against my opponent, and in fa- 134 DEBATE O^ BAPriSM vor of infant baptism. We need no better argument tlian this. I did not say that infant baptism inducted intaats Into tl^e church of God. 1 shnply said that it inducts ihem into the visible church here. They are already In covenant with God and in the church of God universal, but they are not in the visible church. — The gentleman may then talk about my taking differ- ent positions, but it will only show that he does not un- derstand me, in the place of showing that 1 have con- tradicted myself. I understand myself, my christian inends, and have by no means crossed my track, nor do 1 believe the gentleman thinks so, but he simply talks so, as I said before, to iill up his time and keep up ap- [)earances. Christian friends, we then, have a divine right and privilege, yes, and it is our duty to give our children up to the Lord in baptism. Yes, thank God, they are not left out of the covenant but it is our privilege to have them with us in the covenant of promise; and bring ihem up in the nurture and admonitions of the Lord. I would now proceed to recapitualate my arguments but my time is out, and I will take my seat and hear the gentleman again. (Time expired.) Mil. PRTTCJIAnD's FOURTfi R'SJLY. (.xentlemen ?tIoderators : Mr. Terrell seems somewhat refreshed by the rest h<". had at noon; for he has come up to the work since din- ner apparently with new zeal, and new determinations to defend his position if possible His position is an unenviable one. I envy not him in the happiness and ])leasure he has in defending it. Nor do I very greatly desire the vexation. But my benevolence and sympa- thy will not allow me to increase his mortiiication. The house hold of Stephanas, he says, were infants when they were baptized, but^rc?6- to be ??icn hei'ovo. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1S5 Paul wrote the Epistle. They were baptized in the year Jiftyjive; and Paul wrote the Epistle in the year Jifty^ninc. If they were infants when baptized, they must have been very large men in four years. This is too bad. But they were not ministers of the word, he says, but benevolent persons, "given to hospitality," and entertaining strangers. In Jifl>j--fivc they were in- fants, but in //%-w2«'- just four years afterwards, they were men of families given to hospitality, and entt- r- taining the saints. If this is all true, they must have been smarter than I supposed they were before. I" am compelled to give it up that they beat my boy. 1 admitted, he says, that the question of infant bap- tism stands or falls with the uUnti!y of the two church- es; and he is determined to hold me to this point. \ have heard the wind blow before to-day. Now. if the gentleman wishes to debate that point, I am willing to lay aside every thing else, and to risk the controversy upon the question of ider.iify chrae. Dare you meet me ijpon thatpoint Sir? If he should agree to meet me upon /his, he will loose his labor of love, and accomplish a solemn nothing; for if he should prove that the church- es are identically the same, he Vvill only run himself in- to Quakerism, and be compelled to deny Christian bap- tism altogether; for he knows, or ought to know, that no infant or adult was ever baptized into the Father, Son, and iSpirit, in the Jewish church. Now, if thtj churches are identically the same, does it not follow, that no one should be baptized into these names now':" I do not oppose his identity, because I suppo-se it favors: infant baptism, but because it is a s' binder upon the Christian church — a falsehood, contradicted again and again in the Bible. As proof of his identity, he quotes the passage, -'The ?{ingdom shall be taken from this people, and given rai- to another people, bringing forth the first fruit thereof."' ''The kingdom in the bible does not always mean ihe a^ame thing. Nine times out of ten a part is taken foi* I'^'-j DEBATE ON UAPHi-ifif the whole. The word Ungdom is not identical with the word church. Church always means the same thing — viz: a congregation of peopl:'; but kingdom sometimes means one thing and sometimes another. When the Prophet said "The iirne come that the saints possessed the kingdom,'^ he does not mean that the time come when the saints possessed themselves. Nor does he mean that the time come that the saints possessed the Kin)>, Constitution, or laws of the kingdom for they had th^m be- fore that tini'. But he means the time come when tiiey possessed the Territory of the khigdom. Here a 'j jrt is taken for the whole. When Christ says, "Thn KLiigdom of heaven shall be likened unto ten virgins/' part "ici.sY?,'' and part ''foolish j^ he does not mean the King, Constitution, Territory, or laws of the Kingdom; but the subje is of the kingdom were part wise and part faolish. Here the Kingdom is used in the sense of the ciiurch — it means the prnph. A part here is also taken lor the whole. When Christ said, "The kingdom of j.eaven is a;?2o?zo-you," he did not mean subjects or ter- ritory of the f'Jngdom, but the King, Constitution, and laws were there among them. Here again^ a part i> taken for the whole. Now, when Christ says, "The kingdom shall be taken from thispeoj)hr he does not mean that '•Hh'.s neiplc,^^ who were the Jewish church shall be taken from thmsdv'S, but he means that the Ki?ig will forsake "this people;" and the constitution and laws shall be taken from Miv ycopk — this church, and shall be given to another peoph^ — another church, bringing forth the fnzit thereof A church is composed of y^o/>/^, and how, I ask, can Mr. Terrell, make "Mw people,''^ and the ''o/hcr people,"' one and the sojne people? He quoted a passage or rather quoted at a passage, in the 13th chapter of Luke; for he said he did not kMow where it was, but he would find it if 1 disputed that there was any such. "A certain man," says the passage, "had a fig-tree planted in his vineyard, and AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. l-M came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the the dresser of his vineyard, Behold these three years I come seelvini^: fruit on this fig-tree. and find none: why cumhreth it the ground? After repeating a part of this passage, Mr. Terrell exclaim- ed, "^ clear proof this, of infant membership.''^ Well. well; in the name of common sense, what does the man mean? Who in all the world, exceptMr. Terrell, would ever have thought of an infant, while reading that parable.^ He must have intended to make a kind of syilo^isnL of it thus: — A certain man had a fig-tree plan- ted in his vineyard. But three years he was seeking fruit on it and found none. Therefore infants are pro- per subjects of baptism. This is '-^clear proof '' certainly. He tells you that 1 have failed to tell what advan- tage there \vas iii circumcision. The Jews once asked Paul the same question and he answered them in the 3d of Romans in the following language. "Much ev- ery way: chicjhj because that unto them" (the circum- cised) -'were committed the oracles of God." I hope my Jew'sh friend will be satisfied with this answer of Paul to his old fleshly Jewish brethren. He says, if 1 deny that the covenant concerning Christ was confirmed by circumcision, I cannot tell how it was confirmed. J have already given two good rea- sons, why it could not have been confirmed by circum- cision. 1st, circumcision was a separate and distinct covenant of itself — '-a covenant in the flesh."' 2nd, The covenant concerning Chri.st "confirmed," Paul says. '■four hunaud and ihirfy yaars before the law." Now it is a fact, that circumcision was given only four liun- (tred and six years before the law. vSo it follows, that it could not have been confirmed by circumcision, for it was confirmed twenty-four years before circumcision was given. But as a third reason, I will show what Mr. Terrell .«iays I cannot show, how it was oonfirmed. Paul to the Hebrews, 6th chapter, speaks of this very covenant 138 DEBATE ON BAPTISM concerning Christ, and says, that '• Cod confirmed it by AN- OATH. ' J. hope Mr. Terrell will now be satilied that it was not coniirmed by circumcision. i;/He has changed his ground four times— has taken four new positions upon the point, whether we are admitted into the church by baptism, or hot. His ///•o<; position was, that infants are baptized into the churcli. His second was, that they are baptized be- cause they are in the church. Hif? third was, that they are baptized to prove that they are in the church. And in his last speech he told us, that they are, bap- tized i/ito church relations. Here are four different positions. Which does he believe ? At 9 o'clock this morning, he was a Methodist, bringing them into the ^ihurch by baptism. At 12 o'clock, he was a Jew., bring- ing them into the church by natural birth. But at 2 o'clock, he is trying to be a Methodist again, for he now brings them into the church relations by baptism. Men sometimes change. Mr, Terrell started out in a great glee, and said, " I will now prove that infants were members of the church, in the days of the Apostles. "But,'- said he, '• before I do this, I must recapitulate my arguments.*' I was looking with both eyes, and all my might for the proof, but before 1 saw it, he took his seat to rest one half hour. He reminds me of the Irishman who went off two hundred yards, and ran with all his might, to get a good start tojumpover a fence, but when he came to the fence, he sat down and rested before he jumped. I will attend to his proof when it comes. Meanwhile, I want to call your attention to the (|ues- lion of identity again. Paul to the Hebrews, 3rd chapter, calls the Jewish church, " the house of Moses," and the Christian church, • the house of Christ." Are these two houses, one and the same house, Mr, Terrell ? As well might you say, that my house, and my neighbor's ham, are one and the same house, and used for the same purpose. AND THE UOLY SPIRIT. 1S3 Mi\ Terrell has hinted several times to day, in con- nection with identity, that baptism has come in the ;)lace of circumcision. 1 will now give a few reasons which go to show that cannot be true. 1. Cii-cumcision was administered to males only: its substitute then should be confined to males only. '2. Circumcision required not faith in its subject. Baptism therefore ought not to require faith in its subject. 3. Circumcision was administered according to law on the eighth day. Its substitute then should be ad- ministered on the eighth day. 4. Circumcision was administered hy parents, not hy priests. Baptism, its substitute, ough't likewise to be aclministered by parents, not by priests, ovxlergy. 5. Circumcision was a marR made upon, not the face of the. subject. Baptism., its substitute, ought not to be performed on the face of the subject. 6. Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the child, but upon the parents; it was an act of the pa- rent, the subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not a duty of the subject, but of the parents; it is the parent's act, the subject is passive. 7. Circumcision vvas administered to all a man's slaves, all born in his house and bought with his mo- ney. Baptism, therefore, ought to be administered to all the slaves of a householder, as well as his own seed. 8. Circumcision required no piety in the parent to entitle his child to this ordinance ; neither faiih nor piety was ever required of a parent to entitle his child to circumcision. Piety nor faith ought not then to be demanded as necessary in parents to the baptism of their children. 9. Circumcision imported that its subject was enti- tled to all the promises made to Abraham concerning his natuial seed. Baptism its substitute, therefore, im- ports that its subject is entitled to a share in ail the temporal blessings promised to the seed of Abraham. HO DEBATE ON BAPTISM 10. Circumciyion was a token or sign in the flesh of the covenant made in the seventeenth chapter of Gen- esis ; baptism, therefore, is a token, or sign in the flesh, of the covenant made with Abraham in the seven- teenth chapter of Genesis. 11. Circumcision was not to be performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism, its substitute, is, therefore, not to be performed in these names. 12. Circumcision was identified with the law oi Moses, (John vii. 23,) and shared the same fate. Bap- tism is, therefore, identified with the law of Moses, and must share the sam.e fate. 13. Circumcision has come to such a crisis, that wljo- soever is circumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing. Baptism, its substitute, will also come, or has come, to such a crisis, that whosoever is baptized, Christ shall profit him nothing. 14. Circumcision did not exempt one of the Jews from baptism, when he believed in Christ. Baptism. its substitute, ought not, therefore, to exempt a believer from being baptized again and again. Here are some arguments against identity, and against the notion ot Mr. Terrell, that baptism is a substitute for circumcision, which have not, and never can be met by my worthy friend. If he thinks he can move them, and wishes you to see his failure, let him apply his moving powers to them in all their strength. l^ he should fail to remove these difficulties out of his way, his infant sprinkling must suffer the consequences- of his failure. In the remaining part of my reply, I wish to ex- amine the command ot Christ, and the practice of thf- Apostles, to see how they bear upon the subject before us — to see whether they require the baptism of be- lievers only, or the baptism of believers, unbelievers, infants, and all. The practice of the Apostles is cer- tainly good authority for us to go and do likewise. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. Hi The commission which Christ gave to the Apostles, '•eads, " He that behevclh, and is baptized, shall be >aved ;" not he who was baptized in infancy, and af- terwards believes, but " he that bclievcth first, and is then baptized, shall be saved." This not only author- izes the Apostles to baptize believers, but it forbids them to baptize any but believers. Let Mr. Terrell show that it does not if he can. We go up to Jerusalem with the Apostles, and when the Jews, the members of the Jewish church, had heard rrom the lips of Peter that Christ was "Lord of all," hey "said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall v\e do." They were not infants, or they could not have heard and spoke in this way. Peter said, " Repent, and be baptized evei-y one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ;" and it is added, "They Xh.dit gladly rcaivcd hi < word were baptized." Here the Apostles baptized such, and such only, as gladly received the words of Peter. They were all pen^ itent believers. From Jerusalem we will go down to the city of Sa- maria, and hear Philip preach Christ unto them. Here we learn, that " the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spoke;' and " wh^n^ tliey believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christy they were baptized, both men and wimen " " When theybe- 'icvedy^ not before, they were baptized." " Both men and women, ^^ not infants, were baptized by Philip. There were no habes in that company, Mr. Terrell. At Samaria, Simon believed, and was baptized. Philip preached Christ to the Eunuch, and when he tieard, he said, " v\ hat doth hinder me to be baptized?"' Philip said, " If thou hcUcvest with all th.Tie lieart, thou may est. He replied, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Philip baptized him when he believed, and refused to baptize him, unless he did believe first. " If thou ^tf/jet;^5/, thou mayest." Let that be remen*- bered. lirj DEBATE ON BAPTJSM Paul heard words from the lips ofJesus, believed the- words which he heard, repented of his sins, and wa^ then baptized. Cornelius and all his house, " feared God," heard the word, believed it, spoke with tonguesj and were ^/^c/i baptized. Lydia heard the word, her' heart was Qpciied, and she was then baptized. The Jailer and his family heard the word, believed it, an«! were then baptized; and afterwards re'joiced in the God of their salvation. The whole history of the con- version of the Corinthians is told in these words: — '^ Many of the Corinthians hearings believed, and w^ere baptized.'''' Thus we see, from the command of Christ, and the practice of the Apostles, that believers, and believers only were, and are, the proper supjects of baptism There Vv^as not one disciple in the days of the Apostles, but what obeyed for himself Parents did not obey for them The Apostles could say, and did say, to them, " You have yicld-'d your.<€lves servants to obey,. and have obeyed from the hearth Time expired MR. TERRELL'S CLOSING SPEECH — -2d PRO?. My Christian friends: I have arisen before you to make my closing speech on the proposition before us, and, although my friend. Mr. Pritcbard, says that his feelings are not hurt, I cannot say the same. If he could not be h\jrt with reilections, such as he has thrown out, all I can say is, that he must be of a dif- ferent make from myself. It always hurts my feelings to have a person w'hom I have consented to debate with, make such insinuations to an audience as those to which I refer. He says I am trying to deceive this audience, and that lam trying to make this people be- lieve our faith is one thing, when I know it is quite dif- ferent. Now let me inform this audience that neither me nor my brethren believe in the damnation of in- fants. There is much in Mr Wesley's " Doctrinal AND Tin: HOLY SPIRIT. H^ Tracts" which we as a church do not believe nor adopt. This Mr. Pritchard might have discovered if he had Iteon as cautious about deceiving 30U as he appears to be of my deceiving you. That our church does not adopt Mr. Wesley's remarks in his Doctrinal Tracts, is clearly seen, from a note placed at the foot of the page by our Conference, which reads as follows : '' That Mr. Wesley, as a clergyman of the church of England, v/as originally a high churchman, in'the fullest sense, is well known. When he wrote his treatise, in the year 1756, he seems still to have used some expresr sions, in relation to the doctrine of baptismal regen- eration, whi -h we at this day should not prefer. Some such, in the judgment of the reader, may perhaps be found under this second head. This last sentence, however, contains a guarded corrective. It explains also the sense in which we believe Mr. Wesley in- tended much of what goes before to be understood"' Doct. ■ Tracts, page 249. Now with this plain note before his eyes, Mr. Pritch- ard represents us as believing in infant damnation ! And then, accuses me of trying to deceive ! I thought it necessary to set this matter right before I should pro- ceed, and more especially as this is my closing speech on this proposition, so that I can say nothing about it hereafter. Mr. Wesley's " Doctrinal Tracts," we, as a church, do not believe or adopt. We only publish them a.s. we do other tracts or books, thinking the major part to be good, and should be read. I wished to show by the note which I have just read in your hearing, that the gentleman has misrepresented us, and that he has misrepresented Mr. Wesley's views. Mr. Wesley was in England, and he was a highc'rarchman, and had his peculiarities, and his own notions, but in the main they were good. I hope this will suffice on this point. I will observe further, however, that I have not come here to defend Mr. Wesley, nor have I come here ta 144 DEBATE ON BAPTISM reply to the gentleman's affirmations, although he thought me oil' from the controversy. I shall stick '.:lose enough to the controversy for his comfort I as* ?iure you. 1 shall now prove that there were children in the New Testament churches. This I shall do by a direct reference to the word of God. Paul commanded chil- dren to obey their parents. Hear his language : — ^' Children obey your parents." Eph. 0: 1. It is true, we are not told here that they were baptized ; but they were in the church, and they could not have been in it withont being baptized. This is then, a most clear and unanswerable argument on my side of the ques- tion. These children were not yet brought up, but the parents are commanded to bring them up in the nurture and admonitions of the Lord, or to bring them up in the correction and instruction of the Lord. Thi? is to be done under the government of the Lord, which cannot be only in the church.. This is according to the good book, which says, " Train up a child in the v/ay he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." The order of the Lord is to train up a child in the church, and it is commanded to obey its parents, and its .parents are commanded to bring it up in the nurture and admonitions of the Lord. Mr. Pritchard would have you bring your children up in the world. His language would be : train them up in the world : but I say, train them up in the churcli. The gentleman talks about adults having faith. — - There is no dispute between us on this point; but for fear he will represent me as the running Irishman that was going to jump the fence and rested before jumping 1 wnll proceed with my argument. In the first place I will call your attention to Col. '20: •21. "Children obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers provoke not your children to anger lest they be discouraged." Here you see the children are spoken of too, and I wish yoii AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 145 to notice another thing, and that is, that they were ut obey IN THE Lord and not out of phm. I call your atten- tion to the fact that the obedience is in the Lord and not out of him; and they are to be brought up in the nur- ture and discipline^ or government of the Lord. Yet the gentleman would have our children, our precious offspring kept out of the Lord. As I quoted before, in Proverbs we are informed that if we w'lW bring up a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not depart from it. Yes, my Christian friends, children are to be brought up in the church, and not out of it as the gentleman would say. When children are old enough to hear the word ar.d come in themselves, of course the}'' have a right to do so, and when they are not old enough to come, if they have believing parents, it is their duty to bring them to Christ, and give them up to the Lord in baptism, and then bring them up in the Lord. I know the kingdom has some variety in it. This i^ clear from the parable of the virgins, concerning whi;'k I will read you from the teaching of our Savior; ''Then^ shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise and five were foolish. They that were foolish took .no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vesseis with their lamps.'' This represented a church of which children were member^^ very clearly. Titus and Timothy were writren to within som<-.) thirty years after the gospel was preahced, and in these letters oldmen and young men are spoken of. Fathe;- and mothers are also mentioned. Mr. P would have interesting distinctions truly! If there were noinfanis in the church, why designate old men and young men, fathers and mothers &c? Will Mr. Pritchard give us an instance of an adult child being baptized? We have found where the baptism of house-holds is spoken of, and v/here children were members of the churcli. J 110 DEBATE ON BAPTISM P^r. Pritchard triumphaTitly asks, where it is recorded in the bible, tli.at infants were baptized. But I ask him to show whore an adnit child was baptized. There is not one sr.ch place in ail the bible. No my christian friends, there is not one place where it speaks of an adult child being baptized in all the bible. He cannot show us where a youth believed and was baptized. — Why then ask where infant baptism is spoken of? But no one can doubt but infants were embraced in the covenat and were circumcised. Then, let the pas- sage be produced that excludes them from the churcli. Yet, although all admit that children were circumcised^ i cannot find one mentioned for several hundred years before Jeremiah. Yet, i say, all admit that they were circumcised during that period. yThen, is it strange that the reception of children or young men is not spo- ken of in the New Testament? Surely not. It was not necessary that it should be mentioned. I say if I should admit that it is not spoken of in all the New- Testament; it is not strange but I have showed that in- fant membersliip is spoken of at least from plain infer- ence. But I see that my tim.e is fast passing away, and I must hasten to recapitulate my arguments, "i he cove- nant spokc)n of Gen. 12, 15, and 17th chapters, I admit- ted is mixed up with temporary promises; yet it is the satoe covenant that is spoken of in each of these pla- ces, and was conlirmed before fn Christ. The fou r hun- dred and thirty years v/ere before the covenant, and and not before its confirmation. Now confirmation £ind established means the same thing. That which was confirmed was established, and that which was csthblished was confirmed. He c.^mnot prove that this is a new covenant It is said that the time shall come when all shall know me from the least to the greatest. We are the children of wrath, yet are embraced in the redeeming scheme of man. (Here Mr. Terrell enquired how much time he [)a.d.\ AND THE HOLY SPIRIf. 147 My second argument was on the express words of the Savior, which read as follows: 'Of such istheking- dom of heaven." This he said of 'Hi'tic children,'' of infants. You remember my argument on this passage. My time is so short that I cannot repeat it. My third argument was founded upon the commission "Go ye thereibre and teach all nations, baptizing them."' jVow remember that our Savior had said, "suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, and when he gave the apostles the commissionhe did not exclude them. Here was argument that Mr.Pritchard could not answer. iMy fourth argument was founded upon the house- hold baptisms mentioned in the New Testament. Heie it was shown that four house-holds are expressly said to have been baptized in the New Testament. I contended that it was unreasonable that, four house- holds should have been mentioned, and not an infant in any of them. Against this Mr. Pritchard has done nothing, and I conclude he can do nothing. My fifth argument was founded upon the fiict that children did belong to the ancient church, and that dis- tinctions were made, which would be unnecessary, such as fatthers and mothers, old men and young men if there were no children in the first churches I have nov/ triumphantly sustained my proposition^ and my opponent has not been able to ansvi^er my ar- guments. No my chrisnan, friends and they never can be answered. The right of infants to membership in the church of God has been called in question for hun- dreds of of years, but it is a scriptural doctrine, and must and will stand in defiance of all the assaults that can be made upon it. The gentleman may leave his children out in the world and out of covenant relation with God, hut I want my children in the same church with myself, that 1 may bring them up in the nurture and admonitions of the Lord. Christian friends, are you willing to leave 148 DEBATE ON BAPTISM your children in the world, to grow up in sini^ or will you not give them up to the Lord in baptism? My position is now established, and ever must stand. J know you are many of you convinced, that the doc- trine I have advocated is a scriptural doctrine. On the other hand, Mr. Pritchard has failed, entirely failed. (Time expired.) MR. PRITCHARD's FIFTH RKPLY. Gentlemen Moderators: I truly and sincerely sympathize with my friend Mr. Terrell to-day. He has fearlessly, and I trust in good faith, undertaken to do, what no man living or dead ever has done — viz : to prove that infants v/ho cannot believe, are required, without faith, to obey the com- mandments of the Lord. I have called upon him again and again to produce a passage in v/hich the Re- deemer requires, or even has required, any one who did or does not believe, to obey him without faith. He has not, nor can he produce any such passage. The reason is, because the thing is contrary to reason, to common sense, and to all the teaching of the New Covenant. How can they obey him in whom, the}' have not believed ? There is one thing of which I think now\ and of which I may not think again, and tliat is, his chargin something beneath the contempt of every high-minded man. If this had have been the first, second, or even the third, attack he had made upon ray reputation, i should, probably, have passed it without notice ; but enough of a thing is enough. I come novv' to his last speech. He has finally fa- vored us with his New Testament proof for infant membership. Let us look at it : '• Children obey your parents in the Lord : for this i.s right. Honor thy father and mother, (which is the lirst commandment with promise,) that it may be well with thee, and that thou raayest live long on the earth. And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition ol the Lord." Ephesians, vi. 1, 4. That this passage does not prove his position, is evident, for the following reasons : L The controversy is not 3.h out children, but about iiifants. Every man in the universe is the child of some other man ; but this is very different from saying, eve- ry man in the universe is the infant of some other man, 2, When we speak of children, in the. sense of pa- rents and children, the children may be men from tujenty i:) Jiflf/ years, of age. 1 am the child of my pa- rents, but not their litt'e infant, as is well known. These children are commanded to " obey their pa- rents." JSlovv, if they were old enough to understand this command of Paul, -and old enough to understand and " obey their parents ;" then, they were not infants. as Mr. Terrell supposes, but persons capable of hear- ing, undersjtanding, and obeying all the command- ments of the Lord. 150 DEBATE ON BAPTISM 4. These cliildren are commanded to hnnor their fa- thers and mothers, and fathers are " not to provoke them to wrathy If they were capable of honorins^ then* pa- rents, and of being " provoked to wratlV' by the incon- sistent and unreasonable conduct of their parents, then, they were not infants ; for infants are incapable of these things. 5. This Epistle was directed, not to infants, but to " the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus," which lan- guage, cannot be applied to infants, for they are not faithful, in any sense of the word faithfid. 6. Mr. Terrell has not yet proved that these children were members of the church, lie has taken it for granted, because they are mentioned in this epistle which was directed to the church. It is not positive, nor even probable evidence, that a man or any other being is a member of the church, simply because he is mentioned \n an epistle directed to the church. " Dogs," "' evil- workers," ^' the concision," "the enemies of the <^ross of Christ," " the Jews," from whom Paul received forty stripes, and even the " Devil" and " Satan" are all mentioned in the epistles ; but this does not prove that ail or any of them were members of the Christian <:;hurch. So you see, his positive evidence of infant members is, just no evidence at all. But if I were to admit that they were all infants, and all members of the church, (vidiich two things he never can prove) it would be no proof of //w infant sprinklidg ; for he has solemnly declared that he does not baptize infants to bring them into the church, but because they are in it by natural birth. Now if infants are in the church and in it, not by baptism, but by natural birth, the tact of their being in the church no more proves that they are to be baptized, than it proves that they are to baptize others. It would have been better for Mr. Ter- rell not to have renounced the principles of his party, —better for him to have been a Methodist all day, and baptized infants into the Church, as all Methodists do. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 151 In reply to my exposition of the passage, Tiie king- i\om shall be taken from this people, and given to an- other people, bringing forth the fruit thereof," he said, the kingdom means the trigii of God in the heart. — Well, then, God will cease to reign in the heart of th(i Jewish church, and will reign in the heart of a better people — a better church. How does this prove the idcntitij of the Jewish and Christian churches? But he wants to know, if ever there was an adult <^hild, baptized by the apostles, who was raised by Christian parents? I answer, no, nor an infant child either. The reason is^ there were no Christian parents before the Apostles to '^ raise adult ch'iMreii'\{ov them to baptize. There were thousands of adults, reared by Jewish, and Gentile parents, who were baptized by the Apostles. Mr. Terrell must regard this question as a <[uestion oi^ power; for it is certainly a y;o?/;fr/ii/ question to ask for ClirUlian parents before the days of the Apostles. In the 15th chapter of the Acts is a passage on which Mr. Terrell relies for proof of identity : " After this I will return, and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down.*' The tabernacle, he says, is the Jewish church which had fallen down; and the J^ord promised to return and build, not a new, but the same old church. Mr. Terrell says, this passage pro Yes the identity of the two churches. But what does the Apostle say it proves? Hear him : " Simeon hath df- •elared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, '.9 take out of t'lem a people for his nrnne. And to this agree THE WORDS of tlic prop/ic's; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the talvcrnacle of Da- vid which is fallen down." How the Apostles, and the great men of modern times do differ! James said, as the connection siiows, that this passage proved the salvation of the Gentiles, without obedience to the lav*/ of Moses. But Mr. Terrell says, it proves that the J-swish and Christian churches are identically the 152 DEBATE ON BAPTISM isame. That is, Mr. Terrell says, it proves that the- Jewish and Christian people are identically the same. But the Apostle says, in opposition to Mr. Terrell, and his Jewish brethern then at Jerusalem, it proves that the Christians are not Jews, and are not, therefore, t(> live as Jevi's. I am simple enough to believe tht Apostle rigl.rt and Mr. Terrell wrong. 'J'he covenant in llebrev/s, 8th chapter, was made, not with another people, he says, but with " the house of Israel ;" which proves the identity of the Jewish and Christian churcbs. The difficulty with Mv. Terrell hert is, he seems not to have observed that there is an Is- rael according to the spirit, as well as an Israel ac- cording to the Jlesk, spoken of in the New Testament. Before the days of Jesus Christ, the natural seed of A- braham were regarded as the true Israel of God ; but when they rejected the Redeemer, the Lord rejected them, and they ceased to be called Israel : " They are not all Israel which are of Israel,' said Paul, " but in Isaac shall thy seed be called." None but " the chil- dren of the prumisfi are counted for the seed," or re- garded as the Israel of Crod. Rom., 9th chap., 7, 8. The natural seed weie formerly called the circumci- sion ; but they arc not now the circumcision : " For m- are the circumcision, who worship God in the. spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the FLi:sH," as Mr. Terrell and his Jewish — fleshly brethren have. Phil. 3: 3. The fleshly seed tire not now Jews : " For he is hot a Jew, which is one outwardly;" (in- was formerly a Jevv% but things have changed) '- nei- ther is that circumci.^ion, which is outward in the Jl'sh;" (that was circumcision among the fleshly seed, or in the Jewish church) "but he is a Jew which is one in- wardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart; in thr spirit, and not in the letter." Rom. 2d, chap. 28, 29. Christians are then, the; true Jews, the true circumcision , and the true Israel of Grod ; and with this " house o\ Israel," is the new, and everlasting covenant made.- - AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 153 Let that be remembered. So far then, from proving the identity of the churches, this passage puts it be- yond doubt that the}^ are not the same. Now unless it can be shown that Israel according to the flesh, and Israel according to the spirit, are one and the same Is- rael, it never can be shown that the two churches are one and the same church. Bat Paul says, the two Is- raels are not the same; and, therefore, the two churches are not the same church. His first argument for identity was, that the Jewish and and Christian churches are one and the same, be- cause they are both called by the same name. That is, a Yankee clock and a singing rmist'T are one and the same thing, because they are both called time-keepers — they both keep time. His second argument was, that the two are one and the same, because the Christian church has a new name — it is called by the Christian name. That is, the two are one and the same, because they have the same name; and then, again, they are one and the same be- cause they have not the same name. This is very con- vincing. If he had another day on this proposition, I dare say, we would all be convinced of hi.^; identity by such powerful arguments. His third proof for identity was the language of Paul, ia Ephesians, 2nd chapter, where he says, " Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Grentiles ; to make in himself Oi the tivnin one new man: that he might reconcile both unto God i?< one b'uiy by the cross," This passage, instead of proving the identity of the two churches, puts it beyond doubt, that it is a vain conceit invented for party purposes. It is not the same old man, but Christ makes of the twain one new man, — a new body — a new church for God. Who could wish for any thing stronger than this in favor of the truth ? His fourth proof was the breaking off the natural 154 DEBATE ON BAPTISM branches, and the grafting into the Root or good Olive Tree, those which were wild by nature. But I proved that the Root or Olive Tree was not the Jewish church, as he supposed, but th it it was Abraham ; and that the natural branches, were not the natural branches of the church, but of Abraham, the root, out of whcih sprang the natural branches, or fleshly seed. The Jewish church was composed of the natural branches; but the Christian church is composed of those who were grafted in ; so they stand, not by flesh, as did the natural seed, but hy fiii'.h. It was not the branches of the church, but the church te/f that was broken olf from him who produced it. The natural branches were the Jewish church, and the supernatural or graft- ed branches were the Christian. The Jewish church was broken off, rejected, ''cast out;''' but the Christian was grafted in, received by faith as the offspring of the root, and is '• made in Jesus Christ a new man — a new body, a new church for God." I wish no stronger tes- timony against identity than the eleventh of Romans. I would willingly risk the whole controversy upon a scriptural exposition of that chapter alone. His moving posilion, at the outset, was, that unbap- tized infants are out of the church without any provi- sion for their eternal well being: showing himself to be a believer in that awful sentiment of inlant damna- tion — that there are infants in hell not a span hn^\ He then told you that I agree- with him, that it is by baptism that we enter into the church. But when I showed that this agreement of ours was killing all hi*? proof for identity, he turned Jew, and told you, that all infants enter into the church by natural birth; and that he baptizes them, not to bring them into, but he- mu^e they are in the church. A little after this, he boasted that he had put infants into the church by positive law, and called upon me to put them out in the same way. He has put them into the church by na- tural birth, and yet he tells you, that he has put them AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 155 m by a positive law. He has put them in by the posi- tive law of matrimonij, I suppose he means ; for this is the only law by which he put them into the church. When I proved that Methodists do not believe that infants enter into the church by natural birth, he com- mcMced changing back from a Jew to a Methodist, and told us first, that he baptized infants to prove that they are in the church; and second, he said, he baptized them into church relations. He was a Methodist this morning, a Jew at noon, and almost a Methodist again this evening. It is said, that " wise men change, but fools never do." He has changed his position so often upon the cov- enants, that it is diflicult to tell v/hat his position now is, or what he really believes. His first position was, that the covenant of circumcision is the Christian cov- enant. His second was, that the covenant concerning Christ is the Christian covenant. His third was, that the covenant concerning Christ, the covenant concern- ing the land of Canaan, and the covenant of circum- cision are ail one and the same covenant. His fourth was, that the covenant concerning Christ, is the Gos- pel covenant, the covenant concerning the land of Ca- naan was an adjunct to it, and that this covenant, and this adjunct were both confirmed by circumcision. Such profoundly learned and logical argumentation, and so many consistent positions ought to convince us all of one thing at least — viz : that pedobaptism has not, nor cannot be proved to any, except to those whose eyes have been closed by the influence of party purposes. There is one more contradiction, which, of right, ought to be numbered among his many extremely con- sistent positions — viz : That all infants enter into the church by natural birth, just as they enter into the world ; and yet, when speaking upon the covenant in the 8th chap, of Hebrews, he said, that covenant is not yet made, nor will not be till all the world shall be Lonverted and brought into the church. If all infants (and 156 DEBATE ON BAPTISM of course all the world) are in the church by natural birth, why does he speak of a time in the future when all the world shall be brought into the church by con- Aversion ? Do mankind enter the church twice, in two different ways, at two different times? or does he mean by the time when all shall be converted, nothing more than the time when the last child of the world shall be born oi its parents ? As he is a great advocate of iden- tity, will he tell us whether natural birth and conver- sion are identically the same? As my time is now out, I have not time to recapitu- late my arguments against his pedobaptism ; so Heave them with you, standing unanswered, unreplied to by Mr. Terrell. [Here Mr. Terrell said— I have another speech upon this proposition, haven't I?] Mr. Pritchard — No sir; our agreement was, as the Rules show, to debate no one proposition more than five hours. Mr. Terrell — Have we debated this five hours ? My. Pritchard — Yes, we debated three hours before dinnner, and two since. Mr. Terrell— Well, if I had known that 1 would not be allowed to make another speech, I would have giv- en my arguments a little different turn in my last. Mr. Pritchard— The gentleman does not want to make another speech, he only wants to make the im- pression upon his friends, that, if he had an opportuni- ty of speaking again, he would do a little better than he has done for their cause. It is all for effect. Now. if he has any thing better to off"er, he can make another speech, or as many as he pleases ; I can reply to any thing he can say. Or, if he dare not speak' and have me reply, if he think he can better hig eifort, he can make a sliort speech without any reply. Mr. Terrell; No Sir^ if the time for the discussion of this proposition is out, I don't wish to speak again. Mr. Burress, then said; I suppose 1 am to blame for AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 157 Mr. Terrell's supposing that he had another speech; for I told him at dinner that I thought you had three speech- es apiece more upon this question. Mr. Pritchardsaid; Mr. Terrell ought to have known better than to have you 'Ho bame"' in the matter. Mr. Franklin here arose and said; I have a proposi- tion to make to the two gentleman who are engaged in this discussion. There have been a number of per- sons who have expressed a desire to me, that this dis- cussion should be published. I therefore propose to Mr. Terrell and Mr. Pritchard, that if they will v/rite out their speeches I will publish the debate at my own expense; and when it is published, I will give each of you. jiff 1/ copies^ well bound, for your trouble. Mr. Pritchard said I am perfectly willing to write out my speeches, if Mr. Terrell will agree to write his. Mr. Terrell said I have not time to do it; my numer- ous pressing engagements as a circuit preacher prevent my doing it. Mr. Pritchard said; If Mr. Terrell will agree to write his speeches, I will pledge myself to furnish him with one of our best preachers to travel the circuit in his place. Mr. Terrell said; We don't thank the gentleman for his preachers; when we want them we will send for them. Mr. Pritchard said; I did not make the offer for his thanks, but for his accommodation. Time expired. MR. PRFFCHARD's FIRST ADDRESS 3rD PROP. Gentlemen Moderators — This is the third day of our discussion, and I am, for the second time, the affirmant. Mr, Terrell is done with one of his affirmative propositions ; he is now, for the second time, on the negative. If he will follow me to-day, as I did him on yesterday, I have nothing to fear. My only fear is, that he will manifest a dis- 158 DEBATE ON BAFflSM position to debate every thing of which he can think,, except the design of baptism. The issue is not wheth- er faith, repentance, or conversion is essential to par- don or justification ; but the design of baptism. Isr baptism designed for remission of sins ; or for something else? is the issue, and the only issue to-day. I afFirm it for remission of sins. Mr. Terrell denies this, and of course affirms, that it is designed for something else. Mark this: He will not dare to tell you, to-day, what the design of baptism is. The proposition which Mr. Terrell has made for me to affirm, reads thus: "Wher- ever the Gospel is preached, uater baptism is essential to the pardon of past sins." I never could have been persuaded to make such a proposition as this for myself or, any one else to af- jfsrm; for it is pitiful in its language, and contempta- ble in its design. The design of it, vras not to fairly ]tresent the issue, nor to elicit the teaching of the New Testament ; but to enable him who conceived the' things by ad captandum rhetoric, to get rid of what tlie New Testament teaches. The issue is not whether baptism every where, in all countries, and under all circumstances is essential to pardon, but whether the New Testament teaches baptism " for the remission of sins," or for something else. But 1 may be asked by some one, why I accepted of this proposition? 1 an- swer, because it has been a standing proposition of Mr. Terrell for several years, on which he could re- treat from a discussion with the brethren. He would say to them, you must debate this or nothing, and when they would refuse, he would proclaim a ^^hach- ouV on their part. 2nd. Because I knew from his course with others of my brethren, that he would de- l)ate nothing else ; and if he did retreat, 1 intended to leave him without excuse. 3rd. Because I knew that thsre was no danger in debating this or any thing else with Mr. Terrell ; I heard him preach .several times be- fore I accepted of this proposition. 4th. I knew that 1 Afm THE HOLY SPIRIT. I5f> would have the right, in the discussion, of dcHnivg the ternivS of my own proposition, and telling what I inean by each and all of them ; which I will now pro- ceed to do. By the word " icherevc?-'^ I mean every where, — in every nation, language, tongue, and people where the Gospel is preached. " The Gospel" consists of three facts, three commondments, and three promises The facts, as set forth by the Apostles, are, The Deaths The Bunal, and The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Commandments are, faith, repentance, and bap- tism into the name of Jesus Christ. The promises are, the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of eternal life. No man can be scrvptiiraVy constituted a Christian, without believing the facts of the Gospel with all his heart, obeying from the heart the commandments, and receiving into his heart the promises. A good man he may be, honest, upright, and moral ; and also useful in his day and generation ; but a Christian, in a. Scriptural sense, he cannot be, mithout believing and obeying the whole Gospel of Je- sus Christ. Nor do I believe that the Gospel is preach- ed, in any nation, language, or country, unless the whole Gospel is preached. He who preaches the facts v/ithout the commandments, or the commandments without the facts, does not preach the Gospel — the Gospei is not preached unless all the facts, command- ments, and promises are fairly, clearly, and fully set forth, i do not affirm any thing in reference to any stict or parly, in any country or nation where the Gos- pel, as I have now defined it, is not preached ; but I do affirm, and fearlessly affirm, that he who hears the facts, commandments, and promises of the Gospel fair- ly and fully preached, and then, wilfully and knowing- ly refuses to obey the commandments, or any of them, or will say, as Methodi^-ts sometimes say, *' If I cant Ifo to heaven without being baptized, 1 won't go at LiU," is unjustified, unsanctified, unsaved, and must antl .160 DEBATE ON BAPTISM will, if not changed in heart, ultimately be damned. *' If I can't go to heaven without being baptized, I won't go at all." Whence came language like that, but from the heart of a rebel against the Government of God? I saw at once devices of Mr. Terrell, when I saw the word ^^ essentiaV^ in both of the propositions made for me to affirm. He, it seems, does not like to shoulder the " essentials" in religion, in a discussion like this ; for there are no " essentials" in the proposi- tions which he made for himself; they are all in the ones made lor me. Well, with me, every thing in re- ligion is essential to something, and as baptism is de- signed for remission of sins, I fear not to affirm it es- sential to the pardon of the sins of ^ pi^opcr subject of baptism. Mr. Terrell's design was, to make me af- firm first, that "immersion is essential to baptism,'" and then, that " baptism is essential to pardon ;" so that he who is not immersed is not baptized, and he who is not baptized is not pardoned ; and therefore, all the pious parties who preach the Gospel, and practice sprinking are unpardoned and must be lost. Infidels, Universalists, and ail others who love themselves more than they love God, and their own notions more than the commandments of God, Sire gifted in this kind of argumentation. Let him try to pervert the Gospel, and subvert the teaching of Christ aiid the Apostles by such an argument as this, if he dares. Let him offer that kind of an argument, and he >vill find it as diffi- cult to prove that Methodists preach the Gospel, as it would be for him to explain away the language of the Spirit, " be baptized far the remission of sins.'' Let him try it, if he wishes to prove that the contemptible and silly anpcdotes, so common among Methodists., and which are told for the purpose of working up. the feel- ing of the people at the expense of their jinlgment, are the facts of the Gospel, by which the Apostles con- verted men, and led them to the obedience of faith .%N"D THE HOLY SPIRIT* lf»i ^i-eX him try his favorite sophism, if he wishes to prove ";hat the mourner's bench, the class-meeting, the band- society, and other items of the Methodist creed, are the commandments of the Gospel which the people obeyed under the preaching of the Apostles. I repeat it again, that I affirm nothing in reference to any body except those among whom the gospel is fully preached; and the Gospel is not and cannot be fully preached, where either the facts, commandments \n' promises are concealed from the people. Those who ^mderstand the gospel, or have an opportunity of un- ilerstanding, but will not, are the only people about whom I atiirm any thing; and are the only ones to whom the word essential applies. All of the untaught among the various pedo-baptist parties, we leave with tiie rest of mankind to the mercy of God: believing as I do, that he will do ail things right. I am persuaded that there are thousands and tens of thousands now am©ng the numerous and various parties in Christen- dom, who would rejoice to do the will of the Redeem- er, if they only knew what his will is. I am also per- suaded that there are thousands who know what the will of the Lord is but are determined that they never will do it. There are many, very many who read the Bible with no other desire but to find the will of the Lord, but they do not succeed, and the reason is, they know not where to begin, where to end, nor to whom the language of the Scriptures applies. They know not that there are two great lessons to be learned in Christianity: the one for the world, and the other for the church ; — the one to teach men out of Christ how to become Christians — the other to teach men i?i Christ how to live Christians ; — the one to teach us hov/ to obtain pardon and enter the church here, — the other to teach us how to live in a justified state and enter the church hereafter. Indeed there are thousands who never heard of the two lessons of Christianity; they knov/ not that such things are in the good Book, a:^d K 162 DEBATE ON BAFIiJ.'W consequently, are as apt to go to the law of Moses to find the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, as to the Gospel of Christ. How many thousands are there no'^w, in our country, who know not but that the plan of salvation in the name of the Lord Jesus is as fully taught in the book of Genesis, as in the Acts of the Apostles? Now, for this, many of them are not to blame, for they have been so long under the teaching of their catechism, and the early and false impressions made upon their minds by their parents and teachers, that it is almost impossible for them to learn the truth. Nor have their religious teachers been faithful to them^ for they have generally been m-ore concerned about defending their parties than teaching the truth as it i» in Christ. To prevent any difficulty that, may arise upon this subject in the discussion of this proposition, and to en- able us to understand this question, 1 will give you the division of the Scriptures as I have learned it of the Apostles whose business it was to " rightly divide the word of truth," and give both to the world and the church the lesson designed for them. We have then, in the New Testament, four books, Matthew, Mark, Lul^e, and John, which properly contain the Life of Jesus Christ; and they were written that we " might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God."' But in these four Books we find the greater part of all our duties to God and man ; for Jesus was with his Disci- ples some three years or more, teaching them the Christian religion, and preparing them to go and teach the things they had learned of him to the world. Not- withstanding the Apostles were Inspired Men, and spoke as they were moved by tlie Holy Spirit, they were not allowed by the Redeemer to teach 7nore than he had taught them, as is evident from the language of the commission : " Go teach all nations, baptizing them, &c., teaching them to observe all things whatso- ever I have commanded you.''' They were then, limited, AND THE HOLY SPIEIT. 163 in their teaching to what he had commanded them. The Holy Spirit was given them, not to teach them new truth?, or things diftering from what Christ had commanded them, but toj' bring to their remembrance ail things that Christ had said to them," or in the language cf another passage, to " guide them into ail truth." That the Apostles did not teach more than Christ commanded them, is evident, from the language of Paul te the Thessalanians, 2: 13 : When you received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God." To the Corinthians, he says: " If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him ac- knowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." " You heard and re- ceived from us," he says, " the word of God; and the things which I write are the commandments of the Lord." We have in the New Testament, in addition to the four Books already mentioned, a Book called the •' Acts of the Apostles," which contains a faithful his- tory of the labors of the Apostles, and also the Ser- mons which the Apostles preached to the woiid^ to show the unconverted how to become Christians^ and obtain the 'pardon of their sins. Now does not reason, common sense, every thing dictate to us, that we should come to liie Acts, where alone the Sermons which the Apos- tles preached to the unconverted are ta be found, to find how we are to obtain pardon or the remission of sins? The Epistles contain the second lesson of Christian- ity, and were written, not to the world, but to the church, not ta show the members how to become Christians, but to show them how to live Christians, True the Apostles in writing these Epistles, allude in so many ways, to the way in which the brethren were pardoned, that we can learn almost every thing that 1€4 DEBATE ON BAPTISM ?.s essential to pardon from them; but I repeat it, that the main object of the Epistles is to teach the brethren the way to heaven. Now, I assert, that Mr. Terrell will not dare to come up to the Acts, and show that the Apostles did not preach baptism for the remission of sins. He will go to the Epistles, and to any other part of the Bible, to get rid of what the Apostles taught ; but he will not come to the Acts and show, that they did not preach baptism for remission. He dare not preach- their sermons. If he were to preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as the facts to be believed, and laith, repentance, and baptism, as the command.s to be obeyed in order to Ihe remission of sins, as Peter did upon the day of Pentecost, he would cease to be a Methodist, and would soon be turned out of the sacred desk of that party. But I must offer a few argument:^ for Mr. Terrell to dispose of. My first argument shall be drawn from the fact, that Christ commanded the Apostles to preach faith and baptism in order to salvation from sin. '' Go you,'' said he, " into all the w^orld, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that beliveth not, shall be damned," Here we see that salvation from sin is promised to such, and such only, as both believe, and are baptized. To preach faith without baptism, or baptism without faith, is not what the Lord command- ed; but " he that believeth, ctWf^ is baptized, shall be saved." In viev/ of language like this from the lips of the Lord Jesus, how dare any man say, that baptism, when preceded by faith, is not essential to the remis- sian of sins? Not he that believeth, shall be saved by faith alone ; but "■ he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." Luke, in his account of the commis- sions, adds repentance to Mark's account: " That re- pentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 165 So the commission reads, " He that believes, repents, and is baptized, shall receive remission of sins, or shall be saved, which is the same thing. If the Lord Jesus understood the subject, and if he was right in com- manding the Apostles to preach faith, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, then is my proposi- tion true, and baptism is essential to pardon. 2. My second argument shall be drawn from the fact, already mentioned, that remission of sins was to be preached among ail nations, v?i the name of Jesus Christ, it is in th-i namf. of Jesus Christ, and in that name alone, that remission of sins is to be had ; for it is the only name given under heaven, or known among men by which we can be saved. Now, baptism is the act, and the only a:t in the New Testament, by which we enter into the name of Christ. " Baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit."' Math. 28: r9. '' Fer as many of j'ouas have been baptized m- TO Chri-if, have put on Christ." Gal. 3: 27. Know yoc. not, that so many of us as were baptized lVto Jesus Christ were baptized into his death." Rom. 6; 3. — " They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 8: 10. These passages put it beyond doubt, that when we enter into the name of Christ, we are baptized ????o that name. Now, remission of sins, is not oii^ of, but in the name of Jesus Christ; so it follows, that we are baptized 2//to the name of Christ, for remission of sins which is only in his name. Mr. Terrell never can meet this argument without showing one of two things to be true ; 1st. That v/e can receive remission of sins as well out of Christ a^ in Christ; or. 2nd. That Ave can Scripturaily enter into Christ, without being bap- tized into him. He cannot show either of these to be true. No man ever Scriptvrdly entered into Christ, without being baptized into h m; and no man can Scripturaily receive remission of sins out (f him. These are my sentiments, and these sentiments I am pre- pared to defend. Our sentiments are sometimes 166 DEBATE ON BAPTISM slanderously reported, for there are some who affirm that we say remission of sins is m baptism. We never thought so, — we never believed it, and consequently, never said it. We have always believed, and always taught the people every where, and in all places, to repent, and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ, fo7' the remission of sins in that nnme. Remission of sins had been preached again and again before the days of Jesus Christ; but never until the Apostles be- gan, as the Prophets had foretold, and as Jesus had commanded, saying, " beginning at Jerusalem,'' was remission preached m (he n'lm.e of the Lord Jesus. 3. My third argument shall be drawn from the preaching of the Apostles. . Fifty days after the Lord was crucified, and scv.zn days after he gave them the commission for all the world and ascended to heaven, we find the Apostles all at Jerusalem, the beginning place ; and when the Spirit had come upon them, Pe- ter stood up with the Eleven, and declared to the Jews, who were assembled there out of every nation under heaven, that Jesus, whom they had crucified, w^as God's Son, and was both Lord and Christ. " When they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said nnto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?' (Now Mark.) '-Then Peter said unto them; Repent, and be baptized evevij one of you in the namz of Jesus Christ, for the remis- sion OF sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2: 37, 38. This passage from Pe- ter's discourse needs no comment, for it declares in language to plain to be misunderstood, that baptism Is for remission of sins. There is no more reason to say, that this passage teaches a falsehood, than there is that any other passage in the New Testament does. The man who can say, in the presence of his God, that this part of the Bible is false, would, if party purposes required it, say that every other part is false. Nothing but infidelity causes a man to deny any part of the AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 167 Bible. Paul was pardoned as the people were upon the day of Pentecost; for when he had heard/bc- Hevcd, repented, and had prayed for three days ; Ananias said to him, '' AYhy tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, and wmli away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts. '22: 16. Ananias did not say, as a Methodist, " Pray on brother Saul, that is the way to get religion ; for there have been thousands pardon- essential to the pardon of past sins, and consequently that no one can be pardoned without it. I deny. I contend that a man may be pardoned without baptisni. Mr. P. says that a man who willfully refuses to be bap- tized will be lost. 1 agree with him in this, for a mau who wilfully disobeys the gospel will be lost. He affirms thatbaptism preceded by faith and repen- tance is essential to the pardoii of sin. This doctrine 1 have not been able to iind in all the bible. 1 admit the Lord v/ill take veangence on them that know not God and obey not the gospel. All that is right enough: !>ut that is not the question. Can we obtain pardon without baptism? That is the question. J am persuaded that if any one had come in while he was speaking he would have concluded that he .was- following me. He displayed some shrewdness, or pow- er of prophecy, in his procedure. He would first speak on my side of the question, and after arguing my side of the question, he coo;imenced explaining his own. U he ^vill attendto his own sitleof the question, 1 think he will have his hands full. 1 think there is some discrepancy betwen his speech last evening and the oneyou heard this morning. The epistles, he has discovered, were written to the saints. On yesterday he did not discover this. In this he has crossed his own track, lie tells you that 1 must not ap- peal to the epistles. I appeal not to them, but to the te aching of .Jesus and the apostles. Now Christ in- tended his word for all. The gospel was intended fuc th.e whole family of man. AND THE HOLY SPIRrT. 1&9 He affirmed that baptism is essential to pardon. — Pardon means justification or the remission of sins. — 8t. Paul makes them convertable terms. Salvation is of the same import. Paul says that he wills that ail men should be saved. The angels of God at the birth of the Savior declare that God wills the >Salvation oi all men, and that the gospel was intended for every creature. Yes, Christian friends, thank God, the gospel was intended for every creature, under all circumstan- ces. Hence the x'Vpostle says, '-it is of faith to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed. Pie was pleased to tell you what course I would pur- sue, but 1 am not going to the epistles to pove my po- sition. J am not afraid to go to the Acts of the Apos- tles where the sermons of the apostles are recorded. Salvation is not by baptism as 1 will show, but it is by faith. It is not by ordinances or works of anykindj but by faith — faith being the condition. This I will prove by a quotation from the 4th chapter of Romans. "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." In this passage faith is presented as the condition of our pardon. What plainer proof could any one want? The gentleman's proposition is against the bible, for baptism is no where said to be the condition of pardon, but faith is here made the condition of pardon. The gentleman quotes the commission: ^'Go ye into all the woi'ld and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." But this pas- sage does not say, he that ts not baptized shall be damned, but "he that believeth vot shall be damned." This pas- sage proves my position, that faith is the condition. — The gentleman may try, but he can never get over this position. Should he undertaketo prove that faith is not the con- dition of pardon he will come in direct contact with the gospel, for the gospel is divinely consistent in all 170 DEBATE ON BAPTISM its parts; and we are taught by the passage just quo- ted that faith is the condition, and the only essential. To this the Savior's own words testily; "he that belie- veth not shall be damned." Faith is the great and the important — the mighty requisite. Let me read from John 3: 14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever bclicretk in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Now here was the great re- quisite, — looking to Christ by faith, and as the children of Israel looked to the brazen serpent, and were healed even so, the Lord promises that we shall be healed by looking to Christ by faith. This does not exclude the unbaptized, for every be- liever was pardoned. A man condemned is considered guilty, and has the vengeance of a broken law, hanging over his head till pardoned; but when his reprival is signed by the governor, he is no longer guilty. Mr. Campbell says that baptism is 'the pardoning act — that we go down into the water wicked and unho- ly, and that we come out of the water pure and holy, tie thus makes baptism the line of demarkation between the righteous and the wicked. Before it all are wicked but after it all are righteous. But our Savior says, "he that believeth is justified,"' "is passed li^om death unto life," in the present tense — not will be after baptism. Mark the difference between Mr. Campbell 'And our Savior. Mr. Campbell says, baptism is the converting act but, the Savior says, "he that believeth is passed fromf death unto life." Show me a man that believes and I will show you a man that is saved. Even John the baptist, that great Baptist that all Bap- tists talk so much about, says, "he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life," in the presenttense. To have preached the doctrine @f my friend, he should have said he that believeth on the Son .^hall have everlvsting life, '/f in addition to his faith he will be immersed in some pond. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 171 1 now come to Acts 10: 43: '-To him give all the |jrophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever bc- iievetfi in him shall receive the remission of sins. This winds up the chapter with m}' friends doctrine. All the prophets are against him. Thej^ all bear witness that I am right, that whosoever believeth in him shall re- ceive the the remission of sins.'' Let him show that one of the prophets have said that a man must be bap- tized before he can receive the remission of sins. But this he never can do. Here then I have a triumphant argument, sustained by all the hoi}' prophets, and sanctioned by the apostle, the first time he ever ad- dressed a Gentile congregation, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. It does not say, that if they are baptized they shall be pardoned, but whosoever believeth shall re- ceive remission of sins. I now call the gentlemans attention to another strong proof text, found Acts 13: 39. It reads as a; follows: •'And by him all that believe are juslilied from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." This is a strong passage. It includes all that believe, and the word all don't mean part. It is like Lorenzo Dow's chain with five links; all of them, and he says, a-ll don't mean port. This language is clear and explicit. All that heliwc are j ustiHed from all tilings, from which ye could not be justified by the law of iVJoses. Faith is the condition here, and the only condition, and all that believe are justified— not shall be justified, if they are baptized, hut are justified, from all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. How could language be more clear and explicit? Who could wish for stronger evidence? 1 must quote one more passage, whicix reads as fol- lows: Whosover beUeveth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God; and every one that leveth him that be- gat, leveth him also that is begotten of Him." 1 John i>: 1. Observe, my christian friends, he does not say 172 DEBATE ON BAPTISM "He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ shall be bonj of God, if he is immersed,'^ as my friend, Mr. Pritchard would say, but "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ It;," in the present tense, "born of God." Here faith is the condition of justification, and the only con- dition: which 1 think 1 have now shown by incontesti- ble evidence from the holy scripture. 1'his is an argu- ment against Mr. Pritchard's doctrine that he can never answer. J have said the gospel is intended for man — the whole family of man, in all the world and under all circum- stances. Ciod's plan of saving sinners is adapted to man in every condition in which he can be placed in this life. That is the plan of justification by faith. A man can exercise faith a hundred miles from water, a hundred miles from the administrator of baptism, or even on a sick bed when he has no strength to be bap- tized. Yes I say the gospel applies to such as these, and tells them, in language that may be truly and pro- perly styled "good news" "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." But Mr. Pritchard's gospel has no good news for any such persons. He would tell them that baptism is essential to pardon, and consequently that they could not be pardoned witiiout bfiptism. The gospel of Christ is to every creature, but there- are thousands upon thousands, who may hear Mr. Pritchards gospel to whom it wOuld be no good news. Call himto thebed of the sicR man, and askhim to preach the gospel to him. He tells him that baptism is essen- tial to the pardon of sins. The man responds, I am unable to be baptized. According to Mr. Pritchards doctrine he must be lo^st. My christian, iiiends, do you believe this doctrine? No; you cannot believe it. Ir is too absurd. Jt would be no good news to any por- tion of the human race where they could not be im - inersed. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 173. But the g^ospel of Christ which, I find in my bible, thank God can comfort the drooping heart of man, in any condition where the providence of God may place him. Man can believe in anyplace and in any condi- tion, and the scripture says, that "he that believeth the. Son hath everlasting life.' This is good news of great Joy to all peiplc,'^ and makes man depend on the grace of God for salvation, and not on some one to baptize him. The doctrine of justification by faith has long, stood the test against all opposition, and must stand. It is the blessed doctrine of the bible. Let the gentleman, then, come up to the work, and meet these arguments if he can, and he will have enough to do without anti- ripating my arguments as he did in his last speech. [Time expired.] MR. PRITCHARD's SECOND ADDRESS 3rD PROP. Gentlemen Moderators: So it seems, Mr. Terrell is determined not to follow me. 1 can say nothing worthy of his attention. He is determined to make his own speeches, and preach hi;^ old sermons, with which this community have been bored for the last year. He will not join issue with me. What can be the reason ? Since this discussion commenced, we have had no debate, for he will not debate with me. He has paid no more attention to my arguments, since the discussion commenced, than merely to allude to them, and sometimes not even that. How is a man to illustrate, elucidate, and show the strength of his positions, unless his opponent will assail them ? What has his speech this morning to do with the propo5iition ? What has a lecture on faith to do with the design of Christian baptism, more than a lecture on the office of Bishop, or Deacon ? The issue is not whether faith, repentance, or conversion is es- sential to pardon, but is baptism, when preceded by faith, repentance and a cfiange of heart, designed for 174 DEBATE ON BAPTISM remission of sins? I truly regret such a stupid repi} . I believe as firmly as any man now living, that no man ever was,, or ever can be saved in this world, or in the world to come, without faith. I do not believe that a man can be saved from sin by baptism, without faith and repentance. Nor do I believe that baptism will do a man any good, if it is not preceded by faith. This I showed on yesterday. Baptism without faith, such as the Methodists have, is solemn mockery. But the i?sue is not about faith, nor repentance, but upon the design of baptism : — is baptism designed for remission, or for something else ? I have ofl'ered four arguments upon the issue agreed upon, but to none of them has Mr. Terrell replied. Nor can he, if his salvation de- pended upon it, and he well knows it. If he will take these arguments from me, I will give up the question ; for f depend upon them to prove my position. If he will not follow me, I must try and follow him. I would as soon debate the question of faith alone, as any thing else. Before exposing the " wholesome and comfortable doctrine of faith only,^' I must expose the sophistry and infidelity of his pretended reply to my arguments. What then, is his reply ? Why it is this :. John says, " He that believes is not condemned," and therefore, Jesus did not tell the truth when he said, " He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved." John says, "He that believeth hath eternal life," and therefore, Peter did not preach the truth when he said, " Repent, and be baptized foi^ remission of sins." John says, -" Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God," and therefore, the Lord Jesus told a falsehood when he said, ''Except a man be bom of 7/wter, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." How does the fact of faith being essential to pardon, justification, or remission, prove that baptism^ repentance, or any other command is not essential? It is the language of his creed, and not of the Bible,, that we are justified by faith 07dy. The Bible put the AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 175 word faith, and the word only together but once, and then it asserts in so many words, that, " We are justi- fied by works, and not b;/ faith onlyy James, ^: '^4. As the passage from John's first epistle, 5th chap., is a favorite among the advocates of faith only, I v/ill pay my respects to it in a special manner. John men- tions the new birth several times in this same epistle. In the 5th chap., ist verse, he sajs, '• Whosoever be- lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." in the 4th chap., 7th verse, he says, " Beloved, let us love one another : for love is of God ; and every one X]:vQ.t loveth, is born of God." In the 2nd chap., last verse, he says, '* Every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.'''' Now, I ask any man who believes the word of God, if John taught, in this epistle, thi-ee sepa- rate and distinct new births ; one by faith alone, one by love alone, and one by doing righteousn<^ss, ivithout either faith, or love ? W^e all know be did not. Well, then, you are all compelled to agree with me, that it was not by faith, or love alone, but by faith, love, and doing righteous lu^ss all together, that the people were born of God. To do righteousness, is to obey the com- mandments of God. Peter says, '^ Born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of Ged'' And Jesus says, " Except a man be bui-n of wa- ter, and of the S-pirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Being born of water and the Spirit, makes it none the Jess true, that we are also born of faith, of love, of doing righteousness, and of the word of God; and being born of either of these, mfikes it none the less true, that we are born oi water, and of the Spirit, There is but one new birth in the bible, and the pas- sages now quoted, puts it beyond doubt, that the faith, the love, the aoing righteousness, the word of God. the u)ater, and the Spirit are dll essential to the one new birth. Note that sir, and in your next speech tell us how it is, that one of these five passages teaches what is true, and all the other four teach what is false^ 176 DfiBATE ON BAPTISM With me, they are all true. Not one of them says it is by faith, love, or any thing else alone. He told you that he was not going to the espistles, as I said he would, yet the very first passage he quo- ted, was from the 4th of Romans : " Abraham be- lieved God, and it was counted unto hirn for righte- ousness." He quoted this passage to prove justifica- tion by faith alone. Now, the Apostle was not trying in this chapter, to prove justification by faith alone, but to prove that men are justified without circumci- sion, and without obedience to the law of Moses. Hence he says, " Faith was reckoned to Abraham tor righteousness," How was it then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in cir- cumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision : a seal of the righteousness (»f the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised ; that he might be the lather of all them that believe, though Ihcy he not circumcised. Rom. 4: 10, 11. The controversy was here between Paul, and the Jews who v/ereatRome. It was not about obedience to the Gospel of Christ; but about the works of the law of Moses. Paul maintained that the Gospel was design- ed to save men without the works of the law. The Jews maintained that, " Except you be circumcised af- ter the manner of Moses, you cannot he saved ^ Acts, 15: 1. So " the ivorks''' which Paul mentions in this chap- ter, are not the commands of Jesus Christ, but circum- cision, and other thiags, after the manner of Moses. That Paul did not think of teaching pardon, justiri- cation or remission by faith alone, without any action upon our part, I will now prove by this same epistle to the Romans. In the third, fourth, fifth, and tenth chapters, he speaks of our being justified by faith ; but never says it is by faith alone. In the third chapter, 24th verse, he says, " Being justified /re^?/^ bi; his L^race, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whonj God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith AKD THE HOLY SPIRIT. HV Mi\ his \)lood, to declare his riorhfeousness for the. rcmis- .*ion of sins that are past." How can we be justified freely by his grace, if we are justified by faith alone? JTow can the righteousness of God be for remission of "sins, if remission is by our faith, alonef We are justili- •^d, not by faith, righteousness, or grace, alonef but by all of them together. In the 5th chap.. 9th verse, he says, " being noftJ just- ified bi/ his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through liim.""' But if it is by faith alccie, how can it be by the Woo^ of Christ that we are justified? But I must call his attention to one of his proofs texts, in Rom., iOth chap.: ''That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." V^erse 9. ** Whosoever sha!l crll upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Verse 13. Ave confessing, ■beheving, and calling on the Lord, all faith alone, Mr. Terrell ? Here are three things, and not one alone, by which we ane saved. We have now seen, that we 'are said to be justified by six different things: By faith, by grace, by the blood of Christ, by righteous- iriess, by confessing with the mouth, and by calling on. the name of the Lord ; and it is just as true that we are justified by blood, grace, or confession, as it is that we are justified by faith. But how can it be as true, if we are justified by faith alone. Mr. Terrell denies that the blood of Christ, the grace of God. baptism, repentance, prayer, the death, burial, or resurrection of Christ have anything to do with our justification; for it is by faith, and by faith onJi/, that we are justified, he says. Only mea^nsone thing by it- self, or am thing, to the exclusion of every other thing; so justification by faith onh/, means justification by faith, sepai'ate from the blood of Christ, the grace of God, and every thing else. The word on^i/ is thus de- Ihied by Crabb, in his *' English Synonymes :" *' Onlu, contracted from oneli/, signifying in the form of unity,''' L 178 DEBATE ON BAfTISM and is employed for that of which ihcrcis nc>mokk. A per- son has one child, is a positive expression that be- spealvs its own meaning; a person has a single child^ conveys the idea that there ought to be or might be more ; a person has an onlij child, implies that he v.ever had any ?7iorc.^'' p. 251. vSo faith oni?/, not only means that faith is by itself, but that it has always been alone, and never had any thing else with it. Well might James have said to an advocate of faith onli/,. " Wilt tkoy know, vain mnnj. that faith without works, i.^ dead." But before I leave this epistle to the Romans, I will show you when, and how they were made free from sin. Turn, if you please, to the 6th chapter, verses 17, 18, and hear the Apostle : '' But God be thanked, that whereas, [Wesley's Translation] ye were the servants of sin : but ye have obeyed frorn the heart Xhddfurm of doctrine which was delivered you." (Now mark.) '■ Being then made FREEi-'iioM sin, ye become the serv- ants of righteousness." When was it that they were made free from sin ? Why then, at the time they '• obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which wai^ delivered them." What can be plainer than this? Does it not show, beyond all doubt, that the people were not made free from sin by faith only, but by faith in God's promises, and obedience to his command- ments. It was not the doctrine, but tup. form of thtr doctrine that they obeyed when they were made frtr from sin. The '/ doctrine delivered" was, that Christ died, w^as buried, and raised again ; and the form of this doctrine, as set forth in the first part of this chap- ter, was, that the Romans died to sin, were buried with Christ in baptism, and were raised again to walk in newness of life. Thus we see, that at the very time they were buried in baptism, in obedience to the forns of doctrine, they were made free from sin. Thi? 1 call my fifth argument, in support of the position that baptism is for remission of sins. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. itO But Paul is not alone in teaching that we are puri- fied or made free from sin in obedience to the Lord's word, for Peter also says to the brethren : " Seeing you have purified your souls in obci.ingthe truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently." Here we see, that the brethren to whom Peter wrote were made free from sin, and purified in ohrdhnce — ^' ?7i ohcijhi^ the truth through the Spirit.*' How can this be true, if we are made free from sin by faiih onhj, without any obedience ? Let Mr. Terrell answer, as he professes to respect the word of God. Methodists teach that the moment we believe we are brought to know God, and to experience pardon and an instar- taneous change by faith only. This is Methodism as taught by the entire party. It is by faith only without any obedience that we obtain these blessings. John says, '' He that says he knows God, a,nd keeps not hi:s commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1st Epistle, 2: 4. Mr. Terrell told you that Methodists do not believe in justification by faith alone, but by faith only, and that anly does not mean in the Discipline, one thing alone, or one thing by itself. As to what they believe, or what their real sentiments are, I cannot speak for them all, but I know that the greater part of them really agree with us in sentiment, if they only knew it. In this discussion I have nothing to do with what they really hcliev, but what they 7-eally tmch. When they teach justification by faith only, they teach what I know they do not believe, and what no sane man ever did or ever can believe ; but that they teach it I will now prove. What is the language of this creed of theirs ? " Wherefore, that we are justified hy faith only, is a mosf, ichoksome doctrine^ and very full of comfort.''' Here it is as plain as language can make it. But the word " only" in the discipline does not mean one thing alone, he says, but one thing, and several other things with it. ISO DEBATE ON BAPTISM Let US see how this is. In the form of marriage laid down in the Discipline on page 115, I find where a man is required to " forsake all others, and to cleave to his wife, and her onlyy I now ask Mr. Terrell {{only here means one alone, or does it mean that he shall cleave to his wife and five or six others ? He knows it means one to the exclusion of all others ; and yet he leils us, that only in the Discipline does not mean one aione, but several together. In Watson's Life of Wesley, (which, by the by, is not the life q{ Wesley, but a book published for the M. E. Church, to teach iVIethodism,) I find the follow- ing : " Alas ! How little is the difierence between as- serting, either, 1. That we are justified by works, which is popery bare-faced; or, 2. That we are justi- iied by faith and works, which is popery refined or vailed; or, 3. That we are justified by faith alone, but by such a faith as includes all good works. What A POOR SHIFT IS THIS, — I wiU uot say that we are justifi- ed by works, nor yet by faith and works, because I have subscribed articles and homilies v/hich maintain just the contrary. No ; I say, we arejusti/ied by faith alone/' p. 100. ^ This speaks for itself. Mr. Terrell is the man who is guilty of the " poor shift'" of which this writer speaks for he says, it is by faith alone that we are justified, •• but by such a faith as includes all good works." — Here is a note at the bottom ot the same page, which says : *' The faith vvhich justifies does not include good works," but it will after " it has justified us, be followed by good works." This is Methodism. But I must read a little more : " Surely the difiiculty of assentuig to the propostion, that faith is the only condition oi justification, must arise from net understanding it. We mean thereby thus much, that it is the only t/u?tg, without which 3io one is justified; the only thing that is immediately, indispensably, absolutely requisite in order to pardon. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 181 As on the one hand, though a man should have eve- ry thing else, without faith, yet he cannot be justified ; so on the other, though he be supposed to want ev^nr thing elsc^ yet if he hath faith, he cannot be but justiji-d." p. 148. Is not this faith alone ? if a man has faith, icilJ/oHf the blood of Christ, the grace of God, or any thing else, " he cannot be but justified.'^ I repeat it, the doc- trine of '\failh o?i/y denies the blood of Chri^it, the gracf of God, repentance, baptism, prayer, and every thin^- else being essential to our pardon. Faith is the only thing injustiiication, and the only thing essential toil. Here is " Campbellism Exposed," in which 1 find Methodism thus " exposed.' Mr. Phillips, the Author of this exvosition. represents the " Campbellite'' as say- ing : '-That if the condition" (of pardon) "should prove to be faith alone, the addition of baptism must be harmless, inasmuch as faith is retained as a jart of the condition." (Now mark.) '' But the most ordina- ry reader will see the dans:cr of making that a j)arf Only, which God had made the wholk." p. 44. The blood of Christ, then, and the grace of God are not parts of the condition of pardon, for faith is the '•only condition," and the " wholk" of the condition. He need not try to teach me Methodism, for I under- stand the ' whole' of it. In my next speech I will provf that faith is not the condition of pardon, nor any part of the condition. Neither faith, repentance or bap- tism is the condition. Will Mr. Terrell tell us what the word condition means ? (Time expired.) [mr. tkkrell's 2d rkply — 3d prop.] Gentlemen Moderators — i have now but three speeches to make on the proposi- tion before us, and consequently shall not be able to no- tice all the irrelevant matters brought forward by the gentleman. He has learned that the epistles were ad- dressed to to the saints. We all knew this before, it 1S2 DEBATE ON BAPTISM is 110 new doctirne; but that is no reason why I should not refer to them. I suppose saint is a holy person, and 1 can see no other reason why I should not be al- lowed to quote language in this debate addressed to holy persoMS. I wish now to show you the gentleman's candor in ([noting from Mr. Wesley. The gentleman now tells you that me and my party believe that faith is all that is necessary to justification and quotes Mr. AVesley to {vrove it; but I will read you the whole of the passage of whrch he took care only to read you apart. It reads as follows: ''Surely the difficulty of assenting to the proposition, that faith is the ojifi/ condition, of justification must a- rise from not understanding it. We mean thereby this much, that it is the only thing that is immediately, in- dispensably, 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 f^lse, yet if he hath faith, he cannot be but justi- bcd. For suppose a sinner of any kind or degree in a full sense of his total ungodliness, of his utter inability to think, speak or dp good, and his absolute meetness for hell lire; suppose I say, this sinner, helpless and Iiopeiess, casts himself wholly on the mercy of God in Cihrist, (which indeed he cannot do but by the grace of < iod,)who can doubt but he is forgiven in that moment? Who will affirm that any thing more is indispensably required, before that sinner can be justified?" IT es/ey's Sfrmon on. Jitstijlcalion. Now this proves that faith is the great requisite — the great principle through which the sinner comes and '•asts himself down at the foot of the cross, acknowl- edging himself a poor undone rebel, and that faith is the a nil/ condition of pardon. Mr. Pritchard calls upon me to tell what I mean by condition. By the condition through or by which we are justified, 1 mean the principle, the only principle AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 183 by which any man can be justified. But while I hold that faith is the condtion and the only condition of justi- ^cation, 1 believe repentance and baptism are means of justification. But I do not believe that baptism is more of a means than prayer. He complains ot my going to the epistles, and if it will suit him ;uiy better, I will quote from Walter Scott's ^•Gospel Restored." IMr. Scott says, "There are many that are not pardoned in baptism." This Mr. Scott is a distinguished member in the gentleman's own church, and yet he declares that there are many that are not; pardoned in baptism. Baptism is profitable for us. It strengthens our faith and is auxilerey, to it, but not essential to pardon. The Jailor enquired, "Sirs, What must I do to be saved"i^" But Paul did not say, be baptized; but he told him to ^'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shait be saved and thy house."' Here my Christian friends, is the doctrine of justification by faith. But the gentleman says triumphantly that 1 have not produced one ca.se of Justification by faith nlonc. — Look at the case I have just produced. The Jailor was required to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Here faith is the condition and the only condition. Also in Ro. 10th chapter, we find the same doctrine. '*3Ioses. describeth the righteousness which is of the Law. that the man which doeth these things shall live by them. — But the righteousness which of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart who shall ascend into hea- ven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above;) or who shall decend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But n-hat saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy h^art: that is the word of faith which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and sha'.c believe in thine 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 i{>oufession is made unto salvation."' '^''' IM DEBATE ON BAPTISM » Here we are said to believe unto rigliteousiiess, or a?j- you would say [Heve Mr. T. Pointed to Mr. PritchardJ into righteousness- The gentleman seenjs to have a smiling countenance. He must feel very mucU pleased about something! This passage showN that faith is the only condition of pardon. Again, the apostle says, "the promise is sure to ail the seed." Xow it is not sure if it cannot be re- ceived without baptism, for there are many circumstan- ces in which it is diihcult and even impossibly to be bap- tized. Morever, the gentleman's doctrine always de- fers God's time. God says, "Now is the day of salva- tion,'' bat the gentleman would say put it off till yois can find water. God says my word is nigh thee. evcM in thy mouth and in thy heart, but the gentleman would say, it is as far oif as the water. Yes, it is nigh thee. not at the creek nor the river. Go with me to the cham- ber of sickness when the cold blast of winter is chilling the stoutest frame. Man is made to tremble at the im- mense darkness and bitterness of the cold. We behold the sick woman there upon a dying bed, having been worn out by long sulT'ering and she is in an ex.treme state of debility, and she asks Mr. P., What shall I do to be saeed? He answers, Jesus came into the world to save sinners His word is nigh the; his yoke is easy aiad hi.^ burden is light, "Now is the accepted time asid the day of salvation." Believe and thou shait be saved. She says I believe thai Jesus Christ is the Son of God. May such a sinner as I am come awd be accepted of him He says, she may. She says what shall I do? — Mr. Pritchard says, be immersed lor the rem,ission of sins. The womiin trembles. Nothing is seen without but fearfiil darkness; the storm rides aloft and howls a- roand the iittle cabin. Ah, says tshe dying woman i thought you said "his yoke was easy and his burden light- I am too sick to turn in my bed. 1 find that to- day is not the day of salvation. Go says Mr. PritchariJ and ger. me a moat tr > igh or a trough dug^ that 1 may- immerse this woman. I may launch into eternity be- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 185 fore that can be done, says the woman. This is no fan- cy sketch. The like has happened in this conntry. ' A man may get his back broke and cannot be im- mersed. Yet Mr. Pritchard would let the man go down to hell in despair, because he cannot be immers- ed. This subject is enough to warm any ones heart — I feel a holy zeal. My heart burns within me. — God's religion is a universal religion, — a gospel that all can now receive. Yes, it is a universal religion — •• Go into all the w^orld, and preach the gospel to eve- ry creature." Here baptism is not made the ^iiie rjua- iion in order to pardon. John says, he that believetb is born of God. The gentleman cannot find where i? is said, he that is baptized is born of God. Baptism is not the condition, nor prayer — faith is the condition. Mr. Campbell believes that all the absolving power of the blood of Christ is in the water. His words, as I find them in the Christian System, are: " The ab- solving or pardoning power of the blood of Christ ir- transferred to water." Here is water salvation for you ! The pardonm^; power transferred to water ! In- deed ! Are you prepared for such doctrine as this ? The gentleman's baptismal regeneration is Roman Catholicism, as 1 will now prove, by leading D'Au- bigne's History of the Reformation. [Here Mr. Terrell read some passage from D'Aubig- ne, to show that Romanists believe in baptizmal re- generation, but as he did not refer to the page, 1 am unable to find it.] Now you see where the gentleman stands. Here is where the gentleman gets his baptismal regeneration. He has to go back to the holy mother ! His doctrine and Romanism are the same. This 1 have now proved, and he cannot escape. You see now who it is that is related to the holy mother. Mr. Pritchard is the man. He believes, with Mr. Campbell, that the pardoning power of the blood of Christ, is transferred to water, and I have now shown that Roman Catholics believe the same. 186 DEBATE ON BAPTISM He now can talk about "coming out of Babylon,'^ for he holds the same doctrine with old Mystery Bab- ylon herself. You now see where these self-called Reformers are driven to. They hold the same doc- trine relative to the pardon of sin, held by the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in a system of salvation that can reach man in every condition in which it can possibly find him, and bring pardoning mercy to his soul. 1 believe in bible religion, which says, " now is the accepted time and now is the day of salvation :" but 1 do not believe in the doctrine of my friend, which saySj now is not the accepted time, but some future time when the per- son can be immersed. I believe in a religion which says, "Whosoever will, let him come, and partake of the water of life freely ;" and not in the religion of Mr. Pritchard, which says to the man on the dying bed, you cannot come unless you can be immersed. No, Christian friends ; bless the Lord, faith is the con- dition and the only condition. This blessed doctrine^ thank God, of justification by faith, can save the poor sinner with his back broken, which would render it impossible for him to be immersed. This blessed doc- trine, thanks to God, brings comfort to the soul of the dying man, without telling him that he must be lirst dipped in some pond, or that a trough must be made, during which time he might launch into eternity. Christian friends, you need not be surprised at my speaking warm on this .sabject. 1 feel that I am vin- diceting the great vital principle oi' heart-felt religion. Many of you who hear me to-day, have felt its hallow- ed influences, and can remember well when it lirst en- tered your hearts. Who would exchange this blessed religion, this blessed assurance of acceptance with God, for that which depends on the administrator of baptism, or that which depends on health and the op- portunity of being immersed? The Lord can speak peace to the soul of the sinner, on the sick bed or a hundred miles from an adminis- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 187 trator of baptism, and he has promised that he will do it, as I have already shown. He can believe in Jesus in any place, and in any circumstances; and he that believeth in him is passed irom death into life. The prophet said, he that believeth in him shall not be confounded. Here, on this position, I stand, and from it I cannot be moved. This doctrine has stood the test of opposition for ages, and ever must stand. From here the gentleman cannot move me. You see then, that he has made a most signal failure^ and that I have established a proposition, which over- turns his doctrine at one sweep. Out of this difficulty he never can escape. Here I shall hold him. There is no alternative. Fail he must. Time expired. MR. PRITCHARD's THIiiD ADDRESS 3rD TI.'V, Gentlemen Moderators: There were some things in the last speech of Mr. Ter- rell that I was glad to hear from him, and things too, which, if I am not mistaken, he will wish he had saved for another occasion ; but before noticing these things, I will briefly notice a few passages introduced by him in his first speech, and offer one or two more arguments in support of my position. To prove justification hy faith only, he quoted the passage, " as Moses lifted lip the serpant in the wilderness, even so must the "Son of man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Now, upon this I remark. 1. That itis not pardon, but " e- ternal life"' in the w^orld to come that is here promised to the believer; which life, Mr. Terrell dare not say, is obtained by faith only, without any obedience. 2. When it is said, "whosoever believeth, shalf have so and so, it is always said upon the supposition that every believer does ?ind will obey the Lord. 3. The Israelites, when " Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," were not saved from death by faith oivyy 18S DEBATE ON BAPTISM but by and act of faith, — in obedience to the commanri *' Loo/t upon the serpent of brass, and live.''* They did look, as the Lord commanded, and " If a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, hr lively Num. 21:8. They were saA^ed by an art of faith, — by physical action, — in obedience, — when they Inolxd as the Lord commanded. " Even so." Mark that ^^ Even so!^'' "Even so must the Son of man bf lifted up," that whosoever will do, as the Israelites did. h'Uf^vc and do all things spoken and commanded. " shall not perish, but have eternal life." Mr. Terrell d'lve not say that eternal life is in this world ; nor that it is obtained by faith alone. Nor will he make such a blockhead of himself, as to say ihnt pardon of sins, ^•nd eternal life are one and the same thing. I know he is great for idcnf\ty, but he will not make these identical. If not, why does he quote this passage which speaks only of eternal life, to prove that pardon is by faith only ? This is one of the ways that Methodists have of dis- posing of the words of Peter, " be baptized for the re- mission of sins ; and the other is, to make fun of what Peter preached, by singing : *'Ho fvpry mother, son and dancfhter, Kerens the gospel in the water." It was well for the Israelites in the wilderness, that they had not learned to ridicule, and make fun of what the Lord commanded. If they had been favoreii with a daring Infidel, in the form of a Methodist Cir- cuit Rider, they might have had a great deal of fun. when Moses put forth the command, " Look upon the serpent of brass, and live/' by singing: "H(s f?very mother, pon and ral-r., Here's the gospel in the snake.^* If the Israelites had acted thus, would they have been saved from the dreadful bite ot the serpants ? We kiiov/ thev would not. How then can a man who, in AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 181> vi-ew of the language of the Spirit, " be baptized for remission of sins," make a song for the vulgar and low-minded to turn into ridicule this command, ex- pect to be saved ? O; that Methodists had the faith of the Sons of Israel, how many of them might be healed of the dreadful bite of the old serpent, — the DeviL They knew that the serpent of brass could not heal them, but that the Lord could ; cnnH.ding in his promise, they obeyed his command, and [,¥ obedience were restored to life and health. So v/e know that, neither baptism, nor any other command can save us, but we know that God can, co7i/idi?tg in his v/ord, w^e ■.)bey, and in obedience the Lord saves us from sin. The word of God leads us to faith, faith to feeling; teeling to action, and action to the blood of Christ, by which our sins are washed away. He quoted a verse in the 13th of Acts . '' All that believe ^re justilied from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses;" which means no n)ore than all the believers, qv all the fol- lowers of Christ are justiiled in a way in which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. We read in another pasc?age. that, ''Many of the Rulers of the Jews believed on him, but for fear of the people they did not confess him." Were they saved '^ Were thev justified Mr. Terrell ? You know they v/&re not.-^- But, why were they not? Because faith alone would not justify them. Because they did not openly confess* him by submitting to his authority. By the way, I remember the arentleman told you, that I had '' crossed my own track," in saying the epistles were written to Saints. Did I not affirm on yesterday, that the epistles were written to the " vSaints ■Aud faithful in Christ Jesus," and not to infants, as he vainly supposed ? Strange that a Methodist preacher could make such an assertion. That the epistles were written to the Saints, is something that Metho^l-, isJs never knew till they learned it of us; and it is 100 DEBATE 05 BAFTISM'' something that they do not understand yet very welJ^ from the use Mr. Terrell has made of the epistles. t>. My sixth tirgument shall be drawn from the fact, that the Apostles baptized all believers as soon as tliey confessed faith in Christ. On the day of Pentacost. Peter preached Christ to the people, and commanded them to be baptized for the remission of their sins, and three thousand gladly received the word, and were baptized the same day for remission of sins. ■Acts 2: 41. Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preach- ed Christ nnto them ; and " when they believed, they were baptized, both men and women."' At Samaria, Simon believed, and ^vas baptized immediately by Philip. Acts 8: 12, 13. Philip heard the Eunoch reading the Scriptures ; aad Philip began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. When he heard the arguments of Philip, he said :. " I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God ;" so Philip baptized him on the spot, and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8: 38. Cornelius sent for Peter to tell him " what to do, and words by which he should be saved''' Peter preached (Jhrist unto him and his friends ; and while speaking of Christ, said : '' To him give all the prophets wntness, that through his name whosoever believeth shall re- ceive remission of sins." But, no sooner did he be- fieve, than Peter " commanded him to be baptized m the 'lame of the Lord." Here we see, that in '-telling him words by which he should be saved,'^ he told tiirn to b".Iieve and be baptized. Acts 10, 48. Lydia heard Paul preach at PhiUppi, "by the riv^r side, ' and before she left the river, she believed,, and was baptized. Acts 16: 13, 15. K Mr. Terrell had been there, I really believe he w^ould have thought,, and reported Paul to be a " Campbellite/' for being in such haste. Mr. Terrell alluded to the conversion of the Philip- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 191 plan Jailer, about like he and his party generally quote the commission. They generally quote it : '' He that believeth, &c., shall be saved, and lie that believeth not, shall be damned.' What they mean by the " &c," 1 never could tell, unless they mean by it the mourner's bfnch. He told you that Paul told the Jailer to be- lieve, but he forgot to tell you that Paul also baptized him -'the same hour of the night;'" and that after his baptism, he rejoiced, as did the Eunoch. Acts 16: 33. "Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." Acts 18: 8. These passages show that the Apostles always preached Christ, and as soon as the people believed that he was the Son of God, they baptized them, as Peter did, " for the remission of sins." Add to this, that there is not one man in all the New Testament, from the time Christ said, " Go preach the gospel to every creature," to the final Amefi in Revelation, who is said to be pardoned before he was baptized. I chal- lenge Mr. Terrell to show one. Let him show where one is said to be pardoned, and I will show where he was baptized. This fact meets every thing he has said about justification by faith ; for every one of those who were said to be justified by faith, by grace, or by the blood of Christ, were baptized before they were said to be justified by any thing. 7. My seventh argument is founded upon four pas* sages in the epistles : " Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it ; that \\e might sanctify and cleanse it with wASiunG of water by the word." Ephesians 5; 26. Speaking of the unclean, Paul says: "And such were some of you, but you are icashed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1st Corinthians, 6: 11. '• Not by works of righteousness whicii we have done , but according to his mercy he saved us,'^ (by faith XS2 DEBATE ON BAPTISM alone ? No, no ; but) " by the ivashing of regeneratioJi, and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Titus 3: 5. •'The like figure where unto, even baptism, doth also /iow save us, bv the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 3: 21. "^ Now, in these four passages we have the design of baptism so plainly, and clearly taught, that it is impos- sible to mistake it. We learn, first, That it was the purpose of Christ, whe he give himself for the church, 'to sanctifq and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.'' Second. When the Corinthians were made free from their uncleanness, they were "washed, ami Justified in the name of the Lord." 3d. That we are now saved by X\iG w x^msG of regeneration." 4th. That •baptism noio saves us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." If we are now saved by baptism, justified when we are washed in the name of the Lord, and sanc- tified and cleansed by the washing of water by the word, does it not follow that baptism is essential to pardon':' J will not ask Mr. Terrell to reply to this, for I know he will never try. He will not, he has not, he cannot re- ply to my arguments. I have now offered seven argu- ments, and not one of them has he replied to. I want him to do his best. 1 want him to show that " repent,' and be baptized for remission of sins," means nothing more than remission of sins by faith only. Let him show how the words, '' arise, and be baptized, and wash away they sins," mean that baptism is not essen- lial to pardon Instead of replying tome, he had to turn aside ta' tell you that 1 am "very good naturcd'" this mornirtg. Well, I am always good natured when I am not Ul- raatured. and always in a pleasant moorf when J am ru»t unpleasantly situated. I must nov/ notice, not his Scripture arguments, but his "sick woman," "blind man," and " crippled buy' objections to my proposition. His first was, that ine AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 103 Lord says, '' Xow is the day of salvation ;" and there- fore baptism cannot be for remission of sins. The objection is this : The Lord says the time for pardon is right NOW, but we put it off tell we can go to the wa- ter, which will take ten or fifteen minutes, and in some cases the whole of one hour, and therefore it must be wrong. This objection comes upon us heavily, when we consider that it is from a man who is in the habit of Keeping the people days, weeks, months, and even years, fh/ing on the coals of conviction, and crawling around the mourner's bench trying to " get religion.' To correspond with his faith and practice, the commis- sion should have read : he that repents, and comes to the bench, and prays for failh, shall get religion. In- stead of telling the people to ''repent, and be baptized for remission of sins," Peter should have said, repent, and come to the mourner's bench, and pray for laith. Eut why come to the mourner's bench ? Because it is warmer here, and because the Lord has ovmed it, and blessed it in the conversion of thousands." The Lord own such an institution ! What daring wickedness ! The history of the conversion of the Eunoch should read : And he commenced at the same Scripture, and told him how one was converted at the mourner';^ bench, another at his work, and another when he saw Buck put his head under the yoke, and finished his re- marks by saying, the Lord will bless men as soon in one place as another, and as soon at one thing as an- other, for now is the time. And the Eunoch said. See here is a slab, what hinders me to come to the bench< and pray for faith. The circuit preacher said. If you have a desire to flee from the wrath to come, you may. He answered, This is my desire. So they went down on to the bench, both the preacher and the Eunoch, and he prayed for him. And when the came up '' fi orri:'' X\iQ bench, the Eunoch "had Holy Ghost re- ligion." This is no misrepresentation of Methodism ; ':: .- m' iS4 BEBATE ON BAPTISM Methodism as it is, and Mr. Terrell will not say that I slander them; for, from him, from what I have heard him say, and seen him do, I could have learned it all, if i had not known it before. Now is it not strange, that a man who advocates such things and practices such things, can stand up here and say, that the Apos- tles taught positive falsehoods, because one passage says, " Now is the time ?" The Apostle was talking about the obedience of the brethren, and says, " Now is the time," which means no more than that you should obey to-day, and n-ot put ofi' till to-morrow what you should d^ to-day. His second objection was, that if a woman is sick, and too sick to be baptized before she dies, she must be damned, if baptism is essential to parden. Upon this I remark, first. That if she understood her duty, and wilfully refused to do the will of God till it was too late, it is her own fault, and not the fault of the Bible, if she is damed. 2. If she never understood her duty, and never had an opportunity of obeying the Lord, he will not re- quire it of her; for he requires nothing that is impossi- ble. For example : Paul preached " to make all men see ;" bjiit a man who is born blind is not required to ,see, for it is impossible for him to see. God says, — *' This is my Son ; hear y©u him ;^' but a man who is deaf i'Tom. his birth is Eot required to hear, for he can- not do it. The Lord requiires all men to confess with their mouth that Jesus is the Christ, but a man who is a mute is not req^iired to confess with his mouth. — John Wesley, the father of Methodism, in answer to a similar objection upon this same subject, said, (and so say I) "Indeed, where it (baptism) cannot be had, the case is different ; but extraordinary cases do not make void a standing rule.^^ Doc. Trac. p. 251. 3. It is Mr. Terrell, and not me, who teaches that baptism is essential to eternal salvation. I make it es- sential to the present salvation from sin only ; but Mr. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 195 Terrell and his party make it essential to eternal sal- vation in the world to come. Did I not prove that Mr. Terrell and his party believed, " that unbaptized in- fants are out of the church, without any provision for their eternal well-being ?" Did I not prove that they believed them to be " children of wrath, and liable to eiirnal damnatiGn?'' Now hear what they teach in reference to adults. '• Baptism doeth now save us, if we live answerable thereto ; if we repent, believe, and obey the Gospel : supposing this, as it admits us into the church here," (Now mark) " So into glory hereafter.''^ Doc. Trac , p. 249. That is the doctrine his " sick wo- rmian" opposes. We have to meet such objections to the truth from Infidels and Universalists, as well as ftom Methodists. Such objections are the offspring of innidelity, and the brats of unbelief; and are resorted to only in the absence of something better to say. — Mr. Terrell had forgotten that he is the advocate of sprinkling when he made this objection ; for he cer- tainly did not intend to say that this woman was too sick to have a few drops of water sprinkled upon her. Truth will out. But, his crowning objection was, that my doctrine is Catholicism. 1 was pleased to hear this objection, because it gives me an opportunity of showing you whose doctrine is Catholicism, which I will now do. I hold in my right hand Catholicism, and in my left Methodism. Hear their " ceremonies used in the bap- tismal services," and you can see whether Methodism and Catholicism are not clearly related on this subject. The questions to the person to be baptized are the fol- lowing : Catholic. — " Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, all his angels, and all his service, and his pomps?" Answer: " I do renounce." Methodist. — " Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with. ^11 covetQus desires of the same?" 19(5 DEBATE ON BAPTIS.H Answa : " I renounce them all." Catholic. — '• Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth ? Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ his only Son and Lord ?" Answer: "I do believe." Methodist.—" Dost tliou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth? and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son and Lord?" Answer : "All this I steadfastly believe." Catholic. — " Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life eternaW^ Answer : " J do believe o" Methodist. — " Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghosts the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the remission of sin.s, the resurrection of the body, and I'ViTlasting life after death ?" Answer. — " All this I steadfastly believe." Catholic. — " Do you desire to be baptized ?" Answer: 'I do desire it." Hinton's His. Bap., p. 187 and 319. Methodist. — Wilt thou be baptized into this failkr'' Answer. — ''This is my desire." Discipline, p. 110. Here is Catholicism as large as life ; and here we -ee, that the Methodist creed is not all new, but that they have copied into theirs the very articles, questions and answers, language, ideas and all of the Catholic •reed ; and then, forced them upon the world undei' he imposing nam.e of Methodism. Truly was it said by a Methodist: "Ours is a fluctuating world.' Its fashions pass away, and the opinions of communities and of men so frequently c-hange, that old things sorre- times become new.'^'' . But Methodism is Catholicism in many other respects. It is knovv^n to all now present, I suppose, that the Catholic creed, requires all the sub- jects of that party to observe, as a day of fastivg^ eve- ry Friday in the year. Now, hear' the creed of '' our A*,1) THE HOLY SPIRIT. iUT fljlAurcli^' upon the duty of members. " To ohssrve, as ^lays of fasting, or abstinence, all Fridays in the jear." p. '89. AVhy do they select Friday, as the da,y on which to fast ? Becaui>3'th-e mother of" our church^' did so. It is imown also, that a Catholic Priest is requii-ed to see the nvsn and loonicn oi his church separately, and hear their confessions. A Methodist Circuit Rider is re- quired " to meet the men and women apart, once a quarter." Discip. p. 4.3. In obedience to this we fre- quently see Methodist preachers visiting around, while the men are from home on business, " to see the rmv ■and women apaxt^ It is well known that the keystone of the great Arcli of Catholicism is, that the Pope and his tiibe are the successors of the Apostles. Methodist preachers also claim to be their successors. See Doc. Tracts, p. 251 . Yes, every. circuit rider, if he has only three ideas abovo eLbric'c-bat, and hardly sense enoagL to peddle black berries, claims to be a successor of the Apostles ; and, with .all the spiritual pride of a Romap. Priest, arrogoaitly, and UDbiushingly tells the world, that baptism is not valid, unless it is admiuistered hy :one of their " holv order.''' How can a man have th:- audacity to .stand up here, and audaciously tell you that my doctrine is Catholicism? when it is known that the farniture of his sanctuary,, and the articles of liis creed are right from Rome. . When this daughter of Rome married and set up, for herself, her mother furnished her with her ideas, her language, her doc- trine, and her religion ; and although she does not equal her mother in arrogance and unblushing impu- dence, she equals in audacity any other daughter her mother ever had. I deny that Catholics believe, as 1 do, \\\.^\Ja%lli, rcvcn'ance, and a cJiangc of heart are pre - requisites to baptism. I deny that they ever taught baptism for the remission of the sins of a penitent be- liever only. It is a slander upon the truth, only equal- led by his slander upon the sentiments of Bro. Camp- |9S DEBATE ON BAPTISM bell, to which I next invite your attentions. He rep- resents Bro. Campbell as believing, that the blood of Christ has r\o jwicer but vfYioX is in the water; and by quoting one or two sentences only, makes him ^ay precisely the opposite of what he does say. In the- paragraph to which Mr. Terrell alluded, Bro. Camp- bell is commenting upon two verses: "Be baptized, and icash away thy sins;" and " They i/Yz.sV/cr/ their robes, and made them lohite in the blood of the Lamb." He says, "Here are two things equally incomprehen- sible — to wash garments white in blood, and lo wash a- way sins in waterV^ (Now mark.) " An efficacy is as- cribed to water which it does not posses;?, and, as certain- ly, an efficacy is ascribed to blood which it dois not possess. If blood can whiten or cleanse garments, cer* tainly water can wash away sins. There is, then, a transferring (in the sacred style) of the efficacy of blood to water; and a transferring of the efficacy of water to blood. This is a plain solution of the whole matter. God has transferred in some way, the whitening efficacy, or cleansing power of water to blood; and the ab- solving or pardoning power of b.'ood to water." C. Sys- tem, p. 215. Now, docs it require more than an ounce of com- mon discernment, and common honesty to see, that, so far from Bro. Campbell teaching that water now pos- sesses all the pardoning power of the blood of Christ, he teaches that, when water is said to ''wash away sins," " an efficacy is ascribed to water which it does not possess V^ When he sa3's, " the pardoning power of the blood of Christ is transferred to v.'ater," his mean- ing is, that ia the style of the New Testament writers blood is said to do what water alone can do — viz — wa.sk a thing white; and water is said to do what blood alone can do — viz — wash away sens. I really supposed that, from the merited lashing Mr. Terrell received from me a few months ago at this place, for this con- temptable and stupid slander, he would not have the AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 199 boldness to reiterate the same thing again in my pres- ence. Tliis is the first perversion I ever heard from Mr. Terrell, (but not the last) and this slander upon the sentiments of Bro. Campbell is one of the princi- pal things that brought about this discussion. But of this again. Time expired. [mr. Terrell's 3d reply — 3d prop.] (jentlemen Moderators — I will commence at the last end of Mr. Pritchard's speech. He said that according to our book of Disci- pline, Article 9, weare saved b}^ faith only. 1 have alrea- dy answered that 1 should think, so that any one might understand me. ^ly answer was that ''oily' there meant the necessary requisite, or the great principle. Accord- ing to the Discipline faith is the only condition. It is the only terms of pardon or justification. He wishes to know whether infants are justified by faith, and, in a very knowing manner, asks what the Discipline means, where it says, "Wilt thou take this woman for thy wife, and cleave unto her and her onJ.ij^'' He asks \^'' right. But there is a great dif- ference between myself and the gentleman here* I h ave come out of Romanism but he is just going into it. I am glad that I am out of it, and would be glad if 200 DEBATE ON BAPTISM the gentleman would not go into Roman Catholicism, i would like to warn hin? and keep him from runninj^: into Catholicism if I could but he appears unconscious- of his advances in that direction. Mr. Pritchard i-eads from our book of Dicipline, and then from the Romish creed, to show that we hold some doctrines in common with Roman Catholics, This we do not deny Catholics believe many things that are true, and it is not a salficient reason for me to let go the truth, to find that it is held and believed by Roman Catholics; and as Mr. Pritchard sees proper to leave Protestantism and go back to Roman Catholicism he surely cannot think it WTong in our church to hold some articles in common with Catholics, especially where they are right. If he sees proper to go to Catholics from Protestants, he cannot blame us for going from Catholics to Protestants! The gentleman reads much from Mr. Wesley's Doc- trinal Tracts on infant baptism. 1 have nothing to do with Mr. Wesley's views on that subject, only to show that he has been misrepresented. We subscribe to no one man's views in every thing, only so far as he goes with the word of truth: but in the main, we think Mr. Wesley was in the right. Mr. Pj'itchard has fallen upon the error that caused the great apostacy. The doctrine of baptism for re- mission of sins, is that to which I allude. Pie need not refer to Mr. Wesley. He did not believe baptism was for pardon, and he never preached such a doctrine. — ■ Pie misrepresents him when he says he did. 1 have his Doctrinal Tracts, and I know what he taught as well at least as Mr Pritchard. He is not to make this audi- ence believe Mr. Wesley taught any such doctrine; and if he did we do not believe all he taught. In the main his writings are good and received by us. The error of the gentleman, I repeat it, that baptism is for remission of sins, was the great inlet to the apostacy, and the gen- tleman himself in preaching that doctrine, is getting }*ack to Romanism. I hope this will satisfy him. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 201 He quotes from St. Paul as follows: "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to e^- tablish their own righteousnes have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God." Evidently righteousness here means pardon of sins, for they alone are righteous who have their sins pardoned, it requires an act of the mind to bring a man to pardon, and not of the bod}/. The scripture says, "to him that worketk ?iol,h\il be.ievcth; his faith is counted to him for righ- teousness." This righteousness 1 say means pardon of sins, for they alone are righteous who have their sins pardoned. Man is pardoned then, by an act of the mind ofGod, and not by his own acts. A learned writer says, "It requires the will of God to pardon." But according to Mr. Pritchard's doctrine, it not only requires a mans faith, an act of the mind but of the body; yes, and not only this but an act of the third person. The sinner must get some person to baptize him. and if no one can be ob- tained to administer the ordinance of baptism, the in- dividual sink*^ down in dispair. According to his doc- trine, before anyone can obtain pardon, he must get a third person willing to it, and ready to baptize him. — God intended no such thing. He never intended that the salvation of one soul, should depend upon the op- tion of a third person. In obtaining the pardon of a man's sins, the sinner and his God are all that have and thing to do in the ca.se. The sinner thank God, is notdepeneant upon any one. But according to the doctrine of my friend, if he cannot get an administra- tor, or if the administrator refuses to baptize him, he mu.st be lost. This doctrine 1 do not believe. I cannot believe that God would make the salvation of one man's soul depend upon the will of another man. It is unrea- sonable. Mr. Pritchardhas a great deal to say about the mour- ner's bench; but we do not beHeve the mourners bench is a condition of pardon. Vv^e might retort that he makes water a condition, for Mr. Campbell says the ab- solving quality of the blood of Christ is transferred to 202 DEBATE 0J» BAPTISM water and that immersion alone is the act of taming tc^ God. Abraham was justified by faith^ and so are are all the spiritual seed of Abraham. This I will show from Ro. 4: 1. "What shall we say then, that Abraham our fath- er as pertaining to the fleshy hath found. For if Abra- ham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory; but not before God; for what saith the scriptures: Abra- ham believed God and it was accounted to him for righ- teousness. Now to him' that worketh is the reward not reconed of grace; but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, liis faith is counted to him for righteousness. Ev^en as David also discribetb the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works; say- ing, Blessed is the man whose iniquiies are forgiven and whose sins are covered." Mr. Pritchard .says, devils beheTe. Well, in James, 2d chapter, the apostle speaks of a justification some 26 years after Abraham's justification, and Abra- ham is presented as a pattern of our own justification. He is the pattern of the faithful. What other condition are we here taught but faith? Surely none other. — Faith is the great condition. This doctrine will stand in spite of my respectable opponet — it must, and will stand forever. 3t is the great fundamental doctrine of the Reformation of the IGth century. I will now quote Martin Luther, as his words are found in D'Aubinie's History of the Refor- mation, page 202 : *' On man's part, there is nothing that goes before grace, — nothing but impotency and rebellion. There is no moral virtue without sadness, — that is to say, without sin." This blessed doctrine will stand forever. The rough eloquence of Martin Luther was engaged in the cause of justification by faith alone. It was felt that it was the cause of the gospel, of justice, and of liberty, which was then to be pleaded. Faith without works justifies, and this doc- trine will stand forever. He that believeth with all AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 203" the heart, belleveth unto righteousness. This is the doctrine of the gospel. Mr. Pritchard would have to point the sick woman, to whom 1 called his attention, to some brook, pond or meat trough. But 1 would say, in the language of Pe- ter, " all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses." The ninth article of our Discipline is the doctrine of the whole Episcopal church — also the Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Not that part of the Baptist church that deny the divinity of Christ. [Mr. Pritchard said. Who do you refer to ?] Mr. Terrell said, I do not know that I am bound to tell. I think that the New Lights deny the divinity ot" Christ, and they are very near akin to you [pointing to- Mr. Pritchard.] I have referred the gentleman to our book of Disci- plin, 54th page, sections 2 and 3, to show that Mr. Pritchard has misrepresented me, when he says, that our creed makes justification just according to every man's own theory, and that if a man is baptized, he is justified without faith. We hold no such doctrine, and the gentleman knows it. Our doctrine is, that the man that believeth has the assurance that he is par- doned, and of everlasting life. " All the prophets bear Vv'itness of him, that through his name, whosoever be- lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." Mr. Pritchard stands in opposition to all the prophets. Luther meant just what Wesley meant by justifica- tion by faith alone. They both meant just the doctrine of the bible, and that is just what I mean; and if f could pin this doctrine to the wings of the wind, or make use of the bellowing thunder-tones, I would teil it to the benigted nations of the farthest people on the globe, and in the language of Paul, that -'the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart," and that if " thou shait believe in thy heart, in the Lord Jesus, and confess with thy mouth, thou shalt be saved! ' '-■^^ch is the doctrine of the scripture. Such is the tit) 4 BEBATE ON BAPTISM doctrine i^uitable to poor fallen man. It makes not his salvation depend upon any one but him self. It de- pends upon no act, but an a,ct of the mind that can be performed any place and in any condition. The man with his back broken can believe, and con- sequently can comply with th« only condition ; but if baptism is for remission of sins, as Mr. Pritchard con- tends, he is lost. The gospel has no good news for him. It simply tells him of a way of salvation that ii- out of his reach. Away with such doctrine. Let the old doctrine that has comforted so many thousands on a dying bed, stand forever. Time expired. TMR. PRTTCH.AHD's FOURTH ADDRLVS — oRD FROT'. dentlemen Moderators: As Mr. Terrell has agreed for the accommodation of th-e I\Iod-erators to occup^^ but /bz^r hours in the dis- •cussios^ of hif5 proposition to-morrov^^, 1 have agreed for his accommodation to occupy but four hours to-d.ay. — This, then, is my last .speech. I have offered scve/n s-eparate -and distinct arguments m support of m}' position ; to but one of them all hat^ the gentleman, who is falsely called my opponent, al- luded, and to none -of them has he mad-e any reply ; and, of course, cannot now, for they v/ere ail introduc- ed before my last speech. Th-ey m;ust go to the world unanswered and unreplied to. i will now add anoth- •er to these seven, which shall be d-rawm, not from the Bible, but from Mr. Terrell and his party. I will now prove by Mr. Terrell himself, that he does not believe faith is the ■on/y condition of pardon, a,nd that my pro- position is true. I called upon Mr. Terrell some time ago, as yom all remember, to t-ell what thd word con- dition me ams, mid what he means by faith being the only coiidit)ion of pardon. He told you that conditioE means principle, and that by faith being the nnli/ con- dition, he meant that it was the only principle of par- •don. Well, 1 suppose, if my learned friend shouU AXD THE HOLY SPIRIT. '20» s;peak of a man's religious principles, he would meaa by that language his religious conditions; and if he should speak of a man being in a bad, condition, he would mean that he is in a bad principle. What a learned man Mr. Terrell must be ! Well may he be called the champion of Indiana! 1 did not ask what condition always means, but what does it mean in a "Contract or covenant? What does it mean in the Gospel covenant? It never did, nor never can mean principle. It sometimes denotes the slate of men and things, but never their principles. In a contract or covenant, it means to pay or return an equivalent. — Orabb says, " Condition respects any point that is ad- mitted as a ground of obligation or engagement : it is used for the general transactions of men, m which they reciprocally bind themselves to return certain equiva- lents,'' Synonymes, p. 335. 1 now assert that Mr. Terrell does not believe that faith is the only condition of pardon, to say nothing of its being the " only condition." Do you believe, sir, that our faith returns to God an equivalent ^ov pardon f Do you, sir, believe that our faith benefits God as much as pardon benefits us? If not, then you do not believe your own assertion. That you do not believe it, I will now prove by you. You remember the dis- course you delivered at this place ?.gainst the " small- er fry of Campbellism," I suppose. 1 heard it, and so did more than fifty others who are now present. Now sir, did you not then say, that we are bought with a price, with the blood ot Jesus Christ? Did you not say, that Mr. Campbell agreed with you, that an equivalent for pardon was returned to God by the blood of Christ? Did you not say, that, "these are my sentiments, and these are the sentiments of ]\[r. Campbell"? Did you not then turn to me, and, with- out knowing my sentiments, say, '• You better set Mr. Campbell right before you attempt to set us right'' ? — Now, sir, permit me to tell you that I believe with all 209 DEBATE ON BAPTISM my heart that the blood of Christ is the condition, and the only condition of pardon ; for it is that, and that only which purchases our pardon. It is the price of our redemption. I believe what you then preached, and although your discourse was designed to slander me, you dare not now say, that you believe it yourself. If you believe that we are redeemed from our sins by the blood of Christ paying an equivalent for our par- don, you do not believe that faith is the condirtioii — that faith returns an equivalent for pardon. My bi- ble teaches me that the blood of Christ is the condition of pardon, Grace the principle upon which we are par- doned, and faith, repentance, and baptism the means thro' which we receive and enjoy pardon. Neither faith, repentance, nor baptism is the condition. They are the means, not the condition of pardon. Now, I ask, if Mr. Terrell has not said again and again to-day, that repentance and baptism are " means of grace," and " means of pardon"? They are not the condition, but the means ^ he says, and so say I, and so says eve- ry man who understands his Bible. He tells us, that they are the means of pardon, and yet, that they are not essential to pardon. Are not the means ordained of God essential to the end? If God has ordained, that through faith, repentance, and baptism as the means we shall receive pardon, I ask, it we can re- ceive pardon without using the means? Mr. Terrell seems to think we can. Well may your Discipline say, "We Methodists are enthusiasts; looking after the end without using the means.^^ p. 60. If baptism is a means of pardon, it is essential to pardon. This is my eighth argument ; and it is a good one too, for Mr. Terrell says it is true. I must now review the ground over which we have traveled, and show you some of the beauties of Mr. Terrell. He commenced this morning by telling you that he appeared before you with feelings of solemni- ty ; and in a little while after this, he was talking; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 207 ■about " ponds," ^^ horse-ponds," " brick-ponds," " mud- holes," and " meat troughs." He is' a solemn child truly ! ! May the good Lord save me from such sol- emnity. His vulgar and contemptible remarks upon the meat trough, and horse-pond, deserve not to be noticed. I stated in my first speech, that he who wilfully re- fuses to be baptized, will be damned. xMr. Terrell no- ticed this by saying, "I agree with Mr. Pritchard, that he who wilfully disobeys the Gospel, will be damned." Now, in this, he admits, that baptism is a part of the Gospel of Christ; for hov/ can a man v;ho wilfully re- fuses to be baptized, wilfully disobey the Gospel, if baptism is not a part of the Gospel? A little after this, he boasted that his gospel was a universal gos- pel, that it brought good news to men without bap- tism, for it had no baptism in it. JVow look at this : he who wilfully refuses to be baptized, wilfully diso- beys th« Gospel of Christ ; but the Gospel which Mr. Terrell preaches, comes to men without baptism, for it has no baptism in it. If it is true, as he says, that baptism is a part of the gospel of Christ, and also true, as he says, that his gospel has no baptism in it, does it not follow, that his gospel is not the gospel of Christ, l)ut another gospel? " If any man," said Paul, '• preach any other go.spel unto you, let him be accuvsed.^' While speaking upon the words of Peter, '' To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him sUtall receive remission of sins," he said : " Let Mr. Pritchard show where one of the prophets ever said that the people should be bap- tized." When he said this, he had certainly forgotten that he said, while discussing the action of baptism, that the Jews learned of the prophets that the Christ 'Was to baptize; and, therefore, they said to John the Baptist, "Why do you baptize, if you be not the Christ?" While debating that proposition, he saw as on(3 part says : " Wherefore, that we 0,re justified by faith only, is a most wholesoine doctrine, and very full of comfort.'^ Now, if it is by faith ordy^ the merit of Christ has nothing to do with it; and if it is by the the merit of Christ only, faith has nothing to do with it. Better take part than the whole, for both parts cannot be true. Which does Mr. Terrell believe? — He cannot believe them both. As Mr. Terrell has repeatedly asserted that all the churches are with him, I will now show you that his own is against him, and that Mr. Terrell is against himself In answer to the question, " What are the benefits we, receive by baptism?" I find the following in " Doctrinal Tracts:" 1. " The first of these is, the wasliing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death." p. 240. Here we see, that it is in baptism, that the merits of Christ's death are applied to us. Can a man be par- doned without the mci'its of Christ's death being apph- ed to him ? 2. " By baptism we enter into covenant with God ; into that everlasting covenant which he hath com- manded forever." p. 247. Here we are taught, that it is by baptism that we enter into the everlasting covenant ; so without bap- tism, we are out of the covenant of promise. Can a man who is an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, be a pardoned man ? If it is by baptism that we enter into the cove- nant, is it not essential to pardon to be in the covenant? Mr. Terrell would seem to think, that a man can be pardoned as well out of the covenant, as in it. 3. " By baptism we, are adniitted into the church, and consequently made members of Christ, its head, ' p. 248. By baptism we are admitted into the church, and by N 3']0" DEBATE ON BAPTISM it we ai-e made members of Christ; so, of course- without baptism we are not in the church, and with- out it we are not members of Christ. Can a man be ])ardoned who is out ot Christ, and not a member of Christ? Yes, we are told by Methodists — by the gen- eral conference of the party, that by baptism we are made members oi Christ ; and yet, Mr. Terrell says baptism is not essential to pardon ! There must be as much difference between his gospel, and the gospel of the general conference, as there is between his gospel and the gospel of Christ. But, notwithstanding that I\ir. Terrell denied on yesterday this item of his party's creed, and is doubtless prepared to do the .-^ame thing to-day, I am prepared to prove by his own writing that he believes what he then denied. [Here Mr. Terrell said — Will you please to read it sir ?] Mr. Pritchard — I will sir, that this audience may see that you have not advocated in this discussion what you told me, before the discussion, you solemanly be- lieved. In your third letter to me, you say : "My 3rd proposition presents the true issue and nothing else. There is no issue between us whether repentance and faith be necessary to pardon. Nor is there any as to baptism beinsj appointed for a visible induction into the rkurch of Gjd. But there is an issue whether it alone be the converting act. In other words, whether it be essential to our formal forgiveness. — to our pardon, and this is the issue presented in my proposition." Now, did not Mr. Terrell on yesterday solemnly de- clare before he?.ven and earth, that he did not baptise persons into, but because they were in the «hurch ? — Did he not deny, that he believed that we are inducted into the church of God by baptism ? You all know he did. Now, here he says, that there is no issue as to baptism being appointed for induction into the church of God. He believed in our correspondence, as I do, that by baptism we are inducted ifito the church, but. AND THE KOLY 3PIP4T. 211 new he says he does not believe it. I told you that Mr. Terrell was against himself. But he says, also, " there is no issue between us, whether faith and re- pentance be necessary to pardon,'" yet this is the very- issue he has been making all day. Utt has not dared to debate the issue that ke made himself, — viz: "that baptism is essential to our formal forgiveness;" but has been trying to prove all day that faith is necessary- to pardon ; the very thing that he said was not the is- sue. Well, it is the best he can do. I know that he cannot and dare not debate the issue agreed upon. But we mu.^t hear the other benefits as credited to baptism by the general conference : 4. " By baptism, we who were by nature children of wrath, are made the children of God.'' p. 248. " By water then, as a ?«?(2/<'s, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again ; v/hen 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." p. 249. If we are " made the children of God" by baptism, is it not essential to pardon ? If it is true, that " we are regenerated or born again" by ''the lya/^r of baptism," does it not follow, that it is essential to pardon ? But again : 5. "In consequence, of our being made children of God," (by baptisQi) ''we arc heirs of the kingdom of heaven.'" " Herein" (in baptism) " we receive a title to, and an earnest of, a kingdom which cannot be moved. Baptism doth iwivsave ws." p. 249. If we are made the children of God, and tjie heirs of the kingdom of heaven by baptism, is it not essential to our pardon ? If in baptism Vv^e receive a title to, and earnest of, the kingdom, is it not essential ? How can baptism now save us, if it does not save us from sin, and if it is not essential to pardon ? I have only time 1)0 make one more quo^tation, among the hundreds that I might make from the wTitings of Methodists: 212 ITEBATE ON BAPTISM " Be baptized, and wash away thy sins. Baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and a; ^eai of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily in the primi- tive church bestow this on any, unless through this means." Wesley's Note on Acts 22: 16. I agree with 'Mr. WesleV, that baptism is a means of pardon, but not that it is a seal, for the Apostle says, " After that you believed, you were sealed by the Hoh^ Spirit of promise." You may teli'me, that what I have :iow read from the writings of Methodists, upon the design of baptism, does not agree with what I read, showing that we are justified by faith alone, without any thing else. Well, I know it does not ; but I am .not responsible for their inconsistencies, nor for their oontradicticns. Tbey ave singular teachers. When they speak on faith, it is all faith, and nothing else ;, but when they get on to baptism, it is every thing ; — it brings "us into the church here," and takes us to ■• glory hereafter." I must now notice again, what Mr. Terrell 5!;aid about Bro. Campbell believing that all the pardoning ')Ower of the blood of Christ is in the water. " To the sacriPiCe of Christ," says Bro. Campbell, we always look for the basis of our pardon ; to his blood that oieanses from ail sin, for justification and personal ac- ceptance ; and to bis word we look for counsel and in- struction in Christian piety and righteousness. We are as dependent upon his word for light, as we are ■2T)on hi H blood for 'por don.'"' C, uSystem, p. 50. Again : ■'■ jBut a new age h.aviog come, and Christ having, by a more perfect sacrifice, opened the way into the true holy place, has laid the foundation for perfecting the ^:onscience b}' a real and full remission of sins, Vvdiich, by the virtue of his blood', terminates' not upon the flesh, but upon the conscience of the sinner." p. 334. Once more : " You can see vour sins washed awav in the hh'id AND TEIE HOLY SPIRIT. 21*3 that was shed on Mount Calvary. * * "^ * Voii can feel, and say with all assurance, that the blood of Jesus Christ now cleanses you from all sin." p. oo5. These quotations from the Christian System, the very book from which Mr. Terrell pretended to quotf , show, that what he said of the sentiments of Bro. Campbell, is a slander upon that great and good mar.. If yir. Terrell is either a gentleman or a Christian, he certainly will, when convinced of his wrong, take back what he has said. If he does not, this community will know what estimate to put upon his statements here- after. I will now call your attentions to the phrase, " //r _/af///," as it is used by the Holy Spirit. •'• The faith"' does not always mean the simple belief of mankmd but we find included in the phrase, Christianity in all its parts For example, we are said to '' obci/ the faith." Kom. 1: 5, and IG: 26. We are said to '- hear the faith." Gal. 3: 2, 5. Now, to obey the faith, is to obey the gospel, and to hear the faith, is to hear the gospel. We are commanded to " contend ea,rnestiy for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints.'* Jude, 3. Now, who does not see, that, to contend for the faith, is to contend for Christianity in all its parts, the facts, commandments, and promises ? Paul is said to ^-preach th' faith which he once destroyed." Gal. 1; 23. Paul, in preaching the fnith, preached Christ, and him crucified. 1 Cor. 2, 3. lie preached that the peo- ple should " repent, and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." Acts, 2G: 20. So "the faith^' which Paul preached was Christ, and obedience to Christ. From these passages we learn, that, when we are said to be saved or justified through the faith, it is not by simple belief, as Mr. Terrell thinks, but by the Gospel, without the law of Moses. I next call your at- tentions to the phrase " by faith:' Mr. Terrell has reasoned all day, as if he thought the phrase by faith, excluded all action, all obedience from our justifica- '214 DEBATE ON BAPTISM tion. Let us see it it means faith alone, or ftiitli by it- self. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excel- lent sacrifice than Cain." Heb. 11:4. Did he olier the sacrifice by faith alone, witliout any action ? or was it by faith carried out into practice, as the Lord com- manded? '• By faith Noah, being warned by God, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house." Heb. 11:7. Did faith alone prepare an ark to the saving of his house? Did faith do all, and Noah no- thing to the ark? It was not by faith alone, but by faith in what God said, and obedience to what ho commanded, that the ark was prepared. Moses says : " Thus did Noah, as the Lord commanded him." The ark was prepared, not by faith alone, but by the art^ of faith ; so we are not justified by faith alone, but by confidence in the Lord, andiSubmission to his authori- ty — by the acls of faith. Read all of the 11th chapter of Hebrews, and first try by faith alone, and then try by faith canled out inlo practice^ and you can soon see vv'hich agrees with common sense. I have yet one chapter on faifh alone that I have reserved for a treat to Mr. Terrell. I mean the second chapter of James. James disposes of all the advocates of faith alone, and shows them to be vain men. and perverters of the v^^ord of God. He says : " What doth it profit, my ))rethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works? Can. faith save him ?'^ Yes, indeed, says Mr. Terrell, it can savohim; for we are justified by laitii alone. The Apostle asks again : " If a brother or a sister 1)0 naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them. Depart in peace, be warmed and tilled, but refuse to give them the things that are heed- !'ul to the body, what doth it profit?"' What profit is it to a poor man who comes to you for food and clothes, to say to him, go in peace, J will not give you the things that are needful to the body? We ail know that it would profit him nothing at all. " Even so AXD THE HOLY SPIRiT. "215 ju'dh^^ says James. But even with what ? Why tve:i with saying to a poor brother, depart in peace, 1 will not give you any thing. " Even so faith, if it hath not worlds, is dead, being alone." Here is the faith of Mr. Terrell — the faith about which he has been talking all day, and it is just (vm with saying to a poor man, de- part in peace, 1 will not give yoa any thing that is " needful to the body." In debating with just such an opponent as I have to-day, James said to him : *^ Thou believest that there js one Gfod ; thou doest well : the dcuih; also believe, and tremble." Here we »ee, that the devils in heil have every thing that Mr- Terrell ssiys i-s essential to being a Methodist. If faith alone makes a man a Meth- odist, why may not it make the devils Methodists also? If his faith aloiae is the truth of Clod, the devils aro good sound orlkodox Methodists now ; for they have done all that is essential to Methodism, to make men Methodists. v\ ell might James have said to his iaith alone friend, " Vv'iit thou know, O valv man, that faith wjithout works is dead.'' lie calls the advocate o." faith aione, a vahi iwin; and a vain man he must be, to make the creatures of God do nothing more to become Christians, than the devils in hell have done. I have only time to mention one point more. The Discipline of" (YVir ch.urcli''' says : " Wherefore, that we are j.usti- lied by faith only^ is a moat loJiaksofne doctrine, and very full of conLfprt." James says.: '-You see then how- that by works a man is jus titled, and not h// fatirtotiLY^K The Discipline says, we are justified by faith oiui/ ;es.iid James «ays, we are not justilied by faltk only.' Whiciii •^hall we believe, the Spirit of God, or the Methodist. ereed? I will conclude in the language of James:— -■-•For as .the body without the spirit is dead, so fai;h' without works is dead also." Faith without works'is-; like a, body without a spirit ; and of no more uss. I tb.at.nk you all for your attention. Time expired. -itJ DEBATE ON BAPTISM MR. Terrell's closing speech — 3d p?.op. Christian Friends: ' Tiie gentleman's beautiful manner and boisterou.';^- ness reminded me of what an old Latin author once said to a young man whom he wished to rebuke for his rudeness. The old man exclaimed: "My young man. if you, being a muhy, bellow and take on so, what would you do if you had horns?" [A laugh.] President moderator called the congregation to ordei and Mr. Terrell proceeded. The Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church is in ev- ery essential the same as that in the 17th century. The iitiii'gy of baptism or the ordinance of baptism is the same. What can the gentleman make of the fact that we hold some points in common with Roman Catholics*:^ His own church does the same, and so does every other- church in Christendom. He has done nothing here then, only to show how he could read from tv/o books, first one and then the other. He says that 1 have misrepresented Mr, Campbell's views and he read from Mr. Campbell's works the same thing that 1 spoke of. 1 would not have alluded to the quotation, had it not been called out of me, by the gen- tleman's doing great injustice to the writings of Mr. Wesley, by garbling bis works and misrepresenting hi.'s views. [Here the president moderator called Mr. Terrell to order^ alledging that he was not speaking to the point- Mr. Terrell proceeded.] To wash away sins is a figurative expression. This- is clear from the language of the apostle which reads as follows: "But ye are washed but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified," &:c. This does not mean that \)aptism can or does wash away sins; but it is a figur- ative allusion to tlieir cleansing with the blood of Christ All know this who have ever made theology their stu- ast sins. This is a great proposition and while I look o the Giver of all wisdom for his blessing, I hope I ;hall have an interest in your prayers, that I may be led fruitfully into a!l truth. If I am v/rong this morn- ing, the great body of protestants are wrong with me, and we are all left vv'ithout any evidence of the pardon of sins! Wit'hont further preliminary, I will proceed to read my proposition. It reads as follows: The Holy Spirit bears an immediate, direct and per- sonal testimouy to the heart of the beJiever. The term "immediate testimony," means at the time> clear, plain and direct. ''Personal'' means without an agent, wot by represententative, or not by another. — /-ardon; what is it? I cannot give abetter definition than the one given by Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Mr. Rice. He says st is not a process, but a single act of God's free grace-^that i*t is an act of the great Sov- reign, and takes place in heaveii. it is an act of the ;nfinite mind, Qommonly called the forgiveness of sins. It is not done in man, but it is done in heaven for him. ]t is tlie act of God and can come from no other source but God. The evidence cannot exist before the fact— it can- not be prior to the fact. This is a self-evident state- ment, to all who have ever thought on the subject. The evidence cannot reach back one moment prior to the time of the pardon of sins. From this fact, I argue 222 DEBATE ON BAFTrsW that the evidence of any man's pardon that now lives^ cannot be in the bibl'^. As the act of pardon takes place in heaven and is an act of God, the evidence must come from God, and could not, in the very na- ture of things, come before the act \vas performed, or else the evidence testifies to what is not done. You now see the awkward position of my friend, Mr. Pritchard. He believes the evidence of the for- giveness of sins is in the bible, and consequently he makes the bible bear witness to the pardon of a man's sins before they are pardoned, and consequently makes the bible bear testimony to what is not true. The evi- dence of pardon cannot be in the bible, for this would be the same as to say that the evidence existed before the fact existed, which you see cannot be. Here I plant my stakes, and from here I cannot be moved. My first step is to show the gentleman that he cannot find the evidence in the bible. He may try it, but he will fail in every attempt he makes, for he cannot find where the evidence of any fact existed be- fore the fact existed. But again : As pardon takes pl^ce in heaven, no act that we can do can possibly prove it. Pardon is an act of the Great Sovereign, and consequently the evi- dence must come from him, which shows beyond the possibility of a doubt, that no act that we can do can be an evidence of our pardon. I may have occasion to refer to this argumnnt again, and in order to prepare the way, I wiH just {»!)sprve that the bible was written more than eighteen hun- dred years ago, and consequently must have contained the evidence of my pardon eighteen hundred years ago, or that long before it was true that 1 was par- doned. The gentleman may say we have the promise of' pardon in the bible; but the promise of pardon and the evidence are very different things. A man may promise me money, but th^t is no evidence that he ha.? AND THE HOLY SPIRrT. 223 paid it to me. A man that is considered good may promise to pay money, and never do it. The promise in that case is no evidence ; and even if he did pay me as he promised, liis promise is no evidence to me that be has paid me. As pardon is an act that takes place in heaven, no act on earth can prove it. The evidence must come from where the act takes place. My anxiety and striving may evince to my feilow- man that I am desirous of pardon, but this is no evi- dence to others that I am pardoned, or to myself. Oth- ers cannot give the evidence that I am pardoned, nor need any one look to any source for the evidence of pardon but to God ; for pardon is his act done in hea- ven, and the evidence must come from him. You see where this leaves Mr. Pritchard, and his brethren! — From these conclusions, he will find, there is no escape. A feeling child may weep in consequence of having transgressed the laws of a good parent ; but its tears arc no evidence of its pardon. We learn not from the child that it was pardoned ; but the evidence of its pardon must come from the parent. The child itself learns not from any of its own acts that it is pardoned; but the child must learn it from the parent, for, in this case, the parent is the pardoning power. The parent is the judge when the child should be pardoned ; so is God, not we, when we should be pardoned. Neither can our fellow man assure us of pardon, for it is beyond the reach of our senses, and we must depend on the testimony. The question now comes up with all it force : Who is the witness ? Man is not the witness in this case, for pardon is one of the things of God, which man does not know. The bible is not the witness, for its evidence is older than ihe fact, which we have seen could not be the case. St. Paul says, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither indeed can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." — Again, he says, " What man knows the miiid of a man 224 DEBATE ON BAPTISM save tlie spirit of a man that is in him ?" and the argu- ment of the apostle proceeds, as if he had said. No jnan can know the mind of God but the Spirit of God that is in him. Pardon is one of the deep things of God, and no man knows it but by the Spirit, which searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. Such is the state of the case, and my friend can never get over it. I cannot see how he will attempt it ! There is no being in heaven or in hell that knows the act of the mind ot'God but the Spirit of God that is in kirn, and, of course no being but the Spirit can reveal lo man the pardoning act of the mind of God. This is out of the question. The matter then stands thus : 1. If God pardoned man he knows it. This all will agree to. 2. If God knows that a man is pardoned he can let us know it. This will not be disputed. .3. He is good enough to let us know it. To all this no one can demur. Well, then, has God given us the assurance that he will give us the witness of the Spirit. I say he has, and if you ask mc for the proof here it is : " And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying- Abba, Father." Gal. 4: 6. ^ When a man is pardoned he is a son, and here is di- lect testimony, that God sends forth the spirit of his- 8on into the hearts of such. This is evidence to the point. But let me read again; "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father, the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Ro. 8: 15, 16. This? is proof clear enough for any one who believes the bi- ble, but it is stated that the spirit bearteth witness. 1 John. 5: 8. This witness is so important that he say^ in a previous chapter, that if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his. You can nowsee^. mj AST) THE HOLY SPIRIT. 225 Christian friends, what is to become of Mr. I'ritchard's theory. It cannot stand the test in the light of the scrip- ture. I will now quote another passage, which reads as tbllows: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth the gospel of your salvation: in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." Kph. 1: 13. This is the pledge of our pardon, "the Holy Spirit of promise." — This, blessed be God, is the evidence of pardon. The world can neither give or take avv^ay this assurance which the Christian feels of the forgiveness of sins. Again, the Apostle says; "Now he that hath wrought lis for the self same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit." 2. Cor. 5: 5 Here is evidence as good as any one could desire. How will the gentleman get over this? Mere he speaks of the earnest of the Spirit, which he Las given us. But I must proceed to bring my proof: "Nov/ we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God: that \ye might know the things that are freely given to us of God." 1 Cor. 2: 12. What plai- ner evidence could any one produce on any proposi- tion than this? The apostle says, he has given us ihe Holy Spirit that ?^''? ??2f^'/i^ /:.',oi/j the things given us of God. That is the same as if he had said, that we might know that he has granted the pardon of our sins. Having the blessed assurance of his Sprit that we have the forgiveness of sins, and acceptance v.dth God " we are always confident," as the apostle sa3^s,and fear nor, what man can do. This is the confidence that lillsth!^ heart \Vith joy, — the assurance that the world* can nei- ther give or take away. Blessed be God, brethren, you know when you felt this confidence! You who have this assurance know what it is worth; but those who never had it know not how to appreciate it. He who has felt the kindling flame of the love of God knows its value' but these destitute of this heavenlv assurance O 2*iS 32B.^TE- ON B AP'HSM- directly from God know not the comfort it iinpartL*, But the question arises, is this blessed witness of ths?- Spirit of God imm'tdiatc? It mo^t undoutediy is, for "the ISp'i'i ititsdf beare h wilne.-s with our spirits that we are tiie children of God." Surely it is immediate, andjo. r- .wnaJAoY it is the s|)ri-rit that bears witness and no one el:-*^ This is tht^n the iimiiediate and personal witness of ^he Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God.' "Because you ar-e sons he hath sent forth the spiiltof his Son into your hearts crying. Abba, Fath- tr." ! bp.ve now clearly set my argument before you frcra the word of Giod, and if I liad time, 1 could say much more o-i> the points introduced; but 1 shall have time to fill up my arguments and elaborate hereafier. And I shall also produce more arguments, which Mr, Pritchard will never be able to answer Time expired. MR. BEITCHARD's FIR&T REPLY— ItU PROF, Lventlemen Moderators: I'his is the last day of our discussion, and as Mr. Terrell has thought it best, from- some cause unknown to me, for him to occupy but tlivec hours to-day in the discussion of thisproposition, we will have to advance into the me.'^its of the question at onxe. There are some things in the speech of Mr. Terrell this morning, : which are to me exceedingly mysterious, and which I cannot understand. He speaks as ii^ he did noi un- derstand the issue which he has mado himself. In- stead of proving, as he is solemnly bound by his pro- position to do, that the Spirit of God makes si. new, a din ct and immj^diati: revelation distinct from the bibh-y he has been proving, what no one who believes the Gospel denies, — viz — that the children of God rr,ceivc the Spirit. That the audience may see what the issue is, and that Mr. Terrell has not been debating the is- sue, 1 wish to know of him, if the real issue between AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 227 IL> is, that Methodists believe that Christians receive the Spirit, and we deny it ?. (Turning to Mr. T., Mr. P. said) Do you, sir, know that we, as a community, deny the truth of what Paul says, that, " B6causo ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts''? or, that we are sealed by the Spirit, af- ter we believe ? (Mr. Terrell — I will answer you sir, wiien I speak again.) Mr. Pritchard — As i wish this point settled now, I wish an ansv/er wnn. (Mr. Terrell — Repeat your q,uestion, sir.) Mr. Pritchard — Do you know, that we, as a commu- nity, deny the truth of w4iat Paul says, that, " Because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts'? or, that Christians are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ? (Mr. Terrell — I don't know that you do, I never heard you do it.) Mr. Pritchard — Tne gentleman know's very well w^^ do not, and he dare not say that we do. What then. I ask, had his speech this morning to do whith the pro- position, more than it had with a.ny other subject o-' which a man might think ''^ He has been labeling to prove a proposition as wide as the breadths of heaven from the subject before us. That Christians receive the Spirit, I believe, as firmly as any man now living ; but, that it brings a new revelation right from heaven to every believer, and that too, without any medium, I do not believe. But I have another question for Mr. Terrell to ans- wer. Is it not the faith of your party, and do not you believe that the Spirit of God operaies either with or without faith, and that God sends tiie Spirit of his Sort into the heart of an infidd to make him a son of God ? (Mr. Terrell said — \¥e believe tha.t, sir ; that is the faith of the Methodist church.) Mr. Pritchard — That will do sir. Nov/, that Mr. 228 DEBATE ON BAFTiSM Terrell and his party do not believe one of his proof ^exts, I am prepared to prove by him.. He admits that we believe that, " because yen are sons, God has sent forth his Spirit of his Son into yoUr liearts." Yes, because you are sons, and not to make you sons, he says we believe. But, how is it with him ? Why he and his brethren believe, he says, that it is not " because ynu. -ire sons,'''' as Paul says, and as we believe, but to 7nakc Irifidels the sons of God, that God sends forth his Spirit, Yes, God sends the naked Spirit of his Son into the ^leart of an infidel lo^make him the Son of God.- Now, • f he believesthat the Spirit God is sent into the heart )f a man to make him a son of God, !ie does not believe ihat it is sent'into his heart because he is a son ; and if he relieves that it i^ •• because you are sons," that the Spirit is sent forth, as he says, we believe, he does not ')elieve the faith of his party, that it is to inake you sons. He must say that the bible is right, and consequently hat w^e are right, and Methodism wrong, or that he ■.\\^ his party are right, and the bible wrong. He •an. not believe the creed of his party and the bible ')Oth right, -for they flatly contradict each other. But how is'it with the llrst chapter of Ephesians / Does he believe that we are sealed with the Hely Spirit? Did he not affirm, while debating the ques- :ion of infant baptism, that v/e are ''sealed by ivater baptism"? Did I not then quote this very passage to prove that his Methodism w^as wrong ? Did I not then tell j*ou to remember this, for I would have use for it on the last proposition ? Now, if Mr. Terrell believes, what he solemnly affirmed then he did believe, viz ; that we are sealed by baptism., he does not believe that we are "sealed \Vith tiieHoly Spirit of promise," as Paul teaches in Ephesians, 1: 13. If he believes that we are sealed with baptism, aS he told us he did, he does not believe, as he says we do, that we are sealed with the Spirit; and if he believes that we are sealed with the Spirit, ho does not. and cannot believe AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 2*2^^ that we are sealed with baptism. He can give up what he said o.ii infant baptism, and confess the bible true, or he can deny that the bible is true, and hold on to his baptism seal. Which will he do ? Having shown that Mr. Terrell does not and can- not, while he remains a Methodist, believe the very passages which he quoted to prove his proposition, 1 will proceed to show you what the issue is. His pro- position reads: -'The Spirit of God bears adircc', iiinncdlale aiil jjcrsunat kstiniony to the believer in Christ of his pardon." Direct testimony from, heaven, means testimony ^vhich comes straight down from God. The New Testament, which has come to us through Christ and the Apostles, has nothing to do vrith it. Immediate testimony, means testimony wdiich is given withou; Siivy mciliam. If the k^pirit speaks to the believer di- rectly, the testimony is not immediate, but throicg/t the medhtin of words. Consequently, Christ and the A- postles have noticing to do with that; for it is wholly independent of them. Well may the advocates of im- mediate revelations say that some things which Christ and the Apostles taught are not true, for they /k/ thern t.» be i'alse in their souls. Personal testimony means testimony which is the exclusive property of the person who receives it: — It is his oint, and given for his spe- cial benefit. It is given to him, but to no one else. If it comes irom God, or the Spirit of God, it is something revealed to him that is not revealed to any one else. It is then, a new revelation, distinct from the bible, and independent of it.* Sach highly favored ones can rly away to heaven, and no thanks to Christ and the A- postles for the New Testament. That Mr, Terrell is a believer in the new and imme- diate vrvclati'm of which I now speak, 1 will prove hy a proposition v/hich he oifered to affirm in a discussioa with Bi'o. Wright, and which I tind published by Mr. Terrell in tlie '■ Greensburg R epository.'' Hear it : ■^230 DEBATE ON EAWlbM "The evidence which a Christian has of his pardon is an DIMEDIATE REVELnTION IN HiS HEART, Viade by ik'i Holy Spirit.^'' M\\ Terrell is then, a believer in immediate revelations distinct from the bible, and wholly independent of it. This is just what he is to prove to-day. S/iakers and Quakers are not !2:reater believers in immediate revela- tions than Mr; Terrell; and they have equally as much respect for the word of God, as Mr. Terrell and his party have. They are all crazy on this point. But here is the v/ord '• tesiunon-:/.^' what does it mean? I will let Crabb define it. He ^ays : -^ Testimony i>i a species of evidence by means by means of witne-^ses^ from t'3s(is, a witness. Testimony is properly parol evidence. Testimony is that which is offered or given by persons or things pcrsinjied in proof of any thing ; evidence is said to arise from totimomi, when we d^- ]i face. The thousand distortions of her whole body. .showed hov/ the do'^s of hell were gnawing h.er heart. 234 DEBATE ON BAPTISM tSbe screamed out as soon as words could tind their way, 1 am damned, I am damned: lost forever. Six days ago you might have helped me ; but it is past; I ^am the devil's now. i have given myself to him. His i am. Him I must serve. With liim I must go to heli. I will be his. I will serve him. I will go with him to hell. I cannot be saved. I will not be saved. i must, I will, 1 will be damned. She then began praying to t^e devil." (Remember the Spirit of the Lord is supposed to make her say, and do all these things.) " She then fixed her eyes on the corner of the ceiling, and said, There he is ; ay, there he is ; come, good devil, come. Take me away. You said you would dash maij brains out; come, do it quickly. I am yours, — lam yours. I will be yours. Come just now. Take me away."' Now, after all this foolish and ridiculous talk, which is said to have been caused by the Spirit of the Lord, this Vv^oman, who could neither read nor write, is said to have received the ivw revelation for which Mr. Terrell contends. This ca.se is but a specimen of fiundreds given by Wesley and others. And we are called upon to regard such thing.s as more sacred thr-in the word of God. (Here Mr. Terrell said — Please read where she vva--' converted.) Mr. Fritchard — I will : " We interrupted her by calling upon God again : on which she sunk down as before ; and another young 'Jady began to roar out as loud as she had done. My Brother now came in, it being about nine o'clock. W<* continued in prayer till past eleven; when God in a moment i^polc peace, info the soul^ first, of the first torment- ed, and then of the other. ' And they both joined in isinging praises to him who had stiUcd the enemy, and Ihe avenger.''' Now, here it is ; the Spirit it supposed to lay hold of ■ he woman, and make her pray to the devil ; say shf^ * AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 235 IS his — that she belongs to him. That she ijs his — that she must be damned ; cannot be saved, but must go to hell with the devil. That he promised to come and dash her brains out, and to pray to him to come and do it quickly. Now, did the Spirit of the Lord, or the excitement of the meeting, make her tell all these falsehoods? Does the Spirit convert men by making them lie ? We know it does not. But we are told that the same Spirit which made her tell all these things, which we know to be untrue, revealed to her, a few minutes after, that she was a child of God, and not the devil's at all, as it had told her before. A man w^ho can believe all this, can certainly believe in a new revelation distinct from the Bible, and independent of it. (Here the President 3Ioderator -said : — Mr. Pdtch- ard, are your remarks relevant to the subject?) J\lv. Pritchard — They are ; I certainly have a right to examine the very thing Mr Terrell relies on for his proof of pardon. Such extravagances as these of which we now speak can be brought about by any man of common sense, good or bad, if he will only try to do it. Mr. Wesley says that he could always tell -.vho would be the subjects of these strange bodily ag- itations by their position in the audience. You gen- erally see them take their seats, fix themselves in one |)Osition, and their eyes upon the preacher, and sit in that position till they fall into that singular state.— What more does a professor of Mesmerism ask, to produce the same effects upon any man. All the phe- nomena of a Methodist co'nversion can be explained upon the principles of Mesmerism. They are not su- pernatural and spiritual, but purely natural and ani- mal. We see the same things in some form every day. They are brought about by the great and universal law of nature, — that of eqxdlibrium. If we see a man laughing, we are almost certain to laugh or smile, ■even if we do not know what he is laughing at. if » 236 DEBATE ON BAPTISM • we see a person crying, and apparently m great cIIs tress, we feel and weep, because we see him weeping The principle is, that persons with whom we associate will, if we do not resist, make us feel and acty as they feel and act. Paul recognized the principle when ht •said : Evil communications corrupt good manners ;" and we know that associating with good men wih correct bad manners. Whenever any man or set ol men, good or bad, get our conhdence and love, they will make us feel, think, act, and do just as we do. (Here the Moderator said again — Will you tell us in what respect you consider your remark relevant?) Mr. Pritchard — If I examine the thing on which Mr. Terrell relies for proof, and show that it can be ex- plained upon natural principles, it will follow, that il is not a revelation from God. (Moderator— You are right. You can proceed.) W^ho does not know what 1 now say to be true? — Who has not seen, in tnis country, peaceable men. when two of their neighbors would get into a fight, pull oh' their coats and declare that. they could whip any man on the ground ; and that too, without any one saying one word to them. iXovv, if these things be so, (and we know them to be so) what, I ask, in all tiie world is more nainrai. than for men and women, in the times of great and general religious excitement, hearing the songs, the groans, the prayers, and feel- ing exhortations, and also the shouts and screams of of the ignorant, cind believing" them to be the legi- timate fruits of religion, to feel like singing, groan- ing, praying, shouting and -screaming as their asso^ ciates do? These things wiiich we see and hear al- most every day, are looked upon as the effects of a direct and immediate revelation to the subjects ol these bodily agitations. That they are not from God, but purely animal in their nature, and the legitimate olispring of excitement 1 will now prove. When Wesit^y was preaching "free AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 237 s^tace and sinners rights," he prayed to God "that if it be the truth, to set. to it his seal; and almost before? we asked," said he, "God f^ealcd the truth by causing one and another, and another to ^//," till the whole audience ;5eemed to be crying for mercy. This was the very thing he willed and labored for. Whitefield, who was preaching, at the same time, Galvanism in its worst form, prayed in like manner for God to set his seal to what he preached, and in an au- dience of '^twelve tiiuus find " he seiys/'Some fainted; and when they had got a little strength would hea?^ and faint again. Otherscried out in a manner almost as if they were in ihesharpest as^onies of death. I think I was ne- ver myself ^^.M with greater power." Never before did I see a morel gorious siglity Now, who can believe that God, by a direct revela- tion, revealed to Mr. Wesley, that what he preached was true, and to Whitefield, that precisely the opposite v.'as true? Who does not rather believe, that Wesley and Whitefield made their oun seals, for their doctrine by their enthusiasm, and that God had nothing to do with them? * I must briefly state a fev/ morefacts in relation to These things. 1. The subject of the agitations are not among the most jnous and Godly of the parties to which they belong; nor are they generally looked upon by their brethren as the most valuable members of the party. The most hypocritical generally have the bright- est revelations, and the most marvelous experiences to tell. 2. These bodily agitations have not been con- fined to the religious, for men of all ranks, and of all parties, and of almost all nations and countries, savage and civiUzed have been the subjects of them; but never only in the times of great and general excitement. Among the Romans nearly two thousand years ago, in the time of a great political excitement, these things appeared among the nervous of that people; and so general and alarming were they that the Romans made 238 DEBATE ON BAPTISM a law, that, when any one in their assemblies should he taken with these bodily and nervous agitations, the as- sembly should imtnediately brake up and go home till the excitement was over. 3. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuFies, these same nervous agitPttions appeared among the Roman Cath- olics in Germany and France; and so alarming were they ill their elTect, that in Germany, laws were made aj?ainst them, and in France many of the subjects of them were put to death because they were supposed to be possessed of dsmons. The excitement which pro- duced them,'! believe, was caused by crowds of then^ going together to visit the tombs of the departed saints. 4, These agitations have not been peculiar to any party, for Romans, Pagan and Papal, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Quakers, and Shakers have all been troubled with them. The JWopmons Me- thodists and Skakers depend more upon these things to prove that they are of God, than upon any thing else. If they prove one right, they prove all right. If they ^re immediate to one they are to all. So I think. Time expired. MR. TER5tELL°3 SECOND ADDRESS — 4tH PROP. G-pRtlemen moderators: I should think I was paying but a poor complement to the intelligence of this large and respectable audience should I imagine or pretend to imagine thatthey would look upon the boisterous ravings of my friend as argu- ments or that they contained any thing like argument. But! have no idea that any person here wdll think so. He has not touched the point at issue at all, and my arguments in my first speech remain untouched, and unanswered, and forever must remain so. Mr. Pritchard read fi-om Mr. Wesley's writings about the young lady that Mr. Wesley visited. Now we ne- \er contended, nor did Mr. Wesley ever contend, that AND THE HOLY SPIRST. 2%9 this effect as seen in the young lady s word^ and man- ners was the effect of the gospel. Mr. Wesley says, page 48, "This ranting is the effect ol' the dogsof heil,'^ and not the spirit of the gospel. He thought, as we do, that there is an influence attending the word; aud this case brought from Mr. Wesley's works, is merely a qaibble ol' the gentleman. When I was coming here this morning, 1 remarked that Mr. Pritchard would try to get off with a quibble. I felt satisfied of this, not that I can prophesy; but as I came so well prepared to prove wh^t 1 contend for, I felt that he must and w' ould resort to quibbling. He has proved that my expectations \vere correct, by his quibbling and evasive manner. My arguments the other day were true, and they will stand while the world stands. The word of God is furnished for us to try our pardon by. If it does not correspond with the word, it is wrong of course. This the gentleman knows. He only endeavored to raise a dust to cover a retreat. Had not Abraham the evidence of promise? Yes, he had, but not that the fact had taken place. Abraham died in faith. The evidence that Christ had tasted death was only after his death. The evidence of Christ's resurrection was after the fact, and could not have been before. He speaks about a new revelation, but I will read you a passage: ''For ye have heard of my conversation in times past, in the Jews religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it; and profited in the Jews religion above many of my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers,, but when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb and called me by his grace; to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immedi- ately I conferred not with flesh and blood." Now this revelation was made in Paul's heart. He undertook to criticise me this morning, I have; ^40 DEBATE ON BAPTISM Understood that this was the best way to puzzle any body, and when all other things may fail, this may be used as a last resort. His first question was: "Do you not know that as a church, we believe in the operation of the Holy Spirit?" I answer, that I do not know that Mr. Pritchard or the church he belongs to believe any such thing. Mr Campbell talks of the indweUing dwelling of the Holy Spirit; but so far as I can tell, he denies it elsewhere. Mr. Campbell says, if a rnan thinks he is pardoned, he will be just as happy as if he really was pardoned. That is the way he talks about it. But I will read from his "Christian System," page 248: "Think you that the family of Noah could have been saved if they had refused to enter into the ark? Could the first born of Israel hav€ escaped the destroy- ing angel, but in houses sprinkled with blood? Or could Israel have escaped the wrath of Pharaoh, but by being immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea? — These things are written for our admonition, upon whom the consummation of past ages has come. Arise, then, and be immersed, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. The fnani/ioho 7^€ fuse grace, will neither prove you wise nor safe in disobedience." Here immersion is taught, as the great requisite. — Mark the language! Every one must be immersed or else he cannot be saved! It is for remission of sins too. This cuts olf every Baptist, and all the professing world who have not been immersed for remission of sins. — Mr. Campbell has passed sentence upon you all; but the sinner who is immersed, comes up out of the water as pure and spotless as an angel. These with him are those who have-the Spirit of God dwelling in them; but all the balance of mankind are without any evi- dence ot the forgiveness of sins. Thank God, this is not the religion of Christ. I might immerse a hypocrite a thousand times and he would only be a hypocrite still. But according to his doctrine if a man should get AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 241 to kell and imagine himself pardoned, lie would be happy. W'ho will believe such doctrine? He refers to James again to-day. I suppose he is not satisfied with the day's work on yesterday. I am not surprised if he is not satisfied, lor I should not be, if I were in his place. Must I explain that passage again? I cannot think it necessary. What I said on that sub- ject yesterday is well recollected by this audience. I hope he vvill now be satisfied about the passage from James, as I have not time to go over the ground occu- pied on yesterday. He says the Romans made a law. I know they made a law against the saints. But docs he mean the law that broke up the worship of Christians? or v/hat law does he mean? I could not see what he had in view when he referred to this matter. He, of course, u^asnot to the point. Mr. Pritchard makes being born again the evidence of pardon; but to this I object, and I may as well file my objections now as at any other time. 1. He must have a proper subject or it must be a failure. He is liable to be deceived and think a person a proper subject when he is not, and in this case being born df water is no evidence. Here is one chance for a failure. 2. He must have a proper administrator, or the work is null and void. Here is a' great uncertainty. No one can know the heart of another, and if the admin- istrator should be a wicked man, all his official perfor- mances would be ofx no consequence. Here is another place for deception, and a very large one too. 3. If it be not done with water, it is not acceptable and the water must be pure and clean at that. Con- sequently you must be where there is water to immerse, or die without any evidence of pardon. Here is an- other ditiiculty, and a very great one too. 4. If it be not done in the name of the Trinity, it is not valid. Here is another opportunity for wrong or for mistake. P 'ii2 DEBATE ON BAPTISM 5. If our bodies were washed in a puddle-hole, it wouid not be pure water? Can he say his body was washed with pure water? Surely he cannot. jNFow you seo what becomes of his system when brought to the test. It will not bear examination. He has commented on "the deep things of God" men- tioned in one of my proof texts, but what has he made out of it? Has he answered my argument? No, my Christian friends and he never can. 1 have shown you that the pardon of sin is an act of God, an act of the mind of God. or one of the deep things of God, which the apostle says no man can know; but the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. Tlie pardoning act then, being God's act, and it not being in the power of man to know it, only as the Spirit of God reveals it, my proposition is proved true beyond all doubt. Another argument bearing upon this point is the fact that no evidence of any act can possibly exist before the act itself exists. This argument Mr. Pritchard has not, and, I think, he will not touch. Pardon takes place in heaven, and no evidence of it can exist before it takes place, and consequently it cannot be in the bible; for ail the evidence in the bible was there before any man in our times was pardoned, and consequently bore just as much testimony in the case before he was par- doned as after. But it is not so with the witness of the Spirit. It comes right from God, personally and immediately, and is a proper witness to what was tran- sacted in heaven. "The Spirit bears witness w^ith our spirits that we are the children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." Here, bles- sed be God is the testimony of pardon, and all the world can never get round it. This one passage would be sufficient if I could not produce another one. I feel strong on this passage. I here plant down my stakes,. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 243 and the gentleman may do his utmost, but move me he never can. That holy comforter — the indwelling of the Holy Spi- nt, is the blessed assurance of the good man. There are three that bear witness, and blessed be God, the Holy Ghost is one of the witnesses, and the gentleman can'never take this holy comforter from us. It comes right from God. and bears witness to the act of God, in pardoning our sins, and gives us to feel a foretaste of heaven in the .soul. 0, my christian friends; this is dearer than life to me. Take from me this blessed witness and all is lost. God can reveal to us the fact that he has pardoned our sins. He has the power to do it. He has promised to us tlie witness of the Spi- rit. He is good enough to fulfil that promis e, and I be- lieve he does faliil it. He does then pardon men, and cviK and will give them the evidence of it. (Time expired.) MR. PRrrCHARD*3 SECOND REPLY 4tK PROP. Gentlemen Moderators : As there was nothing worthy of attention in the last speech of Mr. Terrell, 1 will commence this where I closed the other. I will notice all he has said in due time. To show you that the bodily agitations which always attend Methodist conversions, and which are looked upon by them as certain toke.ita of divine pres- ence, are not caused by the direct and immediate jower of God, I will present a few more facts in rela- tion to them, in addition to those already before you. My fifth fact is, 5. That you may send out a man of piety, modesty, and of good sense, who will state his proposition, and bring, in a dry and uninteresting way, argum.ent after argument, as strong as holy writ, to sustain it, aad the people who hear his discourses, instead of "faint- ing, then hear and faint again, then cry out as if they were ia the sharpest agonies of death/' v/il! sit and 244 DEBATE ON" DAPIISM ^leep profoundly while he speaks; and will leave the house saying, "he is the dricut preacher I ever heard, he don't make us feel like Bro. B. does." But if you will send out a man of wickedness and corruption, and with the eloquence of a MaSt, and one too, into whose head an argument never entered, he will set an audi- ence on fire in ten minutes, and in one hour will pro- duce all the bodily agitations, fainting and frilling ot Shaksrism; and v/ill also produce all the screams and yells of a Methodist camp-meeting. Now, I ask every man of common sense, if it can be possible, that the Spirit of the Lord forsakes the good old man of piety and common sense because of his modesty, and asso- ciates with the corrupt and audacious because of his eJoqumce and impudence ; and under his labors pro- duces all il\e phenomena of a Methodist conversion ? — Who can believe it ? 6. My sixth fact is, that these bodily agitations — the strange phenomena of Methodist conversions have always visited the religious tribes who encourage, and seek a,fter them, but they have never been known to visit a people who discountenanced them, nor enter a religious community where they were not welcome. Now, it must be admitted, that Presbyterians, and oth- ers \Y\iO discountenance them, are as pious, godly, and religious, as Methodists, Shakers, or Mormons, who encourage them. Presbyterians, Baptists, and others have sometimes been troubled with such men as Ed- wards, and consequently with these strange phenom- ena, but still they do not countenance or encourage them. 7. My seventh fact is, that persons who are thrown into this singular state at religious meetings, in the times of g:reat excitement, can be, and have been re- stored to a sound mind in two or three minutes by an ex- perienced Mesmcrizer. Dr. Dodds, in his Lectures, mentions some cases, and pledges himself to restore any one in five mimifcs. Can feeble man drive the Spirit of God away? We know he cannot. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 245 8. My eighth fact is, that this excitement, and these nervous and bodily agitations have been known to re- sult in death ; but the Spirit of God was never known to iniLvcUr a man, w^oman or child while trying to con- vert him Of her. In the town of Brownsville, Union CO., Indiana, only some sixteen or eighteen miles from this place, a lady died in the meeting house, in the presence of hundreds of persons, some of whom are now present, v/hile under the bodily agitations of a Methodist conversion. Her new revelation was a powerful and fatal one. The Methodists v/ho excited her will remember it for some time to come. 9. My ninth fact is, that Methodists do not believe themselves, that the work which is among them is the result of a direct and immediate impulse of the Spirit; for they never expect it, and never have it without a powerful cxerLon on their part lo bring it about. They give feeling exhortations, tell affecting anecdotes of the conversions and happy deaths of fathers and mothers, call the people to the mourner's beiich, hal- low glory, sing, shake hands, and make use of all oth- er means of which they can think, lavvl'ul and unlaw- ful, to raise the excitement, and bi'ing about their con- versions. Nov.% if they believe it is all the work of the Spirit, why do they make use of such means ? If Mr. Terrell should answer, that the Spirit will not operate unless they make use of such means, he will give up the question ; for that would make the opera- tion through the medium of their exertion, and not immediate as he affirms. My word for it, it they will meet, and behave themselves decently, as others do, such things will never be seen among them. 10. My tenth fact is, that the Spirit of God is a wit- ness, and bears testimony to a great many things as well as pardon. It testifies to the world, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. It testifies to the world, that Jesus died, was buried, and raised again. A"ow, in not one instance, of all the instances in which the 246 DEBATE ON BAPTISM Spirit has given testimoii}-, can it be shown, that the testimony t)f the Spirit was immediate. Its testimony was not in a single instance immediate, but always through the medium of words. 11. My eleventh fact is, that the v/ord of God is al- Vv'ays, and at all times, in the heart of every believer : and the man in whose heart the word of God is not, is not a believer. " AVhen you received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the words of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which ef- fectually worketh also in you that believe." 1 Thess., 2: 13. "The icorcl is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach." Rom., 10: 8. •' Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom." Col. 3: 16. These pas- sages show that the vrord of God is always in the heart of every believer, and that it effectually works in them. Now, if these things be so, then it will fol- low, that there can be no work or operation in their hearts without the word, for the word is always there, and always working there. 12. M}' twelfth fact is, that there is not one conver- sion in all the l^ew Testament of the ]\fethodist stamp. There is no account of the people " fainting, hearing and fainting again." There is no account of them coming to the mourner's bench, and crying and scream- ing, as if " the dogs of hell were gnawing upon their iiearts." There is no account of their falling down by tens and twenties, as i[ dead, and coming out of that state shouting and screaming like mad-men.' In all the operations of the Spirit among the people in the days of the Apostles, there is no account of it producing the disorder and confusion of a Methodist camp-meeting, and other meetings of that party. Now, if Methodists preach Christianity, if their conversions are genuine, and if the Spirit operates among them, and produces all the disorder and confusion in their meetings by a direct and immediate impulse, then the Apostle did not AKD T«E HOLY SPIRIT. 247 preach Christianity, their conversions were not genu- ine, and the Spirit did not operate among them, for no such disorder, shouting, screaming, and confusion at- tended their labors at any place. 13. My thirteenth fact is, that the disorder and con- tusion, so common among Methodists, and which are regarded by them as certain tokens of divine presence, ar-e contrary to, and directly opposed to the teaching of the Spirit of God in the ^e\v Testament. In giv- ing directions to the members of the church how to be- have themselves in the house of God, Paul says : " For you may all prophesy (teach) one b^ o/ic, that all may Jearn, and all may be comforted."' Now, while all are permitted to teach in the church, they are not all per- mitted to scream ^and yell in perfect confusion, as Meth- odists do, but are to speak "one by one'" — one at a time, " that all may learn, and all be comforted." Can it be possible, that the Spirit of wisdom and truth is so inconsistent in its teaching, as to tell us in the bible that we are not to speak in confusion all at once, but are to speak one at a time, '• that all may hear, learn, and be comforted," and th-en go right off to the very peo- ple to whom it give the command, enter into them, and by a direct and irresistible impulse, compel them to do precisely the opposite of what it commanded them to do? Who can believe it? If the bible is right, these things are wrong; and if these things are right, the bible is wrong ; for the author of them, is not the author of the bible. Some of those J-^agrmhcd pro- fessors of that day told Paul, as some of the same stamp now tell us, that they could resist the operations of the Spirit. Paul replied : " The spirits of the prophets are •subject to the prophets." From this we learn, that the operations of the Spirit are always in harmony with our rational nature. Now, if ever this yellinr, balling, f;iinting, screaming, and all the other d.'s- ^raceful things of a mourner's bench conversiori, tne people IjiH'e no control, then the people are the sub- ^x'^ I>EBATE ON BAP72S3r jects of an irresistible influence, and it is not true, tfm-i the Spirit is subject to the man who possesses it, ay Paul says it is. VVhieh shall we believe, the Spirit ol God in the bible, or the Spirit of a Methodist camp- meeting? But, Paul adds, "For God is aot the au- thor of confusion, but of peace, as in all the ehurche.;' of the Saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak." 1 Cor. 14: 31, 34. I'l God is not the author of confu- sion, he is not the author of Methodism, of Methodist meetings, nor of Methodist conversions : for they not only confuse all in their meetings, but frequently an entire neighborhood. How often are Methodists heard, not only in the meeting house, but going from it to their homes, hallowing " glory," " salvatiQn," "salva- tion full and fcee,^^ as loud as they can scream; and that too, at the hour of midnight, while all peaceabk- people are in bed. "In the churches of the Saints,'' Paul says, "women are to keep silence ; for they ar€^ not permitted to speak ;" but under the influence m the spirit of Methodism they do not keep silence, and are permitted to speak, to shout, to scream, to faint and fall prostrate on the floor, rise, shout, faint and lall agian ; while the young and modest are disgust- ed at religion, as see in them, the scoffing infiilel i^^ left tO' make their disgraceful conduct his eKcuse for treating with contempt ihe name and authority ol Jesus Christ. How can, things which are so contrary to every thing the Spirit of God has ever taught, be caused by a direct and imniediate impul-e of the Spirit? What a vast difFerence there is between the teaching of God's Spirit, and the teaching of the Spir- it of Methodism. For example : The Spirit of God' says, in the New Testament:; "Let one speak at a. time, that the rest may hear,, and learn." Methodist .spirit : " Let us all pray,, all speak, and aM .shorn m' once;'- so that no oae^ can hear, and no one can learn. God's Spirit : ''The spirit; of the pro.pk^t In subject ti* AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 249 tlic prophet." Methodist spirit : '• The operations of the Spirit are direct and immediate, and the people are so comp'etely under its intiaences, that they can- not help shouting and screaming in the most perlect confusion." God s Spirit : " God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." Methodist spirit : '- God is the author ot'confudon, as vvell as of peace ; and when- ever he gives pac^ to the soul, he always does it in the greatest confusion." God's Spirit : " Let your women keep silence in the churches." Methodist spirit : " Let the women all speak in the churches. Let tht^m shout, and pray, and we will have the blessing." God's Spirit : " ^yomen are not permitted to speak in the churches." Methodist Spirit: '-Women are pre- mitted to speak in the church ; for the irresistible in- fluences of the spirit compel them to speak, to shout, and to make the most perfect confusion of all our meetings ; and we know it is right, for the more confu- sion Vv'e have, the happicj- ice fed. God's Spirit : '• Let all things be done dcc:-nthj, and in onkr^ Methodist spirit : '• A^ for decency, we care but little about it, and as for ordei\ we want none ; all we want is tho blessing, and a good shout in the camp." Having shown that the bible, reason and common sense are against the positions of Mr. Terrell, I have now some objections to the doctrince of his proposition to oilef . And the first is : \. That it makes us all depend, not upon the word of God, but upon our f( clinics — the blind inifyuhes of our hearts alone- lor the evidence of our pardon. The promises of God are not regarded by the believers in a new and immediate revelation distinct from the bible. The bible, and every thing else, must be made to bend and b^jw to ike Us^kt within. Men of all parties fuel that they are right ; for it is impossible for their feel- ings to dijf'tr from tkcir faith. Now, i[ feeling is asj evidence to one of the truth of his doctrine, and the correctness of his positions, it is an evidence to ail, of 250 DEBATE ON BAPTISM all parties, of the same things. Well might Solomon have said : •' He that trusletk in his men heart is a fool.'^ 2. The doctrine of an immediate revelation Icail? men to disregard the authority of God, and to disobey his commandment. If you tell a Methodist that Jesus shys, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved," or pardoned of all his sins, he will tell you that he cares nothing about that, for he received pardon without baptism, or any other "bodily act." But, if 3'ou ask liim how he knows he was pardoned? he will tell you he knows it by the way he fcis — that the " Ho- ly Ghost has revealed it in his soul." Thus you see, that a belief in an immediate revelation sets aside the authority of Jesus Christ, leads men to disobey his commandments, and to trust in their own hearts in pVeference to his promises. The man of God, believes all that God says, obeys all he commands, and trusts in him for all he has proniised. He is, then, a happy man'. His feelings arise Irom his faith, and his faith rests not upon his feelings, as do the faith of Methodists, but up- on the promises of the Lord. He believed, feels, and knows he is pardoned, because the God of heaven who cannot lie tells him he is ; but does not, and cannot think, or imat^inc himself pardoned, because he feels so and so. 3. My third objection is, That belief in an immediate revelation leads men to substitute, defend, and obey the doctrines and commandments of men, instead of the commandments of God. If you ask a Methodist what authority he has for the mourner's bench ? ho wall tell you that God has owned and blessed it in the conversions of thousands. But, how do you know, that (lod has owned and blessed it? Why, he will say, T was pardoned there myself, and I have seen hundreds pardoned at it just as 1 was. But, how do you know that you or any one else was pardoned at it? Why I know, because \ fed it, and because the " Holy Ghost has revealed it in my soul." But what authority hav(^ AXD THE HOLY SPIRIT. 251 you for your class-meeting, and your band society ? — Why, he will say, these are the best meetings in the world. But, how do you know that they are the best meetirjgs in the world ? Why I know it, because I have been made iofcl happier in these meetings, than in any other meetings. Thus you see, my tViends, that the mourner's bench, the class-meeting, and the band society, are the com- mandments of Mr. Terrell's immediate revelation. — Thus you see, that a belief in immediate revelations leadsmen to substitute, del"end, rejoice in, and obey the doctrines and commandments of men, instead of the commandments of God, because they make them fed irood. This immediate revelation teaches a Shaker to sing ludicrous songs, dunce, fall upon his face, lick the law of Mothci Ann off of the floor ^ shake the devil of, and kick him out of the door. It teaches a Quaker to behave himself decently, and say nothing till the Spirit moves him. But it teaches a rJethodist to come to the mourner's bench, go to his class meeting, and the meeting of the band, and there to shout, scream, and yell like the Indians of the North West. We have as much reason to believe the revelations of Quakers and Shakers, as we have to believe those of the Methodists. 4. My fourth objection is, That a belief in immedi- ate revelations leads to irtfidcUtij . It is a notorious fact, that Methodists, Shakers, and Quakers, reject, and explain away every part of the bible which opposes their peculiar notions. That this is true, I will prove by Mr. Terrell. He does not believe the language of ihe Lord Jesus : " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." Nor does he believe the language of Peter : "Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Je.sus Christ, jor rtmlssion of sins " Nor does he believe the passage: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash, aicay thy sins.^^ Nor does he beli^eve that, " Christ gave himself for the church, that he might san- tify, and cleanse it by the icashing of water, and the ^52 DEBATE ON BAPTISM w^ord." Nor does he believe that, " Baptism -nox saves us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." These are parts of tlie word of God that he does not, and dare* not beheve. (Turning to Mr. Terrell, Mr. P. said,) — 1 dare you, sir, to confess before this audience, that you believe these quotations from the word of God. He dare not confess that he believes them ; for he knows, that in so doing, he would renounce the principles of his party, and that his party would denounce him. If he will confess that he believes all the bible, it will save him the trouble of saying again, that he has " tri- umphantly proved justification by faith only." If 1 w^ere the advocate of a system which would not allow of my confessing any where and every where that I be- lieved the bible, and the whole bible, I would throw it down, as a thing unworthy of a place in the head or heart of an honest man. 1 must now' notice some few items in the last speech of my friend. He quoted a passage in the 2d chapter of 1. Cor. "V/e have received the Spirit Avhich is of God; that we might know the things that are freely giv- en us of God." (Now mark) "which things we also ^•peak, not in the icords which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;" "expressing spi- ritual things in spiritual words." These things, then, which we freely receive are spoken by the Apostles, and came to us through the medium of the words of the Spirit, and not immediately, as Mr. Terrell supposes. In his first speech he tells you, that the evidence of pardon is not furnished in the Bible, but in his last he said, '-We have aright to bring our feelings to the word of God and by it prove that they are from God." That is, the Bible does not furnish any evidence, but still we have a right to come for the evidence where the evidence is not. If the Bible does not furnish any evi- dence what right have we to come for evidence where evidence is not furnished? In his first speech he told you, that pardon does not AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 25tf tiake place in u^, but inthemind of Gol — it is something done for us in heaven. This I believe but it is not the belief of Mr. Terrell and his party. When a man v^'ho is condemned by the laws of his country, is pardoned by the Governor of the State, he cannot know that he is pardoned till the Governor tells him so in words; so we when we are pardoned by the Governor of the world, we cannot know that we are pardoned tillhe tells us in words that we are. Jn his last, he said, "If a man pays me for labor, 1 don't know that I have the money because he tells me so, but because Ifclit inmyhand)'^ thus making pardon not something done /or m5 in heaven but something done in its, and received into us, as we receive money into our hands for labor. Consistent disputant! There is a maral charge in every believer; but this change is not pardon, but a p^ercqui.^i'e, to par- don. We know what it done in us by our feelings, and we know what is done for us in licavcn, not by our feel- ings, but by the word of God. God pardons usm hea- ven, but we do not, and cannot know that we are par- doned, till he tells in his word that we are. Abraham had testimony he says, that the nations would be blessed in him, but not that they had been blessed. If he had testimony before they v/ere blessed, certainly the testimony existed before the fact. The word of God said, Z)ffo/c the nations were blessed in Abraham, "in thee they shallhe blessed;" and after they were blessed, the same word says, in Abraham they are blessed. We learn all we know about it from the word of God. So the word of God says to us, believe and (bey, and you shall be saved or pardoned, and after we believe and obey, the same w^ord says; "When you obeyed from the heart, you were made free from sin;" and that our souls were purified in obedience — H71 obeying the truth.'" Rom. 6: 18 Peter 1: 22. Now, unless the word of God is false, we know by it that we are pardoned. Mr. Terrell talks about pardon by faith only, and yet, has no more faith in the positive 254 DEBATE ON BAPTISM statements of the word of God than to say they furnish no evidence of pardon. But I must notice the passage in the eighth of Romans; --The Spirit itself beareth wit- ness wilk our Spirit that we are the children of God."' I remark upon this first; The controversy is not whether the Spirit bears witness, but kuw it bears witness — is the testimony of the Spirit immediate, o\ through some medium? Second: According to the common version there are two witnesses; "the Spirit bears witness wjtk our vSpirit. Now, if you say, that your /ef/mo-5 are the testimony of God's Spirit, where will you find the testi- mony of your own Spirit? Third: This verse says not one word about a new revelation, direct or immediate testimony; nor one word about when, or how we are par- doned; it only teaches that the Spirit of God bears wit- ness, and this we all believe. But how does it bear witness is the question. God commands us to believe, repent, and be be baptized for remission of sins; and to every one who obeys the Spirit says, "When you o- beyed irom the he heart, you were made free from .vi??." What can be stronger evidence than this? Let Mr. Terrell show language as plain in his new revelation if he can. Time expired. MP.. Terrell's closlng speech--4th prop. Christian Friends; The gentleman wishes me to pay some attention to his arg'uments. You, no doubt, as well as myself, would ask the question: Where are his arguments? — Does he call what he has said about mourner's benches and class-meetings, arguments? If he does not I am unable to tell where he will find his arguments. But I would inform him once for all that I am not here to defend the mourner's-bench nor the class-meeting. If that was the question I would easily defend our practice in these respects, but that is not the question in debate. We believe that Christians may shout, for Isaiah, say s, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 255 ^'Ciy outandahout," but I am not to consume time, in replying to his irrelivant matter. 1 would observe, in passing, that we do not beheve that shouting is an evidence of pardon. This is one of Mr. Pritchard's misrepresentations. He says he would not debate my first proposition^ but every word that was in that is in this. He has tiierefore done the same in debating this, as if he had debated the first proposition. I look upon what he said on this point as an apology for his defeat. Mr. Pritchard refers to a man condemned and hung. to prove that evidence can exist before the fact to be be- lieved exists; but here he failed, for the evidence that the man is hung is not that he has committed the mur- der, for there are many that commit murder who are not hung. This argument he has not and cannot touch. No evidence of any fact can exist before the fact itself exists. One cannot exist without the other. When a man is pardoned he is a Christian. That he is pardon- ed is a fact, and he receives the evidence of it because it is a fact, and after it is a fact, and cannot receive the evidence before he is pardoned. This argument has proven triumphant, and bids defiance to the gentleman's best etforts. While on the subject of baptism, I called baptism the seal of the covenant, but the Holy Spirit is the seal of pardon. This explains Ephesians 1: 13, upon which the gentleman made such a display in his last speech. The covenant has its seal and pardon has its seal, and if the gentleman had made himself acquainted with this fact, it would have saved him of much trouble. — Baptism is one seal, or the seal of the covenant, and the Holy Spirit is the other seal, or the seal of .pardon. The renewing of the Holy Spirit spoken of by the apostle, was a means, a part, or evidence of the instru- mentality in conversion and sanctification; butthewit- ness of the Spirit is God s Spirit bearing witness with our Spirit that we are the children of God. There S56 DEBATE OK BAPTISM must be a tree before there can be a fruit, so there must; be a pardon before there can be the evidence of par* don. In regard to what he saj^s about my confusion, I have but little to say. 1 leave it with this large and intelli- gent audience to say how much I have been confused. i feel no uneasiness on that head. The gentleman tells us that he was once a Metho- dist. I have long known that when any one turns a- gainst a church to which he has once belonged, he will do every thing in his power against it. Such persons usually employ every means both fair and unfair against the church of which they formerly were members. — Such seems to be the case with Mr. Pritchard. He glories in burling his fiercest darts at the Methodist Episcopal Church, because he once belonged to it. I do not know that there was any thing more in the gentleman's last speech demanding attention; .Ind 1 shall therfore proceed on to recapitulate my ar- guments. ] My first position was that pardon is not done in man, ut it is done in heaven for him: which Mr. Pritchard as not denied; and that the evidence of pardon must be from heaven. This no one can deny with any de- gree of propriety. It is also a principle which 1 have laid down and argued from, that the evidence of no fact can possibly exist before the fact itself exists. — • This Mr. Pritchard has tried hard to get round, but from it he has not and cannot escape. TvJy argument then, is this: Pardon is an act of God, done in heaven; there- fore the testim.ony of his having performed that act must be from heaven; and as it is a fact that the evi- dence of any act cannot exist before the act is per- formed, the evidence of the pardon of sin cannot be in the bible. This cut my friend off at once from his bi- ble argument. Hence ne has tried hard to get over this difficulty, but he has not succeeded, and, as I think no one ever can succeed who occupies his position. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 257 God pardons a man first and then, gives him the evi- •dence of it. This is certainly the case, for it could not be that he would give the evidence first and then par- don him. This would be preposterous. It would be proving a thing before it was true. This placed Mr. Pritchard in a singular difficulty, and he felt sensible that he must work his way out, or give up the argument at the beginning. This accounts for his great efforts on this point; but for him there was no escape. Here 1 planted down my stake, and here I still stand, and still intend to stand. My next argument was founded on the plain word of scripture. "Because ye are sons, he hath sent forth the Spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." None are sons but those who are pardoned; and because they are sons or as an evidence that they are sons, he has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts. This is a plain and unanswerable argu- ment which Mr. Pritchard has been unable to meet. I then quoted the language of St. Paul, Eph. 1: IS; ^'In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the v.^ord of truth the gospel, of your salvation, in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Koly Spirit of promise." This passage is ex- actly in point. Here is the seal of pardon or the evi- dence of pardon. The gentleman need not smile, for 1 did not say that baptism was the seal of pardon, but the uml of the covenant. But the Holy Spirit is the seal of pardon. This passage is quite to the point, and there is no getting over it. Again "the Spirit bears witness w^ith our Spirit that we are the children of God." This is almost the lan- guage of my proposition, declaring, in so many words, that the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are the children of God. You see here that we have scrip- ture for our faith, but the gentleman only has Mr. Campbell for his faith. What is Mr. Campbell v/hen compared to the New Testament writers? He is a mer€> Q 255 DEBATE ON BAPTISM pigma. We want the witness of the Holy vSpirit and not the witness from Bethany. We want scripture au- thority, not the authority of A. Campbell. The witness of the Spirit is in us and we feel it and know it for ourselves. I expect I could get one hundred persons in this assembly, were I to call on them to tes- tify that the Vv'itness of the Spirit, bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God. Yes, thank God, there are more than one hundred, I suppose, who w^ould testify, that the Holy Spirit bears record with their spirit that they are the children of God. I might tell the young man, if he has it not, to go to the closet, and there earnestly seek it. It is as the well of the water of life, and waters and nourishes the soul. Mr. Can^ipbell may say that it is the word — that if we obey the word we imagine our sins are pardoned. Is it all imagination? No, blessed be God, it cannot be. There is a reality in it. But the christian may expect hard names, from those ignorant of this blessed witness: but if they call the Master of the house Beelzebub, what may not we bis followers expect? I could offer many more arguments, but what I have offered, I consider sufficient; and, although my time is not out, I shall come to a close, and leave the question with this large and intelligent audience. My prayer is that good may result from our discussion, and that truth may prevail. Gentleman moderators and christian friends, you all have my thanks for your attention, and the many to- kens of kindness I have received while with you. Time expired. MR. PBITCHARD's closing REPLY 4tH PROP. Gentlemen Moderators: Our discussion is about to close ; and if it was not for some things in the last speech of Mr. Terrell, I could not say any thing more to add to his defeat and morti- fication. I am now satisfied, that it was the want of mo'her wit, and of knowledge of the subject, that AST) THE HOLY SPIRIT. 259 caused him to affirm what he has to-day. He has had more to say about Bro. Campbell to-day, than he has about his new revelation. I suppose the reason is, because it is easier for a Methodist Circuit- eer to itlande7'Bro. Campbell, than to prove Methodism. He has given you the views of Bro. Campbell on bap- tism, on creeds, and on the Holy Spirit. Well, from what I have heard from him during this debate, I am satisfied that Mr. Terrell cannot give the views of Bro. Campbell, for he is incapable of understanding his wri- tings. Bro. Campbell believes, he says, that all the Spirit there is among Christians is the written word. — He professes to be well acquainted with the writings of Bro. Campbell. Now hear Bro. Campbell, and see if Mr. Terrell can understand his writings. He says : ■•' In the kingdom into which we are born of water, the Holi/ Spirit is as the atmosphrrrc in the kingdom of nature — we incan that the influences of the Holy Spirit are as necessary to the new life, as the atmosphere is to our animal life, in the kingdom of nature." C. System, p. 267. Now, how can a man say, in view of language Hke this, that Bro. Campbell believes that all the Spirit there is among Christians is the word ? The Spirit of God is the almosphere of the kingdom of God, the very air \NQ breathe, he says, and is as necessary to the new life, as the atmosphere in nature is to our animal life. He knows his statement to be a graceless slander up- on the sentiments of that great and good man. Presbyterians, he says, agree with him, that these •' irregular heats" of the mourner's bench are caused by an immediate impulse of the Holy Spirit. Hear the language of a Presbyterian : "It is also worthy of consideration," says Professor Hodge, "that these bodily affections are of frequent occurrence at the present day among those who con- tinue to desire and encourage them. It appears, then, that these nervous agitations are of frequent ocGur- rence in all times of strong excitement; it matters lit' 260 DEBATE ON BAPTISM tie whether the excitement arise from superstition, fan- aticism, or the preaching oT the truth. If the imagin- ation be stroneiy aifected, the nervous system is very apt to be deranged, and outcries, faintings, convul- sions, and other hysterical symptoms are the conse- quence. That these effects are of the same nature, whatever may be the remote cause, is plain, because the phenomena are the same ; the apparent circum- stances of theii; origin the same ; they all have the same infectiour^ nature, and are all cur^d by the same means. They are, therefore, but different forms of the same disease ; and whether they occur in a convent or camp-meeting, they are no more a token of the divine power than hysteria or epilepsy." Life of Stone, p. 366. So it seems, Presbyterians believe that these nervous agitations, outcries, faintings, and convulsions of Meth- odist camp-meetings, and hysteria and epilepsy, " are but different forms of the same disease ;" and that hys- teria and epilepsy are as much a token of divine pow- er, and are as much proof of an immediate revelation, as these " irregular and disgraceful heats" among Methodists. There is no lover of good society — no man who feels the importance of the command of Al- mighty God, " Let every thing be done decently^ and in order," who can believe in, or be the advocate of these hysterical symptoms which are so directly opposed to every thing the Spirit has taught in the Holy Scrip- tures. I stated that these nervous agitations, faintings and falUngs, were not confined to the religious, for among the Romans, in times of political excitement, these things appeared; and so alarming were they in their nature, that the Romans made a law to cure them, which was, that the people should go home, and stay there, till the excitement was over. To this Mr. Ter- rell replied, that he knew the Romans made many laws against Christians. Now, this nervous disease among the Romans, w^hich is now witnessed among Method- AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 261 ists, was not caused by religious, but by political ex- citement ; those who were affected with it were not Christians, but political enthusiasts ; and the law was not made against Christians, or any body else, but as a cure for the disease — that the people should go home till the excitement which caused the disease had sub- sided. These " irregular heats' among the Romans, caused by political excitement, and the bodily agita- tions among Methodists, caused by religious excite- ment, are identically the same, which puts it beyond doubt, that they are the legitimate offspring of excite- ment, and not of divine favor. Nor does the fact that undoubted Christians are sometimes afflicted with these irregularities prove that they are from God, more than does the fact that undoubted Christians are sometimes afflicted with Ague prove that it is caused by a direct impulse of the Holy vSpirit 'i'he gentleman told you that I could not say that my body was washed in pure water. I would be ashamed to give the lie to common sense by saying I have been " buried in baptism," and my " body washed in pure water,*' if 1 had only had a few drops sprinkled on my face. The renewing of the Holy Spirit, he says, is an in- strumentality of our salvation. If so, salvation is not by faith only, Mr. Terrell, and you were mistaken when you said, " 1 have triumphantly proved that we are saved by faith only." All men will sometimes own the truth. The Holy Spirit, he says, bears testimony through miracles. If the testimony of the Spirit is through the medium of miracles, it is not immediate, Mr. Terrell. Truly is Mr. Terrell against himself But, the gentleman having finished his arguments, he had to turn aside, in his usual slanderous style, to tell you that 1 was once a Methodist, and that he never knew an instance of a man turning his back upon the people he first joined, but what he became one of the 2G2 DEBATE ON BAPTISM bitterest persecuters and vilest of slanderers in the land. No, he never knew an instance, he says, buf what the man who turned became a bitter persecuter, and the vilest of slanderers. Now, Mr. Terrell either told the truth, or he did not tell the truth. If he told the truth, then he never knew one but what lie, perse- cute and slander ; but if he did not tell the truth, he is guilt}^ of a wilful and hare-faced falsehood before this large assembly. Well, Mr! Terrell himself was once a member of the Baptist church, but he has long since " turned his back upon the people he first joined," and is now a Methodist ; so as he has never known one but would persecute and slander, we are are authorized by him to^ tell the world, and the whole world, that he is one of the bitterest persecuters, and the vilest of slan- derers in the land. If he did not tell the truth, he is guilty of persecuting and slandering those who have changed their religious sentiments; and if he did tell the truth, he is a persecuting, slandering fellow; so, either way, he is a vile slanderer. The difference be- tween Mr. Terrell and myself is, I was, while a boy, a member of the Methodist church, but, when I became a man, 1 left it and joined the Christian church. Mr. Terrell was once a member of a Christian church, but became an apostate, and joined the Methodists. This, before heaven and earth, is the difference between us. I have known hundreds who have changed their religi- ous faith, who would neither lie, persecute, nor slan- der : and there are many present now, of our most re- spectable citizens, who are among the number. The gentleman, in the kindness and benevolence of his pious soul, exhorted me to seek for the Testimony of the Spirit. 1 have sought for it and found it long since. 1 tiiink, however, that such an exhortation comes with an iJl grace from a man who has proved himself to be one of the bitterest persecuters, and one of the vilest of slanderers in the land. It comes with a bad countenance from a man who has not, and dare AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 203 yit^t confess that he belkves the bible, I have made a 3iumber of quotations from the testimony of the Spirit, and dared Mr. Terrell to confess that he believed the testimony, but he has not, he will not, he dare Dot say he believes it; and yet, he can stand up here, and ex- hort me to seek after the very thing he does not, and dare not believe. J quoted the iangaage of Christ, '' Ho that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ;" bnth'^ has not, and dare not confess that he believes it. 1 quoted the language of the Spirit, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins;" but he would not confess that he 'believed it. 1 quoted the language of the Spirit, " A- rise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ;" but I could not get him to say he believed it. (Here the Moderator said — Is not that nevv- matter?) Mr. Pritchard — Xo sir. I introduced it in my last speech. (Moderator — 1 did not hear it.) Mr. Pritchard — I do not suppose you did. for you were absent from the house when I spoke last. I re- aflirm, then, that he dare not say he believes the testi- mony of the Spirit. I also asked him, if he believed the language of Paul, that we are 'sanctified, and cleansed by the washing of water, and the word ;" but he would not say he did. I also asked him to say, whether he believed the words of Peter, " Baptism now saves us?" but he would not say he did. 1 now say to Mr. Terrell, that, before this shall go to the world, and prove to every honest mind that his new and immediate revelation has made him an Infidel, he still has an opportunity of making the good confession that he believes the word of God, — I mean every part of it. How a man can believe one part, and not anoth- er, is something I cannot understand. How can a man who dare not say he believes the word of God, have the audacity to stand up here, and exhort me to seek loj" the testimony of the Spirit ? When unbelievers be- 2Qi DEBATE ON BAPTISM come exhorters, their feelings must be mvfitL Alas for the party whose advocates do not believe, and dare not believe the word of God. The last argument of the gentleman was, that he could call upon one hundred in this audience who could testify that they have received the testimony of the Spirit. I must add a little to this. I can call upon more th-dn Jive hundred in this audience who can testi- fy that all Christians receive the testimony of the Spir- it. The issue between us is not whether Christians re- ceive the testimony of the Spirit, but whether the testi- mony ot the Spirit is iinmediate, or througk some medi- um — whether the Spirit makes a new revelation tc« every believer, distinct from the bible, and wholly in- dependent of it, or not. But what he intended to say was, that he could call upon osie hundred of his breth- ren who would testily that his position is true. He reminds me of the preacher who published one day that on a certain day he would prove to every body present that the devd is a liar. Well, on the day ap- pointed, a great number came together to hear the sen- tence of condemnation pronounced upon "oV/ /SV/m."— The preacher arose in the presence of the assembly^ and said; '-The devil is a liar, he always was a liar, ami 1 can prove that he is a liar. Then, turnii^g to one oi his friends he said; Is he not a liar, Bro. Jack? Yes- said Jack? There, said the preacher, 1 told you I would prove it! If Bro. Jack had only been present while Mr. Terrell was speaking, how easily he might have provetl his proposition by him. He would have had no- thing to do but to say. Is it not so, Bro. Jack? and the matter would have been settled forever. Mr. Terrell was quite eloq^uent while speaking on the " rivers of living water," and the "well of water wliich springs up into everlasting life." A speech on the nature of the man in the Moon, or one on the lifn and character of Joe Smith, would have been as mucli to the point. He has beea the most usxCortsimate laaii AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 265 ill his proof I ever saw ; for in not one of the passages that he has quoted to prove his proposition, is direct, immediate, or personal testimony mentioned. How then can they prove his proposition, if they say not one word about it? Nor in pardon mentioned in one of the passages. Neither direct, immediate, personal, nor pardon is found in oae his proof texts. He knows that he was solemnly bound by his proposition to prove, not that the Spirit bears testimony to pardon, for this we all believe, but that its testimony is " direct, and immediate." I say he knuws it; for in one of his let- ters to me, he says : " You know that the issue which 1 make with you is, not whether the Spirit bears te.sti' mony in the head, heart, heels, or toes, but is the testi- mony direct, and immediate."' This was then the real issue. Now, has he proved his position ? It would be an insult to the understanding of this audience to tell them what they so well know — viz : that he has not. In his first speech he quoted two or three passages, and made a false issue; but I proved by him that we be- lieved them all, and that Ac- and his jw^^/V/y did not. He has not renounced the principles of his party, and con- fessed his faith in them yet. But I will not, I cannot press these things upon him, for I feel for him. The Spirit of God says to us in the word of the Lord "Beheve and obey, and you shall be pardoned. Now our confidence is so strong in the words of the Spirit, that We cannot think the Spirit would tell us a false- hood. Nor can we be dcccivad; for we know when we beheve and we know when we obey. These are mat- ters of knowledge with us. Now unless the Spirit tells us what is positively false, all who believe and obey from the heart are pardoned, and justified in the name of the Lord. 0, how little like Abraham is that nar- row-minded soul, who says, I will not believe till 1 re- ceive a new revelation directly and immediately from heaven. But the Spirit does not leave us with the promise that we shalt be pardoned, h\xi after \\t believe 266 DEBATE ON BAPTISM and obey, as it commands us, it tells us in language too plain to be misunderstood, that "in obedience we were MADE FREE FROM SIN." Where is the man who believes the Bible, who can say it is not so? Mr. Terrell has showed us nothing in hiancio revelation as strong, plain, and clear as this. Till he does that, we will be conten- ted with what the Lord says, believing from the heart, we do, all thinsfs that are written from Genesis to reve- lation. If my hope of happiness must fail it s/iai'l fail only with the promises of my God. 1 leave the subject with you. I thank you all for your kind and patient attention. But I cannot take my seat w'ithout returning to the Moderators my thanks for the gentlemanly, and dignified manner in which they have presided over this discussion from its commencement lo its closp.. [Mr. Franklin arose, and said; As there seems to be a very great desire am.ong the people that this debate vshould be published, 1 wish to know of Mr. Terrell, before we separate, if he is not willing to write out his part of it. 1 have taken down as much of it as I could, and intend to pubhsh it; but I think it would be more satisfactory to all, for each of the disputants to write out his own speeches. Mr. Terrell said; I cannot write my speeches, for I have not taken notes, and consequently do not know what I have said. I learned to preach without notes, and am therefore an oif-hand speaker. If the people desire to read a debate, they can read the one between Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Rice. Mr. Franklin; I will furnish Mr. Terreell with my notes, if he can't write his speeches without so there need be no excuse. The debate between Campbell and Rice costs so much, that few are able to own it; and it is so large that fewer still have time to read it. Mr. Teriell; I have only a word more to say, and that is, there is a personal difiiculy between Mr. Franklin and myself, so I cannot condescend to have any thing AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 267 to do with the publication of a book, in which Mr. Franklin is concerned. Mr Franklin; I am not very anxious to do the print- ing; you can get any one else to do it that you please; 1 only want the people to have the book, because I be- lieve it will do a great deal of good. ^h. Pritchard then said: Bro. Franklin, as this peo- ple all know you, I would treat that insult offered with- out cause, with silent contempt. SO ENDED THE DEBATE. ERRATA. Owing to the fact that Mr. Pritchard could not be present to read the greater part of the proof, and that it wa3 frequently the case that I was not present, much of the proof reading was done by the printers. Not being familiar with the subject, and some words occurring in xhe ■'■■'-'vk with ^vhich they were not acquainted, and not being written in a ry plain hand, they have made some mistakes, which alter or destroy . .? sense. In one or two places a part of a sentence is omitted, as on pige48. Corne and comes are sometimes printed came, Louo, to wash the body, page 42, Is changed into the Latin Law. In most instances .:ie reader will be able to correct. BENJ. FRANKLIN. NOTE. The personal difficulty alluded to at the close, as existing between Mr.' Tarrcll and myself, and which I did not make any reply to at the time, related, as I suppose, to the scries of letters I was at that Time addressing }iim through tne Western Reformer, in which work ho was repeatedly offered page for page with me, if he wisliod to make any reply. It could be nothing else, for nothing else has pass-ed between us in any way. lie has charged me with some incorrect statements . — It he will make this charge in writing, and specify the statements, I v.ill try to prove them correct. ^ B. FRANKLIN. Date Due 'JSU : ^ "iiiMuuiinnnniiHiXOC litMuuuuiUHinuU'i'A 1 i ^ I rn M I vu vnVu lYiu nn ' imnnMUiimHiXOiH ' .finMMuniuiuuiiu