^ 
 
 (d 
 
 
 ! 
 
 •^ 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 1> 
 -o 
 J5 
 
 
 
 **^ ^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 ^t^ 
 
 
 
 
 'S:) ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ci 
 
 > 
 
 
 1 
 
 •»-^ 
 
 > 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ !zi 
 
 c 
 
 . 
 
 ; } 
 
 ^ O 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ Iz; 
 
 5 
 rl 
 
 
 :? 1 
 
 ':;^ p^ 
 
 P4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 _^ 
 
 
 
 ^\ 
 
 
 
 ^ i 
 
 v^ 
 
 <u 
 
 
 ^^ ' 
 
 
 *-• 
 c 
 
 0) 
 
 
 e ! 
 
 1 
 
 CL 
 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 • ••■'jj 
 
 
 :::)L^ 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 /^; 
 
 -Md 
 
 
•4 
 
 ^% 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/debateontrineimmOOquin 
 
A. J3EBATE 
 
 TPJJNE IMMERSION, 
 
 THE 
 
 LORD'S SUPPER, 
 
 AND 
 
 FEET-^W^^SHIISra ; 
 
 y BETWEEN 
 
 ELDER JAMES QUINTER, OF OHIO {German Baptist), 
 
 AND 
 
 ELDER N. A. M'CONXELL, OF IOWA {Disciple); 
 
 HELD AT 
 
 DR Y C R E E K, L I N N COUNTY, IOWA, 
 
 From the i4th to the 18th of October, 1867. 
 
 REPORTED BY 
 
 J. L. M'CREERY, OF DUBUQUE, IOWA. 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE COMMITTEK 
 
 By H. S. bos worth 
 CINCINNATI. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by 
 
 W. L. WINTER and JOHN A. BUECHLY, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for 
 the Southern District of Ohio. 
 
PREFACE. ^^. "1- 
 
 The circumstances which led to this discussion are, perhaps, 
 euflioiently set forth in the opening speeches of the disputants. 
 
 It was held at the Dry Creek Meeting-house, five miles north- 
 west of Marion, Linn county, Iowa: commencing Monday, 
 October 14, and ending Friday, October 18, 1867. 
 
 The disputants, being strangers, had their first interview on 
 the morniTig of the said 14th of October, at the residence of 
 Thomas Snyder, when the following preliminaries were agreed 
 upon, to-wit: — First. To discuss the following propositions: 
 
 Prop. I. Trine immersion is essential to Christian baptism. 
 Elder Quinter affirms, and McConnell denies. 
 
 Prop. II. The Bread and Wine commanded to be taken by 
 the Disciples of Christ, in remembrance of him, are the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 Elder McConnell afiirras, and Quinter denies. 
 
 Prop. III. The Washing of Feet is an Ordinance established 
 by Jesus Christ, and by him commanded to be observed by all 
 the saints, in the public assembly of his church, until his 
 coming. 
 
 Elder Quinter affirms, and McConnell denies. 
 
 And to adopt as rules of decorum those found in Hedges' 
 Logic — viz: 
 
 1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, 
 and the point at issue, should be clearly defined, so that there 
 can be no misunderstanding respecting them. 
 
 2. The parties should mutually consider each other as stand- 
 ing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject matter in 
 debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal tal- 
 
 (iii) 
 
 // 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 ents, knowledge, and desire for truth with himself; and con- 
 sider it possible that he may himself be in the wrong, and his 
 opponent be in the right. 
 
 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or Avithout effect 
 in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided, 
 
 4. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance 
 be indulged in. 
 
 5. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged 
 on him who maintains them, unless he expressly avows them. 
 
 6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of con- 
 troversy, whatever proofs may be advanced on either side, 
 should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt 
 to defeat an adversary, by arts of sophistry, or to lessen the 
 force of his argument by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a viola- 
 tion of the rules of honorable debate. 
 
 It was also agreed that they occupy four hours per day, 
 speaking alternately, half an hour each, and that, on the final 
 negative, no new matter should be introduced. And that the 
 Brethren of both parties pay an equal share of the expense 
 of reporting and preparing the manuscript for publication, and 
 that they joint.ly secure the copyright, and dispose of the same, 
 or make such other arrangements in reference to it, as might be 
 subsequently agreed upon. 
 
 A Board of Moderators was chosen, as follows : Elder Mc- 
 Connell selected H. H. Wilson, of Marshalltown, Iowa; Elder 
 Quinter selected Samuel Garber, of Illinois; and they selected 
 Elder W. H. Brinkerhoff, of Marion, Iowa, as President. 
 
 By a subsequent agreement the speakers occupied only fifteen 
 minutes each, in the closing speeches on the first and third 
 propositions. 
 
 Prop. I. Containing sixteen half-hour, and two quarter-hour 
 speeches. 
 
 Prop. II. Containing eight halfhour speeches. 
 
 Prop. III. Containing twelve lialf-hour, and two quarter- 
 hour speeches. 
 
 The discussion was listened to by a large, intelligent, and 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 attentive audience. The spirit manifested, by both speakers 
 and audience, was adniiiable in every respect. The truth, in- 
 stead of victory^ seemed to be the object and aim of all con- 
 cerned. 
 
 A phonographic report was taken down at the time, which 
 was subsequently written out and submitted to the disputants 
 for correction of verbal and grammatical errors. Hence, the 
 present printed report is an authenticated transcript of facts 
 and arguments presented by the parties while discussing the 
 several que.-^tions. 
 
 At the close of the last speech, the President Moderator 
 made a few brief remarks, concluding as follows: 
 
 "We can not conclude without thanking the congregation, 
 in behalf of our brother Moderators and selC for the good dec- 
 orum they have manifested; their close attention to the thoughts 
 presented by the disputants; thus rendering our duties easy, 
 and our burdens light. We humbly pray that God's richest 
 blessing may rest upon you all. 
 
 " And to you, brethren, as affirmants and respondents, you 
 have our warmest thanks for the good spirit you have mani- 
 fested: always acting with Christian courtesy toward each 
 other; and, although you had laws to govern you, we have had 
 no occasion to enforce them. We shall look back upon the 
 days spent in listening to your arguments, jt?ro and con, as one 
 of the bright spots in our experience; and may God in his prov- 
 idence ever let his blessed spirit abide with you. Amen. 
 
 "W. II. BRINKERHOFF." 
 
 During the discussion the Disciples selected W. L. Winter, 
 of Marion, Iowa, and the German Baptist brethren selected 
 John A. Buechly, of Waterloo, Iowa, to act as a joint com- 
 mittee to procure and supervise the publication and distribution 
 of the same. 
 
 And in pursuance of arrangements consummated by them, 
 this work is now presented to the public, and dedicated to the 
 anxious inquirer after the Truth. 
 
 May God, in his infinite mercy ,^ make it, and. all our humble 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 efforts, instrumental in the furtherance of the cause of truth 
 and righteousness, and the advancement of his Kingdom on 
 the earth. 
 
 W. L. WINTER, 
 
 JOHN A. BUECHLY, 
 
 Publishing Committee. 
 
DEBATE ^^^ V^ 
 
 TRINE IMMERSION. | 
 
 PROPOSITION I. ""' 
 
 TRINE IMMERSION IS ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S FIRST ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — As I am the affirmant on 
 the first proposition, it devolves upon me to open the 
 discussion. I do it with mingled feelings. I am sorry 
 there seems to be a necessity that my worthy friend 
 and myself must appear before you in the relation to 
 each other that we do. Both of us profess to be min- 
 isters of the Lord Jesus Christ. I would much rather 
 that we could be heartily united in the great work in 
 which we both seem to be interested — in promoting the 
 glorious cause of our blessed Master — than to thus ap- 
 pear in opposition to each other. But, though the 
 occasion seems to demand that, for the present, we 
 should thus appear, and though the difference in sen- 
 timent between us I regret, we will not look upon each 
 other as personal enemies ; we shall not, I hope and 
 trust, allow any improper feelings to arise in our 
 minds toward each other. 
 
 The origin of this discussion I will simply allude to, 
 by saying that I was not the instigator of it. I do not 
 wish to throw the responsibility on any particular one ; 
 but I wish to relieve myself of it. I am not fond of 
 controversy, and only engage in it when duty seems 
 to require it. And, though I have spoken of the re- 
 grets I feel in relation to the position that my friend 
 
 7 
 
8 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 and myself must assume toward each other, yet I am 
 ghxd that we are permitted to meet together, to exam- 
 ine and discuss our differences of opinion, and to try, 
 if possible, to lessen them. I am glad we have free 
 access to the Scriptures of divine truth; lam glad 
 that my worthy opponent and brother receives them 
 as his only correct guide, and standard of ultimate 
 appeal; and that we are permitted to examine and in- 
 vestigate them as to what is actually taught therein. 
 In the prosecution of this discussion, our only aim 
 shall be, to discover the truth; our endeavor shall be 
 to enlighten, to entertain, and to profit those who shall 
 listen. I hope you will give the matters under con- 
 sideration more than attention and a hearing — will 
 give them an earnest attention, and a prayerful hear- 
 ing. Whatever the result may be as regards the con- 
 viction of any mind, or a change of sentiment in any, 
 I hope, when it is concluded, we may all feel that it 
 has been a profitable season, and that your souls will 
 be refreshed by the truth we shall present to you from 
 time to time. 
 
 In entering upon the discussion of the proposition 
 before us, it is proper that I should make a brief ex- 
 planation of the terms used therein. "Trine Immer- 
 sion :" this phrase implies both a plurality and a unity 
 of idea. The words tri^ trine, triune, are of similar 
 import; each mean three; but in the proposition as 
 read, the word tri7ie is used. Trine implies plurality 
 of idea ; while immersion implies unity of idea. " Trine 
 immersion," then, implies both plurality and unity of 
 idea. In short, we believe that three immersions con- 
 stitute the one Christian baptism. I believe this to 
 be taught in the formula of Christian baptism pre- 
 scribed by our Lord Jesus Christ, in the words of the 
 great commission that he gave to his disciples, as re- 
 corded in the 19th verse of the 28th chapter of the 
 Gospel, as written by Matthew : " Go ye, therefore, 
 
MR. QUINTER S FIRST ADDRESS. 9 
 
 and fcach all nntionp, baptizing them in the nnmo of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of tlie Holy Spirit." 
 In sustaining my position — the affirmative of the 
 proposition — I shall pursue the course that is com- 
 nioiily pursued b}^ us immersionists, in our controver- 
 sies ^vith the pedobaptists. I remark this at the com- 
 mencement, in order that you may be prepared some- 
 what to appreciate the propriety and consistency of 
 the course I shall pursue, as I hope it shall be ibund 
 that there are consistency and propriety in it. And it 
 seems to me that arf]i;uments Avhich we all a<];ree in re- 
 garding as weighty and insuperable, when used by 
 immersionists in their controversies with pedobaptists, 
 should be recognized as equally proper to introduce, 
 and powerful to convince, when brought to bear in a 
 question between two immersionists as to the mode 
 of immersion. 
 
 I. 3Iy first argument will he founded on the eomid- 
 eration that the ivord baptizo, as defined hy lexicogra- 
 phers^ and as classed hy grammarians, supports the idea 
 of trine immersion, as it conveys the idea of repeated 
 action. 
 
 Donneo;an, in his Greek and Ennrlish Lexicon, de- 
 fines the word thus : '''Baptizo, To immerse repeatedly 
 into a liquid." This is his first meaning of the word. 
 Donnegan is an author acknowledged to be reputable, 
 and worthy of consideration. 
 
 Bretschneider defines haptizo thus : " Properly, often 
 to dip, often to wash." Mr. Campbell remarks that 
 Bretschneider is said to be the most critical lexicogra- 
 pher of the New Testament. 
 
 Liddell and Scott, authors of reputation, define it, 
 "To dip repeatedly. ^^ 
 
 Hence, the fact that the Greek word haptizo, from 
 which we have the English word baptize, is a word of 
 frequentative form — i. e.^ conveying an idea of re- 
 
10 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 peated action — we maintain is a supporting argument 
 in favor of trine immersion. 
 
 There are different theories in regard to the termi- 
 nation zo in the word haptizo. Mr. Campbell's theory 
 was that it conveyed the idea of rapid motion. (See 
 Campbell and Rice's Debate, p. 78.) Mr. Carson's 
 theory is this : " The termination zo, when employed 
 to form a derivative, appears to me to have served 
 some such purpose as the Hebrew causal form, and to 
 denote the making of the action of the verb to be per- 
 formed. Ex : ' It is better to enrich others than to be 
 rich.' " [Carson on Baptism, p. 20.] 
 
 But another class of lexicographers and gramma- 
 rians has accounted for the termination zo, on the 
 ground that it means repeated action. And this is 
 the explanation we accept, believing it to be most nat- 
 ural and correct. 
 
 " It is well to observe that, in the New Testament — 
 1st, hapto, with its compound, embapto, is used six 
 times, but never of baptism ; 2d, haptizo is used eighty 
 times, and in every instance of baptism. Now, this 
 use of a frequentative form for baptism, in preference 
 to one which expresses the simple meaning, " to im- 
 merse," best agrees with trine immersion. It is true 
 that the difference in meaning between the simple and 
 the frequentative verb is often, and even generally, 
 overlooked in ordinary discourse ; but even were we 
 to admit that this were always the case with haptizo, as 
 it appears it ordinarily is, it would still seem strange 
 that the frequentative is uniformly used, and the sim- 
 ple never, when speaking of baptism. If there were 
 no shade of distinction, no difference in their signifi- 
 cation, why should one be used exclusively when the 
 immersions of baptism are mentioned? And why, 
 unless the trine immersion be signified, this studied 
 distinction in their use? Let it be remembered that 
 the first Latin who mentions this rite, as well as St. 
 
MR. QUINTER's first ADDRESS. 11 
 
 Jerome, translates hapiizo at times by mergito. [Chrys- 
 tal, Modes of Baptism, p. 157.] 
 
 Chrystal was a member of the Church of England. 
 That church at one time performed baptism not only 
 by immersion, but by trine immersion. And tliis wri- 
 ter labored earnestly, and, if living, I suppose is labor- 
 ing yet, to restore the ancient and original mode of 
 baptism — trine immersion — in his churc'h. 
 
 Prof. Stewart (after having shown from Tertullian, 
 and from Jerome, as referred to above, that haptizo 
 was early translated by mcrgilo^ adds the following: 
 
 " It would appear, then, that a feeling existed among 
 some of the Latin Fathers, when they i-endered haptizo 
 by mergito, that haptizo is, in its appropriate sense, 
 what the grammarians and lexicographers call a 'fre- 
 quentative verb' — i. e., one which denotes repetition 
 of the action which it indicates. Nor are they alone 
 in this : some of the best Greek scholars of the pres- 
 ent and past ages have expressed the same opinion in 
 a more definite shape. Buttman lays it down as a 
 principle of the Greek language, that a class of verbs 
 ending in zo, formed from other verbs, have the sig- 
 nification of frequentatives. (Grammar, sec. 119, 1, 
 5, 2.) Rost lays down the same principle. (Gram- 
 mar, sec. 94, 2, b.) In accordance with this, Stephens 
 and Vossius have given their opinion ; and the highest 
 authorities of recent date in lexicography have deci- 
 ded ih the same way. Passow, Bretschneider, and 
 Donnegan, all affirm that hajHizo originally and prop- 
 erly means, to dip or plunge often or repeatedly." 
 [Biblical Repository, January, April, 1833, p. 294.] 
 
 That haptizo instead of hapto was used to express 
 the ordinance of Christian baptism, because it was un- 
 derstood to contain in it the idea of repeated action, 
 is confirmed by the fact that, in the Septuagint trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament Scriptures, in reference 
 to Naaman's case, haptizo, and not hapto, is used : 
 
12 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 ^' Then went he rlovrn and dipped himself seven times 
 in Jordan." (II Kings, v. 14.) Now, the only case 
 in the Old Testament where the word haptizo is used 
 in its literal sense, is where the idea of repeated action 
 was to he conveyed. And in all the instances in 
 which hapto is used, I am not certain that there is a 
 single one into which the idea of repeated action pri- 
 marily enters. 
 
 Now, these facts, viz : That there are two Greek 
 words, hapto and haptizo^ similar except as regards the 
 termination ; that, in translating the Old Testament, 
 the Greek translators used the word bapio almost uni- 
 formly; that the word haptizo is never used but once 
 in the Old Testament, in its literal import, and that is 
 where the action is expressly stated to have been re- 
 peated ; that in the New Testament, hapto is always 
 used except when the ordinance of Christian baptism 
 is spoken of, and then haptizo is uniforml3^ employed; 
 and that some of the best lexicographers and gram- 
 marians consider haptizo to possess a frequentative 
 form, conveying the idea of repeated action — these 
 facts, I say, do seem to me to strongly sustain our 
 position and practice. So much at present on the 
 Greek form of the word. 
 
 When we come to English dictionaries, and look at 
 the word "baptize," my worthy opponent will agree 
 with me they do not do it justice. That Webster does 
 not define it correctly, my friend will at once aVnnit. 
 But w hen we take up Richardson's dictionary, an Eng- 
 lish work, large, and of good authority, we find him 
 defining baptize in the same way Greek lexicons define 
 haptizo: "To dip or merge frequently; sometimes, to 
 sink, to plunge, to immerge." That is the definition 
 of baptize as given by Richardson, this English lexi- 
 cographer. Now, he must have imbibed the iiiea, in 
 some way, that when the word baptize was used, it was 
 intended to convey the idea of repeated action. How 
 
 I 
 
MR. QUINTER's first ADDRESS. 13 
 
 far that idea was correct, it is now our object to ascer- 
 tain ; and there we have his authority, and it bhould 
 have some weight with us. 
 
 II. 3Iy second argument in favor of the position that 
 trine immersion is the true mode of Christian baptism^ 
 is founded upon the testimony of the Ancient Fathers^ 
 and others^ zoho testify that Christ, in the formula for 
 admiyiistering baptism^ teaches and enjoins trine im- 
 mersion. 
 
 I want to be distinctly understood. I am now going 
 to look at the way in which these men viewed the lan- 
 guage of the commission; to examine them as philol- 
 ogists, and ascertain their understanding of the phrase- 
 ology used in the formula of baptism. The Greek was 
 the native language of some of them, and they ought 
 to know what the words of their own language mean. 
 Looking at their testimony upon the literal meaning 
 of a passage of Scripture where no fanciful explanation 
 can with the least propriety be applied, and which 
 teaches physical actions by the terms commonly used 
 to express such actions, the judgment of such men, un- 
 der such circumstances as that judgment is given, not 
 only commends itself to our consideration as worthy 
 of attention, but may safely be permitted to have some 
 influence upon us when settling the meaning of such 
 passage. 
 
 The first of the class of witnesses I am now calling 
 up to give their testimony as philologists to the mean- 
 ing of the formula of Christian baptism — whether 
 Christ, when he said, "baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," 
 meant that the administrator should immerse the be- 
 liever once or thrice — is TertuUian. [Time expired. 
 
14 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S FIRST ADDRESS.] 
 
 Moderators and Friends — I can most fully and 
 heartily indorse the opening remarks of my friend 
 who has just taken his seat. I stand before you with 
 mingled emotions, feeling, I humbly trust, to some ex- 
 tent, at least, the responsibility that rests upon every 
 man who presumes to stand before his fellow mortals 
 in the discussion of questions involving man's present 
 and eternal interests. We are not dealing with tempo- 
 ralities — with flesh and blood ; but we are dealing 
 with the incorruptible spirits of men — with questions 
 upon whose correct decision rest results incalculable 
 and endless. 
 
 I, too, should have been happy to have met my friend 
 under different circumstances, standing side by side 
 with him, advocating the one Lord, the one faith, the 
 one baptism, and the claims of the " one God and 
 Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in 
 you all." Nothing would have cheered my heart more 
 than to have met him, and this large concourse of 
 brethren, in unity of sentiment, in full sympathy with 
 each other, as laborers together in the promotion of 
 the great cause of God and of suffering humanity. I, 
 too, regret what appears to be the necessity for such 
 an interview as we have this morning. I trust, how- 
 ever, that we meet as friends; that we shall continue 
 in friendship, and part in friendship ; and that a good 
 impression may be made upon this community, that 
 will tell for their future happiness in this world and 
 in the world to come. 
 
 I trust we shall have the undivided attention of the 
 audience while we discuss the various subjects that 
 shall come before us. And I hope your purpose in 
 being present will be, not alone to discover what can 
 be said in defense of the doctrines you may have 
 heretofore imbibed, but to search impartially for the 
 
15 
 
 truth, fis for hiddon treasure, in God's sacred deposi- 
 tory, tlie Holy Bible — to learn the will of God, as 
 given through his Son Jesus Christ, and his divinely 
 commissioned apostles, who spake as the ^irit gave 
 them utterance. 
 
 The origin of this discussion is well understood by 
 the most of this community. The foundation of it 
 ■was laid some nine years ago, in the deep interest ex- 
 pressed by Bro. John Fillmore to have a public dis- 
 cussion on the issues now presented. The discussion 
 was held ; it resulted to the dissatisfaction of our friends 
 here, the German Baptists, or " Tonkers ;" and they 
 intimated that the weakness in that case was not in 
 their doctrine, but in their man. Believing our posi- 
 tion to be grounded upon divine truth, as written in 
 the revealed word, we intimated that whenever they 
 found a man with whom they were satisfied as a de- 
 fender of their faith, they might produce him. After 
 this lapse of time, they have done so, and this inter- 
 view is the result. I thought it just and proper to 
 say this much, in order that strangers who may be 
 present, and ignorant of the antecedents of this discus- 
 sion, might be apprised of the causes which have led 
 to this meeting. 
 
 Without further preliminaries, let us at once pro- 
 ceed to the examination of the subject in hand. 
 
 I was much pleased with the definition given of the 
 terms of the proposition by my friend ; I was glad to 
 find the issue in the question so plainly stated by 
 him. "Trine immersion" means, three immersions. 
 Then the proposition as defined by him reads thus : 
 *' Three immersions are essential to Christian Bap- 
 tism." The issue is there clearly presented. We 
 deny. Of course, if my friend's first statement in 
 support of this proposition — viz : that three immer- 
 sions are taught in the commission as recorded by 
 Matthew — is correct, his proposition is sustained ; but 
 
16 DEBATE ON TKINE IMMERSION. 
 
 if three imraersions are not taught in the commission, 
 then his proposition is not, and I presume will not be, 
 sustained in this discussion. I shall follow him for a 
 few mome"nts, touching upon some of the points pre- 
 sented by him in support of the affirmative of the 
 proposition. 
 
 The first argument presented by my friend is based 
 upon the meaning of the word " baptize." That the 
 word translated, or anglicised, baptize, means to im- 
 merse, we agree. There is no controversy between 
 us on this point. My friend undertakes to say, how- 
 ever, that it means not only to immerse oncey '' but to 
 immerse repeatedly." Then there can be no immer- 
 sion without a repeated immersion. There must be a 
 repetition of the act of immersing to fully satisfy the 
 meaning of the word baptize. Let us try this for a 
 moment upon the commission, and see how it will 
 sound : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 immersing them repeatedly in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Does that 
 express exactly what our Saviour meant ? Does that 
 rendering help my friend in his argument in favor of 
 trine immersion? I would inquire of him how he 
 arrives at the fact, since baptize (he says) means " to 
 immerse repeatedly" that three immersions — no less, 
 nor more — fill up the meaning of our Saviour in giving 
 the commission, unless it be true that an act can not 
 be repeated more than twice — i. «., can not be per- 
 formed more than three times ? There must evidently 
 be something more than he has yet told us, upon 
 which he bases his limitation of the meaning of this 
 word, baptize. But perhaps he will tell us tliut in his 
 next speech. 
 
 Tlie definitions from Donnegan, Bretschneider, 
 Liddel and Scott, etc., I believe are correctly quoted ; at 
 least we will let them go unchallenged. I presume, too, 
 these men stand very fair as Greek lexicographers ; 
 
MR. m'CONNELL's first ADDRESS. 17 
 
 I shnll make no attempt to impeach their testimony. 
 The fact is, it is a matter I care very little :ibout. At 
 best, these men, who state or hint that the Greek 
 word baptlzo means " to immerse repeatedly," are but 
 very few among the large number of Greek lexi- 
 cographers. Besides, there are several important 
 considerations always to be taken into account in ex- 
 amining the testimony of Greek lexicographers — or 
 those of the English, or any other language — viz : the 
 age in which they lived ; the teachings current, the 
 practices prevalent in their day ; the influences that 
 were brought to bear; or at least, these must neces- 
 sarily have had a bearing, upon them at the time when 
 their lexicons were made. Lexicographers are apt, 
 and I suppose it is their duty, to define words according 
 to the then prevailing acceptation, not according to 
 their original meaning, in centuries long preceding. 
 A portion of community, our pedobaptist friends, use 
 the word baptize to signify sprinkling ; and this being 
 the case, a lexicographer is justifiable iu giving sprink- 
 ling as the meaning, or as a meaning, of the word 
 haplUm ; but the question is, not what does some 
 pedobaptist lexicographer, or some lexicographer 
 making a dictionary to faithfully reflect the usages 
 of a pedobaptist community, mean when using the 
 word baptizing — but, what did ou7' Savior mean by it? 
 Webster's definition of baptize is not a very good one — 
 that all will agree ; but Webster reflected the popu- 
 lar thought upon the subject, in the section where and 
 at the time when he made his dictionary. Richard- 
 son's dictionary I never saw ; but I should like to 
 know the precise date of it ; the practice that obtained 
 at the time it was made ; and the influences in general 
 that were brought to bear upon it. I opine that 
 Richardson, if my friend here has quoted him cor- 
 rectly, lias done the same that Webster has — reflected 
 the popular understanding of the subject at the time, 
 2 
 
18 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 and in the country in which he lived. As it is an 
 English dictionary, if it was made when the Church 
 of England performed baptism by trine immersion, it 
 doubtless defines the word according to the then pre- 
 vailing practice in the Established Church, and not 
 according to its nature and primary usage. 
 
 But, as I remarked before, this is a point I care 
 very little about, either one way or the other. I shall 
 pursue a course which my friend is doubtless in the 
 habit of doing equally with myself — that is, appeal 
 from the lexicographers to the men who wrote the 
 language that the lexicographers are trying to explain. 
 We will ourselves go to the same source from which 
 the lexicographers derive their information. And to 
 the classics primarily, instead of to the lexicons, 
 should have been my friend's appeal; for there must 
 be his ultimate appeal. We shall therefore expect 
 from the classics an imposing array of instances in 
 which the word baptize is used to signify repeated im- 
 mersions. We will wait for this, and attend to it when 
 it comes up. 
 
 AVe are referred to the termination 20, engrafted 
 upon the root hapto ; and pointed to the fact that in 
 the New Testament, hapto is never used to express the 
 ordinance of baptism, while bapfizo is invariably em- 
 ployed. This much we willingly admit. But when it 
 comes to looking for the reason why these different terms 
 are used, we are fed upon theories and speculations as 
 unsubstantial and unsatisfactory as the east wind. 
 One man imagines that the peculiar termination may 
 have been added to indicate repeated action ; another, 
 that it may have some reference to the rapidify with 
 which the action was to be performed. But these va- 
 rious suppositions have so slight a foundation in fact 
 as to be very unsatisfactory to the learned world, and 
 the advocates of these theories themselves have never 
 presumed to build anything very substantial upon them. 
 
MR. m'cONNELL's first ADDRESS. 19 
 
 Therefore, I am not yet prepared to accept of my 
 frieu<l's speculations on this subject, and to conclude 
 that haptizo lucMns " to immerse repeatedly," and thut 
 '' repeatedly," in this particular case, means just three 
 times. 
 
 I will next refer for a moment to Naaman's case. The 
 Greek word used in the Septuagint version of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures in describing that event, is 
 " haptizo f^ and because that word was used, my friend 
 says Naaman dipped himself seven times; or because 
 Naaman dipped himself seven times, therefore that 
 word was used (the relation between cause and effect 
 does not seem to be very clear here); at any rate the 
 word is haptizo^ and repeated action was performed. 
 But mark this : The repetition of the action was not 
 indicated by anything inherent in the nature of the word 
 haptizo^ but by the numeral seven. If bapHzo in its 
 nature contained the idea of repeated action, why add 
 a numeral to indicate it ? In the many cases in Scrip- 
 ture in which a reference is made to several acts, or 
 several repetitions of the same act, it is always specified 
 in clear and unmistakable language, not by a change 
 in the form of the word, but by the use of numerals. Ex- 
 amples — '• The priest shall sprinkle of the blood seven 
 times before the Lord" (Leviticus, iv : 6, 17); "And 
 he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times " (Le- 
 viticus, viii : 11) ; " Three times shalt thou keep a feast 
 unto me in the year " (Ex., xxiii : 14) ; ''Three times in 
 a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy 
 God" (Deut., xvi: 16); and innumerable other in- 
 stances. Hence we conclude that in the institution of 
 the ordinance of Christian baptism, if Christ had in- 
 tended that the believer should be immersed three times, 
 he would have said " three times." 
 
 Another word in reference to Naaman's case. It is 
 plainly said that Naaman " baptized himself in Jordan 
 seven times" — the Greek word haptizo being used. 
 
20 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 Now, if hapfizo indicntes repeated action, Naanian 
 must have dipped himself at least fourteen times ; and if 
 it mean trine immersion, as my frienci insists, he must 
 have dipped himself in Jordan twenty-one times. Does 
 my friend accept this interpretation ? Yet such is the 
 inevitable conclusion if his position be correct, that it 
 " takes three immersions to constitute one act of bap- 
 tism." 
 
 We will now, for a moment only, look at the argu- 
 ment grounded on the construction the ancient Fathers 
 placed upon the language of the commission. As my 
 friend had not finished his argument upon this point, 
 having only mentioned the name of Tertullian when 
 his time expired, I shall have little to say at this time 
 in reply thereto. 
 
 Tertullian, then, is mentioned as one of the ancient 
 Fathers who taught that the language of the commis- 
 sion conveyed the idea of trine immersion. But the 
 question arises, when did Tertullian live ? On looking 
 into history, we find that he was born A. D. 204 — in 
 the beginning of the third century. His birth was re- 
 moved more than a hundred 3'ears from the death of 
 the last apostle. And who that is at all acquainted 
 with the history of the Church, does not know that 
 during the first centuries of its existence, numerous 
 and gross errors crept in, so that much of the plain 
 teaching of the apostles was perverted and obscured ? 
 The very Fathers upon whose testimony my friend 
 relies, believed and taught what the whole Christian 
 world now acknowledges to have been the most enor- 
 mous and palpable errors, upon other points ; and 
 what assurance has my friend that the doctrine of trine 
 immersion was not one of those errors? Why does 
 he go to the so-called Christian Fathers, who lived in 
 an age when numerous corruptions had overs wept the 
 whole body of the Church, instead of appealing to the 
 apostles, to whom the commission was given, and who 
 
MK. m'cu>;nell's first address. 21 
 
 must have understood the lannjuaf^e of the commission 
 at least as Avellas men Avho lived a century, or two or 
 three centuries, after the death of the last apostle ? If 
 my friend will bring any precept or example of the 
 apostles in favor of trine immersion, or by any process 
 of fair induction will show that they so understood the 
 commission, we shall at once accept such evidence, 
 and become trine immersionists ; but we are not dis- 
 posed to rely, in a matter of so much importance as 
 this, upon the testimony of men who live/l after many 
 and gross errors had corrupted the Church and per- 
 verted the plain teachings of Christ and his apostles. 
 Why, we can show by the testimony of the Fathers, 
 that it was in the century in which Tertullian lived 
 that sprinkling w^as introduced, which my friend and 
 myself equally repudiate as repugnant to the plain 
 teachings of the word. I am disposed, with all due re- 
 spect to my friend's doubtless sincere belief upon this 
 subject, to look upon trine immersion as one of the 
 corruptions that crept into the Church about the same 
 time with sprinkling, and worthy of the same regard, 
 no more and no less — both based, not upon the Word 
 of God, but upon the traditions and speculations of men. 
 Leaving for the present the ideas of others as to the 
 intent of the commission, let us look for a moment at 
 the lano-uao-e of the commission for ourselves. And 
 first, upon the phrase, " in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." We do not 
 deem that there is any special force, any particular 
 addition to the meaning, contained in the \vords, 
 " name of." It is an idiomatic expression, a form of 
 speaking, common in several ancient languages. The 
 phrase, (eis to onoma) " into the name of the Father," 
 means nothing more than simply, (^is) /'into the 
 Father." And the last clause of the commission means 
 simply, ''bafitizing them into the Father, and the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit." Examples of a similar con- 
 
22 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 struction may be found scattered all throuo^h both the 
 Old and New Testament Scriptures. " Then began 
 men to call upon the name of the Lord " (Gen., iv : 26), 
 means simply that men began to call upon_the Lord, 
 using his name in their petitions. Again, when Elijah 
 called down fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice 
 and confound the false prophets who sacrificed to 
 Baal, he said (I Kings, xviii : 24), " Call ye on the name 
 of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord ;" 
 meaning simply, "I will call upon the Lord." For, 
 how did Elijah call on the name of the Lord? The 
 answer will be found in the 36th and 37th verses : 
 " And it came to pass, at the time of the offering of 
 the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the Prophet came 
 near and said, "Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of 
 Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in 
 Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have 
 done all these things at thy word. Hear me, Lord, 
 hear me, that this people may know that thou art the 
 Lord God." So we see that in "calling upon the 
 name of the Lord," Elijah simply called upon the 
 Lord. The same form of expression in the case of 
 Naaman (II Kings, v: 11), evidently means no more: 
 " Behold, I thought, he will surely come out to me, 
 and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God." 
 See, also. Psalm cxvi : 4, 13, 17; and scores of other 
 places in the Psalms. Also, Isaiah, xii : 4 : " Praise 
 the Lord, call upon his riame.'^ In the New Testament 
 likewise ; see Acts, xxii : 16 : " Arise, and be baptized, 
 and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
 Lord." Evidently the expression nowhere means any- 
 thing more than simply calling upon the Lord. 
 
 In the same way are we to understand the language 
 of the commission, *' Baptizing theui into the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Spirit." \_Time ejcpired. 
 
MR. QUINTER's second ADDRESS. 23 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S SECOND ADDRESS.] 
 Friendly Moderators — Resuming the discussion 
 on my part, I will proceed first to make some reply 
 to the objections my worthy friend has taken to my 
 first argument. lie offered some criticisms on the 
 idea I suggested, that the word haptizo indicates re- 
 peated action. He would have you understand that 
 I am involved in this diflSculty : if the word baptize 
 includes in it the idea of repeated action, then when- 
 ever the word baptize is used there must necessarily 
 be a repetition of the action. I anticipated that ob- 
 jection. I admit here that this idea of frequency of 
 action does not necessarily always enter into the 
 meaning of the word. The idea is this : That suffix, 
 those concluding letters, 20, in some way suggested to 
 lexicographers and grammarians, men profoundly 
 skilled in the Greek language, the idea of plurality 
 of action. That this thought was not always and in- 
 evitably connected with it I frankly admit ; conse- 
 quently an argument based upon that point alone 
 would not be conclusive. But, as Professor Stewart 
 declares, "the best Greek scholars of the present and 
 past ages have expressed the opinion " that the idea 
 of plurality of action was inherent in the word baptizo; 
 this fact I desire to spread before this community — 
 to go as far as our discussion goes, whether by our 
 living voice, or by the power of the press — and let it, 
 with my friend's objections to it, receive a proper ex- 
 amination, and have its due weight in the decision of 
 the question. It does seem to me that the great 
 Christian Lawgiver in giving this commission, and 
 his apostles in referring to the ordinance thus com- 
 manded, in using a word with this peculiar ending, 
 must have intended to convey some idea thereby which 
 was not contained in the word bapto, from which it is 
 derived. As I have said, mv belief is that the addi- 
 
24 DEBATE ON THINE IMMERSION. 
 
 tional idea therein expressed is that of a repetition 
 of the action. 
 
 My friend made some allusion to Richardson, whose 
 definition I gave, and he said, " if I had quoted him 
 correctly." Alexander Campbell has quoted him in 
 defense of immersion, and calls him " the great and 
 profound Richardson." I gave the quotation as he 
 gives it. I have seen Richardson's dictionary, but 
 have never examined it closely. As regards the 
 time it was first published, I believe it is a work of 
 the present century ; I think, published before the 
 middle of the present century ; at least, my impres- 
 sion is that it is rather a late work. As regards the 
 influences by which Richardson was surrounded, my 
 friend must know that they were no stronger toward 
 makino; him a trine immersionist than toward makinor 
 him simply an immersionist ; for in England, where 
 his dictionary was published, the prevailing practice 
 then, as now, was sprinkling. The influences of the 
 Church of Enorland could have had nothinfij to do with 
 his opinions as a lexicographer, or it would have pre- 
 vented him from defining baptism to mean immersion. 
 Bat Richardson had scholarship enough and inde- 
 pendence enough to define baptize by " immerse," and 
 his scholarship taught him that baptism meant not 
 only immersion, but repeated immersion ; and his in- 
 dependence and honesty would not permit him to let 
 the prevailing practice of sprinkling bias his views 
 or check his expression of them ; hence he defined 
 the meaning of baptize to be " to merge frequently ^ 
 So far as regards Richardson. 
 
 My friend says, why go to the Christian fathers? 
 why not go at once to the apostles, and inquire what 
 construction they placed upon the language of the 
 commission? I will come to that in due time. As I 
 have already said, I am pursuing the course of argu- 
 pient that is usually pursued by us immersionists iu 
 
MR. QUINTER's second ADDRESS. 25 
 
 our controversies with the pedobaptists ; I want one 
 thing to lead naturally — to prepare and pave the 
 way — to another; and I shall try to manage my side 
 of this discussion as, in my humble judgment, shall 
 seem to be best calculated to present the evidence in 
 favor of what I honestly believe to be the true form 
 of Christian baptism. 
 
 My friend, referring to Naaraan's case, asks : " If 
 haptizo in its nature contains the idea of repeated ac- 
 tion, why add a numeral to indicate the number of 
 times the action is repeated?" I do not claim that 
 '•repeatedly" means any definite number of times — 
 three, four, five, or seven ; I only claim that bapfizo 
 conveys the idea of repeated action ; but how often 
 the action is repeated is indicated by using a numeral, 
 or in some other way. 
 
 Having thus referred to (and I think fully an- 
 swered) the points presented by my friend, I will 
 now proceed with my own argument. I was about 
 introducing the testimony of Tertullian, which I will 
 preface by a short sketch of his life and character, as 
 drawn by one who wrote a preface to the English 
 translation of his works by Rev. C. Dodgson, M. A. : 
 
 " Of his mental qualities, the ancient Church seems 
 to have been much impressed with his acuteness, 
 energy, learning and eloquence. What we have left 
 are apparently but a small portion of the great num- 
 ber of works which he composed ; and these indicate 
 no ordinary fertility of mind, in that he so little re- 
 peats himself, or recurs to favorite thoughts, as is so 
 frequently the case even Avith the great St. Augustine. 
 His character of mind is thus vividly described by 
 Vicentius : ' As Oricren amonoj the Greeks, so is 
 Tertullian among the Latins to be accounted the first 
 of all our writers. For who was more learned than 
 he? Who in divinity or humanity more [)racticed? 
 For, by a wonderful capacity of mind, he attained to 
 
26 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 and understood all philosophy, all the sects of philos- 
 ophers, all their founders and suppoi'ters, all their 
 systems, all sorts of histories and studies. And for 
 his wit, was he not so excellent, so grave, so forcible, 
 that he almost undertook the overthrow of nothing, 
 which, either by quickness of wit or weight of reason, 
 he crushed not? Further, who is able to express the 
 praise his style of speech deserves, which is fraught 
 (I know not how) with that force of reason that such 
 as it can not persuade, it compels to assent ; whose 
 so many words are almost so many sentences; whose 
 so many sentences are so many victories? This know 
 Marcion and Appelles, Praxeas and Hermogenes, 
 Jews, Gentiles, Gnostics, and divers others, whose 
 blasphemous opinions he has overthrown with his 
 many and great volumes, as it had been with thunder- 
 bolts.' " [Preface to Tertullian's Works, Vol. I, p. 4.] 
 
 Tertullian thus connects trine immersion with and 
 draws it from the lanojuaore of Christ in the commis- 
 sion : "For the law of immersion was enjoined, and 
 the form prescribed; 'Go,' said he, 'teach the na- 
 tions, immersing them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' (Works, p. 
 263.) And in his refutation of the doctrines of 
 Praxeas, he says : " After the resurrection, promising 
 he would send the promise of the Father; and lastly, 
 commanding that they should immerse into the Father, 
 and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; not into one name, 
 for we are immersed for each name, into each person ; 
 not once, hut thrice.'^ [P*'^©^ 659.] 
 
 Here we have Tertullian founding trine immersion 
 on the language of the commission, and, of course, 
 making it as old as the commission. 
 
 My next witness, as regards the meaning of the 
 phraseology used by our Lord in the commission, is 
 Monulus, one of the eighty-seven Bishops who con- 
 stituted the famous Council of Carthago, in the time 
 
MR. QUINTER'S second ADDRESS. 27 
 
 of Cyprif^n, about the yoar 256 of the Christian era. 
 I hold in my hand Cyprian's work, containing the 
 speeches of a number of Bishops at that Council. 
 The baptism of heretics, and incidentally the ques- 
 tion of baptism generally, was discussed at that 
 Council. In the speech of Monulus are these words : 
 *' The true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic 
 Church,* hath always, my brethren, been with us, 
 and doth yet abide with us, and especially in the ar- 
 ticle of baptism, and the trine immersion wherewith it 
 is celebrateci ; our Lord having said, ' Go ye, and 
 baptize the Gentiles, in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' " [Works of 
 Cyprian, Part 1, p. 240.] 
 
 Let us look at the bearing of this testimony for a 
 moment. My friend, here, has tried to fix the date 
 of the origin of trine immersion in the time of Ter- 
 tuUian, because he is the first of the Fathers whose 
 writings are extant, who particularly describes the 
 manner in which trine immersion is performed. But 
 here is Monulus, who lived a little after Tertullian, a 
 portion of his life being cotemporary with Tertullian, 
 and what does Monulus say? Does he speak of trine 
 immersion as havinoj oriojinated in Tertullian's time? 
 No; Monulus says this doctrine of trine immersion 
 ^' kafh always been ^vhh. \xs.^' Always? Since when 
 does that mean? Evidently, since baptism, which the 
 Council were discussing, had been established as an 
 ordinance by the command of the Great Head of the 
 Church, in the commission he gave his disciples. The 
 idea has become prevalent in the world, either through 
 ignorance or something worse — for bad as ignorance 
 is, there can be worse things — that, though some men 
 
 * We scarcely need remark that the "Catholic Church " mentioned 
 by Miinulus is not the Papal hierarchy which, in a 1 iter age, assumed 
 that name, and has since continued to wear it unworthily, but the 
 true Church of Christ, as it existed before Papacy had its origin. 
 
28 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 anciently did believe in trine immersion, they grounded 
 it upon mere tradition. If I have understood my 
 friend correctly, he has sought to convey the same 
 idea here to-day. I want to show you, and I think I 
 am showing you, that these men, who lived back 
 yonder in that early age of the Avorld, while sustain- 
 ing with all their power the doctrine of trine immer- 
 sion, tell us where they obtained it ; not from tradition, 
 but from the commission. This doctrine of trine im- 
 mersion, says Monulus, " hath always been with us.^' 
 
 I next call your attention to the testimony of 
 Chrysostom, who lived in the fourth century. He 
 was born A. D. 354, at Antioch, of noble and opulent 
 parents. He was taught philosophy by Andragatliius, 
 and spent some time in the schools of Athens. After 
 a very successful commencement of legal practice, he 
 relinquished the profession of law for that of divinity, 
 and was baptized at the age of twenty- three by Mele- 
 tius. Bishop of Antioch. He studied the Bible much, 
 and it is said was able to repeat the whole of the 
 Scriptures. He was the most renowned of all the 
 Greek Fathers. 
 
 Chr3^sostom says (I quote from Bingham's transla- 
 tion in his " Antiquities of the Christian Church," 
 Book XI, chap, xi., sec. 7): " Christ delivered to his 
 disciples one baptism, in three immersions of the body, 
 when he said to them, ' Go, teach all nations, baptizmg 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost.' " 
 
 So here, in the fourth century, we have a native 
 Greek, a profound scholar, a devoted student of the 
 Bible, reading the commission, and declaring that 
 Christ taught trine immersion therein. 
 
 Pehigius, Bisliop of Rome, shall be my next author- 
 ity. He lived in tiie sixth century. He savs: '' There 
 are many who say that they baptize in the name of 
 Christ alone, and by a single immersion. But the 
 
MR. QUINTER'S second ADDRESS. 29 
 
 Gospel comninnfl. wliicli was given bj Gofl himself, 
 sind our Lord rind Saviour Jesus Christ, rerriirids us 
 that we should administer holy baptism to every one in 
 tiie name of the Trinity, and by trine immersion ; for 
 our Lord said to his disciples, 'Go, baptize all nations, 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost.'" 
 
 Tims, it will be seen, that the learned Pelagius 
 drew the doctrine of trine immersion, not from the 
 traditions of men, but from the written Word of 
 God — from the formula of baptism given by Christ to 
 his disciples. 
 
 Leaving these ancients — many more of whom I 
 might mention did time permit — let me refer to one 
 or two modern testimonies on this subject. And first, 
 I will hear Bishop Beveridge, one of the most eminent 
 and most learned Bishops of the Church of England. 
 He says: ''Neither did the Church ever esteem that 
 baptism valid wdiich was not administered exactly 
 according to the institution, in the name of all the 
 three Persons; which the primitive Christians were 
 so strict in the observance of, that it was enjoined 
 that all persons to be baptized should be plunged 
 three times — first at * the name of the Father,' and 
 then at ' the* name of the Son,' and lasily at ' the 
 name of the Holy Ghost;' that so every Person 
 might be distinctly nominated, and so our Saviour's 
 institution exactly observed in the administration of 
 this sacrament." [Bishop Beveridge's Works, Vol. 
 VllI, page 33(3.] 
 
 And in his collection of the Canons of Primitive 
 Christianity, Bishop Beveridge says (as quoted in 
 Clirystal's History of the Modes of Baptism, page 
 194), "'That this" (meaning trine immersion) " was in 
 some way handed down from the apostles, we dare 
 not deny." 
 
 Bishop Beveridge was one of the most learned men 
 
30 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 that the Church of England ever produced ; he had 
 made baptism a. subject of much study, and had in- 
 vestigated it profoundly ; and the result of his inves- 
 tigations was that it could not be denied that trine 
 immersion was handed down from the apostles, and 
 that, to observe this institution of baptism exactly, it 
 should be done by trine immersion. With all his 
 philological attainments, his profound learning, his 
 excellent judgment, he conceived that he found trine 
 immersion taught in the commission. 
 
 I will next call your attention to the testimony of 
 Whiston, best known to the general public as the 
 translator of our common edition of Josephus. Wil- 
 liam Whiston was a very learned man, and a polem- 
 ical or controversial writer of no mean ability. He 
 was much engaged in controversy, having become an 
 Arian and anti-pedobaptist. Among the works pub- 
 lished by him is one entitled '^Primitive Christianity 
 Revived," a portion of which is devoted to the 
 *' Apostolic Constitution and Canons." He wrote a 
 long essay to prove that these are of apostolic origin 
 and authority. His writings show an extensive 
 acquaintance with Christian antiquity. His theolog- 
 ical sentiments, however, were very unpopular in his 
 day, on account of which there was considerable preju- 
 dice against him. In the course of his arguments 
 to prove the apostolic origin of the constitutions, he 
 introduces a passage from Tertullian, and upon it re- 
 marks as follows : 
 
 "From this eminent passage, observe, first, that the 
 practice in baptism seems not to have been, as now, 
 *I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost;' but while the person 
 to be baptized (or, probably, the surety, if an infant,) 
 repeated the creed and renunciation after the Bishop 
 or Presbyter, or at least their abridgment, the second 
 time, the Bishop or Presbyter dipped him, once at the 
 
MR. QlTINTKll's SKCOND ADDRESS. 31 
 
 naminnr of the Father, a ftecond time at tlie naming 
 of the Son, and a lldrd time at tiie naming of the 
 Holy Ghost. Whicli manner of baptizing agrees ex- 
 actly with the rule in the Constitutions, and the practice 
 in Cyril of Jerusalem, and seems to be the proper 
 meaning of the original command, of baptizing or 
 dipping, * ew to onomaf AT the respective names, of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and not according 
 to the common exposition, IN their name — by their 
 authority, or to their worship. Since baptism is only 
 designed originally into the death of Christ, though 
 so ordered as to put us in mind of the Father, wiio 
 sent him, and of the Holy Ghost, who witnessed to 
 him, at the same time, as the Constitutions particularly 
 inform us. Second, that, therefore, the trine immer- 
 sion is directly of our Saviour's own appointment, and 
 the very meaning of the original command for bap- 
 tism, both in Matthew and the constitutions; and, 
 therefore, not to be altered by any Christian." [Essay 
 on the Apostolic Constitutions, Vol. HI., pp. 399, 400.] 
 This we regard as an important testimony. Wliis- 
 ton affirms that trine immersion is directly of our 
 Saviour's own appointment, and the very meaning of 
 the command of Christ. He says it was not origin- 
 ally performed as it now is. The administrator now 
 says, " I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and then dips 
 the subject but once; whereas, if the ordinance is 
 performed according to the command, the bishop will 
 dip him once at the naming of the Father, a second 
 time at the naming of the Son, and a third time at 
 the naming of the Holy Ghost. We see that Whiston 
 declares in plain and positive language for trine im- 
 mersion from the lan^uaore of the commission. And 
 as he was an Arian, trine immersion is not a practice 
 peculiar to Trinitarians, neither has it grown out of 
 any peculiar views of the Trinity, but out of the 
 
32 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 command of Christ, being suggested by the phraseol- 
 ogy of that command. 
 
 I have now given you the testimony of learned and 
 eminent men, ancient and modern scholars, who have 
 conceived and promulgated the idea that trine immer- 
 sion is taught in the language of Christ in giving his 
 commission. I said I should pursue in this discussion 
 the course usually pursued by us immersionists in our 
 controversies with the pedobaptists. Such authori- 
 ties as these, both ancient and modern, are used by 
 us in such discussions to sustain our doctrine of im- 
 mersion. And if they are worth anything when used 
 to sustain immersion, it would be very inconsistent in 
 my opponent to claim that the same arguments, the 
 identical authorities, suddenly become worthless when 
 used to sustain trine immersion. \_Ti7ne expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S SECOND ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I was happy to hear 
 my friend admit, at the commencement of his last 
 speech, that the word haptizo does not necessarily con- 
 tain in itself the idea of repeated action. So we 
 agree upon that point ; and as in all other cases, in 
 the Old Testament and the New, where God has in- 
 tended an act to be repeated a given number of times, 
 he has indicated it by the use of numerals, we there- 
 fore conclude that if God had intended a repetition 
 of the act of immersing, he would have indicated that 
 by numerals. Even if the word itself did indicate re- 
 peated action, Christ in giving his commission, in 
 justice to the apostles and to the world at large, 
 should have used numerals to designate how often the 
 act should be repeated. But none of these things 
 obtain; hence we conclude the Lord did not intend 
 any repetition of the act indicated by the word hap- 
 
Mil. m'connell's second address. 33 
 
 tizo. But as my friend hns himself given up the ar- 
 gument upon the termination zo, it needs no further 
 discussion. 
 
 My fri(!nd, in his hist argument, it seems to me, pur- 
 sues a very singuhir course. In his first argument 
 he made some reference to the Christian Fathers ; I 
 asked him, why not go at once to the apostles, and 
 inquire what construction they placed upon the lan- 
 guage of the commission ? They certainly better knew 
 what the Saviour meant in the commission addressed 
 by hiui to them^ than men could know who did not 
 live till centuries after they were dead. He said he 
 was cotning to that ; he was going to trace trine im- 
 mersion direct to the apostles and the commission. 
 So, commencing with TertuUian, A. I). 204, he took 
 us — where? Back to the commission? No ; but 
 down in an opposite direction, to Monulus and the 
 Council of Carthage, A. D. 256. And from Monulus 
 he takes us to Chrysostom, in the fourth century ; and 
 from Chrysostom to Pehigius, in the sixth century; 
 and from Pelagius to Bishop Beveridge and William 
 Winston, of England, in modern times. But I can 
 not see that this brings us any nearer — as he promised 
 to take us — to the apostles and the commission. This 
 is to me a very strange method of procedure ; I am 
 not in the habit of tracing things to their fountain by 
 going down stream. 
 
 But I know the reason why my friend did not trace 
 trine immersion the other way. It is because it ends, 
 ill that direction, with TertuUian There is no stream, 
 however small, to be found between TertuUian and 
 the commission as given by our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 In going toward a large city that has a real existence, 
 while still at a great distance tlie roads may not be 
 very clear nor distinctly marked ; but as we draw 
 nearer and nearer the city, the road widens out, and 
 there is no mistaking its direction. Not so in travel- 
 
34 DEBATE ON TRINE EVIMEKSION. 
 
 ing backward from the present liour toward the 
 commission, in searcli of trine immersion. The road 
 becomes, not clearer and clearer, but more and more 
 obscure, till at last we have to stop one hundred and 
 seventy years this side of the commission ; there is no 
 trine immersion to be found beyond that. 
 
 But my friend quotes Monulus, who says, " Ti'ine 
 immersion has alwa^^s been with us." He says that 
 Monulus, in a speech before the Council of Carthage, 
 in 256, traced trine immersion back to the commission. 
 But I am not ready to accept this as conclusive ; I 
 want to know liow he traced it back. Suppose I turn 
 to my friend here, and inquire of him about this trine 
 immersion. He replies, "We have always had the 
 doctrine of trine immersion with us; and we trace it 
 back to the commission." However honest and truth- 
 ful he may be, I dispute the correctness of his asser- 
 tion; and I would dispute the point with Monulus as 
 soon as I would with my friend here. They are both 
 but human, and liable to err upon points of fact or 
 of judgment. But let Monulus, or TertuUian, or 
 Chrysostom, or Pelagius, or my friend here, trace 
 trine immersion back and find it in the commission, 
 by any legitimate examination or interpretation of the 
 words of our Saviour, and we are content; we will cm- 
 brace the doctrine and adopt tlie practice. But these 
 gaps won't answer. The simple assertion of Monulus, 
 that lie finds trine immersion in the commission, docs 
 not satisfy my mind. The commission is there upon 
 the record, and I can read it as well as he ; and I am 
 not ready to accept trine immersion as being con- 
 tained in the commission, unless I can find it mjself, 
 when I go there. 
 
 Coming down to Winston, a modern English au- 
 thor, we are treated to a criticism of his upon the 
 Greek words in tlie commission, (//.v lo oiioma — which 
 he wouhl translate, '' at the name," etc. It' I were 
 
MR. m'cONNKLL's second ADDRESS. 35 
 
 discussing uitli a man who was anxious to prove 
 spriiikUnij to be tlie proper mode of immersion, and 
 he slionld translate eis to hudoi\ "at the Avater,"' I 
 ■\voukl liave known what to think ; but how, in this 
 age, an immersionist, with the standard lexicons be- 
 fore him, can justify this transhition, is incomprehen- 
 sible to me. Literally, the translation is — and I 
 submit the matter to my friend, who I presume is ac- 
 quainted with Greek — not "at," but "into;" "bap- 
 tizing them INTO the name of the Father," etc. I 
 know not whether, in quoting AVhiston, my friend 
 intended to indorse all that he quoted ; but I wanted 
 to disabuse your minds of this error into which he 
 hns evidently fallen. I think that he, when his atten- 
 tion is directed to the fact, will acknowledge that eis 
 is properly translated, not by " at," but " into." 
 
 With this thought before us, I remark : The apos- 
 tles were commanded to make disciples, baptizing 
 them into the Father, and into the Son, and into the 
 Holy Spirit. This they did; hence those whom. they 
 baptized Avere addressed as being in God, in Christ, 
 in the Holy Spirit. For proof of this, I refer you to 
 Acts, chap, xviii : verse 8 : "And Crispus, the chief 
 ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all 
 his house ; and niany of the Corinthians hearing, 
 believed, and ivere baptized." Noav turn to 1 Cor. i : 
 1 and 2 : " Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus 
 Christ," etc., " unto the church of God which is at 
 Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, 
 called to be saints," etc. Also, 1 Thess., chap, i : 
 verse 1 : " Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto 
 the church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the 
 Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ." Romans, chap, 
 viii : verse 9 : " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the 
 /Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." 
 Other similar passages might be adduced, in which 
 Ciiristians are said to be in God, in Christ, in the 
 
86 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 Holy Spirit. And these three Persons — Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit — constitute the fulhiess of the God- 
 head. 
 
 But again : We are told (Collos., ii : 9,) that in 
 Christ *' dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bod- 
 ily," or " substantially," as it is sometimes, and per- 
 haps more appropriately, translated. Now, since the 
 fullness of the Godhead — i. e., the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit — dwells in Jesus Christ, and since it re- 
 quires but one immersion, according to the Bible, and 
 to my friend, to introduce a man into Jesus Christ, 
 therefore one immersion is sufficient to introduce a 
 man into the fullness of the Godhead. There are 
 numerous other proofs that lead us directly to the 
 same conclusion. John, chap, x : verse 30 : *' I and 
 my Father are one ; " John, chap, xiv : verse 9 : " He 
 that hath seen me hath seen the Father ;" verse 11 : 
 *' Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father 
 in me." Then, an act that brings a man into the Son, 
 brings him into the Father ; and the same is true in 
 like manner of the Holy Spirit. So one single im- 
 mersion fills all the requirements of the commission. 
 I leave that thought with you for the present. 
 
 Again, my friend, if not in his own remarks, at 
 least in his quotations from Tertullian, and from 
 Bishop Beveridge, and perhaps from others, seems to 
 claim, or at least to intimate — and if he does not 
 claim it, I know that our German Baptist brethren 
 whom he represents, generall^^ do — that since there 
 are three separate Persons in the holy trinity, there 
 must be three separate immersions ; one immersion in 
 recognition of each Person : that by the first immer- 
 sion the believer is introduced into the Father, by the 
 second into the Son, and by the third, into the Holy 
 Spirit. Accordingly, he who has been but once im- 
 mersed, is in the Father, but not in Christ ; while a 
 second immersion would introduce him into Christ, 
 
MIL M'cuNNKLL's SKCUM) ADDllKSS. 37 
 
 but not into tlic Holy Spirit. If there is any force 
 at all in my friend's mode of reasoning npon this point, 
 this conclusion is inevitable. But look at the Avords 
 of Christ just quoted, and tell me how this can be? 
 Paul saj^s, in his second epistle to the Corinthians, 
 chap, v: verse 19: "God was in Chrisl, recon- 
 ciling the world unto himself." Now, if the Father 
 is in the Son, how can a man be brought into the 
 Father without being by that same act brought into 
 the Son ? The absurdity of this position may be 
 made apparent, further, by a reference to the state- 
 ment of John, in his first epistle, chap, ii : verse 28 : 
 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the 
 Father ; but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the 
 Father also." But baptism is the token and seal of 
 our acknowledgment of God; then by baptizing into 
 the Son, we baptize into the Father also. Again : 
 In John's gospel, chap, xiv : verse 6, we are told : " No 
 man cometh unto the Father but by me." But our 
 Tonker friends immerse into the Fathei'/rsf, and then 
 into the Son — thereby approaching the Son through 
 the Father ; reversing the divine order in the matter. 
 If their theory upon this subject is right, the order 
 in which they perform their immersions is wrong, and 
 needs to be remodeled. 
 
 I would illustrate my idea upon this point in this 
 manner. A foreigner wishes to become a citizen of 
 Iowa. But he can not become a citizen of Iowa, with- 
 out entering into and becoming a citizen of the United 
 States, because Iowa is a part of the nation known as 
 the United States. Now, our naturalization to God is 
 similar. By one act of obedience — by one immersion, 
 all that is commanded — we are introduced into Jesus 
 Christ, and by that same act, into the Father, and into 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The phrases, " in Christ," " in God," " in the Holy 
 Spirit," so frequently used in the Holy Scriptures, in- 
 
38 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 dicate relationship. To be baptized into them, is to 
 be introduced into a n-ew rehitionship to them. It is 
 said (I Corin. x : 1, 2.) that the Israelites " were all 
 baptized [eis] into Moses, in the cloud, and in the 
 sea." Henceforth they were in a new relationship to 
 him : he was their leader, whom they were commanded 
 to obey in all things. Paul, in his epistle to the 
 Galatians, chap, iii : 26, 27, 28, tells us what that new 
 relationship is, into which men are introduced by bap- 
 tism : "For ye are all the children of Gody by faith 
 in Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as have been 
 baptized into Christ have put on Christ ; and if ye be 
 Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and Jieirs^ accord- 
 ing to the promise." Thus by baptism Ave are intro- 
 duced into a new relationship with the divine family ; 
 we are constituted sons of God, brethren of Jesus 
 Christ, and partakers of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But it is objected that, since by baptism we change 
 our relative position in reference to three persons, 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, therefore 
 three acts of immersion are necessary. But this is a 
 sheer sophism, which will not stand a moment's test 
 at the bar of common sense. Let me illustrate. I 
 am now standing with my face to the west. My right 
 hand is upon the north, my left hand upon the soutii, 
 and my back is east. Now, I propose to change my 
 relative position to the four points of the compass. I 
 turn my face toward the north ; and by that one act 
 I change my position, not only in relation to the north, 
 but to the south, the east, and the west. So, when a 
 believer is baptized into Christ, his relationship is 
 changed, not only as regards Christ, but as regards 
 the Father and the Holy Spirit, the church and the 
 world, by that one act of baptism. 
 
 I proposed, before closing the argument upon this 
 subject, to introduce some ideas in connection wi.th 
 TertuUian, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Bishop Beveridge, 
 
Wliiston, etc., sliowing tliat these same men have held 
 ami tauglit, and chiimcd to trace back to the apostolic 
 ai^e and to the Scriptures, -doctrines and practices 
 ^^hich neither my friend, nor any one else in this nge, 
 dare pretend are tauglit therein ; and that therefore 
 they are not at all -worthy of our confidence in the 
 discussion of this question. But as my time has 
 nearly expired, I can not pursue this point further at 
 present. 
 
 I desire at the conclusion of this first half-day of 
 our discussion, to say that I am truly happy at the 
 manner in which the discussion is being conducted, so 
 far as regards tlie spirit of my opponent, and the in- 
 terest and attention manifested by the audience. I 
 hope they will carefully listen to our arguments ; and 
 I humbly trust our remarks may be such that our 
 hearers may receive instruction and benefit from them. 
 We are as yet only beginning ; but we are coming to 
 closer quarters by and by, when we come to examine 
 the evidence of the apostles, and of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, instead of the traditions and notions of men, 
 with which your attention has been engaged this 
 morning. \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S THIRD ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — In resuming this discus- 
 sion, I am pleased to say that my feelings wxre in 
 perfect harmony Avith my friend's, when he expressed 
 his gratification at the manner in which our discussion 
 had been conducted in regard to each other, and its 
 reception by the audience ; and I shall try, by the 
 help of the Lord — which I hope we shall all have — 
 to continue to manifest a spirit that corresponds with 
 our precious and blessed Christianity. 
 
 The most of the points introduced by my friend in 
 
40 DEBATE ON TRINE IMxMERSION. 
 
 his last speech will be reached, and, I think, covered 
 by the argument I am now about to introduce ; and 
 where they are not met by the general argument, I 
 can the more appropriately introduce them when I 
 shall have done with the argument which I am now 
 about to advance. 
 
 III. My third argument in behalf of trine immer- 
 sion 2vill he draivn from the supposed design of the 
 2:)ecuUar phraseology of the formula. 
 
 By the design of the peculiar phraseology of the 
 formula, I refer, not to the design of baptism, but the 
 design of the language used in commanding it : " In 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit/' 
 
 The three names — the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit — being given in the formula, a distinction 
 between the three characters which those three names 
 represent is evidently taught, and the importance of 
 each character in the great work of redemption is fully 
 recognized and to be impressed upon the baptized 
 believer. And as these names designate the three 
 characters to which they belong, it is, in reality, into 
 the three characters themselves — the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit — that believers are baptized. 
 With the distinction and plurality of names correspond 
 the distinction and plurality of characters; and with 
 these should correspond the distinction and plurality 
 of actions in administering Christian baptism accord- 
 ing to the formula given by Christ. This formula 
 was, Avithout doubt, designed to convey to the mind 
 the idea that there is a distinction between the three 
 characters named, and that they are all engaged to 
 encourage, to further, and to secure the salvation of 
 the believer. 
 
 Dr. Adam Clark, in remarking upon the formula of 
 baptism as contained in the commission, says: *'Is it 
 
Mil. (iUINTEu'S THIRD ADDRESS. 41 
 
 possible for words to convey a plainer sense than those 
 do? And do they not direct every reader to consider 
 the Father, and the Son, and the lloly Spirit, as three 
 distinct Persons?" It is Dr. Clarke's positive declar- 
 ation relative to the distinction of cliaracters, that I 
 want noticed. [Commentary on Matthew, chap, xxviii : 
 verse 19.] 
 
 Simeon, another eminent writer, says: "The 
 Fatlier, Son, and Holy Ghost, are here distinctly 
 mentioned. They are all mentioned in the same 
 manner, and for the same end. Whatsoever is meant 
 by 'the name of the Father, must be understood also 
 in reference to the Son and the Holy Ghost." [Si- 
 meon's Works, Vol. V, p. 126.] 
 
 Dr. Doddridge, in his "Expositor," in commenting 
 on the language of the commission, says : " * * 
 that by this solemn initiatory ordinance they may 
 profess their subjection to each of these divine Per- 
 sons, and, maintaining suitable regard to each^ may 
 receive from each correspondent blessings." By 
 using the word " each" he evidently recognizes a dis- 
 tinction in the three characters, and teaches that 
 special attention should be given to them in pursuance 
 of that distinction. Every English scholar knows 
 that the word " each " refers to a number of persons 
 or things taken separately, or one by one. Wlien 
 reference is made in such lancruaoje as this to each of 
 
 CO 
 
 the characters named in the formula, it is understood 
 that they are to be recognized as separate, and con- 
 sidered separately^. 
 
 Dr. Burns, of London, in a sermon on Matthew, 
 xxviii: 19, entitled, "The Distinctions in the God- 
 head," uses the following language : " But the phrase- 
 ology employed obviously presents the one Jehovah 
 under certain distinctions, involving the idea of a 
 plurality in the Godhead." 
 
 These high authorities, then, to say nothing of 
 
42 dp:bate on think immkhsion. 
 
 numerous otliers, amply justify us in tile belief that 
 the- phraseology used in the commission does repre- 
 sent a distinction in the characters that constitute the 
 Divinity, or Godhead ; that it Avas the design of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, in instituting the ordinance of 
 b;iptism, that this distinction should be plainly re- 
 vealed, and by the act of baptism fully recognized, 
 and strongly impressed upon the mind of the believer. 
 And I maintain that this purpose is better accom- 
 plished by an immersion into each name and each char- 
 acter, than by but a single immersion. 
 
 When the Saviour gave to his disciples the institu- 
 tion by which they were to commemorate his death, 
 he selected two symbols, the bread and the wine ; the 
 one to represent his body, the other his blood. Now, 
 whatever union existed between the body and blood 
 of Christ (and certainly there was a very intimate 
 union), he designed that when his disciples would 
 commemorate his death, they should make a distinc- 
 tion between the two, to show that while his body was 
 broken for them, his blood was also shed for them. 
 This I want noticed, for I think the thought is worthy 
 of consideration. When the Saviour took the bread, 
 and gave it to his disciples as the representative of 
 his body, if that bread properly represented his body, 
 it must have represented his blood also, for there can 
 not, from the very nature of things, be a living body 
 where there is no blood. His blood, then, must have 
 been implied in that which was given as the represent- 
 ation of his bod};-. But for some wise reasons — what 
 they were 1 attempt not to conjecture — he wanted his 
 disciples to especially notice iiis blood as separate 
 from his body; consequently he selected two symbols, 
 one to represent his body, the other his blood. There 
 was at once a unity and a plurality there; and, in es- 
 tablishing that ordinance — the communion — he wished 
 the plurality and the distinction to be plainly rccog- 
 
MH. qriNTKu's THIIM) ADDIlKSo. 43 
 
 nizod ; licncc he selected the two symbols. So, what- 
 ever union exists amoni:; the divine characters — tho 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — baptism, admin- 
 istered according to the formula, was designed to 
 show a distinction in those characters, that the per- 
 sons baptized may properly appreciate their need of 
 the Fa tiler, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in living a 
 Christian life. And while a distinction is to be shown, 
 faith in each is to be professed, and each honored. 
 This is plainly and impressively done by the three 
 actions, or the tliree immersions, in baptism. 
 
 The searching, reflecting, and enlightened mind, 
 Avill not fail to perceive the striking resemblance there 
 is between the baptism of Christ himself and that 
 which he has instituted for his followers. And this 
 will not appear so strange, Avlien we consider that he 
 Avas not baptized so much for himself as for us — for 
 our example. At the baptism of Christ, all the divine 
 characters which are named in the formula for ad- 
 ministering Christian baptism were clearly manifested. 
 The Son was in Jordan, receiving baptism from John ; 
 the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, Avas seen de- 
 scending and lighting upon the Saviour, and the Father, 
 from his throne in the heavens, spake and said: 
 " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
 
 Dr. Stier, in his " Words of the Lord Jesus," says: 
 " The baptism appointed by Christ manifestly refers 
 back to the symbolical b.iptism which Christ himself 
 received in the Jordan; for, as there the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost were first fully revealed in their 
 sacred trinity, so now disciples were to be baptized 
 unto or into the name — not merely of the Father who 
 then bore witness, not merely of the Son who then 
 received the witness that he was the Son — but also 
 most perfectly into the name of the Holy Spirit." 
 [Stier ou Matthew, xxviii : 19.] 
 
 What is plainer in this scene at the river Jordan 
 
44 DEBATE ON TIUNE IMxMERSION. 
 
 than that the three sacred characters which were there 
 manifested were distinct from one another? And this 
 distinction is evidently designed to be taught in the 
 formula of baptism contained in the commission. 
 Then, as there are three distinct names, expressive 
 of three distinct ngents or characters, mentioned in 
 the commission, into each of which the believer is to 
 be bnptized, and as the formula for administering 
 Christian baptism was designed to bring distinctly 
 before the mind the three divine characters named, 
 trine immersion, or three actions in baptism, very 
 clearly shows the distinction between those characters 
 which it is thought the words in the commission, to be 
 used in administering baptism, were designed to show. 
 Believers are to be baptized into the distinct name of 
 the Father, and in trine immersion they are thus bap- 
 tized. They are likewise to be baptized into the dis- 
 tinct name of the Son, and in trine immersion they 
 are thus baptized. They are finally to be baptized 
 into the distinct name of the Holy Spirit, and this 
 also is done. And thus do trine immersionists ob- 
 serve the command of Christ contained in the formula 
 for administering baptism, strictly and literally. They 
 fulfill the design and the letter of the formula. 
 
 And as the formula for administering baptism re- 
 quires believers to be baptized into the name of the 
 Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the 
 name of the Holy Spirit, as into three distinct char- 
 acters or personal agents, hence Christians are repre- 
 sented in the Scripture as being in the Father, and in 
 the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. I John, ii : 24 : " If 
 that which ye have heard from the beginning shall 
 remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and 
 in the Father." Here it will be observed that there 
 is the same distinction between the Father and the 
 Son that there is in the baptismal f )rmula. Again : 
 Galatians, v: 25 : " If wc live in the Spirit, let us also 
 
MR. quixti:k\s TiiruD address. 45 
 
 walk in tlie Spirit." From these distinctions, so fre- 
 qiiontlv recognized in tlie divine Word, it appears to 
 nie that three actions in hnptism — three immersions, 
 one into the name of the Fatlier, one into the name 
 of the Son, a!id one into tlie name of the Holy Spirit — 
 are more in harmony with the requirements of the 
 formula, and better express what that formula was 
 cviilently designed to convey, than one immersion. 
 
 It is true that different names are sometimes ap- 
 plied to the same character, and are somewhat indis- 
 criminately used. For instance, the name " Father'* 
 is applied to the Son by Isaiah, chap, ix : verse 6: 
 *'His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, 
 The Mighty God, The Everhisting Father," etc. And 
 the term "Spirit" is sometimes applied to God, as in 
 John, iv: 24: "God is a Spirit," etc. But though 
 the terms are sometimes used indiscriminately, so that 
 the distinction can not always be inferred from the 
 names simply, yet, when the three names are brought 
 into connection, as they are in the commission, with 
 the distinction plainly and clearly set forth, so that 
 there is no chance for misapprehension, I contend 
 that such distinction should be recognized. And as 
 a practical recognition of that distinction, we claim 
 that trine immersion better harmonizes with the lan- 
 guage of the formula than where there is but one 
 immersion. 
 
 In the Divinity, or Godhead, there is a plurality, 
 and there is a unity. I do not know that any of us 
 will deny this. I presume my friend will accept it. 
 Tliis distinction in the Godhead has been stated by 
 Alexander Campbell, as follows : 
 
 "No one believes more firmly than I — and no one, 
 I presume, endeavors to teach more distinctly and 
 comprehensively than I — this mysterious, sublime, 
 and incomprehensible plurality and unity in the God- 
 head. It is a relation that may be apprehended hj 
 
46 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 all, though comprehended by none. -K ^ >i^ ]3ut^ 
 while avowing these iny convictions, I have no more 
 fellowship with those false and pernicious theories 
 that confound the peculiar work of the Father with 
 that of the Son, or with that of the Holy Spirit, or 
 that of any of these awful names with that of another, 
 or which represent our illumination, conversion, and 
 sanctificntion as the work of the Spirit, without the 
 knowledge, belief, and obedience of the Gospel, as 
 Avritten by the holy apostles and evangelists, than I 
 have with the author and finisher of the Book of 
 Mormons. 
 
 " The revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is 
 not more clear and distinct than are the different 
 offices assumed and performed by these glorious and 
 ineffable Three in the present affairs of the universe. 
 It is true, so far as unity of design and concurrence 
 of action are contemplated, they co-operate in every 
 work of creation, providence, and redemption. Such 
 is the concurrence expressed by the Messiah in these 
 words: 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;' 
 *I and my Father are one;' 'What things soever 
 he (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son like- 
 wise;' but not such a concurrence as annuls person- 
 ality, impairs or interferes with the distinct office of 
 each in the salvation of man. For example: the 
 Father sends the Son, and not the Son the Father; 
 the Father provides a body and soul for his Son, and 
 not the Son for his Father; the Son offers that l)ody 
 and soul for sin, and thus expiates it, which the Father 
 does not, but accepts it; the Father and the Son send 
 forth the Spirit, and not the Spirit either; the Si)irit 
 now advocates Christ's cause, and not Christ his own 
 cause. The Holy Spirit now animates the Church 
 with its presence, and not Christ hiniself. He is tiie 
 Head of the Chui'ch, while the Spirit is the Heart of 
 it. The Father originates all, the Sou executes all, 
 
MR. QUINTKK'S TIIIllD ADDRESS. 47 
 
 the Spirit consiimmates all. Eternal volition, design, 
 and mission, belonor to the Father; reconciliation to 
 the Son ; sanctification to the Spirit." [Campbell on 
 Baptism, pp. 281), 290.] 
 
 Now, in our mode of immersion — in trine immer- 
 sion — this plurality and unity in the Godhead are 
 strikingly illustrated, harmonizing beautifully with 
 the character of the Divinity. There are the three 
 names and three offices in the one Godhead ; there 
 are three actions, or three immersions, in one bap- 
 tism. It may be difficult to comprehend this unity 
 and plurality in the Godhead, and we expect to hear 
 something of this difficulty, and, when it comes up, I 
 will try at least to help you get a Bible view of the 
 matter, though we may not be able to fully fathom 
 the mysteries of the Divinity. 
 
 I shall take the opportunity here — as I want to take 
 it somewhere — of showing that the doctrine of trine 
 immersion has nothing to do with any peculiar doc- 
 trines of the trinity, or with any peculiar views that 
 are entertained in the Christian world relative to the 
 trinity, or what is commonly known as the trinitarian 
 doctrine, in contradistinction to the Arian or unitarian 
 doctrine. It sometimes has been saiil, by persons not 
 very well acquainted with the matter, that we, in our 
 trine immersion, " divide the Godhead." Now, these 
 trinitarians whom I have quoted, make the same dis- 
 tinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, and make it just as emphatically, as we do. 
 (Clarke's orthodoxy on the subject of Trinitarianism 
 may be doubted ; but that of Doddridge, and the 
 others quoted, will not be.) When we acknowledge 
 three characters in the Godhead, we acknowledge only 
 what the Christian world acknowledges. I say the 
 whole Christian world acknowledges three characters 
 in the Godhead. Some make tlic.n three persons, 
 equal in power, and say, God the Father, God the 
 
48 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 Son, God the Holy Spirit. Others make the Son and 
 Spirit inferior to the Father, and deny personality to 
 the Spirit; but these points are not necessarily in- 
 volved in this discussion, and, I hope, will not come 
 up. But the three-fold character of the Godhead, 
 which the whole Christian world acknowledges, is all 
 we show in our baptism. Any peculiar doctrines 
 concerning the trinity, have nothing to do with it. 
 Trinitarians and Arians, in different ages, have alike 
 performed trine immersion, and have alike baptized 
 by single immersion. 
 
 My friend, in his last speech, remarked that, as we 
 approach God only through Christ, it would seem to 
 be more in place to baptize in the name of Christ 
 first. Now, I would remind him, and you all, that 
 " no man can come to Christ except the Father draw 
 him." (John, vi : 44.) There it will be seen that the 
 great work of our redemption begins with the Father, 
 where our baptism begins, ^' in the name of the 
 Father." 
 
 Much that my friend said in regard to the peculiar 
 relationship between the three characters of the God- 
 head, I cordially accept. But while believing that 
 there is a unity, a union, a oneness, Ave also believe 
 that there is a plurality and a distinction — a distinction 
 which, under some circumstances and in some places, 
 is so clearly pointed out, so particularly set forth, so 
 emphatically insisted upon, as to demand recognition 
 and observance. Such Ave claim to be the fact in the 
 case before us. Whatever union exists in the tliree 
 characters of the Godhead as found elscAvhere in the 
 Bible, it is pluralUf/ as found in the commission. The 
 three characters are separately named, and Ave are 
 commanded to baptize the believer into each ; and 
 this we do by a trinity of action — by trine immer- 
 sion. \_Time expired. 
 
MR. m'coxnell's tiiikd addrkss. 49 
 
 [MK. McCONNELL'S TIIIKD ADDRESS.] 
 
 Moderators and Friknds — I will comTnence just 
 wliore my friend quit, and call your attention to the 
 last assertion he made : '' Wliatever union exists in 
 tlie three characters of the Godhead as found else- 
 where in the Bible, it is ijluralitif as found in the com- 
 mimony Therefore, he assumes, that plurality must 
 be shown in the ordinance of baptism, and hence 
 trine immersion. Now, this assertion will not pass 
 current with me, however it may be with you. No 
 disputed point can be settled by taking the very point 
 in dispute as a basis upon which to ground an argu- 
 ment. The question so summarily disposed of by my 
 friend, is the very question in dispute between us ; 
 and t1 '• ..i-guraent to which he proposed to reply, was 
 an eft'. . i to show that the commission involved the 
 idea, no*: of simple plurality, but of plurality in unity. 
 His bare assertion, therefore, is not sufficient to set 
 aside that argument, based upon this recognized unity 
 to be found everywhere throughout the Scriptures. 
 We do not deny that plurality is found in unity ; it 
 is the very thing indeed that we claim : but where we 
 have plurality in unity, and that, too, involving the 
 idea of distinction, we do not necessarily have the 
 idea of division and separaiioyi. In man we find 
 plurality in unity, and a distinction of body, soul and 
 spirit; but they are not separated; they are united, 
 forming one man. The argument, therefore, of my 
 friend, based upon the idea that where there is a dis- 
 tinction there is necessarily a reparation, and that, in 
 order to recognize or represent that separation there 
 must be several separate acts, falls to the ground. 
 
 And this leads me back to the argument based by 
 my friend upon the symbols employed in the com- 
 munion. There are two symbols emplo^^ed in the 
 communion — the bread and the wine ; the bread rep- 
 4 
 
50 DEBATE ON THINE IMMERSION. 
 
 resenting the body, and the wine the blood, of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Now, there is a plurality and a 
 unity — flesh and blood representing one body — in the 
 living man ; but let me ask you, what was the object 
 contemplated by our Saviour in selecting these two 
 symbols? Was it not specially designed to show the 
 plurality in unity— the distinction and the separalion 
 of the component elements? "As often as ye eat 
 this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 
 death, till he come." And in death there is a separa- 
 tion between the body and the blood ; hence two sep- 
 arate symbols. If my friend proposes to prove that 
 the purpose of 'the commission was to show that the 
 Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are as com- 
 pletely separated from each other in the great work 
 of human salvation as the flesh and blood of Jesus 
 were in his death, we will hear him upon that subject. 
 And when that is accomplished, there may be some 
 relevancy in his argument based upon the two sym- 
 bols, the bread and the wine — but not till then. 
 
 My friend continues to insist that as there are three 
 persons in the Godhead, it is necessary that the be- 
 liever should be baptized into each person. I think 
 ■what I have heretofore said must have made it clear 
 to every discerning mind that this is not necessarily 
 true. We can find at every turn illustrations to show 
 the sophism that lies hidden in this assumption. For 
 instance: a child is born into the world; it is bora 
 into the United States; it is born into the State of 
 Iowa. Does this require three births — first into the 
 world, secondly into the Union, and lastly into the 
 State? Will not one bii-th accomplish the wdiole? 
 Certainly it will. Now, God the Father, and the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit, are so associated together that 
 the fullness of the Goilhead resides in Jesus Christ 
 bodily ; hence an immersion into one is an immers^ion 
 into ali. 
 
Mil. M C0\NKI,T/S TIIIIU) ADDTir??. l)\ 
 
 My friend roiiiarks, or (piotos with liis indorsement 
 the romnrk, that in tlie coniniis.sion the tlirec charac- 
 ters of the Godliead " are all mentioned in the same 
 manner, and for the same end ; that whatsoever is 
 meant by ' the name of the Father, must be understood 
 also in reference to the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 
 Very well, we grant that the force of the expression 
 * the name of is the same in each case. We grant 
 also his further explanation : that by this formula 
 the believer is baptized info suhjcclion to the Father, 
 and the Son, and the lloly Spirit. But let us se« 
 whether there is an^'thing in this to sustain his po- 
 sition. Jesus prefaced his commission with these 
 words (Matt., xxviii : 18): "All power [exousia, 
 authority,] is given unto me in heaven and in earth." 
 Then, when the believer, being baptized into Jesus 
 Christ, places himself in subjection to him, he is in 
 subjection to all authority, which includes that of the 
 Father and of the Holy Spirit. So the point we con- 
 tend for is gained upon his own interpretation of the 
 commission. 
 
 My friend spent considerable time in commenting 
 upon the definition of the word " each," explaining 
 that it meant every one of a number of persons or 
 things, taken separately. This explanation, and the 
 argument built thereon, would have been in place, but 
 for the unfortunate fact that the word " each" is not 
 in the commission, but in the remarks of some com- 
 mentator upon it. As we are not now weighing the 
 language of commentators, but of the commission, I 
 do not see that this portion of my friend's argument 
 reaches the point in dispute, or calls for any particular 
 reply. 
 
 Our attention is called to the baptism of Christ. Wo 
 are told, and I am willing to accept it as a truth, that 
 his baptism was a model of Christian baptism ; that 
 "vv'e should baptise in the same manner in which Christ 
 
52 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 was baptized. That, too, we will not deny. We are 
 furthermore told that at Christ's baptism all of the 
 divine characters which are named in the formula 
 for administering Christian baptism were present and 
 clearly manifested. This, too, Ave grant ; but may we 
 be permitted to remark that only one of them was 
 baptized. We are told by my friend, and by the Holy 
 Scriptures, that the Father then acknowledged Christ 
 as his Son, and the Holy Spirit pointed him out. 
 There is only one thing lacking to prove my friend's 
 position, but that one thing is fatal to his entire ar- 
 gument : Was Christ baptized three times ? If he can 
 show that, he will sustain his position. Let him bring 
 the proof, if it is anywhere to be found. 
 
 As at the baptism of Jesus in Jordan, so at the 
 baptism of every penitent believer : We are buried 
 with Christ, are cleansed from our sins, and rise to 
 newness of life ; God acknowledges us as his children, 
 the Holy Spirit takes possession of our hearts, and 
 we are designated as the sons and daughters of Al- 
 mighty God. But it tcikes only one act to bring us 
 to Jesus Christ; and when that is accomplished, the 
 Father will acknowledge us as members of the heav- 
 enly family, and the Holy Spirit will come and take 
 up his abode with us. Hence, Peter said (Acts, ii : 
 38) : " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, 
 in the name of Jesiis Christ, for the remission of sins, 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 
 Not a word about trine immersion here ! 
 
 My friend remarks that in all the Holy Scriptures 
 there is no one thing plainer than, that there is a clear 
 distinction between the three characters distinguished 
 by the three names of the Father, the Son, and tlie Holy 
 Spirit. I grant that, cheerfully. But upon this prem- 
 ise he builds an argument that since there are three 
 characters there must necessarily be three immersions. 
 I fail to see the connection between his premise and 
 
MK. m'cONXELL'S third ADDRESS. 53 
 
 his conclusion. I will call your attention to a pas- 
 saf^e that will illustrate my idea. I read in the testi- 
 mony of Matthew (chap, viii : verse 2), "And I say 
 unto you that many shall come from the east and west, 
 and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and 
 Jacob, in the King<iom of heaven." Now, there is 
 nothing plainer than that there is a clear distinction 
 between the three persons, Abraham, and Isaac, and 
 Jacob. And according to my friend's logic, those who 
 come from the east and from the west must sit down 
 three tlme^ : must first sit down with Abraham; then 
 rise up, and sit down a second time, with Isaac; then 
 rise again, and sit down a third time, with Jacob. But 
 as I do not accept my friend's reasoning, I do not 
 consider so much rising up and sitting down to be 
 necessary. 
 
 My friend quoted several passages in proof of the 
 distinction in the characters of the Godhead. He 
 read from the 24th verse of the second chapter of 
 John's first letter : " If that which ye have heard 
 from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall 
 continue in the Son, and in the Father." Yes, there 
 is a distinction made; but I can not see, how it helps 
 my friend in this matter of trine immersion. " Ye 
 also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father;" 
 does that render necessary two distinct, separate, in- 
 dependent continuings — first, a continuing in the Son, 
 and when that shall have ceased, another continuing, 
 in the Father ? How a man can thus continue, and 
 cease to continue, and again commence continuing, 
 and thus alternately continue and discontinue contin- 
 uing, as my friend's logic would require, is difficult 
 for me to comprehend. 
 
 He also refers us, in proof of the distinction in the 
 characters of the Godhead, to Galatians, v : 25 : "If 
 we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." 
 But can a man walk in the Spirit, and not walk in 
 
54 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 God? Entirely impossible. He will not presume to 
 answer tlmt question in the affirmative. Yet, if I 
 understand what my friend is aiming at, he would 
 show by this text that when a believer is baptized into 
 the Spirit he is not baptized into God, but needs two 
 other immersions — one into the Father, and one into 
 the Son. 
 
 Finally, my friend says it does not follow after all 
 that there is always a distinction to be observed in 
 accordance with the names employed, as they are some- 
 times applied indiscriminately — the Son being called 
 "The Everlasting Father," and God himself having 
 the term '' Spirit" applied to him. He thus destroys 
 the distinction he has all alonor been endeavorinf]: to 
 establish beyond the possibility of a doubt; and thus 
 there is at once an end of the argument for trine im- 
 mersion based upon the distinction of characters 
 named in the formula. 
 
 I was a little astonished at one thing my friend said, 
 viz : that the doctrine of the trinity had nothing to 
 do with trine immersion. That, I say, seemed a little 
 strange to me, when his whole effort, if I have un- 
 derstood him correctly, has been to base trine immer- 
 sion on the doctine of the trinity. If the doctrine 
 of the trinity has nothing to do with trine immersion, 
 why has my friend been insisting upon discussing it 
 here, and bringing up quotations from Scripture and 
 from eminent men to prove the distinction between 
 the three Persons, or characters in the Godhead ? 
 
 There are three distinct characters. AVe admit that. 
 The argument is, that there must be three distinct 
 actions. Well, what bearing does that have on trine 
 immersion? If there is a distinction, must there not 
 be a difterencc? Or is this a case where there is '' a 
 distinction without a dift'erence?" The distinct, dif- 
 ferent Persons arc, the Father, the Son, the Holy 
 Spirit. What next? Why, according to the close 
 
MR. m'CONNELL'S third ADDRESS. 55 
 
 analogy insisted upon by my friend, the actionR refer- 
 ring to tliem must be as distinct and different as the 
 persons. But he wouUl ha\'e us perform, not different 
 actions, but the same action. So the analogy they 
 insist upon is not carried b}^ himself; and the point 
 at which they aim is not gained, after all. 
 
 But in one immersion we have three actions ; and 
 these are distinct — different, and not the same. In the 
 Godhead there are the three characters — the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit; in one baptism are the 
 three actions — the burial, the quickening, the resurrec- 
 tion. There is a beautiful analogy here, teaching an 
 impressive lesson, which I can not find in trine im- 
 mersion. 
 
 It is argued — I do not recollect that my friend has 
 yet referred to it, but I know that it is generally urged 
 in the discussion of this question — that in baptism 
 we honor him into whose name we are baptized. This 
 we will grant, at once. Then, say our trine immer- 
 sionist friends, is it not clear that equal honor is due 
 to each of the three, and therefore we should be three 
 times immersed ? Let us see if that follows. Who- 
 ever makes confession of faith in Jesus Christ, honors 
 him. But ought we therefore to make three formal 
 confessions of faith — first a confession of faith in the 
 Father, then a confession of faith in the Son, and 
 lastly, a confession of faith in the Holy Spirit? But 
 let us look at the matter in another light. When a 
 man is baptized into the name of the Father, the 
 Father is honored, but the Son is not ; else there is 
 no use in the second baptism. And when a man is 
 baptized into the name of the Son, the Son is honored, 
 but the Father is not ; else the Father receives double 
 honor. And Christ says " That all men should honor 
 the Son even as they honor the Father" (John, v: 
 23). And if it requires a repetition of the act that 
 each may be honored, then only one is honored in the 
 
56 DEBATE ON TRINE mMERSION. 
 
 first act ; and as the first act is performed in tne name 
 of the Father, he, and not the Son, is honored. Eat 
 Christ says, '' He that honoreth not the Son honoreth 
 not the Father which hath sent him." So, if the Sou 
 is not honored in the first act, neither is the Father ; 
 and if the Son is honored in the first act, then it is 
 not necessary to repeat the act. And so with regard 
 to a third haptism into the Holy Spirit. The repeti- 
 tion of the act of baptism for the purpose of honoring 
 those not honored in the first immersion, is a vagary 
 conceived in the imaginations of men, and cherished 
 in their no doubt honest hearts, but nowhere to be 
 found in the teachings of holy writ. \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR QUINTER'S FOURTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — I fear my friend did not 
 apprehend the points I endeavored to present in my 
 last speech, so clearly as I could have wished him to 
 have done. 
 
 As regards the idea of the existence of one Divin- 
 ity, presented to us in three different characters, or 
 offices, and under the name of the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit, I maintain that they are some- 
 times presented to our consideration, in the Scrip- 
 tures, in their unity, as one — sometimes in their sepa- 
 rate characters, being distinctly and severally named, 
 with special reference to the ofiice each performs. I 
 claim that whatever union exists, whatever be the na- 
 ture of that mysterious union, however they all may 
 co-operate in the great and glorious work of man's 
 salvation, in the commission, the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, are severally and separately set before 
 us, in their distinct characters. 
 
 I hope that in referring to some authorities — for 
 instance, to Alexander Campbell — no one will suspect 
 
MR. QUrXTKR's FOFRTII ADDRESS. 67 
 
 me of niiv improper motives; I do it becnnsc these 
 men present certain tlioiiglits wliich appear to me to 
 be pertinent in this connection, in a better form tlian 
 I could present tlieni myself, with an authority that 
 will not be questioned by my friend, and in a manner 
 that will commend itself to the judgment and good 
 sense of this audience. I read a passage from Mr. 
 Ciimpbell, i-epresenting the distinction in the tliree 
 persons or characters in the Godhead; the diiferent 
 office performed by each in the great work of human 
 redemption ; showing that whatever unity may exist 
 between them, they are as separate and distinct in 
 character and office as it is possible for three different 
 things to be. I do not ask my friend, or my hear- 
 ers, to accept this because Mr. Campbell says it, but 
 because the position taken by him is sustained by the 
 teachings of the Holy Scriptures. It is in these dis- 
 tinct and separate characters, with evident reference 
 to the distinct and separate office performed by each, 
 that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are pre- 
 sented to us in the commission. And I claim that the 
 distinction so plainly set before us, ought not to be 
 ignored or regarded as utterly meaningless. 
 
 My friend remarks, in reference to the use of two 
 elements in the communion, that the bread and the 
 wine were designed to represent the body and blood 
 of Christ after death. I do not consider that as a 
 necessary inference. Before death, as after, his body 
 was composed of two elements, the flesh and the blood; 
 he wished the two, for some reason, to be considered 
 by his disciples separately : so he chose the bread to 
 represent his flesh, and the wine his blood. All I 
 maintain is, there was a distinction, and he took this 
 method of indicating to his disciples that he wished 
 that distinction to be observed. I claim that in insti- 
 tuting the ordinance of baptism, his language, as re- 
 corded in the commission, indicates his design that 
 
58 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit, should be observed; and this we do by 
 trine immersion. I do not know how it is recognized 
 in performing the ordinance by single immersion. 
 
 My friend illustrated his idea of baptism by a child 
 being born into the State of Iowa, and by that one 
 birth being made a citizen, not only of Iowa, but of 
 the United States, I can not see that the cases are 
 analogous. We have spoken of the different offices 
 performed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit. Now, the act that inducts the President of the 
 United States into his office at Washington, does not 
 induct the Governor of Iowa into his office at the cap- 
 ital of the State of Iowa, since the offices of Presi- 
 dent and Governor are separate offices. So as regards 
 these distinct offices, and the characters filling these 
 distinct offices, in the great work of hujnan redemp- 
 tion ; these are separate offices. And in the commis- 
 sion, this distinction is specially set forth and insisted 
 upon. 
 
 My friend presses the point, that if the believer is 
 baptized into Christ, he is necessarily baptized into 
 the Father. But if the one act, being baptized into 
 Christ, is sufficient, why name the other names ? Why 
 mention at all the name of the Father, and of the 
 Holy Spirit? So I am driven to accept the idea of 
 a plurality and distinction in the characters, and one 
 immersion into each, the more fully to represent that 
 distinction. 
 
 My friend thought I had committed myself in say- 
 ing that the names alone do not always and every- 
 where prove a distinction ; that these names are some- 
 times used somewhat indiscriminately. That is true; 
 but when I read in the commission, " baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit," I see very plainly that here the names 
 are not used indiscriminately, but in such a manner as 
 
MR. QUINTEK'S FOUIITII ADDRESS. 59 
 
 to pLiinlj point out the distinction between them, and 
 to <lirect special attention to the distinct office of each. 
 While I say on the one hand, tliat in the Bible the 
 language does not always prove a distinction. I say on 
 the other hand, th;it, in the coraniission, the hinguage 
 does prove a distinction. This distinction we believe 
 the Saviour intended to be recognized in some way in 
 the ordinance he then instituted ; and we so recognize 
 it by immersing into the name of each. 
 
 I think my friend misapprehends me again, in refer- 
 ence to my remarks on the trinity. I said that trine 
 immersion had nothing to do with any peculiar doc- 
 trines regarding the trinity. A man may believe in 
 three Persons in the Godhead, perfectly equal in all 
 respects ; or in one God, the two others constituting 
 the trinity being less than God; may call them three 
 Gods, three Persons, or three characters; and trine 
 immersion will not interfere with their belief. We sim- 
 ply believe in a plurality in Divinity, and recognize 
 it in our baptism. But trinitarianism, unitarianism, 
 sabellianism, and the other isms having their origins 
 in various speculations concerning the nature of the 
 trinity, trine immersion has nothing to do Avith, and 
 I consider them irrelevant in this discussion, and not 
 necessarily involved in the question at issue between 
 single and trine immersionists. 
 
 1 feel, then, that nothing that has yet been said by 
 my friend has dispossessed me of the ground I occupy 
 on this question — that there is a distinction between 
 the characters and offices of the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit, and that this distinction should be 
 recognized in baptism by immersing into each. 
 
 A word as to my friend's criticism upon the word 
 "each." Of course I did not claim that word was in 
 the commission ; I referred to it as the common un- 
 derstanding of men when reading the commission 
 with an unprejudiced mind — that the believer should 
 
60 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 be baptized into each ; that each should receive equal 
 honor in the ordinance. 
 
 One or two points introduced by mj friend can be 
 more appropriately noticed under iny next argument, 
 to which I shall now proceed. 
 
 IV. My fourth argument wil Ibe draivn from the 
 
 structure of the language ivhich constitutes the formula 
 for baptizing. 
 
 My friend knows, I suppose, and it is known to 
 such of you as are somewhat acquainted with our 
 mode of defending trine immersion from the commis- 
 sion, that we believe the language of the commission 
 to be of the kind that grammarians call elliptical; 
 that is, in order to make the text full, according to the 
 correct grammatical construction, certain words must 
 be supplied. We believe that when the ellipses are 
 properly supplied, the text will read as follows : " Bap- 
 tizing them in the name of the Father, and [bap- 
 tizing them in the name] of the Son, and [baptizing 
 them in the name] of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 It is plain that in order to analyze, or even under- 
 stand the sentence, the phrase ''in the name" must be 
 added before the words " of the Son," and '' of the 
 Holy Spirit," at least in the mind of the reader. 
 There are two methods of coming to this conclusion. 
 One is by parsing or analyzing the sentence accord- 
 ing to the rules of gi-ammar. The other is by accept- 
 ing the authority of reputable writers upon this point. 
 Both will lead to the same conclusion. Those of you 
 •who are acquainted with the rules of grammatical 
 analysis, will see that the sentence is not grammat- 
 ically complete in construction without supplying the 
 words "in the name." You know, probably, that the 
 rules of grammar arc founded upon the manner in 
 which eminent writers and speakers use words. Such 
 rules as, "a verb must agree with its subject in num- 
 
MR. QUINTKU'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 01 
 
 ber aiul person ; " and, " prepositions govern the ob- 
 jective case:" that is, reputable writers do not say 
 ''to who," or "men is," but, "to Avlioni," and "men 
 are;" and hence the rules I have referred to, ■which 
 require the latter form of those expressions, ratlier 
 than the former. So much by way of introduction 
 to tlie argument on the elliptical character of the lan- 
 guage of the commission. 
 
 As grammar itself is based upon the usages and 
 authority of men, rather than spend time on dry 
 grammatical analysis, I will appeal at once to the 
 statements of those who have made an examination 
 of the matter. On this point, I will refer you again 
 to Alexander Campbell, as quoted by a writer — H. J. 
 R. — in the Amerioan Chrisiian Review, in an article 
 on the preposition m, etc. The writer, in making 
 his remarks, said he introduced Mr. Campbell because 
 he was known to have given that subject great atten- 
 tion. Mr. Campbell says : 
 
 " Hence, in Christian baptism as enacted by him- 
 self, he [Christ] commands all converts to be im- 
 mersed, not IX, but INTO [eis] the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This is 
 purely a Christian institution, not of Moses or the 
 prophets ; hence the formula is a perfectly original 
 and unprecedented institution. There had been wash- 
 ings, cleansings, and purifyings, among the Jews, 
 Samaritans, and Gentiles, by various authorities and 
 enactments: but not one like this — 'INTO the name of 
 the Father, and INTO the name of the Son, and liNTO 
 the name of the Hol^^ Spirit.' Therefore, ' IN the 
 name,' and 'INTO the name,' indicate two distinct and 
 incontrovertible acts, which no grammar nor diction- 
 ary in the civilized world can equivalence or synony- 
 mize." [Vol. X, No. 39.] 
 
 Another writer, P. Hasty, in remarking upon the 
 language of the commisson, uses these words : 
 
62 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 "'Baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
 and into the name of the Son, and into the name of 
 the Holy Spirit;' if this is not the true import of the 
 commission, I do not know that my obtusity will per- 
 mit me to know what it is.' " [American Christian He- 
 vietv, Vol. VII, No. 34.] 
 
 James Purves has the following: 
 
 ^'Again : 'Baptizing them into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;' it 
 is the same, or of the same import, as to sa}'', ' Bap- 
 tizing them into the name of the Father, and into the 
 name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy 
 Spirit.' If this is not the sense, to what does the 
 ' name ' refer ? or what is meant by it ? If it does not 
 refer to or mean the name of the Father, and the 
 name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit, it 
 w^ould seem that the text should in part read the very 
 reverse of what it does ; that is, it should have read, 
 * Baptizing into the name, not of the Father, nor of the 
 Son, nor of the Holy Spirit, but into the name that 
 denotes the unity of their essence.' I suppose any 
 one may see the absurdity of this, and what difficul- 
 ties it would present to a serious inquirer; while the 
 text as it stands is suited to convey instruction to the 
 most ordinary capacity." [Purves' Attempt, p. 44.] 
 
 Now, I have any amount of testimony on this 
 point, to show that it is the idea of the most learned 
 and eminent men, that the words " in the name" should 
 be understood before " Son" and " Holy Spirit." But 
 I presume my friend will admit this, and I shall not 
 enlarge upon it further till there seems to be a further 
 necessity for doing so. iVnd, let it be noticed, these 
 remarks were not made by men who were writing 
 upou the practice of trine immersion; they had no 
 thought in reference to trine immersion in their minds 
 at all; these remarks were made incidentally, in 
 writing upon other subjects ; but looking at the com- 
 
MR. QUINTEK's FOUllTIl ADDRKSS. C)?t 
 
 mission, the idea seemed to strike them, naturnlly, 
 that the words " the name of," shonhi be undei'stood as 
 coming in before "Son," and "Holy S[)irit," ns it is 
 before " Father." If that is not the sense of the pas- 
 sage, there is no sense in it at all. I -would like to 
 have my friend, or any one else, tell me what is the 
 meaning of it, if this is not? 
 
 In concluding this class of testimony, I will intro- 
 duce one to which I will call your attention, on ac- 
 count of a peculiar mode of expression contained 
 therein. I hold in my hand the work of Meyei\ a 
 German commentator, acknowledged to be one of the 
 most profound and critical of New Testament com- 
 mentators. He gives the following clear and decided 
 testimony to the elliptical character of the baptismal 
 formula : 
 
 "If Jesus had said, 'the names,^ he would have ex- 
 pressed himself in a manner easily misunderstood, 
 though there are meant three personally different 
 names, inasmuch as ^ to ^onomafa' [the names] might 
 have been taken for the several names of each individ- 
 ual subject. The singular signifies the definite name, 
 expressed in the text, of each of the Three, so that ' eis 
 to 'onoma' hef ore ^ tou uiou^ and he^or e *" tou hagio2i 
 pneuaatos ' is to be added again mentally, as a matter 
 of course.^' \_See his Commentary on Matt., xxviii : 19.] 
 
 That was the idea of this learned commentator — that 
 the words, "in the name," should be added before 
 " the Son," and before the " Holy Ghost," mentally, 
 " as a matter of course.'' This supplying the words 
 needed, mentally, is exactly what grammarians mean 
 by an " ellipsis." 
 
 In the sentence under consideration, the conjunc- 
 tion " and " occurs twice. What office do conjunc- 
 tions perform ? Grammarians tell us they connect 
 words and phrases. What do they connect here ? It 
 is evident that " and " can not connect the phrase " in 
 
64 DEBATE ON TRTNE IMMERSION. 
 
 the name of the Father" to "of tlie Sou," because 
 the latter commences with a connecting word, the 
 preposition "of;" and the use of two connecting 
 words together, without any ellipsis, would not be 
 allowable in any other language than this; and not in 
 this, in any subject disconnected with theological 
 views, or something else that men were particularly 
 interested in sustaining. \^Time expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONXELL'S FOURTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators and Friends — My op- 
 ponent commenced his last speech by reaffirming his 
 former statement, that, although the use of the names, 
 " Father," " Son," and " Holy Spirit," do not oieces- 
 sarih/ imply or demand a distinct recognition of these 
 persons, characters, or offices, wherever they are men- 
 tioned in the Scriptures, yet in the commission they 
 do clearly express such distinction and demand such 
 recognition. Now, I ask, upon what does my friend 
 base this assumption ? If the words themselves do 
 not necessarily imply such distinction, he must show 
 us some other words in connection therewith, or some 
 particular circumstances bearing upon this particular 
 case, or bring some other satisfactory evidence, to 
 convince us that the words which are used here neces- 
 sarily mean something more or something ditferent here 
 from what they do when used elsewhere. I will let that 
 matter rest till he brings some evidence, of some kind, 
 beyond his bare assertion, to sustain his position. 
 
 My friend thinks I did not apprehend him in his 
 argument based upon the distinction which he insists 
 is to be found in the language of the commission be- 
 tween the three persons or characters in the God- 
 head. He now says that the distinction between the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is a distinction 
 
MR. m'cONNKLI/s FOUIITII ADDRESS. 65 
 
 in office. And he endeavors to prove the necessity 
 of three immersions, by showing tliat the same act 
 which inducts the President of the United States into 
 office at Washington does not induct the Governor of 
 the State of Iowa into office at the capital of Iowa. 
 This reasoning would be sound if it were the Father, 
 and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that were to be bap- 
 tized. But as the believer is not baptized into office 
 and authority, but into subjection to the Father, and 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I do not see that the 
 cases are analogous. 
 
 My friend asks, if baptizing a believer into Christ, 
 the Son, introduces the man into the whole Divinity, 
 why mention the other two names ? In answer to 
 this, I will simply say, first, that Christ mentioned all 
 the three names in the formula of the commission, 
 and we iin.'ntion them in baptism because we find them 
 in the formula; second, that the apostles, I appre- 
 hend, understood the commission as well as anybody 
 understands it now, or has understood it since their 
 day ; and when they went out to preadi and baptize 
 under that commission, with the words of their Divine 
 blaster yet fresh in their memory, and their minds 
 illuminated by the Holy Spirit, they said, " Repent, 
 and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of 
 Jesus Christ;'^ and in every instance where the 
 apostles commanded baptism, it was to be done in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, or of the Lord Jesus. This 
 was, probably, because it was understood that he em- 
 bodied the whole Divinity ; " in him dwell the fullness 
 of the Godhead bodily ;" hence, " the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," 
 could mean no more than was indicated in the phrase, 
 " in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." If this 
 reason be not sufficient or satisfactory, what other 
 reasons there were, if not evident to us, was apparent 
 to the Saviour and his apostles. 
 
66 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 We will now pass on to the consideration of my 
 friend's fourth argument in favor of trine immersion, 
 which is based on the structure of the language con- 
 stituting the formula. We believe, with him, that the 
 language of the commission is what grammarians 
 term " elliptical." His manner of supplying the 
 ellipsis, however, does not strike me as being correct. 
 He would have the commission read, when suppressed 
 portions of the sentence are supplied, "Baptizing in 
 the name of the Father, and [baptizing in the name] 
 of the Son, and [baptizing in the name] of the Holy 
 Spirit." I do not accept that method of supplying 
 the ellipses. I join issue with him there. We now 
 come to the closest work we will have in this discus- 
 sion. The whole controversy turns upon the teaching 
 of the commission ; if the commission does not teach 
 trine immersion, with all the clearness imaginable, 
 then trine immersion can not be sustained. If my 
 friend fails to show that his method of supplying the 
 ellipses is correct, and if, when that is done, we do 
 not find in it the most positive and unequivocal com- 
 mand for three immersions, he must give up his posi- 
 tion entirely ; for nowhere else, so far as I understand 
 the matter, does he claim to find the least warrant for 
 three immersions. 
 
 My friend's first step toward supplying the ellipses 
 is to insist that the words " in the name " should be 
 supplied before the Son and the Holy Spirit. He 
 gave us a dissertation upon grammar, after which he 
 introduced Alexander Campbell, and a writer in the 
 Christian Review, and a German commentator of some 
 note, and perhaps some other, to sustain this position. 
 I will admit all they said having a bearing upon this 
 point, not because Alexander Campbell or any one 
 else said so, but because the grammatical structure 
 of the sentence requires that very thing. The copu- 
 lative conjunction "and" means "add to;" and it 
 
MR. m'cONNELL's fourth ADDRESS. 67 
 
 does "add to" the n;ime of the Fatlier, tlie name of 
 the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit. But my 
 friend wishes to add something else. And the whole 
 issue between us is as to how large a load the little 
 -conjunction " and " is to be allowed to draw after it. 
 My friend says that the conjunction "and" reaches 
 still farther back into the preceding phrase, and adds 
 to the second and third members of the sentence the 
 word " baptizing " also ; "baptizing in the name of 
 the Father, and [baptizing in the name] of the Son, 
 and [baptizing in the name] of the Holy Spirit." We 
 both agree that in supplying the ellipses, the words 
 "the name " are to be carried forward ; but he goes 
 farther, and insists on the word " baptizing " also 
 being carried forward every time. I claim that this 
 is incorrect, unreasonable, ungrammatical and unscrip- 
 tural. 
 
 Let us see if an examination of other passages of 
 Scripture of similar construction will bear him out in 
 his argument. First, let us turn to Luke, chap, ix : 
 verse 26: "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me 
 and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be 
 ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in 
 his Father's, and of the holy angels." Here is an- 
 other elliptical sentence, which my friend and I would 
 both agree to complete by adding the word " glory " 
 to the last two phrases, making the conclusion of the 
 verse read, " when he shall come in his own glory, 
 and in his Father's [glory], and [in the glory] of the 
 holy angels." But my friend's method of supplying 
 the ellipses would give this thought: " When he shall 
 come in his own glory, and shall come again in his 
 Father's glory, and shall come a third time in the 
 glory of his holy angels." If there are three diflfer- 
 ent immersions commanded in the commission, there 
 are three difterent comings or advents promised in the 
 verse before us. But no one will accept suck an in- 
 
68 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 terpretation of this text, and I can not accept his in- 
 terpretation of the commission. 
 
 Again, let us turn to Matthew, chap, xxiii : verse 
 1 : *' Tiien spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his 
 disciples." Did Jesus on this occasion deliver two 
 different discourses, one to the multitude and the other 
 to his disciples? or did he discourse first to the multi- 
 tude, and afterward repeat the same discourse to his 
 disciples ? Is it not more sensible to believe that he 
 made but one speech, which was heard by both at 
 once? Just use a little of your own common sense 
 here; it is worth more than the authority of Alexan- 
 der Campbell, or any other commentator, however 
 eminent. 
 
 Turn next to Golossians, ii : 2 : '' * * to the 
 acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the 
 Father, and of Christ." 1 understand by this that 
 there is one mystery — the mystery of God, the Father, 
 and of Christ. But my friend's method of interpre- 
 tation would give us three mysteries ; first, the mys- 
 tery of God ; second, the mystery of the Father ; 
 and yet a third mystery, that of Christ. Nay, more, 
 he would give us three acknowledgments also ; and 
 would supply the ellipses so as to make this clause of 
 the verse read, " to the acknowledgment of the mys- 
 tery of God, and [to the acknowledgment of the 
 mystery] of the Father, and [to the acknowledgment 
 of the mystery] of Christ.'' But who understands 
 language in that manner ? No one — outside of our 
 trine immersionist friends, and they nowhere else ex- 
 cept in the commission. 
 
 Again : *' The Lord spake unto Moses and unto 
 Aaron" (Numbers, iv : 1, and many other places). 
 Do you understand by that language that the Lord 
 first spoke to Moses, and when he had finished ad- 
 dressing him, spoke to Aaron, saying the same thing ? 
 Nobody believes it, or so interprets it. But that is 
 
MR. m'cONNKLL'S fourth ADDRESS. 69 
 
 the manner in wliicli our trine immersionist friends 
 interpret the commission. 
 
 Yet, again : Turn to Matthew, viii : 11 (a verse 
 already once used to illustrate another point, but 
 ■which will serve a second purpose here): "I say 
 unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, 
 and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and 
 Jacob, in the Kingdom of heaven." According to my 
 friend's manner of supplying ellipses and drawing 
 conclusions, many shall come from the east, and shall 
 sit down with Abraham ; then, returning to the point 
 of starting, shall come again, and sit down with Isaac; 
 again returning to their original place, they shall 
 come yet a third time, and sit down Avith Jacob. 
 After which they will go to the west, and come and 
 sit down, first with Abraham, a second time with 
 Isaac, and a third time with Jacob — making three 
 times more they shall come from the west and sit 
 down ! No one — except the defenders of trine im- 
 mersion — understands language so, and they nowhere 
 but in the commission. 
 
 Still again : I Thessalonians, v : 23: " * * I 
 pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be 
 preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ." Does the apostle mean that Grod shall 
 preserve the spirit blameless till the coming of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and when that is accomplished, pre- 
 serve the soul likewise, and, lastly, preserve the body 
 blameless ? — three distinct actions ? But my friend's 
 rule of interpretation makes the apostle say that. 
 
 I could continue for hours to quote from the Bible, 
 showing to the most ordinary comprehension that the 
 carrying forward of the word " baptizing " in the com- 
 mission is contrary to the structure of the language, 
 and the manner of speaking used in the New Testa- 
 ment. My friend has not yet concluded his argument, 
 nor produced all his authorities; but the authorities 
 
70 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 already quoted by him, I venture to say, will not bear 
 him out in the assertion he has made as to the proper 
 method of supplying the ellipses in the language of 
 the commission. I have never found any work upon 
 language that authorized such a construction ; and I 
 am satisfied that the Bible nowhere justifies such an 
 interpretation. I am willing to receive information 
 and light from any source, but I prefer, so far as pos- 
 sible, to explain the Scriptures by themselves ; to let 
 God be his own interpreter, rather than to rely upon 
 the speculations of men. The celebrated Bishop Home 
 says, when any passage is brought forward, the precise 
 meaning of which is not clear, the safest and best way 
 is to go to other passages of similar construction, as- 
 certain their import, and then come back to the diffi- 
 cult passage with the light thus received. This is the 
 course I am pursuing here, in opposing my friend in 
 what I conceive to be his arbitrary and unwarranted 
 interpretation of the language of the commission. 
 
 We are about to close for to-night, to reassemble 
 to-morrow morning, if God shall, in his providence, 
 permit us to come together again. In separating to 
 your several homes, I would have you remember that 
 we shall all have to render an account for the im- 
 provement of this occasion ; we for what we say, and 
 our manner of saying it ; you for the manner in which 
 you hear, and in which you act upon what you hear. 
 \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR QUIXTER'S FIFTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly jNIoderators — I am happy, this morning, 
 to be permitted, in the kind providence of God, to re- 
 sume the discussion in which we are engaged. I 
 shall proceed first to notice the closing speech of my 
 friend, yesterday afternoon. The language of the 
 commission is what we have before us. My friend 
 
MR. QUIXTER's fifth ADDRESS. 71 
 
 accepted tlic commission in the followincr form : "Bap- 
 tizing them in the name of the Fatlier, and [in the 
 name] of the Son, and [in tlic name] of tlie Holy 
 Spirit." lie tlien proceeded to quote passa^jes of 
 Scripture apparently similar in construction to the 
 language of the commission, but which did not require 
 repeated action ; and from that he proceeded to argue 
 that tlie commission, in the form in which he accepted 
 it, does not require repeated action. 
 
 Now, if that plan of proceeding is proper for him, 
 it is proper for me ; if passages of similar construction 
 to the commission, which require but one action, are 
 aro-uments in favor of but one action in the corarais- 
 sion, parallel passages requiring repeated action are ar- 
 guments in favor of repeated action in the commission. 
 
 First, let us turn to Matthew, chapter xvii : verse 
 15: "Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is a 
 lunatic, and sore vexed : for oft-times he falleth into 
 the fire, and oft into the water." Now, though the 
 verb "falleth" is not repeated here, it is evident that 
 there must have been a repetition of the action ; for 
 one act of ialling would not have put that lunatic into 
 the fire and into the water. He must at one time 
 have fallen into the fire, and at another time have 
 fallen into the water. The construction demands a 
 repetition of the action. 
 
 Mark, v : 14 : " And they that fed the swine fled, 
 and told it in the city, and in the country." Here it 
 is plain that the telling it in the city did not tell it to 
 the country. There must have been a repetition of 
 the act of telling. 
 
 Murk, xi : 11 : " And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, 
 and into the temple." Your common sense will tell 
 you that his entering into Jerusalem did not neces- 
 sarily take him into the temple. There must have 
 been two enterings ; first, an entering into Jerusalem, 
 and, after that, a second entering into the temple. 
 
72 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 But I might go on to quote passages of Scrip- 
 ture, similar in construction to the commission, in 
 which a repetition of the action was necessary, for 
 the entire half-hour I am to occupy. The point is 
 this : if the passages that he quotes, in which a repe- 
 tition of action is not required, prove that the lan- 
 guage of the commission does not require a repetition 
 of the act of immersing, these passages that I quote, 
 in which a repetition of action is required, prove that 
 the language of the commission does require a repeti- 
 tion of the act of immersing. My friend, then, can 
 never consistently reject trine immersion ; because the 
 very method of reasoning which he has introduced, 
 and upon which he seems to rely so strongly, proves 
 that a repetition of the act of baptizing is necessarily 
 to be understood from the lansjuas^e of the commission. 
 His own mode of arguing places my position at least 
 on an equality with his. 
 
 We willingly acknowledge that, in some of the sen- 
 tences read, a repetition of the act is necessary, 
 while in others it is not. I have not argued that in 
 every case where there is an ellipsis to be supplied 
 there must necessarily be a repetition of the action ; 
 whether such is the case or not is to be inferred from 
 other circumstances. But. first, in order to get a little 
 clearer idea of the grammatical construction of the 
 language of the commission, I want, for a few mo- 
 ments, the attention of the reflecting, and more es- 
 pecially of those who can follow me a little in a 
 grammatical analysis of the language. The passage 
 under consideration is, "Baptizing them into the 
 name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, 
 and into the name of the Holy Spirit." (Such 
 is the shape in which my friend has already ac- 
 cepted it.) The first part of the sentence, " Baptizing 
 into the name of the Father,'' stands as a single })rop- 
 osition. Now, it is a well-established rule iu the 
 
MR. QUINTEr's fifth ADDRESS. 73 
 
 Enc^lish larii^uage, and, I think, in all lannjuagos, that 
 •where a conjunction is emplo3'e(l to connect several 
 propositions, a portion of some of which are left un- 
 expressed, or, in other words, are suppressed by the 
 use of an ellipsis, in supplying the ellipses, the first 
 proposition is to be the model upon which the rest are 
 constructed. The elliptical sentences, in being filled 
 out, are to be modeled after the first sentence ; what- 
 ever is contained in the first sentence is to be under- 
 stood as being contained in the second. Now, in the 
 case before us, the first sentence is, '' Baptizing into 
 the name of the Father ;" then comes the conjunction 
 "and," whose meaning is, as already said, " add to ;" 
 add to this, " baptizing into the name of the Son." 
 Here we follow the rules of grammar, and form the 
 second proposition after the model of the first. But 
 my friend would violate this well-established rule, and 
 after the conjunction *' and" would suppress a part of 
 the second proposition — not making the second prop- 
 osition after the model of the first. I would ask my 
 friend by what authority he suppresses a part of the 
 second proposition, and adds but a part of it to the pre- 
 ceding one? Taking the conjunction " and " in the 
 sense of " adding to," as he insists, and filling out the 
 second and third propositions after the model of the 
 first, as all grammatical authorities direct, and we have 
 the commission, when the ellipses are supplied, read as 
 follows : "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
 and baptizing them into the name of the Son, and bap- 
 tizing them into the name of the Holy Spirit." If 
 there is any other possible way of completing the 
 sentence so as to represent its correct grammatical 
 construction, let my friend produce his authorities. 
 
 I have here Latham's " Hand-book of the English 
 Language," from which I read : " It is highly import- 
 ant to remember that many double propositions may 
 be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. 
 
74 DEBATE ON TRINE IxMMERSION. 
 
 When this takes place, and any question arises as to 
 the construction, they must be exhibited in their full, 
 expanded form — ^. e., the second subject, the second 
 predicate, and the second copula, must be supplied. 
 This can always be done from the first propositioyi.'^ 
 
 This is in perfect harmony with what I have already 
 said, and Avith the teachings of a number of other 
 authors upon this subject; and I know of no one who 
 ■would deny it. Each proposition must be exhibited 
 in its fully expanded form ; the ellipsis must be sup- 
 plied in such a manner that the second proposition 
 will contain whatever is contained in the first. In 
 pursuance of these rules, we are compelled to give 
 the language of the commission this form : " Baptiz- 
 ing them in the name of the Father, and baptizing 
 them in the name of the Son, and baptizing them in 
 the name of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Now the question arises : Accepting this as the cor- 
 rect reading of the commission, after the ellipses are 
 properly supplied, does this require a repetition of the 
 act of baptizing ? I maintain that it does. What 
 would be the impression of an unprejudiced mind — as 
 clear of prejudice as the skies over us this morning 
 are of clouds — upon reading such language ? Would 
 the natural inference be in favor of one act of bap- 
 tizing, or of three? I have shown the distinction in 
 the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
 I have shown that the conjunction ''and" does not 
 connect these names, but does connect the three prop- 
 ositions. We have shown Avhat the propositions are 
 that are thus connected, when fully expanded by sup- 
 plying the ellipses in accordance with correct gram- 
 matical analysis, according to the usage of those who 
 rightly construe and teach our language ; and into the 
 three separate names, representing three distinct per- 
 sons, characters, or ofiices, we are to be baptized 
 separately. Previous arguments, based upon other 
 
MR. quinter's rrrTii address. 75 
 
 grounds, had lod to this conclusion ; and now a criti- 
 cal anal vsis of the hinguage of the commission not only 
 justifies but requires three actions — three immersions. 
 
 But even if my friend should not be willincr to ac- 
 cept this version of the commission, ^'Baptizing into 
 the name of the Father, and baptizing into tlie name 
 of the Son, and baptizing into the name of tlie Holy 
 Spirit," I will take him upon his own ground — look 
 at the form of the language as my friend does accept 
 it, and see what authority we have that that form, even, 
 authoiizcs and necessitates trine immersion. He 
 would have the commission read, when the ellipses are 
 supplied, '' Baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
 and into the name of the Son, and into the name of 
 the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Now, I will read from Dr. Conant's critical notes 
 upon the verse containing the commission. Dr. Co- 
 nant stands at the head of the American Bible Union. 
 Few men in our country stand higher than he in ac- 
 knowledged learning and ability. He has made a 
 translation of the gospel by Matthew, and to that 
 translation has added critical notes. In his notes 
 upon Matthew, xxviii : 19, he has the following : " The 
 practice was adopted, at an early period, of immersing 
 at the utterance of each name. But this is clearly 
 contrary to the terms of the command. To justify 
 such a practice, the form should have been, either, ' in 
 the names of^ or, * in the name of the Father^ and in 
 the name of the Son^ and in the name of the Holy 
 Spirit: " 
 
 Mark the point : Dr. Conant says that is the way 
 the commission ought to be read, in order to justify 
 trine immersion; and Campbell, Meyers, and others, 
 including my friend here, say that when the ellipses 
 arc properly filled, that is the way the commission 
 does read. In other words, my friend here insists 
 upon reading the commission precisely as Dr. Conant 
 
76 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 says it ought to read, in order to justify trine immer- 
 
 sion. 
 
 V. I proceed to my fifth argument in favor of trine 
 immersion. It is grounded on the fact that Paul recog- 
 nized a plurality of immersions in baptism. 
 
 In an exhortation to the Hebrews, wherein he re- 
 proves them for not advancing in the divine life, he 
 says : " Therefore, leaving the principles of the doc- 
 trine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not lay- 
 ing again the foundation of repentance from dead 
 works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of 
 baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews, 
 vi:l, 2.) 
 
 The word baptismoJi, translated " baptisms " in our 
 common version, is, by Mr. Anderson, and the Bible 
 Union, and other high authorities, translated "immer- 
 sions." That the baptism into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is here 
 alluded to, there can be no doubt. We can not con- 
 sistently make anything else out of it. Some have 
 tried to make something else out of it, because it in- 
 terfered with their preconceived notions ; but their 
 views have been almost as numerous as their attempts. 
 This is a plain admission of a plurality of immersions 
 in Christian baptism. I present it as a supporting 
 argument for trine immersion. My friend said, yes- 
 terday, that it was the commission alone that we relied 
 upon to sustain trine immersion, and that if we could 
 not find it there, we could not find it anywhere. I 
 want to show you that this is a misrepresentation of 
 our grounds for the practice of trine immersion. That 
 this passage teaches, or at least recognizes, trine im- 
 mersion, is plain, clear, conclusive ; at least I shall 
 hold it to be so until it is taken from me by evidence 
 that must be accepted. Why, the Scriptures are full 
 
MR. m'cONNELI/s fifth ADDRESS. 77 
 
 of trine imTncrsion. My friend has refcrrG<l to the 
 first recorded instance of baptism by the apostles 
 under the commission. Acts, ii: 38: Peter said. "Re- 
 pent, and be baptized" — not "into the name," but 
 " IN the name ;" not eis, but epi — " IN the name of 
 Jesus Christ ;" under the authority of Jesus Christ; in 
 his name be baptized into the Father, and into the 
 Son, and into the Holy Spirit. Those conscience- 
 stricken and repentant Jews were commanded to be 
 baptized under the authority of their crucified and 
 risen Saviour ; but when baptized, they doubtless were 
 baptized according to the formula of the commission. 
 So there we have trine immersion in the second chap- 
 ter of Acts, in the eighth chapter, in the tenth chap- 
 ter, in the sixteenth chapter; and whenever and 
 wherever Christian baptism was administered under 
 the authority of Jesus Christ, and in obedience to the 
 commission, it was done into the name of the Father, 
 and into the name of the Son, and into the name of 
 the Holy Spirit — which, I insist, could only be done 
 by trine immersion. [^Time expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S FIFTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Moderators and Friends — I am happy to meet 
 you this morning, to continue this very pleasant dis- 
 cussion of important issues, involving the practice of 
 the Christian world in reference to one of the most 
 important institutions ever established among men. 
 
 In the interval since our adjournment last evening, 
 some remarks of my friend, in his speeches yesterday, 
 have been recalled to my mind, that have not yet 
 received from me the response that was perhaps due 
 them ; and to some of these things I shall first refer. 
 
 My friend said, in his introduction, that "two im- 
 mersionists are here, differing as to the mode of im- 
 
78 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 It is not so set forth in the proposition, nor has my 
 friend presented anything on that point. As I un- 
 derstand it, the issue between us is not an issue of 
 mode, but of number. We agree as to the action of 
 baptism — it is immersion ; the issue is, whether it takes 
 a single immersion, or three immersions, to make one 
 baptism. 
 
 My friend entertained us yesterday forenoon with 
 lengthy quotations from the writings of the Christian 
 Fathers who stood forth as advocates of trine immer- 
 .sion. You will remember that he found trine immer- 
 sion first of all in the third century, and never w^ent 
 back earlier than that ; but traced it down through 
 the fourth, fifth, and sixth centui'ies, and so on along 
 down to Bishop Beveridge and Whiston, of compara- 
 tively recent date. I propose to read a little this 
 morning in reference to this matter of baptism ; I 
 shall commence further down the stream than my 
 friend commenced, but I shall travel in the other 
 direction, and go further toward the fountain than he 
 went. And I want to make this statement before I 
 read: I read, not from prejudiced champions of 
 trine or of single immersion, but from reliable records 
 of the early church ; not the inferences of partisan 
 advocates, but the statements of impartial historians. 
 
 My purpose, you will understand, is this : My 
 friend has told you that certain learned men in the 
 church, at that early day, advocated trine immersion, 
 and that the church itself practiced it. Now, I propose 
 to show you that these great men sanctioned, and the 
 church practiced, at that same age, the most egre- 
 gious errors in connection with the ordinance of bap- 
 tism ; consecpieiitl}'', the sanction of those great names, 
 or of the cluii-ch itself, in behalf of any given doctrine 
 oj- practice, is no proof that it is founded upon the 
 Word of God. 
 
MR. m'cONXELI/s fifth ADDRESS. 79 
 
 We will commence witli tlie fourth century. Turn- 
 in<T to Moshcim's Ecclesiastical History, we read as 
 follows : 
 
 ''Baptismal fonts were erected in the porch of each 
 church, for the more commodious administration of 
 that initiating ordinance. Baptism was administered 
 daring the vigils of Easter and Whitsuntide, with 
 lighted tapers, by the bishop, and the presbyters were 
 commissioned by hira for that purpose. In cases, 
 however, of urgent necessity, and in such only, a dis- 
 pensation was granted for performing this sacred rite 
 at other times than those now mentioned. In some 
 places, salt was employed, as a symbol of purit}'' and 
 wisdom, and was thrown, with this view, into the mouth 
 of the person baptized ; and a double unction was 
 everywhere used in the celebration of this onlinance — 
 one preceding its administration, and the other follow- 
 ing it. The persons who were admitted into the 
 church by baptism were obliged, after the celebration 
 of that holy ordinance, to go clothed in white gar- 
 ments during the space of seven days. Many other 
 rites and ceremonies might be mentioned here, but 
 as they never acquired stability by their duration, 
 nor received the sanction of universal approbation and 
 assent, we shall pass them over in silence." 
 
 So you see that in the fourth century many corrup- 
 tions had crept into the church ; many things had 
 been thrown about this ordinance of baptism that my 
 friend would not practice to-day. Now let us see 
 what is said in connection with the ordinance of bap- 
 tism in the third century : 
 
 " Baptism was considered by all as of the highest 
 importance, and as essential to salvation ; for which 
 reason it was even thought proper to administer it to 
 infants. There were, twice a year, stated times when 
 baptism was administered to such as, by a long course 
 of trial and preparation, offered themselves as caudi- 
 
80 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 dates for the profession of Christianity. The cere- 
 mony was performed only in the presence of such as 
 were already initiated into the Christian mysteries. 
 The remission of sin was thought to be its immediate 
 and happy fruit; while the bishop, by the laying on 
 of hands, was supposed to confer those sanctifying 
 gifts of the Holy Ghost which are necessary to a life 
 of happiness and virtue. We have already mentioned 
 the principal rites which were used in the administra- 
 tion of baptism ; and we have only to add that no per- 
 sons were admitted to this solemn ordinance, until, by 
 the menacinor and formidable shouts and declamations 
 
 o 
 
 of the exorcists, they had been delivered from the do- 
 minion of the Prince of Darkness, and consecrated to 
 the service of God." 
 
 Here, in the third century, we find a great corrup- 
 tion of the plainness and simplicity of the gospel. In 
 the very century in" which my friend first finds trine 
 immersion, we find exorcists employed, and infant 
 baptism already in existence. Mosheim elsewhere tells 
 us that infant communion was practiced in the same 
 century. In fact, a thousand and one vulgar and un- 
 scriptural ceremonies prevailed in the religious world 
 durinoj the ao;e when we first hear of trine immersion ; 
 and, with due respect to my friend and the ordinance 
 he holds so dear, I can not but regard trine immer- 
 sion as one of those speculations of men. 
 
 But let us turn now to the second century, and see 
 what we can find concerning baptism. Mosheim says: 
 
 "The sacrament of baptism was administered twice 
 every year, at the festivals of Easter and Pentecost, 
 or Whitsuntide, either by the bishop, or, in conse- 
 quence of his authorization and appointment, by the 
 presbyters. The persons that were to be baptized, 
 after they had repeated the creed, confessed and re- 
 nounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his 
 pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and 
 
MR. m'connell's fifth address. 81 
 
 received into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation 
 of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, nccordino; to the ex- 
 press command of our Blessed Lord ; were anointed 
 by prayers and the imposition of hands; were solemnly 
 recommended to the mercy of God, nnd dedicated to 
 his service; in consequence of which they received 
 milk and honey, which concluded the ceremon3^" 
 
 Here, as early as the second century, we find that 
 unauthorized and unscriptural ceremonies had begun 
 to cluster about the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 Now let us turn to the first century. And here I 
 think we will be able, incidentally^, to discover some- 
 thing in reference to the origin of trine immersion. 
 Says the historian : 
 
 " The sacrament of baptism was administered in 
 this century, without the public assemblies, in places 
 appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was 
 perforjned by" — trine immersion? No — " by an im- 
 mersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." 
 
 During the second, third, fourth, and succeeding 
 centuries, numberless extraneous and ridiculous ob- 
 servances gathered around this beautiful institution of 
 baptism ; and here we first discover trine immersion. 
 But when we go back to the first century — the cen- 
 tury in which Jesus Christ was baptized, in which he 
 gave his commission, in which the apostles concluded 
 their labors — we learn that baptism was performed 
 by " an immersion." This fact alone is sufiicient to 
 rebut all the arguments of my friend, backed by all 
 the commentators he has brought to bear upon this 
 point. 
 
 My friend yesterday spent considerable time among 
 the lexicons, from which he attempted to prove that 
 the Greek word haptizo meant to immerse repeatedly, 
 or fiequently. I have before me the testimony of 
 thirteen of the most eminent and learned lexicogra- 
 Dhers of the Greek language, on the meaning of the 
 6 
 
82 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 word haptizo ; and only one of these lexicons — that of 
 Donnegan, whom my friend quoted — intimate that the 
 idea of repeated action is in the word haptizo; the 
 other twelve say nothing about it. Out of all the lex- 
 icons of the Greek lanoruao-e that have ever been com- 
 piled, my friend has been able to find three that in- 
 timated that the idea of repeated action is contained 
 in the word. In Campbell and Rice's Debate, fifteen 
 lexicons are quoted ; eleven of these say nothing about 
 any idea of repeated action in the word. The testi- 
 mony of the lexicons is heavily against my friend. 
 
 I intimated, yesterday, that an ultimate appeal, so 
 far as the definition of the word haptizo was concerned, 
 would be made to the classics. It is to be supposed 
 that the Greek writers knew the meaning and force 
 of the words of their own lano-uao^e. I have before 
 me eighty-six examples of the use of the word haptizo 
 in its literal and physical sense ; but not one of them 
 has the idea of repeated immersion. In addition to 
 this I have here sixty-four or sixty-five examples of 
 the occurrence of the word in its metaphorical sense ; 
 and not a single time does it require repeated action. 
 I can not, of course, take the time to read them all ; 
 but I will refer to a few examples. 
 
 I will first read from Poly hi us' History, Book I, 
 chap, li, sec. 6: "For if any were hard pressed by 
 the enemy, they retreated safely, on account of their 
 fast sailing, into the open space; and then, with re- 
 versed course, now sailing around, now attacking in 
 flank, the more advanced of the pursuers, while turn- 
 ing and embarrassed on account of the weight of the 
 ships, and the unskillfulness of the crews, they made 
 continued assaults, and haptized many of the vessels." 
 Again (same work), Book VIII, chap, viii, sec. 4: 
 '' Which being done, some of the vessels fell on their 
 side, and some were overturned ; and most of them, 
 when the prow was let fall from on high, being hap- 
 
83 
 
 iized^ were filled ^vith sea- water and with confusion." 
 Is there any indication of repeated action liere? 
 How many times is it necessary for a vessel to bo 
 submerged, or immersed, in order to become filled \Yith 
 sea-water. 
 
 Plutarch, in his Life of Marcellus, chap, xv, describ- 
 ing the same operations, speaking of the arras of the 
 engines projecting from the walls over the vessels, 
 says : ** Some [of the vessels] thrusting down under 
 a weight firmly fixed above, they send into the deep ; 
 others, witli iron hands, or beaks, like those of cranes, 
 hauling up by the prow till they were erect on the 
 stern, they baptized.''^ Here, it will be seen, there is 
 no intimation of a repeated immersion. All the 
 examples that can be culled from the classics are of a 
 similar character — no hint anywhere of any frequenta- 
 tive idea being connected with the word. My friend 
 knows that such is the case. With this I dismiss this 
 branch of the subject. 
 
 Baptize, says my friend, means to immerse repeat- 
 edly, or frequently. But these are indefinite terms; 
 they may mean twice, thrice, or seven, or ten, x>r 
 twenty times; no one knows. Consequently, no man 
 can tell whether he has been baptized or not. 
 
 In his last speech yesterday, my friend said, refer- 
 rino; to the fact that the name of the Father comes 
 first in the commission, that the believer must come to 
 God first; that Christ said (John, vi : 44): ''No 
 man can come to me except the Father draw him," 
 indicating that the work of the Father comes first in 
 the work of redemption. True, the Father draws us 
 toward Christ; but we are on the other side of Ciirist 
 from him, and he draws us to Christ, that we may 
 through Christ come to him. Else, what is the use of 
 a mediator ? My friend's interpretation would render 
 a mediator unnecessary in the great scheme of salva- 
 tion. 
 
84 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 I come now to ray friend's last speech. He, this 
 morning, quotes a number of texts in which, where a 
 verb is suppressed by ellipsis, a repetition of action is 
 necessary. His first quotation is from Matthew, xvii : 
 15 : " Lord, have mercy on my son ; for he is a luna- 
 tic, and sore vexed; for oft-times he falleth into the 
 fire, and oft into the water." But the cases are not 
 parallel; on the contrary, they are as opposite as it is 
 possible for two cases to be: The two elements of 
 fire and water are distinct, separate, incompatible ; 
 they can not exist together in such a way that it is 
 possible for a person to fall into both by one action. 
 But in the case of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, they are essentially one ; at least, they are so 
 united, such is the relationship between them, that it 
 is impossible to be in one without being in all. When 
 my friend succeeds in showing that the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, are as separate, as different 
 from each other, as opposite in their natures to each 
 other, as are water and fire, so that it is utterly im- 
 possible in the nature of things for a man to be bap- 
 tized into both by the same action, then he may make 
 use of this text as an argument for trine immersion. 
 
 Mark, v: 14, is another of his examples: "And 
 they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, 
 and in the country." But, mark you : While the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are the one 
 God, and the believer can not be baptized into one 
 without being baptized into all, the city and the 
 country are not one and the same place ; a person can 
 not be in both at once; telling a thing to the city 
 does not necessarily include telling it to the country. 
 Tliere is no force in his example ; the cases are not 
 parallel. 
 
 The same may be said of his last example (Mark 
 xi : 11) : "Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the 
 temple." Jerusalem and the temple arc not identical 
 
MR. m'cOXNELL's FIFTU ADDRESS. 85 
 
 places, so that it is impossible to enter one without 
 entering the otlier. 
 
 My friend concluded this branch of his argument 
 by saying: "If the passages that he [McConnell] 
 quotes, in which a repetition of the action is not re- 
 quired, prove that the language of the commission 
 does not require a repetition of the act of immersing, 
 these passages in which a repetition of action is re- 
 quired, prove that the language of the commission 
 does require a repetition of the act of immersing." 
 This by no means follows. The fallacy is just here: 
 the passages which he quotes are not similar in their 
 construction, and the cases to which they refer are 
 not similar in their nature, to the commission. 
 Neither the structure nor the circumstances being 
 analogous, no argument from analogy can be built 
 upon them. Those quoted by me are similar in con- 
 struction — perfectly analogous. 
 
 My friend, having finally fixed up the commission 
 so as to read to suit him — "Baptizing into the name 
 of the Fatlier, and baptizitig i!ito the name of the Son, 
 and baptizing into the name of the Holy Spirit " — pro- 
 ceeds to argue that, because the word "baptizing" 
 occurs three times, there must necessarily be three 
 actions. But this does not follow. Let us take one 
 of the sentences already referred to as being similar 
 in construction (Luke, ix^ 26) : " '-^ * when he shall 
 come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the 
 holy angels." He would insist upon the last two 
 phrases being filled out after the model of the first, 
 so as to read, " when he shall come in his own glory, 
 and shall come in his Father's glory, and shall come 
 in the glory of his holy angels." Well, we will grant 
 him this reading of the passage, for the sake of ar- 
 gument. But now I ask my friend if even that 
 reading — which he can not reject consistently with 
 the principles he has laid down — implies three dis- 
 
86 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 tinct actions? — that Christ shall come three times? I 
 answer emphatically^ No! The sentence, even when 
 filled out according to his method of expansion, re- 
 quires no such thing. Try any other parallel passage 
 in the same way, and we shall discover the same result. 
 His own method of interpretation takes trine im- 
 mersion entirely out of the commission ; and I trust it 
 will be taken out of his heart, and out of his practice, 
 before this discussion is over. 
 
 [The speaker here read from Latham's ^' Hand-book 
 of the English Language " the quotation made by his 
 opponent in his last speech, and was about to com- 
 ment upon it, when he was informed by the chairman 
 of the Board of Moderators that his time had expired.] 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S SIXTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — Before proceeding with 
 the regular course I had laid down to pursue in the 
 presentation of my argument, I will pay a little atten- 
 tion to some of the points presented by my friend in 
 his last speech. 
 
 Yesterday, I commenced my argument with a few 
 remarks on the Greek word baptizo, and the English 
 word baptize, explaining that some of the best lexi- 
 conni'aphers of both lanjxuao-es, and some of our most 
 learned men, are of the opinion that the peculiar form 
 of baptizo, of which baptize is the anglicized form, is 
 expressive of frequentative or repeated action. I did 
 not claim that this was universally acknowledged and 
 taught, nor that the word uniformly indicated repeated 
 action. It seems to be, in some respects, like the 
 English pronoun t/oii: the form is plural, and it takes 
 a plural verb after it; but, nevertheless, it does some- 
 times represent persons or things in the singular num- 
 ber. It seems to be somewhat so with the Greek 
 
.Mli. QillN'TKirS SIXTH ADDKKSS. 87 
 
 word haptlzo ; the general appearance conveys an 
 idea of plurality or repetition of action, yet it is un- 
 doubteiUy often used in reference to a single action, 
 as the word you is often used in reference to a 
 single person. Such seems to be the idea that has 
 somehow been obtained by several of the leading lexi- 
 cographers, such as Bretschneider, Donnegan, Liddcll 
 and Scott, etc. Yesterday, my friend here seemed to 
 think that this argument did not amount to much ; but 
 it appears that last night, in thinking over the matter, 
 he discovered that there was something more in it 
 than he had at first suspected ; so, in his speech this 
 morning, he brings the subject up again. Having 
 said what I have upon the subject, in order that it 
 may go forth wherever this discussion may go, and 
 have such weight as it deserves, whether that be more 
 or less, I will now drop the matter again, and if he 
 will drop it now, as he said he would yesterday, it will 
 stay dropped. 
 
 In regard to the quotations from Scripture that I 
 presented as being similar in construction to the com- 
 mission, he claims that the argument is not applicable 
 because the cases are not similar ; that the lunatic 
 falling into the water and into the fire, the Saviour 
 going into Jerusalem and into the temple, etc., refer 
 to different things or places, while he insists that the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are one. I con- 
 tend that whatever unity may exist, there is repre- 
 sented a plain distinction in name, in character, in 
 ofiice, between the three, with regard to the great work 
 of human redemption. I do not look upon them pre- 
 cisely as upon three places or three houses ; they 
 present themselves to the mind in a moral, not a ma- 
 terial, point of view ; in the mind we conceive of them 
 as three different characters, in which the Godhead is 
 presented to our consideration. And in the formula 
 for administering baptism we find them presented, not 
 
88 DEBATE ON TPaXE IMMEllSION. 
 
 in their unity, but in their plurality. The distinction 
 in character and office is clearly and emphatically set 
 forth in the construction of the language used, with 
 the evident design that such distinction should be re- 
 coo;nized in the administration of the ordinance. How 
 similar, or how unlike, the three persons, or characters, 
 in the Godhead may be, is not declared in the com- 
 mission ; they are here named separately, presented 
 before us in their distinct characters, and a command 
 given to baptize into each. He may say that the ad- 
 mission or the acceptation of the construction of the 
 commission that I have insisted on as being gram- 
 matical and correct, would not require repeated action. 
 But I produce sentences of similar construction that 
 do require repeated action ; and if my assertion that 
 they are similar in construction is correct, the lan- 
 guage of the commission also requires repeated action. 
 He claims that the passages are 7iot similar in con- 
 struction ; and at this point I leave the whole matter 
 with you to decide for yourselves. I do not wish to 
 misrepresent him in the least. 
 
 VI. / will notv proceed ivitli my sixth argument, 
 which may he called the historical argument — drawn 
 from the practice the primitive Christians observed in 
 performing baptism. 
 
 That practice, as stated by writers of ecclesiastical 
 history and Christian antiquities, is trine immersion. 
 In support of this, I will first read the positive dec- 
 laration of Bingham, in his "Antiquities of the 
 Christian Church,'' page 539 : " But 1 must observe 
 further, that they not only administered baptism by 
 immersion under Avater, but also repeated this tliree 
 times." 
 
 Dr. William Cave, in his popular work, entitled 
 *' Primitive Christianity," in speaking of immersion 
 as the mode of baptism practiced by the first Chris- 
 
MR. (>UINTi:irS srXTlI ADDRKSS. 89 
 
 tians, says : "This immersion -was performed thrice, 
 the person baptized beinnr three several times put 
 under water — a custom which Basil and Sozomen will 
 have derived from the apostles. It is certain that it 
 was very early in the church, being twice mentioned 
 by TertuUian as the common practice." [P. 157.] 
 
 Dr. Wall says: "The way of trine immersion, or 
 plunging the head of the person three times into 
 the water, was the general practice of all antiquity." 
 [History of Infmt Baptism, Vol. II, p. 419.] 
 
 I have a number of similar testimonies before me, 
 but I will not present them on this occasion, preferring 
 to give the argument another form, that will meet my 
 friend's notice of the historical aspect of this subject, 
 without lengthening it to an unseemly extent. 
 
 My friend has intimated, if I have understood the 
 bearing of his remarks upon this subject, that he 
 deemed historical testimony of very little account in 
 this argument. Upon this point, I will read to you 
 an extract from Alexander Campbell, showing his itlea 
 of the importance of historical testimony in relation 
 to baptism : 
 
 "The historians tell us w^hat the ancients did under 
 the name * baptism ;' they record certain acts, and 
 then call them by this word. They are, then, stronger 
 proofs to the great mass of society than dictionaries, 
 grammars, classics, translators, or anything in the 
 form of mere language. History is now the favorite, 
 the growing favorite, in all departments of phi- 
 losophy. The history of nature is philosophy ; the 
 history of plants is botany ; the history of animals is 
 zoology; the history of man is anthropography, and 
 the history of the church is Christianity : I mean the 
 whole church — primitive, ancient, and modern. The 
 history of baptism is, therefore, the philology of the 
 word; it is the history of the human mind on that 
 subject, of all men, of all nations, of all ages of the 
 
90 DEBATE ON TRINE IM.MERSION. 
 
 cliiirch. Whenever the history of baptism is fully 
 read, and by whomsoever, there will not remain one 
 doubt on the meaning of haptho. I affirm, without 
 fear of successful contradiction, that all cliristendom, 
 Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and modern, down to quite a 
 comparatively recent period, practiced immersion. I 
 have given you already," adds Mr. Campbell, " the 
 testimony of the celebrated Dr. Whitby, of the Church 
 of England, affirming that immersion was justly ob- 
 served from the beginning, for thirteen hundred years, 
 without any exception by aul,hority, except in the 
 case of sick and dying persons; that it was changed 
 into sprinkling without any allowance by Jesus Christ, 
 without any license from any council of the Church, 
 and that the Romanists refuse the sacramental cup to 
 the laity on account of the indulgence claimed in 
 changing immersion into sprinkling. This being an 
 indisputable fact, what need have we of all this con- 
 troversy about the meaning of words ? This fact is 
 worth all the languages, dictionaries, commentators, 
 and critics, of two thousand years." [Campbell and 
 Rice's Debate, p. 248.] 
 
 Now, if Mr. Campbell's judgment upon this subject 
 be correct, the historical argument bearing upon bap- 
 tism is one of paramount importance, and not to be 
 set aside so lightly as my friend here would seem to 
 intimate. And looking at the matter from a historic 
 stand-point, all the testimony that Mr. Campbell here 
 refers to for single immersion, I claim for trine immer- 
 sion. I will read a few words further from Mr. Camp- 
 bell : "Not only Mosheim, Neander, but all the his- 
 torians, as well as Professor Stuart, trace immersion 
 back to the times of the apostles." [P. 258.] 
 
 Now, some of you know that in some of the early 
 copies of this work (The Campbell and Rice Debate), 
 the word "trine" was before the woid "immersion " 
 in the above sentence ; and some of our brethren 
 
MU. tiUINTKU's SIXTH AI>1)1U:.SP. 91 
 
 quoted this pnssnge in tlieir controversies with the 
 Disciples; and I do not wonder at it; for if they 
 thought that Mr. Canipijell taught tliat the liistoriaiis 
 traced trine immersion back to tlie times of the apos- 
 tles, it was certainly a stiong and pertinent argument 
 in favor of trine immersion. Mr. Campbell was writ- 
 ten to upon the subject, and the editors of the Har- 
 hinger were written to, and, for a time, there was quite 
 a stir among them to get the matter set right ; finally, 
 Mr. Campbell denied the authorship of the word 
 *' trine," and there the matter rested. I have never 
 used the quotation, and do not now use it, with the 
 word "trine" in it, as Mr. Campbell has denied hav- 
 ing written that word in the sentence. But I want to 
 show you, and I think I shall be able to show you, 
 that, if Mr. Campbell did not connect the word 
 " trine " with the immersion that the historians trace 
 back to the apostles, it ought to be so connected ; for 
 if they trace any immersion back to the apostles, it is 
 trine immersion. 
 
 • My friend read to you an extract from Mosheim, in 
 relation to baptism in the first century. I want to 
 read it to you again, because there is a note at the 
 bottom of the page, a reference to the authority upon 
 which he grounds his assertion in reference to baptism, 
 to which I wish to direct your attention. Mosheim's 
 language is : "The sacrament of baptism was admin- 
 istered in this century, without the public assem- 
 blies, in places appointed and prepared for that 
 purpose, and was performed by^ immersion of the 
 
 *At this point the speaker diiicovered that the vrord "an," to 
 which his opponent had particularly referred in commenting upon 
 this passage, was not in the text before him ; and on examinution it 
 •was discovered that the debatants had different editions of the work, 
 one of which contained the article "an" before the word ''immer- 
 sion," and the otlier did not. The remarks in this connection, if 
 printed as they were spoken, would interrupt the argument, so we 
 make this explanation in a foot- note. — Rkpoutek, 
 
92 DEBATE ON TRINE EMMERSION. 
 
 whole body in the baptismal font." [Church History, 
 Vol. I, p. 12(3.] 
 
 Now, as Mosheim did not himself live in the first 
 century, he must have obtained his information from 
 historians who lived and wrote and studied into these 
 matters before him, who, in turn, received their informa- 
 tion from writers of preceding ages. By referring to 
 the note at the bottom of the page of Mosheim's his- 
 tory, on which we find the above passage, we find that 
 his first authority is Vossius — John Girard Yossius. 
 And referring to Vossius, we find that he uses the 
 following language : " What son of the church will 
 not willingly hold to that custom which the ancient 
 church practiced all over the world, except Spain," 
 etc. "Besides," adds Vossius, "at present the trine 
 immersion is used in all countries." [Wall's History 
 of Infant Baptism, Vol. II, p. 424.] 
 
 This is the statement of Vossius, the writer referred 
 to by Mosheim in his 'history of baptism in the first 
 century. Vossius traces trine immersion back to the 
 first century — states it to have been the universal 
 practice of the church in the first century. 
 
 My friend told us yesterday that the gap between 
 Tertullian and the apostles must be filled up. I have 
 done so. I have gone to the authority on which Mos- 
 heim grounds his assertion that immersion was the 
 practice in the first century, and I find not only that, 
 but more : I find that the immersion practiced in the 
 first century was tririe immersion. I have the very 
 same authority for this that Mosheim has for any im- 
 mersion at all. If I went down the stream yesterday, 
 I am to-day going up the stream, and filling the gaps 
 that my friend declared I left open. 
 
 Now let us turn to Mosheim's History of Ba[)tism in 
 the second century. He says: "The sacrament of 
 baptism Avas administered twice every year, at the fes- 
 tivals of Easter and Pentecost," etc. [P. 226.] Then, 
 
MR. QUINTER's sixth ADDRESS. 93 
 
 by looking at the notes, we can discover how it -svas 
 ndinini-stored. By rcferrino; to the foot of the pap^e 
 for Ills authority, \ve find it to be "WalTs History of 
 Infant Baptism." ]^ut we have already read Wall's 
 testimony as to the manner hw^^U^va. was administered: 
 *' The way of trine immersion, or plunging the head 
 of the person three times into the water, was the 
 general praefice of all aniiqidli/." [History of Infant 
 Baptisni, Vol. II, p. 419.] 
 
 Thus you see that the authorities upon which Mos- 
 heim grounds his statements in regard to baptism in 
 the first and second centuries having been performed 
 by immersion, are authors who state that the immer- 
 sion then practiced was trine immersion. 
 
 Mr. Campbell says, as I have before read to you : 
 *'Not only Mosheim, Neander, but all the historians, 
 as well as Professor Stuart, trace immersion back to 
 the times of the apostles." Let us see what Neander 
 says: ''Then, there was the trine immersion of bap- 
 tism, as symbolically making the reference to God 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This, too, 
 was a symbol that arose out of the Christian idea, but 
 not necessarily connected with it." [Neander's Plant- 
 ing of Christianity, Vol. II, p. 271.J 
 
 Neander had a philosophical mind, as German com- 
 mentators generally have, and this doctrine of trine 
 immersion seemed to him an appropriate symbol 
 arising out of the Christian idea — the idea of the dis- 
 tinction into characters, the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit; a kind of off-shoot, a corollary, a natu- 
 ral deduction of a logical mind. So it seems to me. 
 
 Prof. Stuart, another of the authors referred to by 
 Mr. Campbell as tracing immersion back to the apos- 
 tolic times, does so in the followinf:r Iano;uaf2;e : " The 
 mode^of baptism by immersion, the Oriental Church 
 has always continued to preserve, even down to the 
 present time. The members of this church are ac- 
 
94 DEBATE ON THINE IMMERSION. 
 
 customed to call the members of the western churches, 
 'sprinkled Christians,' by way of ridicule and con- 
 tempt. They maintain that baptizo can mean nothing 
 but immerge; and that 'baptism by sprinkling' is as 
 great a solecism as 'immersion by aspersion;' and 
 they claim to themselves the honor of having pre- 
 served the ancient sacred rite of the church free from 
 change and from corruption, which would destroy its 
 significancy." 
 
 The above language is quoted by Mr. Campbell, in 
 Campbell and Rice's Debate, pages 258, 259, to prove 
 immersion. But it proves immersion no more strongly 
 than it does trine immersion; for the Oriental or 
 Greek Church not only practices trine immersion, but 
 believes it essential to baptism. So the very author- 
 ities and arguments used by immersionists ^ prove 
 immersion to have been the practice in the primitive 
 church, I claim in favor of trine immersion; for the 
 immersion so traced back is trine immersion. Now, 
 where is the gap my friend yesterday thought I had 
 left between Tertullian and the apostles? It is filled 
 up completely, according to this chain of historic tes- 
 timony. 
 
 In this connection, I will read another remark of 
 Professor Stuart's, bearing upon this subject, and 
 likewise conveying another idea. The passage is 
 quoted by Mr. Campbell, who evidently indorses the 
 idea relative to the importance of the historic testi- 
 mony: '-If, then, we are left in doubt after the piiilo- 
 logical investigation of baptizo, how much it neces- 
 sarily implies ; if the circumstances which are related 
 as accompanying this rite, so far as the New Testa- 
 ment has given them, leave us still in doubt; if we 
 can not trace with any certainty the Jewish proselyte 
 baptism to a period as early as the baptism of John 
 and Jesus, so as to draw any inferences with proba- 
 bility from this, still, wc are left in no doubt as to the 
 
MR. QUINTEIVS SIXTH ADDRESS. 95 
 
 more c^eneral usage of the Christian Church down to 
 a porio'l several ceiituries afrer tlic apostolic nf:;e." 
 
 This ''general iisnge of the Christian Cliurch," upon 
 ■which Professor Stuart lays so much stress as decisive 
 evidence upon this [)oint, I have shown to be in favor 
 of trine immersion. 
 
 As resjards those additions and unauthorized cere- 
 monies that were thrown about the ordinance of bap- 
 tism in the early age of the church, there is this dif- 
 ference between them and trine immersion : they had 
 no'f )undation in the Word of God, the command of 
 Christ, or the example of the apostles ; and none of the 
 Christian Fathers ever made any such claim in their 
 behalf, so far as my friend has yet told us, or so far 
 as my reading extends. Tertullian, and Chrysostom, 
 and Pelagius, do not inform us that they find the cus- 
 tom of exorcising the devil from the candidates for 
 baptism, or throwing salt into their mouths, or any 
 other of the silly ceremonies connected wdth the ordi- 
 nance in those days, commanded in the Scriptures. 
 But they do inform us that the practice of trine immer- 
 sion they draw directly from the commission. Hence, 
 I have nothing to do with those other appendages to 
 baptism; they have no relevancy in the argument. 
 
 In the single minute which is all of my present half- 
 hour that remains to me, I have only time to say, that 
 it must be known to the careful reader that single 
 immersion is of quite modern date. Previous to that, 
 up the ages, till the time of the apostles, trine immer- 
 sion was the rule — as Dr. Wall well expresses it, '* the 
 general practice of all antiquity." So you see we 
 can trace our beautiful, significant, expressive ordi- 
 nance of trine immersion, so eloquently representing 
 the three-fold character of the Divinity — the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit — back to the apostolic 
 age, to the commission of our Lord Jesus Ciirist. 
 \_Time expired. 
 
96 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S SIXTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — In my last speech I came 
 to this point: Mv friend had asserted that, in an 
 elliptical sentence, like the one before us for consid- 
 eration, the whole of the first proposition was the 
 model after which that or those which were connected 
 therewith, must be constructed. His authority for 
 this was Latham's " Hand-book of the English Lan- 
 guage," from which he read a rule, or declaration, 
 to that effect. Now that we are upon the sub- 
 ject of grammatical analysis, I want to spend a very 
 little time in spreading before this audience, the com- 
 pound and somewhat complicated sentence consti- 
 tuting the commission, as presented in Matthew 
 xxviii : 19 : *' Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 This is a compound sentence. One of its clauses, 
 the predicate, is compound. The subject is "ye" 
 — that of which something is affirmed. The predi- 
 cates are " go" and " teach ; " they express what is 
 affirmed of the subject. The object is "nations;" it 
 is that on which the act expressed by the predicate 
 "teach" terminates. The subject "ye "is modified 
 by the participial phrase, "baptizing them." Of this, 
 "baptizing" is the leader — introducing the phrase; 
 " them" is the subsequent — following the leader as its 
 object. " Baptizing" is modified by the propositional 
 phrase, " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Spirit." In this phrase, " in " is the 
 leader; "name" is the subsequent, modified by 
 "the;" also modified by the prepositional phrases, 
 "of the Father," and "of the Son," and "of the 
 Holy Spirit." In each of these prepositional phrases, 
 "of" is the leader, introducing the phrase. In the 
 first, " Father " is the subsequent, modified by " the ; " 
 
MR. M'CONNELL's SLXTU ADDRESS. 97 
 
 in the second, " Son " is tlic su])seqnent, modified by 
 "the;" in the third, "Holy Spirit" is the subse- 
 quent, mojlifiod by "the." "Nations" is the object, 
 modified by "all." "Therefore" is a conjunction, 
 introducing the sentence. "And" is a conjunction, 
 connecting "go" and "teach" in tlie predicate. In 
 the prepositional phrase, "and" connects "Father" 
 and " Son," and " Son " and " Holy Spirit." Now, 
 those of you who are acquainted with the proper 
 method of grammatical analysis, and have followed me 
 while analyzing the language of the commission, can 
 not but see that " and," in the first portion of the sen- 
 tence, connects " go " and " teach ; " and in the sec- 
 ond, connects " Father " and " Son," and " Son" and 
 "Holy Spirit," instead of having the effect to bring 
 the modifying phrase, " baptizing," etc., down after it 
 again on each occasion. You will see that my friend 
 did not follow the rule given by his own authority. 
 He claims that the conjunction "and" does not con- 
 nect " Father " and " Son," and " Son " and " Holy 
 Spirit." That sounded very strange to me. But what, 
 tlien, would he say they connect ? Why, " baptizing " 
 and "baptizing;" that is, the "baptizing" that is 
 there, with a " baptizing " that is not there. I do not 
 see the force of his criticism. But I will leave the 
 whole matter where it is. I do not claim to be much 
 of a grammarian. 
 
 I will now turn my attention to some other points 
 presented by my friend. He bases an argument in 
 favor of trine immersion, upon the fact that Paul ad- 
 mitted a plurality of immersions. (Hewbrews, vi : 1, 
 2.) I will repeat the passage, but I will first read a 
 portion of the preceding chapter, that is so intimately 
 connected with it, that it must be taken into consid- 
 eration with it, in order to arrive at a correct under- 
 standing of what the apostle intends to preach. Let us 
 commence at the twelfth verse of the preceding chap- 
 
98 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 ter : " For when for the time" [or, at the time when] 
 **ye ought to be teaehers^jQ liave need that one teach 
 you again which be the first principles of the oracles 
 of God ; and are become such as have need of milk, 
 and not of strong meat; [verse 13:] for every one 
 that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteous- 
 ness : for he is a babe ; [verse 14 :] but strong meat 
 belongeth to them that are of full age." Now, the 
 same apostle, in his letter to the Galatians (chapter 
 iv), represents the entire Jewish nation as children, 
 until " the fullness of the time was come," when " God 
 sent forth his Son, to redeem them that were under 
 the law ; " and here, in his letter to the Hebrews, he 
 speaks of those who are " unskillful in the word of 
 righteousness" as children. So, children, or babes, 
 who have need to be taught again " the first principles 
 of the oracles of God," are those " that were under 
 the law." Now, these Hebrews, to whom Paul was 
 writing, exhibited a constant tendency to go back to 
 the ceremonies of the Levitical priesthood, and seek 
 justification by obedience to the law ; and it was to 
 counteract this disposition that the apostle exhorts 
 the Hebrews: "Therefore, leaving the principles of 
 the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; 
 not laying again the foundation of repentance from 
 dead works, and of fiiith toward Qod, of the doctrine 
 of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of res- 
 urrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." 
 Now for a little running comment on the passage be- 
 fore us. What were those " dead works ?" Evidently 
 works of the law, from which they had once repented ; 
 if they should go back to them they would lay the foun- 
 dation for a second repentance. ''And of faith toward 
 God:" tlie seventh chapter of Acts contains a sum- 
 mary of the evidence upon which the Jews built their 
 faith toward God ; and to go back to the works of the 
 law, would be to render necessary the revival of the 
 
MK. m'cONNKLL's sixth ADDRESS. 99 
 
 Jewish religion in order to faitli toward God. *' Of 
 the doctrine of baptisms:" under the law tliere were 
 (Hebrews, ix : 10) '"divers washin<:5S and carnal ordi- 
 nances imposed on them until the time of reforma- 
 tion." In fact, the only places in the New Testa- 
 ment where I find any reference to a plurality of im- 
 mersions are these two passages — Hebrews, vi : 2, 
 connected with arguments used to prevent the con- 
 verted Jews from going back to Judaism ; and Hebrews, 
 ix : 10, where " divers immersions " (diaphorois bap- 
 tismois) are expressly classed with the '' carnal ordi- 
 nances " of the Mosaic law. "Of hxying on of 
 hands:" under the Mosaic law, when a Jew brought 
 an offering to the Lord, the imposition of hands was 
 necessary. Leviticus, i : 4 : "And he shall put his 
 hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall 
 be accepted for him to make an atonement for him ;" 
 and scores of other places. Paul exhorted the con- 
 verted Jews not to go back to these ceremonies. 
 "And of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judg- 
 ment:" these are disposed of in the same manner. 
 Leaving these first principles — the dead works of the 
 hiw, the laying on of hands, the divers washings and 
 carnal ordinances imposed on the Jews till the time 
 of reformation — "let us go on unto perfection." For 
 (Hebrews, vii : 19), " The law made nothing perfect, 
 but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which 
 ■we draw nigh unto God." And the apostle warns 
 them of the fearful consequences of apostacy ; for if 
 the}' fall away from Christ, it is impossible "to renew 
 them again to repentance ; seeing they crucify to 
 then)selves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an 
 open shame." The adherents of the law had cruci- 
 fied Christ, and put him to public shame ; now, if you 
 return to the law, you will renounce Christ, and 
 thereby indorse the crucifying of him, which will be 
 equivalent to a second crucifixion. Our friends, the 
 
100 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 Tonkers, are contending for " divers immersions ;'* 
 but the only place where they can find them is in 
 Judaism. They are — unwittingly, I believe — doing 
 the very thing the apostle warns the Jews against — 
 going back to the "carnal ordinances" of the Mosaic 
 dispensation. 
 
 Macknight, in his comment on the passage under 
 consideration, says : " I agree with Pierce, in think- 
 ing that 'the principles of Christ' means the prin- 
 ciples (or elements) of the doctrine of Christ as con- 
 tained in the doctrines of Moses and the prophets." 
 
 But Paul has not left us in the dark as to how many 
 immersions belong to the Christian dispensation. My 
 friend agrees with me that bapdzo, when properly 
 translated, means to immerse, dip, plunge, over- 
 whelm ; should be rendered by some term equivalent 
 to the English word " immerse." To baptize is to 
 immerse; and a baptism is an immersion. And Paul 
 says, in his letter to the Ephesians (chap, iv : verses 
 4, 5): "There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye 
 are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one 
 faith, one (baptisma) immersion." Here Paul dis- 
 tinctly and emphatically says there is one immersion 
 — not a multitude, as my friend contends. We will 
 leave that for him and the apostle Paul to settle be- 
 tween them. 
 
 My friend says that baptizo is similar to the English 
 pronoun "you," which is plural in form, but some- 
 times singular in sense. I can not see the resem- 
 blance : for baptizo is not plural in form ; it is singular 
 in form, and has its regular plural, like most other 
 words; and like them, when singular in form, is sin- 
 gular in sense, and when plural in form, is plural in 
 sense. I can not see that it is like the pronoun 
 "you" in any respect; consequently I can not see 
 any force in that argument. 
 
 My friend argues for three immersions, from the fact 
 
MR. m'cONNELL'S sixth ADDRESS. 101 
 
 timt there are tlirce names in the commission ; three 
 characters, three offices, tliree personalities, if you 
 please, in the great work of human salvation. Grant- 
 ing his premises, we do not see that any such conclu- 
 sion is legitimate. Whatever he calls them — three 
 offices, three characters, or three persons — it does not 
 follow that three actions are necessary. In many 
 human associations, pecuniary, educational, etc., there 
 are three leading officers, a president, a secretary, and 
 a treasurer. These three offices are held by different 
 persons, called b}^ different names. There is a clear 
 distinction between them, individually and officially, 
 but unity in association. Now, when a man becomes 
 a member of such an association he recognizes the 
 official authority of each of these. But is it true 
 that he must perform the same initiatory act three 
 times in order to do this? For instance, the condi- 
 tions are these : you must sign your name to an in- 
 strument recognizing the authority of the president, 
 secretary, and treasurer. Would any man consider it 
 necessary for him to sign his name three times? 
 Certainly not. Now, baptism is that instrument in 
 which the authority of the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit is recognized; and he who is once bap- 
 tized, signs that instrument once. As once signing 
 is a recognition of the authority of all the three offi- 
 cers, there is, therefore, no need of repeating it twice. 
 God does not require vain repetitions, but, on the con- 
 trary, expressly forbids them (Matthew, vi : 7): " Use 
 not vain repetitions, as the heathen do." Again: 
 Suppose a certain work is to be done for that associ- 
 ation. The president appoints the man to do it; the 
 secretary informs him of his appointment; and the 
 treasurer becomes paymaster. The man thus ap- 
 pointed proceeds to do the work once ; does he not 
 thereby recognize the authority of these distinct per- 
 sons in their respective official positions? or, because 
 
102 DEBATE ON TKINE IMMERSION. 
 
 there are three official characters involved in the con- 
 tract, must he do the same thing three times, in order 
 to do it once? Application : We have a divine asso- 
 ciation for the salvation of man, with three official 
 characters — the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit. This association requires men to be baptized 
 in recognition of their three official characters. As 
 these are a plurality in office, but unity in the pur- 
 poses and requirements of the association, one immer- 
 sion performed in obedience to the authority of the 
 association represented by the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a submis- 
 sion to and a recognition of the authority of each ; 
 and therefore only one immersion is necessary in 
 order to fulfill the demands of this divine association, 
 as set forth in the commission. And as Christian 
 baptism is taught and commanded in the commission 
 or not at all, therefore three immersions are not 
 necessary to Christian baptism. \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S SEVENTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — My last argument was based 
 upon the immersions recognized by Paul, in Hebrews, 
 vi : 1, 2. To that argument m^^ friend has attempted a 
 reply. And I confess I have not lately heard a use 
 of Scripture that surprised me more than I was sur- 
 prised at the disposition he made of that text. He 
 rejects the idea that the principles mentioned by Paul 
 as "the principles of the doctrine of Christ" are 
 principles belonging to the Christian system ; or at 
 least, he insists that they belong more especially to 
 the Jewish economy; these principles of the doctrine 
 of Christ, he contends, are principles of the Mosaic law. 
 
 Mr. Anderson, a member of the fraternity to which 
 my opponent belongs, translates this passage thus : 
 
MR. QUINTEK'S seventh ADDRESS. lOo 
 
 " Tlieroforc, omitilng the elementary Cliristian teach- 
 inn;s!, let us go on to the perfection of Christian in- 
 struction," etc. Now, it appears to me that Christian 
 teachings, as a matter of course, come under Chris- 
 tianity. It surely must mean things which Christian 
 teachers taught. Parkhurst, a profound scholar and 
 lexicographer, whose Greek and English lexicon I 
 hold in my hand, says, in reference to this text, "it 
 also includes Christian baptism." Is it a fact that the 
 principles here mentioned by Paul were doctrines of 
 the Mosaic law ? Where does that law teach the res- 
 urrection of the dead ? It is well known that the 
 Sadducees, a leadin^: sect amon«t the Jews, denied the 
 resurrection. It was a very difl&cult matter, it will 
 be remembered, for the Saviour to make the idea of 
 the resurrection clear in the minds of the apostles. 
 Alas, for the stupidity of a people, who, with the doc- 
 trine of the resurrection of the dead constantly be- 
 fore them as one of the principles of their law, were 
 yet so extremely ignorant of it ! And " repentance 
 from dead works," my friend places back under the 
 law. And the " laying on of hands," he insists, re- 
 fers to the laying of hands on the heads of the animals 
 brought to the priests for sacrifice. It has always 
 seemed to me, as to the great majority of commentators 
 on this passage, that the "laying on of hands" might 
 and ought, much more naturally and correctly, be re- 
 ferred to the laying on of hands by the apostles, 
 mentioned in Acts, viii : 17 : " Then laid they their 
 hjinds on them, and they received the Holy Ghost;" 
 chap., xix: 6 : "And when Paul had laid his hands 
 upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and they 
 spake with tongues, and prophesied;" and several 
 other places in the New Testament. And the doctrine 
 " of eternal judgment," too, my friend would make 
 one of the principles of the Mosaic law. I would ask 
 any unprejudiced reader, is that the idea one would 
 
104 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 naturally receive upon the perusal of this passage ? 
 Does it appear to have been the idea that Felix re- 
 ceived, when Paul reasoned before him of "judgment 
 to come ?" It evidently had its desired effect in stir- 
 ring up the hard heart of that wicked man. It is difficult 
 for us to understand that Felix could have been thus 
 moved by a reference to the principles of the Jewish law. 
 I repeat, I never heard such a disposition made of this 
 passage before. It is doubtful in my mind whether 
 my friend can find any commentator of any authority 
 that places these things all back under the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation. I doubt whether many ministers can be 
 found, even in his own fraternity, to indorse this dis- 
 position of them. I am aware that Macknight refers 
 a part of them to the Jewish economy, but not the 
 lohole; and were we to refer baptism to the Mosaic 
 dispensation, and not the other principles mentioned, 
 then we would have the principles of Christianity 
 without baptism; and that my friend would not accept, 
 unless there has been a vast chanoje amono; our dis- 
 ciple brethren from what Alexander Campbell and 
 other disciples of former years believed and taught. 
 The principles of Christianity without baptism ? No. 
 It will not do. Baptism can not be taken out, and the 
 rest remain as the principles of the doctrine of Christ. 
 My friend sees that this would never do ; so he dis- 
 poses at once of the whole matter by putting them all 
 away under the former dispensation. I can not accept 
 of this disposition — not until much more light has 
 been throvvn upon the matter. Consequently, I still 
 insist, we have immersions alluded to by Paul as con- 
 tained in Christian baptism. 
 
 My friend, in the conclusion of his speech, gave us 
 an illustration with which he endeavored to support 
 his idea that one action only is necessary to introduce 
 the believer into the three names — the Father, the Son, 
 and the. Holy Spirit. He imagines an association with 
 
MR. quintek's skventii audkkss. 105 
 
 several officers, and tells us it is not necessary to sign 
 our names several times in order to become members 
 of the association. That is true; but the difficulty is, 
 the cases are not exactly analogous. The case of a 
 banking association would be a more correct illustra- 
 tion. On our bank bills, the names of the president 
 and cashier must both be inscribed in order to make 
 the bills current. So with this association of believers, 
 in some respects : the names of each of these divine 
 characters must be put upon us, separately, when we 
 are brought into them. That this is the more appro- 
 priate, I will show by a reference to Revelations, chap, 
 xiv : verse 1 (reading from Mr. Anderson's transla- 
 tion) : " And I saw, and behold the Lamb stood on 
 Mount Sion, and with him a hundred and forty and 
 four thousand, that had his name and his Father's 
 name written in their foreheads." Here are two of 
 the names, set forth with the most emphatic distinct- 
 ness, representing two of the characters into which we 
 are baptized. We find this distinction set forth and 
 insisted upon in the Scripture, in places innumerable — 
 I had almost said, I presume I could talk upon this 
 subject with my friend for hours, and I could find 
 matter to present on my side of the subject, favoring 
 a distinction in the three divine characters, as long as 
 he could on his. But I think it is not necessary ; I fear 
 it would only weary the patience of the audience ; 
 and I wish to dispose of this subject as briefly as pos- 
 sible and do it justice. 
 
 My friend read a long grammatical analysis of the 
 commission. I hope you will excuse me for not pay- 
 ing much attention to it. The fact is, I did not under- 
 stand it very well — and I do not think the audience 
 did. 1 do not know why he could not read it a little 
 more intelligibly to us. 
 
 But since he seemed pretty well pleased with ray 
 authority, I will read again from the same authc 
 
106 DEBATE ON TRINE IiMMERSION. 
 
 Latham, in his '' Hand-book of the English Language," 
 says : " However compendious may be the expres- 
 sion, there are always two propositions where there is 
 one conjunction." [P. 357]. Now, in the last clause 
 of the commission there are two conjunctions, and 
 consequently there must be three propositions in all. 
 Then, to express the commission as my friend would 
 read it — " Baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the 
 Holy Spirit" — would not satisfy the demands of the 
 case. ''In the name of the Son" is not a proposi- 
 tion — it is only the last part of one. So with " in 
 the name of the Holy Spirit." " Baptizing them in 
 the name of the Son," and "baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father," and " baptizing them in the 
 name of the Holy Spirit" — there are the three propo- 
 sitions which belong to the sentence in its complete 
 and correct grammatical construction, and nothing 
 less will do ; for " there are always two propositions 
 where there is one conjunction." 
 
 My friend called your attention to the expression 
 of Paul (Ephesians, iv : 5), "One Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism ;" claiming that this contradicted the idea of 
 trine immersion. But when this passage is alluded to by 
 writers when they have not some favorite doctrine to 
 sustain, it is never claimed to refer to the mode of im- 
 mersion. I have noticed a number of articles \Yritten 
 by our disciple brethren, when the baptismal contro- 
 versy was not in question, and they made no reference to 
 the mode. Indeed, they take the very ground I now 
 take, and peremptorily deny that the apostle had any 
 reference whatever to the mode of baptism. In a recent 
 number of the Chrisiian Standard^ is an able article 
 in response to a previous article by another corre- 
 spondent, in reference to the very text cited by my 
 friend, an extract from which I will read. (I find it 
 quoted in the Gospel Visfor for September, 18G7.) 
 
MK. QUINTKll's SEVKNTH ADDKKaS. 107 
 
 The writer in the Sfandard says: 
 
 ''It [tlie text, Epli., iv : 4, 6,] has been used as an 
 argument — 
 
 " I. Against sprinkling and pouring, as baptism. 
 
 " II. Against trine immersion (immersing three 
 times). 
 
 " III. Against Avater baptism. 
 
 *'No\v, it is not possible that the apostle has given 
 a three-fold argument in one expression, to be used 
 by different chirsses of persons at pleasure, in order to 
 exclude a particular doctrine ; we must hence conclude 
 that some of the applications of his expression are 
 foreign from his design. To determine the meaning 
 and correct use of Paul's words, we must inquire into 
 his design. What is his argument'^ We may some- 
 times, properly, apply Paul's words, to another sub- 
 ject, and in a different manner, from what he in- 
 tended, but in that case it would not be PauVs argu- 
 ment. We do not, then, want to inquire in what way 
 the words may be applied, but how does Paul apply 
 them ? What is hU argument f 
 
 " I. Was he arguing against sprinkling and pour- 
 ing as baptism? 
 
 " The universal response must be negative. The 
 sprinkler must say no, or abandon sprinkling. The 
 immersionist says no ; for sprinkling and pouring were 
 not at that time practiced as baptism. * * 
 
 " II. Was he arguing against re-immersion, or trine 
 immersion ? 
 
 " As in the former case, the universal response is 
 negative. The believers in trine immersion must say 
 no, for they believe it taught by the Saviour and the 
 apostles, and Paul would not oppose them. Those 
 who reject trine immersion must say no, for they do 
 not believe it taught or practiced in the apostolic age, 
 and Paul would not be opposing a nonentity. It is 
 hardly admissible to suppose he anticipated an error. 
 
108 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 " III. Did Paul use the expression ^ one baptism ' 
 in opposition to ' water-baptism ?' 
 
 " Again the response is negative. For in that case 
 he would have opposed the other apostles who bap- 
 tized in Avater. Nor could he have used it to exclude 
 the baptism of the Spirit, for this also existed, and on 
 two special occasions had thus been denominated. 
 
 " Without further arguing the question negatively, 
 I will state a more general negative conclusion, which 
 will enable us to dispel the sophistry that has so long 
 beclouded the subject, viz : Paul makes no allusion 
 to any error in theory or "practice on the subject of hap- 
 tism at all. Baptism is incidentally brought in with 
 six other items as an argument, and the word ' one ' 
 connected with it has the same force in the argument 
 that it has with the word ' body,' or the word ' Lord.' 
 The 'one baptism' can no more be quoted with 
 Paul's sanction to disprove an error in baptism than 
 the ' one body ' or the ' one Lord.' 
 
 *' What, then, is Paul opposing ? Division, separation 
 into parties or sects. He exhorts the brethren ' to keep 
 the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace.' ' En- 
 deavor,' try hard, strive earnestly to keep, preserve or 
 maintain that unity or oneness which God ' purposed 
 in Christ Jesus our Lord, from the beginning of the 
 ■world.' ' Bear with one ayiother^^ continue together in 
 peace, harmony and love, as persons who are taught 
 by the same Holy Spirit. 
 
 " ' But we have trouble ; we can 't agree, and our 
 feelings will be continually harassed by our remaining 
 together, and we petition thee, 0, Paul, for a separa- 
 tion of the parties, forming two churches, the Jewish 
 converts constituting one, and the Gentile converts 
 the other. We beseech thee, 0, Paul, to grant us this, 
 our petition, so we can live in peace.' 
 
 " ' Dear brethren, your petition is vain ; it is impos- 
 
MR. QUrNTKR'S SEVKNTII ADDRESS. 109 
 
 sible for me to grant it. It is contrary to the revela- 
 tion by wliieli God has made known to me the mystery 
 which in former ages was not made known to tlie sons 
 of men. That revehition is this : God predetermined 
 to break down the mi(hlle wall of partition between 
 Jews an<l Gentiles, and reconcile them both to God in 
 one body ; make them both one, fellow-heirs, members 
 of the same body or church. I can not consent, 
 therefore, to a division of the church, as it would only 
 be rebuilding the middle wall of partition which has 
 been torn down. * * * jj^t ^yi^y .^^^\^ foi- a 
 separation ? Better, by far, adjust your difficulties on 
 the earth, if you expect to sit down together in heaven. 
 Are you not all striving for the same place? You all 
 have one hope, and are all taught by one Spirit which 
 animates the one body. It is unreasonable to sup- 
 pose that the same spirit would give two systems of 
 instruction or inhabit two bodies. But again, there 
 is but one Jesus Christ, one Saviour who is constituted 
 the ' one Lord.' He is the head of the one body, 
 our only King, Ruler and Lawgiver, in whom we all 
 have confidence, and hence we all possess one and the 
 same faith. Not only so, but our Lawgiver has given 
 us but one ordinance of baptism to which we all must 
 submit, Jew and Gentile alike, for there is no differ- 
 ence. The same baptism that Peter enjoined upon 
 the Jews at the beginning, and also enjoined upon the 
 Gentiles at the house of Cornelius. There is, then, 
 but one baptism for you both. Besides all this, there 
 is but one God who is the ultimate author of the whole 
 system or plan of salvation.' 
 
 '* Such is my conception of PauVs argument. The 
 only legitimate use of it is to oppose division; either 
 to prevent a division not yet consummated, as in the 
 case of the Church at Ephesus, or to effect a union 
 after a division is once made in violation of the teach- 
 ings of the Holy Spirit." 
 
110 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 Such is tlie position in reference to this text, taken 
 by a member of my friend McConnell's own church. 
 And it must be evident to every careful reader that 
 the word " baptisma" is used in the text in reference 
 to the ordinance, and not to the mode of performing 
 it. The fact that the word "baptisma" represents a 
 three-fold act, does not militate against my position. 
 Supposing trine immersion to have been the invariable 
 mode of baptizing previous to the time when Paul 
 w^rote this letter, might he not have said with the 
 utmost propriety, " we have one Lord, one faith, one 
 haptisma'^ — one "immersion?" Even if that immer- 
 sion had been made up of three actions ? three " im- 
 mersions," if you please ? " Three immersions in 
 one immersion !" exclaims my friend, " why, that is 
 nonsense !" It may sound strange at first, but it will 
 not after we have familiarized ourselves with the ideas 
 and the language of the apostles upon this subject. 
 
 Among the unities here mentioned (verse 4), we 
 are told by the apostle that there is " one Spirit ;" but 
 in Revelations, i; 4, we have seven Spirits. This we 
 understand to be the one Spirit under seven different 
 aspects ; because seven is a sacred number, as three 
 and perhaps some other numbers are — expressive of 
 fullness, completeness, perfection. The Spirit divides 
 itself into gifts and graces, so as to adapt itself to the 
 wants of the members of the Christian Church every- 
 where. Then there is "one body," which means " one 
 church." In Revelations, i : 4, already referred to, 
 John writes to the seven churches ; how many other 
 churches there were we do not know — perhaps many 
 more; yet all these constituted the 07ie church of 
 Christ. You can comprehend that seven spirits are 
 one spirit ; that seven churches are one church : then 
 why is it deemed so strange a thought that there may 
 be three immersions in one immersion ? that three 
 immersions — one into the name of the Father, and 
 
MR. quintek's seventh address. Ill 
 
 one into tlie name of the Son, and one into the name 
 of tlie Holy Spirit — may constitute one ordinance of 
 baptism for all, for Jew and Gentile, for circumcised 
 and uncircumcised, for penitent sinners everywhere 
 and at any time, that desire to avail themselves of the 
 saving riches of Jesus Christ? Thus we look at this 
 matter ; thus we practically apply it ; and thus we 
 make what I honestly believe to be a fair and proper 
 disposition of the text under consideration. 
 
 YII. Mij sevcnih argument in heliaJf of trine im- 
 mersion is founded on the historic fact that the single 
 immersion was introduced some considerable time after 
 the apostolic age; making trine immersion the older 
 mode of immersion^ and the apostolic mode. 
 
 History says that the single immersion was intro- 
 duced by Eunomius in the fourth century. Theodoret 
 says : " He [Eunomius] subverted the law of holy bap- 
 tism, which had been handed down from the beginning 
 from the Lord and the apostles, asserting that it is not 
 necessary to immerse the candidate for baptism thrice, 
 nor to mention the names of the trinity, but to im- 
 merse once only into the death of Christ." [Chrystal's 
 History of the Modes of Baptism, p. 78.] 
 
 Sozomen has the following in reference to Eunomius : 
 *' Some say that this Eunomius was the first who dared 
 to bring forward the notion that the divine baptism 
 ought to be administered by a single immersion, and 
 to corrupt the tradition which has been handed down 
 from the apostles, and which is still observed by all 
 (or, among all)." [Ibid, p. 78.] 
 
 Bingham says: "And the Eunomians, who first 
 rejected this [trine immersion], are condemned by 
 Theodoret and Sozomen, as making a new law of bap- 
 tizing, not only against the general practice, but against 
 the general rule and tradition of the church. An- 
 tiquities of the Christian Church, Book XI, chap, xi.] 
 
112 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 History tells us that single immersion originated 
 under the following circumstances : As the Arians 
 in Spain practiced trine immersion, some of the general 
 church, who held other views of the trinity from what 
 the Arians did, were fearful lest, if their mode of bap- 
 tism w^as like that of the Arians, it would be inferred 
 that their s^iews of the trinit^^ were also like those of 
 the Arians. They therefore wrote to Gregory the 
 Great, at Rome, about the matter, and he advised that if 
 their trine immersion might lead any to think that their 
 views of the trinity were like those of the Arians, they 
 should change their mode of immersion, and adopt the 
 single immersion, in order to be different from the 
 Arians. This was the weak reason given for a change 
 from the trine to the single immersion, in Spain. And 
 this was the first sanction given by any in authority 
 in the Catholic Church to the single immersion. The 
 adoption of the single immersion in Spain gave much 
 dissatisfaction ; and the fourth council of Toledo, about 
 the year 633, was called upon to settle the difficulty 
 which had arisen in the church from baptism being 
 performed by the single and by trine immersion. This 
 council approved of Gregory's advice, and was the first 
 council that sanctioned the single immersion. Bingham 
 says : " Some learned men [meaning Strabo and 
 Yossius] find fault with this council for changing this 
 ancient custom upon so slight a reason as that the 
 Arians used it; which, if it were any reason, would 
 hold as well against the single immersion, because the 
 Eunomians, a baser sect of the Arians, were the first 
 inventors of that practice. And therefore the ex- 
 ception made by this Spanish council in the seventh 
 century can not prejudice the more ancient and 
 general practice of the church, which, as Strabo 
 observed, still prevailed after this council."' [Anti- 
 quities of the Christian Church, Book- XI, chap, xi.] 
 
 Theodorct, whose testimony I have read above, was 
 
MR. QIJINTKU'S fEVEXTlI ADDRESS. 113 
 
 a writer of the early part of the fifth century, liaving 
 been born in 387. Sozomen also belongs early in the 
 fifth century. Strabo belongs in the eiglith century. 
 The date when the Eunomians introduced single im- 
 mersion into Spain was about the fourth century. 
 
 My friend has endeavored to associate trine immer- 
 sion with sprinkling, stating that they arose about the 
 same time. 1 have, upon good historical authority, 
 traced trine immersion beyond Tertullian ; and here I 
 have found the origin of single immersion, very nearly 
 at the time when sprinkling was introduced. We will 
 see what our friend can do toward separating them, 
 as they seem to have originated about the same time. 
 We deem them both to be the inventions of men, equally 
 unauthorized by the command of Christ or the example 
 of the apostles. 
 
 VIII. My eighth argument in helialf of trine immersion 
 is that tvhen the single immersion zvas introduced, those 
 who used it baptized their candidates into the death of 
 Christ, or into the name of Christ, and not into the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The fiftieth of the Apostolic Canons declares — but 
 before quoting from them I will say, the origin of the 
 Apostolic Canons is, I know, an unsettled question. 
 But all the authorities give them an ancient oriorin. 
 
 They consist of a series of laws, or rules, eighty-five 
 in number, and are usually attributed (as their name 
 imports) to the apostles. But while many of the doc- 
 trines contained in these canons are in perfect harmony 
 with those taught by the apostles, the evidence to prove 
 them of apostolic origin does not seem to be satisfactory. 
 They were probably collected by Clement, bishop of 
 Rome, in the third century. This is the conclusion of 
 some learned men who have searched profoundly into 
 their date and origin. They describe many of the doc- 
 trines and rites of the church in the second and third 
 8 
 
114 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 centuries, and are of great value in giving us a knowl- 
 edge of these at that early period of the church. The fif- 
 tieth canon, in Whiston's translation, reads as folio ^Ys : 
 
 ''If any bishop or presbyter do not perform three 
 immersions of one initiation, but one immersion which 
 is given into the death of Christ, let him be deposed : 
 for the Lord did not say, ' Baptize into my death ;' but, 
 ^Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing 
 them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost.' Do ye, therefore, bishops, im- 
 merse thrice — into one Father, and Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, according to the will of Christ by the Spirit." 
 
 Pelagius, bishop of Rome, in the sixth century, 
 says : " There are many who say that they baptize in 
 the name of Christ alone, and by a single immersion. 
 But the gospel command, which was given by God 
 himself, and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, re- 
 minds us that we should administer holy baptism to 
 every one in the name of the trinity, and by trine im- 
 mersion : for our Lord said to his diciples, ' Go, baptize 
 all nations into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost.' '^ 
 
 Now, as there was a change in the number of im- 
 mersions when there was a change in the words 
 used in administering baptism, and as the single im- 
 mersion when it was introduced was administered into 
 the death of Christ, and not into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, this 
 shows that it was thought that the single immersion 
 would not correspond Avith the formula requiring bap- 
 tism to be administered " into the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 These are testimonies gathered from history ; and 
 I know not how my friend will meet them. I want to 
 have them disposed of. I think they are worthy of 
 consideration. My friend may try to make you think 
 they amount to little ; but you see the prominency 
 
MR. m"cONNKLL\s SKVKNTH ADDRESS. 115 
 
 that is p;iveii tlio liistoric argument by Prof. Stuart, 
 and quote(i by Mr. Campbell as expressive of his 
 views upon that point. Prof. Stuart says, you will 
 recollect, that if there remain any doubts in the mind 
 as to what is the proper mode of baptism, whicli can 
 not be cleared away by an analysis of the word, or 
 an examination of the circumstances connected with 
 baptizing as recorded in Scripture, a study of history 
 will remove every doubt from the mind. I have pre- 
 sented these historical facts for your consideration; 
 and I think it is proper and just that my opponent 
 should let us hear from history its testimony, if it has 
 any testimony, in favor of single immersion. \_Time 
 expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S SEVENTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I will commence where 
 my friend closed, and notice some things he said. 
 He proposed to show you the precise time when single 
 immersion was introduced, and then brought the 
 Apostolic Canons as proof. In the same breath he 
 said the Apostolic Canons were of doubtful origin — 
 their authorship was an unsettled question. Mosheim 
 not only says the same, but goes further and de- 
 nounces them as a forgery. In referring to the wri- 
 tings of Clement, bishop of Rome, this eminent his- 
 torian says : " The Apostolic Canons, the Apostolic 
 Constitutions, the Recognitions of Clement,, and the 
 Clementina, were fraudulently ascribed to this eminent 
 Father by some deceiver, for the purpose of procuring 
 them greater authority. This is all now conceded." 
 (Century I, Part II, chap, ii, sec. 19.) Again : "This 
 vicious inclination to circumvent and confound an ad- 
 versary rather than confute him with sound argument, 
 produced also a multiplicity of books bearing on their 
 fronts the names of certain distinguished men. Hence 
 
116 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 these canons, which were falsely ascribed to the 
 apostles." (Century III, !Part 11, chap, iii, sec. 11.) 
 Well, my friend brings up these to prove the origin 
 of single immersion, and in order to do it, reads there- 
 from this singular remark : " Do you, bishops, bap- 
 tize thrice f^'' It is not the first time a man has gone 
 searching after one thing and found another ; but I 
 must acknowledge he has done better than I supposed 
 he could — much better. I had no expectation that 
 he could find a positive command am/where for trine 
 immersion. However, he has found it, at last, in the 
 Apostolic Canons ; but he prefaced it with the remark 
 that these were spurious ! ! 
 
 He introduced some other authors, with whom he 
 endeavored to fill up that ugly gap between Tertullian 
 and the commission, endeavoring to prove that trine 
 immersion existed in the first century, while single 
 immersion was an invention of later date. But whom 
 did he quote on that subject? Why, Theodoret, in 
 the fifth century, and Sozomen, somewhat later, and 
 perhaps others ; but all far this side of Tertullian. I 
 will not deny that later Avriters may have made asser- 
 tions that trine immersion existed before Tertullian ; 
 but no writer who lived earlier than Tertullian has 
 mentioned trine immersion. 
 
 This forenoon, in his concluding speech, my friend 
 insisted that he had proved the existence of trine im- 
 mersion in the first century, by the evidence of Vos- 
 Bius. " Vossius," said he, " traces trine immersion 
 back to the first century ; states it to have been the 
 practice of the church in the first century." And 
 with quite an air of triumph he called you ail to wit- 
 ness that he had filled up the gap between Tertullian 
 and the apostles. I should not wonder if some of you. 
 thought he had done it. But I ask — Did Vossius live 
 in the first century ? No — not till the sixteenth cen- 
 tury. Then how docs he trace it back? Does he 
 
MR. m'CONNELL'S seventh ADDRESS 117 
 
 cite the language or the practice of any man who lived 
 at that time? No, indeed. Then we have only his 
 own bare assertion, unsupported by a single word or 
 fact, in evidence. I would as soon accept my friend's 
 unsupported assertion in evidence as that of Vossius. 
 I have no doubt he thinJcs he traces trine immersion 
 back to the apostolic age, or that he does so satisfac- 
 torily to himself; but there are a thousand errors 
 afloat in the Christian world, which their adherents 
 believe can be traced back to apostolic times. We 
 want something more conclusive than that, in this in- 
 vestigation. I tell my friend that his filling is of 
 straw ; it has taken fire and been consumed, or has 
 been washed away by single immersion. The gap is 
 still open. 
 
 My friend eulogized the power of history to clear 
 up any doubt that might exist in regard to the inter- 
 pretation of Scripture. I grant that we may appeal 
 to history to clear up many doubts. But history can 
 not settle a disputed point in reference to a practice 
 which obtained at a time to which the history of the 
 subject does not reach. The history of the fourth 
 century is competent to prove that trine immersion 
 existed in the fourth century; the existence of trine 
 immersion in the first century must be proved by the 
 history of the first century, and not of the fourth, or 
 fifth, or sixteenth. My friend has no history of trine 
 immersion in the first century ; or if he has, he has 
 not produced it here. 
 
 My friend quotes against me from a writer in the 
 Christian Standard; he proposes to silence me by it, 
 because that writer is one of my brethren. I know 
 not who the writer is from whom he quotes ; he may 
 be a trine immersionist, for aught I know. I am not 
 prepared to surrender my opinions or arguments at a 
 quotation from a stranger, whose very name I do not 
 know. Besides, my friend's deductions from the po- 
 
118 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 sition taken in the article read by him, are by no 
 raeans legitimate. He says hapiisma is unquestion- 
 ably used in reference to the ordinance, and not to the 
 mode of performing it. But the difficulty is, Paul did 
 not say, '^ one ordinance,'^ but " one immersion." The 
 word "ordinance" is not in the text; that is an in- 
 terpolation by ray friend. 
 
 My friend appears much surprised at the position I 
 took in ans^Yer to his argument in favor of divers 
 immersions, in the sixth of Hebrews. He doubts 
 whether I can find a respectable commentator who 
 refers " the doctrine of baptisms" back to the Mosaic 
 dispensation. I solemnly aver that I quoted Mac- 
 knight correctly ; and I ask if Macknight is not a 
 a respectable commentator ? Matthew Henry also re- 
 fers that passage to the former dispensation ; and I 
 ask if Matthew Henry is not a respectable commenta- 
 tor ? If Matthew Henry and Macknight are not 
 respectable commentators, where shall we find re- 
 spectable commentators — outside of trine immersion- 
 ists? And if no commentator had said it, it would 
 make no diiference at all with me. But my op'ponent 
 attempts to intimidate my brethren here, and perhaps 
 to intimidate me, by saying that none of my brethren 
 abroad Avill indorse my exposition of that passage. I 
 will acknowledge that I have not been to consult 
 Alexander Campbell, nor any of my brethren, in re- 
 gard to their ideas upon the subject. I went to the 
 record myself, examined the passage for myself, in its 
 proper connection; searched the epistle itself to dis- 
 cover the purpose of the apostle in writing it; found 
 it to be an endeavor of Paul to dissuade the converted 
 Jews from going back to eTudaisin, or clinging with 
 undue tenacity to the Mosaic ceremonies ; and in the 
 miilst of his argument I find "the doctrine of bap- 
 tisms" set down as one of the things that he exhorts 
 them to " leave," while they " go on to perfection." 
 
MR. m'cONNELL's seventh ADDRESS. 119 
 
 In this connection my friend referred to Mr. An- 
 derson, and rather seemed to indorse his translation 
 of this passage — 'M)mitting, therefore, the elemen- 
 tary Cliristian teachings," etc. Now, where do we 
 find '* the elementary Christian teachings ? " I answer, 
 and challenge contratliction, that every element of the 
 Christian doctrine is in the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 Whether it be immersions or the imposition of hands, 
 repentance or faith, the resurrection of the dead or 
 eternal judgment, search the Law, the Prophets, the 
 Psalms, and you will find them all there, more or less 
 plainly told or prefigured, in types and shadows, in 
 rites and ceremonies, in declarations and commands. 
 
 But my friend says, the resurrection of the dead 
 can not be taught in the Old Testament Scriptures — 
 for there were the Sadducees, they had the Old Testa- 
 ment, and yet did not believe in the resurrection of the 
 dead. Well, in this day, there are the Quakers — I 
 mean no reflection upon them, for they are among the 
 most honest and excellent people on the face of the 
 earth — but the Quakers do not believe in the resur- 
 rection of the dead; and, therefo-re, according to my 
 friend's logic, the resurrection af the dead can not be 
 a Bible doctrine. But we believe that, notwithstand- 
 ing the Quakers, the resurrection of the dead is taught 
 in the Bible ; and that, notwithstanding the Sadducees, 
 it is prefigured in the Old Testament Scriptures. So, 
 we claim that our position in reference to the " prin- 
 ciples of Christ," mentioned in the sixth chapter of 
 Hebrews, still stands intact; and that the ''doctrine 
 of immersions" mentioned by Paul, are classed with 
 the "divers washings" and carnal ordinances else- 
 where alluded to by the same apostle. 
 
 I have already illustrated baptism by the case of a 
 man who, by a single oath of allegiance, becomes at 
 once a citizen of the United States, of the State of Iowa, 
 and of the municipality in which he lives. My friend 
 
120 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 says the cases are not analogous. I ask, why not ? Con- 
 siderable has been said about commentators here, and 
 I would not ignore them; for they are useful, when a 
 proper use is made of them. But I claim that the 
 apostles themselves are the best commentators on the 
 commission. And the apostle I^aul repeatedly makes 
 use of this very figure or comparison. Ephesians ii : 
 19 : '^ Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and 
 foreAgners^ but felloiv citizens ivith the saints^ and of 
 the household of God." Again, Colossians, i : 13, 14 : 
 *' Giving thanks unto the Father," etc., " who hath 
 translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.'' This 
 I couple with our Saviour's assertion (John, iii : 5): 
 *' Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 can not enter into the kingdom of God." This is under- 
 stood — at least, I understand it — to have reference to 
 baptism ; if questioned by my friend, I will meet him 
 upon that point. The position is, that by being born 
 of water we enter the kingdom of God ; by baptism, we 
 are translated into the kingdom of Christ, and become 
 fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of 
 God. Now, when a man becomes a citizen of the 
 United States, is it true that he must take three oaths 
 of allegiance — one to make him a citizen of the United 
 States, a second to make him a citizen of the State, 
 and a third to make him a citizen of the municipality 
 in which he resides ? The municipality, the State, 
 and the United States, are associated together in one 
 grand unity ; so that one oath of allegiance natural- 
 izes a man into all ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, are associated together in one divine unity, so 
 that one translation into the king<lom of Jesus Ciirist 
 translates the believer into all. It does not need 
 three to consummate the work. 
 
 Again: The Holy Scriptures call our attention to 
 three kingdoms — the kingdom of nature, the kingdom 
 of grace, and the kingdom of glory. Now, these 
 
MR. m'CONNELl's seventh ADDRESS. 121 
 
 kingdoms must each be entered bj a birth : the king- 
 dom of nature "\ve enter by a birth of tlie flesh ; the 
 kingdom of grace, by a birth of the spirit; the king- 
 dom of glory, by the resurrection from the grave. 
 Tlie birth of the spirit is symbolized by the ordin;ince 
 of baptism, nhich also is a type of the resurrection ; 
 and in baptism my friend contends for three immer- 
 sions — three births. Would he also contend that 
 three births of the llesh are necessary in order to enter 
 the kingdom of nature ? and three resurrections from 
 the dead, to enter the kingdom of glory? yet such 
 must be the case, or the figure which our Saviour used 
 when he said, "Ye must be born again," of water and 
 of the Spirit, w^as not a fitting one for the purpose to 
 which he applied it. 
 
 I will now submit another argument for my friend's 
 consideration. Paul, in his letter to Titus, iii : 5, calls 
 baptism " the washing of regeneration." Not " wash- 
 ings," you will observe. But my friend may insist 
 that in this one washing there are //iree washings. If 
 so, then there ought to be three regenerations ; other- 
 wise, there will be two washings without any regene- 
 rations connected with them. But we read nowhere 
 of more than one regeneration. Now, will my friend 
 inform us which of the three washings he gives his 
 candidates for baptism, is "the washing of regenera- 
 tion?" and also what kind of washings the other two 
 are? and what purpose they serve? Under the law, 
 indeed, there were (Heb. ix : 10) " divers washings," 
 and other " carnal ordinances, imposed until the time 
 of reformation ; but Christ being come, a high priest 
 of good things to come," has done away with all these 
 things, and henceforth we live, in him (Heb. vii : ID), 
 " not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after 
 the power of an endless life." Now, does my friend 
 desire to go back to the " divers washings" of the 
 Jewish dispensation, and subject himself to the fear- 
 
122 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 ful denunciations, that were launched by the apostle 
 against the apostatizing Hebrews ? 
 
 There is another argument which seems to me to be 
 applicable to this question. I refer you to Romans, 
 vi : 17, which I will read, according to Macknight's 
 translation: "God be thanked, that though ye were 
 the servants of sin, ye have obeyed from the heart 
 that {paredothete tupon didachas) mould of doctrine 
 into which ye were delivered." The original word, 
 tupos, says Macknight, among other things, signifies 
 a mould, into which melted metals are poured, to re- 
 ceive the form of the pattern after which the mould 
 has been made. Now, what is the doctrine ? I an- 
 swer, the death, burial, and resurrection, of Christ. 
 What is the mould? Baptism. See verses three and 
 four of the same chapter: "Are ye ignorant that so 
 many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were bap- 
 tized into his death ? Besides, we have been buried with 
 him by baptism into his death, that like as Christ w^as 
 raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
 even so we also should walk in newness of life." I 
 have given you Macknight's translation ; his comment 
 upon the passage is as follows : " Ye have willingly 
 obeyed the mould of doctrine into which ye were cast 
 at your baptism." Now, the attentive listener can 
 not have failed to observe that the word " mould" is 
 in the singular number; there is, therefore, but one 
 mould; and that is, immersion. My friend contends 
 for three moulds — three immersions. Now, the metal 
 must be melted before it can be cast into the mould. 
 Suppose, then, that my friend takes a candidate for 
 baptism to the water, all melted down with contrition 
 of heart, like the heated metal, and casts him into the 
 mould — that is, immerses him, in the name of the 
 Father. He raises him up, and takes him out of the 
 mould ; now, must he not cool him oif, and melt him 
 again, before he can cast him a second time? And if 
 
MR. m'connell's seventh address. 123 
 
 he melts liim a second time, of wliat use was his first 
 casting ? Certainly none at all ; for when metal, after 
 having once been cast into the mould, is again melted, 
 it assumes the same form it had when first melted; 
 and a third melting has the same effect. There is, how- 
 ever, this result: every time the metal is melted, it is 
 thereby rendered harder. The apostle's language in 
 this passage is evidently borrowed from the art of cast- 
 ing metals in moulds to make them like the pattern 
 from which the moulds are made. Now, who ever heard 
 of a moulder, who wished to make an article like a pat- 
 tern given, making three moulds ; and, pouring his 
 metal into one of these moulds, when it had assumed 
 the form he desired, taking it out, melting it over 
 again, and re-casting it ; and when it had again hard- 
 ened into the desired shape, melting a third time, and 
 repeating the operation yet again ? Yet the practice of 
 my Tonker friends is parallel with this, in their bap- 
 tism by trine immersion. 
 
 Again : In I Peter, iii : 20, 21, the salvation of 
 Noah and his family by the flood is referred to, and 
 we are informed that " the like figure whereunto, even 
 baptism, doth also now save us." Now, in this type 
 of baptism we have one ark, one flood, oqe entering 
 in, one salvation, clearly set forth. In baptism, as 
 performed in the manner for which we contend, the 
 analogy is complete ; we have one church, one immer- 
 sion, one entering in, one salvation. To conform to 
 the idea of trine immersion, there should have been 
 three arks, three floods, three enterings in, three out- 
 ridings of the flood. With three immersions, there is 
 no analogy between type and anti-type. 
 
 Again : In Ramans, vi : 3, and Colossians, ii : 12, 
 baptism is compared to a burial ; the believer is rep- 
 resented as being " buried with Christ in baptisui." 
 But whom dowe bury ? I answer, those who are 
 dead. And when raised from the water, the believer 
 
124 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 is represented as being made alive with Christ, " in the 
 likeness of his resurrection." Now, baptism symbol- 
 izing death, burial, and resurrection — what idea is con- 
 veyed by my friend's |)ractice of trine immersion ? 
 He immerses — buries — his candidate once. He raises 
 him up — but does the subject come up a living man? 
 or is he still dead? Is the raising of dead men such 
 a resurrection as the Scriptures promise? According 
 to the apostle, the believer, after immersion, is not 
 raised, being yet dead, but, being risen with Christ, 
 is " raised from the dead" — " that like as Christ was 
 raised from the dead, even so we also should walk in 
 newness of life." Now, if you immerse him again, 
 you must either kill him, or bury him alive — either of 
 which would be most cruel. And so, also, with the 
 third immersion. But the apostle contradicts all this ; 
 for he says (Romans, vi : 10), after showing that we 
 are buried in baptism in the likeness of Christ's death, 
 and raised in the likeness of his resurrection, " For in 
 that he died, he died unto sin once;" and "in that he 
 liveth, he liveth unto God." \_Time expired. 
 
 [MB. QUINTER'S EIGHTH ADDRESS] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — In resuming my argu- 
 ment, I will first remark that it seems there was quite 
 a misapprehension, on the part of my friend, in ref- 
 erence to what I said in my last speech concerning 
 the Apostolic Canons, and the purpose for which I 
 made the quotations from them that I did. I did not rely 
 upon them at all to prove the origin of single immer- 
 sion. Upon that point I quoted Theodoret, and 
 Sozomen, and others, showing that the single immer- 
 sion originated with the Eunomians. I then left that 
 branch of the subject, and proceeded with another 
 argument, to show that when the single immersion was 
 
MR. QUINTEK's KIGIITII ADDRESS. 125 
 
 introduced, those who used it changed not only the 
 inetliod but the hmguage used — baptizing into the 
 death of Christ, instead of into the name of the Father, 
 and of tlie Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And here I 
 introduced the Apostolic Canons ; and I still contend 
 they were proper evidence to introduce ; for, however 
 spurious they may be, however doubtful their origin, 
 they are certainly competent to prove that, whenever 
 and by whomsoever written, the practice of baptizing 
 into the death of Christ did then exist, or it could not 
 have been referred to in any way. And also that the 
 change in the mode of baptism was accompanied by a 
 change in the words used in connection with the ordi- 
 nance — thus indicatinor that the sinsjle immersion was 
 not deemed compatible with the language of the bap- 
 tismal formula given by our Saviour. But my friend 
 appears to have misunderstood me, and I have not 
 heard any direct reply at all to that argument. 
 
 Then there was one point upon which it seems I 
 misunderstood him, and I ask his pardon if I misrepre- 
 sented him. That was, in reference to Macknight and 
 others Nvho, he asserts, consider " the principles of 
 Christ" spoken of in the sixth of Hebrews, to belong 
 under the old dispensation. I knew that some com- 
 mentators placed a part of the doctrines mentioned in 
 the list back under the Mosaic economy, but was not 
 aware that any commentator placed them all there. I 
 can only say, then, so far as Macknight and the others 
 he mentions are concerned, I was mistaken in relation 
 to their view of the passage ; I accept my friend's 
 statement of their position, but I reject the idea, 
 nevertheless. 
 
 In reference to Anderson's translation of this pas- 
 sage, " Omitting, therefore, the elementary Christian 
 teachings," etc., I can not accept my friend's interpre- 
 tation. I still claim that the idea of Christian teach- 
 
126 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 ings refers to the teachings of Christianity in the age 
 in which the apostle wrote. 
 
 In regard to filling up that gap, that my friend is so 
 troubled about : We have not, it is true, the direct 
 testimony of men living between Tertullian and the 
 apostles as to the mode of immersion then practiced. 
 But the historians seem to have had access to authori- 
 ties which we have not, at our distance of time from 
 that age ; and they assert trine immersion to have 
 been the prevailing mode. Mosheim says, immersion 
 was the practice in the first century, and for authority 
 refers us to Vossius; we go to Vossius, to see what he 
 has to say about it, and he says that trine immersion 
 was the common practice in all countries. Mosheim 
 says nothing as to whether it was one or three im- 
 mersions that was practiced in the first century ; but 
 he sends us to his authority for stating that immer- 
 sion prevailed, and we find that this autliority states 
 it was trine immersion. That I call tracing ti-ine im- 
 mersion back to the first century, and still claim that 
 the gap is filled. 
 
 My friend again brings up his illustration of an in- 
 dividual being naturalized into the United States, into 
 the State of Iowa, and into the municipality in which 
 he resides, by one action. I will not deny the fact, 
 but will deny that the cases are analogous. The com- 
 parison is not well founded. Why is it, I ask, that a 
 man can become a citizen in this three-fold capacity 
 by a single act? I answer, for the simple reason that 
 the laivs of the country make it so. Now, the laws of 
 the divine economy are not in all respects conformable 
 to the laws of earthly nations. The laws of the king- 
 dom of Heaven, as set forth in the formula for adminis- 
 tering Christian baptism, which is the initiatory act re- 
 quisite for admission into that kingdom, requires an im- 
 mersion into the name of the Father, an immersion into 
 the name of the Son, and an immersion into the name 
 
MR. QUINTER's KIGHTII ADDRESS. 127 
 
 of the Holy Spirit. It is not for us to decide tliat we 
 shall become citizens of the heavenly kingdom only on 
 the same terms by which foreigners are naturalized 
 and become subjects of an earthly corporation or 
 municipality. We can only become citizens of the 
 kingdom of heaven by obedience to the laws and regu- 
 lations pertaining to that kingdom. 
 
 As regards the comparisons, upon which my friend 
 spent considerable time, of baptism to a birth, burying, 
 moulding, etc. — in reply to all this mass of matter, I 
 simply reply that trine immersion is essential to bap- 
 tism. It is essential, not because it coincides, or fails 
 to coincide, with certain figures that have been used by 
 the inspired writers to illustrate its purpose and effects, 
 but because it has been commanded. But there is no 
 discrepancy between baptism by trine immersion and 
 the types under which it is prefigured ; for we claim 
 but one baptism — one ordinance — one immersion if 
 you will. The fact that it takes three acts to con- 
 stitute this ordinance, does not interfere with its com- 
 plete correspondence with the types and figures used 
 to illustrate it. 
 
 We are pointed to the ark as a type of baptism ; and 
 my friend asserts that Noah went into the ark but 
 once— ^consequently a believer must be immersed but 
 once. I ask my friend where he learns that Noah 
 went into the ark but once ? How does he know how 
 many times Noah went in, while the ark was building, 
 and after it was completed, with the cattle and animals 
 that were saved with him, and the provision that served 
 for their support while in the ark ? I want to come 
 down to the point in which the very gist of his argu- 
 ment is — if there is any gist about it. 
 
 There is an idea right here that I wish you to under- 
 stand, in order to relieve your minds in regard to this 
 matter of the inconsistency of figures. I presume 
 you are all aware that in the use of figurative language, 
 
128 DEBATE ON TRINE BLMERSION. 
 
 there are always one or two paramount ideas that are 
 intended to be set forth, and the comparison can not 
 justly be carried beyond that. To endeavor to carry 
 the resemblance between type and anti-type into every 
 minute particular, is unwarrantable and improper ; it 
 tends to befog and perplex rather than to elucidate 
 'and explain; writers sometimes call this "making a 
 parable go on all-fours.'* In the case of every type 
 used in Scripture, there are many points of difterence 
 between it and its anti-type, many particulars from 
 which it would be very unfair and unsafe to deduce 
 any lesson of doctrine. As an illustration upon this 
 point, the paschal lamb is universally accepted as 
 a type of Christ. See I Corinthians, v : 7 : " For 
 even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Yet 
 see how many points of difference there were between 
 them. What a disparity between the young animal, 
 and our Saviour, whose body was a perfect specimen of 
 the human form, and who was the perfect Son of God ! 
 The paschal lamb was to be about a year old; but 
 Christ was thirty-four years old when he was sacrificed. 
 The paschal lamb was to be roasted and eaten ; but the 
 body of Christ Avas neither roasted nor eaten. Yet, 
 notwithstanding these and numerous other points of 
 diff'erence, there were certain leading features of re- 
 semblance which rendered the paschal lamb a fitting 
 type of him who was slain for our sins. So in reference 
 to the ordinance of baptism, and the regeneration of 
 which it is typical. The analogy consists in the general 
 idea of being buried in the water, and coming forth 
 out of the water of baptism to commence a new life ; and 
 not in any particular number of actions performed in 
 the water. The analogy between a birth, and baptism 
 by trine immersion, when such baptism is followed by 
 a new life, is sufficiently plain to jiistity a comparison 
 of baptism to a birth, as is so frequently done b}' our 
 Baviour and the apostles. And if 1 were to follow the 
 
MR. QUINTER's EIGUTH ADDRESS. 129 
 
 example of my friend in this respect, and endeavor to 
 detenuine the mode of baptism by a reference to the 
 types or processes to which it is compared, I presume 
 that I couUlfind as many to indicate a plurality of im- 
 mersions as he could to suf]:.^est single immersion. My 
 friend has referred us to Paul's letter to Titus (iii: 5), 
 ■v^•here baptism is called " the washing of regeneration." 
 You were particularly requested to note that the ex- 
 pression is not " washings." But what is the common 
 mode of *' washing ?" Is an article usually " washed " 
 by thrusting it into the water once, and no more? You 
 all know that by far the more common way is by put- 
 ting it into the water repeatedly. If this figure, 
 introduced here by my friend, teaches anything as to 
 the mode of baptism, it teaches repeated immersion. 
 But, as I before remarked, our deductions from these 
 types and figures are not to be carried to an extreme 
 and unwarrantable extent. If we had more time upon 
 this subject I would be pleased to develop this point 
 more extensively ; but I can not spend all my time in 
 reviewing my friend's positions, as I have several 
 arguments in support of own side of the proposition 
 which I Avish to bring before you. 
 
 IX. Mij ninth argument ivill he based upon the testi- 
 mony of reformers, eminent theologians, and reputable 
 authors. 
 
 I will refer you first of all to Luther, known to you 
 all as a learned and popular man. In the year 1530, 
 Luther was written to by Henricus Genesius, preacher 
 at Schtershausen,in reference to baptizing a converted 
 Jewess. Luther replied, and in his letter he says : 
 ** As to the public act of baptism, let her be dressed in 
 the garments usualhMvorn by females in baths, and be 
 placed in a bathing tub, up to the neck in water; then 
 let the baptist dip her head* three times in the water, 
 with the usual words: 'I baptize you in the name of 
 9 
 
130 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 tlie Father,' " etc. [Luther's works, ed. Walch, Part X, 
 p. 2637. Translated by C. L. Loos, for the Disciple.'] 
 
 I will next refer you to John Wesley. Mr. We>sley 
 committed his papers to certain trustees, one of whom 
 was a Mr. Moore, who afterward wrote a biography 
 of him. Ill that biography, speaking of Mr. Wesley's 
 views on the subject of baptism, Mr. Moore says : 
 *' When Mr. Wesley baptized adults, professing faith 
 in Christ, he chose to do it by trine immersion if the 
 person would submit to it, judging this to be the apos- 
 tolic method of baptizing." [Moore's Life of Wesley, 
 YoL I, p. 425.] 
 
 K-ev. Robt. Adams, an eminent writer, in his " Reli- 
 gious World Displayed," in an article on the Greek 
 Church, says : *' They baptized by immersion ; and they 
 used the trine immersion, or form of dipping the child 
 thrice in water ; which is no doubt the most ancient 
 manner." (Vol. I, p. 303.) Notice that this learned 
 author declared it as his own opinion, that there is 7io 
 doubt hut ivhat trine immersion is the most ancient 
 manner of performing baptism. 
 
 Chambers' Cyclopedia, or Dictionary of the Arts and 
 Sciences, a large and carefully compiled work, has the 
 following definition and explanation on the subject of 
 baptism — which may be found in the original work, or 
 as quoted by Mr. Campbell in his debate with Mr. 
 Rice (Page 174): ''Baptism, in Theology; formed 
 from the Greek baptizo of bap>tOy I dip or plunge ; a 
 rite or ceremony by which persons were initiated into 
 the profession of the Christian religion. The practice 
 of the Western Church is, to sprinkle the water on the 
 head or face of the person to be baptized, except in 
 the Church of Milan, in whose ritual it is ordered that 
 the head of the infant be plunged three times into the 
 water, the minister at the same time pronouncing tlie 
 words, '*I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost " — importing that by this 
 
MR. QUINTEr'S eighth ADDRESS. 131 
 
 ceremony the person baptized is received among the 
 professors of that religion, which God, the Father of 
 all, revealed to mankind by the ministry of his Son, 
 and confirmed by the miracles of his Spirit. "^ triple 
 immersion was first used, and contuiued for a long 
 time." 
 
 There is a ^vork called the " Pantalogia," a kind of 
 Comprehensive Dictionary, biblical and classical. Dr. 
 Pengilly, in the " Scripture Guide to Baptism," page 
 73, makes the following quotation from an article on the 
 Greek Church, in the Pantalogia : " Greek Church — 
 that part of the Christian Church which was first 
 established in Greece, and is now spread over a larger 
 extent of country than any other established church. 
 It comprehends in its bosom a considerable part 
 of Greece, the Grecian Isles, Wallachia, Moldavia, 
 Egypt, Abyssinia, Nubia, Lybia, Arabia, Mesopota- 
 mia, Syria, Cilicia, Palestine. It may be observed 
 that amid all their trifling rites, they practice trine im- 
 mersion^ zvhich is unquestionably the primitive manner.'^ 
 
 I could read other authorities, the testimonies of 
 learned and eminent men, to an almost unlimited ex- 
 tent, upon this point, but time forbids. You can not 
 fail to have noticed that these men express themselves 
 in reference to the fact of trine immersion being the 
 primitive mode, without the least hesitation or doubt. 
 '' Unquestionably," they say ; or express themselves 
 with a positiveness which indicates that there is not 
 the least question in their minds as to the fact. And 
 further, the witnesses I have introduced under this 
 argument are worthy of especial attention, as they are 
 impartial witnesses ; they did not practice trine immer- 
 sion ; on the contrary, they did not practice immersion 
 at all, neither was it the practice of the denomination 
 to which they belonged. I told you, at the commence- 
 ment of the. discussion, that I intended to pursue the 
 course generally pursued in controversies between 
 
132 DEBATE ON TKINE IMMERSION. 
 
 immersionists and pedobaptists. As immersionistg, 
 3^011 all claim in the discussion of this question that 
 such arguments as I have adduced tell strongly in 
 your favor. And if this class of arguments is worth 
 anything when used in support of immersion, I claim 
 that they are worth just as rnuchw^hen used to sustain 
 trine immersion. 
 
 I have already spoken incidentally of the practice 
 of the Greek Church. I wish to refer to that now a 
 little more fully. 
 
 X. My tenth argument, therefore, will he drawn from 
 
 the practice of the Greek Church. 
 
 The Greek Church is both ancient and numerous, 
 reaching far back into Christian antiquity. In the 
 territory she extends over is to be found nearly one- 
 third of Christendom — one hundred millions of pro- 
 fessing Christians. In controversies between immer- 
 sionists and pedobaptists, the argument drawn from 
 the practice of the Greek Church is always regarded 
 as of great importance. It is claimed by immersionists 
 as a strong argument in favor of immersion ; we claim 
 it to be equally strong in favor of trine immersion, since, 
 according to Sir P. Ricaut, " Thrice dipping or plung- 
 ing, this church holds to be as necessary to iXiQform 
 of baptism as water to t\\Qmatter.^^ 
 
 Alexander Campbell, in his work on baptism, uses 
 the following language, in a sort of catechism which he 
 has constructed, in order to place the argument for 
 immersion more pointedly before his readers : 
 
 " Q. IOC). How shall an illiterate man know the 
 meaning of the Greek word hajjfi^nia ? — A. By inquir- 
 ing how the Greek Church practice this rite; it is 
 certain they ought to understand their own language 
 best. 
 
 '• Q. 107. And how does the Greek Church adminis- 
 ter this ordinance? — A. Even to this day they im- 
 
MR. QUINTEr's eighth ADDRESS. 133 
 
 mersc every subject, in all climates, and in all countries 
 in which tiiey may be placed." 
 
 Now, all the argument in these catechetical ques- 
 tions that bears in favor of immersion, bears equally 
 strong in favor of trine immersion, as that is the kind 
 of immersion practiced by them. 
 
 Mr. Campbell says farther upon this point: "The 
 facts then are, the whole world immersed, with these few 
 exceptions, for thirteen centuries. The east half of 
 Christendom still continues the practice. The Greek 
 portion of the church never to this day has given up 
 the primitive practice. This, too, is an argument of 
 more weight than even the numerical magnitude of 
 this immense section of the church ; it is not merely 
 the voice of many millions, but the voice of many mill- 
 ions of Greeks; of men who knew what the apostles 
 and Greek Fathers had written ; who needed no trans- 
 lators, nor scholiasts, nor annotators, nor historians, 
 to read them lessons on the primitive practice, or on the 
 meaning of Christ's commission. Some seventj^-five 
 or one hundred million such vouchers on a mere ques- 
 tion of fact, qualified as they were, on the mere prin- 
 ciple of human authority would outweigh the world." 
 
 This is strong language ; but he who uttered it, knew 
 whereof he affirmed. He knew the force of language, 
 and the grounds he had for making these declarations. 
 He felt justifie<l in using it, when vindicating immer- 
 sion, that was dear to his heart; and I feel justified in 
 quoting it in vindicating a mode of immersion that is 
 dear to my heart, because I conceive it to be taught 
 by the authorities of the commonwealth of Israel, of 
 which we are. anxious to become citizens, in order that 
 ■we may enjoy the immunities thereof. And while my 
 friend by my side has been vindicationg what he be- 
 lieves, earnestly, zealously and ably, we yet submit 
 that he has so far failed to prove that trine immersion 
 is not the ancient and apostolic mode of baptism. 
 
134: DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 My friend has half an hour in which to reply to the 
 arguments I have now advanced, after which each of 
 us is to have but one more speech. Those being our 
 concluding speeches, it is understood that in them no 
 new matter will be presented. I shall occupy my time 
 with a brief and rapid review of the arguments I have 
 presented during the past two days. 
 
 [The speaker commenced his review of the argu- 
 ments he had advanced, but being interrupted in his 
 remarks at the end of three or four minutes by the 
 announcement that his time had expired, the reporter 
 takes the liberty to omit them here, and insert them 
 in the next speech, with which they are more properly 
 and intimately connected.] 
 
 [MR McCONNELL'S EIGHTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — My friend places great 
 stress upon the argument drawn from the practice of 
 the Greek Church. We are told that church has 
 always practiced trine immersion. But how far back 
 does that extend? I suppose trine immersion could 
 not have been practiced by the Greek Church before 
 the Greek Church had any existence. I have not 
 made a critical examination into this matter, but if I 
 recollect rightly, the division of the church resulted 
 from a dispute, as to whether Rome or Constantinople 
 should be the seat of supreme power in the church — 
 and this dispute culminated late in the ninth cen- 
 tury. Before that there was no Greek Church, nor 
 Roman Church; no Eastern Church nor Western 
 Church — it was all one church. But long before the 
 separation into Eastern and Western, the church had 
 grievously apostatized from the simplicity of the 
 Gospel, and manifold corruptions had crept iu. 
 
MH. m'connell's eightu address. 135 
 
 Though the Greek Church had practiced trine im- 
 iner.'^iun from the very first hour of its existence, it 
 woiihl be no proof of the correctness of that practice. 
 
 But we are tohl that the language of the com- 
 mission must be decided by the construction phiced 
 upon it by the Greeks. I contend, liowever, that we 
 are as well able to determine the meaning of the com- 
 mission as are the Greeks themselves. Scholars of 
 the present age understand the laws of the construction 
 of the lanoruaore as well as the Greeks understand it. 
 Besides, it is pretty well understood by learned men 
 that the commission was written in Hebrew, and not 
 in Greek. Matthew is said to have written his gospel 
 in Hebrew. 
 
 My friend insists that he has filled up the gap be- 
 tween TertuUian and the commission, because Mos- 
 heim, when speaking of baptism in the first century, 
 refers to Vossius as his authority, and Vossius says 
 that "trine immersion was used in all countries." 
 But mark this, though Vossius says trine immersion 
 was used in all countries, he nowhere says that it was 
 used in all countries in the first century. Because 
 Mosheim, when treating of the history of the first 
 century, refers to Vossius, it by no means follows that 
 everything Vossius records occurred in the first cen- 
 tury. Possibly at some time between the great apos- 
 tasy and the reformation, trine immersion may have 
 prevailed as extensively as Vossius declared ; but my 
 friend can not fix that time in the first century by 
 any such loose inference as he has used here in his 
 endeavor to connect the two. That gap is not yet 
 filled up, and as it is now too late for my friend to 
 bring forward any new argument, I venture to predict 
 that it will not be. If there had been any way of 
 doing it, he would have done it long before this. 
 
 My friend built an argument upon the statement 
 "that when a change of mode from trine immersion to 
 
136 DEBATE ON TKINE IMMERSION. 
 
 single immersion took place, a change likewise took 
 place in the formula of baptizing — from the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 
 to the name-of Jesus Christ alone; that a change of 
 mode and a change of the name into which the be- 
 liever was baptized, accompanied each other." And 
 the main point upon which he insists, is that Christ 
 authorized and commanded trine immersion in his in- 
 junction to his disciples, to baptize "in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 
 Very well ! then when we can find a change of name 
 we will have a change of mode. Now turn to Acts, 
 chapter xix. Here we read that Paul, in the course 
 of his journeyings, came to Ephesus, where he found 
 certain disciples, of whom he inquired whether they 
 had received the Holy Ghost. They replied that they 
 had not so much as heard that there was such a thing 
 as the Holy Ghost. Whereupon he inquired, " Unto 
 ■what then were ye baptized?" and they said, "Unto 
 John's baptism." Then Paul explained to them that 
 John was but the forerunner of Jesus, whereupon 
 (says verse 5), "when they heard this, they were 
 baptized {eis to ^oiioma) into the name of the Lord 
 Jesus'^ Kow, if my friend's statement and reasoning 
 thereon be correct, that the change of the name into 
 which candidates were baptized — from the name of 
 all three of the divine characters to the name of the 
 Lord Jesus alone — was accompanied by a change of 
 mode from trine immersion to single immersion, we 
 have found out exactly when it occurred : it was at 
 Ephesus, about twenty-five years after the commission 
 was given. That is, if his own reasoning be correct, 
 that single immersion was instituted when baptism 
 into the name of the Lord Jesus was substituted for the 
 names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 
 and was by divine authority. 
 
 My friend has read numer-ous authorities here, to 
 
MU. m\'oNN1:L1/s EleJIlTII ADDRESS. 137 
 
 prove trine immersion to have been the practice of tlie 
 primitive cluircli, but tliese statements are all too 
 general and indefinite to be conclusive. lie brou<;lit 
 Wall to prove that trine immersion was "the geneial 
 practice -of all antiquity." Now, I would ask, how far 
 back does "all antiquity" extend? Can any of you 
 set any limits to it? Why, according to that, Adam 
 must have been immersed three times. Wall's ex- 
 pression is too vague and ambiguous to be accepted 
 as valid testimony in this court; there is nothing defin- 
 ite about it. Such general and sweeping statements 
 can never settle the question before us. 
 
 Coming along down the stream, my friend under- 
 took to prove trine immersion to have been the apos- 
 tolic mode by an appeal to the reformers. He read 
 a command for it from Martin Luther. Recollect, 
 the command came from Martin Luther, and not from 
 Christ. You see just how much that argument 
 amounts to. My friend tells you that Jesus Christ 
 commands trine immersion; and when I ask him to 
 prove it, he comes up here and reads a command from 
 Martin Luther! 
 
 If you have followed my friend's argument closely — 
 and he now tells you he has finished, and has no new 
 argument to offer — you will recollect just how far 
 toward the apostles and the commission he has traced 
 trine immersion ; he has traced it to TertuUian, but 
 not one whit further. You will recollect, too, the 
 only commands for the practice of trine immersion 
 he has found, are from Luther in modern times, and iu 
 more ancient times, the Apostolic Canons ! And these, 
 he tells you, are spurious. What we demand is, the 
 command of Jesus Christ, or of his apostles, or their 
 example; but this, we plainly discover, is not forth- 
 coming. 
 
 In answer to my reference to Noah and the ark, as 
 a type of baptism, my friend said that Noah doubtless 
 
138 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 went into the ark frequently. Well, I presume he 
 did. But tliere was a time when Noah went into the 
 ark, and God shut him in. The question is not 
 whether Noah went in and out of the ark frecjuently 
 during the hundred and twenty years it was building, 
 or carried sacks of grain and other provisions for 
 himself and family when it was finished — that was 
 all said simply to throw dust in your eyes. The ar- 
 gument was upon his entering in for salvation. He 
 wefit in once for salvation, and remained there at God's 
 command, until the waters were abated. 
 
 My friend says, we must not expect the type and 
 anti-type to agree in all respects, and cautions us 
 against carrying our search for resemblances too far, 
 and drawing lessons of doctrine from illustrative sym- 
 bols, that it was never intended should be drawn. I 
 agree with him there; but at the same time the type 
 should be some sort of a guide to us ; we naturally 
 expect the type to bear some general resemblance to 
 the anti-type — else it ceases to be a type. The two 
 should agree upon the more important points. And 
 it does seem to me that if trine immersion is essential 
 to Christian baptism, that somewhere among the nu- 
 merous t^'pes and shadows of baptism with which 
 Scripture abounds, we should somewhere have a hint 
 of it. 
 
 The Jewish law contained a type of baptism — the 
 washing of the priest in the brazen laver at the en- 
 trance of the tabernacle (Exodus, xxx*. 17-21); and the 
 priest was commanded to wash once — not thrice — 
 upon entering in. So we contend for one washing in 
 Christian baptism. Again : in Heb. x : 22, the Christian 
 is invited to draw near to Jesus — "having our hearts 
 s})rinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
 washed with pure water." There is no hint here that 
 our hearts should be sprinkled and our bodies washed 
 thrice. Again: iu Numbers, xix: 19, directions are 
 
MR. m'cONNELL's eighth ADDRESS. 139 
 
 given for purifying an unclean person ; he must be 
 sprinkled, ''and wash his clothes, and bathe himself 
 in water, and sliall be clean at even." Here one 
 bathing seems to have been sufficient for a complete 
 cleansing — no hint of tltrce. Again, Paul, in his 
 letter to the Ephesians, v : 26, speaks of being 
 cleansed " with the washing of water by the word." 
 Can we believe the apostle would not have said 
 '• washings" instead of ''washing," if to be cleansed 
 required three washings ? " The washing of re- 
 generation" (Titus iii : 5), I think I have already re- 
 ferred to. Wh}^ the apostle did not say " washings " 
 of regeneration, if it takes three of them to accomplish 
 the purpose, I leave for my friend to explain. 
 
 Another thought, upon which I have not time to 
 enlarge, but merely to suggest and leave for your 
 consideration : the design of baptism is to represent 
 the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. My 
 friend, in baptizing three times, perverts the or- 
 dinance from its purpose, renders it inappropriate to 
 its original design, by representing the death, burial, 
 and resurrection of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Christ says (Matthew, xi : 30) : " My yoke is easy 
 and my burden is light." The terms of salvation are 
 as simple as, in the wisdom and providence of God, 
 they could be made. We have not to ascend up to 
 heaven and bring Christ down from above, nor to de- 
 scend into the earth and bring up Christ from the 
 dead. Christ requires but one immersion, and even 
 that, many have deemed burdensome, and changed to 
 pouring and sprinkling; none but our Tonker friends 
 have ever deemed this yoke too liirht, and added two 
 more yokes, nniking it three times as burdensome as 
 Christ demands. 
 
 In Komans, vi : 5, baptism is compared to a plant- 
 ing: *'For, if we have been planted together in the 
 
140 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 likeness of his [Christ's] death, we shall be also in 
 the likeness of his resurrection." Now, do we plant 
 seed in the gi'ound once, take it up, plant it a second 
 time, again take it u[), and still a third time plant it? 
 Certainly not. Then we are not to be " buried in 
 baptism " three times — or else planting is no fitting 
 representation of baptism. But again : we are planted 
 in the likeness of Christ's death. Did Christ die 
 three times? If Christ died but once, trine im- 
 mersion bears no resemblance to Christ's death at all. 
 Hence, trine immersion is not Christian baptism. 
 
 I Corinthians, x: 1, 2: ^'Moreover brethren, I 
 would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all 
 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." How could this be ac- 
 complished if baptism means trine immersion — or if 
 the circumstance related was a type of Christian bap- 
 tism ? They were all under the cloud. Did they all 
 come out from under the cloud and pass through the 
 sea ; and having passed through the sea, were they 
 again immersed in the cloud, and so on, alternately, 
 until they had all been three times immersed in the 
 cloud and in the sea? If so, it must have been a 
 most extraordinary, irksome, and tedious proceeding. 
 But what were the facts of this baptism, as recorded 
 in Old Testament history ? Why, while under the 
 cloud, they passed through the sea; and by the cloud 
 and the sea were enveloped, immersed, once, and so 
 passed over : as we are once immersed into Jesus 
 Christ, in the true Christian baptism. 
 
 Another thought of my friend's, I wish to notice. 
 He expressed himself as being utterly astonished that 
 I should deny that the principles mentioned in the 
 sixth chapter of Hebrews belonged under this dis- 
 pensation. I did not deny it. I simply said that the 
 apostles referred to those elementary principles as 
 
MR. m'cONNELL'S eighth ADDRESS. 141 
 
 developed under tlie law. I did not deny that some 
 of the principles tliere mentioned belonged, to some 
 
 extent perhaps to a greater extent than elswhere— 
 
 under this dispensation. I did not deny that faith in 
 God belonged to this dispensation as well as to the 
 old ; nor that the resurrection of the dead, and the 
 eternal judgment were to be at the close of this dis- 
 pensation. °I said, or intended to say, that the apostle 
 referred here to those elements as they were developed 
 in the oracles of God under the former dispensation. 
 The elementary teachings of English literature are 
 all to be found in the alphabet of the English lan- 
 guage. But we have the elementary teachings of 
 English literature in this book, which I hold in my 
 haml (Elements of English Composition). One are 
 the elementary teachings as developed in the alphabet; 
 the othei'is a higher and fuller development of the 
 same elementary teachings. When I open this book, 
 I find nothing here but letters— the same twenty-six 
 letters that I find in the alphabet. And were I a 
 teacher, and should see a pupil who kept going over 
 and over with his alphabet, when I knew that he ought 
 to be out of it, I would say to him— Come, let us 
 leave these elements, let us study these more advanced 
 works, where the principles of the language are more 
 fullv explained, and so go on toward a perfect 
 knoVledge of the English language and literature! 
 So the apostle said to the Jews, in eff'ect, " Why do 
 you Hebrews keep pouring over the alphabet of 
 Christianity ? It is time that ye- ought to be teachers, 
 and ye have need yet that one teach you ! Leave the 
 alphabet, the law and the prophets, the rites and the 
 ceremonies of an obsolete dispensation, and now that 
 the promised Messiah has come, proceed to the prac- 
 tical application of those elementary principles in 
 their full development under the Christian economy." 
 My friend, by the way, read to us Anderson's 
 
142 DEBATE ON THINE IMMERSION. 
 
 translation of this passage, and seemed to prefer it 
 to the common version : " Omitting, therefore, the 
 elementary Christian teachings," etc., including of 
 course, the " baptisms " mentioned in this connection, 
 and which, he insists, means trine immersion. Very 
 well — we would second the apostle's advice, under that 
 reading, and urge him to omit trine immersion, and 
 practice single immersion instead. But we save our 
 friend from this fatal thrust at his own position, by 
 showing that the apostle was urging the Hebrews to 
 omit any further attempt at the development of those 
 elementary principles under the Mosaic dispensation, 
 and adopt the plain, simple teachings of the Gospel. 
 [The speaker here began a review of his argument ; 
 but as he was interrupted in his remarks at the end 
 of two or three minutes, by the announcement that his 
 time had expired, the reporter takes the iiberty to 
 omit them here, and insert them in the next speech, 
 "with which they are more properly and intimately con- 
 nected.] 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S NINTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — My remarks in response 
 to the arguments advanced by my friend in his hist 
 speech shall be very brief. I appreciate the kindness 
 of the congregation in remaining so long and listening 
 so attentively as they have, and shall endeavor not to 
 protract my remarks a moment longer than may seem 
 to me absolutely necessary, in order to set the matter 
 before you in its true light. 
 
 I am surprised at my friend's remarks in relation to 
 the Greek Chui-ch. Certainly, had he been discussing 
 the question of baptism with a pedobaptist, and had 
 he presented the uniform practice of the Greek 
 Chui-ch as an argument, as it is customary to do in 
 such discussions, and had his pedobaptist opponent 
 
MR. QUINTEr's ninth ADDRESS. 143 
 
 made such a disposal of the argument as he has done, 
 he wouM liave fVlt that it uas not tlie proper way to do. 
 So with the argument hased upon the testimony of emi- 
 nent reformers and learned theologians. Luther, in 
 the case of the converted Jewess, gave command tliat 
 she should be baptized by trine immersion ; it is not 
 to be supposed that this advice was grounded upon 
 simply some whim of his own ; he did it fi-om a sol- 
 emn conviction that that was the proper and scriptural 
 mode of baptizing. And I conceive that the opinions 
 of this learned and coTiscientious man, based upon 
 the thorough and careful and unprejudiced investiga- 
 tion he had given the subject, ought to have some 
 weight with us. And the same with respect to the 
 opinions of the other able and eminent scholars whose 
 testimony I gave you. But my friend seemed to 
 make very light of it. I was, indeed, sorry to 
 hear it. 
 
 Then, as regards his illustrations from " planting," 
 " sprinkling," etc. His remarks were such as I had 
 not expected to hear from any advocate of immersion. 
 I am sorry this discussion must go before the world, 
 bearing with it these ideas from a baptist brother. 
 My friend has helped the pedobaptists to arguments 
 against immersion, and to a method of disposing of 
 arguments in favor of immersion, which I can not 
 deem legitimate and fair, but which they will not hes- 
 itate to take advantage of, nevertheless. I am very 
 sorry that he has felt that the support of his position 
 in this discussion required that he should use those 
 figures in the way he has used them. I have given 
 the correct principle in reference to the use to be 
 made, the lesson to be derived, from figurative lan- 
 guage ; there must be a leading point of resemblance, 
 and when that point is gained, it is enough. We are 
 not to follow the comparison into every minute detail, 
 and expect to find a resemblance everywhere. In 
 
144 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 reference to baptism the types and figures used uni- 
 formly point to a covering in water, and when we are 
 covered, it is enough. The particuhir mode can not 
 be inferred from the types and illustrative symbols 
 used ; that is given us in the commission. 
 
 I really am surprised at my friend's use of the nine- 
 teenth chapter of Acts. My reference was not to the 
 nineteenth of Acts, but to the second of Acts. There 
 the expression is not eis to ^onoma, but epi to 'ono- 
 mati; not "into the name," but, "in the name" of 
 Jesus Christ ; under his authority. And I still insist 
 that when they were commanded, in the name, or by 
 the authority, of Jesus Christ, the baptism was per- 
 formed *' into the name of the Father, and of tlie 
 Son, and of the Holy Spirit." I submit that the 
 manner in which my friend introduced this point, and 
 the use he made of it, if I understood him correctly 
 — fori acknowledge it was difficult for me to com- 
 prehend his intention in this reference — was entiraly 
 irrelevant and inapplicable to my remarks. 
 
 Then, again, upon that ark question : When I first 
 introduced that, I saw a smile upon his face. I hardly 
 knew what interpretation to place upon that. I insist 
 that if there was any argument in his position, there 
 was argument in mine. And how did he meet it at 
 last ? He says Noah went in only once to he saved. 
 I assert the probability that he must have entered in 
 many times, in order to be saved. If he had not 
 taken into the ark ever}^ animal that the Loril com- 
 manded, he would have forfeited his life. Everything 
 he took in concerned his salvation. I repeat, there is 
 argument in that, if there is any argument about it 
 anywhere. I want to be candid ; I want to be fair ; 
 I am willing to allow him every legitimate and just 
 means of sustaining his side of the question ; but I 
 do not like to see this discussion so conducted that 
 anybody hereafter can take advantage of our way of 
 
MK. QUINTER's ninth ADDRESS. 145 
 
 arguing tliese tilings. I inn truly sorry to see matters 
 of the most profound and serious importance treated 
 in this light way. I regret to observe that a great 
 deal of his late speeches have been of that kind; 
 there has been an air of trifling and levity about 
 them that has pained me to witness. For instance, 
 about the yoke of Christ : he said we thought it was 
 too light, and so made it heavier. I am not afraid 
 Buch remarks will work any injury to us, who are the 
 subjects of them ; but I do fear they will injure our 
 common cause. The question with us is not whether 
 a thing is easy or pleasant, but is it necessary, is it 
 right, is it the command of the Saviour ? We do not 
 think three immersions heav}', nor ten, if the Lord had 
 commanded them. I think our brethren go into the 
 water as cheerfully, and come out as rejoicingly, when 
 immersed three times, as his brethren do upon being 
 immersed once. But, as I said before, it is not a 
 question of comfort and convenience, but of com- 
 mand. And I have shown you that the command is, 
 to baptize into the name of the Father, and into the 
 name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy 
 Spirit — one great, glorious, holy ordinance in three 
 immersions, into the three names of the three divine 
 characters — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
 
 I think I have answered all the points presented by 
 my my friend. If I have neglected any, it has been 
 an unintentional overlooking, for I have endeavored 
 to pay due attention to each. There are several argu- 
 ments yet which I should have been glad to offer; but 
 as it has been arranged that the discussion upon this 
 subject should close to-day, and as we are now upon 
 our concluding speeches, during which no new matter 
 can be presented, I must let them pass. I shall oc- 
 cupy the remainder of the time allowed me with a 
 brief review of the arguments I have presented during 
 the past two days. 
 10 
 
146 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 My first argument was founded upon the peculiar 
 form of tlie word baptizo, used bj our Lord in giving 
 his commission. I told you that learned men, excel- 
 lent lexicographers and grammarians, in their exami- 
 nation of this word, had found the idea of plurality or 
 repeated action inherent in the word, and that this 
 peculiarity, as these men have conceived, had much 
 to do with its being selected by the great Christian 
 Lawgiver when establishing the ordinance of baptism 
 in his church. As this point has been pretty fully 
 discussed, I refer to it here only because it forms one 
 upon my list of arguments which I am hastily review- 
 ing. 
 
 My second argument was founded upon the testi- 
 mony of the ancient Christian Fathers as to the mean- 
 in(^ of the lan'jjuao'e used in the commission. And I 
 asked you to draw this distinction : that it was not 
 their views upon the subject of baptism that we were 
 looking at, but their interpretation of the language of 
 the commission — the native language of some of them. 
 I am fully aware of the superstition that existed in 
 their age, and by which they were surrounded. But 
 I do not think that the superstition that existed in 
 their age, or even by which their own minds might 
 have been imbued, to some extent, should nullify and 
 impeach their testimony in regard to the meaning of 
 a certain phrase in the Greek, Latin, or any other lan- 
 guage in which they might have found that phrase. 
 And here I want to say tliat the same objection that 
 my friend insinuated against these witnesses, is always 
 insinuated against them when we immersionists call 
 up their testimony in our controversies with the pedo- 
 baptists ; but that I do not deem that such imsinua- 
 tions are just and fair. We look at the matter in this 
 light : in our courts of justice, a man's peculiar re- 
 ligious notions constitute no reason why his testiuiony 
 should be rejected. A man may be a Spiritualist, or 
 
MR. QUFNTER S NINTH ADDRESS. 14 < 
 
 hold to the strangest notions imnginablc ; but this 
 wouhl not be sufficient reason for discarding his tes- 
 timony upon a mere matter of fact. So with regard 
 to these men ; they may not have been sound on every 
 subject; they may have hehl to some superstitious 
 or fanciful notions; but as learned men, as scholars, 
 they could understand the meaning of words and 
 phrases in their own, or another language, when 
 looked at in the light of their scholarship. And I 
 showed that these men — Tertullian, one of the most 
 learned of the Latin Fathers, and Chrysostora, one 
 of the most learned of the Greek Fathers, and others 
 — in reading the commission, conceived trine immer- 
 sion to be taught there; when they read "baptizing 
 into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Spirit," they accepted, as a legitimate deduc- 
 tion from that form of expression, the idea that there 
 was to be a baptism into each of the names mentioned. 
 M}' third argument was drawn from the supposed 
 design of the peculiar phraseology of the baptismal 
 foiniula. Recollect, I said, not the design of baptism, 
 but of the language of the commission in which bap- 
 tism was commanded. The three names, represent- 
 ing the three distinct characters or offices in the Di- 
 vinity, are all brou^rht together here — i. e., side by 
 side, but separate. When the believer is baptized, and 
 commences a Christian life, he has all these glorious 
 names and characters before him, and enters into 
 them; he feels that he has all the blessino; those char- 
 acters confer, all the advantages of "the office they sev- 
 erally lill in the great work of salvation. My friend 
 has several times dropped the idea that we can not en- 
 ter into one of these names or characters, without en- 
 tering into all. I accept that idea. The state of heart 
 which prepares the believer for an immersion into 
 one, will necessarily prepare him for an immersion 
 into all. lie whose lyeart is right, v/ants to be in the 
 
148 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 church ; to enjoy the fellowship of Christians ; to ob- 
 tain all the advantages conferred by an admission 
 into all the divine characters. If he did not feel this 
 way, he would not want to be baptized into any ; he 
 would not be a fit person to be baptized into any. But 
 in the divine economy, it has been so arranged that 
 the believer enters into the Father by being baptized 
 into the name of the Father; he enters into the Son 
 by being baptized into the name of the Son ; he en- 
 ters into the Holy Spirit by being baptized into the 
 name of the Holy Spirit. I have admitted the unity 
 of the three divine characters, as taught elsewhere in 
 the Holy Scriptures ; but I contend that their plural- 
 ity is taught in the commission; and that the plurality 
 of characters combined in the great work of salvation, 
 is beautifully illustrated in our manner of baptism. 
 
 My fourth argument was drawn from the structure 
 of the language which constitutes the baptismal for- 
 mula. I proved that, in order to render the sentence 
 containing the formula complete and full in its gram- 
 matical structure, certain words were necessary to be 
 supplied mentally^ and that when so supplied, the cor- 
 rect reindering would be as follows : " Baptizing 
 them into the name of the Father, and baptizing them 
 into the name of the Son, and baptizing them into the. 
 name of the Holy Spirit." We believe this to be the 
 correct rendering of the formula, and we believe that 
 this language requires a repetition of the act of bap- 
 tizing. h\ the formula, the characters are set before 
 us separate and distinct, and in order to introduce 
 the believer into each, a certain act, the act of immer- 
 sion, is designated in connection with each. My 
 friend opposes this idea by a reference to the " one 
 baptism " mentioned by Paul, in his letter to the Ephe- 
 siaus ; but this one baptism must be interpreted in 
 the light of the baptismal formula, which commands 
 three acts to constitute this one baptism. 
 
MR. QUINTER'S ninth ADDRESS. 149 
 
 In my fifth argument, I showed you that Paul 
 recognized a plurality of immersions in Christian 
 baptism. My friend evaded this point by denying 
 that Paul had any reference to Christian bnptism, 
 putting a construction upon the passage that I never 
 heard before, and I think none of you ever did ; and 
 it is a construction that I can not by any means admit. 
 
 My arguments to-day, from the practice of the 
 primitive Christians as recorded by historians ; from 
 the fact that we have a clear historical account of the 
 time when, the place where, and the circumstances 
 under which, single immersion was first introduced, 
 proving that trine immersion must have been the uni- 
 form mode previous to that time ; from the fiict that 
 reformers, eminent theologians, and learned authors, 
 of modern times, many of whom did not themselves 
 practice trine immersion, nevertheless acknowledged 
 it to be unquestionably the primitive mode ; from the 
 uniform practice of the Greek Church, of many mill- 
 ions of Greeks, from the beginning until now, who 
 may be supposed to know the meaning of the Greek 
 language, and who follow the practice that has been 
 handed down to them from time immemorial; these 
 arguments, that I have presented to-day, must be 
 fresh in your memories, and I will not review them 
 any further than by this simple enumeration of them. 
 The arguments produced by my friend in opposition 
 to the proposition, I could not anticipate, and some of 
 them were utterly new to me;, but 1 have met them 
 as best I could, in the limited time allowed, and I 
 think have disposed of them satisfactorily to any un- 
 prejudiced mind. 
 
 Tlianking you again for the patient attention you 
 manifested, and hoping you will give the subject your 
 careful and prayerful consideration, I now conclude 
 the remarks 1 have to offer upon this subject. [Time 
 expired. 
 
150 DEBATE ON TRINE IMxMERSION. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S NINTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — My friend says he is 
 sorry that those criticisms of mine, upon the apostolic 
 allusions to bapfisma (baptisms), and upon the apos- 
 tle's comparisons of baptism to burying, planting, 
 etc., are to go before the public. I am not. I want 
 them to go broadcast before the world. I supposed 
 "when I made them that he would prefer they should 
 not go before the public, for they tell severely against 
 the proposition he is endeavoring to sustain. But I 
 did not expect to do everything to please* him exactly ; 
 I did not undertake to shape my arguments to suit 
 his convenience. But the fears he expresses are 
 groundless : I will warrant him that no pedobaptist 
 or advocate of sprinkling or pouring will ever appeal 
 to my arguments to support his position. 
 
 I fail to comprehend my friend's logic in one re- 
 spect; or if I comprehend it, I fail to duly appreciate. 
 The question under discussion is, whether three im- 
 mersions are commanded in the commission. He 
 asserts — I deny, and send him to the record for proof. 
 I ask for a single precept or example from the apos- 
 tles. Thereupon he claims that the New Testament 
 is full of trine immersion; that every time any of the 
 apostles baptized a believer, it was by trine immersion 
 — because the commission commands trine immersion. 
 And this is his proof that the commission doef^ teach 
 trine immersion! That is what the books call ''rea- 
 soning in a circle " — which is only a round-about way 
 of saying, no reasoning at all! 
 
 My friend appears to have entirely misapprehended 
 the drift of my argument on the nineteenth of Acts. 
 I did not deny that Peter told the repentant Jews on 
 the day of Pentecost to repent and be baptized in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, under his authority. But that 
 occurrence is related in the second of Acts, which I 
 
MR. m'connell's ninth address. 151 
 
 was not referring to at all. There, I know, the word 
 is epi, '* in ;" but in the nineteenth it is eis, wliich 
 ought to be translated, " into," though our common 
 version reads '^ in " here also. But my argument was 
 brought up to meet another point entirely. It was 
 intended to refer to his assertion that there was a 
 time when a change was made from trine immersion 
 to sinorle immersion ; and that that chan^ije was con- 
 nected with a change in the formula for baptizing, 
 from "baptizing into the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," to " baptizing into 
 the name of Jesus Christ," alone. Then I brought 
 up the nineteenth of Acts, where Paul baptized the 
 believers at Ephesus {eis to ^onoma) " into the name 
 of the Lord Jesus." Consequently (according to his 
 own argument), that must have been the time when 
 the change was made from trine immersion to single 
 immersion ; and the apostle Paul is responsible for 
 the change ; and he acted under the direction of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 I am sorry that my friend felt hurt at the smile 
 that played upon my face when he introduced his idea 
 concerning the ark ; I really could not help it. And 
 I must own that I smiled again, inside of my lips, 
 when he referred to it again. But he seems to fail 
 to appreciate what I mean when I said that there was 
 only one entering in unto salvation. We read (Gen- 
 esis, vii :) that *' the Lord said unto Noah, ' Come 
 thou, and all thy house, into the ark ;' " and further, 
 that beasts, and cattle, and every creeping thing, 
 went in unto Noah, " as God had commanded him ; 
 and God shut Jiim in." Now, if Noah had taken in 
 all his family, and all the beasts and cattle and fowls 
 and creeping things, and after thus going in hundreds 
 of times, \\\n\ finally stayed out himself, he wouhl not 
 have been saved. That last goinor in is what 1 call, 
 going in unto salvation. That last entering in is the 
 
152 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 only entering that can with any propriety be called a 
 type of baptism. 
 
 In summing up the arguments upon the negative, 
 I can not pursue as systematic a course as my friend 
 has done; he who holds the affirmative must always 
 have the advantage in this respect, as the rebutting 
 arguments and negative positions called out in reply 
 depend very much upon the course pursued by the 
 affirmant in the discussion, and I could not prepare 
 and arrange them beforehand as my friend has been 
 doing for probably the last year. I say this as a par- 
 tial excuse for the order, or rather the lack of order, 
 in which, peradventure, many things may appear when 
 put upon record. 
 
 I have argued that three separate immersions can 
 not be necessary, from the purpose and design of the 
 ordinance of baptism. By baptism we are made 
 members of the heavenly family. My friend has 
 argued that to do this three acts are necessary — one 
 to change our relation to God, a second to' change our 
 relation to Christ, and a third to change our relation 
 to the Holy Spirit. I have argued that 07ie act, which 
 changes our relation to one member of the heavenly 
 family, changes our relation to all. I have illustrated 
 it by the case of the man who by one act of naturaliza- 
 tion, becomes a citizen of the United States, of the 
 State of Iowa, and of the municipality in which he 
 resides. I might illustrate it farther, by the case of 
 a poor orphan boy, vv^ith no home, no father, no 
 brother, no family. My friend, here, takes pity upon 
 him, and finding him worthy of the honor, adopts him 
 into his household. Now, that one act of juioptioa 
 makes the poor orphan boy a son to my friend, a 
 brother to the children of my friend, and introduces 
 him into all the privileges and immunities of the fam- 
 ily. So one act of adoption, represented in the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, makes the believer a child of God, 
 
MR. m'CONNELL's ninth ADDRESS. 153 
 
 a brotlier to Jesus Clirist, a recipient of the Messing 
 conferred through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and 
 entitles him to all the privileges and immunities of 
 a member of the divine family. My friend, in his 
 last speech, said he accepted the idea advanced by 
 me, that one act of baptism, changing the relation of 
 the believer to the Father, brought him into a new 
 relationship to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit also. 
 Since, then, the first act of immersion brings the be- 
 liever into a new relation to the Father, and a new 
 relationship to the Son and to the Holy Spirit neces- 
 sarily results, the o1:her two acts are of no use what- 
 ever ; they are "vain repetitions," which our Saviour 
 expressly condemns. 
 
 My friend's first half hour was spent in an eiFort 
 to prove that the word haptizo meant to immerse 
 repeatedly ; in his second speech he candidly admitted 
 that no conclusive argument could be drawn from this, 
 as the word did not always and necessarily mean to 
 immerse repeatedh^ I have proved that throughout 
 the classics it in no place necessarily conveyed the idea 
 of repeated immersion, and in many places necessarily 
 excluded any such idea. But taking him upon his 
 own ground, I have respectfully asked him how he 
 determines when the word means to immerse but once, 
 and when it means to immerse more than once? And 
 how determine which meaning it has in the commis- 
 sion? And if it means to. immerse repeatedly, by 
 what means does he determine how often f 
 
 I wouhi call the attention of this audience to the 
 fact that a very small proportion of my friend's argu- 
 ments have been drawn from the Word of God, and a 
 very large proportion of it from the words of men. 
 I would not cast any reflection upon the Christian 
 Fathers, and the other commentators and annotators 
 whom he has mentioned ; but I have suggested for 
 your consideration the well known fact that they lived 
 
154 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 in certain ages, and under peculiar circumstances, 
 which must, almost of necessity, give some bias or 
 prejudice to their opinions. We know that many of 
 them advocated the most erroneous, foolish, heathen- 
 ish, degrading practices in connection with Christi- 
 anity. And when we know that their opinions were 
 so far out of the way in reference to many other 
 points, we feel that their opinion is not sufficient to 
 settle satisfactorily the meaning of the commission — 
 the only authority we have for baptizing at all. He 
 says, we would not reject the testimony of a man who 
 was a Spiritualist, upon a simple point of fact. I say, 
 if a witness was an infatuated Spiritualist, and the 
 fact in question was connected with Spiritualism, I 
 would not accept, without considerable discount, his 
 testimon}^ upon that subject. Neither will I accept the 
 mere statement of a trine immersionist when that is 
 the subject in dispute. 
 
 My friend brought a heavy array of historical tes- 
 timony'^, and managed to trace trine immersion as far 
 toward the apostles as Tertullian's time — some two 
 centuries this side of the commission. This gap my 
 friend endeavored to fill up by hitching together 
 Mosheim and Vossius. Vossius somewhere wrote that 
 trine immersion prevailed in all countries ; and Mos- 
 heim, in his history, while treating of matters in the 
 first century, in a note at the bottom of the page, 
 refers to Vossius ; whence my friend would have you 
 infer that trine immersion prevailed in nil countries in 
 the first century. We have showed the falhicy of this. 
 Aside from this, my friend produced nothing that even 
 looked like evidence that trine immersion existed 
 farther back than the time of Tertullian. 
 
 I think this covers nearly the entire ground of my 
 friend's arguments — except, perhaps, that upon tiie 
 grammatical structure of the commission, and 1 doubt 
 not you have had grammar enougli for one discussion. 
 
MR. m'cOXXELL's ninth ADDRESS. 155 
 
 In reply, I brou^^lit you numGrous other passnges sim- 
 iliir in construction to the commission, wliich no one 
 couhl prestime to assert required more than one action. 
 Such as Luke, ix : 10, where, according to his logic, 
 Christ at his second coming must come three times — 
 once in his own glory, again in the glory of his Father, 
 and a third time in the glory of his holy angels, 
 ^latthew, xxiii : 1, where, according to his method of 
 interpreting Scripture, we must understand that Christ 
 spoke to the multitude, and then turned about to his dis- 
 ciples and made the same speech to them. Matthew, 
 viii : 11, where his mode of analyzing the commission 
 would compel us to understand that many shall come 
 from the east, and sit down with Abraham ; then go 
 back, come from the east a second time, and sit down 
 with Isaac ; go back yet again, come back a third time, 
 and sit down with Jacob; and then go through the 
 same ceremony by coming three times from the west, 
 and sitting down with each patriarch separately. And 
 other illustrations I brought, and scores more I might 
 have brought, to prove that his manner of analyzing 
 the commission was unjustifiable and necessarily in- 
 correct. 
 
 In support of our position on the negative of this 
 question, we referred to the many texts showing the 
 oneness of Christian baptism. Paul uses an expres- 
 sion which alone is sufficient to overthrow all the 
 arguments that have been adduced or can ever be 
 adduced against it : '* One Lord, one faith, one immer- 
 sion.^^ To this we invite your special and serious 
 attention. 
 
 Then there are the numerous types of baptism — 
 the washing in the brazen laver, the entrance of Noah 
 into the ark, the baptism of the Israelites in the cloud 
 and in the sea, etc., in none of which is there the 
 least hint of more than a single act. And the other 
 references to baptism, which, if not exactly types, are 
 
156 DEBATE ON TRINE IMMERSION. 
 
 illustrations, comparisons, symbols — the planting of 
 the seed, the washing of regeneration, etc.; all point- 
 ing to one act, and no more. And baptism is a type 
 or symbol of Christ's resurrection ; and as Christ died 
 once, was buried once, and rose once, so in baptism 
 there is one burial, and one resurrection. My friend's 
 mould of Christ would represent him as having passed 
 through three deaths, three burials, and three resur- 
 rections. My friend evidently has not the right 
 mould ; it must have been made after some other 
 pattern. Then we contend that one immersion con- 
 stitutes the one baptism by which the believer is 
 introduced into the one Church of God. \_Time 
 expired. 
 
 I thank the audience for mj^self, and I am sure I 
 may do the same for my friend, for their attendance, 
 and patience, and kind attention during the discussion 
 of this question. 
 
DEBATE 
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER 
 
 PROPOSITION II. 
 
 THE BREAD AND WINE WHICH ARE TO BE TAKEN BY THE DIS- 
 CIPLES OF CHRIST IN KEMLMBKANCE OF HIM, CONSTITUTE THE 
 LORDS SUPPER. 
 
 [MR McCONNELL'S FIRST xiDDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I am pleased to see so 
 large an audience assembled again this beautiful 
 morning, and am thankful for the blessings of life and 
 health, and for this opportunity to continue the inves- 
 tigation of God's holy truth, in order that we ma}'' as- 
 certain for ourselves what God requires at our hands. 
 
 As introductory to the subject under discussion, I 
 will call your attention to the reading of a part of the 
 eleventh chapter of I Corinthians, commencing at the 
 seventeenth verse: 
 
 "Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you 
 not, in that ye come together, not for the better, but 
 for the worse. (Verse 18 :) For first of all, when ye 
 come together in the church, I hear that there be di- 
 visions among you; and I partly believe it; (verse 
 19 :) for there must be also heresies among you, that 
 they which are approved may be made manifest among 
 you. (Verse 20 :) When ye come together, therefore, 
 into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper ; 
 (verse 21:) for in eating every one taketh before 
 other his own supper : and one is hungry, and another 
 is drunken. (Verse 22 : ) What ! have ye not houses 
 to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church of 
 
 157 
 
158 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 God, and shame them that have not ? What shall I 
 say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you 
 not. (Verse 23:) Fori have received of the Lord 
 that which also I delivered unto you ; that the Lord 
 Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took 
 bread; (verse 24:) and when he had given thanks, 
 he brake it and said, Take, eat; this is mj body, which 
 is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of me. 
 (Verse 25 :) After the same manner also he took the 
 cup, w^hen he had supped, saying, This cup is the new 
 testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink 
 it, in remembrance of me. (Verse 26:) For as often 
 as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show 
 the Lord's death, till he come. (Verse 27 :) Where- 
 fore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this 
 cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the 
 body and blood of the Lord. (Verse 28 :) But let a 
 man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread 
 and drink of that cup. (Verse 29 : ) For he that 
 eatetli and drinketh unworthil}^, eateth and drinketh 
 damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 
 (Verse 30 :) For this cause, many are weak and sickly 
 among you, and many sleep. (Verse 31 :) For, if we 
 would judge ourselves, we should not be judged; 
 (verse 32 :) but when we are judged we are chastened 
 of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with 
 the world. (Verse 33 :) Wherefore, my brethren, when 
 ye come together to eat, tarry one for another ; (verse 
 3-4 :) and if any man hunger, let him eat at home ; 
 that ye come not together unto condemnation. And 
 the rest will I set in order when I come." 
 
 The proposition we are to discuss this morning, I 
 need not say, is one of transcendent importance. It 
 involves one of the most solemn, significant, and im- 
 pressive institutions in the Christian economy. We 
 are therefore called upon to examine this cpiestion 
 with more than ordinary interest, solemnity, and candor. 
 
 1 
 
MR. m'cONNRLL's first ADDRESS. 159 
 
 The Bible abounds in commemorative institutions. 
 Tlie Ahuii^lity Father, knowin*^ man's liability to foi-get 
 tlie most important events connected Avith his history, 
 has established institutions, the observance of Avhich 
 is well calculated to refresh our memories, awaken 
 our gratitude, and contribute to our spiritual enjoy- 
 ment and well-being. All the nations of the earth 
 have followed the example thus set ; hence our own 
 Fourth of July, Eighth of January, Twenty-second 
 of February, and other observances that point to im- 
 portant events in our own national history. Under 
 the Jewish economy, there were the Sabbath, the 
 Passover, the Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles, 
 and various other institutions of a similar character. 
 Tliese were all commemorative, and also typical ; the 
 i\Iosaic law itself was but a shadow of good things to 
 come, and was typical of another and a better institu- 
 tion, as Paul clearly sets forth in his epistle to the 
 Hebrews. We propose to briefly examine into some 
 of these institutions of a former economy, that we 
 may thereby gain a more clear understanding of the in- 
 stitutions established under the Christian dispensation. 
 
 The apostle Paul says, in his letter to the Romans 
 (xv: 4): " Whatsoever things were written aforetime, 
 were written for our learning, that we through pa- 
 tience and comfort of the Scriptures might have 
 hope." It becomes us, thei-efore, to carefully study 
 into the true meaning and intent of these things that 
 were written aforetime, and set forth in the Old Tes- 
 tament Scriptures, that we may have strong conso- 
 lation and good hope, while engaged in the practice 
 of the things enjoined in the New Testament. In 
 pursuance of this purpose, I will try to give you a 
 brief analysis of some of God's commemorative and 
 typical institutions. Such an analysis will aid us very 
 much, I apprehend, in coming to a clear and correct 
 understanding of the subject under consideration. 
 
IGO DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 In all these commemorative and typical institutions 
 we find — 1st, the elements employed ; 2d, the things 
 to be done ; 3d, the persons by whom these things 
 are to be done ; 4th, the time when they are to be 
 done ; 5th, the place where they are to be done ; 6th, 
 the object for which they are to be done ; 7th, the 
 perpetuity of the institution, or length of time it is to 
 continue. A little investigation will show us that all 
 these points obtain in every commemorative and 
 typical institution established by the command of God 
 under the former dispensation, as recorded in the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 As our first illustration, we will call attention to the 
 institution of the Sabbath. 1st, the thing involved is 
 the seventh day of the week. 2d, the thing to be 
 done is to remember it, observe it, keep it holy ; as 
 set forth in the fourth commandment (Exodus, xx : 
 8). 3d, the Israelites were the persons commanded 
 to keep holy the Sabbath day. 4th, the time when ; 
 which in the case of this institution was from evening 
 to evening — from the setting of the sun on the sixth 
 dny till the setting of the sun on the seventh day. 
 5th, the place where they happened to be ; in their 
 tents while in the wilderness, in their habitations 
 when they came to be a settled people ; " let no man 
 go out of his pLace," said the law ; " kindle no fire 
 in all your habitations." 6th, the object for which the 
 Sabbatli was to be observed was, to commemorate, 
 first, the completion of creation (Exodus, xx), and 
 secondly, God's bringing the Israelites out of Egypt; 
 and it was also typical of Christ's lying in the grave, 
 and of our everlasting rest in heaven. 7th, it was to 
 continue until Christ arose from the dead. 
 
 If we examine the Passover, we find the same 
 points in connection therewith. 1st, the elements 
 emph)yed are tlie rousted lamb, bitter herbs, an<l un- 
 leavened bread; 2d, the things to be done were, the 
 
161 
 
 blood of the lamb was to be sprinkled upon the lintels 
 and door-posts, and its flesh was to be roasted and 
 eaten with the bitter herbs and the unleavened bread; 
 3d, the children of Israel were to attend to this ob- 
 servance ; 4th, the time when it was to be done was 
 on the fourteenth day of the first month, the month 
 of Abib ; 5th, the place where it was to be done was 
 Jerusalem ; 6th, its object or purpose was, to com- 
 memorate the passing over of the houses of the He- 
 brews by the angel of death, that destroyed the first- 
 born of the Egyptians; it was also a type of Christ; 
 7th, it was to be observed till Christ was crucified. 
 
 In the Feast of Pentecost, the same leading points 
 are observable. 1st, the elements employed were to 
 be two wave loaves, seven lambs, one young bullock, 
 etc.; 2d, they were to be waved before the Lord, and 
 then burned ; 3d, the priests were to do this ; 4th, it 
 was to be done fifty-three days after the slaying of 
 the paschal lamb ; 5th, it was to be done at the door 
 of the tabernacle, or the temple ; 6th, it Avas commem- 
 orative of the giving of the law from Mt. Sinai; and 
 it was typical of the publication of the new covenant — 
 the coming in of a new dispensation; 7th, it was to 
 continue till the crucifixion of Christ. 
 
 After these preliminary observations, we now invite 
 your attention to the institution under consideration — - 
 the Lord's Supper. Connected with this are all the 
 leading points mentioned as being present in the com- 
 memorative institutions before mentioned. 1st, the 
 elements employed were bread and wine; 2d, the 
 thing to be done was to eat and drink these elements ; 
 3d, the persons who were to do this were the disciples 
 of Christ; 4ch, the time when it was to be done was 
 the first day of the week ; 5th, the place where it was 
 to be done was wherever the disciples should meet for 
 worship on that day ; 6th, the object of the institu- 
 tion was to show the Lord's death, and point to his 
 11 
 
162 DEBATE ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 second coming; 7tli, ,it was to continue until the 
 Lord's second coming. 
 
 You perceive that in this institution, the seven 
 points connected with the commemorative institutions 
 established under the old dispensation are all to be 
 found. I do not stop here to draw close lines of dis- 
 tinction in my use of language, as to whether the 
 bread and wine is the Lord's Supper, or the Commun- 
 ion ; for that is the point yet to be discussed. I have 
 called this the Lord's Supper because it comes natural 
 and convenient to do so ; because I am accustomed 
 to do so ; and I propose to prove that our custom in 
 this respect is correct — founded upon the Word of 
 God, and sustained by the divine testimony. Since 
 it will be so convenient for me to use this term, ''the 
 Lord's Supper," when referring to the bread and wine 
 which we are in the habit of calling by that name- 
 since it will be almost impossible for me to so guard 
 myself as to avoid doing so — I hope my friend will 
 indulcre me in the use of this term without charging 
 me with begging the question, or taking the matter in 
 dispute for granted. Without further preliminary, I 
 will proceed to lay before you as distinctly as I can 
 my first argument in support of the proposition that 
 the bread and wine which are to be taken by the dis- 
 ciples of Christ in remembrance of him, constitute the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 My first argument will be drawn from the sixth 
 chapter of Jol»n's testimony. Were it not for con- 
 sumin^X too much time, I would be I'lad to read this 
 chapter here ; at least, that portion from the thirtieth to 
 the fifty-eighth verse ; but I must forego the pleasure, 
 and the advaiitafje, that would be derived from such 
 reading, nnd content myself with referring to the ex- 
 pressions bearing more particularly upon the argument. 
 1 hope, however, you will all of you take your Bibles, 
 when you reach your homes, such of you as have 
 
MR. m'cOXNELL'S first ADDRESS. 163 
 
 them not with you, and read carefully the entire chap- 
 ter for yourselves. 
 
 I call your attention more especially to the forty- 
 eighth verse, where Jesus says, "lam that bread of life;" 
 and to the fifty-first verse, where he continues, '* I am 
 the living bread which came down from heaven ; if any 
 man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the 
 bread that I will give is 7nf/ fleshy which I will give for 
 the life of the world." Now, the eating of bread is 
 a phrase used in the Bible, and elsewhere, indicative 
 of partaking of a meal — dinner, breakfast, or supper — • 
 bread, the most important article of food, being used 
 as a symbol, or representative, rather, of all food. 
 Tlie eating of bread in the evening — the time when 
 the disciples partook of the bread given them by our 
 Saviour — is called a supper. I conclude, therefore, 
 that to eat the bread of life w^hich came down from 
 heaven, of which our Lord says, " I am that bread of 
 life," is to eat the Lord's supper — the Lord's meal, 
 prepared by him for sustaining the spiritual life of 
 those who partake of it. 
 
 Again : In Matthew, xxvi : 26, we are told that, 
 Jesus took in his hands a loaf of literal bread, and 
 blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, 
 saying, "Take, eat; this is my body." Therefore, to 
 eat the bread of the communion is to eat the body of 
 Christ, the bread that came down from heaven ; and 
 therefore, to eat the Lord's supper. 
 
 Again : Christ says (John vi : 55), " My flesh is 
 meat indeed ;" is food indeed ; meat, another impor- 
 tant article of food, being here used to represent food 
 in general. But the loaf is said by Christ to be his 
 body ; therefore, to eat the loaf is to eat Christ's flesh ; 
 and therefore, to eat the bread of life, presented to 
 us in the person of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Again : Christ says, in this same chapter and verse 
 last mentioned (John, vi : 55), " My blood is drink iu- 
 
164 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 deed." In Matthew, xxvi : 28, he says, concerning 
 the cup, the wine, '" This is my blood of the new tes- 
 tament." Now we have here the same form of argu- 
 ment previously presented : " My blood is drink in- 
 deed ;" and " This is my blood :" therefore he that 
 drinketh of the cup, drinketh the blood of Christ. 
 
 Again : Food and drink are the essential elements 
 of a meal. And to eat the bread which is Christ's 
 body, and to drink the wine which is his blood, is to 
 eat the supper or meal furnished us by the Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; and therefore, literally, the Lord's supper. 
 Whether a meal be called breakfast, dinner or supper, 
 depends upon the time of day, the custom of the 
 country, etc. Food eaten to supply physical needs is 
 equally nourishing Avhether partaken at morning, noon, 
 or night; the time when it is eaten does not make 
 any difference in its nourishing qualities ; so we deem 
 that no special meaning is attached to the word " Sup- 
 per," in this instance. 
 
 Now this first argument — one argument with four 
 members, if you please — is substantially before you. 
 But I want to spend a few moments in elucidating 
 one or two points connected with the matter a little 
 more fully. 
 
 I am well aware of the strong prejudice that exists 
 in all Protestant communities against using the strong 
 and pointed language of the Saviour, in reference to 
 this matter: ^^ This is my body:" ^^ This is my 
 blood." A man who dwells too strongly upon this 
 language of our Saviour is apt to be looked upon with 
 fear and distrust by Protestants generally. Then let 
 mo say that we understand this language to be s^'^ra- 
 bolical ; we do not look upon the bread and wine used 
 in the communion as being literal flesh and literal 
 blood. We are not advocates of transubstantiation ; 
 and if we understand the meaning of the term consub- 
 stantiation, we do not indorse that, either. The in- 
 
MR. m'cONNKLI/s FlUST ADDRKSS. 1G5 
 
 stitution under consideration, whether cnlled the Lord's 
 Supper or the Communion, is a syniholical commem- 
 orative institution. The hinecuatxe used in institutinoj 
 it is evidently to be understood in tlie same manner 
 as that in John, vi : 55 : " My flesh is meat indeed, 
 and my blood is drink indeed." I do not deem that 
 he intended to teach the disciples that they must eat 
 his literal flesh, and drink his literal blood, in order 
 to have everlasting life. I understood that he referred 
 to his flesh and blood, not as literal food, but as sym- 
 bols of spiritual food, which should minister to our 
 spiritual life. This is beautifully and forcibly taught 
 by the Saviour himself, in the sixty-third verse of this 
 same sixth chapter of John : " It is the spirit that 
 quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing." 
 
 My second argument in support of the proposition 
 that the bread and wine which are to be taken by the 
 disciples of Christ in remembrance of him constitute 
 the Lord's Supper, will be drawn from the passage I 
 read to you in commencing my remarks, from the elev- 
 enth chapter of I Corinthians. My unexpired time 
 ■will allow me now to refer to only a few points in 
 this connection. And I shall preface the argument 
 by a few remarks, by way of introduction, suggested by 
 the second verse of this chapter : "Now I praise you, 
 brethren, that you remember me in all things, and 
 keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." 
 The word " ordinance," according to Webster, is '• a 
 rule established by authority ;" '' a law or statute of 
 sovereign power ;" " a decree ;" " an edict ;" " a re- 
 script;" "an observance commanded;" "an estab- 
 lished rite or ceremony ;" and quite a lengthened ex- 
 planation, and a number of examples, are furnished. 
 The last two definitions I have quoted come nearest 
 to expressing the meaning attached to the word in 
 Scripture, where it seems to have a somewhat techni- 
 cal meaning — a sentiment of sacredness connected 
 
166 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 with it, which elsewhere does not obtain. The apostle, 
 speaking in general terms to the Corinthian brethren, 
 praises them for having kept the ordinances — the rites 
 and observances commanded by our Lord. But 
 thou^i in general they had been obedient, and kept 
 the ordinances as he had delivered them, yet the 
 apostle could not praise them in terms of unqualified 
 commendation. First, he settles what seems to have 
 been a disputed point among them, by deciding that 
 a man should prophesy or pray with his head uncov- 
 ered ; while a woman, while prophesying or praying, 
 should have her head covered. Coming to the seven- 
 teenth verse, we find that there is another point upon 
 which — notwithstanding his commendation of their 
 general course of conduct — the apostle is obliged to 
 say, " In this I praise you not.''^ \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S FIRST ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — I am pleased to appear be- 
 fore you again with my friend, in the investigation of 
 the subjects that are at issue between us. 
 
 The question before us this morning is in reference 
 to what constitutes the Lord's Supper. I agree with 
 much that my friend has said thus far upon the sub- 
 ject; in his first argument especially I see little to 
 which I wouUl feel like taking any exceptions. In this 
 first speech of his, then, I find but little to reply to. I 
 hope that he does not so far misunderstand us, and 
 that none of you so misunderstand us, as to suppose 
 that ive do not consider the bread and wine to be 
 symbols of the body and blood of our Lord. Nor is 
 there any dispute between us as to the importance 
 of the symbols expressive of the body and blood of 
 Christ ; upon that we are agreed. Our point of dis- 
 agreement is in regard to the name that should properly 
 
MR. QUINTKll's FIK.ST ADDRESS. 1G7 
 
 be ;ip])lie(l to tlicin. He calls the partaking of them, 
 the Lord's Supper ; while I can not, according to my 
 understanding of the Scriptures, accept of thiit term 
 as expressive of those symbols. But, as I have already 
 said, so far as he has yet presented his subject, I see 
 notliing in particular to except to, or to take hold of; 
 so I will proceed with the arguments upon my own 
 side of the subject; and will attend to his as he may 
 from time to time present them. 
 
 Introductory to any direct argument upon the sub- 
 ject, I will present some general observations. 
 
 The Christian religion is adapted to meet all the 
 wants of humanit}'-, and to restore it to all that it was 
 before the fall. It is said of Christ, its Author, that 
 *' he needed not that any should testify to him of man, 
 for he knew what was in man." He knew what was 
 man's character and capacities for enjoyment when in 
 possession of all his original powers, and when occu- 
 pying the garden of Eden into wdiicli he had been 
 placed by his Maker. He knew also his wretchedness 
 and degradation when driven from his beautiful home 
 in Eden, and compelled to wander an exile through 
 the world over which he was originally designed to 
 have universal dominion. 
 
 In the fall, man lost his capacity for happiness, and 
 he also became separated from the sources which alone 
 could satisfy his desires and capacities for happiness. 
 In his regenerated state, with the new heart that is 
 given to him, his capacities are restored to their 
 original state, and in the consummation or completion 
 of his redemption, all the sources of enjoyment that 
 were ever designed to afford him happiness will be 
 made available to him. 
 
 In becoming a citizen of heaven and a member of 
 the church of Christ, the believer already in this life 
 greatly improves his condition and multiplies his com- 
 forts. The relation that Christians are brought into 
 
168 DEBATE ON THE LOKD's SUPPER. 
 
 to one another when they enter a Christian community, 
 is that of a family. Man was created a social being ; 
 and the proper exercise of his social feelings, when 
 these are in a healthy state, is a fruitful source of en- 
 joyment. We are related to God, and also to one 
 another. " One is your master, even Christ ; and all 
 ye are brethren" (Matthew, xxiii : 8). In our church 
 relation to God and to one another, we have commun- 
 ion with him through Christ, and also with one another. 
 Our communion with Christ, as the great Head of the 
 church, from whom all our spiritual life is derived, is 
 both promoted and publicly shown by a partaking of 
 the bread and wine, the symbols of his body and blood. 
 And our brotherly communion with one another is 
 represented by the meal they ate together, which was 
 at times called a '' love-feast," or "feast of charity." 
 
 In all ages of the world, and among all nations, 
 eating, drinking, and hospitality, have been connected 
 with religious observance; while the meeting of 
 friends, the enjoyments of the palate and the exercise 
 of the devotional affections, would conspire to make a 
 festive holiday. The word " festival " comes from the 
 'French fete, which is an abbreviated form of the Latin 
 festum — '•^ festus dies" a holy day or holiday. In the 
 Greek we find estian, the original oi fesium ; and cstian 
 itself is from the noun estia (Latin vesta), " a hearth ;" 
 so that the root idea of the word is to be found in what 
 we would term the pleasures of the table — the exer- 
 cise of hospitality. 
 
 In the patriarchal age of the world, feasts of various 
 kinds were very common, as a reference to a history 
 of that time will plainly show. Aud when we come to 
 the time of Jewish history, we find quite a number of 
 feasts e'stab|ished by divine authoiity in the system of 
 religion ordained by God for the benefit of the Jewish 
 nation, until the dispensation of Christ should come. 
 And from the fact that various religious feasts >Yere 
 
MR. QUINTEU'S I'IKST ADDRESS. 1G9 
 
 given tlie Jews by the Lord, we may infer that tliore 
 was soTnetliiiif]; in their nature and tendency which 
 wouhl so operate upon human cliaracter as to render 
 tlvem an auxiliary' to the general system of religion 
 of which tliey were a part, and wliich was designed to 
 improve man's character by cultivating and developing 
 his social and benevolent feelings. 
 
 While I shall give the necessary attention to the 
 arguments offered by my opponent on the affirmative of 
 the proposition now in debate, I shall show — 
 
 I. That tJce aposfoJic church had in connection ivith 
 the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, a meal or 
 supper. 
 
 II. That the meal or supper that was eaten, and not 
 the bread and wine, ivas the Lord^s Supper. 
 
 I. That the apostolic church had a meal, in connection 
 with the bread and wine, will appear from the follow- 
 ing considerations : 
 
 1. It is evident from I Corinthians, xi : 20, 21, a 
 portion of the Scripture already read by my opponent, 
 that there was provision brought to the place of meet- 
 ing to constitute a meal. It is here said "When ye 
 come together therefore into one place, this is not to 
 eat the Lord's Supi)er. For in eating, every one 
 taketh before other his own supper : and one is hungry, 
 and another is drunken." 
 
 Now, the point we make here is this : If only the 
 symbols of the body and blood of Christ, that is, only 
 the bread and wine, and that, too, in such quantities 
 as are usually and properly taken,, it would by no 
 means have been necessary for several of the mem- 
 bers of the church to have brought provision, or bread 
 and wine, since one member could readily have 
 brought enough to furnish a large number of com- 
 municants with bread and wine, as each member takes 
 but a small piece of bread and only a sip of wine. But 
 it appears that several of the members of the church 
 
170 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 brought suppers along with them, which, when pre- 
 pared properly, when brought together, when all things 
 were in proper order, were to constitute one gen- 
 eral meal, the Lord's Supper. Therefore the Lord's 
 Supper must have consisted of a meal, and not of a 
 little bread and wine only. 
 
 2. My second argument in proof of the position that 
 the apostolic church partook of a meal, and not merely 
 of the bread and wine — the symbols of our Lord's body 
 and blood — is derived from the consideration that they 
 received the 'provisions they partook, from a table. 
 It is said, I Corinthians, x : 21, " Ye can not be par- 
 takers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils.'* 
 Now, the Lord's table was that from which the 
 Lord's Supper was received by the Christians at 
 Corinth. Then, as a table was necessary in eating the 
 Lord's Supper, and as the Christians at Corinth re- 
 ceived what they ate from a table, it is evident that 
 they ate a meal ; for in those churches which call the 
 bread and wine only the Lord's Supper, the members 
 do not sit at a table, nor receive the bread and wine from 
 a table ; but usually sit on the ordinary seats in the 
 house of worship, and receive the bread and wine 
 which they partake of from a plate and cup. Where 
 there is nothing except the bread and wine, no table 
 seems necessary, and hence none is prepared on those 
 oceasions. Hence, there is evidently a difference be- 
 tween the manner in which the modern churches take 
 the Lord's Supper, when they do not receive it from 
 a table, and the church at Corinth, which did re- 
 ceive it from a table. The difference is this : The 
 church at Corinth had a meal while our modern churches 
 have no meal ; hence they are not apostolic in their man- 
 ner of worshiping. We argue that the apostolic church 
 immersed in administering baptism, because they went 
 into the water to baptize — since tliere would have becix 
 
MR. QlIXTKH\s FIRST ADDRESS. 171 
 
 no necessity of goinpr into the water to sprinkle. So 
 ■\ve ari:;uo that a tahlc ijiiplies a meiil — for liad there 
 been no nienl, no tabh^ woukl have been necessary. 
 
 3. My third argument in jrroof of 7ni/ position that 
 there was a meal eaten by the Chridians of the apostolic 
 churchy is derived from the distinction the apostle 
 makes between the table and the cup. He says (I Corin- 
 thians, X : 21) : " Ye can not drink of the cup of the 
 Lord and the cup of devils ; ye can not be partakers 
 of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Now, as 
 there is a distinction made here between the cup and 
 the table, how can we account for it in any way so 
 satisfjictorily as to understand the cup to represent here 
 both the bread and wine, as we understand the bread 
 to imply the cup where it is said (Acts, xx : 7) : " The 
 disciples came together to break bread." As the bread 
 and wine were instituted at the same time, and were 
 designed always to accompany each other, when one is 
 mentioned the other is always implied. Then, as the 
 cup named by the apostle means the symbols of the 
 body and blood of Christ, the table upon which the 
 supper was spread must mean the Lord's Supper; and 
 so we have both a supper and the symbols of Christ's 
 body and blood recognized by the apostle Paul, in the 
 language we are now considering. This is the view 
 which has struck me as being most natural and appro- 
 priate. If there is any better explanation, we shall 
 hear it, I hope, on this occasion. 
 
 4. My fourth argument in support of my position 
 that there was a meal eaten as a religious feast in the 
 apostolic churchy and not merely the bread anji tvine, is 
 derived from the language of Jude and Peter. Jude 
 says (verse 12): "These are spots in your feasts of 
 charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves 
 without fear : clouds they are without water, carried 
 about of winds ; trees whose fruit withereth, without 
 
172 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 fruit, twice dend, plucked up by the roots." Peter 
 says (II Peter, ii : 14): ""Spots they are, and blemishes, 
 sporting themselves with their own deceivings, while 
 they feast with you." It is evident from this language, 
 especially that of the apostle Jude, that reference is 
 here made to a meal, and not to the partaking of the 
 body and blood of Christ. I believe that no commen- 
 tator has ever endeavored to explain the passage in 
 Jude as referrintr to the church at that time eatin"!; the 
 symbols of the body and blood of Christ. The text 
 shows most conclusively that the church at that time 
 had a feast; they had an eating; different from, dis- 
 tinct from, separate from, the eating of the symbols of 
 the body and blood of our Lord. Remember, there is 
 no loop-hole of escape here by claiming that this was 
 an unauthorized custom in an apostatized church; this 
 is not amid the accumulated superstitions of after ages ; 
 it is yet in the apostolic age ; at the very head of the 
 stream; the fountain of unadulterated Christianity. 
 It is true, abuses are spoken of, and censured, in 
 connection with these feasts ; it is true the apostles 
 reprove those abuses ; but the feasts themselves are 
 recognized as ordinances of the church. We want it 
 definitely understood, then, that both Jude and Peter, 
 in addition to the apostle Paul, recognize a feast, a 
 meal, in connection with the ordinances, the established 
 usages, of the church. If this feast was constituted 
 of the bread and wine alone, the symbols of the body 
 and blood of our Saviour, my friend here will no doubt 
 make the matter all plain and clear, for he has given 
 extensive attention to this matter, and has thoroughly 
 investigated the points at issue between us on this oc- 
 casion. 
 
 5. Mij fifth argument to prove that the apostolic 
 church had a meal which ?m.s' eaten as a relir/ious feast, 
 in addition to the bread and wi)te which was taken as 
 the sijnibols of the body and blood of Christ, is derived 
 
MR. QUINTER's first ADDRESS. 173 
 
 from writers of cUsfuicfioii, such as commenfafors and 
 Iddorians. 
 
 Jeukyn, in his exposition of Jude, verse 12, says : 
 " The institution of these love-feasts was founded on 
 the custom of the church, which immediately before the 
 celebration of the Lord's Supper, used to have a feast, 
 to testify, continue, and increase brotherly love among 
 themselves ; as also to the poor, who hereby were re- 
 lieved ; whence they had their name agapce, ' chari- 
 ties ;' as if they were so intended for love that there 
 could not be so fit a name by which to call them as 
 love itself. Of these feasts speaks the apostle, when 
 he saith that, ' every one taketh before other his own 
 supper,' I Corinthians, xi : 21 ; as also II Peter, ii : 13 ; 
 where he speaks concerning the feasting of these 
 seducers with the Christians; and frequent mention 
 is made of these feasts among the ancients. „ 
 
 Waddington, in his " History of the Church," page 27, 
 says: "The celebration of the sacrament of the eu- 
 charist was originally accompanied by meetings which 
 partook somewhat of a hospitable, or at least of a 
 charitable character, and were called agapce, or Feasts 
 of Love. Every Chi-istian, according to his circum- 
 stances, brought to the assembly portions of bread, 
 vine, and other things, as gifts, as it were, or obla- 
 tions to the Lord. Of the bread and wine, such as was 
 required for the administration of the sacrament was 
 separated from the rest, and consecrated by the bishop 
 alone ; its distribution was followed by a frugal and seri- 
 ous repast. Undoubtedly^ those assemblies acted not 
 only as excitements to ardent piety, but also as bonds of 
 strict religious union and mutual devotion, during the 
 dark days of terror and persecution. It was probably 
 on those occasions, more than any other, that the suf- 
 ferers rallied their scattered ranks, and encouraged 
 each other, by one solemn act of brotherly communion, 
 to constancy in one faith, and association in the same 
 
174 DEBATE ON THE LORD\s SUFFER. 
 
 affliction. We observe, moreover, that as the dangers 
 passed away from the church, the more social forra 
 (if Ave may so express it) of eucharistical administra- 
 tion gradually fell into disuse." 
 
 Alas, my friends ! Danger has not yet passed away 
 from the church ; persecution has only changed its 
 manner of attack. When I read of those feasts of 
 brotherly love, which the historian so beautifully 
 alludes to, where the disciples rallied their forces, 
 renewed their strength, and presented an unbroken 
 phalanx to the foe — I wish we had them yet. We are 
 scattered, and separated, and broken ; we need them 
 still. \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S SECOND ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — My friend comes up to 
 the examination of the question under debate in good 
 earnest, this morning, and I am pleased to see it. I 
 want a thorough examination of the subject, as thor- 
 ough as we are capable of giving it. He has told you 
 that he finds little to take exceptions to in my first 
 argument, thereby acknowledging the positions I as- 
 sumed therein to be correct, in the main. We agree 
 upon the bread and wine being the s^Mubols of Christ's 
 body and blood. So far, then, there is no dispute be- 
 tween us. 
 
 My friend introduced his argument by laying down 
 a general proposition, which I am not prepared to en- 
 tirely accept. He says the Christian religion is 
 adapted to meet all the wants of man — his physical 
 and social, as well as his moral and spiritual, needs. 
 But Paul says, in his letter to the Romans, xiv : 17: 
 ''The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but 
 righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." 
 
MR. m'cONNELI/s second ADDRESS. 175 
 
 God, in the kingdom of nature, has made provision 
 for man's pliy^icul needs ; while in the Gospel he has 
 provided for our spiriruul necessities ; and. in his 
 everlasting kingdom, which we bj and by sliall enter, 
 ^\e will find that provision has been made for the 
 spirit's needs in that immortal life. I am not willing, 
 then, to indorse my friend's statement as a universal 
 proposition. 
 
 My friend says: "Our communion "with Christ is 
 represented by partaking of the symbols of his body 
 and blood — the bread and wine; our communion with 
 each other by a meal or love-feast." That, perad- 
 venture, is true; we do not particularly object to it. 
 But ordinary unions are represented by ordinary 
 means, extraordinary unions by extraordinary means. 
 A n]eal composed of bread, and meat, and soups, and 
 drinks, is a common meal. Association at that com- 
 mon meal expresses only common relationships, com- 
 mon friendships, common unions. Our union with 
 Jesus Christ, and our union with each other as mem- 
 bers of Christ's body, is an extraordinary union, and 
 requires extraordinary means to signify and express 
 the relations of that union. Hence, we have this 
 extraordinary supper, composed of ordinary elements, 
 bread and wine, but which are used as symbols 
 of the extraordinary spiritual union which exists be- 
 tween the members of Christ's church as one bread, 
 one body; and also expressive of our union with 
 Christ, and of the cause of that union, which is 
 Christ's death. A meal, a supper, like this, is appro- 
 priate to express this extraordinary relation, extraor- 
 dinary union ; and, for that reason, may properly be 
 called the Lord's Supper. 
 
 I will call attention to my friencl's first argument in 
 favor of an additional meal, to constitute tlie Lord's 
 Supper, in connection with the bread and wine. His 
 ai-^ument is based unon Paul's first letter to the Cor- 
 
176 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 intliians, xi : 20, 21. '' When ye come together, there- 
 fore, into one place," says Paul, "this is not to eat the 
 Lord's Supper." Now, let us see why not. Because, 
 "in eating, every one taketh before other his own 
 supper : and one is hungry, and another is drunken." 
 Tliis is just what we are contending for. Instead of 
 bringing the elements, bread and wine, and partaking 
 of them, not to satisfy bodily hunger, but reverentially, 
 as representing their union with the church and with 
 Christ, they brought victuals for a common meal, and 
 ate it like a common meal, and some gormandized, 
 and some got drunk. Well might the apostle say, 
 this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Well, let us next inquire of Paul, " What is the 
 Lord's Supper?" Paul tells us: "I have received of 
 the Lord that which I delivered unto you;" namely, 
 "That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he 
 was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given 
 thanks, he brake it, and said. Take, eat ; this is my 
 body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance 
 of me." Thus the apostle sets forth precisely what 
 constitute*! the supper that was to be eaten in memory 
 of Ulirist's death. So much for the bread. Then, 
 " After the same manner also he took the cup, when 
 he had supped, saying. This cup is the new testa- 
 ment in my blood ; this do ye, as often as ye drink it, 
 in remembrance of me." 
 
 Now, what is it that we are to do to represent our 
 Lord's death, and our union with him tlirou2;li his 
 death? As if to settle this question forever, beyond 
 the possibility of all cavil and controversy, the apostle 
 clutches the whole argument with the assertion, utterly 
 fatal to the idea tlni^ it requires anything besides the 
 bread and wine to constitute the Lord's Supper : '* For 
 as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do 
 show the Lord's death, till he come." llavinir tirst 
 shown what is not the Lord's Supper, the apostle fol- 
 
MR. M'CONNELL'S SECOND ADDRESS. 177 
 
 lows by shoAving, in contrast tlicrcwith, what is the 
 Lord's Supper, settling the question beyond the possi- 
 bility of a doubt in the minds of all men who accept 
 the Word of God as authority in the case. I feel that 
 here I might, with safety, sit down, and leave the issue 
 with the world at large, on the argument that is before 
 you now. 
 
 All my friend's arguments, so far, have been de- 
 signed to prove that these Corinthians had a common 
 meal, an ordinary supper. The fact that they had a 
 table, he brings up in support of this position; and 
 other arguments to the same effect. He might have 
 spared himself all that trouble. We willingly ac- 
 knowledge that, at the outset. They brought a quan- 
 tity of ordinary provisions, sufficient to constitute an 
 ordinary meal, and, like our Tonker friends, they ate 
 this common food, like any common meal, to satisfy 
 common hunger. All this we acknowledge, willingly. 
 But the trouble with the argument is ri^ii-ht here : we 
 say, and the apostle says, " This is not to eat the Lord's 
 Supper^ And he became astonished and indignant 
 at this unchristian practice, and exclaimed, " Have ye 
 not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the 
 church of God," that ye come there to eat and drink? 
 ** If any man hunger^'' continues the apostle, " let him 
 eat at homeJ' 
 
 But my friend will try to evade the point at issue 
 by claiming that, although Christ did command his 
 disciples to eat the bread and drink the wine as sym- 
 bols of his flesh and blood, still, this is not the com- 
 munion. But the apostle settles this point just as 
 conclusively. Turn to I Corinthians, x: 16: ''The 
 cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the commun- 
 ion of the blood of Christ? The bread whi«h -we 
 break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 
 (Verse 17:) For we, being many, are one bread, and 
 one body." 
 12 
 
178 DEBATE ON THE LORD'S SUPBER. 
 
 But now my friend comes up, with an air of great 
 triumph, and proposes to take away all the effect of 
 this question of the apostles, which has all the force 
 of a positive assertion, by showing — what? Why, 
 that a table is noticed in this connection. Let us turn 
 to the passage, and examine it a little. I Cor., x : 19, 
 20, 21 : " What say I then? that the idol is anything, 
 or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any- 
 thing ? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles 
 sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and 
 I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 
 Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of 
 devils : ye can not be partakers of the Lord's tahle^ 
 and of the table of devils.'' 
 
 Now, my friend says the use of a table is clear evi- 
 dence of a separate meal or supper, aside from the 
 eating of the bread and wine. I supposed that we 
 had made that clear before. The bread and wine are 
 associated with the idea of a table, and a supper or 
 meal is associated with the idea of a table. There is 
 a figure in grammar called synecdoche^ whereby a part 
 is used to express the whole, or that which usually be- 
 longs with a thing is named instead of the thing 
 itself; for instance, we speak of a dozen sails in the 
 harbor, or a hundred liead of cattle, when we mean 
 the cattle themselves, or the ships to which the sails 
 belong. In the same way, we speak of " the pleasures 
 of the table," when we mean the pleasures that are 
 gained from eating such things as usually belong on 
 the table. In precisely this way we understand the 
 expression here, "Ye can not be partakers of the 
 Lord's table and of the table of devils." Here is the 
 syllogism, as propounded by my friend, and certainly 
 a straufje one it is : '" Modern Christians do not take 
 the emblems from the table. A table was anciently 
 associated with the emblems; therefore, the comniun- 
 iou is not the Lord's Supper." Then, 1 suppose, if 
 
MR. m'cONNELL'S SKCOND ADDRESS. 179 
 
 the bread and wine wore eaten from a table, that would 
 convert it into the Lord's Supper. In my younger 
 days, I remember once seeing tlie Presbyterians par- 
 take of the communion while sitting at a table. Ac- 
 cording to my friend's mode of arguing, tltat made it 
 the Lord's Supper ! 
 
 My friend has made the assertion that, wherever 
 the bread is mentioned, the cup or wine is always un- 
 derstood ; as in Acts, xx : 7, where "the disciples 
 came together to break bread/' and the communion is 
 evidently referred to, although the cup is not spoken 
 of; and, vice versa^ that wherever the cup is men- 
 tioned, the bread is inferred, in the same way. That 
 may be true, but with this qualification : when both 
 are spoken of, the mention of the one does not imply 
 the other; for the other being mentioned in the same 
 connection, there is no necessity for implying it. 
 When we plainly say a thing, there is no need of im- 
 plying it in addition. The apostle here plainly says 
 both. He does so for the purpose of making his as- 
 sertion emphatic and doubly strong. He therefore 
 as:?ociates both with the table; and the table with 
 which he thus associates them he calls " the Lord's 
 table." The argument is complete. We challenge 
 any man to upset it with logic, with Bible, with any 
 evidence that can be admitted in this court, where 
 God's word is the only ultimate appeal. 
 
 I have a question or two to propound to my friend 
 at this point. If the partaking of the bread and 
 wine, as the symbols of our Lord's body and blood, in 
 the proper manner, and with the proper purpose in 
 view, is not partaking of the Lord's Supper, will my 
 friend be kind enough to inform me, and this au- 
 dience, what does constitute the Lord's Supper, which 
 the disciples of Christ are required to eat under the 
 Ciiristian economy V 
 . I will now call your attention again, my friends, to 
 
180 DEBATE ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 the sixth chapter of the testimony of John. After 
 Christ had declared, " I am the bread of life," and 
 added, " If any man eat of this bread he shall live 
 forever ; and the bread that I will give is my fleshy 
 which I will give for the life of the world :" the 
 Jews asked among themselves, " How can this man 
 give us his flesh to eat?" A very natural, and a 
 very important question. And mark our Saviour's 
 strange response : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
 his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my 
 flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." 
 
 Now, no one but a Papist wuU contend for a literal 
 eating of Christ's flesh, and a literal drinking of his 
 blood. Then this must refer to a symbolic or figur- 
 ative eating and drinking. And what he did here 
 mean, he clearly explained when he instituted the 
 communion. The bread and the wine were the only 
 things our Lord ever gave his disciples to eat in a re- 
 ligious sense, the only elements he ever commanded 
 them to take in remembrance of him. And he said 
 of the bread, when he gave it, " This is my body ; " 
 and of the wine, " This is my blood." And in this 
 symbolic manner, in remembrance of him, and as a 
 type of the spiritual life they derive from him, do the 
 disciples of Clirist eat his flesh and drink his blood, 
 as he commanded.* And the eating of the bread and 
 the drinking of the wine, according to the command 
 of Christ, and for the purpose commanded by him, is 
 the most beautiful, solemn, impressive, commemorative 
 institution ever established. It is eating the bread 
 that came down from heaven, to nourish the soul, to 
 strengthen the spiritual nature of man, to confer upon 
 him immortal life. This meal is commanded by the 
 Lord; the elements constituting it are designated by 
 him ; it is to be eaten by his disciples in the manner 
 prescribed by liiiii ; and it is the onlt/ meal connected 
 
MR. M'cONNELL'S second ADDRESS. 181 
 
 with the new dispensation bearing the above marks : 
 consequently, it must be the Lord's Supper. 
 
 I have no doubt that our Tonker friends, when they 
 eat what they call the Lord's Supper, do it in all hon- 
 esty of heart, and because they believe it to have been 
 commanded by the Lord. But I can not see what 
 right a common meal, composed of common food, and 
 eaten for the satisfaction of physical hunger, can 
 claim to the appellation of the Lord's Supper. It is 
 not emblematic of his body, nor of his blood ; there 
 is no allusion to it at all, that I can discover; it is 
 eaten in pursuance of no command at all, that I can 
 find, in the Word of God. If there is any such com- 
 mand, we shall doubtless have it pointed out to us by 
 my friend. 
 
 I know very well that Jesus Christ did eat a supper 
 on the very night in which he was betrayed; it was at 
 the close of this supper that he gave the command to 
 eat this bread and drink this cup. I will not dispute 
 with my friend upon that point at all. But the claim 
 that thcit supper has any right to the distinctive title 
 of the Lord's Supper, I am not ready to admit. 
 
 When the issue is fairly made up on that supper, I 
 will have something further to say in reference to it. 
 But the substance of what I shall then have to say, I 
 will give you now, in a single sentence. That is, that 
 supper was not of Christ's instituting, either by com- 
 mand or example, any more than he instituted the 
 meal he ate at the house of Simon the leper, in Beth- 
 any, or any other common meal he ate at any private 
 house at which he was a guest; and, therefore, that 
 can not, in any proper sense of the terra, be called the 
 Lord's Supper. \_Ttme expired. 
 
182 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S SECOND ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — The first thing I shall do, 
 before proceeding with any further arguments in sup- 
 port of my own position on this question, will be to 
 examine the twentieth and twenty-first verses of this 
 eleventh chapter of Corinthians, which my friend has 
 interpreted in a manner which I can not deem war- 
 ranted by the language and construction of the pas- 
 sage. The twentieth verse says : " When ye come 
 together therefore into one place, this is not to eat 
 the Lord's supper." The translation of the Ameri- 
 can Bible Union says : " There is no eating of the 
 supper of the Lord." In the margin of our common 
 version we find the reading, " Ye can not eat the 
 Lord's Supper." Now, the twenty-first verse is con- 
 nected with the twentieth, by the conjunction '* for '" 
 (we will get acquainted with these conjunctions after 
 a while, I hope) ; ''for" indicates the cause or reason 
 of what has been stated in the verse preceding ; it 
 means very often the same as * because ;" so in the 
 twenty-first verse the apostle goes on to give the 
 reason why their eating is not eating the Lord's Sup- 
 per. It is not because they brought too much pro- 
 vision — enough for a common meal — there is no ob- 
 jection made on account of that ; but the manner in 
 which they eat is censured ; they are selfish, and they 
 are greedy; "for, in eating, every one taketh before 
 other his own supper : and one is hungry, and another 
 is drunken." Your souls can not be fed in that way ; 
 the Lord will not accept such a manner of proceeding 
 as the proper fulfilling of a divine ordinance; the 
 Lord allows no confusion in his house ; God is not a 
 God of disorder and tumult. You ought to meet and 
 eat as brethren of one family ; to '* tarry one for an- 
 other ;" if you were so hungry that you could not 
 wait till all were ready to partake, why did ye not eat 
 
MR. QUINTER's second ADDRESS. 183 
 
 anfl drink at homo? ''Have ye not houses to eat 
 and drink in?" They were not censured for eating 
 and drinking, but for eating and drinking so greedily 
 and selfishly and disorderly. My friend says the 
 Lord's Supper is dtfferent from a common meal ; the 
 house of God is not the place to eat a common meal ; 
 that should be eaten at home. Bat does the apostle 
 say so ? No ; but those who were so hungry they 
 could not " tarry one for another," they ought to have 
 eaten enough at home so they could have waited for 
 their brethren, and not have violated the dictates of 
 ordinary decency and propriety. There is no censure 
 for those who ate in a respectful and orderly manner. 
 Ought they to have eaten at home, as my friend in- 
 sists ? The design for which the meal was instituted 
 would never have been answered, had they eaten at 
 home. The apostle continues, " Would ye shame them 
 that have not houses?" Where were they going to 
 eat? This is conclusive proof that the apostle recog- 
 nized a meal that was to be eaten there ; the poor 
 were to eat there ; such language would be entirely 
 inappropriate, unless something more than merely the 
 symbols, the bread and wine, was brought. This is 
 as clear as the cloudless sky above our heads to-d.iy. 
 My friend talks a good deal about "challenging," but 
 I want to avoifl that kind of talk, or I might chal- 
 lenge my friend to explain this matter. The clear 
 inference is, that there was a full meal of ordinary 
 food; that these were the provisions of which the 
 Lord's Supper were rightfully constituted ; but that 
 in their selfishness, their greediness, their confusion 
 and disorder, they did not eat their meal in the fear of 
 Goil, the love of Giirist, the respect due to one another 
 as brethren of the Christian family; so the apostle 
 says, '* this is not to eat the Lord's Supper " — call it 
 your own supper, if you choose, but it is not the 
 Lord's. My argument stands unanswered ; a quan- 
 
184 
 
 tity of food was brought, enough to constitute a full 
 meal, a feast ; and the apostle finds no fault with that, 
 but only with the greedy, disorderly, unchristian man- 
 ner in which the meal was conducted. 
 
 The table question came up agaiti. My friend tells 
 us that once, in his younger days, he saw the Pres- 
 byterians partake of the symbols from a table. I 
 have often seen them commune when they had no 
 table; I presume they rarely commune from a table, 
 now-a-days. My friend has not told us whether the 
 disciples have a table. 
 
 He wants me to state what the supper is composed 
 of. I do not think he ought to have asked that ques- 
 tion. However, I am willing he should ask what 
 questions he chooses, and I will use my best ability 
 in answering; but when he answers my questions, I 
 will give his more attention. I would ask him what 
 kind of bread Christ commanded his disciples to eat 
 in the communion? 
 
 I believe I have now noticed, and I think satisfiic- 
 torily answered, the general points in my friend's 
 argument; and I will now proceed with my own. 
 
 Mosheim, in his commentaries on the affairs of the 
 Christians before the time of Constantine the Great 
 (Yol. I, page 197), has the following remarks : '' In 
 these solemn assemblies of the Christians, the kaimo- 
 7iia, or charitable contribution toward the relief of the 
 necessitous, was followed, according to St. Luke, by 
 the " breaking of bread." The expression, "to break 
 bread," when it occurs in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 is for the most part to be understood as signifying the 
 celebration of the Lord's Supper, in which bread was 
 broken and distributed : we are not, however, to con- 
 sider it as exclusively referring to this ordinance of 
 our Saviour, but as also implying that feast of love, 
 of which it was the customary practice of the Chris- 
 tians, even from the very first, always at the same time 
 
MR. QUINTER'S second ADDRESS. 185 
 
 to partake. That these two things were thus asso- 
 ciated together, even in the very earliest infancy of 
 Christianity, is clear from what is said by St. Luke, 
 in Acts, ii : 46. For after having there told us that 
 the brethren at Jerusalem continued daily in the 
 breaking of bread at different houses, he immediately 
 adds that '' they did eat their food together with joy 
 and simplicity of heart" (meialambanon trophes en 
 agalliasei kai apheloteti kardias). See, also. Acts, 
 XX : 11, where the breaking of bread, or the celebra- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper, is again clearly associated 
 with a feast or repast of the Christians. It appears, 
 therefore, that when, in compliance with our Saviour's 
 injunction, the Ciiristians would break bread together, 
 they also partook of a repast, in the nature of a sup- 
 per. Their meals of this sort were distinguished by 
 an holy mirth, arising out of the love of Christ and 
 of the brethren ; but this hilarity had no connection 
 whatever with anything like sensuality or intemper- 
 ance. And this is what I understand St. Luke to 
 mean by that simplicity of heart with which he states 
 the Christians to have eaten their food. For, what 
 are we to understand by a heart in a state of simplic- 
 ity, but a heart altogether devoid of every sensual 
 and depraved appetite? The service terminated with 
 some general prayers, which appear to have been dis- 
 tinctly recited by one or other of the apostles or 
 presbyters, and repeated after him by the whole con- 
 gregation. 
 
 Brown, in his " Bible Dictionary," under the head 
 of "Agapae," says: ''This is a Greek word, and 
 signifies properly 'friendship.' The feasts of charity, 
 which were in use in the primitive church, were called 
 by this name. They were celebrated in memory of 
 the last supper which Jesus Christ made with his 
 apostles, when he instituted the eucharist. These 
 festivals were kept in the church, toward the evening, 
 
186 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 after the common prayers were over, and the word 
 of salvation had been heard. When this was done 
 the faithful ate together, with great simplicity and 
 union, what every man had brought them ; so that 
 the rich and the poor were in no Avise distinguished. 
 After an economical and moderate supper, they par- 
 took of the Lord's body and blood, and gave each 
 other the kiss of peace." 
 
 my friends, what love, and union, and brotherly 
 affection is here portrayed ! Would to God that we 
 might realize it again ! that this discussion might do 
 something; toward brinoj-ino; about ao;ain that blessed 
 condition of affairs! When I look back to Christi- 
 anity in those early ages, and see the love, and hu- 
 mility, and unity, and zeal, and earnestness, exhibited 
 in the lives of the primitive Christians, I am hurt to 
 think we have lost so much of its power, and feel 
 constrained to use every exertion to restore the an- 
 cient symbols and institutions of Christianity, in the 
 hope that if they were all restored we should have 
 more of that wonderful power which Christianity 
 possessed in its infancy. If so powerful in its in- 
 fancy, what ought it to be in the nineteenth century 
 of its age? But behold what it is to-day. Exalted 
 by pride, yet torn to pieces by divisions, filled with 
 gross corruptions — some of which my friend and I 
 are trying to get out of the way. But to proceed 
 with my argument. 
 
 Olshausen, in his commentary on Acts, xx : 7, 
 " And upon the first day of the week, when the dis- 
 ciples came together to break bread, Paul preached 
 unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and con- 
 tinued his speech till midnight," says : " The con- 
 nection plainly leads to this conclusion ; that the 
 apostle wished to Observe Sunday with the church, 
 and to celebrate the Lord's Supper, as also the (iJcLp^y 
 with them, before he left Troas." 
 
MR. QUINTER's second ADDRESS. 187 
 
 Kitto, in his "Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature," 
 under the article "Agape,'' has the tbllowiiig : "The 
 primary celebration of' the eucharist had impressed a 
 sacrediiess on the previous repast — compavo esfhionion 
 aufon, M:ittlie\v, xxvi : 26, and Mark, xiv : 22, with 
 meta to delpnesai^ Luke, xxii : 20, and I Corinthians, 
 xi : 25 ; and when to this consideration we add the 
 ardent faith and love of the new converts on the one 
 hand, and the loss of property with the disruption of 
 old connections and attachments on the other, which 
 must have hi^j^htened the feelinji of brotherhood, we 
 need not look further to account for the institution of 
 the agtipe, at once a symbol of Christian love, and a 
 striking exemplification of its benevolent energy. 
 However soon its purity was soiled, at first it was not 
 undeserving of the eulogy pronounced by the great 
 orator of the church: 'A custom most beautiful 
 and most beneficial ; for it was a supporter of love, a 
 solace of poverty, a moderator of wealth, and a dis- 
 cipline of humility.'" 
 
 I am reading a little more of ihe^e quotations than 
 I otherwise would, because I want to present to this 
 community the matter in its moral effects. I want to 
 show that these learned and eminent men, in noticing 
 tliis practice in the primitive church, this love-feast in 
 connection with the bread and wine, place particular 
 stress upon the peculiar, potent and desirable effects 
 exerted thereby upon its participants. I want it un- 
 derstood that to take away the spirituality of this in- 
 stitution, its quickening power, its Christianizing in- 
 fluence, would leave it worth but little. But we 
 maintain that when properly attended to, when its 
 spirituality is retained, when observed for the purpose 
 and in the manner originally designed, its results are 
 most excellent and happy. This makes me anxious 
 and zealous to do something more than simply to sus- 
 tain my side of the question in arguing the proposi- 
 
188 DEBATE ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 tion under debate — to endeavor to present the power- 
 ful, Christianizing, spiritualizing effects of the prac- 
 tice in its proper light before the world, so far as my 
 humble powers will enable me to do so. 
 
 Neander, in his "History of the Christian Religion 
 and Church during the Three First Centuries," says: 
 ^' After the model of the Jewish Passover, and the 
 first institution of this rite, the celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper originally was always joined with a 
 geyieral meal^ and both together formed one whole; 
 and because the communion of believers with the 
 Lord, and their brotherly communion with each other, 
 were represented by it, the two together were called, 
 the Supper of the Lord {deipnon ton kurion^ or 
 deipyion kuriakon), or the love-feast {agape). It was 
 the daily rite of Christian communion in the first 
 church at Jerusalem. In Acts, ii: 46, we are most 
 probably to understand both together under the 
 phrase klan artoyi. We find both connected together 
 in the first Corinthian church, and one is inclined to 
 suppose that this was also the innocent, simple meal 
 of the Christians, of which Pliny speaks in his report 
 to the Emperor Trajan." 
 
 I may here remark that Neander, with many other 
 eminent men, believed that the communion was orig- 
 inally taken daily. 
 
 Coleman, in his "Ancient Christianity Exempli- 
 fied," says: " After the example of the Jewish Pass- 
 over, and of the original institution, the .Lord's Sup- 
 per was at first united with a social meal. Both con- 
 stituted a whole, representing a communion of the 
 faithful with their Lord, and their brotherly commun- 
 ion with one another. Jjoth together were called 
 'The Supper of the Lord' {deipnon ton kurion, or 
 deipnon knriakon), or ' The Supper of Love' {agape).'' 
 
 Cave, in his "Primitive Christianity," says: '' We 
 come last of all to consider the manner how the 
 
MR. QUIXTER's second ADDRESS. 180 
 
 euchavist was celebrated in the ancient church. But 
 before we describe that, we are to take notice that 
 after the service of the catechumens, and before the 
 be<2;innin(T of that of the faithful, at which the euclia- 
 rist was administered, tlie custom was to present tlieir 
 offerings, every one according to liis ability bringing 
 some gifts as the first fruits of his increase, which 
 was by the minister hiid upon the altar, or communion 
 table ; none of them then thinking jt fit to appear 
 before the Lord empty. Out of these oblations, also, 
 it is probable they took (at least sent provisions ex- 
 traordinary), to furnish the common feast, ivhich in 
 those da^s they condantlij had at the celebration of the 
 sacrament^ where the rich and the poor feasted to- 
 gether at the same table. These were called aga-pe^ 
 or Move-feasts' (mentioned by St. Jude, and plainly 
 enough intimated by St. Paul), because hereat they 
 testified and confirmed their mutual love and kind- 
 ness — a thing never more proper than at the celebra- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper." 
 
 Bingham, in his ''Antiquities of the Christian 
 Church," Book XV, chap, vii, after describing minutely 
 the eucharist and the agape^ or love-feast, makes the 
 following remark upon the latter: "From whence it 
 appears that this was a ritual always accompan3Mng 
 the communion." 
 
 Macknight, in his new translation of and commen- 
 tary on the Epistles, says, in his notes on I Corinthi- 
 ans, xi : 21 : " Christ having instituted his supper after 
 he had eaten the passover, his disciples very early 
 made it a rule to feast together before they ate the 
 Lord's Supper. These feasts were called {ugapoiy 
 chiritates) ' love-feasts.' They are mentioned by Jude, 
 verse 12, as also by some of the ancient writers." 
 
 Such is the testimony I offer — not all that I could 
 present, but sufl&cient for the purpose on this occa- 
 sion — in defense of the first part of my proposition, 
 
190 DEBATE ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 viz : that the apostolic church had, in connection with 
 the eating of the symbols representing the body and 
 blood of Christ, a meal, or feast ; and I can not be- 
 lieve that a careful examination of the testimony I 
 have adduced can fail to convince every candid mind 
 that this position is correct. 
 
 You will now perceive that it is not the Tonkers 
 alone, with slander often thrown upon us, with ridi- 
 cule cast at our roasted lamb, and soup, etc. (when 
 argument can not succeed, ridicule is always resorted 
 to), that claim a general meal in connection with the 
 emblems of the Lord's body and blood. We occupy 
 ground that the wisest and most learned men — I had 
 nearly said, all the wisest and most learned men — 
 concede to us. When tempted hereafter to sneer at 
 the Tonkers, do not forget this ; do not forget that 
 the most eminent commentators, the most profound 
 scholars, the most learned historians, studiously ex- 
 amining the Scriptures and the early history of 
 Christianity, proclaim it as an undoubted and undeni- 
 able fact that there was a general meal eaten in con- 
 nection with the communion, in the primitive Christ- 
 ian church. [Time expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONXELL'S THIRD ADDRESS.] 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I \\\\\ commence, lest I 
 should forget it, by answering a question directed 
 particularly to me by my friend in his last speech 
 this forenoon. He asked, ''Have the disciples a 
 table?" I answered with an emphatic Yes. 1 have 
 been breaking the loaf in connection with the dis- 
 ciples this twenty-eight years ; and we have always, 
 in every place, and under all circumstances, had a 
 table upon whicli was found the broken body and shed 
 blood of our divine lledcemer. There may be some 
 
MH. m'connell's third address. 191 
 
 question whether it was always a t.ible, or sometimes 
 something else. Webster's first definition of a table 
 is, " a flat surface," or " a thing that has a flat sur- 
 face." Whether the table be four feet wide and six 
 feet long, or one foot wide and two feet long, or 
 whatever be its shape, or size, if it has a flat surface, 
 it is a table. 
 
 My friend remarked that no commentator has ever 
 claimed that the twelfth verse of Jude referred to the 
 symbols — the brea<l and wine. This, I presume to say, 
 is true ; ami I will go further : I will say that I do not 
 believe that any man, in his right mind, and with a clear 
 perception of what the apostle says, has ever thought 
 of referring the agapce of Jude to the symbols of the 
 broken body and shed blood of our Lord. In addition 
 to this, however, I will say, that no commentator, or 
 other writer, known to me, has ever claimed that this 
 passage had any reference to, or called the agapce 
 of Ju<le by, the term, '• The Lord's Supper." In order 
 to make his arguments connect, my friend must show 
 that the Bible an wy here calls the agapce of Jude 
 *' The Lord's Supper." He may prove as many sup- 
 pers and love-feasts as he chooses — I am sure I shall 
 not interfere with him ; but what is demanded of him 
 here is quite a difi'erent thing — i. e., to prove that the 
 bread and wine which the Lord commanded his dis- 
 ciples to eat in remembrance of him, and the onlg 
 thing he ever commanded them to eat in remembrance 
 of him, is not the Lord's Supper. 
 
 My friend quoted from some writer, I do not now 
 recollect whom, a remark to the eff'ect that the Lord's 
 Supper was early abused; its purity was soon soiled. 
 But abuses crept into the manner of observing this 
 ordinance at an earlier day than any writer he has 
 quoted in this connection. Even in the apostolic 
 church, as appears from Paul's severe rebuke to the 
 Corinthians, such abuses had become incorporated 
 
192 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 with it, it had become a thing so far from what the 
 Lord intended and commanded, that the apostle de- 
 chired it was not the Lord's supper at all. The 
 Corinthians had degraded it to the level of a common 
 meal ; brought food of all kinds, as to a common 
 meal ; and eaten it as they would a common meal, to 
 satisfy common physical hunger. But what surprises 
 me is, that men professing to be guided by the Scrip- 
 ture, should seize upon and make an ordinance out of 
 the very abuses that Paul so bitterly rebukes. " This 
 is not to eat the Lord's Supper," says Paul ; or as my 
 friend seems to prefer — " there is no eating the sup- 
 per of the Lord." The difference in the meaning of 
 the two translations I can not see. Then the next 
 verse is introduced by a conjunction, " for." We 
 seem to be in a fair way to learn something about 
 this conjunction. The conjunction "for" introduces 
 the twenty -first verse, which my friend says, gives 
 the reason why the Lord's Supper was not eaten : 
 ''Every one taketh before other his own supper: and 
 one is hungry, and another is drunken." I grant 
 this is a reason, but not the only reason. I join issue 
 between " a" and the; between this being a reason, 
 and being the reason. The twenty-second verse is of 
 a parenthetical nature, in which the apostle expresses 
 his surprise and disgust at their thus profaning the 
 temple of God; if eating and drinking is what you 
 desire, " have ye not houses to eat and drink in ? " 
 The twenty-third verse is introduced by another con- 
 junction, " for," giving another,reason why this is to 
 not eat the Lord's Supper. Well, Paul, what else ? 
 What other reason have you to offer ? Because, says 
 he, this is an entirely different thing from what I 
 received from the Lord. And then he {>roceeds to 
 narrate, from the twenty-tliinl to the twenty-sixth 
 verse, inclusive, the circumstances connected with tlie 
 eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup, with 
 
103 
 
 "which you are all familiar. That is the Lord's Sup- 
 per — not eating an ordinary meal to satisfy physical 
 hunger ; "if any m;ni hunger," he adds in the thirty- 
 fourth verse, " let him eat at homeJ'^ 
 
 My friend propounded to me a query, and on my 
 answering it, promised to answer a question I asked 
 hiui. which you will all remcmher. llis question to 
 me was, " What kind of bread did the Lord command 
 to be eaten by his disciples?" I answer, the very 
 kind he had in his hand. If that is not satisfactory, 
 and you ask me what kind of bread he had in his 
 l\and, I say, unleavened bread. Because it was imme- 
 diately after the paschal supper that the Lord's Sup- 
 per was instituted ; in connection with the feast of 
 the Passover ; and the Jewish law forbade the Jews 
 to have any other kind of bread in their houses on 
 that occasion. 
 
 Now, if my friend pleases, we will have the answer 
 to the question I propounded to him. "What ar^ the 
 elements of the Lord's Supper, if they be 7iot the bread 
 and wine ? " 
 
 My friend has read from a number of historians 
 and commentators — I can not well keep track of all 
 the authors he quotes, nor always distinguish between 
 the quotation he is reading and the comments he 
 makes in connection therewith. I do not mind that so 
 much, for I do not come here to establish my position 
 by commentators, and annotators, and historians ; my 
 inductions arc from the text, and not the comment, or 
 the comment on the comment. But some of his au- 
 thors say, '• Paul wished to celebrate the Lord's Sup- 
 per, a« aho the agape, with the disciples, before he 
 loft Troas ; " " the primary celebration of the eucha- 
 rist had impressed a sacredness on the previous re- 
 pa%t^' and one of them (Macnight, I believe.) says the 
 disciples " made it a rule to feast together before they 
 ate the Lord's Supper." Now, my friend quotes these 
 
194 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 authors, because he says they sustain him in his po- 
 sition ; but if so, ^hat is the meaning of such ex- 
 pressions as these ? If the agape, or love-feast, is 
 the Lord's Supper, where the propriety of saying that 
 Paul wished to celebrate that and also the Lord's Sup- 
 per ? What sense in saying the eucharist had im- 
 pressed a sacredness on the previous repast, if that 
 "previous repast" was the eucharist, or a part of it ? 
 If this feast they ate is the Lord's Supper, then to 
 say, " they made it a rule to feast together before 
 they ate the Lord's Supper," is saying 'nhey made it 
 a rule to eat the Lord's Supper before they ate the 
 Lord's Supper" — and that is simply nonsense. 
 
 Our attention has been called to the second chap- 
 ter of Acts. Let us look, for a moment, at the forty- 
 first and forty-second verses : " Then they that gladly 
 received his word were baptized ; and the same day 
 there were added unto them about three thousand 
 souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apos- 
 tles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, 
 and in prayers." My frien<l, and I, and all, I pre- 
 sume, understand this "breaking of bread " to be the 
 breaking of bread in the communion — in commemo- 
 ration of the body and blood of Christ. Very well ; 
 now proceed to the forty -sixth verse, and we have the 
 term "breaking bread" in another meaning, as is 
 very evident from the context: "And they, continu- 
 ing daily, with one accord, in the temple, and break- 
 ing bread from house to house, did eat their meat 
 with <iladness and siii<ileness of heart." There Avas a 
 wonderful meeting at Jerusalem ; the gospel dispen- 
 sation there commenced; the church was there first 
 established ; on the very first day. three thousand 
 converts were made ; and the apostles continued in 
 the temple, worshiping God and ol)serving his ordi- 
 nances; but they broke bread, not ''in the temple,'* 
 but " from house to house;" evidently meaning that 
 
MR. m"coxxi:t,i/s third address. 195 
 
 they {li(i as we liave been doini:; to-day — preaching at 
 the plnce nppointed for worsliip, and then breaking 
 bread together at private houses — eating at the houses 
 of the brethren the food tliat was necessary to supply 
 their physical needs. This interpretation is sustained 
 by the remark placed in immediate connection there- 
 with, not even with the intervention of a conjunction, 
 but as a part of the same sentence, so shaped as to 
 indicate the whole as being done at the same time and 
 place, and as part of the same act — " and breaking 
 bread from house to house, did eat their meat with 
 gladness and singleness of heart." 
 
 I have already referred m}^ friend to one point, and 
 now I ask him the direct question : Is the agape of 
 Jude ever called, in any portion of Scripture, the 
 Lord's Supper ? or is there any reference to it, by 
 any writer of Scripture, from which, by any fair 
 induction, we may conclude it to mean the Lord's Sup- 
 per ? If not, then the whole argument based upon 
 the agape, or feast of love, is utterly irrelevant in 
 this discussion — is without pertinence or force. 
 
 Our Lord does, in one place, give instructions in 
 reference to a supper, or feast, which, if conducted 
 according to his commands, would much more closely 
 resemble the agape, or feast of charity, than does the 
 partaking of the bread and wine. In Luke, chap, xiv, 
 he tells one who had bidden him to a feast, '' When 
 thou makesta dinner, or a supper, call not thy friends, 
 nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich 
 neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recom- 
 pense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, 
 call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind ; and 
 thou shalt be blessed ; for they can not recompense 
 thee; but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrec- 
 tion of the just." Do not get up costly suppers for 
 rich friends who have enough of tlieir own to eat; 
 but feed those who need food; help those who need 
 
196 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 help ; they cnn not reward; but your reward shall he 
 sure, at tlie resurrection. But licre. it seems to me, 
 our Tonker brethren fail to fulfill our Lord's command ; 
 they get up a feast, and after they have satisfied their 
 own appetite, their neighbors, "outsiders," can come 
 and eat what is left, if there be any left. This is a 
 gross perversion of the instructions of our Saviour in 
 reference to these feasts of charity ; and I earnestly 
 admonish my Tonker brethren to change their course 
 in this respect. 
 
 One of my friend's authorities, whose name I did not 
 catch, in referring to the twentieth chapter of Acts, 
 says Paul wished to celebrate the agape with the disci- 
 ples, before leaving Troas. Now, I have examined that 
 narrative pretty carefully, and I can not find the word 
 agape there, nor any reference to it. I do find the 
 Lord's Supper referred to there — not under the name 
 of agape, however, but in the seventh verse, where it 
 is said "the disciples came together to break bread." 
 Then Paul preached, and continued his discourse till 
 midnight ; during his discourse, a young man fell from 
 an upper window, and was taken up for dead ; but Paul 
 healed him, and restored him alive to his friends; and 
 after the preaching, Paul broke bread a second time, 
 which was evidently not the Lord's Supper, but a meal 
 for the satisfaction of physical hunger; for it says 
 lie broke bread, and ate^ and talked a long while, so 
 that it was daybreak before he departed. So here are 
 two places (Acts ii, and Acts xx,) where the break- 
 ing of bread appears to be spoken of in two different 
 senses in each case — first in a sort of technical sense, 
 indicating the partaking of the symbols of the Lord's 
 body and blood, and secondly in the ordinary sense, 
 of eating a conimon meal for the supply of })hysical 
 needs. But mark this : In neither case is the word 
 agape to be found. In neither case is any general 
 feast of the church referred to. But the Lord's Sup- 
 
MR. m'CONNELL'S third ADDRESS. 197 
 
 per — the bread and wine — is referred to, unconnected 
 with any feast of the church : which proves my propo- 
 sition, that tlie agape was not the Lord's Supper. 
 
 My friend read, from some authority, that the pri- 
 mary celebration of the eucharist, in connection with 
 the paschal supper, had conferred a sacredness on the 
 previous repast, and that consequently both were cel- 
 ebrated together, and became associated under the 
 name of the most important of the two — the Lord's 
 Supper. Hence, he argues — or else there is no argu- 
 ment in the fact at all — that the emblems, the bread 
 and wine alone, were no longer really the Lord's Sup- 
 per, but that the feast was the Lord's Supper. I can 
 not com|)rehend that logic. A man and woman are 
 united in marriage — the woman assumes the name of 
 her husband, losing her name in his; consequently the 
 man is a man no longer. The only man there is, is 
 the woman. That is the reasoning by which my friend 
 transforms the feast, in connection with which the 
 Lord's Supper was eaten, into the Lord's Supper 
 itself. 
 
 The substance of all my friend's arguments and 
 quotations, is expressed in one of his quotations to 
 the effect that, "• after the example of the Jewish 
 Passover, the Lord's Supper was associated with a 
 feast." I do not dispute that; but I ask by whom 
 was it associated with a feast? By Jesus Christ? By 
 any of the apostles? No! but by the converted 
 Jews, who still cling to the institutions of Judaism, 
 and endeavored to incorporate them with the institu- 
 tions of Christianity : and they united with the Lord's 
 Supper a feast borrowed from the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion. And this occasioned more trouble than any 
 other one thing in the early days of Christianity. The 
 first eleven chapters of Bomans were written for the 
 very purpose of correcting these errors ; the letter to 
 the Galatians was written with that thought in mind ; 
 
198 DEBATE ON THE LORD's. SUPPER. 
 
 SO also with the letter to the Hebrews ; in fact, the 
 same may be said of three-fourths of the epistolary 
 writings. But with all that, there was a constant 
 tendency among the converted Jews to revert to the 
 institutions and teachings of Judaism ; and even in 
 the blessed light of the glorious nineteenth century, 
 there are men who still look back to the ordinances 
 of Judaism, and seek to incorporate them into Chris- 
 tianity. l^Tinie expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S THIRD ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — The first point I will notice 
 will be the first point my friend noticed — in regard 
 to that table. He says, the disciples have a table ; 
 but he does not say that all his brethren receive vhat 
 they partake of, from off that table ; there is the diffi- 
 culty. That this is what the apostle means in the 
 letter to the Corinthians, is evident from the context. 
 " Ye can not be partakers of the Lord's table, and of 
 the table of devils.'' Now, how did they partake of 
 the table of devils? Tliey sat around the table, and 
 ate from it the provisions that were upon it. Twu par- 
 allel cases are set forth in contrast; and in whatever 
 way they ate from the " table of devils," they ought 
 to eat from the " Lord's table." It does seem to me 
 that for the minister alone to go to the table, take the 
 bread and wine, carry it around to the congregation, 
 and let them partake of it wherever they may be, is 
 not for them to partake of the Lord's table ; or if so, 
 it is in a very indirect way. 
 
 My friend tries to carry the idea that any flat sur- 
 face, anywhere, and of any kind or size, is a -table; 
 and that if the symbols are placed on a boar<l, or 
 bench, or flat stone, and the minister takes it from 
 there to the congregation, that is all that is required. 
 
MR. quinter's third address. 199 
 
 But this general and indefinite manner of interpreta- 
 tion does not suit my friend when applied to haplizo. 
 Some persons give that word a sort of vague, general 
 definition, meaning a great many things — occasionally 
 to sprinkle. But my friend, if arguing upon the 
 word htiptizo, would insist upon the ordinary usual 
 meaning of the word; and wc ask him to follow the 
 same rule in determining the meaning of the word 
 " table," and the phrase, " partaking of the Lord's 
 table." 
 
 I want to refer to Paul's language, in this eleventh 
 chaj)ter of Corinthians, again. I can not accept of 
 the interpretation my friend places upon it. The 
 Lord's Supper, according to the customs of the prim- 
 itive church, was followed by partaking of the sym- 
 bols of the body and blood of our Saviour. But the 
 members of the church at Corinth' ate the supper as 
 they would their own supper, *' not discerning the 
 Lord's body." Such utter confusion obtained among 
 them that the emblems were not used at all ; but Paul 
 tells them that, in eating the Lord's Supper, this por- 
 tion of it must not be forgotten ; this he says, and we 
 acknowledge, to be a part of the Lord's Supper, and 
 a part that should not be neglected ; but the Corin- 
 thians did neglect it — hence Paul's admonition to them. 
 Each member had brought something to constitute a 
 portion of the common meal; but instead of waiting, 
 and putting it in with the general store, and letting 
 all partake, they ate their ow)i provisions, which they 
 had just brought; and besides this, they neglected to 
 serve out the bread and wine, the emblems of our 
 Lord's body and blood, which were to be taken in con- 
 nection with the preceding feast or meal, this meal 
 constituting the Lord's Supper. This is the explana- 
 tion we present of this matter ; and we submit that it 
 is perfectly satisfactory. 
 
 My friend refers to a feast to which our Saviour 
 
200 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 alluded, when he commanded that the poor, the 
 maimed, the lame, the blind, should be invited. But 
 the feast, or meal, that is spoken of under the name 
 of the agape, and to Avhich Luke evidently alludes 
 when he says that Paul remained at Troas till " the 
 disciples came together to break bread," was not a 
 feast tor everybody ; it was a feast for the brethren — 
 for the church. And our poor brethren in the church 
 are as welcome as the wealthiest at our feast of love, 
 and are not asked to contribute toward it. As a 
 minister of the gospel of Christ I do not ask my poor 
 brethren to help rae. 
 
 I put the question to my friend as to what bread 
 should be, eaten at the Lord's Supper. He said, the 
 example of our Lord was, to partake of unleavened 
 bread ; because there was no other kind of bread 
 allowed in the houses of the Jews at that time. Then 
 he asked me as to what should constitute our feast. 
 I answer that, as far as the example of Christ goes, 
 unleavened bread should constitute a portion of the 
 feast. All that was said (to which my friend referred 
 in the conclusion of his remarks) about the Jewish 
 Passover, occurred in quotations I read ; they were 
 not remarks of my own, but in quoting from the au- 
 thors whose testimony I wished to adduce, these 
 remarks about the Jewish Passover incidentally came 
 in, and it was difficult to separate them from the con- 
 text. I did not intend, and do not design yet, to draw 
 into the discussion the question as to zvhat supper it 
 was that the Lord was eating with his disciples, when 
 he instituted the communion. I do not see that that 
 has anything to do with the matter. 
 
 My friend claims that my arguments fiom Jude, in 
 reference to the agape, and from Peter on the same 
 point, have no relevancy in this discussion ; have no 
 bearing u[)on the question. They may have more 
 bearing upou it than ho ma^ at first suppose, I pro- 
 
MR. quintek's third address. 201 
 
 posed to pursue the course -wliich my judgment dic- 
 tated to me would hv the hetter course to pursue, :nid 
 not some other course tliat my opponent might dic- 
 tate. First, I proposed to prove, and I have proved, 
 conclusively proved, that there was a meal eaten by 
 the apostolic church, in connection with the symbols 
 of the body and blood of Christ. Now, whether tliis 
 meal was the Lord's Supper or not, since such a meal 
 existed in the apostolic church, any church omitting 
 this meal can not be apostolic in its mode of worship. 
 
 I will now proceed to the other branch of my argu- 
 ment, namely, to prove that this meal, and not the 
 symbols of Christ's body and blood, constitutes the 
 Lord's Supper. In fact, this would be the natural 
 inference, the conclusion of every unprejudiced mind, 
 that since there was a supper, and the partaking of 
 the bread and wine is not a meal, that the Lord's 
 Supper means the supper, and not the bread and Avine, 
 which is not a supper. 
 
 1. My first argument will be drawn from the mean- 
 ing of the word used. The expression, "Lord's Sup- 
 per," occurs but once in the New Testament ; and that 
 is in the eleventh chapter and twentieth verse of Paul's 
 letter to the Corinthians. The Greek term is kuria- 
 kon deipnon. The word deipnon signifies " a meal." 
 
 Donnegan defines it thus : " In Homer, mostly, the 
 first meal, breakfast, opposed to dorpos : 111., ix : 53; 
 XX : 578 ; Od., x : 31L Also, the evening meal : Od., 
 (?) 176. In Attic dialect — supper ; the afternoon or 
 evening meal ; and, being the principal meal, a feast, 
 an entertainment." 
 
 Greenfield defines it thus : "A morning repast ; 
 dinner, prandium ; in N. T., supper, the principal 
 meal of the Hebrews, and taken by them in the 
 evening : Luke, xiv : 12 ; John, xiii : 2." 
 
 Parkhurst defines it as follows : " 1. In Homer, it 
 generally denotes the breakfast, or morning meal, as 
 
202 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 111., ii: 381, 399; but sometimes food in general, 
 even that \Yl)icli is taken towai'd evening, as 111., 
 xviii : 560. Hence — 2. An evening meal, or feast: 
 Matthew, xxiii: 6; Mark, vi : 20 ; Luke, xiv : 12." 
 
 It will be seen that, according to the leading and 
 most learned definers of the original Greek word, 
 deipnon signifies a meal, or feast. Now, we insist 
 upon treating this word the same as that other Greek 
 word, haptizo ; we claim that we must accept the pri- 
 mary and usual meaning of the word. If we, as im- 
 mersionists, which includes my friend, insist upon this 
 with the word baptizo, I insist upon my friend's going 
 by the same rule in defining the word deipnon. To 
 refuse to do so, subjects him to an inconsistency for 
 which he can have no excuse. The pedobaptists have 
 discovered this inconsistency, and taken advantage 
 of it in their debates with the immersionists. I 
 do not mean with us Tonkers — for our practice is 
 in conformity with not only the example of Christ and 
 the teachings of the apostles, but the definition of the 
 word used by Paul in speaking of it — but with our 
 baptist friends, who insist on taking the word haptizo 
 in its primary and usual sense, but, when they come 
 to the word deip7ion, immediately dodge tlie applica- 
 tion of the rule upon which they have just before 
 insisted so strongly. Dr. Seiss, an eminent pedobap- 
 tist author, in an argument against immersion, makes 
 a strong point agninst us on account of this incon- 
 sistency, into which my friend falls, when he insists 
 that the supper which was eaten by the Lord and his 
 disciples the night of his betrayal was not the Lord's 
 Supper, and claims that to be the Lord's Supper which 
 is no su})per at all. Dr. Seiss says : 
 
 "We have another argument to present; an argu- 
 ment from analogy. We are about to submit a mode 
 of reasoning which has no need of demonstration ; 
 "which exempts us entirely from the necessity of 
 
MR. QUINTEll's TIIIHD ADDRESS. 203 
 
 replvinf]^ nt all to the teachings of the immersionists 
 as to the scholastic:il and common meaiiinixs of the 
 Avonl in (lis))nte We may ixrant tiiat the Greeks ortli- 
 narily used h(tptizo to siirnify immersion, an<l that all 
 its meaninors nre properly resolvable itito this. We 
 may entirely dispense with and wholly set aside the 
 conclusions which we have thus far adduced ; and yet 
 there is a mode of reasoning to which no just excep- 
 tion can possibly be taken, which entirely confounds 
 the Baptist claim, and establishes a bulwark of strength 
 around our mode of baptism, which renders it forever 
 invulnerable a^^ainst all the immersionist lo";ic in the 
 world. 
 
 "It is agreed on all hands that, under the present 
 dispensation, Christ has established two corresponding 
 ordinances or sacraments : the one is baptism, the 
 other the Lord's Supper. The one refers to the new 
 birth, the other to the nurture and nourishment of 
 this new creature. All the essentials of a positive 
 ordinance or Christain sacrament pertain alike to 
 both. Both have Christ's positive command ; both 
 require the use of an external, material, and tangible 
 element; both are of binding and continual obliora- 
 tion ; both have the divine promise of grace to those 
 who attend properly upon them ; both are intended 
 to exhibit and apply the gospel to the souls of men; 
 both are equally solemn, sacred, and unalterable. The 
 one is denoted by the word deipnon, supper ; the other 
 by the word bapfisma, baptism. Baplisma does not 
 more describe the nature or essential constituents of 
 the one, than deipnon does of the other. It is no more 
 allowable, then, for us to depart from the strict meaning 
 of the word deipnon in our celebration of the Holy 
 Supper, than to depart from the strict meaning of 
 baplisma in baptizing. The stringency or laxity tliat 
 is allowable must be the same in both cases; for they 
 are exactly analogous. If it is not necessary to keep 
 
204 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 to the literal meaning of one, it is not necessary to 
 keep to the literal meaning of tlie other. Liberty in 
 the one case presupposes and implies the existence 
 of the right to exercise the same liberty in the other 
 case. Tliis can not be successfully disputed. 
 
 '* Supposing, then, that the immersionists are right 
 in claiming that the mode is implied in bapfis?na, if 
 Ave can show that they, in common with the church 
 generally, from the beginning until now, consider 
 themselves under no obligation to keep to the plain, 
 literal import of the word deipiion in the Holy Supper, 
 that fact alone, without any other argument, is a sat- 
 isfactory and unanswerable ground upon which to 
 claim exemption from the rigid adherence to the 
 literal meaning of haptisma in baptizing. Sound 
 authority in one case is sound authority in every 
 parallel case. 
 
 " What, then, is the meaning of deipnonf There 
 is little room for diversity as to the true answer. It 
 denotes a full meal, and that an evening meal. All 
 authorities agree that it stands for the principal meal 
 of the Greeks and Romans. Three names of meals 
 occur in tlie Homeric writings, in the following order : 
 ar'iston, deipnon, and dorpon. The Greeks of a later 
 age partook of three meals, called akraiisnia, arisfon, 
 and deipnon. The last, which corresponds to the 
 dorpon of the Homeric poems, was the evening meal, 
 or dinner ; the ariston was the lunch ; and the akra- 
 tisma, which answers to the ariston of Homer, was the 
 early meal, or breakfast. The akratisina was eaten 
 immediately after rising in the morning. Next fol- 
 lowed the ariston^ or lunch ; but the time at which it 
 was taken is uncertain : Snidas says it was taken 
 about the third hour; that is, about nine o'clock in 
 the morniniT^ ; but this account does not a*i;ree with the 
 statements of other ancient writers. We may con- 
 clude, from many circumstances, that this meal nyus 
 
MR. quinter's third address. 205 
 
 enten aV>out tlie midille of the day, and answered to 
 tlic ll(Hnan pnindlutn. The priticipul meal, however, 
 was tlie deipnon. It ^Y■as usually eaten rather late in 
 the day; frequently not before sunset. (Smith's 
 Antiquities, pages 303, 304.) Dr. Halley says : 
 *Long before the apostolic age, deipnon had become 
 regularly and constantly the evening meal. Nitzch 
 says that it denoted the principal meal. French does 
 the same. Hence, all great entertainments were called 
 deipna, and always came off in the latter part of the 
 day, or at night. " The use of the word in the New 
 Testament corresponds exactly to these representa- 
 tions, as may be seen from the following passages : 
 * '' Matthew, xxiii : 6 : ' They make broad their phy- 
 lacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 
 and love the uppermost rooms at feasts ' [deipnois], 
 
 '* Luke, xiv : 12 : ' When thou makest a dinner, 
 [aristori] or a supper [deipnoii]^ call not thy friends.' 
 
 '•Luke, xiv: 16: 'A certain man made a great 
 supper [deipjionl, and bade many.' (See also verses 
 17 and 24, and cliapter xx : 46.). 
 
 ''John xii : 2: 'There they made him a supper, 
 [deipnon) and Martha served.' John, xiii : 20 ; and 
 xxi : 20, the word occurs in the same sense. 
 
 '• We might further illustrate this meaning from the 
 Septuagint, in such passages as Daniel, v: 1 : ' Bel- 
 shazzar the king made a great feast [deipnon, supper,] 
 to a thousand of his lords ;' but it is unnecessary. 
 
 "Deipnon means a full meal, a banquet, ^ plenlifnl, 
 sup|)er, an ample repast, the prineipid and most abun- 
 dant meal of the day ; wriich occurred in the evening, 
 between midday and midnight. Dr. Fuller says that 
 deipnon W'ds, among the ancients, ' the most social 
 and convivial of all their repasts,' and that ' the word 
 means, a banquet, a feast.' (Page 226.) 
 
 "It is also to be observe^l that the Lord's Supper, 
 or deipnon^ was instituted and tirst celebrated at night. 
 
206 
 
 Not only the meaning of the word which was chosen 
 described it, but the very hour of its appointment and 
 first observnnce, connected the Lord's Supper with the 
 evening — the close of the day. 
 
 " According to the plain, evident, and well estab- 
 lished meaning of words, therefore, and sustained by 
 circumstances, two tilings would be assigned to the 
 sacramental deipnon: first, it must be a full and plen- 
 teous meal ; and, second, it must be eaten in the 
 evening. A fragment of bread a half inch square, 
 and a sip of wine that would scarcely fill a teaspoon, 
 is not a deipnon^ as the Greeks used that word, any 
 more than sprinkling a few drops of water on a man's 
 face is an immersion of him. Neither do we eat our 
 suppers in the morning. It is as great a contradiction 
 in terms and confusion of idens to speak of supping in 
 the morning, as to speak of plunging a man by pouring 
 Water on him. 
 
 " Suppose, then, that we were to set ourselves to 
 reasoning on the word deipnon as the immersionists 
 reason on the word baptisma ; we might make out a 
 case, and convict the Christian world in all ages of 
 disobedience to the plain command of Christ. They 
 say that haptisma means a plain immersion, and 
 nothing else ; we say, and still more certainly does 
 deipnon mean an evening repast. If the one denotes 
 MODE, the other with more certainty denotes time. 
 They insist that haptisma includes in itself a total 
 covering up of the wiiole body in water; we say, with 
 far more reason and confidence, that deipno)i inchides 
 in itself the provision and participation of the Largest 
 and fullest meal. If the one requires water enough to 
 cover a man, the other, with greater certainty, requires 
 food enough to fill a man, and as many as are to par- 
 take of it. The words chosen in both are the words 
 of God, an<l he knew what he meant by them. And 
 if the commoii Greek usage of haptisma was to denote 
 
MR. QUINTEll's THIRD ADDRESS. 207 
 
 immersion, and we are to get God's meaning in that 
 word from tlie common Greek usage, the common 
 Greek usnge of dcipnon must also give us the idea 
 attached to it by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 " What, then, has been the universal practice of the 
 church with regard to the sacramentnl deipnon ? Have 
 there been any denominations of Christians who be- 
 lieved, or held it necessary to a right communion, that 
 it should be celebrated in the evening, or that it should 
 be made a full meal? All parties, Baptists with all 
 others, are continually celebrating the deipnon of the 
 Saviour in the morning ; and none of them provide 
 for it more than a bit of bread and a sip of wine for 
 each communicant. We do not find fault with this. 
 We believe that it adequately fulfills the meaning and 
 the spirit of the words of Jesus on this subject. But, 
 arguing as our modern immersionists do, we might 
 say, with holy indignation, 'What right have men to 
 trample upon and ignore the time selected by the 
 Saviour in the institution of the Sacrament, and 
 ingrained into the name given it by the spirit of inspi- 
 ration ? What authority have they to make a pitiable 
 abortion of a breakfast or a dinner, of what, accord- 
 ing to the plain, common import of God's word, is 
 to be an abundant and plenteous supper?' If we can 
 not dispense with the mode in baptism, we can not 
 dispense with the time in its corresponding sacrament. 
 If we can not have baptism without immersion, for 
 the same alleged reason we can not have a supper in 
 the morning, or a deij^non for a hundred guests with- 
 out a large supply of wine and bread. If time and 
 quantity are nothing in the one sacrament, the name 
 and circumstances of which call for it, mode and 
 quantity are nothing in the other sacrament — the name 
 and circumstances of which demand it still less. 
 
 * * * "If they [Baptists] will insist that we 
 pervert and violate an ordinance of Christ by decliu- 
 
208 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 ing to be immersed or to immerse, we take the liberty 
 of ' holding the mirror up to nature,' that their flagrant 
 inconsistency may be seen. They have expunged the 
 elements of time and quantity from the Lord's Sup- 
 per, and think they have done no violence to the 
 literal exposition and the plain meaning of the words 
 certainly containing them ; and it will not answer for 
 them now to turn about and condemn and excommu- 
 nicate us for thinking it non-essential as to how water 
 is applied in baptism. Let them ponder first those 
 searching words of Jesus, ' Why beholdest thou the 
 mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not 
 the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, 
 first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then 
 shait thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy 
 brother's eye.' 
 
 "The immersionist attempts to defend the peculi- 
 arity of his procedure by asserting that mode is in- 
 separable from baptisma^ and therefore belongs essen- 
 tially to the ordinance. We say that is an argument 
 criminating himself, and by proving too much, recoils 
 upon his own head. Time and an abundance of pro- 
 visions, are as necessarily included in deii^non as it is 
 possible iovmode to be in baptisma ; and when he gives 
 us the warrant for his liberty to eject time from the 
 Lord's Supper, and for his substitution of a little frag- 
 ment of bread and a little sip of wine for a full meal, 
 we shall be prepared to establish our right to dispense 
 with his favorite mode in the administration of bap- 
 tism. Until he does this, all his philological reason- 
 ings on the word baptisma arc completely nullified, 
 and, in all justice, forever silenced. We need no 
 other argument. This in itself sufficiently disposes 
 of the whole question. It winds up the whole con- 
 troversy in a nut-sholl. It puts the dis})ute in a light 
 in which there is no room for philological mystifica- 
 tion, and which may be easily underjitood. it cou- 
 
MU. QUINTEr's TIIIKD ADDllKSS. 209 
 
 cedes tlie Avliole baptist assumption, aiul yet com- 
 pletely confounds the inference founded upon it, and 
 leaves the cause of immersionism in inextricable em- 
 barrassments. It is an unanswered and unanswerable 
 argument." [Seiss, "The Baptist System Examined, 
 page 277, seq.) 
 
 My friend can not but see at once in what a di- 
 lemma he is placed as an immersionist, by the position 
 he assumes in regard to the Lord's Supper. \_Time 
 expired. 
 
 [MR. M'CONNELL'S FOURTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I am not sorry, by any 
 means, so far as this discussion is concerned, nor so 
 far as its eifect upon the propositions at issue maybe 
 concerned, that it should go abroad. But I am sur- 
 prised that my friend should read a long, labored ar- 
 gument made for the pur[)Ose of confuting the Bap- 
 tists. The book in which it is found has an extensive 
 circulation. Pedobaptists everywhere read it with 
 joy ; and now we are making another book, into which 
 my friend thrusts this pedobaptist argument, and thus 
 gives it additional circulation. 
 
 My friend says, or the author from which he quotes 
 says, that deipnon means a full meal. I want to 
 know how much a man must eat in order to constitute 
 a meal. I contend that deipnon does not contain in 
 itself any intimation of the quantity to be eaten. It 
 will describe a meal sufficient for a thousand people ; it 
 may desciibe a meal in which there is but scant allow- 
 ance for one man. The Lord's Supper is called deip- 
 non ; I do not question that at all. And in instituting 
 that supper, our Lord commanded bread to be eaten, 
 and wine to be drank ; but he did not say how much 
 bread, or how much wine. If we do not eat enough, 
 U 
 
210 
 
 if my brother M^ill convince us of that fact, and shov/ 
 us just how much we should eat, we will change our 
 ways, and partake accordingly. But that is a point 
 the Saviour did not determine. The apostle Paul has 
 admonished us upon one point, viz : not to eat to sat- 
 isfy hunger, nor to drink to excess. These points are 
 guai'ded. 
 
 My friend says, " All great meals are deipnons.'* 
 Well, I will admit that. But things may be great in 
 widely different senses. Some men are great physi- 
 cally ; some great intellectually ; some great morally. 
 A man's greatness is not always determined by his 
 bodily proportions. So the greatness of a meal, I 
 apprehend, is not always to be determined b}'' the 
 amount of provisions constituting it. Much depends 
 upon the associations connected with them. What 
 constitutes the greatness of the Independence dinner 
 we eat on the Fourth of July, but the associations 
 connected with it? If this be true, I ask if there ever 
 was a meal prepared that so well deserves the name of 
 "great" as that which Jesus spread before his disci- 
 ples on that sorrowful night of his betrayal? It was 
 great, because the elements eaten represented the 
 body and blood of the blessed Redeemer ; it was great 
 because therein the disciples partook of the life of the 
 world, the bread that came down from heaven ; it was 
 great because it was to commemorate the most soul- 
 stirring events the world ever knew, or ever was to 
 know ; the death of the SoN OF GoD, who had left the 
 realms of glory to rescue and redeem our race, and 
 the second coming of our Saviour in the clouds of 
 heaven. Before the greatness of that sup|)er, all the 
 meals and festivals, from time immemorial until now, 
 fade away into insignificance like stars before the 
 rising sun. If all great meals are dcipnon^ this, above 
 all others, is entitled to that name. An author quoted 
 by my friend says, the Lord's Supper is for the soul. 
 
MR. m'connell's fourth address. 211 
 
 True, to the letter. To think of Him Avho instituted 
 it, wliat he was, and what he has done for us, is indeed 
 a feast to the soul. 
 
 My friend, in contending for a full meal, says that 
 any church neglecting to eat such a meal in connec- 
 tion with the emblems, the bread and wine, is not an 
 apostolic church. Thus he claims that to be apos- 
 tolic which the apostle Paul indignantly denounces; 
 for Paul complains of the church at Corinth because 
 they did eat a "full meal " at church, or at their gath- 
 erings for religious worship ; they took provisions ia 
 large quantities, and ate to satisfy their physical 
 "wants. '"This," said Paul, "is not to eat the Lord'3 
 Supper ;" and commanded that, " if any man hunger, 
 let him eat at home." And now my friend comes and 
 argues in behalf of a full meal for the satisfaction of 
 physical hunger — the very thing against which Paul 
 launched his bitterest denunciations. "They ate," 
 Paul says, "not discerning the Lord's body." And 
 no wonder they did not discern the Lord's body ; for 
 in that meal there was nothing to represent the Lord's 
 body. But how, and where, was the Lord's body to 
 be discerned ? The Lord himself tells us : he took 
 bread, and when he had given thanks, he said,. "Take, 
 eat; tlds is my body." And again: "Whosoever 
 shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord 
 unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of 
 the Lord; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
 eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discern- 
 ing the Lord's body.'' Here, in the bread and wine, 
 the Lord's body was to be discerned, and nowhere 
 else. In eating an ordinary meal, the Lord's body 
 was not to be discerned at all ; this was " not to eat the 
 Lord's Supper;" but that which the Lord himself said 
 was his body and blood — that was the Lord's Supper. 
 
 One more point I wish to place before you. i\\ 
 I Corinthians, x : 16-21 : Christians, partakers of 
 
212 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 the bread and wine, are exhorted to abstain from 
 that which is sacrificed to idols, as thereby they 
 would have fellowship with idols. And mark the 
 language : " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it 
 not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The 
 bread which we break, is it not the communion of the 
 body of Christ ? For we, being many, are one bread " 
 [one meal], "and one body " [one church]. And now, 
 Israel, after the flesh is introduced, by way of illus- 
 trating an institution of the Christian dispensation by 
 an institution of the Mosaic dispensation: "Are not 
 they which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the 
 altar?" That is, they may rightfully claim a partici- 
 pation in all the advantages to be derived from the 
 sacrifice that is placed upon the altar. So we, by par- 
 taking of the bread and wine, may claim a participa- 
 tion in its advantages — in that which it represents, 
 the body and blood of Christ. Then Paul warns the 
 Corinthians against eating the things which the Gen- 
 tiles sacrifice to devils, because thereby they would 
 have fellowship with devils, becoming participants in 
 idolatry. And the twenty-first verse is built up after 
 the model of the sixteenth, an emphatic repetition, 
 with an assertion added — " Ye can not drink the cup 
 of the Lord, and the cup of devils ; ye can not be par- 
 takers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils." 
 Now, the cup of the Lord, in the twenty-first verse, 
 is the cup of blessing, the communion of the blood of 
 Christ, as mentioned in the sixteenth verse; and par- 
 taking of the Lord's table, in the twenty-first verse, 
 is partaking of the bread, the communion of the body 
 of Christ, as mentioned in the sixteenth verse. And 
 all this argument of the apostle is irrelevant, and with- 
 out force or sense, unless partaking of the bread and 
 wine is partaking of the boily and blood of our Loid; 
 partaking of the Lord's tabic is partaking of the Lord's 
 {Supper. 
 
MR. M'CONNELL'S fourth ADDRESS. 213 
 
 Thore are otlicr things I mii^ht say, other nrgumentg 
 I might nihhice; but the day is drawing toward its 
 close, and I wish to dehiy no longer than is absohitely 
 necessary this already weary audience. So I will 
 close with a brief summary of what I have attempted 
 to do, whether I have done it or not. 
 
 My first argument to sustain the proposition that 
 the elements of bread and wine taken at the commun- 
 ion constitute the Lord's Supper, was based upon the 
 declarations of our Lord himself, as set forth in the 
 sixth chapter of John's testimony, thirty-first to fifty- 
 eighth verse. I presented four distinct syllogisms based 
 upon that passage, the third number of each of which 
 is the Lor(l's Supper. I need not repeat them to you, 
 but only draw your attention to them. You will remem- 
 ber my friend Quinter said he had no objection to 
 make to anything I offered in my first speech, the ar- 
 guments of which were based upon this sixth chapter 
 of John. Note, then, that that argument is before 
 you, untouched, unassailed. 
 
 My second argument was based upon this eleventh 
 chapter of I Corinthians. This Ave need not recap- 
 itulate; the whole matter is fresh in your memories. 
 On the argument based upon these two passages of 
 Scripture, with nothing anywhere to controvert it, we 
 are willing to rest the whole question. 
 
 One point I wish to place plainly bef)re your minds: 
 while I have dealt in Scripture, without detailing the 
 opinions of commentators or the surmises of histo- 
 rians, my friend has read, in opposition to the propo- 
 sition, the comments and suppositions of men far re- 
 moved from those times. I have laid before you the 
 Word of God ; he has spent the most of his time in 
 presenting to you the opinions and comments of the 
 religious and partisan world upon that Word. Divine 
 authority and human authority are placed before you 
 
214 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 in contrast ; we are willing it should be so — we are 
 not fearful of the result. 
 
 I desire to say another thing in reference to this 
 matter. I am aware that I have manifested a o-reat 
 deal of feelino^ and earnestness at times durinfTj the 
 discussion of this question. But this is a subject 
 which calls out all the earnestness of my nature. 
 There are associated with it recollections of holy and 
 glorious events, whose contemplation stir my soul to 
 its utmost depths. 
 
 There is a point on our globe, naturalists inform us, 
 near the equator, on the Andes of Quito, where all the 
 climates of the world are superimposed or elevated one 
 above another successively. From the bottom of a moun- 
 tain, where the naturalist begins his ascent, he passes 
 them all in succession, till he reaches the lofty precipice, 
 where eternal winter begins, and the sharply-defined 
 cordon of ice encircles the mountain, the bell-shaped 
 summit of which, covered with perpetual snow, shoots 
 at last with dazzling splendor high into the illiniitabl'^ 
 heaven. Here all the climates of the world, with their 
 vegetable products, are placed at his feet, and over- 
 head he sees at a glance all the stars that shine be- 
 tween the North Pole and the Si)uthern Cross. All 
 the magnificent and brilliant phenomena of heaven 
 and earth are before him, from the Ursa Major to the 
 shining Magellan clouds ; from icy Cape North to the 
 Cape Horn south. 
 
 There is in the religious, as in the natural sphere, 
 a post of elevation — a point that form-s the equatorial 
 region of revealed religion — the Andes of Christianity. 
 This post of precedence is where the Son of God ap- 
 pears to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. At 
 the bottom of this " Mount of God," where the student 
 begins his ascent, lies the bleeding lamb of Abel ; then 
 the offering up of Isaac; the Paschal lamb in Egypt, 
 higher up the mountain-side is seen the sin-oftering, 
 
215 
 
 then the day of atonement, the scape-goat, the wave 
 offering, the second first fruits, and, in short, all the 
 rites, institutions, and ceremonies of the former dis- 
 pen.sations, as the earnest seeker after truth makes 
 his way through God's dealings with and revelations 
 to the sons of men, rise in grand succession one above 
 another, until he reaches the summit — TiiE Df.ath of 
 Christ. Here all that occurred during, and all per- 
 taining to, the former economy, with their lessons of 
 salvation, are placed at his feet; and above him, in 
 the glorious future, he beholds the Saviour's triumph 
 over death, hell, and the grave ; hia ascension to the 
 right hand of the Majesty in the heavens; the sprink- 
 ling of his blood before the mercy-seat; his receiving 
 the reins of universal empire and the priestly robes ; 
 standing here with his eye and ear aloft, he hears the 
 Eternal One say, " Thou art my Son ; this day have I 
 begotten thee ; sit thou at my right hand until I make 
 thine enemies thy footstool. For thou art a priest 
 forever after the order of Melchesidec." 
 
 He finds himself present, by faith, on the memor- 
 able Pentecost, and beholds another messenger from 
 the eternal world — i. e., the Holy Spirit ; the Gospel is 
 preached ; three thousand hear, believe, and are bap- 
 tized into Christ. From this point of observation, all 
 the institutions of Christianity, like the stars of heaven, 
 are spread out before us, and our attention is directed 
 to Christ's coming in his glory, and the glory of the 
 Father, and of the holy angels, and our gathering 
 together unto him to behold and partake of his glory. 
 
 When the intelligent and reflecting child of God 
 sits down at the communion and solemnly partakes of 
 these sacred symbols (the bread and wine) of Christ's 
 death, he is, by faith, standing upon this Andes of 
 Cliristiauity, beholding, wondering, and adoring; £^g 
 oh! what an intellectual and spiritual feast d-- 
 
216 
 
 soul enjoy, while he exclaims, this is indeed the Lord's 
 deipnon^ the great Supper, the Lord's Supper. 
 
 I ought, perhaps, to have said at the beginning that 
 this is my closing speech. In conclusion, allow me to 
 say that I am thankful for the kind attention you have 
 manifested; more than thankful, if you please, for — 
 what I believe to be true — the fact that you have all 
 felt a deep and abiding interest in ascertaining what 
 the truth of God in this matter really is, in order that 
 you may properly worship our heavenly Father, in 
 attending upon this solemn institution ordained by 
 him, f(U' the purpose of reminding us of his death, and 
 pointing us to his second coming. \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S FOURTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — I do most sincerely wish 
 that my friend and I, and all of you with us, were 
 agreed upon every point of Christian faith and prac- 
 tice, as completely as we are agreed upon the impor- 
 tance of the solemn ordinance of the Lord that is before 
 us for consideration. I am gratified at the attention 
 and the solemnity that has been manifested during the 
 discussion of this subject. 
 
 My friend, in discussing the meaning of the word 
 deipno7i, made quite a speech, to show that the Lord's 
 Supper is indeed a great feast; that the most impor- 
 tant matters are involved in it ; that the most glorious 
 consequences arise from it. As regards all these 
 points, I am agreed. Nevertheless, the meaning of 
 the word itself must be kept in view. We must not 
 be led away from the main question, by dazzling fig- 
 tires of rhetoric, or glowing pictures of happy results, 
 to other matters, which, though important, are inci- 
 dental. My friend is pursuing the course followed by 
 the pedobapti?ts? who, when floored in argument in 
 
MU. QUINTEIVS FOUUTII ADDRESS. 217 
 
 reference to the meaning; of the word haplizo, proceed 
 to tell us "whjit hleased results follow the application 
 of a few drops of water by sprinklitig — how happy the 
 subjects feel, and so on. All this sounds very well, 
 and is probably true — so far as it goes ; but it does 
 not go far enough to constitute an argument upon the 
 subject. We must come back, as my friend will agree 
 with me, to the literal meaning of the word baptizo, 
 in its ordinary application. Precisely in the same 
 way we must look at this word deipnon. Its meaning 
 does not depend upon its consequences, or the feel- 
 ings of those who partake cff the ordinance; it de- 
 pends upon the usage of the writers and sneakers of 
 the language in which it is found. Looking at it in 
 this light, we see th.at it means a meal; hence, that 
 kurios deipnon^ is the Lord's meal. Looking at it in 
 this light, we can but associate a meal with it. Now, 
 I do not think that a piece of bread half an inch 
 square, and a small sip of wine, are ever, in ordinary 
 language, called '•'a meal." Furthermore, I have 
 proved — at least, I think I have proved, for I mean to 
 be modest (I will not say, as modest as my friend) — 
 I think I have proved, in support of the argument 
 based upon the ordinary meaning of the word deipnon^ 
 "a meal," that the Christians of the apostolic church 
 did have a meal — a feast. My friend does not at- 
 tempt to prove that the emblems of bread and wine 
 are that feast, or that tliey are a feast at ull. It 
 would be a strange, a glaring perversion of language 
 to call them so. Then I argue that a church which 
 has not a feast or meal in connection A^ith the em- 
 blems, is not an apostolic church — is not apostolic in 
 its organization, in its manner of proceeding in its 
 worship and service. The argument is before you; 
 here are the end:)leiiis ; here is a meal partaken of by 
 the apostolic church; now, which is the Lord's meal, 
 the meal itself, or the emblems, which are not a meal ? 
 
218 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 Which corresponds best with the meaning of the word 
 deipnon, a feast — the feast, or the emblems, which by 
 no stretch of hinsjuaf]i;e can be called a feast ? We 
 have seen, and my friend does not and can not deny, 
 that the word deipnoii means a meal — yet he applies 
 here, in this one exceptional case, to something that is 
 not a meal — and that when, in connection with the 
 emblems, a meal is proven to have existed, to which 
 my friend refuses to apply it. And he can give no 
 reason for refusing to appl}^ the Greek word meaning 
 a feast, to the feast, and insisting upon applying it to 
 that which is not a feast?. 
 
 My friend has called your attention to the bread 
 mentioned in the tenth chapter of I Corinthians. 
 That unquestionably refers to the bread of the com- 
 munion. But the word " bread" is used, because bread 
 is meant; and a few verses after, the word ''cup" is 
 used, because the cup is meant; so we contend that 
 everywhere the Lord says what he means, and means 
 what he says ; and when he says a " meal," he means 
 a meal. The only argument my friend can find in 
 that chapter is an argument against himself. Besides, 
 the term, " Lord's Supper," occurs but once, and that 
 in connection with events and circumstances which 
 absolutely require that we should give it the meaning 
 of a meal. My friend insists in interpreting the word 
 baptizo, upon taking it in its ordinary and usual ac- 
 ceptation ; and he can not evade the application of 
 the same rule to deipnon, simply because so doing 
 would overset his theory and practice. 
 
 My friend expresses himself surprised, and regrets 
 that I should quote from Dr. Seiss' work on baptism, 
 and so give additional circulation to arguments against 
 our cherished doctrine of immersion. My regret is 
 that my friend, and those who occupy his position, 
 should hold to a belief and jtractice which gives an 
 opportunity for the use and application of such au 
 
MR. QITXTEirs FOURTH ADDRESS. 219 
 
 argnmont. Wlien my friend insists upon fi^iving tlie 
 ^vord deiptwn a strained, unusual, unauthorized inter- 
 pretation, meaning something else, or something less, 
 than what it always and ever^'where docs mean, "a 
 meal," he gives Dr. Seiss and other pedobaptists an 
 apology for giving to haptizo a similar unusual, unau- 
 thorized interpretation, denoting something else, or 
 less, than immersion. There is no way to evade Dr. 
 Seiss' argument, and at the same time insist on using, 
 in refei'ence to deipnon^ the very latitude of interpre- 
 tation we condemn in pedobaptists in their interpre- 
 tation of baptlzo. We insist upon the application of 
 the same rule to deipnon as to baptizo — give the word 
 its customary and usual signification. 
 
 Since, then, deipnon means a meal, or feast; and 
 since Paul, and Peter, and Jude, refer to a meal or 
 feast in connection wjth the apostolic church, we give 
 the name, the Lord's Supper, to the meal, and call 
 the euiblems (the bread and wine), the communion of 
 the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 [Interruption by Mr. McConnell. — By your permis- 
 sion, friend Quinter — My friend here confounds agape 
 and deipnon; the one refers to the Lord's Supper, 
 the other to the Feast of Charity; the latter is never 
 called deipnon — the former is never called agape; but 
 my friend in his argument utterly, ignores this dis- 
 tinction. I am sure he will pardon my calling his 
 attention to this point, for it is an important one.] 
 
 [Mr. Quinter continues :~\ The point I wish to make 
 is this : the apostolic church had a feast of charity ; 
 this my friend can not deny; and I contend that a 
 church that can not point to a similar feast, is not 
 apostolic. Its pretensions may be as high as heaven ; 
 but unless it can point to something it can call a feast 
 of charity, it can not sustain its claims to be apostolic 
 in character and practice. 
 
 My friend has boasted that he has not quoted from 
 
220 
 
 historians and commentators, and so on. I miixht say, 
 and I believe I will sny, just here, I dwell a little more 
 upon such smthorities than I otherwise would, because 
 I know that we, as a denomination, do not stand very 
 high in the world's opinion as regards our attainments 
 in literature; I know that we are sometimes rather 
 looked down upon as wanting in intelligence. That 
 we are not all scholars, that many of us unfortunately 
 possess but a limited education, I readily acknowledge. 
 But I feel anxious to show to the world, that upon 
 these identical points, concerning which we differ from 
 other denominations, the learned world concede the 
 ground to us. When we say we feel that we must 
 have a meal in addition to the emblems of the body 
 and blood of Christ, in order to celebrate the Lord's 
 Supper properly, the learned world says we are right ; 
 the apostolic church had such a meal ; historians 
 point us back to it; commentators find it set forth in 
 the Scriptures, and we have quoted numerous author- 
 ities in support of this position. Why other denomi- 
 nations have no such meal, they must settle with their 
 God. We want to get back to the apostolic method 
 of worship, so far as it is possible to discover it; hence 
 we adhere to this apostolic practice. 
 
 And we find the same benefits to result from the 
 practice now as resulted in the primitive church, as 
 set forth by the authorities already read to you. We 
 find it to be always one of the special ways of exhib- 
 iting friendship and Christian love ; of perpetuating 
 and increasing it. In this feast of charity, this — 
 what we believe to be — the Lord's Supper, as we sit 
 side by side, rich and poor together, feeling that we 
 are all brethren, all members of one divine family, 
 love flows from soul to soul, and we feel more and 
 more of that affection, that charity, that communion 
 with each other and with our God, that ought to char- 
 acterizf^ the church of Christ, and the followers of our 
 
MR. QUINTICk's FOUKTil ADUKESS. 221 
 
 common RtMloemer. Ilcnce tlie liappy effects attrib- 
 uted to tliese seasons of communion by the authorities 
 I have quoted. One of these ^Yriters remarked that 
 these feasts of charity were the means of rallying the 
 brethren together, and inspiring them with new 
 courage and zeal. If it had this effect in the early 
 ages of the church, the same results are as greatly 
 needed to-day. In celebrating the Lord's Supper, in 
 the light in which we view it, while the sacred emblems, 
 the bread and wine, representing the body and blood 
 of the Saviour, remind us of his death for us, and point 
 us to his second coming. This feast of love may be 
 regarded as a representation of the great Marriage 
 Supper of the Lamb, which is to take place when the 
 Saviour comes, and his people shall gather themselves 
 from the East, and from the West, and from the North, 
 an<l from the South, and sit down in the kingdom of 
 God. O my friends, do not believe that anything com- 
 manded by the Lord is a mere formality. If it be 
 sustained that a thing is of the Lord, it can not but 
 be admitted that it must have good efiects, if properly 
 observed. And in this ordinance, this feast of char- 
 ity, we find there is a power, there is a benefit, there 
 is a utility; and for these reasons — because we be- 
 lieve it to be commanded by the Lord, and because we 
 have practically seen and felt its beneficial efi"ects — 
 we contend for its observance in accordance with the 
 custom of the apostolic church. I believe that in all 
 things, the more closely we adhere to the practices of 
 the apostolic church the better. And if that is to 
 be our model, then we must have a feast of charity ; 
 we must have something else that we can eat together 
 besides the sacred emblems of the communion. You 
 have our argument; and we leave the matter in your 
 hands. There are one or two arguments I had intended 
 to introduce, but postponed them to this, my concluding 
 speech — forgetful, for the moment, that I >Yas upon 
 
222 DEBATE ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 the negative, and therefore could not, according to 
 the rules of this debate, nor of courtesy and honor, 
 introduce any new matter in my concluding remarks. 
 So let the subject rest where it is. 
 
 I feel thankful, as I have said already, for the at- 
 tention given and the interest manifested in the sub- 
 ject; and I hope that not only now, but when the 
 excitement connected with the present occasion is 
 over, the subject will receive your sober, serious, and 
 unprejudiced consideration. [The discussion closed 
 here, at the request and solicitation of Mr. Quinter. — 
 N. A. M'ConnelL] 
 
 [Note. — This argument, and Elder McConnell's re- 
 ply, were not made at the time of discussion, but 
 added afterward by agreement. — Committee^ 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S SUPPLEMENTARY ARGUMENT.] 
 
 [The following argument, reserved by Mr. Quinter 
 for his last speech, forgetful at the moment that he 
 was on the negative of the proposition, and could in- 
 troduce no new matter into his remarks, was after- 
 ward written out, and inserted by permission of his 
 opponent, both being desirous that tiie report of the 
 discussion should present a complete view of both 
 sides of the question.] 
 
 Another argument to prove that the bread and wine 
 are not the Lord's Supper, is drawn from tlie consid- 
 eration that it is positively declared that the Lord 
 took the cup " after he had supped," that is, after he 
 had eaten the supper. The apostle's language is this : 
 " And when he had given thanks, he brake it, smd 
 said. Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for 
 you : this do in remembrance of me. After the same 
 manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, 
 
MR. quinter's supplementary argument. 223 
 
 saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood : 
 this do ye, as often as ye diink it, in remembrance of 
 me." [I Corinthians, xi : 24, 25]. 
 
 Now, the sentence, ''He took the cup wlien he had 
 supped," is equivalent to saying, '' He took the cup 
 after supper ;" for " supped " is here equivalent to 
 '• supper." Then, if he took the cup after supper, 
 surely the cup was no part of the supper. This is 
 too phiin to be denied, or even doubted. Then, as 
 the cup is no part of the supper, and as the bread and 
 cup are so closely joined together, it follows that the 
 bread was likewise taken after supper; then it can 
 not be any part of the supper. It is said, He took 
 the cup in like manner — i. e., he took the cup as he 
 had taken the bread. But it is said that he took the 
 cup after supper ; then he also took the bread after 
 supper. Consequently they could not have been the 
 supper. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S REPLY.] 
 
 Mr. Quinter argues that the bread and wine are not 
 the Lord's Supper, because it is positively declared 
 that the Lord took the cup after he had supped — ^. e., 
 after he had eaten the supper. In reply, I ask, first, 
 what supper had he eaten? — the Lord's Supper? This 
 is evidently what Mr. Quinter means ; but did the 
 apostle mean this ? No. Before seeing what supper 
 tlie apostle alludes to here, I call your attention to 
 the fact that Mr. Qainter says, " After he had eaten 
 the supper;'' whereas Paul says, "After he had 
 supped.'^ If " supped " be equivalent to " eating 
 supper," Mr. Quinter has no warrant for inserting the 
 definite article — the supper. I will now refer to the 
 question, what su})per did the Lord eat, just before 
 iubtituting the communion? I contend that it was 
 
224 DEBATE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 
 
 the Jewish Pasclial supper. In Matthew, xxvi : 17— 
 20, we read : "Now the first day of the feast of un- 
 leavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying 
 unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee 
 to eat the Passover? And he said. Go into the city, 
 to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, 
 my time is at hand ; I will keep the Passover at thy 
 house with my disciples. And the disciples did as 
 Jesus had appointed them ; and thej made ready the 
 Passover. Now when the even was come, he sat down 
 with the twelve." It was at this same supper, the 
 paschal supper — there is no break in the narrative — 
 that (verse 26) " as they were eating, Jesus took bread, 
 and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disci- 
 ples, and said. Take, eat ; this is my body ;" and then 
 and there the eucharist was instituted. Now, if any- 
 thing ever was proved, or ever can be proved, 1 have 
 proved that the supper after which the communion 
 "was instituted, was the Jewish Paschal supper, and 
 therefore not the Lord's Supper, as my friend would 
 have you believe. 
 
 The next point Mr. Quinter makes is this : Assum- 
 ing that the expression, '-He took the cup ivhen he 
 had supped,'^ is equivalent to ^^ after he had eaten 
 supper^'' then, says Mr. Quinter, if he took the cup 
 after supper, the cup was no part of the supper. Novv, 
 who has contended that the cup was any part of the 
 paschal supper ? Certainly no one. But does it 
 follow, as a logical sequence, that because the bread 
 and wine were no part of tiie Jewish Paschal supper, 
 therefore they were no part of the Lord's Supper? 
 Certainly not. ^ly friend will not contend that the 
 supper Christ ate before he instituted the communion 
 was the Lord's Supper. And if not, then there is no 
 relevancy in the argument to ^Yhich I am now reply- 
 ing. But, even sliould he so contend, then his con- 
 clusions are false ; for I have shown that that supper 
 
225 
 
 wag the Jewish Paschal supper, and not the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 I conclude my reply to this argument by remark- 
 inf; — 
 
 1. Since there is an institution in the church of 
 Christ called the Lord's Supper ; and since the supper 
 that Christ ate with his disciples before instituting the 
 communion was the Jewish Paschal supper, and in no 
 sense the Lord's Supper ; and since the disciples were 
 commanded to partake of the bread and wine in re- 
 membrance of him ; and since no other elements are 
 anywhere commanded by him to be taken ; we are 
 forced to the conclusion that the bread and wine con- 
 stitute the Lord's Supper. 
 
 2. The Jewish Passover went into disuse immedi- 
 ately after Ciirist partook of it, the night on which he 
 was betrayed. It had been in use as a type for 1527 
 years ; but the anti-type having come, there was no 
 further use for the type. But since there was a supper 
 connected with the type, Christ, in his wisdom, imme- 
 diately after he had eaten the last Paschal supper, 
 established a supper in connection with the anti-type — 
 " our Passover." And the elements of that supper 
 were bread and wine. Christ commanded these to be 
 taken ; and these are the oi»ly elements he has cora- 
 mantled his disciples to partake of. Hence, the bread 
 and wine, taken in remembrance of Christ, are the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 15 
 
DEBATE 
 
 FEET-^Vs^ ^ SHE IIN" G- 
 
 PROPOSITION III. 
 
 THE WASHING OF FEET IS AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED BY JESUS 
 CHRIST, AND BY HIM COMMANDED TO BE OBSERVED BY ALL HIS 
 DISCIPLES IN THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY OF HIS CHURCH UNTIL HIS 
 SECOND COMING. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S FIRST ADDRESS.] 
 
 Eriendly Moderators — I am happy to meet with 
 you this morning, to resume the discussion in which 
 ■we are engaged. In the proposition read for discus- 
 sion this morning, and upon which I take the affirma- 
 tive, there is a little repetition. In discussing it, I 
 propose the three following divisions, which I think 
 will cover all the points contained in it: 
 
 I. Feet-washing is an ordinance established by 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 II. It was designed to be continued until the sec- 
 ond coming of the Saviour. 
 
 III. It was commanded to be observed in the pub- 
 lic assembly of the saints — as publicly as other 
 ordinances. 
 
 In defining the term " ordinance," I shall accept 
 the second definition given by Webster of that word ; 
 viz: "An observance commanded." 
 
 In support of my position upon the affirmative of 
 this proposition, I present the following arguments : 
 
 1. Feet-washing, as practiceil and explained by 
 226 
 
MR. QUINTER's first ADDRESS. 227 
 
 Cbri«;t, hns all the authority necessary to constitute it 
 an ordinance. 
 
 The authority is none less than that of Jesus Christ 
 himself. And he declares, in reference to the author- 
 ity under which he acted : " I have not spoken of 
 myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave uie a 
 comuiandment, what I should say, and what I should 
 speak." (John, xii : 49.) The feet-washing, then, 
 instituted by Christ, and for which we contend, has 
 been instituted by the highest authority known to 
 man — the highest in the universe — that of the " King 
 of kings and Lord of lords." It is not wanting, 
 then, in authority, and can not be rejected on that 
 ground. 
 
 2. The command was given in lanoruno-e bearincr 
 the form of an ordinance or law — language plainly 
 implying obligation and duty. 
 
 '' Ye call me Master and Lord ; and ye say well, for 
 so I am. If I, then, your Lord and Master, have 
 w^ashed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's 
 feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should 
 do as I have done to you.^^ (John, xiii : 13-15.) 
 
 Oui^ht — " To be held or bound in duty or moral 
 obligation :" Webster. 
 
 '• Thou oughtest, therefore, to have put my money 
 to the exchangers," etc.: Matthew, xxv : 27. 
 
 '' He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do :" Acts, 
 x: 5. 
 
 " Ought, the past tense of ''owe," is now used to 
 signify present duty :" Bullion. 
 
 Should — " In the second or third person it denotes 
 obligation or duty :" Webster. 
 
 ''Without emphasis, ' should,' in the second person, 
 is nearly equivalent to ' ought;' you ought to go, it is 
 your duty, you are bound to go :" Webster. 
 
 3. My third argument to prove that the feet washing 
 practiced and commanded by Christ was a religious 
 
228 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHINa. 
 
 rite, or ordinance, and not an ordinary washing, is 
 the implied spirituality of that washing. 
 
 Before proceeding upon this argument, I wish to 
 make a single introductory remark : My worthy friend 
 yesterday took a little exception to a general propo- 
 sition which I had somewhere laid down in the course 
 of my remarks, that Christianity was designed to 
 meet all the wants of men. Perhaps that proposition 
 was a little too general ; but I am glad to know, and 
 it is to be remembered to the honor of our holy 
 Christianity, that there is much in its teachings, and 
 in the precepts connected with it, calculated to pro- 
 mote our physical as well as our spiritual welfare; 
 precepts inculcating temperance, industry, bodily pu- 
 rity, etc., having a tendency to benefit our bodily as 
 well as our moral condition. But we admit that 
 Christianity \\n?, primary regard to our moral natures 
 and spiritual wants. 
 
 That a spiritual significance was intended to be 
 conveyed in the ordinance of feet-washing may be 
 inferred from the fact that the disciples did not at 
 first understand it. When Jesus approached Peter, 
 to wash his feet, he said, " Lord, dost thou wash my 
 feet?" Jesus answered and said unto him, ''What I 
 do, thou knowest not noAV ; but thou shalt know here- 
 after." (John, xiii : 6, 7.) There was evidently a 
 deeper meaning in the action of Christ when he washed 
 Peter's feet than there was in ordinary acts of washing 
 feet. Surely, if the washing had been merely to make 
 his feet clean, Peter could not have failed to under- 
 stand it; for he certainly had often washed his own 
 feet, and he knew why he did it; it was to make them 
 clean. A little child six years old would know why 
 its mother washed its feet, or required it to be done. 
 But Peter did not know the full import of the action 
 of Jesus ; and the reason evidently was, because it 
 "Was designed for something more than an ordinary 
 
MR. QUINTEr's first ADDRESS. 229 
 
 washing. Nntiiral tilings they readily understood, 
 but spiritual things they were slow to learn. This we 
 see manifested on various other occasions. lie ad- 
 monished them to '* beware of the leaven of the Phar- 
 isees and Sadducees." They had forgotten to supply 
 themselves with bread ; and they said, " It is because 
 we have taken no bread." The admonition had a 
 spiritual import ; but they did not perceive it, and it 
 was necessary for Jesus to explain it to them before 
 they could perceive it. See Matthew, sixteenth 
 chapter. So it was with the action of Jesus when he 
 washed the feet of his disciples. They did not under- 
 stand its design, its spiritual import, until Jesus 
 explained it to them. And -when he explained it, 
 what was the explanation? Did he say, "I have 
 washed your feet to make them clean, for your jour- 
 ney was such that in traveling they had become de- 
 filed?" Such was not his explanation. But it was 
 this: "I have given you an example, that ye should 
 do as I have done to yoii.^' (Verse 15.) 
 
 Its spiritual character is plainly implied in the 
 reference to Judas. Jesus said, " Ye are clean, but 
 not all. For he knew who should betray him ; there- 
 fore said he, ye are not all clean." (Verses 10, 11.) 
 Now, if it were an ordinary washing, Judas would 
 have been as clean as any of them ; for there can be no 
 doubt but that Jesus washed the feet of Judas as well 
 as those of the rest of his disciples. But as Jesus 
 spoke of Judas as being unclean, he must have re- 
 ferred to spiritual uncleanliness ; and hence it is plain 
 that Jesus had a spiritual washing or cleansing in 
 view when he washed the feet of his disciples. 
 
 Its spiritual character is further seen from the con- 
 siiieration that the Saviour seems to have connected 
 the washing of feet with baptism. When Peter feared 
 that he might have no part in his Lord, he was willing 
 to have not only his feet washed, but said, " Lord, noD 
 
230 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 my feet only, but also my hands and ray head." (Verse 
 9.) To this language of Peter, Jesus replied, "He 
 that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but 
 is clean every whit." When the Saviour says, " He 
 that is washed," or " bathed," as it is generally ren- 
 dered, "need not, save to wash his feet," he refers to 
 the bath of regeneration ; and with this, baptism was 
 connected. His language seems to imply this: With 
 the regeneration of the believer there is a bathing of 
 the entire person ; but afterward, though there may 
 be failings, another regeneration is not necessary, but 
 only a repentance for the wrong done ; and so another 
 entire bathing is not necessary, but only a partial 
 bathing — the washing of the feet. 
 
 I maintain, further, that it was a spiritual ordinance, 
 and therefore an ordinance of Christ, from Paul's lan- 
 guage to the Hebrews, chapter ninth, verse tenth. 
 The apostle is contrasting the gospel dispensation 
 with the Mosaic, as that pertained to the conscience, 
 and this to the flesh. In speaking of the ceremonies 
 of the law, he says, " Which stood only in meats and 
 drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, 
 imposed on them till the time of reformation." From 
 this we see that the carnal ordinances were to continue 
 only till the time of reformation — that is, till the time 
 of Christ, for this was the time of reformation referred 
 to. Now, if Christ washed his disciples' feet as a 
 mere bodily or carnal washing, and meant, in what he 
 said, to tell them that he designed they should wash 
 one another's feet for the same purpose, then did he 
 perpetuate carnal ordinances. But carnal ordinances, 
 according to Paul's language, which 1 have quoted, 
 were only to continue until the reformation, or the 
 time of Christ ; therefore, the washing of feet as 
 practiced and commanded by Christ, was not a carnal, 
 but a spiritual washing, or a spiritual ordinance. 
 
 Finally, I argue the spirituality of the ceremony 
 
MR. QUINTKR's first ADDRESS. 231 
 
 thus commanded to be observed, from the effect that 
 was to follow its observance. 
 
 In the explanation which Jesus gave to his disciples 
 of his action in -washing their feet, he said, '' If ye 
 know these things, happy are ye if ye do tlieni." 
 (Verse 17.) None will for a moment doubt that Jesus 
 embraced feet-washing in the phrase, " these things." 
 Did he not mean the precepts and ordinances which 
 he had given his disciples? He evidently did. But 
 I now want to call your attention to the effect of feet- 
 washing. "Happy are ye if ye do them." The word 
 translated " Imppy," is makarias. This word in other 
 places is translated "blessed;" and Mr. Anderson has 
 so translated it in this place. His translation of the 
 seventeenth verse reads : " If you know these things, 
 blessed are you if you do them." I have some prefer- 
 ence for the terra "blessed" over that of "happ}^;" 
 and my preference is based on something like this : 
 The term " happy " is explicit, and well understood, 
 it is true ; but it is more commonly associated with a 
 lower class of enjoyments — pleasures of a worldly or 
 carnal nature; and the happy feeling the worldling 
 obtains in the pursuit of his low enjoyments is not 
 always a blessing to him. But the Christian's happi- 
 ness is a real blessing ; consequently I prefer the 
 term " blessed " in speaking of this higher kind of 
 happiness, or enjoyments of a spiritual nature. As 
 one of our poets beautifully expresses himself in refer- 
 ence to the pleasures experienced by the humble be- 
 liever : " These are the joys that satisfy, and mnctify 
 the mind." "Blessed" is the w^ord repeatedly used 
 in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount — that fruitful 
 vine of divine truth, where blessing after blessing fol- 
 lowed in rapid succession, till there is a cluster we 
 love to look at, and love still more to take and eat. 
 
 I turn to Revelations, xxii : 14, and read : " Blessed 
 are they that do his commandments, that they may 
 
232 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through 
 the gates into the city." How simihir is the language 
 in the two passages ! " Blessed are ye if ye do tliera." 
 That is, if ye wash feet, and do the other things he 
 had been speaking to them about. " Blessed are they 
 that do his commandments." May we not justly 
 infer that feet-washing is one of the commandments 
 referred to in Revelations, xxii : 14? "Blessed are 
 ye if ye do them :'* does not this mean that they shall 
 be blessed with grace, or spiritual blessings ? Surely 
 it does. Then is not feet-washing a spiritual ordi- 
 nance, a means of grace ? If grace, or spiritual 
 blessings were to follow the observance of it, then it 
 is important, and by rejecting it, or neglecting it, we 
 shall surely lose the promised blessings. 
 
 From the considerations I have presented, it appears 
 evident that the feet-washing practiced and com- 
 manded by Christ was not a carnal, but a spiritual 
 ordinance; that is, it was not to put away the filth 
 of the flesh, but to impress the moral nature of the 
 disciples, and to promote their spiritual improvement 
 and enjoyment. And if this was its design, must 
 not its claims to the character of a Christian rite be 
 acknowledged ? 
 
 Having shown the spirituality of feet-w^ashing, and 
 having shown from its spiritual character that it is 
 justly entitled to a place among Christian rites, 1 
 shall proceed to introduce my fourth argument. 
 
 4. My fourth argument to prove that feet-washing 
 is an ordinance, I shall call an argument from analogy, 
 or resemblance ; because there is resemblance between 
 feet-washing and other acknowledged rites in the 
 Christian system. 
 
 "Were I discussing this question with a Friend, or 
 Quaker, the relevancy or suitableness of this argu- 
 ment might not appear very plain, since they reject 
 all ritec) or ordinances ^Yhich have an external relation 
 
MR. QUINTEll'S FIRST ADDRESS. 233 
 
 to the soul, nnd cnll them "external ordinances." We 
 do not admit the propriety or justice of calling any 
 of the Christian rites external ordinances, since they 
 are designed to have an internal effect, or an effect 
 upon our moral nature. 
 
 I call ray present argument an argument from anal- 
 ogy, meaning by this that there are acknowledged or- 
 dinances in the church of Christ, and authorized by 
 God, which have some resemblance to feet-washing. 
 My opponent, and the denomination which he repre- 
 sents, and the whole Christian world, with but little 
 exception, acknowledge the binding authority of the 
 communion of the body and blood of Christ, in the 
 elements of bread and wine, and of Christian baptism, 
 perfoi-med in the element of water. 
 
 Believing in the utility of religious rites, and in 
 their existence in the church of Christ — when we look 
 at the circumstances under which Jesus practiced feet- 
 washing, just at the close of his life, and in his last 
 interview with his disciples before he suffered; when 
 we look at its spiritual character ; at its accompanying 
 blessings ; and finally at the language of Jesus spoken 
 to his disciples when he said, '' I have given you an 
 example, that ye should do as I have done to you;" 
 we can not resist the conviction that feet-washinor 
 
 o 
 
 should be considered an ordinance, rite, or command- 
 ment given by Christ, the Head of the Church, to be 
 observed by his disciples for their spiritual improve- 
 ment and enjoyment. 
 
 In connection with ray present argument from 
 analogy, I may state the fact that feet- washing was 
 once an ordinance of God — a religious rite. We have 
 it given in the following words : " Thou shalt also 
 make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to 
 wash withal; and thou shalt put it between the taber- 
 nacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt 
 pjit water therein. For Aaron and his sons bhall 
 
234 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 wasli their hands and their feet thereat. When they 
 go into the tabernacle of the congregation they shall 
 wash with water, that they die not ; or when they 
 come near to the altar to minister, to burn offerings 
 made by fire unto the Lord. So shall they wash their 
 hands and their feet, that they die not; and it shall 
 be a statute forever to them, even to him and his seed 
 throughout their generations." Exodus, xxx : 18-21. 
 
 We do not argue that feet-washing is an ordinance 
 in the Christian church because it was an ordinance 
 in the Jewish congregation. But if Infinite Wisdom 
 once ordained it, under some form, as an instructive, 
 expressive, and symbolic rite, this fact should at least 
 prevent us from having any prejudice against it, when 
 we are examining the subject to learn whether that same 
 Infinite Wisdom may not have ordained it as an ordi- 
 nance in another form in the Christian church. Water 
 was used as an element in religious rites in the Jewish 
 dispensation, and so it is in the Christian dispensation. 
 Bread was used in the religious rites of the Old dis- 
 pensation, and it is also used in a rite of the New dis- 
 pensation. If, then, the element of water, and a form 
 of feet- washing, as an ordinance, existed by divine 
 authority under a former dispensation, and as water 
 has been chosen by the Christian Lawgiver as a symbol 
 of purification, and as a constituent in at least one 
 rite under the present dispensation, there surely is 
 nothing unseemly, absurd, or unreasonable in the posi- 
 tion that a form of feet-washing exists also as an 
 oniinance in the church of Christ. Whether it does 
 or does not, is to be decided by a candid examination 
 of the Christian Scriptures. That examination we 
 are now making. And to lead our minds to a proper 
 conclusion relative to the subject under consideration, 
 I am using such arguments as I deem best calculated 
 to draw out the truth. 
 
 I have given the ordinance of feet- washing as it 
 
MR. QUINTER's first ADDRESS. 235 
 
 was enacted by God liimscif for a former dispensation. 
 I will now give the practical view of that ordinance, 
 as taken by two popular commentators: 
 
 Mr. Scott, on Exodus, xxx : 20, 21, says: "The 
 priests, though washed at their consecration, were 
 commanded, on pain of death, to wash their hands 
 and feet every time- they officiated, or, at least, once a 
 day ; which intimated their continued guilt, which they 
 contracted in their daily emplojnnents and contact 
 with the world." 
 
 Dr. Clarke, on this passage, says: "What an im- 
 portant lesson does this teach the ministers of the 
 Gospel of Christ ! Each time they minister in public, 
 whether in dispensing the woid or the sacraments, 
 they should take heed that they have a fresh applica- 
 tion of the grace and spirit of Christ, to do away with 
 past transgressions or unfaithfulness, and to enable 
 them to minister with the greater effect, as being in 
 the divine favor, and consequently entitled to expect 
 all tlie necessary assistance of the divine unction, to 
 make their ministrations spirit and life to the peo{)le." 
 
 Kow if. as Dr. Scott thinks, the ceremony that the 
 priests performed when they washed their hands and 
 feet, " intimated their continual guilt, which they con- 
 tracted in their daily employments and converse with 
 the world," would it not be well for us to have an 
 ordinance to remind us of our guilt? And if, as Dr. 
 Clarke declares, "an important lesson " is taught from 
 the priests washing their hands and their feet, could 
 we not learn still more from practicing something of 
 the kind ourselves? It would seem likely we could, 
 and from the practical utility of feet-washing, as well 
 as from various other considerations, we claim for it 
 the character of a Christian rite. \Time expired. 
 
236 DEBATE ON FBET-WASHING. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S FIRST ADDRESS.] 
 
 Mr. Moderators — Again we are present, under 
 circumstances of peace and safety, for the purpose of 
 engaging in the discussion of another proposition — 
 the proposition read by the President moderator this 
 morning, the affirmative of which my friend has in 
 part presented in the foregoing speech. Without any 
 preliminary remarks, I shall proceed at once to con- 
 sider the first thing necessary in order to a clear un- 
 derstanding of the points at issue. I have no objec- 
 tion to my friend's analysis of the proposition and 
 difinition of the terms contained in it. He considers 
 the subject under three divisions : 1st, Feet-washing 
 is an ordinance commanded by Christ ; 2d, It was de- 
 signed to be perpetual ; 3d, It is to be performed in 
 the public assembly of the church. I take no excep- 
 tions to this analysis. Nor have I any fault to find 
 with his definition of the word " ordinance " — "an 
 observance commanded." This I accept as a correct 
 definition. 
 
 But I would call your attention to this point : that 
 ordinances, or observances commianded, are of at least 
 two characters. There are ordinances that pertain 
 particularly and exclusively to religious worshif), and 
 there are ordinances or observances of a moral charac- 
 ter. The distinction is sometimes made between posi- 
 live ordinances, and mora^ observances: the positive^ 
 resting alone on the authority of the lawgiver; the 
 moral, growing out of the nature of things. The one 
 is right because commanded — the other is commanded 
 because right. I wish you to keep this thought in 
 your mind. 
 
 A word in regard to the perpetuity of the ordi- 
 nance, or the act, which my friend would have us re- 
 gard as an ordinance. There will be no controversy 
 
MR. M CONNELL S FIRST ADDRESS. 'Z6 
 
 at all upon the qiiostion of its perpotuit^^ providing 
 tlie affirmative of the main visue is established by my 
 friend. So he need spend no time upon the (juestion 
 of the perpetuity of the observance under consider- 
 ation-. 
 
 Tlie main issue, then, if I understand it, has refer- 
 ence to the thne and the place for the observance of 
 this ordinance, this law, this precept, or whatever we 
 may most properly call it. 
 
 First, let me call to your remembrance this fact: 
 that the washing of feet — of the feet of others — as a 
 custom, existed long before the time of Christ; we 
 read of it, as a common or customary act, nearly or 
 quite two thousand years before the birth of Jesus 
 Christ; and it continued at least till the time of our 
 Saviour's coming. In proof of this point — though my 
 friend will not dispute it — I propose to read a few 
 passages from the Holy Scriptures. And first, from 
 Genesis, xviii : 4 : '* Let a little water, I pray you, be 
 fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under 
 the tree." Gen., xix : 2 : "Behold now% my lords, 
 turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and 
 tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise 
 up early, and go on your ways." Gen., xxiv : 32 : 
 "And the man came into the house; and he ungirded 
 his camels, and gave straw and provender for the 
 camels, and water to wash his feet, and the men's feet 
 that were with him." Gen., xliii : 24: *' And the man 
 brought the men into Joseph's house, and gave them 
 water, and they washed their feet." Judges, xix : 21 : 
 " So he brought him into his house, and gave proven- 
 der unto the asses ; and they washed their feet, and 
 did eat and drink." II Sara., xi : 8 : "And David 
 said to Uriah, go down to thy house, and wash thy 
 feet ; and Uriah departed out of the King's house, 
 and there followed him a n^ess of meat from the King." 
 Coming from the Old Testament to the New, in Luke, 
 
238 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 chapter vii, commencing at the thirty-sixth verse, we 
 read that '* One of the pharisees desired him (Jesus) that 
 he would eat with him. And he went into the pharisee's 
 house, and sat down to meat. And behold, a woman in 
 the city which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus 
 sat at meat in the pharisee's house, brought an ala- 
 baster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him 
 weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and 
 did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his 
 feet, and anointed them with the ointment." Pass- 
 ing to verse forty-four, we read that the Saviour 
 " said unto Simon, seest thou this woman ? I entered 
 into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet ; 
 but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped 
 them with the hairs of lier head." 
 
 jNow, from these quotations we learn three things. 
 First, that the washing of feet was a custom that pre- 
 vailed from the days of Abraham down to the time of 
 the public ministry of our Saviour upon earth ; he found 
 the custom, or practice, prevalent among his own (the 
 Jewish) people. Secondly, you will observe that it 
 was 2i family custom ; in every case that I have read, 
 the act of washing the feet was performed in the 
 house, except in one instance, and then it was in the 
 shade of a tree, close to the tent door; and then the 
 act preceded the eating of a meal in the same place — 
 in the shade of the tree. Thirdly, you will observe 
 that this washing of feet was a custom that prevailed 
 in connection with the eating of the evening meal, or 
 supper. 
 
 Now, turn to I Samuel, xxv : 40, 41 : "And when 
 the servants of David were come to Abigail to Car- 
 mel, they spake unto her, saying, David sent us unto thee 
 to take thee to him to wife. And she arose, and bowed 
 herself on her face to the earth, and said, ''Behold, let 
 thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of 
 the servants of my Lord." This proves that feet- 
 
MR. m'cONNELL's first ADDRESS. 239 
 
 washing, as a custom, not only existed, but that it 
 was the custom for servants to wash tlie feet of guests 
 who came — " washing the feet of their friends," and 
 that this very custom liad obtained from the earliest 
 ages until Jesus Christ appeared on earth. 
 
 Now, I want these several points distinctly noted : 
 that the custom of washing feet is as old as Abraham, 
 and continued in practice until the time of Christ's 
 public ministry ; that it was practiced in the house, in 
 the evening, in connection with or preceding a meal, 
 and in many cases by servants waiting upon distin- 
 guished guests of their masters. 
 
 And now I wish to call vour attention to the case, the 
 main case — I was about to say, the only case — upon 
 which any reliance at all can be placed by our friends to 
 sustain their position upon this question. I refer to 
 the case already introduced by my friend, recorded in 
 the thirteenth chapter of John's testimony. And I 
 will show you that all the points in the case were in 
 accordance with the then prevailing custom. 
 
 Kead, then, if you please, the first verse: " Now be- 
 fore the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his 
 hour was come that he should depart out of this world 
 unto the Father, having loved his own which were in 
 the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper 
 being endud, the devil having now put it into the heart 
 of Judas Iscariot, Siuiou's son, to betray him, Jesus, 
 knowing that the Father had given all things into his 
 hands, and tbat he was come from God, and went to God, 
 he riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments, and 
 took a towel and girded himself. After that he poureth 
 water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples feet, 
 and to wipe them with the tOAvel wherewith he was 
 girded." Now, turn to Matthew, twenty-sixth chapter, 
 sixth to twelfth verses, and you will find that this 
 occurred at Simon's house, in the town of Bethany ; 
 and that then and there Simon made a supper for 
 
240 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 Jesus and his disciples, in his own private house ; and 
 at night, too, as we shall see. The Saviour found the 
 custom of washing feet, for purposes of cleanliness, in 
 the world when he came; he and his disciples met at 
 Simon's house; Simon did not perform, and none of his 
 servants came to perform, this act of hospitality. Now, 
 to exhibit to his disciples, and to all generations there- 
 after, an example contrary to anything they had ever 
 seen, j:he Lord of those disciples, instead of the house- 
 hold servants, performed the act of service, the duty 
 which had formerly been performed by the servants of 
 the household. He thus taught by example what he had 
 before taught in words, that he that was greatest 
 should be the servant of all. The apostle was no 
 doubt contemplating this, if not this deed, at least 
 this disposition, when he said (Phil., ii: 5), '' Let this 
 mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Feet- 
 washing our Saviour found in the world when he came, 
 the custom prevailing just as he performed it, except 
 the reversal of the position : instead of his servants 
 washing his feet, he, the Master, washed their feet. 
 And this, not to elevate the act into a public ordi- 
 nance, but. by it, to teach them a lesson of humility. 
 My brother said, and said truly — and he has said a 
 great deal of truth during this discussion, from the 
 beginning till the present time — that feet-washing is 
 one of Christ's commands ; that Christ said (John, 
 xiii : 14, 15), '' If I, then, your Lord and Master, have 
 washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's 
 feet; for I have given you an example, that ye should 
 do as I have done to you." Well, I am willing to 
 follow that example ; to wash feet as he did. But 
 where did he do it? In a private family. }Vhen did 
 he do it? Before retiring to rest. Why did he do 
 it? For purposes of cleanliness and comfort, because 
 it was needed by them, travel-soiled from the journey 
 of the day. Now, as Christ did and commauiled, 1 am 
 
Mil. M'cONXELL's I'lliST ADDRESS. 241 
 
 ready to do; in my own house, n,t night before retir- 
 ing to rest, if any of my brethren need to have their 
 feet washed for purposes of cleanliness and comfort, 
 I hope and believe I am not too proud to do it. But 
 I am not ready to elevate it into a religious ordinance, 
 and to perform it in the public ass^embly of the church, 
 till I find that Christ did it, or commanded it to be 
 done. 
 
 My friend told you that feet-washing was 07ice an 
 ordinance of God ; was a religious ordinance under 
 the Mosaic dispensation. But there is one difficulty 
 about this: under the Mosaic dispensation the priests 
 were commanded to wash, not the feet alone, but the 
 hands also. But my Tonker brethren may respond, 
 that when the feet are washed, the hands are washed, 
 as a matter of course. But, in the first place, it is 
 not he whose feet are washed, but he that does the 
 washing, whose hands are washed; he washes anoth- 
 er's feet, but his oivn hands : and, secondly, God gave 
 to Aaron and his sons a special command for washing 
 their hands ; the hands and feet were coupled in the 
 command. But they are not so coupled in the prac- 
 tice which my friend insists upon. I do not claim 
 that this amounts to much as an argument; but since 
 my friend has introduced the subject, I want to say a 
 few words upon this tabernacle service. It is uni- 
 versally admitted that the tabernacle service, from its 
 outer court with its furniture and service, to its inner 
 court with its golden candlestick, its table of shew- 
 bread, its altar of incense, its sanctum sanctorum, its 
 cherubim of gold, its holy shekinah, in fact, all that 
 pertained to it, was typical of the Christain institution. 
 If this be true — wiiich no one has ever ventured to 
 deny — then that washing in the brazen laver was typi- 
 cal of something, and must somewhere have its anti- 
 type. My friend seems to base the claims of feet- 
 washing as an ordinance under the Christian economy, 
 IC 
 
242 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 in part upon the assumption that it is the anti-type of 
 the washing in the brazen laver — or else his refer- 
 ence thereto is not pertinent at all. But the washing 
 of the hands and feet in the brazen laver was per- 
 formed before entering into the tabernacle; there was 
 no washing of any kind in the tabernacle ; there was 
 no water there. Now, if feet- washing be the an ti- type 
 of the washing of the feet and hands in the brazen 
 laver, feet-washing must be performed outside of the 
 church, not inside of it, according to his practice. 
 My Tonker friends will please notice this point; that 
 feet-washing, to be at all consistent with that which ii 
 claimed to be its type, must take place before enter- 
 ing the church. But my friend will not claim that 
 the washing in the brazen laver was the type of feet- 
 washing, for it has baptism for its anti-type ; the whole 
 Christian world so acknow^ledges, and my friend will 
 not contend otherwise. So all the argument in behalf 
 of feet-washing founded upon the washing in the bra- 
 zen laver falls to the ground. 
 
 My friend has endeavored to argue that, because 
 the washing of feet was commanded by Christ, it 
 must therefore be a religious ordinance, to be '' per- 
 formed in the public assembly of the church." But 
 Christ commanded many things which he did not es- 
 tablish as public ordinances. He commanded his 
 disciples to feed the hungry ; but did this constitute 
 it an act of religious worship ? and to clothe the 
 naked ; but was this to be done in the public assembly 
 of the church? They, and many other things that 
 might be mentioned, are acts of obedience to God, but 
 are )iot ordinances of religious worship, to be per- 
 formed in the public assembly of the church. 
 
 Some other things said by my friend I shall not 
 attempt to reply to, because they do not seem to me 
 to have any particular force, or bearing upon the ques- 
 tion. Ileferring to the verse, " If ye know these 
 
MR. m'cONNELL'S first ADDRESS. 243 
 
 tilings, liappy are 3'e if ye do them;" my friend pre- 
 fers the word ''hiessed," to '"happy;" I have no 
 special objection to the criticism, yet 1 prefer the word 
 " happy," as in the common translation, for one reason, 
 at least : the word " blessed" has a nieauiiijr in it be- 
 vond anvthinor that belon;2;s to man; it is the word 
 that is used to express our conceptions, and thanks- 
 <:;ivings, and praises, and adoration toward Almighty 
 God ; as David says, " Bless the Lord, my soul" 
 (Ps., ciii : 1, and many other places). \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR. QUIXTER'S SECOND ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — I am happy to continue 
 my course of argument, and to respond to the re- 
 marks of my friend, so far as any response may be 
 necessary. He has given us an account of feet-wash- 
 ing among the ancients, and pointed out to us quite 
 a number of instances. But, he tells us, it was a 
 custom of the world. We will admit that it was so. 
 I showed, on the other hand, that it was a command 
 of Jehovah under the Mosaic dispensation, that the 
 Jewish priests should wash their hands and feet. 
 And now, we find feet-washing as a custom of the 
 world, and feet-washing as an ordinance of the Jew- 
 ish religion; we have it in the family, and we have it 
 in the house of Grod ; or, if it please you better, con- 
 nected with riie holy service of God. Before the 
 priests could enter the tabernacle to perform the func- 
 tions of their sacred ofiice, before approaching that 
 pure and holy Being whom they worshiped, they 
 were commanded to wash their hands and feet. I do 
 not say that the washing in the brazen laver was 
 typical of feet-washing in the chui-ch of God; but I 
 say that feet-washing was connected with the wor- 
 ship of God under the Mosaic dispensation. 
 
244 DEBATE ON FEET-WASIIINa. 
 
 Now, we have feet-wasliing presented to us under 
 two aspects : as a worldly institution or act, and as 
 an institution or ceremony connected with the ser- 
 vice of God. It remains for us to examine this act 
 of Christ, in washing his disciples' feet, in connection 
 with the attendant circumstances, consequences, etc., 
 and see with which it best agrees — with the institu- 
 tion of feet-washing as a custom of the world, or 
 with the -institution of feet-washing as an observ- 
 ance connected with the service of the Lord. That 
 feet-washing existed as a custom of the world, my 
 friend admits, indeed, positively asserts; but that is 
 no proof that it is not now an ordinance of the 
 church. Does not my friend know that before im- 
 mersion was made an ordinance of the church by the 
 divine authority of Jesus Christ, it existed as a cus- 
 tom of the world — even ages before? Before the 
 h\w was delivered to Moses from Mt. Sinai, in 
 Moses' infancy, Pharaoh's daughter went down to 
 the river to bathe. Who is so ignorant of Oriental 
 history as not to know that bathing or immersion, 
 is a common custom among the Eastern nations ? 
 But our blessed Saviour, when he came, took this act 
 of bathing or immersion out of the world, stamped 
 his own divine authority upon it, constituted it a re- 
 ligious ordinance, and handed it down to his church 
 and people, from that time to the present. Then 
 what force is there in the argument so often brought 
 against us, that feet-washing can not be a religious 
 ordinance, because it had before been a worldly cus- 
 tom, and had existed for ages, ever since the time of 
 Abraham? The question is not whether it was a 
 worldly custom, or an ancient custom ; but did Jesus 
 Christ give it his sanction? I may illustrate the 
 point in this way: How many laws have we in this 
 country, that were laws in England, while these 
 States were yet colonies, or even before ? But when 
 
MR. QUINTEH^S SECOND ADDRESS. 245 
 
 the governmont of the United States was organized, 
 men in authority, the legishiture of the nation, took 
 certain hiws which liad previously existed, and gave 
 them the sanction of legislative authority ; and what- 
 ever they once were, however ancient may be their 
 origin, they now arc the laws by which we are gov- 
 erned. So with feet-washing: whatever Abraham, or 
 Lot, or any one else did, Jesus Christ washed tlie 
 feet of his disciples, and commanded them to do the 
 same to each other. We maintain — and this is the 
 point at issue — that Jesus Christ gave this observ- 
 ance a religious character. 
 
 My friend admits the propriety of feet-washing 
 under some circumstances — and I am glad he a(lmit3 
 it under almost any circumstances ; but I would like 
 to have him tell us whether he would wash feet 
 because he acknowledges it to be a command of 
 Jesus Christ, or simply in order to cleanse the feet, 
 as in common washing ? Perhaps he was paving the 
 ■way for an explanation upon this point when he gave 
 the preference to the word "happy" instead of 
 " blessed," in the verse quoted, i deem the word 
 *' blessed" more appropriate than " happy," because 
 the happiness we feel when washing one another's 
 feet is a blessing from God. By obeying the com- 
 mandments of the Lord we are made partakers of 
 spiritual enjoyments. I do not make my brethren 
 *' happy," or they me, when we wash one another's 
 feet, but God '' blesses " us when Ave try to obey his 
 commands. And right here is the point which I en- 
 deavored to impress upon your minds in my former 
 speech : I called your special attention to the spirit- 
 uality of the act, when Jesus washed the feet of his 
 disciples. Will any one associate an idea so low and so 
 carnal with our Lord Jesus Christ, and the circumstan- 
 ces attendant upon this act — concerning which he said, 
 blessed^ or happy ^ if you please, are ye if ye do them — 
 
246 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 as to suppose that it was done only in order to re 
 lieve the feet of his disciples of the filth accumulated 
 upon them by travel ? But, my friend says, it was 
 a common custom. If it was so common a custom as 
 my friend would have us believe, is it not a little 
 strange that during all the time — over three years — 
 that Jesus had been with his disciples, he had never 
 done it before? Peter knew nothing about it, as the 
 history plainly teaches; for Peter did not know what 
 the Saviour was about to do. 
 
 My friend assumes that the supper, at which Christ 
 washed his disciples' feet, was eaten at Bethany, six 
 days before the Passover. I shall take the ground 
 that that supper was eaten at Jerusalem ; that the 
 washing of the disciples' feet by our Saviour occurred 
 at the eating of the dupper at Jerusalem. But, sup- 
 posing it to have been eaten at Bethany, then it was 
 only a few days before the agony that preceded his 
 death. If feet-washing was a common custom — if it 
 had ever been done before during the three years and 
 a half that Jesus had been going in and out before 
 them — how does my friend account for Peter's igno- 
 rance and surprise on this occasion ? 
 
 One thought more — about the washing of the 
 priests' hands and feet, as connected with the service 
 of the Lord. My friend says that the washing of the 
 hands and feet of the priests, under the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation, took place outside of the tabernacle ; there- 
 fore he insists that feet-washing, under the Christian 
 dispensation, should take place outside of the church. 
 I must say it seems to me that this, as well as some 
 other things brought up by my friend, is a little far- 
 stretched. According to his logic, I would ask him 
 to explain one thing: he claims that washing of the 
 hands and feet of the priests at the entrance of the 
 tabernacle to be typical of baptism; would he there- 
 fore conclude that the ordinance of baptism should 
 
 ^ 
 
Mil. quinter's second address. 247 
 
 never be performed inside of a church? But I do 
 not consider this to have anything to do with the 
 matter. The point I contend for is this: that under 
 the former dispensation, feet waahiny was connecled 
 lo'dh the service of God. I suppose my friend will 
 agree witli me that it is not simply a mass of buikl- 
 ing materials — beams, boards, rafters, and shingles — 
 that constitute a church ; I suppose if he and I had 
 sometimes to worship under the canopy of heaven, if 
 we were obedient servants of Christ, we might still 
 rightfully consider ourselves *' in the church" of 
 Christ; and that if baptism, or feet-washing, were 
 there performed, it would still be " in the church." 
 These suggestions corne up in view of the thoughts he 
 has dropped, and the difficulties he has endeavored to 
 throw in our way, on this subject of feet-washing. 
 
 I shall now leave the matter for the present, so far 
 as he has introduced it, though some thoughts in re- 
 lation to this point will more properly come up at a 
 more advanced stage in this discussion. 
 
 5. My fifth argument to prove that feet-washing is 
 a Gospt'l ordinance, is based on the consideration that, 
 in addition to the characteristics of an ordinance which 
 I have already found in feet-washing, there are also 
 others in it, contained in the definition of an ordinance. 
 
 It is evident from the following; lanfrua^i-e of Christ, 
 that he intended his disciples to observe feet-wash- 
 ing : *'If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do 
 them." 1 have already looked at this passage under 
 one aspect — that of proving the spirituality of feet- 
 washing — but I now look at it under another, viz : 
 that of proving that it was to be practically observed 
 by the disciplt'S. The definition of Webster, is, ''Ob- 
 servance Commanded." Now, from the language of 
 Jesus, under consideration, it is evident that the dis- 
 ciples were not only to deduce a certain moral or les- 
 son from this act of Christ, but were actually to wash 
 
248 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 one another's feet. ^' If ye know these things, happy 
 are ye if je do them." What things did Jesus refer to ? 
 Feet- washing; was certainly one. " These'^ always refers 
 to the things last mentioned, or near b}'. Jesus had 
 just washed their feet — it was the last thing he had 
 done. Then this must have been one of the things 
 he referred to. " If ye do them " — do what ? Wash 
 one another's feet. Then there was to be an actual 
 observance of the thing — i. e., of' washing one an- 
 other's feet. The Saviour did not say, " Ye must be 
 humble enough to be willing to wash one another's 
 feet ;" neither can his language be construed to mean 
 that. Nor did he say, " Ye must be willing and 
 ready to perform any acts of kindness for one an- 
 other." But he said, " If ye know these things^ ^^^VVJ 
 are ye if ye do them.'' Connect this with the language 
 of Christ, " I have given you an exauiple, that ye 
 should do as I have done to you," and the disciples 
 could not possibly have understood anything else but 
 that they were to wash one another's feet. And 
 what kind of a Avashing was it to be? Not a carnal 
 washing, as we have proved, but a religious washing. 
 
 Now, till my friend meets some of these argu- 
 ments, and does away with the strong appearance of 
 the spiritual character of this act of Jesus Christ, 
 and the fact that he commanded his disciples to do it, 
 I shall insist that I have sustained the first division 
 of the proposition that it is a command of Jesus 
 Christ, an ordinance to be observed. My friend has 
 not yet denied, and I -do not expect that he will 
 deny, that Christ intended that his disciples should 
 actually wash one another's feet. I now ask from 
 him a plain answer to the question, "Did Christ in- 
 tend his disciples to wash one another's feet?" I 
 maintain that he did so intend. Well, then, feet- wash- 
 ing was an "observance coinmanded." 
 
 I do not know that I would have been called upon 
 
MR. QUINTER'S second ADDRESS. 249 
 
 to prove the spiritunlitj of this ordinance. Had I sim- 
 ply proved that it ^vas an "observance connnanded, " 
 that wouhl have been amply sufficient. But I want 
 to throw all the light I can upon these things, not 
 alone for argument's sake, but for the benefit of this 
 community. So, though I do not think the proposi- 
 tion required me to dwell upon the spirituality of the 
 ordinance, I have shown that our Saviour's washing 
 of the disciples' feet was no mere carnal washing; 
 that it had a more spiritual meaning, a far higher 
 purpose in view. 
 
 People sometimes speak about doing tliis, that, or 
 the other thi?ig, as suhsfitutes for that which they are 
 commanded to do. My friend belongs to a church, 
 or people, who claim not to believe in any such thing 
 as a substitute for a positive command of Christ; yet 
 he claims here that any menial occupation, such as 
 the blacking of boots, for instance — anything to in- 
 dicate our humility and willingness to serve our 
 brother — is a sufficient and acceptable substitute for 
 feet-washing. But when Christ Avaslied his disciples 
 feet, and told them they ought to do tha same — " If I, 
 then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, 
 t/e also ought to wash one anotlier^s feeV — you might 
 black boots, or wash clothes for ages ; sit by the bed- 
 side of your sick and dying brother for. weeks and 
 months, and minister to his needs in numberless ways, 
 as circumstances might require; and yet you have 
 not followed Christ's example, nor obeyed his com- 
 mand, which was, in plain word and deed, to wash one 
 another's feet. There was a specific act that he per- 
 formed and commanded ; and in the performance of that 
 specific act only can his disciples follow his example, 
 and fulfill his command. 
 
 I will now leave this branch of m}^ proposition until 
 the necessity appears for further remarks upon it. 
 
 II. I shall now pass to the second division of the 
 
250 DEBATE ON FEET-WASIIING. 
 
 proposition, and prove the perpetuity of this ordi- 
 nance ; that it was to be observed by the disciples of 
 Christ until his second comincr. 
 
 It argues this, first, from its implied tendency. It 
 was designed to promote the enjoyment of the dis- 
 ciples — •' If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye 
 do them." Now, as God is declared to be " no respecter 
 of persons," it would not seem to be in harmony with 
 his character to give to some of his children means 
 of grace for their purity and enjoyment, while he 
 withholds the same means from others. But this he 
 has done, if feet-washinor was designed to make the 
 first disciples happy, and it was given to them on\y^ 
 and witliheM from the believers Avhich succeeded the 
 first disciples. But the Lord has done just what we 
 might expect from his benevolent and impartial 
 character. The faithfulness and devotion of his 
 chihlren constitute the condition upon which his 
 blessings are bestowed upon them. And if we want 
 any argument in addition to that from the known 
 character of God, to prove the perpetuity of feet- 
 washing, we have it in the last commission of Christ : 
 " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things what- 
 soever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with ^'ou 
 ahvay, even unto the end of the world." (Mattliew 
 xxviii : 19, 20.) Now, as the disciples were to teach 
 the converts to Christianity in all nations what Christ 
 had commanded them, we see that all were to have 
 the same means of grace the first disciples had. And 
 as Christ had commanded the first disciples to wash 
 one another's feet, they now, according to the com- 
 mission, were required to teach the believers among 
 all nations, feet-washing; for they were to teach 
 others what he had taught them. And in this way 
 the uieuiis of grace will be equally distributed among 
 
MR. m'cONNELL's second ADDRESS. 251 
 
 all believers; thus fcet-wasliing would be perpetuated 
 in the church, and bless all believers with its in- 
 fluence. That Christ commanded his disciples to 
 wash one another's feet is undeniable. If, tiion, they 
 -were faithful to the charge given them by Christ, 
 they must have tnught feet-washing to those whom 
 they baptized. [^Time expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONXELL'S SECOND ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I will refer, first, to the 
 branch of the subject last presented. My friend has 
 not, I presume, finished his argument from the com- 
 mission — "Teaching them to observe all things what- 
 soever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with you 
 alway, even unto the end of the world." But the 
 syllogism seems to be this : as the apostles were to 
 teach all thinojs Christ had taught them, and as Christ 
 had taught them feet-washing, therefore they were to 
 teach all nations to observe feet-washing. Before 
 going further, I would ask my brother whether this 
 statement of the position taken by him in this argu- 
 ment is correct. (Mr. Quinter acknowledges it to be 
 correct.) 
 
 Now, this syllogism is perhaps correct; hut it does 
 not cover the entire ground. There is an important 
 issue in this question which is not in the syllogism ; 
 not in its major nor in its minor premise, nor yet in 
 its conclusion. Or perhaps I might better say it 
 covers too much ground ; it proves, if it prove any- 
 thing, entirely too njuch to sustain m}^ friend's posi- 
 tion. Christ taught his disciples to visit the sick ; he 
 taught them to feed the hungry, and to clothe the 
 naked; and they were commanded to teach them to 
 others ; therefore, his disciples, evei-y where and in all 
 ages, ought to visit the sick, feed the hungry, clothe 
 
252 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 the naked. But the point at issue is this : not- 
 withstanding Christ taught these things, and com- 
 manded his disciples to teach them, does that consti- 
 tute them puhlic religious ordinances f Was the 
 visiting of the sick, the feeding of the hungry, the 
 clothing of the naked, to be performed in the publio 
 assemhJy of the church f 
 
 Tlie main point at issue, and the only one worth 
 spending time upon, is contained in that phrase, "in 
 the public assembly of the church." I do not propose 
 to entangle myself in any dispute or discussion upon 
 any other point except this ; but this I want you to 
 keep clearly and distinctly before your mind. Whether 
 feet-washing was a family institution, or a religious 
 institution, a carn;il institution, or a spiritual institu- 
 tion, will not materially affect the argument. The one 
 thing which my brother has to do in order to estab- 
 lish his position on an impregnable basis, is to 
 prove, by the command or example of Jes.us Christ, 
 or of his apostles, not that feet-washing should be 
 practiced — that I have already acknowledged — but 
 that it should be practiced in the public assembly of 
 the church. 
 
 My friend made himself somewhat merry, and de- 
 duced some strange conclusions from my remarks in 
 reference to the tabernacle service. He would argue, 
 because the brazen laver was at the entrance to the 
 tabernacle, and the priests Avashed before entering in ; 
 and as that washing in the brazen laver was typical 
 of the ordinance of baptism under the Christian dis- 
 pensation, therefore baptism must never be performed 
 inside of the church building! This is the difficulty 
 in which he seeks to entrap me. I did not suppose 
 that, when speaking of the church of Christ, my 
 brother meant the stone, the posts, the weather-board- 
 ing, etc., of this building, or some other building in 
 which the Lord's disciples met. Yet such is the sense 
 
Mil. xm'connell's second address. 253 
 
 in which he uses tlic term. I do not go so low as that 
 in my underst.indiiig of tlie term " churcli." I do not 
 refer to the builiUng, but to tlie organizalion. I mean 
 the public assembly of those who are the members of 
 the one body of Christ. In saying that tlie holy 
 coui't of the Jewish tabei-nacle was a type of Clirist's 
 church, I did not mean to sny it resembled a meeting- 
 house, but that it was typical of the institution or 
 organization known as tlie church of Christ. 
 
 Now, if, as I understand my friend to contend (else 
 there is no relevancy at all in his argument), the wash- 
 ing of the hands and feet of the priests in the brazen 
 laver, under the Mosaic dispensation, was typical of 
 feet- washing under the Christian dispensation, since 
 the washinor in the brazen laver was not inside of the 
 tabernacle, but outside, I say the washing of feet 
 should be outside the church, and not inside — i. e., not 
 of the church building, but of the church organization. 
 The anti-type must conform to its type. Whatever be 
 the anti-type of that washing in the brazen laver, it 
 must take place, not in the church, but at the entrance 
 into the church. Then, my brother Quinter must wash 
 the feet of his candidates before even baptizing them, 
 for baptism takes them into the church, and the feet- 
 washing must take place before they go in. 
 
 Baptism is not an ordinance in the church; I sup- 
 pose I need not again explain that I mean the organi- 
 zation known as the church of Christ, and not merely 
 a meeting-house. I must confess I was surprised that 
 my friend, who has usually been so calm and dignified, 
 and has felt pained at some pleasantries of mine, 
 should perpetrate such a joke as to ask me to get up 
 and say whether 1 was opposed to baptistries in meet- 
 ing-houses ! 
 
 xMy friend says, Jesus Christ found immersion in 
 the world when he came, illustrating it by the case of 
 Pharaoh's daughter, who went down to the river to 
 
254 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 bathe ; but that Jesus Christ took it out of the world^ 
 and put it into the church. In like maimer, he affirms, 
 Christ found feet-washing in the world, but took it 
 out of the world and put it into the church. But 
 there a.re two or three sophisms about this thing that 
 I will point out. In the first place, Jesus Christ did 
 not take immersion out of the world and put it info 
 the church ; baptism is not an ordinance in tlie church, 
 but the initiatory ordinance into the church. My 
 friend would place feet-washing in the church; so, 
 even if the parallelism of either the cases were any 
 argument, the cases are not parallel at all. 
 
 But my friend goes on to say that whether feet- 
 washing was a custom of the world or not, whether it 
 was an old custom or not, is not the question ; but 
 whether Jesus Christ gave it his sanction; and to this 
 question he calls upon me for a direct answer. I an- 
 swer — and I hope the answer will be plain and posi- 
 tive and direct enough to satisfy my triend — Jesus 
 Christ did find feet-washing among the Jewish people 
 as an existing custom. He did give it his sanction, 
 by his own example, and by saying to his disciples, 
 " Ye ought to wash one another's feet." 
 
 But right there is a little point of some importance. 
 Having answered my brother's question, I now ask 
 him to answer a question for me: ''In sanctioning 
 feet-washing, did Jesus Christ sanction it as he found 
 it and as he practiced it, or did he sanction what he 
 did not. find, and as he did not practice it?" 
 
 I acknowledge that he sanctioned the custom of 
 feet-washing; but claim that he sanctioned it as he 
 found it and as he practiced it. Tliat he thus sanc- 
 tioned it, is no proof that it must be practiced in some 
 other way^ at some other ti/ne, and under entirely dif- 
 ferent circumstances. A physician might sanction tne 
 giving of lobelia to a man having a disordered sto ii- 
 ach, when he would not sauctiou it iu the case of a 
 
MR. M'cOXNKLL's second ADDRESS. 255 
 
 man in licaltli; or he iiiifjht sanction bloorl-lettiiifi: at 
 one time, uhen the system was in a pletiioric condi- 
 tion, while at another time, when tlie system liad but 
 just enough blood in it to sustain life, blood-letting 
 would be certain death. 
 
 Now, because Jesus, at Simon's private house in 
 Bethany, in the evening, after supper, before retiring 
 to rest, washed his disciples' feet, soiled with the 
 travel of the day, I do not hold that feet-washing 
 should be performed in the public assembly of the 
 church, and when the feet do not need it. I am ready 
 to obey his commands, and to wash the disciples' feet 
 as he did it, in the private family, and when it is 
 needed to be done for purposes of cleanliness or 
 comfort. And that is just what he sa^'s — "I have 
 given you an example, that ye shoidd do it as I have 
 done to you:'' not in some other way, under other cir- 
 cumstances, and for some entirely different purpose. 
 
 My brother asks me if I would wash feet because I 
 acknowledge it to be a command of Jesus Christ, or 
 merely in order to cleanse the feet, as in common 
 washing ? 
 
 I reply, I would do it for the same reason that I 
 would clothe the naked, or feed the hungry. When I 
 clothe the naked, I do it not merely to cover the man's 
 body — not merely for that, but also in order to honor 
 my Lord and Master, and obey his commands. When 
 the poor, hungry, starving child stands at my door, 
 and asks for a crumb of bread, I feed it not merely 
 that it may eat, but from the enthusiasm of a common 
 humanity, inspired by the example of my divine Re- 
 deemer; I am happy before God that I have the 
 privilege of doing it. There is a benefit for me, the 
 giver, as well as for the receiver — a moral and spirit- 
 ual benefit. But does the fact that moral and spiritual 
 benefits are received by him who performs such acts 
 of kindness, prove that clothing the naked and feeding 
 
256 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 the hungry are. religious ordinances, to be celebrated 
 in the public assemble/ of the churchy once a year, and 
 "when not at all needed? 
 
 Now, a little upon that word ''blessed." Our com- 
 mon version says, "happy" are ye if ye do these 
 things. My friend claims that the term ''blessed" is 
 preferable here, because "blessed" refers to enjoy- 
 ments of a spiritual nature that come from God; while 
 the enjoyment conferred by man upon his fellow man 
 is " happiness." I am not ready to accept this state- 
 ment. Let us read, if you please, some of the pass- 
 ages where this word " blessed " occurs. Gen. xiv : 
 20: ''Blessed be the most high God, who hath de- 
 livered thine enemies into thy hand," says Melchiz- 
 edek to Abram. Certainly the blessings are not rep- 
 resented as coming /rc»;^i God, in that case. 1 Chron., 
 xxix: HO: "And all the congregation blessed the 
 Lord God of their fathers," etc. Dan. ii : 19 : '' Then 
 Daniel blessed the God of heaven." Does that mean 
 that he made God happy ? I Tim,, i : 1: "The glo- 
 rious Gospel of the blessed God, \vhicli was committed 
 to my trust." Would it be appropriate to use the 
 word " happy " instead of " blessed '" in this case ? 
 By these, and many other instances I might produce, 
 you will see the shade of tliffeience that exists in the 
 meaning of the words " happy " and " blessed." But 
 all this, by the way; it has no particular bearing upon 
 our present controversy. 
 
 My friend places great stress upon the fact that the 
 washing of the disciples' feet by the Saviour was not 
 dune merely to cleanse them, but in order to teach a 
 deep moral lesson, a lesson of humility. Granted, 
 most willingly. But I contend that my friend, in this 
 case, adheres to the letter at the expense of the spirit 
 of the act, and fails to receive the full benetit of the 
 lesson intended to be conveyed, to exhibit the humil- 
 ity it was designed to teach. 
 
MR. m'connelt/s second address. 257 
 
 Suppose a man comes to my door from a neiglibor's 
 across the street, where lie has just partook of a 
 sumptuous meal, and I urge him to come in and take a 
 seat at my fr.ible, and eat another meal — am I fulfilling 
 my Saviour's command to feed the hungry? Or sup- 
 pose a man comes to me clothed in broadcloth, and 
 everything else elegant and fashionable, and I give 
 him another suit of clothes — am I fulfilling the com- 
 mand to clothe the naked? Suppose I go to one of 
 your yearly meetings, and wash your feet, when I 
 know that just before you have had them thoroughly 
 washed : this would be no obedience to any command 
 of my Saviour. But to wash the feet of my brother 
 at any time when he needs that service at my hands — 
 that I consider to be true obedience. There is no 
 humility manifested in my washing my brother's feet 
 when thoy do not need washing; it is but showing off 
 a virtue — an ostentatious display of humility — that 
 may or may not be actually possessed hj the individ- 
 ual making this public exhibition of it. 
 
 I now call your attention to one or two points in 
 connection with the occasion when Christ washed his 
 disciples' feet, to the fifne and the place. "Where was 
 it (lone ? At Bethany, in the house of Simon. When ? 
 Two days before the feast of the Passover. To make 
 this clear to every one who will pay respectful atten- 
 tion, I will inquire, first, at what time did Judas go to 
 coujmune with the chief priests? After Satan had 
 entered into him. (Luke, xxii : 3, 4.) When did Satan 
 enter into Judas? After he had received the sop, 
 (John, xiii : 27.) 
 
 Now, this was all after the feet-washing, the same 
 night, and at the house of Simon, in Bethany. And 
 the feet-washing was not done at the supper of the 
 Passover, when the eucharist was instituted, but some 
 days before, in -a^ private house, after supper, before 
 retiring to rest. 
 17 
 
258 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 I suppose I have not time now ; but in some future 
 speech before this discussion closes, I shall take the 
 opportunity to separate some things in connection 
 with this matter that have been confounded in the 
 minds of our Tonker friends for years past, and have 
 been the means of leading them into error on this 
 subject of feet-washing. 
 
 I have already shown that the feet-washing per- 
 formed by Christ exactly corresponded in all respects 
 with the custom of feet-washing as it then existed in 
 the world, except that in this case it was the master, 
 instead of the servant, that performed the menial 
 service. 
 
 There is but one other reference to feet-washing in 
 the New Testament, viz : I Tim., v : 10. There it is 
 found associated, not with religious ordinances, to be 
 performed in the public assembly of the church, but 
 with "good works" — raising children, lodging stran- 
 gers, relieving the afflicted, etc. — all personal and 
 private deeds. [Time expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTERS THIRD ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly MoBERATOES— I wish first to give a little 
 attention to the subject of the priests washing their 
 hands and feet. I noticed that point this morning 
 simply for the purpose of showing that feet-washing 
 had once, by the command of God, been connected 
 with the service of God. I did not claim that wash- 
 ing in the brazen laver, or any other washing, under 
 the Mosaic law, was typical of feet-washing under the 
 Gospel. If my friend takes that position — that the 
 feet-washing under the law was typical ot feet-washing 
 under the Gospel — he at once gives to the Gospel dis- 
 pensation the ordinance of feet-washing. If he does 
 not consider it to be typical of feet-washing under 
 
MR. QUINTER's third ADDRESS. 259 
 
 the Gospel, since I do not claim it to be typical, 
 ■whether it was performed inside or outside of the tab- 
 ernacle, has nothing to do with the subject. I wanted 
 to show that the priests washed their feet — that my 
 friend will not deny. I went a step further, and 
 showed that this washing of their feet was connected 
 ■\vitli the solemn service of God; that, too, I think he 
 ^vill not deny. Those priests had their homes and 
 their families ; what they did there I know not, nor is 
 it anything to the purpose. The feet-washing I re- 
 ferred to was that connected with the service of God, 
 and not any washing performed at their homes or in 
 their families. The point I wished to make was this: 
 Some persons seem to think that feet-washing is an 
 act of too low and undignified a character to be made 
 a religious ordinance ; and to controvert that idea, if 
 my friend, or any one in this audience might enter- 
 tain it, I wanted to show that it was not so low and 
 undignified an act but that God, under a former dis- 
 pensation, had connected it with the holy and solemn 
 worship of himself. 
 
 My friend, in the conclusion of his last address, 
 insinuated that the washing of feet when they were 
 not filthy, was an uncalled-for operation, and not the 
 fulfillment of a command of Christ. Let me ask my 
 brother, when the Jewish priests were about to enter 
 the tabernacle, did they wash their hands and feet be- 
 cause they were filthy? No; though they were as 
 clean as any method of cleansing could make them, 
 they must still wash before entering, because the 
 solemn injunction of Jehovah was upon them. So 
 under the Gospel dispensation. This feet-washing is 
 not done for the sake of cleansing the feet, but as the 
 representation or symbol of an inward or spiritual 
 cleansing. The hands and feet may be clean when 
 the heart is not pure. 
 
 My friend asserts that it is no obedience to Christ's 
 
260 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHINa. 
 
 commands to wash tlie feet when they are not dirty. 
 But is tliis conclusion a safe one ? In the communion 
 we partake of the sacred emblems, the bread and 
 wine ; does my friend claim that this need not be done 
 except when we are hungry? No, because these are 
 taken for another purpose. So the washing of the 
 body in baptism is not alone for " the putting away the 
 filth of the flesh." It has a spiritual import, conveys 
 spiritual lessons and benefits. So with feet-washing. 
 
 And here I wish to say that the feet- washing per- 
 formed by the Saviour was feet-washing under a new 
 aspect. Before that time, in the cases referred to by 
 my friend, back even to the time of Abraham, there 
 was water brought, and the guests washed their own 
 feet, or the servant of the house washed their feet. 
 But in the case of the feet-washing of Jesus, it was 
 neither of these. The disciples were to wash 07ie 
 another^ feet. It was neither the least among them 
 that was to wash the feet of the others, nor the 
 greatest ; among them there was to be no least, and 
 no greatest. This fact of indiscriminate service pre- 
 sents feet-washing to us under a new aspect. We 
 shall look at this point more particularly in the fur- 
 ther development of the subject ; for the present I 
 simply call your attention to the fact. 
 
 I was upon the second division of the proposition, 
 viz: upon the perpetuity of this ordinance; that it 
 was designed to be continued in the church of Christ 
 until his second coming. 
 
 My third argument in support of the perpetuity of 
 this ordinance, is founded on the occasion and cir- 
 cumstances that called forth the act on the part of 
 our Saviour. In clothing my ideas upon this subject 
 in lant]^uao;e, I shall read from the comuientaries of 
 Olshausen ; not in order to present him as authority, 
 but because the ideas which I would present are ex- 
 pressed by him in language that so well answers my 
 
MR. quinter's third adcress. 261 
 
 purpose. I read from his remarks on the thirteenth 
 chapter of JdIhi's gospel : 
 
 *' As regards the washing of the feet itself, in the first 
 place, the occasion that induced it is clearly seen from 
 the passage, Luke, xxii : 24, ff, where mention is made of 
 a strife among the disciples. [Uemark by the speaker : 
 It will be seen that Olshausen, with a number of other 
 wi'iters and harmonists of Scripture, connects the lan- 
 guage of the Saviour as set forth in the twenty-second 
 chapter of Luke, with the feet-washing recorded in the 
 thirteenth chapter of John.] This led to an act which 
 set forth in the most striking manner the deepest self- 
 humiliation of Christ, and also recommended the same 
 to his disciples. Secondly, this proceeding, according 
 to the design of the Lord, was to have a symbolical 
 significance. For while baptism relates to that puri- 
 fication and renovation of the ivhole man, which hap- 
 pens only once, the washing of the feet was intended 
 to illustrate the daily cleansing from that contamina- 
 tion of the world which even the regenerate man can 
 not avoid, but which would become injurious to him 
 only in case he did not immediately endeavor to re- 
 move it. Thus we are not so much to suppose a 
 double sense in the words, as to recognize a symboli- 
 cal character in the transaction — a case which fre- 
 quently occurs in the evangelical history. (Matt., xxi : 
 18, if., Tor the symbolic action of the Saviour in curs- 
 ing the fig-tree.) Such a symbolical admonition was 
 more than ever necessary for the disciples at this 
 particular time. They were about to encounter cir- 
 cumstances in which their faith might easily be shaken ; 
 hence it was important for them to know that one 
 sinful emotion, a single instance of being overtaken 
 by surprise, would not sufiice to wrest them from their 
 state of grace, but that they might daih^ receive fresh 
 pardon for such defilements." 
 
 In the above language there is sucli a plain refer- 
 
262 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 ence to the design and practical tendency of feet- 
 washing, that we can not fail to understand the author 
 in any other possible way but that he regarded the 
 practice of feet wasliing among the disciples as of 
 binding authority. But it appears that while he re- 
 garded it as beneficial to the disciples, he did not 
 understand it to be designed by Christ to be a stand- 
 ing rite in the church, or for any but the apostles. 
 This view of the subject, however, does not seem to 
 me to be either consistent or correct. If it was to be 
 to the disciples all that Olshausen declares it was, 
 and if they needed it as much as he thinks they did, 
 why should not other believers as well as the apostles 
 have its advantages, for surely all have need of them ? 
 Have not selfish ambitions, and strife for pre-emi- 
 nence, and feelings of envy, and a spirit of caste in 
 the church, building up a wall of partition between 
 different classes, a spirit of pride, and a deep and 
 extensive want of a real gospel feeling of brotherly 
 love which would lead to mutual forbearance, mutual 
 sympathy, to the preferring of one another, the help- 
 m% of one another, and the b-earing of one another's 
 burdens — have not, we say, these feelings and these 
 wants ever been a curse to the church? They have 
 dried up her life-streams, have destroyed her influence, 
 have rendered her a reproach to her enemies, and a 
 stumbling block to the wicked. We want all the 
 apostles had, and we believe our blessed Lord intended 
 us to have it ; and in sending out the disciples he 
 charged them to teach others all that he had com- 
 manded them. 
 
 We see that the occasion which called forth this 
 action on the part of the Saviour was the improper 
 strife among his disciples as to which of them shouhl 
 be the greatest. Need I say that humanity to-day, 
 as represented in the Christian church, is no better 
 than it was eighteen hundred years ago ? Could 
 
MR. QUINTER's third ADDRESS. 263 
 
 James say. " Elias was a man subject to like passions 
 as we are ;" and can not I, can not you — can not all 
 of us, acknowledge that we are men of like passions, 
 even with the apostles themselves? If humanity is 
 no better than it was eighteen hundred years ago — if 
 we are no better men than the apostles — do we not 
 need all the helps we can get, all the assistance that 
 was afforded them, in order to cultivate that high 
 standard of moral and spiritual excellence necessary 
 for communion with God, and a residence with him 
 in Heaven? Or has the standard of holiness and 
 purity become lower? Can a soul enter the bright, 
 pure climes of Heaven, to-day, with less holiness and 
 purity than was necessary in the days of the apostles? 
 Who dare say it can. Then, if Heaven is equally 
 pure, and humanity equally depraved, we maintain the 
 necessity of having all the helps in Christian life that 
 the apostles possessed. The necessitj^ that called out 
 feet-washing for them, at that day, exists for us at 
 this day, always has existed, and always will exist till 
 the Lord comes again. Then a change will take 
 place which will forever preclude our liability to pride, 
 apostacy, and every other sin, and then these means 
 of ^race will be withdrawn. Until that time we need 
 theli in all their fullness. 
 
 I read to you this forenoon the remarks of those 
 great commentators, Dr. Scott and Dr. Clarke, upon 
 the command to the priests to wash their hands and 
 feet always before entering the tabernacle to minister 
 in the service of God. What a lesson this fact taught 
 to ministers of Christ, how pure and holy they ought 
 to be. But if their action can teach us a useful lesson, 
 how much more useful and impressive would it be for 
 us to do the thing itself! I am now arguing the per- 
 petuity of this ordinance from the eftect it was in- 
 tended to produce. Whatever effect feet-washing ever 
 had, whatever it did for the apostles, it may do for us. 
 
264 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 Now, I want to refer again to another point which 
 I have already touched upon. Feet-washing as com- 
 manded by Christ is presented in a different aspect 
 from that in wliich it appeared before. What is it 
 that is commanded? Did Christ say, "When you 
 brethren, my disciples, get settled, if you ever do, and 
 have your families and domestic matters all arranged 
 around you, and any of your Christian brethren come 
 along in their travels, you must wash their feet?" 
 No, no — that is not the command. " Let him that is 
 least among you perform this act of service ?" No. 
 Or, " he that is greatest among you ?" No, not even 
 that; that rule would lead to difficulty immediately. 
 ■For instance, here is my friend, Mr. McConnell, trav- 
 eling somewhere with a number of brethren of lesser 
 note; they stop at night; it becomes necessary that 
 their feet should be washed ; now, Mr. McConnell 
 being unanimously acknowledged to be the greatest 
 and best man among them, it of course falls upon hira 
 to wash the feet of the entire crowd. But perhaps 
 the company consist of a number of men whose abili- 
 ties are nearly equal ; Mr. A. is modest, and thinks 
 that Mr. B. is the greatest man among them, and 
 therefore insists Mr. B. shall wash the feet of a^ the 
 rest ; Mr. B. resigns all claim to that position in favor 
 of Mr, C, who refuses to recognize his own superi- 
 ority over all the rest; and so on, down to Mr. Z.,by 
 which time the contest has degenerated into a bitter 
 dispute and a universal dissatisfaction. I will tell 
 you a better way than that. That is, the way Christ 
 commanded. Without waiting to dispute as to who 
 is greatest, or who is least, let all wash one onother's 
 feet ; all alike, all brethren together, all members of 
 the family of our blessed Lord who has set for us this 
 beautiful example. [Time exj.)ired. 
 
MR. m'CONNELL's tried ADDRESS. 265 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S THIRD ADDRESS. 
 
 Gentlemen and Moderators — My friend's con- 
 cluding remarks, in wliich he demolishes the idea tliat 
 he tliat is greatest should do the feet-washing for the 
 entire crowd, seemed to me to be uncalled for — in no 
 ■NN^ay pertinent to the subject we are discussing — as I 
 have made no such proposition as that, the difficulties 
 of which he so vividly sets forth ; consequently, I need 
 not spend any time in replying to that portion of his 
 remarks. I think I made my meaning perfectly 
 clear ; I would have no greatest, and no least — no 
 distinctions whatever as to superiority or inferiority — 
 but all one family of equals in the household of the 
 Lord. 
 
 My friend's theory and practice concerning feet- 
 washing, presents a strange inconsistency, which finds 
 no parallel in the religious world, and nothing -ap- 
 proaching a parallel case, except among our pedo- 
 baptist brethren, who, finding difficulties in the way 
 of John's immersing each person, who came to him 
 individually, in the river Jordan, imagine the whole 
 company assembled in one place, and John sprinkling 
 the multitude with a palm-branch! So my friend 
 earnestly urges the necessity of a '• daily purification 
 from that contamination of the world which even the 
 regenerate man can not avoid," " that they might 
 daily receive fresh pardon for such defilements " — 
 this is his theory, but as it would prove somewhat 
 troublesome in practice, he gets all his congregation, 
 or a number of con*:jregations, to^-ether in a laroje meet- 
 ing-house once a yeai\ and makes a general job of it, to 
 answer the purpose for another year ! 
 
 But let us examine into this matter a little more at 
 length. The substance of my brother's claim in be- 
 half of feet-washing, as set forth in his last speech, is 
 based upon the theory that, '^ w'hile baptism relates 
 
266 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 to that purification and renovation of the ivliole man 
 Avhich happens only once^ the wasliing of the^feet was 
 intended to illustrate the daily cleansing from that 
 contamination of the world which even the regenerate 
 man can not avoid. And he intensified this matter, 
 as you will remember, by making an earnest appeal 
 to me, to us all, as to whether humanity is any better 
 now than it was in the days of our Saviour ? Whether 
 selfish ambitions, and strife for pre-eminence, and 
 feelings of envy, and jealousies, and bickerings, and 
 sinful lusts in manifold shapes, are not as prevalant 
 in the church to-day as they were among the dis- 
 ciples while Christ was yet with them? Whether we 
 do not need all the help we can get, all the assistance 
 that w^as afforded them, in order to cultivate that 
 high standard of moral and spiritual excellence neces- 
 sary for a communion with God, and a residence 
 with him in Heaven ? To all of which I answer, "Yes, 
 yes — a thousand times yes." Humanity is the same 
 that it was eighteen hundred years ago ; and he who 
 would arise from earth to heaven, needs every help 
 that he can get. We do need — even the best of men 
 need — a daily cleansing from the contaminations of 
 sin. And if this cleansing is to be symbolized by a 
 washing of the feet, we need a daily feet-washing. 
 And if this feet-washino- is an ordinance desiij^ned to 
 be performed in the public assembly of the church, 
 then must the church be assembled every night to 
 perform this symbolical act — unless we intend to lay 
 our sins over from day to day, and let them accumu- 
 late for a year, and then have an annual feet-wash- 
 ing, to dispose of them all at once ! I have no power 
 to reason, if this is not a correct conclusion from his 
 premises. It demands, if his reasoning is sound, the 
 necessity for three hundred and sixty-five times as 
 much feet-washing as he is willing to accept, I ven- 
 ture to say. 
 
MR. m'cONNKLL's third ADDRESS. 267 
 
 t 
 
 My friend h;is read to you extracts from those 
 learned comujentators, A«lam Clarke and Dr. Scott. 
 The former makes some beautiful remarks in reference 
 to the j)riests washing their liands and feet in tlie 
 brazen laver at the entrance to the tabernacle : what 
 a lesson it teaches to ministers of the Gospel of the 
 present day ! Yes, it does. But the priests washed 
 daily; it taught them a c?a«7y lesson. But has that 
 anything to do with feet-washing? If so, it teaches 
 the necestjity o^ daily feet-washing. 
 
 In this connection, permit me to say that here is a 
 mistake of Dr. Clarke's, which I must not omit to no- 
 tice. It may sound like presumption in a man of my 
 caliber, out here in the wilds of the West, to assert 
 that Adam Clarke could make a mistake ; still, what is 
 said is said. Dr. Clarke supposes that the priests, 
 under the Jewish dispensation, in the services they 
 performed, in the outer court and holy place of the 
 tabernacle, were typical of the ministers of the Gos- 
 pel, as a separate profession or class. Not so ; for 
 in the day we live, under this dispensation, every 
 Christian is a priest; and Aaron, the high priest, was 
 typical of our high priest, Jesus Christ. 
 
 While upon this subject, we will, if you please, 
 briefly review this matter of types and anti-types, as 
 connected with the Jewish tabernacle and the church 
 of God. The holy place was typical of the church 
 under this dispensation. In coming from the outer 
 court, what was first found ? The sacrifice upon the 
 altar of burnt offering; the priest approached the 
 alter of burnt offering, which typified the sinner com- 
 ing to Jesus Christ by faith. Then he passed on to 
 the brazen laver and washed, which typified the sin- 
 ner being cleansed from his sins in baptism. - The 
 priest then passed into the holy court, and approached 
 the golden candlestick, which was typical of entrance 
 into the church and the illumination of the heart by 
 
268 DEBATE qN FEET-WASIIIXG. 
 
 the Spirit or Word of God. The priest then pro- 
 ceeded to the altar of incense, and offered up incense 
 to God, T\diich was typical of our approach to the 
 altar of prayer, offering the incense of prayer and 
 praise to our Heavenly Father. Once in seven days 
 the priest changed the loaves of bread ; and once in 
 seven days the priests in this dispensation remove 
 tlie bread of communion from the table. The paral- 
 lel is complete; type and anti-type answer to each 
 other as com})letely as hand answers to hand. The 
 priest going in daily and washing his hands and 
 feet at the brazen Uivor, did not intimate a daily repe- 
 tition of the ordinance of baptism ; but simply kept 
 daily and constantly before the people the thought 
 that the sinner might subject himself at any time to 
 the ordinance of baptism, and approach the altar of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Now, a word as to the occasion that called forth the 
 act of feet-washing by our Saviour. My friend says, 
 the same occasion that called forth feet- washing then 
 would demand it 7ioiv. I reply, the same occasion, 
 the same circumstances, can never again occur; 
 hence, according to his reasoning, there will never be 
 any more necessity for feet-washing. But I deem 
 this reasoning to be wrong. The washing of feet, 
 and every other act of brotherly service and kindness, 
 will continue so long as Christ has a people on earth 
 to observe his example and carry out his commands. 
 
 My friend claims spirituality for feet-washing, be- 
 cause Christ said to Peter, " What I do thou knowest 
 not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." Now I 
 ask my friend this question : What did Peter learn 
 about it that he did not then know? This much I 
 will venture to say: Whatever he may have found 
 out, he has never told us anything about feet-wash- 
 ing. My brother will remember it, if he has. But 
 he did learn this important lesson,- and this lesson he 
 
MR. m'cONXELI/S TIirUD ADDRESS. 269 
 
 hns tan_i];lit ns ; t]i:it lie that liurnldeth himself shall be 
 exalted. Peter Avas an ambitious man ; he wanted to 
 stand at the head of affairs ; he wanted to be Secre- 
 tary of State in Christ's kingdom, and made applica- 
 tion for that position, or some other. But their Lord 
 and Master, their Chief, taught them a most impres- 
 sive lesson by performing the menial service of 
 washing their feet. And they learned that lesson of 
 humility, not only in the matter of washing one an- 
 other's feet, but in all the relations of life; for there 
 are no expressions of selfish ambition on recoi'd after 
 Jesus Christ rose from the dead. And I would that 
 we could all learn this solemn lesson of deep humil- 
 itv from seein<j the God of Heaven, clothed in the 
 habiliment of a steward, washing the feet of his dis- 
 ciples on earth. 
 
 Said my friend, in one of his speeches : *' The spir- 
 ituality of feet-washing is inferred from the fact that 
 the disciples did not understand it," Persons infer 
 a great many things from what they do not under- 
 stand, and that is the reason their inferences are fre- 
 quently so ridiculous. I do not deny that there may 
 be spirituality connected with feet- washing. Every- 
 thing done in the name and for the honor of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ has a spiritual tendency. We are com- 
 manded, '' Whatever ye do, in word or deed, do all in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus." Wives are commanded 
 to submit themselves to their husbands, and husbands 
 to love their wives, in the name of the Lord. And 
 there is as much spirituality in a wife obeying her 
 husband, or a husband loving his wife, in the name 
 of the Lord, as in washing a neighbor's feet. 
 
 When my time expired, at the conclusion of my 
 former speech, I was referring to the case of the 
 widow, recorded in I Tim., v : x. I remarked that feet- 
 washing in tliat case, the only instance on record in 
 the Scriptures after the death of Christ, was associated 
 
270 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 with the reariTig of children, lodo;iTio; strangers, 
 relieving the afflicted, and diligently following every 
 good work. The acts with which feet-washing is as- 
 sociated, indicate where it should be classed. If it 
 had been associated with public ordinances, we would 
 have srood reason for inferrino; that feet-washinoj also 
 was a public ordinance ; but being classed among 
 " good works," personal and private acts, we have 
 the same good reason for inferring that feet-Av ashing 
 belongs among them, and is not a public ordinance. 
 Paul was not speaking of public ordinances at all. 
 Why did not Paul suggest or inquire whether this 
 widow had been baptized, or had partaken regularly of 
 the communion ? There can be but one of two 
 answers: either because it was unimportant, altogether 
 unimportant, or because baptism and the communion, 
 being public ordinances, her attendance upon these 
 would be well known, so that no special inquiry Avould 
 be made in reference to that matter. My friend 
 will not accept the former solution, and say that 
 baptism and the Lord's Supper are of no importance. 
 Now, after all that has been said by my friend and 
 by myself, I call your attention again to the one 
 issue between us in this controversy. There is but 
 one single point of disagreement ; in reference to the 
 other points brought up, we are both on the same 
 side. We are agreed that Christ washed the feet of 
 his disciples; that he commanded his disciples to do 
 the same; that the act was intended to teach to them 
 and to the believers in every age a lesson of humility ; 
 that there should be no greatest, and no least, among 
 disciples of Christ, but all brethren in the one family 
 of our Lord; that the washing of one another's feet 
 should be continued, as long as the church of Christ 
 remains; in all these points, I say, we are agreed.' 
 We disagree on only one point, and I wish to keep 
 your minds fixed upon that as being the issue, the 
 
MR. QUINTEr's fourth ADDRESS. 271 
 
 only issue between us : and that is, should the wash- 
 ing of feet be performed as a reJiyious ordinance, in 
 [he public assembli/ of the Church't My brother need 
 not waste his time in arguing any other point con- 
 nected with the proposition ; I will yiekl them all — 
 only so he will establish his position upon this point. 
 This he can do by showing either the command or the 
 example of Christ, or of his apostles, for such feet- 
 washing in the public assembly. If any such instance 
 or command is to be found in the sacred records, my 
 friend, who has prepared himself so diligently and so 
 well for this discussion, can produce it, and end this 
 whole controversy in very little time. He may read 
 from Olshausen, and Adam Cltirke, and as many 
 more as he chooses, but their words are notliing to 
 the purpose ; let us have the word of the Lord upon 
 this matter. Let all minor points drop out of the 
 discussion; I am ready to yield my position and 
 adopt my brother's practice, as soon as this point 
 shall be settled in his favor. And my brethren will 
 go with me ; the Avhole church of Christ in Lime 
 county — five hundred men and women — will at once 
 adopt the Tuiiker's practice of feet- washing, if my 
 brother will produce a single instance in the Scrip- 
 tures where feet-washing was done, or commanded to 
 be done, in the public assembly of the Church of 
 Christ. \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR QUTXTERS FOURTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — My friend commenced his 
 last speech with an endeavor to exhibit an inconsist- 
 ency between ray ideas of the purpose of feet-washing 
 and our practice in this respect. Now, as it happens, 
 the remarks about the necessity of being cleansed from 
 the daily contamination of the world were incident- 
 
272 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 allj dropped by Olshausen ; that was his language, 
 not my own. In saying that, as a general thing, I like 
 his ideas and his manner of expressing them, I did 
 not mean to be understood as indorsing every remark 
 he might incidcjitally let fall. Now, by the term 
 " daily," we understand, " frequently." Even after 
 our baptism, we are liable often to become defiled by 
 sin ; hence the necessity of this after-cleansing ; 
 whether once a week, once a month, or once a year, 
 does not matter, so it be done " frequently *' after- 
 ward. 
 
 My friend says the occasion which called forth the 
 washing of the disciples' feet by our Saviour, can 
 never again occur. Either I do not understand him, 
 or he has not understood me. I do not know that I 
 can explain myself any more clearl}^ than I have. I 
 understand the occasion that called it forth, to have 
 been the strife among the disciples — the improper 
 feelings in their hearts, their selfish ambitions, their 
 desire to rule over one another. That cause, more or 
 less, continually exists, in all ages, and everywhere. 
 I had better call this the cause, perhaps, instead of 
 the occasion ; but I was generally understood before, 
 I think. And because that cause continues to exist, 
 I argue the necessit}^ for the continuance of the act 
 which this cause then called forth. If any lesson was 
 learned, if any effect resulted from the act as per-, 
 formed by Jesus, then the same lesson, the same effect, 
 would foUow the observance of the act to-day. 
 
 My friend made an appeal, quite touching to the 
 feelings, calling upon us all " to learn this solemn 
 lesson of deep humility," from seeing our divine Mas- 
 ter '"clothed in the habiliments of a servant, washing 
 the feet of his disciples." That is precisely the reason 
 why we follow his example. When Ave wash the feet 
 of our brethren, we are reminded of our Saviour, and 
 impressed with the necessity of cultivating that deep 
 
MR. quinter's fourth address. 273 
 
 humility whicli ho possessed. In the porformance of 
 this act we have tiie image of Jesus, when lie performed 
 it, foreihly and distinctly imi)ressed upon our minds. 
 
 Several other points to which my friend referred, 
 ^vill come up and be attended to in the course of my 
 regular argument, to which I will now proceed. 
 
 I argue the perpetuity of feet-washing from its ex- 
 istence in the apostolic church after the Saviour per- 
 formed it. 
 
 That it existed in the apostolic church, I think my 
 friend will not deny. The Saviour commanded the 
 disciples to wash one another's feet, and my friend 
 has acknowledged that he intended they were actually 
 to do it — not to do something else as a substitute for 
 it. Now, who were to do it — thi\t original twelve, and 
 no more? If those twelve, and no more, were to do 
 it, then, when they were traveling, and other believ- 
 ers were in their company, and these seasons of feet- 
 washing occurred, who were now to wash? Must the 
 original twelve alone, or that part of the twelve who 
 happened to be present in the company, perform this 
 act, and receive the blessings that were promised as 
 its result ? There was Paul, that warm-hearted, zeal- 
 ous, devoted servant of God ; when he was with the 
 twelve, or some of the twelve, and preparations were 
 made for feet- washing, was Paul to unite with them 
 in the act, and participate in its benefits, or not? So 
 w^ith ApoUos, and other ministers and believers who 
 chanced to be with any of the original twelve to whom 
 this command was directl}^ given. Were they to stand 
 around and look on, regretting that, while this was a 
 useful and beneficial thing, blessings being pronounced 
 upon those who should perform it, yet it was not for 
 them to participate in? At length, one after another 
 of the original apostles would die, the number of be- 
 lievers meanwhile vastly increasing. Where was this 
 to stop? When was it to cease? The apostolic 
 18 
 
274 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 cliiirch was an organized body ; some died, others 
 came in, but the orn;anization continued. How lonor 
 and by whom among them was this feet-washing to be 
 observed ? Here, I say, is this difficulty tliat comes 
 up in my mind — if feet-washing was not intended to 
 be perpetual, but was meant to be confined to the 
 original twelve, who, my friend acknowledges, were 
 actually to do it. Perhaps he will be able to clear up 
 this matter. I see no alternative except to acknowl- 
 edge that not only the orignal twelve, but Paul and 
 Apollos, and all the brethren, were to do it, and to con- 
 tinue to do, and to reap the benefits of doing it, and 
 the thing thus go on, and on, and on, as the affirma- 
 tive of the proposition we are discussing declares it 
 should go on, till our Lord comes again. So, in 
 Christ's true church, in some branch of his church, it 
 has continued down to the present time, and will now 
 never be lost, never be discontinued, till our Saviour's 
 second coming. 
 
 I will now refer to this feet-washing at Ephesus, or 
 wherever Timothy was when Paul addressed to him 
 the first epistle that commonl}^ goes by his name. 
 This my friend has called up as the one occasion when 
 feet-washing was observed after the occasion when 
 our Saviour did it. His objection to the supposition 
 that feet-washing was referred to as an ordinance, is 
 .based upon the fa.ct that it is here (I Timothy, v : 10) 
 classed with good works. This same objection I re- 
 collect seeing in Alexander Campbell's '' Christian 
 Baptist," years and years ago. Because the washing 
 of feet is connected with raising children, lodging 
 strangers, relieving the afflicted, and other '' good 
 works," he claims that it can not be a religious ordi- 
 nance. I call your attention to Ephesians, ii : 10, where 
 it is said, '"'For we are his workmansliip, created in 
 Christ Jesus unto good works." Here the whole 
 Christian life, all the rich, blessed consequences that 
 
 I 
 
MR. QUINTER's fourth ADDRESS. 275 
 
 follow the now creation, are said to be ''unto good 
 woiks." Evcrytliing comprising the Christian charac- 
 ter is brought under the term " good works." Then, 
 can not a Christian ordinance be included under the 
 term " good works," since everything is included 
 under it? I will quote another passage, from James 
 (i : 27) : *' Pure religion and undefiled before God and 
 the Father, is this, to visit the fatherless and widows 
 in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from 
 the world." Here pure religion is divided into two 
 parts : the negative part is, to keep unspotted from 
 the world ; the positive part, to visit the fatherless 
 and widows in their affliction. Now, though not men- 
 tioned in words, yet you have feet-washing there : 
 everything that is in the Gospel you have there, under 
 the head of '' pure religion." Now, the point made 
 by Alexander Campbell, and by his brethren in this 
 day, is, that feet-washing can not be an ordinance, 
 because it stands in an improper connection ; it stands 
 named among good works, not among ordinances, 
 they claim. Now, if there is anything in this argu- 
 ment, I say that baptism can not be an ordinance; the 
 communion can not be an ordinance ; because they 
 stand connected with good works — with visiting the 
 fatherless and widows. That will never do ; if feet- 
 washing is to be rejected from among the ordinances, 
 it must be rejected on other and better grounds than 
 that. It stands in good fellowship ; it stands in con- 
 nection Avith the most important and practical duties. 
 But we are not done with this matter yet. Speak- 
 ing of this widow, Paul says, "if she have lodged 
 strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet," etc. 
 Now, I will ask your attention to Genesis, xix : 2 : 
 " And he (Lot) said. Behold now, my lords, turn in, I 
 pray you, unto your servant's house, and tarry all 
 night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, 
 and go on your ways." My friend's theory has been, 
 
276 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 that this feet- washing has alwa^^s been connected with 
 tlie evening meal, being performed after supper, and 
 just before retiring to rest for the night. Now, I 
 kindly submit to the gentlemen Moderators, and to 
 this respectable assembly, in view of what my friend 
 has said, whether the washing of feet does not belong 
 to the lodging of strangers? But here we have feet- 
 washing separate from the lodging of strangers ; the 
 lodging of strangers is referred to as one thing, and 
 the washing of feet as another thing. Furthermore, 
 I want to direct your attention to another noticeable 
 and important point : *' If she have lodged strangers, 
 if she have washed the feet of the saints^ I submit 
 with the utmost confidence that the mind that looks 
 at this candidly, must feel that the feet-washing here 
 mentioned is something that refers more especially to 
 the saints, as distinguished from strangers. My friend 
 says he is ready to wash the feet of any one who 
 needs it. I have no doubt of it — so am I; any stran- 
 ger, poor, miserable, wretched, sick, infirm, that should 
 come along, I would take him into my house, so long 
 as God gives me one to shelter me; would share my 
 bread with him, so long as I had a crust for myself; 
 I would wash his feet to administer to his comfort. 
 But all this, according to the ground assumed by my 
 friend during this discussion, would come under the 
 head of '• lodging strangers." But here is something 
 else demanded of this widow ; she must not only have 
 lodged strangers, but she must have washed the saints' 
 feet. Have you ever looked at the matter from this 
 stand-point? If so, I doubt not your convictions are 
 similar to mine. If not, I urge you to look at this 
 point very carefully. My friend brought up this 
 verse against feet-washing ; I bring it up as a strong 
 argument in defense of feet-washing. 
 
 Aojain : if feet-washino; were reojarded merely as an 
 act of hospitality, as my friend would have you be- 
 
MR. QUINTER'S fourth ADDRESS. 277 
 
 lieve, there would have been no distinction made 
 between strangers and saints. When persons are 
 traveling along, and night ai-rives, and they stop at 
 our houses, such of us as have houses, and ask to 
 share in our hospitality, do we stop to ask them, " are 
 you a member of my church ?" Some of us are 
 thought to be contrated and illiberal, I know; but I 
 hope none of us are so contracted in our charity as 
 that. But here the apostle points out a special char- 
 acter to whom this act is to be directed; while acts 
 of hospitality were to be extended to all strangers, 
 here was an act of some other character, of which 
 members of the church only were to have the benefit. 
 My friend raised an inquiry as to the reason why 
 Paul raised tltese questions in regard to this widow — 
 whether it was because she had neglected her duty, 
 or why? It may have been the case. There was 
 neglect on other points, calling out the severe censure 
 of the apostles ; and there may have been neglect 
 also in reference to feet-washing. There may have 
 been in those days, as in these, some good sister — no, 
 not very good sister; it will not do to say that — but 
 some sister who deemed that there was somethinoj 
 reproachful or humiliating in feet-washing ; and then 
 Paul would admonish, saying, ''you must not stand 
 back;" if you wish to avail yourselves of the privi- 
 leges of the church, you must not shrink from perform- 
 ing the duties prescribed by its Leader and Head; be 
 ready even to wash the saints' feet; then, if you want 
 any special advantages in the church, your case will 
 be attended to ; you will be honored in the church, 
 and, if necessary, fed and clothed by it, if you have 
 complied with the requirements prescribed. ITime 
 expired. 
 
278 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 [MR McCONNELL'S FOURTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friends and Moderators — I confess I am losing 
 a little of my interest in this discussion ; and I will 
 tell you why. As I have repeatedly said, this whole 
 matter can be settled easily and quickly by adducing 
 a single command or example by Christ, or his apos- 
 tles, for washing feet in the public assembly of the 
 church. I think I am not unreasonable in my de- 
 mands ; I think the conditions are no more than he 
 ■would demand, and would have a right to demand, of 
 me under similar circumstances ; I think he can have 
 no cause for complaint if he can not compel us to do 
 what neither Christ nor any of his apostles ever did, 
 or ever commanded to be done. I know my friend 
 has a right to conduct his share of this discussion as 
 he pleases ; I know I have no right to complain if he 
 chooses to deliver lecture after lecture, for hour after 
 hour, upon subjects having no bearing upon the points 
 at issue between us ; but wherever he may wander in 
 the course of his remarks, do not let your attention 
 be diverted from the real point, the only point at 
 issue. I do not complain of him for wandering from 
 the point, and talking about anything and everything 
 else, no matter how irrelevant, for I know that is all 
 there is left for him to do ; if there had been anything 
 else, he would hiive done it long ago. 
 
 But there is one thing of which I do complain, in 
 the course taken by my brother ; and that is, 
 his repeated and constant misrepresentation of my 
 position upon this question. He is continually rep- 
 resenting me as saying this, and that, and the 
 other thino^, ayjainst fect-washin*]^. Now, I call this 
 entire congregation to witness that I have not this day 
 said a solitary word against saints washing each 
 other's feet; on the contrary, I have argued in its 
 favor with all the earnestness of my nature, if not 
 
MR. m'cOXNKLL's FOl'llTII ADDRESS. 279 
 
 with all the ability of my friend. I speak of tliis be- 
 cause such remarks upon his part arc calculated to 
 place me in a false position, a position in which I can 
 not consent to remain, before these gentlemen mod- 
 erators and this congregation. If he had said that I 
 adduced certain passages of Scripture, certain argu- 
 ments based upon such passages, against the washing 
 of feet in the public assembly of Christ's church, he 
 would have represented me correctly. 
 
 Airain : my friend refers to somethin;^: as beinoj 
 *' one of Alexander Campbell's objections" to feet- 
 washing. I will say, in behalf of Brother Campbell, 
 whose memory is dear to me, that I have read his 
 writings pretty closely, but I have never been able to 
 find a single objection raised by him against feet- 
 washing. Perhaps my friend has. But I know that 
 Alexander Campbell did raise objections to making a 
 church ordinance of feet- washing. It is as gross a 
 misrepresentation as any man can be guilty of, to 
 assert that we oppose feet- washing, when we only 
 oppose it under certain circumstances. If Dr. A. had 
 opposed the taking of blood from a man's veins who 
 had met with some accident whereby he had nearly 
 bled to death, it would be a gross misrepresentation to 
 assert in general terms that Dr. A. was opposed to blood- 
 letting. But all this arises from the necessity of the 
 case — the necessity, on the part of my friend, of occu- 
 pying the attention of this audience Avith points not at 
 issue, to escape the one that is. 1 have reduced the 
 discussion on the whole proposition to a single issue, 
 by yielding every point but one. I have acknowledged 
 it to be a Christian duty to wash the feet of the saints ; 
 whether performed by widows, or any other member of 
 the church, I care not ; the onl}^ question remaining be- 
 tween us is — and I now^ respectfully urge my brother to 
 confine his remarks hereafter to this one point — is this 
 washing of the feet to be performed in the public 
 
280 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 a^semhly of the church ? If there seems to be some 
 repetition in my remarks upon this point, the reason 
 I repeat it so frequently is because my brother ren- 
 ders it necessary for me to do so, by constantly en- 
 deavoring to lead your minds away from this point, 
 to the consideration of some other point that is not in 
 dispute at all. 
 
 My friend endeavors to make a point in favor of 
 feet-washing by comparing the feet-washing men- 
 tioned in the nineteenth chapter of Genesis with that 
 mentioned in the fifth chapter of Timothy — showing 
 that in the former case feet-washing was connected 
 with lodging strangers^ while in the latter it was the 
 saints' feet that were to be washed. He inquires why 
 this difference, unless in the latter case the feet-wash- 
 ing be a religious ordinance ? Now, there are cus- 
 toms that prevail in some places, and among some 
 tribes of people, that do not prevail in other places, 
 and among other tribes of people ; but hospitality, the 
 necessity for lodging strangers, exists in all places, 
 and among all races. If a stranger comes to mj 
 house and asks for lodging, I know that he will need 
 a bed to sleep in ; but if I should offer to wash his 
 feet, he might positively object; that is a custom of 
 more limited prevalence. But as the washing of feet was 
 a custom that obtained in Ephesus, and the portions 
 of the world where the church was situated over which 
 Timothy had the oversight, if she neglected to wash 
 the feet of lier fellow members of the church, it would 
 be the result of her own lack of disposition to do it. 
 
 Mj friend constantly contends that feet-washing is 
 an act of religious worship. Now, an act of religious 
 worship was to be performed in the public assembly 
 as often as the saints assembled themselves together; 
 they assembled themselves together every week ; 
 therefore, feet-washing must be performed every week. 
 That conclusion is unavoidable, provided the major 
 
MR. m'connell's fourth addhess. 281 
 
 premise is true — that feet-wnshing is an act of public 
 worsliip. Whenever my friend convinces me that 
 feet-washing is an act of religious worship, T will 
 attend to it as such ; but not in the waj he practices 
 it; for if it be an act of religious worship, it ought to 
 be attended to every week, or at least whenever the 
 followers of Christ assemble for worship. 
 
 My friend, in one of his speeches this forenoon, 
 drew an argument from the language of the commis- 
 sion, where Christ sent forth his disciples to teach all 
 nations whatsoever he had commanded them ; whence 
 he argues that, in the fulfillment of that command, 
 they could have kept back nothing that was profit- 
 able to us. Now, let me add another member to that 
 syllogism : The apostles never taught that feet- wash- 
 ing was an ordinance to be performed in the public 
 assembly of the church ; therefore, public feet-washing 
 as a religious ordinance is not profitable. There is 
 but one way to attack that syllogism, and that is by 
 attacking the second member of it ; and there is but 
 one way to do that, and that is by showing that the 
 apostles did teach to wash feet in the public assembly 
 of the church. One sino^le command, one sinorle ex- 
 ample, from them, will settle the case at once. I do 
 not attack my friend's argument from the commission ; 
 on the contrary, I accept it as correct. And, indeed, 
 you will find Paul himself declaring to the elders of 
 the church at Ephesus (Acts, xx : 20): "I kept back 
 nothing that was profitable ;" but Paul never taught 
 the washing of feet in the public assembly of Christ's 
 church ; therefore the public washing of feet is not 
 profitable. 
 
 But my friend may call his brethren up to the wit- 
 ness stand and appeal to them : " Brethren, have you 
 not all felt it to be profitable to wash feet in public ?" 
 and from all over the house will arise the response, 
 .^' Yes, yes, yes." But evidence of this sort — evidence 
 
282 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 furnished by the feelings — is very unreliable. The 
 minister who believes in infant baptism will ask his 
 pedobaptist brethren, "Have you not all felt the bap- 
 tism of infants to be profitable ? have you not felt a 
 joy in your souls after returning from the place where 
 your infant child had been sprinkled ?" And every- 
 where the answer would arise, " Yes, yes." The 
 Hindoo mother who casts her babe into the waters to 
 be devoured by the crocodiles, or the heathen who 
 casts himself beneath the wheels of Juggernaut to 
 be crushed to death, do so because they feel that it is 
 profitable to their souls. Persuade any person that a 
 thing is right, and he v^'iW feel that it is profitable to 
 his soul, whether it be really right or wrong. 
 
 Another point: my friend had a long argument, or 
 somethino; that miorht look like one to a careless ob- 
 server — 1 didn't pay much attention to it, for I saw 
 at the start that there was nothing in it — asking 
 "whether only the original twelve apostles were to par- 
 ticipate in this feet-washing and partake of its benefits, 
 ■while the other believers stood around, looking on, and 
 feeling bad because they had no cliance in it? That 
 w'as in his argument for the perpetiiity of feet- washing. 
 I have said, time and again, if my brother will estab- 
 lish the main issue, find the command or the example 
 of Christ, or of any of his apostles, for washing feet 
 in the public assemhly of the churchy I will admit all 
 the i*est, including the perpetuity. 
 
 My friend submitted some thoughts in reference to 
 the association of feet-washing with good works. He 
 directed your attention to the remark of James, that 
 pure religion and undefiled, is to visit the fatherless 
 and widows in their afiliction, and to keep unspotted 
 from the world. I do not see that James helps him 
 out of his difficulty. Does feet- washing come under 
 the head-of visiting the widows and the fatherless ? Is 
 visiting the widows and the fatherless to be done in 
 
MR. m'CONNELL's fourth ADDRESS. 283 
 
 the pnhlic asseniblv of the cluirch, or at their homes? 
 If lie iiieMHs that he would associate feet-washing with 
 such good works as visiting the fatherless and widows 
 in their affliction, then he means just what /mean. 
 But I furthermore maintain that feet-washing should 
 be done where these other things mentioned should be 
 done. 
 
 My friend savs that the word "daily" does not 
 mean " daily," but only " frequently ;" that it is a 
 word of indefinite meaning. Well, when it is said of 
 the disciples at Jerusalem (Acts, ii : 46), that they 
 *' continued daily with one accord in the temple," does 
 it mean that they went in once a year f My Tonker 
 brethren argue the necessity of daily feet washing, 
 and then do it once a year. I thouglit (iaily meant 
 once a day. But I do not wish to be understood as 
 arguing against feet-washing, whether daily or yearly; 
 all my arguments are directed against its performance 
 in the public assembly of the church, as an ordinance of 
 divine worship. 
 
 I had supposed that before the close of the after- 
 noon my brother would have elaborated more fully his 
 argument from the commission, and have hitherto 
 avoided any extensive reference to it for that reason. 
 I simply suggested, in a former speech, that his syl- 
 logism was at fault, because it did not contain the 
 pul)lic assembly of Christ's church. The point my 
 brother made, if my memory serves me right, was 
 that Jesus told his disciples to teach all nations to 
 observe whatsoever he had commanded his disciples 
 to observe. Kight there I join issue. The text 
 reads, " teaching them to observe all thing whatso- 
 ever I have commanded you." But the sentence as 
 it stands is incomplete : it is absolutely necess.-iry that 
 something be added to complete the sense. Brother 
 Quintcr would supply so as to have the sentence read, 
 *' teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 
284 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 commanded you to observe.''^ I will give you the form 
 tliat I deem more correct: "Teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I hnve commanded you to teach^ 
 It is certain that Mr. Quinter's form of the sentence 
 can not be correct, for "all nations" were not com- 
 manded to observe all that the apostles were ; there 
 were many commands given for the apostles to ob- 
 serve which no other Christians were to observe. For 
 instance: Christ commanded his apostles to tarry in 
 the City of Jerusalem until they should be endued 
 with power from on high. Now, this command does 
 not apply to us. If so, we should immediately start 
 for Jerusalem, never preach till w^e reached there, and 
 there remain till the Hol}^ Spirit, manifested by cloven 
 tongues like as of fire, rested upon our heads. 
 Many other things he commanded the apostles to ob- 
 serve, which they were never to te'ach others to ob- 
 serve. It will not do to supply the omitted words in 
 the commission so as to give it this meaning. I do 
 not say this for the purpose of limiting feet- washing 
 to the apostles, but to show that my brother's inter- 
 pretation of the commission can not be correct. But 
 upon either interpretation — whether they were to 
 teach all nations whatsoever he had commanded them 
 to observe, or to teach — it does not in any way help my 
 brother out of his difficulties; for Christ never com- 
 manded his apostles either to observe or to teach the 
 practice of feet-washing in the public assembly of the 
 church. Christ did set an exani{)le of feet-wasliing, 
 and said to his disciples, "Ye ought also to wash one 
 another's feet." But that was in a private house, after 
 the evening meal, before retiring to rest, in exact 
 accordance with the custom prevailing in the East in 
 those days. The apostles did teach baptized believers 
 to follow this example and precept, to wash one an- 
 other's feet, in like ))ian}ier r/.v he Itad done it, not as 
 an ordinance of public worship, but as a private and 
 
MR. m'cONNELL's fourth ADDRESS. 285 
 
 personal duty — as we gather from the case of the 
 wi(I(»\v coiiiuk'ihUmI to the earc of the cliurcli in 1 Tiin- 
 otliy, fifth chapter and tenth verse, where feet-wasliing 
 is chissed among private and personal duties. 
 
 '' Ye also ougJtt to wash one another's feet." A 
 word of criticism upon the word translated " ought" 
 in this verse. It will be seen that it is the onl}^ word 
 in this connection that indicates command. Green- 
 field says : " Spoken of what the circumstances of 
 time, of person, etc., render necessary." Let us con- 
 si(ier '* the circumstances of time, person," etc. The 
 time was at night, when it was time to retire ; the 
 persons were Christ and a company of his disciples, 
 with sand:ds on their feet, having traveled over a dusty 
 road, rendering feet- washing necessary for purposes 
 of cleanliness and comfort. Now, whenever I find 
 similar " circumstances of time, person," etc., I pro- 
 pose to wash feet. But under Avhat circumstances do 
 our Tonker brethren wash feet ? All the brethren for 
 many miles around are called together; the whole is 
 made a grand festival occasion ; every brother washes 
 his feet at home, and then goes to the place appointed 
 for meeting in order to have his feet washed when it 
 is 710,1 necessary. Can anything be more completely 
 in contrast with the circumstances under which Glirist 
 washed his disciples feet? I maintain, then, that my 
 Tonker brethren have no right to any argument based 
 upon the word " ought" in this connection. 
 
 My Tonker brethren may say, " But you do n't wash 
 each other's feet at all." Well, I fear many of us 
 will have to confess our neglect and sin in this respect. 
 But will the simple fact that I neglect to live up to 
 that which is my privilege or duty in the family circle, 
 transfer that duty from the family circle to the church, 
 and establish another and opposite practice — that of 
 washing one another's feet in the public a88emhly of 
 the saints '( \_Time expired. 
 
286 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S FIFTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I am Kappy to meet 
 you again this morning, to continue our discussion 
 of the proposition before us. But, first, I wish to 
 refer to a comphiint that my friend made in his hist 
 speech yesterday — that I had not kept to my subject. 
 I thought that I had done so. I had supposed that 
 my speeches yesterday were very closely connected 
 with the subject. The proposition that we are dis- 
 cussing was drawn up by my friend, in form to suit 
 himself; and there seemed to be a necessity for look- 
 ing at it under the three aspects that I considered in 
 my divisions ; and it seemed very necessary that I 
 should attend to the first two divisions before pro- 
 ceeding to the last. That was the order of proceed- 
 ing that my judgment dictated, as being most appro- 
 priate. 
 
 In the next place, I notice — and should have 
 noticed before, but as it was not down upon my 
 notes it slipped my memory — my friend's attempt to 
 dispose of the feet-washing practiced by the Jewish 
 high priests. In reply to a question of mine, he 
 replied by asserting that the washings of the hands 
 and feet, and all the washings performed upon them- 
 selves by the priests, were typical of Christian bap- 
 tism. That the washing of the priest when first in- 
 ducted into ofiice, was typical of Christian baptism, 
 I will not deny ; indeed, I rather entertain the idea^ 
 that it was. But that the washing of their hands and 
 feet, after that, was a type of baptism, I can not 
 accept. Turn to Exodus, xl : 12, 13, and read: 
 '' Tliou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door 
 of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them 
 
 with water; and thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy 
 garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him, that he 
 
MR. QUINTER'S fifth ADDRESS. 287 
 
 may minister unto me in the priest's office." A similar 
 conimauil w;is j^ivcn to anoint and sanctify Aaron's 
 sons, that tliey also might minister in the priest's office. 
 And in the sixteenth verse we are told, " Thus did 
 Moses ; according to all that the Lord commanded him, 
 so did he." But besides this initiatory washing there 
 was another washing performed, as often as the priests 
 approached the altar; read verses thirty, thirty-one, 
 and thirty-two of the same chapter : " And he set the 
 laver" \i. e.^ the brazen laver that we have heard so 
 much about here] " l)et\veen the tent of the congre- 
 gation and the altar, and put water there to wash 
 ■withal ; and Moses, and Aaron, and his sons, washed 
 their hands and their feet thereat; when they went 
 into the tent of the congregation, and when they 
 came near unto the altar, they washed; as the Lord 
 commanded Moses." Now, if at their first induction 
 into office, the washing of the body was a type of 
 baptism (which I presume my friend will not deny), 
 and afterward the washing of their hands and feet 
 was a type of baptism (as my friend here insists), we 
 have a representation of several baptisms; if the 
 washing of the hands and feet be considered as one 
 washing, we have two baptisms ; if we account the 
 washing of the hands to be a separate thing from the 
 washing of the feet, we have three baptisms — accord- 
 ing to the typical representation of my friend in 
 regard to this matter. But again: if the washing of 
 the hands and feet were a type of Christian baptism, 
 what do we do ? We leave the grounds that we have 
 so vigorously contended for as immersionists, and 
 concede the ground to the pedobaptist world. I am 
 surprised that my friend should involve himself in 
 this difficulty, taking a position fatal to our Christian 
 doctrine of immersion. My friend has been a strict 
 constructionist of types during this discussion ; he 
 would have us adhere closely to the thought that the 
 
288 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHINa. 
 
 type is a complete representation of the anti-type. 
 But is the washing of the hands and feet a strict 
 type of immersion of the wliole body ? The type is 
 entirely too small to be the anti-type of Christian bap- 
 tism, if baptism be immersion of the entire body. 
 
 I shall now proceed to the third division of my 
 subject: That feet-washing, as an ordinance, ought 
 to be performed in the public assembly of the church. 
 
 My first argument will be grounded upon the con- 
 sideration that feet-washing was instituted by Christ 
 in connection with the communion. It was institu- 
 ted at the same place, at the same time, and at the 
 same supper, at which the communion was instituted. 
 In proof of this, I present to your notice the fact that 
 at the supper in Jerusalem at which the communion 
 was instituted, several circumstances took place which 
 are also connected Avith the supper at which feet- 
 washing was performed by our Saviour. The first 
 circumstance to which I will refer, is that mentioned 
 in Matthew, xxvi : 21, seg. " And as they did eat, 
 he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you 
 shall betra}^ me. And they were exceeding sorrow- 
 ful, and began every one of them to say unto him, 
 Lord, is it I? And he answered and said. He that 
 dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall 
 betray me. The Son of man goeth, as it is w^ritten of 
 him : but woe unto that man by whom the Son of 
 man is betrayed ! it had been good for that man if he 
 had not been born ! Then Judas, which betrayed 
 him, .answered and said. Master, is it I? He said 
 unto him. Thou hast said." Immediately after which, 
 followed the institution of the communion. 
 
 Now, read Mark, xiv : 18-21 : '' And as they sat 
 and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you. One 
 of you which eateth with me sliall betray me. And 
 they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one 
 by one, Is it I? And another said, Is it I? And he 
 
MR. quinter's fifth address. 289 
 
 answered and said unto them, It is one of tlie twolvo 
 tliat dippoth with me in the dish. The Son of man 
 indeed goeth, as it is written of him, but ^Yoe to that 
 man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! good 
 Avere it for tliat man if he had never been born!" 
 Immediately after whicli, followed the institution of 
 the communion. 
 
 In the twenty-second chapter of Luke, we find the 
 story of the same supper at Jerusalem, the remarks 
 of Jesus concerning his betrayer, and the institution 
 of the communion. 
 
 In the thirteenth chapter of John, we find the story 
 of the supper at which our Saviour washed the feet 
 of his disciples. This my friend assumes to have 
 been a different supper from that at which the com- 
 munion was instituted, claiming that it took place at 
 Bethany, some days preceding the Passover; but I 
 hold it to have been the same supper at which the com- 
 munion was instituted, from the fact that the same cir- 
 cumstances, the same conversation, occurred here, as 
 is related by the evangelists as having taken place at 
 the supper before referred to; read from the twenty-first 
 to the twenty-sixth verses of this thirteenth chapter: 
 
 " When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in 
 spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say 
 unto you. That one of 3^ou shall betray me. Then the 
 disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he 
 spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one 
 of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter 
 therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it 
 should be of whom *he spake. He, then, lying on 
 Jesus'" breast, saitli unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus 
 answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I 
 have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he 
 gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon." 
 
 Now, you will notice, by a careful observation of 
 the passages of Scripture that I have just read, that 
 19 
 
290 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 Judas WMS miicle known as the betrayer of Jesus, 
 according to the first three evangelists, at the supper 
 which was eaten at Jerusalem, at which the commun- 
 ion was instituted ; while, according to John, Judas 
 was made known at the supper at which the Saviour 
 washed the feet of his disciples. This fact clearly ident- 
 ifies the two suppers as being one and the same 
 supper. Supposing we take the ground of my worthy 
 friend, that the supper at which the feet-washing was 
 performed, took place at Bethany, some days before 
 the supper at Jerusalem, at which the communion 
 was instituted; then, if Judas had been made known 
 at the supper at Bethany, what necessity was there 
 for his being made known again at the supper at 
 Jerusalem ? The nature of the circumstances was 
 such that they could not possibly be forgotten in the 
 course of those few days. 
 
 We proceed to another circumstance that serves to 
 identify these as being the same supper. 
 
 Matthew, after narrating the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper, goes on to say that Peter remarked, 
 (chap, xxvi : 33, 34, 35), "Though all men shall be 
 oifended because of thee, yet will I never be oifended. 
 Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this 
 night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me 
 thrice. Peter said unto hitn. Though I should die 
 with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Mark (xiv 29) 
 relates the same conversation as having occurred on 
 the night of the institution of the comumnion. Luke, 
 twenty-second chapter, records t^he institution of the 
 communion, and this prophesy of Peter's denial of 
 Christ, as having occurred in connection with each 
 other. Now, let us refer to the thirteenth chapter of 
 John's gospel, where we will find the story of the sup- 
 per at which the Saviour washed the di^^ciples' feet, 
 and the conversation during and after that supper ; and 
 here we find (verse 37) Peter declaring that he 
 
MR. QUINTER'S fifth ADDRESS. 291 
 
 wouM lay down hi.s life for his M.ister's sake ; to 
 ■which (verse 88) "Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay 
 down th}^ life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto 
 thee. The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me 
 thrice. " So we find that the same incident, the very 
 same language of Peter, and reply of our Saviour, is 
 given by the three first evangelists as occurring at 
 the supper at which the communion was instituted, 
 and by John, as occurring at the supper at which 
 Jesus washed his disciples' feet. This identifies the 
 various records as referring to the same supper, and 
 proves that the feet-washing occurred at the same 
 time that the communion was instituted. 
 
 But according to my friend's theory, that the sup- 
 per at which Jesus washed his disciples' feet, took 
 place at Bethany, at the house of Simon, some days 
 before the supper at Jerusalem, the same conversa- 
 tion between Christ and Peter must have occurred 
 twice, and there must in fact have been two denials 
 of his Master by the unfaithful Peter; as well as two 
 occasions when the Saviour pointed out Judas as 
 being the one who was to betray him. 
 
 I shall now proceed to show that the feet-washing 
 performed by our Saviour was not done after supper, 
 as my friend assumes, but before supper. 
 
 By referring to John, xiii: 21-26, it will be seen 
 that it was after the feet were washed, and Jesus had 
 resumed his garments, and sat down again at the 
 table, that Jesus gave the sop to Judas. On telling 
 them that one among them should betray him, Simon 
 Peter beckoned to John, who was lying on our 
 Saviour's bosom, being the one whom Jesus loved, 
 that he should ask who among the twelve was to be 
 his betrayer. It is evident they were now at supper; 
 and a careful examination will show that the feet- 
 washing had taken place before all this. 
 
 But in opposition to this, my friend will refer you 
 
292 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 to the second verse of this same chapter, which says, 
 " And supper heirig ended,^' etc., Jesus (verse A) riseth 
 from supper and hiid aside his garments, and took a 
 towl, and girded himself," and proceeded to wash his 
 disciples' feet. The Greek word here used, in our 
 common version translated " being ended," is geiiom- 
 enou, a word of not very definite meaning. But, what- 
 ever it means, it does not mean ''' being ended." Tlie 
 translation of the American Bible Union has it, "And 
 supper being served.'' "And while supper tvas pre- 
 paring ^'^ is the language as translated by Wilson, 
 whose version we have among us. In Matthew, 
 xxvii : 1, the same word is used in Greek, and is in 
 our common version translated, " when the morning 
 was oome^' not "ended." Doddridge gives the pref- 
 erence to a rendering which shall indicate that the 
 feet- washing occurred before supper, from the con- 
 sideration that such was the custom of that day ; it 
 was indeed hardly natural that they should sit down 
 and eat, and then get up and wash feet. The impro- 
 priety of our common translation will be seen from 
 that fact, that it makes the supper ended, when Jesus 
 arose and washed his disciples' feet, after which they 
 all went back, sat down again at the supper-table and 
 finished their supper ; meanwhile holding the conver- 
 sations that are narrated in leference to Peter and 
 Judas. The inconsistency of this ground is most 
 palpably evident. 
 
 There is another point that may require a little eluci- 
 dation. "Why is this supper, in the thirteenth chapter 
 of John, where the feet-washing is recorded, intro- 
 duced by the remark, " Now, before the feast of the 
 Passover," if this was the Paschal sup[)er at which the 
 Saviour instituted the communion ? Indeed, after 
 Jesus had given the sop to Judas, and Satan had 
 entered into him, when Jesus said, " That thou doest, 
 do quickly," the other disciples thought the Judas, 
 
MR. quinter's fifth address. 293 
 
 who was tlieir treasurer, had rronc (verse 29) to buy the 
 tliinirs that were needed against the feast. 
 
 Perhaps some light may be thrown upon this 
 matter by a reference to Jolm, xviii : 28, narrating 
 occurrences that certainly took place after tlie institu- 
 tion of the communion, after the betrayal by Judas and 
 the denial by Peter. Jesus was led from Caiaphas 
 into the hall ofjudi;ment; but the Jews went not into 
 the Judgment hall, 'Mest they should be defiled; but 
 that they might eat the Passover." Now, since the 
 Saviour had at this time certainly eaten his supper 
 with his disciples, and the Jews had yet the feast of 
 the Passover before them, it seems that the Saviour 
 must have eaten this supper with his disciples a little 
 before the time that the Jews ordinarily ate their 
 Passover. If such was the case — and this method of 
 accounting for this apparent discrepancy seems to me 
 to be satisfactory — the language at the commence- 
 ment of the thirteenth chapter of John's gospel, 
 *' Now, before the feast of the Passover," seems to 
 me to be perfectly applicable and appropriate, upon 
 the hypothesis that the supper there referred to was 
 the one at which Jesus instituted the communion. 
 
 Now, I wish to present some difficulties that come 
 up before my mind, upon the hypothesis of my friend, 
 assuming that the supper at which the Saviour washed 
 the disciples' feet was at the house of Simon, in 
 Bethany, several days before the institution of the 
 communion. 
 
 My friend said, yesterday, that it was the place of 
 Simon, or of Simon's servants, to wash the feet of his 
 guests ; but as Simon did not appear, nor any of his 
 servants, to perform this act of hospitality, therefore, 
 our Saviour performed it. Now, if it be true that the 
 washing of feet was a common custom in the world in 
 those days, is it not remarkably strange that when 
 such a noted guest as our blessed Lord, with his 
 
294 DEBAfE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 disciples, entered the house of Simon, there was no one 
 to be found to perform this, what my friend would 
 have you believe to have been, ordinary act of hospi- 
 tality? 
 
 Another difficulty in this connection is this : The 
 story of the supper at Bethany is told in the twelfth 
 chapter of John ; then it was that Mary took a pound of 
 ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the 
 feet of Jesus, and wiped them with her hair ; and Judas 
 complained, saying, "Why was not this ointment 
 sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" 
 Now, you can identify this supper by referring to Mat- 
 thew, twenty-sixth chapter, commencing at the seventh 
 verse. Here the «ame incident is related of a woman 
 with an alabaster box of precious ointment, together 
 with the complaint at this extravagance, and the ques- 
 tion why it was not given to the poor ; together with 
 Christ's reply (John, xii : 7, 8): " Then said Jesus, Let 
 her alone : against the day of my burying hath she 
 kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; 
 but me ye have not always." Matthew, xxvi : 10, 11, 
 12: "Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath 
 wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the 
 poor always with you ; but me ye have not always. 
 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my 
 body, she did it for my burial." And Matthew says 
 (see verse six of the same chapter), this occurred at 
 Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper — where 
 my friend says the supper was eaten at which the 
 Saviour washed his disciples' feet. My friend says it 
 was the same supper. And if the feet-washing was 
 done at Bethany at all, it must have been at this 
 time ; for, according to both Matthew and John, im- 
 mediately afterward, Jesus and his disciples went up 
 to Jerusalem. But if it was at the same supper that 
 these two events occurred, it is strange that they 
 should never have been referred to together, when so 
 
Mil. (illNTEU's FIFIIl ADDRESS. 295 
 
 8ugf!;estive of each other. It is more strange, that Jolm 
 himself, who records both acts, should mention the one 
 in the twelfth chapter of John, proceed to narrate the 
 triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and events 
 tliat occurred at Jerusalem, then go back to narrate 
 in the thirteenth chapter another event of the supper at 
 BeUianii (according to my friend's theory), after which 
 we find liini still at Jerusalem. It seems to me more nat- 
 ural and reasonable to conclude that the feet-washing 
 occurred at the supper at Jerusalem, with the events 
 with which it is connected in order of time and ia the 
 story as recorded in the sacred narrative. 
 
 There is a third difficulty in this matter, according 
 to my friend's theory, that is worthy of consideration. 
 He says this feet-washing was performed in a private 
 family — the family of Simon the leper, in Bethany. 
 Now let us see how private this family was. The 
 Saviour goes there with his disciples; Martha served, 
 according to John's account, while Lazarus was one 
 of them that sat at the table with them (chap, xi : 
 verse 2) ; how many more were there, we do not 
 know, but from circumstances yet to come to light, 
 probably a good many more; but let that pass. ^Jow, 
 according to my friend's account, after eatmg supper, 
 or a part of his supper, the Saviour gets up, gets 
 water and a towl — all in this private family where 
 he is an invited guest — and goes around among his 
 disciples and washes their feet. After perforuiing 
 this humiliating act, he takes his garment again, sits 
 down at the table, and a conversation follows in which 
 Lazarus and others of the family are utterly ignored ; 
 there was no attention whatever paid to them ; all his 
 discourse was directed to his disciples, to whom he 
 preached his doctrines and proclaimed his purposes; 
 exphiining subject after subject, inculcating truth 
 after truth — all in the bosom of this quiet family. 
 Jesus took the position of host, instead of guest, and 
 
206 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 occupied the time and attention of all with matters 
 pertaining entirely to himself and his disciples. 
 When he instituted the Lord's Supper, according to 
 the other three evangelists, he asked and obtained the 
 consent of the owner of the house, for whatever he 
 might wish to do. In this case there was no such 
 request; but being invited (according to my friend's 
 theory), he took possession of the house, used it for 
 his own purposes, ignoring the family entirely. 
 Does this seem to be at all likely ? On the con- 
 trary, it seems to me to be very unlikely. 
 
 One thing more : Even if this feet- washing occurred, 
 as my friend asserts, in the bosom of this quiet family, 
 Jesus washed only his disciples' feet. It was a wash- 
 ing that belonged to the disciples alone. \_Time ex- 
 pired^ 
 
 [MR McCONNELL'S FIFTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Moderators and Friends — I am happy, in the 
 providence of God, to be permitted to meet with you 
 again, and to continue the investigation of the great 
 questions before us — questions involving, if my friend's 
 doctrines be true, the honor of Jesus Christ, and the 
 eternal destiny of that portion of the human race who 
 do not believe in the washing of feet m tlie public as- 
 semhly of ike church. 
 
 In the beginning of his last speech, my friend 
 asserts that I, yesterday, assumed the position " that 
 the washings of the hands and feet, and all the wash- 
 ings performed b}'' the Jewish priests," were typical 
 of a Christian baptism. I did not take that position. 
 If any such conclusion could be drawn from my lan- 
 guage, still I did not intend to assume any such posi- 
 tion. I did and do take the position that the wash- 
 ing in the brazen laver that stood at the entrance of 
 
297 
 
 the holy place of the Jewish tabernacle, was a type 
 of baptism ; it occupied in the Mosaic dispensation 
 the same position occupied by baptism in the Christ- 
 ian dispensation. 
 
 My friend seemed to find it difficult to rid himself 
 of the impression that we were still discussing the 
 question of trine immersion. True, he did not use 
 the word ''trine;" but he argued th.at, if the washing 
 of the body of the priest when he was inducted into 
 office were a type of Christian baptism, and then, if the 
 washing of the hands and of the feet, taken sepa- 
 rately, were a type of Christian baptism, then we have 
 three types of baptism ; consequently, three baptisms. 
 Now, I ask, was not the lamb that was slain in Egypt 
 on the niglit when the destroying angel passed over 
 the habitations of the Hebrews, a type of Christ ? and 
 was not the scapegoat that was led into the wilderness, 
 a type of Christ ? and was not Isaac, that was offered up 
 by Abraham on the altar, a type of Christ ? Then, if 
 for each type there must be an anti-type, we must have 
 three Christs under this dispensation. I am sure tliis 
 looks quite plausible — as much so as ni}^ friend's argu- 
 ment tor trine immersion, grounded on a similar basis. 
 In fact, there were more than three types of Christ. 
 There was the rock that Moses smote, that was a 
 type of Christ; and Moses himself was a type of 
 Christ; and so was Aaron, and Abraham, and David, 
 and Melchizedek, and the brazen serpent in the wil- 
 derness. And, according to my friend's argument, we 
 must have a large number of Christs, one for each 
 type ; for he insists that if we have three types of 
 baptism, we must necessarily have three baptisms. 
 So, though my friend's argument in behalf of trine 
 immersion has no place in the discussion of this ques- 
 tion, it still leaves my position intact. 
 
 Our Tonker brethren generally argue, and my 
 brother Quinter has this morning argued, in favor of 
 
298 DEBATE OX FEET- WASHING. 
 
 feet-washing as a piibllc ordinance^ because, as they 
 assume, feet-washing and the communion were insti- 
 tuted at the same time and phice ; and since the com- 
 munion is a rite of public religious worship, so is feet- 
 washing. 1 want YOU to get this position fairly and 
 clearly before your minds ; for I wish to show you that 
 the premises are not true. I shall prove to you that 
 the wasliiiig of the disciples' feet was 7iot done at the 
 same time, nor at the same place, at which the com- 
 munion was instituted. We have now an issue that is 
 tangible ; in fact, about the first tangible issue that 
 we have been able to arrive at in this discussion. 
 
 And, first, I will show you when and where Christ 
 instituted the communion. He instituted it at the 
 same time and place that he ate the Jewish Passover, 
 which, according to the law, took place on the four- 
 teenth day of the first month, in the City of Jerusalem. 
 Proof, Matthew, xxvi : 17-21 : " Now, the first day of 
 the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to 
 Jesus, saying unto him. Where wilt thou that we pre- 
 pare for thee to eat the Passover ? And he said. Go 
 into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The 
 Master saith. My time is at hand ; I will keep the 
 Passover at thy house with my disciples. And the 
 disciples did as Jesus had appointed them ; and they 
 made ready the Passover." This determines the time; 
 and by reading on a few verses you will find that at 
 the close of this Paschal supper, at Jerusalem, Chrjst 
 instituted the communion. See Mark, xiv : 12-24, 
 for confirmation upon this point. 
 
 I will now show that Christ washed his disciples' 
 feet at a?io^//.er supper, at another place, and two days 
 prior in point of time. Turn to John's testimony, 
 thirteenth chapter, first verse: ''Now, before the 
 feast of the Passover." Query — how long ? Turn to 
 Matthew, xxvi : 2 : " Ye know that after itvo days rs 
 the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is be- 
 
MR. m'CONNELl's fifth ADDRESS. 299 
 
 trajetl to be crucified." AVhere was this ? Read the 
 sixth verse, and you will find it was in the house of 
 Simon the leper. I wish to say here, thoui^h I sup- 
 pose, to the most of you, the remark aviH be un- 
 necessary, that each of the evan<j;elists gives us but a 
 partial history of the doings and sayings of the Son 
 of God ; each relates some things that the others 
 omit, and omits some things that the others relate. 
 So we can not get a clear understanding of many 
 things without spreading the entire record before us, 
 and placing the various incidents in regular order 
 before our minds, no matter by whom they may be 
 narrated. 
 
 Turn now to John, xiii : 2. And before proceeding 
 any further on this chain of argument, I wish to notice 
 for a moment my friend's criticism on the phrase, 
 " Supper being ended.''' He says that is wrongly 
 translated ; that the original word is one of very indefi- 
 nite meaning ; and that it should be translated, '* Supper 
 being prepared^'^ or " Supper being served.'" But, in 
 the fourth verse, we read that he rose from supper. 
 Now, men do not usually rise from a meal that is just 
 "prepared" for them to sit down to, nor from one 
 that has just been " served ;" but it is much more nat- 
 ural to imagine a man rising from supper after having 
 finished eating it. Then is the time we usually get 
 up from supper. Greenfield says, in his Greek Lexi- 
 con of the New Testament, that the word here means 
 " during" supper. But the point is one of small 
 moment, at best, and does not interfere with my argu- 
 ment. It is already proved that at this supper, which 
 took place at the house of Simon the leper, at Beth- 
 any, two days before the Passover, Jesus (John, xiii : 
 4—5) " riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments, 
 and took a towel, and girded himself; after that, he 
 poured water into a basin, and began to wash the dis- 
 ciples' feet." And thus I have shown that the com- 
 
300 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 munion and feet-wasliing are not associated together 
 by Christ's example; but, on the contrary, are sepa- 
 rated, both as to time and place. And thus I answer 
 all the arguments of my friends, the Tonkers, drawn 
 from the supposed connection between the two, in 
 favor of feet-washing being, like the communion, a 
 religious ordinance, to be attended to in the public 
 assembly of the church. 
 
 But to this claim of mine, that two separate sup- 
 pers are here spoken of, my friend interposes several 
 objections, arising from the fact that similar conversa- 
 tions occur between him and certain disciples in rela- 
 tion to Judns, and between him and Peter, on both 
 occasions. This, he says, forever forbids the idea 
 that the sacred writers are referring to anything but 
 one and the same supper. 
 
 My friend says that Christ, at the supper at w^hich 
 he washed the disciples' feet, foretold that Peter 
 should deny him before the cock should crow : while 
 if this supper took place at Bethany, cock-crowing 
 must have occurred several times before Peter's denial 
 of our Saviour. But I deny that the Saviour foretold 
 Peter's denial of him at the supper at which he washed 
 the feet of his disciples. Let us look at this matter 
 closely. We must recollect that facts narrnted in the 
 same chapter are not always necessarily related as to 
 time and place. The division of the Bible into chap- 
 ters is the work of men, uninspired men, for conven- 
 ience of reference, and is comparatively of recent oi'igin. 
 
 In the thirtieth verse of this thirteenth chapter of 
 John's testimony, we read that Judas, " having re- 
 ceived the sop, went immediatel}^ out." I ask, where 
 did he go? Turn to Matthew, xxvi : 14, 15, 16, and 
 you will find that he " went unto the chief priests, and 
 said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will de- 
 liver him unto you? And tlioy covenanted with him 
 for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he 
 
MR. M'cONNELL's FIFTU ADDRESS. 301 
 
 sought opportunity to betray him." Now this lan- 
 guage, '' tVoni that time lie sought oppoi-tunity to 
 betray him," proves that tiie supper referred to in the 
 Context, preeeded by some time the actual betrayal. 
 In fact, we are told (Matthew, xxvi : 2), that this 
 suj)per from which Judas rose to go and consult with 
 the chief priests in regard to the betrayal of Jesus, 
 occurred two days before the Passover ; and that it 
 -was not at UiIh supper, but at the Paschal supper, 
 tliat Christ foretold to Peter that he shouhl deny 
 his Master (read from the seventeenth to the thirty- 
 fifrh verse of this same twenty-sixth chapter of 
 Matthew). This proves that the last three verses of 
 the thirteenth chapter of John's testimony are not 
 connected, as regards time and place, with the pre- 
 ceding portion of the chapter. Indeed, Peter's ques- 
 tion (verse thirty-six), shows that Christ and the dis- 
 ciples were not now at supper, but that some time 
 had elapsed, and that this was on an occasion -when 
 they were about to go somewhere ; for Peter says, 
 *' Lord, whither goest thou ?" 
 
 It will be seen that the order of events was as fol- 
 lows : John, in the commencement of chapter thirteen, 
 narrates the story of a supper at Bethany, at which 
 the Saviour washed the feet of his disciples, to which 
 supper Matthew, chapter twenty-six, also refers, fix- 
 ing the time — two days before the Passover; both 
 mention the fact of Judas going out to consult with 
 the chief priests in regard to the betrayal of Jesus. 
 Matthew, as also Mark and Luke, give the particulars 
 of events that transpired during the next two days, 
 including the institution of the communion ; all this 
 John omits, but, at the close of the thirteenth chapter, 
 brings in a conversation between Christ and Peter, in 
 reference to the latter denying his Master, which from 
 the other evangelists we know occurred after the close 
 
302 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 of the Pasclial supper — though John says not a word 
 as to when or where it occurred. 
 
 My friend founds another argument against the 
 theory of there being two separate suppers referred 
 to by the evangelists, on the ground of the same con- 
 versation being held between the Saviour and certain 
 of his disciples in regard to Judas. But it will be 
 seen that it is not the same conversation, but a sub- 
 stantially and entirely different conversation. The same 
 inquiry is made on both occasions, but note the differ- 
 ent replies. John says (thirteenth chapter, twenty- 
 sixth verse), that Christ replied, "He it is to whom I 
 shall give a sop, when I have dipped it." Matthew 
 says (twenty-sixth chapter, twenty-third verse), "He 
 that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same 
 shall betray me." And in the former case it is stated 
 that when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas ; 
 while in the latter it is said that when Judas, too, like 
 the rest, inquired, " Master, is it I?" the Saviour an- 
 swered, " Thou hast said." Here are different conver- 
 sations, different signs, different acts ; and this proves 
 the sacred writers to be referring to different suppers. 
 
 My friend raises another difficulty, by referring to 
 the case of the woman who anointed the Saviour with 
 a box of precious ointment ; by a reference to this, he 
 seeks to identify the supper at the house of Simon 
 the leper, at Bethany, not with the supper at wliich 
 the Saviour washed his disciples' feet, according to 
 my theory, but Avith one held at Bethany at the house 
 of Mary and Martha, at which Lazarus was present. 
 But it is evident that these were two separate and 
 distinct su]:>pers. There were two women who anointed 
 Jesus. The one occurred (Matt., xxvi ; 2) tivo days 
 before the feast of the Passover; the other (John, 
 xii: 1) six days before. The one occurred at the 
 house of Simon tlie leper; the other at the house of 
 Mary and Martha and Lazarus. The one poured the 
 
MR. m'cONNELL' fifth ADDRESS. 303 
 
 ointment upon tlie head of Jesus (Mattliew, xxvi : 7); 
 the otlier anointed his feet (John, xii: 3). Mattliew 
 says it was "an ahibaster box of very precious oint- 
 ment." Jolin says it was "a pound of ointment of 
 spikenard ;" Matthew says, the disciples had indin;na- 
 tion ;" John says, Judas Iscariot complained. Plere 
 different times, different places, different circumstan- 
 ces, are clearly and unmistakably set forth; and these 
 difficulties can be reconciled only by acknowledging 
 them to have occurred at separate suppers. 
 
 To review the whole ground in reference to these 
 suppers : There are three suppers mentioned by the 
 evangelists. The first is that mentioned in the 
 twelfth chapter of John, at the house of Mary and 
 Martha and Lazarus, six days before the Passover. 
 The second is that mentioned in the thirteenth chap- 
 ter of John, and referred to in the twenty-sixth chap- 
 ter of Matthew, where we find that it took place at 
 the house of Simon the leper, in Bethany, two days 
 before the Passover. At this supper it was that the 
 Saviour washed his disciples' feet. The third supper 
 is the Paschal supper, after which the Saviour insti- 
 tuted the communion. 
 
 I will now refer to a difficulty my friend raises in 
 endeavoring to fix the time when the Lord's Supper 
 was instituted. Because it is said (John, xiii :) that 
 the supper at which the Saviour washed his disciples' 
 feet was "before the feast of the Passover," and be- 
 cause (John xviii ; 28), on the morning after the 
 Lord's Supper, some of the Jews "went not into the 
 judgment hall lest they should be defiled," as they 
 had not yet eaten the Passover, my friend concludes 
 that the Lord's Supper was instituted before the ordi- 
 nary time of eating the Paschal supper; from which 
 he argues that, both being before the Passover, they 
 are both the same supper. This is done to accommo- 
 date his theory that the feet-washing was performed 
 
304 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 at the same time and place with the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper. This difficulty at first looks some- 
 what formidable ; but it vanishes at a touch when we 
 recollect that the feast of which these Jews had not 
 yet partaken lasted for seven days; see Leviticus, 
 xxiii : 5, 6 : "In the fourteenth day of the first month, 
 at even, is the Lord's Passover." That evening the 
 Saviour partook of the Passover with his disciples, 
 and instituted the communion. " On the fifteenth 
 day of the same month is the feast of unl'eavened 
 bread unto the Lord ; seven days ye must eat unleav- 
 ened bread." Now read Luke, xxii : 1: "Now the 
 feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called 
 the Passover." And if we read the record closely, 
 we shall find that it was this feast of unleavened 
 bread, on. the fifteenth day of the month, to which 
 reference is made in John, xviii : 28, of which the 
 Jews had not yet partaken, and for which they de- 
 sired to keep themselves undefiled. 
 
 Now, I have presented this matter before you in 
 such a shape that I apprehend every difliculty van- 
 ishes. I have shown conclusively that there are 
 three suppers recorded. It was at the second of these 
 suppers that the Saviour gave the sop to Judas, and 
 he went out to consult with the chief priests; they 
 offered him fifteen dollars to betray his Master into 
 their hands, and he accepted the proposition ; the 
 particulars were arranged ; two days after, Jesus and 
 his disciples eat another supper, the Paschal supper; 
 then Judas went and told the chief priests that here 
 was an opportunity to seize their victim ; from the 
 supper-room they went into the garden, the sad Gar- 
 den of Gethsemane, whither Judas followed, accom- 
 panied by "a great multitude with swords and staves, 
 from the chief priests and eUlers of the people." Now, 
 to do this, some little time was necessary ; the find- 
 ing of the chief priests, the consummating of the bar- 
 
MR. quinter's sixth address. 305 
 
 gnin for the betrayal, the orfjanizing of the hand to 
 seize the Saviour, and all the other particulars re- 
 corded as having occurred between the time that 
 Satan entered into Judas and tlie time that he betrayed 
 Jesus, could not have transpired in the few minutes — 
 an hour or two, at most — that elapsed between the 
 conclusion of the supper and the seizure of Jesus in 
 the Garden. It is far more natural to suppose that a 
 couple of days were occupied in perfecting the ar- 
 rangements for the betrayal. 
 
 I add, in conclusion, that the example of our 
 Saviour, in washing the feet of his disciples, as re- 
 corded in the thirteenth chapter of John, did not occur 
 in the Christian church, but before the church was 
 established, and, consequently, is not in point, whether 
 public or private, as the proposition contemplates only 
 the washing of feet in the public assembly of the 
 church. ^Time expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S SIXTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — It is possible that the 
 fault may all be in my own dullness of comprehen- 
 sion, but I confess that the subject of these suppers 
 has not been made as clear to my mind as it seems to 
 be in the mind of my friend. That there are some 
 diflficultiea attending those suppers, we freely admit; 
 but the theory adopted by my friend does not by any 
 means do away with those difficulties. 
 
 He contends that the supper mentioned in the 
 twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew is a diifercnt supper 
 from that mentioned in the twelfth chapter of John; 
 that the one took place six days before the Passover, 
 the other two days before the Passover. But there 
 are several circumstances which serve to identify the 
 20 ^ 
 
306 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 two records as pertaining to the same supper. Let 
 us look at them a little more closely. 
 ' Matthew says : '* Now when Jesus was in Bethany, 
 in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto him 
 a woman having an alabaster box of very precious 
 ointment, and poured it on his head as he sat at meat. 
 But when his disciples saw it, they had indif^nation, 
 saying, To what purpose is this waste ? For this 
 ointment might have been sold for much, and given 
 to the poor. When Jesus understood it, he said unto 
 them. Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath 
 wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor 
 always with you ; but me ye have not alwajs. For in 
 that she hath poured this on my body, she did it 
 for my burial." (Matthew, xxvi : 6-12.) 
 
 John says : "Then took Mary a pound of ointment 
 of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of 
 Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair : and the 
 house was filled with the odor of the ointment. Then 
 saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, 
 which should betray him, Why was not this ointment 
 sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor ? 
 * * Then said Jesus, Let her alone : against the 
 day of my burying hath she kept this. For the 
 poor always ye have with you ; but me ye have not 
 always." (John, xii : 3-8.) 
 
 Now, do you see the sameness of these two stories ? 
 Can you believe that, at two different suppers, two 
 wom.en. should anoint our Saviour with two separate 
 boxes of ointment ; that the desciples should make 
 the same complaint, in almost identical language, on 
 the two occasions ; that in response to this complaint, 
 Christ should reprove them, telling them on each oc- 
 casion, " ye have the poor nlways with you, but me 
 ye have not always;" that on each occasion he 
 should add that this anointing was for his burial ; and 
 that all thqsc rcmakably parallel particulars should 
 
MR. quinter's sixth address. 307 
 
 happen at tlio same place, Bethany, and within two 
 or tliree days' time of each other, at furthest ? The 
 utter utdikelihood of two acts so simihir occurrirjg at 
 the same phice, and so nearly at the same time, liave 
 caused our best critics to identify the supper of tlie 
 twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew, and of the twelfth 
 chapter of John, as being the same supper. 
 
 But, should my friend succeed in removing these 
 difficulties, his attempt to prove that the supper at 
 i^rhich our Saviour washed the disciples' feet was a dif- 
 ferent supper from that at which he instituted the 
 communion, involves him into still greater difficulties 
 in regard to two other suppers — or what he insists 
 are two separate and distinct suppers, but which we 
 hold to be different stories of the same supper. 
 
 John says that, at the supper at which Jesus washed 
 his disciples' feet, " he was troubled in spirit, and 
 testified, and said. Verily, verily, I say unto you. That 
 one of you shall betray me. Tlien the disciples looked 
 one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now 
 there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, 
 whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned 
 to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom 
 he spake. He then. lying on Jesus' breast, saith unto 
 him. Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to 
 whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. 
 And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas 
 Iscariot, the son of Simon." (John, xiii : 21-2(3.) 
 
 Matthew says, speaking of the supper at Avhich 
 Jesus ijistituted the communion, *' Now when the 
 even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And 
 as they did eat, he said. Verily I say unto you, That 
 one of you shall betray me. And they were exceed- 
 ing sorrowful, and bt^gan every one of them to say 
 unto him, Lord, is it I ? And he answered and said, 
 He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the 
 same shall betray me. (Matthew, xxvi : 20-2-3.) 
 
308 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 Now, can we believe that such conversation and acts 
 as this could have taken phice at two different suppers, 
 but two days apart ? Upon my friend's theory, the 
 Saviour twice informed his disciples that one of tliem 
 were to betray liim ; twice they anxiously inquired 
 who was to be his betrayer; and twice he pointed out 
 Judas to them by an unmistakable sign. Now, when 
 they were so "exceeding sorrowful " at this prophesied 
 treachery, each knowing the weakness of his own 
 heart, having had long experience of his Master's 
 infallible insio;ht, and each fearino; that himself was 
 the one that was to be led away into this terrible 
 crime, and each asking, " Lord is it I?" — and when 
 at last Judas was pointed out as being the one who 
 was to betray his Lord — I say, after all this, does any 
 believe that inside of two days, another similar con- 
 versation occurred ; that the disciples could all of 
 them have entirely forgotten the incidents of the so 
 ^recently preceding supper ; that, even in the moment 
 of their deep anxiety and exceeding sorrow, no one 
 of them all should have recollected that it was not 
 himself, but Judas, that was to perform this act of 
 vile and unparalleled treachery, and that a second ex- 
 posure of Judas should have been necessary, and be- 
 ing necessary, should take place in the same manner 
 as before ? Yet all this you must believe, unnat- 
 ural, improbable, I may say impossible as it is, if 
 you accept my friend's theory that the supper at 
 which our Saviour washed his disciples' feet, and made 
 Judas know^n to them as his betrayer, was a different 
 supper from that at which he instituted the com- 
 munion and made Judas known as his betrayer. 
 jNLitthew and John refer to the same supper. It 
 would be doing violence to human reason, and to the 
 Scriptures of divine truth, to separate these sup[)ers. 
 Then, I hold my position to be sustained : that tiie 
 
MR. QUINTER's sixth ADDRESS. 309 
 
 washing of the disciples' feet and tlie institution of 
 the communion took phvce at the same time, in tiie same 
 place, under similur circumstances; are alike enfoi'ced 
 hy the command of Christ, and are of the same binding 
 authority as religious ordinances, upon followers of 
 Christ, everywhere, and in all ages of the world. 
 
 But my friend says all this has nothing to do with 
 the matter, because the feet- washing performed by 
 Jesus was not done in the church ; that the church 
 was not 3"et organized then. But let us look and see 
 what we can find out about this matter. Turn back 
 to Matthew, eighteenth chapter, fifteenth to the eigh- 
 teenth verse : " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass 
 against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee 
 and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast 
 gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, 
 then take with thee one or two more, that in the 
 mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be 
 established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, 
 tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the 
 church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a 
 publican. Verily I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall 
 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and what- 
 soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 heaven.'' That looks a good deal as if there was a 
 church. And we read in the Acts, at the very begin- 
 ning of the apostles' preaching at Jerusalem, that 
 "the Lord added to the church daily such as should 
 be saved." Then there must have been a church in 
 existence before, or they could not have been added 
 to it. That was the " church" the Saviour alluded to, 
 unquestionably ; and he certainly gave directions as 
 to what should be done with an unworth}'' member in 
 the " church." 
 
 My friend holds, I suppose, in common with his 
 brethren, that no Christian church was in existence 
 till organized by Peter at Jerusalem, on the day of 
 
310 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 pentecost; and it is upon this ground that he rejects 
 feet-washing from being a church ordinance, because 
 performed and commanded before the church had an 
 existence. But where do we obtain baptism ? Does 
 not this same objection, if it be a valid one, hohl as 
 strongly against baptism as against feet-washing ? 
 Was not the commission, commanding the disciples 
 to go forth " and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit," given anterior to the day of Pentecost, 
 and the organization of the church, according to my 
 friend's theory? And that other ordinance, the com- 
 munion, that, too, originated at the same time with 
 feet-washing, I assert, while my friend dates its 
 origin only two days later. The same reasoning 
 which argues feet- washing out of the Christian church, 
 because it was performed and commanded before the 
 churcli was organized, also argues baptism and the 
 communion out of the church, because they were 
 instituted before the church was organized. 
 
 But I am not prepared to accept of these con- 
 clusions. There was a church of Christ in existence 
 before the day of Pentecost. A church was recog- 
 nized as being in existence in the eighteenth chapter 
 of Matthew, already referred to. Do you ask who 
 constituted that church ? I answer, the disciples of 
 our blessed Redeemer. They it was that he com- 
 manded to baptize all nations. Among them, his 
 church, he instituted the communion. Among and 
 upon his disciples, his church, he performed the act 
 of feet-washing, and commanded them, the members 
 of his church, to wash one another's feet. I do not 
 care an iota where it was, whether it was in the 
 temple at Jerusalem, or in the house of Simon the 
 leper, at Betliany ; that is not material. 
 
 Another th(jught upon this matter. Paul 
 says (Hebrews, iii : 5-G), ''Moses verily was faith- 
 
MR. QUIXTElt'S SIXTH ADDUlvSS. 811 
 
 fill ill all his house, as a servant, for a testimony 
 of those things which were to be spoken after; But 
 Christ as a Son over his own house; tuhoae house are 
 100^ if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of 
 the hope firm unto the end." If we believe in the 
 Saviour, and cling to him, we are his house, his 
 people, his church. Do you remember that endear- 
 iiiiz; lantTuaoje of his, when one came to him and said, 
 " Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, 
 desiring to speak with thee." And he stretched 
 forth his hand toward his disciples and said, '' Behold 
 my mother and my brethren ! For whosoever shall 
 do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the 
 same is my brother, and sister, and mother." 
 Christ's family is composed of those who obey and 
 follow him; and Christ's family, whether before or 
 after the day of Pentecost, are his church. 
 
 It matters not, then, where the act of feet-washing 
 was performed by the Saviour; the question is, hy 
 whom and to 2vhom it was performed. It was per- 
 formed by our Saviour upon his disciples, his family, 
 his church; by him as their Lord and Master, the 
 Head of the church ; it was done among them, and 
 therefore in the church ; and he commanded them to 
 do as he had done. I am confident that less difficul- 
 ties will be found in harmonizing this matter of the 
 suppers, on the theory that the Saviour washed his 
 disciples' feet at the same supper when he instituted 
 the communion, than on my friend's theory ; but 
 even should he sustain his point in this respect, I am 
 showing that, whether done at Jerusalem at the feast 
 of the Passover, or in a private house, at some other 
 place and time, it was still done to his disciples, his 
 church. His whole discourse was directed to his dis- 
 ciples, and to no one else. 
 
 I will now proceed with my second argument in 
 proof of my position that feet-washing is an ordi- 
 
312 DEBATE ON FEET-WASIIING. 
 
 nance to be observed in the public assembly of the 
 church. You will not forget that I have sustained 
 the ground that feet-washing is an ordinance, a com- 
 mand to be observed ; my friend admitted all this — 
 that it was a commandment of Christ, and that Christ 
 intended that it should be observed ; he almost became 
 offended at me, because, he said, I would not let him 
 liave feet-washing, but was trying to take it away 
 from him altogether; so we have his acknowledgment 
 that feet-washing was commanded and was intended 
 to be observed. I shall proceed to show the propriety, 
 the utility, the necessity, if you please, of its being 
 observed in a public capacity — in the public assembly 
 of the church. 
 
 My second argument in support of the position 
 that feet-washing is an ordinance to be performed in 
 the public assembly of the church, is grounded upon 
 the public character of the church. 
 
 The church of Christ is represented as occupying 
 a very elevated and conspicuous position in the 
 Avorld : " Ye are the light of the world. A city that 
 is set upon a hill can not be hid. Neither do men 
 light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a 
 candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in 
 the house. Let your light so shine before men that 
 they may see your good works, and glorify your 
 Father which is in heaven. (Matthew, v: 14—16.) 
 
 Christians, then, are the light of the world ; and 
 bearing this relation to the world, they are not to 
 conceal their Christianity from the world. And why 
 should a Christian conceal any of his doctrines or of 
 liis life from the world? There is nothing dishonor- 
 able in either, if his life is the result of his doctrine. 
 And why should feet-washing be done, if done at all, 
 under the seal of privacy? Why must feet-washing 
 be kept from the public eye, ratlier than baptism, or 
 the partaking of the symbols of the body and blood 
 
MR. QUINTER's sixth ADDRESS. 313 
 
 of Christ? Instead of seeking to conceal the word 
 of tlie Lord, ^ve must seek to spread it. That is a 
 beautiful propliesy of the worship of God in Isaiah, 
 second chapter, second verse : "And it shall come to 
 pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's 
 house shall be established in the top of the mountains, 
 and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations 
 shall flow unto it." This evidently means that the 
 Avorship of God shall become so conspicuous as to be 
 seen by all nations; so conspicuous that all nations 
 should forsake all other objects and places of worship, 
 being so much impressed with the excellency and 
 beauty of the service of God, and come to this. 
 The Saviour recommends people to count the cost be- 
 fore they assume the responsibilities of a Christian 
 life. Hence, must know the whole. Let them see 
 the Avhole, even feet- washing. Paul, in his noble de- 
 fense of Christianity before a royal audience, could 
 say, and say it, too, to the honor of Christianity, 
 " For the King knoweth of these things, before whom 
 also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of 
 these things are hidden from him ; for this thino; Avas 
 not done in a corner." (Acts, xxvi: 26.) Chris- 
 tianity seeks no concealment. The tetter she is 
 known, the higher will she be valued, and the more 
 loved. Jesus said to the high priests who inquired 
 about his disciples and his doctrine, "I spake openly 
 to the world: lever taught in the synagogue, and 
 in the temple, whither the Jews always resort ; 
 and in secret have I said nothing." (John, xviii : 
 20.) And Jesus commanded his disciples : " What I 
 tell you in darkness, that speak ye in the light; and 
 what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the 
 house-tops." (Matthew, X : 27.) Now, feet-washing 
 was one of Christ's commands ; but m}^ friend would 
 have you believe that this is an exception to the other 
 pommands of Christ; for he contends it is one that 
 
314 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 is not to be observed in public — it is to be done in the 
 family, in secret. He tries to show that it is a 
 private ordinance, if I ma}^ so express it, because it 
 was first performed in a private house. Well, was not 
 the communion, too, instituted in a private house? 
 more private than feet-washing, even according to my 
 friend's theory, for the communion was not instituted 
 in the midst of a family, but in a private chamber. 
 \_Time expired. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S SIXTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 *'In a private chamber, devoted for the time being 
 to a public service," is my answer to that last remark. 
 
 My friend thinks it very unreasonable to suppose 
 that, after the treachery of one of the disciples 
 had been foretold, and a sio;n given indicatinor who was 
 to be the betrayer, it should have been so soon for- 
 gotten, and another sign need to be given within a 
 couple of days afterward. Does not my friend know 
 that on the very night on which Christ was betrayed, 
 and the Paschal supper eaten, Jesus foretold to Peter 
 that before the cock should crow he would deny him 
 thrice, and yet that Peter, in the few hours that fol- 
 lowed, forgot all about it, and did that very thing? 
 And if Peter could forget the prophesy that he him- 
 self was to deny his Saviour, is it so impossible that, 
 amid the stirring events of the occasion, he and the 
 other disciples should forget who was to betray him ? 
 And we know^ that there were two diiforent suppers, 
 from the fact that different conversations, different 
 signs, different acts, are recorded as occurring. At 
 each supper, the Saviour referred to his betrayal. 
 Whereupon, Matthew says (xxvi : 22): " They were 
 exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to 
 say unto him, Lord, is it I?'' John says (John, xiii ; 
 
MR. m'cONNKLL's SIXTU ADDRESS. 315 
 
 22-25) :" Tlicn tlie disciples looked one on another, 
 doubtiniii; of whom he spake. Now tliere was leaning 
 on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus 
 loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him that 
 he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. 
 He then, lying on Jesus' breast, said unto him. Lord, 
 ■who is it?" Matthew says (verse 23): "And he an- 
 swered and said, He that dippeth Jiis hand with me in 
 the dish, the same shall betray me." John says 
 (verse 26): "Jesus answered. He to whom I shall give 
 a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had 
 dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son 
 of Simon." Here are two very different conversa- 
 tions, accompanied by acts as widely different as pos- 
 sible. It is plain that there were two suppers men- 
 tioned by these evangelists; at the one recorded in 
 the thirteenth chapter of John, Jesus first introduced 
 the subject; Peter beckoned to John to inquire who 
 was to be the betrayer; John inquired, and was told 
 that it was he to whom Jesus shouhl give a sop. Two 
 days afterward came the Paschal supper, recorded by 
 Matthew ; again the Saviour referred to the fact that 
 there was a traitor among them ; at this time, not 
 John alone, but all the disciples inquired, "Lord, is it 
 I?" And then he gave another sign, "He that dip- 
 peth with me in the dish." After the first supper, 
 Satan entered into Judas ; he spent two days bar- 
 gaining and counseling with the chief priests; then 
 came the second supper, when he was exposed to 
 them all, as he had before been to John and Peter. 
 
 There are some other little matters that I will refer 
 to right here. 
 
 My friend asks where we get the formula for bap- 
 tism ; and claims that it can not be a church ordi- 
 nance, because it was commanded before the church 
 was organized. Now, tliere is a very pretty specimen 
 of sophism manifest here, though I do not charge my 
 
316 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 friend with intending to play the sophist. The diifer- 
 ence is, that baptism is in the formuhi of tlie conmns- 
 sron which Christ used when he established the Church. 
 My friend tried, yesterch'iy, to get pubhc feet-washing 
 in there too, but did not succeed. The reason, then, 
 why one is a public ordinance, while the other is not 
 a church ordinance, is because one is in the commis- 
 sion under which the church was established, while 
 the other is not in the commission. The church had 
 an existence in promise in the days of Adam, and 
 Abraham, and David; it had an existence in types, 
 and in prophesy : but it had no existence in fact — 
 mark that language, in fact — till Christ arose from 
 the dead. In suf»port of this position I submit, first, 
 that Christ is the foundation of his cliurch, the '' tried 
 stone" of Isaiah, xxviii : 16; second, this stone was 
 not laid as a "sure foundation" until it had been 
 tried; third, the trial was not complete until Christ's 
 resurrection from the dead; fourth, the church was 
 not built, nor organized, had no existence in fact, 
 until after the foundation Avas laid. This example 
 (feet- washing) occurred before Christ arose fiom the 
 dead, hence before the church had an existence in fact; 
 therefore, it was not performed in the church. The 
 command for baptism is found in the commission, 
 which was given to the apostles after Christ arose 
 from the dead. But I wish to repeat yet again — bap- 
 tism is not an ordinance in tlie cliurch. xMy friend 
 claims feet-washing to be an ordinance i/i the church; 
 we do not claim that for baptism. If public feet-wash- 
 ing were found in the commission, where baptism is, we 
 would let it stand on the same footing with baptism. 
 My brother refers to the communion, or Lord's Sup- 
 per, also, as having originated before tlie church was 
 established. But the Lord's Suj^por is repeatedly re- 
 ferred to and recogiiizeil as an ordinance, by the dis- 
 ciples, after the organization of the church. "When 
 
MR. M'cONNELL's sixth ADDRESS. 317 
 
 my brother vrWl show me where feet-Avnshing, in the 
 pu!)lic assembly, is referred to as being a religious 
 ordinance, enforced by such commands as is contained 
 in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, eleventh 
 chapter, which we so fully discussed here a day or 
 two ago, enforced by numerous recorded examples 
 elsewhere, in the church, as the Lord's Supper is, then 
 we will let feet-washing stand on the same foundation 
 with the Lord's Supper. 
 
 My friend Quinter has argued throughout this dis- 
 cussion thatfeet-washinor is a reliorious rite, and, there- 
 fore, should be observed in the public congregation of 
 the saints, from, two considerations: first, Christ said 
 to the discijjles that they ought to wash one another's 
 feet; second, Christ also said, "If ye know these 
 things, happy are ye if ye do them." Now, if this 
 reasoning is logical, then every duty is a religious 
 rite, and ought to be performed in the public con- 
 gregation of the saints: for saints certainly "ought" 
 to perform every Christian dut}^ ; and upon all who do 
 their duty, blessings are pronounced. Then, feeding 
 the hungry, clothing the naked, giving alms to the 
 poor, training up children, visiting the widows and the 
 fatherless, and whatever else we "ought" to do, all, 
 each, are religious rites, and therefore should be per- 
 formed ill the public assembly of the church. If these 
 are not religious rites, then the reasoning of my friend 
 is illogical, absurd, and altogether unworthy the man ; 
 and nothing but an utterly desperate cause could have 
 suggested such a course of reasoning to his mind. 
 
 My friend has sought to find an argument for feet- 
 washing in the commission, and failed. Now, let us 
 see if we can not find an argument against feet-wash- 
 ing from that same sojurce. The Saviour told his dis- 
 ci[)les to teach all nations " to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you." But the apos- 
 tles never taught feet- washing in the public assembly 
 
318 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 of the church ; therefore, that is not one of the things 
 they were commanded to teach. There is no com- 
 mand in the New Testament for feet-washing in the 
 public assembly of the church; and the only example 
 of feet-washing on record in the New Testament oc- 
 curred in a private house, in Bethany, fifty-five days be- 
 fore the church of Jesus Christ was established in fact. 
 I will again call your attention to the point at issue 
 in this discussion. It is not whether Christ washed 
 his disciples' feet; it is not whether the saints ought 
 ^.to wash- one another's feet ; it is not whether the wash- 
 ing of feet should be perpetuated to the end of time, 
 till the Saviour's second coming. But the real issue 
 is this: "Is it a religious rite connected with divine 
 worship ? Is it an ordinance or ceremony to be ob- 
 served in the public assembly of Christ's Church .?" I 
 have oifered fairly to my friend; he can not expect 
 me to acknowledge the validity and necessity of what 
 neither Christ nor his apostles ever did, nor com- 
 manded ; and I have promised my friend that if he 
 will give me either the teachings or the example of 
 our Saviour, or any of his apostles, in favor of feet- 
 washing in the imhlic assembly of the church, I would 
 yield the point, and adopt his practice. He* has thus 
 far failed, most emphatically failed, to do either, as 
 every unprejudiced person in this audience can clearly 
 see. I hope that he will even yet make an effort in 
 this direction. But I predict that he will fail ; that he 
 can not find anything to sustain his position within 
 the lids of the New Testament. We have been pointed 
 to the washing of the hands and feet under the Mosaic 
 dispensation ; we have been told what eminent men 
 have said in relation to the important lessons taught 
 thereby; we have been informed that those who have 
 practiced it have been spiritually benefitted, and have 
 felt happy after it. But the Mosaic dispensation 
 passed away nearly two thousand years ago, and all 
 
MR. quinter's seventh address. 319 
 
 its multitudinous forms and ceremonies with it; find 
 whiit we want here is not the comments of men, nor 
 the feelings of men, but the commands of Christ, the 
 words of the Living God. 
 
 I believe I have nothing further to oifer upon the 
 negative of this proposition until something else shall 
 be developed on the opposite side. Meantime, I want 
 you to keep your minds open and attentive to my 
 brother Quinter, to hear any proof he ma}'' yet offer 
 that Christ, or any of his apostles, by command or by 
 example, taught the washing of feet in the public as- 
 se/nbli/ of the church. That is the only point at issue; 
 and when he shall have done that, he will have estab- 
 lished his position. But if my brother does not now 
 produce any such command or example, we may rea- 
 sonably conclude that it is not to be found — that there 
 is nowhere any scriptural authority for the practice 
 he adopts and advocates. [^Tinie expired. 
 
 [MR. QUINTER'S SEVENTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — Notwithstanding my friend 
 appears perfectly satisfied that he has utterly demol- 
 ished all the arguments I have heretofore presented, 
 and that my armory is now completely exhausted, yet 
 I feel confident of the correctness of the general posi- 
 tion I have heretofore presented. 
 
 I want to make one more final remark relative to 
 those suppers, about which so much has already been 
 said. His position requires that the disciples, in the 
 course of a couple of days, should entirely forget 
 who of their number was to be the betrayer of their 
 Master, and render a second exposition necessary. 
 He endeavored to make this appear plausible from 
 the fact that Peter had forgotten that he denied his 
 Master. But Peter did not forget. In his case it 
 
320 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 Tras not a lapse of memory, but of conscience. He 
 did not forget, but he did not feel bis guilt in the 
 matter with the poignant grief, tlie overwhelming 
 sorrow, that resulted when his Lord cast his eye 
 upon him. Then the great guilt of his deed appeared 
 before him in all its dark colors, in all its deep 
 criminality. That the disciples should forget, in two 
 days, who w^as to be the betrayer of their Lord, is 
 simply impossible ; therefore his argument in behalf 
 of two suppers, at each of wdiich Judas Avas pointed 
 out as being the betrayer, is unsatisfactory and inad- 
 missible ; and after that, merely calling your attention 
 to it, I will let this whole matter pass. 
 
 My friend contends that baptism is in the com- 
 mission, and was therein handed over by the Saviour 
 to his disciples. We contend that feet-washing is in 
 the commission, and was likewise handed over by the 
 Saviour to his disciples: " Teaching them to observe 
 all tilings whatsoever I have commanded you." My 
 friend adds the words " to teach," to the end of the 
 commission ; but this is an unwarrantable interpola- 
 tion. I am not ready to accept it. I prefer to take 
 my Lord's language as I find it. But this makes not 
 much difference, after all ; for my friend acknowl- 
 edojes that feet-washinoj is in the commission. 
 
 Again, Paul, in writing to Timothy, as a minister 
 in the church, referring to certain duties connected 
 with the church, said that widows, in order to be 
 entitled to church privileges, must, among other things, 
 have washed the saints' feet. Now, if this washing 
 of the saints' feet was not a practice in the church, 
 how came Paul by that idea? lie taught it to 
 Timothy, and something must have conveyed to Paul's 
 mind the idea that this washing of the saints' feet was 
 a prerequisite to entitle a widow to favc»rs from the 
 church. If feet-washing had not been taught and 
 
MR. QUrXTKR's SKVFNTH ADDRRS3. 32 1 
 
 practiced in the church before, how came Paul to 
 ispoak of it ? 
 
 Now, a word or two in reference to the public char- 
 itr.ter of this ordinance. My friend talks about th'^ 
 impropriety of this, that, and the other, being per- 
 lonned in public — visiting the sick, feeding tli^ 
 Imni^ry, clothing the naked, etc. Now, I do not 
 tliink lieouo;]it to connect things together in that wav. 
 My friend acknowledges that feet-washing is a com- 
 mand of the Saviour's; he declares he would do it in 
 honor of his Lord. But he wants it done privately. 
 Very well ; now, if it honors the Lord to wash feet in 
 private, if it can do ourselves and one another good 
 to wash one another's feet in a private way, I main- 
 tain that it will do at least as much good, and that it 
 will honor the Lord still more, to do it in the public 
 assembly, and before the public eye. If I had time, 
 I should be glad to dwell upon the effects of feet- 
 washing, both upon those who engage in it, and upon 
 the public who observe it, We know there are dif- 
 ferent ways by which truth is conveyed to the mind ; 
 but ordinarily it comes through the senses of sight or 
 hearing. How often, when my friend, and his brethren, 
 or others of us, have been followed by the multi- 
 tude down to the margin of some silver stream that 
 flowed along through the beautiful grove, where, bap- 
 tizing in the holy name of the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit, a soul was given back to God — under 
 such circumstances, how often has the eye been moist- 
 ened, the heart made tender, and good resolutions 
 been formed, that have led the spectator to go and do 
 likewise. So, in attending to the solemn communion 
 ceremonies, how impressive and affecting does the 
 scene appear ! So with regard to feet-washing. How 
 many times have I heard the believer who had par- 
 ticipated in feet-washing, exclaim, " Oh, how my soul 
 was blessed in the performance of this beautiful ordi- 
 21 
 
822 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 nance !'^ How many have we met in our travels, 
 whose minds were first awakened and impressed by 
 observins the brethern wash one another's feet. 
 Then we can see no reason why this should be kept 
 private, hidden from the public eye. If it is calcu- 
 lated to honor the Lord, as my friend deems it may 
 be, then why insist that it be done in the private 
 chamber, where nobody can see it or know anything 
 about it. 
 
 And now, brethren and friends, we leave the subject 
 with you. We are gratified at the interest and 
 solemnity that has accompanied this discussion, from 
 the beginning to the end. For this you have our 
 thanks, and our prayers for God's blessing upon your 
 souls. And to you, kind Moderators, we are thank- 
 ful for your attention, and for the performance of 
 your duties so faithfully as you have performed them. 
 
 [MR. McCONNELL'S SEVENTH ADDRESS.] 
 
 Friendly Moderators — I regret that my closing 
 time is to be so limited. I had anticipated that the 
 discussion would continue during the afternoon, ac- 
 cording to the plan at first decided upon. Many 
 things, therefore, that I had intended to say in connec- 
 tion with this question, must now be omitted. In the 
 brief time alotted to me, I will notice but one or two 
 of the more prominent points made by my brother in 
 his last speech. 
 
 He says, if it honors the Lord to wash feet in the 
 private family, it must honor him more to wash feot 
 in public — as a church ordinance. Well, it may — or 
 it may not. It does not follow that every thing that 
 honors the Lord when done in the private family, 
 honors him when done in the church. The Lord is 
 honored in the family wlieu the Christian mother 
 
MR. m'cONNELL'S seventh ADDRESS. 323 
 
 brings up her child in accordance with his law. The 
 Lord is honored in the family when I give the beggar 
 a loaf of bread, or garments to cover his nakedness. 
 I am not prepared to admit that these acts would 
 honor the Lord still more if done in the public assem- 
 bly of the church. 
 
 My friend draws an argument from the effects of 
 feet-washing upon those who participate, and also 
 upon those who are spectators. He asserts, from his 
 own experience, that God has answered and blessed 
 it to the benefit of both. Well, God has owned and 
 blessed the eucharist to the benefit of many a soul; 
 and therefore, arguing as my brother argues, the pa- 
 pist exclaims, " We will make this as public as pos- 
 sible ; we will exalt the sacred emblems, and carry 
 them on high along the street." My friend says God 
 has owned and blessed feet-washing ; so he would ex- 
 alt that to the highest and most public position. 
 
 Being upon the negative of this proposition, all 
 that could be rightfully required of me was to answer 
 whatever arguments my brother might produce. I 
 think I have done so. And besides this, I have of- 
 fered the following arguments against the practice of 
 washing the feet as an ordinance, or religious rite, 
 in the public assembly of the church : 
 
 1. Feet-washing obtained as a custom in the world 
 from the days of Abraham, until Christ : as shown, 
 Genesis, xviii : 4; xix : 2; xxiv : 32; xliii: 24, 
 Judges, xix : 2 ; II Sam., xi : 18 ; Luke, vii : 36-46. 
 
 2. Feet-washing was practiced, not as an ordi- 
 nance, or in any public assembly, but in the family 
 circle, as a matter of comfort and convenience; this 
 was shown by the same Scriptures. 
 
 3. It was generally done in the evening : see same 
 Scriptures. 
 
 4. It was sometimes done by the servant to a guest 
 in his master's family: Bee I Sam., xxv : 41. 
 
324 DEBATE ON FEET-WASHING. 
 
 5. That the case relied upon by all the advocates of 
 feet-Avashing as a religious rite, related in the thirteenth 
 chapter of John, conforms to the custom as found in the 
 world, in all points except one — viz : instead of the 
 servant washing the feet, Christ, the Master, washed 
 the feet of his disciples. For it was shown that this 
 Avas not at the feast of the Passover, but two days 
 before (John xiii : 1 ) ; that it was at Bethany, in the 
 house of Simon the leper (Matthew, xxvi : 6 and 14; 
 Mark, xiv : 1 and 11.) Therefore it was shown that 
 it contains no example for public feet-washing. 
 
 6. I examined the case of feet-washing referred to 
 in Paul's First Letter to Timothy, fifth chapter, tenth 
 verse. And here we found the washing of the saints' 
 feet associated with, and enumerated among, not reli- 
 gious rites, hut private family duties ; hence we find 
 here no authority for public feet-washing. The text has 
 no bearing whatever in favor of his position, and 
 surely strongly corroborates mine. 
 
 7. In the commission we found the apostles sent 
 forth by Christ among all nations, with instructions 
 to teach whatsoever he had commanded them ; but as 
 Christ had not commanded the washing of feet in the 
 public assembly of his church, therefore the commis- 
 sion contains no authority for public feet-washing. 
 
 8. I referred you to the twentieth chapter of Acts, 
 where Paul declared to the elders of the church at 
 Ephesus, that " he had not shunned to declare unto 
 them the whole counsel of God, and had kept back no- 
 thing that was profitable to them; but the apostle did 
 not teach them to wash feet in the public assembly of 
 the church ; therefore the washing of feet in the public 
 assembly of the church is not only without authority, 
 but is not profitable. 
 
 9. I showed to you that in the holy place of the Jew- 
 ish tabernacle, the type of the Christian church, there 
 "were no washings with water ; and as type and anti- 
 
MR. m'conxell's seventh address. 325 
 
 type must agree, tiiereforc there arc no wasliings with 
 water in the public services of the saints in the church 
 of God. 
 
 10. Tlie word relied upon to enforce feet-washing 
 is o/;//^?7<?/f;, translated "ought," in John, xiii : 14: 
 '' Ye also ought to wash one another's feet : " I read 
 to you the definition of this word according to Green- 
 field, who explained it as referring to what the cir- 
 cumstances of time, place, persons, etc., rendered 
 proper ; the circumstances of time, place, persons, 
 etc., in the public assembly of the church, render feet- 
 washing improper ; therefore, it ought not to be done 
 in the public assembly of the church. 
 
 11. Finally, and conclusively, there is no com- 
 mand for such a practice ; and the only example re- 
 lied upon to prove it, was in a private family, in 
 Bethany, fifty-five days before the church of Christ 
 was established in fact. 
 
 So much for the points discussed yesterday. The 
 thoughts offered this morning we will not attempt to 
 recapitulate ; they are fresh in your memories. A 
 word or two in conclusion. We now close the dis- 
 cussion in which we have been engaged for nearly a 
 week : and I must express my gratification at the 
 manner in which it has been conducted. I have been 
 pleased with the decorum and interest manifested by 
 the audience. And I have been exceedingly pleased 
 with the courteous and gentlemanly deportment of my 
 brother, who has been my opponent in this discus- 
 sion ; it has been, so far as all common and Christian 
 courtesy is concerned, such as to render this one of 
 the most pleasant meetings in which I have ever par- 
 ticipated : but one thing could please me better ; and 
 that would be, to meet him under circumstances where 
 we were not in opposition to each other. I hope and 
 believe, that both my friend and myself have discussed 
 this question, not for the purpose of achieving a^ vie- 
 
326 DEBATE ON FEET- WASHING. 
 
 tory, or exhibiting our abilities in the encounter of 
 opposing arguments, but from a sincere love of the 
 truth, and desire to understand the will of God. Our 
 aim and purpose has been, to lead our fellow-men 
 back to primitive Christianity ; away from the canons, 
 and councils, and decrees, and creeds, and confes- 
 sions of faith, born of modern times — away from the 
 traditions and opinions of men, to the tea,chings of 
 Jesus Christ and his apostles. We want to build our 
 hope of salvation, not upon phantoms of the imagina- 
 tion, but upon the precious promises of the blessed 
 Saviour. Let us all seek the truth, with the best 
 light we have ; the light which emanates from tJiis 
 sacred volume, the record of the life and teachings of 
 our blessed Redeemer. Let us obey his command, 
 follow his example, and confide in his word. 
 
Mr. Quinter thinks that the note added (page 222) 
 to Mr. McConnelJ's Address, may be construed to im- 
 ply that he had no further arguTnent>^ to offer, and, 
 therefore. Avould do him injustice. The supplementary 
 matter added, he claims, would disprove this inference. 
 Mr. Q. did not see the note until after the book was 
 printed, a: id claims this explanation. 
 
 PUBLISHER. 
 
CHRISTIAN HYMN-BOOK. 
 
 SMALL EDITION. (Pearl, 48mo.) 
 
 Arabesquo $ .05 Per dozen...? C.(«) 
 
 " , gilt back and biiruisliod edge... .75 " ... (•..SO I 
 
 " , gilt edge 90 *• ... 8.10| 
 
 Imitation Turkey, gilt edge 1.10 " ... Ki.oo | 
 
 Tuikt-y Morocco, gilt edge 1.35 " ... 12.00 
 
 Tnrkt-y, with gilt clasp 2.00 " ... I'J.OO 
 
 MEDIUM EDITION. (Brevier, 24mo.) 
 
 Sliffp Binding S .90 Per dozen. ..S 8.10 
 
 Arabesque 1.10 " ... 9. HO 
 
 *' , gilt back and buruibhcd edge... 1.25 " ... 11.25 
 
 " , gilt edge 1.40 " ... 12.00 
 
 Imitation Tuikey, gilt edge l.CO " ... 11.40 
 
 Turkey Morocco, gilt edge 2.00 " ... 18.00 
 
 Turkey, with gilt clasp 2.75 ♦' ... 24.75 
 
 Finer Binding, from 84 to §8, each. 
 
 LARGE EDITION. (Pica, 12mo.) 
 
 Sheep Binding $2.00 Per dozen. ..§18. 00 
 
 Arabesque 2.60 " ... 22.50 
 
 Turkey 4.00 " ... bG.OO 
 
 B'-S'Sont by mail, prf.p.aid, at the retail price. 
 
 AVhen ordered by the dozen, add for postage : — SOc. for small, §1.40 
 for medium, and Sf3.00 for largo. 
 
 The following are a few of a hirge number of similar commencla- 
 tions of the new Hymn-Book : 
 
 Prest. R. Millig.in— "I regard it as much the best compilation extant." 
 E:der P. S. Fall—" I take pleasure in recommending it to our brethren gen- 
 erally." [lences are manifest." 
 Prof. Jno. Aug. Williams— "I acknowledge its superior merits— it excel- 
 Elder I).ivid Walk—" Wo think it decidedly the host lljran Book extant." 
 Ur. W. II. Ilopson— " I authorize to express my approval of the book in any 
 terms you please." [likely to kave." 
 Elder Thos. Munnell— "The best book, by far, we have ever bad, or are 
 Elder J. S. Sweeney—*' The best Hymn Book I ever saw." 
 Dr. L. L. Pinkerton— " I consider it in all respects unexceptionable." 
 Silas W. Leonard— "II fully meets our present wants. I most heartily 
 
 commend it." 
 Elder W. A. Belding— "I wish to express my admiration fur the new book." 
 Elder W. C. Rogers — " Very much superior to any collection of Ilymaa." 
 Elder C.ilvin Rcaeoner— " I eordiallv express my approbation of the work." 
 Elder W. C. Ricketts- "The best book of the kind I have met with." 
 Prof. Richardson— "An admirable collection of Hymns, superior to any 
 
 known to me." 
 Prof C. r,. Loos — " In every respect one of the best in the English language." 
 Prof. J. W. McGarvey— " I'have no doubt it is the best Uymn Book extant." 
 Elder Wm. Baxter— "This is high praise," (referring to Br. McGarvey's 
 
 words, I " but I believe to be true." 
 Elder .las. Challen— "The best Hymn Book I have ever seen." 
 Prof. O. T. Carpenter—" We consider it emphatically the work of psalmody 
 
 for the brethren." 
 Elder A. D. F. Fillmore—" Let it be adopted by the brethren overy-where." 
 
SMALL BOOKS IN NEAT PAPER COVERS. 
 
 First Principles : or^ The Elements of the Gospel, 
 
 Analyzed and Discussed in Letters to an Inquirer. By 
 Isaac Errett. 159 pp. 15 cents. $1 50 per dozen. i 
 
 A Brief Treatise on Prayer. I 
 
 By Prest. R. Milligan. 10 cents. $1 per dozen. On fine | 
 paper, in fine cloth, 50 cents. i 
 
 Principles and Objects of the Religions Reforma- 
 tion. 
 As plead by A. Campbell and others. By R. Richardson. 
 10 cents. $1 per dozen. 
 
 Salvation from Sin: 
 Or, what must I do to be Saved ? By Dr. J. P. Walsh. 
 10 cents. $1 per dozen. 
 
 "Life and Death." 
 By A. Campbell. A refutation of Materialism and Mod- 
 ern Sadduceeism. 10 cents. $1 per dozen. 
 Christian Experience : 
 Or, Sincerity Seeking the Way to Heaven. A Dialogue. 
 10 cents. $1 per dozen. 
 
 The Union Movement. 
 A Dialogue, showing the only possible ground of Christian 
 Union. 10 cents. $^1 per dozen. 
 
 True Method of Searching the Scriptures. 
 By President Fanning. Paper, 15 cents ; cloth, 30 cents. 
 McLean on the Commission of Christ and his Apos- 
 tles. 
 Paper, SO cents. Same by mail. 
 
 Six Letters to a Skeptic. 
 By Alexander Campbell. 57 pp. Price, 6 cents. 
 
 Spiritualism Self-condemned. 
 By Isaac Errett. A very valuable tract, with neat cover. 
 Price, 6 cents. 
 
 All on this page in paper covers, by mail, $1 25. 
 
A Commentary on Acts 
 
 Of Apostles, with a revised versiou of the text. By J. \V. 
 MeGuivey. Price, $1.50. fciame by mail. 
 
 The Organon of Scripture, 
 
 Or the Inductive Metliod of Biblical Interpretation. By 
 J. S. Lamar. In tliis volume a very important subjeet is 
 discussed with great ability. Profound in thought, yet the 
 work is admirably adapted to the capacity of all readers, 
 and all should read it. Price, by mail, i^l.-lO. 
 
 Bible Dictionary. 
 
 For general use in the study of the Scriptures; with 250 
 engravings, 5 maps, and chronological and other tables. 
 o3i pages, large 12mo. ; will be sold*for Sl.oO; postage, 28 cents. 
 A remarkably valuable work for the price. 
 
 The Western Christian Preacher. 
 
 A book of original Sermons and Discourses by eminent 
 Christian preachers. Edited by Elder J. M. MfAhes. Price, 
 cloth, S2. Same by mail. 
 
 The New Testament. 
 
 Translated from the original Greek by H. T. Anderson. 
 Arabesque, S2.75 ; cloth, ?2.50 ; small edition, 50 cents. 
 
 Cruden's Concordance to the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 By which any verse in the Bible may be readily found by 
 looking for any material word in the verse. To which i's 
 added the significations of the principal words. A Concord- 
 ance to the proper names of the Bible and their meaning in 
 the original. Price, $2 ; postage, 40 cents. 
 
 Mosheim*s Church History. 
 
 806 quarto pages ; sheep binding. So. 
 
 Clark's Commentary. 
 
 Complete. 4 vols. §18. 
 
 Clark's Commentary on the New Testament. 
 
 2voLs. S9. 
 
WORKS OF A. campbsl: 
 
 The Christian Baptist. 
 
 This important work can not be superseded by any subse- 
 quent publications. Seven volumes in one, containing G70 
 double-columned pages. Price, in cloth, $3; arabasque, 
 ^ 50; by mail, 2o cents extra. 
 
 The Christian System. 
 
 In reference to the Union of Christians and the restoration 
 of Primitive Christianity. By A. Campbell. Price, by mail, 
 $1 40. 
 
 Christian Baptism. 
 
 with its Antecedents and Consequents. By Alexander 
 Ca,rupbell. Price, ^1 40; same by mail. 
 
 Campbell and Purcell's Debate. 
 
 On Roman Catholicism. A new edition of this very able 
 discussion is ready. Price, SI 40 ; same by mail. 
 
 Campbell and Owen's Debate. 
 
 On all the Systems of Skepticism, Ancient and Modern. 
 Complete in one volume. This will always remain a leading 
 work on the Evidences of Christianity. Price, §1 50; same 
 by mail. 
 
 Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch. 
 
 Delivered before the Morning Class of Bethany College 
 during the Session of 18-59-60, by Alexander Cami)bcll : also 
 short extracts from his sermons during the same session ; to 
 which is prefixed a sketch of the life of President Campbell, 
 with a fine steel portrait. Edited by W. T. Moore. Price, 
 SI 75; same by mail. 
 
 H. S. BOSWORTH, Publisher, 
 
 10,3 Main St., Chichmati. 
 
-7^