m 
 
Class A 
 Book. 
 
A DEBATE 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 REV. A. CAMPBELL AND REV. N. L. RICE, 
 H 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ACTION SUBJECT, DESIQI KM ADMINISTRATOR 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM; 
 
 ALSO, ON THE 
 
 CHARACTER OF SPIRITUAL INFLUENCE 
 
 IN 
 
 CONVERSION AND SANCTIFICATION, 
 
 AND ON THE 
 
 EXPEDIENCY AND TENDENCY 
 
 O F 
 
 ECCLESIASTIC CREEDS, 
 
 AS TEBjIS OF 
 
 UNION AND COMMUNION: 
 
 HELD IN LEXINGTON, KY., FROM THE FIFTEENTH OF NOVEMBER TO THE 
 SECOND OF DECEMBER, 1843, A PERIOD OF EIGHTEEN DAYS. 
 
 REPORTED 
 
 BY MARCUS T. C. GOULD, STENOGRAPHER, 
 
 ASSISTED 
 
 BY A. EUCLID DRAPIER, STENOGRAPHER, 
 
 AND AMANUENSIS 
 
 PUBLISHED, 
 LEXINGTON, KY.: BY A. T. SKILLMAN & SON; 
 
 CINCINNATI : J. A. JAMES ; LOUISVILLE : D. S. BURNETT ; 
 
 NEW YORK I R. CARTER ; PITTSBURG: T. CARTER. 
 
 Stereotvped by J. A. James, Cincinnati. 
 
 1844. 
 
 
 
V rzfi 
 
 Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1844, 
 
 BY JOHN H. BROWN, 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Kentucky. 
 
 
 / 
 
 Stereotyped by J. A. James, 
 Cincinnati. 
 
 CERTIFICATE. 
 
 Cincinnati, March 6th, 1844. 
 Having carefully examined the Report of the within discussion, furnished by Messrs. 
 Gould, of Cincinnati, and Drapier, of Louisville, and compared it with our notes and 
 memoranda ; we hesitate not to authenticate it, and to commend it to the public, as a full 
 exhibition of the facts, documents, and arguments used by us on the several questions 
 debated. A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 N. L. RICE. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 Richmond, Ky, September 19, 1842. 
 Mr. Campbell : 
 
 I should have addressed you at an earlier date, but my engagements have 
 been such as to utterly forbid. Upon reflection, I have concluded to leave 
 the questions involved in our contemplated discussion, with other prelimi- 
 naries, to a committee, which can meet, probably, at an early day in 
 November. 
 
 The brethren who will engage in the discussion, so far as the Presbyte- 
 rian church is concerned, wili be selected during the sessions of the synod, 
 which will commence at Maysville on the 13th proximo. 
 
 Of how many shall this arranging committee consist — two or three on 
 each side 1 When and where shall they meet — Lexington 1 say November 
 any time before the 5th or after the 17th. 
 
 This committee will be empowered to fix the time (Lexington being the 
 place agreed upon) of debate, form of questions, rules, moderators, and make 
 arrangements for one or more competent stenographers to take down the 
 debate preparatory to publication, as agreed by the committee. 
 
 To shorten our correspondence, I hope you will fix the number of the 
 arranging committee, at either two or three, as you may prefer ; also the 
 day of meeting, within the time specified. I hope to receive an answer 
 before I leave for synod, so that all our arrangements and appointments can 
 be made while there. I consider our correspondence as private until con- 
 sent is given for publicity. Yours, fraternally, JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Bethany, October 5, 1842. 
 Mr. John H. Brown : 
 
 Bear Sir — Yours of the 19th alt., mailed the 20th, is to hand. From 
 the earnestness with which, while I was in your town, you sought a discus- 
 sion of certain points at issue between Presbyterians and those christians 
 called Reformers, and from the proposition to address me in writing, soon 
 after my arrival at home, about the end of August, I had promised myself 
 the pleasure of an early communication from you relative to the proposed 
 discussion, and a more ample interval for settling, the propositions for dis- 
 cussion, as well as other preliminaries, before the meeting of the synod. 
 But from your delay, no doubt occasioned by an unavoidable expediency, 
 you now propose, "upon reflection, to leave the questions involved in our 
 contemplated discussion, with all other preliminaries, to a committee, 
 which can meet, probably, at an early day in November." 
 
 You then ask me of how many shall this arranging committee consist, 
 &c. &c. To all which I beg leave to respond, that I do not think that any 
 committee, which I could nominate, in conjunction with such a one as you 
 might raise, could so satisfactorily to the parties arrange all these matters, 
 as we ourselves, who enter into the discussion. I prefer to express my 
 own propositions, in my own words ; and in all such matters, where the prin- 
 cipals can so easily act, I do not think it expedient to employ attornies or 
 
 11 
 
12 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 proxies. As to the appointment of moderators and the adoption of the rules 
 of discussion, these are minor matters, compared with the propositions to 
 be discussed ; still, they are important, and, while I would not pertinaciously 
 object to any equitable arrangement of such matters,, my conscientiousness 
 and my prudence alike forbid the selection of propositions by a committee on. 
 which to form an issue, unless after their submission to my consideration and 
 adoption. This would require time, and, probably, occasion a long delay. But 
 it is competent to the synod to select its own propositions, and to propound 
 in its own terms what it wishes. I will therefore suggest what I think 
 will meet your views, as expressed during our interview. 
 
 1st. You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural sub- 
 ject of baptism. We deny it. 
 
 2nd. You affirm that sprinkling water upon any part of an infant or adult 
 is scriptural baptism. We deny it. 
 
 3rd. You affirm that there is no indispensable connection between bap- 
 tism and the remission of sins, in any case. We affirm that there is. 
 
 4th. You affirm that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is 
 founded on the New Testament. We deny it. 
 
 5th. You affirm that the doctrinal portions of the Westminister confes- 
 sion of faith are founded on the Scriptures of truth. We deny that they 
 all are. 
 
 In this form, or by dividing the propositions into affirmatives and nega- 
 tives, so as to give to each party an equal number, we can soon form a just 
 and honorable issue. In one word, I will defend what I teach and practice, 
 in plain and definite propositions, and on your agreeing to do the same, the 
 whole matter may be arranged in the most satisfactory manner by corres- 
 pondence, the only alternative that I can at this late period think of. 
 Very respectfully and fraternally, your obedient servant, 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Richmond, October 22, 4842. 
 Elder A. Campbell : 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the fifth was received previous to my leaving for 
 synod, also a duplicate copy while at Maysville attending its sessions. 
 
 There is evidently a misapprehension, on the part of one of us, as it 
 regards our interview at Richmond, in August last. You seem to intimate 
 that I, with earnestness, sought a discussion of certain points at issue 
 between Presbyterians and those christians called Reformers. Let the 
 facts speak for themselves. They are briefly the following : 
 
 At the close of your address in Richmond on the 3rd of August, your 
 friend, Mr. Duncan, approached me and asked my opinion as to the address, 
 which I gave with as much candor as it was sought. 
 
 After other interrogatories were propounded and answered, he inquired, 
 if I thought discussion advisable ; to which I gave an affirmative reply. 
 He then remarked, that he had engaged to dine with you, and would ascer- 
 tain your feelings and wishes on the subject. 
 
 All this occurred before we left the church. About 4 o'clock in the after- 
 noon Mr. Duncan sought a second interview with me, and requested me to 
 call in company with him at your room, stating that you desired an inter- 
 view with me on the subject, about which he and I had conversed in the 
 forenoon. 
 
 I conformed to his wish, and accompanied him to your room, which ulti- 
 mated in a mutual agreement to discuss certain points of difference for the 
 edification of the church and the prosperity of the cause of Christ, with a 
 definite and expressed understanding that neither was to be considered the 
 challenging party. 
 
 You further intimate that my delay in commencing the correspondence 
 was doubtless " occasioned by an unavoidable expediency." This I consider 
 a very unkind and unfraternal insinuation, and one which I had not expected 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 1 3 
 
 from your urbanity as developed in our' interview, and especially after 
 recognizing 1 me as a " brother" in the close of your epistle. It is a plain 
 intimation that the correspondence was procrastinated solely on the ground 
 of expediency, when I had expressly placed it on another and a very differ- 
 ent ground. 
 
 I also understood it to be settled, in case we did not agree as to the form 
 of the propositions, that this, with all other preliminaries, was to be left to 
 a committee, selected from ten chosen individuals, composed of an equal 
 number from each side. Your reply is evidently a departure from this 
 agreement. You say, no committee could so satisfactorily arrange the pro- 
 positions as we ourselves could. You add, " I prefer to express my own 
 propositions in my own words ;" " My conscientiousness and my prudence 
 alike forbid the selection of propositions by a committee on which to form 
 an issue, unless after their submission to my consideration and adoption." 
 
 You further state, " It is competent to the synod to select its own propo- 
 sitions, and to propound in its own terms what it wishes." 
 
 The competency of the synod to express its wishes on this or any other 
 subject, I presume, would not be questioned. But the synod is not a party 
 in this matter, and, as such, has no propositions to make. According to 
 our arrangement, they were to be agreed upon by you and myself, and, in 
 case of our disagreement as to their form, the committee, referred to above, 
 was to arrange the whole matter. 
 
 You present five propositions, which "you think will meet my views, as 
 expressed during our interview." 
 
 The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of these propositions embrace points of discussion 
 agreed upon in our interview. 
 
 The 4th and 5th not only embrace subjects agreed, but every thing else 
 we, as a denomination, believe and teach. In the 5th, you put us upon the 
 defence of the entire confession of faith. To this I do not object, because 
 of its indefensibleness, but on the ground of its not being one of the agreed 
 points of discussion, and introducing far more than was, at the time, con- 
 templated either by you or myself. 
 
 Your 1st proposition, in the following words, "You affirm that the 
 infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism," is accepted 
 without any modification or alteration. 
 
 Your 2nd, in these words, " Your affirm that sprinkling water upon any 
 part of an infant, or adult, is scriptural baptism," I accept with only a 
 slight verbal alteration, viz: I affirm that sprinkling, or pouring, water on 
 a suitable subject is scriptural baptism. You deny. 
 
 I might justly have required you to take the affirmative and prove immer- 
 sion only to be baptism, but I would not pertinaciously stand out for the 
 mere verbiage of a proposition, but only for its substantiality. 
 
 Your 3rd proposition is, "You affirm that there is no indispensable con- 
 nection between baptism and the remission of sins in any case." 
 
 Strange as it may be, you make me, in this proposition, affirm a nega- 
 tive. I therefore substitute another, which, while it will in its discussion 
 involve substantially your proposition, presents as the main point, a ques- 
 tion on which we differ widely, and one which you urge in your various 
 works as of primary importance. The proposition is as follows: 
 
 3rd. You affirm that the new birth, as mentioned in John, third chapter, 
 is a change of state, and not a change of heart. I deny. 
 
 I now propose a substitute for your 4th and 5th propositions, covering 
 the agreed points of discussion, and to which you will not object, as they 
 are taken substantially, if not verbally, from your own publications. 
 
 4th. You affirm that the use of creeds, or confessions of faith, is contrary 
 to the Scriptures, and destructive of the unity and perpetuity of the church 
 of Christ. We deny. 
 
 5th. You affirm that all the converting and sanctifying power of the 
 Holy Spirit is contained in the Divine Word. We deny. 
 
 B 
 
14 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Upon these several propositions an equitable issue can be taken, and the 
 whole matter speedily arranged for full and free discussion. 
 
 On my part the men are selected : — Brethren Jno. C. Young", R. J. 
 Breckenridge, N. L. Rice, J. F. Price, and myself, will engage in the dis- 
 cussion. Brother Rice and myself have been selected as a committee of 
 arrangement, to meet such committee as may be selected on your part, to 
 settle preliminaries, at some suitable time and place, agreed upon by you 
 and myself. I would suggest Lexington as the place, and the 21st of No- 
 vember next as the time. 
 
 In hope that the issue is now made, and that the preliminaries may soon 
 be settled, I subscribe myself, respectfully, yours, 
 
 JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Baltimore, Nov. 17, 1842. 
 Elder John H. Brown, 
 
 Dear Sir — Your favor of the 22nd ult., addressed to me at Bethany, Va., 
 having been, by my orders, copied by my clerk, was duly forwarded to me 
 at this point, and received by me on my arrival here. Such, however, 
 have been my engagements with the public, (having had to deliver a 
 public address for every day during the last three weeks, on a tour in 
 eastern Virginia, and to this city) that I could not find a leisure hour to 
 reply before this date. Of this tour, I gave you some intimation when you 
 proposed to me your views and wishes relative to a public discussion. 
 
 To proceed, then, to the contents of your favor, now on my table, allow 
 me to say, that the narrative you now give of the occasion of your soliciting 
 a discussion, is as curious as it is novel and unexpected. The fact of your 
 soliciting a public conference, with no other preamble to me expressed, than 
 " that once yourself and your brethren had not been friendly to public debates, 
 but that now you have changed your ground, being convinced that the state 
 of society and religious opinion demanded it," is all that I thought important 
 to the arrangements proposed, without the details of the mere occasion of 
 your personal application to me. As to the definite and express under- 
 standing that neither should be regarded as the challenging party, I have 
 no distinct recollection. I do, indeed, remember that you emphatically 
 spoke of your desiring a friendly discussion ; and, if the phrase " challeng- 
 ing party," was expressly used, of which I cannot say I have any recollec- 
 tion, it could, in the connection of ideas, by you suggested, intimate no 
 more than that you did not desire to be contemplated in the light of a 
 challenger, but as of one desiring an amicable discussion ; to which I fully 
 accorded, as in courtesy bound. Still, however, our respective positions to 
 the fact of a discussion must stand, now and forever, different. You as the 
 originator and propounder of it ; I as accepting, and agreeing to, your 
 proposition. No complimentary or courteous disclaimer of the technical- 
 ities or usual compellations on such occasions, could possibly change our 
 positions to the fact of a discussion. 
 
 I admit the ambiguity of the phrase, at which you demur, in my former 
 communication to you, viz. " Your delay in reply was, doubtless, occa- 
 sioned by an unavoidable expediency." But I left it with you to interpret 
 it ; and as you now say, the expediency was not of choice but of necessity, 
 I am perfectly willing to accord to you in the case, the most ingenuous 
 conduct. I wonder, however, how you could construe this into a discre- 
 pancy with my subscribing myself yours, "fraternally," inasmuch as I have 
 often heard, in synods and councils of your own church, much less compli- 
 mentary interpretations of actions pass most fraternally amongst the min- 
 istry. 
 
 You next proceed to say, that you "understand it to be settled, in case we 
 do not agree as to the form of the propositions," &c. I, indeed, as you will, 
 I doubt not, remember, stated distinctly, that as our conversation in Rich- 
 mond was wholly extemporaneous and fugitive, that I would expect from 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 15 
 
 you a written statement of all matters, as you proposed them, on my return, 
 which communication should be regarded as an original document, and as 
 the basis of our correspondence relative to a discussion, and, therefore, I 
 considered nothing as fixed about it, further than, I" did agree to meet at 
 Lexington, Kentucky, in conference, with such persons as the synod of Ken- 
 tucky would appoint — provided they would select certain persons to meet a 
 delegation to be appointed by our brethren in Kentucky ; but that I would 
 agree to debate, not as one of a conference, but with one responsible person 
 only, and then named President Young, as such a person. You imme- 
 diately responded, I should have him, as you did not doubt the synod wouJd 
 select him. As for propositions, on my inquiry, you went on to name those 
 concerning baptism, &c. I emphatically say, that I then considered, and 
 now consider, every thing else as open to our future arrangements, not as 
 arranged. True, indeed, as a conference was spoken of, without any dis- 
 tinct understanding of the mode of procedure, or of the topics to be intro- 
 duced into it, it might have been said, that a committee might arrange such 
 matters ; but as to a personal discussion, on my part, with any reputable 
 and authorized disputant, I repeatedly said, that I went for single combat ; 
 and on premises explicitly stated, propositions clearly and fully expressed, 
 before we met upon the ground. And this is all for which I now feel it my 
 duty to contend. I am happy, indeed, that there appears, on the principal 
 points, named by you, at our interview, so nearly a perfect agreement. I 
 cheerfully accept your amendment to the second proposition, and will agree 
 to place the third in an affirmative form. The three propositions would 
 then read, 
 
 1st. The infant of a believing parent, is a scriptural subject of baptism. 
 
 2nd. The sprinkling, or pouring water, upon any part of an infant, or 
 adult, is scriptural baptism. 
 
 3rd. There is a scriptural connection, of some sort, between baptism and 
 the remission of sins of a believing penitent. 
 
 These three cover all the ground of debate between us, on christian 
 baptism. If you insist upon five propositions only, I shall not insist upon 
 any more. One of these would respect the Holy Spirit ; the other, human 
 creeds as the causes of schisms among christian professors. Touching 
 your suggestions of a proposition, embracing the difference between us, on 
 special influence, I have not much objection to either of them, as contain- 
 ing, in the connections, and with the modifications, always contemplated by 
 me, a just view of the matter. Still, they cover not the whole ground of 
 debate. We both agree, that the Holy Spirit is given to all who believe 
 and obey the gospel. But, with regard to the influence of the Spirit in 
 converting sinners, there is some discrepancy. We teach, that the Holy 
 Spirit operates on sinners only through the Word, and not without it. 
 Your denomination teaches, that the Spirit, without the Word, regenerates 
 the sinner. Thus, the Word contains the converting power — and regenera- 
 tion is a change of heart and life by the Word. But the 3rd and 5th 
 contemplate a change of state, in reference to the kingdom of heaven, 
 therein referred to. I will then offer two propositions, expressive of our 
 real position. 
 
 4th. The Spirit of God regenerates sinners; without the Word. 
 
 5th. Human creeds have always occasioned and perpetuated divisions 
 among christians, and are barriers in the way of their union. 
 
 To this I would add a 6th — " The celebration of the Lord's death is 
 ■essential to the sanctification of the Lord's day, by a christian community." 
 Of these six propositions, I affirm three, and you affirm three. You affirm 
 the 1st, 2nd, and 4th, I the 3rd, 5th, and 6th. I will discuss these in 
 single debate with Mr. Young, provided the conference, you contemplate, 
 do not agree on these points. 
 
 It will then be necessary for me to have a distinct understanding upon 
 this view of the matter. All the preliminaries, for such a discussion, must 
 
16 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 be agreed upon before I leave home. Such as, 1st. The proposition. 2nd. 
 The order of discussion on the affirmative and negative sides. 3rd. The 
 board of moderators. 4th. The stenographer, and the mode of publishing 
 said discussion. 5th. The disposition of the avails of said publication. 
 
 I will select for the conference, Elders James Shannon, Dr. James Fish- 
 back, Aylett Rains, and John Smith, of Kentucky, as associates in the 
 conference. The two first shall be my committee of arrangements as to 
 the conference ; and as to the debate, they shall be my moderators, to meet 
 two of your choice ; these four choosing a president moderator. If these 
 matters are thus despatched, as aforesaid, I see no great need of delay in 
 securing a stenographer, and in agreeing to bestow the avails of the publi- 
 cation, half and half, to the two Bible Societies. So soon as I hear from 
 you satisfactorily, I will address Messrs. Shannon and Fishback, on the 
 subject of meeting your committee at Lexington. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours fraternally, 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Richmond, Ky., Dec. 8, 1842. 
 Elder A. Campbell : 
 
 Your favor of the 22nd ult., is now before me. After the explicit state 
 ment, in my last letter, of the circumstances which led to our interview in 
 Richmond, and which resulted in an agreement to have an amicable discus- 
 sion of the points of difference between us ; I deem it unnecessary, at 
 present, to say any thing more on that subject. 
 
 In regard to the points to be discussed, I hope we shall be able, without 
 serious difficulty, to make a fair and honorable issue. 
 
 You say " I cheerfully accept your amendment to the 2nd proposition," 
 and yet you immediately present it again, without that amendment. This, 
 I presume, was done through mistake. The proposition, with my amend 
 ment, which you have accepted, reads as follows, " I affirm that sprinkling, 
 or pouring water, on a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism. You deny." 
 
 Concerning the 3rd proposition, as presented in my last, you say nothing, 
 "but present another, as follows : 
 
 " 3rd. There is a scriptural connection, of some sort, between baptism 
 and the remission of sins of a believing penitent." 
 
 This proposition is an exceedingly indefinite sort of thing, and is, 
 therefore, decidedly objectionable. I can see no possible objection to the 
 following proposition, as already offered you, viz : 
 
 " 3rd. You affirm that the new birth, as mentioned in John, 3d chapter, 
 is a change of state, and not a change of heart. We deny." With you, 
 baptism is the new birth, so that the proposition, above stated, presents for 
 discussion the design of christian baptism, and this is what we desire to 
 embrace in the proposition. 
 
 Your 4th proposition, of which you expect us to maintain the affirma- 
 tive, is as follows: "The Spirit of God regenerates sinners, without the 
 Word." This is not the doctrine of the Presbyterian church. We main- 
 tain, that in the conversion of men, there is an operation of the Spirit 
 distinct from the Word, but not in ordinary cases, without the Word. I 
 propose, as a substitute for your 4th, the following proposition, taken ver- 
 batim from your Christianity Restored, p. 350. 
 
 " 4th. The Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and sanctifying 
 power, in the words which it fills with its ideas." 
 
 The 4th proposition, as contained in my last, is, I think, preferable to 
 your 5th, on the subject of creeds ; and mine certainly is not stronger than 
 the language you have on that subject. 
 
 The sixth question, which you propose, I think, does not present a differ- 
 ence of such importance, as to make it a point of discussion. If a 6th. 
 question be desirable, (though not embraced in our original agreement) I 
 propose the following : 
 

 CORRESPONDENCE. 17 
 
 6th. None, except ordained ministers, are by the Scriptures, authorized 
 to administer baptism. 
 
 There is now no probability that Brother Young will be able to enter 
 into the discussion with you. He has, for several weeks, been confined to 
 a sick bed, and, when last heard from, was dangerously ill. Should he 
 recover, the condition of his lungs would not admit of his engaging in a pro- 
 tracted discussion. You shall, however, be met by " a reputable " disputant. 
 
 It is my duty, also, to state, that the name of Rev. R. J. Breckenridge, 
 was placed among those selected by me, without his knowledge. He 
 informs me, that he cannot be in Kentucky at the time the discussion will 
 take place. In his place, therefore, I will name the Rev. J. K. Burch. 
 
 Rev. N. L. Rice, and myself, will meet your committee of arrangement. 
 
 Rev. J. K. Burch, and myself, will be moderators. Other matters, such 
 as the order of discussion, &c, I presume can be settled by the committee 
 of arrangements. If you object to this, you can make, in your next letter, 
 any proposition which you may think important. 
 
 I hope to hear from you, at your earliest convenience. If you agree to 
 the propositions for discussion, as now presented, other necessary arrange- 
 ments can be made, I presume, with little difficulty. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Bethany, Va., Dec. 15, 1842. 
 Elder Brown, 
 
 My Dear Sir — Yours of the 8th ult., was received yesterday. My 
 acquiescence in the proposition you were pleased to make in August, 
 touching an amicable discussion of points at issue, between our respective 
 denominations, was given with a reference to two great objects. The first, 
 the prospect of having the main topics of difference fairly laid before the 
 community, with the reasons for and against — the second, that the argu- 
 ments, on both sides, might go to the world with the authority of the 
 denominations, so far as their selection and approval of the debaters were 
 concerned. 
 
 Only on these grounds, and with these expectations, could I have been 
 induced to participate at all in any oral discussion, after all that I have 
 written and spoken on these subjects ; and, therefore, it is essential to my 
 Dosition and aims in this affair, that the preliminaries be so arranged as to 
 secure these objects. I should think, indeed, that, to you, these points are 
 equally interesting and important. 
 
 Allow me, then, to say, that the three great topics which have occupied 
 public attention for some twenty-five years, so far as our purposed reforma- 
 tion is concerned, are, 
 
 1st. The ordinances of Christianity. 
 
 2nd. The essential elements of the gospel itself. 
 
 3rd. The influence of human creeds as sources of alienation, schism, and 
 party ism in the church. 
 
 Now, in some points, only, of these three categories do we differ from 
 Presbyterians, and other Pedo-baptist professors. These are baptism, the 
 Lord's supper, spiritual influence, as connected with the use of the word 
 *' regeneration" and human creeds. 
 
 You selected baptism, and I alluded to the others. On baptism we 
 agree, that, both logically and scripturally, there are three distinct proposi- 
 tions. The action, the subject, and the design. On the Lord's supper there 
 is one — on regeneration one, and one on the subject of human creeds. In 
 all six. According to our respective teaching and practice, these six 
 propositions are as follows : 
 
 1st. Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural 
 baptism. 
 
 2nd. The infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism. 
 2 b2 
 
18 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 3rd. Personal assurance of the remission of past sins, to a believing 
 penitent, is the chief design of baptism, or, if you prefer it, " Baptism is 
 for the remission of sins." 
 
 4th. In all christian communities the Lord's supper should be observed 
 every Lord's day. , 
 
 5th. The Word, as well as the Spirit of God, is, in all cases, essential to 
 regeneration ; or, some persons are regenerated by the Spirit, without the 
 JVord believed. 
 
 6th. Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are, necessarily, 
 heretical and schismatical ; or, human creeds, as bonds of union, are essen 
 tial to the unity and purity of the church. 
 
 You affirm the 1st and 2nd positions on baptism, and, also, the two last 
 versions of the 5th and 6th. I mean to say, your printed creed and party 
 do so. I affirm the 3rd and 4th, and the 1st version of the 5th and 6th. 
 We can, therefore, easily find each three affirmative propositions, such as 
 we are accustomed to teach and to defend. Now, sir, as I said before, I 
 am prepared and willing to defend what I teach, on my affirmatives. Are 
 your party 1 If so, then I am not fastidious about a word. I regard tire 
 above as a candid and definite expression of our relative positions on these 
 six points : and these involve our whole systems of christian doctrine and 
 teaching. As you have led the way in baptism, I claim as many proposi- 
 tions on the other points at issue. You have extracted some two or three 
 propositions from my writings; and, in return for these, I might select as 
 many from your creed, which is still of higher authority than the writings 
 of any individual — and, although you may believe them, such as some 
 articles on effectual calling and election, yet they are not such propositions 
 as convey all that you would affirm on those themes. This is just my case. 
 These propositions are expounded in their contexts, and they need their 
 contextual adjuncts. I, therefore, prefer independent, clear, and definite 
 expressions of great principles. I have no doubt that you, too, will prefer 
 these, to such passages as those to which I have alluded. 
 
 After this full expose of propositions, I have only to advert to the second 
 great object of such a discussion, viz. the authority with which it addresses 
 the community. You cannot have forgotten that the express condition of 
 my taking part in any oral debate with your denomination on such topics, 
 Was, that the synod, to whose timous meeting you alluded, should select, or 
 approbate, such persons as might be supposed able and competent to enter 
 into such a discussion, to make it as much as possible an end to the contro- 
 versy. You first alluded to synodical arrangements, and this suggested to 
 me the necessity of stipulating for Mr. Young, president of the Centre 
 College, at Danville, because I regarded him as a gentleman, and a scholar 
 of high standing, who had the double stake of a theological and literary 
 reputation, to stimulate and govern his efforts on the occasion. You 
 immediately rejoined, I should have him. Now, sir, allow me to say, that 
 having consented on this condition, and only on this condition, to attend 
 such a discussion as you proposed, I could not be expected to engage with 
 any other person, unless in one of two events ; — that Mr. Young* continued to 
 be physically unable to attend in person, within some reasonable term, or, 
 in case of his ultimate inability, that the synod have appointed some person 
 in whose ability the community might confide. It will, therefore, on your 
 part, as well as mine, be expected that I should be assured of the fact, that 
 Mr. Rice, or Mr. Burch, or some other person, has been selected, or appro- 
 bated, by the synod, to represent the party in the contemplated discussion. 
 
 The propositions being agreed upon, and the person with whom I am to 
 contend, selected by the proper authorities, those other matters, as to a 
 stenographer, and the rules of discussion, &c, &c, can be easily arranged. 
 I do hope, then, kind sir, that you will embrace your earliest convenience 
 in responding to such items, in the communication, as may demand your 
 special attention. Y/ith the kindest regard, I remain, as ever, yours. 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 19 
 
 Richmond, Jan. 3, 1843. 
 Elder Campbell . 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 15th ult., was received on the 22nd, and would 
 have been answered earlier, but protracted religious exercises prevented. 
 
 One point only, in your last, demands present attention. Until that is 
 understood and agreed, all efforts to settle the questions for discussion, and 
 arrange preliminaries, will be unavailing. 
 
 I allude to synodical action. I understand you to take the ground that 
 you will not debate, unless the individual is appointed, or approbated, by 
 synod. 
 
 In your first communication you intimated as much. In reply, I stated 
 definitely, that the synod neither was, nor could be, a party in the contem- 
 plated discussion. I also stated, that the persons selected, were chosen, 
 not by the synod, but in conference, and, that some of them were known 
 and acknowledged to be the most prominent men in our church. 
 
 All these facts were before you, yet, in your reply, you do not make a 
 single objection, but pass the whole matter in silence. 
 
 Surely, if you intended to object on this ground, then was the time, and 
 there the correspondence would have terminated. 
 
 My understanding was, that the persons engaging in the discussion 
 would be agreed upon at the meeting of synod, not that there would be a 
 synodical appointment. 
 
 I well knew that such an appointment, for such an object, was not within 
 the legitimate power of any of our ecclesiastical judicatories. 
 
 Even had the synod possessed the power, and exercised it, and appointed 
 the requisite number of men, there appears to have been no appointment by 
 any body of men on your side. 
 
 If the appointment, on your side, had been made by a body of men, con- 
 voked for the purpose, still, that body would sustain to your church no such 
 relation as our synod does to ours, and, therefore, we would not stand on 
 equal footing. 
 
 Perfect equality is that for which we will most certainly insist. 
 
 If your object be to give importance to the discussion, we will agree to 
 add, 5, 10, or 15, to the number on each side, with the understanding, that 
 the debater, on each side, be selected by them. 
 
 We fear not discussion, and are willing to do all that is equal and honora- 
 ble, but, if you insist on making unequal or impracticable terms of debate, 
 the matter, of course, must terminate. I await your response. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Bethany, Va., Jan. 13, 1843. 
 Elder Brown : 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 4th inst., was received on the 11th ult. My 
 engagements yesterday forbade an immediate reply. 
 
 You say one point only demands present attention, viz. — synodical action. 
 The idea of synodical action was suggested by yourself at our interview, 
 and again presented in your first written communication, in the words 
 following, to-wit: — "The brethren, who will engage in the discussion, so 
 far as the Presbyterian church is concerned, will be selected during the 
 sessions of the synod, which will convene at Maysville, on the 13th prox- 
 imo." This, though strong enough, is not quite so expressive of synodical 
 action in the case, as your original, verbal declarations, in the presence of 
 our mutual friend, Mr. Duncan. 
 
 Your next epistle, after the meeting of synod, contained the ambiguous 
 phrase, that the synod were not " to be a party" in the debate. I did not 
 then contemplate them in the light of a party ; but while I hesitated what 
 such a phrase could mean, after our previous interchange of views and 
 intentions, I concluded, for the moment, to reserve it for future explanation 
 
 On learning, from your last, that certain persons were to be withdrawn, 
 
20 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 and certain new persons were to be appointed in their stead, I ask, what 
 could have been more natural, with all these references to synodical 
 arrangements, before made, than to recur to original propositions, both 
 verbal and written, as to this thing of synodical, or confidential, selection 
 and approval. I have done so, and find your present communication makes 
 new propositions and arrangements, never before contemplated. Really, I 
 was not prepared for this. 
 
 My participation in any discussion was asked by you, and stipulated by 
 me, on the assurance that I should have certain persons, some of them then 
 named ; and that too, with the concurrence of your church met in synod. 
 
 Whether the thing was to be transacted in condone clerum, ex cathedra, 
 or in various conferences, gave me then no concern ; provided it had the con- 
 current approbation of your church. You positively said, I should have the 
 persons named, and, that you doubted not that the synod would agree to it. 
 Such were the clearly expressed premises on which I assented to be present. 
 
 If you have changed your views of the expediency of such an arrange- 
 ment, or, if the persons, then agreed upon, will not attend, you are at 
 perfect liberty to withdraw your propositions. But I will make no new 
 covenant, the first having been abandoned. 
 
 I am perfectly willing to meet the persons named by you, in your first 
 eommunication alter the synod met, at our mutual convenience, believing 
 that they were agreed upon at the meeting of the synod. But I cannot 
 admit of your substitutes for them. 
 
 I care not who the Presbyterian church appoints, nor in what form it be 
 done, provided, the persons appointed are known to be the selection of the 
 denomination. The reasons I have always given, for any preference, were, 
 that I desired a final discussion of those litigated points ; and such a dis- 
 cussion as would have the highest authority, that our respective denomin- 
 ations could confer upon it. 
 
 If our brethren, in Kentucky, prefer any other person to me, I yield the 
 arena in a moment. But, friend Brown, I go not in pretence, but in fact, 
 for equality. Let your church sanction, in any way you please, some new 
 man, or give me those you promised, and I am perfectly satisfied. 
 
 You say you fear not discussion, and are willing to do all that is equal 
 and honorable. This is just what I wish to hear you say. I only ask you 
 to redeem the pledge, and shew your faith by your works. Very respect- 
 fully and benevolently, your friend, A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Richmond, Madison Co., Ky., March 8, 1843. 
 Elder A.Campbell: 
 
 Serious inflammation of my eyes has prevented me from writing for 
 several days past, but for this your communication would have been an- 
 swered at an earlier date. 
 
 In reply to my last, on the subject of synodical action, you thus remark : 
 " The idea of synodical action, was suggested by yourself at our interview, 
 and again presented in your first written communication." 
 
 The language I employed at our first interview, which made the impres- 
 sion of synodical action, I know not. I may have expressed myself incau- 
 tiously, and, possibly, I employed such language as would authorize such 
 an inference. But, manifestly, the language of my first written communi- 
 cation, quoted in your last, and now before me, does not authorize such a 
 deduction. 
 
 Whatever may have been your previous understanding of synodical action, 
 and whatever requisitions you may have been disposed to make, relative to 
 this point, I am gratified to find the whole difficulty obviated by the follow- 
 ing declaration in your last, viz. " I am perfectly willing to meet the 
 persons named by you, in your first communication, after the synod met, at 
 our mutual convenience, believing that they were agreed upon at the 
 meeting of the synod. But I cannot admit of your substitutes for them." 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 2] 
 
 Your perfect willingness to meet those individuals, is in full view of the 
 fact definitely stated, in my former communication, that they were not 
 appointed by the synod, but only agreed upon at the synod. 
 
 In a former communication, I suggested that one of the men selected at 
 synod, lived in a distant state, and, that when written to, he found it utterly 
 impracticable to attend. 
 
 You certainly cannot object to one being chosen to fill his place, by the 
 other four, inasmuch as this plan was agreed upon at synod, in case the 
 individual, who was absent, could not come, and, especially so, when the 
 men, on your side, (and you go for equality) have not been selected " in 
 condone clerum, ex cathedra, or, in various conferences." 
 
 You are aware, also, of the fact, that the synod cannot meet again till 
 next autumn, and, therefore, an individual to fill the vacancy, cannot be 
 chosen at synod. 
 
 The difficulty you make (surely without the slightest reason) seems 
 equivalent to a declinature of the discussion. 
 
 But, if you still object to our selecting an individual to fill the vacancy, 
 then the four, who were named in the letter, after the meeting of synod, 
 will meet you and three of the men selected by yourself, and go on with the 
 debate. 
 
 The health of brother Young is much improved since I last wrote, and 
 this impediment would, therefore, be removed. 
 
 If you agree that the vacancy shall be filled by the four, originally 
 appointed, (it being understood at the time that they would exercise this 
 power) — or, if you are willing to proceed with four on each side, then the 
 way will be open for the settlement of the three remaining questions, pre- 
 paratory to discussion. 
 
 I await your response, and shall be governed accordingly. 
 
 Respectfully yours, JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Bethany, Va., March 17, 1843. 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 8th inst. was received on the 15th, and, though 
 not in very good health to-day, I hasten to reply in a few words to the 
 favor before me. 
 
 Waiving any comment on your explanations and historic allusions to our 
 correspondence, I hasten to say, that I have no objection to the choice of a 
 ifth person, in room of Mr. Breckenridge, by the four gentlemen agreed 
 upon at synod ; especially, as you say, that it was an understanding at 
 synod, that should any one fail in attendance, the others might elect a 
 substitute. 
 
 I sincerely hope, that in all despatch, you may be enabled to respond 
 satisfactorily on the propositions already offered, so that time may be re- 
 deemed, especially as now full two months have been consumed in getting 
 an answer to my former letter. Should matters progress so slowly on the 
 propositions, and other details, it will require a full year, at least, to settle 
 the preliminaries. I think, indeed, it is very prudent, nay, absolutely 
 necessary, to have every thing clearly understood, and plainly stated in 
 writing, before commencing, as nothing more directly tends to preserve 
 good temper, and to prevent a mere logomachy, than clear and definite 
 propositions, good rules and equal terms. In this, I feel a very special 
 interest, also, as the debate contemplated will, according to our previous 
 understanding, be immediately between Mr. Young and myself, supported, 
 as we shall be, by our respective friends on each side. 
 
 Please then afford all facilities for a consummation so devoutly to be 
 wished, and as promptly as possible. 
 
 With all respect and benevolence, I remain your friend, 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
22 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Georgetown, April 8, 1843. 
 Elder A. Campbell: 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of March 17th, post-marked 20th, is received. You 
 agree that the four individuals, selected at synod, may select a fifth in lieu 
 of Rev. R. J. Breckenridge. We, therefore, select Rev. Jas. K. Burch, as 
 before mentioned. 
 
 Although the health of brother Young has improved, as stated in my 
 last, so that he can be present as one of the five, there is scarcely any 
 probability that he will be physically able to go through with a debate so 
 protracted as the one we have in contemplation. 
 
 I did agree, in our first interview, that he should be one of the five, 
 but not by any means that he should be the only debater, for I did not at 
 that time, suppose that the discussion would be confined to two individuals, 
 but that all on each side would take part; however, I will not object to 
 such an arrangement, if you desire it, only reserving the right, in case of 
 physical ina.bility on the part of brother Young, to select one from our 
 number to debate with you. 
 
 With regard to the questions, I hope we shall have but little further 
 difficulty. As to the mode and subjects of baptism we are agreed. 
 
 Your 3d proposition, as stated in your letter of Dec. 15, is objectionable 
 in both of its forms. In the first form, because your full ground is not 
 occupied; and, in the second, because in scriptural language, concerning 
 which we would probably differ. I must, therefore, insist on my 3d, as 
 presented in my communication, of Dec, 8th, viz. 
 
 3d. " You affirm that the new birth, as mentioned in John, 3d chapter, is 
 a change of state, and not a change of heart." We deny. 
 
 This embraces the difference between us, the design of baptism; for 
 baptism, is, with you, the new birth. To this proposition you have pre- 
 sented no objection, though you offered another in its place. 
 
 Your 4th is as follows, " In all christian communities, the Lord's supper 
 should be observed every Lord's day." This is objectionable, because 
 comparatively unimportant. If any church, or denomination, choose to 
 observe the supper every Lord's day, then be it so. We do not consider it 
 a matter of sufficient importance to demand discussion. We have already 
 suggested a much more important subject, involving the validity of baptism, 
 which we offer as the 4th proposition for discussion, viz. 
 
 4th. " None except ordained ministers are, by the scriptures, authorized 
 to administer baptism." We affirm. You deny. 
 
 Your 5th proposition is objected to, because it affirms less than in your 
 publications you have affirmed, and does not fully present the difference 
 between us. We hope you will agree to discuss the proposition already 
 submitted, taken verbatim from your Christianity Restored, p. 350, which 
 we present as the 5th proposition. 
 
 5th. "The Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and sanctifying 
 power in the words which it fills with its ideas." To this you certainly 
 cannot object. It is in your essay on Divine Influence, italicised, and 
 therefore the cream, the very essence of the whole thing. You can, of 
 course, refer to your writings in illustration of your doctrines. 
 
 Your 6th proposition is as follows, " Human creeds, as bonds of union and 
 communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical." We do not under- 
 stand exactly what you mean by the phrase " bonds of union and commu- 
 nion ." We, therefore, suggest the following alteration or amendment, viz, 
 
 6th. " The using of creeds, except the Scriptures, is necessarily heretical 
 and schismatical." You affirm. We deny. 
 
 As soon as we shall agree on these, or other propositions, involving the 
 difference between us, on the agreed points of discussion, brother Rice and 
 myself will meet your committee in Lexington, and arrange preliminaries 
 preparatory to discussion, at our earliest mutual convenience. 
 
 Very respectfully, JNO. EL BROWN. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 23 
 
 Bethany, Va., April 24, 1843. 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 8th inst., post-marked 10th, arrived here on the 
 19th inst. Business of much importance, and obligations various and 
 numerous, prevented my careful reading of it till to-day. You inform me 
 that the improvement of Mr. Young's health is not such as to warrant the 
 hope that he will be physically able to endure the fatigue of a protracted 
 discussion. My consent to participate in a public conference, was given 
 upon the solemn pledge on your part, that if single combat should be the 
 result of our interview, I should have Mr. Young. This has again been 
 stated in our correspondence, and fully assented to by yourself. A rumor 
 has more than once or twice reached my ears, that this pledge on your 
 part, was never to be redeemed ; and that in the well known policy and 
 style of ecclesiastic diplomacy, in a protracted correspondence, you would 
 manage it to substitute Mr. Rice for Mr. Young ; and thus in any issue of 
 the affair, Presbyterianism would stand either upon her reserved learning 
 and talents, or upon the triumphs of the said Mr. Rice. Reluctant though 
 I have been to listen to such a rumor, so discreditable to your candor and 
 christian sincerity, I confess, things begin to wear an aspect somewhat 
 ambiguous, squinting, at least, in that direction. 
 
 I am not a man to be managed just in that way, and have replied to 
 madam rumor, that the moment you presented Mr. Rice, you have forfeited 
 every claim upon my attendance ; and that unless the denomination, in 
 some way, selected him in preference to Mr. Young in scholarship and 
 discursive talent, I should have nothing to do with the affair. True, 
 indeed, I should not insist upon Mr. Young's presence if he was physically 
 unable — but I am often physically unable myself, to do justice to any sub- 
 ject, in the way of even a single speech, much more to questions of 
 protracted discussion, and, therefore, make my appointments and arrange- 
 ments accordingly. The time has been so long protracted already, that it 
 will not greatly affect your reputation, should it be made to suit the health 
 and convenience of Mr. Young. 
 
 Mr. Rice may be as learned, and as able a disputant, for any thing I 
 know to the contrary, as Mr. Young; but he stands not so high with the 
 community either as a polite gentleman or a scholar ; and I presume, is 
 discreetly located at Paris, while Mr. Young exmerito presides at Danville. 
 The reasons given by me first and last for taking part in such a discussion, 
 compel me to demand the fulfillment of at least the two essential conditions 
 on which my consent was obtained ; — the first, that there should be a full 
 discussion of the main points between us ; — the second, that I should have 
 the disputant named, in order to give it authority with the whole commu- 
 nity. The moment you recede from this ground, you have released me from 
 every pledge and obligation that I have given. You need not repeat to me 
 that I ask from you conditions which you have not propounded to me, as 
 you have done on a former occasion. We do not meet exactly upon that 
 ground. My presence was demanded, even after I had said that Kentucky 
 had talent and learning enough to maintain the reformation cause against 
 every denomination in the state; and it was promised on those conditions, 
 and those conditions only. If then yourself and your brethren are not 
 willing to meet on the conditions stipulated, you will please so inform me, 
 and the matter ends. 
 
 With regard to the propositions, I am not a little surprised at the reluc- 
 tance you manifest to discuss the design of baptism, indubitably one of the 
 main issues and points advanced in the pending reformation controversy. 
 Would you have me and the public to think that you wish to slur and blink 
 that question'? If not, why propose such a substitute for the main point of 
 debate? You offer the new birth for the design of baptism!! and then 
 again, bring up spiritual influence and converting power in another propo- 
 sition. If you do not design to evade the design of baptism altogether, 
 why create the suspicion by such an indirect and ambiguous mode of proce- 
 
24 • CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 dure! This will never do, Mr. Brown. You and your party have assailed 
 our views of the design of baptism a thousand times ; and, depend upon it, 
 you must not shrink from it now. I have often told you I must defend 
 what I preach ; and as your party oppose my views behind my back, 
 you must in honor, do it now before my face ; if not for my sake, at least 
 for your own. Unless then you concede that our views are correct on that 
 subject, you must debate it ! As you refuse to take up the whole confession 
 of faith, I cannot but admire your generosity in putting me on the defence 
 of all my writings, and your culling out such insulated and detached sen- 
 tences as you think most favorable to your intentions. I see you have 
 formed high conceptions of my magnanimity. Still I would have you take 
 care of your own. Do not say, nor even think, that I refuse the examina- 
 tion of those sentences ; you can bring them forward under their proper 
 heads. But through respect for the literary character of our discussion at 
 the bar of public opinion, I would not appear as a logician in defence of a 
 sentence or an individual expression, while the whole category to which it 
 belongs is unassailed. Let us prove the genus — or the species — and then 
 we shall not contend about the individual. Your calling a sentence the 
 cream and essence of a whole system, because it is italicised, is an aberra- 
 tion of reason of the same character. Divine influence — creeds, and the 
 ordinances of the supper — are points at which we are at issue.. We must 
 have propositions setting forth our respective views on these topics. I deny 
 abstract spiritual influence in conversion and sanctification. You affirm it. 
 The propositions submitted by me, are indicative of our respective views, 
 as I understand them. So of creeds. If you choose to add another propo- 
 sition, concerning who may administer baptism, I have no objection — 
 rather than substitute any one of these offered by any other you can devise. 
 I will discuss as many more as you please, essential to our respective 
 systems. But the four questions of baptism, regeneration, the Lord's supper, 
 and creeds, are great, essential points of discussion : and the six propositions 
 furnished by you and myself on these topics, must, according to our agree- 
 ment, be debated, unless you concede some of them. 
 
 The time is already past in which this meeting was, according to our 
 Richmond conversation, to have taken place. Our college vacation is in 
 July and August. I do hope then you will accommodate me and the public, 
 so far as to have it either in the end of July or first of August. You may, 
 in a single letter, now settle all these points on fair and honorable princi- 
 ples. It is in your power. We must have stenographers secured as soon 
 as possible, or we must sell the copy-right to some good house in the East, 
 who will send on a stenographer, and so have matters speedily arranged. 
 The propositions, and the main points settled, our committee can soon 
 adjust other matters. Please answer this immediately. 
 
 In all benevolence, yours, &c. A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Richmond, Ky r , May 15, 1843* 
 Elder Campbell : 
 
 Yours of the 24th ult. is before me. Its contents present too much 
 evidence of what I have for some time apprehended, that you are resolved 
 to avoid the proposed discussion. 
 
 I gave no pledge of any kind, that Mr. Young should be your opponent, 
 but only that he should be one of the five in debate ; but if I had, physical 
 inability is, I believe, universally admitted to excuse. Mr. Young has for 
 months been in feeble health : and there is no probability of his being able 
 to engage as the only debalant, in such a discussion as the one proposed. 
 He is now able to preach only occasionally. But when you are imformed 
 of this fact, you insult me by speaking of your reluctance to listen to a 
 rumor, "so discreditable to my candor and christian character!" Yet you 
 say, "True, indeed, I should not insist upon Mr. Young's presence if he 
 were physically unable." 
 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 25 
 
 Well, sir, he is physically unable to go through with such a debate. 
 Still he is able and willing to be present as one of the five on our side. If 
 then you are resolved to debate with no other man, the matter is at an 
 end. 
 
 Ordinary courtesy, I suppose, would have forbidden the introduction of 
 the name of Mr. Rice, as you have thought proper to introduce it. It 
 would have been quite time enough for such remarks, when his name had 
 been mentioned by me, as the disputant on our side. I do not wonder at 
 your reluctance to meet Mr. Rice. He has health to go through such a 
 discussion, and is accustomed, as well as yourself, to public debate. But it 
 seems his standing in the community " as a polite gentleman," is not high 
 enough for you ! With all deference, I beg leave to say, I am not aware 
 that his standing, in this respect, is inferior to Mr. Campbell's. As to his 
 learning, it is sufficient that Presbyterians are willing to risk their cause in 
 his hands, even against Mr. Campbell. Whilst it is unnecessary for me to 
 say any thing about the comparative merits of Messrs. Young and Rice, 
 I may smile at the ground on which your opinion is founded, viz. that the 
 one is at Danville, and the other at Paris. I am not aware that the stand- 
 ing of Mr. Campbell "as a polite gentleman," or "a scholar," is much 
 higher since he became President of his college, than before. We oifer you 
 a Presbyterian minister as your opponent, who shall be selected by us 
 precisely in accordance with the arrangement made at synod, viz. that we 
 would select one of our number to meet you in debate. Now you have 
 vour choice to retreat or accept. 
 
 I have manifested no reluctance to discuss the design of baptism. I 
 have simply presented it precisely in the form in which you yourself have 
 constantly presented it in your publications. With you baptism is the new 
 birth, and it is designed to effect a change of state. This is precisely what 
 we propose to discuss. Yet you seem to be in great wonderment that I 
 should " offer the new birth for the design of baptism !" 
 
 But I am not particular as to the precise statement of the question. All 
 I ask is that you take the whole ground in debate, which you have taken in 
 your publications. This you have not ventured to do, and I fear you never 
 will. The moment you do, we shall accede to your proposition. 
 
 On the influences of the Spirit, I have offered you a proposition in your 
 own language, and you refuse to discuss it. 
 
 When you find a clear proposition in our "Confession of Faith," which 
 we refuse to discuss, you may then proclaim to the world that we have 
 retreated. 
 
 The proposition I have offered you is clear and full, embodying avowedly 
 your faith on this point ; whilst those you offer us, throw both sides off 
 their true ground. What you mean by " abstract spiritual influence," I do 
 not know ; but if you mean spiritual influence without the word, you must 
 know, if ever you read our Confession, that we hold no such thing, except in 
 cases where the word cannot be received. 
 
 State a proposition containing your real views, and making a fair issue, 
 and it will be accepted. But if you retreat from your own language, the 
 reason will be understood. 
 
 In regard to the Lord's supper, we have objected to discussing your pro- 
 position, simply because we deem it of minor importance, and because our 
 church, in her confession of faith, neither affirms nor denies. It is silent 
 on that point. We are not, therefore, disposed to discuss such a question. 
 The question concerning the administrator of baptism, is quite as impor- 
 tant as either of the others, involving the validity of the ordinance. 
 
 Your reluctance to discuss it, is, I fear, another evidence that you have 
 published important things which you would rather not defend. 
 
 We are ready for you, just so soon as you are willing to meet a man who 
 is " physically able " to go through with the debate, and to defend your 
 published doctrines. Respectfully yours, JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 c 
 
26 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Bethany, Va., May 24, 1843. 
 Elder Brown : 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 15th, came by to-day's mail. You now say that 
 it V presents too much evidence of what you have for some time appre- 
 hended, that I have resolved to avoid the proposed discussion,'''' This conclu- 
 sion makes me curious to know your premises. Nothing that I have said 
 or done, would seem to me to authorize such an inference. The proposi- 
 tions which constitute your' premises, are most likely those which you are 
 now about to offer, at which you thought I would most probably revolt. 
 Circumstances appear to favor this presumption. Hence, ever since you 
 thought of offering them, you have apprehended that I " would avoid the 
 proposed discussion." 
 
 When seeking to withdraw the man of my choice, promised by yourself, 
 and to dictate all the terms, propositions, and conditions of debate, it is 
 natural for you to expect, that as an honorable man, I should decline taking 
 any part in such a discussion. I demanded your most gifted, learned, and 
 accomplished man as my opponent, in case of a debate. Nothing mentioned 
 at our personal interview, is more distinctly remembered, nothing is more 
 frequently alluded to in our correspondence, and never contradicted by 
 yourself, than that I should have Mr. Young for my opponent, if it came to 
 single combat, as I then affirmed my convictions, and expressed my desire 
 that it would. You now seem to deny any such pledge, or agreement on 
 your part. Your words are, " You shall have him." If these words do not 
 constitute a pledge, pray what language could be so construed ? 
 
 Nor is this fact, though deeply engraven on my memory, depending on that 
 alone for its certainty. In my letter of Nov. 16, it is written " I will debate 
 with one person only," and then named president Young as such a person. 
 You immediately responded, " You shall have him, as you did not doubt but 
 the synod would select him." This is freely admitted in your reply of 
 Dec. 8, stating at the same time that " there is now no probability that 
 brother Young will be able to enter into the discussion with you." Do not 
 these words affirm that he was to have " entered into the discussion" with 
 me ! Surely you will not stultify yourself. You know the meaning of 
 words too well, to plead ignorance of the import of your own language. 
 But you are even still more explicit in declaring your understanding of the 
 pledge, for you speak of his engaging in a protracted discussion with me, 
 for which you alledged "the state of his lungs would disqualify him." In 
 these words, you admit the pledge, or agreement, which through the trea- 
 chery of your memory you now seem to deny. 
 
 Again, my dear sir, may I not ask why you did not attempt to undeceive 
 me when, in my letter of Dec. 15th, I stated my reasons for preferring Mr. 
 Young ; reminding you also of the fact, that you stood pledged to have him 
 for my opponent, and that I could not be expected to engage with any 
 other, unless on conditions then proposed. In your reply to this letter, 
 Jan. 3d, you do not demur at all to this view of the matter in any one par- 
 ticular. You merely inform me that the appointment was not made by, but 
 at the meeting of synod. 
 
 Again, in your letter of March 8th, after quoting my words indicative of 
 my willingness to meet such a conference raised at the synod, you informed 
 me " that brother Young's health is much improved, and that, therefore, this 
 impediment would be removed." Now, after all this, to say that there was 
 no such agreement or pledge, on your part, indicates it not that some of your 
 mental powers have given way, and that you ought to be allowed the bene- 
 fit of retraction 1 ? 
 
 Well, but if you did so agree, you may ask — indeed, you have virtually 
 asked, would I insist upon having an opponent physically unable! No, 
 indeed ; I want a full grown man, of good natural and acquired ability, and 
 also in good plight. But Mr. Young was such a man last August, and 
 he may be such a man again next August, or soon after. I have long since 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 27 
 
 resolved never to debate with an inferior man wTien a superior can be had. 
 I prefer to await his perfect recovery, rather than to enter the list with an 
 inferior man. 
 
 My object has been so often stated to you, that I deem it almost needless 
 again to say, that neither my own honor nor interest demand this, but the 
 interest of the whole community. That, sir, now calls for the best man in 
 your ranks. True, I am so sensible of the strength of my position, that 
 however inferior I may be in other respects, I am willing to meet the 
 strongest man in Christendom on those points at issue between us. 
 
 If, then, I am constrained to refuse your new proposition, it is not because 
 the man offered is so formidable, so mighty and argumentative, but because 
 he is not by the community judged to be equal, much less superior, to the 
 persons named. At least such are my impressions. If, however, in this I 
 am mistaken, I am open to conviction. I say again, sir, I desire your 
 strongest and most accomplished man, whether in Kentucky or out of it. 
 I desire to make an end of the controversy, so far as I am concerned, and, 
 therefore I desire an opponent beyond whom your community cannot look 
 with either desire or expectation. 
 
 There are but two ways you may drive me from this discussion. You 
 can, indeed, accomplish your predictions of my avoiding the discussion by 
 one of two expedients. You may offer a disputant of inferior rank, or you 
 may refuse the discussion of the real issue, and offer substitutes that meet 
 not the subject proposed. 
 
 You say something of my speaking discourteously of Mr. Rice, and of 
 rather insulting you in my allusions to certain rumors. To each of which 
 inacceptable imputations I desire to plead not guilty. If, sir, I should say 
 that lord Brougham is not so courteous a gentleman as sir Robert Peel, do 
 I insult lord Brougham ! It is, methinks, somewhat prudish to affect such 
 a sense of honorable courtesy. With me there yet remain three degrees 
 of comparison, but with you it seems there is no comparison at all that is 
 not discourteous. I believe, sir, all Kentucky, in so far as Messrs. Rice 
 and Young are known, will award to the latter a comparative superiority in 
 courtesy, as well as in some other points of comparison. And, sir, as your 
 denomination is to be represented on the occasion, I put it to your good 
 sense, whether a very courteous gentleman be not, other things bein^- equal, 
 a desideratum to you, as well as to me. But as I speak from report, and 
 not from personal acquaintance, I am in this always pervious to new light. 
 
 And with regard to the second item in your late bill of indictment, my 
 insulting you by speaking of my reluctance to listen to a rumor discreditable 
 to your candor and christian courtesy, I confess myself so obtuse as not to per- 
 ceive the precise point that impinges upon your honor in the form of insult. 
 If the report were false there was no insult in alluding to it, and if true, 
 you will admit, on reflection, there could be no insult ; because the truth in 
 such a connection, never can be an insult. Would it not, however, be discred- 
 itable to your candor and christian character, to believe that you had decided 
 at synod, that Mr. Rice should be the man of your choice, and for almost a 
 year to hold up the words of promise to my ear, that I should have Mr. 
 Young. Nay, farther, would it not be still more discreditable for you to 
 have so designed, and then afterwards nominate and appoint Mr. Rice one 
 of the committee to make out the propositions and details of debate, when 
 you calculated on my not being one of that committee. I shall present you 
 a dilemma for your grave consideration. Either you agreed at synod that 
 Mr. Rice or Mr. Young should be the man ; if the latter, then I am right, 
 yourselves being judges, in waiting for him ; but if you agreed on Mr. Rice, 
 you are wrong on two accounts. 1st, for holding up Mr. Young at all to 
 my ear, and in the 2nd place, for appointing Mr. Rice one of the committee 
 of arrangement, in this clandestine and cunning way. Extricate yourself 
 if you can ! 
 
 Or do I insult you by declaring my reluctance to believe another report 
 
28 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 that has reached me, from various sources, that you never intended a debate 
 with me on the points proposed, but only intended to appear willing and 
 ready for such a discussion, and then, by so managing the matter, as to 
 compel me to back out, or to secure to you such advantages as would sus- 
 tain your standing with the community. Such reports have almost since 
 the date of your first overtures reached my ear from different sources ; and 
 shall I be regarded as insulting you either by mentioning them, or by 
 affirming my reluctance to believe them. Is it not rather kind for me to 
 state them fully, when your proceedings assume a form squinting so much 
 in that direction. It is, methinks, due to you, to allow opportunity for you 
 to take such a course as will thoroughly refute imputations so discreditable' 
 and so usually regarded dishonorable. It was, indeed, as I imagined, kind 
 to apprize you of such reports, and to afford you opportunity to refute them 
 by your actions. 
 
 You very politely, on the heels of this double imputation, say, " I do not 
 wonder at your reluctance to meet Mr. Rice. He has health to go through 
 such a discussion, and is accustomed, as well as yourself, to public debate." 
 This, of course, is neither discourteous nor insulting!! Why, sir, in thus 
 saying, you have called my attention to Mr. Rice, under a new angle of 
 vision. If I regard your voice as that of the denomination, I have no diffi- 
 culty as to my course. You have elevated Mr. Rice to a position greatly 
 superior to that occupied by Mr. Young. You cannot but admit that the 
 reputation of Mr. Young, for learning and talent, has not terrified me so as 
 to evince any reluctance to meet him in debate : but in your esteem the 
 fame of Mr. Rice is so superlatively formidable, that I am fearful of en- 
 countering him. Convince me, sir, that this is his true position in the 
 denomination, and I at once accept him as your strongest man. I desire, 
 however, at least another witness or two of this fact, especially since read- 
 ing a letter written by yourself, setting forth your triumphs in a discussion 
 in which you have been engaged not many moons since. From that docu- 
 ment, it would seem that your imagination sometimes leads captive your 
 reason, at least in the opinion of many impartial and independent men. 
 
 A word or two as to the propositions for discussion. You manifest a 
 singular pertinacity in selecting fragments of my views, and also in imput- 
 ing to me a reluctance to defend what I have written. Have I thus assail- 
 ed you 1 The propositions touching the action and the subject of baptism, 
 are as you would wish them, and have been frequently so discussed by your 
 denomination. The design of baptism is the only one on that subject 
 peculiar to the present controversy. I have offered a proposition that 
 covers the main ground occupied by me in my writings : for which you offer 
 a most ridiculous substitute. " With me," you say, " baptism is the new 
 birth, and it is designed to effect a change of state." If it be the new 
 birth, can the new birth be the design of it 1 That it changes the state, is 
 your own belief, and what controversy is there on this point ! I must have 
 a clear enunciation of the design of baptism. The propositions offered on 
 that subject are such as to cover the real ground of difference between you 
 and us. I shrink from nothing I have written. You have no reason to say 
 so. You may protract the time, but I will never debate a proposition that 
 does not meet my views. I have just as good a right to select from my 
 writings as you have, and I can select a score on this subject that cover the 
 real ground of debate. 
 
 Christian baptism is designed to confer personal assurance of the remis- 
 sion of sins on every legitimate subject. Or, Christian baptism is for the 
 remission of past sins. This is my doctrine on the subject: and this I will 
 defend. You may use all that I. have written upon the subject, if you 
 please ; but such is the concentrated view which I propose. 
 
 On the influences of the Spirit — J teach that in sanctif cation it operates 
 <ynly through the written word. You teach that in some cases, it operates 
 without the word. I, therefore, affirm that the Spirit of God operates on 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 29 
 
 sinners and on saint only through the word. You affirm that it. regenerates 
 and sanctifies, in innumerable instances, without the word. Here is the 
 gist of the controversy. All that I have written, and every thing in your 
 creed, comes up under this proposition. 
 
 As you admit that our views of the weekly celebration of the Supper are 
 scriptural, so far as your creed affirms, I shall not press that proposition 
 farther upon your attention. 
 
 Touching your new proposition, about the administration of baptism, I 
 regard it as a very small affair. I teach that for good order's sake, persons 
 ouo-ht to be appointed to baptize, but that baptism by the hand of a layman, 
 as & you call him, when no other can be had, is just as valid as that of the 
 pope, or your ministers. You can produce no divine precept nor precedent 
 confining baptism to bishops, or elders — nor of their baptizing as such. 
 
 That "human creeds, added to the Bible, are now and always have been 
 unauthorized by God, roots of bitterness, apples of discord, necessarily 
 tending to schism, and always perpetuating it, I affirm to be a great practi- 
 cal truth, deeply affecting the very existence of pure religion, and essen- 
 tially obstructing the union of christians. 
 
 These are main points of difference between us, and such as we have 
 agreed to discuss — baptism, the work of the Spirit, and creeds. You may, 
 in your reply, settle the whole matter of the propositions, or you may pro- 
 tract the subject for months. I must have some two months interval, after 
 all things are agreed upon, to make preparations for leaving home. Such 
 are my duties and my numerous responsibilities, that I cannot in a few 
 days obtain leave of absence. I intimated to you my desire of having the 
 discussion during our vacation ; but you seem to pass it over without notice. 
 I must make my arrangements in a few days for the vacation, and it will 
 depend upon the promptness and the distinctness of your reply, whether my 
 arrangements can be made to permit my attendance during vacation or 
 after it, sooner than late in September or October. I am pleased to be able 
 to say, from the retrospect of the past, that this long delay in bringing 
 these matters to a close, is neither of my option nor creation. 
 
 With all due respect, I remain yours, &c. A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Elder A.Campbell: — Yours of the 24th has been received. You are 
 anxious to know the premises from which I concluded that you are resolved 
 to avoid this discussion. It is, I believe, universally admitted that a man 
 can give no more unequivocal evidence of his purpose to avoid a contest, 
 than by insisting on extraordinary and unequal terms of fight. This evi- 
 dence you have abundantly afforded. 
 
 You assert that I, in our interview at Richmond, gave a pledge that Mr. 
 Young should be your opponent, in case of a debate occurring. I will dis- 
 prove this assertion by your own testimony. In your Harbinger for Novem- 
 ber, you state, that you consented to attend the meeting at Lexington, 
 41 provided only, that if we should go into a regular debate, that out of the 
 most respectable of said delegation one be selected whose authority with 
 the people was highest in the state — such as the president of their college 
 at Danville, and with such a person I would go into a regular debate,' 1 
 &c. Is this not singular language in which to express the fact, that 
 you were to debate with president Young, and no other 1 Why did you not 
 say ({ Provided only, that if we should go into a regular debate, I should have 
 the president of their college as my opponent'?" This would have been a 
 totally different thing, for then there could be no selection at all, " out of the 
 most respectable of said delegation." But you have recently given a second 
 version of this matter, plainly contradictory of the first. In the Harbinger 
 for April, you say — " And in the event of the conference not coming to an 
 agreement, I would go into single combat with a certain gentleman then 
 named," &c. Now, Mr. Campbell, can you reconcile these two statements ? 
 According to the first, the debater on our side was to be selected out of the 
 
 c2 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 most respectable individuals of the delegation ; according to the second, 
 there was to be no such selection, but you were to debate with a certain 
 gentleman then named. It is absolutely impossible that both can be true. 
 Your first version is doubtless nearer the truth, and it plainly contradicts 
 your assertion concerning a pledge, that Mr. IToung should be your opponent. 
 
 The following declarations are certainly marvellous. " In my letter of 
 Nov. 16th, it is written, I will debate with one person only, and then named 
 president Young, as such a person. You immediately responded, you shall 
 have him, as you did not doubt but the synod would select him." Now, 
 Mr. Campbell, the synod met early in October. How then could I have 
 answered your letter of Nov. 16, by saying, I did not doubt that the synod 
 would appoint brother Young, one month after its adjournment 1 In my 
 letter, Dec. 8th, I stated as a reason why we could not accommodate you in 
 your wish to debate with Mr. Young, that there was at that time, no proba- 
 bility of his being able to engage in such a debate with you, and this you 
 (by what process I cannot imagine) convert into an affirmation that he was 
 to have done sol And you ask why I did not undeceive you, when in your 
 letter of December 15th, you brought up this matter ! Why, sir, by exam- 
 ination of the Harbinger for November, you could easily undeceive yourself. 
 Besides, in that letter you placed an obstacle in the way, which I supposed 
 would prevent the proposed discussion, and speedily close our correspon- 
 dence ; which was a sufficient reason why I deemed it unnecessary to say 
 any thing about the particular arrangement, until your objection should be 
 withdrawn. In March I informed you, that brother Young's health was 
 much improved, and, therefore, he would be able to be present as one of the 
 five on our side, the only thing I have pledged him to do ; and this again is 
 strangely perverted. But your first version of the matter, may stand 
 against what you now say. 
 
 But you have, as you imagine, placed me in quite a sad dilemma, and 
 with an air of triumph, you say, " extricate yourself if you can." You 
 begin thus : " Either you agreed at synod that Mr. Rice or Mr. Young 
 should be the man ; if the latter — " Stop, Mr. C, we did not agree at synod 
 either that Mr. Rice or Mr. Young should be the man. One of the five 
 selected at synod lived at a distance of several hundred miles, and we did 
 not choose to appoint one of our number to debate without conferring with 
 him. On writing to him, we ascertained that he could not be with us at 
 the proposed discussion ; and you objected to our filling his place with ano- 
 ther man ; we, therefore, could not properly appoint a debater until our 
 number was complete ; so your dilemma disappears. To your charge, that I 
 have, for almost a year, held up the word of promise to your ear, that you 
 should have Mr. Young, I plead not guilty, and prove that I have done no 
 such thing by Mr. Campbell himself. As early as December 8, yourself 
 being witness, I informed you that there was no probability that you could 
 have him. The man who can convert such a statement into a word of pro- 
 mise, must possess some extraordinary powers. 
 
 It is, indeed, amusing to see you insisting upon meeting no man, whom 
 you are not pleased to think, " all Kentucky " considers the very politest and 
 most accomplished gentleman in the Presbyterian ranks. With you, it is 
 not enough that your opponent should be regarded by his church as a 
 scholar, a theologian, and a christian gentleman : he must be superlatively 
 polite and accomplished; and we must produce witnesses to prove him 
 such! ! ! Really, sir, this strikes me as an extraordinary, and, I think, a 
 most Tidiculous demand — a demand too, which necessarily implies a claim on 
 your part, to be superlatively polite and accomplished. In view of such 
 claims, I presume we must all on our side, retire from the contest, since we 
 claim to be nothing more than christian gentlemen. But if I can under- 
 stand you, you do not insist now upon meeting Mr. Young — you desire our 
 "strongest and most accomplished man, whether in Kentucky or out of it." 
 Well, are you to select the man, or to judge who shall defend our cause ; or 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 31 
 
 shall we ? If you say you are to select him, there is an end of the matter. 
 Why, sir, if you will allow me to get your chief men into a discussion, and 
 then select from your body the man whom I may choose to consider emi- 
 nently polite and accomplished, &c. ; I can demolish your cause at any 
 time. I can select a man, as you insist on doing, whose want of health 
 makes it impossible for him to do justice to it ; or who from some other 
 cause, is inadequate to the work. I have never known a man who had not 
 courage enough to fight, if he might be permitted to select his man. You 
 may very safely propose to wait till Mr. Young's health may enable him to 
 go through such a debate, since he has long been in feeble health, and more 
 than once at death's door ; and since there is no probability that at any 
 early day he will be able to encounter such labors. But if you say, we are 
 to select the man, who shall defend our cause, we are ready for you. 
 
 But you desire " at least another witness or two," that he is our strongest 
 man ; and the reason you assign for this wish, may constitute a part of the 
 evidence of the propriety of your claim, to meet no man who is not exquis- 
 itely courteous and polite ! I cannot so far forget what is due to myself, as 
 to reply to your remarks. But, sir, we are Jive in number, and the gentle- 
 man who is ready to debate with you, has been selected by four of us, of 
 whom Mr. Young is one. So you have quite as many witnesses as you 
 desire. If you say, you will not condescend to meet the man of our selec- 
 tion, you at once close the correspondence. The matter may as well be 
 settled at once. We have selected the man, to whose hands we think 
 proper to commit the defence of our cause. His standing is well known, 
 both in Kentucky and out of it. We will not select another. You can 
 either debate with him, or retreat from the discussion. 
 
 As to the propositions for discussion, whilst we should have been pleased 
 to see you willing to defend your doctrines, as stated by yourself; perhaps, 
 however, we ought to give you some advantages — we will, therefore, accept 
 of your proposition on the design of baptism, and on the influences of the 
 Spirit — with a slight verbal alteration of the latter, reserving, of course, 
 the right to explain the meaning of the questions by your publications. 
 The proposition on the design of baptism, which we accept, is as follows: 
 
 1. Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. 
 
 The question on the influence of the Spirit, we accept, as follows : 
 
 2. The Spirit of God operates on persons, only through the Word. 
 
 I hope you will not shrink from the defence of your doctrine, in regard 
 to the administrator of baptism. It involves the validity of the ordinance. 
 How you can consider it as " a very small affair " I do not know. The Pres- 
 byterian church certainly regards it as of very great importance. From a 
 remark in my last letter, your deduction relative to the comparative merits 
 of Rev. Mr. Young, if at all allowable, is not such as I intended. Unac- 
 customed to polemic correspondence, I may have expressed myself ambigu- 
 ously or incautiously, in many respects. I recognize no man as his superior. 
 Tis true, his experience in oral controversy is not equal to some others, yet 
 if his health would justify, the cause of truth could not be committed to 
 abler hands. 
 
 You seem in a late publication to congratulate yourself, in view of the 
 fact, that the discussion has not been procrastinated by any delay on your 
 part, (one instance only excepted, and that unavoidable,) but that the delay 
 is wholly attributable to me. I presume the correspondence, (if ever publish- 
 ed) will present the facts. However, I do not suppose that even Mr. Camp- 
 bell himself, would expect one who is neither a president, nor the occupant 
 of a point more prominent than Paris, but only a village Pastor, inexpe- 
 rienced in ecclesiastical polemics, to compete with him, either in despatch^ 
 or any thing else involved in such a correspondence. But, sir, if the discus- 
 sion has not been delayed by you for this reason, the community may yet 
 have the opportunity of judging whether other, and more important reasons, 
 of delay are not attributable to Mr. C. himself. 
 
32 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 I do not think it important to reply to your tedious remarks, in defence 
 of your offensive language in a former letter. Perhaps I ought to be amused 
 at your gravely talking about rumors, that I never intended to debate with 
 you. Rumors about what I intend!!! I rather think you are pretty 
 thoroughly convinced, that the rumors about my intentions, so far as the 
 debate is concerned, are untrue. Respectfully, JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Bethany, Va., June 25, 1843. 
 Elder J. H. Brown: 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 16th lies before me. Our college examination 
 prevented my reply on the day of its arrival. I hasten, however, to re- 
 spond before our next mail. 
 
 I know not whether the imputation of my insisting on "extraordinary 
 and unequal terms of fight," or the evidence by which you would sustain it, 
 be the more eminently amusing and ridiculous. You cannot, Mr. Brown, 
 make even one Presbyterian in a hundred believe it. That you gave a 
 pledge that I should have Mr. Young for an opponent is just as certain to 
 me as that I saw you in Richmond last August ; and you have not brought, 
 nor can you bring, one particle of evidence to disprove it. 
 
 The passages quoted from the November and April Harbinger are most 
 illogically applied. No passage of Scripture, alledged in proof of transub- 
 stantiation or infant affusion, was ever more glaringly perverted and mis- 
 construed than those two passages. In the general and passing notice of 
 your call upon me at Richmond, to which you allude in the November num- 
 ber, is it not distinctly stated that I specified Mr. Young as, in my esteem, 
 the most prominent man in your denomination, and named him as a condi- 
 tion of my attendance on the proposed discussion] And had you quoted in 
 your epistle, evidently designed for the public eye, the whole passage, it 
 would have been an evidence of, and not against, the truth of my present 
 position. The very next sentence says, " To all of which Mr. Brown most 
 readily assented." To have been more definite or precise in such a notice 
 would have been wholly out of place. It seems to me, at least, rather 
 singular, amongst candid and honorable men, that Mr. Brown, while deny- 
 ing the pledge, should so accidentally suppress the sentence that affirms it. 
 
 But to make out of this a contradiction from any thing written in my 
 April number, would seem to require the genius and the daring of Ignatius 
 Loyola himself. Without note or comment, the words themselves clearly 
 indicate all that I have constantly affirmed. " And," said I, " in the event 
 of the conference not coming to an agreement, I would go into single com- 
 bat with a gentleman then named.'"' Now I ask every candid man of every 
 party, in what terms could I have more perspicuously affirmed the essential 
 provision, that I should have Mr. Young, and your assent to it, than in the 
 words above quoted, in all the circumstances which called them forth? 
 
 The recklessness of these attempts at constructive contradiction is only 
 surpassed by the still more glaring attempt to make my November letter 
 read as though it had been written before the meeting of synod. My state- 
 ment of what was agreed upon on a prior occasion, is converted into a new 
 proposition then presented ! ! Surely, Mr. Brown, you do great injustice 
 to your own understanding. Why, sir, it looks more like the trick of a 
 schoolboy than the grave and self-respectful product of a Presbyterian cler- 
 gyman. Yet you are constrained to admit that you suffered the illusion to 
 deceive me till in your March letter, written after full two months' delibe- 
 ration ! But you get out of the dilemma by breaking its horns : you deny 
 that either Mr. Rice or Mr. Young was selected at the meeting of synod — 
 absolutely, you must mean ; for that such was the understanding you will 
 not certainly deny. All reflecting persons will understand how you get out 
 of this dilemma: — It is one thing absolutely to say that Mr. Rice or Mr. 
 Young should be the man ; and another, to have an understanding that in e. 
 certain event he should be the man. Is not this the truth, Mr. Brown? 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 33 
 
 You have been most singularly unfortunate in every attempt, in this most 
 elaborate apologetic epistle, to extricate yourself from the unenviable atti- 
 tude in which you must appear to stand before a discerning community. 
 Your uncalled for quizzical allusions to the "very politest gentleman" in 
 your ranks, is worthy of the ingenuity that placed allusions to antecedent 
 matters, in my November Harbinger, in the attitude of present history. 
 Every thing else being equal, I do certainly prefer, in an antagonist, a 
 courteous well bred christian gentleman, and I care not who knows it. If 
 such be the character of Mr. Rice, or any one else elected by your church, 
 I shall be happy to meet him. If he be not, you are just as much disgraced 
 as I may be annoyed by his rudeness. 
 
 The perfection of your climax of suicidal aberrations, as it seems to me, 
 is your representation of me as seeking a weak man instead of a strong one. 
 Mr. Young must certainly be indebted to you for the new honors you have 
 added to his doctorate. I choose a weak man then, it seems, like a coward^ 
 in choosing Mr. Young ! and you want to give me a strong man ! ! As I 
 before said of Mr, Young, if withdrawn on the ground of ill health, I sym- 
 pathize with him, and am willing to wait his recovery. But recollect, sir, 
 the plea of physical inability will not stand in the presence of a proposition 
 to await his restoration to such health as he enjoyed when first you offered 
 him. The public will no doubt properly estimate the matter. 
 
 Well, now, as you have finally tendered your grand ultimatum, an une- 
 quivocal sine qua non, uncommitted and untrammeled as I am, I cannot but 
 feel the responsibility in which you place me. The case, as you now make 
 it, is : Five men were chosen by the ministers of the Presbyterian church 
 of Kentucky, met at synod last October, and these five have chosen one of 
 themselves, by agreement of said ministers at synod, to represent the de- 
 nomination, supported by themselves, in council assembled, in a discussion* 
 of the leading points at issue between Presbyterians and our brethren in 
 that state and elsewhere. And this arrangement, or no discussion, being 
 now tendered, I have to choose between these alternatives. In view of all 
 my responsibilities, I resolve, the Lord willing, to meet said representative 
 of that church and conference, (my brethren in Kentucky so concurring,) 
 to discuss those points at issue, as comprehended in the following six pro- 
 positions, four of which are now agreed upon, viz. : 
 
 I. I affirm that immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name 
 of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the action ordained by Jesus 
 Christ as the one only christian baptism. This you deny ; affirming that 
 sprinkling or pouring water, on a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism. r 
 
 II. You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject 
 of baptism. This I deny ; affirming that a professed believer of the gospel 
 is the only proper subject of baptism. 
 
 III. I affirm that, to a believing penitent, baptism is for the remission 
 of past sins. This you deny. 
 
 IV. You affirm that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or 
 ordained presbyter. This I deny. 
 
 V. I affirm that the Spirit of God, in conversion, operates on persons 
 only through the word of truth. 
 
 VI. You affirm that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is the 
 constitution of Christ's church : or, you affirm that a human creed, such as 
 the Westminster, is essential to the existence, unity and peace of the 
 church. Both of these I deny. 
 
 Thus, sir, I have conceded to you the proposition concerning the admin- 
 istration of baptism, and have arranged them in the natural and logical 
 order of debate : — 1st, the action, or thing to be done, in the name of the 
 Lord ; 2d, the person on whom; 3d, the design for which ; and 4th, the per- 
 son by whom it may of right be performed. To this order I presume no 
 person can object. I have also, to expedite an issue, conceded another 
 point, viz. the omission of the question about the Lord's supper. I have, 
 3 
 
34 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 in thus drawing them out, supplied the ellipsis, but have not changed a 
 single iota known to me in our respective positions to these great ques- 
 tions. 
 
 As the arrangements concerning the taking down of the discussion and 
 the publication of it, are not only important, but may require some time, 
 may I expect a speedy answer to the above. I must moreover decide upon 
 my course of action during vacation in a few days. I therefore earnestly 
 request an immediate answer. If it arrives not in the same space of time 
 occupied by my reply to your last, I cannot possibly attend to the discus- 
 sion during vacation. Meantime I will write to my brethren in Kentucky, 
 for their acquiescence on the first subject as aforesaid. Other preliminary 
 rules are to be adopted, and arrangements made for conducting the debate 
 with all decorum, which will require some time. 
 
 Respectfully, your friend, A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Richmond, Ky., July 7, 1843. 
 
 Elder Campbell — Yours of June 25th is received. If you should ever 
 be able to reconcile the statement, that of five men, one was to be selected 
 to meet you in debate, with your recent declaration, that there was to be no 
 selection at all, but that a certain individual then named, was to meet you, 
 I shall be constrained to acknowledge, that you possess some original pow- 
 ers of mind ! That I agreed that you should have Mr. Young, as one of the 
 five individuals on our side, is not denied ; but to prove that, without ever 
 having conferred with him on the subject, I pledged him to go through such 
 a discussion as the one contemplated — a kind of employment in which he 
 had never engaged, and for which his feeble health would, to a great extent, 
 disqualify him — will require more evidence than you will ever be able to 
 produce. When you represent me as intimating or admitting, that in 
 choosing Mr. Young, you chose a " weak man," can you imagine, that any 
 one, on reading this correspondence, will believe what yon say % My re- 
 marks in previous letters, flatly contradict it; and his reputation makes a 
 defence of his talents and scholarship wholly unnecessary. Your willing- 
 ness to await his recovery, after what you knew of the state of his health, 
 only proves your disposition indefinitely to postpone the discussion. 
 
 Since your fancied "dilemma" disappeared upon the statement of the 
 facts, in reference to the selection of Mr. Rice or Mr. Young at synod, you 
 resort to a most singular expedient to sustain your position. You say 
 " That such was the understanding, [that Young or Rice should meet you} 
 jq,\i certainly will not deny. Is not this the truth, Mr. Brown 1" When 
 a gentleman undertakes to place another in a dilemma, by assuming things 
 to be true of which, in the nature of the case, he can know absolutely 
 nothing, and when, on finding his mistake, he resorts to catechising 1 in order 
 to elicit something favorable to his wishes ; I rather think, he is, if not in 
 a " dilemma," at least in an unpleasant predicament ! 
 
 I am truly gratified, however, that you have at length felt constrained to 
 withdraw your extraordinary claim to select your opponent in debate, and to 
 agree to meet the man of our selection, without further testimonials in 
 regard to his ability, or his extraordinary politeness ! ! 
 
 We will endeavor to accommodate you with " a courteous, well-bied, 
 christian gentleman" — one, who we trust and believe, will not mortify us 
 by so far disregarding the established rules of courtesy, as Mr. Campbell 
 has repeatedly done in this correspondence. 
 
 In regard to the selection of the individuals on our part, my statements 
 have been so repeated and so distinct, that I cannot imagine any thing more 
 necessary on that point, however objectionable some of your representations 
 may be. 
 
 Your 6th proposition, in both forms, is decidedly objectionable. We 
 choose to debate it as presented in your letter of Dec. 15th, viz : " Human 
 creeds, as bonds of union and communion; are necessarily heretical and 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 35 
 
 schismatical " — unless you agree to the modification already suggested, viz : 
 " The using of creeds, except the Scriptures, is necessarily heretical and 
 schismatical." We prefer the modified form of it ; but if you object, we 
 will not insist upon it. Then, in order to give an equal number of affirm- 
 atives and negatives to each party ; the first question can be thrown into 
 the form already agreed upon, viz : "Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a 
 suitable subject, is scriptural baptism." 
 
 Your fifth proposition is not quite satisfactory. We are willing to take 
 it as presented in your last letter, with a slight verbal alteration suggested 
 in my reply, and which you have made. Then it will stand thus : " The 
 Spirit of God operates on persons only through the Word." 
 
 Now. since you have all the propositions, in almost the precise language 
 chosen by yourself, I hope this matter may be considered as settled. 
 
 Brother Rice will withdraw from the committee of arrangements, and 
 brother J. K. Burch and myself will constitute that committee. This 
 change is made in view of remarks made in your letter of May 24th — 
 and in view of the fact, that Mr. Rice will be your opponent in debate. 
 We are prepared to meet your committee, at any time mutually agreed 
 upon, and to make all necessary arrangements. Respectfully, &c. 
 
 JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Bethany, Va., July 13, 1843. 
 Elder Brown : 
 
 Your very courteous letter of the 7th inst. lies before me. Your reitera- 
 tion concerning Mr. Young, and your polite allusion to my reasonable 
 demands for a respectable opponent, I shall hereafter expect as a part of 
 every epistle for the next six months. To these matters I shall hereafter 
 pay no attention. If any testimony is wanting concerning your promises 
 in reference to Mr. Young, I have recently learned that such testimony 
 (living and unexceptionable) to all my allegations can be had. 
 
 I have said, for the next six months ; for it appears nothing is yet fixed. 
 The arrangement of the propositions concerning baptism, it would seem 
 from allusions to the first, found in your letter before me, is yet to be made. 
 In endeavoring to find our relative positions to points at issue, — what you 
 affirmed and what I affirmed, — and thus to ascertain the subjects and num- 
 ber of topics, I did not imagine that either the order in which these sub- 
 jects were named, or the affirmative or negative forms in which they were 
 expressed, was to be that of discussion. Hence, in my last, after hearing 
 all the explanations, statements, amendments and objections, I drew out in 
 order and form the propositions, and our positions to them, which fairly ex- 
 hibit our standing before the community on these points. 
 
 These six propositions were : 
 
 I. I affirm that immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name 
 of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the action ordained by Jesus 
 Christ as the one only christian baptism. 
 
 II. You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject 
 of baptism. 
 
 HI. I affirm that, to a believing penitent, baptism is for the remission 
 of past sins. 
 
 IV. You affirm that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or 
 ordained presbyter. 
 
 V. I affirm that, in conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God ope- 
 rates on persons only through the word of truth. 
 
 VI. You affirm that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is the 
 constitution of Christ's church. 
 
 To the last you object, and prefer an expression of my views of creeds 
 found in former communications. That expression covers not the whole 
 ground of my dissent from creeds ecclesiastic. You will then affirm your 
 views of your creed as essential to the unity, purity and peace of the 
 
36 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 church, and I will take the negative. This is the only point undefined be- 
 tween us, so far as the six propositions go. I desire the privilege of affirm- 
 ing what I teach in my own words, and extend the same to you. But on 
 those points on which we have fully expressed our views, — namely, the first 
 Jive propositions, — I think it is time we had done. You need not protract 
 the time for the sake of any changes in the propositions, since I will sus- 
 tain my real position and no other. Besides, no committee shall choose 
 propositions for me, nor the mode of discussing them. You have more than 
 once offered your sine qua non, your grand ultimatum: it is time for me to 
 commence. 
 
 As I expect to be in Lexington from the 1st to the 6th of August, I have 
 no objections to your making Mr. Rice one of the committee to meet my- 
 self and another person or two for arrangements of the laws and etiquette 
 of the debate, as well as the mode of reporting and publishing. This will 
 save much time in correspondence. Please address me there, to the care of 
 Mr. Ficklin. 
 
 In very much haste, and with all due respect, 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Richmond, July 29, 1843. 
 Elder A. Campbell: 
 
 Dear Sir — Your communication of the 13th is now before me. Only the 
 closing paragraph demands attention. In this you propose that Mr. Rice 
 be made one of the committee, to meet you, and another person or two, in 
 Lexington, between the 1st and 6th of August, for the arrangement of pre- 
 liminaries, preparatory to discussion. To this proposition I am requested 
 to address you at Lexington, to the care of Mr. Ficklin. 
 
 I have postponed a reply, awaiting the return of Mr. Rice from Nashville* 
 I expected him to have been at my house on the 27th, to assist me m the 
 services of a protracted meeting ; but in this I have been disappointed, his 
 stay at Nashville having been unexpectedly protracted. I still expect him, 
 and hope he will arrive to-day. If so, the arrangement you propose will 
 be acceded to. If not, Mr. Burch and myself will meet your committee at 
 Lexington, on Friday, the 4th of August, if in accordance with your 
 wishes. I have postponed a reply to the last hour, expecting the arrival of 
 Mr. Rice. Time, therefore, will allow me to reply only to this single pro- 
 position ; other matters in your communication will be attended to at no 
 very distant day. Please reply by return of mail. Respectfully, 
 
 JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 Richmond, July 31, 1843. 
 
 Elder A. Campbell — Since I replied to your last letter, brother Rice 
 has returned from Nashville, and in accordance with your wish, he will be 
 added to the committee on our part, and he, Mr. Burch, and myself, will 
 meet you and your committee in Lexington, on Thursday afternoon, at 3 
 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Until I received your last letter, I supposed the propositions for discussion 
 might be considered as settled, since I had accepted them as stated by your- 
 self, with merely slight verbal alterations, to almost all of which you had 
 agreed. But I am not a little surprised to learn from your last letter, that 
 you are unwilling to debate your own propositions ! ! ! On the mode of bap- 
 tism you proposed the following, which, with a small change, to which you 
 agreed, was accepted by me, viz : " Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a 
 suitable subject, is scriptural baptism." You now, after both parties have 
 agreed to the above proposition, offer another quite different in form. What 
 does this mean] In relation to the. subject, the design, and the administra- 
 tor of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, we are agreed on the proposition 
 to be debated. 
 
 On the subject of creeds, we have agreed to discuss your own proposition, 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 37 
 
 viz : " Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily 
 heretical and schismatical." But you now inform me, that this proposi- 
 tion, stated by yourself for discussion, covers not the whole ground of your 
 dissent from " creeds ecclesiastic,"' and you propose the following: " You 
 [I] affirm, that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is the constitu- 
 tion of Christ's church." And does this proposition really cover the whole 
 ground of your objection to creeds ecclesiastic ] Is it true that all that you 
 affirmed against creeds, amounts only to this — that the constitution of the 
 Presbyterian church is not the constitution of the church of Christ 1 Or 
 have you not gone on a crusade against all creeds, because they " supplanted 
 the Bible, made the Word of God of non-effect, were fatal to the intelligence, 
 purity, union, holiness, and happiness of the disciples of Christ, and hostile 
 to the salvation of the world V — Chris. Sys. p. 9. These and many such 
 things, you have affirmed concerning the use of creeds. You say, " I desire 
 the privilege of affirming what I teach." Now, my dear sir, we have 
 accepted your own proposition, thus affording you the opportunity of affirm- 
 ing and proving, what you have so constantly, and so loudly, affirmed and 
 taught ; and mirabile dictu ! — you decline affirming, or attempting to prove 
 it, and desire us to affirm a totally different proposition, not at all covering 
 the ground of your published sentiments ! This procedure does strike me 
 as marvellous in the extreme. You have before declined discussing the 
 doctrine of the influences of the Spirit, as published in one of your most 
 important books; and now you are unwilling to discuss a proposition of 
 your own forming! I must insist now, that you defend your own proposi- 
 tion. I cannot accept a totally different one in place of it. 
 
 But it seems that all this while we have been engaged, not in settling 
 propositions, as they were to be debated but only in " hearing all the 
 explanations, statements, amendments, and objections." Yet propositions 
 were stated, verbal or other alterations suggested and agreed to. Still, 
 although the precise language of the propositions was agreed upon, you now 
 feel at liberty to begin de novo, and restate them in different form ; or to 
 state entirely new propositions ! To this twisting and turning you must 
 allow me decidedly to object- 
 In a word, we have accepted your propositions, and we are now prepared 
 to arrange other preliminaries, and to enter upon the discussion at the 
 earliest convenience of the parties concerned. 
 
 In regard to the testimony, of which you speak, in reference to your 
 allegation, I will now only say, I am prepared to meet it. Hoping to see 
 you on Thursday next, I remain yours, &c. J. H. BROWN. 
 
 N- B. We will be at the residence of Rev. J. K. Burch, at the hour 
 specified above, and will receive any communication you may deem expe- 
 dient. 
 
 Lexington, Ky., August 2, 1843. 
 Elder J. H. Brown : 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 31st ult. is just to hand. I am not unwilling to 
 debate my own propositions. Propositions submitted by me to elicit your 
 position, and to ascertain your views, are not, however, my own proposi- 
 tions. Had you been willing that I should have debated my own proposi- 
 tions, a single letter would have been sufficient to settle the whole issue of 
 debate. In the six propositions, so often and so variously propounded to 
 ascertain the true issue, but one of them is exactly my own proposition. 
 True, I have elicited the attitude you wish to maintain^ and such as you 
 would desire me to maintain ; but this is a very different thing from my 
 having obtained my own propositions, or my having absolutely agreed to 
 discuss a single proposition, the verbiage of which you have at all inter- 
 fered with. My approval of any proposition, so far as expressed, has al- 
 ways been prospective of the amicable settlement of the whole issue. I 
 was willing, however, and am still willing, to distribute the four proposi- 
 tions on baptism as expressed in my last, which are in exact accordance 
 
 D 
 
38 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 with our respective positions as before defined ; but I am not willing to 
 give you three affirmative propositions out of four, and even then not have 
 my single affirmative in my own words ! ! 
 
 I confess I was not prepared to expect such exorbitant demands at the 
 hands of my Presbyterian friends, especially after conceding so much to 
 their views of expediency. Called upon for a discussion of my views as 
 opposed to Presbyterianism, and pressed into this debate, as I have been, 
 by your importunities, I was prepared to expect the privilege of propound- 
 ing my own propositions in my own words, and to expect that such chival 
 rous spirits as the sons of the Solemn League and Covenant would manfully 
 stand up to their own tenets and defend their own true and veritable position 
 before this community, and allow me to defend and assail in regular turn. 
 But what is my disappointment, after one year's diplomatic negotiation, to 
 find them claiming three out of four propositions, and thus refusing me an 
 opportunity to sustain my proper attitude in this long protracted contro- 
 versy. I never can yield to demands so arbitrary and unequal. If, then, I 
 have given opportunity and latitude to ascertain what advantages would be 
 sought, and how promptly you and your brethren would assume the defence 
 of your own tenets and assail mine, I am not to be understood as agreeing 
 to place myself three times in the mere negative of your tenets on baptism, 
 since I have been summoned by you to stand up to the defence of my own 
 teaching. I must affirm my views on at least the two main points in 
 which I have been most assailed by Presbyterians. This is not only just 
 and equals but it is my special right, coming into this discussion as I do. 
 
 Besides all these considerations, obvious and imperative though they be, 
 I have others, affecting not only these, but the other propositions submit- 
 ted, which in harmony with our original stipulations, are entitled to your 
 special regard. You represent 'a denomination : so do i. You have had 
 frequent consultations among yourselves : / have not had one with my 
 brethren till my arrival in this city. From them I have learned how we, 
 as a denomination, have been assailed, both in Kentucky and Tennessee, 
 by your representative Mr. Rice. From the facts stated, and the represen- 
 tations given, to meet the objects of this discussion, it will also be expe- 
 dient and necessary that the proposition concerning the Spirit, and that 
 concerning creeds, shall be more full than before propounded. According 
 to the views of such as have conferred with me, it is requisite that your 
 views of Spiritual influence, regeneration, &c, so far as they differ from 
 ours, should be fully developed and discussed. I should, therefore, amplify 
 the proposition already before us, so as to bring all our views, and yours, 
 fully before the community, thus : The Spirit of God, without any previous, 
 special, separate, spiritual operation on the mind, illumination, or call, is 
 known, believed, received, and enjoyed, through the word of God; which 
 word is the only and all-sufficient instrument through which sinners attain the 
 knowledge of God, are converted, sanctified, and obtain the true religion 
 As respects creeds, I affirm that human, authoritative creeds, superadded to 
 the Bible, are an insult to its Author, unphilosophical in their nature, schis- 
 matic in their tendencies, and retard the conversion of the world. But as you 
 may claim a negative attitude in the discussion of this point, I consent to 
 your framing any proposition that precisely and fully negatives the above. 
 
 I should be pleased to add one or two other propositions : — one concern^ 
 ing the weekly observance of the ordinance of the supper ; and one con- 
 cerning the constitution of the Presbyterian church ; but leave this mat- 
 ter wholly to your own discretion. 
 
 I am sorry to state that the misconstructions and misrepresentations 
 which have reached my ears from various quarters, together with the spirit 
 and details of your letter now lying before me, recommend to me the expe- 
 diency of settling all the important preliminaries by writing, rather than 
 by a personal interview. I therefore state distinctly, that of the six propo- 
 sitions I claim the 1st, 3d and 5th, as before stated, viz. : 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 39 
 
 I. That the immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name of the 
 Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the one only apostolic or christian 
 baptism. 
 
 III. That, to a proper subject, baptism is for induction into the christian 
 covenant, or for the remission of sins. 
 
 V. "The Spirit," &c, as above expressed. 
 
 Should you think proper to place my proposition on creeds before that on 
 the Spirit, and allow me to affirm it, and then select one indicative of your 
 full views on the Spirit expressed in your own words, or in those of your 
 creed, and allow me to negative it, you shall have my consent. As I sin- 
 cerely desire a frank, candid and friendly interview, I am willing to allow 
 you a full expression of your tenets in the best terms you can select. I 
 only state distinctly, that if there be but six propositions, I shall have three 
 affirmatives, as aforesaid, and that you shall have three. I claim the action 
 and design of baptism, and either that on the Spirit or creeds, as you please. 
 If to these fair and equitable terms you agree, I am prepared to go into other 
 preliminary arrangements immediately. If not, say so, and the matter ends. 
 
 I sincerely and solemnly profess to go for truth, and not for victory, — for 
 truth indeed, and victory, — for the Bible, and its triumph over all rivals. 
 And if you can concur with us in such views and feelings, I think we ought 
 to agree to spend the day antecedent to the commencement of the discus- 
 sion in prayer and fasting. All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Please address me at Mr. Henry Bell's. 
 
 With all due respect, yours, &c. A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Lexington, August 3, 1843. 
 
 Elder A. Campbell — Yours of the 2nd is before me. It contains 
 information curious, if not instructive, viz: that propositions submitted for 
 debate by Mr. Campbell, are not his own propositions!!! Then, pray, 
 whose are they ? But it seems, that you submitted them to elicit my posi- 
 tion, &c. Is it true, then, that you submitted for rny consideration propo- 
 sitions which you knew did not correctly present our relative positions, in 
 order to ascertain my views ? If they do correctly represent the ground of 
 difference, why do you now insist on changing them ? If they do not, why 
 were they offered ? Why did you not offer such propositions as you were 
 willing to discuss J This is, indeed, a new species of military tactics ! 
 
 But surely your memory fails you ; for in your letter of Nov. 17, you state 
 six propositions for debate, and then remark, " I will discuss these in single 
 debate" &cc. Again, in your letter of Dec. 15, after stating six proposi- 
 tions yon say, "I regard the above as a candid and definite expression of 
 our relative positions on these six points," &c. And yet you tell us, these 
 are not your own propositions ; and some of them you refuse to debate ! Nay 
 more, we accepted your sixth proposition, in the letter of Dec. 15th, with- 
 out even insisting on the slightest verbal alteration, and then, behold, Mr. 
 C. informs us, " that expression covers not the whole ground of his dissent 
 from creeds ecclesiastic," and proposes to introduce another proposition, 
 wholly different, which does not even touch the question of the lawfulness 
 of creeds ! ! ! Again, in yours of July 13th, you state, that the only point 
 really undefined between us is that concerning creeds, on which we had 
 accepted your own proposition! — and then remark, "but on those points 
 on which we have fully expressed our views — namely, the first Jive proposi- 
 tions, I think it is time we had done." But what do I see in your letter 
 now before me) Another proposition on the work of the Spirit, entirely 
 new and wholly unintelligible in its phraseology! Your next epistle will, 
 probably, insist on other propositions, different from all these 1 Alas for 
 the cause that requires such manoeuvring extraordinary to sustain it. 
 
 But can we understand you ) You tell me you did not absolutely agree 
 to discuss a single proposition, the verbiage of which I have at all inter- 
 fered with. Of course, then, you are absolutely pledged to discuss those 
 
40 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 questions, the verbiage of which we have not interfered with, except with 
 your consent ; for when you accepted proposed amendments, the propositions 
 as amended, were your own — such as you were bound to discuss. Now look 
 at the following : 
 
 1. Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural bap- 
 tism. To this proposition, as originally offered by you, we proposed a verbal 
 alteration, to which you cheerfully agreed. This proposition, therefore, 
 according to your own showing, you are bound to debate. 
 
 2. The infant of a believing parent, is a scriptural subject of baptism. 
 This was accepted without alteration. Of course, it is settled. 
 
 3. Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. This also had been 
 accepted without change — it is settled. 
 
 4. Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop, or ordained Presbyter. 
 Accepted in your own language, without change — it is settled. 
 
 5. In conversion and sanctification the Spirit of God operates on persons 
 only through the word of truth. Accepted in the precise language used in 
 your letter of July 13th. This is settled. 
 
 6. Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily 
 heretical and schismatical. Accepted in the precise language of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, (see his letter of Dec. 15th) without the slightest change ; and that 
 language Mr. Campbell has declared to be " a candid and definite expres- 
 sion^ of our differences on this point. This, too, is settled. Every propo- 
 sition has been accepted, either in your precise language, or with slight 
 verbal changes, to which you have agreed! Yet Mr. Campbell is not satis- 
 fied !! I 
 
 But you say, you are not willing to give us three affirmative propositions 
 out of four, on the subject of baptism. Yet, in your letter of Dec. 15th, 
 you say, there are three great topics, which have occupied the public atten- 
 tion for some twenty-five years, so far as your reformation is concerned, 
 viz : the ordinances of Christianity, the essential elements of the gospel 
 itself, and the influence of human creeds, &c. On precisely the point 
 relative to baptism, on which your reformation has been most assailed, you 
 have the affirmative. On the 2nd great point, the work of the Spirit, you 
 have the affirmative — and on the 3d great point, creeds, you have the 
 affirmative ; yet you are not satisfied with your affirmatives ! ! I 
 
 Your reformation does, indeed, call for sympathy, if it cannot sustain 
 itself, even in the hands of Mr. C, without such advantages as he demands. 
 
 And, be it observed, the matter in dispute is not merely nor chiefly the 
 affirmative and negative forms of the propositions. In your letter now be- 
 fore me, after having previously stated that on five points the propositions 
 were fully agreed on, you refuse to debate them, though proposed by your- 
 self, and present three new propositions : — one relative to the Spirit, which 
 no man who wishes the people to understand him would discuss ; one rela- 
 tive to the design of baptism, making it perfectly ambiguous ; and one rela- 
 tive to creeds, which assigns them a place (if your language is intelligible) 
 which no Protestant denomination ever did assign to them. And what has 
 led Mr. Campbell to such an unexpected and unheard of course ] Why 
 he has heard how Mr. Rice has assailed his denomination in Kentucky and 
 Tennessee ! Ah, what a dangerous man this Mr. Rice must be, that in 
 prospect of meeting him even Mr. C, after stating and re-stating his pro- 
 positions during twelve months past — propositions containing " a candid and 
 definite expression of our relative positions," finds it necessary once more 
 to re-state and mystify them as far as possible t ! 1 
 
 To these new and most extraordinary claims of Mr. C. we cannot accede. 
 We have accepted his own propositions, in his own language, or slightly 
 modified with his own consent, and in his own order ; we having three affirm- 
 atives, and he precisely as many ; he having affirmatives on the precise points 
 on which his reformation has assailed Protestant Christendom, and on which it 
 has in turn been assailed* Now, Mr. C. tells us, unless we will let him 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 4i 
 
 change his own propositions and his own arrangement, he will not enter 
 into the discussion. If we will not consent to his demands, such as in 
 public debate were never before heard of, " the matter," says he, " ends" 
 Well, it is just what we have for some time anticipated. So, after all you 
 have said of the fear of light among " the clergy," — after all this boasting 
 of the reformation of the nineteenth century, — you, the leader of the host, 
 thus signally retreat ! ! ! 
 
 We press the matter no further. If Mr. C. fears to debate his own pro- 
 positions, we are willing that the matter shall end, and that the world shall 
 know the grand result ! But upon Mr. Campbell himself the entire respon- 
 sibility of its termination must ever rest. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, JNO. H. BROWN. 
 
 P. S. — Mr. Campbell is now at liberty, should he think proper, to publish 
 the correspondence. J. H. B. 
 
 Lexington, Ky., August 4, 1843. 
 Mr. Brown : 
 
 Sir — Your letter of last night, though it fulfills the predictions of almost 
 all the prophets that have spoken to me concerning the contemplated dis- 
 cussion, is nevertheless a development which I could not have expected from 
 even Mr. Brown in reply to the epistle I have just addressed to him. I do 
 not exaggerate when I say, that of the scores of persons that have, since 
 my arrival in this state, spoken to me concerning your proposition for a 
 debate, almost all have said, that either I must concede to your party all 
 that you demand, or that I should be quibbled out of a discussion. Nay, 
 some have said, that Mr. Brown himself was actually engaged a few days 
 since in efforts to retract his having solicited and challenged my attendance 
 'to debate the points at issue between us and Presbyterians, it was believed 
 with a reference to some immediate publication of our correspondence, in 
 anticipation, I presume, of the license you have now given me to publish 
 the correspondence ! Be it so, then. But, before the final adieu, I shall 
 add one letter more, which must first go to the public before the whole cor- 
 respondence can appear. 
 
 I will not be at pains to review the letter lying before me at this time. 
 I have neither the time nor the documents. On leaving home, I forgot to 
 bring with me a single letter of our correspondence, though it had occupied 
 my attention almost at the moment of departing. And to undertake to un- 
 fold the perplexities, and to expose the dexterous and ingenious manoeuvres 
 and subterfuges with which it seems to abound, without these documents, 
 would be as imprudent, as it is now unnecessary. To enlighten one who 
 could confound the submission of a proposition with the approval of it, or an 
 agreement to discuss a special proposition, as one of an issue, in anticipation 
 of a fair and equitable adjustment of the whole issue, as absolutely binding, 
 whether the issue be as anticipated, or to convict me of dishonorable inten- 
 tions by such a mode of retreat from a debate solicited by himself, would 
 require more details than at present I have leisure for. Again, to repre- 
 sent one as introducing new propositions, when only changing an affirma- 
 tive to a negative, or a negative to an affirmative, and to make what he 
 says of topics of debate equivalent to what he says of propositions of debate, 
 and to make a single word indicating his attitude to a question identical 
 with the question itself, are efforts of ingenuity and dexterity, that require 
 corresponding efforts on the part of him who would expose them, beyond the 
 common limits of an ordinary letter. 
 
 The matter then ends here. Presbyterians proposed a discussion, and 
 promised that each party should have an equal chance in defending what it 
 taught. In making out the issue, they assign the representative of the 
 other party just as many affirmatives and negatives as they please, on what 
 topics they please, and in what order they please ! They tell him : " Sir, 
 every proposition you affirm during the whole correspondence with a refer- 
 
 d2 
 
42 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 ence to that issue, must be considered as your own ; and in the end we will 
 choose such of them as we please, arrange them as we please, — and if you 
 will not debate them, we will report and denounce you as a coward, and 
 claim for our party a glorious victory] !" This is no exaggeration. It is 
 but a fair representation of the case, which, when requisite, I will fully 
 demonstrate. 
 
 I again affirm, before heaven and earth, I did not contemplate such a de- 
 velopment. As a christian man, I sincerely desired to discuss with chris- 
 tian men what I regarded to be the true and principal points of difference. 
 I sought no advantage ; I desired no advantage. I supremely desired the 
 true issue, and sought for propositions to elicit it. If I have from time 
 to time, during the incidents and labors of a year, in reply to various com- 
 munications, proposed various forms of expressing the difference, it was 
 purely for the sake of having it clearly, tangibly and fully set forth. I 
 acted as a party in forming a covenant, during the negotiation of which 
 numerous stipulations and re-stipulations are offered, canvassed, accepted, 
 rejected, amended, &c. &c. ; but all in reference to a final agreement. 
 Nothing is binding till the whole understanding is perfect and complete. 
 Precisely so stands this matter with me. The propositions offered yester- 
 day are not new propositions. They are mere amplifications of those al- 
 ready offered, at the suggestion of those who have a right to be repre- 
 sented in this discussion, with a reference especially to this community. 
 
 I could not have imagined that intelligent, God-fearing and truth-loving 
 men, sincerely desirous of coming to the light, would seek by quibbles and 
 evasions to dodge the proper issue, or to retreat from the proposed debate^ 
 unless every word was so arranged and modified as to suit their party, or to 
 render ambiguous, conceal, or metamorphose the proper issue. 
 
 My time of life, business obligations — all forbid the waste of time in 
 engaging in frivolous or mere verbal criticisms. I was pleased to be called 
 upon by a party, for which I have always cherished a high respect, for a 
 full, manly, frank and christian-like discussion of all the great points be- 
 tween us. For this I am prepared ; but not for a mere logomachy — a wran- 
 gle — a system of special pleading, for party and sinister ends. If any point 
 were misstated, distorted, or suppressed, I desired to have it disentangled, 
 disintricated, or set forth in its proper colors and proportions. Any thing 
 from you with such intentions would, at any time, have commanded my 
 attention and acquiesence. 
 
 But, sir, to come to a close, you either intended, in the letter before me, to 
 compel me to come up to your terms, or have no discussion. You are prepar- 
 ing for a publication of the correspondence, and to represent me as backing 
 out, because, forsooth, of the prodigious champion and defender of the faith s 
 who is to represent your denomination. Do you think, Mr. Brown, you can 
 make any intelligent Presbyterian in Kentucky believe it ? If you do you 
 are more credulous than I thought. 
 
 Having, then, so far committed yourselves, as to avow that you will not 
 debate the propositions, as amplified in my last, and as I introduced no new 
 ground in the effort to present them in a more extended form, I will take, 
 rather than have no debate, the whole six propositions, as drawn up in your 
 letter before me, with the simple change of the first, on the action of bap- 
 tism, as proposed in my last. Or, if you will not grant that, and take for 
 it the negative form of the proposition on creeds, I will propose to take the 
 whole six, as you have quoted them, by changing simply the order of them, 
 which, I presume, you will not pretend to have ever been arranged. Place 
 the proposition on creeds first — that on the Spirit next — and then the four 
 on baptism. I have not, as before intimated, the correspondence with me ; 
 but of two things I feel perfectly certain, that the whole six propositions, 
 as you have stated them, were never all agreed upon as containing the 
 whole issue, nor was there ever an agreement as to the order of the topics 
 of debate. It is then wholly at your own option to do one or the other. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 43 
 
 But certainly you will not make the order of the questions, nor the change 
 of the form of a proposition, a sina qua non. 
 
 Please inform me of your determination at as early an hour as suits your 
 convenience. Respecfully yours, 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Lexington, Aug. 5, 1843. 
 
 Elder A. Campbell — We were a good deal surprised at receiving from 
 you, on yesterday afternoon, between one and two o'clock, another letter, 
 which is now before me. We were surprised, first, because your previous 
 letter declared positively, that unless we acceded to your new propositions, 
 the matter was at an end. We supposed that you meant what you said, 
 and, therefore, as we could not yield to your demands, considered the cor- 
 respondence closed. We were surprised, secondly, because you had delayed 
 to so late an hour. We were in Lexington by your invitation, to have 
 with you a personal interview. Yet after inviting us to meet you here, 
 you, in palpable violation of ordinary rules of courtesy, refused such inter- 
 view, throwing out as a reason for your course, some undefined, intangible 
 insinuations. Nevertheless, we sent a reply to your long letter in a few 
 hours after receiving it. The committee were in Lexington till 1 o'clock, 
 P. M., without hearing a word from you. I then left for Frankfort, expect- 
 ing, of course, no reply to my last. After tedious delay, however, it came 
 to hand. This fact will account for the delay of my reply. 
 
 In regard to the predictions of your " prophets," and the surmises of 
 u the scores of persons " that have spoken to you, together with what " some 
 have said" of me, I hold them all in very low esteem. There always have 
 been men who prophecied concerning things of which they were profoundly 
 ignorant; individuals, even '-"scores" of them, who judge others by them- 
 selves, and false acccusers. That such a man as Mr. C. should condescend 
 to retail such trash, can be accounted for only on the supposition, that he is 
 greatly at a loss. We stand ready to be judged by our conduct. 
 
 A part of your epistle is inimitably confused. A reply to that portion is 
 unnecessary. When you come to sum up the matter, however, the mist 
 disappears ; and we think we get your ideas. You tell us, that in making 
 out the issues for this discussion, we assign to you just as many affirmatives 
 and negatives as we please. What is the fact 1 We have precisely as 
 many affirmatives and negatives as Mr. C, and no more ! But you say, we 
 assign you the affirmatives and negatives on what topics we please. What 
 is the fact 1 We have three affirmatives on precisely the topics on which 
 Mr. C. gave them to us. On the mode, the subject, and the administrator 
 of baptism, you never once offered us a negative, until after we had ac- 
 cepted the whole of your six propositions ! Then you began to place 
 new obstacles in the way. You further say, we give such affirmatives 
 and negatives in what order we please. What is the fact? We have 
 them precisely in the order in which they were offered us repeatedly 
 by Mr. C ! How do these indisputable facts look by the side of your 
 charges ! ! ! No, sir, our offence consists in the fact, that we expect Mr. 
 C. to discuss his own propositions , with his own ajjirmatives and negatives, and 
 in his own order ; and when he positively refuses, we charge him with re - 
 treating. 
 
 You say, " The propositions offered on yesterday, are not new proposi- 
 tions ; they are mere amplifications of those already offered." So long as 
 we understand the meaning of words in our own language, it is vain for 
 Mr. C. to tell us, that those propositions are the same as those previously 
 offered. But if they are the same, why amplify them'? We had thought 
 that it was desirable to have propositions for discussion presented in as 
 few words as would definitely express the difference between the parties. 
 
 When you come to close your letter, your remarks are quite as curious as 
 those already noticed. You say, " You either intended, in the letter before 
 
44 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 me, to compel me to come up to your terms, or have no discussion " Now, 
 sir, look at your letter to which mine was a reply. After stating your new 
 propositions, and making your new demands, you thus remark, " If to these 
 fair and equitable terms (!) you agree, I am prepared to go into other pre- 
 liminary arrangements immediately. If not, sdy so, and the matter ends." 
 The fact turns out to be, that Mr. C. intended by his letter to force us to 
 his terms, or have no debate. We took him at his word, and not choosing 
 to be forced, we supposed the matter at an end. I repeat it, all we ask of 
 Mr. C. is, to debate his own propositions, in his own language and order. 
 
 But you now say, " I will take, rather than have no debate, the whole 
 six propositions, as drawn up in your letter before me, with the simple 
 change of the first on the action of baptism, as proposed in my last." In 
 view of the fact, that we have accepted your own propositions in form and 
 order, and in view of the further fact, that you have received none of our 
 propositions, we are under no obligation to allow any change whatever. In 
 your letter, of May 24th, you say, " You may, in your reply, settle the 
 whole matter of the propositions, or you may protract the subject for 
 months." How could I settle the whole matter, unless by accepting your 
 propositions then and previously offered 1 They were accepted ; and thus 
 the whole matter, as I had a right to believe, was settled. Now you refuse 
 to abide by the settlement called for by yourself! We will, however, ac- 
 commodate you in this matter. We accept your new proposition, on what 
 you call the action of baptism, giving you the affirmative you desire, pro- 
 vided that all the propositions be discussed in the order in which you have 
 repeatedly stated, and we have accepted them, and that the other proposi- 
 tions remain unaltered. 
 
 As to the order in which the propositions should be debated, we have 
 simply agreed to the order repeatedly presented by yourself. In your letter 
 of June 25th, you present the propositions, perhaps, for the third time, in 
 the order in which we are willing to debate them. And in your letter of 
 July 13th, you say, in reference to that of June 25th, " Hence in my last, 
 after hearing all the explanations, I drew out in order and form the propo- 
 sitions," &c. We see no possible reason now for changing the order which 
 heretofore you have uniformly considered the best. 
 
 We have now conceded all that we intend to concede in this matter. 
 We have taken your own propositions, in your own order, and we now 
 agree to accommodate you in the change of one of the most important of 
 them. We have been unnecessarily detained by your refusal of a personal 
 interview, to which you invited us. Two of us are obliged to leave Lex- 
 ington this afternoon at 2 o'clock. If you agree to go into the discussion, 
 as now agreed to by us, we shall expect to be informed of your determina- 
 tion before that hour. 
 
 Concerning our motives, in this whole affair, we choose to say nothing. 
 We are willing to have our conduct indicate them. 
 
 Respectfully, &c. 
 
 JNO. H. BROWN 
 
 Lexington, Ky., August 5, 1843. 
 Elder J. H. Brown : 
 
 Sir — It is now within a few minutes of twelve o'clock, and your letter of 
 this morning is just received. You request an answer in two hours ; and 
 in the midst of company, and various engagements, I cannot formally reply 
 to all that is in your letter. The complimentary part of it, indeed, especial- 
 ly so much of it as you very courteously devote to my " palpable violation of 
 ordinary rules of politeness," would seem to demand a very special and cor- 
 dial acknowledgment. But as I have not recognized your pretensions to 
 that chair of instruction, and consequently have not placed myself under 
 your special tuition, you will please excuse my further palpable violation 
 of your rules of politeness in not thanking you for the compliment. In our 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 45 
 
 code of good manners, Mr. Brown would have called to see me, especially- 
 after my journey of almost four hundred miles to see him, But I excuse 
 him, on the ground that ministers of religion frequently study the theology 
 of the dark ages, and have as good a right to freedom of opinion on this, as 
 on other subjects. 
 
 As to those dark and inscrutable portions of my epistle, it seems they 
 have answered their purpose so well, that it would be superfluous now to 
 explain them. Touching one point, however, I must say a word or two, 
 viz. " the end of the matter.'''' I presumed that enough had been said on the 
 propositions of debate, and that the matter was never to end, unless I gave 
 you such a letter as that which elicited your throwing the responsibility of 
 no debate on me. This you did in such an urbane, respectful and gentle- 
 manly style, that you constrained me to re-consider the matter, especially 
 as you threw so much light upon the subject from my former letters. But had 
 you not, indeed, produced those documents, and offered me such a responsi- 
 bility, after the just and honorable issue I had offered, I certainly would 
 not have responded to yours of the 3d inst. You, however, changed my 
 premises, and of course I changed my purposes. 
 
 Although, then, I do not cordially approve of the issue, as formed, it not 
 being equal, still, as it is this or nothing, I consent to the discussion of the 
 propositions as you have stated them, — I having the affirmative on the ac- 
 tion of baptism, as before stipulated. Touching all the forms of expression 
 in which these propositions have been offered, we shall, in the course of 
 the debate, fully explain ourselves. 
 
 I answered your letter of yesterday in about as many hours as you spent 
 on mine. I received it at bed time, and from breakfast to one o'clock, the 
 period spent on mine, furnished a reply. 
 
 I am obliged to leave on Monday evening, and will now request it as a 
 favor to have other matters attended to immediately. I shall be glad to see 
 you at four o'clock, if possible, at Mr. Henry Bell's ; or I will wait upon 
 you, at any place you may appoint, at that hour, or on Monday morning. 
 
 Please favor me with an immediate reply, at Dr. Fishback's. 
 
 Respectfully, A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Lexington, Ky., August 5, 1843. 
 
 Elder A. Campbell : — Yours of this date is before me. It is indeed 
 well that we have no written, authoritative code of politeness, as to some 
 whose theology wears a modem garb, it might be more intolerable than 
 even creeds. It is well, as it turns out, that I did not call to see Mr. Camp- 
 bell, since, in his existing state of mind, having just heard divers things 
 terrific, he would have declined a personal interview. Ignorant, however, 
 of all such rumors, I expected, on reaching Lexington, at the hour and the 
 place mentioned in my letter, to receive a note from Mr. C, informing the 
 committee where they might see him. I did receive a letter, declining the 
 interview proposed by himself! 
 
 We are quite happy in witnessing the effects of our epistle of the 3d inst. 
 But for that, it seems, we should have had no debate. The propositions, 
 as tc language and order, having been agreed upon, we are prepared to at- 
 tend to other preliminaries. We cannot, however, meet you this after- 
 noon, as two of us have appointments for Sabbath, in order to fill which we 
 must immediately leave Lexington. We will meet you, God permitting, 
 on Monday morning at eleven o'clock, at the house of Dr. Bell, on Hill 
 street, unless you prefer some other place, of which you will of course in- 
 form us. 
 
 We desire now to suggest the propriety and importance of publishing our 
 correspondence as soon as possible, without note or comment. We deem 
 this course desirable, to prevent the circulation of false rumors, which may 
 be injirious to either party or to both. 
 
 Respectfully, J. H. BROWN. 
 
46 PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 Lexington, Ky., August 7, 1843. 
 
 Elder Brown — Your proposition to publish immediately our correspon- 
 dence touching the contemplated discussion, without note or comment, has 
 been duly considered. 
 
 In the first place, it is unusual to publish, such correspondence before the 
 debate is published. In the second place, not having* the correspondence 
 with me, and believing that the representations in your letter of the 3d 
 inst. are not in exact accordance with it, I could not consent to its publica- 
 tion till I have examined it. And in the third place, that those who may 
 assemble to hear the discussion may hear with candor and impartiality, it 
 is, in my judgment, better that they should not read the correspondence till 
 they have heard the discussion. For the above reasons, I cannot consent 
 to the proposition to publish at this time. 
 
 I expect to meet you to-day, at the time and place appointed. 
 
 Respectfully, A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 Reformed Church, Lexington, Kentucky, ) 
 
 Wednesday Morning-, 10& o'clock, Nov. 15, 1843. \ 
 This being the time and place appointed for a commencement of the dis- 
 cussion between the Rev. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, and 
 the Rev. Nathan L. Rice, of Paris, Kentucky: the president, moderators, 
 debators, stenographers, committees, and an audience of some two thousand 
 persons, having, in pursuance of previous notice, assembled on this inter- 
 esting occasion ; and a copy of the programme, presenting the points at 
 issue, having been placed in the hands of the moderators, the Honorable 
 Henry Clay, president of the board, rose and remarked as follows : 
 
 It is presumed that the object for which this assembly is now convened, 
 is known to every person in attendance. 
 
 I understand, that the gentlemen who are to discuss the highly interest- 
 ing topics, embraced in this printed programme, are now prepared to 
 proceed to the discussion. Before they do so, however, on an occasion so 
 grave, so interesting, and one in which there should be perfect order, it is 
 proper to observe, that it is the prevailing usage every where ; it is accord- 
 ing to the sense of religion, with which this subject is so intimately con- 
 nected, that there should be no confusion : and I trust, there will be a 
 preservation of order, and undivided attention during the whole progress of 
 the debate. In the mean time, one of the clergymen present is prepared to 
 invoke the blessing of heaven. 
 
 Whereupon, the Rev. Joseph Bullock being called upon, arose and prayed 
 as follows : 
 
 O, thou Great and Eternal God, who art the Creator, the Preserver, and 
 the Governor of the universe, we desire this morning to look up to thee 
 for thy blessing to rest upon us. We pray that we may be under the 
 guidance of thy Holy Spirit ; and that thou wouldst enable us, while assem- 
 bled together, to give heed to the discussion, which is about to take place 
 in our hearing. We pray that all may have a sincere desire to know the 
 truth : and when the truth is proclaimed, we pray that we may be enabled to 
 receive it in the love of it, and that it may spring up and bring forth fruit 
 unto eternal life. 
 
 Our Father, we pray that our meeting may not be in vain, but that 
 
PRELIMINARIES. 47 
 
 much good may be done in the name of thy Son. May the cause of truth, 
 and of righteousness, and of holiness, be advanced. And may the discus- 
 sion which is now being entered upon, be followed by great and manifold 
 blessings, not only to the assembly now present, but to those who may 
 attend from time to time. Especially, may those engaged in this discussion 
 be guided by that wisdom which cometh down from above : which is first 
 pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated ; full of mercy and 
 good fruits ; without partiality, and without hypocrisy. 
 
 We beseech thee, our Father, to keep us all from error and delusion, and 
 guide us in the right path — in that straight and narrow path which leads to 
 heaven and to God. 
 
 Wilt thou be with us all, not only while assembled here, but be our guide 
 and our support through all the journey of life ; and when we come to lie 
 down upon our beds of death, grant unto us the unspeakable consolations of 
 thy gospel, and finally receive us all into thy kingdom above, to dwell with 
 thee through ceaseless ages of eternity. 
 
 We ask for Christ, our Redeemer's sake. Amen. 
 
 RULES OF DISCUSSION. 
 
 1. The debate shall commence on Wednesday, 15th November. 
 
 2. To be held in the Reform Church. 
 
 3. Judge Robertson, selected by Mr. Rice, as moderator. Col. Speed 
 Smith, selected by Mr. Campbell. And agreed that these two shall select 
 a president-moderator. In case of either of the above named gentlemen 
 declining to act, Judge Breck was selected by Mr. Rice, as alternate to 
 Judge Robertson — and Col. Caperton as alternate to Col. Speed Smith. 
 
 4. In the opening of each new subject, the affirmant shall occupy one 
 hour, and the respondent the same time ; and each thereafter half hour 
 alternately to the termination of each subject. The debate shall commence 
 at 10 o'clock, A. M,, and continue until 2 o'clock, P. M., unless hereafter 
 changed. 
 
 5. On the final negative no new matter shall be introduced 
 
 6. The propositions for discussion are the following: 
 
 I. The immersion in water of a proper subject, into the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the one, only apostolic or chris- 
 tian baptism. Mr. Campbell affirms — Mr. Rice denies. 
 
 II. The infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism. 
 Mr. Rice affirms — Mr. Campbell denies. 
 
 III. Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. Mr. Campbell 
 affirms — Mr. Rice denies. 
 
 IV. Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained pres- 
 byter. Mr. Rice affirms — Mr. Campbell denies. 
 
 V. In conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God operates on 
 persons only through the word of truth. Mr. Campbell affirms — Mr. 
 Rice denies. 
 
 VI. Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessa- 
 rily heretical and schismatical. Mr. Campbell affirms — Mr. Rice denies. 
 
 6. No question shall be discussed more than three days, unless by agree- 
 ment of parties. 
 
 7. Each debatant shall furnish a stenographer. 
 
 8. It shall be the privilege of the debaters to make any verbal or gram- 
 matical changes in the stenographer's report, that shall not alter the state 
 of the argument, or change any fact. 
 
 9. The nett available amount, resulting from the publication, shall be 
 equally divided between the two American Bible Societies. 
 
48 PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 10. This discussion shall be conducted in the presence of Dr. Fishback, 
 President Shannon, John Smith, and A. Raines, on the part of the Refor- 
 mation ; and President Young-, James K. Burch, J. F. Price, and John H, 
 Brown, on the part of Presbyterianism. 
 
 11. The debatants agree to adopt as " rules of decorum " those found in 
 Hedges' Logic, p. 159, to-wit : 
 
 Rule 1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the 
 point at issue, should be clearly denned, that there could be no misunder- 
 standing respecting them. 
 
 Rule 2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on 
 a footing of equality, in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard 
 the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and a desire for truth with 
 himself; and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and 
 his adversary in the right. 
 
 Rule 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect in 
 regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. 
 
 Rule 4. Personal reflections on an adversary should, in no instance, be 
 indulged. 
 
 Rule 5. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him 
 who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. 
 
 Rule 6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, 
 whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with 
 fairness and candor ; and any attempt to answer an adversary by arts of 
 sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavilling or ridi- 
 cule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy. 
 
 [Signed.] A. CAMPBELL. 
 N. L. RICE 
 
DEBATE 
 
 ON 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 15, 1843 — 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's opening address.] 
 
 Mr. President, — I feel myself peculiarly happy in being specially 
 called, in the good providence of God, to appear before you, sir, and your 
 honorable associates, in the midst of this great community, to act an hum- 
 ble part in that long-protracted controversy, commenced more than three 
 centuries ago, when the Genius of Protestantism first propounded to 
 Europe and the world the momentous and prolific questions, Is the Bible 
 an intelligent document ? Is it a book to be read by all the people ? 
 Does it fully contain and clearly reveal the whole duty and happiness of 
 man ? The bold and intrepid Luther promptly responded in the affirma- 
 tive ; and immediately a numerous host gave in their adhesion, seconded 
 his efforts, erected their standard, unfurled their banners, and rallied under 
 the sublime motto, The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible 
 is the religion of Protestants. 
 
 The pope, his cardinals, and his lordly prelates, heard, with a scornful 
 and indignant smile, this bold and comprehensive declaration of indepen- 
 dence. Little did his Roman holiness, Leo X., and the lions around him 
 imagine what mighty revolutions of empire, civil and ecclesiastical, were 
 concealed under those symbols. No one, indeed, then living, compre- 
 hended that motto in all its amplitude. None saw that the regeneration 
 of a world was in it. None anticipated the mighty impetus it was about 
 to impart to the human mind, to the cause of human government, to the 
 advancement of civilization, to the eternal redemption of the world from 
 ignorance, error, and crime. 
 
 It was not merely a renunciation of popery — of all sorts of popery, 
 ecclesiastical and political ; it was not merely a renunciation of dospotism, 
 of tyranny, of anarchy, of misrule, of every species of cruelty and op- 
 pression on account of opinions, on account of human traditions or polit- 
 ical interests ; it asserted the rights of man — liberty of thought, liberty of 
 speech, and liberty of action. It asserted that God had no vicegerent on 
 earth, no representative amongst men ; that he alone is Lord of the con- 
 science. 
 
 From that moment to the present the march of mind has been onward 
 and upward. The mighty spell that had for ages held all Christendom 
 in abject slavery to kings and priests, those demigods of human admira- 
 tion and worship, began to be broken. Opinions held sacred from times 
 immemorial began to be discussed ; learning awoke from the slumber of 
 4 E 49 
 
50 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 centuries; science assumed her proper rank; the arts, both useful and 
 ornamental, began to be cultivated with new vigor ; and Protestant socie- 
 ty, at least, laid aside the austere sanctimoniousness of a religious grimace, 
 put off the cowl of superstition, and appeared in the more pleasing cos- 
 tume of an open countenance, a smiling face, a generous heart and a more 
 spiritual devotion. 
 
 Still, however, all error was not detected, discussed, and repudiated. 
 The human mind, like the human body, takes but one short step at a 
 time ; and that step rather indicates the decrepitude and feebleness of age 
 than the vigor and energy of youth. Unfortunately, Protestantism soon 
 obtained favor at court, and immediately mounted the throne of the great- 
 est empire in the world : and in doing this, she had to retain so many of 
 the traditions and doctrines of the fathers as secured the favor of kings 
 and princes, and nattered the pretensions of bishops, archbishops and 
 their dependents, who in affection were wedded to Rome ; whilst they 
 abjured her power merely because it eclipsed and diminished their own. 
 
 The leaven of popery, sir, still works in both church and state. The 
 hierarchies of England, Scotland, and Protestant Germany, alas ! too 
 fully substantiate the allegation. Oxford is not the only university, nor 
 her tracts the only documents which show a professed sympathy with 
 some of the bolder attributes and views of the Papal power. That sym- 
 pathy is clearly evinced on the continents of Europe and America ; and 
 what strange involutions and evolutions may yet farther characterize its 
 movements, the pages of the future alone can disclose. 
 
 The power of Protestantism in some important points of view is com- 
 paratively feeble — greatly feeble. Its strength lies in the leading truths 
 of the system. Its feebleness is wholly owing to errors long cherished, 
 and still sought to be maintained as fundamental truths, by many of its 
 warmest friends and admirers. These errors make parties. For, while 
 truth is essentially attractive and conservative, error is necessarily repel- 
 lant and divisive. Numerous as the sects, that have impaired the Protest- 
 ant influence and power, are the errors that have generated them. Every 
 party has its truth, and, probably, its error too. For, even when truth 
 makes a party, error not only occasions it, but infuses itself into the sys- 
 tem. Good and wise men, of all parties, are turning their attention more 
 and more to the causes and occasions of schism ; and that, too, from an 
 ardent wish to fathom the occult causes of so much discord amongst 
 brethren ; in the hope, too, of discovering some grand scheme of union 
 and fraternal co-operation in the cause of our common Christianity. 
 
 The last century terminated with the downfall of consolidated Atheism 
 in France, after a reign of terror, the darkest and most desolating on the 
 rolls of time. All Europe stood aghast at the awful spectacle, and saw 
 in it developments of the tendencies of sectarian discords, that suggested 
 to the reflecting and intelligent, the necessity of some very important 
 changes in the social system. One of the results was, that the present 
 century was ushered in with the formation of one grand Bible society, 
 composed of various denominations, cherishing the n*uly magnanimous 
 and splendid scheme of giving the Bible, without note or comment, to the 
 whole family of man ; so. that every man might read in his own language 
 the wonderful works of God. 
 
 This truly benignant scheme has, in various ways, already contributed 
 greatly to the introduction of a brighter and a better era. The project of 
 divesting the margin of th'e sacred writings of prophets and apostles of 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 51 
 
 the cumbrous inscriptions of sectarian tenets and traditions — the dogmata 
 of all schism — under the insidious pretence and titles of Notes and Com- 
 ments on the Sacred Text, has given a new impulse to the mind, because 
 it has proposed the Bible to mankind in harmony with the great Protes- 
 tant motto. A new and improved system of Hermaneutics is another 
 happy effect of the attempt to make man, more or less, his own interpre- 
 ter of the testimonies of God. The improvements in sacred criticism, 
 and in biblical philology in general, have already elevated the present 
 century above the last, as the sixteenth excelled the fifteenth in the grand 
 developments of truth, and of the elementary principles of a new order 
 of things. 
 
 No living man can fully estimate the exact momentum of the principles 
 at work in his own time. The objects that obtrude upon his considera- 
 tion are too near him to be seen in all their just proportions. Time, that 
 great revealer of secrets and infallible exponent of the wisdom of all hu- 
 man schemes, must pass its solemn verdict upon every human enterprise 
 before its proper character can be fully and justly appreciated. 
 
 The points of debate on the present occasion may, to some minds not 
 conversant with such matters, appear to embrace points extremely frivo- 
 lous and unimportant. The question, for example, of baptism, as re- 
 spects its action, whether it shall be understood to mean sprinkling or 
 immersing, is frequently made to assume no higher importance than that 
 of a mere scuffle about the difference between a large and a small basin 
 of water. It is, indeed, an elementary question ; yet it may possibly 
 have much of the fortunes of Christendom in its bosom. It stands to the 
 Avhole christian profession as circumcision to a Jew, as hereditary de- 
 scent to a British lord, or the elective franchise to an American citizen. 
 
 Let no one undervalue the points at issue in the present controversy. 
 Let no one be startled when I affirm the conviction, that, in the questions 
 to be discussed on the present occasion, the fortunes of America, of Eu- 
 rope and the world, are greatly involved. Can that be regarded by the 
 mere politician (to say nothing of the philanthropist or the christian) as a 
 minor matter Avhich gives to the pope of Rome one hundred millions of 
 subjects every three and thirty years; and that, too, without a single 
 thought, volition or action of their own ? Can any one regard that as a 
 very unimportant ceremony, which binds forever to the Papal throne so 
 many of our race, by five drops of water and the sign of a cross imposed 
 upon them with their christian name ? The omission of an h in pro- 
 nouncing a word became, providentially, the occasion of the slaughter of 
 forty-two thousand Ephraimites in one day ; the conversion of an o into 
 an i divided the ecclesiastic Roman empire into two great parties, which 
 disturbed its peace, fostered internal wars, and exhausted its blood and 
 treasure for a succession of several imperial reigns ; and the eating of an 
 apple brought sin and death into our world, and has already swept the 
 earth clean of all its inhabitants more than one hundred times. Let no 
 one, therefore, regard anything in religion or morals as excessively 
 minute, or unworthy of the highest conscientious regard. There is some- 
 times more in a monosyllable than in a folio. A Yes, or a No has slain 
 millions ; while a thousand volumes have been written and read without 
 any visible disaster to any human being. 
 
 The greatest debate in the annals of time, so far as consequences were 
 involved, w r as upon the proper interpretation of a positive precept. The 
 fortunes, not of a single nation, of an empire, or of an age, but of a 
 
52 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 world were staked upon its decision. The parties consisted of two 
 persons : the word in debate was Die ; and because of the misrepresen- 
 tation of it one of the parties lost paradise, and gained labor, and sorrow, 
 and death. In this world we have great little matters, as well as little 
 great matters. To the former class belongs the affairs of kingdoms, em- 
 pires and of all time : to the latter, individual purity, holiness, happiness. 
 To infinite space, an atom and a mountain bear the same proportions. 
 In the presence of endless duration, a moment and an age are equal. If, 
 then, by a drop of water and the sign of the cross, Gregory XVI. sits 
 on yonder gorgeous throne in the midst of the Vatican, worshiped by 
 more than one hundred millions of human beings; and if the Protestant 
 Pedo-baptist churches in America annually increase more by the touch 
 of a moistened finger than by all the eloquence of their seven thousand 
 ministers ; then, I ask, is not so much of the present discussion as per- 
 tains to that single rite of transcendent importance to this nation and peo- 
 ple, whether contemplated in their ecclesiastical or political character ? 
 
 In justice to my respondent and his church, I must distinctly state that 
 this community are not at all indebted to me for the present discussion. 
 It originated with our zealous and indefatigable Presbyterian brethren, 
 who have ever been forward in the great and good work of religious con- 
 troversy; and, as an apostle commands us to render honor to whom 
 honor is due, we must award to them the honor of the present debate and 
 all its happy influences. The present interview, when solicited by Mr. 
 Brown, [Rev. John H. Brown, of Richmond, Ky.,] was indeed acceded 
 to on my part with an express and covenanted understanding, that it was 
 to be a frank, candid, full, and amicable discussion of the great points of 
 difference between us ; that each party was to affirm and maintain what 
 it taught, and thus give to our respective communities authentic views of 
 our peculiar tenets, so far as they may materially conflict with each 
 other; and thus furnish the public with a book containing the numerous 
 and various arguments by which our respective tenets may be assailed 
 and defended. That the discussion might have all authority with the 
 people, it was stipulated that, in case of a single combat, one person 
 should be chosen as the oracle of the party, with whom I would enter 
 into a formal debate on all these questions; and that other ministers 
 should be present as helps and counsellors. I am happy in having the 
 assurance that my friend [Mr. Rice] appears here, in consequence of 
 that agreement, as the elect debatant, chosen by his brethren while assem- 
 bled at synod— being not only one of the five persons chosen at the 
 meeting of the synod, but also the one chosen by the other four, and com- 
 mended to my acceptance by Mr. Brown, one of his electors, in the 
 words following: " We have selected the man into whose hands we think 
 proper to commit the defence of our cause. His standing is well known 
 in Kentucky and out of it. We will not select another." To add to my 
 satisfaction, he [Mr. Rice,] is also aided and sustained by a learner 
 cohort of divines of high standing in the Presbyterian church ; and not by 
 these only, but doubtless by many others, present and absent. Such an 
 array of talent, learning, and piety would seem to authorize the confident 
 expectation that, if those tenets of his party from which we dissent can 
 be convincingly maintained and made acceptable to this community, it 
 will now be done. 
 
 In addition to all this, I am now assured that my friend [Mr. Rice] is 
 not compelled into this discussion by the mere authority and importunity 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 53 
 
 of his brethren, but that he enters into the business as one that long and 
 ardently panted to render some distinguished service to the church of his 
 ancestors and Gf his adoption, and to deliver himself on the great ques- 
 tions now before us. It is our singular good fortune to meet on this 
 arena a gentleman exceedingly zealous for the doctrines and traditions of 
 his church, and who, for one year at least, if not for several years past, 
 has been in habitual preparation for such an occasion as the present. So 
 desirous of merited applause, and so untiring in his zeal and devotion to 
 ancient orthodoxy, he has been in one continued series of conflicts, wrest- 
 ling with tongue and pen— entering the lists with all sorts of disputants, 
 Baptists and Reformers, old and young, experienced and inexperienced, 
 and, in amicable discussion s breaking numerous lances upon the brazen 
 shields and steel caps of such members of the church militant as either 
 foreordination or contingency threw in his way — -and on these very sub- 
 jects now before us. Neither his devotion to the cause of truth nor his 
 labors of love, have been confined to Kentucky ; but, in his pious oppo- 
 sition to heresies and heretics, like one of old, he has pursued them into 
 foreign cities. Nashville yet resounds with the praises of his zeal and 
 the fame of his achievements in the cause of Presbyterianism. If, then, 
 flaw or weakness there be in that series of arguments and evidences that 
 I am prepared to offer on the present occasion, or if my facts and docu- 
 ments are not true and veritable, I have every reason to expect a full and 
 thorough exposition of them. But should they pass the fiery ordeal of 
 the intense genius and vigorous analysis to which they are now to be 
 subjected, may I not, in common with those who espouse them, repose 
 on them as arguments and proofs irrefragably strong and enduring? 
 
 The questions to be discussed on the present occasion are, it is con- 
 ceded on all hands, not only elementary and fundamental, but of vital im- 
 portance to every saint and sinner in the world. They alike enter into 
 the peculiar essence and living form of the christian religion. Accurate 
 and comprehensive views of them, not only promote the purity and hap- 
 piness of the individual, but also conduce to the union of christians and 
 the conversion of the world. So long as we have in the christian profes- 
 sion two faiths, two baptisms, and two Spirits, we shall have a plurality 
 of bodies ecclesiastic arrayed in open hostility to each other ; and by con- 
 sequence, the whole train of evils and misfortunes incident to alienated 
 affections and rival interests. I rejoice in the present discussion, because 
 it strikes at the three main roots of modern partyism — the creeds, the 
 baptisms, and the spirits of moral philosophy and human expediency. 
 Before a holier and a happier era, we must resume the original basis of 
 one Lord, one Creed, one Baptism, one Spirit. United on these we 
 stand: divided we fall. These opinions, creeds, baptisms, and spirits 
 must be repudiated. Hence the necessity of discussion. Either there 
 must be a conviction of those errors and a repudiation of them, else an 
 agreement to regard them as matters of opinion, as matters of forbear- 
 ance, and take no account of them. One of these results is essential 
 to union. 
 
 With these views and convictions, and with a supreme desire for holy 
 union, harmony, and love in the truth, and for the truth's sake, with all 
 them that believe, love and obey it, I consent unto the present discussion. 
 The two baptisms, the human and the divine, are first in order. In dis- 
 tributing the subject into its proper parts, four questions arise : What 
 is the action called baptism? who is the subject? what its design? and 
 
 e2 
 
54 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 who may administer it? Without further introduction, I proceed to the 
 first proposition : and may the Spirit of all wisdom and revelation direct 
 our deliberations, subdue all pride of opinion, restrain every illicit desire 
 of human approbation, inspire our souls with, the love of truth rather than 
 of victory, lead our investigations to the happiest issue, and give to this 
 discussion an extensive and long-enduring influence in healing divisions, 
 in promoting peace, and in extending the empire of truth over myriads 
 of minds enthralled by error and oppressed with the doctrines and com- 
 mandments of men ! 
 
 My proposition is, That immersion in water, into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is the only christian 
 baptism. 
 
 In the commission which the Messiah gave to his apostles for convert- 
 ing the nations, he commanded three things to be done, indicated by three 
 very distinct and intelligible terms, to wit: matheteusate, baptizontes, 
 didaskontes. Unfortunately, one of these three Greek words has become 
 a subject of much controversy. While all agree that the first term may 
 be literally and properly rendered "make disciples," and the last " teach- 
 ing them," the second, not being translated but transferred into our lan- 
 guage, is by some understood to mean sprinkling, by others pouring, by 
 a third class immersing, and by a fourth class purifying them into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Fortunately, the meaning of any word — Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or 
 English — is a question not of opinion, but a question of fact ; and, being 
 a plain question of fact, it is to be ascertained by competent witnesses, or 
 by a sufficient induction of particular occurrences of the word, at different 
 times on various subjects and by different persons. All good dictiona- 
 ries, in all languages, are made upon a full examination of particular 
 occurrences — upon a sufficient induction of distinct instances — and con- 
 vey the true meaning of a word at any given period of its history. 
 
 The action, then, which Jesus Christ commanded to be done in \he 
 word baptizo, is to be ascertained in just the same manner as the action 
 enjoined in matheteuo, or that commanded in didasko, its associates in 
 the commission. We ask no other law or tribunal for ascertaining the 
 meaning of baptizo than for ascertaining the sense of matheteuo or 
 didasko. They are all to be determined philologically, as all other for- 
 eign and ancient terms, by the well established canons of interpretation. 
 From a candid, judicious, impartial application of these laws, there is not 
 the least difficulty in the case. 
 
 There is, indeed, less difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of the 
 word baptizo, than that of either of the other words standing with it in 
 the commission; because it is a word more restricted, more circum- 
 scribed and appropriated in its acceptation than either of its companions ; 
 because, moreover, it is a word of specification, and not so general and 
 undefined as matheteuo or didasko — " making disciples," and " teaching 
 them." It indicates an outward and formal action into the awful name 
 of the whole divinity ; and consequently, a priori, we would be led to 
 regard it as a most specific and well defined term. The action was to be 
 performed by one person upon another person, and in the most solemn 
 manner. 
 
 Besides, it is a most peculiar and positive ordinance. All admit that 
 baptism is a positive ordinance, and that positive precepts, as contradis- 
 tinguished from moral precepts, indicate the special will of a sovereign in 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 55 
 
 some exact and well defined action ; the nature, form and necessity of 
 which arise not from our own a priori reasonings about utility or expedi- 
 ency, but from the clearly expressed will of the lawgiver. It is farther 
 universally agreed that circumcision was a positive and not a moral insti 
 tution — made right and obligatory by the mere force of a positive law 
 It enjoined a specific act upon a specific subject, called for exact obedi 
 ence, and was therefore definitely set forth by a specific and not by a gen 
 eric term. This fact will not, I presume, be disputed. Baptism, then 
 like circumcision, must have the specific action to be performed implied 
 and expressed in it. That baptism is such a term, if it be disputed, the 
 sequel will, we presume, abundantly prove. Meantime, before hearing 
 the witnesses or submitting the induction, it may not be uninteresting to 
 pursue the analogy a little farther, and to show, a priori, that such a spe- 
 cific precept is to be expected. 
 
 Will it not be conceded by all, that whatever good reason can be given 
 why, not a general but a specific word was chosen by God in command- 
 ing circumcision to Abraham and his posterity, the same demands a term 
 as specific and intelligible from the Christian Lawgiver in reference to the 
 institution of baptism ? Now, as Jesus Christ must have intended some 
 particular action to be performed by his ministers and submitted to by 
 the people, in the command to baptize them, it follows that he did select 
 such a word, or that he would not or could not do it. This is a dilemma 
 from which escape is not easy. If any one say that he could not, then 
 either the language which he spake or his knowledge of it was defective. 
 If the former, then the language was unfit to be the vehicle of a divine 
 communication to man ; if the latter, his divine character and commission 
 are directly assailed and dishonored. Or, if any one say he could have 
 done it but would not, he impeaches either his sincerity or benevolence, 
 or both : his sincerity, in demanding obedience in a particular case, for 
 which he cares nothing ; his benevolence, in exacting a particular service 
 in an ambiguous and unintelligible term, which should perplex and con- 
 found his consciencious followers in all the ages of the world. Follows 
 it not, then, that he could, that he would find such a word ; and that he 
 has done it ; and that baptizo is that specific word ? 
 
 Before summoning our most authoritative witnesses to the meaning of 
 this important word, [baptizo,'] I shall assert a few facts, which, I pre- 
 sume, will not be denied by any one properly acquainted with the origi- 
 nal language of the New Testament: 1. Baptizo is not a radical, but a 
 derivative word ; 2. Its root [bapto'] is never applied to this ordinance ; 3. 
 In the Common Version bapto is translated both in its simple and com- 
 pound form, always by the word "dip:" 4. Baptizo is never translated 
 by " dye," " stain," or "color;" 5. Baptizo, with its derivations, is the 
 only word used in the New Testament to indicate this ordinance ; and 6. 
 The word baptize has no necessary connection with water, or any liquid 
 whatever. 
 
 Now, from these indisputable facts, hereafter to be developed, some 
 corollaries are deduced ; such as — baptizo indicates a specific action, and 
 consequently, can have but one meaning. For, if a person or thing can 
 be immersed in water, oil, milk, honey, sand, earth, debt, grief, affliction, 
 spirit, light, darkness, &c, it is a word indicating specific action, and 
 specific action only. 
 
 Baptizo, confessedly a derivative from bapto, derives its specific 
 meaning, as well as its radical and immutable form, from that word. Ac- 
 
56 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 cording to the usage of all languages, ancient and modern, derivative 
 words legally inherit the specific, though not necessarily the figurative 
 meaning of their natural progenitors ; and never can so far alienate from 
 themselves that peculiar significance as to indicate an action specifically 
 different from that intimated in the parent stock. Indeed, all the inflec- 
 tions of words, with their sometimes numerous and various families of 
 descendants, are but modifications of one and the same generic or speci- 
 fic idea. 
 
 We sometimes say, that words generally have both a proper and a fig- 
 urative sense. I presume we may go farther and affirm, that every word 
 in current use has a strictly proper and a figurative acceptation. Now, in 
 the derivation direct, (for there is a direct and an indirect derivation,) the 
 proper and natural or original meaning of the term is uniformly transmit- 
 ted. Let us, for example, take the Saxon word dip through all its flex- 
 ions and derivations. Its flexions are, dip, dips, dippeth, dipped, dip- 
 ping. From these are derived but a few words, such as the nouns, dip- 
 ping, dipper, dip-chick, dipping-needle. Now in all the flexions and 
 derivations of this word, is not the root [dip~] always found in sense as 
 well as in form 1 Wherever the radical syllable is found, the radical idea 
 is in it. So of the word sprinkle : its flexions are, sprinkle, sprinkleth, 
 sprinkling, sprinkled ; and its derivatives are the nouns sprinkling and 
 sprinkler. Does not the idea represented in the radical word [sprinkle^ 
 descend through the whole family ? We shall visit a larger family. 
 From the verb read, whose flexions are, reads, readeth, reading ; come 
 the descendants, reading, (the noun,) readable, readableness, readably, 
 reader, readership. The radical syllable is not more obvious than the 
 uniformity of its sense throughout the whole lineage. Let us now 
 advance to the two Greek representatives of the words dip and sprinkle. 
 These are ancient families, and much larger than any of the modern. 
 Bapto, the root, has some seven hundred flexions, besides numerous 
 derivatives. We shall only take the indicative mood, through one tense 
 and through one person : Bapto, ebapton, bapso, ebapsa, ebaphon, ba- 
 pho, bebapha, ebebaphein. Its derivatives are baptizo, and its regular 
 flexions — more than seven hundred, including all its forms of mood, 
 tense, participle, person, number, gender, case : from which spring 
 baptismos, baptisma, baptisis, baptistes, baptomai, baptizomai, baptcs, 
 captisierion, bapha, baphikos, bapheis. These, through their some two 
 thousand flexions and modifications, retain the bap, and, as uniformly, 
 the dip represented by it. The same holds good of its distant neighbor, 
 raino, "I sprinkle." It has as many flexions and nearly as many deri- 
 vatives as bapto. It has raino, rainomai, rantizo, rantismos, rantisma, 
 ranter, rantis, rantos, with their some two thousand flexions. These all 
 exhibit the radical syllable rain or ran, and with it the radical sprinkle. 
 Now, as it is philologically impossible to find bap in rain, or rain m 
 bap; so impossible is it to find dip in sprinkle, or sprinkle in dip. 
 Hence the utter impossibility of either of these words representing both 
 actions. It is difficult to conceive how any man of letters and proper 
 reflection can for a moment suppose, that bapto can ever mean "sprin- 
 kle," or raino *« dip." 
 
 This my first argument is, I own, a work of supererogation : inas- 
 much as all admit that baptizo, and not bapto, is the word that the Mes- 
 siah chose to represent the action he intended, called baptism ; and all 
 the learned admit, that its primary, proper, and unfigurative meaning is, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 57 
 
 " to dip." Hence if all that I have said on flexion and derivation were 
 grammatically and philologically heterodox, as well as illogical, my 
 cause loses nothing. I feel so rich in resources, that I can give this and 
 many such arguments for nothing, and still have much more than a com- 
 petency for life. But, be it all strictly and philologically true and solid, 
 (as I unhesitatingly affirm it,) this single argument establishes my first 
 proposition without farther effort. For, as ail allow that dip is the pri- 
 mary and proper meaning of bapto, and color, stain, dye, wet, its 
 figurative or secondary meanings ; and, as all admit that baptizo is the 
 word that the Christian Lawgiver consecrated to indicate this ordinance; 
 and, as it is incontrovertibly derived from bapto, and therefore inherits 
 the proper meaning of the bap, which is " dip ;" then, is it not irresisti- 
 bly evident that baptizo can never authorize or sanction any other 
 action than dipping, or immersion, as found in Christ's commission? 
 Such is my first argument ; which, if false, I lose nothing ; which, if 
 true, my proposition is already established. 
 
 But we must have arguments and illustrations for the unlearned as well 
 as for the learned. Before we advance to our second argument, founded 
 on baptizo itself, I shall, in three English words, selected at random, 
 show that neither number nor variety of derivations from a common 
 stock, can ever nullify the original idea or action suggested. I take a 
 verb, a noun, and a preposition, with their whole families. I open at the 
 verb, adduce: duce, (from duco, "I lead,") is the root. The family 
 lineage is, abduce, adduce, conduce, deduce, educe, induce, introduce, 
 obduce, produce, reduce, seduce, traduce, circumduction, deduction, 
 induction. Next comes the noun, guard, from which the verb, guard, 
 guarding, guarded, guarder, guardly, guardedness, guardship, guard- 
 able, guardful, guardage, guardance, guardiant, guardian, guardian- 
 ess, guardianship, guardianage, guardlcss. And finally, we open at 
 the preposition, up, whence springs upon, upper, uppermost, upperest, 
 upward. Now, can any one for a moment doubt, that, in all these three 
 examples, the radical syllables, duce, guard, or up, retain the same 
 sense, whatever it may be, generic or specific, through every branch of 
 their respective families ? 
 
 Ancient Greek grammarians sometimes arranged their verbs in the 
 form of trees, making the origin of the family the root ; the next in im- 
 portance the trunk ; the next the larger branches, and so on to the top- 
 most twig. In this way both flexions and derivations were occasionally 
 exhibited. This fact I state, because it suggests to me a new form of 
 presenting this my first argument, to the apprehension of all my hearers. 
 A great majority of our citizens are better read in forests, fields and gar- 
 dens, than in the schools of philology or ancient languages. Agricultu- 
 rists, horticulturists, botanists, will fully comprehend me when I say, in 
 all the dominions of vegetable nature, untouched by human art, as the 
 root, so is the stem, and so are all the branches. If the root be oak, the 
 stem cannot be ash, nor the branches cedar. What would you think, 
 Mr. President, of the sanity or veracity of the backwoodsman, who would 
 affirm that he found in a state of nature, a tree whose root was oak, 
 whose stem was cherry, whose boughs were pear, and whose leaves 
 were chestnut ? If these grammarians and philologists have been happy 
 in their analogies drawn from the root and branches of trees, to illustrate 
 the derivation of words, how singularly fantastic the genius that creates a 
 philological tree, whose root is bapto, whose stem is cheo, whose 
 
58 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 branches are rantizo, and whose fruit is katharizo ! Or, if not too ludic- 
 rous and preposterous for English ears, whose root is dip, whose trunk 
 is pour, whose branches are sprinkle, and whose fruit is purification ! 
 
 My first argument, then, is founded on the root, bapto, whose proper 
 signification, all learned men say, is dip, and whose main derivative is 
 baptizo — which, by all the laws of philology, and all the laws of nature, 
 never can, never did, and never will signify " to pour" or " to sprinkle." 
 
 I now proceed to baptizo itself — the word pre-ordained by the Messiah, 
 to indicate his will in this sacred ordinance. Meanwhile, I have not for- 
 gotten in this long preamble, that the meaning of baptizo as well as bapto, 
 is a question of fact, to be decided by impartial and disinterested wit- 
 nesses, whose testimony is to be fairly stated, candidly heard, and impar- 
 tially weighed, before the case is finally adjudicated. 
 
 My witnesses are so numerous that I must call them forth in classes, 
 and hear them in detail. I shall first summon the Greek lexicographers, 
 the most learned and most competent witnesses in this case, in the world. 
 These gentlemen are, and of right ought to be, inductive philosophers. 
 Philology is the most inductive of all sciences. The meaning of a word 
 is ascertained by the usage of those writers and speakers, whose knowl- 
 edge and acquirements have made them masters of their own language. 
 From this class of vouchers we derive most of our knowledge of holy 
 writ, and of all that remains of Grecian literature and science. We, 
 indeed, try the dictionaries themselves by the classics, the extant authors 
 of the language. We prove or disprove them by the same inductive ope- 
 ration, by which we ascertain the facts of any science, mental or physical. 
 I rely exclusively upon the most ancient, the most impartial, and the most 
 famous lexicographers. I therefore prefer those on my respondent's 
 side of the question, to those on my own ; and I prefer those who lived 
 and published before the controversy became so rife, as it has been 
 during the present century. 
 
 1. We shall first hear the venerable Scapula, a foreign lexicographer, 
 of 1579. On bapto, the root, what does this most learned lexicographer 
 depose? Hear him: " bapto — mergo, immergo item tingo (quod sit im- 
 mergendo,") To translate his Latin — To dip, to immerse ; also, to dye, 
 because that may be done by immersing. Of the passive, baptomai, he 
 says, " Mergor item lavor" — To be immersed, to be washed. Of baptizo 
 r— " Mergo seu immergo, item submergo, item abluo, lavo" — To dip, to 
 immerse ; also, to submerge or overwhelm, to wash, to cleanse. 
 
 2. Next comes the more ancient Henricus Stephanus, of 1572. Bap- 
 to and baptizo — " Mergo seu immergo, ut quae tingendi aut abluendi 
 gratia aqua immergimus" — To dip or immerge, as we dip things for the 
 purpose of dyeing them, or immerge them in water. He gives the pro- 
 per and figurative meanings, as Scapula gives them. 
 
 3. We shall next hear the Thesaurus of Robertson. My edition was 
 printed at Cambridge, 1676. It is the most comprehensive dictionary 
 I have ever seen. It contains eighty thousand words more than the old 
 Schrevelius. It is indeed, sometimes titled, Cornelii Schrevelii Lexicon 
 Manuale Grseco Latinum Copirossissimi Auductum. His definitions 
 are generally regarded as the most precise and accurate. He defines bap- 
 tizo by only two words — mergo and lavo- — one proper and one figurative 
 meaning — to immerse, to wash. 
 
 4. Schleusner, a name revered by orthodox theologians, and of envia- 
 ble fame, says, (Glasgow Ed. ,1824,) " 1st. Proprie, immergo ac intingo, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 59 
 
 in aquam immergo. Properly it signifies, I -immerse, I dip, I immerse 
 in water. 2d. It signifies, I wash or cleanse by water — (quia haud rare 
 aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet ut lavetur) — because for the 
 most part, a thing must be dipped or plunged into water, that it may be 
 washed." Thus he gives the reason why baptizo figuratively means 
 " to wash," — because it is frequently the effect of immersion. 
 
 5. After Schleusner, we shall hear the distinguished Pasor. My copy 
 is the London edition of 1650. " Bapto et baptizo — mergo, immergo 
 tingo quod sit immergendo, differt a dunai quod est profundum petere est 
 penitus submergi." Again he adds — " Comparantur afflictiones gurgiti- 
 bus aquaram quibus veluti merguntur qui miseriis et calamitatibus hujus 
 vitas conflictantur ita, tamen merguntur ut rursus emergant." All of 
 which we translate as follow : "To dip, to immerse, to dye, because it 
 is done by immersing. It differs from dunai, which means to sink to 
 the bottom, and to be thoroughly submerged." Metaphorically, in 
 Matthew, afflictions are compared to a flood of waters, in which they 
 seem to be immersed, who are overwhelmed with the misfortunes and 
 miseries of life ; yet only so overwhelmed as to emerge again. 
 
 6. After these venerable continental authorities, we shall now intro- 
 duce a few English lexicographers, both general and special. Park- 
 hurst's lexicon for the New Testament deposes, that baptizo first and pri- 
 marily means to dip, immerse, or plunge in water ; but in the New Testa- 
 ment it occurs not strictly in this sense, unless so far as this is included 
 in "to wash one's self, be washed, wash the hands by immersion, or dip- 
 ping them in water." Mark vii. 4 ; Luke xi. 38. To immerse in 
 water, or with water, in token of purification from sin, and from spiritual 
 pollution ; figuratively — " to be immersed or plunged into a flood or sea, 
 as it were, of grievous affliction and sufferings." So the Septuagint and 
 Josephus use it. He anomai me baptizei — Iniquity plunges me into 
 terror. 
 
 7. Next comes Mr. Donnegan, distinguished and popular in England 
 and America. " Baptizo — to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to sub- 
 merge, to sink thoroughly, to saturate ; metaphorically, to drench with 
 wine, to dip in a vessel and draw. Baptismos — immersion, submer- 
 sion, the act of washing or bathing. Baptiztes, (a baptist) — one who 
 immerses, submerges. Baptisma — an object immersed, submerged, 
 washed or soaked." 
 
 8. Rev. Dr. John Jones, of England, deserves the next place at least 
 in rank. Bapto, he defines, "I dip, I stain;" and baptizo, "I plunge, 
 I plunge in water, dip, baptize, bury, overwhelm." 
 
 9. Greenfield, editor of the Comprehensive Bible, the Polymicrian 
 New Testament, &c. &c, whose reputation as a New Testament lexicog- 
 rapher is well known, says, " Baptizo means to immerse, immerge, sub- 
 merge, sink," — " I. N. T. — To wash, to perform ablution, cleanse, to 
 immerse, baptize, and perform the rite of baptism." 
 
 10. Two Germans of distinction may be next heard. Professor Rost, 
 whose reputation is equal to that of any other German linguist, in his 
 Standard German Lexicon, defines bapto by words indicating to plunge, 
 to immerse, to submerge. 
 
 11. Bretschneider, said to be the most critical lexicographer of the 
 New Testament, affirms that «« an entire immersion belongs to the nature 
 of baptism." He defines it, " Proprie, saepius intingo, saepius lavo," 
 and adds, " This is the meaning of the word : for in baptizo is contained 
 
60 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTI8M. 
 
 the idea of a complete immersion under water : at least, so is baptisma in 
 the New Testament." But more fully he explains as follows : Baptizo, 
 in N. T. non dicitur nisi de submersione solemni et sacra qua utebantur 
 Judaei, ut vel ad vitse emendationem aliquem obstringerent, vel peccato- 
 rum ejus culpamedelerent. Ritu solemni submergo aquis, baptizo (ut 
 patres Latini loquuntur,) et legitur in N. T. simplicitur ; activum : bap- 
 tizo aliquem, Jo. i. 25, &c. — passive immergor in aquas solemni ritu, 
 baptismo initior, Matt. iii. 16; Marc i. 4, <fcc. ; Rom. vi. 2; osoi ebap- 
 tisthemen ; quotquot sacra submersione obstricti sumus Christo, etiam 
 obstricti sumus, ut in consortium mortis ejus veniamus, i. e. moriamur pec- 
 cato, ut ipse pro peccatis mortuus est. Baptisma, immersio, submersio ; 
 in N. T. tantum de submersione sacra, quam patres baptismum dicunt. 
 Dicitur de Johannis baptismo, &c. In the New Testament baptizo is 
 not used, unless concerning the sacred and solemn submersion which 
 the Jews used, that they might oblige an individual to an amendment of 
 life, or that they might release him from the guilt of his sins. In the 
 New Testament, without any adjunct, it means, I baptize in water in the 
 solemn rite, (as the Latin Fathers use it.) Actively, I baptize one — 
 passively, I am immersed into water in the solemn ordinance — I am initi- 
 ated by baptism. Matt. iii. 16; Mark i. 4 ; Rom. vi. 2. Baptisma, immer- 
 sion, submersion. In N. T. it is used only concerning the sacred submer- 
 sion, which the Fathers call baptism. It is used concerning John's baptism. 
 
 12. Bass, an English lexicographer for the New Testament, gives 
 baptizo, "to dip, immerse, plunge in water, to bathe one's self; to be 
 immersed in sufferings or afflictions. " If Pickering could be regarded 
 as a new or distinct lexicographer, we should add his testimony, as it is 
 corroborative of the above. He gives "Baptisma — immersion, dipping, 
 plunging; metaphorically, misery or calamity with which one is over- 
 whelmed." 
 
 13. I shall conclude this distinguished class of witnesses from the 
 nigh school of lexicography with the testimony of Stokius, who has 
 furnished us with a Greek clavis and a Hebrew clavis — one for the 
 Hebrew and one for the Greek Scriptures. My edition is the Leipsic of 
 1752. This great master of sacred literature says, " Generatim ac vivi 
 vocis instictionis ac immersionis baptizo notionem obtinet. Speciatim 
 proprie est immergere ac intingere in aquam ;" which we translate, 
 " Baptizo generally, and by the force of the word, indicates the idea of 
 simply dipping and diving; but properly, it means to dip or immerse in 
 water." He defines baptisma in like manner — "It generally denotes 
 immersion and dyeing ; but by the innate force of the term, it properly 
 imports immersion or the dipping of a thing in water, that it may be 
 washed or cleansed." And mark especially, the following frank declara- 
 tion of this distinguished theologian and critic: "The word is trans- 
 ferred to denote the first sacrament of the New Testament, which they 
 call the sacrament of initiation ; viz : baptism. In which sacrament those 
 to be baptized were anciently immersed in water, as now-a-days they are 
 only sprinkled with water, that they may be washed from the pollution 
 of sin, obtain the remission of it, and be received into the covenant of 
 grace, as heirs of eternal life." 
 
 So depose these thirteen great masters on the native, original and 
 proper meaning of the word in debate : to whose testimony I might add 
 that of another thirteen dictionaries, both classical and theological, Greek 
 and Latin ; such as Wilson's Church Dictionary, 1678; Bailey, of 1772 ; 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 61 
 
 Robertson ; Hedericus, 1778 ; Ash, 1775 : Charles Richardson ; Cal- 
 met; Schoettgenius, 1765; Suicerus; Schilhornius ; Cliznetus, 1661; 
 Leigh's Critica Sacra: and Tromius' Concordance. These all are re- 
 spectable authorities, and some of them, indeed, rank with those of the 
 first class. They all concur with Suicerus, in denning baptizo as pro- 
 perly denoting immersion or dipping into. But as they are in general 
 but a mere monotonous repetition of the first thirteen, I shall not quote 
 them in extenso. 
 
 But, to sum up this class of evidence, and to show, from the highest 
 source of American theological authority, that I have neither misquoted 
 nor misinterpreted the verdict of this illustrious jury of thirteen unchal- 
 lenged judges, I will quote the words of Prof. Stuart, of the Andover 
 Theological School: " Bapto, baptizo, mean to dip, plunge, or immerse 
 into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note, are agreed 
 in this." — Bib. Repos. 1833, p. 298. Professor Stuart is my American 
 apostle, standing to this argument, as Paul stood in comparison to the 
 original twelve — himself the only apostle to the gentiles, though the thir- 
 teenth, as respected the original twelve, selected of and for the Jews. 
 
 Before dismissing this class of witnesses, it is pertinent to my proposi- 
 tion, that I state distinctly three facts: 1. These lexicographers were not 
 Baptists, but Pedo-baptists ; 2. Not one of them ever translated any of 
 these terms by the word sprinkle; 3. Not any one of them ever trans- 
 lated any of these terms by the word pour. Consequently, with all their 
 prejudices they could find no authority for so doing, else doubtless, they 
 could have done it. 
 
 I hope my hearers will pardon the introduction of so many Greek and 
 Latin words. The occasion demands it. From the course pursued by 
 our neighboring denominations, we are compelled to lay the corner-stone 
 of our superstructure, not only deep in the earth, but upon a solid Greek 
 basis. The foundation being laid upon a Grecian rock, and the wall 
 above-ground, our labors will, we hope, be more intelligible, and conse- 
 quently more agreeable, and more interesting to us all. 
 
 We have, then, the unanimous testimony of all the lexicographers 
 known in Europe and America, that the proper and everywhere current 
 signification of baptizo, the word chosen by Jesus Christ in his commis- 
 sion to the apostles, is, to dip, plunge, or immerse; and that any other 
 meaning is tropical, rhetorical, or fanciful. This being so, then our first 
 proposition must be undoubtedly true. But, besides these, I have vari- 
 ous other classes of witnesses to adduce, in solemn confirmation of the 
 testimony of this most learned, veritable and venerable class of men. 
 
 Before I sit down, permit me to assure you, Mr. President, and through 
 you, my friend, Mr. Rice, and this great concourse, that it is by constraint, 
 and not willingly, I have summoned those witnesses whose testimony you 
 have already heard, and others from whom you are yet to hear in the pro- 
 gress of this discussion. It is our Pedo-baptist friends who have imposed 
 on us this task. It is they and not we, that are demanding new transla- 
 tions, ingenious and learned criticisms. It is they who call for dictiona- 
 ries and grammars, for divers versions, for ancient fathers, for the venera- 
 ble decrees of synods and councils, and for all manner of extrinsic helps 
 and vouchers. 
 
 I have had the misfortune, sir, to be represented times without number, 
 as desirous of introducing a new version of the New Testament, to favor 
 my peculiar views and tenets. But, sir, a more unjust and unfounded 
 
 F 
 
62 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 assertion has rarely been circulated among the American family. So far 
 as my peculiar tenets are involved, the common Testament and common 
 sense are all-sufficient. I ask no other earthly auxiliaries. In proof of 
 this declaration, I now say, in your presence, gentlemen, and in the pre- 
 sence of this great congregation, that if my friend Mr. Rice, dare risk his 
 cause on that version of the Scriptures read in his own church, I will meet 
 him on that book alone, and from its plain grammatical construction, sus- 
 tain not only the propositions before us, but every other doctrine I 
 believe and teach ; and that too without substituting one new reading, 
 change or alteration from what is presented by the authority of Queen 
 Victoria, or the General Assembly of the Scotch and American Presby- 
 terian Church. Now, sir, when it is known, as we presume it will be, 
 before this debate closes, that the Bishops' Bible published in the tenth 
 year of Queen Elizabeth, and on which so much of the present King 
 James' Bible, as appertains to the action of baptism, is especially based, 
 was got up by the present Pedo-baptist authority, at the very crisis when 
 immersion was being repudiated to make way for affusion in both 
 Scotland and England, it will doubtless appear that I make a most liberal 
 offer, when I agree to risk the defence of those propositions touching 
 baptism, exclusively on that version, founding upon it every scriptural 
 argument which I shall offer in the support of each and every one of 
 those propositions. One point, at least, 1 must gain from this overture, 
 whatever be its reception on the part of my respondent. If he accede to 
 it, I, in common with the audience, will gain much time in coming to a 
 satisfactory issue ; if he do not accede to it, I shall never need another 
 argument to prove, whether Reformers or Presbyterians have the greater 
 confidence in, or affection for, the common version, so far at least as the 
 establishment of our respective tenets are concerned. It is now, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, entirely in the hands and at the option of Mr. Rice, whether before 
 an English audience, we shall exclusively employ an English Bible, and 
 the common version, as the standard of orthodoxy, and the ultimate 
 appeal on every proposition ; or whether we shall? abandon it as a whole, 
 and only use it in a discretionary way, just as we may regard it favora- 
 ble to our respective tenets. 
 
 I am, however, prepared for any course the gentleman pleases. I have 
 just as many learned authorities, as much documentary evidence of all 
 sorts around me, or at my disposal on the premises, as I desire, or can 
 expect to use in the most protracted discussion. On him then be the 
 entire responsibility, and not on me, for the direction which the present 
 controversy may take. 
 
 But while I do, ex-animo, adopt the common version, as all-sufficient, 
 and alone sufficient for my use in this debate, I would not be understood, 
 as at all approving of it as the most faithful, correct and intelligible trans- 
 lation of the original Scriptures, which we have or can have, in our ver- 
 nacular. It is however with much pleasure, that after having more or 
 less examined many versions, and possessing, as I do, some fifteen or 
 twenty varieties of them, I can and do avow my full conviction, that by a 
 candid person, of the most ordinary, or extraordinay attainments, the 
 way of salvation, our whole duty and happiness, can be learned with the 
 greatest certainty and assurance, from the most imperfect version I have 
 ever seen. I am therefore willing, if circumstances should command me, 
 to meet any virtuous man, on any version extant, and maintain all that I. 
 now stand pledged to maintain" on the present occasion. — [Time expired. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 63 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. i5 — -lis: o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's first reply. 3 
 
 Mr. President — With regard to the reformation of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury and its glorious results, I perfectly agree with my friend, whose 
 address you have just heard. And I am truly happy to appear before 
 this large audience to-day in the defence of the great doctrines and truths 
 elicited by the investigation of those eminent men, who were the hon- 
 ored instruments of rescuing the Scriptures from ecclesiastical despot- 
 ism, and proclaiming to the world the fundamental truth, that the Bible 
 teaches all that is necessary to be believed, or to be done, to secure 
 eternal life. 
 
 I am perfectly aware of the disadvantage under which I attempt to per- 
 form this duty, partly from the fact, that I meet in debate one so much 
 my senior, whose arguments and statements may be supposed to have an 
 authority which cannot accompany such as I may offer. Besides, I meet 
 a gentleman who has been engaged for thirty years past in discussing the 
 very points now at issue— one who, if not the originator, is certainly the 
 leading man of a numerous body of professing christians, by whom he 
 is regarded almost as an oracle. In the opinion of many I shall doubtless 
 be chargeable with presumption in venturing, under such circumstances, 
 to become his opponent. But when I consider what multitudes of the 
 wisest and best men, in past ages and in the present, have maintained and 
 do maintain the principles for which I now contend ; and when I remem- 
 ber that my friend himself, when perhaps younger than I, ventured to 
 wage war upon the christian world, I think I may justly claim acquittal 
 of the charge. 
 
 It is true, as he remarked, that in the Reformation all error was not 
 detected and repudiated ; but it will scarcely be denied, that so much of 
 the truth was discovered and embraced as was essential to the existence 
 of the church and the salvation of the soul. And if this be admitted, the 
 doctrine of my worthy friend cannot be sustained ; for certain it is, that 
 the Reformers did not ascertain that immersion into water is the only 
 apostolic or christian baptism. If, then, the Scriptures do teach this doc- 
 trine, they failed to discover one of the most important features of the 
 christian system ; and they and their followers were alike unbaptized, 
 and were aliens from the church of Christ. Nay, if this doctrine be true, 
 there is not now a true church on earth, save the few who have been so 
 happy as to make this remarkable discovery ! 
 
 A word in regard to the origin of this discussion. We are unwilling 
 to receive any credit not due us, however disposed my friend Mr. C. 
 may be to award it to us. It is more than doubtful whether he has given 
 a correct account of the matter. I will read an extract from the second 
 letter of Rev. Mr. Brown to Mr. Campbell, which places the subject in a 
 very different light. "There is," says Mr. B., "evidently a misappre- 
 hension on the part of one of us as it regards our interview at Richmond, 
 in August last. Let the facts speak for themselves. They are briefly 
 the following : At the close of your address at Richmond, on the 3d of 
 August, your friend Mr. Duncan approached me, and asked my opinion 
 as to the address, which I gave with as much candor as it was sought. 
 After other interrogatories were propounded and answered, he inquired 
 if I thought discussion advisable, to which I gave an affirmative reply. 
 He then remarked that he had engaged to dine with you, and would 
 ascertain your feelings and wishes on the subject. All this occurred 
 
64 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 before we left the church. About four o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. 
 Duncan sought a second interview with me, and requested me to call in 
 company with him at your room, stating that you desired an interview 
 with me on the subject about which he and I had conversed in the 
 forenoon. I conformed to his wish, and accompanied him to your room, 
 which ultimated in a mutual agreement to discuss certain points of 
 difference, for the edification of the church and the prosperity of the 
 cause of Christ, with a definite and expressed understanding that neither 
 was to be considered the challenging party." 
 
 From this letter it appears, that the debate originated with Mr. Dun- 
 can, Mr. Campbell's friend, and not with Presbyterians. With its 
 origin, it may be proper for me to say, I had nothing to do. It was 
 agreed upon before I heard of it. I was afterwards requested, and con- 
 sented to be one of the five who should undertake to conduct it. 
 
 My friend in his address paid me quite an unmerited compliment. 
 I regret that I had not written something, as he has done, that might be 
 considered a suitable return. But I am so little accustomed to writing 
 speeches, and withal am so poor a reader of them, that I shall be under 
 the necessity of returning the compliment as well as I can extempo- 
 raneously. 
 
 He has represented me as extremely anxious to press into this discus- 
 sion. The truth, however, is, that I nominated successively two indi- 
 viduals to manage the debate, both of whom declined. I had had as 
 much public discussion as I desired ; but my brethren have thought 
 proper to devolve upon me the duty of defending our views on this 
 occasion. But Mr. C. would have you believe that I am quite a furious 
 warrior — that, like the persecuting Saul, I have pursued the Reformers to 
 strange cities, even as far as Nashville. I have had, it is true, more 
 frequent discussions than most of my brethren, owing chiefly to the 
 peculiar situation in which, in the early part of my ministry, I was 
 placed. Providentially, I was settled where Romanism exerted a pre- 
 vailing influence. It became necessary for me to engage in a war 
 against that system, which continued for some seven years. During that 
 period, I was employed in defending those great principles of the Refor- 
 mation on which Protestant Christendom are mainly agreed. 
 
 With the followers of Mr. C. I have not sought controversy. The 
 first discussion I ever had with a Reformer, occurred in Stanford, Ky., 
 where, at the close of a sermon I preached on the mode of baptism, a 
 Mr. Kenrick arose and requested the privilege of replying, which was 
 granted. I had previously received from him a challenge to a discus- 
 sion, of which I took no notice. My second discussion was with 
 President Shannon, who visited Paris — the place of my residence, and 
 made a public attack upon our Confession of Faith ; to which, as in 
 duty bound, I responded. This led to a rather informal controversy, 
 which resulted in a written discussion. In Nashville, it is true, I had a 
 discussion with one of Mr. Campbell's friends. I visited that city in 
 fulfillment of a previous promise, to hold a protracted meeting. Whilst 
 there I was requested by a number of the citizens to preach on the 
 subject of baptism. I consented, and the appointment was announced. 
 On the next morning I was called on by four prominent and very respect- 
 able Reformers, who gave me a challenge to meet in debate their most 
 prominent man. I informed them, that as I was a stranger in Nashville, 
 having no particular responsibility there, I should leave my friends to 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 65 
 
 determine whether I ought to accept their invitation. My friends deci- 
 ded that it was my duty to accept. I accordingly did so, and, having 
 but four days to remain, engaged in a brief discussion with Mr. 
 Fanning. 
 
 These facts show how I have persecuted the Reformers, even to 
 strange cities ! Mr. Campbell has published the charge against me of 
 waging furious war against his church ; but let facts be known, and tbt 
 charge is refuted. 
 
 This discussion, it should be known, is in no sense an ecclesiastical 
 affair. The synod of Kentucky could not become a party to it ; nor had 
 that body any authority to appoint a representative to conduct such a 
 discussion. It is, therefore, strictly an individual concern. It is true, 
 some of my brethren have devolved upon me the important and difficult 
 task of defending what we believe to be revealed truth ; but I claim not 
 the high standing in my church which my friend has been pleased to 
 assign me. Whilst, however, I occupy an humble place amongst the 
 minsters of the Presbyterian church, I have no fears of being unable to 
 sustain the principles in regard to which so great a part of Christendom 
 are agreed. 
 
 A large portion of the speech of my friend was occupied with matters 
 in which we are all deeply interested, concerning which lie has said 
 much that is true ; but certainly those things have no immediate connec- 
 tion with the subject now under discussion. I will, therefore, proceed 
 immediately to the matter in hand. 
 
 Let the audience distinctly understand the proposition which Mr. C 
 affirms. He undertakes to prove, not that immersion is the best mode 
 of administering baptism, nor that in the days of the apostles it was 
 sometimes practiced, but that it is absolutely essential to the validity of 
 the ordinance — that nothing short of the entire submersion of the body 
 in water is apostolic or christian baptism; and consequently, that the 
 whole christian world not thus immersed, are unbaptized, and are out of 
 the church of Christ. It is an arduous undertaking ; but my friend has 
 bound himself to sustain this proposition. If this doctrine is true, it is 
 certainly one of the most singular truths discovered in any age of the 
 world. The Bible is, especially on all important points, a plain book. 
 This Mr. C. acknowledges. Then how shall we account for the fact, 
 that not more than one in a thousand, from the days of the apostles to 
 the present time, has ascertained that immersion is essential to christian 
 baptism ? From a very early period it is certain that different modes 
 were practiced. In the writings of the christian fathers we read of three 
 immersions, and of partial immersions — ter caput mergitare — to immerse 
 the head thrice. And it is fact, that as far back as history can take us, 
 pouring and sprinkling were practiced ; and baptism thus administered 
 was universally considered valid. Now if those who practiced trine 
 immersion, whose prejudices were all in favor of immersion, and whose 
 vernacular tongue was the Greek, could not see that immersion only is 
 christian baptism ; I am obliged to doubt whether Mr. Campbell or any 
 other man at this day will be able to prove it. I cannot believe that he 
 can now make it clear, that the most learned, wise, and good men, who 
 for long years studied the Bible on their knees, have lived and died in 
 the firm belief that they had been baptized and were members of the 
 church of the great Redeemer, when in truth they were unbaptized, attd 
 " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel !" 
 5 f2 
 
66 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 It strikes me, that if all those of whom I have spoken, failed to dis- 
 cover in the Bible this important doctrine, it must be taught, if taught at 
 all, most obscurely. If Mr. C. had taken the ground, that it is really- 
 taught in the Scriptures, though with much obscurity ; there might have 
 been perhaps some plausibility in the declaration, at least a possibility, 
 that he is in the right. But when he asserts, that it lies upon the very- 
 surface, that it is so clearly taught, that nothing but folly or perverseness 
 can prevent the discovery of it ; we are bound to believe, either that he is 
 wholly mistaken, or that the multitudes of apparently wise and good 
 men of whom I have spoken, were in truth most perversely rebellious or 
 most profoundly stupid ! When we read of such men as the celebrated 
 Commentator, Dr. Thomas Scott, (and he is one among hundreds) who 
 for long years carefully searched the Scriptures, that he might know the 
 truth on this subject, coming finally to the clear conclusion that baptism 
 is scripturally performed by pouring or sprinkling ; shall we be told, 
 that the Bible most plainly teaches, that nothing short of immersion is 
 christian baptism? I repeat it — this discovery, if indeed it be true, is 
 certainly the most singular of all the discoveries made since the commence- 
 ment of the christian era ! 
 
 Three things, and only three, have been commonly regarded as essen- 
 tial to the validity of baptism, viz : 1st. That it be performed in the name 
 of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; 2d. That it be ad- 
 ministered by an ordained or properly authorized minister of the Gospel ; 
 and, 3d. That water be the fluid employed. The precise mode of apply- 
 ing the water has been regarded as essential by only a mere handfull, 
 compared with even Protestant christians. I shall indeed be surprised if 
 Mr. C. should now make it manifest, that they were all deceived in a 
 matter so important as he regards this. 
 
 My worthy friend has proposed to take the common translation, (King 
 James',) and rest the whole controversy upon it. But he was careful 
 not to make this proposition, until he had appealed to the Greek lexi- 
 cons, ancient and modern ! But having first adduced these authorities, 
 and having heretofore proclaimed from Dan to Beersheba, that the com- 
 mon version is not a translation, but a gross perversion of the original 
 Greek ; he gravely proposes to determine the whole controversy by the 
 English translation ! If he had ventured to make this proposition at first, 
 I might with perfect safety have accepted it. But he has appealed to the 
 Greeks, and to the Greeks we will go, though, I think, with less obscu- 
 rity of criticism than has characterized his remarks. 
 
 The evidence in support of his views, he would have us believe, is so 
 abundant, that he has a great deal to spare. I am inclined to think, that 
 he will need it all. Perhaps it would be wise in him not to be too gene- 
 rous. 
 
 Much of his criticism I am obliged to consider wholly incorrect. If I 
 can understand him, he maintains, that when a word has in it a leading 
 syllable, as bap, in the word bapto, it never in any of its inflexions loses 
 the original or radical import — that bap expresses dip, and consequently, 
 wherever you find bap, you find the idea of dipping or immersing. 
 Now it is certain, (and I can prove it by some of the most learned men 
 on his own side of the question,) that there is no such general rule. 
 Take, for example, the English word prevent. It is derived from the 
 Latin words pre and venio, and signifies literally to come before; and 
 then to anticipate, and in this sense it was first employed in the English 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 67 
 
 language. Bat is this the sense in which it is now used by correct wri- 
 ters and speakers? The word retains the leading syllable vent; but, I 
 ask, has it not entirely lost its original meaning? Is it not now univer- 
 sally employed in a secondary sense, to hinder? When Mr. C. was 
 about to give a new translation of the New Testament, he asserted that 
 this word had lost its original meaning, and, to prove it, quoted the pas- 
 sage — " Mine eyes prevent the dawning of the morning." And this was 
 one of the evidences of the necessity of a new translation. I agree with 
 him, that this word has lost its original meaning. 
 
 Again — what is the literal or radical meaning to the word conversa- 
 tion ? It signifies turning about from one thing to another. Hence it 
 was formerly used to signify conduct ; and in this sense it is almost uni- 
 formly used in our translation of the Bible. But is this its present mean- 
 ing ? Has it not lost its original import and assumed a meaning quite 
 different? It is now certainly used in the sense of talking — oral com- 
 munication. 
 
 Mr. Carson, one of the most learned critics who has written in favor 
 of immersion, fully sustains the principle for which I am contending. 
 He asserts, that words very often lose entirely their original signification, 
 and a secondary meaning comes to be the true and proper meaning. It 
 is not true, therefore, that words of any class always retain their original 
 philological import. On the contrary, their meaning is perpetually 
 changing ; and usage only, as the ablest critics declare, can determine 
 it. But as I shall have occasion to revert to this point, and to read some 
 of Mr. Carson's remarks upon it, I will for the present pass it. 
 
 I must not omit to notice a remark of my friend in regard to new 
 translations. The Pedo-baptists, he says, and not the immersion- 
 ists, call for new translations. I had not learned that they have either 
 made or desired a new translation. I knew that Mr. Campbell had 
 made one, and that in every case but one he had translated the word 
 baptizo, to immerse. I was also aware, that our Baptist brethren had 
 got a translation of their own, in which they rendered the word to im- 
 merse in all cases except tivo. But I did not know, that the Pedo-bap- 
 tists desired any change. I had supposed, that they were well satisfied 
 with the common version. 
 
 In the further discussion of this subject, allow me to turn your atten- 
 tion to the words bapto and baptizo. It is admitted on all hands, by im- 
 mersionists, that the controversy turns mainly on the meaning of these 
 words. The main battle, as they themselves admit, is to be fought on 
 this ground. And let it be particularly remarked, that it is acknowledged 
 by the advocates of immersion, that these two words, so far as mode 
 is concerned, have precisely the same meaning, viz : to immerse. So 
 says Mr. Carson. 
 
 My friend has appealed to the lexicons, as the highest authority, and 
 has quoted a number of them in support of his views. I will appeal to 
 the same lexicons. He attaches great importance to the fact, that some 
 of them are ancient lexicons. And yet on another occasion he main- 
 tained, that in these latter days we enjoy superior advantages, and have 
 consequently more light on these subjects — that we have all the light 
 possessed by the older critics, with the addition of all the improvements 
 of later times. And he offered this as one of the reasons in favor of a 
 new translation. If this be true, I do not know why the modern critics 
 should possess less authority with the gentleman, than those of more an- 
 
68 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 cient date. But I will appeal to the ancient, as well as the modern lexi- 
 cons. I will commence with 
 
 Hedericus, who defines the word bapto — Mergo, immergo, (2) Tingo, 
 intingo, (3) Lavo, &c, — to immerse, to plunge, to dye — to wash, &C 
 
 Scapula defines it — Mergo, immergo — Item tingo — inficere, imbuere— * 
 Item lavo — to immerse, to plunge—- also, to stain, dye, color — also, to 
 wash. 
 
 Coulon — Mergo, tingo, abluo — to immerse, to dye, to cleanse. 
 
 Ur sinus — To dip, to dye, to wash, to sprinkle, (abluo, aspergo.) 
 
 Schrivellius — Mergo, intingo, lavo, haurio, &c, to dip, to dye, to wash, 
 to draw water. 
 
 Groves — To dip, plunge, immerse, to wash, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, 
 to steep, imbue, to dye, &e. 
 
 Donnegan— To dip, to plunge into water, to submerge, to wash, ta 
 dye, to color,— to wash, &c. 
 
 The lexicons, you will observe, not only define the word bapto, to dip r 
 plunge, dye, but also lavo, to wash. Now every one at all acquainted 
 with Latin, knows that lavo signifies simply to wash, without regard ta 
 mode — that it never expresses mode. Scapula defines this word not on- 
 ly to dip, dye, <fcc, but to wash, (in any mode ;) and he is one of the first 
 authorities adduced by Mr. Campbell. Groves goes even further, and 
 defines it to wet, moisten, sprinkle, &c. How ignorant he must have 
 been, not to have learned Mr. Campbell's rule, that wherever you find bap 
 you find also the idea of dipping J How strange that he should have- 
 been so unwise as not only to define it to wash, but also to wet; not only 
 to wet, but to moisten; not only to moisten, but to sprinkle! But in due 
 time I will prove that wiser men than Groves have done the same thing. 
 
 To wash, every one knows, does not express mode, neither do the 
 words dye, color. Each of the lexicons just quoted gives several defini- 
 tions of bapto; at least two of which, to wash and to color, exclude 
 the idea of mode ; whilst some of them define it to moisten, to sprinkle, 
 I have not seen the tree of which my friend has spoken ; but it is certain, 
 unless the lexicographers are all in error, that bapto does not uniformly 
 signify to immerse. Even Carson, the great Baptist critic, admits that it 
 does not always express mode. I will read on pages 62, 63, 64 ; 
 
 "A word," says Mr. Carson, " may come to enlarge its meaning, so as 
 to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious to every smatterer 
 in philology. Had it been attended to, Baptists would have found no 
 necessity to prove that bapto, when it signifies to dye, always properly 
 signifies to dye by dipping ; and their opponents would have seen no ad- 
 vantage from proving that it signifies dying in any manner." Again, 
 "Bapto signifies, to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping; 
 though originally it was confined to the latter." Again, "Nor are such 
 applications of the word to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale as- 
 serts. They are as literal as the primary meaning. It is by extension 
 of literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words come to de- 
 part so far from their original signification." 
 
 Observe, Carson says, bapto originally signified to dip, then to dye by 
 dipping, and then to dye in any manner, even by sprinkling. Now if 
 it signifies to dye by sprinkling, why can it not signify to wet by sprink- 
 ling? Is there any rule or principle of interpretation, which teaches that 
 a word may denote the sprinkling of a colored fluid, and be incapable of 
 expressing the sprinkling of a colorless fluid ? If there is, let it be pro- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 69 
 
 duced. If there is not, bapto will express the sprinkling of water, as well 
 as of any other fluid. Mr. Carson, moreover, declares that such applica- 
 tions of the word are not to be accounted for by metaphor ox figure, as Dr. 
 Gale, another learned immersionist, maintained, but that they are as liter- 
 al as the primary meaning — that it is by the extension of the literal 
 meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words depart so far from 
 their original signification. The word bapto, therefore, not only expres- 
 ses the application of a fluid by sprinkling, but this is a literal significa- 
 tion. Now Carson, who was a zealous immersionist, did not intend to 
 concede any thing more than candor and truth demanded. We have, 
 therefore, evidence conclusive that bapto signifies not only to dip, plunge, 
 &c, but to wash and to sprinkle. 
 
 We will now examine the testimony of the lexicons concerning the 
 word baptizo, the word uniformly used in the New Testament to express 
 christian baptism. 
 
 Scapula, one of the old lexicographers to whom Mr. C. appealed, thus 
 defines the word baptizo: "Mergo, seu immergo — Item tingo: utquae tin- 
 gendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus — Item mergo, submergo, ob- 
 ruo aqua — Item .abluo, lavo, (Mark 7, Luke 11,) to dip or immerse — al- 
 so, to dye: as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing 
 them ; also, to plunge, submerge, to cover with water; also, to cleanse, 
 to toash. (Mark 7, Luke 11.) Baptismos, he thus defines : "Mersio, lotio, 
 ablutio, ipse immergendi, item lavandi seu abluendi actus," (Mark 7, &c.) 
 Immersion, washing, cleansing, the act itself of immersing ; also of wash- 
 ing, or cleansing,'" (Mark 7, &c.) 
 
 Hedericus thus defines baptizo: "Mergo, immergo, aqua abruo, — (2) 
 Abluo, lavo; (3) Baptizo, significatu sacro" — To dip, immerse, to cover 
 with water; (2) to cleanse ; to wash; (3) to baptize in a sacred sense. 
 
 Stephanus defines it thus : " Mergo, seu immergo, ut quae tingendi aut 
 abluendi gratia aqua immergimus — Mergo, submergo, obruo aqua; abluo, 
 lavo" — To dip, immerse, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring 
 or washing; to merge, submerge, to cover with water — to cleanse, to wash. 
 
 Schleusner defines baptizo, not only to plunge, immerse, but to cleanse, 
 wash, to purify with water ; (abluo, lavo, aqua purgo.) 
 
 Parkhurst defines it: "To immerse in or wash with water in token 
 of purification." 
 
 Robinson defines it: "To immerse, to sink; for example, spoken ol 
 ships, galleys, &c. In the New Testament, to wash, to cleanse by wash- 
 ing — to wash one's self, to bathe, perform ablution,''' &c. 
 
 Schrivellius defines it: "Baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo — to baptize, to 
 immerse, to cleanse, to wash."" 
 
 Groves — " To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge ; to wash, cleanse, 
 purify — Baptizomai, to wash one's self, bathe," &c. 
 
 Bretschneider,—"l i wpridz sepius intingo, sepius lavo ; deinde (1) lavo, 
 abluo simpliciter — medium, &c; lavo me, abluo me:" properly often to 
 dip, often to wash; then (1) simply to wash, to cleanse ; in the middle 
 voice, " I wash or cleanse myself." 
 
 Suidas defines baptizo, not only to sink, plunge, immerse, but to wet, 
 wash, cleanse, purify, &c, (madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo.) 
 
 Wahl defines it, first — to wash, perform ablution, cleanse; secondly, 
 to immerse, &c. 
 
 Greenfield defines it: to immerse, immerge, submerge, sink; and in the 
 New Testament, to wash, perform ablution, cleanse: to immerse. 
 
70 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 I have now adduced the principal lexicons, ancient and modern ; and 
 it is a fact, that with remarkable unanimity, they testify that the word 
 baptizo signifies not only to sink, dip, plunge, &-c, but to wash, to cleanse, 
 to purify. Scapula, the learned lexicographer, to whom Mr. C. ap- 
 pealed with so much confidence, defines it not only to dip, plunge, &lc, 
 but to wash, to cleanse; and, mark the fact, he refers to the New Testa- 
 ment as the place in which we find the word used in the sense of wash- 
 ing, cleansing. Now every one at all acquainted with Latin, knows 
 that the words lavo and abluo, — to wash, to cleanse, — do not express 
 mode. They signify washing and cleansing in any mode. 
 
 Let me here distinctly remark, that I am not contending that the word 
 baptizo definitely expresses pouring or sprinkling. I maintain that, as 
 used in the Scriptures, it expresses the thing done — the application of 
 water to a subject — but not the mode of doing it ; that the mode in which 
 baptism was administered cannot be determined by the word, but must 
 be learned from the connection and circumstances, or from other sources. 
 
 Hedericus defines the word — first, to immerse or plunge, and second- 
 ly, to wash, cleanse, without reference to mode. Schleusner, besides 
 the definition to plunge, &c, gives three others, which express the thing 
 done, but not the mode of doing it: viz. abluo, lavo, aqua purgo — to 
 cleanse, to wash, to purify with water. Parkhurst makes it mean either 
 to immerse in, or wash with water. Robinson, one of the first lexico- 
 graphers, first gives the definition to immerse, to sink, &c, but in the 
 New Testament the first meaning he finds is to ivash, to cleanse by 
 washing, to perform ablution. Bretschneider gives as the general mean- 
 ing of baptizo, " Proprie sepius intingo, sepius lavo" — properly often to 
 dip, often to wash — thus putting these two definitions upon a perfect 
 equality with each other. This is all for which I contend. But as his is a 
 lexicon of the New Testament ; the first meaning he there finds, is " lavo, 
 abluo sempliciter ;" simply to wash, to cleanse. Here, certainly, is no 
 immersing. I deem the authority of Bretschneider more important, not 
 only because he is one of the most learned lexicographers, but because 
 he was evidently partial to immersion. Yet, as a scholar, he was con- 
 strained to give lavo, abluo, to wash, to cleanse, as a literal meaning of 
 baptizo. Suidas, one of the oldest lexicographers, as we have seen, de- 
 fines it not only to plunge, sink, &c, but to wet, wash, cleanse, &c. 
 and every one knows that a thing may be wetted, washed, or cleansed, 
 without being immersed. Greenfield defines it, as you see, to sink, to 
 wash, &c. 
 
 Now let it be remarked, that each of these lexicographers, ancient and 
 modern, establishes all for which I contend. With entire unanimity they 
 declare that the word baptizo does not signify simply and only to im- 
 merse, but that it means also to wash, cleanse, <fcc. It certainly has 
 these different meanings. Now if my friend, Mr. C, can prove that the 
 Savior and the inspired writers employed it in the sense of immersing, 
 he will have gained his point. But if he cannot prove that it was used 
 by them in the specific sense of immersing, and not in the general sense 
 of washing, cleansing, he is defeated. For if it should be true, that they 
 used it in the general sense of washing, &c, how can Mr. C. prove, by 
 the force of the word, the doctrine for which he is contending? I main- 
 tain that they did use it in the general, and not in the specific sense ; 
 and I expect to prove it by the Scriptures. 
 
 My friend says, the ordinance of circumcision required to be expressed 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 71 
 
 by a specific term. Now I would like to see any man attempt to deter- 
 mine by the Greek or the Hebrew word employed, what was the pre- 
 cise modus operandi of circumcision. He could not do it. I should 
 like to see any one attempt to give those words, as applied to denote 
 circumcision, a literal translation. Such a translation, I presume, would 
 appear rather ludicrous. 
 
 But mark this fact : a number of washings are commanded in the Old 
 Testament, the mode of performing which is not specified. The word 
 employed both in the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint is a generic 
 term, signifying simply to wash. The washing, therefore, might be 
 performed, (and the command obeyed,) in different modes ; because no 
 particular mode was prescribed. In these instances the thing to be done 
 was important, but the mode of doing it was not. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, maintains that the mode of baptism is essential to 
 the ordinance, and that the command to baptize must have been denoted 
 by a specific term. Let him first prove that it cannot be validly admin- 
 istered but in one particular mode ; for until he has established this posi- 
 tion he cannot prove, a priori, that the Savior must have used a specific 
 term. He might as easily prove, that in appointing the washings of the 
 Levitical law, just mentioned, Moses must have used a specific term; 
 which is contrary to fact. 
 
 I do not, however, maintain that the mode in which baptism is to be 
 administered is unimportant, though I do contend that it is not essential. 
 But though the word baptizo does not definitely express the mode, it 
 may be learned from the design of "the ordinance, and from the circum- 
 stances attending the administration of it; and these evidences are deci- 
 dedly in favor of pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 Let the facts now established be remembered, viz : that the words 
 bapto and baptizo have several meanings — that they are used sometimes 
 in the sense of dipping, plunging, sinking; sometimes in the sense of 
 washing, cleansing, purifying; sometimes in the sense of pouring, 
 sprinkling. In the classics I can prove, that four times in five baptizo 
 expresses sinking to the bottom. Let it be remembered, too, that the 
 lexicons refer to the Bible for the use of baptizo in the general sense of 
 washing, cleansing. 
 
 Perhaps I ought not to anticipate my friend in his argument. He has 
 appealed to the lexicons ; and I have now proved that they do not sustain 
 his doctrine. I might admit, that the primary or original meaning of 
 baptizo was to immerse, though it cannot be proved. I can admit this, 
 and still prove, that there is not the slightest evidence that such was its 
 meaning among the Jews, as used to denote their religious washings. 
 
 I am willing, at any time, to go with my friend to classic usage, and to 
 prove that it will not sustain him. I am also prepared, and it is my pur- 
 pose, to go to the usage of the word in the Bible; and this, according to 
 the decision of the best critics, must, after all, determine the meaning of 
 the word. Thus I expect to make it manifest, that baptism is validly 
 and scripturally performed by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 I am gratified to learn the estimation in which Mr. C. holds professor 
 Stuart, whom he styles his American apostle. He tells us, Stuart admits 
 that all critics and commentators of any note agree in defining baptizo to 
 dip, to plunge. This is true, but is not the whole truth. Let us have 
 the whole testimony of this apostle. Stuart also says, baptizo means to 
 overwhelm, which certainly is not identical with dip, plunge. He goes 
 
72 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 further, and tells us that it signifies to wash, to cleanse; and maintains, 
 that there is no satisfactory evidence that, as used among the Jews, it sig- 
 nified to immerse ; and he gives several examples in which it evidently 
 has not that meaning, but signifies to wash by applying water to the sub- 
 ject. I am willing to take the testimony of our American apostle. He 
 does, indeed, say, that baptizo signifies to dip, to plunge; but he does 
 not admit that such is its ordinary meaning in the Scriptures. Nay, he 
 positively denies that there is in the New Testament a single command 
 to immerse any one, and calls upon those who say there is, to produce it. 
 I will, if it should be necessary, turn to the pages and read the declara- 
 tions to which I refer. 
 
 I am willing, if Mr. C. wishes it, to appeal to critics and learned men ; 
 and I will find as many to sustain me, as he can produce against me. 
 Or I am willing to appeal directly to the Bible. But for the present I 
 close my remarks. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov, 15 — 12f o'clock, P. M. 
 
 [mr, Campbell's second address.]] 
 I think it is usual, Mr. President, and a rule in all scholastic discus- 
 sions, that the respondent shall confine himself to the arguments of the 
 affirmant, on whom the onus probandi rests. Till the affirmant has 
 offered all his proofs, it is not usual for the respondent to anticipate him. 
 His duty it is to respond to such arguments as he relies on, rather than 
 to those which he has not brought forward. However, as these intro- 
 ductory speeches are usually more general than special in character, I 
 am willing to overlook the aberrations observable in the desultory re- 
 marks of my worthy friend. 
 
 It may occasionally become necessary for me to advert to the com- 
 ments of the gentleman upon the arguments which I shall offer as we pro- 
 ceed. He begins by declaring himself, if not relevantly, at least, clearly 
 and forcibly, on the premises. He observes, that large majorities of learned 
 men are against me. I will however show, at the proper time, that every 
 reformer is agreed with us as to the antiquity and propriety of immer- 
 sion, as well as in the etymology of the terms in debate — his own Cal- 
 vin, and all the rest. As to the great superiority of numbers on the side 
 of the Pedo-baptists, it is a great mistake. I have been often surprised 
 to find that this groundless opinion should have obtained so generally in 
 this country. Talk about the immense numbers of Pedo-baptists, as 
 contrasted with those who practice immersion! The gentleman must 
 certainly have forgotten his ecclesiastical readings. He ought to know 
 very well, that the great mass of Christendom have always immersed. 
 He speaks in his hyperbolical way, of a thousand to one against the im- 
 mersionists. I will not be so particular as to state the fractional ratios 
 of all ages, but in the bold style of my friend, I will say that the whole 
 christian world for the first thirteen centuries, and for the last five, at 
 least one half have immersed. I repeat, sir, almost the whole church 
 immersed for the first thirteen hundred years, and at least one half of it 
 for the last five hundred years. So that the gentleman is entirely mista- 
 ken in representing us as in a fearful minority. So far as numbers are 
 concerned, we have in all time, a decided and overwhelming majority. But, 
 at present, I lay no stress upon numbers. I have said thus much with 
 reference to the emphasis my friend appeared to place upon the antiquity 
 and universality of his views. His views and practice are neither so 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 73 
 
 ancient nor so universal as ours. I now pledge myself to sustain this 
 assertion at the proper time. 
 
 With regard to the origin or occasion of this discussion, it is alledged 
 that my friends had something to do with it, of which I know nothing, 
 and for which, were it so, I am not answerable. I was asked by a friend, 
 while in Richmond, August, 1842, whether I was willing to have an 
 interview with Mr. Brown, should he call upon me touching my 
 sermon delivered in that place? To which I promptly assented. 
 
 After an introduction to Mr. Brown, he observed that he desired to 
 know whether I would be willing to go into a discussion of the points 
 of difference between Presbyterians and us. To which I assented on 
 certain conditions. One of the most prominent of which was, that it 
 should have the authority of both parties, and come out under their 
 denominational sanctions. To which he consented. 
 
 Mr. Rice has represented this as a mere personal affair. I do not so 
 understand it. I know that in my interview with Mr. Brown, it was 
 proposed that the Presbyterian synod of Kentucky should make the se- 
 lection of a debatant to meet me in the discussion of these questions. I 
 did not think, at the time, and I presume he did not, that the synod had 
 no authority to select any person to represent the Presbyterian church 
 on such an occasion; that when assembled together in synod, they could 
 not ecclesiastically make such a nomination. I am, however, officially 
 informed, that a conference relative to this discussion, was actually held 
 while the synod was in session ; that five persons were selected for this 
 occasion, one of which was to be the debatant. I will, however, read the 
 result of this conference in letters received from Mr. Brown. 
 
 Under date of January 3d, 1843, Mr. Brown writes as follows: — 
 
 "I also stated that the persons selected were chosen, not by the synod, 
 but in conference, and that some of them were known and acknowledged 
 to be the most prominent men in our church." 
 
 Again, under date of the 8th of March, the Rev. Mr. Brown says : — 
 " Your perfect willingness to meet those individuals, is in full view of the 
 fact, distinctly stated in my former communication that they were not 
 appointed by the synod, but only agreed upon at the synod." 
 
 With regard to filling vacancies, it was also agreed that any vacancy 
 occurring "should be filled by the five originally appointed." 
 
 This is again reiterated under date of the 15th of May : — " We offer 
 you a Presbyterian minister as your opponent, who shall be selected by 
 us, precisely in accordance with the arrangements made at synod, 
 viz : — that we should select one of our number to meet you in debate. 
 Now you have your choice to retreat or to accept." 
 
 Once more, under date of June 16th, 1843 : " But, sir, we are five in 
 number, and the gentleman who is ready to debate with you has been 
 selected by four of us, of whom Mr. Young is one : so, you have quite 
 as many witnesses as you desire. We have selected the man into whose 
 hands we think proper to commit the defence of our cause. His stand- 
 ing is well known both in Kentucky and out of it. We will not select 
 another ; you can either debate with him or retreat from the discussion." 
 
 Mr. Rice is then the elect Presbyterian clergyman — elected, not by, 
 but at synod, in conference of the ministry, and that is enough for me. 
 I care not how the ministry elected him ; the fact of his election is incon- 
 trovertible. It is not therefore a personal affair between Mr. Rice and 
 myself. 
 
 G 
 
74 BEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 With regard to the lexicographic authorities we have quoted, I am 
 glad to find that the gentleman, [Mr. Rice] has not excepted to one of 
 them. I have proposed a very respectable class of witnesses, but I have 
 not yet begun to descant upon their testimony. I had intended also to 
 have quoted some thirteen other authorities, of the same class, and cor- 
 roborative of the same position. 
 
 [He gives the dates of the imprints of several lexicons, some thirteen, 
 which he might have adduced, and says :] 
 
 These all concur with those already quoted : and sustain my criticism 
 on the words bapto and baptizo. I have examined, in all, some thirty- 
 five authorities of this class, ancient and modern, and, in regard to the 
 whole family of words, they exhibit a concurrence of testimony uniform 
 and perfect as can be found on any other word in the language. 
 
 My friend did not seem to understand my criticism on the syllable bap. 
 I did not, nor do I argue, that words never change their meaning — never 
 depart from their etymological import. Nay, I have often asserted that 
 an almost infinite variety of changes has occurred, and will occur, in the 
 words of ail living tongues. These were substantially my own words, 
 quoted by my friend to show that the meanings of words are constantly 
 undergoing change in the current usage of a living language. 
 
 I presume that the gentleman did not intend to misrepresent me in this. 
 I affirmed that the meaning of the radical syllable of a specific word re- 
 mains the same in its various flexions ; and also that all words originally 
 specific, never so change their meaning as to lose their original import — 
 that terms expressing specification never change. And I now call upon 
 the gentleman to produce an exception to this rule. That, however, is 
 what I am persuaded he cannot do. 
 
 With me, Mr. President, all active verbs indicate either generic or 
 specific action. Generic words are frequently changing their import; — 
 they are such words as informally express active passion or emotion. 
 For all words of mode, as Mr. Carson would call them, (thereby impro- 
 perly admitting, in this case, that there may be a mode of baptism,) have 
 but one meaning. His words of mode are all included in my specific 
 terms ; words indicating specific forms of action. It is essential that it 
 be singular, in order to its being specific. If, therefore, I establish the 
 fact, that baptizo is a specific word, indicating specific action, then all 
 its other meanings are figurative ; and so I shall prove with reference to 
 this word. 
 
 h- Every person who pays attention to the etymology and philology of 
 language, knows that all words are used figuratively. Not even the 
 name of the Deity is exempt from this law of language. The word God 
 is transferred to any thing that can be deified — to men's appetites and 
 passions. There is no word so sacred as to be exempted from the pos- 
 sibility of being accommodated in this way. But no specific word, 
 (though it may be used figuratively) can be made to have a signification 
 specifically different from the proper idea or action for which it origin- 
 ally stood ; for the moment you change it, it forever loses its first 'mean- 
 ing. For example — if you prove that baptizo originally signifies to dip, 
 you cannot by any possibility make it signify to sprinkle or to pour. 
 For were we to make immersion an indictable offence, as it has been, 
 and suppose that A was indicted for having immersed B, but during the 
 trial it appeared in evidence that he only poured a little water upon him, 
 either pouring or immersion must cease to be specific actions, and mean 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 75 
 
 the same thing, or A would be discharged,- and the complainant would 
 pay the costs. For that would destroy its specific character — its first 
 meaning ; and besides, such a liberty would destroy the precision and 
 utility of speech. 
 
 Before entering further into these matters, or bringing it to a close, 
 there are some things of secondary importance bearing upon it, adverted to 
 in the speech which you have just heard, to which I will briefly allude. 
 
 The reason I prefer the older lexicons is this : they were made before 
 this controversy had become rife. For example : Mr. Groves, a late 
 lexicographer, or some other person, has foisted the word sprinkle in- 
 to his Greek and English dictionary, as one of the meanings q{ bap- 
 tizo, a most daring innovation ! Whether Groves or some other person 
 has interpolated it we know not ; the person to whom it is attributable is 
 unknown to us. And yet, I dare say, the editor, whoever he was, did 
 it conscientiously. I even presume that my friend, [Mr. Rice] were he 
 to make a dictionary of the Greek language, would also insert the word 
 sprinkle as one of its meanings. Such is the force of prejudice and usage 
 on the minds of men, that many good Pedo-baptists, in their preachings, 
 always give the words pour and sprinkle as meanings of baptizo. I have 
 been astonished at the liberty taken with the older lexicons by some of 
 our modern editors. For example : The lexicon of Schrevellius has 
 passed through seventeen editions ; it gave but two meanings to baptizo, 
 to wit — mergo, lavo ; but now, in four recent editions, somebody has 
 presumed to increase the meanings of this word to four. It is on this 
 account that I prefer the earlier lexicons. These give the definition of 
 words as they were used before this controversy began. 
 
 With regard to the meaning of the word baptizo, I request the par- 
 ticular attention of the audience ; for it is on this point, as the gentleman 
 has correctly observed, the controversy must be decided. It shall be my 
 purpose and object then, to establish the fact, that baptizo is a specific 
 word, and as such, can have but one proper, original, and literal 
 meaning. 
 
 Asserting that the action of baptism is not implied in the word, my 
 friend has said, that no man could learn the action of circumcision from 
 the word. Strange indeed! Is not "cutting round'' 1 its meaning, its 
 specific meaning? Certainly that is as expressive of the action as any 
 word can be. True, the history and precept of the ordinance shows us 
 on ivhat part of the body the action was performed. A positive ordi- 
 nance, binding on the nation of Israel, under the penalty of death, it was 
 expedient and necessary to indicate by a specific term, so plain and so 
 definite that it would be impossible to misunderstand it ; and because 
 circumcision is exactly such a term, this is the best and the only reason 
 that can be given for its selection. 
 
 Hence, it is reasonable to suppose, that when the Great Lawgiver of 
 the christian religion came to the conclusion that he would institute the 
 ordinance of baptism, he had some specific idea in his mind. Indeed, it 
 is impossible to suppose that he had not. He must have intended some 
 particular thing to be done. He must have had some specific design in 
 his mind ; and he could not have been consistent with himself, had he 
 not selected a word expressive of that specific design. How, then, could 
 the author of this institution do otherwise than select a specific word— - 
 the best word in human speech to express his design? Having it wholly 
 in his power to select his own term, would it have been consistent, rea- 
 
76 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 soiling a priori, for him to select the word pouring, when he intended 
 immersion ? or the word immersion, when he intended sprinkling ? No, 
 reasoning from analogy, evident it is, that the Author of our religion 
 would give a term essentially specific. 
 
 But now there are three words submitted to us by our Pe f do-baptist 
 brethren, which are alledged to express this design : they are sprinkle, 
 pour, dip. These are all specific words. Sprinkling is well defined and 
 understood amongst all men; so is pouring; so is dipping. Is it not 
 impossible to conceive that each of these terms has been chosen to 
 express the same specific idea and design ? Could the Messiah, to 
 express and define one action, have selected a word signifying three dis- 
 tinct actions ? I cannot admit it. No three actions can be more differ- 
 ent than sprinkling, dipping, pouring. When we sprinkle an individual, 
 we put something upon his person ; and when we immerse an individual, 
 we put the person into something. In the former case, we change the 
 position of the matter with regard to the person ; and in the latter case, 
 we change the position of the person with regard to the matter. 
 
 In baptism, we have an inward spiritual intention and transition, or a 
 passing from one state to another ; and if the outward action is to exhibit 
 the intention and transition, how, I ask, are we to regard these three 
 terms, sprinkling, pouring and dipping, as expressive of the same inten- 
 tion? They are each specifically different from the others. No one 
 term could express the meaning of these three. Every one of them has 
 its representative in the original. 
 
 There is no opposing these lexicons. They universally agree with us 
 in determining the primitive meaning of the word buptizo. That the 
 original meaning of the term is to dip, to immerse, is, indeed, a matter 
 hardly to be debated at this day ; and I was glad to hear my friend admit, 
 what is universally admitted and agreed to, that this word had but one 
 meaning. Now this being conceded, how comes it to pass, that, in pro- 
 cess of time, the word has come to signify a plurality of actions ! But I can 
 demonstrate that the term has uniformly meant the same thing, from the 
 earliest ages of the world, in its religious as well as in its classical usage. 
 
 In the law of Moses we have an ordinance for cleansing a leper ; and I 
 presume that my friend will admit that the cleansing of a leper from his 
 disease, was indicative of the cleansing of a sinner from his sins. Well : 
 this ceremony is solemnly put to record in Lev. xiv. ; and it is remarka- 
 ble, that, in a single sentence of this chapter, the three words which are 
 sometimes called baptism, are brought together in solemn contrast. They 
 are all found in the law for purifying the unclean, and cleansing the leper. 
 Blood was to be sprinkled, oil was to be poured, hysop was to be dipped, 
 and then, after these ceremonies, the unclean was to bathe. In giving a 
 detailed account of these ceremonies, the inspired writer has presented 
 these words in contrast thus : " And the priest shall take some of the log 
 of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, and shall dip his 
 right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil 
 with his finger seven times before the Lord." In cleansing from the 
 leprosy, the way is prepared by first sprinkling with blood seven times, 
 then the priest was to dip his finger in the olive oil, and sprinkle the olive 
 oil seven times before the Lord. First, blood was sprinkled upon the 
 unclean, then oil was poured upon his head, and afterwards he was com- 
 manded to wash his clothes, shave his hair, and bathe himself in water, 
 that he might be clean. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 77 
 
 This is from the oldest record in the world. We have no writings 
 more ancient than the five books of Moses. These have fixed an ever- 
 lasting contrast between the words sprinkle, pour, and dip, — so that each 
 must forever indicate a distinct action, fixed among the legal ceremonies 
 of a typical people. Since the time when the leper was cleansed by hav- 
 ing blood sprinkled upon him, oil poured upon him, and his flesh bathed 
 in water — from that time till now, these words have been used as distinct 
 in meaning, and as immutable as the law of Moses. 
 
 In the case of cleansing an unclean person, made so by the touch of a 
 dead animal, a positive ordinance was got up. It is recorded in the xix. 
 of Numbers. 
 
 The manner of preparing the water of separation to be used for such 
 purification is very minutely set forth. The ashes of a red heifer, with- 
 out spot, and upon which never came yoke, were to be kept for the con- 
 gregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation ; and the text 
 says : " It is a purification for sin." "And for an unclean person they 
 shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and run- 
 ning water shall be put thereto in a vessel ; and a clean person shall 
 take hysop and dip it in the water ; and the clean person shall sprinkle 
 upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day : and on the 
 seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe him- 
 self in water, and shall be clean at even." I can conceive of no authority 
 more sacred than this. 
 
 Here the individual is commanded to observe three things ; and they are 
 to be done in reference to the cleansing of his person from legal impu- 
 rity, or from a disease that indicates sins. Can any one say that these 
 are not separate and specific actions ? 
 
 With regard to the translation of the word baplizo by the term sink, 
 my friend remarked that he could bring many respectable authorities to 
 prove that this was a legitimate and proper meaning of the term : that 
 it means going to the bottom ; and hence the person baptized must be sunk 
 to the bottom. It is not true that immersion is such a very general term; 
 and I would remind my fellow-citizens that the question in debate is not 
 whether we shall dip to the bottom, nor whether we shall perform only a 
 partial dipping ; it is not whether we ought to dip so far, or so deep, but 
 whether immersion simply, to the bottom or not, is the action comman- 
 ded. 
 
 We have, however, an exemplification at hand, which ought forever to 
 settle this matter. It is a case in which the word baptize is used in a 
 contrast that forhids sinking to the bottom. It is a remarkable passage 
 found in one of the sybilline oracles, a poetic prediction concerning the 
 fortunes of the ancient city of Athens. The poet says : jlskos baptizee 
 dunai de toi ou themis esti—~" Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder! but 
 thou art not fated to sink :" showing that in ancient times, it was a part of 
 the signification of baptizo to emerge again, as well as to immerge, ma- 
 king it equivalent to katadusis and anadusis combined. Certainly and 
 clearly it is that the word baptizo never meant to sink to the bottom, ex- 
 cept by chance. Bapto may leave the substance some considerable time 
 under water or any liquid : indicating that a change might come upon 
 the substance, and that it might acquire some new matter which it had 
 not before, being put into the liquid. But baptizo permits the subject to 
 stay under the water but a very little time, and then emerge again. In the 
 etymology and philology of the Greek language, the word baptizo never 
 
 g2 
 
78 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 can be shown to mean going to the bottom and staying there. Duoo 
 dunai, and their compounds indicate that. 
 
 It would be entirely impertinent, before such an audience as this, to en- 
 ter into any discussion and criticism upon the meaning of the termination 
 zo ; a question upon which philologists and critics have written much. 
 
 Grammarians and critics have speculated on the termination zoo with 
 great freedom. Some make it the symbol of frequent action, and call those 
 verbs so ending, frequentatives : others, of diminished action, and call 
 them, diminutives. They make a few specifications. But they seem not 
 to remember that a change on the end of a word, when agreeable to the 
 ear, soon loses its meaning by being extended to many words, for the 
 sake of euphony. So of the termination zoo. I can give as many 
 specifications of rapid action, if required, as can be given of frequent ac- 
 tion in words of this ending. 
 
 I have a new theory of my own upon this subject, or rather it is a the- 
 ory adopted from an old one, as it ought to be called. It goes to explain 
 a material fact in the history of bapto. 
 
 My idea is that the word originally meant, not that the dipping should 
 be performed frequently, but that it indicated the rapidity with which the 
 action was to be performed ; that the thing should be done quickly ; and 
 for this reason the termination zo is never used when the word is employ- 
 ed in connection with the business of dyers and tanners. But the word 
 baptizo is always used to express the ordinance of baptism. This is the 
 best reason I can give for the change of the termination into zoo. 
 
 With regard to the frequent occurrence of this word in the New Tes- 
 tament usage, I said that there might be some good reason given. And 
 that reason is found in the fact that bapto means to dip, without regard to 
 continuance long or short, but baptizo intimates that the subject of the 
 action is not. necessarily long kept under that into which it is immersed. 
 — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 15—122 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's second reply.] 
 
 Mr. President: — I have no objection to the rule suggested by my 
 friend, Mr. C, requiring the respondent to follow the affirmant, provided 
 there be also a rule obliging the latter to proceed in the argument. But 
 I must protest against being required to say but little on the subject in 
 hand, because the affirmant has done so. 
 
 With regard to the ecclesiastical character of this discussion I remark, 
 that there are but two ways in which things of this kind can be done, 
 viz: either by the church as a body, or by individuals. The synod of 
 Kentucky had no authority to select persons for such a purpose. My 
 appointment to conduct this debate, therefore, could not have been made 
 by that body. And if all the elders and ministers of the synod had, as 
 individuals, agreed to select me, it would have been only the act of so 
 many individuals, for which the Presbyterian church in Kentucky would 
 have been no more responsible than if it had been done in England. 
 The debate is, therefore, an individual affair. It has never been stated 
 by us how many persons were consulted about it, or what number agreed 
 to my appointment to conduct it. Nor does it appear by how many my 
 friend was appointed, or whether he was appointed at all. There is no 
 ecclesiastical body connected with his church, sustaining the same rela- 
 tion to it, which is sustained by the synod of Kentucky to our church. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 79 
 
 His appointment, therefore, must have been simply by individuals. 
 How many have been concerned in it, or what importance his church 
 may attach to it, I know not. But I am not willing to involve ecclesias- 
 tical bodies in matters with which they have nothing to do. 
 
 My worthy friend made a statement concerning the early reformers 
 • which is calculated to make an impression favorable to his cause. He 
 says that all the early reformers were immersionists, and that the great 
 majority of christians have always practiced immersion; that I must 
 have forgotten my reading. I presume I was understood by the audi- 
 ence. I said, not that nine hundred and ninety-nine in every thousand 
 were opposed to immersion, but that they did not believe immersion 
 essential to the validity of the ordinance — that they never did make the 
 discovery which my friend has made, that nothing short of immersion is 
 baptism. And if he can name one of the reformers who made the dis- 
 covery for which he is now contending, that immersion only is christian 
 baptism, I hope he will not fail to do it. In the third and immediately 
 following centuries trine immersion was practiced, the subjects being 
 divested of their garments. Yet those who adopted this practice never 
 learned that baptizo means only to immerse. Gradually again pouring 
 and sprinkling became most common. Yet immersion continued to be 
 very frequently practiced even to the times of Luther ; but all conceded 
 the validity of pouring and sprinkling. None disputed what had been so 
 long admitted. 
 
 But my friend Mr. C. has said, that as biblical criticism progressed, 
 we have gained more light on such subjects. So it appears, that as'more 
 light has been obtained, the great majority of christians have abandoned 
 the defence and the practice of immersion. He cannot, however, point 
 to one reformer, of any considerable standing, who maintained the 
 doctrine for which he is contending. However favorable some of them 
 may have been to the practice of immersion, not one of them ever admit- 
 ted that our Savior commanded immersion only. They with one con- 
 sent admitted sprinkling and pouring to be valid baptism ; and they re- 
 garded themselves as obeying the command of Christ — "Go teach all 
 nations, baptizing them" — when they administered the ordinance by 
 sprinkling or pouring. Having been baptized by sprinkling, they lived 
 and died in the belief that their baptism was valid. 
 
 Both modes were anciently practiced. And if our immersionist 
 friends had continued on the ground of the old immersionists — if they 
 had simply maintained that immersion is the preferable mode, they 
 might have enjoyed their opinion without controversy. But when they 
 contend that all who have received the ordinance by pouring or sprink- 
 ling are unbaptized, and that sprinkling is a human invention, they 
 assume a position occupied by very few; and we are constrained to 
 demur. 
 
 Let me revert to the principle advanced by Mr. C., that specific words 
 having a leading syllable, in all their inflections retain their original import. 
 Language, he admits, is always changing; and usage only determines the 
 meaning of words. But the principle he now inculcates is, that specific 
 words retain their original meaning. If, for example, the original idea 
 was dip, the word retaining the leading syllable, will retain also this idea, 
 in all its combinations. Now I stand in opposition to this principle. 
 There is no such principle recognized. There are facts (and I will pro- 
 duce them) in the very face of it. For example, the word bapto, as Mr. 
 
80 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 C. and iramersionists generally contend, contained originally the idea only 
 of immersing. I now understand him to abandon this ground. He 
 now says, that literally it signifies to dip, and figuratively, to dye. 
 For this I should like to see some authority, because Mr. Carson says it 
 signifies to dye as literally as to dip ; and he asserts, that the history of a 
 thousand words proves the principle. He gives an example, which I will 
 read. He says, (p. 60,) that " Hyppocrates uses bapto to denote dyeing 
 by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed : * When it drops upon 
 the garments, (baptetai,) they are dyed.' This," says he, " surely is 
 not dyeing by dipping." What is there figurative here ? There is a 
 literal fluid, dropped upon a literal garment; and when a thing is dyed 
 by dropping or sprinkling, it is dyed as literally as if done by dipping. 
 I will, if necessary, furnish other examples. On the 61st page Carson 
 gives another — " Nearchus relates, that the Indians (baptontai) dye their 
 beards." There are many similar examples. Dr. Gale maintained, that 
 when bapto signified to dye, it retained the idea of dipping ; but Mr. 
 Carson differs from him, and says, the history of a thousand words 
 proves that it signifies to dye by sprinkling as literally as by dipping. 
 Till my worthy friend produces some authority in support of the princi- 
 ple he has advanced, I must beg leave to dissent from it. 
 
 Mr. C. says, if he can prove that baptizo expresses a specific action, 
 he proves that it has but one meaning — and, therefore, that it can never 
 express the act of pouring or sprinkling. Carson maintains, that bapto 
 expresses a specific action ; and yet he proves, that it has another mean- 
 ing which is literal, viz : to dye by dipping or by sprinkling. And if 
 it expresses the coloring of a thing by dropping or sprinkling, it has cer- 
 tainly not the original idea of dipping. 
 
 Let it be remembered, we are not contending that baptizo expresses 
 definitely the act of pouring or sprinkling. The circumstances and the 
 connection sometimes prove, that sinking or plunging is the thing done; 
 sometimes that pouring or sprinkling is the thing done; sometimes thztpar- 
 tial dipping or wetting is meant. It is a universal rule of language, that 
 when a word has several meanings, the connection in which it occurs, must 
 determine, in any given case, which is the true meaning. For example, the 
 word faith has in the Scriptures three distinct meanings. It denotes the act 
 of believing, or the exercise of the mind in believing, as in the passage— 
 "By grace are ye saved through faith." It denotes the truth or doctrines 
 believed, as when persons are said to "make shipwreck of the faith." And 
 it signifies fidelity or faithfulness, as when it is said, " What if some did 
 not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God of non-effect ?" 
 Now how are we to determine, in any particular case, which of these 
 meanings is the true one? Evidently by the connection. Dr. Geo. Camp- 
 bell says the word flesh has in the Scriptures six meanings, not more than 
 one of which is found in any classic writer. How shall we determine, in 
 any particular case, which is the true meaning, but by the connection? 
 
 We are not contending that baptizo never signifies to immerse, but that 
 it does not definitely express mode. It expresses the thing done; the 
 circumstances and the context may determine the mode of doing it, though 
 the word itself does not. 
 
 It is true, as my friend says, that if a man were indicted for dipping a 
 person, and it were proved that he had only sprinkled him, the action 
 eould not be maintained against him. This, however, only proves what 
 no one denies — that dipping is. not sprinkling. But let him prove that 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 81 
 
 taptizo signifies only to immerse, and I will yield the point. That it is 
 sometimes used in the sense of dipping I admit, and that it is sometimes 
 used in the sense of pouring, or sprinkling, I can prove. That it some- 
 times signifies simply to wash, I can demonstrate by the very highest 
 authority. Each of these statements I will establish in due time. 
 
 But I fear my friend, Mr. C, will consider me as anticipating his argu- 
 ment. If he will not again prefer this charge against me, I will state, as 
 I am prepared to prove, that three of the oldest and best versions have 
 rendered the word bapto to sprinkle ; and one of the most learned of the 
 Greek fathers gave it the same signification. 
 
 Schrivellius, Mr. C. says, originally gave to the word baptizo but two 
 meanings — mergo and lavo — to immerse and to wash. Well, this is all 
 I contend for. For if it sometimes signifies to dip, and sometimes to 
 wash, how shall we determine in any case which is the true meaning ? 
 Mergo and lavo are the Latin words by which it is defined, and we know 
 that lavo signifies to ivash in general, without reference to mode. The 
 most ancient lexicographers, moreover, define baptizo to cleanse, no mat- 
 ter in what mode it is done. If, then, this word has sometimes one 
 meaning, and sometimes another, how can it be a specific term expressing 
 a definite action ? If Mr. C. cannot prove that it is always used in the 
 definite sense of immersing, he must give up the argument. 
 
 It is true, as he says, that the word circumcision signifies cutting 
 round ; but who, I ask, could have understood by this word alone, how 
 the ordinance was to be administered ? By the accompanying directions 
 it might be known, but I affirm that no man could determine by the word 
 alone, what precisely was the action to be performed. 
 
 Again — take the word deipnon, sometimes used to denote the Lord's 
 supper. From this word we could not determine what element should 
 be used, in what quantity it should be received, or in what manner the 
 ordinance should be observed. Yet my friend, Mr. C, labors to prove, 
 that when our Savior employed a particular word to denote an ordi- 
 nance, it must necessarily express the mode in which it is always to be 
 administered and received ! 
 
 He says, he is glad to hear me express my conviction, that the original 
 meaning of baptizo was to immerse. I did not say so. I said, I could 
 safely admit it, though he could not prove it. Critics are not agreed, 
 whether to dip or to dye was the original meaning. Professor Stuart 
 expresses the opinion, as far as he can judge, that to dip was the original 
 sense, and to dye a secondary meaning. Others, however, contend that 
 to dye was the primary or original meaning. The word bapto, as far 
 back as we can trace it, was used in both senses. It may be true, there- 
 fore, that to dye or color was the original meaning, and to dip a second- 
 ary meaning. Critics have not determined this question ; nor can they 
 prove, that to immerse was the original meaning of the word. But, as I 
 before remarked, I can concede this point, and yet fully sustain my posi- 
 tion. Still Mr. C. cannot prove it, and therefore I shall not admit it. 
 
 Mr. C. asks, how could baptizo, if it signify specifically to dip or im- 
 merse, come to express an entirely different action ? I answer, it does 
 not definitely express dipping or immersing. The lexicons, as we have 
 seen, define it to toash as well as to immerse. Suppose, then, you direct 
 your son to wash his hands, and he has water poured on them*; does he 
 not obey your command ? Or suppose he dips them in water, does he 
 not obey you ? He does. You direct him to do a certain thing, but do 
 6 
 
82 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 not prescribe any particular mode in which he must do it. He may* 
 therefore, select any mode he prefers. So the word baptizo expresses 
 the application of water to the person or subject; but the precise mode 
 of its application must be determined by the circumstances and the design 
 of the ordinance. 
 
 My friend gave us a dissertation on the words dip, bathe, pour, and 
 sprinkle, as they occur in Leviticus. If he would not consider me as 
 anticipating him, I could prove, that the word bapto is used in the Bible 
 in several senses — dipping, partial dipping, Avetting or smearing. Thus 
 it is said, the priest shall " dip his finger from (apo) the oil," &c. Is it 
 true that he did literally dip his finger from it? Does such an expression 
 signify to dip in ? Or does it not rather mean, as professor Stuart says, 
 to wet or smear by means of the oil ? There is, properly, no dipping 
 in the case. The priest was simply to moisten or wet his finger with the 
 fluid, so as to sprinkle it. If my friend will not charge me with antici- 
 pating him, I will say, that the word bapto occurs in the Scriptures again 
 and again in connection with the preposition apo, from; and evidently in 
 such cases it does not express mode. 
 
 There are in the Greek language words that definitely signify to im- 
 merse, and words which signify to pour, and to sprinkle; but I deny, 
 that bapto or baptizo definitely expresses the one or the other of these 
 modes. I can find a Greek word that does uniformly signify to im- 
 merse; but baptizo is not the word. The word baptisma is the name 
 of an ordinance instituted by our Savior for the benefit of his church. It 
 denotes the application of water to a proper subject, in the name of the 
 Trinity ; but it does not express the precise mode of applying the water. 
 
 But Mr. C. has insisted so much on the necessity of employing a spe- 
 cific term, expressing a definite action, to denote a religious ordinance, 
 that I must read a passage in Numbers xix. 19, in which we find men- 
 tioned one of the washings to which I have before referred : " And 
 the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, 
 and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, 
 and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean 
 at even." Here we find sprinkling, washing, and bathing. I invite your 
 attention to the phrase — "he shall bathe himself" The Hebrew word 
 translated bathe, is rahats, which is a generic term signifying simply 
 to wash ; and it is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word louv, 
 to wash. Here the unclean person is commanded to do a certain thing — 
 to wash himself; but does the word employed prescribe the mode in 
 which he is to do it ? It does not. But my friend insists, that the word 
 employed must express a definite action — that it must precisely express 
 the manner in which the ordinance is to be performed. I can find many 
 examples similar to the one just adduced. Now, if his rule requiring a 
 specific term is good in one instance, why not in another ? But I can 
 point to other rites, the mode of administering which is not expressed by 
 the word employed. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, admits that baptizo may mean sinking to the bot- 
 tom; but he seems disposed to contend, that it more properly implies 
 that the thing immersed is again raised out of the water. And he refers 
 to the language of a Greek writer concerning Athens, which he ex- 
 plains to mean — that Athens might be overwhelmed, but not destroyed. 
 But if I understand the word overwhelm, I should think a city over- 
 whelmed is well nigh destroyed. But by an appeal to classic writers, I 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 83 
 
 can prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in which it is supposed to 
 favor immersion, it signifies sinking to the bottom. Suppose, then, an 
 individual should understand the command to be baptized in the sense of 
 sinking ; what could be the result ? To sink is the common meaning of 
 the word in the classics. But if you substitute the word sink for baptize 
 in every place where baptizo occurs in the Scriptures, it makes nonsense. 
 
 As to the idea advanced by my friend, that the syllable zo in baptizo 
 implies that the action is to be performed quickly, I know of no evidence 
 whatever that it is true. Dr. Carson (I believe that he is a doctor,) says, 
 that baptizo denotes the putting of a thing into water ; but whether it is 
 raised out again or sinks to the bottom, cannot be ascertained by the 
 word, but must be learned from the circumstances. 
 
 But I should be pleased to see some few examples adduced from the 
 classics, in which the word baptizo expresses the action contended for by 
 Mr. C. as essential to baptism. For I believe there is scarcely an in- 
 stance in which it expresses the actions he performs in baptizing. [ — Time 
 expired, 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 15 — If oclock, P. M. 
 [wr. Campbell's third address.] 
 
 Mr. President — An objection to the use we make of the testimony and 
 criticism advanced from Pedo-baptist authority, now offered by my friend, 
 Mr. Rice, reminds me of an objection advanced by some modern sceptics 
 against the arguments generally relied on, in proving the resurrection of 
 the Messiah. They say, your testimony is all one-sided. Produce any 
 one of the ancient sceptics who admitted the fact. Unfortunately your 
 testimony is all on the wrong side. Produce only one witness who was 
 not himself a believer. That is indeed impossible ; inasmuch as such an 
 admission would have made the witness a christian. So in the present 
 case. If those Pedo-baptist lexicographers and critics adduced, had en- 
 tertained no excuse for their position, (either in the metaphorical mean- 
 ing of the word, or in the unimportance of the mode,) they would have 
 been Baptists ; and then their testimony would have been more plausibly 
 repudiated, because indeed one-sided. 
 
 So much with reference to the remarks made on professor Stuart's tes- 
 timony, adduced some time ago. Mr. Stuart is a Pedo-baptist, and prac- 
 tices sprinkling; although he has said as much for immersion as any man 
 could say, and yet continue where he is. It is indeed most true, as the 
 gentleman presumes, that he [Prof. Stuart] is wholly indifferent as to 
 the mode. He, in common with many others, says that immersion was 
 the ancient mode; nay, he is compelled to admit that it was almost the 
 universal practice in the ancient church; yet still he thinks with Calvin 
 that mode is of no importance, and that we may alter and amend, accord- 
 ing to circumstances, so that we do not make it a new rite. The same is 
 true with regard to all the authorities brought forward by my worthy 
 friend. Their testimony is, indeed, in one sense, ex parte. They are all 
 of his own party, not of mine. Every dictionary he has quoted is a Pedo- 
 baptist dictionary ; and yet most of them have said all that is possible to be 
 said by persons not wholly with us ; while indeed they all give the true 
 original and proper meaning of the word, they are sure to give a tropical 
 meaning, that squints to their own position. They must do this or abandon 
 their position. They all believed in this practice of sprinkling; while 
 as scholars, in their definitions, they have told the truth, with one or two 
 exceptions. With one consent they all give to dip, or to immerse, as the 
 
84 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 proper original meaning of the word baptizo. Not a single exception. 
 Many of them give the reason for other meanings ; such as — to wash ? 
 to cleanse, to color. They all concur in this, that such meanings are 
 the effect, or the names of the effects of immersing. Not one of them 
 says that it means to wash or cleanse in any mode, but only as the effect 
 of dipping or immersing. Do they say it means to wash, &c, they im- 
 mediately add, because it is done by immersing. This fact cannot be 
 made too prominent. But what have we to do with the effects of an ac- 
 tion, of an ordinance of God, in ascertaining the form or mode of the or- 
 dinance itself! ! Hence all the learned abjure the rhetorical use of words 
 in expounding laws, statutes, and ordinances, as we shall show in its 
 proper place. 
 
 I wish, at this particular crisis of the discussion, to make a single im- 
 pression, clearly and indelibly, upon the minds of the audience. It is 
 this : there is not a word in universal speech that is absolutely incapable 
 of a figurative use. Hence, if we may take the figurative meaning for 
 the true and proper, there is an end to all discussion in ascertaining posi- 
 tive statutes and precepts ; for, 1 repeat it, there is not in universal 
 speech a noun, verb, or adjective, that may not be used figuratively. In 
 verbs, very often, these figurative meanings are the results of specific ac- 
 tions. Hence where dyeing, washing, cleansing, are given as meanings 
 of bapto or baptizo, lexicographers usually give the reason why a specific 
 word could have such vague and general meanings. 
 
 I have said, in my introductory address, that the word baptizo has no 
 more reference to water, than it has to oil, or sand, or any thing else ; 
 that it has reference to action onl} r , and consequently can have but one 
 meaning, which is most obvious, if the lexicons can be taken as authority, 
 I again say there 'is neither water nor washing in the word baptizo. 
 Any thing dipped into any thing, and covered over with it, fluid or not, 
 is, in all propriety, said to be baptized, whether in oil, sand, wax, tar, 
 milk or water. Why persons or things are said to be washed or cleansed 
 by being immersed, is because generally they are immersed into clean 
 water. Otherwise it could not be said that baptizo means to wash or 
 cleanse. It would be as proper to say it means to pollute, to mire, to 
 'laub, if persons and things were generally immersed in mud, and mire, 
 and unclean fluids. Hence some things dipped are said to be dyed, 
 others colored, others cleansed, others washed, according to the material 
 into which they are immersed. No figure of speech more common than 
 a metonomy of the effect for the cause. Now what relation has the spe- 
 cific action to the effect produced by it? Can one word mean to wash, 
 to mire, to cleanse, to pollute? Such is the logic of that whole school 
 against which we contend. 
 
 But the question recurs whether in laws or ordinances we are to take 
 the figurative or the literal meaning of words. This is the great question, 
 I am happy to say that I have the concurrence of all the learned men of 
 the world known to me, who have written on the subject, in the opinion 
 that we are not to take the figurative meaning. All writers on law say, 
 with Blackstone and Montesquieu, that in the interpretation of laws and 
 statutes, terms are not to be taken rhetorically, but literally. Both in the 
 enactment and in the interpretation of laws, the common meaning of 
 words is to be regarded, and not the remote or figurative. A number of 
 distinguished names will, at a more convenient season, be presented in 
 proof of this conclusion. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 85 
 
 With regard to the passage quoted from Mr. Carson, if the gentleman 
 had just read a page or two further he would have shown his author 
 Was a little more consistent. It is of little consequence to us to argue 
 and reply to conclusions drawn from the figurative use of the word. 
 
 It has been already distinctly stated that baptizo is the only word used to 
 express the christian ordinance ; and that for some reason (most probably 
 the one I have given) it never signifies to dye. Bapto, however, tropic- 
 ally signifies to dye. Now although Dr. Carson argues that bapto means 
 to dye, without regard to mode, he expressly traces the origin of this 
 sense to a figure — the effect for the cause. His words are, page 60, 
 <c From signifying to dip it came to signify to dye by dipping, because 
 this was the way in which things were usually dyed." This is my argu- 
 ment concerning both these words. The effect of dipping, for a length 
 of time, is, in some substances, coloring or dyeing; the effect of dipping 
 in clear water, for a short time, is washing, cleansing. Mr. Carson goes 
 farther, it is alledged, and says that bapto and its family means dye or 
 color, without any regard to the manner in which it was effected. This 
 is then making the figurative the proper meaning of the word, — from this 
 I dissent. But if Mr. Rice rely on Carson in this case, why not rely 
 upon him in the case of the word used in the ordinance, which, according 
 to him, signifies to dip, and nothing else 1 
 
 I most readily admit, that, in the language of poetry and of imagination, 
 objects are said to be painted, colored, dyed, not only in this mode, and 
 that mode, but without any mode at all. Thus we have ornis baptos, the 
 colored bird, of Aristophanes ; the pictse volucres, the painted birds, of 
 Virgil; and Milton, in describing the wings of Raphael, sings of ci colors 
 dyed in heaven." In the same license Homer, in his reputed battle of 
 the frogs and mice, represents a whole lake as tinged With the blood of a 
 mouse. But what does all this prove? That because birds, flowers, 
 clouds, and angels' wings, are said to be colored, dyed, or painted, with- 
 out reference to any mode, that in the language of narrative, of precept, 
 and of positive law, a person is baptized without any mode at all ! ! 
 I have only one remark to make on all these cases and usages of bapto, 
 that in the passive form things are said to be dyed, not with respect to 
 the mode in which the process was completed, but with respect to the 
 effect or result of the process ; and again, nothing is said to be dyed, 
 painted or colored by bapto, in its various forms, that is not, at the time 
 of which it is spoken, covered over with the dye color. This is enough 
 on this subject so far as the root bap, or the words bapto and baptizo are 
 concerned. In all this there is a perfect conformity to the established 
 laws of language in all similar cases. 
 
 I wish Mr. Rice had read a little more from Mr. Carson — such as, from 
 the same pages he has quoted, " With regard to the other side, (Pedo- 
 baptist) to say nothing of the straining to squeeze out of the word the 
 several meanings of sprinkling, pouring, washing, wetting, &c, for which 
 there is not any even plausible ground, the obvious fact that it signifies 
 dyeing by any process has been uncritically pressed to prove that w T hen it 
 relates to the application of pure water it denotes all modes equally." 
 We may, however, hear Mr. Carson a little further on this subject, (page 
 59,) "If it be possible," says he, after giving many examples from Hip- 
 pocrates, " to settle the meaning of a common word, surely this is suf- 
 ficient to fix the meaning of bapto beyond all reasonable controversy. 
 In the words of the Father of Medicine, in which he has occasion to 
 
 H 
 
86 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 treat of every mode of the application of liquids, and which consists of 
 no less than five hundred and forty-three closely printed folio pages, all 
 the words of mode are applied, and baptq invariably is used when he 
 designates immersion." 
 
 Other criticisms and reasonings from my friend Mr. Rice, not included 
 in those remarks, shall be taken up in their proper place. We must not 
 forget that we are furnishing a new book on baptism, and other matters 
 connected therewith. We must, therefore, have supreme regard to that 
 as we proceed. 
 
 So far as I lead the way, I propose the following method : — On rising 
 I shall attend to so much of my respondent's speeches as are relevant to 
 the premises I have offered. While affirmant, it is my privilege to lead 
 the way. Whatever my respondent advances, relative to my arguments, 
 shall be immediately attended to. Other matters, calling for any special 
 attention, shall be attended to at proper and pertinent seasons. Should 
 any thing of this sort, which Mr. Rice deems important, be overlooked 
 or forgotten, I request him to bring it up to my attention, and I shall give 
 to it all due regard. I shall then immediately proceed with my arguments, 
 in numerical order, to which, of course, I shall expect a particular atten- 
 tion in the same order. 
 
 As the matter now stands, my second argument, drawn from the Greek 
 lexicons, is fully stated and considerably illustrated. Not one of my au- 
 thorities being challenged, I shall hereafter, in the discussion, always take 
 for granted that baptizo, the word in debate, does, by' consent of ail the 
 lexicons offered on the occasion, originally and properly signify to dip or 
 immerse; that these words, in our language, properly represent it in its 
 primitive and unfigurative import; and that to wash, or cleanse, are acci- 
 dental and figurative meanings of the word : that dip and immerse are 
 specific terms, and that, as Carson observes, when any word once signi- 
 fies to dip, it never can signify to sprinkle or pour, any more than black 
 never can signify white, nor white black, being specific and not general 
 terms. To proceed argumentatively and logically, it now becomes my 
 duty to examine the foundation on which these dictionaries depend. 
 
 III. Arg. This, for method's sake, I shall call my third argument ; for 
 though intimately allied to lexicography, it is nevertheless a separate 
 and distinct argument. Dictionaries being founded on the usage of the 
 best writers in the language of which it is a dictionary, we must look to 
 them for the authority of the lexicons. We shall then appeal to the 
 classic authors, to sacred and biblical usage to sustain the definitions 
 already given. This is going to the proper foundation. Dictionaries are 
 not the highest authority only in so far as they are the exponents of the 
 classic, or most learned and approved use of words — w T e correct the dic- 
 tionaries by the classics, and not the classics by the dictionaries. They 
 are therefore the ultimate and supreme tribunal. 
 
 Hence the importance of particular attention to the age in which a lan- 
 guage was best understood, and to the time and persons which gave us 
 dictionaries. There is one fact of special importance here. Dictionaries 
 frequently give the particular usage of the times of their authors ; for ex- 
 ample — .Webster explains baptism by the word christen, because that 
 was a common use at the time he made his dictionary. Hence, the par- 
 ticular age in which' a dictionary is made may, more or less, affect the 
 meaning of its words. Now, had it been the object of those who made 
 Greek lexicons to do as Richardson, Johnson, Webster and others have 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 87 
 
 done, that is, to give also the popular meaning or use of their own time, 
 finding persons baptizing by sprinkling or pouring, like Groves, they 
 would have, no doubt, made pouring or sprinkling the sixth or seventh 
 meaning of the word. My preference for the lexicons made before sprink- 
 ling became rife will, therefore, be most apparent without further exposi- 
 tion. No Greek lexicon down to the 19th century, ever gave sprinkle or 
 pour for baptism. I will shew the reason of this by a few specimens out 
 of a mighty multitude prepared for this occasion. 
 
 I need scarcely add that the Greek is now a dead language. Its words 
 are, therefore, in meaning, all stereotyped in the classics and sacred wri- 
 tings. This usage, therefore, is all we have to inquire into. Take, then, 
 the following instances : 
 
 1st. Of the proper meaning of baptizo : — 
 
 " Lucian, in Timon, the man-hater, makes him say — ' If I should see any 
 one floating toward me upon the rapid torrent, and he should, with out- 
 stretched hands, beseech me to assist him, I would thrust him from me, 
 baptizing- (baptizonta) him, until he would rise no more.'" 
 
 " Plutarch, vol. x. p. IS, 'Then, plunging (baptizon) himself into the lake 
 Copais.'" 
 
 " Strabo, lib. 6, speaking of a lake near Agrigentum, says — 'Things that 
 elsewhere cannot float, do not sink (baptize sthai.) In lib. 12, of a certain 
 river he says — 'If one shoots an arrow into it, the force of the water resists 
 it so much, that it will scarcely sink (baptizesthai.) " 
 
 "Polybius, vol. iii. p. 311, ult. applies the word to soldiers passing 
 through water, immersed (baptizomenoi) up to the breast." 
 
 "The sinner is represented by Porphyry, p. 282., as baptized (baptizetai) 
 up to his head in Styx, a celebrated river in hell. Is there any question 
 about the mode of this baptism]" 
 
 "Themistius, Orat. iv. p. 133, as quoted by Dr. Gale, says, 'The pilot can- 
 not tell but he may save one in the voyage that had better be drowned, (bap- 
 tisai,) sunk into the sea.' " 
 
 " The Sybilline verse concerning the city of Athens, quoted by Plutarch 
 in his life of Theseus, most exactly determines the meaning of baptizo. As- 
 kos baptizee dunai dc toi oil themis esti.^ 
 
 " Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder ! but thou art not fated to sink." 
 
 " For our ship," says Josephus, " having been baptized or immersed in 
 the midst of the Adriatic sea." 
 
 " Speaking of the murder of Aristobulus, by command of Herod, he says, 
 ' The boy was sent to Jericho by night, and there by command having been 
 immersed (baptizomenos) in a pond by the Galatians, he perished.' The 
 same transaction is related in the Antiquities in these words : 'Pressing 
 him down always, as he was swimming, and baptizing him as in sport, 
 they did not give over till they entirely drowned him.' " 
 
 " Homer, Od. i. 392: As when a smith dips or plunges (baptei) a hatch- 
 et or huge pole-axe into cold water, viz : to harden them." 
 
 " Pindar, Pyth. ii. 139, describes the impotent malice of his enemies, by 
 representing himself to be like the cork upon a net in the sea, which does 
 not sink : As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so am 
 I unplunged (abaptistos ;) on which the Greek scholiast, in commenting, 
 says : ' As the cork ou dunei, does not sink, so I am abaptistos, unplunged. 
 not immersed. The cork remains abaptistos, and swims on the surface of 
 the sea, being of a nature which is abaptistos ; in like manner I am abaptis- 
 tos.'' In the beginning of this explanation the scholiast says : ' Like the 
 cork of a net in the sea, ou baptisomai, I am not plunged or sunk.' The fre- 
 quent repetition of the same words and sentiment, in this scholium, shows, 
 in all probability, that it is compiled from different annotators upon the 
 text. But the sense of baptizo in all is too clear to admit of any doubt." 
 
 "Aristotle, de Color, c. 4, says : By reason of heat and moisture, the 
 
88 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 colors enter into the pores of things dipped into them, (tou bapfomenoiu) De 
 Anima. iii. c. 12, If a man dips (bapsei) any thing into wax, it is moved so 
 far as it is dipped. Hist. Animal, viii. c. 2,, speaking of certain fish, he 
 says : They cannot endure great changes, such as that, in the summer time, 
 they should plunge [baptosi) into cold water. Ibid. c. 29, he speaks of giv- 
 ing diseased elephants water to drink, and dipping' (baptontes) hay into- 
 honey for them." 
 
 "Aristophanes, in his comedy of The Clouds, Act i. scene 2, represents 
 Socrates as gravely computing how many times the distance between two 
 of its legs, a flea could spring at one leap ; and in order to ascertain this, 
 the philosopher first melted a piece of wax, and then taking the flea, he 
 dipped or plunged (enebaphes) two of its feet into it, &c." 
 
 " Heraclides Ponticus, a disciple of Aristotle, Allegor. p. 495, sayst 
 When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire, and plunged in the 
 water, (udati baptizetai,) the heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature 
 of the water, ceases." 
 
 " Herodotus, in Euterpe, speaking of an Egyptian who happens to touch 
 a swine, says : Going to the river [Nile] he dips himself (ebaphe eauton) 
 with his clothes." 
 
 " Aratus, in his Phsenom. v, 650, speaks of the constellation Cepheus, 
 as dipping [baptoon) his head or upper part into the sea. In v. 858 he says : 
 If the sun dip [baptoi) himself cloudless into the western flood. Again, in 
 v. 951, If the crow has dipped [ebapsato) his head into the river, &c." 
 
 "Xenophon, Anab. ii. 2, 4, describes the Greeks and their enemies as 
 sacrificing a goat, a bull, a wolf, and a ram, and dipping [baptontes) into a 
 shield [filled with their blood,] the Greeks the sword, the Barbarians the 
 spear, in order to make a treaty that could not be broken." 
 
 "Plutarch, Parall. Grsec Rom. p. 545, speaking of the stratagem of a 
 Roman general, in order to insure victory, he says: He set up a trophy, 
 on which, dipping his hand into blood, (eis to aima — baptizas) he wrote this 
 inscription, &c. In vol. vi. p. 680, (edit. Reiske) he speaks of iron plunged 
 (baptomenon) viz. into water, in order to harden it. Ibid, page 633, plunge 
 [baptison) yourself into the sea." 
 
 " Heraclides, Allegor. says, When a piece of iron is taken red hot from 
 the fire and plunged (baptizetai) into water." 
 
 "Heliodorus, vi. 4. When midnight had plunged (ebaptizon) the city in 
 sleep." 
 
 FIGURATIVE USE. 
 
 "Plutarch. Overwhelmed with debts, [bebaptismenon.)" 
 
 " Chrysostom. Overwhelmed (baptizomenos) with innumerable cares. 
 
 " Lucian iii. page 81. He is like one dizzy and baptized or sunk (bebap- 
 tismeno) — viz. into insensibility by drinking." 
 
 "Justin Martyr. Overwhelmed with sins (bebaptismenos.)" 
 
 " Aristotle, De Mirabil. Ausc. speaks of a saying among the Phenicians, 
 that there were certain places beyond the pillars of Hercules, which, when 
 it is ebb-tide, are not overflowed {me baptizesthai,) but at full-tide are over- 
 flowed {katakluzesthai;) which word is here used as an equivalent for bapti- 
 zesthai." 
 
 "Plato, Conviv. page 176. I myself am one of those who were drenched 
 or overwhelmed [bebaptismenon) yesterday, viz. with wine. In another 
 place : Having overwhelmed [baptisasa] Alexander with much wine. Eu- 
 thydem. p. 267, ed. Heindorf, A youth overwhelmed [baptizomenon) viz. 
 questions." 
 
 " Philo Judseus, vol. p. ii. 478, I know some, who, when they easily be- 
 come intoxicated, before they are entirely overwhelmed {printeleos baptis- 
 thenai,) viz. with wine." 
 
 " Diodorus Siculus, torn. i. page 107, Most of the land animals that 
 dre intercepted by the river [Nile,] perish, being overwhelmed {baptizo- 
 mena;) here used in the literal sense. Tom. i. page 191, The river, borne 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 89 
 
 along by a more violent current, overwhelmed {ebapiise) many ; the literal 
 signification. Tom. i. p. 129, And because they [the nobles] have a sup- 
 ply by these means [presents] they do not overwhelm their subjects with 
 taxes." 
 
 It were easy to increase this list by quotations from other Greek wri- 
 ters, authors, poets, scholiasts, critics and Greek Fathers, all in fur- 
 ther proof of the same import of the word in question — such as Ana- 
 creon, Moschus, Callimachus, Theocritus, Dionysius Halicarnassus, on 
 the 16th Iliad, v. 333; Demosthenes, Dio Cassius, Lycophron, So- 
 phocles, Esop, Libanius, Pseudo-Didymus, Heliodorus, Aphrodetus, Lac- 
 tantius, Alcibiades, Josephus, Symmachus, Athenseas, Porphyry, Mar- 
 cus Anotoninus Pius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, Theophylact, Basil, Trypho the Jew, in Justin 
 Martyr, Origen, &c. 
 
 I regard it as more pedantic, than necessary, to display so many au- 
 thorities. I may, however, say that I could read scores of such as you 
 have heard, all in perfect concurrence with those read. We have the 
 entire phalanx of all classic authority — poets, philosophers, orators, his- 
 torians, metaphysicians, critics, shewing one perfect agreement in their 
 use of baptizo and its derivatives. 
 
 It has been a question amongst theologians, whether the sacred use, 
 that is, the Jewish and Christian, agrees with the classic use of this 
 word ; whether in one sentence the New Testament writers use bapti- 
 zo, as do all other writers of that age ; a most singular question in such 
 a class of words — words indicating outward physical specific action. 
 Such words are not the subjects of idiomatic and special law. It would 
 be indeed adopting a very dangerous principle and precedent, that this 
 word means one thing out of the New Testament, and another in it. 
 The usage of the age and the context must in all cases decide the precise 
 meaning of any word — a law of philology which I have published as 
 often as any of my contemporaries, not only in this case, but in all others. 
 
 Speakers, by a particular emphasis and tone, are capable of making a 
 particular word mean just what they please. I have known some of this 
 class of persons who could make a word mean what they pleased by- 
 emphasis, tone and action. There are, too, writers in every age, who 
 use terms in a sense very remote from the true. But whether the 
 apostles were such men; or whether we, in a grave discussion like this, 
 are to decide upon the meaning of a word by such corruptions, and li- 
 cences, or whether we shall accept the sense in which a word was 
 used by those who lived contemporaneously with the apostles, will 
 hardly admit of question, or of doubt. 
 
 I am one of those who admit, and can prove, the most exact agreement 
 between the classic, the New Testament, and the Septuagint use of this 
 word. These perfectly corroborate each other. All use the word as 
 indicative of the same action, universally expressed by those classic 
 writers adduced. 
 
 We have the entire cohort of classic, apostolic, and Jewish writers, as 
 well as the more ancient christian fathers, all concurring in the same 
 view. And now the question is, whether we shall take a meaning univer- 
 sally maintained and admitted, or whether we shall now invent a new 
 one, never found amongst the proper and fixed meanings of the term. 
 Any one who carefully reads the commission — " Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and 
 
 h2 
 
90 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 is baptized, shall be saved ; and he that believeth not shall be con- 
 demned," might infer from the solemn position of the word baptism, and 
 the emphasis placed on it — from the fact of its intermediate position 
 between faith and salvation — that it is one of the most definite, clear, and 
 intelligible terms in the world. 
 
 I solemnly affirm it now, as I have before affirmed it, and, as I believe, 
 already shown it, that there is not now, nor has there ever been, at any 
 past period, a term in universal speech, more definite and more fixed in 
 its meaning than this same specific term baptism, now before us. And 
 this I further argue from the fact, that no sacred writer has ever defined 
 the word. Our Savior did not define it; John the Baptist did not define 
 it; the Apostles never defined it. Must it not therefore have been used 
 by them, in the established meaning of the time in which they lived and 
 taught the christian religion! — [Time expired. 
 
 [The hour having now arrived for the close of the session, at the sug- 
 gestion of the presiding moderator, (Hon. H. Clay,) Mr. Rice waived his 
 right of reply till to-morrow morning ; and the adjournment was accord- 
 ingly announced in form.] 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 16—10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's third reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — -It is exceedingly important in this discussion, that we 
 distinctly understand the point in controversy. I will again read the prop- 
 osition, that all may hear it: " The immersion in water of a proper sub- 
 ject, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the one, 
 only, apostolic and christian baptism." This Mr. Campbell affirms, and I 
 deny. I desire the audience to mark distinctly what he undertakes to 
 prove, viz : that the entire submersion of the body in water, is absolutely 
 essential to christian baptism ; that nothing short of this is baptism : 
 and, consequently, that all who have received the ordinance in any other 
 mode, are unbaptized, and are not in the church of Christ. 
 
 This is the position of my friend. And, as I remarked on yesterday, 
 so I say again — if this discovery, of recent origin, be real, and not an 
 entire mistake, it is one of the most remarkable discoveries made since 
 the days of the apostles. For I repeat the fact, that nine hundred and 
 ninety-nine in every thousand of those in favor of immersion, as well as 
 of those against it, have failed to see in the Bible this doctrine which Mr. 
 C. says, is so plainly taught, that he that runs may read and under- 
 stand it ! 
 
 Mark again how he undertakes to prove this important proposition. 
 His main argument is founded on the meaning of the words bapto and 
 baptizo. To determine the meaning of these words his first and main 
 appeal has been to the lexicons, as being the highest authority. Now 
 observe this fact : by the same lexicons to which he has appealed, ancient 
 and modern, I have proved that they have other meanings, essentially 
 different from that which he attaches to them. He, let it be noted, is 
 bound to prove, that they signify to immerse, and only to immerse ; for 
 if they have other meanings, the connection must determine, in any given 
 case, which is the true meaning. The sense must be determined by the 
 connection, and not simply by the words. But I have proved by the 
 lexicons, ancient and modern, that these words have several distinct 
 meanings, His argument, therefore, has wholly failed. 
 
 I have proved that these word's signify to sink, (and the word sink is 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 01 
 
 quite different from immerse,) to plunge, to dip, to dye, stain, color, to 
 wash, to cleanse, to wet, to moisten, to sprinkle. All these definitions 
 have been found in the different lexicons. And, observe, I have proved 
 this, not by the modern lexicons only, which Mr. C. considers of less 
 authority than the ancient, but by both ancient and modern; such as 
 Hedericus, Scapula, Stephanus, Suidas, Schleusner, Schrivellius, Bret- 
 schneider, Parkhurst, Robinson, Greenfield, Wahl, &c. &c. I have ap- 
 pealed to all these, and every one of them declares, that the words bapto 
 and baptizo signify not only to dip, to plunge, &c, but also to wash, 
 without reference to mode. 
 
 My friend has told you that modern legicographers, such as Groves, 
 add new meanings to Greek words — that Webster, for example, defines 
 the word baptize to christen. I had supposed that the business of a 
 Greek lexicographer was, to ascertain, not what meanings persons in 
 modern times attach to Greek words, but in what senses they were used 
 by Greek writers. And if so, no modern lexicographer will give to a 
 Greek word a meaning which he does not believe to have been attached 
 to it by Greek authors. Webster was defining an English word ; and he 
 gave it such meanings as he found attached to it by those who speak the 
 English language. 
 
 Mark again — these lexicographers do not define the words bapto and 
 baptizo to dye and to wash only by immersion. There is not one 
 amongst them who confines them to washing or dyeing by immersion. 
 They generally agree with Bretschneider, who defines baptizo, " propr. 
 sepius intingo, sepius lavo" — properly often to immerse, often to wash; 
 and in the New Testament, first, " lavo, abluo simpliciter 9 — simply to 
 wash, to cleanse. Schrivellius defines it, mergo, abluo, lavo — to im- 
 merse, to cleanse, to wash. They do not, then, say, that these words 
 signify to wash or to dye only by dipping. 
 
 Nor, allow me further to remark, do the lexicographers say, that the 
 words in question signify to wash figuratively. There is not a lexi- 
 cographer, ancient or modern, on the face of the earth, who says that 
 baptizo means to wash figuratively. It would indeed be marvellous to 
 say, that washing or sprinkling is figurative immersion. It is true, 
 these and all other words may have a figurative sense ; and I have given 
 an example in which the word sprinkle is figuratively used, viz : in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews : "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
 science." Here we know the word is employed figuratively, because a 
 literal fluid is not supposed to be used. But when Ezekiel says, " Then 
 will I sprinkle clean water upon you," the word is employed in a literal 
 sense, because literal water is supposed to be used. Every figure must 
 bear some resemblance to the thing of which it is the figure. But what 
 resemblance is there between sprinkling and immersing? or between 
 washing and immersing? Washing maybe a consequence of immersion, 
 but certainly it cannot be a figure of it. We go for the literal mean- 
 ing ! And all these lexicons define baptizo, to wash, cleanse, purify, in 
 a literal sense. 
 
 I appeal to Carson, one of the most zealous immersionists. He de- 
 clares, that the word bapto signifies literally to dye in any manner. 
 (P. 64.) " Nor are such applications of the word (bapto) to be accounted 
 for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale asserts. They are as literal as the primary 
 meaning. It is by extension of literal meaning, and not by figure of any- 
 kind, that words come to depart so far from their original signification." 
 
92 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Professor Stuart has been styled by my friend, Mr. C, his American 
 apostle. Now, let us have the whole testimony of this apostle. Stuart 
 does, indeed, say, that baptizo signifies to dip, to plunge, as Mr. C. has 
 stated. But let him speak for himself. On page 29, he speaks of the 
 word as used in the New Testament ; and the first meaning he gives is 
 to wash, not figuratively, but literally — " to wash in a literal sense." 
 
 But my friend has told us, that Stuart acknowledges that the ancient 
 church immersed. He does say, that the ancient church (in the third 
 century) immersed three times, divesting the persons of all their gar- 
 ments. But he does not admit, that Jesus Christ ever commanded any 
 one to be immersed. I will read a paragraph from his work on baptism : 
 (p. 18,) " But we have already seen, in numbers 6, 7, above, respecting 
 classic usage, that bapto is employed in the sense of bathing the surface 
 of any thing with a fluid, and also of washing it. We have seen in 
 numbers 2, 5, 6, of examples from the Septuagint and Apocrypha, that 
 the word baptizo sometimes means to wash, and bapto to moisten, to 
 wet, or bedew. There is, then, no absolute certainty, from usage, that 
 the word baptizo, when applied to designate the rite of baptism, means, 
 of course, to immerse or plunge. It may mean washing ; possibly (but 
 not probably) it may mean copiously moistening or bedewing ; because 
 words coming from the common root bap, are applied in both these 
 senses, as we have seen above." There is Stuart for you. And I can, 
 and, if necessary, will turn to the page where he declares, that there is not 
 in the New Testament a command that persons should be immersed. 
 
 Now mark what I have proved ; for I intend that every hearer shall 
 understand my arguments on this subject. I have proved, that bapto and 
 baptizo signify not only to sink, dip, plunge, but to wash, to cleanse, to 
 purify, to wet, to moisten, and even to sprinkle; and I will yet prove, 
 by even higher authority than the lexicons, that they have these mean- 
 ings. Now the question is — did our Savior and his apostles use the 
 word baptizo in the sense of plunging ? or did he use it in the sense of 
 washing, cleansing, purifying? If Mr. C. can prove, that he used it 
 in the sense of plunging, he will have gained his point ; if he cannot, his 
 argument fails and he is defeated. I defy him to point to one passage in 
 the Scriptures in which it signifies to plunge or immerse. 
 
 We have now gone through with the examination of the lexicons, and 
 we have found them testifying that the word baptizo signifies literally to 
 wash, to cleanse, as well as to plunge, to dip. Now, my friend, Mr. C, 
 must be in error, or all the lexicographers must have been very stupid. 
 He has told us, that wherever we find bap, we find also the idea of dip- 
 ping. The lexicographers do not say so, and I have proved that it is 
 not true. 
 
 He informs us, that he is now going to pursue a regular course in his 
 argument. He appeals to the classics. I also go to the classics, and I 
 will prove that they do not sustain him. But why does he. appeal to the 
 classics, unless he wishes to prove the lexicons wrong ? He has admitted, 
 however, that they are correct; and I maintain, that they have correctly 
 defined the words in question. Their definitions are founded upon a 
 careful examination of classic usage ; and if they have all erred, it is 
 scarcely probable that we shall ascertain the truth. But I am prepared to 
 go to the classics. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, admits, that so far as mode is concerned, bapto and 
 baptizo have the same meaning.- Now let me quote a sentence from 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 93 
 
 Hippocrates. He, as we have seen, uses the word bapto to denote dye- 
 ing a garment by dropping upon it the coloring fluid. " When it drops 
 upon the garments, (baptetai) they are dyed," or as perhaps my friend 
 would say, they are immersed! Then, when water is poured upon an 
 individual, of course he is immersed ; and this is all Mr. C. could ask ! 
 
 Carson quotes the following sentence from Arrian's Expedition of 
 Alexander the Great: " Nearchus relates, that the Indians (baptontai) 
 dye their beards ;" and he remarks — " It will not be contended that they 
 dyed their beards by immersion." — So Mr. Carson is with us again. 
 
 iElian, speaking of an old coxcomb who endeavored to conceal his age 
 by dyeing his hair, says, •« He endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his 
 hair, by dyeing it" — (baphe.) " Baphe" says Carson, " here denotes 
 dyeing in general ; for hair on the head is not dyed by dipping." 
 
 Homer, in his Battle of Frogs and Mice, uses the following language : 
 "He breathless fell, and the lake was tinged (ebapteto) with blood." Or 
 would you say, the lake was immersed in his blood ! 
 
 Aristophanes says, " Magnes, an old comic actor of Athens, used the 
 Lydian music, shaved his face, and smeared it over (baptomenos) with 
 tawny washes." On this passage, Dr. Gale remarks, " He speaks of the 
 homely entertainments of the ancient theatre, where the actors daubed 
 themselves with lees of wine and many odd colors, before iEschylus 
 reformed it, and introduced the use of masks and vizors. Aristophanes 
 expresses this by baptomenos, batracheiois, not that he supposes they 
 dipped their faces into the color, but rather smeared the color on their 
 faces." Reflec. on WalVs Hist, of Inf. Bap., v. iii. p. 109. 
 
 Aristotle speaks of a substance, which, " if it is pressed, dyes (baptei) 
 and colors the hand." 
 
 I could produce many other examples of the use of bapto, where it 
 cannot mean to dip, or immerse ; but it is unnecessary, since Mr. Carson, 
 the learned Baptist critic, admits that it signifies to dye by sprinkling 
 as literally as by dipping. If, then, the words bapto and baptizo agree 
 in meaning, so far as mode is concerned ; what becomes of the argu- 
 ment of Mr. C. for immersion, derived from the meaning of baptizo? 
 
 Let me now turn your attention to the classic usage of the word bap- 
 tizo. And here 1 repeat what I have before asserted, that, if necessary, I 
 will prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in the classics which are 
 supposed to favor immersion, this word signifies sinking to the bottom. 
 And is that the action ^br which my opponent is contending ? 
 
 But here is a passage in which baptizo signifies moistening or wet- 
 ting. Plutarch, relating the stratagem of a Roman general a little before 
 he died of his wounds, says : " He set up a trophy, on which, having 
 baptized (baptisas) his hand in blood, he wrote this inscription," &c. 
 Did he immerse his hand in blood in order to write ? Is not baptizo 
 here used simply in the sense of wetting or moistening ? 
 
 Hypocrates directs, concerning a blister plaster, if it be too painful, 
 " to baptize or moisten it with breast milk or Egyptian ointment." Did 
 he intend, that the plaster should be immersed in breast milk ? Is this 
 the direction which physicians are accustomed to give concerning blister 
 plasters ? Evidently, the word is here used in the sense of moistening. 
 
 Dr. Gale, a learned immersionist, furnishes us with an example in 
 which the word baptizo certainly does not express the action for which 
 my friend, Mr. C, is contending. Aristotle says, "The Phenicians, 
 who inhabit Cadiz, relate, that sailing beyond Hercules' Pillars, in four 
 
94 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 days, with the wind at east, they came to a land uninhabited, whose 
 coast was full of sea-weeds, and is not overflowed (baptizesthai) at ebb ; 
 but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered." On this passage, Dr. 
 Gale thus remarks : " Besides, the word baptizo, perhaps, does not so 
 necessarily express the action of putting under water, as, in general, a 
 thing's being in that condition ; no matter how it comes so, whether it is 
 put into the water, or the water comes on it.'' — Reflec. on WalVs Hist. 
 vol. iii., p. 122. 
 
 The land, we are told, was not baptized at ebb, but was overflowed by 
 the tide. Is the land put into the water, or does the water flow over it? 
 Gale certainly gives up the question ; for he says baptizo does not so ne- 
 cessarily express the action (the very thing my friend is contending for) 
 of putting into water, as in general a thing's being in that state, no matter 
 how it comes so. 
 
 We have now gone somewhat into the classics ; and I care not to what 
 extent the investigation may be pursued : for, as before remarked, I will, 
 if necessary, prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in which the use 
 of the word is supposed to favor immersion, it occurs in relation to the 
 sinking of ships, the drowning of men, &c. Surely these are not the 
 actions for which the gentleman is contending. There are, moreover, 
 as we have just seen, examples in which this word comes far short of 
 immersion. 
 
 One of the most serious errors of the gentleman, and of those who 
 agree with him on this subject, is their undue reliance upon classic usage 
 to determine the meaning of words found in the Scriptures. The pagan 
 Greeks are certainly unsafe guides in the exposition of the language of 
 the New Testament ; so the best critics declare. And it is on this ac- 
 count, that we have Lexicons of the New Testament. To give a single 
 example, Dr. Geo. Campbell says, the word flesh has, in the New Testa- 
 ment, six meanings, not more than one of which is found in classic 
 authors. The principle holds good in regard to hundreds of words. 
 
 I am, therefore, inclined to come to the Bible usage — and since our 
 friends (the reformers,) boast of going by the Booh, I would a little prefer 
 appealing to it. I am prepared to prove by the ablest critics, that the 
 usage of the Bible, and of the Jews in their religious writings, is the only 
 tribunal by which to determine the meaning of words in the New Testa- 
 ment ; and, in these writings, I can prove that the word baptizo rarely, 
 if ever, signifies to immerse. 
 
 [Mr. Rice here asks the moderators whether his time has expired; 
 and being informed that he might yet occupy two minutes, he proceeds :] 
 
 Before sitting down I will state two facts, which go to prove that 
 classic usage cannot determine the meaning of words used in the New 
 Testament: — 
 
 First — The inspired apostles did not speak or write classic Greek. 
 They were Jews ; and, as critics tell us, they not only could not speak 
 classic Greek, but they could not have understood it. 
 
 Second — The character, manners, habits , customs and religion of 
 the Jews ivere widely different from those of the pagan Greeks; 
 hence the usage of the latter cannot determine the meaning of words 
 employed by the former. 
 
 It is, moreover, a fact, that the pagan Greeks never employed the 
 word baptizo with reference to religious washings, but always with 
 reference to things in common life. And it is a fact, that the Jews 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 95 
 
 (except Josephus, who sought to imitate the classic Greek,) never used 
 it in their religious writings, in relation to matters of common life, but 
 always in relation to religious washings. Now, it is a principle of inter- 
 pretation, that words often have one meaning in matters of common life, 
 and quite a different meaning in matters of religion. Consequently, even 
 if the word baptizo had, in classic usage, the meaning for which my 
 friend (Mr. C.) contends; it would by no means follow, that it has the 
 same meaning in the New Testament. — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 16—101 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fourth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I am much gratified, sir, to observe the improve- 
 ment in the health and energy of my friend, Mr. Rice. He seems to 
 have slept profoundly on the work of yesterday, and appears refreshed 
 and invigorated, and eager for the work before him. His speech this 
 morning is, however, but a reiteration of the developments of yesterday. 
 It amounts to neither more nor less than this ; The word baptizo some- 
 times signifies to ivash. He talks of other meanings. They amount, 
 however, to no more than this. 
 
 I concur with him, indeed, in the necessity of an occasional recapitula- 
 tion, and in the propriety of keeping the main question before us. It is 
 important to have frequent recurrence to the points at issue, and to the 
 progress made. What then is the question — the main issue? Not whe 
 ther we Baptists are right? That is not the question. Mr. Rice himself 
 concedes that we are right in the practice of immersion. Greek and Ro- 
 man, ancient and modern christians, all sects and parties, agree that im- 
 mersion is good and valid baptism. That is not the question, nor the 
 point to be discussed and decided here. We have a tremendous, an over- 
 whelming majority of those who so believe. The question is, whether 
 our Pedo-baptist friends are right? Whether there are two distinct bap- 
 tisms ; one immersing, the other sprinkling or wetting a person by Divine 
 authority. Methinks it would suffice to prove to ordinary minds that 
 immersion is baptism ; ?nd then, as there is but one baptism, sprinkling 
 cannot be that one baptism. But let me ask, what are the essentials of 
 baptism ? They are usually said to be four : 1. A proper subject — 2. A 
 proper action — 3. The Divine formula of words, into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and 4. A proper admin- 
 istrator. These are the sole and necessary requisites. A failure in any 
 one of these may affect the validity of baptism. 
 
 The question now before us concerns the action — the thing command- 
 ed to be done. This is, of course, the most important point — the signi- 
 ficant and all-absorbing point. Paul gives it high rank and consequence 
 when he says, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism." There are 
 not two modes of any one of these. When we have ascertained that one 
 action called baptism, there can be no other. I said yesterday, and I re- 
 peat it this morning, that it is wholly sophistical to talk of two modes of 
 baptism, unless, indeed, it be two ways of immersing a person. In this 
 sense there may be a plurality of modes. A person may be immersed 
 backwards or forwards, kneeling or standing. Other modes than these 
 there cannot be. Sprinkling is not a mode of immersing ; neither is im- 
 mersion a mode of sprinkling. If sprinkling, pouring, and immersion be 
 modes of baptism, then, I ask, what is the thing called baptism ? Who 
 can explain this ? Of what are these three specifically different actions, 
 
96 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the mode? If sprinkling be a mode, and pouring a mode, and immersing 
 a mode, then baptism is something incognito — something which no phi- 
 lologist, or lexicographer can explain. I pronounce these modes an un- 
 meaning, sophistical jargon, which no one can comprehend. 
 
 Baptism is not a mode — it is an action. The word that represents it 
 is improperly, by Mr. Carson, called a word of mode. It is a specific at~ 
 tion; and the verb that represents it is a verb of specific import; else 
 there is no such verb in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. 
 
 I had the honor of first exposing the sophistry of this word mode, and 
 of publicly repudiating it some twenty-three years ago, in a debate on this 
 same question. I showed the superior prowess of the Pedo-baptist in 
 introducing this term. He gained half the controversy by calling immer- 
 sion a mode of baptism. When the honest and unsuspecting Baptist re- 
 ceived the imposition, he was half defeated. He felt that he had but a 
 mode, and the Pedo-baptist had another mode, and they both had bap- 
 tism ! The controversy was then reduced to a question of mere mode ; 
 whereas the true and real debate is about a thing, an action, and not at 
 all about a mode. The Messiah commanded a solemn and most signi- 
 ficant action, and not a mode. Since 1820 the word action is being sub- 
 stituted for mode. 
 
 The gentleman has given you several quotations from classic authors, 
 a number of which I intended to have read, and some of them belong not 
 to the word in debate. For good reasons our Lawgiver chose the word 
 baptizo, not bapto. The former is therefore found 120 times, in some 
 of its flexions and forms, in the New Testament, while we have the lat- 
 ter only six times. They are both said to be specific words by Mr. Car- 
 son ; whilst he most singularly, it would seem, gives bapto both a speci- 
 fic and generic meaning. It is impossible that any word can be both spe- 
 cific and generic. Dyeing, coloring, staining, and dipping, are not of one 
 class of words. Dyeing may be done many ways ; so may coloring, 
 staining; but dipping can be done but one way. Therefore no one word 
 can be specific, which represents them both, in its true and proper 
 meaning. 
 
 Our issue, says Mr. Rice, after all, depends upon the lexicographers. 
 They are, no doubt, a proper court of appeal, but they are not the su- 
 preme court of appeal. They have themselves to appeal to the classics 
 and approved writers for their authority. They are often wrong. Mr. 
 Carson says they are all wrong in affirming that wash is a secondary 
 meaning of baptizo. We all appeal from them to the classics. No learned 
 man will ever rest his faith upon dictionaries. He will appeal from them, 
 in very many cases, to their teachers, the classics. They often interpolate 
 their own caprices, and insert their own whims and prejudices.. Yet 
 with all their prejudices and caprices, no lexicographer has been pro- 
 duced, nor can there be one now produced, who during 1800 years, (and 
 before that time we have none,) translated baptizo by sprinkle or pour; 
 while they all, without one single exception, have translated the word im- 
 merse, or dip, ox plunge, or immerge, words of one and the same signi- 
 fication. Nor can any classic author be produced in which baptizo means 
 to sprinkle or pour. This is full proof of my proposition, let men assert 
 what they please. Many Pedo-baptists think it means to sprinkle, and 
 therefore they so practice, But for this, I again say, they have no au- 
 thority, classic, lexicographic, or sacred. 
 
 After all, this is a question of authority. My friend, Mr. Rice, has his 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 97 
 
 opinion, and other men have their opinions. Every man's opinion is 
 equal to the amount of his intelligence and his honesty. The opinions 
 of lexicographers are to be estimated as other opinions. My opponent 
 says he has proved from the lexicons, ancient and modern, that baplizo 
 has several distinct meanings, therefore I have failed in proving that it 
 has but one proper meaning. All this is easily said, and quite as easily 
 repeated. But it is only an opinion, and of course I, as well as many 
 others, am of a different opinion. And we have our reasons for these 
 opinions. I have, indeed, as yet, only offered a portion, a very small 
 portion of my evidence ; still from that I opine it is quite obvious that 
 there is no authority for his opinion. I have been quoting all my 
 proofs from Pedo-baptists, from dictionaries made by them, both classi- 
 cal, and also theological. They generally, indeed, give wash, or cleanse, 
 or some purifying word, after giving the proper meaning. They always 
 and universally, however, despite of their prejudices, give dip as the pro- 
 per and native meaning of the word. The other definitions, as we shall 
 still more fully show, are accidental or contingent acceptations, rather 
 than meanings of the word. The difference between our witnesses then 
 is this ; Mr. Rice is maintaining his opinions by witnesses selected out 
 of his own Pedo-baptist party, while I am quoting his own witnesses, 
 and never once using any one of my party, ancient or modern. He 
 might as well quote the clergymen in this house, of his own church, as 
 the authors he has already quoted, to maintain his conclusions ; and I 
 might as well quote them too, to prove mine, as most of those whom I 
 do quote. If from such testimony I have already adduced an unanswer- 
 able phalanx of proof, how strong must be the evidence in favor of our 
 practice! But you shall yet have much more of it. 
 
 I yesterday proposed an English discussion for an English audience. 
 Mr. Rice ingeniously refused it, on grounds so transparent that all could 
 see through them, I had read a (ew lexicon authorities, which would 
 and could have all been withdrawn in a moment. I was willing to rest 
 the whole affair upon the common English version — the Pedo-baptist 
 version of the Old and New Testaments. I presumed, however, that a 
 majority preferred the present method of proceeding, else I might more 
 amply have shown how easily a few lexicographers of his own school 
 might have been disposed of. The excuse was, as all saw, more ingeni- 
 ous than solid; the responsibility, then, rests upon himself. 
 
 I shall, therefore, patiently proceed with the various arguments pre- 
 pared for the occasion. But for the remainder of this address, I shall 
 glance at some things not yet understood by all present. I desire all to 
 see the precise point in this branch of the evidence: In the first place, 
 then, all the lexicons give dip or immerse as the true, proper, primitive 
 and literal meaning of baplizo. They give wash, iveU moisten, &c, 
 as the secondary meanings, or the effects of dipping, immersing, &c. 
 Mr. Carson, who in the judgment of Mr. Rice, is a profound critic of 
 the Baptist school, utterly repudiates the idea of wash, wet or moisten, 
 as meanings of a word that has not in it one drop of moisture, fluid, or 
 liquid of any sort. He disdains such lexicography as makes a word of 
 mere mode, as he calls it, mean two things ; and, especially, seeing that 
 any thing being immersed or even sprinkled may be polluted by the 
 action. Now that a word can mean to cleanse and to pollute, to wash 
 and to daub, is with him wholly inadmissible. But I am willing to say 
 that metonymically or tropically, baplizo sometimes may mean to wash 
 7 I 
 
98 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 or to cleanse ; still as that can be no other than an accidental circum- 
 stance, it cannot in strict propriety be called a meaning, and by no means 
 a proper meaning of the word. But even were it shown to be a fixed 
 meaning of the word, it being so by a figurative, and not by any proper 
 intrinsic force, another question of paramount importance must be estab- 
 lished before that would relieve my friend in the least, viz : Has ever a 
 positive ordinance been enacted by the figurative meaning of a word ? 
 
 Mr. Carson is, indeed, a profound linguist and an able critic ; and was 
 himself once a burning and a shining light in the Presbyterian church. He 
 is also well esteemed by the Edinburgh* reviewers. He, however, is not 
 the only eminent critic who argues for but one meaning for baptizo. It 
 is becoming fashionable among learned men, true philologists, to give 
 to specific verbs but one meaning, and I shall, at a proper time, produce 
 one of America's most distinguished classic scholars, in concurrence with 
 Mr. Carson and myself, on this subject. 
 
 But in reason's name, had the Messiah commanded his apostles to 
 wash the nations, while converting them ; why did he not take the word 
 louo, which all the then living world, Jew and Gentile, would have 
 instantly understood ? If he had meant ivash the face, why not have 
 taken nipto ? If he had meant to wet, why not brecho — if to sprinkle, 
 why not raino? These words exactly indicated those meanings— and 
 our friend, Mr. Rice, says that bap tizo is a word of diverse senses! ! 
 
 1 have examined, one by one, all the passages in the Old and New 
 Testaments in which the words nipto, pluno, louo, raino, cheo occur, and 
 have made some valuable discoveries, as to the singular definiteness and 
 precision of the Greek writers, of which I shall hereafter speak. At 
 present I will only say, that when applied to persons louo, washes or bathes 
 the whole body ; nipto, only the face, hands or feet, and pluno, invariably 
 cleanses the garments. They are never, in any case, substituted the one 
 for the other. I ask my friend for a single exception in the Bible. They 
 frequently occur in the same line, on the same occasion, in the same 
 verse, and touching the same person, but are never confounded. If, 
 then, three kinds of washing are defined by these words, in laws canon- 
 ical, how can it be reconciled to the Divine character, and to that of His 
 moral government, to have chosen for the one baptism a generic word, 
 that may mean any thing which any one may please to affix to it? Mr. 
 Rice has repeatedly said that wash is a meaning of baptizo, and that 
 wash is certainly not a word of mode. But there is no philology in the 
 observation. The effects of a specific action may be very numerous and 
 diverse — dip, for example, may heat or cool, cleanse or pollute, wash or 
 daub a subject: — follows it, then, that these are all specific words of the 
 same significance, because the meanings or effects of one specific action ! 
 
 But to return to his favorite louo, ivash. I think I can satisfy even 
 himself, that as a meaning of baptizo, wash is so only as an effect of the ac- 
 tion. Allow me to prepare the way by the statement of a philological law. 
 
 In a logical definition, the term and its definition must be convertible. 
 To speak to every person's apprehension — the definition, when substi- 
 tuted for the term expressed, must always make good sense. Philanthro- 
 py is the love of man — the love of man is philanthropy — are converti- 
 ble propositions. So are — man is a rational animal, and a rational ani- 
 mal is a man. Louo and baptizo must be convertible terms, if the one 
 fully defines the other. But is that the fact? He may find baptizo re- 
 presented by wash in some of our dictionaries, but in not one of them 
 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 99 
 
 can he show wash represented by bapto or baptizo. I say not one; a 
 clear proof that the one is not the definition of the other. Take, how- 
 ever, dip, immerse, and he will find baptizo representing them in every 
 Greek and English dictionary, but never wash and baptizo ! To those 
 who comprehend it, this is an unanswerable refutation of the assumption 
 that baptizo means to wash, or that wash and baptizo are convertible 
 terms. I wish my friend, Mr. Rice, would demonstrate a little more and 
 assert a little less, and make an effort to show how immersing a person 
 in mud could cleanse him ; or how immersing a person in pure water 
 could color him ; or how immersing one in sand could wet him. And 
 yet immersion means washing, and washing means immersion. Credat 
 Judxus Appella, non Ego, Yet in baptizing, Mr. R. neither washes* 
 nor immerses. 
 
 I am told, however, I am not fully understood on the oft repeated and 
 all-important distinction of generic and specific terms. I shall, therefore, 
 once for all, more fully deliver myself on this essential difference — a 
 point in this discussion of no ordinary importance. Tree, for example, 
 is a generic term, because it comprehends under it many species of trees. 
 We have the species oak, hickory, ash, maple, &c, all included under 
 the term tree. Animal is a genus, under which we have the species 
 man, horse, sheep, dog, &c. Now a specific term includes but one class 
 — and not two under it ; whereas a generic term may have two or three 
 hundred species under it. To travel is a generic term ; because there are 
 various ways of traveling; such as walking, riding, sailing, &c. Now, 
 the reason why specific terms can have but one meaning is apparent 
 from the fact, that a second meaning would destroy the first. For exam- 
 ple — if to walk means both to ride and walk, when told that a person was 
 walking, how could we distinguish the action performed ? 
 
 It is a common observation, that the genus includes the species, but 
 the species does not include the genus. Thus, the word animal includes 
 all manner of quadrupeds, but the word quadruped does not include all 
 manner of animals. Washing is a generic term, under which sprinkling, 
 pouring, dipping, may be specific terms. Not necessarily, but accident- 
 ally they may be specific terms; for it depends upon what is sprinkled 
 or poured upon, or what a thing is dipped into, whether or not it be 
 washed. But suppose they are all three modes of washing, then they are 
 all specific words. And if the Lord chose any one of them in preference 
 to the others, then that, and that only, will be agreeable to his will. 
 
 Now that baptism is a specific action, and can be performed acceptably 
 only in one way, methinks will appear very obvious to all candid persons 
 on a little reflection. Jesus, our Savior, must have had all these three 
 actions of sprinkling, pouring, and immersing in his mind before he or- 
 dained any one of them. It is impossible to suppose, that of three, or 
 even two, he would have no preference. No rational being can think of 
 any two ways of effecting any object, without preferring the one to the 
 other. Now, the Lord must have preferred one of these actions to the 
 other, and having a specific object and intention, he had not only the will 
 but the authority to demand and enforce it. Well, now it will, it must be 
 conceded, that he chose one, and but one, out of two or three possible 
 ways of accomplishing that end. Suppose, then, the object to have 
 been washing, of which you may suppose there were three practicable 
 ways. Of these, we are constrained to conclude that he preferred one ; 
 and that he would and could specify that one, no one can deny. Fol- 
 
100 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 lows it not, then, that he has chosen and commanded one specific act to 
 be performed in the most solemn manner? Whosoever, then, has not 
 been a subject of that act, is, of course, unbaptized. I see no way of 
 evading this. Will my friend, Mr. Rice, show some way of escape from 
 these conclusions ? 
 
 He says that washing is a generic term; then these three, sprinkling, 
 pouring, and dipping are specific, himself being judge. If, then, dip is 
 specific in English, it is so in Greek ; and if baptizo means dip, as all 
 the world agrees, then follows it not that baptizo is a specific word, and 
 has but one meaning? Had the Messiah, in giving the commission, said, 
 44 Travel into all nations and preach the gospel," then, this word being 
 generic, his apostles could have obeyed the precept by walking, riding, 
 sailing, or any other mode of traveling. But had he said, " Walk 
 through all the world," &c, he could not have been obeyed by riding. 
 
 He, however, gave them specific directions what they should do in 
 executing his will. He made three words pregnant with their whole du- 
 ties as his functionaries. They were to disciple, baptize, and teach all 
 nations. He gave then the two generic words matheteuo and didasko, and 
 the one most specific, because it required an outward, formal, and well 
 defined action, by which they were to be publicly recognized and known 
 as his followers. True faith and true obedience will always exact a lite- 
 ral compliance with this divine institution. — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 16—11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's fourth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I am happy to return the compliment of my worthy 
 friend. I conclude that he has slept as soundly as myself. For I must 
 acknowledge, I was somewhat disappointed in the display he made on 
 yesterday. But I am happy to see him coming to the work this morning 
 with so much energy. I desire to get into the heat of the battle — the 
 warmer the better, provided we have the suaviter in modo, fortiter in 
 re — soft words and hard arguments. 
 
 He is certainly mistaken when he represents us as admitting that im~ 
 mersionists are in the right. We do admit the validity of baptism by 
 immersion; but we admit it, only because we do not believe the mode of 
 administering it essential to the ordinance. If he will convince me, that 
 the mode is essential, I will promptly deny the validity of immersion. 
 But when we, for such a reason, admit that baptism by immersion is valid, 
 we certainly do not thereby acknowledge that it is performed in the right 
 mode. On the contrary, we contend that the scriptural mode of admin- 
 istering baptism is by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 The gentleman tells us, the question is, whether there are two bap- 
 tisms $ and he thinks it enough for him to prove that immersion is valid 
 baptism. But if, as he maintains, the precise mode is essential to the or- 
 dinance, he will find it difficult, if not impossible, to prove that immersion 
 is baptism. Precisely on this point he will fail. He assumes the posi- 
 tion, that the mode, or as he expresses it, the action is essential to the 
 validity of the ordinance. This is one of the points he came here to 
 prove. He tells us, the phrase mode of baptism is a perfect sophism — 
 perfect gibberish; that it is as absurd as to talk of the mode of sprinkling. 
 He takes for granted the precise point in debate, viz: that the word bap- 
 tizo signifies simply and only to immerse. But that is to be proved; and 
 it is precisely what he cannot prove. We are as much disposed as he, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 101 
 
 and those, who agree with him, to obey the command of our Savior to be 
 baptized ; but we differ from them as to the mode of applying the water. 
 
 Now if, as the lexicographers declare, baptizo means to wash, to 
 cleanse, and if the Savior used it in this sense, there is no absurdity in 
 speaking of the mode of baptism. Are there not different modes of wash' 
 ing? May I not wash my hands by pouring water on them, or by dip- 
 ping them into water? Let the gentleman first prove that the mode is es- 
 sential to the ordinance, and that baptizo means only to immerse, and then 
 he may pronounce the mode of baptism a sophism, unmeaning " gib- 
 berish." 
 
 The gentleman passes over my quotations from the classics, by saying 
 they are irrelevant ; that bapto is not the word in debate. He has, from 
 the commencement of this discussion, admitted that bapto and baptizo 
 have the same meaning, so far as mode is concerned ; that these words 
 express the same specific action. Now, when I prove by reference to 
 the classics, that bapto is not a specific term — that it does not definitely 
 signify to immerse; he replies, that bapto is not the word in debate! 
 This assuming a position, and then retreating from it, strikes me as rather 
 singular, particularly in so old a warrior ! Really I was not prepared to 
 expect this. I supposed that when he put his foot down, he would stand 
 firmly. But when I prove that the dyeing of a garment, by dropping 
 upon it a coloring fluid, is expressed by the word bapto ; and that the 
 dyeing of the hair or beard, or the smearing of the face, is denoted by the 
 same word ; what is his reply? O, says he, bapto is not the word in dis- 
 pute — the references to the classics are all irrelevant !!! 
 
 But he cannot so easily escape the difficulty; for both Dr. Gale and 
 Carson, learned and zealous immersionists, maintain that, so far as mode 
 is concerned, bapto and baptizo have precisely the same meaning. Mr. 
 Carson says — " The learned Dr. Gale, in his Reflections on Mr. Wall's 
 History of Infant Baptism, after giving a copious list of quotations, in 
 which bapto and baptizo are used, says: "I think it is plain, from the 
 instances already mentioned, that they are (isodunamai) exactly the 
 same as to signification." "As far," says Carson, " as respects an in- 
 crease or diminution of the action of the verb, I perfectly agree with the 
 writer. That the one is more or less than the other, as to mode or fre- 
 quency, is a perfectly groundless conceit;" p. 12. Now, if these learn- 
 ed immersionists are correct, when I prove that bapto is employed by the 
 Greeks to express the dropping of a fluid upon a garment, I have also 
 proved that baptizo, which has the same meaning, does not definitely 
 signify to immerse. 
 
 Dr. Gale contended, that in all cases in which bapto signifies to dye, it 
 retains the idea of dyeing by dipping $ but Mr. Carson contradicts this 
 position, and maintains, that it means to dye by sprinkling as literally as 
 by dipping. Thus these learned immersionists, while they come to the 
 same conclusion, cross each other's path in reaching it. Indeed, Carson 
 charges Gale with giving up the question! So far, however, as relates to 
 an increase or diminution in the action of these words, they are perfectly 
 agreed. They agree in affirming that these words express the same spe- 
 cific action. What, I ask, was the specific action in the dropping of a 
 coloring fluid upon a garment? or in coloring the beard, or the hair? or 
 in smearing the face with tawny washes ? Carson asserts, that bapto 
 means literally to dye by sprinkling. Then why may it not mean to wet 
 by sprinkling ? Where is the rule of language which teaches that a word 
 
 i2 
 
102 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 may express the sprinkling of a colored fluid, and yet be incapable of ex- 
 pressing the sprinkling of a colorless fluid? 
 
 But my friend (Mr. C.) was mistaken, when he told you, that in all my 
 examples from the classics, bapto and not baptizo was the word used. I 
 adduced several examples of the use of baptizo where evidently it does not 
 mean to immerse. I referred you to the case of the Roman general men- 
 tioned by Plutarch, who, when dying of his wounds, baptized (baptisas) 
 his hand in blood and wrote on a trophy. I read to you the direction of 
 Hippocrates, that the blister-plaster should be baptized (baptizein) with 
 breast-milk and Egyptian ointment; and I asked my friend (Mr. C.) 
 whether he supposed, that the plaster was to be plunged into breast-milk 
 and the ointment? Does not the word baptizo, in these cases, express a 
 partial wetting or moistening? I produced an example from Aristotle, 
 in which it is impossible that this word could express a specific action. 
 And I proved, that Dr. Gale, one of the most learned and zealous immer- 
 sionists, admitted that it does not, perhaps, so necessarily express the ac- 
 tion of putting under water, as in general a thing's being in that state, no 
 matter how it comes so. But the action of putting under is the very thing 
 my friend (Mr. Campbell) is laboring to prove by this word. Now, 
 which of these Doctors shall we believe ? [a laugh] No ! my friends, the 
 classics do not sustain him. 
 
 But what about the lexicons? They, it seems, are all wrong to-day; 
 though yesterday my friend told you, they were the very highest author- 
 ity ! And he mustered so many of them, that they appeared quite formi- 
 dable enough to terrify a small man like myself. But I took up the very 
 weapons with which he expected to overwhelm me, and turned them 
 against him ! I proved that the old lexicons, of whose authority he 
 boasted, define the word baptizo by the generic terms lavo, abluo — to 
 wash, to cleanse. Mr. Campbell replied, that they gave to wash, to 
 cleanse, as figurative meanings of the word. This allegation was imme- 
 diately disproved. I proved to you, that the learned Bretschneider de- 
 fines baptizo, " propr. sepius intingo, sepius lavo" — properly, often to 
 dip, often to ivash; and in the New Testament, first, "lavo, abluo sim- 
 pliciter" — simply to ivash, to cleanse. What reply does he make to 
 these facts? Why, he abandons the lexicons, and says, they are wrong; 
 and he abandons the word bapto. So far, so good ! We are making 
 encouraging progress. Two of the strongest positions are abandoned! 
 
 My friend (Mr. C.) has told you, that no lexicographer has defined the 
 word baptizo, to sprinkle. But some of them have defined bapto to 
 sprinkle, as we have seen ; and I am prepared to prove, that some emi- 
 nently learned men, who lived hundreds of years before the oldest lexi- 
 cons extant were made, did the same thing. They lived and wrote when 
 the Greek was a living language, spoken all around them. Surely they 
 had the means of ascertaining, whether bapto was ever used by Greek 
 writers and speakers in the sense of sprinkling. 
 
 I am not much alarmed at the host of Pedo-baptists with whose conces- 
 sions my friend (Mr. Campbell) threatens me. I know something of 
 them. It ought to be known, that many Pedo-baptists have been, in their 
 views, decided immersionists. A Pedo-baptist is one who believes in the 
 baptism of infants. Yet in the minds of many persons the name of 
 Pedo-baptist is inseparably associated with the idea of sprinkling; and the 
 declarations of those Pedo-baptists who are decidedly favorable to immer- 
 sion, are often paraded before the public as the concessions of the advo- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 103 
 
 cates of pouring and sprinkling, which their candor or their regard for 
 their reputation forced them to make ! But I will be with the gentleman 
 when he brings up this formidable host. I have something to say con- 
 cerning them. 
 
 He tells us, that the lexicographers are all Pedo-baptists. I have not 
 taken the trouble to inquire to what denomination they belonged, or 
 whether they were all professors of religion. But if the fact be as he 
 states it, I can account for it only on the supposition, that there has always 
 been more learning amongst the Pedo-baptists, than amongst their oppo- 
 nents. If it were otherwise, surely we should have had some one or two 
 lexicons by immersionists. It strikes me, however, as very remarkable, 
 that on a subject such as this, the unlearned should always have been in 
 the right, and the learned always in error ! But it matters not to what 
 denomination of christians the lexicographers may have been attached. 
 They had a reputation to sustain ; and they risked it upon the correctness 
 of their definitions. Public sentiment has sustained them ; and their lexi- 
 cons have become standard ivorks. Their reputation is established; and 
 no criticisms of my worthy friend can bring them down from the emi- 
 nence on which an enlightened public have placed them. 
 
 But I have not relied exclusively upon Pedo-baptist authorities. I have 
 adduced, against my friend, (Mr. Campbell,) the authority of immer- 
 sionists ; and I have shown you how immersionists, in discussing this 
 subject, came into collision with each other. 
 
 Mr. Campbell repeats the statement, that he was willing to have risked 
 the decision of this controversy upon the English version of the Bible. 
 Why did he not sooner make this proposition ? He first attempts to 
 overwhelm us with the abundance of his Greek, and then gravely says to 
 us, please now to confine yourself to the English version ! This is, 
 indeed, a singular manoeuvre. I cannot believe, that the gentleman ex- 
 pected me, after his appeal to Greek, to accede to his proposition. 
 
 He thinks, Mr. Carson did not intend to admit, that all the lexico- 
 graphers and commentators were against him in his views of the word 
 baptizo. Carson's language is as follows : — "My position is, that it 
 
 [baptlZO~] ALWAYS SIGNIFIES TO DIP ; NEVER EXPRESSING ANY THING 
 
 but mode. Now, as I have all the lexicographers and commentators 
 against me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two 
 with respect to the authority of the lexicons," p. 79. Yes — all the lex- 
 icographers, ancient and modern, were against him ! I leave this intelli- 
 gent audience to determine, whether it is not far more probable, that Mr. 
 Carson, a man zealously laboring to establish a favorite tenet, is in error 
 on this subject, than that all the lexicographers and commentators should 
 have failed to learn the meaning of this word. My friend (Mr. C.) 
 threatens to bring forward a very learned gentleman, who sustains Mr. 
 Carson in his position. We will attend to him when he is brought up. 
 We have heard the voice of distant thunder before. 
 
 He asks, why did not our Savior use the word louo, which every body 
 knew meant to wash? or nipto, which means to wash the hands, &c. ? 
 I answer, the reasons are obvious. Louo was a word in constant use in 
 reference to ordinary washings. Baptizo had been long in use among 
 the Jews to express their religious washings of all kinds. Our Savior 
 found it thus employed, and therefore selected it to denote the ordinance 
 of baptism. He did not use nipto, because the water was to be applied 
 to the person. Baptism is not the washing of the hands or feet; it is the 
 
104 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 consecration of the person to the service of God. But I am not con- 
 cerned to answer such inquiries, though these reasons are abundantly- 
 sufficient. Let Mr. Campbell, if he can, disprove the facts I have estab- 
 lished concerning the word baptizo. 
 
 Did I correctly understand the gentleman as saying, that the word 
 lavo never expresses the washing of the whole body? [Mr. Camp- 
 bell : No sir — I said nipto signifies a partial washing.] Oh, I ha/e 
 not the least use for nipto. [a laugh.] 
 
 To prove that baptizo does not properly mean to wash, Mr. Camp- 
 bell asserts, that the word louo, to wash, is never defined by baptizo; 
 and, therefore, they are not synonymous. The reason is perfectly obvi- 
 ous. Baptizo means more than louo. It signifies to wash, (louo ;) but 
 it has also other meanings. It is, of course, not allowable, in defining a 
 word, to employ another word of more extensive meaning than the one 
 to be defined. 
 
 But, says Mr. C, baptizo cannot properly mean to wash: because it 
 does not necessarily imply the use of water — it may be used with equal 
 correctness with reference to any other fluid. But let it be remembered, 
 that the question under discussion is not concerning the use of any par- 
 ticular fluid, but concerning the mode of applying it. When the Roman 
 general baptized his hand in his blood, and wrote on a trophy ; the hand 
 or writing instrument was not immersed in blood, but only moistened or 
 wetted with it. And, besides, Virgil uses the Latin lavo, which certainly 
 does mean to ivash, to denote smearing with blood. 
 
 Mr. Campbell thinks the Savior must have preferred some one mode 
 of baptism. So I think ; and I am prepared to show what that mode 
 was. I am not, however, disposed to enter upon the proof just now. I 
 am, at present, clearing away the rubbish ; for a large amount of Greek 
 rubbish has been thrown around this subject. When I shall have re- 
 moved it, I shall be prepared to sprinkle my friend in English [laughter.] 
 I will give him a plain English argument, untrammeled with Greek words ; 
 and, I think, I can make it so plain, that all will understand it. 
 
 Yet I do not admit the correctness of the logic by which he attempts 
 to prove, that our Savior must have preferred some particular mode. 
 For I have already proved, that in the Levitical law, (Num. xix. 19,) a 
 washing is commanded, and no mode specified. If my friend had lived 
 in the time of Moses, perhaps he would have proved that rahatz, the He- 
 brew word used in this passage, meant to dip, though it is uniformly used 
 in the general sense of ivashing. For he would have insisted, that the 
 Lord must have preferred some one mode, and that mode must have been 
 expressed by the word employed ! 
 
 I have now answered the arguments of my friend as far as he has 
 gone. Perhaps I may as well now produce some further evidence of 
 the incorrectness of his exposition of the words bapto and baptizo. Be- 
 fore I do this, however, allow me to refer to one or two authors to 
 prove, that the classic Greek is an unsafe guide in expounding the Greek 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 I will read from Ernesti, as published with notes by Professor Stuart, 
 p. 14:— 
 
 " The question as to the idiom of the New Testament, turns on the use 
 of such words and phrases as designate those objects that the Greeks are 
 accustomed to designate ; and the question here must be whether such words 
 in the New Testament are used in the same sense which the Greeks at- 
 tach to them ; and whether phrases not only have the same syntax as that 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 105 
 
 ©f the classic Greek, but also the same sense as in the Greek authors : for 
 this is essential to the purity of language," &c. 
 
 "The question being thus stated and defined, we deny without hesitation, 
 that the diction of the New Testament is pure Greek, and contend that 
 it is modelled after the Hebrew, not only in single words, phrases, and fig- 
 ures of speech ; but in the general texture of the language. This can be 
 established by clear examples, more numerous than those who agree with 
 us in opinion have supposed," &c. 
 
 "It is no small argument for the Hebraistic style of the New Testa- 
 ment, that many parts of it can be more easily translated into Hebrew, 
 than into any other language; as Erasmus Schmidius confesses, though a 
 strenuous defender of the classic purity of the New Testament. Nay, 
 many parts of the New Testament can be explained in no other way than 
 by means of the Hebrew. Moreover, in many passages there would arise 
 an absurd and ridiculous meaning, if they should be interpreted according 
 to a pure Greek idiom ; as appears from the examples produced by Wer- 
 enfeh " &c. — Ernesti, pp.. 56, 57. 
 
 If tai» author is worthy of credit, they spoke an idiom of the Greek 
 language different from that spoken by the pagan Greeks. Dr. George 
 Campbell, whom my friend considers as a very learned critic, also con- 
 firms the testimony of Ernesti. He says : 
 
 "But, with the greatest justice it is denominated a peculiar idiom, being 
 not only Hebrew and Chaldaic phrases put in Greek words, but even single 
 Greek words used in senses in which they never occur in the writings of 
 profane authors, and which can be learned only from the extent of signi- 
 fication given to Hebrew or Chaldaic words corresponding to the Greek 
 in its primitive and most ordinary sense." — Prelim. Dissert, vol. i. p. 32. 
 
 "It is true, that as the New Testament is written in Greek, it must be 
 of consequence that we be able to enter critically into the ordinary import 
 of the words of that tongue, by being familiarized to the genius and char- 
 acter of the people who spake it. But from what has been observed it is 
 evident, that, though in several cases this knowledge may be eminently use- 
 ful, it will not suffice; nay, in many cases it will be of little or no sig- 
 nificancy. Those words, in particular, which have been in most familiar 
 use with the old interpreters, and have been current in the explanations 
 given in the Hellenistical synagogues and schools, have, with their natura- 
 lization among the Israelites, acquired in the Jewish uses, if I may be 
 allowed the expression, " an infusion of the national spirit." "Classical 
 use, both in the Greek and in the Latin, is not only in this study sometimes 
 unavailable, but may even mislead. The sacred use and the classical are 
 often very different." Ibid. pp. 57, 58. 
 
 Prof. Stuart, also, agrees with Ernesti and Campbell. 
 
 If, then, the Jews and inspired writers did not speak and write classic 
 Greek ; if they used words in a sense not found in any classic author; how 
 can it be certain, that they attached to the word baptizo the same mean- 
 ing it had among the pagan Greeks ? Are we to be told, that it is certain, 
 that words, used by two different nations, speaking different idioms of the 
 same language, of different manners, habits, customs, and religion, have 
 precisely the same meaning! The Greeks, it is admitted, never used the 
 word baptizo in a religious sense: the Jews never used it in any other than 
 a religious sense. The only way satisfactorily to determine the meaning 
 of the word, is to examine into its use amongst the Jews, as applied to 
 their religious washings, and by the inspired writers, previous to the time 
 and at the time our Savior appropriated it to the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 I am prepared to come to " the Book" and to prove clearly, as I 
 think, that there is not an instance from Genesis to Revelation, in which 
 baptizo can be proved to mean to immerse. — {Time expired. 
 
106 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 16—lU o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fifth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — As we are in quest of more light on this great sub- 
 ject, and as an increase of light is desirable not only for ourselves but 
 also for others, we sincerely wish Mr. Rice all possible success in his 
 endeavors to acquire and communicate it ; and certainly he will afford us 
 new light, when he proves his last assumption, that baptizo never means 
 to immerse in all the Bible. 
 
 In this attempt, he will have to conflict not only with us and all Bap- 
 tists, but with the most enlightened and distinguished men of his own 
 denomination, and of all the Pedo-baptist world. True, like Mr. Stuart, 
 whom I have allegorically called my American apostle, and to whom I 
 take pleasure in giving rank and honor, though I swear to the words of 
 no master, and, like Calvin, also, while admitting both the true meaning 
 of the word, and the antiquity, and generality, if not universality of the 
 practice, they considering mode, as they call it, a thing of no consequence, 
 said as much as they could in favor of sprinkling, but have never presumed 
 to say that baptizo did not signify immerse in all the Bible. That Mr. 
 Stuart sometimes errs — that he has been guilty of oversights and omis- 
 sions, and that especially in his article on baptism, I, in common with 
 others, have noted and recorded. But neither he nor any reputable wri- 
 ter has ever gone this far. 
 
 Mr. Rice seems not to appreciate nor comprehend the ground on which 
 I stand, both as respects the lexicons and the difference between bapto 
 and baptizo. He would represent me as retreating from the positions 
 which I assumed on yesterday. Is this candid ? Does any gentleman pres- 
 ent understand me as taking back a single word or position assumed or 
 uttered on the whole premises before us ? I sincerely think, not one. 
 Nor does Mr. Rice really believe it. Does not the gentleman distinguish 
 between accepting a witness as evidence and authority in a question of 
 fact, without endorsing for all his views and opinions. Why should I, 
 sir, object to the lexicons? They are all with me in asserting the true 
 and proper meaning of the words bapto and baptizo. Not one of them 
 asserts that to wash, to cleanse, is either a proper or a primitive mean- 
 ing of these words. Perceiving, however, as I thought, that the gentle- 
 man was seeking to impair the testimony of the classics by aggrandizing 
 that of the lexicons, I desire to give to both, as two separate classes of 
 witnesses, their proper weight and authority. 
 
 I adopted the lexicons as my first class of witnesses because, indeed, 
 they are supposed to be the exponents of the meaning of the classics. I 
 did not, as Mr. Rice says, represent them " as the highest authority.'" 
 No sir. In my first speech I held them subject to the classics ! I regard 
 the authors of classic literature as second in order of interrogation, but 
 as first in point of authority. They are both with me. In other words, 
 I assert what they both depose. I say the dictionaries are sometimes 
 wrong, and that I can prove. So say all philologists and critics of emi- 
 nence. The lexicons frequently contradict each other on various points. 
 I therefore, in common with all philologists, constitute the classics the 
 supreme court of appeal. 
 
 But I have also retracted my position on bapto ! Does the gentleman 
 intend to annoy me, and retard my progress ? I suspect it. What have 
 I retracted ? Have I said that it is not the root of baptizo ? that it does 
 not signify to dip ? that it is not a specific word ? that it has more proper 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 107 
 
 meanings than one ? or that wherever we find bap, there we shall find 
 dip? No sir. If I had, I should be desirous to hear by what force, 
 argument, or evidence I did so ! Does the gentleman assume that he has 
 compelled me ? 
 
 I am glad that in my work on baptism, now partly printed, though not 
 yet published, I have fully expressed the very sentiments delivered here. 
 I will frequently cite from it in the discussion. It will protect me from 
 such imputations, as well as 'save time and protracted discussion. 
 
 To express myself fully and once for all on these words, I repeat, that 
 bapto, metonymically, means to dye — baptizo, never. This is the differ- 
 ence asserted in my first speech. The reason for this difference, as it 
 appears to me, I have given. It is expressed in the form of the two 
 words — the former indicates such an immersion as, from its continuance 
 under water or any fluid, may give color; the latter indicates rapidity of 
 action, and, therefore, produces not the effect of dyeing. This is my own 
 criticism, be it true or false. I will hereafter give specifications. But 
 nothing depends upon it here. The classics never give dye or color to 
 baptizo. The dictionaries sometimes do. Again, bapto is never used 
 in any case connected with christian baptism ! There is some reason for 
 this. There is then a difference of some sort between the words — and 
 this difference occasions a considerable variety of figurative use. Hence 
 all figures of color came from bapto ; generally those of cleansing from 
 baptizo. But, sir, I do differ from Mr. Carson in some of his remarks on 
 bapto. With him, and Dr. Gale, and with me also, it is a specific word — 
 and as such, with me and Dr. Gale, it can have but one proper meaning. 
 I trust my friend, Mr. R., will not again cause me to consume so much 
 of my time in replying to assertions made by him without any authority 
 whatever. I will not soon again reply to any such unfair imputations — a 
 simple denial is all the honor I shall confer on them. 
 
 As to Gale and Carson crossing each other's path, I think the sequel 
 will show that they are not the only eminent men in the world that have 
 crossed each other's path, and sometimes their own. This is a common 
 sin amongst the most eminent Pedo-baptists. It comes with an exceed- 
 ingly ill grace, from Mr. Rice, to accuse Baptists of this sin, in arriving 
 at diverse conclusions, sometimes from the same, and sometimes from dif- 
 ferent premises. There are not two respectable writers on infant bap- 
 tism, or affusion, that agree either in the topics of debate, of argument, or 
 in the mode of reasoning from them. I am acquainted, more or less, per- 
 haps, with some fifty writers on infant sprinkling, and at present I do 
 not know any two of them that agree more fully than Drs. Gale and Car- 
 son. And notwithstanding the hundreds of tracts, and the scores of vol- 
 umes, and the countless hosts of pleaders for infant rantism, or baptism, 
 that have written on the subject, every new year gives us a new book on 
 the subject. Taylor's new work, a part of which I thoroughly refuted 
 in my McCalla debate, just came to my hand a few days ago, fresh from 
 the New York press — a new work and a new tract unoccupied by any 
 previous writer. It is indeed a Avhimsical affair, and looks as if the 
 cause, or the author, was in a state of dotage. 
 
 But Mr. Rice, with dauntless boldness, reasserts that baptizo is not a 
 specific word, that it is even more general than louo, an assertion never 
 before made, and quotes the classics to prove that it does even signify to 
 dip, among them ! ! He adduces examples, the strongest of which, in 
 appearance, is Plutarch's Roman general, who, when dying of his 
 
108 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 wounds, dipped his hand or finger in his blood and wrote on a trophy, &c, 
 and something, I know not what, from Hippocrates. If then I dispose 
 of this, the strongest case in appearance, I may be presumed to have an- 
 swered all the subalterns. I will then take the general's case — and in it, 
 despatch them all. I shall dispose of them by one canon of criticism, 
 a principle universally conceded by all critics — viz : certain words of cur- 
 rent and accommodated use, are often employed without their regimen — 
 (i. e. the word they govern;) in all such cases the whole object on which 
 they terminate is understood; when any special object is denoted, it is 
 expressed : for example — we say a person bathed, without adding the 
 word, himself ; but if it is not taken in its whole objective sense, the 
 limitation is defined: for example, he bathed his feet, his head, &c. 
 Every one comprehends this. So in the case cited. The general dipped, 
 not himself, but his hand or finger in blood, and wrote, &c. Can the 
 gentleman have forgotten this ! 
 
 He is refuting himself in saying that baptizo is not specific. He has 
 said that dip is a specific word, and he admits that baptizo is its Greek 
 representative. Why then make the same action specific in one language 
 and general in another ! 
 
 But to make an end of all his special pleading — for various and numer- 
 ous meanings and acceptations of words — I shall at once summon a few 
 umpires, judges of the highest legal, literary, and theological eminence, 
 and leave them in the hands of my opponent and this community. I 
 have only to shew that baptizo, generally, not universally, means to dip, 
 according to them, to gain my cause before this tribunal. 
 
 " It is with the proper and unfigurative, and not with the fanciful and 
 rhetorical meaning of words, we have to do in all positive institutions. Sir 
 William Blackstone has truly said, (and who is higher authority than he?) 
 — 'The words of a law are generally to be understood in their usual and 
 most known SIGNIFICATION ; not so much regarding the propriety of gram- 
 mar, as their general and popular use ; but when words bear either none or 
 a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we mast a little devi- 
 ate from the received sense of them.'* Bishop Taylor has also well said, 
 ' In all things where the precept is given in the proper style of laws, he 
 that takes the first sense is the likeliest to be well guided. In the inter- 
 pretation of the laws of Christ the strict sense is to be followed.' Dr. 
 Jonathan Edwards, the greatest of American Presbyterian thelogians, has 
 truly said, ' In words capable of two senses, the natural and proper is 
 the primary ; and therefore ought, in the first place, and chiefly to be re- 
 garded.' 
 
 A greater still, Vitringa, has said, ' This is accounted by all a constant 
 and undoubted rule of approved interpretation, that the ordinary and most 
 usual signification of words must not be deserted except for sufficient rea- 
 sons.' To similar effect declare Sherlock, Waterland, Owen, and Dr. Gum- 
 ming, as quoted in Booth's Defence of his Pedo-baptism Examined, vol. iii., 
 London, 1792, pp. 253—256. 
 
 Before dismissing this subject we must yet hear Turretine, the systema- 
 tic standard theologian of the orthodox schools of Presbyterianism. He has 
 stood on my shelf for more than thirty years. His words fairly translated 
 are, « It is acknowledged by all that we should never depart from the pro- 
 per and native signification of words, except for the weightiest and most 
 urgent reasons.'! We shall conclude with Dr. Benson, another favorite : — 
 « What can be more absurd than to imagine that the doctrines or rules of 
 practice which relate to men's everlasting salvation, should be delivered in 
 
 * Com. vol. i. sect. 2. -|-De Satisfactione Christi, part 1, sect 23. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 109 
 
 such ambiguous terms as to be capable of many meanings.' Well does 
 the English Pirie say, ' Law requires words and phrases of the most ascer- 
 tained and unequivocal sense.' 
 
 If seven such names as here given are not valid authority on the proper 
 interpretation of laws and positive institutions, to whom shall we hearken] 
 Their testimony being admitted, and the plain and unanimous testimony of 
 the lexicographical jury above given, on the proper, current, and popular 
 use and meaning of baptizo, can any one show reason why we should not, a 
 second time, regard my first proposition as fully proved 1 All the dictiona- 
 ries give dip or immers? as the proper, common, and current use of baptizo, 
 and all our quotations from numerous classic authors, as well as the 
 canonical Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament, sustain them in so do- 
 ing. And that the proper, common, and current use of words is to be 
 always preferred and adopted in the interpretation of laws and ordinances, 
 is attested by a host of witnesses of the highest authority, and sustained 
 by Home and Evnesti in their canons of interpretation. I repeat — must 
 we not then conclude that immersion, and immersion only, is christian 
 baptism, according to the mind and will of our Lawgiver and Judge'? 1 ' 
 
 Before stating my fourth argument, I must anticipate, that as Mr. R. has 
 not yet given any special preference to any "mode of baptism," im- 
 mersion with him being valid only because water is applied, it is pre- 
 sumed sprinkling and pouring may be valid for the same reason. Still 
 as wash is generic, yet included in dip, (baptizo being with him generic, 
 and louo specific!!) we are not certain, in his particular case, which he 
 may choose. We think it likely he will go for the Illinois, (Dr. Beecher's) 
 theory of purification. He, benevolent man, makes us all right, Bap- 
 tists, Presbyterians, &c. though we seem ungrateful to him, and contend 
 that there cannot be two right ways of obeying a positive command. I 
 will request, then, Mr. Rice to shew how the precept of Christ is to be 
 obeyed — if he meant and said wash the nations into the name — purify 
 them into the name of the Father, &c. I opine such a precept could not 
 be obeyed without a special form accompanying. 
 
 Again, as there are but three kinds of uncleanness, from which anyone 
 can be purified — physical, legal, moral — b) r what symbolic or figurative 
 term, shall purification from these be properly indicated? Did any one 
 ever wash away physical impurity by sprinkling or merely wetting the 
 unclean part? Has legal or ceremonial uncleanness ever been removed 
 in this way? Never, I say again, never. Since time began its career, 
 no Divine Lawgiver, Jewish or Christian, ever commanded any priest, 
 Levite, or minister to cleanse, ivash, or purify any one from any sort of 
 impurity by pouring or sprinkling water upon him! From which fact 
 I yet intend to deduce an argument, in this discussion, and therefore wish 
 Mr. R. to be prepared for it by opposing facts and documents. It may, 
 indeed, be the first time this fact has been publicly announced in discus- 
 sion ; therefore I desire to have it thoroughly tested. If true, I need not 
 say that it alone nullifies the logic of all the sprinklers, pourers, and wet- 
 ters of faces in Christendom. 
 
 I am now prepared to state my fourth argument. My second argument, 
 deduced from all authoritative lexicons down to the present century, is, that 
 they all, without one single exception, give dip, immerse, sink or plunge, 
 synonymously expressive of the true, proper, and primary signification of 
 baptizo ; not one of them giving sprinkle or pour as a meaning of it or 
 any of its family. 
 
 M}' third argument has been drawn from the classic use of the word. 
 They sustain the lexicons except in one point. They never give to 
 
 K 
 
110 
 
 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 baptizo the sense of dyeing, &c. They never use it either to represent 
 the actions of sprinkling or pouring. Every attempt to make out, by 
 construction, a single instance of this sort, has been a total failure. 
 
 IV. Argument. My fourth argument is deduced from the ancient, and 
 especially from the modern versions of }he New Testament. Before 
 stating it, I must premise a few words* — Mr. Rice alledges a difference 
 between sacred and classic use, to which I have paid little attention. 
 Under this argument it is fully met and refuted by the highest authority. 
 In some instances there is a difference in idiom, in particular phrases, and 
 words. But such differences never occur in words indicating common 
 physical actions. There may be many good reasons why the words 
 flesh, faith, law, &c, should differ in Jewish and Gentile style ; but 
 none why to walk, to eat, to drink, to dip, to pour, to sprinkle, &c, 
 should differ. I accord with all that you have heard from Ernesti and 
 Campbell — Campbell's version, and all the versions made by the canons 
 of Home. Ernesti and Campbell thoroughly refute the imputation, that 
 any one of them ever regarded baptizo as a word of private interpretation. 
 
 These translators well understood all these matters ; therefore their prac- 
 tice is worth many a splendid controversial theory. I have studied the 
 difference between sacred and classic usage, under these great masters, 
 and I can solemnly say, that in the words at issue here, the difference 
 between them is just nothing at all; save that baptisma, in the sacred 
 Scriptures, always represents immersion into the Lord. 
 
 We are making a book for the illumination of a portion of the com- 
 munity ; and, consequently, what I say here, is said very solemnly and 
 publicly, and under the conviction of all my responsibility. I affirm, 
 that so far as the ancient versions are understood by me, through the 
 medium of learned controversy on the question, and so far as I have had 
 time and leisure to examine the moderns, especially those in our mother 
 tongue, they all agree on this general predicate. None of them has ever 
 translated baptizo by the word sprinkle, pour, or purify. We have here 
 a critical exhibit of some fifty of them on this very word ; and, if we 
 may believe the greatest masters in these ancient languages and criticisms, 
 they have generally selected a word that intimates immersion ; or, if they 
 have not, they certainly either have adopted the Greek or Latin names, 
 or never used a word intimating the idea of sprinkling or pouring. Of 
 these the oldest is the Peshito Syriac version, supposed to have been 
 completed early in the second century, if not at the close of the first. 
 Dr. Henderson, a learned Pedo-baptist, gives it as his opinion, that when 
 the Lord gave the commission to baptize, being himself a Syro-Chaidaeic, 
 he used the word amad. But we shall first give an exhibit of them all. 
 
 VERSION. 
 
 DATE. 
 
 WORD EMPLOYED. 
 
 MEANING. 
 
 SYRIAC : 
 
 
 
 
 Peshito, 
 
 2d cent. 
 
 amad. 
 
 immerse. 
 
 Philoxenian, 
 
 6th cent. 
 
 amad. 
 
 immerse. 
 
 ARABIC : 
 
 
 
 
 Polyglott, 
 
 7th cent. 
 
 amada 47 times. 
 
 immerse. 
 
 Propaganda, 
 
 1671 
 
 amada 
 
 immerse. 
 
 Sabat, 
 
 1816 
 
 amada. 
 
 immerse. 
 
 PERSIC ; 
 
 8th cent. 
 
 shustan fy shuyidan. 
 
 wash. 
 
 ETHIOPIC : 
 
 4th cent. 
 
 shustan. 
 
 immerse* 
 
 Amharic, 
 
 1822 
 
 shustan. 
 
 immerse* 
 
 EGYPTIAN, 
 
 
 
 
 Coptic, 
 
 3d cent. 
 
 tamaka. 
 
 5 immerse 
 \ plunge* 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Ill 
 
 VERSION. 
 
 DATE. 
 
 WORD EMPLOYED. 
 
 MEANING. 
 
 Sahidic, 
 Basmuric, 
 
 2d cent. 
 3d cent. 
 
 { baptizo. 
 
 immerse. 
 
 ARMENIAN : 
 
 5th cent. 
 
 mogridil. 
 
 immerse. 
 
 SLAVONIC : 
 
 9th cent. 
 
 kresliti. 
 
 cross * 
 
 Russian, 
 
 1519 
 
 i 
 
 
 Polish, 
 
 1585 
 
 j 
 
 
 Bohemian, 
 Lithuanian, 
 
 1593 
 1660 
 
 \ same root. 
 
 cc 
 
 Livonian or Lettish, 
 
 1685 
 
 
 
 Dorpat Esthonian, &c. 
 
 &c. 1727 
 
 J 
 
 
 GOTHIC : 
 
 4th cent. 
 
 daupjan. 
 
 dip. 
 
 German, 
 
 1522 
 
 taufen, 
 
 dip. 
 
 Danish, 
 
 1524 
 
 dobe. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Sweedish, 
 
 1534 
 
 dopa. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Dutch, &c. &c. 
 
 1560 
 
 doopen. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Icelandic, 
 
 1584 
 
 skira. 
 
 cleanse. 
 
 ANGLO-SAXON : 
 
 8th cent. 
 
 dyppan.futhan, 
 
 {dip, 
 ( cleanse. 
 
 LATIN : 
 
 
 
 
 Of the early Fathers, 
 
 8th cent. 
 
 tingo. 
 
 immerse. 
 
 Ante-Hieronymian, 
 
 3d cent. 
 
 baptizo. 
 
 
 Vulgate, 
 
 4th cent. 
 
 baptizo. 
 
 
 French, 
 
 1535 
 
 baptiser. 
 
 
 Spanish, 
 
 1556 
 
 baptizar. 
 
 
 Italian, &c. 6/-c. 
 
 1562 
 
 bapttezzare. 
 
 
 English: Wicklif, 
 
 1380 
 
 wash, christen, baptize 
 
 
 Tindal, 
 
 1526 
 
 baptize. 
 
 
 Welsh, 
 
 1567 
 
 bedyddio. 
 
 bathe. 
 
 Irish, 
 
 1602 
 
 baisdim. 
 
 
 Gaelic, 
 
 1650 
 
 baisdeam. 
 
 
 Here, then, we have sixteen ancient versions, six of them in the 2d and 
 3d centuries, and ten of them completed before the close of the 9th, indica- 
 tive of immersion — one, from the sign made in baptism by the Romanists, 
 is rendered cross. From the 9th century we have twenty more, all indica- 
 tive of the same fact. In all these we have thirty-six foreign, and many 
 of them ancient versions, in proof of our first proposition. 
 
 In all these it is not once rendered by the word sprinkle or pour. The 
 investigation of Mr. Gotch goes to show, moreover, that the notion of 
 either transferring the original word into translations, or of manufacturing 
 new words, has no countenance from these thirty-six ancient and modern 
 versions. He very justly observes : 
 
 " Our investigation, then, shows that it has not been the practice of 
 translators, until in quite recent times, to adopt the plan of 'transference' 
 in respect to the word baptizo. The word has been translated, in most 
 instances, by a term strictly native; or where the term has been derived 
 from the Greek, it appears to have become naturalized in the respective 
 languages before the translation was made. There is no instance, until of 
 late years, in which it can be shown that the translators made the word ; 
 and it well deserves the consideration of all who are engaged in translating, 
 or disseminating translations of the word of God, how far such a plan is 
 justifiable. 
 
 " It may, indeed, be said, that though the word baptizo has not been thus 
 transferred, other words have ; and that thereby the principle of transfer- 
 ence is countenanced by former translators. It is certain that such words 
 as proper names, and designations of things which are not known, and 
 
 * The Slavonians have adopted the word Cross, to designate the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, from the fact, that whenever they receive baptism they always cross themselves, &C. 
 
112 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 therefore have no word by which they can be expressed, must be so ren- 
 dered : but what proof is there of translators, in general, carrying transfer- 
 ence further than this ] Let it be remembered, that the Greek language 
 was closely united to the Latin, to which the appeal has been frequently 
 made ; and that on this account Greek words were continually naturalized 
 in it. Such words we may expect to meet with ; but to prove that transla- 
 tors transferred words in the modern sense of the term, it must be shown 
 that words, the meaning of which might have been expressed in the 
 language, were given, not only by terms derived from the Greek, but 
 without meaning — being made for the occasion, and purposely left without 
 definition. It will not surely be said that the word baptizo has no meaning- 
 — that a command involving, as most christians believe, a thing to be done 
 by or for every disciple, yet conveys no definite idea of what is to be done. 
 We are not now inquiring what that meaning is; every one who attempts 
 to translate the word of God, is bound to judge for himself on that point. 
 Let him so judge, and give the result of his judgment." 
 
 To all which we cheerfully assent. 
 
 Now, inasmuch as some branch of this family of words occurs one 
 hundred and twenty times in the New Testament, is it not an over- 
 whelming argument against sprinkling and pouring, that in no one in- 
 stance any of these thirty-six versions should ever have translated any 
 one of them by the words sprinkle or pour, if that was at all the sense of 
 the original? — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 16 — 12 o'clock. 
 [mr. rice's fifth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — My worthy friend seems disposed to keep us in 
 terror of that host of Pedo-baptists, whose concessions he threatens to 
 bring forward. I know them, and, therefore, am not at all alarmed. 
 When he produces them they will be attended to. In the meantime 
 I feel quite at ease. If he can find any two of them who sustain the doc- 
 trine for which he is contending, I will acknowledge that I had not heard- 
 of them. But I pledge myself to give him the concessions of immersion- 
 ists in return — of Greek immersionists, who well understood the language. 
 
 The gentleman says, he has not taken back one single assertion he has 
 made. This I am not so well able to understand. In the early part of 
 this discussion he told us, that specific words, retaining the leading sylla- 
 ble, never lose their original meaning; that whenever you find bap, (as 
 mbapto.) you find the action of dipping. I produced several examples 
 from the classics, in which bapto is used, where, in the nature of the 
 case, there could be no dipping. What was his reply? These examples 
 he said, were irrelevant, because bapto is not the word in debate. This 
 appeared to me very much like giving up the argument from bapto. Yet 
 he says he has not changed his ground. 
 
 He, at first, informed us, that the lexicons were the highest authority 
 by which the meaning of the words in controversy could be determined ; 
 and now he is going to prove that they are all wrong ! Well, if he should 
 prove that all the lexicographers have erred, he will do a great work ! I 
 still believe they have defined the words correotly ; and I have proved, 
 not only by the modern lexicons, but by the most ancient, of whose au- 
 thority my friend spoke so highly, that baptizo signifies to wash, cleanse, 
 as well as to sink, plunge, &c. 
 
 But if Mr. C. has not given up the argument from the word bapto, why 
 has he not attempted to reply to the argument against his position, founded 
 on several quotations from the classics? " When the coloring fluid drops 
 upon the garments, (baptelai) they are dyed." Here is the bap, but 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 113 
 
 where is the dip ? Will my friend say, when- the fluid drops upon the 
 garments, they are immersed ? Where was the immersion when the In- 
 dians dyed their beards ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell thinks the termination zo, in the word baptizo, expresses 
 the rapidity of the action; and he supposes that the Savior selected this 
 word, in preference to bapto, for that particular reason ; that bapto may 
 signify sinking to the bottom, and hence baptizo, expressing the idea of 
 raising out of the water, was preferred. But Carson admits, that bap- 
 tizo does not express the raising of the thing immersed out of the water. 
 " The word" says he, " has no reference to what follows the immersion ; 
 and whether the thing immersed lies at the bottom, or is taken up, cannot be 
 learned from the word, but from the connection and circumstances," p. 91. 
 That it is constantly used by the classics in the sense of sinking to the 
 bottom, I am prepared to prove. I will give a few examples : 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of animals in water, says : 
 " When the water overflows, many of the land animals, (baptizomena) 
 sunk in the river, perish." 
 
 Strabo, speaking of the lake near Agrigentum, says: " Things which 
 otherwise will not swim, do not sink (baptizesthai) in the water of the 
 lake, but float like wood." Again, speaking of the lake Sirbon, he says : 
 "If a man goes into it, he cannot sink {baptizesthai,) but is forcibly kept 
 above." I might quote many other examples, but really I deem it unneces- 
 sary. Josephus, who sought to imitate the classic Greek, uses the word 
 repeatedly to signify the sinking of ships, the drowning of persons, &c. 
 
 It is, then, certain that baptizo is constantly used by the classics in 
 the sense of sinking — that this, in the examples supposed to favor im- 
 mersion, is its common meaning. It is not true, therefore, that the Sa- 
 vior selected this word, because it expressed putting in and taking out of 
 the water quickly ; for it does not at all express the action of raising out 
 of the water. Yet this is as essential to baptism by immersion as the 
 putting under — the latter being supposed to represent the burial of Christ, 
 and the former, his resurrection. 
 
 The gentleman tells us, that according to an established rule of lan- 
 guage, the definition, if substituted for the word defined, will make good 
 sense. Let us apply this rule, substituting the word sink, the common 
 classical meaning, for the word baptizo. " John did sink in the wilder- 
 ness, and preach the sinking of repentance." " He that believeth and is 
 sunk, shall be saved." Or, as our friends say, baptizo means to plunge, 
 perhaps Mr. C. would prefer that word. " John did plunge in the wil- 
 derness, and preach the plunging ot repentance." "He that believeth 
 and is plunged, shall be saved." You see, my friends, the substitution 
 of these words for baptizo makes the Scriptures speak nonsense. So, 
 according to my friend's own rule, it is impossible that baptizo, as used 
 to denote christian baptism, can mean to sink or plunge. Yet these are 
 some of its classical meanings. His own rule, therefore, destroys his 
 argument. Baptizo, as used in the Bible, is a generic term; and it will 
 not answer to subtitute a specific term in its place. 
 
 There is no great difference, my friend would have us believe, between 
 the baptism of the Roman general's hand in order to write on a trophy, 
 and immersion. Well, if I, in baptizing an individual, come as near im- 
 mersing him as the general did immersing his hand in his blood ; will Mr. 
 Campbell consider him baptized? He will not ; and yet he has brought for- 
 ward this very example to prove, that baptizo always means to immerse! 
 8 k2 
 
114 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 He did not, however, attempt to immerse the blister-plaster in breast- 
 milk and Egyptian ointment. And it was well he did not; for all the 
 Doctors would have risen up against him. [A laugh.] 
 
 The gentleman read Blackstone to prqve, that the " usual and most 
 known signification" of words should be preferred. To this rule I by no 
 means object; but I contend, that the usual and most known meaning of 
 baptizo, as used among the Jews in relation to their religious rites, is, 
 to ivash, to cleanse. But we are told, that all the lexicographers prefer 
 immerse, as the primary and literal meaning. Now let me turn your 
 attention to Robinson. He gives its general meaning to immerse, sink, 
 spoken of ships, galleys, &c. ; but the very first meaning he gives it in 
 the New Testament, is to wash, to cleanse by washing. Bretschneider 
 gives the general meaning — " sepius intingo, sepius lavo" — often to dip, 
 often to wash; and the first meaning he gives it as used in the New 
 Testament, is "lavo, abluo simpliciter" — simply to wash, to cleanse. 
 Greenfield defines it in the same way. Now my friend says, all the lex- 
 icographers prefer immerse as the primary meaning of this word. Will 
 he please to produce one who gives immerse as its primary meaning, as 
 it was used by the Jews, or as it is used in the Bible ? I am for taking 
 the primary and literal meaning of the word, as employed by the people 
 amongst whom and for whom the ordinance was instituted, not the com- 
 mon meaning as used by another people, speaking a different idiom, in 
 relation to entirely different subjects. And in this I am sustained by all 
 the best critics. 
 
 There is no rule which requires us to take the original meaning of a 
 word in preference to every other. Etymology, as Ernesti says, is an un- 
 certain guide. Language is perpetually changing, and words are con- 
 stantly acquiring new meanings. I might admit, that the original mean- 
 ing of baptizo was to immerse, and then prove, that before the time when 
 it was applied by our Savior to the ordinance of baptism, it had amongst 
 the Jews acquired a different meaning. The word prevent, as I have 
 before remarked, originally meant to come before; but now it means to 
 hinder. It is the meaning in common use at the time when the ordinance 
 was appointed — as Blackstone says, " the general and popular use" — that 
 is to be taken in preference to any other. I perfectly agree, therefore, with 
 Blackstone, Vitringa and Turretin, as quoted by my friend (Mr. C.) 
 
 We come now to the translators, ancient and modern. The gentle- 
 man has greatly magnified their authority. I hope he will not hereafter 
 fall out with them. They, he tells us, knew the difference between the 
 Jewish and classic usage. I am happy to see the translations brought 
 forward; for I am prepared to prove, that they, (at least the great majority 
 of them) did not translate the word baptizo, to immerse. Possibly some 
 two or three may have done so ; but certainly the most ancient and valu- 
 able, as well as the most respectable of modern date, did not. I have 
 examined a goodly number of these translations ; and I am prepared to 
 prove what I affirm. 
 
 I will begin with the old Peshito Syriac, the oldest and one of the best 
 translations in the world. The gentleman asserts, and has repeatedly 
 published, that no translator, ancient or modern, ever translated baptizo, 
 or any of that family of words, by the word sprinkle. This I deny, and 
 am prepared to disprove. 
 
 By the way, the gentleman told you, that I would very probably give 
 you Dr. Beecher's dissertation on purification. Unfortunately I have 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 115 
 
 never read it. I sent for the work, but failed to procure it ; so I must 
 forego the pleasure of giving you Beecher's dissertation. 
 
 But let us briefly examine into the truth of this bold assertion of my 
 friend. He says, no translator, ancient or modern, ever rendered baptizo 
 or any of that family, by the woid sprinkle. Now, the old Peshito Syr- 
 iac, of which he has spoken so favorably, has translated bapto to sprinkle. 
 Here is the book itself: it looks old and venerable. I will give the trans- 
 lation by Schaaf and Leusden, whose edition I have, as the audience 
 could not understand the Syriac. Rev. xix. 13. "Et amictus veste quae 
 aspersa (Greek, bebammenori) sanguine." And he was clothed with a 
 garment sprinkled with blood. The Vulgate, translated by Jerom, who, 
 I presume, immersed thrice in baptizing, translates the passage in the 
 same manner: " Et vestitus erat veste aspersa sanguine. He was clothed 
 with a vesture sprinkled with blood." The passage, doubtless, has refer- 
 ence to the 63d chapter of Isaiah's prophecy, in which Christ is repre- 
 sented going forth as a mighty Conqueror against his enemies. " For," 
 says he, "I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury ; 
 and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all 
 my raiment," v. 3. Here we have two of the oldest and most valua- 
 ble translations in the world translating the word bapto just as my friend 
 (Mr. C.) asserts that no one ever did translate it. 
 
 Origen, too, the most learned of the Greek fathers, was unwise enough 
 to fall into the same error, if indeed it be an error. He, as Dr. Gale in 
 his Reflections on Wall's History of Infant Baptism informs us, in quoting 
 the passage in Rev. xix. 13, almost verbatim, puts rantizo for bapto. 
 How ignorant of the Greek language Origen must have been, if the views 
 of Mr. Campbell are correct ! From the fact that these old and valua- 
 ble versions translate bapto to sprinkle, in this passage, and from the fact 
 that Origen, giving the substance of the passage, substitutes rantizo for bap- 
 to, Dr. Gale concludes, that there must have been a different reading, and 
 that those men had a copy of the New Testament having rantizo instead 
 of bapto. Mr. Carson, however, differs from him decidedly on this sub- 
 ject. After stating Dr. Gale's reasons for supposing there was a different 
 reading, he remarks— "These reasons, however, do not in the least bring 
 the common reading into suspicion in my mind ; and I never ivill adopt a 
 reading to serve a purpose. [This is a noble resolution.] Misapprehen- 
 sion of the meaning of the passage, it is much more likely, has substituted 
 errantismenon for bebammenon,^ p. 37. So it would seem, according to 
 Mr. Carson, Origen, the learned Greek father, did not understand his verna- 
 cular tongue ! And those learned translators, (who did the very thing my 
 friend said, no one ever did,) could not ascertain the meaning of the word 
 bapto, though the Greek was then a living language, spoken all around 
 them ! ! ! Unless we can believe, that they were ignorant of the meaning 
 of bapto, we are obliged to believe, that in their day it was used in the sense 
 of sprinkling. It has not been my object to prove, that bapto and baptizo 
 definitely express the idea of sprinkling or pouring. I maintain, that, as 
 used in the Bible and in the religious writings of the Jews, it expresses 
 the thing done — the application of water to a subject; but the connection 
 and circumstances must determine the precise mode of doing it, whether by 
 pouring, sprinkling or dipping. 
 
 I am prepared to meet my friend on the translations, and to prove, that 
 
 they are by no means favorable to the doctrine for which he is contending. 
 
 I have said as much as I intended in reply to his argument. I will now 
 
116 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 turn your attention to the meaning of baplo and baptizo, as they are used 
 in the Bible, and in the religious writings of the Jews. 
 
 Bapto, as used in the Bible, sometimes expresses a partial dipping 
 or wetting, as in Leviticus xiv. 6, 7, where the priest was directed to kill 
 a bird, and then take a living bird, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hys- 
 op, and dip them in the blood of the bird that was killed over running 
 water. Bapto is here used ; and every one knows, that it was impos- 
 sible to immerse these things into the blood of one bird. It evidently 
 here signifies a partial dipping or wetting. Indeed, in all the instances 
 in which bapto occurs in the Bible, there are not more than four or five 
 where it expresses an immersion 1 It generally expresses a partial dip- 
 ping, a wetting or smearing. 
 
 In Exod. xii. 22, it signifies wetting ox smearing — "And ye shall 
 take a bunch of hysop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and 
 strike the lintel and the two side posts, with the blood that is in the ba- 
 sin." This may answer as a specimen. I will produce other passages, 
 if necessary. In this passage the Septuagint has the expression bapscte 
 apo — ye shall dip from, or, more properly, wet by means of the blood. 
 A similar expression occurs in Lev. xiv. 17 : " And the priest shall dip 
 his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the 
 Lord." And in verse 16, " The priest shall dip his right finger in the 
 oil that is in his left hand," <fcc. In both these passages the expression 
 is bapsei apo — he shall dip from. Does my friend immerse from the 
 water ? The meaning of the word here evidently is, to wet or smear by 
 means of the fluid. If a dipping or immersion had been intended, the 
 writer would have used the preposition eis — into, instead of apo, from. 
 
 Bapto signifies simply to wet or bedew, as is evident from Dan. iv. 
 33 : " The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar : and 
 he was driven from men and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was 
 wet (ebaphe) with the dew of heaven." Precisely the same expression 
 occurs in the following chapter, verse 21. Now every body knows how 
 this baptism was performed. His body was wet from (ebaphe apo) the 
 dew. Or will my friend say, his body was immersed from dew ? ! 
 Dr. Gale attempted to escape the difficulty by saying, Nebuchadnezzar 
 ivas as wet as if he had been immersed. Dr. Cox, another learned 
 immersionist, took the same ground. But Mr. Carson charges them 
 both with having given up the question. And he insists, that it does 
 express mode in this passage, and ought to have been translated im- 
 mersed! He makes it a figurative immersion ! Our immersionist 
 friends have a great deal of ingenuity. If they cannot get Nebuchad- 
 nezzar immersed, they will have him as wet as if he had been im- 
 mersed. Or if they cannot have him immersed literally, they will im- 
 merse him figuratively ! They are resolved on having him immersed 
 in some way. My friend, (Mr. C.) in his debate with Mr. McCalla, 
 maintained that Nebuchadnezzar was overwhelmed in dew ! This, one 
 might be tempted to think, is something new under the sun. A man 
 overwhelmed in dew ! ! J 
 
 I have already turned your attention to Rev. xix. 13, where bapto has 
 been translated by the word sprinkle. But I omitted to state one impor- 
 tant fact, viz : that not only the Syriac and Latin Vulgate, but the Ethi- 
 opic, one of the most ancient and valuable versions, as Gale informs us, 
 translates bapto, in this passage, to sprinkle. So carefully has my friend 
 (Mr. C.) examined the old translations on this point! — (Time expired 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 117 
 
 Thursday, Nov., 16— 12§ o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's sixth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Were the positiveness of the gentleman's assertions 
 any assurance, either of their strength or their verity, we might well fear 
 for the issue of our cause. But we have learned to estimate their strength 
 in the inverse ratio of the confidence with which they are uttered. Great- 
 er and more numerous aberrations from propriety, and more palpable per- 
 version of fact and argument within one half hour, have seldom fallen 
 under my observation than during the last. If, however, my fellow-citi- 
 zens, you will patiently lend me your ears, I will endeavor to set these 
 matters before you in their proper light. 
 
 I do not ascribe to my worthy friend, sinister motives, willful aberra- 
 tions, or any fixedness of purpose to pervert the truth. 1 presume, how- 
 ever, I may say of him, as professor Stuart once said of the famous Beza, 
 " that he was so mad against the Anabaptists, that it drove him out of his 
 reason." Few of us, however, on this side of the ocean can see the 
 force of the professor's remark if we have had nothing before us but Be- 
 za's criticisms on baptizo. I shall place this man Beza in contrast with 
 my friend, by quoting one passage from his comment on Mark vii. 4 : 
 
 "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by wdiich word, it is certain 
 immersion is signified. Baptizesthai, in this place, is more than niptein; 
 because that seems to respect the whole hody,this only the hands. Nor does 
 baptizein signify to wash, except by consequence : for it properly signifies 
 to immerse for the sake of dyeing. To be baptized in water signifies no 
 other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of bap- 
 tism. Baptizo differs from the verb dunai, which signifies to plunge in 
 the deep, and to drown." 
 
 So thought, and so wrote, next to Calvin, the strongest Presbyterian of 
 that age, the translator of the New Testament from Greek to Latin ! But 
 he was wrong, because I agree with him in every word of the above, and 
 because he refutes every main position of his brother Rice on this occasion, 
 and especially some of his recent remarks. Whether he or Mr. Rice is 
 most worthy of your confidence judge, my fellow-citizens, for yourselves. 
 
 But to return with the gentleman to bapto again. With Beza, I say it 
 means to dye or to wash by consequence, not vi termini, not by the force 
 of the word. It is then a metonymy — the name of the effect produced. 
 This, then, explodes the whole speech, so far as the gentleman will have 
 Hippocrates, whom he quotes from Carson, representing garments as 
 dyed by dropping the coloring matter upon them. Now the question, 
 the plain, common sense, and critical question, too, is, does the dying 
 relate to the dropping of the color, or to the garment when colored. The 
 original phrase is — epeidan epistaxee epi ta himatia baptetai. And 
 when the coloring matter has dropped upon the garment it (the garment) 
 is colored. In the passive voice, the effect of an action, and not the 
 mode of an action, is generally expressed. Nothing is more evident, 
 then, than that the coloring has respect, not to the process, but to the effect 
 of it. Nearchus' narrative of the Indians dyeing their beards, is also an 
 exemplification of the same mode of speech. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar was 
 wet with dew ; not by the manner of its falling, but in the effect. Thus, 
 as Mr. Carson says, a man gets soaked and dipped, in common parlance, 
 under a heavy shower. 
 
 Nay, the poets go farther. Milton sings of Raphael's wings as ex- 
 hibiting " colors dipped in heaven." Was there any sprinkling, pouring, 
 or dipping in that figure ? I have already sufficiently exposed the frailty 
 
118 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 of that logic which would impress upon you the mode, or the process, for 
 the effect of it — the thing done. Daniel, as well as the poets, and all the 
 Jewish prophets, delight in poetic imagery. To be immersed in dew, 
 to paint the flowers, to have colors dipped in heaven, or painted birds or 
 clouds baptized in gold, are all of the same poetic license. In such beau- 
 tiful allusions, never the process, or modus operandi, but the thing itself 
 is described. 
 
 The gentleman sought to be witty, and to provoke your smiles in his 
 eloquent dissertation upon sinking. One thing you all must have ob- 
 served, the sense is good, although he would make you smile at his pro- 
 nunciation and action. They were, indeed, ridiculous. This, however, 
 is both a grave and solemn subject, and demands of me, at least, both 
 dignity and gravity. While in the amplitude of my generosity, I am 
 willing to say, that baptizo may be translated sink, as well as dip, or 
 plunge, or immerse ; still sink is not its strictly proper meaning, as all 
 the learned, with Beza, admit. But it does not at all mean to sink to the 
 bottom ! 
 
 It may, indeed, so happen, that in immersing persons, they sometimes 
 go to the bottom. That, however, is an accident, for which the word 
 baptizo is never chargeable — or should a ship at sea be ingulfed, and go to 
 the bottom, baptizo is not blamed for it. Mr. Rice says this is a very 
 sinking subject ; if so, the fault is his, not that of the question in debate. 
 The consequences of any act are not always denominated by the same 
 word — nor are the different words declarative of the effects of any spe- 
 cific action, equivalent to each other. Mr. Rice will have them synony- 
 mous. He will have dipping, pouring, and the effect produced, equiva- 
 lents. Should a person be wholly covered with any substance that may 
 be sprinkled or poured upon him, then sprinkling and covering are the 
 same actions. 
 
 Take another exposition of the fallacy of his mode of expounding 
 terms ; in the word killed — this term indicates an effect. The modes of 
 killing a person are innumerable— he may be shot, stabbed, poisoned, 
 hung, drowned, &c, &c. Now, is the word kill or killed synonymous 
 with all these ! ! Is to shoot, or to kill, or to stab, synonymous w 7 ords ! ! 
 It is preposterous to suppose that a word must be responsible for all the 
 various applications of it. Then dipping must be responsible for the 
 most contradictory results. We heat water and cool iron by dipping a 
 heated bar into it. Is dipping equivalent to both cooling and heating ! ! 
 
 But my friend, Mr. Rice, will now have it that the dictionaries give 
 ivash as the first meaning of baptizo. He cannot show one I I say, 
 again, he cannot show one that does so. He may, under some par- 
 ticular application of the word, find ivash its first meaning, but that is 
 nothing — and very different from showing that what is the first of a 
 special class, is first as a proper meaning!! I call for any general or 
 classic dictionary of the Greek language, presenting ivash as the proper, 
 primitive, or first meaning of baptizo. 
 
 But what a fearful array of evidence does the gentleman, all at once, 
 oppose to my third argument. I was startled, at the moment, to hear 
 him assail, with such vehemence and with such an air of demolition, my 
 oft published declaration, that no translator of the New Testament, had 
 ever translated the word, in debate, by either pour or sprinkle. I began 
 to reflect, with no little wonder, were it possible that such an occurrence, 
 as that which, with so much- air of triumph, he displayed before you, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 119 
 
 had, in truth, escaped my notice. But no sooner had the gentleman 
 named the text, than I felt myself in full possession of my premises ; and 
 he only anticipated me, in stating an apparent exception to my sweeping 
 affirmation. I am now glad of the opportunity afforded me, of sustaining 
 the eminence, upon which I have long sought to stand before the commu- 
 nity, viz : that, when I affirm any great fact or general principle, I do it 
 advisedly ; not rashly, not wantonly, not at the impulse of the moment. 
 I have, in my edition of the New Testament, and elsewhere, affirmed 
 the fact constituting my third argument, so far as English versions of 
 the New Testament are concerned. And, till the last half hour, I never 
 heard it called in question. True, my printed affirmations respected 
 modern versions, and of these, primarily, the English versions. But the 
 proposition, now before us, embraces the ancient as well as the modern, 
 on the word baptizo. 
 
 The case alledged as an objection (and it is the only single objection, 
 which, in all ages, can be brought against my third argument,) is this. 
 That the word bebammenon, a passive participle of bapto, not of baptizo, 
 in the common Testament rendered dipped, as it ought to be, but in the 
 Syriae, Ethiopic, and Vulgate is rendered sprinkled. We have, then, 
 out of all versions ever made, but three ; and these three ail one and the 
 same word, in one and the same verse, which, in the first place, is rather 
 a suspicious circumstance, and goes to confirm, in my mind, the views of 
 Dr. Gale, a very learned Baptist of his day, in England. 
 
 Origen, who flourished early in the second century, quotes this passage 
 and its context, from verse 11 to 16 — and for bebammenon reads erran- 
 tismenon, a participle passive from ranlizo, which signifies to sprinkle. 
 Now the probability is, that Origen quoted from another reading, or a 
 more ancient copy; and if the Syriac copy alluded to was before Ori- 
 gen's time, it would corroborate that conclusion. The fact, also, that 
 Jerom, the real author of the Vulgate, has it, he having been the trans- 
 lator of Origen's Greek works into Latin, still more confirms a different 
 reading. Unless, then, it can be proved that they had the present reading 
 before them, it is wholly idle to urge this solitary verse as an exception 
 to the universal practice of the whole christian world, in all time. 
 
 The words of Gale are — " Origen's writings are older than any copies 
 of the New Testament we can boast of, and, therefore, what he tran- 
 scribed from ancient copies must be more considerable than any we have. 
 However, I should not think the single authority of Origen sufficient to 
 justify my altering the word ; but I have likewise observed that in the Syr- 
 iac and Ethiopic versions, which, from their antiquity, must be thought as 
 valuable and authentic as the original itself, being made from primitive 
 copies, in or very near the time of the apostles, and rendering the passage 
 by words which signify to sprinkle, must greatly confirm Origen's read- 
 ing of the place, and very strongly argue that he has preserved the same 
 word which was in the autographa." 
 
 The gentleman quoted one or two passages from Leviticus, yesterday, 
 to which I did not respond. He has revived my recollection of them by 
 calling them up to day. Really this is a species of little criticism, which 
 I did not expect. The passages are Levit. iv. 17 — xiv. 16; Ex. xii. 22. 
 "And the priest shall dip his right finger in the blood of the bullock," 
 apo tou aimatos. True, indeed, Professor Stuart has hence suggested 
 the notion of smearing with blood — because of apo, meaning by or from. 
 This escape from dipping is not sustainable by Messrs. Stuart, Rice, or 
 
120 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 any one else. We have three occurrences of this construction — apo tots 
 elaiou, in the oil. This is neither the time nor place for either Greek or 
 Hebrew criticism on particles. But men as learned as any American 
 scholars, or critics, understand the Hebrew particle men, translated into 
 Greek by apo, and into English by from, as a preposition partitive, 
 equivalent to some of. Gesenius, in his Hebrew lexicon, renders it some 
 of the blood. To " dip from" however, taking it literally, is in good 
 taste and good sense. I write a letter from Lexington to Philadelphia. 
 I strictly write it in the city, yet we say I write from. So the priest 
 dips from the oil, or dips from the blood. Or if we will follow the He- 
 brew idiom, we read — " He shall dip some of the blood ; some of the 
 oil," &c. There is, then, no necessity for any " smearing with blood," 
 or "smearing with oil" in the case; especially in a country in which 
 we are accustomed to talk of dipping water from the well, and of writ- 
 mgfrom home. 
 
 But we must return to the old versions. If we are to examine and 
 decide upon the thirty-six versions, read here by our own scholarship, in 
 all those languages, we shall never decide the matter. No one in this 
 house, or country, is prepared for such a work. We decide the matter 
 by the testimony of the best witnesses we can summon, and not by our 
 particular scholarship in the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Coptic, &c. &c. We 
 take the lexicons ; and to advert to the first of these, the Syriac amad, 
 which is found in both the Syriac versions, and essentially adopted in 
 three other versions, we shall hear Dr. Henderson and the lexicons, as 
 quoted by Mr. Grotch, A. B., of Trinity college, Dublin: — 
 
 " There is every reason to believe that he employed the identical word 
 found in the Peshito Syriac version. That the word for baptizo is amad, 
 which this aforesaid Dr. Henderson maintains etymologically, signifies 
 •' stand up" " stand erect." If this be the original word used by the Sa- 
 vior in his native Syro-Chaldaic language, then baptizo, found in our Greek 
 copies, must be a translation of amad; and, in the judgment of the Greek 
 translators of Matthew, equivalent to it. But who of the Pedo-baptist 
 school will presume to say that baptizo means to stand up or stand straight ? 
 The fact, then, is, Dr. Henderson is wrong either in his construction of 
 amad, or our Lord could not have used amad, inasmuch as all copies have 
 baptizo in the commission according to Matthew ; and no man, now-a-days, 
 will argue that baptizo means to stand up, or that the Syriac amad means 
 to sprinkle, pour, or purify." 
 
 One might argue that as baptism has a resurrection in it as well as a 
 burial, it might be no more figurative or improper to call it a rising up to a 
 new life, than a laying down, or putting off of an old one — an emersion 
 as well as an immersion. If, indeed, as some Pedo-baptists suppose, it 
 etymologically means to '- stand up," or " rise up," rather than to be buried, 
 it makes nothing at all against our views, while it certainly does against 
 infant sprinkling : for who could make an infant stand up, or stand erect, 
 to receive a drop of water, or the sign of a cross ?" 
 
 But what say the lexicons ? 
 
 " Castel, and his editor, Michaelis, Buxtorf, and Schaaf, are all unani- 
 mous. The first gives the following meanings : ' Ablutu est, baptizatus 
 est. Aphel, immersit, baptizavit.' Buxtorf gives, ' Baptizari, intingi, 
 ablui, abluere se. Ethp. Idem. Aphel, baptizare.' Schaaf: ' Ablui se, 
 ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, baptizatus est. Ethpeel, Idem quod 
 Peal. Aphel, immersit, baptizavit.' Gutbier, in the small lexicon affixed 
 to his addition of the .Syriac Testament, gives the meanings, 'Baptizavit, 
 baptizatus, est. It. sustentavit :' but without any reference to support the 
 last meaning; and it is apparently introduced simply for the purpose of 
 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 121 
 
 deducing from the verb the uoun columnq. . With this exception, the 
 authority of the lexicons referred to, is altogether against any such mean- 
 ing as ' to stand.' " 
 
 These three great authorities give to amad the very same meanings 
 which our twelve Greek lexicons give to baptizo and its family — to im- 
 merse, dip, or plunge, and figuratively to wash or cleanse. 
 
 But to go no farther than our own English translators. We argue, 
 from concessions and declarations made by many of them, that, from their 
 knowledge of the original tongues and their own conclusions of right, 
 they could not so translate any word of this family. 
 
 Let us, for illustration and confirmation, hear a few of them. We shall 
 hear first the oldest of our English translators — the martyred but immor- 
 tal William Tyndale : 
 
 " The plunging into water signifieth that we die and are buried into 
 Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam ; and the pulling 
 out again signifieth that we rise again, with Christ, to a new life." 
 
 I need not quote Beza again. He speaks almost in my own language 
 on the whole proposition as amplified in this discussion. He says the 
 word baptizo does not mean to wash. Doddridge says, on Acts viii. 38 — 
 " Baptism was generally administered by immersion, though I see no proof 
 that it was essential to the institution." That is, as I would say, immer- 
 sion is not essential to immersion, or we may immerse a person without 
 immersing him. Still we must hear him out on this passage. " It would 
 be very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water, merely that 
 Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour upon the eunuch. 
 A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels with him in his bag- 
 gage on such a journey through a desert country ; a precaution absolutely 
 necesssary for travelers in these parts, and never omitted by them." On 
 Romans vi. 4, Doddridge repeats the same views, saying: " It seems the 
 part of candor to confess that here is an allusion to the manner of bapti- 
 zing by immersion, as most usual in these early times." 
 
 McKnight also, not only in his Epistles, but in his Harmony of the 4 
 Gospels, says, Mark vii. 4: " For when they come from market, except 
 they dip themselves, they eat not." He also translates the diverse wash- 
 ings of Hebrews ix. — " diverse immersions." He did not then believe 
 that washing was the proper meaning of baptisma. But on Rom. vi. 4, 
 and Col. ii., and 1 Peter iii., he speaks still more forcibly. 
 
 " In baptism, the rite of initiation into the christian church, the bap- 
 tized person is buried under the water, as one put to death with Christ on 
 account of sin, in order that he may be strongly impressed with a sense of 
 the malignity of sin, and excited to hate it as the greatest of evils, ver. 3. 
 Moreover, in the same rite, the baptized person being raised up out of the 
 water, after being washed, he is thereby taught that he shall be raised from 
 the dead with Christ, by the power of the Father, to live with him forev- 
 er in heaven, provided he is prepared for that life by true holiness, ver. 4, 
 5. — Farther, by their baptism, believers are laid under the strongest obli- 
 gations to holiness, because it represents their old man, their old corrupt 
 nature, as crucified with Christ, to teach them that their body, which sin 
 claimed as its property, being put to death, was no longer to serve sin as 
 its slave." 
 
 " Christ's baptism was not the baptism of repentance ; tor he never com- 
 mitted any sin : but, as was observed, Prelim. Ess. 1, at the beginning, he 
 submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water, by John, 
 and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and 
 resurrection. In like manner the baptism of believers is emblematical of 
 
 L 
 
122 BEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 their own death, burial and resurrection. See Col. ii. 12. notel. Perhaps 
 also it is a commemoration of Christ's baptism. 
 
 " He tells the Romans, that since they were planted together in the 
 likeness of his death, namely, when they were baptized, they shall be also 
 planted together in the likeness of his resurrection, by being raised to a new 
 life in the body at the last day." 
 
 "The burying of Christ and of believers, first in the water of baptism, 
 and afterwards in the earth, is fitly enough compared to the planting of 
 seeds in the earth, because the effect in both cases is a reviviscence to a 
 state of greater perfection." 
 
 Dr. George Campbell need scarcely be named in this place, inasmuch as 
 his views of baptizo and baptisma are so clearly, fully and repeatedly de- 
 clared. A single passage from him is all that we shall quote at present : 
 
 " ' Undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo, ' to baptisma ho 
 ego baptizomai baptisthenai. English translation : To be baptized with 
 the baptism that I am to be baptized with. The primitive signification of 
 baptisma is immersion; of baptizein, to immerse, plunge, or overwhelm. 
 The noun ought never to be rendered baptism, nor the verb to baptize, but 
 when employed in relation to a religious ceremony. The verb baptizein 
 sometimes, and baptein, which is synonymous, often occurs in the Septua- 
 gint and Apocryphal writings, and is always rendered in the common ver- 
 sion by one or other of these words, to dip, to wash, to plunge. When the 
 original expression, therefore, is rendered in familiar language, there ap- 
 pears nothing harsh or extraordinary in the metaphor. Phrases like these, 
 to be overwhelmed with grief, to be immersed in affliction, will be found 
 common in most languages. " — CampbelVs Dissert, vol. iv. pp. 128, 24. — 
 \Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 16—1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's sixth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President— If it be true, as my friend (Mr. C.) charges, that I 
 have made bold assertions, I am certainly in good company ; for he has 
 abounded in that species of argument. Perhaps it may be fair to put as- 
 sertion against assertion. 
 
 The gentleman would have you believe, that I am furiously mad against 
 the Baptists. I am not, however, so mad, but that I can recognize evangel- 
 ical Baptists as constituting a part of the church of God — as christian breth- 
 ren; but he, in his zeal, excommunicates every church on earth but his 
 own and those who adopt his views of immersion ! I leave the audience to 
 judge which is most prejudiced — I, who acknowledge immersionists as 
 disciples of Christ, or Mr. Campbell, who excommunicates all who differ 
 from him. 
 
 The word baptizo is likely to become very troublesome to my friend. 
 He told us on yesterday, that bapto and baptizo retain the idea of dipping 
 through all their flexions — that as the root, the trunk, and the branches of 
 a tree are all the same kind of wood, so these and similar words retain in all 
 their branches the radical idea of dipping. I produced from the classics, as 
 well as from the Bible, abundant evidence that such is not the fact. I 
 proved, that bapto is used to express dyeing by dropping the coloring fluid 
 on the thing dyed; that it is used to denote the coloring of the beard, the 
 hair, the face, the staining of the hands, &c. He is now forced to admit, 
 that bapto does not always express dipping. He tells us, that it expresses 
 not the dropping of the fluid on the garment, but the effect. The effect 
 of what? of dropping? If it express the effect of dropping, where is the 
 immersion? But this, he says, is a figurative use of the word. Is there 
 any thing figurative in the dropping of a fluid on a garment ? Is the fluid a 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. J23 
 
 figure ? Is the garment a figure ? Is the dropping a figure ? What is there 
 figurative about it ? Can dropping or sprinkling be the figure of immersion ? 
 Surely this is a modern discovery in rhetoric. 
 
 But I will again produce the authority of that shrewd critic, Mr. Carson, 
 against the gentleman. He asserts, that bapto signifies to dye by sprink- 
 ling as properly as by dipping. And if it means to dye by sprinkling as 
 properly as by dipping, the former is not a figurative meaning. But, says 
 Carson, " Nor are such applications of the word to be accounted for by 
 metaphor" — they are not figurative. "They are," says he, " as literal 
 as the primary meaning. It is by the extension of the literal meaning, and 
 not by figure of any kind, that words come to depart so from their primary 
 meaning." So my friend is still in difficulty about bapto. 
 
 I prove, that the word bapto signifies to ivet, from the passage in 
 Dan. iv. 33, in which it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, "his body (ebaphe 
 apo) was wet with or from the dew of heaven." But the gentleman tells 
 us, that by a beautiful figure of speech Daniel represents the king as dipped 
 in dew ; and he quotes the language of Milton — " A cold shuddering dew 
 dips me all o'er." It is not denied that such license may be allowed to 
 poets, who, writing under the influence of the excitement so essential to 
 that species of composition, are expected to abound in the boldest figures. 
 But does it follow, that such figures are to be expected in simple and 
 sober narrative ? Are we to expound the language of plain history by the 
 imaginative flights of poets ? Johnson, however, gives as a second 
 meaning of the word dip, to wet, moisten, and quotes the passage from 
 Milton as an example of this secondary sense. 
 
 The language, says my friend, is figurative. Is literal water descend- 
 ing upon a man, a figure ? Where is the figure ? Of what is it a figure ? 
 If it be figurative, it must have relation to something literal. If the wet- 
 ting with dew is the figure, what is the letter? Here is a baptism, the 
 mode of which every one understands. It is certain, that in this instance 
 bapto expresses something even less than copious sprinkling. 
 
 My friend (Mr. C.) told us, that according to an important rule of lan- 
 guage, the definition of a word might be substituted for the word defined, 
 and would make good sense. I applied his rule. To prove by his 
 own rule, that baptizo does not definitely express mode, as applied to the 
 ordinance of baptism, I substituted the word sink — its most common 
 classical meaning, and the word plunge, in its stead. He gives me a gen- 
 tle reproof for treating grave subjects with too much levity. I was but 
 following a direction given by himself, as he will see, if he will take the 
 trouble to read an article in the Millenial Harbinger, in which he gives 
 an argument for young christians against the advocates of sprinkling. I 
 did not design making any one laugh, unless he felt like it. Mr. Carson 
 himself repeatedly translates baptizo to sink. I will give one or two ex- 
 amples. He says — "Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of ani- 
 mals in water, says, that when the water overflows, many of the land 
 animals (baptizomena) sunk in the river, perish." Again — Strabo, 
 speaking of the like near Agrigentum, says, " Things which otherwise will 
 not swim, do not sink (baptizesthai,) in the water of the lake," &c. In 
 a number of other instances, Mr. Carson translates the word to sink. 
 
 But the sinking of the ship, says my friend (Mr. Campbell), is merely 
 accidental. And so, if we are to believe Mr. Carson, is the raising the 
 person out of water. For he says, whether the thing goes to the bottom or 
 is raised out of the water, cannot be learned from the word baptizo. But, 
 
124 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 I ask, is not the raising of the person out of water an essential part of his 
 baptism ? The gentleman, however, dips them by the word, and raises 
 them out of the water by accident! 
 
 He says, no classical lexicon gives to wash as the primary meaning of 
 the word baptizo. He at first asserted, that all the lexicons prefer im- 
 mersion as the primary meaning. I proved, that several of the best of 
 them give to wash as its primary meaning in the Scriptures. He now 
 calls for a classical lexicon that thus defines it. But I have proved, that 
 the Jews (and the inspired writers were Jews) did not speak or write 
 classic Greek. This he does not deny. Why, then, call for a classical 
 lexicon to define a word as used by the Jews ? If the classical lexicons 
 correctly define Greek words as used by the Jews and inspired writers, 
 why have we lexicons of the New Testament? His call for a classic 
 lexicon is a mere evasion. 
 
 But he tells us, no classic lexicon gives to wash as the primary and 
 original meaning of the word. I have proved, that the original mean- 
 ing is not to be taken in preference to other meanings— that the word 
 prevent, for example, originally meant to come before, but now it means 
 literally to hinder. Usage, as all critics agree, must determine the 
 meaning of words. 
 
 Let me briefly notice the remarks of my friend concerning bapto, which, 
 as I have proved, is translated, to sprinkle, by three of the oldest and most 
 valuable versions: the Peshito Syriac, the Ethiopic and the Vulgate. 
 He has repeatedly asserted and published, that no translator, ancient 
 or modern, Jew, Christian, or Turk, ever did so translate any of this fam- 
 ily of words. I have proved, not only that the three versions just men- 
 tioned have so translated bapto, but that Origen, the most learned of 
 the christian fathers, in giving the substance of the passage in Rev. xix. 
 13, substituted rantizo, to sprinkle, for bapto. 
 
 How does the gentleman attempt to escape this difficulty ? Why, he 
 supposes there must have been a different reading — some copy of the 
 book of Revelation having the word rantizo instead of bapto ; and he 
 would have us believe that Origen gives a different reading. But where 
 is the evidence that there was any such reading? He may guess that 
 there was ; but there is no evidence of it whatever. And if he may be 
 permitted to alter the Bible by mere conjecture, there is no difficulty from 
 which he may not escape. Origen does not give a different reading of 
 the passage. He did not quote it verbatim, as Dr. Gale admits, but only 
 gave the sense or meaning of it. In doing so he substituted rantizo for 
 bapto. But those learned men did not translate bapto to suit my friend, 
 Mr. C, and therefore he presumes, without the least evidence, that they 
 had before them a different reading. 
 
 Mr. Carson, on this as on some other points, is against my friend 
 That shrewd critic, as he considers him, says, as I have already proved : 
 " These reasons, however, do not in the least bring the common reading 
 into suspicion in my mind ; and I will never adopt a reading to serve a pur- 
 pose. Misapprehension of the meaning of the passage, it is much more 
 likely, has substituted errantismenon for bebammenon." What are these 
 reasons, of which Mr. Carson speaks ? Why, the Syriac and the Ethio- 
 pic versions translate the word (Rev. xix. 13.) to sprinkle, and Origen, in 
 giving the substance of the passage, substitutes rantizo, to sprinkle. Are 
 these reasons sufficient to alter a passage in the word of God 1 Why, 
 Mr Campbell himself, in his translation, has retained the very reading he 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 125 
 
 would now reject. Griesback saw no evidence in favor of a new read- 
 ing. Carson, though a zealous and learned immersionist, saw not the 
 least reason to suspect the common reading ; and he says, he will never 
 adopt a reading to serve a purpose. He thinks, however, that Origen, 
 though a very learned Greek, did not understand the meaning of the 
 word !!! Well, if those learned translators and Origen failed to ascertain the 
 meaning of bapto, it is scarcely probable that we shall discover it. What, 
 then, are we to think of the bold assertion of Mr. C, that no translator 
 had ever rendered any of this family of words by the word sprinkle! 
 
 The Peshito-Syriac version has been appealed to by Mr. Campbell, as 
 one that translates baptizo to immerse. It does not so translate it, as I 
 am prepared to prove. I have Schaaf's Syriac lexicon, which is one of 
 the best in the world. I will read his definition of the word by which 
 baptizo is uniformly rendered. The word is amad, and is thus defined : 
 "Abluit se, ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam; baptizatus est." — He 
 washed himself, was washed, stained, immersed in water, was baptized. 
 Schaaf refers to every place in the New Testament where this word is 
 used, and he finds not one in which it means immerse ; and in the Old 
 Testament he finds but one passage in which he supposes it to have this 
 meaning, viz : (Numb. xxxi. 23.) " Every thing that may abide the 
 fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean, &c. ; and 
 all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go through the water." In 
 this passage there is no evidence that the word means immerse. To pass 
 through the fire does not mean to dip into fire. Neither the Hebrew, 
 nor the Greek word here employed, signifies to immerse. Where, then, 
 is the evidence that the Syriac word by which the Hebrew word is trans- 
 lated, has that meaning ? The meaning of the passage evidently is this : 
 That which cannot be purified by fire, must be purified by water. There 
 is, therefore, not a solitary example in the Bible of the use of the word 
 amad in the sense of immerse. 
 
 The Syriac language has a word (tzeva) which properly signifies to 
 dip. And this word is used in every instance where dip occurs in the 
 New Testament ; but it is never employed to translate baptizo. 
 
 I have all the lexicographers against my friend in regard to the meaning 
 of the -word amad. Mr. Gotch, who has published an article in which 
 he attempts to prove that the Syriac version favors immersion, states that 
 the lexicographers, " Castel and his editor, Michaelis, Buxtorf, and Schaaf, 
 are all unanimous" in defining it. They, of course, all agree to the defi- 
 nitions I have read from Schaaf; and no one of them, it seems, could 
 find in the Bible an example, except the one already noticed, in which 
 amad means to immerse. 
 
 The primary or original meaning of this word, as Mr. Gotch admits, 
 is to stand. He says — "The word amad, has been generally and per- 
 haps correctly referred to the same root as the Hebrew amad, (found 
 also in the Arabic and Ethiopic,) the general meaning of which is un- 
 doubtedly to stand. " — Appendix to the Bible Questions, p. 156. Some 
 have supposed that this word was chosen to denote christian baptism, 
 from the fact that it was common for persons, in receiving baptism, to 
 stand in water and have it poured on them. Others suppose it to have 
 been used in the sense of confirmation, as baptism was supposed to be a 
 confirmatory rite. But in whatever way the use of the word may be ac- 
 counted for, its original meaning evidently was to stand. It is not likely, 
 therefore, that it so changed its meaning as to signify immerse. But let 
 
 l2 
 
126 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 not the fact be forgotten, that in the Bible there is not an instance in 
 which the connection shows that it has that meaning. The old Peshito 
 Svriac must be given up; it does not favor the doctrine of mv friend, 
 (Mr. Campbell.) 
 
 The Latin Vulgate in not a single instance translates baptize to im- 
 merse. The learned Jerom, the author of this translation, lived in the fourth 
 century ; and, I presume, was accustomed in baptizing persons to immerse 
 them three times. Yet, with all his prejudice in favor of immersion, he 
 never did translate baptizo by the Latin word immergo — a word which, 
 converted into English, has become so great a favorite with my friend, 
 Mr. C. In every instance, except one, he transferred the word, (Lat- 
 inizing it,) as our translators did. And it is worthy of remark, that in 
 that one instance, the only one in which he ever translated the word, he 
 rendered it by lavo, a generic word, which means simply to wash : 
 " Descendit, et Javit in Jordane, septies juxta sermonem viri Dei " — He 
 descended and washed seven times in Jordan, according to the word 
 of the man of God. — 2 Kings v. 14. 
 
 The old italic version, which was in general use in the wester:: 
 church before Jerom translated the Vulgate, did not translate baptizo to 
 immerse, but transferred it, as Jerom afterwards did. 
 
 Here, then, we have three of the most ancient and valuable versions, 
 neither of which translates baptizo to immerse. I am prepared to ex- 
 amine others, whenever the gentleman undertakes to prove that they :. 
 his views. He has said, that Luther translated baptizo, by a Ge: 
 word, signifying to immerse. That this statement is incorrect, is evident 
 from Luther's translation of Matth. iii. 11 — "I, indeed, baptize you rait 
 wasser — with Avater, [not in water.] He shall baptize you with (mit) 
 the Holy Ghost and with (mit) fire." Can any one believe that Lu- 
 ther so translated this passage, as to make John the Baptist say — " I im- 
 merse you with water?" Luther, and the German ministers who 
 used his translation, practiced baptizing by pouring or sprinkling. Did 
 they render themselves perfectly ridiculous by standing up and saying — 
 44 1 immerse thee," &c, and then sprinkling water on the person ? It is 
 absolutely incredible. No sensible man would act such a farce. 
 
 That Luther did not understand baptizo as meaning always to immerse, 
 is evident, from the fact, that in those passages, where it is not used to 
 denote the ordinance of baptism, he translates it by a generic term, sig- 
 nifying simply to ivash. He thus renders it in Mark vii. 4, 8, and Luke 
 xi. 38. These remarks apply with full force to the Dutch, Danish, and 
 Swedish translations. Not one of these versions translates the word im- 
 merse; and the people who read them, it is well known, have never 
 practiced immersion. I shall be with my friend, when he undertakes to 
 support immersion by these translations. 
 
 The gentleman has spoken of Tyndale's translation. I happen to 
 have that work. Tyndale transfers the word where it is used with refer- 
 ence to the ordinance of baptism. When it is not so used, as in Mark vii. 
 4, 8, and Luke xi. 38, he translates it by the word wash — " Except tiiey 
 tcash — the washing of cups," &c. Tyndale. I believe, was favorable to 
 immersion; though, my friend says, he quotes only ihe advocates of 
 sprinkling. "Why, then, did not he translate baptizo to immerse, instead 
 of to wash ? "Why did he not say — " When they come from the mar- 
 ket, except they immerse themselves, they eat not ? " Why did he not 
 put the immersion of cups, &c. v instead of ivashing? 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 127 
 
 The gentleman quoted Beza. Well, does Beza translate baptizo to 
 immerse ? He does not. He transfers it when it is used in relation to 
 the ordinance ; and in other cases translates it to wash. 
 
 My friend is not quite consistent in his mode of reasoning. At one 
 time he tells us, that the old critics were not so well versed in the science 
 of criticism as those of modern times — that great improvements have 
 been made of late days. But when he thinks the old critics favorable to 
 his views, he magnifies their authority. There seems to be a kind of 
 twisting and turning to escape difficulties. 
 
 He has brought forward Doddridge's remarks on the baptism of the 
 eunuch — going into the water. At the commencement of this discussion 
 he agreed, that the controversy turned mainly on the meaning of the word 
 baptizo. He is now running from it to the prepositions and other argu- 
 ments. I am disposed to proceed in the discussion with some regard to 
 system. I hope the gentleman will return to the word. 
 
 Campbell and McKnight, to whom he has referred, were both favorable 
 to immersion. For sometime after the Reformation, immersion was gen- 
 erally practiced in England. Gradually it fell into disuse, though many 
 were anxious to have it restored. They were Pedo-baptists — believed in 
 infant baptism — but they were immersionists. These concessions are 
 not, therefore, to be regarded as the concessions of the advocates of 
 sprinkling. Yet, neither Campbell, nor McKnight, nor Doddridge, believed 
 the doctrine for which Mr. C. contends. They all admitted the validity 
 of baptism by pouring or sprinkling — thus differing essentially from him. 
 
 If, however, this question is to be determined by the opinions of 
 learned men instead of argument, I will count learned men with my 
 friend. I will produce as long and as learned a list who deny that bap- 
 tizo definitely expresses the act of immersing, as he can find to maintain 
 the contrary. Nay, I will prove that those Greek and Latin fathers who 
 practiced trine immersion, still admitted the validity of baptism by pour- 
 ing and sprinkling. And if their concessions do not prove him in error, 
 how do the partial concessions of a few Pedo-baptists prove that I am in 
 error? — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 17 — l£ o'clock, P. M. 
 [yiR. Campbell's seventh address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I will travel over the ground again with my friend. 
 The gentleman says that he has consulted these authors. His consulta- 
 tions, then, do not secure him against error ; for he certainly has mistaken 
 me, touching my quotations from Tyndale, Doddridge, Beza, Campbell, 
 McKnight, &c. He has generally evinced a disposition to anticipate me, 
 and now, instead of offering pertinent replies, he would represent me as 
 forsaking the ground I have taken, and on which I have said the whole 
 controversy must ultimately rest, viz : the proper meaning of the precept 
 baptize. We both admit that all depends upon the meaning of a single 
 word. If, then, I offer a thousand arguments, facts, and observations, 
 their ultimate and grand object is, to ascertain the meaning of baptizo, as 
 used by the Christian Lawgiver. 
 
 The gentleman, indeed, has repeatedly told us that professor Stuart has 
 never admitted that Jesus Christ commanded his apostles to immerse. 
 That, however, would have made the professor a Baptist, and then his 
 testimony to us would have been worth nothing. Does any one think 
 that he would say the Lord commanded his apostles exclusively to im- 
 
128 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 merse, and himself proceeded with his sprinkling! But thousands, as 
 learned as he, have said, that it does signify immerse. I as firmly be- 
 lieve that Jesus Christ commanded his apostles to immerse, as I believe 
 that he was the true Messiah. Now that is equivalent to saying that he 
 commanded them to immerse only. I presume not to say how Mr. 
 Stuart came to that conclusion ; for he not only, as Mr. Rice says, ad- 
 mits immersion in the third century, but in the apostolic age. He says, 
 indeed, that "baptizo, in the New Testament, does, in all probability, 
 involve the idea that the rite w as usually performed by immersion, but 
 not always." The only difference between him and me is in the word 
 always. I say always, he says "usually." 
 
 But the gentleman, in his own imagination, has compelled me by his 
 force of logic, to admit that bapto does not always mean to dip. How 
 others may have felt I know not — but I have neither seen nor felt any 
 thing stronger than his force of action. I have always admitted that bap- 
 to, not only in the active voice, indicates to dip, but also in the passive, 
 indicates the effect of any action which literally or figuratively immerses, 
 or covers, or conceals the thing. In the case before as it intimates the 
 effect produced by dropping, but most certainly does not mean dropping, 
 for that is expressed by another word ! And as for Mr. Carson's rule of 
 " the exclusion of literal meaning by" use, I do not admit it in specific 
 words, but in general words. It is neither, then, an argument ad rem, 
 nor ad hominem. 
 
 I have then abandoned no position touching verbs, nouns, facts, or 
 canons of criticism assumed in the discussion. Why should I ? What has 
 the gentleman done to compel such a surrender ? I ask what has he done ? 
 Asserted, re-asserted, and re-affirmed. I am proceeding in a regular in- 
 ductive train of argumentation ; and I hope, notwithstanding my frequent 
 interruptions by his assertions, and sometimes impertinent readings and 
 comments, that I will, by a regular cumulative process of inductive argu- 
 mentation and proof, carry conviction to many minds of the certain truth 
 and sublime importance of my conclusions. 
 
 The quotations just made from these translators, to which others of a 
 similar character may be added, were read to demonstrate the impossibil- 
 ity, or strong improbability, that persons avowing such opinions could 
 afterwards translate these terms by pour or sprinkle. They are then 
 pertinent to the argument on hand. 
 
 While on the subject of translations, we must, for a moment, honor 
 father Jerom and the Vulgate with a passing notice. Jerom, the 
 father and the founder of the Vulgate, did not, as Mr. Rice affirms, 
 ever translate baptizo by the word immerse. He retained the word 
 baptizo in every instance where the rite is named or alluded to. He 
 once, and only once, translated it by lavo, to wash ; and that was in a 
 case which he presumed of difficult import, and then he assumed the 
 commentator, and laid aside the character of the translator. There is not 
 then, one grain of argument, or any relevancy in Mr. R.'s assertion con- 
 cerning the Vulgate and St. Jerom. The custom then was to call every- 
 thing by its proper name. 
 
 At that time, or till then, the Greek church and Greek language con- 
 trolled Christendom. The JeAvs first, the Greeks next, gave laws, and 
 usages, and style, to the christian community. Hence all the ecclesiastic 
 terms are Greek. In my debate with Bishop Purcell, I deduced an ar- 
 gument against the Roman Catholic pretension of being the mother and 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 12& 
 
 mistress of churches, from the fact that the Greeks gave the whole church 
 nomenclature, and not the Latins. A pithy argument too. This start- 
 ling fact also accompanied it, viz : That in all the councils of some four 
 or five centuries, there were present 2200 Greek bishops, and only some 
 28 or 30 Roman bishops. This immense preponderance in the early 
 church and councils, baptized into Greek all official names, honors, 
 offices, ordinances, &c, and explains the mystery why Jerom retained 
 this Greek word, in common with a host of kindred names. The church 
 vocabularly is almost all Greek : for example — bishop, deacon, evange- 
 list, presbytery, synod, baptism, eucharist, ecclesiastic, &c. <fcc. Hence, 
 as Dr. Campbell well observes, Jerom adopted rather than translated bap- 
 tizo. And as Jerom's version reigned for a thousand years, the word 
 baptizo pervaded and pervades almost all Christendom down to the present 
 day, even when, as Dr. Campbell has shown, they could have found the 
 Latin immersio, which as exactly corresponds with baptisma, as does 
 circumcisio correspond with the Greek peritomee. 
 
 Mr. Rice, it seems, is a great admirer of Dr. Carson. I wish he would 
 take him for his guide, and lean upon his authority throughout. I have 
 often wished that some able hand had written a dissertation or a vol- 
 ume on quoting authors; showing, amongst other matters, what difference 
 ought to be made in their testimony when it is for us, and when it is 
 against us. Mr. Rice believes Mr. Carson when he supposes he wounds 
 the Baptists ; but always disbelieves him when he wounds the Pedo-bap- 
 tists. Now, when I consent to receive any man as a witness in any case 
 of importance, I take his whole testimony in questions of fact, so far as 
 he clearly and fully expresses himself. 
 
 As respects the quotation from Daniel, Mr. Carson, indeed, concurs 
 with me in regarding it as rhetorically, poetically, or if you please, sym- 
 bolically, picturesque and graphic. "And they shall immerse thee in 
 the dews of heaven till seven times pass over thee." 
 
 Our great English bard, the immortal Milton, seems to have caught 
 his bold and beautiful flight from this passage, in which he sings, 
 
 "A cold shuddering dew, dips me all over." 
 I shall not speak of the Asiatic dews, nor of those most profuse around 
 Babylon and through all the valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates. 
 Any one, well read in the geography of that country, and acquainted with 
 the reports of Asiatic tourists, will appreciate the correctness as well as 
 the beauty of this passage. 
 
 In interpreting positive precepts, and in commenting upon poetic or 
 symbolic effusions, we do not proceed upon the same principles, so far 
 as the acceptation of words is concerned. In positive statutes and 
 laws we look for perspicuity and precision in the selection and use of 
 words. In poetry and symbolic narratives and descriptions, we expect a 
 free, rich and luxuriant style. Moses the lawgiver, and Isaiah the pro- 
 phet, John the evangelist, and John the prophet, in his apocalyptic vis- 
 ions and descriptions, are not to be interpreted in the same strict and 
 grammatical way. In describing nature, providence,, redemption, and in 
 proclaiming a law, enacting an ordinance, or issuing a commission, men 
 think, and feel, and speak in different words and images. 
 
 But I object not in this case to the word wet. He was covered with 
 
 dews, and, consequently, as an effect, he was wet. Even we, in the 
 
 far west of time and of the globe, say he was drenched or soaked with 
 
 wine. So sang the Greek and Roman poets, and so speak the Americans, 
 
 9 
 
130 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. R. asks for some manuscript copy having errantismenon m it. I 
 might ask him for a manuscript of the Vulgate, or the Ethiopic. He 
 ought to know that the Alexandrian manuscript, the oldest known on 
 earth, is hundreds of years after Origen, from whom we quote the read- 
 ing. If this is not an ad captandum argument, wherefore appears it 
 here ! 
 
 Mr. Rice has not read all that Dr. Gale has said. That distinguished 
 man does not found his conclusion simply on the passages in Origen. 
 He argues from the Ethiopic and Syriac versions, as you have heard from 
 me. And the fact that these, together with the Vulgate, should have 
 only in one and the same instance, departed from universal usage, is of 
 itself enough to induce the suspicion of some different reading, without 
 even Origen's reading. Only reflect upon it, fellow-citizens ; in eigh- 
 teen hundred years, in a hundred versions, in a hundred languages and 
 dialects, and in a word occurring one hundred and twenty times in the New 
 Testament, we should find in only three versions, only in one and the 
 same verse, and in the same word, a single exception ! Has the like 
 ever before occurred ! ! I challenge all the volumes of criticism to fur- 
 nish a similar instance. 
 
 Mr. Carson's explanation of the matter — or his opinion concerning the 
 reading of Origen, has no authority. His solution of the difficulty is, 
 however, no relief to Mr. Rice. He supposes, that these old translators 
 mistook the meaning of the word. 
 
 Does that satisfy my friend, Mr. Rice ! Then, according to Messrs. 
 Rice, Carson, and Gale, there is no exception to the universality of the 
 fact — that no translator into any language, in any age, who knew the 
 meaning of the word, did ever translate a single member of the family 
 of baptizo by the words pour or sprinkle, which is the point in my third 
 argument. 
 
 Mr. Carson is a learned, acute, and candid critic, and an honest man — 
 for whom I entertain a high respect and esteem. He wrote a work, some 
 years since, on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, in which he goes so far 
 as to contend for the inspiration of the language, as well as of the ideas. 
 He does not, however, contend for the inspiration of the translators, copy- 
 ists, and printers of the letter. Still I am not sure but that his views of 
 inspiration, somewhat ultra, as I presume, may have influenced him to 
 oppose the presumption that we have lost a single autographic reading. 
 This, however, by the way. 
 
 But we must have something of baptizo or bapto in every speech. 
 The gentleman has reiterated his favorite sink, and for no reason that I 
 can see but for a laugh ; and yet where is the laugh unless at his own 
 expense ? The sense is as good as the translation. Wherever sink is a 
 fair version, it is good sense ; so is plunge always. But you can neither 
 pour a man nor sprinkle him into drops ! therefore, they cannot be a 
 translation at all : but both sink and plunge may be, for they make sense. 
 
 But, notwithstanding we are told that sink is, in classic use, as four 
 to one against immerse, I feel constrained to say, that sink and dip are 
 not more diverse in English than baptizo and deuo, or dunai, are in 
 Greek ; and although, sometimes, to dip is to sink, and to sink to the bot- 
 tom, yet no classic scholar will' affirm that baptizo means to sink more 
 than to drown. It is wholly accidental, and what is accidental never can 
 be the meaning of a word. This is certainly as great an ad captandum 
 as to give prevent as an offset to baptizo in the case of the change of 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 131 
 
 meaning of words. The radical vent still means to come. It has neve? 
 changed any more than bap. Though it might have changed, and yet 
 the rule be true ; for the rule is not for words of generic, but of specific, 
 meaning. To come in one's way, or to come before one, is to hinder, as 
 well as to anticipate. But in no sense has the vent changed. 
 
 This sinking argument, and this preventing argument, and this wash- 
 ing argument, are of the same category. From general lexicons, he has 
 got down to some Pedo-baptist lexicons upon the New Testament, and 
 they only give wash, as in their opinion, the first of New Testament 
 meanings. Still it is not true that any one of them gives wash as the first 
 meaning of the word. It is said without authority. Neither Robinson 
 nor Bretschneider have made wash a primary meaning of bapto or bap- 
 tizo. I still say, that all the lexicons, general and special, make immerse 
 the primary and proper — wash only a secondary and accidental meaning. 
 As often as Mr. R. asserts, we shall assert on these premises. 
 
 But we must again resume the ancient translations. Mr. Rice will 
 allow us only some of these translators — a very few. He would even 
 take from us Luther, whom all the world knows to have argued that all 
 should, " according to the meaning of the word taife, be dipped all over 
 in water, and again raised up." He will not allow us Jerom, because he 
 Latinized baptizo. Now, as our most learned critics allow that the 
 adopting of any word, at a particular time, into any language, indicates 
 the current usage of that time, and that the word adopted is to signify 
 whatever was the usage, at that time, in the language wherein adopted, 
 we must regard Jerom as rendering it immerse ; for all the world knows, 
 that was the universal custom in the fourth century. But I shall read a 
 passage or two farther, with a few remarks on the subject of these trans- 
 lations. 
 
 We have already heard that Castel, Michaelis, Buxtorf, and Schaaf, are 
 all unanimous in defining amacL Schaaf, of whom Mr. R. speaks with 
 so much approbation, translates it by — immersns in aqiiam, immersed 
 into ivater. Buxtorf gives intingo, to be dipped — and baptozari, to be 
 baptized. Castel, in the active form, gives it immergo, baptizo; making 
 it not only mean to immerse, but making immerse and baptizo synony- 
 mous. These all are against the notion of standing as the meaning of 
 this important word. The Syriac translation could not indicate any thing 
 else by that word; if, as Dr. Henderson, a learned Pedo-baptist, argues, 
 it was the word used in the commission by our Lord, who spoke that 
 language — for, as that word was translated by baptizo, which word no 
 man construes by stand, certain it is that it has the meaning assigned to 
 it by those lexicons and critics already quoted. 
 
 But to enter into a dissertation upon all these words, were we all pro- 
 foundly learned in these languages, would be Avholly inexpedient and 
 unprofitable ; inasmuch as it is admitted that some of them clearly give 
 immersion, and not one of them sprinkling or pouring. I shall give 
 the sense, or the conclusions of no mean man, Mr. Gotch, who, after a 
 laborious research, gives the following conclusion of the whole matter : 
 
 " The conclusions to which the investigation leads us, are — 
 
 1. With regard to the ancient versions, in all of them, with three excep- 
 tions, (viz. the Latin from the third century, and the Sahidic and Basmu- 
 ric,) the word baptizo is translated by words purely native; and the three 
 excepted versions adopted the Greek word, not by way of transference, but 
 in cousequence of the term having become current in the languages. 
 
 Of native words employed, the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Arme- 
 
132 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 nian, Gothic, and earliest Latin, all signify to immerse; the Anglo-Saxon* 
 both to immerse and to cleanse ; the Persic, to wash; and the Slavonic to 
 cross. The meaning of the word adopted from the Greek, in Sahidic, Bas- 
 muric, and Latin, being also to immerse. 
 
 2. With regard to the modern versions examined, the Eastern generally 
 adhere to the ancient Eastern versions, and translate by words signifying 
 to immerse. Most of the Gothic dialects, viz. the German, Swedish, Dutch, 
 Danish, &c, employ altered forms of the Gothic word signifying to dip. 
 The Icelandic uses a word meaning cleanse. The Slavic dialects follow the 
 ancient Slavonic ; and the languages formed from the Latin, including the 
 English, adopt the word baptizo ; though, with respect to the English, the 
 words wash and christen were formerly used, as well as baptized 
 
 But I have yet a moment to notice the alarming fact that Mr. Rice, 
 backed by Mr. Carson, too, teaches us that the word immerse, and its 
 Greek representative, will put us under the water or sink us to the bottom, 
 without affording us any prospect of ever getting out. This makes it a 
 more alarming affair. I will say, with Mr. Carson, that absolutely, bap- 
 tizo means to immerse, without the idea of emersion ; but yet, in the cur- 
 rency of all usage, classic, Jewish, and Christian, to dip and to immerse, 
 differ from dunai and other words in this, that it has connected with it, 
 if not vi termini, by intrinsic force, the hope of getting out. To dip, 
 nine times in ten, implies lifting up as well as putting down. And in 
 sacred use, immersion and emersion are like shadow and substance 
 connected. 
 
 Perhaps, however, this will help my friend to explain why the Syriac 
 version chose amad, which some translate like tlie Hebrew amad, to 
 stand, " to stand erect." A resurrection out of the water, rather than 
 a going down into it, might have been more persuasive to obedience. 
 This would be giving a name to the rite from the more pleasing portion 
 of the symbol.— -[Adjourned till 9£ to-morrow morning. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17— 9 £ o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's seventh reply.] 
 
 Mr. President— -I shall, to-day, proceed in the discussion more lei- 
 surely than I had intended ; inasmuch as my friend, Mr. C, desires to 
 occupy another day on this subject. 
 
 Let the audience keep in mind what the gentleman has undertaken to 
 prove, viz : that the entire submersion of the body in water is essential 
 to christian baptism. 
 
 We agree that the Bible, especially on all important points, is a plain 
 book. We agree, also, that baptism is an important ordinance ; and my 
 friend ascribes to it more efficacy than I do. He must, therefore, admit 
 that, if the entire submersion of the body in water is essential to the or- 
 dinance, the Scriptures teach this truth with great clearness. And if they 
 do, is it not marvellous that, during a discussion of two days' continuance, 
 he has made so little progress in proving it ? If this doctrine is indeed 
 true, we may well doubt whether the Bible is a revelation from God. 
 For it is incredible that a truth, so essential to the very existence of the 
 church, should be left in such obscurity, that multitudes, of the wisest 
 and best men, have never been able to discover it. And my friend him- 
 self finds it extremely difficult to make it apparent to the minds of this 
 audience. It is not in the Bible ; or, occupying so important a place in 
 the christian system, it would have been taught with greater clearness. 
 
 AH, I think, must admit, that the doctrine of exclusive immersion 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 133 
 
 ought to be most unequivocally proved, before its advocates venture to 
 excommunicate all who refuse to embrace it. And these exclusive views, 
 let it be remarked, are not peculiar to Mr. Campbell and his church ; they 
 are common to immersionists. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, has labored to sustain his views, mainly by the 
 force of the words bapto and baptizo. To determine the meaning of 
 these words, he first appealed to the lexicons, ancient and modern. I ap- 
 pealed to the same lexicons, and proved that they define these words not 
 only to sink, dip, plunge, but to wash, to cleanse, &c. He then told us, 
 that the lexicons were wrong, and he could prove it. It is truly singular 
 that they should all have erred in defining these particular words ! He 
 still insisted, however, that they all preferred immerse as the primary and 
 literal meaning of the word. I proved that Bretschneider, Robinson, Green- 
 field and others, give to wash, cleanse, as ihe first meaning of baptizo, as 
 it is used in the Bible. He called for a classical lexicon that gave to 
 wash as its primary meaning. This I exposed, by proving that the Jews 
 did not speak nor write classical Greek; that we have lexicons of the 
 New Testament, designed to explain the Greek, as it was spoken by the 
 Jewish people. The gentleman still insists, that neither Robinson nor 
 Bretschneider gives wash as a primary meaning of baptizo. Bretschnei- 
 der, as we have seen, gives its general meaning, " sepius intingo, se- 
 pius lavo " — -often to dip, often to wash. And the very first meaning 
 assigned to the word by these lexicons, (as it is found in the Bible,) is 
 simply to wash, to cleanse. If then, as the gentleman will not venture 
 to deny, the Jews and inspired writers spoke a widely different idiom ot 
 the Greek, from that found in classic authors ; and if the Jews always 
 used it in reference to their religious washings, and the pagan Greeks in 
 reference to matters of common life ; we must take the definitions of the 
 lexicons of the Jewish Greek, in preference to those of classic Greek. 
 Can he produce a lexicon that gives to immerse as the literal and proper 
 meaning of this word, as used in the Scriptures or among the Jews ? 
 
 The second appeal of my friend was to classic usage. I also appealed 
 to classic usage, and proved, that Greek authors give the words in ques- 
 tion the same variety of meaning attached to them by the lexicons. We 
 find them using bapto to express the coloring of garments by the dropping 
 of the coloring fluid ; the dyeing of the hair and the beard, the staining of 
 the hands or the face, &c. &c. We find baptizo used to signify the wet- 
 ting of the hand with blood, the moistening of a blister-plaster with breast- 
 milk and Egyptian ointment. We find Dr. G^le, though a zealous and 
 learned immersionist, admitting that baptizo does not necessarily express 
 the action of putting under water. And yet the action is the very thing 
 for which Mr. Campbell is contending, as definitely expressed by it ! So 
 two of his main sources of evidence have failed him. 
 
 His third appeal was to the translations. He began with the Peshito 
 Syriac ; but I proved, that the lexicographers, Schaaf, Castel, Michaelis 
 and Buxtorf, give to the Syriac word (amad) employed to translate bap- 
 tizo, the general meaning — abluit se — he washed himself, and that they 
 find but one instance in the whole Bible, where they suppose it to mean 
 immerse. And even in that instance, neither the Hebrew word nor the 
 Greek word used by the Septuagint has that meaning. I am, therefore, 
 prepared to prove, that there is no example in the Bible of the use of the 
 Syriac word for baptism in the sense of immersion. Yet I might admit, 
 that there is one example of the kind, and still prove all for which I contend. 
 
 M 
 
134 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 But I will now prove by Mr. Gotch, the gentleman's own witness, that 
 the Syriac word does not definitely signify to immerse. Mr. Gotch, it 
 should be remembered, is laboring to prove the Syriac version favorable 
 to immersion. Mr. Gotch says — "We are, rnoreover, warranted in con- 
 cluding, that though the term was peculiarly appropriated to the rite of 
 christian baptism, as is manifest from its being used as the translation of 
 photisthentes, it was, nevertheless, regarded by the Syriac translator as 
 synonymous with baptizo in all the senses in which that word is used in 
 the New Testament, and not as simply expressive of the christian rite * 
 see e. g. Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, where the word is used in refer- 
 ence to Jewish ablutions." * * * But the fact seems clear, that it 
 had acquired in the time of the Syriac translator the meaning which the 
 lexicons give, " abluit se." Append, to Bib. Question, pp. 164, 165. 
 
 Now observe, Mr. Campbell is laboring to prove, that baptizo has but 
 one meaning, viz : to immerse. To prove this, he appeals to the Syriac 
 version. But Gotch, his own witness, admits that baptizo has in the 
 New Testament several meanings, and asserts, that the Syriac word by 
 which it is translated, was synonymous with it in all those senses ! Is 
 this the evidence that baptizo signifies definitely to immerse ? This is 
 not all. Mr. Gotch says, it is clear, that the Syriac word, when the 
 translation was made, had acquired the meaning which the lexicons give 
 it, viz: " abluit se"— he washed himself. My friend, Mr. C, knows 
 perfectly well, that the word abluo is a generic term, and does not express 
 mode. If, then, the Syriac word had acquired this meaning when the 
 translation was made, it is certain that the Syriac translator understood 
 baptizo in the general sense of washing, cleansing. The oldest and 
 best translation, then, is against the gentleman, according to the testimony 
 of his own prejudiced witness. 
 
 The Vulgate, too, and the old Italic which preceded it, it is acknowl- 
 edged, transferred the word, and never translated it immerse. The Latin 
 language has several words which signify definitely to immerse, as mer- 
 go, immergo, submergo, mergito. Is it not most unaccountable, if the 
 literal and proper meaning of baptizo is to immerse, that Jerom and the 
 author or authors of the old Italic version, never once translated it by any 
 one of these words 1 Is it not passing strange, that in the only instance 
 in which Jerom translated it, he rendered it by the generic term lavo, to 
 wash ? These versions were made, when the Greek was a living lan- 
 guage; the authors of them had the best possible opportunity to ascertain 
 the prevailing usage in regard to this word ; and certainly Jerom was not 
 prejudiced in favor of sprinkling. Why, then, did he not, at least in 
 some few instances, translate it by some one of the words just mentioned? 
 
 But Mr. Campbell tells us, the word baptizo was then so well under- 
 stood, that it was as definite as any Latin word that could be found ; and 
 therefore it was transferred. This, however, is a great mistake. Cypri- 
 an, one of the most celebrated of the christian fathers, who lived in the 
 early part of the third century, certainly did not know, that baptizo meant 
 simply to immerse. The question was propounded to him by a certain 
 country minister, whether those who had received baptism by pouring or 
 sprinkling were validly baptized. This question Cyprian (and there 
 were sixty-six bishops in council with him,) answered in the affirmative. 
 His language is as follows : 
 
 " You inquire also, dear son, what I think of such as obtain the grace in 
 time of their sickness and infirmity ; whether they are to be accounted law- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 135 
 
 ful christians, because they are not washed all over with the water of sal- 
 vation, but have only some of it poured on them. In which matter, I 
 would use so much modesty and humility, as not to prescribe so positively 
 but that every one should have the freedom of his own thoughts, and do as 
 he thinks best. I do, according to the best of my mean capacity, judge 
 thus ; that the divine favors are not maimed or weakened, so as that any 
 thing less than the whole of them is conveyed, where the benefit of them is 
 received with a full and complete faith, both of the giver and receiver." — 
 WalVs Hist, of Inf. Bap., v. ii., pp. 357, 358. 
 
 " And no man need, therefore, think otherwise, because these sick people, 
 when they receive the grace of our Lord, have nothing but an affusion or 
 sprinkling ; when as the Holy Scriptures, by the prophet Ezekiel, says, Then 
 will I sprinkle clean viater upon yon, and ye shall be clean" &cc. He quotes 
 to the same purpose, Numbers xix. 13, and viii. 7, &c. And having ap- 
 plied them, says, a little after, " If any one think they obtain no benefit, as 
 having only an affusion of the water of salvation, do not let him mistake so 
 far, as that the parties, if they recover of their sickness, should be bap- 
 tized again."— Ibid., pp. 386, 387. 
 
 Cyprian, you perceive, did not know that baptizo meant only to im- 
 merse. If he had so believed, he never could have answered the ques- 
 tion propounded to him as he did. He declares those who had received 
 baptism by sprinkling, as truly and validly baptized as those immersed ; 
 and he says, " If any one think they obtain no benefit, as having only an 
 affusion of the water of salvation, do not let him mistake so far as that 
 the parties, if they recover from their sickness, should be baptized 
 again." Did he mean to say, let them not be immersed again? This 
 would imply, that they had been immersed by pouring.' But Cyprian 
 believed, that baptizo meant to sprinkle as well as to immerse. Hence, 
 in giving the answer to the question, he proves its correctness by refer- 
 ence to Ezekiel xxxvi. 25 : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
 you," &c. 
 
 It is, moreover, a fact, that at the time, and before the time when Je- 
 rom made his translation, many believed that John baptized by pouring. 
 Aurelius Prudentius, who wrote A. D. 390, speaking of John's baptism, 
 says, " Perfundit fluvio " — he poured water on them in the river. Pau- 
 linus, bishop of Nola, a few years later, says — " He [John] washes away 
 the sins of believers," infusis lymphis — by the pouring of water. Ber- 
 nard, speaking of the baptism of our Lord by John, says, " Infundit aquam 
 capiti Creatoris creatura " — the creature poured water upon the head of 
 the Creator. Lactantius says, Christ received baptism " that he might 
 save the gentiles by baptism; that is, (purifici roris perfusione,) by the 
 distilling of the purifying dew." See Pond on Baptism, pp. 33, 34. 
 These and similar evidences force us to the conclusion, that the word 
 baptizo was not, in Jerom's day, understood to mean simply to immerse. 
 My friend's reason, therefore, why he did not translate it by a Latin word 
 having that meaning, is proved incorrect. He will be obliged to give up 
 the old Italic and the Vulgate ! 
 
 The Arabic version, which is of greatest authority, translates baptizo 
 by a word of the same form and the same meaning as the Syriac word 
 amad. This version, of course, does not sustain Mr. Campbell. 
 
 The Persic version, as Mr. Cotch admits, translates baptizo by a word 
 signifying to wash; and smp* it was translated from the Syriac, it 
 affords additional evidence that the Syriac word amad, of which we have 
 already spoken, means to wash, and not to immerse. 
 
 The Ethiopic version, according to Mr. Gotch, uses a word which sig- 
 
136 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 nifies ablution as well as immersion. It cannot, of course, sustain Mr. 
 Campbell. 
 
 The Sahidic and Basmuric versions transfer the word as our transla- 
 tors did. The Arminian used a word which, according to Mr. Gotch, 
 " undoubtedly signifies, in one instance, to dip; in others, at least, to 
 bathe, or perform ablution" The one instance to which he refers, is 
 the case of Naaman, 2 Kings, v. 14, where the word baptizo, as we have 
 seen, is by Jerom translated by lavo, to wash in general. It cannot, 
 therefore, be proved, in that instance, to mean dip. But he says, the Ar- 
 minian word means to bathe, to perform ablution ; and we know a person 
 may bathe or perform ablution without being immersed. The German 
 version, as we have proved, does not sustain Mr. Campbell. Luther 
 uses the expression, " I baptize you mit wasser, (with water,) which is 
 inconsistent with immersion ; and, in other passages, translates the word 
 by the generic term to wash. The same remarks apply to the Dutch, 
 Danish, and Swedish translations. And it is an important fact, that the 
 people who use these versions have always practiced pouring or sprink- 
 ling. The Anglo-Saxon translation uses a word which means to cleanse. 
 So says Mr. Gotch, my friend's learned witness. The Geneva Bible, 
 (French) the common French version, the Italic, Arias Montanus, Tyn- 
 dale, all either transfer the word baptizo, or translate it by a generic term, 
 signifying to wash, to cleanse. 
 
 Here, then, we have nineteen of the most important translations 
 of the Scriptures, not one of which translates baptizo by a word de- 
 finitely signifying to immerse. My friend must abandon the trans- 
 lations I 
 
 We have made considerable progress. We have taken three of the 
 gentleman's strong fortresses — the lexicons, the classics, and the transla- 
 tions ! 
 
 I have appealed to BiK'e usage in regard to the words in controversy; 
 and I have proved that bapto is used in a number of instances where an 
 immersion is impossible. Indeed, as I have before stated, there are not 
 more than four or five instances in the Bible in which it means to im- 
 merse. It signifies a partial dipping or wetting, as in the case where the 
 living bird, the cedar wood, the scarlet and the hysop, were to be dip- 
 ped in, or wetted in, the blood of the slain bird. That it, in several in- 
 stances, means merely wetting, or, as professor Stuart says, smearing, 
 is evident from the use of the preposition apo (from) in connection with 
 it. The priest was to dip or wet his finger from the blood or oil. 
 
 I was amused at the criticism of the gentleman on this expression. He 
 tells us, the expression to dip water from a vessel is very common. This 
 would answer very well, if Moses had said, the priest shall dip oil or 
 blood from the hand ; but most unfortunately for this criticism, he says, 
 the priest shall dip his finger from the oil J Is it common to speak of 
 dipping a vessel from water? Who ever heard of such an expression? 
 The simple direction was, that the priest should get on his finger so 
 much of the fluid as that he could sprinkle it. The preposition apo, 
 which is here used, never signifies in, but always from. 
 
 Once more I revert to the passage in Dan. iv. 33, where it is said, Ne- 
 buchadnezzar's body was wet from [ebaphe apo) the dew of heaven. 
 This, my friend will insist, is a very poetic effusion of the prophet. I 
 knew that Isaiah was a poet of the first order, but I was not aware 
 that Daniel had any pretensions of the kind. In both instances where 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 137 
 
 this expression occurs, he is giving a very plain and simple narrative. 
 *« The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar ; and he 
 was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet 
 with {ebaphe apo) the dew of heaven." What evidence do you see of 
 poetic effusion here? Milton, it is true, said — "A cold shuddering dew 
 dips me all o'er." But, I again ask, are we to go to the flights and bold 
 figures of poets, in order to understand a word used of simple narrative ? 
 Besides, as I before remarked, Johnson gives to wet, to moisten, as a second 
 meaning of dip. It is impossible to immerse Nebuchadnezzar in dew! 
 
 I must once more briefly notice the effort of the gentleman to sustain his 
 assertion, that no translator, ancient or modern, ever translated baptizo, or 
 any of that family of words, to sprinkle. I have proved, that three of 
 the oldest and most valuable versions, the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the 
 Vulgate, did so translate bapto; and that Origen, the most learned of the 
 christian fathers, did, in giving the sense of a passage of Scripture, sub- 
 stitute rantizo, to sprinkle, for bapto. But the gentleman insists, that 
 there must bave been a different reading. Why? Is there in existence 
 a manuscript copy of the New Testament which gives a different read- 
 ing? This is not pretended. But Origen's writings, we are told, are 
 older than any manuscript now extant. Does Origen give a different 
 reading? He does not. Dr. Gale himself admits, that he does not 
 quote the passage verbatim, but only "almost verbatim." Why, then, 
 must there have been a different reading ? Only because the claims of im- 
 mersion are ruined, if it be admitted that bapto, sometimes, means to 
 sprinkle. 
 
 I have quoted Carson, who says, there is no evidence that there was a dif- 
 ferent reading. But the gentleman thinks, I ought either not to quote Car- 
 son, or take all he says. I do take his testimony as to the matter of fact, 
 especially when it is against himself; but when he expresses the opinion, 
 that Origen, and those learned translators, did not understand the meaning 
 of bapto, I must beg leave to dissent. But why did Mr. Campbell quote 
 Doddridge and McKnight ? He gave us, not their testimony as to matters 
 of fact, but their opinion. Will he, then, adopt all their views on this 
 subject? If he will, our controversy may at once terminate. 
 
 I have now examined the usage of the word bapto, as found in the Bible, 
 sufficiently to prove, that it will not sustain the claims of immersion. I 
 will next examine the usage of baptizo, and will endeavor to prove, that, 
 in no one instance in the Bible, or in the religious writings of the Jews, 
 the Apocryphal books, can it be proved to mean to immerse. It occurs, 
 first, in 2 Kings v. 10 — 14. Elisha, the prophet, directed Naaman, the 
 Syrian leper, to go and wash in Jordan seven times. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17—10 o'clock, A.M. 
 [mr. Campbell's eighth address.] 
 Mr. President — It is transcendently important, sir, that every man 
 having reason and conscience of his own to appreciate his probable destiny 
 and solemn responsibilities in this universe, should judge for himself, on 
 every question involving present duty, and future happiness. Were it only 
 necessary to wait upon the decision of others, and implicitly receive their 
 assertions as infallible oracles, we should all be justified in giving up our 
 understanding, conscience and destiny into the hands of my friend, Mr. 
 Rice. He has kindly undertaken for us, and with great authority, much 
 sincerity and unfeigned benevolence, informed us that he has proved every 
 
 m2 
 
138 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 position he assumed, and that in every point we have utterly failed. This, 
 indeed, is a discovery which none of us would likely have made in an 
 age, if left to ourselves to ponder upon the premises before us. Never- 
 theless it is so; for the gentleman has said so, and that should satisfy 
 every prudent and reflecting man ! 
 
 There is, however, two sides to every question ; and, unfortunately, we 
 have different ways of speaking and reasoning, and consequently we some- 
 times arrive at different conclusions. Allow me then to review the past, 
 retrace our course, and also give my opinion. Still, however, it is but an 
 opinion which I shall give ; and, therefore, you must hear both sides and 
 judge for yourselves. 
 
 I cannot but approve the course of my friend in one particular. It is a 
 rule which I have prescribed to myself, and recommended to others. It is, 
 to make every day a critic upon the past. I shall therefore carry out this 
 principle, follow the good example before me, and take a summary retros- 
 pect of our progress hitherto. 
 
 No person has ever been much more prodigal in debate than I have 
 been on the present occasion, in the way of submitting and managing uni- 
 versal propositions. The affirmative of any proposition is always a labo- 
 rious affair compared with the negative; but the affirmative of a universal 
 proposition is superlatively onerous and dangerous. The reason of this 
 liberality on my part I will candidly give you. I feel myself exceedingly 
 rich in resources of evidence, on a very grave and important question, 
 vital to the interests of the church, which ought to have been decided 
 long since ; and perfectly fearless as to the issue, determined to turn a very 
 broad side to the enemy, to speak in the style of naval engagements, that 
 all might see the invulnerability and strength of the ship in which we have 
 embarked upon the high seas in this stormy and tempestuous season. 
 
 Now that this is a work of supererogation on our part, will appear to 
 all who know that in almost every department of life's employments, we 
 act on probable evidence, and, at best, upon general rules. Apart from 
 the laws of nature, we have but few universal laws or rules of action. 
 Still we have one great advantage in affirming a universal proposition, that 
 we may sometimes fail by one or two exceptions, and then we have so 
 general a law that all may be justified in conforming to its requisitions. 
 My first universal proposition is founded upon a well established fact, in 
 language — viz : that all verbs indicating action are either generic or spe- 
 cific. From this postulate I proceeded to form my first universal proposi- 
 tion, viz : 
 
 That the specific idea expressed in the original root, of any specific 
 word, continues through all the branches of that word in its various flex- 
 ions and deviations. Where, then, we have the radical word or syllable, 
 we have the original idea. In the case before us, as respects bapto, no 
 exception has been found. The gentleman offered two, viz : prevent and 
 conversation, taken from my preface to a new version of the New Testa- 
 ment, indicative of the change to which some words are incident in lapse of 
 time, losing much of their etymological meaning. But these are generic 
 words, and come not under the rule — and even they have not changed in 
 thsir radical significance. He has instanced bapto itself; but it meant 
 dip in the days of Homer, and still means dip. It is, therefore, no excep- 
 tion. In the investigation of this general prefatory universal proposi- 
 tion, several important developments have occurred, such as: — all words 
 at first have but one meaning. 2d. That specific words always retain it, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 139 
 
 while other terms may lose it. 3d. That, as the effects of any specific 
 action may be both numerous and various, there may be many figurative 
 or rhetorical uses of the original word because of its connection with these 
 effects which it may have produced. Hence the results of the simple 
 specific action, dip, are numerous and various. By a dip, a thing may be 
 stained, colored, dyed, cleansed, washed, warmed, cooled, polluted, puri- 
 fied, &c. &c. Now, while the dip is immutably the same action, the 
 effects maybe numerous and diverse, and consequently expressed by very 
 different terms. I have as yet called in vain upon my friend for an ex- 
 emplification of the falsity of this law. I observed at the commencement, 
 that I laid no great stress upon it; hence, if disproved, I could lose noth- 
 ing, but if not, my cause triumphed. 
 
 My second universal proposition is, that all the lexicons down to the 
 present century have given one and the same proper and primitive mean- 
 ing to baptizo, the word in dispute; and that it never has been translated 
 by either sprinkle or pour, by any lexicographer for 1800 years. This 
 is the all-important word, because selected by the Holy Spirit to indicate 
 the ordinance which our Savior enacted. If ever any word was definite 
 and precise, it ought to be this one on which so much emphasis is laid in 
 the New Testament. And I have shewn that our Savior would and 
 could, and did select just such a term, to which no reply has been made. 
 
 But the gentleman will have it that I have been in the brush for two 
 days. No doubt of it, for he has sought to hide in it. But we shall 
 get out of the brush, by and by. Well ; but I have proved nothing in 
 two days ! As much at least, I presume, as he proved in a seven years' 
 war with the Roman Catholics of Bardstown. I never heard of his con- 
 verting any of them. I am, indeed, in a way which he seems not very 
 well to comprehend, establishing facts and affording inductions which must 
 demonstrate to others, if not to him, the barrenness of his soil and the 
 luxuriant fertility of ours. 
 
 I have also affirmed another still more overwhelming and grand univer- 
 sal proposition. After having shewn that the Greek classics amply sus- 
 tain the dictionaries in their definitions of baptizo, by as liberal an induc- 
 tion as can be adduced in any word in the language, I advanced to one of 
 the most convincing positions that could be taken on our premises, viz : — 
 that of all the versions, ancient and modern, not one had ever translated 
 baptizo by the words sprinkle or pour, but that some of them had used 
 words equivalent to immerse. This is the more remarkable as respects 
 the moderns, especially that all these versions appealed to were made by 
 those practicing sprinkling — and yet, though meeting with this family of 
 words one hundred and twenty times, not one of them had ever translated 
 it by either of the words sprinkle or pour ; the words, too, indicative of 
 their own practice. This is also a universal proposition, and of course a 
 single translation produced, so rendering the word, would negative it, and 
 reduce it to a general proposition. I have called upon the gentleman to 
 produce one man, living or dead, who has ever so rendered it, as to ac- 
 cord with the practice of his church. He has not produced the sem- 
 blance of one. But he alledges that in the case ofbapto he has found one — 
 and only one, be it observed ; of course, then, should he sustain that one ! 
 he has made my universal law, minus one — a general law. I am under 
 no necessity to sustain any one of these three universal laws. The cause 
 requires it not at my hand. No one ever before me, known to me, has 
 taken such high ground. But still I do it, believing that I can sustain it. 
 
140 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 And certainly if I do, the cause of sprinkling in this community has re- 
 ceived an incurable wound. 
 
 Let us, then, calmly and dispassionately weigh the objection. I desire 
 to give this solitary example a fair hearing, apd to treat it with as much 
 courtesy as though it were backed by a thousand. He found in the bap- 
 tist Gale, and in the baptist Carson's works, an instance in the 19th 
 chapter of the Apocalypse, where the perfect participle passive of bapto—- 
 bebammenon, is now found, and where we find in the Latin Vulgate of Je- 
 rom, and in the almost contemporaneous Ethiopic, and in the more an: j&nt 
 Syriac version, a rendering equivalent to our word, sprinkling, and this 
 being the true reading, and a true version of it, he finds a single exception 
 to our universal proposition. We shall then give a summary of our rea- 
 sons against the alledged case. 
 
 The old Syriac is supposed to have been completed early in the second 
 century. Origen flourished about the middle of the third. In one of his 
 homilies on John, he quotes from the 11th to the 16th verses of the 19th 
 of the Apocalypse, almost as we read, in every particular substituting 
 errantismenon for bebamrnenon, as we have before explained — a word 
 which is justly rendered sprinkled. The presumption is, from the sin- 
 gularity of the case, no other being found in universal sacred literature, that 
 this quotation in Origen is from another reading, another and older ver- 
 sion, different from the common one. This is my candid conviction, and 
 I will set forth my reasons in order before you. 
 
 1. It is exceedingly improbable that these three versions could have all 
 selected one and the same word, upon which to differ, from the universal 
 custom of all other translators, and that, too, on its last occurrence in the 
 book, having nothing special calling for it. 
 
 2. We know that there were numerous differences in the ancient ver- 
 sions in point of diverse readings, and that these differences were some- 
 times corrected by quotations found in the primitive fathers. 
 
 3. That Jerom should have followed Origen, is again most probable 
 from the fact that he had long been employed in translating his Greek 
 works into Latin, and although differing from him on some points, still 
 his great admirer, and to such a degree that the ancients said that Jerom 
 had studied Origen with so much admiration, that he had copied his 
 errors and imperfections as well as his beauties. Now what could be 
 more probable than, in having been so conversant with his Greek wri- 
 tings, and having such a veneration for his great parts and learning, he 
 would have followed him in this version, especially as Origen was ac- 
 quainted with the Syriac and all the then existing manuscript copies. 
 
 4. But I have another and a highly corroborating argument, deduced 
 from a fact which occurred in the Baptismal Controversy. Dr. Wall, the 
 greatest and most learned of the Pedo-baptist party, in the defence of this 
 rite, wrote this great work you see in my hands (four large octavos ;) 
 one of them, indeed, the work of this said Dr. Gale, to whose book he 
 has devoted one of these volumes, in the form of a particular answer. 
 For this truly learned treatise in defence of the Church of England prac- 
 tice, this said Dr. Wall received the unanimous thanks of a whole con- 
 sistory of the clergy. Now the. question is, how did he dispose of Dr. 
 Gale's remarks on this passage? Perhaps I ought to ask, first, how did 
 these parties stand to each other? I will briefly state the facts: — Dr. 
 Gale occupied my precise ground on this question. He argued for im- 
 mersion only as the christian institution, and took the same view of the 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 141 
 
 disputed passage, though he did not argue the translations uniformly as I 
 now do. Still he was a thorough immersionist, and went for immersion 
 only. Now on this word only he was, in this question, opposed by Dr. 
 Wall ; for he, too, believed and taught that apostles taught and practiced 
 immersion, but like Stuart of Andover, thought they did not do so always. 
 The question then was about the word always. It then lay upon the 
 Doctor to seize this same occurrence in the Apocalypse, especially as Dr. 
 Gale had brought it before him. How, then, did he dispose of it ? He 
 conceded it — so far as passing it by in silence was concerned. He makes 
 no objection to it, but passes it in silence. Certainly Mr. Rice knows 
 this fact, and if so, why not state and explain it upon his principles. 
 
 5. I have, however, yet remaining another argument, and with that I 
 shall, for the present, dismiss the subject. I have not time to read the 
 sixty-third of Isaiah. I must, however, quote a few verses to shew 
 that both Isaiah, and John in the 19th of the Apocalypse, had the same 
 scene before them, and that they are describing the same person return- 
 ing from the same battle, covered with the blood of his slain enemies. 
 He breaks out in the most sublime strains on seeing the king return — 
 "Who is this that cometh from Edom with dyed garments from Boz- 
 rah, this who is glorious in his apparel, traveling in the greatness of 
 her strength? I," responds he, "that speak in righteousness, mighty to 
 save. Wherefore red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that 
 treadeth in the wine vat." Again, he responds, almost in the words of 
 Rev. xix. 13: "I have trodden the wine press alone; and of the people 
 there was none with me : for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample 
 them in my fury ; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, 
 and I will stain all my raiment." Now, that the idea of sprinkled blood 
 should have, with the other parts of the same imagery, passed into 
 the Apocalyptic scene, is, I think, most natural, and justifies still more 
 strongly the reading quoted from Origen. From all these considerations, 
 is there not almost a moral certainty that there was a different reading, 
 and that that reading was the same both in Isaiah and the Apocalypse — 
 or as quoted by Origen ? But be this case construed as it may, one thing 
 must be done according to the laws of evidence, as I interpret them, be- 
 fore an exception can be legally sustained. In the face of such evidence 
 as I have given in favor of a different reading, it is incumbent on him who 
 would constitute an exception, to shew that bebammenon and not errands- 
 menon was the reading before the unknown author of the Syriac, and be- 
 fore Frumentius, the author of the Ethiopic, and before Jerom, the author 
 of the Vulgate. This is now essential to constitute an exception ; it must 
 be first proved that bebammenon was in the text, before it can be proved 
 that it was translated by sprinkled. This not being done, and being im- 
 possible, we now strongly re-affirm our third universal proposition, viz : 
 that no translator of the New Testament, in any language, ancient or 
 modern, has ever translated baptism, by sprinkling or pouring. 
 
 This being so, or were it with even a single exception so, in the case 
 of bapto, how can the practice stand, having these universal propositions 
 against it ? 
 
 The two propositions combined in one, take away all lawful authority 
 for the practice of either affusion or sprinkling. When it is fully estab- 
 lished, as we now candidly must regard it, that no dictionary, during 
 eighteen hundred years, no translation, of either Old or New Testament, 
 during the same time, has ever rendered baptizo, or any one of its family, 
 
142 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 by either sprinkle or pour ; how can unprejudiced persons consider the 
 practice as commanded by the Lord ? If Baptists had done all this some 
 excuse might be for it ; but as it is wholly the work of Pedo-baptists, so 
 far as English versions are concerned, we know not how the practice can 
 be reconciled to their conscience and views of human responsibility. 
 
 As to the reputation of Mr. Gotch, from whom I have read some ex- 
 tracts, Mr. Rice having introduced him here, it was expected that he 
 would have given us the proper information ; I can say that Mr. Gotch 
 is a graduate of Trinity college, and, I can moreover say, that degrees 
 conferred at Trinity college, Dublin, are always merited, and a worthy 
 passport to public confidence. 
 
 He has given so much evidence, and bestowed so much attention to the 
 subject, as to authorize him to say, that all those translators, that have 
 translated by native words in their own language, have chosen words 
 signifying to immerse, with the exception of some three or five, that 
 have chosen such words as moisten, wash, cleanse. 
 
 I have yet a fourth universal proposition, but I perceive my time has 
 expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17— 10£ o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's eighth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I think, all who have heard us on this occasion will 
 admit, that my friend, Mr. C., has taken very high ground — the highest, 
 he thinks, that ever has been taken. And this fact presents an important 
 reason for suspecting that he is in error. Is it true, that he has risen, in 
 learning, so far above the wise men of earth, that he may assume posi- 
 tions from which they all shrink? Has he made discoveries in criticism 
 to which none who have preceded him could attain ? Is it not more than 
 probable that he is in error? 
 
 I have a remark or two to make concerning his oft-repeated rule, that 
 specific words, having a leading syllable, always retain their original 
 idea. He calls on me to find a solitary exception to this rule. I have 
 found an exception in the word bapto itself, if, indeed, it ever was a spe- 
 cific word, as he contends. I have repeatedly produced examples of its 
 use from the classics, as well as from the Bible, in which the common 
 sense of every unprejudiced individual, will enable him to perceive, that 
 there could be no dipping. Where was the dipping, when the coloring 
 fluid dropped on the garments and dyed them? or when the coloring 
 substance, being pressed, stained the hand? Is this, as the gentleman 
 pretends, the effect of dipping ? 
 
 I gave him, as an exception to his rule, the English word prevent. 
 But this, he tells us, is a generic term, and, after all, has not changed its 
 radical meaning. The word is derived from two Latin words — pre and 
 venio, to come before. That it now generally means to hinder, cannot 
 be denied. Was this always its meaning? Every boy, who has read 
 Caesar, knows, that originally it meant simply to come before. It is used 
 in this sense in 1 Thess. iv. 15, " For this we say unto you, by the word 
 of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the 
 Lord, shall not prevent [ascend before] them which are asleep." Does 
 it mean to hinder here ? Originally it meant to come before ; then, to 
 anticipate; then, to hinder; and the third meaning has now become the 
 literal, uniform meaning. The original syllable (vent) remains ; but the 
 original idea (to come) is lost. This word was, primarily, as specific in 
 its meaning as ever bapto was. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 143 
 
 But I will again deliver the gentleman into the hands of his shrewd 
 critic, Mr. Carson. He says, " Nothing in the history of words is more 
 common than to enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas, not origi- 
 nally included in them, are often affixed to some words, while others drop 
 ideas originally asserted in their application. In this way bapto, from sig- 
 nifying mere mode, came to be applied to a certain operation usually per- 
 formed in that mode. From signifying to dip, it came to signify to dye by 
 dipping; because this was the way in which things usually were dyed. 
 And afterwards, from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in any 
 manner. A like process might be shown in the history of a thous- 
 and words;" p. 60. Again, he says — "A word may come to enlarge 
 its meaning, so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious 
 to every smatterer in philology. Had it been attended to, Baptists would 
 have found no necessity to prove that bapto, when it signifies to dye, 
 always properly signifies to dye by dipping, and their opponents would 
 have seen no advantage from proving that it signifies dyeing in any man- 
 ner;" pp. 62, 63. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell tell us, the meanings of the word, except dip, are 
 figurative, rhetorical, &c. Mr. Carson, however, says, this is wholly 
 incorrect. "They are," says he, "as literal as the primary meaning;" 
 p. 64. And he tells us, a thousand examples could be produced con- 
 firming these principles. 
 
 The gentleman asserts, that all the lexicons, before the present century, 
 have given immerse as the proper and primitive meaning of baptizo. 
 If he has made great improvements in the science of criticism, as he pro- 
 fesses to have done, I hope he will allow modern lexicographers the cred- 
 it of having done the same. I, however, have found no ancient lexico- 
 grapher who gives immerse as the literal and proper meaning of this 
 word, as used amongst the Jews in relation to their religious wash- 
 ings. Can he produce one ? 
 
 He attempts to excuse his failure thus far to prove any thing, by tell- 
 ing you, that though I was for seven years engaged in controversy with 
 the Papists, he has heard of no conversions made. I think it probable, 
 that many things have happened in this world of which he has not heard. 
 I have, more than once, satisfied the minds of persons on that subject in 
 a very short time. 
 
 The gentleman labors hard to prove, that our Bible ought to be chang- 
 ed — that, at any rate, Origen had a copy of the Apocalypse, in which, in 
 Rev. xix. 13, the word rantizo was used instead of bapto, and that the 
 same is true of the translators of the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. If 
 Origen had quoted the passage verbatim, with the exception of that 
 word, there might have been some plausibility in the conjecture of Mr. 
 Campbell and Dr. Gale. But it is admitted, that he did not quote 
 verbatim — but only ''almost verbatim." When a man attempts simply 
 to give the sense of a passage, nothing is more common than to employ, 
 to some extent, words different from those in the text. But it is not, 
 perhaps, surprising, that men who can immerse a man in dew, or im- 
 merse a garment by dropping a liquid on it, should, to save their cause, 
 indulge in such conjectures. 
 
 But we are told, that Jerom was a great admirer of Origen, and that 
 in translating the Vulgate, he probably followed the reading in Origen's 
 writings. Is it credible that Jerom would alter the Bible for no better 
 reason, than that Origen, in giving the sense of a passage, not quoting it 
 
144 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 verbatim, had used a word not in the text? Who ever heard of a critic 
 who would venture, on grounds so perfectly flimsy, to change the text 
 of God's word? There is no passage in the Bible, the purity of which 
 might not be brought into doubt, if such guesses may be allowed. But 
 I am not aware that Jerom was a great admirer of Origen. On the con- 
 trary, he was greatly prejudiced against his peculiar doctrines. There 
 can, therefore, be no probability that he altered a passage of the Bible on 
 any such grounds. 
 
 But here the gentleman presents, what appears to him, conclusive evi- 
 dence, that there must have been another reading. Dr. Wall, he tells you, 
 wrote a large volume in reply to Gale; and yet he did not attempt to an- 
 swer Gale's remarks about this passage. But he did not tell you that 
 Wall was avowedly writing on infant baptism, not on the mode; and that 
 he declares his determination not to attempt an answer, at any length, to 
 Gale's remarks on the mode. The truth is, Wall was himself a decided 
 immersionist, and only contended that baptism, by pouring, was lawful 
 in cases of necessity. The impression the gentleman made on the au- 
 dience, I presume, was, that the large volume, he held up before you, 
 was written on the mode of baptism ; whereas, perhaps, not more than a 
 tenth part of it is on that subject. When a man avows his determination 
 not to answer a particular class of arguments, because they do not belong 
 to the subject he is discussing; is it fair, is it true to say he cannot an- 
 swer them? 
 
 Alas ! for the criticism that would take a word out of the Bible and put 
 another in place of it, where there is not a solitary manuscript or copy 
 authorizing it ! The cause must be sorely pressed that requires the word 
 of God to be changed before it can be sustained ! 
 
 My friend has read, in support of his statements concerning the trans- 
 lation, from Mr. Gotch, whom he considers quite a learned man, because 
 he graduated at the Royal College of Dublin ; where, he tells us, diplo- 
 mas are given to none who are not learned. I know not how they man- 
 age such matters there ; but, in this country, I know a diploma is no very 
 certain evidence that the bearer is learned. He may be a very learned 
 man, but, I believe, his fame has not yet reached this country, except 
 among the advocates of immersion. But I have proved, by Gotch, that 
 the Syriac and several other of the most important versions are against 
 Mr. Campbell — that they did not translate baptizo to immerse. 
 
 The gentleman would have you believe that the translations are with 
 him. How are they with him ? Do they translate baptizo by words 
 signifying to immerse ? They do not. He has not proved that any one 
 of them so translates it. I have proved that some nineteen of the most 
 valuable do not translate it to suit him, but they employ generic terms 
 signifying to wash, cleanse, &c. Immersion can gain no aid from the 
 translations. 
 
 I will now return to the Bible usage of this word ; for, after all, the 
 usage of the Jews in their religious writings, as all the best critics agree, 
 must determine its meaning, as applied to denote the ordinance of chris- 
 tian baptism. The first instance in which baptizo occurs, is in 2 Kings 
 v. 14. In the tenth verse we are told, that " Elisha sent a messenger unto 
 him, (Naaman) saying, go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh 
 shall come again to thee," &c. And in verse fourteenth we learn,* that 
 " he went down and baptized (baptizo) himself seven times in Jordan, 
 according to the saying of the man of God." Did he immerse himself? 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 145 
 
 He was told simply to wash, (louo ;) and he obeyed the direction. Bap- 
 tizo appears to be used as synonymous with louo, which all admit to be 
 a generic term, signifying simply to wash, without reference to mode. 
 Jerom, the author of the Vulgate, translates baptizo, in this passage, by 
 the Latin word lavo, a generic term, signifying to wash. His words 
 are — " Descendit, et lavit in Jordane septies juxta sermonem viri Del." 
 " He went down and washed in Jordan seven times, according to the 
 word of the man of God." This, it is worthy of remark, is the only 
 instance where Jerom translates the word at all. There certainly is no 
 evidence that Naaman immersed himself. 
 
 The word baptizo occurs again in the book of Judith, an Apochryphal 
 book, ch. xii. 7, " And she went out in the night, into the valley of Be- 
 thulia, and baptized herself at (epi) a fountain of water." Here is a 
 baptism which the language employed and the attending circumstances 
 prove, not to have been an immersion. She baptized or washed herself, 
 not into, but at a fountain. It was a fountain, a spring, not a large 
 stream. Did she immerse herself at a spring? But she was in the 
 military camp of Holophernes, where regard to decency forbid her im- 
 mersing herself. Mr. Carson admits, that she did not immerse herself in 
 the spring ; but he thinks, perhaps, there was a stone trough there, and 
 that she got into it ! Our friends, when pressed, are good at guessing. 
 But, as I have said, the language and the circumstances alike forbid us to 
 believe, that she immersed herself. Here, then, is a clear example of the 
 use of the word to denote washing by the application of water to the 
 body — by pouring. 
 
 Baptizo occurs in Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, ch. xxxiv. 25, as follows : 
 " He that is baptized after touching a dead body, (baptizomenos apo 
 nekrou,) if he touch it again, what is he profited by his washing? 
 (loutro.- , J Here is a baptism which is expressly called a washing. 
 Baptizomenos is used as synonymous with loutron — a washing. By 
 turning to Num. xix. 16, and the following verses, we can ascertain how 
 this baptism was performed: " And whosoever toucheth one that is slain 
 with a sword in the open field, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a 
 grave, shall be unclean seven days. And for an unclean person they shall 
 take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running 
 water shall be put thereto in a vessel : and a clean person shall take 
 hysop, and dip in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all 
 the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that 
 toucheth a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave ; and the clean 
 person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, on the third day, and on the 
 seventh day : and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash 
 his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even." 
 
 Now, it is certain that sprinkling constituted a part of this baptism ; 
 and it is equally certain, that no immersion was required. The word 
 translated bathe, in this passage, is rahatz — the generic Hebrew word for 
 washing, translated in the Septuagint by louo — the generic Greek term 
 for washing. The sprinkling, moreover, is the most important p^rt of 
 this baptism, as the twentieth verse clearly proves: " But the man that 
 shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be c :t off 
 from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the 
 Lord : the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him he is 
 unclean." Here, then, we have a baptism without an immersk i, the 
 most important part of which is sprinkling. 
 10 N 
 
146 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 These two passages I regard as of great importance in this discussion f 
 because they show the sense in which the word baptizo was understood 
 by the Jews, in relation to their religious washings. This word, let it 
 be remembered, had long been in use among the Jews, before our Savior 
 appropriated it to the ordinance of christian baptism. He, doubtless, used 
 it pearly in the same sense in which he found it employed in relation to 
 these religious washings. When, therefore, I prove that the Jews used 
 it to express the application of water to the person by pouring or sprink- 
 ling, I have given conclusive evidence that our Savior used it in that 
 sense. 
 
 I come now to the New Testament. The first instance in which we 
 find it used in a literal sense, and not in relation to the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, is in Mark vii. 4. I will read from the first verse : " Then came 
 together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes, which came 
 from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread 
 with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands, they found fault. For 
 the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, 
 holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the mar- 
 ket, except they wash, (baptizo) they eat not. And many other things 
 there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptisms) 
 of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables." 
 
 Now, the question presents itself, Were the Pharisees and all the Jews 
 accustomed, when they came from the market or public places, always to 
 immerse themselves before eating ? Observe, the only charge ever made 
 against our Savior and his disciples on this particular subject, was, not 
 that they did not immerse themselves, but that they ate with defiled or 
 unwashen hands. Nor did they charge them with not washing their 
 hands by dipping them. The Jews certainly were not accustomed to 
 immerse themselves before eating. We do not find in the Bible, nor 
 elsewhere, a trace of any such general practice. Surely, if such a cus- 
 tom had existed, there would have been some reference to it — some 
 evidence of a practice so remarkable. Besides, it must have been almost 
 impossible that such a custom could exist. Even in our well-watered 
 country, we should find it extremely difficult and inconvenient to immerse 
 ourselves every time we return from a public place ; and in the dry 
 country inhabited by the Jews, it must have been far more difficult. If 
 any one can believe that they not only immersed themselves on such 
 occasions, but their tables or couches also, let him believe it. I cannot 
 believe things so utterly improbable, without even the shadow of evidence. 
 But let us examine the translation of my worthy friend. He has fal- 
 lowed Dr. George Campbell, who, though a Presbyterian, was an immer- 
 sionist. It reads thus, "For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews, who 
 observed the tradition of the elders, eat not except they have washed 
 their hands by pouring a little water on them, and if they be come from 
 the market, by dipping them." By what authority the phrase, "by 
 pouring a little water on them," is here introduced, I know not. Can it 
 be, that the little adverb pugme contains all this? If so, it is certainly 
 the most remarkable adverb I have ever seen ! I assert that this is no trans- 
 lation at all — it is not akin to a translation. In the original Greek the ex- 
 pression, " they eat not," occurs twice. One of these expressions the gen- 
 tleman has thrown out in order to get in the phrase, " by dipping them !" 
 for if he had not rejected part of the Greek, he could not have thus trans- 
 lated the passage. Having got part of the Greek out of his way, he 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 147 
 
 makes a most singular reading of what remains ! ' The Greek phrase, ean 
 me baptizontai, (literally, unless they baptize) he translates, " by dipping 
 them." That is, he takes a Greek conjunction, an adverb, and a verb 
 in the third person, plural number, and translates them by a preposition 
 by, a participle dipping, and adds the word them, which is not in the 
 Greek !! Such a translation, or rather such a perversion of Scripture I 
 do not remember ever to have seen — and all to sustain the claims of im- 
 mersion ! 
 
 Baptizo occurs again in Luke xi. 38. A certain Pharisee asked the 
 Savior to dine with him ; and he went and sat at table. " And when 
 the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptized) 
 before dinner. 1 ' Did the Pharisee wonder that the Savior had not gone and 
 immersed himself before dinner ? As I have already remarked, we find 
 no such custom prevailing, and the only charge preferred against him was 
 that he did not wash his hands. But let me read Mr. Campbell's trans- 
 lation of this passage ; for I intend, if he pleases, to have him help me in 
 this discussion. His translation is as follows : " But the Pharisee was 
 surprised to observe that he used no washing before dinner." Although 
 the gentleman set out with the purpose of uniformly translating baptizo to 
 immerse, he could not, in this instance, venture to do so. It would have 
 looked too badly. He was forced to give it its true meaning, to wash. 
 The Baptist translation, it is worthy of remark, renders the word in this 
 passage and in Mark vii. 4, to bathe. Although the authors had intended 
 to give the word a literal translation, they could not venture to render it 
 immerse in these passages. In both these instances it is evident that it is 
 used to express the washing of the hands, which among the Jews, we 
 know was commonly done by pouring water on them. 
 
 This word occurs once more in a literal sense in Heb. ix. 10, where the 
 apostle says of the ceremonial law, "which stood in meats and drinks, and 
 divers washings (baptisms) and carnal ordinances." Or as Mr. Campbell's 
 translation runs : " Only with meats and drinks, and divers immersions — 
 ordinances concerning the flesh," &c. 
 
 I have no objection to this general construction, which is that of Knapp's 
 Testament. The word baptism here evidently includes all the religious 
 washings of the ceremonial law. And it is a fact, that all those washings, 
 the mode of which was prescribed, were by sprinkling. It is also a fact, 
 that there is not a personal immersion required in the law of Moses. Ma- 
 ny sprinklings were enjoined, but not an important immersion. And in this 
 same chapter some of those sprinklings are mentioned. The divers bap- 
 tisms, then, included all the sprinklings, pourings and washings of the 
 law. The word, therefore, does not signify immersion. But this is not 
 the only evidence I have to offer on this subject. — [Time expired* 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17 — 12 o'clock. 
 |~ mr. Campbell's ninth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Mr. Rice is so far in advance of me, that I cannot 
 hope soon to overtake him. Before resuming my argument, I shall briefly 
 advert to so many of his remarks, as have any special reference to the 
 matters introduced by myself. The other and foreign matters, when they 
 come fairly in my path, may probably be noticed. 
 
 He certainly does me too much honor, when he supposes, or pretends 
 to suppose, that I am sorely pressed, with one apparent exception, out of 
 at least ten thousand occurrences. Even suppose he had made out one 
 
148 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 case, if I were to multiply all the versions by one hundred and twenty, 
 the number of occurrences of this word, I should then have more than 
 ten thousand to one. How fearful, then, is a single exception in his eyes* 
 But, as we have shown that he has not yet made out one exception, we 
 shall proceed to other remarks until he find one. 
 
 I am not so much gratified with following the lead of others, right or 
 wrong, as my friend would make me say Jerom was in making a Bible. 
 Had I been led by Mr. Rice through all his meanderings, we should have 
 been wading through many foreign matters, such as his oft-related read- 
 ings on various versions, with which this age is every where replete — all 
 of which are as irrelevant here as St. Cyprian's disclosures of African 
 learning in the thUd century. 
 
 Probably Jerom had before him the Ethiopic as well as the Syriac ver- 
 sion then extant, and as many judged the latter equal to the original, 
 Jerom, not merely from his esteem and admiration of Origen's learning, 
 may have followed it. All the use I made of Origen's quotations from 
 the Apocalypse, was to shew that Jerom from that source alone could not 
 but have known the different reading, and that Origen's testimony was to 
 him a confirmation of the Syriac reading — if, indeed, such was the an- 
 cient Syriac. 
 
 The gentleman, in good keeping with other assertions, affirms that the 
 translations make no more for me, than for him. His vision, or his art 
 of making assertions, is of a rare character. He admits, then, they make 
 nothing for him ! Well, be it so ! But for me it is far otherwise. 
 
 To make out his assumption, he should have proved that the transla- 
 tions have, but in one instance, translated it immerse. Then there would 
 have been some slight appearance of truth in the assertion. But what 
 are the facts ? Even suppose he could have tortured Mr. Gotch, whom 
 he first introduced into this discussion, into an ambiguity, and rendered 
 even doubtful the old Vulgate and Italic, the Arabic and the Persic, the 
 Ethiopic, &c. &c, and could have made even John the Baptist pour wa- 
 ter upon the head of the Messiah, as the pictures do, what would all this 
 prove ! Are these all the versions ? Not the half of them. And these, 
 too, Mr. Gotch, and with him many others of equal learning, have proved 
 to be on our side. But as I will not go into a warfare in all the lan- 
 guages of the world, I again ask, where are all the other translators? Has 
 one of them named sprinkling or pouring? No: not one ! The facts, 
 the solemn and irrefragable facts are : — many of them have always used 
 words expressive of immersion, all of them have sometimes translated it 
 by the word dip, or its equivalent ; and some of the moderns are not only 
 with me in the fact of having translated baptizo, by immerse, but like 
 McKnight and Campbell, in approving and commending it. The last 
 named two, were Presbyterians of the highest fame. Dr. McKnight was 
 prolocutor or chairman of the whole general assembly of the Kirk of 
 Scotland ; and Dr. Campbell was some time president of the Mavischal 
 College of Aberdeen, and Regius professor of Scotch Presbyterian theol- 
 ogy, and the most profound critic and translator in his day. Besides 
 these, all the twenty English versions, public and private, to which I 
 have referred, a majority of which I have in my possession, in their trans- 
 lations, notes and comments, are decidedly with us and against him. 
 Some of these, like McKnight, in translating the " diverse washings" of 
 the Hebrews, by " diverse immersion" and the passage in Mark, " except 
 they wash (into, except they immerse) they eat not," have taken from the 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 149 
 
 Pedo~bap lists the cases of " washing" on which they rely. M cKnight 
 has not left, then, a single pin on which to hang up an objection. There 
 is a great difference between these two propositions ;— the translations 
 are all sometimes with ns ; many of them often with us, some of them 
 affirming that it ought always to have been immerse — and the proposi- 
 tion ; — not one of them is ever with Mr. Rice, many of them openly against 
 him, and some of them reproaching the ancients for not having translated 
 it immerse. Such are the facts of the two cases — from which this com- 
 munity may always judge how much reliance is to be placed on my 
 worthy friend's assertions. 
 
 There is only one other point upon this subject to which I must again 
 recur. The gentleman will, by the force of reiteration of the same as- 
 sumptions, keep these topics on hand as long as possible. He will yet 
 have pouring, sprinkling, immersion, modes of baptism. If each of 
 these be a mode, I again ask what is the substance of which they are 
 modes ? They are not the thing itself. If, for example, sprinkling be 
 the action Jesus Christ commanded, how can immersion be a mode of 
 sprinkling, or how can sprinkling be a mode of immersion ? Will the 
 gentleman deliver himself clearly and definitely on this important point ? 
 Surely there must be some great action of which these are but mere modes. 
 Mr. Rice will not, cannot, dare not, say that these three terms in our language 
 are not specific. He has, indeed, if I mistake not, admitted that sprink- 
 ling is a specific word, and consequently all the others. It does, to me 
 at least, seem very strange and inexplicable, that some persons cannot 
 learn that specific words can have but one meaning, and that at all times. 
 Take again the words ivalk, ride, sail, each a specific mode of traveling. 
 Travel is a generic word, and includes them all. Not one of them 
 includes travel, while travel includes them all. Men can travel other ways 
 than by walking, therefore the former is general and the latter special. 
 Now does not every one perceive that to walk, means one specific action ; 
 to ride, another; to sail, another? If, for example, to ride means to 
 walk, suppose you were told that A B walked to town, could you know 
 how he came, whether on foot or on horseback ? Two meanings, pardon 
 the incongruity, two meanings to a specific word wholly destroy its 
 sense, effectually make it meaningless. Does not every stripling in the 
 congregation perceive that this is so ; and, therefore, assent to that all- 
 important law of language, that specific words can have but one mean- 
 ing. Let any one who wishes to convince the stupid or the incredulous, 
 select a few specific words — such as reading, writing, talking — and 
 placing one in another room, say of him that he is ivriting ; and on the 
 hypothesis that specific words have two or three meanings, can any one 
 who is told that he is writing, know what he is doing ? It is impossible, 
 utterly impossible. Am I not now understood and believed by every one 
 in the assembly ? I shall hereafter presume, that I am universally 
 understood on this highly important, though I am sorry to say much neg- 
 lected branch of criticism, so vital to the question now in debate. 
 
 Now, as Mr. Rice admits that sprinkling, pouring, and dipping, are 
 just as specifically different as reading, writing, talking, walking, riding, 
 sailing, flying, &c, I ask, in the name of reason and consistency, must 
 not their representatives in other languages be specific too !! Why should 
 dip be specific in English and not in Greek ? Or will he assume the all- 
 confounding position that a word in one language can represent both gen- 
 eric and specific terms in another ? This would be still more prepos- 
 
 n2 
 
150 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 terous. This law of language, as I shall call it, will certainly settle this 
 controversy one day, with all scholars ; with persons of real learning and 
 unprejudiced minds. I am glad of the occasion of delivering myself, 
 even partially upon it; and that it is about to be stereotyped. I am will- 
 ing to risk upon it, with an intelligent community, what little reputa- 
 tion I have for discrimination in the use and application of language. 
 
 I have before said that from specific acts many effects may follow. A 
 person may, for example, be dipped in, or sprinkled with, a hundred sub- 
 stances, each of which will, of course, produce a different effect ; such as 
 fire, water, milk, honey, wine, tar, sand, mire, &c. How absurd would 
 it be to make all these effects the meaning of the word dip. 1 own that in 
 consequence of the original fewness of words in all languages, by the figure 
 metalepsis, or metonymy, or metaphor, or synecdoche, &c. words were 
 used rhetorically and figuratively to represent different tilings ; and there- 
 fore, the most common effects of actions in dictionaries are sometimes 
 wisely, and sometimes not wisely, but very unwisely appended to words. 
 Hence the law and the usage of reprobating the figurative meanings of 
 words, because unsafe and always changing, in the passing of laws and 
 ordinances. Bapiizo therefore, has but one proper meaning, and every 
 effect ascribed to it in books is to be received as every one pleases, but 
 dip must be received by all. 
 
 I hope I may be excused in these efforts to establish a great principle, 
 not before, as far as I know, developed or applied in this controversy. I 
 know the distinction between specific and generic words is as old as Aris- 
 totle ; but the full development of the distinction, and its importance in 
 language, and especially in this controversy, have not, so far as known 
 to me, at all received a proper attention. I honestly consider it of more 
 importance than all the display of words and specifications of examples 
 adduced on this occasion. They indeed, generally, go to the establish- 
 ment of the law ; but beyond that they effect but little. 
 
 It would be well to canvass this law of language to the bottom. I am 
 prepared for it, and am willing to stake the whole question of the action 
 of baptism upon its truth and validity. Will my respondent please dis- 
 cuss this point, and, in his own style, develop to us the specific action, 
 of which his sprinkling and pouring are modes ? 
 
 In my rich resources of evidence, and in my exuberant liberality, I feel 
 disposed, just at this point, to tender to my friend, Mr. R., another universal 
 proposition. I have, indeed, taken upon myself a work of supereroga- 
 tion, a task wholly gratuitous and uncalled for, the labor of sustaining 
 four universal propositions. Has any one ever before presumed so much 
 upon the strength of his cause, as thus, in the very commencement, to 
 take to himself such a labor, and give to his antagonist such an easy task 
 as only to make out one single exception: for one well established ex- 
 ception will reduce a universal proposition to a general one. If any 
 word in Greek, Latin, or English, will allow any man to be so liberal and 
 generous — baptizo is that word. The master knew well what he said, 
 and what he did, when he issued the precept "baptize them." I say, 
 I am prepared to risk another universal proposition, which attacks ano- 
 ther department, a main post on the negative side of the question. I will 
 then expose another side to the assaults of my opponent. 
 
 I affirm, then, that all the sprinklings and pourings of the law, from 
 Moses to Christ, required something more than water to effect any legal 
 ceremonial, or typical cleansing. By an induction of all the cases on 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 151 
 
 record, it will appear most evident, that, to give 'any efficacy or value to 
 sprinkling, something more than water was required. Hence the addi- 
 tion of blood, or its substitute, the ashes of a blood-red heifer, was essen- 
 tial to every purgation in which water was sprinkled. To give to this 
 proposition another form, and that Mr. R. may easily disprove it, I assert, 
 that from the creation till now, in all time, the great Lawgiver of the uni- 
 verse never commanded any thing to be sprinkled with water alone, in 
 order to its legal, ceremonial, or moral purification, or cleansing; a fact 
 which can be disproved by a single instance, and which, if true, most 
 significantly and solemnly inhibits the Papistical custom of sprinkling 
 water, though, I believe, except in baptism, the Romanists generally use 
 holy water. A single example from Moses or the prophets ; from the 
 Messiah or his apostles, of the pouring or sprinkling of water, per se, of 
 water unmixed with some purifying ingredient, will be accepted on my 
 part as a full refutation of this, my fourth universal proposition. Unless, 
 however, some such precept be produced, or some example be offered, 
 of some person (I care not who — man, woman, or child,) having had 
 water poured, or sprinkled, upon him by divine authority, the cause of 
 rantism, or of affusion, with water alone and unmixed, is sunk forever. 
 When I say Mr. Rice cannot do this, I would not be understood as at. all 
 disparaging his acquaintance with the Bible. I have just as much co; i- 
 dence in his ability to do this, as in any minister of that portion of the 
 Presbyterian church, which he represents on the present occasion. I 
 know, indeed, that no man can do it. Therefore my proposition will 
 stand till the christian dispensation ends. If a fair impersonation of the 
 Biblical learning of the Presbyterian church of Kentucky, a highly 
 respectable community, cannot do this, I am sure that this congregation 
 will acquiesce with me in opinion, that no other branch of the church of 
 denominations can do it. This proposition, also, as far as known to me, 
 has never been affirmed in any discussion of this question ; I therefore 
 solicit for it a thorough examination, and refutation, if possible. 
 
 Leaving, then, these, my four universal propositions, in the hands of 
 my friend, to be disposed of as, in his judgment, best he can, I shall pro- 
 ceed in my regular line of march in the maintenance of the proposition 
 before us; reminding him, however, that not in my opinion only, but I 
 presume (so much upon my knowledge of the human mind, and of this 
 community especially, to say) in public opinion also, that if only one 
 of the four stands erect, sprinkling and pouring, as baptism, must fall to 
 the ground. How impossible to hold it up if they all stand ? 
 
 I shall finish my present address by reading a few extracts from my 
 yet unpublished book on baptism ; a portion only, and but a small por- 
 tion of its documents can, I perceive, find admission into this discussion. 
 It is, indeed, a volume more of facts and documents than any thing else. 
 For, when these are laid before the public, not much argument will be 
 needed. The two or three extracts yet to be read, are from the transla- 
 tors, in farther proof of my fourth argument founded on them. I open 
 this venerable volume, 280 years lodged within this cover, reaching back 
 almost to the age of Calvin and Beza. It is the celebrated and learned 
 Latin version of the Old Testament, by Junius and Tremmelius, and the 
 New Testament by Beza — from whom, in addition to another reading, I 
 shall only now read his note on Rom. vi. 4 — "We are buried with him 
 by baptism into death," &c. The allusion here is to the ancient man- 
 ner of baptizing. This is, then, a clear testimony from this translator, 
 
152 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 that, in the apostolic age, immersion was understood to be the meaning 
 of baptisma. Almost in the same words speaks John Wesley. 
 
 I shall conclude this argument by two short extracts from our Ameri- 
 can apostle, Stuart of Andover. He closed my first argument, and he 
 shall close my fourth. 
 
 " That the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the 
 Greek, understood the usual import of the word baptizo, would hardly seem 
 to be capable of a denial. That they might be confirmed in their view of 
 the import of this word, by common usage among the Greek classic au- 
 thors, we have seen in the first part of this dissertation. 
 
 " For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptizo, in the New Testa- 
 ment, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability invole the 
 idea, that this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always." — 
 Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. S62. 
 
 I leave my friend, Mr. Stuart, to explain his "not always ," as best he 
 can ; his usually is enough for me. And, so long as one of our greatest 
 American Biblical scholars and Pedo-baptists has said, that the apostles 
 usually immersed, or that such is the New Testament acceptation of the 
 word, I care not should Mr. R. a thousand times say, that there is neither 
 in philology, nor in history, proof that baptizo means to immerse. 
 
 V. My fifth argument and fourth class of witnesses, in support of my 
 n>rt proposition, shall consist of the testimony of Reformers, Annotators, 
 Pa^faphrasts, and Critics, on the meaning of the word baptism, se- 
 lected, not from amongst the Baptists, but from amongst the Pedo-baptist 
 writers, who have regarded sprinkling a more convenient, comfortable, 
 and polite usage. I place at the head of the list, the reformer and trans- 
 lator, Martin Luther. In the fifth of the Smialcald articles, drawn up by 
 Luther, he says — " Baptism is nothing else than the word of God with 
 immersion in water." 
 
 "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when 
 we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered. And 
 although it is almost wholly abolished, (for they do not dip the whole chil- 
 dren, but only pour a little water on them) they ought nevertheless to be 
 wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out ; for that the etymology 
 of the word seems to demand.'''' ;c Washing of sins is attributed to baptism ; 
 it is truly, indeed, attributed, but the signification is softer and slower than 
 it can express baptism, which is rather a sign both of death and resurrec- 
 tion. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be bap- 
 tized, to be altogether dipt into the water, as the word doth sound, and the 
 mystery doth signify." — Op. vol. i. 336. 
 
 Calvin : " The word baptizo signifies to immerse, and it is certain that 
 immersion was the practice of the ancient church." — Instit. b. iv. s. 15. 
 
 Grotius: The great Grotius says, " That this rite was wont to be per- 
 formed by immersion, and not by perfusion, appears both by the propriety 
 of the word and the places chosen for its administration, John iii. 23, Acts 
 viii. 38, and by the many allusions of the apostles, which cannot be referred 
 to sprinkling, Rom. vi. 3, 4, Col. ii. 12. The custom of perfusion or asper- 
 sion seems to have obtained some time after, in favor of such who, lying 
 dangerously ill, were desirous to dedicate themselves to Christ. These 
 were called Clinics by other christians. See Cyprian's epistle to Magnus 
 to this purpose. Nor should we wonder that the old Latin fathers used 
 tingere for baptizare, seeing the Latin word tingo does properly and gener- 
 ally signify the same as mersare, to immerse or plunge." — Matt. iii. 6. Gale. 
 
 Dionysius Petavius : " And indeed," says he, " immersion is properly 
 styled baptismos, though at present we content ourselves with pouring water 
 on the head, which in Greek is called perixusis, that is perichysm, if I may 
 so anglicise, but not baptism." 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 153 
 
 Casaubon : " For the manner of baptizing," says he, " was to plunge or 
 dip them into the water, as even the word baptizein itself plainly enough 
 shows, which, as it does not signify dunein, to sink down and perish, neither 
 certainly does it signify epipolazein, to swim or float a-top ; these three 
 words, epipelazein, baptizein, dunein, being very different." 
 
 Vitringa : " The act of baptizing- is the immersion of believers in water. 
 This expresses the force of the word." — Aphor. Sane. Theol. Aphoris. 884. 
 
 Salmasius : " Baptism is immersion, and was administered in former 
 times according to the force and meaning of the word." — De Ccesarie Viro- 
 rum, p. 669. 
 
 Hospinianus : '•' Christ commanded us to be baptized ; by which it is cer- 
 tain immersion is signified." — Hist. Sactram. 1. ii. c. i. 30. 
 
 Zanchius : " The proper signification of baptize is to immerse, plunge 
 under, to overwhelm in water." 
 
 Alstedius : " To baptize signifies only to immerse ; not to wash, except 
 by consequence." 
 
 Witsius : " It cannot be denied that the native signification of the words 
 baptein and baptizein, is to plunge, to dip." — In. His. Ecc. p. 138. 
 
 Gurtlerus : " To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, 
 to dip ; and baptism is immersion, dipping. Baptismos en Pneumaii hagio, 
 baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy 
 Spirit ; for he on whom the Holy Spirit is poured out, is, as it were, im- 
 mersed into him. Baptismos en puri, ' baptism in fire,' is a figurative 
 expression, and signifies casting into a flame, which, like water, flows far 
 and wide ; such as the flame that consumed Jerusalem. The thing com- 
 manded bv the Lord is baptism, immersion into water." — Institut. Theo. cap. 
 xxxiii. § 108, 109, 110, 115. 
 
 Buddaeus : " The words baptizein and baptismos, are not to be interpreted 
 of aspersions, but always of immersion." — Theolog. Dogmat. 1. v. c. i. § 5. 
 
 Ewing, of Glasgow : " Baptizo, in its primary and radical sense, I cover 
 with water. It is used to denote, 1st. I plunge, or sink completely under 
 water." 
 
 Leigh : " The native and proper signification of it [baptize] is, to dip into 
 water, or to plunge under water." 
 
 Bossuet : " To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world." 
 
 Vossius, as quoted by Gale : " The great Vossius speaks exactly to the 
 same purpose, and indeed almost in the same words ; for without ever 
 taking the least notice of lavo, or the like, he expressly says, that bapto and 
 baptizo are rendered by mcrgo, or viergito, and tingo, yet they properly sig- 
 nify mergo; and tingo only by a metalepsis, i. e. as tingo implies mergo ; 
 s,nd therefore he adds, tinging follows immersion, and is done by it." 
 
 Venema : " The word baptizein, to baptize, is nowhere used in the Scrip- 
 ture for sprinkling." — V. p. 5. 
 
 Bloomfield : " There is here [Rom. vi. 4,] plainly a reference to the an- 
 cient mode of baptism by immersion ; and I agree with Koppe and Rosen- 
 muller, that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in 
 most christian churches, especially as it has so evident a reference to the 
 mystic sense of baptism." 
 
 Scholz, on Matt. iii. 6 : " Baptism consists in the immersion of the 
 whole body in water." 
 
 Augusti: "The word, baptism, according to the etymology and usage, 
 signifies to immerse, submerge, &c, and the choice of the word betrays an 
 age in which the later custom of sprinkling had not been introduced." 
 
 Buttmann, in his Larger Grammar, simply puts down, " bapto, to im- 
 merse." 
 
 Edinburgh Reviewers of Carson's work : " They tell me, (says Mr. Car- 
 son,) that it was unnecessary to bring forward any of the examples to prove 
 that the word signifies to dip — that I might have commenced with this as a 
 fixed point universally admitted." — [Time expired. 
 
154 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17 — ll£ o'clock. 
 [mr. rice's ninth reply.] 
 
 It is true, Mr. President, I have got ahead of the gentleman ; and I am 
 apprehensive he will not overtake me. I presume my cause is somewhat 
 easier to manage than his. He, doubtless, could travel as fast, perhaps 
 faster than I, if he had no heavier burden to bear. When a giant travels 
 so slowly that even a small man can get ahead of him, there is pretty 
 conclusive evidence that he has a heavy burden. 
 
 He tells you that I have found but one passage in which bapto is trans- 
 lated to sprinkle, and that he has thousands of others to sustain his position. 
 This is a mistake. I have produced a number, and can produce many 
 more from the classics, where there could be no dipping; where the 
 fluid must have been applied to the subject, not the subject dipped into 
 the fluid. I have produced several examples from the Bible of the same 
 kind ; and I have stated the fact, which he has not ventured to deny, 
 that though bapto occurs some twenty times or more, in the Old and New 
 Testaments, there are not more than four or five instances in which it 
 expresses an immersion. I quoted the passage relative to Nebuchadnez- 
 zar's baptism in dew, to show that in this instance, bapto means even less 
 than sprinkling. Jerom, the author of the Vulgate, though favorable to 
 immersion, did not translate the word immerse, in this instance. The 
 Geneva Bible translates it bedewed — " his body was bedewed with dew." 
 I have produced three of the most valuable ancient versions in which 
 bapto is translated by the word sprinkle. 
 
 The gentleman guesses that Jerom had the Syriac version before him, 
 when he translated it to sprinkle. But did not Jerom know the meaning 
 of bapto ? The Greek was then a living language, which he constantly 
 read and heard spoken ; and if he could not ascertain its meaning, we shall 
 scarcely succeed in learning it. But the Syriac is itself a translation 
 from the Greek. There is no escape for my friend. 
 
 The English translations, the gentleman says, are with him, and he re- 
 fers particularly to Campbell's and McKnight's. But neither of these men 
 ventured uniformly or commonly to translate baptizo to immerse. And 
 if they had, who, I ask, has ever adopted their translations instead of the 
 common version ? Both of these men, though Presbyterians, were favor- 
 able to immersion. We do not excommunicate men for such an opinion. 
 Hence we have had, from time to time, in the Presbyterian church, men 
 who were in some sense immersionists. Still none of them could ever 
 see the truth of Mr. C's. doctrine, that our Savior commanded specifically 
 immersion as the only valid baptism. But let the gentleman, if he can, 
 produce one respectable English translation, that renders baptizo to im- 
 merse. I believe he cannot find one, good or bad, except his own and 
 that recently published by the Baptists, that will sustain him. The 
 whole of the English translators, so far as I know, translate the word by 
 a generic term. 
 
 My friend again criticises the expression mode of baptism. He asks, 
 if sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are modes, what is the substance ? 
 And I ask him, if sprinkling, pouring and dipping are modes of ivashing, 
 what is the substance ? As I have repeatedly said, washing, cleansing 
 may be performed in different modes. So water, as an emblem of cleans- 
 ing, may be applied in different ways. You tell your son to wash his 
 hands. May he not obey you, either by dipping them into water, or by 
 pouring water on them ? The substance of baptism is the application 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 155 
 
 of water to a suitable subject by an authorized minister, in the name of 
 the Trinity. I hope this will be satisfactory. 
 
 If baptizo is a specific word, the gentleman argues, it never can be- 
 come generic. This cannot be proved. But I deny that haptizo is a 
 specific word. I have proved by the best lexicons, ancient and modern, 
 that it has several distinct meanings. Consequently, according to a uni- 
 versal rule of language, the connection must determine in any particular 
 case, which meaning is to be attached to it. 
 
 Mr. C. has told us, that all the lexicons prefer immerse as the proper 
 and literal meaning of baptizo. I have called on him to produce one lex- 
 icon of the New Testament, that gives immerse as its first meaning. He 
 ]].as not produced one. 
 
 He tells you he has in his conscious strength presented his broadside 
 to the enemy, so as to give the fairest opportunity to fire into him. True, 
 his broadside is toward the enemy. A vessel at sea sometimes gets into 
 such a predicament, that it cannot avoid presenting its broadside. The 
 sails and rigging are cut away, it becomes unmanageable, and is obliged 
 toreceive the enemy's shot. In such cases it is better, perhaps, to make 
 a"" irtue of necessity, and to appear to have taken such a position as matter 
 of & choice. 
 
 ,;,My friend, Mr. C, has made a broad assertion, which he seems to 
 consider of great importance, viz : that pouring or sprinkling water alone 
 was never commanded, as a mode of purification. I will suggest to him 
 a single passage, which will destroy the whole force of his universal as- 
 sertion, if indeed it has any force. Ezekiel says, " Then will I sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness and 
 from all your idols will I cleanse you." Will the gentleman, in view of 
 this passage, deny that the sprinkling of clean water is a suitable emblem 
 of purification ? This passage will answer for the present. I think it will 
 appear, as we progress, that he, with his broadside exposed, frequently 
 makes very positive assertions, which cannot be of service to his cause, 
 whilst he fails to prove positions absolutely essential to save it from ruin. 
 
 He told us, he would ere long get out of the brush ; and I had hoped to 
 see him in the Bible, for he boasts of going by the Book. But I begin to 
 fear, that he will not reach it. The best works he can get to sustain his 
 cause, it would seem, are sixteen hundred years too late for inspiration. 
 He appeals to Beza, Calvin, and divers other learned men. Beza was a 
 learned man; and so were Luther and Calvin. But men in the midst of 
 such a revolution as that in which they were destined to act so prominent 
 a part, were not likely to turn their attention very particularly to such a 
 subject as we are now discussing. They had themselves but just emerged 
 from the midnight darkness of Popery ; they found it necessary to lay anew 
 the very foundation of christian doctrine ; in doing which their lives were 
 often in danger. Is it likely, that men under such circumstances would 
 thoroughly investigate the mode of baptism — a subject which then excited 
 little or no interest ? Calvin considered it a matter of entire indifference. 
 And is it common for men to investigate, at any great length, subjects in 
 which they feel no interest 1 Calvin wrote a system of theology, which, 
 I believe, contains about/owr lines on the mode of baptism ; and in these 
 lines he declared his opinion, that it is a matter of indifference. He had 
 enough to do without discussing modes and forms. 
 
 Beza differs from both Mr. C. and myself. He makes baptizo mean 
 immerse, and also to wash ; and to dip for the purpose of dyeing. In 
 
156 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 this last particular, my friend says, he was wrong; and yet he would have 
 me think he is, as to immersion, in the right! 
 
 Luther, as I have before remarked, seems to have been favorable to im- 
 mersion ; and yet he did not translate baptizo to immerse. I have his 
 translation of the New Testament, in which, as I have repeatedly stated, 
 he makes John the Baptist say — " I baptize you with water, {mit wasser) 
 He shall baptize you with (mit) the Holy Ghost;" and in which he 
 translates the word in Mark vii. 4, 8, and Luke xi. 38, by a generic term, 
 meaning to ivash. Now, since he was favorable to immersion, why did 
 he not do as my friend Mr. C. has done — translate baptizo to immerse? 
 Why did he not make John say, " I baptize you in water "? Evidently 
 he was not convinced that such was definitely its meaning. 
 
 But the gentleman quotes John Wesley as sustaining immersion. Let 
 its hear Wesley speak for himself. He says — 
 
 " The matter of this sacrament is water, which, as it has a natural power 
 of cleansing, is the more fit for this symbolical use. Baptism is performed 
 by washing, dipping, or sprinkling' the person in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever blessed Trinity. 
 I say, by washing, sprinkling, or dipping ; because it is not determine^ in 
 Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by any expr S3 
 precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it ; nor by the force or 
 meaning of the word baptism." — Wesley, p. 144. f ' 
 
 Wesley says the word cannot prove immersion, nor is there any thing 
 in the Bible that does prove it. 
 
 It is true, Stuart has admitted too much ; and it is equally true, that he 
 has not admitted half enough for my friend. He expresses his firm con- 
 viction that immersion was not always practiced by the apostles. The 
 gentleman tells you that Stuart has admitted that the ancient church prac- 
 ticed immersion. He does say that the ancient church immersed three 
 times, divesting the persons of all their garments. I will read on p. 9? 
 of Stuart on Baptism. 
 
 " I go farther with this argument. If you take your stand on the ancient 
 practice of the churches, in the days of the early christian fathers, and 
 charge me with departure from this ; in my turn, I have the like charge to 
 make against you. It is notorious and admits of no contradiction, that 
 baptism in those days of immersion, was administered to men, women, and 
 children, in puris naturalibus, naked as Adam and Eve, before their fall. 
 The most tender, delicate and modest females, young and old, could obtain 
 no exception, where immersion must be practiced. The practice was 
 pleaded for and insisted upon, because it was thought to be apostolic. At 
 all events it began very early in the christian church." 
 
 If this is the mode of baptizing for which the gentleman is contending, 
 I will not oppose him! But if he will not follow the example of the an- 
 cient church, why does he plead its authority. 
 
 Witsius was a learned man. He, as quoted by Mr. C., says, the na- 
 tive signification of baptizo is, to immerse. This, as I have repeatedly 
 said, I could admit without injury to my cause. Very few words retain 
 their native or original signification. Therefore critics tell us, that ety- 
 mology, which teaches the native meaning of words, is a very uncertain 
 guide in interpretation. The question before us is, not what the word 
 baptizo meant, when first used by pagan Greeks, but what was its mean- 
 ing amongst the Jews in the days of Christ and the apostles. 
 
 But if the controversy is to be determined by the opinions of learned 
 men, I will sustain my position by as great an array of learning and 
 talent, as the gentleman can produce in his favor. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 157 
 
 Dr. Owen is admitted to have been one of the greatest and most learned 
 men. He says : 
 
 "Baptizo signifies to wash ; as instances out of all authors may be given, 
 Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Phavorinus, and Eustachius. It is first 
 used in the Scripture, Mark i. 8, John i. 33, and to the same purpose in 
 Acts i. 5. In every place it either signifies to pour, or the expression is 
 equivocal. " I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Ghost ;" which is the accomplishment of that promise, ' that the Holy 
 Ghost shall be poured on them.' " Again — " No one place can be given in 
 the Scriptures, wherein baptizo doth necessarily signify either to dip or 
 plunge." Again — '* In this sense, as it expresseth baptism, it denotes to 
 wash only, and not to dip at all : for so it is expounded, Tit. iii. 5," &c. 
 Again — " Wherefore in this sense, as the word is applied unto the ordi- 
 nance, the sense of dipping is utterly excluded." — Owen's Works, vol. xxi. 
 p. 557. 
 
 Dr. George Hill, principal of St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, was an 
 eminently learned man. He says—" Both sprinkling and immersion are 
 implied in the word baptizo; both were used in the religious ceremonies of 
 the Jews, and both may be considered as significant of the purpose of bap- 
 tism," &c. — HilVs Divinity, p. 659. 
 
 Dr. John Dick, Professor of Theology to the United Session Church, 
 was a learned man ; and his system of Theology is a standard work. He 
 says, concerning bapto : " Examples, however, have been produced, from 
 which it appears, that the idea sometimes conveyed even by this verb, 
 which it is commonly admitted signifies to dip, is that of sprinkling, rather 
 than of dipping." Concerning baptizo he says — " We here see that nothing 
 certain as to mode can be learned from the original term baptizo, because 
 it has different meanings, signifying sometimes to immerse, and sometimes 
 to wash," &c. — Divinity, pp. 470, 471. 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke is admitted to have been an eminent linguist. In his 
 Commentary on Matt. iii. 6, he says — t( In what form baptism was origin- 
 ally administered, has been deemed a subject worthy of serious dispute, 
 Were the people dipped or sprinkled ? for it is cerktin bapto and baptizo 
 mean both." 
 
 Dr. Thomas Scott, the commentator, is admitted to have been a learned 
 man. He quotes Leighton as saying — " It [baptizo] is taken more largely 
 for any kind of washing, rinsing, or cleansing, even when there is no dip- 
 ping at all " — then remarks — " The word was adopted from the Greek 
 authors, and a sense put upon it by the inspired writers, according to the 
 style of Scripture, to signify the use of water in the sacrament of baptism, 
 and in many things of a spiritual nature, which stood related to it. Some 
 indeed contend zealously, that baptism always signifies immersion; but the 
 use of the words baptize and baptism in the New Testament, cannot accord 
 with this exclusive interpretation." This he gives as a conclusion result- 
 ing from " many years' consideration and study." 
 
 Dr. Dwight is admitted to have been one of the most learned men in the 
 United States. He says — " I have examined almost one hundred instances, 
 in which the word baptizo and its derivatives are used in the New Testa- 
 ment, and four in the Septuagint : and these, so far as I have observed, being 
 all the instances contained in both. By this examination, it is to my appre- 
 hension evident, that the following things are true — That the primary mean- 
 ing of these terms is cleansing; the effect, not the mode of washing — That 
 the mode is usually referred to incidentally, wherever these words are men- 
 tioned, and that this is always the case, wherever the ordinance of baptism 
 is mentioned, and a reference made, at the same time, to the mode of 
 administration — That these words, although often capable of denoting any 
 mode of washing, whether by affusion, sprinkling, or immersion, (since 
 cleansing was familiarly accomplished by the Jews in all these ways) yet, 
 in many instances, cannot, without obvious impropriety, be made to sig- 
 
158 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 nify immersion ; and in others cannot signify it at all "-—Theology, v. 5, 
 p. 331. 
 
 I might add the opinion of Dr. Wall, who, though decidedly favorable 
 to immersion, maintains that " the word baptizo, in Scripture, signifies 
 to wash in general, without determining the sense to this or that sort of 
 washing." 
 
 But I must return to the Bible argument. I was proving, when I 
 closed my last address, that the word baptisms in Heb. ix. 10, compre- 
 hends all the washings of the Levitical law, which, in all cases where 
 the mode was prescribed, were to be performed by sprinkling. The 
 Levitical law, the apostle says, consisted in " meats and drinks, and divers 
 baptisms or washings ;" and he immediately mentions some of those 
 ablutions — verses 13, 19 : "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and 
 the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
 of the flesh," &c. Again: "For when Moses had spoken every precept 
 to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and 
 of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hysop, and sprinkled both 
 the book and all the people," &c. 
 
 I have now examined every passage in the Bible and in the Apochry- 
 phal writings of the Jews, where the word baptizo is used in a literal 
 sense, without reference to the ordinance of christian baptism ; and my 
 clear conviction is, that there is not one instance in which it can be proved 
 to mean immerse; that in every instance except, perhaps, one which 
 may be doubtful, it can be, and has been, proved to express the applica- 
 tion of water to the person or thing, by pouring or sprinkling. The 
 usage of the Jews and of the Bible, in regard to this word, is, therefore, 
 evidently against Mr. Campbell; and if so, his cause is lost. For, as I 
 have proved, the Jews and inspired writers did not speak clasM -• Greek; 
 and consequently, the Bible and Jewish usage, as the best critics agree, 
 must determine its meaning as appropriated to the ordinance of christian 
 baptism. 
 
 I wish now to invite the attention of the audience to the usage of this 
 word amongst the Greek and Roman christians. This is a very impor- 
 tant branch of evidence ; for certainly the Greek fathers, and the Latins, 
 who lived when the Greek was a spoken language, understood the 
 meaning of the word in debate. 
 
 I have already given my friend considerable trouble by quoting Origen, 
 the most learned of the christian fathers ; and, I presume, difficulties are 
 likely to increase upon him. Origen, as we have seen, substituted rantizo, 
 to sprinkle, for bapto ; and this same father used baptizo in the sense of 
 pouring. His authority, it will be admitted, is worth more than that of 
 Beza, and Calvin, and Luther, and half a dozen lexicons besides. His 
 language is as follows : 
 
 " How came you to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, 
 who did not, in Ahab's time, baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to 
 be washed before it was burnt, by the Lord's appearing in fire 1 But he or- 
 dered the priests to do that ; not once only, but says, Do it the second time : 
 and they did it the second time : and, Do it the third time ; and they did it 
 the third time. He, therefore, that did not himself baptize then, but as- 
 signed that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, when he, according 
 to Malachi's prophecy, should come." — WalVs Hist, of Inf. Bap., vol. ii, 
 p. 332. 
 
 Now by turning to 1 Kings xviii. 33, any one can, in a moment, see 
 how this baptism was performed : " And he put the wood in order, and 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 159 
 
 cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four 
 barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood," 
 &c. Origen says, the altar was baptized, [baptizo is the word he uses ;) 
 and the Bible tells us how it was baptized, viz. by pouring several bar- 
 rels of water upon it. If the altar was baptized when water was poured 
 on it, is not a person baptized when water is poured on him ? If baptizo 
 expresses the pouring of water upon the altar, surely it may express the 
 pouring of water on a person. Did Origen understand his native tongue ? 
 If he did, this word means to wash or wet by pouring, as well as by 
 dipping. This single authority is worth more to show us in what sense 
 it was used amongst Jews (for Origen was writing to the Jews) and 
 christians, than all the classical lexicons. But the lexicons, as we have 
 seen, are not against us. 
 
 Other learned Greeks used this word in a similar sense. Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, speaking of a backslider whom John the Apostle was the 
 means of reclaiming, says " he was baptized a second time with tears." 
 Athanasius reckons up eight several baptisms: 1. that of the flood; 2. 
 that of Moses in the sea ; 3. the legal baptism of the Jews after unclean- 
 ness ; 4. that of John the Baptist; 5. that of Jesus ; 6. that of tears ; 
 7. of martyrdom; and 8. of eternal fire. Gregory Nazianzen says, "I 
 know of a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood ; and I know of 
 a fifth, that of tears." " Bassil tells us of a martyr that was baptized 
 into Christ with his own blood." — Pond on Bap., p. 34. 
 
 Did these learned fathers understand the Greek language — their vernacu- 
 lar tongue ? If they did, the pouring of water on the altar, the flowing 
 of tears of a penitent over his face, and the flowing of the martyr's 
 blood over his body, are all properly expressed by the words baptizo and 
 baptisma. Was the altar immersed ? Was the penitent backslider im- 
 mersed in tears ? Were the martyrs immersed in their own blood ? 
 
 The Latin fathers used this word just as did the Greeks. Lactantius 
 says, that Christ received baptism " that he might save the gentiles by 
 baptism, that is, (purifici roris perfusione,) by the distilling of the puri- 
 fying dew." Cyprian and the sixty-six bishops, as we have seen, 
 declared persons truly baptized by sprinkling, and quoted Ezekiel xxxvi. 
 25, to prove it. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17— -12 o'clock, M. 
 [mr. Campbell's tenth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Mr. Rice complains of me on various occasions and 
 in various manners, and more especially because I have not yet got into 
 the Bible. 'Tis hard to please him. The sequel may, perhaps, show 
 which of us does most homage to that volume. Facts can be better 
 trusted than predictions. He gets into the Bible and out of it too often 
 for my taste. When I get into the Bible I do not like soon to get out of 
 it. I am preparing the way to understand what is in it. Indeed, I am 
 always in the Bible while discussing the meaning of its language, to 
 ascertain its institutions. 
 
 He speaks of sundry translations, of which I know nothing. Among 
 them is a Baptist Bible, translated for that society. I know of no such 
 Bible. There is, indeed, a new or improved version, having some very 
 plain and obvious improvements in style, which some Baptists read ; and 
 there is another new version which some of us read. We avail ourselves 
 of all means of better understanding the good book. But no one amongst 
 us, or of the Baptists, so far as I know, substitutes this for the commonly 
 
160 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 received king James' version. No community submits to them as um- 
 pires in any case of controversy. In such cases we all appeal to the 
 common version ; not because it is better, but because it has authority 
 with all the people. We waive all denominational advantages for the 
 sake of having a common text. I maintain no point of doctrine, I hold 
 no article of faith, which I cannot fairly prove from the common version, 
 with all its faults and imperfections on its head, and these are neither few 
 nor small. I have a copy of the Baptist Bible, for which I paid five dol- 
 lars in Philadelphia. I find it contains various improvements worthy of 
 the age, and every Baptist ought to have it in his house. In no respect, 
 however, does the version interfere with the authority of the king's Bible. 
 1 I am glad, even at this late period, to hear my friend, Mr. Rice, distinctly 
 declare himself on the subject of washing. We understand him now to 
 say, that sprinkling, pouring, and immersing are so many modes of 
 washing. If, then, our Redeemer has appointed one of these modes in 
 preference to all others, we should observe that mode. It is essentially 
 important that we should conform to it exclusively. 
 
 This assumption, if I mistake not, comes from Dr. Owen, who wrote 
 some two and twenty volumes of theology, and who has furnished full 
 six or eight pages on the subject of baptism. He seems, indeed, to have 
 been in a very bad humor when writing this large treatise on baptism. 
 "I must say," says he, " and I will make it good, that no honest man, 
 who understands Greek, can deny that the word baptizo signifies to 
 wash as well as to dip. This is, after all, conceding that the version dip 
 is by far the most clear and universal representative of the word." 
 
 I have another remark on these modes of washing. You must have 
 observed the great caution of my friend, who has, sage-like, informed us 
 that one may wash his hands by dipping them in water. He has even 
 gone so far as to say that one may wash his hands by pouring water 
 upon them. But why so cautious to proceed ? why always stop there ? 
 why not add, and one can wash his hands by sprinkling water upon 
 them? Yet this last is his spiritual, his favorite washing. Any one may 
 conceive of washing one's hands by dipping them in water, or by pouring 
 water upon them ; but who has ever seen any one wash his hands by 
 sprinkling water upon them. As sprinkling or moistening has long been 
 the almost exclusive practice of his church, it is expected that he would 
 throw all his logic and rhetoric about " that mode of washing!" 
 
 Now, as observed yesterday, there are three kinds of pollution — physi- 
 cal, legal, and moral. Of course, there are but three kinds of cleansing. 
 And, as cleansing is always an important operation, in a moral or reli- 
 gious sense it is superlatively so. Hence, the various divine ordinances 
 connected with that service. But, as before observed, he never, in the 
 age of types and symbols, he never authorized any sort of cleansing, 
 natural, moral, or ceremonial, to be performed or consummated by sprink- 
 ling common water. Neither the leper nor any other unclean person 
 was ever so cleansed. Water and blood united, or water and the ashes 
 of a blood-red heifer combined, were the only waters of cleansing ever 
 authorized by God, or ordained by Moses. Nor even in the age of cere- 
 monies did the sprinkling of clean or cleansing water upon any one effect 
 his ceremonial purification. Neither the sprinkling of water and blood, 
 nor the sprinkling of blood and ashes, nor the subsequent anointing with 
 oil, did ever cleanse any leper or unclean person. He must finally be 
 washed, he must bathe himself in water. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 161 
 
 As to sprinkling, then, being a "mode of washing" is it not an ideal- 
 ism ? Who ever saw a man, a garment, a house, washed by sprinkling ? 
 John Calvin reduced the Roman pouring down to the mildest affusion! 
 to wetting a fore-finger and laying it gently on an infant's brow — or by 
 scattering a gentle spray all over its face. If then the mere touch of a 
 man's finger will perform ablution, is not the operation of cleansing re- 
 duced down to a thing of nothing ? I propound it to the good sense of 
 the community, if, as we are now informed, baptism is a " washing with 
 water," whether there ought not to be such a change in the mode as 
 would shew some resemblance to a washing. 
 
 As to the sprinkling of clean water so often alluded to, found in Ezekiel, 
 as expressed in the following words, a remark or two will be expedient 
 and necessary. The words are : " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all 
 your idols will I cleanse you." The question is, what means here the 
 phrase clean water. It is common water, frqe from all physical impuri- 
 ties ! As this is a point of some importance, from the frequent citations of 
 Pedo-baptists, I hope I may be permitted to enter somewhat fully into its 
 exposition ; for which purpose I must dip a little into the law of Moses. 
 No person ever has understood, indeed no person can fully understand 
 the christian institution, without a thorough knowledge of the five books 
 of Moses, as well as of the five historical books of the New Testament. 
 
 The writings of Moses constitute the great font of evangelical types and 
 symbols. In the Jewish ritual there was so much use of blood, fresh 
 from the veins of the victim, in all the offerings and sacrifices of that in- 
 stitution, that there was danger of a very serious error, viz : that the 
 cleansing and atoning virtue of blood was only present while it was warm 
 and fresh from the sacrifice. Blood was constantly sprinkled both upon 
 persons and things, mingled sometimes with water, but in the former 
 case, indeed in any case, it could only be sprinkled while warm. It was 
 necessary, too, that it should be sprinkled, because many were to partake 
 of its benefit. Now to prevent the aforesaid error, as well as for other 
 reasons, it became necessary to place in this font of types, one that would 
 prevent, or correct an error of such dangerous tendency. For this pur- 
 pose it was ordained that a blood-red heifer, without a parti-colored hair 
 from the horn to the hoof, should be obtained, and that she, together with 
 her blood, and all her appurtenances, should be burned to ashes in a clean 
 place without the camp. It was commanded that her ashes should be 
 carefully gathered, and deposited in an urn, or some vessel, for future use. 
 
 Ascending to the traditions of the Rabbins, it sometimes happened that 
 hundreds of years revolved without affording a heifer exactly fulfilling the 
 description in the law. Now, according to a Divine provision, it was or- 
 dained, that the smallest quantity of these ashes, infused into a quantity 
 of water from a running stream, imparted to it the virtue of cleansing 
 from all legal and ceremonial impurity ; thus imparting to it the efficacy 
 of blood. This beautiful type clearly taught that the virtue of sacrificial 
 blood, whether for atonement or for purification, was not confined to the 
 time of its being shed, or to its freshness ; but long after the death of the 
 victim, nay, indefinitely, retained all the power it originally possessed, 
 for the accomplishment of tnese most sacred and important purposes. 
 
 The water was sometimes called katharon hudoor. clean water, and 
 sometimes hudoor rantismou, the water of separation ; the effect being 
 put metonymically for the cause. This water of purification was to be used 
 11 o2 
 
162 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 for one class of pollutions — a species of offences or pollutions artificially 
 created, as it were, to complete the type. Any one who should at all 
 touch the bone of a dead man, a dead body, a grave, or a couch upon 
 which a corpse had been laid, was to be constituted unclean for seven 
 days ; and if, in that case, he presumed to come into the tabernacle 
 of the Lord, he was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel. Thus 
 a neglect of this institution became as fatal as moral transgressions of the- 
 deepest malignity. It was important to make this ceremonial unclean- 
 ness as similar as possible to moral turpitude, that it might, in all the parts 
 of the type, correspond to actual transgression, by affording to the clean 
 water the efficacy of blood in taking it away. How, then, was the pol- 
 luted person to be cleansed? A priest appears. He takes the clean 
 water, and sprinkles it upon him, on the third day, and again on the 
 seventh, dipping (but not sinking) a bunch of hysop into the preparation. 
 In some cases the water of purification was used by the unclean person 
 himself. But in all cases, finally, he must bathe his whole person in 
 water, for even sprinkling clean water, without a subsequent immersion, 
 could not take away this legal impurity. 
 
 Louo, the word used in this case, is the word used amongst the Greeks 
 to indicate bathing. Such, also, is its use amongst the Jews. Pharaoh's 
 daughter is said to have bathed herself in the Nile. This bathing is rep- 
 resented by the word here used ; and, therefore, indicates that the person 
 put himself under the water in order to the consummation of the process 
 of cleansing. Thus, after having this water of purification sprinkled 
 upon them, like Judith of the Apocrypha, who washed herself in the 
 camp at a fountain of water, he bathes himself, and washes off the clean 
 water, mingled with ashes, and is now fit to enter the sanctuary of the 
 Lord. Such, then, is the clean water, and such the ceremony of purifi- 
 cation. The passage, in Ezekiel, is always misapplied, except when 
 quoted in the true technical sense of the law, which has given to it its 
 proper signification. The history of the case in Ezekiel is this— the 
 Jews had profaned the name of the Lord, and polluted themselves among 
 the heathen. The Lord said, not for their sake, but for his own honor, 
 he would bring them out and restore them to their own land, and as they 
 had, by contact with the heathen, polluted themselves, he, speaking in 
 their own national and appropriate sense of the phrase, said, he would 
 cleanse them by sprinkling clean water upon them, a symbol of the sanc- 
 tification externally, and that he would also put his spirit within them ; 
 a passage which has no more to do with the sprinkling of common water 
 for baptism, than any other ceremony in the law. Does any one suppose 
 that the clean water here spoken of, or in the epistle to the Hebrews, is 
 water free from mud ? 
 
 As all arts, sciences, and callings have, what may be called, their 
 technical terms, so has religion its technical terms. Clean water literally 
 means, in religious technicality, a red heifer's ashes mixed with running 
 water, as the antitype of the blood of Christ in its sanctifying power. 
 Water, indeed, is sometimes the symbol of God's spirit. To the Samaria 
 tan woman Jesus said — " I will give a fountain of water, springing up 
 within him to eternal life, to the man who drinketh of my water." This 
 water denoted the spirit, as elsewhere explained, but it is never called 
 clean water. The water of baptism may, in one case in Paul's style, be 
 compared with this clean water, but in that case it is not sprinkled, but 
 contrasted with sprinkling. -The words are — "Having your hearts 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 163 
 
 sprinkled," (by Christ's blood,) from a guilty conscience, and your bodies 
 bathed, washed with pure or clean water. 
 
 I expected to hear this verse often quoted by ray friend. It is a great 
 favorite amongst all sprinklers. It has been quoted by them a thousand 
 times — it chimes with another of great celebrity in the baptismal contro- 
 versy — " I will pour water upon the thirsty, and floods upon the dry 
 ground." But all these poetic and prophetic allusions to spiritual things 
 had better be applied with more caution and prudence, than to seize them 
 because of the words sprinkle and pour, which happen to be in them. 
 Some preachers use these verses in their sermons as a chorus in music. 
 
 I think I have already said — M I have not, I will now say, that the 
 sprinkling, pouring, and bathing, in the law are, indeed, indicative of a 
 beautiful series, or order of things, in the evangelical economy. In effect- 
 ing a cure blood was sprinkled upon the leper ; oil was poured upon him, 
 and his person was bathed in water. Under the gospel the moral leper 
 has the blood of sprinkling in its antitypical character, applied through 
 faith to his conscience— he has his soul enlightened and sanctified by the 
 spirit poured out, for christians have an unction from the Holy One, and 
 understand all things in the gospel — and they have also had their bodies 
 bathed in the water of cleansing. But of these we may have occasion 
 more fully to speak hereafter. I have, at present, a few words to say 
 upon the opinions of Mr. R. in reference to the allusions to Doddridge and 
 Carson. The quoting of authors is rather a delicate point. I have ex- 
 pressed my desires for a dissertation on that subject. To quote them, as 
 we have sometimes heard them quoted, is rather a very licentious affair. 
 We can prove things the most antipodal by the same author. I argue 
 that justice and consistency alike demand of us that, if we quote a man's 
 opinions as authority, we ought to take all his opinions ; if we only quote 
 him as a witness of facts transpiring in his time, or coming under his 
 cognizance, we ought to take his whole testimony, and not just so much 
 of his opinions, and just so much of his testimony as suits our prejudices 
 or our interests. I plead for some system in quoting authors. If I quote 
 Blackstone as authority in law, in one case, I quote him in all cases. I 
 will admit the testimony of Doddridge, but not his opinions. So of Lu- 
 ther and of Calvin. 
 
 I do, indeed, especially quote the concessions of Pedo-baptists and 
 other opponents, with considerable deference to their judgment in such 
 matters, as are against their practice and against their interests ; for men 
 seldom make such concessions unless the force of evidence is very strong 
 and overwhelming. The testimony of reformers, annotators, and critics 
 in favor of immersion, themselves having been not only sprinklers, but 
 enemies of the Anabaptists and Baptists, is exceedingly strong and irre- 
 sistible. Twenty such men witnessing for us, are worth two hundred of 
 our own party. They have, too, more weight with their own party than 
 our testimony. 
 
 The Greek and Latin fathers generally were very weak men compared 
 with the modern. Some of them were mere visionaries, mystics, and fond 
 of old wives' fables. But I regard them as faithful witnesses of facts. I 
 receive their testimony as honest men, but I will neither receive their in- 
 ferences from their own facts and premises, nor their opinions, farther than 
 the rationale of them is obvious to myself. In this way I receive evidence 
 and use it. 
 
 I have not much time for my regular argument. The succeeding re- 
 
164 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 marks will, however, explain sundry matters, and either obviate or answef 
 objections. 
 
 In relation to the baptizing of the wood and the altar, made out of Ori- 
 gen's critique by construction, I have a remark or two to offer. I neither 
 believe in constructive treason, nor in constructive baptism. Twelve bar- 
 rels of water poured upon the altar, and filling up the trench, might, in- 
 deed, thoroughly soak and even overwhelm the sacrifice. But one thing 
 I know, that neither Origen nor any Greek ever called any pouring an 
 immersion, though the effect of pouring out the water might be an im- 
 mersion of the altar and the offering too. We are all in the habit of car- 
 rying figures too far, and of violating propriety, as well as Origen. 
 
 If Mr. Rice proposes to go ahead and introduce new matters, rather 
 than to discuss the arguments I have submitted, I award to him perfect 
 liberty. I may perhaps get ahead of him before we are through. I have 
 already said there is no need of argument concerning Jewish idioms on 
 this question at all. I admit and teach the necessity of regarding it on 
 such subjects as are affected by it. Bat in specific words, expressing 
 physical action, there is neither Jewish nor gentile idiom. To eat, drink, 
 sleep, talk, walk, dip, pour, sprinkle, &c, are the same physical acts in 
 all lands, languages, and idioms. We find shades of difference in many 
 points, and then we expound by the current usage. Unless we interpret 
 the words of Paul and Peter by the currency of the age in which they 
 lived and wrote, by what system are we to ascertain their meaning ? Do 
 not John the Baptist and Josephus use these words as Paul and Peter, and 
 the other apostles did ? We admire the wisdom of our Heavenly Father 
 in causing the Greek language to cease to be a living tongue after the 
 canon was closed and translated into one or two languages. By that 
 means the sense of its words changes no more ; and we have a fixed 
 language of immutable meaning and of all authority, preserving and per- 
 petuating the will of God to all ages and for all nations. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17— 12| o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's tenth reply.] 
 Mr. President — My friend (Mr. Campbell) says, I complain of his 
 mode of discussing this subject. Not at all : I am well satisfied with it. 
 I cannot find it in my heart to fall out with him for failing to sustain his 
 doctrine. But he says, if he is not in the Bible, he is in the portico. It 
 must be an immense portico — extending from the days of the apostles to 
 the time of Calvin, Beza and Grotius ! I should think he is a great 
 way from the Bible — at least sixteen hundred years. I have chosen not 
 to remain in the portico. I have now examined every passage in the Bi- 
 ble, in which baptizo is used in a literal sense ; and I have found no ev- 
 idence that it is used in the sense of immerse. On the contrary, I have 
 found evidence conclusive, that in the Bible and Jewish writings it is used, 
 with almost, if not entire uniformity, in the sense of applying water to 
 the person or thing by pouring or sprinkling. He thinks it probable, that 
 when I shall be in the affirmative, he will get ahead of me. If he should, 
 I will give him credit for it. 
 
 He tells us that he is not aware of the existence of a Baptist Bible; 
 and yet he is aware, that there is a translation made by Baptists ! It 
 certainly is not a Pedo-baptist Bible. Then what is it ? I did not say 
 it was made by the Baptists as a denomination, but by individuals who 
 are Baptists. And it is well known, that our Baptist friends, in all their 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 165 
 
 translations made for the heathen, do uniformly translate baptizo by- 
 words meaning to immerse. They are thus chargeable with the inconsis- 
 tency of insisting or giving the heathen a pure translation, whilst they 
 are contented to leave the people of this country in the dark. But the 
 gentleman has himself made a new translation. Or, speaking more 
 properly, he has taken some three old ones, and by selecting from one 
 or the other of these as best suited him, and adding various emendations 
 of his own, he has succeeded in getting up a translation which, I think, 
 must in justice be called Campbell's translation. One very prominent 
 object of this translation evidently was, to render the words baptizo and 
 baptisma, immerse and immersion. To accomplish this, the gentleman, 
 as I have proved, gave a translation of a passage, which is in truth no 
 translation at all, but a gross perversion. 
 
 The treatise of Dr. Owen on baptism, he says, is very small, and was 
 written when he was very mad against the Anabaptists. Certainly he 
 never manifested greater opposition to the Anabaptists, than my worthy 
 friend has evinced towards Pedo-baptists. If, then, his criticisms are to be 
 undervalued for such a reason, on the same principle great allowance must 
 be made in estimating the worth of Mr. C's criticisms, for his exclusive 
 views and feelings. He represents Owen as admitting, ihzilimmerse was the 
 most common meaning of baptizo. Let us hear Owen speak for himself. 
 After stating, that instances out of all authors prove, that it signifies to washy 
 he remarks — " It is first used in Scripture, Mark i. 8, and John i. 33, and 
 to the same purpose, Acts i. 5. In every place it either signifies to pour, or 
 the expression is equivocal. ' I baptize you with water, but he shall bap- 
 tize you with the Holy Ghost;' which is the accomplishment of that pro- 
 mise, that the Holy Ghost should be poured on them. For the other places, 
 Mark vii. 3, 4, nipto and baptizo is precisely the same ; both, to wash, Luke 
 xi. 38, the same with Mark vii. 3. No one instance can be given in the 
 Scriptures wherein baptizo doth necessarily signify either 'to dip'' or k to 
 plunge!' " Such is the declaration of one of the greatest men who has lived. 
 
 The gentleman attaches great importance to his discovery, that the 
 sprinkling of pure water was never commanded in order to purification. 
 I am gratified that he gave us his dissertation on the preparation of the wa- 
 ter of purification ; it will aid me in my argument. The ashes of the heifer, 
 he tells us, were to be put into water, to show that blood had a permanent 
 efficacy, not only when warm, but afterwards. Very well. Christian 
 baptism is designed to represent the cleansing of the soul from sin by 
 virtue of the blood of Christ and by the influence of the Hoty Spirit. 
 If, then, the water, after having the ashes of the heifer put to it, was to 
 be sprinkled upon the unclean, as an emblem of purification ; certainly the 
 water of baptism should, for the same reason, be sprinkled on the person 
 baptized. There is special propriety in this, inasmuch as the blood of 
 Christ is called " the blood of sprinkling." 
 
 But, says the gentleman, washing cannot be performed by sprinkling. 
 Christian baptism, he certainly knows, is not intended to be a literal 
 washing of the body. It is an emblematic washing — the application of 
 water to the person, as an emblem of spiritual purification. Is the sprink- 
 ling of clean water a suitable emblem of such cleansing ? Ezekiel the 
 inspired prophet, certainly thought so ; and therefore he said, or rather 
 God said through him — " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
 and ye shall be clean" &c. Ezekiel was doubtless in the right, and 
 my friend, Mr. C, is in the wrong. 
 
166 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 But, let it be remembered, we are not now contending about the quan- 
 tity of water to be used in baptism, but only about the mode of applying" 
 it to the person. I am willing to pour as much water, as may be desired 
 — even as much as was poured on the altar which Origen says, was bap- 
 tized by pouring. I presume the gentleman will not deny, that washing 
 or cleansing may be performed by pouring. His remarks, therefore, 
 concerning the inefficacy of sprinkling to cleanse, are entirely without 
 force. 
 
 The sprinkling required in the Levitical law, he tells us, did not wholly 
 cleanse the person. Ezekiel certainly represents the sprinkling of clean 
 water, as a complete emblem of purification. But, says my friend, the 
 unclean person was required to go and wash, after he had been sprinkled. 
 He was to wash himself; but who does not know, that a man may wash 
 himself in different modes. There are shower-baths, where the water 
 falls on the person, as well as baths of a different kind ; and he is as truly 
 said to bathe when the water is poured upon him, as when he gets into 
 it. The Hebrew word, however, as I have before stated, is rahats, 
 which means simply to wash, without regard to mode. The unclean per- 
 son, therefore, when directed to wash, w T ould never imagine, that any 
 particular mode was prescribed — that he was required to plunge himself 
 into water. 
 
 The gentleman says, we have in the law, dipping, pouring and sprink- 
 ling ; and so in the Gospel we have immersion, pouring out of the Spirit, 
 and sprinkling of the blood of Christ. But the truth is, there is not one 
 personal immersion required in the law of Moses. There are many 
 sprinklings commanded, but not one important immersion. If there is, 
 let it be produced. So in the Gospel we have sprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ, pouring out of the Spirit, and pouring or sprinkling of water in 
 the ordinance of baptism ! 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, seems to be considerably annoyed by my quota- 
 tions from learned authors; and he would have the audience believe, that 
 I ascribe to them more learning than they possessed. I am not aware, 
 that I have given any one of them a higher place than public sentiment 
 has assigned him. If I have, let it be shown. I do not know whether 
 we should be much wiser by having a book written, as he suggests, on 
 the subject of quoting authors ; unless the writer could put us on a plan 
 of weighing their talents and learning. When an author is appealed to in 
 proof of a fact, doubtless fairness requires, that his whole testimony on 
 that point be stated. Mr. C. gave us a part only, of the testimony of his 
 " American apostle" — Stuart, in regard to the meaning of bapto and bap- 
 tizo, thus evidently doing his author injustice. I quoted Mr. Carson to 
 establish a fact, viz : that there is no evidence to prove a different reading, 
 for which Dr. Gale and my friend contend, in Rev. xix. 13; but I did not 
 feel bound to adopt his opinion, that Origen did not understand the mean- 
 ing of bapto. 
 
 I have a word to say about the Jewish idiom of the Greek language. 
 The gentleman would persuade you, that in the meaning of Greek words 
 in classic authors and in the New Testament there is very little differ- 
 ence. I have quoted Dr. George Campbell, one of his favorite critics, 
 who says, that although a knowledge of the classic Greek may be of ser- 
 vice in interpreting the New Testament, it will very often entirely mis- 
 lead. I have quoted Ernesti, one of the most celebrated writers on inter- 
 pretation, who says, that in interpreting the language of a people, respect 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 167 
 
 must be had to their manners, customs, and religion ; that the New Tes- 
 tament is written in " Hebrew-Greek," not in classic Greek ; and that 
 in many instances it would make ridiculous nonsense to give words in 
 the New Testament their classic meaning. It is, indeed, a matter of 
 which any one can form a correct judgment. What would you think of 
 a man who should insist upon explaining the language of a Dutch settle- 
 ment, speaking the English quite imperfectly, by the dictionary of Walker 
 or Webster ? — especially when they used English words in relation to 
 things they had never amongst us been employed to denote ? 
 
 I prefer going to the Bible itself, and then to Greek christians who 
 knew in what sense baptizo was understood, when used in relation to re- 
 ligious rites. I have appealed to them, and have proved, that they used 
 it to express the pouring of water on an altar, the flowing of tears over 
 the face, the flowing of a martyr's blood over his body. Every one can 
 see, that in such examples there could be no immersion ; that the word 
 expresses the application of a fluid in small quantities, smaller than is 
 usually employed in baptizing by sprinkling. 
 
 It is worthy of special remark, that when immersion came to be gener- 
 ally practiced, the Greek christians, when they wished definitely to ex- 
 press that mode, used another word — kataduo. On this subject profes- 
 sor Stuart says — " Subsequent ages make the practice of the church still 
 plainer, if indeed this can be done. The Greek words kataduo and kat- 
 adusis were employed as expressive of baptizing and baptism; and these 
 words mean going down into the water, or immerging. So in the fol- 
 lowing examples: Chrysostom, Homil. xl. 1 Cor. 1, " To be baptized 
 and to submerge {kataduesthai,) then to emerge (ananeuein,) is a symbol 
 of descent to the grave, and of ascent from it." Basil De Spiritu. c. 15, 
 " By three immersions [en trial katadusesi) and by the like number of in- 
 vocations, the great mystery of baptism is completed." Damascenus Or- 
 thodox, Fides iv. 10, " Baptism is a type of the death of Christ; for by 
 three immersions (kataduseon) baptism signifies," &c. So the Apostoli- 
 cal Constitutions (probabty written in the fourth century) Lib. iii. ch. 17, 
 ♦'Immersion (katadusis) denotes dying with him (Christ:) emersion 
 (anadusis,) a resurrection with Christ." Photius (apud (Ecumenicum) 
 on Rom. vi. '« The three immersions and emersions (kataduseis kai ana- 
 duseis) of baptism signify death and resurrection." Quest, apud Athanas- 
 ium, Qu. 94, "To immerse (katadusai) a child three times in the bath 
 (or pool,) and to emerse him (anadusai :) this shows the death," &c. 
 Chrysostom in Cap. 3, Johannis, " We, as in a sepulchre, immersing 
 (kataduonton) our heads in the water, the old man is buried, and sinking 
 down (katadus kato) the whole is concealed at once ; then as we emerge, 
 the new man again rises," pp. 73, 74. Gregory Thaumaturgus, speak- 
 ing of Christ's baptism, represents him as saying to John, " kataduson 
 me tois Jordanou reithrois" — Plunge me in the river of Jordan. Cyril, 
 of Jerusalem, uses this language: "Plunge them (kaduete) down thrice 
 into the water, and raise them up again." See Gale's Reflec. on Wall, 
 v. 3, pp. 202, 203. 
 
 Now, if it be true, as Mr. C. contends, that baptizo is a specific term, 
 signifying definitely to immerse; why did the Greek fathers, when they 
 wished to express the idea of immersing, select kataduo instead of baptizo, 
 the word used in the Bible ? But suppose we take one of these passages 
 from the Greeks, and translate baptisma, immersion, as Mr. C. does. 
 Photius: "The three immersions and emersions of immersion {baptisma- 
 
168 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tos) signify," &c. ! How does this sound? The truth evidently is, that 
 baptisma denotes the ordinance, and kafadusis, the mode in which, at 
 that time, it was commonly administered. Hence the Greeks used bap- 
 tisma in relation to the ordinance, when administered by pouring or 
 sprinkling, as well as by dipping. 
 
 The Latins, like the Greeks, when immersion became prevalent, select- 
 ed other words, such as mergo, mergito, immergo, to express definitely 
 their mode of administering the ordinance. Cyprian, as I have proved, 
 presiding over a council of sixty-six bishops, expressed the decided belief 
 that baptism administered by sprinkling is valid, and, in proof of it, quo- 
 ted Ezekiel xxxvi. 25: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," 
 &c. The Latins certainly had the very best opportunity of understanding 
 the meaning of baptizo, as it was used among the Greeks; for the Greek 
 was then a living language. Yet with them baptizo denoted the ordi- 
 nance, and tingo, mergo, mergito, &c, the mode of administering it, by 
 immersion. If, as Mr. C. has said, baptizo was universally understood 
 by the Latins to mean immerse, why did they, when they would defi- 
 nitely express immersion, select some other word? The truth doubtless 
 is, that both Greeks and Latins understood the word to express washing, 
 cleansing, whether by pouring, sprinkling or immersing. They, there- 
 fore, with great unanimity, recognized the validity of baptism administered 
 in either of these modes. This is the more remarkable, inasmuch as 
 their prejudices at the period referred to, were generally in favor of trine 
 immersion. 
 
 But I am getting so far before the gentleman in the argument, that I 
 ought perhaps to wait for him ! And yet he is one speech ahead of me ! 
 
 I will, however, proceed to state that the places where baptism was 
 administered, do not prove immersion to have been practiced by the apos- 
 tles. John baptized in or about Jordan, and in Enon, near Salim, " because 
 there was much water there." But it cannot be proved that John was 
 literally in the water of Jordan. We read in one place that he baptized 
 in (en) Jordan; and in John i. 28, it is said—" These things were done 
 in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." Bethabara 
 was probably a small village near the Jordan. How, then, could John 
 baptize literally in Jordan and in Bethabara beyond Jordan ? The prepo- 
 sition en, I presume, here, as in many other places, signifies near to. 
 Thus both passages are reconciled. Dr. Geo. Campbell himself, though 
 so decidedly favorable to immersion, admits, that but little stress can be 
 laid on this preposition, inasmuch as it is used with the same latitude of 
 meaning as the Hebrew baith, which signifies at as well as in. Mr. 
 Carson does not think John was literally in Jordan ; though he supposes 
 that he put the people in. 
 
 I presume the gentleman will not urge an argument from the expres- 
 sion concerning our Savior, that after his baptism "he went up straight- 
 way out of the water." He will scarcely deny that the common mean- 
 ing of apo, the preposition used in the passage, is simply from, not out 
 of. Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as going to (epi) Jordan to be baptized. 
 
 But from the fact that John went where there was much water, and 
 baptized, our immersionist friends infer that he baptized by immersion. 
 But is there any certainty that this inference is correct? The multitudes 
 who resorted to John often remained together for several days. They 
 were Jews, and they could not have been prevailed on to remain where 
 they could not attend to their ablutions. They would not even eat with- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 169 
 
 out wasning; and if, as some immersionists corrtend, they were in the 
 habit of immersing themselves before eating, there must have been a 
 great many immersions daily, besides such as John might perform ! It 
 is, however, certain that they wanted water for the religious washings of 
 their law, and for ordinary purposes ; but can it be proved that John 
 wanted " much water " for the purpose of baptizing? If my friend, Mr. 
 C, will prove it, he will have gained his point ; if he cannot, his argu- 
 ment, so far as this source of evidence is concerned, must be abandoned. 
 It will not do to make such an ordinance depend upon vague inferences. 
 
 I have several facts to state, which, I think, will satisfy every unpreju- 
 diced mind, that the apostles baptized by pouring or sprinkling. I do 
 not design, however, to enter just now upon the argument in proof of 
 this mode. I can promise the audience that it will be brief. I design 
 giving you a plain argument in English. It requires no labored criticism 
 to sustain our practice. Thus far I have not attempted an argument di- 
 rectly in favor of pouring and sprinkling. I have been removing the rub- 
 bish out of the way. In the mean time, I hope my worthy friend will 
 endeavor to extricate himself from the brush, and get, at least, into my 
 neighborhood. 
 
 In regard to the history of the mode of baptism, I do not know that it 
 is necessary for me to add any thing more to what I have presented. I 
 will, however, state an important fact which cannot be disproved, viz. — 
 No one can find any account of the practice of immersion before the 
 third century °, and then we find trine immersion, accompanied with 
 various superstitions and some indecencies — the divesting of the candi- 
 dates for baptism of their garments, the sign of the cross, the use of 
 honey, oil, spittle, &c. And I pledge myself to find pouring or sprink- 
 ling practiced and admitted to be valid baptism as early, and even earlier, 
 than immersion can be found. The history of the mode is against the 
 exclusive claims of immersion. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 17 — 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's eleventh address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Neither yourself nor this attentive audience can 
 complain of the want of variety and digression in our discussion. My 
 friend sows broadcast, and with a liberal hand, and gives you disserta- 
 tions numerous and diversified. You have been treated to a part of the 
 Pedo-baptist natural history of prepositions. The celebrated eis, and his 
 comrades en, ek, apo, kata, and old deuo, &c. have run the gauntlet, and 
 paid the usual compliments to baptizo. But in the history of this ven- 
 erable family, my friend has been rather precipitate. He has brought 
 them before us before we had time to pay them a respectful attention. 
 But he is pleased with the license given him, and is determined, if possi- 
 ble, to lead, rather than to follow us. He has ceased to be respondent, and 
 assumed the affirmant. Touching Baptists, Anabaptists, and their trans- 
 lations, what have they to do with this discussion ? The Baptists have a 
 new translation, but it is not the Baptist Bible. The gentleman, I think, 
 has no occasion, then, to speak of them. 
 
 Dr. Owen, it seems, has said that baptizo and nipto are used synony- 
 mously. Neither Dr. Owen nor any other man can prove it. On yes- 
 terday I said something on the subject ; and I will now say, that, in the 
 Greek scriptures we find nipto thirty-four times ; pluno seventeen times ; 
 louo thirty-five times. I also asserted then, that though nipto was so 
 
170 DEBATE ON CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 often found, it was, when applied to persons, universally confined to the 
 washing of face, hands, and feet ; and never to the whole person, nor to 
 apparel. Louo is applied to the whole body, and to certain parts of the 
 body ; but never to the cleansing of garments, nor as interchangeable 
 with nipto. And pluno is never applied to the washing of the person at 
 all, but always to garments. What stronger evidence, ask we, of the 
 precision of the Greek tongue than this fact? The Greeks never con- 
 founded these terms. Their minds seem to have been cast in moulds of 
 precision. I, in common with many others, have been astonished at this 
 singular precision in the use of words connected with the use of water. 
 Even though frequently occurring in the same verses, these terms are 
 never confounded. 
 
 As to kata duo, and its whole family, I can, in a few words, give its 
 history. There is an old fashioned Greek verb found, I believe, in 
 Hesiod, Homer, and other still more modern writers. It is dupto, from 
 which, in the old English style of changing u into y, we have the word 
 dyp. Again, in the Anglo-Saxon style of transmutation dyp is changed 
 into dyph, and that again into dive. Now of this whole family duo is 
 the remote ancestor, and consequently without the kata, itself signifies to 
 dip or dive. The kata duo, and the anaduo, and the katadusis and ana- 
 dusis, are merely special forms from the same common fountain. It is 
 highly improper to perplex the uneducated part of the community with 
 the learned sophistry which would make these words separately equiva- 
 lent to baptisma, because sometimes used, not in the New Testament, 
 but in the fathers, as a substitute for it. The practice of the third cen- 
 tury has nothing at all to do with the New Testament style. 
 
 Dr. Beecher, of Illinois, has dealt largely in this species of sophistry, 
 in his essays on baptism for purification. He has writtten a book which 
 virtually goes to prove that words representing the same thing are iden- 
 tically synonymous. I have heard that professor Stuart of Andover has 
 said of it, that he never saw a more learned and splendid essay founded 
 on a more gratuitous assumption. 
 
 Mr. Rice says that there never was an instance of personal immersion 
 required under the law of Moses. Well, what of it, if it were so ? But 
 the gentleman must have observed, that so perfectly associated with louo 
 was the idea of bathing and of immersion too; and that all leprous per- 
 sons were enjoined to be immersed, or to immerse themselves, that when 
 the Assyrian leper was commanded by the prophet to go and wash, or 
 bathe {louo is the word) in Jordan ; he having learned how leprous per- 
 sons were to be cleansed from the leprosy, according to Jewish custom, 
 as indicated in the word louo, went and dipped himself seven times in 
 the Jordan. I ask on what principle of abstract reasoning could he have 
 come to the conclusion to immerse himself in the Jordan seven times by 
 the word louo, if he had not understood that to be its Jewish acceptation? 
 This is, in my judgment, an unanswerable argument, that by the word 
 louo the Jews were accustomed to immerse themselves by the received 
 sense of the term, and hence personal immersion was commanded in the 
 law. 
 
 I shall now proceed with my authorities under my fifth argument: and, 
 in the first place, we shall listen to Dr. Campbell affirming both the clas- 
 sic and the Jewish acceptation of this term — baptizo ; than whom, we 
 have no higher Presbyterian authority. 
 
 " The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and classical, signifies to dip, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 17! 
 
 to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the 
 Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immer- 
 sion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is, ea hu- 
 dati, en to Jordane. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition 
 en, which, answering to the Hebrew beth, may denote with as well as in, 
 did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evinc- 
 ing the same thing. Accordingly, the baptized are said ana bainein — to 
 arise, emerge, or ascend; Matt. iii. 16, apo ton udatos ; and Acts viii. 39, ek 
 ton udatos, from or out of the water. Let it be observed further, that the 
 verbs raino and rantizo, used in Scripture for sprinkling, are never construed 
 in this manner. I will sprinkle you with clean water, is, in the Septuagint, 
 Raino cph umas katharon hudor ; and not as baptizo is always rendered, 
 Raino umas en katharo udati. See also Eze. xxvi. 21 ; Lev. vi. 27 — xvi. 
 14. Had baptizo here been employed in the sense of raino, I sprinkle, 
 (which, as far as I know, it never is, in any case, sacred or classical,) the 
 expression would doubtless have been, Ego baptizo eph umas udor, or apo 
 tou udatou, agreeably to the examples referred to. When, therefore, the 
 Greek word baptizo is adopted, I may say, rather than translated, into 
 modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as 
 may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we 
 have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judg- 
 ments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they 
 prefer. The true partisan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to 
 correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party." — Campbell's Disser- 
 tations, vol. iv. p. 128, and p. 24. 
 
 The great Selden has said — 
 
 " In England, of late years, I ever thought the parson baptized his own 
 fingers rather than the child. — Works, vol. vi., Col. 2008. 
 
 Before submitting my next argument on this proposition, I beg leave to 
 introduce the special testimony of one of America's most eminent classic 
 scholars. I believe I only accord with enlightened public opinion, when 
 I introduce professor Charles Anthon, of Columbia College, New York, 
 as one of the most distinguished Greek scholars in the Union. His long 
 devotion to the study and teaching of this language, is not the only reason 
 of this superiority. His laborious researches in ancient literature, his 
 critical collation of copies, various readings, marginal notes, general criti- 
 cisms, as editor of so many of the classics already in our colleges, and 
 his excellent classical dictionary, have obtained for him this high repu- 
 tation. 
 
 Professor Charles Anthon being addressed by Dr. Parmly, of New 
 York, on the subject of this proposition, last spring, he favored him with 
 the following answer. I shall quote the correspondence, that the subject 
 may come fairly before the reader. 
 
 " JVb. 1, Bond Street, JV. Y., March 23, 1843. 
 Professor Charles Anthon, 
 
 In conversation with Dr. Spring, last evening, he stated that, in the orig- 
 inal, the word baptism, which we rind in the New Testament, has no defi- 
 nite or distinct meaning ; that it means to immerse, sprinkle, pour, and has 
 a variety of other meanings — as much the one as the other, and that every 
 scholar knows it ; that it was the only word that could have been selected 
 by our Savior, having such a variety, as to suit every one's views and pur- 
 poses. May I ask you, if your knowledge of the language, from which the 
 word was taken, has led you to the same conclusion 1 And may I beg of 
 you to let the deep interest I take in the subject plead my apology. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect, most respectfully yours, 
 
 E. PARMLY." 
 
172 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 " Columbia College, March 27, 1843. 
 Dr. Parmly, 
 
 My Dear Sir — There is no authority, whatever, for the singular remark, 
 made by the Rev. Dr. Spring, relative to the force of baptizo. The prima- 
 ry meaning of the word is to dip, or immerse ; and its secondary meaning, 
 if ever it had any, all refer, in some way or other, to the same leading idea. 
 Sprinkling, &c, are entirely out of the question. I have delayed answer- 
 ing your letter in the hope that you would call and favor me with a visit, 
 when we might talk the matter over at our leisure. I presume, however, 
 that what I have here written will answer your purpose. Yours, truly, 
 
 CHARLES ANTHON." 
 
 To these I could have added, from one and the same divinity school, 
 Philip Lemborch, John Le Clerc, Episcopius, Stephen Curcellaeus, who, 
 with Vossius, succeeded each other in the same professor's chair at Am- 
 sterdam, a Pedo-baptist school. For them all, and expressive of their 
 views, I shall quote the words of the first named of them, the famous 
 Lemborch, who filled that chair .from 1664 to 1712, a period of 48 years. 
 His words on baptisma are — " Baptism is that ceremony or rite, wherein 
 the faithful, by immersion into water, as by a sacred pledge, are assured 
 of the favor of God, remission of sins, and eternal life ; and by which 
 they engage themselves to an amendment of life and an obedience to the 
 divine commands." In another place he says, " Baptism consists in 
 washing, or rather in immersing the whole body into water, as was cus- 
 tomary in the primitive times." — Blish. p. 79. 
 
 With this mere specimen of Pedo-baptist authorities, I must conclude 
 my fifth argument, and proceed to my sixth. Before stating it, I desire 
 again to say, that our arguments are not multiplied because we suppose 
 any one of them is insufficient by itself. With me, it has almost passed 
 into a maxim, that one good sound logical argument is enough to sus- 
 tain any proposition in the universe ; inasmuch as all the mind in the 
 universe cannot annihilate one good argument. But although one good 
 argument is all-sufficient to prove any one proposition ; and although, in 
 various departments of his works and ways, the great Author of nature 
 has used but one argument ; yet, reasoning from the philosophy of the 
 human mind, I have thought it expedient, on the present occasion, to in- 
 troduce various arguments deduced from different sources and classes of 
 evidence ; rather, indeed, after all, as parts of one great argument, in 
 support of the apostolic and divine ordinance. Not, however, I repeat, 
 because of any supposed inadequacy in any one of them, but because we 
 have so many ways of reasoning — so many modes of thinking ; no two 
 minds reasoning alike in all respects, no two eyes seeing alike, no two 
 ears hearing alike, we have to approach the human understanding by 
 various avenues, one particular argument carrying conviction to one mind, 
 while another, and perhaps a weaker argument, carrying conviction to 
 another mind. 
 
 My plan on the proposition, it being merely a question of fact, is to 
 bring up my evidences in the character of witnesses, and to classify them 
 by some one general idea. Each individual is, in fact, a witness and an 
 argument in himself. I summon none but witnesses of high rank, of ac- 
 knowledged eminence ; and hence, not one of them has been challenged ; 
 not one of them can be. My witnesses are all renowned in some depart- 
 ment of society, either as lexicographers, classical teachers, critics, 
 historians, reformers, commentators, translators, or theologians, &c, &c 
 We shall, therefore, still call them up in classes. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 173 
 
 VI. My sixth argument shall consist of a few witnesses selected from 
 English lexicons and encyclopaedias. These, too, like the former, are of 
 the school opposed to us on the question. Not that I disparage my 
 Baptist friends, nor their men of renown. They, too, have some names 
 of renown ; their Gills, and Gales, and Booths, and Fullers, and Halls, 
 &c. We are, indeed, without many theological schools, and, till recently, 
 without many colleges and distinguished Rabbis. Yet still, the Baptists 
 in America, the land of free discussion, are much more numerous than 
 any learned denomination in it. Societies with a learned ministry, are 
 not, unless aided by a secular arm, greatly prolific. Hence the Baptists, 
 despite of the ignorance among their teachers, and it is by no means, in 
 numerous instances, inconsiderable ; despite of their want of theological 
 schools and colleges, and a well disciplined clerical corps of leaders, have, 
 to the great annoyance of their more learned, shrewd, and well marshaled 
 competitors in the field, spread, like the locusts of Egypt, through all 
 ranks of the community, and are likely not to leave one green thing in 
 the pastures of their better educated brethren. They spring up in the 
 country and in the city, and spread themselves over the whole face of the 
 earth, as though they rose by magic. The reason is, they have a plain 
 story to tell, and a plain book from which they read it ; and it strikes 
 the ear with a mighty force, as if it came from heaven. It has, more- 
 over, a powerful ally, called common sense ; which, although not always 
 eloquently, yet always efficiently pleads for it, not only in the person of 
 the preacher, but in that of the hearer. Whenever they secure a read- 
 ing of the book, a candid examination of the evidences, without note or 
 comment, in nine cases out of ten, the work is done. 
 
 I shall place the learned and profound Richardson at the head of this class 
 of witnesses. He defines the word "to dip or merge frequently, to sink, 
 to plunge, to immerge." He concludes a long list of quotations in sup- 
 port of his definition from ancient English literature, with a few lines from 
 Cowper — 
 
 Philosophy baptized 
 
 In the pure fountain of eternal love, 
 
 Has eyes, indeed, and viewing- all she sees 
 
 As meant to indicate a God to man, 
 
 Gives him his praise and forfeits not her own. 
 
 Coioper's Task, book ii. 
 Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, says, " to baptize is to sprinkle, to 
 administer the sacrament of baptism to one. Baptism, an external 
 ablution of the body with a certain form of words. " He speaks 
 this as a member of the church of England; but where he speaks ex 
 cathedra, he is thus quoted by Bos well, as follows : 
 
 " Dr. Johnson argued in defence of some of the peculiar tenets of the 
 church of Rome. As to giving the bread only to the laity, he said, « they 
 may think that, in what is merely ritual, deviations from the primitive 
 mode may be admitted on the ground of convenience : and I think they 
 are as well warranted to make this alteration, as we are to substitute 
 sprinkling in the room of the ancient baptism.'' " 
 
 I wish you now to hear what the Monthly Reviews of England have 
 said on the baptism of Nebuchadnezzar, and on the baptism of the lake 
 in the Battle of the Frogs and Mice — a most ludicrous affair, both on the 
 part of the poet, and of the critics, who make the coloring of a wave with the 
 blood of a mouse, the sprinkling, or the pouring, or the immersion of a 
 lake ! ! 
 
 p2 
 
174 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 " We acknowledge there are many authorities to support it [immersion] 
 among- the ancients. The word baptize doth certainly signify immersion, 
 absolute and total immersion, in Joseph us and other Greek writers.' * * 
 * ' The examples produced, however, do not exactly serve the cause of 
 those who think that a few drops of water sprinkled on the forehead of a 
 child, constitute the essence of baptism. In the Septuagint it is said that 
 Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with the dew of heaven: and in a poem attri- 
 buted to Homer, called The Battle of the Frogs and Mice, it is said that a 
 certain lake was baptized with the blood of a wounded combatant — [Ebapteto 
 d aimati limne porpureo.) A question has arisen, in what sense the word 
 baptize can be used in this passage. Doth it signfy immersion, properly 
 so called 1 Certainly not : neither can it signify a partial sprinkling. A 
 body wholly surrounded with a mist ; wholly made humid with dew ; or a 
 piece of water so tinged with and discolored by blood, that if it had been a 
 solid body and dipped into it, it could not have received a more sanguine 
 appearance, is a very different thing from that partial application which in 
 modern times is supposed sufficient to constitute full and explicit baptism. 
 The accommodation of the word baptism to the instances we have referred 
 to, is not unnatural, though highly metaphorical ; and may be resolved into 
 a trope or figure of speech, in which, though the primary idea is maintained, 
 yet the mode of expression is altered, and the word itself is to be understood 
 rather allusively than really ; rather relatively than absolutely. If a body 
 had been baptized or immersed, it could not have been more wet than Ne- 
 buchadnezzar's ; if a lake had been dipped in blood, it could not have put on 
 a more bloody appearance. 
 
 " Hitherto the Antipedobaptists [or Baptists] seem to have had the best 
 of the argument on the mode of administering the ordinance. The most 
 explicit authorities are on their side. Their opponents have chiefly availed 
 themselves of inference, analogy, and doubtful construction. " 
 
 It is due to our opponents, that when we quote their special pleaders, 
 we ought to give their testimony on both sides. 
 
 Chambers' Cyclopedia, or Dictionary of Arts and Sciences : London, 1786. 
 "Baptism, in Theology; formed from the Greek baptizo , of bapto — I dip 
 or plunge, a rite or ceremony by which persons are initiated into the pro- 
 fession 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 the words, ' I 
 baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ' — 
 importing that by this ceremony the person baptized is received among the 
 professors of that religion, which God, the Father of all, revealed to man- 
 kind by the ministry of his Son, and confirmed by the miracles of his Spirit. 
 A triple immersion was first used, and continued for a long time : this was 
 to signify either the three days that our Saviour lay in the grave, or the 
 three persons in the Trinity. But it was afterwards laid aside, because 
 the Arians used it : it was thought proper to plunge but once. Some are of 
 opinion, that sprinkling in baptism was begun in cold countries. It was 
 introduced into England about the beginning of the ninth century. At the 
 council of Celchyth, in 816, it was ordered that the priest should not only 
 sprinkle the holy water upon the head of the infant, but likewise plunge it 
 in the bason. There are abundance of ceremonies delivered by ecclesiasti- 
 cal writers, as used in baptism, which are now disused ; as the giving milk 
 and honey to the baptized, in the east ; wine and milk in the west, &c. 
 
 " The opinion of the necessity of baptism in order to salvation, is grounded 
 on these two sayings of our Savior : ' He that believeth and is baptized, 
 shall be saved ; ' and, ' Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" — [Time expired. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 175 
 
 Friday, Nov.. 17— H o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's eleventh reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — -The gentleman says, he would have said nothing 
 about the Baptist translation, if I had not called it the Baptist Bible. I 
 certainly did not intimate, that is was sanctioned by the Baptists as a 
 denomination. There was, therefore, no necessity that he should defend 
 them. 
 
 The word nipto, he tells us, signifies the washing of the hands, and 
 therefore it cannot be synonymous with baptizo, in Mark vii. 3, 4, as 
 Dr. Owen supposed. But certainly the gentleman himself agrees with 
 Owen on this point ; for his own translation makes baptizo denote the 
 washing of the hands. It is as follows : — " For the Pharisees, and 
 indeed all the Jews who observe the tradition of the elders, eat not until 
 they have washed their hands by pouring a little water upon them ; and 
 if they be come from the market, by dipping them," (baptizontai.) 
 According to his own translation, nipto denotes the washing of the 
 hands ; and baptizo means the same thing, only in a particular mode. If, 
 then, baptizing the hands is baptizing the person, surely baptizing the 
 face would be at least equally so. 
 
 I am not able to understand what Dr. Beecher's sophistry has to do 
 with our discussion. His work on baptism, the gentleman considers very 
 sophistical. Having never seen it, I cannot say whether it is so or not ; 
 but I heard an immersionist of high standing pronounce it unanswerable ! 
 I presume he did not consider it very sophistical. I do not know whether 
 professor Stuart ever spoke of it slightingly, as Mr. C. has heard he did ; 
 but from my knowledge of the character of that gentleman, I am induced, 
 very seriously, to doubt whether he used such language concerning Dr. 
 Beecher. It is far better, I think, not to introduce these flying reports 
 into such a discussion. They are absolutely worthless. 
 
 I have asserted that not a single personal immersion was required in 
 the law of Moses. The gentleman is disposed to dispute the correctness 
 of the statement. He tells us, the leper was required to be immersed; 
 that the idea of dipping was so fixed in the minds of the Jews, that the 
 Hebrew words rahatz and the Greek louo readily suggested it. But this 
 is an assertion that cannot be proved. Where is the evidence? There is 
 absolutely none. He asks, how came Naaman so to understand the com- 
 mand to wash? Let him first prove that he did so understand it, and his 
 question will be proper. I suppose he did not understand the prophet to 
 command him to immerse himself; and, in this opinion, I am sustained 
 by Jerom, the translator of the Vulgate. He, with all his prejudice in 
 favor of trine immersion, translated baptizo, in this instance, by lavo, a 
 generic term, signifying to wash. I repeat the declaration — there is not 
 in the law of Moses a personal immersion required. If there is, let it be 
 produced. 
 
 The gentleman appeals to the authority of Dr. Geo. Campbell. Dr. 
 Campbell, though a Presbyterian, was decidedly favorable to immersion; 
 yet he did not believe, with my friend, that immersion is the one only 
 apostolic or christian baptism. He was undoubtedly a man of considerable 
 learning ; but I am more than doubtful whether, as a critic and translator, 
 he ought to be placed in the first rank. I think, a careful examination of 
 his translation will prove, that he falls far short of that accuracy and that 
 simplicity of style, which should characterize a translator. An instance 
 of his want of simplicity of style just now occurs to me. He thus 
 
176 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 translates Matth v. 1 — " Jesus, seeing so great a confluence, repaired to 
 a mountain," &c. The word "confluence" is sometimes used to sig- 
 nify a multitude of people ; but certainly this is not its most common 
 meaning. How much more simple as well as literal is our common ver- 
 sion — " Jesus, seeing the multitudes," (tous ochlous,) &c. But this 
 by the way. 
 
 Dr. Campbell, like other men, was somewhat under the influence of 
 his feelings ; and it is, to my mind, evident that his partiality for immer- 
 sion induced him sometimes to speak unguardedly. For example, he 
 states it as a fact, that the Syriac version, in translating Matth. iii. It, 
 uses the word in, not with — " I baptize you in water." Now any one 
 who will carefully examine the passage as it is found in the Syriac Testa- 
 ment, will see that he was in an error. The preposition used is batik, 
 which, like the Hebrew baith, is very frequently employed in the sense 
 of with. This preposition is used in Rev. xix. 13, where the sense re- 
 quires it to be translated with — " He was clothed with a vesture sprinkled 
 with (baith) blood." The passage in Matth. iii. 11, is thus translated 
 from the Syriac into Latin by Schaaf and Leusden, whose edition I have 
 ■ — "Ego baptizo vos aqua [not in aqua] ad conversionem — ipse baptiz- 
 abit vos Spiritu sancto et igne " — I baptize you with water to conver- 
 sion — He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. 
 
 I will oppose to the authority of Luther, who admitted that the orig- 
 inal or etymological meaning of baptizo is to immerse, the testimo- 
 ny of Ernesti, one of the ablest writers on interpretation, who pro- 
 nounces etymology an uncertain and an unsafe guide in ascertaining 
 the meaning of words. To the authority of Tertullian, who is mentioned 
 as having translated the word by tingo, I will oppose that of Cyprian and 
 the sixty-six bishops, who used it in the sense of pouring and sprinkling. 
 
 Dr. 'Antrum, I presume, is a classical scholar; but I have abundantly 
 proved, that an acquaintance with classic Greek will not qualify a man 
 to expound the language of the New Testament, which is written in 
 " Hebrew Greek," The classic usage, as Ernesti, and Dr. Campbell, and 
 Prof. Stuart affirm, will, if followed, in many cases entirely mislead the 
 interpreter of the New Testament. I would attach very little importance, 
 therefore, to the opinion of a classical scholar concerning an important 
 word in the New Testament, unless I knew he had studied the idiom of 
 the Greek spoken by the Jews and inspired writers. Dr. Anthon, says 
 my friend, decided that Dr. Spring was in error concerning this word. 
 But I venture to say, that Dr. Spring is quite as well known as a scholar, 
 as the gentleman who sat in judgment upon him. Dr. Spring is one of 
 the first men in our country ; and it will not do to attempt to put down 
 the views he may have expressed, merely by the ipse dixit of Dr. An- 
 thon. Dr. Clark will, perhaps, be admitted to have been equal as a classi- 
 cal scholar, at least so far as languages are concerned, to Dr. Anthon ; 
 and he says, it is certain that baptizo means both to dip and to sprinkle. 
 Perhaps Dr. Dwight will be admitted to have been superior in Biblical 
 criticism to Dr. Anthcn ; and he, after a thorough examination of the sub- 
 ject, came fully to the conclusion, that in the Scriptures baptizo does not 
 at all mean to immerse. Dr. Scott, the learned commentator, was of a 
 similar opinion. I will put the authority of such men as these against that 
 of Anthon, and of Bloomfleld, (who is admitted to be a learned man,) if 
 indeed his opinion has been correct^ represented by my friend, Mr. 
 Campbell. To what extent the Edinburgh Reviewers made themselves 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 177 
 
 •acquainted with this subject, before expressing the opinion quoted by the 
 gentleman, I know not. They thought, it seems, that Mr. Carson had put 
 himself to needless trouble in maintaining his position. Mr. Carson, of 
 course, thought differently; and probably he was the better judge in the 
 case. 
 
 But really, this species of argument is worth very little. My friend 
 has told us, that one good argument is sufficient to establish a point. He 
 seems, however, thus far to have failed to produce even one. The lexi- 
 cons have failed him ; the classics cannot prove the action he seeks to 
 find in baptizo ; the translations will not sustain him ; and his learned 
 authorities have been met by names equally learned, if not more so. 
 Where, then, is the evidence, proving that immersion is the only apostolic 
 or christian baptism ? 
 
 The opinion of Calvin, on any subject, I will admit is of more weight 
 by far, than mine or that of my friend. But when he himself says, 
 that in regard to any particular subject he is wholly indifferent; I cannot 
 attach much importance to his. opinion about it, unless I learn from him, 
 that he has examined its merits. For we all know, that men are not ac- 
 customed extensively to investigate subjects that do not interest them. 
 
 But the gentleman boasts of the number of immersionists in the United 
 States, and of the rapid increase of his own church. I noticed in his 
 Harbinger, some time since, an article in which he spoke of the rapid in- 
 crease of Presbyterians and Old Baptists during the year preceding ; and 
 I remember, he consoled himself by saying, that error very commonly 
 spreads faster than truth. When his own denomination goes ahead, it 
 affords cheering evidence, that his principles are true ; but when others 
 increase, he says, Ah, error will outrun truth any how. [A laugh.] But 
 let us make a fair calculation. Count the Methodists, the Presb} T terians, 
 the Congregationalists, the Episcopalians, &c. — and we can out-number 
 immersionists three times over. The gentleman gains nothing by count- 
 ing numbers. 
 
 I have now noticed his remark, so far as necessary. He is yet " in the 
 portico." I hope he will ere long venture into the good Book. In the 
 meantime, lest in the Bible argument I should get too far ahead of him, I 
 will turn your attention more particularly to the history of this subject. 
 
 I have said, and I will repeat it, that immersion cannot be found in the 
 history of the church earlier than the third century. The first writer 
 who mentions it, is Tertullian, who flourished in the beginning of the 
 third century; and he informs us, that the practice then was trine immer- 
 sion, accompanied with sign of the cross, the use of honey, oil, and the 
 indecent custom of entirely disrobing the persons, male and female ! 
 Will my friend take Tertullian as his witness ? If so, I hope he will 
 agree to take his whole testimony, not a small part of it. In courts of 
 justice, when a man calls in a witness, I believe he is obliged to take his 
 entire testimony — he cannot select just so much as may suit him. Will 
 the gentleman, then, agree to practice the trine immersion of Tertullian, 
 with the accompanying ceremonies ? No — he must cut off two immer- 
 sions, the sign of the cross, and divers other things then practiced. So 
 he will reject some three-fourths or four-fifths of the testimony of his own 
 witness. He cuts it down, till it suits him. Very well : let me have the 
 same privilege. Let me cut off a little more ; and it will suit me. And 
 in doing so, I only act upon the principle which he adopts — I follow his 
 example. 
 12 
 
178 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 The truth is — this witness proves too much for either of us. When 
 we first find immersion, we find it attended with much superstition* 
 The question arises — how much of the practice in the third century is 
 superstition; and how much is truth? My friend says, two immersions, 
 the disrobing, the use of honey, the sign of the cross. But may there not 
 be a little more superstition, than he admits ? Evidently the ordinance 
 was greatly corrupted ; and it is impossible to separate the pure from the 
 vile, except by going to the Bible itself. It is worthy of remark, that 
 Justin Martyr, the earliest writer on baptism, speaks of it as a washing 
 {loutron,) but not as an immersion. Tertullian, as I have said, is the first 
 who speaks of immersion. 
 
 But it is an important fact, that we find pouring and sprinkling prac- 
 ticed and universally admitted to be valid and scriptural, quite as early as 
 we find immersion. Cyprian, who lived early in the third century, and 
 the sixty-six bishops united with him in council, were unanimously of 
 that opinion. And it is worthy of special remark, that not a voice was 
 raised against their decision in favor of the validity and scripturality (if I 
 may coin a word) of baptism by sprinkling. So far as we can learn, 
 there was not a word of controversy on the subject, as certainly there 
 must have been, if it had been considered an innovation. Both Greeks 
 and Latins were united in regarding baptism by sprinkling or pouring as 
 valid and scriptural. 
 
 But I can find sprinkling rather earlier than this. Walker, an English 
 writer, who studied this subject with great care, in his book on baptism, 
 mentions the case of a man, some sixty or seventy years after the apos- 
 tles, who, whilst on a journey, was taken dangerously ill, professed Chris- 
 tianity, and desired baptism. As water could not be obtained, the place 
 being desert, he was sprinkled thrice with sand. He recovered ; and his 
 case being reported to the bishop, he decided that he was baptized " if 
 only water were poured (p erf under etur) on him." Here is an instance 
 of baptism by pouring, earlier than any account of immersion, so far as I 
 know, can be found. — See Pond. p. 45. 
 
 It has been asserted, that baptism by pouring and sprinkling was, at 
 the period of which we are speaking, deemed so doubtful as to its valid- 
 ity, that persons so baptized were not permitted to bear the ministerial 
 office. This, however, is not true. There was a rule, as we learn from 
 the council of Neoceserea, that persons who made profession of religion 
 on a sick bed, should not enter the ministry, unless they afterwards gave 
 decided evidence of piety. The difficulty arose, not from any doubt en- 
 tertained of the validity of their baptism, but from the doubtful character 
 <*f their piety. This will be proved, if disputed. The christians of that 
 day certainly gave the most unequivocal evidence of their entire confidence 
 in the scriptural character of such baptisms ; for although the prevailing 
 belief was, that persons dying unbaptized would go to perdition, they had 
 no scruples about baptizing the sick by pouring ; nor did they ever re- 
 baptize such as had received the ordinance in this manner. They, there- 
 fore, risked the salvation of the soul upon the validity of such baptisms. 
 Indeed it is certain, that many of the ancients entertained the belief, 
 that John baptized by pouring. The proof of this fact I have already 
 produced ; and it is scarcely necessary to repeat it. Aurelius Prudentius 
 (A. D. 390) represents him as pouring water on the persons in the river— 
 "perfundit ftuvio" Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the same time, 
 represents him as baptizing " infusis lymphis" — by pouring water. Ber- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 179 
 
 nard, speaking of the baptism of our Savior by John, says — " Infundit 
 aquam capiti Creatoris creatura" — the creature poured water on the head 
 of the Creator. Lactantius speaks of baptism performed "puriftci roris 
 perfusione" — by the distilling of the purifying dew. In the 5th century 
 it was very common in many places to baptize by pouring. 
 
 I might safely agree to decide this controversy by the testimony of the 
 early Greek and Latin fathers ; for, to a man, they believed that bap- 
 tism, by pouring or sprinkling, was true christian baptism. They furnish 
 us with concessions of immersionists that are worth something. They, 
 it will not be denied, understood the Greek language. They certainly 
 knew whether baptizo signified only to immerse. And it will not be 
 pretended, that they were prejudiced in favor of our mode. Our im- 
 mersionist friends love to claim them as genuine advocates of theirs. 
 Yet with all their knowledge of the Greek, and with all their strong par- 
 tialities for immersion, they did not know, they did not believe, that im- 
 mersion is the only apostolic or christian baptism. Here we have con- 
 cessions that will outweigh all the Pedo-baptist concessions that can be 
 produced. These concessions are fatal to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. 
 Campbell ; whilst the concessions of Pedo-baptists touch not the validity 
 and scriptural character of our baptism. 
 
 Whether, therefore, we regard the testimony of the lexicons, or the 
 usage of the classics, or the authority of the translations, or the usage of 
 the Jewish writings and of the Bible, or the opinions and practice of 
 the ancient churches, or all of these together; we stand on a firm foun- 
 dation. With one voice they testify, that baptizo does not mean simply 
 to immerse. With almost irresistible evidence they establish the validity 
 of our mode of baptism. 
 
 Let not the fact be forgotten, that when the Greeks would definitely 
 express immersion, they used kataduo ; and when the Latins spoke of 
 that mode of baptism, they used tingo, mergo, immergo, mergito. But 
 when they spoke simply of the ordinance, they all used baptizo. How 
 are we to account for this fact? How can it be explained, on the princi- 
 ples for which the gentleman is contending? 
 
 I will put the testimony of Origen, the learned Greek father, against the 
 opinion of Anthon and Johnson. Origen says, Elisha had the altar bap- 
 tized ; and the Bible tells us how that baptism was administered. The 
 water was poured upon it. The altar was not put down into the water. 
 None of your classical scholars can say that Origen did not understand 
 his vernacular tongue. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus, and Basil, understood the Greek, and they all used the word to 
 express the application of a fluid, even in small quantities, to a subject. 
 The testimony of such men, concerning a Greek word in the New Tes- 
 tament, is worth more than all the lexicons and classics, even if they 
 were against us. 
 
 I think it unnecessary to pursue the subject further to-day. I have it 
 precisely in the position in which I wish it. On to-morrow, if spared, I 
 will make an argument directly in favor of baptism by pouring or sprink- 
 ling. — [ Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18—10 o'clock, Jl. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's twelfth address.] 
 
 It is important, my fellow-citizens, that we always have before us the 
 precise point at issue, in every department of this debate. Various minor 
 points will come up in the discussion of any great question. But, how- 
 
180 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ever numerous these points may be, they should always be considered 
 with reference to the great point. Their relevancy, pertinency, and 
 power, should be regarded with special reference to it. 
 
 That great point now before us, is to ascertain, if we can, from the 
 Scriptures of truth, and from ancient learning, what is the precise precept 
 of Jesus Christ in the commission. As we said before, he doubtless in- 
 tended some one definite action to be performed. He had but one design, 
 one aim, and he gave one plain precept clearly indicative of it. What 
 that precept was, we cannot mistake ; for he said, " baptize." By this, 
 he certainly meant some one well-defined action ; not any action which 
 every one pleases, Is not this perfectly plain ? I care not what that one 
 action may be. It is acceptable to me because it is his will. Had he 
 said wash, or purify, without respect to any mode, I would be pleased 
 with any mode whatever, provided it were indeed washing or purifying 
 the whole person. But even then, it must be the whole person. His 
 will is always my pleasure. Were I to consult flesh and blood, I had 
 much rather be with than against Mr. Rice. His mode is certainly the 
 easier of the two, and we all love easy and comfortable services. It is 
 also the most convenient ; and there is no cross about it. And no one likes 
 to carry a cross if he can help it. It is also said to be more polite and 
 genteel, and that is a good argument. Flesh and blood, then — and they 
 are eloquent pleaders — are with him and against me. But when reason, 
 and conscience, and the love of the Savior mount the throne, we feel and 
 know that he has commanded some one action to be performed, and we 
 must understand it, if possible, and just do that action, and no other; for 
 nothing else will please him. This is the fact and the law, both in 
 heaven and earth. The reason is, his will is always wise and benevolent. 
 
 I have presented this subject in various forms, that it may be appre- 
 hended. When God speaks and legislates in human language, he uses 
 our words in their most precise, proper, and correct meaning at the time 
 in which he speaks ; and, therefore, in interpreting them, we have only 
 to bring them to the same tribunal and to the same code of laws to which 
 we appeal in any other case of the same time, country, language, &c. 
 We ask no special tribunal, no special laws in the case. The tribunal 
 to which we appeal, and the laws by which we would be tried, are uni- 
 versally admitted in all the commonwealth of learning and of law. 
 
 We have first appealed to the great law, defining the meaning of words, 
 as general and specific. 
 
 We have in the next place, opened the dictionaries of that language in 
 which the christian laws were written by inspired apostles. The whole 
 host of lexicographers depose that dip, immerse, or plunge, is the proper, 
 primitive and cnrrent meaning of baptize In this point there is no 
 discrepancy — all other uses and acceptations of this word are figurative 
 and rhetorical. 
 
 The gentleman [Mr. Rice,] has frequently told you what he has prov- 
 ed, and what he has refuted. I envy no man the talent, the peculiar fac- 
 ulty of strongly and repeatedly affirming his conviction, or imagination, 
 that he has proved, conclusively and irrefragably proved, himself right, 
 and his opponent wrong. He that, imagines that his bold, simple, unsup- 
 ported assertion will pass with the community for proof, " strong as holy 
 writ," conceives not of his audience as I do. nor as I wish to do. With 
 me, a man's saying that he has proved a proposition, and repeating it a 
 thousand times, passes for nothing. And thus I judge of my audience. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 181 
 
 They ask me not to judge for them — but they ask me for light, for evi- 
 dence, for proof. I give it to them, and then leave the forming of con- 
 clusions to themselves. I seek to treat them as I would wish them to 
 treat me. I ask no man to tell me what he has proved ; he may give me 
 his opinion on that subject, if he pleases, and I will then examine his 
 opinion. 
 
 The gentleman says, he has proved from lexicons — what? He has 
 nothing to prove ! He may find exceptions, or objections, but he has 
 nothing to prove — except that the authorities I offer are either not truly 
 alledged, or that they are irrelevant, or that they are defective. Has he 
 done so ? In what instance ? Has he proved that baptizo is not a spe- 
 cific word, or that it is generic? At one time he said that baptizo com- 
 prehended more than to wash ; and, at another time, that dipping, the 
 proper and first meaning of the word, is only a mode of washing — thus 
 making it generic or specific, as the case requires. Has he produced a 
 lexicon, of the eighteen centuries past, giving sprinkle or pour as the 
 proper, or as the figurative meaning of baptizo? How often must I 
 contradict and repel such an assumption? How, then, has he sustained 
 the practice of his church ? Let him adduce any modern dictionary, 
 English, French, Spanish, German, <fec, thus expounding the Greek 
 words, bapto or baptizo. 
 
 And the translations are all with him too ! And why not add all the 
 world also ! He has not produced a version of the Bible of his own 
 church, or of ours, ancient or modern, in any language, that ever did 
 translate baptizo, in one single instance, by any word that justifies the 
 practice of his church. What, in the ear of reason and of truth, are 
 assertions worth, not only unsustained by a single fact, but opposed by 
 thousands? Have I not shown that they are with me? That so far as 
 any of them has introduced any word for baptism, it has sometimes, nay 
 often, substituted immerse, or its equivalent ; and never, on any occasion, 
 a word that sustains the Presbyterian practice ? His proofs, such as they 
 are, are all exparte. Suppose I were to quote Baptist authorities, (and 
 many of them are as authoritative, rational, and veritable, as any in the 
 world,) what would he have then asserted ! Yes, if he thus asserts now, 
 when I give him all my proofs out of the Pedo-baptist church, what 
 would he say if I had done as he has done — quote all my authorities 
 from those with me ? 
 
 Let him adduce any Baptist dictionary, commentator, annotator, or 
 critic, that has ever conceded to him sprinkling, or pouring, or wetting, 
 as thousands of his party have done, and been constrained to do to us, in 
 the case of immersion! 
 
 He says he can bring book for book, name for name, dictionary for 
 dictionary, ad infinitum ! Then they are like some twenty authorities 
 which he has quoted, in anticipation of me, marked out by me as evi- 
 dences — not one of them asserting his practice; all of them, either di- 
 rectly or indirectly, vindicating mine. Thus he gets before me in time, 
 and place, and books, if not in argument. But does any one of these 
 books, or authorities, say for him what he teaches and practices? Not 
 one. If such methods of argument, assertion, and proof, will pass for 
 evidence with this community, I must say, I have greatly mistaken its 
 character. 
 
 I did not expect, nor intend, to bring the discussion of this proposition 
 to a close to-day. I am compelled, however, to gallop through it in the 
 
 Q 
 
182 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 best way I can. We are, indeed, to have a night session of three hours, 
 in order to make out the time agreed upon : for, were we to close at two 
 o'clock, we should then have had but sixteen hours, instead of eighteen, 
 on this proposition. I did, indeed, expect that, by intrenching somewhat 
 on the time allotted other propositions, of less comprehensive proof, I 
 would have been allowed to go through this question more deliberately 
 and fully. In hasting over such a field, I shall frequently be obliged 
 merely to state some principles, and topics, from which I would have 
 argued at much greater length. 
 
 My friend, Mr. R., in his concluding remarks on yesterday, spoke of some 
 peculiar license afforded him from Ernesti. That distinguished writer on 
 hermeneatics, has given him no such license as that for which he pleads. 
 Ernesti, Horn, Stuart, and all that school, with which I profess to be 
 tolerably well acquainted, affirm that we are never to depart from the 
 common and well established meaning of words, without a clear and well 
 established necessity. They try the meaning of words by contemporary 
 writers, by the currency of usage, country, people. Had we the space 
 of a long summer's day to discuss these principles of interpretation, I 
 would demonstrate that I am pursuing the course commended by Morus, 
 Ernesti, Horn, Stuart, and all of them. Mr. R. has no authority for 
 claiming for baptizo a special court, a special code, or in any way to ex- 
 empt it from the common rules of interpretation. It is not a word of 
 idiom, as I have frequently observed. To dip, to sprinkle, to pour, like 
 other outward, physical, and well defined actions, are not effected by any 
 national peculiarity. Men performed these actions in all ages, languages, 
 and countries, in the same manner. Ernesti has given him no law any 
 more than Gregory X. to interpret the word in dispute, in any shade of 
 sense differing from Josephus, the Septuagint, or the Greek classics. They 
 all perfectly agree on the subject. He must not get a dispensation or a 
 bull for trying baptizo, as a heretic is tried. Let him show reasons why 
 he would plead for a special law in the case. When such reasons are 
 offered, and not till then, they shall be examined. We need no special 
 pleading, and we cannot allow it in so plain a case. 
 
 Before proceeding to my next argument, there yet remain two other 
 documents to be heard from in conclusion of my sixth argument. There 
 is a short extract from Calmet, and a still shorter one from the Edin- 
 burgh Encyclopedia. 
 
 Taylor's Calmet. " Baptism is taken in Scripture for sufferings,' Can ye 
 drink of the cup that I drink of, and be baptized with the baptism which 1 
 am baptized with } ' Mark x. 38. And Luke xii. 50, ' I have a baptism to 
 be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished]' We 
 find traces of similar phraseology in the Old Testament, (Ps. lxix. 2, 3.) 
 where waters often denote tribulations ; and where, to be swallowed up by 
 the waters, to pass through great waters, &c, signifies to be overwhelmed 
 by misfortunes. 
 
 " There is a very sudden turn of metaphor used by the apostle Paul, in 
 Rom. vi. 3-5, ' Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ were baptized into his death? therefore we are buried with him by bap- 
 tism into his death — that we should walk in newness of life. For if we have 
 been planted together [with him] in the likeness of his death, we shall be also 
 planted in the likeness of his resurrection.' .^Now what has baptism to do 
 with planting ? Wherein consists their similarity, so as to justify the 
 resemblance here implied?- In 1 Peter iii. 21, we find the apostle speak- 
 ing of baptism, figuratively, as 'saving us ; ' and alluding to Noah, who 
 long lay buried in the ark, as corn long lies buried in the earth. Now, as 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 183 
 
 after having 1 died to his former course of life in being baptized, a convert 
 was considered as rising to a renewed life, so after having been separated 
 from his former connections, his seed-bed as it were, after having died in 
 being planted, he was considered as rising to renewed life also." 
 
 Edinburgh Ency. — " In the time of the apostles the form of baptism was 
 very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, 
 with the words which Christ had ordered, and to express more fully his 
 change of character, generally assumed a new name. The immersion of 
 the whole body was omitted only in the case of the sick, who could not leave 
 their beds. In this case sprinkling was substituted, which was called clinic 
 baptism. The Greek church, as well as the schimatics in the east, retained 
 the custom of immersing the whole body ; but the Western church adopted, 
 in the thirteenth century, the mode of baptism by sprinkling, which "has 
 been continued by the Protestants, Baptists only excepted." 
 
 I am sorry to dip into the Greek again ; and, therefore, for the sake of 
 condensing, I prefer to read my seventh argument and its developments 
 as derived from the words used in construction with baptizo, as I have 
 sketched it in my book on baptism. I will pass over it as rapidly as 
 possible. 
 
 VII. Our seventh argument, in development and confirmation of the 
 true meaning of baptizo, is derived from the words used in construction 
 with it, as contra-distinguished from all its rivals, raino, cheo, louo ; and 
 the prepositions epi, en, eis, ek, apo, used in construction with them. 
 
 We shall commence with epi, the word essential to the use of raino, 
 rantizo, and that family, For the reasons already given we are obliged, 
 in positive laws and precepts, to take all the words in their primitive, 
 proper, or common, and not in their figurative and peculiar significations. 
 Epi frequently signifies on or upon ; en, generally in ; eis, into ; eh, of, 
 out of, or from ; and apo, from. But we have a shorter and more satis- 
 factory way of ascertaining the use and import of these prepositions, 
 than the more common method of comparing all the occurrences. We 
 take them and their principals together. For, in this way, there is less 
 room for false and inconclusive reasoning, and the most illiterate may 
 thus comprehend them. We shall illustrate this by taking raino and its 
 compounds, perir, raino and epi together, and bapto and baptizo, with en 
 and eis, as they are found in common usage. I assert, then, that for some 
 reason raino and epi agree together ; baptizo and en also agree to- 
 gether. But raino and en, or baptizo and epi, so perfectly disagree, as 
 never to be found construed in amity in any Greek author, sacred or 
 profane. 
 
 1. Peri-raino epi ton katharisthenta — sprinkle the blood upon him 
 to be cleansed, Lev. xiv. 7 ; 2. Perir-ranei epi teen oikian — sprinkle 
 upon the house, Lev. xiv. 51 ; 3. Ranei epi hilasterion — he shall sprinkle 
 it upon the mercy-seat, Lev. xvi. 14. This phrase occurs a second time 
 in the same verse — Peri-ranei epi ton oikon — he shall sprinkle it upon 
 the house ; epitaskeua; epi tas psuchas, upon the persons. The same 
 idiom is here found three times in one verse, Num. xix. 18; again, in 
 the 19th verse, Perir-ranei epi ton akatharton — he shall sprinkle it upon 
 the unclean ; again, Eze. xxxvi. 25, Raina epi humas katharon hudoor 
 — I will sprinkle upon you clean water. In construction, then, with the 
 person upon whom water is sprinkled, the verb raino is followed by epi; 
 never by en or eis. A sprinkles water, blood, oil, dust, or ashes upon B ; 
 but never sprinkles B in blood, oil, dust, &c. : whereas baptizo, in such 
 cases is followed by en or eis, never by epi. A immerses B, not upon, 
 
184 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 or with, but in water. This is a most convincing fact, that baptizo, oc- 
 curring eighty times in the New Testament, is never construed with epi t 
 nor raino with en or eis. Baptizo is frequently construed with en and eis r 
 and raino with epi ; but they never interchange their particles, A shadow 
 does not more naturally accompany an object standing in the sunshine, in 
 this latitude, than does epi accompany raino, and en, baptizo, in the cases 
 described. 
 
 All this is equally true in the case of cheo, to pour. The object on 
 which water or anything is poured, is designated by epi, never by en. 
 The thing poured or sprinkled always follows the verb to pour or sprinkle ; 
 the person is always preceded by upon. Neither of these facts ever oc- 
 curs in the case of baptizo. In that case the person always follows the 
 verb; and the material in, which the action is performed, is always pre- 
 ceded by en, expressed or understood. Hence the uniform construction 
 in the one case is, " I immerse B in water; 11 in the other case the con- 
 struction is, " I pour or sprinkle water upon B 11 Not more clearly dif- 
 ferent are these two constructions in English than they are in Greek. 
 Indeed, the object immersed is never governed by a preposition — the 
 object sprinkled or poured is always governed by a preposition. The 
 actions, then, in the original are just as distinct as the words baptizo, 
 cheo, raino, and their respective constructions. 
 
 Louo, to wash, is by some supposed to be identical with baptizo. 
 They imagine, that because baptizo is metaphorically rendered by louo, 
 to wash, in a few instances, they must be identical in meaning. But such 
 is not the fact. Baptizo is sometimes figuratively rendered by louo; 
 but louo is never rendered by baptizo I Hence, and I wish I could read 
 this with the most imposing emphasis, louo and baptizo, and their repre- 
 sentatives, to wash, and to baptize, are not convertible terms. But, in the 
 definition of words, the word denned and the definition must, in all cases, 
 be convertible, if the definition be a correct one. Hence baptizo does 
 not mean to wash, except by accident, metonymically. To one accus- 
 tomed to read the New Testament with a critical eye, these are facts 
 which clearly forbid such an assumption. For instance, louo and bap- 
 tizo occur in the same sentence, and sometimes in the same clause of 
 a sentence, in direct contra-distinction. Thus in the case of the jailor, 
 Acts xvi., " He washed their stripes and was baptized, 11 — and Ananias 
 said to Paul, "Arise, be baptized and wash away thy sins." 
 
 It is not said, Be washed and then wash away thy sins. It does not 
 say, He washed their stripes, and was washed himself and all his family. 
 These examples most satisfactorily demonstrate that the apostles never 
 used baptizo and louo, or immerse and wash as convertible or equivalent 
 terms. Baptism is, therefore, not washing, nor washing baptism ; in 
 virtue of the meaning of the original terms. Rantizo and louo are as 
 inimical as baptizo and louo; for we find them standing in the same 
 clause together. Thus Paul says, " Having your hearts sprinkled from 
 an evil conscience, and your bodies washed with pure water." Sprink- 
 ling and washing are, therefore, as inconvertible as immersion and 
 washing. * * * * 
 
 The congruity of things, therefore, calls for certain prepositions in 
 construction with verbs of action, and these go very far to settle any 
 thing doubtful in the acceptation of the principal word in any given pas- 
 sage. Now as baptizo has frequently both en and eis construed with the 
 liquid or material used in the ordinance, and raino and cheo never; fol- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 185 
 
 lows it not that these prepositions demonstrate a meaning in these words 
 wholly incompatible with each other, so far as action is concerned 1 
 
 It is as impossible either to pour or sprinkle a man into or in a river, as it 
 is to immerse him upon it, or to immerse water upon him. It is, therefore, 
 offering the grossest violence to all the laws of congruous construction to 
 attempt to translate baptizo by sprinkle, pour, or purify ; or raino and cheo 
 by immerse, plunge, or overwhelm. The best lexicography, both of the 
 principals and their usual retinue of particles and circumstances, peremp- 
 torily 'forbids such liberties. Concerning ek and apo, we shall say some- 
 thing in our next argument. 
 
 VIII. Our eighth argument is derived from the places where the ordi- 
 nance of baptism was anciently administered ; which will still farther de- 
 velope the force of the prepositions in construction with baptizo. 
 
 Baptism was first administered in rivers. The first Baptist, during his 
 public ministry, spent much of his time on the banks of the Jordan. Thither 
 resorted to him "all Judea and Jerusalem, and were baptized of him in the 
 Jordan, confessing their sins." They were not baptized upon Jordan, nor 
 were they baptized with Jordan, nor was Jordan baptized upon them ; but 
 they were baptized in Jordan. Our English in is but the adoption of the 
 Greek en. The Romans borrowed their in from the Greeks, and we bor- 
 rowed our in from the Romans ; and all these ins are of one and the same 
 signification and construction. In is neither at, with, nor by; except by 
 figure. It is literally in. In the house, is not at the house, with the house, 
 nor by the house ; but in the house. 
 
 Now, as epi does not bring the Jordan upon them, and as eis and en place 
 them in the river, the meaning of ek and apo is by necessity established as 
 assisting the baptized to emerge out of the river. 
 
 If the liberty which Pedo-baptists have taken with these prepositions, in 
 the heat of controversy, has called forth the admiration and reproofs of their 
 own most learned and sober-minded men, why should it be thought strange 
 that we should be astounded at the recklessness of such men as Dr. Miller 
 of Princeton, and others, who, in defiance of their own reputation for learn- 
 ing and good sense, have contradicted, in express terms, all our lexico- 
 graphers, translators, reformers, historians and distinguished critics, for the 
 sake of the papal dogma of infant rantism, consecrated by John Calvin, 
 John Knox, Theodore Beza, and their adherents. 
 
 On counting the actual occurrences of en in the New Testament I find 
 it is found 2660 times. Of this immense number of times, though these 
 learned doctors tell you of its two-and-twenty meanings, it is translated in 
 your common Testament 2045 times by in. Yet such critics as Dr. Miller, 
 when they put on their Pedo-baptist spectacles, will have it with always 
 when baptism is alluded to. John baptizes with water ; but, when the 
 phrase comes, en to Jordanee, he passes it by. He does not say he baptized 
 them with Jordan ; but, passing it by, he says that eis means at or to, in 
 such cases. Well, not having time to count over the whole book, I found 
 in the four gospels that eis occurs 795 times. Of these, it is translated by 
 into 372 times, and by to, for into, more than one hundred times ; for to the 
 house, to the temple, to the city, to Jerusalem, Bethany, Nazareth, &c, 
 means into ; and of 273 times unto, it might have been very often into ; 
 thus making, in all, 500 out of 795 occurrences. 
 
 As for ek and apo, frequently rendered out of and from, it is, on two ac- 
 counts, unnecessary to speak particularly ; because, first, whether they are 
 more commonly rendered by from, or out of, avails nothing, seeing that from, 
 nine times in ten, is out of, in sense. For example, from heaven, from the 
 temple, from the city, from the grave, means out of these places, and not 
 from the boundaries of them. In the second place, it being evident that 
 baptizo, with en and eis, most certainly places the subject in the pool, in 
 the river, or in the bath, ek and apo must bring them out of it. 
 
 Fancy or taste may increase indefinitely the figurative meaning of words ; 
 
 Q.2 
 
186 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 but the number of figurative meanings is of no philological account in fix- 
 ing the common or proper meaning of any word, still less the mere connec- 
 tives of speech. 
 
 The partial and one-sided mode of interpretation is nowhere more appa- 
 rent than in the cavils about these prepositions. We shall produce but a 
 single example : Epi and en will illustrate the matter. After raino or cheo, 
 epi is always translated upon, without one demurrer in all the Pedo-baptist 
 ranks ; yet epi, out of 920 times in the New Testament, is translated by 
 upon only 158 times, that is, about once in six times ; whereas, en is trans- 
 lated four times in every five by in. Yet to sprinkle upon is never cavilled 
 at by a Pedo-baptist ; while to baptize, or immerse in, is always repudiated 
 as an unwarrantable license on the part of a Baptist !! 
 
 But the reason given why John baptized at Enon, one would think, ought 
 to silence every doubt or cavil on that question. But, alas ! for frail human 
 nature ! it will not always be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. 
 Hence, although we are expressly told that John baptized at Enon, because 
 there was much water there; the spirit of the sectary sets about to prove 
 that there was not much water there, but only a few rivulets. And, if at 
 last he is constrained to admit, that even many pools might be collected 
 from many rivulets, he sets about finding some other use for the many rivu- 
 lets and pools than for the performance of baptism. In his heated imagi- 
 nation, he sees all the dromedaries and camels of Arahia carrying the peo- 
 ple to John's tent, and, that these thirsty animals, coming off their long 
 journey, might have something to drink, the humane John, who always 
 kept a bason and a squirt upon his table for the purpose of baptizing, pitch- 
 ed his tent near to Enon for the sake, not of baptizing, but of watering the 
 caravans that flocked to his baptism. Credat Judceus Appela, non ego. To 
 argue against imagination, is like arguing against love or our instinct- 
 ive appetites. Still we must remark, that polla hudata signifies much 
 water, and that John the apostle uses the phrase in his writings no less 
 than Jive times ; the other instances, too, all requiring much water. The 
 mystic mother of papal Rome sits on " many waters." Are these little 
 rivulets, indeed ! The voice of God, too, is compared to the sound of many 
 waters ! Can these be rivulets 1 
 
 John, in the Hebrew and Greek style, uses polla hudata, in the plural 
 form, for much water. I believe we never have hudor in the singular num- 
 ber in all the Septuagint ; hence, we are confirmed in the belief that, in 
 Jewish style, the plural form indicates much water, just as the word always 
 indicates to us. 
 
 But does not the sentence itself refute the presumptuous construction 
 sometimes imposed on it. Reads it not, that John baptized at Enon for a 
 given reason 1 He did not encamp or lodge there for that reason ; but he 
 baptized there for that reason. Hence, the baptizing and the reason, much 
 water, must fairly and honorably go together. John baptized at Enon for 
 no other reason than that there was much water there. 
 
 Suppose, for example, we were told that a celebrated mill-wright had 
 located on a certain creek because it contained much water, who would 
 more honor his own understanding, he that affirms he located there for 
 the sake of watering his stock — or he who says, for the sake of erecting 
 mills % 
 
 As to the location of Enon, whether it were north of John's first location, 
 some fifty miles up the river Jordan, or whether it was a stream issuing 
 from a fountain called "Ainyon, Doves-eye Springy or whether it was a sun- 
 fountain, near Salim, venerated by the old Canaanites, are questions I have 
 neither leisure nor inclination to discuss. Robinson, in his History of Bap- 
 tism, discusses such questions at great length. I refer the curious to him, 
 and will only give a short extract from his work on the use of the words 
 polla hutata : 
 
 " It is observable, that the rivers Euphrates at Babylon, Tiber at Rome, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 187 
 
 and Jordan in Palestine, are all described by polla hudata. Jeremiah speaks 
 of the first, and, addressing Babylon says, O thou that dwellest upon many 
 waters, thine end is come ; for Babylon was situated on what the Jews call- 
 ed the river, the great river Euphrates. The Evangelist John describes 
 Rome, which was built on the Tiber, by saying, The great harlot, the great 
 city which reigneth over the kings of the earth, sitteth upon many waters, 
 Ezekiel describes Judea and Jordan, by saying to the princes of Israel, Your 
 mother is a lionness, her whelps devour men, she was fruitful by reason of 
 many waters ; an evident allusion to the lions that lay in the thickets of Jor- 
 dan. The thunder which agitates clouds, charged with floods, is called the 
 voice of the Lord upon many waters ; and the attachment that no mortifica- 
 tion can annihilate, is a love which many waters cannot quench, neither 
 can the floods drown. How it comes to pass that a mode of speaking, which 
 on every other occasion signifies much, should in the case of baptism sig- 
 nify little, is a question easy to answer." 
 
 To an unsosphisticated mind, this passage, together with the various lo- 
 cations of John along the Jordan, sometimes on this side, and sometimes on 
 that side, methinks, independent of every other argument, would refute the 
 notion of sprinkling. But how much more when the meaning of the word 
 and the laws of construction, already established, assert that John's disci- 
 ples were immersed in the Jordan, confessing their sins." 
 
 My worthy friend says that he has got ahead of me — but by this being 
 ahead he cannot mean ahead in argument, but in place. He goes in ad- 
 vance : he leaves the matter upon my hands unanswered. In this way, 
 he goes ahead of me. He was going to Biblical usage ; but instead of 
 that, he brings up Tertullian to disprove in advance what he supposes I 
 will present. But I will pursue, as I have done, my regular course of 
 argument, not regarding his witticisms, but the convictions of the under- 
 standings and hearts of the audience. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18 — 10£ o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's twelfth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I had expected that my friend, Mr. C, would to-day 
 make a furious assault upon the citadel of the sprinklers. It had been 
 supposed by many, that he was holding in reserve his most destructive 
 fire, and that to-day we should hear the roar of his great guns, and wit- 
 ness the destruction of our strong fortress. Such being our anticipations, 
 we really did not expect to see him come and read us an argument ! It 
 is truly marvellous, that one of the greatest debaters of the age — one who 
 has, for the last thirty years, been engaged in this species of controversy, 
 should find it necessary to read his arguments ! Is it true, that he had 
 his defence of immersion prepared, " cut and dried," before the discus- 
 sion commenced, to be read to the audience? Cannot my friend sustain 
 his cause by any other means ? I never heard of but one man reading 
 a speech in Congress ; and I believe every body laughed at him. 
 
 My friend, however, finds himself in the situation of a certain lawyer, 
 who had with great care, written and memorized a speech in defence of a 
 cause he had undertaken. In the progress of things, the aspect of the 
 case was considerably changed, some portions of his testimony being re- 
 jected. The lawyer commenced his speech, but was soon interrupted 
 by the judge, as bringing in irrelevant matters. He again attempted to 
 proceed, and was again interrupted. He became impatient, and replied 
 with great emphasis, " May it please your Honor, it is in my speech, and 
 I must speak it." [Laughing.] So it is in the gentleman's book, and 
 he must read it. [Continued laughter.] 
 
188 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 For three days the gentleman has been out of the Bible. On yester- 
 day, he told us he was in the portico, and he is in the portico still. I 
 know not how to account for his movements. According to our rules, 
 we debate no question more than three days, except by consent of par- 
 ties ; though I informed him that I would continue the debate as many 
 hours, each day, as he pleased. I have given him a fourth day to bring 
 up his argument ; and yet he tells me he has not time enough. I am ap- 
 prehensive he never will have time enough to sustain his cause. I have, 
 however, agreed to continue the discussion of the present subject this 
 evening. 
 
 I have a remark or two to make concerning the action of baptism. The 
 Savior commanded the observance of an ordinance. Baptism is not an 
 action, but an ordinance. The gentleman was, however, not quite for- 
 tunate in one of his illustrations. He mentioned the word ride as an 
 example of a specific term. Now I had supposed that we could ride in 
 several different ways ; on horseback, in stage, steam car, or boat. Per- 
 haps I might admit, that baptizo is as specific as the word ride; for we 
 can ride in about as many ways as we can wash. But let it be distinctly 
 understood, that baptizo denotes, in the New Testament, an ordinance, 
 not an action. And I have proved, contrary to the reasonings of my 
 friend, that in the Old Testament, several washings or ordinances were 
 appointed, the mode of which was not prescribed, neither by the word 
 used, nor even in any other way. Let this fact stand as an unanswerable 
 refutation of all his efforts to prove the necessity of a specific word to 
 denote the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 He professes to believe, that, in consequence of the greater labor and 
 exposure attending the practice of immersion, it would be his interest to 
 believe and practice as we do. This affords some pretty good evidence 
 that we are in the right, for it is scarcely credible, that our Savior would 
 have appointed an ordinance, at all times inconvenient, and often danger- 
 ous and impracticable. Some, indeed, plead these very difficulties in favor 
 of immersion. In being plunged under water they consider themselves as 
 bearing the cross! I read in the Bible of no cross, but that which is 
 found in denying ourselves of all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and liv- 
 ing soberly, righteously and godly in this present evil world. My friend 
 has told us, in his Harbinger, that Paul was too small to be able to bap- 
 tize 1 Still, it would seem, he managed to baptize some few. Since, 
 however, the practice of immersion is difficult for all, and particularly so 
 for small men like myself; I think it would be wise in my friend to 
 adopt a mode requiring less labor and exposure — to aim more at securing 
 purity of heart — the great thing — and less at putting the cross in bodily 
 endurance. 
 
 I must briefly reply to what the gentleman has said about the lexicons. 
 As to my assertions, of which he complains, the difference between him 
 and myself, I think, is — that I make assertions and prove them ; he makes 
 assertions and leaves them. Whenever my statements are called in ques- 
 tion, they will be proved. I have asserted and proved, that the lexicons, 
 ancient and modern, with entire unanimity define baptizo, to wash, to 
 cleanse, as well as to sink, plunge, Sic. I have asserted and proved, that 
 they give to wash, to cleanse, as the first and leading meaning of the word 
 in the Bible. I have called upon the gentleman to produce one lexicon 
 that gives immerse as its leading signification in the New Testament. 
 He has not done it; and I presume, he cannot. Where is there a lexicon, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 189 
 
 ancient or modern, that defines this word as a specific term, having but 
 one meaning ? I verily believe, the gentleman cannot produce more than 
 one, if he can find one. Where is the lexicon, that gives immerse as its 
 leading meaning, as it is used in the Bible and religious writings of the 
 Jews ? Yet he would persuade the audience, that the lexicons sustain 
 him in the position that baptizo, as appropriated to the ordinance of 
 christian baptism, is a specific term, meaning only to immerse ! ! ! Mr. 
 Carson candidly acknowledged, that all the lexicographers and commen- 
 tators were against him. I have before read this acknowledgment, 
 and I will read it again. " My position," says he, "is that it (baptizo) 
 always signifies to dip ; never expressing any thing but mode. Now as 
 I have all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this 
 opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the 
 authority of lexicons." — P. 79. 
 
 The gentleman tells the audience, that I am in the habit of quoting 
 authors on my own side of the question ; whilst he is sustaining his 
 cause by those opposed to him. Do you remember what trouble I gave 
 him with Dr. Gale, one of the most learned and zealous immersionists? 
 Dr. Gale, as I have proved, admitted that baptizo does not so necessarily 
 express the action of putting under water, as it expresses something 
 else. Yet the very thing he has, throughout this discussion, labored to 
 prove, is that baptizo does express definitely and necessarily the action 
 of putting under water. The concession of Gale, therefore, is destruc- 
 tive to his argument. And have I not brought against him Carson, an- 
 other most zealous immersionist, whom he admits to be a profound lin- 
 guist ? He has earnestly contended, that bapto is a specific term, and that 
 it means to dye only in a figurative sense. Mr. Carson most positively 
 denies, and most unanswerably refutes this principle, proving that it 
 means to dye by sprinkling as literally as by dipping. I have not 
 brought forward immersionists, as he has adduced Pedo-baptists, who 
 avowed themselves wholly indifferent on the subject ; but I have appeal- 
 ed to the most zealous advocates of exclusive immersion — men laboring 
 most earnestly to defend their favorite dogma. 
 
 But I have not appealed only to Gale and Carson; I have brought 
 against the gentleman the Greek and Latin fathers, — men who, however 
 superstitious they may have been, understood the Greek, and whose pre- 
 judices were all in favor of immersion — men whom my friend loves to 
 count on his side. I proved that Origen, the most learned of them, in 
 giving the sense of Rev. xix. 13, substituted rantizo, to sprinkle, for bapto, 
 and that Mr. Carson could escape the force of this fact only by conclud- 
 ing that Origen did not understand the meaning of the word ! And al- 
 though Mr. Campbell has said and published, that no translator, ancient or 
 modern, ever rendered any of this family of words to sprinkle, I have 
 proved that the translators of the venerable Syriac, the old Ethiopic and 
 the Vulgate, (all of whom, according to him, were immersionists,) did so 
 translate bapto. But he says, there must have been a different reading. 
 Where is the evidence ? Is there any one copy of the New Testament 
 found in all the searching for old manuscripts, which presents a different 
 reading ? There is not one. Why, then, contend for a different read- 
 ing ? Simply and only because the claims of immersion demand it ! ! ! 
 If, on such a pretence, one passage of the Bible may be changed, it may 
 all be rendered doubtful. 
 
 I have appealed to the Greek and Latin fathers, and amongst them Jerom, 
 
190 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the learned translator of the Vulgate. These were immersionists of the 
 old school; and they, with unbroken unanimity, use baptizo to denote 
 the ordinance administered by pouring or sprinkling, and pronounce bap- 
 tism thus administered valid and good. The gentleman forgets, when he 
 represents me as having appealed almost exclusively to authorities on 
 my own side of the question ; but a man's recollection sometimes fails 
 him remarkably, when he is sorely pressed. 
 
 The gentleman made a broad assertion concerning a principle incul- 
 cated by Ernesti ; but unfortunately, he read not a Avord from that author. 
 I admit, that in all ordinary cases we are to adhere to the common accep- 
 tation of words amongst the people whose language we are interpret- 
 ing. And hence it is, that I have appealed to the usage of baptizo 
 amongst the Jewish writers. I read to you the declaration of Ernesti 
 and of Dr. George Campbell, that the Greek of the New Testament 
 is not classic Greek, and that the classics are very unsafe guides in inter- 
 preting the language of that book, applied, as it is, to new subjects and 
 new ordinances. My friend makes assertions, but fails to prove them; I 
 make assertions and prove them. This is the difference between us. Per- 
 haps, however, I ought to give the authority of his "American apostle," 
 professor Stuart ; for he admits him to be a very learned critic. He says : 
 
 " New Testament usage of the word, in cases not relevant to this rite, 
 clearly does not entitle you [immersionists] to such a conclusion with any 
 confidence. If you say, ' The classical usage of the word abundantly justi- 
 fies the construction I put upon it ;' my reply is, that classical usage can 
 never be very certain in respect to the meaning of a word in the New Tes- 
 ment. Who does not know, that a multitude of Greek words here receive 
 their coloring and particular meaning from the Hebrew, and not from the 
 Greek classics'? Does theos, (God,) ouranos, (heaven,) sarx, (flesh,) pistis, 
 (faith,) dikaiosuna, (righteousness,) and other words almost without number, 
 exhibit meanings which conform to the Greek classics; or which, in several 
 respects, can even be illustrated by them'? Not at all. Then how can you 
 be over confident in the application of the classical meaning of baptizo, 
 where the word is employed in relation to a rite that is purely christian 1 
 Such a confidence is indeed common; but it is not the more rational, nor the 
 more becoming on that account." 
 
 Such is the language of one of the first critics in America. And here 
 let me remark, Stuart notices a very important peculiarity in the language 
 of the New Testament in connection with baptizo. He states, that when 
 baptizo occurs in the classics in the sense of immersing, it is generally fol- 
 lowed by the preposition eis, as baptizo eis ; but in the New Testament this 
 expression occurs in but a single instance. There we find baptizo with 
 the dative case simply, or with the preposition en — the very form, of 
 expression employed by the classics to denote the fluid with which bap- 
 tism is performed. If the inspired writers spoke and wrote in regard to 
 this word, as the classics did, as Mr. Campbell contends, and if they 
 designed to express the action of immersing ; why, I emphatically ask, 
 did they so uniformly avoid the phraseology employed by the classics to 
 express that idea, and adopt precisely the phraseology which in classical 
 authors does not express it ? 
 
 But the gentleman insists, that lavo, to wash, is only a figurative 
 meaning of baptizo. Where is the evidence of the truth of this oft-re- 
 peated assertion ? Let him, if he can, produce one lexicon, that gives 
 to wash as only a figurative meaning of baptizo. I venture to say, he 
 cannot do it. But he tells us, that the two words louo and baptizo, so 
 far from meaning the same thing, are presented in the Bible in contrast, 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 191 
 
 I do not say, that louo (to wash) has the same meaning precisely as 
 baptizo. There is just this difference : louo means any kind of wash- 
 ing ; baptizo is in the Bible uniformly used in relation to religious wash- 
 ings — the use of water, and of water only, in the sense, or for the pur- 
 pose of purification. Yet christian baptism, as Mr. C. will not deny, is 
 constantly spoken of as a washing, and louo and loutron are the words 
 used in such passages. Thus, Paul says to the Corinthians, " And such 
 were some of you ; but ye are washed, (apelousasthe,) but ye are sanc- 
 tified, " &c. 1 Cor. vi. 11. And writing to Titus — "According to his 
 mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration (loutron) and the 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost," &c. In these passages the gentleman 
 himself believes the apostle had reference to baptism, and called it a 
 washing ; and yet he tells us, the Greek word which signifies to wash, 
 stands in contrast with baptizo .' !! Justin Martyr, the first of the christ- 
 ian fathers who, so far as we know, wrote on this subject, speaks of bap- 
 tism as a washing, as I have before stated. My friend gives us some 
 rare specimens of criticism ! 
 
 He has at length reached the Bible, and is aiming to get into Jordan. 
 I might very safely admit, though it cannot be proved, that John went 
 literally into Jordan. But the question is, what did he do, after he got 
 in? Mr. C. infers, that he immersed the people. But where is the 
 proof? He thinks John could not have gone into the water, except for 
 the purpose of immersing. Is there, however, any certainty that his 
 inference (for it is but an inference) is legitimate ? There are many an- 
 cient pictures which represent persons standing in a stream, and the min- 
 ister pouring water on their heads. There are several of very ancient 
 date, that represent John baptizing our Savior in this mode ; and, as I 
 have proved, many of the ancients believed, that John did uniformly thus 
 baptize. On what evidence, then, can it be asserted, that if John went 
 into the water, he must have immersed ? It is one thing to go into wa- 
 ter, and quite another, to plunge under the water. 
 
 But observe, it is said, as I have already proved, that John was bapti- 
 zing in Bethabara beyond Jordan. John i. 28, " These things were 
 done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." If John 
 baptized in Bethabara beyond Jordan, how could he have baptized liter- 
 ally in Jordan ? It cannot be proved, that John went into the Jordan ; and 
 if it could, there is no evidence that he went in for the purpose of im- 
 mersing. The gentleman's argument, therefore, is without force. 
 
 In reply to the very disparaging remarks made by Mr. C. concerning 
 the venerable Dr. Miller, I will only say, that his reputation is too well 
 established to need any defence from me. It will require something far 
 more potent, than the denunciation of the gentleman, to bring him down 
 from the eminence which as a great and good man he occupies. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, has quoted Bloomfield as sustaining his views. I 
 beg leave now to read Bloomfield, and to prove, that he is with us. On 
 the passage in Matth. iii. 11, "I indeed baptize you with water," &c. he 
 thus remarks : 
 
 "En hudadi [with water.] The en is thought redundant; and com- 
 mentators adduce examples from classical writers. It rather, however, 
 denotes the instrument, as Luke xiv. 34, and often." If, then, en de- 
 notes the instrument, the expression, en hudat, means with water, not 
 in water. Mr. Bloomfield, then, would not read » I immerse you in wa- 
 ter," but "I baptize you with water." 
 
192 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. C. appeals to the account of the baptism of the eunuch, as proving 
 immersion. " And they went down both into (eis) the water, both Philip 
 and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up 
 out of (ek) the water," &c. But has he produced one lexicon, that says, 
 eis uniformly or commonly means into ? He has not ; and if he had, I 
 could appeal to a number of the very best, ancient and modern, which 
 deny it. Scapula, one of the gentleman's favorite authorities, gives as the 
 first meaning of eis, ad, to. Bretschneider, whom he admits to be one 
 of the most critical lexicographers, gives to (ad) as its first and leading 
 meaning; and Stuart agrees with him. Buttman, whose large Greek 
 grammar is a standard work, gives its leading signification, to, into. 
 Other authorities will be produced, if necessary. I will even make the 
 gentleman himself my witness. In his translation of the New Testament 
 he has, in very many instances, translated it to, not into. In a number 
 of places where, in the common version, it is translated into, he renders 
 it to. I will, if he desire it, refer to the passages. 
 
 The rule observed by the Greeks in relation to the preposition eis, is 
 this : when they wished by force of the words definitely to express the 
 idea of going into, they prefixed the preposition to the verb, as eiserchomai 
 eis, or embaino eis. If Mr. C. will tell us, how many times the prepo- 
 sitions eis and en precede the verb, where in our version eis is translated 
 into; we will venture to compare numbers with him. In some cases, 
 the connection shows that it means into ; in other cases, that it means 
 simply to. 
 
 But, for the sake of argument, I will admit, though it cannot be proved, 
 that Philip and the eunuch went literally into the water. The question 
 then arises, what did Philip do after they got in ? Did he immerse the 
 eunuch? My friend says, yes; but where is the evidence? He in- 
 fers, that the eunuch was immersed, from the fact of their going into the 
 water. The inference, however, is not certainly legitimate ; for he might 
 have gone into water and had it poured on him. Besides, there are 
 strong reasons for believing, that he was not immersed. The place was 
 desert; and it is not at all probable, that they found sufficient water 
 there for an immersion. Moreover, it is not probable, either that the eu- 
 nuch undressed in the public road ; or that he traveled on with his gar- 
 ments perfectly wet. The same remarks may be made concerning the 
 people baptized by John. Did the multitudes, male and female, continue 
 dressed in their dripping garments ? Regard to health and to decency 
 would forbid it. Yet we read nothing of changes of raiment, or of accom- 
 modations for changing, even if they had with them other garments. But 
 at a later day, when immersion prevailed, we find baptisteries, napkins, 
 towels, changes of garments, &c. Since, however, we read of no such 
 things in the days of John, or of the apostles, we conclude they did not 
 practice immersion. , 
 
 But let me again turn to Bloomfield, whom my friend quoted as in favor 
 of immersion. Commenting on Acts viii. 38 he says : 
 
 " Ebaptizen auton (he baptized him) — no doubt, with the use of the pro- 
 per form ; but whether by immersion or by sprinkling is not clear. Dodd- 
 ridge maintains the former ; but Lardner ap Newc. the latter view ; and 
 1 conceive, more rightly. On both having descended into the water, Philip 
 seems to have taken up water with his hands, and poured it copiously on the 
 eunuch's head." 
 
 Bloomfield was with my friend yesterday ; but he seems to have been 
 converted, for he is with us to-day. My friend has referred to but one 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 193 
 
 example of christian baptism, which seems to favor immersion ; and this 
 will not sustain him. 
 
 John, it is true, was baptizing in Enon near Salim, because there was 
 much water there. But did he want much water to baptize in ; or did he 
 want it for other purposes ? As I have already stated, multitudes of the 
 Jews who resorted to him, remained together several days at a time. 
 They must observe their daily ablutions. For these and for ordinary 
 purposes they needed much water ; but it cannot be proved that John 
 wanted the water for the purpose of baptizing. 
 
 The expression, "much water" moreover, literally translated, is 
 many waters (polla hudata.) I will read the remarks of Prof. Stuart 
 on this expression. After narrating the facts, he remarks : 
 
 " Now John was baptizing in (or at) Enon, near Salim, hoti hudata polla 
 en ekei, for there was MUCH WATER there ; or (more literally,) there 
 were MANY WATERS there. The question is whether John baptized at 
 Enon, near Salim, because the waters there were abundant and deep, so as 
 to afford convenient means of immersion, or whether the writer meant 
 merely to say, that John made choice of Enon, because there was an abun- 
 dant supply of water there for the accommodation of those who visited him 
 for the sake of being baptized, and hearing the powerful addresses he made 
 to the Jews. The former statement makes the much waters, or many waters 
 necessary, or at least convenient and desirable, for the purposes of the bap- 
 tismal rite ; the latter, for supplying the wants of the multitudes who attend- 
 ed the preaching of John. It has always seemed to me a very singular 
 mode of expression, if the sacred writer meant to designate the former idea, 
 to say hoti hudata polla en ekei. Why not say, because the water was deep 
 or abundant simply 1 A single brook of very small capacity, but a living 
 stream, might, with scooping out a small place in the sand, answer most 
 abundantly all the purposes of baptism, in case it were performed by immer- 
 sion, and answer them just as well as many waters could do. But, on the 
 other hand, a single brook would not suffice for the accommodation of the 
 great multitudes who flocked to John. The sacred writer tells us that 
 " there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region of 
 Jordan," Matt* iii. 5; and that they were baptized by him. Of course, 
 there must have been a great multitude of people. Nothing could be more 
 natural than for John to choose a place that was watered by many streams, 
 where all could be accommodated. 
 
 " The circumstances of the case, then, would seem to favor the interpre- 
 tation which refers the mention of the many waters to the wants of the peo- 
 ple who flocked to hear John." — Stuart on the Mode of Baptism, pp. 37, 38. 
 
 He gives from the Old Testament an example of the use of polla 
 hudata to signify many springs or streams of water. When the country 
 was invaded, and Jerusalem was likely to be besieged, it is said — " So 
 there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, 
 and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, why should 
 the king of Assyria come, and find much water ? " (polla hudata.) 2 
 Chron. xxii. 4. Here evidently the expression means many fountains or 
 small streams, not deep water. 
 
 But my friend, Mr. C, infers, that John immersed, because he went 
 where there was much water. Is this inference legitimate ? Is there 
 any certainty that he wanted much water for the purpose of baptizing? 
 I think it is by no means certain, and, when all the circumstances are 
 considered, by no means probable. 
 
 I have now, I think, without having had the opportunity to write a 
 speech, met the arguments of the gentleman, and showed their weakness. 
 I have wished, and the audience, I think, have desired to see him enter 
 13 R 
 
194 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the Bible. I am gratified to see, that there is some prospect of his doing so. 
 I design, to-day, making an argument directly in favor of pouring and 
 sprinkling. I should have done so on yesterday, but my friend was too 
 far behind. I have met and answered his arguments, and kept ahead of 
 him ; and, unless he shall hereafter travel faster, I apprehend that he will 
 remain quite in the rear. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18 — 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's thirteenth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Were I to touch on so many topics, and have them 
 so singularly assorted as those which you have just now heard from Mr. 
 Rice, in one short speech, I should expect to make but little progress 
 through the day. My reading, it seems, is a great annoyance to my 
 friend. The more concentrated arguments, exhibited in that form, re- 
 quire a more special attention than, as yet, he has bestowed on any thing 
 I have advanced ; for, indeed, the gentleman asserts much more than rea- 
 sons, and affirms more than he proves. His gifts are rather of that order. 
 I have no preference for reading, as all who know me, I presume, will 
 admit. But I cannot, at present, indicate my course farther than to say, 
 that one great reason of my presenting some of these arguments in this 
 form is, that they abound in criticisms and matters somewhat minute, re- 
 quiring great accuracy, and which no stenographer in Christendom could 
 rationally be expected to report accurately. To take down so many 
 foreign words, pronounced so rapidly, and to place them in their proper 
 order, in such a disquisition, is, I think, impossible. For this reason, I 
 prefer to read a few items of critical analysis. I am neither to be allured 
 nor driven from my course, to suit the convenience of my worthy friend. 
 He knows full well how his desultory and incoherent mode of speaking 
 will appear in print, especially upon subjects demanding a close and neat 
 analytic and sometimes synthetic arrangement. He had better, however, 
 attend to the argument, and he shall have speaking to satiety, in proper 
 time and place. I am one of those who can afford to read ; I fear he 
 cannot. 
 
 I do not fully comprehend some of his allusions to myself, or my 
 method, or both; especially his remark that I " have imposed myself 
 upon you by my reading." I do not comprehend this. He is certainly 
 doing himself great injustice, if, indeed, he have anything better to offer, 
 especially in the reckless and unauthorized assertions which he has made; 
 provided, only, that there be either philosophy or good sense in the fol- 
 lowing remarks, which I will read for his especial benefit, from that 
 eminent Presbyterian doctor and critic, Dr. George Campbell : 
 
 " I have heard a disputant, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain 
 that the word rendered in the New Testament, bapiizo, means more proper- 
 ly to sprinkle than to plunge ; and,'m defiance of all antiquity, that the 
 former was the earliest, and — the most general practice in baptizing. One 
 who argues in this manner, never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray 
 the cause he would defend: and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold as- 
 sertions generally succeed as well as argument, and sometimes better ; yet, 
 a candid mind will always disdain to take the help of falsehood, even in the 
 support of truth." > 
 
 So speaks Dr. Campbell. How pertinent these remarks are to the 
 whole case before us, methinks requires neither note nor comment. I 
 must, it seems, again refer to the word specific. It is not at all incom- 
 patible with the special character of an action, that it must be always 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 195 
 
 performed in the same way. That there are various ways of reading, 
 militates not with the fact that reading is a specific action. The pro- 
 nunciation, tone, time, cadence, <fec, may vary; still, reading is neither 
 singing, nor speaking, nor writing. So of dipping, sprinkling, pouring. 
 These actions may all be performed different ways : still, they retain their 
 peculiar and incommunicable difference. No one with whom it has been 
 my good fortune to discuss any question, appears to have made more pro- 
 ficiency in the art of making, perhaps sometimes inadvertently, false 
 issues. I am now, according to him, proving that baptizo is only used 
 in one acceptation — that it is not used figuratively. I am not affirming 
 nor proving that baptizo never means anything but dip, in any accepta- 
 tion of usage. It has this only as its literal, natural, original, and proper 
 meaning ; and never means any thing, even figuratively or in a secondary 
 sense, incompatible with this sense. All our most learned lexicographers 
 say this. With Mr. Anthon, they say, if it ever have any other sense 
 than dip, it is one analagous to, or compatible with this, its proper and 
 perpetual meaning. Even "wash and cleanse" are noted as its figura- 
 tive meaning in some of our best lexicons. Have I not said that any 
 specific action may yield a thousand results ? Has the gentleman forgot- 
 ten the instances given in reference to the word kill ? 
 
 Mr. R. either forgets or misquotes the lexicons. He says some of 
 them give wash and cleanse as the proper or literal meaning of baptizo. 
 Now I have frequently controverted this, and shown that some of them 
 positively declare that it is a figurative meaning. Schleusner represents 
 washing as the effect of dipping ; and Bretschneider does not say that 
 " it simply means to wash, to cleanse," in the New Testament — that is a 
 particular case. No dictionary has ever said, what I have sometimes 
 heard from my friend, that it signifies " to wash in any mode." Have I 
 not read from Beza and others, that it so signifies only by consequence ? 
 Such, indeed, is the definition of the distinguished Schleusner, in his 
 lexicon. His words are, jam quia haud raro aliquid immergo ac 
 intingi in aquam solet ut lavetur. Because it frequently occurs that 
 a thing is to be immersed or dipped into water that it may be washed. 
 I therefore speak in harmony with all the dictionaries, when I say that 
 cleansing, washing, &c, is the effect of the action baptism, and not the act 
 itself. 
 
 He would, in his paradoxical mood, this morning, have it, also, that he 
 had quoted Baptist authority against me ! If, indeed, he had, what then ? 
 They are not infallible ! But who are they? Dr. Carson, and who else? 
 There is no discrepancy between Messrs. Gale, Carson, or any other 
 Baptist, and myself, on the action of baptism. They all subscribe, exan- 
 imo, to the proposition I am sustaining. They all affirm the solemn con- 
 viction, that immersion is the only christian baptism. They have no 
 more faith in sprinkling, or pouring, or wetting the face, than they have 
 in the salt, and spittle, and sign of the cross, formerly attached to the cer- 
 emony? They all say that baptizo means dip, immerse, and that only 
 in its true, and proper, and christian, and Jewish, and classic acceptation. 
 We are all of one heart and soul on this proposition. Messrs. Gale, and 
 Carson, and myself may differ on some critical matters. I certainly dis- 
 sent in some matters of that sort. But these do not, in the least, affect the 
 issue here, any more than an Indian mound affects the sphericity of the 
 earth. Better, too, that Mr. R. had quoted Baptist writers against me, 
 than that I had quoted them in my favor. 
 
196 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. Rice spends his strength on matters as frivolous as the Apocryphal 
 cases of Judith and Sirach — as when the former immersed herself; and 
 how an unclean person was cleansed from contact with the dead ! mat- 
 ters as intelligible as the laws of purification, so often explained, as if his 
 inability to find the precise place where Judith went into the water, must 
 change the meaning of the word ! ! These matters have been disposed 
 of a thousand times ! 
 
 " Mr. Carson says the dictionaries are all wrong," and proves, by the 
 classics., that they are so in his view of the secondary meaning of this 
 word. He also will extend the meaning of bapto without the interposi- 
 tion a of metonymy. I differ from him in this particular. But that avails 
 not one atom in the great conclusion to which we have come. I agree 
 with him, that we have just as good right to judge the dictionaries by the 
 classics, as the makers of them had to judge the classics. 
 
 With regard to the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the Vulgate, and some 
 other ancient versions, on which my friend, Mr. Rice, loves to dwell, I 
 have time to make only a remark or two. In these days it is easy to fill 
 a volume with dissertations on such learned matters, for the benefit of 
 common people. I have many volumes of this kind of learning at my 
 disposal — but what avail such disquisitions here ? I have, indeed, affirm- 
 ed that none of all these versions has ever translated baptizo to favor Pe- 
 do-baptist practice. I examined them carefully enough to come to this 
 conclusion. Now, after all that has been said by Mr. Rice on some 
 dozen of them, has he even pretended to quote one instance of any one 
 of them ever translating it by any word averring his practice? We 
 might speak for a week upon them — upon the Hebrew tabel and rahaz, 
 upon the Syriac amad, and the Arabic amada, &c. &c, but inasmuch as 
 he cannot adduce one such instance, what would be the advantage ? 
 
 His apology for Dr. Wall's neglect of replying to Dr. Gale, is wholly 
 unsatisfactory. He says, he did not intend to reply to Dr. Gale on the 
 action of baptism ! Why then did he write a considerable portion of this 
 volume on that subject, if he did not intend to reply? He has indeed 
 replied to him on many points ; on all points of importance save this one. 
 But of it he took no notice whatever ! ! And yet the very point on which 
 they were pre-eminently in collision. 
 
 In the same style of response, my friend accuses me of seeking to 
 interpret Rev. xix. 13, for the sake of my criticism ! This is doubtless 
 very candid and magnanimous. I have no need of that. We have the 
 same scene described in Isaiah, just as I presume John wrote it. And, in 
 the case of the present versions, we have it "dipped in blood," and on 
 that account have nothing to complain of. I have logically and legally, 
 as I conceive, shown that Mr. R. must prove that the word bebammenon 
 was in the Greek text, from which these versions were made, before he 
 can make out the first case of an exception to my universal proposition. 
 That he will not attempt, and, therefore, that point is fairly and fully 
 settled. 
 
 I quoted from Ernesti, the other day, from memory. I shall now read 
 a few periods from him on the proper method of interpretation. From 
 these sentences you may judge of the correctness of the quotations and 
 comments which you have heard from him. 
 
 " § 21. From what has already been said, in this chapter, about the use 
 of words, we may discover the ground of all the certainty which attends the 
 interpretation of language. For -there can be no certainty at all in respect 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 197 
 
 to the interpretation of any passage, unless a kind of necessity compel us 
 to affix a particular sense to a word ; which sense, as I have said before, 
 must be one ; and unless there are special reasons for a tropical meaning", it 
 must be the literal sense." (Morus, p. 47. xi.) — Ernesti, p. 10. 
 
 " \ 31. The principles of interpretation are common to sacred and profane 
 writings. Of course the Scriptures are to be investigated by the same rules 
 as other books. These fanatics, therefore, are not to be regarded, who, des- 
 pising literature and the study of the languages, refer every thing merely 
 to the influence of the Spirit. Not that we doubt the influence of the Spi- 
 rit ; or that men truly pious, and desirous of knowing the truth, are assisted 
 by it in their researches, especially in those things that pertain to faith and 
 practice." (Morus, p. 69. xix.) 
 
 " If the Scriptures be a revelation to men, then are they to be read and 
 understood by men. If the same laws of language are not observed in this 
 revelation, as are common to men, then they have no guide to the right un- 
 derstanding of the Scriptures ; and an interpreter needs inspiration as much 
 as the original writer. It follows, of course, that the Scriptures would be 
 no revelation in themselves ; nor of any use, except to those who are inspir- 
 ed. But such a book the Scriptures are not ; and nothing is more evident 
 than that, ' when God has spoken to men, he has spoken in the language of 
 men ; for he has spoken by men, and for men.' " (Note by professor Stuart.) 
 ■ — Ernesti, pp. 15, 16. 
 
 A word or two on baptizo eis and baplizo en, as commented on by 
 professor Stuart. On infant sprinkling Mr. Stuart is a partizan. Though 
 he is a very candid one, still he is sectarian on this subject. But, quoting 
 with approbation the following words of Calvin, he gives in his adhesion 
 to sprinkling on other grounds than the meaning of the word. Calvin had 
 not only said that the church had " from the beginning taken to herself 
 the right to change the ordinances somewhat, excepting the substance ;" 
 but in another place spake in this wise: " It is of no consequence at all 
 whether the person baptized is wholly immersed, or whether he is mere- 
 ly sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice 
 to the churches in different regions, although the word baptizo signifies 
 to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient 
 church" The first I quote from memory ; the second I quote, I think, 
 almost verbatim from the Institutes, iv. c. xv. sec. 19. To' these last 
 words, adds Mr. Stuart: "To this opinion I do most fully and heartily 
 subscribe." Of course, Mr. Stuart is not quite so easily satisfied with 
 the identity of the sense of baptizo eis and baptizo en. In one place he 
 says that baptizo eis would more certainly prove immersion in the Jordan 
 than baptizo en. But yet when baptizo eis, the very phrase found in 
 Mark i. 9, comes to be reconsidered by him, it becomes so doubtful, 
 that even this most common classic use is discarded. Persons, how- 
 ever, so generous as he and Calvin, I think, could not be convicted by 
 all the laws of the Greek language on this subject! There is no cure 
 for such obliquities, but the grace of God. To reason with such preju- 
 dices and early predilections, is as hopeless as to reason against the 
 animal instincts, or the fiercer passions of our nature. I can sympathize 
 with my friend, Mr. Rice, and such liberal spirits as professor Stuart. 
 
 I was once a Presbyterian, fully imbued with all the doctrines of the 
 church. Its catechisms were as familiar as household words. My un- 
 derstanding, my conscience, my affections were ail baptized in the font 
 of pure orthodox Presbyterianism. I experimentally knew the struggle, 
 the inward conflict, of calling in question any of its sage decisions. I 
 traveled over all the ground more than thirty years ago. I gathered all 
 
 R2 
 
198 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the Pedobaptist authorities around me, when infant baptism began to 
 totter in my mind. I did not wish to read any Baptist books ; I sent to 
 booksellers for a whole suit of Pedo-baptist authors. But the more 
 earnestly I sought argument and evidence and proof in them, the less I 
 found. The more I read, the more I doubted. I became even angry 
 that they could not give me proof of infant baptism. I finally threw them 
 from me with disgust — Edwards, the last hope, proved himself fallacious, 
 despite of all my wishes. His argument was, what logicians call, a beg- 
 ging of the question, from beginning to end. I seized the Greek Testa- 
 ment. Six months most fervent examination of the pure text wrought a 
 full conviction, that infant affusion had no more footing in the Bible 
 than infant communion, than praying to the saints, or auricular con- 
 fession. 
 
 But to give up Pedo-baptism and Presbyterianism was to immolate my 
 prospects, my influence and my earliest and long cherished ecclesiastic 
 partialities and associations. Truth and conscience finally triumphed. 
 I yielded to the light. I have never since regretted it. The Lord led 
 me by a way I knew not of, and cared not to go. I say, then, I can 
 sympathize with many good and well meaning men, whose minds and 
 feelings are, or may be, where mine were some thirty years ago. 
 
 Mr. Rice and his brethren turn logical Unitarians and Universalists in 
 all debates on baptism. I had a long protracted controversy with one of 
 those Rabbis of Universalism, some years since. I know their tactics 
 well. Take, for example, the words, aioon, aioonion, aidios. They are 
 constrained to admit that these words do mean, eternal, everlasting, un- 
 ending, sometimes. Nay, that in all etymological import and grammati- 
 cal, that is, literal propriety, they certainly do mean duration without 
 end ; that no other words in universal language do more fully, more pre- 
 cisely, intimate that which is unending; but, yes, but, say they, in all 
 cases where punishment, the punishment of the wicked is spoken of, 
 there they do not mean literally everlasting — any more than when ap- 
 plied to hills and mountains, &c. Then they find a number of special 
 cases ; and by an interminable talk about these special cases, and by every 
 sort of mystification, false issues, and special pleading, they induce thou- 
 sands to believe that aioon, aioonion, aidios, and all that family, when 
 applied to future punishment, mean not eternal, unending. Nay ; when 
 you remind them that these words represent the state of future felicity — 
 they retort just as you have heard on immersion — they believe in eternal 
 happines — but not because aioon, <fec. so intimate in this case. I have 
 never observed a more full and perfect parallelism than in this present 
 case, and my argument with the Universalist. 
 
 Again, in the case of the Unitarians ; take the words, Lord, God, Jeho- 
 vah, and they admit, at once, that these terms do, in their literal, pro- 
 per, and pure grammatical construction, mean the Supreme, Eternal, and 
 Un-originated God; one that always was, and is, and evermore shall 
 be. But, say they, words have many meanings, and the context must 
 decide the meaning. Now, the word God is applied to magistrates, 
 rulers, angels, &c. and used in a subordinate sense times without num- 
 ber. They make out a number of examples, reason speciously about 
 them, and finally conclude that. in all cases when applied to the son of 
 Mary they are used not in their literal, proper, and primary sense ; but 
 is a rather figurative and special sense. Precisely, and without one 
 shade of variation, manage they their cause of special pleading, as my 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 199 
 
 friend, Mr. Rice, has done all through this question. Their system of 
 philology, criticism, modes of quotation are identically the same as his. 
 The only difference is, that the word is baptism, and not theos, deus, or 
 Jehovah. 
 
 So of eis, en, ek, apo — eis signifies into, and is so translated more 
 than two thousand times in the common version — often by unto, and to, 
 where it ought to be into — but although it takes saints into heaven, and 
 sends the wicked into hell, it must never mean into when baptism is 
 spoken of. It can lead us into any place but into the water. So with 
 all the prepositions connected with baptism. Not one of them will either 
 help us into the Jordan or out of it. They will bring us to it, but not into 
 it ; and if by accident we get into it, they will not bring us out of it ! ! It 
 is all of the same category with Unitarian and Universalian logic and tactics. 
 
 Doddridge says, " That man is the best commentator and the safest ex- 
 positor of Scripture, and always most likely to arrive at its true meaning who 
 follows common sense, and takes the words of the New Testament in 
 their most common and usual signification," — or in words to that effect 
 When so read, it annually converts thousands of Pedo-baptists into 
 Baptists. 
 
 Mr. Rice, as you have often noticed, has a very powerful argument — 
 he says, by way of chorus, " It won't do; no, it w r on't do." [A laugh.] 
 Why? because it does not suit his side of the question. But I must 
 resume my line of argument. 
 
 X. My tenth argument shall be deduced from those passages which Pe- 
 do-baptists usually urge against baptizo and baptisma, as not indicating 
 immersion. The very passages which they quote against our views, 
 together with their efforts at explaining them away, greatly confirm and 
 establish our conclusions. We shall commence with Mark vii. 3, 4, 
 and Luke xi. 38. (The Jews,) "Except they wash their hands oft, eat 
 not. And when they come from market, except they wash, [baptisoon- 
 tai,~] they eat not. And many such things they hold, as the loashings, 
 [baptismous,~] of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and beds," [or couches.] 
 Luke xi. 38. " The Pharisees wondered that Jesus had not washed [ebap- 
 tisthe~] before dinner." 
 
 I wish to make a remark : I am never for ascribing to any man motives 
 for his conduct — motives very far-fetched — other than the plain sense of 
 the case would indicate. The gentleman has told you, that I was obliged 
 once to translate baptizo by the word wash. How he knows that I was 
 obliged to do it — how he knows that I was so perplexed, is a matter 
 which he can probably explain. The case, however, is this : In setting 
 up the New Testament from Dr. Campbell's Gospels, the compositor 
 followed the copy which was placed before him, it not being corrected 
 in this passage ; and the mistake thus passed through several editions 
 without being noticed ; and as nothing is depending upon it, it so stands. 
 Besides, as I have before said, there is nothing improper in so using it 
 as a figurative representation of the word. I have no objection to using 
 the word occasionally as a metonymy — as the effect for the cause. I 
 have some curious remarks to make on this fact by and by, but I will not 
 make them now. 
 
 " These washings before dinner, reported by Mark and Luke, contain the 
 only two instances in which any part of baptizo is ever translated by wash 
 in the New Testament. And, fortunately, the antithesis between the wash- 
 ings here mentioned, indicated by the words employed in the original and 
 the facts stated, not only do not sustain the common version in transla- 
 
200 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ting 1 both words by the same word, wash ; but clearly intimate that the lat- 
 ter term, baptizo, ought here to have been rendered immerse. In verse 3d, 
 it is nipto with pugmee, a word already shown to mean washing the hands, 
 face, or feet, always when applied to the human person. This is true in 
 every case in the Bible. Moreover, it has pugmqe, the fist, in construction 
 with it ; that is, as Lightfoot and others interpret it, to the fist, or so far 
 as the fist extends. When the hand is shut, says Pollux, as quoted by Car- 
 son, the outside is called pugmee. Now, as this limits the first washing, 
 the second, being expressed by baptizo, and having no part of the body 
 mentioned as its peculiar regimen, according to the usage of the Greeks, 
 (and the Romans, in the case of lavo,) the whole body is meant. Hence, 
 they dip or bathe themselves after being to market, whereas, ordinarily, they 
 wash their hands only up to the wrist. 
 
 " Both Campbell and McKnight translated the word in this passage, im- 
 merse. Some of our lexicons, such as Schleusner's, Scapula's, Stokius', 
 &c, quote this passage in proof that washing is sometimes the effect of im- 
 mersion. The meaning of baptisoontai, here, as in Luke xi. 38, being thus 
 clearly indicated, (for Luke speaks of the same custom as Mark,) we have, 
 then, found baptizo, in its eighty occurrences in the New Testament, uni- 
 formly signifying immersion ; and never sprinkling nor pouring. 
 
 " Baptismos is also translated washing in Heb. ix. 2, as well as in Mark 
 vii. 4. The diverse washings of cups, pots, brazen vessels, tables, couches, 
 persons, and things mentioned among the traditions of the elders and the 
 institutions of the law, were for ceremonial cleansing. Hence, all by im- 
 mersion ; inasmuch as nothing was ever cleansed, since the world began, 
 by sprinkling water upon it. Meantime, I assume this fact, but I will 
 hereafter demonstrate it : — McKnight and Campbell were much more learn- 
 ed in the true meaning of this word than the whole college of the king's 
 translators. McKnight translates the " diverse washings'''' of the common 
 version by " diverse immersions ," Heb. ix. 2. 
 
 " Baptismos is never applied to the christian ordinance — baptisma gener- 
 ally ; and, therefore, our translators never translated the latter but by bap- 
 tism, and baptismos three times by washing. We have, then, in the one 
 hundred and twenty occurrences of baptizo,- baptismos, baptisma, and bap- 
 iistees, not found a single exception. 
 
 " But we find bapto, in Daniel, in some of its flexions, twice translated 
 wet ; and that, too, by the dew of heaven ! It was, then, a general wet- 
 ting — profuse as immersion ; and this metonymy of the effect for the cause, 
 clearly indicates that in the days of the Septuagint, the idea of sprinkling 
 was never associated with bapto. Dews are more wetting in this country, 
 much more so in Asia, in the environs of the Euphrates — than any Pedo- 
 baptist sprinkling since the council of Ravenna. Soaking, wetting, dyeing, 
 coloring and even washing, it has always been conceded, are frequent mean- 
 ings of bapto ; because, as all the dictionaries explain, these processes are 
 accomplished by immersing. Indeed, these metaphors all go to show that 
 immersion was the proper and fixed meaning of the term ; for, unless things 
 were covered in some way, they could neither be dyed, colored, washed, 
 soaked, or even thoroughly wet." — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18— -11!, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's thirteenth reply.] 
 Mr. President — I will commence my remarks (though it may be rather 
 out of the regular order) by noticing the statement of the gentleman con- 
 cerning Schleusner, viz : that he gives to wash as a figurative meaning 
 of baptizo. Schleusner does first define it to immerse, and to wash by 
 immersing ; but he gives, as the second meaning, not as a figurative 
 meaning, abluo, lavo, aqua pingo — to cleanse, to wash, to purify with 
 water ; and for examples of this second meaning he refers to the New 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 201 
 
 Testament, particularly Mark vii. 4, "And. when they come from the 
 market, except they wash, (baptizontai) they eat not. Were not these 
 literal washings ? Is not baptizo here used in a literal sense ? The gen- 
 tleman's own lexicon is against him ; and so are all the others. When 
 I make assertions, I will certainly prove them. The gentleman may rest 
 assured of that. 
 
 I think he is getting a little warm in debate. So much the better. 
 Let us hear something to waken up our energies. I regret, however, that 
 he does not get on faster with his reading. 
 
 He tells us, he has not attempted to prove, that baptizo means only to 
 immerse, but that this is its native, original and proper meaning. But 
 if he would read Ernesti, (ana" he speaks highly of him,) he would dis- 
 cover, that in proving this, he really proves nothing in favor of immer- 
 sion. On page 52 of Ernesti, we read as follows : 
 
 "Etymology, an uncertain guide. The fluctuating use of words, which 
 prevails in every language, gives rise to frequent changes in their meaning. 
 There are but few words in any language, which always retain their radical 
 and primary meaning. Great care, therefore, is necessary in the interpre- 
 ter, to guard against rash etymological exegesis, which is often very falla- 
 cious. Etymology often belongs rather to the history of language, than to 
 the illustration of its present meaning ; and rarely does it exhibit any thing 
 more than a specious illustration." 
 
 Suppose then, the gentleman could demonstrate, that the native, original 
 meaning of baptizo, was to sink or to plunge ; of what advantage would 
 this be to his cause ? I could admit it, though it cannot be certainly proved ; 
 for it would still remain extremely doubtful, whether, as used some cen- 
 turies afterward, by a people speaking a peculiar idiom of the Greek, 
 and in relation to matters foreign to its first usage, it retained the same 
 meaning. Ernesti, you observe, who is admitted to be one of the ablest 
 writers on interpretation, tells us, that but few words in any language 
 (even when still used by the same people) always retain their radical and 
 primary meaning. I have furnished you with some examples (and they 
 might be multiplied indefinitely) in which English words, in the space of 
 two centuries, have entirely lost their original meaning ; and the gentle- 
 man himself has pointed out several examples of the kind in his new 
 translation. Within two hundred years the English language has, in re- 
 gard to multitudes of its words, undergone a radical change; and shall we 
 be told, that words in the Greek retained their primary meaning unchanged 
 during the long period of its existence before the advent of our Savior, 
 and even when transferred to another nation and to new subjects ? He 
 must either prove, that baptizo, at the time when, and amongst the people 
 for whom christian baptism was instituted, meant only, or, at least, com- 
 monly to immerse ; or he must fail to sustain his cause. 
 
 It is true, as he says, that Dr. Gale is with him in advocating the exclu- 
 sive claims of immersion ; and therefore it is that I have quoted him to 
 refute his arguments. True, our immersionist critics all come to the same 
 conclusion, though by different and contradictory modes of reasoning. 
 Both Gale and Cox, according to Carson, gave up the question, at least 
 so far as bapto is concerned ; and I have proved that Gale has given it up, 
 so far as baptizo is concerned. So they travel on, fighting by the way, 
 but arriving finally at the same place. But, mark it, the Pedo-baptists 
 are, en masse, against the gentleman. If a very few admit, that immer- 
 sion was the apostolic practice ; I can only say, they have admitted too 
 much. Against their concessions, however, I have adduced the testimony 
 
202 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 of the old Greek and Latin fathers, who immersed three times, in favor of 
 the validity and scriptural character of our baptism. 
 
 Carson, my friend thinks, had no need to contradict the lexicons, 
 though he can prove them wrong. Thus far, however, he has failed to 
 produce a lexicon that makes to wash a figurative meaning of baptizo. 
 Nor has he been able to produce one, though repeatedly urged to do it, 
 that gives immerse as the primary or proper meaning of the word, as used 
 amongst the Jews, and in the Bible. 
 
 I have proved, that Origen used bapto in the sense of sprinkling ; and 
 he, it is presumed, understood the Greek as well as my friend. On the 
 shoulders of such a giant, even though I were a Lilliputian, I would not 
 fear the assaults of Mr. C, whom I am bound to consider a mighty man, 
 since he contradicts Origen and all the lexicons ! He held up before you 
 a volume of Wall in reply to Gale, and triumphantly asserted, that he did 
 not venture to reply to Gale's speculations about a different reading in 
 Rev. xix. 13. He did not, however, tell you that Wall was himself an 
 immersionist, contending for pouring only in case of necessity ; and that 
 he was writing almost exclusively on infant baptism. No — he would leave 
 on your minds the impression, that the whole volume was written in de- 
 fence of pouring or sprinkling, when the truth is, that probably not a tenth 
 of it is on that subject. He will gain nothing by this mode of warfare. 
 
 The gentleman tells us that Prof. Stuart quotes Calvin, as claiming for 
 the church the right to change the ordinances, except the substance. Stu- 
 art has not quoted such a remark from Calvin. Neither Stuart nor Calvin 
 ever claimed for the church any such authority. On the contrary, Cal- 
 vin, in his commentary on Acts viii. 38, says, as regards the ceremony 
 of baptism, in so far as it was delivered to us by Christ, it were a hundred 
 times better to be slain by the sword, than that we should allow it to be 
 taken from us. But he believed that the Savior did not prescribe any 
 particular mode of administering the ordinance ; and therefore the church 
 had from the beginning freely practiced different modes, as immersion, 
 trine immersion, partial immersion, pouring and sprinkling. Stuart takes 
 the same view of the subject, denying most positively, that the New 
 Testament contains a command to practice immersion, and callng upon 
 any one who asserts the contrary, to produce such a command, It is not 
 true, then, to say, that either of these men claimed for the church the right 
 to change the ordinances of God's house. They maintained, that the mode 
 of administering baptism is indifferent, because not, in their opinion, pre 
 cribed by the Savior. 
 
 My friend labors to get Philip and the eunuch into the water by the 
 force of the preposition eis, maintaining that its proper meaning is into. 
 The audience will remember that I quoted Buttman's Greek grammar, 
 a standard work, as defining it to, into, in answer to whither, that is, to 
 (not into) what place ? Its leading meaning, therefore, according to Butt- 
 man, (whose authority I must, with all deference, consider higher than 
 that of my friend,) is simply to. Precisely so it is defined by Scapula, 
 "ad, in" — to, into. Hedericus defines it, in, (2) ad, (3) erga; into, to, 
 towards. Donnegan thus defines it : general signification, to, into, with 
 verbs of motion. Robertson gives, as the primary or original meaning — 
 "into, then to, towards, &c, after verbs of motion," &c. Bretschnei- 
 der, as I have already said, gives to as its first and leading meaning, 
 Schrivellius defines it, ad, in; item, erga — to, into ; also towards. Not 
 one of these lexicons, nor any other known to me, says, that eis gener- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 203 
 
 ally means into ; but several of the best of them gives to as its leading 
 meaning. 
 
 The gentleman charges Pedo-baptists with adopting the principles of 
 interpretation by which Universalists and Unitarians seek to sustain their 
 tenets. Is this charge true ? Have I not, throughout this discussion, 
 been contending for the ordinary and proper meaning of words, as they 
 are used by the people whose language we are expounding? But I 
 pledge myself to prove, before the close of this discussion, that he has 
 much more affinity with Unitarians and Universalists than I. 
 
 But let me read a few passages of Scripture, translating the word eis, 
 into, and ek, out of — as the gentleman wishes ; that the audience may 
 judge of the soundness of his criticisms : 2 Kings vi. 4, " When they 
 came into (eis) Jordan, they cut down wood." Did the persons go lit- 
 erally into Jordan in order to cut wood ? Isa. xxxvi. 2, " And the king of 
 Assyria sent Rabshekeh out of (ek) Lachesh into (eis) Jerusalem, unto 
 Hezekiah with a great army." John vi. 23, " Howbeit, there came other 
 boats out of (ek) Tiberias." John viii. 23, "And he said unto them, ye 
 are out of (ek) beneath ; I am out of (ek) above: ye are out of (ek) this 
 world; I am not out of (ek) this world." Ch. ix. 1, "And as Jesus 
 passed by, he saw a man blind out of (ek) his birth." Verse 7, " And 
 [Jesus] said unto him, go wash into (eis) the pool of Siloam." Verse 
 11, " And [Jesus] said unto me, go into (eis) the pool of Siloam and 
 wash." Ch. xi. 31, "She goeth into (eis) the grave to weep there." 
 Verse 38, " Jesus cometh into (eis) the grave. It was a cave and a 
 stone lay upon it." 
 
 I will read another passage or two from John xx., for the gentleman 
 seems to consider this an important point. " The first day of the week 
 cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, into (eis) the 
 sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away out of (ek) the sepulchre, &c. 
 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came into (eis) 
 the sepulchre. So they ran both together : and the other disciple did 
 outrun Peter, and came first into (eis) the sepulchre. And he stooping 
 down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in," &c. 
 
 The unlearned hearer can at once perceive, that by translating these 
 prepositions into and out of without regard to the connection, we make 
 the Scriptures speak nonsense and contradictions. But the gentleman 
 thinks, that in many passages where these words are translated to and 
 from, the real meaning is into and out of; as we speak of sending a 
 letter from Lexington to Philadelphia. In all such cases, however, the 
 idea expressed is that of going from one point to another point. Hence, 
 we should laugh at a man who would speak of going out of Lexington 
 into Philadelphia ! He parades before us with triumph the number of 
 instances in which in the New Testament eis is translated into. But 
 will he please to tell the audience in how many of those cases the verb is 
 preceded by the preposition? The general rule in this subject, I have 
 already presented. In some cases the connection and the sense show, 
 that eis means into, and ek, out of Then they should be so translated. 
 In other cases, such as I have just read in your hearing, the connection 
 and the sense prove that these prepositions mean to and from. But in 
 cases where the connection does not determine their meaning, as in 
 Acts viii. 38, the Greeks, if they wished definitely to express the action 
 of going into or coming out of prefixed a preposition to the verb, as 
 eiserchomai eis, I go into ; ekporeuomai ek, I go out of In the case under 
 
204 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 consideration, however, these definite expressions are not employed ; and 
 since to go down to the water, makes as good sense as to go down into, 
 it cannot be proved that Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. 
 
 In thus reasoning, however, I am doing a work of supererogation ; for 
 I can safely admit, as already remarked, that they did go literally into 
 the water. And I defy any man then to prove, that Philip immersed the 
 eunuch. What advantage, then, is gained by the labor to prove, that 
 they did go in ? 
 
 My friend says, he can sympathise with me ; for he has been a Pres- 
 byterian, and knows what it is to be under the unhappy influence of such 
 a system. I am obliged to him ; but I am so little sensible of my need 
 of his sympathies, that I am quite unable fully to appreciate his kindness. 
 I even find myself doubting, whether he ever was a bona fide Presbyte- 
 rian. Presbyterianism I once heard, very appropriately, compared to a 
 kind of grass that grows in some parts of the South, which is said to be 
 very valuable, but if once it becomes fairly set, there is no such thing as 
 rooting it out. [A laugh.] If a man ever becomes a genuine Presbyte- 
 rian, it will stick by him, living and dying." [Laughter.] I really doubt 
 whether the gentleman ever was the true blue. — [Continued laughter.] 
 
 But he tells us, he has examined, thoroughly, this whole subject — dis- 
 covered and repudiated the errors of Pedo-baptism. Peter Edwards, I 
 believe, was once a good Baptist ; but upon careful examination of the 
 whole ground, he came over to the side of truth, and w 7 rote one of the 
 ablest works I have seen in favor of Pedo-baptism. Dr. Thomas Scott, 
 the commentator, for a time, had difficulties on this subject; but on tho- 
 rough examination of the evidence in the case, he, too, settled down in 
 the firm conviction that the Bible teaches the doctrines for which I am 
 now contending. In company with such men, I cannot realize my need 
 of the sympathy of the gentleman. 
 
 He tells you, that the common English version of the Scriptures is 
 making immersionists quite rapidly. Then why did he not let it alone ? 
 Why has he made a new translation, if the old one was doing the work 
 so effectually ? And why have immersionists (and he amongst them) so 
 liberally bestowed their censures upon it ? Why has the gentleman, and 
 those who agree with him, been writing and preaching so long and so 
 constantly on this very plain subject, so clearly presented in the common 
 Bible ? Ah, I seriously doubt, whether he has not felt great dissatisfac- 
 tion with our excellent translation, on this very subject. 
 
 I will briefly notice the remarks of the gentleman on Mark vii. 4, and 
 Luke xi. 38. In the former passage we read — that " the Pharisees, and 
 all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, <fec. And when 
 they come from the market, except they wash [Greek — except they bap- 
 tize,'] they eat not." Now the question is — did the Pharisees, and all 
 the Jews, immerse themselves before eating, whenever they came from 
 the market or public place? Mr. C. does not venture to say, that 
 they did. He adds the pronoun them, referring to the hands — " by dip- 
 ping them." But there is no such word in the Greek, and he has nc 
 right to supply it. Mr. Carson, speaking of the very translation adopted 
 by the gentleman, pronounces it nothing more than " an ingenious con- 
 ceit;" and he states, that in such connection, where no part of the body 
 is mentioned, or excepted, the whole body is meant. So he would make 
 the Jews literally immerse themselves before eating ; though there is not 
 the least evidence of the prevalence of any such custom, and it is almost 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 205 
 
 incredible that it could have existed. But' the cause of immersion de- 
 mands the belief of great improbabilities. 
 
 The translation, given by Mr. Campbell, I have said, and I repeat it, 
 is no translation at all. He makes one little Greek adverb contain the 
 whole phrase, "by pouring a little water on them;" and then he drops 
 some two of the Greek words out of the text, and translates the phrase, ean 
 me baptizontai, (literally, unless they baptize,) by the preposition by, 
 and the participle dipping, and supplies the word them, referring to the 
 hands ! ! Such a translation I do not remember ever to have seen. 
 
 The only charge ever made against Christ and his disciples, connected 
 with this subject, was, that they neglected to wash their hands before 
 eating. The baptism here spoken of, therefore, was a washing of the 
 hands, which, as it was a religious washing, is represented as baptizing 
 the person; and, it is certain, that the Jews were accustomed to have wa- 
 ter poured on their hands. So universal was this custom, that a servant 
 was described as one who poured water on the hands of his master. 
 " Here is Elisha-ben-shaphat, who poured ivater on the hands of Eli- 
 jah." The word baptizo in this passage, therefore, denotes the partial 
 application of water. 
 
 But I proved, that in one instance Mr. Campbell himself had translated 
 baptizo, to wash or use washing, (Luke xi. 38.) He tells us, however, 
 that this was by a mistake of the compositor, which, in the reading of the 
 proof-sheets, was overlooked. I, of course, cannot contradict this state- 
 ment ; but I am constrained to consider it one of the most remarkable 
 blunders that ever fell under my observation. I cannot but wonder, that 
 a man so sharp-sighted as Mr. C, publishing edition after edition of a 
 new translation, one prominent object of which was to translate that very 
 word, should at last have stereotyped such an error undiscovered ! ! ! The 
 meaning of the word in the passage under consideration, is sufficiently 
 clear. It is scarcely credible, that the Pharisee should have wondered 
 that our Savior had not immersed himself before dinner. His surprise 
 evidently arose from the fact that he had not washed his hands. The 
 new Baptist translation labors under the same difficulty I had supposed 
 my friend to feel, in regard to this passage, and also Mark vii. 4. In both 
 cases, they translate baptizo by the word bathe ; which every body 
 knows does not express either mode or specific action. The translators 
 were zealous immersionists ; and they set out with the purpose of transla- 
 ting this word correctly. But they could not venture, in these two cases, 
 to translate it immerse: it would have looked too badly ! 
 
 I see not why Mr. C. should make so much ado about his momentous 
 fact, that God never commanded purification to be effected by sprinkling 
 unmixed water on a person. I have called on him to show one instance 
 in the law of Moses, where a person was ever commanded to be immersed 
 in water, pure or mixed ; and he has not been able to do it. His attempt 
 to prove immersion by louo, a word which is universally admitted to be 
 generic, and to mean simply to wash, shows how he feels the difficulty. 
 Let the fact, then, be known, that the Old Testament requires a number 
 of purifications by sprinkling water, but not one immersion. I am unwill- 
 ing to anticipate the argument of my friend from the burial of Christ, as 
 mentioned in Rom. vi. ; and yet I have nothing particularly to do, unless I 
 do still run ahead of him. I have replied to his arguments, besides offer- 
 ing many to which, as yet, he has attempted no answer. I will, then, in- 
 troduce my argument directly in favor of baptism by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 S 
 
206 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 My first remark on this point is this : Baptism is a significant ordi- 
 nance. Man is a sinful being ; and when baptized with water, the univer- 
 sal purifier — he is taught, at once, this truth, that he is polluted, and that 
 he must be cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit., The water of baptism 
 is, then, an emblem of spiritual cleansing — of sanctification. Hence it is 
 so frequently in the New Testament mentioned as a washing. The gen- 
 tleman, I presume, will not deny, that baptism is a significant ordinance, 
 an emblem of sanctification. I need not, therefore, multiply evidence to 
 prove it. 
 
 I have now several important facts to state, which, I think, clearly 
 establish the doctrine for which I am contending, viz : that baptism is 
 scripturally performed by pouring or sprinkling ; the first of which is this : 
 
 All the personal ablutions of the Old Testament, the mode of which is 
 prescribed, were required to be performed by sprinkling. The gentle- 
 man has boasted of his universal affirmations. Now I affirm the fact just 
 stated to be true, without exception. There is not a washing of the Le- 
 vitical law, having respect to persons, nor an important washing of any 
 kind, the mode of which, if there is any mode commanded, is not sprink- 
 ling. By turning to Leviticus, ch. xiv. you will find particular directions 
 concerning the cleansing of the leper. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18 — 12 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fourteenth address.] 
 
 Before entering upon my address, I will ask Mr. Rice, Did you, sir, 
 ever see this lexicon I now hold in my hand — Stokius on the New 
 Testament ? 
 
 Mr. Rice. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Mr. Rice acknowledges that he has never seen this 
 lexicon. Did he not, then, I am constrained to ask, speak too hastily 
 when he said, that there is not a dictionary, in the world that says, to 
 wash, to cleanse, are figurative meanings of baptizo? 
 
 Mr. Rice. If the gentleman will allow me to explain. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I said that I never heard of such a dictionary, and I called 
 upon my friend to produce one. And as he had not produced it, I, giving 
 him full credit for his learning, supposed and took it for granted, that 
 there was not one on earth. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. This is not perfectly satisfactory. It might have been 
 so but for the fact that in his third speech, when making his first formal 
 effort to sustain wash, he strongly affirmed that " there is not a lexi- 
 cographer, ancient or modern, on the face of the earth, who says that 
 baptizo means to wash, figuratively." I noted the words. Since then, 
 too, he has had other opportunities of knowing that Stokius is not the 
 only one who says so. He is only one of a considerable number, who 
 affirms that wash, cleanse, wet, &c, are, by consequence, or tropically, or 
 metonymically, meanings of baptism. Stokius, one of the most learned 
 Rabbis in the school and learning of orthodoxy, deposes as follows : 
 
 1. Generatim, ac vi vocis intinctionis ac immersionis notionem obtinct. 
 
 2. Speciatim (A) proprie est immergere ac intingere in aquam. 3. (B) 
 Tropice, per metalepsin est lavire abluere, quia aliquid intingi ac im- 
 mergi solet in aquam ut lavetur vel abluatur. Which I translate : — 
 Generally it obtains the sense of dipping or immersing. Without 
 respect to water or any liquid whatever. 2. Specially, and in its proper 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 207 
 
 signification, it signifies to dip or immerse in water. This is its New 
 Testament sense. 3. Tropically, and by a metalepsis, it means to wash, 
 to cleanse, because a thing is usually dipped or immersed in water that it 
 may be washed, that it may be cleansed. Its general sense is to dip. 
 Its proper sense, to dip in water. Its figurative sense, to wash, to cleanse. 
 This is a true version of this great author; and it is exactly what I 
 believe and have taught from the beginning. Have I not, then, in my 
 own time and way, after giving him full space to develop himself and his 
 argument, clearly shown that he has misconceived, mistated and greatly 
 misrepresented the Greek lexicons, and especially those on the New Tes- 
 tament. He has often vauntingly asked for a New Testament lexicon, 
 that gives immerse as the proper and primary meaning of baptizo. He 
 has got it now ! Indeed, they all do so, that define its proper meaning. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I will fix that directly. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I wish to have it explained now, or fixed, as the gen- 
 tleman says. I pause for a reply. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I will shew from Ernesti, that tropical words sometimes 
 become proper ones, and a secondary meaning is used for the first : 
 
 " But there are several different points of light in which tropical words 
 are to be viewed. For, first, the primitive or proper signification, strictly 
 understood, often becomes obsolete, and ceases for a. long period to be used. 
 In this case, the secondary sense, which originally would have been the 
 tropical one, becomes the proper one. This applies especially to the 
 names of things. Hence there are many words which at present never 
 have their original and proper sense, such as etymology would assign them, 
 but only the secondary sense, which may in each case, be called the proper 
 sense ; e. g. in English, tragedy, comedy, villain, pagan, knave, &c. 
 
 " Secondly, in like manner, the tropical sense of certain words has be- 
 come so common by usage, that it is better understood than the original sense. 
 In this case, too, we call the sense proper ; although strictly and technically 
 speaking, one might insist on its being called tropical. If one should, by 
 his last will, give a library [bibliothecarn] to another, we should not call the 
 use of bibliotheca tropical ; although, strictly speaking, it is so ; for biblio- 
 theca originally meant the shelves, or place where books are deposited." — 
 Ernesti, pp. 23, 24. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I am sorry that my confidence in the candor of my 
 friend is somewhat diminished by this manouvre. 
 
 Mr. Rice. Tropical words, with the critics, are not figurative words. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I should like to refer the decision of the translations 
 which I have given, to classical gentlemen present. Mr. Rice says, a 
 tropical word, or, as I understand it, a word used tropically, is not a 
 figurative word with the critics. This is a new doctrine in the schools. 
 Whence comes the word that indicates figurative use ? Comes it not 
 from tropos, and that from trepo, to turn ? To turn a word from its 
 proper signification, is to make it a trope ; and that is what we call a 
 figure. There is no dictionary of credit that otherwise explains and de- 
 fines these words, or that distinguishes tropical from figurative language, 
 as used in the schools of logic and rhetoric. But this is not mere infer- 
 ence or conjecture in this particular case. Stokius gives the name of the 
 figure. He calls it a metalepsis. So the matter is ended with him as 
 respects Ernesti — Ernesti's remarks and the question before us, belong 
 not to the same class. They are wholly misapplied. They belong to 
 another subject. 
 
 But why this excitement about Stokius ? He is only a little plainer 
 
208 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 than some of the others. He goes no farther than Schleusner and Bret- 
 schneider. He gives the name of the figure, and calls it a metalepsis, which 
 transfers the name of an effect to its cause. They explain it as a figure 
 or trope, without naming it. My ear has been pained — repeatedly 
 pained, with the manner that some dictionaries are quoted by my friend. 
 I do not like to go into expositions of this sort ; nor into debates about 
 foreign languages before a popular assembly. But really, I am obliged 
 to say, that Schleusner and Bretschnieder are as much with me as Stoki- 
 us, and as much mystified by my respondent. 
 
 Hear Schleusner's own words. The question is, when and how 
 comes baptizo to mean wash, cleanse? He says : 1. Jam quia haud raro 
 aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet, ut lavetur hinc. 2. Ah- 
 luo lavo aqua per go notat. Because a thing must be dipped or immersed 
 into water that it may be washed. Hence comes the sense, I wash, I 
 cleanse. Now he might as well have called it a metonymy ; for he de- 
 scribes the figure without calling its name, while Stokius does not. 
 
 The gentleman also knows, that Bretschneider so understands it. He 
 knows that he defines baptisma, in the New Testament, to mean nothing 
 but "immersion, or submersion;" and why he should so often quote a 
 special clause, "lavo aluo simpliciter," in direct contravention of this 
 definition, is of the same category with the two still more venerable 
 names of Schleusner and Stokius. Now these are all New Testament 
 lexicographers, well acquainted with the Jewish idiom of which Mr. R. 
 speaks so sensitively, and they are still more decidedly with us, though 
 Pedo-baptists, than any one, or all of the classic dictionaries. 
 
 This is the first and the only time, since our commencement, that we 
 have had any debate ; and it is upon the real gist of the whole contro- 
 versy. I stake the whole cause of immersion on this single point, for 
 this is just the point on which the whole baptismal controversy turns. I 
 am willing, then, to give it all the conspicuity it deserves — to open up the 
 case, and place it fairly before the community. Mr. Rice has been con- 
 strained to admit, on the testimony of three New Testament lexicons, as 
 well as upon that of many others, that baptizo properly, originally, and 
 primarily signifies to dip; but he also contends that it properly, primarily, 
 and originally signifies to wash. He will not, indeed, say, that it means 
 to sprinkle, or pour. It properly, however, signifies to wash. Now 
 this wash, he says, is a generic word, as we all admit. Next he has got 
 three modes of washing ; he will take sprinkling, and give us dipping, 
 on condition that we say that his is baptism. This is a fair narrative of 
 the case, as he will admit. Well then, of course this word wash is the 
 struggle. The whole battle is about wash. He says it is the proper, 
 primary, and original meaning — at all events, he sometimes, rather 
 in a faltering tone, says, it is certainly a proper meaning of the word. 
 Now, then, we have got the great New Testament lexicons, as well as 
 some other great authorities, deposing that it does not at all properly 
 mean to wash, but only so by accident, by trope or figure ; and that, 
 too, only as an effect of immersion. 
 
 I contend, before Christendom, that the question is now decided, That 
 plainer proof cannot be afforded on any literary question now before the 
 schools. This is just what ought to be. The debate is now brought 
 down to one clear, tangible, appreciable point, which all may see and all 
 may comprehend. 
 
 If the Savior spoke plainly upon z point which involves the salvation 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 209 
 
 of the world, we ought to speak plainly upon every thing connected with 
 it. I ask all persons of reflection, if the Savior spoke tropically or figu- 
 ratively, when giving laws, involving the salvation of the world, when he 
 should have spoken plainly, and without a figure ? Do men, in dictating 
 or in writing their last wills and testaments, speak figuratively and rhe- 
 torically ? Surely, then, we cannot take shelter in a trope, in a metaphor, 
 or figure of speech, when discussing the most sacred and solemn of ordi- 
 nances was enacted by the Savior of men. 
 
 To leave this matter for a moment, I have been invited by my friend, 
 to pay more attention to the Jewish use of this word than to the classical; 
 as if I had not given it the first part of my attention ; or as if there were 
 some real, undefined difference between the Jewish and classical style. 
 I would not care to write a book on such questions, for those who might 
 have leisure, or taste, to read it; but, really, to throw dust in the eyes of 
 a plain and unsophisticated popular assembly, by such verbose and inter- 
 minable jargon, I could not endure. 
 
 Did I not, however, begin with Jewish use ? Did I not take the types 
 in the law, and shew from the Septuagint how dip, sprinkle, and pour 
 were contrasted, at the very fountain head of precision ? 
 
 But my prudent and calculating friend would not wait for me. He 
 gave us Josephus in anticipation. At least he concurred with the learned 
 Wall, and the more learned Stuart, that Josephus wrote Greek very clas- 
 sically; but then, the misfortune is, that this proves nothing for us ; for 
 the cunning, artful Josephus imitates the Greeks, for the sake of gaining 
 Gentile favor ! Instead of using his Hebrew Greek style, the shrewd Jew 
 laid it aside, and, it seems, preferred to mimic the Gentiles. There is no 
 conquering such logicians. They vjill have the advantage. Josephus, 
 and all the Greeks contemporary with the apostolic age, used this word 
 just as Stokius, Schleusner, and Bretschneider use it ; as Wall, Camp- 
 bell, McKnight, and a thousand others have contended that it should be 
 used. All the difference, according to Stuart, is, that the Jews did not, 
 in one book, the Bible, use bapto and baptizo in as many acceptations 
 as can be found in all the classics. He found no new or special use of 
 the word in the Bible. Not one. lie thought that the Jews used wash 
 more frequently than the Greeks. But that was only an opinion. Dr. 
 Wall found no difference. But then Mr. Rice says he was an immer- 
 sionist ! He did not like to oppose Dr. Gale on that subject. He only 
 gave one tenth of his book to immersion, and nine -tenths to the babes ! 
 How singularly men's prejudices pervert their optics ! But I could have 
 brought many passages from Josephus, who, in fifty places probably uses 
 the word, and always uses it to signify immerse, as Stuart, Carson, 
 and Ewing have shewn. But this would be in vain. If I say Jose- 
 phus lived contemporary with the apostles, that he was well acquaint- 
 ed with both Hebrew and Greek, and that it is certain he used the 
 word just as the Greeks always used it — I am anticipated. I am told by 
 Mr. Rice, that this was through his affectation of Grecian learning!! I 
 repeat it, no one could prove to such men that which they are determined 
 not to believe. Did not Stokius, Schleusner, Bretschneider, McKnight, 
 Wall, Campbell, &c., understand the Jewish idiom? 
 
 But to return to the New Testament lexicons. I have said that Sto- 
 kius is not alone in his definitions. Take a little specimen. [Here Mr. 
 Campbell, taking up Dr. Wall's work in answer to Dr. Gale, and insert- 
 ing his fingers between the leaves.] Here is just the one-tenth of the 
 14 s2 
 
210 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 book, according to the optics of my friend. If, my fellow-citizens, this 
 be one-tenth of the whole, do apply the same doctrine of ratios to the 
 assertions and reasonings of my friend, Mr. Rice. [A laugh.] Mr. Rice 
 says, by way of apology for the strong and honest sayings of Wall, 
 Campbell, McKnight, Bretschneider, that they were iramersionists ; he 
 does not mean Baptists, but only theoretically with us. This is one of 
 my friend's ingenious arts of getting ahead of me. He took Josephus, 
 Judith, and Naaman, and now he will take all these great christian Rabbis 
 by some manoeuvre. I could bring scores from the Presbyterian and 
 Episcopal churches, all concurring with these ; but my quoting them, or 
 even his apprehension that I am about to quote them, will instantly con- 
 vert them into immersionists ! Should he admit the true meaning of a word 
 in the Koran, would that constitute him a Turk ? Their philological, ex 
 cathedra admissions and concessions do not convert them into Baptists. 
 With me, a christian is one who practices Christ's precepts, and an im- 
 mersionist is either an immersed man, or one who immerses others. 
 
 Calvin, Stuart, Wall, Campbell, McKnight, and many such distinguish- 
 ed men, thought it an enlargement of soul, a generous and magnanimous 
 liberality not to be so scrupulously exact as to contend for a strict obedi- 
 ence to all matters of clear theological accuracy, reposing upon the easy 
 couch that the church, from the beginning, assumed to herself, " the right 
 of changing the ordinances somewhat, excepting the substance." But I 
 must risk the charge of illiberally in avowing my conviction, that there 
 is nothing within human power so terrific and appaling, as any attempt 
 to touch the ark of the Lord, by accommodating any of Christ's ordi- 
 nances to the pride, the caprice, the vanity, or apathy of any man or set. 
 of men. There is one sentence in the sermon on the mount that keeps 
 tingling in my ears when I hear men talk so — Jesus said, " Whosoever 
 shall violate one of the least of these my commandments, and shall teach 
 others to do so, shall be of no account in the kingdom of heaven." In 
 my esteem the highest style, and honor, and dignity of man, is to know, 
 to teach, and to practice the institutions of Jesus Christ. I am zealous 
 for the letter ; for although a man may have the letter and the form with- 
 out the spirit, he cannot have the spirit without the letter and the form of 
 godliness. To neglect, to disparage, or corrupt the ordinances of God 
 never were, in any age, small matters in the sight of God. Isaiah, in 
 his twenty-fourth chapter, saith— " The land shall be emptied and utterly 
 spoiled— the earth mourneth — the world languisheth and fadeth away — 
 the haughty do languish— the earth is defiled under the inhabitants there- 
 of; because they have transgressed the laivs, changed the ordinance, 
 broken the everlasting covenant." This is enough for one lesson on the 
 solemnity of the ordinances. 
 
 My friend, Mr. Rice, .gives me no reason to hope favorably in his case. 
 He does not say, yet indicates as much as, that he will never suffer him- 
 self to change, and that I never knew any one of his class to change. 
 This is dangerous ground. Popes have changed. Liberius changed 
 four times during his life, yet was always infallible. I would not for this 
 commonwealth say that I will never change. God gave us two ears, Mr. 
 President, and he put one on each side of our heads. I move, sir, that 
 we keep them there, and do not put them both on one side. I believe, 
 sir, that we should not only hear on both sides, but that we ought to hear 
 both sides, and whenever enlightened, act. 
 
 The passage from Ernesti is just to my taste™ I wish the gentleman 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 211 
 
 had read a little farther. He would have given us two sayings of much 
 pith. Melancthon said — " The Scripture cannot be understood theologi- 
 cally unless it be understood grammatically." Luther also said, "A 
 certain knowledge of the sense of Scripture depends solely on the words." 
 No one, I will add, is at liberty to plead for a special law or tribunal in 
 any case of scriptural investigation. 
 
 And, once more, I will say that to talk of Greek, and Hebrew, and 
 Roman idiom, and peculiarity, in expounding words indicated by outward 
 bodily actions, seems as visionary and eccentric as to argue that eating, 
 drinking, sleeping, walking, riding, &c, are subject to the changes of 
 political opinion, religious belief, or geographical lines.- — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18—12:1 o'clock, P. 31. 
 [mr. rice's fourteenth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — My friend, Mr. C, I discover, is becoming extremely 
 uneasy. He seems to feel, that unless he can succeed in diverting the 
 minds of the audience from the subject in debate to something personal, 
 his cause is lost. I regret to see him so sorely pressed, that he feels it 
 necessary to attempt to injure me by making the impression, that I mis- 
 stated a fact in regard to Wall's reply to Gale. It is so little a thing to 
 come from a great man. Without having counted the pages, I made the 
 remark, that not more than a tenth of it is occupied in replying to Gale 
 on the mode of baptism. He holds up before you the first part of the 
 volume, to show you, that it is much more than a tenth of it; but he does 
 not inform you, that a number of pages in this division are an introduc- 
 tion to the work, and not a reply to Gale on the mode ! I still believe, 
 that not more than about a tenth is occupied on that particular point. As 
 before remarked, Wall declared his purpose not to answer at length the 
 arguments of Gale on the mode of baptism. But this is a very small 
 matter. I can sustain my cause without descending to such trifles. 
 
 The gentleman thinks he has, at length, found a lexicon that gives 
 wash as a figurative meaning of baptizo. With quite an air of triumph 
 he brings forward Stokius ; and he attempts to make a great deal of capi- 
 tal of my declaration, that no Greek lexicon so defined this word. But I 
 will make the blow aimed at me recoil on his own head. Suppose he 
 had even succeeded in finding one lexicon that gives ivasli as a figu- 
 rative meaning of baptizo; he would only have put me in company 
 with himself. For lie has asserted, and repeatedly published, that no 
 translator, ancient or modern, Christian, Jew, or Turk, ever rendered 
 bapto, or any of that family of words, to sprinkle. I have proved the fact 
 indisputably, that the ancient Syriac, the Ethiopic and the Vulgate do so 
 translate bapto, and that Origen did substantially the same thing. Yet 
 whilst I have convicted him of having repeatedly asserted what is wholly 
 untrue, he labors to make capital of the fact, (which is indeed not a fact) 
 that I made a general statement, to which he has found one exception 
 amongst all the lexicons, ancient and modern ! ! ! 
 
 By the way, he has spoken of a change of views as a mark of wisdom. 
 I will prove, before the close of this discussion, that he has changed again 
 and again, until he has got almost back to " Babylon," from which, 
 some years since, he fled in such haste. 
 
 But, after all, what says Stokius 1 He gives immerse as the original 
 meaning of baptizo, and wash as its tropical meaning. Have I not re- 
 peatedly stated, that I could admit, without injury to my cause, that im~ 
 
212 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 merse was the original meaning ? But the gentleman insists, that a trope 
 is a figure, and that the tropical meaning of a word, is a figurative mean' 
 ing. It is true, that with rhetoricians tropes are figures ; but with critics 
 the tropical meaning of a word is simply a secondary meaning. But let 
 us again hear Ernesti on the tropical meaning of words ; 
 
 "But, there are several different points of light in which tropical words 
 are to be viewed. For, first, the primitive or proper signification, strictly 
 understood, often becomes obsolete, and ceases for a long period to be used. 
 In this case, the secondary sense, which originally would have been the tro- 
 pical one, becomes the proper one. This applies especially to the names 
 of things. Hence, there are many words which, at present, never have 
 their original and proper sense, such as etymology would assign them, but 
 only the secondary senses, which may in such cases be called the proper 
 sense ; e. g. in English, tragedy, comedy, villain, pagan, knave, &c. 
 
 " Secondly, in like manner, the tropical sense of certain words has be- 
 come so common, by usage, that it is better understood than the original sense. 
 In this case, too, we call the sense proper ; although strictly and technically 
 speaking, one might insist on its being called tropical. If one should, by his 
 last will, give a library \bibliothecam~] to another, we should not call the use 
 of bibliotheca, tropical ; although strictly speaking it is so, for bibliotheca 
 originally meant the shelves or place where books are deposited."— »Ernesti 9 
 pp. 23, 24. 
 
 I have now clearly proved, that the secondary or tropical meaning of 
 words often becomes the common and the proper meaning. And are we 
 not seeking for the common — the proper meaning of haptizo? But I 
 will read a note by professor Stuart on the same subject. He says : 
 
 " The literal sense [of words] is the same as the primitive or original 
 sense ; or, at least, it is equivalent to that sense which has usurped the place 
 of the original one. For example, the original sense of the word tragedy 
 has long ceased to be current, and the literal sense of this word now, is that 
 which has taken the place of the original." — Ernesti, page 8. 
 
 According to the principle presented by Stuart, the literal meaning of 
 a word is either the original meaning, or that which has usurped the 
 place of it. Now what have I been, from the beginning, contending for ? 
 Why, that the Jews, who never used baptizo, as did the pagan Greeks, 
 in reference to things in common life, but always in relation to religious 
 washings, employed it in the sense of washing, cleansing, which Stokius 
 considers a secondary sense — that as thus used by the Jews, it never had 
 the sense of plunging, immersing. It was to illustrate this principle, 
 proved by Ernesti and Stuart, that I gave, as one example, the English 
 word prevent. The original meaning of this word, as I have repeatedly 
 stated, was to come before. The tropical meaning, which is now the 
 proper and literal meaning, is to hinder. What would you think of a 
 professed critic who should now insist, that the word prevent means, lit- 
 erally, to come before — that to hinder is a figurative meaning; and 
 that, in reading authors of the present day, we must understand the word 
 in its original sense ? You see, at a glance, the perfect absurdity of such 
 criticism; and yet, such precisely is the criticism of Mr. Campbell! 
 Even Carson, his own profound linguist, as I have repeatedly proved, is 
 against him ; for he says, that these secondary meanings are as literal as 
 the original. In company with such men as Ernesti, Stuart, and Carson, 
 I have no fear that my reputation, as a scholar or a man of candor, will 
 suffer, before such an audience as I now address. Indeed, Stuart has 
 given to wash as a literal meaning of baptizo ; and so have the lexicons. 
 That to wash is a literal meaning of this word, must be obvious to 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 213 
 
 every unprejudiced mind. What does the Latin word lavo, or the Eng- 
 lish word wash mean ? It denotes the literal application of water to a 
 person or thing. I have, once or twice, given an example of the literal 
 and of the figurative use of the word sprinkle, which fully illustrates this 
 point. When the Scriptures speak of the sprinkling of clean water, the 
 word is used literally ; but when they speak of sprinkling the heart from 
 an evil conscience, it is used figuratively. But to say, that either wash- 
 ing or sprinkling is a figure of immersion, would be to outrage all rules 
 of sound criticism. Stokius gives to wash as the secondary meaning of 
 the word ; for, in this sense, the word tropical is used. And I contend, 
 and expect fully to prove, that, as it was used amongst the Jews and by 
 the inspired writers, wash or cleanse is the proper and literal meaning. 
 He is welcome to make the most of Stokius. 
 
 The gentleman tells you, that the fact that I have nothing to do, may 
 account for my doing nothing. I will only reply, that I have done 
 enough to make his friends tremble for their cause, unless I greatly mis- 
 take appearances, and am misinformed concerning remarks made in 
 various quarters. 
 
 I have said, that Josephus sought to imitate the classic Greek writers. 
 Mr. C. seems disposed to dispute this, and to call for the evidence. The 
 evidence depends not simply on the declarations of critics, but is found 
 in the fact, that Josephus, in every instance but one, used baptizo in rela- 
 tion to matters in common life, as did the classics uniformly ; whilst the 
 Jews and inspired writers always employed it in relation to religious 
 ivashings. The gentleman says, Josephus used the wor&jifty times. I 
 presume he spoke hyperbolically ; for I have seen not more than some 
 twelve or fifteen examples from his writings ; and I suppose Gale and 
 Carson, whose works I have examined, have collected as many, at least, 
 as were favorable to immersion. 
 
 Mr. C. has repeatedly referred to Calvin, as having claimed for the 
 church the right to change the ordinances instituted by our Savior. I 
 wish he would give us Calvin's words. I am anxious to see the quota- 
 tion. I have examined it, and I desire the audience to hear Calvin speak 
 for himself. He tells us, Stuart quotes from Calvin the passage in which 
 he prefers this claim. [Mr. Campbell, without rising, was understood to 
 say, that his words were, not that Stuart had quoted Calvin, but that he 
 had given something like a quotation.] No — Stuart quotes no such sen- 
 timent from Calvin, nor anything like it. He quotes from Calvin noth- 
 ing intimating a claim to change the ordinances of God's house. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, has, at last, given us a quotation from Ernesti, and 
 I subscribe to every word of it most cordially. Ernesti says, the mean- 
 ing of words is to be determined by usage; and so say I. And I am doing 
 the precise thing which he directs — I am inquiring into the usage of bap- 
 tizo by the very people amongst whom the ordinance was instituted. I 
 am apprehensive, that I shall lose confidence in the learning of the gen- 
 tleman quite as fast as he loses confidence in my candor. 
 
 But he tells us, that words indicating physical action, never change 
 their meaning. Can he produce any respectable authority to sustain him 
 in such an assertion ! Where can he find it ? We cannot any longer 
 rely upon his declarations on these subjects. I call for some higher au- 
 thority. The word prevent, which I have so repeatedly mentioned, is 
 itself a refutation of his assertion ; for this word does express a physical 
 action (coming before ;) and yet it has lost its original meaning. In the 
 
214 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 commencement of this discussion he told us, as a general rule, that wher- 
 ever you find the syllable bap, as in bapto, you find also the action of 
 dipping. But I showed you bap where there was the dropping of a 
 fluid, the dyeing of the beard, the hair, the face; the staining of the hand 
 by pressing the coloring substance : and I gave examples where the 
 expression bapto apo, (to wet by means of) occurred; where a man was 
 wet from (ebaphe apo) the dew, &c. I find, however, that the gentleman 
 possesses great ingenuity. He can immerse by dropping, immerse from 
 oil, and even from dew! J J He can get into water by almost any of the 
 prepositions ! He has, indeed, great difficulty in sustaining his principles. 
 
 I did not say, that Dr. Scott ever was a Baptist. I said he had diffi- 
 culties on that subject, which led him to a careful and thorough examina- 
 tion of it ; and that it resulted in the firm belief of the correctness of the 
 views for which I am now contending. Of the hundreds who have aban- 
 doned these views and become immersionists, I am acquainted with but 
 few. But I venture to say, that a greater number have apostatized from 
 this gentleman's church to the world, than have become immersionists 
 from our ranks. So the world has as good reason to boast as he. As 
 to the increase of members of which he boasts, there are many places 
 where, a few years ago, there were no Presbyterians, in which now there 
 are numbers of them ; and in many places, the Methodists have multi- 
 plied rapidly where, until recently, they had no churches. The gentle- 
 man's argument, therefore, (if it deserves to be called an argument) would 
 prove both Presbyterians and Methodists to be in the right ! In regard 
 to his prediction, I may truly say, he is neither a prophet nor the son of a 
 prophet. The signs of the times, at any rate, do not indicate its fulfill- 
 ment. If for thirteen hundred years, almost the whole christian world, 
 as he sa3 r s, practiced immersion, there has certainly been a wonderful 
 falling away from the ranks. 
 
 He desires me to produce my arguments for pouring and sprinkling. 
 Well, he shall have a fair sweep at them. He sometimes complains of 
 me for going ahead of him, and, at other times, for going too slowly. I 
 fear, I shall not be able to please him in any way. I will, however, pro- 
 ceed to state the facts and arguments ; and if he can refute them, he shall 
 be welcome to do so. 
 
 I. My first fact, which I have already stated, is — That all the wash- 
 ings of the Old Testament, the mode of ivhich iv as prescribed, were re- 
 quired to be performed by sprinkling. The only possible exception was 
 in regard to vessels. In Levit. xiv. we find directions concerning the 
 ceremonial cleansing of lepers ; and they require them to be sprinkled 
 seven times, to wash their clothes, and wash themselves in water. But 
 the mode of the washing is not prescribed — no immersion is required. 
 Again, Num. xix. 17 — 20, " And for an unclean person, they shall take of 
 the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification from sin, and running wa- 
 ter shall be put thereto in a vessel ; and a clean person shall take hysop, 
 and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the ves- 
 sels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a 
 bone, or one slain, or a grave : and the clean person shall sprinkle upon 
 the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day : and on the seventh 
 day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe (Hebrew — . 
 wash) himself in water, and shall be clean at even. But the man that 
 shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off 
 from the congregation, because he hath 'defiled the sanctuary of the Lord : 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 215 
 
 the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him," &c. Here, 
 you observe, sprinkling is particularly required ; but immersion is not. 
 The unclean person was to vjash himself; but the 7node of the washing 
 is not prescribed. So you will find it throughout the Old Testament. 
 
 All those washings were emblematic of spiritual cleansing — of sancti- 
 fication. This is evident from the language of David in Ps. li. 7, 
 " Purge me with hysop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and I shall be 
 whiter than snow." Here is evident reference to Levit. xiv. 1, where 
 the priest is directed to take hysop, and cedar- wood, and scarlet, and 
 sprinkle the unclean seven times. David prays, that God would grant 
 him that inward cleansing of which the sprinkling with hysop was an 
 emblem. Hence he adds — " Create in me a clean heart" v. 10. 
 
 Now, I presume, it will not be denied, that when God selected a mode 
 of representing emblematically inward purification or sanctification, he 
 selected the most appropriate, significant and impressive mode. But it 
 is a fact, that he chose sprinkling. If, then, sprinkling was once the 
 most appropriate, significant and impressive mode of representing purifi- 
 cation; can any man give a reason why it is not so still ? How has it 
 come to pass, that a mode selected by God himself, has become so ridi- 
 culous as immersionists would make sprinkling ; whilst a mode (immer- 
 sion) never selected by him, has become so very appropriate ? 
 
 II. My second fact is — That the inspired writers never in a solitary 
 instance represent sanctification by dipping a person into water, either 
 literally or figuratively. From Genesis to Revelation you cannot find 
 an example of the kind. Why did they never speak of immersing a 
 person as a mode of cleansing? The reason, I presume, was, that they 
 did not regard it as an appropriate and impressive mode. And if it was 
 not so then, how has it become so since ? 
 
 III. The inspired writers did constantly represent sanctification by 
 sprinkling and pouring. This is my third fact. Indeed, so commonly 
 was sprinkling employed, as the mode of purification, that the lexicons 
 give to purify as the metaphorical meaning of the Greek word remtizo. 
 I will read the passage already so repeatedly quoted, in Ezekiel xxxvi. 
 25 — " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
 clean : from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. 
 A new heart also will I give you : and a new spirit will I put within 
 you," &c. Here we find the emblem and the thing signified. The 
 thing signified is a new heart and a new spirit — sanctification. The em- 
 blem is the sprinkling of clean water. Well, christian baptism is designed 
 to be an emblem of spiritual cleansing. If, then, Ezekiel was right in 
 representing sanctification by sprinkling ; how can I be wrong in doing 
 the very same thing ? 
 
 My friend helped me to an argument by his remarks on yesterday, 
 concerning the putting of the ashes of the heifer into the water of purifi- 
 cation. He told us, the ashes were intended to teach, that blood had 
 a permanent virtue to atone for sin, and therefore they were put into the 
 water to be sprinkled on the unclean. So christian baptism is designed 
 to represent the cleansing of the soul from the guilt and pollution of sin 
 by the blood of Christ and by the Holy Spirit. The blood of Christ is 
 called "the blood of sprinkling;" and the Spirit is represented as poured 
 out, shed forth. If, then, it was proper to sprinkle on the unclean the 
 water containing the ashes of the heifer ; surely it is proper to sprinkle 
 upon the sinner the water which represents the efficacy of the blood of 
 
216 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Christ. Did not Ezekiel consider the sprinkling of clean water a suita- 
 ble and impressive emblem of sanctification ? Most assuredly he did. Did 
 he not prophecy, that the Jews, when converted to God, under the new 
 dispensation, should have clean water sprinkled on them ? I think my 
 friend understands his language as a prediction to be fulfilled under the 
 Gospel. When will it be fulfilled ! But whether it is a prophecy to be 
 fulfilled under the gospel dispensation or not, certain it is, that sprinkling- 
 was then deemed a suitable mode of representing sanctification. Why is 
 it not equally so now? Can my friend give a reason ? 
 
 Again — Isaiah, speaking of the advent and work of our Savior, says, 
 "So shall he sprinkle many nations," lii. 15. The meaning of which 
 is, so shall he cleanse, purify from all sin, many nations. I know the 
 Septuagint translates it, so shall he astonish many nations. But we are 
 not to correct the Hebrew, in which Isaiah wrote, by an imperfect trans- 
 lation. In every instance where the Hebrew word here translated sprin- 
 kle, occurs in the Bible, it evidently has this meaning. There is, therefore, 
 no room to doubt, that this is the correct translation of Isaiah's language. 
 
 Now, did not Isaiah consider sprinkling an appropriate mode of repre- 
 senting purification from sin ? Most assuredly. This is not all. Here 
 is a prediction, the fulfillment of which certainly belongs to the new dis- 
 pensation, for it relates to " many nations." If, then, the Savior repre- 
 sent the cleansing of all nations by sprinkling, how can I be wrong in 
 doing the same thing? And if all christians should be immersed, when 
 will this prophecy be fulfilled? 
 
 IV. My fourth fact is this : Tlie work of the Holy Spirit, of which 
 the baptismal water is an emblem, is called a baptism. 1 Cor. xii. 13, 
 •' For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
 Jews or Gentiles, whether Ave be bond or free," &c. Now what is the 
 mode selected by God of representing this spiritual baptism ? The Holy 
 Spirit is uniformly represented as poured out, shed forth : " I will pour 
 out in those days of my Spirit." — " He hath shed forth this which ye 
 now see and hear," Acts ii. 18, 33. But it may be said, this language is 
 figurative. I admit it ; but God employs figures correctly. Then why 
 did he never represent men as immersed into the Spirit? Why was 
 such language never used even figuratively ? The obvious and only con- 
 clusion is — that pouring is the most appropriate mode. If, then, the 
 baptism of the Spirit is represented by pouring, why should not water 
 baptism, the emblem, be administered by pouring or sprinkling ? 
 
 On the day of Pentecost there was a baptism of the Spirit, but there 
 was no immersion. John had said, " I indeed baptize you with water — 
 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt. iii. 11. 
 On the day of Pentecost this promise was fulfilled. " And suddenly 
 there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it 
 filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto 
 them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them," Acts 
 ii. 2, 3. This has always been a difficult passage for immersionists. 
 They have sometimes said, the Spirit filled the room, and thus the peo- 
 ple were immersed. But the Bible says no such thing ; and, moreover, 
 such a baptism as that would be, was not promised by John. Others 
 have said, the wind filled the room, and they were immersed in it. But 
 Luke does not say so. He says, there came a sound as of a rushing 
 mighty wind ; but he does not say, there was a wind. And if he had, 
 the promise was not of a baptism in wind. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 217 
 
 Our friends have been in great difficulty, too, to find an immersion in 
 fire. My friend, Mr. C, has adopted an opinion advanced by some of the 
 old immersionists, that there is in the passage a promise and a threat, and 
 that some were to be baptized with the Spirit, others to be immersed 
 into hell, or into severe sufferings.' But look at the passage : " I indeed 
 baptize you with water — He shall baptize you(lhe same persons) with 
 the Holy Ghost and with fire." Would you understand by such lan- 
 guage, that some were to receive the Spirit, and others to be plunged 
 into hell ? No — there was no immersion into fire. Spiritual baptism, 
 then, is represented by pouring ; water baptism, the emblem, should, 
 of course, be performed by pouring. 
 
 V. My fifth fact is this: From the time that christian baptism was 
 instituted, no apostle or christian minister, so far as the New Testa- 
 ment informs us, ever went one step out of his way in search of water 
 for the purpose of baptizing. The case of Philip and the eunuch is the 
 only possible exception ; and they were not going after water, but came 
 to it, as they were journeying. This is a most unaccountable fact, if the 
 doctrine of immersion is true. If Luke was so careful to tell us where 
 John baptized, is it not marvellous, that in all the accounts he has record- 
 ed of christian baptism, he never dropped one remark from which it could 
 be inferred, that the apostles and christian ministers ever went after 
 water ? 
 
 On the day of Pentecost three thousand were baptized. These were 
 the first who ever received christian baptism. An example was now to 
 be set — a precedent to be established, to be followed by all future ages. 
 Is it not, then, passing strange, if immersion was so essential, that Luke 
 gives no intimation, not even the slightest, that they went after water ? 
 
 In reading the Christian Baptist we find Paul and Ananias represented 
 as going after water; but Luke is silent on that subject. In recording 
 the baptism of the three thousand, he mentions no delay, and gives no in- 
 timation that the apostles found any difficulty in obtaining water enough, 
 or in administering baptism to them all. Luke wrote like a Pedo-baptist. 
 Were I to record the baptism of three thousand persons, I should not 
 think of telling where the water was obtained ; for it would not require 
 a great deal. But our immersionist friends do not write thus. In look- 
 ing over the Millenial Harbinger, I find Mr. Campbell giving an account 
 of a sermon he preached in Bowling Green, under which one old gentle- 
 man was induced to come forward and desire baptism. But he tells us, 
 as the weather was inclement, and the river at some little distance, his 
 baptism was deferred till the next morning. The apostles had to baptize 
 three thousand persons in a city where there was no considerable stream 
 of water, and no conveniences for immersing. Yet the inspired historian 
 does not intimate that there was any delay ; nor that they even left the 
 temple, where they were converted, in search of water ! 
 
 This apparent defect in inspired history would not appear so strange, 
 if the necessary information were given in any other part of it. But the 
 defect, if it be a defect, runs through the entire history. Not long after 
 the conversion of the three thousand, we read of a large number of conver- 
 sions in Samaria, and we read that they were baptized ; but not a word 
 is said about going after water. How can this be accounted for ? 
 
 Well, we come to the conversion of the jailor and his family; and we 
 learn, that they were baptized at midnight in a prison. Surely now we 
 may expect to find something about going after water. But, no — not 
 
 T 
 
218 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 a word is said on the subject. How shall we account for such omis- 
 sions, if indeed the apostles held the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Camp- 
 bell? 
 
 This is an important argument ; for it is safer to go to the apostles to 
 learn the mode of christian baptism. Mr. Campbell agrees with me, that 
 John's was not christian baptism, but be 7 onged to the old dispensation. 
 John went where there was " much water;" but where do we ever find 
 an apostle going after water ? 
 
 We come now to consider Paul's baptism. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18—1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fifteenth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Little matters become great matters when there is 
 great use made of them, or when they involve great events. I have said, 
 during this discussion, that forty-two thousand men were slain in one day, 
 because in pronouncing a single word they left out the letter h. "We also 
 stated that the difference between an o and an i, in the spelling of a word, 
 so changed its meaning, in the case of homoousios and homoiousios, as to 
 divide the church for ages, and to rend the Roman empire with internal 
 wars and commotions. When any matter, however minute, involves 
 principle, or character, it ceases to be an unimportant affair. Had not 
 the gentleman attempted to disparage a strong argument, by an allusion 
 to the little attention Dr. Wall bestowed upon that question, I should not 
 have held up this volume in refutation of his allegations. The subject of 
 Dr. Gale's book is baptism — action and subject. He wrote six letters on 
 the mode. To these six, Dr. Wall replied in about the same number 
 of pages, and you have seen the space occupied in the reply. His not 
 replying to Dr. Gale, in this particular, must have been, because he 
 could not; and not for the want of room. The gentleman admits he 
 had room enough. Why then does he not reply ? I say, because he 
 could not. 
 
 As respects the tropical and literal use of baptizo, as defined by Sto- 
 kius and Schleusner, I presume it will have to be referred. I am weary 
 of continual assertions and re-assertions No lexicon has ever given wash 
 as the literal or proper meaning of baptizo. Many of them represent it 
 as secondary, consequential, or tropical ; I therefore prefer to refer the 
 question at once, whether or not, as I have read it, wash, cleanse, &c, 
 be given as the literal, proper, or grammatical meaning of baptizo, or 
 only its tropical, figurative, and accidental meaning. Let the matter be 
 decided at once — for on this pivot turns the whole philological contro- 
 versy. I understand there are several professors of the languages here. 
 Here is professor McCown, of the Transylvania University, a Methodist 
 minister; and here is professor Farnum, of the Georgetown College; I 
 know not what his religious views are. Neither of these gentlemen are 
 of my views. I am willing to settle this question by a reference to them. 
 Is my respondent, Mr. Rice, willing to refer the matter to them ? 
 
 Mr. Rice. I will reply when I rise, or now. 
 
 [_Rising~] I remark, that with one of the gentlemen I have lately had a 
 controversy upon one branch of these criticisms, and therefore it would 
 not be proper for me to abide his decision. 
 
 [Mr. Rice said to Mr. Campbell, I will agree to refer it to two pro- 
 fessors, if you will also refer the case of bebammenon to the same. To 
 which Mr. Campbell immediately responded, certainly. ~\ 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 219 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I re-affirm, then, all that I have said on these lexicons, 
 and am willing to stake my reputation upon the correctness and impar- 
 tiality of my quotations, and translations from them ; and solemnly affirm 
 the conviction that the gentleman is totally mistaken, and that he has 
 committed a great error in so positively affirming that these lexicons are 
 not fully, and to the letter, with me. 
 
 It will not do for the gentleman to seek to balance this unfounded as- 
 sertion, concerning the sacred use of this term in the judgment of New 
 Testament lexicographers, with the allegation concerning the single case 
 of bapto, found, as he assumes, once translated to sprinkle. Let him 
 first prove that bebammenon was there ; let him first prove that bapto 
 was translated sprinkle by any translator, before he proposes such an ad- 
 justment of this palpable mis-statement. I will not admit that I have either 
 stated a false fact, or made a false criticism, on the entire premises be- 
 fore us. I am willing to let all my statements be stereotyped, and sent 
 to the world. In the case of erantismenon and bebammenon, on which 
 so much has been said, he must first prove, both in logic and in law, that 
 the latter was in the text, before I have to apologize for the translation. 
 
 I again say, it would be a most singular and unprecedented fact, if 
 baptizo, or any of its family, did truly signify to pour, sprinkle, or pu- 
 rify ; that in so many translations, public and private, into so many lan- 
 guages, made by T so many hundreds of learned men, during eighteen 
 hundred years — on a family of words so numerous, occurring more than 
 120 times, in no one single case it should be so translated. As marvel- 
 lous and mysterious this, as why the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate 
 should have selected bapto in the same verse, and have once, and only 
 once, translated it sprinkle. Does it not amount to a demonstration that 
 they had another reading, different from that in common use; not a single 
 authenticated instance having ever been proved of such a translation ? a 
 fact without any parallel in universal criticism, if, indeed, sprinkle, pour, 
 or purify be a true meaning of bapto. May I not then say that I am sus- 
 tained in every capital point, and in this grand result, as now clearly set 
 forth by all the distinguished lexicographers, translators, ancient and mo- 
 dern, by an overwhelming majority of the most learned and distinguished 
 scholiasts, reformers, annotators, and critics of all classes, parties, and 
 denominations ! 
 
 I presume not to speak with infallible accuracy of the number of times 
 the terms bapto and baptizo are found in Josephus. They are found 
 often. It is of common occurrence, and is quoted often by Carson, Stuart, 
 and sometimes by Evving. It always signifies immerse in the "Hebrew- 
 Greek," or " sacred style." Mr. R. cannot shew any Jewish usage of 
 the word, different from the classic. Indeed, all the great Bible critics, 
 and Jewish doctors, are against his assumption. His Jewish use of bap- 
 tizo, after Josephus and the New Testament are subtracted, amounts to 
 four occurrences — two in the Apocrypha, and two in the Old Testament, 
 and they have never been translated sprinkle, or pour, in any work known 
 in the annals of criticism. 
 
 Next to Josephus, Hippocrates is good authority, on account of^his 
 frequent use of the word in medical prescriptions, which, of course, re- 
 quire precision. He has been fully proved, by Mr. Carson, to be strictly 
 conformable, in all instances, to the laws and usages of interpretation, 
 propounded by me in this discussion. Mr. Rice often tells us of a gar- 
 ment colored with matter dropped upon it. Now had it been the pro- 
 
220 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 cess of dripping that was said to be colored or dyed, there would have 
 been relevancy ; but as it is, there is none whatever in the case. How 
 often shall I have to respond to such puerility ! It is not the dripping, 
 but the garment, that is dyed. 
 
 The philosophy of the whole subject is this: when any thing is dyed, 
 it is covered with something. The thing is not seen. The covering of 
 it, called the dye, the tint or the color only is seen. Hence, the meta- 
 phorical use of bapto. I have sometimes said, whenever I see the word 
 bapto or any of its progeny, the first impression is the dip. But whether 
 the thing dips, or is dipped, depends upon the active or passive voice; 
 and whether the thing is wet or dried, heated or cooled, colored or dis- 
 colored, improved or injured, is a matter of after thought and considera- 
 tion, as well as the selection of a name to represent it. Whether, then, 
 it shall be called literal or figurative, or whether it must be understood 
 grammatically, or rhetorically, depends entirely upon contextual views 
 and circumstances — wherever there is bap, there is dip, in fact or in 
 figure. 
 
 The gentleman made some allusion to physical action in the word louo, 
 which I do not well understand. I am understood when I say that we 
 perform both mental and physical actions. The latter, especially, are free 
 from the control of special idiomatic arrangements, because they are sim- 
 ilar, outward, visible, corporeal acts, which all men perform in the same 
 specific manner. As to the specifications so often submitted, methinks 
 there can be no further controversy. Mental acts — or acts involving theo- 
 ry, principle, moral or religious, — and terms denoting states, may, in- 
 deed, be subject to peculiar idioms, because of the almost infinite varieties 
 of them ; often, too, the effect of education, national and state, associa- 
 tion, &c. Hence, the word faith, or the word flesh, or the word spirit, 
 &c. may have peculiar, national, or sectarian meanings and acceptations, 
 which require the knowledge of various peculiarities before such can be 
 well defined. But walking, talking, writing, eating, sleeping, rising, &c. 
 &c. and the words in debate are not governed by any national or provin- 
 cial or sectarian code. So that it is all a mere phantasy to seek for a 
 special meaning of such terms in the laws, manners, customs, or other 
 peculiarities of nations and religions. 
 
 I concur with Dr. Campbell, McKnight, Home, Ernesti, &c. on all they 
 say on idiomatic expressions and peculiarities. And I agree with the for- 
 mer two, and many such, in translating baptizo immerse, in the New 
 Testament. These great masters of sacred criticism, are, almost to a 
 man, with me in translating this much debated word, according to its com- 
 mon classic usage, wherever they do translate it. No man but a special 
 pleader has ever argued for any other than a classic meaning of it in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 But Mr. R. goes for sprinkling, theologically, as a symbol of sanctifica- 
 tion and purification. His argument here is built on two assumptions : 
 1st. That baptism is for sanctification, and 2d. That sanctification was, 
 in the law, performed by sprinkling water alone ! When these are proved, 
 and not till then, is his argument entitled to any consideration. No per- 
 son, as I have already shewn, was ever sanctified by the pouring or sprink- 
 ling of water, from any sort of pollution whatever. My fourth universal 
 proposition fully disposes of his argument for sprinkling water. But who 
 believes that any subject of sprinkling is thereby sanctified by the Spirit? 
 Sprinkling unholy water upon -unholy persons, in order to make them 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 221 
 
 morally, legally, and ecclesiastically clean ! ! When, where, and by 
 whose hands did God ever so command Gentile, Jew, or Christian? 
 Romanists make holy water by a recipe obtained from Pagan Divinity, 
 an African or an Asiatic lustration. Protestants do not understand the 
 manufacture, and, therefore, they sanctify by common water ! 
 
 There is some radical mistake about this sprinkling, or pouring, as an 
 emblem of spiritual sanctiflcation, without a subsequent immersion. Mr. 
 R. believes that the clean water of Ezekiel is common water here literally 
 sprinkled, or to be sprinkled in baptismal sanctiflcation ! Has he forgotten 
 that those sprinkled with the ancient water of purification had afterwards 
 to be immersed in water, before cleansed, according to the law of types? 
 We have yet another passage in Isaiah, relied on, to prove sprinkling— 
 both on baptism, and on sanctiflcation. It would be both a curious and 
 interesting disquisition to expound, in the light of their respective ages, 
 dispensations, and contextual circumstances, those passages of Scripture, 
 which by a sort of sectarian conscription have been pressed into the 
 maintenance and support of the ecclesiastical potentates, theories and shib- 
 boleths of this our age of hoary and venerable traditions. Still theologi- 
 ans will put passages, side by side, spoken thousands of years apart; un- 
 der different dispensations, by kings, prophets, and apostles, on subjects, 
 too, as diverse as their names, times, employments and languages. 
 
 " So shall he sprinkle many nations," Isa. Hi. like the "pouring out" 
 and " baptism of the Spirit," has often appeared in company with, " I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you," to support an usage ordained at Ravenna, 
 in France, by the pope, in the year 1311, A. D. It was then and there 
 authority was given to sprinkle many nations by him whose fame it has 
 been to change times and laws. 
 
 I presume I may again open this venerable volume of Junius and Tre- 
 mellius, who in 1580 printed this memorable work, replete with many 
 valuable and profound notes and exegetical dissertations. Not so fond 
 of sprinkling water, as we now-a-days seem to be, it not being then so 
 much in fashion with learned Pedo-baptists, as in Kentucky, these learned 
 translators, though of that school, give the following note — 
 
 It is the beautiful passage which we have in Isaiah Hi. speaking of 
 the Messiah : " Behold, thy servant shall deal prudently, he shall be ex- 
 alted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee, 
 (his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than 
 the sons of men ;) so shall he sprinkle many nations," &c. Junius and 
 Tremellius, in their Latin versions lying before me, (London ed. 1581,) 
 thus render it: "Ito perspergat stupore gentes multas — "So shall he 
 astonish (sprinkle with astonishment) many nations." The Septuagint 
 uses thaumasontai — " So shall he astonish many nations." Adam Clarke 
 observes, on this passage — " I retain the common rendering, though I am 
 by no means satisfied with it. Fazzeh, frequent in the law, means only to 
 sprinkle : but the water sprinkled is the accusative case, the thing on which 
 has al or el. Thaumasontai makes the best apodosis" So think I. The 
 connection would be more consistent: "So shall he astonish many 
 nations." But Lowth has it, " So shall he sprinkle with his blood 
 many nations." So far as my position is concerned, either translation is 
 equal. 
 
 I was myself a great admirer of Dr. Scott. I read his whole com- 
 mentary through, when I was a student of theology, from beginning to 
 end. He was before my eyes for three or four years. I also read his 
 
 t2 
 
222 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Force of Truth, his communications and correspondence with the cele- 
 brated John Newton. 
 
 I am just now informed that Dr. Scott's son states, in the history of 
 his life, that so long as his father read the Bible, he came well nigh to 
 the conclusion that the Baptists were right ; but that when he studied the 
 controversies on the subject, he admitted that baptism came in the room 
 of circumcision, and was satisfied with this foundation for his future 
 practice. I am thankful to the gentleman who has put me in possession 
 of this fact. In this way, then, Scott changed ! 
 
 I return now to give you that cluster of Pedo-baptist grapes that I was 
 opening upon when I sat down. It is not necessary now to tell you the 
 dimensions of the pool of Bethesda — some hundred and twenty yards in 
 length, and eight feet deep, to find water to baptize three thousand : the 
 matter was so plain, so evident, so common, the knowledge was in the 
 possession of every living man. They all understood it, insomuch that 
 it would have been ridiculous in this instance to tell where they got water 
 to baptize, or how they performed the ordinance. But these are merely 
 thrown up as difficulties. To any one who makes himself acquainted 
 with the travels in Asia, Jerusalem and the Holy Land, it would be easy 
 to refute every hypothesis of that sort. 
 
 I find a rich cluster of these Pedo-baptist grapes, just ready to my hand, 
 in Booth's reply to Dr. Williams, and I will just transfer it, leaves and all, 
 to my page. 
 
 " Gurtlerus : < Baptism in the Holy Sprit, is immersion into the pure wa- 
 ters of the Holy Spirit ; or a rich and abundant communication of his 
 gifts. For he on whom the Holy Spirit is poured out, is as it were immers- 
 ed into him.' 
 
 " Bp. Reynolds: 'The Spirit, under the gospel, is compared — to water; 
 and that not a little measure, to sprinkle, or bedew, but to baptize the faith- 
 ful in: (Matth. iii. 11, Acts i. 5,) and that not in a font, or vessel, which 
 grows less and less, but in a spring, or living river.' 
 
 " Ikenius : ' The Greek word, baptismos, denotes the immersion of a thing 
 or a .person into something. Here, also, (Matth. iii. 11, compared with 
 Luke iii. 16,) the baptism q/Jire, or that which is performed in Jire, must 
 signify, according to the same simplicity of the letter, an immission, or im- 
 mersion, into fire — and this the rather, because here, to baptize in the Spirit, 
 and in jire, are not only connected, but also opposed to being baptized in 
 water.'' 
 
 " Le Clerc : ' He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. As I plunge you in 
 water, he shall plunge you, so to speak, in the Holy Spirit.' 
 
 " Casaubon : * To baptize, is to immerse — and in this sense the apostles 
 are truly said to be baptized ; for the house in which this was done was filled 
 with the Holy Ghost, so that the apostles seemed to be plunged into it. 'as 
 into a fishpool.' 
 
 " Grotius : ' To be baptized here, is not to be slightly sprinkled, but to have 
 the Holy Spirit abundantly poured upon them.' 
 
 "Mr. Leigh: « Baptized; that is, drown you all over, dip you into the 
 ocean of his grace ; opposite to the sprinkling which was in the law.' 
 
 " Abp. Tillotson : ' It [the sound from heaven, Acts ii. 2,] filled all the. 
 house. This is that which our Savior calls baptizing with the Holy Ghost. 
 So that they who sat in the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy 
 Ghost, as they who were buried with water, were overwhelmed and covered 
 all over with water, which is the proper notion of baptism.' 
 
 " Bp. Hopkins: ' Those that are baptized with the Spirit, are as it were 
 plunged into that heavenly flame, whose searching energy devours all their 
 dross, tin, and base alloy.' 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 223 
 
 " Mr. H. Dodwell : c The words of our Savior were made good, Ye shall 
 be baptized (plunged or covered) with the Holy Spirit, as John baptized 
 with water, without it.' 
 
 " Thus modern Pedo-baptists, who practiced pouring or sprinkling. Let 
 us now hear one of the ancients, who wrote in the Greek language, and 
 practiced immersion. Cyril, of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century, 
 speaks in the following manner — ' As he who is plunged in water and bap- 
 tized, is encompassed by the water on every side ; so are they that are 
 wholly baptized by the Spirit : There [under the Mosaic economy] the ser- 
 vants of God were partakers of the Holy Spirit ; but here they were per- 
 fectly baptized, or immersed, of him.' These testimonies are quite suffi- 
 cient, one would imagine, to vindicate our sense of the term, baptize, when 
 used allusively with reference to the gifts and influences of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 If, then, so many learned Pedo-baptists can themselves reconcile this 
 style to immersion, why should any of them complain of our so attempt- 
 ing ! One question more. If baptism be pouring, why do they sprinkle ? 
 Are pouring and sprinkling the same action ? 
 
 But I have yet another objection from which an argument may be 
 drawn — "Arise and be baptized, Saul, said Ananias ; and Saul arose and 
 was baptized," — a clear proof that Paul was baptized standing; conse- 
 quently, not immersed ! ! 
 
 In Luke's writings alone, we have this idiom eight times — Jlnastas, 
 with an imperative immediately following, and without a conjunction or a 
 comma, is found in Luke xviii. 10 ; xxii. 46 ; Acts ix. 11 ; x. 13, 20 ; xi. 
 7 ; xxii. 10, 16. In every instance, it indicates a divine command from 
 the Lord in person, or from a supernatural agent acting for him. Nothing 
 expressed by the term rise, different from the action to be performed. In 
 no instance does the precept arise, terminate the action. It never means 
 two actions in any one case. It is not arise and be baptized. It is an 
 idiom of expressing one immediate action. 
 
 The idiom always changes when an action different from rising up is 
 intended. Another imperative form with a copulative of some kind, inti- 
 mates two actions — Acts viii. 26; ix. 6, 34; xxvi. 16. In all these it 
 is anasteethi, followed by a copulative, rise and stand upon thy feet; rise 
 and go into the city, &c. In these last cases there is something more 
 than mere earnestness and authority expressed. There are two distinct 
 imperatives. Do this and do that. But anastas poreuouo is quite a 
 different idiom. In this case rising is no more than an adjunct. It is 
 not a distinct precept; therefore, it is never rendered " stand up." 
 
 Almost every orator, indeed, in a persuasive and exhortatory address 
 in our language, uses the term rise, when an erect position, or a mere 
 change of position, is never thought of. In this way it is used ten times 
 for one in any other sense, especially in warm and ardent appeals : Rise, 
 citizens! rise, sinners ! rise, men ! and let us do our duty. In this com- 
 mon-sense import of the term, did Ananias address Paul. 
 
 From the whole premises, I argue, that if Ananias intended to sprinkle 
 Paul, he would not have commanded him to rise and be baptized. For 
 immersion, he must go to the water ; for sprinkling, the water could have 
 been brought to him. The efforts made by some Pedo-baptists to make 
 it appear from this passage, that Paul was baptized standing up, are alike 
 indicative of their humble attainments in Greek literature, as well as of 
 the inveteracy of their prejudices. No man, so far as known to me, of 
 any eminence for Greek literature, has ever made such an attempt. When 
 all the objections against immersion are considered, one by one, we may 
 
224 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 conclude with professor Stuart : " For myself, then, I cheerfully admit, 
 that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, 
 does, in all probability, involve the idea that this rite was usually per- 
 formed by immersion, but not always." Not in the third century, as 
 Mr. Rice interprets him, but in the first century. 
 
 These three last words, " but not always" founded on such passages 
 as I have examined, are built upon too slender a basis for so strong ^a 
 man. 
 
 XI. My eleventh argument shall be drawn from a fact already several 
 times stated, and which, from what has already been said upon it, I shall 
 not now amplify any farther than to state it fully and in a proper form. 
 If it receive no other reply than the notice already taken of it, I shall go 
 no farther into the proof of it. It is this : Sprinkling and pouring mere 
 water on any person or thing, for any moral, ceremonial, or religious use, 
 was never performed by the authority of God, under any antecedent dis- 
 pensation of religion, and not being commanded in the New, is without 
 any authority, patriarchal, Jewish, or christian. Let no one be startled 
 at the novelty of this announcement. I am aware that it has been over- 
 looked in all the books upon the subject, and in all the discussions that 
 have ever fallen under my observation. It is, however, on that account, 
 no less true and no less important. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18 — 1$ o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's fifteenth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — A single remark in regard to the small affair of Wall's 
 reply to Gale. A good brother has just counted the pages, and informs 
 me that between a seventh and an eighth of the volume is on the mode 
 of baptism. I guessed pretty well. 
 
 I have adduced the authority of two of the most celebrated critics, 
 proving that the tropical often becomes the proper and literal meaning of 
 words. The gentleman proposes to refer the question. Have we here 
 scholars who better understand the rules of interpretation than they ? 
 Even his own ancient lexicons, on which he has so much relied, give lavo 
 and abluo — to wash, to cleanse, as literal meanings of baptizo. Bret- 
 schneider, as we have seen, gives its general meanings — "sepius intingo, 
 sepius lavo — often to dip, often to wash. He speaks not of lavo as a 
 tropical meaning. In company with such men as Ernesti, Bretschneider, 
 and Stuart, I can consent to be represented as ignorant of the Greek lan- 
 guage. To one of the gentlemen named, however, I have no objection ; 
 and my reason for objecting to the other, will be appreciated. I will, 
 however, as I have said, cheerfully refer the matter to any two impartial 
 linguists, provided the gentleman will also refer the question, whether 
 bapto has ever been translated sprinkle. 
 
 In my remarks on the question, whether any translator has rendered the 
 word bapto, to sprinkle, I shall, for the sake of the audience, be brief. 
 Gale, as I have repeatedly stated, admits that Origen did not quote the 
 passage in Rev. xix. 13, verbatim, but almost verbatim. Would there 
 not, then, be as much propriety in rejecting any other word in the text 
 which differs from Origen's language, as the one in question ? It is im- 
 possible for the gentleman to escape the difficulty. If he will prove, that 
 bapto is not the true reading in the passage under consideration, I will 
 prove the same thing in regard to every word he will mention in the 
 Bible. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 225 
 
 It is very strange indeed, he would have us think, that in this one in- 
 stance the word should be translated in a manner so singular. But singu- 
 lar as he considers the translation, Carson, who was equally interested 
 with himself in defending immersion, could see no evidence of another 
 reading. And, after all, the translation is not so singular ; as the various 
 examples I have adduced from the classic 6 ? and from the Bible, prove. 
 The baptism of Nebuchadnezzar with dew, was certainly something even 
 less than sprinkling. The French version translates the word in that 
 place bedewed. 
 
 But my friend says, I must prove that Origen and the translators of these 
 ancient versions had not another reading before them ! Really I had sup- 
 posed it to be his business, since he maintains that they had another read- 
 ing, to prove it. He does not deny, that the word baplo is found in all ex- 
 isting copies and manuscripts of the New Testament; and if any man 
 call in question the reading in any passage of Scripture, what more proof 
 can be given or desired, than the fact, that all the copies have the same 
 reading? Surely no man could ask more, unless, like my friend, he were 
 resolved to sustain his doctines by all means. This is not the only in- 
 stance in which he has evinced extraordinary zeal for immersion. I 
 pointed to a passage in the gospel by Mark, which he has strangely per- 
 verted for the sake of his cause — giving as a translation what is not even 
 akin to a translation of it. Does immersion require the word of God to 
 be thus tortured and wrested, in order to sustain it? 
 
 Whether the water to which Ezekiel and Isaiah had reference in the 
 passages I quoted, was simply clean water, is of little importance in this 
 discussion ; since the question before us relates exclusively to the mode 
 of applying it; and that mode was certainly sprinkling. This point, 
 however, has been sufficiently explained. The gentleman says, I make 
 baptism nothing more than an emblem. I have not so represented it. I 
 have said, baptism is a significant ordinance — that the water is an emblem 
 of spiritual cleansing ; but I have not said, that it answers no other pur- 
 poses. It is a door of admission into the church, or an ordinance for the 
 recognition of membership ; it is a seal of God's covenant; and it is a sig- 
 nificant ordinance. If the gentleman desires proof of this last point, I 
 refer him to Acts xxii. 16, " Arise and be baptized, and zvash away thy 
 sins." Now, we know perfectly well, that the application of water to 
 the body, does not really cleanse from sin. It must, therefore, be an em- 
 blem of purification. 
 
 The gentleman has just learned by a paper handed him, that Dr. Scott, 
 whilst he read the Bible, thought the Baptists were right; but when he 
 read the commentators, he thought baptism came in the room of circum- 
 cision ! So far as the present discussion is concerned, I care not whether 
 this incredible story be true or false. We are not now discussing the ques- 
 tion, whether baptism came in the room of circumcision. We are in- 
 quiring whether immersion is the only apostolic or christian baptism. I 
 would not give a farthing for such papers, coming from we know not 
 whom. Give us facts and documents. But let Dr. Scott speak for him- 
 self. I read from his Commentary on Matth. iii. " It \baptizo~] seems to 
 be a word borrowed from the Greek authors, signifying to plunge in, or 
 bedew with water, without any exact distinction, (which, being a diminu- 
 tive from bapto, to dip, it might do according to the analogy of language) 
 and it was adopted into the style of Scripture in a peculiar sense, to 
 signify the use of water in this ordinance, and various spiritual matters, 
 15 
 
226 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 which have a relation to it. * * * Some, indeed, contend zealously, 
 that baptism always signifies immersion ; and learned men, who have re- 
 garded Jewish traditions more than either the language of Scripture, or 
 the Greek idiom, are very decided in this respect ; but the use of the words 
 baptize and baptism in the New Testament, cannot accord with this ex- 
 clusive interpretation." Such was the opinion of Scott, as he says, " af- 
 ter many years consideration and study." 
 
 Isaiah, as I have proved, speaking of the work of Christ, says — " So 
 shall he sprinkle many nations. The gentleman produces the authority 
 of the Septuagint as edited by Junius and Tremellius, to prove that it 
 should be translated — so shall he astonish many nations. That is, as they 
 understand it, so shall he astonish many nations by sprinkling them I 
 Well, I suppose, since he could overwhelm Nebuchadnezzar with dew, 
 it is not wonderful that he should talk of astonishing the nations by 
 sprinkling ! 
 
 But the fact is stated by the Rev. A. Barnes, after careful examination 
 of all the places in which the Hebrew word translated sprinkle, occurs in 
 the Bible, that in every instance it means to sprinkle. The Septuagint 
 is only a translation, an imperfect translation of the Old Testament. 
 Some parts of it are more correct ; others less so. Are we, then, to cor- 
 rect the Hebrew Scriptures by such a translation ? The very idea is ab- 
 surd. The passage, then, must stand as it is, affording clear evidence 
 that the sprinkling of water is an appropriate and impressive emblem of 
 purification. 
 
 I have stated an important fact, which the gentleman does not venture 
 to deny, viz : that from the time when christian baptism was instituted, 
 we never read of any apostle going out of his way for water for the pur- 
 poses of baptism. But he tells us, it was so universally understood, that 
 baptism was immersion, that it was unnecessary to mention it. This, 
 however, is assuming the question in debate. Let him prove that im- 
 mersion was then universally practiced, and he will have gained his 
 point. 
 
 But, if it was universally known, that immersion only was christian 
 baptism ; why were the inspired writers careful to mention the fact, that 
 John the Baptist went to Jordan, and to Enon near Salim, where there 
 was much water? If it was important to record these facts in regard to 
 John's baptism, was it not much more important, that the church should 
 know, that the apostles went after water to immerse christians ? Ah ! the 
 cause of my friend is sorely pressed. 
 
 The matter, I think, is easily explained. John the Baptist needed 
 much water for other purposes. Multitudes flocked to hear him, and re- 
 mained together for several days without dispersing. They could not 
 have been kept together where water for ordinary purposes and for their 
 ablutions could not be obtained. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, 
 especially in a dry country, such as that inhabited by the Jews, that John 
 should select places for preaching and baptizing, where there was much 
 water. 
 
 The apostles did not collect crowds that remained for days together. 
 They had no need, therefore, to see that their hearers were furnished 
 with water for ordinary purposes or for Jewish washings. They, there- 
 fore, never went after water. One of two things, I conclude then, is true, 
 viz : either John wanted much water, not for administering baptism, 
 but for other purposes ; or, the' apostles did not baptize in the mode 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 227 
 
 practiced by him. From the fact, that John went where there was much 
 water, immersionists infer, that he practiced immersion. Suppose we 
 admit the inference to be legitimate. Then from the fact that the apostles 
 never did go after much water, I infer that they did not practice immer- 
 sion. And I think my inference is decidedly the stronger ; for certainly 
 John might have gone where there was much water, and still have prac- 
 ticed pouring or sprinkling; but the apostles could not have immersed the 
 thousands converted under their ministry, without going where there was 
 much water. Inasmuch, then, as they could not have practiced immer- 
 sion without much water ; and inasmuch as we never find them going 
 after water, the conclusion seems inevitable, that they did not immerse. 
 
 But the gentleman tells us, that when John baptized the multitudes it 
 was necessary that he should go to Jordan ; and therefore, he concludes he 
 must have immersed. Then, how happened it, that on the day of Pen- 
 tecost water was so plenty in Jerusalem ? John, it seems, could not 
 find water to baptize in, without going to Jordan ; but the apostles, des- 
 pised and persecuted as they were, could find water in great abundance on 
 the day of Pentecost and afterwards ! Was Jordan brought to Jerusa- 
 lem? Where did they find water in such abundance, that without delay 
 or difficulty they could immerse three thousand persons in a day ? Is it 
 not passing strange, that Luke, the inspired historian, should have failed 
 to throw any light on this subject! Error is generally contradictory. 
 In one breath, we are told that it was necessary for John to go to Jordan 
 to baptize ; and in the next, we are informed that the apostles found water 
 plenty in Jerusalem ! 
 
 The gentleman again attempts to sustain himself by Pedo-baptist con- 
 session. Who is a Pedo-Baptist? One who believes in the baptism of 
 infants. Many Pedo-baptists are immersionists ; and yet the concessions 
 of such are paraded before the people, as the concessions of the advocates 
 of sprinkling. Amongst those advocates of sprinkling the gentleman has 
 quoted Cyril, of Jerusalem, w r ho was really an advocate of trine immer- 
 sion of persons in puris naturalibus — divested of their clothing ! Gro- 
 tius, though entirely disposed to favor immersion, speaks of the Holy 
 Spirit as poured on the people on the day of Pentecost; thus admitting 
 that the baptism of the Spirit is properly represented by pouring. Tillot- 
 son, if the gentleman has correctly represented him, says, they were, as 
 it were, plunged into the Spirit ! How singularly would the promise read, 
 if we were to supply that clause — "I indeed baptize you with water — 
 He shall, as it were, baptize you with the Holy Spirit ! " Are these the 
 expositions of Scripture, by which the cause of immersion is to be sus- 
 tained ? Let it not be forgotten, that in the church of England, immersion 
 was, for a length of time, the almost universal practice. Pouring was 
 only allowed in cases of necessity. Gradually immersion fell into disuse ; 
 but many of the clergy were anxious for the general restoration of the 
 practice. Those men, decided immersionists, are the authors of most of 
 the Pedo-baptist concessions, of which the gentleman, and those who 
 agree with him, are in the habit of boasting ! They never were ad- 
 vocates of sprinkling. 
 
 I now invite your attention to the baptism of Paul. In the twenty- 
 second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we read, that Ananias came 
 to Paul, and, having first delivered his message, said, "Arise, (Greek, 
 anastas; having risen to your feet,) be baptized ; " and Luke, the Evan- 
 gelist, says, " He received sight forthwith, and arose (anastas) and was 
 
228 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 baptized." Compare chapters twenty-six and nine. Here we find Paul 
 in the city of Damascus, in a private dwelling. He had been blind, and 
 had eaten nothing for three days. Ananias comes to him and says — what ? 
 Arise, stand up, and be baptized ; and what did he do ? He arose, stood 
 up, and was baptized. The plain and obvious meaning of this language 
 is, that Paul immediately stood up in the house, and received baptism. 
 
 But some of our immersionist friends have fine imaginations, and can 
 easily supply what may be defective in sacred history ] A worthy 
 old Baptist father, in an article on this subject, copied into the Mllenial 
 Harbinger, indulges in the following strain : — 
 
 "See what a heavenly hurry Saul was in, though weakened down by a 
 distressing fast ; behold him, with great weakness of body, and load of his 
 guilt, staggering along to the water. I almost fancy that I see the dear little 
 man (he was afterwards called Paul, which signifies little,) hanging on the 
 shoulders of Ananias, and hurrying him up, with his right arm around him ; 
 and. as they walked on, saying, Be of good cheer, brother Saul ; when you 
 are baptized, your sins, or the guilt of them, shall be washed away." 
 
 There it is to the life. The good old father saw them on their wav to 
 some pond or stream. The vision was as clear as day ! 
 
 [Here Mr. Campbell inquired for the name of the writer quoted.] His 
 name was Taylor ; an excellent man ; for I knew him well. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, has evidently less poetry in his composition than 
 the old father ; but he, too, draws on his imagination to supply the facts 
 that Luke omitted to state, as we shall see by reference to the Christian 
 Baptist, p. 422. 
 
 " Had any person met Paul and Ananias, when on their way to the water, 
 and asked Paul for what he was going to be immersed ; what answer could 
 he have given, if he believed the words of Ananias, other than, I am going 
 to be immersed for the purpose of washing away my sins ] Or had he been 
 accosted on his return from the water" &c. 
 
 Mr. Campbell gave the history, and farther Taylor made the poetry! 
 Both were enabled to see Paul and Ananias going to some stream or 
 pond, where Paul could be immersed ! But, the misfortune is, we read 
 not a word of all this in the Bible. Luke tells us, that Paul was in Da- 
 mascus, in a private house, in a very feeble state ; and he tells us, that 
 Ananias came and baptized him. But, instead of informing us that they 
 went forth in search of water, he simply relates, that Ananias told Paul 
 to arise and be baptized ; and he arose and was baptized ! In such mat- 
 ters I prefer to go by the Book. I care not even for any criticism on the 
 language ; I am willing to take it as it stands in the English Bible ; for the 
 clear and obvious meaning is, that Paul was baptized standing up in the 
 house. The Greek, however, makes the argument, if possible, clearer 
 than the translation. I will quote a few passages in which we find 
 anastas, the word employed by Ananias and Luke, to express Paul's 
 rising to his feet. Matth. xxvi. 62, "And the high priest arose (anastas) 
 and said unto him, answerest thou nothing?" Did not the priest stand 
 on his feet and speak ? Mark xiv. 57, " And there arose (anastantes) 
 certain, and bare false witness against him." Acts i. 15, "And in those 
 days Peter stood up (anastas) in the midst of the disciples, and said," 
 &c. Acts xiii. 16, "Then Paul stood up, (anastas) and beckoning with 
 his hand, said," &c. Acts xv. 7, " And when there had been much dis- 
 puting, Peter rose up (anastas) and said unto them," &c. Ch. xi. 28, 
 " And there stood up (anastas) one of them named Agabas, and sig- 
 nified," &c. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 229 
 
 These passages, to which many others might be added, show the com- 
 mon usage of the New Testament in regard to the word anastas. It is 
 constantly used to express the act of rising to the feet. And, you ob- 
 serve, the language conveys the idea, that the baptism was administered 
 immediately on his rising to his feet. Anastas, having risen up, he was 
 baptized. Not an intimation is given that there was a moment's delay, or 
 that they left the house. If Ananias had but said to Paul, Arise, and let us 
 go to a pond, or a stream, that you may be baptized ; there would have 
 been no necessity that father Taylor and Mr. Campbell should have sup- 
 plied, from their imagination, the imperfect account of this interesting oc- 
 currence. But, as in all the passages I have just read, anastas expresses 
 the action of rising to the feet, and the action expressed by the following 
 verb, followed immediately and was performed in a standing position; so, 
 here, Paul rose to his feet and was immediately baptized. This looks 
 exceedingly like Pedo-baptist practice — very much indeed ! And it is 
 very unlike the practice of our immersionist friends. If a Pedo-baptist 
 were giving a particular account of a baptism, he would write just as Luke 
 did ; but our immersionist friends constantly speak and write of going to 
 ponds and streams. 
 
 Let us now, for a moment, recur to the facts I have established. I 
 have stated it as an indisputable fact, that when God originally selected a 
 mode of representing sanctification, sprinkling was the mode. This fact 
 has not been denied, and it cannot be disproved. I have stated as a sec- 
 ond fact, that the inspired writers never, in any one instance, represented 
 spiritual cleansing by immersing persons into water, speaking figuratively 
 or literally. I have stated as a third fact, that they did constantly repre- 
 sent it by sprinkling and pouring. Neither of these facts has been or can 
 be disputed. I have stated a fourth fact, that from the time when chris- 
 tian baptism was instituted, not an instance is recorded of the apostles, or 
 any of them, or of those ministers associated with them, going one step 
 out of their way after water for the purpose of baptizing. This fact has 
 not been denied, and it cannot be. The apostles, as I have said, always 
 baptized persons whenever and wherever they professed faith in Christ — 
 in the crowded city, in the country, in the desert, in private houses, in 
 prison, day or night — there was no delay for lack of conveniences to bap- 
 tize either many or few. But in the accounts given of the administration 
 of baptism by our immersionist friends we find frequent delays mention- 
 ed, either because they have not sufficient water, or from some other dif- 
 ficulty peculiar to immersion. In the Millenial Harbinger, as I have al- 
 ready stated, I find a delay in administering baptism to one individual ; 
 and in the same work I find other accounts of a similar character. Yet 
 the country in which christian baptism was first practiced, was by no 
 means so well watered as ours. How, then, shall we account for the 
 fact, that the apostles, at all times and under all circumstances, could ad- 
 minister baptism to any number of converts ; whilst our immersionist 
 friends find it necessary so often to delay? We, like the apostles, can 
 administer baptism to any number of converts, at any time, and in almost 
 any place. Whose practice, I ask, most resembles that of the apostles ? 
 
 I have stated a fifth fact — that the work of the Holy Spirit is called a 
 baptism ; and the baptism of the Spirit is represented by pouring and 
 sprinkling. The Holy Spirit is said to be poured out— shed forth, to 
 fall upon the people. Christian baptism is designed to be a significant 
 ordinance, in which the water is the emblem of purification of heart. If, 
 
 U 
 
230 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 then, the Lord has chosen to represent the work of his Spirit— the bap- 
 tism of the Spirit, by pouring and shedding forth, water-baptism should 
 be administered in that way. 
 
 I might safely leave the audience to determine, in view of these indis- 
 putable facts, whether baptism administered by pouring or sprinkling is 
 not scriptural and valid. I have, however, another important argument 
 to introduce ; but perhaps I have not time now to present it. I will, 
 however, briefly introduce it. 
 
 John, the apostle, says — " There are three that bear record in heaven," 
 &c. — " And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the 
 water, and the blood : and these three agree in one," 1 John v. 7, 8. 
 These three witnesses agree in their testimony. In what, then, do they 
 agree ? The blood of Christ, we know, cleanses from the guilt of sin. 
 The saints in heaven are represented as having " washed their robes, and 
 made them white in the blood of the Lamb," Rev. vii. 14. The Holy 
 Spirit cleanses the soul from the pollution of sin, Titus iii. 5, 6. We 
 have, then, the testimony of two of the witnesses ; and they agree in the 
 cleansing of the soul from the guilt and pollution of sin. The water, the 
 third witness, of course, points to the same thing. The blood of Christ 
 is the procuring cause of purification from sin ; the Holy Spirit is the effi- 
 cient agent in imparting holiness of heart ; and the water applied in bap- 
 tism is the symbol and seal of spiritual blessings. 
 
 But the blood of Christ is called " the blood of sprinkling." Paul 
 says — " Ye are come to — the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better 
 things than the blood of Abel," Heb. xii. 24. Peter speaks of believers 
 as "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through 
 sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ," 1 Pet. i. 2. The Spirit of God, as I have already remarked, is 
 constantly represented as poured out, shed forth, &c. How, then, would 
 you apply the water? The sprinkling of the blood of Christ, and the 
 pouring out of the Spirit, and immersion in water, would not make a very 
 striking agreement. But if the blood be sprinkled, the Spirit poured out, 
 and water poured or sprinkled, is not the agreement of the witnesses most 
 strikingly exhibited? — \_Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18—6 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's sixteenth address.] 
 Mr. President — As we have just heard from you, sir, the meeting 
 of this evening, and all our meetings on this occasion, are solemn mat- 
 ters. In this sectarian and schismatic age, we have assembled for the 
 purpose of discovering, if possible, the roots of discord and the seeds of 
 schism which have unhappily alienated and estranged us from each other ; 
 that we may, peradventure, find some remedy for those wounds and 
 grievances which have so disgraced our holy faith, marred its beauty, and 
 impeded its progress in the world. It is not for the purpose of carrying 
 a favorite point, of maintaining a sectarian tenet, that we have assembled ; 
 but that we may clear away the rubbish of human tradition, and then lay 
 a deep, a broad, and an enduring foundation, upon which christians may 
 meet and harmonize their discords ; shake hands, bury the tomahawk and 
 scalping knife of partizan wars, and unite in one solid and fraternal 
 phalanx, for the civilization of the world — for the illumination, refor- 
 mation, and the redemption of mankind. I humbly hope, sir, that we 
 shall all remember that this is our supreme object, and conduct ourselves 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 231 
 
 in a manner worthy of an occasion so grave, so responsible, and so solemn 
 as the present. 
 
 In opening the discussion of this evening, I have a remark or two to 
 make on the topics before us during the latter part of the afternoon. My 
 friend, Mr. R., in his last speech, attempted to reply to my remarks on 
 that passage in the Acts of the Apostles, in which Paul is commanded by 
 Ananias, to " arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins." He did 
 not apprehend the point of my criticisms, or if he did, he forgot it. Con- 
 sequently, his response was wholly wide of the mark. I specified all the 
 passages in which this idiom of Luke was preserved. His specifications 
 were of a different character, not falling under the idiom adduced, and 
 consequently were wholly irrelevant. We have time only to state the 
 fact, and proceed to weightier matters. 
 
 The water of separation was ordained for a specific purpose. It was 
 to consummate the symbols of the law, and to give a full view of some 
 of the virtues of the christian atonement. Mr. R. professed to be pleased 
 with it, because, he said it afforded him a new argument for his favorite 
 sprinkling of common water ! ! He observed, that we have water mixed 
 with blood, as the ashes of a red heifer were mixed with water, and that 
 the water of sprinkling was a sort of antitype of that symbol. The gen- 
 tleman has forgotten the fact, that we can no more have a type of a type 
 in theology, than a shadow of a shade in nature. Nothing but substances 
 make shadows. This fact reduces his argument, as it presents itself to 
 my vision, to a shadow. If he make the sprinkling of clean water not 
 the type of sprinkling Christ's blood, in sanctification, but the type of 
 sprinkling baptismal water, then he must make the pouring of oil, not 
 the type of the unction of the Holy Spirit, but of pouring out water ; and 
 then I ask, of what was the immersion of the whole flesh of the leper a 
 type of? Immersion in the water of baptism, of course ! ! Then it was 
 all water! ! Three things occurred under the law in cleansing a leper: 
 1st. The water of purification was sprinkled ; 2d. The oil of olive was 
 poured upon the head ; and 3d. The whole person of the leper or polluted 
 person, was bathed in common water. 
 
 If, then, Mr. R. can find for the first and for the second, an antitype in the 
 New Testament, he must also find one for the third ; and that, of course, 
 would be immersion ! He has repeatedly stated the utter impossibility 
 of finding any language in that book, to authorize the putting of a person 
 under water. These identical words, indeed, cannot be found, because 
 the book is written in Greek ; but whenever baptizo en hudati is trans- 
 lated by a competent linguist of an unprejudiced mind, we shall find the 
 precept in English as well as in Greek. 
 
 The innate force of eis, he admits, may bring us to, and sometimes 
 into the water ; but, alas, when there, we must come out for the want of 
 a word informing us what to do. It has then, at last, been discovered, 
 in this enlightened age, that one capital precept in the commission cannot 
 be understood, consequently, that it cannot be obeyed ; that it means 
 nothing definite or intelligible, because of the incompetency of the Greek 
 language, or the unskillfulness of our clergy to interpret it. But what 
 other word more perspicuous and specific might have been selected, neither 
 he nor any other person has, as yet, informed us. 
 
 According to his philology, no one could prove that the disciples ever 
 eat the Lord's supper in Jerusalem. Yet the terms used in the institu- 
 tion, and in the report of it, seem to be quite definite and precise. It is 
 
232 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 said they sat down, and did eat, &c. According to the philology of Mr. 
 Rice, no ordinary man could satisfactorily prove either that the Messiah 
 commanded the mystic loaf to be eaten, or that his apostles eat it after the 
 last passover. To common minds, the language appears perspicuous and 
 satisfactory ; but to learned men, like my respondent, it is peculiarly mys- 
 terious and unintelligible. He would admit that they went into an upper 
 room — that they sat down — that there was a table, having upon it a loaf 
 of bread and a flagon of wine. All that, says he, is incontrovertible. 
 But then comes the precept, after the benediction of the loaf — Take, eat, 
 this is my body. Here, says he, is the difficulty. The term eat is a 
 generic term, and has many meanings. I own, says he, it sometimes 
 means to take a substance into the mouth and masticate it ; but is it not 
 applied to acids also? They are said to eat up various substances. 
 Again ; is not a cancer said to eat up a person's flesh ? Sometimes, also, 
 we read of words eating as a cancer ; zeal, too, is said to have eaten up 
 the Savior — " The zeal of thy house has eaten me up." A person, 
 moreover, who treasures up revelation in his mind, is said to eat it. 
 David says, I found thy word, and I did eat it. And who has not heard 
 of interest eating up money as a moth 1 To go no farther, here are seven 
 meanings of the word eat. Which shall we take ? The Quaker takes 
 the sixth ; the plain, unsophisticated man of common sense, takes the 
 first ; but Mr. R., by the mere force of the word, could not decide which 
 of the seven. Tradition and the primitive fathers, or the customs of the 
 Church, or something else, but the word itself would never satisfy his 
 mind. Now, that baptizo, to dip, is as plain as phago, to eat, every un- 
 prejudiced Jew and gentile on earth, knows. What a glorious uncertainty 
 a person of a little ingenuity and learning may throw around the christian 
 law ! 
 
 Other matters, in the afternoon discourse, and in some other previous 
 speeches, on which we cannot now find time to descant, will come up as 
 pertinently under the design of baptism ; and as w T e must at least give an 
 outline of the whole argument, I shall hasten to another point. 
 
 XII. We shall now state our twelfth argument. For the special benefit 
 of the more uneducated, I shall deduce an argument for immersion from 
 the first precept of the decalogue of philology. That precept, according to 
 my copy, reads thus : The definition of a word and the word itself, are 
 always convertible terms. For example — a law is a rule of action — is 
 equivalent to saying, a ride of action is a law. Philanthropy is the 
 love of man — is equivalent to saying, the love of man is philanthropy. 
 Now, if a definition, or translation, (which is the same thing,) be correct, 
 the definition, if substituted for the term defined, will always make good 
 sense, and be congruous with all the words in construction. 
 
 In order, then, to test the correctness of any definition or translation, 
 we have only to substitute it in the place of the original word defined or 
 translated. If in all places the definition makes good sense, that is, if it 
 be convertible with the word defined, it is correct ; if not, it is incorrect. 
 Let any one unacquainted with Greek take a New Testament, beginning 
 with the first occurrence ofbaptizo, or any of its family, and always sub- 
 stitute for it the definition or translation given, and if it be the correct 
 one, it will make sense ; good, intelligible sense, in every instance. 
 
 We, then, read : — " In those days, the Jew r s of Jerusalem and Judea 
 went out to John, and were sprinkled by him in the Jordan, confessing 
 their sins." To perceive the impossibility of such an occurrence, it is 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 233 
 
 only necessary to know that the word sprinkle is always followed by 
 the substance sprinkled, and next by the object. We can sprinkle ashes, 
 dust, water, or blood, &c. because the particles can be severed with ease ; 
 but can we sprinkle a man ! We may sprinkle something upon him ; 
 but it is impossible for any man to sprinkle another in a river; and 
 it is equally so to sprinkle the river upon him. The same reason- 
 ing will apply to pour. This verb is also to be followed by the 
 substance poured. Now, was it not impossible to pour the Jews in 
 the Jordan, or any where else? And to pour the Jordan upon them 
 would be as inacceptable to them as it would have been impossible 
 for the Baptist. It remains, then, that we try the word immerse. 
 That, too, is followed by the substance to be immersed. Now a man 
 can be immersed in water, in oil, in sand, in grief, in debt, or in the Spi- 
 rit, though it is impossible to pour him into any one of these. Having, 
 then, subjected these three to the same law of trial; two are condemned 
 and reprobate : one only is possible, desirable, and reasonable. 
 
 This test will hold to the end of the volume ; even where the associa- 
 tion may appear strange and uncouth in style, it will always be not only 
 practicable in fact, but good in meaning. For example : Jesus was to 
 baptize in the Holy Spirit. The influence of the Spirit poured out fills 
 some place ; into that persons may be immersed ; as we are said to be 
 immersed in debt, in affliction, in any special trouble ; but a person can- 
 not be sprinkled into these. Such an operation is always impossible, 
 under any view, literal or figurative. 
 
 Let it be carefully noted, in this most useful test, that the three words 
 are all to be subjected to the same laws. 1st. The material is always to 
 follow the verb. 2nd. The place, or thing, or relation into which the 
 action is to be performed, is to follow the material. In baptism, the ma- 
 terial is a man; the element, water. Now, as John cannot pour the 
 material James, neither can he sprinkle him ; but he can immerse him in 
 a river, in debt, in grief, &c. It is highly improper and ungrammatical 
 to use such a phrase, unless by special agreement of the parties present. 
 
 Some persons, accustomed to a very loose style, see no impropriety in 
 the phrase, "sprinkle him — pour him," because of the supplement in 
 their own minds. They think of the material which is sprinkled or 
 poured upon him, and, for brevity's sake, say, sprinkle him; that is, 
 sprinkle dust or water upon him. But in testing the propriety of such 
 phrases, the ellipsis must be supplied. There is no ellipsis in " immerse 
 him;" but there is always in sprinkle or pour him. The material is 
 suppressed, because it is supposed to be understood, as in the case- 
 sprinkle clean water upon him. Now, while the abbreviation may be 
 tolerated, so far as time is concerned, it is intolerable in physical and 
 grammatical propriety ; because it is physically impossible to scatter a man 
 into particles like dust, or to pour him out like water ; and it is grammat- 
 ically improper to suppress the proper object of the verb, and to place 
 after it a word not governed by it. 
 
 Others, again, with Mr. Williams and Dr. Beecher, become so capti- 
 vated with a peculiar theory, that they neither see nor feel any thing 
 repulsive in such sayings as — " Jesus made and purified more disciples 
 than John ; though Jesus purified not himself, but his disciples." " I have 
 a purification to be purified with, and how am I straitened till it be 
 accomplished." " He that believeth and is purified shall be saved." 
 " We are buried with him by purification into death." " Christ sent me 
 
234 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 not to purify, says Paul, but to preach ! !" What further witness need 
 we, that when a man is captivated with his own inventions, he may be 
 reconciled to any thing, however incongruous and absurd in the eye of 
 reason, and contrary to the dictates of that learned doctor, Common 
 Sense. To cap the climax, Dr. Beecher ends his quotations with " The 
 like figure whereunto purification doth also now save us." 
 
 As Mr. Rice has elaborated wash with persevering assiduity, as his 
 great favorite, it is due to him, as complimentary to his good taste, and as 
 a reward for his labor, that I should fairly, if not fully, test the propriety 
 and pertinency of his definition by a few select examples. He contends that 
 it is a proper meaning o$ baptizo. It will, therefore, be convertible with 
 baptizo, and always make good sense, substituted for it, in every passage 
 in which it is found, according to the law and argument now before us. 
 To proceed — we shall give a few specimens and try it in a few cases. 
 Jesus says, Matth. xx. 33, I have a washing to undergo, and how am 
 I straitened till it be accomplished ! Again, Rom. vi. We are buried 
 with him by a washing into death. Acts i. and v., John verily washed in 
 water, but you shall be washed in the Holy Spirit not many days hence. 
 1 Cor. xii. 13, For by one Spirit we have all been washed, poured, or 
 sprinkled into one body, &c. To cap the climax, John said, Matth. iii. 
 .and xi., I indeed wash you in water unto repentance — but he shall wash 
 you in the Holy Spirit, and he shall wash you in fire ! ! Needs any one a 
 clearer refutation of the assumption that washing is the proper represen- 
 tation of baptizo, in our language ! When ever men can be washed in 
 fire, then, and not till then, can I believe that baptizo properly, or literally 
 means to wash. 
 
 As before said, in every passage in the Bible, where baptizo is proved, 
 dip or immerse will make good sense, but not so sprinkle, pour, wash, 
 purify. In this way persons, not acquainted with the original tongues, 
 may always arrive at the most satisfactory certainty of the proper inter- 
 pretation of a word. 
 
 XI. I hasten to my eleventh argument. It is one that I hoped to have 
 had an hour to develop and illustrate. It is drawn from the apostolic 
 allusions to baptism, such as Rom. vi. 4., where it is compared to a bu- 
 rial and resurrection', also to a planting of seeds in the earth. This 
 occurs, also, in the second chapter of Colossians, and again, by Peter, it 
 is compared to Noah's salvation by water in the ark, &c. The first pas- 
 sage quoted, Romans vi. 4, is " Therefore we are buried with him by 
 baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father, we also should walk in newness of life." Again, 
 Col. ii. 15, " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with 
 him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the 
 dead." 
 
 Baptism, as administered by the primitive church, was a monumental 
 evidence of the three great facts of man's redemption from sin, death, and 
 the grave, by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. On pre- 
 senting himself, the candidate confessed judgment against himself by ad- 
 mitting his desert of death for sin, and promising to die unto it ; while 
 confessing that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our 
 justification. His immersion in water, and emersion out of it, was a 
 beautiful commemorative institution indicative of the burial and resurrec- 
 tion of the Messiah. All the world comprehends this definition of bap- 
 tizo. It has done more than a thousand volumes to break down the Pa- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 235 
 
 pal institution of sprinkling. It is only recently, sorely pressed by its im- 
 mense weight, that any one presumed to spiritualize it away. As I shall 
 not have time to argue it at length, I shall let a few of the great and learn- 
 ed of the infant sprinklers be heard on the occasion. They will accom- 
 plish two point, viz: 1. Establish the fact of the resemblance; and 2. 
 Somewhat illustrate the meaning of these passages. We shall, as usual, 
 begin with Calvin. 
 
 Calvin : " Are you ignorant ! — The apostle proves that Christ destroys 
 sin in his people from the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into 
 the faith of the Messiah. For we, without controversy, put on Christ in 
 baptism, and are baptized on this condition, that we may be one with him. 
 Paul thus assumes another principle, that we may then truly grow into the 
 body of Christ when his death produces its own fruit in us who believe. 
 Nay, he teaches us that this fellowship of his death is chiefly to be regarded 
 in baptism, for washing alone is not proposed in this initiatory ordinance, 
 but mortification, and the death of the old man ; whence the efficacy of 
 Christ's death shows itself from the moment we are received into his grace." 
 
 Barnes: " Therefore, we are buried, fyc. It is altogether probable that 
 the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immer- 
 sion. This cannot, indeed, be proved, so as to be liable to no objection ; 
 but I presume that this is the idea that would strike the great mass of 
 unprejudiced readers." 
 
 Locke: "We did own some kind of death by being buried under the 
 water, which, being buried with him, i. e. in conformity to his burial, as 
 a confession of our being dead, was to signify, that as Christ was raised up 
 from the dead into a glorious life with his Father, even so we, being raised 
 from our typical death and burial in baptism, should lead a new sort of life, 
 wholly different from our former, in some approaches towards that heavenly 
 life that Christ is risen to." 
 
 Wall : " As to the manner of baptism then generally used, the texts pro- 
 duced by every one that speaks of these matters, John iii. 23, Mark i. 5, 
 Acts viii. 38, are undeniable proofs that the baptized person went ordinarily 
 into the water, and sometimes the baptist too. We should not know from 
 these accounts, whether the whole body of the baptized was put under 
 water, head and all, were it not for two later proofs, which seem to me to 
 put it out of question : one, that St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way 
 of speaking, call baptism a burial ; the other, the customs of the christians, 
 in the near succeeding times, which, being more largely and particularly 
 delivered in books, is known to have been generally, or ordinarily, a total 
 immersion." 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson: "Anciently, those who were baptized, were im- 
 mersed and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin ; and then 
 did rise up out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life. 
 And to these customs the apostle alludes, Rom. vi. 2 — 5." 
 
 Archbishop Seeker: "Burying, as it were, the person baptized in the 
 water, and raising him out again, without question, was anciently the more 
 usual method ; on account of which St. Paul speaks of baptism as represent- 
 ing both the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and what is grounded 
 on them, — our being dead and buried to sin, and our rising again to walk in 
 newness of life." 
 
 Sam. Clarke : " We are buried with Christ by baptism, fyc. In primitive 
 times, the manner of baptizing was by immersion, or dipping the whole 
 body into the water. And this manner of doing it was a very significant 
 emblem of the dying and rising again, referred to by St. Paul, in the above 
 mentioned similitude." 
 
 Wells : " St. Paul here alludes to immersion, or dipping the whole body 
 under water in baptism ; which, he intimates, did typify the death and 
 burial (of the person baptized) to sin, and his rising up out of the water did 
 typify his resurrection to newness of life." 
 
236 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Bishop Nicholson: "In the grave with Christ we went not; for our 
 bodies were not, could not be buried with his ; but in baptism, by a kind of 
 analogy or resemblance, while our bodies are under the water, we may be 
 said to be buried with him." 
 
 Doddridge: " Buried with him in baptism. It seems the part of candor 
 to confess, that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immer- 
 sion." 
 
 George Whitejield : " It is certain that in the words of our text, Rom. vi. 
 3, 4, there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immer- 
 sion, which is what our own church allows," &c. 
 
 John Wesley : " Buried with him — alluding to the ancient manner of 
 baptizing by immersion." 
 
 Whitby: " It being so expressly declared here, Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 
 12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water ; 
 and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, 
 being taken hence ; and this immersion being religiously observed by all 
 christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and the change 
 of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the author of this 
 institution, or any licence from any council of the church, being that which 
 the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ; it 
 were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, and 
 aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the Clinici, or in present 
 danger of death." 
 
 Assembly of Divines : " If vje have been planted together, 6,-c. By this 
 elegant similitude the apostle represents to us, that as a plant that is set in 
 the earth lieth as dead and immoveable for a time, but after springs up and 
 flourishes, so Christ's body lay dead for a while in the grave, but sprung up 
 and flourished in his resurrection ; and we also, when we are baptized, are 
 buried, as it were, in the water for a time, but after are raised up to new- 
 ness of life." 
 
 I cannot find room for the witnesses I could accumulate on this point. 
 Concurrent with these are Grotius, Beza, Bloomfield, Koppe, Rosenmul- 
 ler, McKnight, &c. &c. I will conclude this venerable, learned, and 
 highly authoritative list, with the most distinguished Presbyterian preacher 
 now living. In his recent "Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans," the 
 justly honored Thomas Chalmers, D. D. and LL. D., boldly and inde- 
 pendently thus expresses himself. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18— Qh, T> M. 
 [mr. rice's sixteenth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I am happy to discover, that my friend is getting 
 along. Three days was the length of time we expected to spend on this 
 subject ; but I have given him seven hours more, because he had fallen 
 almost two days behind in his argument. I intend that all shall see, that 
 the clergy are not so much afraid of the light as he has represented them. 
 
 Baptism by pouring or sprinkling, the gentleman has represented as a 
 very ridiculous affair — a thing which will not bear investigation, even for 
 an hour ; and yet, he has been four days laboring most faithfully to sus- 
 tain the claims of immersion, and is yet calling for more time ! ! ! One 
 good argument, he says, is sufficient to prove any point; but he has not 
 yet found even one ; and I presume, he will not. 
 
 I think it would have been wise in him to have passed in silence Paul's 
 baptism : it is so obviously unfavorable to immersion. He talks about a 
 peculiar idiom in the expressions used on that occasion. But what is 
 there peculiar about it ? Ananias said to him, " Arise (stand up) and be 
 baptized ; and he arose and was baptized." I see nothing peculiar in the 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 237 
 
 expression. Are they not precisely like those • quoted to show the mean- 
 ing of anastas? "In those days Peter stood up [anastas) in the midst 
 of the brethren, and said," &c. " Then Paul stood up [anastas) and 
 beckoning with his hand, said," <fcc. I am unable to discover the slight- 
 est peculiarity of idiom. The plain, unsophisticated meaning is, that 
 Paul stood up in the house, and was (not immersed, but) baptized — 
 a very different operation. A person may indeed be baptized by immer- 
 sion ; yet immersion and baptism are by no means identical. 
 
 I expressed myself as well pleased with the gentleman's dissertation on 
 the ashes of the burnt heifer, put into water to show that blood had a per- 
 manent virtue to atone for sin ; because, since the water in baptism is a 
 symbol of the cleansing of the soul from sin by the blood of Christ and by 
 the Holy Spirit, it should be sprinkled upon the morally unclean, as the 
 ashes of the heifer were sprinkled upon those ceremonially unclean. But 
 he now represents me as making the sprinkling under the Old Dispensa- 
 tion a type of baptism. I said nothing about types: I did not use the 
 word type at all. I said, that when the Lord chose a mode of represent- 
 ing purification, sprinkling was the mode selected; and I argued, that if it 
 was once an impressive and significant mode, it must be so yet. I had 
 no occasion to speak of types ; I spoke only of the mode of applying wa- 
 ter as an emblem of purification. Formerly sprinkling was certainly the 
 best mode, or God would not have selected it ; but now, if we are to be- 
 lieve the gentleman, it will not answer at all ! Why not? Can any one 
 give a reason why it is not now as appropriate an emblem of spiritual 
 cleansing as formerly ? I presume, it would be difficult to do. 
 
 Mr. Campbell says, I admit, that eis will take a man to or into the wa- 
 ter ; but maintain, that baptizo will not put him under ; and he asks, what 
 Greek word will express the action of putting under. I have already 
 given the word which would definitely express the idea of putting under ; 
 and it is not a word of my selection. It was selected by the Greek 
 fathers of the third and fourth centuries. When immersion became the 
 general practice among them, they employed baptizo to denote the ordi- 
 nance ; but when they wished definitely to express the mode of adminis- 
 tering it by immersion, they used kataduo. Thus Photius speaks of the 
 three immersions and emersions (treis kataduseis kai anaduseis) of bap- 
 tism. Now to translate the word baptisma, immersion, in this passage, 
 as Mr. C. does, would make perfect nonsense. It would read thus: the 
 three immersions and emersions of immersion [baptismatos I) What 
 sense would this make ? It is evident, that the Greeks employed baptizo 
 and baptisma to denote the ordinance of baptism, and kataduo, to express 
 the mode of administering it by immersion ; for when a person was bap- 
 tized on a sick bed by pouring or sprinkling, they spoke of him as bap- 
 tized. Dr. Gale, as I have already proved, quotes the Greek fathers, 
 using kataduo, and represents it as properly expressing immersion. 
 " Kataduson me — plunge me into Jordan." I ask again, how came it to 
 pass, that when immersion prevailed among the Greeks, they selected 
 another word instead of baptizo, to express the mode of administering 
 baptism ? Why did they drop the word uniformly used in the Bible, 
 and take another, if as Mr. C. insists, baptizo is precisely the word to 
 express the specific action of immersing ? 
 
 Again, when immersion prevailed amongst the Latins, they, too, found 
 other words by which to express that mode. Baptizo and baptismus, 
 transferred as in our Bible, expressed the ordinance of baptism ; but intin- 
 
238 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 go, mergo, mergito, &c. expressed the mode of administering it by im- 
 mersion. The Latin fathers, I presume, understood the Greek better than 
 I or my friend. Why, then, did they select other words instead of bapti- 
 zo, to denote immersion ? The only possible reason was, that baptizo 
 did not definitely express immersion. 
 
 The gentleman tells you, that according to my logic, it would be im- 
 possible for men to ascertain their duty. For example, we could not 
 know whether in partaking of the Lord's supper the apostles did really 
 eat bread ; for acids are said to eat divers things ! Why, I presume, 
 there would be no great difficulty about it, if we could only ascertain 
 whether the apostles were acids ! ! ! Men, I believe, are not in the habit 
 of consuming things by means of acidity. The gentleman, however, 
 contends for the original meaning of words ; and he tells us, eat means to 
 chew. Of course, he should contend that acids chew ! It is amusing to 
 see him running to objections so perfectly flimsy, in order to sustain 
 immersion. 
 
 We have now come to my friend's eleventh argument, designed for his 
 unlearned hearers. His method of reading his arguments, I think, is 
 not adapted to please either the learned or unlearned — certainly not the 
 latter. But he proposes to substitute the definition for the word defined ; 
 and he tries sprinkle and pour instead of baptism — thus: they were 
 sprinkled in Jordan, or poured in Jordan, &c. If it be true, that baptizo 
 definitely expresses immersing, it is easy to show the absurdity of sub- 
 stituting for it words expressing different modes ; but this is precisely the 
 point to be established. I can travel by walking or riding ; but it would 
 not do to substitute walking or riding for the word travel. For this word 
 expresses the thing done; but walking or riding denotes the mode of 
 doing it. If I were to say, I saw a man laboring to-day ; would you 
 deem it correct to substitute ploughing for the word laboring? Certainly 
 not ; for the word labor expresses more than ploughing. There are 
 many ways in which a man may labor. I can wash my hands either by 
 pouring water on them, or by dipping them into water; but you would 
 not consider it correct to say to your child, go, pour your hands, or, go, 
 dip your hands ; though if he should either have water poured on them, 
 or dip them, he might obey your command to wash them. So baptizo 
 expresses the thing done, the application of water to a person or thing ; 
 but it does not express the mode of doing it. 
 
 The gentleman, however, tries the word wash, and the word purify ; 
 and he thinks baptizo cannot mean either the one or the other. The 
 Lord's supper is taken by eating and drinking ; but if you would sub- 
 stitute eat or drink for deipnon, the word sometimes used to denote that 
 ordinance, it would make nonsense ; and Mr. Campbell might thus prove, 
 according to his logic, that the supper is not to be taken by eating and 
 drinking ! I think it probable, if he had lived in Paul's day, he would 
 have ridiculed the apostle ; for he calls baptism a washing. He says, 
 God saves us " by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost," Tit. iii. 5. Again, speaking of the wicked, he says " And 
 such were some of you ; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified," &c. 
 1 Cor. vi. 11. In these and similar passages the gentleman admits, that 
 Paul spoke of baptism. He, therefore, is forced to admit, that baptism is 
 a washing. And if it is not, Paul was evidently in an error; but if bap- 
 tism is a washing, then it means washing. 
 
 I should be happy to hear from my friend, a dissertation on the word 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 239 
 
 deipnon, showing, from the primary or original. meaning of the word, the 
 manner in which the Lord's supper should be administered and received. 
 Could he determine from the word alone what elements should be used, 
 and in what quantity ? Could he learn from it any thing more than that 
 something was to be eaten ? He could not. We must go to the institu- 
 tion of the ordinance, and learn its nature and design, before we can de- 
 termine the manner of receiving it. And so we must go to the institution 
 of baptism, and learn its nature and design, in order to understand how 
 it should be administered. 
 
 But the gentleman would put immerse in place of baptize; and this, 
 he supposes, would make excellent sense. But in strictness of language 
 immerse does not express all for which he is contending. A man may 
 be immersed, without being submersed. He is contending for the entire 
 submersion of the body in water. Some have thought the word plunge 
 a fair definition of baptizo. Let us try it. " John the plunger did plunge 
 in the wilderness, and preached the plunging of repentance !" Some pre- 
 fer the word dip. Let us try it. " John the dipper did dip in the wilder- 
 ness, and preached the dipping of repentance," &c. Such language 
 sounds very curiously. [A laugh.] 
 
 Mr. Campbell told you, that circumcision signifies cutting round. Now 
 put the definition in place of the word, as applied to a religious rite. Let 
 us now read in Gen. xvii. " This is my covenant, which ye shall keep 
 between me and you, and thy seed after thee : every man child among 
 you shall be circumcised (cut around.) And he that is eight days old 
 shall be circumcised (cut around.) And the uncircumcised (uncut around) 
 man child." My friends, you see it wont do. My friend does not like 
 the expression; but I must say, it wont do! [A laugh.] 
 
 The truth is, baptism is the word appropriated to denote a religious or- 
 dinance ; and it will not do to substitute in its place any word which ex- 
 presses merely the mode of its administration. The ordinance is one 
 thing; the mode of administering it is another. The principle, therefore, 
 on which the gentleman reasons, is wholly unsound, and will prove quite 
 fatal to plunging or submersion, as to pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 Mr. Campbell has, at length, reached his argument founded on the 
 burial spoken of in Rom. vi. 1. I discover, however, that instead of 
 making an argument from the passage, he contents himself with reading 
 the opinions of others. Almost any one could do as much. These opin- 
 ions have been published and republished for the thousandth time, and 
 are found in almost every little book that has been published in favor of 
 immersion. 
 
 Calvin is brought forward as one of his authorities ; but I am disposed 
 to think, the gentleman has done Calvin injustice. For in looking over 
 his commentary on Rom. vi., I saw no allusion to immersion. 
 
 Rev. A. Barnes is another whose opinion is adduced. Mr. Barnes is a 
 man, doubtless, of considerable learning ; but I will bring against him the 
 authority of Prof. Stuart, an older and abler critic, who has proved with 
 great clearness, that there is in the passage no allusion to immersion. I 
 will also present the authority of Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, who is one of 
 the ablest critical writers. 
 
 Dr. Wall was quoted ; he was notoriously an immersionist of the old 
 school. He was for allowing pouring only in cases of necessity. Dr. 
 Clarke was also quoted ; but I apprehend, that he was not treated quite 
 fairly. In his comment on the 6th of Romans, be distinctly says, it can- 
 
240 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 not be certainly proved, that the apostle alluded to immersion, and in his 
 remarks on Matth. iii. 6, he says, it is certain that baptizo means both to 
 dip and to sprinkle. John Wesley was a man of learning ; but he was 
 not on the side of my friend. As already quoted, he says: 
 
 " The matter of this sacrament is water, which, as it has a natural power 
 of cleansing, is the more fit for this symbolical use. Baptism is performed 
 by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the person in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever blessed Trinity. I 
 say, by washing, sprinkling, or dipping ; because it is not determined in 
 Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by any express 
 precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it ; nor by the force or 
 meaning of the word baptism."- — Wesley, p. 144. 
 
 Whitefield is another of the gentleman's authorities. He was a great 
 preacher ; but I never heard that he was considered a learned critic. He 
 spent a considerable part of his life in going from place to place, and from 
 country to country, preaching the Gospel to thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands. It is not to be presumed, therefore, that his critical knowledge 
 was very extensive. 
 
 Dr. Whitby was one of the clergy of the church of England who lived 
 not long after immersion had generally ceased to be practiced in that 
 church, and who were very solicitous to have it restored, except in cases 
 of necessit)^. Like Wall, he was a decided immersionist. McKnight be- 
 longed to the same general class. 
 
 The gentleman quoted the Assembly of Divines. I presume, he is 
 aware that the Notes which bear their name, were not really the work of 
 that body, but only of a few individuals. He has, however, repeatedly 
 published the statement, that in that Assembly the resolution in favor of 
 sprinkling was carried by only one of a majority — that there were twenty- 
 four for immersion, and twenty-four for sprinkling, and Dr. Lightfoot gave 
 the casting vote. I happen to have the account of that matter, as given 
 by Lightfoot himself, from which I will read an extract or two : Dr. Light- 
 foot says : 
 
 " Then fell we upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing of 
 the child, whether to dip him or sprinkle. And this proposition : " It is 
 lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed before our 
 adjourning, and was ready now to vote ; but I spake against it as being 
 very unfit to vote — that it was lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it. 
 Whereupon, it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping 
 should be tolerated with it," &c. " After a long dispute it was at last put 
 to the question, whether the Directory should run thus : ' The minister shall 
 take water and sprinkle, or pour it with his hand, upon the face or forehead 
 of the child ; and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count 
 names twice, for so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, that the 
 votes came to an equality within one — for the one side was twenty-four, and 
 the other twenty-five ; the twenty -four for the reserving of dipping, and the 
 twenty-five against it ; and there grew a great heat upon it ; and when we 
 had done all, we concluded nothing in it, but the business was recommitted.' 
 * * * * But it was first thought fit to go through the business by degrees, 
 and so it was first put to the vote, and voted thus affirmatively : « That pour- 
 ing on of water, or sprinkling of it in the administration of baptism, is 
 lawful and sufficient.' But I excepted at the word ' lawful,' as too poor, for 
 that it was as if we should put this query — whether it be lawful to adminis- 
 ter the Lord's supper in bread and wine % And I moved that it might be 
 expressed thus: 'It is not only lawful, but also sufficient ;' and it was done 
 so accordingly. But as for the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought 
 fit and most safe to let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory— 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 241 
 
 * He is to baptize the child with water, which for the manner of doing is 
 not only lawful, but also sufficient and most expedient to be by pouring or 
 sprinkling water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony.' 
 But this cost a great deal of time about the wording it." — Pittman fy Light- 
 foofs Works, vol. xiii. pp. 300-1. 
 
 This is the account given by Pittman and Lightfoot, and the gentle- 
 man is welcome to their testimony. It shows how impartially he has 
 recorded historical facts ! 
 
 Dr. Chalmers is a learned and great man. But in immediate connec- 
 tion with the passage quoted by Mr. Campbell he says, that he regards 
 the mode of baptism as a matter of entire indifference ; and, as I have 
 repeatedly remarked, no man is likely to go through a thorough investiga- 
 tion of a subject in regard to which he is perfectly indifferent. If a man 
 express himself as perfectly indifferent concerning any political question 
 which agitates the public mind, you at once conclude that he has not 
 given himself much trouble to investigate it ; and so it is on religious 
 subjects. But, as before remarked, I will balance his great names with 
 others equally great ; for it appears that the controversy is to be deter- 
 mined by celebrated names, not by argument. I have already given you 
 the concessions of the Greek and Latin christians, who practiced gene- 
 rally trine immersion, and who, with one voice, pronounce pouring and 
 sprinkling valid and scriptural baptism. 
 
 But let us examine the passage in question ; and this, I believe, is the 
 last strong-hold of immersion. I will read the passage : " What shall we 
 say then ? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? God forbid. 
 How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know ye 
 not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
 into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; 
 that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father, 
 even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been 
 planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the like- 
 ness of his resurrection : Knowing this, that our old man is crucified 
 with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we 
 should not serve sin," Rom. vi. 1 — 6. 
 
 The first question that naturally presents itself in view of this pas- 
 sage, is this: what is the subject on which the apostle is writing? what 
 is he aiming to prove? He had, in the previous part of the epistle, 
 proved the doctrine of justification by faith, without the deeds of the law. 
 He now anticipates and answers an objection urged by some against this 
 doctrine, viz : that its tendency is to induce men to commit sin ; and he 
 proves that, so far from having any such tendency, this doctrine necessa- 
 rily results in a holy life in the case of all who sincerely embrace it. He 
 is not at all speaking of the mode of baptism ; his single aim is to expose 
 this Jewish cavil, and to prove that Christianity, from its very nature, 
 leads those who embrace it to a holy life. Having now learned the main 
 object of his argument, we are prepared to understand his language. 
 
 We find in the passage before us, some five expressions figuratively 
 employed, viz : death, burial, resurrection, planting, crucifixion. These 
 figurative expressions must, of course, be interpreted consistently with 
 each other. If, then, we can ascertain the meaning of the death and the 
 resurrection of which he speaks, we shall easily understand the burial. 
 The death is certainly spiritual — a death to sin. " How shall we that are 
 dead to sin. live any longer therein?" verse 2. The resurrection is also 
 16 ' X 
 
242 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 spiritual — a resurrection to a new life. " Therefore we are buried with 
 him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised from the dead 
 by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in neivness of 
 life" verse 4. The death is spiritual, the resurrection is spiritual, and 
 the burial, must it not also be spiritual? "Would you so interpret the pas- 
 sage as to have a spiritual death, a spiritual resurrection, and a physical 
 burial of the body under water ? ! Would these three things be consist- 
 ent ? The simple meaning is, that the old man (our corrupt nature) is 
 dead and buried ; and the new man (our renewed nature) is risen to live 
 a new life. Christ died for sin, that is, to deliver us from sin ; so they 
 who are baptized into his death, profess their desire and purpose to die 
 unto sin — to enjoy the benefits arising from his death. Christ arose liter- 
 ally for our justification ; so they who are baptized into Christ, rise spirit- 
 ually and live a new, a holy life. Baptism, therefore, is that ordinance 
 by which we become publicly and visibly identified with Christ in his 
 death and resurrection. The same idea is presented in the planting and 
 the crucifixion of the old man, verses 5, 6. If the burial is immersion, 
 what is the planting, (or engrafting, as some render it) ? Are we accus- 
 tomed to plant seed in water ? The meaning (if planted is the correct 
 rendering of the word) is this : The seed is put into the earth, and it dies ; 
 but a new stalk springs up from it. So the old man is put, as it were, 
 into the earth ; and the new man rises up, like a new stalk, to live a new 
 life. But if both burial and planting express the mode of baptism ; what 
 mode is indicated by crucifixion, which we find used in the same connec- 
 tion to express the same idea ? It will not answer to select one of the 
 figures to express mode, and exclude the others. 
 
 What, then, are we to understand by the death, burial, resurrection and 
 crucifixion ? The death to sin, and resurrection to a newness of life, 
 certainly signify the change of heart and life from sin to holiness, that is, 
 sanctification. The planting and the crucifixion of the old man, " that 
 the body of sin might be destroyed," evidently express precisely the 
 same idea. Whether, therefore, we look at the design of the apostle's 
 argument, or at the language employed, we cannot but see that he spoke 
 of sanctification, holiness of heart and life, as secured by Christianity. We 
 then inquire, in what way does God generally represent sanctification or 
 purification from sin ? Does he represent it by immersing into water ? 
 He never does. Does he not uniformly represent it by pouring or 
 sprinkling? He does, both in the Old and in the New Testament. In 
 what way, then, should christian baptism, the emblem of spiritual cleans- 
 ing, be administered? Evidently by pouring or sprinkling. Whilst, 
 therefore, this passage contains not a word about the mode of baptism, 
 but speaks only of its design ; when correctly understood, it is decidedly 
 favorable to pouring or sprinkling as the proper mode. 
 
 That I have given the true exposition of this passage, will be still 
 more manifest by comparing with it Colossians ii. 11, 12: " In whom 
 [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without 
 hands, in putting off* the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circum- 
 cision of Christ : buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
 with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
 from the dead." Here we find distinctly presented the spiritual nature 
 of this burial and resurrection. — [Time expired. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 243 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18 — 7 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's seventeenth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Can you, sir, or can you, my fellow-citizens, with- 
 hold your admiration of the liberality and benevolence of Mr. Rice, in 
 allowing me so much more time than stipulated, for the affirmation of the 
 first proposition ! Would you believe it ? he has vouchsafed me just one 
 half hour over the stipulated time. It was propounded, and solemnly 
 agreed upon, that I should have the establishment of the number of hours 
 per diem. The minimum was set down at four hours — the extension 
 beyond that was left to me. On Wednesday, I informed Mr. Rice that I 
 found myself in such health as to justify six hour sessions. Some of the 
 moderators, however, preferring four hour sessions, I consented, upon the 
 assurance from Mr. Rice, that I should have the time made up in number 
 of days equal to three days of six hours each. At nine o'clock this eve- 
 ning, I shall have had nine hours and one-half for the affirmative, that is 
 one half hour more than our stipulation. I asked, but could not obtain, 
 another day, to be refunded by the subtraction of a day from some other 
 proposition, not extending over so large a field of investigation. I have 
 asked a day, and obtained half an hour ! My friend claims other honors 
 besides that of a magnanimous generosity, on grounds quite as slender as 
 those on which he would now claim your admiration. 
 
 Another proof of the exemplary generosity of Mr. Rice, you have in the 
 fact, that I have had two affirmative propositions assigned me for his one. 
 I always asked, from the beginning, an equal number of affirmatives and 
 negatives. My friend, as I begin to see, knew on which side his strength 
 lay, and therefore refused me any better terms than two to one. It was 
 this, or no debate at all. He is good in denying. He admirably suits 
 the negative side. Besides, he has secured to himself two closing speech- 
 es for my one. With some, the last word and the last speech is a great 
 matter, and therefore he wisely secured that also ; for, even when the four 
 affirmatives were given me, he would not change the position of them, so 
 as to allow me the final closing speech. This may be good generalship, 
 but who will call it generosity, equality, or equity!! Still, I feared not 
 to give the Presbyterian church these fearful odds ; especially, as without 
 them, we should never have met here. The affirmative, according to the 
 usages of our courts of law, and of the civilized world, has the opening 
 and the closing speech. But in this case I would not have asked it, if 
 the number of affirmatives had been equal. 
 
 I regret, my fellow-citizens, exceedingly regret, that while discussing a 
 question of this magnitude, a question more or less involving the world's 
 destiny, a question of the utmost gravity and solemnity, there should 
 have been any indications of levity, especially such as occurred during 
 the last speech. While thus ascertaining the meaning of Messiah's com- 
 mission ; that commission which contains the gospel of an eternal salva- 
 tion ; a commission embracing in its sublime philanthropy, all the nations 
 of the earth and all the ages of time ; I say, while thus arguing the cause 
 of eternal truth and righteousness before heaven and earth, I feel myself 
 not only standing in the midst of you, in the midst of this great assem- 
 bly, but in the midst of a mighty host, an innumerable multitude of high 
 intellectual and spiritual beings, who, though they are unseen by us, I am 
 not, nor are you, my fellow-citizens, unseen by them. I hope, then, to feel 
 my responsibilities, both to God and man, and to act faithfully in accor- 
 dance with them, while I retain your attention to the point before us. 
 
244 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 In the even tenor of my way, without turning aside to vain jangling, or 
 to respond to matters designed to provoke a laugh rather than conviction, 
 I shall proceed in the exhibition of documents and arguments addressed 
 to your understanding and your consciences, before the searcher of all 
 hearts, and in reference to your eternal destiny. The ordinances of 
 Christianity are its greatest solemnities. They are a divine embodiment 
 of its salutary, life-giving, and sanctifying power, and should, therefore, 
 be examined in a frame of mind, and with a devotional spirit, consenta- 
 neous with their transcendent importance. 
 
 I have been contemplating christian baptism in its sublime allusions to 
 the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah, as a public, living, 
 standing, convincing monument, erected by the great benefactor of our 
 race, to be repeated upon every occasion of the nativity of a new member 
 of his redeemed family, for his grand purposes — one peculiar to the sub- 
 ject, and one extending to all the spectators. To him, it is a solemn 
 pledge of his interests in a crucified and living Redeemer ; a significant, 
 memorable, and honorable commencement of his christian race ; while 
 to the world around, it proclaims that Messiah died, shed his blood as an 
 expiation for the sins of the world, went down into the dark and desolate 
 mansions of the dead, and triumphantly rose again, opening the gates of 
 life and immortality to a benighted, condemned, and ruined world. An 
 ordinance of such significance, solemnity, and grandeur, ought to be dis- 
 cussed with the most profound devotion and solemn reverence for its 
 great author. This discussion, on my part, was not undertaken for any 
 momentary effect. It was not undertaken for the citizens of this city or 
 of this commonwealth, especially or exclusively. It was undertaken for 
 the whole community ; for the honor of God, the glory of the Messiah, 
 and the good of suffering humanity. It was, therefore, to be stereotyped 
 and sent on a glorious mission all round the land. Its object is to collect, 
 combine, arrange and exhibit, facts, documents and arguments, for all sorts 
 of readers, for all classes of men. Such were, and such are my views, 
 intentions, and aims in the whole affair. I desire to remember, to feel, 
 and to rejoice, that whatever of truth, of fact, of argument, I may offer, 
 is taken down by competent stenographers, and to be engraved upon metal. 
 But still, I am more influenced, and cheered, and awed, by the reflection 
 that there is another recording angel of an ethereal constitution, of a ce- 
 lestial temper, and of more than earthly competency, dignity, and gran- 
 deur, from whose pen not one iota escapes, and who writes what is 
 spoken here, not to be read on earth, but in heaven — not for a few days, 
 but through a vast, a boundless eternity. I have no use at all, then, for 
 any of those violent gesticulations, those theatrical attitudes, to catch 
 your attention, to provoke your smiles, or to hide from your observance 
 the inapplicability or impertinences of my arguments. 
 
 The occasion of these remarks, I doubt not, you all comprehend, and, 
 therefore, I shall only briefly respond to one or two of those ad captandum 
 efforts, adapted more to the facetiousness of boys than to the gravity and 
 dignity of men. I propounded, in my last speech, a useful law of inter- 
 pretation, of more use to the uneducated and unlearned of the community, 
 than to those acquainted with the etymology of those languages through 
 which we have received the revelation of God. Every sound gram- 
 matical and logical definition or translation of a word is convertible 
 with the word defined, and therefore, we sometimes test a definition by 
 placing it in all places in which- we find the word it defines. If it always 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 245 
 
 make good sense, it is a correct definition ; if it does not, it is incorrect 
 and to be reprobated. 
 
 To turn away your attention from this most useful and incontrovertible 
 law, the gentleman made an effort to create a laugh, for an argument, made 
 more ridiculous by his pantomimic gesticulation and pronunciation than by 
 the word adduced. " In those days came John the plunger, plunging 
 in the wilderness and preaching the plunging of repentance for the remis- 
 sion of sins." Well, now the Messiah himself was laughed at under an 
 old scarlet cloak ! Still there was nothing ridiculous in the cloak, in it- 
 self, nor in him. It was the association, and the laugh was in the minds 
 of the spectators. 
 
 There is not any thing grammatically, logically, scripturally, or reli- 
 giously amiss in the word plunge. It was in the ridiculous association 
 and manner. It is good sense ; while washing in fire is nonsense. 
 John, the dipper, or John, the immerser, or John, the plunger, or John 
 the Baptist, are all good sense, good language, good definition and beyond 
 censure. The principle is sound, and the sense is good : and the laugh is 
 only in the vacuity or folly of those who are tickled by it. 
 
 So nigh the close of this proposition, I should not occupy a moment 
 unnecessarily with such a matter ; for, perhaps, this was the intention of 
 the affair ; but for the sake of all public discussions of religious questions, 
 I am constrained to say that there is a very bad, irreligious, and pernicious 
 taste of this sort to which disputants, too generally, cater. All christian 
 men, and especially ministers, should set their faces against it. 
 
 By the way, while on this unworthy theme, I shall request my friend, 
 Mr. Rice, when next he assumes the mountebank or pantomimic style, to 
 take a little more room for it — to keep his arms a little farther from my 
 face, and figure more within the bounds of the stage allotted him. Thus 
 my speculations and meditations will not be quite so much incommoded. 
 I shall demand this not so much as a favor, as a right due to me. 
 
 I shall now resume my reading of documentary proofs under my 12th 
 argument. I promised to add only a single quotation from a most distin- 
 guished Presbyterian minister, now living. I wish you to place him in 
 the scale against Mr. Rice, as they likely are quite antipodal on the sub- 
 ject. In his recent lecture on the Romans and on the passage before us, 
 Dr. Chalmers says — 
 
 " The original meaning of the word baptisma, is immersion, and though 
 we regard it as a point of indifferency, whether the ordinance so named be 
 performed in this way, or by sprinkling; yet we doubt not that the preva- 
 lent style of the administration, in the apostles' days, was by an actual sub- 
 merging of the whole body under water. We advert to this for the purpose 
 of throwing light on the analogy that is instituted in these verses. Jesus 
 Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism, by an immersion under the 
 ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection." 
 
 Am I not, then, in the very best of company, when I reprobate Mr. 
 R's. use of kataduo — when I say that no word could be more inappro- 
 priate ? The Dr. continues : 
 
 " We, being baptized into his death, are conceived to have made a similar 
 translation. In the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have 
 resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending, to emerge into the second 
 or new life, along the course of which it is our part to maintain a strenuous 
 avoidance of that sin, which as good as expunged the being which we had 
 formerly, and a strenuous prosecution of that holiness which should begin 
 with the first moments that we are ushered into our present being, and be 
 perpetuated and made progress toward the perfection of full and ripened 
 immortality." x 2 
 
246 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 It is exceedingly painful for me to read on such an occasion. I have 
 had so much to do with facts, that I have been compelled to it : and I pre- 
 fer to read from those not with us, rather than from those on our own 
 side. This, indeed, is not so much a question of reason, as a question of 
 fact, I averred at the commencement, that the whole matter and burthen 
 of this proposition is a question of fact and to be decided as all such ques- 
 tions are. Our witnesses are lexicographers, translators, annotators, crit- 
 ics, commentators, historians, &c. We concluded this last class with Chal- 
 mers. He candidly, truthfully, and independently, affirms that immer- 
 sion is the meaning of the term in sacred usage, that it was the custom of 
 the apostolic age, and what more do we ask ? He thinks sprinkling will 
 do, in Scotland, and in the 19th century. Regarding it, however, as a 
 matter of indifferency, he affirms, like a full grown man, as he is, that the 
 Greek and the apostolic practice are both against him ; but, then, Mr. 
 Rice says " it wont do." Chalmers is wrong and he is right. Well then, 
 I leave it for Presbyterians to prefer their man — their leader, Dr. Chalmers, 
 or Mr. Rice. But were Mr. R. to make himself as facetious as any com- 
 edian that ever walked the stage, he can neither talk down nor laugh down 
 Dr. Chalmers and that mighty host, the glory of Episcopalianism and 
 Presbyterianism, that have candidly declared for us, while taking it upon 
 themselves to act upon their own responsibility. 
 
 I neither need special witnesses, nor special pleading on my side of the 
 question. Therefore I have given you more witnesses, more facts than 
 reasonings, and thrown upon my audience the responsibility of acting for 
 themselves. When the case is a clear one, it is frequently given to the 
 jury without much argument. The more special pleading, always the 
 more doubtful the case, and the more precarious the testimony. My wit- 
 nesses are all borrowed from the party that opposes me. You are all wit- 
 nesses that I have not quoted from Dr. Gill, down to any living doctor of 
 the Baptist church, one single sentence as argument or authority. You 
 have now a mighty host of witnesses before you, and yet they are not the 
 half; I might say not more than a tithe of all that might be adduced. I 
 have chosen names well known to fame, and of unquestionable learning 
 and authority in the several Pedo-baptist parties. It is then for you to 
 decide whether the mere ipse dixit of my respondent, or a thousand like 
 him, ought to outweigh the facts, concessions, and affirmations which I 
 have given you. 
 
 Need I ask whether special pleadings, opinions, and mere reasonings, 
 without the proper data of appropriate facts, will be an offset, or rather a 
 counterbalance against such authorities ? If a person possessed the high- 
 est powers of ratiocination, could he, think you, fellow-citizens, annihilate 
 such an array of facts and authorities ! I should have much less respect 
 for the good sense and mental character of this community ; of the whole 
 American family, indeed, than what I do entertain, if I could think it 
 behooved me, on the present occasion, to show cause and reason why you 
 should prefer the hosts of witnesses, (many of them indeed, individually, 
 like Chalmers, a host himself) to the opinions or dogmatic assertions of 
 any special pleader, living or dead. 
 
 As usual, the gentleman introduces matters, and makes reference to 
 others to which, according to the laws of discussion, I am not obliged to 
 respond. Whatever is advanced in reply to my arguments offered, or to 
 my facts and documents submitted, I am bound to notice. Other matters, 
 introduced by him, are only entitled to a mere complimentary notice. It 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 247 
 
 is optional, with the affirmant, how much of such' matters, or whether any 
 of them, shall be at all noticed. Several matters of this sort have re- 
 ceived no formal attention. Some of them have, and one or two of them 
 will come up more in my way on the third proposition. If a person 
 were to be obliged to advert to every thing- which his respondent may 
 please to throw in his way, he would travel very slowly indeed. One 
 person may throw out as many facts and assertions in one period, as 
 might occupy another a week, or a month, to refute. 
 
 A fallacy to which Mr. Rice is frequently addicted, and to which the 
 author of the Essay on Purification is no less so, is that of assuming 
 that, if one thing be represented by two names, or two words, these 
 words are synonymous from the circumstance of their being thus appled. 
 For instance, suppose washing be applied to baptism in one case, and 
 conversion in another — will that make washing and conversion synony- 
 mous ! Baptism anciently, in the second century, was called illumina- 
 tion, regeneration, the gift, sanctijication, conversion, &c. Now, be- 
 cause all these terms were applied to baptism, does that make baptism and 
 any one of them synonymous ; or will that make any two of them sy- 
 nonymous ! Because baptism is called, as he alledges, the loutron pha- 
 lingenesias, the washing of regeneration, therefore, washing and baptism 
 are the same .thing ! 
 
 Before dismissing the argument, found in these allusions, to a burial, 
 allow me to remark, that, of all the comments in the world upon baptism, 
 this is the best. Few men know much about philology, about criticism 
 and the etymology of words. But all men understand the meaning of 
 the word burial. When a person is covered in the earth he is buried, 
 and not till then. Now as respects baptism, being so compared, there 
 can be no reasonable doubt. And that fact established, as all the learned, 
 Roman Catholics and Protestants, of every name and of every party, 
 agree, there is a burial of all doubt on this subject. Even the commen- 
 tary of the Assembly of Divines so gives it. This is truly a common 
 sense argument, as some of our greatest critics have called it. For if 
 seeds planted in the earth, if Noah in his ark, and a man buried in the 
 earth, are compared to baptism, or rather if baptism be compared to them, 
 then all doubts must cease in all minds who admit the mere fact of the 
 analogy having the sanction of the apostles. Like Calvin, or Stuart, or 
 Chalmers, they may, indeed, suppose it a matter of indiflerency, and rest 
 satisfied that the church has a right to modify and change these institu- 
 tions. But few men, comparatively, not long hackneyed in the way of 
 clerical accommodation, will be satisfied with such a decision. 
 
 Now, inasmuch as all denominations of christians, Romanists and 
 Protestants, orthodox and heterodox, admit that baptism is called a 
 burial, it is at once, and as if by acclamation, confirming all our philolo- 
 gical dissertations on the subject. The discussion properly ends, and is 
 sanctioned here. If Jesus Christ was buried, was covered with the 
 earth, then were the first christians all buried in baptism, or by an im- 
 mersion into water. 
 
 XIII. Next to this, in plainness and strength, is the argument drawn 
 from history. History is a very authoritative commentator on lan- 
 guage, as well as on men and manners. It sometimes enters into the 
 philosophy and the philology of language, and decides the proper inter- 
 pretation of words, by shewing, in matter of fact details, how these words 
 were understood in days of yore. The historians tell us what the an- 
 
248 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 cients did under the name, baptism. They record certain acts and then 
 call them by this word. They are, then, stronger proof, to the great 
 mass of society, than dictionaries, grammars, classics, translators, or any 
 thing in the form of mere language. History is now the favorite, the 
 growing favorite in all departments of philosophy. The history of 
 nature is philosophy, the history of plants is botany, the history of ani- 
 mals 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, and of all ages of the church. Whenever the history of 
 baptism is fully read, and by whomsoever, there will not remain one 
 doubt on the meaning of baptizo. I affirm, without fear of successful 
 contradiction, that all Christendom, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and modern, 
 down to quite a comparatively recent period, practiced immersion. I 
 have given you, already, the testimony of the justly celebrated Dr. Whit- 
 by, of the church of England, affirming that immersion was religiously 
 observed from the beginning, for thirteen hundred years, without any 
 exception by authority, 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 the ground of the 
 indulgence claimed in changing immersion into sprinkling. This being 
 an indisputable tact, what need have we of all this controversy about the 
 meaning of words? This fact is worth all the languages, dictionaries, 
 commentators, and critics, of two thousand years. 
 
 The gentleman tells you of the trine immersion of Tertullian, and of 
 their baptizing persons, not only once into each of the names of the Di- 
 vinity, but also undressed ! And what have we to do with these excen- 
 tricities ! It only makes the argument stronger ; for, if they thus sub- 
 mitted to three immersions instead of one, how strong their faith in im- 
 mersion. The gospel commands one immersion, but, it seems, they got 
 to three. 
 
 I again ask, if the whole world, from the days of the apostles, as Cal- 
 vin, Chalmers, and Whitby admit, and as all the ancient historians de- 
 clare, practiced immersion — none excepted but the sick and dying, (and 
 their baptism was not for ages regarded valid) why presumes any man to 
 innovate and adopt another! I have here ancient copies of Eusebius, and 
 of Scholasticus, Evagrius, and other ecclesiastical historians ; Du Pin, 
 Mosheim, Milner, Waddington, down to the last, the living Neander, and, 
 with one consent, they confirm the affirmation of Whitby. Indeed, we 
 can give the name of the person who first had water poured all over him 
 in a bed. Eusebius tells the story, p. 120. This memorable case occur- 
 red in 252 or 253 — and, when told by Eusebius, he adds, " if that can 
 be called baptism." Novatian, from this copious affusion, however, 
 recovered ; but when candidate for the see of Rome, for the episcopate 
 of the imperial city, he lost it — as some say, because of the invalidity of 
 his baptism. The presumption is, he might have been pope of Rome, 
 because of his distinguished parts and great learning, but for this unfor- 
 tunate affusion instead of immersion. Certain it is, it did not satisfy the 
 church, and was a cause of his reprobation. — [Time expired. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 249 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18—7 o'clock, P M. 
 [mr. rice's seventeenth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — Before entering upon the question before us, I wish 
 to read an extract of a letter of Mr. Campbell to Rev. J. H. Brown. 
 I am astonished to hear the gentleman state, that he had been forced to 
 take four affirmative propositions, or have no debate. I wish to prove 
 by his own letter, that, so far from his statement being correct, he him- 
 self refused to debate, unless we would allow him a fourth affirmative. 
 The truth is, we had agreed to discuss the six propositions, each party- 
 having three affirmatives and three negatives ; but when he came to Lex- 
 ington in August last, to make final arrangements as to other prelimina- 
 ries, he positively refused to go into a discussion, unless we would give 
 him another affirmative proposition on baptism. His language is the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 " I never can yield to demands so arbitrary and unequal If then I have 
 given opportunity and latitude to ascertain what advantages would be 
 sought, and how promptly you and your brethren would assume the de- 
 fence of your own tenets and assail mine, I am not to be understood as agree- 
 ing to place myself three times in the mere negative of your tenets on baptism. 
 Since I have been summoned by you to stand up to the defence of my own 
 teaching, I must affirm my views on, at least, the two main points in 
 which I have been most assailed by Presbyterians. This is not only just 
 and equal, but it is my special right, coming into this discussion as I do." 
 
 The gentleman, you perceive, here complains, that he is thrice in the 
 negative on baptism, and demands, as a right, to have another affirmative. 
 " Since I have been summoned by you to stand up in defence of my own 
 teaching, I must affirm my views on, at least, the two main points in 
 which I have been most assailed," &c. Before we received this letter, 
 the proposition we are now discussing stood thus : " Sprinkling or pour- 
 ing water on a suitable subject is scriptural baptism." In this form we 
 had agreed to debate it ; but the gentleman insisted that he was in the 
 negative too often, and demanded to have the proposition so worded, as 
 to place him in the affirmative. We accommodated him ; and now, after 
 refusing positively to debate, unless we would give him the affirmative, 
 he tells the audience that four affirmatives were forced on him, and that 
 we would not enter into the discussion on any other terms ! ! ! We urged 
 the immediate publication of the correspondence, inasmuch as the debate 
 was so long deferred, that the public might correctly understand our rela- 
 tive positions, but the gentleman positively refused to permit it ! 
 
 I am unable to determine whether he compliments me or the audience, 
 when he represents me as " a pantomime," making antique gesticulations 
 and playing off fantastic tricks for their amusement, and reproves them 
 for allowing themselves to be thus amused. My gestures, it seems, dis- 
 turb his reflections very much ; and he desires that I should turn away 
 from him in future. Aye, it is the argument that so much disconcerts 
 him. I am quite willing that he shall gesticulate as much as he pleases, 
 and in his own way; and he must allow me to make gestures as I may 
 feel inclined. But I wont look at him, since I thus disturb his reflec- 
 tions ! Oh, no. If the gentleman had not attempted to brow-beat and 
 confuse me this morning, I should probably not have disturbed him by 
 exciting the risibles of the audience at his expense. 
 
 But he has repeatedly told you, that he is not speaking for present ef- 
 fect; he is making a book, which, when read by the intelligent and 
 learned, is to have a tremendous effect. Does he intend to intimate, that 
 
250 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 this intelligent audience cannot comprehend his profound investigations? 
 I have never learned that a speech which, when spoken, produces little 
 effect, will, when read, become overwhelming. I go for present effect 
 and for future effect. I am not afraid, that that which now produces a 
 powerful effect, will, when printed, become perfectly powerless. 
 
 I will make a few remarks in reference to the burial by baptism. Dr. 
 Chalmers, I have said, is a learned man and a great man: but against 
 his opinion I will place the authority of Scott, Clarke, Calvin, Stuart 
 and Hodge. Perhaps these men, thrown into the opposite scale, will 
 outweigh Dr. C. 
 
 By the way, I was amused to hear the gentleman so confidently ex- 
 press his opinion, that the audience could not resist the authorities — the 
 opinions of learned men, he has adduced in support of immersion. Such 
 remarks appear most singular, coming from a man who has discarded all 
 human authority, and made war upon the whole christian world. He 
 claims to think for himself, to reject all authority ; but he seems to think 
 his hearers will not venture to do so ! Of all men, it would seem, he 
 is one of the last who ought to make such an appeal. Why, he has 
 started a reformation de novo ! I am quite willing to give to the opinions 
 of the learned due weight; but I must then be permitted to make my 
 final appeal to the word of God. 
 
 In the passsge under consideration, (Rom. vi. 1 — 6) Paul, as I have 
 shown, was not speaking of the mode of baptism, but was proving that 
 the Gospel, whilst it teaches the doctrine of justification by grace, with- 
 out the deeds of the law, necessarily leads to holiness, and not to sin. 
 The death of which he speaks, I proved to be a death to sin, and the re- 
 surrection, a resurrection to a new and holy life. If, then, the death is 
 spiritual, and the resurrection spiritual, is not the burial also spiritual ? 
 According to my interpretation, the passage is expounded consistently ; 
 for there is spiritual death, spiritual burial, and spiritual resurrection. 
 But if the burial is immersion, as Mr. C. contends, we have spiritual 
 death, spiritual resurrection, and physical burial ! Does not every one see 
 the inconsistency of such an interpretation ? 
 
 But, I again ask, if the burial expresses the mode of baptism, what 
 mean the planting and the crucifixion ? These figures are all used in 
 the same connection, to illustrate the same great truth. The seed planted 
 dies, and a new stalk springs up ; the man crucified is dead, and so our 
 old sinful nature is by the grace of God overcome, and we cease to sin, 
 and live a holy life. Christ was crucified, died for sin, was buried, and 
 rose again for the justification of his people. They who are baptized into 
 Christ profess and, if sincere, feel an ardent desire to be identified with 
 him in his death, burial, and resurrection — to die to sin as he died for it ; 
 to have " the old man," the sinful nature, crucified, dead, and buried, as 
 Christ was buried; to rise to a new and holy life, as he rose from the 
 grave to die no more. Christian baptism is the ordinance by which we 
 become visibly identified with Christ, receive the benefits of his death, 
 and are bound more strongly to a life of holiness. Such appears to me 
 to be the clear meaning of the passage ; and, as before remarked, since 
 the apostle is speaking of holiness of heart and of life secured by the gos- 
 pel, and since sanctification is in the Bible constantly represented by 
 pouring and sprinkling ; this portion of Scripture, correctly understood, 
 is decidedly favorable to this mode of administering baptism. 
 
 The gentleman is disposed to- make an argument for immersion from 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 251 
 
 the fact of the burial of our Savior in the earth: But I ask, was he put 
 under ground ? Never, never. A place was cut in a rock, in which he 
 was laid, and a stone rolled against the entrance. When persons in our 
 country and in our day read of a burial, they at once think of a place dug 
 in the earth, into which the dead are put and covered with earth. But 
 this was not the mode of burial among the Jews. And the Romans, to 
 whom the epistle was directed, did not thus bury their dead. They were 
 accustomed to burn the bodies of the dead, and to gather the ashes into 
 an urn. Hence, every one accustomed to read Latin writers, is familiar 
 with the expression, ashes of the dead. Indeed, this mode of expression 
 has been transferred, in a figurative sense, to our own language. 
 
 What idea, then, I ask, would be conveyed to the Roman christians by 
 the language in the passage under consideration ? The expression, 
 "buried by baptism," certainly never would have suggested to their 
 minds the idea of plunging persons under water. And this is the correct 
 method to determine the meaning of the language. If we would correctly 
 interpret an ancient book, we must go to those by whom, and those for 
 whom it was written, and inquire into their manners, customs, and opin- 
 ions. Many are led into error, by taking it for granted that the manners 
 and customs of ancient nations were similar to ours. 
 
 Let it be remembered, too, that the mere fact of the burial of our Sa- 
 vior is never mentioned in the Bible as a matter of primary importance. 
 His death, the shedding of his blood, and his resurrection from the dead, 
 are presented to our minds as laying the foundation of our hopes ; but the 
 mere fact, that his friends laid him in a tomb, is not so presented. It is 
 not probable, therefore, inasmuch as the supper commemorates his death, 
 that the other sacrament, baptism, is designed to commemorate his resur- 
 rection out of a tomb. 
 
 I must proceed without much system, until I get through my reply to 
 the gentleman's speech. He has brought forward what he considers an 
 irresistible weight of authority to prove the proposition he is affirming. 
 He has quoted amongst the Pedo-baptists who have made concessions, 
 old Cyril, who believed in trine immersion ; and Wall, who was very 
 solicitous to have immersion practiced, except in cases where it was im- 
 practicable ; and Whitby, who was of the same mind ! But the misfor- 
 tune is, not one of those Pedo-baptists immersionists (for many of those 
 quoted were such) sustains his proposition. He may appeal to the old 
 Greek and Latin immersionists of the third and fourth centuries, and to 
 all those of a later day ; but of all the learned authors he has quoted, or 
 can quote, he can find not one, save the Anabaptists, who believed the 
 the doctrine for which he is contending to be true ! Their knowledge of 
 the Greek, and the strong prejudices of multitudes of them in favor of 
 immersion, even of trine immersion, did not enable them to see in the 
 Scriptures, what he sees with the clearness of light itself! ! ! If the gen- 
 tleman, and those who on this subject agree with him, had only occupied 
 the ground of the old immersionists, or of those more modern writers, 
 whose learning he extols, and of whose authority he boasts ; there need 
 not have been any controversy on the subject. They might quietly have 
 enjoyed their preferences for immersion; and we would have enjoyed 
 ours for pouring or sprinkling, without exciting controversy and divisions 
 of the church of Christ. But when they assume to know more about 
 the Greek than the Greeks themselves, more than all antiquity and the 
 great body of the learned of modern times ; and when on this assump- 
 
252 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tion of superior knowledge, they undertake to excommunicate all who 
 cannot see with their eyes ; we are constrained to demur. 
 
 We are not discussing the question, whether the church, in any period 
 of her history, has generally practiced immersion ; nor even whether it was 
 sometimes practiced in the days of the apostles ; but whether the submer- 
 sion of the person in water is essential to christian baptism. And let 
 it be remarked, not one of the gentleman's learned authorities has sus- 
 tained him in affirming this proposition. Not an individual of them be- 
 lieved submersion in water to be the only apostolic or christian baptism. 
 Yet, whilst himself differing from almost the whole world, he seems to 
 suppose that the audience cannot resist these multiplied authorities, every 
 one of whom falls far short of sustaining him ; every one of whom lived 
 and died in the firm persuasion, that baptism, by pouring or sprinkling, 
 is valid and scriptural ! I cannot help thinking he had better try to 
 prove his doctrine by argument, for his authorities fail him essentially. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, suppose it is true that baptism is called a 
 washing; does this prove that baptizo means to wash? Certainly, I 
 should think, if baptism is a washing, as the Scriptures so repeatedly 
 teach, baptizo must mean to wash, and baptisma, a washing. So thought 
 the lexicographers ; for they all define baptizo to wash, cleanse, purify. 
 This they give as a literal meaning of the word; and I have no doubt 
 they are in the right. That the word, as appropriated to the ordinance 
 of baptism, is employed in the general sense of washing, is clear from 
 the fact that baptism is so frequently spoken of as a washing, not as a 
 dipping or plunging. 
 
 We are informed, however, by Mr. Campbell, that the concurrent voice 
 of all Christendom says, that baptism is a burial. This is a wide mis- 
 take. Many of the ablest commentators and writers have denied that bap- 
 tism is a burial, that is, that it is a putting the body under water. Indeed, 
 the concurrent voice of Christendom denies that it is a burial in this sense ; 
 for the great majority, at this day, do not practice immersion ; and yet 
 they regard themselves as truly baptized ; and since the ancients admitted 
 baptism to be valid, when performed by pouring or sprinkling, they could 
 not have considered it necessarily a burial. 
 
 All Christendom, the gentleman repeats, practiced immersion for thir- 
 teen hundred years. This, too, is a mistake ; or, at least, it cannot be 
 proved true. For, as I have already proved, we find not a word about 
 immersion from any respectable writer for the first two hundred years of 
 the christian era. The first writer of any standing who speaks of immer- 
 sion is Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century ; and he says, 
 the practice then was trine immersion, with sign of the cross, oil, spittle, 
 &c. Will Mr. Campbell practice baptizing according to the custom of 
 the church at that period? No — he rejects two of the immersions, the 
 sign of the cross, the oil, &c. ; and yet he appeals to the authority of the 
 ancient church ! In those days they objected to one immersion as deci- 
 dedly as to pouring or sprinkling. Indeed, they considered it a matter 
 of such importance, that in one of the early councils, as Dr. Gale informs 
 us, it was decreed, that a bishop should be deposed if he ventured to bap- 
 tize a person by one immersion only ! The ancient church considered 
 his practice quite as heretical as ours and even more so, for they univer- 
 sally admitted the validity of our mode. If, then, the gentleman claims 
 the ancient church in support of immersion, I insist, that he ought to im- 
 merse three times, having the persons entirely disrobed. It will not an- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 253 
 
 swer to call in witnesses, and then reject four-'fifths of their testimony. 
 But, in the fourth century, as I have proved, immersion was, by no 
 means, universally practiced ; and from that period the practice of pour- 
 ing and sprinkling became more and more common. And let it be re- 
 membered, I have found pouring or sprinkling universally admitted to be 
 valid and scriptural, even earlier than the gentleman can find immersion. 
 Such was the decision of the bishop concerning the Jew taken ill in the 
 desert, and sprinkled with sand — and such the decision of Cyprian, and 
 sixty-six bishops, in the early part of the third century. Where the 
 gentleman finds immersion, he finds it connected with much that he is 
 not willing to practice. He rejects so much of the testimony of the old 
 immersionists as he dislikes. I hope, then, he will allow me the same 
 right, unless he is disposed to claim peculiar privileges for the cause of 
 immersion. 
 
 In the fifth century baptism was, in many parts of the church, very 
 commonly administered by pouring or sprinkling ; and this practice be- 
 came more and more common till the period of the glorious Reformation, 
 in the sixteenth century. And it is not a little remarkable, that since the 
 Reformation restored the Bible to the people, and since it has been made 
 the study of so many of the wise and the good, the overwhelming mass 
 of the christian church — the Bible reading people — have entirely aban- 
 doned the practice of immersion, and now baptize by pouring and sprink- 
 ling. Those who contend for immersion alone are a mere handfull ; 
 making, perhaps, one in fifty of protestant Christendom. Moreover, in 
 the ranks of those who practice pouring and sprinkling are to be found 
 the great majority of eminently learned expounders of the Scriptures ! 
 History can afford little aid to sustain the exclusive claims of immersion. 
 The Greeks and Latins, the ancients and the moderns, however prejudiced 
 multitudes of them were in favor of immersion, have, with wonderful 
 unanimity, proclaimed our baptism valid and scriptural, and the doctrine 
 of Mr. C. untrue ! If, then, this controversy is to be determined by the 
 authority of the learned, of those who best understood the Greek lan- 
 guage ; he must yield the question. For all his Pedo-baptist concessions 
 I will give him, in return, the concessions of immersionists, whose ver- 
 nacular tongue was the Greek, or who lived when it was a living language. 
 
 I wish now to review the argument on the whole question before us. 
 Let us, then, have distinctly before our minds the proposition he has un- 
 dertaken to establish: viz. that immersion of the person in water is the 
 one only apostolic or christian baptism ; and consequently all who have 
 received the ordinance in any other mode are unbaptized, and are "aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Israel!" This sweeping proposition he has 
 sought to prove, mainly by the words bapto and baptizo. The whole 
 controversy, as he admits, turns chienY on the meaning of these words. 
 To prove that they are specific terms, expressing definitely the action of 
 immersing, he appealed — 
 
 1st. To the lexicons, ancient and modern, of which he quoted a large 
 number. But mark the fact : I appealed to the same lexicons, and proved, 
 that with almost entire unanimity, they define these words to wash, 
 cleanse, purify, as well as to plunge, sink, &c. Some of them, both 
 ancient and modern, defined them to wet, moisten, sprinkle. Now all 
 admit that these words— wash, cleanse, &c. are generic terms, expressing 
 the thing done, but not the mode of doing it. If then, it be true, as all 
 the lexicons, ancient and modern, declare, that these words mean to wash, 
 
 Y 
 
254 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 cleanse, &c„ how is it possible for the gentleman, by them, to prove im- 
 mersion ? Every one knows that washing, cleansing, purifying, may be 
 performed in different modes. So the lexicons, instead of proving these 
 words to be specific in their meaning, definitely expressing the action of 
 immersing, prove just the opposite — that they are often used as generic 
 terms, expressing washing, cleansing, purifying in any mode. 
 
 But the gentleman told us, bapto and baptizo meant to wash, to 
 cleanse, &c, not in a proper or literal, but only in a figurative sense ; 
 and he labored faithfully to find one lexicon to sustain him in this posi- 
 tion. He brought forward Stokius, who says, baptizo means to wash 
 tropically ; but unfortunately for him I immediately proved, by Ernesti 
 and Stuart, that the tropical or secondary meaning of words is, in a great 
 many instances, their proper and literal meaning ; that very few words 
 in any language retain their original meaning, much the larger number of 
 them acquiring tropical or secondary meanings, which become proper 
 and literal. Carson, whom the gentleman admits to be a profound lin- 
 guist, also asserts, that the secondary meaning of bapto, (to dye by sprink- 
 ling,) is as literal as the primary meaning. And the lexicons, en masse, 
 give to wash, cleanse, as literal meanings of baptizo. 
 
 Mr. Campbell has insisted, that immerse is the primary, original, and 
 proper meaning of baptizo. But unfortunately again I proved, that the 
 meaning of words is constantly changing — that few words retain their 
 primary or original meanings. Moreover, the lexicons do give to wash, 
 to cleanse, as the first, the primary meaning of baptizo, as used by the 
 Jews and inspired writers. The lexicons, therefore, though he so much 
 relied on them, have all failed him. But, he says, they were all Pedo- 
 baptists, and were often in error ! Right or wrong, they give to these 
 words precisely the definition for which I contend. They are with me! 
 
 2nd. His second appeal was to the classics. He had very learnedly 
 taught us, that all specific words, having a leading syllable, retain their 
 original idea, and therefore wherever we should find bap, as in bapto, 
 we would also find the idea of dipping. He was again unfortunate. I 
 turned to a few passages in the classics, and found bapto used to express 
 the dyeing of a garment by the dropping of the coloring fluid, the dyeing 
 of the beard, the hair, the coloring of the face, the staining of the hands, 
 the coloring of a lake, &c, all by the application of the fluid to the per- 
 son or thing, not by dipping. In all these instances, and others, we 
 found the syllable beep, and even bapto itself, where there was no dip- 
 ping, no immersing. 
 
 But, said the gentleman, bapto, in these instances, expresses not the 
 dropping, smearing, &c, but the effect. The effect I The effect of what? 
 The effect of dipping, immersing? No; for there was no dipping, no 
 immersing in the case. It must, then, express the effect of dropping, 
 wetting, smearing. Then where is the immersing ? And if bapto will 
 express the effect of the dropping of a coloring fluid, why not also the 
 effect of a colorless fluid — wetting ? Mr. C. responds again, these are figu- 
 rative meanings of the word. No, says Mr. Carson, his profound linguist ; 
 they are as literal as the primary meaning. So that the classical usage 
 of bapto cannot help the cause of immersion ; and since bapto and bap- 
 tizo are admitted to have the same meaning, at least so far as mode is 
 concerned, baptizo must also be given up. 
 
 I, however, went with my friend to the classics to ascertain their usage 
 in regard to baptizo* I found it, -in four-fifths of the instances supposed 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 255 
 
 to favor immersion, meaning to sink, and so translated by Mr. Carson, 
 Dr. Gale, and by the gentleman himself! I found it constantly used to 
 signify the sinking of ships, the sinking of animals and men under water, 
 the flowing of water over land ; and I proved that Dr. Gale, one of the 
 most learned and zealous immersionists, whilst commenting on one of 
 these difficult passages in the classics, admitted that baptizo did not 
 necessarily express the action of putting under water — the very thing 
 and the only thing Mr. Campbell was laboring to prove by it !!! The 
 Doctor had found a place in which baptizo was employed, where it was 
 perfectly certain there could be no action of dipping, or of any other 
 kind. I produced a passage from Plutarch, in which he spoke of a Ro- 
 man general who, when dying of his wounds, baptized (baptisas) his 
 hand with his blood, and wrote on a trophy. In this instance every one 
 sees, at once, there could be no immersion — nothing more than a wetting 
 of a finger or writing instrument. Yet the hand was baptized. I produced 
 also a quotation from Hippocrates, where he directed, concerning a blis- 
 ter-plaster, that it should be baptized (baptizein) with breast-milk and 
 Egyptian ointment. The gentleman did not attempt to remove the blis- 
 ter-plaster. It has been on him now some two days, and I have serious 
 apprehensions that it has drawn too much ! He could not immerse it in 
 breast-milk, as the doctor directed, so I fear it has drawn very severely. 
 [A laugh.] The classics will not sustain him ; they must be given up. 
 
 3d. The gentleman's third appeal was to the translations ; and he in- 
 formed us, they were almost, if not quite all, in favor of immersion. If I 
 am not mistaken, he relied for his proof exclusively on a little essay of a 
 few pages, written by a Mr. Gotch, of Dublin, whose fame has never 
 crossed the waters, except amongst immersionists! I was not a little 
 surprised to see Mr. Campbell relying for the support of his cause on evi- 
 dence so slender ! 
 
 He commenced with the venerable old Peshito Syriac, the oldest and 
 one of the best translations in the world, made, if our immersionist friends 
 are to be believed, before pouring and sprinkling were known. I hap- 
 pened to have the Syriac Testament and Schaaf s lexicon. I proved, that 
 Schaaf defined amad, (the Syriac word by which baptizo is translated,) 
 by the Latin phrase abluit se — he washed himself; and all admit, that abluo 
 is a generic term, signifying to ivash, to cleanse in any mode. I further 
 proved, that Schaaf, Castel, Michaelis and Buxtorf could find not one in- 
 stance in the New Testament, where amad means to immerse, and but 
 one in the Old Testament ; and even in that neither the Hebrew word nor 
 the Greek of the Septuagint has that meaning. I proved by Mr. Gotch 
 himself, the gentleman's own witness, that amad is used in the Bible in 
 the general sense of washing — abluit se. I also stated, (and it has not 
 been, and will not be denied) that the Syriac language has a word itzevd) 
 which properly means to dip, but which is never used with reference to 
 christian baptism. The old Syriac is with us, translating baptizo, not 
 to immerse, but to wash, cleanse ivithout regard to mode. 
 
 I then turned your attention to the old Italic version, and the Vulgate, 
 translated by the learned Jerom ; and in both these venerable versions we 
 found the word baptizo not translated by the Latin words mergo, immer- 
 go, &c, but transferred, just as in our English version. In the only in- 
 stance where Jerom translated the word, he translated it by lavo, to wash 
 — a generic term. Mr. Campbell told us, that baptizo was understood by 
 the Latins to mean immerse, and therefore was not translated. This was 
 
256 DEBATE OX CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 immediately disproved by showing, that they frequently baptized by pour- 
 ing and sprinkling, and with entire unanimity regarded baptism thus per- 
 formed as valid and scriptural — nay, that many really believed, that John 
 the Baptist administered baptism by pouring. The old Italic and Vul- 
 gate, therefore, must be abandoned. 
 
 I then turned your attention to the Arabic version, of highest authority, 
 and stated, (and it has not been denied) that it employs in translating bap- 
 tizo, the same word in form and signification as the SyriaC. I appealed 
 to the Persic version, which is admitted to have translated baptizo by a 
 word meaning to wash. I further appealed to the Ethiopic, the Sahidic, 
 the Basmuric, the Arminian, the German, the Swedish, the Danish, the 
 Anglo-Saxon, Arias Montanus, the Geneva Bible, the French, the Span- 
 ish, Tyndale's translation, proving by Mr. Gotch, the gentleman's own 
 witness, that a number of them translated baptizo by generic terms, signi- 
 fying washing, ablution, and declaring myself prepared to produce the 
 others, and to prove that they do not countenance the idea, that it means 
 definitely to immerse. And now I ask, has the gentleman given evi- 
 dence that any one respectable translation, ancient or modem, translates 
 this word to immerse ? No, and I venture to say, he cannot. The 
 translations must be given up. His third strong-hold has been taken ! 
 
 4th. He was very slow, indeed, in getting into the Bible, and thus far, 
 has passed over it very superficially. In regard to bapto, I stated the fact, 
 that although it occurs in the Bible more than twenty times, it does not 
 express an immersion in more than four or five instances. This fact Mr, 
 C. has not denied. I have produced examples in which it means a partial 
 dipping, wetting, smearing; — examples also in which it is used in con- 
 nection with apo (from,) and of necessity signifies to wet or moisten by 
 means of I turned to the passage in Dan. iv. 33, where Nebuchadnez- 
 zar was said to have been wet from [ebaphe apo) the dew of heaven. The 
 gentleman, however, will have it, that by some strange figure of speech 
 he was immersed from the dew!!! I turned to Rev. xix. 13, and 
 proved, in the face of the repeated assertions of my friend, that bapto was 
 here translated to sprinkle by the old Syriac, the Ethiopic and the Vul- 
 gate versions, and that the learned Origen, in giving the sense of the pas- 
 sage, substituted rantizo for bapto. But the gentleman guessed, that 
 there was another reading. What evidence does he furnish ? Is there 
 any copy of the New Testament having another reading ? No. Does 
 Origen give another? No — he only gives the meaning of the passage. 
 There is absolutely no evidence. Still the Bible itself must be altered 
 to sustain immersion ! This same Origen, moreover, used baptizo in the 
 sense of pouring. The altar, he said, was baptized when water was 
 poured upon it by the order of Eiisha. This is high authority. — [Time 
 expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 18 — 7 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's closing address.] 
 
 Mr.' President — This is the last time that I am to address you, sir, on 
 this proposition. Numerous topics yet demand attention, and therefore, 
 we must notice the most important of them with despatch. The version 
 of the previous correspondence which you have heard is not correct. This 
 shall be shewn at a proper time. Indeed it will appear with the debate 
 in e?:tenso, and will then speak for itself. I am glad that it is all written, 
 and to be published without note or comment. 
 
 It is not a fact that the proposition which I sustain differs from every 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 257 
 
 other proposition on the action of baptism. In one or two words it may 
 differ, but all Baptists maintain it as fully as I do. It is not true, that no 
 former writers on this same subject have taken the same view of it. Mul- 
 titudes in all ages have believed that immersion is the only christian bap- 
 tism. All Pedo-baptist writers do indeed dissent from it, for they believe 
 in a plurality of modes of baptism. I believe there are not two Lords, 
 two faiths, nor two baptisms. When I prove that immersion is baptism, 
 there being but one baptism, I have then proved that immersion is the 
 only christian baptism. 
 
 This is the ground on which I stand. Before heaven and earth I affirm 
 the full conviction that there is but one true Lord, one true faith, one true 
 baptism; and that baptism is immersion. I care not, so far as my popu- 
 larity is concerned, how unpopular the affirmation may be. I most benev- 
 olently, honestly, and conscientiously avow my conviction, that he who 
 has not been immersed in water, into the name of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, has never received christian baptism. All Baptists believe thus. 
 
 There is a true and a false charity ; the former is a virtue, the latter a 
 vice. I care not if it were written over the whole earth and through all 
 the heavens, that I have said so. I declare this conviction, not from the 
 impulse of the moment; but after many years calm, devout, and concen- 
 trated attention to the subject. Many are the treatises examined, many 
 the authors read on the opposite side of this question ; but after full thirty 
 years reflection on the subject, I am the more deeply penetrated with the 
 solemn and important truth of the proposition which I have been sustain- 
 ing. The renunciation of my traditional belief cost me many a severe 
 trial, and subjected me to a life of labors equal, I presume, to those of any 
 other man of my age in this community. But for that change of views, 
 and a concomitant desire in all other things to follow the consecrated and 
 divinely approbated model of the primitive faith, worship, and manners, 
 I might have led as easy a life, as pertains to the present, as any of my 
 preaching brethren, whose sails are filled with the popular breeze of ad- 
 miring multitudes, and who, upon a smooth sea, are gently sailing to a bet- 
 ter country. Before attempting to enumerate the arguments offered on 
 the present occasion, I must again recur to the only proper issue formed, 
 and the only real discussion had, between myself and my respondent on 
 the present proposition. Assertions are cheap commodities, but argu- 
 ments based on facts, are stubborn things. The gist of the whole debate 
 has, so far as language is concerned, turned upon the proper, grammatical, 
 or literal meaning of baptizo. Various words, such as dip, immerse, 
 merge, immerge, plunge — all indicative of one and the same action, have 
 been submitted by me, as its one, only, proper meaning. Mr. Rice has 
 offered wash, cleanse, sink, wet, as other meanings equally proper — both 
 agreeing that the proper meanings is the true meaning here. These 
 meanings resolved ultimately into wash. He has all along sought to make 
 it the primitive, proper, and literal meaning of the word. That question 
 was fully decided to-day in the final verdict of the New Testament Pedo- 
 baptist lexicons. I have never witnessed greater confusion in any con- 
 troversy in which I have been engaged, or indeed, at which I have been 
 present, than displayed by Mr. Rice, On the occasion of taking from him 
 this grand and fallacious assumption. Wash was demonstrated to be 
 merely a circumstantial, accidental, or casual meaning of the word, and 
 not at all its proper meaning. His confusion was such, after a refusal to 
 refer the matter, that he threw himself headlong into Ernesti ; forgot, or 
 17 y2 . 
 
258 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 lost the point of discussion, and went on to read that in some cases words 
 wholly lose their proper meaning, and that a tropical meaning becomes 
 the proper one ; at the same moment denying with all his energy, that 
 wash was a tropical meaning ! ! He opened Ernesti to prove that tropical 
 meanings became proper, while denying that wash was a tropical mean- 
 ing;, and finally, again attempted to prove that tropes were not figures, and 
 that a figurative and a tropical meaning are quite different matters 1 ! A 
 victory more complete in a question of philology could neither be wished 
 nor expected by any one conversant with all the difficulties attendant on 
 Greek philology and criticism, in the presence of an ordinary English 
 assembly. The gentleman's assertions upon these subjects, I am sorry to 
 say, appear to me throughout superlatively reckless ; but they are now 
 matters of record and 1 must commend them to the cautious acceptance 
 of those into whose hands they may fall. 
 
 To resume the argument from history, the gentleman will have Tertul- 
 lian to be a sort of cotemporary with the origin of immersion. Trine 
 immersion he ought to have said ; for trine immersion and katadusis, as 
 a favorite word with one or two Greek fathers, were indeed cotempora- 
 ries ; but Tertullian denies that three immersions (not one immersion) had 
 an ancient origin. Sprinkling was never heard of till A. D. 251. I am 
 truly astonished at such assertions, in the face of all our ecclesiastical 
 writers. I cannot, however, regret to hear them from Mr. Rice, just at 
 this moment. They will serve as cautions to all, touching that confidence 
 due to all his assertions on such matters. The gentleman has even as- 
 serted that I have admitted that bapto in the Old Testament, does not 
 always mean to dip ! 
 
 And I have said, according to him, that the lexicons are all wrong ! 
 And what have I not said that suited his purpose to make me say ! ! 
 One thing, however, I now say, that I have neither now, nor at any for- 
 mer period, heard one objection to my views on this question, or an 
 argument in favor of anything different from immersion, that, in my 
 candid judgment, weighed as much as one atom in counterpoise with a 
 mountain. Much more than we have now heard, lies spread over the 
 pages of Pedo-baptism, and is often received by Baptists without any 
 other emotion than sympathy for the prejudices of its authors. 
 
 But I could read from Barnabas, the shepherd of Hermas ; and Justin 
 Martyr, who, next to the apostles, stand on the page of ecclesiastical his- 
 tory. I can now only read a sentence, however, from Barnabas : " Consid- 
 ering," says Barnabas, " how he has joined both the cross and the water 
 together ; for this he saith : Blessed are they who, putting their trust in 
 the cross* descend into the water." Again: " We go down into the 
 tvater full of sin and pollutions, but come up again, bringing forth fruit, 
 having in our hearts the fear and the hope which is in Jesus." This is 
 plain enough immersion and emersion. A I could read you several such 
 passages, from the highest authority, to the same effect. Not only Mo- 
 sheioij Neander, but all the historians, as well as professor Stuart, trace 
 trine immersion to the times of the apostles. . Stuart, indeed, in com- 
 menting on Justin Martyr's Apology, admits that it is decidedly in favor 
 of immersion ; and concerning the Oriental church, he avows a full 
 conviction that it has always immersed. To quote only one passage 
 from him on this subject, lie says : 
 
 Stuart : "The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental church has 
 always continued to preserve, even down to the present time : see Allatii de 
 
 
 ) 
 
DEBATE ON CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 259 
 
 Eccles. Orient, et Occident, lib. ii i = ch. 12. sec. 4; Acta et Script. Theol. 
 Wirtemb. et Patriarch. Constant. Jer. p. 63, p. 238 sq. Christ. Angeli 
 Enchirid.de Statu hodierno Greecor. ch. 24 ; August!, Denkwurd. vii. p. 
 226. sq. The members of this church are accustomed to call the members 
 of the western churches sprinkled christians, by way of ridicule and con- 
 tempt : Walch's Einleit. in die relig. Streitigkeiten, Th. V. pp. 476—481. 
 They maintain that baptizo can mean nothing but immerge ; and that bap- 
 tism by sprinkling- is as great a solecism as immersion by aspersion ; and they 
 claim to themselves the honor of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of 
 the church free from change and from corruption, which would destroy its 
 signiiicancy : see Alex, de Stourdza, Considerations sur la Doctrine el l'Es- 
 prlt de l'Eglise Orthodoxe, Stutt. 1816, pp. 83—89. 
 
 F. Brenner, a Roman Catholic writer, has recently published a learned 
 work, which contains a copious history of usages in respect to the baptismal 
 rite : viz.Geschichtliche Darstellung der Verrichtung der Taufe,etc. 1818. 
 I have not seen the work ; but it is spoken of highly, on account of the dil- 
 igence and learning which the author has exhibited in his historical details. 
 The result of them respecting the point before us, I present, as given by 
 Augusti, Denkwurd. vii. p. 68. 
 
 " Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and ordinarily performed 
 by the immersion of a man under water ; and only in extraordinary cases, 
 was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods of baptism 
 were called in question, and even prohibited." Brenner adds, " For fifteen 
 hundred years was the person to be baptized, either by immersion, or affu- 
 sion, entirely divested of his garments. " 
 
 These results will serve to show, what a Roman Catholic writer feels 
 himself 'forced by historical facts to allow, in direct contradiction to the 
 present practice of his own church ; which no where pratices immersion, 
 except in the churches of Milan ; it being every where else even for- 
 bidden. 
 
 In the work of John Floyer on cold bathing, page 50, it is mentioned 
 that the English church practiced immersion down to the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century ; when a- change to the method of sprinkling gradually 
 took place. As a confirmation of this, it may be mentioned, that the first 
 liturgy in 1547 enjoins a trine immersion, in case the child is not sickly : 
 Augusti, ut sup. page 229." 
 
 My readings from Whitby give the same representations. Out of 
 documents that would require a day's discussion, I can read but a short 
 extract from the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia : 
 
 ; ' The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: 
 Pope Stephen II. being driven from Rome by Adolphus, king of the Lom- 
 bards in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time before, had usurped the crown 
 of France. Whilst he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, 
 consulted him whether in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of 
 the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But though 
 the truth of this fact be allowed — which, however, some Catholics deny — 
 yet pouring, or sprinkling, was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was 
 not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, 
 declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, 
 sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases, till after the reformation 
 (about the middle of the sixteenth century.) From Scotland, it made its 
 way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the 
 established church." — Art. Baptism. 
 
 So the more intelligent and candid Pedo-baptists concur in fixing the 
 origin of sprinkling according to law, in the council of Ravenna, and in 
 the year 1311. Sprinkling is, indeed, traced to one of the darkest peri- 
 ods in church history ; yet, in the face of these facts, Mr. Rice asserts 
 that it was the custom of the primitive church, till ab< :-it the time of 
 
260 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Tertullian, and that the church degenerated from sprinkling to immer- 
 sion ! ! Such was the antiquity and universality of immersion, and such 
 was the origin and authority of sprinkling. The facts are, therefore, as 
 before stated. The whole church, oriental and occidental, practiced im- 
 mersion for 1300 years. The eastern half still' continues the practice — 
 the western half took the benefit of the Pope's indulgence only gradually. 
 England, as Erasmus sportively said, not so tractable as the Dutch, still 
 holds on to immersion. The English Protestant church was a Baptist 
 church for a considerable time. The first Protestant king, Edward the 
 sixth, was immersed. The first Protestant queen, Elizabeth, was im- 
 mersed. It was, through Calvin's influence, introduced into Scotland; 
 and in the course of half a century, generally prevailed. All the adults 
 brought, by conquest, into the Roman empire, and others migratory into 
 it, on profession of the faith, were immersed, as well as infants ; so that 
 there has been always an immense majority of immersionists or Baptists. 
 Affusion, never, till the last two or three hundred years, fully satisfied any 
 portion of Christendom. Clinics, or unimmersed persons, were inhibit- 
 ed holy orders, by the twelfth canon of the council of Neocesarea, 
 and consequently, were ineligible to sacerdotal functions. With regard to 
 the relative proportions of immersed and sprinkled persons, in all time, 
 I will read another short extract from my book on baptism : 
 
 " Now, allow an average of one hundred millions every third of a century 
 to have been baptized, which is certainly within the limits of the actual 
 number, (but it will show the ratios just as well as the true number,) then 
 we have for eighteen centuries, in all, five thousand five hundred millions ; 
 of this number, four thousand millions were immersed during the first thir- 
 teen centuries. Then we have the one-half of five centuries, which is 
 seven hundred and fifty millions, added to four thousand millions, — giving 
 an aggregate of four thousand seven hundred and fifty millions immersed, 
 for seven hundred and fifty millions sprinkled, during all the ages of Chris- 
 tianity ; that is in the ratio of seven immersed to one sprinkled. In making 
 this estimate, we have given all that have been immersed in the western 
 half of Christendom for the last five hundred years, to compensate for all the 
 clinics that were sprinkled during the first thirteen centuries. After 
 making the most reasonable deductions which can be demanded, we have an 
 immense majority of immersed professors, compared with the sprinkled. 
 This argument is not urged in proof of the truth of our position, but as a 
 refutation of those who would represent immersion as a small affair, in the 
 esteem of all ages, compared with sprinkling." 
 
 This estimate, or any other based on any aggregate population, distri- 
 buted as above, will give, in all time, seven to one. So that the question 
 is not, where shall we find a Baptist church in every century ? but, where 
 shall we find a church of sprinkled christians ? 
 
 I shall now attempt a very rapid and brief recapitulation. I have not 
 time, however, more than to name the items. I could, in imitation of 
 my boastful friend, assert in wholesale style, and tell of all that I have 
 proved, and all that he has not proved ; as from what is past, I will prog- 
 nosticate he will do. But, fellow-citizens, you must judge for your- 
 selves, at last, and not from our imaginations or assertions of what we 
 have proved. 
 
 If, then, I have not miscounted, I have offered in all thirteen distinct 
 arguments in proof of the first proposition. 
 
 I. I argued from the law of specific words, to which class bapto and 
 baptizo belongs-— showing from the philosophy of words indicative of 
 specific action and from usage, that while such words retain' their radical 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 261 
 
 form, they retain the radical idea. Thus, in 'the case of baptizo, while 
 ever we retain the bap we have the dip in fact or in figure. No proper 
 exception was found to this rule. 
 
 II. Baptizo, according - to all the lexicons of eighteen hundred years, 
 signifies to dip, immerse, plunge, as its literal, proper, original meaning ; 
 and is never found translated by sprinkle or pour in any dictionary from 
 the christian era down to the present century. No example was given 
 contrary to this fact. The gentleman labored to construct exceptions 
 from casual meanings, but found not one such rendering in all those 
 lexicons. 
 
 III. The classics were copiously alledged in proof of all that argued 
 from the lexicons. No instance was adduced from them subversive of 
 the facts alledged from the dictionaries. 
 
 IV. All the translations, ancient and modern, were appealed to in con- 
 firmation of the above facts. From a very liberal induction of the ancient 
 and modern versions, it did not appear that in any one case any translator 
 had ever translated baptizo by the words sprinkle or pour ; but that it 
 had been frequently translated dip, immerse, <fcc. Of modern translations, 
 I have examined many, and though this word occurs one hundred and 
 twenty times, it is never translated by the words preferred by the Pedo- 
 baptists. 
 
 V. My fifth class of evidence offered, consisted of the testimonies of 
 reformers, annotators, paraphrasts, and critics, respecting the meaning of 
 baptizo ; selected, too, as under every branch of evidence, from the ranks 
 of those whose practice was contrary to ours. This whole class, amongst 
 whom were Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Witsius, Vossius, Vitringeo, &c, 
 declare that in the New Testament use of the word, it means to immerse, 
 and some of them say, in so many words, " never to sprinkle" 
 
 VI. Our sixth argument consisted of the testimony of English lexico- 
 graphers, encycloposdias and reviews, whose testimony sustains that of 
 the reformers, annotators, and critics. 
 
 VII. Our seventh argument was an exhibit of the words in construc- 
 tion with baptizo — raino and cheo — showing a very peculiar uniformity 
 never lost sight of in a single instance ; shewing that to sprinkle and pour 
 have necessarily upon and never in after them : while baptizo has in or 
 into after it, and never upon ; an argument to which Mr. Rice made no 
 reply whatever,, and, indeed, no response to it could be given. It is, indeed, 
 as I conceive, the clearest and most convincing argument in the depart- 
 ment of philology, because it groups in one view the whole controversy 
 on all the prepositions and verbs in debate. I believe it to ' be unan- 
 swerable. 
 
 VIII. Our eighth argument was deduced from the places mentioned in 
 the Bible, intimating that much water was necessary. There is not one 
 intimation in the Bible of ever bringing water to the candidates ; but there 
 are intimations of taking them out to rivers, and places of much water. 
 Mr. R. could give no reason for going to the Jordan to wet one's fingers, 
 or out of doors to baptize any one, if sprinkling had been the practice. 
 
 IX. The ninth argument was deduced from the first law of the deca- 
 logue of philology—which makes all true definitions and translations of 
 terms convertible. Which, when applied to baptizo, clearly proves that 
 in the New Testament it cannot possibly signify to sprinkle, pour, wash, 
 or purify. 
 
 X. Our tenth argument was drawn from the principal objections of Pe- 
 
262 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 dor-baptists, showing that in these very objections there is farther evidence 
 in demonstration of immersion. 
 
 XI. The eleventh argument asserted the overwhelming fact, that sprink- 
 ling common water, or pouring it on any person or thing, was never com- 
 manded by God under any dispensation of religion, for any purpose 
 whatever. This unanswered argument is fatal to the whole plan of 
 sprinkling advanced by Mr. Rice. 
 
 XII. Our twelfth evidence consisted of the allusions used by inspired 
 men in reference to baptism ; their comparing it to a burial and resur- 
 rection, to a planting of seed, and in making it a sort of antitype of water 
 and the ark during the deluge. To this last, argument, admitted by all the 
 great founders and luminaries of Protestant parties, Mr. Rice has institu- 
 ted a recent discovery, made, I think, at Andover, New England ; which in 
 effect says, that baptism is not compared to a burial. The gentleman,, if I 
 understand him, denies the proper burial of Greeks, Romans, and Jews, 
 and even of the Messiah, to get rid of this figure. It exceedingly annoys 
 him. I do not wonder at it ; though I wonder at his temerity in speaking 
 of the Messiah's burial as a thing -of "no consequence any how." I say 
 I do not wonder at his opposition to the fact of a real common sense 
 burial ; for that admitted, and he must say, with Chalmers and all en- 
 lightened men, that certainly, in the apostolic age, they immersed, they 
 buried men in water. Cannot a person be buried in a rock ? Is a rock 
 not earth ? Is not a grave cut into a rock, a grave as much as if dug out 
 of sand or earth ? If a grave of one or tw T o rooms, such as the sepul- 
 chres of the rich, be cut into a rock on the side, or even summit of a 
 hill, and a corpse laid in it, and the door closed; is not the person cov- 
 ered in the earth ? Jesus, according to him, lay not like Jonah three 
 days and nights in the heart of the earth. If there was no burial, there 
 may be a revival, but no resurrection. I wonder no more at his freedom 
 with Greek philology — Greek verbs, and translations, and declensions — 
 if the facts of the literal and proper burial and resurrection of the Mes- 
 siah must be set at nought, to find for him an escape from christian im- 
 mersion. Fellow-citizens — my Presbyterian friends, are you prepared 
 for this? Do you reject the burial of Jesus, to get rid of being "buried 
 with him by an immersion into death;" as many of your own doctors 
 translate, and you should read it. Are you prepared to say, that the 
 ancient Jews, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and David, were 
 not buried? or that Jesus did not rise and come forth from the earth? 
 Ah me ! methinks it matters not what have been the forms of graves, the 
 rites of sepulture, the formalities of interment, at any time or in any 
 country. The earth has opened its mouth and devoured all. All came 
 from the dust, and all return to it again ; youth and old age, beauty and 
 deformity, rich and poor, noble and ignoble, all go down into the earth. 
 Jesus, who is the resurrection and the life, w T ent down with them into 
 the bosom of the earth, that he might open for them a way out of it. 
 What more fitting, then, in making the christian profession, than that we 
 should die to sin and earth ; and being buried with our Lord in water, 
 rising out of it in token of our being born again, to live a new and holy 
 life; that being raised with Christ, we may place our affections on 
 things above ! 
 
 XIII. My thirteenth, or last argument, the history of baptism and of 
 sprinkling, you have just now heard. You have heard that all the Greek 
 and Latin fathers from the very earliest antiquity — from the very age of the 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 263 
 
 apostles, according to our historians ; — and indeed the oriental church al- 
 ways — and the western church, for thirteen centuries, practiced immersion- 
 What further evidence can any one desire ! Now, as I have already stated, 
 if only one of these thirteen arguments be true and valid, immersion, and 
 immersion only, is established forever beyond a rational doubt or contra- 
 diction. Any one of them is enough ! How irresistible, then, to the can- 
 did mind, the accumulated evidence of them all ! In addition to the main- 
 tenance of these positions, I believe I have noted and replied to every ar- 
 gument, (if not to notice every specification,) advanced by my opponent. 
 
 In view of all those learned Rabbis, lexicographers, translators, reform- 
 ers, annotators, critics, historians, theologians, and scholars, do I not 
 stand in the midst of a respectable and honorable band, when I plead for 
 immersion merely in a literary and philosophical point of view ! But 
 when we contemplate it as a solemn ordinance of Jesus Christ, the great 
 Law-giver and King of Zion, and think of the multitude of ancient wor- 
 thies, those martyred hosts of ancient confessors, those mighty spirits that 
 loved not their lives even unto death, but gave them up a voluntary sacri- 
 fice at the shrine of eternal truth and everlasting love, who washed their 
 robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb ; who went down 
 into the water and were buried with the Lord in holy immersion ; — feel- 
 ing ourselves surrounded with such a pure, elevated, venerable, sacramen- 
 tal host of elect spirits ; may we not feel strong, courageous, joyful, tri- 
 umphant; — -able to endure all the reproaches, scoffs, derisions, contume- 
 lies, anathemas, and persecutions of earth and hell, should they all con- 
 spire against us, and seek our destruction, because of our loyalty and alle- 
 giance to heaven's rightful sovereign, our great and glorious Lord Mes- 
 siah ! Could we not suffer an immersion in the dark, deep waters of 
 earth's most bitter trials, for the sake of being enrolled and classed with 
 such a noble band of illustrious men and women ! Methinks, one could 
 almost wish for persecution in the maintenance of this creed — for the 
 sake of the honor of standing, as in some humble degree I feel myself, in 
 the midst of Hebrew saints, Greek worthies, Latin fathers, (not of the pa- 
 pacy,) illustrious advocates of the christian faith; pillars of the church, 
 both in the oriental and western sections of the christian profession. 
 
 When I see such a crowd of earth's great ones — the philanthropists, 
 public benefactors, men of high intellectual and moral eminence, standing 
 on the banks of rivers, in the midst of pools — around the ancient baptiste- 
 ries, bowing their heads and their hearts to immersion — cheerfully going 
 down into the mystic waters, and there covered with the glories of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit — immersed into the faith 
 and hope of eternal life, methinks there is no trials too grievous to be 
 borne, no opposition too great to endure, for the sake of participating with 
 them in these high honors and heavenly ecstacies. Thus they showed their 
 faith in him, and gratitude to him who came down from heaven, not to do 
 his own will, but the will of him that sent him, and to offer up his life a 
 ransom for many. So must we, so would we partake of their joys on earth, 
 their triumphs in death, and their eternal honors in the world to come. 
 
 Pure, primitive, Bible Christianity has had to fight its way down to us 
 through hosts of opponents. We are indebted to the zeal, and courage, 
 to the firm, unyielding integrity, and persevering devotion of myriads of 
 choice spirits, for all that we know, and all that we enjoy, of the hope of 
 eternal life. It is our duty to imitate our benefactors and to transmit the 
 same blessings to posterity. But our time is almost expended. 
 
2Q4 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. Rice, as his manner is, will no doubt tell you I have proved 
 nothing; that he has proved everything; that we have converted no one; 
 that parties remain as they were. Were this indeed the fact, we should 
 then be no more unfortunate than thousands, who confirmed their testi- 
 mony at the stake without converting any one. We are not to judge of 
 the force of argument, nor of the weight of evidence, by its immediate 
 effect upon a partizan and super-excited population. The blood of the 
 martyrs ultimately became the seed of the church. We sow now and 
 reap again. 
 
 But as the soundness, or plainness, or importance of a doctrine is not 
 always a passport to immediate, or to general favor ; neither is the ab- 
 surdity of any tenet, or practice, a guarantee that it is speedily to be de- 
 molished and driven from society. Were that so, transubstantiation would 
 long since have been exploded. It has, however, survived Luther and 
 Calvin almost three centuries. Eckius, the celebrated antagonist of Lu- 
 ther, laughed and manoeuvred down all the logic and rhetoric of Luther 
 and his companions, on auricular confessions, transubstantiation, and pur- 
 gatory. Like my worthy antagonist, he always proved his theses — 
 demolished his antagonist, and proclaimed victory for the ancient, ven- 
 erable, apostolic doctrine of the pope, and the holy see of Rome. 
 
 Lutheranism, however, had many lives. It was often killed, but soon 
 revived again ; gained a triumph in every defeat, while Eckius and 
 popery were prostrated by their triumphs. 
 
 Protestantism could not be put down by such a policy, nor by such 
 opponents. Its principles, so far as they deserved to triumph, have 
 triumphed amidst all opposition. So do the principles for which we con- 
 tend. During some five and twenty years they have been publicly op- 
 posed in every form, and what has been the result ! Often defeated, 
 as our opponents say, while they always prove their positions, still they 
 spread continually. They triumph every where, amongst all who give 
 them a candid hearing — and they will continue to triumph till all party ism 
 cease— till the whole christian world shall bow together in one spacious 
 temple ; till, in one grand concert, they shall raise their grateful hosannas 
 and joyful hallelujahs to the King of Zion ; till the redeemed, of all na- 
 tions, and languages, and people, shall meet and worship around one 
 altar ; confessing one Lord, one faith, and one immersion. — [Time ex- 
 
 Saturday evening, Nov. 18—8 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's closing reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — From the remarks of my worthy friend, you would 
 be induced to suppose that he and his immersionist friends are the only 
 people in the world who believe there is but one baptism. But, sir, all 
 Pedo-baptists maintain this doctrine. Who ever imagined that there are 
 two or more baptisms ? The Scriptures teach that there is one baptism ; 
 but the gentleman would make an important addition to their language : 
 he would say, there is but one mode, or one action of baptism. But 
 does the Bible so teach ? It certainly uses no such language. This one 
 baptism is an ordinance administered with water, in the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by an ordained minister of 
 the gospel. 
 
 The gentleman tells you, I was amazed and confounded to-day, when 
 he produced that terrific author, Stokius ; that I was quite frightened out 
 of my senses, and, in my confusion, turned and read a passage which 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 265 
 
 condemned the position I had assumed ! I will simply remark, that the 
 fear of Mr. Campbell has never been before my eyes, neither to-day, nor 
 heretofore. I have been in war of this kind before to-day ; and I have 
 seen big books, and heard wind-guns fired, without doing much execu- 
 tion. And, pray, what was it that so alarmed me ? Why, Stokius says, 
 baptizo means, tropically, to wash. But does not Mr. Carson, his pro- 
 found critic, fully sustain me in all I have said ? I have asserted, that 
 bapto and baptizo signify not only to sink, plunge, &c, but also to dye, 
 to wash, to cleanse in a literal sense. Mr. Campbell maintains, that 
 these last meanings me figurative. But what says Carson? He asserts, 
 most positively, as I have repeatedly proved, that bapto means to dye, in 
 any manner, even by sprinkling, and that this meaning is as literal as 
 the primary meaning. " Nor," says he, " are such applications of the 
 word to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale asserts." (And Dr. 
 Gale contended for the very principle now urged by Mr. Campbell.) " It 
 is by extension of the literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, 
 that words come to depart so far from their primary meaning." I have 
 asserted, that, even admitting these meanings to be secondary, or tropical, 
 they became, by usage, particularly among the Jews, the proper and lit- 
 eral meanings of the words. Carson, whom the gentleman considers a 
 profound linguist, asserts the very principle for which I have contended. 
 Why, then, should I have been confounded, with the gentleman's learned 
 critic standing by me and defending me from his assaults ? 
 
 But he tells you, that, in my great alarm, I turned and read a passage 
 from Ernesti that directly condemned me, and was not aware of it ! Let 
 me read the passage again ; and the audience will be able to determine 
 whether he or I ought to be most confounded. Stokius gives to wash as 
 a tropical meaning of baptizo; and Mr. C. asserts, that the tropical 
 meaning of words is always figurative. Now hear the language of 
 Ernesti : 
 
 " But, there are several different points of light in which tropical words 
 are to be viewed. For, first, the primitive or proper signification, strictly 
 understood, often becomes obsolete, and ceases for a long period to be used. 
 In this case, the secondary sense, which originally would have been the tro- 
 pical one, becomes the proper one. This applies especially to the names 
 of things. Hence, there are many words which, at present, never have 
 their original and proper sense, such as etymology would assign them, but 
 only the secondary senses, which may in such cases be called the proper 
 sense ; e. g. in English, tragedy, comedy, villain, pagan, knave, &c. 
 
 " Secondly, in like manner, the tropical sense of certain words has be- 
 come so common, by usage, that it is better understood than the original sense. 
 In this case, too, we call the sense proper ; although strictly and technically 
 speaking, one might insist on its being called tropical. If one should, by his 
 last will, give a library [bibliothecam] to another, we should not call the use 
 of bibliotheca tropical ; although strictly speaking it is so, for bibliotheca 
 originally meant the shelves or place where books are deposited." — Ernesti, 
 pp. 23, 24. 
 
 Sustained by such authorities, I have felt as cool and as deliberate as if 
 I were eating my dinner. 
 
 To prove, that immersion was practiced, at a very early period in the 
 christian church, Mr. C. quotes Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hennas. 
 I reply to this testimony by reading a paragraph from Mosheim's Church 
 History. 
 
 " The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who, most 
 probably, lived in this century, and whose mean abilities, and superstitious 
 
 Z 
 
266 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 attachments to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his 
 intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true 
 Barnabas, who was St. Paul's companion. The work, which is entitled 
 The Shepherd of Hermas, because the angel, who bears the principal part 
 in it, is represented in the form and habit of a shepherd, was composed in 
 the second century by Hermas, who was brother to Pius, bishop of Rome. 
 This whimsical and visionary writer has taken the liberty to invent several 
 dialogues, or conversations, between God and the angels, in order to insin- 
 uate, in a more easy and agreeable manner, the precepts which he thought 
 useful and salutary, into the minds of his readers. But, indeed, the dis- 
 course which he puts into the mouths of these celestial beings, is more 
 insipid and senseless than what we commonly hear among the meanest of 
 the multitude." — Mosheim's Ch. His. vol. ii. part ii. ch. 21. 
 
 These are his witnesses. If they were the authors of the works quo- 
 ted, he is welcome to their testimony. 
 
 Stuart, the gentleman tells us, admits, that the Oriental church has prac- 
 ticed immersion from the beginning. It is true, Stuart admits, that from 
 an early period the Oriental church practiced trine immersion, as the 
 Greek church still does ; but he does not admit that such was the apos- 
 tolic practice. But let him speak for himself. He says : 
 
 " I have now examined all those passages in the New Testament, in 
 which the circumstances related or implied, would seem to have a bearing 
 on the question before us, viz: JVhether the mode of baptism is determined 
 by the sacred writers? I am unable to find in them any thing which settles 
 this question. I find none, I am quite ready to concede, which seem abso- 
 lutely to determine that immersion was not practiced. But are there not 
 some, which have been cited above, that serve to render it improbable that 
 immersion was always practiced, to say the least? I can only say that such 
 is my persuasion. The reader has the evidence before him, and can judge 
 for himself. He will indulge me, I hope, in the same liberty. I do con- 
 sider it as quite plain, that none of the circumstantial evidence thus far, 
 proves immersion to have been exclusively the mode of christian baptisrn, 
 or even that of John. Indeed, I consider this point so far made out, that 1 
 can hardly suppress the conviction, that if any one maintains the contrary, 
 it must be either hecause he is unable rightly to estimate the nature or 
 power of the Greek language ; or because he is influenced in some measure 
 by party feeling; or else because he has looked at the subject in only a 
 partial manner, without examining it fully and thoroughly." — Stuart, pp. 
 53, 54. 
 
 Such was the conclusion of Stuart, whose learning and candor the 
 gentleman has frequently applauded. Every one must see that, if cor- 
 rect, it is fatal to the exclusive claims of immersion — destructive of the 
 very position Mr. C. is laboring to establish. 
 
 He has made an important statement concerning those baptized bv 
 pouring or sprinkling, in the ancient church; viz. that of so doubtful 
 character was their baptism considered, that they were not permitted to 
 enter the Gospel ministry. I will prove to you that this statement is 
 wholly incorrect. The council of Neocesarea, which met some eighty 
 years after Cyprian and the council of sixty-six bishops had declared 
 their belief, that baptism by sprinkling or pouring is valid and scriptural, 
 uses the following language : 
 
 "He that is baptized when he is sick, ought not to be made a priest, 
 {for his coming to the faith is not voluntary, but from necessity.) unless his 
 diligence and faith do prove commendable, or the scarcity of men ft for the 
 office do require it." 
 
 Mr. Campbell. [Addressing the Moderators.] I wish to have the 
 second rule of this debate now read. 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 267 
 
 Mr. Moderator (Judge Robertson) then read as follows ; " Rule 2. On 
 the final negative, no new matter shall be introduced." 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I now appeal to the president whether the gentleman 
 is not now out of order. I submit the question, whether he is not now 
 introducing new matter ? 
 
 Mr. Rice. And I submit whether Mr. Campbell did not, in his last 
 speech, introduce the matter to which I am now replying ? 
 
 Mr. Moderator (Col. Speed Smith.) The respondent has certainly the 
 right. to answer all the arguments adduced in the last speech of the affir- 
 mant. 
 
 Mr. Rice. The Moderators have decided correctly, that I have the 
 right to answer his last speech. It is to be regretted that my friend has 
 sought to protect his argument by an appeal to the Moderators. 
 
 You perceive, that no doubt whatever was entertained of the validity 
 of such baptisms. The persons thus baptized were debarred from the 
 ministry, until they had afforded clear evidence of piety, because it was 
 believed that sick-bed repentance was of a suspicious character. 
 
 Mr. C. is quite sanguine in the belief, that immersion will, ere long, be 
 universally practiced. Yet, he tells us, that until the thirteenth century 
 all Christendom immersed. Then there has certainly been a wonderful 
 falling away from the primitive practice. On what evidence he founds 
 his confident anticipation of the prevalence of immersion, I know not. 
 "The signs of the times," I think, do not indicate such a change. Nev- 
 ertheless, his faith is quite strong enough to utter the prediction. Well, 
 we must wait and see whether it will be fulfilled ! 
 
 He asks, why was it necessary to go where there vszs t mnch ivater, if 
 baptism w 7 as not performed originally by immersion ? This question has 
 already been fully answered. John, we know, needed much "water, even 
 if he practiced pouring or sprinkling; because multitudes, attending his 
 ministry, remained together for several days at a time, and they must 
 have had much water for ordinary purposes, and for their ablutions. But 
 the apostles (the fact is remarkable,) never, in a solitary instance, went 
 after water for the purpose of baptizing any number of converts, at any 
 time or place ! If they had been immersionists, they would doubtless 
 been found going to ponds or streams of water; and Mr. C, and father 
 Taylor, would not have found it necessary to draw so largely on their 
 imaginations to supply the defect in sacred history. 
 
 He is quite astonished at my saying, that our Savior was not buried in 
 the earth ; and he tells us, Christianity is founded on the fact, that he was 
 buried and rose again. I did not say, he was not buried. We are dis- 
 cussing the mode of baptism ; and I said, he was not put under ground, 
 so that the plunging of persons under water could be a representation of 
 his burial ; and so I still say. I have also said, (and I now repeat it) that 
 the mere fact of our Savior's being put into a tomb, is not, in the Scrip- 
 tures, presented as a matter of fundamental importance. There are dif- 
 ferent modes of burying the dead ; and our Savior would have risen from 
 the dead, wherever his body might have been placed. The matter of 
 greatest moment to us and to all men is, that he died for our sins, shed 
 his blood for us, and rose from the dead. It is not, therefore, to be sup- 
 posed that the ordinance of baptism is intended as a representation of his 
 burial. 
 
 My friend is certainly right in determining not to be laughed out of his 
 religion, and in meekly bearing all the persecution that may come upon 
 
268 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 him. Why, one would think, judging from his last speech, that he is 
 a martyr among martyrs! — that he is one of that "sacramental 
 host," of whom he has spoken so eloquently ! I really supposed that the 
 reformers persecuted us quite as much as we persecute them. Every 
 body, I believe, is disposed to allow them quietly to enjoy their own 
 opinions. We have not excommunicated immersionists because they 
 prefer a particnlar mode of baptism ; but they have excommunicated us, 
 and pronounced us unbaptized, and out of the church of Christ. We 
 are the persons who should complain of reproach. But he feels himself 
 in company with the sacramental host of God's elect, the immersionists 
 of olden time. They, however, did not believe the doctrine for which 
 he is now contending. They recognized the validity of baptism as ad- 
 ministered bj>- us ; and we rejoice to acknowledge them as a portion of 
 the family of our Heavenly Father. 
 
 But the gentleman himself, though he has appealed to your sympathy, 
 as one that is suffering reproach and persecution for conscience' sake, 
 rejects from the church of Christ, such men as Luther, and Calvin, and 
 Zuinglius, and Cranmer, and Wesley, and Whitefield, and the whole of 
 the Pedo-baptists. Aye, and his faith puts them out of heaven ! For 
 if his doctrine concerning the importance and efficacy of immersion be 
 true, they have failed of reaching heaven. I know, he has expressed the 
 opinion, that some unimmersed persons may be saved ; but if his doc- 
 trine is true, his opinion is false. We might, perhaps, with some show 
 of reason, appeal to sympathy ; but we will not. I leave the audience to 
 determine whether Mr. C. or I more resemble Eckius, the popish priest. 
 In the mean time, I will proceed to review the arguments I have offered. 
 
 Having reviewed the arguments from the lexicons, the classics, and 
 the translations, I was presenting that from Bible usage. Bapto, as 
 I have proved, as used in the Bible, rarely expresses an immersion, gen- 
 erally a partial dipping, wetting, moistening or sprinkling. If, then, bap- 
 tizo has the same meaning, as to mode, the argument for immersion must 
 fail. 
 
 I have also examined the Bible and Jewish usage of baptizo. It oc- 
 curs first in 2 Kings v. 10 — 14, where Naaman, the leper, was di- 
 rected to go and wash seven times in Jordan; and he went and baptized 
 seven times, as the prophet directed. The command was to wash, not to 
 immerse; and he obeyed it. Accordingly Jerom, notwithstanding his 
 prejudices in favor of immersion, here translated baptizo by lavo — a 
 generic term, signifying to wash, without reference to mode. In this 
 instance the word cannot be proved to mean immerse. 
 
 Baptizo occurs also in Judith xii. 7. She went out in the night, in a 
 military camp, and baptized herself at (epi) a fountain [or spring] of 
 water. Both the language and the circumstances here prove that she 
 did not immerse herself, but applied the water to her person by pouring 
 or sprinkling. 
 
 It occurs again in Ecclesiasticus, where a man is said to be baptized 
 from the dead, or after touching a dead body ; and the question is asked, 
 what will his washing profit him, if he touch it again? We examined 
 the law relative to this cleansing, and found sprinkling commanded, as 
 the most important part of it, but no immersion required. The gentle- 
 man could not find time to reply to these arguments ! Here we have two 
 clear examples of the use of baptizo, in the sense of cleansing by pour- 
 ing or sprinkling. These examples are particularly important, as show- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 269 
 
 ing the sense in which the word was employed by the Jews, in relation 
 to their religious washings. 
 
 Baptizo occurs again, in a literal sense, in Mark vii. 4, 8, where the 
 Jews are said to have baptized themselves (baptisontai) when they came 
 from the market. Mr. Campbell's translation of this passage, I have 
 proved not to be a translation, but a strange perversion of the original 
 Greek. He throws out some two Greek words, translates a conjunction, 
 an adverb, and a verb in the third person, plural number, by a preposition 
 by, a participle dipping, and adds the word them, (referring to the hands,) 
 which is not in the original ! And he makes the little adverb pugme 
 mean " by pouring a little water upon them!" But the gentleman has 
 not found time to defend his translation, or to attempt to prove that the 
 Jews immersed themselves, their hands, or their couches ! But let it be 
 understood, that in the stereotyped edition of his New Testament, baptizo 
 is made to mean the washing of the hands. If the washing of the hands 
 is baptizing the person, (for such is the meaning of baptisontai,) surely 
 the application of water to the face, through which the soul looks out, 
 may be regarded as a baptism. 
 
 Baptizo again occurs in Luke xi. 38 ; and here I find it in Mr. C.'s 
 translation, rendered " used washing." This, however, we are told, 
 happened by a mistake of the compositor, and the error having escaped 
 notice through several successive editions, is now stereotyped i It was 
 truly a remarkable oversight ! But the gentleman has not attempted to 
 prove that the Pharisee wondered that the Savior had not immersed him- 
 self before dinner ! Here, then, we have some four examples of the 
 use of the word in the sense of ivashing the hands, (which, amongst 
 the Jews, we know, was generally done by pouring water on them,) and 
 of purifying tables or couches, which was doubtless performed in the 
 same way. 
 
 The last example of the use of the word, in a literal sense, not in re- 
 lation to christian baptism, is in Hebrews ix. 10, where the ceremonial 
 law is said to consist in " meats, and drinks, and divers baptisms." There 
 are in the law, divers baptisms ; but there are not divers immersions. I 
 have repeatedly asserted, that in not one instance was personal immer- 
 sion required by the Levitical law; and I called on the gentleman to show 
 one. He has not done it. In this passage, the word baptism evidently 
 includes all the ablutions of the Jews, the most important of which were 
 required to be performed by sprinkling. 
 
 After a careful examination of all the passages in the Bible, where 
 baptizo is used in a literal sense, not in relation to christian baptism, we 
 have found no one instance in which it can be proved to mean immerse; 
 indeed, in every case but one, which might be considered doubtful, it is 
 evidently used to signify washing or purification, by pouring or sprink- 
 ling. The conclusion is not only fair, but most obvious, that as appro- 
 priated to the ordinance of christian baptism, it has the same meaning. 
 
 5th. I have appealed to the usage of the Greek and Latin christians, in 
 regard to baptizo. We have seen that Origen, the most learned of them, 
 speaking of the altar on which Elisha directed the priests to pour several 
 barrels of water, says, it was baptized. Here is a baptism, the mode of 
 which we can all understand. We know that the water was poured on 
 the altar ; and we know that Origen says, it was baptized. And if an 
 altar was baptized by pouring, why may not a person be baptized in the 
 same way? This is high authority. Origen was a native Greek; he 
 
 z2 
 
270 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 was a christian ; and he was an eminently learned man. Yet he certainly 
 uses the word baptizo to signify the pouring- of water on the altar. The 
 gentleman did not find time to tell us how this altar was immersed! I 
 think he did intimate that Origen did not employ figures very correctly! ! 
 But it will not answer to make a figure of twelve barrels of literal water, 
 poured on a literal altar. If this was not a literal baptism, where will 
 you find one ? 
 
 Origen, let it be remembered, is the same man who substituted rariti- 
 zo for bapfo. If he understood his vernacular tongue, (of which, how- 
 ever, Mr. Carson expresses a doubt !) it is certain that baptizo expresses 
 the application of water by pouring. 
 
 But Origen does not stand alone in thus using this word. I have proved 
 that Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and others, employed it to 
 express the flowing of the tears over the face, and of a martyr's blood 
 over his body. My friend has been profoundly silent concerning all 
 these quotations ! If the Greek fathers understood their vernacular 
 tongue, baptizo means pouring and sprinkling, as well as dipping. 
 
 I have also appealed to the Latins, and have proved, that Cyprian and 
 sixty-six bishops, early in the third century, declared baptism administer- 
 ed by sprinkling or pouring, valid and scriptural, and to prove it, appeal- 
 ed to Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," 
 &c. Did they not believe, that baptizo expressed the application of water 
 by sprinkling? If they had not, they would not have appealed to Eze- 
 kiel, nor have decided as they did. Observe, they said, let not those who 
 have received baptism by pouring, so far mistake as to be baptized again. 
 The usage of the word baptizo by the Greek and Latin fathers sustains 
 my position, and refutes that of Mr. Campbell. 
 
 6th. I have proved another important fact, viz : that when immersion 
 came to prevail among the Greeks and Latins, they employed baptizo to 
 denote the ordinance, and selected other words to express the mode of 
 performing it by immersion. The Greeks used kataduo and katadusis ; 
 and the Latins, tingo, intingo, mergo, immergo, &c. If baptizo ex- 
 pressed definitely the action of immersing, as Mr. Campbell contends ; 
 how shall we account for the indisputable fact, that they selected other 
 words to express that action, and employed baptizo, when no such action 
 was performed? i" have the authority of the Greek and Latin chris- 
 tians against my friend, Mr. Campbell. 
 
 7th. I have appealed to the history of baptism, and proved that the 
 first writer of any respectability who mentions immersion, is Tertullian, 
 in the beginning of the third century; and he speaks of trine immersion, 
 with sign of the cross and other superstitions. The gentleman will not 
 practice according to Tertullian, but subtracts from his testimony, till. it 
 suits him. On the same principle I may subtract a little more from it, 
 and it will suit me. But I have found sprinkling practiced and universal- 
 ly admitted to be valid and scriptural baptism, earlier than immersion can 
 be found. I mentioned the case of the Jew who fell sick in a desert, and, 
 having no water convenient, was sprinkled with sand. The bishop deci- 
 ded, that he was truly baptized, if only water was poured on him (per- 
 funderetur.) The history of the ordinance sustains us. For if, as his- 
 tory teaches, our baptism is valid and scriptural; if it has ever been so 
 recognized from the earliest ages of Christianity ; the doctrine for which 
 the gentleman is contending is proved, so far as history is worthy of con- 
 sideration, to be false. And if so, there is not only sin in excommunica- 
 
DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 271 
 
 ting ail who do not practice immersion, but something like a profanation 
 of the ordinance by a repetition of it in case of such as have been validly 
 baptized. The Pedo-baptist concessions of which he boasts, do not touch 
 the validity of our baptism; but the concessions of the old Greek and 
 Latin immersionists place him in an unenviable position. 
 
 I must close this discussion by stating the facts which more directly 
 prove, that baptism by pouring or sprinkling is valid and scriptural. 
 
 1st. Christian baptism is a significant ordinance, in which water is used 
 as an emblem of spiritual cleansing — of sanctifieation. Hence it is fre- 
 quently called a washing, as I have abundantly proved. 
 
 2d. When God first selected a mode of representing spiritual cleansing, 
 he selected sprinkling. The ablutions of the Levitical law, the mode of 
 which was prescribed, were required to be performed by sprinkling. No 
 personal immersion was required. This fact cannot be disproved. If, 
 then, sprinkling was once the most appropriate mode of representing 
 spiritual purification ; why is it not so still ? Can a reason be given 1 
 
 3d. The inspired writers never did represent spiritual cleansing or 
 sanctifieation by putting a person under water, either figuratively or liter- 
 ally. No exception can be produced. If, then, immersion was not 
 then a suitable mode of representing sanctifieation; how can it be so 
 now ? 
 
 4th. The inspired writers did constantly represent sanctifieation by 
 pouring and sprinkling. " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
 and ye shall be clean. A new heart also will I give you," &c. Here 
 the prophet represents a new heart by sprinkling. We do the same thing 
 in administering christian baptism. The apostles used the same mode of 
 expression, " Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and 
 our bodies washed with pure water." If you would represent emblem- 
 atically the sprinkling of the heart ; would you not sprinkle water ? 
 
 5th. I have stated another very important fact — that from the time 
 when christian baptism was instituted, we find not one instance on record 
 of the apostles going after water for the purpose of baptizing. Philip 
 and the eunuch were not going in search of water, but came to it, on their 
 journey. Tens of thousands were baptized by the apostles in a country, 
 having few streams of water of any considerable depth ; yet they were 
 always able to baptize the many or the few without delay, whenever and 
 wherever they professed faith — in the crowded city, in the country, in the 
 desert, in the prison, night or day. And in no one instance is it recorded, 
 that they went one step out of their way after water ! This is indeed 
 most unaccountable, if immersion was then practiced ; but if the apostles 
 baptized as we do, the history of their baptisms is just such as we should 
 have expected. 
 
 6th. Paul, I have said, according to the obvious meaning of the lan- 
 guage employed, was baptized in a city, in a private house, standing up. 
 Ananias came and found him blind and enfeebled, and said, " Arise (stand 
 up) and be baptized;" " and' he arose and was baptized." Just so Pedo- 
 baptists, who practice pouring or sprinkling, write ; and thus our immer- 
 sionist friends do not write. We certainly write as Luke wrote, whether 
 we practice as he did or not; and immersionists do not write as he wrote, 
 It is indeed remarkable, that those who write as he did, differ from him 
 in practice ; whilst those who do not write as he did, do yet imitate his 
 example ! 
 
 7th. I derive an argument for our practice from the three witnesses, the 
 
272 DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 water, the Spirit and the blood, 1 John v. 8. The blood of Christ clean- 
 ses from all sin. The Spirit sanctifies the heart. The blood is called 
 " the blood of sprinkling;" the Spirit is represented as poured out, shed 
 forth and the water, the emblem of spiritual, cleansing — how should it 
 be applied ? Surely by pouring or sprinkling. Thus these three wit- 
 nesses most strikingly agree ; and the scriptural representation is uniform 
 and constant. 
 
 The argument is before the audience. I now ask you, my friends, has 
 my opponent produced evidence to satisfy your minds, that immersion is 
 the only valid and scriptural baptism ; and that all who have received the 
 ordinance in any other form, are really unbaptized and out of the church 
 of Christ ? Look at his arguments and the indisputable facts I have stated 
 and proved, and determine for yourselves. All true christians have one 
 God and one Savior, and are going to the same bright and glorious habi- 
 tation. It is no trifling matter to divide the church and excommunicate 
 multitudes of its most pious and worthy members. Has the gentleman 
 produced evidence, in view of which you are prepared to take such a step ? 
 My decided conviction is, that he has not, — -that, on the contrary, I have 
 clearly proved, that baptism should always be performed by pouring or 
 sprinkling. I cheerfully leave you to judge of the weight of my argu- 
 ments ; and pray, that God will in his mercy lead us to the truth. 
 
 [end of the first proposition.] 
 
PROPOSITION SECOND. 
 
 The Infant of a Believing Parent is a Scriptural Subject 
 
 of Christian Baptism. Mr. Rice affirms. Mr. Campbell 
 
 denies, 
 
 Monday, Nov. 20—10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's opening address.] 
 
 Mr. President — The subject of discussion, this morning, is the bap- 
 tism of infants; and the proposition which I undertake to establish, is 
 the following : The infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject 
 of christian baptism. 
 
 I am constrained to regard this subject as one of greater practical im- 
 portance than that of which we have just disposed. For it involves, in 
 no inconsiderable degree, the interests, present and future, of our chil- 
 dren. In the mind of every affectionate parent, therefore, it must excite 
 a deep and tender interest: for what is more natural than the strong de- 
 sire, in the bosom of the parent, to secure for his offspring all the bless- 
 ings, temporal and spiritual, which God, in his boundless condescension 
 and mercy, has offered? It becomes us, then, to give this subject; if pos- 
 sible, even a more candid and thorough examination than that which has 
 preceded it ; for, in regard to this, we are called to act for those who are 
 incapable of acting for themselves. 
 
 Allow me here to remark, (and the fact is worthy of special considera- 
 tion,) that whether this doctrine is taught in the Scriptures or not, it cer- 
 tainly has commanded the belief, the firm belief, of almost the whole 
 of Christendom, in all ages ; not of the ignorant and superstitious only, 
 or chiefly, but of the wise and good — of those who have taken the Bible 
 as their only infallible rule of faith and practice. The overwhelming 
 majority of those who have diligently sought to know their duty, as con- 
 nected with this interesting subject, have understood the Scriptures to 
 teach, that the children of believing parents ought to be baptized in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The 
 exceptions, I may venture to say, are as one to a thousand. The oppo- 
 sers of this doctrine, compared with even Protestant Christendom, are a 
 mere handfull. 
 
 My worthy friend, Mr. C, agrees with me, that the Bible is a plain 
 book, easily understood on all important points. This being admitted, we 
 have the very strongest presumptive evidence of the truth of the doctrine 
 for which I contend. For, if it be the absurd and ridiculous thing it is 
 often represented — nay, if it be not true, how shall we be able to account 
 for the almost universal belief of it amongst the pious readers of the Bi- 
 ble ? How unaccountable has been the infatuation of almost the whole 
 christian world, on the supposition that this doctrine is false and absurd ! 
 
 In support of the proposition before us, I appeal to the word of God. 
 And I am happy to be able to say, that on this subject there will be but 
 little necessity for dry criticism. The doctrine of the baptism of infants 
 can be defended in plain English. 
 
 18 273 
 
274 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 I commence my argument by reading the commission given by our 
 Savior to his apostles. Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20, "And Jesus came and 
 spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
 earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I 
 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." 
 
 Such is the high and momentous commission under which the twelve 
 apostles went forth, to proclaim to a dying world "the unsearchable 
 riches of Christ." That we may understand its import, so far as the 
 present subject is concerned, I will state a few facts. 
 
 1. This is not a commission to organize a church. As it is recorded 
 by Mark, it required the apostles to go and preach the gospel to every 
 creature. But in neither case does it contain even an intimation, that a 
 new church was to be organized ; nor do we learn from the Acts of the 
 Apostles, that they ever did organize the christian church. God had 
 long had a church on earth, and long had the gospel substantially been 
 preached. But hitherto the blessings and privileges of his church had 
 been confined to the Jewish nation. A gentile could enjoy them only by 
 becoming a Jew, and submitting to all the forms and ceremonies of the 
 Levitical law. But the period had now arrived, when the privileges of 
 the church, and the blessings of the gospel, were to be extended to all 
 nations; when, as Paul says, God "would justify the heathen through 
 faith." To this happy day Isaiah was enabled to look forward, when, 
 comforting God's afflicted church, he pointed her to a brighter period in 
 her future history, when the gentiles should become fellow heirs with the 
 pious Jews, and exclaimed — " Sing, barren, thou that didst not bear; 
 break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with 
 child : for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the 
 married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let 
 them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitation : spare not, lengthen thy 
 cord, and strengthen thy stakes. For thou shall break forth on the right 
 hand, and on the left ; and thy seed shall inherit the gentiles, and make 
 the desolate cities to be inhabited." The gentiles were to be admitted 
 into a church already in existence, not into a church then to be organized. 
 
 2. The second fact I state, is this : the commission specifies neither in- 
 fants nor believers as proper subjects of baptism. " Go, teach all nations, 
 baptizing them" — the nations. Or, as Mark gives it, "Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." In 
 the commission, as given by Mark, the Savior informs us who shall be 
 saved, but not who shall be baptized. It may be said, the expression — 
 " He that believeth and is baptized" — necessarily confines baptism to be- 
 lievers, since infants cannot exercise faith. I answer, if you thus exclude 
 infants from baptism, you must also exclude them from heaven; for the 
 commission also says, he that believeth not shall be damned; and infants 
 cannot believe. The Savior's language was to be addressed and is appli- 
 cable only to those capable of understanding and believing ; and it neither 
 excludes infants from heaven nor from the church. 
 
 3. I state a third fact : the apostles were to make disciples (for such is the 
 meaning of matheteuo) by baptizing and teaching. This is man's part of 
 the work. A more important part belongs to -God. Mr. Campbell and I 
 are agreed, that disciples were \o be made by baptizing and teaching. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 275 
 
 4. I wish distinctly to state a fourth fact : the commission does not say, 
 that, in all cases, teaching must precede baptizing; nor does it say, that 
 in any case, it must precede. This must be determined from other 
 sources of evidence. In the case of adults it is necessary to teach both 
 before and after baptism. Infants are taught after baptism. If you would 
 induce an adult to enter your school as a pupil, you must first convince 
 him that it is his interest to do so ; but children may be placed in the 
 school by their parents. In both cases you speak of them as scholars or 
 disciples. Adults must enter the church voluntarily, as they receive all 
 instruction voluntarily ; but parents are to " train up their children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord." Since, then, the Savior has not 
 said, that teaching must always precede baptism ; no man has the right 
 to say so. 
 
 The question, then, arises — who or what characters are, according to 
 the law of Christ, to receive christian baptism ? I think, the gentleman 
 will agree with me, that all who have a right to be in the church of God, 
 ought to receive baptism. All admit, that now (whatever may have been 
 the case under the old dispensation) no one can enjoy membership in the 
 church of Christ, until he is baptized. A man may be pious before he is 
 baptized ; but he cannot be a member of the visible church of Christ, en- 
 titled to its privileges and bound by its rules. It will not be denied, that 
 all to whom Christ has given the privilege of membership in his church, 
 ought to be baptized ; since, whatever other purposes baptism may an- 
 swer, it is certainly the initiatory rite of the church. 
 
 This being admitted, the great and most important inquiry is this : who 
 or what characters are, according to the law of God, to enjoy member- 
 ship in his church? The answer to this question will necessarily deter- 
 mine to whom baptism is to be administered ; for if we can ascertain, that 
 certain persons have a right to enter a house, it follows that they have a 
 right to enter by the door. 
 
 Now let us inquire, where shall we look for the law of membership in 
 the church of Christ? Or when would the question concerning the right 
 of membership necessarily be determined? I answer, when the church 
 was first properly organized. You cannot organize a society of any 
 kind, even a little debating society, without determining who shall be ad- 
 mitted to membership. When a society is organized, the constitution, 
 of course, determines the question concerning membership. If, there- 
 fore, we would ascertain who has the privilege of a place in the church 
 of God, we must go to the organization of the church. 
 
 We are thus brought to another very important inquiry, viz: when and 
 where ivas the church organized? I do not learn, that the apostles were 
 directed to organize the church ; nor do I find, that they did so. I am 
 obliged, therefore, to look elsewhere for the correct answer to this question. 
 
 I maintain, then, that the church was organized in the days and in 
 the family of Abraham; when God entered into a covenant with the 
 father of the faithful to be a God to him and to his seed. Before proceed- 
 ing to the proof of this proposition, allow me to give a definition — or, 
 if you please, a description of the church of Christ. The church is a 
 body of people separated from the world for the service of God, with or- 
 dinances of divine appointment, and a door of entrance, or a rite by 
 which membership shall be recognized. The correctness of this defini- 
 tion or description, I think, will not be called in question. What is the 
 church of Christ now, but a body of people separated from the world for 
 
276 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the service of God, with ordinances of divine appointment, and a door of 
 admission ? Whenever I find such a body of people, I find a church of 
 God. Let us now inquire whether such a people are to be found in the 
 family of Abraham. 
 
 In the 12th chapter of Genesis, we are informed, that the Lord spoke 
 to Abraham in the following language : " Get thee out of thy country, and 
 from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will 
 shew thee : and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, 
 and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing : and I will bless 
 them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee ; and in thee shall 
 all the families of the earth be blessed." And in the 7th verse — " And 
 the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this 
 land." Here we find promises of blessings, both temporal and spiritual, 
 to Abraham and his seed. The same promises substantially were after- 
 wards repeated, as recorded in Gen. xv., and again, some years after, re- 
 iterated and ratified by the sign of circumcision ; of which we read in 
 Gen. xvii. 1—14. 
 
 According to the tenor of this covenant Abraham and his family were 
 circumcised, and thus became a people separated from the world for the 
 service of God, with ordinances of divine appointment, and a door of 
 entrance— a rite which distinguished them from all other people, as in 
 covenant with God. Here we find the church of God organized. Of 
 circumcision the great Baptist writer, Andrew Fuller, says, it distinguish- 
 ed Abraham and his family from others, as in covenant with God, and 
 bound them to his service. Is not this true of christian baptism ? I care 
 not, however, so far as this discussion is concerned, whether baptism 
 came in the place of circumcision or not. 
 
 From this time God spoke of Abraham and his descendants through 
 Isaac and Jacob, as his people. He directed Moses thus to speak to 
 Pharoah, king of Egypt: "Thus saith the Lord, let my people go, that 
 they may serve me," Exod. viii. 1 and ix. 1. Again — " Thus saith the 
 Lord, My people went down aforetime into Egypt, to sojourn there," &c. 
 Isa. lii. 4. They are also repeatedly called the church, Acts vii. 38. 
 " This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel 
 which spoke to him in Mount Sinai," &c. 
 
 Here, then, we find the church of God organized. Whether it is 
 identical with the christian church, we shall inquire in due time. We are 
 now prepared to inquire, to whom did God give the privilege of member- 
 ship in this church? We are at no loss for an answer ; for it is abso- 
 lutely certain, that he by positive enactment made believers and their chil- 
 dren members. Abraham, who was the father of believers, and his 
 children and family, constituted the church. Some, perhaps, may object, 
 that Abraham's adult servants were also circumcised. It is, however, a 
 fact — an important fact— which I am prepared to prove, that adults were 
 never permitted, according to the divine law, to receive circumcision, but 
 upon profession of faith in the true God. It cannot be proved, that any 
 of Abraham's servants were unbelievers. Professed believers and their 
 children, therefore, were, by positive law of God, constituted members 
 of his church. This fact cannot be successfully controverted. 
 
 Let me now state another important fact, viz : From the organization 
 of the church, to the moment when the commission was given to the apos- 
 tles, believers and their children enjoyed together the privilege of mem- 
 bership. This fact cannot be' disputed. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 277 
 
 In view of these facts I will now state an important principle. Since 
 the children of believers were put into the church by positive law of God ; 
 they can be put out only by positive law of God. Inferences will not 
 answer the purpose. You cannot infer men out of their political rights. 
 Men do not reason so conclusively that we may safely trust our rights and 
 privileges to their deductions and inferences. I enjoy the rights of a citi- 
 zen of these United States by the plain letter of the constitution. If you 
 wish to deprive me of these rights, you must prove, that the constitution 
 has been so altered as to exclude me. You must, in order to deprive me 
 of my political rights, find law as positive, and of as high authority as 
 that which originally conferred them. The principle holds good in eccle- 
 siastical matters. If I prove that God put certain persons into his church, 
 you cannot exclude them, unless you can point to the law authorising you 
 so to do. God did put the children of believers into his church by clear 
 and positive enactment; and you may as lawfully exclude believers from 
 the church, as their children, unless you can produce a "Tlius saith the 
 Lord" for excluding the latter. This principle is so perfectly under- 
 stood, that I need not spend time either in proving or illustrating it. 
 
 I wish now to state one more important fact, viz : The commission 
 given the apostles, does not exclude the children of believers. As al- 
 ready remarked, it specifies neither believers nor their children, as proper 
 subjects of baptism. It says, " Go, make disciples of all nations, bap- 
 tizing them 1 ' — the nations. 
 
 But you ask : Does dot the Savior say, He that believeth and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved ? and can infants believe 1 And I ask, does he not 
 also say, He that believeth not shall be damned ? Then infants must be 
 damned, if you apply this language to them. If my friend will take that 
 ground, very well. Our Savior, in this language, has told us who were to 
 go to heaven, but not who were to be baptized. He that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved. Did Matthew give the commission complete ? 
 Certainly. But did he say that children should be excluded ? He 
 did not. 
 
 Here, then, we find the children of believers put into the church by 
 positive law, and remaining in the church for long successive ages with- 
 out interruption. They entered by the same door with the parents, and 
 had the same seal of God's covenant upon them. We find them there 
 till the Savior gave this commission, and it does not exclude them. In- 
 deed, it would have been marvellous if it had ; for it was a privilege 
 expressly granted to Abraham, to have his children in covenant with the 
 Lord. If it had not been a privilege, the Lord would not have required 
 it. And, if it were a favor to the Jews to have their children in the 
 church, why is it not to christians ? 
 
 Did Jesus Christ, the Great Immanuel, come to take away privileges 
 which had been enjoyed for so many centuries ? Believers had, from 
 the days of Abraham, enjoyed the privilege of having their children em- 
 braced in God's covenant. Did the Messiah come to deprive his people of 
 their privileges ? A 7 o: he came rather to enlarge than to diminish them. 
 
 Here, then, we find the children of believers put into the church by 
 positive law, and remaining in the church to the moment of the giving 
 of the great commission ; and the commission does not exclude them. 
 Where, then, I ask, is the law for excluding them? I have found a law, 
 clear and positive, for putting them in. Can Mr. Campbell find the law 
 for putting them out ? 
 
 2A 
 
278 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 But it is urged as an objection, that the baptism of infants is not di- 
 rectly mentioned in the New Testament. Suppose it is not. Infants are 
 in the church by positive law ; and it will not do to infer them out, on 
 the ground, that the baptism of such is not in so many words mentioned. 
 You have the rights of a citizen of this commonwealth by the plain letter 
 of the constitution ; and you, therefore, have the right to a vote in the elec- 
 tion of public officers. But many legislatures have met, and many 
 changes have been made in our laws, since the adoption of the constitu- 
 tion. Suppose, now, some one should attempt to deprive you of the 
 right to vote ; would you not at once appeal to the constitution ? But he 
 might say, there have been many changes in our laws since that constitu- 
 tion was adopted ; and in these changes, not a word is said about your 
 right to vote. Would you not demand of him to prove, that the constitu- 
 tion had ever been so altered as to exclude you? Just so we find the 
 children of believers put in the church at its first organization, and the 
 right of membership secured to them by the highest authority in the uni- 
 verse. My friend, Mr. C, and those who agree with him, are anxious 
 to put them out. We call for the law. But they, instead of producing 
 any thing remotely resembling such a law, tell us, infant-membership is 
 not directly mentioned in the New Testament ; and thus they would put 
 them out by an inference 1 an inference, too, by no means legitimate! 
 No — neither believers nor infants can be despoiled of their privileges in 
 this way. 
 
 I have said, the Savior in giving the commission, gave no intimation 
 of a purpose to exclude the children of believers from his church — not 
 even a hint that he designed to make any change in the law of member- 
 ship. I desire the audience particularly to remark the strength of the 
 argument for infant-membership, founded on this fact. It was extremely 
 important, if he purposed to make any such change, that it should have 
 been very distinctly stated. The apostles had grown up under a system 
 of religion which embraced in the church not only believers, but their 
 children. All their prejudices, therefore, would incline them to believe, that 
 children were still to occupy a place in the church. And, let it be re- 
 marked, their Jewish prejudices were exceedingly strong — so strong, that 
 although the Savior commanded them to go into all the world and preach 
 the gospel to every creature; they still did not understand that it was to 
 be preached to the gentiles. They seem to have understood only that 
 they were to go and preach the gospel to the Jews dispersed among the 
 surrounding nations ; and so strong was this impression, that it was 
 removed only by a miracle and a special revelation. The family of Cor- 
 nelius (Acts x.) was the first gentile family to whom the gospel . was 
 preached ; and Peter was the first of the apostles who ventured to offer 
 salvation to the gentiles ; and he was induced to do so only by a special 
 revelation from God. So far were the other apostles from doing any such 
 thing, that they called Peter to an account for what he had done. 
 
 Now look at the language of the commission — " Go, teach all na- 
 tions" — "Preach the gospel to every creature" Is it not perfectly 
 clear ? Yet the apostles, for a length of time, did not understand it. Is 
 it not, then, most marvellous, if whilst they did not understand what was 
 so plainly spoken in regard to preaching the gospel to the gentiles, they 
 did so readily understand what was not at all expressed — that henceforth 
 children were to be excluded from the church ? Their Jewish prejudices, 
 it would seem, prevented themjrom understanding what was most plainly 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 279 
 
 commanded ; and yet, notwithstanding those prejudices, they at once in- 
 ferred what was not stated — that there was now to be a radical change of 
 the law of membership in the church ! Is it credible, that whilst, in the face 
 of the express language of the Savior, they believed that the kingdom of 
 God was to be confined to the Jews ; they so readily inferred a change as 
 to the right of membership which was not specified, and which almost 
 the whole christian world have failed to see? Can any one believe it? 
 Surely the very prejudice which would prevent their perceiving the 
 extent of the commission, would also prevent them from discovering, un- 
 less it were most unequivocally stated, that a change of the law of mem- 
 bership was designed; and having always been accustomed to see believers 
 and their children side by sitle in the church, they would still have 
 received both. 
 
 Under such circumstances, if our Savior had purposed to exclude chil- 
 dren from the church ; he certainly would have said so as distinctly as he 
 commanded the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations. Even then 
 it would not have been wonderful, if they had been as slow to understand 
 him on this point as they were on the other. 
 
 This is not all. The Savior not only did not give the slightest intima- 
 tion of a purpose to exclude children from the church, but he employed 
 such language as must have left on the minds of the apostles, the distinct 
 impression, that no change of the kind was to be made. When little 
 children were brought to him, that he might lay his hands on them and 
 pray, the disciples rebuked those who brought them. What was his re- 
 ply ? " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me \for 
 of such is the kingdom of heaven," — Matth. xix. 13, 14. Mr. Camp- 
 bell will not deny, that by the phrase " kingdom of heaven," in this 
 passage, is meant the church of Christ. If he does not admit it, Dr. 
 Gill, the Baptist commentator, does. Now, consider the character and 
 religious views of the persons whom the Savior addressed. They had 
 always been accustomed to regard the children of professed believers as 
 entitled to a place in God's church. They had never known a church 
 constituted on any other principles. When, therefore, the Savior said to 
 them, " Suffer little children to come unto me," &c. — " for of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven " — the church ; would not the impression be made 
 most distinctly, on their minds, that the children of believers were still 
 to constitute a part of his visible church ? 
 
 It is, then, clear that the children of believers were put into the church 
 by positive law of God ; that they remained in the church to the moment 
 when our Savior gave to the apostles, the commission to preach the gos- 
 pel ; that he gave not the slightest intimation of a purpose to exclude 
 them ; that the strong Jewish prejudices of the apostles would induce 
 them, unless explicitly forbidden, still to receive into the church believers 
 and their children ; that the Savior had employed language which would 
 naturally induce them to believe that children were not to be excluded. 
 Do not these facts, not one of which can be disproved, establish the doctrine 
 of infant-membership in the church of Christ? I might here close my 
 argument ; for I have put the children of believing parents into the church 
 by clear and positive law. It is the business of the gentleman to pro- 
 duce a- law equally clear and positive for excluding them. If he cannot 
 do this, (and I am certain that he cannot,) they must be permitted to 
 remain. It is, moreover, a fact which cannot be denied, that infants and 
 adults entered the church by the same door — the same rite was ad- 
 
280 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ministered to both. Since, then, both infants and adults still have a 
 right to a place in the church, they must still enter by the same door. 
 Circumcision was, at first, the initiatory rite ; and both adults and in- 
 fants were circumcised. Baptism is now the initiatory rite ; and both 
 must receive baptism. 
 
 But it may be objected, that only male children received circumcision; 
 and therefore the argument would prove, that only males ought to be bap- 
 tized. I answer, that under the old dispensation, females, both infants 
 and adults, enjoyed the privilege of membership in the church without 
 any initiatory rite being administered to them. They enjoyed these 
 privileges by virtue of their connection with the males of the family. 
 Under that dispensation, ministers were not sent forth to proselyte the 
 nations. When proselytes were made from the gentiles, they came as 
 families ; and the males being circumcised, the whole family, males and 
 females, were admitted to all the privileges of the church ; Exodus xii. 
 48. Under the gospel dispensation, all are invited and commanded to 
 enter the church ; and nothing is more common than to see the females 
 of a family enter without the males. Hence it became proper, under the 
 new dispensation, to appoint an initiatory rite equally applicable to males 
 and females. Under the former dispensation, both adult and infant fe- 
 males entered the church without receiving any initiatory ordinance; and 
 under the present dispensation, both enter by the same rite which is ad- 
 ministered to males. 
 
 The argument, as it appears to me, is conclusive. It is an indisputable 
 fact, that the children of believers were put into the church by positive 
 law of God. It is a fact, that for many centuries, believing parents en- 
 joyed the privilege of having their children with them in the church. It 
 is a fact, that our Savior and his apostles never excluded them : no law 
 of the kind can be produced. The conclusion appears inevitable, that 
 they still have the right to be in the church, and of course, to enter by 
 the door — christian baptism. 
 
 I do not wish to hasten through the investigation of this subject, as I 
 have three days within which to establish the proposition before me. I 
 will, however, make some remarks on another very important point. 
 
 It will, doubtless, be said, that my whole argument is inconclusive, inas- 
 much as the church into which children were put, and the christian 
 church, are two entirely distinct organizations ; and, therefore, it does 
 not follow, that because infants were put into the former, they are to be 
 admitted into the latter. 
 
 The question now presents itself — Is the christian church the same 
 into lohich children were, by divine authority, admitted ? I affirm that 
 it is ; and I now undertake to prove the identity of the church of God, 
 under the Jewish and christian dispensations ; to make it evident that 
 Christ has had but one church on the earth. Will you give me your 
 close and candid attention, whilst I proceed to state a number of impor- 
 tant principles and facts, which, as I believe, establish this point incontro- 
 vertibly. 
 
 Let the fact already stated, be kept in view, that the commission given 
 to the apostles did not authorize them to organize a new church. Hith- 
 erto the privileges of the church of God had been confined to the Jews. 
 The time had come when those privileges were to be extended to all na- 
 tions. The burthensome ceremonies of the Levitical law, which render- 
 ed it impossible that the church should embrace the gentile nations, were 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 281 
 
 now passed away, and fewer and simpler ceremonies substituted for them. 
 And now the apostles were commissioned to go forth and offer to all na- 
 tions the blessings which had been confined to the Jews. They were 
 not to organize a new church, but to extend the boundaries of the existing 
 church. 
 
 That we may be enabled correctly to weigh the facts and arguments to 
 be offered on this point, it is essential that we distinctly understand in 
 what consists ecclesiastical identity . What are we to understand by the 
 identity or sameness of the church ? Perhaps I shall be able more satis- 
 factorily to answer this question, and to illustrate the point before us, by 
 reference to a subject with which we are all, to some extent, familiar — I 
 mean political identity. 
 
 In what, then, does political identity consist? If I were to ask you, 
 whether the commonwealth of Kentucky is the same political body which 
 existed under this name forty years ago, you would unhesitatingly say, 
 it is. But suppose I were to deny that it is the same, how would you 
 undertake to prove its identity ? I could truly say, that it is not composed 
 of the same persons ; for the greater part of them are gone. With equal 
 truth I could affirm, that it is not governed by the same laws ; for, year 
 after year, the legislatures have repealed, altered, amended and added to 
 them. How, then, would you prove, that notwithstanding all these changes, 
 the commonwealth is the same political body ? You would tell me, that 
 although it is not composed of the same persons, nor governed by the same 
 laws precisely, it is the same political body ; because the constitution is, 
 in all its important features, the same ; and the same power, " the sove- 
 reign people," reigns. We find, then, that political identity consists in 
 these two things, viz; the identity of the governing power, and the 
 sameness of the constitution, at least, in its essential features. For if, 
 within the last forty years, the constitution of this commonwealth had 
 been radically changed, and a monarchical or kingly goverment establish- 
 ed, its identity must have been lost. So long, however, as it retains these 
 two great characteristics, although every individual of whom it was ori- 
 ginally constituted, may die, and although the legislature continue an- 
 nually to repeal, alter, amend, and add to the laws, it will continue to be 
 the same political body. 
 
 These principles are so obviously correct, that I am sure they will not 
 be controverted. Let us apply them to ecclesiastical identity. And I 
 venture the assertion, that if you can prove the commonwealth of Ken- 
 tucky, or these United States, to be the same political body which exist- 
 ed under the name forty years ago, I can produce three times the amount 
 of evidence to prove that the christian church is the same ecclesiastical 
 body which was organized in the family of Abraham, of which believers 
 and their children were constituted members. My evidence shall consist 
 chiefly of indisputable facts — the best of all arguments. 
 
 1st. It is a fact, that under both dispensations the same King reigns. 
 The same glorious God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is ac- 
 knowledged, worshiped, and obeyed, as the only true God, the only ob- 
 ject of religious worship, the only Legislator, whose all-wise laws are 
 binding on the consciences of all men. The world does not acknowledge, 
 worship, and serve him, and, therefore, cannot constitute a part of his 
 church or kingdom, This fact will not be denied. 
 
 2nd. The same moral law is received and obeyed under both dispen- 
 sations. This law, briefly presented in the ten commandments, is admit- 
 
 2a2 
 
282 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ted to be as binding on the Christian as on the Jew. Some, it is true, 
 object to the fourth commandment, as not obligatory on the christian 
 church ; but although I believe it can be unanswerably proved to be still 
 in force, I might admit that one commandment out of ten has been abol- 
 ished, and still prove all for which I am contending. For the constitu- 
 tion of this commonwealth might be changed in a number of its features, 
 without destroying the identity of the political body. I need not enter 
 into an argument to prove that the moral law is obligatory on the chris- 
 tian church, and has ever been so recognized. Was it the duty of the 
 Jew to obey the command, "Thou shah have no other Gods before me ?" 
 It is equally the duty of the christian to worship the one living and true 
 God. Was the Jew forbidden to make any similitude of any thing in 
 heaven or in earth, through which to worship God ? It is equally the 
 duty of the christian to worship God " in spirit and in truth." Was the 
 Jew forbidden to take the name of God in vain ? It is equally the duty 
 of the christian to hallow the name of the great God. I need not go fur- 
 ther into particulars. It will not be denied, that the moral law is obliga- 
 tory upon Jew and Christian, and that, under both dispensations, it has 
 been acknowledged and obeyed as the rule of right and wrong. This 
 law may be considered, in an important sense, the constitution of God 's 
 moral government; for it defines the duties of the subjects to the great 
 King, and their rights, duties, and responsibilities toward each other. 
 Under both dispensations, therefore, we find the same King reigning, and 
 the same great moral constitution existing. 
 
 3d. Under both dispensations the same gospel is received and rested 
 upon for salvation. In proof of this fact, the language of inspiration is 
 so perfectly clear, that I cannot believe that it will be disputed. Paul 
 says — " And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying — In 
 thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are 
 blessed with faithful Abraham," Gal. iii. 8, 9. Here we find the gospel 
 preached to Abraham, in the very covenant on which I have said the 
 church was organized. It was substantially contained in the promise, 
 44 In thee shall all nations be blessed." Accordingly our Savior said to 
 the Jews — " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw 
 it and was glad," John viii. 56. Abraham, in the light of this promise, 
 looked forward, saw the advent and work of the Messiah, and rested on 
 Christ crucified for the salvation of his soul. The same gospel, there- 
 fore, is received and trusted in for salvation, by the church, under both dis- 
 pensations. This fact is further confirmed by the language of the apostle, 
 in Hebrews iv. 2, where, speaking of the Jews in the wilderness, he says : 
 " For unto us the gospel was preached, as well as unto them ; but the 
 word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them 
 that heard it." The Jews in the wilderness had the gospel as well as 
 we ; and it did profit those who received it by faith. This important fact 
 is incontrovertibly established ; yet it is susceptible of being, if possible, 
 even more convincingly proved. The gospel consists of a number of 
 parts or doctrines, and it is easy to prove, that in all its most important 
 features, it is presented in the Old Testament, that everyone of its funda- 
 mental doctrines is there taught. Let us look at a few facts on this point. 
 1st. Under both dispensations the church had the same Mediator, the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. The saints of the Old Testament, and of the New, 
 alike trust in Christ, his atonement and intercession, for eternal life. The 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 283 
 
 ministry of the church has been somewhat- different ; but the great Me- 
 diator has been the same. This we are taught in many parts of God's 
 word. Heb. ix. 15 — "And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New 
 Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgres- 
 sions that were under the first Testament, they which are called might re- 
 ceive the promise of eternal inheritance." Here, you observe, the death of 
 Christ atoned for the sins of those under the old dispensation, as well as 
 of those under the new. The same truth is taught in Rom. iii. 25, which, 
 if necessary, I will quote. Isaiah, presenting the same general truth, 
 teaches that the church has, under both dispensations, the same founda- 
 tion. " Therefore, thus saith the Lord God — Behold, I lay in Zion, for a 
 foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure founda- 
 tion : he that belie veth shall not make haste," ch. xxviii. 16. And the 
 fifty-third chapter of his prophecy contains a most clear and lucid exhibi- 
 tion of the death of Christ, and the doctrine of the atonement. 
 
 2d. The great doctrine of justification by faith, is also taught in the 
 Old Testament, as well as in the New. In Rom. iv. 1, Paul proves and 
 illustrates this doctrine by quotations from the Old Testament — " For if 
 Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not 
 before God. For what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and 
 it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is 
 the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh 
 not, but believeth on him that justifleth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
 for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the 
 man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works." 
 
 3d. The doctrine of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, is clearly taught 
 in the Old Testament. Thus Ezekiel says — " A new heart will I also 
 give you, and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take away 
 the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 
 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my 
 statutes," <fcc. And David prays — " Create in me a clean heart, and 
 renew a right spirit within me," Ps. li. 10. Did not David believe in the 
 doctrine of sanctification by the Holy Spirit? 
 
 4th. The resurrection of the dead is taught in the Old Testament as 
 well as in the New. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says — " For I deliv- 
 ered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for 
 our sins according to the Scriptures, [Old Testament ;] and that he was 
 buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." 
 And, in presenting the glorious doctrine of the resurrection of the just, 
 he says — " So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and 
 this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass 
 the saying that is written, [in the Old Testament,] death is swallowed up 
 in victory," 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, 54. 
 
 5th. The doctrine of the eternal happiness of the righteous, and the eter- 
 nal punishment of the wicked, and the doctrine of a general judgment, 
 are also taught in the Old Testament. In the 50th Psalm, we find an awful 
 and sublime description of that great day, to which the world is looking 
 forward, when the Judge of the living and the dead, shall ascend his 
 throne, and fix, by an unchangeable decree, the destiny of the righteous 
 and of the wicked. 
 
 6th. The Old Testament presents the same conditions of salvation that 
 are found in the New. What are the conditions of salvation under the 
 present dispensation ? Paul tells us, that he preached, as conditions of 
 
284 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 eternal life, « repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus 
 Christ." And, in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, we find a 
 long catalogue of worthies, who walked by faith, looked for a city 
 whose maker and builder is God, eternal in the heavens, overcame the 
 world, died in faith, and were received to eternal glory. These saints 
 lived under the Jewish and patriarchal dispensations. The doctrine of 
 repentance is taught with equal clearness. Thus David, in that peniten- 
 tial Psalm, (the 51st,) says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: 
 a broken and a contrite heart, God, thou wilt not despise." It is clear, 
 that under the Old, as under the New Testament, the conditions of salva- 
 tion were faith, repentance, and consequent reformation, or obedience to 
 existing laws and ordinances. They are all included in the following 
 exhortation by the prophet Isaiah: '-'Let the wicked forsake his way, 
 and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, 
 and he will have mercy upon him : and to our God, for he will abundant- 
 ly pardon ;" ch. lv. 6. 
 
 7th. The qualifications for church-membership are the same under both 
 dispensations. I assert again, and am prepared to prove, that no adult, 
 according to the law of God, could enter the Jewish church, without pro- 
 fessing his faith in the God of the Bible, and his purpose to serve him. 
 No gentile could enter into it, without renouncing his idol gods, and pro- 
 fessing his faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Under the 
 Old Testament, then, adults must profess faith, repentance, and reforma- 
 tion, before they could, lawfully, enter the church ; and then, it was their 
 privilege, and duty, to bring their infant children with them. And so it 
 is under the New Testament. The proof that, under both dispensations, 
 the church did receive, and expect salvation by, the same gospel, is ab- 
 solutely unanswerable and irresistible. 
 
 If, then, under both dispensations, the church worshiped and served 
 the same God and King, received and obeyed the same moral law, and 
 received and trusted in the same gospel, the same plan of salvation, I ask, 
 is not the church the same ecclesiastical body under both ? 
 
 But what is the chief and only important difference between the two 
 dispensations? Under the former, there was a code of ceremonial and 
 civil laws, adapted to the existing state of the church ; which, after the 
 death of Christ, gave place to a few more simple ordinances, adapted to 
 the church, as about to be extended in her boundaries to all nations. 
 This is the simple and only difference, so far as the present discussion is 
 concerned. 
 
 The civil and ceremonial laws were appointed by God for a specific 
 purpose and for a limited time. So Paul teaches in Galatians iii. 19, 
 " Wherefore then serveth the law ? It zoas added, because of transgres- 
 sions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made" It 
 was added, because of transgressions — it was designed to keep the Jews 
 entirely distinct and separate from the pagans, that they might not be 
 drawn away from their allegiance to God; and it was to continue in 
 force only till Christ, the seed to whom the promise was made, should 
 come. Consequently, when Christ came and died on the cross, the civil 
 and ceremonial law of the Jews, having accomplished the purposes for 
 which it was enacted, expired by virtue of its own limitation ; and, of 
 course, the priests and other officers appointed to administer it, so long 
 as it was in force, went out of office. And now, instead of those bur- 
 densome laws and ceremonies, new and simpler ordinances were inslitu- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 285 
 
 ted, and proper officers appointed to administer them and to preach the 
 word. 
 
 But even the ceremonial law proclaimed the gospel in types and shad- 
 ows. Its bloody sacrifices pointed to the cross of Christ, which was 
 also the constant theme of prophecy ; and its ablutions pointed to the 
 sanctification of the heart by the Holy Spirit. The apostle teaches "that 
 the law had a shadow of the good things to come ;" Heb. x. 1. 
 
 Now I ask, did the passing away of those laws and ceremonies by vir- 
 tue of their own limitation — the disappearing of those shadows to give 
 place to the substance ; — ■did this destroy the identity of the church ? 
 Was its identity destroyed by the fact, that the officers appointed to exe- 
 cute those temporary laws, went out of office when the laws had answer- 
 ed the purpose for which they were enacted ? I think every one must 
 see, in a moment, that the passing away of those civil and ceremonial 
 laws could not affect the existence of the church. 
 
 Suppose the legislature of Kentucky should enact a number of laws 
 (say fifty) to answer a specific purpose, to continue in force for twenty 
 years; and should also appoint a number of officers to carry into execu- 
 tion these laws. At the termination of the twenty years, the laws would 
 cease to be in force by virtue of their limitation ; and all the offices grow- 
 ing out of their provisions would cease to exist, and those filling them 
 would go out of office. Now what would you think of the wisdom of 
 the man, who should insist that the passing away of those laws had des- 
 troyed the identity of the commonwealth, and that it is no longer the 
 same political body? And what would you think of him, if he should 
 go further and say, the fact that you were a citizen of the commonwealth 
 of Kentucky and had a right to vote before the expiration of the supposed 
 code of laws, affords no evidence, that since that time you are entitled to 
 such privileges ? I presume, you would smile at the absurdity of such 
 sentiments. 
 
 No less absurdly do they reason, who contend that the passing away 
 of a number of ceremonial and civil laws, enacted for the benefit of a pre- 
 viously existing church, to answer a specific purpose, and to be in force 
 only for a limited period, really annihilates the church ! ! ! No — the 
 church still existed, after the passing away of its types and shadows, wor- 
 shiping and serving the same God, obeying the same moral law, receiv- 
 ing and rejoicing in the same glorious gospel, (taught in all its essential 
 features under both dispensations,) and having substantially the same 
 conditions of membership, and (as I will prove) the same covenant. 
 
 The church, then, is the same under the Jewish and Christian dis- 
 pensations — the same into which God did, by positive law, put believers 
 and their children. 
 
 I have already exhibited more evidence of the identity of the church, 
 than can be produced to show the identity of the commonwealth of Ken- 
 tucky during the last forty years. But I have much more yet to produce. 
 — [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. Campbell's first reply.] 
 
 Monday, Nov. 20—11 o'clock, A. M. 
 Mr. President — You doubtless perceive a great difference in the posi- 
 tions we occupy this morning. The laboring oar has at length fallen into 
 the hands of my former respondent. He has something to prove to-day ; 
 and that, too, before an English audience and in the English language. 
 
286 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The jury are therefore more competent to decide on the issue, the argu- 
 ments, and the proof, than when the subject was partially, at least, en- 
 veloped in the mists of Greek and Latin dissertations. 
 
 It was fortunate for my friend, that his hour had almost expired when 
 he sat down. Ten minutes more, sir, and we should have heard every 
 argument, save one or two, which we may expect to hear from him on 
 this proposition. If we have been able to separate them, he has already 
 given the materials of some fifteen or twenty, such as they are. There 
 remains but one or two more to be heard from. I predict, we shall have 
 little more that will be new to the end of this question. 
 
 It is all important, sir, as you well know, to make few points, to con- 
 centrate the mind upon them, and to fortify them well with documentary 
 proof. A multiplicity of matters confusedly thrown together, is neither 
 so edifying nor so convincing as a few well selected and digested argu- 
 ments properly arranged and fully elaborated. Without a distinct and 
 methodical arrangement, we might argue for years and prove nothing sat- 
 isfactorily. 
 
 I feel particularly happy, that I stand in the midst of more than a hun- 
 dred ministers who appreciate what I now say, and whose experience 
 proves the importance, nay, the indispensable necessity, of fixing the 
 mind upon one subject at a time, and prosecuting it till fully discussed, 
 before a .final dismissal of it. 
 
 He first informed us, that this was a more important proposition than 
 that which we have just discussed. I do not compare atoms with the 
 universe, nor moments with eternity. All things commanded by God are 
 equally important to be observed, so far as Divine authority is regarded ; 
 for he that said, " thou shalt not kill," " thou shalt not steal," said also, 
 " repent and be baptized, every one of you." The authority of the lan- 
 guage, being contemplated, he that keeps the whole law, omitting one 
 point, is guilty of disparaging the whole law. He is, therefore, said to 
 be guilty of all. A proper regard to the subjects of baptism, humanly 
 speaking, is more important to the church ; inasmuch as the introduction 
 of infant baptism has served greatly to corrupt it by admitting all the 
 world into it. The operation and tendency of infant baptism, is to bring 
 all that are born of the flesh, without being born of the Spirit, into the 
 church ; consequently, to make the doors of the church as wide as the 
 doors of the world. Indeed, for hundreds of years, it has in many 
 nations brought the whole population nominally into the church ; and has, 
 therefore, obliterated all the land-marks between the church of Christ and 
 the kingdom of Satan. The visible and nominal church of Christ, as it 
 is sometimes designated, is thus filled with a mass of ignorance, a mere 
 assemblage of flesh, and blood, and bones. It was in this view of the 
 matter, this introduction of the uncircumcised in heart and life into the 
 professed family of God, that gave to Daniel those fearful types of its 
 corruption — the savage monsters, true symbols, indeed, of Babylon, the 
 great mother of harlotry and abominations. Nothing, I presume, tended 
 more effectually to mix up the church and the world, to confound the spi- 
 ritual with the natural, than the introduction of millions of babes into it, 
 by the operation of the regenerating process of infant baptism. 
 
 The gentleman told you of a majority of a thousand to one, that were, 
 as he supposed, at one time with him on his side of the former question. 
 He is now about to show you how he got that majority. The true ma- 
 jority was, however, fearfully against him. But he has a majority with 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 287 
 
 him on this question, I confess — a great majority. But you will see how 
 he has got that majority — just as the ancient Jews and modern Turks 
 obtain a majority for circumcision. Truth with me is truth, whether 
 believed by one or one million. The largest majority on earth would not 
 make transubstantiation true, nor any other falsehood in the universe. 
 In religious affairs, the majority of mankind, since the days of Noah, has 
 always been wrong. I never quote a majority as a test of truth. With 
 me they are but an argumentum ad hominem — an argument to them 
 who go for majorities. The majority of the world, with shame be it 
 spoken to christians — the majority of the world are pagans: Triad the 
 majority on the former question, he will have the majority on this. The 
 argument was as good on the last as on the present proposition, and no 
 better. So far, then, the truth must rest upon other evidence than the 
 suffrage of an untaught, unthinking, fickle multitude — a multitude that 
 to-day would make Jesus a king, and to-morrow would crucify him. 
 
 To the law and to the testimony, then, we go. We will take with us 
 in this case also, the Presbyterian confession of faith, so far as the capital 
 truth is stated, — " Baptism is a sacrament (ordinance we call it) of the 
 New Testament." To the New Testament, then, we must look for a 
 precept, or a precedent, for infant baptism. But who ever saw one there ! 
 Comes it not, then, with an awkward grace, from a Presbyterian, after 
 affirming so important a truth, to abandon the New Testament in the de- 
 bate, and to haste away to Moses and father Abraham for proof of a 
 " sacrament of the New Testament !" I, however, affirm, with the con- 
 fession, that it is a New Testament ordinance, and consequently, to the 
 New Testament I am disposed to go to look for it. 
 
 In a very complimentary way, indeed, Mr. Rice read you the commis- 
 sion given for converting the nations : but after a very obscure remark or 
 two upon "discipling them," he very soon abandoned it and fled away into 
 the wilderness and to Mesopotamia, to Abraham and the law. I regret 
 that he did not break the seal of the commission ; that he was pleased to 
 read the envelope, and hand it over to me. I expected an hour, at least, 
 upon the commission, especially as that was the only document relied on 
 from the New Testament. He said, indeed, what we all know, that 
 Jesus commanded his apostles to make disciples, baptizing them. He 
 expected me to assent to this view of the matter. Certainly, I do ; but 
 not with his emendation added to it, by only baptizing them. Do I un- 
 derstand him as intimating that baptizing them resembles marking or 
 branding sheep or cattle ? From all the development he has yet given, I 
 would suppose this to be his meaning. He makes disciples first, and 
 teaches them afterwards — that is, he baptizes them in his way, before 
 they have one idea, and then enlightens them. St. Xavier seems to have 
 been his beau-ideal of an enlightened minister, acting under the sanction of 
 the commission. In order to replenish the church of Rome, by way of 
 compensation for the loss sustained by the Lutheran defection, he became 
 a missionary to Central America. He chose the Mexican Indians for the 
 special field of his benevolent operations. And, like my friend, anxious 
 to disciple the Indians, he had them sometimes allured and sometimes 
 driven up into large companies, and by some kind of a squirt or huge 
 sprinkler, dipped into a large basin of holy water, he scattered it over 
 hundreds in a group, in the name of the Trinity. In this way he disci- 
 pled about a million of them in the space of a few years, at least he so 
 reported the matter to the pope ; and for the great travels, and labors, 
 
288 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OP BAPTISM. 
 
 and eminent success in discipline the American Indians, he was canonized 
 at St. Peter's, and is known among the worthies as Saint Xavier. Mr. 
 Rice, then, and the Saint, it seems, concur in opinion on the proper im- 
 port of the words disciple them. 
 
 I should wish to begin with my friend somewhere, if I could only find 
 him, either in the commission or in some other place ; but he treads so 
 lightly upon the ashes as if he feared the embers, that I know not where 
 to find him. There appeared some policy in the scattering remarks which 
 he gave us. It seems he designed to plunge into the olden times of the 
 Abrahamic covenants, and yet he wished to say something about the New 
 Testament for the sake of appearances. He needed a mark or a sign, to 
 inscribe on his banners, and found it, at last, in the fleshly mark of cir- 
 cumcision. Well, so let it be. Every one in this free country, has a 
 right to choose his mode of defence. Circumcision was a door into the 
 Abrahamic church ; and hence we must have doors into all churches and 
 dispensations. 
 
 I must, however, demur at his commencement of the church at so late 
 a period. Abraham was born, according to the Old Testament Hebrew 
 chronology, in the year of the world 2008, and was called out of Urr of 
 Chaldea in the year 2083, and circumcision was not given till twenty- 
 five years later — till 2108. Now the question which I propound to the 
 audience, and to Mr. R. especially, in accordance, I presume, with a com- 
 mon sense of propriety, is — -Was there no church of God, in his sense 
 of the phrase, during the first 2108 years of the world; and if so, 
 what was the door into it ? I shall expect an explicit answer to this 
 question. If the church of God, as he argues, was virtually the same in 
 all ages, were infants members of it for the first 2000 years ? and if so, 
 by what door did they enter? 
 
 He seems to touch circumcision very delicately. I wonder not at this. 
 Light has gone forth on that subject, and Pedo-baptists know it is a deli- 
 cate point. Yet, still it is indispensable to the plea. Take that away, 
 and infant baptism is immediately defunct. He must have, therefore, 
 circumcision somewhere in the argument. I hope, indeed, to drive it 
 wholly out of his head, and yours, my fellow-citizens, if it have any 
 lodgment there, before we close this discussion. 
 
 There are three prominent grounds of defence of infant baptism : 1st. 
 The Romanish ground of oral ecclesiastic tradition ; 2d. The proselyte 
 baptism of the Jews; and 3d. Circumcision, or the identity of the Jew- 
 ish commonwealth and the church of Christ. The first is the foundation 
 of infant baptism. The Roman bishop of Philadelphia, in a recent work, 
 in which he does me some honor, fully sustains the ground of papal tra- 
 dition. The church of England, according to Dr. Wall, frequently founds 
 it upon Jewish proselyte baptism, one of the most baseless figments in 
 Christendom, born in the Mishna, or rather, the Talmuds, since the 
 christian era. John Calvin took the ground of circumcision, and has 
 been closely followed by the Scotch Presbyterians and their liege Ameri- 
 can sons. 
 
 Bishop Kendrick, in his work on baptism, ably sustains his position — 
 ecclesiastic tradition. He candidly concedes that infant baptism, or infant 
 affusion, is not found in the apostolic writings. It has not one word 
 of authority from the New Testament. But theprimitive fathers got it 
 orally from St. Papias, or St. Somebody, who had heard some other St. 
 Somebody say that he heard one, who had heard the apostles declare it. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 289 
 
 The pope and his councils have sanctioned the affair, and that is plenipo- 
 tentiary authority to satisfy every sound, liege, unthinking Romanist in 
 the four quarters of the world. 
 
 i Dr. Wall had rather make a god-father out of some of the Jews, than 
 of any auditor of the apostles, and strongly makes it appear, that not from 
 heaven, but from men came infant baptism. A learned Pedo-baptist, not 
 a hundred miles from this house, has taken it into his head to give a new 
 volume on baptism, and he, (Rev. W. Hendricks,) I think, has followed 
 Wall in his phantasies about Jewish washings of proselytes. Mr. Rice, 
 however, has read Stuart, and with him, it seems, makes no account of 
 proselyte baptism. He takes circumcision — alias, the identity of some- 
 thing called the Jewish church, with the Christian. Still he does not 
 wish to appear as though he leaned much on circumcision. That is, 
 however, his whole basis ; because of what account is identity, unless 
 what he calls Jewish infant-membership, is not the plea for christian in- 
 fant-membership ! ! Without farther preamble, then, I must follow the 
 gentleman, not all at once, indeed, into all the amplitude of his compre- 
 hensive speech, but into the essence and main point of it. I shall then 
 begin where he began, and trace his remarks upon the Abrahamic institu- 
 tion. While, with brevity, I shall attempt this, I hope not to sacrifice 
 perspicuity in my attempts to condense my views and reasonings on so 
 large a field. I shall only farther premise, that no man can well under- 
 stand the New Testament who is not profoundly read in the five books 
 of Moses. Certainly, without that knowledge, he is not fit to be a teacher 
 of the christian religion. Before the gospels and the Acts of the apostles 
 were written, the five books of Moses were the most valuable documents 
 on earth. Had 1 to choose between them and all the books of the most 
 hoary antiquity; nay, between them and all the writings of the whole pa- 
 gan world, in all time, and all other records of all past times, I would not 
 hesitate a moment in seizing Moses in preference to them all. No man 
 (I am sorry to have to make the remark) who understands the pentateuch, 
 will apply any portions of it as you have. heard this morning. 
 
 Allow me, then, to give a brief sketch of the whole scheme of the Abra- 
 hamic institution :■ — When Cod called Abraham, he gave him tivo prom- 
 ises of an essentially different import and character. The first was per- 
 sonal and familiar; the second, spiritual and universal ; in other words — 
 the first had respect to Abraham and his natural descendants, according to 
 the flesh ; the latter had respect to the Messiah and all his people. Two 
 covenants, sometimes called two testaments, old and new, and two schemes 
 of Divine government and special providence, are founded on these two 
 promises. The whole Bible grows out of these two promises ; and is but 
 a development of them. The whole Jewish nation, with all its peculiari- 
 ties, grew out of the first; the whole christian church, out of the second. 
 The words are as follows — " I will make of thee a great nation, and I 
 will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing; 
 and I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse him that curse th 
 thee." So reads the first promise, personal and familiar ; that is, a pro- 
 mise of a nation in his own family, to be placed under a peculiar provi- 
 dence, extending so far as to bless and curse individuals and nations for 
 their treatment of Abraham's people. The second promise is-—" And in 
 thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This blessing is spirit- 
 ual and eternal. Paul regarded it as the gospel in embryo. He preached 
 the gospel to the descendants of Abraham, saying — il In thee, or in thy 
 19 2B 
 
290 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 seed, shall all the families (i. e. nations) of the earth be blessed." These 
 two promises, one for a nation, and one for all nations ; — one for fleshly, 
 and one for spiritual blessings — one for a time, the other for all time and 
 for eternity too, embrace within them the entire destinies of humanity. The 
 universal history of man is but a development of the import of these two 
 most sublimely comprehensive promises. They are the fountains of two 
 streams of promises, prophecies, and histories, which, from that moment, 
 began to flow, and whose waters meander through all ages, and disem- 
 bogue themselves at last into the vast ocean of eternity. Never were so 
 many promises uttered, so many prophecies sketched, so many histo- 
 ries written in one short period, since language was instituted, as are 
 couched in those momentous words, pregnant with the fates and fortunes 
 of all time. 
 
 From that moment a single family of two branches constitutes the me- 
 ridian line of all revelation, of all developments. I shall endeavor to keep 
 these two from becoming one — from being confounded, in this discussion. 
 By keeping these two, the Bible is all intelligible ; by making them one, 
 no man can understand the Old Testament or New. By this key of inter- 
 pretation, all covenants, promises, laws, ordinances, principles, promises, 
 dispensations, &c. &c. are to be interpreted, understood and applied. 
 Emanating from these, the fleshly and the spiritual, the temporal and the 
 eternal, the rational and the animal, the earthly and the heavenly, all 
 Biblical matters are easily adjusted and reconciled. 
 
 The distinction of Jew and Gentile is conceived in these two pre- 
 mises. The Jew stands for Abraham's nation. The Gentile is always 
 a cosmopolite — a citizen of any nation. The Gentiles, or the nations, 
 on the one side, and the Jews on the other, are here first placed in com- 
 parison and contrast. But, after being, for a time, severed by a special 
 providence, a portion of both meet in the Messiah, by a mystic tie, and 
 become one in him ; in whom " there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond 
 nor free, male nor female" — we are all one in the one seed of Abraham. 
 For, says Paul, " He speaks not of seeds as of many, but as of one; that 
 is, the Messiah." I earnestly hope that my Presbyterian friends, for 
 whom I entertain a very high respect for the sake of old times, will give 
 due attention to these considerations ; for indeed, I doubt not, should I be 
 permitted in this discussion to draw that grand line as I ought, all persons 
 of candor and intelligence will approve and admire the grandeur of the 
 developments emanating from so simple, yet so comprehensive a con- 
 ception. 
 
 That these two grand germs of blessings, planted in the person of Abra- 
 ham, have grown up into different covenants and dispensations, still 
 retaining the original characteristic idea, is clearly stated and propounded 
 to us by prophets and apostles. Paul, to the Romans, says, chap. ix. 4, 
 " To the Israelites pertain the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, 
 and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" 
 There are, then, a plurality of covenants with Abraham, and a plurality 
 of covenants with the seed of Abraham. The two grand covenants, 
 however, one from Sinai and one from Jerusalem, or the old covenant 
 and the new, are the two complete developments of the promises made; 
 Gen. xii. 3, before quoted. 
 
 Comprehensive and concentrated views of the great principles of 
 things, are regarded as the most felicitous developments of mind. Hence 
 minds are sometimes graduated upon the scale of their ability to attain 3 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 291 
 
 comprehensive simplicity, both in conception and expression. The Bible 
 abounds with examples of this sort, and we ought to acquire, as far as 
 possible, a taste for them, and a proficiency in the application of them. 
 The great masters of modern science have devoted themselves to this 
 work of simplification and classification ; and to their successful labors 
 are we chiefly indebted for the great improvement and advancement 
 of the sciences of the present day. We need a simpler application of 
 mind to the things of revelation ; not to the origination of a new nomen- 
 clature, or a new classification, but to the discovery, development, and 
 application of that, furnished us by the inspired authors of the Bible. 
 We shall, then, in the first place,, take up the first promise to Abraham, 
 and briefly trace the covenants growing out of it. 
 
 The first is developed in the 15th of Genesis. It is a covenant con- 
 cerning the inheritance of Canaan. Sometime after these two promises, 
 given to Abraham while yet in Chaldea — when he was in the land of Ca- 
 naan, at Moreh, the Lord appeared to him and promised him that land. 
 Some years after, on a certain occasion, Abraham asked the Lord, where- 
 by shall I know (be assured,) that I shall inherit this land. The Lord 
 commanded him to prepare a splendid sacrifice of all clean birds and 
 quadrupeds, and at even the Lord met with him at the altar, and while a 
 burning lamp passed between the severed animals, the Lord revealed the 
 fortunes of his family for the next four hundred years ; and made a cove- 
 nant with him, securing to him and his fleshly seed, the whole land from 
 the borders of the Nile to the Euphrates — a district of country then pos- 
 sessed by some ten nations. The details of this whole transaction are 
 recorded, Gen. xv., in the words following: "Take me an heifer of three 
 years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years 
 old, and a turtle dove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all 
 these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against ano- 
 ther ; but the birds divided he not. And it came to pass that, when the 
 sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a burn- 
 ing lamp that passed between those pieces." Then the Lord solemnly 
 grants, in passing between the parts of the sacrifice, to Abraham and his 
 seed, the inheritance of the land — saying, " Unto thy seed have I given 
 this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river — the river Eu- 
 phrates." 
 
 Not long after these transactions, Abraham having, at Sarah's bidding, 
 taken to wife Hagar, an Egyptian maid, her slave, had a son by her 
 called Ishmael. This slave-wife of Abraham, and her slave-son, Ishmael, 
 become allegoric characters in after times, and it is important that Ave 
 notice them here. But the time drawing nigh, when the promised son 
 by Sarah, the free woman and wife proper of Abraham, should be born, 
 in order that this issue by Sarah might be contradistinguished from that 
 by Hagar, God was pleased to command Abraham to prepare for another 
 covenant. This next covenant, growing out of the first promise, is made 
 especially for the sake of ascertaining, by a fleshly mark, the natural off- 
 spring of Abraham, and guarantying to them the parental blessings, con- 
 veyed to Abraham by the covenant concerning the inheritance, and also 
 as to the time of its institution, one year before the birth of Isaac : it 
 occasioned a remarkable difference between Ishmael and Isaac, though 
 sons of the same parent — the former being the son of his uncircumcis- 
 ion, the latter of his circumcision ; though both circumcised themselves, 
 Ishmael in his thirteenth year, and Isaac on the eighth day. This cove* 
 
292 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 nant has in it no new specification. In the preamble to it, God reminds 
 Abraham of all that he had promised and covenanted to him, concerning 
 his own special family. He calls him Abraham, instead of Abram ; for 
 a " Father of many nations have I made thee, and I will make thee exceed- 
 ingly fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out 
 of thee. And I will establish my covenant between thee and me, and thy 
 seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a 
 God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee ; and I will give unto thee, and 
 to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger — all the land 
 of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." Then 
 he proceeds on these promises to enact, what Stephen calls " The cove- 
 nant of circumcision." " Thou shait keep my covenant, therefore, thou 
 and thy seed after thee, in their generations. Every man-child among 
 you shall be circumcised, and you shall circumcise the flesh of your fore- 
 skins, and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. He 
 that is eight days old, &c, every man-child born in thy house, or bought 
 with thy money, must needs be circumcised ; and my covenant shall be 
 in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man- 
 child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be 
 cut off from his people. He hath broken my covenant." In this cove- 
 nant, then, is a further development of the second promise concerning the 
 natural descendants of Abraham. 
 
 The second promise concerning the Messiah is no farther developed 
 during the whole Jewish dispensation. It is, indeed, repeated to Isaac, 
 and to Jacob, and confirmed by an oath at the virtual sacrifice of Isaac — 
 and is called by Paul "the covenant confirmed by God (eis) concerning 
 the Christ, made four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the 
 law." 
 
 We have now got the covenant concerning Christ, and two covenants 
 based on the first promise. There is yet wanting a third covenant, or the 
 fuller development and engrossment of all that is contained in the first 
 promise, Gen. xii., as drawn out in that concerning the inheritance, and 
 in that concerning circumcision. This is not done till after the Exodus ; 
 till the giving of the law, four hundred and thirty years after the calling 
 of Abraham. Then it is all proposed to the twelve tribes, amounting to 
 about three millions, having six hundred thousand men of war. It is 
 now, with certain developments, thrown into a new form, proposed to the 
 people, accepted by them, and ratified with bloody sacrifices. 
 
 To sum up the whole, the two promises tendered to Abraham at the 
 time of his being called, while he was yet in Urr, of Chaldea, and de- 
 pending on which he consented to leave his own country, and become a 
 voluntary pilgrim for life, constitute the basis of two great institutions. 
 The first promise is developed in the covenant concerning the inheritance, 
 some ten or twelve years after he had become a pilgrim. The covenant 
 of circumcision was instituted twenty-four years after — and the Sinai 
 covenant, or great national development, embracing all these other devel- 
 opments, was sealed four hundred and thirty years after the time of these 
 two promises. 
 
 The second promise, containing the spiritual blessing of the gentiles 
 of all nations in Christ, is denominated by Paul, Gal. hi., "The covenant 
 confirmed by God concerning Christ, four hundred and thirty years before 
 the law." They are then dated as well as named. They are arrang- 
 ed as follows — The covenant concerning Christ was confirmed Anno 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 293 
 
 Mundi 2183, in the seventy-fifth year of Abraham. That concerning 
 circumcision, Anno Mundi 2107, in the ninety-ninth of Abraham. The 
 covenant at Sinai was ratified immediately after the Exodus, Anno Mun- 
 di 2513. Now, these facts being indisputably true, the christian cove- 
 nant, which was developed according to the prophecy of Jer. xxxi. 31, 
 re-written Heb. viii. 8 — 13, was not based upon, nor is it identical with, 
 either the covenant of circumcision, nor with the old covenant made 
 with all Israel at Horeb. 
 
 That the national covenant and organization at Sinai, grew out of 
 the preceding covenants, appears from the following testimonies — and as 
 much depends on the clear understanding of this matter, we shall read a 
 passage from Exodus vi. 4 — 8 : " I have established my covenant with 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of 
 their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. I have also heard the 
 groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, 
 and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore, say unto the children 
 of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the bon- 
 dage of the Egyptians — and I will take you unto me for a people, and 
 I will be to you a God — and I will bring you unto the land, concerning 
 which I did swear to give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give 
 it to you for an heritage. I am the Lord." 
 
 Mr. Rice will have the covenant at Sinai, and the proceedings there- 
 upon, a church organization; although, in the whole transaction, there 
 is not one word about the Messiah, or the blessing of the nations in him. 
 Nay, indeed, Paul contrasts the whole affair with the ministration of the 
 Gospel and the christian church, 2 Cor. iii. But of this again. Mean- 
 time, after all the solemn preparations recorded in Exod. xix. and xx.. 
 the nation was organized, and immediately was added to the covenant, 
 written and engraven on stones, a judicial law, for the management of 
 their national affairs, with a symbolic ceremonial, prospective of a better 
 covenant and a more spiritual dispensation. 
 
 It is important to observe, that circumcision was appended to the insti- 
 tution, and incorporated with it. It was taken, as it were, from the hand 
 of Abraham, and put into the hands of Moses. It becomes a national 
 from a patriarchal affair. Our Lord says, " Moses gave you not circum- 
 cision ; yet you circumcise a child on the Sabbath day, (part of the law 
 of Moses,) that the law of Moses may not be broken ; that is, that cir- 
 cumcision may be performed according to the law." But again, Ex. 
 xiii. 48, speaking of the law of the passover, it is enacted that circumci- 
 sion be imposed upon all persons identifying themselves with the Jewish 
 nation, in order to a participation of the ordinances commemorative of a 
 national salvation. " One law, says the Lord," concerning the institution 
 of circumcision, "shall be to him that is home born, and to the stranger 
 that sojourneth among you." Here, then, is circumcision, as enacted by 
 Moses. But if any one want still fuller and clearer legislation on this sub- 
 ject, he may find it in Leviticus xii. 3, " And in the eighth day the flesh 
 of his foreskin shall be circumcised." Indeed the New Testament contem- 
 plates it as a part of the Jewish law. Acts xv. 1. " And certain men came 
 down from Judea, and taught the brethren : Except ye be circumcised 
 after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved." Evident then, it is, 
 that circumcision had become a part of this ceremonial of Moses, and 
 was identified with his institution, as much part and parcel of it, as was 
 the passover that also occurred before the organization at Mount Sinai. 
 
 1 2b2 
 
294 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 That covenant, need I add, was sealed with the blood of sin-offerings. 
 M For as," Paul says, " when Moses had spoken every precept to the 
 people, according to the law, he took the blood of bulls and of goats, with 
 water, and scarlet wool, and hysop, saying ; this is the blood of the cov- 
 enant which God has enjoined upon you." Of that national institution, 
 not circumcision, but the blood of sin-offerings, was the seal. 
 
 Thus was consummated the national organization, and the promises to 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning this inheritance, and also the bles- 
 sings in the first promise, were now engrossed in it. God was now 
 known not only as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; but the "God 
 of the Hebrews" also. Let me observe, emphatically, that from thai day 
 to the destruction of Jerusalem and the repudiation of that nation, no 
 other compact, covenant, or law, was given them ; and all the special 
 favors of having God for their God were manifested while they kept his 
 law. 
 
 Jeremiah promised a new covenant, as aforesaid, having in it four spi- 
 ritual blessings, comprehensive of the whole evangelical dispensation of 
 mercy. To show that this is the only contrast of the first covenant, and 
 that the first general covenant was that at Mount Sinai ; the preamble to 
 the new evidently demonstrates — " I will make a new covenant with the 
 house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, saith the Lord. Not like 
 that which I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to 
 lead them out of the land of Egypt," &c. The second promise, or the 
 " covenant confirmed by God, concerning Christ, is, then, developed in 
 the new covenant, while that contained in the first promise was fully de- 
 veloped in the old covenant. And Paul says, " In that he saith a neiu 
 covenant, he maketh the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth 
 old, is ready to vanish away." We have, then, in this simple narrative 
 of these all-important transactions, fully, as we conceive, set forth the 
 whole scope and meaning of these two promises, with all the covenants 
 germinating from them. From which facts most important conclusions 
 are deducible, wholly subversive of the Pedo-baptist assumptions. 
 
 Nothing can be plainer in sacred history than that there are two gene- 
 ral covenants, growing out of two promises to Abraham. God's nation 
 built upon the one, and Christ's church upon the other. The one guar- 
 antying all manner of temporal benefits, under a special providence ; the 
 other, guarantying all spiritual and eternal blessings, under a mediato- 
 rial interposition. The one founded on flesh, the other on spirit; the 
 one received by sight and sense, the other by faith and hope. 
 
 Before we descend into the particular details of the subject, I desire 
 your attention specially to the precept of circumcision, as commented on 
 by Paul, Rom. iv. With this great master, in our Israel, circumcision, 
 in the person of Abraham, differed from circumcision in the person of 
 every other man. In his case it was both a sign and a seal. The lan- 
 guage is so peculiar, that no grammarian can misconceive it. And, says 
 Paul, he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
 of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised. Circumcision was 
 not a sign, but the sign — it was not the seal, but a seal. The former 
 style denotes a thing well defined and established — the latter, a special 
 occurrence. To all the Jews it was the sign ; to Abraham it was a seal — 
 a seal of what ? Of something which he had before circumcision. I 
 challenge a discussion of this point. It is the gist of the controversy 
 about circumcision. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 295 
 
 If there be not a demonstrable difference between " the righteousness 
 of faith," and "the righteousness of the faith which he had" — then 
 there is no appreciable difference between any two propositions on the 
 whole subject of faith. Circumcision was but the sign of a covenant to 
 the whole Jewish nation. It was the seal of the peculiar excellency, of 
 the extraordinary faith vouchsafed to Abraham. On this point I may, 
 perhaps, anticipate, in my turn, Mr. Rice. I do it, however, not in the 
 way of retaliation, but to apprise him of my course, that he may prepare 
 for a defence, on this much litigated case. I have never seen it fully 
 cleared up in any discussion. I hope we shall satisfactorily dispose of it 
 on the present occasion. I desire him, most sincerely, to make the best 
 effort that he can. I could, for public utility and satisfaction, wish that 
 my opponent possessed the most discursive and argumentative powers, 
 and the largest amount of information on the whole premises — that he 
 had all learning — all talents of this sort — that he might give the highest 
 satisfaction, and demonstrate that he neither needs nor calculates upon 
 quibbling, manoeuvring, or any expedients incompatible with conscious 
 strength, and christian dignity, and decorum. I concur with him, that a 
 more important question can scarcely be discussed in the present age. It 
 is of the utmost importance to humanity. I am astonished that any one 
 can contemplate the subject with indifference, or seek to slur it over from 
 public inspection and examination. It is the duty of all men to under- 
 stand this subject. It concerns the church, the state, the whole world, to 
 know what is true on a question that affects millions, by imposing on 
 them a religion, without a deed, or thought, or volition of their own. 
 Besides, if we could only root out this root of partyism, how much 
 would be achieved for the cause of suffering Christianity ! What advances 
 towards a harmonious concert and co-operation ! 
 
 I have some fifteen or sixteen facts on the subject of circumcision, in- 
 dicative of its general repugnance to any accommodation with Pedo-bap- 
 tist assumptions. They put it, methinks, wholly out of debate, as to 
 the feasibility of baptism coming in the room, or standing in the stead of 
 circumcision. I never heard so egregious a turn given to a phrase, as 
 that given to a clause of a sentence, in my first address on the last propo- 
 sition. I had, in speaking of its prominence in the christian system, ob- 
 served that baptism stands in -importance " as circumcision to a Jew, 
 hereditary descent to an English nobleman, or the elective franchise to an 
 American citizen." This, Mr. Rice, in his sometimes left-handed and 
 infelicitous ingenuity, converted into a proof that I held baptism as com- 
 ing in the room of circumcision ! ! Why did he not put it also in room 
 of the elective franchise, or hereditary descent to a nobleman ! ! I wonder 
 not at some comments on the new version, and on my other writings, by 
 this gentleman, who could in my presence commit so palpable an error. 
 I shall now proceed with my specifications. 
 
 1. Males only were the subjects of circumcision. All females were 
 excluded from the blessings, if blessings they were, in the sign of whose 
 flesh a man was clothed. I argue that there were no spiritual blessings 
 in circumcision, else females had not been at all excluded. The God of 
 Abraham never would, by a covenant seal, exclude them from spiritual 
 blessings — from any thing tending to their sanctification and salvation. 
 Baptism certainly has not come in the room of circumcision in this par- 
 ticular. 
 
 2. Adults circumcised themselves, at any age, whenever they took it 
 
296 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 into their heads to become Jews. Do children baptize themselves ? To 
 circumcise one's self was a very general practice on sundry occasions. 
 
 3. Infant males were to be circumcised the eighth day. Do they bap- 
 tize infants on the eighth day ? 
 
 4. Infants were circumcised by either parent, as the case may be. 
 You all remember the case of Zipporah ! Why then employ ministers 
 to baptize, if these are both seals of the same spiritual church covenant, 
 and if the churches, Jewish and Christian, be identical? 
 
 5. A Jew's property in a man or child constrained his circumcision. 
 Abraham's servants, adults and all, because his property, were circum- 
 cised. Three hundred and eighteen warriors belonged at one time to his 
 household. Why do not Presbyterians baptize all a man's slaves when 
 he joins the church, on the principle of identity ? 
 
 6. Circumcision was not the door into any church or religious institu- 
 tion. It was no initiatory rite to any moral institution. The Ishmaelites, 
 and Edomites, and many other nations by Keturah, were circumcised. 
 Into what church did they enter? The Jews were members of the 
 politico-ecclesiastico church by natural birth. Circumcision was no ini- 
 tiatory rite or door to them. But none can enter Christ's church unless 
 "born again," "born from above." How then are the two churches 
 identical ? 
 
 7. The qualification for circumcision was flesh. Is that the qualifica- 
 tion for baptism ? for admission into Christ's church? 
 
 8. Circumcision was not a dedicatory rite. Pedo-baptists talk much and. 
 often about dedicating their infant offspring to the Lord. Now under the 
 law, females were never dedicated, and of males none but the first born! 
 How righteous, over much, in dedicating both male and female ! The 
 Lord never asked this much from the Jews. But Pedo-baptist dedica- 
 tion is only nominal. Among the Jews it was real — bona fide dedica- 
 tion. Jesus Christ, being the first born, was dedicated. He was also 
 circumcised and baptized ; circumcised the eighth day at home, dedica- 
 ted the fortieth day in the temple, and baptized when thirty years old 
 in the Jordan. Are the churches identical here ? What singular identity ! 
 
 9. Circumcision, requiring no moral qualification, communicated no 
 spiritual blessings. Ishmael, Esau, and all the servants of the Jewish 
 nation, were circumcised on the faith of their masters. 
 
 10. Idiots were circumcised — for not even reason, intellect, or sanity 
 were qualifications — flesh only ! It was a covenent in the flesh, and went 
 for preserving the flesh till the Messiah was made of the seed of Abra- 
 ham and of David, according to the flesh. 
 
 11. It was a visible, appreciable mark, as all signs and seals are. Is 
 sprinkling so, or any use of water ? 
 
 12. It was binding on parents and not on children. The command- 
 ment was, "Circumcise your children." But the christian word is, " Be 
 baptized every one of you." No one ever found a precept in the New 
 Testament, commanding parents to baptize their children. Where there 
 is no law, there is no transgression : and where there is no precept, there 
 can be no obedience. There is, therefore, no transgression in the neg- 
 lect, nor obedience in the performance, of infant baptism. 
 
 13. The right to circumcision in no case depended upon the faith, the 
 piety, or the morality of parents. The infant of the most impious Jew, 
 had just as good a right to circumcision as the son of Abraham, David, or 
 Daniel. Why, then, do Pedo-baptists suspend the right to baptism upon 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 297 
 
 the faith of a father or grandfather, or some kinsman of the infant ? Does 
 their practice look like their faith in the substitution of baptism for circum- 
 cision, or in the identity of the two churches, the Jewish and the christian? 
 
 14. Circumcision, say our Pedo-baptist friends, guarantied certain tem- 
 poral blessings to the Jews. Query — What temporal blessings does bap- 
 tism secure to infants ? 
 
 15. It was not to be performed into the name of any being whatever, 
 neither in heaven nor on earth. Why, then, baptize or sprinkle into any 
 name, if the latter fills the place of the former ? 
 
 16. The subject of circumcision, was a debtor to keep the law of 
 Moses in all its institutions : for, says Paul, " Whosoever among you 
 is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law," of which, as before 
 shown, circumcision was a part. Query — Are those infants baptized, 
 debtors to keep all the Jewish ordinances ? If not, how does baptism fill 
 the place of circumcision ? 
 
 These sixteen indisputable facts show — that circumcision was peculiar 
 in its nature, character, and designs — that it was the sign of a national 
 covenant- — that it was the sign of the same privilege to all its subjects ; 
 and, consequently, never the sign of any spiritual blessing in Christ to 
 any one of them. 
 
 That the covenant of which it was a sign was not the covenant of the 
 christian church, will appear most evident from a fact which I will just 
 now state, viz : that some eight hundred years after its establishment, 
 Jeremiah foretold that it should be abolished, and that God would make 
 a new covenant, and instead of writing his new laws upon marble or 
 upon parchment, he would write them upon the hearts of his people. 
 The words are : — " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will 
 make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of 
 Juclah. Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers 
 in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of 
 Egypt. (Which my covenant they break, although I was a husband to 
 them, saith the Lord.) But this shall be the covenant which I will make 
 with the house of Israel. After those days, I will put my law in their 
 inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God and they 
 shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neigh- 
 bor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for all shall 
 know me, from the least to the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will 
 forgive their iniquity and remember their sins no more." — [Time expired. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 20 — ll£ o'clock, A. M. 
 
 l_MR. RICE'S SECOND ADDRESS. 3 
 
 Mr. President— I have no objection to holding the laboring oar, or to 
 have something to prove. Many very intelligent persons thought that I 
 proved something, even when the laboring oar was in the gentleman's 
 hand ; and, perhaps, I may now accomplish even more than before. I 
 despair, however, of pleasing him. I find it impossible to travel at a gait 
 that will suit him : I am always either too fast or too slow — generally 
 too fast. I must be permitted, in this matter, to pursue my own course ; 
 and I shall cheerfully leave him to pursue his. If, however, I should 
 still be far in advance of him, I will often return to pay him my compli- 
 ments. I venture to say, that I shall be with him as often as he wishes 
 to see me. When I passed on before him in the argument on the mode, 
 he gave me warning, that he should probably soon have the same advan- 
 
298 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 tage of me ; but at the very outset, he is again complaining. Well, I 
 cannot help it. 
 
 Infant baptism, the gentleman believes, has done more to corrupt the 
 church, than all things else. Did you not ' hear on Saturday evening, 
 how eloquently he spoke of "the sacramental host" — the innumerable 
 multitudes of immersionists of olden time, in whose footsteps he was 
 journeying on to a better world 1 Alas ! the great majority of them 
 were baptized in infancy ! From the earliest period to which the history 
 of the church can take us back, infant baptism prevailed universally. If 
 we subtract from the immersionist ranks, all who experienced the sad 
 consequences of being baptized in infancy, his sacramental host dwindles 
 to a very small company. On the other evening, whilst he contemplated 
 them as immersionists, they seemed to his imagination a host of saints 
 and martyrs ; but now they are with us most fully, and they appear, in 
 his eyes, sadly, deplorably corrupt ! ! ! 
 
 But it is vain to reason against indisputable facts. The baptism of 
 infants has been practiced in our country by Congregationalists, Presby- 
 terians and others, for more than two centuries ; and during a much longer 
 period in Scotland and other countries. Now, I ask this intelligent audi- 
 ence, are not the Pedo-baptist churches, that take the Bible as their only 
 rule of faith, as moral, as upright, as virtuous, as pure in their lives, and, 
 so far as man can judge, as pious, as those of the anti-Pedo-baptists ? 
 Where is the corruption which, according to the gentleman's logic, must 
 have flowed like a torrent into our churches ? I am more than willing to 
 compare the Presbyterian church with his ; and in the comparison, his 
 would have this great advantage ; that, being only about sixteen years of 
 age, (!) it has had scarcely time to lose its first love, or to lose any 
 portion of the virtue originally belonging to it. And now I assert, (and 
 those who hear me will bear me witness,) that the Presbyterian church, 
 and the other Pedo-baptist churches that take the Scriptures as their in- 
 fallible guide, are as moral, as religious, in every respect as pure and 
 pious, as any anti-Pedo-baptist church on earth. Where, then, is the 
 corruption of which the baptism of infants is the prolific cause ? The 
 cause has been operating in our own country more than two centuries ; 
 but the effect has not appeared. Is it not, then, evident that the gentleman, 
 under the influence of strong prejudices, has fallen into the error so com- 
 mon among men, of ascribing to things they dislike, tendencies which 
 they do not possess ? 
 
 You heard, whilst we were discussing the mode of baptism, with what 
 pleasure the gentleman counted the number of immersionists. To-day, 
 however, he has quite a distaste for that mode of reasoning ! Eckius, the 
 Roman priest, he tells us, boasted of number whilst the world was against 
 Luther. The comparison, however, is unfortunate ; for, in the first 
 place, it was not true that the whole christian world was with Eckius. 
 During the first five centuries of the christian era, the church, though be- 
 coming gradually corrupt, did not become papists ; and in the second 
 place, the assertion of Eckius was true only of those who did not search 
 the Scriptures, and take them as their infallible guide. Luther was an in- 
 strument in the hands of God, in commencing a glorious reformation, at 
 a period when it might be emphatically said, " darkness covered the earth, 
 and gross darkness the people ;" when the Bible was almost unknown, 
 and the people were not permitted to read it for themselves. It is the pe- 
 culiar prerogative of Mr. Campbell to have commenced a radical reforma- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 299 
 
 tion, at a time when the Bible, untrammeled by note or comment, is in 
 the hands of the people, and to proclaim to vast multitudes of the most 
 devout readers and students of that plain book, that they have utterly 
 failed to understand its fundamental doctrines ! ! ! This reformation, me- 
 thinks, will hereafter be regarded as one of the most singular in its 
 character, and the most absurd in its pretensions, that history records — a 
 general, radical reformation of churches, whose ministers and members 
 make the Bible their daily and prayerful study, and who, in their lives, 
 exhibit the spirit of that blessed book quite as fully, to say the least, as 
 they who would reform them ! 
 
 The gentleman tells us, that we cannot understand the New Testa- 
 ment without consulting the Old ; and yet he finds fault with me because 
 I have appealed to it ! Baptism, it is true, is a sacrament of the New 
 Testament; but connected with the subject before us, there are two dis- 
 tinct questions, viz : 1. What persons are entitled to membership in the 
 church of Christ? and, 2. By what ordinance must they be introduced? 
 I do not go to the Old Testament to ascertain, whether persons are to en- 
 ter the church by circumcision or by baptism. I appeal to the Old Tes- 
 tament, in part, to ascertain who has a right to membership in the church ; 
 and I appeal to the New Testament to determine by what ordinance they 
 are to be recognized as members. If you wish to ascertain to whom the 
 rights of citizenship in these United States, belong ; you do not go to the 
 transactions of the last congress. You go back to the organization of the 
 government and the adoption of the constitution; and if the last or any 
 preceding congress has changed the forms of recognizing those rights, 
 you will appeal to the latest enactments on that subject to learn what those 
 forms are. And so I go to the organization of the church — the period 
 when the law of membership was passed — to ascertain who are to be ad- 
 mitted as members, and to the new dispensation to learn by what rite 
 or ordinance they are to enter. If in this there is any absurdity, the gen- 
 tleman is welcome to expose it. 
 
 He agrees with me, that the commission required the apostles to go 
 and make disciples by baptizing and teaching ; but he insists, that he does 
 not make disciples as I do. That is likely enough ; but I make them, so 
 far as human instrumentality is concerned, by baptizing and teaching ; 
 and if he makes them in any other way, he does not act according to the 
 commission. With the errors and superstitions of Xavier we have no 
 concern. 
 
 He tells the audience, that I went back to Abraham only to get the 
 mark. This is a mistake. I went to Abraham, as every intelligent and 
 attentive hearer saw, for the purpose of finding the church and the law of 
 membership. I care not, so far as the defence of infant-baptism is con- 
 cerned, whether baptism did, or did not come in the place of circumci- 
 sion. His fifteen arguments I may notice in passing. I had informed 
 him, that I cared not whether baptism came instead of circumcision ; and 
 I will show the audience, that my argument does not at all depend upon 
 establishing that fact. I prove, that infants have the right to a place in the 
 church ; and the conclusion is inevitable, that they have a right to enter 
 by the door. Whether it is in the same side of the building as formerly, 
 is of little importance. But his fifteen arguments were in his speech, 
 and, like the lawyer, he must speak them ! 
 
 The papists, he informs us, do not profess to find infant-baptism in the 
 Bible ; and he quotes a certain popish writer to that effect. The church 
 
300 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of Rome, however, does not make this admission. I have several ser- 
 mons delivered on the subject of infant-baptism by bishop Kenrick, of 
 Philadelphia, and published with the approbation of bishop Flaget, of 
 Louisville, in which the doctrine is defended at considerable length by the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Dr. Wall, too, he informs us, does not undertake to prove this doctrine 
 by the Scriptures, but relies for its defence on Jewish proselyte baptism. 
 Dr. Wall undertook simply to write the history of infant-baptism, not to 
 go at length into the Bible argument in support of it. Yet he did very 
 repeatedly appeal to the Scriptures in the progress of his history, as clearly 
 teaching the doctrine. As to the Jewish proselyte baptism, I am not par- 
 ticularly concerned about it. I can and will prove the doctrine for which 
 I am contending, independently of that source of evidence. Yet it will 
 require, I think, something more than the mere assertion of the gentleman 
 to disprove a fact which has so generally commanded the belief of the 
 most learned men. 
 
 He repeats the declaration, that Calvin claimed the right to change the 
 ordinances of the church. I regret, that he cannot be induced to give us 
 Calvin's language — to let him speak for himself. Until he will do so, I 
 shall pass his assertions without particular notice. 
 
 We come now to notice the main point in his speech. He tells us, 
 that God made to Abraham two promises, and formed with him two cov- 
 enants. I am curious to know where he finds in the Scriptures a plural- 
 ity of covenants with Abraham. I read of the covenant with Abraham ; 
 but I find no mention of the covenants (in the plural.) It is true, Paul, in 
 the Epistle to the Romans, speaks of "the covenants of promise;" but 
 unfortunately for the gentleman, he does not say, that these covenants 
 were made with Abraham. It is admitted, that God made to Abraham 
 several promises ; but this affords no evidence of a plurality of covenants ; 
 for who does not know, that one covenant may embrace a number of dis- 
 tinct promises ? The gospel contains a number of promises ; and if 
 there must be a distinct covenant for every promise, it contains quite a 
 number of covenants ! When the gentleman proves, that God made with 
 Abraham two covenants ; I will prove, that our Savior has made with 
 his church half a dozen I 
 
 In the 12th chapter of Genesis, we find several promises made to 
 Abraham, but not ratified in the form of a covenant. In the 15th, we find 
 the promises repeated, but still not ratified by any seal to be applied 
 to Abraham and his posterity. In the 17th, we find the same promises 
 again repeated, and ratified in the form of a covenant, of which circum- 
 cision was the seal to be administered to Abraham and his seed in succeed- 
 ing generations. " And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, 
 the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God : 
 walk before me and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant [one 
 covenant only] between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 
 And Abram fell on his face : and God talked with him, saying, As for me, 
 behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many 
 nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram ; but thy 
 name shall be Abraham: for a father of many nations have I made thee. 
 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, 
 and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant 
 between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 
 an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 301 
 
 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou 
 art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession : and I 
 will be their God. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between 
 me and you, and thy seed after thee. Every man child among you shall 
 be circumcised," chap. xvii. 1 — 10. 
 
 Here is the covenant upon which the church was organized. It con- 
 tains three distinct promises ; 1. A promise of a numerous natural seed, 
 which has been fulfilled ; 2. That his natural seed should possess the 
 land of Canaan, which has also been fulfilled ; 3. That he should be 
 a father of many nations ; that in his seed all the families of the earth 
 should be blessed. This is the great promise of the covenant, the promise 
 of spiritual blessings to all nations through Jesus Christ, the. promised 
 seed, and is now being fulfilled. This covenant containing these three 
 promises, the same that are recorded in the 12th and 15th chapters, 
 was ratified and sealed by circumcision. With Abraham, therefore, God 
 made but one covenant. My friend may, if he pleases, insist on three 
 covenants, each containing the same promises ; but it is all apocryphal — it 
 is absurd. There is not a passage in the Bible that speaks of more 
 than one. 
 
 With the organization of the nation which he supposes to have taken 
 place at Sinai, I have nothing to do, so far as the present discussion 
 is concerned. I am concerned only to find the organization of the churchy 
 and to ascertain the law of membership in it. 
 
 But the gentleman tells us, that when the nation was organized, circum- 
 cision passed out of the hands of Abraham into the hands of Moses. 
 To prove this most singular declaration he refers to John vii. 23, "If 
 a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses 
 should not be broken," &c. But it is most manifest, that his construction 
 of this passage is wholly incorrect. It is flatly contradictory of the teach- 
 ing of Paul, Rom. iv. 11, "And he [Abraham] received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision; a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet 
 being uncircumcised ; that he might be the father of all them that believe, 
 though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto 
 them also : and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the 
 circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our 
 father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised." Now if, as 
 the gentleman contends, circumcision passed from the hands of Abraham to 
 Moses ; how could circumcision make Abraham the father of all believers 
 in all time to come 1 
 
 The first five books of the Old Testament were written chiefly by 
 Moses, and were, therefore, commonly called the law of Moses, (2 Kings 
 xxiii. 25 ; Daniel ix. 11 ; John vii. 19.) Indeed the Old Testament was 
 divided into the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, or the Law and 
 the Prophets. It was on this account that circumcision was said to be ad- 
 ministered, that the law of Moses might not be broken, not because it had 
 in some incomprehensible sense been transferred from Abraham to Moses. 
 The law which was given at Sinai, was a temporary addition to the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, designed to answer a particular purpose, for a limited 
 time ; and therefore circumcision, the seal of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 embraced and sealed those additions to it, made for the purpose of carry- 
 ing out its provisions. So Paul teaches in Galatians iii. 19, "Where- 
 fore then serveth the law ? It was added [of course, to the Abrahamic 
 covenant] till the seed should come," &c. The law at Sinai, was not, 
 
 2C 
 
302 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 therefore, another covenant entirely distinct from that made with Abraham, 
 but was only an addition to it. 
 
 The gentleman informs us, that circumcision was a seal only in the case 
 of Abraham — that to his posterity it was a sign, but not a seal. That is, 
 he makes this ordinance one thing to Abraham, and quite another to his 
 posterity and to all others who received it ! Well, if he will be good 
 enough to point us to the Scripture which so teaches, I will believe it. 
 And it is particularly proper, that he should do this ; for he commen- 
 ced his reformation with the avowed purpose of having a " thus saith the 
 Lord " for every item of faith and practice. I now call upon him to 
 produce the passage of Scripture which sustains his assertion. 
 
 My acknowledgments are due to him for his benevolent wish, that I 
 possessed very great powers, in order to sift to the bottom this important 
 subject. But feeble as my powers are, they were sufficient, in the opi- 
 nion of very many intelligent persons, to give him great trouble last week. 
 When we see a great man, like my friend — a man standing at the head 
 of a reformation of extraordinary pretensions in the nineteenth century, 
 in such difficulty, so puzzled to meet the arguments of one of the small 
 men of the Presbyterian church ; we are obliged to think, he has a diffi- 
 cult cause to plead. It affords strong presumptive evidence, that truth is 
 on the side of the small man. Under such circumstances I incline to 
 the opinion, that he ought to be satisfied with my powers. 
 
 But I must very briefly pay my respects to the gentleman's fifteen ar- 
 guments, designed to prove that baptism did not come in place of circum- 
 cision. As I have before stated, I care not, so far as the defence of infant 
 baptism is concerned, whether it did or not. I can, however, easily 
 prove that it did. What do we mean when we say that baptism came 
 in place of circumcision ? We mean simply this ; that baptism answers 
 the same purposes to the church under the new dispensation, that cir- 
 cumcision answered under the old. Circumcision was the door of en- 
 trance into the church under the former dispensation ; baptism is the 
 door under the present dispensation. Circumcision was the sign and 
 seal of God's covenant with his people, the mark which distinguish- 
 ed them from those not in covenant with God : and baptism is now the 
 ordinance which distinguishes his people from the world, and which seals 
 to them his promised grace. Circumcision was a significant ordinance, 
 pointing to the sanctification of the heart by the Holy Spirit; and hence 
 the wicked were called uncircumcised in heart, and were exhorted to 
 circumcise the foreskin of their hearts. Baptism is a significant ordi- 
 nance, pointing emblematically to the same thing. These statements, I 
 am prepared to prove, if indeed they require proof; and these things be- 
 ing true, it is certain that baptism came in place of circumcision — that it 
 answers the same ends in the church now, that were answered by cir- 
 cumcision under the former dispensation. But I am not at all concerned 
 to prove this point. The whole of his fifteen arguments are based on 
 the false assumption, that the substitute must be, in all respects, like the 
 thing for which it is substituted, regardless of difference of circumstances ! 
 
 But I will answer the gentleman's question. He inquires whether I 
 acknowledge the existence of a church before the days of Abraham — and 
 if so, how infants entered it? I will, for argument's sake, admit the exist- 
 ence of a church before the organization in Abraham's family ; and now, 
 if he will tell us how adults entered it, I pledge myself to show how 
 infants were received. This certainly is a fair proposition. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 303 
 
 He asks a second question, (and I like to answer questions,) viz. what 
 spiritual blessing was conveyed by circumcision to the Ishraaelites and 
 Edomites ? He labors to prove, that circumcision conveyed to those who 
 received it, no spiritual blessing. I will answer his question by asking 
 another, viz. What spiritual blessing does immersion convey to the Mor- 
 mons ? If many were circumcised who did not receive any spiritual 
 blessing ; have not many (and the Mormons among them,) been immersed 
 without receiving such blessings? Yet the gentleman firmly believes, 
 that immersion conveys spiritual blessings. 
 
 But I am truly surprised, that any one who has carefully read the Old 
 Testament and the New, should assert, that piety was not required of 
 adults, in order to membership in the Jewish church. God entered into 
 covenant with the Jewish church. He represents himself as married to 
 her. Did he, I emphatically ask, enter into covenant with men, without 
 requiring them to obey him ? And could they truly obey him without 
 possessing true piety? It would, indeed, have been most marvellous, if 
 God had entered into covenant with the Jews, promising to them bless- 
 ings not bestowed on any other nation, and yet left it optional with them 
 whether they would serve him ! But the gentleman's assertion is in di- 
 rect contradiction of the Bible. Paul, writing to the Galatians, says : 
 "I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do 
 the whole law," chap. v. 3. Could any one keep the whole law, which 
 was given to the Jewish church, without possessing piety ? That law re- 
 quired them to love God with the whole heart. Could they do this with- 
 out piety ? Why, Paul teaches us, that circumcision, without true piety, 
 was absolutely worthless, " For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou 
 keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is 
 made uncircumcision," Rom. ii. 25. Now, can a man keep the law, the 
 moral law, of which, as the connection shows, he is speaking, without 
 piety ? Every one must see that it is impossible. Circumcision, there- 
 fore, did require piety, and no one could be a worthy member of the Jew- 
 ish church, without possessing it. 
 
 Let us now place before our minds the real state of the argument. The 
 gentleman complains that I travel too rapidly, that I present too many 
 points ; but I discover that the audience can easily keep up with me. He, 
 however, is not speaking for present effect. He is elaborating from this 
 Book, which he professes to believe quite plain, ideas too profound to be 
 appreciated by this audience. He is making a book — a book for poster- 
 ity ! He does not speak for the multitude. I go for present effect and 
 for future effect; and I think I shall be understood, and my arguments 
 will be appreciated by those who hear me. 
 
 I have said, and Mr. Campbell has not disputed it, that all who are 
 entitled to membership in the church of God, ought to be baptized. I 
 have defined the church to be a body of people separated from the world 
 for the service of God, with ordinances of divine appointment, and a door 
 of admission — a rite for the recognition of membership. He has not 
 disputed the correctness of this definition. I have found such a body — 
 a church organized, in the family of Abraham. I have proved that be- 
 lievers and their children were put into this church by positive law of 
 God, and my friend has found no law for putting out the one or the other. 
 I have proved the identity of the church under both dispensations. The 
 conclusion follows inevitably, that the children of believers are still entitled 
 to a place in the church, and, of course, to baptism, the initiatory rite. 
 
304 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The great Baptist writer, Andrew Fuller, comments on the twelfth and 
 seventeenth chapters of Genesis, as follows : 
 
 Fuller, vol. v. p. 115. " This promise has been fulfilling ever since. 
 All the true blessedness which the world is now, or shall hereafter be pos- 
 sessed of, is owing to Abram and his posterity. Through them we have a 
 Bible, a Savior, and a gospel. They are the stock on which the christian 
 church is grafted." 
 
 Ibid. p. 153. " The first promise in this covenant is, that he shall be 
 the father of many nations; and as a token of it, his name in future is to be 
 called Abraham. He had the name of a high, or eminent father, from the 
 beginning ; but now it shall be more comprehensive, indicating a very large 
 progeny. By the exposition given of this promise in the New Testament, 
 (Rom. iv. 16, 17,) we are directed to understand it, not only of those who 
 sprang from Abraham's body, though these were many nations ; but also 
 of all that should be of the faith of Abraham. It went to make him the 
 father of the church of God in all future ages, or, as the apostle calls him, 
 the heir of the world. In this view, he is the father of many, even of a 
 multitude of nations. All that the christian world enjoys, or ever will 
 enjoy, it is indebted for it to Abraham and his seed. A high honor this, 
 to be the father of the faithful, the stock from which the Messiah should 
 spring, and on which the church of God should grow." 
 
 Fuller, you observe, though a decided anti-Pedo-baptist, did not believe 
 that God made with Abraham more than one covenant. Observe, too, he 
 believed that the covenant of circumcision, recorded in Gen. xvii., consti- 
 tuted him the father of the church of God in all future ages ; and he says, 
 the christian world is indebted to Abraham, and his seed, for all they now 
 enjoy, or ever will enjoy. I will put Fuller, who was both a great and a 
 good man, against Mr. Campbell. — [Time expired. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 20— 12£ o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's second reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — To condescend, sir, from the dignity of rational and 
 grave argument upon divine ordinances, connected with man's sanctifica- 
 tion and salvation, to the ad captandum statements of my politic oppo- 
 nent, is by no means gratifying to my taste, nor to my feelings. I have 
 already suffered many instances of this species of rhetoric to pass with- 
 out any notice, hoping that a proper sense of the dignity of the church 
 he represents, would elevate him above such unworthy modes of defend- 
 ing a religious proposition. Being disappointed in these hopes, I am con- 
 strained, for once, to notice his course. Had the subject of his valorous 
 achievements last week been the question of debate, or were the display 
 of a captious temper his supreme aim, then, indeed, there would have 
 been much more pertinency and propriety in the speech which you have 
 just now heard. 
 
 A person so sensitive of praise, and so much devoted to his own dear 
 self, as to be always talking of himself in such a style, had better turn 
 his attention to the proverbs of Solomon, on the ways and means of pro- 
 moting his own glory. Solomon delivers some sage remarks on that subject, 
 which I would commend to him as a beautiful text for a useful sermon. 
 It is happily expressed in the following apposite terms : " Let another 
 praise thee, and not thine own mouth ; a stranger, and not thine own lips." 
 
 There is something, too, in this invidious comparison of churches and 
 communities, which savors a little of the same ruling passion — and which 
 neither christian morality, nor a high sense of christian courtesy, com- 
 mends. I have not made one allusion to the comparative attainments, vir- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 305 
 
 tues, or excellencies, personal or social, in our respective communities. I 
 have never contrasted Presbyterians and Disciples, in any one point of 
 view, in this discussion. In speaking of the great mass of uneducated 
 mind — mere flesh and blood, brought into a community by the operation 
 of infant affusion, I had no special reference to Presbyterians, more than 
 to Congregationalists, Methodists, or Episcopalians. Nay, indeed, I had 
 especial reference to that great mother of ignorance and superstition, who 
 annually brings under her priesthood some three millions of speechless 
 babes, by the operation of a few drops of water, and the sign of the cross. 
 
 Any one who desires to appreciate the truth of these remarks, I com- 
 mend to the history of Old Spain and New Spain, of Italy and Portugal, 
 lands not much imbued with the spirit of Protestantism A more beau- 
 tiful t-ky spreads not itself over a more polluted land than that which 
 looks down upon Italy, the very home of infant rantism ; and the sink 
 of European pollutions. Any one who desires to know what have been 
 the operations of the unhallowed alliance of church and state, and of in- 
 fant membership, the main pillar of it, had better make himself master 
 of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese history. But to ascertain its opera- 
 tions at home, we have documentary evidence enough to show, that it 
 tends rather to the carnalizing and secularizing, than to the purification 
 or elevation of the church's character. Of the multitudes of baptized 
 members of the Presbyterian church, how few ever approach the 
 Lord's table ! How many baptized infidels are there in the bounds of 
 all the Pedo-baptist communities ! Of the nominal members of the 
 christian profession, perhaps one half are the veriest sinners in Christen- 
 dom. And does not Pedo-baptism claim its own children, initiated and 
 dedicated by this rite? does she not claim them, I say, as members of 
 her churches ! ! Now, I admit, that of those who make the christian 
 confession, on their own responsibility, some apostatize and return to the 
 world. But what is their number, compared with the sprinkled myri- 
 ads all over the land, that are living without God, without Christ, and 
 without hope — and, consequently, without either righteousness or holi- 
 ness ! Only think, one branch of the Pedo-baptist church baptizes, as 
 she calls it, one hundred millions every three and thirty years ! The 
 "mother church," as she calls herself, the mother church of this church 
 of Pedo-baptist communities, gains more by infant baptism, in making 
 members, than all the other parties combined. The whole Lutheran 
 community, the largest branch of Protestantism, sprinkles only thirty 
 millions in thirty-three years. The Greek church immerses very many 
 millions in the same time. All these are made members of Christ's 
 church by this rite, in the esteem of the respective communities that 
 practice it. What an immense weight of carnality, sensuality, and of 
 varied wickedness, would be severed from the christian profession by the 
 annihilation of this rite of infant initiation ! 
 
 Luther, no doubt, intended an entire reformation of the church, but 
 was prevented. Eckius withstood him — and, as the pope's representa- 
 tive, opposed the incipient reformation. No living man can now say 
 how far these efforts retarded that glorious revolution. The case was as 
 I represented it — Luther aimed at the reformation of the church from all 
 errors. Eckius used the same logic and rhetoric against him, as you 
 have heard urged against me by my too imitative opponent; and to a 
 good degree prevented the progress of that soul-redeeming principle, that 
 questions every thing but the Bible. 
 
 20 2c2 
 
306 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 He would make capital out of that sacramental host to whom I alluded 
 the other evening ; as if it was chiefly or wholly composed of Pedo-bap- 
 tists! The gentleman, it seems, knows of no church but the Pedo-bap- 
 tist. There were no persecuted ones in the valleys between the moun- 
 tains of Europe in those days of proscription ! No Piedmontese — no 
 Waldenses — no Albigenses — no Vaudois— no Cathari — no remonstrants 
 against popery — no church but that of Rome or of Constantinople ! ! 
 
 But Mr. R. says I blamed him for going ahead ! No ; I blame him 
 rather for not going into the argument. What is the point? What does 
 he mean ! Already he begins to speak of circumcision and the arguments 
 formerly drawn from circumcision, and, of course, from the covenants — 
 as a matter for which he does not care, to quote his own elegant style, 
 " a single straw." Do I understand the gentleman or not ! Has he really 
 abandoned circumcision ; or does he only desire to appear to place no em- 
 phasis upon it, for the sake of effect ; or of turning my attention away 
 from the main stay of the whole theory of infant-membership ! What 
 does it mean! If Jewish proselyte baptism is abandoned; if the tradition 
 of the church is abandoned ; and if circumcision is about being abandoned, 
 too, I shall have easy work of it — and infant-membership will, indeed, 
 hang upon "a straw !" I cannot think that he will abandon father Cal- 
 vin, the great founder of Presbyterian infant affusion. 
 
 But I blame him, too, for going into the Old Testament ! Not at all. 
 I blame no man for going into the Old Testament. I wish he would go 
 into it thoroughly. I only blame him for abandoning the New, and going 
 into the Old to find what his creed calls " a sacrament of the New Tes- 
 tament." 
 
 Unless to kill time, I know not why the gentleman deals so much in 
 this kind of logic. But instead of proving that Gad made but one cove- 
 nant with Abraham, or of disposing of my argument already delivered, he 
 is now asking me to prove again that there were two covenants made with 
 father Abraham. Well, then, I must tell him the story a second time. 
 Paul to the Romans, 9 chap, says — " To the Israelites pertain the adop- 
 tion, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the 
 service of God, and the promises." There was, then, besides the law 
 and the promises, a plurality of covenants given to Israel. This only 
 proves a plurality of covenants. And to find out the amount of this plu- 
 rality I go into the history of the Jews, beginning, of course, with the 
 founder of the religion, or the father of the faithful. God made but one 
 covenant with all Israel, at Horeb ; therefore, that being also named, and 
 covenants besides, we are obliged to look for a history of those transac- 
 tions in the Abrahamic family, designated by that name. I have, then, 
 clearly distinguished and documented with proof no less than three cove- 
 nants, made with Abraham ; — two, based on the first promise, and one, 
 on the second. The one on the second, is that which concerns us, be- 
 cause Paul calls it " the gospel, in its origin," and the first indication of 
 gentile justification — Galatians iii. 8. This is the gospel covenant, call- 
 ed, by the same apostle and in the same epistle, " the covenant concern- 
 ing Christ." The covenant is made out, denominated, and even dated 
 by the same apostle. He says it was made four hundred and thirty years 
 before the law — chap. iii. 15. He says — " Brethren, I speak after the 
 manner of men ; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, 
 no man disannuleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed 
 were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 307 
 
 as of one, even to thy seed, which is the Christ." Now then, I say, that 
 the covenant that was confirmed before of God, in Christ, the law, which 
 w&sfour hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should 
 make the promise of non-effect. Nothing can be more clearly expressed. 
 Here is a covenant named, described, dated. We can have its date most 
 accurately traced. Abraham was seventy-five years old when the two 
 promises were given him ; one, concerning the Messiah, as aforesaid — 
 and one, concerning his own family, with a reference thereunto. He 
 was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. Isaac was sixty when 
 Jacob was born, and Jacob told Pharaoh, when he went down into Egypt 
 with his family, that he was one hundred and thirty years old. Now add 
 these respective sums of 25-}-60-f-130=215. Now, sir Isaac Newton's 
 chronology, arch-bishop Usher's, the commonly received chronology, 
 make the whole sojourning in Egypt 215 years — which two sums ex- 
 actly make 430 years, from the covenant concerning the Messiah — the 
 gospel covenant, to have transpired before the giving of the law, as Paul 
 expressly declares. 
 
 We have, then, one covenant indisputably made out and dated. We 
 shall now look for a second. This we find amply delineated in the 18th 
 chapter of Genesis, about ten, or twelve years at most, after the former. 
 This covenant, as I have already stated, had respect to the promised in- 
 heritance. It was made to define, and secure the patrimony of the sons 
 of Abraham in the line of the promised seed. While confirming it over 
 sacrifice, the Lord informed the patriarch, that his posterity should be so- 
 journers, strangers and oppressed, for four hundred years. In the fourth 
 generation they shall come to this land again, for the cup of the Amorites 
 is not yet full. " In that same day," says Moses, u the Lord made a 
 covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have 1 given this land, 
 from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." Can 
 any language more definitely designate the making of a covenant on a 
 certain day than this ? Examine Gen. xv. 7 — 21. I have fixed this cov- 
 enant in the 86th year of Abraham ; because immediately after it we are 
 informed of the birth of Ishmael, who was thirteen years old at the date 
 of the covenant of circumcision ; to which I next invite your attention. 
 It will require no proof, I presume, to any one acquainted with ancient 
 patriarchal history, that the covenant styled by Stephen, " the covenant of 
 circumcision," was made one year before the birth of Isaac, and in the 
 ninety-ninth year of Abraham, twenty-four or twenty-five years after the 
 " covenant concerning Christ." We have all the dates given, the cove- 
 nants detailed in the 17th of Genesis, and even down to Acts vii. 8, de- 
 nominated as follows : "And he gave him the covenant of circumcision, 
 and then Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day." 
 We have, then, delineated three distinct covenants made with Abraham 
 during the period of five and twenty years ; and no man can convert these 
 three into one covenant. The parties were always the same, but the 
 stipulations, pledges, seals, objects, and dates, are just as different as any 
 three transactions ever made between one and the same two persons. I 
 trust my friend will more seriously and religiously approach the subject. 
 Let us have some argument, some demonstration ; let him take some other 
 time to trifle. He now represents the dignity, gravity, purity, and learn- 
 ing of the Presbyterian church. I respect and treat him in that character ; 
 otherwise we should not have condescended to this discussion. 
 
 He has said the Mormons immerse ! What a profound discovery ! 
 
308 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 What does it prove ! Romanists sprinkle as well as Presbyterians ! And 
 what does that prove ? Better meet my proposition. Better discuss the 
 question whether circumcision conveyed spiritual blessings, or was the 
 sign, or the seal, of a gospel covenant. I am prepared to reason with 
 him on such a subject, on any thing relevant to the points on hand. I 
 have said that circumcision was neither the conveyance, the sign, or the 
 seal of any spiritual privilege, to those who were its proper subjects— - 
 mark me, its proper subjects. What did circumcision convey to its pro- 
 per subject ? Of what was it the sign to him ? How adroitly does the 
 gentleman get out of the difficulty ! He might as logically have invited 
 you to examine the first chapter of the Maccabees, as to have asked what 
 does immersion convey to a Mormon? Is a man with a new Bible in 
 his hand, a proper subject of christian immersion ! He might as well ask 
 me, what would immersion convey to an unenlightened Indian? Will 
 his brethren feel proud of this defence of their infant baptism ? When 
 asked what scriptural blessings circumcision conveyed to a proper sub- 
 ject, such as Ishmael, Esau, and all the household of Abraham, men, 
 boys, and children of eight days, his sage and shrewd response is — What 
 does immersion convey to a Mormon ! Thus making a Mormon, be- 
 lieving the lying tales of an infamous imposter, as proper a subject of 
 immersion as was any son of Abraham. I ask again, were not the Ish- 
 maelites, the Edomites, and all that nation that died in the wilderness, and 
 that which perished in Jerusalem — were they not all fit subjects of circum- 
 cision ? 
 
 I have never said, nor intended to say, nor, by any fair construction, 
 could be made to say, that God ever " entered into covenant with impie- 
 ty." I am ashamed at this gentleman's recklessness of assertion. Did 
 any one, in this great concourse, save Mr. Rice, hear me say any thing 
 that could, by fair construction, be so interpreted ? (I fear I shall have 
 to descend to an exposition of my friend, as the best means of exposing 
 his arguments.) I said that God made a covenant with Abraham concern- 
 ing his flesh. That Abraham's flesh was precious to him, no matter who 
 wore it for the sake of the seed, the blessing of the nations that was in it. 
 God approved the faith of Abraham; constituted it the model faith; and 
 to seal it, gave him the sign of circumcision. But that was a " covenant 
 in his flesh," till out of it should come the seed of David, according to the 
 flesh: "In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This 
 promise suggested circumcision, not before Ishmael, but just before Isaac 
 was born. God is determined to identify and preserve this flesh ; com- 
 manding fathers to brand their sons before they knew any thing about it, 
 while they were yet as passive as a stone ; that the world might recog- 
 nize it, and know that God keepeth covenant and mercy forever ; and 
 that his word standeth fast for a thousand generations. 
 
 There is no Pedo-baptist, as it appears to me, that has written or spo- 
 ken with much light or discrimination, on this great fact in the Jews' 
 religion, viz : That flesh, and neither faith nor piety, qualified, not only 
 for membership, but for every holy office in the Jeivs' religion. Of 
 Levi, with whom was the urim and the thummim, Jacob said : " Cursed 
 be his anger, for it was fierce, and his wrath, for it was cruel. I will 
 scatter him in Jacob and divide him in Israel." And of him Moses said ; 
 " The sons of Levi shall teach Jacob thy' judgments and Israel thy law : 
 they shall put incense before them, and whole burnt offerings on their al- 
 tar." There was no tribe of the twelve that had less piety than the Le- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 309 
 
 vites (a good type of the great mass of the priesthood, who count after 
 the Levitical order.) But there was neither moral nor spiritual qualifica- 
 tions necessary to any office. Aaron's first born son, if he had a complete 
 animal body and a reasonable soul, though he were as wicked as Hophne 
 and Phineas, as Annas or Caiaphas, might legitimately officiate in that 
 institution. Priests were the sons of priests. High priests were the 
 sons of high priests, as were Levites the sons of Levites. What clearer 
 or more convincing demonstration, that Jlesh, and neither faith nor piety, 
 was contemplated in the Jews' religion? The Spirit of God, too, occa- 
 sionally attended their ministry. Even the wicked Caiaphas was visited 
 with an oracle. The Spirit came upon him, and "he prophesied, being 
 high priest that year." He was, then, a good high priest, though a 
 wicked man. The genius of that dispensation allowed such a state of 
 things. When Joseph, or Nicodemus, was pleading the cause of the 
 Messiah in the council that condemned him, Caiaphas, we learn, admitted 
 the plea of his innocence, and replied, " It is better, [notwithstanding in- 
 nocent he be,] that one man should perish, and not that the whole nation 
 should be destroyed." This he said because high priest that year, and 
 it intimated that he should die, not to save the Jewish nation only, but 
 the Gentiles also. No wonder that John the Baptist and the Messiah 
 preached a new religion, a new repentance, a new birth, and that flesh 
 must give place to faith, and blood to piety. In Christ's kingdom, "To 
 as many as received him, gave he privilege to become the sons of God ; 
 even to them that believed on his name : born not of flesh, nor of blood, 
 nor of the will of man, but of God." 
 
 " God entered into covenant with impiety ! ! " What an unfounded 
 imputation ! If the gentleman, in my presence, and in your hearing, can 
 thus pervert language, misconstrue and misinterpret my words, what con- 
 fidence can any one repose in him, as a commentator upon the arguments 
 of those whom he opposes ? If in my presence, much more in my ab- 
 sence, might I not expect my arguments and sayings to be tortured into 
 whatever his cause or his party may religiously require at his hands ; I 
 say again, God made three covenants with Abraham, one all spirit, one all 
 flesh, and one all property. The flesh and the land went together. The 
 spirit reaches beyond flesh — beyond land — beyond time — to an inheri- 
 tance incorruptible, and undenled, and that endureth forever. All nations, 
 by faith, inherit the latter ; while to the Jews alone belonged both the 
 flesh of Abraham and the soil of Canaan. 
 
 The gentleman has introduced Andrew Fuller. He is fond of the 
 Baptists. Well, he makes good selections. Gale was .Arminian, Car- 
 son is Calvinian, and Fuller was mediator. I am much pleased with 
 them all. I agree, probably, as much with him as with the others. The 
 gentleman may read as much as he pleases from them all. I hear all, 
 but vow to none. Still his reading from Fuller will be quite as accepta- 
 ble to me as any thing he can himself say. 
 
 My friend, Mr. R., too often adverts to the business of last Saturday 
 evening. Calvin's words are quoted in my debate with McCalla; I have 
 not with me his treatise on the Acts. The words are — *» The church 
 did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites some- 
 what, excepting the substance." Does Mr. Rice say that these are not 
 the words of Calvin " in our language 1 " 
 
 I have lost too much time in noticing minor matters. Still I have re- 
 sponded to every thing of any weight or importance in the evidence ad- 
 
310 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 duced in favor of infant subjects. He leads the way — I follow. While 
 he affords any thing better, I will not respond to trifles. The public, I 
 doubt not, will understand this argument, and ultimately come to proper 
 conclusions. I have brought down the history of covenants, so far as to 
 contradistinguish the old and the new. The covenant of flesh, and the 
 covenant of spirit, the law and the gospel, the constitution of the Jewish 
 church, and the constitution of the christian. 
 
 I said, in my last speech, no person v/as made a member of the Jewish 
 state by circumcision — or, in other words, that circumcision was not the 
 door into it. Mr. R. says it was. Has he proved it ? Proselytes came 
 in partially that way. But the question is about the family of Abraham. 
 Was circumcision to them the door? By no means. There was no 
 Jewish church till four hundred years after 'the institution of circumcision. 
 Consequently the door would have been of no use. The advocates of 
 circumcision as the door, are mechanically and theologically at fault. 
 They have a door reared up without a wall, standing by itself, without a 
 house attached to it, for four hundred years ; and they have ail the seed 
 of Abraham born in the house, and yet coming in by the door! ! 
 
 I do hope my friend will concentrate his mind upon some main point 
 of argument, after he has disposed of the objections and reasons I have 
 offered against his assumption. — [Time expired. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 20 — 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's third address.] 
 
 Mr. President — The manner of my speaking must be a very myste- 
 rious affair. There is something in my ad captandum style so difficult 
 of comprehension, that the gentleman thinks it will be necessary for him 
 to explain it to the audience ! They, it would seem, are incapable of 
 forming a correct judgment concerning it! It requires as much explana- 
 tion as the Bible ! In this debate the gentleman cannot excite me ; though 
 he continue his efforts till the going down of the sun. I always conduct 
 such discussions in good temper. I can even argue, and occasionally 
 smile ; but I cannot so forget what is due to this audience, nor so far dis- 
 regard the rules of courtesy, as to charge the gentleman with " licentious- 
 ness of the tongue." I have no occasion to use language of this charac- 
 ter. He is an older man than I, and I can permit him to indulge his feel- 
 ings in this manner. 
 
 I do not, in this discussion, represent any denomination of christians, 
 in an ecclesiastical sense. So far as a minister of the gospel is a repre- 
 sentative of the church by which he is sent forth to defend the truth, I 
 appear here as a representative, but no further. And, thus far, I am 
 happy to know, that my brethren are not ashamed of my defence of their 
 views. I am perfectly aware of the existence and of the propriety of 
 Solomon's admonition, to which the gentleman refers ; and I am also 
 aware that there are some occasions which require a man to speak in 
 self-defence. I should not have- made the remarks which have given him 
 offence, if he and his friends had not proclaimed it over the land, that I 
 must be endorsed before he would condescend to meet me in debate. It 
 looks rather badly, I should think, that the gentleman who called for 
 endorsers of his opponent, has made so unsuccessful a defence of his 
 principles ! 
 
 He did not intend, he says, to draw a contrast between Presbyterians 
 and Immersionists, but had allusion to the corruptions of popery. But I 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 311 
 
 deny, that infant baptism caused any of the corruptions of popery. He 
 has ascribed certain effects to a certain cause. How did I reply to him ? 
 I proved that the cause has existed in divers places for centuries without 
 producing the effects. He asserts, that infant baptism is the cause of the 
 corruptions which have overrun large portions of the church of Christ ; 
 but I proved, (and he does not deny it,) that infant baptism has long ex- 
 isted in the Pedo-baptist churches of this and other countries, and has 
 produced no such evil effects. I have instituted no invidious compari- 
 sons ; but I have proved, that he has egregiously erred in seeking the 
 true cause of the corruptions of the church. 
 
 Infant baptism does not, as the gentleman strangely imagines, give the 
 pope his power over the human mind. If Gregory XVI. were now to 
 send forth his decree, that no infant should hereafter be baptized in his 
 spiritual dominions ; would he not retain his despotic power over them 
 all ? Would not Italy, Spain, Portugal and Austria still prostrate themselves 
 before the chair of St. Peter ? So long as his claim to infallibility, and the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven is credited, so long will he wield an 
 unlimited power over the intellects and consciences of parents, and, 
 of course, over those of the rising generation. No — infant baptism never 
 introduced one error into the church. The secret of the pope's power is 
 not in infant baptism, but in his claim to be infallible, to interpret God's will 
 to man as he may choose, to impose human tradition as articles of faith, 
 to open and shut the gates of heaven. These, not infant baptism, are the 
 true sources of the tyrannical power of Rome. 
 
 The gentleman, by the way, speaks of Calvin as the founder of Pres- 
 byterianism. I venture to assert, that Calvin never did exercise m the 
 Presbyterian church a power so extensive as Mr. Campbell exerts over 
 his. Calvin was a great and good man, but the Presbyterian church has 
 never adopted all his views. I presume it would not be difficult to prove, 
 that Presbyterianism, at least in all its important features, is much older 
 than Calvin. 
 
 He does not find fault with me, he says, for going to the Old Testa- 
 ment, but for appealing to it improperly — for going contrary to the West- 
 minster assembly of divines, who say, that baptism is a sacrament of the 
 New Testament. There are, as I have before stated, two distinct ques- 
 tions connected with the .subject under discussion, viz : 1. What charac- 
 ters are entitled to membership in the church of Christ? 2. By what 
 ordinance shall they be introduced into its fellowship ? The Westminster 
 divines never did say, that to find an answer to the first, we are to con- 
 fine ourselves to the New Testament. They do say, that the New Tes- 
 tament gives the answer to the second. Precisely in accordance with 
 their teaching, I go to the Old Testament, to the organization of the 
 church, to find the law of membership, and to the New to ascertain 
 the ordinance by which membership shall be recognized. The gen- 
 tleman has told us, that he was once a Presbyterian, and that he did 
 with great care and labor examine this whole subject; and yet he evi- 
 dently does not understand some of the most prominent doctrines of the 
 Confession of Faith ! He is charging me with going contrary to its 
 teachings, when, as every well-instructed Presbyterian knows, I am 
 defending precisely the principles it inculcates ! ! ! I told you, a day or 
 two since, that I doubted whether he ever was a genuine Presbyterian ; 
 and now my doubts are confirmed. 
 
 He has labored to prove, that God made with Abraham two covenants, 
 
312 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and that the covenant of circumcision is a mere national transaction. I 
 called upon him to point to the passage of Scripture that speaks of two 
 covenants with Abraham. He has appealed to Rom. ix. 4, " Who are 
 Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the cove- 
 nants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the pro- 
 mises." I have replied, that Paul does not say, these covenants were 
 made with Abraham. The gentleman says, the covenants are distinct 
 from the giving of the law at Sinai ; and, of course, they were made with 
 Abraham. But are not the covenants in this passage as distinct from the 
 promises, as from the giving of the law ? So he would succeed in prov- 
 ing, according to his logic, that God made with Abraham covenants with- 
 out promises, and that he made to the Israelites promises without a cove- 
 nant ! Can you conceive of a covenant without a promise ? 
 
 But let us turn again to the chapter of Genesis, where he imagines that 
 he finds two covenants. In the twelfth chapter we find three distinct pro- 
 mises, viz. 1st. A promise of a numerous natural offspring: " And I will 
 make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name 
 great." 2nd. A promise of the land of Canaan to him and his seed : 
 " Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's 
 house, unto a land that I will shoiv thee." "And (verse 7) the Lord 
 appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land." 
 3rd. A promise of spiritual blessings through the Messiah : "And in thee 
 shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This promise, Paul the 
 apostle says, contains the gospel, Gal. iii. 8. In the fifteenth chapter we 
 find precisely the same promises repeated. In the fourth verse is the 
 promise of a son, Isaac ; and the fifth reads thus : "And he brought 
 him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, 
 if thou be able to number them. And he said unto him, so shall thy seed 
 be." This promise includes both his natural and his spiritual seed ; and 
 the seventh verse contains the promise of the land of Canaan. In the 
 seventeenth chapter we find precisely the same promises very distinctly 
 reiterated, and sealed to Abraham and his seed by circumcision. 1. The 
 promise of a numerous natural seed is found in verses 2 and 6 ; 2. The 
 promise of the land of Canaan is found in verse 8 ; and 3. The promise 
 of a numerous spiritual seed, through Christ, in the 5th verse. So Paul 
 explains it in Rom. iv. 16. 
 
 Now observe, in the 12th chapter we find these promises first made; 
 but no sign or seal was appointed. In the 15th we find them repeated ; 
 but still no seal is affixed to them. In the 17th, the very same promises 
 are reiterated, ratified, and sealed by circumcision, appointed to be the 
 sign and seal of the covenant. Now, can you believe that God made two 
 covenants with Abraham, each embracing precisely the same promises ? 
 
 You make a bargain to-day, for example, with your neighbor, selling 
 him a farm. The next week the bargain is again talked over, and the 
 week following writings are drawn, and a deed is given. Would it be 
 true to say, that you had made three contracts ? Precisely so God made 
 certain promises to Abraham : then, a few years after, repeated them ; 
 and still a few years later, reiterated and sealed the very same promises. 
 Will any one believe, with these facts before him, that God made with 
 Abraham more than one covenant? 
 
 I have said, that in the Scriptures we never read of covenants (in the 
 plural) made with Abraham, but of the covenant. In confirmation of this 
 assertion, let me read 1 Chron. xvi. 15 — 17, " Be ye mindful always of 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 313 
 
 his covenant, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; 
 even the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto 
 Isaac ; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob, for a law, and to Israel for 
 an everlasting covenant," &c. Evidently the inspired writer knew of 
 but one covenant with Abraham. There is not a passage in the Bible 
 which speaks of more than one. 
 
 The gentleman is quite dissatisfied at my answer to his question con- 
 cerning the circumcision of the Ishmaelites and Edomites. He inquired, 
 by way of proving that circumcision conveyed no spiritual blessing, what 
 blessing it conveyed to those descendants of Abraham. I inquired of 
 him, what spiritual blessing was conveyed by immersion to the Mor- 
 mons. But he says, he asked what spiritual blessing was conveyed to 
 those who were proper subjects of circumcision. The Edomites and 
 Ishmaelites were as truly apostates, as are the Mormons. They did not 
 pretend to keep covenant with God, and were, therefore, never recognized 
 as a people in covenant with him. Is it, then, surprising, that circum- 
 cision, though strictly a religious ordinance, conveyed no spiritual bless- 
 ing to apostates? Does christian baptism impart spiritual blessings to 
 such persons ? My reply to the gentleman's query was, then, appropriate 
 and conclusive. 
 
 He tells us, he did not say, that God entered into covenant with wicked 
 persons, but that he entered into a covenant with Abraham, which did not 
 require piety in his decendants or those embraced in it. But the difficulty 
 is not to be escaped in this way, for God said to Abraham — "And I will 
 establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, 
 in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, 
 and to thy seed after thee. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep 
 my covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations," 
 Gen. xvii. So it appears, that not only Abraham, but his posterity, were 
 embraced in the covenant, and were all required, as truly as was Abra- 
 ham, to keep covenant with God. Could they do this without piety? 
 And who has not read in the Scriptures, that the Jews were repeatedly 
 punished and finally sent in captivity to Babylon, because they broke 
 God's covenant? If, as the gentleman strangely asserts, the covenant 
 of circumcision did not require piety ; how happened it that for their 
 impiety the Jews were so sorely punished ? Do you not remember 
 how frequently, in the Old Testament, God represents himself as the 
 husband of the Jewish church, and their rebellion as the unfaithfulness 
 of a wife who abandons her lawful husband, and disregards her mar- 
 riage vows ? 
 
 But the apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, has forever settled 
 this question. He not only declares, as I have proved, that without true 
 piety circumcision is worthless, but he further says: "For he is not a 
 Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is out- 
 ward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circum- 
 cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise 
 is not of men, but of God." Now if Judaism was nothing but a national 
 affair, and circumcision only a national mark ; how could Paul say, he 
 is not a Jew, who is one outwardly ? And if circumcision did not re- 
 quire piety, how could he say, that that is not circumcision which is out- 
 ward in the flesh ? Could a Jew possess that circumcision of the heart, 
 in the spirit, whose praise is not of man, but of God, and yet have no 
 
 piety 
 
 2D 
 
314 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Just here, then, is a striking analogy between baptism and circumcision. 
 For he is not a christian who is one outwardly ; and baptism is not the 
 mere application of water, The outward profession and the external 
 ordinance are worthless without the inward baptism of the heart. The 
 gentleman will admit the propriety of this reasoning from circumcision 
 to baptism ; since he has himself done so in his Millennial Harbinger. 
 When some of his friends complained of him for admitting that there 
 might be christians among " the sects ;" he replied ; "As the same apostle 
 reasons on circumcision, so we would reason on baptism : ' Circum- 
 cision,' says the learned apostle, ' is not that which is outward in the 
 flesh ;' that is, as we apprehend the apostle, it is not that which is out- 
 ward in the flesh ; but ' circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
 and not in the letter, [only,] whose praise is of God, and not of man,' 
 So is baptism. It is not outward in the flesh only, but in the spirit 
 also. We argue for the outward and the inward — the outward for men, 
 including ourselves — the inward for God ; but both the outward and the in- 
 ward for the praise both of God and of a man." New Series, vol. i. p. 507. 
 
 There was, then, an outward and an inward circumcision, as there is 
 an outward and an inward baptism ; and circumcision as positively re- 
 quired holiness, as does baptism. Hence the exhortation to the Jews, 
 " Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts. " Unconverted Jews, like un- 
 converted professors of Christianity, had the outward sign, but had not 
 the inward grace — the thing signified. 
 
 The gentleman even goes so far as to say, that Caiaphas, the high 
 priest, was a worthy member of the Jewish church ; the very man who 
 sustained the office of high priest, and in God's name condemned the 
 glorious Messiah who was promised in the Abrahamic covenant ! ! ! How 
 does he prove this startling proposition ? Why, he tells us, Caiaphas 
 spoke on a certain occasion by inspiration. But did not Balaam, the 
 wicked prophet, do the very same thing, when, instead of cursing God's 
 people as he designed for the sake of money, he was constrained by 
 the Spirit of God to bless them ? And did this prove, that he was wor- 
 thy of a place in the Jewish church 1 No more did the prophecy un- 
 designedly uttered by the wicked Caiaphas, prove him a worthy member 
 of the Jewish church. The truth is, the whole Jewish nation was ex- 
 communicated by God for the sin of unbelief, and were scattered abroad 
 to the ends of the earth. So untrue is the declaration, that piety was 
 not required in order to membership in the Jewish church. 
 
 Mr. Campbell denies that circumcision was a door of entrance into the 
 Jewish church, and tells us that the Jews were born in the church. 
 This he presents as quite a difficulty ; since, if infants were born in the 
 church, they could not enter it by circumcision or by baptism. He will 
 not, I presume, deny that circumcision was a door of entrance to prose- 
 lytes; for the law says — " And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, 
 and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, 
 and then let him come near and keep it ; and he shall be as one that is 
 born in the land : for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One 
 law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that so- 
 journeth among you," Exod. xii. 48, 49. So, I presume, we shall have 
 three circumcisions ; for the gentleman makes circumcision one thing to 
 Abraham — another to his posterity, and yet another to proselytes ! To 
 Abraham, he says, it was a sign and seal ; to his posterity only a sign, 
 not a seal ; and to the proselyte it was a door of entrance — a rite for the 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 315 
 
 recognition of membership ! If this is not making three circumcisions, 
 it looks very much like it. 
 
 The truth is, that circumcision was, both to Abraham and to his pos- 
 terity, a sign and seal — a mark which distinguished them from others as 
 in covenant with God, and a seal of that covenant. The children of the 
 Jews were, by birth, entitled to a place in the church — they were mem- 
 bers by right ; but they were not members in propria forma — formally, 
 until circumcised. So when an adult is received, on profession of his 
 faith, by the proper officers of the church, he is a member of the church 
 by right; but, until baptized, he is not a member in form — entitled to 
 all the privileges of the church. If a man be elected to the presidency 
 of these United States, the voice of the people gives him a right to the 
 office ; but he cannot enter upon its duties until he is formally inaugurated. 
 Just so the children of believing parents have, by birth, a right to mem- 
 bership in the church ; but that membership must be recognized by the 
 appointed ordinance. 
 
 I do not admit that the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham re- 
 lated merely to the flesh; for it made him the father of all believers. Nor, 
 so far as the requirement of true piety is concerned, was there more of 
 flesh under the Old, than under the New Testament. Let us now review 
 the argument, and see what progress we have made. I have given you 
 a definition of the church, to which Mr. C. does not object. I have proved 
 that it was organized in Abraham's family; that God, by positive law, 
 made the children of believers members of it ; that our Savior did not 
 exclude them, and the New Testament contains no law for depriving 
 them of their membership. The gentleman has not found any such law. 
 I have proved that God has had but one church on the earth — that under 
 both dispensations it is the same ecclesiastical body. This argument was 
 based on principles which cannot be successfully controverted, and on 
 facts that cannot be disputed. Since, then, God put the children of be- 
 lievers into the church by positive law, and never excluded them, they 
 must be permitted to remain. 
 
 The gentleman is very much mistaken in supposing that I am almost 
 through with my evidence. I have a great deal more, a part of which I 
 will now present. Having proved that, under both dispensations, the 
 church worshiped and served the same God, obeyed the same moral 
 law, and received and trusted for salvation in the same gospel — I proceed 
 to remark : 
 
 5. That, under both dispensations, the church enjoys her blessings by 
 virtue of the same covenant — the covenant with Abraham. We have al- 
 ready seen that the Abrahamic covenant contains some three distinct prom- 
 ises viz : — 1st. Of a numerous natural seed ; 2d. Of the land of Canaan ; 
 3d. That in Abraham's seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. 
 The two first have been fulfilled. The third is now being fulfilled ; but, 
 as all the families of the earth have not yet been blessed in Christ, the 
 promise is not entirely fulfilled. Of course the covenant cannot be abro- 
 gated, till all the promises contained in it are fulfilled. 
 
 For example, I purchase a farmland give the vendor my note, binding 
 myself to pay him in three instalments. When the first payment is 
 made I am credited by the amount ; but he holds the note. The second 
 is made and I am credited ; but he yet holds the note until the last pay- 
 ment is made, and the whole debt cancelled. So of the three promises 
 contained in the Abrahamic covenant, two are fulfilled ; but the third is 
 
316 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 fulfilled only in part. The covenant must, therefore, remain till the period 
 of its entire fulfillment, which will not be until all the families of the 
 earth shall be blessed — till time shall end. 
 
 The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant is further evident, from the 
 fact, that it was confirmed in Christ. So teaches Paul in Gal. iii. 17 : 
 " And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God, in 
 Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot 
 disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Again: this 
 covenant contained the gospel. "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God 
 would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
 Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be bjessed," Gal. iii. 8. Now, 
 I ask, what more can be said of the new covenant, as it is called, than 
 that it is confirmed in Christ, and contains the gospel ? 
 
 Again : justification, according to the Abrahamic covenant, is gospel jus- 
 tification. " So then, they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abra- 
 ham ;" Gal. iii. 9. Paul teaches the same doctrine in Romans iv. 1 — . 
 
 Finally — it is because of the perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 that believers are now called Abraham's seed. " And if ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," Gal. 
 iii. 29. Christians are never called Noah's seed, or Enoch's seed, or 
 David's seed ; but they are called Abraham's seed. Is it not, then, evi- 
 dent that they sustain a relation to Abraham, which they do not sustain 
 to any other man that ever lived ? But if the Abrahamic covenant is no 
 longer in existence, where is the link that binds us to Abraham ? And 
 how can it be true, as Paul teaches, that that covenant constituted him the 
 father of all believers, Jews and Gentiles ? 
 
 Now mark this fact: the Abrahamic covenant originally embraced pro- 
 fessed believers and their children ; and since it has never been altered, 
 it includes them still, and they have the right to its seal — baptism. 
 
 But I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Abrahamic cov- 
 enant has passed away ; though it is a most important fact, that in the 
 Scriptures it is never called an old covenant, nor is it ever said to 
 have passed away. But admitting, for argument's sake, that it has pass- 
 ed away, I will prove the identity of the church under the old and new 
 dispensations, upon this admission. The apostle, writing to the Hebrews, 
 says, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, 
 saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Is- 
 rael, and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I 
 made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead 
 them out of the land of Egypt," &c. Now, supposing this to be, liter- 
 ally, a new covenant, and not, as I believe, new in its mode of adminis- 
 tration, with whom was it made ? With a new church ? No, but with 
 the old church — the house of Israel and the house of Judah. So take 
 either view of the subject, the church is the same. 
 
 Now observe, it is a fact, that into this church God did put the chil- 
 dren of believers ; and it is a fact, that he has never excluded them. 
 They, therefore, have still a right to membership ; and, of course, to bap- 
 tism, the initiatory rite. — [Time expired. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 20—1 \ o'clock, P.M. 
 [mr. Campbell's third reply.] 
 Mr. President — I have not said that the covenant with Abraham has 
 become old. The ultimate and -final development of that covenant, in its 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 317 
 
 national form, at Mount Sinai, has become old and vanished away. But 
 the covenant, pregnant with blessings to the gentiles, through Christ, 
 yet lives. 
 
 I do not feel it either my duty, or my honor, to violate the rules of de- 
 corum, because Mr. Rice assumes to himself the right to dispense with 
 them ; because of the inalienable rights and immunities of orthodoxy. I 
 shall, however, occasionally take notice of these indications for the benefit 
 of society ; and will only endeavor that by this device he will not escape 
 from his frequent embarrassments, without your observation also. Why 
 all this tirade and declamation which you have just now heard ! Has not 
 his cause hitherto been characterized by details a little too egotistic for 
 this meridian ? Few men have displayed higher talents in the science 
 of boasting, than the specimens the gentleman gave us on Saturday 
 evening. 
 
 I did this morning speak of the corrupting influence of infant baptism. 
 This has been a prolific theme for the gentleman, and he would rather 
 expatiate on this, because it suits his peculiar taste, than prove the truth 
 of his proposition. He would have it, however, that this is not the great 
 cause of corruption in Pedo-baptist churches. How, then, have the Pe- 
 do-baptist churches of former times become so corrupt? How does the 
 gentleman explain this matter? We all want light on this subject. 
 
 The system of Pedo-baptism has operated in this way. Take, for ex- 
 ample, the oldest of Pedo-baptist churches. An infant is presented to 
 the priest. It is sprinkled, anointed, and crossed. It is said to be chris- 
 tened. It is understood by the parents that they are now more solemnly 
 bound to teach it the faith and traditions of the church, and to save it from 
 heresy, by all possible means. The child, soon as it is capable of learn- 
 ing, is taught that it is in Christ's true church, in which there is salvation 
 for all, and out of which there is salvation for none. It grows up in this 
 belief, and feels itself secure of reprobation, while it continues in a church, 
 in which accident, and not choice, directs its destiny. 
 
 I need not attempt to describe the character of such members of the 
 church. They differ, in no respect from surrounding society. This is as 
 true of many thousands of sprinkled Protestants, as it is of sprinkled Ro- 
 manists. True, the Romanists generally instil their principles with more 
 assiduity and success, than do the Protestants. They impart less light, 
 encourage more credulity, and speak with more authority. 
 
 A gentleman of the west told me that a Catholic boy, of some seven or 
 eight years old, had been specially entrusted to his care, in Baltimore, to 
 conduct him to Wheeling. His attention to the boy had so won his affec- 
 tions, that as they were approaching Wheeling, the lad, accosting him, 
 said, — Are you a Protestant, sir ? Yes, replied the gentleman, I am a 
 Protestant. I am very sorry for that, replied the child. When you die 
 you will go to hell. Why do you say so, asked the gentleman. Both 
 my mother and the priest say that all Protestants will go to hell — was 
 the reason given. This may be regarded as a strong case, but it is a true 
 one, and demonstrates the tendency of the system. It may not always 
 work so successfully or so fatally ; but, more or less, it works mischiev- 
 ously in innumerable instances. Catholic parents do their work more 
 faithfully than most of the Protestants ; and the consequence is, it is gen- 
 erally more difficult to convert a Romanist to any Protestant profession, 
 than a Protestant to the Roman persuasion. 
 
 The gentleman did not precisely quote the passage from the ninth of 
 
 2d2 
 
318 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the Romans, on which he says I rely for a plurality of covenants. That 
 he evaded the point in the passage, must have been clear to the convic- 
 tion of every person in this house who has ever examined the passage. 
 He acknowledges that there were three promises, and that these promises 
 were often repeated. But Paul speaks both of covenants and promises — 
 and if the gentleman will go to Gen. xii. 3, he will not find in that trans- 
 action one word about land. When God covenanted with Abraham, in 
 Urr, of Chaldea, he never mentioned inheritance or land of promise, to 
 him. The gentleman cannot find but two promises in that whole affair, 
 as reported by Moses. The promise of Canaan was made in Canaan, 
 and a covenant was confirmed over dead bodies in Canaan in ratification 
 of its provisions. This is incontrovertibly fatal to my friend's assump- 
 tions. The case, he honors, by comparing it to two men making a bar- 
 gain. They often meet together and talk about it a little now and then, 
 and after a long time of stipulation and re-stipulation, they finally agree 
 upon several items. They then write it out, call witnesses, sign, seal, 
 and deliver it. But can the gentleman shew any indications of such a 
 policy between God and Abraham ? No. God says, and it is done. He 
 promises, and Abraham believes. He stipulates, and Abraham acqui- 
 esces. Abraham left Urr, of Chaldea, on two promises. God gave him 
 another in Canaan — and after twenty-four years travels he gave him an- 
 other. All these are called covenants by inspiration. And, indeed, all 
 God's promises are covenants, to be acquiesced in b)- those to whom they 
 are tendered. Some, however, are emphatically so called. The cove- 
 nant concerning the Messiah, based on the second promise, was confirm- 
 ed by an oath. The covenant concerning the inheritance, by sacrifices. 
 The covenant of circumcision, consisted in the act of recognition. The 
 third covenant is marked by every circumstance common to those trans- 
 actions of a public and general character amongst men. There were 
 parties, stipulations, re-stipulations, seals and confirmation, God pro- 
 pounded it ; Moses negotiated it ; the chosen tribes acceded to it. It was 
 publicly read — fairly transcribed, witnessed to, and ratified by blood, visi- 
 bly and audibly. Can any one suppose that the cases of the Edomites 
 and the Ishmaelites, as brought forward by me, were either inapposite or 
 irrelevant? Though thus cast out at last, were not Ishmael and Esau and 
 their sons lawfully circumcised, and were they not proper subjects? It 
 cannot be successfully denied. What spiritual blessings, I must yet ask, 
 were bestowed on them through their circumcision? 
 
 Why now seek to off-set these cases, fairly and legitimately brought 
 forward, by allusions to Mormons, and apostates of every grade and 
 character ? Is it not, obviously, unfair to bring up cases essentially dissimi- 
 lar to those adduced by us ? I have brought up true and legal subjects of 
 circumcision — persons possessing all the qualifications the law required. 
 I have, indeed, instanced by name, a few persons well known to us by 
 fame, to whom I might add all the sons of Keturah. What covenant was 
 sealed to all these ? Were these similar to Mormons and apostates ? If 
 millions apostatized from the Jewish religion, that is nothing to the fact 
 of their having been proper subjects of circumcision, at the time of their 
 circumcision. The persons named by Mr. Rice were never proper sub- 
 jects of baptism. He cannot, then, escape from the difficulty by this 
 attempt. 
 
 His next effort is to show, that circumcision becomes uncircumcision, 
 if the circumcised persons do not keep the law ; but what does that 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 319 
 
 prove in this case ? No one denies the necessity of keeping the law, and 
 no one believes that circumcision, or any other observance, will profit 
 the person who does not conform to the requisitions in the case. But 
 the question, what spiritual blessings did circumcision convey? is yet 
 unanswered. The gentleman has not yet named one. He cannot. 
 
 But there is the " circumcision of the heart." To this he flies for 
 succor. But is that a spiritual blessing, belonging to circumcision, pro- 
 mised to all the subjects of it? He cannot avow such an opinion. Words 
 soon become figurative. The cutting off of a small piece of flesh, soon 
 came to indicate the separation of fleshly lusts and passions from the 
 heart. This circumcision of the heart is what was promised by the pro- 
 phets, and what is enjoyed under the gospel. " Christians," says Paul, 
 "are the true circumcision;" the anti-type of the fleshly or typical cir- 
 cumcision. " They worship God in the spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, 
 and have no confidence in the flesh." But who will say that such were 
 the spiritual blessings connected with Jewish circumcision ? 
 
 Baptism passed into a metaphor in a few years. Jesus said " I have a 
 baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accom- 
 plished." Was this the spiritual meaning of baptism? There was also 
 the " baptism of the Holy Spirit ;" was that the spiritual blessing of bap- 
 tism, or is it not another metaphor ? What popular term is it that we do 
 not, now-a-days, to say nothing of the ancients, immediately turn into 
 metaphor. Even proper names are not exempted from this law of lan- 
 guage. We have even Macadamized roads, Washington republicans, 
 and political Swartouters. How many metaphors are found in the New 
 Testament taken from the death of the Messiah? — Crucify the flesh, 
 crucified with Christ, buried with him, risen with him, &c. 
 
 But in ascertaining the literal rite of circumcision, and the benefits 
 thereby conferred, why bring up the spiritual and allegorical sense? 
 What is the question before us ? Spiritual or literal baptism ? Spiritual or 
 literal circumcision? Why confound them ; or why suppose that because 
 two words have been used figuratively to represent certain states or pri- 
 vileges, that the things properly and unfiguratively represented by those 
 terms, are the same in substance or in effect ? That some resemblance 
 between these two ordinances exists, as well as between every thing 
 Jewish and Christian, all men of sense and information admit. But that 
 admission involves not the consequence that the one has come in the 
 place of another, or occupies the same ground, or secures the same re- 
 sults. We also use the same epithets in speaking of different institutions, 
 without involving any such substantial or consequential identity. We 
 say the true circumcision, the true baptism, the outward and the inward 
 baptism, circumcision, the true Jew and the true christian, the true pass- 
 over and the true Canaan, <fcc, without involving identity. 
 
 I have asked for specifications of the spiritual blessings connected with 
 the circumcision of a Jew — but I have asked in vain. I have solicited a 
 discussion of the only reference to this subject yet submitted, viz. " The 
 seal of the righteousness of faith." The gentleman too well understands 
 the difference between this phrase and the one in the book, to hazard an 
 investigation of it. Any one who reflects on the sentence — " a seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith which he had, before he was circumcised;" 
 and the general phrase, " the seal of the righteousness of faith" cannot 
 possibly but appreciate the sophism, passed upon a community, by the 
 substitution of the latter for the former. 
 
320 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Suppose, for example, it were said by an historian, that Gen. Wash- 
 ington received the presidency of the United States, a seal of the patriot- 
 ism which he displayed in the revolutionary war; and some commenta- 
 tor should thence argue, or represent the presidency of the United States 
 as a seal of the patriotism displayed in the revolutionary war by every in- 
 cumbent ; would any one say he was a sound, logical commentator ? As 
 logical and sound as he who says, that circumcision is to any one, or to 
 every one, what it was to Abraham. But to apply this to infants shocks 
 all common sense. 
 
 I have challenged Mr. Rice to prove, that the seal of circumcision, so 
 called, is ever spoken of but once in the Bible ; or ever so applied, ex- 
 cept in the solitary case of Abraham. Mark Paul's singular style in this 
 instance : " He received the sign of circumcision." Did he say, "a seal 
 of righteousness" or of " the righteousness of faith ?" No, he did 
 not. He said, " it was a seal of (a special righteousness,) the righteous- 
 ness of the faith which he (Abraham) had while yet uncircumcised. 
 
 Abraham had a very singular and exalted faith. It was a model faith, 
 and of transcendent value. To confirm that faith, and stamp upon it the 
 Divine approval, God's own probatum est, it was expedient to make him 
 a grand covenantee — to give him the " covenant of circumcision," and 
 make him the spiritual father of all believers, in attestation of the value 
 of the faith which he had while in uncircumcision. Circumcision was, 
 then, a solemn seal or approval of this special faith — setting it forth as a 
 model faith, stamped by the Divine signet. It was, then, a Divine mark. 
 To the descendants of Abraham it never was a seal — it was but a 
 sign. 
 
 In adverting to the case of Caiaphas, Mr. R. makes the wrong issue 
 again. I said that it was as high priest he prophecied ; but he will have 
 him to prophecy as Balaam did, or as Balaam's ass, probably — (for it 
 might have introduced the ass, in this connection of things, with as much 
 pertinency as Mr. R. has introduced many other things.) Did Balaam 
 prophecy because he was high priest? He spake by the Spirit, for 
 another reason and for another purpose. The New Testament gives the 
 reason why and how he uttered the oracle — " This he said not of him- 
 self, but being high priest that year, he prophecied that Jesus should 
 die for that nation, and not for that nation only." Loud as a voice from 
 heaven these words demonstrate that the office was as sacred as ever— 
 though the officer was instigated by Satan. 
 
 I am sorry to be doomed, in the prosecution of any argument, to have 
 to notice so many matters, so irrelevant, and so little interesting. I may 
 pass over something, nay, I must pass in silence various such matters. 
 I might spend a month in this way, and then not reply formally to every 
 thing the gentleman may throw out. I will keep my eye on all matters 
 that may affect the real issue. Others may stand for what they are worth. 
 
 The gentleman has, then, so far utterly failed to point out any spiritual 
 privilege connected with circumcision — and, I presume, will indeed be 
 as much perplexed and embarrassed, to show that his infant baptism 
 secures any thing more to its subjects, than did circumcision secure to 
 Jacob or Esau, Isaac or Ishmael. 
 
 But he says, that probably they had faith before they were circum- 
 cised. Grant ihat sometimes they had— the fathers of proselyte families 
 for example. What then ? Was circumcision a seal from God in illus- 
 tration of the peculiar character of the faith of each individual prose- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 321 
 
 lyte? Who ever heard such logic? What does the term seal mean? 
 A confirmative mark, or a mark approbatory ? We have seals to bonds, 
 and we have seals to diplomas and credentials. Surely the gentleman 
 does not properly understand the word seal in this case, if he make it 
 represent to every proselyte that God gives this as a proof of the genu- 
 ineness and excellency of his faith ! ! Will Mr. Rice say, that circum- 
 cision was to each believing proselyte, a mark approbatory of his particu- 
 lar belief? 
 
 Again — the logic is still more evidently at fault in another particular. 
 It is a sophism of the most palpable character to argue from a special to 
 a general law or fact. And would it not be arguing from a special to a 
 general law or fact, to say that circumcision was to a thousand, what it 
 was to one individual of a thousand ? In the Jewish history, the number 
 of proselytes, it is presumed, in all time, did not average one to a thous- 
 and born within the covenant. Now, who would reason on any other 
 subject in this way ? Who would affirm that circumcision, as a Divine 
 institution, took its character from one subject in a thousand, rather than 
 from the nine hundred and ninty-nine ? Such, however, is the logic of 
 all Pedo-baptists that found their usage on Calvin's assumption. Better 
 take the Roman Catholic, or the Episcopalian, or any other ground than 
 this ; for, as it appears to me, this is superlatively the most untenable of 
 them all. 
 
 It behooves my friend to pay more attention to the fact, that circum- 
 cision was not the door into the Jewish church ; that Jews brought 
 forth Jews ; that natural, and not supernatural, birth was the wide door 
 into the Jewish church. Why then call baptism the door ? The palpa- 
 ble fact already suggested, is unanswered and unanswerable, viz : that 
 circumcision was administered to Jewish infants, not to bring them into 
 the church of Abraham, but because they were in it. How then could 
 it be a door? Is not the gentleman now obliged to give up circum- 
 cision, or to affirm that we are born members of Christ's church, just as 
 we are born into the world ? And whence comes the necessity of the sec- 
 ond or new birth ? When my friend shall have proved, that circumcision 
 was a door into a house four hundred years before the house was built; 
 that when the house was built, and the children born in it, they still had 
 to come in by the door of the house, he will have gained a victory over 
 reason and palpable fact, hitherto unachieved by all his predecessors. 
 This, too, is the main gist of his discussion of baptism in room of cir- 
 cumcision ! 
 
 The radical misconception of all Pedo-baptists is, that the Jewish com- 
 monwealth and the christian church are built on the same principle ; and 
 that that principle is flesh. That if faith be at' all necessary, it is not 
 personal faith, nor personal conviction — it is hereditary faith. And yet 
 they cannot see, that circumcision is at war with them on one side, while 
 they imagine it favorable on the other. It shows that the nature of the ne- 
 cessity of parental faith, or immediate ancestral belief, is a perfect dream. 
 No child descended from a Jew, was ever inhibited from circumcision be- 
 cause his parents were both reprobates. Not one instance can be shown. 
 There is some policy on the part of my friend, in seeming to disparage 
 circumcision, while, nevertheless, building on it. In Judaism rights to 
 ordinances were hereditary ; in Christianity they are personal. It is now, 
 therefore, faith and not flesh ; then it was flesh and not faith. When 
 shall my Pedo-baptist friends learn this lesson ? — Christianity is a per- 
 21 
 
322 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 sonal affair. Those called sons of God, are all born again. The sons 
 of Abraham were born of the flesh, and therefore, only once born. 
 Christians are born of the Spirit after they are born of the flesh. 
 Will my friend pay no attention to such declarations as these. To as 
 many as (and to no more than) received him, he gave the privilege of 
 becoming the sons of God ; to them that believe on his name who were 
 born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
 of God." Why should not these words of the Messiah, along with 
 those spoken to Nicodemus, decide this subject forever ? Did he not say 
 to the ruler of Israel, " You must be born again?'''' You cannot enter 
 into my church, or the kingdom of heaven, of which I speak, Nicode- 
 mus, unless you are "born from above, born of water and of Spirit." 
 Nicodemus, " that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that 
 which is born of the spirit is spirit." You must be born again. 
 Mr. Rice says, you need not be born again to get into the church ; but 
 you may be born again after you get into it ! But unfortunately for you, 
 my friends, Mr. Rice is but a mere professor of the faith, and neither a 
 lawgiver nor king in Israel. He can never dispose of this case of Nico- 
 demus. No one can imagine two societies founded upon more opposite 
 principles than faith and flesh, or spirit and flesh. Now when we look at 
 two societies, pure and unmixed, built upon the two principles, we shall 
 see a very different result. In the one, " all know the Lord, from the least 
 to the greatest;" all have God's law written in their hearts ; all enjoy his 
 favor and protection; all rejoice in hope of the glory of God. In the 
 other, it is a kingdom like Spain, Portugal, Italy, France — every thing 
 that liveth and moveth upon the face of the earth ! Allow the members 
 in each to be sincere in their profession, when existing and contemplated 
 apart from each other, the difference is no less striking ; because the great 
 majority in every Pedo-baptist community are necessarily unconverted 
 persons. 
 
 My friend has several times called for help this morning, in the form 
 of a request to furnish some evidence from the Bible, that the old Jewish 
 state of things has been done away, and substituted by another. I shall 
 certainly attend to this request as a matter of generosity. It is his place 
 to show that Christianity is but a continued and improved form of Juda- 
 ism, and not a new institution, built upon a new and better foundation 
 than the mere flesh, blood, and bones of father Abraham. 
 
 Before I set down, I shall advert for a moment to the two institutions. 
 Paul contrasts them in good style, 2 Cor. 3d chapter. The one that is 
 ** done away," and the one " that remaineth ;" the letter and the spirit ; 
 the law and the gospel. The Jewish institute was necessarily tempora- 
 ry and preparatory. It was confined to one nation and people. Its pro- 
 per boundaries were Palestine. Judea, Jerusalem, and its temple, were 
 the theatre of all its glories. Christianity is the religion of humanity. 
 It was intended for the whole human race. It excludes neither Jew nor 
 Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free. It throws the wide arms of 
 its philanthropy around the whole human race. It embraces with equal 
 cordiality, " the frozen Icelander and the sun-burned Moor." It pays no 
 homage to sceptered royalty, to ancient heraldry, to castes, ranks, or con- 
 ditions of men. It invites all, makes provisions for all, and tenders the 
 same conditions to all. It addresses every man as responsible for him- 
 self. It recognizes the most perfect free agency and responsibility. It 
 proposes the same conditions to the prince and the beggar. It demands 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 323 
 
 from all, faith, repentence, and unreserved obedience. It must have the 
 same voluntary devotion to God, as was manifested in the free and volun- 
 tary devotion of the Messiah to the salvation of man. He freely came 
 down from heaven to earth, and we must freely ascend from earth to 
 heaven. A christian people are essentially a free people : they are, 
 indeed, the only free people. The son of God makes men free indeed. 
 No one can be physically or metaphysically brought into, or cast out of, 
 Christ's church. We must know the Messiah, believe in him, acqui- 
 esce in his mission, reverence his official fullness and glory, and adore 
 his person as God with us. We must solemnly bow to his authority, 
 submit to his government, walk in his ways, and follow his example. 
 Then, and only then, can we claim the honor of the christian name, 
 and of a place in the church of the living God, "the pillar and the sup- 
 port of the truth." There is, too, an inexpressible pleasure in act- 
 ing for one's self in making the christian profession. The feeling 
 of our own responsibility, and of our coming, under a sense of it, 
 into a new and an everlasting relation to God, to angels, and to men. 
 We feel a thousand times more awful pleasure and high dignity, treating 
 in our own person with our Redeemer, without any interfering earthly me- 
 diator or negotiator. It is the highest enjoyment of personal liberty ever 
 attained by mortal man, to have the privilege of signing the covenant 
 with his own hand, and vowing with his own lips, eternal allegiance to 
 him that has redeemed him, and tendered to him an everlasting life, 
 through his death, by a patient continuance in well doing, seeking for 
 glory, honor, and immortality. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21—10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's fourth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Before proceeding immediately to the subject under 
 discussion, I wish to read from Calvin the passage to which Mr. Camp- 
 bell has so repeatedly referred, in which he represents him as having 
 claimed the right to change the ordinances appointed by Christ. He 
 read, from his Debate with McCalla, the following passage, taken pro- 
 fessedly from Calvin's Commentary on the eighth chapter of the Acts of 
 the Apostles : " The church did grant liberty to herself, since the begin- 
 ning, to change THE RITES SOMEWHAT, excepting the sub- 
 stance." And he called on me to say, whether these are not the words 
 of Calvin. I answer, they are not. He has quoted from Calvin only a 
 part of a sentence, without its connection ; and he has given a very in- 
 correct translation even of this fragment. I have here Calvin's Com- 
 mentary on the Acts, from which I take leave to read the whole sentence, 
 with its connection. After admitting what I, of course, do not admit, that 
 immersion was the general practice in the apostolic age, he thus remarks : 
 
 " Cseterum, non tanti esse nobis debet tantillum ceremonise discrimen ut 
 Ecclesiam propterea scindamus, vel rixis turbemus. Pro ipsa quidem bap- 
 tism! ceremonia, quatenus nobis a Christo tradita est, centies potius ad 
 mortem usque digladiandum, quum ut earn nobis eripi sinamus : sed quum 
 in aquae symbolo testimonium habemus tam ablutionis nostras, quam novae 
 vitse : quam in aqua, velut in speculo, sanguinem nobis suum Christus 
 repraesentat, ut munditiem inde nostram petamus : quum docet nos Spiritu 
 suo refingi, ut mortui peccato, justitise vivamus ; nihil quod ad baptismi 
 substantiam faciat, deesse nobis certum est. Q,uare ab initio libere sibi 
 permisit ecclesia, extra hanc substantiam, ritus habere paululum dissimiles : 
 nam alii ter, alii autem semel tantum mergebant,' " &c. — Com. on Acts viii. 
 
324 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " But so small a difference of the ceremony ought not to be considered by 
 us of so great moment, that on that account we should divide the church, or 
 disturb it with dissensions. As to the ceremony itself of baptism, in so 
 far as it was delivered to us by Christ, it were a hundred times better that 
 we perish by the sword, than permit it to be taken from us : but when in 
 the symbol of water we have the testimony as well of our cleansing as of 
 our new life : when in water, as in a mirror, Christ represents to us his 
 blood, that thence we may seek purification : when he teaches us to be 
 renewed by his Spirit; that being dead to sin, we may live to righteous- 
 ness : it is certain that we lack nothing which appertains to the substance 
 of baptism, Wherefore from the beginning the church has freely allowed 
 herself beyond [extra] this substance to have rites a little dissimilar : for 
 some immersed thrice, but others only once. Wherefore there is no reason 
 why, in things not really essential, we should be too illiberal : only let them 
 not pollute the simple institution of Christ by adventitious pomp." 
 
 You perceive that, though Calvin admits what I think is not true, he 
 does not claim for the church any power to change what Christ has de- 
 termined concerning, the ordinances. On the contrary, he maintained, as 
 I have before stated, that our Savior did not prescribe any particular mode 
 of baptizing, but left that matter to be determined by circumstances. 
 Whilst I do not agree with Calvin in all he has said on this subject, I am 
 unwilling to have misrepresentations, so injurious to the reputation of a 
 great and good man, pass uncorrected. I have no doubt, that this piece 
 of a sentence, incorrectly translated and published by Mr. Campbell, has 
 made many false impressions. I have a Baptist author who refers to the 
 same passage, thus : " The church (that is, Presbyterianism,) hath granted 
 to herself the liberty to change the ordinances, except the substance, that 
 is, the words !" I think I have given the precise words of the author. This 
 is a specimen of the perversions of authors which often are imposed on 
 the public. 
 
 I wish to present to the minds of the audience the ground over which 
 we have passed. As a strong presumptive evidence in favor of infant 
 baptism, I have stated that the overwhelming majority of the wise and 
 the good, of all ages, have believed that it is taught in the Scriptures. 
 And since the Bible is a plain book; especially on important points, it is 
 not probable that such immense multitudes have misunderstood its teach- 
 ings on a subject so essential to the very existence of the visible church. 
 
 I turned to the commission, and showed that it is not a commission to 
 commence a new organization, but to extend the limits and privileges of 
 the existing church; that it specifies, as proper subjects of baptism, 
 neither adults nor infants ; that disciples were to be made by baptizing 
 and teaching ; and that it does not say that teaching must, in all cases 5 
 precede baptism. It is admitted, that all who are entitled to membership 
 in the church, ought to receive baptism. The great question, then, is, 
 who, according to the law of God, are entitled to membership in the 
 church of Christ? To determine this question, we go to the organiza- 
 tion of the church. 
 
 A church I defined to be a body of people, called out from the world, 
 for the service of God, with ordinances of divine appointment, and a door 
 of admission, or a rite by which membership may be recognized. This, 
 it is not denied, is a correct definition of the church of Christ. We find 
 in the family of Abraham, precisely such a people — a people separated 
 from the world, for the service of the true God ; with ordinances of di- 
 vine appointment, and an initiatory rite, to wit: circumcision — distin- 
 guishing them from all other pe'ople, as being in covenant with God. From 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 325 
 
 that time onward, God speaks of them as M My people." Believers and 
 their children, were put into this church by positive law, and there they 
 remained till the time of giving the commission by our Savior. There is 
 no law excluding them. Since, then, we have put them in by positive 
 law, I call upon my friend to put them out by a law as clear and positive. 
 
 I have shown, most conclusively, that the church of Christ is the same 
 which was organized in the family of Abraham. You remember the il- 
 lustration of the principle of identity, drawn from the commonwealth of 
 Kentucky. Now, I will produce three times as much evidence to prove 
 that the christian church is the same body that was organized in the 
 family of Abraham, as can be produced to prove that the commonwealth 
 of Kentucky is the same political body that existed under that name forty 
 years ago. Under both dispensations, the church serves the same God, 
 obeys the same moral law, and trusts for salvation in the same gospel ; 
 all the prominent doctrines of which are contained in the Old Testament. 
 The christian church, I have proved, is enjoying her blessings under the 
 same covenant, of which two promises have been fulfilled ; but the great 
 promise is yet only in part fulfilled — a covenant confirmed in Christ and 
 containing the gospel ; a covenant which is never called old, and which, 
 in the Scriptures, is never said to pass away ; a covenant which makes 
 Abraham the father of all believers. It is new only in the mode of its 
 administration. 
 
 But, I might go even as far as my friend desires, and admit that the 
 Abrahamic covenant has passed away, and yet sustain my argument : for 
 I have shown from the epistle to the Hebrews, (ch. viii.) that a new 
 covenant (even if literally new) was to be made with the same people — 
 
 THE SAME CHURCH. 
 
 Now, believers and their children were put into this church by positive 
 law, and there is no law to exclude the one or the other. There is, therefore, 
 just as much authority for excluding believers, as for excluding children. 
 
 I wish now to notice some few objections, urged by my worthy friend, 
 in his last speech on yesterday. I must confess, however, that I was at 
 a loss to know what he was trying to prove. 
 
 He attempted to show that there were several covenants made with 
 Abraham. To this, I replied, that the Bible speaks of but one covenant 
 with Abraham. The following passages are conclusive on this point: — 
 Exodus ii. 24 : " And God heard their groaning, and God remembered 
 his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob," &c. Acts of 
 the Apostles iii. 25 : " Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the 
 covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And 
 in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." 
 
 Here the word covenant is used in the singular number ; and there is 
 not a passage in the Bible which speaks of more than one covenant with 
 Abraham. The same promises, as we have seen, were contained in the 
 12th, 15th, and 17th chapters of Genesis. The promises first made in 
 the 12th and 15th, were ratified and sealed by circumcision, as recorded 
 in the 17th. Now, to have three covenants, and the same promises in 
 each, would be marvellous indeed ! It is true, my friend said, there was 
 no land promised in the 12th chapter; but what says the first verse ? — 
 " Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy 
 father's house, unto a land that I will show thee." And when he reach- 
 ed the land, the promise was repeated, so that in each of these three 
 chapters we find the same promises. 
 
 2E 
 
326 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 But I do not care, so far as my argument is concerned, if my friend 
 finds half a dozen covenants with Abraham ; for the covenant of circum- 
 cision contains the promise of spiritual blessings, which was the great 
 promise. I will read a few verses in the seventeenth chapter, which, I 
 think, will convince every one that such is the fact : " I will make my cove- 
 nant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." Again, in 
 the fifth verse: "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but 
 thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made 
 thee." With this last verse we will compare the language of Paul, in 
 Rom. iv. 16, 17 : " Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be of grace ; 
 to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed : not to that only 
 which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, 
 who is the father of us all, (as it is written, I have made thee a father of 
 many nations.") Here, you observe, the apostle refers to the covenant of 
 circumcision, as containing the promise of spiritual blessings to the gentiles 
 as well as Jews. Again, Gen. xvii. 7 : " I will establish my covenant be- 
 tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee — to be a God unto thee, and to 
 thy seed after thee." What more do we want, than that he should be our 
 God, and the God of our seed? and that we should be the children of Abra- 
 ham, and be blessed with him ? We have, then, the promise of spiritual 
 blessings in the covenant of circumcision. We are, therefore, under the 
 same covenant, which was sealed by circumcision, and which made Abra- 
 ham the father of all believers. Take away that covenant, and how is 
 Abraham my father any more than Enoch or Noah ? 
 
 The second objection was, that circumcision was not a door of entrance 
 into the church. Now, I will read to you the language of the great An- 
 drew Fuller upon this subject — a man who did not intend to favor our 
 views, — vol. v. p. 155: 
 
 " This ordinance was the mark by which they [Abraham and his seed] 
 were distinguished as a people in covenant with Jehovah, and which bound 
 them by a special obligation to obey him. Like almost all other positive 
 institutions, it was also pre-figurative of mental purity, ' or putting off the 
 body of the sins of the flesh.' " — Lecture on Gen. xvii. 
 
 What is baptism ? Is it not the ordinance which distinguishes chris- 
 tians as a people in covenant with Jehovah ? by which they are bound to 
 him, and obliged to obey him? All who received circumcision were pe- 
 culiarly bound to serve God ; and so are all who receive christian baptism. 
 I remark again ; in Ex. xii. 48, we are particularly informed how gentile 
 proselytes might enter the church, if they wished to partake of the passo- 
 ver. All the males of the family were required first to be circumcised. 
 Compare this with Gal. v. 3 : " For I testify again to every man that is 
 circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." He has all the 
 privileges, and he is bound to perform all the duties of the law ; and that 
 is door enough for me. 
 
 But my friend's next objection is, that the church was not organized 
 till the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai. To prove this, he quotes the 
 language of Stephen, in Acts vii. 38 : " This is he that was in the church 
 in the wilderness, with the angel which spake to him," &c. Stephen, 
 it is true, speaks of the church in the wilderness ; but he does not inti- 
 mate that it was organized in the wilderness. His argument is, there- 
 fore, wholly without force. 
 
 But the gentleman has told us, that a constitution was adopted, and that 
 all were called upon to vote for it ; and this was the national organization. 
 
.DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 327 
 
 Paul, however, teaches a very different doctrine. He says, " Wherefore 
 then serveth the law ? It was added, because of transgression," &c. Paul 
 does not represent the law as the constitution, nor does he say any thing 
 of an organization of the church. He says, " The law was added." To 
 what was it added ? Of course, to the Abrahamic covenant ; for it could 
 be added to nothing else. The law at Sinai was an additional enactment 
 for the benefit of a church already organized, designed to answer a spe- 
 cific purpose, till Christ should come. 
 
 Circumcision, the gentleman insists, did not require piety in those who 
 received it. Then did God enter into covenant with wicked men without 
 requiring them to abandon their sins ! It will not do to confine the cov- 
 enant to Abraham ; for it is certain that God entered into covenant with 
 him and his seed in their generations. If, then, those who were cir- 
 cumcised, were not required to be pious ; the conclusion is inevitable, that 
 God made a covenant with the wicked, and did not require them to serve 
 him ! Believe it who can ! Paul, as I have proved, says," Circumcision 
 profiteth, if thou keep the law," but not otherwise. The law, as ex- 
 pounded by our Savior, requires man to love God with all his heart, 
 soul, mind and strength, and his neighbor as himself. Could the Jews 
 observe such a law, and yet possess no piety? 
 
 But the gentleman talks about figurative circumcision, and appeals to 
 the corruption of the Jewish church at the advent of our Savior and 
 afterwards, to sustain his untenable position. It is true, the Jewish 
 church was, to a great extent, apostate, when our Savior appeared on 
 earth. Yet there were some pious souls, here and there an aged Simeon 
 and an Anna, who waited for "the consolation of Israel;" and they re- 
 ceived him with open arms. And notwithstanding the corruption of the 
 mass, he still granted to those who received him, the privileges of sons. 
 But if the Jewish church became very corrupt, is it not also true that the 
 christian church has been almost inundated with error and impiety? You 
 might as logically maintain, therefore, that baptism does not require piety, 
 as that circumcision did not. 
 
 The gentleman has mustered in fearful amy fifteen arguments, to prove 
 that baptism did not come in place of circumcision. On that subject, as 
 I have repeatedly said, I feel very little concern. I will now, I think, sat- 
 isfy the audience, that the defence of infant baptism does not require me 
 to prove, that baptism came instead of circumcision. I have proved that 
 the children of believers have a right to membership in the church ; that 
 God did, at the organization of his church, put believers and their children 
 in together. This point is settled. It is also an indisputable fact, that 
 under the Old Testament adults and infants, parents and children, en- 
 tered the church by the same door — had their membership recognized by 
 the same ordinance. If children have still the right to a place in the 
 church, it is certain that they have the right to enter by the door. Under 
 the former dispensation there was but one door, through which all en- 
 tered. Under the present dispensation there is but one ; and all who 
 have a right to membership, must, of course, enter through it. You may 
 tell me the door is not now precisely where it was formerly. Very well : 
 I care not whether it is on this side of the house, or on that. Children 
 have the right to enter ; and if you will find a door for adults, I will find 
 one for their children ; for they have always entered by the door. Whilst, 
 therefore, I can prove, that baptism answers the same ends under the new 
 dispensation, that were answered by circumcision under the old ; I 
 
328 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 am not concerned to do it ; for the defence of infant baptism requires it 
 not. 
 
 There is only one more point in the gentleman's speech which I wish 
 to notice. He has told us how much infant baptism tends to corrupt the 
 church ; but I have appealed to the fact, which he will not dispute, that 
 the Pedo-baptist churches that have long practiced the baptism of infants, 
 are quite as pure as the purest Anti-pedo-baptist churches. He has rep- 
 resented infant baptism as the secret of the pope's tyrannical power; but 
 he has not proved, nor can he prove, that such is the truth. He told 
 us an anecdote of a little Romish boy, who, whilst on a journey, became 
 greatly attached to a gentleman to whose care he was committed ; but on 
 ascertaining that he was a Protestant, he told him, he would certainly go 
 to hell. When asked how he knew ; he replied that his mother told him 
 so. And this occurrence is held up before the audience as demonstrative 
 of the horrors of infant baptism ! It is, of course, clear as light to the 
 gentleman's mind, that the Popish mother never would have instilled such 
 errors into the mind of her child, if he had not been baptized ! ! The 
 water of baptism produced this sad effect ! ! ! It is a little remarkable, 
 that sometimes apparently opposite courses of conduct seem to lead to 
 the same results. 1 recently heard of a little girl belonging to the gentle- 
 man's church, who made to an old lady of another church just such a 
 remark as fell from the lips of the Romish boy ! Shall we hold up this 
 case and say, behold the fruits of immersion ? The simple truth is, that 
 children very naturally imbibe the errors of parents, whether baptized or 
 not. Such anecdotes are poor arguments — very poor. 
 
 The audience must now judge for themselves, whether Mr. Campbell 
 has answered any one of my arguments. I have put children into the 
 church by positive law ; and I have called upon him, so far in vain, to 
 produce the law for putting tliem out — for depriving parents and children 
 of privileges which God in his mercy has given them. If he can pro- 
 duce a "thus saith the Lord" for it, I will agree to put them out; but I 
 must protest against the attempt to exclude them by far-fetched inferences, 
 contrary to every principle of law. 
 
 I have several more arguments, which demonstrate yet more fully the 
 identity of the church under the Jewish and christian dispensations ; but I 
 shall have quite sufficient time to present them. The only difference, so 
 far as this discussion is concerned, is to be found in the passing away of the 
 civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews, added to the Abrahamic covenant, 
 for a particular end, and for a limited time. And as no man in his senses 
 would maintain, that the commonwealth of Kentucky is not the same 
 political body, because certain temporary laws expired at the end of the 
 period to which they were limited ; so no man can consistently contend, 
 that the passing away of the civil and ceremonial laws of the old dispen- 
 sation, annihilated the church of God. He might as well assert, that I 
 am not the same man, because I have put on a new coat ! 
 
 The truth is, that God has never inculcated but one religion. .The re- 
 ligion of the heart — the great matter, after all — was the same in Abra- 
 ham's day as now. External ordinances have changed, but the church 
 is the same — true piety is unchanged. The religious exercises of Abra- 
 ham, of David, and of all the saints of the Old Testament, correspond 
 substantially with the experience of all christians. The saints of the former 
 dispensation looked forward through prophecies and sacrifices to a Savior 
 to come. The saints, under the new dispensation, look back through 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 329 
 
 inspired history, and the sacraments, to a Savior who has come. The 
 eyes of all have been fixed upon the same glorious object; and, through 
 him, upon the same blessed heaven. Ordinances have been changed ; but 
 the conditions of salvation — faith, repentance, and holy living, have been 
 to all the conditions of salvation. 
 
 Having now put the children of believers in the church, by clear and 
 positive law, I shall wait for the gentleman to produce the law for exclud- 
 ing them. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21—10^ o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fourth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I have often had occasion to observe and remark, that 
 a man can assert and deny more in half an hour, than he can prove in a 
 whole year. To review in special detail the points which my friend 
 says he has proved, and those which he means to prove, as now stated, 
 it will require more time than has been allotted to the discussion of this 
 proposition. All that was said yesterday, has been repeated this morn- 
 ing. Indeed, I believe that all that has been said now, was said by my 
 friend in his first speech. It is not to be expected, therefore, that I will 
 merely reiterate as well as he, especially as I have much new matter yet 
 to offer. It is necessary to advance into the main points of evidence 
 and argument, upon which ultimately this subject must rest in the minds 
 of this community. 
 
 My friend began by reading to you a passage out of Calvin, and his 
 translation of it ; to which I will first advert, lest my silence be construed 
 into an admission that I did not read the whole section, but suppressed 
 6ome part of it from improper motives. I did not, nor do I usually in 
 debate, read the whole section or passage from which I may quote a fact 
 or an argument ; but what I do read, I read in the full light of its own 
 context, and intend that it shall fully contain a fair and honest representa- 
 tion of the mind of the writer. In this instance, I contend that I have 
 done so to the letter. I will put the question — I will ask, whether what 
 was read this morning does, in the part quoted or in the whole, in the 
 least change the sense of what I read on yesterday ? This manoeuvre 
 seems to be intended for effect — to make you believe that I left out some- 
 thing of great importance, or changed the sense. If the gentleman will 
 give me the book from w r hich he has translated this passage, I will show 
 that there is not in it a single idea repugnant to what I have read. Cal- 
 vin does claim that the church has taken this liberty, extra the substance. 
 No Presbyterian supposed that the church is bound to walk by the exact 
 letter, but may change and modify the ordinances according to expedi- 
 ency. In my view, indeed, the Presbyterians have always done so ; and 
 in some instances much more grossly than in the case now before us. 
 They have rites " a little dissimilar," as Mr. Rice reads it. It is not 
 necessary that I should read the whole page from an author, when a 
 shorter extract will give the whole spirit and force of his argument. 
 
 My friend says he has "put children" into the church, according to 
 law. I suppose he means infants ; for we are all children. He certainly 
 believes that infants ought to be in the church with their parents. We 
 all believe that children ought to be in the church as soon as they know 
 the Lord. But that is not the argument. It is, Are the offspring of profes- 
 sing parents, soon as born, by virtue of their parentage, — because of their 
 being of the same flesh and blood, entitled to be in the church ? Is the 
 
 2e2 
 
330 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 infant bom of a Presbyterian father or mother, by virtue of that natural 
 birth, that accident, necessarily, and by Divine authority, a member of the 
 church of Christ? 
 
 The gentleman is certainly throwing dust in your eyes. Who denies 
 that children should be in the church ? The question is as to whether 
 the infant progeny are born members of Christ's church, because their 
 parents were professors of the faith ? If he should speak, as he has been 
 speaking, through a thousand years, or through as many volumes as com- 
 poses the Vatican library, it would not reach this question at all. I ask 
 him to show, by one single passage, where infants are placed in Christ's 
 church ? He cannot do it. There is not in the Old Testament nor in 
 the New, one single passage indicating any such thing. 
 
 As I intend to occupy a part of this day in answering minor matters, 
 having nothing else, indeed, to answer, I will now, in order that you may 
 have the whole subject before you, read a passage from Gal. iii. accom- 
 panied with a remark or two. I do it rather to exhibit the unfortunate 
 obliquities in the reasoning of my opponent, than because of the validity 
 of the argument, or the importance of the point in issue ; for I had rather 
 charge it to an unhappy obliquity, than to any disposition on his part to 
 sophisticate or interpolate the sacred text. My friend says "the law was 
 added to the covenant." But the apostle does not happen to say so. It 
 is not so written in the Old Testament or in the New. I have the Bible 
 before me, and I say the law was not added to the covenant. "It was 
 added to the promise" Now this promise had reference to a single 
 point — that of possessing the land of Canaan. It was not added to the 
 covenant, for that would be to add the law to itself, or a covenant to itself. 
 The argument proves this beyond a doubt. Need I show that the Jews 
 never inherited Canaan by, or in consequence of, their own works? 
 They were on their way to the promised inheritance before the law was 
 promulged. Therefore, the law has nothing to do with the inheritance. 
 The law, indeed, was added to the promise, concerning the inheritance. 
 It was solemnly covenanted to Abraham's family four hundred years be- 
 fore the law was given. Hence, the addition of the law gave no addi- 
 tional right to the inheritance. " For if the inheritance came by the law," 
 says Paul, " it is no more of promise." But God gave it to Abraham by 
 promise. The addition of the law was, therefore, for a different purpose, 
 for reasons stated by the apostle. 
 
 I now design requesting your especial attention to a passage in Gal. iv.; 
 I shall read it : " My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until 
 Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and to 
 change my voice ; for I stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire 
 to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ? For it is written, that Abra- 
 ham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. 
 But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh." My friend 
 asks for a repudiation of the old covenant, and infant membership. I in- 
 tend to assist him with an argument from this passage. Here is the 
 first point in the argument: "But he who was born of the free woman 
 was by promise." Here, then, are two births ; the one by virtue of the 
 flesh, the other by virtue of a promise. Now, says Paul, these things are 
 an allegory. " For these are the two covenants ; the one from the Mount 
 Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar; for this Agar is 
 Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is 
 in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem, which is above, is free, 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 331 
 
 which is the mother of us all. For it is written, " Rejoice, thou barren, 
 that bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not ; for the de- 
 solate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now 
 we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as, then, 
 he that was born after the flesh, persecuted hirn that was born after the 
 spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture ? Cast 
 out the bond-woman and her son ; for the son of the bond-woman shall 
 not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are 
 not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." 
 
 That I may place the precept of repudiation fairly before you, and con- 
 clusively show that the children of the flesh are no longer " counted for 
 the seed," I shall require your particular attention to an analysis of this 
 much neglected passage. The four principal tropes in this allegory are 
 Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah, Isaac, a sort of dramatis personse, were it a sce- 
 netic representation. These two women represent two covenants — the 
 consummated covenants of which I have spoken ; the one from Horeb, 
 the other from Jerusalem. The two sons of one father, Abraham, repre- 
 sent the children of the two covenants ; Ishmael the Jews, and Isaac the 
 christians. Now, the question is, in how many points do the two women 
 represent the two covenants, and the two sons the two kinds of children 
 under these institutions ? They represent them in the four following par- 
 ticulars : 1. In the conception of their offspring. Hagar's was natural, 
 Sarah's was supernatural. Hagar was a young woman, Sarah was sup- 
 erannuated ; and, as Paul says, as "good as dead." Hence the births, or 
 offspring, were essentially different. That of Hagar was according to 
 the flesh, that of Sarah according to the spirit. The birth of Ishmael 
 was natural, that of Isaac was as much above nature, as the conception 
 of the Messiah, on the part of Mary, was supernatural, in one point of 
 view. 
 
 2. In the condition of their offspring. Hagar was a slave, and Sarah a 
 free woman. Now the issue always follows the mother, when contem- 
 plated according to property. If the mother be free the offspring is free — 
 if a slave, her offspring is a slave. Hence Ishmael was a slave, and Isaac 
 was free born. 
 
 3. In the spirit of their offspring. Not only in personal freedom, as 
 respected condition, but in the spirit of freedom. There is a free, gener- 
 ous, noble, and magnanimous spirit ; and there is a slavish, low, and 
 mean spirit, which is homogenous with the condition. Isaac was do- 
 cile, pious, and elevated above the flesh — a spiritual man. Ishmael was 
 selfish, envious, and rude — an animal man. 
 
 4. In the inheritance of their offspring. Hagar had no property, not 
 being the proper wife of Abraham. She had only a slave's portion- 
 bread and water. Hence a loaf of bread and a bottle of water constituted 
 her whole fortune, and Ishmael's inheritance. But Isaac was an only 
 son of his mother, and also in the marriage covenant. He was the only 
 child of Abraham by Sarah, and the rightful heir of his vast estate. But 
 in one point of comparison, under the allegory, the contrast is most strik- 
 ing, viz. the casting out of the bond-woman and her son, and the perpe- 
 tual enjoyment of the inheritance at home, by Isaac. 
 
 We now have sufficient specifications and dates, not only to give a clear 
 and unambiguous precept of that precise meaning, sought after by Mr. 
 Rice, but also to sanction, as well as to illustrate, and even farther develop, 
 the views and conceptions given on this proposition. There are, then, two 
 
332 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 church covenants. The two women, says Paul, are the " two cove- 
 nants" These, then, are well defined covenants. The one is from 
 Mount Sinai — "Agar in Arabia," the Jewish church covenant beyond a 
 doubt; the other is from " Jerusalem above," the new christian constitu- 
 tion or covenant, first promulged and sealed in Jerusalem. " This is the 
 new covenant in my blood," said Jesus in Jerusalem. Hence the " word 
 of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem " to all the world. The christian 
 church is married to the Lord, through this new covenant, as certainly as 
 the Jewish church was by the former covenant. "I was an husband to 
 you," says the Lord. 
 
 Need I farther show, that the children of Israel, compared to Ishmael, 
 were, as church members, only "born of the flesh?" Is it not indis- 
 putable? Paul says, the first covenant children were born "after the 
 flesh," and the second covenant children are born "after the Spirit." 
 This single passage, this most graphic allegory, these most appropriate 
 tropes and images, it seems, go all the length and breadth of my view r s 
 of the proposition now before us. While we have, in our Testaments, 
 this illustration of the objects of the two institutions, Jewish and Chris- 
 tian, my friend's notions of church identity and infant membership, found- 
 ed on ancient covenants, have not one inch of ground, Old Testament 
 or New. 
 
 The two principles of flesh and Spirit, natural and supernatural birth, 
 are now clearly shown to be the differential character of the two institu- 
 tions. We have, then, two communities, under two very distinct consti- 
 tutions, of very different spirit, character, and circumstances. On these 
 we have no time to expatiate. He that was born after the flesh perse- 
 cuted him that was born after the Spirit, is, however, a point so promi- 
 nently characteristic of the two communities, as to be worthy of notice. 
 It occasioned the rejection of Ishmael from the privileges of Abraham's 
 family, and elicited that identical precept for which Mr. R. inquires — 
 "Cast out the bond-woman and her son," "for the son of the bond- 
 woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." "So then," 
 says Paul, "brethren, we are children, not of the bond-woman, but of 
 the free." Christians are under a new covenant, have a new spirit, and 
 are heirs of a better inheritance than that of the old covenant. 
 
 Abraham, the prince and distinguished patriarch, was called upon, by 
 Divine authority, to hearken to Sarah and cast out the bond-woman and 
 her son. That a king, so rich in gold and silver, in flocks, and herds, 
 and servants ; so generous too, should have given her no more for her- 
 self and her son, than one loaf of bread and one bottle of water, is not 
 to be explained upon any other principle than that God intended it to be 
 an allegoric representation of the difference between these two covenants ; 
 two births, two spirits, two characters, two inheritances, as well as a sol- 
 emn warning to those who will cleave to the letter rather than to the 
 Spirit — to the Old Testament rather than to the New. 
 
 Let him, then, who will be under that covenant, follow Hagar into the 
 desert. Let him contemplate her, poor and homeless, parched with thirst, 
 without bread, her son almost dying under a shrub for lack of the com- 
 forts of life — let him listen to her complaints, and survey her wretched 
 condition, and ask why all this suffering, almost under the eye of Abra- 
 ham. And when he learns that all this happened for an example to those 
 who will cleave to the old order of things rather than to the new, and 
 seek to confound and identify things which God has separated, let him 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 333 
 
 at once desist from a course of action so dishonorable to the Divine wis- 
 dom, and so fatal to himself. 
 
 The gentleman has now the precept sought, and I feel that my pledge is 
 redeemed. And should he ask for a second, he shall have it as soon as 
 he shall have disposed of this allegory, and the argument deduced from 
 it. I presume, however, that this will be so satisfactory to him, that he 
 will not ask for another, pending the present proposition. 
 
 I wish the gentleman would dipense with the sowing of assertions in 
 this broad-cast style, and make an issue upon some point or other. He 
 may have the allegory, or the covenants, or the identity, if he will only 
 debate them. I will risk my cause upon such an issue. In this way of 
 scattering assertions, no opportunity is afforded to test or decide any thing. 
 A person of very little address can assert more in half an hour, than he 
 can prove in an age. 
 
 Mr. R. argues that the Jewish and christian churches are identical. 
 But he seems to confound similarity and identity. They are, indeed, 
 very different predicaments. There is some similarity between a man 
 and a tree — but much more between a man and a monkey, yet they are 
 not identical, [a laugh.] He argues for the identity of the church, and 
 its rights of membership in all ages. But when I asked him for the 
 door by which infants entered during the first 2000 years, he could not 
 tell, but concluded that if I should tell how adults entered he might then 
 find a door for infants. Well, I will now try. Adults entered God's 
 church, so far as he had any on earth, during the first 4000 years, by 
 faith and obedience, or if he prefer the phrase, by an active and operative 
 belief of God's testimonies and promises. 
 
 A beautiful passage in Isaiah, in prospect of the calling of the gentiles, 
 seems clearly to refer to this transaction. It was designed to show that 
 finally the children of Sarah would greatly outnumber those of Hagar : 
 that is, that the spiritual children of Sarah and Abraham would incompar- 
 ably transcend their fleshly progeny. I shall paraphrase as I read it. It 
 immediately follows the sufferings of Christ, foretold in the fifty-third 
 chapter of Isaiah, and is here quoted and applied by Paul to the offspring 
 of Sarah. " Rejoice, thou barren, (Sarah) that bearest not ; break forth 
 and cry, thou that travailest not, for the desolate (deserted for Hagar) has 
 many more children than she (Hagar) who had a (Sarah's) husband." 
 Hence we boast of Sarah, the mother of us all. 
 
 I will give you a sample of his argument for identity. He says that 
 the Jewish and Christian churches are the same, because they have the 
 same moral code. Massachusetts colony for a time adopted the law of 
 Moses for her law. Was Massachusetts and the Jewish church, there- 
 fore, identical ? They have, also, adopted the same code of morality in 
 Kentucky: but is this commonwealth and the christian church identical? 
 Upon that principle, Free Masonry and Christianity are identical ; because 
 they have adopted something in common. 
 
 But again — the same God reigns over both churches. Does not the 
 same God reign over Kentucky and Jerusalem ? The same God reigns over 
 the Ottoman empire and the United States ; are they, therefore, the 
 same people? He also argues the identity of the ancient and modern 
 churches, because they have the same gospel. But this is not strictly 
 true : they have not the same gospel, unless upon the principle, that France 
 and England have the same language, because they have the same alpha- 
 bet. The christian gospel is not that the Messiah is to come; yet that 
 
334 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 was the Jewish gospel. Paul calls the promise concerning Canaan, a 
 gospel — so says Dr. McKnight — just as we have a gospel concerning a 
 rest in heaven. We have, then, two gospels : the one earthly, fleshly ; 
 the other, heavenly. My friend says that both churches have the same 
 ordinances. I should like to see him attempt to prove that the Jewish 
 and Christian ordinances are the same. Is baptism and circumcision 
 identical? Is the passover and Lord's supper identical? He says they 
 have the same king. Not exactly the same king ! Messiah is now king. 
 All power and authority in this universe, is now in his hands. It was not 
 so in the Jewish church. There was a change in the government when 
 the Messiah was exalted. Who was it that placed the crown upon the head 
 of the exalted Messiah ? Who placed him upon the throne, and said, 
 " Reign in the midst of thine enemies ?" It was that God that governed 
 the Jews — the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. But he made 
 Jesus Christ the rightful Sovereign over heaven and earth ; over all au- 
 thorities, principalities, and powers. Peter said, " Let all the house of 
 Israel know that Jesus is Lord and Christ." Therefore, it is not strictly 
 true, that the government is in the same person, and in the same hands 
 now, that administered it during the Jewish theocracy. Jesus was not 
 then born, much less king. My friend says, the Mediator is the same. 
 Moses was the mediator between God and the people. Gal. iii. 19, 
 " Wherefore then serveth the law ? It was added because of transgres- 
 sions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made ; and it 
 was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." In the hand of the 
 mediator, Moses. Is Moses and the Messiah the same? Paul to the 
 Hebrews, says, " Having obtained a more excellent ministry than Moses 
 and Aaron, he is the mediator of a better covenant." 
 
 Christ's church is a spiritual community — a community of persons in- 
 telligent, believing, loving, fearing and serving God in the hope of eternal 
 life. They are possessed, every one, of God's Spirit, else they are not 
 his. The church is the temple, the house of the living God, the dwelling 
 place of the Most High. It is not a community of speechless babes and 
 carnal, sensual men. Its members are all born again, born of the Spirit, 
 born of God. 
 
 I have one question to ask, itself a full refutation of the assumed iden- 
 tity of the two institutions, the Jewish and the Christian. Was not Nic- 
 odemus a proper, an honorable, an official member of Mr. Rice's Jeivish 
 identical christian church? And did not the Master say to him — Nico- 
 demus, unless you, sir, " are born again" — or from above, " you cannot 
 enter into my kingdom, or church, as almost universally understood? 
 Did not John the Baptist come preaching the necessity of faith, repent- 
 ance, and baptism, to the Jewish people ; even to prepare them for admis- 
 sion into the kingdom of God ? Did not John tell the Jews that Abra- 
 hamic descent would now profit nothing ; that they must not think that, 
 having Abraham to be their father, would avail any thing, without a new 
 faith, a real reformation — a new birth ? 
 
 I have shown that some six or seven of his points have no identity. I 
 would be willing to rest the whole controversy upon his ability to make 
 them out points of identity. If, now, he will stake the whole case upon 
 a thorough syllogistic canvassing of identity, I will meet him upon that 
 single question. I predict that he will not do it. 
 
 As I have said before, I am willing to take any number of points. It 
 is his method to say that he has proved, or will prove so and so ; but 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 335 
 
 there is not much light, conviction, or evidence in such promises and as- 
 sertions. I will show, at the proper time, as I have already in part, that 
 the churches are not at all identical, even in his own specifications ; that 
 in his examples, he has failed to prove any identity ; nay, I have showed 
 that they had not the same constitution ; that they had not the same laws, 
 same subjects, same observances, same promises, &c. &c. 
 
 How much better is Presbyterian flesh and blood than Jewish— than 
 Roman Catholic flesh and blood ? Why should Protestants demand for 
 their flesh and blood, what they would not extend to a Jew, a Mussul- 
 man, or a pagan ? " God has made of one blood all nations of men." 
 Why prefer one child of the flesh to another — baptize one and repudiate 
 another ! ! 
 
 It is a remarkable fact, that the New Testament begins with a repudia- 
 tion of national and fleshly descent, of all family aristocracies in religion. 
 " Think not, men of Israel, to say that you have a covenanted father 
 Abraham !" A proclamation of repentance is made to all men. Did they 
 not baptize all the circumcised Jews that repented ? What comes of cir- 
 cumcision as the door now ? Two doors into Christ's house ! ! one by 
 circumcision and one by baptism. This is an insuperable argument 
 against identity. No man can dispose of it. 
 
 There is, indeed, but one door into the world, and but one door into 
 Christ's church. There is no back nor side door into either. Men can- 
 not cut doors into Christ's house just when and where they please. Re- 
 member, the King himself has said, " Ye must be born of water and of 
 the Spirit." You must repent, and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. 
 You must come to him, believe on him, receive him, or he will not give 
 you the privilege of becoming children of God. So John the Harbinger, 
 the Messiah himself, and his apostles, preached to the Jewish church, to 
 the lost sheep of the house of Israel. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 11 o'clock, Ji. M 
 [mr. rice's fifth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I decidedly object to Mr. Campbell's quotation from 
 Calvin, for two important reasons. 1st. He has given part of a sentence 
 without its connection ; and 2d. The part he has given is very incorrect- 
 ly translated, so as to make the impression that Calvin claims for the 
 church the authority to change the ordinances appointed by Christ ; when 
 in truth he only maintains that the mode was not prescribed. 
 
 So far as the gentleman's side of the question is concerned, it may 
 be true, that there has been no debating. Such is certainly the fact, if 
 by debating be understood the making of a fair issue on the points in 
 controversy. I think it likely that many will be of opinion that he has 
 left my most important arguments untouched. He would fain have me 
 confine myself to some few points. It would, no doubt, be of great ser- 
 vice to his cause, if he could exclude a large portion of the evidence 
 bearing on the question. I prefer, however, concentrating, as far as pos- 
 sible, the whole teaching of the Scriptures relative to it, and if he fails to 
 answer my arguments, I cannot help it. 
 
 He tells you that I am throwing dust in your eyes, by using the word 
 children instead of infants. Does he really believe that any one, even the 
 most ignorant, misunderstood me ? The gentleman, who does not speak 
 for 'present effect, seems to think that the audience cannot understand me, 
 I am, however, disposed to presume somewhat upon their intelligence. 
 
336 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 He calls on me to show where the children of believers were put into 
 the church under the new dispensation. But I call on him to prove that 
 the new dispensation has put them out. I have put them into the only 
 church that ever did exist on the earth ; and let him prove, if he can, that 
 the passing away of the ceremonial law did put them out. If he cannot 
 do this, (and I say, he cannot,) he must let them still enjoy their privi- 
 leges. 
 
 The law, my friend says, was not added to the Abrahamic covenant ; 
 but to the promise with reference to the land of Canaan. Yesterday I 
 thought he had three covenants, and that this was one of them. Let me 
 turn to the Scripture (Gal. iii.) which he read upon the subject. The fact is, 
 that Paul does not mention the land of Canaan in this whole chapter. He 
 is writing against false teachers, who sought to be justified by the deeds 
 of law ; and he proves that even Abraham did not pretend to be justified 
 by the law, but by faith ; that he is introducing no new doctrine, but is 
 teaching that which was believed by the father of the faithful himself. 
 Gal. iii. 11 : " But that no man is justified by the law, in the sight of 
 God, is evident ; for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of 
 faith ; but the man that doeth them [the deeds of the law] shall live in 
 them." Verse 13 : " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law ; being made a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is every one 
 that hangeth on a tree : that the blessing of Abraham might come on the 
 Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the 
 Spirit through faith." Does this prove that Paul was speaking of the 
 land of Canaan ? So far from it, the apostle is teaching, that we receive 
 not only justification, but a promise of the Spirit, through faith in the 
 Lord Jesus, according to the Abrahamic covenant. But I will read a lit- 
 tle farther : verse 15: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men ; 
 though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disan- 
 nulled or addeth thereto," Again, verse 16: " Now to Abraham and 
 his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of 
 many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Compare with 
 this the declaration of the apostle in the Heb. xi. 8 : " By faith, Abraham 
 when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive 
 for an inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he 
 went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange 
 country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him 
 of the same promise : for he looked for a city which hath foundations, 
 whose builder and maker is God." This was the bright inheritance to 
 which Abraham and his children were looking. Again, Gal. iii. 19 : 
 " Wherefore, then, serveth the law 1 it was added because of transgres- 
 sions ; till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was 
 made." The law was added — added to the Abrahamic covenant, which 
 is the subject of Paul's whole discourse. The land of Canaan is not 
 once mentioned in the epistle. The law at Sinai was, therefore, neither 
 the constitution of the Jewish church, nor an addition, simply, to the 
 promise of the land of Canaan ; but an addition to the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant, made for a specific purpose, till Christ should come. 
 
 I am quite pleased, that the gentleman has introduced the passage in the 
 fourth chapter of the epistle to the Galatians; for it establishes most con- 
 clusively the very doctrine for which I am contending. I will read from 
 the twentieth verse : 
 
 " I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice ; for I 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 337 
 
 stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye 
 not hear the law 1 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons ; the one 
 by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was born of the 
 bond-woman was born after the flesh ; but he of the free woman was by 
 promise. Which things are an allegory ; for these are the two covenants ; 
 the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 
 For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which 
 now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is from 
 above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice thou 
 barren that bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not : for the 
 desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband. Now 
 we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he 
 that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, 
 even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the 
 bond-woman and her son : for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir 
 with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of 
 the bond-woman, but of the free." 
 
 Here we have distinctly presented, the two covenants ; the one with 
 Abraham, which is represented by Sarah and Isaac; and the other at 
 Sinai, represented by Agar and Ishmael. The Jews who clung to the 
 law given at Sinai, as a temporary addition to the Abrahamic covenant, 
 and rejected the Messiah promised in that covenant, were in bondage. 
 Christ " came to his own, and his own received him not." The glorious 
 Redeemer, the seed promised to Abraham, had appeared in Judea ; but 
 the great body of the Jews rejected him, and turned to seek justification 
 and salvation in the types and shadows of the Levitical law. They, 
 in consequence of their apostasy from the Abrahamic covenant, were in 
 bondage. Yet the promised Messiah was not rejected by all the Jews. 
 The olive-tree still had some living branches. The great majority were 
 broken off because of unbelief; but many who received the Divine Sa- 
 vior, remained. Those who despised him and trusted in the law, were 
 cut off; as Agar and Ishmael were removed from Abraham's family. 
 Those who received him, still constituted his church, the Jerusalem which 
 is from above, the mother of us all. 
 
 That such is the true meaning of the passage, is made perfectly clear 
 by the quotation given by the apostle from Isaiah liv. 1. I will read sev- 
 eral verses, that the connection may be understood: — " Sing, O barren, 
 thou that didst not bear ; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that 
 didst not travail with child : for more are the children of the desolate, 
 than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place 
 of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations : 
 spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes : for thou shalt 
 break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit 
 the gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not, for 
 thou shalt not be ashamed : neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt 
 not be put to shame : for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and 
 shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." 
 
 I was somewhat amused to hear the gentleman quote this prophecy as 
 an address to Sarah — Rejoice, O barren Sarah ! Whence he derives his 
 authority for this singular interpretation, I know not, unless he considers 
 Sarah the church. God did not represent himself as the husband of Sa- 
 rah, but as the husband of the church. 
 
 This prophecy is certainly addressed to the church under the old dis- 
 pensation. It was intended to comfort her in a period of prevailing 
 wickedness, and approaching calamity, by pointing her to a brighter day 
 22 2F 
 
338 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 in her future history — a day when her children should be greatly multi- 
 plied, and she should inherit the gentiles. 
 
 Here is an unanswerable argument for the identity of the church under 
 the Jewish and christian dispensations. For if, as Mr. Campbell contends, 
 the Jewish church ceased to exist as the church of God, at the commence- 
 ment of the new dispensation ; I call on him to tell us when these prom- 
 ises were fulfilled. When did the Jewish church, to which they were 
 addressed, lengthen her cords and strengthen her stakes ? When did she 
 inherit the gentiles? When did she rejoice in the multitude of her chil- 
 dren ? It is certain that these promises were never fulfilled under the old 
 dispensation ; and if the christian church is not the same church under 
 another dispensation, they never have been, and never can be fulfilled! 
 When the apostles went forth to proclaim to the gentiles " the unsearch- 
 able riches of Christ;" when "the middle wall of partition" was 
 broken down ; then it was that the church, which had for centuries been 
 oppressed and afflicted, began to lengthen her cords and strengthen her 
 stakes, and to receive the gentiles as her children. I am gratified that 
 the gentleman turned our attention to this most interesting portion of Scrip- 
 ture. We here find promises, great and precious, made to the church in 
 the days of Isaiah, which received their fulfillment under the new dis- 
 pensation. Thus we have evidence, the most conclusive, that the church 
 is the same under both dispensations. 
 
 The identity of the church under the Jewish and christian dispensa- 
 tions, is also clearly proved by the prophecies, in the 60th chapter of 
 Isaiah : " Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is 
 risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and 
 gross darkness the people : but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his 
 glory shall be seen upon thee. And the gentiles shall come to thy light, 
 and kings to the brightness of thy rising." 
 
 When did the gentiles come to the light of the Jewish church ? When 
 did kings come to the brightness of her rising ? Was it under the old 
 dispensation ? No : it was when the gospel w r ent forth in triumph and 
 glory, from nation to nation, and gathered its thousands into the church 
 of the Redeemer. Then it was that the gentiles came to the brightness 
 of her rising. Then kings shut their mouths, for that which they had 
 not heard, was told them. 
 
 Again, ver. 4: "Lift up thine eyes round about and see: all they 
 gather themselves together, they come to thee : thy sons shall come from 
 far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see, 
 and flow together, and thy heart shall fear, and be enlarged ; because the 
 abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the gen- 
 tiles shall come unto thee." 
 
 Now, when was the abundance of the sea converted to the Jewish 
 church ? and when did the gentiles pour into it ? Here are promises that 
 could not be fulfilled under the Old Testament. The christian church, 
 therefore, is the same which received the promises ; or if not, God made 
 promises that never were and never can be fulfilled ! 
 
 I might read the whole of this chapter ; but allow me only to read the 
 verse 10 : " And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their 
 kings shall minister unto thee : for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my 
 favor have I had mercy on thee." Did the sons of strangers (gentiles) 
 ever build up the walls of Jerusalem ? Were these promises ever fulfilled 
 to the church ? Never, never : unless the christian church is identical 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 339 
 
 with the Jewish. And certainly it will not be' denied, that the church 
 which received the promises, lived to see their fulfillment. My friend has 
 told us, that Christ's church is a spiritual church. I admit that it is a 
 spiritual church, and so was the Jewish church intended to be spiritual. 
 Hence no adult ever entered into it, according to God's law, without pro- 
 fessing to be a believer ; and its members were required to worship God 
 in spirit and in truth. Nicodemus was not a worthy member of that 
 church. 
 
 My friend says, that before the new dispensation, repentance was not 
 preached. David said, " A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt 
 not despise." God, speaking by Isaiah, said, " To this man will I look, 
 even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my 
 word." What did Isaiah say— 54th chapter? "Let the wicked forsake 
 his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : and let him return unto 
 the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will 
 abundantly pardon." Were not repentance and reformation then taught 
 as conditions of salvation? 
 
 I will answer, very briefly, if I have time, some of my friend's further 
 remarks. In relation to the church for two thousand years before Abra- 
 ham, he asks, if there was a church, how did infants get in ? He asserts 
 that adults entered by faith. I desire the proof of this : I call for the 
 proof that faith, before the days of Abraham, ever constituted an individ- 
 ual a member of the visible church. That there were many pious people, 
 and that they exercised faith, is certainly true ; but did faith constitute 
 them members of a visible church ? The gentleman cannot find a church 
 of God, in which the children of believers did not enjoy the same privi- 
 leges granted to believers, so far as they were capable. If he will show 
 how adults entered a visible church, before the time of Abraham, by the 
 Bible, and not by assertion, I will attend to his arguments. 
 
 I have proved that the church is the same, under both dispensations, 
 from the fact, that she receives and obeys the same moral law. My 
 friend replies, that the state of Kentucky has adopted the code of laws 
 taught by Moses. I did not know it; and I very much doubt whether 
 the state of Kentucky professes to receive and obey Moses' law. I knew 
 that she had borrowed a great deal from the Bible ; but that she had 
 adopted the moral law of God, and professed to be governed by it, is one 
 of the things that I did not know. I am equally ignorant of the fact, if it 
 be a fact, that Massachusetts ever adopted the moral law as a rule of ac- 
 tion. If it were true, however, it would prove that there is a sameness 
 in one point. 
 
 But, the gentleman says, if I had maintained that the Jewish and Chris- 
 tian churches were, in many respects, similar, he would have admitted 
 it. I said precisely what I meant, and what is literally true. Under both 
 dispensations the church worships and serves the same God — not a simi- 
 lar God. She obeys the same (not a similar) moral law. She receives 
 the same (not a similar) gospel; and she enjoys her blessings under the 
 same (not a similar) covenant. I am not speaking of similarities, but of 
 identity. 
 
 The Free Masons, the gentleman tells us, have adopted the moral law. 
 If he will prove that there are as many and as important points of same- 
 ness between the Masons and the christian church, as I have shown be- 
 tween the church under the old dispensation, and under the new, I will 
 recognize them as a part of the church of Christ. But he will not at- 
 ierant it. 
 
340 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 In reply to the fact I have stated, that under both dispensations the 
 church worships and serves the same God, he says — the same God reigns 
 over Kentucky and over Jerusalem ! Can he see no difference between 
 a revolted province and a people obedient to the laws of their sovereign ? 
 I did not say, simply, that the same God controls all things, under both 
 the Old and the New Testaments, but that the church does, in fact, wor- 
 ship and serve the same God. Do not all the nations that acknowledge 
 the queen of England as their sovereign, and obey the laws of Great 
 Britain, constitute one kingdom, even though oceans roll between them ? 
 And so the church which has, in all ages, worshiped the same God, 
 constitutes one spiritual kingdom. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, strangely indeed, denies that the Jewish church had the 
 same gospel, any more than France and England, because they have the 
 same alphabet, have the same language ! Thus he flatly contradicts Paul, 
 who says, the gospel was preached to Abraham, Gal. iii. 8. Again, in He- 
 brews iv. 2, he says : " For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as 
 unto them" — that is, the Jews in the wilderness. But, he says, the gos- 
 pel that was preached to them was the promise of Canaan. Let him prove 
 it. The Greek word is the same which, throughout the New Testa- 
 ment, is used to denote the gospel of Christ; and, therefore, it devolves 
 upon him to prove, that in this instance, it has an uncommon meaning — a 
 meaning it has not in another instance in the New Testament. 
 
 He tells you, that I say, the church has the same ordinances under the 
 Old and New Testaments. / did not say so. On the contrary, I said 
 precisely the opposite — that the ceremonial law, with all its ordinances, 
 has passed away, and given place to a few simple ordinances, adapted to 
 the extension of the church over the world. What could he have been 
 thinking of? 
 
 He denies that the church under both dispensations has the same King ! 
 I thought there was but one true God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit ! He denies, too, that under both dispensations the church had 
 the same Mediator I and he tells us, Moses was mediator under the Old 
 Testament. In what respect was he mediator? In giving the law Moses 
 acted as a daysman between God and the people. In what sense was 
 Christ the mediator ? He stepped between offended God and offending 
 man ; and, in due time, laid down his life for all his people, in all ages, 
 past and future. Accordingly Isaiah says: "All we, like sheep, have 
 gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own way ; and the Lord 
 hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Christ died to atone for the 
 sins of those who lived before, as well as of those who should live after 
 his advent. This I have already proved, by the plain declarations of Paul, 
 in Rom. iii. 25, and Heb. ix. 15. Hence, in the book of Revelation, he 
 is spoken of as " The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." It 
 is, therefore, worse than vain for the gentleman to deny, that under both 
 dispensations the church has worshiped and served the same God, obey- 
 ed the same moral law, and received the same glorious gospel. 
 
 Not a Jew, the gentleman tells us, ever passed into the church of 
 Christ because of his connection with Abraham. But adults have always 
 entered the church on a profession of faith. I desire, however, if he 
 pleases, to be informed when the apostles received christian baptism. I 
 do not find in the New Testament, that any one of them except Paul, 
 who was converted at a later period, was baptized. Mr. Campbell ad- 
 mits that John's baptism was not christian baptism ; and our Savior, we 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 341 
 
 are informed by John the apostle, did not baptize. Then by whom were 
 they baptized? 
 
 They were a portion of the branches of the good olive-tree, that were 
 not broken off because of unbelief. They were in the church, and were 
 never excluded. It was, therefore, unnecessary that they should be 
 grafted in again. They formed, as it were, the connecting link between 
 the two dispensations, showing the identity of the church under both. 
 If there is any part of inspired history that mentions their baptism, I have 
 overlooked it. 
 
 It is true, as the gentleman says, that the kingdom of Christ is a spir- 
 itual kingdom, and so it has ever been. He quotes John i. 11 — 13, to 
 prove, that whilst the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, the Jewish church 
 was fleshly. " He came to his own, and his own received him not. 
 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons 
 of God, even to them that believe on his name : which were born, not of 
 blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
 Now what is the simple truth on this subject? Christ came to his own ; 
 his oivn people, his church; but the great majority of them had become 
 apostates, and they rejected him. But, amid all the error and corruption 
 that prevailed, there were still some who were born, not of the flesh, but 
 of God. Such were the aged Simeon, and Anna the prophetess, and 
 many others. Those who were born of God, possessed true piety — re- 
 ceived him with open arms ; and, notwithstanding the defection of others, 
 he gave to them the privileges of children. The new dispensation was 
 not yet introduced ; and yet there were persons who were born of God. 
 This passage is decidedly in favor of the doctrine for which I am con- 
 tending. For if Christ had no church till the new dispensation, how 
 could it be said, " he came to his own, and his own received him not?'* 
 
 I have now answered the gentleman's arguments, so far as he has of- 
 fered arguments, and have presented a greater number in favor of our 
 views, than he is willing to examine. He does not forget frequently to 
 charge me with making bold assertions ; and he does not neglect to make 
 many such, without offering the slightest proof. He asserted, that before 
 the days of Abraham, adults entered a visible church simply by faith. I 
 called upon him for some little evidence. Has he produced any ? No — 
 and he never will. "When I make a statement, I hold myself bound, es- 
 pecially if it is questioned, to produce the proof. Whether the evidence 
 adduced is conclusive, the audience must judge. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fifth reply.] 
 Mr. President — The gentleman errs in stating, that I proposed to ex- 
 plain the whole subject of casting out the Jewish church and the covenant 
 from the relation which they once sustained to Abraham's God. That is 
 just as unnecessary to my argument, as my friend's disquisition upon Sa- 
 rah, as the barren woman of Isaiah. His is the rare art of evading argu- 
 ments, by extraneous matters and false issues. What I have said of Sarah 
 and her progeny, from Isaiah, as quoted by Paul, is no part of my argu- 
 ment, nor at all necessary to it. It is, however, a view full of consolation, 
 that Sarah has become the mother of many millions more than all the chil- 
 dren of the flesh, born of Hagar ; and that Abraham's spiritual progeny bids 
 fair greatly to out-number the children of his flesh. Mr. Rice has prudent- 
 ly substituted certain declarations and declamations concerning the calling 
 
 2f2 
 
342 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of the gentiles and the enlargement of the church, for a discussion of the 
 allegory, or the precept for casting out the bond-woman and her son. I 
 presumed he would find the allegory and reasonings of Paul upon it, un- 
 answerable, and certainly, his passing it, without a single remark, shows 
 that I have not been mistaken. 
 
 Not having been furnished with a copy of Calvin's commentary, I can- 
 not say whether the version we have had of it, is literatim et punctu- 
 atim, according to the text. I read from the English version. I know 
 the gentleman quotes Scripture with freedom, and I presume he quotes 
 Calvin in the same manner. But my representation of Calvin's views on 
 that subject is not, in the sense, at all impaired by even his free transla- 
 tion of the passage, nor has it any thing at all to do with the question now 
 before us. " The church," he says, " has freely allowed herself to have 
 rites a little dissimilar extra the substance." Now what is the difference ? 
 
 I spake of a plurality of covenants with Abraham. I gave chapter and 
 verse. He has not by quotation, or argument, attempted a refutation of 
 these views. They stand unanswered, and I presume he considers them 
 unanswerable. The gentleman made some effort to quote Rom. ix. 4, 
 but failed to give the verse as found in either the original or the common 
 version. Paul does not make the last word of this verse exegetieal of all 
 the items in it. The verse gives a series of honors and emoluments be- 
 longing to the Jews. " To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, 
 and the covenants, and the giving of the law and the promises — whose 
 are the fathers, and of whom as respects the flesh the Messiah came — 
 who is over all God blessed forever." This method of putting in some 
 words and leaving out others, I cannot approve— nor do I approve of the 
 transposition of words, when critically quoting a verse or a sentence from 
 the sacred Scriptures. The covenants are different from the giving of the 
 law, and from the promises. Now the Jews, besides the law, had no cov- 
 enants but the Abrahamic. Therefore, I properly quote the verse to 
 prove a plurality of covenants with Abraham. 
 
 He also read a passage from Gal. iii. in order to prove that the law was 
 added to the covenant. And to what covenant was it added ? The law 
 was itself a covenant, and is so called. The very ark that held the two 
 tables on which it is written, is called "the ark of the covenant,'''' and the 
 tables themselves are called the " two tables of the covenant." The law 
 added to the covenant ! The covenant added to the covenant ! What 
 does the gentleman mean ! ! The old covenant, or the law, was, indeed, 
 added to an antecedent promise concerning Canaan,' — and it was added to 
 the promise concerning the Messiah. But the question is : what is the 
 promise alluded to Gal. iii. 18? The Messiah or the inheritance in- Ca- 
 naan, emblem of the rest in heaven ! Not the Messiah : for Paul imme- 
 diately adds, " God gave the inheritance to Abraham by a promise," con- 
 sequently, not by a law of works ; for, as the same writer says to the Ro- 
 mans—" The promise to Abraham, that he should be the heir of the 
 world, (the heir of Canaan,) was not after, or through the law, but through 
 the righteousness (or obedience) of faith. Now the facts are, as every 
 one who has carefully read the history remembers :— -God promised Ca- 
 naan to Abraham at a very early period, probably soon after his arrival in 
 it. Certainly, however, he confirmed it by a covenant before Ishmael 
 was born. Ishmael was fourteen years old when Isaac was born — ma- 
 king the covenant aforesaid date some ten to twelve years after the call of 
 Abraham. If the gentleman means, then, that the law was added to the 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 343 
 
 covenant, concerning the inheritance, he may have it so for any thing our 
 debate cares, or is interested in the discussion. The plurality of cove- 
 nants with Abraham stands as erect as ever. 
 
 By a singular freak of imagination, the gentleman was borne away to 
 heaven and the eternal inheritance, and was found, if not like Philip at 
 Azotus, at least in the 11th of the Hebrews — and, by expatiating on the 
 heavenly inheritance, has lost himself and the subject so far as not to hear 
 Paul in the same passage loudly speaking — ■" These all (Abraham, Isaac, 
 Jacob, Sarah, just now named) died in faith, not having received the pro- 
 mises concerning Canaan, but having seen them afar off (400 years,) were 
 persuaded of them and embraced them, and confessed that they were pil- 
 grims and strangers in the earth," (the land promised them for an inheri- 
 tance.) all of which, indeed, was a type of heaven. The gentleman, no 
 doubt, found this flight to the eternal inheritance, an happy escape from 
 the difficulties which environed him. But all this is his proof " that the 
 infant of a believing parent, is a proper subject of christian baptism !" He 
 has a right to prove this point just as he pleases. 
 
 You will please to remember, however, that there was an earthly inher- 
 itance, actually and formally added to the promise. The very boundaries 
 of which, northward, and southward, and westward, and eastward, are 
 given by the Lord himself to Abraham. Which, however, being a type 
 of the future and boundless inheritance of heaven, was to be inherited, not 
 by works of law, but by the righteousness of faith. Hence, faith and 
 grace were in the Abrahamic family anterior to law — the only point we 
 are careful now to maintain. 
 
 It was important, in a typical institution, that there should be an exact 
 correspondence between the typical scenes, and the things adumbrated 
 by them. What is not true in the letter could not be true in the type, 
 nor in the anti-type. Moses represented the law; Israel the elect of all 
 nations ; their bondage in Egypt, man's slavery in sin ; their redemp- 
 tion by the first-born of Egypt, and the blood of the slain lamb, the chris- 
 tian ransom ; their escape through the red waters, their eating the manna, 
 their drinking from the rock, their journey through the wilderness, their 
 passing Jordan, &c. Abraham's walking by faith in a land not his own, 
 and dwelling in tents, with his co-heirs, on a soil deeded to him by the 
 Lord of the whole earth. And the grace, and the promises, and the rich- 
 ness of the inheritance, all were unique ; and literally, typically, and anti- 
 typically true. He, then, that confounds one letter, one type, in this 
 primer of Divine knowledge, inflicts a great misfortune upon those who 
 desire to understand the glorious scheme of deliverance, originated, de- 
 veloped, and consummated by the grace of God. 
 
 I shall not reiterate my labors of yesterday, in fixing the chronological 
 dates of those three Abrahamic covenants, consummated at last in the 
 old church, or national covenant, ratified and confirmed at Horeb, 430 
 years after the original promise concerning the Messiah, the seed of 
 all spiritual blessings. The matter appears to be, satisfactorily or unsat- 
 isfactorily, established beyond controversy. When assaulted, I shall be 
 forthcoming with new resources. The time, place, and circumstance of 
 any transaction is, of all sorts of proof, the best. 
 
 If I understood Mr. Rice's account of these affairs, he compares the 
 three covenants to one great bond, having three distinct instalments ; one 
 concerned the covenant at Horeb, due in 430 years — or perhaps the land 
 of Canaan; one concerning the flesh of the Messiah, payable at some in- 
 
344 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 definite future period ; and one to be paid in the millenial dispensations. 
 Now, if any inspired apostle had said so, I should have had no objection 
 to it ; yet even then it would have been unintelligible to any one who either 
 understands the doctrine of the Bible, or the laws of bonds. For each 
 one of these transactions is positively called a covenant per se, and inde- 
 pendent of any other one ; and one of them has respect to blessings not 
 found in either Canaan, or the flesh of the Messiah, or the latter-day 
 glory. Not one of these has the gospel in it. The new triune or triple 
 bond has no gospel in it for Jew or gentile. Where now is the identity 
 of the two churches ? 
 
 But finding only two promises, and no land of promise, in this cove- 
 nant of Gen. xii. 3, on reflection, my friend perceived that to cover the 
 whole ground of subsequent development, he must get some land into it. 
 And what was the expedient ? On turning over to Gen. xii., and reading 
 down a few verses, he meets with a promise made to Abraham, in the 
 plains of Moreh, in the land of Canaan — no one knows how long after- 
 concerning the country in which Abraham was now residing. This pro- 
 mise concerning the land of Canaan, was, in truth, a promise of the in- 
 heritance But strange to tell, the gentleman has forgotten that " the cov- 
 enant confirmed of God, concerning Christ,'" and reported in the third 
 verse of Gen. xii., was given to Abraham, not in Canaan at all ; but in 
 Urr of Chaldea! and so the fourth and fifth verses plainly declare; "So 
 Abraham departed (from Urr of Chaldea) as the Lord had spoken to him, 
 and Lot with him ; and Abraham was seventy-five years old when he de- 
 parted out of Haran." Some time after this he arrived in Canaan, and 
 from place to place had removed, till he came to Moreh. The Lord ap- 
 peared to him, and said, "Unto thy seed will I give this land." What, 
 sir, could not be proved from the Bible by such a licence of interpolation, 
 transposition, and annihilation of times and places !! I have never heard 
 a more glaring, nor a weaker effort, to interpolate a new provision on an 
 old transaction. I shall not farther expose this attempt ; believing that 
 there is no intelligent or attentive person present who does not tho- 
 roughly comprehend the failure of my ingenious and resolute friend. But 
 my duty to the whole community commands me to make a remark, I 
 could wish not to have been constrained to make in the presence of this 
 assembly. It is this : If a commentator or teacher can thus foist into a 
 solemn covenant, a provision so different in time, place, and significance, 
 under the influence of partizan prejudice or feelings, how shall we con- 
 fide in his judgment and discretion, in other cases, as a biblical expos- 
 itor ? 
 
 I may again remark, that, in matters of such high magnitude, it is all-im- 
 portant that we be governed by those lines of separation so essential to cor- 
 rect interpretation, those geographical and chronological metes and boun- 
 daries, which are providentially introduced, and from which, sometimes, 
 arguments are deduced, even by inspired writers themselves. In one verse 
 we are told that Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left Haran. 
 Fortunate too, it seems to me, was it, that when father Jacob appeared be- 
 fore Pharaoh, the monarch asked him for his age. For from the answer 
 made by the patriarch to the king, we ascertain the period of the sojourn, 
 both in Canaan and in Egypt. The venerable Jacob responded in the 
 most apposite terms, saying; " The days of the years of the life of my 
 pilgrimage are one hundred and thirty years." From these dates of the 
 call of Abraham, of the birth of Isaac, of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 345 
 
 Jacob's descent into Egypt, we are able to make out the items of those 
 430 years from the covenant of the Messiah to the giving of the law. 
 The three grand transactions are forever permanently fixed — the covenant 
 in Chaldea, the covenant of circumcision, the covenant at Horeb. The 
 first 25 years before the second, and the second 405 years before the third ; 
 the three together occupying, in all, four hundred and thirty years. 
 Paul founds two important arguments against the Judaizers on these dates. 
 To the Romans, he proves that circumcision had nothing to do with jus- 
 tification; because Abraham was justified twenty-five years before he 
 was circumcised, as they knew, and that the promise of blessing the gen- 
 tiles, through faith, could not be vacated or disannulled by the law of 
 works, he proves to the Galatians, from the fact that the covenant, prom- 
 ising to bless the gentiles, was confirmed, and immutably too, four hun- 
 dred and thirty years before the giving of the covenant of peculiarity to 
 the Jews. It is not in the power of any man to refute this argument. 
 These are plain historical and chronological facts and documents, which 
 are as indestructible as the universe, and shall stand for ever. To con- 
 found these transactions is to confound law and gospel — the covenant 
 concerning the blessing of us gentiles, with the circumcision and the Ca- 
 naan provisions for the Jews. That circumcision that was contrary to 
 us, Jesus Christ took out of our way, as a religious solemnity, nailing it 
 to his cross. 
 
 Mr. Rice has taken the ground of the identity of these two institutions 
 as the main basis of his argument. It is the most untenable ground in 
 creation. It is worse than proselyte baptism, or tradition. Circumcision 
 has been thought most plausible, and now we have it transmuted into 
 identity. He must, then, tear up all these land-marks by the root. He 
 must annul dates and places. He must confound law and gospel, Jew 
 and Gentile, flesh and Spirit. It is a hard task. And, in arguments of 
 this kind, the proof extends to every single point of comparison ; for a 
 case of identity is the most difficult case in law, in gospel, in ecclesias- 
 tics, in physics, and in metaphysics. Similarity, the gentleman knows, will 
 never do. He is right — he must prove identity ; and that is impossible. 
 
 Some imagine, and amongst them, I believe, is Mr. Rice, that the 
 promise "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee," implies 
 spiritual blessings ; and if so, then there is one provision in the covenant 
 of circumcision, indicative of spiritual blessings: for in Gen. xvii., "The 
 Lord said to Abraham, I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after 
 thee." Well, it is so written, and so we read Gen. xvii. 7. Whether, 
 however, it is in that place to be regarded as a mere preamble to the cov- 
 enant of circumcision, or as a provision in it, is questionable — highly 
 questionable. But I shall not question it at this place, nor in this discus- 
 sion. That God intended, in these words, to take the twelve tribes under 
 his special protection and providence, is admitted ; and that, as their God, 
 he would bless them with corn, and wine, and oil, and all earthly good — 
 giving them a delightful land, flowing with milk and honey, is universal- 
 ly understood and admitted. But that, beyond this, anything more was 
 intended or implied in these words, is not inferrible from any thing in the 
 Old Testament — nor from the words themselves. Indeed, the palpable 
 fact that God found fault with them and that institution, promising in the 
 next to convey spiritual blessings — to write his laws upon their hearts — 
 and to make them know him, from the least to the greatest of them, is 
 itself enough to show, indeed to prove, to all persons of reflection, that 
 
346 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the blessings of the former were temporal, and those of the latter, spiritu- 
 al. Here, however, I am reminded of a complaint made against me by my 
 sensitive friend, for calling God the husband of Israel, or of Sarah. It 
 will be, I hope, but a venal offence in the esteem of those who have no- 
 ticed that God himself first used the endearing appellation. "I was," 
 said he, " an husband unto them ;" yet they broke the marriage covenant. 
 And more than this, all their apostasies are set forth under the imagery 
 of an unfaithful wife, that has broken her covenant with her husband. 
 Jesus, indeed, calls himself the bridegroom, and Paul espoused the 
 church, and desired to present her a chaste virgin to the Lord. And has 
 not God promised to be an husband to the widow, as well as a father to 
 the fatherless ? There is nothing, then, so heinous, nor so reprehensible 
 in my allusions to God as an husband to Sarah. 
 
 Such matters as these, however, fill up the time and save the resources 
 of Mr. R., which I presume he is reserving to a more convenient season, 
 when we may expect him to prove his position by a formidable array of 
 New Testament arguments. 
 
 But, by way of an offset to my remarks on the opening of the New 
 Testament with the preaching and baptism of repentance, for remission 
 of sins, he asks, was not repentance preached to the Jews ? Now, what 
 does this mean ? I said, (in order to prove that the Jewish and Christian 
 institutions were not the same identical church,) that, before a man, who 
 was a good member of the Jewish church, could be admitted into the 
 Christian church, he must repent of his sins and be baptized. Moreo- 
 ver, I asked him to show a single instance of a son of Abraham entering 
 into the Christian church, without repentance and baptism, on the ground 
 of former membership. I challenge him again to produce a single case. 
 He cannot do it. It is, therefore, idle to talk of preaching repentance, 
 under the old dispensation — we sometimes preach repentance to those in 
 the church. This is a position which no man denies. But it seems to 
 evince the extreme sterility and barrenness of his side of the question. 
 in point of argument. 
 
 I have endeavored to show, that, whatever the door into the Jewish 
 church might have been, it was a door that suffered them to carry in too 
 much flesh; and, therefore, another and a straiter door was required. 
 Jesus has spoken something of the straitness of the gate of life, and of 
 the narrowness of the way leading to it. 
 
 The gentleman has again adverted to my remarks upon the corrupting 
 influence of infant membership. Does he wish for more evidence 1 He 
 can have it to satiety. What would corrupt the church more, than to 
 bring all the world into it without a change of heart? And will, or can 
 Mr. R. show that this is not his aim, or the tendency of the views he in- 
 culcates ? Suppose, for illustration, that Mr. Rice's views of the neces- 
 sity of infant baptism universally obtained ; what would the consequences 
 be, but the introduction of the whole community into the church ? It 
 would cause the church to throw her arms all round the earth, and take 
 into her bosom every thing born of the flesh. Such is the design and 
 tendency of the doctrine. It would make the doors of the church wide 
 as the doors of the world. But that is not all. It goes in this way to 
 make void the commandment of the Lord. 
 
 The Messiah brought this as a serious charge against certain contempo- 
 raries, scribes and pharisees, doctors and public leaders. You, said he, 
 make void the commandments- of God by your traditions. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 347 
 
 The law of God says : " Honor thy father and thy mother ;" but you 
 say, "Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, This that you need 
 I call a gift, and devote it to the Lord, and honors not his father or moth- 
 er, he shall be free." Now, what is the difference in principle, where 
 parents prevent their children from honoring their Heavenly Father, by 
 taking from them the opportunity and the right of obeying his precept, " Be 
 baptized every one of you." A parent can neither believe, nor repent, 
 nor be baptized for his child. Nor has he any authority from God to 
 take away from his child the exquisite pleasure of believing, repenting, 
 and of being baptized for himself. Parents, you rob your children of 
 their highest honor — that of being buried with their Lord, on their own 
 clear conviction, firm belief, and joyful acquiescence. 
 
 Neither can you dedicate your infants to the Lord in baptism. Your 
 notions of dedication are most unscriptural, if you think so. Whatever 
 is dedicated to the Lord, is given wholly to him, to be exclusively em- 
 ployed in his service. Samuel was thus taken to the sanctuary and left 
 there. But that was a free-will offering. If you go for dedication, ac- 
 cording to law, you can only give your first-born son. The Lord asks 
 for neither son nor daughter besides. Again ; there is a special ordinance 
 for this purpose, Exodus xiii. 2 — 12 ; Levit. xii. 6 — 8. Our Lord was 
 dedicated according to law ; for he was the first-born son. Now, Jesus 
 was circumcised the eighth day, and dedicated on the fortieth, and was 
 not baptized till his thirtieth year. 
 
 You see how idle it is to attempt to blend and confound these ordinan- 
 ces, when the great Master himself, the great Lawgiver of the universe, 
 was first circumcised at eight days old, dedicated at forty days, and re- 
 ceived the baptism of John at thirty years : at the age of perfect maturity, 
 he came forward ; (though not in need of baptism for the remission of 
 sins ;) but it became him to honor every divine institution. Is not this 
 the duty of all his followers ? 
 
 My friend has asked me to show the passage which speaks of the bap- 
 tism of the apostles. He knows there is no account of it. But its not 
 being recorded is no evidence that it did not take place. He asks me to 
 tell when each of the apostles was baptized, as if it were requisite to give 
 the time, place, and circumstances. They were baptized with John's 
 baptism ; no other was instituted during their first discipleship. Between 
 John's baptism and that ordained by the Messiah himself, there was, in 
 this respect, little difference. When the time came for their baptism, they 
 were believing adults, and were immersed in the Jordan, confessing their 
 sins. They made a public profession and confession. They voluntarily 
 came forward and were immersed. 
 
 Christian baptism did not commence till at the Pentecost in Jerusalem, 
 and after that Paul, like any other convert, was immersed. There was 
 then no necessity for proving their previous baptism, any more than that 
 of John's. 
 
 I have yet time to state another objection to the identity of the two in- 
 stitutions. Jesus said to Peter that he would build his church upon a 
 certain rock. Now, as the rock was then, for the first time, displayed, 
 upon which the church of Christ was to be founded, can we either scrip- 
 turally or rationally conclude, that the Jewish church had stood upon that 
 same foundation for 1500 years ? If the foundation laid by Moses, or by 
 God, in the Abrahamic family, was Jesus Christ, or the confession of 
 faith in him as the Messiah of God how could Jesus say, I will lay a 
 
348 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 new foundation ? or, On this rock will I build my church, and the gates 
 of hades shall not prevail against it? — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 12 o'clock, M. 
 [mr. rice's sixth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — In my last address I offered some additional argu- 
 ments from the prophecies, proving the identity of the church of Christ 
 under the old and new dispensations. To these arguments, the only reply 
 of the gentleman is, that they are entirely irrelevant, that they have noth- 
 ing to do with the question. That is, he would have you believe, that 
 the fact that certain most important promises were made to the church 
 under the old dispensation and fulfilled under the new, does not prove 
 the church to be the same under both ! — does not prove, that the church 
 lived to enjoy the fulfillment of the promises ! He might as well say, the 
 fact that an infallible promise made to a man ten years since, and now fulfill- 
 ed to him, does not prove that he is the same individual ! ! ! He will doubt- 
 less better serve his cause by making positive assertions and attempting 
 no reply ; for then those who may consider him infallible, will suppose 
 that all is right. This mode of interpreting, or rather of slighting proph- 
 ecy, is, I will not say "licentious," (for this is an offensive word,) but 
 most unwarranted. 
 
 As to the plurality of covenants with Abraham, I have said (and I 
 repeat it) that I care not, so far as infant baptism is concerned, if the gentle- 
 man could find half a dozen. I have proved every thing that is neces- 
 sary to the defence of it, viz : that the covenant of circumcision contains 
 the great promise of spiritual blessings through Christ. I have fully 
 proved, that in Genesis xii., xv., and xvii. the very same promises are 
 made, repeated and sealed by circumcision ; but it is an indisputable fact, 
 proved by the apostle Paul, (Rom. iv.) that the great promise sealed by 
 circumcision, was of spiritual blessings to all the nations of the earth, 
 through Christ. This is the covenant and this the promise on which the 
 church was organized. 
 
 The gentleman tells you, that I did not fully and correctly read the 
 passage in Romans ix., on which he had commented. I read every word 
 of it. He had maintained, that inasmuch as the giving of the law was 
 mentioned in addition to the covenants, there must have been some three 
 covenants with Abraham. I replied, that the promises are given as dis- 
 tinct from the covenants also ; and that according to his logic, there were 
 covenants without promises and promises without a covenant ! I am 
 apprehensive that he hears badly. I have repeatedly called on him to 
 produce the passage of Scripture that speaks of a plurality of covenants 
 with Abraham; but he has not done it. It is quite unfortunate for him, 
 that the inspired writers did not ascertain that there was a plurality of cov- 
 enants with Abraham. In the ninth chapter to the Romans we read of 
 covenants, but not of covenants with Abraham ; and what, I ask, does 
 the gentleman expect to gain by proving that with the Jews several cove- 
 nants were made ? 
 
 The gentleman will have it, that the law, mentioned in Galatians iii. 19, 
 was an addition to the single promise of the land of Canaan ; that this was 
 the inheritance spoken of, which was by promise. I ask him, whether 
 the land of Canaan is once mentioned, directly or indirectly, in the chapter ? 
 Is it mentioned in the connection, or even in the epistle to the Galations ? 
 There is not a word about Canaan in the epistle ! If there is, I have over- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 349 
 
 looked it. As I have already proved, the apostle's object in the connec- 
 tion, and the prominent design of the whole epistle, is to prove the doc- 
 trine of justification by faith, without the deeds of the law — justification 
 by faith in the great promise contained in the Abrahamic covenant. 
 
 This is not all. Let me turn to Romans, chap, iv., where we may learn 
 something about this inheritance ; for Paul, in this chapter, speaking of cir- 
 cumcision, (11th to 17th verses,) says : — " And he received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being 
 uncircumcised ; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though 
 they be not circumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto them 
 also : and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision 
 only : but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, 
 which he had, being yet uncircumcised. For the promise that he should be 
 the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, 
 but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the 
 law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect : 
 because the law worketh wrath : for where there is no law, there is no 
 transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace : to the 
 end the promise might be sure to all the seed : not to that only which is 
 of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the 
 father of us all, (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many 
 nations,)" &c. 
 
 Here Paul was quoting from the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, and 
 proving that by the covenant of circumcision Abraham was made the 
 father of many nations — the heir of the world in a spiritual sense, the 
 father of all believers. 
 
 My friend asks why I fly off to heaven ? I desire to fly that way very 
 often. Why was Paul, when speaking of the same covenant, disposed 
 to fly off in that direction ? Heb. xi. 8, " By faith Abraham, when he 
 was called to go out into a place which he should afterwards receive for 
 an inheritance, obeyed : And he went out, not knowing whither he 
 went. For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder 
 and maker is God." 13th verse, "These all died in faith, not having 
 received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded 
 of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and 
 pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that 
 they seek a country." They were strangers and pilgrims on their way 
 to a heavenly city, of which, in that covenant, they had the promise. 
 
 As for his chronological dates, they affect not m}' argument. I have 
 already proved to demonstration, that the promises recorded in Gen. 12th, 
 are precisely the same which are in the 17th, ratified and sealed by cir- 
 cumcision — that the covenant sealed by circumcision contains the spiritual 
 promise which made Abraham the father of the church of God in all ages. 
 He has affirmed, that in the 12th chapter, the land of Canaan was not 
 promised ; but the very first verse is a refutation of the assertion — "The 
 Lord said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy country, and from thy kin- 
 dred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee" 
 Did not God command him to leave his native country for the express 
 purpose of giving him the land to which he would direct him ? And yet 
 the gentleman asserts, that in this covenant there was no promise of Ca- 
 naan — that we find nothing of the kind, till Abraham reached that coun- 
 try ! I am not in the habit, as he intimates, of throwing out arguments 
 or of making quotations loosely. I generally look all around them, before 
 
 2G 
 
350 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 they are presented. The promises were first made, as recorded in Gen. 
 xii. ; and from this period Paul dates the existence of the covenant. The 
 same promises substantially were repeated in Gen. xv. ; but no seal was ap- 
 pointed. They were again repeated in the 17th, and sealed by circumcision. 
 
 The gentleman makes a vain effort to justify himself in representing 
 God as the husband of Sarah ! He has represented himself as the hus- 
 band of the church; but never do the Scriptures speak of him as the hus- 
 band of any individual — never. 
 
 He tells you, that if the Calvinistic doctrine of election be true, the 
 Jewish church were not God's people ; for then they never could have 
 fallen away. I have had occasion since the commencement of this dis- 
 cussion, to remark, that he never was a genuine Presbyterian. At any 
 rate, he seems to have very imperfect acquaintance with the doctrines of 
 the Presbyterian church. For who does not know, that a church may 
 gradually become corrupt, because the pious die, and the rising genera- 
 tion are not converted ; and yet not one who was truly pious, may fall 
 away ? But whether this doctrine is true or false, I will not now inquire ; 
 because it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, from which 
 I will not allow myself to be diverted. 
 
 The gentleman insists, that the terms of membership in the Jewish and 
 in the Christian church are not the same ; and he tells us, that Nicode- 
 mus was a worthy member of the former, but could not enter the latter, 
 unless he were born again. But I deny that Nicodemus was a worthy 
 member of the Jewish church. At the time of our Savior's advent, the 
 church, as all must know, had become extremely corrupt, and was filled 
 with unworthy and ungodly members. The mere fact, that at such a 
 time Nicodemus was a member, affords no evidence whatever that he 
 possessed the qualifications for membership required by the law of God. 
 Indeed he was reproved by the Savior, because, whilst he was professedly 
 a teacher in Israel, he was ignorant of one of the fundamental doctrines 
 of the Old Testament. Let him prove that Nicodemus was a worthy 
 member ; and I will be prepared to respond. 
 
 He challenges me to show, that any individual ever entered the chris- 
 tian church without professing faith and repentance. And I challenge 
 him to prove, that any adult ever entered the Jewish church, according 
 to the law of God, without professing faith in the God of Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob, and a purpose to obey the law of Moses. So I will put 
 my challenge against his ; and I shall be prepared to meet them both, 
 whenever he chooses to bring them forward. 
 
 By way of showing the corrupting influence of infant baptism on the 
 church, Mr. Campbell tells us, that if all parents would have their chil- 
 dren baptized, the whole world would be introduced into the church. 
 True enough ; and if all the parents in this world were truly pious, what 
 a glorious world this would be ! I am prepared, as I have repeatedly 
 said, to compare any Pedo-baptist church, that take the Bible as their 
 only infallible guide, with any anti-Pedo-baptist church, and to prove, 
 that they are as moral, as benevolent, as pious, as exemplary christians, as 
 they who eschew the baptism of infants. Yes — if all parents were truly 
 pious, and would give their children to Christ in the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, solemnly promising to train them up in the nurture and admonition 
 of the Lord, and humbly claiming the promised blessing ; this would be 
 a happy world ! Methinks, the song would be heard around the throne 
 of God — "Alleluia; for theLord.God omnipotent reigneth." 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 351 
 
 But the gentleman adduces another sweeping argument against our doc- 
 trine, viz : that it makes void the command of Christ, that all shall be 
 baptized ; for if all were baptized in infancy, he supposes that none could 
 obey this command. This argument is very conclusive, on the supposi- 
 tion that the doctrine of infant baptism is false ; but it is of no force what- 
 ever to prove it false. If we take it as granted, that Christ commanded 
 only adults to be baptized ; it is clear, that those baptized in infancy do 
 not obey this command. But if it be true, as we contend, that he com- 
 manded believers and their children to be baptized ; infant baptism, instead 
 of making void the command, really obeys it. But he assumes that the 
 doctrine is false ; and then on that assumption triumphantly proves, that 
 it is untrue ! ! ! Let him prove, that our Savior commanded all to be bap- 
 tized at adult age ; and I will give up the question. 
 
 Another objection is presented, viz. : If children are members of the 
 church, they ought to enjoy all its privileges, and of course to commune 
 at the Lord's table. But are not our children citizens of this common- 
 wealth and of these United States, in such a sense that they enjoy the 
 protection of the government and all the privileges of which they are ca- 
 pable? Yet you will not allow them to vote till they are twenty-one 
 years of age, nor to become members of the legislature till they are yet 
 older. Precisely so the children of believers enjoy all the privileges of 
 the church to which they are by the law of God entitled. As the consti- 
 tution of our government determines at what age and with what qualifica- 
 tions our children shall enjoy all the privileges belonging to it; so does 
 the law of Christ determine what qualifications are necessary for a wor- 
 thy participation of the Lord's supper. And so soon as our children have 
 " faith to discern the Lord's body," they are permitted to commune. 
 
 I must say, I was not a little surprised to hear the gentleman derive an 
 argument against infant baptism from the baptism of our Savior. He told 
 us, that Christ was circumcised and dedicated; but it was also necessary 
 that he should be baptized. But did our Savior receive christian bap- 
 tism ? Mr. Campbell has himself published the declaration, that he did 
 not. Yet he argues, that because the Savior submitted to a certain ordi- 
 nance, his disciples must receive one that is radically different! This is 
 indeed singular reasoning. The Savior was not baptized till he was thir- 
 ty years of age ; and if his example in this matter is to be followed, none 
 should be baptized till they arrive at the same age. 
 
 I called on Mr. Campbell to tell us, where the apostles, except Paul, 
 received christian baptism. He admits, that we have no account of their 
 baptism ; but maintains, that the absence of any record is no proof that 
 they were not baptized. But here is the difficulty : they could not possi- 
 bly have received the ordinance. It is said, in so many words, that our 
 Savior did not baptize ; (John iv. 2.) and they could not baptize them- 
 selves, unless indeed they did as certain immersionists in Rhode Island. 
 Two individuals, it is said, desiring to be immersed, and not being able 
 to find any immersed person to plunge them, determined to immerse each 
 other. This mode of doing things might answer for them ; but it will 
 not square with the word of God. But Christ did not baptize the apos- 
 tles, and they could not baptize each other. By whom, then, were they 
 baptized ? The truth is, as I before remarked, they were in the church, 
 and were never broken off because of unbelief. They therefore formed 
 the connecting link between the two dispensations ; proving demonstra- 
 bly that under both the church is the same. They were the officers ap- 
 

 
 352 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 pointed to introduce the new dispensation, and to administer to converts 
 the newly appointed ordinance of baptism. If the church is not the same 
 under both dispensations, the apostles were not at all in the christian 
 church. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell says, they received John's baptism, which he repre- 
 sents as differing very little from christian baptism. Now, I have the 
 Christian Baptist, of which he was the editor, which teaches that there 
 was a great difference. [" Read it," says Mr. Campbell.] He is prov- 
 ing, by several arguments, that John's baptism is not christian baptism, 
 as follows : 
 
 " 1. 'He [John] immersed in the name, or by the authority of God, and 
 not in the name, or by the authority of the Lord. * * * * 2. He immers- 
 ed into no name. * * * * 3. But in the third place, he did not immerse 
 into the christian faith. * * * * 4. In the fourth place, John's immersion 
 brought no man into the kingdom of heaven.' " 
 
 By which my friend understands the church of Christ. Then it did 
 not bring the apostles into the church of Christ ! They did not receive 
 christian baptism ; and John's baptism left them out. I desire him then 
 to show how they got in. Let me read further : 
 
 " The reason is obvious : no person could come into a kingdom which was 
 not set up, &c. The state in which John's immersion left his disciples, 
 was a state of preparation for the kingdom of heaven, which at first must 
 be gradually developed, and progressively exhibited to the world. But the 
 state in which christian immersion leaves the disciples of Jesus, is the 
 kingdom of heaven — a state of righteousness, peace, joy, and possessed of 
 the Holy Spirit of adoption into the family of God. They are pardoned, 
 justified, glorified, with the title, rank, and spirit of sons and daughters of 
 the Lord God Almighty. Such are the prominent points of dissimilarity 
 between the immersion of John and that of the New Institution. Hence, 
 we never read of any person being exempted from christian immersion, 
 because of his having been immersed by John. But, though all Judea and 
 Jerusalem turned out and were immersed in the Jordan, confessing their 
 sins, and receiving absolution from John, yet when the reign of heaven was 
 experienced in Pentecost, of all the myriads immersed into John's immer- 
 sion, not one refused or was exempted from christian immersion. We read, 
 however, of the immersion of some of John's disciples into Jesus Christ, 
 who had been immersed. See Acts xix. I know to what tortures the pas- 
 sage has been subjected by such cold, cloudy, and sickening commentators 
 as John Gill. But no man can, with any regard to the grammar of 
 language, or the import of the most definite words, make Luke say, that 
 when those twelve men heard Paul declare the design of immersion, they 
 were not baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Nothing but the 
 bewildering influence of some phantasy, of some blind adoration, of some 
 favorite speculation, could so far be-cloud any man's mind as to make him 
 suppose for a moment, that those twelve persons were not immersed into the 
 name of the Lord Jesus. Luke says literally, ' Hearing this, or upon 
 hearing this, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus.' Then 
 after they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus, Paul laid his 
 hands upon them, and the Holy Ghost fell upon them. Nothing can more 
 fully exhibit the pernicious influence of favorite dogmas, than to see how 
 many of the Baptists have been Gillized, or Fullerized, into the notion that 
 these twelve men were not baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, when 
 they heard Paul expound to them the design and meaning of John's immer- 
 sion." — Christian Baptist, pp. 647, 648. 
 
 It is extremely difficult for a man to be consistent, unless he hold the 
 truth. Error is always contradictory, and, therefore, he who has em- 
 braced it, is almost certain to cross his own track. Such is the predica- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 353 
 
 ment of the gentleman here, as in many other parts of his writings. In 
 the Christian Baptist he makes an essential difference between John's 
 baptism and christian baptism ; but in this discussion he makes them al- 
 most identical ! The fact is, the apostles never received christian baptism; 
 and unless the church was the same under both dispensations, they en- 
 tered not the christian church. They were the branches of the olive- 
 tree, not broken off. 
 
 I must now advert to the gentleman's last argument against the iden- 
 tity of the church. It is founded on the language of our Savior to Peter : 
 «* Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church." From this 
 language he argues, that the Savior had not yet begun to build it. But is 
 this the Savior's meaning? God said, long before, by the prophet Isaiah, 
 " Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious 
 corner-stone, a sure foundation : he that believeth shall not make haste," 
 chap, xxviii. 16. Again — "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we 
 have turned, every one, to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him 
 the iniquity of us all." This foundation was a matter of as much inter- 
 est to the Jewish church, as to the christian church. The foundation of 
 the church is Christ crucified. On the foundation, as it was presented 
 in prophecy and in types, did all the ancient prophets and servants of 
 God build. It is, therefore, called " the foundation of the apostles and 
 prophets" The foundation, viz. the doctrine of salvation, through the 
 death of the Son of God, had been laid, and the building commenced; and 
 on this foundation the Savior declares his determination to complete the 
 building ; and the head-stone shall be brought forth with shoutings of 
 «' Grace, grace unto it." 
 
 This is the foundation promised in the covenant with Abraham, the 
 father of believers ; and it will not answer to have the father in one 
 church, and his children in one of a radically different character ; or the 
 prophets in one, and the apostles in another. The church is the same. 
 Into it I put the children of believers, by positive law of God. Where, I 
 again ask, is the law for excluding them? 
 
 I will now further prove the identity of the church, by the olive-tree, 
 to which I have repeatedly alluded. Eleven of its branches, as we have 
 seen, were not broken off. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 12| o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's sixth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — My worthy friend has to prove a certain proposition: 
 I have only to show that he does not prove it. If he wishes to spend his 
 time with trifles, he is at perfect liberty to do so ; I have no right to com- 
 plain: I shall, therefore, pass on. He may think that I am anticipating 
 him ; but as he is about to make a circumlocutory defence of his thesis, 
 I shall glance at several things of which he has just spoken, and proceed 
 to make objections, by way of opposing arguments. 
 
 The gentleman says he cannot believe there was a plurality of cove- 
 nants with Abraham, unless I can produce the very identical phrase, 
 " There were covenants with Abraham." Now, this is a new principle 
 in criticism — a new law of interpretation. Henceforth, a person who 
 affirms any proposition, must find that proposition in so many identical 
 words, written in the book, or it must be repudiated as false doctrine. 
 
 I will state the whole case to this audience. Suppose I bring up three 
 distinct and different transactions, concerning different subjects, made at 
 23 2o2 
 
354 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 different times, each one ratified in a different manner, and each one called 
 a covenant, and not only circumstantially, but formally show, that each 
 of them is so denominated by the spirit of wisdom ; must I be told that 
 all this must pass for nothing, unless they are somewhere called, in so 
 many words, " the covenants with Abraham ?" Was there ever such a 
 principle of interpretation heard of? I have thrice produced the Bible 
 words, indicative of three distinct covenant transactions : one called '.' the 
 covenant of circumcision ;" one called " the covenant concerning 
 Christ ;" and one called a covenant — which had respect to the inheritance 
 alone. And my friend says, unless you can produce a verse that will 
 say just so much, in so many words, it must all pass for nothing. 
 
 Again ; my friend says, I have not got one concerning the land of 
 Canaan — a mere reiteration of the same objection : I must produce the 
 very phrase ; and unless I produce it by that name, it must be repudiated, 
 though promised and confirmed, as I have before shown, in Genesis xv. 
 18 : " In that same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, say- 
 ing, Unto thy seed have I given this land." 
 
 Again ; I am asked, how did this covenant make Abraham the father 
 of many nations ? Was there any covenant made specifically for that 
 purpose ? Have I not shown, that in the fullness of time, the covenant 
 of circumcision, and that concerning the inheritance, were engrossed and 
 given to the posterity of Abraham by Isaac, in one great national institu- 
 tion at Sinai ? And have I not shown, that the " covenant concerning the 
 Messiah," as developed by Jeremiah, became the covenant of " the many 
 nations," or of all those who inherit the faith of Abraham in his seed; 
 and is now called " the new'''' and " better covenant," by Paul to the He- 
 brews and the Galatians ? Have not these facts already been matters of re- 
 cord ? Certainly they have. I will, therefore, not spend time in now repeat- 
 ing them. If Mr. Rice cannot comprehend this subject, others can and will. 
 The gentleman sometimes makes much of a little matter ; and again, little 
 of a great matter. His is the rare art of magnifying mole-hills into moun- 
 tains, and of reducing mountains to mole-hills, just as he pleases. He also 
 occasionally assumes an ironical air, when arguments are scarce ; and seeks 
 to accomplish by a wise look or an action, what he fails to achieve by an ar- 
 gument. In these rare excellencies, he does not, however, seem to be 
 highly endowed, either by nature or art. He would rather descant upon 
 my representing Sarah as under the guardianship of a divine husband, 
 than supplying us with proofs of his proposition. To represent a state 
 under the figure of a female, is one of the most common, and the most 
 appropriate images in classical literature. To make Hagar and Sarah 
 the symbols of two states, or nations, or classes of people, is most appo- 
 site, beautiful, and instructive. But why, says he, should God be called 
 the husband of Sarah ? and I ask, why should he be called the "father 
 of the fatherless 2" He thus condescends to speak in harmony with the 
 feelings of our nature, and the exigencies of our condition. 
 
 Nicodemus, he says, was a very bad man, and not fit to be selected as 
 an example. Well, in so saying, he admits the reasoning to be just, only 
 demurring at the case brought forward. Is it not strange, that his believ- 
 ing in Christ, should have made him worse than the rest of the Jews ! ! 
 
 Does it not appear surpassing strange, that a ruler of Israel, who be- 
 lieved in Jesus, should, on that account, be considered worse than the 
 great mass of the nation ! It is singular that my friend can comment so 
 phantastically on men and things ! Show me, says he, one case, of an 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 355 
 
 adult getting into the Jewish church, without a profession of faith in 
 Abraham's God ; and then, adds he, I will show you a similar case in the 
 Christian church. I accept the challenge and will hold him to his 
 promise. 
 
 Abraham had three hundred and seventeen warrior-men, who were all 
 circumcised the same day with himself. He had a great many more. All 
 the male servants of his house were circumcised on his faith, merely as 
 his property. These, and all other servants, the property of proselytes, 
 were introduced into the Jewish state — not on account of their own faith, 
 but of that of their masters ; or, from the principle of property alone. 
 For the lav/, in such cases, asked only for property. Hence the Jewish 
 polity threw its arms around multitudes of unbelieving men. 
 
 So far as we know, says my friend, they had faith. If so, let him 
 prove it. Let him show that they were not taken in by the faith of Abra- 
 ham and as his property, but each upon his own faith. I hope he will 
 redeem his pledge. But if so, he has annulled the law of circumcision. 
 That law commanded servants to be circumcised, not on the principle of 
 faith, but of property. 
 
 The next item in my friend's remarks, was the purity of the sects — 
 Congregational, Presbyterian, Baptist, and all other people, except my 
 unfortunate brethren. He has brought us up as the beau ideal of a re- 
 formed state of society. I will not draw invidious comparisons. I will 
 give the Pedo-baptists full credit for all their virtues, and I do wish before 
 heaven that they were a thousand times more virtuous than they are. 
 But are all the baptized in infancy, by Methodists, Presbyterians, Epis- 
 copalians, &c, to be classed among the virtuous and pious? No: the 
 one half, probably, of all the persons thus made members of the church, 
 m infancy, are now amongst the sceptics, infidels, or worldlings of the 
 present day. Were you to explore drinking-houses, gambling-houses, 
 theatres, and other vicious haunts of dissipation, profligacy and crime, 
 you would find them filled with hundreds and thousands of these bap- 
 tized members of the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Congregational, and 
 Methodist churches. Among these vast multitudes, how many are there 
 who do not even believe in the truths of the religion of their fathers, nor 
 in that Lord to whom they have been so solemnly dedicated in infancy. 
 Not half, I say, not one half — I might say not one third — that have been 
 sprinkled, ever sit down at the Lord's table. I should be glad to be in- 
 formed that even one half had become bona fide communicants, or moral 
 members of their own churches in which they were baptized. 
 
 My friend says, that my argument about making void the command- 
 ments of God, does not apply to this case. If he produces a command 
 to baptize infants, then, and only then, will it be inapplicable. Let him 
 produce such a command, and I will withdraw it. Till he does so, I 
 cannot. Without such a precept, in view of the subject, there is no 
 proof that can authorize such a thing to be done. But we have a com- 
 mand to baptize him that believeth : " Go ye into all the world, baptize 
 them that are taught." Here is a command to baptize believing prose- 
 lytes. Let him show a command to baptize infants and speechless babes. 
 Let him produce only one precept for it, or one. example of its having 
 been practiced by the apostles. 
 
 With regard to all this matter, which he has read from the Christian 
 Baptist, I have only to say, I stand up to every word of it — to the very 
 letter. I am glad to hear so much of it read with approbation, on the 
 
356 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 present occasion. But what, as respects this question, does it amount to ? 
 Who says that John's baptism is identical with christian baptism ? Who 
 teaches so? They are, indeed, much more nearly identical than the 
 Jewish and Christian religions. They are, however, precisely identical 
 in two or three grand points. First — the action in both is immersion in 
 water. Second — the subject of both is a professed believer and reform- 
 er. Third — in the intention of the subject — his reformation of life, his 
 subordination to law — in all these they are similar, nay, identical. There 
 are some points, however, in which they are not identical. John's bap- 
 tism was not administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit. This revelation was not yet given ; nor were the facts believed 
 in both cases the same. The Messiah and his kingdom were coming in 
 the first. They have come in the second. 
 
 My friend asks me who baptized those in the previous, the intercalary 
 dispensation? Who baptized John? who baptized the first Baptist? 
 Should I not be able to show who baptized these, what then ? What 
 will the gentleman infer from our ignorance in this case ? Are we to 
 infer that they never were baptized ? What does that prove or disprove ? 
 No person who, in any age, sets up an institution, was himself a subject 
 of it. An executor was to be appointed. When a person is appointed 
 by God to set up an institution, he is not himself to be regarded as a sub- 
 ject of that institution. In the style of Mr. B., we might ask who con- 
 secrated Moses ? who put the mitre upon the head of Aaron ? who poured 
 the consecrating oil upon his head ? who anointed Melchisedek ? What 
 a sage question ! Who married Adam ? The gentleman will find a 
 satisfactory answer to his difficulties in these cases. 
 
 Who baptized John ? God bade him baptize. My friend asks, was 
 he in the christian church ? No : because there was no christian church 
 at that time. The Messiah was not yet slain — the corner-stone was not 
 yet laid. Meantime, I ask, what was John to do ? what was Jesus to 
 do ? what were the holy twelve to do ? They were to prepare a people 
 for the new institution ; some stones must be quarried out ; some materials 
 for the building must be gathered. The proper time and place for erect- 
 ing the building was ordainec] by God himself. The twelve were bap- 
 tized by John: they were amongst those prepared for the Messiah's 
 kino-dom. Some one must commence the institution — there must be 
 some one to commence christian baptism ; that could not be done till 
 Jesus had died, was buried, and rose again : because christians are said to 
 be baptized into his death, they are said to be buried with him, and to 
 rise with him. This could not be the case till Jesus died, was buried, 
 and rose again. Christian baptism could not be anticipated. Its facts 
 must first transpire. 
 
 They began to immerse into Christ on the day of Pentecost. Those 
 prepared for the kingdom of heaven, and commissioned by the Messiah, 
 had the same authority to administer baptism, that John the Baptist had; 
 the same divine warrant from the Great King. Read the commission — 
 will not that suffice ? 
 
 The gentleman, in vain, remonstrates against my objection to his the- 
 ory, drawn from Christ's laying the corner-stone, the glorious corner- 
 stone of the new building, promised through the evangelical Isaiah. 
 Does he argue that this promise has been fulfilled, and the corner-stone 
 laid? Did Isaiah write history rather than prophecy ? Is intention and 
 execution identical ? According to him, many things in prophecy, be- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 357 
 
 cause spoken of in the past tense, have transpired. I will make his own 
 grammar, and logic, and rhetoric reverberate upon himself in a much 
 more fundamental matter. His theory would prove that the Messiah was 
 slain before he was born. Most preposterous, indeed, though it appear, 
 it is nevertheless true, on the principle of escape, that my friend em- 
 ploys. Does not Isaiah say, " He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, 
 yet he opened not his mouth ? He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter ; 
 and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so openeth he not his mouth." 
 Is that not in the past tense ? and does that prove that Messiah was slain 
 seven hundred years before he was born ? " He was taken from prison 
 and from judgment. He was cut off: He has made his soul an offer- 
 ing for sin," &c. What, then, is the use of quoting phrases of this 
 sort, to prove that the foundation of the church was laid by Moses ? 
 They have been used, it appears, to give strong interest to the prophetic 
 themes — to make things pass before us in bold relief— to stand out upon 
 the canvass in that vivid form which will most powerfully impress us. 
 That the corner-stone of Christ's church was not laid before he rose from 
 the dead, is as evident as any other fact in the Bible. 
 
 I have now glanced at every thing that I have noted in my friend's 
 last address ; the remainder of my time I will employ in prosecution of 
 the subject upon which I was descanting when I sat down. The mate- 
 rials for the new building were being got out of the quarry, by all the 
 workmen in the field ; vast multitudes were being baptized by John, 
 and by other Baptists with him. Not a single Jew was excepted from 
 his baptism, because of his circumcision. Why should not the cir- 
 cumcised Jew be excepted, if circumcision and baptism be identical. 
 Most evident, then, it is, that neither circumcision nor the Jewish church 
 was at all in the way of John's baptism. 
 
 Do not all agree that the very best of the remnant of the twelve tribes, 
 were the people prepared for the Lord ? These were the elect of the 
 Jewish state. Yet even these persons, notwithstanding their Jewish 
 church membership, were constrained to be baptized by John. Is it not, 
 then, strong evidence, that John's baptism was entirely independent of 
 circumcision ? that they are not identical in any sense of the word what- 
 ever? But I must ask a still more confounding question: By whom 
 were the first three thousand baptized, by the authority of the Lord ? 
 They were circumcised persons. Every single man of them had been 
 circumcised ! They were all Jews ! not a gentile was converted that 
 day. Now these three thousand Jews, first immersed in the name of the 
 Divinity, were immediately added to one hundred and twenty disciples 
 in Jerusalem. These were the nucleus of the new institution — the mo- 
 ther church. They entered by believing, repenting, and being baptized : 
 therefore their circumcision did not stand in the way. It was void, as 
 respects Christianity. The new church began entirely upon new prin- 
 ciples. This significant and momentous fact, alone, will render forever 
 abortive all the policy, wisdom, learning, and eloquence of Pedo-baptists 
 to establish identity. 
 
 I have seldom been more startled than when the gentleman, in his 
 opening speech, observed, that "no command was ever given to the 
 apostles to organize a new church." In the boldest flights of imagina- 
 tion which have been called forth in support of infant baptism, I have 
 never yet seen or heard any declaration more glaringly baseless and start- 
 ling than this one. I know, indeed, it has been asked — where is the 
 
358 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 command given to Moses to organize the Jewish church? and, perhaps, 
 with more philosophy ! But, fellow-citizens, is it true that Jesus, being 
 about to leave this world; about to establish and ordain a new bond of 
 union — a new society ; having chosen men, and brought them into his 
 own school ; teaching them for three years, and explaining to them in 
 parable after parable ; saying, the kingdom of heaven is like this — like 
 that — and teaching them concerning the kingdom of God, for forty days 
 after he rose from the dead ; and yet had no intention at all of giving 
 to them authority to organize his church!! It is a most singular and haz- 
 ardous position, on which Mr. Rice places his defence of infant baptism, 
 A position superlatively hazardous indeed. A scheme which involves in 
 it much contradiction of plain common sense, and of the most plain and 
 interesting portions of the sacred Scriptures. Go and convert the w r orld. 
 What means these words ? Instruct, baptize, and teach them my laws 
 and ordinances. Did he not give them a kingdom to manage? Did he not 
 make them his ministers, ambassadors, plenipotentiaries, and say to them, 
 "As my father sent me, so send I you?" Did he not place them on thrones 
 of government, and make them ministers of the new covenant ? Shall we 
 hear Paul: "As a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation of the 
 church in Corinth. Let every man take heed how he builds upon it." 
 The apostles were commissioned to build a new church ; and as you see 
 at once, they rejected the Jews by thousands. They would not receive 
 a single man upon Jewish pretensions. "Do not think to say in your 
 hearts that you have Abraham to your father : you must bring forth fruits 
 of your own, worthy of repentance." This was as much the doctrine of 
 the apostles as of John. 
 
 It is as clear as the sun, that in the commencement, the first members 
 of the christian church were all Jews, and that their former rights availed - 
 them nothing at all. 
 
 The history of the first fifteen years of Christianity is a perfect and 
 complete refutation of the whole Pedo-baptist assumptions. The word of 
 the Lord was proclaimed, and myriads of Jews believed and were bap- 
 tized. The Samaritans — mongrel Jews, who had all been circumcised — 
 also received the word of the Lord. Many of them believed, repented, 
 and were baptized. The Samaritans were received into the new king- 
 dom just as others. Their Mount Gerizim availed them no more than 
 the temple worship of the Jews. The new kingdom was thrown open 
 to all men. The Jew and the Samaritan met in it. 
 
 After six or seven years of laborious preaching ; setting the church in 
 order ; giving laws and ordinances ; God says, I will make of Jews, Sa- 
 maritans and pagans a new institution. Go to the gentiles, Peter. He 
 went, and preached the same gospel successfully to the gentiles, preached 
 to them the same faith, repentance and baptism. Peter had the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven. Jesus gave them to him in the singular number. 
 I took this ground at the beginning of this controversy. I now find it is 
 occupied by some of the greatest ecclesiastic dignitaries. Archbishop 
 Whateley has recently come out, affirming every principle assumed in 
 the Christian Baptist upon the organization of the church, as I shall show 
 in its proper place. Those principles, which have been so often repudi- 
 ated on this continent during the last few years, have become the very 
 ground now assumed by archbishop Whateley. We are now standing in 
 much higher association and communion in the old and new world, in 
 Europe and in America, than when these views were first promulged. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 359 
 
 While on this subject, and although my friend has been, on several 
 occasions, inclined to insinuate a want of soundness in the doctrine of the 
 divinity of the great Author of our religion ; if put to the proof of it, — 
 I say it solemnly and dispassionately, — that if I am any judge of what 
 Presbyterianism is, or what are the doctrinal views of the so-called evan- 
 gelical professors of this country, I am decidedly more evangelical than 
 the Presbyterians of Kentucky, not only on this point, but on every sin- 
 gle point connected with it, in the whole remedial system. I say it now, 
 that I am willing to bring up the old Scotch church, and the evangelical 
 Independents, and their symbols ; and if I am not, in every point of evan- 
 gelical religion, more orthodox than they are, I am ignorant of the invo- 
 lutions and evolutions of the church in this community for the last thirty 
 years . 
 
 I stand, then, on high and elevated ground. I am sustained in affirm- 
 ing, that the christian church is a new organization, of a more spiritual, 
 celestial and divine character, originated by the Messiah in person, and 
 committed to his apostles, to be by them developed and established in the 
 world. 
 
 I had gone down to the house of Cornelius. I will return to it. When 
 they heard and believed the same gospel, what was the door of faith and 
 communion opened for them ? I call it the door of faith; and find my- 
 self in excellent company. I have high and venerable authority for so 
 denominating it. The proper door into the society of the saints, for two 
 thousand ) r ears, was faith. It was constituted, in all ages, the redeeming 
 principle ; without it, it was always impossible to please God. It is, 
 however, but a door of access to God; and when by it brought near to 
 him, it prompts to all conformity to his will, and qualifies for cordial, un- 
 reserved and universal obedience. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21—1 o'clock, P. M. 
 £mr. rice's seventh address."] 
 
 Mr. President — I was particularly pleased with the last remarks of 
 the gentleman; because they disprove a considerable part of what he has 
 written concerning his reformation ! Faith he now makes the door into 
 the church ; and if this be true, every believer is, of course, in the church. 
 Yet the doctrine for which he has long contended is — that persons are not 
 in the church, nor even partakers of the blessings of Christ's kingdom, 
 till they are immersed. If he will prove, that faith alone ever constituted 
 an individual a member of the visible church of God ; I will admit, that 
 infants are excluded from it! The gentleman is running a tilt against 
 his own doctrine. 
 
 He complains, because I call on him for the passage of Scripture that 
 ks of a plurality of covenants with Abraham. 1 thought it was the 
 glory of his reformation, that it demands a "thus saith the Lord" for 
 every thing in faith and practice. No one has more magnified the evils 
 brought on the church by the inferences of men, than he. Certainly, 
 then, he ought not to complain, when I call on him to act on the funda- 
 mental principle of his reformation, and prove by a " thus saith the 
 Lord," the truth of his assertion, that God made with Abraham three cov- 
 enants. I do not demand of him any particular words, but a passage 
 which by fair construction will sustain his assertion. The difficulty in 
 which he has involved himself, is this : the inspired writers, whenever 
 they speak of the promises of God to Abraham, use the word covenant 
 
360 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 in the singular number. They never speak, as does Mr. Campbell, of 
 covenants (in the plural) with Abraham. And when they write covenant? 
 no man has the right to add an s to the word. 
 
 But he tells us, there were three transactions, and of course three cov- 
 enants ; yet before he proceeded far, he had " engrossed" them and made 
 only two ! Then why not go a little further, and engross them in one ? 
 If by this process (which I think is original) he can so engross three cov- 
 enants as to reduce them to two $ by a little more engrossing he might 
 reduce the two to one; and then he would be precisely with the Bible. 
 
 The law at Sinai, I have said, was only a temporary addition to the 
 Abrahamic covenant. Mr. C. contends, that it was an addition to the 
 single promise of the land of Canaan. Yet it is a fact, that Canaan is not 
 mentioned in the whole epistle in which the law is spoken of as an addi- 
 tion. The apostle is proving by the great promise in the Abrahamic cov- 
 enant, the doctrine of justification and salvation by faith. By such per- 
 versions of the Bible as that which introduces Canaan where it is not 
 mentioned, I can prove any position, however absurd. 
 
 The passage from Isaiah's prophecy, quoted by Paul in Galatians iv. 
 was applied by Mr. C. to Sarah ; though evidently it was an address to 
 the church. If he chooses to call the church Sarah, I shall not object I 
 I have said, that God is represented as the husband of the church, but not 
 of any individual. In a certain sense, it may be allowable to call him the 
 widow's husband, as he is the Father of the fatherless ' f though the Scrip- 
 tures, I believe, do not use such language. 
 
 The gentleman will have Nicodemus a worthy member of the Jewish 
 church ; and he asks, how did his being a believer in Christ make him 
 worse than others 1 He believed that Christ was a teacher come from 
 God; but his faith seems to have extended no further. Did he acknowl- 
 edge him as the Son of God — the Savior of the world ? He did not. He 
 acknowledged him as a teacher come from God ; but he was wholly igno- 
 rant of one of the fundamental doctrines of religion, which is clearly 
 taught in the Old Testament, as well as in the New — the doctrine of the 
 new birth. The Savior, therefore, reproved him for his ignorance — " Art 
 thou a master [teacher]] of Israel, and knowest not these things ?" John 
 iii. 10. Nicodemus was not a true believer, nor a worthy member of the 
 Jewish church. 
 
 I challenge the gentleman to prove, that an adult ever entered the Jew- 
 ish church according to. the law of God, without professing faith in the 
 God of Abraham. He gives as an instance the servants of Abraham, who 
 were circumcised. But were they unbelievers ? Can he prove, that 
 they were ? We have no particular account concerning any of them but 
 one ; and he was an eminently pious man. It was he who was sent to 
 obtain a wife for Isaac. The gentleman calls on me to prove, that they 
 were believers. This is truly a singular mode of reasoning. He asserts, 
 that the Jewish church is not the same as the Christian, because unbe- 
 lieving adults were admitted to be members of it. I call upon him to 
 prove this fact; and he brings forward the servants of Abraham. I ask 
 him, does he know, that they were unbelievers? He must admit, that he 
 does not. Then what is his argument worth ? The strong probability, 
 aside from the evidence afforded by the nature and design of circumcision, 
 is — that they were professed believers. It is, at least, not likely that 
 Abraham had in his family men who did not acknowledge the true God ; 
 nor is it probable, that any part of them, seeing him erect an altar and 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 361 
 
 worship God wherever he journeyed, and knowing of the frequent reve- 
 lations made to him, would persist in refusing to acknowledge his God. 
 If, however, Mr. C. will produce evidence, that any one of them was not 
 a believer, I will give up the point. 
 
 But it is enough for me, that Paul the apostle says, circumcision pro- 
 fited those to whom it was administered, only when they kept the law ; 
 that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision 
 which is outward in the flesh. For if circumcision had been, as Mr. C. 
 contends, a mere national mark, he would have been a Jew who was one 
 outwardly, and circumcision would have been only that which was out- 
 ward in the flesh. Bui according to Paul, circumcision, like baptism, 
 was worthless without the religion of the heart. The gentleman is only 
 plunging deeper into the mire, whenever he touches this subject. 
 
 He magnifies the numbers of those baptized in infancy, who become 
 gamblers, drunkards, and the like ; and he asks, have one half of them 
 become members of the church ? I cannot, of course, give the precise 
 proportion who become truly pious ; but I rejoice to say, from observa- 
 tion and from information gathered from other sources, the large majority 
 of those whose parents consecrate them to God, and who regard faithfully 
 their promise to train them up for God, do give cheering evidence of con- 
 version. Often have I, and others older in the ministry, remarked, that in 
 many of the most interesting and powerful revivals, there are not a great 
 many baptisms to be administered. Of those who enjoy the blessing, the 
 large majority are very frequently the children of the church, who turn 
 from their evil ways, and say to their rejoicing parents, as Ruth to Nao- 
 mi, " thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Many, it 
 is true, through the unfaithfulness of parents, and from other causes, re- 
 main in impenitency, and some even become drunkards. But how many, 
 I ask, of those immersed at adult age, (to say nothing of their children,) 
 do apostatize, and become drunkards or gamblers ? Multitudes of the 
 members of the gentleman's own church have apostatized ; insomuch that 
 one of his brother ministers — not an enemy — wrote to him, stating, that 
 he knew a number of churches which, a few years since, were large and 
 flourishing, but are now almost dead. [Mr. Campbell. " Read the pas- 
 sage."] The gentleman desires me to read the passage. I have it not 
 here at present ; but it shall be forthcoming on to-morrow. The state- 
 ment is contained in a letter written by a Mr. Gates to Mr. Campbell, 
 and published in the Millenial Harbinger, with remarks by himself. 
 When I state facts, I will prove them. 
 
 He calls on me to produce the command to baptize infants. The com- 
 mission, he says, requires the baptism of disciples. I deny that it re- 
 quires any such thing. The command is, " Go, make disciples of all 
 nations." How ? By baptizing and teaching. The gentleman himself 
 gives the passage this construction ; and yet, in palpable inconsistency, 
 he insists on first making disciples, and then baptizing them ? I choose 
 to go by the Bible; and it does not say, that in all cases teaching must 
 precede baptism. As to the order of the words, if it were of any impor- 
 tance, baptizing comes before teaching. The commission, as I have re- 
 peatedly stated, requires all to be baptized who have a right to member- 
 ship in the church. 
 
 John's baptism, the gentleman admits, was not christian baptism ; and 
 he is obliged to admit, that the apostles were not introduced into the 
 church by christian baptism. But he seems now disposed to maintain, 
 
 2H 
 
362 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 that they might be introduced without baptism; and he asks, who bap- 
 tized John? I answer, John was not setting up a new church, as Mr. 
 Campbell says the apostles were. He was a priest ; and in that office 
 he had the right to administer any of the " divers washings" of the Jew- 
 ish law, or any other that God might appoint for the benefit of his church. 
 John neither entered, nor introduced others into, a new church. The 
 gentleman has asserted, that none were permitted to pass from the Jew- 
 ish into the christian church without receiving christian baptism; but 
 here is a stubborn fact in the face of his assertion. The apostles were 
 the branches of the olive-tree, never broken off, and therefore not graffed 
 in again by baptism. The church under both dispensations is the same. 
 
 If I should attempt much system in my argument, I should not be able 
 to follow my friend in his wanderings ; and I wish fairly to meet and 
 answer all his arguments against the baptism of infants. 
 
 He states, as an important fact, that the best of the Jews became chris- 
 tians and were baptized. Three thousand, he tells us, were immersed 
 on the day of Pentecost. I have no doubt they were baptized ; but that 
 they were immersed I do not believe. But if they were in the church 
 already by circumcision, why, he asks, were they baptized ? The an- 
 swer to this inquiry is found in Rom. xi. 20: "Because of unbelief 
 they were broken off." Our Savior " came to his own, and his own re- 
 ceived him not." The great majority of the Jews were unbelievers, and 
 were therefore broken off — excommunicated. If a limb has been broken 
 from a tree, and you wish to restore it to its place, do you not graffit in? 
 The great body of the Jews were broken off — solemnly excommunicated, 
 when our Savior, standing on the Mount of Olives, exclaimed weeping : 
 " O Jerusalem ! Jerusalem ! thou that killest the prophets and stonest 
 them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy chil-. 
 dren together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and 
 ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." But on 
 the day of Pentecost three thousand of them returned, and professed faith 
 in Christ. Christian baptism had now been appointed as the initiatory 
 rite — the door into the church ; and they entered by the existing door. 
 No government employs two seals at the same time. To avoid confu- 
 sion, as well as to distinguish believing Jews from those who were apos- 
 tate, all who returned to their forsaken Redeemer were received by the 
 newly appointed ordinance. But the apostles, having never been broken 
 off because of unbelief, were not introduced by baptism. 
 
 The gentleman, I perceive, has a great facility of becoming astonished. 
 He is quite astonished, that I should venture upon the bold and reckless 
 assertion, that the apostles were not commissioned to organize a church. 
 And yet he knows, if he is at all acquainted with the controversy, that in 
 making this bold assertion, I am saying only what all Pedo-baptists say ! 
 Do they not all maintain the identity of the church under the old and 
 new dispensations 1 Have they not so believed for near two thousand 
 years ? Yet, whilst he professes to be very familiar with the principles 
 of Presbyterianism, he is expressing great surprise that I should assume 
 positions which Presbyterians have ever maintained ! 
 
 As for his pretensions to be nearer the old Scotch Presbyterians, than 
 the Presbyterians of this country, it may pass for a jest; but if he means 
 that we shall consider him serious, in the remark, it is a wide mistake, a 
 total mistake. I profess to have some little acquaintance with Scotch 
 Presbyterianism. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 363 
 
 Whether his principles are like to prevail, as he imagines, admits of 
 serious doubt It may be well for him, however, to be sanguine, even 
 when his cause is sinking. Not having seen bishop Whateley's work, I 
 can say nothing concerning it ; nor is it necessary that I should, so far as 
 this argument is concerned. 
 
 But when and where was the christian church organized ? The gen- 
 tleman has attempted to prove, that it was set up at the commencement 
 of the new dispensation, from the language of our Savior to Peter: 
 " Thou art Peter ; and on this rock will I build my church." But the 
 Savior did not say, he would lay the foundation of his church at that 
 time. Peter had boldly acknowledged him to be the Son of God ; and 
 he replied, " Thou art Peter; (perhaps indicating by his name his firm- 
 ness of purpose,) and on this rock (viz : the truth Peter had acknow- 
 ledged) will I build my church." But was it a new doctrine, that Christ 
 is the Son of God, the Savior of men ? Had it not long been proclaimed 
 in prophecy, and in types and sacrifices ? Did dot Abraham look forward 
 to his advent, and rejoice? And did he not ascend to heaven through 
 faith in this glorious foundation ? The foundation was laid in the first 
 promise to Adam ; and, therefore, Christ is represented as " the Lamb, 
 slain from the foundation of the world." The blessed effects of his 
 death extended back to the first believer ; and, from the beginning, the 
 church was built on this foundation. 
 
 Peter laid the foundation, in one sense, when on the day of Pentecost 
 he preached salvation through Christ crucified ; but years afterwards, 
 Paul, writing to the church at Corinth, could say, " I, as a wise master- 
 builder, have laid the foundation;" 1 Cor iii. So now, when a minister 
 of Christ proclaims his gospel to those who have not heard it, he lays 
 the foundation. But all this does not prove, that it has never been laid 
 before. Paul laid the foundation at Corinth ; but the prophets had laid 
 the same foundation long before he lived ; and, centuries before, the 
 building had been going up. 
 
 Mr. Campbell attempted to prove, that the christian church is not identi- 
 cal with the church of the Old Testament, by the expression in Eph. ii. 15, 
 "For to make in himself of twain one new man;'''' that is, as he under- 
 stands it, one new church. I will read several verses in connection with 
 this passage. Eph. ii. 13 : " But now in Christ Jesus, ye who some- 
 time were far oft, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is 
 our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle 
 wall of partition between us ; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, 
 even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to make 
 in himself of twain one new man, (my friend read it body,) so mak- 
 ing peace ; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body 
 by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached 
 peace to them that were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For 
 through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now 
 therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens 
 with the saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon the 
 foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
 chief corner-stone ; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, grow- 
 eth unto an holy temple in the Lord : in whom ye also are builded to- 
 gether for an habitation of God through the Spirit." 
 
 On this portion of Scripture I will make a few remarks. 1. The 
 middle wall of partion between Jews and gentiles was broken down. 
 
364 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The apostle does not say, the building was destroyed, nor that a new 
 building was erected ; but the middle wall, the ceremonial law which with 
 its burdensome rites made it impossible for the gentiles to enter the church, 
 was taken away, that both Jews and gentiles might dwell together in the 
 same building. But Mr. Campbell will have the building destroyed, and 
 an entirely new one erected ! 2. This building, which is represented as 
 a temple, is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. They 
 both laid the same foundation, and, of course, contributed to build the 
 same temple — the same church. It is new only in its ordinances and 
 forms of worship. So the gentleman has helped me to another argu- 
 ment to prove the identity of the church, as he had previously turned my 
 attention to the 4th chapter of Galatians. I am likely to become quite 
 his debtor. 
 
 Let us now examine the evidence of the identity of the church, afford- 
 ed by Rom. xi. 16. The apostle, speaking of the rejection of the great 
 body of the Jews, says: — " For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also 
 holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the 
 branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in 
 among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive- 
 tree ; boast not against the branches ; but if thou boast, thou bearest not 
 the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were 
 broken off that I might be graffed in. Well, because of unbelief they were 
 broken off; and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. 
 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare 
 not thee. And they also, if they bide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed 
 in ; for God is also able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut 
 out of the olive-tree, which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary 
 to nature into a good olive-tree ; how much more shall these, which be 
 the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive-tree ? " 
 
 The first question that arises in view of this passage is — what are we 
 to understand by the olive-tree? Dr. Gill, the learned Baptist commen- 
 tator, who never for a moment forgot to oppose Pedo-baptism, says, that 
 the olive-tree is the gospel church-state. Now, observe, the Jews who 
 were rejected, are here twice denominated the natural branches of this 
 tree ; and it is called their own olive-tree. But how could the Jews be 
 the natural branches of this tree, the members of the gospel church ? And 
 how could it be their own olive-tree—their own church 1 The only pos- 
 sible answer, as I think, is — that the christian church is the same which 
 existed before the new dispensation, and of which the Jews were 
 members. 
 
 Again. The Jews are represented as having been broken off from the 
 good olive-tree — excommunicated from the church because of unbelief. 
 But how could they have been broken off, or excommunicated from the 
 gospel church, unless they had been in it 1 And how could they have 
 been in it, unless it is the same ecclesiastical body which previously 
 existed ? 
 
 Again ; the gentiles were graffed into the same tree from which the 
 Jews were broken off. But it is certain that gentiles were introduced 
 into the christian church. It is, therefore, the same church which before 
 existed, to which the Jews belonged. 
 
 Observe again ; the Jews, when converted to Christianity, are to be 
 again graffed into their own olive-tree ; they are to be received into the 
 same church from which they were excluded. But into what church are 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 365 
 
 converted Jews received ? Into the gospel church. Then it is the same 
 from which they were excluded. If the identity of the church under 
 both dispensations is not here taught, I cannot conceive of any language 
 in which it could be expressed. What possible exposition can be given 
 of this interesting chapter, to make it consistent with Mr. Campbell's 
 doctrine ? 
 
 He would fain induce the audience to believe that I offer no argument 
 in support of infant baptism. Let us, however, look at the position of 
 the argument, and judge whether it has any force. In regard to the com- 
 mission given to the apostles, several important facts have been estab- 
 lished : — 1. That it is not a commission to organize a new church, but to 
 extend the blessings and privileges of an existing church. 2. That it 
 does not specify adults or infants as proper subjects of baptism. 3. That 
 it requires disciples to be made by baptizing and teaching. 4. That it 
 does not say that in all cases teaching must precede baptizing. 5. That 
 the commission requires all to be baptized who are entitled to a standing 
 in the church. 
 
 6. To determine who are to be members of the church, I went to its 
 organization, and proved that, by positive law of God, believers and their 
 children were constituted members. 7. I stated, and it is not denied, 
 that they occupied their place in the church unmolested, till the moment 
 when the commission was given. 8. I proved that the commission does 
 not exclude them, and that the Savior gave not the slightest intimation of 
 a purpose to make a change in the law of membership, but used such 
 language as was calculated to make the impression that no change was 
 contemplated. 9. I have proved, by facts and principles incontrovertible, 
 the identity of the church. I have put children into the church by posi- 
 tive law ; and the gentleman cannot infer them out. I have called for the 
 law that excludes them. He has not produced it, and he cannot. Then 
 believing parents and their children must still remain in the visible 
 church ; and still, till time shall end, they shall rejoice to acknowledge 
 the faithfulness and the mercy of the covenant-keeping God. — [Time 
 expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 21 — 1| o'clock, P.M. 
 [mr. Campbell's seventh reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — Before adverting to the last point, I must recapitu- 
 late the last speech. The gentleman said, on rising, that he was glad 
 that I had conceded, at last, that faith was the door into the christian 
 church. Did I say so 1 I did not say that faith was the door of ad- 
 mission into the christian church. The question was about the Patriarchal 
 church from Adam to Moses — from the foundation of the world till the 
 calling of Abraham. He says there was a church during that period. I 
 have conceded that there was some religious society, and the whole chris- 
 tian world admits that there was a church state of some sort, during that 
 period, though no public worshiping assemblies. As to religions, the 
 world may be divided into three great periods : the patriarchal, continuing 
 about two thousand years ; the Jewish, from Abraham, about two thou- 
 sand ; and the christian, almost two thousand. 
 
 With regard to the first, the door by which men were admitted into its 
 enjoyments, was faith, without which it was always impossible to please 
 God. When Paul brings up the mighty host of illustrious heroes, witnesses 
 of the power and piety of this principle^ Abel stands the first on that re- 
 nowned list of worthies, who shone with such transcendent splendor dur- 
 
 2h2 
 
366 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ing the antediluvian age. Still, it was a very different thing from Christi- 
 anity. It was a state in which men enjoyed communion with God by 
 faith, prayer, and sacrifice, in social acts of religious worship. Let him 
 now show how their infants got into that " church state !" I presume he 
 will never satisfy you or himself on that subject; he will not be able to 
 give any information. He is contending that there was a church, and that 
 infants were always members of it, from the beginning of the world. His 
 mode of development and proof is rather singular and phantastic. With 
 Abraham, he commences his infant membership by natural birth. Before 
 Abraham, it was faith, after him, fleshy that opened the door. It behooves 
 him to show why he begins then and there. Is it not because he first 
 meets circumcision there ? And yet, when pressed, there is no church 
 door in it ! 
 
 The gentleman could not be serious, when he said that we began with 
 a " Thus saith the Lord" And now he has called upon me for a Thus 
 saith the Lord. I do, indeed, teach that we ought to have a " Thus saith 
 the Lord," for what we believe and teach in his name ; but I do not teach 
 that I must have a Thus saith the Lord for the caricature that Mr. Rice 
 has exhibited. He drew the picture, and I am not obliged to produce any 
 proof of it. If any man asks me for the christian covenant, I show it to 
 him ; and I show it sealed and ratified by various institutions. And if it 
 cannot be made plain and evident, I know not what matter of fact can be 
 established beyond the power of contradiction. 
 
 He wishes me to engross the covenants into one. I said they were 
 engrossed into two covenants, and still there are two in the Bible unno- 
 ticed and unexplained by him ; and I am sorry to see that he still passes 
 them without argument or inquiry. They are engrossed by Paul into 
 two grand institutions, represented by two women. I have also produced 
 the positive precept for casting out part of Abraham's family ; but the 
 gentleman seems not to hear it. It stands, like the mountains, unmoved 
 and immovable. He has never attempted so much as to explain away the pre- 
 cept, though it is now full two hours since I offered it. With regard to these 
 believing adults, he must have forgotten the principle which we recognize. 
 We say, inasmuch as the law made it obligatory upon every master, to 
 have every one of his servants, if he had thousands of them, circumcised 
 on the day and at the hour in which he professed to obey the law himself, 
 their faith could have nothing to do with his obedience. It behooves every 
 soul to have the males of his household circumcised, nolens volens, on 
 that day. It is impossible to make adult circumcision, on the part of 
 masters, a duty, and then place it on the faith of servants. Faith, indeed. 
 was never a condition of circumcision, in master or servant, since the 
 world began. We have the law and the testimony. Here they are. 
 Let the gentleman give an example. If the ordinance does not require faith 
 in the infant, why demand faith in the adult? When there was no moral 
 qualification required in the million, why ask it in the hundred ? Why 
 raise objections of this sort ? What the law never asked for, it is not our 
 duty to require. 
 
 If the law of Christ had commanded a master in this commonwealth to 
 baptize his whole stock of servants, I question if one in ten good Presbyte- 
 rians, if depending upon Mr. Rice for development, would observe it; and 
 if they did, there would certainly be a great number of unbelievers in their 
 church. There are a thousand difficulties in his way, which neither Mr. 
 Rice nor any other man can dispose of. The case is so plain, I am sur- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 367 
 
 prised that he should not respect his own intellect more than to put me 
 to the necessity of reiterating it. 
 
 Had I never read Dr. Wall, on Baptism, I would have supposed Mr. 
 Rice was one of the greatest lovers of paradoxes I had met with. But in 
 this instance, as in most others, he is rather led than leads. Still I had 
 hoped, that in this age of improvement and advancement on the past, no 
 one could be found so servilely in love with the past, as to make the com- 
 mission read — "Go, convert the nations, by first enrolling them as scholars, 
 then baptize them, and finally teach them the christian religion." Now, 
 preposterous though it be, it is nevertheless true, that Dr. Wall, and after 
 him, my friend, Mr. Rice, will have matheteuo to mean, in this place, 
 " make disciples simply by the act of baptizing them, without any pre- 
 vious teaching;" and then commence some few years afterwards to teach 
 them ! It is no exaggeration, sir — no hyperbole. It is the simple truth ! 
 
 The argument, illustration, and proof is here. A school-master makes 
 up his school, by simply getting scholars enrolled ; and when his school 
 is made up, he goes to teaching them. But there, indeed, is still one 
 difference existing in favor of the schoolmaster. He commences teaching 
 when he gets the school made up ; but our preacher, after he makes up a 
 school of baptized infants, has to wait some ten years before he gives 
 them the first lessons. St. Xavier done better with the Indians, for he 
 taught some of them to repeat the Lord's prayer, and to say "Hail Vir- 
 gin Mary !" 
 
 I will count out this family of words — I mean this matheteuo, a family 
 amounting in the New Testament to 272 individual occurrences ; and if 
 any one, of any learning, can show that in any one instance it means 
 such a scholar, or such a discipline, I will, at once, give up the matter. 
 In three other cases only, it is found in somewhat a similar predicament 
 as in the passage in the commission, but in these no one would presume 
 to contend that it means enrollment. The great Grotius, in his simpli- 
 city, distinguished matheteuo, the first word in the commission, as dis- 
 tinguished from didasco the last ; both translated teach in this common 
 version, thus : Matheteuo, says he, " means to communicate the first, or 
 elementary principles ; then after baptizing those who receive these rudi- 
 mental views, teach or introduce them as persons initiated into the higher 
 branches of christian doctrine." This is my view of the passage ; and, cer- 
 tainly, it is the etymological and well received meaning of the word, all the 
 world over; excepting a few Pedo-baptists, partizans in the superlative de- 
 gree. But, methinks, even amongst intelligent and sober-minded Pedo- 
 baptists, this licence of fixing upon a word, a meaning nowhere else found, 
 in all sacred, and, I might say also, in classic use — a meaning got up just 
 for the emergency, can never find any, certainly not much favor. In an 
 essay on baptizing, then, as the consummating act of discipline, I have 
 argued, and still argue, that it indicates the concluding act of the process; 
 that is, we make disciples in the sense of the commission, by first teach- 
 ing them the rudimental principles, and, on their receiving these, we then 
 baptize them, and the process of bringing them into the school of Christ 
 is completed. They are afterwards to be taught the whole way of the 
 Lord more perfectly. 
 
 I am glad that we have at last got upon the commission again. From 
 it, indeed, Mr. R. ought never to have gone till it had been fully discussed. 
 I have been always willing to stand upon the commission alone. Cer- 
 tainly it is a clear, intelligible, as it most certainly is a superlatively au- 
 
368 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 thoritative document. It comes from the King of kings. Now I will 
 stake the whole cause for which now I plead, upon a fair grammatical and 
 logical construction of this single document. There are three things to 
 be done. The nations are to be taught what to believe; they are, when 
 taught what to believe, of course, believers; and to be baptized — and 
 then they are to be taught what to do. Not merely the grammatical 
 arrangement of the words, but the nature of the case itself implies this 
 order. Faith is necessarily first in order ; consequently, the principles or 
 facts to be believed must first be propounded. Then obedience, or the 
 precepts to be obeyed, follow most naturally. The order then is — the 
 nations are to be taught the facts, then baptized, then inducted into the 
 whole practice of the christian religion. 
 
 On these plain, grammatical and logical principles, I therefore take this 
 ground ; that all laws and commissions are not only inclusive of all the 
 persons and things specified in them, but exclusive of all other persons 
 and things not therein mentioned. For example : — Suppose that a law 
 is passed in this commonwealth, requiring all male persons, from sixteen 
 to forty-five, of sound and perfect bodies, to muster three days each year. 
 Follows it not, as evidently, by the universal construction of all mankind, 
 that no other persons but males within those ages, and of such qualifica- 
 tions, are required to attend, as that the person so described shall perform 
 the 'services so enacted ? Or take another example : — Suppose a law regu- 
 lating the right of suffrage, should say that all free-holders, house-hold- 
 ers, and heads of families citizens of the state, from twenty-one years old 
 and upwards, shall have the right of suffrage ; does not this arrangement 
 exclude from the polls all persons not possessed of those qualifications ? 
 Are they not positively and by law excluded ? 
 
 When, then, the commission says — Preach the gospel to the nations ; 
 baptize them that believe, and teach them to obey my precepts — does it not 
 exclude from baptism those that are not first taught the gospel, as well as 
 exclude from the ordinances designed for the faithful, those who have not 
 been baptized ? 
 
 When, according to Mark, Jesus says, " Go you into all the world, 
 preach the gospel to every creature : he that believeth, and is baptized, 
 shall be saved;" follows it not that the gospel is to be first preached to 
 every creature, and also to be believed before any one ought to be bap- 
 tized? I see Mr. Rice is taking down a note just at this point. He need 
 not write that I exclude all from salvation who do not hear, believe, and 
 are baptized. That is not the reading, the fair grammatical reading, of 
 the commission. It reads thus, when the proper ellipsis is supplied : — 
 " Preach the gospel to every creature. He that hears the gospel, be- 
 lieves the gospel, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that hears the 
 gospel and disbelieves the gospel, and is not consequently baptized, shall 
 be condemned." That is the true reading; therefore, the gospel threat- 
 ens damnation, in the commission, to those only who hear the gospel, 
 disbelieve, and reject it. Such is its true exegetical exposition. Accord- 
 ing to the commission, no one can be damned who does not hear, in his 
 own language, in intelligible words, the gospel, or so have it within his 
 reach, that the not hearing of it shall be voluntary; I am now willing 
 even to appeal to my opponent whether such is not the fair grammatical 
 and exegetical exposition of the words of the commission. If, in the 
 Celtic language, the gospel was preached to the Chinese, they not under- 
 standing a word of it, could they be justified in believing, or condemned 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 369 
 
 for not believing and obeying it, by either God' or man ? And simply, 
 because their not hearing it in intelligible words, was not hearing it at all. 
 Like Saint Anthony, we might just as well preach to the fish, as to any 
 community, unless we speak to it in their own language, and in terms which 
 they can understand. For this reason, God bestowed tongues upon the 
 first promulgers of it, that they might speak it intelligibly, and that those 
 who hear it, believe it, and are baptized, might be saved. 
 
 Touching infants, their case comes not into the commission. The 
 Lamb of God, who took away the sin of the world, has rendered it pos- 
 sible and consistent with our heavenly Father, to extend to those, dying 
 without actual transgression, salvation — without faith, without repent- 
 ance, and without baptism. I state this opinion to save time, (unless Mr. 
 R. desires more time than to-morrow,) as I perceive a disposition on his 
 part to debate any thing but the question before us. 
 
 The commission is a vital matter. All depends upon it. It is most 
 unprecedented and inexplicable, upon any other principle than a con- 
 sciousness of its affording no help to his views, that for two days we have 
 heard so little about it from Mr. Rice. You would think the Abrahamic 
 covenants had imposed baptism on Christ's commission in every word of 
 them, were we to judge of their importance by the attention paid to 
 them by Mr. Rice. Can he not give one instance of infant sprinkling in 
 the whole Bible? or can he show no word of the Lord, apostle, or 
 prophet commanding it, or alluding to it ! As he makes sprinkling a 
 means of sanctification, and regards the affusion of water as the most 
 scriptural method, can he not, in all the thousands of additions to the 
 church, and in all the conversions recorded in the New Testament, af- 
 ford one solitary instance of infant sprinkling ? Stranger still that the 
 Father of Mercies should make the sprinkling of water a means of sanc- 
 tification to infants — as baptism, in all cases, is, (according to his theory 
 of sanctification,) and make no provision by hint of any sort, precept, or 
 promise, that it should be so done. If I thought that the affusion of wa- 
 ter on the face of a babe, was the means of its sanctification from the 
 pollution of sin, I would stand in the high-ways, and public places, and 
 publish it to all parents and persons whatsoever ; and yet the Lord, who 
 is incomparably more humane and merciful than any of us, has not com- 
 manded it to be promulged by any apostle or prophet. He has left the 
 splendid affair at hap-hazard ; and should the parent be a Quaker, a 
 non-professor, or a sceptic, his whole offspring are debarred from the gos- 
 pel means of sanctification ! It is all, it seems, left to a mere contingen- 
 cy. But kind parents regret not this seeming neglect on the part of the 
 Messiah. He blessed babes — and said, " of such was the kingdom of 
 heaven;" and yet he never once sprinkled, nor commanded to have 
 water sprinkled upon them. From all which we may infer, there is no 
 necessity for it. You see no difference between the babes sprinkled 
 and unsprinkled. We Baptists generally have as many children raised to 
 manhood, as beautiful, as healthful, as happy — and as many of them at 
 the Lord's table, (especially when we do our duty,) as have any branch 
 of those communities that believe, or practice sprinkling for sanc- 
 tification. If, indeed, the virtue of one drop of this water of sancti- 
 fication, can, after so many years sinning, make the adult son of a Pedo- 
 baptist holy — if its virtues are so potent and enduring, it were well to 
 have it. But as, from the testimony of our senses, we see no difference 
 in their faces, or in their characters — no difference in their health, 
 24 
 
370 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 growth, or vigor — as it leaves no mark, physical, intellectual, or moral, in 
 their history, with regard to this life, we shall presume it is equally im- 
 potent beyond the grave ; and I will reserve the further notice of this 
 point for a speech by itself. 
 
 I believe I have answered all the gentleman has said for two days ; and 
 you will find on the docket a number of important matters, to which he 
 has not answered. But it is for himself and not for me, to point out the 
 course which he ought to pursue. If the infants of professing parents are 
 to be baptized, the proof lies upon him, and he ought to show it. Of 
 course he has taken what he considers the best ground. He has repudi- 
 ated the ground usually before taken. He does not value at the price of a 
 single straw, the law of circumcision, formerly relied on ; which, after all, 
 is still the base of the whole matter. He does not, seemingly, use this 
 argument in support of his cause. Well, now, I know that he must advo- 
 cate the identity of the two churches, and that, too, for the sake of circum- 
 cision. For this reason, I go on to show that the principle is not recog- 
 nized in all the New Testament. 
 
 I had pursued the history of baptism down to Cornelius. After he and 
 his friends were converted by hearing Peter preach the gospel, as soon as 
 they gave intimation of their conviction, Peter said, "Can any man forbid 
 water, that these should not be baptized, seeing they have received the 
 Holy Spirit as well as we ?" Certain christian Jews, standing by his 
 side, who had never yet seen such a thing before, as a proof that there 
 was no proselyte baptism in their heads, looking around at these gentiles 
 who had just received the Holy Spirit, he said, Can any one of you for- 
 bid water that these persons should be baptized as well as we ? They 
 were all silent. He therefore commanded them to be baptized by the au- 
 thority of the Lord. Making their qualification a reason for their bap 
 tism, he asked, Can any one forbid water that these persons who have 
 received the Holy Spirit, and have thus been qualified, should not be 
 baptized as well as we ? 
 
 In the very commencement, then, of the gospel ministry, you will per- 
 ceive, that the apostles required a moral qualification, — a belief in one 
 Lord, one gospel, one baptism ; as in one case, so in all cases. Hence, 
 whatever was necessary to constitute a qualification in one man, is neces- 
 sary in every other man. Can any one give one reason, why there 
 should be a moral qualification in one case and not in another ? 
 
 I have now showed, that in Judea, Samaria, and every place baptism 
 was practiced, and that without any regard to circumcision more than to 
 uncircumcision. Personal qualifications were always, and in all cases, 
 required. 
 
 Take another instance from Ethiopia — an individual case, marked, in- 
 deed, by prominent incidents. An Ethiopian officer, under queen Can- 
 dace, had been to Jerusalem to worship, was very much interested in 
 what he read, and in returning home to his own country, carried with 
 him a copy of the prophecy of Isaiah. As he read, the Spirit of God 
 suggested to Philip that he should go and join himself to the chariot. He 
 did so. Presenting himself to the officer, he invited him into the car- 
 riage ; and Philip addressing him, said, Understandest thou what thou 
 readest? How could I, he replied, unless some one should guide me? 
 He read on, and Philip interpreted. Beginning at the same passage, he 
 preached unto him the Lord Jesus. The eunuch heard him with great 
 attention ; and as soon as they ^earne to a proper close, they happened to 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 371 
 
 come to a certain water. How much, or how large, or of what kind, — 
 whether a pond, a lake, or stream, is not material; but they came to a 
 certain water. Immediately the officer said, What does hinder me from 
 being baptized ? That was the time to declare the law, the whole law, 
 and nothing but the law. Eunuch was going into a new part of the 
 world. Ethiopia was stretching out her hands to God. It was very im- 
 portant that he should have a clear version of the whole matter, and un- 
 derstand all about it, as it respects both Jews and Gentiles. The ques- 
 tion was asked, formally, (I suppose,) " If thou believest with all thy 
 heart, thou mayest." I admit that this is a little involved in the various 
 Greek texts and translations. Still the connection shows that it was vir- 
 tually implied in asking the question. It shows that he must have faith, 
 and that it was necessary to receive him upon a confession of it; or as it 
 reads — "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. I believe that 
 Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God." This is the faith 
 which Peter confessed to Jesus, and of which he said, the foundation of 
 the church shall rest upon this faith. 
 
 When they had closed their reading, they went down into the water, 
 both Philip and the officer ; and when they went down into the water, he 
 baptized him. You all know what that word means by this time. They 
 went down into the water before he began to perform the ceremony, and 
 when they had descended into the water, he baptized him. — {Time 
 expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22 — 10 o'clock, Ji. M. 
 [mr. rice's eighth address. 3 
 
 Mr. President — It will be remembered by those who heard the dis- 
 cussion yesterday, that in reply to Mr. Campbell's remarks on the ten- 
 dency of infant baptism to corrupt the church, I stated that many of the 
 members of his own church had also apostatized ; and therefore his ar- 
 gument proved as much against adult baptism, as against the baptism of 
 infants. In confirmation of the statement I referred to a letter written by 
 a Mr. Gates, one of his own ministers, and published in the Millenial 
 Harbinger. The reading of the letter was called for by the gentleman. 
 I will now, according to promise, read an extract from it. After some 
 preliminary remarks, Mr. Gale says : 
 
 " I could instance churches, within a few years, which have had scores 
 of converts added to them that are now scarcely alive, that have very few 
 active members, other than those who were such, previous to excitements, 
 which resulted in such large accessions to their numbers." — Mill. liar. vol. 
 vi. no. viii. p. 325. 
 
 This letter is published with some remarks by my friend. He does 
 not call in question the statements it contains, but says : 
 
 " I have neither time nor space at present for much comment on the 
 above ; I am aware that there is much ground for complaint on account of the 
 errors alluded to by brother Gates. He is not the only complainant on 
 such accounts. Thousands affirm the conviction that the making of disciples 
 is a work of far inferior importance to that of saving those that are made. 
 And certain it is, that the teaching and discipline of all the disciples is in 
 all the apostolic Avritings the great object. Without bishops and well 
 accomplished teachers, there is little or no importance to be attached to 
 the work of baptizing. Not a tithe of the baptized can enter the kingdom of 
 heaven.'" — Ibid. p. 327. 
 
 If, then, the children of believers sometimes go astray, great numbers 
 of the gentleman's immersed believers do no better. 
 
372 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 He informed you, on yesterday, that I had not attempted to find in the 
 New Testament a precept for baptizing infants ; but every attentive hear- 
 er must know, that such is not the fact. From the commencement of 
 my argument, I have maintained that the commission given the apostles, 
 properly understood, requires the baptism of the children of believers. 
 Our Savior did not say, go and baptize adults, nor go and baptize infants ; 
 but, go and make disciples of all 'nations. How were they to make 
 disciples? By baptizing and teaching. He did not say, teach first, and 
 then baptize. I said, (and the gentleman has not ventured to controvert 
 the position,) that the commission requires the baptism of all who are en- 
 titled to membership in the church of Christ. If, then, I prove that the 
 children of believers are entitled to a place in the church, the school of 
 Christ, I prove, conclusively, that the commission requires the initiatory 
 rite, baptism, to be administered to them. 
 
 And although the gentleman has labored to make the impression, that 
 I abandoned the commission with scarcely a passing notice, and have 
 been wandering in all directions ; the truth is, my whole argument has 
 been directed to a single point, viz. to prove that the children of believers 
 are entitled to membership in the church, and that, therefore, the com- 
 mission is, itself, a command to baptize them! But he has evidently re- 
 sorted to an artifice often practiced by adroit lawyers, when pleading a 
 bad cause. If they can succeed in convincing the court and the jury, 
 that all the evidence adduced by their opponents, is illegal or irrelevant, 
 their point is gained. His efforts, however, to divert the attention of the 
 audience from the point in debate, will not succeed; for every intelligent 
 hearer can see the immediate bearing of all the arguments I have adduced. 
 The scattering has all been on the side of my opponent. 
 
 In another respect, also, he exhibits something of the tact of an artful 
 lawyer. When arguments are urged, to which he cannot reply, he be- 
 comes suddenly astonished — amazed, that any one should venture on 
 positions so rash, so reckless ! For example, when I stated the simple and 
 obvious fact, that the commission given the apostles did not direct them 
 to organize a new church, he was quite astounded ; and yet, I presume, 
 lie is perfectly aware, that all Pedo-baptists take this ground. Again, 
 when he supposed that I expounded the commission as Dr. Wall and 
 many others did, he was amazed, that I should agree with many of the 
 ablest critics ! Well, there is policy in all this. He may induce some, 
 who allow him to think for them, to believe, that it is just as he says, and 
 to be astonished because he seems to be astonished ! 
 
 But let us look a little more particularly at the commission. Instead 
 of taking Dr. Wall's view of it, I agreed w T ith Mr. Campbell, and, it 
 seems, have driven him from the views for which he has heretofore con- 
 tended. What says the commission? "Go, make disciples of all na- 
 tions !" The gentleman agrees, that such is the meaning of the language. 
 But how are they to be made ? By baptizing and teaching. This is pre- 
 cisely the construction for which he has contended. In the Christian 
 Baptist, (p. 630) he writes to one of his correspondents as follows : 
 
 ' k Have you, my dear brother, ever adverted to the import of the parti- 
 ciple in the commission, Matth. xxviii. ' Disciple or convert the nations, 
 immersing them V I need not tell you that this is the exact translation. 
 Let me ask you, then, does not the active participle always, when connect- 
 ed with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing com- 
 manded is to be performed 1 Cleanse the room, washing it ; clean the floor, 
 sweeping it ; cultivate the field, ploughing it ; sustain the hungry, feeding 1 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 373 
 
 them ; furnish the soldiers, arming them ; convert the nations, baptizing" 
 them, are exactly the same forms of speech. No person y I presume, will 
 controvert this. If so, then no man could be called a disciple or a convert ; 
 no man could be said to he discipled, or converted, until he was immersed." 
 
 Here he maintains that the meaning of the commission is — Go, make 
 disciples by baptizing and teaching them ; but now he abandons this con- 
 struction, and agrees with Grotius, who says, that matheteuo (make dis- 
 ciples) means to teach them the first principles of Christianity, then 
 baptize them, and afterward go on instructing. But how does this inter- 
 pretation of the commission agree with what I have just read from the 
 Christian Baptist ? He now says, the phrase, make disciples, baptizing 
 them and teaching them, means, teach them in part, then baptize and con- 
 tinue to teach. Now look at his own illustration in the passage just 
 quoted from his writings : " Cleanse the room, washing it," that is, get 
 it partly clean, and then wash it ! " Clean the floor, sweeping it," that 
 is, get it partly clean, and then sweep ! " Sustain the hungry, feeding 
 them," that is, sustain them in part, and then feed them ! " Furnish the 
 soldiers, arming them," that is, partly furnish them, and then arm them S 
 "Cultivate the field, ploughing it," that is, cultivate it in part, and then 
 plough it! Evidently the construction he now attempts to put on the 
 commission, is in fiat contradiction of that he has heretofore defended. 
 The Savior commanded the apostles to make disciples by baptizing and 
 teaching ; but did he say they must, in all cases, first be taught the rudiments 
 of Christianity, then baptized, and afterwards taught other parts of divine 
 truth 1 He did not ; and no man has authority to say so. In the case 
 of adults, teaching must necessarily both precede and follow baptism ; 
 but when infants are first baptized and then taught, they are made disci- 
 ples just as our Savior directed — by baptizing and teaching. 
 
 But the gentleman insists that the word matheteuo, which is employed 
 by Christ, (in the common version translated teach) means to teach the 
 first principles of Christianity. Can he find one instance in the Bible 
 in which it is used in this sense ? I venture to say he cannot. By 
 what authority, then, does he confine its meaning to first principles. A 
 disciple, in the scriptural sense, is a true follower of Christ, whether in- 
 structed only in first principles, or in all the principles of Christianity ; 
 and such disciples are made, so far as human instrumentality is concern- 
 ed, by baptizing and teaching. I hope the gentleman will not fall out 
 with me for agreeing with him, and that he will not attempt to escape 
 from a difficulty by retreating from his own principles of interpretation, 
 as, on yesterday, he did in regard to John's baptism. 
 
 But he told us, the other day, that wise men sometimes change, but 
 fools never. If, then, changes of opinion are evidences of wisdom, it 
 may be supposed that the more rapid the changes, the greater the mani- 
 festation of wisdom ! It has, indeed, been said, to the praise of one of 
 the most eminent politicians and statesmen now living, that in the course 
 of a long life he has scarcely ever been known to change his views of 
 any great political principle. But this, according to the logic of nay 
 friend, would only prove his weakness and his folly ! 
 
 Infants, says he, cannot be made disciples. But I will prove to you 
 that they can do things quite as difficult. In the book of Numbers, xxiii. 
 28, we read as follows: " In the number of all the males, from a month 
 old and upward, were eight thousand and six hundred, keeping the charge 
 of the sanctuary ." If children of a month old could keep the charge 
 
 21 
 
374 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of the sanctuary, I should think they might be disciples. You see here 
 how inspired writers were accustomed to speak concerning children. The 
 gentleman seems to imagine that the commission requires disciples to be 
 made as in the twinkling of an eye ! True, infants of a month old could 
 not be taught ; but they might be disciples as early as those of whom I 
 have just read, could keep charge of the sanctuary. And as the latter 
 were enrolled, as those who were to keep the sanctuary afterwards, so 
 may children be in the school of Christ. Again — Deut. xxix. 10 ; 
 "Ye," says Moses, " stand this day, all of you before the Lord your 
 God ; your captains of your tribes ; your elders, and your officers, with 
 all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the stranger 
 that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy 
 water, that, thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, 
 and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day." 
 If their little ones could enter into covenant, they might also be disciples. 
 Again ; when, in the days of the apostles, the question was agitated 
 whether the gentile christians should be required to keep the law of Mo- 
 ses, whether they must be circumcised ; Peter said : " Now, therefore, 
 why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which 
 neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ?" Acts xv. Now suppose 
 the decision had been that circumcision should be observed in the chris- 
 tian church, does not every body know that it must have been adminis- 
 tered to the children of believers, on the eighth day ? Yet Peter speaks 
 of it as a yoke put upon the neck of the disciples. If it was proper 
 for the inspired writers to speak of children as keeping charge of the 
 sanctuary, because they were to do it as soon as capable ; as entering into 
 covenant, when their parents only did so; and if circumcision was spoken 
 of as connected with disciples / why may not the children of christians, 
 and the ordinance of baptism, be spoken of in the same way? Certainly, 
 such is the manner in which the inspired writers constantly spoke and 
 wrote. 
 
 I would like to ask Mr. Campbell one important question: WJien did 
 God ever enter into covenant with parents without including their 
 children ? Is there a solitary example of the kind in the Bible ? 
 
 He has commented at length on the baptism of the eunuch by Philip, 
 and of Cornelius, and others; and he has certainly proved conclusively, 
 that, in the case of adults, faith was required in order to baptism ; but I 
 am not aware, that this is denied by any one ! "When, however, he infers 
 from this fact that infants must be excluded from baptism, because they 
 cannot believe ; there is certainly no connection between his premises and 
 his conclusion. By precisely the same kind of reasoning, I can prove 
 that infants cannot go to heaven. For I can easily prove, that faith is 
 positively required of adults as 2. condition of salvation : and from this 
 fact, the inference that infants cannot go to heaven, because incapable of 
 believing, will follow quite as legitimately as that which deprives them 
 of baptism. 
 
 But he thought he had guarded against this difficulty, when he ob- 
 served me noting his remarks, by expounding the commission thus : — 
 "He that heareth, and believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." But 
 this construction does not help him ; for then the other clause of the pas- 
 sage must read, " He that heareth not, and believeth not, shall be 
 damned ;" and it is certain that infants cannot hear understanding^, nor 
 believe. If, therefore, the gentleman can infer them out of the church, 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 375 
 
 because they cannot believe ; I can quite as logically infer them out of 
 heaven for the very same reason ! He cannot make the commission ex- 
 clude them from the church, without at the same time keeping them out 
 of heaven. By the way, he seems quite dissatisfied with his argument 
 on the mode of baptism. Hence he could not let the opportunity pass to 
 give us something about going down into the water J 
 
 I was a little surprised to hear him assert, that if infant baptism is so 
 important, it ought not to be left to parents to have it administered. Is 
 not their religious instruction of great moment ? and is it not left to the 
 parents ? May they not greatly neglect it, and thus seriously injure their 
 children in time and in eternity ? 
 
 But, as a sweeping argument against the doctrine, he says, the children 
 that are baptized in infancy are no better than others. I wish to inquire 
 of the gentleman, whether he has not published it in the Millenial Har- 
 binger as his decided opinion, that there is a greater probability of sal- 
 vation to the children of Presbyterians, than to those of the Baptists ? 
 I am prepared to prove that he has ! Now, let it be remembered, that 
 he attaches very great importance to immersion; that he considers it 
 necessary to the remission of sins ; and yet he has said, that it is more 
 likely that the children of Presbyterians, who practice sprinkling, will 
 be pious, and will be saved, than that the same will be true of the child- 
 ren of Baptists who practice immersion ! ! ! And yet he tells us, that the 
 children that are baptized by pious parents are no better than others ! 
 
 It is not difficult to see the good that must result from the doctrine of 
 infant baptism. We do not, indeed, believe that an infant dying would 
 be lost because it had not received baptism. We do, however, know 
 perfectly well how prone parents are to neglect these solemn and mo- 
 mentous duties to their children. Now if you see a friend of yours neg- 
 lecting some important duty, do you not feel that you have done him 
 great service when you have induced him solemnly to promise that he 
 will neglect it no longer ? Has not the temperance reformation proceeded 
 and spread its blessings over the land on this very principle ? And shall 
 we be told that no good will result from the most solemn promise of par- 
 ents to God, that they will train up their children for his service ? And 
 will not the effect be still greater, if, in addition to their promise, they are 
 also encouraged to perform their duties by a promise from God of special 
 blessing upon their efforts ? 
 
 The gentleman has repeatedly charged me with making bold and reck- 
 less assertions. I must now present a brief catalogue of his unproved 
 and unscriptural assertions. They may serve to show into what difficul- 
 ties he is still thrown, though so long accustomed to discuss the subject 
 before us. 
 
 First. He says adults entered the visible church, before Abraham's 
 time, by faith. He professes to go by the Book. I have called for the 
 passage which so teaches, and it is not to be found. The Bible mentions 
 neither a visible church nor the mode of getting into it. 
 
 Secondly. He asserted that there were three distinct covenants with 
 Abraham ; but the same promises are embraced in each of them, and the 
 inspired writers always put the word covenant in the singular — never 
 speaking of more than one with Abraham. 
 
 Third. He said, these covenants were afterwards engrossed in tvjo ; 
 but the Bible says nothing about engrossing. 
 
 Fourth. He asserted that the Jewish church was organized at Sinai ; 
 
376 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and the law of Moses was the constitution ; but Paul says, the law wa3 
 a temporary addition to a previously existing covenant. 
 
 Fifth. He asserted that the law was added to the promise of the land of Ca- 
 naan ; though Canaan is not mentioned in that connection, nor in the epistle. 
 
 Sixth, tie told you that circumcision did not require piety ; yet Paul 
 says it was of no avail without piety ; " Circumcision verily profiteth if 
 thou keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision 
 is made uncircumcision." Yes, he says, circumcision required no piety; 
 yet Paul says, it required that a man should keep the whole law of God. 
 Then the whole law of God can be kept without piety ! 
 
 Seventh. The apostles, he at first maintained, did receive christian bap- 
 tism, though we have no record of the fact ; or, at least, they received 
 John's baptism, which, he said, differed but little from it. But it was 
 proved, that they could not have received christian baptism, and that the 
 gentleman himself had maintained, that John's baptism was radically 
 different; leaving its subjects out of the kingdom of Christ! Then he 
 was inclined to assert, that it was wholly unnecessary that they should 
 have received christian baptism ; that no one appointed to introduce an 
 ordinance, had been required to submit to it. Yet Abraham, though ap- 
 pointed to introduce circumcision, was circumcised ! Thus he turned 
 and twisted to escape insuperable difficulties. 
 
 Eighth. I called on him to produce a law for excluding children of be- 
 lievers from the church. He promised to do it ; and, behold, he tri- 
 umphantly adduced a law for excluding apostates J He pointed us to the 
 fourth chapter to the Galatians : " Cast out the bond-woman and her son." 
 But who are the bond-woman and her son ? The apostle himself an- 
 swers the question: "Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with 
 her children " — the Jewish people who have rejected the promised seed, 
 and clung to the covenant or law of Sinai. I called for a law for excluding 
 the children of believers ; and he boastfully produces a law for excluding 
 adult apostates and their children 11 And this is the only law he can find 
 to sustain him ! He cannot produce a law for excluding children, which 
 does not also exclude their parents. Alas ! for the cause that cannot be 
 sustained by any thing better than this. 
 
 I now invite your attention to the argument founded on household or 
 family baptisms. I will examine only one case ; and the remarks I shall 
 make with regard to it, may apply to the other family baptisms recorded 
 in the New Testament. I cite the case of Lydia and her family, Acts 
 xvi. 14, 15 : " And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of 
 the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us ; whose heart the 
 Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of 
 Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, 
 saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my 
 house, and abide there." Lydia, it is distinctly said, became a believer ; 
 her heart was opened by the Lord, so that she received the preached word ; 
 and she was baptized. But the account does not stop here. Her house- 
 hold, also, were baptized. Now, observe the peculiarity of this history. 
 The inspired writer is particular in stating that Lydia believed, and that 
 she and her family were baptized, but not an intimation is given that her 
 family believed. Precisely so Pedo-baptists are accustomed to write in 
 giving accounts of accessions to their churches : but anti-Pedo-baptists do 
 not so write. Some years ago, whilst I was editor of a religtous paper, 
 having some discussion on this subject with two editors of prominent 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 377 
 
 Baptist papers, I called on them to find one example in which Baptists, 
 in giving a history of additions to their churches, had written as Luke 
 did in this instance. They found some accounts of the baptism of whole 
 families ; but in every case, the writer had been so unfortunate as to say, 
 that all of them were believers. They were not able to produce one exam- 
 ple in which Baptists had written as Luke wrote — had mentioned the con- 
 version of the heads of the family and the baptism of all the family, without 
 intimating that all believed ! One thing is certain : we write as Luke wrote, 
 and our anti-Pedo-baptist friends do not. They neither talk nor write as he 
 did. Would it not be truly wonderful, should it turn out to be true, that 
 those who write like Luke, do not act like him ; whilst those who do not 
 write like him, are the very persons who act like him ? 
 
 There is a passage in 1 Cor. vii. 14, which has been almost universally 
 understood to authorize the baptism of the children of believers : " For 
 the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving 
 wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean, but 
 now are they holy." The words holy and clean have in the Bible two 
 prominent meanings. 1. They are used in the sense of consecration. 
 Thus the temple and all its vessels were holy or clean ; and the priests 
 were holy, in the same sense. 2. They signify moral purity. Now 
 what does Paul mean by saying, that when one of the parents is a be- 
 liever, the children are holy ; and when both are unbelievers, they are 
 unclean ? He cannot mean, that they possess moral purity, more than 
 others. The obvious meaning, then, seems to be, that they are holy in 
 such sense, that they are proper subjects to be set apart by baptism, and 
 trained up for the service of God. Dr. Gill, the Baptist commentator, un- 
 derstands the words holy and unclean in the sense of legitimacy ! This, 
 however, only shows how difficult it is to give the passage even a plausi- 
 ble interpretation which will not involve the doctrine of infant baptism ; 
 for every careful reader of the Bible knows, that these words have no 
 such meaning in the Scriptures. Besides, it is not true, that when both 
 parents are unbelievers, their children are illegitimate. 
 
 A strong and unanswerable argument for the identity of the church, 
 and, consequently, for the membership of children, is derived from such 
 parables, as we find in Matthew viii. 11, 12. When a certain centurion 
 had manifested remarkable faith, the Savior said — "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 kingdom of heaven: but the chil- 
 dren of the kingdom shall be cast out," &c. The kingdom of heaven in 
 the parables of our Savior, is admitted to mean the church under the new 
 dispensation. The covenant-breaking Jews, who, clinging to the shad- 
 ows of Sinai, had rejected the Savior promised in the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant, were now to be cast out of the church — deprived of its privileges ; 
 and the gentiles, from east, west, north and south, were to come and set 
 down in the same church with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
 
 We have now seen, that by positive law the children of believers were 
 put into the church, that there is no law for excluding them, and that the 
 apostles were in the habit of baptizing whole families, of which only the 
 heads are mentioned as believers. But it is asked, why was infant bap- 
 tism never particularly mentioned in the New Testament 1 I will answer 
 the gentleman in his own way. When I asked how it happened, if im- 
 mersion was practiced by the apostles, that there is no intimation of their 
 ever having gone after water ; he replied, it was so well understood, that 
 
 2i2 
 
378 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 it was not necessary to mention it. He must, then, admit the pertinency 
 ol my reply, when I say, it was so universally understood, that children 
 were to be received with their parents, that it was unnecessary to men- 
 tion it. There is, indeed, far more propriety and pertinency in my reply, 
 than in his ; for we know, that the strong prejudices of the Jewish chris- 
 tians were in favor of infant-membership. We know, too, that there was 
 much controversy as to whether circumcision, which was to be administer- 
 ed to children, should be retained in the church. Is it not, then, passing 
 strange, that the Jewish christians, while so much inclined to circumci- 
 sion, should yet submit without a solitary word of complaint, to have their 
 children excluded from privileges they had ever enjoyed? If infants had 
 been excluded from the christian church ; is there not the strongest reason 
 to believe, that there would have been some controversy on the subject — 
 at least some call for an explanation of the matter ? — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22 — 10<j o'clock, Jl. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's eighth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — Were you, sir, to judge of the progress and success 
 of Mr. Rice by the number of topics introduced and disposed of in a sin- 
 gle speech, you would doubtless conclude that the volume that reports 
 this discussion will not only contain a great variety of subjects, but also 
 an immense fund of knowledge upon them. Unfortunately, however, 
 there is more of reiteration and repetition than of novelty in most of the 
 speeches you have heard from him, on this question as well as on the 
 former. How little variation in the speech now uttered from the details 
 of yesterday ! 
 
 Were I to respond to all these same matters as often as he repeats 
 them, then, indeed, not only would you be fatigued in listening to them, 
 but you could not possibly acquire a comprehensive view of our respect- 
 ive premises nor of the real issue. Still I must, to a certain extent, fol- 
 low the course which he prescribes, inasmuch as the burden of proof lies 
 upon him ; consequently, he has a right to choose his own arguments. 
 If, then, he thus occupy his time with the approbation of his denomina- 
 tion, I cannot object to it ; but I must remind my audience that the main 
 question of discussion has not been contemplated in what we have heard, 
 except in his effort to sustain himself on the commission. 
 
 For the last two days the gentleman has, at intervals, been proving the 
 identity of the Jewish and Christian churches ; yet who has seen or felt 
 any evidence of identity ? We have seen some points of similarity. 
 But who does not perceive that my friend is all the time confounding 
 similarity with identity? 
 
 Have I not shown, that in every single specification the proof comes 
 not up to the proposition ? But suppose it did : so far as he has shown, 
 there are yet so many points remaining as to nullify his argument. To 
 dispose, then, of the argument at once, and to make way for something 
 better, if he have it ; for neither in truth nor in logic, does it affect the 
 real issue — admit that he has proved the commonwealth and the church 
 to be identical in every point he claims, nothing would be gained on his 
 own showing. He admits that the state of Kentucky, or any other state, 
 may frequently change important parts of the fundamental law or consti- 
 tution, as frequently happens, and yet the state remain legally, and, in the 
 common sense of the community, one and the same identical state, com- 
 munity, or body politic. But_ suppose Kentucky, Virginia, or any other 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 379 
 
 state, should undertake to revise its constitution and change some part of 
 its fundamental law — the right of suffrage, for example. Does it follow 
 that the community is changed, or that its identity is lost ? In Kentucky 
 and some other states, the right of suffrage is almost universal, so that 
 every young man, as soon as he arrives at the age of twenty-one, is, on the 
 single and simple virtue of nativity, invested with that most responsible 
 political right. Suppose, however, as it not unfrequently happens, in the 
 actual details of human experience, that the usage is not so commendable 
 as the theory ; that it does not work quite so well as was expected, and 
 that the law ought to be either repealed or new modified ! A convention 
 is called, the constitution is revised, and a new provision introduced ; thence- 
 forth adding to nativity a property or freehold qualification. It then be- 
 comes the law of the land. Has the state of Kentucky lost its identity ? 
 If it has not, neither would the commonwealth of Israel, nor the church of 
 Christ lose its identity, by changing the right to any ordinance from sim- 
 ple natural birth to faith, or any other qualification. So, then, the gen- 
 tleman's argument on identity, in the comparisons and illustrations given 
 by himself, even was it all made out, is of no value or applicability what- 
 ever in the case. But he never can establish identity between the com- 
 monwealth of Israel and the christian church : although Stephen called 
 the congregation in the wilderness, once the assembly, or the church, or 
 the congregation, just as we please to render the word. Call it, however, 
 a church, if any one pleases, and call circumcision the sign and seal of 
 membership. Then, as in the illustration taken from the right of suffrage 
 in Kentucky, has the right of membership been changed ; and yet the church 
 is identical. A new qualification has been enacted — " If thou believest 
 with all thy heart, thou may est.'''' The commission given to the apostles 
 (not to enlarge the Jewish church, as my friend most imaginatively asserts,) 
 but to organize Christ's church, has actually required both faith and bap- 
 tism before admission. The church, however, is still identical, according 
 to the logic of Mr. Rice, and therefore his argument for identity is most sin- 
 gularly illogical and inconclusive. The church may be the same, and yet 
 the constitution so modified, as he himself has repeatedly shown — if not in 
 his arguments, in his illustrations — as to change one of the most important 
 usages. Let me again say, it is all labor in vain to prove identity. It re- 
 quires hundreds of items to make out identity, and were it proved in the 
 gross and wholesale way which he attempts, it amounts to nothing. No one 
 can deny that faith has been required in order to baptism, and what is es- 
 sential in one case to any ordinance of God, is essential in all cases. 
 The commission itself, as we have shown, enjoins three things to be 
 done, not two. I shall, therefore, for the present, leave it with the good 
 sense and candor of the audience to decide how far we have succeeded 
 on this point, and proceed to notice some other points introduced this 
 morning. 
 
 With regard to this letter of Mr. Gates, it is a very small matter indeed ; 
 and I should not have called for the reading of it at all, only that the gen- 
 tleman used such ambiguous, ominous, and tremendous words, indicative 
 of the apostasy of vast multitudes. And now, what does the whole affair 
 amount to ? The fact is, that a certain disaffected brother, wrote such a 
 letter as you have now heard. You have also heard the length and breadth 
 of my admission. And have I not admitted, as I always feel bound to 
 admit, that mistakes, and errors, and faults do exist amongst some of our 
 brethren as well as in some other communities. And do I not attempt to 
 
380 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 reform them in our own community as I do, nay, more than I do, those 
 of other communities ? I would reprove my brethren even more severe- 
 ly than other professors ; and do I not stand in the best company in the 
 world in so doing ? Many, said Paul, " walk disorderly, of whom I have 
 told you before, and now tell you weeping, that they are the enemies of 
 the cross, making their appetites their god, and minding earthly things," 
 &c. But was that a proof that Christianity was of human device ? Be- 
 cause he published that some individuals had deserted his people, or dis- 
 honored their profession, can any one say, that such an occurrence dishon- 
 ors or discredits the whole profession ! ! Yet such is the offset, and the 
 only offset which the gentleman has been able to present against the fact 
 that I stated in the beginning — the fact that, bringing the whole world 
 into the church had corrupted Christianity. I care not for a thousand off- 
 sets and arguments of this sort. It is a self-evident proposition. If the 
 whole world were in the church, there would be no world out of it. It 
 would be all church, bearing upon its head all the faults, imperfections, 
 and vices of sinful and degenerate men. 
 
 As to the quotation from the Christian Baptist, I am glad my friend 
 read it ; and in relation to the whole subject and his remarks upon it, I 
 have nothing to take back. I wish he had read the whole essay. I was 
 speaking of universal usage. The argument is this : I said that there are 
 certain acts in all processes, which are called consummating acts — the 
 last act ; and to this act all men occasionally give the name of the whole 
 process. I have heard farmers frequently say, when a good shower 
 would come just at a proper crisis, that shower has made the corn. No 
 one, however, understands them to intimate that nothing before had been 
 done favorable to such a result. The same style obtains in most of the 
 mechanical processes. We say of leather, it is tanned, when the last act 
 of the process is completed ; and of cloth, that it is fulled — not when the 
 coloring matter is put upon it, but when it is perfectly dressed. So a 
 person is proselyted, converted, discipled when the last act is completed, 
 and not till then. 
 
 It is well that we have different versions of the commission. They 
 explain each other. According to Matthew, they were to " disciple all 
 nations." According to Mark, they were to " preach the gospel to every 
 creature." According to Luke, " repentance and remission of sins " were 
 to be preached to all nations. These were to be first performed. Hence 
 Luke says, that " daily in the temple, and from house to house, they 
 ceased not to preach and to teach Jesus Christ." This is the uniform 
 order. He did not command them to baptize first, and preach afterwards, 
 nor to baptize first and teach afterwards. They all explain each other 
 without any contrariety. There is not a passage in the book that at all 
 intimates that any one ever was discipled without being first taught: and 
 no one was considered discipled until baptized. 
 
 As to the import of the word, if it were worthy of a critical analysis, 
 or if, with any kind of propriety, it could be debated, I could give doc- 
 tors by the scores. Indeed, Gale has done it ; showing that both disci- 
 pulus in Latin, and matheteuo in Greek, and the verbs and families to 
 which they severally belong, never mean to write down one's name and 
 enroll himself, or any other person, as a scholar or a learner. We would 
 smile at the simplicity of the teacher who would say he had made twenty 
 scholars, when he had got their parents to write down their names. To 
 what most singular and phantastie extremes are Pedo-baptists driven, tc 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 381 
 
 get rid of such plain and positive injunctions, as those uttered by the 
 great teacher and his apostles. It requires an immense labor and waste 
 of ingenuity and learning, to make the New Testament an obscure and 
 unintelligible book. I have no language adequate to express my astonish- 
 ment, that now, in the nineteenth century, any christian minister would 
 take the ground, to carry any point whatever, that our Lord gave instruc- 
 tions to his apostles, to baptize the world — all nations — every creature — 
 first, and then teach or instruct them in the doctrine of Christ, and seek 
 to convert them to his religion. 
 
 I might have brought a great variety of authority to show it. I hap- 
 pen, however, to have one before me, which I will read — the distin- 
 guished Pedo-baptist, Mr. Baxter. Recollect, this is not the Baptist 
 Gale, or Fuller, this is Mr. Baxter. 
 
 " Matheteuo means to preach the gospel to all nations, and to engage them 
 to believe it, in order to their profession of that faith by baptism. I desire 
 any one to tell me, how the apostles could make a disciple of an heathen or 
 an unbelieving Jew, without becoming teachers of them, whether they 
 were men sent to preach to those who could hear, and to teach them to 
 whom they preached, that Jesus was the Christ, and only to baptize them 
 when they did believe this 1 This is so absolutely necessary in the nature 
 of the thing, till a christian church among the heathens or the Jews was 
 founded — and so expressly said by Justin Martyr, to have been the practice 
 of the first ages of the church, that to deny what is confirmed by such 
 evidence of reason and church history, would be to prejudice a cause, which 
 in my poor judgment, needs not this interpretation of the word matheteuo ; 
 nor needs it be asserted that infants are made disciples, any more than they 
 are made believers, by baptism ! ! 
 
 Again, by the first teaching, or making disciples, that must go before 
 baptism is to be meant, the convincing of the world that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the true Messiah, anointed of God with fullness of grace, and of the 
 Spirit without measure, and sent to be the Savior and Redeemer of the 
 world; and when any were brought to acknowledge this, then they were to 
 baptize them, to initiate them to this religion," &c. — pp. 91, 92. 
 
 The gentleman presumes that he has found an exception to matheteuo 
 as always indicating one that is actually taught, or a learner. I have 
 said there is no instance of its having been applied to a babe. He says 
 it is so used, Acts xv., ic Why tempt you God to put a yoke upon 
 the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to 
 bear." That yoke he supposes to be circumcision ; and, as children 
 were circumcised, he infers that an infant of eight days old was called a 
 disciple ! Profound logic ! But unfortunately circumcision was not the 
 yoke, but the keeping of the law, which was to be connected with it. 
 For the Judaizers said that it was necessary that the gentiles be circum- 
 cised and keep the law, in order to salvation ; consequently, as infants 
 eight days old could not keep the law, they had no yoke to bear, and 
 were not amongst the number of disciples. 
 
 I have expressed my astonishment once and again, that the gentleman 
 should say that Jesus Christ commissioned twelve men to disciple the na- 
 tions, and still gave them no authority to organize a church. McCalla 
 in debate — though he did not, in the same bold and unqualified terms, 
 insist that the apostles had not the power to organize a church — said 
 there was no organization necessary ; if so, the Lord would have given 
 distinct authority to organize a church, With regard to this question of 
 identity, the best argument I have heard, was that made by Mr. McCalla. 
 It has been introduced by Mr. Rice, but it has not been carried out with 
 
382 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the same order and efficiency. 1 will give a specimen of Mr. McCalla's 
 scheme of argument. 
 
 " In proving the truth of this proposition, I will observe the following 
 method. I will prove, First. That they had the same religion. 
 
 Second. That they had the same inspired names. 
 
 Third. That they had the same covenant. 
 
 These, we conceive, to be the grand essential properties which consti- 
 tute religious societies, one and the same in all primary points. Any two 
 religious societies, that possess the same theology and morality, that are 
 called by all the same names and appellations, and that exist under the 
 same grand constitution or covenant, form but one and the same social 
 compact, and are called, in the legitimate and proper use of the word, one 
 and the same church." — McCalla Debate, p. 129. 
 
 " Thus we have seen that the Jewish society before Christ, and the 
 christian society after Christ, have had the same religion in profession, in 
 ordinances, in forms of worship, in requirements, in doctrine, in promises, 
 in discipline, in government, and in members. 
 
 I now proceed to shew, in the second place, that they had the same 
 inspired names." — Ibid. p. 141. 
 
 To which arguments I then responded : 
 
 "To affirm that the Jewish and christian religions are one and the same 
 religion, is not only a logical error, for no two things arc one and the same. 
 but it is a theological error, that shocks all common sense. To say that 
 the Jewish circumcision, altars, priests, sacrifices, oblations, tabernacles, 
 festivals, holidays, new-moons, tithes, lents, temples, timbrels, harps, cor- 
 nets, vestments, views, feelings, prayers, praises, &c. &c. constitute one and 
 the same religion with christian faith, hope, charity, baptism, and the sup- 
 per, is as absurd as to say that the human body and the soul are one and the 
 same thing. To say this, because they were types of the christian reli- 
 gion, therefore they are one and the same, is similar to saying, that because 
 Canaan was a type of heaven, and Jerusalem a type of the heavenly city, 
 therefore Canaan and heaven are one and the same place, and the Jerusa- 
 lem in Canaan and the heavenly Jerusalem, are one and the same city. 
 
 And to affirm, as Mr. McCalla does, that they were different in some 
 respects, destroys his whole argument: for if different in some respects, we 
 then say they were different in this : that baptism and circumcision were 
 different in their nature, manner of operation, subjects and design ; and so at 
 last, the whole argument is lost, and comes down to a controversy on this 
 one point : for if I should admit they were similar in all other respects, but 
 different in this, then he has lost all his pains, and is obliged to dispute this 
 one point. So that his plan is as injudicious as his arguments are inconclu- 
 sive." — Ibid. pp. 154, 155. 
 
 With regard to the remarks made of those children, of a month old, 
 having charge of the sanctuary : a certain tribe of the twelve tribes was 
 set apart to the service of the sanctuary ; all the males of that tribe 
 were set apart to do the service of the tabernacle. They were some 
 twenty-two thousand ; every child was counted belonging to the class from 
 a month old and upward. That these children were to perform any of 
 the services of the temple, no one here can believe. These are profound- 
 ly learned arguments. 
 
 I believe that I have now touched upon all the minor matters in the 
 last speech, and shall proceed to some greater points not yet disposed of. 
 As this is the last day set apart, for this branch of the discussion, or upon 
 this proposition, we must redeem the time. I have asked Mr. Rice whether 
 he will require any more time than to-day. He responded in the negative. 
 He has, then, but three speeches more to make, and I have but three 
 replies. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 383 
 
 The gentleman has waived all the main points ; and I presume it is a 
 good omen. He says he does not care a straw about the argument 
 founded upon baptism in the place of circumcision ; he does not care a 
 straw about Jewish proselyte baptism : and now, for the first time, he 
 has faintly glanced at household baptism. He also mentions some por- 
 tions of New Testament scripture — one is, " Suffer little children to come 
 unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 This is always quoted in all books upon this subject. " Suffer little 
 children to come unto me," — why were they brought to Jesus Christ? 
 was it for the purpose of being baptized 1 No one pretends to think so : 
 they were brought to him to be blessed. There are some who argue 
 that these little children were believers. John speaks of some little chil- 
 dren as believers. The Savior also says, " Unless you humble your- 
 selves and become as little children, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven. And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe 
 on me." These little children, many think, may have been of that very 
 class. He, however, says, " Let them come unto me." Whatever the 
 character of these little children may have been, they came to him, or 
 were brought, to obtain a blessing, not baptism. He was always willing 
 to bless all that came to him, old or young, babes and their sires. 
 
 But, does he say, the kingdom of heaven is composed of babes and 
 little children ? No : but of those that are like them ; "Of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven." It is not composed of children, but of those who 
 are like them in docility, humility and meekness. Besides, at this time 
 christian baptism was not instituted. This passage, then, cannot possibly 
 allude to baptism ; and certainly that cause must be extremely destitute 
 of scriptural proof, that seizes passages of Scripture, spoken on other 
 subjects, even before the commission prescribing baptism was uttered or 
 written. Yet, indeed, I presume this is one of the best proofs that can 
 be found, merely because the word children is in it — a most convincing 
 proof of christian infant affusion. 
 
 But next comes a few words from Paul to the Corinthians, 1 Epis., 
 7th chapter, 14th verse — " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the 
 wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were 
 your children unclean, but now are they holy." 
 
 Mr. Barnes, a distinguished Presbyterian in Philadelphia, and a prolific 
 writer in that church, whose works are popular, and whose commentary 
 now lies before me, says — that the passage can possibly have no allu- 
 sion to baptism whatever. Yet from the days of Peter Edwards till now, 
 it has been allowed to be a strong proof of Pedo-baptism. I find, how- 
 ever, that as Biblical and true philology and general criticism are culti- 
 vated, the strongholds of infant membership are being surrendered one by 
 one into our hands. Mr. Rice very modestly alludes " to household 
 baptism." Mr. Taylor, some twenty years ago, made it an overwhelm- 
 ing proof. Mr. Barnes gave up 1 Cor. vii. Mr. Rice does not care a 
 straw for circumcision, nor Jewish proselyte baptism ; and, I think, before 
 long, will care as little about " identity.'''' I have seen a great change 
 within thirty years on this subject. 
 
 But, in the mean time, I intend to show that 1 Corinthians vii. 14, 
 is also decidedly against infant baptism. I think it may be made evident 
 to all intelligent and candid persons, from this passage, that infant mem- 
 bership was never thought of during the apostolic age. I only wonder 
 why Baptists have not generally made more use of it in all the discussions 
 
384 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of this question. Most commentators and learned men, among whom are 
 Dr. Gale, Dr. McKnight, and many Baptists and Pedo-baptists, have, in 
 their dissertations on this passage, wholly mistaken the most prominent 
 point in it, which would have decided the whole matter : even Barnes him- 
 self has mistaken its meaning. They have supposed that Paul here, to 
 illustrate his meaning of the words holy and clean, and their contraries, 
 unsanctified and unclean, referred to the children of persons inter- 
 married with unbelievers, and not to the children of the whole church. 
 In one word, they make Paul say, " else were their children unclean," 
 instead of " else were your children unclean," but now are they holy. 
 This mistake most evidently led them astray. 
 
 The case is this — -a question arose, in Corinth, whether persons inter- 
 married, one party a christian, the other a pagan, ought to continue as 
 husband and wife, and still live together. It was referred to Paul. He 
 takes up the matter, and using the words clean, sanctified, and unclean, 
 in the current ecclesiastic and Jewish sense, affirms that " The unbeliev- 
 ing wife is sanctified to the believing husband, and the unbelieving hus- 
 band to the believing wife ; otherwise your children were unclean, but 
 now are they holy." As our food is said, by Paul, to be " sanctified by 
 the word of God and prayer," so he uses the word here, not to denote 
 real holiness, but that kind of lawfulness or holiness in the use of per- 
 sons and things, authorizing such use of them, and an intimate civil con- 
 nection with them. It is not, then, legitimacy of wives, husbands, and 
 their children ; but whether believing and unbelieving parties might, ac- 
 cording to the law of Christ, continue together. Paul's response is briefly 
 this : They may live together — they are sanctified or clean persons, as to 
 one another, in this relation. If you may not do so, you must put away 
 your children also — for all your children stand to you as do those unbe- 
 lieving, unholy persons. If you must reject your unchristian, unprofess- 
 ing husbands and wives, you must, for the same reason, reject all your 
 unprofessing, unbelieving children. Does not this passage, then, conclu- 
 sively prove that infant membership and infant baptism had never occurred 
 to any one in Corinth ? for in that case Paul's proof would have been 
 taken from him by one remark, such as — No, Paul, we may retain our 
 children, for they have been baptized, and are not at all like our unbap- 
 tized and unsanctified wives and husbands. I do, sir, then contend that 
 in 1 Cor. vii. and 14th verse, we have, at length, found a clear and in- 
 vincible evidence that infant sanctification, or dedication, or affusion, or 
 immersion, or baptism, had never entered the mind of Jew or gentile, 
 that all the children of the members of the church in Corinth, stood in 
 the same ecclesiastic relation to the church as did their unbelieving, 
 unsanctified, unbaptized fathers and mothers. Paul does, most indispu- 
 tably, place all the infant children of the church in a state of such clean- 
 ness as unbelieving parents occupy towards believers. This passage, I 
 have no doubt, in the great fact involved in it, will go farther than a thou- 
 sand lectures to displace this superstitious usage from the church. 
 
 The usual argument from this passage is, indeed, a very good one : 
 That if the relative holiness of the child gives it a right to baptism, then 
 the relative holiness of the unbelieving father or mother would also give 
 them a right to this ordinance. But that is an argument not ad rem, but 
 ad hominem. It is an argument designed not for the question, but for 
 the party. 
 
 To recapitulate this argument, let it be observed that the main question 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 385 
 
 turns -upon your children, and their, the parties' children. That the chil- 
 dren of all the members of the church in Corinth, stood in the same relation 
 to the church as did their unbelieving parents — and that if it would be law- 
 ful to baptize the children upon the faith of one of the parents, because 
 of being sanctified to their parents ; then it would be equally right to bap- 
 tize the unbelieving party on the faith of the other, or because sanctified 
 in, to, or by the other. 
 
 I hope the gentleman will not slur this matter over, as too often he 
 does such palpable points. I say to him that I lay much stress upon it, 
 and that I regard it as amounting to a demonstration, that infant member- 
 ship was unheard of in the apostolic age, because unknown to Paul, and 
 unthought of at Corinth in the year sixty-four.-— [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22—11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's ninth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — The gentleman has utterly failed to answer the ar- 
 guments and facts by which I have proved the identity of the church un- 
 der the Jewish and christian dispensations. But he says, that admitting 
 the church to be the same, it does not follow that children are entitled to 
 membership in it ; that a state, for example, may so change its constitu- 
 tion, as to take the right of suffrage from persons who have previously 
 enjoyed it. This is all true ; and now all that I ask, or have asked of 
 him, is to prove, that the law of membership in the church of Christ has 
 been so changed, as to deprive the children of believers of privileges they 
 had previously enjoyed. Where is the evidence that our Savior made 
 any such alteration? Suppose the state of Kentucky should call a conven- 
 tion, and in several particulars change the constitution. The year follow- 
 ing, you come forward to vote as formerly; but an individual objects to 
 your exercising this right, and informs you that the constitution has been 
 altered. Would you not ask him, in what respect has it been altered? 
 and would you not demand of him to prove, that the alterations were such 
 as deprived you of rights hitherto enjoyed ? All that I ask of the gentle- 
 tleman is, to show the clause of the law of Christ, the Head of the 
 church, which says, that whereas the children of believers have hitherto 
 enjoyed the rights of membership in the church, it is now determined 
 that they shall henceforth be excluded. So soon as he shall produce the 
 law, I will agree to abandon the baptism of infants ; but so long as he 
 cannot do it, his own illustration affords a conclusive argument against 
 him. 
 
 In reply to what I read from Mr. Gates, the gentleman says, he was a 
 disaffected brother. I presume he was disaffected by the disorders, the 
 confusion, and the apostasies he witnessed in \\i\s pure church of the 19th 
 century ; for he has found his way back to the old Baptists. He would 
 have you believe, that I exaggerated the number of apostasies from his 
 church ; but if one minister knew of a number of churches that had, in a 
 short time, almost ceased to exist; what numbers there must be, in the 
 length and breadth of the land, who have returned to the world ! 
 
 But if Mr. Gates was a " disaffected brother," Mr. Campbell did not 
 intimate that he had slandered the church. On the contrary, he confirmed 
 and strengthened his testimony. He says : " I have neither time nor 
 space, at present, for much comment on the above. I am aware that 
 there is much ground for complaint, on account of the errors alluded to 
 by brother Gates. He is not the only complainant en such accounts. 
 25 2K 
 
386 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Thousands affirm the conviction, that the making of disciples is a work 
 of far inferior importance to that of saving those that are made. * * * * 
 Without bishops and well-accomplished teachers, there is little or no im- 
 portance to be attached to the work of baptizing : not a tithe of the bap- 
 tized can enter into the kingdom of heaven!" 
 
 I should not have introduced these unpleasant facts, but to meet the 
 gentleman's oft-repeated argument derived from the fact, that all baptized 
 children do not evince piety. It is intended to be argumentum ad hom- 
 inem. What Paul said about the disorders in his day, will not help Mr. 
 C's argument against baptizing infants. The argument proves as much 
 against the baptism of adults, as of infants. 
 
 I will make one or two remarks further, concerning the commission. 
 I am sorry that my friend will not allow me to agree with him. I proved 
 to you, that, to escape a difficulty, he had abandoned his own construc- 
 tion of the commission. But he tells us, that matheteuo means to teach 
 first principles, and baptizing is the concluding act: as, for example, 
 farmers say, a shower is the making of a crop. I am not aware that 
 human instrumentality, in making a crop, can be thus illustrated. When 
 you command your servant to cultivate the ground, ploughing it ; accord- 
 ing to Mr. Campbell's own construction, he is not first to cultivate it 
 in part, and then plough it; but he is to cultivate it by ploughing. So 
 disciples are to be made by baptizing and teaching, not first made in all 
 cases, and then baptized and taught. 
 
 The words matheteuo and mathetes, the former of which is employed 
 in the commission, occur, I think he said, two hundred times, or more, 
 in the New Testament. I have called upon him to point out one instance 
 in which it signifies teaching simply the first principles of Christianity- - 
 the meaning he insists on giving it. He cannot show even one. On the 
 contrary, christians are called disciples, {mathetai) as long as they live. 
 
 The gentleman says, it is preposterous to talk of making disciples, by 
 throwing water in their faces. He certainly knows, that such language 
 is offensive. I could speak quite as contemptuously of making disciples 
 by dipping or plunging them, as he can of sprinkling; but my cause 
 does not require me to attempt to wound the feelings of those from whom 
 I ma) r differ. I think he must see the impropriety of using such expres- 
 sions. 
 
 We do not contend, that disciples are made simply by baptism; al- 
 though so far as the force of the word matheteuo is concerned, I might 
 say, that all are disciples who have been introduced into the school of 
 Christ, for the purpose of being taught. If you enter a school-room on 
 the first morning of the session, before any instruction has been given, 
 and ask the teacher how many scholars or disciples he has ; he will an- 
 swer, by giving you the entire number of those who are engaged as pu- 
 pils ; and he will speak correctly. We do not, however, contend for this 
 view of the subject. A disciple, in the scriptural sense of the word, is a 
 true convert — a follower of Christ, made, so far as human instrumentality 
 is concerned, by baptizing and teaching. Baptizing alone does not make 
 a disciple ; but it is one of the things to be done in making disciples. 
 Many have been baptized and taught, and still were not true disciples, 
 because they were not truly converted. The commission does not re- 
 quire teaching, in all cases, to precede baptizing ; and, therefore, it does 
 not, and cannot, exclude the children of believers. 
 
 The gentleman has brought against me Mr. Baxter's exposition of the 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 387 
 
 commission. But suppose I should, on this point, differ from Mr. Bax- 
 ter, and agree with Mr. Campbell. He ought not to fall out with me for 
 it. Baxter seems to have considered the language of the commission as 
 having direct reference to those who were capable of hearing the gospel ; 
 but still he deemed it proper tc baptize the children of believers under 
 that commission, and, therefore, did not understand it as excluding them. 
 I have invited the gentleman to show us when and where the christian 
 church was organized. If the previously existing church had ceased to 
 exist, and a new one was organized ; it was a most important event. 
 Surely we should expect to find in the Acts of the Apostles, or somewhere 
 in the New Testament, an account of it. He has not found the chapter ; 
 but he expresses great astonishment, that any one could imagine, that the 
 Savior sent his apostles to establish a new religion, and yet gave them no 
 authority to organize a church. I deny, that he sent them to teach a reli- 
 gion that, in any proper sense, can be called new. God has never taught 
 on earth more than one religion. Enoch walked with God by faith. 
 Abraham was justified by faith. True religion has always consisted in 
 holiness of heart and of life ; of repentance, faith and obedience. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell is astonished, that it should be doubted whether the 
 Savior authorized his apostles to organize a new church. He had long 
 had a church on earth ; and it was yet living. Why, then, organize an- 
 other? James, the inspired apostle, has told us what they were author- 
 ized to do. Acts xv. 13 — 17, "And after they had held their peace, 
 James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me. Simeon 
 hath declared how God at the first did visit the gentiles, to take out of 
 them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the proph- 
 ets ; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tab- 
 ernacle of David, which is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins 
 thereof; and I will set it up : that the residue of men might seek after the 
 Lord, and all the gentiles upon whom my name is called, sailh the Lord, 
 who doeth all these things." James here quotes from the prophecy of 
 Amos a prediction concerning the christian church. What was to be 
 done? Was a new church to be organized? No ; hut the tabernacle of 
 David, which had fallen down, was again to be set up. The church, 
 overrun with corruption and overwhelmed by calamity, was like a taber- 
 nacle that had fallen into ruins. The Lord sends his servants to raise it 
 up and repair it, and to call the gentiles to come and worship in it. This 
 passage affords another unanswerable argument to prove, that the church 
 under the new dispensation is the same which existed under the old ; and 
 that the apostles did not organize a new church. 
 
 The gentleman tells us, that Mr. McCalla, in the debate some twenty 
 years since, presented more points of argument, than I have. Yet he 
 complained of me, at first, for making too many. He was anxious to 
 have me confine myself to a few. I cannot now engage in a defence of 
 brother McCalla. I presume, he does not stand in need of a defence from 
 me. It is, however, often easier to answer the arguments of an absent 
 man, than of one who is present. Some years since, the Roman clergy 
 of Bardstown made such attacks upon Protestantism, that I considered 
 it my duty to reply. One of their champions, getting weary of the war, 
 averred that he was not in controversy with me, but rather with Calvin 
 and Beza ! I replied, that he doubtless found it easier to war with dead 
 men, than with the living. So my friend succeeds better in answering an 
 absent opponent ! 
 
388 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 I have not abandoned the doctrine, that baptism came in place of cir- 
 cumcision. I have showed, that it answers the same purposes to the 
 church under the new dispensation, that circumcision answered under the 
 old. But I have attached no considerable importance to it ; because I have 
 arguments enough without it. I do not need more. The gentleman has 
 told us truly, that one good argument is enough to prove any point. I 
 have given him a number of them. Certainly, then, he has no occasion 
 to complain. 
 
 I have said, that our Savior more than intimated to his disciples that the 
 children of believers were to remain in his church ; when he said, " Suf- 
 fer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me ; for of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven." The gentleman thinks they were, at least, old 
 enough to walk. But Mark, speaking of the same event, says, "They 
 brought young children to him, that he should touch them. And he took 
 them up in his arms," chapter x. 13, 16. I presume they were infants; 
 at any rate they were not old enough to be believers. Mr. C. thinks, the 
 expression "of such," means persons in some respects resembling little 
 children. This interpretation is not only unauthorized by the common 
 usage of the language, but it makes our Savior employ most singular 
 reasoning. Little children are brought to him that he may bless them ; 
 that he may lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples forbid 
 them ; and the Savior, according to this exposition, is made to say, Suffer 
 little children to come to me, that I may lay my hands on them and 
 pray ; because the church is composed of persons in some respects re- 
 sembling them I I cannot believe, that he ever reasoned in this way. 
 The interpretation we adopt, makes his reasoning clear and forcible — 
 Suffer little children to come unto me, that I may bless them ; because to 
 such belong the privileges and blessings of my church. It is true, as 
 Mr. C. says, they were not baptized ; for christian baptism was not yet 
 instituted. But certainly the language of the Savior implied, that they 
 were still to enjoy the privilege of a place in his school, of membership in 
 his church. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's exposition of 1 Corinthians vii. 14, is, I think, so novel T 
 that it behooves him to adduce some little proof that it is correct, before he 
 can expect the public to receive it. It is scarcely credible, that the mean- 
 ing of this passage has been so long concealed from the christian world. 
 
 He quotes Barnes as admitting that it does not teach infant baptism, 
 yet he himself pronounces Barnes' explanation of it incorrect. Does he, 
 then, expect us to receive it? But I will bring against Mr. Barnes such 
 men as Scott, Doddridge, Whitby, and others, who, after thorough inves- 
 tigation, were convinced that the words unclean and holy are employed 
 in relation to the baptism of infants. I will meet authority with authority. 
 
 Having now answered the remarks of the gentleman, I will proceed 
 with the argument. I do not ask any more than the stipulated time for 
 the defence of the doctrine of infant baptism. I think I shall succeed in 
 making it clear to the unprejudiced, before the three days expire. 
 
 I now invite the attention of the audience to the evidence furnished by 
 history ; which, as it appears to me, is conclusive. I expect to prove 
 the fact, that at the earliest period of the christian era, to which history 
 can take us back, infant baptism was universally practiced, and was be- 
 lieved to be of Divine authority. My first witness shall be Ireneus, who 
 wrote about eighty years after the apostolic age. He wrote as follows : 
 (I read from Wall's Hist. of.Inf. Bap. vol. i. p. 72.) 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 389 
 
 <{ Therefore, as he was a Master, he had also the age of a Master. Not 
 disdaining nor going in a way above human nature, nor breaking in his 
 own person, the law which he had set for mankind : but sanctifying every 
 several age by the likeness that it has to him. For he came to save all 
 persons by himself: all, I mean, who by him are regenerated [or baptized] 
 unto God, infants and little ones, and children and youths, and elder persons. 
 Therefore, he went through the several ages ; for infants being made an 
 infant, sanctifying infants : to little ones, he was made a little one, sanc- 
 tifying those of that age : and also giving them an example of godliness, 
 justice, and dutifulness : to youths he was a youth," &c. 
 
 The value of the testimony of Ireneus depends upon a single expres- 
 sion, viz : regenerated unto God. If, as Dr. Wall asserts, he used this 
 expression to signify baptism, his testimony is clear in favor of infant 
 baptism : for Christ, he says, came to save all " who by him are regener- 
 ated into God, [or baptized,] infants and little ories" &c. Mr. Camp- 
 bell admits, that by this expression Ireneus meant baptism. In his de- 
 bate with McCalla he disputed this ; but he tells us he has since gained 
 more light on the subject, and has ascertained that he did use the expres- 
 sion to mean baptism. He must, therefore, admit the full weight of the 
 testimony of Ireneus in favor of the baptism of infants. 
 
 The testimony of this writer is extremely important, for he wrote the 
 work from which this quotation is made, only about eighty years after 
 the apostolic age ; and he was then a very old man. He was a disciple 
 of Poly carp, who was a disciple of the apostle John ; so that there was 
 but a single individual between Ireneus and John. Ireneus says, he often 
 heard Potycarp relate how he sat under the ministry of John, and many 
 interesting circumstances which then occurred. 
 
 This venerable writer, it is important to remark, speaks not of the bap- 
 tism of infants as a novelty, as a practice recently introduced, but as a 
 thing universally understood and admitted. His manner of introduc- 
 ing it, shows that he considered it as much a known and admitted truth, 
 as adult baptism. 
 
 Now the question is — had Ireneus the opportunity to know the fact 
 concerning which he testifies ? For, let it be distinctly understood, I 
 appeal to the early christian fathers, not for their opinions, but I cull 
 them up as witnesses to a matter of fact, viz: that in their day, 
 and, so far as they knew, to the days of the apostles, the baptism of 
 infants was universally practiced. The indirect, yet clear testimony of 
 Ireneus, so near to the apostle John, goes very far indeed to prove, not 
 only that it was generally practiced, but that it was of divine authority. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived about ninety years after the 
 apostles, also testifies of its prevalence in his day. But as I can read 
 only a part of the testimony on this subject, I will pass to that of Ter- 
 tullian, who nourished about two hundred years after the apostles. 
 He says : 
 
 " But they, whose duty it is to administer baptism, are to know that it 
 is not to be given rashly. Give to every one that asketh thee, has its proper 
 subject, and relates to alms-giving : but that command rather is here to be 
 considered, Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before 
 swine: and that, Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partakers of 
 other men's faults. * * * Therefore, according to every one's condition and 
 disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, 
 especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the 
 godfathers should be brought into danger 1 because they may either fail of 
 their promises by death, or they may be mistaken by a child's proving of a 
 
 2k2 
 
390 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, Bo not forbid them to come to 
 me. Therefore, let them come when they are grown up ; let them come when 
 they understand ; when they are instructed whither it is they come ; let 
 them be made christians when they know Christ. What need their guilt- 
 less age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins ] Men will proceed 
 more warily in wordly things ; and he that should not have earthly goods 
 committed to him, yet shall he have heavenly] Let them know how to 
 desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given to one that asketh. 
 
 For no less reason, unmarried persons ought to be kept off, who are 
 likely to come into temptation, as well as those that were never married, 
 upon the account of their coming to ripeness, as those in widowhood, for 
 the miss of their partner : until they either marry or be confirmed in conti- 
 nence. They that understand the weight of baptism, will rather dread the 
 receiving it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salva- 
 tion."— Wall, vol. i. pp. 93, 94. 
 
 On this testimony I wish to make two or three remarks : 1. Tertullian, 
 you perceive, expresses himself as averse to infant baptism ; but his very_ 
 opposition to it, proves that it was practiced at that time. 2. He does not 
 oppose it as anscriptural, or as an innovation. He, however, gives his 
 opinion that it is better to delay the baptism of little children. But, 
 since he was opposed to it, he was certainly inclined to ofYer against it 
 the strongest arguments he could command. If he could have said, that 
 it was unscriptural ; and if he could have pronounced it an innovation, 
 contrary to the faith and the practice of the church ; these would have 
 been the most effective arguments against it. The very fact, therefore, 
 that, whilst he opposed the practice, he did not venture to pronounce it 
 either unscriptural or an innovation, affords evidence conclusive, that, 
 generally, so far as he knew, the church had been accustomed to baptize 
 infants, and regarded the doctrine as scriptural. 3. He opposed not only 
 the baptism of infants, but of young and unmarried persons. "For no 
 less reason," he says, they should delay receiving baptism. If, there- 
 fore, his testimony proves, that the baptism of infants was not universal- 
 ly practiced in his day, it proves equally, that young and unmarried 
 persons were not generally baptized; which will not be pretended. 
 The truth is — Tertullian advised the delay of baptism, because of a su- 
 perstitious belief, that sins, committed after baptism, were peculiarly 
 dangerous. I consider him one of the very best witnesses for the apos- 
 tolic doctrine of infant baptism ; because, although he was opposed to it, 
 and was, of course, inclined to produce the strongest arguments against 
 it, he did not venture to condemn it either as unscriptural, or as contrary 
 to the faith and the practice of the church. 
 
 Robinson, a learned anti-Pedo-baptist writer, attempted to evade the 
 force of this testimony, by asserting, that Tertullian spoke not of infants, 
 but of children capable of asking baptism. To make out this position, 
 he gave a gross mis-translation of the language of that author. Few 
 anti-Pedo-baptists, however, I believe, have been disposed to adopt his 
 notion. 
 
 I now invite your attention to the testimony of Origen, one of the 
 most learned of the early christian fathers. In his Homily on Leviticus, 
 he says : 
 
 u Hear David speaking. I was, says he, conceived in iniquity, and in sin 
 did my mother bring me forth : shewing that every soul that is born in the 
 flesh, is polluted with the filth of sin and iniquity ; and, that therefore, 
 that was said, which we mentioned before, that none is clear from pollution, 
 though his life be but the length of one day. Besides all this, let it be con* 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 391 
 
 sidered, what is the reason that, wheieas, the baptism of the church is given 
 for the forgiveness of sins, infants also, are, by the usage of the church, bap- 
 tized ; when, if there were nothing" in infants that wanted forgiveness and 
 mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them." 
 
 Again, in his Homily on Luke : 
 
 " Having occasion given in this place, I will mention a thing that 
 causes frequent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are baptized for the 
 forgiveness of sins. Of what sins 1 or when have they sinned 1 or how 
 can any reason of the law in their case hold good, but according to that 
 sense we mentioned even now, none are free from pollution, though his life 
 be but of the length of one day upon the earth] And it is for that reason, 
 because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken 
 away, that infants are baptized." 
 
 Again, in his Commentary on Romans : 
 
 " For this also it was, that the church had from the apostles, a tradition 
 [or order] to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine 
 mysteries were committed, knew that there is in all persons the natural 
 pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and the Spirit ; by 
 reason of which, the body itself is called the body of sin." — Wall, vol. i. 
 pp. 104, 105, 106. 
 
 Now, the question arises — what is the testimony of this witness worth 1 
 Let it be remembered. I am not concerned about his theological opinions. 
 I bring him forward only as a witness to a simple matter of fact. The 
 fact to which he testifies, is — that, in his day, the " baptism of the 
 church" was given to infants, and that it was done by command of the 
 apostles. What means had Origen of being informed concerning the 
 faith and practice of the church ? He was a man of eminent learning, and 
 of very extensive information. That I may not seem to exalt him un- 
 duly, I will read the following testimony of Mr. Jones, the Baptist 
 historian. 
 
 " But the name of Origen is too important to be passed over in a 
 history of the christian church, with only a casual or incidental men- 
 tion. ' He was a man,' says Dr. Priestly, ' so remarkable for his 
 piety, genius, and application, that he must be considered an honor to 
 Christianity and to human nature.' Even Jerom, his great adversary, 
 admits that he was a great man from his infancy." — Church Hist. p. 147. 
 Even Jerom, though a great adversary of Origen, [Mr. Campbell repre- 
 sented him as quite an admirer,]] admitted him to have been a very 
 great man. 
 
 Origen was descended from a christian ancestry. His father was a 
 martyr, and hig grandfather and great grandfather were christians. He 
 traveled very extensively. He resided in Alexandria, in Palestine, and 
 in Rome. He found it necessary repeatedly to fly from persecution. 
 His learning and his fame caused him to be consulted, doubtless, on all 
 important questions relative to the interests of religion. If there was, in 
 that day, a man in the world who was qualified to give correct information 
 concerning the universal practice of the church, Origen was that man. 
 What does he testify ? That the church — not a portion of it — gave bap- 
 tism to infants, and believed the doctrine to be apostolical. Can we, at 
 this late day, expect to gain more correct information than Origen pos- 
 sessed, who lived in the third century, and whose pious ancestors reached 
 back to the very days of the apostles ? His testimony settles this ques- 
 tion, so far as history or the most credible uninspired testimony can set- 
 tle it. 
 
 I will now give you the testimony of another very important witness ; 
 
392 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM, 
 
 or rather the testimony of about sixty-seven bishops, who met in council 
 at Carthage, only one hundred and fifty years after the apostles. Cyp- 
 rian, Avhom Jones, the Baptist historian, admits to have been an eminent 
 man, presided in the council ; and the question was proposed to them, not 
 whether infants should be baptized, (for about that there was no con- 
 troversy;) but whether it was proper to baptize them before the eighth 
 day. I will read their decision, contained in a letter written by Cyprian, 
 to the minister who presented the inquiry : 
 
 Cyprian, and the sixty-six bishops, thus write : 
 
 "We read your letter, most dear brother, in which yon write of one 
 Victor, a priest," &c. * * * " But as to the case of infants, whereas 
 you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after 
 they are born ; and that the rite of circumcision is to be observed, so that 
 none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is 
 born ; we are all in our assembly of the contrary opinion. For, as for what 
 you thought fitting to be done, there was not one of your mind, but all of 
 us, on the contrary, judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied 
 to no person that is born. For whereas our Lord, in his gospel, says, The 
 Son of Man came not to destroy men's souls , [or lives] but to save them; as 
 far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost." — Wall, vol i. p. 129. 
 
 I need not read the whole of this long epistle, setting forth various 
 reasons for their decision. They determined unanimously, that it was 
 not necessary to delay baptism until the eighth day. And, so far as his- 
 tory can inform us, their decision called forth not one word of contro- 
 versy ; which proves conclusively, that there was no difference in the 
 faith and practice of the church on this subject. This council met, as 
 I stated, about the year A, D. 250 ; and Cyprian was, at the time of its 
 meeting, advanced in age. Of course, he must have lived within one 
 hundred and fifty years of the apostles. 
 
 The testimony of these witnesses is, in substance, that infant bap- 
 tism was universally practiced in their day, and had been practiced so far 
 back as they could gain information. This testimony, added to that of 
 Origen, Tertullian, and Ireneus, becomes almost irresistible. To these 
 may be added Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, bishop of 
 Constantinople, Jerom, Augustine, Pelagius, &c, some of whom 1 will 
 bring forward in my next speech ; although it seems a work of superero- 
 gation to attempt to add to the testimony of those who lived so near the 
 apostles, and who enjoyed such opportunities to know the faith and 
 practice of the churches. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22 — II5 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's ninth reply.] 
 Mr. President — It is important always to keep before us the main 
 issue. It should never be lost sight of. I have complained of what I 
 call false issues, and of irrelevant issues ; that is, making matters of great 
 moment out of matters casually or subordinately introduced, and thus ex- 
 pending a large portion of a speech upon matters not at all at issue, while 
 the main points are greatly neglected. My friend has not yet abandoned 
 this course ; though I am gratified to observe that he has in some small 
 degree reformed in that particular. He has, however, again made a false 
 issue this morning. He says I complain of my brethren for want of 
 attention to their children, and that I say, from the superior attention 
 paid to the education of children in Presbyterian families, their children 
 have made superior attainments in piety. It always gives me pleasure to 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 393 
 
 commend virtue wherever I see it ; still I must give to Romanists more 
 praise, in this respect, than to most Protestants. It is, indeed, a very 
 great shame to Protestants that they do not give that attention to family 
 culture, so far as religion is concerned, that is generally exhibited by the 
 Catholics, who have it in their power ; so that it is by no means so easy 
 to convert them from what they receive as good and wholesome instruc- 
 tion from their parents, as it is for them to proselyte Protestants. Now 
 observe, the issue which Mr. Rice manufactures out of this, is : that I as- 
 cribe these superior benefits to sprinkling, and to sprinkled children, who, 
 as a matter of course, are therefore more intelligent than the children of 
 Baptists, or of our brethren. 
 
 Again : with regard to the quotations from the Christian Baptist. I 
 am not only willing but gratified and pleased that my friend should read 
 so much from my writings. I should be pleased if he would spend more 
 of his time in reading such portions as these you have now heard. He 
 could not do me a greater honor. He shows that I am willing to hold up 
 the defects of my own brethren, while I acknowledge even the appear- 
 ance of virtues in his. I hope that I may never be so blinded by partiality 
 as not to be able to see the faults of my own brethren, or my own. I will 
 hold up every thing of the kind to public attention, so far as I deem it ex- 
 pedient or necessary, that it may stir them up to reformation. I may have 
 occasion hereafter to speak more fully of this matter. 
 
 The gentleman often alludes to my changing. But if I change for the 
 better it seems to grieve him ; if for the worse, to please him ; and if 
 I do not change at all, it is yet worse than either. Well, I confess, I am 
 changing a little every day — I am always learning something. I am 
 wiser to-day than yesterday, and I hope to be wiser to-morrow than to- 
 day. But of all the great principles that I have advocated in this com- 
 monwealth for twenty years, and in other communities for a longer pe- 
 riod, in which of them have I changed, and how far ? I have, indeed, 
 changed, or been changed once — very essentially changed indeed : I gave 
 up with all my hereditary faith in human creeds, and formulas — my he- 
 reditary faith in every branch of Pedo-baptism — subject, action and 
 design, and in all its aspects and tendencies, in all its influences and 
 bearings on the christian system, and the christian religion ; and they are 
 neither few in number, nor minute in character. I have experienced one 
 great change of views, thereby giving up an hereditary faith for one ob- 
 tained from the Bible, by my own personal instrumentality, through the 
 favor of God. But on baptism I advocate, on this occasion, precisely the 
 same views — in action, subject, and design — sustained in my debate with 
 Mr. McCalla twenty years ago. Mr. Rice, however, has never changed 
 it seems, nor has been changed in his faith. 
 
 Well, I am pleased to hear him commend the style of Luke, and the 
 propriety of using it, as well as to hear of the high regard which his 
 brethren entertain for this same style of Luke. I profess to be an admirer 
 of it too. Suppose then we take a sally into Luke's style, and try which 
 of us speaks most like it. Take one case directly bearing on the ques- 
 tion before us. Luke never confounds the Jewish and christian religions. 
 He always speaks of Jews and christians, or disciples, as not only a dis- 
 tinct people, but having a different religion. He reports the speeches of 
 Paul when he tells of his "conversation in the Jews' religion;" how 
 Paul "profited in the Jews' religion;" how, "after the strictest sect 
 of our (Jews) religion, he lived a pharisee ! " 
 
394 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 There is sometimes a volume of sense in a single sentence, as there 
 are some whole volumes without one good idea. " The Jews' religion," 
 commended by Luke — " our religion " too. Yet, this amateur of Luke 
 and his fine style, will contend that the Jewish church and the christian, 
 had "one and the same religion;" that is, the Jews' religion and the 
 christian religion, are just one and the same religion ! ! Yet Paul posi- 
 tively, directly, and literally places them in opposition. Hear him say : 
 " You have heard of my behavior in the Jews'' religion, how that, be- 
 yond measure, I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it." Here is 
 the most explicit contradiction of Mr. Rice and his theory of identity, 
 than can be imagined. Here is " the church of God" and the " Jews' 
 religion," directly, formally, literally contrasted ; and that, too, by the 
 most learned apostle, and the greatest teacher of Christianity the world 
 ever saw, or ever will see. Which of us now, fellow-citizens, pays the 
 greater deference to the sacred style ? I state this fact, that in the year 
 of our Lord 58, when Paul wrote to the Galatians on the difference be- 
 tween the law, the covenant, and all the dispensations of redemption, he 
 then spake of " the church of God" and the "Jews' religion," in direct 
 and positive contrast. No one can, in my humble opinion, dispose of this 
 fact and argument against this assumed identity. Yet, Mr. Rice argues, that 
 the Jews' religion and Christ's religion are one and the same religion ! ! 
 
 I hope the gentleman will give this up, with the argument formally 
 based on the 14th verse of the 7th chapter 1 Corinthians. He must per- 
 ceive and feel the weight of these arguments. I have too much respect 
 for his sagacity and discrimination, to think that he does both see and 
 feel that they are insuperable objections to his system. I am bold to say, 
 he never can dispose of them. 
 
 As to the novelty of the view of 1 Cor. vii. 14, 1 am not wholly sin- 
 gular or alone in it. I do not claim a patent-right for it; a few others 
 entertain nearly the same view of it. It is, however, a clear and satis- 
 factory exposition of the whole passage. Paul teaches, that all the chil- 
 dren of christians, in their unconverted state, were just as ecclesiastically 
 unclean as those unsanctified, unbelieving husbands and wives ; and if 
 the believing party may not, in civil life and in the same family, live with 
 an unbelieving and ecclesiastically unclean partner, they must, for the 
 same reason, put away their children? Answer this who can: Pedo- 
 baptists cannot! 
 
 My friend says, he was glad that I touched household baptism so 
 lightly. I have seen a new work from the New York press, 1843, main- 
 ly based upon household baptism, in favor of baptizing infants. My 
 friend has, doubtless, seen it ; and has not yet seen fit to bring it forward 
 in this controversy. It is from the pen of a gentleman no less distin- 
 guished than the author of Calmet's dictionary of the Bible, [Mr. Tay- 
 lor.] It was published in England some thirty years ago, and lately in 
 the city of New York. It is, to the minds of the English, an unanswer- 
 able performance. 
 
 In my debate with Mr. McCalla, he introduced some extracts from this 
 work, and brought them up in proof of infants in households. My friend 
 has read that debate, and knows full well how I disposed of them twenty 
 years ago. It is little else than a collection of palpable sophisms. Still, 
 the English think and represent it unanswered and unanswerable. They 
 have given them all up, except the solitary case of Lydia : and how 
 many assumptions are there in this case of Lydia ! 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 395 
 
 Mr. Rice assumes, that Lydia was a married lady ; in the second place, 
 he assumes that she had children ; in the third place, he assumes that she 
 had infant children ; and in the fourth place, that those infants were bap- 
 tized on her faith. Give me four assumptions like these, and what can I 
 not prove ? Now, Lydia's case is the most plausible one in the New 
 Testament; and that, no doubt, is the reason why the gentleman passed 
 over all the others, and perched upon this one. I discover there is some 
 poetry and romance in the constitution of my friend, Mr. Rice, as well 
 as there was in our old friend, John Taylor, with whom he amused us 
 the other day. He made Ananias and Paul pass along in mutual embra- 
 ces, on their way to the water, holding a very fanciful conversation. But 
 now, all at once, my friend, Mr. Rice, is inspired with the same gift of 
 poetic imagination. He sees Mrs. Lydia and her handmaids, carrying 
 along with them her little children down to the oratory on the bank of the 
 river, near to the city of Philippi, [a laugh.] She carries an infant in 
 her bosom into the house of prayer ; Paul arrives, begins to preach, — Ly- 
 dia listens — her heart is opened. She comes forward — makes the good 
 confession. They return to the river for baptism — she and all her little 
 ones. Mr. Rice sees some one going clown to the river for a cup full of 
 water ; and instantly he observes the apostle dipping his fingers into it, 
 and sprinkling first mother Lydia and all her dear little children, one by 
 one. But in the noise and screaming of the little ones, he cannot be 
 certain whether Paul baptized any of the young ladies that belonged to 
 her household. If they were, however, he infers they must have been 
 upon her faith too, according to the text : for Lydia's heart is the only 
 one said to have been opened on that occasion ! Well, now, to my taste, 
 the fancy of John Taylor is in just as good taste and keeping as that of 
 Mr. Rice. 
 
 Here is the late ecclesiastic history of Niander, fresh from a German 
 press. It has passed through the ordeal of Pedo-baptist learning, both 
 European and American. He is a Pedo-baptist. Hear him : 
 
 " It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism ; he left, indeed, 
 much that was not needful for salvation, to the free development of the 
 christian spirit, without here appointing binding laws. We cannot prove 
 that the apostles ordained infant baptism, from those places where the 
 baptism of whole families is mentioned, as in Acts xvi. S3, 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 We can draw no such conclusion, because the inquiry is still to be made, 
 whether there were any children in these families of such an age, that they 
 were not capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity ; for this is the 
 only point on which the case turns." — Jfeander's Church Hist. p. 198, 
 Philad. edit., 1843. 
 
 I think my friend must have heard this passage : " It is certain 
 that Christ did not ordain infant baptism." He left much that 
 was not needful to salvation. One such learned and dignified author, in 
 this age of improvement and strict research — one such witness, most pro- 
 foundly read in church history, is worth a thousand special pleaders, and 
 their ephemeral productions, got up at the impulse of the moment, for sec- 
 tarian purposes. This gentleman writes for posterity. His researches 
 into the highest antiquity are said to have been more ample than those 
 of any other historian living. 
 
 There is another question upon this subject of identity, which we have 
 not forgotten nor given up. Infants, he says, " are born in the church." 
 Presbyterian infants are born members of the Presbyterian church— they 
 are therefore in it. Yet he has spoken of baptism as a door. Now if they 
 
396 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 are born in the church, the question is, through what door do they enter 
 into the church? or rather what is the use of a door? I should be glad to 
 be informed, since children are born in the church, what need have they 
 of a door? The Jews were born in the church, and circumcised because 
 they were born in it. Presbyterians, and all other Pedo-baptists, are born 
 in the church. According to the doctrine of identity, I should like to 
 know why, then, it is necessary to have a door at all, unless to turn 
 them out. I hope the gentleman will answer this most interesting ques- 
 tion at his earliest convenience. 
 
 I shall now advance to some other points. I have not yet done with 
 the Bible. I will leave church history for a time, but I may read from 
 it, more, perhaps, than my friend would like to hear. I have a passage 
 lying before me, to which I must now beg your attention. It is found 
 in Rom. iv. " I have made thee a father of many nations." The Jews, 
 as it now appears, received the sign of circumcision, to show that they 
 were of the elect nation. 
 
 To father Abraham, that renowned friend of God, as I stated at the 
 commencement, were two distinct promises made. One constituting him 
 the father of many nations, according to the flesh ; the other constituting 
 him the father of many nations, according to the spirit. It has been 
 proved that he was the father of the Jews, the Edomites, the Ishmaelites, 
 and other descendants of Keturah. But he asked me to show an instance 
 where circumcision was administered to adults without faith. Has he 
 shewn a precept requiring faith, or connecting faith with circumcision ? 
 I gave the adult slaves of Abraham, who were circumcised, as his pro- 
 perty merely, and consequently, that fact precludes faith altogether as a 
 pre-requisite. But if that will not suffice, he may have a stronger case — 
 that of the Shechemites, as detailed Gen. xxxiv. Certainly he must ad- 
 mit, that no faith was either propounded or professed, in that case. 
 
 "Why does this case of adult circumcision, as property, without faith, 
 give him so much pain ! On his new doctrine of substitutes, avowed the 
 other day, there is no need for identity, or even similarity. I gave some 
 fifteen or sixteen points of dissimilarity. But, he says, I am wrong for 
 supposing that any such identity or similarity belongs to the subject ! ! 
 It is enough that the one supplies the place of the other ! ! In what single 
 point, then, must there be identity? His doctrine of substitutes is fatal 
 to identity. But to return again to the covenants of promise. It has 
 been observed that the covenants with Abraham, which alone could be 
 called the "covenants of promises ," (for as yet the nation was not,) were 
 engrossed at Sinai into one national covenant, with the exception of the 
 one concerning the Messiah, given to them merely on deposit. They 
 had the use of this promise concerning the Messiah, and all their saints 
 believed and hoped in it. Still they had it only on deposit. It was not 
 theirs only in common with the nations for whose benefit they held it. 
 Their chief advantage from circumcision, or their national peculiarity, was, 
 that " unto them were committed the oracles of God." If, then, I might 
 compare them to a great bank, to speak in our own style, they had a cap- 
 ital stock of their own, in the charter given them at Mount Sinai. Be- 
 sides that, there was a much greater sum left in their vaults on deposit. 
 They had the use of that sum for fifteen hundred years, without interest, 
 just for preserving it for those of their own issue, and of other nations, 
 for whose benefit it was then laid up. It was no part of the Jewish cap- 
 ital. It was not in the company's charter, but simply placed in their 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 397 
 
 hands for safe keeping. But he was not only the father of the Jews, in 
 a literal sense ; but the spiritual father of all the Jews that believe. He 
 was the spiritual father of those persons, in all nations, who walk in the 
 steps of that faith, which he had while he was yet uncircumcised. By vir- 
 tue of these two promises, he is constituted the father of multitudes. By 
 one, he became the natural ancestor of many nations ; by the other, he is 
 the father of all that believe, in every age and nation. Thus, you see, 
 that the two promises made to Abraham, were prolific of blessings, nu- 
 merous and various. 
 
 Mr. Rice, on yesterday, did not advert to the covenants with Abraham 
 in the plural form. I brought up only one passage representing plurality 
 of covenants. The gentleman seems to regard it as a solitary case. But, 
 while he can quote passages speaking of covenant in the singular num- 
 ber, we must give him instances in the plural form. Paul, then, tells the 
 gentiles, at Ephesus, that they had been, formerly, strangers to the cove- 
 nants of promise. Let him note this. The gentiles were, indeed, inter- 
 ested in those covenants, though no party to them. Abraham's seed, then, 
 was Christ, so far as the gentiles were interested. Through that seed 
 Abraham became the father of all believers in his seed ; therefore, if we 
 gentiles are in the seed of Abraham, or in Christ, we are Abraham's 
 children, or seed, and heirs according to the promise — not the promises — 
 but the promise ; that is, the promise of blessing all nations (spiritually 
 and eternally,) in his seed, which is the Messiah. They -who are of the 
 faith, then, Jews or Gentiles, are blessed with believing Abraham. All 
 the promises concerning spiritual blessedness, made to Abraham, when 
 taken in detail, are now in Christ, " Yea and Amen.'''' When, then, we 
 have the word covenant in the singular form, in the New Testament, it 
 either refers to this, or the new covenant — that dispensation of mercy, 
 righteousness, and life, through Jesus Christ. Of this, however, still 
 more hereafter. 
 
 Next comes the olive-tree. Our Pedo-baptist friends . ought not to 
 quote this passage. It is all against them. Our Lord, at one time, told 
 the Jews, that the seed, and all the blessings — or rather the kingdom of 
 God and its blessings, should be taken from them and given to a people 
 bringing forth the fruits of it. While they had that relation to God, "sal- 
 vation was of the Jews ;" as the Messiah said to the Samaritans. But 
 God now gives salvation to the gentiles. A portion of the Jews believed — 
 they became the nucleus of the new dispensation. They are "the first 
 fruits, and the root of the christian church." They hold by faith, and 
 not by flesh, all the spiritual blessings promised Abraham. Paul com- 
 pares them to a good olive-tree of which, in one sense, Abraham was the 
 root — standing as a spiritual father to the believing Jews, and as contain- 
 ing in the covenant, made with him concerning Christ, all these bless- 
 ings. On Abraham's account, then, the believing Jews were first — dear 
 to God on two accounts, both in the flesh, for the sake of Abraham, his 
 friend, and also for the sake of the Lord, his and Abraham's son. Hence 
 the Jew is always first with Paul, and the Greek second. 
 
 But to the point, the single point, now before us. Paul says, You gen- 
 tiles must not mistake God's dealings with this people — "for if the first 
 fruit be holy the mass is also holy, and if the root be holy so are the 
 branches." Well, now, the Gentiles were grafted in among the believ- 
 ing Jews. On the same old identical principle ? No : truly !— not on 
 the same principle, at all, on which the Jews stood naturally related to 
 
 2L 
 
398 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Abraham. Both enter the new covenant by faith, and both stand by 
 faith in it, and whosoever has not faith, is broken off and cast away. 
 
 There is, then, clearly a repudiation of the fleshly principle. Because 
 of unbelief, the Jews were broken off; because of faith, the nations were 
 grafted in : and now faith in the Messiah is the principle and bond of 
 union — so that there is not an atom of identity in the connecting princi- 
 ple and covenant of the new institution. I will concede, if the gentle- 
 man pleases, all he assumes concerning Abraham as the holy root. He 
 admits that a great change has taken place ; that all the seed of Abraham, 
 but those who have the holy faith that made him holy, are rejected ; that 
 the believing gentiles, or those gentiles made holy by faith, are never 
 engrafted with the holy seed of Abraham, and both make a new body 
 standing by FAITH. And this, therefore, is a perfect and complete anni- 
 hilation of his imaginary identity. Faith and not flesh, is now the only 
 bond of union to Christ and among christians. So the matter ends. 
 
 The two promises, one concerning the natural, and one concerning the 
 spiritual seed of Abraham, have, then, been fully developed. The cove- 
 nant concerning Canaan, and the covenant of circumcision, were ulti- 
 mately engrossed into one great national institution. The latter prom- 
 ise was, under Christ, developed and made the constitution of a " new 
 man" a new body, a new community — and thus, with Paul, we arrive 
 at the place of beginning, in the allegory, of the two covenants, the two 
 seeds, the two nations, the two inheritances, and the casting out of the 
 one to make room for the other. 
 
 On yesterday, the gentleman said, if I understood him, that the moral law 
 was the constitution of the christian church ; thus making it a legal insti- 
 tution. Paul, on this point as well as on many others, essentially diners 
 from my friend. He compares the new and old constitutions, (vulgarly 
 called testaments,) and contrasts them in his second epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, third chapter, in some four points. The law, or old constitution, 
 he calls "letter," " the ministration of death written and engraven on 
 stone;" " the ministration of condemnation," and " to be done away." 
 The new constitution, in contrast with the former, he called " the Spi- 
 rit," " the ministration of the Spirit," " the ministration of righteous- 
 ness," and " that which remaineth." I know, indeed, that the comparison 
 takes in the two institutions, and their introduction or ministration ; and 
 although the first was " glorious," as Moses' face indicated, the sec- 
 ond " excelled in glory." Letter, condemnation and death, define the 
 former in its nature and operation — Spirit, righteousness, and life, the 
 latter in its nature and operation. Mr. Rice's christian church is organ- 
 ized under the former ; and that in which I believe, was organized under 
 the latter. 
 
 Can any one imagine a more clearly marked contrast than that de- 
 picted by our apostle when speaking of the difference of Moses and the 
 apostles — as employed, the one in organizing the old institution, the other 
 in introducing the new ? It is the first time in my life that I have ever 
 heard any one say that the christian church was founded upon the moral 
 law as its constitution. The moral law, indeed, in its two grand abstrac- 
 tions, of love to God and our fellows, is the foundation of all governments 
 — celestial, terrestrial, patriarchal, Mosaic, christian, angelic, human, tem- 
 poral, eternal — but that it is specially or properly the constitution of the 
 christian church in the hands of a Mediator, is without reason and with- 
 out proof. Paul's contrasts between the two testaments, his face and 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 399 
 
 that of Moses, with all that written in the aforesaid chapter, concerning 
 letter and spirit, righteousness and condemnation, is at variance with 
 such an hypothesis. The moral universe is all one church, if the moral 
 principles be its constitution. 
 
 The method pursued on this proposition is rather singular, methinks. 
 Instead of furnishing us with New Testament facts, precepts, examples or 
 promises, in development and proof of his proposition ; he is all the while 
 hiding in the remote questions of patriarchal and Jewish institutions — 
 listening to Moses and the prophets, rather than to the Messiah and his 
 apostles ; and all this for an identity which is impossible to prove ; 
 and which, if it were proved, avails nothing, so long as circumcision is a 
 substitute for baptism : for here identity fails with the law of baptism. 
 But he has made the admission, that invalidates his own argument! Why 
 then prosecute it farther ? — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22 — 12 o'clock, M. 
 [mr. rice's tenth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — It is a little remarkable, that I am always charged 
 with making false issues, when I adduce arguments which precisely 
 match those of Mr. Campbell ! He urges, as an argument against infant 
 baptism, that many baptized children live and die unconverted. I answer 
 his exaggerated statement by proving, that large numbers of adults im- 
 mersed into his own church, have apostatized and become worse than 
 before. And this is making " false issues !" It is somewhat singular, 
 too, that I am rarely ever diverted from the subject under discussion, ex- 
 cept when I am in pursuit of him ! 
 
 The gentleman is obliged to admit, that he has expressed the opinion, 
 that there is more probability of the salvation of the children of Presbyte- 
 rians, than of the children of Baptists ; but he does not ascribe this differ- 
 ence to the virtue of sprinkling. I, however, do ascribe it to the fact, 
 that Presbyterian parents have solemnly covenanted with God to train up 
 their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; and whilst they 
 had applied to them the seal of the covenant, have been encouraged in 
 their difficult duties by the soul-cheering promise — " I will be a God to 
 thee and to thy seed after thee." Is nothing gained, when an individual, 
 who is disposed to neglect an important duty, is induced honestly and 
 solemnly to promise to neglect it no more ? Is he not more likely to 
 persevere in the effort to accomplish it, if he have assurance of the assist- 
 ance he needs ? If human nature can be affected by the most solemn 
 promises, or encouraged by the prospect of needed help ; much, very 
 much is gained by the baptism of infants. It was not the mere act of 
 circumcising a child in Abraham's family, that secured the blessing. It 
 was the covenant with God, of which circumcision was the seal, which 
 bound him more strongly, and more encouraged him to command his 
 household after him, that they might enjoy the blessing of the covenant- 
 keeping God. The gentleman's own acknowledgment, drawn from him 
 in spite of his prejudices, is proof conclusive of the value of infant 
 baptism. 
 
 I have said, that there has been, properly speaking, but one true reli- 
 gion on earth, and that the Savior did not send his apostles to establish a 
 new one. Mr. C. insists that this cannot be true, because Paul says, 
 that before his conversion to Christianity he profited in the Jews 1 religion* 
 But at the time when Paul was converted, the Jews' religion was false. 
 
400 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The prophecies, and the sacrifices of the Old Testament pointed them to 
 the Messiah, as the Savior of men. They, in their blindness rejected the 
 glorious substance, and clung to the shadow. They had rejected the Sa- 
 vior, and were unbelievers— apostates. Their religion, therefore, was 
 false. But does this prove, that the piety of Paul, as a christian, was 
 essentially different from the piety of Abraham, the father of believers? 
 or from that of Daniel, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or other devout servants of 
 God, under the former dispensation ? 
 
 The gentleman would fain induce you to believe, that I have abandoned 
 the argument from 1 Cor. vii. 14. How have I abandoned it? By put- 
 ting the learning of Scott, Doddridge, Whitby, Woods and other eminent 
 men against the assertion of Mr. Campbell ! He affirms, that they have 
 all entirely mistaken the apostle's design ; and he calls on me to prove, 
 that they have not. They evidently thought that they understood some- 
 thing about the meaning of the passage ; and so long as he deals in bold 
 assertions without proof, I am content to throw his learning into the one 
 scale, and theirs into the other. I have said, that the word holy and clean 
 have in the Bible two meanings ; and, in the passage under considera- 
 tion, they can mean nothing but consecration to God. If the gentleman 
 can show that these words have other meanings, let him do it ; but it is 
 vain for him to put forth his assertions against the views of such men as 
 those just named. 
 
 He is quite pleased that I touched household baptisms so lightly, and 
 that I have not brought forward the argument on which Mr. Taylor relies. 
 We are rich in resources on this subject. I did not design to offer all the 
 arguments by which infant baptism can be proved. The gentleman says, 
 one good argument is enough to establish a point. I have given him sev- 
 eral, which he has not been able to answer. Were I to bring forward 
 Mr. Taylor's argument, I think it very doubtful whether he could answer 
 it ; but I do not need it. It is true, I remarked on but one case of house- 
 hold baptism, for the very good reason, that the remarks made concerning 
 that, will apply to the others. I remember, not long since, reading a 
 critique of the gentleman on an argument in brother Hendrick's book on 
 Baptism. The author gave, perhaps, nineteen instances in which the 
 Greek preposition precedes the verb, where the idea of going into is 
 designed to be definitely expressed. Mr. Campbell decided very critically, 
 that the nineteen examples, being just alike, amounted to only one! But 
 when I give, as an example, one household baptism, he is quite amused, 
 that the subject is touched so lightly ! 
 
 I have, he says, assumed that Lydia had a husband and children, &c. 
 I have assumed nothing. I have no occasion to draw upon my imagina- 
 tion, as did Mr. Campbell and father Taylor, to supply the defects of sa- 
 cred history. I state simple, indisputable facts — that the Evangelist states 
 that Lydia believed, and that she and her family were baptized ; but he 
 did not say that her family believed. I say, we write as Luke wrote ; 
 and anti-Pedo-baptists do not thus write. I cheerfully leave the audience 
 to decide, in view of these facts, whether we, or the gentleman and those 
 who agree with him, practice as Luke and the apostles did. 
 
 Mr. Campbell quotes Dr. Neander's opinion, that Christ did not ordain 
 infant baptism, and also a statement concerning the history of it. Dr. 
 Neander lives at too late a period to be admitted as a witness, only as he 
 gives authority for his statements. We are not, however, discussing the 
 question, whether Christ ordained infant baptism. That he instituted 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 401 
 
 the ordinance of baptism, all admit. But the question arises, viz. to 
 whom is baptism to be administered? We prove, at least to our own 
 satisfaction, that adult believers and their children, are scriptural sub- 
 jects of this ordinance. Our Savior did not ordain female communion. 
 He did, however, appoint his supper to be observed in all future time ; 
 and, although there is no precept for admitting females to commune, it 
 can be proved to be their privilege and their duty. And so it is with in- 
 fant baptism. 
 
 Dr. Neander, though a great man, does not always reason as conclu- 
 sively as he might, as we may see by an extract which I will read from 
 his history of the church : 
 
 " But immediately after Ireneus, in the latter years of the second cen- 
 tury, Tertullian appeared as a zealous opponent of infant baptism, a proof 
 that it was not then usually considered as an apostolic ordinance, for in 
 that case he would hardly have ventured to speak so strongly against 
 \U"—Ch. Hist. p. 199. 
 
 According to his logic, infant baptism could not have been usually con- 
 sidered an apostolical ordinance ; or Tertullian would not have ventured 
 to speak so strongly against it. But did he not speak as strongly against 
 the baptism of young and unmarried persons ? And are we thence to 
 conclude, that the baptism of such persons was not usually considered as 
 of divine authority ? The reasoning would be quite as conclusive in the 
 one case as in the other. 
 
 The children of believers, the gentleman tells us, are, according to 
 Presbyterian doctrine, born in the church ; and, therefore, baptism cannot 
 be to them a door of entrance. I am not at all tenacious about the particu- 
 lar word door, which, however, when figuratively used in regard to the 
 church, is correct. Baptism is a rite by which membership in the church 
 of Christ is recognized. The children of Jews were, by birth, entitled 
 to membership in the church ; but they could not partake of the passover 
 nor enjoy the privileges of the church, till circumcised. Precisely so the 
 children of believers cannot enjoy the privileges of the church, until their 
 membership is recognized by baptism. 
 
 By the way, the gentleman says, he has more to say on the history of 
 infant baptism, than I will be inclined to hear. I am prepared to listen 
 patiently to all the history he can produce ; and I will be with him when- 
 ever he chooses to enter upon it. 
 
 He is again descanting on the covenants with Abraham. He found 
 fault with me for going to the Old Testament in support of infant mem- 
 bership ; and yet admitted that the New Testament could not be under- 
 stood without the Old. Still, however, though he has continued to 
 wander through the Old Testament, he fails to find more than one cove- 
 nant with Abraham. And if he could find half a dozen, my argument 
 would not be affected by the discovery ; since it is certain that the cove- 
 nant sealed by circumcision, contains the promise of spiritual blessings, 
 and, as Andrew Fuller says, constituted him the father of the church of 
 God in future ages. 
 
 I have repeatedly called on the gentleman to prove, that any adult ever 
 entered the Jewish church, according to God's law, without professing 
 faith in the God of Abraham. He failed to produce an example ; but he 
 thinks he has found one to-day. My friend will rally sometimes. He 
 has brought forward the case of the Shechemites, whom two of Jacob's 
 sons induced to be circumcised, that they might murder them, because of 
 26 2l2 
 
402 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 an insult offered their sister by a son of the prince ! And this ungodly 
 trick, resorted to by two wicked young- men, for purposes of revenge, 
 and severely condemned by Jacob, is brought up by Mr. Campbell, as 
 an example of the scriptural administration of circumcision ; to show 
 that adults, without professing faith, might be circumcised according to 
 the law of God ! ! ! His cause is surely laboring under great difficulties, 
 or he would not have attempted to sustain it by such means. Let him 
 show, if he can, that the Shechemites were circumcised according to 
 God's law. 
 
 The kingdom of heaven, the gentleman says, was to be taken from the 
 Jews and given to the gentiles. But, if it be true, as he contends, that 
 a new religion was given to the gentiles, and a new church established 
 among them, what, I ask, was taken from the Jews, and given to the 
 gentiles ? The kingdom of Christ — the church, with its privileges and 
 blessings, was taken from the former, and given to the latter ; and this 
 adds strength to the argument, proving the identity of the church. 
 
 It is vain for Mr. Campbell to attempt to evade the force of the argu- 
 ment afforded by the olive-tree, (Rom. xi. 16—-.) He cannot deny that, 
 by the olive-tree, is meant the christian church ; but he says, the first 
 fruit, of which the apostle speaks, were the first converts to Christianity. 
 If this be true, how is it that the unbelieving Jews were broken off from 
 it, as the apostle declares 1 Were they broken off from the first converts 
 to Christianity ? ! The olive-tree is the church, from which the Jewish 
 nation (so far as they rejected Christ) were broken off ; into which the 
 believing gentiles were grafted, and into which the Jews, when converted 
 to Christianity, shall be again introduced. The conclusion is inevitable, 
 that the church to which the Jews belong, is the same into which the 
 gentiles were brought, and to which the converted Jews, with their chil- 
 dren, shall return. I wish the gentleman would have told us how the 
 unbelieving Jews were broken off from the first converts to Christianity; 
 but he seemed to forget to remove this difficulty ! 
 
 He says, I stated, that the moral law is the constitution of the chris- 
 tian church. I did not say so. I said, the moral law may be consid- 
 ered, in a sense, the constitution of God's moral government ; inasmuch 
 as it defines the duties of the subjects to the great King, and their duties, 
 rights, and privileges relative to each other. So he is again mistaken, 
 and has spent some time in disproving what I never thought of affirming. 
 
 I will now resume the argument for infant baptism, derived from his- 
 tory. I have quoted Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was the 
 disciple of John the apostle, and have proved that he speaks of infant 
 baptism, so as to make the clear impression, that, at that very early period, 
 it was universally believed and practiced, as of divine institution. That, 
 by the language he used, he meant baptism, I can prove by Mr. Camp- 
 bell himself and by Dr. Neander, whom he has quoted as a very learned 
 man. 
 
 I have also given the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, of Tertul- 
 lian, Origen, and of Cyprian and the council of sixty -six bishops. I 
 will now give you the testimony of Augustin and Jerom, two of the most 
 learned of the christian fathers, who flourished in the latter part of the 
 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries ; and who speak of infant baptism, 
 not only as in their day universally practiced by the whole church, but as 
 having ever been regarded as of divine authority. 
 
 I will first quote a passage from the writings of Jerom. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 403 
 
 *' This is said of those that have understanding of such as he was, of 
 whom it is written in the gospel, He is of age, let him speak for himself 
 But he that is a child, and thinks as a child, (till such time as he come to 
 years of discretion— and Pythagoras' letter (Y) do bring to the place where 
 the road parts into two,) his good deeds, as well as his evil deeds, are im- 
 puted to his parents. Unless you will think the children of christians are 
 themselves only under the guilt of the sin, if they do not receive baptism ; 
 and that the wickedness is not imputed to those also who would not give 
 it them, especially at that time when they that were to receive it, could 
 make no opposition against the receiving of it," &c, — [Epist. ad Letam.] 
 Wall, vol. i. p. 240. 
 
 Augustine thus comments on 1 Cor. vii. 14: 
 
 " For an unbelieving husband has been sanctified by his believing wife, 
 and an unbelieving wife by her believing husband. 
 
 I suppose it had then happened that several wives had been brought to 
 the faith by their believing husbands, and husbands by their believing 
 wives. And though he does not mention their names, yet he makes use of 
 their example to confirm his advice. 
 
 Else were your children unclean, but now arc they holy. 
 
 For there were then christian infants that were sanctified, [or made 
 holy. i. e. that were baptized] some by the authority of one of their parents, 
 some by the consent of both ; which would not be, if as soon as one party 
 believed, the marriage were dissolved," &c. — De Sermone Domini in Monte. 
 
 Again, — p. 251 : 
 
 " So that many persons, increasing in knowledge, after their baptism, 
 and especially those who have been baptized either when they were infants, 
 or when they were youths ; as their understanding is cleared and enlighten- 
 ed, and their inward man renewed day.byday, do themselves deride, and 
 with abhorrence and confession renounce their former opinions which they 
 had of God, when they were imposed on by their imaginations. And yet 
 they are not, therefore, accounted either not to have received baptism, or to 
 have received a baptism of that nature that their error was," <Scc. 
 
 Again — p. 254 : 
 
 " And as the thief, who by necessity went without baptism, was saved; 
 because by his piety he had it spiritually : so where baptism is had, though 
 the party by necessity go without that [faith] which the thief had, yet he 
 is saved. Which the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them, 
 in the case of little infants baptized : who certainly cannot yet believe with 
 the heart to righteousness, or confess with the mouth to salvation, as the 
 thief could," &c. * * * " And if any one do ask for divine authority in 
 this matter: though that which the whole church practices, and which 
 has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably 
 believed to be no other than a thing delivered [or ordered] by authority of 
 the apostles : yet we may besides take a true estimate, how much the sa- 
 crament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God's 
 former people received." — De Baptismo cont. Donatistas. 
 
 Augustine, you observe, states, that the whole church practiced infant 
 baptism, and that it was never instituted by councils. I will read one or 
 two more extracts, (pp. 382, 383.) Having quoted some passages from 
 the writings of Jerome, he remarks as follows : 
 
 " And now some people, by the boldness of I know not what disputing 
 humor, go about to represent that as uncertain which our ancestors made 
 use of as a most certain thing, whereby to resolve some things that seemed 
 uncertain. For, when this began first to be disputed, I know not : but this 
 I know, that holy Hierome, whose pains and fame for excellent learning in 
 ecclesiastical matters is at this day so great, does also make use of this as 
 a thing most certain, to resolve some questions in his books," &c. 
 
404 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM, 
 
 Then having quoted some passages out of St. Hierome on Jonah, he 
 proceeds : 
 
 ' ; If we could with convenience come to ask that most learned man, how 
 many writers of christian dissertations and interpreters of holy scripture in 
 both languages could he recount, who from the time that Christ's church has 
 been founded, have held no otherwise, have received no other doctrine from 
 their predecessors, nor left any other to their successors ! For my part, 
 (though my reading is much less than his,) I do not remember that I ever 
 heard any other thing from any christians that received the Old and New 
 Testament, non solum in Catholica eccUsia varum etiam in qv.alibet hcereri 
 vcl schismate constiiuiis : neither from such as were of the Catholic churchy 
 nor from such as belonged to any sect or schism, Ami memini me aliud 
 legisse, <kc. I do not remember that I ever read otherwise in any writer 
 that I could ever find treating of these matters, that followed the canonical 
 Scriptures, or did mean or did pretend to do so.*' 
 
 Such is the testimony of two of the most eminent fathers of the chris- 
 tian church. There not only was, in their day, no controversy on the 
 subject of infant baptism, but they declare that there never had been any 
 difference of opinion in regard to it. 
 
 I now invite your attention to the testimony of Pelagius. And let it 
 be remarked, his testimony is peculiarly valuable, not only because he 
 was a man of extensive learning, but especially because the doctrine of 
 infant baptism was plainly inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of 
 his system — the denial of original sin : and with this difficulty he was 
 constantly pressed by his opposers. He had, therefore, every motive 
 to deny the doctrine, and to prove it an innovation in the church. But 
 hear what he says : 
 
 " Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, or 
 did promise the kingdom of heaven to some persons without the redemption 
 of Christ : which is a thing that I never heard, no not even any wicked 
 heretic say. For who is there so ignorant of that which is read in the gos- 
 pel, as (I need not say to affirm this, but) in any heedless way to say such 
 a thing, or even have such a thought," <kc. — Wall, vol. i. p. 450. 
 
 Now look at the strength of tins testimony. I began with Ireneus, 
 almost in sight of the apostle John. Then came Tertnllian and Origen, 
 a few years later; then Cyprian and the sixty-six bishops; then, at a 
 later period, Jerom and Augustine ; and, finally, Pelagius — all testifying 
 to the universal prevalence of infant baptism. Now, if any fact can be 
 established by history, it is the fact, that this practice prevailed from the 
 days of the apostles themselves. 
 
 I have another interesting portion of history, which I will present for 
 your consideration. Mr. Campbell, and other anti-Pedo-baptists, have 
 claimed the "Waldenses and Albigenses, (those witnesses for God and the 
 truth, in the dark ages, when Christianity seemed almost lost from the 
 earth,) as anti-Pedo-baptists. This claim is set up by Mr. Jones, the 
 Baptist historian, of whose history Mr. Campbell has spoken in the 
 highest terms ; yet in his account of the Waldenses, though quoting 
 avowedly from Perrin's history, he left out every thing that squinted at 
 infant baptism ! Perrin was a descendant from these people, and he 
 took the pains to visit them, and obtained their confessions of faith, and 
 other books and documents, from which he wrote their history. Their 
 enemies, (the Roman priests.) did charge them with denying the baptism 
 of infants ; and Mr. Jones published the charge as if it were undoubted- 
 ly true. In reply to it John Paul Perrin, their historian, thus re- 
 marks : — (Book i. ch. iv. p. 15.) 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 405 
 
 " The fourth calumnie was touching" baptisme, which, it is said, they 
 .■[Waldenses] denied to little infants: but from this imputation they quit 
 themselves as followeth : — The time and place of those that are to be bap- 
 tized is not ordained, but the charitie and edification of the church and con- 
 gregation must serve for a rule therein, &c. ; and therefore, they to whom 
 the children were nearest allied, brought their infants to be baptized, as 
 their parents, or any other whom God hath made charitable in that kind." 
 
 Again: (Perrin, book i. chap. vi. pp. 30, 31.) 
 
 " King Lewis XII, having been informed by the enemies of the Walden- 
 ses, dwelling in Provence, of many grievous crimes, which were imposed 
 [charged] upon them, sent to make inquisition in those places, the lord 
 Adam Fumee, Maister of Requests, and a doctor of Sorbon, called Parne, 
 who was his confessor. They visited all the parishes and temples, and 
 found neither images, nor so much as the least show of any ornaments be- 
 longing to their masses and ceremonies of the church of Rome, much lesse 
 any such crimes as were imposed [charged] upon them ; but rather that 
 they kept their Sabbathes duely, causing their children to be baptized ac- 
 cording to the order of the primitive church, teaching them the articles of 
 the christian faith and the commandments of God," 
 
 Now let us see how faithfully the historian, Mr. Jones, who has been 
 recommended by my friend, has quoted Perrin: (Church Hist. p. 348.) 
 
 " Louis XII, king of France, being informed by the enemies of the Wal- 
 denses, inhabiting a part of the province of Provence, that several crimes 
 were laid to their account, sent the Master of Requests and a certain doc- 
 tor of the Sorbonne, who was confessor to his majesty, to make inquiry into 
 the matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited all the 
 parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places of worship, but that 
 they had found there no images, nor signs of the ornaments belonging to 
 the mass, nor any of the ceremonies of the Romish church ; much less could 
 they discover any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. 
 On the contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance of bap- 
 tism according- to the 'primitive church, instructed their children in the arti- 
 cles of the christian faith, and the commandments of God." — Joachim 
 Camerarius, in his History, p. 352, quoted by Perrin, book i. chap. v. 
 
 Here Mr. Jones, when he came to infant baptism, wholly omitted it; 
 and instead of saying, as did the author he quoted — " causing their chil- 
 dren to be baptized " — he says, " observed the ordinance of baptism ac- 
 cording to the primitive church ! ! !" Thus the Waldenses are proved to 
 be anti-Pedo-baptists, by concealing their testimony. A more glaring 
 falsification of history I never saw ! I have a great deal more testimony 
 upon the same point, only part of which I can present; I will read some 
 passages from their confessions of faith. 
 
 Perrin, book ii. chap. iv. pp. 60, 61 : 
 
 " Touching the matter of the sacraments, it hath been concluded by the 
 Holy Scriptures, that we have but two sacramental signes, the which Christ 
 Jesus hath left unto us ; the one is baptisme, the other the eucharist, which 
 wee receive to shew what our perseverance in the faith is, as wee have pro- 
 mised when wee were baptized, being little infants : as also in remembrance 
 of that great benefit, which Jesus Christ hath done unto us, when hee died 
 for our redemption, washing us with his most precious blood." — Conf. of 
 Faith, Art. 17. 
 
 " Amongst others there appeared a poore, simple, laboring man, whom 
 the president commanded to cause his child to be re-baptized, which had 
 lately been baptized by the minister of Saint John, neere Angrongne. 
 This poore man requested so much respite, as that hee might pray unto God 
 before hee answered him, which being granted with some laughter, he fell 
 downe upon his knees in the presence of all that were there, and his prayer 
 being ended, he said to the president, that hee would cause his childe to be 
 
406 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 re-baptized, upon condition, that the said president would discharge him 
 by a bill signed with his owne hand, of the sinne which hee should commit 
 in causing it to be re-baptized, and beare one day before God, the punish- 
 ment and condemnation which should befall him, taking this iniquity upon 
 him and his. Which the president understanding, hee commanded him 
 out of his presence, not pressing him any farther." — Perrin, book ii. p. 64. 
 
 Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses, book i. ch. vi. p. 43. — -"Now 
 this baptisme is visible and materiall, which maketh the partie neither good 
 nor evill, as it appeareth in the Scripture, by Simon Magus and Saint Paul. 
 And whereas baptisme is administered in a full congregation of the faith- 
 full, it is to the end that hee that is received into the church, should be 
 reputed and held of all for a christian brother, and that all the congregation 
 might pray for him, that he may be a christian. And for this cause it is 7 
 that wee present our children in baptisme ; which they ought to doe, to 
 whom the children are neerest, as their parents, and they to whom God 
 had given this charitie." 
 
 " The things that are not necessary in the administration of baptisme, 
 are the exorcismes, breathings, the signe of the crosse upon the forehead 
 and breast of the infant, the salt put into his mouth, spittle into his eares 
 and nostrills, the anoynting of the breast," &c. — Book iii. ch. iv. p. 99. 
 
 The Waldenses and Albigenses, whilst they boldly and fearlessly testi- 
 fied against all the corruptions of popery, still contended for the scripture 
 doctrine of infant baptism. 
 
 We have now a connected chain of evidence in favor of this doctrine,, 
 extending from the Waldenses and Albigenses, up through Pelagius, Au- 
 gustin, Jerom, Origen, Cyprian and the council at Carthage, and Tertul- 
 lian, to Ireneus ; between whom and the apostle John there was but a 
 single individual. 
 
 I will now read to the audience the conclusion to which Dr. Wall, af- 
 ter long and careful examination, was induced to come. — \_Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22— 12| o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's tenth reply.] 
 Mr. President — Mr. Rice has to address us but once more on this 
 proposition. It is, therefore, incumbent on me to give him all the points 
 on which I rely. I will premise on the identity question, and on some 
 one or two other matters, a few items, that he may be prepared to respond 
 in his next speech. He commenced, and he seems disposed to conclude, 
 his defence of infant affusion by an appeal to maternal tenderness, or that 
 it some way takes hold of the conscience and obliges parents to do for 
 their offspring more than either nature or the precepts of Christianity 
 would or could possibly accomplish. Thus he infuses into infant sprink- 
 ling a moral power of constraining parental affection, or obliging parents 
 to do for their children what, without these vows and protestations, they 
 could not otherwise be induced to do. Well, now, the first question is — 
 Is this fact? I shall make my appeal at once to christian mothers. I put 
 the question to every christian mother, whether her maternal affections 
 for her own offspring, and her christian obligations to the Lord, growing 
 out of his love and authority, commanding and enjoining her to bring up 
 her children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, can be augmented 
 and enhanced by a promise extorted from her without any authority for it 
 in the Bible, to do what the Divine impulses, the motherly instincts, which 
 the God of love and sympathy has planted with his own hand in her 
 bosom ; and the pure, and holy, and authoritative precepts of the Savior 
 that bought her, cannot accomplish ? I have no doubt of the issue of such 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 407 
 
 an appeal. Nature is stronger than the artificial vows appended to the 
 rite of initiation — and so reads the history of the world, so far as it details 
 the experience of all ages and nations. You cannot exercise maternal 
 affection if you would lead every mother to the altar and make her swear 
 seven times to do her duty to her children, after you have laid before her 
 the precepts of Christ. 
 
 Why did my friend stop with the case of Lydia? Why went he not 
 round all the other households, as usual ? Why did he not, when asked, 
 produce the case of Stephanus and his house, of Cornelius and his house, 
 of the jailor and his house? He thought it enough to try the strongest 
 case, and failing in that, despaired of the others. He makes so many 
 assumptions, he has not time to defend them. He would, in Parthian 
 style, say, as he moves along, that there is no precept for female commu- 
 nion. This objection is a surrendering of the plea for any authority pre- 
 ceptive of infant baptism; and then by way of reprisals, to gain conces- 
 sion, says — You have no precept nor example for female communion ! 
 Well, as there is neither male nor female communion, but christian com- 
 munion — proving the latter, we prove both male and female. But as he 
 will not ask for proof on that point, I will refer him especially to Acts, 
 1st and 2d chapters. He will find that one hundred and twenty men 
 and women were in communion in Jerusalem, before the first Pentecost. 
 He will, also, find that three thousand were added to them on that day ; 
 and he will next find that these three thousand one hundred and twenty 
 disciples, male and female, continued in all christian communion, and 
 among the rest, in breaking the loaf. Here is a Divine warrant for male 
 and female communion in the loaf. Give only one such case of infant 
 baptism — we ask no more ! 
 
 Well, we have gained another point of some importance. He now 
 says that baptism is not the door. I congratulate him in giving that up. 
 Pie has no use for a door in getting into his church. He rather needs one to 
 get out of it. Indeed, none of us imagines that there is any thing in the form 
 of a door into a Christian or Jewish community. We use the term meta- 
 phorically. By initiation, entrance, and door, we mean the same thing. 
 Infant baptism, then, does not initiate into the christian church on the 
 principle of identity, for circumcision did not initiate. No initiation, no 
 door. So that matter is also settled. If he should ever speak of baptism 
 as a door or an initiation, I will again request him to tell us into what 
 does it initiate a child ; or into what is it a door ? 
 
 I might advert to the new version of the commission, given from Mark, 
 though he has not replied to the other versions — Mark's version and. 
 Luke's version. What does Mark say : " Go ye into all the world, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned." Luke is 
 still more clear. Here the Savior commands that " repentance or refor- 
 mation and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all 
 nations, beginning at Jerusalem." That single word, reformation, in- 
 cludes the whole — -among all nations. Faith, first; repentance, next, 
 and baptism next. These versions we plead in explanation of the words, 
 disciple them. 
 
 With regard to the Schechemites— I know it was an ugly affair ; but if 
 circumcision had required a confession of faith, I am persuaded that the 
 whole clan never could have been prevailed upon to submit to the rite. It 
 could not be supposed that advantage was taken of their ignorance. No 
 
408 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 one ever thought, of such a thing as professing faith in order to circumci- 
 sion. Can the gentleman name any one who was ever called to make 
 profession of faith in order to circumcision ? There is the breadth of 
 the heavens of difference between circumcision and baptism ; otherwise, 
 there would be some passage found, or some precept, saying — "Believe? 
 and be circumcised.'''' 
 
 The gentleman did say that we are under the same moral law ; for I 
 wrote it down as he uttered it, and I have company in this assertion. I 
 have others with me who heard the same. I said in replication, that 
 Massachusetts and Kentucky had the same moral law. It is so written 
 out in so many words in my notes, and I am particular in writing down 
 every important matter. 
 
 As to Mr. Jones and this accusation, I have nothing to say at this mo- 
 ment. He is an honest historian, as I believe, though he does not agree 
 with me in some matters. His reputation as an historian stands very 
 high. The gentleman might have saved himself the trouble of quoting 
 many authorities in favor of infant baptism. 
 
 Against his doctrine of identity I offer the following arguments, alrea- 
 dy hinted, though not fully developed. The Savior has positively said, 
 " The law and the prophets were (in authority, or were public instruc- 
 tors) your teachers till John came. Since that time the kingdom of God 
 is preached, and all men press into it" Luke xvi. 16. What language 
 could be more clearly expressive of the cessation or withdrawal of one 
 class of teachers, and the introduction of a new institution? The law and 
 prophets were the Old Testament; but now a new institution into which, 
 out of some other one, all the conscientious press. The Jews' religion 
 was corrupted, the gentleman says ; but so has been the christian. The 
 Jews' religion was once reformed, so has the christian, nominally, been 
 reformed at sundry times. But this is more than reformation ; it is the 
 kingdom of God that is preached, and men are now leaving the law and 
 the prophets, and that institution, and pressing into it. There were many 
 pious Jews amongst that people, like Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and 
 Elizabeth — and even Saul of Tarsus, who was so pious and zealous for 
 the religion of his fathers, and of the law and the prophets, that he per- 
 secuted the christians, because they had got up, as he understood it, a 
 new religion. It would be impossible to conceive of one so learned as 
 Paul, and so discriminating, as not to have seen that Christianity was only 
 reformed Judaism, if that were its real character. 
 
 Again, the church is said to be " built on the foundation of the apos- 
 tles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." 
 Were these the foundation of the Jewish church ? Was it built on this 
 foundation? Did Jesus Christ live cotemporary with Moses, and the an- 
 cients who prophecied of him ! ! Into what wild extremes are we driven, 
 in avoiding the truth, whether the evasion be voluntary or involuntary! 
 
 Another proof I have always deduced from Daniel. This most cele- 
 brated of Jewish prophets foretold, that in the time of the Romans, the 
 God of heaven would set up a kingdom, a new institution of course ; for 
 who sets up an old institution already existing ? How could that king- 
 dom be set up, while that of Moses was standing? Will God have two 
 kingdoms on earth at the same time? Messiah, the prince, then, was to 
 come first, and then his kingdom. Certainly Daniel foretold a new insti- 
 tution — a kingdom of God. Who can plausibly show that the kingdom 
 of God, to be set up, was the identical Jewish church ? in its national 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 409 
 
 and wordly form, too, for that was an essential element of its constitution ! 
 Isaiah, also, is indisputably with us. He says, or rather the Lord says 
 by him, chap, xxviii., Thus saith the Lord God, " Behold I lay in Zion, 
 for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure 
 foundation." This is the foundation of all those brilliant passages, read 
 from the prophets, in proof of identity. Every bright scene of the future 
 glory of the true Israel of God, is drawn from the visions of the Messiah 
 and his saints, then in the flesh, of the Jewish ceremonial. All the bright 
 scenes are, by the apostles, applied, in this way, to Him who, at first, 
 was a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. 
 
 I need not say, for no one will debate it, that this passage is quoted 
 and applied by the apostles to Jesus Christ, who appeared in the days of 
 the Caesars; consequently it must be conceded, that the foundation of 
 the new institution was not laid, while, as yet, the Mosaic was standing. 
 
 Evident, then, it is, that the kingdom of the Messiah is radically, es- 
 sentially, and formally different from the Jewish theocracy, from the pa- 
 triarchal, and every other religious institution on the earth. It was to be 
 builded on an entirely new foundation, and to consist of a spiritual peo- 
 ple, whose nativity should be spiritual and heavenly. Since the world 
 began there never was, till the day of Pentecost, a society of men who 
 met together, purely upon spiritual grounds ; never a church of God, in 
 the New Testament acceptation of that most abused word. On that com- 
 menced a new society, who met together purely on the ground of a spiri- 
 tual faith, hope, and love. These were believers in Christ, converted 
 men. No such a separate society was ever before convened. The fam- 
 ily religion of the patriarchal age had natural bonds of association, and 
 was necessarily mixed in its character. The Jewish religion was nation- 
 al, and therefore mixed in its very nature and constitution. But the 
 church is neither natural nor national ; but supernatural, spiritual, and 
 divine. That there were saints among Jews and patriarchs, by myriads, 
 I believe and hope. But there was no church, such as Christianity con- 
 templates, at all. Nothing like it. If Christ's church be a continuation 
 of the Jewish, then it must be national! 
 
 Defection and corruption, alas, follow men every where on earth — in 
 paradise and out of it ; under all dispensations and administrations. Out- 
 side of the New Testament there is no church authority whatever; no 
 christian authority. The arguments heard are no earlier than the third cen- 
 tury — for, indeed there is no vestige of infant baptism till in the third — Ter- 
 tullian is the first person that names it. But suppose it were found in the 
 second century, evident as any other historical fact whatever, what then ? 
 It is, in the judgment of the most learned Presbyterian doctors now liv- 
 ing, of no value or authority whatever. You shall now have these words 
 fully confirmed, by one of the most virulent opponents of the Baptists 
 now living ; one of the greatest devotees to Presbyterianism, and one 
 who has, for his opportunities, said and written as bitter things against 
 myself, as any other doctor of divinity in that church ; I mean Dr. Miller, 
 of Princeton Theological school, and professor of ecclesiastic history, 
 and, of course, he ought to know what such evidence as you have just 
 heard from Mr. Rice is worth. I am sorry I have not time to read so 
 much from him as I could wish. 
 
 Dr. Miller says : (Letters on Epis. pp. 290, 291.) 
 
 " We are accustomed to look back to the first ages of the church with a 
 veneration nearly bordering on superstition. It answered the purpose of 
 
 2M 
 
410 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 popery, to refer all their corruptions to primitive times, and to represent 
 those times as exhibiting the models of all excellence. But every repre- 
 sentation of this kind must be received with distrust. The christian 
 church, during the apostolic age, and for half a century, did indeed present 
 a venerable aspect. Persecuted by the world on every side, she was favor- 
 ed in an uncommon measure with the presence of the Spirit of her divine 
 Head, and exhibited a degree of simplicity and purity, which has, perhaps, 
 never since been equalled. But before the close of the second century, the 
 scene began to change ; and before the commencement of the fourth, a deplo- 
 rable corruption of doctrine, discipline, and morals, had crept into the 
 church, and disfigured the body of Christ. Hegesippus, an ecclesiastical 
 historian, declares that the " virgin purity of the church was confined to 
 the days of the apostles." 
 
 " I shall not now stay to ascertain what degree of respect is due to the 
 writings of the fathers in general. It is my duty, however, to state, that 
 we do not refer to them, in any wise, as a rule either of faith or practice. 
 We acknowledge the Scriptures alone to be such rule. By this rule the 
 fathers themselves are to be tried; and of course they cannot be considered 
 as the christian's authority for any thing. It is agreed, on all hands, that 
 they are not infallible guides : and it is perfectly well known to all who are 
 acquainted with their writings, that many of them are inconsistent, both 
 with themselves and with one another. We protest, therefore, utterly 
 against any appeal to them on this subject. Though they, or an angel from 
 heaven, should bring us any doctrine, as essential to the order and well- 
 being of the church, which is not to be found in the word of God, we are 
 bound by the command of our Master to reject them." 
 
 Dr. Miller, in his Letters on Epis. pages 164 and 149, says : 
 
 " Even supposing you had found such declarations in some or all of the 
 early fathers ; what then ! Historic fact is not divine institution." 
 
 Once more : 
 
 " Suffer me, my brethren, again to remind you of the principle on 
 which we proceed, in this part of our inquiry. If it could be demonstrated 
 from the writings of the fathers, that in one hundred, or even in fifty years, 
 [in four years, or four centuries, he remarks in another place,] after the 
 death of the last apostle, the system of diocesan episcopacy had been gene- 
 rally adopted in the church, it would be nothing to the purpose. As long 
 as no traces of this fact can be found in the Bible, but much of a directly 
 opposite nature, we should stand on a secure and immovable foundation. 
 To all reasonings, then, derived from the fathers, I answer with the vene- 
 rable Augustine, who, when pressed with the authority of Cyprian, replied, 
 ' His writings I hold not to be canonical, but examine them by the canoni- 
 cal writings : and in them, what agreeth with the authority of divine Scrip- 
 ture, I accept, with his praise ; what agreeth not, I reject with his leave.'" 
 
 I have a liberal set of extracts from Taylor's Ancient Christianity here, 
 prepared for this place ; but I have not time to read nor comment on 
 them. Those of Mr. Miller, then, must suffice for the present. And the 
 words of no man in America can be read with more acceptance, I pre- 
 sume, by Mr. Rice. 
 
 I must treat you to a word or two from that St. Cyprian, of whom you 
 heard so much in commendation from Mr. Rice, who, in his council of 
 sixty-six African bishops, decided in favor of infant baptism. He was 
 one also of Mr. Rice's learned men, that decided that sprinkling water or 
 sand made good valid christian baptism. He was an advocate for infant 
 communion, and for many other such human traditions. I am sorry that 
 I can read but one such extract as the following, for every ten that I might 
 read, and that ought to be read, with notes and comments, especially 
 adapted to the ears of Pedo-baptists. I admit, that from St. Cyprian's 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 41 1 
 
 time, infant baptism and infant communion were, very common ; for they 
 began about the same time, and continued for centuries, as true and faith- 
 ful companions. But let us hear this saint. I quote from Wall's History 
 of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. pages 482-3 : 
 
 " St. Cyprian says : I will tell you what happened in my own presence. 
 The parents of a certain little girl, running* out of town in a fright, had for- 
 got to take any care of their child, whom they had left in the keeping of a 
 nurse. The nurse had carried her to the magistrates : they, because she 
 was too little to eat the flesh, gave her to eat before the idol some of the 
 bread, mixed with wine, which had been left of the sacrifice of those 
 wretches. Since that time her mother took her home. But she was no 
 more capable of declaring and telling the crime committed, than she had 
 been before of understanding or of hindering it. So it happened that once 
 when I was administering, her mother, ignorant of what had been done, 
 brought her along with her. But the girl, being among the saints, could 
 not with any quietness hear the prayers said ; but sometimes fell into 
 weeping, and sometimes into convulsions, with the uneasiness of her mind: 
 and her^ignorant soul, as under a rack, declared by such tokens as it could, 
 the conscience of the fact in those tender years. And when the service was 
 ended, and the deacon went to give the cup to those that were present, and 
 the others received it, and her turn came, the girl by a divine instinct turn- 
 ed away her face, shut her mouth, and refused the cup. But yet the deacon 
 persisted ; and put into her mouth, though she refused it, some of the sacra- 
 ment of the cup. Then followed retchings and vomiting. The eucharist 
 could not stay in her polluted mouth and body ; the drink consecrated in our 
 Lord's blood burst out again from her defiled bowels. Such is the power, 
 such the majesty of our Lord : the secrets of darkness were discovered by 
 its light : even unknown sins could not deceive the priest of God. This 
 happened in the case of an infant, who was by reason of her age incapable 
 of declaring the crime which another had acted on her." 
 
 From such teachers and doctors, who, in the name of reason, would 
 expect to find any authority to influence christians in the performance of 
 the most solemn acts of religion — the administration of baptism, and the 
 supper ! 
 
 That infant communion was as common as infant baptism, I say 
 again, can be fully proved, as Mr. Rice very well knows, or ought to 
 know — and that from the same sources, too. I must give one or two 
 short extracts : — 
 
 " St. Austin says : The christians of Africa do well call baptism itself, 
 one's salvation ; and the sacrament of Christ body one's life. From whence 
 is this, but, as I suppose, from that ancient and apostolical tradition, by 
 which the churches of Christ do naturally hold, that without baptism and 
 partaking of the Lord's table, none can come either to the kingdom of God, 
 or to salvation and eternal life 1 For the Scripture, as I shewed before, 
 says the same. For what other thing do they hold, that call baptism salva- 
 tion, than that which is said, ' He saved us by the washing of regeneration:' 
 and that which Peter says, ' The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth 
 now save usf And what other thing do they hold, that call the sacrament 
 of the Lord's table, life, than that which is said, I am the bread of life, &c. 
 and The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life 
 of the world ; and, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his 
 blood, ye have no life in youl If then, as so many divine testimonies do 
 agree neither salvation nor eternal life is to be hoped for by any without 
 baptism, and the body and blood of our Lord ; it is in vain promised to 
 infants without them."— Wall, pp. 485, 486. 
 
 " Innocent I., Bishop of Rome, does indeed, A. D. 417, plainly and posi- 
 tively say, that infants cannot be saved without receiving the eucharist ; 
 
412 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and that in a synodical epistle written to the fathers of the Milevetian coun- 
 cil. The council had represented to him the mischief of that tenet of the 
 Pelagians, that unbaptized infants, though they cannot go to heaven, yet 
 may have eternal life ; which the Pelagians maintained on this pretence : 
 that our Savior, though he said, l He that is not bom of water cannot enter 
 the kingdom,'' yet had not said he cannot have eternal life. To this, Inno- 
 cent's words are — ' That which your brotherhood says that they teach, that 
 infants may without the grace of baptism have eternal life,' is very absurd. 
 Since, ' Except they eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, 
 they have no life in them.' His meaning is plainly this : they can have no 
 eternal life without receiving the communion ; and they cannot do that, till 
 they be baptized.' * * * And it is true what Mr. Daille urges, ' That 
 St. Austin says the same thing eight or ten times over, in several places of 
 his books.' And some of these books are dated a little before the letter of 
 Innocent." — Wall, vol. i. p. 484. 
 
 i( It is a brave thing to be infallible. Such men may do what they will, 
 and it shall be true. What is a contradiction in other men's mouths, 
 is none in theirs. Pope Innocent, in a synodical letter sent to the council 
 of Milevetia, says — " If infants do not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
 drink his blood, [meaning the sacrament,] they have no life in them.' Pope 
 Pius, in confirming the council of Trent, says, ' If any man say so, let him 
 be anathema." — Wall, vol. i. p. 489. 
 
 I have one fact to state, that says more than a hundred volumes can say, 
 against placing any confidence whatever in any document outside of the 
 New Testament, so far as countenance, support, or authority is regarded. 
 for any tenet, practice, or tradition, not found endorsed by some one or 
 more of the apostolic school. It is a fact, clear and indisputable, that in 
 less than fifteen years after the ascension of the Messiah, circumcision 
 would have been imposed on the gentile christians, by a large and re- 
 spectable number of ministers and others, even from the mother church 
 and city of Jerusalem too, had the apostles been then dead. The case is 
 this : certain men came down from Judea to Antioch, in Syria, a very 
 large and respectable church, and there, in the presence of Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, boldly debated, and for some time with considerable warmth dis- 
 puted with them, in support of the proposition that — The gentile breth- 
 ren ivho had been baptized must be circumcised, a?id keep the law of 
 Moses, on peril of damnation. One thing is as clear as the sun from 
 this fact ; that not yet in Judea, nor Jerusalem, nor Antioch, was the 
 notion that baptism came in the room of circumcision, else such a ques- 
 tion never could have arisen ; or if it had, could have been very easily 
 decided. It seems that the church in Antioch was not fully satisfied on 
 hearing the whole debate between these great men, but sent Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, and others with them, up to Jerusalem, to have a grand confer- 
 ence on the question, in the presence of apostles, elders, and the whole 
 church assembled. There was a meeting held for the purpose, and a 
 considerable debate, in which Peter, Paul, and James distinguished them- 
 selves. It was decided that those brethren from Judea, that had gone 
 down to Antioch, were wrong. Yet it called for a general epistle, dic- 
 tated by James, and borne by chosen messengers, to disabuse the churches 
 of this mistake. From this whole incident, and the transactions there- 
 upon, I learn two important facts : — 
 
 1st. That either the idea of baptism in room of circumcision had not 
 yet been born, or if it had, the whole assembly in Jerusalem, apostles 
 and all, were miserable debaters, for it would have at once settled the dis- 
 pute, had Paul or any other apostle stood up and said : " Brethren, do 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 413 
 
 you not know that baptism now stands in the place of circumcision ; and, 
 therefore, it is preposterous to circumcise those persons who have re- 
 ceived it already in the christian form ?" Circumcision is done away, 
 and baptism has just come to fill its place in the new institution. Every 
 man of any intelligence or reflection will feel this argument, and feel, too, 
 that it is a triumphant refutation of that notion. 
 
 In writing the letter to the Greek churches, would it not have occurred 
 to some of the twelve apostles, or those present, to say : Brethren, do 
 you not know that as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, 
 have also been spiritually circumcised 1 for circumcision is now substi- 
 tuted by christian baptism. 
 
 But the second and most important inference before us now, is — that 
 there is no authority to be placed in the very highest antiquity — I will 
 say, not in any document only five years after the apostolic age ; for if, 
 while the apostles, with a single exception, were all living, and their per- 
 sonal converts settled in myriads all over Judea, Samaria, and Syria, 
 &c, &c, a new institution was brought in, by persons of so much learn- 
 ing and influence as to call forth such an array of wisdom and learning, 
 who will confide in any tradition not evidently apostolic, because we can 
 find distinguished names advocating it in the first and second centuries ? 
 
 I have yet one argument, out of many more not stated, which I hope to 
 have time to state before my time expires. It is, that circumcision never 
 was done away by any apostolic word or action. The Jews practiced 
 both circumcision and baptism in their families during the apostolic age 
 — a matter which would have been intolerable, had the one been divinely 
 ordered in lieu of the other. The proof of this fact which I have to 
 offer, is from Acts xxi. It is full, clear, and, to my mind, perfectly con- 
 clusive. Paul, after an absence of fourteen years, visits Jerusalem, after 
 having been in the apostleship to the gentiles seventeen years. On his 
 arrival, he was waited upon by a portion of the brethren, who accosted 
 him with the following words : " Thou seest, brother, how many thous- 
 ands of the Jews believe, and they are all zealous of the law ; and they 
 are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the 
 gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their 
 children, nor to walk after the customs. What is it therefore ? The 
 multitude will that thou art come," &c. They proceed to request Paul 
 to take upon him a vow — to purify himself, to shave his head, and to be 
 at charges with some others ; and all this for the purpose of showing to 
 the Jews, that all that they had heard was nothing, (not true,) but that he 
 walked after the customs. They also added, that, as " for the gentiles 
 who believe, we have written to them that they observe no such things." 
 Here, then, it is declared that the gentiles, but not the Jews, had been 
 discharged from such observances. Now, either Paul falsified, or he had 
 not taught the Jews who believed, to cease from circumcising their chil- 
 dren — and not Paul only falsified, but all the brethren who advised this 
 course. They all conspired to deceive the church in Jerusalem, touching 
 Paul's customs, or he had not interfered with the circumcision of the 
 children of believing Jews. The proof, then, that circumcision was not 
 done away by any apostolic enactment or teaching, is irresistible ; and, 
 therefore, it cannot be believed that the apostles either believed or taught 
 that baptism had taken the place of circumcision among the Jews. These 
 two arguments, adduced from Acts, 15th and 21st chapters, are alone suf- 
 ficient, in my humble opinion, to settle this question with every one who 
 
 2m2 
 
414 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 can understand them. I hazard nothing in avowing my belief that they 
 will never be answered. 
 
 I have now attended to all the prominent points of Mr. Rice's argu- 
 ment, and have given him a few new ones, by way of objections to his 
 propositions, that he may have an opportunity to answer them in his last 
 speech. I call his attention to these most prominent and palpable facts, 
 any one of which is fatal to his assumptions. I hope he will also ex- 
 plain the appendages to infant baptism, the meaning of the exorcism, 
 chrism, and holy salt and spittle, and the opening of the ears, so early 
 associated with infant baptism. I would have been pleased to read from 
 Mr. Taylor some of the copious evidence he affords, that the papal sys- 
 tem originated in its elementary principles about the time that infant 
 baptism came into being. The authors of the papal system, according to 
 this most deservedly distinguished opponent of the Oxford tracts, and of 
 infant baptism, if not the same identical persons, were certainly their 
 cotemporaries. But my time is expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22 — 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's closing address.] 
 
 Mr. President — When I sat down, I was about to read to you a kind 
 of epitome of the leading facts in the history of infant baptism, embody- 
 ing Dr. W all's conclusions, founded on long and thorough examination. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 Wall, vol ii. ch. x. p. 501. — " Lastly, as these evidences are for the first 
 four hundred years, in which there appears one man, Tertullian, that ad- 
 vised the delay of infant baptism in some cases ; and one Gregory that did, 
 perhaps, practice such delay in the case of his children, but no society of 
 men so thinking, or so practicing ; nor no one man saying it was unlawful 
 to baptize infants : so in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much 
 as one man to be found, that either spoke for, or practiced any such delay. 
 But all the contrary. And when, about the year 1130, one sect among the 
 Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being- incapable of 
 salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion ; and they of 
 them that held that opinion^ quickly dwindled away and disappeared ; there 
 being no more heard of holding that tenet, till the rising of the German 
 anti-Pedo-baptists, anno, 1522." 
 
 Such, briefly, is the testimony of faithful history. There were some 
 remarks and statements in the gentleman's last speech, which, when 
 fairly exposed, must astonish this audience. I shall notice them presently. 
 
 Infant baptism, he tells us, cannot increase maternal affection, and 
 therefore, there can be no necessity that mothers shall solemnly covenant 
 with God to train their children for his service. Why, then, I ask, docs 
 he, in his writings, put forth so many complaints that parents do greatly 
 neglect the religious training of their children, and so repeated exhorta- 
 tions to greater fidelity ? Will his complaints and exhortations have 
 greater influence with parents, than a solemn promise to God to do their 
 duty, and the encouragement derived from his promise of the needed as- 
 sistance ? Why, according to his logic, it was wholly unnecessary that 
 God should ever have made a covenant with men. For it certainly is 
 their interest to serve him ; and self-love cannot be increased by a promise 
 or a covenant ! But the truth isj that neither parental affection in the one 
 case, nor self-interest in the other, is sufficient to induce the regular and 
 faithful discharge of difficult duties.- 
 
 In regard to female communion, I will only remark, that if the gentle- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 415 
 
 man will point out to us the passage of Scripture which either directly 
 commands it, or records a clear example of it, I will be prepared to at- 
 tend to it. 
 
 He tells you, I admitted that baptism is not a door into the church. I 
 admitted no such thing. I said, that I was not at all strenuous about the 
 use of that particular word ; though I did not admit that it had been in- 
 correctly employed. Baptism, I have repeatedly said, is a rite for the 
 recognition of membership in the church of Christ. Whether the word 
 door is correctly employed in regard to it, is a very unimportant matter. 
 
 The circumcision of the Shechemites by Jacob's sons, brought forward 
 by Mr. Campbell to prove that this ordinance did not require of adults, 
 a profession of faith, he acknowledges, was a very ugly affair. Still, he 
 is strongly disposed to urge, that it was scripturally done ! He cannot 
 bring himself to believe, that those young men, with hearts burning with 
 revenge, would have circumcised the Shechemites in order to be able to 
 kill them, if they had known that faith was a pre-requisite to its recep- 
 tion ! ! ! And this is the only instance he has been able to produce to 
 sustain his assertion, that circumcision did not require piety in adult per- 
 sons — an assertion, as I have proved, directly contradictory to the teach- 
 ings of the inspired Paul. Paul says, " Circumcision verily profiteth, 
 if thou keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumci- 
 sion is made uncircumcision." Again ; he teaches, contrary to the doc- 
 trine of Mr. C, that " he is not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither 
 is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which 
 is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit; 
 whose praise is not of men, but of God." The clear meaning of this 
 language is, that the external rite was worth nothing without the inward 
 grace — true piety. But the gentleman (who finds many curious figures) 
 told us, circumcision was here used figuratively. But when Paul said, 
 " circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law," did he mean figu- 
 rative circumcision ? How the cause of my friend labors ! 
 
 He says, I certainly asserted that the christian church was under the 
 moral law. I certainly said, that the moral law is obligatory on the 
 church — that under both dispensations, it has been received and obeyed. 
 But he charged me with having said, that the moral law is the constitu- 
 tion of the christian church. Can he see no difference between its 
 being obligatory on the church, and its being the constitution of the 
 church ? I should, indeed, be astonished if he were so blind. 
 
 To disprove the identity of the church under the old and new dispen- 
 sations, Mr. Campbell quotes the passage: "The law and the prophets 
 were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and 
 every man presseth into it," Luke xvi. 16. But has not he published it as 
 his faith, that the christian church, which he seems here to understand by 
 the kingdom of God, was not set up till after Christ had risen from the 
 dead ? How, then, could men press into it before it existed ? So the gen- 
 tleman is obliged to cross his own track, and to twist and turn in all direc- 
 tions to keep his head above water, fond as he is of water. — [A laugh.] 
 
 The phrase " kingdom of heaven," which commonly has the same 
 meaning as the kingdom of God in this passage, is translated by him, 
 " the reign of heaven ; " and he has told us that a reign is one thing, 
 and a kingdom quite another. The expressions " kingdom of heaven," 
 or " kingdom of God," are frequently employed with reference to the 
 more spiritual modes of worship under the new dispensation. 
 
416 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 I am quite pleased to hear him quote the passage from Daniel's proph- 
 ecy : " And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a 
 kingdom which shall never be destroyed." I was looking for him to 
 bring forward this passage ; for I had read his debate with McCalla, and 
 had seen the words "set up " printed in capitals. He was careful, how- 
 ever, to pay no attention to the inspired explanation of the expression 
 which I had previously read. In the council at Jerusalem James said : 
 *' And to this agree the words of the prophets ; as it is written, after this 
 I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen 
 down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up ; that 
 the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the gentiles, upon 
 whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things," 
 Acts xv. Here we learn that the tabernacle which had fallen down was 
 to be re-built. Does this look like building a new tabernacle ? It is 
 worthy of remark that the Hebrew word used by Amos, in the passage 
 quoted by James, the Chaldaic word used by Daniel, and the Septuagint 
 translation, all have the same meaning, viz. : to cause to stand. The 
 meaning of the passage then is : that God would raise up and establish 
 his church which had been so long oppressed and down-trodden. 
 
 Mr. Campbell has made a most violent attack upon the old fathers. I 
 will not quote Dr. Miller ; though I am confident that his views were 
 misrepresented. I will read, however, from another author of very high 
 authority with my friend : I mean Mr. Campbell himself: 
 
 Testimony of Christian Fathers. — " Though no article of christian faith, 
 nor item of christian practice can, legitimately, rest upon any testimony, 
 reasoning, or authority out of the sacred writings of the apostles, were it 
 only one day after their decease ; yet the views and practices of those who 
 were the contemporaries, or the pupils of the apostles and their immediate suc- 
 cessors, may be adduced as corroborating evidence of the truths taught, and 
 the practices enjoined by the apostles ; and as such may be cited ; still bearing 
 in mind, that, where the testimony of the apostles ends, christian faith ne- 
 cessarily terminates." — Christian System, p. 227. 
 
 This is not all. Mr. Campbell has actually introduced, as a good and 
 competent witness, Origen, one of those " old wives," whose testimo- 
 ny he now contemns. He says : " Origen, though so great a visionary, 
 is, nevertheless, a competent witness in any question of fact." — Ibid. p. 
 233. And did not I introduce him simply as a witness to prove a matter of 
 fact ? Cyprian, too, whom he now pronounces so great a simpleton, is one 
 of the important witnesses introduced by Mr. Campbell to prove his doc- 
 trine of baptismal regeneration ! These fathers were excellent witnesses 
 when he could make capital of their testimony ; but now it is not 
 worth a straw ! 
 
 I am not through with Mr. Campbell yet. In the Milennial Harbin- 
 ger, vol. ii. Extra pp. 37, 38, he reproves a Mr. Broaddus for discrediting 
 the testimony of these very fathers, in the following style : — 
 
 " But would it not have been more in accordance with reason, and more 
 satisfactory to his readers, to have adduced, or attempted to have adduced, 
 some contradictory testimony, or some document to set aside or impair my 
 eleventh proposition? Is all antiquity so silent on the views of my opponent, 
 as not to furnish one document, hint, or allusion in vindication of his views 
 of the point at issue ) [Argumentum ad heminem.'] 
 
 My eleventh proposition is in the following words : ' All the apostolical 
 fathers, as they are called, all the pupils of the apostles, and all the ecclesi- 
 astical writers of note, of the first four centuries, whose writings have come 
 down to us, allude to and speak of christian immersion, &c. as the regenera- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 417 
 
 tion and remission of sins spoken of in the New Testament.' This proposi- 
 tion I have sustained, Andrew Broaddus himself being judge : for he has not 
 brought a shadow of proof to the contrary. But there is a paragraph pre- 
 ceding this proposition in the Extra, which I must transcribe for the sake 
 of those who may not have it to refer to. It explains the use, the sole use, 
 we make of the numerous and decisive witnesses we summon to sustain 
 this proposition. It reads thus—" [Already quoted.] 
 
 To discredit the testimony of these venerable ancients, as they are called, 
 my friend alledges their opinions on other matters, showing how whimsical they 
 were in some things. Grant it : and what then ] Does any man's private 
 opinion discredit his testimony on any question of fact] If so, how do we 
 receive the canonical books of the New Testament 1 Upon the very testi- 
 mony here adduced, so far as we regard human testimony at all. Andrew 
 does not see where his imputations terminate. [Nor my friend, Mr. Camp- 
 bell, neither !] But he admits them to be competent witnesses of facts, 
 and would take them out of our hands by this question, < When Origen testi- 
 fies that infants were baptized for the remission of sins, does he not as 
 clearly testify that infants were baptized, as that they were baptized for the 
 remission of sins V I say, yes : and who says, no] And have I not always 
 admitted that in Origen's time, infants were immersed] have I not affirm- 
 ed, upon the testimony of Tertullian and Origen, that in Tertullian's time, 
 infants, in some cases, began to be immersed]! How impertinant to the 
 subject are these allegations against the formidable host of witnesses during 
 Jour hundred years! And is this all that can be offered upon or against my 
 eleventh proposition ]" 
 
 Here we have Mr. Campbell directly against Mr. Campbell! I am 
 amazed to see such a man as Mr. Campbell place himself in such a pre- 
 dicament as this ! It is most astonishing indeed ! 
 
 The gentleman has told us, that, but for the opposition of the apostles, 
 circumcision would have been introduced into the christian church, with- 
 in fifteen years from the day of Pentecost ; and he thinks, if baptism 
 came in place of circumcision, certainly the apostles, assembled at Jeru- 
 salem to determine the question concerning circumcising the gentile be- 
 lievers, would have so stated. It was wholly unnecessary that they should 
 say so. They decided, that circumcision, the old seal, was no longer 
 binding — that only baptism, the new seal, was now obligatory. But, as 
 I have repeatedly said, I might admit that baptism did not come precisely 
 in place of circumcision, and yet triumphantly defend the doctrine for 
 which I am contending. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, says, he could defend the reputation of Mr. Jones, 
 as a faithful historian. No man, I assert, can successfully defend him 
 from the charge of having most grossly garbled the testimony of Perrin. 
 It is absolutely certain, as I have proved, that he, in quoting that author, 
 omitted infant baptism, and supplied " baptism according to the primitive 
 church ;" in order to conceal the fact, that the Waldenses were Pedo- 
 baptists ! An attempt to defend such conduct, would very nearly make 
 the gentleman himself particeps criminis. 
 
 I will now close my address by a brief recapitulation of the argument. 
 First — As strong presumptive evidence in favor of the doctrine of infant 
 baptism, I stated the fact, admitted by Mr. Campbell, that the overwhelm- 
 ing majority of Christendom, in all ages, so far back as history can in- 
 form us, not of the ignorant and superstitious only, or chiefly, but of the 
 wise and the good, have firmly believed it to be taught in the Bible. The 
 Bible, as Mr. C. admits, is, on all important points, a plain book. The 
 fact, then, that it has been so universally understood by those who have 
 27 
 
418 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 carefully studied it, to teach this doctrine, is very strong presumptive evi- 
 dence in its favor. 
 
 Second — Concerning the commission given the apostles, I have stated 
 several facts. 1. That it is not a commission to organize a new church, 
 but to extend the boundaries of one already in existence. 2. That it does 
 not specify infants or adults as proper subjects of baptism, but says, " Go 
 make disciples of all nations — baptizing them — the nations." 3. That 
 it does not say, that in all cases, or in any case, teaching must precede 
 baptizing ; and, therefore, this question must be determined from other 
 sources of evidence. 4. That it does require all to be baptized who are, 
 by God's law, entitled to membership in the church. This Mr. C. 
 does not deny. 
 
 The great question, then, is — who, or what characters are entitled to 
 membership in the church ? To find an answer to this question we went 
 to its organization. The church I defined to be a body of people, sepa- 
 rated from the world, for the service of God, with ordinances of divine 
 appointment, and a door of entrance, or rite, for the recognition of mem- 
 bership. To this definition, or description, Mr. C. has not objected. 
 Now consider the following facts : 
 
 1. It is a fact, that we find such a body organized in the family of 
 Abraham, the father of believers. From the time of this organization, 
 God spoke of them as " my people /" and the inspired writers call them 
 the church. 2. It is a fact, indisputable, that believers, and their chil- 
 dren, were constituted members of this church. 3. It is a fact, that 
 they remained together in the church to the moment when our Savior 
 gave the commission to the apostles to preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture. 4. It is a fact, that the commission does not exclude the chil- 
 dren of believers. This is an important fact ; because we know, that 
 the apostles had grown up in a church which embraced the children of 
 professed believers ; and we know, that their Jewish prejudices were 
 exceedingly strong. Yet, notwithstanding their prejudices, which must 
 have inclined them still to retain children in the church, our Savior gave 
 not the slightest intimation of a purpose to alter the law of memhership. 
 I have found a positive law for putting the children of believers into the 
 church. Where, I ask, is the law for excluding them? The gentle- 
 man has not produced such a law ; and he cannot. Consequently, they 
 still are entitled to membership ; and, of course, to baptism — the initiato- 
 ry ordinance. 
 
 I have proved, that the christian church is the same into which God 
 did put the children of believers. What do we understand by ecclesias- 
 tical identity ? I illustrated this point by the principles of political iden- 
 tity. How do we know that the commonwealth of Kentucky is the 
 same political body that existed under this name forty years ago ? Be- 
 cause "the sovereign people" still reign; and the constitution, in all its 
 essential features, is the same. Apply the same principles to the identi- 
 ty of the church. Let me again state the incontrovertible facts which 
 prove the church to be the same under the Jewish and Christian dispen- 
 sations : 
 
 1. It is a fact, that, under both dispensations, the church worships and 
 serves the same God. 
 
 2. It is a fact, that she receives and obeys the same moral law. 
 
 3. It is a fact, that, under both dispensations, the church receives and 
 trusts in the same gospel. Paul teaches, that the Gospel was preached 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 419 
 
 to Abraham, (Gal. iii. 8,) and to the Jews in the wilderness, (Heb. iv. 
 2.) And it is a fact, that all the prominent doctrines of the gospel are 
 taught in the Old Testament — such as the divinity and humanity of 
 Christ, the fall and depravity of man, the atonement, sanctification by the 
 Holy Spirit, future rewards and punishments, the resurrection ; repent- 
 ance, faith and reformation, as conditions of salvation. Every important 
 doctrine of the gospel is taught in the Old Testament. 
 
 4. The conditions of membership in the church are the same under both 
 dispensations. Adults, as I have proved, were required to profess faith 
 in the true God, and a purpose to serve him, before they could be cir- 
 cumcised ; and then they brought their children into the church with 
 them. Precisely so it is in the christian church. 
 
 5. I have proved, that the christian church enjoys her spiritual bless- 
 ings under the covenant made with Abraham. This I proved by several 
 incontrovertible facts : 1st. The covenant with Abraham was confirmed 
 in Christ; (Gal. iii. 17.) 2d. It contained the gospel; (Gal. iii. 8.) 
 3d. It constituted Abraham the father of all believers — the father of the 
 christian church ; (Gal. iii. 29.) 4th. It is never in the Scriptures called 
 old, and never said to have passed away. The covenant at Sinai, the 
 temporary addition to it, is called old ; because, as Paul says, it " decay- 
 eth and waxeth old," and "is ready to vanish away;" Heb. viii. 13. 
 But the Abrahamic covenant is never represented as vanishing away. 
 This covenant originally embraced believers and their children ; and, of 
 course, it embraces them still. 
 
 6. I turned to the prophecies, and proved, that promises great and pre- 
 cious were made to the church under the old dispensation, to comfort her 
 in her affliction, which never were, nor could be fulfilled until the new 
 dispensation was introduced. And if, as Mr. Campbell contends, the 
 Jewish church ceased to exist as the church of God, at the commence- 
 ment of the new dispensation ; those promises never were, and never can 
 be fulfilled ! The only reply the gentleman has made to this unanswera- 
 ble argument, is — that these prophecies are irrelevant ! ! ! 
 
 7. I proved the identity of the church unanswerably by the 11th chapter 
 of the Epistle to the Romans. The olive-tree, it is admitted, means the 
 christian church. Now it is a fact, that from this church the unbelieving 
 Jews were broken off — excommunicated ; and the believing gentiles were 
 grafted into the same tree — introduced into the same church. And when 
 the Jews shall be converted, they are to be again grafted into their own 
 olive-tree, of which they were the natural branches — into their own 
 church, from which they were expelled. The church under both dis- 
 pensations is the same. 
 
 I have now produced much more evidence to prove the identity of the 
 church under the two dispensations, than can be brought forward to estab- 
 lish the identity of the commonwealth of Kentucky during the last forty 
 years. 
 
 Now mark the fact — Believers and their children were put into 
 this church by positive law op God. There is no law for excluding 
 either the one or the other. The children of believers, therefore, still are 
 entitled to membership in the church, and consequently to baptism, the 
 initiatory ordinance. The commission requires their baptism. 
 
 The only difference between the two dispensations, so far as the present 
 discussion is concerned, is — that the civil and ceremonial laws of the old 
 dispensation have passed away, and given place to a few simple ordi- 
 
420 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 nances, adapted to the extension of the church to all nations. Those 
 laws, as I have proved, were added to the Abrahamic covenant for a spe- 
 cific purpose — "because of transgression" — and for a limited time — till 
 the promised seed should come. When Christ came and died on the 
 cross, the civil and ceremonial laws of the church expired by virtue of 
 their own limitation ; and the officers appointed to execute them, went out 
 of office. Just so the legislature of Kentucky might enact a number of 
 laws to meet a particular exigency, to be in force twenty years. At the 
 end of that period those laws would cease to be binding, having answered 
 the purposes for which they were enacted ; and all officers appointed to 
 carry them into effect, would go out of office. But no man in his senses 
 would pretend, that the expiration of those temporary enactments could 
 destroy the identity of the commonwealth. No more could the passing 
 away of the ceremonial laws of the old dispensation, affect the identity of 
 the church. The evidence is, therefore, most conclusive, that the church 
 of Christ is the same church into which believers and their children were 
 introduced by God, and from which neither have ever been excluded. 
 
 I have invited your attention to household or family baptisms. I con- 
 fined my remarks to the family of Lydia. The inspired historian says, 
 that Lydia believed, and that she and her household were baptized ; but 
 he does not say, that the household believed. We write like Luke, 
 whether we act like him or not. Our opponents do not write like him ; 
 and the conclusion is obvious, that they do not practice as he and the 
 apostles did. 
 
 I have proved by the history of the church, that for fifteen hundred 
 years after the death of Christ, not a writer can be found maintaining, 
 that the baptism of infants was unscriptural, excepting, perhaps, a small 
 sect called Petrobrussians. Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disci- 
 ple of the apostle John, speaks of it as a matter universally understood 
 and admitted. Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, opposes 
 it, but does not venture to pronounce it either unscriptural, or contrary to 
 the universal practice of the church. His opposition, therefore, makes 
 him a more important witness to us ; for certainly he would oppose it 
 with the strongest arguments he could command. 
 
 Origen, a few years later, whose talents, learning and piety are so 
 highly commended by Jones, my friend's favorite historian, testifies that 
 the whole church, from the time of the apostles, and by their direction, 
 did practice infant baptism. No man could have possessed more fully 
 the qualifications necessary to give weight to his testimony. He had 
 traveled extensively, had resided in Alexandria, in Rome, and in Pales- 
 tine ; he was a man of great learning and great celebrity. If any man 
 in that day knew what had been the practice of the church, he was the 
 man. And my friend himself admits, that as to matters of fact, he was a 
 competent witness. 
 
 Cyprian, and the council at Carthage, Jerom, Augustine, Pelagius, 
 and many others, bear similar testimony. They tell us they never heard 
 of any controversy about it, or of a contrary practice. Pelagius, though 
 a denial of the doctrine would have relieved him from serious embarrass- 
 ments, was constrained to testify that he had never known even the most 
 impious heretic to deny it. 
 
 The Waldenses and Albigenses— -those eminent witnesses for the 
 truth in the dark ages — complete the chain of testimony from the apos- 
 tles to the Reformation of the 16th century. With the exception of the 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 421 
 
 Insignificant sect called Petrobrussians, all admitted infant baptism to be 
 according to the Scriptures. 
 
 Here is evidence conclusive from the Scriptures and from history. I 
 have omitted much that might have been introduced, because I conceived 
 it unnecessary to multiply arguments. One good argument my friend 
 has told us is enough. I have given many. 
 
 In conclusion, I offer one more argument. It is this — if it should turn 
 out that infant baptism is unscriptural, and that Mr. Campbell's views of 
 immersion as the only valid baptism, are true ; we are forced to the con- 
 clusion, that for several centuries there was no church of Christ on 
 earth J From a very early period the great body of christian ministers 
 received baptism in infancy, and, of course, were unbaptized. As we 
 descend in the history of the church, infant baptism becomes the only bap- 
 tism administered. Dr. Gill, I think, has admitted that for several centu- 
 ries there were no adult baptisms ; and it is not denied that from the thir- 
 teenth century baptism was ver}^ commonly administered by pouring and 
 sprinkling. So that, by the prevalence of infant baptism, and of pour- 
 ing and sprinkling, christian baptism was lost, if the doctrine of Mr. C. 
 be true, and there was on earth no church of Christ. We are, then, 
 obliged to believe that the Savior's promise has failed ; and " the gates 
 of hell " did prevail against his church ! ! ! Robertson, the celebrated 
 anti-Pedo-baptist historian, says : " Baptism rose pure in the east, rolled 
 westward, obscured in lustre, and was finally lost amongst attenuated 
 particles, shades, nonentities, and monsters ! " I think I have given his 
 words exactly. 
 
 Mr. Campbell will say that the Greek church has always immersed, 
 and has preserved scriptural baptism. But if his doctrine be true, the 
 Greek church is not a true church, for she has always practiced the bap- 
 tism of infants. The conclusion, then, returns upon us, that for centu- 
 ries there was not a church of Christ on earth ; and the promise of the 
 Savior has failed ! 
 
 In the Milennial Harbinger I observe, that Mr. Campbell proves, that 
 there are some christians among " the sects" by this very argument. For, 
 he argues, if there are not, the church of Christ has ceased to exist ; which, 
 he says, it will not do to admit. Now, he informs us, that he has proved 
 immersion to be the only apostolic or christian baptism, and infant bap- 
 tism to be a human tradition. Then he has proved, that the ordinance of 
 baptism has been lost. And who, I ask, had the authority to restore it ? 
 An unbaptized person certainly is not authorized to administer baptism. 
 
 The gentleman has labored faithfully to destroy the validity of his own 
 baptism ! If baptism by pouring or sprinkling is not valid, and if infant 
 baptism is worthless, his own baptism is not worth a straw ; for it has 
 descended from infant baptism and from pouring. If the fountain be 
 corrupt, is not the stream equally so ? So it would seem, he has succeed- 
 ed in demonstrating, that our Savior has failed to fulfill his promise, and that 
 he himself and all his church are unbaptized ! If he maintains, that an 
 unbaptized man may administer baptism, I call for the passage of Scripture 
 that authorizes it; and he professes always to give a "Thus saith the 
 Lord," for his faith and his practice. 
 
 I now cheerfully leave the audience to judge of the force of the facts 
 and arguments I have presented, and to decide, in view of their responsi- 
 bility to God, whether I have proved that the infant of a believing parent 
 is a scriptural subject of baptism. — [Time expired. 
 
 2N 
 
422 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 22 — lh o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's closing reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I am peculiarly gratified to hear so much read from 
 the Christian System and Milennial Harbinger. I did not expect to 
 hear so much from these works, in such ample and perfect confirmation 
 of what I am now endeavoring to sustain, The gentleman will, I hope, 
 frequently assist our efforts in this way. 
 
 I have, occasionally, to complain of his singular talent and proficiency 
 in the art of forming false issues. What, sir, was the issue formed on 
 the extracts read from Miller, Cyprian, and others?— that their testimony 
 on matters of fact transpiring in their times, is incredible ! ! Mr. Rice 
 has been laboring to prove that their testimony is credible. Is that the 
 issue ? No, sir; you know, and this audience and Mr. Rice know, that 
 I admit their testimony, when fairly made out, on questions of fact. There 
 is no issue — no controversy, on that subject, at all. In all my debates, 
 with infidels, Romanists, and sectarians, I have admitted their testimony 
 on questions of fact. Was there any other fact in the extract from St. 
 Cyprian, but that he was a dupe of the most visionary and romantic 
 character ! • 
 
 Mr. Bice. Allow me to ask a question. Did not I say, distinctly, that 
 I introduced these fathers as witnesses to facts? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. If the gentleman did so, I do not oppose them as such, 
 I oppose them as authorities for opinions or religious institutions ; and 
 for this purpose, and no other, read I the extracts from Dr. Miller, all 
 of which went to prove, that, outside of the Bible, of the New Testa- 
 ment, there is no dependence to be put in them, for any of their opinions, 
 customs, usages, ordinances, ceremonies whatever. I will receive the 
 solemn affirmation of a Quaker, in support of a fact which he saw, de- 
 spite of all his visions and imaginations in matters of religion. But, 
 neither St. Cyprian, nor any of the fathers, can depose to facts that hap- 
 pened in other countries, or before they were born : therefore we have no 
 issue of that sort before us. 
 
 I contend that infant baptism, like infant communion, grew out of the 
 reasonings, or inferences, or dreams of such men. No one testifies that he 
 saw an apostle baptize an infant. No one, for two hundred years after 
 Christ's birth, has even named infant baptism. There is not a book 
 on earth that can be produced — no Greek or Latin father of that period, 
 that has recorded the words, "infant baptism,'"'' or ever used baptism 
 ■with allusion to an infant. Tertullian, Mr. Rice says, was opposed to it. 
 He is the first writer in all the annals of the church that has named it ; 
 and no one can tell whether he meant babes or boys. Pelagius, who 
 lived two hundred years after Tertullian, is frequently quoted by Pedo- 
 baptists, with approbation of his great talents and great learning, as de- 
 posing that he never heard of any one, that he never knew any one, who 
 denied infant baptism. If so, then he proves himself ignorant of church 
 history: for Tertullian opposed it, as Mr. Rice says, and as I affirm. 
 
 No one can explain the institution of the catechumens, trained in the 
 early christian churches, for baptism, on the ground of the practice of 
 infant baptism. But when I hear Mr, Rice and others talking about the 
 probable high antiquity of infant baptism, tracing it up to Ireneus' or 
 Tertullian's time, I am struck with the singular illusion that flits before 
 their fancy. They speak of one or two hundred years as a period of 
 short duration— as if, in so shori a time after Christ, any great errors, or 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 423 
 
 apostasies, or innovations could have occurred ! What a delusion ! — two 
 hundred years ! Why, sir, our federal government, our very national 
 existence, is less than the life of one man ; and what changes ! — what 
 innovations ! — what departures from first principles ! — what corruptions ! 
 — how many political castes, sects, parties, shibboleths ! — and what con- 
 structions, and interpretations, and debates about the meaning of some 
 parts of the constitution, the bills of rights, and even our declaration of 
 independence ! How few men could now relate, from his memory or his 
 own reading, the great political events of this period — the public assem- 
 blies, conventions, and changes ! And yet we live in an age of books, 
 pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, issuing from all sorts of printing 
 presses, and in such numbers and sizes that Kentucky might all be car- 
 peted with the millions of sheets that issue in almost one year from the 
 American press. When to this we add our canals, rivers, rail-roads, 
 steam-boats, and steam-ships, (by which we have reduced time and space 
 to the mere tythe of other times and spaces,) and contrast all these advan- 
 tages with an age of a few books and parchments, without printing offices, 
 post-offices, post-roads, &c, &c, what shall we think of the mental hal- 
 lucination of those who talk of one, two, or three hundred years after 
 Christ, as necessarily a more enlightened, pure, and incorrupt period of 
 Christianity, than the present ! It is a monstrous delusion. Taylor and 
 others have shown that all the abominations of popery were hatched in 
 the second century ; and Paul, of still higher authority and greater learn- 
 ing, says, " even already the mystery of iniquity inwardly luorks!!" 
 
 The gentleman has at length responded something to the question 
 about the door : but yet the mystery remains ! I still ask — but I ask in 
 vain — If Presbyterian infants are born in Christ's church, by virtue of 
 the flesh of one of their parents ; and if baptism be still regarded sub- 
 stantially as a door, into what does it introduce them?" Whenever he 
 answers this, he will have annihilated at least one half of all his logic and 
 rhetoric upon this question. This is an argumentum ad hominem. It 
 is, in this case, as will probably appear in my next proposition, however, 
 a good and valid argument. 
 
 Mr. Rice assumes the identity of "the commonwealth of Israel" and 
 the christian church as one church of God, one and the same ecclesiastical 
 institution, on which to found the right of infants of a certain class of 
 parents to baptism ; and proceeds to prove that identity by sundry argu- 
 ments, such as : — 
 
 1st. That the same God reigns over the Jewish and Christian commu- 
 nities. This, if true, we showed, constitutes no proof of the identity 
 of any two communities or their institutions : because it proves too much. 
 The same God reigns over Massachusetts, Kentucky, and old England ; 
 and does that prove that these communities are one and the same insti- 
 tution ? But we do not admit, and have demonstrated that they have not 
 the same identical king : for Jesus Christ was born to be a king, and was 
 not a king before he was born — John xviii. 37. God himself was king 
 over Israel, as the God of the Hebrews ; but his Son is now made king — 
 made Lord and King. It is not abstract Divinity, nor Trinity, but Jesus 
 the Messiah, that is king of the church. All authority was given to him 
 for this purpose. 
 
 2. But they have the same moral law, or fundamental code. This, if 
 admitted, is as true of the patriarchs, New Englanders, and Pennsylvani- 
 ans. They acknowledge the same great principles, and are obliged by 
 
424 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 them ; but that does not make these all one and the same body politic, the 
 same identical, political communities. 
 
 3. But the Jews and Christians have the same gospel. Few men dare 
 make such an assertion. The patriarchs, Jews and Christians, have one 
 gospel : as England and France have one alphabet, but not one and the 
 same language. The ceremonial of the Jews had the types of our gos- 
 pel. But the christian gospel is based on three facts which transpired at 
 the end of the Jewish dispensation I These are the death, burial, and 
 resurrection of Christ. "And in the end of the Jewish age did the Mes- 
 siah put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." We have had various 
 gospels in the history of religion. The Jews' gospel, as preached to 
 the Jews in the wilderness, Paul shows, Heb. iv., was the rest in Canaan. 
 Ours is the antitype of Canaan, and so throughout. Having the same 
 gospel does not, however, make the communities one ; for then England, 
 the United States, patriarch and Jews, are one community. 
 
 But the gentleman descends into special points of resemblance, from 
 which he next seeks to prove the churches identical. He obviously 
 needs something more specific than these three vague generalities. He 
 alledges : 
 
 1. The Jews and Christians have the same mediator. Is this true? 
 Moses mediated that covenant; but Paul says, " Jesus is the mediator of 
 a better covenant, established upon better promises." Neither was Aaron 
 the high-priest and standing mediator between Israel and God, the same 
 identical mediator with the high-priest of our religion. Jesus is a better 
 high-priest, lawgiver, and mediator, than Moses, Aaron and his sons. If 
 Mr. R. looks beyond the Jewish dispensation for his idea of a mediator, 
 it will prove too much : for then, patriarchs, Jews, and Christians are 
 identically the same community. 
 
 He then instances, in his second and third items, the same doctrine of 
 justification, and the same doctrine of sanctification — but these extend 
 through all dispensations, so far as there is any identity, and would make 
 them all one and the same community. And certainly the apostles give 
 us quite a dissertation on the difference between the righteousness of the 
 law and the righteousness of faith. He will also add to his list of iden- 
 tity, the resurrection of the dead and eternal life, with all the same condi- 
 tions of salvation ! ! Until, indeed, he has falsified the sayings of Paul 
 and the other apostles, who teach that we have a " better covenant" 
 " better promises" a " better mediator" a better high-priest, a better 
 inheritance, better sacrifices, better altars, and a new institution. Yet, 
 with Mr. Rice, they are all identically the same ! ! 
 
 Paul, moreover, argues from the change in the christian priesthood, 
 being such as it is, there must also be a change in the law and constitu- 
 tion of acceptance. He establishes this not only in the seventh chapter, 
 but throughout all the epistle to the Hebrews. Can any one conversant 
 with the doctrines taught by John the Baptist in preparing the way for 
 Christ's religion, and the contrasts drawn by Jesus himself between the 
 teachings of former times and his own, and the glorious developments of 
 the apostles after they received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit — 
 that the Old Testament presents the same conditions of salvation as the 
 New. Could any one be saved now, who disdains the christian ordinan- 
 ces — and are these the same as the Jewish ? 
 
 But, chief of all, the gentleman appeared to rely upon the assumed 
 fact, that they have the same covenant or constitution. This is, indeed, 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 425 
 
 the main point — for if all other points of similarity and coincidence were 
 the same, a change here will be fatal ; and this is just the very point in 
 which he, and all others on his side of the question, have always pre- 
 eminently failed. I think it of no consequence to trace other matters of 
 alledged similarity or identity. It is here the work of refutation is 
 always complete, and to all minds intelligible. God found fault with the 
 Jewish institution and the people under it, and solemnly promised to 
 make a new constitution seven hundred years before the christian era. 
 Now all the logic and rhetoric in the world will not prove that a new and 
 an old constitution are identically the same thing. In every single pro- 
 vision of the New, it is a perfect contrast, as we have shown, with all 
 the provisions of the old. It has even changed the very names "Isra- 
 el" and " the children of Abraham" so far as to make the former and 
 the latter indicate a spiritual people, believing Jews and gentiles, for "the 
 children of the flesh are no longer counted for the seed." It is, then, a 
 neiv covenant, new promises, a new people, new institutions, new laws, 
 new terms of communion, a new inheritance; "All old things," indeed, 
 "have passed away, and, behold, all things have become new:" for a 
 Jew in Christ is just as new a creation, as a gentile in him. But of this, 
 more in the sequel. 
 
 Knowing, however, that the design of the argument for identity was to 
 establish an identity of infant church-membership, as they call it, on the 
 alledged identity of circumcision and baptism, I especially labored that 
 point. For here is the whole true issue of the question of identity. All 
 intelligent Pedo-baptists know it, and multitudes of them candidly ac- 
 knowledge it : for this very reason, Calvin took this ground. I, therefore, 
 drew out in extenso, no less than sixteen points of essential difference 
 between circumcision and baptism, in the faith and practice of even Pedo- 
 baptists themselves. And, to my no little surprise, the gentleman waived 
 this, the main issue of the whole matter, and contented himself with some 
 few vague generalities, which, were they all true and veritable, fall short, 
 by a hundred particulars, in making out the case of identity. These es- 
 sential points of dissimilarity, you will remember, are : 
 
 1. Only males were subjects of circumcision. It belonged, then, to but 
 half the Jewish church. 
 
 2. Infant males were circumcised the eighth day. 
 
 3. Adult males circumcised themselves. 
 
 4. Infant males were circumcised by their own parents. 
 
 5. Infant and adult servants were circumcised neither on flesh nor faith, 
 but as property. A point, this, which Mr. Rice strangely overlooked. 
 
 6. Circumcision was not the door into the Jewish church. It was 
 four hundred years older than the Jewish church, and introduced neither 
 Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, or Esau into any Jewish or patriarchal church. It 
 never was to a Jew, its proper subject, an initiatory rite. 
 
 7. The qualifications for circumcision were flesh and property. Faith 
 was never propounded, in any case, to a Jew or his servants. 
 
 8. Circumcision was not a dedicatory rite. The rites of the dedica- 
 tion of a first-born son, were different in all respects. 
 
 9. Circumcision requiring no moral qualification, neither could nor did 
 communicate any spiritual blessing. No person ever put on Christ, or 
 professed faith in circumcision. 
 
 10. Idiots were circumcised ; for neither intellect itself, nor any exer- 
 cise of it, was necessary to a covenant in the flesh. 
 
 2n2 
 
426 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 11. It was a visible, appreciable mark, as all signs are, and such was 
 its main design. 
 
 12. It was binding on parents, and not on children. Circumcise your 
 children. 
 
 13. The right of a child to circumcision, in no case depended upon the 
 faith, the piety, or the morality of parents. 
 
 14. Circumcision was a guarantee of certain temporal benefits to a 
 Jew. 
 
 15. It was not to be performed in the name of God, nor into the name 
 of any being, in heaven or on earth. 
 
 16. The subject of circumcision was a debtor to do the whole law. 
 These sixteen indisputable facts, are truly distinct and demonstrable 
 
 attributes and properties of circumcision ; each of which differs ; and, of 
 course, the aggregate differs from baptism as now administered by Ro- 
 manists and Protestants. Had we deemed it at all important, we could 
 as easily have, in all the other alledged points of identity, made out lists 
 of specifications, either more or less numerous than the preceding. But 
 that being only to multiply words to no profit, I am content to annihilate 
 infant church-membership, as founded upon the identity of signs and seals. 
 A thousand vague generalities are worth nothing — absolutely worth noth- 
 ing in a question of identity. 
 
 Circumcision conferred no spiritual benefit on the Jew, as Paul himself 
 declares ; inasmuch as he makes its chief benefit, that " unto the nations 
 were committed the oracles of God." " What profit is there in circum- 
 cision ?" was the question which Paul propounded to himself, and an- 
 swered, " Chiefly because they had the oracles of God." This was the 
 best thing Paul could say : certain it is, it was the best thing he did say 
 of circumcision and the Jews' religion. Salvation was in the Jews' re- 
 ligion, in its ceremonial, and in prophecy : but not really nor truly. In 
 Christianity, salvation is literally, substantively, and truly. Its civil ad- 
 vantages were numerous. Its direct benefits were all temporal and earthly. 
 Suppose, for example, A induces B to migrate from the mountains of 
 Kentucky into Lexington, to superintend his business, and promises him 
 a thousand dollars a year for so doing ; but adds, as a further inducement, 
 the social benefits, the literary, scientific, and moral advantages he may 
 enjoy in this Athens of Kentucky. Would not the actual remuneration, 
 temporal and financial, be the direct and main inducement to his migra- 
 tion and change of residence ? Just so the direct and immediate advan- 
 tages to the Jew were all fleshly and temporal; the spiritual benefits derived 
 to any were altogether exclusive of the covenant and its circumcision, 
 and were derived from the " good things to come" of which it was but a 
 faint, a very faint shadow, and not even, as Paul says, " an exact image." 
 
 It is scarcely necessary again to allude to the conflict we have had 
 about his capital assumption concerning one only, Abrahamic covenant ; 
 which, next to circumcision is, indeed, the main point in this discussion. 
 His view is one covenant with Abraham, and that an ecclesiastic one, hav- 
 ing the seal of circumcision ! He thus puts infants into the church, and 
 now he asks for a precept to put them out. That there were three dis- 
 tinct covenants made with Abraham, based on three promises — two made 
 in Urr of Chaldea, primary arid all-comprehensive, and one in Canaan — 
 has been fully proved. These three covenants are different in name, time, 
 place, and circumstances, recorded in Gen. 12th, 15th, and 17th chapters, 
 commented on by Paul to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. These 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 427 
 
 covenants were not made with all Israel as a national covenant ; but a na- 
 tional covenant based on two of them was developed, proclaimed, acceded 
 to, and ratified with all Israel at Horeb. Therefore, all the other covenants 
 belonging to the seed of Abraham, besides this one with all Israel, are 
 properly called covenants made with Abraham, covenants of promise, as 
 denominated by Paul to the Romans and the Ephesians. These cove- 
 nants were severally made with Abraham in the 75th, 86th, and 99th 
 year of his life ; the first of them 430 years before the law or national 
 covenant at Horeb, to which circumcision and the passover were finally 
 added with the law of dedication. 
 
 In his last speech the gentleman has made another effort to sustain his 
 position, that the Jews and christians have the same moral law, as a con- 
 stitution. That the moral principles contained in the decalogue are im- 
 mutable principles, and that they are, and have always been, the supreme 
 law of mind, in every portion of God's moral creation, I, in common 
 with all intelligent christians, have not only admitted, but always plead. 
 But that they are, as promulged by Moses, and incorporated on Mount 
 Sinai with other enactments and ordinances, the special constitution of 
 Christ's church, as they were then of the commonwealth of Israel, is 
 what he seeks to maintain, and what I deny. This is the only issue in 
 the case ; because they were, as principles of piety and humanity, as 
 much the law of paradise, or of the patriarchal institution, as of the Jew- 
 ish or christian. The gentleman's argument would prove the identity of 
 all dispensations, as well as that of the Jewish and christian. 
 
 And' with him, too, the doctrine of eternal life, and a future state of re- 
 wards and punishments, was identically the same among Jews and chris- 
 tians. There is no greater mistake in all his assumptions than this one : 
 Moses has not incorporated one expression, in all the Jewish institution, 
 on the subject of a future state. It is neither named, nor alluded to, from 
 the Exodus to the last word of Deuteronomy. Bishop Warburton, than 
 whom, in his day, the church of England had no man of superior learning 
 or talents, the greatest antiquarian and archaeologist amongst English pre- 
 lates, in his truly learned treatise on the divine legation of Moses, a work 
 which every student of theology ought to read, has, I do not say how 
 logically constructed, an argument, in proof that God sent Moses ; mere- 
 ly, from the fact, that in all the Jewish institution proper, as given by 
 Moses, there is not one word about a future state. The fact is true, but 
 whether his argument be true is another question. The knowledge of 
 a future life the Jews had; but not from their covenant nor from Moses, 
 but from the patriarchs. Enoch prophesied of the final judgment. The 
 patriarchs and christians are rather more identical in the fact, though not 
 in the development of it, than the Jews and christians. 
 
 I am taught by my friend, Mr. Rice, to omit nothing in a general recapit- 
 ulation, at least of his failures to notice my issues and arguments. Many 
 present will recollect the capital he made out of my omission to notice a few 
 specifications of baptizo in his concluding speech on Saturday night. My 
 not showing to his satisfaction how Judith, in the Apocrypha, bathed in 
 the camp, at a fountain of water ; and of how little profit a bath was to 
 Sirach's legally unclean person, if afterwards he touched a dead body ; 
 and how a plaster could be dipped in breast-milk, in the days of Hippoc- 
 rates, who also commanded the same preparation to be dipped in white 
 Egyptian oil, and flies into the oil of roses ! Because I omitted to honor 
 these, and some other matters equally minute and insignificant, with a 
 
428 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 formal notice and refutation, a matter to which a school-boy is competent, 
 the gentleman mustered them in his final cloud of witnesses, of his tri- 
 umphant refutation of immersion ! I do not say, however, that I shall 
 follow his example, in attending to matters equally minute and irrelevant, 
 when I state the fact, that in no one case in the discussion of this propo- 
 sition, would the gentleman meet me on any issue tendered by me — such 
 as circumcision a seal to Abraham ; the holy children of parents not both 
 in the church; household baptism; baptism in room of circumcision; 
 and most of all remarkable, the precept for rejecting, or casting out from 
 a church relation, the children of the flesh. After so many demands and 
 vauntings on that subject, that the gentleman should have been so per- 
 fectly confounded with the case of Hagar and Ishmael, and the precept 
 
 " TO CAST OUT THE OLD COVENANT, AND THE CHILDREN UNDER IT," as 
 
 never to presume to reply to it, is really no ordinary occurrence in de- 
 bate. Had he made any pretence to answer it, it would not have been 
 quite so singular. But to have passed it in total silence, must have no 
 little surprised you all. The fact was, in this case, most triumphantly 
 established ; viz. that those born merely of the flesh, shall not associate 
 nor inherit with those bom of the Spirit. This is the law of the chris- 
 tian dispensation. 
 
 But I was not content to show that his attempt to make out identity- 
 was abortive in the aggregate and in the detail ; that his logic proved too 
 much for him in all cases. But I gave an induction of particular proofs, 
 that the christian church is a new institution. 
 
 Amongst those proofs were the following: 
 
 1. According to the last chapter of Malachi, and the ministry of John 
 the Baptist, " the law and the prophets," or the Jewish institution, was 
 to continue only till the preaching of John. "The law and the prophets 
 were your instructors until John," said Jesus, " but now the kingdom of 
 God is preached, and every man presseth into it," Matt, xi., Luke 
 xvi. 16. 
 
 2. God promised, through Isaiah, chap, xxviii. 16, to lay a new foun- 
 dation for that glorious church, which, according to the predictions read 
 from the prophets by Mr. Rice, God was to bring out of the seed, the 
 nucleus, in the Jewish kingdom. That promise is "Behold I lay in 
 Zion, for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a 
 sure foundation. He that believeth shall not make haste." The gen- 
 tleman cannot see that all the glorious things spoken by the prophets 
 concerning the building of the church, and the calling of the gentiles, 
 that the enlargement of the church of which he spoke, all these splen- 
 did things have their foundation intimated here and in other similar pas- 
 sages. The foundation stone of this new institution God would bring 
 out of the old Zion. So says Daniel. 
 
 3. In the days of the Roman empire, or of its kings, according to Dan- 
 iel, God promised to set up a kingdom. "In those days," said he, 
 " shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." Of course it could not 
 be the Jewish ; for that had been set up nine hundred years before Dan- 
 iel was born. 
 
 4. On hearing Peter's confession, Matt, xvi., Jesus promised he would 
 build his church upon it. This was the foundation laid in Zion, on 
 which the christian church was then about to commence. How the gentle- 
 man slurred over, and passed by these great arguments, you have, doubt- 
 less, all observed. 
 
DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 429 
 
 5. Paul says, the church is " builded on the' foundation of apostles 
 and prophets." Who were the apostles, and who the prophets on which 
 the Jewish church was builded ? Is not this as clear as demonstration 
 itself, that the Jewish institution and the Christian church are not 
 identical ? 
 
 6. Paul taught the Ephesians, and other christians, that Jesus Christ 
 was then making a new man, a new body ; by uniting believing Jews 
 and Gentiles in one grand association. This was, itself, a reason for 
 changing the covenant of peculiarity, and instituting a new initiation, if I 
 may so speak, for believing Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 7. Hence, the New Testament commences with the proclamation of 
 a new institution — a new church; "The kingdom of heaven is at 
 hand." Was this the Mosaic institution that was now coming ! As before 
 shown, we must conclude, that " The church of Jesus Christ is a society 
 of faithful men and women, compactly united as one body in Christ Je- 
 sus — having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one spirit, one hope, one 
 and the same God and Father ;" a new society that began on the day of 
 Pentecost, and never before. 
 
 8. I have also shown, from the 11th Romans, from the figure of the 
 olive-tree, that the manner of incorporation, or bond of union, in the 
 christian church, is radically and essentially new ; that faith is substituted 
 for flesh, and that the natural branches are broken off — every one broken 
 off; and that Gentiles and Jews are now grafted by faith, and both stand 
 by faith. 
 
 9. But not to be tedious on this head — we farther demonstrated, that, if 
 the two institutions had been, as they certainly are not, identical, still it 
 was compatible with Mr. Rice's own notions of political and ecclesias- 
 tic identity to change the right of suffrage, the whole law of naturali- 
 zation. 
 
 10. Was it not shown, from Acts xv., that the idea of baptism coming 
 in room of circumcision was never thought of in the apostolic age ? 
 
 11. And was it not fully demonstrated, from Acts xxi., that the Jews, 
 with apostolic approbation, continued to circumcise their children during 
 the apostolic age ? A fact that flatly contradicts and nullifies the whole 
 Pedo-baptist assumption, that " circumcision is done away, and baptism 
 come in room of it." To these last facts Mr. Rice prudently made no 
 response. 
 
 But to conclude, as I have not time to recapitulate and notice every 
 thing, when urged that none were to be baptized but disciples, Mr. Rice 
 found an infant disciple, of eight days old, in the fact, that Peter asked 
 the Judaizers why they should " tempt God to put a yoke upon the necks 
 of the disciples ;" this yoke Mr. R. supposed to be circumcision, al- 
 though we are told, Acts xv. 5., it was " the law of Moses." The law 
 of Moses was the yoke, and not circumcision, which neither they nor 
 their fathers, as men, and not as babes, could endure. In refutation of 
 all such fallacious hypothesis, from the commission itself it was shown, 
 that infants are positively prohibited from baptism, inasmuch as all com- 
 missions, laws, and statutes, specifying qualifications for any office or 
 privilege, positively exclude all persons not so possessed : as, for exam- 
 ple, the law requiring a property qualification in order to suffrage, by 
 making such a requisition, prohibits all persons from that right not pos- 
 sessed of such qualifications. Faith, then, being, in any case, required 
 in order to baptism, not only according to a fair construction of the com- 
 
430 DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 mission, as reported by all the evangelists, but also in particular cases — as 
 in the case of the eunuch — positively inhibits infants and untaught per- 
 sons from christian baptism. Not having, then, precept or precedent for 
 infant baptism, nor any fact to support it, may we not conclude with Ne- 
 ander, that — "It is certain Jesus Christ did not ordain infant baptism?" 
 
 Had I time, I should have spoken a few things on the degrading and 
 enslaving tendencies of infant baptism, as respects the subject of it in af- 
 ter life ; but I see my time is more than expired. 
 
 Mr. Rice. May I be permitted to ask a question ? • 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I wish to ask, whether my friend has not published that 
 Ireneus means baptism when he uses the word regeneration ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I believe that the word regeneration was used both 
 before and after Ireneus, as equivalent to baptism ; but whether, in this 
 case, it does certainly so mean, it would be impossible to prove. Still, 
 that the fathers, as they are called, both Greek and Latin, did generally 
 so use the word, I believe. Tertullian, however, who lived after Irene- 
 us, some twenty years, is the first person known on earth who ever men- 
 tioned infant baptism. 
 
 [By permission of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Rice now read the following 
 extract from the Milennial Harbinger, vol. ii. Extra, pp. 28, 29.] 
 
 " In my debate with Mr. Walker and Mr. McCalla, I objected to the sub- 
 stitution of the word regenerated for immerse, in the extract from Ireneus, 
 and other of the primitive fathers, as they are called, on the ground of their 
 not being exactly representatives of the same ideas universally. I admit- 
 ted that sometimes they used the word regenerated for baptized, but not al- 
 ways ; and, indeed, not at all, in the popular sense of regenerated. Well, 
 now it comes to pass, that I represent all the primitive fathers as using 
 the term regenerated as equivalent to the term baptized. All this is true : 
 and what then] Why, at that time I used the word regenerated as expres- 
 sive of a spiritual change, and found that these fathers spoke of a spiritual 
 change as well as we. I could not therefore reconcile this to the exclusive 
 application of the term regenerated to the act of immersion ; but on a more 
 accurate and strict examination of their writings, and of the use of this term 
 in the JVeio Testament, I am assured that they used the term regenerated 
 as equivalent to immersion, and spoke of the spiritual change under other 
 terms and modes of speech," &c. 
 
 Mr. Rice, my friends, will have the last word ; affirmative or negative, 
 he must have the last word. Now this is all for effect. There is no- 
 thing in it whatever. Suppose I admit that all the fathers, from Justin 
 Martyr down to Theodoret, 423, used baptism and regeneration as sy- 
 nonymous, and Ireneus generally with the others, though he lived A. D. 
 178 ; what does it prove in the case before us ? That infant baptism is a 
 Divine institution ; because it is probable, even certain, that Ireneus re- 
 ferred to it, under another name, at the close of the second century ! — 
 [Time expired. 
 
 [end of the second proposition.] 
 
PROPOSITION THIRD. 
 
 Christian Baptism is for the Remission of Past Sins. Mr. 
 Campbell affirms. Mr. Rice denies. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 23—10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's opening address.] 
 
 Mr. President — and fellow-citizens: the subject before us this morn- 
 ing, I regard as the most important of any that has yet occupied our at- 
 tention : it is the design of baptism. It must be obvious to all, on the 
 slightest reflection, that the importance of right views on the action and 
 on the subject of baptism, depends wholly on the design and meaning of 
 the ordinance : but still, in order to secure its great and manifold advantages, 
 it behooves all, as accountable agents, to proceed intelligently, with refer- 
 ence both to its action, subject and design. Having seen the action of 
 christian baptism in immersion; the subject of it, in the penitent believer; 
 we shall proceed to consider its design, which, we say, is for the remis- 
 sion of past sins. These are the terms of the proposition before us, to 
 which we respectfully invite your attention. 
 
 Baptism is a divine institution ; and, like all other divine institutions, it 
 is both wise and good. It is wise ; because it secures some end which 
 could not have been secured so well without it. It is good ; because it 
 tends to human happiness. These two attributes must belong to baptism, 
 because they belong to the institution of Christianity, which is both wise 
 and good in the aggregate, and consequently, in all its parts. But these 
 attributes belong to all divine institutions. Nature, in all its innumerable 
 systems — in all its primary and secondary ordinances — is one vast sys- 
 tem of benevolent and wise adaptations, the supreme end of which is the 
 happiness of sentient, intelligent and moral beings. 
 
 It is the part of wisdom to gain the greatest and best results in the 
 shortest possible time, and by the fewest and most simple means. This, 
 and this only, is wisdom. It is the part of benevolence to diffuse as much 
 good over the largest field of existence, and for the longest duration pos- 
 sible, and compatible with the fountain whence it emanates. We must, 
 therefore, regard every means employed, or every ordinance of God (for 
 all means are ordinances, and all ordinances are means) as an essential 
 part of the system, without which it would have been deficient — conse- 
 quently imperfect. 
 
 Our mundane system needs a moon as well as a sun. It needs the 
 companionship of six planets, to give it, not merely the number of per- 
 fection, but the perfection of adaptation. Destroy any one of these, 
 and philosophy with her ten thousand tongues would proclaim the ex- 
 tinction of our race. Take away the atmosphere, the water, the light, 
 the caloric, the electricity — take away any of these, and leave all the 
 others, and who of all mankind would live to report the disastrous con- 
 sequences ! 
 
 431 
 
432 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 From all the realms of nature, then, we must infer that there is no re- 
 dundancy, no superfluity in any divine system, and especially in the moral 
 and spiritual, which is the highest and best of all. Baptism is, therefore, 
 as essential to Christianity, as the moon is to our earth, or as the ocean 
 is to the vegetable and animal kingdoms. In saying that any one ordi- 
 nance is essential to the perfection of any one system, as some other 
 ordinance is to the perfection of some other system, we do not, however, 
 mean to say, that these ordinances severally occupy exactly the same 
 place in their respective systems : only that they are each equally indis- 
 pensible to the system of which they are each an integral part. Baptism 
 is therefore essential to Christianity, were we to reason only from the 
 analogies of all the systems that comprise one grand universe. But the 
 precept of Jesus Christ alone, gives it essentiality, authority, and value, 
 without any other consideration whatever. He has solemnly and expli- 
 citly commanded faith, repentance and baptism to be preached, in his name, 
 to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 
 
 He has commanded it [baptism] to be preached for some specific end. 
 That end is clearly stated, and often alluded to, in the gospel of the king- 
 dom over which Jesus reigns, and in which alone the hope of immortal- 
 ity flourishes. We have but three, or perhaps at most four, authentic re- 
 cords of the commission authorising this institution. We shall compare 
 them, and compare them in the order in which they stand. 
 
 Matthew reports only the things to be done by the apostles, in estab- 
 lishing the church. " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The 
 things commanded them to teach are not developed here ; nor is the end 
 of any one of the duties prescribed so much as named. 
 
 Mark expresses it differently: " Go you into all the world, preach the 
 gospel to every creature." This does not indicate what the elements of 
 the gospel are. It, however, adds, that the reception of it will save every 
 one. The reception' of the gospel is thus expressed: " He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved." Unbelief, or a rejection of it, secures 
 condemnation. A belief of it, and baptism into it, secures salvation. So 
 the Evangelist Mark represents it. 
 
 Luke gives the substance of the commission in his own words. He 
 mentions neither gospel, nor faith, nor baptism, but simply says, " He 
 commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached, in his name, 
 among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Repentance and remission 
 of sins, with him, then, stand for the whole gospel — for the faith and bap- 
 tism of the Evangelist Mark. Repentance is, however, but the adjunct 
 of faith, as the remission of sins is of baptism. In preaching repentance 
 and remission, according to Luke, the apostle must therefore have preach- 
 ed faith, repentance, baptism, and remission ; for all these terms, or their 
 equivalents, are found in the three versions of the commission now quoted. 
 
 There remains yet the testimony of John the apostle. It is more con- 
 centrated and laconic than any of the preceding. I shall read the whole 
 passage. John xx. 21 — 23: On one occasion, Jesus (after he arose 
 from the dead) said to the apostles, "Peace be to you : as my Father com- 
 missioned me, so I commission you." Having spoken these words, he 
 immediately breathed on them, saying, " Receive the Holy Spirit." Then 
 he added, " Whose sins soever you remit, they are remitted ; and whose 
 sins soever you retain, they are, retained." They were, then, evangelic- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 433 
 
 ally to remit sins and to retain them. How this was done, the history of 
 the apostles, after the descent of the Holy Spirit, must explain. 
 
 Guided, then, by the four evangelists, as they have placed the commis- 
 sion before us, we shall open the Acts of Apostles, and attempt a special 
 analysis of the first gospel sermon, reported by Doctor Luke in his Acts 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 Before proceeding to the analysis, with a special reference to this grand 
 commission, amplified and spread out before us verbally, by these inspired 
 promulgers of the christian system, we are called upon to state the reason 
 why so much stress ought to be placed upon the second chapter of the 
 Ac?ts — upon the day of Pentecost — upon Peter's sermon— and upon the 
 other scenes and transactions of that day. This is all important to the due 
 appreciation of the argument to be deduced from this portion of the in- 
 spired documents which constitute our premises in this argument. 
 
 The three divine institutions, of nature, of law, and of gospel, have 
 each a commencement homogeneous with itself. To commence any in- 
 stitution, and to continue it, are very different manifestations of divinity. 
 Creation and Providence, are, therefore, different developments of the 
 divine Father. Hence, the glory of God as Creator, Lawgiver, and Re- 
 deemer, appears in perfect harmony with the institutions of nature, of 
 law, and of gospel. From nature we learn wisdom, power and goodness ; 
 from law, justice, truth and holiness; from gospel, mercy, condescension, 
 and love; from all these, the eternity, immutability, and infinity of God. 
 The brightest display of each class of perfections was seen in the setting 
 up of these three grand dispensations. 
 
 The morning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted for joy 
 on witnessing the first. Mount Sinai, the theatre of the second, sur- 
 rounded by three millions of Jews, displayed the fearful grandeur and aw- 
 ful majesty of the second. Jerusalem, filled with the pentecostal conven- 
 tion of the world, with the little family of Christ hailing the resurrection 
 morn, saw the superlative displays of the spirit of holiness and of grace 
 on opening the new administration of the remedial system. 
 
 Jesus himself inhibited the removal of the apostles from their own me- 
 tropolis — from the scenes of his humiliation and death — till they were en- 
 dowed with power from on high — till, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and 
 endowed with all manner of supernatural aids, they could, in good keep- 
 ing with the genius and character of the reign of grace, set forth the super- 
 lative excellencies and claims of the evangelical administration. 
 
 The time when, the place where, and the persons by whom this new 
 and transcendantly glorious display of the whole divinity should be de- 
 veloped, had been the subject of prophecy, both verbal and typical. The 
 clear and luminous Micah, the evangelical Isaiah, had, some seven centu- 
 ries before Messiah was born, explicitly declared, in immediate reference 
 to his time, " That out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of 
 the Lord from Jerusalem." That these predictions, (uttered Isa. ii., Mic. 
 iv.,) had respect to the commencement of the new reign, Jesus himself, 
 the great Expositor, clearly intimates in his conversation after his resur- 
 rection. " Thus," says he, " it is written, (in the prophets already alluded 
 to,) and thus it behooved the Messiah to suffer, and to rise from the dead 
 the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be 
 preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'''' 
 
 Jerusalem was then the place where the new law was to commence. 
 And as to the time, it was to be in the last days of the Jewish state, as 
 28 2 
 
434 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the same prophets declare. The interval between the passover and the 
 giving of the Jewish law, is more especially prophetic of the precise time 
 of the promulgation of the new law. The passover was certainly a type 
 of Christ's death. So the apostles distinctly represented it. The giv- 
 ing of the Jewish law succeeded that sacrifice on the fortieth day. The 
 Lord descended on that day to Mount Sinai, and spake in mortal ears all 
 the words of that law of piety and morality which became the covenant, 
 or constitution, of the typical nation. The promulgation of that law occa- 
 sioned the death of three thousand persons. Now, Jesus died at the time 
 of the passover sacrifice : he arose on the third day ; he ascended on the 
 forty-third day ; and in one week, and on the first day of that week, the 
 Spirit descended and spake the new law before the world — which occa- 
 sioned the salvation from death of three thousand persons. No typical 
 prophecy in the Bible, received a more exact accomplishment in its anti- 
 type than this one. Besides, Jesus himself foretold, before he left the 
 earth, that in a few days he would send the Spirit down and introduce 
 the new kingdom. 
 
 The person by whom this new age was to be introduced was undoubt- 
 edly Peter. The Messiah, to sanction his confession of faith, and to 
 communicate it to all men in all ages, promised to him the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven, that he should open it, and remit and retain sins with 
 all authority. His words are, (Matt, xvi.) " He saith unto them, But who 
 say ye that 1 am ? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, 
 Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah : for flesh and blood hath not revealed 
 this unto you, but my father which is in heaven. And I say unto you, that 
 thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of. 
 the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed 
 in heaven." Again — Jesus makes another promise indicative of the same 
 commencement of his kingdom. (Acts i.) " You shall receive power 
 after the Holy Spirit is come upon you ; and you shall be witnesses for 
 me in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts 
 of the earth." Are we not, therefore, by the highest authority, con- 
 strained to look to Jerusalem, to the day of Pentecost, to the apostle Pe- 
 ter, to understand what the new law is ; what the gospel means ; and 
 how sins are to be remitted to men of all nations during the present ad- 
 ministration ? No wonder, then, that we have given a new emphasis to 
 the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, inasmuch as the Messiah 
 and his prophets send us to Jerusalem, to Pentecost, and to Peter for the 
 law of remission. Can we, then, possibly err in regarding Peter's ser- 
 mon as the opening speech of the gospel age ? We must, then, examine 
 it with the greatest care. The synopsis given of it by Luke is very 
 brief, yet it gives the great points. These are the death of the Messiah, 
 his resurrection, ascension, and glorification, with the descent of the Holy 
 Spirit. These five points are all set in a clear, distinct and authoritative 
 form before the great assembly. By the revelations of that day, three 
 thousand are convinced of sin, righteousness and judgment ; and, with 
 the most intense and agonizing interest and feeling, inquire what they 
 shall do under the new aspects opened to their consideration. The an- 
 swer given is such a one as would have been given to the whole world, 
 had it been present and united in the all-engrossing question propound- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 435 
 
 ed. It is the gospel in its preceptive form, with its promises annexed. 
 Having already believed the facts stated — the testimony of the Holy 
 Twelve, sustained by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit—the impera- 
 tives uttered by Peter, fore-ordained to open the new reign, indicate all 
 that was necessary to be done to secure the benefits of Christ's death and 
 resurrection — pardon, justification, and the Holy Spirit. The answer, 
 given by Peter, (Oh that it were written in all languages, and proclaimed 
 in every human ear, with all the authority of apostles and prophets,) was 
 in these words : " Reform and be immersed, every one of you, in the 
 
 NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND YOU SHALL 
 
 receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." To encourage them, he adds, 
 " For the promise is unto you and to your posterity, and to all that are afar 
 off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." This is, when 
 fully and intelligently considered, a synopsis of the whole evangelical 
 economy. It is based on three facts which transpired on earth — the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah ; and on three facts which 
 transpired afterwards — his ascension, coronation, and reception of the 
 Holy Spirit, for the consummation of the objects of his reign. The pre- 
 cepts are also three — believe, repent, and be baptized. The promises 
 are three — remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. This 
 classification is not merely to assist the memory, (though in that point of 
 view it is invaluable,) but simply and clearly to set forth the facts, the 
 precepts, and the promises of the evangelical system. It is, therefore, an 
 admirable opening speech. I only wonder that a thousand volumes, in 
 this book-making age, have not been written upon it. " With many other 
 words," indeed, than those written here, we are informed that Peter " testi- 
 fied and exhorted, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." 
 
 A precept in this discourse is the subject of my proposition — "Be 
 baptized for the remission of sins." We, of course, presume that the 
 person so commanded, has believed and repented. Peter connects these 
 two in the precept — Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the 
 remission of sins. Hence I argue, that, what God has joined together, 
 man ought not to separate. If, upon any other subject in the world, a 
 precept of this plainness were promulged, all men, methinks, would in- 
 terpret it as I have done. Were a physician asked by a rheumatic inva- 
 lid, What shall I do to be healed ? and the physician should answer, Go 
 to the Virginia White Sulphur Springs, drink of the waters and bathe in 
 them, for the removal of your pains, and you shall enjoy a renovated con- 
 stitution ; would not such a patient rationally conclude that it were neces- 
 sary not only to drink the water, but to bathe also, in order to the enjoy- 
 ment of the remission of his pains, and that the reception of a renovated 
 constitution would be the consequence of his obedience 1 Some of our 
 ardent opponents, indeed, in the blindness of their zeal, have said, that it 
 ought to be read, because your sins are remitted. But, in the case before 
 us, would not the people laugh the doctor to scorn, who should say to 
 the aforesaid invalid, Go to the White Sulphur Springs and drink the 
 water, and bathe in it, because your pains are remitted ? But, perhaps my 
 respondent may devise some better way of disposing of the difficulty, and 
 I shall not anticipate him. 
 
 Peter, then, as we conclude, like an honest man, spake just as the 
 Spirit gave him utterance ; and expressed, in a plain, unfigurative style, 
 such as a popular audience of several thousand could comprehend, what 
 ought to be done by those that heard him declare the glorious fact, that 
 
436 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 God had raised the crucified Messiah to the throne of the universe. He 
 commanded them to repent, and be baptized, in the name of the Lord, 
 for the remission of sins. This single passage, when duly estimated, is, 
 of itself, enough to establish the affirmation I have made of the design of 
 baptism. I am sustained by the identical words of holy writ. True, I 
 have inserted one word, and but one, among the words that Peter spake ; 
 but that word was not inserted to obviate a mistake. Some have af- 
 firmed, that, like John Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism, we preached 
 baptism for the remission of future sins, as well as for the remission of 
 past sins. That I might not, then, be regarded as a genuine Presbyter- 
 ian, of the pure, primitive, Calvinistic school, I inserted the word past. 
 My learned Calvinian opponent has taken the negative in some sense ; 
 or, perhaps, he only means to advocate pure, ancient, uncorrupted Calvin- 
 ism, by denying that the virtue of baptism is only retrospective — he affirm- 
 ing that baptism is for the remission of all sins, past, present, and future. 
 He [Mr. Rice] can, as a christian man, only demur at the word past ; 
 for, if that word were expunged, my proposition is then expressed in the 
 identical words of the king's own version — a version completed by forty- 
 seven good, learned, pious, Episcopalians. We command inquiring pen- 
 itents, in the very words of Peter, " Be baptized, every one of you, in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins :" in doing which, we 
 exactly conform to the very words of inspiration. Our proposition, then, 
 is incontrovertibly true ; provided only, Peter knew what he said, and 
 said what he meant. 
 
 My second argument is deduced from Mark's version of the commis- 
 sion — " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved"— taken in 
 connection with Peter's response to the thousands in Jerusalem. These 
 passages mutually explain each other. Here is given to baptism a most 
 imposing character. Along with faith, and as the adjunct of faith, it 
 saves penitents. That it has power to save one from any thing else than 
 sins, is not to be imagined : inasmuch as we have three distinct salvations 
 expressed in the Bible — the first, a salvation of the body from the ills 
 and evils, the accidents and dangers of this life ; the second, a salvation 
 of the soul, from the guilt and pollution of sin ; the third, a salvation of 
 both body and soul — of the whole man in heaven forever. 
 
 Now, the salvation of the soul being distinguished from the salvation 
 of the body, and from the eternal salvation of the whole man, must simply 
 indicate the remission of sin, its guilt and its pollution. And so it would 
 seem that Peter and Mark must have been guided by the same spirit, in 
 expressing the mind of Christ under the remedial economy : the latter, 
 by connecting it with salvation, and the other, with remission of sins. 
 This harmonizing of the two witnesses, teaches the true doctrine of Chris- 
 tianity, to wit : that a saved man is one whose sins are pardoned. To 
 say, then, that a sinner is saved, is equivalent to saying that he is par- 
 doned. He that is pardoned, is saved ; and he that is saved, is pardoned. 
 But, whether the saved person shall hold fast his begun confidence un- 
 shaken to the end, and finally obtain the salvation to be revealed when 
 the Lord comes, depends not upon faith, repentance, or baptism, but upon 
 " yielding the fruits of holiness, and thus having the end everlasting life." 
 Luke so used the word saved, when closing the narration of the christian 
 Pentecost. "And," says he, "the Lord added daily the saved to the 
 congregated." The saved were those who had confessed their sins, had 
 repented, and were baptized. 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 437 
 
 My third argument is derived from the fact, that the baptism of John, 
 as well as that of the Messiah, was connected with the remission of sins. 
 So reads the divine testimony — " In these days came John the Baptist — 
 preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Nor is 
 this the peculiar style of John Mark. Luke, also, speaks of the design 
 of John's baptism in almost identical words. He says, " And he came 
 into the country bordering on the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repent- 
 ance for the remission of sins," (iii. 3.) Again ; that John's baptism had 
 special reference to remission, appears from the fact recorded by Matthew, 
 " All Judea and Jerusalem were baptized by him, confessing their 
 sins." The confession of sins amongst the Jews was necessary to remis- 
 sion ; and generally enjoined with special reference to it. When the ad- 
 ministrator baptized for the remission of sins, and the subject received 
 baptism confessing his sins, have we not reason to believe that sins were 
 pardoned in the act of baptism ? 
 
 A certain prediction concerning this extraordinary minister, uttered by 
 his father about the time of his circumcision, is, of itself, sufficient to war- 
 rant the conclusion, that the ministry of John had peculiar reference to 
 some new doctrine of remission. What could be more pointedly said to 
 communicate that impression, than the following words ? " And thou, 
 child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before 
 the Lord to prepare his way — to give knowledge of salvation to his peo- 
 ple in the remission of their sins." Literally, it reads — the knowledge of 
 salvation in the remission of their sins. That this refers to baptism is not 
 only evident to my mind, from my own reasoning, but it is the judgment 
 of our most profound critics and authors, of marginal readings and refer- 
 ences. Mill and Wetsten on these words refer to Mark i. 4 : and to 
 Luke iii. 3, which we have before quoted. So do various versions hav- 
 ing references. 
 
 In this way John's baptism prepared the way for that of the Messiah. 
 Again ; this is the peculiar distinction between the new salvation, and the 
 ancient salvations, most usual among the sons of Abraham. Their deliv- 
 erance was from temporal grievances, and from the tyranny of oppressive 
 enemies ; but the new salvation of the gospel is a salvation consisting pri- 
 marily of the actual, real, and personal remission of sins. Hence, John's 
 baptism was for the remission of sins. That there should be a more sen- 
 sible, evident, and satisfactory remission of sins under the new dispensa- 
 tion, and that baptism is an ordinance especially designed for that pur- 
 pose, will appear still farther evident from other declarations found in the 
 first discourses on the opening of the new reign of grace. From the ex- 
 position of the transactions which occurred in heaven immediately after 
 the ascension, we therefore deduce 
 
 Our fourth argument.— -On entering the heavens, Jesus was constituted 
 Lord and Christ. This was the last act in the sublime drama of man's de- 
 liverance ; so far as the means of his redemption from sin and death are 
 contemplated. Hence, this same Peter, when opening and announcing 
 the reign of the Messiah, repeatedly alludes to this glorious consummation 
 of the gospel facts. On the day of Pentecost he said, " Let all the house 
 of Israel know, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you crucified, 
 both Lord and Christ." Again : in his second sermon, reported in the 
 next chapter, he says to the believing thousands, "Repent and be con- 
 verted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that seasons of refreshment 
 may come from the presence of the Lord ; and he will send Jesus Christ, 
 
 2o2 
 
438 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 who was before preached unto you, whom the heavens must retain until the 
 times of the restitution of all things." And again, and still more strikingly 
 illustrative and confirmatory of the fact before us, is the annunciation made 
 to the council of the nation, with the high-priest in the chair : " God hath 
 exalted this Jesus to his right hand, a prince and a Savior, to give repen- 
 tance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Princes, when exalted, dis- 
 pense favors with a more munificent hand than during their minority, or 
 before their accession to a throne. Jesus being constituted Lord as well 
 as Christ ; being invested with universal riches, power, and glory, opens 
 his reign by forgiving, through faith, repentance, and baptism, three thou- 
 sand rebels, many of whom had thirsted for his blood — "Of whom," 
 said Peter, "you have been the betrayers and murderers." His exaltation 
 to the throne of the universe, is declared to be with a special reference 
 to the dispensation of repentance and remission. Of course, then, these 
 go hand in hand, and are dispensed under new conditions, and in a new, 
 more striking, vivid, and soul-exhilarating manner than formerly. Hence 
 the superabundant joy of the new converts, compared with that of the old 
 saints. There was not merely a freshness and a beauty in those brighter 
 displays of divine philanthropy ; but there was a more substantive and 
 real blessedness imparted, in having an institution dispensed to them, 
 that permitted them to be buried in Christ, and to rise in him, as well as 
 with him, and to receive a personal, plenary, and sensible remission, by 
 and through their faith, repentance, and baptism. There are, then, in the 
 new dispensation of the better covenant, established upon richer and bet- 
 ter promises, good reasons why those who now submit to Jesus, the 
 great and mighty Savior, should formally and really receive a purification 
 from sin, unknown in its amplitude and assurance to those under former 
 dispensations. Paul to the Hebrews, argues its superiority in sundry 
 points of view, but most clearly and convincingly by reference to remis- 
 sion. The conscience was never made perfect in any remission of sins, 
 dispensed through Jewish ordinances ; for the worshipers, though often 
 cleansed, still had a consciousness of sins ; which consciousness of sins 
 is thorougly removed in those who truly understand, and cordially em- 
 brace the gospel of the glorified Messiah. These, indeed, have their 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and their bodies washed in the 
 clean water of christian purification. From the stress laid upon the ex- 
 altation and coronation of the Messiah, and the new dispensation of favor 
 entrusted to him, we are led to expect such change in the conditions and 
 forms of remission, as are indicated in these three words — faith in Jesus 
 as the Messiah, repentance, and baptism. 
 
 The order and the change of words in Acts iii. " Repent and turn to 
 God, or be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," &c, is merely 
 exegetical, or farther declarative of the answer given a few days before, 
 on the opening of the new kingdom. Repent and be baptized for the 
 remission of sins, is no"w expressed — " Repent and be converted, that 
 your sins may be blotted out." I hope my respondent will make an 
 effort to show, that these words can be otherwise understood than as pre- 
 cisely equivalent to Acts ii. 38. 
 
 Our fifth argument shall be deduced from the fact already assumed 
 and demonstrated in the case of circumcision ; that, whatever circumcision 
 was to any one of the descendants of Abraham, whether infant or adult, 
 it was of the same importance and significance to all. This is a point of 
 great consideraiion on the subject of all divine institutions. It was true 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 439 
 
 of all the patriarchal and Jewish ordinances. To every proper subject of 
 any one of them, the observance secured the' same advantages. 
 
 This is equally true of all the christian ordinances. To him who is a 
 proper candidate for baptism, for the Lord's supper, or for any christian 
 institution, the ordinance conveys the same blessings. This being so, 
 whatever baptism was to the three thousand Pentecostan converts, to 
 Saul of Tarsus, to Cornelius, or to any believing penitent in the age of 
 the apostles, it is to every human being at the present time. 
 
 Paul assures us that there is but one christian immersion — " one Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism.'''' Now, if our baptism is for any other end or 
 purpose than was that to which Paul submitted, it is another baptism, as 
 much as bathing for health is different from a Jewish ablution for legal 
 uncleanness or impurity. The action has a meaning and a design ; and 
 it must be received in that meaning and for that design, else it is another 
 baptism. 
 
 Our sixth argument is drawn from the words uttered in the ears of 
 Paul, by a messenger specially called and sent to him from the Lord. 
 Paul was now a believing penitent, a proper subject of the grace of bap- 
 tism : for baptism has its peculiar grace, as well as prayer or fasting. 
 Paul had inquired of the Lord, what he should do. The Lord commis- 
 sioned Ananias to inform him. He went to Paul's room, and proved his 
 mission by restoring him to sight : and instantly commanded him to rise, 
 be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. 
 Now, the washing away of his sins was certainly to be accomplished 
 through the water of baptism, according to the language of the highest 
 authority in the universe. Jesus Christ had so commanded. Neither his 
 faith nor his repentance had washed away his sins, in the sense of the 
 precept of the Messiah. In any other case, the literary world would in- 
 terpret this phrase as I have done. In circumcising adult proselytes, 
 when connecting themselves with the Jewish nation, it was usual for 
 them to wash off the blood occasioned by the performance of the rite. 
 From which fact, some of the Rabbis, one thousand years ago, got up 
 the notion of Jewish baptism, as before intimated on another question. 
 Suppose, then, an Hebrew should address a newly circumcised Pagan in 
 these words : " Arise, sir, go to the bath and wash away your blood," 
 would not the whole world understand it, not merely as a necessary pre- 
 cept, but that the washing away of the blood was not in the act of rising 
 nor of going to the bath, but in the bathing? But when we place this 
 saying of Ananias to the penitent Saul of Tarsus, along with that of Pe- 
 ter to the penitent Pentecostans, " Be baptized for the remission of sins ;" 
 " Be baptized and wash away your sins ;" although spoken by different 
 persons, at different and considerable intervals, what reasonable doubt 
 can remain, that all the apostles taught, and all the christians believed, that 
 the remission of sins was through faith, repentance, and baptism 1 On 
 this remarkable passage, Calvin observes, " That you may be assured, 
 Paul, that your sins are remitted, be baptized ; for the Lord promises re- 
 mission of sins in baptism : receive it and be assured." (Inst. 4, sec. 15, 
 De Baptism.) This is the answer that Calvin gives to the question: 
 «* Why did Ananias tell Paul to wash away his sins by baptism, if sins 
 are not washed away by virtue of baptism ?" This is scarcely modest 
 enough! Bucer, the great reformer, "the very learned, judicious, and 
 pious Bucer," as bishop Burnet calls him, the amiable companion of Me- 
 lancthon, the student of Luther, the associate of Zuinglius, whose body 
 
440 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the bloody Mary had dug up and burned five years after his death ; the 
 man whose very bones were a terror to a Catholic queen, said of this pas- 
 sage, " In those words, then, there is ascribed to baptism the effect of re- 
 mitting or washing of sins." — (Bucer in loco.) Not to quote all the 
 ancients, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, &c, &c, I shall only add, 
 from Wesley's Notes, Acts xxii. 16: "Baptism, administered to a real 
 penitent, is both a means and a seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, 
 in the primitive church, bestow this on any, unless through this means." 
 It calls for a greater than Wesley to prove that he acts otherwise in the 
 modern church 1 
 
 My seventh argument is deduced from the conversion of Cornelius and 
 his gentile friends. His excellent moral character and his great devotion 
 to prayer and alms-deeds, had not yet saved him. The message re- 
 ceived from God directed him to send for the man who had the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, who could " tell him ivords by which he and his 
 family and friends might be saved" I need not relate the whole story, 
 as it is represented in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts. Peter, in 
 relating the matter afterwards, as reported in the eleventh chapter, devel- 
 ops more fully the intention of the mission, and details some of the in- 
 cidents more at length. Particularly, in the fourteenth verse, he gives an 
 account of the necessity of his sermon — as " words whereby Cornelius 
 and all his family might be saved." He also states, that, as he began to 
 speak these words — as soon as he got to remission of sins through the 
 name of the Lord Jesus— -at that moment, the Spirit, in its miraculous 
 attestations, fell upon all the gentiles present, as it had done in the bap- 
 tism of the Jews on Pentecost. Cornelius and his friends of the gentile 
 world, as the one hundred and twenty Jewish friends (assembled on Pen- 
 tecost) of the Jewish world, were best prepared for the coming of the 
 new reign — a people prepared for the Lord — it pleased God to admit 
 them both by the same glorious, sensible and visible displays of his grace 
 in the gift of tongues. Soon, then, as Peter saw all this, he asked the 
 believing Jews, who had accompanied him from Joppa, whether they 
 could, on any account, refuse them the grace of baptism. No demurrer 
 having been instituted, he commanded them to be baptized in the name 
 of the Lord. Thus, also, were the gentiles saved by faith, repentance 
 and baptism. 
 
 Seven such arguments as these are enough for one speech. The first, 
 indeed, is itself alone sufficient, so far as authority goes, to command and 
 enforce the institution upon the attention and observance of all. The 
 others, besides their individual weight, explain its meaning and impor- 
 tance, and go to shew what its true construction is. The authority of 
 Him, in whose name believing penitents are to be baptized, is not sus- 
 ceptible of augmentation by the suffrages of an universe, nor by the addi- 
 tion of all the names amongst the celestial and terrestrial hierarchies. He 
 alone is the peerless One, by whom kings reign and princes decree jus- 
 tice. It was he who first marshaled the morning stars, and gave to 
 them laws which they have never transgressed, during all the contingen- 
 cies of untold ages, and the movements of all the agencies of creation. 
 It was his fiat that made darkness the parent of light, and that caused 
 nothing to become the origin of all things. When made Head and Law- 
 giver of the Church ; when constituted both Lord and Christ ; when ex- 
 alted a Prince and a Savior, after sending down his Spirit from his 
 throne, and animating his apostles by his presence and power, the first 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 441 
 
 precept given to the first inquiring penitents was, " Repent and be bap- 
 tized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission 
 of your sins." On that precept the first church acted with joyful haste 
 and implicit confidence. On that precept the Jerusalem church was 
 founded : and no good reason can ever be given by any man, why the 
 same precept should not be given to every inquiring penitent now, 
 henceforth, and till the Lord shall come again. 
 
 Thus far I had prepared my opening address. My time, however, not 
 yet being expired, I shall proceed to another argument. One clause of 
 the commission, not commented on during our discussion of the previous 
 proposition, now demands a few remarks as the basis of a new argument, 
 in support of the present proposition, which, of course, I shall call my 
 eighth argument. 
 
 8. "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Spirit." No language could more clearly indicate a change 
 of state than the phrase just now read. The prominent design of baptism 
 is thus fully expressed by the transition spoken of in the words, " baptizing 
 into the name." The subject is here represented as in some way enter- 
 ing into the name, or into the persons represented by the Father, Son 
 and Holy Spirit. This may be supposed to resemble the act of naturali- 
 zation, in the fact that a person in that process is inducted into the posses- 
 sion of the rights of citizenship under a political institution. So Christ 
 commanded the candidates to be immersed into the name of the whole 
 Divinity ; that is, into the privileges and immunities of the new kingdom 
 over which the Messiah now presides, by the authority of the Father 
 through the Holy Spirit. It is, then, a solemn and sacred enfranchise- 
 ment of a believer with all the rights and privileges of Christ's kingdom. 
 
 This argument rests on the authority of the new version of eis by into. 
 When I published my edition of the New Testament, (which many per- 
 sist in calling my translation,) feeling myself authorized by the original, 
 and the style of the New Testament, I departed, in this instance, as well 
 as in several others, from Dr. Campbell, and all other translations then 
 known to me. This, indeed, was but a verbal matter. Yet, when the 
 whole world, Catholic and Protestant, were following Jerom's vulgate, it 
 was a great innovation, on my part, and so regarded by others. Since 
 that time, however, I have ascertained that in one of T. Dwight's sermons 
 on the commission, he took the same view of it, and contended that it 
 ought to have been so rendered. And still more recently, and with more 
 authority, archbishop Whateley, of the province of Dublin, both in his 
 logic, and also in a recent work on the kingdom of Christ, has not only 
 sanctioned this version, but defended it with zeal. These two names are 
 as authoritative as any other two names which could be selected in Eu- 
 rope or America. 
 
 The new version of this passage will certainly grow into fashion at no 
 very distant day. I find other distinguished names in favor of it. All 
 feel the difference between " in the name of the Lord" and " into Christ.'" 
 The former denotes authority, alone — the latter intimates union and rela- 
 tion. " In the name of the commonwealth" is very different from being 
 inducted into the commonwealth. Into always denotes change of posi- 
 tion ; a transition from one state to another. It marks boundaries. A 
 person enters into, not in, matrimony. A person is baptized in water, 
 into Moses, into Christ, or into his death, &c. 
 
 This solemn and significant moral change or transition out of the world 
 
442 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 into Christ, is consummated in the following manner : — The gospel is 
 proclaimed to them without the kingdom. Men have it, believe it, be- 
 come penitent, and are "baptized in water, into the name of the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit." They have then put on Christ, are bap- 
 tized into Christ, and are henceforth in him a new creation. 
 
 Baptism, my fellow-citizens, is no mere rite, no unmeaning ceremony, 
 I assure you. It is a most intellectual, spiritual and sublime transition 
 out of a sinful and condemned state, into a spiritual and holy state. It is 
 a change of relation, not as respects the flesh, but the spirit. It is an 
 introduction into the mystical body of Christ, by which he necessarily 
 obtains the remission of his sins. 
 
 No one can understand or enjoy the sublime and awful import of a bu- 
 rial with Christ ; of a baptism into death, who does not feel that he is pass- 
 ing through a most solemn initiation into a new family ; high and holy 
 relations to the Father, as his Father and his God — to the Son, as his Lord 
 and his Messiah — to the Holy Spirit, as his sanctifier and comforter. He 
 puts off his old relations to the world, the flesh, and Satan. Consequent- 
 ly, that moment he is adopted into the family of God, and is personally 
 invested with all the rights of a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 But this ordinance is monumental also. It is always a monument and 
 an attestation of the burial and resurrection of the Lord. No one can 
 sensibly contemplate one exhibition of it, without remembering the burial 
 of the Messiah, and his glorious resurrection, by the power of his Fa- 
 ther ; for it is the administrator that raises from the watery grave the bu- 
 ried saint With the vividness of a sensible demonstration it strikes not 
 only the eye, but the heart, of an intelligent spectator. It is not only a 
 commemorative institution, but also it is prospective of our future desti- 
 ny in the new relation ; that when we die, and are buried in the earth-- 
 when the Administrator of the new and everlasting institution revisits our 
 earth, he will raise from their graves all his dear brethren, and glorify 
 them with his own immortal beauty and loveliness. How appropriate the 
 symbol of the new birth, this washing of regeneration ! How kind that 
 the precept, on which man's enjoyment of salvation rests, should com- 
 memorate the Lord's burial and resurrection, should prospectively antici- 
 pate our own, while it inducts us into Christ and invests us with all the 
 privileges of citizenship in his kingdom! — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 23—11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's first reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — In the previous part of this discussion, it has been 
 my business to advocate views in regard to which we differ from some 
 of our christian brethren of evangelical churches. I am happy, this 
 morning, to take my stand on the broad ground on which the great body 
 of Protestant christians are united. The discussion on which we now 
 enter, is designed, on my part, to present the great doctrines of the cross 
 in their proper relation to each other, and to exhibit the ordinances con- 
 nected with them in their true nature and design. 
 
 I regret that my friend, Mr. Campbell, did not, in his address, more 
 distinctly state the point at issue. It is, however, a common misfortune 
 of those who write speeches, to give rather more attention to the forma- 
 tion of beautiful sentences and well-turned periods, than to the clear pre- 
 sentation of the subject under investigation. In the discussion of the 
 subject before us, as indeed of all others, it is of the first importance that 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 443 
 
 the audience understand distinctly wherein we differ, and what is the 
 precise point in dispute. The proposition is as follows : " Christian 
 baptism is for the remission of past sins." This Mr. C. affirms, and 
 I deny. 
 
 That the audience may distinctly see the point in debate, it is impor- 
 tant to remark, that we are not discussing the question, whether one who 
 contemns, or wilfully neglects, the ordinance of baptism, can have evi- 
 dence that his sins are remitted. We all agree, that he who despises, or 
 designedly neglects, any one command of Christ, gives clear evidence 
 that he is destitute of true piety, and, consequently, is not pardoned. 
 But the question is, whether a penitent believer is unpardoned until he is 
 baptized, or, as my friend would say, immersed: whether an individual 
 who to-day becomes truly penitent, and believes on Christ with all his 
 heart, but has no opportunity to be baptized till the next week, is, till the 
 next week, condemned, and is pardoned only in the act of receiving bap- 
 tism — or whether, if he have no opportunity to be baptized the next 
 week, or if he never have such opportunity, he must live and die unfor- 
 given — or whether, if he have mistaken something else for baptism, and 
 thus substituted a human tradition in its stead, he must die condemned 
 and be lost. In a word, the question is, whether a penitent believer is, 
 under all circumstances, or under any circumstances, unpardoned, 
 until he is baptized? To this question, Mr. C. would give an affirmative 
 answer. He maintains, that the sins of a penitent believer are forgiven, 
 not before baptism, but in the very act of being baptized. That I may 
 be certain of representing his views correctly, I will read from his Christ- 
 ian Baptist, pp. 416, 417 : 
 
 " In the third place, I proceed to show that we have the most explicit 
 proof that God forgives sins for the name's sake of his Son, or when the 
 name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion : — that in, and by, the 
 act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very in- 
 stant our former, or ' old sins,'' are all washed away ; provided only, that 
 we are true believers. This was the view and the expectation of every one 
 who was immersed in the apostolic age : and it was a consciousness of 
 having received this blessing that caused them to rejoice in the Lord, and, 
 like the eunuch, to 'go on their way rejoicing.' When Jesus commanded 
 reformation and forgiveness of sins to be announced in his name to all na- 
 tions, he commanded men to receive immersion to the confirmation of this 
 promise. Thus we find that when the gospel was announced on Pentecost, 
 and when Peter opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, he commanded 
 them to be immersed for the remission of sins. This is quite sufficient, if 
 we had not another word on the subject. I say, it is quite sufficient to 
 shew that, the forgiveness of sins and christian immersion were, in their 
 first proclamation by the holy apostles, inseparably connected together, Pe- 
 ter, to whom was committed the keys, opened the kingdom of heaven in 
 this manner ; and made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally 
 necessary to forgiveness. * * * I am bold, therefore, to affirm, that 
 every one of them who, in the belief of what the apostle spoke, was im- 
 mersed, did, in the very instant in which he was put under water, receive the 
 forgiveness of his sins, and the gift of the holy Spirit. If so, then, who 
 will not concur with me in saying, that christian immersion is the gospel 
 in water]" — Editor. 
 
 Such is the doctrine of my friend. I will now read a passage or two 
 from his Christianity Restored, in which he avows the same doctrine. I 
 read on pages 196, 197 : 
 
 " A thousand analogies might be adduced, to shew that though a change 
 of state often, nay, generally results from a change of feelings, and this 
 
444 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 from a change of views ; yet a change of state does not necessarily follow, 
 and is something quite different from, and cannot be identified with, a 
 change of heart. 80 in religion, a man may change his views of Jesus, 
 and his heart may also be changed towards him : but unless a change of slate 
 ensues, he is still unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopt- 
 ed, and lost to all christian life and enjoyment. For it has been proved that 
 these terms represent states and not feelings, condition and not character: 
 and that a change of views, or of heart, is not a change of state. To 
 change a state is to pass into a new relation, and relation is not sentiment, 
 nor feeling. Some act, then, constitutional, by stipulation proposed, sensible. 
 and manifest, must be performed by one or both the parties before such a 
 change can be accomplished. 
 
 Again ; whatever the act of faith may be, it necessarily becomes the line 
 of discrimination between the two states before described. On this side or on 
 that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side, they are pardon- 
 ed, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved: On the other, they are 
 in a state of condemnation. This act is sometimes called immersion, regener- 
 ation, conversion,'''' &c. 
 
 Here, then, you have distinctly stated the doctrine of my friend, against 
 which I protest. He maintains, that the sins of penitent believers are 
 remitted in the act of immersion— never before ; that all who have not 
 been immersed, however pious and holy, are still unpardoned ; and living 
 and dying without immersion, they live and die unforgiven and are lost. 
 Here I join issue with him. 
 
 So far as his remarks bear upon the question before us, I shall no- 
 tice them as I pass. He has said some things that are true, and others 
 that; as I suppose, are not true ; but as they have no immediate bearing 
 on the question in debate, I do not deem it proper to reply to them. 
 
 Before stating my objections to his doctrine, it is important to remark,- 
 that the Bible is consistent with itself. This the gentleman will not 
 deny. If, then, his interpretation of Peter's sermon be found directly to 
 contradict other portions of the Scriptures ; it will appear, to the satisfac- 
 tion of all, that it is entirely erroneous, and that we must look for a dif- 
 ferent exposition. I, then, offer the following objections to his doctrine 
 and to his interpretation of Peter's sermon : 
 
 First: It flatly contradicts the express declarations of Christ and 
 the apostles. I refer you to John iii. 18 — the very chapter in which we 
 find the new birth, on which Mr. C. has so largely commented in his wri- 
 tings. Let us hear John speak ; or rather, let us hear our Lord speak in 
 language so perfectly clear, that no difficulty can be felt in ascertaining 
 his meaning, and no criticism can evade it : " He that believeth on him 
 is not condemned." The meaning of this declaration evidently is, that 
 every believer in Christ is pardoned ; for to say he is not condemned, is 
 the same as to say he is pardoned — his sins are remitted. But my friend 
 says, he that believes and is immersed, is not condemned ; if not im- 
 mersed, he is condemned ! Here is a flat contradiction of the Savior ; 
 for he says as plainly as language can express it, concerning every be- 
 liever, he is not condemned. Again, verse 36, " He that believeth on 
 the Son, hath everlasting life." The Savior does not say, he that be- 
 lieveth may or shall have life, if he will be immersed ; but he hath 
 everlasting life — he has it now in actual possession. Look now at the 
 predicament in which Mr. Campbell is placed. He asserts, that, until 
 immersed, the believer is condemned, and, of course, has not everlasting 
 life. What says our Lord ? " He that believeth, hath everlasting life." 
 My friend will not immerse an individual till he professes to believe. He 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 445 
 
 asks him the question, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God ? He answers in the affirmative. Now if he has told the truth, he 
 has everlasting life, and his sins are remitted. My friend cannot, on his 
 hypothesis, get him to the water until his sins are forgiven, and he is in 
 the actual possession of life everlasting. The passage calls for no criti- 
 cism — it is perfectly plain. 
 
 Again, I read, chap. vi. 29, " Jesus answered and said unto them, This 
 is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." This 
 is the work. Every thing else follows, when faith is exercised. Faith 
 produces good works ; and he who has the princple in him, will be found 
 walking in obedience to the commandments of God. 
 
 Again, verses 35, 40 : " And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread 
 of life : he that com'eth to me, shall never hunger ; and he that believeth 
 on me, shall never thirst. * * * And this is the will of him that 
 sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may 
 have everlasting life : and I will raise him up at the last day." Could 
 language be more perfectly unambiguous ? Is it possible to express more 
 clearly and strongly the truth, that every true believer is pardoned and 
 accepted of God ? He that believes, shall never thirst — he shall ever 
 drink of the water of life. It is the will of God that he have everlasting 
 life ; and Christ will raise him up at the last day. Nay, he is now in the 
 actual possession of eternal life. Then are not the sins of all such persons 
 pardoned ? 
 
 It will not be denied that there have lived multitudes of believers who 
 were never immersed ; and yet, according to the teaching of our Lord, 
 they are in possession of eternal life. I read once more, verse 47 : 
 '* Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, hath everlasting 
 life" — is in the actual possession of it, baptized or not, immersed or not. 
 It is wholly unnecessary to go to critics, to interpret language as clear as 
 the light of the sun. 
 
 I will now turn to the third chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Here 
 we find the doctrine of justification very fully exhibited. The apostle's 
 object was, to teach men how they might certainly obtain the remission of 
 their sins and acceptance with God : and it is a remarkable fact, that bap- 
 tism is not mentioned, nor even alluded to, in the whole connection. 
 iS Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his 
 sight : for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteous- 
 ness of God without the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the law 
 and the prophets : even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of 
 Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no dif- 
 ference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ; being 
 justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus * * *■ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, 
 without the deeds of the law." — Verses 20 — 24, 28. In this and the 
 two following chapters, we have an argument clear and complete, designed 
 to explain the doctrine of justification, to teach men how their sins may be 
 remitted ; and yet baptism is not mentioned, till the apostle reaches the 
 sixth chapter, and then only by way of answering a Jewish objection to 
 the doctrine he was teaching. But while he is explaining the doctrine 
 of justification, he does not even allude to baptism. He teaches, that the 
 righteousness of God by faith is unto and upon all them that believe; 
 and again, that a man is justified by faith. He does not say, as Mr. 
 Campbell does, that a man is justified by faith and baptism. No — bap- 
 
 2P 
 
446 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 tism is not even alluded to. If, then, his doctrine is true, Paul must 
 have practiced an awful deception upon those whom he professed to teach 
 the way of life ! It is, then, most evident, that baptism does not secure 
 the remission of sins ; and that it is not a pre-requisite to pardon, 
 
 Secondly. My second objection to Mr. Campbell's doctrine is de- 
 rived from the fact, that all persons who are begotten of God, do enjoy 
 remission of sins. He, let it be understood, maintains that all believers 
 are begotten of God, whether they have been immersed or not; though, 
 until immersed, he would say, they are not born again. Now, I assert 
 it as a fact, which I will prove by the plainest declarations of the Scrip- 
 tures, that every one who is begotten of God, is a child of God, and, con- 
 sequently, enjoys the remission of sins. In the Bible, none but true chris- 
 tians are ever said to be begotten of God. This is proved by the follow- 
 ing passages, 1 Pet. i. 3 : " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us 
 again into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the 
 dead, to an inheritance incorruptible," <fcc. Observe, those here spoken 
 of were begotten unto a lively hope; and the object of that hope is " an 
 inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in 
 heaven for them." They were true christians. Again, James i. 18: " Of 
 his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind 
 of first fruits of his creatures." 
 
 Indeed, the word begotten is the word usually employed in the Scrip- 
 tures, where reference is made to the father of children. Thus in Gen- 
 esis we read, that such a man lived so long, and begat sons and daughters. 
 And our Savior is called " the only-begotten of the Father." The word 
 is ordinarily used to express the idea, that in some sense the child derives 
 its nature and its life from its father. 
 
 In the following passages I shall use the word begotten, instead of 
 born, not because I consider it more correct, but because Mr. C. prefers 
 it. I intend to disprove his doctrine by his own translation. 
 
 I read, 1 John iii. 9, " Whosoever is begotten of God doth not com- 
 mit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is 
 begotten of God." But if a man cannot commit sin, he is a holy man; 
 and I will leave my friend to prove, that holy men may be condemned 
 and eternally lost! Again, {verse 10) "In this the children of God are 
 manifest, and the children of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness 
 is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." Here observe, 
 they who are, in the 9th verse, said to be begotten of God, and are, 
 therefore, holy, are, in the 10th, called the children of God; and they 
 are distinguished by their righteousness from the children of the devil. 
 If a man is a child of God, are not his sins remitted ? John found but 
 two classes among men — the children of God and the children of the 
 devil. Surely Mr. C. will not venture to say that they who are begotten, 
 of God, can be the children of the devil! John most clearly teaches us, 
 that all who are begotten of God, are his children; and "if children, 
 then heirs," says Paul, " heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ," 
 Rom. viii. 17. 
 
 Let us read again, 1 John iv. 7, "Beloved, let us love one another; 
 for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and 
 knoweth God." Compare this with the gospel by John, chap. xvii. 3, 
 " And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, 
 and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Now observe, every one who 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 447 
 
 loves, is begotten of God; every one who is begotten of God, knows 
 God ; and to know God is to possess eternal life. And who are they 
 that on the day of judgment will be condemned? Paul the apostle 
 answers the question — " The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven 
 with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that 
 know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. They who know God, obey the Gospel, and have 
 eternal life. They cannot be condemned. Since, then, all who are &e- 
 gotten of God, do know God ; is it not clear that their sins are remitted ? 
 
 We will now notice what is said in the 5th chapter of this epistle, 
 concerning those who are begotten of God. " Whosoever believeth that 
 Jesus is the Christ, is begotten of God : and every one that loveth him 
 that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know 
 that we love the children of God," &c. The obvious meaning of which 
 is, that every believer is a child of God, and loves all God's children. 
 Again, " Whosoever is begotten of God overcometh the world." Now 
 what has our Savior promised those who overcome the world ? " He 
 that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches : to 
 him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the 
 midst of the paradise of God," Rev. ii. 7. Again, (verse 11) " He 
 that overcometh, shall not be hurt of the second death." Again, (verse 17) 
 " To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and 
 will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which 
 no man knoweth, save he that receiveth it." Now mark the fact : every 
 one that is begotten of God, overcometh the world ; and to every one 
 that overcometh, our Lord has promised that he shall eat of the tree of 
 life in the paradise of God ; that he shall not be hurt of the second death ; 
 in a word, that he shall possess, eternal happiness in heaven. Are not 
 the sins of such remitted ? 
 
 I am not quite through with this argument. In the 18th verse of the 
 same chapter, John says, " We know that whosoever is begotten of God 
 sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that 
 wicked one toucheth him not." Every one who is begotten of God, 
 ceases to sin, and keeps himself, so that the devil does not touch him. 
 Are such persons condemned ? All must say, they are not — their sins 
 are remitted. 
 
 Now you see the insuperable difficulty in which Mr. Campbell's doc- 
 trine involves him. He will baptize none but believers ; and all believers, 
 he admits, are begotten of God — " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
 Christ, is begotten of God." They are begotten before he can baptize 
 them by pouring, sprinkling or dipping. And if begotten, they are God's 
 children, have ceased to sin, have overcome the world, and, therefore, 
 have the promise of eternal blessedness in heaven. He admits, that they 
 are begotten before they are to be baptized ; and these scriptures abun- 
 dantly prove, that they are God's children and heirs of eternal glory, and, 
 consequently, that they do, before baptism, enjoy remission of sins. His 
 doctrine, therefore, does most manifestly contradict a large number of the 
 plainest declarations of our Savior and his apostles. 
 
 Thirdly. My third objection to the doctrine of Mr. Campbell is 
 founded on ihe fact, that those who are born of God, enjoy the remis* 
 sion of sins. The Scriptures teach us, that the new birth is not con- 
 nected with baptism, but many are born again before being baptized. 
 The new birth is first mentioned by the apostle John, ch. i. 11 — 13, "He 
 
448 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as re 
 ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to 
 them that believed on his name : which were born, not of blood, nor of 
 the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, hut of God." It is impor- 
 tant here to notice the difference between birth and adoption. By our 
 birth we derive from our parents our life and human nature — we are like 
 them. By adoption, privileges are secured, to which the adopted person 
 was not before entitled. Birth has relation to life and nature : adoption 
 to privileges. Now observe, John says, that all who received Christ, or 
 believed on him, were born of God, not might be born. They were born 
 of God, had their hearts renewed, had the disposition of children ; and, 
 therefore, they received Christ. And to all who, in the exercise of the 
 disposition or spirit of children, received him, he gave the privileges of 
 children, the blessings of adoption. 
 
 I will now prove by a number of facts, that persons are born of God, 
 before they are baptized, or independently of baptism— that the new birth 
 is not at all essentially connected with baptism. 
 
 1. In the passage in the gospel by John, just now read, where the new 
 birth is first mentioned, not a word it said about water, or about baptism. 
 It is simply stated, that they who received Christ, were born of God 
 Now if the water of baptism had been essential to the new birth, would 
 it not have been mentioned, when first the birth is spoken of? 
 
 2. It is a fact, admitted by Mr. Campbell, that where the conversation 
 occurred between our Savior and Nicodemus, when the subject is again 
 presented; christian baptism was not in existence, (John iii. 1 — 12.) 
 The first remark he made to Nicodemus, was, "Verily, verily, I say 
 unto thee, except a man be bom again, he cannot see the kingdom of 
 God." Nicodemus did not understand his meaning. He explained, 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God." Now the question is, whether, by the water, the 
 Savior meant christian baptism. It is an admitted fact, that at this time, 
 christian baptism had not been instituted. Now we are certainly safe in 
 presuming, that the Savior intended that Nicodemus should understand 
 him. But if he alluded to an ordinance, not then in existence, and of 
 which Nicodemus could know nothing, how was it possible that he 
 could understand him ? and how could he consistently reprove him for 
 not understanding him ? For, 
 
 3. It is a fact, that our Lord did reprove Nicodemus for his ignorance 
 of this doctrine. " Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master 
 ^teacher] of Israel, and knowest not these things ?" v. 10. He seems to 
 remark it as a strange inconsistency, that Nicodemus should be a teacher, 
 an expounder of the Old Testament, and yet be ignorant of this doctrine. 
 It is, then, certain that the doctrine here taught by the Savior, is taught 
 in the Old Testament. Baptism, in order to the remission of sins, is not 
 found there ; but the necessity and nature of a change of heart, of regen- 
 eration, is. Ezekiel said, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new 
 spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of 
 your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh," &c. ch. xxxvi. 26. 
 Again, David prayed, " Create in me a clean heart, God, and renew a 
 right spirit within me," Ps. li. 10. It is evident that the Savoir did not 
 allude to baptism for the remission of sins, which is not taught in the Old 
 Testament, but that he spoke of the renewing of the heart by the Holy 
 Spirit, which is here taught. 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 449 
 
 4. It is a fact, that after christian baptism was instituted, it never was 
 by the inspired writers called a birth. Not an example of the kind can be 
 found. And if cur Lord and his apostles never did speak of it as a birth, 
 we cannot safely so denominate it. 
 
 5. The reason assigned by the Savior, why the new birth is necessary, 
 proves unanswerably, that it is simply a change of the heart — a change 
 from sinfulness to holiness. It is this : " That which is born of the flesh 
 is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." We must be 
 born again, bom of the Spirit, because we were born of the flesh. What 
 are we to understand by the word Jlesh, in this passage? The answer to 
 this question is found in Galatians v. 19, 20, 21, " Now the works of 
 the flesh are manifest, which are these : adultery, fornication, unclean- 
 ness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, 
 wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murder, drunkenness, revell- 
 ings, and such like." Again, Roman viii. 8, 9, " So then they that are 
 in the Jlesh, cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the 
 Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." The word Jlesh, 
 when used with reference to moral character, is constantly employed, as 
 these and other scriptures abundantly prove, in the sense of depravity, 
 moral corruption. The meaning of our Savior's language, therefore, is, 
 that they who are born of corrupt or sinful parents, are themselves sinful ; 
 and they who are born of the Holy Spirit, are holy. By the natural 
 birth, we are like our parents, sinful; by the spiritual birth, we are like 
 the Spirit, holy. The new birth is, therefore, a change of heart from 
 sinfulness to holiness, not as Mr. C. contends, a change of state, affected 
 by baptism, from condemnation to justification. The fact that a man is 
 condemned, is a good reason why his state or condition should be 
 changed; but the fact that he is sinful, is a good reason why his heart, 
 his moral nature, should be changed. The fact that a man is diseased, 
 is the reason why he needs medicine ; and, of course, the medicine is 
 intended to heal his disease. If then, the necessity of the new birth, as 
 our Lord teaches, arises from the fact of our being depraved, the new 
 birth must be designed to remove that depravity. It is, then, simply 
 a change of heart, from sinfulness to holiness, by the Spirit of God; and, 
 therefore, it is not essentially, or at all, connected with baptism. 
 
 6. The mystery connected with the new birth, confirms the view of 
 it which I have just presented : "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and 
 thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and 
 whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit;" vs. 8. 
 What is the meaning of this language ? The Savior had presented to 
 Nicodemus the doctrine of the new birth. He objects, that it is very 
 mysterious. The Savior admits that it is mysterious, but proves that 
 this is no valid objection against it; for the works of nature are full of 
 mysteries. We know, that the wind blows, for we can see and feel its 
 effects; but how it blows, " whence it cometh, and whither it goeth," we 
 do not know — it is mysterious. So the fact, that the Holy Spirit renews 
 the heart, we know, for we experience the effects of the change, and wit- 
 ness them in others ; but how the Spirit operates on the mind we know 
 not — it is mysterious. 
 
 But if the doctrine of Mr. Campbell is true, this allusion to the blow- 
 ing of the wind, as mysterious, was altogether out of place. For, if God 
 should declare his purpose to remit the sins of every one who, upon evi- 
 dence, would believe that Jesus Christ is his son, and be immersed, there 
 29 2p2 
 
450 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 would be nothing mysterious about it. It would be one of the simplest 
 things imaginable. But if the views, which I have presented, be true, 
 the allusion to the blowing of the wind was peculiarly appropriate. It 
 was a complete answer to the objection offered by Nicodemus. The 
 evidence is thus strengthened, that the new birth is a change of heart. 
 
 7. That our Savior had no allusion to christian baptism as essential to 
 the new birth, is further evident from the fact, that water is mentioned 
 but once, and then dropped. The inspired writers were constantly in 
 the habit, in speaking of spiritual things, of connecting the emblem and 
 the thing signified, or of substituting the former for the latter, as illus- 
 trating its nature. Thus Ezekiel, in the passage repeatedly quoted— 
 " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : 
 from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new 
 heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," &c, 
 chap, xxxvi. 25, 26. Isaiah, when he would express the idea, that 
 Christ would purify many nations from sin, says, " So shall he sprinkle 
 many nations ;" chap. lii. 15. So Paul, writing to the Hebrews — " Hav- 
 ing our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
 with pure water;" chap x. 22. In each of these cases we find water, the 
 emblem of spiritual cleansing, connected with the thing signified. Our 
 Savior was conversing with a Jew. He did not understand his doctrine. 
 How could he better make his meaning clear to a Jew, than by connect- 
 ing water, the emblem of spiritual cleansing, with the Spirit. By the 
 word birth, Nicodemus would understand him to speak of a change 
 which would constitute men the children of God ; and by the water he 
 would, if not amazingly blind, understand, that the change was spiritual 
 purification. 
 
 Accordingly, so soon as water is once employed as an illustration of the 
 nature of the new birth, it is dropped, whilst the birth itself is still the subject 
 of discourse. Thus, in verse 6th — " Foj^hat which is born of the flesh is 
 flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." He does not say, 
 that which is born of water and of the Spirit is spirit ; yet if water were 
 as essential to the birth as the Spirit, he must have retained it. Again, 
 " The wind bioweth where it listeth, &c. — so is every one that is born 
 of the Spirit," not of ivater and the Spirit. It is, then, evident, that the 
 birth of the spirit is the great subject of our Savior's remarks; and that 
 he spoke of water just as did Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Paul, as illustrating 
 the nature of the change. 
 
 8. I find yet further confirmation of these views in the scriptural evi- 
 dences of the new birth. By the natural birth men are sinful ; by the 
 spiritual birth they are holy. How, then, is an individual to know, that 
 he is a child of God? By the fact that he has been immersed? By no 
 means. Paul says, " For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they 
 are the sons of God." And again, " The Spirit itself beareth witness 
 with our spirits, that we are the children of God;" Rom. viii. 14, 16. 
 That is, when the heart is changed from the love and practice of sin to 
 the love and practice of holiness ; when our feelings and our lives corres- 
 pond with the teachings and the influences of the Holy Spirit ; when the 
 Spirit of Christ dwells in us, then we have scriptural evidence that we 
 are born of God. They who love God, and delight in his service, are 
 children of God; and, "if children, then heirs — heirs of God, and joint 
 heirs with Christ." 
 
 These facts prove unanswerably, that the new birth is, in no sense, 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 451 
 
 connected essentially with baptism, and, consequently, that we may be, 
 and that many are, children of God, and enjoy the remission of sins, be- 
 fore being baptized. It is, therefore, clear, that Mr. Campbell's exposi- 
 tion of Peter's sermon is false : because it flatly contradicts many plain 
 declarations of the Scriptures. And if a man attempt to establish a tenet 
 by giving a passage of Scripture a particular interpretation, I have most 
 completely refuted it, when I have proved his interpretation contradictory 
 to other plain and unambiguous passages, unless he is prepared to say, the 
 Bible contradicts itself. 
 
 I purpose, however, to reply particularly to the gentleman's speech ; 
 to analyze the passages on which he chiefly relies ; and to prove that his 
 interpretation of them is not sustained by correct principles of language. 
 He has, indeed, read us a pretty speech, but his doctrine is, nevertheless, 
 directly contradictory of the repeated and various declarations of inspired 
 writers. [Here Mr. Rice inquired how much time he had, and was in- 
 formed that he had 15 minutes.] I will then proceed to answer some of 
 the arguments of my friend. 
 
 To prove that baptism is necessary to secure the remission of sins, he 
 appeals to Peter's discourse on the day of Pentecost: "Then Peter said 
 unto them, repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of 
 Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins ;" or, as Mr. C. incorrectly trans- 
 lates the passage, " reform and be immersed." The word translated re- 
 pent, is meta?ioco, which signifies, literally, to change the mind. Refor- 
 mation, as the word is commonly used, expresses the effect or conse- 
 quence of metanoia, the change of mind. The former expresses an 
 operation of the mind ; the latter the conduct consequent upon it. His 
 translation is here, I think, as in many other places, incorrect. This, 
 however, by the way. 
 
 That Mr. C.'s exposition of the passage is incorrect, is clear, as already 
 shown, from the fact, that it contradicts many other passages, the mean- 
 ing of which is perfectly clear. But let us examine Peter's language: 
 " Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus, (eis) for, (or, as Mr. C. understands it, in order that you may 
 secure) the remission of sins." We will compare with this, Matt. iii. 
 11, the language of which, in the original, is precisely similar; "I, in- 
 deed, baptize you with water (m) unto repentance," &c. The prepo- 
 sition eis is employed in both passages, precisely in the same manner. 
 Peter said, " Repent and be baptized (eis) for the remission of sins ;" and 
 John said, "I baptize you (eis) for or unto repentance." Will my friend 
 maintain, that John baptized the Jews, in order that they might repent — 
 to cause them to repent of their sins ! If he will not, how can he main- 
 tain that Peter commanded baptism, in order to the remission of sins? 
 The mode of expression in both cases is precisely the same. The Jews 
 came to John, confessing their sins and professing repentance ; and into 
 that profession John did baptize them. But if the gentleman will explain 
 to us the meaning of John's language, I will then be prepared to explain 
 that of Peter's. If he cannot maintain that John baptized the Jews, in 
 order to repentance, he cannot prove that Peter baptized those on the day 
 of pentecost, in order to the remission of sins. 
 
 He informed us, that John preached the doctrine of baptism for the 
 remission of sins. This, however, is not precisely correct. John preach- 
 ed " the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," Mark i. 4. 
 Repentance secured the remission of sins ; and on profession of repent- 
 
452 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ance the Jews were baptized. This is, I suppose, the meaning of the 
 passage. 
 
 But if we were to admit, that the phrase in Peter's discourse eh 
 aphesin amartion, means in order to the remission of sins ; the question 
 would be, whether repentance or baptism secured remission, or whether, 
 as Mr. C. contends, both were equally necessary. As we have already 
 seen, it was very common with the inspired writers to connect the exter- 
 nal ordinance with the inward grace, or with the blessings of which it 
 was the sign and pledge. Ezekiel said, " Then will I sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your filthiness and 
 from all your idols will I cleanse you." By taking this passage out of 
 its connection, I can prove, that the sprinkling of clean water upon per- 
 sons will purify them from idolatry, and from all sin ; a doctrine which 
 none of us believe. Just so Ananias said to Paul, "be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins." The water was the external sign and pledge of deliv- 
 erance from sin. 
 
 That repentance without baptism secures remission of sins, I can prove 
 by several passages of Scripture ; particularly by Peter's second discourse, 
 recorded in Acts iii. 19 : " Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that 
 your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come 
 from the presence of the Lord." In this instance, you observe, Peter, 
 though directing inquirers what they must do to be saved, omitted bap- 
 tism. This he certainly would not have done, if he had regarded it as 
 necessary to the remission of sins. But he said, " Repent and be con- 
 verted. 1 " Did he preach contradictory doctrines? By no means. Re- 
 pentance and conversion are both necessary to remission, but the former 
 necessarily implies the latter. It is impossible that a man should repent, 
 and not be converted. Repentance is a change of mind, a change of 
 views and feelings ; and can a man have new views, and new feelings 
 and affections, and not be converted — turned from his former course to a 
 new one ? It is equally impossible that a man should be converted with- 
 out repenting. Conversion is turning from one course to another ; but 
 no one radically changes his course of conduct, unless his mind is first 
 changed. Inasmuch, therefore, as repentance and conversion mutually 
 imply each other, as cause and effect, Peter might mention one or both, 
 as he chose. So in his first discourse he mentioned repentance, which 
 implies conversion ; and in the second he mentions both repentance and 
 conversion. 
 
 But can it be said, with truth, that baptism (and especially immersion) 
 is necessarily implied in repentance, or in repentance and conversion? 
 Certainly it cannot be denied, that multitudes do repent and turn to God, 
 and live lives of exemplary piety, who never receive what Mr. C. calls 
 baptism. If, then, baptism had been as necessary to remission of sins as 
 repentance, surely Peter could not have omitted so to state the matter to 
 those inquirers. 
 
 The argument is confirmed by the preaching of Paul to the jailor, Acts 
 xvi. He came, trembling, and asked, " What must I do to be saved ?" 
 The answer was, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be 
 saved." Here, neither repentance, conversion, nor baptism is mention- 
 ed, and yet Paul preached the same doctrine that had been preached by 
 Peter; for faith necessarily implies conversion. I need not delay to 
 prove, that every one who repents does also believe ; and every one who 
 repents and believes, is converted. These thing mutually imply each 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 453 
 
 other, and are never found separated. Hence it is, that remission of sins, 
 and salvation, are promised to those who repent ; for wherever we find 
 repentance, we find also faith and conversion. But does repentance, con- 
 version, or faith, or all of them, necessarily imply baptism or immersion. 
 Do not many repent, believe, and turn to God, who never can be bap- 
 tized, or never will be immersed ? How do you imagine the gentleman 
 endeavors to escape from these difficulties ? Why, he tells us, that the 
 word convert means immerse! that the Jews, soon after Pentecost, knew 
 that the disciples called the immersed 'converted? and that the time in- 
 tervening between Peter's first and second discourses was long enough 
 to familiarize this style in the metropolis, so that when a christian 
 used the word convert, every Jew knew he meant immerse! The 
 unbelieving Jews must have been very apt learners, to have become, in 
 a few days, so familiar with the entirely new meanings of words in the 
 christian dialect! But that the gentleman's conjecture is a wide mistake, 
 is evident from one or two considerations : 
 
 1st. No two words in any language are more radically different in their 
 etymological meaning, than baptize and convert. No lexicon can be 
 found, that assigns to them the same, or even similar meanings. 
 
 2nd. In their usage they are as different as in their original meanings. 
 The word convert had been long in use amongst the Jews, before the 
 New Testament was written ; and its meaning was well understood. A 
 few passages, from the Old and New Testaments, will show what is its 
 meaning in the Scriptures. Psalm li. 13, " Then will I teach transgres- 
 sors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee." Isaiah vi. 10, 
 "Make the heart of this people fat, &c, lest they see with their eyes, 
 and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, 
 and be healed." Matt, xviii. 3, "Verily I say unto you, except ye be 
 converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the king- 
 dom of heaven." In these passages, the meaning of the word convert 
 cannot be misunderstood. It certainly expresses a radical moral change 
 in the heart and in the life — a change of disposition to child-like simpli- 
 city and humility. It is used in the same sense in Acts xxvi. 18, where 
 Christ sends Paul to the gentiles, " to open their eyes, <jmd to turn [con- 
 vert] them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto 
 God." Or, as I suppose my friend would read it, to immerse them from 
 darkness to light! The truth is, there is not an example in the whole 
 Bible, where the words conversion and baptism are used synonymously. 
 The former is uniformly used to express a change of heart, and a corres- 
 ponding change of conduct, particularly the latter. In this sense it was 
 employed, with regard to those who had previously been baptized. Thus 
 James says, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one con' 
 vert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the 
 error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude 
 of sins," chap. v. 19, 20. 
 
 No two words, as these and other passages abundantly prove, are more 
 radically different in meaning, than the words baptism and conversion — 
 the one denoting a moral change ; the other, an external ordinance. The 
 gentleman, however, is forced to the glaring error of making them synon- 
 ymous, in order to sustain his unscriptural doctrine, that baptism is neces- 
 sary to the remission of sins. It is clear, that Peter, in his second dis- 
 course, omitted to mention baptism, as a condition of remission of sins, 
 because he did not regard it in that light. 
 
454 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 This is not all. Peter also preached the gospel to Cornelius and his 
 family. He was directed by revelation from God to go and preach the 
 gospel to this gentile family; and when he had heard from Cornelius how 
 God had sent an angel and directed him to send for him, he " opened his 
 mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : 
 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is ac- 
 cepted with him," Acts x. 34, 35. Every one that fears God and works 
 righteousness is accepted, whether he have been previously baptized or 
 not. Cornelius had the best possible evidence of his acceptance ; for his 
 prayers had been heard, and his alms remembered. Did God hear the 
 prayers of an unpardoned man, and send an angel to visit him, whilst yet he 
 granted him not the burden of his heart's desire — the remission of his sins ? 
 
 But Peter was sent to tell Cornelius words by which he and his family 
 might be saved. He was, of course, to preach the gospel fully — to pre- 
 sent very clearly the conditions of pardon and salvation. Did he preach 
 to them baptism in order that their sins might be remitted ? Cornelius 
 was acquainted with the Old Testament, and was truly a pious man — a 
 faithful servant of God ; but he was not saved, in the full sense of this 
 word. He needed all the truths and ordinances of the gospel to aid him 
 in preparation for a holy heaven. But, according to Mr. Campbell's doc- 
 trine, here was one of the most godly men — a man who loved God and 
 served him, a man who had received the miraculous gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit ; who was yet in a state of condemnation ! For, let it be remem- 
 bered, the Spirit descended upon him and his family before they were 
 baptized. 
 
 I ask again — did Peter tell Cornelius, that he must be baptized in order 
 to secure the remission of sins ? He certainly did not ; if Luke has 
 faithfully recorded what he said. And let it be remarked, it was particu- 
 larly important that this doctrine, if true, should have been preached on 
 this occasion ; for the gospel was now, for the first time, preached to the 
 gentiles ; and they had not heard of his discourses at Jerusalem. But 
 Peter did not inform Cornelius, that though his prayers had been answer- 
 ed, his alms remembered, an angel sent to visit him, and the Holy Spirit 
 poured out on him, his sins could not be forgiven, except in the act of re- 
 ceiving baptism ! The conclusion is unavoidable, that baptism is not 
 necessary in order to the remission of sins. 
 
 The correctness of this conclusion is confirmed by the answer given by 
 Paul to the trembling jailor, already mentioned— " Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The apostle seems to have said 
 not a word about baptism in order to remission of sins. Doubtless he 
 commanded him to be baptized and to do many other things ; but he cer- 
 tainly did not tell him, as Mr. C. tells those who ask him the same ques- 
 tion, that his sins could be pardoned only in the act of receiving baptism. 
 On the contrary, the language of Paul conveys the idea most distinctly, 
 that so soon as he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, his sins would be 
 remitted, and his soul would be in safety. Salvation was offered to him 
 on the single condition of faith ; and, of course, all that is necessary to 
 salvation, is implied in faith. 
 
 But it is not difficult to prove, that repentance does secure remission of 
 sins. Indeed, repentance and remission are constantly associated in the 
 writings of the apostles, as well as in the language of our Savior. A 
 proof of this is found in Luke xxiv. 46, 47, "Thus it is written, and 
 thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day : 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 455 
 
 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his 
 name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Did not our Savior 
 connect together repentance and remission ? He did not say — that re- 
 pentance, baptism and remission of sins should be preached. Here the 
 gentleman's doctrine labors. He is obliged to make remission mean im- 
 mersion ! Really, I am apprehensive, that he will convert the whole gos- 
 pel into water. Conversion, we are told, means immersion ; and remis- 
 sion means immersion ! It is necessary, in order to sustain his doctrine, 
 to make almost every thing mean immersion. Most evident it is, how- 
 ever, that our Savior taught, that true repentance secures the remission of 
 sins. Every true penitent is also a believer ; and every penitent believer 
 is truly converted. Consequently, in the New Testament we find remis- 
 sion of sins promised sometimes to repentance, sometimes to conversion, 
 and sometimes to faith. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 23—12 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's second address.]] 
 
 Mr. President — I certainly have a very singular opponent — one of 
 his own class. He presumes not to respond to a single argument that I 
 offer, in any of the usual forms of debate. There is nothing more gen- 
 erally established in the literary world than that, in all discussions in the 
 form of debate, there should be a proposition, parties, an affirmant and a 
 respondent ; and that there are duties which devolve upon these parties 
 as they severally stand, to the thesis to be discussed. In all schools, not 
 merely in ordinary debating schools, but in all the high schools and col- 
 leges, one law obtains : the proof lies upon the affirmant, and the dis- 
 proof upon the negative. Whatever arguments, therefore, are adduced by 
 the affirmant, it is the duty of the negative to respond to them in some 
 way or other. If they are w r eak, irrelevant, or inconclusive, he should 
 expose them and refute them. If they are good, and relevant, and con- 
 clusive, he should acknowledge it and yield to them; but not to notice 
 them at all, is at once to confess inability. 
 
 I have had some little experience in debates : but not in the person of 
 Romanist, Protestant or infidel, have I found one who, after presenting to 
 his special attention some seven arguments arranged in numerical order, 
 in proof of a specific proposition, would then take up neither the first nor 
 the last, nor any one of them ; but immediately put out to sea, and talk of 
 every thing else but the proposition or its proof. Such seems to be, in 
 general terms, and in general practice, the peculiar accomplishments of 
 my friend, Mr. Rice. He has again made a circuit through the Bible, 
 and finally made up a new and a false issue. He has said many things 
 that are true — things that every one admits ; some that are not true ; 
 and some that, whether true or false, have no more point or bearing than 
 the first verse of the first chapter of the first book of Chronicles, which, if 
 I remember right, reads, "Adam, Seth, Enosh." He might have spoken 
 in such style seven hours or seventy, and no one could know the proper 
 issue. The issue is not about being begotten or born, not about believe, 
 nor repent, nor reform, nor about baptism in general terms ; but, is bap- 
 tism for the remission of sins, or is it not 1 I have adduced seven argu- 
 ments in proof of the affirmative. Not one of them has been answered. 
 I shall therefore consider them unanswerable by Mr. Rice, and proceed to 
 consider what he has advanced in the light of objections — or of casual 
 remarks and declamations. 
 
456 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. R. seems to have forgotten his obligations to teach the doctrines of 
 his own church, set forth in that confession to which he has solemnly 
 sworn, as containing " the system of truth taught in the Scriptures." He 
 now seems to have either forgotten? or to have recanted so much of the 
 Confession of Faith as declares the design of baptism. The confession 
 declares that " baptism is for a sign and seal of the remission of sins." 
 This is his own creed, and in its own words. Now I believe this, and 
 he does not, if I properly understand him ; and, therefore, I am, as I be- 
 fore told you, more evangelically orthodox than he, according to his own 
 confession. 
 
 You have heard him on John iii. 5. He says that baptism is not in- 
 tended there. Jesus said, a person must be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, else he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven I Now, I con- 
 cur with the authors of the Confession of Faith, and with all the Greek 
 and Latin fathers, without one single exception, in so understanding 
 them. And you have heard what confidence the gentleman reposes in 
 all these. They are all with me in this particular, and against him. If 
 the gentleman, after solemnly avowing his full faith in that confession, as 
 aforesaid, can thus set up his single judgment against the Westminster 
 divines, the Greek and Latin fathers, and declare them all wrong, all mis- 
 taken, and refuse now to teach the doctrine, nay, does actually now op- 
 pose his own church and confession, how shall we bind him to any 
 thing! If neither the Bible, nor the confession, nor the Greek and Latin 
 fathers, are to be understood nor believed, when affirming that baptism is 
 for the remission of sins, what kind of evidence could satisfy him ? 
 
 I care nothing for triumphing over Mr. Rice or any other mortal. It 
 is no pleasure to expose human weakness or human folly, only in so far 
 as the cause of the truth and mission of the Messiah, and the interests of 
 humanity may require it. There is a higher tribunal, in my eye, than 
 human approbation, or the plaudits of my poor fellow-mortals. I sin- 
 cerely ask, to what tribunal are we to bring this discussion?— to the 
 Bible, the Confession of Faith, the catechisms, the Greek or Latin fathers ! 
 They are all with me, but then — they are all wrong ! they are all mistaken ! 
 
 I used the word preposterous the other day. My friend thought it 
 discourteous to him. I did not intend it. He must have taken it in 
 some improper acceptation. It only means to place first what ought to 
 be last, as its etymology indicates. It means, of course, any absurd or 
 palpably wrong course of either reasoning or acting. Now I must say, 
 that in the plain, unsophisticated meaning of the Word, his course at this 
 time does truly appear to me somewhat preposterous. For, why at once 
 abjure the creed and the assemblies' interpretation of John iii. 5, and the 
 fathers whom he has, till just now, so highly revered, and raise quibbles 
 about such phrases as these : " He that believeth on the Son of God hath 
 eternal life"- — " He that believeth on him is not condemned" — " He that 
 believeth on him is justified from all things," &c. 
 
 The gentleman sees, in these passages, and many such, a refutation 
 of my views, as he supposes, and of the confession, and the fathers, 
 and the commentators, &c. He sees in such words as these, arguments 
 strong and irrefragable. I wish he would show us where their great 
 strength lies. I will take one of them for a sample— for the whole cate- 
 gory to which it belongs, and lay it open to your consideration : " He 
 that hath the Son, hath eternal life." Now this " having the Son," means 
 believing on him, receiving him, confiding in him, as, I presume, you have 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 457 
 
 all been taught. Now I will use the Scripture to explain and open the 
 Scripture. Jesus says to his Father, in the intercessory prayer, " All 
 thine are mine" and "That they may see the glory which thou hast 
 given me." Again — Paul says, " We have nothing, and yet possess all 
 things." Now, while our Savior could say, "he had not where to lay 
 his head," he could also say, " all thine are mine ;" all things that God 
 had were his, and yet he had nothing. Does not every one, then, perceive 
 that there are two ways of having things — in grant, or in right, and in 
 actual possession. Here is a lad who has an immense landed estate, but is 
 not yet possessed of a foot of it. He has it, however, in right of his 
 father's will. Now he that believeth is justified, is pardoned, has eternal 
 life, possesses all things, although he is a poor frail mortal. By faith he 
 has them in hope, in anticipation ; he has them in grant, in right, accord- 
 ing to the will of God. Is Mr. Rice the only one in this assembly that 
 does not so understand this ? In this sense only could Jesus have the uni- 
 verse, when he had not a penny. In this way only had Paul all things, 
 when he had nothing. And in this way a poor, frail, dying christian has 
 eternal life, and a sinner righteousness,- sanctification, and redemption. 
 
 If Mr. Rice did not design all this talk about faith, &c, &c, for -an ad 
 captandum argument, it is clearly one of that class : but not of such high 
 elegance and plausibility as to inveigle any one of much mental com- 
 prehension and perspicacity. All things, then, are possible to him that 
 believes. Faith is the great principle. It is, however, but a principle — 
 by which we may secure righteousness, holiness, redemption, riches, glo- 
 ry, immortality. But such a faith ivorks, works mightily, constantly, and 
 always by love. 
 
 Before I dismiss this — objection, shall I call it ? for argument it is not, 
 only in so far as it is an objection — may I add, in illustration, that we 
 speak in this community just in the same style as the men of Judea spake 
 two thousand years ago. We say of a naturalized foreigner, he has the 
 rights of an American citizen. He has the right of suffrage, of the pro- 
 tection of our government, of being a representative in congress ; pro- 
 vided only, he properly exercise the rights conferred upon him in his 
 enfranchisement. Still his enjoyments of any of them must, more or less, 
 always depend upon himself. He has them only as the father of a pro- 
 digal son once said to his first born — " Son, thou art ever with me, and 
 all that I have is thine" 
 
 I would not say, that Mr. Rice has been sporting with the credulity of 
 the audience in his dissertations upon begotten and born. Far be it. Yet 
 really it looks more like an attempt of that sort, than at any grave argu- 
 ment. Whether we shall read, " He that believeth that Jesus is the 
 Messiah, is born of God," or is begotten of God, must depend upon the 
 taste and discrimination of the translator, as the word is the same in the 
 original text. In all such cases, faith is spoken of as a reality — not as a 
 pretence or a profession — and such a faith will always have in it the 
 germ of universal obedience. But he that regards a person as possess- 
 ing all this at the moment he believes, errs just as much as he that 
 should take the words of the father of the prodigal son, to indicate that 
 he had actually nothing, because he had told his son that all that he had 
 was his. 
 
 But, let me ask, what is the real issue ? Is it faith, repentance, or bap- 
 tism? An issue has been agreed upon, and I have come up to it; but I 
 have no opponent. I have, Mr. President, no respondent. My intro- 
 
 2Q 
 
458 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ductory speech is not now being discussed. No point made in it is logi- 
 cally, or formally, or in any way directly assailed. 
 
 I will state what the true and proper issue is, in another form. It is 
 this : He contends that baptism is a purification or washing ; that he has 
 elaborated at great length. He says it is a purification of some sort — it 
 is a purification from sin. He told you, that he goes for washing, cleans- 
 ing, purifying. He has baptismal purification, baptismal cleansing, bap- 
 tismal washing, &c. He says I agree with him so far. But Avhat is the 
 issue ? I go for baptismal purification through faith : he goes for it 
 without faith. I will stand to it before the world, that this, according to 
 him, is the real issue. He will have infants, without faith, purified by 
 water, the baptismal purifier — whether it be applied by sprinkling, pour- 
 ing, or dipping. According to my friend, every infant that is baptized, 
 no matter how the ceremony is performed, is baptismally purified ; and, 
 consequently, without faith; and, therefore, his purification is without 
 faith. I believe that this baptismal purification comes through faith only. 
 Hence faith is the vital principle, without which it is impossible to please 
 God. According to my views, a person believes, repents, and is bap- 
 tized, in order to purification. According to his views, he is purified, 
 sanctified, adopted, if an adult, by faith alone ; but if an infant, by sprink- 
 ling alone, without faith or intelligence. An adult, with him, if he have 
 faith he has every thing — pardon, justification, sanctification ; he is a 
 child of God, he is begotten of God, he is born of God, has every thing. 
 There is no use for baptism or the Lord's supper ; all means and ordi- 
 nances, according to his position, are mere superfluities, so far as these 
 benefits are implied. But we plead for faith, because without it we can- 
 not please God ; but not for faith alone. 
 
 But, my fellow-citizens, to excite the antipathies of religious parties 
 against us, if not to make us most odiously uncharitable, in the current 
 style of the present century it has been often said, and said during this 
 discussion, that with us it is — no baptism, no pardon, no salvation. Now, 
 there is, in one point of view, nothing in this peculiar to us. All professors 
 of Christianity, I mean all parties, make baptism, under certain conditions, 
 essential to salvation. Roman Catholics believe so. Protestants say, 
 that any one who knows that it is a christian ordinance, and wilfully dis- 
 dains or neglects it, cannot be saved. I have never written or spoken any 
 thing stronger than that. And yet, how often have the pulpits and the 
 presses proclaimed that we, in all cases, make baptism absolutely essen- 
 tial to salvation — that we suspend the eternal destiny of mankind upon the 
 presence of a certain quantity of water. Nay, we have been gravely 
 asked the question, a hundred times, should a person die on his way to 
 the water, would he be lost forever, because he failed in getting into it ! 
 This, I have always said, is a non sequitur ; a consequence that follows 
 not from any tenet or saying of ours. Indeed, both in old England and 
 in New England, this was once the current and standing abuse of the 
 Baptists — of all immersionists. But they have survived it. So will we. 
 I have said that such views are not a fair consequence of any thing we 
 have either said or written on this subject. Still the question, whether 
 the Lord would suspend, in any way, the salvation of any human being 
 upon the contingency of the presence of water, savors much more of 
 ignorance and scepticism on the part of the propounders, than of error on 
 the part of him to whom such a question is propounded. Suppose we 
 ask, for illustration, what portion of the world enjoys the Bible ? I 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 459 
 
 am told, not one-half. Now, I presume Mr. Rice makes the possession 
 of the Bible essential to salvation. And what is the material of which 
 the Bible is composed ? In one point of view, may we not say, it is com- 
 posed of rags, oil, and lamp-black ? It might, then, in one point of view, 
 be said, that the salvation of the world depends upon the contingency 
 of a certain quantity of rags, oil, and lamp-black? and that we must make 
 such a contingency essential to the salvation of the world ? If, then, as 
 one may say, the destiny of half the world be suspended upon such a con- 
 tingency, ought he, on his own principles, to demur at the state of the 
 case which he himself presents ? There is neither wit nor reason in the 
 objection, abstractly considered; nor is there any pertinency whatever in 
 its relevancy to us. We do not hold faith, repentance, or baptism essen- 
 tial to salvation, in all cases. And yet, if water were to be made the 
 most essential of them all, it would, on the principle of the caviler him- 
 self, seem most of all consistent, inasmuch as water is infinitely more 
 common than either faith or repentance — three-fourths of the terraqueous 
 globe being covered with it. In responding to this oft-repeated calumny, 
 I have answered many of his arguments and objections, both on the former 
 propositions and in the speech which we have just now heard. For, in- 
 deed, this has been incorporated with many of them, or rather the spirit 
 that has animated a majority of them. 
 
 Instead of discussing the argument founded on Peter's response to the 
 three thousand, Mr. Rice would make it a matter of importance, that Pe- 
 ter should always have used the very same words on every occasion, and 
 given, identically, the same answer to every querist — as if our Lord, or 
 any of the apostles, had always used the same words, speaking of faith, 
 repentance, or any thing else ! ! If Peter had never spoken these identi- 
 cal words a second time, " Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins," after having, on 
 the day of Pentecost, opened the kingdom of heaven with them, the other 
 apostles speaking them in all languages at the same time — the Holy Spi- 
 rit manifestly present, dictating and authenticating them — methinks it is 
 enough forever. To have used the same words as a formula, on all oc- 
 casions, would have been supremely eccentric. To have told us on every 
 occasion, that every new convert believed, repented, and was baptized, 
 before he entered the church, would not have been more ridiculous, than 
 to have answered every human being in the same number and arrange- 
 ment of words. We are, but once told, " that they who gladly received 
 the word were baptized" — but never are those identical words used on 
 any other occasion. Then we must infer, that no other persons ever 
 gladly received the word — if we must conclude that Peter never again 
 used exactly the same words ! ! It is said, " the Lord added daily the 
 saved to the church," but it is not said that they believed, or repented, or 
 were baptized ! Must we then infer they were not 1 Yet such is the 
 learned logic of Mr. Rice. 
 
 Yet in the very next discourse of Peter, at which an immense multi- 
 tude were converted, in Solomon's portico, we find a similar, if not an 
 identical address. His words are, " Repent and be converted, every one 
 of you, that your sins may be blotted out." Now, " the blotting out of 
 sins," according to Mr. Rice, is an innovation. It ought to have been, 
 "for the remission of sins." So is the imperative "be converted" in- 
 stead of " be baptized." Now, as " be baptized" on the former occa- 
 sion, meant "be converted," so " be converted" on the present occasion 
 
460 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 means "be baptized," inasmuch as it just occupies the same portion in 
 both sermons. It stands between "repent," and "for the remission 
 of sins," in the former ; and between " repent," and " that your sins 
 may be blotted out," in the latter. In commenting on these words, Mr. 
 Rice represents me as using emersion, and baptism, as synonymous. I 
 have not said so. It would be a sophism, of which I am not guilty, to 
 say, that words that represent the same thing are synonymous. Circum- 
 stances do make words represent the same thing that do not mean the 
 same thing. Different persons frequently report the result of a certain 
 meeting in different terms. For example: A says, " ten persons were 
 baptized yesterday at such a meeting." B, however, says, " ten persons 
 were converted at the meeting yesterday ;" and C says, " ten joined yes- 
 terday." Now, what philologist will say, that the three words, baptiz- 
 ed, converted, joined, are synonymous — because circumstances have 
 made them all represent the same thing ! Yet such is the discrimination 
 of my respondent. 
 
 Such special pleading is as inconsistent with sound logic, as it is with 
 christian candor. My views of Christianity constrain me to place such 
 an estimate on the latter as is favorable to the proper exercise of the for- 
 mer, and protects me from the necessity of having to sustain any point 
 by a course of special reasonings. Mr. Rice has sought to make you 
 smile at his ingenuity in sporting with the word reformation, as a substitute 
 for repentance. He did not succeed, however, very well. Dr. Campbell's 
 preference for reformation, rather than repentance, is sustained, not only 
 by the mere philologists, but by the most distinguished biblical scholars. 
 But now let us look again at the phrase — I baptize you into reformation. 
 Persons are always immersed into something, as well as in something ; 
 and they are baptized for that into which they are baptized, and not for 
 that in which they are baptized. Now John preached not repentance, 
 but reformation ; for the last word includes the former, while the former 
 does not include the latter. Many repent who do not reform, but no one 
 can reform who does not repent. John calls for fruits worthy of a pro- 
 fessed repentance, fruits indicative of repentance. He, therefore, im- 
 mersed men on profession of penitence, or while confessing their sins, 
 that they might reform. Hence he baptized men in order to, or for the 
 sake of, reformation. I baptize you in water that you may reform, said the 
 Baptist — hence his was the baptism of reformation for the remission of sins. 
 Better the gentleman had discoursed upon some one of the arguments ad- 
 duced, than to have occupied his time on such frivolous matters. Having 
 now noticed every thing that seems to demand my attention — as well as 
 some matters which I sincerely think do not merit it — I will proceed to 
 some further documentary proof of the proposition before us. 
 
 I must introduce the great reformer himself, and let the immortal 
 Luther declare what his views of the design of this institution are. His 
 Commentary on the Galatians, it is believed, was his master performance, 
 so far as its power in establishing justification in opposition to Roman 
 penances and works of merit is regarded. (Luther on Galatians : Philad. 
 1801, 8vo. p. 302.) 
 
 " This is not done by changing of a garment, or by any laws or works, 
 but by a new birth, and by the renewing of the inward man, which is done 
 in baptism, as Paul saith, < All ye that are baptized have put on Christ.' 
 Also, * According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, 
 and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' Tit. iii. 5. For besides that they who 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 461 
 
 are baptized, are regenerated and renewed by the Holy Ghost to a heavenly 
 righteousness, and to eternal life, there riseth in them also a new light and 
 a new flame ; there riseth in them new and holy affections, as the fear of 
 God, true faith, and assured hopes, &c. There beginneth in them also a 
 new will. And this is to put on Christ truly and according to the gospel. 
 
 Therefore the righteousness of the law, or of our own works, is not given 
 unto us in baptism ; but Christ himself is our garment. Now Christ is 
 no law, no law-giver, no works, but a divine and an inestimable gift, 
 whom God hath given unto us, that he might be our justifier, our Savior, 
 and our Redeemer. Wherefore to be appareled with Christ according to 
 the gospel, is not to be appareled with the law or with works, but with an 
 incomparable gift; that is, with remission of sins, righteousness, peace, 
 consolation, joy of spirit, salvation, life, and Christ himself. 
 
 This is diligently to be noted, because of the fond and fantastical spirits, 
 who go about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of it. 
 Paul contrariwise commendeth and setteth it forth with honorable titles, 
 calling it ' the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,' 
 Tit. iii. 5. And here also he saith, that all they who are baptized, have 
 put on Christ. As if he said, ye are carried out of the law into a new birth, 
 which is wrought in baptism. Therefore ye are not now any longer under 
 the law, but ye are clothed with a new garment ; viz. with the righteous- 
 ness of Christ. Wherefore it is a thing of great force and efficacy. Now, 
 when we are appareled with Christ, as with the robe of righteousness and 
 salvation, then we must put on Christ also as the apparel of imitation and 
 example. These things I have handled more largely in another place, 
 therefore I here briefly pass them over." 
 
 To this I will add two extracts from the Westminster Confession, indi- 
 cative of remarkable harmony with the master spirit of protestantism. 
 (Page 337.) 
 
 " Q, 165. What is baptism 1 
 
 A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath 
 ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself; of 
 remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit ; of adoption, 
 and resurrection unto everlasting life : and whereby the parties baptized 
 are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and 
 professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's." 
 
 The doctrine of the Confession is more fully declared in chap. 28. sec. 
 1 ; — to which we invite attention. It is in the words following, to wit : 
 
 " Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus 
 Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the 
 visible church ; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of 
 grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, 
 and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness 
 of life : which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued 
 in his church until the end of the world." 
 
 A SIGN AND SEAL, THEN, IT IS, OF REMISSION OF SINS ! Past Or future ? 
 
 Of past sins ! Then the confession of faith clearly and amply proves my 
 proposition. In every important point it is with me and against Mr. Rice, 
 It makes baptism for admission into the church ; Mr. Rice is for baptism 
 to them in the church, and it is for making it a sacrament of the New 
 Testament. I desire no more ample proof of my views on this subject, 
 than the confession of faith and the proof-texts at the foot of the page. I 
 am, then, in this particular, certainly more conformed to the confession 
 of faith than Mr. Rice. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, I know of no respectable ecclesiastic writer, who has 
 not taken this view of the subject, if he have gravely considered the mat- 
 
 2q2 
 
462 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ter at all. But the grand reason why so many cannot comprehend the 
 meaning of this institution is, they have got infant church membership so 
 much in their heads ; and, as infants cannot be justified by faith, and as 
 they cannot obtain remission of sins in baptism, being only implicated in 
 one sin, of one Adam, they cannot understand what the Bible, the creed, 
 or the catechism mean, when they talk of baptism being " a sign and a 
 seal of the remission of sins." They have to say, these articles, in the 
 confession, speak of believers' baptism. This is generally the way of 
 escape. Where then shall we find an account of unbelievers' baptism T 
 The Pedo-baptist party, through the bewildering influence of two bap- 
 tisms, one for babes and one for believing persons, are now, and forever 
 will be, while they retain these two baptisms, unable to comprehend 
 the subject, and to reconcile to themselves, or to one another, the pro- 
 phets and the apostles of the Messiah. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tliursday, Nov. 23—125 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's second reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I had not the most distant expectation, when I agreed 
 to conduct this discussion, that 1 should please my friend, Mr. Campbell, 
 either as an affirmant, or as a respondent. If I had expected to please 
 him, I should not have become his opponent. He would, doubtless, be 
 extremely happy, could he induce me to pursue such a course, so to fol- 
 low him in his meanderings, as to give him a triumph; but I am not 
 disposed to gratify him. He informs the audience, that I never directly 
 answer his arguments. It is necessary that he should give them this 
 information, or they, in their simplicity, will not discern it ! He must 
 repeat the declaration that I have not answered him, every time he rises 
 to speak, or the audience will be sure to believe the contrary ! Indeed, 
 I very much question, whether his assertions will prevent them from be- 
 lieving that his arguments have been fully exposed. 
 
 How any man, so much accustomed to public debate as he, can affirm, 
 that the respondent is bound to follow precisely in the track of the affirm- 
 ant, I am at a loss to understand. I profess also to have had some little 
 experience in such discussions, and I do not admit the existence of any 
 such rule. When a man sets forth a doctrine, founded on a particular 
 interpretation of certain texts of Scripture, I have the right to answer 
 him in either of two ways : I may take up those passages, and prove, by 
 the admitted principles of language, that his interpretation is incorrect ; or 
 I may prove that it contradicts other plain, and unambiguous declarations 
 of Scripture, and, therefore, is incorrect. In either case, I have fairly an- 
 swered him ; for we both maintain, that the Bible does not contradict itself. 
 When, therefore, I have proved, that the interpretation of certain passages 
 of Scripture, upon which the gentleman's doctrine is based, is contradic- 
 tory of the clear and repeated declarations of Christ and the apostles, I 
 have triumphantly refuted his doctrine. He may tell you five hundred 
 times, that my arguments are irrelevant; but in so doing he only shows 
 how much his cause requires him to act the part of a cunning lawyer, 
 who is obliged, without evidence, to plead against evidence. He will 
 save himself much trouble and exposure, if only he can induce the 
 audience to believe, that the arguments against his views, are all irre- 
 levant. It will, however, be found extremely difficult, if not impossible, 
 to convince reflecting persons, that an interpretation, which contradicts 
 Christ, can be correct. The contradictions I have pointed out, are so 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 463 
 
 perfectly clear and palpable, they must satisfy every unprejudiced mind, 
 that his doctrine is untrue. It contradicts Christ and his apostles, and 
 that is enough. 
 
 But the gentleman, who is quite anxious to appear familiar with Pres- 
 byterianism, charges me with having departed from the confession of 
 faith. After all, however, he seems to have a very imperfect knowledge 
 of the system. Of this he has already given us repeated evidences. 
 
 Does our confession say, that the passage in John iii. 5, means chris- 
 tian baptism 1 It does not. I subscribe most cordially to the doctrine of 
 that book, in regard to the ordinance of baptism. It teaches, that it is a 
 sacrament appointed by Christ, to be a sign and seal of our engrafting 
 into Christ, of remission of sins, &c. It is true, the confession, in 
 the chapter on baptism, refers to John iii. 5, as an example of the use of 
 water, as an emblem of spiritual cleansing ; but it also refers to circum- 
 cision, as the gentleman will see (I have not the book at this moment) by 
 turning to it. So he would prove, that according to our confession, cir- 
 cumcision is baptism ! But he certainly ought to know, that in adopting 
 the confession of faith, we do not affirm that every reference to Scrip- 
 ture is appropriate ; so that if it were even true, as it may be, that those 
 who made the reference in question, believed the passage to refer to bap- 
 tism, I might deny it, without being charged with heresy. The refer- 
 ence, nevertheless, is perfectly proper, because, as water was the emblem 
 of purification under the old dispensation, so it is under the new. As 
 the ablution of the Jews pointed to the cleansing of the soul from the 
 guilt and pollution of sin, so does baptism now. I go for the confession 
 of faith ; and I think I understand it. 
 
 The gentleman tells us, he has not entered into this discussion for a 
 temporary triumph, I am quite willing that he shall gain a triumph if 
 he can. I hope he will bring all his powers to bear. I call for no 
 quarters. 
 
 His last speech has taught me something new. He has informed us, 
 that when the Savior said, i4 He that believeth on the Son, hath everlast- 
 ing life;" he did not mean just what he said, but only that he has life at 
 his offer — he may have it! Our Savior, the gentleman would have us 
 believe, did not mean what he said ; but Peter meant precisely what he 
 said ! True, words may be understood in a figurative sense, when the 
 connection requires it; but when Christ says, he that believeth, hath 
 everlasting life, the language is perfectly plain, and the meaning most 
 obvious. I must, therefore, believe it. To say, that a man has a thou- 
 sand dollars, and that to say that he may get a thousand dollars, are very 
 different propositions. 
 
 One of his illustrations of this new meaning of the word hath, was 
 particularly unfortunate. It was this : a man, when naturalized, has the 
 rights and immunities of a citizen ; but whether he will improve them, 
 depends on himself. Very well. So when a man believes, he is natural- 
 ized, and has all the blessings of Christ's kingdom, of which one of the 
 most important is remission of sins ; but still he must persevere unto 
 death. This, I should consider a very unhappy illustration of his doc- 
 trine, that a man is not naturalized in the kingdom of Christ, and enjoys 
 none of its blessings, until he is baptized. But Mr. C. used another 
 illustration, which I think is no better than the one just noticed. He 
 quoted the passage, i; The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have 
 nests ; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head." How this 
 
464 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 passage proves, that the word hath means may have, I am unable to see. 
 The foxes have holes. Does this mean, they may have holes ?— there 
 are holes into which they may run ? The birds of the air have nests- — 
 that is, according to the gentleman's logic, they may have nests — there 
 are nests into which they may go ?! The Son of Man hath not where to 
 lay his head ; that is, he may not have where to lay his head ! The 
 passage confirms all that I have said. The birds have — are in possession 
 of, nests. So he that believeth, hath — is in possession of, eternal life. 
 The expressions are precisely similar. 
 
 But this is not all. The argument does not depend on this single ex- 
 pression, though it is perfectly clear. The Savior stated the same truth 
 in another form ; " He that believeth on the Son, is not condemned" 
 John iii. 18. But Mr. C. says, he that believeth is condemned, unless 
 he have been immersed ! — a flat contradiction. For he does not deny, 
 that a great many have believed on the Son, who never were immersed ; 
 and all such, according to his faith, are condemned. I cannot see how 
 he could more directly contradict our Lord. I hope he will consider this 
 an answer to his argument, sufficiently direct. 
 
 I was gratified to hear him admit, that the word translated begotten, 
 is the same which is translated born. I used the former word, because 
 he had done so in his translation ; and I intended, as I said, to disprove 
 his doctrine by his own translation. I will now, in view of his admission, 
 put the word born instead of begotten, 1 John v. 1, " Whosoever be- 
 lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is bom of God." Now, my friend will 
 not immerse a man, till he professes to believe that Jesus is the Christ ; 
 and John the apostle says, he that believeth is born of God. He is born 
 — is a child of God, before he can get him to the water ; and if he is born 
 of God — if he is a child, then he is an heir of God, (Rom. viii. 17) and 
 his sins are, of course, remitted. I am quite pleased, that my friend has 
 admitted so much of the truth. I will, however, take either translation, 
 begotten or born, and prove, that his doctrine of baptism in order to the 
 remission of sins, directly contradicts the Savior and the apostles. 
 
 But the gentleman, who would have us believe that he never makes 
 false issues, has told us, that the issue is this : that /believe in baptismal 
 purification without faith; and he believes in baptismal purification by faith! 
 I have said not a word about baptismal purification. What is the propo- 
 sition before us ? The question is, whether baptism is necessary in order 
 to secure the remission of sins. I discover, he is disposed to divert our 
 attention from the subject in hand, to something as distant from it as the 
 poles from each other. 
 
 He is evidently anxious to say something more on infant baptism. I 
 know, he is not well satisfied with his defence of his views on that 
 subject; or he would not injure himself by thrusting it into the discussion 
 of a different subject. He feels that he is involved in serious difficulties. 
 Well, if he is not satisfied, I cannot help it. 
 
 According to my doctrine, he says, faith secures to us every thing ; 
 and there is no need of prayer, baptism, or any thing else. He is quite 
 mistaken. I hold, that by faith alone we receive the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 as our " wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption ;" and as 
 soon as we receive him, our sins are pardoned, and we are accepted of 
 God. But we are not yet perfectly holy. The good work is commenced, 
 but not completed. We still need to pray, as did David, " Create in me 
 a clean heart, God, and renew a right spirit within me." Thus, Paul 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 465 
 
 prayed for the Ephesian christians, whose sins had certainly been for- 
 given, that God would grant them " according to the riches of his glory, 
 to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man," ch.iii. 16. 
 And he prayed for the Philippians, because he was confident " that He 
 which had begun a good work in them, would perform it until the day of 
 Jesus Christ," ch. i. 6. The believer, though his sins are remitted, needs 
 baptism, the Lord's supper, and all the appointed means of grace, as 
 helps to him in his weakness, as means in the use of which God has 
 promised to bless him. 
 
 True faith, moreover, always produces good works. That faith which 
 results not in good works, as James teaches, is dead, being alone : it 
 cannot secure the remission of sins. The faith of the gospel answers 
 two important purposes in the plan of salvation. It receives Christ as 
 the Savior, through whose righteousness only men can be justified ; and 
 it overcomes the world. " For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh 
 the world ; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our 
 faith" 1 John v. 4. Such is the faith for which we plead— a faith that 
 receives Christ, and, through him, immediate remission of sins, and pre- 
 sents before the mind all the motives which God offers to enable us to 
 rise above the temptations of earth. Infant baptism, as well as that of 
 adults, becomes a means of grace ; for when they who are baptized in 
 infancy arrive at years of discretion, they, under the influence of divine 
 grace, acknowledge the obligations assumed by their believing parents 
 in connection with their baptism, and seek the blessings sealed by that 
 ordinance. 
 
 We, then, do not plead for faith alone, but for faith, repentance, and 
 conversion, which are inseparably connected — for faith, and the good 
 works to which it prompts. 
 
 My friend said something about the difficulty under which his doc- 
 trine labors, from the fact, that it sends to hell many who, though entirely 
 disposed to obey God, had not the opportunity to be baptized; and he 
 expressed the opinion, that under certain circumstances, unbaptized per- 
 sons may get to heaven. But if his opinion is true, his doctrine is false ; 
 and if his doctrine is true, his opinion is false. His doctrine is, that 
 baptism is necessary in order to the remission of sins. 
 
 The pagans, he seems to think, are sent to hell for a very small mat- 
 ter ; only because they have not rags, oil, and lamp-black ! I had sup- 
 posed, that they were pretty well furnished with rags, and perhaps with 
 oil and lamp-black. I have never heard any complaint on that score. [A 
 laugh.] But if the gentleman says they have not, I have nothing to say. 
 [Continued laughter.] If he chooses to represent the Bible as only rags, 
 lamp-black, and oil, let him do so. The pagans, however, are responsi- 
 ble only for the light they have. 
 
 He attaches considerable importance to the expression, baptizing into 
 the name of the Father, &c. I have no particular objection to that trans- 
 lation of the word eis. It does not, however, seem to me to have any 
 direct bearing on the question before us. Faith unites us spiritually to 
 Christ, and gives us an interest in the plan of salvation ; baptism is the 
 external ordinance by which we become visibly united to him, and bound 
 to devote ourselves to his service. Baptism is the external sign, faith is 
 the internal grace. The latter unites us to Christ really, the former con- 
 nects with him formally ; but the piety of the heart is, in the Word of 
 God, always represented as the great matter. 
 30 
 
46G DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 In reply to the fact stated by me, that in Peter's second discourse baptism 
 was not mentioned as a condition of pardon ; Mr. Campbell says, Peter's- 
 having taught a doctrine once, is sufficient — it is not necessarry that he 
 shall repeat it in every discourse. Yes-— if he will prove, that in one 
 instance Peter taught that baptism is necessary to the remission of sins, 
 we will give up the question. But I have proved, that his interpretation 
 of Peter's language contradicts many other declarations of Scripture ; and 
 therefore Peter could not have said, that baptism is a prerequisite to the 
 remission of sins. He said, repent and be baptized for the remission of 
 sins ; and in other portions of Scripture, we learn that repentance does 
 secure the blessing, of which baptism is the outward sign and seal. 
 The difficulty, therefore, is not that we claim a repetition of Peter's 
 teaching before we will believe it, but that the gentleman makes Peter 
 contradict the Savior and the other apostles ; whilst the exposition for 
 which we contend, is perfectly consistent with the uniform teaching of 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 True, as he says, it is not necessary to preach the same truth in every 
 discourse. But if I to-day preach to a company of ignorant persons in 
 answer to the question, what must we do to be saved ? I am bound to 
 tell them all that is necessary to be done that they may be saved. Then 
 if, on to-morrow, I preach to another company twenty miles distant, in 
 answer to the same inquiry, I am obliged to teach them precisely the 
 same truths. But suppose I should, in directing these last inquirers, omit 
 one of the most important conditions of pardon ; and when inquired of 
 . concerning the matter, should justify myself by saying, I mentioned that 
 to the people in Lexington, and it is unnecessary always to say the same 
 thing ; would any one regard me as a faithful minister ? A company of 
 emigrants come to our country from Europe, and inquire what course they, 
 must pursue in order to be naturalized. You give them all necessary infor- 
 mation. Another company comes and ask the same question. You omit, 
 in your reply, one of the things absolutely necessary to be done ; and 
 excuse yourself, because you gave full information to the preceding com- 
 pany ! I profess not to see the consistency of the gentleman's reasoning. 
 
 The truth is, the apostles, whenever they stated to inquiring minds 
 the conditions of salvation, told them all that was really necessary ; and 
 inasmuch as Peter did not mention baptism as a condition of remission, 
 either in his second discourse, or in his third at the house of Cornelius"; 
 and as Paul, in answering the same momentous inquiry made by the 
 jailor, omitted to do it ; it is clear that Mr. Campbell's doctrine is not true. 
 
 I was truly surprised to hear the gentleman assert, that he had never 
 said, that conversion and baptism, as used by the apostles, mean the same 
 thing. I have read his writings with some care ; and, if I do not greatly 
 err, he has so said. I will read from his Christianity Restored, (pp. 201, 
 202,) where he is laboring to prove that Peter, in his second discourse, 
 (Acts iii.) preached baptism for the remission of sins, as in the first. He 
 says : — 
 
 " The unbelieving Jews, soon after Pentecost, knew that the disciples 
 called the immersed ' converted ;' and immersion being the act of faith, 
 which drew the line of demarcation between Christians and Jews, nothing 
 could be more natural than to. call the act of immersion the converting of a 
 Jew. The time intervening between these discourses was long enough to 
 introduce and familiarize this style in the metropolis ; so that when a 
 Christian said, ' Be converted,' or, ' Turn to God,' every Jew knew the act 
 of putting on the Messiah to -be that intended. After the immersion of 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 467 
 
 some gentiles into the faith, in the house and neighborhood of Cornelius, it 
 reported that the gentiles were converted to God. Thus the apostles, in 
 passing through the country, gave great joy to the disciples from among 
 the Jews, ' telling them of the conversion," 1 or immersion of the gentiles." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " One reason why we would arrest the attention of the reader to the sub- 
 stitution of the terms convert and conversion for immerse and immer- 
 sion, in the apostolic discourses, and in the sacred writings, is not so much 
 for the purpose of proving," &c. 
 
 Now, I ask, does he not make these two words mean the same thing ? 
 Does he not assert that convert and conversion were, by the inspired 
 writers, substituted for immerse and immersion? When Peter said, 
 " Repent and be converted," he meant, according to Mr. Campbell, re- 
 form and be immersed I And yet there are not two words in the Bible 
 more widely different in their meaning. 
 
 In translating the word metanoia reformation, instead of repentance, 
 he says he is sustained by the most learned men now living, or that have 
 ever lived. This I am disposed to dispute. We want the proof. It is 
 truly remarkable, that in starting a new reformation, which makes war 
 upon all the christian world, the gentleman has, on almost every point, all 
 the most learned men with him !!! All are wrong ; yet all are with him ! 
 I am not disposed to take his broad assertions, without proof. The literal 
 meaning of the word metanoia, as he has admitted, is a change of mind ; 
 and such being its meaning, how can it be correctly translated reforma- 
 tion — a word which, in common use, refers more immediately to the ex- 
 ternal conduct ? 
 
 The"expressions used in Peter's first discourse and in Matt. iii. 11, are, 
 as I have remarked, precisely similar ; and I asked Mr. C, whether, as he 
 made Peter say, be baptized (eis) in order to obtain remission of sins, he 
 also understood John to say, I baptize you (eis) in order that you may 
 repent. He says, John baptized the Jews, in order to reformation. 
 But there are very serious difficulties in the way of this rendering ; for 
 Peter required reformation (if this be a correct translation) in order to 
 baptism; and John baptized in order to reformation ! How is it that 
 he makes these inspired teachers thus contradict each other ? He must 
 be in error ; for they did not thus cross each other's path. 
 
 But there is another difficulty in his way. John, he says, baptized in 
 order to reformation. Now let us turn to Peter's second discourse, Acts 
 iii. 19 : " Reform ye, therefore, [I give Mr. C.'s translation,] and be con- 
 verted, that your sins may be blotted out," <fcc. Reform and be converted. 
 Will he please to tell us the difference between reformation and conver- 
 sion ? To be converted, is to turn from sin to holiness — from the service 
 of Satan to the service of God ; and to reform is precisely the same thing. 
 So that he makes Peter say to those whom he addressed, reform and 
 reform! or, convert and be converted! The common translation labors 
 under no such difficulty ; neither does our doctrine. Repentance is a 
 change of mind — a change of views and feelings ; and conversion is the 
 effect or consequence of that change. The former has direct reference 
 to a change of mind ; the other to a change of life. But the gentleman's 
 doctrine forces him into these absurdities. The Bible contains no such 
 contradictions, and no such tautology. 
 
 You see the inextricable difficulty in which the doctrine of my friend 
 is involved. To sustain his interpretation of Peter's language, he must 
 either make John baptize the Jews in order to make them repent, or in 
 
468 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 order that they might reform. In either case he makes John contradici 
 Peter, who required repentance or reformation in order to baptism ! 
 
 He quotes Luther as favoring his views of this doctrine. It may be 
 possible that Luther attached an undue importance and efficacy to bap- 
 tism. In regard to the Lord's supper he differed from the other reform- 
 ers, rejecting frcmsubstantiation, but holding the almost equally unreason- 
 able doctrine of co^substantiation. It would not be surprising, if a man 
 so much in error in regard to one of the sacraments, should attach an un- 
 scriptural efficacy to the other. The Protestant world have rejected Lu- 
 ther's dogma of consubstantiation. I have not particularly examined his 
 views concerning the doctrine now under discussion ; and, therefore, shall 
 for the present pass them. 
 
 The gentleman seeks to obtain from the Confession of Faith — a book I 
 love to defend — some countenance for his doctrine. Where it teaches 
 that baptism is a sign and seal of our ingrafting into Christ, he makes it 
 mean, that none are in Christ, until baptized. I have repeatedly told 
 you, that he does not understand Presbyterianism. Baptism, according 
 to the confession, is a sign and seal of our ingrafting into Christ. Is the 
 sign of a thing the thing itself? Is the sign necessary to the thing? 
 The seal fixed to a document — is it not designed to give it notoriety ? It 
 is first written and confirmed ; then sealed. There is a vast difference 
 between the sign and seal of regeneration, and regeneration itself; and be- 
 tween the sign and seal of remission, and remission itself. The believer 
 is first pardoned, and then receives the sign and seal. Baptism is a 
 pledge, so to speak, that God will forgive the sins of those who comply 
 with the conditions set forth in his Word. But the sign or seal is not the 
 thing or document, nor essential to it. — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 23—1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's third address.] 
 Mr. President — It is always an unpleasant task to expose any thing 
 which is incompatible with the genius and character of honorable discus- 
 sion, and especially in matters of religion ; for if there be any subject 
 under the canopy of heaven, which men ought to discuss with superlative 
 candor, and with supreme regard to the principles of truth and honor, it 
 is the subject of religion. It is, therefore, with no pleasure, but with 
 much pain, that I am constrained to notice the very unfair and ungener- 
 ous conduct of my reverend respondent. There is not a soul in this 
 house, who did not understand me to say, that the Bible, as to the mate- 
 rials of which the book is made, and in that point of view alone, consists 
 of rags, lamp-black, and oil. I ask, then, how Mr. Rice, a professed 
 christian minister, could, in your presence, represent the Bible, with spe- 
 cial reference to my remarks, as nothing but rags, lamp-black, and oil ! 
 What, sir, are we to expect from other men, in the private walks of life, if, 
 on this stage, and in the presence of this great assembly, when I brought 
 up his own argument, what signifies water? what avails any material 
 thing, or any ordinance consisting of sensible materials, in order to remis- 
 sion of sins, or any spiritual blessings ? I said he might also speak of the 
 Bible, the word of life, in the same style, and thus depreciate its indis- 
 pensable importance. I record this, as an exhibit of the manner of spirit 
 with whom I have to contend for the ordinances of Christ. He repre- 
 sents me as saying the Bible was mere rags ! and disdainfully asks if the 
 pagans have no rags, oil, or lamp-black ? If, in representing even a portion 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 469 
 
 of a community, so respectable as the Presbyterian church, such morality 
 and logic, meet its conscientious approbation, and obtain its admiration, 
 I must say I am greatly mistaken. I dislike to waste my time in ad- 
 verting to matters so unworthy of the occasion, and so utterly incompati- 
 ble with the subject and the argument before us. If I do not again allude 
 to matters of this sort, it will not be because I do not observe them, but 
 because my time is too precious to be thus squandered away on an occa- 
 sion so solemn and important. 
 
 In looking over my notes, the next thing that occurs is another false 
 issue. I said it was not necessary for the apostles to preach the same 
 sermon, in the same words, on all occasions. My special friend then 
 makes out a special case — a new ship-load of immigrants arrives in a 
 new country — and now I am represented as forbidding the same identical 
 words to be uttered to them ! Nay, worse than that ; I am made to argue 
 that the same gospel which was preached to the first ship-load, should 
 not be preached to the second. Then, to meet his views, one sermon 
 should have been east in the same identical words, and but one gospel 
 sermon ever preached ! ! I have preached faith, repentance, and baptism, 
 times innumerable ; and I am sure that I have never made two sermons 
 on the subject that were not more dissimilar than that recorded in Acts ii., 
 and that pronounced in Acts iii. I presume many of us here could tell the 
 same story, and yet we all preach the proposition which I now defend ! 
 But such is the gentleman's way of responding to my arguments. 
 
 But I am setting one apostle against another, and the same apostle 
 against himself, because of my remark on the phrase, " He that believeth, 
 hath eternal life," &c. My remarks on "Aa/A" and "is," on "hath eter- 
 nal life," and "cs not condemned," &c. have called forth a reiteration of 
 the former assertions. But without at all impairing the force of the cri- 
 tique offered, I need only exemplify the principle a little farther; the ar- 
 gument, it appears, cannot be weakened. The position is, that in Scrip- 
 ture, and even in common style, we often hear persons speaking of them- 
 selves, or spoken of, as having what they have not in actual possession, 
 but in promise, in expectation, in grant, or in hope. Hence, persons are 
 said, at one time, to have that which they are seeking for at another. 
 Take an example : Jesus, as already quoted, said, " He that believeth on 
 Him that sent me, hath everlasting life — is passed from death to life." 
 Again he says, " Whosoever believeth on him hath eternal life," &c. 
 Now these same believers are, in other portions of Scripture, represented 
 as not yet having it; but seeking and looking for it, and as about here- 
 after to have it. Paul, Rom. ii. says, " To them, who by a patient con- 
 tinuance in well-doing, are seeking for glory, honor, and immortality, he 
 will bestow eternal life !" Now had these persons, in grant, or in pos- 
 session, eternal life ? 
 
 Again, he says to Titus, we are made heirs " according to the hope of 
 eternal life." What a man hath, why doth he yet hope for ! We are 
 said to be " looking for eternal life." What a man seeth, why doth he 
 yet look for ! I shall henceforth regard this point as settled. 
 
 I have another remark to make on such passages as these : " He that 
 believeth in him, is justified," &c. In all these instances the Savior, 
 who spoke before the new institution was set up, as well as the apostles 
 afterwards, speak of a true, real, active faith, which would always lead to 
 obedience. These are actual believers, who will do what they are bid. 
 
 I did not say that the whole learned world agree with me. I wish the 
 
 2R 
 
470 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 gentleman would reply to what I do say, and not spend our time so much 
 in replying to what I do not say. But I do say, and the gentleman knows 
 I can prove it, that I have not only such men as Luther, and Calvin, and 
 Witsius, but all the Greek and Latin fathers, for the first four centu- 
 ries, concurring with me in my views of John iii. 5., and Titus iii. 5., as 
 well as the Westminster Assembly ; and, besides, a mighty host of the 
 reformers, in their individual capacity, avowing the proposition which I 
 am now sustaining. Here is a volume from one of the most learned men 
 (of Oxford, in England,) in the world, in the primitive fathers' Greek and 
 Latin, who is, now, an overmatch for any other individual man in Great 
 Britain, on this question, for whose opinions I by no means endorse, but 
 for whose immense researches and exact knowledge I do — Dr. Pusey is 
 his name. And here is one volume of the Oxford tracts, giving the views 
 of the design of baptism, held by the whole ancient church ; and, although 
 I am very far from being a Puseyite, nevertheless I must respect the ac- 
 cumulated testimony collected here, a considerable portion of which I 
 have used for years, and so has this same Dr. Wall, but all of which I 
 have never seen before collected together. And what is the sum of it? 
 That in this one thing of the action of baptism* and the design of it, there 
 was but one opinion, from the day of Pentecost down to St. Athanasius- — 
 down to the fifth century. But we must hear Calvin, the great reformer. 
 Mr. Rice says, that Luther believed in consubstantiation. I will let you 
 hear Calvin, chap. xv. I will read the context : 
 
 " Baptism is a sign of initiation by which we are admitted into the soci- 
 ety of the church, in order that being incorporated into Christ, we may be 
 numbered among the children of God. Now it has been given to us by God, 
 for these ends, which I have shewn to be common to all sacraments ; first, 
 to .promote our faith towards him ; secondly, to testify our confession before, 
 men. We shall treat of both these ends of its institution in order. 
 
 To begin with the first : — From baptism our faith derives three advan- 
 tages, which require to be distinctly considered. The first is, that it is 
 proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol and token of our purification ; or to 
 express my meaning more fully, it resembles a legal instrument properly 
 attested, by which he assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced, and 
 obliterated, so that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his 
 remembrance, or be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be 
 baptized for the remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagin- 
 ed that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess 
 our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as 
 a mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the princi- 
 pal thing in baptism ; which is, that we ought to receive it with this pro- 
 mise, < He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved,' Mark xvi. 16. 
 
 2d. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ 
 sanctifieth and cleanseth the church ' with the washing of the water by the 
 word,' Ephes. v. 26 ; and in another place, that ' according to his mercy he 
 saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,' 
 Tit. iii. 5; and by Peter, that ' baptism doth save us,' 1 Pet. iii. 21. For 
 it was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation 
 are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to 
 purify, regenerate and renew ; nor did Peter mean that it was the cause of 
 salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is received in 
 this sacrament : which is sufficiently evident from the words they have 
 used. For Paul connects together the ' word of life' and ' the baptism of 
 water ;' as if he had said, that our ablution and sanctification are announced 
 to us by the gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter, 
 after having said that ' baptism doth save us,' immediately adds, that it is 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 47 1 
 
 * not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good 
 conscience towards God,' which proceeds from faith. But on the contrary, 
 baptism promises us no other purification than by the sprinkling of the 
 blood of Christ; which is emblematically represented by water, on account 
 of its resemblance to washing and cleansing. Who, then, can pretend that 
 we are cleansed by that water, which clearly testifies the blood of Christ to 
 be our true and only ablution? So that, to refer the error of those who refer 
 all to the virtue of the water, no better argument could be found, than in 
 the signification of baptism itself, which abstracts us, as well from that vis- 
 ible element, which is placed before our eyes, as from all other means of 
 salvation, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone. 
 
 3d. Nor must it be supposed that baptism is administered only for the 
 time past, so that for sins into which we fall after baptism, it would be 
 necessary to seek other new remedies of expiation in I know not what other 
 sacraments, as if the virtue of baptism were become obsolete. In conse- 
 quence of this error, it happened in former ages, that some persons would 
 not be baptized except at the close of their life, and almost in the moment 
 of their death, so that they might obtain pardon for their whole life ; a pre- 
 posterous caution, which is frequently censured in the writings of the an- 
 cient bishops. But we ought to conclude, that at whatever time we are 
 baptized, we are washed and purified for the whole of life. Whenever we 
 have fallen, therefore, we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and 
 arm our minds with the consideration of it, that we may be always certified 
 and assured of the remission of our sins. For though, when it has been 
 once administered, it appears to be past, yet it is not abolished by subse- 
 quent sins. For the purity of Christ is offered to us in it ; and that always 
 retains its virtue, is never overcome by any blemishes, but purifies and ob- 
 literates all our defilements." 
 
 I am in good company in the use of the word preposterous, notwith- 
 standing Mr. Rice's objections to the word. I am more of a Calvinian 
 than he is. I certainly am in good company when I have Luther on my 
 right hand and Calvin on my left, on the design of baptism. 
 
 I have not yet done with the confession of faith. It does not refer to 
 circumcision, either in the first, second, or third sections. But observe, 
 the confession of faith says, " It is a confirmative mark of regeneration — 
 of remission of sins, a mark confirmative." Can any language be more 
 conclusive ? The confession of faith represents baptism as a confirmative 
 mark, a confirmative, too, of our pardon and admission into the family of 
 God. I have never spoken more clearly, or more forcibly, on baptism 
 for the remission of sins, than did the great founder of Presbyterianism. 
 I have the two greatest names in Protestant Christendom affirming my 
 proposition. 
 
 Let it be remembered, then, that, in addition to the arguments offered 
 from the Scriptures, we have all the Greek and Latin fathers, without one 
 exception, the two great founders of Protestantism, the Westminster 
 divines, and the Scotch Confession of Faith, down to the present century. 
 The present century is really retrograding in the understanding and ven- 
 eration of the ordinances, both of the communion and of the rite of ini- 
 tiation. America is behind the age, behind Christendom on this subject. 
 The reason is, Baptist views are so prevailing here, that Pedo-baptists 
 are always seeking to defend themselves, and not candidly and persever- 
 ingly searching the Scriptures. 
 
 Dr. Chalmers, of Scotland, is a century ahead of American Presbyter- 
 ians. The English and the Germans are leaving us behind. The great- 
 est ecclesiastic historian living, Neander, and the most eminent philolo- 
 gists in Germany, are greatly in advance of any American Pedo-baptist 
 
472 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 theologians, philologists, historians, and critics, both on the nature and 
 design of baptism. 
 
 If we go back to the old creeds, the Nicene and the Athanasian, they put 
 us to shame. The Nicene was a symbol and exponent of the faith of the 
 whole world at the beginning of the fourth century. It says : "We believe 
 in one baptism for the remission of sins." The Athanasian, on which the 
 Roman and English hierarchy rested for so long a time, says : " We 
 confess one baptism for the remission of sins." The church of England 
 still has in her Common Prayer the Nicene and the Athanasian ; while 
 her American daughter, more rationally has expunged the Athanasian, 
 because of a more doubtful ancestry. But, Mr. President, not any of 
 these authorities, nor all of them combined, led me to the belief of the true 
 meaning and design of baptism. 
 
 I studied under greater masters than any of these. Some twenty 
 years ago, when preparing for a debate with Mr. McCalla, I put myself 
 under the special instruction of four Evangelists, and one Paul, of dis- 
 tinguished apostolic rank and dignity. I had for some time before that 
 discussion, been often impressed with such passages as Acts ii. 38 ; and 
 that providential call to discuss the subject with Mr. McCalla, compelled 
 me to decide the matter to my entire satisfaction. Believe me, sir, then 
 I had forgotten my earlier readings upon the subject; and upon the sim- 
 ple testimony of the Book itself, I came to a conclusion alledged in that 
 debate, and proved only by the Bible, which now appears, from a thou- 
 sand sources, to have been the catholic and truly ancient and primitive 
 faith of the whole church. It was in this commonwealth that this doc- 
 trine was first publicly promulged in modern times ; and, sir, it has now 
 spread over this continent, and with singular success, is now returning to 
 Europe, and the land of our fathers. My faith in it, sir, rests, however, 
 neither upon the traditions of the church, nor upon any merely inferential 
 reasonings of my own, nor those of any other man ; but upon the explicit 
 and often repeated declarations and explanations of the prophets and the 
 apostles. 
 
 In maintaining this all-important position, however, I build neither 
 upon the ancients nor the moderns ; neither upon creeds, synods, councils, 
 nor fathers. If it be not found within the limits of the Book, let it perish 
 from our memory and from our hearts. With pleasure, I can place hu- 
 man authority against human authority, writer against writer, and coun- 
 cil against council. They neutralize, correct or annihilate one another. 
 But we stand on the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, 
 in our faith and in the evidences that support it. Here, sir, we have the 
 blood-sealed charter of immortality to man. " He that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved. The young, the old, the middle aged— the 
 young athletic sinner, and the hoary chief in the ranks of infidelity — 
 have felt the heart-stirring, soul-subduing, transporting efficacy and at- 
 tractiveness of this message of philanthropy to a bewildered, lost, and 
 ruined world, and have gladly and humbly bowed to Prince Messiah, and 
 gone down into the mystic waters of holy baptism for remission, and have 
 risen to lead a new, an elevated, a heaven-directed life of purity and hu- 
 manity. Thousands, sir, tens of thousands have been brought into the 
 fold of God, through the instrumentality of this glorious development of 
 ancient Christianity. Many are our fellow-laborers and helpers and fel- 
 low soldiers in this great work, and wide-extended field of labor. Around 
 mo are a host of men, fired with the ancient enthusiasm of converting my- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 473 
 
 riads by the pure, original gospel of the apostolic ministry. Our success, 
 in comparison with any other experiment in the memory of living men, 
 is truly wonderful and animating. 
 
 Here is the Presbyterian church with its eighty ministers, its eight 
 thousand and less members, after the labors of more than half a century. 
 In one third of that time the cause we plead, notwithstanding our feeble- 
 ness, and all the errors and accidents incident to a new commencement, 
 and without colleges and schools of learning, without the aids of hoary 
 veterans in policy, prudence and sage experience — by the force of this 
 simple story of God's Messiah, and his love, depicted in this mighty Pen- 
 tecostan gospel, and under the star of Jacob; led, guided, aided and bless- 
 ed, from nothing have, in less than twenty years, outnumbered this old, 
 learned, and well-disciplined host, some five to one. And what is the 
 cause ? It is not talent, learning, and an efficient general organization. 
 It is truth, sir, God's mighty truth, that has gone forth like a river and 
 overflowed this land like a wave from the ocean ! What argues all this, 
 fellow-citizens ! That its destiny is to go forward in its glorious career, 
 building on Divine facts, precepts, and promises — appealing to reason, 
 conscience, the affections, and conquering myriads by its rich, full, free, 
 efficacious grace. The doctrine works well. It is wisdom, righteous- 
 ness, holiness, and redemption to all that believe it. Those who plead 
 this cause in ancient times, I call, a sacramental host. And may those 
 who now plead it, guided, strengthened, animated by the strength of Ja- 
 cob, the Lord of hosts, go on conquering and to conquer! 
 
 But what is baptism ? The Westminsters say — It is a sacrament, a 
 sign of regeneration, a seal of engrafting into Christ — the covenant of 
 grace, of remission of sins — an engagement to be the Lord's. What a 
 rich cluster of blessings are hanging upon baptism, then, according to the 
 creed! Is this true of all, of any infant subject? Are these blessings 
 all sealed to them by it? Then let them have it by all means. But first 
 be assured that this is the fact, else you delude and ruin them, and plant 
 in your own bosoms an everlasting agony. If its design is thus to signify 
 and seal their engrafting into Christ, the Living Vine, what a blessing! 
 But that it is not so, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, I appeal to 
 your own experience — I address myself to your common sense, your own 
 observations. Surely you will say it is not so ! 
 
 Do you teach this catechism to your children ? Teach them the Scrip- 
 tures — the book that God has written. Let their minds be early and 
 deeply imbued with these holy lessons. They came from God's love, 
 and they open and sanctify the heart. Your children cannot digest such 
 crude, indigestible and unhealthy viands ; the stale, metaphisical abstru- 
 sities of old quaint divinity. Give them God's own Book. Let them 
 learn the lesson there, that God is love — and when they understand it, 
 and believe it, then put his holy name upon them, and let them feel that 
 they, and not you, believe for themselves, the gospel of salvation. 
 
 This book so read, so learned, and so believed, will accomplish for 
 them a glorious disenthralment from evil passions. They will feel that it 
 is a soul-illuminating, reviving, redeeming, and exhilarating volume, full of 
 grace and full of truth. By it they will be prepared for all earth's for- 
 tunes, good or bad, prosperous or adverse. They will rise above vulgar 
 prejudices and errors, and will pant after the fruition of the sweet and holy 
 communion of heaven's purest, holiest, happiest, and most exalted intelli- 
 gences. A deep, heartfelt conviction that such are its tendencies, is one 
 
 2r2 
 
474 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of our most urgent reasons for contending, with so much zeal, for its or- 
 dinances, its precepts, and its promises as God gave them ; believing that 
 it is able to make us all wise unto salvation — useful, honorable, and happy 
 on earth, and prepared for the seraphic intimacies and friendships, among 
 the favored circles of heaven. — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 23— H o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's third reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I will not violate the rules by which we have bound 
 ourselves to be governed in this discussion, by speaking of the gentle- 
 man's "obliquities," as he has so repeatedly done. If he choose to dis- 
 regard the rales of decorum, I will not imitate his example. He tells 
 you, I have greatly misrepresented him in the matter of the rags, oil and 
 lamp-black. The Bible, he now says, is, in one view of the subject, only 
 oil, rags, &c. So his meaning would be, that pagans are ruined because in 
 one view of the subject, they cannot get those articles ! My reply was, 
 I think, just such as his illustration merited. 
 
 It is not necessary, he repeats, that Peter and Paul should continue 
 saying over and over the same thing. But the difficulty is this — Peter, 
 on the day of Pentecost, taught a number of anxious inquirers what they 
 must do to be saved ; and he said, " Repent, and be baptized, every one 
 of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins." Now 
 if, as Mr. C. contends, baptism is a prerequisite to the remission of sins, 
 Peter must, of course, so present it when he preached to another com- 
 pany of inquirers. The fact, however, is, that in his second discourse, 
 in which he certainly did give correctly and fully the conditions of remis- 
 sion, he did not mention baptism. It is, moreover, a fact, that when he 
 preached to Cornelius and his family, who were gentiles, he did not di- 
 rect them to be baptized in order to the remission of sins. These facts 
 afford evidence conclusive, that Peter did not regard baptism as necessary 
 to secure remission. If Mr. Campbell's interpretation of Peter's first 
 discourse be correct, he did not always preach the same doctrine ; but if 
 ours be the correct exposition, he was perfectly consistent, presenting in 
 each discourse the same conditions of pardon. Repentance necessarily 
 implies conversion, and repentance and conversion necessarily imply 
 faith. So that in each of his discourses he presented to the minds of his 
 hearers, directly or impliedly, all that was necessary to secure remission 
 of sins. But, according to Mr. C.'s views, he omitted, in two of them, 
 what was as important as repentance or faith, viz. baptism. This, then, 
 is the difference between Mr. C. and myself. He makes Peter incon- 
 sistent and unfaithful ; I make him a consistent and faithful minister of 
 Christ. 
 
 He labors in vain to evade the force of the perfectly clear and unequiv- 
 ocal language of Christ — " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
 life." He says, the christian is represented as looking for eternal life. 
 Let us have chapter and verse, and I will attend to it. It is admitted, 
 that believers are looking and hoping for eternal happiness ; and so long 
 as there is an eternity before us, we shall continue to look forward. But 
 does this prove, that we may not here have the commencement of that 
 life ? When our Savior says the believer hath eternal life, Mr. C. un- 
 derstands him to mean, that although he is yet condemned, eternal life is 
 offered to him. There is no principle of criticism that will allow such 
 liberties to be taken with Scripture language. Nothing short of a cause 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 475 
 
 most indefensible, could induce a man of the clear intellect possessed by 
 my friend, to maintain that hath means may have ; and that when our 
 Savior says, all believers have eternal life, they may nevertheless be in a 
 state of condemnation. 
 
 But to the other declaration — "He that believeth on the Son, is not 
 condemned,'''' he attempted no reply, for he saw that it left no room 
 for evasion. This single passage is sufficient to overturn his whole the- 
 ory of baptism in order to remission. It can mean nothing less than that 
 every believer is actually pardoned. 
 
 But, says Mr. Campbell, Christ contemplated a believer as one who 
 would do his whole duty. To this I reply : 1st. A believer cannot bap- 
 tize himself, and persons are often placed in circumstances in which they 
 cannot be baptized by others. Even in Georgetown, where water is very 
 plentiful, there was, as I learn from the Harbinger, a delay for several 
 days of the baptism of some persons who, it was said, had made the 
 good confession. It not unfrequently happens, that believers, who are 
 disposed to do their whole duty, find it impossible to receive baptism for 
 days, weeks, or even months. Are such persons still in a state of con- 
 demnation ? For example — I am to-day a believer, but I am a hundred 
 or a thousand miles distant from any one who is authorized to baptize 
 me. Am I still condemned because a duty is required, which I have it 
 not in my power to perform ? 2d. I maintain, that God did not make 
 my salvation depend upon an act which, however inclined, I cannot per- 
 form for myself, and which I may not be able to have performed by oth- 
 ers. There is not a word in the Bible that intimates, that any true be- 
 liever is condemned and exposed to eternal ruin, because he cannot re- 
 ceive an external ordinance. The Bible doctrine is, that every one who 
 truly believes on Jesus Christ, is immediately pardoned and has everlast- 
 ing life. But according to the doctrine of Mr. Campbell, none are par- 
 doned who have not been immersed — no matter why. 3d. But many 
 persons who are disposed to obey every command of Christ, do err as to 
 what baptism is — so says Mr. Campbell. He admits that some, at least, 
 sincerely believe in baptism by sprinkling, which, he says, is not bap- 
 tism. He admits, moreover, that theirs is an error of the head, not of the 
 heart. Yet this error of the head, in regard to an external ordinance, 
 keeps them in a state of condemnation, living and dying ! They love 
 Christ and desire to obey him ; but they, through mistake, suppose them- 
 selves to be baptized, when in truth they have not submitted to the ordi- 
 nance. Now, according to Mr. Campbell's doctrine, such persons must 
 be lost ; for he maintains that repentance and immersion are " equally 
 necessary to forgiveness!'''' 
 
 He tells us, that Calvin agrees with him on this subject; and he read 
 an extract from his Institutes to prove it. But he has evidently snatched 
 up hastily a few words which seemed to favor his views, without exam- 
 ining the connection. Calvin not only does not sustain him, but does not 
 even approximate his ground. I will read from his Institutes, book iv. 
 chap. xv. sec. 1 : 
 
 " Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the so- 
 ciety of the church, in order that being incorporated into Christ, we may 
 be numbered among the children of God. Now, it has been given to us by 
 God for these ends, which I have shown to be common to all the sacra- 
 ments: first, to promote our faith toward him; secondly, to testify our 
 confession before men. We shall treat of both these ends of this insti- 
 tution in order To begin with the first : — from baptism our faith derives 
 
476 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 three advantages, which require to he distinctly considered. The first is, 
 that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol and token of our purifica- 
 tion ; or, to express my meaning more fully, it resembles a legal instrument 
 properly attested, by which he assures us that all our sins are canceled, 
 effaced, and obliterated, so that they will never'appear in his sight, or come 
 into his remembrance, or be imputed to us," &c. 
 
 Such precisely is the doctrine of our confession of faith, and the doc- 
 trine for which I contend. But I will read another passage from this 
 same chapter, which the gentleman seems not to have noticed, and which 
 proves conclusively that Calvin did not teach the doctrine for which he 
 contends. Sec. 14: 
 
 " We may see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion, who, after 
 
 HAVING RECEIVED THE REMISSION OF HIS SINS AND THE VISIBLE GRACE OF 
 
 the Holy Spirit, was baptized ; not with a view to obtain by baptism a 
 more ample remission of sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an in- 
 crease of confidence from that pledge.'''' 
 
 Now the audience will remark, Calvin says, Cornelius, after having 
 received remission of sins, was baptized. He first received remission, 
 then the sign and seal. Is this the doctrine of my friend, Mr. C. ? If 
 it is, we may shake hands, and close this part of the discussion. We can 
 have christian union at once ! But he seems not to have read Calvin's 
 remarks on the baptism of Cornelius. Calvin says, just what we say — 
 first remission of sins, by faith in Christ, and then the sign and seal. 
 So teaches our confession of faith. I believe, that baptism is a sign and 
 seal of our engrafting into Christ, of remission of sins, &c. : but faith 
 secures remission, and the sign and seal are added. The document is 
 first written, then the seal is applied. Did not Abraham receive the 
 righteousness, or justification by faith, before he received the seal of cir- 
 cumcision ? Mr. Campbell maintains, that the sins of believers are for- 
 given in baptism. Calvin maintained that they are forgiven when faith is 
 exercised before baptism. Calvin differed from his views still more 
 widely ; for he maintained, that baptism is not only a sign and seal of 
 the remission of past sins, but that it is equally efficacious through life — 
 that it is a seal of the covenant of God, securing to the believing penitent 
 the remission of sins at all times, and encouraging him to hope in God's 
 mercy, and to persevere to the end. 
 
 We now see how carefully my friend reads authors, and how he gets 
 such numbers on his side on these questions. He catches up some ex- 
 pressions, which, taken out of their connection, seem to favor his views, 
 and looks no further. Thus he persuaded himself that Calvin's views 
 accorded with his ; when, if he had read the chapter through, he would 
 have found him directly against them. I will admit, if he pleases, that 
 the whole world is as nearly with him, as he is with Calvin; that is, they 
 are precisely against him. He might, with some more plausibility, claim 
 Luther, with his notions of consubstantiation, than John Calvin. 
 
 The gentleman is still on infant baptism. He is certainly conscious 
 of having failed to sustain himself on that subject. If not, why does he 
 return to it so repeatedly ? He cannot be satisfied with his previous 
 efforts on this subject. But if he will show us the propriety of circum- 
 cising infants, when they could not possibly understand the design of the 
 ordinance, I will pledge myself to show the propriety of baptizing them. 
 Circumcision was the sign and seal of God's covenant; and, as a signifi- 
 cant ordinance, it pointed to the renewal of the heart. Infants could not 
 understand its nature and design, and yet God commanded that it should 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 477 
 
 be administered to them. There is just as much propriety in baptizing 
 infants now, as there was in circumcising them then. I hope, however, 
 that my friend will now acknowledge, that he has done the best he could 
 against infant baptism, and leave it. 
 
 He appeals to the Greek and Latin fathers of the four first centuries, as 
 sustaining his doctrine of baptism, in order to remission. Do you re- 
 member how he abused them yesterday ? and what a reproof he admin- 
 istered to me for calling up such witnesses as they ? ! ! I knew he would 
 need their authority to-day. On yesterday they were grossly ignorant, 
 and amazingly superstitious, great dupes, and their testimony was most 
 worthless. But to-day they have risen surprisingly in his estimation ! 
 They are quite enlightened ! ! ! 
 
 Yet every unprejudiced mind can see, that their testimony is far more 
 conclusive on the other subject than on this. The difference is this : I 
 brought them forward as witnesses to a plain matter of fact. Any one can 
 tell whether, in the church where he worships, children are baptized, and 
 whether such had long been the custom. But Mr. C. appeals to them 
 for their opinions concerning the nature and design of baptism. This is 
 a matter in regard to which I appeal not to them ; for we know, they en- 
 tertained erroneous opinions on this and many other subjects. Still, how- 
 ever, I do not admit, that the christian fathers held his views on this sub- 
 ject. They held to baptismal regeneration; but they did not mean by 
 regeneration what he means by it. They seem to have believed, that the 
 heart was renewed when baptism was administered, and, therefore, the 
 sins were remitted at the same time ; while he holds to no such inward 
 change in connection with the ordinance, but only to a change of state, 
 from condemnation to justification. But he is welcome to appeal to them 
 in matters of opinion, or as commentators on the Scriptures. I am per- 
 fectly willing to receive their testimony as to matters of fact, but not as 
 to their exposition of the Bible. As commentators, it is pretty generally 
 admitted, that they were not very skillful. I will not dispute with him 
 about the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. On this point they are not 
 testifying to facts, but expounding scripture. Their authority, therefore, 
 is not very considerable. 
 
 Well, if the gentleman cannot prove his doctrine true, he can, at least, 
 boast of the increasing numbers in his church. AVhat this has to do with 
 the subject under discussion, I am not able to see. I think, he would as 
 well give a dissertation upon the mountains in the moon. Or does he 
 reason thus: Reformers are increasing more rapidly than Presbyterians; 
 therefore, sins are remitted only in baptism ! His views on this subject 
 are of a very accommodating character. In noticing, in his Harbinger, 
 the rapid increase of Presbyterians and old Baptists, one year, he con- 
 soled himself by the soothing reflection, that error runs faster than truth ; 
 but, when his numbers increase, then truth outruns error ! So his argu- 
 ment will always prove, that truth is with him, and all others are in 
 error! 
 
 But what is the character of this church of whose increase he so much 
 boasts ? We are perfectly willing to compare churches with him ; and 
 he shall give the character of his own church. In his Harbinger he has 
 informed us, that, in his church, all sorts of doctrine have been preached 
 by all sorts of men ! ! ! He tells us, moreover, that it is in great confu- 
 sion ; and for two years past he has labored faithfully to get up an organ- 
 ization, to save it from perfect anarchy ; but, alas ! to this day, he has 
 
478 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 entirely failed to accomplish the object. And I venture to predict, that 
 he will never secure an organization ; for the moment he attempts to ex- 
 clude his ignorant and unworthy preachers, and to fix some standard of 
 ministerial qualification, his church will break into half a dozen frag- 
 ments. So much for his increase of numbers, which, however, has no- 
 thing to do with the question under discussion. 
 
 Let us now endeavor to ascertain the state of the argument. The gen- 
 tleman undertook to prove, that baptism is necessary in order to secure 
 the remission of sins; that the sins of penitent believers are remitted 
 only in the act of being immersed. But I have proved, that this doctrine 
 contradicts the repeated declarations of our Savior — that " he that believ- 
 eth on the Son, is not condemned — hath everlasting life." I have proved, 
 that it is false, from the fact, that all who are begotten of God, do enjoy 
 remission of sins; and Mr. C, himself, admits that believers are begot- 
 ten before they are baptized. All such, as the apostle John teaches, cease 
 from sin, live a holy life, overcome the world, and have eternal life. I 
 have also proved, that the new birth is not dependent on baptism, but oc- 
 curs often before it ; and that all who are born of God, baptized or not, 
 immersed or not, enjoy remission. If these things are so, (and the gen- 
 tleman has made no attempt to disprove most of them,) his doctrine is 
 false. 
 
 I have examined the expression in Peter's discourse, on which he re- 
 lies chiefly for the support of his theory, and have shown, that his inter- 
 pretation of it makes Peter contradict John the Baptist, and act incon- 
 sistently. The expression in Matt. iii. 11, as I have proved, is precisely 
 similar to that employed by Peter ; and, if John did not baptize the Jews 
 in order to make them repent, Peter did not baptize in order to remission 
 of sins. The erroneousness of Mr. Campbell's doctrine I proved fur- 
 ther, by the fact, that, in Peter's second discourse, baptism is not men- 
 tioned as a condition of remission ; but he said, " Repent and be con- 
 verted, that your sins may be blotted out." It is certain, that persons 
 may repent and be converted, and yet not be immersed, or even baptized 
 in any way. Conversion is turning to God ; and, it will not be denied, 
 that many have turned to God, who were never immersed. But, according 
 to Peter's doctrine, all who repented and turned to God, were pardoned. 
 Peter's second discourse, therefore, contradicts the doctrine of my friend. 
 
 When he preached the gospel to Cornelius, he did not teach him, that 
 his sins could not be forgiven, except in the act of immersion. But 
 when the Holy Spirit had descended upon him and his family, proving 
 that they were accepted of God, he commanded them to be baptized, but 
 not in order to remission of sins. So far from it, he preached a doctrine 
 wholly inconsistent with this. I will read a passage from this discourse 
 of Peter, which, I observe, was triumphantly urged against Mr. Camp- 
 bell by our friend Dr. Fishback. For although these gentlemen are in 
 the same church, they have had considerable controversy on this very 
 subject. By this, amongst other arguments, the doctor proved conclu- 
 sively, that baptism is not necessary to the remission of sins ; and Mr. 
 Campbell has not been able to answer it to this day. The passage is, 
 Acts x. 43, " To him [Christ] give all the prophets witness, that through 
 his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." 
 Observe, he said, whosoever believeth, shall receive remission. Have 
 not multitudes believed on Christ, who never were baptized, according to 
 Mr. C.'s views of baptism ? The gentleman tried to find immersion in 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 479 
 
 the expression " through his name." If he will' show the least authority 
 for such a sentiment, I will surrender. But with him almost every thing 
 means immersion. If the remission of his sins depended on answering 
 Dr. Fishback's argument from this passage of Scripture, I believe they 
 would never be remitted, [a laugh.] His doctrine is truly in a sad pre- 
 dicament ; for either it is false, or we must conclude that Peter did not 
 preach the whole truth to Cornelius, nor Paul, to the jailor. 
 
 If 1 have time, I will present another argument against Mr. C.'s doc- 
 trine, viz. If it be true, multitudes of the most pious, godly persons do 
 live and die condemned, and go to perdition. That I am not misrepre- 
 senting his views will appear from the following declarations in his Chris- 
 tianity Restored, pp. 197. 199 : 
 
 " Whatever the act of faith may be, it necessarily becomes the line of 
 discrimination between the two states before described. On this side, and 
 on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side, they are par- 
 doned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved: on the other, they 
 are in a state of condemnation. This act is sometimes called immersion, re- 
 generation, conversion ; and that this may appear obvious to all, we shall 
 be at some pains to confirm and illustrate it." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " The apostle Peter, when first publishing the gospel to the Jews, taught 
 them that they were not forgiven their sins by faith ; but by an act of faith, 
 by a believing immersion into the Lord Jesus. That this may appear evi- 
 dent to all, we shall examine his pentecostan address, and his pentecostan 
 hearers. Peter now holding the keys of the kingdom of Jesus, and speaking 
 under the commission for converting the world, and by the authority of the 
 Lord Jesus, guided, inspired, and accompanied by the Spirit — may be ex- 
 pected to speak the truth, the whole truth, plainly and intelligibly, to his 
 brethren the Jews. He had that day declared the gospel facts, and proved 
 the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to the conviction of thousands. 
 They believed and repented — believed that Jesus was the Messiah, had died 
 as a sin-offering, was risen from the dead, and crowned Lord of all. Being 
 full of this faith, they inquired of Peter and the other apostles what they 
 ought to do to obtain remission. They were informed, that though they now 
 believed and repented, they were not pardoned ; but must ' reform and be im- 
 mersed for the remission of sins.' Immersion for the forgiveness of sins, 
 was the command addressed to these believers, to these penitents, in answer 
 to the most earnest question ; and by one of the most sincere, candid, and 
 honest speakers ever heard. This act of faith was presented, as that act 
 by which a change in their state could be effected ; or, in other words, 
 by which alone they could be pardoned. They who ' gladly received 
 this word were that day immersed ;' or, in other words, that same day were 
 converted, or regenerated, or obeyed the gospel. These expressions, in the 
 apostles' style, when applied to persons coming into the kingdom, denote 
 the same act ; as will be perceived from the various passages in the wri- 
 tings of Luke and Paul." 
 
 In the Christian Baptist, the gentleman speaks of three salvations — 
 [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24 — 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fourth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I cannot, sir, in one speech this morning, review the 
 various positions of my respondent's replies, delivered yesterday, not yet 
 noticed. In order, therefore, as far as possible to preserve a connection 
 in the arguments by me submitted, before attempting to review, I will 
 proceed in an argumentative way to add a few more evidences to those 
 already before you. 
 
480 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 In my introductory speech, I delivered eight consecutive arguments; 
 one, indeed, was not fully developed, the object of which was to shew, 
 that in baptism there is a real transition from one state to another, clearly 
 indicated by the phrase *« into the name," &c. The outward transition 
 of the body, from one element into another, indicates an inward transi- 
 tion of the mind, from one state into another ; from some of our relations 
 to Adam, the first, to certain new relations to Adam, the second. This 
 is consummated by the words " I immerse thee into the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Words so solemn and 
 significant as these, are not to be expressed without a most intelligent 
 consideration, and proper preparation on the part of the penitent. 
 
 My ninth argument is based on John iii. 5, 6. This passage has 
 already become very familiar. It occupied rather a prominent place in the 
 addresses of my friend on Monday. 
 
 The great topic of debate between the Messiah and his cotemporaries 
 was his kingdom, and the mistakes concerning himself, his person, offi- 
 ces, and character as relating to it. This remarkable development of his 
 kingdom to Nicodemus, and of the way into it, extorted no little marvel 
 from this distinguished ruler of Israel, and called forth some new discov- 
 eries, never before recorded by any of the other evangelists of Jesus 
 Christ. It is not necessary here to debate in anticipation, whether our 
 Lord's discourse respected developments to be made hereafter, or then ; 
 whether that kingdom was hereafter to be entered into, or at the time of 
 this colloquy between him and Nicodemus. The abstract question is, 
 how are men to enter the kingdom of Jesus Christ in this world, in its 
 present, temporal, and earthly character and position 1 
 
 It was altogether apposite that the king of Israel and the ruler of the 
 Jews should freely communicate upon matters of royalty and empire. 
 The time-serving policy, and the official timidity of the rabbi, are over- 
 come by the curiosity of the man, to inquire into these matters ; yet flesh 
 and blood must be heard, so far as to dictate a visit by night. The Mes- 
 siah intuitively perceived the thoughts and intents of his heart ; and 
 with an awful and divine solemnity, said, " Nicodemus, you must be 
 born again," else you cannot see, or understand, this kingdom of which I 
 speak. Nay ; unless born of water and of the Spirit, you cannot enter 
 into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; 
 and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." 
 
 Observe, the Savior is speaking of his own kingdom ; not of the eternal 
 kingdom of God in the world to come. One prolific cause of error on 
 this entire subject, has been a notion that not the church, but the ultimate 
 kingdom of glory was spoken of. Hence came the Romanist notions of no 
 infant baptism, no salvation. Protestants, too, have, in some instances, 
 adopted that notion ; hence, the haste, the shameful precipitancy with 
 which, in many instances, babes have been sprinkled lest they should die 
 unbaptized. No baptism, no salvation, became for a time a proverb in 
 the Pedo-baptist church of Rome. 
 
 They made it necessary to take away original sin. Hence, they com- 
 missioned all persons, men and women, to administer baptism in extreme 
 cases, without the presence of a priest. The discovery that the kingdom 
 of God here indicated the church of Christ on earth, relieved many from 
 this morbid sensibility on the subject of baptism, immediately after birth. 
 Amongst most Protestants it has died away. 
 
 Since we began to plead for the ordinances of Christ, a new method of 
 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 481 
 
 evading the force of this passage has been discovered, and very extensively- 
 adopted. It is, to make it half literal and half spiritual. Water, say they, 
 means the Spirit, and the Spirit means the Spirit. But might not any one 
 say, if water means Spirit, Spirit means water— and thus make it all wa- 
 ter, and no Spirit. Certainly this is as rational as to make water mean 
 Spirit, and thus make it all Spirit. But the great teacher neither said the 
 one nor the other. He did not say, Ye must be born of Spirit and of the 
 Spirit; nor did he say, You must be born of water, and of the water — but 
 of water and Spirit. 
 
 When I referred to all antiquity, I did not mean to say, that I had read 
 all antiquity for four thousand years. I quoted the fathers as corrobora- 
 tive evidence, but by no means as the foundation of my faith. This is 
 neither an interpretation of my own, nor of modern times ; but if ever 
 there was a catholic — not Roman catholic or Greek catholic — but if ever 
 there was a catholic interpretation, it is the interpretation which I have 
 given; for all agree to it, both ancient and modern. 
 
 I have a few scraps here, giving the words of two of our most distin- 
 guished theologians, to wit: Timothy Dwight, president of Yale, who 
 said, " To be born of water here means baptism, and in my view it is as 
 necessary to our admission into the visible church ; as to be born of the 
 Spirit is to our admission into the invisible kingdom." " It is to be ob- 
 served, that he who understands the authority of this institution, and re- 
 fuses to obey it, will never enter into either the visible or the invisible 
 kingdom.'* 
 
 I have been blamed for being uncharitable in my views of the import- 
 ance of this institution ; but I have never said any thing which, in the 
 judgment of the intelligent, is more uncharitable than the above language 
 of the good Presbyterian doctor, Timothy Dwight. I have said, and I 
 am sustained by one greater than Dwight, (and Edwards excepted, there 
 is no name among American theologians greater than that of president 
 Dwight,) that no man, understanding this saying, and refusing to submit 
 to this ordinance, will ever enter the true visible church, or kingdom, of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 My friend has called up Dr. Scott. I believe I have read every line 
 of Scott's commentary in my youth. In answer to another question, 
 not so precisely to this point, to wit: 
 
 " .' Men and brethren, what shall we do?' — To this the apostle replied, by 
 exhorting them to repent of all their sins, and openly to avow their firm 
 belief that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, by being- baptized in his name. 
 In thus professing their faith in him, all who truly believed would receive a 
 full remission of their sins for his sake, as well as a participation of the 
 sanctifying and comforting graces of the Holy Spirit." — Scott's Commentary 
 on Acts ii. 38, 
 
 I have not only this, but all the Catholic authorities, in addition to the 
 confessions of faith. It is, then, clearly established, that the Savior said, 
 in substance, Unless ye be baptized, ye cannot enter into the christian 
 church. A man may get into some other church without baptism, but 
 into Christ's church he cannot come. 
 
 My tenth argument shall consist of an induction of all the conversions 
 reported by Luke, in his Acts of the Apostles. It will, therefore, be a 
 highly important argument. It will be, I hope, a satisfactory answer to 
 Mr. R.'s objection on yesterday, viz. that we have the solemn precept, 
 " Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins," only once, in the 
 same identical words. We have, indeed, shown, that if this preceDt 
 31 2S 
 
482 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 never had been repeated, still the circumstances under which it was first 
 spoken, give it a meaning and an importance paramount to a thousand 
 repetitions. It was made the opening speech of the gospel age ; sanc- 
 tioned by the holy twelve; confirmed, as well as suggested by the Holy 
 Spirit; most solemnly sealed and authenticated by the conversion of 3000 
 men in one day, who gladly received the word, and were that same day 
 baptized. That fact, in justification of our interpretation, gives the pas- 
 sage pre-eminent weight in the minds of all conscientious persons. 
 
 My opponent said that it was a solitary passage ; and he objected to 
 it, because the same verbiage is not preserved in other places. I shall go 
 into an investigation of every single conversion. I shall, however, at- 
 tempt it'with great rapidity. The second sermon and conversion, report- 
 ed in Acts, chap, hi., says, "Repent and be converted, that your sins 
 may be blotted out; and that seasons of refreshment may come from the 
 presence of the Lord." 
 
 Since the gentleman has, himself, decided, in his comments on the 
 commission, that convert means to baptize, if I may, without any offence, 
 refer to the discussion of infant baptism, even as a matter of history, (to 
 which, it seems, he is not very partial,) I can quote words, but you doubt- 
 less remember them, affirming that Jesus commanded persons to be con- 
 verted, or discipled, merely by the act of baptizing them. Consequently, 
 according to Mr. Rice, when Peter said " Repent and be converted, every 
 one of you," he said just what he had said on Pentecost — "Repent and 
 be baptized, every one of you, that your sins may be blotted out." So far 
 as infants are concerned, Mr. Rice will say it is good sound criticism. 
 Convert, that is, baptize them, and then teach them. Baptizing, says 
 Mr. Rice, is the main matter ; but the act of baptizing, in his system, is 
 equivalent to the term convert. Therefore, Peter meant in the temple, 
 that which he meant on Pentecost. 
 
 But the conversion was accomplished in this case, as in the former. 
 They heard the gospel, believed it, and were baptized. The fact is the 
 same, whatever the phraseology may have been. The gentleman says, 
 that born is not the word here used by Peter, and therefore " born of 
 water " is not intended. Again— he says, "be baptized" is not found in 
 the second sermon ; consequently, that could not be the meaning. Let 
 us try his logic in some other cases, and then unfold its virtues. It is 
 simply this: — That as Peter, in his second sermon, did not say, "be 
 born of water" and as he did not say " be baptized" but " be convert- 
 ed" he must not be supposed to mean, by this word convert, either of the 
 other two ; and, therefore, there was neither baptism, nor the birth of 
 water, connected with his idea of salvation. I believe I have fairly stated 
 his logic. Let us now return to the first sermon, and reason by his rules. 
 In the first sermon Peter said, "be baptized," but did not once use the 
 words "be converted," nor did he use the words "be born of the Spi- 
 rit ;" consequently, he did not mean either " be converted" or " be born 
 of the Spirit," with reference to the remission of sins : for, according to 
 Mr. Rice, he always meant, in such cases, no more than the simple im- 
 port of the term used. Hence, it must follow, that of the three thousand 
 converted on the day of Pentecost, not one of them believed ; not one 
 of them was " bom of the Spirit ;" not one of them was " converted ;" for 
 the plain and evident reason, that Peter did not use one of these words. 
 So much for the profound logic of my worthy friend. 
 
 But in the second sermon Peter did not mention faith nor the Holy 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 483 
 
 Spirit — he only said, Repent and be converted. Now, unless the word 
 conversion mean faith, mean the Holy Spirit, or stand connected with 
 these words, then there was neither faith nor Holy Spirit in Peter's sec- 
 ond sermon. But why spend time in the exposition of assumptions and 
 positions never before assumed by any person pretending- to philological 
 attainments! I will dismiss this subject by observing, that when conver- 
 sion, ox faith, or repentance, or baptism, is once interpreted, it is always 
 used to represent one and the same thing, when applied to the same subject. 
 I might, indeed, before dismissing the objection to laying much empha- 
 sis upon a single occurrence, ask my friend, Mr. Rice, why he lays so 
 much stress upon the formula of baptizing into the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit ? especially as we never read that it was so done in 
 those very words in any one instance. If, then, all the world build their 
 practice, on one single occurrence, and if we had but one example, which 
 is not the fact, why blame us for so adhering to Peter — Acts ii. 
 
 I will now read a passage from Acts viii. 12 ; and make a few passing 
 remarks as I proceed, to show how the same rules of interpretation apply 
 in all cases : 
 
 " When the Samaritans believed Philip, preaching concerning the king- 
 dom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both 
 men and women." But it is not said that they repented, nor that they 
 were converted, nor that they were born of water, nor of the Spirit. 
 Shall we therein infer that they only believed, and neither repented, nor 
 were converted, nor born of the Spirit, nor of water ? The Bible would 
 have been a singular volume, if every time it related a conversion, it 
 roust tell the whole story over. We should soon have been as wearied 
 as we are in reading the preambles to the acts of our legislative enact- 
 ments. If Luke had said, the Samaritans heard the whole gospel 
 preached, they were all enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they were all 
 penetrated with a sense of sin, they all believed, they all repented, they 
 all were regenerated, they were all born of the water, they were all born 
 of the Spirit, they were all truly converted, they were all baptized, 
 they were all justified, sanctified, saved, and they were all added to the 
 church. This being told over a hundred times in the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, would become very interesting ! ! What a singular book the Bible 
 would have been, had it been formed after the taste of some good ortho- 
 dox people ! ! 
 
 My next case is that of Cornelius. The gentleman brought up this 
 case with a great deal of emphasis : I design, therefore, to pause a little 
 longer upon it than upon the others. We find a summary of it in Acts 
 xi. 45 : " But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expound- 
 ed it in order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying : and 
 in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descend, as it had been a great 
 sheet, let down from heaven by four corners ; and it came even to me : 
 upon the which, when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw 
 four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and 
 fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter ; slay 
 and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord : for nothing common or unclean hath 
 at any time entered my mouth. But the voice answered me again from 
 heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common. And this 
 was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. And 
 behold, there were three men already come unto the house where I was, 
 sent from Cesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, no 
 

 4S4 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM, 
 
 thing doubting. Moreover, these six brethren accompanied me, and we 
 entered into the man's house. And he showed us how he had seen an 
 angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa f 
 and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words 
 whereby thee and all thy house. shall be saved." 
 
 This good Cornelius gave much alms, and prayed to God always. He 
 was a truly excellent, pious, benevolent man ; much better than one half 
 of the best professors in Kentucky; yet he was not a christian, nor even 
 a Jew, nor a Jewish proselyte. A pure gentile, enlightened by portions 
 of the law, he was serving God instantly, day and night ; yet he was not 
 evangelically saved. But some men will say — had this good man died, 
 would he have gone to perdition 1 would he have been forever lost ? — 
 and such other questions as grow out of these. To which we are bound 
 to give no answer. All we know is, that he was not saved in this world, 
 whatever he might have been, had he been taken out of it by God. Re- 
 collect, the angel said, Send for Peter, and " he will tell thee words by 
 which thou and all thy house shall be saved." Of course, then, these 
 words and precepts which were promised him, were words essential to 
 his evangelical salvation. For christian salvation is a range much higher 
 than Jewish, patriarchal, gentile, proselyte, and even sectarian salvation. 
 It is a full, perfect, and complete salvation from sin. Cornelius is a very 
 fine specimen of the high excellences to which a person might attain, 
 without a saving knowledge of the only name, given under heaven, by 
 which any man can be saved. His excellences may have been one rea- 
 son why the Lord chose to make him and his family the first fruits of 
 the gentile world. 
 
 I need not further detail the incidents of this case. Peter was sent for 
 to Joppa — and why send for Peter ? Let Peter tell the story. " The 
 Lord," said he, "made choice among us apostles, that the gentiles, by my 
 mouth, should hear the word of the Lord, and believe." The keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven had been committed to Peter — this same kingdom of 
 God, into which no man now-a-days can enter, but through a birth of 
 water and of the Spirit. This was the reason, then, that Peter must be 
 sent for. 
 
 Peter had a reason, too, just at this crisis. He saw the gentiles in 
 this sheet full of reptiles sent down from heaven. He was slow to learn 
 this before taught. Finally, however, he was prepared to go with the 
 three pious soldiers that were sent for him. Six brethren accompanied 
 him to witness the glorious scene. He arrived, was received with the 
 honors due to one so honored by the Lord. He began to speak. The 
 hearers were already well prepared. The fallow-ground had been broken 
 up by these providences. They drank it down as the thirsty ox drink- 
 eth the water. "While the porter, Peter, was well nigh the gate of heaven 
 in his discourse, the Spirit fell from heaven directly upon them all, as it 
 had done on the believers on the day of Pentecost ; and like them they 
 began to speak with tongues, and to glorify God. 
 
 They were all overwhelmed. It was a second Pentecost, and the only 
 second Pentecost the world ever saw. After it became evident that this 
 was the baptism of the Holy Spirit foretold and promised by the Mes 
 siah to the first fruits of the Jews, Peter, gathering thence that the gates 
 of the city should be opened, said, Can any man forbid water, that these 
 persons, welcomed as we have been by the Holy Spirit should not be 
 baptized ? 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 485 
 
 All being silent, he commanded them to be baptized, by the authority 
 of the Lord. 
 
 Concerning this gift of the Holy Spirit, and that bestowed on Pente- 
 cost, there is a very popular and common error abroad. It is supposed 
 to have fallen (on Pentecost) upon the audience — the unbelieving multi- 
 tude. This is a grand mistake. After the Holy Spirit had been poured 
 out (on Pentecost) on the brethren, not to produce faith, for faith they had, 
 the apostles addressed them, appealing to what they saw and heard, not 
 to what they felt. 
 
 So in the present case, the Spirit fell on believing gentiles, to welcome 
 them into the kingdom, as God had received the Jewish converts. He 
 made no difference between the first fruits of the gentiles and the first 
 fruits of the Jews. These again were miraculous gifts, for signs and 
 tokens, and not the ordinary influences of that divine agent which chris- 
 tians ordinarily enjoy. 
 
 Peter feeling himself authorized to admit them into the kingdom, as we 
 have heard, commanded their baptism, and thus they too were inducted 
 into the family of God, and united with the Jews in the same fold. But 
 we are not told that they believed, that they repented, that they were 
 converted. Nor are we even told that they were baptized. We only 
 learn that Peter commanded them to be baptized. We presume, of 
 course, they were. The whole affair is, however, afterwards called 
 " the conversion of the gentiles." Now we infer, they were baptized, 
 obtained the remission of sins, and received the consolations and joys 
 that make up the christian religion. Cornelius and his household were 
 now saved. 
 
 I next allude to the case of Lydia. We are told that a certain woman 
 named Lydia, and her household, whose heart the Lord opened, attended 
 to Paul's preachings, and was baptized. Now there is not one word 
 about her believing, repenting, or being converted, nor that she was born 
 of the Spirit, pardoned, or added to the church. 
 
 The same also is true of the jailor, whose conversion is reported on 
 the next page, and in the same chapter. Not one word is said about his 
 believing before baptism, or his repenting, or his conversion, or his hav- 
 ing received the Spirit. Does not this show that neither the preacher 
 thought it necessary to tell, nor the historian to record, in any case after 
 the commencement, what was preached, nor what the effects on them 
 that heard and obeyed ? They always preached the same things substan- 
 tially ; they commanded all men every where to do the same things — to 
 believe, repent, and be baptized for remission. 
 
 Again, Acts xviii. 5. In the case of Crispus and the Corinthians. 
 Crispus believed, and all his house. Hearing, lie believed, and was bap- 
 tized, and all his house. Here, we are not told that they repented, or 
 were converted : and why not, if my friend's reasoning be correct ? 
 
 In chapter xix., we read of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, but not one word is said of the conversion, &c, of the indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 I have one case more. It is the case of Saul of Tarsus. Ananias was 
 sent to him : presenting himself to him, he said, " Arise, brother Saul, 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
 Lord," Acts xx. 16. 
 
 In this last instance, there is a reiteration of what had been promised 
 at Pentecost. The case of Paul was a remarkable one. Like other 
 
 2s2 
 
486 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Jews in that day, he was guilty of persecuting the christians. His con- 
 version was very extraordinary. The Lord appeared to him on the way : 
 not to convert him, but to make him an apostle, that he might say to the 
 world, he had seen the Messiah and heard his voice. The Spirit sent 
 Ananias to tell this man what he ought to do for his own personal con- 
 version. He says to him, " Arise, brother Saul, be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins." Nothing, however, is reported of his believing, re- 
 penting, or being converted. 
 
 Thus, in nine instances given, there is no uniformity in representing 
 this matter. Sometimes faith, or repentance, or conversion, is mentioned 
 — sometimes none of them. Sometimes remission of sins, blotting out 
 of sins, washing away of sins, is spoken of; and sometimes not: some- 
 times baptism itself is not mentioned. From all which, the conclusion is 
 inevitable, that when any one of the adjuncts of conversation or salvation 
 is named, all the rest are understood to have accompanied. 
 
 To take any other view of the matter, would lead to the most absurd 
 consequences. 
 
 We should have to admit, that a person was baptized sometimes with- 
 out faith, without repentance, without conversion, without remission of 
 sins. We are, then, compelled by an insuperable logical necessity, to 
 conclude that in every instance the same adjuncts and accompaniments 
 were present. Hence the doctrine preached on Pentecost was always 
 preached, and baptism was in every instance "for remission of sins." 
 [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24— 10£ o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's fourth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — Inasmuch as, at the suggestion of my friend, we 
 s.hall continue the discussion to-night, a couple of hours, I shall proceed 
 more leisurely in following him, and shall answer everything of any im- 
 portance that he may ofTer. I have a remark to make in regard to the 
 expression baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 This expression, Mr. C. says, is indicative of entering into a new spi- 
 ritual relation. Of course, the person baptized into the name of the 
 Trinity, has no such connection with the Trinity before that event. Now, 
 it happens that we have precisely the same expression in Paul's first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. x. 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 (Greek — 
 into) Moses, in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual 
 meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink." The expression in 
 both cases is the same. They were baptized into Moses in the cloud and 
 in the sea. Now, the question is this : What new relation was consti- 
 tuted by the baptism of the Jews into Moses in the cloud and in the sea ? 
 Did they sustain any relation to Moses afterwards, which had not existed 
 previously ? Was he not their leader before this baptism ? Had he not 
 led them out from Egyptian bondage ? Was there any new relation now 
 constituted? There was a recognition of an existing relation, and a con- 
 firmation of it. Their passing through the sea, and being baptized, was 
 a public recognition of Moses as their leader, and an expression of their 
 determination still to follow him. So, in being baptized into the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the existing relation, formed by 
 faith in the Trinity, and in Christ as our Savior, is recognized and 
 confirmed, but no new relation to God is constituted. It is a happy cir- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM 487 
 
 cumstance that we have the same expressions in these two passages, that 
 we may not mistake the meaning of God's word. 
 
 I have a remark or two to make concerning the new birth. The Sa- 
 vior says — "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of 
 God." And again, when Nicodemus did not understand his meaning, 
 he said — " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
 enter into the kingdom of God." 
 
 Now, my friend tells us the meaning of this language is — Unless a 
 man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the church. 
 I presume this is not the true meaning. It cannot be so ; for multitudes 
 who are not born of the Spirit, do enter into the church. Observe, the 
 Savior says, that they must be born of water and the Spirit. Now, the 
 fact is undeniable, that many enter the church who are not born of the 
 Spirit, as their conduct afterwards abundantly proves. The expression 
 "Kingdom of God" may, perhaps, sometimes in the New Testament 
 mean the church ; but such is not its most common signification. It is 
 commonly used, more particularly with reference to the spiritual kingdom 
 established in the hearts of God's people, which, Paul says, " is not meat 
 and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
 Sometimes it has reference particularly to the kingdom of glory. The idea 
 which the Savior intended to convey, is, that a man must be born again, 
 or he cannot possess the blessings, present and future, of his kingdom. 
 He cannot enjoy pardon, salvation, and eternal life, unless he experience 
 the new birth, in a change of heart. 
 
 But, it is a little remarkable, that Mr. Campbell does not undertake to 
 answer the facts and arguments by which I proved that the new birth is 
 not essentially connected with baptism. But he says, he will produce 
 the great Presbyterian, Dr. Dwight, to sustain his views. My friend 
 gets his authors very singularly misplaced. In his translation of the New 
 Testament, he published Doddridge as a Presbyterian doctor, though he 
 never was a Presbyterian, but an Independent. And now he calls Dr. 
 Dwight a Presbyterian ; and in his Harbinger he represents him as the 
 Rabbi of American Presbyterianism, though he was a Congregationalist, 
 and never a Presbyterian. He is certainly not as careful as he might be 
 in quoting authorities. But 1 will agree to take Dr. Dwight — I will sub- 
 scribe to every sentiment he expresses, so far as this argument is con- 
 cerned. For he says, that, in order to enter the spiritual kingdom of 
 God — to be a true member, we must be born of the Spirit, by which he 
 understands the renewal of the heart. But Mr. Campbell regards the new 
 birth, not as a change of heart, but a change of state — a passing from a 
 state of condemnation to a state of justification. Dr. Dwight does indeed 
 say, that, in order to enter the visible churchy a man must be baptized ; and 
 I never heard this denied, except by Quakers. But, we are not speaking 
 of the manner of entering into the church ; we are inquiring how sins are 
 to be remitted. To prove that baptism is necessary to the remission of 
 sins, Mr. C. appeals to a man who says, you cannot get into the visible 
 church without baptism. He might as well quote what Dr. Dwight says 
 about the truth of the Bible. But Dwight, he tells us, says, that a man 
 cannot be saved who refuses to submit to the ordinance of baptism. Did 
 I not tell you, on yesterday, that he who refuses deliberately to obey any 
 command of God, cannot be forgiven ? that he is not a pious man ? If a 
 man should say, " I will not pray ;" he would prove most conclusively 
 that he has no piety. But the question before us is not whether a man 
 
488 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 who refuses to be baptized, or who is resolved not to obey any one of 
 Christ's commands, can be saved ; but whether a penitent believer is 
 pardoned before he is baptized ? 
 
 My friend appeals to the ancient fathers. But I will not receive them 
 as judicious expounders of God's word; for it is admitted, that they en- 
 tertained many erroneous opinions concerning the meaning of the Scrip- 
 tures, and greatly perverted their meaning. I called them up to testify 
 to a fact. I simply asked them, whether in their day, and as far back as 
 their information extended, infant baptism was universally practiced by 
 the church. They answered in the affirmative. But now my friend 
 calls them up as theologians, I will not admit their op .mens as evi- 
 dence. Yet I deny that the old fathers held the views for which he con- 
 tends. He maintains, that baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, is designed to effect a change of state, to secure pardon of 
 sins ; but they believed that there was connected with the ordinance of 
 baptism a change of heart. This idea they made very prominent ; and 
 they connected it with the remission of sins. They believed that regen- 
 eration and baptism were connected ; though by regeneration they under- 
 stood not what Mr. C. understands by it. But I will agree, for the sake 
 of argument, that they did entertain the views for which Mr. Campbell 
 contends ; and then I will say, as he has said, that they are poor theo- 
 logians ! 
 
 But he also appeals to popish authorities. I will show you, before I 
 sit down, that his views are quite in accordance with those of the pope ; 
 that his language is almost precisely the language of the council of Trent. 
 If he relies on the authority of the pope, I can show that he does agree 
 with him ; but I do not consider this a recommendation of his doctrine. 
 
 But he understands the Savior to say, that, if we are not baptized, we 
 cannot become members of his church. But does the Savior say, we 
 cannot be pardoned I Instead of proving, by the language of Christ, the 
 doctrine for which he contends, my friend is diverting you from the sub- 
 ject. I admit that we cannot get into the visible church without bap- 
 tism ; but I will not agree that we cannot be pardoned before baptism. 
 
 My friend, in speaking of the commission, tells you that I agreed that 
 disciples were made by baptizing and teaching, and that I made baptism 
 the principle thing. I represented it only as an ordinance to be received 
 before individuals can be recognized as disciples, or learners, in the school 
 of Christ. They cannot be recognized as members, nor entitled to the 
 privileges, of the church, till they receive the initiatory rite. But I did 
 not say, that the mere initiation was the main thing in making disciples. 
 It is important, but still it is not the great thing ; the most important mat- 
 ter is the teaching. 
 
 I will follow the gentleman in his arguments jrGm ihe Ac-Is of the 
 Apostles. I did so yesterday, but I will do so again to-day, as I have 
 abundance of time. 
 
 With reference to Peter's discourse, I have taken this position : — 
 When he said, " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
 of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," he did not mean to say that 
 repentance and baptism w r ere equally necessary. The language of John, 
 as I have remarked, in Matt, iii.ll, is precisely similar to that here em- 
 ployed by Peter. When Peter says, repent and be baptized into (eis) 
 the remission of sins, Mr. C. insists that the meaning is, be baptized 
 in order that your sins may be remitted — that their sins could be par- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 489 
 
 doned only in baptism. Then I insist, that when' John said, " I baptize 
 you with water (eis) into repentance," lie must have baptized the Jews 
 in order that they might repent — to cause them to feel godly sorrow for 
 their sins ! and they could not repent before baptism ! Let the audience 
 get the idea distinctly. Peter, according to Mr. C, commanded baptism, 
 in order to remission of sins ; but the language of John is precisely simi- 
 lar, and, of course, he must have baptized the Jews in order to repent- 
 ance ! This, indeed, would be a singular doctrine — immerse persons into 
 water, to cause them to repent of their sins ! 
 
 But, says Mr. Campbell, John baptized the Jews into reformation — in 
 order that they might reform. But this rendering of the passage only 
 involves him in another difficulty : for, how came John to baptize, to 
 cause persons to reform, when Peter required them to reform in order 
 that they might be baptized ? John, according to this construction, bap- 
 tized men, in order to reformation ; but Peter required them to reform, in 
 order to baptism ! Thus the doctrine of Peter is a flat contradiction to 
 that preached by John ? Interpretations so inconsistent will not do. John 
 baptized, on profession of repentance ; and Peter baptized, on a profes- 
 sion of faith in the doctrine of remission of sins through the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. The baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, was 
 a public profession of their firm persuasion that Christ was able to save 
 them from their sins. It was a recognition of a previous relation, con- 
 stituted by their faith in him as their only Savior. Their sins were par- 
 doned ; and they received the sign and seal of remission. 
 
 I turned to Peter's second sermon: and what did he say? He is 
 again preaching to many anxious inquirers ; and he says, " Repent and 
 be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Then, according to the 
 obvious meaning of his language, every man that repented, and was con- 
 verted or turned to God, had his sins blotted out. 
 
 My friend says, it was not necessary to mention baptism in every dis- 
 course, and he has referred us to instances where persons were added to the 
 church ; and yet it is not said by the inspired historian, that they believed, 
 or repented, or were converted, The cases, however, are not at all par- 
 allel. When I undertake to instruct ignorant and anxious inquirers, con- 
 cerning the plan of salvation, I must tell them every thing that is neces- 
 sary, that they may receive remission of sins. If I omit any thing es- 
 sential, I am a false or unfaithful teacher. Suppose I preach a sermon 
 to this congregation to-day, and state to them all that they must do to be 
 saved ; but next week I preach a sermon to another congregation of in- 
 quirers, and I neglect to state to them one of the most important conditions 
 of pardon and salvation: am I not justly chargeable with being an unfaith- 
 ful minister ? In view of my responsibility to God, am I not solemnly 
 bound to present to both congregations, the same conditions of salvation ? 
 
 But when I undertake to write a history of the church, I am not oblig- 
 ed, every time I record a number of conversions, to state, that they all 
 repented, believed, and were converted. In such a history, one distinct 
 and full statement of the conditions of admission to the church, is suffi- 
 cient. But Peter was instructing anxious and ignorant minds concerning 
 the way to be saved ; and he was obliged to tell them all that was ne- 
 cessary, in order that their sins might be remitted, &c. He did so ; but 
 he did not mention baptism as a condition of remission. Consequently, 
 baptism, in order to the remission of sins, was not part of his doctrine : 
 with him, repentance and conversion were the conditions. 
 
 * 
 
490 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Peter, it is true, did not mention conversion in the first discourse. But 
 this objection was fully answered on yesterday. I ask any man of com- 
 mon sense, can a man repent, and not be converted ? What is repent- 
 ance ? My friend agrees with me, that it is a change of mind — of views 
 and feelings. Would you believe a man who should profess that his 
 mind is changed, and yet continue to pursue the same course of conduct ? 
 If there is a change of mind, there must be change of conduct. If a man 
 repent, he is grieved because of his sins. And will not such a change of 
 mind produce a corresponding change in his conduct ? " Make the tree 
 good," said our Savior, " and the fruit will be good." Let the heart be 
 changed, and the conduct will be right. If, then, a man repent, will he 
 not turn ? Does not repentance imply conversion ? Peter might, there- 
 fore, either mention repentance only, or repentance and conversion — the 
 cause only, or cause and effect. When I speak of a cause, which univer- 
 sally produces a certain effect, I may mention the cause alone, or the 
 cause and the effect. I may, therefore, mention repentance, or repent- 
 ance and conversion both. Repentance, conversion, and faith, are never 
 separated in any human bosom. You cannot find a man with faith and 
 not repentance. You cannot find a man that has repentance without 
 conversion. The three things go together, as much as the heaving of the 
 lungs and the beating of the pulse. Hence, I may tell any man on earth, 
 if you repent, your sins will be pardoned. Or, I may say to him, if you 
 are converted, they will be blotted out. For no man was ever converted 
 without faith and repentance. These three things are always found asso- 
 ciated. This common sense view of the subject will remove one half of 
 the difficulties my friend has presented. 
 
 He asks, why do we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, since we can find no example of baptism thus administered ? If 
 the one command of our Savior is sufficient to justify and to require it to 
 be so administered, the authority of Peter in one sermon, he argues, is as 
 good. We are disputing, not as to whether Peter's doctrine is true, but 
 about what Peter did say. I agree that what he said is true ; but I deny 
 that Mr. Campbell's construction of his language is correct. So his argu- 
 ment or illustration does not touch the question. 
 
 The Samaritans heard the gospel preached to them ; and it is not said 
 that they repented or were converted ; but it is said, that they believed. 
 But could they have faith, and not have repentance and conversion? 
 " This is the victory," says John, " that overcometh the world, even our 
 faith." The gentleman will not pretend, that a man can be a true be- 
 liever, and yet be impenitent. Hence it is that the Savior promised eter- 
 nal life to every believer, without mentioning repentance or conversion. 
 
 My friend pointed us to the baptism of the eunuch. Here, he told us, 
 faith is mentioned, but not conversion. The eunuch said, " I believe that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God." There is faith. I ask again, can faith 
 exist without conversion ? If it can, then faith is not, as John represents 
 it, the "victory that overcometh the world." 
 
 The case of Cornelius was brought forward. He, we were told, was a 
 good man, but not evangelically saved. I believe that is the phraseol- 
 ogy used by the gentleman ; though I do not find such language in the 
 Scriptures. My friend, after all his reforming, retains a good deal of 
 " the language of Ashdod." If he was saved at all, I presume he was 
 saved evangelically. If he was saved, his sins were pardoned. Look at 
 the history of Cornelius, and- determine in the light of divine truth, 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 491 
 
 whether he was yet unpardoned. When Peter reached the house, and 
 Cornelius reported to him the revelation which God had made to him, 
 then Peter said, " Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of per- 
 sons ; but in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, 
 is accepted of him." Now, Cornelius was accepted. A man accepted 
 of God, and not pardoned ! Moreover, Peter did not say one word about 
 baptism, in order to the remission of sins. He ought to have taught Cor- 
 nelius this doctrine, if it were true. What did Peter say ? Instead of 
 saying, be baptized for the remission of sins, he said, " To him give all the 
 prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth on him, 
 shall receive remission of sins." 
 
 Now my friend is obliged to grant, that thousands do believe, who 
 never will be immersed. 
 
 But again — Peter said, " Can any man forbid water, that these should 
 not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" 
 What did Peter say ? Be baptized, that you may receive the Holy 
 Ghost? No — the Spirit is poured out before baptism. Cornelius was 
 not only a good man, a pious man, but he had received the miraculous 
 influences of the Holy Spirit before baptism. Here, then, if Mr. Camp- 
 bell's doctrine is true, we find a good man, a pious man, having received 
 the miraculous influences of the Spirit, and still he is a condemned man ! ! 
 His sins are yet upon him ; and he is in danger of being lost ! 
 
 My friend has told you about three salvations, viz: of the body, of the 
 soul, and the salvation in heaven. If we admit that there are three, 4 Cor- 
 nelius, it is true, had not the third ; but most assuredly he had the sec- 
 ond — the remission of sins. And with great propriety it might be said, 
 Peter told him words whereby he might be saved; because no man can 
 be said to be saved, in the highest sense of this word, till he gets to 
 heaven. I presume the gentleman has not gained much for his cause by 
 introducing the case of Cornelius. He will find it difficult to convince 
 any enlightened mind, that a good man, whose prayers God has heard, 
 who has been honored by a visit from an angel from heaven ; and upon 
 whom he has poured out the miraculous gifts of his Spirit, is yet in a 
 state of condemnation, and cannot be pardoned until he is immersed ! We 
 have higher ideas of the grace and mercy of God, than to believe, that he 
 has bound himself not to pardon a penitent believer, until an external ordi- 
 nance can be administered to him. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24—11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fifth address.] 
 Mr. President — It is, perhaps, expedient, that I now attend to some 
 objections made to my arguments. As yet, indeed, we have had no di- 
 rect reply to any one of them — no debate whatever, as doubtless you all 
 perceive. Ten arguments have now been submitted, and not a direct issue 
 formed on any one of them. But the gentleman throws out observa- 
 tions, and asserts other positions, which he presumes will answer the 
 purpose as well as any response which he could make. He has asked 
 the question, " Into what new relation is a person baptized?" He admits 
 there is a new relation, and assumes that baptism is a mere recognition of 
 it. Such, indeed, is his use of baptism — for such, he has argued, was 
 the use of circumcision ; it recognized a previously existing relation. 
 Well, baptism recognizes that an infant is in Christ already ! ! His de- 
 sign of baptism is very simple. It merely recognizes a relation already 
 
492 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 formed. Such, however, was not the apostles' view of the matter. The 
 gentleman can find no text in the Bible that says so. The apostles taught 
 that " as many as were baptized into Christ, had put on Christ ; that 
 they were baptized into Christ." The name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, was, in baptism, put upon them ; and hence a new relation 
 was now formed. Is marriage, or is naturalization, a mere recognition of 
 a previously existing relation ? I ask, also, in what previously existing 
 relation do infants stand to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in respect 
 to baptism ? and in what new relation do these infant disciples stand to 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, after baptism ? 
 
 Was there not some change in the relations of Moses, and the children 
 of Israel, after their baptism into Moses in the cloud and in the sea ? 
 Moses, with considerable difficulty, constrained them to prepare for a 
 journey from Egypt. Forty years before that time, when he offered his 
 services, they were rejected, and his life endangered. Remembering their 
 unkind treatment of him, it was with great reluctance he undertook the 
 new mission. He did not know how to address them. " Who shall I tell 
 them sent me ?" was his own response to God, when about receiving his 
 commission. He knew the reluctance of the king to let them go, and 
 their reluctance to leave Egypt ; and between these, Moses felt it would be 
 a labor and a toil insuperable, without some aids, supernatural and Divine. 
 The Lord promised these, and gave him a sign of the power which 
 should accompany him in this great work of redeeming that people. I 
 need -not relate the means employed, nor the difficulties encountered and 
 Overcome, in making both parties willing — Israel to depart, and Pharaoh 
 willing to let them go. At last they encamped near the Red sea. But 
 when they found themselves encamped between defiles of mountains on 
 right and left, the Red sea before them, and Pharaoh, with his chariots 
 and horsemen, behind them, their spirits sunk within them. They re- 
 pented that they had left their former masters, and had detached themselves 
 from slavery. Their faith in Moses was not sealed. They desponded — 
 they murmured. He saw himself in the midst of perils. His faith failed 
 not, though theirs did. He threw oil upon the troubled waters. Stretching 
 out his hand, with the rod of God in it, over the Red sea, he said "Stand 
 still, and see the salvation of God." The waters were instantty divided. 
 As though congealed, they stood like walls of adamant — a splendid defile 
 on the right and left. The channel of the Red sea was their pavement. 
 The chariot cloud of the Redeemer of Israel arched it over. Moses 
 marched. He gave the solemn signal, and they obeyed. He led the 
 way, and they followed him. Soon as the millions of Israel were all in 
 the channel of the sea, the cloud of glory covered them. They were,, in- 
 deed, baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They now, in 
 fact, assumed him as their leader, practically confided in him, and unit- 
 ed their fortunes with his from that moment. So with the discipled 
 into Christ. They enter into a covenant, in their hearts, with the Lord. 
 They solemnly give themselves away, and vow an everlasting homage to 
 him practically, actually, and formally, in their burial with Christ, and a 
 formal assumption of his venerable, holy, and beloved name. 
 
 The gentleman would have you think that I committed a great error in 
 prefixing the word Presbyterian before the name of Dr. Timothy D wight. 
 Pedo-baptists are so sub-divided, and even Calvinists and Presbyterians 
 so frittered into parties, and the nice shades that designate them so meta- 
 physical, I confess I frequently err in this way. In the old world, in my 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 493 
 
 youth, we called the Congregationalists, English Presbyterians — some- 
 times Puritans. But, inasmuch as Dr. Dwight was a Pedo-baptist, there 
 is no injury done either truth or religion, by placing him under a wrong 
 label. In this country, indeed, it now seems this error has been sanc- 
 tioned by high authority ; for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 church has, within a few years, thrown out of her bosom many thou- 
 sands of those Presbyterian Congregationalists. The difference, until 
 recently, hurt no man's conscience, except a very few of the deepest 
 shade of true-blueism. Dwight, then, we shall all remember, was a Pres- 
 byterian in doctrine, and a Congregationalist in ecclesiastic politics, or 
 government. What an important point we have now decided ! 
 
 My opponent is, I think, the only man in this house who could so 
 have misconceived me, on the meaning of John iii. 5. When I spoke 
 of " bom of ivater and of the Spirit," did any other person imagine that I 
 spoke of a mere outward relation to something called a visible church? 
 No. That is, perhaps, a Pedo-baptist idea ; but it is no conception of 
 mine. If it does not indicate more than a nominal outward profession 
 and adhesion to a particular community, it is, indeed, a matter of very little 
 importance. Have I to enlighten my friend upon this subject? It seems 
 as though he were in the dark, on the spirituality of baptism, and the 
 church or kingdom of Christ. With me, union with Christ is not mere 
 union with a creed, and a party built upon it. The kingdom of God is 
 no party, no one party on earth. It is a spiritual kingdom, and is in the 
 hearts of men : consisting not in meats, drinks, creeds, and covenants, 
 " but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." Into this no 
 one can enter without faith, and the Spirit of God. Baptism into Christ, 
 the effect of faith, is a sensible introduction into this spiritual state, and 
 outwardly unites us with the public profession ; but when properly un- 
 derstood, spiritually, sometimes called mystically, or under the symbol, 
 inducts into an intimate, near, and holy union with the Savior of the 
 world, by his Spirit. The outward act, then, is but the symbol of the 
 transition, inward and spiritual, by which our souls are bathed in that 
 ocean of love, which purifies our persons, and makes them one with the 
 Lord. Without this, being born of water, or being connected with a 
 church, is nothing — worse than nothing. Hence, without previous know- 
 ledge, faith, and repentance, immersion into the name, &c, is a mere 
 outward and unprofitable ceremony. Hence my opposition to infant 
 baptism ; and hence my opposition to adult baptism, without a previous 
 knowledge of the gospel. 
 
 All outward ordinances, (and all ordinances are outward,) prayer, 
 praise, the Lord's day, the breaking of the loaf, fasting, &c, have each a 
 peculiar grace or intercommunion with Christ in them. Like the ordi- 
 nances of nature — sun, moon, stars, planets, atmospheric clouds, water, 
 &c, &c, each has some peculiar influence of its own which can never 
 be substituted by another. Each of these is a symbol of something more 
 spiritual than itself. Prayer is but the embodiment of something more 
 inward than the heart. But without these symbols, spiritual life, health, 
 comfort can never be enjoyed. Hence, to enter into the sanctum sancto- 
 rum, the inner temple of spiritual enjoyment and christian life, baptism 
 is essentially necessary, preceded by a vigorous faith, and genuine peni- 
 tence, and fixed resolves of obeying from the heart the mandates of the 
 Great King. 
 
 Among other grievous and revolting errors and imperfections which 
 
 2T 
 
494 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 my very devoted friend, Mr. Rice, detects in me, he says I agree with the 
 pope in my views on baptism. What a misfortune ! that the pope should 
 be right in any thing ! Has Mr. Rice become so hyperprotestant as not 
 to agree with the pope in any thing ? Yes, verily, he agrees with the 
 pope in many truths, such as the death and resurrection, I do not say 
 burial, of the Messiah ; in his ascension into heaven, in his divinity, in 
 his coming again, &c, &c. I hope these truths are nothing the worse 
 because the pope believes them. But Mr. Rice agrees with the pope in 
 other matters, in which I agree with neither. Even in baptism itself, he 
 and the pope agree much more intimately. In two of three of the points 
 before us on baptism, he and the pope are together ; so that, in this case, 
 he is twice as papistical as I. 
 
 But the gentleman desires to take from us eis, as indicating into, in the 
 case before us. In this, he and the pope may be against us. It signifies 
 for and into : but both are modes of expressing the same idea. Whether 
 I do this for, into, unto, or in order to, the sense is the same. These 
 are different suits for the same idea. All critics know and admit this. 
 It is, as before shown by me, more than five times to one translated into 
 in the New Testament. In reference to baptism, the Pedo-baptist trans- 
 lators of the common version, have generally translated it into or unto; 
 as I have, on other occasions, showed at considerable length. They 
 were baptized "into Moses" or unto Moses, "into Christ," "into 
 his death," "into John's baptism;" and, if any one prefer it, "into re- 
 pentance," "into remission of sins," "into one body," &c. In every 
 instance there is a transition from one state, profession, or place, into 
 another. The person has suffered an immersion for something, into the 
 possession or enjoyment of which he now enters, or enters into more 
 fully than before. 
 
 The gentleman sports with John's "baptism" into repentance — into 
 reformation. He prefers " in order to" to make it ridiculous. He would 
 have it " because of reformation," or I know not what. Well, John bap- 
 tizes those confessing their sins, in order to an amendment of life ; and 
 where is the wit ? It is good sense, and good English, and a fair version. 
 Many matters of this sort I pass without criticism, without exposition ; 
 believing that if I attend to the weightier matters, any one can appre- 
 ciate these. 
 
 Touching baptism for remission of sins, it is lamentable to observe the 
 waste of ingenuity, to speak of nothing worse, displayed on the part of 
 some very zealous and somewhat learned opponents. They have said, 
 like Mr. Rice, that we are only once commanded to be baptized for the 
 remission of sins ; but, unfortunately for this sage remark, we are com- 
 manded to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
 but once in all the New Testament. And as all Christendom follow that 
 one occurrence, why not also this ? The gentleman makes many little 
 points, to which I never reply ; not because I cannot, but because I will 
 not. They are sometimes so irrelevant as to have no bearing ; at other 
 times so palpably defective, as his infant disciples, that all the world shrinks 
 from his logic. But in this case I must, though it be minute, remark, 
 that we have baptism for remission of sins, in the identical same words, 
 three times in the New Testament ; and that, too, always in connection 
 with metanoia, reformation. Mark i. 4, Luke iv. 3, Acts ii. 38 : — John 
 the Baptist came kerussoon baptisma metanoias eis aphesian toon amar- 
 tioon — preaching the baptism of reformation for the remission of sins. 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 495 
 
 This identical phrase is used once in each of these evangelists, at the 
 commencement, to indicate the design of his baptism, but never repeated 
 again. In like manner and form, Acts ii. 38, Peter preached, saying, 
 Metanoeesate, kai baptistheetoo eis aphesin amartioon. Three, then, of 
 the five historical books of the New Testament open in the same style. 
 And what is worthy of special remark is, that when our Lord gave the 
 symbolic cup of blessings into the hands of the apostles, for the first time, 
 he adopts 'the same phrase exactly, consecrates and fixes its meaning: 
 " This is the blood of the new covenant shed for (eis aphisin toon amar- 
 tioon,) the remission of the sins of many." In no instance, of these 
 four cases, is there one particle of change in the original expression. 
 Even the article teen, is never inserted by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, 
 before aphesin; a very singular uniformity. The meaning of for or 
 eis, is fixed by the last occurrence, beyond controversy. Baptism for 
 the remission of sins, is the only baptism of which the New Testament 
 knows any thing. There never was any other ordained by God — John's 
 baptism or Christ's baptism — there is no other. Mr. Rice will not 
 form an issue on these phrases, I strongly suspect. He labors irrelevant 
 points, weak points, false issues, or issues of no pertinency. But he will 
 tell you, this is all a matter of policy on my part to exaggerate or to de- 
 preciate topics, arguments, and issues, as suits my cause or my strength. 
 I do not think it worth my denial or refutation. I know no person of 
 discrimination will believe it. I only feel mortified that I have not some- 
 thing to do worthy of the occasion. 
 
 But we must have a word or two on metanoia, which, with George 
 Campbell and others, I prefer to repent. It is not, as often insinuated, 
 because I have any objection to repentance, properly so called; for, with 
 me, repentance, or a change of mind, or regret for the past, must always 
 precede reformation. Reformation both presupposes or comprehends 
 penitence in its biblical acceptation. I desire to see the broken and the 
 contrite heart as the prelude of effectual repentance ; that is, reformation 
 of behavior. The reason of my preference is, the inspired writers had 
 two words at command, metamelomai and metanoeoo, and their verbals. 
 The first indicates a change of mind, accompanied with sorrow and regret, 
 and painful reminiscences of the past. The latter expresses a change of 
 views, feelings, and purposes ; issuing in a new course of action, not from 
 merely sorrow or regret, though these may, and always in conversion do, 
 accompany this change ; but it also includes the discernment, apprecia- 
 tion, or admiration of new, sublime, and excellent principles which con- 
 strain to a new course of action. I could easily document these defini- 
 tions by a display of quotations from classic and sacred Greek ; but as I 
 have a very fixed dislike to such displays before a popular assembly, I 
 shall only give a few instances from the New Testament, confirmatory 
 of these remarks, and pass on. We have metamelomai only some six 
 or seven times in the New Testament. It is chosen to represent the 
 repentance of Judas, Matt, xxvii. 3. He repented, and went and hanged 
 himself. Metanoeoo would not have suited there, for there was no 
 change for the better in the mind of Judas. Paul says to the Corinthi- 
 ans, 2d epistle vii. 7, 8, " I do not repent that I made you sorry by my 
 letter, though I did repent ;" for again " Godly sorrow worketh repent- 
 ance to salvation, not to be repented of." Here is the best illustration 
 in contrast, not only in the New Testament, but perhaps in all classic 
 usage ; for here we have a repentance to salvation expressed by meta- 
 
496 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 noia, and a repentance not to salvation by metamelomai. Surely, then, 
 having two words so different in the original, we ought to have two 
 equally different in our language. This is my reason, then, for prefering 
 reformation to the more doubtful and badly defined something called pen- 
 itence, or penance. To do better, is a repentance to salvation ; this is 
 reformation. To be sorry, to regret, and inefficiently to repent our 
 past actions, without reformation, is mere repentance. 
 
 Having now paid, as I conceive, a very courteous attention to some of 
 my friend's minor matters, I shall advance again toward the field of argu- 
 ment. I was sorry that Mr. R. should have preferred to reply to some 
 one else, on the case of Cornelius, rather than respond to me. Ought it 
 not to satisfy us all, fellow-citizens, that an angel commanded Cornelius 
 to send to Joppa for words that would save him and his family ; and that 
 when these words were being uttered, the Spirit of God descended to 
 confirm them, and to signalize that congregation, making them on their 
 faith a proper first-fruits of the gentile world, and thus sanctioning their 
 baptism and admission into Christ's kingdom ? 
 
 f * It seems as if Mr. Rice had found a most delicious theme in my alledged 
 illiberality. He glories in an assumed liberality. I desire no invidious 
 comparisons. Still I hesitate not to say, that, truly and sincerely, on 
 the proper meaning of the word, were our respective views, feelings, and 
 actions thoroughly dissected, I am incomparably more liberal than he : 
 for I suppose there are many conscientious, religious, moral, and chris- 
 tian Presbyterians ; and that, although our Savior has no Presbyterian 
 church in heaven, or earth, yet I doubt not but that he has had many, 
 very many, that loved and honored him in that worldly church, whom 
 he will honor in the world to come. So has he in other Protestant com- 
 munities in this cloudy and dark day. They call themselves branches 
 of Christ's church : I wonder where the stem is ! In their own esteem 
 they are but branches. Now, the Bible knows neither the word nor the 
 thing, branch church. I presume, when I was a Presbyterian, nay, indeed, 
 I recollect perfectly well, that I used to look over my church as the almost 
 exclusive boundary of the elect. Salvation was of us, and a few like us. 
 But since I became a man, I have put away childish things. I thank 
 my Lord that my charities extend far beyond the contents of that little book 
 lying on the table [pointing to the constitution of the Presbyterian church.] 
 Yes, sir, while I go for only one true catholic, apostolic church, and while 
 I cannot find it in any of these Pedo-baptist "branches" I can find 
 christian people among them all ! There is as much truth as wit in the 
 saying — -there are christians without a church, and there is a church with- 
 out christians. 
 
 I wish to add a few words on evangelical holiness and evangelical sal- 
 vation. Mr. R. seems to censure me for not using certain words, and 
 then blames me for using them. One thing is very obvious, he and I have 
 not been taught in one and the same school. Cornelius was a good man, 
 as we sometimes say, but no saint. He did not know the Lord Jesus, 
 consequently was not a christian ; he had, therefore, no evangelical, no 
 gospel holiness. Peter rehearsed to him John's mission, Christ's mis- 
 sion and character, and opened his credentials, and proved all his sayings 
 and doings by the prophets. He heard, believed, rejoiced, and put on 
 Christ, by a baptism into his death. He is now pardoned, sanctified, saved, 
 adopted, and filled with all blessings of the Spirit of holiness, of heavenly 
 peace and love. Any one that can comprehend how a new dispensation 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 497 
 
 or change in a government affects society, may easily understand how- 
 John's mission obliged the good to separate themselves and please God 
 by receiving baptism. The people that heard him, and the publicans, jus- 
 tified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the pharisees 
 and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not 
 baptized of him. Now, as no one could please God and obtain salvation 
 by adhering to any former institution, after that a new one was introduced, 
 so it behooved all men, however virtuous and excellent their character, to 
 submit to the christian religion immediately after its introduction. And 
 not only this — Christianity was as far above all former manifestations of 
 God's love and dispensations of religion, as the "heavens are higher 
 than the earth." The privileges it communicated to all, were superior 
 to the greatest blessings enjoyed by patriarchs, kings, or prophets of the 
 olden time. On these topics, the New Testament is replete with light. 
 Now, although Cornelius would have been saved, in all probability, un- 
 der a former dispensation, or had he died without any opportunity of 
 the words brought from Joppa : still, in the christian sense of the word 
 saved, he neither was saved, nor could have been saved, without all that 
 Peter did for him. Calvin and Cornelius we shall reserve to another 
 speech, and will return to my series of argumentation. 
 
 My eleventh argument is based on Eph. v. 25, 26 : — " Christ loved 
 the church and gave himself for it, that he may sanctify and cleanse 
 it with the washing of water by the word." 
 
 That the washing of water here spoken of has reference to baptism, is 
 admitted almost universally. The Westminster divines, and all the com- 
 mentators of note known to me, concur in this view of it. Now as Mr. R. 
 will have the action of baptism to be a "religious washing with water," 
 he cannot, of course, object to this application of the passage. The only 
 difference here of importance between him and me in this case is — that 
 the apostle is speaking of the cleansing effect of baptism, and not of the 
 action proper to the institution. Just as Ananias once said to the author 
 of this epistle, "Arise, and be baptized, and" as a consequence, "wash 
 away thy sins." So here the apostle, in allusion not only to baptism, as 
 some affirm, but also to the eastern custom of brides, to whom the law of 
 matrimony had assigned numerous washings, or baths, before their nuptials, 
 I would say, rather comparing " this bath of water," as McKnight renders 
 it, to baptism, that the apostle here not only connects purification with 
 baptism, purification from sin, but also combines that with the word, and 
 of course, with faith in that word. Now, appears it not evident, that the 
 water and the word here sustain to each other just the same relation inti- 
 mated by the Messiah, when he speaks of being " born of water, and of 
 the Spirit?" I cannot, then, separate these two, so firmly seated in the 
 minds of those inspired with all wisdom. They are intimately connected 
 in the work of remission, Ephesians v. 26 ; being corroborated by John 
 iii. 5, furnishes another argument in proof of the all-important evangelical 
 fact, that baptism is for cleansing, for remission of sins. Mr. Rice be- 
 lieves in baptism for purification, though I think he has not satisfactorily 
 defined his position. Still he believes in water as an emblem of sanctifi- 
 cation. We differ, indeed, in one essential point just here. He has more 
 faith in water than I have ; for he believes that water alone, even a few 
 drops, a mere spray, without faith in the word, purines from sin, or some 
 way cleanses and sanctifies a person. I do not comprehend the notion of 
 purification, as aforesaid. Justification and sanctification with me are 
 32 2 T 2 
 
498 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 always associated. Paul associated them to the Corinthians ; he said, 
 " You are washed ; you are justified ; you are sanctified, in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Here, then, justification 
 precedes in position, if not in terms, sanctification. Mr. R. must believe 
 in baptism for remission of sins, if he believes in baptism for purification, 
 for none are purified, who are not first pardoned. God cleanses the guilt 
 of sin, before, or at least simultaneously with sanctification. I hope Mr. 
 Rice will explain his baptismal purification — I mean his infant baptismal 
 purification. Nothing will make it so acceptable as to show its utility. 
 We have never seen any use in infant affusion ; but if the gentleman will 
 show that it purifies from sin, that is, of course, both from its guilt and its 
 pollution, he will have done more to procure it a favorable hearing and 
 acceptance, than all the Pedo-baptists, living or dead. 
 
 My twelfth argument is drawn from Col. ii. 12 — 15 : " Buried with him 
 in baptism, whence also ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera- 
 tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in 
 your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened, together 
 with him, having forgiven you all trespasses ; blotting out the handwriting 
 of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out 
 of the way, nailing it to his cross." 
 
 Speaking of the design of baptism, it is impossible not to look at and 
 regard both the subject and the action of baptism ; because you cannot 
 show the design, without remembering how, in ancient times, it was 
 attended to. 
 
 Paul says : " We put off the body of the sins of the flesh." Now this 
 is the most beautiful allusion to circumcision imaginable. Here were 
 those who still hankered after circumcision. To them the apostle says, 
 "You are complete in Christ; you need not to be circumcised with a 
 circumcision made with hand." The old fleshly circumcision only took 
 off a mere atom of flesh ; but the spiritual circumcision, which we have in 
 being crucified with Christ, in being buried with him in baptism, cuts 
 off, without a knife, and without a hand, the whole body of the sins of the 
 flesh. This is Christ's way of circumcising now-a-days. So that, in- 
 stead of baptism for circumcision, we have a circumcision of all our sins, 
 for the old circumcision of a mere particle of flesh. The whole body of 
 sins, the mighty mass, is now cut off through our faith and baptism into 
 Christ, with whom we have risen through the faith of the mighty opera- 
 tion, the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. If such wit- 
 nesses as these do not prove that baptism is for the remission of sins, I ask 
 what proof would be sufficient to establish it? — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24— 11| o'clock, & M. 
 [mr. rice's fifth reply.] 
 Mr. President— I will follow my worthy friend (as he desires to be 
 followed,) so far as it may be necessary to answer what he has now ad- 
 vanced. You remember, one of his arguments, to prove that baptism 
 is necessary to the remission of sins, was founded on the expression — 
 baptizing into the name of the Father, &c. which proves, as he supposes, 
 that baptism introduces the subject of it into a new relation to God; or, 
 as he now expresses it, a new state. In reply, I referred to a precisely- 
 similar expression, in 1 Cor. x. 2, where it is said, the Jews were all 
 baptized into, (or unto,) Moses. I stated, that he had been previously 
 their leader and deliverer ; that there was, therefore, no new relation con- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 499 
 
 siituted ; that they passed into no new state ; that their baptism was only 
 a recognition of an existing relation. It could not constitute a new one. 
 
 But my friend has no little ingenuity in escaping from difficulties. He 
 asks, what previously existing relation is recognized when infants are 
 baptized ? I have repeatedly stated, that they are, by birth, entitled to 
 membership in the church, and that their baptism is the recognition 
 of their relation to God's covenant, and to his people. They are born 
 with the right to be included in God's covenant — to be introduced into 
 the school of Christ. Baptism is the rite, divinely appointed, by which 
 their relation to the church is recognized. When they are thus recogniz- 
 ed, they have all the privileges in the church of Christ, of which they 
 are capable. For illustration, a man is entitled to the presidency of the 
 United States, when the people have elected him to that office ; but he is 
 not recognized as the president, nor can he enter upon the duties of the 
 office, till he is inaugurated ; yet the ceremony of inauguration does not 
 -confer upon him the office. The vote of the people places him in a new 
 relation to them, and to the government ; and the ceremony of inaugura- 
 tion is but the proper recognition and confirmation of that relation. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell, in order to prove, that the baptism of the children 
 of Israel unto Moses, constituted a new relation, or introduced them into 
 a new state, went into Egypt, and informed us, with what difficulty Mo- 
 ses induced the people to follow him ; and how, by divers miracles, 
 especially at the Red sea, their faith was confirmed, and they resolved to 
 adhere to him as their leader, &c. But, unfortunately, we find in this 
 history no new relation constituted. The Jews had been induced to ac- 
 knowledge Moses as their leader, by the miracles he wrought in Egypt ; 
 and those miracles may be said to have caused the relation. They 
 approached the Red sea, and saw their enemies behind them — their con- 
 fidence in their leader was shaken ; but it was restored and confirmed by 
 the wonderful miracles there wrought. These confirmed their wavering 
 purposes ; and their baptism, as they passed through the sea, was, so to 
 speak, a public recognition and confirmation of the relation which had 
 been constituted in Egypt, when they agreed to take him as their leader. 
 So christian baptism is a sign and seal of that intimate relation to Christ, 
 constituted by faith, and of remission of sins ; and it tends greatly to con- 
 firm our faith. But who ever before heard, that, by the baptism at the 
 Red sea, the Jews were made to sustain to Moses a new relation ; or, 
 that they entered into a new state ? The gentleman will be obliged to 
 abandon this argument. 
 
 His mistake, in speaking of D wight as a Presbyterian doctor, it is true, 
 is a small matter; but it shows his accuracy in quoting authors. We 
 should have been by no means unwilling to own Dwight, if he had been 
 a Presbyterian ; nor do I dissent from his views of this subject. Still 
 Presbyterians and Congregationalists are two distinct denominations — al- 
 though their doctrines are nearly the same, and they differ chiefly in their 
 form of church government. I alluded to this circumstance only to 
 show, that he was not very accurate in quoting authors. 
 
 My friend says, he does not agree with the pope on the subject under 
 discussion ; I will read a passage, at the proper time, from his debate 
 with McCalla, in which he asserts, that the baptized person, when he 
 emerges from the water, is as pure as an angel. The pope says, the 
 person baptized is " pure, and guiltless, and beloved of God." Their doc- 
 trines are so precisely similar, in this respect, that it would require a 
 
500 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM, 
 
 skillful metaphysician to show the difference. It is true, as he says, that 
 I agree with papists in some items of faith, but I never appeal to them, 
 as authority, to sustain my principles, as he has done. Should I ever do 
 so, his reply will be pertinent. 
 
 I will now read you a quotation from the Millenial Harbinger, vol. iii. 
 pp. 301, 302. It is a letter, from Prof. Stuart to Dr. Fishback, upon this 
 point. My friend, Dr. Fishback, says : 
 
 " From my great anxiety to possess the true meaning of Acts ii. 38, and 
 to be able to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between what was said by 
 Peter to the pentecostal Jews, in reference to baptism and the remission of 
 sin, as it appears in our common translation, and in your new one, with 
 what occurred at the introduction of the gospel to the gentiles in Acts x. 
 and as explained in chapter xi. in relation to the same subject ; I wrote to 
 professor Stuart to favor me with his interpretation of the Greek preposi- 
 tion eift, as it is connected with, and follows baptism. He was kind and 
 obliging enough to comply with my request, and sent me his remarks, which 
 I now present to you, and hope that they will conduce much to unite our 
 views on the subject of discussion between us. He observes: fc The word 
 baptize may be followed by a person or a thing, (doctrine) which has eis be- 
 fore it. In the first case, when it is followed by a person, it means, " by 
 the sacred rite of baptism to bind one's self to be a disciple or follower of a 
 person, to receive or obey his doctrines or laws," — e. g. 1 Cor. x. 2, " and 
 were baptized into {eis) Moses." Gal. iii. 27, '•' For as many of you as have 
 been baptized into [eis) Christ, having put on Christ." Rom. vi. 3, " Know 
 ye not that so many of us as were baptized into [eis) Christ, were baptized 
 into [eis) his death]" 1 Cor. i. 13, " Were ye baptized into [eis) the name 
 of Paul !" v. 14, 15, " I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus 
 and Gaius, lest any should say that I had baptized into [eis) mine own 
 name." Or it means, to acknowledge him as Sovereign, Lord, and Sancti- 
 fier, — e. g, Matt, xxviii. 19, " Baptized them into [eis) the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Acts viii. 16, " Only they 
 were baptized into [eis) the name of the Lord," Acts xix. 5, " When they 
 heard this, they were baptized into [eis) the name of the Lord."' 
 
 That name is used after eis, as it is in some of the above cases, makes no 
 difference in the sense, In Hebrew, ' the name of the God of Jacob defend 
 thee,' is just the same as ' the God of Jacob defend thee.' 
 
 2, A person may be baptized into a thing, (doctrine.) So in Matt. iii. 11, 
 ' I baptize you with water into [eis) repentance ;' i. e. into the profession 
 and belief of the reality and necessity of repentance, involving the idea that 
 themselves professed to be the subjects of it. In Acts xix. 3, we have ' into 
 [eu) one body,' all in the like sense, viz. by baptism the public acknowledg- 
 ment is expressed of believing in, and belonging to, a doctrine, or one body. 
 So in Acts ii. 38, ' Baptized on account of Jesus Christ into [eis) the remis- 
 sion of sins ;' that is, into the belief and reception of this doctrine ; in other 
 words, by baptism and profession, an acknowledgement of this doctrine, on 
 account of Jesus Christ, was made. 
 
 Professor Stuart has rendered the word eis into in Acts ii. 38, as it is 
 dons in other places when connected with the ordinance of baptism ; and as 
 ycu have rendered the same word in Matt, xxviii. 19, in the new version, 
 and which you have justified by the authority of Dr. Dwight." 
 
 Now what are we to understand by being baptized into the remission 
 of sins ? Mr. Campbell makes it mean, in order to the remission of 
 sins ; but Stuart, whose learning he admires, tells us it is, to be baptized 
 into the belief and reception of the doctrine of remission through Christ; 
 as to be baptized into repentance, is to be baptized upon a profession of 
 repentance. The expressions in both cases are precisely similar. The 
 Scripture doctrine evidently is, that repentance, not baptism, secures re- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 501 
 
 mission ; and hence it is, that repentance and remission are so repeatedly- 
 connected together by our Savior and his apostles. 
 
 Mr. C. insists, that eis means in order to, in Peter's discourse; and 
 to.be consistent, he is obliged to translate Matt. iii. 11, "I baptize you 
 in order to reformation." But, as I have proved, this rendering makes 
 the doctrine of Peter contradict that of John. Moreover, it makes Peter, 
 in his second discourse, speak very singularly. It represents him as 
 saying to his hearers, reform and be converted. I have asked the gen- 
 tleman, (and he has not attempted to answer the question) what is the 
 difference between reformation and conversion? Reformation certainly 
 is turning from an evil to a righteous course : and conversion is the same 
 thing. So he would, in effect, make Peter say to the Jews, reform and 
 be reformed, or convert and be converted! I J 
 
 Metanoia, the word commonly translated repentance, in our Bible, is 
 used to denote that repentance which is acceptable to God. It signifies 
 a change of mind — a change of views and feelings — terminating in sorrow 
 for sin, and leading to conversion, or turning to God. The gentleman, 
 by his translation, confounds cause and effect, and thus makes the inspired 
 apostle speak the most singular tautology. Such are the inextricable 
 difficulties of his doctrine. 
 
 In using the phrase " evangelical salvation," with reference to Corne- 
 lius, he says, he used my own phraseology. I do not remember to have 
 used the phrase, or even to have heard it from others. I have heard of 
 evangelicaiy«i7A ; but I was not aware that there were so many kinds of 
 salvation. I have always thought, when a man was saved, he was saved. 
 When Paul says, " By grace are ye saved through faith," I suppose, he 
 speaks of salvation from sin and hell, and elevation to the enjoyment of 
 heaven and eternal life. I thought that the word salvation comprehended 
 all the blessings promised in the gospel. " He that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved." Here the word comprehends both the present 
 and the future blessings of the gospel. Cornelius had the present, but 
 he needed the future. Hence, Peter is said to have told him words by 
 which he should be saved. But the fact is indisputable, that Peter, when 
 he for the first time preached the gospel to the gentiles, did not preach 
 baptism in order to the remission of sins. He did not mention it as one 
 of the conditions of pardon — it was not even a prominent topic in his 
 discourse. Such being the facts, no one has a right to assume that he 
 preached this doctrine. 
 
 The gentleman has greatly magnified his charity and liberality ; but I 
 am prepared to prove, that Dr. Fishback, his friend and brother, has pro- 
 nounced his doctrine " the most exclusive, sectarian and uncharitable," 
 in the world ! ! ! And his opinion must be very nearly correct ; for he 
 is well acquainted with Mr. Campbell's real views ; and is not under the 
 influence of prejudice against him. 
 
 The greatness of his charity and liberality are strikingly exhibited, in 
 the following sentence, in his Christianity Restored: "Infants, idiots, 
 deaf and dumb persons, innocent pagans, wherever they can be found, 
 with all the pious Pedo-baptists, we commend to the mercy of God," 
 p. 240. In the exuberance of his charity, he has put all pious Pedo- 
 baptists with infants, idiots, and pagans, and commended them to the 
 mercy of God ! ! ! 
 
 To sustain his doctrine, making baptism necessary to remission, the 
 gentleman has appealed to Ephesians v. 25, 26, " Husbands, love your 
 
502 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 
 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
 word." Does this passage prove that sins are remitted only in baptism ? 
 Let us compare this with a passage in the Old Testament, to which 1 
 have repeatedly referred: Eze. xxxvi. 25, " Then will I sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and you shall be clean ; from all your filthiness, and from 
 all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and 
 a new spirit will I put within you. And I will take away the stony 
 heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I 
 will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes." 
 
 Now, it is here proved, according to Mr. Campbell's mode of inter- 
 preting language, that sprinkling clean water upon persons will cleanse 
 them from all moral filthiness, and from idolatry. Yet he has not the 
 least faith in the efficacy of sprinkling clean water. The language, too, 
 you observe, is very similar to that employed by Ananias, when he bap- 
 tized Paul. For he said, " Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
 sins." So, Ezekiel said, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
 you shall be clean." If, then, these passages prove that baptism secures 
 remission of sins ; that in Ezekiel will prove, with equal clearness, that 
 the sprinkling of clean water upon persons, would cleanse them from 
 moral pollution and idolatry ! But what is the truth on this subject ? It 
 is, that Ezekiel connects together the emblem and the thing signified. 
 The sprinkling of clean water is the emblem ; and the new heart is the 
 thing signified. 
 
 We turn now to Ps. li. " Purge me with hysop, and I shall be clean : 
 wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." What is the meaning of 
 this prayer of David ? According to my friend's principles of exposition, 
 sprinkling a person with hysop, would make him white as snow — as- 
 pure as an angel. But by turning to Leviticus xiv. we learn that the 
 ceremonially unclean were cleansed by sprinkling blood upon them, with 
 hysop, cedar-wood, and scarlet. In reference to this ceremony, David 
 prayed that God would grant him the inward purity, of which it was the 
 emblem. Thus the prophets and inspired w r riters were accustomed to 
 connect water with the Spirit. Another striking example of this kind is 
 found in the prophecy of Isaiah, chapter xliv. 3 : " For I will pour -water 
 upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : I will pour my 
 Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring : and they 
 shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water-courses." 
 Here the outpouring of the Spirit upon the hearts of men is beautifully 
 represented by the falling of copious showers on the thirsty ground. 
 Epistle to Titus, he says, " He saved us by the washing of regeneration 
 cleansing of the church from sin. Washing is the emblem, and the Spirit 
 is the divine agent in purifying the church from all sin. Thus, in the 
 So Paul employs water, the emblem of purification, to express the entire 
 and renewing of the Holy Ghost." And just so Ezekiel says, " I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and a new heart also will I give you." 
 Such was the custom of the Jewish writers ; and Paul was a Jew, and 
 wrote acording to their manner. 
 
 The gentleman finally appeals to Col. ii. 10, 1 1 : " And ye are complete 
 in him which is the head of all principality and power : in whom also ye 
 are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off 
 the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ : buried 
 with him in baptism, wherein. also ye are risen with him through the 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 503 
 
 faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Now, 
 let us inquire, what is the circumcision made without hands ? It evi- 
 dently signifies the renovation of the heart, of which circumcision was 
 the sign. Hence the exhortation, " Circumcise the fore-skin of your 
 hearts." Spiritual circumcision is a new heart — a sanctified nature ; and, 
 as circumcision formerly signified the renewal of the heart, so does bap 7 
 tism now. Therefore, Paul puts them in immediate connection, and save 
 to christians — You have not the external circumcision, but you have the 
 grace of which it was the sign, the circumcision of the heart. You are 
 holy in heart ; buried with Christ in baptism, and risen with him through 
 faith of the operation of God. As you have the spiritual circumcision, 
 so you have the spiritual baptism. You are identified with Christ in his 
 death and resurrection. I find in this passage not a word about remis- 
 sion of sins. The apostle is speaking of sanctifieation of heart, a very 
 different subject. 
 
 I have now answered what my friend has advanced in support of his 
 doctrine. In reply to his remarks on baptismal purification, it is suffi- 
 cient to say — that I believe in the entire cleansing of the soul from sin, 
 by the blood of Jesus Christ, as the procuring cause ; and by the Holy 
 Spirit, as the efficient agent, of which water baptism is the significant 
 emblem. But we are not now discussing the doctrine of sanctifieation, 
 but the doctrine of remission of sins ; and I am not to be diverted from 
 this important point. 
 
 I was, on yesterday, proving, that, according to Mr. Campbell's doc- 
 trine, multitudes of the most godly persons, live and die unpardoned, and 
 go to hell. He has, indeed, expressed some opinions quite inconsistent 
 with his doctrine ; but we have now to deal, not with his opinions, but 
 with his doctrine. That I am not misrepresenting him, is clear from 
 the fact that he makes repentance and immersion " equally necessary " to 
 the remission of sins. See Christian Baptist, p. 416, 417, and Christi- 
 anity Restored, p. 240 ; already quoted. Here my friend commends in- 
 fants, idiots, pagans, and pious Pedo-baptists to the mercy of God ! 
 He has nothing to say, as to whether they can be saved ! In another 
 place, he expresses the opinion that some of them may be saved ; but 
 his opinions are inconsistent with his doctrine. For, if repentance and 
 immersion be equally necessary to the remission of sins, how can unim- 
 mersed persons be saved 1 In view, then, of the fact, that Mr. Campbell 
 maintains that baptism is an essential pre-requisite to remission does it 
 not follow that all unbaptized persons must be forever lost ? By the 
 way, he says he must use the English word immersion, for baptism. 
 That it was English, I really did not know — I had thought that it was 
 Latin. He is pleased to use the Latin word immersion ; but does not 
 like the Greek word baptism! But, as I was remarking, if, as the gen- 
 tleman teaches, immersion be an essential pre-requisite to the remission 
 of sins, then every unimmersed person is unpardoned through life. Are 
 any pardoned after death? I have never found the passage that inti- 
 mates, that any who die unforgiven, will be pardoned in the next world. 
 I have read, " He that is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he that is holy, 
 let him be holy still." He who is not pardoned here, cannot be pardoned 
 hereafter. 
 
 I ask, where in the Bible is the doctrine taught, that the righteous shall 
 be turned into hell? I do not bring this argument to awaken prejudice 
 against my friend ; but, I am constrained to ask, where is it said, that 
 
504 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 any but the wicked shall be turned into hell ? We read, that the wicked 
 shall be lost; but, if his doctrine be true, hell will be full of good men! 
 Multitudes of pious, godly people will be found, lifting up their eyes m 
 hell, being in torment ! 
 
 The next argument which I will adduce against my friend, is, that his 
 doctrine ascribes an unscriptural importance and efficacy to an external 
 ordinance. The Scriptures uniformly represent the religion of the heart 
 as the great and only essential matter. It was one of the radical errors of 
 the Jews, that they made religion consist, almost exclusively, in attend- 
 ance upon external rites and ceremonies. And how often did our Savior 
 find it necessary to repeat to them, " I will have mercy and not sacri- 
 fice" — the religion of the heart, not external forms ? When Saul brought 
 back a great many oxen and sheep, from the spoils of the Amalekites,, 
 and excused himself by saying, he intended to offer them a sacrifice to 
 God, the inspired Samuel proclaimed to him a glorious truth, which 
 characterizes the whole Bible : " Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, 
 and to hearken, than the fat of rams ;" 1 Sam. xv. 22. David, in that 
 penitential psalm, (li.,) gives utterance to the same great truth? "For 
 thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in 
 burn-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit : a broken and 
 a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Yet, according to the 
 doctrine of Mr. C, he would despise the broken heart, unless immersed ! 
 Every where, from Genesis to Revelation, the religion of the heart is de- 
 clared to be the one thing needful. The remission of sins was never 
 connected, inseparably, with any external ordinance. 
 
 Circumcision was omitted for forty years by the Jews, while they 
 were passing from Egypt to Canaan ; and, in Joshua v., we read, that 
 Joshua circumcised the whole company after they arrived in Canaan. 
 Now, if this rite had been essential, they would not have omitted its ob- 
 servance for forty years. So Paul teaches, that " if the uncircumcision 
 keep the righteousness of the law, their uncircumcision shall be counted 
 for circumcision :" Rom. ii. Now circumcision was as important to the 
 Jews, as baptism is to christians. 
 
 By the way, I was surprised to hear the assertion made by Mr. C, 
 that the blessings, promised under the old dispensation, were all of a 
 temporal character. There never was an assertion more unfounded. 
 " By faith Moses, when he came to years, refused to be called the son of 
 Pharaoh's daughter, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than 
 the treasures in Egypt. For he had respecl to the recompense of the 
 reward." He gave up the earthly crown for a brighter crown in heaven. 
 So it is said of all the pious, under the former dispensation, that they 
 sought a city whose maker and builder is God. Hence David prayed 
 in Ps. li., "Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation." 
 
 No external ordinance was regarded as essential to salvation, under the 
 old dispensation, when forms and ceremonies had more importance attach- 
 ed to them than under the christian dispensation.— [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24—12 o'clock, M. 
 
 [mr. Campbell's sixth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — It cannot have escaped your notice before to-day, 
 
 how often my polite friend has made attempts to draw me off to debate 
 
 with him about the new version, and other foreign matters. He has 
 
 made numerous allusions to it, and almost challenged me to the task. 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 505 
 
 He is not the person, nor this the occasion, for such a discussion. I 
 have, therefore, paid little or no attention to his efforts to entangle the 
 subject, or to draw me off from the proposition before us. He sought to 
 have me defend Dr. Campbell's version of Mark vii. 3, by a most violent 
 assault upon it; as though it were my own work, or as if I had agreed to 
 debate with him such questions. I understand his policy. I am pre- 
 pared, at a proper time and place, and with a proper person, to defend all 
 that I have written, or said, on those subjects. I have always succeeded 
 pretty well in that department, my opponents themselves being judges. 
 But these are not the questions now before us, and I will not attend to 
 foreign and irrelevant subjects introduced for such a purpose. 
 
 Again, the gentleman has sought to entangle this subject, by making 
 out inconsistencies between my present views and my former writings. 
 Whenever the time comes, that it becomes my duty to defend myself on 
 that account, I shall be forthcoming, I hope. One thing I can say, in all 
 conscience, that I feel myself prepared to sustain every prominent view 
 that I ever published on the subject of the christian religion. Here lies 
 a volume before me upon the christian system. I do not call it, as insin- 
 uated here, " the Christian System" but that system " in reference to the 
 union of christians ." In it there is a long article on the remission of 
 sins. It has been written many years ago. It is quite pertinent to the 
 subject now before us. If the gentleman pleases, I shall engross the 
 whole of it as evidence on this proposition. In it there are many scrip- 
 tural arguments, many authorities from the creeds and concessions of dis- 
 tinguished men, Catholic and Protestant. All of which are in good place 
 and time here. I am ready to sustain every position taken there. I am 
 sorry that I cannot introduce all those facts and documents here. 
 
 In his ad captandum tactics, my friend, who certainly deserves a diplo- 
 ma for his proficiency in that science, though I think he has almost run 
 himself down by his too frequent attempts at it, seems to quote the pope 
 and Catholic authorities in such a way, as to insinuate that I had, in the 
 use of the term catholic, alluded to Roman authorities — to universities at 
 Rome or at Constantinople. Not so, however. My Catholic authorities 
 are neither Grecian, nor Roman, nor German, nor English — they are cath- 
 olic, and all others are particular. 
 
 But in order to respond to my propositions, failing in other modes of 
 reply, he now takes up some essays and communications between my 
 friend and brother, Fishback, and myself, written some years ago, touch- 
 ing our views on some points bearing on this question. Whatever differ- 
 ences of opinion or of inferential reasonings there may be, between 
 brother Fishback and myself, or any other brother here, is nothing to the 
 purpose, any more than a passage in my debate with Robert Owen. I 
 neither know nor care what are the present opinions of Dr. Fishback on 
 all these topics. He is now with us in practice. Our bond of union is 
 not opinion, nor unity of opinion. It is one Lord, one faith, one bap- 
 tism, one Spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all. These we all 
 preach and teach. We have no standard opinions amongst us. We 
 have no patented form of sound words drawn up by human art and man's 
 device, to which all must vow eternal fidelity. It is our peculiar felicity, 
 and, perhaps, it may be our honor, too, that we have been able to discover 
 a ground so common, so sacred, so divinely approbated, so perfectly 
 catholic and enduring, on which every man, who loves our Lord Jesus 
 Christ sincerely, may unite, and commune, and harmonize, and co-ope- 
 
 2U 
 
506 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 rate in all the works of faith, in all the labors of love, and in all the per- 
 severance of hope. In this age of insular theology, this age of proscrip- 
 tion, ecclesiastic dictation, and supercilious orthodoxy, it is like an oasis 
 in the desert, to find an asylum, a sanctuary in which we can all worship, 
 an altar around which all christian men may meet, and on which they 
 may offer up their united praises, petitions and thanksgivings to the Fa- 
 ther of all mercies, through the common Savior of all that believe. It is, 
 Mr. President, our honor to have given to the world the first example in 
 modern times, of a great community, made up of accessions from all com- 
 munities, meeting on the Bible alone; and while aiming at one faith, (for 
 there is but one true faith,) bearing with each other's opinions and views, 
 and still making out to " maintain unity of spirit in the bonds of peace." 
 
 It gives me any thing but pleasure, sir, to have so often to turn aside to 
 respond to so many very little things. I shall now turn my face to the 
 argument, and endeavor to find where we are. I stand, sir, for the de- 
 fence of truth — God's own soul-redeeming truth. It is for what is writ- 
 ten in this book, I stand up here. When convicted of any error or false 
 position, which I may have assumed, I will, sir, gladly retreat from it. I 
 fight not for victory. I plead for truth. I would a thousand times rath- 
 er, were it possible, be vanquished with the truth, than to triumph with 
 error. Before heaven and earth I lift up my voice for the truth of this 
 holy Book. I will stand by it, that it may stand by me ; for that alone can 
 strengthen man in the day of trial. 
 
 In his last effort to sustain his views, commenting on the second of the 
 Colossians, the gentleman has spiritualized himself far beyond the pre- 
 cincts of the whole church of Scotland. He has made war against his 
 own orthodox divines of Westminster, and a majority of all the reputa- 
 ble commentators known to me. The church of England, of Scotland, 
 with the continental churches, from which I have heard, are, to a man, 
 with me, in expounding this passage as referring to the ancient action of 
 baptism, and to its design. I agree with the authors of the confession of 
 faith, in all their references to this passage, so far as I now remember 
 them, affirming that we do " put off the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
 circumcision of Christ (being) buried with him in baptism." The lan- 
 guage is most evidently with us, without either note or comment. What- 
 ever is done, or reported as being done in the 11th verse, is said to be 
 done in the 12th, in or by the fact that we have been buried with him, 
 and risen with him in baptism. But we must hasten to another argu- 
 ment, (our thirteenth,) in farther confirmation of the preceding : — 
 
 I will read Tit. iii. 5, " Not by works of righteousness which we have 
 done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the washing of regenera- 
 tion, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly, 
 through Jesus Christ our Savior : that being justified by his grace, we might 
 be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." The introduction to 
 this luminous and most impressive development is sublimely beautiful and 
 captivating in the composition of the original terms. As though he had 
 said — ' After that the starlight, moonlight, and twilight ages of the world 
 had passed — after that the philanthropy; of God our Savior, like the 
 rising sun, full-orbed, shone forth, in all the splendor of the heavens, " he 
 saved us in a way divinely simple and supremely kind — not by works 
 of righteousness," ' &c. I have again the concurrent testimony of anti- 
 quity — of the Greek, Roman, and Protestant churches, — Westminster 
 theologians, commentators, and paraphrasts, universally applying these 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 507 
 
 words to baptism. I presume it will not be debated. Who, then, can 
 withhold admiration when comparing John iii. 5, Ep. v. 26, Titus iii. 5, 
 and Acts ii. 38, at the singular, yet unstudied similarity of arrangement 
 of the two ideas of water and Spirit in the minds of the Messiah, Peter, 
 and Paul. Jesus said — " born of water and of the Spirit." Peter said — 
 "be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit." Paul said — "he sanctified 
 the church through a bath of water and the Word." And again, he says 
 to Titus, "He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renew- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit." Here, then, we have the water and the Spirit, 
 or the water and the Word ; and the water and renewing of the Holy 
 Spirit ; and baptism in water and receiving the Holy Spirit, inseparably 
 associated. Who, then, so indiscriminating as not to see, that there is a 
 fixed connection in the christian dispensation between water and the Spi- 
 rit! Remission of sins and sanctitication are, therefore, inseparably con- 
 nected with each other in the christian economy. 
 
 These facts, thus laid before us by apostolic authority, show how ne- 
 cessary it was in the law to adumbrate that water alone could, when 
 sprinkled, or poured, cleanse no person from either legal or moral pollu- 
 tion. That something else must be added to the water, is clearly and 
 firmly established. Faith, the Word, the Spirit, in some form expressed, 
 show the connection to be most authoritatively established. Of course, 
 then, Mr. Rice's theory of sanctification by mere water alone is one of the 
 most baseless theories in Christendom. But I have yet remaining a four- 
 teenth argument in support of this grand position : Peter tells in his first 
 epistle, iii. 19: " By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
 prison, which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of 
 God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein 
 few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, 
 even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of 
 the flesh, but the answer of the good conscience toward God,) by the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
 
 We began with Peter, who began the christian institution, and with 
 Peter we shall end. From him we took our first argument, and from him 
 we shall draw our fourteenth. His first precept in the new reign was, 
 " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus, not because your sins are forgiven you, but for the remission of 
 sins." At the time this letter was written, Peter was an old man — pro- 
 bably had completed his threescore and ten years. He had observed the 
 progress and operation of the gospel for some thirty years, or more. He 
 opened the kingdom to the Jews, and afterwards to the Gentiles ; he had 
 seen its influences on both. In full view, then, of all the past history of 
 Christianity, and in bright anticipation of its ultimate and glorious triumph, 
 he speaks to the brethren in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and By- 
 thinia, as you have heard me read from the third chapter. He places 
 baptism to the church in some correspondence with the ark to Noah, and 
 the deluge. Noah had faith to go into the ark, and to commit himself to the 
 flood, in the firm belief that God would bring him safely out of the deluge, 
 and save him from destruction. Thus, immerged in a flood of water, 
 when the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of 
 heaven were opened, he was sustained by his faith in God's promise, and 
 while the fleshly world of the ungodly perished, he escaped destruction. 
 Now, says the apostle, baptism is a sort of antitype of this whole salva- 
 tion. The like figure answering thereunto is baptism, by which, through 
 
508 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 water, we are saved, not, indeed, like the legal washings and bathings, 
 which only sanctified to the cleansing of the flesh ; not the washing away 
 of the outward, natural, or legal filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good 
 conscience toward God, (or the seeking of a good conscience,) by the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If, then, the Messiah says, 
 " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved f and if Peter says, 
 " Baptism doth now save us," shall we not regard it as one of the great 
 means of God's own appointment, for the sake of communicating to us an 
 assurance of his love, through the blood of the everlasting covenant? 
 
 I have now given fourteen distinct and independent arguments in proof 
 and illustration of this grand position. I am truly sorry that they have 
 not been debated by my respondent. He seems exceedingly coy and pru- 
 dent in coming into a close engagement upon all matters, but especially on 
 this proposition. Not one of my arguments has yet been formally as- 
 sailed. They stand now like one unbroken phalanx, side by side, in 
 illustration and confirmation of my affirmation of the design of christain 
 baptism. True, he has offered, in no very connected way, some object- 
 tions and cavils, against several of them, but no argument has been 
 assailed, no position canvassed — I am in full, and, indeed, in undisputed 
 possession of my whole forces. In answer, however, to some things said 
 here and elsewhere, against our connecting baptism and salvation, in 
 almost any sense, and on the supposed interference between this doctrine 
 of the assurance of remission through baptism and justification by faith, 
 I shall also read a passage from " the Christian System.'" It is found on 
 page 258 : — 
 
 " In examining the New Testament, we find that a man is said to be 
 '■justified by faith? Rom. v. 1 ; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 24. ; Justified freely by his 
 grace? Rom. iii. 24 ; Tit. iii. 7. ' Justified by his blood? Rem. v. 9. ' Jus- 
 tified by works? James ii. 21. 24, 25. ' Justified in or by the name of the 
 Lord Jesus? 1 Cor. vi. 11. ' Justified by Christ? Gal. ii. 16. ' Justified by 
 knoviledge? Isai. liii. 11. ' It is God that justifies,' Rom. iii. 33, viz. by 
 these seven means — by Christ, his name, his blood, by knowledge, grace, 
 faith, and by works. Are these all literal? Is there no room for interpre- 
 tation here ? He that selects faith out of seven, must either act arbitra- 
 rily, or show his reason ; but the reason does not appear in the text. He 
 must reason it out. Why, then, assume that faith alone is the reason 
 of our justification] Why not assume that the name of the Lord is the 
 great matter, seeing this name ' is the only name given under heaven by 
 which any man can be saved ;' and men, who believe, receive the ' remission 
 of sins by his name? Acts x. 43 ; and especially because the name of Jesus, 
 or of the Lord, is more frequently mentioned in the New Testament, in 
 reference to all spiritual blessings, than any thing else ! ! Call all these 
 causes, or means of justification ; and what then 1 We have the grace' cf 
 God for the moving cause, Jesus Christ for the efficient cause, his blood the 
 procuring cause, knowledge the disposing cause, the name of the Lord the 
 immediate cause, faith the formal cause, and works for the concurring cause. 
 
 For example : a gentleman on the sea-shore descried the wreck of a ves- 
 sel at some distance from land, driving out into the ocean, and covered with 
 a miserable and perishing sea-drenched crew. Moved by pure philanthro- 
 py, he sends his son with a boat to save them. When the boat arrives at 
 the wreck, he invites them in, upon this condition, that they submit to his 
 guidance. A number of the crew stretch out their arms, and seizing the 
 boat with their hands, spring into it, take hold of the oars, and row to land, 
 while some from cowardice, and others from some difficulty in coming at 
 the boat, wait in expectation of a second trip ; but before it returned, the 
 wreck went to pieces, and they all perished. The moving cause of their 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 509 
 
 salvation who escaped, was the good will of the gentleman on the shore ; 
 the son, who took the boat, was the efficient cause ; the boat itself the pro- 
 curing cause ; the knowledge of their perishing condition and his invita- 
 tion, the disposing- cause ; the seizing of the boat with their hands, and 
 springing into it, the immediate cause ; their consenting to his condition 
 the formal cause; and their rowing to shore, under the guidance of his son, 
 was the concurring cause of their salvation — Thus, men are justified or 
 saved by grace, by Christ, by his blood, by faith, by knowledge, by the name 
 of the Lord, and by works. But of the seven causes, three of which are 
 purely instrumental, why choose one of the instrumental, and emphasize 
 upon it, as the justifying or saving cause, to the exclusion of, or in prefer- 
 ence to, the others'? Every one, in its own place, is essentially necessary." 
 
 Such are our views, as often expressed on this subject. 
 
 We shall now attend to some things said on yesterday. Mr. Rice, 
 you will remember, made one wholesale objection to my first seven argu- 
 ments, viz. that they were unscriptural — they contradicted the Scrip- 
 tures. Very easily said — but did he prove it? Did he select any one of 
 them, analyze, and refute it? He took up Calvin, and showed you how I 
 read authors, &c. Such was his refutation of my arguments. But he 
 said, and asserted, and re-asserted, several things which, whether true or 
 false, affect not the issue in any way whatever. What an edifying dis- 
 sertation he gave us on "begotten and born, and born and begotten!" 
 He said there were many spiritual benefits connected with being be- 
 gotten, and with being born, and that it was indifferent which term we 
 used on many occasions. Did that conflict with any thing I had said, 
 or with any thing I have now read from the Christian System ? Any one 
 may have observed, that whether John says, a person is begotten or born 
 of God, he speaks of him without any regard to any difference between 
 these two states. He uses the phrase characteristically. It is two 
 modes (if we were to translate them diversely,) of speaking of the same 
 character. But in the original of John there is no difference. The change 
 is according to the taste of the translator. 
 
 " He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;" and, of 
 course, is begotten of God. And unless we speak very critically, whatever 
 is true of him in the one figure, is also true of him in the other figure. 
 These persons, however, of whom the apostle thus speaks, are all bap- 
 tized persons — every one of them. He never supposes such a case as is 
 often before our minds — a believing unbaptized man ! Such a being could 
 not have been found in the whole apostolic age. Faith is, indeed, the 
 master principle of Christianity. No one of this age, I presume, has either 
 said or written more on this capital principle of our religion. It is vital, 
 essential, and omnipotent in Christianity. It removes mountains — it over- 
 comes the world. It is the spring and fountain of a thousand pure and 
 holy pleasures. It throws new charms over heaven, earth and sea. It 
 makes the heavens more bright, and gives new beauties to the earth and 
 all that it contains. It purifies the heart from all its unhallowed and pol- 
 luting passions, and adorns human character with the most splendid vir- 
 tues. It throws a bridge over the gulf of time past and of time to come, 
 and connects both the past and the future with eternity. " It is the evi- 
 dence of things not seen, and the confident expectation of things hoped 
 for." It is the parent of all the christian graces, and is, itself, the off- 
 spring of heaven. No wonder, then, that men are said to be justified, 
 sanctified, saved, &c. by faith. But the Westminster catechism says, 
 by faith alone. At the word alone, we conscientiously demur. 
 
 2u2 
 
510 DEBATE OX THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The apostle James has said, a man is not justified by faith alone, and 
 here we must go with the apostle against the creed. Mr. Eice exagge- 
 rates faith to depreciate baptism. I would give to both their proper posi- 
 tion and influence in the christian religion. 
 
 But to resume the capital mistake in his theology. He contends that 
 hath means actual possession. He that believeth hath eternal life. I 
 say, in grant, in promise, within his reach, yet not invested with it. John 
 the Baptist (John iii. 36) says, " He that believeth on the Son, hath ever- 
 lasting life. 1 ' While Mark says, "there is no one that has forsaken 
 houses, lands, &c. for my sake, who shall not receive manifold more in the 
 present time, and in the world to come, life everlasting." Can any one 
 reconcile these sayings without admitting all that we contend for? viz. 
 that there is an actual possession, and a possession in right, or in grant. 
 In the great day, the Messiah shall say to the righteous, "inherit the 
 kingdom prepared for you before the foundation of the world." In Tim- 
 othy, Paul says, " you may lay hold on eternal life." Here is a man of 
 God exhorted by Paul, to lay hold on eternal life — and, indeed, the same 
 apostle teaches, " that we are made heirs, according to the hope of eter- 
 nal life.''' Now, as I have before said, who can hope for what he has ! 
 The conclusion is inevitable that, when we are said to be justified, sancti- 
 fied, saved by faith, or to have eternal life, through believing, it does not 
 mean that we actually have them now, or shall enjoy them hereafter, by 
 mere faith alone, but in consequence of the efficiency of this principle 
 displayed in the obedience of faith, or in submission to the authority and 
 rule of the Lord. 
 
 Be it observed, however, with joyful attention, that when a child is 
 born into any family, the privileges of the family are his in virtue of birth. 
 True, his present or continuous enjoyment of them depends on his con- 
 tinuing in the family, and in being properly qualified to enjoy them. 
 Thus a birth into the family of God entitles to very numerous, various, 
 and glorious privileges. Like a king's son, he is born to a fine education, 
 has a rich estate, and much glory and blessing in store. The child of 
 God is entitled to the finest education. God is the author of three grand 
 works, each of which contains many volumes. There are the volumes 
 of nature, of providence, and of redemption. The Spirit of God is his 
 preceptor in studying the volumes of redemption, and this gives him a 
 more profound knowledge of all the others. He has many honorable rela- 
 tions. All the great, and noble, and honorable, and pure spirits, celestial 
 and terrestrial, are his brethren and relatives. God is his father, Jesus, 
 the supreme Judge, is his brother, and heaven and ail its glories, are his 
 inheritance. Truly, then, he is rich in faith. 
 
 But the question in debate is, does mere birth invest any one with all 
 those hereditaments, privileges, honors, &e. or is not his arriving at full 
 majority, at a manhood stature, through sanctification of the Spirit, as 
 well as through the belief of the truth, by obeying, from the heart, the 
 holy precepts of Christ's gospel, essential to the actual possession or 
 enjoyment of all these immunities and honors? — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24—12| o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's sixth reply.] 
 Mr. President — I discover that my friend has not forgotten the events 
 of last w r eek. My exposure of his translation, continues to haunt him. 
 I have said not a word about his translation to-day, nor yesterday. Why, 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 511 
 
 then, is he now bringing up again these old matters ? Whilst discuss- 
 ing the mode of baptism, I did prove that his translation of a very impor- 
 tant verse in the New Testament, is no translation, but a very great per- 
 version of the original. Then was the time to have defended his trans- 
 lation, if he could. It is now too late. But he seems disposed to throw 
 the responsibility of this gross mistranslation upon Dr. George Camp- 
 bell. But has he not adopted it, and sent it forth to the world as 
 his ? Did he not make, in Dr. Campbell's translation, various emenda- 
 tions ? Why, then, did he not rectify this most remarkable error ? 
 
 I now learn, that when he claimed catholic authority in favor of his 
 doctrine, he meant, not popish, but universal authority. Now, I deny 
 that it is sustained by any such authority ; and I call for the proof. It is 
 not a little singular that he should commence a radical reformation, pro- 
 claiming all the world in error, and then discover that almost all are with 
 him ! I deny most positively, that his views of baptism in order to re- 
 mission of sins, are sustained by universal authority. 
 
 I knew that I was touching a tender point, when I quoted one of the 
 most prominent ministers of his church against him; but I cannot help 
 that. In looking through the Millenial Harbinger, I saw that Dr. Fish- 
 back and Mr. Campbell had engaged in a protracted discussion of the 
 very doctrine we are now debating ; and that the doctor was decidedly op- 
 posed to his views. I paid some attention to his arguments, and discov- 
 ered that Mr. Campbell did not answer them very satisfactorily ; and I 
 thought it might be well to give him some of those arguments to answer 
 now. But, he says, this controversy with Dr. Fishback has nothing to 
 do with the matter before us. He is very fond of quoting Calvin against 
 Presbyterians ; but so soon as I quote against him one of his strongest 
 men, he declares, it has nothing to do with the subject before us ! 
 
 Well, he is very catholic in his views. He says, his church does not 
 compel all their ministry to adopt the same opinions and speculations. 
 But are we now debating mere opinions? Is his doctrine of baptism, in 
 order to remission of sins, an opinion or a speculation ? If so, the gen- 
 tleman is certainly running contrary to his own published principles ; for 
 he has maintained that no citizen of the kingdom of Christ has the right 
 to propagate his opinions. But here he is, in a public debate, propagating 
 his opinions ! No ; we are discussing doctrines — matters of faith — not 
 speculations ; and unless Mr. C. has recently succeeded in converting the 
 doctor, they differ toto ccelo, not about speculations, but about doctrines. 
 
 But is Mr. C. really so catholic in his views and feelings? Would he 
 allow me to preach in his church, unless I would agree to be immersed ? 
 I trow not. Yet how can he consistently exclude me, since he professes 
 not to proscribe men for their opinions ? 
 
 I will not charge my friend with courting popularity ; but I will say, 
 that he has, by some means, happened to adopt a course of conduct by 
 which he has secured much greater popularity, than he ever could have 
 gained, had he remained in the Presbyterian church. 
 
 But he is resolved to make me a heretic. He tells you, that in my 
 exposition of Colossians ii. 10, 11,1 have gone contrary to the Confession 
 of Faith But that is a book which he seems not to understand. Neither 
 Paul nor the confession teaches the necessity of baptism in order to re- 
 mission of sins. Under the old dispensation, as I have before said, 
 water, the emblem of purification, was constantly associated with the 
 Spirit and sanctification. So under the new, the ordinance of baptism is 
 
512 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 constantly connected with regeneration, which is called baptism. And 
 Paul speaks of " the washing - of regeneration," just as Ezekiel speaks of 
 cleansing from moral pollution, by sprinkling clean water. The outward 
 ordinance serves to illustrate the nature of the inward grace. So Peter 
 tells us, it is not water-baptism that saves us — " not the putting away of 
 the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"— 
 not the outward baptism, but the inward grace, of which it is the sign or 
 emblem. 
 
 The gentleman could not refer to this passage, without trying to make 
 an argument against infant baptism. He brought up that subject yester- 
 day ; and to-day we have it again. I am quite sure he feels very much 
 dissatisfied with his performances on this subject. He certainly would 
 not recur to it again and again, if he believed that he had sustained himself. 
 
 I will now resume the train of argument against the doctrine of baptism 
 in order to remission of sins. I have proved that this doctrine contradicts 
 the express declarations of Christ, who said, without qualification, " He 
 that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." The gentleman has at- 
 tempted to evade the force of this declaration, by making the word' hath' 
 mean may have. To justify this most unauthorized perversion, he 
 refers to scriptures which speak of eternal life as in the future, as the ob- 
 ject of expectation and hope. But who does not know, that, so long as 
 eternity endures, the righteous will be looking forward and anticipating 
 increasing blessing and glory. If, then, we cannot possess eternal life, 
 so long as we are looking forward, we can never possess it. 
 
 But it is worse than vain to attempt to escape the force of such 
 language, presenting the same truth in such variety of forms. The Sa- 
 vior said to Martha, as she wept for her deceased brother, " He that be- 
 lieveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live : and whosoever 
 liveth and believeth in me, shall never die ;" John xi. 25, 26. The body 
 may die, but the soul never will. Pardoned, sanctified, and saved, it will 
 go onward and upward, ever enjoying the perfection of present felicity, 
 and ever looking to future and greater glory. 
 
 But there is one passage which I quoted, to which I cannot arrest 
 the attention of the gentleman, viz : " He that believeth on him is not 
 condemned ;" John iii. 18. According to his doctrine, many believers 
 are condemned. The Savior says, they are not. Here is a flat contradic- 
 tion. Paul, too, as I proved, teaches that every believer is justified — 
 "justified by faith ;" Rom. iii. I have reminded the gentleman of these 
 passages repeatedly, but he cannot see them ! 
 
 I have also proved his doctrine untrue by the indisputable facts, that 
 those who are begotten, or born of God, whether baptized or not, do en- 
 joy the remission of their sins. But he asks, why run away from the 
 subject under discussion to the new birth? Because in his writings I 
 discovered that he had relied very much on the new birth to sustain his 
 views ; for, with him, baptism is the new birth, and is designed to effect 
 a change of state — a passing from condemnation to justification* I see, 
 in his Christianity Restored, he has attempted, singularly enough, to 
 illustrate his doctrine by representing naturalization in our country as a 
 birth. The foreigner who emigrates from England to America, and is 
 naturalized, he represents as bom of America! ! ! And, as he who is 
 born of America, enjoys the privileges of a citizen, so he, who is born of 
 water, enjoys the privileges of the kingdom of Christ. Such an illus- 
 tration, I presume, no one ever -thought of using before; and the palpa- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 513 
 
 ble absurdity of it, is evidence of the lameness of the doctrine. You 
 see, then, I was not running from the subject under discussion, but run- 
 ning into it. 
 
 There are some remarkable peculiarities in the gentleman's theology. 
 He teaches, that men are first begotten without the water, by the truth, 
 and then born of water; and the water he represents as the mother of all 
 christians ! ! ! The Scriptures teach us, that " Jerusalem, which is above, 
 is the mother of us all;" but they never do teach, that the water is our 
 mother! This is one of the peculiarities of Mr. Campbell's theology ! 
 The inspired writers never speak of baptism as a birth, nor of water as 
 the mother of believers. This fact, which is fatal to the gentleman's doc- 
 trine, I presume he will not answer. 
 
 I have proved, by a number of facts, that the new birth is not at all 
 connected with baptism — that our Savior had no reference, particularly, 
 to baptism, when he said, " Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Mr. Campbell ad- 
 mits, that christian baptism was not instituted when the Savior uttered 
 this language; and how, I ask, can he prove, that he alluded to an ordi- 
 nance not then in existence ? He may take it for granted, but he cannot 
 furnish a particle of proof. And if he cannot, his doctrine goes by the 
 board. Let the fact not be forgotten, that, when christian baptism was 
 instituted, it was never called a birth. The expression, bom of God, is 
 intended to convey to our minds two important ideas, viz : 1 That the 
 change denoted by it, constitutes us the children of God; and 2. That it 
 makes us, morally, like God — holy in heart. " That which is born of 
 the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit/' 
 
 I proved on yesterday, (and I will repeat the argument.) thai every one 
 who is begotten or born of God, enjoys the remission of sins. John, 
 the apostle, says, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born 
 of God." If the believer is born of God, he is a child ; and if a child, 
 an heir of God, and a joint-heir with Christ. It will scarcely be denied, 
 that the sins of all such are pardoned. But Mr. Campbell will not im- 
 merse a man till he professes to believe, that Jesus is the Christ; and, 
 therefore, he cannot immerse him till he is born of God — is a child, and 
 is in possession of the remission of sins. Consequently, his doctrine, 
 which teaches, that sins are remitted in the act of being baptized, and not 
 before, is untrue. 
 
 The gentleman has found justification in the Scriptures ascribed to sev- 
 en causes. So he informs us; though it would not be difficult to prove, 
 that the whole seven amount to some three or four. For example, who 
 imagines, that justification in the name of Christ, and by Christ, are two 
 distinct causes ? Is the name of Christ one thing, and Christ himself 
 another? But there is one fatal misfortune connected with this matter. 
 It is this : baptism is not one of those seven causes, himself bei\g 
 judge ! This fact being indisputable, I would not care, so far as this dis- 
 cussion is concerned, if justification were ascribed to forty causes. What 
 are these seven causes ? They are, as enumerated by Mr. Campbell, the 
 following: "by Christ his name, his blood, by knowledge, grace, faith, 
 and by works," Now where is baptism ? If his doctrine be true, bap- 
 tism is one of the most important causes of justification. Yet, amongst 
 all the causes to which he says it is ascribed, he cannot find it mentioned ! 
 If only baptism had been once mentioned as a cause of justification, how 7 
 irresistibly it would have been urged by my friend ! But is it notmarvel- 
 33 
 
514 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 lous to hear a man contending, most earnestly, that baptism i3 one of the 
 most important causes of justification: and yet, when he himself enu- 
 merates all the causes mentioned in the Bible, and increases the number 
 by making Christ one cause, his name another, and his blood a third, he 
 cannot find baptism amongst them ! ! ! 
 
 But he represents us as relying for justification and salvation on faith 
 alone. We hold no such doctrine. Our confession does not say, that 
 faith alone justifies men. It teaches, that they are justified on account of 
 " the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed 
 to them, and received by faith alone.' 1 '' The meritorious ground of our 
 justification, is the obedience of Christ unto death, even the death of the 
 cross. The instrumental cause is faith, whereby the sinner, conscious 
 of his helpless and guilty condition, receives and rests on Christ as his 
 only Savior. Neither does our confession teach, that men can be justi- 
 fied and saved who do not live holy lives. Faith is the cause, of which 
 good works are the necessary and uniform effect. Hence our confession 
 teaches, that " Faith is not alone in the person justified, but is ever ac- 
 companied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith ; but worketh 
 by love." As the cause cannot exist without producing its legitimate 
 effect, so faith cannot exist in any mind without producing good works. 
 
 I will now resume the argument I was presenting when I sat down. I 
 was proving, that the doctrine of Mr. C. ascribes to an external ordinance 
 an unscriptural importance and efficacy. The one thing needful is, 
 throughout the Scriptures, declared to be vital piety — the religion of the 
 heart. No external ordinance, however important, was ever made essen- 
 tial to the remission of sins, or efficacious in securing that blessing. 
 Circumcision, which was quite as important in the church under the 
 former dispensation, as baptism now, was omitted, as I stated, during the 
 forty years of the sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness ; and was 
 then administered, on their arrival in the land of Canaan, to adults and 
 infants. Besides, Paul has taught us, that it never was essential in order 
 to remission of sins. 
 
 I was a little surprised to hear the gentleman proclaim his belief, that 
 eternal life was not offered to the Jews— that their religion was a mere 
 temporal affair. David prayed for remission of sins and for sanctifica- 
 tion, (Psal. li.) and looked for eternal salvation. Abraham, by faith, 
 "looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is 
 God." By faith, Moses " esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches 
 than the treasures in Egypt ; for he had respect unto the recompense of 
 the reward," (Heb. xi.) The ancient patriarchs and servants of God 
 walked by faith, " died in faith," and were received up to glory. 
 
 But it was the capital error of the Jews, in the most corrupt period of 
 their history, that they sought to be justified by their own righteousness ; 
 which they made to consist chiefly in their punctilious attention to ex- 
 ternal rites and forms. How often did the Savior and the apostles teach 
 them the impossibility of securing justification by attending on any of 
 those ordinances, or upon all of them. Never was it necessary for the 
 Savior, whilst on earth, to rebuke the Jews for undervaluing external or- 
 dinances ; but how frequently did he reprove them for attaching to them 
 an undue importance and efficacy ! 
 
 The Jewish law contained two principal classes of ordinances, the 
 bloody sacrifices and the washings. These were, as Paul says, " a 
 shadow of good things to cojne." The former pointed to the cross of 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 515 
 
 Christ, on which he should by one offering perfect them that are sancti- 
 fied ; the latter pointed to the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the 
 hearts of men. The bloody sacrifices taught men their guilt and pointed 
 them to the remedy, the blood of Christ ; and the ablutions taught them 
 their depravity and pointed them to the remedy, the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The Jews, in their blindness, lost sight of the promised Savior, the 
 glorious substance, clung with the most perverse tenacity to the mere 
 shadow, and fondly imagined, that the blood of bulls and of goats could 
 atone for sin. They also lost sight of the Holy Spirit and his agency 
 in sanctifying the heart, and relied for purification upon external ablu- 
 tions. In their blind zeal they even added other ablutions to those 
 divinely appointed, and incessantly washed the outside of the "cup and 
 the platter," leaving the inside in its impurity. They could not even sit 
 down to eat when they came from the market or a public place, till they 
 had washed their hands. And not only were they most conscientious in 
 their observance of the sacrifices and washings ; but in regard to all ex- 
 ternal forms and ordinances, however unimportant, they were zealous in 
 their observance. The reproof uttered by our Savior, in view of this 
 state of things, contains a principle which should never be lost sight of. 
 " Wo unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe of 
 mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of 
 the law, judgment, mercy, and faith," Matt, xxiii. 23. 
 
 But this error was not peculiar to the Jews. At a very early period in 
 the history of the christian church, we find the same disposition devel- 
 oped. It was not long until, losing sight of the true nature and design 
 of the Lord's supper as a memorial of his sufferings, christians regarded 
 the partaking of it as essential to salvation, and attached to it some mys- 
 terious efficacy in imparting grace. Step by step they proceeded, until, 
 having lost sight of the cross which it was intended ever to keep in full 
 view, they deified the bread and the wine, and strangely imagined that 
 the mystic words of the priest converted these elements into the body, 
 blood, soul, and divinity of Christ ! ! This was the perfection of human 
 folly. But baptism, the other sacrament, was almost equally perverted. 
 It was, at an early day, considered essential to salvation. The Holy Spi- 
 rit was supposed to sanctify the heart at the moment when baptism was 
 administered ; and those who died without baptism were supposed to be 
 lost. They proceeded even further, and, to impart greater virtue to the 
 water, they consecrated it, and thus baptized with holy water! 
 
 This error has been common to human nature, in all ages, as the 
 thousand forms and ceremonies of the various systems of pagan mytho- 
 logy demonstrate. 
 
 This, precisely, is the error into which Mr. Campbell has run. In- 
 deed he seems, in one respect, to have gone further into extremes, than 
 the christians of the third and succeeding centuries. They made exter- 
 nal ordinances essential to salvation ; but he makes the mode of an ordi- 
 nance essential ! He not only insists that baptism is essential to secure 
 remission of sin ; but the water must be applied in a particular mode, or, 
 according to his theology, it answers no purpose! In this almost univer- 
 sal error of attaching unscriptural importance and efficacy to external 
 rites, he has gone further than any one of whom I have heard or read. 
 
 To show the audience the wonderful efficacy he ascribes to baptism, I 
 will read an extract from his debate with McCalla : (p. 137.) 
 
 " He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he 
 
518 
 
 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal 
 acquittal or pardon : so significant, and so expressive, that when the bap- 
 tized believer rises out of the water, is born of water, enters the world a 
 second time, he enters it as innocent, as clean, as unspotted, as an 
 angel. His conscience is purged from guilt, his body washed with pure 
 water, even the washing of regeneration. He puts himself under the priest- 
 hood of Jesus, under his tuition and government. If afterwards be sins,, 
 through the weakness and corruption of human nature, or the temptation of 
 the adversary, he, in the spirit of repentance, comes to his Advocate, con- 
 fesses his fault, and obtains pardon." 
 
 I think it must be admitted, that he ascribes wonderful virtue to baptism I 
 
 The last argument against this doctrine, which I shall now offer, i& 
 this : Mr. Campbell himself says, it is not true ! This statement 
 will doubtless surprise the audience ; but nevertheless it is certain, that the 
 gentleman himself has said, that the doctrine for which he is now con- 
 tending is not true. I will prove this assertion by reading from his 
 debate with McCalla: (p. 135.) 
 
 " The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood 
 of Christ really washes away our sins. PauVs sins were really pardoned 
 when he believed; yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquit- 
 tal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the 
 water of baptism." 
 
 I could shake hands with my friend over this sentiment, and we might 
 have something like christian union. What does he say ? " Paul's sins 
 were really pardoned, when he believed." This is all for which I am 
 contending — that the sins of every individual are really pardoned, when 
 he believes. I quoted Dr. Fishback, a little while ago, one of his right- 
 hand men, in favor of this doctrine ; and now I have Mr. Campbell 
 himself on my side. It must be conceded, that I have the two most 
 distinguished men in the gentleman's church sustaining the views for 
 which I am contending. Now it is no part of my business to reconcile 
 the doctrine here taught, with what he has elsewhere inculcated, or with 
 what he is now inculcating. It is enough for me that he has said, that 
 the doctrine for which he is now contending is not true ! If he has since 
 changed his views, and is disposed to retract what he has here published 
 ■ — very well. But so long as I have Mr. C. on my side, it will be ad- 
 mitted that, so far as this discussion is concerned, I am safe. 
 
 I will read again in the Millenial Harbinger, vol. iii. p. 304. The 
 article was written in reply to Dr. Fishback, who was contending, that the 
 remission of a man's sins is not suspended upon his being baptized. Mr. 
 C. remarks: "You [Dr. F.] say, 'the essential point of difference be- 
 tween you and me is suggested in the following question ; Is, or is 
 not, the free favor of God, by which he justifies the believing sinner, or 
 remits his sin, through the blood of Christ, suspended, according to the 
 Gospel, upon his being baptized in water? You [Mr. Campbell] defend 
 the affirmative, and I [Dr. F.] maintain the negative side of the ques- 
 tion.' Now," remarks Mr. C., "let me tell you that I maintain the 
 negative too. So we are both agreed ! Because, mark me closely, I do 
 admit that a person who believes the Gospel, and cannot be immersed, 
 may obtain remission." 
 
 This admission is fatal to the doctrine of baptism in order to remission 
 of sins. I may believe the Gospel to-day, but may not have the oppor- 
 tunity to receive baptism before to-morrow, next week, or next month. 
 Now am I under condemnation till to-morrow, next week, or next 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 517 
 
 month? It is surely most undesirable to be under condemnation, even for 
 a single night ; because, during that time, the person is exposed to eter- 
 nal death. Every one who truly believes in Christ, is disposed, at once, 
 to obey every command, as he understands it. But suppose an indivi- 
 dual mistakes something else for baptism, and believes that he has been 
 baptized, when he has not; is he under condemnation because of this 
 error? Mr. Campbell expresses the opinion that he is not. In the Mil- 
 lenial Harbinger, he expresses the opinion that there are some christians 
 among " the sects." For this charitable (!) opinion, some of his zealous 
 coadjutors found fault with him, as having, by expressing such an opin- 
 ion, crippled their efforts in the laudable work of reformation. He re- 
 iterates the opinion, and writes as follows : 
 
 " In reply to this conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be no 
 christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Ro- 
 manists, none among the Jews, Turks, pagans ; and therefore no christians 
 in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all 
 the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been 
 no church of Christ, no christians in the world ; and the promises concern- 
 ing the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell 
 have prevailed oigainst his church! This cannot be; and therefore there 
 are christians among the sects. 
 
 But who is a christian 1 I answer, every one that believes in his heart 
 that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God ; repents of his sins, 
 and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his 
 will. * * * * 
 
 I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of christian state or 
 character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in 
 infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ 
 and the well-grounded hope of heaven. * Salvation was of the Jews,' ac- 
 knowledged the Messiah ; and yet he said of a foreigner, an alien from the 
 commonwealth of Israel, a Syro-Phmnician, *I have not found so great 
 faith — no, not in Israel.' 
 
 Should I find a Pedo-baptist more intelligent in the christian Scriptures, 
 more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or 
 one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a 
 moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did 
 I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a pharisee among christians. 
 Still I will be asked, how do I know that any one loves my Master but by 
 his obedience to his commandments'? I answer, in no other way. But 
 mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal, or 
 even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedo- 
 baptist more spiritually-minded, more generally conformed to the requisi- 
 tions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the 
 theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than 
 the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a christian. So 
 I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the christian looks for and 
 loves ; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in gene- 
 ral devotion to the whole truth as far as known. 
 
 With me mistakes of the understanding and errors of the affections are 
 not to be confounded. They are as distant as the poles. An angel may 
 mistake the meaning of a commandment, but he will obey it in the sense in 
 which he understands it. John Bunyan and John Newton were very differ- 
 ent persons, and had very different views of baptism, and of some other 
 things ; yet they were both disposed to obey, and to the extent of their 
 knowledge did obey the Lord in every thing. * * * * 
 
 Now, unless I could prove that all who neglect the positive institutions 
 
 2X 
 
518 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of Christ, and have substituted for them something- else of human authority., 
 do it knowingly, or, if not knowingly, are voluntarily ignorant of what is 
 written, I could not, I dare not say that their mistakes are such as unchris- 
 tianize all their professions." — Mill. Harb. New Se. vol. i. pp. 411, 412, 413. 
 John Bunyan and John Newton had very different views of baptism ; 
 and yet they were christians. This is quite orthodox. It is just saying 
 that immersion is not essential to the remission of sins. Paul's sins 
 were pardoned, he tells us, when he believed. So we believe. And we 
 believe that all others will be pardoned, who believe in Jesus Christ. I 
 have Mr. C. and Dr. Fishback with me to day; and as I am in so good 
 company, I will just close here. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24—1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's seventh address.]] 
 
 Mr. President — If my friend, Mr. Rice, had thought more profounds 
 ly on the subjects submitted to his reflection, and on which he has been 
 speaking, he would likely have discovered that there is not the least con- 
 tradiction between my first and last views on the style of the apostle 
 Paul. He does not, indeed, always speak in the same words. Mr. Rice 
 has only demonstrated in these remarks, how much, on former occasions, 
 he has misrepresented me. In the manner and in the matter of his ob- 
 jections and reasonings, he only certifies us of the truth, and confirms us 
 in the justice of our conclusions. 
 
 In the beginning, he gave a wrong view of my sentiments as written 
 and published, especially in some one or two points-, to which I shall 
 now call your attention. The gentleman, with great emphasis, expati- 
 ates on the seven causes of justification, exhibited in the extracts read 
 from the Christian System. He says there are not so many. I have 
 given chapter and verse for every one of them. He says, with a sort of 
 dolorous sympathy, that not one of them alludes to baptism. We have 
 the name of the Lord, and then we have the Lord himself, without the 
 name. The highest authority in the universe is his name. What is the 
 person of the hero, compared with the name of the victor? The name 
 is sometimes a great deal more important than the person. No matter 
 who is king, it is the name of the king that gives validity to the acts of 
 the government. The name of the Lord is here mentioned. I did not 
 quote the whole passage; but I will now r read it. 1 Cor. vi. 11, " Such 
 were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are 
 justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 
 Here we have washing, justification, and sanctification — and all of them 
 collectively and severally represented as being alone, in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Evident, then, it is, that this 
 washing is done in the name of the Lord, as well as that we are justified 
 in his name. What other than the baptismal washing is performed in 
 the name of the Lord? The apostle assigns adequate causes for this 
 great change. The name of the Lord put upon any person by a divine 
 warrant, is no ordinary matter ; and the Spirit of the Lord given to any 
 one, is competent to his victory over all iniquity. Were I to analyze 
 and argue at length the two positions in this verse, as I understand them, 
 we would probably find that we have the same two causes associated 
 here, which we have already found four times connected, in this great 
 work of pardon and renovation ; for if we are immersed into the name of 
 the Lord, we are justified by- his name; and if we are sanctified by the 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 519 
 
 Spirit of our God, we are at once fitted for the high enjoyments of the 
 christian rank and calling. I conceive, then, that we are represented 
 here, as in other scriptures, as being justified by the name of the Lord, 
 believing in him, in baptism ; and that we are also sanctified by his Spi- 
 rit. And, if so, does not baptism stand as high here as in the commis- 
 sion, according to Mark ; and, also, in good keeping with Peter, on Pen- 
 tecost, and in his first epistle ? 
 
 With regard to the passage which has been so often quoted from John, 
 I shall still notice it farther in its proper place. Indeed, it has been fully 
 disposed of already, in the remarks offered on yesterday. My friend 
 has intimated that I wished to evade it. This is only in harmony with 
 his policy. When he wishes you to think he has a strong and convin- 
 cing fact, or argument, he takes this method of gaining it credit. Have I 
 not, however, given you, on this class of texts, something stronger than 
 such insinuating assertions ? — those, to you, are common now as house- 
 hold words ? 
 
 I proceed to illustrate those passages read from the Debate with Mc- 
 Calla, and from the Harbinger. In order to dispense with the necessity 
 and importance of baptism, the gentleman remarked, that as a man cannot 
 baptize himself, it would be incongruous to suspend a matter so essen- 
 tially necessary, upon the contingency of extrinsic help from another 
 person. This, perhaps, to some weak minds, might assume the form of 
 a solid objection to the value of the institution. A man cannot baptize 
 himself, nor can he be baptized without an administrator and without 
 water. Well, formidable though it appear, I am willing to meet it in all 
 its wisdom and strength. I frankly admit the possibility of the contin- 
 gency. Still, if there be any wisdom or potency in the objection drawn 
 from it, it lies just as much in the way of my opponent, as in my way. 
 It requires both water and an administrator with him. But the difference 
 is in his favor, for he requires less water, and attaches much less conse- 
 quence to the ordinance. That, however, avails nothing as to the real 
 value of the objection. We will, therefore, select another case, in the 
 importance of which we will equally agree — the sending of the gospel 
 to the heathen. Now Mr. Rice believes, that a knowledge of the name 
 cf the Lord is essential to salvation ; for where no vision is, the people 
 perish. Now whether the people of remote countries shall ever hear the 
 gospel, is made dependent upon the instrumentality of other persons than 
 themselves. Some persons must be sent to them with the Bible — it must 
 be translated into their tongues, and persons must be found to do it. 
 Now in case of the failure of any of these contingencies, the salvation 
 of the pagans is impossible. The question, then, arises : Is the Bible 
 necessary to salvation, or the promulgation of the truths in it ? Mr. 
 Rice says, Yes. Well, then, let him reconcile this contingency first, 
 before he demands of me to reconcile the one he has feigned on baptism. 
 I say feigned ; for while I have given him a real difficulty, on his princi- 
 ples, his is but a feigned difficulty on my principles. Because I do not 
 make baptism absolutely essential to salvation in any case, while he 
 makes the knowledge of Christ absolutely necessary in all cases. Let 
 him adjust these matters at home, before he goes abroad with feigned 
 difficulties ! 
 
 There is nothing that does not depend upon contingencies of some 
 sort : but according to our teaching, there is no one required to be bap- 
 tized where baptism cannot be had. Baptism, where there is no faith. 
 
520 
 
 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 
 
 no water, no person to administer, was never demanded as an indispen- 
 sable condition of salvation, by Him who has always enjoined upon man 
 " mercy, rather than sacrifice." 
 
 Still, there have been matters of great moment suspended upon contin- 
 gencies. A person who had committed a specified trespass, according to 
 the law of Moses, who had in copartnery wronged the company, or who 
 had violated a pledge, or taken away property feloniously, or by falsifi- 
 cation, could not be pardoned only on certain conditions. He must 
 make restitution of the principal, he must add twenty per cent., or one- 
 fifth, to it : he must then find a priest, and an offering, and go to the 
 priest, make confession of his sin, and have him to offer and intercede 
 for him, or he could not obtain remission. 
 
 When Jesus said to the apostles, " Whose sins soever you retain are 
 retained, and whose sins soever you remit are remitted to them," there 
 was contingency in it ; for they were not omnipresent, nor could they 
 write or speak to the whole world. These are weak, very weak, objec- 
 tions, and as unreasonable as weak. 
 
 We must now hear Calvin. Mr. Rice has given you a specimen of 
 my manner of quoting authorities. We shall now have a specimen of 
 his, (to me inimitable !) art of mystification, and, as charity would have it, 
 involuntary perversion. Calvin wrote every idea I have read you, and 
 no one of ordinary candor, in my opinion, can misconceive it. A ques- 
 tion may possibly arise in some minds, whether Calvin did not contradict 
 himself. But that I have fairly and fully given you his words, there can 
 be no doubt. 
 
 I will read a kw extracts from book iv. vol. ii. indicative of the fact 
 that he has spoken as plainly as I have done, on the subject of bap- 
 tism for remission : (Book iv. chap. xv. sec. 5, 6, 7.) 
 
 " By baptism Christ has made us partakers of his death, in order that we 
 may be engrafted into it. And as the scion derives substance and nourish- 
 ment from the root on which it is engrafted ; so they, who receive baptism 
 with the faith with which they ought to receive it, truly experience the 
 efficacy of Christ's death in the mortification of the flesh, and also the ener- 
 gy of his resurrection in the vivification of the spirit." 
 
 The doctrine of John Calvin is the doctrine of the confession of faith. 
 Observe the following extract : 
 
 " 6th. The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism, is the 
 certain testimony it affords us, that we are not only engrafted into the life 
 and death of Christ, but are so united as to be partakers of all his benefits." 
 
 This is all we contend for. Calvin saw the same design in John's 
 baptism as in christian baptism. 
 
 "7th. Hence also it is very certain that the ministry of John was precise- 
 ly the same as that which was afterwards committed to the apostles. For 
 their baptism was not different, though it was administered by different 
 hands ; but the sameness of their doctrine shews their baptism to have been 
 the same. John and the apostles agreed in the same doctrine : both bap- 
 tized to repentance, both to remission of sins ; both baptized in the name 
 of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed." 
 
 This may be regarded as going too far in some particulars. Still it 
 strikingly evinces his belief that all baptisms were for remission of sins. 
 On John's baptism, as on the design of christian baptism, Mr. Rice repu- 
 diates Calvin. (Book iv. sec. 4. 11 :) 
 
 " I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our first 
 regeneration we receive by baptism alone is afterwards received by repent- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 521 
 
 ance and the benefit of the keys. But the advocates of this opinion have 
 fallen into an error, for want of considering that the power of the keys, of 
 which they speak, is so dependent on baptism, that it cannot by any means 
 be separated from it. It is true, that the sinner receives remission by the 
 ministry of the church, but not without the preaching of the gospel. Now 
 what is the nature of that preaching] That we are cleansed from our sins 
 by the blood of Christ. What sign and testimony of that absolution is 
 there, except baptism 1 
 
 11th. We conclude, therefore, that we are baptized into the mortification 
 of the flesh, which commences in us at baptism, which we pursue from day 
 to day, and which will be perfected when we shall pass out of this life to 
 the Lord." 
 
 We shall give you a little more of his remarks on the case of Cor- 
 nelius than Mr. Rice gave you, that we may comprehend the apparent 
 contradiction. 
 
 " 15th. We may see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion, who, 
 after having received the remission of his sins and the visible graces of the 
 Holy Spirit, was baptized : not with a view to obtain by baptism a more 
 ample remission of sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an increase of 
 confidence from that pledge. Perhaps it may be objected, why then did 
 Ananias say to Paul, ' Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sin,' if 
 sins are not washed away by the efficacy of baptism itself? I answer, we 
 are said to receive or obtain that which our faith apprehends as presented 
 to us by the Lord, whether at the time that he first declares it to us, or 
 when by any subsequent testimony he affords us a more certain confirma- 
 tion of it. Ananias, therefore, only intended to say to Paul, 'That thou 
 mayest be assured that thy sins are forgiven, be baptized: for in baptism 
 the Lord promises remission of sins ; receive this, and be secure.' * * * 
 
 Nevertheless, from this sacrament, as from all others, we obtain nothing 
 except what we receive by faith. If faith be wanting, it will be a testi- 
 mony of our ingratitude, to accuse us before God, because we have not be- 
 lieved the promise given in the sacrament: but as baptism is a sign of our 
 confession, we ought to testify by it, that our confidence is in the mercy of 
 God, and our purity in the remission of sins, which is obtained for us by 
 Jesus Christ ; and that we enter into the church of God, in order to live in 
 the same harmony of faith and charity, of one mind with all the faithful. 
 This is what Paul meant when he said, that ' by one spirit we are all bap- 
 tized into one body.'" 
 
 I agree with Calvin, as I understand him. We receive remission of 
 sins in anticipation through faith, as Cornelius did ; and with a clear 
 assurance and solemn pledge through baptism. We must take all that 
 Calvin has said on the subject, before we fully comprehend his meaning. 
 I have therefore given a full outline of his whole views on the subject. 
 
 The case of Cornelius is urged, as a proof that I have either miscon- 
 strued or misstated Calvin's views of baptism for remission. But a care- 
 ful examination of these extracts will only show that the gentleman is 
 mistaken. Calvin repudiates the idea of receiving remission by the mere 
 act of baptism without faith. His doctrine is, that through baptism we 
 are said to receive that which our faith apprehends as presented to us by 
 the Lord, " whether at the lime that he first declares it to us, or when 
 by any subsequent testimony he affords us a more certain confirmation 
 of i7." Another extract corroborates this: (Book iv. chap. 15. sec. 17.) 
 
 " Now, since by the grace of God we have begun to repent, we accuse 
 our blindness and hardness of heart for our long ingratitude to his great 
 goodness. Yet we believe that the promise itself never expired ; but on 
 the contrary, we reason in the following manner: By baptism God promises 
 remission of sins, and will certainly fulfill the promise to all believers : that 
 
 2x2 
 
522 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 promise was offered to us in baptism ; let us therefore embrace it by faith : 
 it was long dormant by reason of our unbelief: now then let us receive it 
 by faith." 
 His views of baptism extend still farther, as the following extract shows : 
 " Baptism is also attended with another advantage : it shews us our mor- 
 tification in Christ, and our new life in him. For, as the apostle says, ' So 
 many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: 
 therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that we should 
 walk in newness of life.' In this passage he does not merely exhort us to 
 an imitation of Christ, as if he had said, that we are admonished by bap- 
 tism, that after the example of his death we should die to sin, and that after 
 the example of his resurrection we should rise to righteousness ; but he 
 goes considerably further, and teaches us that," &c. — Calvin's Institutes, vol. 
 ii. book ii. chap. xv. sec. 5. 
 
 Now, as I understand this, it substantially accords with the case read 
 from the Harbinger. I believe that when a person apprehends the gos- 
 pel and embraces the Messiah in his soul, he has in anticipation received 
 the blessing. His mind finds peace in the Lord. " He rejoices with joy 
 unspeakable and full of glory." He anticipates the end of his faith — his 
 actual emancipation from sin. In his heart he dies unto sin, and by his 
 burial and resurrection with the Lord, he thus formally receives, what 
 was at first received by faith in anticipation. 
 
 There is no difficulty in reconciling Calvin with myself, any more than 
 with Paul, and the other New Testament writers. It is, however, nothing 
 to me, nor you, what Calvin's opinions were. Calvin, like other men, 
 had his errors and defects. He did not always select the most apposite 
 terms. I do not say that I have invariably used the words which I ought 
 to have used. This confession of faith has been amended, often amended, 
 in some points, and it yet needs other emendations. The gentleman said 
 I had not the concurrent assent of the universal church. I believe there 
 is not a proposition in the universe that can be proved in that sense of 
 universality. There is nothing absolutely universal. I never heard of 
 any opinion or tenet, approved by the unanimous vote of the church, 
 or of the whole family of man. I did not intend, sir, to speak of indi- 
 vidual men, women and children ; but when I spoke of the whole chris- 
 tian world, in terms of the most extensive universality, I meant all 
 parties, sects, and denominations, in the old world and in the new. I 
 have made my appeal to Greek fathers, Latin fathers, synods, councils, 
 special and oecumenical, and their creeds, to the rabbis and doctors of 
 ancient times, finally calling upon some of the more distinguished mo- 
 derns, like Drs. Wall and Doddridge, to sustain my assertions, all of them 
 avowing, that John iii. 5, and Titus iii. 5, refer to baptism, and espe- 
 cially bearing testimony to the propriety of our interpretation of Acts 
 ii. 38. The church of England still avows the ancient faith. The creed 
 of St. Athanasius says, " We confess one baptism for the remission of 
 sins." The creed of Nice says, " We believe in one baptism for remis- 
 sion of sins." I am, if in error on this point, in good company, as Mr. 
 Rice would say. All the old creeds, the modern creeds, the ancient 
 fathers, the modern reformers, Luther and Calvin, and names the most 
 learned, the most honorable, the most venerable, the most admired, and 
 the most beloved, are all with me on this point. No one can assemble 
 such a host in support of any one dogma, proposition, doctrine, or tradi- 
 tion, as I can bring up in attestation of baptism for remission of sins. 
 But all this with me weighs nothing, not a feather, had I not Paul, and 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 523 
 
 James, and John, and Peter, the high functionaries and administrators of 
 the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 As to what my friend says of outward, external ordinances, I need only 
 remark, that I know of no such institutions of Christ. Prayer, praise, 
 eating the supper, baptism, fasting, &c, are all alike bodily, mental, spir- 
 itual, outward and inward. Such language is that of Ashdod, and not of 
 Canaan. I go for that religion with all my heart, and soul, and mind, and 
 strength. Still, without the head, there can be no heart-religion. With- 
 out light there can be no love. If there be any externals in religion, I care 
 nothing for them. It helps devotion to bow the knee, to stand up, to 
 speak solemnty, to fast, to use words full of spiritual feeling. What act 
 of religion so solemn as being buried with the Lord ? What seizes the 
 soul of man with such power, as the mighty, soul-subduing fact that we are 
 entering into an everlasting covenant with the Supreme Divinity ; vowing 
 eternal faithfulness to the Messiah; putting on Christ as our wisdom, jus- 
 tification, sanctification, and redemption? What reflections touch the 
 fountains of our moral sympathies with such awakenings, meltings, ecsta- 
 sies, as these heaven-begotten emotions, rising within us when we per- 
 sonally rise with Jesus, and, in our affections, mount to heaven 1 How 
 sweet the thought, too, that the Messiah himself led the way ; that he 
 put his body into the hands of John, and suffered him to accompany him 
 into the mystic Jordan, and bury him there in solemn anticipation of his 
 future interment in the bosom of his own earth. 
 
 If my friend, Mr. Rice, could speak experimentally on the subject of 
 christian immersion, he would tell you that there is no action ever com- 
 manded of God of more solemn significance than holy baptism ; that it 
 operates powerfully upon those who are rightly exercised therein. What 
 feeling like that of having the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 tru Holy Spirit put upon a person by the authority of our Redeemer, Law- 
 giver and King? What singular associations spring up within us, when 
 we t'-el ourselves enter into a relation that makes God our Father, Jesus 
 our $b "ior, the Holy Spirit our Guest, Instructor and Guide ; that connects 
 with thi hierarchies of heaven — its angels, authorities, principalities and 
 powers; that emboldens us to draw near to God, having our hearts sprink- 
 led from a guilty conscience, and our bodies bathed in the pure water of 
 sanctification? No one could institute such an ordinance, filled with such 
 honors, blessings, joys and transports, but Emanuel. 
 
 My friend still talks of what he has done. No doubt it is both neces- 
 sary and expedient that he should do so. You will all judge of what I 
 have done. But I will tell you, while he keeps talking thus, I am thinking 
 of one saying of the Messiah, which always overwhelms me especially, 
 when I think any one makes little of any of the commandments of the 
 Lord. It is a saying of the Great King : " Whosoever shall break one of 
 the least of these, my commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be of 
 no esteem in the kingdom of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach 
 them, shall be of high esteem in the kingdom of heaven." Nothing is 
 little that my Lord Messiah ever thought, said, commanded, or did. To 
 stand up for him, and for his ordinances, and to plead the necessity of 
 obeying to the letter, of honoring and magnifying him, of worshiping and 
 adoring him, is my greatest honor, and my highest ambition. Heaven 
 has yet revealed to me no higher honor, than to stand up for the honor of 
 his commandments. I disclaim all merit ; all claims of praise, honor or 
 reward from him, I most cordially renounce. It is an act of mercy on his 
 
524 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 part to accept our purest offerings. Did we live the life of a Methusela, 
 and devote all its hours to him, it would constitute no ground of boasting, 
 no claim for his favor. We are saved by grace ; still, our happiness and 
 our honor are necessarily dependent upon our usefulness, our faithfulness 
 to God, and our active and practical benevolence towards man. To walk 
 by faith, is to walk with God. A heart and lip devoted to his will, is the 
 highest style, dignity and happiness of man. — [_Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24 — U o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's seventh reply.^] 
 
 Mr. President — I wish, in commencing my reply, to read a brief ex- 
 tract from two of the gentleman's books, that you may be able to deter- 
 mine how far I have misrepresented him. I will read first from his de- 
 bate with McCalla: 
 
 "The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. Paul's 
 sins were really pardoned when he believed ; yet he had no solemn pledge 
 of the fact, no formal acquittal, bo formal purgation of his sins, until he 
 washed them away in the water of baptism." 
 
 Let us compare with this his doctrine, as taught in the Christian Bap- 
 tist, p. 422. 
 
 " That such was the universally received sense of immersion amongst 
 the teachers and preachers of Christianity, is most certain from express 
 declaration and incident. For example: when Paul was immersed, it was 
 declared and understood by the parties, that all his previous sins were wash- 
 ed away in the act of immersion." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " What made the eunuch go on his way rejoicing 1 Was it because he 
 had some difficult texts explained? Or was it because he had some distant 
 hope or remote prospect of enjoying pardon and acceptance after death, or 
 after the lapse of certain years of travail and of trial? No, indeed : he '...ad 
 found what thousands before him had experienced, peace with God, f om a 
 conviction that his sins had been actually forgiven in the act of 
 immersion. Indeed, the preaching of all the apostles, as well as all their 
 writings, embrace this as a fact never to be called into question." 
 
 Now if any one can reconcile these doctrinal statements, he possesses 
 more ingenuity than has fallen to me. In the debate with McCalla the 
 gentleman said distinctly, that Paul's sins were really pardoned when he 
 believed. In the Christian Baptist we learn, that they were washed 
 away in the act of immersion, and that the sins of the eunuch were 
 actually forgiven in the act of immersion ! I cannot put these things 
 together. I presume, however, that if Paul was really pardoned when 
 he believed, he had evidence of that fact. If Mr. Campbell could ascer- 
 tain it, (and he has asserted it,) certainly Paul himself might. 
 
 I will read again on the next page : " In the ancient gospel, it was first 
 a belief in Jesus ; next, immersion ; then, forgiveness ; then, peace with 
 God; then, joy in the Holy Spirit." Now observe, in the ancient gos- 
 pel we are told, it was first belief, then immersion, then forgiveness ; but, 
 in the debate with McCalla, Mr. C. tells us, in the case of Paul it was 
 first faith, then real pardon, then immersion and formal pardon ! I leave 
 those who can, to reconcile these contradictory views. But as the gentle- 
 man is, in one statement of his views, precisely with me, I shall insist 
 on keeping him on my side. 
 
 But he tells us, the confession of faith has been mended; and, there- 
 fore, he may be permitted to change his views. The confession consists 
 of two parts : first, an outline of the doctrines of the Bible ; secondly, 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 525 
 
 a form of church government. The latter has been altered in some un- 
 important particulars ; but the former has not, as the gentleman certainly 
 ought to have known. 
 
 I have said, that God never made the remission of sins depend upon 
 an act which a man cannot do for himself, but which must be performed 
 by another. Suppose, for illustration, one of Mr. Campbell's New Tes- 
 taments to be given to a man in Africa. He reads it, believes, and de- 
 sires to obey it; but there is no one to immerse him, or, as it may often 
 happen, not sufficient water in which to immerse him. Now if immersion 
 is a prerequisite to the remission of sins, though his heart is right, though 
 he is truly penitent and disposed to do his whole duty, he cannot be par- 
 doned. He must live and die condemned, only because it was impossi- 
 ble that he should be immersed! Can any one believe, that such absurd- 
 ities can belong to God's plan of salvation ? 
 
 The gentleman has, indeed, expressed the opinion that the sins of such 
 a person might be pardoned, and that he might be saved ; but his opinion 
 contradicts his doctrine ; and if the latter be true, the former is false, and 
 vice versa. He holds it to be a doctrine of revelation, that the remission 
 of sins is secured only in immersion. Then let him point us to the 
 place where God has made an exception to the general rule, and I will 
 show him the passage which refutes his doctrine. His opinion and his 
 doctrine cannot both be true, for in the Christian Baptist he asserts, that 
 Peter made " repentance, or reformation and immersion equally ne- 
 cessary to forgiveness ;" p. 417. Does he believe, that any adult will 
 be pardoned and saved without repentance, or, as he calls it, reforma- 
 tion ? I presume he does not. Then, if repentance and immersion are 
 equally necessary, how can any be pardoned and saved without immer- 
 sion ? I repeat, his opinion or his doctrine must be abandoned. They 
 cannot stand together. 
 
 But he tries to place me in a similar predicament. He says, that, 
 according to my views, men must be ordained before they can preach; 
 and many may be lost because their salvation depended on acts to be per- 
 formed by others. I answer, the salvation of none depends on their hear- 
 ing the Word preached. They can read the Bible, or hear it read, and 
 thus become wise unto salvation. And those who have not the Bible, are 
 accountable only for the light they have. God has never suspended the 
 salvation of a soul upon an action which must be performed by another, 
 and which circumstances may make it impossible to have performed. He 
 whose heart is right, who believes in Jesus Christ, and is, consequently, 
 disposed to obey his commandments, has the best assurance that his sins 
 are remitted. 
 
 The gentleman has appealed to the Levitical law to sustain him. 
 When he gives us the chapter and verse, which I hope he will do in his 
 next speech, I will prove, that it affords him no support. [Mr. Camp- 
 bell replied — 6th chapter.] He says, it is in the 6th of Leviticus ; and I 
 say, when he reads it I will reply to it. 
 
 Mr. Campbell strangely attempts still to prove, that Calvin held the 
 doctrine for which he is contending, and that he has not misrepresented 
 him, Calvin says, M Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are 
 admitted into the soci -ny of the church, in order that, being incorporated 
 into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God ;" and he 
 says, it secures to us three advantages : 1st. It is a symbol, or token, of 
 our puriiication, &c. I deem it imuecessary again to read w r hat I have 
 
526 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 already read in your hearing. I will, however, turn to the 4th section 
 of the 15th chapter, which the gentleman read: 
 
 " I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our 
 first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is afterwards obtained by 
 repentance and the benefit of the keys. But the advocates of this opinion 
 have fallen into an error, for want of considering that the power of the keys, 
 of which they speak, is so dependent upon baptism that it cannot by any 
 means be separated from it," &c. 
 
 It is certainly remarkable, that the gentleman should have read as the 
 real sentiments of Calvin, a statement he made of a popish error, which 
 he immediately proceeded to refute ! Again, Calvin says : 
 
 " In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ 
 sanctifies and cleanses the church ( with the washing of water ' by the 
 word, (Eph. v. 26;) and in another place, that ' according to his mercy he 
 saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,' 
 (Tit. iii. 5 ;) and by Peter, that * baptism doth save us,' (1 Pet. iii. 21.) For 
 it was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation 
 are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to 
 purify, regenerate, and renew ; nor did Peter mean that it was the cause of 
 salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is received in this 
 sacrament; which is sufficiently evident from the words they have used. 
 For Paul connects together ' the word of life ' and « the baptism of water ;' 
 as if he had said, that one ablution and sanctification are announced to us 
 by the gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter, after 
 having said that baptism doth save us, immediately adds, that ' it is not the 
 putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards 
 God ;' which proceeds from faith. But on the contrary, baptism promises 
 us no other purification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ ; which 
 is emblematically represented by water on account of its resemblance to wash- 
 ing- and cleansing." 
 
 Calvin speaks of baptism as an emblem of sanctification and as con- 
 firming to us the message of salvation. Mr. C. represents baptism as 
 securing justification. 
 
 Again, speaking of the baptism of Cornelius, Calvin says — " We see 
 this exemplified in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after having received 
 the remission of sins and the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, was bap- 
 tized ; not with a view to obtain by baptism a more ample remission 
 of his sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an increase of confidence 
 from that pledge." Observe, Calvin says distinctly, his sins were first 
 remitted, and afterwards he received baptism. Could he possibly have 
 employed language more flatly contradictory of the doctrine of Mr. 
 Campbell ? And why was he baptized ? " Not with a view," says Cal- 
 vin, " to obtain a more ample remission of his sins, but a stronger exer- 
 cise of faith and an increase of confidence from that pledge." Accord- 
 ing to Calvin, Cornelius first believed and received the remission of sins 
 and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and then received baptism for the pur- 
 pose of strengthening his faith. 
 
 But let us hear Calvin once more. I read in his Commentary on Acts 
 viii. 38, the passage so lengthily commented upon by Mr. Campbell : 
 
 " Tametsi in contextu verborum baptismus remissionem peccatorum hie 
 prsecedit, ordine tamen sequitur: quia nihil aliud est, quam bonorum, quse 
 per Christum consequimur, obsignatio, ut in conscientiis nostris rata sint." 
 Although, in the arrangement of the words, baptism here precedes remission 
 of sins, yet, in the order [of their occurrence] it follows: because it is noth- 
 ing else than a seal of the blessings which we obtain through Christ, that 
 they may be confirmed in our consciences. 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 527 
 
 According to Calvin, then, when Peter said, " Repent and be baptized 
 for the remission of sins ;" although baptism is mentioned first, yet re- 
 mission of sins is really first in the order of occurrence. Sins are first 
 remitted, then baptism is administered. And he gives the reason why 
 remission is properly first, viz : because baptism, so far from securing to 
 us remission, is only a seal of the blessings we obtain through Christ 
 Such is the doctrine of Calvin. True or false, it is directly opposed to 
 the doctrine of Mr. Campbell. I will cheerfully admit, that the whole 
 world sustains him as fully as does Calvin. 
 
 I gave up Luther into his hands yesterday, not having particularly ex- 
 amined his views of the design of baptism ; but I must take him back 
 into our ranks to-day. I will read from his commentary on the epistle to 
 the Galatians ii. 16. 
 
 " Here it is to be noted, that these three things, faith, Christ, accepta- 
 tion or imputation, must be joined together. Faith taketh hold of Christ, 
 and hath him present, and holdeth him inclosed, as the ring doth the pre- 
 cious stone. And whosoever shall be found having this confidence in Christ 
 apprehended in the heart, him will God account righteous. This is the 
 mean, and this is the merit, whereby we obtain the remission of sins and 
 righteousness. Because thou believest in me, saith the Lord, and thy faith 
 layeth hold upon Christ, whom I have freely given unto thee that he might 
 be thy mediator and high-priest ; therefore be thou justified and righteous. 
 Wherefore God doth accept or account us as righteous, only for our faith in 
 Christ." 
 
 Such is the doctrine of Luther, and such the doctrine for which I am 
 contending. Justification, he teaches, is obtained by faith only, not by 
 baptism. I will give you Wesley's doctrine on this subject, this even- 
 ing, and will prove that he does not sustain Mr. Campbell. 
 
 He attempts to reconcile the contradictory doctrines he has published, 
 by saying, that when an individual believes, he receives the remission of 
 sins in anticipation; that his fears and distress subside, and he rejoices with 
 joy unspeakable. But how his fears can subside, or how he can rejoice, 
 when he is yet condemned and exposed to eternal ruin, I cannot imagine. 
 I see no possible foundation for comfort in the condition of one whose sins 
 are yet upon him. For Mr. Campbell has said — the unimmersed per- 
 son, however his views of Christ may be changed, and his heart re- 
 newed, "is still unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, un- 
 adopted, and lost to all christian life and enjoyment!" — Christ. Restored, 
 p. 196. What good has such a person received in anticipation? How 
 utterly inconsistent this declaration with that which I read from his de- 
 bate with McCalla, in which he declared, that Paul's sins were really 
 pardoned when he believed! 
 
 He would have you believe that his views are very catholic — not abso- 
 lutely universal; but that all denominations agree with him on the sub- 
 ject. This I deny, and call for the evidence. He has told us, that our 
 confession of faith teaches his doctrine, and that Calvin taught the same. 
 I have proved that Calvin held just the doctrine for which I contend. 
 That our confession teaches his views, I and all Presbyterians deny. In- 
 deed, if a Presbyterian minister were known to preach such doctrine, he 
 would soon cease to exercise the office of the ministry in our church. 
 
 It is true, our confession, in the article on baptism, quotes John iii. 5, 
 Colossians ii. 10, 11, &c, because, as I have before remarked, under 
 both the old and new dispensations water was religiously used, as an 
 emblem of spiritual cleansing, or sanctification. But it is not true, that it 
 

 528 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 says, that our Savior, in speaking of the new birth, referred to christian 
 baptism ; nor is it true, that either the framers of the confession, or Cal- 
 vin, understood baptism, or the new birth, as effecting a change of stale, 
 as securing the remission of sins. By the new birth they understood a 
 change of heart, or regeneration, of which water is the appointed em- 
 blem. But with Mr. Campbell, the new birth is not a change of heart, 
 but a change of state from condemnation to justification. They did not 
 adopt the views he entertains. 
 
 Neither did the old christian fathers teach his doctrine. Dr. Wall 
 does not say they did. True, they used the word regeneration for bap- 
 tism ; but by regeneration they did not mean what Mr. C. means — mere- 
 ly a change of state, but a change of heart, which they believed to be 
 effected in baptism, as well as consequent remission of sins. The fathers 
 do not sustain him. He cannot prove that any of them taught his doc- 
 trine. If he can, I hope he will do so. 
 
 He says, he has no faith in outward forms merely. But it certainly is 
 true that he has very strong faith in forms ; for he teaches that an exter- 
 nal ordinance, which an individual cannot administer to himself, is essen- 
 tial to the remission of sins, and, of course, to the salvation of the soul. 
 It matters not, in his theology, how entirely changed the heart may be, 
 how sincerely a man loves and trusts in Christ — -all is vain and worthless 
 without baptism, and even without immersion! Even a mistake about 
 the mode of applying the water is fatal ! I verily believe that the Jews, 
 with all their zeal for external rites, and their confidence in their efficacy, 
 would not have maintained that a man with a wicked heart could be 
 saved. The gentleman seems to attach quite as much importance to bap- 
 tism, as they did to circumcision, or to their various ablutions. 
 
 But that the audience may see how extremely he has magnified the 
 importance of baptism, I will read a proposition which is very promi- 
 nently stated, and argued at length in his Christianity Restored. It is 
 this: » That the Gospel has in it a command, and, as such, must be 
 obeyed," p. 196. A command, that is, one command! The Gospel has 
 in it one command ! ! Now, I presume, he did not mean to say, that the 
 Gospel has in it only one command ; but certainly such language can 
 mean nothing less, than that the command alluded to, is the great com- 
 mand in the Gospel, more important than any other. That command, 
 Mr. C. tells us, is immersion, which, he says, " necessarily becomes the 
 line of discrimination between the two states before described. On this 
 side, and on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side 
 they are pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; 
 on the other, they are in a state of condemnation." In this same book, 
 as well as in the Millenial Harbinger, and other writings of the reformers, 
 I find immersion called obeying the Gospel, obedience of faith, &c. 
 When, in these writings, it is said, that persons have " obeyed the Gos- 
 pel," or H made the good confession," I find that it is meant, that they have 
 been immersed! Did the inspired writers ever say that the Gospel has in 
 it A command ? Did they ever represent being baptized as obeying the 
 Gospel, as the obedience of faith ? Never — not in a solitary instance ! 
 
 But we are \A\ by the?e modern theologians, that wc bey before 
 
 we can be pardoned. This is true; but believin g is as truly obedience 
 to Christ, as being baptized. God command- men to believe h3 
 repent; and those who do believe and repent, obey his commands as 
 truly as when they receive baptism. It is not true, therefore, that the 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 529 
 
 gospel is obeyed in nothing before baptism is received. Yet, according' 
 to Mr. C, immersion is the act of faith, by which alone persons can be 
 pardoned ! This is what I consider ascribing an unscriptural importance 
 and efficacy to an external ordinance. 
 
 The ordinances instituted by Christ are important in their place, but 
 when removed from the place in the system of truth, which he has as- 
 signed them, and made to answer purposes for which they were never 
 designed, the consequences must be ruinous. This, as I have said, was 
 one of the capital errors of the Jews. The Savior often rebuked and 
 condemned them, not for strict observance of divinely appointed ordi- 
 nances, but for having substituted them for " the weightier matters of 
 the law ;" for attaching to them undue importance, and ascribing to them 
 an efficacy they did not possess. The whole christian church, as I have 
 before remarked, at an early day, was corrupted in the same way ; and 
 vital piety was buried and almost extinguished under a multitude of forms 
 and ceremonies. Both baptism and the Lord's supper were perverted, so 
 as to become a curse instead of a blessing. 
 
 In the close of this address, I am constrained to declare it as my clear 
 and solemn conviction, that the views on this subject, published by Mr. 
 Campbell, have fatally deceived thousands of souls. They have been 
 taught to believe, that in order to secure the remission of sins and accept- 
 ance with God, it was only necessary for them to believe that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God, and to be immersed. When they have made " the 
 good confession," as it is called, and been plunged under the water, they 
 are induced to believe, that their sins are actually pardoned, and that they 
 are saved. They go on through life, fondly dreaming that all is well, and 
 that they are on their way to heaven. Thus they are under a fatal delu- 
 sion ; for it is certain, if we regard the plainest declarations of God's Word, 
 that their belief of the fact, that Christ is the Son of God, and being 
 immersed, afford no evidence of remission of sins, or acceptance with 
 God. The doctrine, therefore, deludes many into the belief that they 
 are safe, when in truth they are under the curse of God. This belief 
 that their sins are forgiven in the water, produces a feeling of security, 
 and prevents ail further investigation, and those who embrace it, are 
 likely to die in the delusion. 
 
 I do not say, that all who have followed Mr. C, are thus fatally deceiv- 
 ed ; for I doubt not, many sincerely and truly pious persons have been 
 led astray, without perceiving the dangerous character of the error, who 
 yet look to the cross of Christ as the ground of their hope of pardon 
 and acceptance. But I do say, my solemn conviction is, that the ten- 
 dency and, in thousands of instances, the effect of this doctrine is to 
 induce persons to believe that they are pardoned and saved, when, in 
 truth, they have not one scriptural evidence on which to base such belief. 
 They have been immersed, and they are told, that in being immersed they 
 obeyed the gospel, and are consequently safe. I am constrained to lift 
 my voice against this soul-destroying doctrine, that finds evidence of 
 pardon and acceptance with God in an external ordinance. — [Time ex- 
 pired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24 — 6 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's eighth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — It has been asserted and re-asserted that such pas- 
 sages as, " he that believeth is not condemned," and " he that believeth 
 is passed from death to life," and " he that believeth hath eternal life," 
 34 2Y 
 

 530 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 <&c. conflict with, and refute the whole doctrine of baptism for the remis- 
 sion of sins. Mr. Rice urges them with such a vehemence as though he 
 believed them to be invincible proofs, that a man may be safe from con- 
 demnation and ruin if he only believe, without obedience to the truth 
 believed. For that is the case before us? When the Savior spoke of 
 him that believeth, he did not mean a disobedient, ignorant, and lawless 
 believer : one that said he had faith, but one who practically, really, sin- 
 cerely believed his gospel. On many occasions, it is true, our Lord 
 spake prospectively of his kingdom, as he did of his death, burial, and 
 resurrection ; and so I understand his discourse with Nicodemus. And 
 then the phrase, "he that believeth," and such like, do neither indicate a 
 mere act of the mind, nor a mere state of the mind ; but an actual, practi- 
 cal recognition of the precepts addressed to belief. When, then, the Sa- 
 vior ascribes any good effect, any salutary or saving efficacy to faith, or 
 to any other principle, he not only supposes it to be genuine, active, and 
 operative ; but that, also, it is associated with all other principles that 
 lead to a practical acquiescence with the whole existing will of God as 
 revealed. 
 
 To conclude this subject of faith, I will only add, that even on the sub- 
 ject of justification by faith, I am, in reference to baptism, in good com- 
 pany with John Calvin. I must read another short passage or two from 
 the great Presbyterian reformer. The gentleman told you I had mistaken 
 the drift of one passage read from Calvin. But he might have observed 
 that I only began to read the wrong section, which was occasioned by a 
 wrong marginal reference ; and, therefore, I made no use of the passage. 
 But you shall have an extract in direct harmony with my views, and 
 also indicative of Calvin's own views of the connection between justifi- 
 cation by faith, and baptism. He observes : — 
 
 "I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our first 
 regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is afterwards obtained by repent- 
 ance and the benefit of the keys." — Calv. Inst. vol. ii. b* iv. ch. 15, § 4. 
 
 " As if baptism itself were not a sacrament of repentance ; but if repent- 
 ance be enjoined upon us as long as we live, the virtue of baptism ought to 
 be extended to the same period. Wherefore it is evident that the faithful, 
 whenever in any part of their lives they are distressed with a consciousness 
 of their sins, may justly have recourse to the remembrance of baptism, in 
 order to confirm themselves in the confidence of their interest in that one 
 perpetual ablution which is enjoyed in the blood of Christ." — Ibid. 
 
 In the same section from which I have read these extracts, he further 
 says : — 
 
 " It is true tnat the sinner receives remission by the ministry of the 
 church, but not without the preaching of the gospel. Now what is the na- 
 ture of that preaching — that we are cleansed from our sins by the blood of 
 Christ? What sign and testimony of that ablution is there but baptism V 
 
 Yes, I ask Mr. Rice, and every other Presbyterian, this question, 
 which their own Calvin asked — " What sign and testimony of that 
 ablution is there but baptism ?" This was the passage intended to be 
 read. I have now given what I conceive a fair exhibit of the views of 
 Calvin, on the proper province of faith and baptism, as connected in the 
 remission of sins, through the blood of Christ. 
 
 To these testimonies given, from Luther and Calvin, I might add many 
 such from Turrentine and from other continental reformers ; but there is 
 one man, who, above all others, stands next to Calvin ; nay, indeed, in 
 my esteem, above Calvin, both .for learning and talents, and great mental 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 531 
 
 independence. A greater luminary, as a writer, than Witsius, in the 
 esteem of the best judges, has not arisen in the ranks of Protestant refor- 
 mation. His reception in England by the people, the clergy, the arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, when sent upon a special mission, on a very 
 important occasion, is said to have been of the most complimentary 
 and flattering character enjoyed by any merely ecclesiastic character 
 of that day. We shall now hear him for a (ew minutes speak for 
 himself: — 
 
 Dr. Witsius, on the Economy of the Covenants, London, 1837, 2 vols. 
 8vo. — ii. vol. p. 429, says : — 
 
 " 18. The thing- signified by baptism in general, is the reception into 
 the covenant of grace, as administered under the New Testament.''' 
 
 Again on same page : 
 
 " Moreover, that reception into the covenant of grace imports two things: 
 1st. Communion with Christ and his mystical body, and consequently a par- 
 ticipation of all his benefits. 2ndly. An engagement to incumbent duty. 
 Both are signified and sealed by baptism. In respect to the former, we are 
 said 'to be baptized into one body,' 1 Corinthians xii. 13; and 'saved 
 by baptism,' Titus iii. 3, 5, 1 Peter iii. 21. With respect to the latter, 
 baptism is called sun eideeseos agathees eperoteema eis Theon — 'the answer 
 of a good conscience towards God," 1 Pet. iii. 21. 
 
 Volume ii. pages 432, 433 : 
 
 " 26. First, therefore, the immersion into the water represents to us that 
 tremendous abyss of divine justice, in which Christ was plunged for a time, 
 in some measure, in consequence of his undertaking for our sins ; as he 
 complained under the type of David, Psalms lxix. 2: ' I sink in deep mire, 
 where there is no standing. I am come into deep waters, where the floods 
 overflow me.' But more particularly, an immersion of this kind deprives 
 us of the benefit of the light, and the other enjoyments of this world ; so it 
 is a very apt representation of the death of Christ. The continuing how 
 short soever under the water, represents his burial, and the lowest degree 
 of humiliation, when he was thought to be wholly cut off while in the 
 grave, that was both sealed and guarded. The emersion or coming out of 
 the water, gives us some resemblance of his resurrection or victory, obtain- 
 ed in his death, over death, which he vanquished within its inmost re- 
 cesses, even the grave : all these particulars the apostle intimates in Rom. 
 vi. 3, 4. 
 
 " 27. Moreover, baptism also signifies those blessings which believers 
 obtain in Christ; and these are either present or future. Among the pre- 
 sent, is fellowship in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ ; and the 
 consequence of it, viz : the mortification and burying of our old man, and 
 the raising of the new, by the efficacy of the blood and Spirit of Christ. 
 For, the immersion into the water represents the death of the old man, 
 even in such a manner that it can neither stand in judgment to our condem- 
 nation, nor exercise dominion over our bodies, that we should serve it in 
 the lusts thereof. In the former respect, the death of the old man apper- 
 tains to justification ; in the latter to sanctification. The continuing 
 under the water, represents the burying of the body of sin, whereby all 
 hopes of a revival are cut off; so that after this, it is neither able to con- 
 demn nor rule over the elect. For, as in burying, the dead body, which is 
 covered over with earth, is removed from the sight of men, and so weighed 
 down by the earth thrown upon it, that should we suppose some life to re- 
 main in the buried person to be bestowed upon him anew by a miracle, yet 
 it cannot fail to be stifled by the load of earth lying upon it, nor recover to 
 any degree of permanence. In the same manner, when in baptism the per- 
 son, sunk under the water, is for some time detained therein ; this 
 signifies and seals to us, that our sins are removed from the view of the 
 divine justice, never to be imputed to our condemnation ; or as Micah 
 
582 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 speaks, chap. vii. 19, ' he will subdue our iniquities, and cast all our sin© 
 into the depth of the sea ;' likewise, that the power of sin is so depressed 
 and weakened, that it can no longer drive us at its pleasure, or hinder our 
 salvation, or be able to resume the power which it has once lost, in order 
 to bring- us again under its dominion. The .emersion out of the water is a 
 symbol of the revival of the new man, after our sins are now sunk to a 
 spiritual life by the resurrection of Christ. And this also the apostle de- 
 clares, Rom. vi. 3 — 6, and Col. ii. 11, 12, where he intimates that our 
 baptism is such a memorial of the things that happened to Christ, as at the 
 same time to seal our communion with him in all these things, and our 
 union as it were into one plant." 
 
 Vol. ii. page 434, § 31 : 
 
 " Thus far concerning the rites of immersion and emersion. Let us now 
 consider the ablution or washing, which is the effect of the water applied 
 to the body. In external baptism there is ; the putting away the filth of 
 the flesh,' 1 Peter iii. 21, which represents the ablution or washing away 
 the filth of the soul contracted by sin ; Acts xxii. 16, * Arise and be bap- 
 tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' But the 
 filth of sin may be considered either with respect to the guilt, which is an- 
 nexed to the filth or stain, and so it is removed by remission, which is a 
 part of justification ; or with respect to the stain itself, or spiritual defor- 
 mity and dissimilitude to the image of God, and so it is taken away by the 
 grace of the sanctifying Sprit ; and both are sealed by baptism. Of the 
 former Peter speaks, Acts ii. 38, 'Be baptized, every one of you, in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.' Concerning the latter, 
 Paul writes, Ephes. v. 25, 26, 'Christ loved the church, and gave himself 
 for it ; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by 
 the word.' And they are laid before us both together, 1 Cor. vi. 11, 'But 
 ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.' Ye are washed sacrament- 
 ally in baptism, which washing is a symbol of the mystical washing: but 
 the mystical washing comprehends both justification and sanctification, 
 both which are performed in the name of the Lord Jesus, — that is, by the 
 efficacy of his merits, and by the Spirit of our God, which effectually applies 
 the merits of Christ to the elect." 
 
 Numerous passages might be read from this distinguished master in 
 the Pedo-baptist Israel. From these two, however, his views may be 
 pretty fairly estimated. The passages from John iii, and Titus iii., to 
 which Mr. R. so often alludes, and which I have shown the Pedo-baptists 
 almost universally refer to baptism, are not yet disposed of fully to his 
 satisfaction. It is denied by him that baptism is ever called a " birth" 
 and that these passages are so universally regarded as relating to baptism. 
 I say again, that Dr. Wall, from whom he has taken so much argument 
 on this occasion, says : " There is not one christian writer of any an- 
 tiquity, in any language, but who understands the new birth of water, 
 (John iii. 5,) as referring to baptism ; and, if it be not so understood, 
 it is difficult to give any account how a person is born of water, any more 
 than born of wood." — Vol. i. p. 1 10. Again, he says, after quoting Justin 
 Martyr : " We see by him, that they understood John iii. 5, of water 
 baptism, and so did all the writers of those four hundred years, not 
 
 ONE MAN EXCEPTED." 
 
 Is not this clear and intelligible talk ? — who can misunderstand it ! 
 " Not one man excepted " of all the writers of the first four hundred years. 
 All proclaim the conviction that born of water means baptism ; and, in- 
 deed, the same host go for " baptism for the remission of sins" " not 
 one man excepted." I say again, because of strangers present, that I 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 533 
 
 quote these authorities, not to sustain my views, but to disprove those of 
 my opponent. The Bible supports me ; and those " fathers," to whom 
 some people look with so much veneration, sustain us, and oppose them, 
 in these two important particulars, as well as in some others. I could 
 read you, from my Essay on Remission, (Christian System,) many such 
 authorities, but as they are now common property, I will only add a few 
 not quite so common. 
 
 I may add a few words from so great a man as John Wesley. I 
 quoted him as a distinguished reformer in that treatise, affirming that, 
 "baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and a seal of 
 pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow pardon 
 on any, unless through this means." But I shall quote him again more 
 at large, from another work than his commentary. I am sorry, indeed, 
 that he uses the word primitive before church ; as that would indicate that 
 God forgave sins diversely in the modern church. This is an extract 
 from a treatise on baptism, found in doctrinal tracts, published by order 
 of the General Conference, New York, 1825. 
 
 " What are the benefits we receive by baptism \ is the next point to be 
 considered. And the first of these is, the washing away the guilt of origi- 
 nal sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death.'* — p. 4. 
 
 " By baptism we, who were ' by nature children of wrath,' are made the 
 children of God. And this regeneration, which our church in so many 
 places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the 
 church, though commonly connected therewith; being 'grafted into the 
 body of Christ's church, we are made the children of God by adoption and 
 grace.' This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, John iii. 5, ' Ex- 
 cept a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 kingdom of God.' By water then, as a mean, the water of baptism, we are 
 regenerated or born again : whence it is also called by the apostle, ' the 
 washing of regeneration.' Our church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue 
 to baptism, than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the 
 outward washing, but to the inward grace, which added thereto makes it a 
 sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly 
 taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long continued 
 wickedness." — p. 5. 
 
 Mr. Wesley (pp. 7, 8,) says: 
 
 " If infants are guilty of original sin, unless this be washed away by bap- 
 tism, it cleaves to them." [And several other matters indicative of the 
 obscurity of his mind on the subject.] 
 
 There is a singular eccentricity in the minds of Pedo-baptists on this 
 subject. In this controversy they refuse a positive precept in one case, 
 and build a positive institution in another, without any pretension of a 
 positive precept. There is not in the king's English a more clear, defi- 
 nite and positive precept, than " Repent and be baptized, every one of 
 you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins." Can 
 an} 7- one state a more explicit and intelligible positive precept than this 
 one ! Now when Pedo-baptists argue with us, you will occasionally ask 
 for a positive precept. We give it in all cases requiring it. But when 
 we produce one to them, they will not yield to it. We only ask them 
 to give us a positive example — one single precedent of a domestic or an 
 infant baptized on the faith of the household or parent ; and promise to 
 submit to it the moment it is offered. Yet they do not, because, indeed, 
 they cannot, give one such case in the Bible. They ask subordination 
 from us, when the}- produce what they call a fair inference ; and will 
 not yield to us, when we produce a thus saith the Lord in so many 
 
 2y2 
 
534 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 words. I began, the gentleman says, with " a thus saith the Lord," for 
 all acts of worship ; and we still continue to act upon that principle. 
 In the midst of the most solemn scenes, since Jesus Christ left this earth, 
 when the Holy Spirit was in Jerusalem, Peter uttered the oracle — " Re- 
 pent and be baptized, every one of you;" (not formerly circumcised,) 
 no, but every one in this house, circumcised or not, in heart or in body, 
 and "be baptized for remission." Well, now, why will not the Pedo- 
 baptists give up and obey it ! 
 
 But the gentleman demurs at our use of the phrase " obey the gospel." 
 It is solemnly written by Paul, that " all shall be punished with an ever- 
 lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his 
 power, who obey not the Gospel." We neither believe nor teach that 
 the phrase, " obedience of faith," means one single act ; or that obeying 
 the Gospel is one solitary deed. Certainly they do not " obey the Gospel" 
 who do not obey the first precept ; any more than they who obey the first, 
 and afterwards apostatize. The Gospel calls for perpetual obedience, or a 
 life of conformity to its pure and elevated piety and humanity. It is 
 only to them, who, by a patient continuance in doing well, are seeking for 
 glory, honor, and immortality, God will reward or bestow eternal life. 
 
 Still there is one act, the most solemn, significant, and sublime, which 
 may emphatically be called obeying the Gospel — an act of homage the 
 most profound, of devotion the most pure, of aspiration the most heavenly 
 —when we confess the Lord, die on that confession to sin, and are buried 
 into his death, and rise with him to newness of life. It is then the Sov- 
 ereign of the universe says, " Thy sins be forgiven thee : go in peace. 
 
 Pardon is no quality of the mind, nor remission of sins a virtue. It 
 is a sovereign act of favor on the part of the offended. "Justification is 
 an act of God's free grace," as the old catechism says. It is no process ; 
 it is done in a moment — it is an act- — a single act— a word- — a volition. 
 The persons to whom Peter spoke the precept, were believers. Their 
 asking, " what shall we do ?" was a confession of the facts alledged in the 
 speech. Peter did not command them to believe — a proof that they had 
 believed. Now I ask, how could he command believers to seek remis- 
 sion of sins, if pardon and faith were simultaneous 1 Nor did he say, 
 " Be baptized, because your sins are forgiven you." The words used 
 by our Lord in instituting the cup, This is my blood, shed for (not 
 because of) the remission of sins. Why hold out the idea of baptism for 
 the remission of sins, if the act was passed? ! It might have been 
 the intention of one or both parties to speak prospectively, but to speak 
 of remission as past or present, entered not into the conceptions of either. 
 Moreover there must be some reason for the act of pardon which did not 
 exist before the moment that it passed. There is nothing done by God 
 our Father without a proper reason. 
 
 Man desires, and God promises, an assurance of pardon. If any thing 
 ought to be secured, this ought. If any covenant ought to be sealed, this 
 most certainly has superlative claims. A covenant which involves one's 
 present peace and his eternal destiny, ought to be made sure ; solemnized 
 and sealed in the most authoritative, formal, and sensible manner. For 
 this, probably, among other sublime reasons, are we to be baptized into 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The 
 terms of such a pardon should be clear and definite ; they ought to be 
 felt and understood in all their mysterious significance. The act of sol- 
 emnization should be the most imposing in sacred grandeur ; and the seal 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 535 
 
 of confirmation no less than the sign manual of God's Spirit, and his own 
 immutable promise and inviolable oath. 
 
 All men desire such a pledge in the direct ratios of their convictions of 
 sin — of its deep, dark, and soul-ruining malignity. In the direct ratios 
 of their apprehensions of the immaculate holiness, inflexible justice, and 
 awful dignity of Him against whom it is committed, do they long for an 
 acquittal, as evident and sure as the veracity of Him that cannot lie, can 
 make it. It is, more or less, the desire of every awakened sinner, under 
 heaven. Cornelius, too, and the best of the Jewish and gentile world, 
 have sought it with a promptness, assiduity, and earnestness, equal to all 
 their prospects and hopes of attaining it. The joy of pardon, of assured 
 pardon, through the blood of the slain Lamb of God, is the purest, holi- 
 est, highest joy, that ever swelled the grateful heart of an adoring saint. 
 It is, indeed, a joy unspeakable and full of glory. 
 
 I cannot think that He that swore to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
 could withhold from his children, raised up to him from Abraham's son 
 and heir, a pledge of his love, as strong as that he gave the father of this 
 illustrious and most honorable family. 
 
 The gentleman spoke of a delusion to which this doctrine is some way 
 favorable. But he uttered it, as I thought, in terms unkind, uncharita- 
 ble, and ambiguous. The delusion, so far as expressed, seemed to be 
 that many concluded that in one act they had obeyed the gospel, and 
 hence, that all was forever safe. I have never yet found any one who 
 thought so. Such a case is possible — as possible as that thousands may 
 imagine themselves to be " ingrafted into Christ" and " in covenant 
 with God," in consequence of one drop of water put on their face while 
 a sleeping babe, in the adorable name of the Almighty. We teach pub- 
 licly and privately, that all the baptized must give all diligence to make 
 their calling and election sure ; must add to their faith courage, knowledge, 
 temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and philanthropy. 
 
 Persons, I again say, may be deluded under the best systems — under 
 all systems. Possibly a few may be so deluded amongst us. But the 
 question is, which system is most naturally and obviously tending that 
 way — ours, or that which teaches thousands, millions, to regard them- 
 selves born, or initiated, into God's family, or sealed members of Christ's 
 church — regenerated unto God, having received " a sign and seal of the 
 covenant of grace of their ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration and the 
 remission of sins," through the faith of a god-father, or an own father : 
 one drop of water and the name of God, without any act, or deed, or 
 word, or thought, or volition, or desire of their own? Whether such a 
 system is more pregnant with delusion, or one that calls for personal 
 knowledge, faith, repentance, and baptism, with all corresponding piety 
 and humanity, I leave to you, sir, and this attentive and intelligent audi- 
 ence to decide. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24— 6£ o'clock, P. M. 
 
 [_MR. RICE'S EIGHTH REPLY.] 
 
 Mr. President — Before proceeding to reply to my friend's last speech, 
 I will read a few passages from the Confession of Faith : 
 
 " Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus 
 Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the vis- 
 ible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, 
 of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of 
 his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." 
 
536 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Ate. chap, xxviii. sec. 1. Again, (sec. 5,) " Although it be a great sin to 
 contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so insep- 
 arably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved with- 
 out it, or that all that are baptized are uudoubtedly regenerated." 
 
 Baptism, we are here taught, is an ordinance for the solemn admis- 
 sion of persons into the visible church; that it is a sign and seal of the 
 covenant of grace, of ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission 
 of sins, &c. It is an outward sign of regeneration and of remission. The 
 confession does not say, that remission of sins is granted in the act of 
 receiving baptism, and never before. An instrument is first written, then 
 sealed. So a believer is first pardoned, and then receives the seal; or, 
 more properly, the blessings promised in the covenant of grace, of which 
 baptism is the seal, are enjoyed, when the conditions of the covenant are 
 complied with. The believer is pardoned and justified, so soon as he 
 exercises faith in Christ. Those baptized in infancy enjoy remission of 
 sins, so soon as they, having come to responsible age, receive Christ as 
 their Savior; and henceforth they enjoy all the spiritual blessings pro- 
 mised in the covenant of grace, sealed by christian baptism. But Mr. 
 Campbell holds, that remission of sins and justification are obtained in the 
 act of receiving baptism, never before. Now what says our confession 
 on this subject? "Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he 
 pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for 
 the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone." 
 — Shorter Catechism. The confession does not say, we are justified by 
 faith alone, as the gentleman intimates, but that we are justified for the 
 righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. Yet 
 it also says, "that faith is not alone in the person justified, but is ever 
 accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but work- 
 eth by love," chap. xi. 
 
 Mr. Campbell tells us, that all this he learned when a child. Certain- 
 ly, if he did, he should have better remembered it, and have known, that 
 the confession does not countenance the doctrine for which he contends. 
 He has quoted Mr. Wesley as having taught his doctrine of baptism, in 
 order to the remission of sius. It is possible that Wesley, who was an 
 Episcopalian, wrote some things in the early part of his ministry, which 
 savor of baptismal regeneration ; but if he did, he certainly afterwards 
 entertained very different sentiments. I am not willing that the views of 
 that great man shall be misrepresented, and made to favor dangerous 
 errors. If, then, he, in his youth, entertained on this subject erroneous 
 views, and afterwards, upon more mature examination, renounced them, 
 it is important that this should be known. I will read an extract from 
 his sermon on justification: — (Vol. i. p. 147.) 
 
 " Faith, therefore, is the necessary condition of justification : yea, and 
 the only necessary condition thereof. This is the second point carefully to 
 be observed ; that, the very moment God giveth faith, (for it is the gift of 
 God) to the 'ungodly.' that ' worketh not,' that 'faith is counted to him 
 for righteousness !' He hath no righteousness at all, antecedent to this, not 
 so much as negative righteousness, or innocence. But ' faith is imputed to 
 him for righteousness,' the very moment that he believeth. Not that God 
 (as was observed before) thinketh him to be what he is not. But as 'he 
 made Christ to sin for us,' that is, treated him as a sinner, punishing him 
 for our sins ; so he counteth us righteous, from the time we believe in him : 
 that is, he doth not punish us for our sins, yea, treats us as though we were 
 guiltless and righteous. Surely the difficulty of assenting to the proposi- 
 tion, That faith is the only condition of justification, must arise from not 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 537 
 
 understanding it. We mean thereby thus much, that it is the only thing 
 that is immediately, indispensably, absolutely requisite, in order to pardon. 
 As on the one hand, though a man should have every thing else without 
 faith, yet he cannot be justified : so on the other, though he be supposed to 
 want every thing else, yet if he hath faith, he cannot but be justified. For sup- 
 pose a sinner of any kind or degree, in a full sense of his total ungodliness, 
 of his utter inability to think, speak, or do good, and his absolute meetness 
 for hell fire ; suppose, I say, this sinner, helpless and hopeless, casts him- 
 self wholly on the mercy of God, in Christ, (which, indeed, he cannot do but 
 by the grace of God,) who can doubt but he is forgiven in that moment ?" &c 
 
 Such is the doctrine of John Wesley. I leave the audience to deter 
 mine whether it is the doctrine for which Mr. Campbell contends. 
 
 He has certainly succeeded in proving, by Dr. Wall, that the ancient 
 fathers used the word regeneration for baptism ; but the misfortune is, 
 that by regeneration they did not mean what he means. They believed 
 that the heart was changed by the Holy Spirit at the time when baptism 
 was administered, and, therefore, that remission of sins was then secured. 
 This is not what he means by regeneration. But I am not concerned to 
 go into an investigation of the opinions of those fathers ; for though they 
 were excellent witnesses as to matters of fact, I agree with Mr. Campbell 
 in saying, they were rather poor theologians. He has told us, that with 
 him their authority is worth little; and with me it is worth no more. 
 The papists alone, I believe, feel bound to regard, as infallible, their 
 " unanimous consent." 
 
 My friend discovers in Pedo-baptists a singular eccentricity. He says, 
 they refuse to receive a positive precept — baptism in order to the remis- 
 sion of sins, and yet baptize infants without a positive precept. But this 
 eccentricity entirely disappears when facts are known. I produced a posi- 
 tive precept for putting the children of believers into the church by the 
 initiatory rite; and he was unable to find any thing like a precept for ex- 
 cluding them. This is a plain matter of fact. 
 
 But, is it true that we refuse a positive precept in regard to the design 
 of baptism ? No! our eccentricity consists in this: we refuse to take 
 Mr. Campbell's interpretation of a positive precept. We refuse to inter- 
 pret Peter's language as he interprets it. And have we not as good rea- 
 son to charge him with refusing to regard a positive precept, because he 
 differs from us as to its meaning, as he has to make a similar charge 
 against us for differing from him, because we cannot acknowledge him 
 infallible, and agree to see with his eyes ? 
 
 I have a remark or two to make concerning obeying the gospel. Mr. 
 Campbell says, the first act of subordination to Christ is called obedience 
 to the gospel. But where in the New Testament is baptism called obe- 
 dience to the gospel? The gentleman commenced his reformation with 
 the avowed purpose of repudiating what he called " the language of Ash- 
 dod," and of speaking of Bible truths in Bible language — but you perceive, 
 that when the language of the Bible does not suit him, he is quite willing to 
 employ language of his own selection. Being baptized is never, in the 
 Scriptures, called obeying the gospel ; not an instance can be found of any- 
 such language. The very first command of the gospel, to all who hear it, 
 is to believe; and the exercise of faith, and not being baptized, is the first 
 act of subordination. Christ commands all to believe the gospel. Then 
 when I do believe, do I not obey the gospel? He commands all to repent. 
 When I repent, do I not obey the gospel ? I obey the gospel in the act 
 of believing and repenting ; and if, as Mr. Campbell says, the first act of 
 
538 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 subordination to Christ secures remission of sins, it is certain that faith and 
 repentance secure this blessing ; and if so, his doctrine of the necessity of 
 baptism, in order to remission, is false. 
 
 But he tells us, pardon is an act performed by God at a certain moment, 
 and there must be some reason for performing that act, which did not pre- 
 viously exist. 
 
 What better reason can there be, than that the individual, under a deep 
 sense of his guilt, falls into the arms of his compassionate Redeemer, 
 and, like Peter, says — " Lord save, or I perish ?" If he receives Christ 
 as his wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, this is rea- 
 son enough why his sins should be blotted out. But, says my friend, 
 surely there ought to be a seal of remission. We contend that bap- 
 tism is the sign and the seal ; but we deny that it is the procuring 
 cause of remission. What is the design of a seal ? An instrument ad- 
 mitted to record is just as valid as showing the intention of the parties 
 before the seal is added, as afterwards ; so a man's sins are pardoned 
 when he believes, and the seal is applied afterwards. A seal is intended, 
 not to give validity to the instrument, but to give it notoriety. 
 
 I did not say, that the members of Mr. C.'s church are taught, that 
 they have nothing to do after baptism. I said, they are taught to believe 
 that they were pardoned when they were immersed ; and if it should 
 turn out, as I solemnly believe it will, that such is not the truth, they 
 are fatally deceived. They believe they are pardoned, when they are 
 yet in their sins. This is the delusion of which I spoke. I am under a 
 dangerous delusion, if I believe that I am pardoned, when in truth I am 
 condemned. 
 
 My friend institutes a comparison between his teaching and ours, viz : 
 whether his is more delusive than that of those who teach, that the sins 
 of infants are remitted in baptism. We teach no such doctrine, as he 
 ought to know. He says, he understands Presbyterianism. Now I 
 make the unqualified assertion, that he cannot produce one respectable 
 Presbyterian, in ancient or modern times, who ever taught, that infants 
 had their sins remitted in the act of baptism. No child is taught so. I 
 never saw a Presbyterian writer, nor heard a Presbyterian preacher who 
 thus taught. If I knew a minister, in our church, who entertained such 
 views, I should be prepared to table charges against him before his pres- 
 bytery. I am sorry to discover that my friend knows so little of Pres- 
 byterianism. 
 
 As I have only one more speech upon this proposition, you will allow 
 me now to give a brief recapitulation of the arguments. Let us place be- 
 fore our minds distinctly the point in debate. This is the more impor- 
 tant, inasmuch as I believe it is impossible to determine, from what my 
 friend has said, what he really believes. The question is not, whether 
 one who contemns the ordinance, or wilfully refuses to be baptized, can 
 be saved? for he who deliberately refuses to obey any command of 
 Christ, proves that he has not true faith or piety. Nor is the question, 
 whether we can become members of the visible church without baptism ? 
 for neither of us maintains that we can. Nor yet is it, whether baptism 
 is a sign and seal of regeneration and of remission of sins ? This is admit- 
 ted. But the question is this: whether a penitent believer is condemned 
 till he is baptized, and is actually forgiven only in the act of being bap- 
 tized? This proposition my friend affirms, and I deny. 
 
 According to his doctrine, every man has his sins upon him through 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 539' 
 
 life and in death, if he has not submitted to baptism, and that administered 
 by immersion. That this is his faith on the subject before us, I have 
 proved by his own writings. 
 
 My first argument against this doctrine, is, that it flatly contradicts the 
 plain and positive declarations of our Savior and the apostles. What 
 says our Savior on this subject ? " He that believeth on him is not con- 
 demned." To this important passage, which of itself is an unanswer- 
 able refutation of his doctrine, I have not been able to arrest the attention 
 of my friend ; and I am afraid, he will not see it : I have again and again 
 presented it before him, but he cannot see it. His doctrine (which direct- 
 ly contradicts the declaration of our Savior,) is — that he that believes is 
 condemned, unless he have been immersed ! He says, however, that 
 faith is a principle in the heart — (he is getting quite orthodox) — that this 
 faith would lead to obedienice, and thus, in obeying by being immersed, the 
 sins of believers are remtted. But he has also said, that an angel might 
 mistake the meaning of a command ; and though a believer should sin- 
 cerely desire to obey every command of Christ, and should fail to be 
 immersed only through a mistake of the head, or the impossibility, under 
 existing circumstances, of being immersed ; this will not save him from 
 eternal death. But the glorious Redeemer taught a very different doo- 
 trine. He said, Whosoever believes, is not condemned ; every such 
 person is justified. There is no qualification of the language ; and it 
 requires no criticism or comment — it cannot be misunderstood. Again : 
 " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." He now has life 
 in actual possession. But see how variously the Savior expressed him- 
 self upon this subject ! as if it were known to him, as certainly it was, 
 that some would attempt to evade the force of his language. In 
 John vi. 29, we read, " Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the 
 work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Again, 35th 
 verse : "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life : he that com- 
 eth to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never 
 thirst.^ The conclusiveness of my argument depends not upon the 
 word hath, in the passage " He that believeth on me hath everlasting 
 life." The Savior varied his mode of expression, and said. "And he 
 that believeth on me shall never thirst" He shall receive abundantly 
 the water of life. But Mr. C. teaches, that he that believeth shall thirst, 
 unless he have also been immersed ! These plain, unequivocal and pos- 
 itive declarations of our Lord, will stand against all the criticism the 
 gentleman can bring to bear upon the subject. Our doctrine is fully sus- 
 tained by more than one positive " Thus saith the Lord." He may 
 appeal to all the critics and translators, but he cannot refute it. 
 
 My second argument is the fact, that all who are begotten of God, 
 do enjoy remission of sins. The gentleman admits, that every believer, 
 before baptism, is begotten of God ; and John the apostle says — " Who- 
 soever is born [ov begotten, as Mr. C. would read it] of God doth not 
 commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because 
 he is born of God," (John iii. 9.) Every one who is begotten of God, 
 has ceased to be a sinner, is holy in heart and in life. Are such persons 
 condemned ? But in the very next verse those begotten, are said to be 
 children of God. " In this the children of God are manifest, and the 
 children of the devil : whoever doeth not righteousness, is not of God," 
 &c. But if they are children of God, they are " heirs, heirs of God, and 
 joint-heirs with Christ," (Rom. viii. 17.) Their sins are remitted. Here 
 
540 
 
 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 we have no need of criticism on the word els, or any other disputed term. 
 The language is perfectly plain. 
 
 Again — «■* Every one that liveth is born [or begotten] of God, and 
 knoweth God," (1 John iv. 7.) Compare this with the gospel by John, 
 ch. xvii. 3, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only' 
 true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Every one who loves, 
 is begotten of God, and knows God; and every one that knows God, 
 has eternal life. His sins are remitted. Again — " Whoever is born of 
 God overcometh the world ; and this is the victory that overcometh the 
 world, even our faith," (1 John v. 4.) What are the promises made to 
 those who overcome? " To him that overcometh, will I give to set with 
 me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father 
 in his throne." " He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second 
 death," (See Rev. ii. and iii.) The sins of such persons are remitted. 
 Again — " He that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked 
 one toucheth him not," vs. 18. Look at all these plain and positive dec- 
 larations concerning those who are begotten of God, and those glorious 
 promises to them, and tell me, whether they do not enjoy remission 
 of sins. 
 
 Once more — (1 John v. 1,) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
 Christ is born [or begotten] of God : and every one that loveth him that 
 begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him." Every believer is begot- 
 ten of God, and is a child of God. Mr. C. will not immerse an individ- 
 ual until he professes to believe, that Jesus is the Christ; and if he does 
 believe, John says, he is begotten of God, and, of course, enjoys all the 
 blessings and promises just mentioned. Mr. Campbell cannot get him 
 into the water, on his principles, until he is begotten of God, and conse- 
 quently enjoys remission of sins. One such plain, unequivocal declara- 
 tion of inspiration, is worth a thousand criticisms on eis, or any other 
 disputed word. 
 
 My third argument is this: All who are born of God do enjoy the 
 remission of sins ; and the new birth is in no sense essentially connected 
 with baptism. That all who are born of God, are pardoned, Mr. Camp- 
 bell admits, as you will see by the following declaration in his Christi- 
 anity Restored, p. 208. 
 
 " Those who are thus begotten and born of God, are children of God. It 
 would be a monstrous supposition that such persons are not freed from their 
 sins. To be born of God, and born in sin, is inconceivable. Remission of 
 sins is as certainly granted to ' the born of God,' as life eternal and deliver- 
 ance from corruption will be granted to the children of the resurrection, 
 when born from the grave." 
 
 Now that baptism is not essential to the new birth, I have proved by a 
 number of plain, incontrovertible facts : I. When the new birth is first 
 spoken of, (John i. 11 — 13) water is not mentioned at all. Believers are 
 said to have been " born of God.'''' Surely if water-baptism had been 
 essential, it would have been alluded to, when the new birth is first men- 
 tioned. 
 
 II. When the conversation occurred between our Savior and Nicode- 
 mus, (John iii.) christian baptism had not been instituted. How, then, 
 can it be proved, that our Savior had reference to an ordinance not then 
 in existence? Certainly if he had such allusion, Nicodemus could not 
 be expected to understand him. Moreover, by the same mode of argu- 
 mentation adopted to prove, that the Savior referred to christian baptism, 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 541 
 
 the papists have attempted to prove, that in John vi. he spoke of his sup- 
 per, because he makes the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his 
 blood essential to salvation ; and thus they attempt to sustain the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation. 
 
 III. My third fact is, that when christian baptism was instituted, it was 
 never, by the inspired writers, called a birth. Not an instance of such a 
 mode of expression can be found. Then it is fair to conclude, that it is 
 not a birth. 
 
 IV. The reason given by our Savior why men must be born again, 
 proves, that the new birth is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy 
 Spirit, and not, as Mr. C. teaches, a change of state effected by baptism. 
 What is the reason given ? " For that which is born of the flesh is flesh ; 
 and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John iii. 6.) The word 
 flesh, when employed with reference to moral character, as in this pas- 
 sage, as I have proved, signifies depravity. The Savior's meaning, 
 therefore, is — that by the natural birth we are like our parents — sinful; 
 and by the spiritual birth we are like the Spirit — holy. The new birth 
 is, therefore, a change from sinfulness to holiness, from the image of 
 man, to the image of God, and not, as Mr. C. strangely imagines, a pass- 
 ing through water from a state of condemnation to a slate of justification. 
 
 V. That the Savior had no reference to baptism as essential to the new 
 birth, is evident from the fact that he reproved Nicodemus for not under- 
 standing the doctrine — "Art thou a master [teacher] of Israel, and know- 
 est not these things?" This reproof shows, that the new birth is taught 
 in the Old Testament, of which Nicodemus was a professed expounder, 
 and which he ought therefore to have understood. Baptism in order to 
 remission of sins is not there taught, but the doctrine of a regeneration by 
 the Holy Spirit is. " A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
 will I put within you." It is, therefore, clear, that the new birth is a 
 change of heart, not a change of state. 
 
 VI. 1 ne mystery connected with the new birth, proves that it is not a 
 change of state t/ffected by baptism. Nicodemus objected to the doctrine 
 as mysterious. The Savior admitted that it is so, but proved that this is no 
 valid objection against it; because even the blowing of the wind is equal- 
 ly mysterious — " The wind bloweth where it listeth; and thou hearest 
 the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth : 
 so is every one that is born cf the Spirit." Now, if the doctrine of Mr. 
 C. be true, this illustration from the blowing of the wind is entirely inap- 
 propriate ; for there is no mystery in the fact, (if it be a fact,) that God 
 has said, he will pardon those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 
 are immersed. It is one of the simplest things imaginable. The refer- 
 ence to the blowing of the wind, or, as Mr. Campbell strangely translates 
 it, the breathing of the Spirit, is, therefore, out of place. But if the 
 doctrine for which I contend is true, the aHusion was most appropriate ; 
 for the operation of the Holy Spirit oii the heart, is as mysterious as the 
 blowing of the wind. 
 
 VII. It is a fact, that the inspired writers wei« constantly in the habit 
 of connecting the emblem and the thing signified- -the water and the Spi- 
 rit. The Savior was speaking to a Jew who was familiar with all the 
 ablutions of the low ; and, therefore, he illustrated the nature of the new- 
 birth by reference to water, the emblem of purification. 
 
 VIII. That the new birth is a change of heart, and not a change of state, 
 is proved by the s^sriptLjal evidence of persons having been born again — 
 
 2Z 
 
542 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
 God," Rom. viii. 14. All who are led by the Spirit of God, whose 
 hearts and lives conform to the gospel, are the children of God. The 
 apostle does not say, they who have been baptized are the children of 
 God. See, also, 1 John iii. 9, 10. 
 
 These plain, incontrovertible facts and arguments prove conclusively, 
 that the new birth is a change of heart by the Spirit of God — not a change 
 of state, effected by baptism. Consequently, when a man's heart is 
 changed so that he loves God supremely, and believes in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, he is born of God, is a child of God, and an heir of eternal life ; 
 his sins are remitted, and he may approach God as his Father, and may 
 rationally rejoice in the certain anticipation of the bliss of heaven. 
 
 My fourth argument against Mr. Campbell's doctrine is — that the lan- 
 guage used by Peter in Acts ii. 38, does not teach the necessity of bap- 
 tism in order to remission of sins. But I have not time now to proceed 
 further. — \Time expired. 
 
 Mr. Campbell said, that he would not be able to get through with his 
 argument in one speech of half an hour. 
 
 Mr. Rice. How much time will you need ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Two half hour speeches will be sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Rice. Very well, sir. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24 — 7 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's ninth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — My friend, Mr. Rice, and myself have not been 
 taught in the same school, nor studied under the same masters. I com- 
 menced in the Presbyterian school, but he has continued longer in it than 
 I did. One of the first discoveries I made, of real and abiding advantage 
 to me, was the licentious manner in which they quote and apply the 
 Scriptures in their pulpits, and in their books. I see they have not im- 
 proved much since I left them, if Mr. Rice is a fair sample of the Presby- 
 terians that now are. When I commenced preaching it was usual to 
 quote, in a single sermon, almost a hundred texts of Scripture. Each 
 head of discourse had its own list of authorities. In my youthful sallies 
 I was accustomed to quote ten texts, as we called them, for one I now 
 cite. There is no greater delusion than an array of verses, torn out of 
 their respective contexts, and arranged in a new connection in support 
 of some view or tenet, that was not before the mind of the inspired 
 author, whose words we thus take without his consent, to illustrate or 
 prove that which, were he present, he would most explicitly repudiate 
 and disallow. The number of parallel texts, like synonymous words, is 
 much smaller than, perhaps, any one of us would allow. There is some 
 shade of difference, some little peculiarity, more striking and appreciable 
 than the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation, both 
 of which dogmata are sometimes proved by the same texts. 
 
 Mr. R. has quoted various passages in development of the phrases 
 " begotten," and " born of God." His object was to shew the attributes 
 of these subjects. Now, mark it well, as respects this debate, every one 
 of those texts have been perverted and misapplied, for one fact, which all 
 who think must perceive, viz. that all those persons had been baptized 
 of whom the apostle spake. Hence the subject of John's proposition 
 was one born both of water and of the Spirit, while the subject of Mr. 
 Rice's proposition is one, as he conceives, born of the Spirit only; con- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 543 
 
 sequently his reasonings are most fallacious and deceitful. There was no 
 such ecclesiastic personage in those days. To illustrate and confirm this 
 we shall attend to John's discriminating mode of address. He says : 
 
 " 1 have written to you, little children, young men, and fathers. To 
 you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you, on account of his 
 name." If baptism had not, in those days, been regarded as a pledge of 
 remission, in reason's name, how could John have said that the least in 
 years, in the christian church, had their sins forgiven on account of his 
 name! I No man can explain these words, but upon the admission of my 
 premises. It is as if John said, you have only been baptized — you have 
 just been born of water and Spirit. They had as yet formed no charac- 
 ter, on account of which he could commend them. And to the next 
 class : "I have written unto you, young men, because you are strong, and 
 the Word of God abideth in you, and you have, [in the heat of youth 
 and passion,] overcome the world." To the fathers he says, "I write 
 unto you, fathers, because you have known-him [the Messiah] from the 
 beginning." You still hold on your way and acknowledge him. If 
 these views of this beautiful and instructive passage needs any other con- 
 firmation, you have it in the Hiphil or Hebrewistic form of the verb 
 know, which is equivalent to acknowledge, or make known. I have 
 written to you, little children, he says a second time, because you have 
 acknowledged the Father — which, of course, all did in baptism. In a 
 very wholesale way the gentleman makes quotations, and in this whole- 
 sale way do I dispose of them. The proof now given of the apostolic 
 style in this case of being begotten and born, on which he has been occa- 
 sionly entertaining us for two days, takes from him his whole premises, 
 and exposes the perfect nudity of his position. 
 
 My friend has repeatedly objected to our mode of designating persons 
 by representing them as having obeyed the gospel. I will only add on 
 this subject, that in using it in this style, we are perfectly evangelical. 
 In the apostolic age they were thus accustomed to speak of the baptized. 
 How soon after Pentecost it got into use we may learn from the fact, that 
 we have the conversion of the priests set forth in this language: "A 
 great company of the priests became obedient to the faith." After the 
 people left the priests, the priests followed them. They have seldom, in 
 great companies, obeyed the truth, until deserted by the people. When 
 the people are converted in great numbers, there is much reason to expect 
 a large conversion of the clergy. Speaking of the gospel, Paul says, it 
 is made known to all men, "for the obedience of faith;" and to the 
 Romans, speaking of the unbelieving Jews, he says, " they have not 
 obeyed the gospel," &c. But, of the brethren, he says, " you have 
 obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, [the gospel] delivered to 
 you." We are then in good company, though not with Mr. Rice, in so 
 speaking of the converted. 
 
 I have already said, perhaps, enough on the tendency of our respective 
 systems towards delusion. The Scriptures say, " with the mouth con- 
 fession is made unto salvation" — " with the heart man believes unto jus 
 tification ; but with the lips confession is made to salvation." Infants 
 cannot confess to salvation, nor can they believe in the heart to justifica- 
 tion. Paul never contrasts the head and the heart, as modern preachers 
 do. He contrasts the mouth and the heart, which modern preachers do 
 not. Now we ask for both — a belief in the heart and a confession with 
 the mouth, as necessary to salvation, in the ordinary dispensations of 
 
544 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Providence. This public oral confession is a very strong defence against 
 imposition and delusion, compared with carrying in our bosoms sleeping 
 infants to receive holy baptism, and to put on Christ. As many as were 
 baptized into Christ in old times, had put on Christ. I have just as 
 much reason to speak of the soul-ruining doctrines of Pe do-baptism, as 
 he has to speak of the evil tendencies of mine. 
 
 Again : we assail not the passions. We address the understanding, the 
 conscience, the affections. We assail the intellectual powers and moral 
 feelings of our nature. Animal excitement, and all the fleshly appliances 
 of the present age, we abjure. We regard every invention of that sort as 
 human, and not divine — a new device in Christianity. It was as perfect 
 as the sun at first ; and, like its Divne Author, " it is the same yesterday, 
 to-day, and forever." Our system of conversion is in this point freer from 
 delusion than any other known to me. Still I preach to all professors, 
 " Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith. Know you not that 
 Christ is in you, except you be reprobate ?" 
 
 Touching the quotations from Mr. John Wesley, I presume they spake 
 his sentiments when he wrote them. I desire not to tax the large and 
 respectable denomination that has risen up under his auspices, with any 
 views which they disallow. Both Messrs. Clark and Wesley have at 
 times crossed their own paths, and each other's paths, very palpably, on 
 this, as well as on some other points. The book from which those ex- 
 tracts were read, was printed not more than eighteen years ago, by au- 
 thority of the denomination, and was then judged worthy of their patron- 
 age. Eighteen years, however, now-a-days produce great revolutions; 
 for much light has gone forth into the land. Mr. Wesley, it will be re- 
 membered, has said on Paul's conversion, that " baptism is both a means 
 and a seal of pardon," and that, in the primitive age, it was the ordinary 
 way of receiving remission. John Wesley's mother, an admirable lady, 
 said, " Sinners obtain remission by baptism, and christians by confession." 
 
 The references to Wall, on the use of the word regeneration, do not 
 authorize Mr. Rice in saying, or in insinuating, that I have given any 
 change or coloring whatever to his views touching the universality of bap- 
 tism for remission, or as equivalent to "being born of water and of the 
 Spirit," amongst all the ancients. I believe that almost all, if not abso- 
 lutely all, the fathers, Greek and Latin, used regeneration and baptism as 
 representative of the same action and event. I do not, however, approve 
 the phraseology used by them on this subject. I call baptism " the 
 washing of the new birth," rather than the new birth itself. So I think 
 Paul most learnedly denominates it. 
 
 But our opponents have done us a great deal of injustice, in represent- 
 ing us as pleading for " water regeneration" They have endeavored 
 to preach us down, and sing us down, and write us down, by holding us 
 up to public reprobation, as advocates of a mere baptismal regeneration ; 
 but they have not succeeded, nor can they succeed, with any who will 
 either hear us or read us on these subj ects. No man believes more cor- 
 dially, or teaches more fully, the necessity of a spiritual change of our af- 
 fections — a change of heart — than I do. I have said a thousand times, 
 that if a person were to be immersed twice seven times in the Jordan for 
 the remission of his sins, or for the reception of the Holy Spirit, it would 
 avail nothing more than wetting the face of a babe, unless his heart is 
 changed by the word and Spirit of God. I have no confidence in any 
 instrumentality, ordinance, means, or observance, unless the heart is 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 545 
 
 turned to God. This is the fundamental, the capital point ; but, with 
 these, every other divine ordinance is essential for the spiritual enlarge- 
 ment, confirmation, and sanctification of the faithful. 
 
 Mr. Rice says I sometimes use the language of Ashdod. No doubt 
 of it. When communicating with those who do not understand the lan- 
 guage of Canaan, we must accommodate our style to their education. 
 There is no scriptural authority for calling a change of heart, the new 
 birth, or regeneration. 
 
 I doubt not that all the intelligent and conscientious, when their hearts 
 are first turned to the Lord, unless deluded into the belief that they have 
 been baptized, desire baptism. It is as natural for those who read 
 the book, to desire baptism, as it was to the eunuch to exclaim, "See, 
 here is water : what doth hinder my being baptized ?" All whose hearts 
 are touched from above, pant for baptism. They long for it — they de- 
 sire it. It is only after they have been prevailed upon to believe that 
 they have been baptized, that they can give up the anticipated plea- 
 sure. Many of them, too, give it up with reluctance ; and I do know 
 so much of human nature, and of the human heart, too, that no one 
 sprinkled in perfect infancy, or who, on the testimony of some friend, 
 believes he was, is ever so well satisfied, so perfectly pleased with him- 
 self and at rest, as he that on his own confession has voluntarily placed 
 himself under the Lord by a baptism unto his death.. A striking proof of 
 this has occurred in death-bed scenes, in the numbers which I have seen 
 and of which I have heard. No one has been found, as I believe, peni- 
 tent or grieved in the immediate prospect of death, because he had been, 
 on his own confession, buried with the Lord in baptism for the remission 
 of his sins ; but many of those who only believed that they had been 
 sprinkled in infancy, on some other person's faith than their own, have 
 died overwhelmed with unavailing penitence. Again I say, no death-bed 
 penitent has ever lamented that he obeyedjjhe Lord for himself. 
 
 I will, in reply to various vague generalities, which cannot be easily 
 grouped under any one category, read a few passages, with a few re- 
 marks, from a name dear to many good Presbyterians in this city, not 
 only inscribed upon a monumental church in the neighborhood, but em- 
 balmed in the memory of many yet living in the midst of us. I need 
 scarcely add, I am about to read a few extracts from the Reverend James 
 McCord. We shall commence with a passage on page 162. 
 
 '" That is, in other words, if the testimony of Jesus Christ deserves con- 
 sideration, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation without the limits 
 of the church of God. 
 
 I know that the statement of such a sentiment is far from flattering to 
 those who wish to be saved, but in a way and upon principles very different 
 from those to which the page of inspiration points us. And I expect to be 
 assailed at once with questions from all quarters—' What, then, will the 
 heathen doT ' What must become of many amiable and deserving people, 
 who act in a way decidedly superior to many christian professors, although 
 they are not of the church]' « Why do you attach so much importance to 
 mere externals, when every body knows that the essence of true religion 
 consists in the dispositions of the heart V We have not leisure to answeT 
 all these questions : nor do we deem an answer necessarv." — Last Appeal, 
 p. 162. 
 
 Is not this writer as uncharitable as a reformer ? Complain not, my 
 Presbyterian friends, of our uncharitableness, since one of your most gift- 
 ed, and pious, and exemplary preachers, speaks as strongly and as uncom- 
 35 2z2 
 
546 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 promisingly as any staunch reformer in the commonwealth of Kentucky. 
 He tells you, that there is to you who have the Bible " no reasonable 
 prospect of salvation but in connection with the church of Christ. There 
 is," he adds, "no ordinary possibility of salvation without the precincts 
 of the christian church." But let us hear him on baptism. 
 
 " You will not, therefore, deem it an unreasonable statement, that there 
 is no ordinary possibility of salvation without the precincts of the christian 
 church, if once we can clearly make it out to you, that the church is the 
 great mean of effecting man's salvation. 
 
 This is not one of those questions that are only to be settled by long and 
 difficult argument. It is a question of fact ; and you will find the decision 
 written as with a sunbeam in every page of Scripture. When the Savior 
 gave commandment to his apostles to proclaim his great salvation to all 
 people under heaven, what was the declaration that accompanied this com- 
 mandment 1 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' When 
 those apostles made the first proof of their ministry, in the city of Jerusa- 
 lem, on the memorable day of Pentecost, what was their answer to the ago- 
 nized multitudes who felt convicted of the sin of crucifying God's own Mes- 
 siah, and cried out in horror, ' Men and brethren, what shall we do V i Re- 
 pent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' This 
 was their answer to the eager inquiry. When the apostles went abroad 
 among the gentile nations, v/hat other prescription did they ever give for 
 attaining to God's salvation 1 ' Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ :' < believe 
 and be baptized :' * the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy 
 heart — that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
 believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
 saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with the 
 mouth confession is made unto salvation.'" — Last Appeal, pp. 165, 166. 
 
 " And this is harshness ! The God of immensity tenders you salvation ; 
 and you say you would gladly have it. But he tenders it in connection with 
 that great society of which hi^pwn Messiah is the head and king ; and you 
 say you do not wish to be conjlcted with his church. He tenders you his 
 Spirit with the water of his baptism ; and you say you had rather be saved 
 without that baptism. He tenders you salvation, if you will submit to all 
 his government, if you will wear his yoke, if you will learn of him ; and 
 you refuse to learn of him, you refuse to wear his yoke. You must be saved 
 in your own way, not in God's way. You must be saved when it suits you 
 to submit to his appointments, and not just when he invites you. And it is 
 cruel in God's Messiah to withhold his great salvation from the little, piti- 
 ful, short-sighted, but self-sufficient being, who refuses to seek for it in the 
 way he has directed 1 And it is harsh in me to tell you, that in acting thus 
 perversely you trifle with your peace !" — pp, 170, 171. 
 
 " Incense, as we have already seen, is a symbol of the prayers of the 
 saints. It is only in the true spiritual church that such prayers are offered; 
 and they are symbolized by the. incense burnt upon the golden altar in the 
 holy place." — p. 184. 
 
 Could any one accustomed to hear our brethren speak, distinguish this 
 address from those which they are often accustomed to hear from them 
 in their discourses upon the gospel ? He that could distinguish them, 
 must have a more discriminating ear than I have. The second of the 
 Acts, and the third of John, passed through his hands as diversely from 
 the comments of Mr. Rice, as Mr. Rice's comments differ from ours. 
 
 But Mr. R. makes his grand defence of his interpretation of John iii. 5, 
 on a very singular assumption, viz., that as christian baptism was not then 
 instituted, our Savior could have no allusion to it. He could, then, during 
 his whole ministry, have no allusion to anything not then actually exist- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 547 
 
 ing, if the principle be sound. Our Lord spake, both in figure and without 
 figure, prospectively of his death, burial, resurrection, kingdom, and cause 
 in the world; and even ordained the supper prospectively. McCord, in his 
 Last Appeal, reprobates these views of Mr. Rice, and corroborates mine. 
 
 But look for a moment at the style. "You must be born again''' — as 
 introductory to the kingdom of God. Again, and in the same discourse, 
 he says, " the Son of Man must be lifted up" &c. Now Mr. Rice will 
 admit, that "must be" in this case indicates what was then prospectively 
 future: and why not admit that the same style, from the same speaker, 
 and in the same conversation, may not also mean what was then pros- 
 pectively future ? In the original, the word and construction are iden- 
 tically the same, in verses 7 and 14. Evident, then, it is, as almost all truly 
 learned men agree, that the whole discourse with Nicodemus was prospec- 
 tively delivered. If time admitted, it were easy to give much more evi- 
 dence of this sort. What I have stated, cannot easily be refuted. If Mr. R. 
 however, will not hear the Westminster divines, and his friend Dr. Hall, 
 he would not be persuaded though I gave a hundred other proofs. 
 
 I read these passages from Rev. McCord, not so much to corroborate 
 either my views of John iii. 5, or Acts ii. 38, or of Mark xvi. 16, as to 
 shew how exceedingly incongruous is the charge of uncharitable censori- 
 ousness, so frequently and so pertinaciously exhibited against us by our 
 opponents. If Presbyterianism were to be redeemed from its humilia- 
 tion in this commonwealth, by arraigning our piety or our benevolence — 
 more vigorous and resolute attempts to represent us as opposed to a 
 change of heart, or as so exclusive in our views and feelings, as to deny 
 the possibility ol salvation beyond our own communion — could not have 
 been devised or prosecuted, than on the present occasion. To fasten 
 these imputations upon us, rather than discuss the doctrinal issues be- 
 tween us, seems to be the great desideratum of my respondent. And to 
 me the marvel is, that a denomination the most exclusive in all the com- 
 munity, if its standards are to be relied on, should presume to accuse us 
 of views excessively exclusive, while seeking at other times to reproach 
 us with the most indefinite latitudinarianism. 
 
 Indeed, McCord's views, before expressed, are but a development of one 
 or two passages in the confession. I have time but for the two following : 
 
 " Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the 
 word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never 
 truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved ; much less can men not 
 professing the christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be 
 they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, 
 and the law of that religion they do profess : and to assert and maintain 
 that they may, is very pernicious and to be detested." — p. 65. sec. 4. 
 
 " The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel, 
 (not confined unto one nation as before under the law,) consists of all those 
 throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their child- 
 ren ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the chosen family of God, 
 out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." — p. 134. sec. 2. 
 
 This is, to say the least, quite as uncharitable as any thing we have 
 said or written on the subject. Especially, as we know that those whose 
 confession this is, pretend to regard and represent us in this community 
 as not professing the true religion. Presbyterians, like my friend, of the 
 true, genuine color, never change. They are all immutable. These sen- 
 timents, then, are essential to them all ; and, of course, they can neither 
 blame nor censure us, on the ground of uncharitableness. 
 
548 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 I can neither advert to all the peculiar absurdities of the system I op- 
 pose, nor respond to every thing foreign to the question, deduced from 
 my own writings or any other source, in the time allotted us ; but I must 
 notice the singular caprice that gives an ordinance to one because one of 
 his parents is a professor, and withholds it from a child whose parents 
 are more virtuous and benevolent than he, though not professors in their 
 sense of the word — especially if they regard the ordinance of any salu- 
 tary efficacy whatever. — \Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 2i—7^ o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's ninth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — The gentleman seems to abound in matter of one 
 kind or another. I had expected to close the argument on this subject 
 this morning ; but, as on the mode of baptism, so on the design, he was so 
 far from having proved his doctrine to his own satisfaction, that, at his 
 request, I agreed to continue the discussion two hours this evening; and 
 yet he calls for more time ! ! ! Well, I have given him another speech, for 
 I wish him to have full time to deliver himself on this whole subject. I 
 desire it to be understood and known, that the clergy are not afraid of the 
 light which he can throw around them ; we are willing to meet his argu- 
 ments in their undminished strength. 
 
 He pretends, that the passages I quoted from the epistle of John, prov- 
 ing that all who are begotten of God, enjoy remission of sins, are all misap- 
 plied, because those things are spoken concerning baptized persons. It 
 is truly astonishing, that any man should be willing to expose himself by 
 assuming a position so perfectly untenable and absurd. No one who will 
 read those passages, can doubt that John was giving general descriptions 
 of christian character — pointing out the peculiar character of true chris- 
 tians. Let us, for a moment, examine those passages: " Whosoever is 
 born of God doth not commit sin." The expression is absolutely univer- 
 sal, not limited to those immersed, or baptized. Again, verse 10: "In 
 this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." In 
 what are they manifest ? Not in the fact, that the one class have been 
 baptized, and the other not, but in the fact, that the children of God do 
 righteousness and love their brethren. All, therefore, who work right- 
 eousness, are the children of God, baptized or not. Again, 1 John iv. 7: 
 "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and every one 
 that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." Again, chap. v. 1 : 
 " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God ; and 
 every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of 
 him." Now what shall we speak of the interpreter of God's word, who 
 wil] gravely tell us, that these universal expressions are to be confined to 
 those who had been immersed? 
 
 The expression ' whosoever,' and ' every one,' are as universal as any 
 terras in any language can be. " Whosoever will, let him take the water of 
 life freely." Yet Mr. Campbell, to sustain his cause, feels obliged to de- 
 clare, that these expressions are to be limited to those who had been immer- 
 sed ! Sorely, indeed, must the cause be pressed, that cannot sustain itself, 
 without resorting to perversions of God's word so glaring and so reckless ! 
 
 I called on the gentleman to produce a passage of Scripture, which 
 represents being baptized, as obeying the gospel. He refers us to Acts 
 yi. 7 : " And a great company of priests were obedient to the faith." And 
 what has this passage to do with the question, whether being baptized is 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 549 
 
 called obeying the gospel ? Does he expect us to take it for granted, that 
 baptism is meant, where it is not even distantly alluded to ? The inspired 
 historian says, the priests became obedient to the faith — but he says not a 
 word about baptism. The gentleman asserted most boldly, the other day, 
 that the promise in Galatians hi., referred to the land of Canaan, though 
 Canaan is not mentioned in the whole epistle ; and why should he not find 
 baptism where it is not even hinted at? 
 
 He has found another passage in Rom. vi. 17 : " But God be thanked 
 that we were the servants of sin ; but ye have obeyed from the heart that 
 form of doctrine which was delivered you." Here, strange to tell, he 
 thinks that to obey the form of doctrine delivered to them, though it is just 
 the opposite of serving sin, is to be immersed ! Obedience to the form of 
 doctrine taught by Paul, is immersion; obedience to the faith is immer- 
 sion; the name of the Lord refers to immersion; sanctification is immer- 
 sion ; every thing in the New Testament is immersion ! ! What a watery 
 affair he would make the gospel ! 
 
 By the way, he still keeps up the old song about infant baptism. Now 
 if he is really suffering under the conviction of having been defeated in his 
 war against infant baptism, we will give him another trial ; but I am not 
 disposed to discuss two subjects at once. 
 
 But he finds another passage in Rom. x. 10, where baptism is called 
 obeying the gospel ; it is this : " With the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness [that is, unto justification, which is obtained by faith] ; and 
 with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Yes, confession with 
 the mouth means immersion ! Why, the question is not any longer, 
 what passages speak of immersion, but where are any that do not! 
 
 Having read from Wesley's sermon on justification his real views, I 
 leave Mr. Campbell to make what capital he can by claiming him. He 
 must be in great need of arguments, or he would not drag in those whose 
 views are precisely the opposite of his. Even Calvin cannot escape, 
 although he said in so many words, that Cornelius first obtained remission 
 of sins, and was afterwards baptized, " not with a view to obtain by bap- 
 tism a more ample remission of sins ;" and again, that baptism, though 
 mentioned by Peter before remission, really succeeds it ! After all, we 
 are to believe, that Calvin agrees perfectly with Mr. Campbell, who main- 
 tains that remission of sins is actually obtained in baptism, not before ! 
 The gentleman tell us, he believes in a change of heart. We shall have 
 occasion, in a short time, to inquire into his views on that subject. For 
 the present, therefore, I pass it without particular remark. 
 
 Every believer, he informs us, will be immersed, unless beguiled by 
 some one to believe that sprinkling is baptism. Who would not sympa- 
 thize with such men as Calvin, Luther, Owen, Scott, and a multitude 
 like them, who spent their lives hi the prayerful study of the Scriptures, 
 and, at last, were beguiled into the belief that sprinkling is baptism ? 
 They wished to know and do their duty ; but somebody, it would seem, 
 beguiled them. The Scriptures, we are told, do most clearly teach, that 
 nothing but immersion is baptism ; but such men as those, could not see 
 it. They were beguiled ! ! ! When I hear men uttering such sentiments, 
 I am disposed to think, they prove very conclusively, that they have an 
 exalted opinion of their own wisdom, and not much correct knowledge 
 of human nature. 
 
 The gentleman says, he was a Presbyterian, till he was twenty-one 
 years of age ; and he imagines, that he understands the whole system of 
 
550 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Presbyterianism. Many young men, at that age, think themselves quite 
 profound theologians. He retains the recollection of those youthful con- 
 ceits ; and seems still to think that he had, at that early period, made 
 himself a rather uncommon divine ! But I am constrained still very 
 much to doubt, whether he ever knew much of Presbyterianism. 
 
 But he says, he has met with numbers who, on their death-beds, 
 regretted that they had not been baptized on their own responsibility. 
 This is indeed news ! He is the first man I ever heard say, that he had 
 met with even one case of the kind. I have visited the death-beds of a good 
 many ; and I am acquainted with many ministers who have been in the 
 ministry longer than Mr. C. had lived, when he left the Presbyterian 
 church, at twenty-one ; and I have never heard from any of them of even 
 one such case. Yet Mr. Campbell has met with numbers ! Well, he 
 has seen strange things, and met with singular people in this world ! 
 
 He quotes McCord as saying, there is no ordinary possibility of sal- 
 vation out of the church. I have no objection whatever to this doctrine. 
 For he who refuses to become a member of the church of Christ, know- 
 ing that God has commanded him to do so, gives evidence, clear and 
 decisive, that he has no true piety, and, of course, cannot be saved. 
 But did McCord say, that the sins of believers are remitted only in bap- 
 tism 1 He did not. The gentleman's running after helps so perfectly 
 flimsy, shows how well he understands Presbyterianism, and how deeply 
 he feels that his cause is sinking. These remarks are a sufficient answer 
 to his comments on the language of our confession of faith. 
 
 As to the doctrine of election, if he really desires to discuss it, I will 
 meet him at a proper time, and give him a fair opportunity to demolish 
 it. I will not now be diverted from the subject before us ; but if he 
 wishes a discussion of that subject, he shall have it. 
 
 He still magnifies his charity. Let me give you some little evidence 
 of the liberality and charity he exhibits : Christianity Restored, p. 240 ; 
 "Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent pagans, wherever they 
 can be found, with all the pious Pedo-baptists, we commend to the 
 mercy of God." Again, an objection is presented and answered as fol- 
 lows : " But do not many of them [unimmersed persons] enjoy the 
 present salvation of God?" Mr. C. answers, " How far they may be 
 happy in the peace of God, and the hope of heaven, I presume not to 
 say. And we know so much of human nature as to say, that he that 
 imagines himself pardoned, will feel as happy as he that is really so. 
 But one thing we do know, that none can rationally, and with cer- 
 tainty, enjoy the peace of God, and the hope of heaven, but they who 
 intelligently, and in full faith are born of water, or immersed for the 
 remission of their sins." 
 
 The gentleman is quite charitable indeed, and pious too ; for he com- 
 mends pious Pedo-baptists, infants, idiots and pagans to the mercy of 
 God ! But he tells us, the pious Pedo-baptists cannot rationally and 
 with certainty enjoy the hope of heaven! There is, it seems, no cer- 
 tainty that their sins are remitted. Like " his holiness," the pope, he is 
 disposed to admit the possible salvation of the incorrigibly ignorant! 
 The great ignorance of some may put them in a hopeful condition ! If 
 this is liberality and charity, he is welcome to the credit of it. 
 
 He has read to you some extracts from Witsius on the covenants. I 
 subscribe very cordially to the views expressed by Witsius. He tells 
 us, that baptism, as a seal of the covenant, binds those who receive it, to 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 551 
 
 a holy life — that it is a significant ordinance* pointing to spiritual bless- 
 ings, the putting off the old man, spiritual resurrection, &c. But does 
 he say, as Mr. C. says, that the sins of the baptized are actually re- 
 mitted in the act of being baptized? He does not — he believed no such 
 thing. The gentleman must be in trouble, or he would not attempt to 
 sustain himself by the authority of men whose views were the antipodes 
 of his, and whose writings are regarded in all our theological seminaries as 
 standard works. The simple truth is, there is just as great difference be- 
 tween his views and theirs, as there is between actual remission of sins, 
 and the outward sign and seal of remission. 
 
 I will now resume the recapitulation of the argument. I have proved, 
 that Mr. C.'s doctrine of baptism in order to remission of sins, flatly 
 contradicts the repeated, clear, and unequivocal declarations of Christ and 
 his apostles. I have proved it false by the fact, that all who are begotten 
 of God do enjoy remission of sins. The gentleman admits, that ail who 
 believe are begotten of God — that they must be begotten before they are 
 baptized. But John the apostle teaches, that every one that is begotten 
 of God, does know God, overcome the world, and has the promise of 
 eternal life. They are, therefore, pardoned before he can get them into 
 the water. 
 
 I have disproved his doctrine also, from the fact, that ail who are born 
 of God do enjoy remission of sins ; and the new birth, as I have proved, 
 is not essentially connected with baptism, but is a change of heart. This 
 has been proved by a number of facts which he has not attempted to deny. 
 He has said, and reiterated, that the confession of faith makes John iii. 
 5, refer to baptism ; and he charges me with abandoning the creed I 
 have solemnly adopted. But does the confession say, that this passage 
 means christian baptism ? Not a word of it. In the chapter on baptism 
 it does refer to this passage, as illustrating the connection between the 
 emblem and the thing signified. But in the same chapter it refers to 
 Rom. iv. 2, " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith which he had — being yet uncircumcised," &c. 
 [Mr. Campbell. It is not in the same section.] I care not what sec- 
 tion he read. He asserts, that the confession makes John iii. 5, refer to 
 baptism, because in the chapter on baptism this passage is quoted ; but I 
 prove, that in the same chapter on baptism, the confession refers to Rom. 
 iv. 2, where the apostle is speaking of circumcision. So, according to 
 the gentleman's logic, the confession makes circumcision mean baptism ! 
 The argument is as conclusive in the one case as in the other. 
 
 But, if he had been as familiar with Presbyterianism as he would have 
 us believe, he would have known, that in adopting the confession of faith 
 as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, we do not 
 say, that every reference to Scripture is precisely appropriate. We adopt 
 its doctrines as true, but not every reference as correct. I fear the gen- 
 tleman will find it necessary to go over his theological training again, be- 
 fore he will understand Presbyterianism. 
 
 It is, then, clear, that the new birth is not at all essentially connected 
 with baptism — that it is a change of heart; that, when the heart is re- 
 newed, the individual is born of God, is a child of God, and an heir to 
 the heavenly inheritance. His sins are remitted. 
 
 My fourth argument is, that the language of Peter, in Acts ii. 38, 
 does not teach the necessity of baptism in order to remission. Peter 
 said to the inquiring Jews, " Repent, and be baptized in the name of the 
 
552 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Lord Jesus for the remission of sins." Mr. Campbell has said in his 
 Christianity Restored, that "immersion for the forgiveness of sins was 
 the command addressed to these believers ;" but this is a very great mis- 
 take. Peter commanded repentance and baptism. Now the question 
 arises, whether repentance or baptism secures remission, or whether both 
 are equally necessary. To determine this question, it becomes necessary 
 to examine several other passages. We will suppose, for the sake of 
 argument, that Peter meant to say, be baptized for or into (eis) the re- 
 mission of sins. Does the word eis, translated for, mean in order to ? 
 Mr. Campbell affirms that it does. I admit, cheerfully, that it sometimes 
 has this meaning, but such is by no means its uniform signification. 
 
 Let us, then, examine another passage in which we find a precisely 
 similar expression; Matt. iii. 11, "I indeed baptize you with water into 
 (eis) repentance." I asked the gentleman whether he believed, that 
 John baptized the Jews in order that they might repent — be sorry for 
 their sins ? He says, no — but he baptized them in order to reforma- 
 tion. But here he meets an insuperable difficulty, making John and 
 Peter contradict each other. John, he says, baptized the Jews in order 
 to reformation ; and Peter commanded them first to reform, in order to 
 receive baptism ! Did John and Peter thus contradict each other ? If 
 they did not, Mr. Campbell's exposition of their language is certainly 
 most erroneous. Our interpretation of their teaching makes them per- 
 fectly harmonize. John baptized the Jews into repentance. They 
 came to him confessing their sins, and professing repentance ; and into 
 that professed repentance he baptized them. So on the day of Pentecost 
 the converted Jews, hearing the offer of remission of sins through Jesus 
 Christ, and professing to believe the proclamation and to receive Christ 
 as their Savior, were baptized into this faith, received the sign and seal 
 of that remission, obtained simply by faith. 
 
 But there is another insuperable difficulty in the way of Mr. C. If, 
 as he says, the word translated repentance means reformation, and John 
 said, I baptize you unto reformation, how are we to understand Peter's 
 second discourse, in which he says — "Reform and be converted?" I 
 have called on the gentleman to tell us, (but I apprehend, he never will 
 do it 3 ) what is the difference between reformation and conversion? In 
 his translation he has it — " reform and be converted." I hope he will 
 endeavor to tell us the difference between reformation and conversion. 
 We wish to know, whether Peter said in effect, reform and be reformed ; 
 or, convert and be converted. Such are some of the insuperable diffi- 
 culties attending the doctrine of Mr. C. 
 
 I have also presented for your consideration a sixth argument against 
 his doctrine and against his interpretation of Peter's language, viz : Faith, 
 repentance, and conversion mutually imply each other ; and, therefore, 
 remission of sins is promised indiscriminately to each of these graces. It 
 is impossible that any one should have repentance — a change of mind — 
 without conversion — a change of life; and it is impossible that there 
 should be true faith without repentance and conversion. In a word, 
 where there is repentance, there is faith ; and where there is repentance 
 and faith, there is conversion. These, then, like faith, hope, and charity, 
 are uniformly found in the same heart. I have asked the gentleman, 
 whether they can exist separately ; and he pretends not to say, they can. 
 
 Then, inasmuch as faith, repentance, and conversion uniformly exist 
 together, remission of sins may with perfect propriety be promised to 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 553 
 
 either, or to all of them. Accordingly, we do in fact find the inspired 
 writers promising remission to every penitent, to every converted person, 
 to every believer. In the following passages, the remission of sins is pro- 
 raised to repentance : Luke xxiv. 46, "Thus it is written, and thus it 
 behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that 
 repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among 
 all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Again — Acts v. 31, "Him hath 
 God exalted with his right hand, to be a prince and a Savior, for to give 
 repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Again — Acts xi. 18, 
 " When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, 
 saying, Then hath God also to the gentiles granted repentance unto life" 
 In each of these passages, repentance and remission of sins, or repent- 
 ance and life, are connected together; so that every penitent may be assu- 
 red that his sins are remitted. Remission of sins is also promised to con- 
 version. Matt, xviii. 3, " Except ye be converted and become as little 
 children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Every one, 
 then, who is converted, will enjoy the blessings of God's kingdom. 
 
 The fact that repentance, faith and conversion, mutually imply each 
 other, and are always found associated, explains the reason why remis- 
 sion of sins is promised indiscriminately to each of these graces. It also 
 reconciles most fully the different directions given to inquiring minds by 
 Peter and the other apostles. In Peter's first discourse (Acts ii.) he 
 promised remission to those who repented. In his second, (Acts iii.) 
 preaching to another company of inquirers, and, of course, telling them 
 all the conditions of remission of sins, he said, " Repent and be converted, 
 that your sins may be blotted out." Here baptism is not mentioned, nor 
 is it necessarily implied in repentance and conversion, more than any 
 other duty. Hence the conclusion is most obvious, that Peter did not 
 regard baptism as a prerequisite to the remission of sins. The jailor 
 (Acts xvi.) was commanded simply to believe, and on this one condition 
 salvation was promised. It is, then, clear, that forgiveness of sins is 
 promised indiscriminately to repentance, conversion, and faith ; but bap- 
 tism is never mentioned as a prerequisite to remission. 
 
 When Peter preached to Cornelius, he said not a word about baptism 
 in order to remission of sins. On the contrary, he declared in the most 
 unqualified terms, " In every nation, he that feareth God and worketh 
 righteousness, is accepted with him ;" and again — " To him give all the 
 prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall 
 receive remission of sins," (verses 35, 43.) Did the prophets testify, 
 that remission of sins shoidd be enjoyed through immersion? 
 
 From the first discourse of Peter to the end of the New Testament, 
 you cannot find one word about baptism in order to remission of sins. 
 As John baptized into a profession of repentance for remission of sins ; so 
 did Peter baptize into repentance and faith in Christ for remission ; and 
 both John and Peter directed the faith of the baptized to Christ. 
 
 But Ananias' language to Paul is brought forward to sustain Mr. C. 
 " Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." But this language is 
 fully explained by the fact stated and proved, that the inspired writers, 
 both of the Old and of the New Testament, constantly connect together 
 the emblem of sanctification with the grace of sanctification — water with 
 the work of the Spirit. This fact affords a satisfactory explanation of all 
 the passages of the New Testament, which have been supposed to favor 
 the doctrine I am opposing, 
 
 3A 
 
554 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 My seventh argument against Mr. C.'s doctrine is this: If it be true, 
 multitudes of the most pious and godly persons live and die condemned, 
 and are forever lost. None but immersed persons, he most unequivocally 
 teaches, can have rational evidence of remission. Sins, according to him, 
 are remitted only in baptism. He does, indeed, express the opinion that 
 some unimmersed persons, excluded from the kingdom of God here, may 
 enter the kingdom of glory in heaven. But this opinion is perfectly ab- 
 surd. The Scriptures no where teach, that any whose sins are not remit- 
 ted in this life, will be pardoned in the next. I say, then, if Mr. Camp- 
 bell's doctrine be true, hell will be full of the most godly people who 
 have lived on earth ! 
 
 We have often stood by the dying beds of those who, according to Mr. 
 C.'s views, were never baptized ; and we have witnessed their calmness 
 in immediate view of death, the heavenly peace which passeth under- 
 standing, the joyful anticipation of speedily beholding their Redeemer's 
 face without a veil to obscure his glory. We have seen them in this 
 happy frame of mind, bid adieu to all they loved below, and sweetly fall 
 asleep in Christ. But if Mr. C.'s doctrine be true, all this was delusion; 
 for their sins were yet upon them, and their hopes were speedily blasted ! 
 This doctrine is most palpably contradictory of the Scriptures, which 
 every where promise eternal life to all the righteous, and threaten des- 
 truction only to the wicked. 
 
 My eighth argument is — that Mr. C.'s doctrine ascribes an unscriptural 
 importance and efficacy to an external ordinance. The Scriptures, as I 
 have proved, every where declare, that the religion of the heart is the one 
 thing needful, and the only thing essential to salvation. On this point I 
 quoted a number of passages, to which the gentleman has attempted no 
 reply. Circumcision was once delayed for forty years with the approba- 
 tion of God, and, therefore, was never considered essential to salvation. 
 Mr. Campbell has but fallen into the common error of human nature. The 
 religion of all pagans consists chiefly in forms and ceremonies. The 
 Jews lost sight of the cross of Christ, to which their bloody sacrifices 
 pointed them, and clung to the mere shadow. They denied the agency 
 of the Holy Spirit, of which their ablutions were but emblems, and fondly 
 imagined that by their multiplied washings they might be acceptable to 
 God. They were assiduous in cleansing the outside of the cup and the 
 platter, leaving the inside polluted and defiled. 
 
 It is, I say, the error of human nature. Our Savior never found it 
 necessary to reprove the Jews for undervaluing external rites ; but often 
 did he condemn them, for ascribing to them an efficacy they did not pos- 
 sess. The christian church was filled with corruption by the same error. 
 The bread and the wine in the Lord's supper, designed to be a memorial 
 of his death, were supposed to have attached to them some mysterious effi- 
 cacy ; the partaking of them was deemed necessary to salvation ; and, 
 finally, men, in the perfection of their folly, imagined that the bread and 
 wine were actually changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of 
 Christ! They lost sight of the cross and the atonement; and their faith 
 terminated on the mere symbols. 
 
 By a similar process and from a similar cause baptism began to be 
 thought essential to salvation ; then an efficacy was ascribed to it in secu- 
 ring the purification of the soul from sin ; and to add to its virtue, water was 
 consecrated, that the ordinance might be administered with holy water. 
 Such is the progress Rome has made in making a Savior of external rites. 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 555 
 
 I have been surprised, in looking through Mr. Campbell's writings, to 
 discover, how large a portion of the New Testament he makes to speak 
 of immersion, and what efficacy he ascribes to it. In his debate with 
 McCalla he declares, that the immersed believer comes up out of the wa- 
 ter, pure as an angel! And in looking over his Christianity Restored, 
 I happened to notice his remarks on Heb. x. 14, " For by one offering 
 he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified," and I found him para- 
 phrasing it thus: "By one offering up of himself, he has perfected the 
 conscience of the immersed or sanctified!" p. 247. Yes — he has per- 
 fected forever the immersed! ! ! Sanctification means immersion, and 
 indeed, with him, every thing seems to run into the water ! — [Time ex- 
 pired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24—8 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's tenth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — This is my last address on this proposition, and 
 having to touch upon numerous topics, I must, therefore, touch upon 
 them lightly. Most of the important matters have been repeatedly ad- 
 verted to, and are gone to record ; therefore little need be said upon them. 
 Whatever replies have been made to my regular arguments, if I have not 
 adverted to them, it is because I have not noted them down, or supposed 
 them to be worthy of any special attention. On this question, as generally 
 before, we have had no real debate. The main points on which I relied, 
 stated in my first speech, and in some of the others, are unreplied to, and 
 some of them almost, if not altogether, unnoticed. My friend sometimes 
 assumes to be facetious, and sometimes acrimonious ; but in his last essay 
 has addressed himself rather to your humor, than to your judgment or 
 conscience. The following items have been repeatedly adverted to, or 
 hinted at, during the investigation of this question 
 
 1. While we regard immersion, or christian baptism, as a wise, bene- 
 volent, and useful institution, we neither disparage, nor underrate, a new 
 heart, repentance, or faith ; nay, we teach with great clearness and defi- 
 niteness, that unpreceded by faith and repentance, it is of no value what- 
 soever. These two constitute a change of heart, a mental conversion ; 
 for all believing penitents have a new heart, and are prepared for being 
 born into the kingdom of God. 
 
 2. But in the second place, we insist upon the essential importance of 
 baptism, as a divine institution, because Jesus Christ enacts no superflui- 
 ties. In his religion there is not one ordinance that is not essential for 
 some purpose ; all-important to christian life, health, or usefulness. Not 
 one of them, therefore, can with safety be dispensed with. Who, then, 
 think you, acts more rationally ; he that practically maintains faith, re- 
 pentance, and baptism ; or he that dispenses with any one of them, as, 
 in his judgment, unnecessary or inexpedient? The strongest argument 
 for any thing, and the best reason for doing any thing, is, that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ has commanded it. A sound discretion, and a sound judg- 
 ment, give to every thing its proper place, and no more. Neither faith, 
 nor repentance, nor baptism, severally, nor altogether, are every thing in 
 religion. But each one of them is indispensable, and no one of them can 
 be a substitute for another. A person is not to be justified nor saved by 
 faith alone. No man can trifle with baptism, so long as he remembers 
 that Jesus said, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." 
 What God has joined together, let no man separate. 
 
 During the controversy on the design of baptism, up to this moment, 
 
556 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 we have not heard of any benefit whatever which it confers upon an in- 
 fant. While I have been elaborating the important design of baptism, I 
 had hoped that, if my opponent would not accede to my views on that 
 subject, he would, at least, give us a clear numerical statement of the 
 practical benefits resulting to his subjects of baptism. He has not been 
 able to mention one benefit which baptism confers upon his true and pro- 
 per subjects of it; for baptism, to an unconscious babe, imparts neither 
 knowledge, nor faith, nor repentance, nor forgiveness, nor health, nor 
 riches, nor long life, nor any good thing, temporal, spiritual, or eternal. 
 In the name of common sense and reason, then, what has this controver- 
 sy been about? If my friend triumphs, who has gained any thing? It re- 
 cognizes a right ; but then the right is there, whether recognized or not 
 It is born in the church, and, therefore, baptism is not a door into any 
 thing—and what are all church birthrights to it ! They guaranty nothing. 
 It is a grand superlative nullity. I do beseech and implore the gentle- 
 man to stand up to his task now, and tell us what are the advantages, be- 
 nefits, and privileges of infant baptism? When he recounts them, fellow- 
 citizens, mark them down, and ponder them well. 
 
 4. " Them that honor me," says Jesus, " I will honor." Now there is 
 a pleasure, an ineffable pleasure, in obeying Jesus Christ. In magnifying 
 his institutions we honor him, and we are honored ; in magnifying them 
 we cannot err. It was "his meat and his drink to do the will of him that 
 sent him." One of the benefits of the institution is, that it affords a person 
 a fine opportunity to honor the Lord. The more shame, reproach, and 
 contumely, the better. And if there be none of these, then there is the 
 pure, unalloyed joy of sincere personal consecration ; of giving one's 
 self away to the Lord ; of entering into a solemn and everlasting covenant 
 with the Lord. Millions of ages to come, there will be millions in para- 
 dise who will be delighted to revert to some river, or pool, or fountain, in 
 which they put on Christ, and vowed eternal allegiance to him. 
 
 5. Mr. Rice says, many good and pious persons live, die, and go to hell, 
 on my principles. On his own fallacious inferences, he should have said. 
 This is, truly, an astonishing conclusion. It is, certainly, the result of a 
 morbid state of the system. I should prescribe medicine, rather than ar- 
 gument, in this case. We send none to perdition but those who disbe- 
 lieve and reject the gospel. And is it an unfavorable aspect of our reli- 
 gion, that it does not promise eternal life to those who disbelieve and 
 disobey it ! 
 
 No good — no religious, moral, or virtuous man, can perish through 
 our views or principles. Our theory thunders terrors to none but the 
 self-condemned. Human responsibility, in my views and doctrines, al- 
 ways depends upon, and is measured by, human ability. It is so, cer- 
 tainly, under the gospel. The man born blind will not be condemned 
 for not seeing, nor the deaf for not hearing. The man who never heard 
 the gospel, cannot disobey it; and he who, through any physical impos- 
 sibility, is prevented from any ordinance, is no transgressor. It is only 
 he who knows, and has power to do, his Master's will, that shall be pun- 
 ished for disobedience. None suffer, in our views, but those who are 
 wilfully ignorant, or negligent of their duty. Natural ability, time, place, 
 and circumstances, are all to be taken into the account; and none but 
 those who sin against these, are, on our theory, to perish with an ever- 
 lasting destruction, "from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
 of his power." Infants dying, need neither faith, repentance, nor bap- 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 557 
 
 tism, in order to their salvation, according to the Bible. They died in 
 the first Adam, but the second Adam died for them, and they shall live 
 with him. 
 
 6. Great men often believe great nonsense. St. Peter's church is filled 
 with the busts of a thousand saints who were learned and pious teachers 
 of transubstantiation, auricular confession, and purgatory ; who prayed to 
 the Virgin Mary and to dead men. There are learned Protestants, and 
 there are learned Papists, but the latter are more numerous than the for- 
 mer; consequently, neither learning, nor genius, nor talent, nor numbers, 
 are tests of truth, or a proof that any tenet, custom, or tradition is ca- 
 nonical or useful. 
 
 7. Another particular observation in this summary which, I presume, 
 you have made, and which I am sorry to be constrained to make, is the 
 manner of proof adopted by Mr. Rice. He and I calculate very differ- 
 ently on the audience. I have been accustomed to give scriptural and 
 rational proof of every proposition to those who wait on my ministra- 
 tions ; but it appears that he is accustomed to inform his audience that 
 he has proved his proposition, and seems to regard the phrases "it is 
 so " and " it is not so," as most satisfactory evidence. Can any of you, 
 my friends, recollect a proposition agreed upon, which he attempted to 
 prove by any regular train of reasonings or facts ; or any one of mine, 
 that has been assailed by him in any other way than by assertions and 
 denials ? If you do, I must say I do not remember it. 
 
 8. I need not attempt a recapitulation of the arguments offered on this 
 occasion. It would be to reiterate much of my first address, as well a? 
 portions of others. Of the fourteen arguments advanced on this subject, 
 not one has been formally assailed. A few of them have been noticed in 
 an allusive manner, but perhaps one half of them has not been even allu- 
 ded to. Assumed contradictions in my writings and Mr. R.'s theory of 
 the new birth, matters wholly foreign here, left but little time for the pro- 
 per business of my respondent. I made the precepts and positive decla- 
 rations of the New Testament, the basis of all my arguments. Several 
 of them were direct precepts — each of them a formal " thus saith the 
 Lord." The first of these, introduced by the Holy Spirit himself on the 
 day of Pentecost, is itself alone sufficient, when all its circumstances are 
 maturely considered. The solemn precept, obeyed by three thousand in 
 one day, has itself alone satisfied many myriads now living and millions 
 dead. And had it been proclaimed to all the world and been believed, 
 would not the result have been the same ? Peter inseparably connected 
 repentance and baptism, as necessary to a plenary remission of sin. It is 
 still the same as at the beginning — the law has not been changed. 
 
 9. The Messiah himself, too, connected faith, baptism, and salvation 
 together in the commission, as reported by John Mark. Is he not 
 paramount authority ? What better guaranty than, "He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved?" Who can ask more. The heavens 
 will fall before the Lord's word will fail. Thus saith the Lord, "He 
 that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
 
 10. This is a saying for which Mr. R. has yet had no use. Peter's 
 sayings and those of the Lord Jesus are not for one age, nation, or condi- 
 tion of men ; but for all nations, for all ages, for the human race. Jesus 
 commanded this annunciation to be made to every creature — preach the 
 same gospel to the four quarters of the world. 
 
 11. When Jesus sent Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, he also instructed 
 
 3a2 
 
558 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 him to say to the anxious and inquiring Paul, "Arise and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." Does not this 
 also indicate a clear fixedness of plan, a Divine uniformity in administer- 
 ing remission and salvation in the gospel age ? 
 
 12. But take one more, and leave all the other arguments. Take the 
 aged, venerable, authoritative Peter in the prospect of soon seeing the 
 Lord. Peter, in his catholic epistle, does more than John the apostle. 
 John only alludes to the subject of baptism, but Peter strongly maintains 
 his pentecostal address. He says, speaking of Noah's salvation in water 
 and by water, that we are saved in water and by water, as Noah in the 
 ark was saved through the deluge. To which salvation, neither to the 
 ark nor to the water alone, baptism corresponds as an antitype to a type, 
 in saving those who enter the water as Noah entered the deluge, relying 
 upon God's promises — thus seeking and obtaining the answer of a good 
 conscience towards God ; always the effect of remission, through faith 
 in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He who cannot find a good 
 foundation on such authorities as these, to name no other, is not to be 
 reasoned with by moral arguments. 
 
 Neither Peter nor the Messiah was afraid of any unfavorable inferences 
 from their use of the word saved. Some have wondered why our Lord 
 did not place some of the social virtues immediately in association with 
 
 faith, when he said, " He that belie veth and , &c, shall be saved." 
 
 None of our opposing cotemporaries would have supplied the blank with 
 the words " and is baptized." Peter, then, and his Master, sustain our 
 use of this style of address, and authorize our conclusions also. 
 
 Should I err in following such authorities, I place between me and my 
 Lawgiver and Judge the fact, that I stand behind all the apostles. What I 
 say to my hearers, I have caught from the lips of those inspired pillars of 
 the christain temple. When any one asks me what he must do to be 
 saved? so soon as I ascertain his position, whether he be a believer, an 
 unbeliever, or a penitent, I tender to him some one of the answers given 
 by the authority of the Lord. I do not give the same answer to every 
 inquirer, because the apostles did not. Their respective characters call 
 for answers suited to them. To every believing querist, I give the answer 
 that Peter gave on the ever-memorable Pentecost, believing that if the 
 whole world had then been present, and joined in the same query, he 
 would have given the same answer to all. 
 
 Men had better take care how they handle coals of fire. The word of 
 God is not to be misapplied with impunity. Has he said, and shall he 
 not do it ? Has he spoken, and shall it not come to pass ? The heavens 
 and earth may pass away, but his word will never pass away. I should 
 become a Presbyterian before to-morrow's dawn, if the book of God com- 
 manded me. My religion changed me once, and it would change me 
 ten times, if I could only find one, "thus saith the Lord" for it. I set 
 out to know the truth, the whole truth, and to obey it in all things. I 
 have consecrated myself to its maintenance, and vowed to follow where it 
 leads the way. 
 
 13. As to our charity — what an insulted word ! As to our charity ! 
 Then, if charity consist in firmly and affectionately stating the truth to 
 those who design to know it, we are most charitable. But, if charity 
 mean flattery— saying to all, you are right— you are in the way to bles- 
 sedness, whether or not, then are we most uncharitable, for we will not 
 say so. And if charity mean hoping all things, I am willing to say, that 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 559 
 
 I do sincerely rejoice, that simple, honest mistakes, where .they are not 
 the result of corruption of heart, will not, in my opinion, preclude any 
 Pedo-baptist from heaven, although on earth he should, through his mis- 
 takes, never enjoy the full reign of heaven in his soul. The Judge of all 
 the earth will do right. I circumscribe not the Divine philanthropy — the 
 Divine grace. I dare not say that there is no salvation in the chureh of 
 Rome, or in that of Constantinople ; though, certainly, Protestants do not 
 regard them as churches builded upon the foundation of apostles and pro- 
 phets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone. In all the Protestant 
 parties there are many excellent spirits, that mourn over the desolations of 
 Zion — that love the gospel and its author most sincerely. My soul re- 
 joices in the assurance that there are very many excellent spirits groaning 
 under the weight of human tradition and error, who are looking for re- 
 demption from these misfortunes before a long time. I do not believe that 
 pagans or infants will be condemned for not believing the gospel. Nay, 
 my exposition of that document, given in this debate, confines it only to 
 those who hear it. Still, I must say, that, in my full conviction, and as- 
 surance of faith, it is only the man who believes and obeys the original 
 gospel, who repents of his sins, and is immersed for the remission of 
 them, that can enter into the full and true enjoyment of the reign of God 
 within the heart. 
 
 14. I said nothing on the subject of election, to call for any expression 
 on the form of a challenge for the discussion of that question. The gen- 
 tleman has, I think, enough on hand at present, without the burthen of 
 Calvinian election. His proposition to debate that subject was wholly 
 gratuitous and uncalled for. 
 
 15. There are yet one or two points that I shall touch very lightly. 
 There is one good effect in christian baptism, on which I have not dwelt. 
 It is its direct influence upon the baptized. It gives, indeed, a very strong 
 impulse to the intelligent subject of it. He feels a solemn transition from 
 one state to another. It is most solemnly impressive, inasmuch as he feels 
 himself voluntarily putting on the Lord and Savior of the world ; he feels 
 himself partaking with the Savior in his death, burial and resurrection, and 
 giving himself away to the Lord for time and for eternity — an event wor- 
 thy of everlasting remembrance. It, therefore, greatly exercises the faith, 
 hope, love and zeal of every intelligent and conscientious subject of it. I 
 would not deprive my son, or my daughter, by my officiousness, from this 
 most sublime pleasure, for all the honors, emoluments and privileges of 
 the Roman hierarchy. I will teach them its meaning, its importance, its 
 rich and liberal blessings ; I will then leave it to themselves to act, to 
 choose the time, and the place, and the circumstances. I will tell them of 
 that preparation of heart necessary to a proper reception of it, and of the 
 sweet peace, and joy, and love, which follow in its train, and then leave 
 them to the Lord and themselves. 
 
 My time, almost expired, admonishes me to say a word upon the 
 catholicity of our views. We have an eye single to the union of all chris- 
 tians on the old foundations. I would not hold an heretical or schis- 
 matical tenet for any consideration that could be presented to me. Now 
 it so happens, that, although my very worthy friend, Mr. Rice, would 
 represent me as most exclusive in my views and feelings ; nay, as con- 
 signing to perdition all who are not immersed ! I am, on the whole 
 doctrine of baptism, action, subject, and design, much more catholic 
 in every respect than he. 
 
560 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM, 
 
 Suppose now, one great convention of the christian world had met 
 to fix upon some basis of union and communion, and that they had agreed 
 upon one single point, viz : — that whatever views were most generally- 
 believed, and first those that were universally believed, should be accept- 
 ed and incorporated, instead of those believed by a minority. 
 
 Baptism comes before the convention: the question is first upon the 
 action ; a part vote for sprinkling, as valid baptism, a part for pouring, 
 but all agree that immersion is valid baptism. It is, therefore, put 
 down as catholic, and the other two as sectarian. 
 
 Next comes the subject of baptism : a part admit that an infant, without 
 faith, is a proper subject, but only a part. But when the question is put, 
 Is a professed, penitent believer, a proper subject, all the world says, Yes. 
 This, then, is catholic; while an infant, as a subject, is sectarian. 
 
 Finally, the design of baptism is canvassed. 
 
 Some say it is a door into the church ; others, a recognition that one is a 
 member of the church ; a third, that it is for the sake of christening, 
 or giving a name. In none of these is there any approach to catholicity. 
 But when its being for a " pledge of remission of sins, and of our in- 
 grafting into Christ," is offered, the whole world, Greek, Roman, 
 and all, unite in that view of it. This, then, is catholic, and the others 
 sectarian. 
 
 Are we not, then, most catholic on this subject? Why not, then, sacra- 
 fice that which is so sectarian, and unite in one Lord, one faith, and one 
 immersion ? 
 
 Finally, fellow-citizens, it is the immediate duty of all who have not been 
 immersed, to be immersed into the sacred name, for this richest of heaven's 
 blessings, the privileges and immunities of the new kingdom and constitu- 
 tion. It is a matter, if neglected, sometimes of long and bitter repentance, 
 but when submitted to in faith, it is never to be repented of. No one has 
 yet said, on a dying bed, that he regretted his having been immersed, while 
 thousands have repented at last, that they had not so honored the Lord. 
 I have time only to add my unfeigned desires, that you may solemnly 
 weigh all that you have heard on the present occasion, bring it all to the 
 solemn and ultimate judge of all controversies, that holy Oracle, and 
 speedily decide for yourselves, what you ought to do. It is all-important 
 that you know the truth — that you obey the truth — and that you send it, 
 with your commendations, to all your friends, neighbors, and fellow- 
 citizens, and that this be done immediately. All of which I submit, with 
 my kindest wishes, for your individual happiness, temporal and eternal. 
 [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Nov. 24— 85 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's concluding reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — It is one of the most difficult Ihings imaginable to 
 answer an exhortation. Indeed I do not know that it is necessary to 
 answer the gentleman's exhortation to us, not to pervert, the Bible. It 
 was well enough, only very much out of place. Who claims the right 
 to pervert the Bible, or to alter what God has said ? His pathetic exhor- 
 tation certainly implies, that every one is guilty of the awful sin of pels- 
 verting the Bible, who ventures to demur to his interpretation of it. 
 This, I presume, is not quite true. I think it within the bounds of pos- 
 sibility, that a man might differ from him on some important points, and 
 yet be not guilty of wresting the Scriptures. I have preached so much 
 against the infallibility of uninspired men, that I cannot now consent to 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 561 
 
 place my friend, Mr. C, in St. Peter's chair. I denounce no man be- 
 cause he does not think precisely as I think, and teach just as I teach. 
 *'To his own Master he standeth or faileth." Nor do I intend to make 
 an exhortation which would imply such a charge. On this occasion, I 
 prefer argument to declamation. 
 
 Mr. Campbell commenced his speech by asking, which is the safer 
 course, to take repentance, faith, and baptism, or to say that baptism is a 
 matter of no importance ? This question, if it has any pertinency, im- 
 plies, that we regard it as a matter of indifference, whether persons sub- 
 mit to baptism or not. But does not every body know, that such is not 
 the fact? What says our confession on this subject? "Although it be 
 a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation 
 are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenera- 
 ted or saved without it," &c. Do we maintain, that it is a matter of in- 
 difference ? Have I not repeatedly said, that the man who wilfully ne- 
 glects the ordinance of baptism, proves thereby that he is destitute of 
 piety, and cannot be saved ? Why does the gentleman indulge in repre- 
 sentations so contrary to our known views ? What does he expect to 
 gain by it ? 
 
 Faith alone, he says, never secured pardon to any one. If by faith 
 alone he means faith that produces no obedience, we hold to no such 
 faith. Our confession, as I have proved, says, that faith is never alone, 
 but is ever accompanied by other graces, and leads to good works. By 
 faith we receive the Lord Jesus as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctifica- 
 tion, and redemption ; and repentance and conversion, as I have proved, 
 universally accompany faith. " This is the victory that overcometh the 
 world, even our faith." I have said nothing about faith alone, but faith 
 that works by love, and leads to uniform obedience. I can conceive of 
 no reason for such representations as the gentleman has made, unless it 
 be, that he has no arguments to offer. 
 
 But on the subject of baptism, in order to the remission of sins, he 
 breaks out in a pious strain, and tells us, that he cannot honor his Mas- 
 ter too much by magnifying the value of his ordinances. True, he can- 
 not honor Christ too much; and we are not at all sensible that we dis- 
 honor him, when we differ from Mr. C. concerning the relation baptism 
 sustains to the plan of salvation. 
 
 Allow me to illustrate the force of his pious remarks. An architect is 
 erecting a splendid building. The materials are alt collected together; 
 and the building is going up. One of the workmen insists on making a 
 pillar of a piece of timber intended for a rafter. Another, better skilled 
 in the science of architecture, remonstrates against this course ; but his 
 zealous fellow-laborer replies — ' I cannot honor my employer too much. 
 He is a wise and good man; and the more importance I give this piece 
 of timber, the more I shall honor him.' The reasoning of the misguided 
 architect would be just as good as that of my friend. We are trying to 
 ascertain the place, in the temple of truth, which baptism was designed, 
 by the Great Master, to occupy ; but my pious friend is disposed to in- 
 dulge his good feelings, and he exclaims — ' Oh, I cannot honor my Mas- 
 ter too much. The greater the importance and the efficacy we ascribe to 
 it, the more we shall honor him !' Such appeals may work on the minds 
 of the weak, but they are not argument, nor do they prove, that we honor 
 our Savior by assigning to baptism a place he did not design it to occupy. 
 
 The gentleman tells us, he knows the strength and the weakness of 
 36 
 
562 
 
 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Presbyterianism. He may, on this occasion, have learned something of 
 its strength: but I doubt whether he has discovered its weakness. I can 
 scarcely bring myself to believe, that at the age of twenty-one he was 
 so profound a theologian as he seems to imagine. Doubtless he thinks, 
 that he knows the strength and the weakness of our cause ; and doubtless 
 he is mistaken. This is sufficiently evident, from the repeated and glar- 
 ing misrepresentations of our doctrine he has made during this discussion. 
 He intimates, that for conscience' sake he gave up a very nattering re- 
 ligion. I will not charge him with being influenced by unworthy mo- 
 tives ; but, most certainly, he has gained vastly more fame and applause, 
 than he ever could have secured, had he become a Presbyterian minister. 
 Whether he was seeking fame, is not for me to decide; but that he 
 has adopted the very best plan to gain it, is certain. So that, as things 
 have turned out, he cannot be considered a martyr, nor even accounted a 
 sufferer by his change. As to his charity, of which he entertains a very 
 exalted opinion, I will refer the audience to the opinion of his brother, 
 Dr. Fishback, who pronounces his views, on this subject, more sectarian 
 and illiberal, than entertained by any person known to him ! His opin- 
 ion is entitled to consideration ; for he is not under the influence of un- 
 kind feelings toward Mr. C. If I had expressed such an opinion, you 
 might, with some reason, suspect that it was the effect of prejudice ; but, 
 when it is expressed by an intimate friend, there is every reason to be- 
 lieve it to be well founded. I make against him no heavier charge, than 
 his own friends prefer. 
 
 It is admitted, he has expressed the opinion that it is possible for some 
 unimmersed persons to be saved ; but it is certain that his doctrine and 
 his opinion are contradictory— both cannot be true. His doctrine is, that 
 baptism is necessary to the remission of sins ; and his opinion is, that 
 in many cases it is not necessary. The question then arises — in what 
 cases is baptism necessary, since he admits it is not necessary in all ? It 
 would certainly be difficult to decide. I cannot reconcile his faith and 
 his opinion ; but I am now concerned only with the former. 
 
 Peter, the gentleman correctly supposes, would have preached to all 
 the world the same doctrine he preached on the day of Pentecost. True : 
 but he did not always or ever teach that baptism is necessary to remis- 
 sion of sins. I have said, and I think I have proved, that the Lord never 
 did suspend the salvation of a soul upon an external ordinance. Ordi- 
 nances are important in their place. They are designed to be means of 
 g rac e — aids to lead to holiness of heart and life. But it will scarcely be 
 denied, that persons may by the grace of God be sanctified without the 
 privilege of participating in all the ordinances appointed for the edificati i>n 
 of the church. And if the end be secured with a part of the means 
 which might assist us, who shall say that the soul will be lost ? 
 
 The gentleman's own friends have proclaimed him inconsistent in hi? 
 different publications. Some time since, he expressed the opinion that 
 there were some christians amongst " the sects." A zealous sister in his 
 church was rather disturbed by this charitable announcement, and forth 
 with wrote to him for an explanation. He still adhered to his charitable 
 view ; whereupon a number of his friends found much fault with him, 
 and charged him with having abandoned his former ground and weakened 
 their efforts in the good cause of reformation. They continued to press 
 him rather severely, and at last he was brought so nearly to what they 
 deemed orthodoxy, that he only gave it as his opinion that the salvation of 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 563 
 
 imimmersed persons is "possible" writing the word in italics! His 
 charity, which at first appeared somewhat expansive, dwindled down to 
 a mere point, a bare possibility ! ! ! 
 
 He says, he is not accustomed to make assertions without proof, and 
 expect the people to believe him. It was very important, indeed, that he 
 should inform the audience of this fact ; for very many are of opinion, 
 that he has abounded in unproved assertions during this discussion. If 
 he had not informed them to the contrary, they would, in all probability, 
 have concluded that such is his general practice ; and indeed if it is not, 
 he has certainly done himself injustice on this occasion. 
 
 Another piece of information which was much needed, is, that I have 
 not answered one half of his arguments. I am quite certain that a large 
 number of intelligent persons really believed, that I had answered the whole 
 fourteen; though I did not number them one, two, three, &c. But every 
 passage of Scripture on which he relied to prove his doctrine, I think I 
 have fairly examined, and have proved that it will not sustain his ar- 
 gument. 
 
 He has relied mainly on the language of Peter, (Acts ii. 38 ;) and I 
 have proved, as I think, that Peter did not teach that baptism is necessary 
 to the remission of sins. I maintain, that he preached the same condi- 
 tions of remission in his second discourse, where baptism is not men- 
 tioned, as in his first; and the same to Cornelius as to those at Jerusalem. 
 The question is, not whether we shall believe Peter, but what did Peter 
 say? The gentleman seems disposed to make the impression, that we 
 are refusing to believe Peter's doctrine. What did Peter say ? Accord- 
 ing to Mr. C.'s interpretation, he made baptism as necessary as repent- 
 ance to remission of sins — necessary, of course, in all cases, for no ex- 
 ception is intimated. Then if we are to take Peter's doctrine, let us take 
 all that he taught. But this Mr. C. will not agree to do; for whilst his 
 interpretation of Peter's language makes baptism necessary to remission 
 in all cases, he now declares his belief, that it is necessary only in some 
 cases, and in others it is not ! 
 
 I maintain that what God has declared without qualification to be neces- 
 sary to salvation, is necessary in all cases. Mr. C. has said, that God 
 made repentance and immersion equally necessary to remission of sins. 
 But if immersion and repentance are equally necessary, how can he now 
 admit that the former is necessary only in some cases, and not in all ? 
 Moreover, in his debate with McCalla, as I have proved, he declared his 
 belief that Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, lie does 
 not profess to have changed his views on this subject. He has admitted 
 every thing for which I am contending, and yet he says I am in ;he wrong, 
 and he in the right ! I cannot reconcile his sayings and doings. But I 
 quoted, amongst others, one passage of Scripture which is of itself, if there 
 were not another, a full and complete refutation of the gentleman's doc- 
 trine ; and I have not been able to get his attention to it, even to this good 
 hour. Indeed, I had but little hope that he would see it, for none are so 
 blind as he who will not see. The passage is this — " He that believeth 
 on him is not condemned." 
 
 He tells us, that he will place the apostles between him and the Judge, 
 when he shall account for the doctrines he has preached. Such language 
 may, perhaps, be an evidence of his sincerity in believing them ; but it is 
 no argument to prove them true. 
 
 He reiterates the declaration, that when John the apostle says, 
 
584 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ' ; Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God," the 
 word whosoever must be confined to the members of the church ; that is, 
 whosoever in that church believed ! Let me read one passage in that 
 epistle, that you may judge of the correctness of this principle of inter- 
 pretation. Chapter iii. 10: "In this the children of God are manifest, 
 and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of 
 God, neither he that loveth not his brother." That is, according to Mr. 
 C.'s interpretation, whosoever of the immersed persons, members of the 
 church, doeth not righteousness, is not of God ! But we are not, accord- 
 ing to him, to apply this language to any but church members ! I am 
 truly surprised that any tolerable scholar should attempt to put such a 
 construction upon the plainest language. When I say, whosoever takes 
 arsenic will die, I do not mean persons in Kentucky or America simply, 
 but the whole human race. John was describing christian character, and 
 he said, whosoever of the human race believes that Jesus is the Christ, 
 is born of God. Whosoever— why, it is the most comprehensive ex- 
 pression in any language. And this is the only method he could devis.e, 
 to evade the force of the fact, that all who are begotten of God, bap" 
 tized or not, are children of God, and enjoy remission of sins, and pro- 
 mise of eternal life ! ! ! 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, seems not to be able to see any advantage to be 
 derived from the ordinance of baptism, unless it be necessary to secure re- 
 mission of sins. He might as well take the same position in regard to 
 the Lord's supper. I might ask him, of what use is the Lord's supper, 
 if remission of sins can be obtained before partaking of it ? What is the 
 use of prayer, preaching, and other appointed means of grace ? Much is 
 to be done for us, and by us, after our sins are forgiven, before we can 
 be prepared for heaven. Baptism, therefore, may and does answer im- 
 portant purposes, both to adults and to infants, though remission of sins 
 is not obtained in the act of receiving it. It is the seal of the covenant of 
 grace — -a pledge to infant and adult, that so soon and so long as the 
 conditions of that covenant are complied with, remission of sins shall be 
 enjoyed. It is, then, a means of confirming and strengthening our faith. 
 
 I must now notice the vote proposed by the gentleman to prove the 
 catholicity of his principles. As he, the other day, engrossed three cov- 
 enants in two ; so, on this occasion he has engrossed the three subjects we 
 have discussed, in one. He tells us, if the question be put to all Christ- 
 endom — Is pouring or sprinkling right? — many will vote in the negative ; 
 but put the question — Is immersion right ? — and all, he says, will say, 
 Yes. I do not think they would. I rather think that there are vast mul- 
 titudes who would say, No, very decidedly. If the question were, 
 whether remission is valid, there might be a tolerably unanimous vote ; for 
 many would vote that it is valid, who do not believe that it is the scrip- 
 tural mode. But if they must vote whether it is right or wrong, they 
 will vote in the negative ; and, if the gentleman would convince them that 
 the mode is essential to the validity of the ordinance, and then put the 
 question — Is immersion valid? — they will say, No. 
 
 Again, he puts the question, Is adult baptism right ? All, as he truly 
 says, vote in the affirmative. But I do not like the form of the question. 
 Let us state it a little differently, thus : Is it right for believing parents to 
 neglect or refuse to have their children baptized? From east, west, 
 north and south, a thousand to one, they answer, No. The Greek church, 
 with ten thousand tongues, and almost all the christian churches on earth, 
 
DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 565 
 
 say, No. Put the question in the other form — Is it the duty of believing 
 parents to have their children baptized? — the same immense multitude 
 answer, Yes. Are we, then, to do violence to our judgment and our 
 conscience, to neglect or refuse to do what we believe God commands, 
 in order to bring about a union with the few who differ from us? Shall 
 the consciences of the thousand yield to the scruples of one ? The ques- 
 tion is not, whether adult baptism is right ; but whether it is the solemn 
 duty of believing parents to give their, children to God in the ordinance 
 of baptism ? and on this question, we shall outvote the gentleman by an 
 overwhelming majority. 
 
 The third question was put as unfairly as the others. He would have 
 us vote, whether a baptized believer is pardoned. But let the question 
 be stated fairly. It is this : Is a penitent believer condemned until he is 
 immersed ? The vote will be, ten thousand to one, against the gentleman. 
 Is the man forgiven, who is sincerely penitent, confesses and forsakes his 
 sins, and with an humble faith casts himself at the feet of Jesus, and, like 
 the publican, prays-— " God be merciful to me a sinner ?" Let this ques- 
 tion be put to vote, and from east and west, north and south, all, with the 
 exception of a mere handfull, who profess to take the Bible as their infal- 
 lible guide, will vote in the affirmative. Present the case of the man who 
 lies on his sick bed, and never can, or never will be immersed, but who 
 exercises an humble faith in Christ, as his wisdom, righteousness, sanc- 
 tification, and redemption, and ask the christian world — those whose in- 
 fallible guide is the word of God, whether the Scriptures contain a pro- 
 mise of salvation to such an individual ? And again the almost unbroken 
 voice is in the affirmative. 
 
 And this decision, let it be noted, is not given as an opinion, but as 
 the clear and uniform teaching of the word of God. The hopes of such 
 an individual are based on promises too clear to be misunderstood; and 
 though he cannot, or believes he should not be immersed, he can safely 
 rest on those promises, and rejoice in his dying hour. Let the question 
 be fairly stated, and we are ready to take the vote. The gentleman, not- 
 withstanding his remarkable catholicity, will be found in a very, very 
 small minority. 
 
 I have now given Mr. Campbell full time to bring forward all his ar- 
 guments. I could have sustained the doctrine for which I contend, in a 
 shorter time. You have now heard him at length ; and the plain facts 
 which I have presented, proving his doctrine unscriptural, are before you. 
 It certainly contradicts a large class of the plainest declarations of Christ 
 and his apostles ; " He that believeth on him is not condemned." 
 Every believer is pardoned and justified. Such is the language of our 
 Savior. It requires no criticism ; it admits of but one interpretation. 
 Language cannot be plainer. The book of revelation is like the book of 
 nature. The most unlettered man can learn when to sow, what to sow, 
 and when to reap ; and how to protect himself and his family from the in- 
 clemency of the season. So in the word of God, the conditions of pardon 
 and salvation are presented with so much simplicity and clearness, and 
 are so variously illustrated, that the wayfaring man, though unlearned, 
 need not err. When persons of common understanding, not blinded by 
 prejudice, read those plain declarations of our Savior, what do they un- 
 derstand him to mean? " He that believeth on him is not condemned." 
 " He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." " He that believ- 
 eth, shall never thirst." " He that believeth hath everlasting life, and 
 
 3B 
 
566 
 
 DEBATE ON THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." 
 These, and a multitude of passages like them, are too plain to be misun- 
 derstood. They directly contradict the doctrine, that baptism, especially 
 immersion, is necessary in order to receive remission of sins. 
 
 The plain facts I have presented before you, sustained by a large num- 
 ber of scriptures, prove, conclusively, the erroneousness of the doctrine 
 of Mr. Campbell. The period is not distant when we, speakers and 
 hearers, shall stand before the Judge of the living and the dead, to give 
 account of our faith and our lives. I desire you, my friends, to examine 
 this subject, as for eternity. Your eternal interests are as intimately con- 
 nected with it, as mine. I leave you to make your decision, whether the 
 gentleman has proved, that baptism is necessary to secure the remission 
 of sins — whether the penitent believer is condemned, until he is immers- 
 ed ! — [Time expired. 
 
 [end of the third proposition.] 
 
 
PROPOSITION FOURTH. 
 
 Baptism is to be Administered only by a Bishop or Ordained 
 Presbyter. Mr. Rice affirms. Mr. Campbell denies. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 24 — 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's opening address.] 
 
 Mr. President — The proposition for discussion this morning, is the 
 following : Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained 
 presbyter. This I affirm, and Mr. Campbell denies. 
 
 In explanation of the proposition, allow me to state, that the terms 
 bishop and presbyter we regard as two Scripture names for the same 
 office. The word episcopos, translated bishop in the New Testament, 
 signifies an overseer ; and it seems to have been used to denote the min- 
 isterial office, because the presbyters or ministers of Christ are required 
 to watch over the interests of his church and people. The proposition 
 before us assumes, that presbyters and bishops hold the same office in 
 the church. 
 
 The doctrine, then, for which I feel bound to contend, is — that the 
 Scriptures authorize none but bishops or presbyters, properly ordained, to 
 administer the ordinance of baptism. The audience perceive, at once, 
 the precise point in debate. Mr. Campbell maintains, that every member 
 of the church, male and female, young and old, has the right to adminis- 
 ter this solemn and important ordinance. Against this latitudinarian doc- 
 trine I enter my protest, and offer my reasons. 
 
 As we have agreed to occupy but a single day in the discussion of this 
 proposition, I design to present very briefly the arguments which appear 
 to me to sustain the proposition I affirm. 
 
 The baptism of an individual, especially of an adult, on profession of 
 his faith, I think it will be admitted, is an important event in his life ; 
 whether considered with reference to himself, or with reference to the 
 interests of the church of Christ. Considered with reference to himself, 
 it is important, for several reasons : 
 
 1. Baptism is an ordinance by which he who receives it, on profession 
 of his faith, is recognized as a disciple of Christ, and admitted to a stand- 
 ing in his family. If he be a true christian, his spiritual interests are 
 promoted by the reception of the ordinance ; but if he be deceived, he is 
 likely to be confirmed in his error. He persuades himself that he has 
 obeyed an important command of the Savior. He is recognized by chris- 
 tians as a brother. His conscience ceases to warn him of his guilt and 
 danger; his fears of future punishment subside; and he cherishes a delu- 
 sive hope, perhaps, to the last moment of his life. Or, overborne by the 
 temptations and unhallowed influences of the world, he turns again to his 
 former course, and his conscience is "seared as with a hot iron." Such 
 an individual has received an irreparable injury. 
 
 2. Baptism introduces the professed believer to privileges in the 
 
 567 
 
566 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 church which, without true piety, he cannot enjoy or improve to his 
 spiritual edification. Attendance upon the ordinances of God's house 
 with an impenitent, unbelieving, unrenewed heart, will involve him in 
 guilt far more aggravated, than if he had remained in the world. Of the 
 Lord's supper, to which of course he approaches, it is said — " He that 
 eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to him- 
 self." Equally true is it of all other privileges enjoyed by the church of 
 Christ, that they prove a curse, not a blessing, to him who possesses not 
 the spirit of the gospel. 
 
 3. As baptism introduces the professed believer to privileges which an 
 unbeliever cannot improve; so it devolves upon him duties which none 
 can discharge, but they who have been born again. He sustains new- 
 relations to the church and to the world ; out of these relations arise du- 
 ties, the proper discharge of which is most important. Not one of those 
 duties can he discharge, unless he be a true disciple of Christ. Conse- 
 quently he is involved in the double guilt of partaking of ordinances he 
 cannot improve, and of binding himself more solemnly to the duties he 
 cannot perform. He is greatly injured. 
 
 If we consider the baptism of a professed believer with reference to the 
 interests of the church of Christ, it is an important matter. For, 1st. The 
 Head of the church requires that, as far as possible, it shall be kept 
 pure — composed of worthy members. He who, whilst an unbeliever, 
 seeks and obtains admission into the church, not only involves himself in 
 greater guilt, and exposes himself to an aggravated condemnation ; but he 
 contributes in no small degree to draw upon it the frowns and the judg- 
 ments of God. The greatest caution which human wisdom can observe, 
 will not preserve the church entirely free from unconverted communi- 
 cants ; but so long as we remember, that one Achan in the camp of Israel 
 drew upon the whole body the severe chastisements of God ; we cannot 
 but feel, that it is alike the duty and the interest of the church to see to 
 it, as far as possible, that her communicants shall be true believers. 
 
 2d. Baptism identifies the professed believer with the church. He is 
 regarded by the world as a christian ; and it is a fact, that the great major- 
 ity of unconverted persons form their opinions of Christianity, not so 
 much from what they hear or read of its pure and sublime truths, as from 
 what they see in the conduct of those who profess to have embraced it. 
 They are expected in their daily conduct to illustrate the character and 
 spirit of the gospel on which they profess to rely for salvation. They 
 who are acquainted with the state of things at the present day, must 
 know, that no one cause so retards the progress of the gospel, as the un- 
 godly lives of professors of religion. Multitudes of men are disgusted 
 with religion, and confirmed in infidelity, only or chiefly because they 
 see many occupying a respectable stand as members in real or pretended 
 churches of Christ, whose conduct is, in many respects, more exception- 
 able than that of multitudes who make no pretensions to religion. 
 
 These things being so, it will not be denied, that it is of the greatest 
 moment to individuals, to the church, and to the world, that as far as 
 possible the doors of the church be guarded, so as to exclude all unworthy 
 persons. 
 
 In view of these incontrovertible truths, the importance of which we 
 cannot now fully estimate, I emphatically ask, Is it probable that the all- 
 wise and benevolent Savior of men has given to the most ignorant, the 
 most superstitious, and the most rash, as well as to the wisest, the most 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 569 
 
 pious and prudent members of his church, the. right to introduce to its 
 fellowship just such characters as they may choose to baptize ? Can any 
 one for a moment believe, that He, who regards the church as the apple of 
 his eye, who has manifested his purpose to make it a pure church — a light 
 of the world — has indeed put the keys of the kingdom into the hands of 
 every individual who may have been admitted to its fellowship, however 
 inexperienced, ignorant or rash ? I might almost venture, without further 
 argument, to pronounce the idea an impossibility. 
 
 What must inevitably result from granting such authority to every 
 member of the church? Can it be otherwise, than that the church will 
 be speedily filled with unworthy and ungodly persons, who cannot be 
 excommunicated? A single rash, ignorant, or unworthy member, may 
 baptize hundreds like himself, or still worse. These persons must be 
 recognized as members of the church. Consequently its spirituality is 
 gone ; its light is extinguished ; and the curse of God is upon it. Is it 
 within the bounds of possibility, that our Savior, when he sent forth the 
 apostles, so eminently qualified for their responsible work, to baptize and 
 teach, did at the same time throw wide the doors of his church, and 
 commit its purity, and even its existence, to the hands of every man, 
 woman, and child, who might be recognized as a member of it? 
 
 Do civil governments proceed upon such principles \ Have they not 
 ever found it absolutely necessary to have officers properly appointed 
 to perform every public duty. May every citizen of this commonwealth 
 take it upon himself to act as sheriff, mayor, judge, or president, as he 
 may think proper? Have not all civil governments found it necessary 
 to have officers, whose qualifications are defined by their constitution and 
 laws, appointed to discharge the duties appertaining to every department ? 
 How long would our government exist, if any citizen might, on his own 
 responsibility, presume to act as sheriff, judge, president, &c. ? How 
 long would it be, till we should be involved in anarchy, war, and blood? 
 
 If civil governments cannot subsist without offices, and officers regularly 
 ap.pointed to discharge the duties connected with them, how can the king- 
 dom of Christ on earth prosper, or even exist, if every member may, on 
 his own responsibility, perform the duties connected with its most impor- 
 tant offices ? If the doctrine of Mr. Campbell be true, the church contains 
 within itself the elements of its own destruction. The doctrine is, that 
 every member of the church may administer baptism. A child of six or 
 eight years of age may believe in Christ, and be admitted to membership 
 in his church. Now for a moment contemplate the possible results of 
 the doctrine of the gentleman. There is a little girl ten years of age, 
 who has been baptized, and is a member of the church. She, according 
 to this doctrine, has the right to baptize other little girls of ten, eight, or 
 six years of age. And that little boy, of similar age, may baptize his 
 comrades of the same age, or younger, as his prudence may dictate ! The 
 servant, who was baptized last sabbath, though profoundly ignorant of 
 almost the alphabet of Christianity, may, on the next sabbath, baptize as 
 many of his fellow-servants as he can induce to say, they believe that 
 Christ is the Son of God ! All this and more may occur, according to 
 the doctrine of my friend, without the violation of one law of the king- 
 dom ! ! ! The little girl, the boy, and the servant, have only exercised 
 their inalienable rights. There is not only no law against what they 
 have done, but the law of Christ authorizes it ! What a spectacle the 
 church of Christ would soon exhibit, if this doctrine should prevail ! 
 
 3b2 
 
570 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Without any further direct appeal to the Scriptures, we may venture to 
 say, it is incredible, absolutely incredible, that our Savior should have 
 taught such a doctrine — that he should so unnecessarily have exposed his 
 church to almost certain ruin. 
 
 But let us appeal directly to the law and the testimony. The commis- 
 sion given by our Savior to his apostles, confines both baptizing and 
 preaching to them, and to those ordained after them, to the ministerial 
 office, m Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo, I 
 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." — Matth. 
 xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 This commission invested the apostles with the most important and re- 
 sponsible office ever conferred on any human being. They were author- 
 ized to ordain others properly qualified to the same office. Now, it is a 
 principle universally recognized, that where an office is established, and 
 certain specified duties annexed to it, no one but he who has been prop- 
 erly appointed to fill the office, can discharge any one of its duties. This 
 principle is recognized by all civil governments. Suppose a private citi- 
 zen — one of the wisest and most respectable, if you please, should un- 
 dertake to act as sheriff for a few days ; or suppose he should take the 
 seat of the judge, even though, for the time being, vacant; what would be 
 the consequences 1 Why, in the first place, all his acts would be pro- 
 nounced null and void. No human being would be bound to regard 
 them. In the second place, he would be punished as a violator of the 
 laws of the land. Yet there is no law forbidding him, in so many w r ords, 
 to do what we suppose him to have done. The very fact, that such offi- 
 ces exist, and that particular duties are assigned to those who fill them, 
 constitutes a prohibition of all other persons from interfering with those 
 duties. 
 
 The same common-sense principle must be recognized in the kingdom 
 of Jesus Christ. The sacred office of the ministry has been established 
 by him, for the edification of the church. The qualifications of those who 
 are to be invested with it, are detailed ; and certain most important duties, 
 on the proper discharge of which depend the purity and prosperity, if 
 not the existence, of the church, are connected with the office, and en- 
 joined most solemnly on those who fill it. Is it not, then, perfectly clear, 
 according to the principle already stated and universally admitted, that the 
 King of Zion intended to confine the discharge of those duties to the 
 men who should fill the office ? The very appointment of the office, and 
 the solemn command to those invested with it, to baptize and preach, 
 constitute a law against lay-baptism. And, as in civil government, so in 
 the church of Christ, he who, without being invested with the office, pre- 
 sumes to exercise its functions, performs acts which are null and void, 
 and makes himself a transgressor. 
 
 Will it be pretended, that the Savior was less wise in his legislation, 
 or less careful to preserve the peace and purity of his church, than civil 
 legislators ; who guard against the evils of anarchy and oppression, by 
 establishing offices and appointing men properly qualified to transact pub- 
 lic duties ? Unless the gentleman is prepared to cast upon him this im- 
 putation, he must abandon the doctrine, that every member of the church 
 may of right administer the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 Let me here present distinctly the broad principle on which Mr. Camp- 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 571 
 
 bell professes to have set out in his reformation. I hope that, on this 
 occasion, he will be willing to act in conformity with it. I quote from 
 the Christian System, p. 6 : 
 
 " A deep and an abiding impression that the power, the consolations, and 
 joys — the holiness and happiness of Christ's religion, were lost in the forms 
 and ceremonies, in the speculations and conjectures, in the feuds and bick- 
 erings of sects and schisms, originated a project many years ago for uniting 
 the sects, or rather the christians in all the sects, upon a clear and scriptu- 
 ral bond of union — upon having a ' thus saith the Lord,' either in express 
 terms, or in approved precedent, for every article of faith, and item of reli- 
 gious practice." 
 
 Now observe, the gentleman's reformation started upon the principle 
 of having a "Thus saith the Lord" for every article of faith and every 
 item of practice. I now call upon him to produce a " thus saith the 
 Lord," for his doctrine of lay-baptism. Let me state fully his doc- 
 trine on this subject, as exhibited in the Milennial Harbinger, (vol. iii. pp. 
 236, 237.) Here 1 find some seven questions propounded by a correspon- 
 dent, and answered by Mr. Campbell; one of which is as follows — "Are 
 all immersed persons, male and female, to be so considered?" That is, 
 are they legal administrators of baptism ? Another is as follows — " Can 
 an unimmersed person be so considered under any circumstances ?" To 
 these and other questions, Mr. C. replies as follows: 
 
 " Answers to questions 2, 3 and 4. — There is no law in the christian Scrip- 
 tures authorizing any one class of citizens in the christian kingdom to im 
 merse, to the exclusion of any other class of citizens. Apostles, evangelists, 
 deacons, and unofficial persons, are all represented as immersing when oc- 
 casion called for it. Paul, though not sent to immerse, yet did it when no 
 other person was present. Philip immersed the eunuch ; Ananias immersed 
 Paul ; Peter's deacons or attendants from Joppa immersed Cornelius and his 
 friends. So that if we have no law enjoining it upon one or any class of 
 citizens, we have examples so various and numerous as to teach us that any 
 citizen in the kingdom is an acceptable administrator when circumstances 
 call upon him. How far expediency may suggest the propriety of a congre- 
 gation making it the duty of one or more persons to attend upon such as are 
 to be introduced into the kingdom, is a question which a respect to circum- 
 stances may decide ; but on the ground of scriptural authority, every male 
 citizen in the kingdom is an acceptable and authorized administrator. 
 
 As to female citizens immersing, we have no example of the sort on 
 record. But as in the kingdom there is neither male nor female in the 
 Lord, should any circumstance require it, there is no law or precedent 
 which would condemn a sister for immersing a female were it to become 
 necessary. Even the church of Rome, the most enslaved to priestly suprem- 
 acy and official holiness, allowed females to baptize in certain cases. * * 
 
 But we might as rationally and as scripturally talk about a legal admin- 
 istrator of prayer, of praise, or of any religious service which one can ren- 
 der to, or perform for, another, as for baptism. Expediency, however, may 
 in some circumstances decree that persons may be appointed by a congre- 
 gation to preach and baptize." 
 
 According to the gentleman's doctrine, you perceive, that females have 
 a right to administer baptism ; and yet he acknowledges, that for this he 
 cannot find a " Thus saith the Lord," nor a precedent in the New Testa- 
 ment! Even persons who never were baptized, he, in the same article, 
 admits, may, in certain cases, administer the ordinance ; though for such 
 a practice he pretends not to find one word of authority in the Scriptures ! 
 Here we find in his writings, and of course in the practice he encourages, 
 -a most glaring departure from the fundamental principle of his reforma- 
 
572 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 lion! The principle is, to have a " Thus saith the Lord," in so many 
 words, for every item of faith and practice, or a clear and certain prece- 
 dent. Yet here he advocates a doctrine, and authorizes a practice, for 
 which he acknowledges himself unable to find in the Scriptures either 
 precept or precedent ! — a direct and palpable departure from his published 
 principles. 
 
 I am not the first to discover the inconsistency, and to point out the 
 danger of his doctrine on this subject, as you will see by a letter, from 
 which I will read an extract, written by one of his correspondents, and 
 published in the Millenial Harbinger, (vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.) The wri- 
 ter says : 
 
 " Now, if I understand you, you say, there is no lav/ making it the duty 
 of one to immerse, to the exclusion of others ; therefore, no disorder for any 
 one in the kingdom to immerse : and it is also to be understood that every 
 immersed person is in the kingdom. Let us now see the dilemma to which 
 this would lead. And first, let it be noted that men, women, children, and 
 servants, are understood to be in the kingdom. Men, women, children, and 
 servants, are all then authorized to immerse ; yea, they are commanded to 
 baptize, one as much as another, and this command is directly from the 
 King himself. No disorder then for Jane, twelve years old, who was bap- 
 tized yesterday, to baptize her schoolmate Mary, eleven years old, to-day ; 
 and Mary, to-morrow, may, without disorder, baptize her little sister Judy, 
 nine years old ; and the day following, Judy baptizes Harriet, six years old ; 
 and Harriet baptizes all the little girls in the neighborhood, that she is able 
 to manage, and that will say they believe in the heart, &c. All this is per- 
 fect order in the kingdom, if there is no law authorizing one class, to the 
 exclusion of another, to immerse. I think it unnecessary to carry this mat- 
 ter further. We might adduce many more cases into which such an order, 
 or rather disorder, would run. We will admit, that if every person, so soon 
 as baptized, were filled with the spirit of wisdom and prudence, and the 
 understanding of men, then there would be no such danger. But this is not 
 the case; nor is it likely ever to be so. As long as baptism is to be ad- 
 ministered, as long as there are sinners to be converted and baptized, there 
 will be found babes, young men, and old men, in experience, prudence and 
 knowledge." 
 
 The writer of this letter, who signs himself Barnabas, is well spoken 
 of by Mr. Campbell, and, I presume, is a member of his church. Still, 
 with all his prejudice in favor of the gentleman, he could not but see the 
 dreadful disorder and confusion which such a doctrine, carried out in 
 practice, would introduce into the church With great propriety he re- 
 marks, that if every one became wise and prudent, as soon as baptized, 
 such a principle might be tolerated. But little boys, girls, and servants, 
 might take it into their heads, that it is a'great thing to be engaged in mak- 
 ing and baptizing converts ; and they can do so, according to Mr. Camp- 
 bell, in perfect consistency with the law of Christ ! 
 
 Should more prudent and considerate persons object to having the ordi- 
 nance administered, and members introduced into the church, by such 
 children, or by others equally ignorant and rash, they are prepared with 
 a very conclusive answer. It is perfectly certain, they might say, and by 
 all admitted, that it is the duty of some persons to baptize. Mr. Camp- 
 bell teaches, that no one class of members of the church is authorized to 
 do it, to the exclusion of others. Therefore, say they, it is as truly our 
 duty as yours, to administer the ordinance. Consequently, every member 
 of the ehurch, old and young, ignorant and wise, boys, girls, and serv- 
 ants, may go to work, and immerse all around them who will submit to 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 573 
 
 the operation! ! ! I now call on my friend Mr; C. to produce a " Thus 
 saith the Lord," or a clear precedent for such a practice. If he can find 
 the one or the other, it is contained in a portion of the New Testament 
 which I have entirely overlooked. 
 
 It is not difficult to ascertain the cause of the adoption of principles 
 and practices so unauthorized, and so ruinous to the church and to the 
 souls of men. No one, taking the Bible as his only infallible guide, 
 ever could have thought of adopting them. The gentleman is a 
 great enemy of creeds. Yet, when he finds his system laboring under 
 difficulties for which the Savior did not provide, he will make such addi- 
 tions as the exigency demands ! 
 
 Where shall we look for the origin of the doctrine and the practice oHay- 
 baptism? It originated in the unscriptural doctrine of baptismal regen- 
 eration. The belief became common, at an early period in the history 
 of the church, that baptism is essential to salvation — that all who died 
 unbaptized, would be lost. In consequence of this error, difficulties im- 
 mediately arose ; for, in multitudes of cases, ordained ministers could not 
 be found to administer baptism to the dying. It became necessary, con- 
 sequently, to provide for exigencies which, it would seem, our Savior 
 never saw ; for which, at any rate, he made no provision, and for the 
 best of reasons, viz : they grew out of a doctrine which he never taught 
 It was, therefore, determined, that, in cases of urgent necessity, when a 
 bishop or presbyter could not be obtained, the ordinance might be admin- 
 istered by laymen. It was thought better that a layman, in the absence 
 of a minister, should be permitted to baptize, than that a soul should be 
 lost. As yet, however, the church had not proceeded quite so far as my 
 friend Mr. Campbell. They were not prepared to permit all the mem- 
 bers of the church indiscriminately to baptize. 
 
 The false principle which they had adopted, however, soon carried 
 them further. It was seen, that cases might, and did occur, in which male 
 members could not be present; and the souls of many might be lost, for 
 the lack of an external ordinance. Another step was taken, and females 
 were authorized, in such cases, to baptize. This practice, however, for 
 some time, met with opposition. 
 
 But even this extension of the privilege of administering the ordinance, 
 did not entirely compass the object, for cases might occur, in which 
 neither male nor female members of the church could be present. The 
 church of Rome, therefore, in the boundlessness of her charity, decided, 
 that baptism might be validly administered by unbaptized persons, and 
 even by Jews, infidels and Turks, providing only that they intended to do 
 what the church does ! Such was the origin, and such is the history of 
 this singularly absurd and injurious doctrine. 
 
 The same opinions which originally suggested the necessity of lay -bap- 
 tism, I doubt not, have induced my friend, Mr. Campbell, to incorporate 
 it in his creed. 
 
 He does not think it at all certain that persons can be saved without bap- 
 tism. He desires, of course, to save as many as possible. A. preaching 
 brother cannot, at all times, be had to administer immersion. Sometimes 
 it may occur, that a male member of the church cannot be obtained. He 
 has been charitable enough, therefore, to believe and teach that females 
 may baptize, and that it is the right of all members of the church, little and 
 big, old and young. Still, the difficult cases were not all provided for. 
 For example, there is a man who has repented, and believed, and desires 
 
574 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 baptism, but no person, who has been immersed, can be found to admin- 
 ister the ordinance to him. In such cases, my friend believes that an 
 unimmersed person may officiate, and the baptism will be valid. With 
 this last provision, however, he is not quite satisfied ; yet it will answer. 
 
 The doctrine of Mr. Campbell on this point is precisely the doctrine of 
 the church of Rome ; and with him, as with "holy mother," it originated 
 in another unscriptural tenet, viz : that the soul without baptism is in dan- 
 ger of being lost. Their common faith placed them in a common dilemma. 
 They must either leave souls of even penitent believers in danger of being 
 lost, because they could not receive an external ordinance, or they must 
 authorize a practice, for which they could find neither precept nor example 
 in the word of God. The principle on which it is based, is false. Our 
 Savior did not authorize it. If the principle be not false, how, I ask, did 
 it happen that He and his apostles never provided for these cases 1 Such 
 emergencies must have occurred more frequently in the days of the apos- 
 tles, than at the present time ; for their doctrine spread rapidly, and there 
 were but few ministers. How did it happen, then, that they gave no inti- 
 mation that unordained persons, and even females, might validly baptize ? 
 Evidently no such difficulties were known to them. If the doctrine be 
 true, it is most marvellous, that from the beginning to the end of the New 
 Testament, we find not a trace of it. If such emergencies do really exist, 
 it is passing strange that our Savior made no provision for them. My 
 friend has been engaged in providing for emergencies which the Bible did 
 not contemplate — endeavoring to remove difficulties the Savior never dis- 
 covered. Yet he proclaims, that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the 
 religion of Protestants J Now I go for the Bible, and I am prepared to 
 acquiesce in the administration of baptism by males and females, boys and 
 girls, if he will give me a " Thusisaith the Lord," for it. 
 
 In his reply to the letter, from which I read an extract, the gentleman 
 states, that deacons and unofficial persons, in the apostolic age, adminis- 
 tered baptism. I hope he will adduce some proof of the truth of this de- 
 claration. I have found no example of the administration of baptism by a 
 deacon, or an unofficial person. There is, indeed, an example of a man 
 baptizing who had once been a deacon, but was afterwards an evangelist. 
 But, even if at the time he administered the ordinance, he was only a dea- 
 con, still he was an officer in the church of Christ. But I find not an in- 
 stance in all the New Testament, in which deacons, or other unordained 
 persons, ever baptized. If the gentleman can enlighten us on this subject, 
 I hope he will not fail to do it. If he intends still to adhere to the funda- 
 mental principle of his reformation, every one must admit that he is bound 
 either to abandon his doctrine, or produce a "Thus saith the Lord," in so 
 many words, or a fair precedent, to sustain it. I am prepared to yield the 
 question in a moment, if he will show me his authority. 
 
 And it behooves him more especially to be careful on this point ; for he 
 believes baptism necessary, in order to remission of sins. If I believed 
 that all who are not validly baptized, are in danger of losing their souls, 
 I should desire to be very certain, that I encouraged none to administer or 
 to receive a baptism which is not scriptural. Convince me that a man is 
 in danger of losing his soul, if he is not baptized, and I will be very care- 
 ful whom I authorize or encourage to officiate in the administration of 
 the ordinance. I would desire the authority to be as clear as language 
 can make it. We know that an ordained minister has the right to bap- 
 tize. To this all agree. But if you put the question to Protestant Christ- 
 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 575 
 
 endom, whether laymen have the right, the almost unanimous decision 
 will be, that they have not. Then, according to my friend's principles 
 of catholicity, he must give it up. I never would, with my present 
 views, unite with a body of professing christians, who permit all their 
 members — even boys and girls — to introduce into the church whom they 
 please. If the gentleman desires christian union, he will find it necessary 
 to abandon this unscriptural doctrine : it will ever be a stumbling block : 
 the great majority of Bible readers cannot be persuaded that baptism by 
 a layman is christian baptism. He is certainly bound, on his own prin- 
 ciples, to sustain his views, by a " Thus saith the Lord," or a fair and clear 
 example, or abandon them. 
 
 I do not know that it is necessary to proceed farther with this argu- 
 ment. The doctrine for which I contend is so obviously correct, that it 
 does not admit of much discussion, especially if we confine ourselves to 
 the Bible. I know that my friend can find some authority for part of his 
 practice, among the christian fathers of the third and following centuries, 
 and that he can find some episcopal ministers who have favored lay-bap- 
 tism ; but both they and he must rely for support on tradition, not on 
 the New Testament. They can find nothing there that even remotely 
 hints at it. The whole difficulty, as before remarked, originated in em- 
 bracing first an unscriptural doctrine, and then founding upon it an un- 
 scriptural practice. Thus one error leads to another, and that again to a 
 third. He who tells a falsehood, finds it necessary to tell a second to 
 conceal the first ; and a third to reconcile the second. So it is with error : 
 it is always inconsistent. The first step in the path of error, creates a 
 difficulty ; then a second is introduced to remove it ; this makes the diffi- 
 culty still greater, and a third becomes necessary, and so on ad infinitum. 
 There is no telling where this downward course will terminate. False 
 doctrines necessarily lead to unscriptural practices ; and both corrupt the 
 church, and ruin the souls of men. My friend has embraced the errone- 
 ous doctrine, and is now defending the ruinous practice based upon it. 
 
 [Here Mr. R. sat down, having occupied but forty minutes of the sixty 
 to which he was entitled.] 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 25 — 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's first reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — Mr. Rice is quite generous this morning. He has 
 kindly tendered me just twenty minutes of his hour ; rather, I presume, as 
 a bonus than that I should assist him in proving his proposition. The 
 affirmative does not suit my friend. He soon gets out of breath. To 
 deny is easy, but to prove is hard : hie labor hoc opus est. Aye, this is 
 the drudgery, this is the toil. The onus probandi is, to some minds, a 
 burdensome affair ; especially when the case is knotty and rugged, as at 
 present. It is rolling a large rock up a steep hill. He proposes to prove that 
 the administrator of baptism must always be an ordained elder or bishop. 
 
 I did expect, however, the form of argument, the appearance of proof; 
 especially as this has long been a darling topic to the priesthood, to the 
 clergy, descended in any way from the family and lineage of Gregory 
 XVI. I need not tell you, my friends, that the failure has been as com- 
 plete in argument, as in filling up his time. You have all heard the 
 head and front of his proof, and you all can witness that he has not ad- 
 duced one " Thus saith the Lord;" one precept or precedent from the 
 Bible in proof of his proposition. That the gentleman should have spo- 
 ken to you forty minutes without quoting one verse in proof of his posi- 
 
576 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 tion, is my first argument that the ground he assumes is untenable, whol- 
 ly untenable. He has, in the most satisfactory way, disproved his pro- 
 position. He sought, to fill up his time, and to amuse you, by reading 
 various extracts from my correspondents and my writings. But it did 
 not take. The amusement was all in his oWn imagination. Whoever 
 read of a minor child baptizing a minor ! It was too extravagant, even 
 to amuse. He is creating a phantom, that he may destroy it. Our views 
 have done no such mischief. I have, indeed, an easy task — nothing to 
 do on this question ; no arguments to repel, no facts to oppose. Still I 
 must speak for an hour ; and as I shall not find very much claiming my 
 attention in what was said, I must draw upon my own resources. His 
 observations were sometimes just. He said that baptism was impor- 
 tant to the subject and to the church. It adds another to her members, 
 and only such as the Lord approves should be admitted. Well, now, if 
 such may be the dangers to the individual and the church, from an im- 
 prudent and unauthorized administrator ; if both parties may suffer so 
 much from an improper baptism, how does this reasoning bear upon the 
 former questions of debate ? How does it affect the infant and the 
 church? The gentleman does not see where the logic strikes. He has 
 wounded his own cause in this remark, more than he can aid this assump- 
 tion of the clergy. He argues, that the mal-administration of baptism, on 
 the part of some novice, may subject the person baptized to an eternal 
 injury. Of course, that must arise from his ignorance and unbelief. 
 What a wound has he thus inflicted on the whole Presbyterian church ! 
 Had I said, that it is possible, through the ignorance and unbelief of the 
 subjeet, to subject him to an eternal detriment; I might have been accused 
 of the want of charity. But when Mr. Rice thus admits the hazard to 
 the individuals and the church from the baptism of improper subjects, 
 does he not more than substantiate all that I have said against infant bap- 
 tism, as corrupting to the church and injurious to the child? For can 
 there be any person less qualified for baptism, than those wholly destitute 
 of knowledge and of faith? In the report of additions made to the 
 church of my friend last year, I observed three hundred and sixty-five 
 infants were discipled. Were not they added without knowing anything 
 at all of the meaning of the ordinance ? And are they not consequently 
 exposed to the danger and jeopardy of which he has been speaking? 
 Now I contend, that inasmuch as the ordained elders of the church do 
 thus injudiciously administer baptism, they are fully as dangerous to the 
 church and to the individuals as those minors, concerning whom the gen- 
 tleman drew so largely upon his imagination, who should, with all pre- 
 sumption, administer the ordinance to improper subjects. His argument, 
 then, in this case, is doubly fatal : it is fatal to the cause of infant bap- 
 tism, and fatal to the ordained eldership. But it will be said, the gentle- 
 man quoted one verse. Yes — but that verse was not to the point. He 
 quoted a verse on which prelates depend for their glebes, and popes for 
 their thrones. A verse, indeed, containing a commission to apostles, but 
 mentioning neither bishop, elder, nor deacon ; consequently, not pointing 
 out any of their duties. The gentleman's logic in this case, resembles 
 that of a captain, who, when asked for his commission, refers to that of 
 a general. By what kind of logic does a captain's commission prove 
 that he had to perform the duties of a general ? Precisely so, our friend, 
 Mr. Rice, when asked for a commission authorizing him, as a bishop, to 
 baptize, throws down that of an apostle. 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 577 
 
 But I have said that the gentleman has not quoted a verse on the sub- 
 ject before him. We have no controversy about apostles, but we have 
 about bishops, deacons, and private members. He must show, in all 
 logic and in all law, a commission authorizing bishops or elders to bap- 
 tize, before he asks for a commission for a deacon or private member to 
 baptize. His loose declamations about civil officers, and the necessity 
 of them, &c, is wholly inapposite and inconclusive here. They have 
 commissions, and can show them. This apostolic commission, he very 
 well knows, has been claimed by the popes ; and Protestants have, in all 
 times, opposed their pretensions. Now, every argument urged by them 
 against the lordly pretensions of the pontiffs, equally bears against his as- 
 sumption. They argue that apostles were a class of officers not designed 
 nor needed to be continued; that their office and work was incommuni- 
 cable, consequently intransmissible to successors. All Protestants agree 
 that apostles neither had, nor could have successors. They derived their 
 commission direct from heaven, and held it from the Lord in person. I 
 presume and hope, that I shall not have to argue this question here ; and 
 yet it would seem as if Mr. R. holds his claim on apostolic grounds, 
 offering, in proof, an apostolic commission. If he persists in this, we 
 shall require of him to show that apostles could have successors ; whether 
 they were needed; and then, whether we have any possessed of plenipo- 
 tentiary powers. 
 
 Some years ago, when matters were in their incipiency here, I deliver- 
 ed several discourses on the subject of this commission ; setting forth 
 the important fact—that in the commencement of all institutions, extraor- 
 dinary ministers, and agencies had been employed, because always neces- 
 sary. Creation and providence are different works — essentially different, 
 and fully represent what we mean. Moses and the apostles were crea- 
 tors of new institutions. But other classes of officers, priests, judges, 
 ministers, of various orders and courses, preserve, manage and direct 
 them. The creators have no successors— they cannot have. Their work 
 is soon done. God created the present heavens and earth in six days ; 
 but how many agencies have been employed in preserving them during 
 six thousand years ? 
 
 Mr. Rice ought to have set the matter more clearly and logically be- 
 fore us. He ought to have shown us the different work and character 
 of ambassadors, prime functionaries, ministers extraordinary, such as 
 law-givers, apostles, and prophets, in contrast with the work and offices 
 of ordinary ministers, such as bishops, evangelists, and deacons ; calling 
 them by scriptural names, and opening out their respective duties. Again, 
 he ought to have shown the difference between what is requisite to the 
 validity of ordinances, and what is merely necessary to the good order of 
 christian communities ; and then, perhaps, there would not only have 
 been a clearer intelligence of the question in issue, but also, very proba- 
 bly, an agreement in all that is essential to the prosperity and happiness 
 of the church. I may do this for him, perhaps, by reading an extract 
 from a Presbyterian paper, the Protestant and Herald, of his own church, 
 under date of October 26. It is a communication from a Mr. Smith. 
 Under the caption of the "Ordination of Calvin," the question was, and 
 yet is, whether John Calvin, one of the founders of Presbyterian power, 
 was ever, himself, ordained to the office of an elder or bishop ? a ques- 
 tion, by the way, which seems highly doubtful — much more so than I 
 had formerly been accustomed to think. After giving the views and doc- 
 37 3C 
 
578 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 trines of several Presbyterians on the subject of ordination, the writer 
 goes on to show, that ordination does not confer validity on the adminis- 
 tration of the ordinances and observances of the church ; but is simply 
 necessary to secure good order and decency in the observance of them<. 
 My text is in the following words : " Ordination by the imposition of 
 hands, is not essential to the validity of church ordinances, but for the 
 regularity and good order of the christian community." [We are sorry 
 to say that we have lost the copy of the above newspaper, from which 
 those extracts were read, and can therefore only give the substance, from 
 our notes, as argued in the debate.] It is conceded, that whether Calvin 
 was ordained or not, is entirely immaterial ; that ordination is not neces- 
 sary to give either efficacy or validity to any christian ordinance. It is 
 only essential to having the ordinances duly kept, and properly attended 
 to ; and that, therefore, it is not a question at all affecting validity, but 
 order and propriety of administration. 
 
 As we desire to furnish elements of thought for those who can think, 
 and desire to think for themselves, I shall treat the audience to a more 
 rich and valuable extract from the pen of the aforesaid good Dr. Carson, 
 of Tubermore, Ireland ; from whose learned Baptist pen, so profoundly 
 immersed in Grecian lore and hoary antiquity, Mr. Rice has learned and 
 quoted so much. Mr. Carson is a good, orthodox Baptist minister, whom 
 I have seen and heard in my youthful days. He is the pastor of a country 
 congregation of several hundred members, who practice weekly commu- 
 nion, and, also, to some extent, free communion. He is a clear, argu- 
 mentative, and vigorous speaker ; more distinguished for acuteness and 
 profoundness, than for eloquence. He is so orthodox as to be often 
 called upon, on great occasions, such as anniversaries, pentecosts, and 
 jubilees, by the Established Church, and by Dissenters of different com- 
 munions. I believe he does not like me very well, because he took it 
 into his head that I must be (from various evil reports) imbued with Uni- 
 tarianism ; but, on this point, I am just as orthodox as he is, and as ver- 
 acious and unambiguous, also. He is, indeed, a paragon of orthodoxy ; 
 is sometimes annually sent for to preach in London and in Edinburgh. 
 But here comes an extract from a jubilee sermon : 
 
 " The duty of exertion to propagate the gospel extends to all christians 
 without exception. Every christian is a soldier, and every christian soldier 
 must fight to put his Lord in possession of his rightful dominions. More 
 is required of some than of others, but something is required of every one. 
 The great body of christians may not be able to address public assemblies, 
 but there is not one of them who may not tell his neighbor the way to 
 heaven. Cannot the simplest man make known to others the ground on 
 which he rests his own hope of salvation 1 If he knows the truth so. as to 
 be saved by it, he may declare it to others so as to save them. What can 
 make it improper for an uneducated man to speak to his companions on the 
 one thing needful 1 Can he speak to them on matters of worldly business, 
 and can he not speak to them on the truth that saves the soul 8 Can he 
 teach the mysteries of his trade, and can he not teach the way in which 
 God's justice and mercy harmonize in the justification of the ungodly by 
 faith in Christ Jesus 1 
 
 Uneducated christians, even the poorest, have in private life more favora- 
 ble opportunities of communicating the gospel to their associates, than the 
 most learned and the most elevated in rank. The manners of the world 
 make it difficult, if not impossible, to introduce the gospel into certain cir- 
 cles. When the rich wish to preach the gospel, they must in general go to 
 the poor They seldom have access to the ear of their own circle. Even 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 579 
 
 the highest christian nobility will find their efforts impeded by innumerable 
 obstacles in the forms of life in the upper ranks. When God designed that 
 Caesar and the mighty men of Rome should hear the gospel of Paul, he sent 
 him as a prisoner to stand for his life before the emperor. Had Paul gone 
 to Rome as a preacher, though he had been a Demosthenes, he might never 
 have gained a hearing from Csssar. Priests and princes would have repre- 
 sented him merely as a fanatic, and the ear of majesty might never have 
 heard the gospel from his lips. In proportion to a man's elevation in rank 
 is he shut out from the gospel; and in this respect the poor have the high- 
 est privileges. They hear and are saved, while the rich and the mighty 
 perish without hearing it, though it may sound every where around them. 
 How is this manifested and confirmed by town missionaries ! The word of 
 life can be sent into the hovels of vice, while the lordly palace, which has 
 perhaps more need of it, must be passed by. The poor are always accessi- 
 ble, and the poorest christian may have, every day, opportunities of declar- 
 ing the truth, from which the highest christian may be excluded. If the 
 people about him are wicked, still he may find means to gain their ear 
 about the value of the soul, and the redemption that is in Christ. The 
 poorest and weakest member of a church may have access to innumerable 
 persons from whom the pastor is entirely shut out, and will be heard when 
 the pastor would give intolerable offence. 
 
 The deadly heresy which confines the preaching of the gospel to office 
 conveyed by a certain succession, is an infernal machine for destroying the 
 souls of men. It is one of the great artifices of Satan to spike the cannon 
 on the gospel batteries. What can more effectually serve the kingdom of 
 light? But it is as unscriptural as it is irrational. The scriptures know 
 nothing of such a succession. It is the invention of the man of sin, calcu- 
 lated to extinguish the light, and promote the empire of darkness. And 
 whatever may be the mode of conveying office, the preaching of the gospel, 
 either publicly or privately, is not confined to office. Every christian has a 
 right to preach the gospel, and according to his opportunities and his abili- 
 ties it is his duty to preach it. This vile dogma of Oxford is self-evidently 
 false. If the gospel is true, can there be any danger of sin in proclaiming 
 its truths'? If the gospel is salvation, and if God wills the salvation of 
 men, can it be sinful to tell them of that which saves from hell) What 
 would you think of a senator who should rise up in the British senate house, 
 declaring that no watchmen ought to be employed in the city of London but 
 those who have a regular succession from the watchmen who lived at the 
 foundation of the city, and that, though the city were fired at innumerable 
 points, no man had a right to cry, < Fire ! fire!' but the legal watchmen) 
 It is only in religion that the effusions of folly and absurdity are dignified 
 as wisdom." 
 
 I have read this pithy extract from the Millenial Harbinger, from which 
 there are so many excellent things read you by my worthy friend — and 
 in which there are many other good things to be read by others as well 
 as he ; and, I hope, for other purposes. The doctrine of the extract, my 
 readers need not be told, is mine. I subscribe to it every word, and have 
 long since, even in the days of the Christian Baptist, expressed them 
 under other images. 
 
 That the official grace and jus divinum of the clergy, is a gratuitous 
 assumption, I believe all sensible men of much intelligence very well 
 know. I do certainly know it, and have long since exposed it : still I am 
 a cordial friend of good order and of a christian ministry. As Mr. R. 
 has preceded my way into political society, I will take a little excursion 
 with him, and endeavor to illustrate my position, by a very intelligible 
 comparison or two. 
 
 Man, in the state of nature, if any one ever saw him there, is a very 
 
580 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 free and sovereign kind of a dependent. He is as free as Ishmael, 
 though the slave of a hundred wants and tyrannic passions ; but, like 
 the deer of the forest, he roams at large. At last, tired of his wanderings 
 over nature's wilds, he courts society, and would fondly purchase it at 
 some price. He is asked to surrender so many of his assumed natural 
 and inalienable rights and liberties, for the sake of other advantages found 
 in the fellowship and intercommunication of co-ordinate beings. He 
 agrees to sell so many rights for so many privileges. The bargain is 
 now closed, and is called a constitution. From the day it is signed, he 
 uses those surrendered rights no more. To use those sold rights, would 
 now be politically wrong. He has got for them a full price, and there- 
 fore they are no longer his. He still reserves the right of looking at 
 the sun, of breathing the air, of eating and drinking earth's bounties, of 
 walking on the earth, at least on the high-roads. He claims as much of 
 mother earth as he can cover with his person, and never parts with the 
 power of talking, nor sells the dear liberty of speech. But the law-giv- 
 ing power, with the power of judging and government, he has sold ; and 
 therefore, he can, of right, use these functions no more, unless they are 
 granted to him by the persons with whom he has identified his fortunes. 
 
 From the moment the social compact political is formed, society being 
 organized, its organs dispense all its special privileges according to lav/. 
 Then no man takes upon himself any honor, office, or work, without a 
 special call and appointment. Just so is it in the church. 
 
 When there is no church, but disciples of Christ scattered abroad, not 
 organized, there can be no officers. When then any one desires baptism, 
 any one to whom he applies may administer it. When a few brethren 
 in one family, or neighborhood, organize themselves to meet once a week 
 to shew forth the Lord's death, to read the Scriptures, sing and pray 
 together, having no ordained officer among them, they appoint one of 
 themselves, to break "the loaf of blessings," and to distribute "the cup 
 of salvation." All this the New Testament, reason, common sense 
 approve. But when societies are formed, christian communities created, 
 and a church organization established by agreement ; then, indeed, all 
 offices are filled by the voice and ordination of the people. When that 
 is accomplished, no one has a right, either inherent, natural, or divine, to 
 discharge social duties, without a call and appointment from his compeers 
 and associates. Do not Presbyterians, sensible, intelligent Presbyterians, 
 assent to these views? I sincerely think they do. They have no faith in 
 the doctrine of hereditary grace — of official power transmitted from age to 
 age, through the leaky and crazy corporations of human bodies. Sup- 
 pose a solitary Testament was borne on the wings of the wind to some 
 savage island, filled with inhabitants. A first picks it up, reads, under- 
 stands it, believes it. He communicates its intelligence to B, C, and D ; 
 they also receive it with joy. Presently, the hills and dales echo with 
 the name of the Lord. They tell the glad tidings. Hundreds believe ; 
 they baptise them — consecrate them. They all decide that Christianity is 
 essentially a social system ; that its tendency is to form a grand commu- 
 nity — intelligent, pure, holy, happy, and co-extensive with humanity. 
 Sown as they have organized and understood their calling, they elect and 
 solemnly devote to the work by prayer and the imposition of the hands of 
 a few, appointed by the many, A, B, C, and D, to the work of the min- 
 istry among them, in whatever departments of labor they may require. 
 Henceforth all public social duties are performed by this ministry, whom 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 581 
 
 practice makes more perfect in the work. These persons publicly 
 preach, baptize, or preside in their assemblies, teach and govern, as the 
 case may be. 
 
 I aim not at a perfect picture ; I only give a sketch, a rude outline, 
 that my views and my argument, or rather objection, to the position of 
 Mr. R., may be appreciated. I do not say his arguments, but his posi- 
 tion ; for argument, or proof, from him I have not yet heard. 
 
 These views must be, perhaps they are already, approved by my 
 Presbyterian friends. My regular readers will recognize them, as hav- 
 ing been taught by me from my first visit to this commonwealth. They 
 are held in various forms in the Christian Baptist. I am peculiarly grat- 
 ified to say, that they are views very generally diffused throughout this 
 great continent, and especially, to have recently read them from the pen 
 of one of the greatest men of the age — and a very high functionary in the 
 Episcopal church of England — no less a man than archbishop Whateley, 
 of the province of Dublin; whose fame as a scholar is in all our colleges, 
 and as a nervous, vigorous, and clear writer, has few superiors at the 
 present time. I shall read a few pages from his recent work on the 
 kingdom of Christ. I adopt it as a part of my argument, and commend 
 it especially to my Episcopal and Presbyterian friends in Kentucky, and 
 every where. 
 
 " Suppose, for instance, a number of emigrants, bound for some colony, to 
 be shipwrecked on a desert island, such as afforded them means of subsist- 
 ence, but precluded all reasonable hope of their quitting it: or suppose them 
 to have taken refuge there as fugitives from intolerable oppression, or from 
 a conquering enemy, (no uncommon case in ancient times): or to be the 
 Bole survivors of a pestilence or earthquake which had destroyed the rest of 
 the nation: no one would maintain that these shipwrecked emigrants or 
 fugitives were bound, or were permitted, to remain — themselves and their 
 posterity — in a state of anarchy, on the ground of there being no one among 
 them who could claim hereditary or other right to govern them. It would 
 clearly be right, and wise, and necessary, that they should regard them- 
 selves as constituted, by the very circumstances of their position, a civil 
 community; and should assemble to enact such laws, and appoint such 
 magistrates, as they might judge most suitable to their circumstances. 
 And obedience to those laws and governors, as soon as the constitution was 
 settled, would become a moral duty to all the members of the community : 
 and this, even though some of the enactments might appear, or might be 
 (though not at variance with the immutable laws of morality, yet) conside- 
 rably short of perfection. The king, or other magistrates thus appointed, 
 would be legitimate rulers ; and the laws framed by them, valid and bind- 
 ing. The precept of ' submitting to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's 
 sake,' and of ' rendering to all, their due,' would apply in this case as com- 
 pletely as in respect of any civil community that exists." — Wliateley's 
 Kingdom of Christ, New York, 1843, 12mo. p. 193. 
 
 " But it would be absurd to maintain, that men placed in such a situation 
 as has been here supposed are to be shut out, generation after generation, 
 from the christian ordinances and the gospel covenant. Their circum- 
 stances would constitute them (as many as could be brought to agree in the 
 essentials of faith and christian worship) a christian community; and would 
 require them to do that which, if done without such necessity, would be 
 schismatical. To make regulations for the church thus constituted, and to 
 appoint as its ministers the fittest persons that could be found among them, 
 and to celebrate the christian rites, would be a proceeding not productive, 
 as in the other case, of division, but of union. And it would be a compli- 
 ance — clearly pointed out to them by the providence which had placed them 
 in that situation — with the manifest will of our Heavenly Master, that 
 
 3c2 
 
582 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 christians should live in a religious community, under such officers and such 
 regulations as are essential to the existence of every community. 
 
 To say that christian ministers thus appointed would be, to all intents 
 and purposes, real legitimate christian ministers, and that the ordinances 
 of such a church would be no less valid ana 1 efficacious (supposing always 
 that they are not in themselves superstitious and unscriptural) than those 
 of any other church, is merely to say in other words that it would be a real 
 christian church ; possessing consequently, in common with all communities 
 of whatever kind, the essential rights of a community to have officers and 
 by-laws ; and possessing also, in common with all christian communities, 
 (z. e. churches) the especial sanction of our Lord,, and his promise of ratify- 
 ing (' binding in heaven') its enactments. 
 
 It really does seem not only absurd, but even impious, to represent it as 
 the Lord's will, that persons who are believers in his gospel should, in con- 
 sequence of the circumstances in which his Providence has placed them, 
 condemn themselves and their posterity to live as heathens, instead of con- 
 forming as closely as those circumstances will allow to the institutions and 
 directions of Christ and his apostles, by combining themselves into a chris- 
 tian society, regulated and conducted, in the best way they can, on gospel 
 principles. And if such a society does enjoy the divine blessing and favor, 
 it follows that its proceedings, its enactments, its officers, are legitimate 
 and apostolical, as long as they are conformable to the principles which the 
 apostles have laid down and recorded for our use : even as those (of what- 
 ever race ' after the flesh') who embraced and faithfully adhered to the gos- 
 pel, were called by the apostle ' Abraham's seed,' and ' the Israel of God.' 
 
 The ministers of such a church as I have been supposing, would rightly 
 claim ' apostolical succession,' because they would rightfully hold the same 
 ojjice which the apostles conferred on those ' elders whom they ordained in 
 every city.' And it is impossible for any one of sound mind seriously to 
 believe that the recognition of such claims, in a case like the one here sup- 
 posed, affords a fair precedent for men who should wantonly secede from the 
 church to which they had belonged, and take upon themselves to ordain 
 ministers and form a new and independent church according to their own 
 fancy."— p. 197. 
 
 I will yet read two other extracts : one showing that there is no cer- 
 tainty whatever in any pretended succession from the apostles. A lay- 
 man may have baptized us all, for any thing which the rolls of time or 
 the annals of the church can show. It is a proverb incontrovertibly true, 
 "the stream can rise no higher than the fountain." Myriads of chil- 
 dren, some of whom became priests and Levites, deacons and bishops, 
 were sprinkled by private men and women, during hundreds of years, by 
 the Romanists. There is not a man in Kentucky can trace his baptism 
 back to any thing better than a lay origin, if archbishop Whateley told 
 the truth. 
 
 " If, as has been above remarked, a man is taught that view of apostolical 
 succession which makes every thing depend on the unbroken series between 
 the apostles and the individual minister from whom each man receives the 
 sacraments, or the individual bishop conferring ordination, (a fact which 
 never can be ascertained with certainty,) and he is then presented with 
 proofs, not of this, but of a different fact instead — the apostolical succession, 
 generally, of the great body of the ministers of his church; and if he is 
 taught to acquiesce with consolatory confidence in the regulations and ordi- 
 nances of the church, not on such grounds as have been above laid down, 
 but on the ground of their exact conformity to the model of the ' ancient 
 church,' which exact conformity is in many cases more than can be satis- 
 factorily proved, and in some can be easily disproved; the result of the at- 
 tempt so to settle men's minds must be, with many, the most distressing 
 doubt and perplexity. And others again, when taught to ' blend with Scrip- 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 583 
 
 ture,' as a portion of revelation, the traditions of the first three, or first four, 
 or first seven, or fifteen centuries, may find it difficult to understand when, 
 and where, and why they are to stop short abruptly in the application of the 
 principles they have received: why, if one general council is to be admit- 
 ted as having divine authority to bind the conscience and supersede private 
 judgment, another is to be rejected by private judgment ; and that too by the 
 judgment of men who are not agreed with each other, or even with them- 
 selves, whether the council of Trent, for instance, is to be regarded as the 
 beginning of the Romish apostasy, or as a promising omen of improvement 
 in the church of Rome. That man must be strangely constituted, who can 
 find consolatory security for his faith in such a guide ; who can derive satis- 
 factory confidence from the oracles of a Proteus V—King. of Christ, p. 205. 
 
 " A member of the Anglican church, (I mean a sincere and thoroughly 
 consistent member of it,) ought to feel a full conviction — and surely there 
 are good grounds for that conviction — both that the reforms they introduced 
 were no more than were loudly called for by a regard for gospel truth ; and 
 that the church, as constituted by them, does possess, in its regulations and 
 its officers, ' apostolical succession,' in the sense in which it is essential 
 that a christian community should possess it, viz. in being a regularly con- 
 stituted christian society, framed in accordance with the fundamental prin- 
 ciples taught by the apostles and their great Master. 
 
 Successors, in the apostolic office, the apostles have none. As witnesses 
 of the resurrection, as dispensers of miraculous gifts, as inspired oracles of 
 divine revelation, they have no successors. But as members, as ministers, as 
 governors of christian communities, their successors are the regularly ad- 
 mitted members, the lawfully ordained ministers, the regular and recog- 
 nized governors, of a regularly subsisting christian church ; especially of a 
 church which, conforming in fundamentals, — as I am persuaded ours does, — 
 to gospel principles, claims and exercises no rights beyond those which 
 have the clear sanction of our great Master, as being essentially implied in 
 the very character of a community." — pp. 240, 241. 
 
 Here, then, is indisputable evidence from one of the most learned pre- 
 lates of the Church of England, who is a fair exponent of the accumula- 
 ted intelligence of that enlightened community — a community as well 
 read in the true archeology of Christianity as any church establishment in 
 the world, that ordination descent from apostolic times is a mere figment 
 of the human brain, and that no such doctrine is taught in the Bible. 
 With archbishop Whateley, we say — "that a regularly constituted chris- 
 tian society, framed in accordance with the fundamental principles taught 
 us by the apostles, and their great Master," has the only true, real apos- 
 tolic succession of divine authenticity, and, therefore, we, as a christian 
 community, have it, 
 
 Whenever, then, a christian community legitimately arises out of such 
 circumstances, as already described, sanctioned by the New Testament — 
 that is, holding the same doctrines and ordinances, customs and usages, 
 when it appoints officers, and when they dispense ordinances, they are 
 as divine and authoritative as any other officers and ordinances in any 
 christian community on earth. This, we regard, as our true position as 
 a community of churches — and all those passages read from our writings 
 in their contextual meaning, do neither more nor less than set forth these 
 views with a reference to christian society and its various circumstances. 
 
 Among the eccentricities of orthodoxy, I am called to notice one that 
 is not among the least. Mr. Rice said something about graceless men, 
 wicked knaves or hypocrites, that might baptize thousands under our 
 system of operations. Well ; exaggeration does better in poetry than in 
 prose, and in florid and highly impassioned eloquence than in a frigid 
 
584 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 and dry logical analysis. But to afford the gentleman all the advantages 
 of his hypothesis, admit some persons possessing true faith were baptized 
 by graceless administrators ; what then? Would official grace, his eccle- 
 siastic authority, have made it any better ? And more important still — 
 would the faith, piety, and benefit of the subject, be either injured or an- 
 nihilated by the character of the administrator ! ! But yet the eccentricity 
 is not fully stated Ordained men, I mean in Mr. Rice's own views of 
 ordination, are sometimes graceless men. And private members are 
 sometimes men of unquestionable piety and moral worth. Now, sup- 
 pose an unordained saint baptize A B, and an ordained reprobate baptize 
 C D, why should the want of ordination on the part of the saint im- 
 pair his act ; and the want of piety on the part of the sinner, not impair 
 his act ? Is not that to place official grace above the true and real grace 
 of God ? Bring up the case before judge Orthodoxy, and he will decide 
 for the official against the real grace of God, so far as the act of officiation 
 is concerned ; and hence many would rather take the eucharist loaf from 
 the hands of a church dignitary, though evidently graceless, than from the 
 hands of a saint of the purest excellence, on whose pate was not laid the 
 hands of some prelate or presbytery. Protestants have sometimes said, 
 that as christian ordinances receive not any virtue, neither do they lose 
 any efficacy or spiritual benefit, from the hands of him that does adminis- 
 ter them. So I teach. 
 
 With regard to the extracts read from the Millenial Harbinger, as usual, 
 they are misapplied. The very commencement of them indicates that, 
 viz : " There is no law in the christian Scriptures authorizing any one 
 class of citizens in the christian kingdom to immerse to the exclusion 
 of any other class of citizens. Apostles, evangelists, deacons, and un- 
 official persons are all represented as immersing, when occasion called 
 for it." Now, the question here is not about adults and minors — nor 
 about males and females, but about classes of persons. It is not sexes 
 nor ages, nor conditions, but classes of persons — apostles, evangelists, 
 deacons, and unofficial persons. We affirm that there were no classes. 
 We have given " express precedents" of all classes baptizing, and that is 
 all our principles call for. Whether intentional or not, a person may 
 read extracts so as not to give a fair representation of the views of a wri- 
 ter. We never, by word or action, sanctioned either females or minors 
 as baptists. These come not under the head of those classes of which 
 we were writing. We spoke of official classes. We have laymen, and 
 deacons, deaconesses, elders, evangelists, pastors, besides apostles and 
 prophets. There is no " Thus saith the Lord," in precept nor precedent, 
 conferring baptism to, nor enjoining it upon, any one of these classes. 
 Mr. Rice cannot shew a case, not one word or example of the sort, in the 
 whole New Testament. I challenge him to produce one single verse, 
 containing in it a clear, or even an obscure " Thus saith the Lord" I 
 predict he will not even make the attempt. He need not tell you it is not 
 necessary, for it is necessary ; especially in the case of a bishop. That is 
 essential to his affirmation. 
 
 I call upon Mr. Rice to furnish any precept in the New Testament 
 authorizing or enjoining a bishop or an elder to baptize any one. I call 
 upon him to produce an example of a bishop or an elder baptizing, as 
 such, officially, if he pleases. He cannot do it. Now, the proposition 
 which he has undertaken to sustain, calls for this. He affirms that an 
 ordained bishop or elder has a right to administer the ordinance of bap- 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 585 
 
 tism. He affirms more than that — for he undertakes to prove that only 
 he has a right to baptize. If he cannot prove the first, certainly he can- 
 not prove the second. Well, now, it lies upon him by every principle of 
 logic, of reason, and of law to produce their commission. I will admit 
 that such a commission will settle the matter, if it only says in effect — 
 Let the elders baptize. I have said he can produce no example of any 
 bishop baptizing any one as such ; nor a precept so enjoining ; and, there- 
 fore, it is impossible to prove that they only have a right to baptize. / 
 care not about views of expediency, I go for law. But he delights in 
 forming and displaying extreme cases of the extension or of the abuse of 
 a principle. He will have boys baptizing men, and females baptizing 
 females, as the result of a universal license. We, however, neither ac- 
 knowledge nor grant such licenses. Yet I would like to put an extreme 
 case : — Here is a father of fifty, with a son of fifteen, who have just 
 escaped to a desert island from the wreck of a ship. They have carried 
 with them a Bible. The son had been baptized and was a member of 
 church one year before he was taken by his father to sea. The old gen- 
 tleman had long been a sceptic. His misfortunes brought him to reflect, 
 and called his attention to the Bible. His daily readings and the conver- 
 sation and excellent demeanor of his son, overcame his scepticism. The 
 Lord opened his mind, he believed the gospel, and became anxious to be 
 baptized. After much deliberation and painful reflection upon his cir- 
 cumstances, he one day asked his son to accompany him to the sea-shore 
 and baptize him. He did so. Was it wrong? 
 
 I am now prepared to say, in view of all the circumstances, that it was 
 right, perfectly right. But now suppose any one should publish through 
 this community that I taught that boys might baptize men, and sons their 
 parents ; and that I said that persons might be so appointed by churches ; 
 would that person do me justice or injustice? would he publish truth or 
 falsehood ? The principle involved in this case will one day condemn 
 many for their very injurious calumnies and slanders, based on still more 
 slender and unjustifiable grounds. 
 
 The ease of *Roger Williams and eleven others with him, was brought 
 forward the other day. There was not an immersed believer in all Pro- 
 vidence plantation, in all the district of country known to any of this lit- 
 tle band of believers. The question with them was, " What shall we 
 do ? We all believe the gospel, we all desire to be baptized, but there 
 is no one to baptize us. Shall we go or send one to England to 
 be immersed, and await his return, or now immediately baptize each 
 other and form a church?" They decided to obey the Lord promptly. 
 One of the twelve immersed Roger Williams, then Williams immersed 
 the eleven. So commenced American immersion ! Well, now, I am such 
 a radical, and yet I go as much for order as any man; I fearlessly give 
 my opinion that they did right. Mr. Rice, probably, would have got up 
 a mission, and despatched one of the company to Rome, or Constantino- 
 ple, or London, and imported official grace ! They obeyed common 
 sense and the Bible, and left behind them a noble triumph of mental in- 
 dependence. Had the patriarch of Constantinople, or the pope of Rome, 
 or his grace the archbishop of Canterbury, been present, or any other 
 ecclesiastic in the world, and performed the service, it would, to say the 
 least, have been no better done. But if asked, would such a course 
 of things be orderly or christian-like, at this time, in this country ? I de- 
 cidedly say, No : it would be superlatively incongruous and disorderly. 
 
586 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Simpletons and odd fellows always argue from extreme cases. Supreme 
 necessity gives law, and incontrollable circumstances must control us. Our 
 method is, so far as known to me : churches appoint all their officers, 
 their bishops, deacons, and evangelists. They authorize some one to be 
 the baptist for the congregation. Sometimes, generally indeed, he is the 
 evangelist, or an elder, or a deacon ; he is, for the most part, some one of 
 the ministry of the church. Comes it not, however, with an ill grace 
 from Mr. R., to be fastidious about the administrator of baptism ; com- 
 ing as it does in room of circumcision ? The gentleman adroitly converts 
 all my allusions to the action or subject of baptism into a proof of my 
 not being satisfied with the discussion of them. This is to prevent the 
 proper use of them as illustrations, and, indeed, as part of the evidence 
 of the design of baptism. I have not, however, exhausted any of these 
 subjects by a great deal. Enough, indeed, has been said to meet the case 
 and dispose of all that was alledged on the opposite side. Such, at least, 
 is my opinion. 
 
 I will, then, recur to circumcision for an illustration of the case before 
 us. The gentleman will have baptism in place of circumcision. Now, 
 as Zipporah circumcised the son of Moses, and parents generally circum- 
 cised their children, why be so fastidious about the administrator of bap- 
 tism ? So complaisant am I, for the sake of argument, I will make another 
 extreme case. Suppose two ladies in a foreign land, one a christian, the 
 other not, should be sold into slavery among Turks, or pagans as barba- 
 rous as they. Their misfortunes soften the heart of the non-professor, 
 and become a cause of her devotion to the Bible. She believes and re- 
 pents. At her earnest solicitation her companion baptizes her, and she 
 assumes the christian profession. Certainly Mr. Rice, with mother Zip- 
 porah in his eye, will not demur ! I will not repudiate even this extreme 
 case. I am of the opinion it was all right. But who thence infers, 
 that I would license the sisters to baptize, does me no more justice than 
 Mr. Rice. 
 
 These concessions are free-will offerings, uncalled for ; but I desire to 
 express more fully than on any previous occasion, my liberty in the gos- 
 pel, and also my devotion to the most perfect good order in the christian 
 community. I must then add, that those things, lawful and expedient in 
 extreme cases, would, in my judgment, be both unlawful and inexpedi- 
 ent in our circumstances. Still, be it observed, that the efficacy and 
 salutary power of ordinances is in God and in the recipient, not in the 
 human mediator. The faith and preparation of heart, on the part of the 
 recipient, is every thing ; and the Lord's promises are to him directly, 
 without any human instrumentality. 
 
 You will recollect that Mr. Rice read some extracts from Perrin, or 
 some other historian, on the subject of succession, and made an attack 
 upon the reputation of Mr. Jones, the Baptist historian, whose history of 
 the "Waldenses I commended some years ago, over whose shoulders the 
 gentleman, in his friendship, hurled a javelin at me, for the sin of recom- 
 mending said work, because it had traced up, or furnished a part of the 
 train of succession of baptized churches, from the christian era to the 
 present day. The work was first introduced and recommended to the 
 community by elder Spencer Cone, of New York. I recommended, and 
 still recommend it, not because of any particular respect for its author, 
 nor from any indebtedness to the Baptists that introduced it : for neither 
 Mr. Jones nor they have any claims upon my generosity whatever. It 
 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 587 
 
 was then a tribute to truth, and to the oppressed cause of the only true 
 baptism. But I did not happen to have the proper documents before me 
 the other day, and could not at that time disprove the allegation. 
 
 This Mr. Jones is now charged by Mr. Rice, with a willful, perverse 
 suppression of the truth, and thereby making Perrin bear testimony on 
 the wrong side of the question. 
 
 Before attempting the defence of Mr. Jones from the aspersions thrown 
 upon his reputation, the subject of a succession of churches practicing the 
 christian ordinances, without any connection with the gospel establish- 
 ment — themselves contending for views similar to those I am offering on 
 this subject — demands a remark or two. I make these remarks. 
 
 In reference to the subject of succession as respects the question before 
 us, let me be permitted to say, that since the days of bishop Sylvester 
 till now, there have been immersed multitudes of persons not members 
 of the church of Rome. They have been called by many names, such 
 as Danites, Paulicians, Henricians, Novatians, Petrobrusians, Waldenses, 
 Albigenses, &c, &c. — a mighty host of men, never under the direct influ- 
 ence of popery, who, in all ages, bore their firm and unwavering testi- 
 mony against all its assumptions and pollutions. While the gentleman 
 was telling you the other day, that, on our principles, the church was ex- 
 tinct for ages ; many of you, with myself, were no doubt amazed at his 
 inadvertence to those millions that opposed papal aggrandizement, and hu- 
 man tradition, down to the time of the reformation. Many have affirm- 
 ed, that Luther and Calvin only translated the views of these witnesses 
 into German and French, and sent them out in a new dress. They say 
 that Savoy and other portions of Europe, long before Protestantism was 
 born, had promulged and sustained all the cardinal truths, and more truth 
 than was ever recognized by any Protestant throne or kingdom. Highly 
 as I esteem the Protestant reformation, and the mighty men of that day, 
 I esteem others more than they. These men originated nothing; but 
 they concentrated and variously embodied and reproduced, in new and 
 impressive forms, the tenets of Protestants, in fact, who had lived and died 
 centuries before they were born. Still they were God's chosen vessels 
 to accomplish at the proper time a mighty moral revolution, whose mighty 
 sway and extended empire over the human mind and the destinies of the 
 world, have not yet been fully appreciated. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 25 — 12 o'clock, M. 
 [mr. rice's second address.] 
 Mr. President — Before entering upon the discussion of the subject 
 under consideration, I wish to make a remark or two respecting Mr. 
 Jones' history, which has been again brought up by my friend. In 
 all the discussions in which I have engaged, I have met with nothing 
 which has so much astonished me as the course now pursued by Mr. 
 Campbell, in introducing Mr. Jones and his documents on the present 
 occasion. As an apology for this singular conduct, he told you, that I 
 read something from Jones on the doctrine of succession. This, how- 
 ever, is not the fact. I read not one word from Jones on this subject; 
 not a word. Moreover, I have introduced nothing in my argument, to- 
 day, concerning it. The gentleman might as well talk about the moun- 
 tains in the moon, as about the doctrine of succession, in connection with 
 the subject now under discussion. Nor have I read, in your hearing, 
 any thing from Jones, on the question, whether baptism is to be admin- 
 
588 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 istered only by an ordained minister. I read from Jones, a paragraph, to 
 prove that in quoting Perrin's history, he left out what related to infant 
 baptism, and inserted in its place, " baptism according to the primitive 
 church." I have repeatedly expressed the conviction, that Mr. C. was 
 dissatisfied with his efforts on the subject of infant baptism. Now, if he 
 is anxious to discuss that subject again, let him say so, and let the neces- 
 sary arrangements be made. I do protest against the introduction of the 
 subject of infant baptism, whilst another, and totally different subject, is 
 being discussed. I will discuss but one subject at a time. I really pity 
 the cause that requires a man of the standing of my friend to violate our 
 rules, by again introducing, and attempting to discuss a subject, after it 
 has been disposed of. He must, indeed, be in an awful case, that he can- 
 not get along without perpetually harping upon that subject. But, he says, 
 he had not his books when the subject was under discussion. Why did 
 he not have them ? I trust the question of infant baptism, and of the faith 
 of the Waldenses, will not be again introduced, until he is prepared to 
 enter into arrangements for a new discussion of it. He asserts that there 
 were anti-Pedo-baptists in all ages. If this were even true, what has it 
 to do with the proposition now before us ? I would tread the cause of 
 Pedo-baptism under my feet, if I could not defend it without resorting to 
 such means. If it will not bear fair and honorable discussion ; if it cannot 
 be sustained without the violation of the rules which I have bound my- 
 self to regard, I will abandon it forever. I will debate but one subject at 
 a time ; I will not allow myself to be diverted from the proposition before 
 us, to a second debate, on a subject fully discussed several days since. 
 
 I will now resume the discussion. My friend says, that I have pro- 
 duced no passage of Scripture to sustain the proposition that baptism is to 
 be administered only by a bishop or presbyter. The question in debate 
 is not whether ordained ministers may baptize, but whether others, not 
 ordained, are authorized to administer the ordinance? He does not deny 
 that bishops or presbyters have the right to baptize ; but he maintains, 
 that all the members of the church have the same right. If they have, 
 let it be proved ; if my friend cannot find the Scripture authorizing them 
 to baptize, it follows, of course, that lay-baptism is wholly without au- 
 thority ; and if without authority, it is not valid. 
 
 Again ; the question is not, whether a regular succession from the 
 apostles is essential to ordination; but whether private members of the 
 church, persons admitted to be unordained, may administer baptism ? 
 
 My friend says, as soon as a church is organized, it ought to appoint 
 persons to administer the ordinance. This strikes me as being not ex- 
 actly consistent with the sentiments set forth in his Harbinger ; his lan- 
 guage is as follows : " But we might as rationally, and as scripturally, 
 talk about a legal administrator of prayer, of praise, or of any religious 
 service which one can render to, and perform for, another, as for baptism. 
 Expediency, hoivever, may, in some circumstances, decree that persons 
 may be appointed by a congregation to preach and baptized — Millen. 
 Harb. vol. iii. p. 237. Does he here say that suitable persons ought gen- 
 erally, or universally, to be appointed to administer baptism ? No. But 
 he says expediency may, in some circumstances, require such a course. 
 Is this the general law of which he was speaking? 
 
 He says, I misrepresented his views, as expressed in the Harbinger, 
 where he states, that the administration of baptism is not confined to any 
 class of citizens of the kingdom. But the difficulty is, that he contends 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 589 
 
 that females have the right to baptize, and yet acknowledges that he finds 
 neither precept nor example authorizing them to do so. This is not alh 
 He maintains, in so many words, that " there is no law in the christian 
 Scriptures, authorizing any one class of citizens in the christian kingdom 
 to immerse, to the exclusion of any other class of citizens ;" and that 
 " there is neither male nor female in the Lord" — that consequently, a 
 female may immerse a female, " were it to become necessary." 
 
 And now, I ask, who is to judge when circumstances require that 
 females, or other unordained persons, shall baptize? Is the church to be 
 called together, to determine this question ? This is not pretended. Does 
 it not, then, follow, that every one is to judge for himself? If a little 
 girl thinks it right to baptize her little associates; or if a little boy thinks 
 proper to baptize his play-fellows ; or a servant, his fellow-servants ; 
 who, but themselves, is to judge of the circumstances? If the doctrine of 
 Mr. Campbell be true, that every citizen of the kingdom, every church- 
 member has the right to baptize — the license is, of necessity, universal. 
 Each individual must act, in these matters of such momentous interest to 
 the church, and to the eternal happiness of individuals, on his own res- 
 ponsibility. 
 
 But Mr. C. tells us, that no case has ever occurred, of minors under- 
 taking to administer the ordinance of baptism. This may be true ; but 
 it is not because the doctrine he advocates, has prevented it ; but because 
 the people have had better sense than to carry it into practice. It is not 
 the soundness of the doctrine that has prevented his church from being 
 corrupted and disgraced by such disorders ; but the fact, that common 
 prudence has kept the members within narrower bounds than the faith he 
 has inculcated. But when I have shown, that if the doctrine were fully 
 carried out in practice, it would lead to results the most disastrous to the 
 church, as well as to individuals, I have given evidence the most conclu- 
 sive, that it cannot be of divine authority. It will not answer, to say that 
 nobody has yet carried the practice as far as the doctrine authorizes ; that 
 does not prove that the doctrine is sound. I am looking at what would 
 be the result, if it were fully carried out in practice, and showing that 
 evil, and only evil, would result to the church. And Mr. Campbell at- 
 tempts to evade the force of the argument, by saying, those disorders 
 have not actually occurred ! 
 
 The apostolical office, he tells us, is incommunicable ; and the apostles 
 had no successors. This is true, so far as the peculiar circumstances in 
 which they were placed required extraordinary gifts and authority ; but so 
 far as baptizing and preaching are concerned, it is not true. It is admit- 
 ted, that the apostles were ordained to baptize and teach ; this, no one, 
 with the Bible in his hand, can dispute. Nor can it be denied, that those 
 who were ordained by them, were authorized to perform those duties. I 
 do not say, that Timothy and Titus were, in every sense of the word, 
 their successors ; but that they were appointed to teach and baptize, none 
 certainly will deny. 
 
 But I will not discuss the doctrine of the succession, because it is not the 
 question before us. There are two questions confusedly introduced into 
 the gentleman's speech. The first is, whether a regular line of succession 
 from the apostles to the present day, is essential to the validity of ordina- 
 tion; and the second, whether a man must be scripturally ordained, be- 
 fore he is authorized to administer baptism. If you say, that a particular 
 church, assembled for the purpose, has the right to ordain presbyters, I 
 
 3D 
 
590 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 will not oppose it now. If you maintain, that a man is lawfully ordained, 
 when the members of the church set him apart to the ministerial office, so 
 far as this debate is concerned, I will not call in question the correctness 
 of your opinion. But the simple and only question now before us, and 
 the only question I will now discuss, is, whether a man, in order to bap- 
 tize, must be scripturally ordained. Now, all that my friend read from 
 archbishop Whateley, was upon another subject — the doctrine of succes- 
 sion ; and he might as well have read us a dissertation on the mountains 
 of the moon, or the climate and productions of Africa. The archbishop 
 is proving, that a regular succession from the apostles is not necessary to 
 the validity of ordination, and that no man can trace such succession. It 
 is not at all necessary for me to controvert his position. But does he 
 maintain, that every citizen of the kingdom, every church-member, has a 
 right to baptize ? He does not say so. He supposes a company of chris- 
 tians cast upon an island, without an ordained minister, and desiring to 
 enjoy the ordinances of God's house ; and he contends, that ministers ap- 
 pointed by them are lawful ministers. I am not going to dispute the cor- 
 rectness of the position now, though I might on another occasion. The 
 question before us, let me again say, is not how ministers are to be law- 
 fully ordained, but whether, in order to administer baptism, they must be 
 ordained at all. Concerning the question, whether individuals selected 
 and set apart to the office of the ministry, by a company of christians on 
 an island, would be validly ordained, I have nothing to say. But, what- 
 ever scriptural ordination may be, the question is, whether that is neces- 
 sary, or essential to the proper and scriptural administration of baptism. 
 Bishop Whateley is discussing one subject, and we are discussing another. 
 Let us, then, keep distinctly in view, the subject in debate. My friend 
 endeavors to confound these questions, but it is merely to conceal the 
 weakness of his cause. 
 
 Mr. Smyth, from whose writings Mr. Campbell quoted an extract, is, 
 like myself, comparatively a young man. We were in the theological 
 seminary at the same time. I might, perhaps, not agree with every sen- 
 timent contained in the passage quoted. It is, however, of no service to 
 Mr. Campbell's cause. Mr. Smyth expresses the opinion, that the mere 
 ceremony of laying on hands is not essential to the office. There maybe 
 a question, whether the laying on of hands is necessary, or whether the 
 mere selection of men to perform the duties of the office, is sufficient to 
 constitute them ministers of the Gospel ; but that question is not now 
 before us. 
 
 Neither have I any thing to say about Mr. Carson's views of the doc- 
 trine of succession. His bare assertions, however, even if they related to 
 the subject before us, I should not regard as authority. If he will pro- 
 duce the Scriptures in support of his views, I will weigh his arguments 
 with candor; but when he gives his opinion, I am willing to let it go for 
 what it is worth. 
 
 The gentleman is of opinion, that on the subject under discussion he 
 and Presbyterians do not differ very materially. I believe, however, that 
 they do differ from him toto ccelo. They will never admit, that all the 
 members of the church, male and female, old and young, may, under any 
 circumstances, administer the sacrament of baptism. 
 
 By way of illustrating his views, he refers to civil society, and says 
 correctly, that in an unorganized state, individual rights are more exten- 
 sive, than after the civil compact has been formed. In the former he 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 591 
 
 may, of right, do many things which become unlawful, when he has be- 
 come a member of an organized society. I am very much pleased with 
 the illustration. And now, if you can find the period when the christian 
 church was in an unorganized state, I will cheerfully admit, that there 
 has been a time when unordained persons might baptize, as circumstances 
 seemed to require. But the truth is, it never was in an unorganized 
 state. Our Savior, at a very early period in the history of the world, 
 organized his church ; and from that day to this it never has been in an 
 unorganized state ; and consequently there never has been a time when 
 laymen might baptize. I admit that my friend's church is unorganized ; 
 for he has informed us, that such is the fact. And he has been writing 
 and laboring faithfully for two years past to get up an organization of 
 some kind ; but he has not yet succeeded. But the church of Christ is 
 not unorganized. It has never been in an unorganized state. And as in 
 an organized civil society no man may venture to discharge the functions 
 of an office with which he has not been lawfully invested ; so, for reasons 
 far more important, can no man perform the duties of an office in Christ's 
 church, which he has not been appointed to fill. It would be just as pro- 
 per and as lawful for a man, on his own responsibility, to act as sheriff, 
 judge, or president, as for one who is a private member of the church of 
 Christ to officiate either in preaching or baptizing. It is just as right in 
 the one case as in the other. Since the church has been organized, laws 
 enacted, and the necessary officers appointed by the King himself, no in- 
 dividual has a right to perform the duties of an office with which he has 
 not been invested. 
 
 With regard to the supposed case of persons cast upon an island, who 
 might, by accident, find a copy of the New Testament; it is one of those 
 improbable cases, which, so far as my information extends, has never oc- 
 curred, and is never likely to occur. But should such a thing happen, it 
 will then be quite time enough to take it into consideration. 
 
 Jesus Christ does not leave his people to the workings of blind chance. 
 There is a providence over them, special as that which watches the falling 
 of the little sparrow. It is not for us to imagine difficulties which in 
 eighteen hundred years have never occurred, and in all probability never 
 will occur, and undertake to legislate for them. The fact, that no provis- 
 ion seems to have been made by the all- wise Redeemer for such an exi- 
 gency, should be considered a sufficient reason why we may not attempt 
 it. The principles advocated by Whateley may be correct. He does 
 not, however, advocate the doctrine of Mr. C, that every member of the 
 church may baptize and preach, but only such as have been selected and 
 set apart to that office. As before remarked, he was discussing a subject 
 entirely different from that now before us. 
 
 Mr. Campbell considers it a singular paradox in our creed, that we 
 admit the validity of baptism, administered by an unconverted minister, 
 if he be properly ordained, and yet refuse to recognize it when adminis- 
 tered by a pious but unordained man. I should suppose, that, to a man 
 at all acquainted with the most common principles of government, there 
 would appear to be nothing paradoxical in this. Every officer in our 
 civil government ought to be an honest man. Yet if, after a man has 
 been in office for years, it appears, that he was most dishonest and un- 
 worthy of the trust reposed in him, his official acts are as valid in law as 
 if he had been an example of virtue. However unworthy he may be per- 
 sonally, he is rectus in officio — -a lawfully appointed officer. But one of 
 
592 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the most virtuous and worthy private citizens might perform the same 
 official acts, and no one would recognize them as valid in law. This 
 principle is absolutely essential to the order, if not to the very existence, 
 of civil government ; and, for reasons equally clear and no less important, 
 it must be recognized and acted upon in ecclesiastical government. 
 
 I am not able to perceive wherein I either misconceived or misrepre- 
 sented the gentleman in regard to the principles advocated by him in the 
 Harbinger. He now seems disposed to confine the right of females, and 
 other unofficial persons, to baptize, to extreme cases. But it is not so 
 presented in the article from which I read an extract. 
 
 With the case of Roger Williams I am not, at present, concerned. I 
 find nothing in the Scriptures to countenance the singular course pursued 
 by him and his friends. I presume, he had been truly and validly bap- 
 tized before. He became dissatisfied with his baptism ; and this error 
 placed him in the unpleasant predicament. Had he been satisfied with a 
 scriptural baptism, he might have avoided both his difficulties and his 
 absurdities. 
 
 But many persons in this audience, I doubt not, are astonished to find 
 Mr. Campbell abandoning the very fundamental principle of his boasted 
 reformation, which is — to have a "Thus saith the Lord," or a clear 
 scriptural example for every article of faith, or item of practice. One 
 of the prominent and most important articles of his faith is — that every 
 member of the church, male and female, old and young, has the right to 
 administer baptism. On this doctrine he encourages his people, as cir- 
 cumstances may require, to practice ; and upon the truth of it, if his 
 views of the design of baptism are correct, depends the salvation of souls. 
 Has he produced a solitary passage of Scripture to sustain it ? He has 
 not. Yet it is with him a matter of faith. Where is the divine testimo- 
 ny on which it is founded ? The gentleman has read extracts from the 
 writings of archbishop Whateley, Thomas Smyth, D. D., and from some- 
 body else. These are his authorities ; but from the word of God he has 
 given us neither precept nor example ! Here is an article of his faith, 
 on the truth of which depends the salvation of the soul, for which he is 
 unable to produce even one precedent ! ! Thus is the fundamental prin- 
 ciple of his reformation abandoned. I set a very low estimate upon a 
 reformation, which is of a character so accommodating, that it will take 
 the Scriptures when they sustain its principles, and abandon them when 
 occasion requires. 
 
 But, strangely enough, the gentleman calls on me to produce a passage 
 of Scripture which says, that none but a bishop or ordained presbyter 
 may baptize. I doubt very much, whether you can find in our civil code 
 a law forbidding any man, who is not a sheriff, to perform the duties be- 
 longing to that office. You may find a law which defines the duties of 
 those who fill the office ; and it is a principle of common sense and of com- 
 mon law, that no private citizen, nor any one not invested with that office, 
 may interfere with its functions. So I have proved, that our Savior ap- 
 pointed twelve men to a high and responsible office ; and that he author- 
 ized them to ordain others to the same office. The great duties required 
 of these officers, were to preach and baptize. No other persons were 
 ever commanded or authorized to do the one or the other. Here, then, 
 is an office established in the church, provision made for the regular ap- 
 pointment of officers to fill it, and its duties clearly defined. These, ac- 
 cording to the universally admitted principle just mentioned, no one, not 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 593 
 
 regularly inducted into this office, can discharge the functions connected 
 with it ; and if any one, in his rashness, attempt it, his acts are null and 
 void. 
 
 Yet the gentleman would have you believe, that I am bound to point 
 to the Scripture, which, in so many words, forbids an unordained person 
 to administer baptism ! I assert, that a bishop or presbyter has the right 
 to baptize. He admits it. Then, so far as my faith and my practice are 
 concerned, I have nothing to prove. But he maintains, that unordained 
 persons, and even females, may of right baptize. I call upon him to 
 prove it. Surely it is but reasonable, that a man, especially one who 
 boasts that he goes by the Bible, should prove the truth of that which he 
 believes, and the lawfulness of his practice. But he wishes me to prove 
 a negative, viz: that unordained persons, females, &c, have not the 
 right to baptize ! Why, he cannot find a passage in the Bible that, in so 
 many words, forbids horse-racing, or card-playing. Yet he will admit, 
 that I can prove both to be wrong. So I cannot produce a passage in the 
 New Testament, that says, in so many words, that an unordained, or even 
 an unbaptized person, shall not baptize ; but I can prove by clear decla- 
 rations of Scripture, that bishops or presbyters, and they only, were au- 
 thorized to administer the ordinance ; and that, so far as we can gain in- 
 formation from the inspired records, no others ever ventured to do it. 
 Now if Mr. Campbell asserts, that unordained persons are authorized to 
 baptize, it behooves him to adduce the proof. He admits the truth of all 
 for which we contend, viz : that bishops or presbyters are authorized to 
 baptize. Then, unless he can prove, that others have the same right, his 
 doctrine must be abandoned ; or if he still adheres to it, his reformation 
 should, in consistency, be given up, for its fundamental principle is repu- 
 diated, and he is found in the ranks of those who substitute tradition for 
 the Bible. Would it not be wiser in him to abandon this unscriptural 
 tenet, than trample under foot his own principles ? Is it indeed so very 
 important for him to adhere to a doctrine and a practice for which he can 
 find in the Bible not the slightest authority ? Would it not be better for 
 him, and better for his church, at once to abandon it ? 
 
 He thinks it wise to change ; and he tells us, he has very greatly 
 changed his views. One more change, especially if it bring him nearer 
 the Bible, will not hurt him. Let him bring this doctrine to the test — 
 "to the law and to the testimony." I desire a "Thus saith the Lord" 
 in support of it, and I must have it, or I shall still protest against it. At 
 least, let us have a fair and clear precedent. 
 
 In reply to one of his correspondents, who made several inquiries on 
 this important subject, he stated as a fact, that in the New Testament 
 "Deacons, and unofficial persons, are all represented as immersing, when 
 occasion called for it." I expected him to produce the evidence on 
 which he founded this important assertion. I supposed that he would 
 feel himself bound to bring forward the very passages ; but, as yet, we 
 have not been permitted to see even one of them ! Alas ! what is to 
 become of that great truth in which he would appear so much to glory — 
 The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants ? 
 
 The ladies, too, he believes, may baptize when circumstances require 
 it; and each lady must, of course, determine for herself when circum- 
 stances do require her thus to officiate. For this item of his faith, the 
 gentleman does not pretend to find either precept or precedent. Yet he 
 believes it ! 
 
 38 3d2 
 
594 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 xVn unscriptural doctrine has given rise to these unscriptural and injuri- 
 ous practices. Better give up the doctrine ; and the practices will, of 
 course, be abandoned. According to our views, there is no necessity to 
 provide for any cases for which the law of Christ does not provide. We 
 do not believe, that penitent believers will be lost, even though they have 
 not the opportunity to receive baptism. Consequently we have no occa- 
 sion to call on the ladies and children to officiate in any case. " He that 
 believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." My friend, Mr. C, em- 
 braced one false doctrine ; and to meet the difficulties growing out of this 
 error, he embraced another, and upon these two errors based a most un- 
 scriptural practice. But alas ! for his reformation ; for it is unable to find 
 precept or precedent for one of its most important doctrines. 
 
 Mr. Campbell says, I have given him considerable time, inasmuch as I 
 occupied in my introductory speech but forty minutes. Well, I can spare 
 him time. My doctrine and my practice on this subject he acknowledges 
 to be scriptural. I can give him time to find and bring forward those 
 scriptures which teach that laymen and women may baptize. I will give 
 him as much time as can be deemed necessary, if he will produce just 
 one passage of the kind. 
 
 I see no propriety in making long speeches, when my doctrine is ad- 
 mitted, and he produces no proof of the truth of his. It appears useless 
 to reply to his quotations from archbishop Whateley and others, when 
 they are discussing other subjects. It would be cruel, indeed, to continue 
 warring against a man when he has no sword, no weapons, and can get 
 none ! I do not like to fight with a man in that condition. I think it is 
 better to close the war. I cannot consent to contend with an unarmed 
 man. When he can get a sword, I will again be with him ; but I hope 
 he will no longer rely on human authority. It is, indeed, most incon- 
 sistent in a man like Mr. C, who has waged a long and furious war 
 against all bishops and presbyters, now to rely on them alone for support. 
 I will wait for the Scripture! — \Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 25— 12| o'clock, P- M. 
 [mr. Campbell's second reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I am sorely pressed sir ! I am sorely pressed, fellow- 
 citizens ! I am grievously oppressed ! Alas for me ! alas for reformation I 
 Such exclamations have become familiar as household words ; you all 
 understand them. When the gentleman has nothing to say, then I am 
 just got into some dreadful predicament; when he has nothing to say, 
 then my case is sure to be sorely pressed. Yes, my fellow-citizens, I am 
 truly hard pressed ; for to speak against nothing, is one of the hardest 
 tasks that can be imposed on me. 
 
 If any one sees any relevancy in the remarks of my opponent to the 
 question before us, I must envy him his powers of discrimination. I see 
 nothing relevant — call it my obtusity, if you please — but I must say, that 
 I see nothing at all relevant to the proposition. 
 
 In his first speech, he spoke forty minutes and sat down. Brought he 
 one passage of Scripture that could be predicated of the subject of his pro- 
 position ? Did he bring one verse, intimating that bishops and ordained 
 ministers had a prescribed right to baptize ? Is it not necessary to prove 
 that they have a right to baptize, before we prove that none else have such 
 a right? I said he could not produce one such text; and now you all see 
 that my prediction was true ; he did not, he could not, he has not brought 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 595 
 
 the first word, declarative that bishops have a special right to baptize. 
 All the passages of Scripture which I alledged, gave them the right to bap- 
 tize, only in common with other persons ; it was never associated with 
 them, nor committed to them, as bishops. If other persons may baptize 
 on particular occasions, and by the force of special circumstances, so may 
 they ; but as to an official and divine right, there is no evidence. Apostles 
 baptized with all the authority of their high office, which gave them uni- 
 versal and supreme superintendence. 
 
 Mr. Rice, it seems, is resolved that I shall not defend Mr. Jones from 
 the violent assault made upon his reputation the other day, in the presence 
 of this great concourse. I do not introduce this subject because of any 
 personal feeling, or by way of reprisal for his censures upon me, for re- 
 commending his history of the Waldenses. I do it as an act of justice to 
 an injured man, and to an injured community. I have the documents to 
 show, that the statements made here are a base aspersion of an unoffending 
 man. But Mr. Rice refuses to hear them read. On him, then, be the 
 responsibility. This matter has been inquired into, and refuted. 
 
 To return to our immediate subject. I was pleased to hear Mr. Rice 
 admit, at last, that there was a perfectly organized society in the apostolic 
 age. The apostles must then have had power to organize such a com- 
 munity. Now we have always contended, that Christianity, being a mo- 
 ral positive institution — a special providence — it must have for all its 
 essential provisions, the warrant of a divine precept — of a " Thus saith the 
 Lord." What the apostles did as plenipotentiaries of the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, is just as exemplary and authoritative as a divine command. To 
 show that any thing was done in the presence of the apostles, with their 
 approbation, is all-sufficient to warrant us to go and do likewise. When, 
 then, any one claims official or special power, or privilege, we ask him 
 for the authority — for a warrant from the ministers of the Great King. 
 
 As the gentleman admits every thing was done in good order in the 
 apostolic church, and in conformity with the law of God, I need only 
 show what that church did to obtain from him the concession that we may 
 go and do likewise. I will, then, proceed to read a sketch of the way and 
 manner things were done in the mother church, at Jerusalem, while all 
 the apostles were yet living. After that the church in Jerusalem had in- 
 creased to many thousands, a very fierce persecution arose : Stephen was 
 slain, and all were dispersed, except the apostles. It reads in the fol- 
 lowing manner: Acts viii. 1 ; " And at that time there was a great perse- 
 cution against the church, which was at Jerusalem, and they were all 
 scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the 
 apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great 
 lamentations over him. As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, enter- 
 ing into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to 
 prison. Therefore, they that were scattered abroad went every where 
 preaching the word." 
 
 Here, then, we have the church of so many thousands dispersed. Those 
 scattered abroad, we are told, went every where through Judea and Sama- 
 ria, preaching the word. Here, then we have a divine precedent. The 
 historian gives us the history of one of these preachers, from whose career 
 we may learn something of that of the others; his name was Philip: 
 "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ 
 unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things 
 which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles, which he did. And 
 
696 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
 of God, and the name of the Lord Jesus, they were baptized, both men 
 and women." He next gives the history of two distinguished persons- 
 Simon Magus, and the Ethiopian eunuch. From these particular cases, 
 we may learn much of the details of Christianity. On account of the 
 minute statements concerning the Samaritans, Simon and Philip, the eighth 
 chapter of the Acts of Apostles is, to us, an invaluable document. 
 
 We have, then, the adventures and success of Philip detailed to the end 
 of that chapter. The gospel was carried by him into Samaria ; and 
 was successfully preached to the Samaritans. Many of them heard, be- 
 lieved, and were baptized. The historian tells us, that many men and 
 women were baptized. How particularly minute in detailing these, to 
 us apparently very minor matters ! It is evident, then, that the church in 
 Jerusalem was not Presbyterian : for they licensed persons to preach, and 
 withheld not from them the right to baptize. They may enlighten, and, 
 as they say, convert the people, but must not baptize them. Philip bap- 
 tized. No such licentiates were in the apostolic age. What a singular 
 caprice of learned men ! A preacher is licensed to go out into the wide 
 world to preach the word ; and, should he make a hundred converts in a 
 day or a year, he has not power to baptize one of them ! The apostolic 
 commission was, " convert and baptize," according to him ; and yet he 
 asks for authority for these thousands to baptize. We have the adven- 
 tures of only one of them given ; and evident it is, that he both preached 
 and baptized. What he did, we are compelled, by every principle of 
 reason, to believe the others did. There were not two laws, two castes 
 of preachers in those days. Philip's history is given, for one of two rea- 
 sons : either because he was a very distinguished man among those preach- 
 ers, or because of the important fact that the distinguished city of Samaria 
 was visited, Simon the Sorcerer vanquished, and the arch-treasurer of 
 queen Candaces' empire was converted. But those facts and incidents, 
 which respect the man and his success, do not at all give him a new or 
 different office. We still have preachers of different ranks of talent, 
 honor, and usefulness ; but they are all equal in office. 
 
 While we have these scriptural facts and documents before us, it may 
 not be improper to note this fact also, that light is scattering over this 
 land, and men in all parties begin to see it. Here is a book called " Ba- 
 con's Manual." It came from the east. Wise men come from the east, 
 even in this country. Light has broken out even in New Haven. We 
 shall read a few sentences : 
 
 " As to the persons by whom this ceremony of baptism was performed, I 
 will say, in one word, that this, evidently, was deemed a matter of little 
 consequence. Paul thought, that- the ordinance of baptism was among the 
 least of his duties as a minister of the gospel ; 1 Cor. i. 14 — 17. I find no- 
 thing in the Bible, and nothing in what I have seen of the earliest chris- 
 tian writers, which implies that it was the peculiar duty, or the peculiar 
 honor, of this or that officer, to administer baptism."— Bacon's Manuel, 
 pa<r j 58. 
 
 '- The Lord's Supper. — Where there were church officers, there the bish- 
 ops presided over this, as over every other part of public worship. To pre- 
 side over the church, at the Lord's table, belongs to their office, as obvious- 
 ly, as to preside over the prayers of the church, or over the public reading 
 and expounding of the Scriptures, or over the debates of a meeting for 
 church business. E&t where there were no officers, the organization of the 
 church being, as at Corinth when Paul wrote his epistles, not yet completed ; 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 597 
 
 there is no evidence that this commemoration of Christ was omitted, any 
 more than prayers and singing. 
 
 Ordination was simply the public inauguration of a man to a particular 
 work or office. It seems to have been done uniformly with prayer and the 
 laying on of hands. 
 
 The imposition of hands is an ancient oriental form of benediction. Thus 
 < Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph.' Thus, little 
 children were brought to Jesus in the days of his flesh, ' that he should put 
 his hands on them and pray,' and after reproving his disciples for their in- 
 terference, * he laid his hands on them.' This benediction, this solemn 
 commendation of the individual to the grace and blessing of God, is all that 
 was meant by the imposition of hands in the inauguration of church offi- 
 cers, or, in the setting apart of a christian teacher to the sacred employ- 
 ment of preaching the gospel. The idea of any sacerdotal power, or di- 
 vine virtue, transferred into the candidate, through the hands of the ordain- 
 ing bishop or the presbytery, is a popish fancy, unworthy of an ' age of 
 Bibles,' and unknown to the simplicity of the primitive times." — lb. p. 59. 
 
 Thus speaks Leonard Bacon, pastor of the First Church in New Ha- 
 ven : second edition, New York, 1841. Without special call, or official 
 designation, this gentleman argues, men holding private stations in the 
 church may baptize, and not only that, but may also even dispense the 
 supper — a matter, by some weak and superstitious minds, regarded as 
 still more solemn and official. This is the doctrine of " the reformation," 
 as Mr. R. denominates it. It is so, indeed. And it was the original and 
 true doctrine of Protestantism ; and, better still, it is the true doctrine of 
 the Scriptures, which has been asserted in every age, and received by 
 all who have opposed the haughty pretensions of those who presumed to 
 arrogate to themselves an exclusive right to mediate and negotiate be- 
 tween God and man. While we build only on apostles and prophets, 
 we are pleased to see men of all parties opening their eyes to the primi- 
 tive simplicity and high authority of the inspired Scriptures. 
 
 In the New Testament, we never read of any one waiting for an ad- 
 ministrator, for the presence of an officer to dispense any ordinance 
 whatever ; nor do we read of their ever sending abroad for any such func- 
 tionaries. The most convenient person is always sent for as the operator. 
 Witness the conversion and baptism of the apostle Paul. Not far from 
 Damascus, in Syria, on the public highway, Paul saw the Lord, and be- 
 lieved his voice. He was led into the city. And who baptized the great 
 apostle of the gentiles ? Surely they must send to Jerusalem for bishop 
 James, a prince among the apostles ! — or for Peter, the grand prelate and 
 president of the whole college of apostles ! Nay, verily. There hap- 
 pened to be living in Damascus, just at that time, a " certain disciple," 
 never before heard of, " named Ananias." We have no evidence that he 
 was an official character of any sort ; and, consequently, that he ivas, is 
 not to be assumed. Those who say that he was, must prove it. The 
 Lord sent him to a certain place in Damascus, to inform this Saul of 
 Tarsus, what to do for his own special salvation. The Lord had told him 
 what to do for him as a witness and a minister ; but he did not preach to 
 him the details of his own personal duties, under the Messiah's reign. 
 This he left to some one who had received it from that Peter, to whom 
 he solemnly and irrevocably had consigned the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven. m 
 
 Now, as Paul's case was to be a remarkable one, this Ananias had a 
 vision too, to dispose him to go to the house of one Judas, with whom 
 Paul was then lodging. He was carefully directed to Straight Street, 
 
59S DEBATE OX THE 
 
 and to the house of Judas, and entering in. he found Paul yet blind. 
 He laid his hands upon hira in the name of the Lord, that he ought re- 
 ceive his outward sight, and be inwardly filled with the holy Spirit. He 
 then baptized him. "He received sight forthwith, and arose and was 
 baptized." With such facts as these before us. why arraign our brethren, 
 and censure them for following such examples as those already given ! 
 In censoring us. our friends censure the primitive church and the aj jshes 
 themselves. 
 
 If Paul had been converted by any man according to the usage of that 
 age, he would have been baptized by that man. But the Lord having 
 taken the work entirely into his own hand, furnished a " certain disci- 
 ple for administrator. 
 
 We must all admit, that matters were well understood at Jerusalem 
 before the dispersion, and that the church there had been properly or- 
 ganized. Hence, their practice and example :::- all in;; :::an: :o us. In 
 thai church, nor in any other, do we ever read of any special provision 
 having been made for baptizing. This is a singular fact — a fact that 
 ought to be, in this age of clerical pride and assumption, deeply engraved 
 upon all minds — that neither in Jerusalem, nor in any church, city, or 
 province, where Christianity was planted in the days of the apostles, did 
 there ever arise any question, or originate any law or precept, on the sub- 
 ject of an administrator of baptism nor of the holy supper. Even when 
 specifying the qualifications oi eiders, or bishops, and iea vis. and when 
 assigning them the:: duties, the apostles never once mentioned any thing 
 about the dispensation or administration of ordinances ! There never 
 arose any question on this subject, nor any difficulty calling for one line 
 or word from any New Testament writer. Paul himself spent eighteen 
 months in Corinth. "Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and 
 were baptized.'" Paul baptized but a very few of that immense mult: 
 Nor are we even informed who baptized any of them. Paul made oth- 
 :-:: attend to this matter. He must have distributed it amongst others of 
 inferior rank. 
 
 When Peter was sent by a Divine oracle from Joppa Id Cesarea, to 
 the house of the famous gentile centurion. Cornelius, to announce to him, 
 his family, friends, and neighbors, the glad tidings ; when, too, the S ririt 
 of God was liberally, in his miraculous gifts, bestowed on that commu- 
 nity, the apostle commanded others, who accompanied him. to baptize 
 those gentiles. To change the style of Luke, the narrator, who preserves 
 the third person : I say change it into the first — lei Peter in his own 
 person be heard, and it would read thus : Can any of you Jews, "six 
 brethren, who accompanied him from Joppa;] can any of y: a I 
 water, that these should be baptized as veil a? we ! When no one re- 
 sponded, Peter said. In the name of the Lor:, baptize the:::. In the third 
 person it reads, "Then he commanded them to be baptized." Here, 
 then, were neither bishops nor ministers; they were simply six brethren. 
 They were not officials — there is do sort of evidence that they were. 
 The presumption is, that they were not: and. of course, we cannot argue 
 from them in any other light than that they were merely •'• six brelfi 
 
 There is not. then, either in the case of the Samaritans, nor of 
 ..:. iies, nor even among the Jews, a single indication of any concent 
 about the rank of an administrator of baptism or any other ordinance. 
 Such questions were not then agitated, and of course the New Testa- 
 ment is wholly silent on the whole subject of crucial administrators of 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 599 
 
 baptism, farther than we learn incidentally from the examples before us. 
 I am singularly fortunate in being able to produce such instances of 
 what, now-a-days, would be called lay-baptism, just under the eyes and 
 direction of such churches, apostles, and prophets. It is wholly a work 
 of supererogation. I am not required by any law of discussion to produce 
 such evidence. But what should we have had to talk about in this case, 
 if I had not found these documents. Mr. Rice has nothing to offer. He 
 has been dipping buckets into empty wells and drawing nothing out. It 
 is not any defect in his genius or invention. He has rather too much of 
 that. It is the sterility, the barrenness of the soil. 
 
 Having, then, found no precept or precedent for episcopal or Presby- 
 terian baptism ; no authority for such classic and clerical administrations ; 
 but, on the contrary, having produced clear and indisputable cases of lay- 
 baptism, under the inspection and by the authority of the Lord and his 
 apostles; may we not regard the subject as clearly, satisfactorily and 
 finally settled? 
 
 With regard to the good order of religious society, Mr. R. seems to 
 represent us as having little or no regard for it. This is very far from 
 fact. No one admires good order more than I, and no one, I think, is 
 more ready to sacrifice his own opinions to obtain it. The beauty of the 
 universe is its good order. A community without it must go to ruin. 
 We are not, however, without church organization. We have hundreds 
 of congregalions, with their bishops and deacons, in as good order as, 
 perhaps, any Presbyterian community in the commonwealth. But we 
 have not any general system of organization, no system of general co-op- 
 eration. This is, indeed, true. But, even in this respect we are now as 
 all other societies have been in their incipiency. Presbyterian society 
 was much longer than our whole existence in getting organized. They 
 were so much perplexed and distracted about organization, that in the 
 time of Knox there passed at one time eighteen years without a case of 
 ordination by imposition of hands. The long reign of Elizabeth, and 
 that of Edward VI., were spent in organizing, changing, and new-modi- 
 fying that national institution called Episcopalianism. The Congrega- 
 tionalists, or Independents, were also in a transitive state for years. And 
 Wesley's discipline and order was changed some seventeen times in his 
 own life-time. 
 
 The apostles were not very precipitate in this work. It was upon the 
 second tour of Paul and Barnabas, that they set things in order and or- 
 dained elders in every city. Paul left Timothy in Ephesus, not merely 
 to keep the order established by Paul, but to set things in order as he 
 had appointed him. The apostles were governed by circumstances, and 
 had to wait for the developments of society. They did not enact nor 
 legislate in anticipation, but in retrospection of difficulties and disorders. 
 
 We have been occasionally writing on order for many years. We have 
 secured a good deal of it at many points, and still hope to secure it at 
 more. The whole christian community should be perfectly organized 
 and compacted together, and combine their energies and means in one 
 grand system of redeeming man from ignorance, guilt, and bondage. But 
 instead of mocking our efforts, as did certain persons of old the rebuilders 
 of Jerusalem, our friends should rather commend us for what we have 
 done, than censure us for what we have not done. 
 
 And here I am led to notice a statement of Mr. Rice that startled me 
 no little. He says, that we have promulged a doctrine authorizing all 
 
600 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 persons to baptize. He can produce no such document. It is a gross 
 
 I shall not name it. It is at least a misconception of his own. I 
 
 have already expressed myself fully on that point. We ought always to 
 assail the proper ground occupied by those we oppose, and not make for 
 them such arguments as we can easily refute. I do not demur to any 
 man assailing me through my own arguments, while I must always com- 
 plain of his putting into my mouth propositions or aguments which I did 
 not use. Nor is it lawful to accuse me of maintaining the inferences 
 which Mr. Rice chooses to draw from my arguments. This is neither the 
 part of candor nor of moral rectitude. I will not consent to be responsi- 
 ble for his inferences, nor for those of any other man. I defend what I 
 have written, and not his inferences from it. — [Time expired, 
 
 Saturday, Nov. 25 — 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's closing address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I have a remark or two to make with regard to Jones' 
 history. I read it to the audience in connection with that of Perrin, for 
 the purpose of proving, that in quoting Perrin he threw out what his 
 author said of baptizing infants, and substituted in its place a statement 
 which was wholly different. The gentleman may apply to my conduct 
 in this matter what epithet he pleases ; but I will, at any proper time, 
 meet him, and give him a fair opportunity of exposing it. • I never shrink 
 from such responsibilities. 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, regrets (so he would have us think) to be obliged 
 to speak against nothing. When a man is called upon to produce a 
 " Thus saith the Lord" for his doctrines and practices, and is unable to 
 do it, I think a complaint that he has nothing to do, comes with a poor 
 grace from him. It looks very much as if he were speaking against the 
 Bible I I have been prepared to examine all his Bible authorities ; but, 
 strange to tell, he has not produced one that is even plausible. 
 
 He maintains that there is no passage of Scripture authorizing bishops 
 to baptize, and calls on me to produce one. I will prove by Mr. Camp- 
 bell himself, that every ordained presbyter is authorized to administer 
 baptism. I will read in the Millenial Harbinger, vol. iii. p. 475: — "No 
 person can be sent specially to baptize without preaching, nor to 
 preach without baptizing. But baptizing was the inferior of the two, 
 and, therefore, Paul says, in the Hebrew idiom, he was sent to preach 
 rather than baptize. This is precisely his meaning — nay, it is precisely 
 what he says, when his Jewish idiom is understood." The gentleman 
 has called on me to prove, that bishops are authorized to baptize ; and 
 yet he has himself declared, that no one can be sent specially to preach 
 without baptizing !! ! He must certainly have forgotten much that he 
 has written. I have very recently been looking through his writings, and 
 perhaps I have a more distinct recollection of many of them than he has. 
 
 I have not said, as he seems to intimate, that no particular church was 
 ever in an unorganized state. My remark was made distinctly concern- 
 ing the church of Christ. I said, it has never been in an unorganized 
 state, so as to make it proper or lawful for private members to assume to 
 perform one of the functions of the ministerial office. Moreover, when 
 any particular church is to be organized, it should be done by properly 
 appointed officers. 
 
 But let us examine the Scriptures to which the gentleman has appealed 
 in support of his doctrine of lay-baptism. He refers to Acts viii. 4, 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 601 
 
 "Therefore they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching 
 the word." The word here rendered preaching, signifies telling good 
 news ; and it is admitted, that all christians have the right to tell to others 
 the good news concerning salvation through Christ. As the christians at 
 Jerusalem were scattered abroad by persecution, they went forth, telling 
 their fellow-men these glad tidings. Such seems to be the meaning of 
 the passage. 
 
 But if the gentleman insists that the word euangelizomenoi, translated 
 preaching, means in this instance preaching in the official or technical 
 sense of the word ; he must admit, that the women as well as the men, 
 became public preachers ! This, I think, he will scarcely maintain. The 
 inspired historian tells us, that the women as well as the men were scat- 
 tered abroad, preaching; yet Mr. C. will confine the preaching to the 
 men. Then how can he be sure, that it is not confined to ordained 
 men? The word, however, does not mean preaching in the official 
 sense, as I suppose, but telling the good news of salvation, as private 
 christians may do. 
 
 But after all, there is not in this passage, nor in the connection, one 
 word about baptizing. The question under discussion is, whether pri- 
 vate members of the church may baptize; and to prove, that they have 
 the authority, Mr. C. triumphantly adduces a passage in which there is 
 not a syllable concerning baptism ! It is one thing to inform an inqui- 
 ring mind how he may be saved through Christ, and quite another to in- 
 troduce him into the church of Christ, and thus afford him the opportu- 
 nity, if he be an unworthy member, greatly to dishonor and injure the 
 church and the cause of truth. The introduction of persons into the 
 church by baptism, is no mere personal or private matter. One unworthy 
 member can do more injury to the church and to the cause of Christ, than 
 a dozen like him, who remain in the world. Hence our Savior was care- 
 ful to whom he committed the keys of the kingdom. He did not author- 
 ize every member of the church who might choose to be officious, to 
 initiate into the church whom he pleased. 
 
 The passage, I repeat, says not a word about baptizing — the only sub- 
 ject now before us. You perceive how the gentleman shifts and turns 
 to save his unscriptural tenet. I call for a passage of Scripture to sustain 
 his doctrine, that private members of the church may baptize ; and he 
 points us to one which speaks of persecuted christians wandering to 
 and fro, and telling to their fellow-men the good news of salvation through 
 Christ, but which says not a word about baptizing ! 
 
 His next proof of lay-baptism is the fact, that Philip baptized the eu- 
 nuch. But we have some information concerning Philip, which com- 
 pletely nullifies this argument. In Acts xxi. 8, we read as follows : 
 " And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came 
 unto Cesarea; and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, 
 which was one of the seven, and abode with him." Philip was first 
 elected and ordained to the office of deacon at Jerusalem, but afterwards 
 became an evangelist. After receiving this last office it was, doubtless, 
 that he went forth preaching and baptizing. There is not the least evi- 
 dence that he was only a deacon when he baptized the eunuch. On the 
 contrary, inasmuch as we know that he was ordained as an evangelist, 
 the evidence is decidedly in favor of the opinion that he had received this 
 office before he baptized the eunuch. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's third argument for lay-baptism is the fact, that Ananias 
 
 3E 
 
602 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 baptized Paul; and he says, the presumption is, that he was not ordained 
 to the office of the ministry. But does he know, that he was not or- 
 dained ? Has he the slightest evidence on which to found the presump- 
 tion, that he was not? This is an important question ; for he cites Ana- 
 nias as an instance in which an unordained man administered baptism ; 
 and he says, in all probability he was a private member. Has he the 
 least evidence in the world on which to found such an opinion ? He has 
 not. Then what is his argument worth? Absolutely nothing. 
 
 His fourth argument in favor of lay-baptism is derived from the bap- 
 tism of Cornelius and his family, (Acts x.) Certain brethren went with 
 Peter to the house of Cornelius, and Mr. C. supposes, that some one of 
 them, and not Peter, baptized him and his family. And he says, the 
 presumption is, that they were unofficial persons. But on what evi- 
 dence, 1 emphatically ask, is this presumption founded ? I venture the 
 assertion, that there is not the slightest evidence to support such a pre- 
 sumption. Some one or all of them may have been, and probably were 
 ordained ministers of the gospel. 
 
 But the gentleman has appealed to these six brethren as proof positive, 
 that unordained persons did administer baptism in the apostolic age. I 
 ask, does he know, that they were unordained ? He acknowledges that 
 he does not. But he says, the presumption is, that they were unofficial 
 persons. I reply, that there can be no presumption without some evi- 
 dence. What evidence has he ? None — absolutely none. Then, I again 
 ask, what is his argument worth? 
 
 His Bible evidence in favor of the right of unordained males and fe- 
 males to baptize, has disappeared. He is not able to produce a "Thus 
 saith the Lord," or a clear precedent to sustain it. Yet he has taught 
 this doctrine, and encouraged thousands to practice accordingly ; and al- 
 though, according to his views, the salvation of the soul depends on the 
 validity of baptism, he is now unable to sustain it by either precept or 
 example from the Scriptures ! 
 
 But he appeals to Leonard Bacon, of New Haven, as favoring his 
 views. Dr. Bacon, if I am correctly informed, is, comparatively, a 
 young man — a Congregationalist. I do not know, whether his reputation 
 as a profound theologian would constitute him an authority. In the ab- 
 sence of all Scripture authority for lay-baptism, perhaps I ought not to 
 attempt to rob him of this human authority. The gentleman is evident- 
 ly in great difficulty ; and he appeals to Dr. Bacon to help him out. He 
 set out in his reformation on the safe principle of having for every article 
 of faith, or item of practice, a " Thus saith the Lord," or a clear and cer- 
 tain precedent. In his present difficulties he finds, that he has not the 
 Bible to sustain him ; but he has got Leonard Bacon. — [A laugh.] 
 
 He tells us, that there is in the New Testament no law regulating the 
 administration of baptism ; and yet in his Harbinger we are told, as I 
 have proved, that every man who was specially sent to preach, was also 
 sent to baptize ! Yet, strangely enough, he appeals to the fact, that Paul 
 was not sent particularly to baptize, as evidence that the administration of 
 baptism was not assigned to any particular class of persons ! I rather think, 
 however, that he has given a better reason than this, why Paul was not 
 accustomed to baptize. In the Millenial Harbinger, (vol. ii. Extra, page 
 36,) he says — " He [Paul] was no fisherman like the twelve. He was 
 not of that robust constitution. My bodily presence is weak, says he : 
 and history gives him not size enough to baptize !" I know not to what 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 603 
 
 history the gentleman had reference ; but certainly the reason here 
 assigned for his not being accustomed to baptize, is better than the one 
 he now offers ! Paul was not big enough to baptize ! ! ! Then, indeed, 
 it was very important he should have others to do it for him ! 
 
 With regard to the organization of Mr. Campbell's church, I have no- 
 thing to say at present. That subject will be fully discussed under the 
 proposition concerning creeds. 
 
 He charges me with a crime Avhich he could not venture to name, for 
 having said, that, according to his doctrine, every member of the church 
 has the right to baptize. I am responsible for all the statements I make. 
 I will prove the truth of the fact I stated, by Mr. Campbell himself! I 
 will read in his Christian System, (p. 85,) " A christian is by profession 
 a preacher of truth and righteousness, both by precept and example. 
 He may of right preach, baptize, and dispense the supper, as well as 
 pray for all men, when circumstances demand it." Now who, I ask, 
 is to determine when circumstances require a private member of the 
 church to baptize ? Has the gentleman's church ecclesiastical bodies by 
 which the matter may be determined ? He acknowledges that it has not. 
 He wages an exterminating war against ecclesiastical courts. Each in- 
 dividual, therefore, must judge for himself or for herself, when he or she 
 ought to administer baptism. For, as Mr. C. teaches, each may of right 
 preach, baptize, &c, and none have authority to dictate to, or control him 
 in the matter. Does not this completely sustain all that I have affirmed? 
 
 In the passage I read in the Harbinger, a short time since, he teaches 
 that females may baptize, when circumstances require it ; and yet he 
 acknowledges, that he can find neither precept nor example to sustain him 
 in the position. He even goes further, and maintains that an unbaptized 
 person may, under certain circumstances, baptize. But who, I again ask, 
 is to determine when circumstances do require such persons to venture 
 upon a work so solemn and so responsible ? There is no body, or court, 
 to which the matter can be referred. The good lady, the little boy or 
 girl, must determine, in any exigency, what is duty. This is the worst I 
 have said of the gentleman's principles ; and all this, as he must admit, is 
 precisely according to the New Testament. It is so, if his doctrine is true. 
 
 As this is the last speech I shall make on this question, I must now, 
 very briefly, sum up the argument. 
 
 The commission given by our Savior, I maintain, is a clear prohibition 
 of lay-baptism. " Go ye," said he to the twelve, " and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you ; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world, 
 Amen." We know that the apostles were authorized and commanded to 
 baptize and teach. But this is not all; the promise extends to the end 
 of time. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
 It is, then, clear, that till the end of time, there is to be a class of men, 
 solemnly invested with the ministerial office, whose business it shall be 
 to preach the gospel, and to administer baptism. This cannot be success- 
 fully controverted. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell teaches, that not only bishops or presbyters, but 
 private members, and even females, may of right baptize. I maintain, 
 that this commission confines both preaching and baptizing to those who 
 are clothed with the ministerial office. Here, you observe, we find a most 
 important office, established in the church by Christ himself, designed to 
 
604 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 be perpetual. Twelve men, qualified for their responsible work by the 
 King, are solemnly charged with the duties of the office ; they are author- 
 ized and required to ordain others to engage in the same work; they are 
 directed to look well to the character and the qualifications of those on 
 whom they lay their hands, to whom they entrust the interests of the king- 
 dom of God. As we read in the Acts of the Apostles, a brief history of 
 their labors, we find them, in obedience to the authority of the Redeemer, 
 ordaining other men to go forth and baptize, and to teach the mysteries of 
 the kingdom. 
 
 But from the time when the commission was given, and the apostles 
 inducted into their responsible office, we find not one instance of the ad- 
 ministration of baptism by an unordained person. We do, indeed, read 
 that baptism was administered, in some cases, by persons whose official 
 character is not mentioned ; but this fact proves nothing against the position 
 I am maintaining, and nothing in favor of the doctrine of Mr. Campbell. 
 For if I state, that an individual was baptized in one of our churches, on a 
 certain day, it is wholly unnecessary for me to mention the fact, that the 
 administrator was an ordained minister, because our views and our prac- 
 tice are generally known. For the same reason, it was not necessary 
 that Luke, in writing the Acts of the Apostles, should, in recording a bap- 
 tism, state that an ordained minister officiated ; nor does his silence on 
 this point, in any number of cases, afford the least ground of probability 
 that those who administered the ordinance were private persons. 
 
 The fact, then, is, that the New Testament gives not a solitary instance 
 in which baptism was administered by a person known to be unordained. 
 There is neither precept nor precedent. Then Mr. Campbell is bound, 
 according to the fundamental principle of his reformation, to abandon the 
 doctrine, and the practice of lay-baptism. 
 
 In every government, civil and ecclesiastical, there must be offices es- 
 tablished, and officers appointed to transact public business. And when 
 particular duties are, by law, connected with a particular office, it is, as I 
 have said, a principle universally admitted, that no individual, whatever 
 his standing may be, can discharge the duties, until he is clothed with the 
 office. Indeed, it is a principle, the necessity of which must be manifest 
 to every one. For if every private individual may, on his own responsi- 
 bility, transact public business, no government on earth, civil or ecclesias- 
 tical, can exist. Perfect anarchy must result in church and in state, from 
 the adoption of such a principle. Whether, therefore, we regard the inte- 
 rests, present and future, of individuals, or the purity and peace of the 
 church of Christ, and the honor of his cause, it is absolutely necessary 
 that none but men properly qualified, and solemnly ordained to the minis- 
 terial office, should be permitted to administer the ordinance of baptism, 
 and introduce persons to the fellowship of the church. Every one must 
 see, that if each individual member may open the door, and admit into the 
 church whom he pleases, consequences the most disastrous must follow. 
 
 The wisdom of the Redeemer is manifested by the fact, that he commit- 
 ed the work of teaching and baptizing to those who were qualified for the 
 proper performance of it, and directed them to ordain others to the office, 
 but to "lay hands suddenly on no man." There were most important rea- 
 sons why he pursued this course. He intended not to have a church 
 containing within itself the elements of its own destruction — leaving the 
 male, the female, the young, the old, the rash, the superstitious, the ignorant, 
 to throw wide its doors, and introduce just whom they might think proper. 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 605 
 
 It is a happy circumstance, that the doctrine of Mr. Campbell has not 
 been fully and extensively carried out in practice. The preservation of 
 his church, from " confusion worse confounded," is owing, he must ad- 
 mit, to the prudence and good sense which have prevented the members 
 from acting in accordance with his doctrine, not to the soundness of the 
 doctrine itself. If each member had undertaken to administer baptism, 
 as, he says, each may of right do, the church, though now sufficiently 
 involved in confusion, would have been in a condition far worse than 
 it is. 
 
 I must here reply to one of the gentleman's arguments, which I forgot 
 to notice in the proper place. He says, my objection to the right of 
 females to baptize, comes with an ill grace from me, as a Pedo-baptist, 
 since mothers, of olden time, circumcised their children. The Scriptures 
 do not inform us that mothers had any such authority. The conduct of 
 the wife of Moses is not approbated; and the temper she displayed on 
 the occasion, does not evince that she was actuated by proper motives. 
 There is not another example of the kind in the Bible. But God might 
 have permitted unofficial persons to administer that ordinance under the 
 old dispensation, and yet, when the church extended her boundaries over 
 the earth, and was, of course, placed in circumstances greatly different, 
 there would be reasons of greatest importance for confining the adminis- 
 tration of the initiatory ordinance to men properly qualified, and set 
 apart to the work. Under the old dispensation he did not say to the 
 priests, or the prophets, " Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, cir- 
 cumcising them." Had such a commission been given, there would 
 have been good reasons for confining the authority to circumcise to the 
 prophets and the priests. 
 
 But under the new dispensation, the church was to lengthen her cords 
 and strengthen her stakes. All nations were to be invited to participate in 
 her privileges and blessings. The Savior then said to men qualified for 
 the responsible work, «< Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Thus 
 he connected the work of baptizing and teaching, with the office of the 
 ministry, and commanded those invested with the office, to discharge 
 those duties, and to ordain Others to the same work. He committed it to 
 no private hands. There is, I repeat it, neither precept nor precedent in 
 the Scriptures, authorizing any but bishops or presbyters to baptize ; and 
 no private member dare attempt it, unless he, or she, is willing to tram- 
 ple under foot the authority of heaven. 
 
 Such are the views I entertain on this important subject; and such are 
 some of the plain and obvious reasons by which they are sustained. I 
 leave you, my friends, to determine, in view of your responsibility to 
 Christ and his church, whether I have established the truth of the propo- 
 sition, that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or presbyter, 
 scripturally ordained, — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, November 25 — 1| o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr, Campbell's closing reply.] 
 Mr. President— The gentleman has, for once at least, sat down with- 
 out telling us what he has done. You all see what he has not done. 
 Notwithstanding the indisputable evidence of his failure, I will respond 
 to what has been offered. Baptism is to be administered only by an or- 
 dained bishop or elder ! ! So he affirms : but where is the proof? His 
 
 3e2 
 
606 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 former speeches give us neither precept nor precedent. In my first 
 reply, I once and again called for evidence ; but I have called in vain. 
 Finally, he gave an extract from the Millenial Harbinger. Now listen 
 to his authority — vol. iii. p. 475 : 
 
 "No person can be sent specially to baptize without preaching; nor to 
 preach without baptizing. But baptizing was the inferior of the two, and 
 therefore Paul says in the Hebrew idiom, he was sent to preach rather than 
 to baptize. This is precisely his meaning — nay, it is precisely what he 
 says, when his Jewish idiom is understood !" 
 
 Admit it all, does this prove that elders and bishops are sent abroad to 
 preach as apostles ? ! And will it not also prove that all persons ordained 
 or unordained, that preached, were accustomed to baptize ? ! 
 
 The Millenial Harbinger proves that Paul was not sent with special 
 reference to baptize, but to preach. Was Paul a bishop? — a presbyter? 
 Any proof short of proving Paul to have been an elder or a bishop, falls 
 short of the proposition. As it is, it comes not within a thousand miles 
 of the question. By the Harbinger, he cannot prove that Paul was a 
 bishop or an elder of any church. He says he has read it more recently 
 than I have. It is quite probable. Yet he has not found that in it. I 
 wish the gentleman had read his Bible a little more. He confesses that 
 I gave a good reason why Paul baptized but a few. Truth will some- 
 times force for itself an utterance. The gentleman, imperceptibly to him- 
 self, perhaps, has conceded that Paul practiced immersion : for surely he 
 must admit that Paul had strength and size enough to sprinkle. Inciden- 
 tal arguments are generally both convincing and strong arguments. I will 
 give another incidental argument. Paul said, he was not sent to baptize, 
 but to preach. Baptizing, then, is inferior to preaching ; yet Paul some- 
 times baptized. He baptized without a special commission, then? Was 
 he right or wrong ? We cannot choose the latter. He was right — was 
 he not ? Follows it not, then, that it is right to baptize without a com- 
 mission — without a special license in some cases ? ! Paul, then, it seems, 
 as any disciple may, on some occasions, baptized without a special com- 
 mission. His case is then decidedly against Mr. Rice. The gentleman 
 is out at every angle on this proposition. He now stands in an open field, 
 in which there are no hiding places. What those skilled in the laws of 
 debate may say, on hearing Mr. Rice plead, that he is not bound to prove 
 that every one who baptized was a bishop, when proving that none but a 
 bishop may baptize, I presume not to conjecture; but certainly they will 
 smile at his calling upon me to prove that Philip was or was not a bishop, 
 while he affirms that he was ! I adduced several instances of persons 
 baptizing, as well as Philip. How has he disposed of them? One of 
 them was a very clear case, but he has not deigned to consider them. He 
 admits, however, that all who preach, ought to baptize ; and thinks it was 
 so from the beginning. Why, then, license ministers to preach, and re- 
 strain them from baptizing ? ! 
 
 Acts, eighth chapter, as before shown, is an overwhelming instance of 
 preaching and baptizing, without such licenses as are now deemed es- 
 sential. The church in Jerusalem certainly amounted to many thousands 
 before Stephen was slain. After that persecution, the church, with the 
 exception of the apostles, was driven from the city. They continued at 
 the metropolis. These dispersed brethren, we are told, " went every 
 where preaching the word." That they baptized the converts, is most 
 evident from the fact, that we are told of the baptism of the Samaritans, 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 607 
 
 and of the eunuch, by one of them ; and it is further evident from the con- 
 cession of Mr. R., that, from the beginning, those who preached the gos- 
 pel, baptized. But, says Mr. Rice, Philip might have been a bishop. 
 Yes, might have been! And he adds, that we have reason to believe 
 that he was an evangelist; but that he was an evangelist, specially so 
 called, and appointed to the Avork, is yet to be proved. He might have 
 been a bishop — he might have been an evangelist, &c. &c, is poor logic. 
 Let us read the passage : — " And at that time there was a great persecu- 
 tion against the church which was in Jerusalem, and they were all scat- 
 tered abroad througli Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." — " They 
 that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word ;" 
 and Philip went down to Samaria, &c. It is, then, indisputably evident 
 that they all preached and baptized their converts. 
 
 " But he might have been a bishop !" Well, let him prove that what 
 might have been, actually was. Ananias might have been a bishop, too. 
 All the persons named in the New Testament might have been any 
 thing which partyism demands ; but this species of logic, on this occa- 
 sion, is wholly reprobate and inadmissible. 
 
 From the origin of baptism till now, no one superior to a disciple was 
 called upon to administer it. The baptism of John was, indeed, from 
 heaven, though some will have it, from men, and will have John to bap- 
 tize as a Levite. Yet even this was administered by the disciples of Je- 
 sus — for "Jesus baptized not, but his disciples baptized." A commu- 
 nity properly organized, will doubtless set apart some baptists, who will 
 attend to this ordinance in a becoming manner, persons of discrimination, 
 judgment, and responsibility of character. 
 
 The first gentile baptisms, it has been proved, and we now see it can- 
 not be withstood, were performed by laymen. Peter took with him 
 from Joppa to Cesarea " six brethren." They had no official designation 
 whatever. They were Jews by nation, and brethren by faith in Jesus 
 Christ. These were commanded to baptize the first fruits of the gen- 
 tile world. Unofficial persons, in the New Testament, are in distinction 
 from those in office, usually called " brethren." Thus they stand forever 
 stereotyped in the Jerusalem letters to the gentiles — " The apostles, elders, 
 and brethren send greeting." Peter, then, and the six brethren, were the 
 only baptized persons on the ground. Peter did not baptize, but com- 
 manded them to be baptized. The case is made out — and the negative 
 side of the question sustained by arguments invincible — by facts indis- 
 putable. 
 
 The gentleman observes, there is no council to decide when circum- 
 stances make such baptists necessary or expedient. There is no need for 
 such deliberations. The common sense of a community, and the good 
 sense of aged and experienced brethren, will be a much safer palladium 
 than ecclesiastic or synodical action. My general observation on this 
 subject is, that any disciple or brother may baptize, only when circum- 
 stances require and authorize it. If the circumstances are mistaken, no 
 very great danger may ensue ; for, indeed, there is much less depending 
 on the operation than any other circumstance, so far as the enjoyment of 
 the blessing is regarded. We have not experienced much trouble or dan- 
 ger on that account, although the license has been carried farther by us, 
 than any denomination in Christendom. It is now, indeed, much less fre- 
 quent than formerly, and will become still less so, as we advance to a 
 more complete organization. We cannot, then, in justice, be represented 
 
608 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 as teaching that every person, or any person, amongst us has a general 
 right to administer baptism. 
 
 Mr. Rice takes pleasure to say and to reiterate it, that when he asserts 
 any proposition or fact, he is always prepared to prove it. This is a fair 
 and plausible saying. It sounds well. But the fact of its performance is 
 better than the profession. How far it has been redeemed in this case, as 
 well as on other occasions, you all perceive. What proof has been ad- 
 vanced on the present proposition ? Does any one remember a verse in 
 the Bible, or a fair and plausible inference ? I do not. 
 
 The gentleman complains of my bringing books here to prove my 
 views — and has frequently before complained of my reliance upon learned 
 authorities, and upon numbers of witnesses, as if I were in those in- 
 stances inconsistent with myself. He takes pleasure in the attempt to 
 prove inconsistencies. Witness his readings from my writings. But 
 how complete the failure, you have all doubtless observed. But do I use 
 those books instead of the apostles ? Do I rely upon the number or 
 learning of my witnesses and vouchers? No. The Book of God is my 
 magazine of arguments and proofs. I use these authorities to expose the 
 nakedness of the land, and to show how empty the pretence of numbers 
 and learning against us. He demurs at the testimony of Leonard Bncon, 
 and would have you believe that I substitute him- for the apostles. Who 
 believes it ? No one — not even Mr. Rice ! Did I so use archbishop 
 Whateley, or Mr. Smyth, or any one else? I only used these to show, 
 that our views are not singular, and that light was breaking into his own 
 church, or the Pedo-baptist societies upon these subjects, on account of 
 which we have been so repudiated by such men as Mr. Rice. 
 
 The gentleman will, if possible, blur the face or the character of a 
 witness whom he cannot at all dispose of. He is sometimes a young 
 man, or he is on the wrong side, or some other demur. I was too young 
 when I renounced Presbyterianism — yet some twenty-four years old ! and 
 Mr. Bacon is too young a man, though as old as my opponent! Strange 
 logic. But when evidence is wanting for a proposition, it is politic to 
 attempt to weaken the authorities on the other side, especially when their 
 arguments cannot be at all encountered. But the embodiment of learn- 
 ing and good sense in the writings of these persons whom I adduce here, 
 will obtain for them as much esteem and authority as I desire them to 
 have. Mr. Bacon speaks with as much internal evidence of good sense, 
 sound discretion, and intellectual endowment, as my opponent, or any 
 other writer of his denomination in the country. Whateley is a giant 
 intellect, and of attainments of the highest order. 
 
 Weak minds are the slaves of old times, and of old customs. They 
 need the crutches of antiquity, and human authority. But men of vigor- 
 ous minds ask, what is truth? not who says it. True, the lesser lights 
 must yield to the superior. The moon will not contend with the sun, 
 nor twilight with the risen day. But it is an evidence, to my mind at 
 least, that a man has some intelligence, and some force of intellect, when 
 he has so much mental independence as to think for himself. 
 
 Mr. Rice seems peculiarly fond of speaking of my church, or of " his 
 friend's church." This is very well understood here. The gentleman 
 knows, however, that I have no church, and claim no such thing. 1 am 
 a member of Christ's church, and no more. I have presumed to lift up 
 my voice for reformation, and multitudes have responded to it. But we 
 are not our own church, nor our own people, but the Lord's. The au- 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 609 
 
 thority we possess is not personal, nor official. It is the authority of the 
 truth — the great truths elicited, or developed, in die current controversy, 
 and reformation. Light has been elicited by the collision and co-operation 
 of many minds ; and it is gone forth, and going forth, with a power as 
 irresistible as the light of God's sun. 
 
 We began at the right place, and at the right time — Jerusalem, and the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit. One party begins at Rome, another at Con- 
 stantinople, another at Geneva, Amsterdam, or Westminster, We begin 
 at Jerusalem. Others began with Luther, with Calvin, or with Wes- 
 ley. Some with this synod, and some with that. But we begin with 
 the twelve apostles assembled in Jerusalem. We must, Mr. President, go 
 beyond the reigns of king Henry VIII., prince Edward, and the mighty 
 tyrant Elizabeth. We must, sir, go beyond St. Athanasius, St. Augus- 
 tine, and the council of Nice. We must go up to Jerusalem and the 
 holy twelve. 
 
 Bishop Purcell, as all the Catholic bishops, gloried in Rome, and in 
 St. Peter. He has a line, or lineage, of bishops made out, from Peter to 
 Gregory XVI., a splendid hoax, a golden dream. Those who have the 
 idea of succession and hereditary grace in their heads, cannot dispense 
 with it. So much of the pope as there is in every man's stomach, so 
 much depends he upon this chain of so many links, not noticing how 
 many wooden ones are interposed. Is not Rome the mother and mis- 
 tress of all churches ? exclaims the prelate — the learned prelate of Cin- 
 cinnati! Was not Peter the first bishop of the imperial and eternal city? 
 We say prove it, and we will believe it. But never was there a greater 
 failure ! ! He could not prove that Peter was ever at Rome ; and if he 
 had — that he planted that church, and presided over it, is wholly out of 
 the question. But we argued then as now, and triumphed then on this 
 ground — and on this ground must always triumph, that Jerusalem is the 
 mother of all true churches, and the mistress too, if we must have a mis- 
 tress rather than a lord. We know that Peter was there, and set up 
 the kingdom there, and that all the holy twelve were there, and that the 
 first and last apostolic council was there ; and letters patent issued thence 
 in favor of all the gentile churches, and one grand act of incorporation 
 emanated thence. To Jerusalem, then, we make our first and last ap- 
 peal. Whenever Mr. Rice turns his eyes towards that ancient city, more 
 ancient, by a thousand years, than Rome ; more venerable, too, for a 
 thousand reasons ; he will give up his baptism — subject, action, design, 
 and administrator, too. He will, indeed, allow a bishop to baptize a 
 proper subject, but he will permit a deacon, too. 
 
 From Jerusalem sounded out the word of the Lord. It was the radi- 
 ating centre of Christianity. Great was the multitude of them that pub- 
 lished it. The brethren from that point perambulated Judea, Samaria, 
 Syria, &c. They preached the word every where, and every preacher 
 occasionally baptized his own converts; even Paul himself sometimes 
 immersed ! What was right in those days, is still right. All persons, 
 then, enlightened and gifted by God, may, by a jure divino, a right 
 sacred and divine, proclaim the word when opportunity and circum- 
 stances present themselves, demanding it. He that persuades a sinner 
 to come to the Lord, may also baptize him. For all of which we have 
 the highest authority — the practice of the first church. 
 
 I am opposed to all innovations. Innovations, with me, are not the 
 creations of last year, last century, nor of the last millenium. Innova- 
 39 
 
610 DEBATE ON THE ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. 
 
 tions are customs, usages, rites, doctrines that commenced one year after 
 John wrote the word amen at the end of the Apocalypse. All have a 
 right to read this book ; to think, speak, and act for themselves. When 
 they discover what the Lord would have them to do, they are not to con- 
 fer with flesh and blood — with expediency, with worldly interests, hon- 
 ors, friends, relations, but to obey and honor the Lord that bought them. 
 
 The gentleman has given me so little to do, I shall only add — that I 
 advocate good order, as well as abstract rights — and, while I have shown 
 what circumstances authorize in some cases, what they have authorized 
 on former occasions, I think that, in the present day, they authorize a 
 very high regard to good order ; and, as a general rule, call for particular 
 persons for particular and special works and services. 
 
 But, fellow-citizens, we all do fade as a leaf — we are frail dust and 
 ashes ; our words soon pass away. They perish from our lips as the 
 sound dies upon the ear. Our opinions are as light as air ; but God's 
 word has at all times firmly stood, and shall from age to age endure. 
 "All flesh is grass," and the glory of man as the flower that fadeth 
 away; "but the word of the Lord endureth forever." Bring all things, 
 then, to its discriminating and solemn test ; what accords with it receive, 
 believe, and practice: what does not, reject as a human invention, and 
 repudiate as a part of the doctrines and commandments of men. — [Time 
 expired. 
 
 [end of the fourth proposition.] 
 
PROPOSITION FIFTH. 
 
 In Conversion and Sanctif cation, the Spirit of God operates 
 
 on Persons only through the Word. Mr. Campbell affirms. 
 
 Mr. Rice denies. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 27 — 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's opening address.]] 
 
 Mr. President— The proposition to be discussed to-day, is admitted 
 on all hands to be of transcendent importance to the christian. It is ex- 
 pressed in the following words : — "In conversion and sanctif cation, the 
 Spirit of God operates on persons only through the Word. 
 
 Most controversies are mere logomachies — wars of words about words, 
 and not about things. Perspicuity and precision in the definition of the 
 terms of a proposition at the commencement, would have prevented more 
 than half of all the debates in the world, and would have reduced the 
 other half to less than half their size. Indeed, we yet need for daily use 
 a much more simple and scriptural vocabulary, on the great subject of 
 religion, as well as in some other departments of literature and science. 
 The cumbrous, unwieldy, and badly assorted nomenclature of certain 
 sciences, has, for centuries, retarded their progress. This is most unfor- 
 tunately true in the intellectual and moral departments. Scholastic theol- 
 ogy is greatly behind the age. The stale divinity of other times, refuses 
 to reconsider its sense or its symbols. Hence the superabundance of the 
 barbarous gibberish and miserable jargon yet extant in our creeds and sys- 
 tems of theoretic divinity. Some samples of these quaint vocables may 
 be given in the discussion of the creed question. 
 
 Meantime, we have yet to learn how much perversion, not of language 
 only, but of the mind also, has grown out of sectarian animosities and 
 bickerings. The periodical hobbies of religious parties generate, like our 
 political feuds, hosts of new terms ; and often change and modify the old 
 ones, that even a well practiced politician, with Johnson, and Webster, 
 and Richardson by his side, cannot now-a-days define either whig or tory, 
 democrat or republican. 
 
 It is truly an interesting study to learn the new phraseology of religion, 
 not only of religion in general, but of the different leading parties of the pres- 
 ent church militant. An adept in this study could almost swear to a Romanist 
 or a High-churchman, a Presbyterian or a Methodist, in the dark, if he only 
 heard him speak for a single hour; and that, too, without stating one of 
 his peculiar dogmata. Certain words, like the shibboleth of the Ephraim- 
 ites, invariably identify the religious tribe to which the speaker belongs. 
 
 In the midst of this babelism there is one fact, which it behooves me 
 to state. I scarcely know how, indeed, to introduce it in this place ; and 
 yet it is essential to a proper understanding of the whole subject before 
 us. This fact is, that, in the strife of partyism, some Bible terms have 
 been so appropriated to represent peculiar tenets and views which never 
 occurred to their inspired authors ; that, were Paul now living amongst 
 
 611 
 
612 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 us, he could not understand much of his own language. To this class 
 belong the words regeneration, sanctification, and conversion. 
 
 With special reference to the discussion, and to the words of my pro- 
 position, I must, therefore, notice one capital blunder, which, if not now 
 detected, might involve the subject before us in great obscurity. I can- 
 not, however, much as I regret it, distinctly unfold my meaning in a single 
 sentence. Allow me, then, to open it gradually to the apprehension 
 of all. 
 
 The various conditions of man, as he was, as he now is, and as he shall 
 hereafter be, as connected with Adam the first, and Adam the second, are 
 set forth in Sacred Scripture, under various images and metaphors, each 
 of which belongs exclusively to its own class, and is independent of eve- 
 ry other one ; requiring no addition nor subtraction of other images, 
 from other classes, to complete or to unfold it. For example ; the pres- 
 ent condition of sinners, in Adam the first, is set forth under such meta- 
 phors as the following: dead, destroyed, lost, alienated, enemy, going 
 astray, condemned in law, debtor, unclean, sold to sin, darkened, blind, 
 &c. Each one of these has a class of opposite metaphors, of the same 
 particular idea or figure. These metaphors, just now quoted, give rise 
 to a corresponding class, indicative of his new condition in Adam the 
 second , such as — quickened, made alive, born again, new created, saved, 
 reconciled, friend, converted, illuminated, pardoned, redeemed, &c. The 
 changing of these states is also set forth in suitable imagery ; such as — 
 regeneration, conversion, reconciliation, new creation, illumination, remis- 
 sion, adoption, redemption, salvation, &c. Now, the error to which I 
 allude, primarily consists in not uniformly regarding each one of these as a 
 complete view of man, in some one condition, or, in his whole condition 
 in Adam the first, or in Adam the second ; but in sometimes contemplat- 
 ing them as parts of one view, as fractions of one great whole, and, con- 
 sequently, to be all added up to make out a full scriptural view of man, 
 in Adam and in Christ, and of the transition from the one state to the other. 
 From this wild confusion of metaphors — the indiscriminate use of cer- 
 tain leading terms, mere images it may be, our very best and most admir- 
 ed treatises on theology are not always exempt. Hence regeneration, 
 conversion, justification, sanctification, &c. &c, are frequently represented 
 as component parts of one process: whereas, any one of these, indepen- 
 dent of the others, gives a full representation of the subject. Is a man 
 regenerated ? he is converted, justified, and sanctified. Is he sanctified ? 
 he is converted, justified and regenerated. With some system-builders, 
 however, regeneration is an instantaneous act, between which and con- 
 version there is a positive, substantive interval ; next comes justification ; 
 and then, in some still future time, sanctification. 
 
 A foreigner, in becoming a citizen, is sometimes said to be naturalized, 
 sometimes enfranchised, sometimes adopted, sometimes made a citizen. 
 Now, what intelligent citizen regards these as parts of one process ? 
 Rather, who does not consider them as different metaphors, setting forth 
 the same great change under various allusions to past and present circum- 
 stances ? From such a statement, none but a simpleton would imagine 
 that a foreigner was first naturalized, then enfranchised, then adopted, 
 and finally made an American citizen : yet such a simpleton is that learned 
 Rabbi, who represents a man, first regenerated, then converted, then jus- 
 tified, then sanctified, then saved. 
 
 Under any one of these images, various distinct acts of the mind, or of 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 613 
 
 the whole person of an individual, may be necessary to the completion 
 of the predicate concerning - him. Thus, in regeneration or conversion, 
 there may be included hearing, believing, repenting, and being baptized. 
 These are connected as cause and effect, under a fixed administration or 
 economy of salvation. So Paul asks, " How shall they call upon him in 
 whom they have not believed ? How shall they believe in him of whom 
 they have not heard ? — and how shall they hear without a preacher ? — 
 and bow shall they preach unless they be sent? 
 
 The terms of my proposition will now be easily defined and appre- 
 hended. Conversion is a term denoting that whole moral or spiritual 
 change, which is sometimes called sanctification, sometimes regeneration. 
 These are not three changes, but one change indicated by these three 
 terms, regeneration, conversion, sanctification. Whether we shall call it 
 by one or the other of these, depends upon the metaphor we happen to 
 have before us, in contemplating man as connected with the two Adams — 
 the old or the new, the first or the second, the earthly or the heaven- 
 ly. Is he dead in the first? — then he is born again and alive in the se- 
 cond. Has he, like the prodigal son, strayed away in the first, — he re- 
 turns, or is converted in the second. Is he unclean or polluted in the 
 earthly Adam ? — he is sanctified in the heavenly. Is he lost in the first? 
 — he is saved in the second. Is he destroyed and ruined in the first ? — 
 he is created anew in the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. 
 
 If I am asked, why I admitted the terms conversion, sanctification, or 
 regeneration into the proposition, I answer again, I could not help it. It 
 would have been to debate the question, while settling the preliminaries. 
 We must take the religious world as we have to take the natural or the 
 political; that is, just as we find them, or as they find us. I seek to ac- 
 complish in this preamble, what ought to have been, but which could not 
 be, accomplished, in settling the propositions. I therefore now, most 
 distinctly and emphatically state, that with me, and in reference to this 
 discussion, these terms, severally and collectively indicate a moral, a 
 spiritual, and not a physical nor legal change. 
 
 A physical change has respect to the essence or form of the subject. A 
 legal change, is a change as respects a legal sentence, or enactment. 
 Hence pardon, remission, Justification, have respect to law. But a mo- 
 ral or spiritual change, is a change of the moral state of the feelings, and 
 of the soul. In contrast with a merely intellectual change — a change of 
 views, it is called a change of the affections — a change of the heart. It is 
 in this acceptation of the subject of my proposition, that I predicate of it, 
 " The Spirit operates only through the Word." 
 
 The term only is, indeed, redundant ; because a moral change is effected 
 only by motives, and motives are arguments ; and all the arguments ever 
 used by the Holy Spirit, are found written in the book called the Word 
 of Truth. Hence, the term only is equivalent to a denial of what I con- 
 ceive to be the assumption of my respondent, viz: that the Spirit in re- 
 generation, operates sometimes without the Word. Only is, therefore, by 
 the force of circumstances, made to mean always. But, indeed, this is 
 more a matter of form, than of any grave importance — inasmuch as the 
 common admission of Protestants, and, I presume, of my opponent also, 
 is, that the change of which we speak is a moral, or spiritual change. 
 
 If, then, I prove that conversion, or sanctification, is effected by the 
 Word of Truth at all, I prove that it is a moral change, and, consequently, 
 accomplished by the Holy Spirit, through the Word alone. 
 
 3F 
 
014 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 On the subject of spiritual influence, there 3re two extremes of doctrine. 
 There is the Word alone system, and there is the Spirit alone system. I 
 believe in neither. The former is the parent of a cold, lifeless rationalism 
 and formality. The latter is, in some temperaments, the cause of a wild, 
 irrepressible enthusiasm ; and, in other cases, of a dark, melancholy des- 
 pondency. With some, there is a sort of compound system, claiming both 
 the Spirit and the Word — representing the naked Spirit of God operating 
 upon the naked soul of man, without any argument, or motive, interposed 
 in some mysterious and inexplicable way — incubating the soul, quickening, 
 or making it spiritually alive, by a direct and immediate contact, without 
 the intervention of one moral idea, or impression. But, after this creating 
 act, there is the bringing to bear upon it the gospel revelation, called con- 
 version. Hence, in this school, regeneration is the cause; and conver- 
 sion, at some future time, the result of that abstract operation. 
 
 There yet remains another school, which never speculatively separates 
 the Word and the Spirit; which, in every case of conversion, contem- 
 plates them as co-operating ; or, which is the same thing, conceives of 
 the Spirit of God as clothed with the gospel motives and arguments — en- 
 lightening, convincing, persuading sinners, and thus enabling them to flee 
 from the wrath to come. In this school, conversion and regeneration are 
 terms indicative of a moral or spiritual change — of a change accomplished 
 through the arguments, the light, the love, the grace of God expressed and 
 revealed, as well as approved by the supernatural attestations of the Holy 
 Spirit. They believe, and teach, that it is the Spirit that quickens, and 
 that the Word of God — the Living Word — is that incorruptible seed, 
 which, when planted in the heart, vegetates, and germinates, and grows, 
 and fructifies unto eternal life. They hold it to be unscriptural, irrational, 
 unphilosophic, to discriminate between spiritual agency and instrument- 
 ality — between what the Word, per se, or the Spirit, per se, severally 
 does ; as though they were two independent, and wholly distinct powers, 
 or influences. They object not to the co-operation of secondary causes ; 
 of various subordinate instrumentalities ; the ministry of men ; the minis- 
 try of angels ; the doctrine of special providences ; but, however, when- 
 ever the Word gets into the heart — the spiritual seed into the moral nature 
 of man ; it as naturally, as spontaneously grows there, as the sound, good 
 corn, when deposited in the genial earth. It has life in it; and is, there- 
 fore, sublimely and divinely called " The Living and Effectual Word." 
 
 I prefer the comparisons of the Great Teacher. They are the most 
 appropriate. We frequently err when handling these, because, in our 
 quest of forbidden knowledge, we are disposed to carry them farther than 
 he himself did. In the opening parable of the Gospel Age — a parable 
 placed first in the synopsis of parables presented by Matthew, Mark, 
 and Luke — he thus compares the Word of God to seed : and, with refer- 
 ence to that figure, he compares the human heart to soil, distributed into 
 six varieties : the trodden pathway, the rocky field, the thorny cliff, the 
 rich alluvian, the better, and the best of that. But we are not content 
 with that beautiful and instructive representation of the philosophy of 
 conversion. We must transcend these limits. We must explain the 
 theory of vegetation. We must explain the theory of soils. We must 
 even become spiritual geologists, and explore all the strata of mother 
 earth ; and even then, there yet remains an infinite series of whys and 
 wherefores concerning all the reasons of things connected with these va- 
 rieties. These speculations, and the conflicting theories to which they 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 615 
 
 have given birth, we will and bequeath to the more curious and specula- 
 tive, and will farther premise some things necessary to a proper opening 
 of the argument. 
 
 Man, by his fall or apostasy from God, lost three things — union with 
 God, original righteousness, and original holiness. In consequence of 
 these tremendous losses he forfeited life, lost the right of inheriting the 
 earth, and became subject to all the physical evils of this world. He is, 
 therefore, with the earth on which he lives, doomed to destruction: mean- 
 while, a remedial system is introduced, originating in the free, sovereign, 
 and unmerited favor of God; not, indeed, to restore man to an Eden 
 lost— to an inheritance forfeited — to a life enjoyed before his alienation 
 from his Divine Father and benefactor. This supremely glorious and 
 transcendent scheme of Almighty love, contemplates a nearer, more inti- 
 mate, and more sublime union with God, than that enjoyed in ancient par- 
 adise — a union, too, enduring as eternity — as indestructible as the divine 
 essence. It bestows on man an everlasting righteousness, a perfect holi- 
 ness, and an enduring blessedness in the presence of God for ever and 
 ever. 
 
 To accomplish this a new manifestation of the Divinity became necessary. 
 Hence the development of a plurality of existence in the Divine Nature. 
 The God of the first chapter of Genesis is the Lord God of the second. 
 Light advances as the pages of human history multiply, until we have 
 God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God clearly intimated in the 
 law, the prophets, and the Psalms. But, it was not until the Sun of 
 Righteousness arose — till the Word became incarnate and dwelt among 
 us — till we beheld his glory as that of an only begotten of the Father, 
 full of grace and truth ; it was not till Jesus of Nazareth had finished the 
 work of atonement on the hill of Calvary — till he had brought life and 
 immortality to light, by his revival and resurrection from the sealed 
 sepulchre of the Arimathean senator ; it was not till he gave a commis- 
 sion to convert the whole world, that the development of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit was fully stated and completed. 
 Since the descent of the Holy Spirit, on the birth-day of Christ's 
 church — since the glorious immersion of the three thousand triumphs of 
 the memorable Pentecost, the church has enjoyed the mysteries and sub- 
 lime light of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as one 
 Divinity, manifesting itself in these incomprehensible relations, in order 
 to effect the complete recovery and perfect redemption of man from the 
 guilt, the pollution, the power, and the punishment of sin. 
 
 No one, Mr. President, believes more firmly than I, and no one, I pre- 
 sume, endeavors to teach more distinctly and comprehensively than I, 
 this mysterious, sublime, and incomprehensible plurality and unity in the 
 Godhead. It is a relation that may be apprehended by all, though com- 
 prehended by none. It has its insuperable necessity in the present con- 
 dition of the universe. Without it, no one can believe in, or be recon- 
 ciled to, the remedial policy, as developed in the apostolic writings. 
 And, sir, I have no more faith in any man's profession of religion, than I 
 have in the sincerity of Mahomet, who does not believe in the Father, 
 and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit as co-operating in the illumination, 
 pardon, and sanctification of fallen, sinful, and degraded man. While, 
 then, I repudiate, with all my heart, the scholastic jargon of the Arian, 
 Unitarian, and Trinitarian hypotheses, I stand up before heaven and earth 
 in defence of the sacred style — in the fair, full and perfect comprehension 
 
616 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of all its words and sentences, according to the canons of a sound, exe- 
 getical interpretation. 
 
 I would not, sir, value at the price of a single mill the religion of any 
 man, as respects the grand affair of eternal life, whose religion is not be- 
 gun, carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit. 
 Nay, sir, I esteem it the peculiar excellence and glory of our religion, 
 that it is spiritual ; that the soul of man is quickened, enlightened, sanc- 
 tified and consoled by the indwelling presence of the Spirit of the eternal 
 God. But, while avowing these my convictions, I have no more fellow- 
 ship 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 the work of any of these awful names with that of another ; or which 
 represents our illumination, conversion and sanctification as the work of the 
 Spirit without the knowledge, belief and obedience of the gospel, as writ- 
 ten by the holy apostles and evangelists, than I have with the author and 
 finisher of the book of Mormon. 
 
 The revelation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not more clear and 
 distinct than are the different offices assumed and performed by these glo- 
 rious 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" — 
 " Whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son doeth likewise:" but not such a 
 concurrence as annuls personality, impairs or interferes with the distinct 
 offices of each in the salvation of man. For example : the Father sends 
 his Son, and not the Son his Father. The Father provides a body and a 
 soul for his Son, and not the Son for his Father. The Son offers up that 
 body 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 Spirit now advocates Christ's cause, and not 
 Christ his own cause. The Holy Spirit now animates the church with 
 his presence, and not Christ himself. He is the Head of the church, 
 while the Spirit is the heart of it. The Father originates all, the Son exe- 
 cutes all, the Spirit consummates all. Eternal volition, design and mis- 
 sion belong: to the Father ; reconciliation to the Son ; sanctification to the 
 Spirit. In each of these terms there are numerous terms and ideas of 
 subordinate extent, to which we cannot now advert. At present, we con- 
 sider the subject in its general character, and not in its particular details. 
 
 In the distribution of official agency, as it presents itself to our appre- 
 hension, with reference to the subject before us, we regard the benevolent 
 design and plan of man's redemption, as originating in the bosom of our 
 Divine Father ; the atonement, or sacrificial ransom, as the peculiar work 
 of the Messiah ; and the advocacy of his cause, in accomplishing the con- 
 version and sanctification of the world, the peculiar mission and office of 
 the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Spirit is the author of the written Word, as 
 much as Jesus Christ is the author of the blood of atonement. The 
 atoning blood of the everlasting covenant, is not more peculiarly the 
 blood of Jesus Christ, than is the Bible the immediate work of the Holy 
 Spirit, inspired and dictated by him ; "For holy men of old spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Spirit." TS'ow, as Jesus, the Messiah, in the 
 work of mediation, operates through his blood ; so the Holy Spirit, in 
 his official agency, operates through his Word and its ordinances. And 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 617 
 
 thus we have arrived at the proper consideration of our proposition, to wit: 
 In conversion and sanctification, the Holy Spirit operates only through the 
 Word of Truth. 
 
 In how many other ways the Spirit of God may operate in nature, or 
 in society, in the way of dreams, visions and miracles, comes not within 
 the premises contained in our proposition. To what extent He may ope- 
 rate in suggestions, special providences, or in any other way, is neither 
 affirmed nor denied in the proposition before us. It has respect to con- 
 version and sanctification only. Whatever ground is fairly covered by 
 these terms, belongs to this discussion. What lies not within these pre- 
 cincts, comes not legitimately into this debate. 
 
 I. Our first argument in proof of our proposition, shall be drawn from 
 the constitution of the human mind. 
 
 That the human mind has a specific and well-defined constitution, is as 
 evident, as that the body has a peculiar organization; or that the universe 
 itself has one grand code of laws, which govern it. Our intellectual and 
 moral constitution, as well as our physical, has its peculiar powers and 
 capacities — not one of which is violated on the part of our Creator, in his 
 remedial administration, any more than are our sensitive and animal facul- 
 ties destroyed or violated by the physician, who rationally and benevo- 
 lently aims at our restoration to health from some physical malady. No 
 new faculties are imparted — no old faculty destroyed. They are neither 
 more nor less in number ; they are neither better nor worse in kind. 
 Paul the apostle, and Saul of Tarsus, are the same person, so far as all 
 the animal, intellectual and moral powers are concerned. His mental and 
 physical temperament were just the same after, as before he became a 
 christian. The Spirit of God, in effecting this great change, does not 
 violate, metamorphose, or annihilate any power or faculty of the man, in 
 making the saint. He merely receives new ideas, and new impressions, 
 and undergoes a great moral, or spiritual change — so that he becomes 
 alive wherein he was dead, and dead wherein he was formerly alive. 
 
 As the body or outward man has its peculiar organization, so has the 
 mind. Both are organized in perfect adaptation to a world without us : 
 the one to a world of sensible and material objects, the other to that 
 world, and to a spiritual system also, with which it is to have perpetual 
 intimacy and communion. But the mind is to commune with its Creator, 
 and its Creator with it, through material as well as through spiritual na- 
 ture: and for this purpose he has endowed it with faculties, and the body 
 with senses favorable to these benevolent designs. 
 
 Now, as the body has to subsist upon material nature, and the mind 
 upon the spiritual system, both are so organized and furnished as to se- 
 cure and assimilate so much of both as are necessary for this end. Thus, 
 for example, the body lives, moves, and has its being in the midst of mat- 
 ter from which it is to draw perpetual sustenance and comfort. For doing 
 this, it is admirably fitted with an animal machinery, created for this pur- 
 pose, without which animal life would immediately become extinct. The 
 lungs are fitted for respiration, and the stomach is furnished with all the 
 powers necessary to the reception, digestion, and assimilation of so much 
 of material nature as is necessary to the heathful, vigorous and comforta- 
 ble subsistence of the body. But nothing from without can afford it sub- 
 sistence or comfort, but in harmony with this organization. 
 
 Man, then, has to live by breathing, eating, and drinking ; and without 
 these operations, nothing around him can afford him life and comfort. 
 
 3f2 
 
618 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Nothing of the bounties of nature can administer to his animal enjoy- 
 ments in any other way. God, then, feeds and sustains man in perfect 
 harmony with this organization. He neither dispenses with any of these 
 powers nor violates them, in supporting physical life and comfort. 
 
 Precisely so is it in the spiritual system. The mind has its powers of 
 receiving, assimilating, and enjoying whatever is suitable to itself, as the 
 body with which it is furnished. While embodied, it has only its own 
 proper faculties ; but it has, also, organs and senses in the body, by and 
 through which it communes with matter and with spirit, with God, and 
 nature, and man ; and through which they commune with it. It receives 
 all the ideas of material nature by outward, bodily senses, without 
 which it could not have one idea or impression of the external universe. 
 A blind man has no idea of colors, nor a deaf man of sounds. Neither 
 can any one give him an idea of them without those senses. Since the 
 world began, every man sees by his eyes and hears by his ears. What- 
 ever knowledge, therefore, is peculiar to any sense can never be acquired 
 by another. If God give sight to the blind, or hearing to the deaf, he does 
 it by restoring these senses : for, since the world began, no man has ever 
 seen by his ears nor heard by his eyes. 
 
 So true it is, that all our ideas of the sensible universe are the result of 
 sensation and reflection. All the knowledge we have of material nature, 
 has been acquired by the exercise of our senses and of our reason upon 
 those discoveries. With regard to the supernatural knowledge, or the 
 knowledge of God, that comes wholly "by faith," and "faith" itself 
 " comes by hearing." This aphorism is Divine. Faith is, therefore, a 
 consequence of hearing, and hearing is the effect of speaking ; for, hear- 
 ing comes by the Word of God spoken, as much as faith itself comes by 
 hearing. The intellectual and moral arrangement is, therefore — 1. The 
 word spoken ; 2. hearing ; 3. believing ; 4. feeling ; 5. doing. Such is 
 the constitution of the human mind — a constitution divine and excellent, 
 adapted to man's position in the universe. It is never violated in the 
 moral government of God. Religious action is uniformly the effect of 
 religious feeling : that is the effect of faith ; that of hearing ; and that of 
 something spoken by God. 
 
 Now, as faith in God is the first principle — the soul-renewing principle 
 of religion ; as it is the regenerating, justifying, sanctifying principle ; 
 without it, it is impossible to be acceptable to God. With it, a man is a 
 son of Abraham, a son of God; an heir apparent to eternal life — an ever- 
 lasting kingdom. 
 
 And what is christian faith ? It is a belief of testimony. It is a per- 
 suasion that God is true ; that the gospel is divine ; that God is love ; that 
 Christ's death is the sinner's life. It is trust in God. It is a reliance 
 upon his truth, his faithfulness, his power. It is not merely a cold as- 
 sent to truth, to testimony ; but a cordial, joyful consent to it, and recep- 
 tion of it. 
 
 Still it is dependent on testimony. No testimony, no faith. The 
 Spirit of God gave the testimony first. It bore witness to Jesus. It ex- 
 pected no faith without something to believe. Something to believe is 
 always presented to faith ; and that something must be heard before it can 
 be believed ; for, until it is heard, it is as though it were not — a nonentity. 
 But it is not enough, that it be heard by the outward ear. God has 
 given to man an inward, as well as an outward ear. The outward recog- 
 nizes sounds only ; the inward recognizes sense. Faith is, therefore, im- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 619 
 
 possible without language ; and, consequently, without the knowledge of 
 language, and that language understood. It is neither necessary nor pos- 
 sible, without language — intelligible language. An infant cannot have 
 faith ; but it needs neither faith, nor regeneration, nor baptism. It was 
 a figment of St. Augustine, adopted by Calvin, propagated in his Insti- 
 tutes, and adopted by his children. 
 
 These infant regenerators are lame in both limbs : in the right limb of 
 faith, and in the left limb of philosophy. They move on crutches, and 
 broken crutches, too. They have no philosophy of mind, or else they 
 abandon it in all their theological embarrassments. They will have in- 
 fants regenerated, and souls morally dead quickened by a direct impulse. 
 The Spirit of God is supposed to incubate their souls — to descend upon 
 them and work a grace in them — a faith without reason, without argu- 
 ment, without evidence, without intelligence, without perception, with- 
 out fear, hope, love, confidence, or approbation. 
 
 The whole system of Calvinism, of Arminianism, is crazy just at this 
 point. They build a world upon the back of a tortoise. They pile 
 mountains upon an egg. They build palaces upon ice, and repose on 
 couches of ether. They have not one clear idea on the subject of regen- 
 eration. It is to them a mystic mystery — a cabalistic word — a mere 
 shibboleth. The philosophy of mind is converted into a heap of ruins. 
 They have the Spirit of God operating without testimony — without ap- 
 prehension or comprehension — without sense, susceptibility, or feeling : 
 and all this for the sake of an incomprehensible, unintelligible, and worse 
 than useless theory. I, therefore, ex animo, repudiate their whole the- 
 ory of mystic influence, and metaphysical regeneration, as a vision of 
 visions, a dream of dreams, at war with philosophy, with the philosophy 
 of mind, with the Bible, with reason, with common sense, and with all 
 christian experience. 
 
 II. Our second argument is deduced from the fact, that no living man 
 has ever been heard of, and none can now be found, possessed of a single 
 conception of Christianity, of one spiritual thought, feeling, or emotion, 
 where the Bible, or some tradition from it, has not been before him. 
 Where the Bible has not been sent, or its traditions developed, there is 
 not one single spiritual idea, word, or action. It is all midnight — a gloom 
 profound — utter darkness. What stronger evidence can be adduced, than 
 this most evident and indisputable fact ? It weighs more than a thousand 
 volumes of metaphysical speculations. 
 
 One would most rationally conclude, that if the Spirit of God did any 
 where illuminate the human mind, or work into the heart the principle of 
 faith previous to, and independent of, any knowledge of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, he would most probably do it in those portions of the earth, and 
 amid those vast masses of human kind entirely destitute of the Word of 
 Life ; wholly ignorant of the " only name given under the whole heaven," 
 by which any sinful man can be saved. If, then, he has never operated 
 in this way, where the Bible has never gone, who can prove that he so 
 operates here, where the Bible is enjoyed. 
 
 When, then, we reflect upon the melancholy fact so often pressed upon 
 the attention of Christendom, by her missionaries to heathen lands, that 
 not more than one-third of human kind enjoy the name of Jesus.; that 
 six-tenths or seven-tenths of mankind are wholly given up to the most 
 stupid idolatries or delusions ; that pagan darkness, and Mahometan im- 
 postures cover the fairest and largest portions of our earth, and ingulph 
 
620 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the great majority of our race in the most debasing superstitions — in the 
 grossest ignorance, sensuality, and vice; and that from these is with- 
 holden all spiritual and divine influence, of a regenerating and salutary 
 character, so far as all documentary evidence avoucheth. If, then, in- 
 deed, the Spirit of the Bible, the Holy Spirit of our God, did, at all, tra- 
 vel out of the record, and work faith, or communicate intelligence, with- 
 out verbal testimony, methinks this is the proper field. And there being 
 no evidence of his having so done, is it not a fact as clear as revelation 
 from heaven — clear as demonstration itself, that the illuminating, regene- 
 rating, converting, sanctifying influences of the Spin* of Wisdom and Re- 
 velation, are not antecedent to, nor independent of, the written oracles of 
 that Spirit ? 
 
 III. Our third argument is deduced from the fact, that no one profess- 
 ing to have been the subject of the illuminating, converting, and sanctify- 
 ing operations of the Spirit of God, can ever express a single right con- 
 ception or idea on the whole subject of spiritual things, not already found 
 in the written word. We have been favored with numerous revelations 
 of the experiences of the most spiritually minded and excellent christians 
 of this our age. And on listening to them with the strictest attention, 
 marking, with all our powers of discrimination, every idea, sentiment, 
 and expression as uttered, I have never heard one suggestion containing 
 the feeblest ray of light, which was not eighteen hundred years old, and 
 already found in the Holy Scriptures — read of all men who choose to 
 learn what the Spirit of God has said to saints and sinners. Evident 
 then, it is, from this fact, which, I presume, I may also call an incontro- 
 vertible fact, that no light is communicated by the Holy Spirit, in regen- 
 erating and converting men ; which is equivalent to saying, that " in con- 
 version and sanctification the Spirit of God operates only through the 
 Word of Truth." 
 
 IV. My fourth argument is derived from another fact, which calls for 
 special consideration just at this point ; to wit, ivhatever is essential to re- 
 generation in any case, is essential to it in all cases. The change, called 
 regeneration, is a specific change. It consists of certain elements, and is 
 effected by a special agency. If it be a new heart given, a new life com- 
 municated, it is accomplished in all cases, as generation is, by the same 
 agency and instrumentality. If, then, the Spirit of God, without faith, 
 without the knowledge of the gospel, in any case regenerates an indivi- 
 dual, he does so in all cases. But if faith in God, or a knowledge of 
 Christ, is essential in one case, it is essential in every other case. 
 
 Now this being admitted, as I presume it will be, without farther ar- 
 gument or illustration, follows it not then, that neither the word of God, 
 nor the gospel of Christ, neither preaching nor teaching, neither hearing 
 nor believing, is necessary to regeneration, according to the doctrine of 
 the Presbyterian church ? inasmuch as that church believes and teaches 
 that infants and pagans are regenerated, in some cases, without any in- 
 strumentality at all, but by the direct, naked, and abstract influence of the 
 Spirit of God operating immediately upon their souls. As this is a most 
 essential affair in this discussion, it is all-important that we deliver our- 
 selves in the very words of the church, and especially in the creed of that 
 branch of the church to which my respondent belongs. 
 
 " This effectual call is of God's free and especial grace alone ; not from 
 any thing at all foreseen in man : nor from any power or agency in the 
 creature co-working with his special grace, the creature being wholly pas- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 621 
 
 sive therein: being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and 
 renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and 
 to embrace the grace offered and contained in it ; and that by no less power 
 than that which raised up Christ from the dead. Elect infants, dying in 
 infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who work- 
 eth when, and where, and how he pleases : so also are all other elect per- 
 sons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the 
 word." 
 
 So speaks the Confession, chap. x. sec. 2, 3. 
 
 Now, I ask, of what use is the ministry of the Word in any case, so far 
 as regeneration is concerned ? This is a point on which I am peculiarly 
 solicitous of illumination. Surely faith, and preaching, and the gospel 
 ministry are all vain and useless in making a man a new creature, if dying 
 infants and untaught pagans may be regenerated by the Spirit alone, with- 
 out faith, knowledge, or any illumination whatever. Nay, indeed, if my 
 position be true, and true it most assuredly is, that whatever is essential 
 to regeneration in any case is essential in all cases, then, although we have 
 three classes of subjects, to wit: elect infants, elect pagans, and elect gos- 
 pel hearers, we have for them all one and the same species of regenera- 
 tion. This is one of my reasons why I have charged my Presbyterian 
 friends, on some occasions, of " making the Word of God of non-effect by 
 their traditions;" and, therefore, I solicit such an exposition of this dog- 
 ma as will set me right, if I err in this particular. As the confession 
 reads, we have thus, in effecting the regeneration of an infant, the Spirit 
 alone operating by a physical power, tantamount to that which raised up 
 to life again, the dead body of the crucified Messiah. 
 
 Miracles, truly never cease on this hypothesis : inasmuch as the regen- 
 eration of every infant is a demonstration of a power as supernatural as 
 the resurrection of the Messiah. Unfortunately, however, this power is 
 not only never displayed to our conviction at the time, nor ever so dis- 
 played after the event as to become an object of perception, much less of 
 sensible demonstration. If, indeed, as it sometimes happens in some 
 branches of this school, regeneration is not regarded as another name for 
 conversion and sanctification, but a previous work, then it will be im- 
 portant that we be enlightened on the question. How long the interval 
 between regeneration and conversion, between regeneration and faith, and 
 between regeneration and the dying infant's or pagan's exit ? For if the 
 interval should be such as to preclude the possibility of conversion and 
 sanctification, we should have the startling fact promulged, that infants, 
 and pagans too, dying regenerate, enter heaven without being converted ! 
 Another curious question will certainly arise here. Of what use is infant 
 baptism, according to such a theory of regeneration? For, if elect infants 
 are regenerated without knowledge, faith, repentance, or baptism, and if 
 non-elect infants, though baptized, are not regenerated, why have such a 
 war of words about a matter virtually worth nothing to the living or to 
 the dead ? 
 
 V. My fifth argument shall be deduced from the Holy Spirit' s own 
 method of addressing unconverted men ; by signs addressed to the sense, 
 and words to the understanding and affections. The Messiah himself, 
 the seventy evangelists, and the twelve apostles were accomplished and 
 fitted for their ministry to the world by such inspirations and accompa- 
 nying powers as human nature and society, Jewish and pagan, then re- 
 quired, and I presume always will require. They were first sent to the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel ; and afterwards the apostles were sent to 
 
622 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the gentiles. Now, in seeking to regenerate and save the human family, 
 they, divinely guided, uttered certain words, and accompanied them with 
 certain miracles. These were the means supernaturally chosen and used. 
 They were certainly apposite means ; appropriate and fitted to the end 
 proposed by the donor of this intelligence and power. He seems to have 
 sought admission into the hearts of the people, by these glorious displays 
 of divine power presented to the eye, and these words of grace addressed 
 to the ear. They saw the sick healed, the leper cleansed, demons dis- 
 possessed and the dead raised ; and, while seeing these solemn and sig- 
 nificant arguments, they heard words of tenderness — words of pardon and 
 of life spoken with a divine earnestness, with a heavenly sympathy and 
 affection. Thus the Spirit sought to convert them. He used means, 
 rational means ; therefore, we argue, such means were necessary, and are 
 still, in certain modifications of that same supernatural grandeur, necessary 
 to conversion and sanctification. Signs, as Paul explains them, were 
 necessary, not for believers, but for unbelievers. They were necessary 
 to faith. The miracle opened the heart, the testimony of the Lord enter- 
 ed, and the Spirit of God with it; and the work of conversion was 
 finished. 
 
 Now, may we not conclude that miracles and words are not a mere re- 
 dundancy — a perfect superfluity? May we not regard them as essential 
 means, employed by the Holy Spirit, in accomplishing his work? It is, 
 perhaps, important also to say, that the proof of a proposition is always 
 subordinate in rank to the proposition which it proves. The life is not in 
 the miracle, but in that which the miracle proves. The grand proposition 
 is, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. 
 He that believes this proposition, is " begotten of God." It is the " in- 
 corruptible seed." It is the "living Word." It abideth forever. The 
 church of the Messiah is built upon it. The promises, then, certainly 
 justify the conclusion, that, in converting and sanctifying the world, the 
 inspired apostles and evangelists used means of divine authority ; and nei- 
 ther did depend upon, nor teach others to depend upon any agency from 
 above, dispensing with such an instrumentality. 
 
 VI. Our sixth argument is derived from the name chosen by the Mes- 
 siah, as the official designation of the Holy Spirit. He calls him the 
 Paracletos, and that, too, with a special reference to his new mission. 
 This term, occurring some five times in the apostolic writings, is, in the 
 common version, translated both comforter and advocate; and, by Dr. 
 Campbell, monitor. As an official name, I prefer advocate to either of 
 the others. It is generic, and comprehends them both. An advocate may 
 be a monitor, or a comforter; but a monitor, or a comforter, is not neces- 
 sarily an advocate. Now, as the Spirit is to advocate Christ's cause, he 
 must use means. Hence, when Jesus gives him the work of conviction, 
 he furnishes him with suitable and competent arguments to effect the 
 end of his mission. He was to convince the world of sin, righteousness 
 and judgment. In accomplishing this, he was to argue from three topics, 
 1. The unbelief of the world ; 2. Christ's reception in heaven ; 3. The 
 dethronement of his great adversary, the Prince of this world. Then the 
 person, mission and character of the Messiah alone came into his plead- 
 ings. Jesus promised him the documents. And, indeed, the four evan- 
 gelists are arranged upon the instruction given by the Messiah to his advo- 
 cate. In converting men, the Spirit, the Holy Advocate, was to speak of 
 Jesus. Hence, speaking of Jesus by the Spirit, is all that was necessary 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 623 
 
 to the conversion of men. The official service and work thus assigned, 
 the Holy Spirit is a standing evidence, that, in conversion and sanctifica- 
 tion, he operates only through the Word. And, as it has been already 
 shown, conversion is, in all cases, the same work, he operates in this de- 
 partment only by and through the Word, spoken or written ; and neither 
 physically nor metaphysically. 
 
 VII. Our seventh argument shall be deduced from the opening of the 
 commission ; from the gift of tongues, by which the Advocate commenced 
 his operations. That the Messiah had a commission for convincing and 
 converting the world, has been already shown. That he was to use argu- 
 ments has been fully proved ; that he was to speak and work also ; that, 
 by signs and miracles he accompanied the Word, and made it effectual. 
 Now, that language is essential to the completion of the commission, is 
 further proved from the great fact, that the first gift of the Holy Spirit, 
 under the Messiah's commission, was the gift of tongues. 
 
 Language, not merely the various dialects of human speech, but lan- 
 guage itself — not Hebrew, Greek and Roman — but that of which Hebrew, 
 Greek and Roman are mere dialects, forms, or modes, is essential. He 
 gave the first, and he gave the second. He made a glorious display of the 
 use of language, of the need of tongues, in commencing his new work. 
 He gave utterance ; for utterance is his gift. So Paul to the Corinthians 
 said, "You are enriched by him in all knowledge, and in all utterance." 
 The day of Pentecost is the best comment on this whole subject of spir- 
 itual influence ever written. We have much use for it in this discussion. 
 It is just as useful on the work of the Spirit, as on the genius and design 
 of baptism. 
 
 It seldom occurs to us, that all Christendom — the living world, is now 
 indebted for the very book that records the name, and embalms the me- 
 mory of the Messiah, and for all that is known of the Holy Spirit — for the 
 very language of the new covenant — for the gospel of the kingdom — and 
 for every spiritual idea and conception of God, of heaven, of immortality, 
 of our origin, nature, relations, obligations and destiny, to the immediate 
 agency of this Spirit of all Wisdom and Revelation — to the gift of tongues, 
 or of language. Yet, true to the letter it is, that " no one could say that 
 Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Some amongst us, through the ignorance that is in them on this grand 
 theme, ascribe to the human mind the powers of the Holy Spirit. They 
 represent the human mind as possessing some sort of innate power of 
 originating spiritual ideas ; to arrive at the knowledge of God by the 
 mere contemplation of nature. They annihilate the doctrine of the fall ; 
 of human imbecility and depravity, and adorn human reason with a very 
 splendid plagiarism, called natural religion. While at variance on almost 
 every thing else, the mental philosopher and the Deist, the Romanist and 
 the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian admirably coalesce and 
 harmonize in this self-congratulatory assumption. They say, that man 
 can, by the feeble, glimmering rush-light of his own studies of nature, either 
 descend from his a priori, or ascend from his a posteriori reasonings to 
 God — to the apprehension of his very being and perfections ; human re- 
 sponsibility, the soul's immortality, and a future state of rewards and 
 punishments, without the Bible, and without the teaching of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 We have neither so studied nature nor learned the Bible. We sub- 
 scribe to Paul's dogma, " The world by wisdom knew not God," and 
 
624 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 agree with him, that " it is by faith," and not by reason, " we know that 
 the worlds were framed by the Word of God — so that things now seen 
 existing did not formerly exist." We, indeed, ascribe all our ideas of 
 spirit and of a spiritual system ; our conceptions of God as creator — of 
 creation itself, of providence, and of redemption, to one and the same 
 Spirit, and to that Logos who, in one form or other, has been the pro- 
 phet or the advocate of the Messiah and his cause, for some six thou- 
 sand years. 
 
 We go yet further. We assign to the Spirit of all Wisdom and Reve- 
 lation the origination of the spiritual language ; perhaps, indeed, of all 
 language. The most enlightened men, whether Pagans, Jews, or Chris- 
 tians, regard language as a divine revelation — even that large portion of 
 it derived from sensible objects. The philosophers, from Plato down to 
 Dr. Whitby, have claimed for the Supreme God this honor. They have 
 refused it to either civilized or uncivilized man — to all conventional 
 agreement. They have handled, with great effect, that plainest of pro- 
 positions, that councils could not be convened ; that if they had sponta- 
 neously arisen, no motions could have been made, no debates commenced 
 nor conducted without the use of speech. Philosophers assume that 
 men think in words, as well as communicate by them ; or, at least, have 
 some image of the thing, natural or artificial, or they cannot even think 
 about it. The natural process, which can easily be made intelligible to 
 all, is, that the thing is pre-existent, the idea of it next, and the word 
 last. The line ascending is the word, the idea, the thing. The line 
 descending is the thing, the idea, the word. Now, as the line descend- 
 ing is necessarily first, we must, especially in things spiritual, admit that 
 the spiritual things could be communicated to man only by one that com- 
 prehends them, who had seen them, and who selected from the elements 
 of that language first given to man, when he conversed face to face with 
 God in Eden, the proper materials for words to communicate things spir- 
 itual. In strict accordance with this assumption, Moses teaches us that God 
 conferred with Adam, and continued his lessons until Adam was able to 
 give every creature around him a suitable name. That language com- 
 menced in this way all admit, from one fact, to wit: Every one speaks 
 the language which he first hears. This is his vernacular. A mir- 
 acle is before us. The first man spoke without being spoken to; else 
 God spoke to him. Either is a miracle : and of the two, the latter is of 
 the easiest credence ; and, indeed, it is to the faithful evidently time from 
 the words of Moses. With Plato, then, I say, that God taught the prim- 
 itive words, and from that, man manufactured the derivatives. With 
 Newton, I say, God gave man reason and religion by giving him speech. 
 With tradition, I say, that the god Thath of the Egyptians is the Theos 
 of the Bible, and the Logos of the New Testament. The Logos incar- 
 nate is the Messiah of Christianity. Therefore, the Spirit of God, now 
 the Spirit of the Word, is the origin of all spiritual words and concep- 
 tions. With Paul, therefore, I say, "We speak spiritual things in spir- 
 itual words, or words which the Spirit teacheth, expressing spiritual 
 things in spiritual words." 
 
 I will conclude in the language of the Hebrew poet : " It is God that 
 teacheth man knowledge, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him 
 understanding." "The entrance of thy Word giveth light: it giveth 
 understanding to the simple." The very language, then, as well as the 
 ideas that convert the soul, is spiritual. So that truly we may affirm, that 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 625 
 
 in conversion, the Spirit of God operates upon a person only by and 
 through the Word, and the ideas originated by himself. Of all which 
 the first demonstration of the Spirit in fiery tongues, words, language, 
 and signs, is a full and ample proof.— [Time expired. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 27—11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's first reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — There are two principal obstacles in the way of man's 
 salvation. The one is, that he has broken the law of God, and is, there- 
 fore, condemned : the other is, that he possesses a depraved nature, and 
 is, therefore, disqualified for the service of God and the happiness of hea- 
 ven. There are, likewise, two great doctrines which especially charac- 
 terize the gospel. The one is the atonement of Christ, by which we 
 may be relieved from the curse of the law : the other is the work of the 
 Spirit, by whose agency we may be sanctified and prepared for heaven. 
 These doctrines constitute the two chief pillars in the temple of gospel 
 truth ; and he who attempts to overturn the one or the other, does what 
 he can to destroy the sacred edifice, and to expose the human race, help- 
 less and hopeless, to the wrath of a just God. 
 
 The subject of discussion this morning is, therefore, as important as 
 the immortal interests of the soul. Without the atonement of Christ, all 
 must die in a state of condemnation ; and without the special agency of 
 the Holy Spirit, all must die in depravity and be eternally lost. 
 
 In the discussion of a subject such as the one now before us, it is of 
 the utmost importance that we understand distinctly the point in contro- 
 versy. In this, as in his other introductory addresses, my friend, Mr. C, 
 seems to have directed his efforts more to beauty of style and composi- 
 tion, than to the clear statement and defence of his faith. I venture the 
 opinion, that no one individual in this large and intelligent audience, has 
 been able to gather from the address he has just read to us, wherein we 
 differ, or what is the point to be debated. If any one has been so happy 
 as to have been enlightened concerning this important matter, I must 
 award to him more ingenuity and discrimination than I possess. If time 
 were allowed me, and I were capable of writing so handsome a discourse, 
 I might afford the audience another hour's entertainment; and yet they 
 would not know how far we agree in our views of this most important 
 subject, nor wherein we differ. 
 
 The gentleman has said a number of things which are true, and a num- 
 ber of things which, I suppose, are not true. Indeed, I could but admire 
 the number of topics he contrived to introduce in the course of an hour — 
 seclarian phraseology, the Trinity, the parts of the work of salvation 
 assigned to each of the Persons, the nature of matter and mind, infant bap- 
 tism, the origin of language, &c. ! ! ! I cannot subscribe to much that 
 he said with regard to theological systems and sectarian phraseology. 
 With him, it seems, all churches are " sects " but his own ; and yet it 
 would be difficult to find a denomination that is more accurately described 
 by a correct definition of the word sect. He tells us, he can at any time 
 know a Calvinist or an Arminian by his phraseology before he has heard 
 him an hour. And I will say, that I can identify a modern reformer of 
 his school in half the time ; not by his close adherence to Scripture 
 phraseology, but by the cant of the sect. The exclusive claims of some 
 of our modern sects to be the church, the only true church, savors more 
 of the pride of Rome, than of the Spirit of the gospel. If, however, the 
 40 3G 
 
626 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 gentleman can establish the high claims of his church, he will have ac- 
 complished an important work. 
 
 The proposition before us is in the following words : — "In conversion 
 and sanctification, the Holy Spirit operates on persons only through 
 the Word of Truth." 
 
 The word conversion, as used in the Scriptures, in its most enlarged 
 sense, expresses two important ideas, viz : 1 st. a change of heart, and 2d. 
 a change of conduct ; or a turning in heart and in life from sin to holi- 
 ness, from the service of Satan to the service of God. The word signi- 
 fies literally turning from one thing to another. When an individual who 
 has been pursuing a certain course, turns to an opposite one, we naturally 
 conclude that his mind is changed. Hence the word conversion came to 
 signify both cause and effect — the change of heart, and the consequent 
 change of conduct. In this sense it is used in Matt, xviii. 3 : " Except 
 ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven." 
 
 The word sanctification is employed in the Scriptures, and by all 
 accurate theological writers, not to signify something in its nature distinct 
 from regeneration or conversion, but the progress of the gracious work 
 of which regeneration is the commencement. 
 
 The difference between us, so far as this subject is concerned, is, in 
 general terms, this : Mr. Campbell believes, that in the work of conver- 
 sion and sanctification the Spirit operates only through the Truth. I 
 believe that the Holy Spirit operates through the truth where, in the na- 
 ture of the case, the truth can be employed ; but I deny, that the Spirit 
 operates only through the truth. I would not have consented to discuss 
 the proposition, if the word " only" had been omitted. For we believe 
 and teach, that the Holy Spirit operates ordinarily through the truth, but 
 not only through the truth. 
 
 That we may ascertain precisely the point in debate, it is important to 
 inquire how far we agree. I remark, then, that we agree on the follow- 
 ing points : 
 
 First. That the Holy Spirit dictated the Scriptures — that "holy men 
 spake of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Secondly. That the Holy Spirit confirmed the truth of the Scriptures 
 by miracles and prophecies. 
 
 Thirdly. That in the conversion and sanctification of those who are 
 capable of receiving and understanding the Scriptures, the Spirit operates 
 ordinarily through the truth. Thus far we are agreed. We differ on 
 the following important points : 
 
 First. Mr. Campbell contends, that in conversion and sanctification the 
 Spirit never operates without the truth, as the means of influencing the 
 mind. I maintain, that in the case of those dying in infancy and idiocy, 
 the Spirit operates without the truth. 
 
 Second. Mr. Campbell affirms, that in the conversion and sanctifica- 
 tion of those capable of understanding the Word, the Spirit operates only 
 through the truth— that is, the Spirit dictated and confirmed the Word, 
 and the Word, by its arguments and motives, converts and sanctifies the 
 soul. I desire that this point may be very distinctly apprehended ; for 
 it is of vital importance. Mr. Campbell teaches, that in conversion and 
 sanctification, the Holy Spirit operates on the minds of men, just as his 
 spirit operates on the minds of this audience ; or as the spirits of Demos- 
 thenes and Cicero operated on the minds of their auditors, or their readers, 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 627 
 
 viz. by his words and arguments alone. As .Mr. Campbell presents 
 words and arguments to the minds of his hearers or readers, and those 
 words and arguments exert an influence on them; so the Holy Spirit 
 presents in the Scriptures arguments and motives; and by these alone 
 does He operate on the human mind. 
 
 Such precisely is his doctrine on this vital subject. I regret that he 
 did not, in his address, more distinctly present it. To prove to you, my 
 friends, that I am not misrepresenting him, I will read several passages 
 from his Christianity Restored. 
 
 " Because arguments are addressed to the understanding, will, and affec- 
 tions of men, they are called moral, inasmuch as their tendency is to form 
 or change the habits, manners, or actions of men. Every spirit puts forth 
 its moral power in words ; that is, all the power it has over the views, hab- 
 its, manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and arrangement of its 
 ideas expressed in words, or in significant signs addressed to the eye or ear. 
 All the moral power of Cicero and Demosthenes was in their orations when 
 spoken, and in the circumstances which gave them meaning ; and whatever 
 power these men have exercised over Greece and Rome since their death, 
 is in their writings. 
 
 The tongue of the orator and the pen of the writer, though small instru- 
 ments and of little physical power, are the two most powerful instruments 
 in the world ; because they are to the mind as the arms to the body — they 
 are but the instruments of moral power. The strength is in what is spoken 
 or written. The argument is the power of the spirit of man ; and the only 
 power which one spirit can exert over another is its arguments. How 
 often do we see a whole congregation roused into certain actions, expres- 
 sions of joy or sorrow, by the spirit of one man. Yet no person supposes 
 that his spirit has literally deserted his body, and entered into every man 
 and woman in the house, although it is often said he has filled them with 
 his spirit. But how does that spirit, located in the head of yonder little 
 man, fill all the thousands around him with joy or sadness, with fear and 
 trembling, with zeal or indignation, as the case may be ] How has it dis- 
 played such power over so many minds'? By words uttered by the tongue; 
 by ideas communicated to the minds of the hearers. In this way only can 
 moral power be displayed. 
 
 From such premises we may say, that all the moral power which can be 
 exerted on human beings, is, and must of necessity be, in the arguments ad- 
 dressed to them. No other power than moral power can operate on minds ; 
 and this power must always be clothed in words, addressed to the eye or 
 ear. Thus we reason when revelation is altogether out of view. And when 
 we think of the power of the Spirit of God exerted upon minds or human 
 spirits, it is impossible for us to imagine, that that power can consist in 
 any thing else but words or arguments. Thus, in the nature of things, we 
 are prepared to expect verbal communications from the Spirit of God, if that 
 Spirit operates at all upon our spirits. As the moral power of every man 
 is in his arguments, so is the moral power of the Spirit of God in his argu- 
 ments. Thus man still retains an image of his Creator: and from such 
 analogy Paul reasons when he says, ( For the things of a man knows no 
 man, save the spirit of a man which is in him ; even so the things of God 
 knows no man, save the Spirit of God.' And the analogy stops not here: 
 for as he is said to resist another, whose arguments he understands and 
 opposes ; so are they said to resist the Holy Spirit, who always resist, or 
 refuse to yield to his arguments." — pp. 348, 349. 
 
 "But to return. As the spirit of man puts forth all its moral power, in 
 the words which it Jills with its ideas ; so the Spirit of God puts forth all its 
 converting and sanctifying power, in the words which it fills with its ideas. 
 Miracles cannot convert. They can only obtain a favorable hearing of the 
 converting arguments. If they fail to obtain a favorable hearing, the argu- 
 
628 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 merits which they prove are impotent as an unknown tongue. If the Spirit 
 of God has spoken all its arguments ; or, if the New and Old Testament 
 contain all the arguments which can be offered to reconcile man to God,, 
 and to purify them who are reconciled ; then all the power of the Holy 
 Spirit which can operate upon the human mind is spent ; and he that is not 
 sanctified and saved by these, cannot be saved by angels or spirits, human 
 or divine. * * * * 
 
 We plead, that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is exhibited in 
 the divine record." — pp. 350, 351. 
 
 These passages present, with great clearness, the views of Mr. C. on 
 this important subject. He asserts, that in conversion and sanetifieation 
 the Holy Spirit operates on the minds and hearts of men, only as the 
 spirit of one man operates on the spirit of another. Nay, he even 
 goes further, and denies, not only that the Spirit does operate except 
 simply by words and arguments, but that he can exert any other influence 
 over the human mind! In the Millenial Harbinger he has given us an 
 exhibition of his doctrine, too clear to admit of any mistake as to his real 
 sentiments. It is as follows : 
 
 " As all the influence which my spirit has exerted on other spirits, at 
 home or abroad, has been by the stipulated signs of ideas, of spiritual ope- 
 rations, by my written or spoken word ; so believe I that all the influence 
 of God's good Spirit now felt in the way of conviction or consolation in the 
 four quarters of the globe, is by the Word, written, read and heard, which is 
 called the living oracles." — vol. vi. p. 356. 
 
 Thus you see, according to the gentleman's doctrine, the Spirit of God 
 has no more power over the minds of men, than his spirit ; except that 
 He may present stronger arguments. That is, the only difference consists 
 in the fact, that the Holy Spirit is a more powerful preacher than Mr. 
 Campbell, though his operations are precisely of the same kind ! ! ! 
 Against this doctrine 1 enter my solemn protest. 
 
 We believe and teach, that in conversion and sanetifieation there is an 
 influence of the Spirit in addition to that of the Word, and distinct from 
 it — an influence, without which the arguments and motives of the gospel 
 would never convert and sanctify one of Adam's ruined race. We further 
 believe, that although the Word of God is employed as the instrument of 
 conversion and sanetifieation, where it can be used ; God has never con- 
 fined himself to means and instrumentalities, where they cannot be em- 
 ployed. In all ordinary cases He has always clothed and fed men by the 
 use of means ; but when his people were journeying through the wilder- 
 ness to the promised land, and could not obtain either food or raiment in 
 the ordinary way, they were fed with manna from heaven ; their thirst 
 was quenched by water miraculously brought out of the rock, and their 
 raiment was not permitted to wax old. When Elisha the prophet could 
 no longer obtain food in the ordinary way, God sent a raven to bear it to 
 him ; and when the widow's cruse of oil was almost exhausted, it was 
 miraculously replenished. So does He feed the soul with the bread of 
 life, through means and instrumentalities when they are acessible, and 
 without them when they are not. 
 
 But let it be remarked, that whilst we believe in an influence of the 
 Spirit, in addition to the Word, and distinct from it, we do not believe 
 that in conversion new faculties are created. The mind, both before and 
 after conversion, possesses understanding, will, and affections. There is 
 no creation of new faculties ; but a change of the moral nature — a spirit- 
 ual change — a change from sinfulness to holiness, and from the love and 
 practice of sin to the love and service of God. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 629 
 
 Nor do we maintain that in conversion and sanctification, the Holy- 
 Spirit reveals to the mind new truths not contained in the Scriptures. 
 ** For all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
 doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness : that 
 the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
 works." The design of regeneration is not to reveal new truths, but to 
 enable the sinner, who is blinded by his depravity, to see the truths of 
 revelation in their beauty and excellency, and to incline him to embrace 
 them, and to live accordingly. The difficulty is not, that God's revela- 
 tion is not perfect, presenting every truth which is necessary to life and 
 godliness ; nor that its truths are obscurely taught; but that the hearts of 
 men are " fully set in them to do evil" — that they " love darkness more 
 than light" — -that they are proud and rebellious, averse to the service of 
 God, and to the plan of salvation which he has devised. The psalmist, 
 David, sensible of his blindness to spiritual things, the glorious truths of 
 revelation, offered this prayer : " Open thou mine eyes, that I may be- 
 hold wondrous things out of thy law," — Ps. cxix. 18. The law of God, 
 the Holy Scriptures, he knew contained wonderful things ; but, in conse- 
 quence of his sinful blindness, he did not behold them clearly and distinctly. 
 He therefore prayed, not for an additional revelation, but for spiritual illu- 
 mination, for sanctification, that the cause of his blindness being removed, 
 he might see those things in their true nature ; that, " with open face 
 he might behold, as' in a glass, the glory of the Lord." 
 
 This statement of the doctrine of divine influence, is a complete an- 
 swer to the argument of Mr. Campbell, that those who profess to have 
 been regenerated by the special influence of the Holy Spirit, have re- 
 ceived no new ideas which are not contained in the Scriptures. Regen- 
 eration consists not in giving a new revelation, but a new heart. 
 
 In further elucidation of this subject, I remark, that the modus oper- 
 andi, the manner in which the Spirit operates on the human heart, we 
 do not pretend to comprehend. Nor is the mysteriousness of the influ- 
 ence, as to the mode of it, an objection against the doctrine. That God 
 created mind and matter, is perfectly clear, and easily apprehended ; but 
 how he created either the one or the other, none can understand. The 
 fact, that the mind acts through the body, is clear ; but how it acts, no 
 philosopher can explain. Nicodemus, the Jewish ruler, objected to this 
 doctrine as mysterious, and the Savior replied, " The wind bloweth 
 where it listeth ; and thou nearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
 whence it cometh and whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born of 
 the Spirit," — John iii. We feel the blowing of the wind, and perceive 
 its effects ; but how it blows, " whence it cometh, and whither it goeth," 
 is a mystery. The Spirit renews the heart. We can realize the effects 
 in ourselves, and see them in others ; but how He operates, we cannot 
 comprehend. No man denies that the wind blows, because he cannot 
 explain how it blows ; for he sees and feels the effects. The effects of 
 the Spirit's agency are equally manifest. We see the wicked man 
 turning from his wickedness, and delighting himself in the service of the 
 Holy One of Heaven. We ascribe the marvellous effect to an adequate 
 cause. That cause, the Scriptures teach us, is the Holy Spirit ; but the 
 manner of his operation they do not explain, nor does it become us to in- 
 quire concerning it. 
 
 Again, I remark, the necessity of the special agency of the Spirit on 
 the heart, in addition to the Word of Truth, does not arise from any lack 
 
 3g2 
 
63a DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of evidence that the Bible is a revelation from God. For, to every candid 
 mind, who will weigh the evidence, it is not only conclusive, but over- 
 whelming. Nor does it arise from any obscurity with which its instruc- 
 tions are conveyed ; for the inspired pen-men wrote with inimitable sim- 
 plicity. The great doctrines and duties of Christianity are so clearly 
 presented, and so variously illustrated, that all who are willing to know 
 and obey the truth, must understand them. " The King's high-way" is 
 made so plain, that " the way-faring man, though a fool, need not err there- 
 in." Nor does it arise from any defect in the motives presented in the 
 gospel, to induce men to serve God : for they are high as heaven, deep as 
 hell, vast as eternity, and melting as the dying agonies of the Son of God. 
 Nor is a special divine influence necessary, because man is not a free 
 moral agent ; for he is as free as an angel to consider the motives placed 
 before him, and to choose his own course. All that we mean, or can 
 mean, by free moral agency, is, that men, looking at the motives which 
 present themselves to their minds, voluntarily choose their own course. 
 They do as they please-— they are under no compulsion. 
 
 Why, then, it will be asked, is it necessary that there should be an 
 influence of the Spirit, in addition to that of the Word, and distinct from 
 it? The necessity arises simply from the depravity of the human heart — 
 its pride, its love of sin, and its deep-rooted aversion to the character of God, 
 to his pure law, and his soul-humbling gospel. To secure the perfect and 
 perpetual obedience of the angels, it is enough that the will of God be 
 made known to them ; for they are holy — they love God with all their pow- 
 ers, and their fellow-beings as themselves. Their highest joy is derived from 
 his service. They fly, swift as lightning, in obedience to his commands. 
 
 But such is not the character of man. He was created in the image 
 of his Maker; but he is fallen — -greatly fallen. The divine image has 
 been defaced. The character of God, so glorious in the eyes of angels, 
 has no attractions for him, Pride reigns in his heart. Angels prostrate 
 themselves with adoring wonder and love, before the throne of God ; 
 but man is too proud to kneel before Jehovah. Angels find the perfect 
 gratification of their pure affections, and the highest possible happiness, 
 in the contemplation of the works and perfections of God, in communion 
 with Him, and in his holy service. But man is fearfully degraded. He 
 worships and serves the creature, and forgets the Creator. He loves 
 earth, and its low and degrading pleasures. His affections are entwined 
 around them. Appeals to his gratitude and to his interest, fail to with- 
 draw them from earth, and fix them on heaven. 
 
 How shall we account for the widely different and opposite courses of 
 conduct pursued by angels and men ? Both are rational and accountable 
 creatures, under the government of the same God, having the same mo- 
 tives to obedience. Why do they not see, feel, and act alike ? The an- 
 swer is plain. The angels are holy, and men are sinful — deeply de- 
 praved. Hence the necessity of a special divine influence, in addition 
 to, and distinct from, the Word. Motives are sufficient to secure the obe- 
 dience of angels; for they are holy; they are disposed to do their whole 
 duty. Motives will not secure the obedience of men ; for they are sinful ; 
 they are disposed to rebel. Consequently, if any of the human family 
 love and serve God, it is because He " worketh in them to will and to 
 do, of his good pleasure." If those who have entered upon his service, 
 persevere to the end, it is because "He who began the good work in 
 them, will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ." 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 631 
 
 What are the effects of man's depravity, with' regard to his reception 
 of the gospel of Christ? The following are some of them: 
 
 1. Their minds, their affections, and their thoughts, are occupied with 
 earthly objects ; so that, like Gallio, they «* care for none of these things." 
 They cannot be induced to hear and to consider. The cares of the world, 
 and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word. rt Israel doth not know; 
 my people do not consider." They are unwilling to be taught the truths 
 of revelation. 
 
 2. Others hear and think ; but they are deeply averse to the soul-hum- 
 bling doctrines of the cross, and its pure principles and precepts. "Man, 
 through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God." Desir- 
 ing to take the world as their portion, they catch at every cavil against 
 the truth of the Bible, and become infidels : or perverting its plain in- 
 structions, and seeking a broader way to heaven, they become heretics. 
 
 3. Others still, admitting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the truth 
 of the doctrines of the cross, are mere speculative believers; and loving 
 the world and the things thereof, they reject the council of God against 
 their own souls. They barter their immortal interests for the pursuits and 
 pleasures of earth. 
 
 Such, briefly, are some of the effects of human depravity. It fills the 
 mind with trifles, makes it averse to the truths of revelation, and to the 
 service of God, and thus closes it against the appeals of the gospel of 
 Christ. 
 
 In conversion and sanctiflcation, this corruption of nature is to be sub- 
 dued and eradicated. No individual, it is certain, will ever become a 
 true christian, until he sees sin to be odious, and hates it; till he sees the 
 character of God to be glorious, and loves it ; till he perceives his lost 
 condition, and the precise adaptation of the Gospel to secure his salva- 
 tion, and cordially embraces it ; in a word, till the service of God is his 
 joy and his rejoicing. A radical moral change must be experienced, be- 
 fore the sinner will, or can, become a disciple of Christ. 
 
 That I have given a correct account of the character of man, I will now 
 prove, by a number of plain declarations of Scripture. Indeed, it is 
 scarcely necessary for me to enlarge on this branch of the subject: for 
 we have just heard read, by Mr. Campbell, several passages of Scripture, 
 which present a very dark picture of human nature. To those I will add 
 several others. In John iii. 6, the Savior, giving the reason why the 
 new birth is necessary, says : " For that which is born of the flesh is 
 flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The meaning of 
 this passage will be clear, if we can ascertain the meaning of the word 
 flesh. This word has, in the Scriptures, several meanings ; but when 
 used with reference to moral character, it always signifies depravity, sin- 
 fulness. Thus it is used in Galatians v. 19 — 21, " Now the works of 
 the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, 
 lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, 
 strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revilings, and 
 such like." These are the. works of ihe flesh, the legitimate products of 
 man's corrupt nature, left to itself. Here we can be at no loss to under- 
 stand the meaning of the word. It is the cause in man from which flow 
 the dreadful evils here enumerated ; it is his corrupt nature or disposi- 
 tion. And let it be remarked, no good is said to proceed from this na- 
 ture ; its fruits are " evil, and only evil, continually." In the same sense 
 the word flesh is used in the Epistle to the Romans, viii. 1, 6, 8, 9, "There 
 
632 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ, who walk 
 not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." " To walk after the flesh is to be 
 wicked, to walk after the Spirit is to be holy." Again, " So then, they 
 that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but 
 in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." They who 
 are in the flesh cannot please God. It is evident, therefore, that there is 
 nothing morally good in them ; for God is pleased with goodness where- 
 ever he sees it. But who are in the flesh ? All are in the flesh, unless 
 the Spirit of God dwell in them. It is, then, perfectly clear, that the 
 passage — " That which is born of the flesh is flesh," — means, that by 
 the natural birth all are depraved, entirely depraved ; for the flesh, as we 
 have seen, produces nothing but evil. 
 
 The same doctrine is taught in Gen. viii. 21, "And the Lord smelled 
 a sweet savor ; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the 
 ground any more for man's sake ; for [or though~\ the imagination of his 
 heart is evil from his youth." I do not read the description of man's 
 character, as given in Genesis vi., because some have pretended, that it 
 applied only to the corrupt generation then living ; and I desire to prove, 
 that after the flood, when only INoah and his family remained on earth, 
 the same doctrine was taught in the most unqualified terms — "The ima- 
 gination of his heart, [the human heart] is evil from his youth." It is 
 evil from the earliest period of his being. 
 
 The same doctrine is taught, in the strongest language, in Psalm li. 5 : 
 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive 
 me." Again, Psalm lviii. 3 — 5 : " The wicked are estranged from the 
 womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their 
 poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are like the deaf adder that 
 stoppeth her ear ; which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, 
 charming never so wisely." These passages teach the doctrine of the 
 original and entire depravity of man from his Jbirth, in language so clear 
 and so strong, that comment is unnecessary. 
 
 The same exhibition of the character of man is made by the prophet 
 Jeremiah, chap. xvii. 9, 10: "The heart is deceitful above all things, 
 and desperately wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart; 
 I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and ac- 
 cording to the fruit of his doings." Observe, he does not say the hearts 
 of some men, or of some classes of men, are thus deceitful and desperate- 
 ly wicked ; but the heart, using the most general expression in human 
 language, without qualification. How dark is the picture — "deceitful 
 above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it!" 
 
 In the third chapter to the Romans, Paul gives an infallible description 
 of man, as he is in heart and in life. " There is none righteous, no, not 
 one ; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after 
 God. They are all gone out of the way ; they are together become un- 
 profitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is 
 an open sepulchre ; with their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison 
 of asps is under their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. 
 Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their 
 ways ; and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of 
 God before their eyes." Thus Paul presents the deep and total corrup- 
 tion of man's nature. The description belongs not to one class, or to one 
 nation, or to one age. He pronounces it a correct exhibition of the char- 
 acter of both Jews and gentiles. All men do not actually commit all kinds 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 633 
 
 of sin ; nor do all proceed to the same length in any one course. But 
 there are in man the seeds of all evil — a nature which, freed from re- 
 straint, and exposed to temptation, will run headlong into crimes of all 
 kinds. Such is, in fact, the character of the human race, that John, the 
 apostle, says, without qualification, " The whole world lieth in wicked- 
 ness." 1 John v. 19. 
 
 In further confirmation of the doctrine of man's total depravity, if in- 
 deed the evidence can be increased, I will state an important fact, viz : 
 that all that is morally good in any man is by the Scriptures ascribed 
 to a radical change of heart, of which God is the author. Does any 
 one do good works ? Paul ascribes it to a new creation. " For we are 
 his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus into good works, which God 
 hath before ordained that we should walk in them," Eph. ii. 10. Does 
 any one love God and his fellow-creatures ? John says, " He that loveth 
 is born of God," 1 John iv. 7. Does any one believe, that Jesus is the 
 Christ ? The same apostle says, he " is born of God," ch. v. 1. Since, 
 then, all that is good in man is ascribed to a great change wrought in his 
 heart by the Holy Spirit, and all that is evil is ascribed to his nature ; it 
 follows inevitably, that he is entirely corrupt. 
 
 Such being the character of men, it is impossible, till their hearts are 
 renewed, that they shall love God, his law, or his gospel, or find pleasure 
 in his service. The reason is this : No human being ever admired and 
 loved a moral character just the opposite of his own. Both the judgment 
 and the conscience of a wicked man may constrain him to acknowledge, 
 that his virtuous neighbor is better than he ; but he will not choose him 
 as a companion, because of his purity of heart and life, nor find pleasure 
 in his society. "The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness com- 
 prehendeth it not." Our Savior appeared amongst the Jews in all the 
 perfection and loveliness of human nature and in the glory of divinity — 
 44 the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father ;" and yet they hated 
 him, because his character was to theirs, as light to darkness. " For 
 what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what com- 
 munion hath light with darkness !" -2 Cor. vi. 14. 
 
 It is, then, perfectly clear, that every individual must experience a rad- 
 ical change in his moral character, before he ever will love God or em- 
 brace the gospel of Christ. But are the truths of revelation sufficient to 
 effect this change ? They are not. If a man has conceived a strong 
 prejudice against his neighbor, through a mistaken view of his character 
 and conduct, you may remove the prejudice by giving him correct infor- 
 mation. Or if one man entertains unkind feelings towards another, only 
 because of some peculiar circumstances in which they happen to be placed 
 in relation to each other; a change of circumstances may produce a 
 change of feelings — reconciliation may take place. Thus Joseph's breth- 
 ren hated him, because they looked upon him as a successful rival in the 
 affections of their father. But when the circumstances were changed, 
 and, instead of regarding him as a rival, they looked up to him as a bene- 
 factor; their feelings were changed, and they were reconciled. But if a 
 man hate the true character of his neighbor; if he dislike him, not viewed 
 through erroneous information, but as he really is ; the one or the other 
 must greatly change, or they will never come together as friends. You 
 cannot induce the man who hates the real character of his fellow-man, to 
 love him, by presenting the hated qualities more distinctly to his view. 
 The more distinctly he sees that which he dislikes, the stronger, of 
 
634 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 course, is his aversion to it. Suppose, for example, an individual has a 
 most inveterate dislike to some particular color, red, if you please. Will 
 you be able to make him admire it by placing it before his eyes in the 
 clearest possible light? The color is the very thing he dislikes ; and you 
 present it to him in its scarlet hue with the hope of inducing him to ad- 
 mire it ! Evidently until his taste, if I may so call it, is changed, no 
 clearness of light through which it is seen, will cause him to admire it. 
 
 Let me apply the illustration. God is infinitely pure ; his law is 
 " holy, just, and good;" and his gospel is like its glorious author. The 
 character of man is just the opposite. Consequently his aversion to God 
 does not arise either from mistake, or from any unfavorable circumstances, 
 which might be changed. He is sinful ; God is infinitely pure ; therefore 
 there is in his heart a deep-rooted aversion to God. " The carnal 
 mind is enmity against God." The word of God is compared to light. 
 It is the medium through which we see the objects of revelation. Light 
 is the medium through which you see objects around you. It presents 
 to your view many things that please, and many that offend. Select, if 
 you please, one of the objects to which you have the greatest aversion. 
 Concentrate upon it as much light as possible, so that you distinctly see 
 its every feature. Now let me ask, will this concentration of light upon 
 an object to which you have the strongest aversion, cause you to admire 
 and love it? You say, it will not. Light cannot change your feelings 
 toward an object which you dislike. Either the object must change, or 
 you must change before you will love it. Let your mind be changed ; 
 and the same light which before revealed its apparent deformity, will now 
 reveal its beauty and loveliness. 
 
 So through the light of revelation we have presented to our minds the 
 character of God, his law, his gospel, heaven and hell. This revelation 
 presents these objects in their true character; but men, because of their 
 depravity, feel a strong aversion to them. They are not averse to the 
 character of God and the gospel of Christ through mistake, but they dislike 
 these glorious objects in their real character. Now when a man whose 
 heart is enmity to God in his true character, has that character presented 
 to his mind by the light of Divine Truth ; will the light cause him to ad- 
 mire and to love it? Or will he whose proud heart rises in rebellion 
 against the pure and soul-humbling gospel, be induced to love and em- 
 brace it by having it very clearly presented to his view ? Surely not. 
 It is clear, then, that man must experience a radical moral renovation — 
 must be greatly changed, or he never will love God and obey the gospel 
 of Christ. 
 
 This I take to be correct philosophy, as well as correct theology. 
 There is no mysticism and no abstruse speculation in it. It requires 
 not the mind of a Newton, a Locke, or a Bacon to perceive its truth. It 
 strikes the common sense of every reflecting mind ; and it presents to 
 view the reason why conversion and sanctiflcation never can be secured, 
 in the case of any one of our race, without an agency of the Holy Spirit 
 in addition to the truth, and distinct from it. 
 
 Having thus briefly explained the doctrine for which I contend, and 
 proved the necessity of a direct divine influence in conversion and sanc- 
 tification, I wish now to offer some further arguments against the doctrine 
 believed and taught by Mr. Campbell. 
 
 I. My first argument is this : — It prescribes to the power of God over 
 the human mind, an unreason-able and unscriptural limitation. I can 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 635 
 
 never subscribe to the doctrine, that God can exert over the human mmd 
 no more power than I, except that he may employ stronger arguments ; 
 that the Creator can influence men morally, only as they may be pleased 
 to listen to his arguments. I can never consent to place the Holy Spirit 
 on a perfect equality with man, except that he is a better preacher. 
 
 1st. The doctrine which thus limits the power of the Spirit, is most 
 unreasonable as well as most unscriptural. God created man holy in 
 the beginning, and he did it without words and arguments. Gen. i. 26, 
 27, "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness. 
 
 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created 
 
 he him." "Lo this only have I found, that God hath made man upright, 
 but they have sought out many inventions." Now, if God could origi- 
 nally create man holy, without words and arguments, who shall presume 
 to assert that he cannot create him anew, and restore his lost image, with- 
 out them ; or that he has now no power over the human mind, beyond 
 that of argument and motive? The gentleman may philosophise and 
 speculate as much as he pleases, to prove that God has no more power 
 over the heart of man than a fellow creature ; but the simple fact now 
 stated, that originally he made him upright without words or arguments, 
 is abundantly sufficient to refute his theory. 
 
 As he created man holy, so can he new-create him. As he created 
 Adam in his own image without words, so can he renew the infant mind, 
 and prepare it for heaven, though it cannot receive the truth. 
 
 Mr. Campbell will not deny that God created man upright, since in 
 his Christian System he has so taught: (pp, 26, 28.) 
 
 " Man, then, in his natural state, was not merely an animal, but an intel- 
 lectual, moral, pure, and holy being." 
 
 Again : 
 
 (i God made man upright, but they sought out many inventions. Adam 
 rebelled. The natural man became preternatural/' &c. 
 
 If, then, God made man upright without words and arguments, exert- 
 ing a moral influence over his mind without motives; who can prove, 
 that now his power is limited to mere words and arguments? 
 
 It is admitted, that the light of revelation is necessary to call into exer- 
 cise proper feelings and affections, and to prompt to a right course of 
 conduct; for we cannot love an object of which we know nothing, nor 
 obey a law concerning the requirements of which we are not informed. 
 But whether the light will call into exercise such feelings, depends upon 
 the moral character or state of the mind. The Jews beheld the miracles 
 Wrought by the Messiah in proof of his divinity and of his mission to 
 save men ; but such was the state of their minds, that they were either 
 unconvinced or unwilling to become his followers. Thus Paul accounted 
 for their blindness in reading the Old Testament, and yet rejecting the 
 very truths which it most clearly revealed. " But their minds were blind- 
 ed, for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the read- 
 ing of the Old Testament," 2 Cor. iii. 14. 
 
 The gentleman would make the impression on your minds, that accord- 
 ing to our doctrine there is no need of the gospel at all. But this is not 
 true. The light is necessary as the medium through which we may see 
 the objects around us ; but the light will not open the eyes of the blind. 
 The sun may shine with noon-day brightness, but the blind man will be 
 blind still ; or if a man hate the light and shut his eyes against it, he will 
 not see. This is not owing to any defect in the light, but to the defect 
 
636 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 in his eyes in the one case, and to hatred of light in the other. So the 
 light of revealed truth is necessary to present to the mind the objects cal- 
 culated to call into exercise holy affections ; but whether the effect will be 
 produced, depends upon the state of the heart. The fact, that men love 
 darkness more than light, and turn from beholding it, argues no imperfec- 
 tion in the light. 
 
 The light is still necessary, though of itself it cannot cause the blind 
 to see. The gospel is equally necessary, though of itself insufficient to 
 renew and sanctify the depraved hearts of men. If a man were suddenly 
 made as holy as an angel, he could not love God, unless he knew him ; 
 nor embrace the gospel, unless it were presented to him ; nor do his 
 work, unless it were made known to him ; nor aspire to heaven, unless it 
 were revealed to him. But when, by the Holy Spirit, the heart of the 
 sinner has been renewed, he is filled with adoring gratitude, and with deep 
 penitence, as the cross of Christ is presented to his view. He beholds 
 an adaptation in the plan of salvation to his situation, which he never saw 
 before ; and a glory in the character of the blessed Redeemer, he never 
 before beheld. In the beginning God made man upright; yet a revelation 
 of himself and of his will, was absolutely necessary, that he might love 
 and obey him. For similar reasons, the gospel is necessary, though alone 
 it cannot purify man. 
 
 2d. That Mr. Campbell's doctrine prescribes an unreasonable and nn- 
 scriptural limitation to the power of God over the human mind, is proved 
 conclusively by the fact, that God does, in the course of his providence, 
 exert over the moral conduct of man, a controlling influence, which is 
 not simply nor chiefly by words and arguments. And if he can control 
 them at all, without words and arguments, he can control them to any 
 extent. This fact I will prove by several declarations of Scripture. Exod. 
 xxxiv. 24. All the adult males of the Jews were required to go to Jeru- 
 salem thrice every year, to attend their three principal festivals. But how 
 could they safely leave their families and their possessions exposed, as 
 they must be, to the incursions of malignant enemies on their borders ? To 
 free their minds from apprehension, God gave them the following promise : 
 " For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders ; 
 neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear 
 before the Lord." Does not this promise proclaim the truth, that God 
 could and would exercise a controlling influence over the desires of the 
 surrounding nations? He not only said, that they should not invade the 
 territory of his people, but that they should not desire their land. Had 
 he no power to control their desires ? or did he restrain them by words 
 and arguments ? 
 
 Again, Prov. xxi. 1 : " The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord : as 
 the rivers of water, he turneth it whithersoever he will." Does Solomon 
 mean that God turns the hearts of kings by words and arguments? Ob- 
 serve, the language is very emphatic — expressing the entire control which 
 God can and does exercise over the hearts of kings. " He turneth it whith- 
 ersoever he will, even as he turns the rivers of water." And if he can, and 
 does thus completely turn the hearts of kings, can he not, and does he not 
 also turn the hearts of others, not by words and arguments only ? We 
 cannot avoid seeing, that in this passage God claims to govern men by an 
 influence far more powerful than mere motive. 
 
 The same truth is taught with equal clearness in Ezra vi. 22. The 
 Jews, who had returned from captivity in Babylon, " kept the feast of 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 637 
 
 unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the Lord had made them joy- 
 ful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen 
 their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." Here 
 we have a very remarkable instance of the exertion of a divine influence 
 over the moral conduct of a pagan king — a man who believed not in God's 
 revelation, but was an idolater. He turned the proud heart of this king 
 to his people, so that he aided them in the building of the temple at Jeru- 
 salem. Did he influence this king by words and arguments? Was this 
 remarkable conduct of the king the effect of mere motives? 
 
 Again, chap. viii. 27, 28 : " This Ezra went up from Babylon ; and he 
 was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had 
 given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of 
 the Lord his God upon him." Ezra having obtained a decree of the king, 
 in favor of the work of building the temple, uttered the following lan- 
 guage : "Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a 
 thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord, which 
 is in Jerusalem ; and hath extended mercy unto me before the king and 
 his counsellors, and before all the king's mighty princes." Ezra recog- 
 nized the hand of the Lord in his success ; a divine influence on the 
 hearts of proud and ungodly idolaters ; and he, therefore, offers thanks to 
 God for this remarkable interposition. Was this an influence exerted by 
 words and arguments ? Did not God control the moral conduct of those 
 men by another, and more powerful influence ? 
 
 The same doctrine is illustrated and confirmed by Neh. i. 11. Nehe- 
 miah had heard of the deplorable condition of Jerusalem and its inhabit- 
 ants ; and he desired to go and rebuild the temple and the city. It was 
 necessary to gain the consent of the king of Babylon ; and, therefore, he 
 prays — "O Lord, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the 
 prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who desire to fear 
 thy name; and prosper, I pray thee, thy servant this day, and grant him 
 mercy in the sight of this man." Nehemiah prayed for what? That the 
 Lord would so influence the mind of the king, that he would grant him 
 his request. And his prayer was answered — " And the king granted me, 
 according to the good hand of my God upon me." — chap. ii. 8. 
 
 These passages, and many others, prove, beyond controversy, that God 
 can, and does exert upon the minds of men a controlling influence, dis- 
 tinct from words and arguments. Consequently the doctrine of Mr. 
 Campbell, which denies that he does, or can exert any other moral influ- 
 ence than that of mere motives, is not true. 
 
 I will now offer a second argument against the gentleman's doctrine. 
 By the way, I should have been disposed to follow him in his argument, 
 if he had made any distinct statement of his doctrine, and attempted to 
 prove it. But it cannot be expected that I should follow him in such a 
 dissertation as that we have heard this morning ; in which there is no 
 clear and definite statement of the points at issue, and, of course, no clear 
 and pointed argument. It has, therefore, become necessary for me to 
 state his doctrine from his published works, and to advance arguments 
 against it. 
 
 II. The argument I was about to offer, is this : Mr. CampbelVs doc- 
 trine necessarily involves the damnation of all infants and idiots. I 
 do not say, that he holds the doctrine of infant damnation ; but I do say, 
 that, to be consistent, he must hold it — for it follows, as a necessary con- 
 sequence, if his doctrine concerning divine influence is true. 
 
 3H 
 
638 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 The gentleman, I must so far digress as to remark, is yet in trouble on 
 the subject of infant baptism. He has brought it up again. I did sup- 
 pose, that, after calling it up in almost every speech since the subject was 
 disposed of, he had at last fully delivered himself upon it ; but I was mis- 
 taken. If I understand his remarks correctly, he said, that all infants, 
 baptized or not, are saved. Is he not aware, that no Presbyterian, Meth- 
 odist, or evangelical Pedo-baptist baptizes infants for the purpose of sav- 
 ing them from hell, should they die in infancy ? Many things in the 
 plan of salvation we regard as useful, that are not absolutely essential to the 
 salvation of the soul. We esteem it a precious privilege and a solemn 
 duty to enter into covenant with God to train up our children in his nur- 
 ture and admonition, and humbly to claim his promise to be a God to us 
 and to our seed. God has commanded us to bring our children with us 
 into the covenant and into the church ; and we think it wise and useful to 
 obey him. I hope the gentleman will now be satisfied; but if he still 
 feels uneasy, he must still scatter his remarks about infant baptism through 
 all his speeches to the close of the debate. 
 
 But to return. The gentleman's doctrine, I have said, necessarily in- 
 volves the damnation of infants and idiots. This is an important argu- 
 ment ; for more than one third of the human race die in infancy. And 
 although I do not suppose, that his views will affect the safety of infants ; 
 still it is a subject which very deeply interests the feelings of every affec- 
 tionate parent. It would indeed be difficult to induce them to believe, 
 that infants, incapable of knowing right or wrong, are sent to hell. 
 
 It is a truth, clearly taught in Scripture and admitted by Mr. C, that 
 infants and idiots are by nature depraved. Our Savior said — " That which 
 is born of the flesh, is flesh." By the natural birth all are depraved. 
 This, I say, Mr. Campbell admits. I will read an extract or two from 
 his Christian System, where he has presented his views on this subject. 
 
 " This alarming and most strangely pregnant of all the facts in human 
 history, proves that Adam was not only the common father, but the actual 
 representative of all his children. * * * There is therefore a sin of our 
 nature, as well as personal transgression. Some inappositely call the sin 
 of our nature our ' original sin ;' as if the sin of Adam was the personal 
 offence of all his children. True indeed it is, our nature was corrupted by 
 the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us ; and hence, that heredita- 
 ry imbecility to do good, and that proneness to do evil, so universally appar- 
 ent in all human beings. Let no man open his mouth against the transmis- 
 sion of a moral distemper, until he satisfactorily explain the fact, that the 
 special characteristic vices of parents appear in their children as much as 
 the color of their skin, their hair, or the contour of their faces. A disease 
 in the moral constitution of man is as clearly transmissible as any physical 
 taint, if there be any truth in history, biography, or human observation. 
 
 Still man, with all his hereditary imbecility, is not under an invincible 
 necessity to sin. Greatly prone to evil, easily seduced into transgression, 
 he may or may not yield to passion and seduction. Hence the differences 
 we so often discover in the corruption and depravity of man. All inherit a 
 fallen, consequently a sinful nature ; though all are not equally depraved. 
 * * * Condemned to natural death, and greatly fallen and depraved in 
 our whole moral constitution though we certainly are, in consequence of 
 the sin of Adam ; still, because of the interposition of the second Adam, 
 none are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
 Lord, but those who actually and voluntarily sin against a dispensation of 
 mercy under which they are placed." 
 
 This system is indeed quite orthodox ; and since this is the gentle- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 639 
 
 man's second confession of faith, we may hope that his third will bring 
 him very nearly right ! There is, then, he acknowledges, " a sin of our 
 nature, as well as personal transgression ;" there is " a disease in the 
 moral constitution of man;" and he is "greatly fallen and depraved in 
 his whole moral constitution." Now the question is — how are infants, 
 thus fallen and depraved, to be saved? The gentleman, with singular 
 inconsistency, admits their depravity, denies any divine influence by 
 which they can be sanctified, and still expresses the opinion, that they may 
 be saved ! 
 
 Infants, it is admitted, are depraved. Then, concerning all that die in 
 infancy, one of three things is necessarily true, viz : either they go to hell, 
 or they go to heaven, in their depravity ; or they are sanctified by the 
 Spirit without the truth. But we know, that they cannot go to heaven 
 in their depravity; we know, that they cannot be sanctified through the 
 truth, which they cannot comprehend ; and Mr. Campbell denies, that 
 they can be sanctified without the truth. We are, therefore, forced to the 
 horrible conclusion, if his doctrine be true, that they die in depravity, and 
 are forever lost ! With his opinions on this subject I have nothing to do. 
 They directly contradict his doctrine; and, therefore, the one or the 
 other is false. But here I will, for the present, close my argument. — 
 [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. Campbell's second address.] 
 
 Monday, Nov. 27—12 o'clock, M. 
 
 Mr. President — I have had reasons numerous and various, before 
 to-day, to conclude that my zealous opponent has fallen upon a rather 
 singular mode of conducting the defence of the dogmata of his party, and 
 of assailing us. When the Presbyterians first proposed the discussion to 
 me, it was distincly stated and agreed upon, that we should severally 
 maintain and defend the doctrines which we teach, in such words and 
 propositions as we respectively preferred. The points selected were 
 supposed to comprehend the points at issue. It was also always contem- 
 plated and understood on my part, that we should have an equal number 
 of affirmatives and negatives, as our correspondence will exhibit, when 
 examined from first to last. We have now had the experience of ten 
 days, and upon an impartial retrospect of the past, and of the speech of 
 this morning, I must say, that I have never before been placed exactly 
 in the same circumstances. I have had some little experience in conduct- 
 ing popular discussions, and have had a considerable variety of opponents, 
 some that sought always to lead, and some who preferred to follow ; but I 
 have never before found just such an opponent as my friend, Mr. Rice, 
 one that will neither lead nor follow. [A laugh.] This is precisely the 
 state of the case. He has conducted the discussion of two affirmatives. 
 I did not wish to form an estimate of the man, his talents, or his policies, 
 from his management of the first. But I have now all the data before 
 me, which the present occasion will afford. He has done with his affirm- 
 ative propositions. He is now, for the third time, on the negative. 
 
 On the first affirmative, I was curious to comprehend his resources, 
 and to form a proper estimate of his powers of defence. After speaking 
 nearly half an hour, he took out his watch, and during twenty minutes 
 looked at it no less than five times. Finally, before his time expired, he 
 asked the moderators if his time was not nearly expended. On learning 
 that he had still a few minutes, he sat down. Thus toiled he under the 
 onus probandi of an infant subject of baptism. On Saturday last, as 
 
640 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 
 most of you will remember, when his other affirmative was on hand, 
 after various efforts in his opening speech,- to advance into the merits of 
 the question, after the fourth appeal to his tardy watch, he sat down at 
 the end of forty minutes ! 
 
 He looks to me, sir, for matter of argumentation. He is made for 
 contradiction. I have then to furnish materials for both sides. Instead 
 of responding to the proper issue, already formed, he seeks in my ad- 
 dresses new points from which to digress into new regions of negations ; 
 that is to say, I must give him data out of which to excogitate new, 
 adventitious, and foreign subjects — on which to wrangle in the way of 
 digression. He endeavors to make me always affirm, even while on the 
 negative side, that he may occupy a negative position as often as conve- 
 nient. 
 
 Of all this I ought not, probably, to complain. It is the best, the very 
 best mode of defence which his cause affords. I must, however, because 
 of his boastful manner, expose the awkwardness of his position, and the 
 barrenness of the soil which he occupies. He can do no better. 
 
 The gentleman knew that he had not one argument, not one precept, 
 or precedent in the Bible in support of either of his affirmations. His 
 hope, then, rested upon remote questions, far off inferences, involved rea- 
 sonings, irrelevant or false issues and contingencies. And while I affirm 
 and file off my arguments numerically, challenging investigation, why 
 does he not, why can he not, respond to them as in duty bound, according 
 to all the laws of disputation ? Has he then, sirs, at all responded to my 
 opening speech on this grand proposition ? With all reasonable em- 
 phasis, I pronounced argument first, second, third, &c, in order to chal- 
 lenge his special attention. But I could not succeed. The gentleman is 
 not to be moved in that way. I have then, sir, really and in truth, no 
 opponent on this occasion. In a speech of one hour, he did not come up 
 to one of my arguments, as though he felt it neither necessary or impor- 
 tant formally to encounter them. 
 
 These arguments I introduced by a considerable preface, containing 
 very important items of thought, and even of argument, as I supposed, 
 demanding some notice. Even that, too*, the gentleman found it most 
 convenient to pass in a respectful silence. But he was pleased to say, 
 that I do not state the issue, nor make out the difference between us. 
 Did I not read the proposition ? Did I not distinctly affirm " That the 
 Spirit of God operates in conversion and sanctiflcation only through the 
 truth?'*'' This I solemnly affirm as my belief. This he denies. He 
 maintains another proposition, viz : That the Spirit of God operates 
 in conversion and sanctiflcation, not only through the truth, but some- 
 times without it. The issue, then, was fairly stated and definitely made 
 out. There is no necessity for expatiating much more on this subject. I 
 submitted seven arguments in proof of the issue agreed upon. He has 
 formally responded to none of them. In so doing I cannot but conclude 
 that the argument, the real issue, is given up, and the gentleman cannot 
 at all respond to my proof. This is my conscientious conviction. I 
 may, then, either sit down, or proceed for the gratification of the audience, 
 to state some other arguments and proofs. I opine the gentleman will 
 never answer those now on hand ; indeed, I feel confident he cannot. 
 
 He has given us a few of the dry remains of some old harangues or 
 lectures upon total depravity, which he may have preached around the 
 country I know not how many times. This matter is wholly foreign to 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 641 
 
 the subject. The question is not about total depravity. I believe man 
 is depraved. He is proving a proposition, wide as the breadth of the heav- 
 ens of the subject before us. I believe that God presides over all the 
 works of his hands. But that is not the point of debate ; nor is the ques- 
 tion about what God can or cannot do — whether or not he turns the 
 hearts of kings and mortals, as the channels of the rivers or the seas are 
 turned. Whether he disposes the hearts of men, without words, is not 
 the question : for were it proved that he can move kings and princes, and 
 men of all ranks and degrees, as I believe, without the Bible, and without 
 words, that reaches not this issue at all. The question before us is about 
 sanctift cation, about conversion. These are but sallies, feints, mock as- 
 saults, wholly alien to the issue. The question is, whether God converts 
 men to Christ, or sanctifies christians, without the truth of the Bible. 
 If I could now marvel at any course the gentleman might adopt, I would 
 at his present singular attitude. Neither as affirmant or respondent will 
 he keep to the Bible. I truly regret this truckling and catering to vulgar 
 prejudices— this ad captandum rhetoric. "When he will rise, he may 
 tell you with a smile, " Well, I cannot please my friend, Mr. Campbell, 
 nor do I expect to please him." Mighty logic, indeed ! Unanswerable 
 argument, truly ! Alas ! — as my friend would say — alas ! for the cause 
 that depends upon such logical legerdemain ! 
 
 While on this subject, I beg leave to expatiate for a moment on the 
 scenes transpiring around us. I came here, at considerable sacrifice, to 
 debate certain great principles with the elect representative of a respec- 
 table religious denomination, claiming the advantages of an elevated cleri- 
 cal character, and some antiquity in some of its tenets and forms. Dur- 
 ing ten days, I have carefully observed the management, the tactics and 
 developments of my respondent and his party. I do not recollect on any 
 occasion, certainly at no discussion of any great religious question, to 
 have noticed so much homage and condescension to catch, if not to man- 
 ufacture, public opinion — and to set on foot the opinion that Mr. R. had 
 gained a glorious victory, in the cause of immersion at least. Touching 
 this love of partizan triumph, I am aware that this is common to such 
 occasions ; but the means by which it is sought on the present occasion, 
 really surpass every thing I have ever known or witnessed. 
 
 I was, indeed, expecting something of the kind ; but m} r anticipations 
 have been greatly transcended. On arriving in this city, I asked a gen- 
 tleman whom I now see standing in this audience, how many newspapers 
 were published in this city, and by whom, and to what parties the editors 
 belonged. Being informed on these points, the gentleman wished to 
 know my reasons for making these inquiries. I responded, that I simply 
 desired to know what facilities my Presbyterian friends might have for 
 manufacturing public opinion. My experience led me to expect that ef- 
 forts of this kind would be made ; for, in my debate with Mr. McCalla, 
 past twenty years ago, that indefatigable party had spared no pains to 
 propagate and circulate a glorious Pedo-baptist victory, and so continued 
 for several days, until Pedo-baptism became so perfectly bald and naked, 
 that none seemed disposed to do it homage. For at least two or three 
 days, rumors were sent abroad all over the land, that Mr. McCalla had 
 gloriously maintained the cause. A reverend gentleman, now in this as- 
 sembly, one of the moderators of that discussion, on his return to Flem- 
 ingsbUrgh, as I learn from good authority, very ingeniously explained 
 the result of that discussion, very much to the credit of the party. The 
 41 3h2 
 

 
 642 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 excited community, on hearing of his arrival, were anxious to hear his 
 opinion as to the final result. Some of the elders of his church approach- 
 ing him, said, " Well, sir, what of the debate? — how did it close?" 
 " Why, sir," said he, " Campbell would prove that a crow was white, if 
 you would listen to him." This sage remark saved the cause, at the ex- 
 pense of my reputation. It was the man that was defeated, and not the 
 cause of infant baptism. 
 
 On the present occasion, I learn a more extended system has been got 
 up. Runners spread the tidings abroad — letters are written to distant 
 places ; even the Presbyterian press has proclaimed all over the land a 
 glorious victory. To the old system more thoroughly carried out, has, 
 in this age of the march of mind, been added a new invention. True, 
 indeed, something like it in days of yore, seems to have occurred atDrury 
 Lane and other London theatres, when some new actor was about to 
 make his debut. In order to stimulate his energies, and to manufacture 
 fame, a few friends were stationed in the galleries above, with a previous 
 understanding when to clap, express their plaudits, and to encore his 
 performances. As an improvement, I learn a laughing committee has 
 been organized, with a clerical fugleman, at whose signal certain persons 
 are to smile a little broad, and thus encourage my worthy friend ! I 
 have, indeed, in these particulars, been somewhat disappointed. My 
 Pedo-baptist friends have rather gone ahead of all my past experiences 
 and expectations. 
 
 During the Roman Catholic discussion at Cincinnati, in 1836, I had a 
 second lesson in this school of experience. A certain Protestant editor, 
 who would at this day take rank among Puseyites of the first class, soon 
 as the discussion began, set on foot a manufacturing of public opinion. 
 He observed, very frankly, one day, that it was due to Protestantism that 
 should not triumph over the bishop, on some of the questions at least; I 
 for, said he, we ought all to know that our bishops stand or fall with 
 those of the Roman hierarchy. " If Mr. Campbell destroys the succession, 
 on what shall we hang our plea? our episcopacy goes by the board!" 
 Still I was not prepared for all that I have seen, and read, and heard on 
 this occasion. I had hoped the dignity of the discussion and the solem- 
 nity of the occasion would have prevented any thing of this sort. 
 
 For myself, I contend for truth, and not for victory without truth. My 
 prayer is, that truth, immutable, eternal truth, may prevail. The occa- 
 sion demands a calm, dignified, religious investigation of these grand 
 principles. It is all-important that it should be so. We are getting up a 
 book for the public, and we desire to give it to them without prejudice 
 and without bribe. Our motto is, Read, think, judge, and decide every 
 man for himself. 
 
 I did not come here to gain a triumph of that sort. I did not consider 
 there were any laurels to be won, nor any honors to be gained in this 
 field, nor from my present opponent. 1 presume no one of reflection 
 thinks otherwise. I never felt more the dignity, grandeur, and power of 
 truth than on the present occasion. She, standing erect, with lofty mien, 
 and heaven-directed eye, deigns not to use any other arguments or to 
 employ any other means than consience, religion, and the God of truth will 
 sanction and approve. Her reliance is not on human passion, temporal 
 interest, nor fleshly policies ; but on solid facts, substantial reasons, and 
 dignified argumentation. Entering upon a new week and upon a new 
 subject, I regard it due to myself, my brethren, the public, and the tri- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 643 
 
 umpiring cause of Divine Truth, to offer this critique upon the past ; that, 
 if possible, we may redeem time and proceed in a manner more worthy 
 of ourselves and the cause we advocate. To proceed, then, to the sub- 
 ject offered by Mr. Rice in his last speech. 
 
 Human depravity and special providence are not the topics on hand. 
 The gentleman must reply to me or admit that he cannot. It is my duty 
 now to lead, and his to follow, if he can. Meantime, I have nothing to 
 defend, and nothing to do in further maintaining my position — it seems to 
 be established. I will, therefore, make some remarks on the gentleman's 
 use of my writings. I do not shrink from the discussion of any thing I 
 have ever written on this subject. Yet it would be more than human, 
 more than any mortal man has yet achieved, if, in twenty years' writing, 
 and in issuing one magazine of forty-eight octavo pages every month, 
 written both at home and abroad, in steamboats, hotels, and in the houses 
 of my private friends and brethren; I should have so carefully, definitely, 
 and congruously expressed myself on every occasion, on these much con- 
 troverted subjects, as to furnish no occasion to our adversaries to extract a 
 sentence or a passage which, when put into their crucible and mixed with 
 other ingredients, might not be made to appear somewhat different from 
 itself, and myself, and my other writings. To seal the lips of cavilling 
 sectarians and captious priests, is a natural impossibility. The Great 
 Teacher himself could not, at least he did not do it. 
 
 I state it as a fact somewhat curious, that for several years I have not 
 looked over my first volumes ; nor do I, when about to write upon a sub- 
 ject, feel it necessary to examine all that I have previously said about it. 
 I am at no such pains to prevent contradictions, real or apparent. The 
 secret is, I have, like the four cardinal points, certain grand principles 
 clearly defined and solidly fixed in my own mind. These I cannot for- 
 get nor contradict. I can affirm, off-hand, what I have not written, if I 
 cannot always say what I have written. I cannot contradict these funda- 
 mentals — they are sternly fixed in my mind. As the first principle of 
 mathematics can never be forgotten, nor lost sight of, while the mind is 
 master of itself: so the grand fundamental principles of Christianity can 
 never be forgotten by him who has once clearly apprehended and sin- 
 cerely embraced them. We may not, however, always express ourselves 
 with equal clearness and precision. 
 
 As respects the passages read from Christianity Restored, I will say 
 that the gentleman has very greatly misrepresented me. I was explain- 
 ing what is usually called moral power in contradistinction from physical 
 power, or what some call spiritual power, as defined by some of our 
 schoolmen. Physical force and the power of motives are very different 
 things. Reasons, containing motives, constitute the elements and materi- 
 als of all moral, converting or sanctifying power, so far as known to 
 man. God's power is omnipotent, but it is consistent with himself and 
 itself. The gospel, Paul says, is "the power of God unto salvation.'''' 
 Hence the moral omnipotence of God is in the document called the gos- 
 pel. God's moral power is infinitely superior to ours. Yet all that 
 power is in the gospel, and this is all we mean by all the converting 
 power being in the Word of God. God may employ other means, other 
 power, if you please, in converting men; but nothing finally converts 
 them but the light and love of God in the gospel. 
 
 Every word of God has life in it. If I might explain myself by one 
 of the divine metaphors: — The seed, said Jesus, is the Word of God, 
 
644 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Now ever) grain of wheat, sound and good, has life in it ; but it must be 
 placed in a soil and under circumstances favorable to its development. It 
 will not germinate nor grow but under those circumstances. Hence, 
 when the Word of God is sown in the heart, it will grow and develop 
 itself in all the fruits of righteousness and holiness. The question is not, 
 how it is sown, how it gets into the heart ; but the question is, as to the 
 power developed and exhibited when there. Whenever the seed of the 
 Word is planted in the moral constitution of man, I believe it will vege- 
 tate, grow, blossom, and fructify unto eternal life. 
 
 With Mr. Rice conversion and sanctification seem to be by the Spirit 
 alone. If this be so in one case, it is so in all cases. This is one of my 
 main arguments ; for, as before affirmed, whatever will produce one ear 
 of corn will produce an indefinite number ; seeing that all that is essential 
 in any one case, is essential, neither more nor less, in every other case. 
 So observation and experience testify in all vegetable and animal products. 
 Is it not so, also, in the spiritual? If the Bible is to be our only guide, 
 that it is so, can be made most evident. It is thus that we use and apply 
 those offensive words, that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit 
 is in the Word. All the motives, arguments, and persuasions of the 
 Holy Spirit are found in the record. He uses no other in the work of 
 conversion, or in the work of sanctification. " Sanctify them through 
 thy truth." " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." So 
 far as moral influence is concerned there is none besides, none beyond 
 this. 
 
 If there be any other moral or spiritual influence in the new creation 
 of man, we call for the testimony and the definition of it. If the Lord 
 converts, sanctifies, and saves an infant without the Word, the gospel of 
 Christ — sanctification or conversion, then, is independent of the Word ; 
 and seeing it is so, the Word ceases to be the means of grace and of conver- 
 sion. The fact that whatever is essential to one product, whether ani- 
 mal, vegetable, intellectual, moral or spiritual, is essential to every other 
 result of the same kind, will one day explode this m) r stic, unintelligible, 
 unscriptural jargon, which makes void and of non-effect the Word of the 
 living God. 
 
 The doctrine which I oppose, so far as it is really believed and acted 
 upon, neutralizes preaching, annuls the Bible, and perfectly annihilates 
 human responsibility. I know of no doctrine more fatal. For if God, 
 by some mysterious power, without light, knowledge, a new idea, view 
 or reflection, touch the soul of A, B, or C, and make it holy by " infu- 
 sing a holy principle," if he does this without any thought, motive, or 
 argument, instantaneously and immediately, what comes of the doctrine 
 of human responsibility ! Of what use is preaching, or the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, or any instrumentality whatever ! ! While, then, I believe 
 and teach, and rejoice in the presence, and power, and positive influence 
 of God's Spirit in the work of conversion and sanctification; I do repu- 
 diate a doctrine full of desolation — which makes man a mere machine, 
 annihilates all rational liberty, destroys human responsibility, and makes 
 the Word of God a mere superfluity, of no essential importance, of no 
 salutary instrumentality in the great work of regeneration, — [Time ex- 
 pired. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 645 
 
 Monday, Nov. 27— 12^ o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's second reply.]. 
 
 Mr. President — I have had some little experience in public debates ; 
 and I have uniformly observed, that when men find themselves pressed 
 with arguments which they are conscious of being unable to answer, their 
 effort is to induce the audience to believe that their opponents are saying 
 absolutely nothing to the point. Such, as you are aware, has been the 
 course pursued by my opponent from the commencement of this discus- 
 sion. Fearful that the audience, in their simplicity, would believe that his 
 arguments had been answered, and his doctrine overthrown, he has again 
 and again most solemnly asseverated, as if divinely commissioned, that I 
 had advanced not an argument, had said not one word bearing on the sub- 
 ject before us. Such are the means by which he vainly seeks, in his 
 trouble, to save a sinking cause. Such are the means to which it is com- 
 mon for men to resort, when defending a bad cause. 
 
 But the gentleman has, at length, put forth his high decree, that Mr. 
 Rice must follow him, or confess that he cannot. And it is now time for 
 me to say to Mr. Campbell distinctly, that we have moderators, whose 
 business it is to determine when I am out of order, to whose decisions I 
 shall cheerfully submit; but that Mr. Campbell cannot moderate me. To 
 his dictation I most assuredly will not submit. 
 
 His statements concerning my previous course in ihis discussion, are 
 not true. I will not say, that he knows them to be untrue. I will not 
 violate the rules of this discussion, and of common courtesy, as he has re- 
 peatedly done, by throwing out against him personal imputations ; but I 
 will say, he is mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I submit to the Moderators whether I have violated the 
 rules of this discussion. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I will, then, mention some of his expressions: "licentious- 
 ness of the tongue;" — "base aspersion," &c. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. If I say, an author has written a base aspersion, does 
 this involve the moral character of my opponent ? 
 
 Col. Speed Smith. I understood the expression, " base aspersion," to 
 be used concerning the author read ? 
 
 Mr. Rice. I read only two authors, Perrin and Jones. Perrin wrote 
 a hundred years before Jones, and, therefore, could not have written 
 against him a base aspersion. The charge was against myself. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It was Faber to whom I referred, and not Perrin. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I have never seen any thing from Faber on this subject. I 
 read the paragraph from Perrin, and compared Jones' quotation with the 
 original; proving, that whilst he professed to quote Perrin, he omitted 
 what related to infant baptism. The gentleman cannot escape. 
 
 When a man so accustomed to debate as Mr. Campbell, and so remark- 
 able for his coolness and self-possession, displays so much temper, as the 
 audience witnessed in his last speech, there is sad evidence that something 
 is wrong. Men do not ordinarily lose their temper, when successful in 
 argument. I will not now detain to reply to his singular assertions con- 
 cerning my course in this discussion. I verily believe, that the sole cause 
 of his trouble is, that I adhere too closely to the point. Every argument 
 I have advanced bears directly on the subject in debate, unless when I am 
 diverted from it, in pursuit of my opponent. 
 
 He, of course, expects you to believe, that he never wanders from the 
 subject. Yet a part of his first speech was against infant baptism ! The 
 
646 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 argument, I presume, would be this: Infants ought not to be baptized; 
 therefore the Spirit, in conversion and sanctification, operates only through 
 the truth ! ! He is always in order — precisely to the point ! All this is 
 very easily understood. 
 
 His statements concerning the debate with McCalla — the runners who 
 proclaimed victory, &c, require proof. Moreover, the assertion that Mc- 
 Calla was defeated, needs to be proved. I also desire some evidence that 
 Mr. Burch, one of the moderators, made the remark charged upon him. 
 I have the very best reason for asserting that it is not true. No doubt Mr. 
 Campbell has been so informed ; but when he makes statements that are 
 to be stereotyped, and go forth to be read by thousands, he is solemnly 
 bound to have his proof at hand. Who does not know, that thousands of 
 rumors get afloat on such occasions, which have absolutely no foundation 
 in truth? The gentleman really seems to have greedily swallowed all 
 that his friends and his flatterers told him ; and hence he found no diffi- 
 culty in believing that every body ascribed to him a glorious victory. 
 
 But what has all this to do with the subject under discussion ? Quite- 
 as much, no doubt, as his ad captandum closing speech on Saturday had 
 to do with the administrator of baptism. To prove, of course, how 
 closely he always adheres to the subject in debate, he gave us a long 
 harangue about going for faith to Geneva, to Westminster, to Rome, &c. ! 
 So now he has given us a variety of statements, none of which are true, 
 about my mode of conducting the discussion ; the debate with McCalla; 
 manufacturing public sentiment, &c. — -all, of course, to prove, that in con- 
 version and sanctification the Spirit operates only through the truth ! ! 
 
 In reading the gentleman's writings for the purpose of having his views 
 distinctly before the audience, I was acting precisely in accordance with 
 our written agreement, as the correspondence will show. I was not pleas- 
 ed with the wording of the proposition now under discussion; and I 
 agreed to debate it with the distinct understanding and agreement on his 
 part, that I would appeal to his writings in determining its true meaning. 
 But I discover, that he is never so much out of temper, as when I read to 
 the audience from his own works ! 
 
 But the gentleman, in his excitement, told you, that I was delivering 
 to you the dry remains of old harangues which had been delivered he 
 knew not how often. This he asserts as a fact. Now, pray, how does 
 he know 1 What are we to think of a man who will stand up and boldly 
 assert facts, of the truth of which he cannot have evidence? 
 
 But he tells the audience, as usual,' that his arguments have not been 
 answered. Let us see whether they have or not. True, I did not 
 choose to number them, one, two, three, &c; but they have been effect- 
 ually answered. 
 
 His first argument to prove, that there can be no divine influence on 
 the human mind, except words and arguments, was based on his notion 
 concerning its nature and constitution. This I was under no obligation 
 to answer. If he will produce a "Thus saith the Lord" to sustain his 
 doctrine, I will at once yield the point ; but I am not concerned to an- 
 swer a long metaphysical argument, based on what he conceives to be the 
 constitution of the mind. He has professedly repudiated human philoso- 
 phy, and taken the Bible alone as his guide; and yet, in the discussion 
 of a scriptural doctrine, he hurries us immediately into the dark regions 
 of metaphysical speculation ! Does the Bible say, that such is the con- 
 stitution of the human mind, that the Spirit of God can exert over it no 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 647 
 
 moral influence, except by words and arguments ? Mr. Campbell's phi- 
 losophy says so; but where is the passage in God's word, that does so 
 teach ? 
 
 Now although I was under no obligation to answer such an argument. 
 I did expose it by presenting the simple and indisputable fact, that 
 originally God did create man holy, and that he did it without words and 
 arguments. I also proved by the Scriptures, that God in his providence 
 can and does exert a controlling influence over the moral conduct of men 
 by his Spirit, and not simply or mainly by argument and motive. These 
 simple and incontrovertible Bible facts demolish effectually his fine-spun 
 metaphysical argument, written out with so much labor. 
 
 His second argument was, that there are among pagans, who have not 
 the Bible, no spiritual ideas. This was answered by showing, that, ac- 
 cording to our views, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is not designed to 
 communicate new ideas, but to enlighten the mind by removing sin, the 
 cause of its blindness, that it may see, in their true light, the truths con- 
 tained in the Scriptures. The gentleman could not hear my reply. 
 
 His third argument was, that whatever is essential to regeneration in 
 one case, is essential in all cases ; and, therefore, if the Word of Truth is 
 necessary in any case, it is necessary in all. This was fully answered 
 by proving, that God has never limited himself in the bestowment of his 
 blessings, to any particular means and instrumentalities. Ordinarily he 
 has given his people food in the use of means ; l^ut when they have been 
 placed in circumstances where means could not be employed, as in their 
 journey through the wilderness, he has fed them without means. When 
 the multitudes were with the Savior in a desert place, he gave them bread 
 miraculously. So when infants are called from earth before they can be 
 sanctified through the truth, they are sanctified without it. Surely if God 
 would feed the bodies of his people without the ordinary means, he 
 would not refuse to the soul of an infant the bread of life. The soul is 
 worth infinitely more than the body, and eternal life than the temporal. 
 Such was my reply to his third argument; and I regard it as perfectly 
 conclusive. 
 
 His fourth argument was, that the Holy Spirit has addressed toords 
 and arguments to men. This is true ; but does this fact prove, that in 
 conversion and sanctification he operates only through the truth? He 
 can easily prove, that ordinarily the Spirit operates through the truth; 
 but he cannot prove, that he operates only through the truth. Yet this 
 is precisely what he has undertaken to prove. His proof, therefore, falls 
 very far short of his proposition. 
 
 His fifth argument was, that the Holy Spirit is called an advocate. This 
 is but a repetition of the other. But as an advocate, does he influence 
 the mind only by words and arguments ? The gentleman has not produced 
 a passage of Scripture, which so teaches. He boasts, that for every arti- 
 cle of his faith he has a " Thus saith the Lord." Has he, I ask you, my 
 friends, produced one passage of Scripture that sustains his proposition ? 
 He has not, and he cannot. Yet he has heaped on me no slight reproach 
 and abuse, because, as he pretends, I did not answer all his metaphysics ! 
 
 Before proceeding farther in the regular course of argument, I must 
 make a few remarks which I forgot at the proper time. The gentleman, 
 in the recklessness of despair, has charged the Presbyterians of this 
 community with attempting by unfair means to manufacture public senti- 
 ment against him. The charge is not true — not a word of truth in it. 
 
648 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 If he believes what he has said, it only proves, that a man in trouble can 
 persuade himself to believe the greatest absurdities. The truth is, my 
 friends have been more than satisfied with the expression of public senti- 
 ment relative to this debate. So clear, so strong, so unanimous has been 
 the verdict against him, by the crowds of intelligent persons of all classes, 
 of different denominations and of no denomination, that they have had 
 no temptation to seek to change it. I rejoice that such is the power of 
 truth, that it and not Presbyterians, has made public sentiment what it is. 
 I would not have it changed. I am more than satisfied. 
 
 But Mr. C. goes not for victory. I wish he would. I am anxious to 
 see his gigantic powers brought fully to bear on the subject. It may be 
 true, as he fretfully intimates, that he cannot gain very great fame by 
 triumphing over one so feeble as your humble servant; but it is also true, 
 that he may gain the more disgrace by failing, as he evidently has, to 
 sustain himself. What opinion will the public form of the strength of his 
 cause, when he, who would affect to look down with contempt upon men 
 of ordinary powers, fails to sustain it. What must be thought of this 
 boasted reformation, and of its invincible champion, when both sink un- 
 der the feeble strokes of a mere pigmy ! ! It is truly cause for alarm, 
 if, surrounded and sustained by almost an hundred of his preachers, and 
 crowds of his people, who came to this place in the most confident ex- 
 pectation of a complete triumph, he cannot keep public sentiment from 
 going strongly against him ! Alas, for this vaunted reformation ! 
 
 It would appear, if we are to believe the gentleman, that I misrepre- 
 sented him by reading his own book. He says, he maintains, that moral 
 power is exerted only by words and arguments ; but he makes a distinc- 
 tion between moral power and purely spiritual power. I will again read 
 from Christianity Restored, (pp. 347, 349,) and leave the audience to 
 judge whether I misrepresented him. 
 
 " We have two sorts of power, physical and moral. By the former we 
 operate upon matter ; by the latter upon mind. To put matter in motion 
 we use physical power, whether we call it animal or scientific power ; to 
 put mind in motion we use arguments, or motives addressed to the reason 
 and nature of man. * * * Every spirit puts its moral power in words ; 
 that is, all the power it has over the views, habits, manners or actions of 
 men, is in the meaning and arrangement of its ideas expressed in words, or 
 significant signs addressed to the eye or ear." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " No other power than moral power can operate on minds ; and this 
 power must always be clothed in words addressed to the eye or ear. Thus 
 we reason when revelation is altogether out of view. And when we think 
 of the power of the Spirit of God exerted upon minds or human spirits, it is 
 impossible for us to imagine that that power can consist in any thing else 
 but words and arguments. Thus, in the nature of things, we are prepared 
 to expect verbal communications from the Spirit of God, if that Spirit ope- 
 rates at all on our spirits. As the moral power of every man is in his argu- 
 ments, so is the moral power of the Spirit of God in his arguments." 
 
 Now, observe, the gentleman tells us, we have only two kinds of 
 power, viz. physical and moral; and he asserts, that no other power 
 than moral power can operate on minds. He further affirms, that every 
 spirit puts forth its moral power in words ; that as the moral power of 
 every man is in his arguments, so is the moral power of the Spirit of 
 God in his arguments, which must be addressed to the eye or ear. I 
 gave you the doctrine precisely as he has himself stated it. If he will 
 say that he was in enor when he wrote this book, we will certainly ad- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 649 
 
 mit that he has the right to change ; and since he is accustomed to 
 change, it cannot injure him much. I once heard of a Dutchman and an 
 Irishman who had been condemned to be hanged, and were in the same 
 prison. The Irishman was greatly bewailing his fate. The Dutchman 
 reproached him for his cowardice. Ah, said the Irishman, ye're used to 
 it. Mr. C. is used to changing. 
 
 I must occasionally illustrate a point by an anecdote, since the gentleman 
 has charged me with having a " a laughing committee" here ; or they 
 will have nothing to do. He has dealt out to this imaginary committee, 
 which must be large, quite a lecture for their unworthy employment ! 
 
 Let it be understood, that he has asserted, that only moral power can 
 be exerted on mind, and that all the moral power of the Spirit must be 
 put forth in words and arguments. He even goes so far as to say, that 
 " if the Spirit of God has spoken all its arguments ; or, if the New and 
 Old Testaments contain all the arguments which can be offered to recon- 
 cile man to God, and to purify them who are reconciled, then all the 
 power of the Holy Spirit, lohich can operate upon the human mind, is 
 spent ; and he that is not sanctified and saved by- these, cannot be saved 
 by angels or spirits, human or divine." — lb. p. 350. If all the convert- 
 ing power of the Spirit is spent, there is, of course, no further influence 
 that he can exert to save man. 
 
 The gentleman, eitherito illustrate or to prove his doctrine, told us that 
 a grain of wheat or of corn, has life in it, and thai- when it is placed in the 
 earth, it will grow ; and so the Word of God, the seed, when it gets into 
 man's moral nature, will bring forth fruit. But the wheat and the corn 
 will not grow without the heat of the sun and rain ; and man cannot cre- 
 ate either the one or the other. I am pleased with the illustration ; for 
 the Scriptures teach, that though " Paul planteth, and Apollos watereth, 
 God giveth the increase." In conversion and sanctification, there is a 
 work for man and a work for God ; and he who rejects God's part of the 
 work, must be forever undone. 
 
 The gentleman objects to the doctrine for which we contend, that it 
 makes the Word of God wholly unnecessary. Light cannot heal the 
 eyes of the blind man, nor open the eyes of him who hates it. But is 
 light therefore worthless ? Light is the medium through which objects 
 are seen ; but if my eyes are diseased, the light, however brightly it may 
 shine, cannot cause me to see. But let my eyes be healed, and then I 
 can see by means of the light. As the light is absolutely necessary to 
 vision, though it cannot cause the blind to see, so is the gospel necessary, 
 though alone it cannot purify the depraved heart. 
 
 Again, Mr. Campbell objects that the doctrine of a special divine influ- 
 ence in conversion and sanctification, destroys the accountability of man. 
 That this objection is wholly unfounded, is perfectly plain. Man is a free 
 moral agent. In view of motives, he freely chooses and refuses. But 
 his heart, as Solomon says, " is set in him to do evil." In the exercise 
 of his freedom, he deliberately chooses to sin. Is he then a mere ma- 
 chine? But God works in him to will and to do — inclines him to 
 turn from sin to holiness. Is his free agency thus destroyed? Cannot 
 God incline the sinner to the path of righteousness, without interfering 
 with his freedom and accountability ? The gentleman would have us be- 
 lieve, that he never makes assertions without adducing the proof. I ven- 
 ture to say, that he cannot find a passage in the Bible, nor an acknowl- 
 edged principle of mental philosophy, by which to sustain his objection. 
 
 31 
 
650 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 When I closed my last speeeli, I was proving that Mr. Campbell's 
 doctrine necessarily involves the damnation of infants and idiots. He 
 admits their native depravity. He denies that they can be sanctified 
 Without the truth. We know that they cannot receive the truth ; conse- 
 quently they must die in their depravity ; and wherever they may go, 
 certain it is that they cannot go to heaven. He may express the opinion, 
 that they may be saved, but his opinion contradicts his doctrine. There 
 is no way of escaping the difficulty, but by abandoning the doctrine. He 
 cannot answer the argument — it admits of no answer. 
 
 But the Scriptures clearly teach the necessity of regeneration in the 
 case of infants, as well as of adults. Our Savior said to Nicodemus, 
 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the 
 Spirit is spirit," — John iii. 6. Infants, it will be admitted, are born of 
 the flesh ; consequently they must be born of the Spirit, or they cannot 
 enter into the kingdom of God. By the natural birth, they are sinful ; 
 by the spiritual birth, they become holy. But if, as Mr. C. teaches, in- 
 fants cannot be born of the Spirit, they cannot be saved. 
 
 He complains, that I do not follow him in his train of remark, as the 
 respondent should follow the affirmant. Whether I will follow him or 
 not, depends very much on the course he takes. Every passage of Scrip- 
 ture which he may adduce in support of his doctrine, I will notice ; but, 
 in his metaphysical dissertations, I shall not feel bound to follow him. 
 
 III. My third argument against his doctrine is — that it contradicts the 
 doctrine of human depravity, as taught in the Scriptures : for, if his doc- 
 trine is true, men sin only through ignorance or mistake. All that is ne- 
 cessary in order to convert and sanctify those, at least, who ever will be 
 saved, is, according to Mr. C, simply to teach them the truth — to present 
 before their minds words and arguments. Only teach them the truth, and 
 they will turn and serve God, and go to heaven. Why, then, did they 
 not sooner turn ? Because they were laboring under mistaken notions. 
 They had adopted erroneous views of the character of God, of his law, 
 and his gospel ! All tha,t is necessary, therefore, according to this doc- 
 trine, is to correct their mistakes. 
 
 This doctrine, I say, is contrary to the Scriptures. Let us examine 
 a few passages, which prove clearly, that men do not sin simply through 
 mistake, but wilfully. Eccl. viii. 11 : " Because sentence against an evil 
 work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully 
 set in them to do evil." Oh. ix. 3 : " Yea, also, the heart of the sons of 
 men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after 
 that they go to the dead." Ps. x. 4 : " The wicked, through the pride of 
 his countenance, will not seek after God : God is not in all his thoughts." 
 The reception with which the gospel meets among men, is set forth in a 
 parable by our Savior, in which he says, " And they all with one consent 
 began to make excuse," — Luke xiv. 18. Paul accounts for all the abom- 
 inations of the heathens, by saying, "And even as they did not like to re- 
 tain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind," 
 Rom. i. 28. 
 
 These scriptures and many others, teach most distinctly, that men sin, 
 not because they are ignorant or are under mistaken impressions, but 
 knowingly, wilfully, deliberately — that their actual transgressions flow 
 from a corrupt and rebellious disposition. It is true, that men do fall into 
 error ; but it is not so much the error that causes them to sin, as it is sin 
 that causes them to err. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, proves the 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 651 
 
 depravity of the heathen, first, by their errors in belief, and secondly, by 
 their immoralities in practice. The former .affords as decided evidence 
 of a sinful disposition as the latter. If a man stumble over every thing 
 in his way in daylight, we know that he is blind. So if any man with 
 the Bible in his hand, err fundamentally, we know that a sinful heart has 
 blinded him. 
 
 The doctrine of Mr. C. makes men, at least those who will ever be 
 saved, sin only through mistake. The Scriptures teach, that they sin 
 knowingly, wilfully, and deliberately. His theory, therefore, contradicts 
 the teaching of the Scriptures concerning human depravity. It is, there- 
 fore, false. 
 
 I fear I shall look at my watch too often for the comfort of my friend ; 
 but I do not like to commence a new argument, when my time is near 
 out. So I will, for the present, close. 
 
 [Here Mr. Campbell arose and said : I beg the decision of the modera- 
 tors upon the point, whether the respondent is not bound, according to the 
 established usage of debate, to answer and respond to such matters as may 
 be advanced by the affirmant. 
 
 One of the moderators then arose and remarked as follows : It is the 
 most appropriate mode of procedure for the affirmant to open his ground 
 of debate with such arguments as he may be able to adduce, and for the 
 respondent to notice those grounds ; but in his own way. The object of 
 each is to prove his own position ; but he must do it in his own mode. 
 Men's minds are differently constituted. Their reasoning faculties run in 
 different channels ; and while one is making an argument, the other may 
 suppose that he is evasive, and his remarks not appropriate : while the 
 party replying may deem them perfectly so. All that we can decide is, 
 whether or not the parties indulge in extraneous or irrelevant matter. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Is it not usual for the respondent to reply in some way 
 or other to the matter presented by the affirmant? 
 
 Moderator. It is certainly expected that he will notice the matter pre- 
 sented by the affirmant. 
 
 Another moderator remarked, that it had devolved upon him to offer a 
 few words with reference to the course of procedure thus far. He had on 
 several occasions observed the boundaries of good order to have been very 
 nearly trodden upon; but it was always unpleasant, on such an occasion, 
 to check the speaker ; and, though he had been more than once upon the 
 point of striking, when, by an explanation from the speaker the debate 
 had been permitted to proceed. If he might be indulged in the sugges- 
 tion, he would here intimate the propriety of avoiding, in future, every 
 thing of a personal character : and he trusted that they would be able to 
 get along without again touching so nearly upon the line. 
 
 The former moderator said, he would add another suggestion. He 
 thought as if, generally, the debatants had conducted themselves with great 
 propriety and decorum, which, to the moderators, had been highly gratify- 
 ing. It could not be denied, however, that on some occasions there had 
 been digressions from the true line of logical argumentation ; and he would 
 add, that these things would never do good, and that such matter would 
 not look well in print. The propositions should alone be considered, and 
 nothing but authorities and argument ought to be introduced into the 
 discussion. 
 
 Mr. Fishback said, as a friend, he would recommend the reading of 
 the rules. 
 
652 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Under these rules I have thought that my friend was 
 out of order, in upbraiding me with the consequences of a doctrine which 
 I do not teach. If I understood, he ascribes to my teaching the conse- 
 quences of sending infants to hell ; which I have ascribed to those cruel 
 decrees. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I have stated, that I did not charge upon my friend with 
 actually holding the doctrine of infant damnation. 
 
 Moderator. We cannot decide whether the argument is persuasive or 
 conclusive. Mr. Rice has assumed and endeavored to disprove the doc- 
 trine advanced on the other side ; and he has a right to try that argument 
 and except to its absurdities. But whether he can maintain his ground, 
 we are not prepared to decide. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 27— 12| o'clock, P. M, 
 [mr. Campbell's third address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Sir : There are several small matters that require 
 attention. Among these is the remark of Mr. Burch on the result of the 
 McCalla debate, as to the conversion of a black crow into a white one. 
 
 Mr. Rice. Mr. Burch says he did not say so. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Of course the gentleman means he did not remember 
 his having said so. He could not testify in such a case. No man could 
 testify in a case of this sort, after an interval of twenty years, what he 
 did not say on such an occasion. One single good witness declaring that 
 he heard him say so, w T ould, in a court of evidence, set aside his want of 
 recollection in the case, and would stand in law. A person's having no 
 present recollection of what he said twenty years ago, is no proof that he 
 did not say so. This is, indeed, a matter of very small moment — it is 
 only the occasion that gives it any consequence. 
 
 Mr. Rice desires to know how I could say that he had been delivering 
 the fragments of old harangues on total depravity. He seems to intimate 
 that christian morality might be implicated in such a saying. I have sat- 
 isfactory evidence of the fact from two sources. First, I have heard of 
 his discourses on this subject round the country, in different places ; and 
 again, I have positive written evidence of the fact of his promulgation of 
 these views in his controversy, in one of our periodicals, with president 
 Shannon. 
 
 The remarks on the subject of my excitement, I will reserve to another 
 occasion. I shall, then, proceed to the argument which closed my last 
 speech. 
 
 If there be the slightest apparent relevency in the arguments of my op- 
 ponent to any thing I have advanced, or to the true and proper issue be- 
 fore us, I hold myself in duty bound to respond to it. But when there 
 are many things of the same class, it is not necessary to respond to them 
 individually and severally. I will, in such case, select the strongest par- 
 ticular or incident introduced; and in disposing of that, as a matter of 
 course, the others of that class are disposed of. 
 
 To illustrate and apply this observation, I must remind you that in my 
 introductory address it is my aim to express, in a written form, the more 
 cardinal principles, and classes of evidence and arguments relied on, as 
 fixed points, to which at any time after, in the course of discussion, we 
 may recur with certainty. In my opening address, therefore, I very 
 formally propounded one invaluable principle or argument, in support of 
 this thesis — that God has given to the human mind a certain constitution, 
 as he has to the body of man, or to the universe ; and that, whatever be 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 653 
 
 the process of regeneration, conversion, or sanctification, it must, from 
 the universal laws of the universe, be in perfect harmony with that con- 
 stitution ; hence no power or faculty of the human mind is changed or 
 destroyed, in this great moral revolution of which we speak. A fact 
 this, which, when duly appreciated, forever annihilates the system which 
 I oppose. Mr. Rice gives evidence of its clearness and power. He felt 
 it, and how does he seek to dispose of it? He tells us that God made 
 man holy at first, and that he can do it again ! He created Adam holy, 
 and he may create others. This is, in reality, an admission of the un- 
 answerable force of this argument. He therefore seeks to go beyond its 
 dominions — beyond the present constitution of man, and affirms, that if 
 God cannot violate his present constitution, he can do as he did before, 
 make an original constitution or create him holy as he created Adam !! 
 That is, he can create a new Adam out of the old Adam, as he created 
 Adam out of the dust of the ground, &c! Truly this is a triumph of no 
 ordinary character. He commences a response by conceding my posi- 
 tion, and asking for God the power to literally create a new man. But 
 this is not the question before us. I admit that God could have created 
 another Adam, and that he can now literally create a holy man ; but it is 
 not an original physical primordial creation, but a moral change, a moral 
 renovation and creation of which we speak. It is not the origination 
 of a new constitution, but a change of heart, a transformation moral that 
 we are inquiring into. 
 
 Will the gentleman say that creation, providence, and redemption are 
 the same process of divine power ? Was not creation a miracle ? Was 
 there a previously existing constitution of the universe and of man? 
 Did God make man after man's own previously existing constitution? 
 Because God did at first give to man a constitution after his own image — 
 follows it, therefore, that God will create for him a new constitution, now 
 that he is fallen, and make him new by miracle? And would not man be 
 as perfect now as he was at first, according to this hypothesis? For when 
 God made Adam holy, he was perfectly holy. Does God thus make 
 christians perfectly holy? When these objections to his presumptive as- 
 sumption are responded to, he shall have others. 
 
 Infants and adults are then created holy by the same direct and posi- 
 tive fiat, the same specific miracle that, made Adam holy. Avaunt, then, 
 all secondary causes, all ministerial means, all Bible preaching and moral 
 argumentations! God makes infants, adults and pagans holy, by the same 
 means that he made Adam holy ; that is, by a miracle. With Mr. Rice 
 every conversion is just as great a miracle as the creation of Adam ; for 
 recollect, his only escape from my argument is, that as God could and did 
 give to Adam a holy constitution, so does he now give a holy constitution 
 to infants, Pagans, Jews, and all other persons whom he pleases thus to 
 create anew. Was there ever a more perfect fatalism than this? Every 
 infant and adult now made holy is a miracle — a new and original demon- 
 stration of Omnipotence. Yet still the wonder is, that this new creation 
 is not perfectly holy, inasmuch as all other works of God are perfect. 
 
 Now according to my introductory speech and fourth argument, I in- 
 sist, that if one infant be regenerated, without moral instrumentality, all 
 can ; and if one perfect and complete regeneration, without the Word of 
 God, can, in any case whatever, be consummated, then, in all other cases 
 the Word is wholly unnecessary. For if I can produce one apple without 
 a tree, or one ear of wheat without earth, then I can do it ad infinitum. 
 
 3 i2 
 
654 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 No living man, as I conceive, can in these points, refute my introductory 
 address. I will insist that Mr. Rice explains to us why preach the word ; 
 why print Bibles ; why send missionaries to foreign lands ; why set en 
 foot any human instrumentalities whatever, on the assumption that God 
 makes men and infants holy, as he did Adam ! I never objected to a 
 spiritual religion. Nay, I love it, — I preach it, — I contend for it. I 
 never would have jeopardized my reputation in questioning the popular 
 notions of spiritual influence, but to aim a blow at the root of all fanati- 
 cism, and of a wild irrepressible enthusiasm. I believe not only in the 
 Holy Spirit, but in a religion of which this Divine agent is both the sub- 
 stance, origin, cause, and reason. But, sir, in my humble opinion this 
 metaphysical abstraction, this theological speculation, this electric, imme- 
 dial operation, that makes an infant or a pagan holy in a moment, has 
 been the most soul-ruining dogma ever invented, preached, or propagated. 
 It has slain its tens of thousands. It has made sceptics, fanatics, despon- 
 dents, and visionaries without number, and without limit. 
 
 These elect infants, elect pagans, elect idiots, on whom God acts when, 
 where, and how he pleases, but makes them holy in a moment, without 
 light, knowledge, faith, or love, (for though these may be called by them 
 effects of the regeneration, the thing, the work, the operation itself, is 
 anterior to them, above and independent of them, without any human 
 agency whatever,) are figments of distempered brains, the creatures of 
 religious romance, the offspring of a metaphysical delusion, for which 
 there is no cure, but in the rational reading and study of the Book of God. 
 
 Mr. Rice seems, if I understand him, to have drunk deep into these 
 muddy waters, and to have adopted the fable of infant regeneration as a 
 choice of evils. His dilemma is, Infants are saved or lost. Not lost 
 truly! — well then, they are saved. With, or without, regeneration! 
 Without regeneration, is to him inadmissible, because then they would 
 be saved in a state of wickedness. His theory is, therefore, adopted to 
 get rid of a metaphysical difficulty. It owes its origin to a mystic knot 
 which he cannot untie, and which he dares not cut. The regenera- 
 tion of these infants is, then, not moral, but physical. Well, perhaps 
 we may yet agree in their physical regeneration. I believe those dying 
 infants, and with me they are all elect, are fitted for heaven by a physical 
 regeneration, of which we shall hereafter speak. But in the mean time 
 the question is lost, if we lose sight of the regeneration of which we 
 now speak, and which is an essential part of the system we oppose. 
 
 What then, let me ask, is the philosophy of regeneration according to 
 Mr. Rice ? It is a change of heart. There we agree again. What sort 
 of change? — not of the flesh, but of the spirit— a change of the affec- 
 tions, of the feelings and sympathies of the soul. Agreed ! — a change 
 so great that we love our former hates, and hate our former loves. We 
 love God and our Savior supremely, and our brethren fervently. We hate 
 Satan, falsehood, and sin. Hence comes the annihilation of his hypo- 
 thesis — can an infant love or hate, without previous knowledge, faith or 
 apprehension of things amiable and hateful!! No, says every man; 
 where there is no light, no understanding, no intelligence, there can be 
 no disposition at all, no moral feeling, no change of affections, no change 
 of heart; consequently no infant moral or spiritual regeneration. It is 
 impossible — it is inconceivable! No man can demonstrate, illustrate, or 
 prove it. Whenever Mr. Rice can show that a man, a child, or an infant, 
 can love what he never heard, saw, felt or thought of, and that he can 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 655 
 
 love, fear, or eschew that of which he has no conception whatever, then, 
 but not till then, can he offer one argument, reason, or evidence, of infant 
 moral regeneration. Whenever he shows a man loving Jesus Christ, 
 righteousness, and holiness, who has never heard of him — and hating 
 Satan, sin, and impurity, who has never heard of them, then I will be- 
 lieve that he can find a dying infant, regenerated and sanctified in its 
 spiritual and moral nature. Till then, I shall regard it as a mere phan- 
 tasy, an idol, or chimera of the brain, and the whole doctrine growing 
 out of it a miserable delusion. 
 
 But now with regard to our physical regeneration of infants, my faith 
 is in the Lamb of God, who hath taken away the sin of the world. The 
 atonement of the Messiah has made it compatible with God, with the 
 honor of his throne and government, to save all those infants who die in 
 Adam. He has made an ample provision for extending salvation from 
 all the consequences of Adam's sin to whomsoever he will. Ever blessed 
 be his adorable name ! The Lamb of God has borne away the sin 
 of the world. Infants then need that same kind of regeneration that 
 Paul, and Peter, and James, and John, and all saints need — the entire 
 destruction of this body of sin and death. The most perfect christian 
 that I have seen, needs a regeneration to fit him for the immediate pre- 
 sence of God. The infant that falls asleep in its mother's bosom, and 
 after a few short days breathes out its spirit gently there, needs no more 
 change to fit it for Abraham's bosom, than that which the Spirit of God 
 will effect in the resurrection of the dead, or in the transformation of the 
 living saints at the time of his coming. Philosophy, reason, and faith, 
 are alike silent on the subject of any infant regeneration before death. It 
 is all theory — idle, empty, suicidal theory. Experience lifts her ten 
 thousand voices against it. Whoever saw a child regenerated growing up 
 from birth a pure and exemplary christian ! Persons have been sancti- 
 fied, that is, set apart to the Lord from their birth ; but that any one was, 
 in our sense of regeneration, changed in heart from birth, reason, reve- 
 lation, experience, observation depose not; on this subject they are all as 
 silent as death. While, then, I believe in the physical regeneration of 
 infants after death, I repudiate their spiritual or moral regeneration in life, 
 because unscriptural, irrational, and absurd. 
 
 This delusive doctrine operates very differently on two classes of sub- 
 jects — the sanguine and vain, the imaginative and elate. Those of high 
 self-esteem are often the victims of a conceit that they have been touched 
 by a supernatural impulse, a sort of celestial electricity, which in a 
 moment regenerated and gave them religion. Some of them tell right 
 marvellous tales of mighty shocks of this sort. A lady of whom I re- 
 cently heard, from a highly credible source, in describing her conversion, 
 said, " The Holy Spirit went through her from head to foot, bursting ofT 
 the nails from her fingers and toes." This was, truly, an extraordinary 
 case ; yet many of the same class, not so well marked, daily occur. 
 These persons often live and die without any right conception of God, of 
 his Son, or of his salvation — yet are they joyful, happy, riding on the 
 clouds communing with spirits, and filled with rapture, which neither 
 poetry nor philosophy can reveal. They carry with them through life, 
 the notion that they were once truly regenerate, and, therefore, can never 
 perish. 
 
 But there are some rather of a melancholy temperament ; somewhat 
 atrabilious and desponding. They are more rational, though less imagi- 
 
656 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 native — they have little hope, and less self-esteem; but they feel their 
 need of this regeneration, without feeling that sensible touch Divine, which 
 instantly brings them out of nature's darkness and death into supernatural 
 light and life. They are too rational to dream of it. They are too sen- 
 sible to imagine it ; and sometimes they fall into a frightful melancholy, 
 which, in instances not a few, bereaves them of reason and sends them 
 into an asylum, where although surrounded with all that science and hu- 
 manity can bestow, leaves them without the comforts and assistance 
 of relatives and friends, those best palliatives of mental alienation and 
 woe. 
 
 The gentleman has given us another exemplification of his freedom in 
 quoting Scriptures. Paul may plant and Apollos water, but God gives the 
 increase. His meaning is, Paul may plant the seed of religion in the 
 heart of A, B, and C, Apollos may water that seed, but God alone makes 
 it to grow. I rejoice in the truth of the fact here stated, but I pronounce 
 the application of the passage to the point before us a gross misconception 
 and perversion of its meaning. Paul may plant churches and Apollos 
 water churches, but God makes the churches grow. So says the con- 
 text — and so say I with all my heart. 
 
 I do not wish to lose time in expositions of the various sophisms of 
 false quotation and application of Scripture. I do not even choose to de- 
 fend my own writings from such illogical torture. I should give no ar- 
 gument if I stopped to wrangle about all these misquotations and misap- 
 plications. I only request those who choose to examine more accurately 
 these quotations, to read the whole contexts from which they are illegally 
 arrested. The gentleman is very emphatic (for effect no doubt) in telling 
 you how often he calls my attention to certain matters, which but for his 
 manner of quoting them deserve no real regard, because irrelevant. He 
 said the other day, he called my attention three times to a verse, and 
 finally affirmed that he could neither make me see or hear it, although I 
 had two or three times replied to it in common with its whole class. 
 And when it was for the third or fourth time replied to by me, what use 
 did the gentleman make of my reply ? All those passages I have shewn, 
 like the oft repeated case of the thief on the cross, are misapplied, be- 
 cause they were spoken of things and persons as they were before the 
 gospel age commenced — before the christian ordinances were instituted or 
 the church began. The thief indeed was saved without baptism ; not 
 merely because there was no christian baptism then ; for if there had, he 
 being converted as he was, and having no opportunity, would have been 
 saved without it, as all are who are providentially prevented from receiv- 
 ing it. Scriptures are generally quoted wrong when applied to prove a 
 proposition not of the same species with that in the writer's mind. 
 
 The gentleman fights for victory, and he will have it in any and every 
 contingency whatever. He has at proper intervals the mournful alas. 
 Alas ! alas ! for the reformation ! The unfeeling crowd, so perfectly des- 
 titute of sympathy, however, smile at his wailings ! He can hardly pro- 
 ceed under the dreadful weight of arguments on his side, and yet he can- 
 not utter them. For who has heard them ! I do not think it either 
 edifying or important to notice these matters, for any other reason than 
 to express my pleasure in reflecting upon the dignity of my cause and its 
 self-respect; that it needs not such ephemeral and political appliances to 
 sustain or commend it. 
 
 Mr. Rice may express all his conceptions of himself and his cause with- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 657 
 
 out any offence to me whatever. I presume that owing to his education 
 he honestly thinks so ; whether or not, I am obliged to so regard him. 
 and I will so continue till the end. What is said here is to be read by all 
 parties ; and my only desire on that subject is that the book may be read 
 impartially, and that the argument may be duly weighed on both sides. 
 Let every man take up the book and read it as though it had fallen from 
 heaven into his hands. Let him read it candidly, decide according to 
 evidence and fact, and then let him act in perfect harmony with his con- 
 victions ; and may the Lord bless him in so doing! — [Time expired. 
 
 Monday, Nov. 27— H o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's third reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I have but a remark or two to make in reply to the 
 singular logic of Mr. Campbell, concerning the alledged statement of Mr. 
 Burch. No man, he would have us believe, can testify, that twenty 
 years ago he did not make a certain statement ! I presume Mr. Burch 
 may very well know, he never did believe that Mr. C. triumphed over 
 Mr. McCalla, and, therefore, that he never did make a statement which 
 implied such an admission. He never believed that Mr. C. triumphed, 
 and, consequently, never so said. The gentleman's anonymous evidence 
 is worth absolutely nothing. 
 
 The gentleman attempts to justify his assertion, that I am delivering 
 scraps of old harangues, by saying, that he has heard of my preaching on 
 these subjects, and has seen, in my discussion with president Shannon, 
 some of the same arguments I have advanced on this occasion. Why, I 
 have read in his publications almost every thing he bis advanced on this 
 subject; and a considerable part of his closing speech, on Saturday, I 
 heard almost verbatim some three years ago. Why, then, may I not 
 charge him with delivering scraps of old harangues ? 
 
 But he cannot so easily escape the difficulty into which his temper 
 hurried him. For it is not true, that I have ever before discussed this 
 subject just as I have done to-day. I have occasionally, it is true, dis- 
 cussed all these subjects, though not so thoroughly and extensively as now. 
 
 Regeneration, the gentleman says, must take place in harmony with 
 the powers of the human mind. This is true. I have not said that 
 in regeneration men are deprived of any of their faculties, or that 
 new faculties are created. But he tells us, that creation is one thing, 
 and the renewing the heart quite another ; and he seems to consider 
 the idea of creating holiness quite absurd. The doctrine of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, as stated by himself, is, — that no other than moral power can 
 be exerted on the human mind; and it must always be exerted by words 
 and arguments. In refutation of this assumption, I stated the scripture 
 fact, that God created man holy, and consequently there must have been 
 a moral influence exerted, not by words or by arguments. We do not 
 regard holiness as a distinct substance or essence. It is, however, true, 
 that God created man with a holy heart or nature. How he did it I know 
 not, nor does Mr. C. Inasmuch, then, as he understands not how that 
 influence was exerted, which made man originally holy ; he ccnnot pos- 
 sibly prove, that the Spirit may not now exert a moral influence, di met 
 from motives. 
 
 It is worthy of special remark, that Paul, in speaking of the sanctifica- 
 tion of the human heart, uses the word create. "We are his workman- 
 ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works," Eph. ii. 10. There is 
 42 
 
658 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 not, in any language, a stronger word than the word create. Yet this 
 word is employed, without qualification, in regard to the renewal of the 
 human heart. If, then, this word does not express a direct divine in- 
 fluence, distinct from the word, and in addition to it, by what word, I 
 ask, could the idea be expressed ? God did not create the heavens and 
 the earth by words and arguments ; neither did he thus create the body 
 or the soul of man. The very word create expresses the putting forth 
 of divine power. Can it, then, be true, that God creates the heart anew 
 by words and arguments? Is it not perfectly absurd to talk of creating by 
 arguments ? It is an abuse of language. God created man in his own 
 image ; and now, by the new creation he restores that image. In the 
 latter, as in the former, there is an exertion of divine power; and in both 
 the modus operandi is equally mysterious. 
 
 Mr. C. objects to the doctrine of special divine influence, that it makes 
 every instance of conversion or regeneration a miracle. So it does, if 
 we take his definition of a miracle ; but if we take the definition given by 
 all correct writers on the subject, regeneration is not a miracle. A mira- 
 cle is a suspension of the laws of nature, by the immediate interposition 
 of Divine power, of which men can take cognizance, for the purpose of 
 confirming the truth of God's revelation. God sends rain ; and in a time 
 of dearth we pray for rain, not expecting God to work a miracle, and 
 yet expecting him to put forth his power in answer to our prayers, so as 
 to grant the desired blessing. Elisha prayed that it. might not rain; and 
 during the space of three years and a half it rained not. He prayed for 
 rain, and it descended in torrents. In one sense, perhaps, these divine 
 interpositions might be called miracles ; but so far as man could see, the 
 laws of nature were uninterrupted, both whilst the long drought continued, 
 and when the rain descended. Properly speaking, therefore, there was, 
 in this case, a divine interposition, but not a miracle. 
 
 So the Holy Spirit operates, though invisibly, on the hearts of all who 
 are renewed. The change is wrought by supernatural power; but it is 
 not a miracle because it is invisible, nor is it a suspension of the fixed 
 laws of nature. The effects of the divine influence we do see. The 
 man who, yesterday, delighted only in sin, to-day turns from his iniqui- 
 ties, and rejoices in the service of God. The effects are manifest ; and 
 common sense compels us to ascribe them to some adequate cause. The 
 Bible teaches us, that the cause of the visible change is a new creation 
 wrought by the Holy Spirit. " We are his workmanship, created in 
 Christ Jesus unto good works." 
 
 Mr. Campbell objects again, that if, in one case, regeneration takes 
 place without the Word, it must be so in all cases ; and then, of what use 
 is the Word ? He has often told us, that it is far easier to assert than to 
 prove. It is admitted, that regeneration is the same in all cases ; but it is 
 not admitted, that the means employed are, in all cases, the same. He 
 asserts, that the same means must always be employed ; but he cannot 
 prove the truth of the assertion, either scripturally or philosophically. I 
 know of no part of God's Word that teaches, that if God should sanctify a 
 soul in one instance without the truth, because it cannot be employed, he 
 must, of course, sanctify all others without the truth. God is a sovereign; 
 and he works by means or without means, as his infinite wisdom directs. 
 
 But the gentleman asks, of what use is the Word, if regeneration can 
 take place without it? If the question has any meaning, it is this: Of 
 what use is the Word to adults, if infants, that cannot receive it, can be 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 659 
 
 regenerated without it? This is a singular question. Or does he mean 
 to ask, of what use is the Word to adults, if there is necessary a distinct 
 divine influence? I presume if he had been in the camp of Israel, in the 
 days of Joshua, he would have asked, why should the priests compass the 
 walls of Jericho seven times, and blow rams' horns, since the walls will 
 not fall without a direct interposition of divine power? The Lord com- 
 manded, and that is sufficient. Or, perhaps, he would have found fault 
 with our Savior, because, in healing the eyes of the blind man, he used 
 clay and spittle. He might ask, of what use are the clay and spittle, since 
 they will not open his eyes without a direct exertion of divine power ? 
 Such is the logic of my friend. It is in vain to reason against facts. God 
 has often employed means, when, without an immediate exertion of his 
 power, they were wholly inadequate to accomplish the end. So he em- 
 ploys the Word ordinarily, though alone it is not adequate to effect the 
 conversion and sanctification of men. Yet God has never confined him- 
 self to means and instrumentalities ; and no man has the right to limit him 
 where he has not limited himself. 
 
 The doctrine of special divine influence, Mr. Campbell believes, leads 
 to a great deal of fanaticism ; and he has told us an anecdote about some 
 very fanatical woman. It is admitted, that there have been, and now are, 
 many fanatics in the world ; but his is quite as conclusive against the truth 
 of Christianity, as against the doctrine I am defending. Multitudes of 
 those who have professed to be christians, have been, or now are fanatics ; 
 therefore, says the infidel, Christianity leads to fanaticism, and, of course, 
 it cannot be true. The infidel adopts Mr. Campbell's principle, and argues 
 quite as conclusively as he. It is a trite remark, that the abuse of a doc- 
 trine, or of a principle, does not prove it false. Does the doctrine of spe- 
 cial divine influence generally make fanatics of those who embrace it ? 
 There is not a body of people in this world, who are more free from fa- 
 naticism, than Presbyterians; and yet there are none who more firmly 
 believe in the special agency of the Spirit, than they; nor any who more 
 zealously contend for the constant use of means, in order to conversion 
 and sanctification. 
 
 I could also tell an anecdote concerning a convert in Mr. C.'s church, 
 that would be quite a match for the one he has related ; but I could not do 
 so, without treating this solemn subject with unbecoming levity. 
 
 The gentleman has at length produced one passage of Scripture in sup- 
 port of his doctrine. I am gratified to see him leaving his metaphysical 
 speculations, which he has, indeed, long professed to repudiate, and enter- 
 ing upon this scripture proof. The passage is in John xvii. 17: "Sanc- 
 tify them through thy truth : thy word is truth." It is really one of the 
 most conclusive proofs of the truth of the doctrine I am advocating. Does 
 not the Savior pray to his Father, to sanctify them ? But if Mr. C.'s 
 doctrine is true, why should he have prayed ? He did not pray, that new 
 truths, new arguments, might be revealed to his people. According to his 
 doctrine, it was necessary only to give them the truth. But the Savior 
 prayed to his Father to do something for them, and to do it by certain 
 means — to exert on their minds a sanctifying influence distinct from the 
 truth, but in connection with the truth. 
 
 Mr. Campbell asks, how can an infant be born of God, before it has 
 any knowledge of God ? There can be no disposition, he says, where 
 there is no knowledge. I thought he had repudiated metaphysics ; but 
 really, he appears to rely upon his speculations more than upon the Bible. 
 
660 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 But his philosophy is most unphilosophical and un scriptural. Who does 
 not know, that there are a thousand things which we admire at first sight, 
 and as many to which we feel a decided aversion? Does not this prove, 
 that there may, and does, exist in the mind a disposition or inclination to 
 love some objects, and to dislike others, even before we have any know- 
 ledge of them? There are dispositions existing in the mind, as well as 
 tastes and appetites in the body, before the knowledge of the appropriate ob- 
 jects calls them into exercise. A child loves sweetness the first time it tastes 
 it ; and is charmed by music the first time it hears it. Why, then, may 
 not the soul be in such a moral state, that when first it is made acquainted 
 with the character of God, it will admire, love and adore him; or, that it 
 will turn from him with strong aversion ? There is neither sound theo- 
 logy, nor sound philosophy in the gentleman's objection. 
 
 But he is not willing to give up the salvation of infants ; and he com- 
 plains of me for urging the argument against his doctrine, that it necessa- 
 rily involves the damnation of infants. He does not find fault with me 
 for maintaining, that they are depraved ; for, although he now denies that 
 there can be moral disposition where there is no knowledge, he admits 
 and teaches, that infants are by nature depraved '.—that they have a prone- 
 ness, a disposition to sin 1 ! This being admitted, my argument against 
 his doctrine is most certainly legitimate and conclusive. It is what logi- 
 cians call the reductio ad absurdum — -proving that it leads necessarily to 
 results which he admits to be false and absurd. I was indeed surprised, 
 that he thought it necessary to appeal to the moderators to protect his 
 doctrine against the force of this argument. 
 
 He attempts, however, to escape from the difficulty by saying, that 
 nothing more than the atonement of Christ is necessary to the salvation 
 of infants. Does the blood of Christ purify the heart? The atonement 
 secures the remission of sins; but does the Bible teach, that it takes away 
 depravity? Why the very idea is absurd. There is not a word in the 
 Bible to countenance such a notion. The difficulty still remains. In- 
 fants, as the gentleman admits, are depraved. How then shall .they be 
 sanctified and prepared for the enjoyments of a holy heaven I They 
 cannot be sanctified through the truth ; and Mr. C. asserts, that they can- 
 not be sanctified without it. Therefore they must die in sin, and be for- 
 ever lost ! Such are the results to which his doctrine necessarily leads, 
 whether he is willing consistently to carry it out or not. 
 
 There is nothing in the Bible, he tells us, that favors the idea of infant 
 regeneration. He takes care, however, not to reply to the argument 
 founded on John iii. 6, " For that which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and 
 that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Infants are born of the flesh ; 
 and therefore they must be bom of the Spirit; and if not born of the Spi- 
 rit, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God — they must be lost. They 
 cannot go to heaven in their depravity. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, adult believers must, at death, undergo as 
 great a change in order to enter heaven, as infants need experience. For 
 this assertion he can find no authority in the Bible ; and it is vain for him 
 on a subject such as we are now discussing, to give us either his opinions 
 or his assertions. Death will produce on the mind no moral change, such 
 as infants must experience before they can enter heaven. 
 
 It is, no doubt, true, as the gentleman says, that some persons who 
 have believed in the doctrine of the special agency of the Spirit, have 
 been melancholy, under the conviction that they were not serving God 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 661 
 
 faithfully, or from other causes ; but it cannot be proved, that the doctrine 
 has any such tendency. On the contrary, thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands have felt their hardened hearts melt under the blessed influences of 
 the Spirit, have renewed their strength as they have waited on God in 
 prayer, and have in their affections and joys mounted up as on the wings 
 of an eagle, have run without weariness, and walked without fainting. 
 "The Spirit itself," says Paul, ** beareth witness with our spirit, that we 
 are the children of God: and, if children, then heirs, heirs of God and 
 joint-heirs with Christ." Convince the man who has become acquainted 
 with his true character, that there is no such special influence of the Spi- 
 rit — that he must prepare himself by his unaided exertions for heaven ; 
 and he will lie down in deep despair. He will never again entertain a 
 hope that he can see God in peace, or enter into his rest. It is a holy 
 heaven to which he desires to go ; a holy God reigns there; holy angels 
 worship around his glorious throne; and none but "the spirits of just 
 men made perfect" can ever enter there. If, then, sinful man is left to 
 prepare himself for such a heaven ; well may he weep in despair. 
 
 In my last address I directed your attention to the language of Paul in 
 1 Cor. iii. 6, " I have planted, Apollos watered ; but God gave the in- 
 crease." But the gentleman says, Paul spoke of -planting churches. 
 Thev'e is no such expression in the connection. On what evidence, then, 
 does he found the assertion ? Paul was rebuking the Corinthian chris- 
 tians, because there were contentions among them, one saying, I am of 
 Paul; another, I am of Apollos; and a third, I am of Cephas, and a 
 fourth, I am of Christ. All this, he tells them, is most unwise as well as 
 very sinful; for, says he, "who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but 
 ministers by whom ye believe, even as God gave to every man ? I have 
 planted, Apollos watered ; but God gave the increase." Paul had planted 
 the seed — had first preached the word in Corinth ; Apollos had succeeded 
 him with his eloquent exhortations ; and God had by his Holy Spirit 
 caused the seed to spring up and bring forth fruit. 
 
 But if Paul were speaking of planting a church (though this is not a 
 scripture expression,) his meaning must be, that he had induced chris- 
 tians to remove from other parts to Corinth, and settle there. You may 
 plant corn ; but you must first have corn to plant. A church might be 
 planted ; but the members must be there before it could be planted. But 
 Paul planted the seed, the word, and God blessed it to the conversion of 
 many ; Apollos preached and exhorted, and God blessed his labors to 
 their growth in grace. 
 
 But if Paul could really plant a church, and Apollos could water it 
 without any special divine influence ; could they not keep it alive, and 
 cause it to extend ? Or what are we to understand by the declaration, 
 that " God gave the increase ?" The figure used by the apostle is both 
 beautiful and striking ; and the meaning cannot easily be misunderstood. 
 Before you plant your seed, the ground must be prepared ; and then the 
 sun must shine, and the refreshing rains descend upon it. Man plants 
 his seed and sometimes w T aters it ; but there is no artificial sun to shine 
 upon it. God must give the increase. So the ministers of Christ are to 
 preach the word, to proclaim the glorious gospel to men, and look up to 
 God for that divine influence, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which 
 only can cause them to turn to God. 
 
 My friend cannot forget the past days of this discussion. He con- 
 stantly calls up the subjects that have been disposed of. He says, that 
 
 3K 
 
662 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 on the third proposition he did answer my argument from John iii. 18 — - 
 " He that believeth on him is not condemned." I certainly did not hear 
 his answer. It must have been extremely brief. The truth is, it admits 
 of no answer. The obvious and only meaning is, that no believer, bap- 
 tized or not, is condemned; but all believers are justified. 
 
 The last note I took of the gentleman's speech, relates to the charge 
 he had made, that great pains have been taken to bias the public sentiment, 
 to make the people believe, that he has failed to sustain himself. He 
 tells you, he has heard the fact from various quarters. I will not conde- 
 scend to gather up floating reports, and state them here as facts for the 
 purpose of producing effect. When I state facts, and they are denied, 
 I will prove them. These reports, which would seem to have given him 
 so much trouble, are not only false and slanderous, but unspeakably ridic- 
 ulous. Does the gentleman expect to make the impression, that the intel- 
 ligent people who have come together from ail parts of the country to 
 hear this debate, cannot judge for themselves, but will believe just what 
 Presbyterians tell them they must believe? This most ridiculous charge 
 I pronounce to be utterly false. There is not one word of truth in it. 
 
 I know not whether it is necessary for me to introduce any additional 
 arguments in favor of the doctrine for which I contend, until Mr. C. shall 
 have advanced something to sustain his proposition. I will, however, 
 quote a few passages of Scripture which clearly teach the doctrine of a 
 special divine agency in conversion and sanctification. Ezekiel xxxvi. 
 26, 27, " A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
 within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and 
 I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, 
 and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments 
 and do them." Does not God here proclaim himself the author of that 
 radical change of heart which causes men to turn from sin, and keep his 
 commandments ? The passage is a promise and a prediction of the con- 
 verting and sanctifying influences of the Spirit which should be exerted 
 upon the Jews in a future day. Does this language teach, that the Spirit 
 can exert on the heart no other moral power but that which is contained 
 in words and arguments ? The Bible is, on all important points, a plain 
 book ; and its obvious meaning is generally its true meaning. Now I 
 ask, what idea would this language convey to the mind of any one who has 
 no theory to support? When God says, I will give you a new heart, 
 would not such a person understand, that he would exert an influence 
 quite different from mere argument? I cheerfully leave every candid 
 hearer to determine, whether there is not here the promise of an influ- 
 ence of the Spirit in addition to the Word, and distinct from it. 
 
 The next passage I quote is Jer. xxxii. 37 — "Behold, I will gather 
 them out of all countries whither i have driven them in mine anger, &c. s 
 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for- 
 ever, for the good of them and their children after them." Does the 
 prophet mean, that God would by arguments give to his people one 
 heart and one way 1 He promises to gather them from their wanderings, 
 and to exert such an influence on their minds, that with one heart they 
 would turn from their sins to his service, and fear him forever. I ask 
 again, what idea would be conveyed by such language to the unsophist- 
 icated mind, to a plain honest man, who has no theory to support? 
 What is the obvious meaning of the language? I verily believe, thai 
 there is not an intelligent man living who, on hearing this passage read, 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 663 
 
 would not, if he had no favorite theory to bias his judgment, understand 
 it to teach the doctrine of a special divine influence distinct from mere 
 words and arguments. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 28 — 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fourth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Before proceeding to the business of the day, I must 
 make a few introductory remarks. In reference, then, to the incidents of 
 yesterday I ought, perhaps, to advert to some of them which were not of 
 so pleasant a character as usual. And, first, as to the incident in the after 
 part of the day which called for an allusion to Mr. Burch. I did not, in- 
 deed, name that gentleman — Mr. Rice named him in your presence. My 
 remarks could not in the least involve the moral character of that gentle- 
 man. I did not intend to impeach the moral character of Mr. Burch or any 
 one else. It was, sir, I repeat, the most remote thing in my mind, to 
 violate the feelings, unnecessarily, of any one present, much less the 
 moral reputation of Mr. Burch. The fact stated I believed then, and I 
 believe now, to be strictly true. But having ascertained, that Mr. 
 Burch's feelings have been wounded, and a desire having been expressed 
 that it should not go to record, I cheerfully consent that it be not pub- 
 lished. I have no desire to put any thing on record which might at all 
 tend to mar good feelings.* 
 
 As respects the imputation uttered on yesterday by Mr. Rice, that in 
 some of my remarks touching the management of affairs here, I spake 
 under excitement. If, by excitement, the gentleman means animal pas- 
 sion or anger, I cannot admit it. Exciting as have been some of the cir- 
 cumstances in which I have been placed in conducting this discussion, I 
 have not allowed myself to yield to any temptation of that sort. If I 
 appeared so to him or any one else, I certainly am not conscious of it. 
 It must be because they thought I had provocation enough. It is with me. 
 a principle, confirmed by habit, on all occasions, especially one so sol- 
 emn as the present, to hold in abeyance those passions which might be 
 wrought up into effervescence. Knowing that the wrath of man worketh 
 not the righteousness of God, I feel myself always admonished to avoid 
 even the slightest appearance of it. I have, therefore, on no occasion of 
 this sort, in all my life, been accused of any thing of this kind. Indeed, 
 as the troubled water is generally muddy, and the calm gently flowing 
 stream clear, excited passions are no way auxiliary to the ascertainment 
 of truth, but rather of a contrary tendency. Mr. Rice is fully compre- 
 hended in this manoeuvre. 
 
 I shall now proceed to the business of the day. The proposition be- 
 fore us is — " In conversion and sanctification the Spirit of God operates 
 only through the Word of Truth," or always through the Word of 
 Truth. Mr. Rice admits it sometimes so operates, but not always ; some- 
 times operating without the Word of Truth. The proper difference be- 
 tween us is the difference between sometimes and always. That the 
 Spirit of God does operate in both conversion and sanctification, we both 
 admit. But I affirm and he denies that it operates only in that way. In 
 sustaining the affirmative, my method has been to show that as these 
 works of conversion and sanctification are specific w T orks — works uni- 
 formly the same, as any of the products of the animal or vegetable king- 
 
 * Understanding from Mr. Eice, that Mr. Burch desired this incident to go to record, I 
 have consented to the publication. A. C. 
 
664 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 doms, there must be uniformity in the operation. This the constitution 
 of the human mind requires ; and hence, whatever is in any one case es- 
 sentia] to any one result, such as regeneration, is necessary in each and 
 every other case whatever. So far we have reasoned on the inductive 
 plan ; these being the results of innumerable multitudes of facts, such 
 as, no man can suggest an idea, or view, or feeling, of a moral or spirit- 
 ual character, which has not been borrowed from the Bible ; and again, 
 the person destitute of that book, is destitute of all those ideas, impres- 
 sions and sensations. 
 
 To these views Mr. R. has simply affirmed that there is no such uni- 
 formity ; that it is not necessary. We call, but we call in vain, for an 
 example of conversion by the Spirit alone, or where the Word was whol- 
 ly unknown. Such a case, even were it plausibly alledged, would be 
 entitled to very high consideration. He will not attempt such a case ; he 
 presumes upon no such evidence. His, then, is a position purely meta- 
 physical, and belongs to the science of abstract speculative theology. It 
 is wholly and forever insusceptible of any appreciable demonstration or 
 proof. We have not only Bible declarations, but facts and analogies in- 
 numerable, on our side of the question. One of my axioms is, whatever 
 is essential in one case is essential in every case. But as the gentleman 
 has not met, and, I presume, will not meet me in debate on any one of 
 these great positions, I shall proceed to a new argument, more intelligible 
 to all minds, and more in support of these conclusions than any merely 
 analogous or abstract reasonings could be. I open the New Testament at 
 once and read as my 
 
 Eighth argument, 1 Peter i. 23, " Being born again, not of corrupti- 
 ble seed, but of incorruptible seed, by the Word of God which liveth and 
 abideth forever." Now, as you all remember, our Lord himself compares 
 his Word, or the Word of God, to seed planted or sown ; and, under 
 the parable of the sower, represents its various fortunes, and beautifully 
 teaches the true philosophy of conversion in the fact, that the good ground 
 is the man who "receives the Word of God in an honest heart." Under 
 both metaphors, drawn the one from the vegetable, the other from the ani- 
 mal kingdom; the Word of God is the seed, of which we are born again 
 or renewed in heart and life. This Word of God liveth and abideth : 
 for God lives and abides for ever. 
 
 1st. With regard to the essentiality of the seed. We all know that in 
 the vegetable kingdom, without that there is no harvest, no fruit. And, 
 as certain it is, that when the Word of God is not first sown in the heart, 
 there can be no regeneration, or renewal of the spirit, and, consequently, 
 no fruit brought forth unto eternal life. So the metaphors taken from the 
 animal and vegetable kingdoms, teach the same lesson. But does not the 
 mere fact that Peter says, that we are born again of incorruptible seed, 
 declare that where this incorruptible seed is not, there can possibly be no 
 birth ! Unless, then, Mr. Rice can shew that it is just as true to say, 
 we are born again, -neither by corruptible nor incorruptible seed, without 
 the Word of God, — this single passage settles this question forever, as I 
 honestly conceive. 
 
 Is it necessary now to traverse the whole face of nature, to explore the 
 whole kingdom of botany, to find a plant without a seed, in order to prove 
 the proposition, that every ear of corn comes from one grain of seed de- 
 posited in the earth? No more is it essential to my argument, that I 
 should first hear all the conversions in the world, before I conclude that 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 665 
 
 there is one that originated without one word of God having been sown 
 in the human heart. Will not all the world believe me, that if I prove in 
 one case that without the specific seed, — corn, wheat, &c, we cannot have 
 the crop, that it is true in all other cases, without a particular examina- 
 tion ; and from every principle of analogy, if I prove the Word in one case 
 of a new heart to be necessary, it needs not that I prove it to be so in every 
 other heart, in every other case. The mere fact of calling the Gospel the 
 incorruptible seed, is enough. Where that seed is not, the fruit of it can- 
 not be. 
 
 The phrase, " the incorruptible seed" of any thing, indicates, in the 
 ears of common sense, that it is essential to that thing ; and if so, then 
 who can be a christian without being born ? — and who can be born but 
 according to one uniform and immutable law ? Now, in the theory of 
 Mr. Rice, there is no uniformity ; there is a plurality of ways of being 
 born, which, to my mind, is most palpably at fault in every particular. 
 
 But I will adduce some other testimonies under this head of argument. 
 We shall hear James the apostle, chapter i. 18 : "Of his own will begat 
 he us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his 
 creation." Hence the truth again appears as an instrument of regenera- 
 tion. God's ivill is the origin of it; his Spirit the efficient cause of it; 
 but the Word is the necessary instrument of it. By the Word of Truth, 
 then, we are begotten, and not without it, according to James. We may 
 add testimonies without increasing either authority or evidence ; but, for 
 the sake of illustration, if not for authority, we shall offer a few other tes- 
 timonies to complete this particular argument. We shall hear Paul, as a 
 father, speak to his sons in the faith in Corinth — 1 Cor. iv. 15: "As 
 my beloved sons I warn you : for though you have ten thousand instructors 
 in Christ, yet have you not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus have I be- 
 gotten you through the gospel." Paul regards the gospel just in the 
 same attitude in which James represents it. The gospel is here the 
 seed, the instrument of the conversion of the Corinthians. 
 
 But the whole oracle of God is unique on this subject. God " purifies 
 the heart by faith," that is, the truth believed — not by believing as an act 
 of the mind, but by the truth believed, which constitutes " the faith. ," 
 Paul also told the Thessalonians that God had, " from the beginning, 
 chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
 truth." Here again the belief of the truth is the instrument of sanctifica- 
 tion and salvation. I shall conclude this little summary of a portion of 
 the direct and positive testimony of God, in proof of my grand position 
 on the Holy Spirit's work of conversion and sanctification, by the testi- 
 mony of the Messiah, in person: " Sanctify them through thy truth, 
 Father, for thy Word is the truth." Whether, then, we call the truth 
 the Word, the Word of God the gospel, it is called the seed, the incor- 
 ruptible seed of the new birth ; by which a sinner is quickened, begotten, 
 born, sanctified, purified, and saved. I regard this my eighth argument 
 as a host in itself — nay, as the solemn, direct, and unequivocal declara- 
 tion of God, in attestation of the entire truth and safety of the proposition 
 concerning both conversion and sanctification. 1 wish Mr. Rice and the 
 whole community to know, that I regard this argument, when fully can- 
 vassed and developed, as enough on this subject. I am willing to place 
 the whole cause upon it. 
 
 I shall now go on to review some portions of Mr. R.'s speeches not 
 yet noticed, which may by some be considered as constituting some ob- 
 
 3k2 
 
666 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 jections to my former reasonings on the subject. The gentleman rallied 
 with great zeal and warmth, upon the passage, " Paul planted and Apol- 
 los watered." He expressed some astonishment at my presuming to 
 give such an interpretation, and I am just as much astonished at his per- 
 tinacity. It fully proves how much he is the slave of bad commentators. 
 I have all good translators, commentators, and critics with me ; but better 
 still, I have got good Dr. Common Sense with me, and he will make it plain 
 to all. Indeed, no really learned theologian thinks differently from me. 
 But let us look to the context. The Word of God is not mentioned in 
 the passage — as the gentleman said, Canaan was not found in the Epistle 
 to the Galatians. Paul speaks of men and not of the Word. I planted 
 you men in God's field or husbandry, and Apollos watered you, but God 
 gave the increase, the growth. He presents the same persons under 
 three distinct figures, in the same context, and connects with each an ap- 
 propriate imagery. But we shall confine ourselves to two of them — the 
 husbandry and the building. As a husbandry, Vzxh, planted them ; as a 
 building, a temple, he laid the foundation. But if I must make it still 
 plainer, I will then suppose it to be the Word. Well, then, Paul planted 
 the Word in the people's heart ; and Apollos watered it in their hearts ; 
 and God made it grow in their hearts. Paul, in this case, planted the 
 Word by preaching the Word, and Apollos watered the Word by exhort- 
 ing them through the Word ; and God made it grow by his Spirit oper- 
 ating through the Word. Well, now Paul is placed in a most awkward 
 attitude. He is converted into a school-boy confounding all laws and 
 usages of the schools. He has Paul planting the AVord by the Word ! 
 and Apollos watering the Word by the Word ! Suppose we convert it 
 into corn ; then all the world will comprehend Paul's beautiful rhetoric. 
 Paul planted corn by scattering corn in the fields — Apollos came along, 
 and watered that corn, by scattering some of the same corn upon it ! ! 
 
 But my friend superciliously asks — how can any one plant a church ? 
 would you stick it in the ground ! ! Profoundly erudite objection ! How 
 do men plant a colony of men ? — stick them in the ground ! ! Men have 
 been said to plant churches and colonies from time immemorial ! The 
 field or husbandry is the place where Paul figuratively planted men ; and 
 as living stones, he also builded them together, under another figure, " for 
 an habitation of God through the Spirit." The apostle's rhetoric is clas- 
 sic, rich, and beautiful. As afield, Paul brought the Corinthians into it, 
 and planted them in the nursery. Apollos came next, and refreshed them 
 much by his exhortations ; and thus, through their joint labors, Corinth- 
 ians became God's husbandry. I take pleasure in avowing my conviction 
 that it is the blessing of God upon the labors of Paul and Apollos, that 
 made these Corinthians grow. I do not labor this passage to oppose 
 that idea ; but to expose this most licentious way of quoting the Scrip- 
 tures, and forcing them into the sectarian service. The improvements in 
 the science of hermeneutics will, I hope, move westwardly. 
 
 A favorite passage, which has been quoted oftener many times than any 
 other text in the Bible, during this discussion, and for no reason that I can 
 see, but because the word sprinkle — that blessed word sprinkle, is found 
 in it, along with clean water — I must quote it once, out of courtesy : 
 Eze. xxxvi. 25: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
 shall be clean from all your fllthiness ; and from all your idols will I 
 cleanse you." This is not literally water free from mud, but an allusion 
 to the water mixed with ashes, which purified the unclean — a mere sym- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SP*T. 667 
 
 bol here of the cleansing of the Jews. He says in v\e 24 : " For I will 
 take you from among the heathen, and gather you ou\f all countries, and 
 will bring you into your own land." Here there isVi express declara- 
 tion, that God would bring them back to their own l\d. (i Then will I 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be cleanpm all your filthi- 
 ness, and from all your idols." It was to cleanse themtom their idols by 
 the water of purification. " A new heart also will I ge you, and a new 
 spirit will I put within you : and I will take away the'tony heart out of 
 your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I/ill put my spirit 
 within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes ; ande shall keep my 
 judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the lid that I gave to 
 your fathers ; and ye shall be my people, and I will be y<r God." Now, 
 with regard to this strong phrase — a new heart will I gi* you — suppose 
 I should affirm, that men make their own hearts new ? is he proves his 
 positions, so would I prove it. Eze. xviii. 31 : " Cast aW from you all 
 your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed ; and Lake you a new 
 heart and a new spirit: for why will you die, O house ofWael." Here, 
 I say, Israel is commanded to make for themselves a neviheart; could I 
 not prove that they were thus commanded by the sound o these words 1 
 My friend says, that God does create a clean heart. But a what sense? 
 There is nothing to be gained by thus quoting scripture ot of its proper 
 connection. Paul says: "Be renewed in the spirit of ydr minds." I 
 doubt not the propriety of both these forms of speech. r f\e Lord does 
 every thing that is good. He says: "I, the Lord, creatUight, and I 
 create darkness ; I create good, and I create evil ; I, the Lore do all these 
 things." How does he do them — by his own immediate power? Cer- 
 tainly not. But by very various instruments — permits some, ftd appoints 
 others, in various ways. He does not always create good anuevil by the 
 same means. 
 
 The word create does not only mean to make a thing out'jf original 
 nonentity, but to change its relations, and sometimes only to nUv-modify 
 it. In creating light, God does something. In creating darkness, he 
 withholds something. In creating good, he imparts something. In cre- 
 ating evil, he withholds good. Men make to themselves a new heart; 
 and God makes for them a new heart. He institutes the means, §ives his 
 Spirit, and they receive and obey the truth. 
 
 The gentleman, in an attempt to reply to the just objection that he makes 
 conversion in every case a miracle equal to the resurrection of the Lord, 
 went into the definition of a miracle, instead of removing the difficulty, 
 and asks what need of the instrumentality of angels in the world? We 
 always admit that an angel's visit is a miracle. But what has that to do 
 with the subject before us ? I do not admire his definition of a miracle. 
 I sometimes define it as " A display of supernatural power in attestation 
 of the truth of some proposition.'''' That supernatural power may be 
 either intellectual or physical : such as raising Lazarus, or foretelling the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. But this is no place for such matters. God 
 never squanders power unnecessarily. He never does by miracle what 
 he can do without it. He works by secondary causes, unless some great 
 emergency in the universe calls for the primary, original, creating power. 
 God does not work without the laws of mind — nor change the laws of 
 mind. He does not violate the constitution of the mind, nor give a man 
 new powers, intellectual or moral, through any moral or supernatural 
 change in this life. To work salvation, or a change of heart, without the 
 
668 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 laws of mind or ctrary to the laws of mind, would be a miracle as great 
 as the resurrectioj)f Lazarus. And such I presume to be Mr. R.'s the- 
 ory of regenerate — without knowledge, argument, faith, hope, or love; 
 &c. ; a direct, irrediate operation of omnipotence upon the naked soul 
 without any inst»uent between ! ! 
 
 The gentlemo gave a singular definition of moral disposition. He 
 made it a sort o/nimal instinct — for a child was disposed to love music! 
 Hunger and tint are also dispositions upon the same philosophy ! And, 
 sir, this was themswer given to a very important question, viz : If moral 
 disposition be a>art of regeneration, and if moral disposition be to love 
 God and hate Uan ; to love righteousness and hate iniquity — Query — 
 Can an infant en be regenerated ? Can it love or hate a being or a 
 thing, concerng which it knows nothing more than a rock ? Mr. R. 
 cannot explainhis difficulty, and it is fatal to his theory. If a child be 
 regenerate, it mst love holiness and hate iniquity; but this cannot be 
 without knowdge — because in religion, as in every thing else, intellect 
 pioneers the viy, while the affections and the heart follow. We must 
 see beauty be>re we can love it. We must see deformity before we can 
 hate it. And therefore, " the love of holiness and the hatred of sin" are 
 impossible toin infant. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 28— 10§ o'clock, Jl. M. 
 [mr. rice's fourth reply.] 
 Mr. Prfident — Before proceeding to the discussion of the subject 
 before us, Lnust briefly notice Mr. Campbell's statement concerning Mr. 
 Bureh, whc was one of the moderators in the debate between him and 
 Mr. McCa^a. When he made the statement, on yesterday, about an 
 opinion expressed by one of the moderators in that debate, there were 
 present m,ny who knew that Mr. Burch was alluded to. I wish now to 
 say, that 7 am authorized by Mr. B. to deny most positively, that he ever 
 expressed or entertained the opinion, that in that debate Mr. C. was vic- 
 torious ; and to state that, from that day to this, he has expressed pre- 
 cisely ths opposite opinion. It is taking an unfair advantage of a man 
 who, acording to the rules of this discussion, cannot be permitted to re- 
 ply, to prefer such charges. 
 
 The gentleman says, he has not spoken, at any time during the debate, 
 under the influence of passion. I will not dispute the truth of his state- 
 ment; but 1 must say, that he has said many things which would have 
 been more excusable, if uttered under excitement, than if spoken delib- 
 erately. 
 
 It is of the first importance in this discussion, that we keep distinctly 
 in view the point in debate. I stated it clearly on yesterday ; but it has 
 not been brought prominently to view in the speech of this morning. 
 Indeed, I believe it would be utterly impossible to learn, from all the gen- 
 tleman has said this morning, wherein we differ. 
 
 The main point in the debate is not whether the Spirit always oper- 
 ates through the truth. I was surprised to hear him read the proposition 
 in this way — "only or always." I was not aware that the words onlu 
 and always are synonymous. I presume that no dictionary can be found, 
 that defines only to mean always. If you will substitute always for 
 only, it will make a proposition radically different from that we are now 
 discussing. What, then, are the points in regard to which we differ? 
 1st. We differ concerning the sanctification of infants and idiots. This, 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRTT. 669 
 
 however, is not the only difference between us, nor the most important. 
 For, 2nd. We differ widely concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit 
 in the conversion and sanctification of adults. Mr. Campbell contends, 
 that the Spirit operates only through the truth. I believe that the 
 Spirit operates ordinarily through the truth, but not only through the 
 truth. The word only, in the proposition before us, is an emphatic and 
 an important word. He maintains, that the Spirit dictated the word, and 
 confirmed it by miracles, and that the word, presented to the mind by 
 any instrumentality, converts and sanctifies it. That is, the Spirit, ac- 
 cording to his doctrine, converts and sanctifies men, just as the spirit of 
 Demosthenes and Cicero affected their hearers or readers ; and as the 
 spirit of Mr. Campbell affects this audience ! He exerts on your minds 
 no other influence than that exerted by his words and arguments. Just 
 so, according to his doctrine, the Spirit of God operates. 
 
 We believe and teach, that the Word is ordinarily employed in conver- 
 sion and sanctification. Yet there must be, and there is, an influence of 
 the Spirit on the heart, in addition to the Word, and distinct from it; and 
 by this influence, especially, man is converted and sanctified. This is, 
 practically, the great point on which we differ. 
 
 As I have heretofore distinctly stated, we do not believe in a physical 
 change of the faculties of the soul. Mr. C.'s remarks about physical re- 
 generation are, therefore, out of place. Our confession of faith does not 
 teach the doctrine, nor do we hold it. 
 
 He desires me to follow him in his train of argument. I will now do 
 so, as far as time will permit. I have adduced against his doctrine some 
 four distinct arguments, viz. 1. That it prescribes to the power of God 
 over the human mind an unreasonable and an nnscriptural limitation. 2. 
 That it necessarily involves the damnation of infants and idiots. 3. That 
 it contradicts the scripture doctrine of human depravity, making it arise 
 from mere mistake; whereas the Bible teaches, that men sin wilfully 
 and deliberately. 4. I have quoted several passages of Scripture directly 
 teaching the special agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sancti- 
 fication. 
 
 I will now pay my respects to the gentleman's new arguments. He 
 refers us to Luke viii. 11, "The seed is the word of God;" and to 1 
 Pet. i. 23. Do these passages prove, that in conversion and sanctifica- 
 tion the Spirit operates only through the truth ? Do the seed of them- 
 selves produce the harvest. Who ever heard of obtaining an abundant 
 harvest only by seed ? Does not the farmer first prepare his soil ? He 
 does not scatter his seed amongst thorns and weeds. The human heart 
 is like the unprepared earth ; and in the parable to which the gentleman 
 referred, the seed that produced the harvest are said to be sown in 
 "good ground" — in soil previously broken up and prepared. But when 
 the soil has been prepared, and the seed sown, the sun must shine, and the 
 rain must descend, or there will be no harvest. God has a most important 
 agency in these things. He only can cause the sun to shine, and the 
 showers to refresh the earth. In these things there is human agency, 
 and there is divine agency. So the servants of God sow the seed of 
 life : but God prepares the hearts of men to receive it, and the Holy Spi- 
 rit, like showers on the thirsty ground, causes it to spring up and bear 
 fruit to the glory of God. The argument from the passage under con- 
 sideration is decidedly in favor of our views. I prove my doctrine by 
 the very arguments brought forward to overthrow it! 
 
670 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 He has repeatedly asserted, if the word of God is employed in conver- 
 sion and sanctification in one case, it must be necessary in all. But this 
 is bare assertion. Let the gentleman prove it if he can. I should like to 
 see him attempt to prove, that God has bound himself always to employ 
 in this work the same means and instrumentalities. If he has thus limit- 
 ed himself, let the passage be produced ; if he has not, who dares lim- 
 it him? 
 
 The next argument used by Mr. C. is founded on James i. 18 : "Of 
 his own will begat he us with his Word of Truth." The argument is 
 mine. I prove the doctrine of special divine influence by this very passage. 
 Observe, it presents two influences exerted on man in regeneration — the 
 agency of God who begets him, and the instrumentality of the truth through 
 which he is begotten or renewed. Does James say, he begat us only by 
 his Word ? He does not. God begat us — he put forth power ; and he 
 did it in connection with his Word as the means. How, then, can it be 
 said with truth, that the means or instrumentality did the whole work ? 
 James says, God did the work, and that he did it by the Word, not only 
 by the Word. This is precisely the doctrine for which I am contending. 
 
 The next argument offered by Mr. C. is founded on the language of 
 Paul in 1 Cor. iv. 15 : " For in Christ Jesus 1 have begotten you through 
 the gospel." There are commonly three agencies employed in the con- 
 version and sanctification of the soul: 1st, the agency or influence of the 
 Word; 2d, the agency of the minister who preaches it; and, 3d, the agen- 
 cy of the Holy Spirit on the heart, inducing men to receive the truth in 
 the love of it, and to live according to its divine principles and precepts. 
 There are some passages of Scripture which present particularly the agen- 
 cy of man ; some which present the influence of the Word ; and some 
 which speak directly and clearly of the agency of the Holy Spirit. I be- 
 lieve in the importance of all these three. The special agency of the 
 Spirit is taught as distinctly and as frequently as either of the others. It 
 is unsafe, therefore, to reject any one of the three. We have not the 
 right to do so. 
 
 I must now notice the remarks of the gentleman on 1 Cor. iii. 6: "I 
 have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." He insists, 
 that Paul speaks here of planting the church. Yet not a word is said 
 about planting the church in the chapter, nor in the epistle. But he asks, 
 if Paul planted the Word, how did Apollos water it? And I ask him, if 
 Paul planted the church, how did Apollos water it? By preaching. He 
 says, I make Apollos water the Word with the Word. But if there is 
 any inconsistency, is he not equally guilty of it ? He makes Paul plant 
 the church by preaching the Word, and Apollos water it by preaching the 
 Word ; so that the planting and the watering are thus made to be the same 
 operation. The truth is, Paul planted in the hearts of the people the 
 seed of divine truth ; God by his Holy Spirit caused the seed to grow ; 
 and then Apollos came and continued to proclaim the truth, in connec- 
 tion with which the Spirit still descended like refreshing showers on the 
 parched earth, and brought the fruit to maturity. 
 
 That a special divine influence was exerted, is evident from the 5th 
 verse : " Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye 
 believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" Does not the apostle 
 here teach, that God inclined each one to believe, to receive the gospel. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, we talk of planting a colony or a city. [Mr. 
 C. — I did not say planting a city, but founding a city.] Very well — I 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 671 
 
 have nothing to do with the word founding. We are speaking of plant- 
 ing. When we speak of planting a tree, we mean removing it from 
 one place and setting it in another. When men speak of planting a 
 colony, they mean transferring people from one place, and establishing 
 them in another. Did Paul transfer christians from Antioch and from other 
 churches to Corinth ? The Scriptures never speak of planting a church. 
 
 The gentleman is quite tired of hearing me quote Ezekiel, xxvi. 25,26. 
 True, I have had occasion frequently to quote it, for it presents the emblem 
 of purification in connection with the work of the Spirit. I have referred 
 to it as illustrating both the mode and the design of baptism ; and I now 
 have use for it in proof of the doctrine, that in conversion and sanctifica- 
 tion there is an agency of the Spirit distinct from the truth. "A new 
 heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I 
 will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an 
 heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you." Here God 
 promises to give a new heart and a new spirit. How could language more 
 fully teach the doctrine we hold? I have no occasion to say any thing 
 more about the sprinkling of clean water. That part of the passage be- 
 longs to subjects that have been disposed of. 
 
 Mr. C. attempts to evade the force of this and other plain and unequiv- 
 ocal declarations of Scripture by telling you, that God commanded men 
 to make themselves new hearts ; and that Paul exhorted christians to be 
 renewed in their minds. 
 
 And he says, he could thus prove, that men do renew their own hearts. 
 So he perhaps could, if he could only prove, that men always do their 
 duty. It is the duty of all men to love and serve God — to be holy; but 
 the question is — Do they do it ? God commands them to repent, be- 
 lieve, and be perfectly holy ; but do they do so ? But in the passage 
 under consideration, God does not command men to do their duty; but 
 he tells his people what he will do. " A new heart will I give you ; and 
 a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take away the stony heart 
 out of your flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you 
 to walk in my statutes." Here we have most clearly exhibited the radi- 
 cal change of heart, and the consequent change of life, of which God is 
 the glorious author. The cause must be bad, that leads a man to attempt 
 to evade the force of language so perfectly unequivocal. 
 
 I rejoice to know, that in the Bible, as in the book of nature, the truths 
 which are essential to the safety and happiness of men, are revealed in 
 language so clear and so simple, that the uneducated as well as the wise 
 may understand them. Not more certainly are we taught that God sends 
 rain upon the thirsty earth, than that he pours out his Spirit upon the 
 hearts of men ; and he who can pray for the former, that his seed may 
 produce an abundant harvest, may also pray with stronger faith for the 
 latter, that he may bear the peaceable fruits of righteousness. 
 
 The gentleman repeats the assertion, that regeneration, according to our 
 views, is a miracle. He admits, that it is not a miracle in the common 
 acceptation of the word ; but he chooses to use it in a new sense. If he 
 chooses to say, that every event brought about by divine interposition, is 
 a miracle, he must be permitted to do so ; but such is not the meaning of 
 the word as used in the Bible. Daily in the course of his providence, God 
 puts forth his almighty power. If he does not, why should we pray for 
 his protection ? If all things are now governed by fixed laws, our pray- 
 ers are worse than vain. 
 
672 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 It is true, God does not directly interpose supernatural power without 
 means, when means can be employed. But when an infant dies, that 
 could not receive the Word, nor be sanctified through it, there is occasion 
 for God to work without means. Mr. C. admits that infants are depra- 
 ved ; and therefore he must admit, that if they are not sanctified and pre- 
 pared to enter heaven, they must be lost. And is not the soul of an infant 
 of sufficient value to call for a divine influence without means to sanctify 
 it? It is immortal; it will live through endless ages. It is worth more 
 than the whole world. When such a spirit is called to leave the world, 
 and is unfit for heaven; shall we be told, that God cannot sanctify it by 
 his Spirit? that he cannot prepare it for the joys and glories of heaven? 
 
 The gentleman re-asserts his unphilosophical principle, that there can 
 be no moral disposition, where there is no knowledge. A child, he says, 
 cannot love God before it knows him. But it is absolutely certain, that 
 the mind may be in such a state, that it will love some objects and feel an 
 aversion to others on first sight. This is a fact known to every body. 
 Thousands have experienced its truth ; for they have loved or disliked 
 persons and things the first moment they ever saw them. This love or 
 aversion depends upon a previously existing character or state of mind. 
 
 Every thing has its nature. The lion, however young, has a lion's 
 nature. All lions, in all climates and countries, manifest the same dispo- 
 sition, as soon as capable — proving that they possess a common nature. 
 Plant two trees in the same soil ; and let them be watered by the same 
 stream ; and one will produce sweet fruit, and the other bitter. They 
 possess different natures. This very illustration is by the Savior applied 
 to the subject now under discussion. He said, "make the tree good, and 
 the fruit will be good." Make the heart pure, and the life will be pure. 
 Again, he says — "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart 
 bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure, 
 bringeth forth evil things," Matt.'xii. 35. Such maybe the moral dispo- 
 sition of a man's heart, that an object of compassion will in a moment call 
 forth his sympathy and his benevolence. So may an infant possess a 
 holy nature ; so that when first it shall look upon God in heaven, it will 
 love, adore, and worship him. This, I think, is perfectly clear to every 
 one but my friend, Mr. C. 
 
 I think I have answered every argument he has offered ; for I was care- 
 ful to note them all. I will now adduce some further arguments in favor 
 of a special agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification. 
 
 The first passage I will read, is Ezekiel xi. 18, 19, which contains 
 a prediction concerning the spiritual blessings which God would bestow 
 upon the Jews : " And they shall come thither, and they shall take away 
 all the detestable things thereof, and all the abominations thereof from 
 thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit 
 within you : and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will 
 give them an heart of flesh." Are we to understand by such language 
 as this, that God intended at a future day simply to present the truth be- 
 fore their minds — the very truth which they now rejected ? Or are we 
 not plainly taught, that he purposed to exert upon their hearts such a 
 spiritual influence, as would cause them to return to his service ? The 
 meaning of the passage is so perfectly plain, that no criticism can ob- 
 scure it. 
 
 Again, I will read Isaiah liv. 3, " For I will pour water upon him that 
 is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : I will pour my Spirit upon 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 673 
 
 thy seed, and my blessings upon thine offspring ; and they shall spring 
 up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses." This is one 
 of the precious promises made to the church in her affliction. The day 
 was coming when the Lord would pour water upon the thirsty — would 
 cause the influences of his Spirit to be abundantly enjoyed by his people 
 and by their descendants. Here we have the emblem and the thing sig- 
 nified. This outpouring of the Spirit was to result in the conversion and 
 sanctification of their seed. 
 
 Now compare this language with that employed by the prophet Joel, 
 which was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, " And it shall come to pass 
 in the last days, (saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ; and 
 your sons and your daughters shall prophecy," &c. This language of 
 Joel is admitted by all to denote a divine agency distinct from words and 
 arguments. Then when Isaiah employs the very same expression — "I 
 will pour my Spirit upon thy seed " — is it not clear, that he also speaks 
 of an influence of the Spirit distinct from arguments ? Mark, too, the 
 happy results of this spiritual influence. The blessing of God was to 
 descend upon their offspring; and they were to grow up spiritually as wil- 
 lows by the water-courses. They were to bring forth the peaceable fruits 
 of righteousness. — [Time expired, 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 28—11 o'clock, A. M 
 [mr. Campbell's fifth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — On yesterday morning, sir, I gave reasons why I 
 sometimes read the word always for only — not as its grammatical import, 
 but its contextual import in the proposition, as it relates to our respective 
 views. Mr. Rice might, therefore, have saved his time for a more im- 
 portant purpose. The terms only and always, as before explained, have 
 here an equivalent value ; and, therefore, I lay no stress whatever upon 
 any preference, except for sake of perspicuity. 
 
 The legitimate point of discussion in this proposition, is not whether 
 the Word operates, but whether the instrumentality of the Word be ne- 
 cessary, according to the words, only through the Word. The gentleman 
 is shifting the ground. I never said, nor wrote, that the Word was the 
 original cause of man's salvation, nor even the efficient cause. I have 
 never ranked it above the instrumental cause. All that has been offered 
 by Mr. R. upon the subject, in any other view of the matter, is gratuitous 
 and irrelevant. It is to change the proposition, and hide the point in his 
 system, which I repudiate. The proposition is, in its own language, a 
 refutation of all these iusinuations. It affirms that the Spirit of God ope- 
 rates. The question is not upon operation, but upon instrumentality — 
 " only through the Word." This is the question to be debated here. If 
 there be any controversy at all, this is just the point. If Mr. Rice will 
 make the Word the uniform and universal instrument, he agrees with me. 
 There is, then, no controversy about it. This is the true and real issue. 
 Any other issue is false, feigned and deceptive. I have, during a pro- 
 tracted controversy for many years, given my views on physical, moral 
 and spiritual influences ; upon physical and metaphysical regeneration — but 
 these are other questions than that now before us. What the Spirit of 
 God does, is not the question ; but by what means the Spirit of God ope- 
 rates in conversion and sanctification. The gentleman is seeking to get 
 off from the question ; still he perceives the real point, for he has offered 
 arguments which have no relevancy, if that be not the point. 
 43 3L 
 
674 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 He argues against my views, because they " limit the power of God" 
 That is, of course, in confining the operation to the instrumentality of the 
 Word. It limits, but does not deny the operation. He is right here. 
 This is the issue, and the objection was made in a just view of it. Well, 
 now, I meet the objection as a legitimate one. We shall try its merits. 
 The Universalian says, the Unitarian, the Calvinist, and especially the 
 Presbyterian, limits the power of God, because he makes salvation depend 
 upon faith and a holy life. When Mr. Rice defends himself from that 
 charge, his defence shall be mine from his charge of limitation. The 
 Unitarian, too, talks against limiting the great God, in extending salvation 
 beyond the precincts of Bible influence. But all this is idle talk. I do 
 limit the power of God, only because he himself has limited it. God can 
 only do by his power, what his wisdom and benevolence approve. He 
 has no power beyond that, though almighty to do what these two per- 
 fections approbate. Therefore, " He cannot lie ;" " He cannot deny him- 
 self." Therefore, he cannot make a wicked man happy ; and, therefore, 
 he can convert men only through the gospel. There are physical, as well 
 as moral impossibilities. God cannot make two mountains without a 
 valley. He cannot make light and darkness co-habit the same place at 
 the same time. He cannot lie. This is another ad captandum argument. 
 God can do many things he will not do. I say again, he can only do 
 what is in harmony with all his perfections. There are, also, moral im- 
 possibilities. A virtuous and kind father could kill all his children, and 
 yet he could not. He has physical, but not moral power. His arm could, 
 but his heart could not ; and, therefore, the moral sometimes triumphs over 
 the physical. God can only save through the means his wisdom, justice 
 and benevolence dictate. 
 
 But a second objection, pertinent to the true issue, is couched in the 
 following terms : My doctrine " leads to infant damnation." That is, if 
 the Spirit operates only through the Word, then infants cannot be saved, 
 because they cannot understand, or believe the Word. INow if his views 
 of faith and spiritual influence were correct, then the objection would lie 
 against my affirmation, " only through the Word." But his views being 
 erroneous on these points, the objection is idle and impotent. These 
 words, " infant damnation," are ugly words — and they come not so con- 
 sistently from one who believes and teaches the confession. His creed 
 divides infants into two classes — the elect and the "non-elect." Of course, 
 then, infant damnation is inevitable, if the confession be true. Now if we 
 were to proportion the number of " elect infants ," by the number of elect 
 men, according to appearances, there would be a hundred non-elect, for 
 one. And yet this gentleman upbraids my doctrine as objectionable, be- 
 cause it might, perchance, involve the possibility of infant damnation, 
 when his own confession consigns an awful overwhelming majority of all 
 infants to eternal perdition ! Think not that I exaggerate the relative pro- 
 portions. Look at the whole world ! Pagans of all casts ; Greek and Ro- 
 man parties ; Jews, Turks, Atheists, and all the reprobate Protestants ! 
 What disproportion between the good and the bad ! It is as one to the 
 hundred ! 
 
 There is nothing more repulsive to the human mind, than the doctrine 
 of infant damnation. It was the first item of Calvinistic faith, at which 
 my infant soul revolted. I still remember my boyish reasonings on that 
 tenet of elect and non-elect infants. I dared not to say, that it was abso- 
 lutely false, seeing my creed and my ancestors recognized it. But, thought 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 675 
 
 I, can it be true 1 How can it be true ? An infant is born, yet could 
 not help it — it opened its eyes but once, and shut them forever — and went 
 to everlasting anguish ! ! ! That millions should be forced into exist- 
 ence, and forced out of it in a day, a month, a year, or some six or seven, 
 and go down to everlasting agonies ! My soul sickened at the thought ! — 
 and yet I had lived full fourteen years, before I presumed to utter to any 
 mortal what my heart felt. I thank God, this doctrine of reprobate infants 
 is not found any where but in the creed ; and there they are found only 
 in a minced form, by implication, in the words " elect infants." 
 
 There are various assertions and negations, and sometimes oft repeated, 
 the only object of which, as it seems to me, is to call me off from the 
 main issue. I should like to refer to all these matters, some of them sev- 
 eral times repeated, if I had time, or if it were incumbent on me. We 
 should lose nothing by a full examination of them all. Meantime, I am 
 just reminded of the speculation on the word holy. 
 
 The gentleman's speculations on the word holy, and God's making 
 man holy, and a holy house, &c. have not been full of light to my reason. 
 Holiness is not a positive creation, an entity, a substantive existence, nor 
 an attribute like wisdom, power, or goodness. It is a relative attribute. 
 Were there no impurity there could be no holiness. In contrast with 
 impurity, God, and angels, and saints, are holy beings. The gentleman's 
 positions would apply as much to Eden and paradise as to man. He might 
 say, God created Eden and paradise holy, as well as man. In that accep- 
 tation the universe was made holy. I must be permitted, though perhaps 
 not in a way adapted to universal intelligence and acceptance, to offer 
 a remark or two on man, tending to illustrate my position at least. 
 
 Man, with me, when contemplated in his whole person is a plural unit. 
 He is one man, having a body, a soul, and a spirit. So both my philo- 
 sophy and my Bible teach. Paul prayed for the Thessalonians that 
 God would sanctify them wholly (holoteleis) their body, soul, and spirit. 
 Their pnuema, psuche, soma. Not only have the Greeks these three 
 names, but the Latins also. They had their animus, their anima, and 
 their corpus. So had the Hebrews. So have the moderns, as we have 
 — body, soul, spirit. The body is a mere organized material machine — 
 the soul is the seat of all the passions and instincts of our nature, and is 
 intimately connected with the blood. It is the animal life. The spirit 
 is a purely intellectual principle, as intimately connected with the soul, as 
 the soul with the blood, and the vital principle. Now the spirit, or intel- 
 lectual principle in man, is not the seat of corruption, or of depravity 
 abstractly, any more than the mere materials of human flesh. The 
 understanding or intellect is indeed weakened, and sometimes perverted by 
 the passions, the animal instincts and impulses. But the soul is the great 
 seat of all those corrupting and debasing propensities and affections that 
 involve the whole man in sin and misery. Man was not condemned for 
 reasoning illogically ; nor was he condemned because he was either 
 hungry or thirsty, or had these appetites, but because captivated by his 
 passions, he was led into actual rebellion. This is still the depravity of 
 man. His spirit is enslaved to his passions and appetites. Its approvings 
 and disapprovings are all more or less contaminated, biassed, and tinged 
 by these rebellious elements, this "law of sin which is in his members." 
 warring against the law of his mind, reason and conscience. Now these 
 not being developed in infancy, any more than reason or conscience, 
 places them under quite a different dispensation and destiny. Dying in 
 
676 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 that undeveloped state, they are not the subjects of condemnation eternal, 
 never having disobeyed God, nor refused the gospel. They need not 
 those operations of the Spirit of which the theory of Mr. Rice so often 
 speaks, and with which it is so replete, all of which originated too in 
 the brain of one Saint Augustine. 
 
 Hours might be consumed in the development of these principles; 
 and without a full development, perhaps they ought not to be introduced. 
 I have, indeed, spoken thus far, merely to show, that we have reason to 
 repudiate the notion of the abstract, undefinable metaphysical regeneration 
 of an infant, as essential to its salvation. It only needs, as before ob- 
 served, a physical regeneration ; a destruction of that body in which those 
 seeds of passion and sinful appetites areso thickly sown, in consequence 
 of the animal and sensitive having triumphed over the intellectual and 
 moral man, and so entailing upon our race this natural proneness to evil. 
 Hence the necessity of physical regeneration. The adult saint needs it 
 as much as the infant. "That law, (or power) of sin," in the members, 
 of which Paul complained-— that "body of sin and death/' under which 
 he groaned, and which made him, in his own esteem, a "wretched man," 
 must be destroyed. While "the inward man delighted in the law of God r 
 he saw another law in his members, warring against that law of his 
 mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin, which was in 
 his members." This will be destroyed in the saint before admission 
 into heaven— and that is what I mean by physical regeneration.; and this 
 is destroyed before development in the dying infant, and, therefore, 
 through the Lord Messiah ; the Resurrection and the Life ; the sin- 
 atoning Lamb of God; — the Second Adam — it slumbers in the bosom of 
 its Father and its God, till the great regeneration of heaven and earth. 
 
 Mr. R. says, he believes not in physical regeneration. Why then 
 believe in infant regeneration, without the moral means of the Word? 
 Without a regeneration of the heart, he says, they cannot be saved ; and 
 that being without knowledge, faith, love, or hope, must be either physi- 
 cal or metaphysical, or, both. I plead the physical regeneration of the 
 body and animal soul* he the physical and immediate regeneration of 
 the spirit while in the body. This, however, is all aside from the great 
 question. It comes in by the way to illustrate or support the fact, that 
 with him, regeneration is not according to my eighth argument, through 
 the incorruptible seed of the Word, but without it. I will dismiss this 
 episode by a quotation from Paul, Rom. v. " By one man's disobedience 
 many were constituted sinners, so by one man's obedience shall many be 
 constituted righteous ;" and as death reigned, before the law, over them that 
 had not sinned, as Adam did, by violating a positive precept; so grace 
 will reign, by another man, over them that never obeyed a precept ; who, 
 by reason of their infancy, never on earth could discern between good and 
 evil. So I opine, and in so thinking, I have much countenance, if not 
 positive testimony, from my Father's Book. Our Savior's death has 
 laid such a broad, strong, and enduring foundation, that the Divine 
 Father of humanity can, with the most perfect propriety, so far as mor- 
 tal vision can pierce, throw the arms of his sublime philanthropy around 
 the dying millions of our race, whose only Son was in their flesh, and 
 not only snatch them from the desolation of the grave, but also train 
 them in the skies, as he does their parents on the earth, for the high 
 beatitudes of an eternal fruition of Him that made and redeemed them 
 from the earth. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 677 
 
 Mr. Rice has not yet explained to us his views of faith. He has a re- 
 generation without it ; indeed, in all cases, I presume, a regeneration an- 
 terior to faith. Faith, as I perceive, is the effect of regeneration, not the 
 cause, according to his theory. An holy principle is immediately infused, 
 and then faith is a holy act of a holy soul, regenerated by immediate con- 
 tact with the Divine Spirit. Hence his adult and infant regeneration 
 are, if I understand him, alike physical, or without the Word of God. 
 Faith or regeneration must be prior — a simultaneous existence is not sup- 
 posable. With me, faith is first, and repentance, or a change of heart, 
 next in the order of things — in the order of nature and causation. If re- 
 generation be the cause of faith, anterior to faith, without faith, then 
 again, of what use are all human instrumentalities, preaching, Bibles, &c. ? 
 I wonder, except to save appearances, why any one should be taught to 
 read the Bible, or go to meeting, until he is born again. If regeneration 
 is not within the eontrol of any mortal instrumentality — if no means are to 
 be used with reference to it, I ask, then, how do men make faith void, 
 and the gospel of none effect ? If the Bible be not a moral instrument in 
 this matter, what kind of instrument is it ? 
 
 With me every christian is a new man. His heart is changed. His 
 soul is renewed in the image of God, " in knowledge, righteousness, and 
 true holiness." God's Holy Spirit is the agent — his gospel is the in- 
 strument. Instrumental causes are not original nor procuring causes. 
 Without the instrumental, however, it cannot be accomplished. No man 
 can see without the instrument called an eye, or the instrument called 
 light. Truth and faith are the grand means, or the conjoint means, of 
 conversion and sanetification. 
 
 Mr. R. must again have up Paul and Apollos. It is a small matter — 
 but he may have it again. I have not opened a commentator as an au- 
 thority for my views in any case in the discussion, but I will read a few 
 words from Henry confirmatory of them. 
 
 [Here Mr. C. read a passage from Henry, the copy of which is lost.] 
 
 I repose no confidence in Henry as a critic ; but I do in McKnight, 
 who paraphrases these words thus: "I have planted you in God's vine- 
 yard, others* have watered you by giving you instruction; but God 
 hath made you to grow." Henry, in his common sense view, very 
 well agrees with McKnight. I know not how many critics agree with 
 me, but I have the context. 
 
 Paul preached the Word, and Apollos watered the Word! A little 
 better acquaintance with Paul and Apollos would relieve him from this 
 strait. Paul was a powerful reasoner, and Apollos was an eloquent 
 exhorter. Now, the reasoner is the strong man, and therefore grubs and 
 plants. The exhorter follows him, and refreshes with his zeal, his ar- 
 dor, his eloquence. They do well to go together. Two by two, let 
 them go. One reasons, and one pleads. Sinners are converted, and 
 saints are built up, and churches made to grow, by such joint-laborers 
 in God's field. While the idea of a church is in our mind, the figure is 
 apposite and beautiful. But substitute the Word, and it is destitute of 
 consistency, propriety, and beauty. It is peculiarly unfortunate for the 
 development of the great principles involved in these propositions, that I 
 have no respondent. Eight arguments are now before us, without any 
 response or closing upon any one, in the form of a direct issue. In my 
 last, I brought the united testimony of Peter, Paul, and James, and of the 
 Messiah himself, on the indispensible instrumentality of the Word. I 
 
 3l2 
 
678 DEBATE OX THE 
 
 gave all emphasis to the figure of seed, consecrated as it is by Jesus and 
 the apostle Peter. It appears as though Air. R. feared the figure and the 
 argument deduced from it. He cannot but perceive, that if the Word be 
 so compared to seed, with regard to the new creation, whether traced in 
 its animal or vegetable associations, it is made essential to icl oi 
 
 a new man. Where that is not the offspring, the product cannot be. 
 Our Savior carries the figure so far as to say. that if even the seed be 
 sown in the heart, and the devil should take it away by any stratagem. 
 then there is no change, no salvation. May I not then conclude that the 
 gentleman's neglect to reply, is an indisputable evidence of his lack of 
 ability to reply. Well, we shall expect to hear from him on the subject 
 of physical regeneration, and especially on faith, as the cause or the ef- 
 fect of moral renovation. The gentleman has indeed said, the seed is not 
 every thing ! And so say we. 
 
 An acquaintance with Mr. Rice ? s maimer of assertion, attach, and ne- 
 gation, makes it the more incumbent on me to kef; die proper issue be- 
 fore you, fellow-citizens; and frequently to assert my views on the sub- 
 ject on which we have been most calumniated, Our reformation began 
 in the conviction of the inadequacy of the corrupted forms of religion in 
 popular use. to effect that thorough change of heart and life which the 
 gospel contemplates as so essential to admission into heaven. You may 
 have heard me say here, (and the whole country may have icai i: and 
 heard it many a time,) that a seven-fold immersion in the rivei Jordan, or 
 any other water. i/Atliout a previous change of heart, will avail nothing, 
 without a genuine faith and penitence. Nor would the most strict con- 
 formity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church ;: lei : the 
 most exact observance of all the ordinances, without personal kith, piety. 
 and moral righteousness — without a new heart, hallowed lips, ami a holy 
 life, profit any man in reference to eternal salvation. 
 
 We are represented, because of the emphasis laid upon some ordin- 
 ances, as though we made a savior of rites and ceremonies — as fc ?lieving 
 in water regeneration, and in the saving efficacy of immersion : and as 
 looking no farther than to these outward bodily acts : all of which is just 
 as far from the truth and from our views, as transubstnntiation or purga- 
 tory. I have, indeed, no faith in conversion by the Word, without the 
 Spirit; nor by the Spirit without the Word. The Spirit is ever present 
 with the Word, in conversion and in sanctincation. A change of heart is 
 essential to a change of character, and both are essential to admission into 
 the kingdom of God. •• Without holiness no man shall enjoy God.' ? 
 Though as scrupulous as a Pharisee, in :i^i:v^. mint, anise, and cummin, 
 and rigid to the letter in all observances, without those mora, excellen- 
 cies usually called righteousness and holiness, no man can be saved eter- 
 nally : " for the unrighteous shall not enter the kingdom oiG^l." — [Time 
 expired. 
 
 Tuesday. Xov. 25— lit o'clock, d. 31. 
 jir. rice's fifth REPLY. _ 
 
 Mr. President — I do not deny, that Air. Campbell believes in the ne- 
 cessity of a change of heart: but the great difficulty is. that he rejects 
 the only agency which can effect it. It is oi little advantage foi him to 
 urge the necessity of such a change: so long as his doctrine makes il un- 
 attainable. He teaches, that without holiness no man shall see the tree 
 of God: but denies the only agency that can prepare him for tne bliss 
 of heaven. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 679 
 
 I do not know what he means, when he says, the Spirit is always pres- 
 ent with the Word ; nor does he convey any definite information con- 
 cerning his views, when he says, men are converted and sanctified by 
 the Spirit and the Word. We desire to know what he means by these 
 expressions. Does he mean, that in addition to the words and arguments 
 contained in the Scriptures, there is an influence of the Spirit on the 
 heart? If so, what are we contending about? But if I am to learn his 
 views from his publications, he does not so believe. The manner in 
 which he has illustrated his views on this subject, leaves no room to 
 doubt what they are. The Holy Spirit, he has said, operates on the 
 minds of men, just as the spirits of Demosthenes and Cicero operated 
 on the minds of their hearers or readers. But, I ask, would there be any 
 propriety in saying, that the spirits of Demosthenes and Cicero are al- 
 ways present with their writings ? Who ever heard of such language 
 being employed ? If his illustration is not wholly deceptive, the Holy 
 Spirit is with the Word in no other sense, than the spirits of those an- 
 cient orators are present with their writings which still are extant ! 
 
 It is very important that we do not lose sight of the real difference be- 
 tween us. I will, therefore, again read a passage from his Christianity 
 Restored, which I read on yesterday : 
 
 " Every spirit puts forth its moral power in words ; that is, all the power 
 it has over the views, habits, manners, or actions of men, is in the mean- 
 ing and arrangement of its ideas expressed in words, or in significant signs 
 addressed to the eye or ear. * * * * The argument is the power of (he 
 spirit of man, and the only power which one spirit can exert over another is 
 its arguments." 
 
 Observe, he says, only moral power can be exerted on minds ; and 
 every spirit puts forth the only power it can exert over others in words 
 and arguments. The whole converting and sanctifying power of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit, he contends, is in the written Word. The Spirit dictated and 
 confirmed the Word ; and the Word accomplishes the whole work of 
 conversion and sanctification. It is against this doctrine that I enter my 
 solemn protest. 
 
 Mr. C. says, he holds, that the Word is only the instrument in con- 
 version and sanctification. This, however, like his other statements, is 
 entirely ambiguous ; for the words of Demosthenes and Cicero were the 
 instruments by which they sought to produce an effect on the minds of 
 their hearers and readers. But he does not come out plainly and tell us, 
 whether he believes in any influence of the Spirit distinct from the Word. 
 Does the gentleman now believe in any such additional influence in con- 
 version and sanctification ; or does he still hold the doctrine taught in his 
 publications ? Does he retract his former views ? 
 
 In our correspondence, so far as I had any thing to do with it, I was 
 careful to have a perfect understanding, that I sjiould have the right to ex- 
 plain the proposition by his published writings. To this he agreed; and 
 I have read them. And most certainly he does deny any influence of the 
 Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification, except the mere force of 
 words and arguments ! 
 
 I am truly gratified, that the gentleman has brought forward the charge 
 against us, of holding the doctrine of the damnation of infants ; because it is 
 believed by many who are unacquainted with our views. He says, our con- 
 fession of faith teaches this doctrine. This is not correct. It is true that 
 it speaks of elect infants — " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenera- 
 
680 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 ted and saved by Christ through the Spirit." Are all infants, dying in 
 infancy, elect ? All Presbyterians, who express an opinion on the sub- 
 ject, so believe. The expression, "elect infants," the gentleman seems 
 to think, implies non-elect infants ; but I call on him to produce one re- 
 spectable Presbyterian author, who ever interpreted the confession of 
 faith as he has. I never heard a Presbyterian minister, nor read a Pres- 
 byterian author who expressed the opinion, that infants dying in infancy 
 are lost. Mr. Campbell boasts of his familiarity with the doctrines of our 
 church. He, then, is the very man to make good this oft-repeated charge. 
 I call for the proof. 
 
 So far as I know the sentiments of Presbyterians on this subject, they 
 believe, that all that die in infancy are of the elect — are chosen of God to 
 eternal life, and are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and saved according to 
 his eternal purpose. Infants do not die by accident. He whose provi- 
 dence extends to the falling of the sparrow, takes care of every human 
 being ; and we believe, that his purpose is to save those whom he calls 
 from time before they are capable of knowing the truth. 
 
 But the gentleman has made the charge, that the Presbyterian church 
 holds the doctrine of the damnation of infants ; and now I demand the 
 proof. What proportion of the human family are chosen to eternal life, 
 our confession of faith does not profess to determine. The calculations 
 of Mr. C, therefore, is an affair of his own, for which we are not respon- 
 sible. The very worst that any candid man can say of our confes- 
 sion, so far as this subject is concerned, is, that it does not profess to de- 
 termine whether all infants are saved. It gives not the least intimation 
 that any are lost. 
 
 But the gentleman tells us that, when quite young, his mind was 
 shocked at this doctrine. Is it not, then, most marvellous, that whilst 
 his mind revolted at the imagined doctrine that some infants may be lost, 
 he should have embraced a doctrine that makes it utterly impossible that 
 any of those dying in infancy can be saved ? ! It was certainly a most 
 singular effect of his early dislike of what he imagined to be the doctrine 
 of our church ! 
 
 I must say a word or two in reply to his remarks concerning the limit- 
 ing of the power of God over the human mind. He says, he does limit 
 the power of God, and that the Universalists complain of him for so 
 doing; and he has specified two things which God cannot do, viz : he 
 cannot lie, and he cannot make two hills without a valley ! I was not 
 aware that these things were the objects of power. Absurdities are not the 
 objects of power. There is no objection to his speaking of the exertion 
 of God's power as limited, where God has so spoken ; but I call on him 
 now to show us where, in the Bible, God has said that he cannot, or that 
 he will not, exert on» the human mind any power except through words 
 and arguments. Or where has he said, that he cannot or will not sanc- 
 tify the hearts of any of the human family without the Word ! There is 
 not such passage from Genesis to Revelation. And since God has not 
 limited himself, who dares undertake to limit him ? 
 
 "Sir. C, let it be remembered, not only denies that God does exert on 
 the human mind any other power than that of words or arguments ; but 
 he even goes so far as to assert, that he cannot operate except by the 
 Truth ! ! ! Where has God said that he cannot ? Nowhere. How, 
 then, can any man venture to say so ? 
 
 I was quite pleased with the gentleman's last speech. For our cause it 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 681 
 
 was the best he has made since the debate commenced, except that re- 
 markable one on yesterday morning. His doctrine has driven him into 
 absurdities so glaring, that all must see them. He asserts, that God did 
 not create man holy ; and says, we might as well talk of making the gar- 
 den of Eden holy ! Solomon said, " God made man upright, but he 
 sought out many inventions." What is the meaning of the word up- 
 right ? What is the difference between uprightness and holiness ? If 
 the gentleman chooses to charge Solomon with talking foolishly, let him 
 do it. It is the language of Divine revelation. 
 
 Mr. C. says that there is no depravity in intellect — that it is all in our 
 animal passions, which belong to the body. I was pleased to hear him 
 advance this doctrine. Not that I desire to see any one run into danger- 
 ous error, but I am glad when false principles lead to such results as to 
 prove to every one their erroneousness. The doctrine that depravity is 
 in the body, not in the mind, is indeed quite ancient. The Manicheans 
 held that matter is inherently evil, and that the soul is not depraved. 
 Hence, they believed that to become holy, it was only necessary to 
 afflict, starve, and emaciate the body ! If all sin is in thej body, the 
 sooner we get out of it the sooner we shall get clear of sin. If sin be- 
 longs to the body, let us get the body into a proper state, and all will be 
 right ! 
 
 But I understand that " sin is the transgression of the law," not that it 
 consists in corruption of the body. The works of the flesh, as enu- 
 merated by Paul, are " Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 
 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, ivrath, strife, sedi- 
 tions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such 
 like." By the word Jlesh, as I have repeatedly remarked, he means the 
 depraved nature of the human mind, and these are its works. Yet Mr. 
 C. tells you, that depravity is in the appetites and passions belonging to 
 the body ! This is not only a contradiction of Paul, but of his own doc- 
 trine, as stated in his Christian System, where he says : 
 
 " Man, then, in his natural state, was not merely an animal, but an intel- 
 lectual, moral, pure and holy being." — 
 
 Admitting and teaching that God created him holy. Again : 
 
 " There is, therefore, a sin of our nature, as well as personal transgres- 
 sion. Some inappositely call the sin of our nature our ' original sin ;' as if 
 the sin of Adam was the personal offence of all his children. True indeed 
 it is, our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was trans- 
 mitted to us, and hence that hereditary imbecility to do do good, and that 
 proneness to do evil, so universally apparent in all human beings. Let no 
 man open his mouth against the transmission of a moral distemper, until 
 he satisfactorily explain the fact, that the special characteristic vices of 
 parents appear in their children, as much as the color of their skin, their 
 hair, or the contour of their faces. A disease in the moral constitution 
 of man is as clearly transmissible as any physical taint, if there be any 
 truth in history, biography, or human observation. * * * * All inherit 
 a fallen, consequently a sinful nature ; though all are not equally depraved. 
 * * * * Condemned to natural death, and greatly fallen and depraved 
 in our whole moral constitution though we certainly are, in conse- 
 quence of the sin of Adam," &c. — chap. iv. sec. 4. pp. 29, 30. 
 
 Now, observe, he here distinctly states, that there is a sin of our na- 
 ture, as well as personal transgression. Yet he has positively asserted, 
 during this discussion, that there can be no disposition, where there is no 
 knowledge ! In his last speech he located sin in the body ; but here he 
 says, " let no man open his mouth against the transmission of a moral 
 
682 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 distemper, until he can satisfactorily explain the fact," die. " A disease in 
 the moral constitution of man is as clearly transmissible as any physical 
 taint, if there be any truth in history, biography, or human observation !" 
 And on the next page, "All inherit a fallen, therefore a sinful nature ;" 
 or would he say, a sinful body? Again, he represents man as depraved 
 in his whole moral constitution ! Ah, when a man, in order to sustain 
 his tenets, is forced into such palpable contradictions, concerning subjects 
 so clear, he must feel that his cause is hopeless ! 
 
 A word about physical regeneration. He says, regeneration without 
 means, as in case of infants, is physical regeneration. Let him prove it. 
 He has asserted it, but the Bible does not so teach. I deny that the re- 
 generation of a soul, without means, is physical ; and an assertion is, I 
 think, properly met by a denial. 
 
 Mr. C. says, I have not defined regeneration. I have explained con- 
 version to mean a change of heart, followed by a change of life. The 
 former is commonly called regeneration, and the latter conversion. Re- 
 generation is a change of heart from sinfulness to holiness, and conse- 
 quently from the love and practice of sin to the love and service of God. 
 When the heart is renewed, man loves that Savior against whom hereto- 
 fore it rose in enmity. He sees a divine beauty and loveliness where be- 
 fore he saw, as it were, a root out of a dry ground. It is of this blessed 
 work of the Spirit Paul speaks, when he says — "It is God that worketh 
 in you to will and to do of his good pleasure." The heart is renewed 
 by the Holy Spirit; and the result is, that the sinner wills and acts in 
 obedience to God's commands. 
 
 The gentleman has read Henry's Commentary to prove, that in 1 Cor. 
 iii. 6, Paul spoke of planting a church. I have not examined Hemy on 
 this passage; but I observed, that he read Henry's comment, not on the 
 passage in dispute, but on the 10th verse, in which Paul says, "I as a 
 wise master-builder have lai d the foundation /" What was the founda- 
 tion? It was Christ crucified — the doctrine of the cross. "Other foun- 
 dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.'' 
 
 But I will admit, for the sake of argument, that Paul, when he used 
 the word "planted" meant planting the church. I see not how this can 
 help the gentleman's argument. Paul planted the church, but God caus- 
 ed it to grow — gave the increase. Paul planted it instrument ally ; God, 
 by his Spirit, gave efficiency to the work. I have no objection, so far 
 as this argument is concerned, to this interpretation. I will cheerfully 
 admit that Paul planted the church instrumentally ; but I also contend, 
 that God caused it to grow — gave it life and increase. The gentleman, 
 however, overlooked the 5th verse: "Who then is Paul, and who is 
 Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believe, even as the Lord gave to 
 every man?" This passage speaks distinctly of a divine influence lead- 
 ing the Corinthian christians to believe ; but my friend did not see it ! 
 
 He says, there was never a tree without a seed : and hence he infers 
 that no one was ever converted without the Word. This is running out 
 figurative expressions, so as to make them contradict the plain teach- 
 ing of the Bible. God at first created trees without seeds, and made all 
 things without means. He fed the Israelites in the wilderness without 
 means, because means could not be employed. The gentleman might as 
 well deny that Elijah was fed by a raven, because persons are not com- 
 monly thus supplied with food. God clothes and feeds men only in con- 
 nection with means, when by the exertion of the power he has given 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 683 
 
 them, the means can be used; but he has never confined himself to 
 means. Nor has he ever said that he will, in no case, regenerate and 
 sanctify without the written word. 
 
 I wish the audience distinctly to see the contradictory positions of the 
 gentleman. Yesterday he assumed one position, and to-day the oppo- 
 site. In my argument, showing that his doctrine necessarily involves the 
 damnation of infants, I stated the fact, that infants are depraved. I 
 stated, what all admit, that they cannot be sanctified through the truth. 
 The conclusion, then, is unavoidable, that if they are not sanctified by 
 the Spirit without the truth, they must, dying in infancy, either go to 
 heaven in their depravity, or be forever lost. He admits their depravity, 
 and therefore he is forced to admit, that if not sanctified without the 
 truth, they go to heaven in unholiness, or to hell ! 
 
 To escape the force of this argument, he told us, on yesterday, that 
 only the atonement, of Christ is necessary to save infants. But I replied, 
 that the blood shed on the cross, does not change the heart ; and that the 
 difficulty in the way is, that they are unholy. Now, to escape the dif- 
 ficulty in which he is involved, he has located their depravity in the body. 
 But this is not only absurd and unscriptural ; but it is contradictory of 
 his own writings on this very subject! 
 
 The difficulty, then, returns upon him with double force. If the doc- 
 trine taught in his Christian System is true, infants are depraved in their 
 whole moral constitution; and, I ask, can beings thus depraved, dwell in 
 the presence of the infinitely holy God ? Who can believe it possible 1 
 The gentleman has contradicted himself more than once, and is now in- 
 volved in the gross absurdity of maintaining the doctrine of corporeal de- 
 pravity! 
 
 I, therefore, again urge against him the unanswerable argument, that 
 his doctrine necessarily involves the damnation of all that die in infancy. 
 The argument is a fair one — it is perfectly legitimate. It is what logi- 
 cians call the reductio ad absurdum. He admits that the doctrine of in- 
 fant damnation is both false and absurd. Consequently by proving that 
 his doctrine necessarily involves this absurdity, I prove it untrue. 
 
 I will now bring forward some further Scripture evidence in favor of 
 the doctrine of the special agency of the Spirit in conversion and sanctifi- 
 cation ; for I prefer to go by the Bible. I had supposed, from his former 
 professions, that my friend, Mr. C, would do the same ; but he has found 
 it necessary to use a great deal of philosophy — quite an abundance of 
 metaphysics. He seems to prefer these speculations to the Word of God. 
 
 I will read Ephesians ii. 1 : " And you hath he quickened, who were 
 dead in trespasses and sins." The word quickened, it is true, is not 
 found in the original Greek, in the first verse; but it is in the fifth. 
 " Even when we were dead in sins [God] hath quickened us together with 
 Christ." The apostle represents men as dead in sin, and God as having 
 quickened or made them alive. Did he quicken them with words and 
 arguments ? Did he reason with them, and exhort them to live ? Surely 
 this is not the meaning of the apostle. Jesus Christ stood at the 
 grave of Lazarus, and said, — " Lazarus, come forth." Did he raise La- 
 zarus from the dead merely b) r the words uttered, or by an exertion of 
 almighty power accompanying the word ? Every one admits, at once, 
 that Lazarus was quickened by an immediate exertion of divine power. 
 Precisely similar language is used with regard to regeneration. Men 
 are dead ; and God quickens them. 
 
684 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 The next passage I read, is in the tenth verse of the same chapter, 
 where the apostle proves, that men are not saved by good works : " For 
 we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which 
 God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Now observe 
 how it came to pass, that the Ephesian christians performed good works. 
 God created them anew unto good works ; their good works were all the 
 result of a new creation, of which God was the author. Was this a cre- 
 ation by arguments ? A creation by words and motives ! The apostle 
 used the very strongest term in any language, without qualification. And 
 when the inspired writers selected the strongest language to express 
 their ideas, and used it without qualification ; we must take their words 
 in their obvious and undiminished meaning. What word in the English, 
 Hebrew, or Greek language could be selected, that would more unequi- 
 vocally express the idea of a direct divine influence on the heart, than the 
 word create f God directs his servants to use the strongest expressions 
 on this subject, evidently knowing that there was no danger of their be- 
 ing misunderstood. We are, then, obliged to understand by this language 
 a special divine influence, distinct from words and arguments, on the 
 hearts of men. The language is too plain to require the aid of criticism 
 to elicit its meaning, or to be obscured by plausible interpretations. — ■ 
 {Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 28—12 o'clock, M. 
 [mr. Campbell's sixth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — You perceive, sir, I doubt not, in common with this 
 great assembly, that in the latitude and longitude of Mr. Rice's theory of 
 response in debate, there is not a single point of theoretic or polemic the- 
 ology that may not legitimately, or illegitimately, be brought into this 
 discussion ; and that, according to his interpretation of our rules of debate, 
 we may touch at every point in the compass of the most extended eccle- 
 siastic creed, in good keeping with the most strict construction of the pro- 
 position before us. Every thing, it seems, can interest Mr. R. and call 
 forth some attention except the arguments on which I rely, and to which 
 I challenge special attention. It is exceedingly painful to me to have to 
 occupy so much time in the mere statement of what has been done, or 
 left undone, by my respondent. But to pass on, from argument to argu- 
 ment, without any reply, or debate on the proper issue, and without a 
 single notice of the failure or neglect on his part, would seem neither 
 respectful to myself, nor to the audience. I exceedingly regret, sir, that 
 I have so little to reply to, in the speech which we have just now heard. 
 I have asked, not for the sake of asking a question with the appearance of 
 something under it of great importance, as I have seen some persons do ; 
 but, sir, I have asked the gentleman for a single verse, Old Testament or 
 New, that asserts regeneration by the Spirit alone. When adducing those 
 of the most unambiguous and incontrovertible import, affirming regenera- 
 tion through the instrumentality of the Word of God, I have not suc- 
 ceeded either in getting such a text, or in obtaining a response to those 
 which I have presented. 
 
 His assumed leading objection to our views on the proposition in dis- 
 cussion is, that we rather make void the necessity of spiritual influence in 
 our teachings of the christian religion ; while our grand objection to his 
 theory of spiritual influence, in the work of conversion, is, that it makes 
 void the necessity of preaching the gospel, or reading the Bible. And 
 Wrhile some affect to believe, that we take too many into the church on 
 
 i 
 
 n 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 685 
 
 our terms of discipleship, we are of opinion that the opposite theory 
 takes in too many that ought not to be admitted, both adults and infants, 
 and that it keeps out of the christian profession, a great mass of intelli- 
 gent and virtuous persons, many of them more worthy than some in the 
 church, who are waiting for some miracle, some special impulse divine, 
 which may at once renovate and rouse them into spiritual life and action ; 
 in the absence of which they dare not presume upon making the christian 
 profession. To settle these matters, an appeal to the Scriptures, and to 
 such reasonings as the Scriptures seem to sanction, has been instituted, 
 and we have only to regret that it has not been followed up. 
 
 Notwithstanding the apparent absurdity of the thing, there are not a 
 few who still regard something like physical impulses operating upon the 
 soul, as a hammer in the hand of a smith operates upon the metal placed 
 upon his anvil. Their notion, as far as we can gather it, is, that the Spirit 
 of God comes into a personal contact with the spirit of a man, and either 
 new-moulds or attempers, or changes, or imbues it with something from 
 himself, which is sometimes called the infusion of a holy principle. And 
 this seed or principle remains immutably and forever in that person, ac- 
 cording to one theory, without any possibility of a failure of eternal life, 
 but according to others, it may be lost forever. This divine touch is 
 sometimes compared to that which reanimated the body of Lazarus, or 
 raised to life the dead body of Jesus. The other theory is, that the Word 
 or gospel of God is that type or medium, through which it sheds abroad 
 in the human heart the love of God to man in the gift of his Son, and thus 
 renews him in the moral image of his Redeemer, through an inward reve- 
 lation of his grace and mercy in the heart. 
 
 Mr. Rice is greatly indebted to my writings. They supply him with 
 something to read and to say, and give him an opportunity to play upon 
 words. Every man of observation, however, understands the policy; 
 and, therefore, it fails, as he does to establish any real discrepancy — and 
 especially that he cannot get me into a mere logomachy. But once more 
 I will enter my protest against his manner of quoting my writings. It is 
 neither magnanimous, nor is it generous, nor is it fair. A man, with 
 genius enough to be a mere quibbler, and that never had a very large 
 capital, can figure away in great style in making Paul contradict James — 
 and worse still, in making Paul contradict himself. The master quibblers 
 in the science of doubting are inimitably astute in the art. Paul, says one, 
 affirmed that "a man was justified by faith without works ;" and James 
 says, " a man is justified by works, and not by faith." Reconcile your 
 two inspired apostles, if you can ! ! Again, continues he, Paul contra- 
 dicted himself; for he said — " If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
 you nothing." Yet he took his son Timothy, a christian man, who had 
 been baptized also, and circumcised him, and sent him to preach Christ ! 
 What a consistent man was your Doctor Paul ! ! 
 
 I could find a hundred instances of this sort in the Bible, and spend a 
 month with a sceptic arguing them. See what a file of newspapers, 
 pamphlets, and Harbingers my friend has got around him ! Does he 
 dream of diverting me from the grand position into all these documents ? 
 I do not intend any such discussion. He may have that to himself, and 
 I will attend to my business. I will give argument for argument, and 
 document for document on the question before us ; but these hundred and 
 one other topics the gentleman will please reserve for some other more 
 favorable opportunity. As the gentleman affirms regeneration without 
 
 3M 
 
686 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 faith, he had better proceed to prove it by an induction of cases, and then 
 I will examine them, if he cannot respond to me. 
 
 He represented me as saying, that all sin was in the body. I did not 
 say so, nor any thing so importing. I have only said, that u sin works 
 in our members," and that " in the flesh dwelleth no good thing," and 
 that there is " a law working in the flesh and warring against the law 
 of the mind, and bringing it into captivity to the law of sin, which is in the 
 body" — and that, therefore, the seeds of sin and the roots of transgres- 
 sion are in the passions ; and that the spirit is brought into captivity to 
 the flesh — but there are the "sinful desires of the mind" as well as of 
 the flesh, in consequence of this captivity. I said, that sin works through 
 the body. Hence the greatest saint may, like Paul, long for the redemp- 
 tion of the body from sin and death. " Who shall deliver me from this 
 body of sin and death ? I thank God through Jesus Christ my Lord." 
 
 These reflections and associations led Paul to descant with great earn- 
 estness and grandeur upon the earnest expectation of the creature, and of 
 the adoption, to wit : " the redemption of the body." I must take the plea- 
 sure of reading, with a passing remark, two or three sentences, Rom. viii. 
 19 — 21, "The earnest expectation 1 '' of our humbled body, " the creature, 
 waiteth " in joyful hope "for the manifestation," the full development. 
 "of the so?is of God" in their pure, sinless, and immortal bodies. 
 "For the creature " — the mortal body — " was made subject to vanity" — 
 dissolution — " not willingly" but it is reconciled to the grave " by rea- 
 son of him who has subjected it, in hope that the creature" — the body— 
 " itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glo- 
 rious liberty of the sons of God" at the resurrection. This is a por- 
 tion of the glorious hope of every saint. 
 
 Now the dying infant is delivered from this body, sown with all these 
 elements of sin, these "desires of the flesh," and the aged saint is also 
 delivered from the same by death. This physical regeneration, the birth 
 of the spirit, is essential to an entrance into the everlasting kingdom. 
 But whence came this new designation — " elect infants ?" It is not elect 
 persons, nor elect men, but elect infants. There certainly were non-elect 
 infants — not only non-elect men, but non-elect infants. Who taught 
 this language ? The creed and not the Bible ! But we have been 
 just now informed by a revelation made from the upper world 
 through Mr. Rice, that all infants that die are " elect infants." If we 
 had only a miracle we might believe in this new revelation. But what 
 comes of the non-elect infants ? They become non-elect men. Why 
 then call them non-elect infants, as none of that kind can die ? All non- 
 elect infants are immortal infants ! As infants they cannot die ! ! It is only 
 above a year ago that this new revelation of elect infants, being all dying 
 infants, first reached my ears. The Scotch Presbyterians never have been 
 favored with this new revelation. I must again read this remarkable 
 passage. 
 
 " 3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ 
 through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. 
 So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly 
 called by the ministry of the word." 
 
 The Westminster divines must have got into Mr. Rice's dilemma when 
 they conceived this doctrine. They supposed but three conditions of 
 the question. Infants dying were lost, or infants dying were saved ; and 
 if saved, they must be regenerated, because none can enter heaven but 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 687 
 
 regenerated persons. They assumed the last, and made the doctrine to 
 escape from the folly of the assumption ! There are, then, three classes 
 of elect persons to be regenerated by the Spirit without the Word. These 
 are elect infants, elect pagans, and elect idiots. Of four classes of man- 
 kind, but one are regenerated through the Word. My friend will have 
 three subjects of physical regeneration for my one. Will the gentleman 
 say, that ail these elect pagans are, like infants, in a state of irresponsi- 
 bility ? And if they are not, in what consists the parallelism ? I heard 
 of a lady who drank pretty deep into this new revelation. She became 
 a monomaniac. She had a small family of infant children ; and weary of 
 the world herself, she thought it was best to make her own mind easy 
 about her offspring, and to make their happiness secure. She according- 
 ly rose up in the night and strangled them all. She gave this, on trial, 
 as the only reason of her conduct. Of course, she was sent to the luna- 
 tic asylum. 
 
 I regret that my friend, Mr. Rice, could find so much time to discuss 
 this matter rather than the question. I shall dismiss it with a single re- 
 mark, viz : that it is but a flimsy and superficial covering for a very in- 
 credible and unchristian dogma. I would then advise its being expunged 
 from the book altogether. Because, among other reasons, it had been 
 more rational to have made the non-elect infants die ; for then there would 
 have been much more mercy than in this scheme. The elect would have 
 lost nothing by living seventy years, but rather gained much by their good 
 works ; and the non-elect would have gained much too, in having no pun- 
 ishment to endure for actual transgressions ; their only cause of regret 
 would then be merely that they had been born. Thus dispose we of 
 this branch of the philosophy of infant regeneration, without the Word. 
 
 The gentleman, in responding to my remarks upon the word holy, 
 quoted a passage highly complimentary to his philological skill in interpre- 
 ting language. As a proof that God created Adam holy, he says, " God 
 made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions." Now 
 the question is, are holy and upright synonymous terms ? Does upright 
 and holy mean the same ? Mr. Rice, by the force of the quotation, 
 makes a holy man an upright man, and an upright man is a holy man — 
 still they are not at all equivalent. No man accustomed to criticism has 
 ever argued, that because two epithets are applied to one man, the epi- 
 thets must be one and the same in sense. Holiness means separation 
 from sin. Sin must, therefore, previously exist before the term holiness 
 could come into use. Hagiosune is derived from hagee, and that is a 
 compound of two words — a privative, and gee, the earth. Hagios, 
 holy, therefore, means separate from the earth ; no earth, no separation 
 from it. There is, then, a contrast in the word itself — unearthy, not 
 earthy, separate from the earth. The very origin of the word holy inti- 
 mates that there was something unclean before it, just as the word un- 
 earthy indicates there was something earthy before it. It is, therefore, good 
 sense to say that God made man perfect, or in his own image. But the 
 Bible does not say that God made man holy, and therefore I object to it 
 in such an argument as this ; although, in common free conversational 
 style, I have no objection to say, that Adam was holy till he sinned. 
 
 The term holy is applied to the earth, to any thing at all separated to 
 God's service or presence. Moses, said God, " take off your shoes, for 
 you stand on holy ground." The Lord was there; that spot was separa- 
 ted to the presence of God. There is no moral quality in the word holy. 
 
688 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 It indicates no moral attribute. It can, therefore, be applied to an altar, a 
 temple, a camp, a vessel, the earth, or any thing sacred to the Lord. God 
 is said to be holy, because he is separated from all impurity ; infinitely 
 separated from sin. " He is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." 
 
 The argument, then, is, that God made Adam holy, and he makes an 
 infant holy : the first by creation, the second by regeneration. And what 
 means an holy infant? One regenerate, or one simply sanctified or sep- 
 arated to the Lord, as Samuel or John the Baptist was ? If in that sense, 
 the word is misapplied to regeneration ; because these persons, like Jere- 
 miah, are separated to the Lord or some special work. All persons and 
 things called holy in the Bible, were specially set apart and separated to 
 God in some peculiar way, or for some very special purpose. To apply 
 this word as Mr. Rice has done, is, therefore, to mystify its proper mean- 
 ing in the Scriptures, to confuse the sacred dialect, and to mislead us in 
 our conceptions of Adam and his offspring. It is, therefore, an innova- 
 tion not to be tolerated, but rather repudiated by all sensible and reflect- 
 ing men. 
 
 I shall fill out my time with a few remarks on his definition of regen- 
 eration. He has at last given us a definition of this important word. 
 But he has not yet answered the great question — whether is regeneration 
 the cause or the effect of faith ? Is regeneration the cause of faith or 
 prior to faith ; or is faith the effect of regeneration, or subsequent to it ? 
 Are they simultaneous ? What connection between them ? Is there any 
 connection ; and if any, what is it? I have brought up the subject in every 
 form I can conceive of, to elicit from him such an expression as will 
 facilitate our clear and satisfactory decision of this much and long liti- 
 gated case. 
 
 He has, indeed, vouchsafed the following definition of regeneration : "It 
 is a change of heart from a love of sin to a love of holiness." Whether 
 it be an act, a process, or an effect, is not distinctly stated. Nothing 
 but the heart is changed in regeneration. No such regeneration is 
 found in the Bible. Persons are there spoken of as regenerated after 
 their hearts are changed. His is scholastic regeneration. Be it so. We 
 now understand him. Regeneration is, then, a change of heart from one 
 love to another love. Now I believe in such a change, though I do not 
 believe in calling it regeneration : for certainly regeneration in the New 
 Testament is not that thing. A regenerated person is a new creature. 
 
 It is, then, but a change of disposition : for love is no more than an 
 affection or disposition of the mind. There must, then, be a prior dis- 
 position ; for, unless there be a disposition existing already, there can be 
 no change of it. This is self-evident. Now, a disposition always pre- 
 supposes an object. No person can think of a disposition, without con- 
 ceiving of something to which the mind is turned or disposed. No one 
 can possibly be disposed to an object of which he knows nothing. He 
 must see in the object something to call forth his attention — to allure, at- 
 tract, or some way draw out his affection or disposition towards it. Need 
 I ask, how a person can love an object, or hate an object, of which he is 
 perfectly ignorant ? 
 
 But regeneration is a change of one disposition for another. Conse- 
 quently there must be a change of objects to the mind. The mind must 
 have in contrast two sorts of objects. It must contemplate them clearly, 
 compare them accurately, discover a difference, a superior beauty and 
 loveliness, before the disposition leaves the one and cleaves to the other. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. G89 
 
 Now, I ask — is an infant susceptible of all this discovery, contemplation, 
 comparison, intelligence, preference and choice of objects ? Can a child 
 have any moral or immoral disposition, without an object? Can it have 
 an object which it sees not, contemplates not, and cannot apprehend? 
 Can it abandon one object and prefer another, without perception, com- 
 parison, and conclusion — without the power of reasoning and the posses- 
 sion of previous knowledge? I repeat it, sir, the gentleman's definition 
 is fatal to his cause. It is without fact, without philosophy, without the 
 Bible, and, therefore, cannot be assented to by any one of thought and re- 
 flection, whose mind has been called to the rational examination of the 
 subject. Have we not, then, from his own definition, given a requiem to 
 his speculation, and for ever sealed up his argument ? When Mr. Rice 
 disposes of this argument, we shall give him a few more. But, sir, he 
 will never try. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 28—121 o'clock, P.M. 
 [mr. rice's sixth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — My friend calls on me to prove by the Scriptures, that 
 the Spirit ever operates in conversion and sanctification, without the truth. 
 He affirms, and has undertaken to prove, that the Spirit operates only 
 through the truth. Has he produced a solitary passage that sustains his 
 proposition ? He has not, and he will not ; for there is none such in the 
 Bible. But he is in the affirmative. With what propriety, then, does he 
 call on me to prove a negative ? I might remain silent until he produces 
 at least some show of argument from the Scriptures; for he professes to 
 hold no article of faith, for which he cannot produce a " Thus saith the 
 Lord." Where is his scripture-proof of the proposition now before us? 
 
 The Scriptures, as I have proved, speak of three agencies or influences, 
 in the conversion and sanctification of men — the ministry, the Word, and 
 the Holy Spirit. Mr. Campbell takes the ministry and the Word, but 
 rejects the agency of the Spirit. I take all the three. This is the differ- 
 ence between us. 
 
 He says, he did not assert that all depravity is in the body. Yet, to 
 prove that it has its seat in the body, he read to us the language of Paul 
 to the Romans, chap. vii. 23 : " But I see another law in my members, 
 warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the 
 law of sin, which is in my members. O wretched man that I am ! who 
 shall deliver me from the body of this death ?" But by his members, and 
 the body of death, Paul did not mean his own body, but the corrupt pro- 
 pensities of his nature. He represents his remaining corruption as a dead 
 body, which, in all its loathsomeness, he was carrying about with him. 
 He desired most earnestly to be delivered, not from his natural body, but 
 from his in-dwelling corruption. 
 
 The audience will remember my argument on this subject. I proved 
 that the gentleman's doctrine necessarily involves the damnation of infants, 
 because they are depraved, and he denies that they can be sanctified with- 
 out the truth. I then understood him to say, that depravity is in the body, 
 and, therefore, their souls might be saved. But now he has got the de- 
 pravity back in the soul, and is involved in the old difficulty. The minds 
 of infants, he admits, are depraved. How, then, can they be sanctified? 
 Certainly not through the truth ; and he denies that they can be sanctified 
 by the Spirit, without the truth. Consequently, according to his doctrine, 
 they die in their depravity, and are lost ! There is no escape from the 
 difficulty. 
 
 44 3m2 
 
690 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 But Mr. C. says, that I am very unfair in quoting his writings ; that he 
 could read the writings of Paul, so as to make him apparently contradict 
 himself. If any one attempt to prove that Paul contradicts himself, I am 
 prepared to prove his perfect consistency. And if I have misrepresented 
 Mr. Campbell, as he charges, he is the man, of all others, best qualified 
 to correct the misrepresentation. Then let him do it. He is perfectly at 
 liberty to produce his writings, and to prove, if he can, that I have mis- 
 represented him. He conceded to me the right — as the correspondence 
 will show — a right which I should have had without his consent — to read 
 his writings in explanation of the proposition stated b} T himself; and now 
 he is disposed to complain of me for doing it. I know it is distressing to 
 him, but I cannot help it. I cannot possibly misunderstand his writings 
 on this subject ; for he states, with perfect clearness, that there are only 
 two kinds of power — moral and physical. The former, which is exerted 
 only by words and arguments, operating on mind ; and the latter, on mat- 
 ter. In the book from which I read, his views are presented with entire 
 clearness. I only wish he had stated them as clearly in this discussion. 
 If he had come out with an open and fair presentation of his views, we 
 should have known just where to find him. As at is, they are involved 
 in mist and darkness impenetrable. Yet he is a man of remarkably clear 
 intellect ; but he is singularly inconsistent. At one time, he states his 
 doctrines so clearly, as to admit of no doubt concerning them ; and at 
 another, he is dark as midnight, and it is impossible to ascertain what he 
 believes. 
 
 I am happy, however, to have his books, from which we are able to 
 ascertain precisely what he has taught, and to repel his charges of misrep- 
 resentation. If a man should, in a public discussion with me, read from 
 a book of mine, and should not read enough fairly to represent me, I would 
 read the remainder of the connection. Let Mr. C. do so. 
 
 He quotes Paul complaining that sin did work in his members, and that 
 he carried about with him a body of death; and he tells us, the members 
 are the corrupted passions seated in the body ; and that Paul, when he 
 came to die, needed a regeneration as much as do infants. I know of no 
 system of philosophy that confines the passions to the body. We speak 
 of the passion of hatred, or the passion of love. Some of the passions 
 belong particularly to the body ; others, to the mind. These two classes, 
 Paul enumerates together, as the works of the flesh. (Gal. v. 19 — -21.) 
 Anger, wrath, malice, hatred, envy, &c, belong to the mind. Paul found 
 depravity in the mind. What he meant by the body of death, we may, 
 perhaps, learn from chapter 8th, verse 6th, of the same epistle: "Know- 
 ing that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be 
 destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." The old man, or 
 corrupt nature, is crucified ; and the new man, or renewed nature, leads 
 to a holy life. The same idea is conveyed, when he says, " They that 
 are Christ's, have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." 
 
 The gentleman is now placed in this predicament; he must maintain 
 the absurd doctrine, that depravity is only in the body, and not in the 
 mind — and certainly his arguments lock that way — and therefore infants, 
 being pure when they leave the body, can go to heaven ; or he must hold, 
 that they die in their moral corruption, and are forever lost! There is no 
 way to escape from these absurdities, but by abandoning his theory con- 
 cerning spiritual influence. I cannot but believe it would be better to 
 abandon his theory, than meet the consequences. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 691 
 
 But he seeks to shield himself by charging our church with holding 
 the doctrine of infant damnation. The expression " elect infants," used 
 in our confession of faith, teaches no such thing. The word elect signi- 
 fies chosen from or out of; and infants are chosen from the world, the 
 human family. But he says, as there cannot be adults without infants, 
 so there cannot be elect infants without non-elect infants. I was not 
 aware that there could not be adults without infants. I know there have 
 been adults without infants, and possibly there might be again. It is not 
 true, that the word elect, applied to infants dying in infancy, implies that 
 there are non-elect infants ! Though he cannot prove the doctrine to be 
 in our confession, he tells us he has heard it preached in good old Scot- 
 land. I was never in Scotland, nor can I know what strange things he 
 may have heard there ; but I again call on him to produce one respecta- 
 ble Presbyterian author, who has taught this doctrine. He has asserted, 
 that the Presbyterian church holds the doctrine of infant damnation ; and 
 I demand the proof. Whenever I prefer a charge against his church, the 
 proof shall be forthcoming when called for, and when he makes charges 
 against my church, I shall certainly expect him to prove them. I hope 
 he will not shrink from proving his assertions. 
 
 Concerning the doctrine of election I will only remark, that I am not 
 disposed to mingle together things which are entirely distinct ; I am, 
 however, prepared to discuss this doctrine with him, whenever he chooses 
 to enter into it properly; but I do not intend to permit him to divert the 
 attention of the audience from the subject under consideration. 
 
 That infants are depraved, he admits. That they cannot be sanctified 
 through the truth, we know. He denies that they can be sanctified with- 
 out the truth. They must, therefore, die in sin, and be forever lost. I 
 leave you, my friends, to determine whether a doctrine involving such 
 consequences can be true. 
 
 Strangely enough, Mr. C. denies that God created man holy. I quot- 
 ed the passage, " God made man upright." But now, for the first time 
 in my life, I have heard it asserted, that the word holy does not express 
 moral quality. When the heavenly hosts exclaim •* holy, holy, holy, 
 Lord God Almighty," do not they express moral quality? But the gen- 
 tleman says, the word implies previous sinfulness. Angels are said to be 
 holy, and God is holy. Does the word, in these cases, imply previous 
 sin. If, however, the gentleman is disposed to be hypercritical about the 
 word holy, I will take the word upright. " God made man upright." 
 This word signifies, literally, standing erect or straight ; and, as applied to 
 denote moral qualities, it means conformity of God's law. He whose 
 heart and life accord with that rule, is said to be an upright man. 
 
 The gentleman is now placed in the same difficulty from which he 
 vainly sought to escape ; for certain it is, that God made man upright, 
 and that he did it not by words and arguments. If, then, God did, at 
 first, create him upright, not by words or arguments, who shall say he 
 cannot exert on his mind a divine influence, creating him anew unto good 
 works ? And if he can exert such an influence on the mind of an adult, 
 who will deny that he can sanctify the infant? 
 
 He asks whether faith is the cause or the effect of regeneration. I am 
 not disposed to be diverted from the proposition before us, to the discus- 
 sion of other questions. The question now before us is — whether the 
 Spirit of God operates only through the truth ? Does the Bible say, the 
 Spirit operates only through the truth? It does not. But it does plainly 
 
692 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 teach, that infants must be regenerated, or born again. " For," said our 
 Savior, " that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is bom 
 of the Spirit is spirit/' This is the reason why the new birth is abso- 
 lutely necessary. But infants are born of the flesh ; therefore they must 
 be born of the Spirit. They cannot be regenerated through the truth; 
 consequently they must be regenerated without it. This passage, there- 
 fore, teaches clearly the doctrine that regeneration may be, and is, effect- 
 ed by the Spirit without the truth. 
 
 But the gentleman returns to the position, that there can be no holiness 
 without knowledge ; and he asks — can an infant love holiness or hate sin, 
 when it knows nothing of either? And I ask, can an infant love music 
 before it has heard it ? You say — no. But still there may be such a taste 
 for music, that the moment when it first hears it, it will be charmed and 
 delighted. So the heart of an infant may be so purified, that it will love 
 and adore Jesus Christ so soon as it may be able to contemplate his char- 
 acter. Just here I will very briefly answer the gentleman's question con- 
 cerning faith and regeneration, though I am under no obligation to do it, 
 A dead man does not perform the acts which flow from life. He is first 
 alive, and then he acts. Those who are spiritually dead, do not put forth 
 the acts of spiritual life. They are first quickened, then they exercise 
 true faith and love. Spiritual acts flow from spiritual life. This I take 
 to be the doctrine of God's Word. 
 
 Having now paid due attention to the gentleman's speculations and ar- 
 guments, I will invite the attention of the audience to some further Scrip- 
 ture evidences in favor of the special agency of the Holy Spirit in conver- 
 sion and sanctification. I prefer to establish the doctrine for which I 
 contend, by the clear testimony of the Bible. 
 
 I will read for your consideration Luke xxiv. 45, "Then opened he 
 their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." The 
 Savior, after his resurrection, appeared to his disciples, who as yet un- 
 derstood not the things concerning him, which are taught in the Old Tes- 
 tament. It is not said, that he opened their understandings by the Scrip- 
 tures, but he opened their understandings, that they might understand 
 the Scriptures. David felt his need of this divine illumination, when he 
 prayed — " Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wonderful things out 
 of thy law," Ps. cxix. 18. There w r ere wonderful things in God's Word; 
 but because of his comparative blindness, he did not see them in all their 
 divine excellency. These passages clearly teach the doctrine of the 
 agency of the Holy Spirit in enlightening the minds of men. 
 
 The next passage I read is in the epistle to Titus iii. 5, " Not by 
 works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy 
 he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior." 
 We are saved by the renewing [making aneiv] of the Holy Spirit, which 
 God shed on us. Does not this language teach with perfect clearness 
 the doctrine of a direct divine influence on the heart ? Or are we to un- 
 derstand by the Spirit being shed upon them, only their having the words 
 and arguments contained in God's revelation? If such was the apostle's 
 meaning, he certainly took a very singular method of expressing it. Let 
 us compare with this the language employed in the Acts of the Apostles 
 concerning the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost: " I will 
 pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Does not this language express 
 an influence of the Spirit not exerted merely by words and arguments — a 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 693 
 
 direct influence? All agree that it does. If, then, the pouring out of the 
 Spirit expresses an influence distinct from mere words and arguments, 
 does not the expression, " shed upon" mean the same thing. The ex- 
 pressions are very similar, and both evidently express a divine influence 
 upon the minds of men, in addition to the truth, and distinct from it. 
 Similar language is also used in regard to the descent of the Spirit on the 
 family of Cornelius : " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy 
 Ghost fell on all them which heard the word," Acts x. 44. Was not 
 this a direct influence of the Spirit ? All admit that it was. If, then, 
 the expression, fell on, expresses a direct divine agency, not by word or 
 argument ; does not the expression, shed upon, also express a special 
 divine agency ? It will not do to say, that one of these expressions has 
 reference simply to the word, and the other to an influence distinct from 
 the word. In employing this strong language without qualification, the 
 apostles did not seem to feel the least apprehension, that their language 
 would be understood to teach the necessity of an immediate agency of the 
 Spirit in which they did not believe. We must, then, understand their 
 language in its obvious sense. 
 
 I will now invite your attention to 1 Cor. ii. 14. I am acquainted 
 with Mr. C.'s mode of commenting on this passage ; and I bring it for- 
 ward now, that he may have an opportunity of defending his interpreta- 
 tion of it, if he can. " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the 
 Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know 
 them, because they are spiritually discerned." The first question in or- 
 der to ascertain the meaning of this passage, is concerning the expres- 
 sion, natural man. I understand the natural man to be man as he is by 
 nature — unsanctified. That this is the correct explanation of the expres- 
 sion, is evident from the other instances in which the word natural is 
 employed in the New Testament. Thus in I Cor. xv. 44, 45, "It is sown 
 a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, 
 and there is a spiritual body." The natural body here evidently is the 
 body in its natural state, unchanged. The spiritual body is the body as it 
 will be changed and refined at the resurrection. So the natural man 
 means man as he is by nature, unrenewed. The word translated natural 
 is also used by James iii. 15, "This wisdom descendelh not from above, 
 but it is earthly, sensual, (Greek — natural,) devilish." Here the word 
 sensual or natural evidently denotes moral corruption. The word is again 
 found in the 19th verse of the epistle of Jude : "These be they who sep- 
 arate themselves, sensual, (Greek — -natural,) having not the Spirit." 
 The apostle is here speaking of " mockers in the last time, who should 
 walk after their own ungodly lusts ;" and he says, they are natural, hav- 
 ing not the Spirit. 
 
 These are all the instances in which the word translated natural, is used 
 in the New Testament; and it is a fact, that in every instance where it is 
 employed, with reference to moral character, it is used in a bad sense. 
 When used with reference to the body, it denotes its natural state. It is, 
 then, clear from the usage of the word, that, by the " natural man," Paul 
 means man as he is by nature, sinful. The correctness of this interpretation 
 is rendered certain by the connection. The natural man does not receive 
 the things of the Spirit. Why ? Because " they are foolishness to him." 
 The meaning of this expression is made perfectly clear by the eighteenth 
 verse of the first chapter : " For the preaching of the cross is to them 
 that perish, foolishness ; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of 
 
694 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 God." That is, they that perish see in the preaching of the cross, no 
 wisdom, no adaptation of the plan of salvation to their condition, nothing 
 attractive. It appears to them foolishness. So the natural man, like 
 those who perish, receives not the gospel, the truths revealed by the 
 Spirit; for they appear to him unmeaning, unwise, unlovely. 
 
 But if, as Mr. C. supposes, the natural man were simply a pagan, ig- 
 norant of divine revelation, the apostle would have said — The natural 
 man receiveth not the things of the Spirit ; for they are not revealed to 
 him. But when he says, they are foolishness to him, we are compelled 
 to understand that they have been presented to his mind, and that he sees 
 in them no wisdom, nothing lovely or attractive to him ; and therefore he 
 rejects them ; for a thing of which a man has never heard, cannot be said 
 to be foolishness to him ; and especially can it not be said, that he does 
 not receive what was never presented to him, because it is foolishness 
 to him. 
 
 By the natural man, then, we are to understand the unreneived man, 
 man as he is by nature. All such reject the gospel of Christ, "the things 
 of the Spirit." Consequently the gospel alone is not sufficient to effect 
 their conversion. They do not receive it — cannot understand it. Hence 
 the absolute necessity of an agency of the Spirit, additional to the Truth, 
 and distinct from it, They must experience such a change as will cause 
 them to see wisdom, adaptation to their condition, beauty and attractive- 
 ness in the gospel. The spiritual or regenerated man, enlightened from 
 above, admires and embraces the truths of divine revelation. 
 
 The next passage of Scripture to which I call your attention, is 1 Cor. 
 i. 22 — 24 : " For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wis- 
 dom ; but we preach Christ crucified,, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, 
 and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them w^hich are called both 
 Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." 1 
 Here you will observe the gospel was preached indiscriminately to Jews 
 and Greeks, and both rejected it. There was, however, a third class,. 
 composed of both Jews and Greeks, to whom it was the power of God 
 unto salvation. Those who received the gospel, and were converted and 
 saved, are mentioned by the apostle as " them which are called.' 9 '' By 
 this language he cannot mean the call of the Word, for all had this in- 
 discriminately. It must be, then, an additional influence, an influence ef- 
 fectual in securing their conversion ; for, to all such, the gospel was the 
 power of God to salvation. By this call, then, we must understand the 
 special agency of the Holy Spirit, not simply by words and arguments, 
 calling them "■ out of darkness into his marvellous light." This passage 
 establishes beyond controversy the doctrine for which we contend. That 
 I have given the correct interpretation of it, would appear still more ma- 
 nifest, by comparing it with other passages in which the same apostle 
 uses the word called. 
 
 I have time only to read one other passage in Hebrews viii. 10 : " For 
 this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those 
 days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them 
 in their hearts : and I w r ill be to them a God, and they shall be to me a 
 people." This is a prophecy quoted by the apostle from Jeremiah. 
 What does God promise to do? "I will put my laws into their mind, 
 and write them in their hearts." Are we to understand by this, that he 
 would influence them simply by words and arguments ? They, at that 
 time, had the Word of God before their minds — " line upon line, and pre- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 695 
 
 cept upon precept." Inspired men were sent to reform, exhort, and 
 warn them ; but God declares his purpose, at a future day, to teach them 
 effectually, to write his laws upon their hearts, and to cause all to know 
 him, from the least to the greatest, and to walk in his statutes and do them. 
 Does not this language most clearly and conclusively establish the doc- 
 trine that, in conversion and sanctification, the Spirit exerts on the human 
 mind an influence in addition to that of the Word, and more powerful 
 and efficacious ? It is this agency only that can subdue the rebellious 
 dispositions of men, melt their obdurate hearts, and cause them to love 
 and serve Jesus Christ in sincerity and in truth. — [Time expired. 
 
 611 
 Tuesday, Nov. 28—1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's seventh address.] 
 
 Mr. President — The gentleman has finally complied with my re- 
 quest. He has given an answer to so much of the question as concerns 
 the priority of faith, or regeneration. He has clearly committed himself 
 by avowing his conviction that regeneration, or a change of heart, is pre- 
 vious to faith. This is a point which I desired to elicit at an earlier pe- 
 riod of this discussion. It would have saved time. We, however, thank- 
 fully accept it at this late hour. The gentleman backed it well with a 
 liberal collection of scriptures. The only exception to his quotations is, 
 that they happen not at all to pertain to the subject. He tries to shew 
 that the Spirit operates through the Word. But that is not the question. 
 We both professedly agree in that point. That the Spirit operates, is 
 agreed on both sides. I hope the gentleman will not attempt to make an- 
 other false issue here. He also admits that the Spirit sometimes operates 
 through the Word. That is not the point to be proved. What, then, 
 must I again ask, is the proposition? Is it not that " In conversion and 
 sanctification the Spirit of God operates only through the Word ?" He 
 has proved that it operates through the Word. This I affirm. Has he 
 come over? Or does he mean to use the scriptures that prove his opera- 
 tion through the Word, to prove his operation without the Word!! All 
 scriptures, then, that prove that the Spirit of God operates through the 
 Word, are irrelevant to his position, but relevant to mine, unless he comes 
 fully over and affirms that it operates only through the Word. 
 
 I do not, indeed, think that the gentleman understands those portions 
 of scripture right, else he could not have so quoted them. But it is not 
 necessary now to make a commentary upon them. You will all under- 
 stand that a passage of Scripture that proves the Holy Spirit operates 
 through the Word, does not prove that he operates without the Word, 
 or independent of it. It is with him, then, essentially necessary that a 
 change of heart should precede faith. All men are dead. They must be 
 quickened. True, all living men are dead to something. And a Pagan 
 man, or a Jewish man, may be alive to his own theory, and dead to an- 
 other. But the sophism seems to be, what rhetoricians sometimes call, 
 killing the metaphor, or running it mad. Now a man that is metaphysi- 
 cally dead to one thing, is not literally dead to every thing else. There 
 is still something alive in him, through which truth may find its way to 
 his heart. His reason and conscience are not dead, although his heart 
 may be. Paul says of a certain person — " She that liveth in pleasure, is 
 dead while she lives." All this I have shewn in my opening speech, to 
 which the gentleman has yet paid so little attention. Whenever any 
 point or portion of Scripture is so interpreted, as to make another void, I 
 
696 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 set it down, that it is most certainly misconstrued. Any theory, or view, 
 of any passage which makes the preaching of the gospel of no use, thai 
 makes faith vain, or the Bible useless to that particular end, I hold to be 
 infallibly wrong. 
 
 It is no new development. I have read it from the days of Thomas 
 Boston till now. I presume the gentleman would make regeneration a 
 miracle, a positive immediate act of Omnipotence, without any instrumen- 
 tality at all. And I have drawn him out as large as life on that topic. 
 A change of heart is therefore before belief; because the throng of the 
 old modern school of self-ycleped orthodoxy stands in need of it. What- 
 ever is before any thing, is without it. The cause may be without the 
 effect, in one sense of the word cause, but the effect can in no sense be 
 without the cause. 
 
 I say again, my voice never could have been raised upon the subject 
 of spiritual influence, had not I seen in these extravagant forms, as I 
 judge, it making void the Word of God, and the preaching of the gospel. 
 I yet remember the singular impressions that sometimes accompanied my 
 early readings of modern revivals. Many years since I read of a singu- 
 lar outpouring of the Spirit in New York. In a certain neighborhood, 
 there were a thousand converts reported, as the result of a great outpour- 
 ing of the Spirit. Of these thousand converts about one-third went to 
 each of the three leading denominations in that neighborhood — Presby- 
 terians, Methodists, Baptists. The first impression was — Did the Spirit 
 of God thus at one outpouring make three hundred Presbyterians, Me- 
 thodists, Baptists ! ! Strange operation ! In old times he made them all 
 christians ; and of one heart and soul. I concluded there was some de- 
 lusion in the affair : that man's spirit had likely as much to do in it, as 
 the Spirit of God. Since that time I have been an observer of such oc- 
 casions and reports, and suffice it to say, twenty-five years observation 
 has greatly confirmed the first impression. Men and parties often make 
 revivals, and now we have got a class of preachers, known by the title 
 of " revivalists" men well disciplined in the art and mystery of obtain- 
 ing outpourings of the Spirit. 
 
 But my standing proof of the great amount of deception practiced on 
 such occasions, is the lamentable fact, that after the excitement ceases, 
 and reason resumes her wonted dominion, the converts are about as unen- 
 lightened in the religion of the volume of God's own inspiration as before. 
 Their feelings were moved, and their hearts quailed, or their affections 
 were overcome by the scenes around them ; yet still their minds were 
 not enlightened, their spirits were not more elevated, nor their faith en- 
 larged. In most instances, the converts are as ignorant of God and 
 Christ, after, as before. Persons so converted, too, rarely love the Bible. 
 They believe more in excitement than in the twelve apostles ; and would 
 rather listen to exciting speeches, than keep the commandments of God. 
 Children love their proper parents more than others. Hence those born 
 of great excitements, love them — born in storms and tempests of the soul, 
 they have a great attachment to them. They feel more in debt to the 
 revivalist than to the Bible; and they love him more ardently, and will 
 obey him more joyfully and faithfully. They soon learn a few texts, 
 and by these they prove every thing. A universal favorite is — " The 
 Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God." 
 They reason from that within to prove that without, rather than from 
 that without to prove that within. They prove the doctrine to be true 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 697 
 
 by their feelings, and then they prove their feelings to be true by the 
 doctrine. They reason in a most fallacious circle ; and multitudes, it is 
 to be feared, are deluded into fatal mistakes. 
 
 I heard the other day, indeed since the discussion commenced, that a 
 preacher of some pretensions, and of some notoriety in this state — a man 
 fond of conspicuity — in a recent discourse undertook to prove the resur- 
 rection of Christ to his audience by their feelings. He was himself sud- 
 denly transported into an ecstacy at the discovery of the new proof. He 
 was, with Archimides, ready to say, eureka — I have found, I have found. 
 He said, My friends, I have never heard it uttered, I have never read it 
 in a book. It is to me a perfectly original argument, but really it appears 
 to me the best I have ever heard. It is simple, and you can all apply it. 
 Paul says, " If Christ be not risen faith is vain, preaching is vain ; you 
 are yet in your sins." Now follows it not, that when sins are pardoned, 
 preaching is proved to be not in vain, and faith is demonstrated not to be 
 in vain, and, consequently, Christ is risen from the dead. Now, breth- 
 ren, I feel that my sins are pardoned, and you feel that your sins are par- 
 doned ; surely, then, neither our faith nor our preaching is vain. Hence 
 we are infallibly certain, from our own hearts, that Jesus Christ rose from 
 the dead ! But suppose this sense, or feeling of forgiveness, is a delusion, 
 what comes of the argument? ! 
 
 In one word, if a spiritual illumination makes a Methodist, and a spir- 
 itual illumination makes a Baptist and a Congregationalist, it is not only 
 a new light, a modern illumination, but it makes these parties of divine 
 authority ; and thus the Spirit is at war with itself in these different de- 
 nominations. Here is A preaching against the Baptists by divine illu- 
 mination, and here is B preaching against the Methodists by divine illu- 
 mination, and here is C preaching against them both, and in favor of old- 
 fashioned Presbyterianism, by the same divine illumination. Well, there 
 are different ways to London, they say ; and so there are to heaven, 
 they argue ! 
 
 But I will submit another case to these learned doctors. Of the nu- 
 merous converts that joined a certain church, many have gone over to 
 infidelity. They told of raptures, felt ecstacies, had their visions, and 
 rejoiced in the assurance of pardoned sins. But now the Bible and relig- 
 ion are with them a mere delusion. They affirm it all to be a hoax. 
 What now has become of their former illuminations ? their visions and 
 their ecstacies ? They are all abandoned as a mere delusion. It is not 
 denied that they once had those feelings, emotions, and transporting views. 
 They still admit the fact of their former actual existence ; but they were 
 the results of a delusion ? With their faith in the Bible, those pleasant 
 dreams and fancies fled. No more light, nor spirit, nor inward witness. 
 Now does not this prove, that there is no real foundation of confidence, 
 no true hope in God, no real love of the truth, nor of the God of truth, 
 in these phantasies ! Had they been solid substantial evidences, would 
 not their faith in them have remained when their faith in the testimony of 
 prophets and apostles failed? 
 
 For these reasons, and not from any aversion to the doctrine of spirit- 
 ual influence, do we repudiate the popular notions of getting religion, and 
 of enjoying religion. We rejoice in the belief of the influence of the 
 Spirit of God in the great work of our salvation from sin. We pray for 
 larger measures of these divine influences. We desire them for the 
 union of christians, and as an end to all these vain wranglings and con- 
 
 3N 
 
698 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 troversies. No greater proof of the enjoyment of God's Spirit can be 
 given, than an ardent devotion to all his oracles, and to the keeping of his 
 commandments. 
 
 To return again to regeneration. Mr. R. has got the heart purified 
 without faith, if I rightly understand him. The heart is renewed, 
 changed, regenerated by the Spirit before faith ; consequently faith is not 
 necessary to the purification of the heart. There is much difference be- 
 tween our two systems. Mr. Rice has the heart purified before faith, I 
 have the heart purified through faith. My reason for so believing is 
 found in the fact that Peter said, God made no difference between Jew 
 and Gentile, in that " he purified their hearts by faith." 
 
 We are accustomed to regard the purification of the heart as the great- 
 est of all things in religion. If, then, that be accomplished without faith, 
 of what essential use is faith afterwards ? If the greatest of all events is 
 achieved without it, why may not the effects of that change be accom- 
 plished without it ? Why do we preach the gospel to convert men, if, be- 
 fore they believe the gospel, and without the gospel, men are renewed 
 and regenerated by the direct and immediate influence of God's Spirit ? 
 I would conclude, that if a man may be born of the Spirit without faith, 
 he may also be saved without faith ; and thus faith, from being the primary 
 principle in religion, is anticipated and set aside by the Holy Spirit in the 
 capital point of the renewal of the heart. 
 
 In the case of adults, for, with Mr. Rice regeneration is the same in 
 all cases, we have a regenerated unbeliever ; and if we could suppose an 
 interval between regeneration and faith, as must be the case in all infants, 
 then we have not only a regenerated unbeliever, but also the possibility, 
 in the case of death, of such a one being saved without faith. Again, in the 
 case of infants, the interval between regeneration and faith, may be an 
 interval of years, for anything known to the contrary, and then we have 
 the extraordinary case of an infant being a child of God, and living in 
 the world without the knowledge of God, without Christ, and without 
 hope ! 
 
 I hope Mr. Rice will throw some light on this knotty subject, and if 
 possible, reconcile these views of his church with those of the Bible, and 
 the experiences and observations of a christian community. He has cer- 
 tainly been driven to a very high latitude, by adverse winds, when he has 
 to assume that regeneration is wholly independent of faith, and always 
 anterior to it — and thus, by one bold assumption, make void all the means 
 of grace, and the utility of a christian ministry. But we shall wait for his 
 expositions. 
 
 The gentleman, in his disquisitions upon holiness, still compares it to a 
 taste. This is his only escape from the difficulties propounded in my last 
 address. According to his church, holiness is set forth as the supreme 
 love of God — or, "he is said to be holy, who loves the Lord with all his 
 heart, and soul, and mind, and strength." A regenerated child possesses 
 not this holiness — himself being judge. Neither has it a disposition to- 
 wards God, for it has no knowledge of him. These concessions Mr. R. 
 is obliged to make. The common sense of community requires them at 
 his hand. But will it satisfy the intelligent, after having defined regener- 
 ation to be a change of heart, from the love of sin to the love of holiness, 
 to be informed, that, instead of having this love of holiness, and hatred of 
 sin, an infant has an undeveloped taste for them — something like a taste 
 for music? ! ! But even this taste is an assumption. However, the gentle- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 699 
 
 man does not even say it has, but a child "might have a taste for music." 
 Still this might have, and having are different things. And inasmuch as 
 the gentleman has not yet produced any child, nor any well-authenticated 
 fact of any child having a taste for holiness, as having been charmed, as 
 with music, on the first presentation of the subject, we must put it down 
 as a complete failure on his part, to sustain his infant regeneration. He 
 has truly toiled hard in this case, but certainly has not made out either 
 the theory or the fact of instinctive holiness. 
 
 We have also had another dissertation on the word holiness. Any 
 thing but the question on hand. Well, now, must I repeat that this term 
 indicates no real substantial attribute, or virtue, but mere separation from 
 all impurity ? — or, if any one prefers it — it is purity itself. The taber- 
 nacle, and afterwards the temple, and all its functions, were holy. God's 
 presence on earth or in heaven, makes all things holy, as did his presence 
 in the mount with Moses. And even Mount Tabor, where Moses and 
 Elias appeared to Jesus, is called the " Holy Mount," by Peter. The 
 angels incessantly repeat this adorable conception of God ; and thus repre- 
 sent him as infinitely, eternally and perfectly pure — removed from all con- 
 taminations. They say, " Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty !" 
 But with them this is not merely a single attribute, but an ineffable concep- 
 tion of his infinite, awful, and glorious purity. In their eyes, it is his su- 
 perlative beauty and loveliness. He is said to be of purer eyes than to be- 
 hold iniquity ; and the very heavens are represented as not clean in his sight. 
 
 But we are reminded, that holiness is a substantive requisite from chris- 
 tians ; and that Jesus, the Messiah, is made unto us by God — " wisdom, 
 righteousness, holiness and redemption." It is, therefore, important to 
 understand it well, inasmuch as " without holiness, no man shall enjoy 
 God." Jesus is not imputed to us for wisdom, righteousness, &c, but 
 he is the author of these perfections in us. These terms comprehend 
 much, and are indicative of very distinct conceptions and excellencies. 
 Justice, or righteousness, has respect to positive duties and obligations to 
 society. Holiness, or sanctification, a hatred of, and separation from all 
 impurities ; and redemption expresses our deliverance from death and the 
 grave. We may, indeed, suppose it, as this term indicates, the consumma- 
 tion of salvation — that as it is the ultimate goal of man's aspirations, (" be 
 you holy, for I am holy,") it must indicate the supreme of moral gran- 
 deur, and the perfection of moral excellence. But, in discussing the term 
 philologically, it intimates no more than simple separation from sin, or any 
 kind of legal or moral impurity. But we shall now proceed to a new ar- 
 gument on the modus operandi, or means of sanctification, which we shall 
 call our ninth argument. 
 
 IX. It shall be based on the special commission given to Paul, as ex- 
 pounded by that given to the Messiah himself. And, therefore, we shall 
 read that to the Messiah, as introductory to that presented to the apostle 
 Paul. " I give thee," says Jehovah, " for a covenant of the people; for 
 a light of the gentiles ; to open the blind eyes; to bring out the prisoners 
 from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house." 
 11 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me ; because the Lord has anointed 
 me to preach good tidings to the meek ; he hath sent me to bind up the 
 broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the 
 prison to them that are bound ; to proclaim the acceptable year of the 
 Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn." 
 Isaiah xlii. 6, 7 ; lxi. 1, 2. We shall now hear Paul relate his own, as 
 
700 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 he had it from the mouth of the Lord: "I have appeared unto thee for 
 this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things 
 which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto 
 thee. Delivering thee from the people and from the gentiles, unto whom 
 now I send thee — to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, 
 and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness 
 of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith, that is 
 in me." Here, then, we have a full development in these grand com- 
 missions, of the manner and means employed in the wisdom and grace of 
 God in converting and sanctifying the nations of the earth, through the 
 mediation of the Messiah. The most conspicuous point, or the chief 
 means stated, is — that God would use light, knowledge, the gospel, and 
 that he would open the eyes of men — turning them from darkness to 
 light, and from the kingdom and power of Satan to God. God, then, 
 who commanded light to arise out of darkness, has used moral spiritual 
 light — that is, revelation, the gospel — as the means of conversion and 
 sanctification. Illumination is, therefore, an essential prerequisite to con- 
 version and holiness. Without light there is no beauty ; for in the dark, 
 beauty and deformity are undistinguishable. Without light there is no- 
 thing amiable, because amiability requires the aid of light for its exposi- 
 tion, as much as beauty. The power of Satan is in darkness; the power 
 of God is in light. God, therefore, works by light ; and Satan by dark- 
 ness. Hence, in Paul's commission, it reads, "Turn them from darkness 
 to light j" and the consequence will be, "from the power of Satan to 
 God ;" and the ultimate effect will be remission of sins, and an inheritance 
 among the sanctified. After the study of these, and many such similar 
 documents, found in the Bible, I confess I am wholly unable to conceive 
 of a religion without knowledge, without faith, without an apprehension, 
 an intellectual, as well as a cordial reception, of the gospel of Christ. 1 
 repudiate, therefore, with my whole heart, this notion of infant, idiot and 
 pagan regeneration — this speculative conversion, without light, knowledge, 
 faith, hope or love. It makes void the whole moral machinery of the 
 Bible, the christian ministry, and the commission of the Holy Spirit. It 
 is no advocate of Christ ; it is no comforter of the soul, on the hypothesis 
 of infant, and pagan, and idiot regeneration. 
 
 But again, what is orthodoxy worth on Mr. Rice's hypothesis ? what 
 is it better than heterodoxy? In not one single point. Persons are 
 regenerated without any doctrine, good, bad, or indifferent. It is a work 
 that depends on nothing but the special, direct, and immediate impulse, 
 or impression of the Spirit upon the naked soul of an infant, a pagan, or 
 a gospel hearer. This rage for orthodoxy is madness upon his hypo- 
 thesis. Why this crusade against us on the part of my friend ? We can 
 do no harm, if his theory of conversion and sanctification be true ! Ail 
 that the Spirit regenerates live for ever according to him ! Consequently 
 they cannot be injured ; and none else can be saved. In what a singular 
 attitude stands he before this community and the universe, if his notions 
 of regeneration are worth any thing ! The gentleman will not, because 
 he cannot, explain his zeal for orthodoxy on his principles. If the 
 Spirit descends from heaven on a person, and by a direct touch regen- 
 erates him without faith, without knowledge, or preparation of any sort, 
 what can sound doctrine and sound preaching avail ? Mr. Rice's theory 
 is a moral paralysis to the tongue and to the heart of a preacher. It is 
 to the hearers a moral stupor, a spiritual lethargy. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 701 
 
 There are no means of regeneration at all on his assumption. I wish 
 I could say, with an emphasis that would seal it upon the heart forever, 
 if Mr. Rice's theory be any thing but a mental hallucination, there are no 
 means of conversion or sanctification — no means whatever of regenera- 
 tion. I ask him what are the means ? Can he name them ? He cannot. 
 Prayer, preaching, reading, all ordinances, are useless. Man, with him, 
 is born again before he believes. He is as passive in the new birth 
 as in the first birth. There were no motives, no volitions, no previous 
 impulses of the soul in his first ; nor are there any in his second birth. 
 He runs the two metaphers of birth and death into a fatal paralysis. 
 
 Are you prepared, fellow-citizens of the nineteenth century — are you 
 prepared to receive a doctrine of regeneration, that at one fell swoop, 
 annihilates all means of grace whatsoever? — that makes faith, preaching, 
 praying, reading, &c. altogether vain ! This has been, in my esteem 
 for many years, the most false delusion. I saw the doctrine of metaphys- 
 ical and romantic regeneration leading just to this point. This is its 
 natural Ultima Thule issue. If it always ends not here with you, it is 
 only because you cannot, or do not understand it. Well did the Messiah 
 say, of certain Rabbis, you make void the Word of God by your tradi- 
 tions. 
 
 I do, sir, most sincerely regard the Spirit of God as the author of every 
 spiritual and noble desire in the human heart ; the author of every pious 
 affection, of every holy aspiration of our souls. His mysterious but 
 certain power, is in, and with the gospel, and he makes it the power of 
 God to salvation to every one that believes it. He sanctifies us through 
 the truth. He works in us by it to will and do of his good pleasure. 
 He is the Spirit of grace, because he is the Spirit of truth. 
 
 Much has been said, and whispered, and gossiped, concerning my 
 heterodoxy. But, sir, allow me to compliment myself — I am, in all the 
 great and weighty matters of religion, more orthodox than any of my 
 impugners. I speak it not boastingly, sir, but in declaration of my gen- 
 eral views of all gospel truths. I do not believe, sir, most sincerely, that 
 there is any of those gentlemen that oppose us, more radically and 
 universally orthodox on all these great subjects of evangelical faith, piety, 
 and morality, than we. — [Time expired. 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 28— 1 5 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's seventh reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I do not remember ever to have seen a man who 
 pretended to religion of any kind, who did not consider himself rather 
 more orthodox than others. This is a common weakness of human na- 
 ture. It displays itself everywhere, and especially in men who imagine 
 themselves to be great reformers, and believe all but themselves in serious 
 error. If it be true, as my friend evidently thinks, that of all the world 
 he only, and those who agree with him, are in the light, whilst all Chris- 
 tendom grope in midnight darkness ; it follows, as a necessary consequence, 
 that he is one of the most orthodox men ! There can be no doubt about it. 
 
 We might, perhaps, excuse the other remarks the gentleman has so 
 repeatedly made, concerning the doctrine of Presbyterians, which he 
 professes perfectly to understand; but when he charges our church with 
 holding the doctrine of infant damnation, we have the right to expect him 
 to produce at least one Presbyterian author who has taught it. I have 
 challenged him to produce even one, and he has not done it ; nor has he 
 
 3n2 
 
702 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 been able to prove that it is countenanced by our confession of faith. I 
 deny that our church holds the doctrine. He has made the charge, and 
 once more I demand the proof. I had supposed him to be a man who 
 had so much experence in public discussions, that he would be prepared, 
 at once, when he stated facts, to prove them. But it is not so. Very 
 far otherwise. 
 
 I will now proceed to respond to his remarks and arguments, if, in- 
 deed, he has offered arguments, to prove the proposition he affirms. Let 
 me ask you, my friends, has he produced one passage of Scripture that 
 says, the Spirit operates in conversion and sanctification only through 
 the truth ? What passage has he quoted ? Do you remember one ? I cer- 
 tainly did not hear one quoted. Yet the gentleman boasts that he, more 
 than all other men, confines his faith within the lids of the Bible. 
 
 He says, I have been proving only that the Spirit does operate, and 
 this he admits. Such, however, is not the fact. I have been proving 
 that the Spirit does not operate only through the truth, but that in conver- 
 sion and sanctification there is an influence of the Spirit, an addition to 
 the Word, and distinct from it. This doctrine he, in his writings and 
 discussions, has positively denied. I like to see a man march up boldly 
 and fearlessly to the defence of his published principles, or openly and 
 candidly retract them. He has very repeatedly taught and published, that 
 only moral power can be exerted on mind, and moral power can be ex- 
 erted only by words and arguments, addressed to the eye or ear. Yet 
 from what we have heard from him on this occasion, no one would ima- 
 gine that he had ever believed such a doctrine. I do desire to see him 
 come up and openly defend his published doctrines, or retract them. I 
 have been proving that in the conversion and sanctification of adults, there 
 is, 1st, the instrumentality of the Word ; and, 2nd, a distinct agency of 
 the Holy Spirit, for which the pious are accustomed to pray — an influ- 
 ence effectually renewing and sanctifying the soul. This latter agency 
 Mr. C. denies. This is the most important point in regard to which we 
 differ ; and I am resolved to keep it prominently before the audience. 
 
 The gentleman has asserted, that a number of his arguments remain un- 
 noticed. If there are such, I have entirely missed them ; and I do not know 
 how it could have happened, for I have taken full notes of his speeches. 
 If there are any that remain unanswered, I hope he will mention them. 
 
 He has informed us how he was led to adopt his present views. He 
 heard of the Spirit being poured out in divers places, and the result was, 
 that so many Baptists, so many Methodists, and so many Presbyterians 
 were made ; and he concluded, that if all this had been the work of the 
 Spirit, it would have been more unique. Really I had supposed, that he 
 professed to have been led to the adoption of his views simply by a calm 
 and unprejudiced examination of the Bible ; but it appears that I was 
 mistaken. He now informs us, that his faith in the special agency of the 
 Spirit was shaken, if not destroyed, by hearing that the Spirit was poured 
 out in this, that, and the other place. Verily I see nothing in this to shake 
 the faith of a believer in the truth of the Scriptures. What is the lan- 
 guage of the Bible on this subject? On the day of Pentecost the prophecy 
 of Joel began to be fulfilled, in which he said, "It shall come tc pass in 
 the last days, (saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ," 
 &c. And Paul says, God saves us " by the washing of regeneration and 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through 
 Jesus Christ." I cannot envy the feelings of the man who can speak 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 703 
 
 slightingly of the very language of the Bible. If Paul, and Peter, and 
 Joel were in error, I am willing to err with them. 
 
 But he says, if the Spirit had converted all those Baptists, Presbyterians, 
 and Methodists, they would all have been alike. I see no absurdity or 
 inconsistency in believing, that the Spirit of God may renew the hearts 
 of several hundred persons, and that some of them might become Bap- 
 tists, others Presbyterians, and others Methodists. I believe, that in all 
 these, and other evangelical denominations, there are vast numbers who, 
 with garments washed in the blood of» the Lamb, will stand in the pre- 
 sence of God, where there is fullness of joy forever. I have never taken 
 the ground that the Presbyterian church constitutes the whole family of 
 God on earth, and that alf other churches are synagogues of Satan ! The 
 gentleman cannot believe that the Spirit of God would make Methodists, 
 Episcopalians, Baptists, and Presbyterians. But, I ask, has he not re- 
 peatedly published his belief that there are christians among " the sects ;" 
 christians, of course, converted by the Holy Spirit? 
 
 But he says, the work, if it were the work of the Spirit, would be more 
 unique ; those converted would be in their views more alike. Is the 
 work unique in his own church, where he holds that disciples are made 
 on principles truly apostolic ? Do he and his brethren agree with each 
 other in their views ? I can point to a preacher of high standing in his 
 church, who, for a length of time after joining his church and being re- 
 cognized as a minister, believed in the doctrine of universal salvation ! I 
 can point to another prominent preacher in his church, who denies that 
 man has a soul, and contends most zealously that in the Scriptures the 
 word soul means breath!.' .' Why is not the work of the Spirit unique in 
 his church ? If this be a fair test of the work of God, and Mr. C. pro- 
 fesses to think it is, his church is the very last place in this wide world 
 where we could expect to find it; for in it, as he himself has informed 
 us, all sorts of doctrines have been preached by all sorts of men.' J J If 
 the uniqueness of the work be the ground on which we are to form a judg- 
 ment of its character, he would better have said nothing on the subject. 
 
 He has told you an anecdote illustrative of the fanaticism to which our 
 doctrine leads, and I like to hear anecdotes occasionally. He told you of 
 a certain preacher who adopted a very singular method of proving the 
 doctrine of the resurrection ; and he argues, even gravely, that those who 
 are said to have experienced the special influences of the Spirit, are quite 
 as ignorant of the Word of God as before. Well, I must tell an anecdote 
 to match his. I hope my "laughing committee " are all present. [Laugh- 
 ing.] A young man not far from Lexington had been immersed into the 
 church of my friend, where, we are to suppose, converts are made in the 
 right way. After his immersion he, as is rather common in certain quar- 
 ters, was somewhat wise in his own conceit, and anxious to make con- 
 verts to his new views. He soon got into a discussion with some per- 
 sons older and better informed than himself, who quoted against his doc- 
 trine a passage from the Old Testament. Not being quite prepared to 
 meet the argument, he replied, " I care nothing about that — the Old Testa- 
 ment was written before the flood." [A laugh.] I doubt whether he was 
 even so well taught as the gentleman's preacher. Indeed, it admits of very 
 serious doubt, whether, as a general thing, his people, in the knowledge 
 of the Scriptures, can justly claim any superiority over others. 
 
 But as further evidence that the doctrine for which we contend is not 
 true, Mr. C. tells you, that he has known many who professed to be 
 
704 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 converted by the Spirit, who afterwards apostatized and became infideisv 
 Does he know whether in the days of the apostles there were any 
 cases of the kind ? Were there not many who seemed to run well 
 for a time, and then turned to the beggarly elements of the world ? Per- 
 haps the apostles did not preach as they should ? Certainly they em- 
 ployed language very much like that we use on this subject. This cir- 
 cumstance may, perhaps, account for the fact that many apostatized ! ! I 
 should like to inquire of my friend, whether any who have become mem- 
 bers of his church, and who appeared zealous for a time, have afterwards 
 apostatized ? I think he will admit that many such cases have occurred, 
 and that they became worse than before their professed conversion. One 
 of his preachers, as I remarked several days since, stated, that he knew 
 churches to which, some little time since, large accessions had been 
 made, that were now almost dead. It is not wise in my friend to use 
 arguments that, if at all sound, will ruin his own cause. The same class 
 of arguments might be urged with equal conclusiveness against Christi- 
 anity itself. At any rate, his argument, if it proves any thing, affords 
 conclusive evidence that he himself preaches false doctrine. 
 
 But it is a principle universally acknowledged, that the abuse of a 
 doctrine is no valid argument against it. If men delude themselves, or are 
 deluded by others into the belief that they have experienced a change of 
 heart, when in truth they have not ; is this to be urged against the fact, 
 that all true conversions are effected by the special agency of the Spirit ? 
 Another objection urged by Mr. C. is, that according to our doctrine re- 
 generation precedes faith. Suppose the matter to be just as he has rep- 
 resented it, he is reasoning as decidedly against the apostle John as 
 against us. John says, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, 
 is born of God," 1 John v. 1. According to the apostle, every believer 
 is born of God, is regenerated. Regeneration is the cause of which faith 
 is an effect. The fact that an individual believes, is proof that he is re- 
 generated. Paul, too, represents men as " dead in trespasses and sins," 
 and God as quickening them, Eph. ii. 1 — 5. If my friend had lived 
 in those days, and had entertained his present views, I cannot but think 
 he would have disapproved of Paul's theology. For certainly a dead 
 man cannot put forth acts, as one who is alive. And he would have ex- 
 posed the ridiculous absurdity of preaching to men who are dead ! 
 Faith is certainly the act of a being who is spiritually alive, and he 
 must be quickened before he exercises faith. 
 
 But, says Mr. C, this doctrine makes faith and the preaching of the 
 Word wholly unnecessary and useless. There is a passage in Paul's 
 defence before Agrippa, that completely refutes this objection. "King 
 Agrippa," exclaimed Paul, " believest thou the prophets? I know that 
 thou believest," Acts xxvi. 27. Was Agrippa a pious man? Had he the 
 faith that overcomes the world ? He had faith, but not the faith that se- 
 cures salvation. He believed the truth of divine revelation ; but he did not 
 approve and embrace it. In this sense multitudes believe. They doubt 
 not the inspiration of the Scriptures, nor that they teach the great and 
 essential doctrines and duties of Christianity ; but they do not love and em- 
 brace the gospel. Evangelical faith works by love, and leads to good works. 
 
 The kind of faith exercised by Agrippa, though it could not secure jus- 
 tification and eternal life, is not useless. It induces men to hear the 
 Word, to read it, to think of it; and God may, through the truth, renew 
 and sanctify them. This faith precedes regeneration ; but the faith that 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 705 
 
 works by love and overcomes the world, is consequent upon regeneration. 
 He who is induced to embrace fundamental error,' is not likely ever to be 
 converted ; for God does not sanctify through error. But he who theo- 
 retically believes the truth, may be converted and sanctified by the Spirit 
 through the truth. 
 
 As to the objection, that this doctrine makes the preaching of the Word 
 unnecessary, it has not the least foundation. God is pleased to work by 
 means, when they can be employed. And not only does he employ 
 means where they are wholly inefficient without the exertion of his 
 power; but he has employed such means as had not the least tendency to 
 produce the desired effect. Our Savior used clay and spittle in opening 
 the eyes of a blind man. According to the logic of Mr. C, it was wholly 
 unnecessary and unwise to use such means. He would ask, why use 
 means that will not produce the effect? God has been pleased to say, 
 that he will convert and sanctify the heart through the truth, though the 
 truth alone cannot convert and sanctify ; and who shall say, it is unwise? 
 The gentleman's whole difficulty arises from an entire misapprehension 
 of our views. 
 
 He tells us, he has known persons who professed to have been regen- 
 erated one day, and yet they did not believe for many days afterwards I 
 I am obliged to admit, that he has found more singular people in this 
 world, than any man I have ever known ! I, of course, cannot dispute 
 the truth of his statement; but I have never heard of persons entertaining 
 such notions. Just as rationally might you talk of a man being alive 
 several days without breathing. The moment when there is life, there are 
 the actions that flow from it. Lazarus was no sooner made alive, than 
 he breathed. So soon as there is in the soul spiritual life, it manifests 
 itself by spiritual acts. He who is regenerated, believes, loves and obeys 
 God. Such is the simple truth on this subject. It is God's truth. 
 
 The gentleman tells you, that I have reduced holiness to mere instinct. 
 And he asks, how can there be holiness, which is love to God, where 
 there is no knowledge of God? How can an infant be holy, when it 
 cannot know God ? In reply, I say, every thing possesses what we call 
 nature. Our Savior said — " A good man out of the good treasure of the 
 heart, bringeth forth good things : and an evil man out of the evil treasure, 
 bringeth forth evil things," Matt. xii. 35. Here the heart or moral na- 
 ture of man is represented as a treasure, fountain or source from which 
 flow all his good and all his evil actions. If the heart be impure, it will 
 prompt to conduct of the same character. There is something in a fruit- 
 tree which we call its nature, which causes it to produce fruit of a partic- 
 ular kind. Two trees may grow in the same soil, be watered by the 
 same stream, and warmed by the same sun ; and yet they will produce 
 different kinds of fruit. Common sense leads us to ascribe these different 
 effects to causes equally different. The circumstances being the same, we 
 conclude, that the causes are in the trees ; and we say, they have differ- 
 ent natures. The chemist cannot analyze the trees, and point out what 
 we call their nature ; yet common sense forces us to admit its existence. 
 
 No less certain is it, that men may and do possess a nature or disposi- 
 tion, prior to their acts and choices, which is sinful or holy. It was in 
 illustration of this very principle, that our Savior said-—" Make the tree 
 good, and his fruit good ; or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit 
 corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit," Matt. xii. 33. Of two men, 
 who are living under the government of the same God, and enjoying the 
 45 
 
706 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 same gospel privileges, one loves, adores, and serves God ; and the other 
 knowingly, wilfully, and deliberately rebels against him. You call the 
 one a good man — a holy man, and the other an unholy — a wicked man. 
 Common sense compels us to believe, that the actions of the one flow 
 from a pure source — a holy nature, and those of the other, from an un- 
 holy nature. The cause exists before the effect; and these different na- 
 tures or dispositions exist before the actions to which they prompt. 
 There may, then, be in the mind of an infant the disposition which will 
 induce it to love and serve God, or the opposite disposition, which will 
 induce it to rebel against him, so soon as capable of knowing him. 
 There is in this nothing more unphilosophical, than that there should be 
 a disposition to love music. If I were to assert, that there can be no 
 such thing before the person has heard music ; how could he prove the 
 contrary ? He asserts, that there can be no disposition to love God, 
 where there is no knowledge of him. To prove this he can produce no 
 acknowledged principle of philosophy ; and, as I have proved, it is direct- 
 ly contradictory of the Bible. I will not give up plain and positive dec- 
 larations of the Word of God for his unphilosophical speculations. 
 
 In reply to the gentleman's charge, that our church holds the doctrine 
 of infant damnation, I gave the common interpretation of the language of 
 our confession of faith. This interpretation, he says, he never heard 
 until recently. Well, I verily believe, there are a great many things in 
 this world of which he has never heard ; for it is a notorious fact, that the 
 interpretation I gave of the language of our book, is the one universally 
 given by Presbyterians. 
 
 All the gentleman's learned criticisms on the word holy, even if they 
 were correct, could not help him out of the difficulty, arising from his 
 limiting the power of God over the human mind. The word holy, he 
 says, does not express moral quality. Suppose we admit it. I have 
 proved, that God originally made man upright; and all we desire, is to 
 have him made upright again. If God made him upright once, he is able 
 to make him so again. Mr. C. says, God cannot exert on the human 
 mind any moral power, except by words : I say he can. 
 
 The word holy, when applied to moral character, as it is constantly in 
 the Bible, does not mean simply separation from all impurity. A log of 
 wood might be separated from all impurity : but it would still not be holy. 
 The word expresses most clearly moral purity. But I will not spend 
 time in such criticisms. 
 
 My friend has brought forward one more passage of Scripture to sus- 
 tain his doctrine. We occasionally induce him to leave his metaphysics, 
 and enter the Bible. He quotes Acts xxvi. 18, where we are told that 
 God sent Paul to the gentiles," to open their eyes, and to turn them from 
 darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." But here a 
 very important question arises, viz : Was Paul sent to do this work by 
 the Word only? The passage does not say so. Paul had a certain 
 work to do. He was sent to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. 
 But God had also a work to do. So Paul taught the Ephesiaus. They 
 were dead in trespasses and in sins, and God quickened them, Eph ii. 
 1 — 5. I should like to hear the gentleman explain that passage, so as to 
 make it consistent with his faith. He has brought forward several pas- 
 sages ; but, unfortunately, they all, when properly understood, refute his 
 doctrine, and establish ours. 
 
 He says, he cannot conceive of a religion that begins in darkness — in 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 707 
 
 mere blind feeling. Neither can I. But I can conceive that God may 
 " call men out of darkness into his marvellous light," (1 Pet. ii. 9,) that 
 he may open their eyes and renew their hearts, causing them to love the 
 light; for, our Savior said, " This is the condemnation, that light is 
 come into the world; and men love darkness more than light" For this 
 pure light David prayed : " Open mine eyes, that I may behold wonder- 
 ful things out of thy law." The Word was before his mind ; but he 
 prayed that God would grant him more purity of heart, that he might 
 better understand it, and appreciate more fully its glorious truths. Such 
 is the religion in which we believe. 
 
 I have now gone through the whole catalogue of my friend's argu- 
 ments. I do not consider them very strong. I believe he quoted but 
 one text of Scripture. I will now very briefly present one more argu- 
 ment, in proof of the doctrine that the Spirit operates, not through the 
 truth only. The Scriptures teach that God gives repentance. Christ 
 was exalted a prince and a Savior, " for to give repentance unto Israel, 
 and remission of sins," Acts v. 31. Can any one believe that God gives 
 both remission and repentance, merely by the preaching of the Word ? 
 The obvious meaning of the apostle is, that he inclines men by his blessed 
 Spirit, to repent, that he may grant to them remission of sins." So again, 
 in Acts xi. 18 : " Then hath God also to the gentiles granted repentance 
 unto life." Now, what is meant but that God granted the gentiles the 
 gracious influence of his Holy Spirit, and thus induced them to repent ? 
 The grace of God brought them to repentance ; but going to God brought 
 them also to repentance. I have one more passage, 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26: 
 " In meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves; if God perad- 
 venture will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth: 
 and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who 
 are taken captive by him at his will." The truth is before them. They 
 have heard it ; but will not receive it. Now, here God is said to give 
 them repentance, or a change of mind, to the acknowledgment of the 
 truth. I ask any man, if this language does not mean something addi- 
 tional to the mere influence of the Word? They had heard the truth, 
 but it failed to lead them to repentance ; and now God exerts in their 
 minds a more effectual agency. We do not see how it was possible for 
 the Savior and the apostles to have taught more plainly the doctrine of a 
 special agency of the Spirit, in addition to the Word ? I defy any one to 
 teach it in stronger language. If the Bible does not teach the operation 
 of the Spirit, distinct from the Word, I defy mortal man to teach it by any 
 language. When the apostles used the strongest language, without quali- 
 fication, did they not wish it to be understood according to its obvious 
 import ? It is, then, clear that they taught that the Spirit operates not 
 only through the Truth, but in addition to it. They all taught it, and 
 took delight in it. It is one of the chief pillars in the Temple of Truth ; 
 and he who denies it, leaves man to perish without hope. But I will 
 close for the present. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 29 — 10 o'clock, Jl. M. 
 
 [mr. Campbell's eighth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — It is all-important in every debate, especially in this 
 
 one, that the proper issue be kept distinctly and definitely before the 
 
 minds of the debatants and of the auditors. There is no question of more 
 
 sublime comprehension, of more awful grandeur, or of more transcendent 
 
708 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 importance, than the question of spiritual and Divine influence. Like 
 the vital principle, however, it is the most sublimated, and in its naked 
 and abstract form, the most unapproachable of all the entities of creation. 
 It is, indeed, the vital principle of religion, and, therefore, the most incom- 
 prehensible, though the most real and substantive existence in the uni- 
 verse. The question before us involves the value of the Bible, and all its 
 ordinances — the gospel, its ministry, and all that mortals have compre- 
 hended under that most precious conception called the means of grace, 
 I feel that I am discussing the value of the Bible, the gospel, the church, 
 the ministry, while endeavoring to know what the converting and sancti- 
 fying power and influence of God's Spirit is. Let us, then, fix our minds 
 upon the precise points expressed in the proposition before us. "In con- 
 version and sanctification the Spirit of God operates on persons only 
 through the truth." 
 
 There is no debate upon spiritual operations. They are of an abstract 
 nature and quality. It is not possible for a man to conceive of spiritual 
 operations. The fact of the operation is as evident as gravity, but who 
 can explain it ? No man can form a single conception of any spiritual 
 influence or operation. Who can grasp the idea of a spirit ? Who can 
 apprehend its nature, its identity, its form, its person, or its modes of 
 living, moving, and operating ! We can neither have a consistent idea 
 of a spirit nor of any of its operations. That the Spirit of God operates 
 on the human understanding and heart is just as certain as that man has 
 an understanding and affections. Our spirit is allied to the spiritual 
 system, to the Great Spirit. God can commune, and does commune 
 with man, and man with God. 
 
 It is the glory of our religion that it is spiritual and divine, and that as 
 man has both a body and a spirit, his religion also has both. This ques- 
 tion has respect rather to the means and to the effect of the operation, nad 
 not to the operation itself. Times without number have I declared that 
 the Scriptures are but an instrument, an embodiment in speech of spiritual 
 power, and like all other instruments, this instrument is adapted to some 
 end. Without that instrument the end proposed by it cannot be obtained. 
 
 Now, does the Spirit operate through the instrument, or without it, in 
 the ordinary work of conversion and sanctification ? This is the ques- 
 tion in its present form. This question involves various other questions. 
 No question either in nature, religion, or society, is properly insular. 
 These are all perfect systems, and, therefore, there is not one insular or 
 independent truth in any one, nor all of them. Not a particle of the 
 universe, not an atom of our planet is independent of other atoms and 
 principles. Nor is there an isolated verse, nor an independent period in 
 the Bible. Those atoms of the universe, those particles of our planet, and 
 those verses of our Bible, are to be contemplated with reference to the 
 whole. Little minds sport with particles, great minds with systems. 
 
 Mr. Rice has quoted some passages of Scripture. But have they been 
 quoted as proverbs, or as parts of great contexts? I do not believe that 
 any one passage, read you by my friend, has any thing specially to do 
 with the question before us. I might throw into a speech thirty verses, 
 and make thirty assertions, and prove nothing, only that I intended to 
 employ some one else, some other mind than my own, for not one of 
 the thirty may come within a thousand miles of the real issue. My 
 manner is to notice every thing Teiied upon as proof of the proposition on 
 hand ; not every thing, however, that may be offered on various other 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRTT. 709 
 
 matters. That would be the work of months and not of weeks. I will, 
 so far as I have recollection or memoranda, allude to some of the proofs 
 offered, to show that the Spirit operates in conversion without the Word. 
 These are supposed to be against my views. I have proved that it oper- 
 ates through the Word, and my proofs are in the main unassailed. Mr. 
 R.'s plan is to prove a proposition the contrary of our stipulated pro- 
 position. He seeks to prove that the Spirit operates without the Word 
 from such passages as the following: Luke xxiv. 45. 
 
 " Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the 
 Scriptures." In the first place it is irrelevant, because this has no respect 
 to regeneration nor conversion ; nor does it speak particularly of sanctifi- 
 cation. Again, it was Jesus and not the Spirit. They were disciples 
 and not sinners. "To open the understanding" is also explained in the 
 context, verse 32. Thus the subject of the operation is explained in these 
 words ; " Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us, 
 and while he opened to us the Scriptures?" To open the Scriptures to 
 the understanding, is the meaning of the Hebrewistic phrase, " open the 
 understanding to understand the Scriptures." Their hearts burned not by 
 the abstract spirit, but through the talk — " while he talked with us." So 
 dispose we of this passage. Was the opening previous to, and indepen- 
 dent of the speaking of the Word ? ! 
 
 Another proof text was 1 Cor. ii. 14: "The natural man receiveth not 
 the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither 
 can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." The natural 
 man is here contrasted with the spiritual man. The word is sometimes 
 rendered physical, natural, animal, sensual. Natural is the most com- 
 mon. It is four times natural, and twice sensual in the common version. 
 McKnight prefers the animal man, and he is high authority in Scotland, 
 and I learn, of high authority in the theological school at Princeton. 
 Some of the professors there, I am told, speak of him in much admiration. 
 The animal man, then, in the context, means the "wise man accord- 
 ing to the flesh" — in contrast with the spiritual man, ivise according to 
 the Spirit. 
 
 A sensual man is a man merely of sense ; but it has come to signify 
 one enslaved to sense. Now such a man, who has no other guide than 
 sense, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. " The things of 
 the Spirit" can only be discerned by him that is spiritual — one that is 
 enlightened by the Spirit. But the things of the Spirit are revealed 
 things — and, therefore, the discernment of revealed things is very differ- 
 ent from the discernment of nothing — as in the case of infants, pagans, 
 idiots, &c. supposed to be regenerated without having the things of the 
 Spirit discerned at all. The text, therefore, comes not within a thousand 
 miles of the subject on hand. 
 
 I object, however, altogether to the theological appropriation of this 
 term. Our gospel-hearers are not Paul's natural men — and, therefore, 
 it is the sophism of equivocation, or of an ambiguous term, of which all 
 are guilty, who use this word as equivalent, to the citizens of Kentucky 
 who read the Bible. We have no natural men in that sense, nor in the 
 proper sense of that word. Adam was a natural man ; we, as his mere 
 offspring, are preternatural men, and under Christ we hope to rise to be 
 supernatural men. 
 
 I object to much of the nomenclature of modern theology. We have 
 drawn too much on the paganized vocabulary of Rome. Neither Jewish, 
 
 30 
 
710 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Christian, nor Pagan, but a mongrel dialect is the jargon of the present 
 age. Nature and grace are from the same God — twin sisters of the same 
 divine family. But man has strayed away from God and nature, and 
 has become a preternatural being. From this miserable condition God 
 proposes, in his glorious philanthropy, to redeem man and to make him 
 supernatural through Christ, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. 
 God made man upright, and while he remained in nature, that is, in his 
 natural or original state, he had not a passion, appetite, or instinct which 
 he might not most religiously gratify. But now his soul is harrassed 
 with the tumult of a thousand passions, lusts, appetites, and elements that 
 war against his soul. If there w T ere no sin in human nature, there could 
 be none in obeying all its passions. Sceptics are deceived, always de- 
 ceived, and fatally deceived, in their reasonings from Mr. Rice's premises. 
 Like him, they suppose man to be in the state of nature; and, therefore, 
 think it no crime to gratify their passions. Their reasoning is just, but 
 their premises are false, and their conclusion is a fatal error. 
 
 We have had numerous allusions and references to Titus iii. 5. The 
 gentleman can find in the phrase, " renewing of the Holy Spirit," no 
 proof of a proposition contrary to mine. The renewing of the Holy 
 Spirit is in the second birth connected with other means. He has saved 
 us through the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the Holy 
 Spirit. This renewing of the Spirit is not immediate, nor exclusive of 
 other means ; it being associated with a washing, and a shedding forth 
 of the Spirit through Jesus Christ our Savior. 
 
 The gentleman has more than once called upon me to read something 
 from some of my books contrary to what he has read. Being here in per- 
 son, I prefer speaking on these subjects viva voce, to reading my views alrea- 
 dy published. Besides, I have no time to debate a hundred questions, grow- 
 ing out of his designs, of which I am now apprized. The gentleman 
 may read from them when he is hard pressed for matter. I perceive this 
 is his principal use of them. For me, when my present resources are 
 exhausted, I may turn in and debate with him on those writings. I have 
 another reason; I do not find just such passages as suit all the topics that 
 occur. Yet, as a matter of complaisance, I will furnish the gentleman 
 w r ith one or two extracts, if he will ask me for no more: [Christian 
 System, p. 66.) 
 
 " Some will ask, has not this gift been conferred on us to make us chris 
 tians 1 True indeed, no man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy 
 Spirit. As observed in its proper place, the Spirit of God is the perfecter 
 and finisher of all divine works. ' The Spirit of God moved upon the wat- 
 ers;' ' the hand of the Lord has made me ; the Spirit of the iUmighty has 
 given me life ;' 'by his Spirit he has garnished the heavens ; his hand has 
 formed the crooked serpent' — the milky way ; ' the Spirit descended upon 
 him ;' ' God himself bare the apostles witness, by divers miracles and gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit, according to his will ;' ' holy men of old spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Spirit ;' ' when the Spirit of truth, the Advocate, 
 is come, he will convict the world of sin, because they believe not on me, 
 and of justification, because I go to my Father ;' ' God was manifest in the 
 flesh, and justified by the Spirit.' 
 
 Now we cannot separate the Spirit and word of God, and ascribe so much 
 power to the one and so much to the other: for so did not the apostles. 
 Whatever the word does, the Spirit does ; and whatever the Spirit does in 
 the work of converting men, the word does. We neither believe nor teach 
 abstract Spirit, nor abstract word ; but word and Spirit, and Spirit and 
 word." 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 711 
 
 Again : (pp. 277, 278.) 
 
 " « He has saved us,' says the apostle Paul, ( by the bath of regeneration, 
 and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured on us richly through 
 Jesus Christ our Savior ; that being justified by his favor, [in the bath of 
 regeneration,] we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal 
 life.' Thus, and not by works of righteousness, he has saved us. Conse- 
 quently being born of the Spirit, or the renewing of the Holy Spirit, is as ne- 
 cessary as the bath of regeneration to the salvation of the soul, and to the 
 enjoyment of the hope of heaven, of which the apostle speaks. Into the king- 
 dom of which we are born of water, the Holy Spirit is as the atmosphere 
 in the kingdom of nature : we mean, that the influences of the Holy Spi- 
 rit are as necessary to the new life, as the atmosphere is to our animal life 
 in the kingdom of nature. All that is done in us before regeneration, God 
 our Father effects by the word, or the gospel as dictated or confirmed by his 
 Holy Spirit. But after we are thus begotten and born by the Spirit of God 
 — after our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on us richly through Jesus 
 Christ our Savior ; of which the peace of mind, the love, the joy, and the 
 hope of the regenerate is full proof: for these are amongst the fruits of that 
 Holy Spirit of promise of which we speak." 
 
 Many other such passages might be read from our numerous writings 
 on this subject. But this, as a specimen, may perhaps suffice to gratify 
 my friend. 
 
 The gentleman also relies upon the new covenant in proof of his pro- 
 position. Of the four provisions of the new institution, only one of them 
 applies to this subject. The first is — "I will put my laws into their 
 mind, and write them upon their heart." Now in every covenant there 
 are parties — the covenanter and the covenantees. God is the covenanter, 
 and christians the covenantees. " With the house of Israel, (not accord- 
 ing to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,) I will make a new covenant." 
 Now what bearing has this on the question before us ? Were the cove- 
 nantees infants, pagans, idiots, unconverted men ? ! If not, the passage is 
 wholly misapplied, because brought to prove a subject wholly different 
 from that in the mind of the Spirit. We are debating about the work of 
 the Spirit on conversion, and in that discussion a question has arisen 
 about regeneration, and the question on that subject is — are persons re- 
 generated by the Spirit without the Word ? This position the gentleman 
 is now seeking to prove, and this is one of his proofs. Having shown 
 its entire impertinence to the subject, we shall attend to another point. 
 
 Mr. Rice, from some remarks made in some of my essays, in illustra- 
 tion of the converting power in the divine Word, on the influences which 
 the writings of Demosthenes and Cicero have exerted upon the world, has 
 sought to institute a comparison for me — to make me say, that, as all the mor- 
 al or argumentative power of Demosthenes and Cicero is in their writings, 
 so all God's moral power is in his Word. So far so good; but the gen- 
 tleman goes a little farther, and would not allow the case to terminate 
 there, but supposed me to assign no other power or presence to the Spirit 
 of God than to the spirit and personal influence of those ancient orators. 
 I am prepared to say, that, so far as moral power is concerned, the argu- 
 ments and motives of the Spirit of God are all set forth in the New Insti- 
 tution, in all their perfection ; and that this power cannot be increased. 
 Nay, I argue, that if the Spirit of God were again to descend, as on 
 Pentecost, and in the person of a new legate from heaven, should plead 
 with the human race, touching their condition and destiny under God's 
 philanthropy and active benevolence ; when he had set forth, in all 
 their amplitude, ail the facts and promises in the universe on this subject, 
 
712 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 he would then, at the close of the effort, have not increased one grain 
 the amount of the moral momentum and influence of the gospel. He 
 would not then have increased, in the least, its converting power. For 
 if the story is all told now, and if God veraciously and sincerely asks, 
 what more could be done than what I have done for my vineyard, then 
 there is no possibility of accumulating the power by any other means ; 
 but whether the ever-living and ever-present Spirit of our God may not 
 through that truth, in ways unknown to mortals, affect the soul of man, 
 by fixing the attention upon it, or removing, providentially, obstructions, 
 &c, is neither affirmed nor denied in that comparison, nor in the circum- 
 stances that called it forth. And this having been spoken with special 
 reference to the fanaticism and wild enthusiasm of the age, in certain cases 
 of pretended new light and new-converting power, ought to have been 
 construed accordingly. But this method of torturing men's words by 
 putting them on the partizan rack, and dislocating every joint, works as 
 pervertingly on them as on the Word of God. Whenever all the gospel 
 argument is comprehended, all the moral power of God is exhausted % 
 for beyond that he has never displayed any to any man, and he that hears 
 not Moses and the prophets, Christ and his apostles, would not be per- 
 suaded though one rose from the dead. 
 
 The gentleman has more than once asked me for proof that the Spirit 
 operates only through the Word ; and avows that unless I shew him 
 some text that exactly affirms that, he will not believe. Well, I gave him 
 in my proposition on the design of baptism the very words in the book, 
 with the mere supplement past, to which he did not demur, and then he 
 would not believe. And I verily believe if I gave him every word in one 
 verse, he would be for construing it in a different sense. But this is a 
 new mode of argumentation, by which he could not prove one article in 
 his creed ; for not one of them is found in the identical words of the book. 
 Nor could we prove any proposition not found verbatim in the Bible. 
 But I have proved only through the Word. By shewing first, that the 
 Spirit does regenerate and sanctify through the Word— and, in the same 
 place, by that great law of the physical and moral universe, that whatever 
 is necessary to any given result, is always necessary. Also, by various 
 other considerations and arguments, yet unnoticed by him. Did I not, 
 on yesterday, demonstrate on his own definition of regeneration, the utter 
 impossibility of infant regeneration 1 and yet he has neither retracted nor 
 defended the definition. Surely he ought to do the one or the other. 
 
 At the commencement of this discussion he clearly stated that the Spirit 
 does sometimes operate on adults through the Word. Had it not been 
 for idiots, pagans, and infants, he would, no doubt, have said only through 
 the Word. He has since admitted that on adults he operates generally 
 through the Word. It was some time before he gave us a definition of 
 regeneration ; and still longer before he informed us, whether faith or re- 
 generation were prior, or which was the cause of the other. Finally, he 
 informed us that regeneration preceded faith, therefore both infants and 
 adults are regenerated without faith, and prior to faith. Without perceiv- 
 ing, and, I am confident, without intending it, he has thus indispu- 
 tably proved my fourth argument, which, you will remember, says — 
 Whatever is essential to regeneration in one case, is essential in 
 all cases. For having been brought to concede — namely : that re- 
 generation is prior to faith ; thus making adults the subject of regene- 
 ration without belief, and infants as a matter of course, because incapa- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. • 713 
 
 ble of belief; we have obtained from him the admission of my fourth 
 argument. Again, we have proved to his own satisfaction that the Spirit 
 generally operates through the Word on adults, and in some cases only 
 through the Word ; follows it not, then, that according to our fourth argu- 
 ment, regeneration must be through the Word, and therefore infant regen- 
 eration is impossible. In any view of the matter, then, I may say, with- 
 out the fear of successful contradiction from any quarter, that Mr. Rice 
 has given us the data for his own refutation, and now stands self-refuted 
 for the reasons now assigned. This subject is still susceptible of farther 
 illustration, but my time being almost expired, I shall only add a few 
 words on the plan of the Bible as developing its theory of regeneration. 
 
 The Old and New Testaments are arranged upon the same grand plan. 
 They present a record of facts well documented and proved. The first 
 five books of both Testaments are historical. The historical and the di- 
 dactic go together. The fact, first, the testimony concerning it, and then 
 the development of it. There is one grand arrangement of revelation, 
 adapted to the constitution and philosophy of man. The order of things 
 is simple, because it is rational. The connection is Rrsl,fact — next, testi- 
 mony concerning that fact — that something said or done ; — then faith, or 
 the belief of that testimony; — after that, feeling — in harmony with what- 
 ever is believed — joyful or sorrowful, good or bad; — and in the last 
 place, action — a course of conduct corresponding with that feeling. This 
 is not only the rational, but it is the fixed and necessary and immutable 
 arrangement of things producing faith and growing out of it. It is no ar- 
 bitrary division — no conventional arrangement. It must be so while man 
 is a being that walks by faith, and while faith is the belief of testimony. 
 These five words — fact, testimony, faith, feeling, action — set forth the 
 economy of the Bible, — and are the grand links in that Divine chain that 
 give to the facts of revelation their influence on the soul of man. 
 The thing done or spoken by God, or man, called the fact, passes into 
 the testimony, and the testimony passes into faith, and the fact, in that 
 faith, passes into corvesponiYmg feeling, and then it is made living and ef- 
 ficient in the action. Now this being the immutable order of things, and 
 regeneration being the offspring of the Word of God believed, it is impos- 
 sible that any one, incapable of understanding the fact, of believing the 
 testimony, of exercising faith, of possessing moral feeling, and of corres- 
 pondent action, can be regenerated. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 29 — IO5 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's eighth reply.] 
 Mr. President — I intend that, throughout this discussion, the precise 
 points in debate shall be kept distinctly in view. Mr. C. says, he ad- 
 mits that in conversion and sanctification the Spirit does operate, and 
 that the Word is only the instrument. I inquired of him, on yesterday, 
 what he meant by this language ? Whether he holds that there is any 
 operation of the Spirit distinct from the Word ? or whether he believes 
 only, that the Spirit dictated the Word and confirmed it by miracle, and 
 now the Word converts and sanctifies ? To this important question I re- 
 ceived no answer. If he believes the Spirit to be the agent in this 
 work, he must put forth some power; for there cannot be an agent 
 without an action. If, then, his language means any thing, it must be, 
 that at the moment when the soul is converted, the Spirit of God exerts 
 converting power, performs an act which produces this result. I wished 
 
 3o2 
 
714 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 to be informed, whether he believes that the Spirit exerts an influence 
 distinct, from the Word ; but he would not answer the question. 
 
 He told us also, that the Spirit is always present with the Word. I 
 asked him what he meant by this language ; but I received no answer ! 
 I discover plainly, that the audience are not to see the real point at issue, 
 unless I constantly keep it before them ; and this I am resolved to do. 
 
 The great question, is not whether ordinarily the Spirit operates 
 through the truth ; but whether the only influence exerted in conversion 
 and sanctification, is that of words and arguments — whether the Spirit 
 of God operates on the hearts of men only as Mr. C.'s spirit operates on 
 the minds of this audience ? This is the question — I use the gentleman's 
 own illustration. We are not debating the question, by what instru- 
 mentality the Spirit converts and sanctifies men ; but what is the work 
 which the Spirit does ? We hold, that in the case of infants and idiots, 
 inasmuch as instrumentality cannot be employed, sanctification takes 
 place without the truth. In the case of adults we hold, that there is not 
 only the influence of words and arguments, but a distinct influence of 
 the Spirit, opening the eyes and purifying the heart. This Mr. C. denies. 
 
 The gentleman has a clear head. I wonder at the confusion in which 
 he keeps his real sentiments. On some subjects he delivers himself with 
 great clearness ; and on the one before us he has written clearly . Yet 
 this is the third day we have been on this proposition ; and I must say, 
 that more fog and mist I never did see thrown around any subject ! 
 
 Let me now give you a specimen of the manner in which my bibli- 
 cal friend expounds Scripture. He professes to be a very biblical man. 
 In proof of a divine influence in addition to the Word, I quoted Luke 
 xxiv. 45 : " Then opened he their understandings, that they might un- 
 derstand the Scriptures." The inspired writer, you observe, does not 
 say, he opened their understandings in order that they might understand 
 the Scriptures. What is the gentleman's reply ? He turns to the 27th 
 verse — "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded un- 
 to them in all the scriptures, the things concerning himself." Now ac- 
 cording to his principles of interpretation, expounding the Scriptures and 
 opening their understandings that they might understand them, are the 
 same thing! Why, you might expound the Scriptures to persons by the 
 hour, and yet they might have no correct understanding of them ; but if 
 you had power to open their understandings, the whole difficulty would 
 be at once removed. Remove the causes of their blindness, and they 
 will see clearly. So did David pray — " Open thou mine eyes, that I 
 may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Did he not pray for a 
 divine influence on his mind, opening his understanding ? It is vain to 
 attempt to evade the force of language so perfectly plain. It will not do 
 to say, that to open the understanding and to open the Scriptures, are 
 phrases meaning the same thing. 
 
 To prove the necessity of the special work of the Spirit on the heart, I 
 quoted 1 Cor. ii. 14: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the 
 Spirit; for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, be- 
 cause they are spiritually discerned." The gentleman appeals to Mc- 
 Knight, who translates the phrase " animal man." And he tells us, he 
 has somewhere heard, that the professors in the Princeton theological 
 seminary have placed McKnight at the head of critical commentators. 
 This may be true ; but I should prefer to have some proof of the fact. 
 But let us take his translation. Now the question is, who is the animal 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 715 
 
 man? Mr. C. says he is the pagan without a divine revelation to guide 
 him. But the fact is, the word translated natural or animal, has not this 
 meaning in one instance in the New Testament. It is used in 1 Cor. 
 xv. 44, 45, to distinguish the natural body from the spiritual body. 
 The natural body, we know, means the body as it is by nature, un- 
 changed. " It is sown (or buried) a natural body." The spiritual body 
 means the body as it will be changed at the resurrection. So the natu- 
 ral man means man as he is by nature — depraved; and the spiritual man 
 is the man renewed by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The same word, as 1 have already stated, is used by James, who de- 
 scribes the wisdom which is not from above, as " earthly, sensual, [Gr. 
 natural, ~\ devilish." In this passage the word is used with reference to 
 moral character, and it certainly expresses the idea of depravity. It is 
 also used by Jude, v. 19, where he describes the wicked thus: " These 
 be they who separate themselves, sensual, [Gr. natural, ~] having not the 
 Spirit." The wicked, who have not the Spirit, are described as natural 
 or sensual. On the use of the word in these passages, the gentleman for- 
 got to make even a passing remark. The usage of the New Testament, 
 in regard to this word, leaves no room to doubt what is its meaning. The 
 natural man certainly is man in his native depravity. Mr. C. objects to 
 the use of the word natural, as applied to man in his depravity, because 
 by nature he was not depraved. He, therefore, uses the word preter- 
 natural. But he seems not to remember, that in making this objection 
 he is finding fault with the language of inspiration. In the epistle to the 
 Ephesians, Paul says, men are " by nature the children of wrath," ch. 
 ii. 3. The word here used is phusis, the literal and uniform meaning of 
 which is nature. If Paul thus uses the word nature, I may be excused 
 for following his example ! 
 
 But Mr. C. was careful not to notice the succeeding part of the verse 
 under discussion. Why does not the natural man receive the things of 
 the Spirit? Because, says Paul, "they are foolishness unto him" The 
 meaning of this language, as I proved, is made perfectly clear by ch. i. 
 18, " The preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness ; but 
 unto us which are saved, it is the power of God." That is, when they 
 hear the Gospel preached, it is to them foolishness ; they see in it no wis- 
 dom, no adaptation to their condition, nothing attractive; and therefore 
 they reject it. So to "the natural man" the things of the Spirit, the 
 truths of the Gospel, are foolishness, and he rejects them. But if Mr. 
 C.'s interpretation be correct, the passage should read thus: The animal 
 man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are not revealed to 
 him ! 
 
 It is now perfectly clear, that " the natural man" is the unrenewed 
 man; and since unrenewed men do not receive, but uniformly reject the 
 gospel; it follows, inevitably, that the special influence of the Holy Spi- 
 rit, in addition to the Word, is absolutely necessary to their conversion 
 and sanctification. Consequently, in every case of conversion, such a 
 divine influence is actually exerted. 
 
 To show you how much I have misrepresented him, the gentleman 
 read a paragraph or two from his Christian System. I am pleased to 
 see him read his publications ; and I am quite disposed to aid him in pre- 
 senting them before you. On page 66 he read as follows : " Some will 
 ask, has not this gift [of the Spirit] been conferred on us to make us 
 christians ? True, indeed, no man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the 
 
716 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Holy Spirit. As observed in its proper place, the Spirit of God is the 
 perfecter and finisher of all divine works. 'The Spirit moved upon the 
 waters,' " &c. But the difficulty is, that in this whole paragraph he says 
 not one word concerning an influence of the Spirit upon the heart, in 
 conversion! He quotes several passages, as follows: "The hand of the 
 Lord has made me, the Spirit of the Almighty has given me life ;" " By 
 his Spirit he has garnished the heavens, his hand has formed the crooked 
 serpent;" "The Spirit descended upon him; God himself bore the 
 apostles witness, by divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit, ac- 
 cording to his will." Not one of these passages, nor any one quoted by 
 him, has the slightest reference to a change of the heart by the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 He also read on the next page: "Now we cannot separate the Spirit 
 and the Word of God, and ascribe so much power to the one and so 
 much to the other; for so did not the apostles. Whatever the Word 
 does, the Spirit does; and whatever the Spirit does, in the work of con- 
 verting men, the Word does. We neither believe nor teach abstract Spi- 
 rit nor abstract Word — but Word and Spirit, and Spirit and Word." All 
 this is perfectly ambiguous. For if the Spirit dictated and confirmed the 
 Word, and the Word converts and sanctifies men ; it is true, in a sense, 
 that the Spirit does the work. But does Mr. C. hold to an influence of 
 the Spirit in conversion, distinct from the Word? On this point these 
 paragraphs give us no light. Let me read on the 277th page of his Chris- 
 tianity Restored. Perhaps we shall here gain some information. He says : 
 
 " But this pouring out of the influences, this renewing of the Holy Spirit, 
 is as necessary as the bath of regeneration to the salvation of the soul, and 
 to the enjoyment of the hope of heaven, of which the apostle speaks. In 
 the kingdom into which we are born of water, the Holy Spirit is as the 
 atmosphere in the kingdom of nature : we mean, that the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit are as necessary to the new life, as the atmosphere is to our 
 animal life in the kingdom of nature. All that is done in us before regene- 
 ration, God our Father effects by the word, or the gospel as dictated and 
 confirmed by his Holy Spirit. But after we are thus begotten and born by 
 the Spirit of God — after our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on us richly 
 through Jesus Christ our Savior ; of which the peace of mind, the love, the 
 joy, and the hope of the regenerate is full proof: for these are amongst the 
 fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise, of which we speak." 
 
 On this passage I make two or three remarks. 1. " This pouring out 
 of the influences, this renewing of the Holy Spirit," he says, " is as ne- 
 cessary as the birth of regeneration [immersion] to the salvation of the 
 soul, and to the enjoyment of the hope of heaven." The influences of 
 the Spirit only as necessary to salvation, as immersion- — not more so ! ! ! 
 2. Observe, he says — "All that is done in us before regeneration [im- 
 mersion] God our Father effects by the Word, or the gospel as dictated 
 and confirmed by his Holy Spirit." Here we have a denial as clear 
 and as strong as language can make it, of any influence in conversion, 
 except that of the Word as dictated and confirmed by the Spirit. This is 
 the most important point about which we differ, and which I desire the 
 audience not to lose sight of. 3. As my friend is fond of asking ques- 
 tions, I wish to ask him — What kind of influence does the Spirit 
 exert on the minds of immersed believers ? This is a very important 
 question. He has said in his publications — that there are but two kinds 
 of power — moral and physical. He has also said, that the only power 
 that can be exerted on mind, is moral power; and he has said, that " eve- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 717 
 
 ry spirit puts forth its moral power in words," — that " all the power it 
 has over the views, habits, manners or actions of men, is in the meaning 
 and arrangement of its ideas expressed in words ; or in significant signs 
 addressed to the eye or ear." Now I am particularly anxious to know 
 what kind of influence the Spirit does exert on the minds of believers, 
 after they are immersed. Is it physical power ? My friend will say — 
 no. Is it spiritual power — neither physical nor moral ? He will say — no. 
 Is it a moral influence which sanctifies the heart? If so, it must be an 
 influence simply and only of the Word. Will the gentleman enlighten 
 us on this subject ? We wish to know something about this influence 
 which is not physical, nor moral, nor any thing else ! 
 
 I was pleased to hear him, for once, come out and express with some 
 clearness his real sentiments. The Spirit of God, he tells us, produces 
 moral effects only by arguments ; that when all his arguments and motives 
 are brought to bear on the mind, his moral power is exhausted. This is 
 precisely what I read on yesterday from his Christianity Restored. What 
 more moral power could Demosthenes or Cicero exert on their hearers or 
 readers, after they had put forth all their arguments ? So it appears, ac- 
 cording to this doctrine, that the Holy Spirit has no more power over the 
 minds and hearts of men than had those ancient orators, except that he 
 may reason more powerfully ! ! ! So he teaches in his Christianity Re- 
 stored: (pp. 348, 349.) 
 
 " Because arguments are addressed to the understanding, will, and affec- 
 tions of men, they are called moral, inasmuch as their tendency is to form 
 or change the habits, manners, or actions of men. Every spirit puts forth 
 its moral power in words ; that is, all the power it has over the views, hab- 
 its, manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and arrangement of its 
 ideas expressed in words, or in significant signs addressed to the eye or ear. 
 All the moral power of Cicero and Demosthenes was in their orations when 
 spoken, and in the circumstances which gave them meaning ; and whatever 
 power these men have exercised over Greece and Rome since their death, 
 is in their writings. * * * * 
 
 From such premises we may say, that all the moral power which can be 
 exerted on human beings, is, and must of necessity be, in the arguments ad- 
 dressed to them. No other power than moral power can operate on minds ; 
 and this power must always be clothed in words, addressed to the eye or 
 ear. Thus we reason when revelation is altogether out of view. And when 
 we think of the power of the Spirit of God exerted upon minds or human 
 spirits, it is impossible for us to imagine, that that power can consist in 
 any thing else but words or arguments. Thus, in the nature of things, we 
 are prepared to expect verbal communications from the Spirit of God, if that 
 Spirit operates at all upon our spirits. As the moral power of every man 
 is in his arguments, so is the moral power of the Spirit of God in his argu- 
 ments.'''' 
 
 This limiting of the power of God, I have said, is both unscripturai 
 and unreasonable. God originally created man upright. He exerted on 
 him an influence, not by words and arguments, which made him holy. 
 Who shall venture, in view of this fact, to say, he cannot now exert an 
 influence which will renew his sinful nature ? 
 
 The gentleman asks, what can the Spirit do, after all his arguments 
 have been put forth? Will he inform us, how the devil tempts men to 
 sin ? He acknowledges, that the devil has access to the minds of men, 
 and exerts a moral influence, not by words and arguments addressed to 
 the eye or ear ; yet he cannot tell us bow that influence is exerted. If, 
 then, we do not know how good or evil spirits can exert an influence on 
 
718 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 our minds; is it not most presumptuous in any man to assert, that the 
 Holy Spirit cannot exert a moral or spiritual influence except by words 
 and arguments addressed to the eye or ear ? Shall we venture to say, 
 that the devil has more power over the human mind, than God ? ! ! 
 
 Let all this false philosophy go to the winds, and give us the Bible. 
 The gentleman is attempting to prove, that in conversion and sanctifica- 
 tion the Spirit operates on persons only through the truth. If there is 
 a passage in the Bible that expresses such a sentiment, let us have it. I 
 desire to see the passage, if it is in the Bible. If it is not, he would bet- 
 ter abandon his doctrine. 
 
 But he says, the proposition he affirmed on the design of baptism, was, 
 with the exception of one word, precisely the language of the Bible, and 
 yet I was not satisfied with it. The difficulty was, that I was not satis- 
 fied with his interpretation of the language of the Bible, because it flatly 
 contradicted many of the plainest declarations of Christ and the apostles ! 
 The gentleman has a remarkable tact at representing all men who differ 
 from him, as fighting against the Scriptures. I verily do not believe, that 
 he is infallible ; and believing him fallible, I must venture to differ from him. 
 
 He has given you, my friends, some important information this morn- 
 ing, viz : that on yesterday I gave up the whole question ! I venture to 
 say, that not an individual in the house, except himself, discovered that I 
 had done so. It was, therefore, particularly important that he should 
 make the announcement ! But how did I give up the question ? By ad- 
 mitting, that generally the Spirit operates through the truth. So says 
 Mr. C. Let me repeat the substance of my remarks on this point, and 
 the audience will judge whether I gave it up. I stated distinctly, that the 
 Scriptures speak of two kinds of faith, very different in their character 
 King Agrippa had the one, and Paul had the other. Paul, in his defence, 
 thus addressed the king: "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I 
 know that thou believest." Yet Agrippa was not a christian, but only 
 almost persuaded to be a christian. It is evident to every man's com- 
 mon sense, that you may believe a thing to be true, and yet be perfectly 
 indifferent concerning it. " Gallio cared for none of these things." You 
 may be constrained by clear evidence to believe a truth, and yet most 
 earnestly wish it were not a truth. Thousands believe the Bible to be a 
 divine revelation, and yet are wholly indifferent to its sublime truths. 
 Their minds are occupied with other subjects, and their time employed in 
 worldly pursuits. One goes to his farm, another to his merchandize; 
 and each says, " I pray thee, have me excused." There are others who 
 are constrained to admit the truth of the Bible, but are deeply averse to its 
 doctrines and precepts. " The devils believe and tremble." 
 
 This faith, though it leads the soul not immediately to Christ, is yet 
 important ; because it causes men to hear and to think, that their con- 
 sciences may be reached, and that God may regenerate and sanctify them 
 through the truth. Thus they may be induced to embrace the gospel, 
 which before they both believed and hated; or to the appeals of which 
 they were indifferent. The faith of Agrippa is the faith which precedes 
 regeneration ; and the faith of Paul is the effect of it. The faith of Paul 
 worked by love, and overcame the world. This is the faith of which 
 John speaks, as an effect of the new birth : " Whosoever believeth that 
 Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." I should be pleased to know, whether 
 Mr. C. ascribes to faith any moral quality; or whether he supposes 
 that men believe in Christ, just as they believe that there was such a man 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 719 
 
 as Caesar, and as they believe what he relates of his wars. Is not faith 
 the cordial reception of Christ as our Savior? - I did not give up the 
 question. 
 
 I have offered a considerable number of arguments, to which my friend 
 has attempted no reply. He has pursued his usual course. He says they 
 are irrelevant. This is the easiest way in the world to answer arguments. 
 If a man finds them unanswerable, he can say they are all irrelevant ! To 
 prove that in conversion and sanctification there is an agency of the Spirit, 
 distinct from the Word, I quoted such passages as the following: " I will 
 pour out my Spirit upon thy seed." " A new heart also will I give you, 
 and a new spirit will I put within you." " I will give them one heart and 
 one mind," &c. They are all irrelevant, says the gentleman. Such is 
 his answer ; though every one can see that they bear directly and most 
 conclusively on the point at issue ; for they teach in the clearest manner, 
 that men repent and believe, because God sheds upon them his Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 My time is so nearly out, that I will not now introduce another argu- 
 ment. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 29 — 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's ninth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — More than half the time occupied by my friend has 
 been devoted to the consideration of passages of Scripture more or less 
 animadverted on before. He deems them of great importance, and I am 
 willing that he should think so. But as I deem them no way relevant to 
 our position in the question, I shall hasten, in the first place, to state 
 some other arguments ; reserving for farther notice of these to circumstan- 
 ces. His remarks on spiritual operations, when further explained, may, 
 perhaps, be comprehended. As yet, however, to me they are not compre- 
 hensible. I will answer his interrogations when they are more definitely 
 set forth. Let him explain his distinct power. I cannot comprehend 
 his theory of an abstract power. If he say superadded power, I wish to 
 know of what character it is : physical or moral ? I can readily conceive 
 of various means being employed to secure the attention of persons to 
 impress the subject on the mind, and of means used providentially 
 to remove obstructions ; but to talk of superadded power, of a distinct 
 power, without any definition of the nature and character of it, seems not 
 in the least to enlighten us. If I see a man take an axe and fell a tree, I 
 call the axe the instrument, and I say, whatever power he puts forth in 
 felling the tree is put forth through the axe. Not one chip is removed 
 without it. This illustrates so much of the subject as pertains to instru- 
 mentality. I am at a loss to understand his additional power. I see but 
 the man and the axe, and the tree falls. That the Spirit operates through 
 the instrumentality of the Word I doubt not ; but if asked to explain the 
 modus operandi, I confess my inability. The fact of the power I admit, 
 but the how it works I presume not to comprehend. If Mr. Rice will 
 set it forth, I will cheerfully avow my assent or dissent, as the case may 
 be ; for I keep no secrets on that subject, or any other, connected with 
 man's salvation. I candidly consider, that the gentleman has, however, 
 conceded the real issue. He has got a regeneration without true faith, 
 but now seems to have need of a pretended faith, or some sort of an in- 
 describable, partial, imperfect faith as a prerequisite. He has a faith be- 
 fore, and a faith after regeneration. But this seems not to meet the case, 
 nor relieve him from the dilemma. His indefinable, previous faith is just 
 
720 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 no faith at all; and, therefore, his true doctrine is regeneration without 
 faith, and consequently without any human instrumentality. A faith that 
 does not renew the heart, is a species of infidelity. His infant and adult, 
 his pagan and idiot, regeneration are therefore all of one sort ; all special 
 miracles without any instrumentality whatever. He has, indeed, as before 
 shown, admitted my fourth argument; and, according to it, as regenera- 
 tion is in one case, it is in all cases. Whatever means are necessary to 
 produce one ear of corn, are necessary to the production of every other 
 ear of corn. So in all well regulated states, whatever is necessary to con- 
 stitute one foreigner a citizen, is necessary to the naturalization of every 
 other foreigner. We shall, then, till otherwise informed, regard this case 
 as settled. 
 
 On my side of this question, I have only to prove that the seed is 
 essential to the fruit, and on this, I presume, amplification is not called for. 
 When, however, Mr. Rice again brings up this same view, I may amplify 
 still farther. Till then, I will not spend time in expatiating on principles 
 so well established, so universally admitted. Neither need I dwell upon the 
 peculiar arrangement of the Scriptures, on the principle submitted at the 
 close of my last address. It is true, that I intend it to be the basis' of a 
 branch of the evidence adduced, in confirmation of the views given. Our 
 feelings are properly called our active powers. Now, in religion, they 
 are properly dependent on our faith — no true faith, no true feeling. That 
 again depends not merely upon the testimony being good and valid, but up- 
 on our appreciation of it. No one can believe testimony which he does not 
 understand ; hence, if either the testimony of God, or the facts contained 
 in the Bible, have any thing to do with renewing or purifying the heart, 
 there can be no renewal without a previous belief. 
 
 But I hasten to state another argument, which shall obtain the rank of 
 my tenth argument, in proof of the proposition. It is expressed in the 
 following words : 
 
 X. Whatever influence is ascribed to the Word of God in the sacred 
 Scriptures, is also ascribed to the Spirit of God. Or in other words, what 
 the Spirit of God is at one time, and in one place, said to do, is at some 
 other time or in some other place, ascribed to the Word of God. Hence I 
 argue that they do not operate separately, but in all cases conjointly. 
 We shall give an induction of a number of cases in exemplification of the 
 fact. Are we said to be enlightened by the Spirit of God ? We are told 
 in another place, " The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening 
 the eyes." Again, " The entrance of thy word giveth light, and makes 
 the simple wise." Are we said to be converted by the Spirit of God? 
 we hear the prophet David say, " The law of the Lord is perfect, con- 
 verting the soul." Are we said to be sanctified through the Spirit of 
 God ? we hear our Lord praying to his Father, " Sanctify them through thy 
 truth, thy Word is the truth." Are we said to be quickened by the Spi- 
 rit of God? the same is ascribed to the Word of God. David says, 
 "Thy Word, Lord, hath quickened me,"— " Stay me with thy pre- 
 cepts, thy statutes quicken me." This is one of the strongest ex- 
 pressions. 
 
 In other forms of speech, the same effects and influence sre ascribed to 
 both. Paul, in one context, says, " Be filled with the Spirit ;" and when 
 again speaking of the same subject, in another, he says, " Let the Word of 
 Christ dwell in you richly," In both cases the precepts are to be ful- 
 filled in the same way, " teaching and admonishing one another in psalms 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 721 
 
 and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in your hearts to the 
 Lord." " The Spirit," says Paul to Timothy, " speaketh expressly that 
 in the latter day some shall depart from the faith." Again, "Know ye, in 
 the last days perilous times shall come." Again, Paul says he has sancti- 
 fied the church and cleansed it with " a bath of water and the Word." 
 In another instance he says, he hath saved us " with the washing of re- 
 generation and renewal of the Holy Spirit." Are we said to be " borii 
 of the Spirit ?" we are also said to be bom again, or " regenerated by 
 the Word of God." I might trace this matter much further, but I pre- 
 sume, as we have touched upon the most important items, we have found 
 such an induction as will satisfy the most scrupulous. Unless questioned, 
 I shall then affirm it as a conclusion fairly drawn, that whatever effects 
 or influences connected with conversion and sanctification are, in one 
 portion of Scripture, assigned to the Word, are ascribed also to the 
 -Spirit; and so interchangeably throughont both Testaments. Whence 
 we conclude, that the Spirit and Word of God are not separate and dis- 
 tinct kinds of power — the one superadded to the other, but both acting 
 conjointly and simultaneously in the work of sanctification and salvation. 
 
 As Mr. Rice would seem to argue for two substantive powers, essen- 
 tially distinct from each other, I do hope he will be at pains to explain 
 to us the peculiar discriminating characteristics or attributes of each. 
 
 XI. My eleventh argument is deduced from the important fact, that re- 
 sisting the Word of God, and resisting the Spirit of God, are shown 
 to be the same thing, by very clear and explicit testimonies : such as 
 Stephen, the proto-martyr, when filled with the Holy Spirit, and, indeed, 
 speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance, in the presence of the 
 sanhedrim, said, " You uncircumcised in heart and ears, as your fathers 
 did, so do you. You do always resist the Holy Spirit." What proof 
 does he alledge ? He adds, " As your fathers did, so do you," (resist.) 
 "Which of the prophets did they not persecute?" This, then, is his 
 proof. In persecuting the prophets, they resisted the Holy Spirit ; be- 
 cause the words spoken by the prophets, were suggested by the Spirit. 
 We are said to resist a person, when we resist his word. When, then, 
 any one resists the words of the prophets or the apostles, he is said by 
 inspired men to resist the Holy Spirit. This important fact should be 
 more frequently insisted on than it is. Men should be taught, that in re- 
 sisting the words spoken by apostles and prophets, they are, in truth, re- 
 sisting the Holy Spirit, by whom they uttered those words. May we 
 not, then, consistently say, with Stephen, that when men resist the pro- 
 phets and apostles in their writings, and will not submit to their teach- 
 ings, they are resisting the Holy Spirit? This being admitted, follows 
 it not again, that the Spirit of God operates through the truth; and that 
 we are not. to suppose that in conversion and sanctification, they do not 
 act separately and distinctly from each other ? 
 
 A still more impressive instance of this kind, we find in the book of 
 Nehemiah. In his admirable prayer, preserved in the ninth chapter, he 
 has two very remarkable expressions ; one in the 20th and one in the 
 29th verse. In the former, when speaking of the instructions given the 
 Jews by Moses, he said, " Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct 
 them ;" and in the latter, he says, " Many years didst thou forbear them, 
 and testifiedst against them by thy Spirit in thy prophets, yet would 
 they not hear." Here, then, we are taught that God, by his Spirit in 
 Moses, instructed the Jews by his good Spirit, and that in testifying to 
 46 3P 
 
722 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 them by the prophets, God was testifying to them by his Holy Spirit, 
 We are, then, still more fully confirmed in the conclusion that the Spirit 
 of God operates through his Word, and only through his Word, in con- 
 version and sanctification ; and that the Word and Spirit of God, in those 
 spiritual and moral changes and influences of which we now speak, are 
 never to be regarded as operating apart ; that whatever is done by the 
 Word of God, is done by the Spirit of God ; and whatever is done by 
 the Spirit, is done through the Truth — and certainly he can through that 
 instrument operate most powerfully on the spirit of man, as all christians 
 experience, and the saints of all time exhibit. 
 
 Notwithstanding the pains taken in my opening speech on this subjec , 
 to indicate the different offices assigned to the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit, in the work of salvation, it seems, from some of the quo- 
 tations offered by Mr. Rice, that he indiscriminately assigns to any one 
 of them the work peculiarly and exclusively assigned to another. See- 
 ing this so often done by others, and presuming that it might occur here, 
 I remonstrated against it as both illogical and unscriptural. How often is 
 the passage, Matt. xvi. 17, " Flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, 
 Peter, but my Father, who is in heaven," quoted, with a special reference 
 to the work of the Holy Spirit. The system-makers and system-mong- 
 ers, almost to a man, press this passage into their service. They prove 
 by it a special revelation to Peter by the Holy Spirit : to all of which I 
 have no objection whatever, so far as either the possibility or practicabil- 
 ity of making original suggestions to Peter, on this or any other subject, 
 is concerned. But I plead for the proper application and interpretation 
 of the Scriptures, much more than for the particular import of a single 
 text, however important that text may be. 
 
 It was the Father, and not the Spirit, of w horn Jesus here sppaks. It 
 was " ray Father who is in heaven" that revealed this fact to you, 
 Peter, that I am the Son of God, and the Christ of God. The fact, as 
 stated, too, is very plain. God spake out from heaven, after the Mes- 
 siah's baptism, and revealed who he was. He also indicated him by the 
 Spirit descending in the form of a dove, and lighting upon his head. 
 This being done very publicly, and reported in Jerusalem, as we learn 
 from John, chapter v., " Peter must have heard and believed," whether 
 at the Jordan when it happened, or not. Thus it was that the Father re- 
 vealed, and in' person introduced, his Son. Peter, in common with some 
 others, believed it. 
 
 I said in the commencement of this discussion, that I did not affirm 
 nor deny as to any other operations of the Spirit, save in conversion 
 and sanctification. What he may do in the way of suggestions or im- 
 pressions, by direct communication of original ideas, or in bringing 
 things to remembrance long since forgotten, I presume not to discuss. 
 I believe he has exerted, and can exert, such influences. Nor do I say 
 what influence he may exert, or cause to be exerted, in bringing men's 
 minds to consider these matters ; but I confine my reasonings and proofs 
 to conversion and sanctification. I wish Mr. Rice, when he next quotes 
 John iii. 5, would give us the predicate of " So is every one born of the 
 Spirit." What means the word so? 
 
 XII. My twelfth argument is deduced from the fact — that God created 
 nothing without his Word. "He said, let there be light, and there was 
 light." "By faith," says Paul, " we know that the worlds were framed 
 by the Word of God." All the details of the six days show that, " God 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 723 
 
 made all things by the Word of his power." Of course, then, we have 
 no idea of any new creation or regeneration without the Word of i^od. 
 Mr. Rice has taken it for granted, that God made man holy at first \^ith- 
 out his Word. But this is a mere assumption. It is an overwhelming 
 fact, that God does nothing in creation nor redemption without his Wolc 1 . 
 His creative power has always been embodied in that sublime instrument 
 Nay, it is the sword of the Spirit. Still, there was through that Wot 
 an almighty power put forth, and still there is both in conversion anc 
 sanctification God works mightily in the human heart by his Word.^ 
 The heart of the King's enemies are mightily broken by it. Hence, faith 
 comes by hearing, and hearing by the Y/ord of God. 
 
 Indeed, there is much of this wisdom of God apparent in the fact that 
 he has chosen the term Logos to represent the author and founder of 
 the christian faith, in his antecedent state of existence. And hence, 
 John represents Jesus Christ himself as the Word of God incarnate. 
 "Now the Word was made flesh," or became flesh, "and dwelt amongst 
 us." This is a mysterious name. He had a name given him which no 
 one can comprehend. His name is the Word of God. Now, as Jesus 
 Christ was "once God manifest in Word," and now God manifest 
 in flesh, we have reason to regard the Word of God as an embodiment 
 of his wisdom and power. This, however, is spoken with a reference to 
 the gospel Word ; for Jesus Christ is both the wisdom and the power of 
 God, and so is his gospel; because containing this development. It is 
 the wisdom and power of God unto salvation, to every one that believes it. 
 
 It was not, however, in creating light alone that God employed his 
 Word. Every work of creation is represented as the product of his 
 Word. He said, " Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters," 
 and it was so. Again, " Let the dry land appear," and it was so. " Let 
 the earth bring forth grass," and it was so. And last of all, "Let us 
 make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion. 
 So God created man." God, therefore, made man in his own image 
 by his Word, and he now restores him to that same image, by his Word 
 of power. Thus we have all the authority of the Bible with us in our 
 views of spiritual and divine influence. A spiritual, or moral, or creative 
 power, without the Word of God, is a phantom, a mere speculation. It 
 receives no countenance from the Bible. 
 
 The gentleman said something about false premises. It will come up 
 in its own time. If he would follow my argument in the usual way of 
 response, it would prevent many such assertions. These matters would 
 then come up in their proper place, as well as in their proper time. 
 
 The Lord has embodied his will in his Word. Now the will of God 
 is another form of his power. Divine volition is divine power. The 
 Word of God is the fiat of God. " Let there be" is a mere volition 
 expressed. Indeed, we may go further, and say, that the Word of the 
 Lord, is the Lord himself. The word of a king, is the king himself, so 
 far as authority or power is considered. As the Lord Jesus is the Word 
 of God incarnate, so is his Word an embodiment of his power. For, as 
 Solomon says, " Where the word of a king is, there is power;" there is 
 the power of the king himself. The Word of God is, then, the actual 
 power of God. God is a consuming fire, and his " Word is as fire, and 
 as a hammer that breaketh the rock to pieces." It should not, therefore, 
 be thought strange, that the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, are 
 sometimes represented as equi-potent — as equivalent. Indeed, in all 
 
724 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 those passages that represent the Word and Spirit of God as being the 
 causes of the same effects, this equivalency is clearly implied. Hence, 
 while Peter says, *« By the Word of God the heavens were of old," Job 
 says, " By his Spirit he has garnished the heavens." 
 
 Can any one imagine what power could have been superadded to the 
 "Word of God, that created light, that made the heavens and the earth, 
 .hat made man upright or holy, as Mr. R. says ! Let him explain what 
 that power could have been, which was distinct from, and attached to, or 
 that accompanied that word by which all things were created and made. 
 Explain that accompanying power, and I will explain the accompanying 
 spiritual or superadded power in the case of regeneration ! You cannot 
 break a man down by physical power. You cannot soften and subdue the 
 heart, as you grind a rock to pieces. A superadded power beyond mo- 
 tive, is inconceivable to any mind accustomed to think accurately upon spi- 
 ritual and mental operations. The heart of man is to be subdued, melted, 
 purified from all its hatred of God and enmity, by love ; by developments 
 of grace, and not by any conceivable influence of a different nature. His 
 love is poured out into our hearts, says Paul, by the Holy Spirit that is 
 given to us. 
 
 Men had better be careful how they speak of, and how they treat, the 
 word of God. It will stand forever. Till the heavens pass away, not one 
 word shall fail. Mountains, by the wasting hand of time, may crumble 
 down to dust — oceans may recede from their ancient limits — the heavens 
 and the earth may pass away — but God's word shall never, never pass 
 away. It is God's mighty moral lever, by which he raises man from earth 
 to heaven. It is his almighty, awful, sublime and gracious will, embodied 
 in such a medium as can enter the secret chambers of the human heart and 
 conscience, and there stand up for God, and confound the sinner in his 
 presence. The love of God is all enveloped in it, and that is the great se- 
 cret of its charm — the mystery of its power to save. It is love, and love 
 alone, that can reconcile the heart of man to God. Now love is a matter 
 of intelligence — a matter that is to be told, heard, believed, and received 
 by faith. " The power of God to salvation," is the persuasive power of 
 infinite and eternal love, and not the compulsive and subduing power of 
 any force superadded to it. The promise of eternal life is itself a power 
 of mighty magnitude. So are all the promises that enter into the christian 
 hope. These are almighty impulses, when understood and believed, up- 
 on the veracity and faithfulness of God. 
 
 But there yet remains another argument, of the inductive kind, which 
 adapts itself to all minds, which I may, in my next address, offer to your 
 consideration. We shall have an examination of every case of conversion 
 reported in the Bible history of the primitive church, down to the end of 
 the inspired record. Meantime, I must attend to some texts of Scripture 
 advanced by Mr. Rice, to show that repentance is the gift of God. But 
 who denies it? He has quoted three texts upon this subject. Two of 
 the three speak of the grant of repentance and remission of sins, in the 
 sense of the gospel. And one of them, the last, speaks of one opposing 
 the truth. They are the following: "He," the Messiah, "is exalted a 
 Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and the forgiveness of 
 sins;" — a dispensation of mercy. The second is, "Then has God also 
 granted unto the gentiles repentance unto life." He has also extended 
 salvation to the gentiles upon the same principles of repentance given to 
 the Jews. And, in the case of an opponent, says Paul, "Instruct him 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIKIT. 725 
 
 meekly ;" that if he have not hardened himself against the truth, God 
 may, peradventure, extend to him the advantage of repentance. — [Time 
 expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 29— 1U o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's ninth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I was very much gratified to hear the illustration of 
 the work of the Spirit introduced by the gentleman at the commence- 
 ment of his last argument. It is this : An individual takes an axe and 
 cuts down a tree. All the power he exerts is through the axe. Now I 
 wish to know, whether the man does not, at the time he is cutting the 
 tree, put forth power? Is this not the fact? Then if the illustration be 
 appropriate, it follows, that at the time when a man is converted, the 
 Spirit of God must put forth power in some form — by some direct act; 
 and that is precisely what my friend denies. For he contends, as I 
 proved in my last speech, that before immersion no other influence is ex- 
 erted on the mind, but that of the Word. To make the illustration suit 
 his doctrine, the axe must cut the tree till it is almost ready to fall, and 
 then the man must take hold of it, and complete the work ! I think I 
 can give a much more correct and striking illustration of his doctrine, 
 than the one he has given. A certain man made and tempered the axe ; 
 the axe cut the tree ; and therefore the maker of the axe might be said to 
 have cut it. So the Spirit of God dictated and confirmed the Word; the 
 Word converts men ; and in this sense the Spirit converts them. Just as 
 the man who made and tempered the axe migrTt be said to do what the 
 axe does, so the Spirit who dictated and confirmed the Word, may be 
 said to do what the Word does. Or, a certain man made a gun ; and the 
 gun, in the hands of some other person, shot a man. Then the maker 
 of the gun is chargeable with having killed the person who was shot with 
 it! These illustrations are precisely in point; and if my friend can gain 
 any thing to his cause by them he shall be welcome to them. But in the 
 cutting of the tree there must be an agency distinct from the axe, which 
 is the instrument. The man who employs the axe as the instrument, 
 must, at the time, put forth power; or the instrument can accomplish ab- 
 solutely nothing. Now the question before us is, whether conversion is 
 effected by the truth alone; or whether the Spirit puts forth its power in 
 addition to the influence of the Word ? The gentleman's illustration 
 proves our doctrine conclusively. 
 
 I have not admitted, nor will I admit, that in regeneration or conver- 
 sion, God's mode of proceeding is, in all cases, the same. The Bible 
 does not teach, that God always produces this change by the same instru- 
 mentality. Mr. C. has not produced a passage which sustains his asser- 
 tion. I have said, and I repeat it, where God has not limited himself, no 
 man dares attempt to limit him. Ordinarily he works by means ; but he 
 has not said, that he will never work without means. When his people 
 were journeying in the wilderness, where food could not be procured by 
 means, hi gave them manna for food; and if he fed the bodies of the 
 children of Israel without means, may he not save the souls of infants 
 without means ? 
 
 There is not a text in the whole Bible which says, that the Lord can- 
 not sanctify the heart without the intervention of the Word. Nor is 
 there one which says, he will not. Yet my friend has ventured to say, 
 that he will not, and that he cannot! In his Christianity Restored he 
 says, if all the reasons and arguments by which men can be converted, 
 
 3p2 
 
726 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 are contained in the Old and New Testaments, the power of the Holy 
 Spirit is spent — that he will not, and that he cannot do more. The Bi- 
 ble says neither one nor the other. And if it be true, either that he can- 
 not, or that he will not, exert a sanctifying agency in any case without 
 the truth, all infants must go to perdition. The argument is one that can- 
 not be answered. < 
 
 The gentleman has repeatedly contradicted himself, since this subject 
 has been before us. You will remember, that on the first day of this dis- 
 cussion, he told us, that nothing more is necessary to secure the salvation 
 of infants, than the atonement of Christ. I replied, that the atonement 
 cannot change the heart. On yesterday he told us, that depravity was 
 seated in the body, not in the mind, and therefore infants need no change 
 to fit them for heaven, but the separation of the soul from the body. Now 
 he seems to have it in the mind. So he is still involved in the old diffi- 
 culty, and has left infants and idiots without the possibility of being 
 saved ! 
 
 The gentleman excuses himself for having been so constantly involved in 
 the mists of metaphysics, by telling you, that he is following me. Did you 
 hear his first speech ? It was one of the most metaphysical discourses I 
 ever heard. There was scarcely a passage of Scripture in it. Now he 
 is following me ! I did not introduce these philosophical or unphiloso- 
 phical speculations. He introduced them, and I followed him partially. 
 On this, as on all other religious subjects, I am perfectly satisfied with 
 the plain instructions of the Bible — a book which I love infinitely more 
 than his philosophy. 
 
 In his last speech he gave us what he considers the philosophy of the 
 Bible concerning conversion and sanctification. It is this : first, fact — • 
 then testimony — -then faith — then feeling— then action. Now, there is a 
 very serious difficulty about this philosophy. For when a fact is proved, 
 and the people are constrained to believe it true, their feelings are of differ- 
 ent and even opposite characters. One approves, another disapproves ; one 
 loves, another hates. So it is in regard to the Bible. All men by nature 
 are opposed to it. When convinced that it is a revelation from God, and 
 informed concerning its contents, they do not approve and embrace them ; 
 nor will they, until their hearts are renewed. And if ever they are to be 
 induced to love God, the Spirit must so purify their hearts, that they will 
 no longer love darkness more than light ; that they will see the odious- 
 ness of sin, the beauty of holiness, and the glory of the divine perfections. 
 There must be a radical change ; for no human being ever loved a moral 
 character, which is the opposite of his own. This difficulty completely 
 overturns all the gentleman's philosophy. It will answer him no pur- 
 pose. His fact, his testimony, his faith, may all exist, and yet the right 
 kind of feeling — the great thing, after all, may be wanting, 
 
 I will now briefly reply to his arguments drawn from the Scriptures. 
 He says, whatever influence is ascribed to the Spirit, in the Bible, is also 
 ascribed to the Word. If the Spirit enlightens, the Word also enlightens : 
 if the Spirit converts, the Word converts. By this argument he expects 
 to prove, that when the Scriptures speak of the operations of the Spirit, 
 the written Word is meant — that when the Word operates on the heart, 
 the Spirit is said to operate. By this mode of reasoning I could establish 
 some very singular propositions. I could prove, that, when the Lord 
 Jesus opened the eyes of the blind man, the light caused him to see. 
 What would you think, if I should thence infer, that he opened his eyes 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 727 
 
 by means' of light?! It is true, the psalmist says, " The entrance of thy 
 Word giveth light;" but if my eyes are diseased, the light cannot heal 
 them. This is the work of the great Physician. ' When he put forth his 
 power and healed the eyes of the blind man, then the light broke in, and 
 he could see. In one sense it is true, that the light caused him to see. 
 In another and most important sense, the Savior, and not the light, gave 
 him vision. There was a divine power exerted, which was entirely dis- 
 tinct from the light. So in one sense it is true, that the Word of God 
 causes the spiritually blind to see ; but in another and most important 
 sense, the Holy Spirit opens their eyes, effects their conversion. 
 
 In the Acts of the Apostles, (eh. xxvi.) it is said, that Paul was sent 
 to open the eyes of the blind. Now, by adopting the logic of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, I could prove by this passage, that whatever influence is ascribed to 
 the Word, is ascribed also to Paul ; and from this fact I would reach the 
 conclusion that in conversion and sanctification the Spirit operates only 
 through human instrumentality ! I could also prove conclusively, that, 
 if conversion is ascribed to the Spirit, it is also ascribed to Paul and other 
 preachers of the gospel ; for James the apostle says — u Brethren, i( any 
 of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know, that he 
 which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul 
 from death, &c. Now does the Spirit of God convert sinners ? So does 
 Paul — so do other preachers. Therefore, (and the conclusion is precisely 
 as legitimate as that by which the gentleman proved that the Spirit ope- 
 rates only through the truth) — -therefore, in conversion and sanctification 
 the Spirit never operates, except through a preacher. Such is the rea- 
 soning of my worthy friend. 
 
 The truth is, that conversion and sanctification are commonly effected 
 by three distinct agencies : the agency of the Word ; the agency of the 
 man who presents it, and the agency of the Spirit, which is taught as 
 distinctly as the others, and is represented as more important — causing 
 men to receive the truth in the love of it, and to obey it. I believe in all 
 the three. God does not confine the operations of his grace in converting 
 men to the instrumentality of the living preacher. My friend will agree, 
 that some have been converted by reading the Word, without a preacher. 
 Sometimes all the three are employed — the preacher, the Word, and the 
 Spirit ; sometimes only two ; and sometimes only one, as in the case of 
 infants, where it is impossible that either the Word or the ministry can 
 be employed. 
 
 The fact that the Word is said to convert men, does not prove that the 
 Spirit does not sanctify infants without the Word; nor that conversion 
 is ever effected simply by the influence of the Word. I might say with 
 truth, that the blowing of the rams' horns prostrated the walls of Jericho; 
 for they would not have fallen, if the horns had not been blown. But it 
 would be folly to say, that the blowing of the horns was the power by 
 which alone they were made to fall. Christ opened the eyes of the man 
 born blind, by the use of spittle and clay : but if I were to affirm, that his 
 eyes were opened only by spittle and clay, I should speak most unwisely. 
 So the gentleman's argument will not bear one moment's careful exami- 
 nation. It is absolutely worthless. 
 
 Mr. C. told us, a few days ago, that according to a correct principle of 
 language, the definition of a word, if substituted for it, will make good 
 sense. Now let us try his doctrine by this principle. He says, that 
 when the agency of the Spirit is spoken of, the Word is meant. Let us 
 
728 ' DEBATE ON THE 
 
 try it — " He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing 
 of his Word, which he shed on us abundantly," &c. ! Now, did the 
 apostle mean, that he shed his Word on men abundantly through Jesus 
 Christ? Again — "I will pour out my Word upon your seed!" Is this 
 the idea the prophet intended to convey? Again — "I will take away 
 the stony heart out of your flesh." That is, I will reason, talk, argue 
 with you ! Is this the meaning of the prophet ? The fact is, there are 
 passages of Scripture which teach, that conversion and sanctification are 
 effected by the instrumentality of the Word ; but not by the Word only. 
 There are others that recognize the agency of man ; but not his agency 
 only. The agency of the Spirit is the only agency which is declared to be 
 absolutely necessary in all cases. The ministry is sometimes necessary, 
 and so is the Word ; because God has appointed these as the ordinary 
 means through which the blessings of his salvation shall be conveyed to 
 men. But neither of these is always necessary. The agency of the Spirit 
 is absolutely essential in all cases ; because, as all men and all infants are 
 " born of the flesh," and are, therefore, carnal ; so all must be born of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 Great errors, the gentleman seems to think, grow out of systems of 
 theology ; and he would have you believe, that he is quite opposed to 
 system-making. Do you see that book ? [Pointing to the Christian 
 Svstem.] Who is the author of it? My friend. If he is not a system- 
 maker, he has not told the truth ; for he calls this book " The Christian 
 System," and he says those who make systems, are system-makers. I 
 think he is in very good company ; but I hope he does not claim the ex- 
 clusive privilege of making systems. Certainly he should allow others 
 to make systems, at least occasionally. " Christianity Restored" was his 
 first system, and the " Christian System" his second. If he can make 
 two systems, he should, at least, permit us to make one. 
 
 Another argument urged by Mr. C. is, that God never made any thing 
 ivithout a word; and he tells us that God created the world by a word. 
 But I assert that he never created any thing only by a word. If we were 
 to admit, that in the work of creation he did literally speak words, this 
 would only prove, that when he spoke he exerted Almighty power to 
 produce the result. So the word of God is used ordinarily in conversion. 
 But there is also a divine influence exerted on the heart, in addition to 
 the Word, and distinct from it. 
 
 But what is the truth in regard to creation by words? The inspired 
 writers, to express most strikingly the infinite ease with which God cre- 
 ated all things, represented him as speaking, and it was done— as com- 
 manding, and it stood fast. He had but to speak, and the universe sprang 
 into being at his bidding ! But will the gentleman say, that he created all 
 things by words and arguments ? Has he not told us that words and ar- 
 guments could only, exert a moral power ? Did God create the soul of 
 man by arguments ? He is confounding things as dissimilar as light and 
 darkness. What connection is there between creation and argument ? 
 If he will prove that God created man by argument and motive, I will 
 admit, that the same influence may renew him in the image of God. 
 Christ raised Lazarus from the dead by words, but not by words only. 
 When he said " Lazarus, come forth," he exerted an omnipotent power. 
 
 In the original creation of man, God exerted immediate power. He 
 created nothing by words. So in creating man anew, in restoring 
 his divine image to his soul, there is an agency of the Spirit, in addition 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 729 
 
 to the Word, and distinct from it. How absurd, then, the gentleman's 
 argument from the works of creation, to prove, that in conversion and 
 sanctification the Spirit operates on the mind simply by words and mo- 
 tives ! Strange logic, indeed ! 
 
 My friend will alarm us, if he cannot convince us. He says, men had 
 better take care how they trifle with the word of God. And I would 
 say, that he had better take care how he speaks of the Holy Spirit. In the 
 Millenial Harbinger, (vol. ii. p. 211,) he uses this language : " Some Holy- 
 Ghost is the soul of every popular sermon, and the essential point in every 
 evangelical creed." I must confess I was shocked when I cast my eye 
 on this sentence. I know the gentleman does not admire the English word 
 Ghost, but he is perfectly aware that these words are used as the name 
 of the third person in the adorable Trinity. I have heard similar lan- 
 guage from men less intelligent, but I could not have supposed that he 
 would allow himself to utter, or to write, such an expression. Since he 
 has done so, I cannot help thinking that the warning he has given, does 
 not come well from him. I have never heard any professor of religion 
 speak of the word of God as he has spoken of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 I will now proceed to offer some additional arguments against the doc- 
 trine taught by Mr. Campbell. The first that I will offer is this : his 
 doctrine makes it both useless and improper to pray for the conversion 
 of men. I know, he will not deny, that it is the duty and the privilege 
 of christians to pray, that God would convert sinners ; for we have both 
 precept and example authorizing and requiring it. Paul said concerning 
 himself—" My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they 
 might be saved;" Rom. x. 1. And he directed, that "supplications, 
 prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;" 1 
 Tim. ii. 1. But whilst the duty is perfectly clear, if we regard either 
 precept or precedent, or both, the doctrine of Mr. C. makes it wholly 
 unnecessary, if not improper. This objection did not originate with me, 
 or perhaps it might be supposed to be founded in a misconception of his 
 views. It has occurred to his own friends and followers, as a very seri- 
 ous difficulty. I will read part of a letter written to him by a gentleman 
 who is a member of his church, and published in the Millenial Har- 
 binger, (vol. ii. p. 469,) in which the objection is strongly stated. 
 
 " Without any further preface or apology, I will come at once to the 
 object I had in addressing you at this time, and that is, to ask your opinion 
 whether it be lawful, according to the will of God as revealed to us, to pray 
 for our unconverted friends — that is, to ask God to convert them to the 
 christian religion! If it be true, as you affirm, (and which I am not pre- 
 pared to controvert,) that the righteousness of a christian is a righteousness 
 by faith in Jesus as the Messiah ; that that faith comes alone by hearing or 
 reading the testimony concerning Jesus ; and that we have no right to ex- 
 pect any influence superinducing the mind to faith, or even causing the sin- 
 ner to examine this testimony, or place himself in circumstances for the 
 light of divine truth to shine upon his mind ; I say, upon the supposition 
 that these things are so, what right has any one to expect that God will 
 answer his prayers in the behalf of his unconverted friends'? Ever since I 
 have felt the importance of divine things, I have felt the most anxious soli- 
 citude for many of my relatives and friends who on their part manifested 
 the greatest indifference to these matters, and have often tried to pray for 
 them too, that God would cause them to submit themselves to Jesus as the 
 only Savior of sinners : but whether these prayers were in accordance to 
 the word of our Divine Master, I confess I am somewhat at a loss to say. 
 When we pray, we are told to pray in faith ; and in order that we may pray 
 

 730 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 in faith, as I understand, we should pray for such things as our Heavenly- 
 Father has authorized us to expect at his hands, and no other. Now if the 
 Divine Being exercises no other influence over the minds of men than that 
 influence which is derived to them through the words he has spoken to men, 
 and we cannot prevail upon wicked men to give attention to those words, 
 the question is, are we authorized to expect that God will answer our re- 
 quests in the behalf of such an one? Here is my difficulty, and it has long 
 been a difficulty with me ; and I find it is no less so with many of my friends 
 and your friends. If you have opportunity to write me a private letter on 
 this subject, I will esteem it as a singular favor: or if you consider the sub- 
 ject of enough importance, you can, if you please, furnish us an essay upon 
 it through the Harbinger. Very affectionately, Will. Z. Thomson.'' 
 
 The difficulty, it appears, had presented itself, not to the mind of some 
 one individual of a speculative character, but to many of Mr. C.'s friends, 
 who were familiar with his writings. In view of his denial of the agency 
 of the Spirit in conversion, they ask, whether it is right that they should 
 pray to God to convert their unbelieving friends, and whether they have 
 any right to expect God to answer such prayers ? In his reply to this 
 letter Mr. C. gave not the slightest intimation that the writer had miscon- 
 ceived his views of the agency of the Spirit ; and yet he states them 
 precisely as I have stated them. 
 
 Now if this doctrine be true, I ask emphatically, where is the proprie- 
 ty of praying for the unconverted ? Have we a promise from God, that 
 he will answer such prayers ? If this doctrine be true, we have not ; for 
 the Spirit has dictated and confirmed the Word of Truth, and no influ- 
 ence will or can be exerted, in addition to the Word, to cause the wicked 
 to turn to God. If, then, no special divine influence is promised, or can 
 be exerted to cause men to repent and believe, why should we pray for 
 it ? And how can w r e pray in faith ? 
 
 This I regard as a most important matter; for it is as truly a part of 
 the plan of Infinite Wisdom to convert men in answer to prayer, as by- 
 the instrumentality of the preached gospel. It is, moreover, one of the 
 consolations of many an afflicted father and mother, that they can pray 
 in faith for the conversion of their children, when far away, exposed to 
 the temptations and unhallowed influences of a wicked world. Could 
 you approach their closet, where they have retired to commune with 
 God, and to pour the desires and the sorrows of their hearts into his ear; 
 you might hear them plead w T ith an irresistible eloquence, that by his 
 Holy Spirit he would convince their children of sin, of righteousness and 
 of judgment; that he would turn their feet from the paths of folly and sin 
 unto his testimonies. How many ten thousand such prayers are inces- 
 santly ascending from the hearts of God's faithful children for those who 
 are dear to them, and for a sin-ruined world ! But if this doctrine be true, 
 those prayers are all in vain. Not one of them ever was, or ever Gan be 
 heard. We must bid the weeping father and mother, and the heart-broken 
 wife, to pray no more for those whose salvation is almost as dear to them 
 as their own. Then let all prayers for the unconverted cease. Let it be 
 known, that God has done for them all he will do, or can do ; and if they 
 are not converted by reading or hearing the Word, they must perish ! If 
 this doctrine be true, why did the apostles give themselves to prayer and 
 the preaching of the Word? Why did Paul pray, that Israel might be 
 saved? Why should we pray for the success of the gospel? Shall we 
 bow down and implore God to do what we believe he never will do ? 
 
 The difficulty stops not here. It makes prayer for believers equally 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 731 
 
 va i n — at least so far as regards their sanctification. For although the 
 gentleman says, the Spirit is poured out on those who are immersed; it 
 does not exert a sanctifying influence. In the proposition under discus- 
 sion the ground is taken, that ill sanctification, as well as in conversion, 
 the Spirit operates only through the truth. Why, then, should christians 
 pray for themselves and for each other, that they may be sanctified? 
 Paul prayed for the Philippian christians, because he was confident, that 
 he who had begun a good work in them, would perform it until the day 
 of Jesus Christ ; Philip, i. 6. He prayed for the Ephesians, that they 
 might be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man. The 
 apostles once prayed to the Savior, "Lord, increase our faith." Did they 
 desire an additional revelation or other miracles ? Or did they desire, 
 that he would take away the cause of their unbelief — their depravity ? A 
 certain man came and desired the Savior to heal his son. He asked him, 
 Believest thou that I can do this ? He answered, with tears, " Lord, I 
 believe ; help thou mine unbelief." He also said to Peter, on a certain 
 occasion — " Simon, Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift thee 
 as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." Here we 
 have examples of prayers offered, for a divine influence to strengthen 
 faith and to sanctify the heart. 
 
 I turn your attention to one more example of this kind. David, under 
 a deep sense of the corruption of his heart, prayed — " Create in me a 
 clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me ;" Ps. li. 10. 
 Now, I ask, would not every unprejudiced mind understand the Psalmist 
 to pray, that God would exert a purifying influence on his heart ? Did 
 he believe, that all the converting and sanctifying power of the Spirit is 
 in the Word ? Multitudes of similar passages are found in the Scrip- 
 tures. I have brought forward several where prayer was offered and an- 
 swered for a supernatural influence to be exerted on the hearts of the 
 wicked. In a word, the Scriptures teach with perfect clearness, from 
 Genesis to Revelation, that the Spirit of God can, and does exert a con- 
 troling, converting, enlightening, and sanctifying influence on the hearts 
 of men, net by words and arguments simply, but more powerful and effi- 
 cacious. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 29 — 12 o'clock, M. 
 [mr. Campbell's tenth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I am now so well acquainted with my friend, Mr. R., 
 as to know when he feels himself grievously pressed and oppressed. He 
 has not responded to any of those all-important questions and difficulties, 
 propounded to him as growing out of his assumptions. What light has 
 been thrown upon the subject of that power, abstract and superadded, of 
 which he speaks so much ? Has he not passed the matter in perfect si- 
 lence ? May I not, with propriety, say, it is an indescribable power — 
 wholly unintelligible — since the gentleman himself can give no account of 
 it? I repeat once more, that whenever the gentleman describes his meta- 
 physical abstract power, superadded to the Word, I will affirm, or deny, 
 in the most definite manner. I believe in a substantive influence of the 
 Spirit of God through the truth, upon the conscience, the understanding 
 and the affections. 
 
 He appears to approve of the figure of the wood-chopper and his axe. 
 But in his remarks-, he seems to have forgotten, that on his theory, the 
 wood-chopper has to cut the tree down without the axe. Or, if he should 
 use the axe in any case at all, he must superadd some power without the 
 

 732 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 axe, beyond the axe, and wholly extra its instrumentality ! ! Figures are 
 not to be used for any other purpose than they are proposed. I do not 
 make this one represent the Word of God in any other particular, than its 
 mere instrumentality. He had no time to explain how his infant is cut 
 off the stock of depravity, without one stroke of the axe. But he had time 
 to hold up this book [The Christian System,] as my confession of faith. 
 He ought, in these precious moments, to avoid things extraneous, and refer 
 that subject to the creed-question. I shall then show who makes creeds, 
 and binds them, as heavy burdens, upon men's shoulders. 
 
 His dissertation upon power is inapplicable to the subject before us. I 
 might, on his own principles, ask him why he prays for the salvation of 
 any person, seeing he believes and teaches, that the number of the elect is 
 so definite and fixed, that it can neither be increased nor diminished one 
 single individual ! ! Is that not, by his own showing, labor in vain ? The 
 means and the end are both so foreordained, that without the one, the other 
 cannot be, either in salvation or condemnation. Hence, all the powers of 
 the universe cannot add one to either the saved, or the condemned. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, from all the premises before my mind, I conclude, that 
 the Spirit of Truth — that omnipresent, animating Spirit of our God— . 
 whose sword or instrument this book is, is always present in the work of 
 conversion, and through this truth changes the sinner's affections, and 
 draws out his soul to God. It is, therefore, doing us an act of the greatest 
 injustice, to represent us as comparing the Bible to the writings of any 
 dead or absent man, in this point of comparison. In some points of view, 
 all books are alike ; but in other points of view, they are exceedingly dis- 
 similar. In comparison of all other books, the Bible is superlatively a 
 book sui generis. Its author not only ever lives, but is ever present in it, 
 and with it, operating through it, by it, and with it, upon saints and sin- 
 ners. The gentleman talks upon themes he does not comprehend. Ab- 
 stract spiritual operations in nature, and in redemption, are wholly beyond 
 his ken. Were he to speak to the day of eternity, he cannot communi- 
 cate one distinct idea on the subject. 
 
 The singular course of my opponent has constrained me to quote, and 
 comment on numerous passages of Scripture, no way connected with our 
 topics of discussion. But he will have it so; and, therefore, we must oc- 
 casionally launch into matters somewhat remote and recondite. He re- 
 lies much upon such passages as — "The wind bloweth where it listeth ; 
 and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or 
 whither it goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit." He seems 
 to glory in the mystery of his regeneration, because he cannot explain it. 
 His main argument is — it is a mystery, and we cannot understand it; 
 therefore, my doctrine is true ! I asked him to explain the predicate of 
 the last proposition. The words were — " So is every one that is bom 
 of the Spirit." But has he done it? No. He cannot, I predict, explain 
 the word so. The subject of the proposition is, — Every one that is 
 born of the Spirit — is compared to what? So what? That is the 
 question he cannot answer ! ! He has mistaken the point of comparison. 
 To him, indeed, it is a mystery. I call for the predicate of the propo- 
 sition ; and then we shall canvass the whole matter. 
 
 When I sat down, I was expatiating on some other of my respondent's 
 proof-texts — the passages concerning the grant of repentance to Jews and 
 gentiles, by him that is exalted a Prince and a Savior. I shall illustrate 
 the view, which I partially expressed at the close of my last address. 
 
INFLUENCE OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 733 
 
 Suppose the people of any country had all been destitute of the right of 
 suffrage — living under an absolute despotism, in consequence of some 
 great political disaster. Meantime, some great prince interposes in their 
 behalf, invades the country, overcomes the tyrant, and, when in authority 
 over the people, grants to the whole state .jpe right of suffrage— would it 
 be just to say, that he had, by some specy^personal, direct approach to 
 every man, constrained, or specially induced him to go to the polls and 
 vote ? That, indeed, he might do. But the question is, not whether he 
 might, or might not do so, but whether the language imports that he does 
 so ! True, Jesus Christ has been exalted a Prince and a Savior, to grant 
 to Israel, and afterwards to the gentiles, repentance unto life and remission 
 of sins. Does that mean he makes a personal appeal to every one, or 
 to any one in particular ? — or, that he has opened a way in which all, if 
 they please, may obtain the benefits of repentance, and remission of sins ? 
 I do not say, that other scriptures may teach this doctrine. But the ques- 
 tion is — do the passages Mr. Rice has quoted, prove that point at all? I 
 affirm the clear conviction they do not. But let every man judge for him- 
 self. It is one thing indeed to confer a right upon a people ; but whether 
 they shall use it, is quite another question. An opponent may so oppose 
 the truth, as to make it questionable whether, on repentance, God would 
 forgive him — whether God would grant him the benefits of repentance. 
 Thus says Paul, in meekness instructing them that oppose themselves, if 
 God peradventure might grant them repentance (the advantages of repent- 
 ance,) to eternal life. I am not controverting the fact, but I am controver- 
 ting the appositeness of the gentleman's quotations, and that extreme lati- 
 tudinarianism, in which he indulges. To grant a right, and to compel to 
 use it, are very different ideas. God confers the rights, and thus opens the 
 way for our voluntary acceptance of them. We rejoice in the glorious 
 fact, that God has granted repentance unto life to the whole gentile world. 
 Philology peremptorily forbids any other interpretation of this passage. It 
 is not to believing gentiles, or to a few gentiles, but in contrast with the 
 Jews. They said, " Then hath God also to the gentiles granted repent- 
 ance unto life." Repentance unto life is, then, bestowed on all the nations 
 to which the gospel is preached ; and whosoever will, may come and pos- 
 ess its advantages. To interpret this according to my opponent's scheme 
 — that is, to make it respect a few individuals, specially called and con- 
 strained to come in, is to rob the gentile world of one of the richest char- 
 ters ever expressed in human speech. I thank my God, that Jesus Christ 
 has been exalted a "Prince and a Savior," to grant repentance unto life, 
 not unto Israel only, but to the gentiles also. Mr. Rice's freedom 
 with this statute, robs us of our rights, for the sake of a speculative as- 
 sumption. 
 
 As great injustice is done me by Mr. Rice, in sometimes changing this 
 position of only in the proposition, T do not maintain that a person is 
 converted by the Word only. I say that, " In conversion, &c, the Spirit 
 operates only through the Word ;" not that a person is converted by the 
 Word only. The latter excludes the Spirit altogether, which is directly 
 in contradiction of the ground assumedlii my 'opening speech. ,We are 
 only converted through the Word; only we are converted through the 
 Word ; and we are converted through the Word only, are three very 
 different propositions. The gentleman ought to place the word only 
 where it stands in the proposition. 
 
 The gentleman has again introduced the subject of infant damnation. 
 
 3Q 
 
734 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 I am sorry to spend time on such an ungracious theme ; but as my repu- 
 tation is somewhat involved in what was said yesterday, I must show 
 that I have not misconstrued the doctrines preached, and interpretations 
 of Scripture given on this subject, by the good Old Scotch Presbyterians. 
 I am indeed pleased to see that Mr. Rice is ashamed of it, and has taxed 
 his ingenuity to find a new way of expounding the elect infants of the 
 creed. His interpretation is ingenious — apparently so, however, because 
 it does not read elect persons, but elect infants. 
 
 All infants that die are elect infants ! A happy conception truly ! But 
 a fair construction of the confession will not authorize it. I first heard 
 the gloss last year. But neither the founders of Calvinism on the conti- 
 nent, nor the Westminster divines, so understood this matter, as my 
 reading and recollection fully justify. I shall read a few passages on this 
 subject; and first, one from Calvin's Institutes. I have both the Latin 
 original and Calvin's own French translation of the passage. I wonder 
 not that Calvin, to quote his own words, calls it, Decretum quidem hor- 
 ribile, fateor; which professor Norton renders as follows: " I ask again, 
 how it has come to pass, that the fall of Adam has involved so many na- 
 tions with their infant children in eternal death, and this without remedy, 
 but because such was the will of God ? It is a dreadful decree, I con- 
 fess." Knowing that Allen has translated it, softening it down, I give 
 the following from other authorities : 
 
 [Translated from the Latin.] — " I ask, again, whence has it happened, 
 that the fall of Adam has involved so many nations together with their in- 
 fant children in eternal death without remedy, unless that it has so pleased 
 God 1 — A horrible decree indeed, I confess." 
 
 [From the French.] — " I ask them sgain, whence it has come to pass, 
 that the fall of Adam has involved with him so many nations with their 
 infants, unless that it has thus pleased God] — I confess, that this decree 
 ought to shock us." 
 
 But Calvin, besides this passage quoted from his Institutes, (lib. 3, 
 c. 23, § 7,) in speaking of the errors of Servetus, says : "In the mean- 
 time, certain salvation is said [by Servetus] to await all at the final judg- 
 ment, exept those who have brought upon themselves the punishment of 
 eternal death, by their personal sins ; (propriis sceleribus ;) from which 
 it is also inferred that all who are taken from life while infants and 
 young children, are exempt from eternal death, although they are else- 
 where called accursed," Tract. Theo. Kefut. Error Mich. Serveti 
 This was one of Servetus's errors, according to Calvin. Servetus 
 would have all infants saved that died; but Calvin thought this a great 
 error, because there were of these same infants called accursed. Augustine, 
 in condemning the doctrine of Pelagius, says, " We affirm that they 
 (infants) will not be saved and have eternal life, except they be baptized 
 in Christ ;" and much more to the same effect. 
 
 Turretin, the chief of Calvinistic writers, teaches the same doctrine in 
 the clearest manner. He is of high authority at Princeton, and has stood 
 on my shelf for thirty years. He says : 
 
 " The ancient Pelagians, who having followed as their master Pelagius 
 the Briton, denied original sin in all its parts, contending that the sin of 
 Adam hurt nobody but himself, or if it should be said to have injured any 
 body else, that it was through example or imitation, not by propagation. 
 Not unlike them are the Remonstrants, who in their apology pronounced 
 certain, whatever Augustine and others may have determined to the contra- 
 ry, that God will appoint, and that he, on account of original sin, so called, 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 735 
 
 with justice can appoint no eternal torments to infants, of whatever lot 
 or descent, dying without actual and personal sins ; holding that their opin- 
 ion, viz. that any infants will be appointed to eternal torments is opposed to 
 the divine goodness and right reason; nay, that it is uncertain whether 
 the preponderance is in favor of the absurdity or its cruelty." 
 
 Here, then, is an explicit declaration from a Calvinist of the highest 
 authority, that God can, in justice, appoint infants to eternal torments. 
 Indeed I can quote distinguished Calvinists in considerable numbers, in 
 proof that infant damnation on account of original sin, was the doctrine 
 of a portion of the Protestant Reformation, of the Synod of Dort, and of 
 the Westminster Assembly. But I am sorry to have been compelled to 
 bring up a doctrine of this sort on this occasion ; and certainly would not, 
 had Mr. Rice not compelled me to it. But when I undertake to prove 
 any thing, I do prove it, and can prove it. 
 
 One man may be said to convert another, as Paul begat the Corinth- 
 ians, through the gospel, and was spiritually their father. But Mr. Rice 
 says, then they may be said to do all other things akin to conversion — 
 quicken, save, &c. That is not a fair inference. It is so far fetched and 
 so gross as not to entangle any one — no one can believe it. But it seems 
 I committed a great sin in his eyes, in speaking of the Holy Ghosts of 
 several systems — the alledged chimeras of modern theories. Be it un- 
 derstood, then, that I never use the word, " Holy Ghost," with disres- 
 pect ; although I think the term ought to be changed into " Holy Spirit.'''' 
 Time was, when it was a very proper term. I have shown, somewhere 
 within the last seven years, that our Saxon forefathers used the word ghost 
 as equivalent to our word guest, and properly enough called our spirits 
 guests, while in our bodies — regarding the body as a house or tabernacle, 
 and the spirit as a guest or ghost. I was, some years since, much struck 
 with the fact, that we have not in the common English Bible, the word 
 Holy Ghost in the Old Testament at all, but Holy Spirit : and, in the 
 same version, we have Holy Ghost most frequently, though not exclus- 
 ively, in the New. Tyndale, I presume, was the cause of this, in the 
 New Testament ; for in many points, nay, in most points, Tyndale was 
 followed by James' translators. The question arose in my mind, why 
 Tyndale did so, and the answer occurred in this Avay : the Spirit of God 
 was promised in the Old Testament to be the guest of the christian 
 church — that, as in a temple, it was to reside in it ; hence, the Spirit of the 
 Old Testament having become the guest of the New, Tyndale introduced 
 Holy Ghost for the Holy Spirit of the previous age. With us, however, 
 ghost has degenerated into the representative of a disembodied spirit, 
 the spirit of a dead man. Hence, I think it is bad taste to call the living 
 Spirit of the living God, a Holy Ghost, according to our modern usage. 
 
 While, then, the new theories of modern times about spiritual influence 
 is, indeed, more ghostly than spiritual, they may, with more propriety 
 than we, use the term Holy Ghost ; and as all parties have not one the- 
 ory, more than one faith, I see no more impropriety in speaking of Holy 
 Ghosts, more than of two faiths, two Lords, two Spirits, two baptisms, 
 which I believe are universally tolerated. Still if I am, by so doing, 
 chargeable with disrespect for either the name or the persons that use it, 
 I should not patronize it at all. For my own part I prefer, and almost 
 universally use, the name Holy Spirit. 
 
 The theories of spiritual influence are as variable as the winds, and 
 fires, and floods of the earth. With some it is the baptism of fire, with 
 
T36 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 others it is a mighty rushing wind, and with some it is water. Some 
 read " born of the Spirit, even born of the water" — thereby making water 
 and Spirit identical. The sin against the Holy Spirit, as explained by our 
 Savior, consists in speaking against the works of the Spirit, ascribing 
 his miracles to satanic influence — a sm which cannot, in this his view, be 
 committed now. It was not a sin of thought, a general action; but a sin 
 of the tongue, accompanied with a cordial malice. 
 
 Mr. R. would make me almost, if not altogether, guilty of the sin and 
 error of Manicheism, because of my remarks upon the law of sin in the 
 fleshly members. I must now, according to him, have translated all sin 
 from the mind into the flesh. Hence he quotes envy, and hatred, and 
 pride, &c. as antagonizing with my views. And yet, while I give to the 
 mind sinful views and desires, may I not ask him whence come envy, 
 and pride, and hatred? Do they not generally come from the flesh? Do 
 they not spring from our worldly and fleshly associations, from our carnal 
 and temporal interests ? The mind is enslaved to the body. Our intellec- 
 tual powers are all placed under tribute to some fleshly and earthly objects. 
 Hence hatred, variance, strife, emulation, fraud, &c. come almost ex- 
 clusively from our competitions about securing so much of earth's and 
 time's favors, as gratify our fleshly lusts and pleasures. Whence, then, 
 come these sinful desires but from the flesh ? Still I am very far from say- 
 ing that sin is wholly and exclusively confined to the flesh. But all the 
 elements of sin are there. Through " this body of sin and death," as 
 Paul calls it, sin " works in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." 
 The mind is, indeed, made to participate in all these fleshly lusts that war 
 against our souls; "for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit 
 against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things that we would." 
 
 We must also revert to the word holy. I objected merely to his use of the 
 word, and not to the word, nor the thing. He represented the heart as being 
 made holy by an immediate fiat. God made man holy, as he created 
 him. To-day he has added " not by the word only." Did I say, in my 
 speech, by the word only? That is a wrong issue. His argument was, 
 that God made man without a word. Mine was, that he did not. He 
 has changed his position, and got up anew issue. I argue that God cre- 
 ated nothing without a word. But it was so inapplicable ! In his view, I 
 presume it was, because fatal to his assumption. No one can form a single 
 conception of naked power. It is bad philosophy to descant upon it, as 
 well as bad theology. 
 
 Still, holiness is not of the nature of a distinct, separate, and substan- 
 tive attribute, as wisdom, power, goodness. And yet it is not an attribute 
 of God, as eternity, infinity, immutability ; because it is relative to im- 
 purity. It is an attribute, or perfection, in contrast with sin and impu- 
 rity In classifying the Divine perfections, I usually distribute them into 
 four classes ; three which nature developes — wisdom, power, and good- 
 ness ; three which the law developes — justice, truth, and holiness ; three 
 which the gospel developes — mercy, condescension, and love ; and three 
 attributes of all these, viz. eternity, immutability, and infinity. These 
 apply to all the others. Hence God our Father is eternally, immutably, 
 and infinitely just, wise, good, powerful, &c. These three last are per- 
 fections of perfections Purity has been preferred to holiness by some 
 writers, because a more clear and distinct conception to most minds than 
 the term holiness. It is indeed, as before observed, the supreme excel- 
 lence and majesty of God ; and in the esteem of the higher order of intel- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 737 
 
 ligence, it is a generic exponent of all his adorable perfections. Hence * 
 in their most sublime anthems and ecstacies, this word is the consecrated 
 symbol of their highest admiration. 
 
 I now proceed to the argument proposed at the close of my last speech. 
 It is to be deduced from that inestimable document called the " Acts of 
 the Apostles; " a document of the highest value to the church. It is 
 worth all the ecclesiastic histories of all nations and languages, because 
 it is authentic and authoritative; and because it gives just such a deve- 
 lopment of things, as reveals Christianity to us in all its practical details. 
 We see the apostles in the field of labor, carrying out their commission ; 
 and also the particular lessons Christ and the Holy Spirit taught them ! 
 I have much use for the Scriptures of truth in this argument, and will 
 use them very freely. 
 
 The argument I now propose is simply this: I will show that all the 
 reported conversions, detailed in that book as occurring for some thirty 
 years after the ascension, are represented as having been through what 
 the persons saw performed, and heard said,' from the -original witnesses 
 and heralds of the resurrection of the Messiah. I wish to adduce every 
 case on record, and show from them all, that these conversions were in 
 accordance with our proposition. And certainly, if Mr. Rice cannot 
 produce a single case in which conversion was accomplished without the 
 Word, or Gospel testimony being presented and heard, he will have most 
 signally failed in sustaining his negation of this proposition. — [7Ywie 
 expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 20— 12£ o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's tenth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I shall be prepared to pay due attention to my friend/ 
 when he comes to speak of making systems and binding them upon the 
 consciences of men ; and I expect to prove, that he is quite as liable to the 
 charge, as are those whom he denounces. I am truly anxious to reach 
 that subject. 
 
 The gentleman has failed to make any answer whatever to my argu- 
 ment against his doctrine, that it makes prayer, especially for unbelievers, 
 unnecessary and improper. Does he den)' it, or attempt to prove, that 
 the objection is not valid? Not a word of it. He makes no attempt to 
 prove, that his doctrine is at all consistent with prayer. But he says, I 
 am in the same predicament, because I believe in the doctrine of election. 
 Suppose this were true; would he be the better for having me in company 
 with him in his errors? If the doctrine of election were the subject un- 
 der discussion, I would promptly meet and refute his charge, not by 
 showing, that he is involved in the same difficulty, but by proving the 
 objection not to be well founded. 1 should have no fears in meeting the 
 gentleman on that subject. If we were discussing the doctrine of elec- 
 tion, I would turn to his " Christian System," and prove, that he himself 
 teaches, that the purposes of God are eternal, and that " the whole affair 
 of man's redemption, even to the preparation of the eternal abodes of the 
 righteous, was arranged ere time was born." This might pass for tolera- 
 ble Calvinism. 
 
 He tells us, the Spirit of God is always present with his Word. I 
 have asked, and now ask again, what does he mean by this language? It 
 is easy, and not uncommon for men to use expressions which convey no 
 definite idea either to their own minds, or to those of their hearers. In 
 his writings he has so clearly stated and illustrated his views, as to leave 
 47 3q2 
 
738 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 no room to doubt what he really believes. He has said distinctly, that 
 no power b*ut moral power can be exerted on minds ; and that moral 
 power can be exerted only by words and arguments. He has declared 
 his belief, that when the Spirit of God had dictated and confirmed the 
 Scriptures, all his converting and sanctifying power was spent. Perhaps 
 I can explain in what sense he supposes the Spirit to be present and to 
 operate with the Word. As Mr. Campbell's spirit is present with the 
 ideas he has published in his Harbinger, operating on the minds of his 
 readers ; so, in the same sense the Spirit of God is present with the Scrip 
 ture's. I use his own illustration. Such being his meaning, does he be- 
 lieve in any other agency in conversion and sanctification, than that of the 
 Word dictated and confirmed by the Holy Spirit 1 
 
 It is not necessary for me now to enter into any discussion of the pas- 
 sage in John iii., "The wind bloweth where it listeth," &c. I quoted it 
 while we were discussing the design of baptism, and since simply to 
 prove, that the new birth is, in some sense, mysterious. I was proving 
 the erroneousness of Mr. C.'s doctrine, by showing, that, according to the 
 Bible, there is a mystery connected with the new birth ; but according to 
 his views, there was no mystery about it. 
 
 How the Spirit operates on the heart in conversion and sanctification I 
 profess not to understand. And since Mr. C. cannot explain how Satan 
 exerts an influence on the human mind ; I am certainly not bound to ex- 
 plain how the Spirit operates in conversion. Indeed we cannot explain 
 the how of any one fact in nature. No wonder, then, if the agency of 
 the Spirit is mysterious. 
 
 The gentleman has made an attempt to answer some of my arguments, 
 I am gratified that he made the effort. I wish to see him march up to 
 the question boldly, and expose my arguments, if he can. I proved the 
 doctrine of the special influence of the Spirit by the fact, that God is said 
 to give repentance. Paul directs Timothy in meekness to " instruct those 
 that oppose themselves ; if God peradventure will give them repentance to 
 the acknowledging of the truth," 2 Tim. ii. 25. This argument the gen- 
 tleman attempts to answer by an illustration. Suppose, says he, certain 
 persons for a time deprived of the right of suffrage, and again having this 
 right restored ; he who restored the right, would be said to give them the 
 right of suffrage, but would not force them to exercise it. This is indeed 
 a most singular illustration. Did Paul say, instruct those who oppose 
 themselves, if peradventure God will give them the right, the privilege 
 to repent? Does Luke say, Christ is exalted a Prince and a Savior to 
 give men the right to repent ? Really I was not aware, that any human 
 being had ever been deprived of the right to repent ! Nor did I know, 
 that God had ever refused to look with compassion on the broken heart 
 and contrite spirit. Men have always had the right, and it has always 
 been their duty to repent. Consequently we find nothing in the Scrip- 
 tures about granting men the right, the privilege ! This is one of the 
 many absurdities into which the gentleman's erroneous doctrines forces 
 him. The language of inspiration is — " Then hath God also to the gen- 
 tiles granted repentance [not the right to repent] unto life," Acts xi. 18. 
 Instruct them " if peradventure God will grant them repentance to the 
 acknowledging of the truth." But to make these passages accord with 
 Mr. C.'s theology, we must allow 'him to introduce the word right or 
 privilege, before repentance ! Iflmaybe permitted thus to interpolate 
 or expunge words from the Bible, I can make it teach any thing, even the 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 739 
 
 greatest absurdity. But the Scriptures declare, that God does grant unto 
 men repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; repentance unto life — 
 that he does exert upon their minds a divine influence, leading them to 
 repent and turn from sin to God. 
 
 I proved the doctrine of a special divine influence also by Luke xxiv. 
 45 — " Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand 
 the Scriptures." The gentleman replied, that this passage is irrelevant, 
 because Christ, not the Holy Spirit, opened their understandings. Strange 
 reply ! Christ is represented as working many miracles, and he is said 
 to have wrought them by the Spirit of God, Matt. xii. 28. The Spirit is 
 said to be shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, Tit. iii. 5. It is 
 •by virtue of his atoning sacrifice and. intercession, that the Holy Spi- 
 rit is poured out upon the hearts of men. By his blessed Spirit, therefore, 
 he opened the understandings of his disciples, that they might understand 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 The gentleman makes a criticism on the difference between the phrases 
 — through the Word only, and only through the Word. I am not concerned 
 to answer it. I was not pleased, as he knows, with the proposition as it 
 is worded, because I believed it left room for quibbling ; and I would not 
 have consented to debate it, but with the distinct and express understand- 
 ing that I should interpret it by his publications on the subject. I have 
 proved that in his Christianity Restored, lie says, there are only two kinds 
 of power, moral and physical ; that only moral power can operate on the 
 the human mind ; and that all moral power is in words and arguments. 
 Let the gentleman either come out candidly and say, that he was in error 
 when he wrote the books from which I have quoted ; or come up to the 
 defence of his published doctrines. It does not look well for a man to 
 attempt to conceal the truth in this way. 
 
 He seems to regret the necessity that is laid upon him to speak of the 
 doctrine of infant damnation, as held by Presbyterians ! I am truly glad 
 that the subject has been brought up on this occasion ; for Mr. C. is the 
 very man to prove upon us this stale charge, if it can be proved. On 
 yesterday he professed to find it in our confession of faith. He now 
 acknowledges that it is not there ; but he says Calvin taught it. I deny 
 that Calvin ever taught it. If he did, I have failed to find it in his 
 writings. 
 
 Now what is the doctrine taught by Calvin in the passage quoted ? 
 Does he teach that infants are actually lost ? He does not. He contends 
 that in consequence of the fall of Adam, all his posterity, infants and 
 adults, are in a state of condemnation, and are exposed to the wrath of 
 God ; and that, had no remedy been provided, all must have perished. 
 He does not say that any infant actually perishes, but that all are exposed 
 to ruin in consequence of the fall, and must have perished had no reme- 
 dy been provided. The gentleman might have proved, with equal con- 
 clusiveness, that according to Calvin, all nations, adults as well as infants, 
 do actually perish forever; for he speaks not of infants only, but of both 
 adults and infants — of the whole race. 
 
 Is it true that the gentleman's reformation cannot sustain itself without 
 such caricatures and gross misrepresentations of the doctrines of others? 
 No man has more frequently complained of being misrepresented than Mr. 
 C, and no man living has done greater injustice to others, living and dead. 
 
 Calvin did not teach the doctrine he has charged upon him. a But he 
 quoter; Augustine as teaching it. Was Augustine a Presbyterian ? The 
 
740 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 gentleman is attempting to prove that the Presbyterian church holds the 
 doctrine of infant damnation, and, to establish the charge, he quotes Au- 
 gustine ! ! ! But he quotes Turretin too. Was Turretin a member of the 
 Presbyterian church ? But I will subscribe to the doctrine of Turretin, 
 He opposes the sentiments of those who say, that it would be unjust in 
 God to exclude infants from heaven — that he is bound in justice to save 
 them. He holds, not that infants are actually lost, but that their salva- 
 tion is of grace, not of justice. Zanchius was also quoted. Was he a 
 Presbyterian ? This author, in speaking of infants, uses the Latin word 
 damno ; but Mr. C. certainly knows that this word means simply to con- 
 demn. The doctrine of Zanchius, as that of Calvin and Turretin, seems 
 clearly to be, that all the human race, in consequence of the sin of Adam, 
 are involved in a common condemnation, from which they can be saved 
 only by the grace of God in Christ. 
 
 But this doctrine, as Mr. C. ought to know, is not peculiar to those 
 who are called Calvinists. It is taught with great clearness and force by 
 Rev. Richard Watson, in his Theological Institutes ; which, if I mistake 
 not, is regarded as a kind of text book by our Methodist brethren. He, 
 as well as Presbyterians, teaches, that in consequence of the sin of Adam, 
 the human race are all, old and young, justly exposed to the wrath of 
 God ; and that all who are saved, are saved by grace. The gentleman 
 has repeatedly boasted of his thorough acquaintance with Presbyterianism. 
 I will not charge him with willful misrepresentation of the doctrines of the 
 Presbyterian church ; but I will say, that you can scarcely find an old 
 Presbyterian lady, who does not know that our church never did teach or 
 hold the doctrine he has charged upon her. Charity, then, requires us to 
 suppose that his knowledge of Presbyterianism is very limited. He cer- 
 tainly is not half so well informed concerning these matters, as he pro- 
 fesses to be. 
 
 He attempted to prove, that the Spirit operates in conversion and sanc- 
 tification only through the truth, by the fact, that whatever the Spirit is 
 represented as doing, the Word is also said to do — that if the Spirit con- 
 verts men, the Word converts them. I replied, that by the same logic, I 
 could prove, that the Spirit operates only through human instrumentality; 
 because Paul was sent to convert the gentiles, and ministers of the gos- 
 pel are said to convert men. The argument, therefore, would prove as con- 
 clusively, that the Spirit never converted a person without human instru- 
 mentality — that he operates only through the living minister, as that he 
 never converts and sanctifies without the truth, or that he operates only 
 through the truth. But the gentleman seeks to escape from the difficulty 
 by saying, Paul was not sent to quicken men. Paul was to open their 
 eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Sa- 
 tan to God. Could this be done without their being quickened, or made 
 spiritually alive ? Paul said to the Corinthians — " In Christ Jesus I have 
 begotten you through the gospel;" 1 Cor. iv. 15. Can a person be be- 
 gotten, and not quickened ? There is no way in which he can escape. 
 His argument proves as conclusively, that the Spirit operates only 
 through human instrumentality, as that he operates only through the 
 truth. 
 
 I think it unnecessary to press the gentleman much further with the 
 absurdity of locating all depravity in man's animal nature. It is perfect- 
 ly certain, without argument, that anger, wrath, malice, hatred, are pas- 
 sions which belong to the mind ; that have no necessary connection with th« 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 741 
 
 body. The mind can hate as malignantly out of the body as in it. There 
 is no truth in his philosophy. It is profoundly -absurd. Nor is there 
 one word in the Bible to countenance it." 
 
 I see neither pertinency nor meaning in all the gentleman has said 
 about the word holy. On yesterday, he told us, strangely enough, that 
 it did not express moral quality. I did not choose, because it was 
 wholly unnecessary, to spend time disputing about a word. I, therefore, 
 quoted the passage — " God made man upright." The word upright 
 is admitted to express moral quality. If, then, God originally made man 
 upright, not by words and arguments, it follows, that he can do it again — 
 that his power over the human mind is not confined to mere motives. 
 But, says Mr. C, God did not make man upright without a ivord; but 
 he said, "Let us make man," <fcc. Were these words addressed to man? 
 Did they create him in whole or in part ? Did they exert even the slight- 
 est influence ? No — man was created in the image of God by an imme- 
 diate exertion of his omnipotent power. A word never created anything. 
 If, then, God did originally exert on man such a power, as made him 
 holy or upright, not by words ; who shall dare say, he cannot restore his 
 image to the soul, either through the Word or without it? The Word of 
 God is not able, of itself, to overcome the enmity of the human heart, and 
 to inspire it with supreme love to God. 
 
 I wish now to present the remaining arguments which I had purposed 
 to offer, and then to give a brief and condensed view of the ground over 
 which we have passed. I have said, that Mr. C.'s doctrine prescribes to 
 the power of God an unreasonable and unscriptural limitation ; and this 
 I have proved by the facts — that originally God created man holy, and 
 that he does exert a controling influence over his moral conduct, not 
 merely or chiefly by words and arguments. I will now prove, that God 
 can, and that he does exert on the human mind a converting and sanctify- 
 ing power, distinct from the Word, by the inspired accounts of the first 
 revivals. In the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we learn, 
 that on the day of Pentecost three thousand souls were converted. Men 
 who went to the temple in all their pride, unbelief, love of sin, and hatred 
 of the truth, were on that day converted, became penitent believers, were 
 filled with hatred of sin and love to God, and were added to the church. 
 This was a most remarkable event. The change wrought in their minds 
 was sudden. They went to the temple loving sin and haling the truth. 
 They left it hating sin and rejoicing in Christ. The change was radical 
 and thorough. The things they hated one hour before, they now su- 
 premely loved. They beheld in the Savior a beauty and a glory they 
 had never before discovered ; and in the plan of salvation they saw an 
 adaptation to their real condition and necessities which they had never 
 discovered. They trusted, loved, praised, and worshiped the Redeemer 
 of men. The change was permanent. From that hour to the hour of 
 their death they proved by their lives, that they were new creatures. 
 Through reproach and persecutions, even unto death, they held out faith- 
 fully. They counted not their lives dear. They suffered joyfully the 
 spoiling of their goods, knowing that through Christ they had the assur- 
 ance of a heavenly inheritance. 
 
 Now let me ask any reflecting man, how do you account for this sud- 
 den, radical, permanent change in the hearts and lives of those persons ? 
 Was it effected by the miracles they witnessed? Miracles, Mr. C. ad- 
 mits, cannot convert men. They can only arrest their attention, and con- 
 
742 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 vince them of the truth; but they cannot change the heart. The ques- 
 tion is, what caused these wicked men so suddenly and so ardently to 
 love the truth which they had hated ? What caused them to see in sin 
 an odiousness they had not before seen, and in holiness a beauty they 
 had never before perceived ? Why did they now find their highest hap- 
 piness in that service from which hitherto they had turned with aversion 
 and disgust? Was this astonishing revolution in their dispositions, 
 views and feelings, effected by Peter's arguments ? Many of them had 
 doubtless heard the preaching of Him who spake as never man spake ; 
 and they were not thus affected. Thousands had heard the gracious 
 words which constantly fell from his lips ; but no discourse of his ever 
 produced effects such as we are now contemplating. Besides, it is a fact, 
 proved by universal observation, that if the characters of bad men are 
 changed by arguments and motives, the change is very gradual. They 
 do not readily subdue passions long indulged, and attain to the possession 
 of opposite virtues. Such changes, even if ever effected merely by mo- 
 tives, are the work of months, if not of years. But the work we are- 
 now contemplating, was effected in a day, even in an hour ; for when 
 the Lord works, a moment is as good as a year. Suddenly the three 
 thousand had new hearts, new views, new feelings, new sorrows, new 
 joys. They were new creatures. Old things had passed away, and, 
 behold, all things were new ! 
 
 Here we learn why it was, that the apostle's preaching was attended 
 with so much greater success than that of the Savior. He wrought 
 stupendous miracles, and spake with an eloquence which no human orator 
 could ever rival ; but the Holy Spirit was not so abundantly poured out 
 before his ascension to heaven, as after. Can any one, not blinded by a 
 false theory, doubt, that on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit exerted 
 on the minds and hearts of the three thousand a power distinct from the 
 Word, and more efficacious ? 
 
 Another argument in favor of the doctrine of a special agency of the 
 Spirit, an argument which, as it appears to me, has great weight, is this : 
 The contrary doctrine leaves man in a hopeless condition. Heaven is a 
 holy place. An infinitely holy God reigns there; and holy angels bow 
 around his throne. God has taught us that nothing impure can enter into 
 the holy city; that none from earth but "the spirits of just men made 
 perfect" can approach his presence. Men are deeply depraved. Even 
 the most godly groan under indwelling corruption. Tell them, that they 
 must, by their own exertions, in view of the motives of the gospel, pre- 
 pare themselves to see God ; and they will be down and weep in despair. 
 A man is suddenly called to die, and to appear before his Judge. He 
 may be a pious man ; but he is conscious of being very imperfect. 
 What assurance can he have, that he is pure enough to be admitted to 
 stand in the presence of God ? What distressing apprehensions must 
 fill his mind, How gloomy must be his future prospects. But let him 
 hear the language of Paul : " Being confident of this very thing, that he 
 which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Je- 
 sus Christ," Phil. i. 6. Cheered by such a promise, the humble be- 
 liever, though conscious of great imperfection, feels his fears subside, and 
 his hopes rise. If God has undertaken the work, it will be well done. 
 He is assured, that Christ will present his happy spirit before his Father, 
 "without spot or wrinkle." He knows, he will soon behold his face in 
 righteousness. Never will I give up this soul-cheering doctrine, and 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 743 
 
 those great and precious promises founded upon it. Living and dying 
 I hope to experience their fulfillment. 
 
 This doctrine is the hope of our guilty and polluted race. God will 
 pour out his Spirit on all flesh. In answer to the prayers of the faithful, 
 it shall descend as showers on the thirsty earth, and shall cause the wil- 
 derness and the solitary place to be glad, and the desert to blossom as the 
 rose. 
 
 I must present one more argument. It is this : the great mass — the 
 overwhelming majority of the readers of the Bible, in all ages, have 
 understood it to teach the doctrine for which I am contending. This 
 fact cannot be denied. Now Mr. C. agrees with me, that on all impor- 
 tant points of faith and duty the Bible is a plain book, easily understood. 
 It was designed to be read and understood by the unlearned as well as 
 the wise. Ask all who have made that blessed book their study, how 
 they understand it on this subject; and with wonderful unanimity they 
 declare their firm belief, that it teaches, that in conversion and sanctifica- 
 tion, there is a divine and efficacious influence of the Spirit, distinct from 
 the Word. This influence, in connection with the cross of Christ, is the 
 ground of their hope. For it they pray, day and night; and in the 
 witness of the Spirit, that they are the children of God they rejoice. 
 
 If the doctrine of Mr. C. is indeed true, the fact I have just stated, is 
 most unaccountable. How shall we account for the fact, that the whole 
 christian world have misunderstood the Bible on this vital point? Is its 
 teaching plain ? and yet almost all have misunderstood it ! If Mr. C. so 
 thinks, he of all men should, in consistency, believe most firmly in the 
 doctrine of total depravity. How else can he account for the amazing 
 blindness of almost all the readers of the Bible ? Indeed I know not 
 whether we should more wonder at the blindness and stupidity of all 
 Christendom, or at the superior illumination of Mr. C. and those who 
 agree with him ! How it has happened that they, whilst denying all su- 
 pernatural illumination, have gained so much greater light than all others, 
 I cannot comprehend. 
 
 I trust the time will never come, when I shall feel myself constrained to 
 differ in regard to any fundamental doctrine of Christianity, from the over- 
 whelming majority of the wise and the good. Were I to entertain such 
 views, I should greatly suspect myself of being under some blinding in- 
 fluence. We need not, however, appeal to the views of even the wisest 
 and best. On this vital subject, the language of inspiration is clear and 
 full. It leaves no room to doubt that God has promised to save us, by 
 the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed upon 
 us abundantly through Jesus Christ. 
 
 I have now offered as many arguments as I designed to present on 
 this topic — not all that I could offer. It is not my plan to confuse your 
 minds by a great multiplicity of arguments, but to present a few that are 
 clear, striking, and conclusive. 
 
 I will now commence a brief review of the ground over which I have 
 traveled. What have been, the precise points in debate ? I have said, 
 that my opponent and myself agree, that the Holy Spirit dictated and 
 confirmed the Scriptures. We agree, also, that ordinarily the Spirit 
 operates, in some sense, through the Word. 
 
 Mr. C. contends, that the Spirit never operates without the truth. I 
 contend, that in the case of infants and idiots, he does. Mr. C. believes, 
 that in the conversion and sanctification of adults, the Spirit operates only 
 
744 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 through the truth — that he dictated and confirmed the Word, and the 
 Word converts and sanctifies. I maintain, that, in addition to the Word, 
 and distinct from it, there is an influence of the Spirit on the heart, with- 
 out which the Word would never convert and sanctify any human being. 
 
 Let me repeat a few explanations, that I may not be misunderstood, 
 I do not hold, that in regeneration, there is a change of the physical na- 
 ture of the mind, but a change of the dispositions and affections of the 
 heart. Nor do I hold that in regeneration any new revelation is made — 
 any new ideas given which are not taught in the Scriptures ; but such a 
 change of heart as enables the renewed soul to see the beauty and excel- 
 lency of the things there revealed. " Open mine eyes," prayed David, 
 " that I may read wonderful things out of thy law." 
 
 Again. The modus operandi, the manner in which the Spirit operates 
 on the heart, I do not profess to understand. The fact that he does oper- 
 ate, is clear ; the mode is mysterious. That God created man, is cer- 
 tain; how he created him is mysterious. How spirits communicate their 
 thoughts to each other, or to the mind of man, I do not comprehend. 
 We pry not into things beyond our comprehension. 
 
 The necessity of the special influence of the Spirit, I have said, does 
 not arise from any lack of evidence that the Scriptures are true ; for 
 the evidence is convincing and overwhelming. Nor does it arise from 
 any obscurity in the manner of presenting the truths taught in the Bible ; 
 for they are presented with remarkable simplicity and clearness. Nor 
 does it arise from the fact that men are not perfectly free agents ; for they 
 are. The necessity of the divine influence arises from the deep, the total 
 depravity of human nature; the aversion of the unsanctified heart to the 
 holy character of God, to his pure law, and his soul-humbling gospel. 
 " This is the condemnation," said our Savior, " that light is come into 
 the world .; and men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds 
 were evil." The Word of God alone cannot change their hearts, so that 
 they will hate darkness and love light — turn from sin and follow holiness. 
 
 The effects of this depravity are, that the affections of men are placed 
 on forbidden objects ; their minds are pre-occupied with worldly plans 
 and desires ; and they refuse to hear the Word ; or, hearing, they reject or 
 pervert its divine teachings and become infidels or heretics ; or, being 
 speculative believers, they live without Christ and without God in the 
 world. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 29 — 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's closing address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I have but thirty minutes to close the argument, un- 
 less I should be indulged with a few more. I am sorry to see Mr. Rice 
 so positive in his assertions and contradictions respecting the readings and 
 comments on Calvin. He has not given a correct translation of Calvin's 
 Latin, according to the copy now before me. I have read other trans- 
 lations of it, besides my own, and I have also read Calvin's own French 
 translation of the passage in dispute. I will read an interpretation of it 
 by Jeremiah Taylor : — 
 
 <c If we are guilty of Adam's sin by the decree of God, by his choice and 
 constitution that it should be so, as Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twiss (that I may 
 name no more for that side) do expressly teach, it follows that God is the 
 author of our sin, so that I may use Mr. Calvin's words — 'How is it that 
 so many nations with their children should be involved in the fall without 
 remedy, but because God would have it so ; and if that be the matter, then 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 745 
 
 to God, as the cause, must that sin and that condemnation be ascribed.' '• — - 
 Jere. Taylor's Works, Heb. ed. vol. ix. p. 322; quoted by the Christ. Ex- 
 aminer, Boston, 1828. 
 
 Now if the gentleman desires to contest the matter farther, I now in- 
 form him that I shall be forthcoming under the next question on creeds. 
 At present we must close this present argument, and reserve what we have 
 farther to say on the "horrible decree," till the next question, under 
 which it will be quite as suitable as here. I will sustain the ground 
 which I occupy by ample authority. 
 
 His allusions to repentance unto life and remission, are more for ap- 
 pearance than from any new ideas or new arguments. I have shewn 
 it to be not individual and personal, but commensurate with the Gentile 
 W orld — a rich and glorious tender to all the nations of the earth. A 
 matter alike unexpected by Jew or Gentile. The question stands as I left 
 it in my last address. 
 
 The letter from brother Thomson on the subject of prayer, read from 
 ihe Millenial Harbinger by Mr. Rice, was introduced for effect, and es- 
 pecially to hide his own retreat from the difficulty propounded to him on 
 that very same subject. Why did he not read my ansvyer to it? That 
 would have set the matter in its proper attitude before you. My time 
 will not allow me to read such disquisitions and comment on them. 
 They are not called for. There are few who can comprehend the reasons 
 of things. The best philosophy of prayer is, that God has granted the 
 privilege, enjoined the duty, and given a promise. We, therefore, vio- 
 late no decree, and sin against no revelation in praying for all men. I 
 believe, practice, and preach the necessity and propriety of praying for 
 the salvation of our children, families, friends, &c. as much as I believe, 
 preach, or practice any point of domestic and social duties and privileges. 
 If I were to follow Mr. Rice into all these digressions into my writings, 
 we should have scores of questions in discussion. 
 
 He says there is a certain power displayed in conversion, and so say I. 
 And does it not come with as good a grace from me as from him ? But 
 he says he goes for a power beyond the naked Word, and that, too, an 
 accompanying power. Well, the word accompanying explains not the 
 nature of that power, and for that I have asked more than once, but I have 
 asked in vain. He can neither expound what the " accompanying pow- 
 er" is, or can be, nor how it operates ; and, therefore, whether or not we 
 agree, I could not say. I believe the Spirit accompanies the Word, is al- 
 ways present with the Word, and actually and personally works through 
 it upon the moral nature of man, but not without it. 1 presume not to 
 speculate upon the nature of this power, nor the mode of operation. I 
 believe the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts the love of God, and 
 dwells in all the faithful; that it sanctifies them through the truth; that 
 " it works in them to will and do," and that it comforts them in all their 
 afflictions. 
 
 But the Spirit of God does not thus enter into the wicked. When it 
 fell from heaven on Pentecost, it fell only on the one hundred and 
 twenty, and not upon the promiscuous assembly. For the multitude, af- 
 ter the Spirit's descent, did still upbraid the disciples with drunkenness. 
 Those who first received it that day, preached by it to the audience. The 
 thousands who heard, were pierced to the heart, and yet had not received 
 the Spirit. They believed, and were in an agony of fear and terror, but yet 
 had not received the Spirit. They asked what they should do, and yet 
 
 3R 
 
746 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 had not received it. Peter commanded them to " Repent and be baptized, 
 every one of you, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift 
 of the Holy Spirit." Of course, then, they had not yet received that gift. 
 They, however, gladly received his word, and were baptized. We have, 
 then, the first three thousand converts regenerated by gladly receiving the 
 Word and baptism. This is a strong fact for the first one in my four- 
 teenth argument. 
 
 The second fact of conversion is found, Acts iv., and the question is, 
 how were they regenerated ? We shall read the passage. " Now that 
 many of them which heard the Word believed, and the number of the 
 men was about Jive thousand.'''' We are now morally certain that these 
 five thousand were converted by the Spirit only through the Word. W^e 
 have already eight thousand examples of our allegation, and not one in- 
 stance of one converted without the Word. 
 
 Our third exemplification is found, Acts v. 14: "And believers were 
 the more added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women." Wo- 
 men are here mentioned as well as men. We have, then, got multitudes 
 of both sexes to add, in proof that the Spirit converted these, not without 
 the Word, but by what they saw and heard. 
 
 We shall find a fourth example, Acts viii. 5, 6, 12. Philip went to 
 Samaria and preached Christ to them. "And when they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, they were baptized, both men and women." So the Sa- 
 maritans were regenerated by the Holy Spirit through faith in the Word, 
 which Philip preached. 
 
 A fifth example is found in the eunuch. "If thou believest with all 
 thy heart, thou mayest." He said : " I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
 Son of God." Then he, too, was born of the water, and converted, not 
 without the Word. 
 
 Paul furnishes a sixth case. When he had fallen to the ground, he 
 heard "a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why persecuteth thou me — 
 I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." His case is certainly one of in- 
 disputable certainty. He both saw, heard, and believed, and was bap- 
 tized. 
 
 Eneas furnishes a seventh case. And Peter said to him, " Eneas, Je- 
 sus Christ maketh thee whole — arise and make thy bed." 
 
 The citizens of Lydda and Saron furnish the eigth case. Of them we 
 read — "All that dwelt in Lydda and Saron saw Eneas" made whole by 
 Peter, and they " turned to the Lord." The people of Lydda and Sa- 
 ron were converted by what they saw and heard. Conversion here, too, 
 was not by the Spirit alone. 
 
 The inhabitants of Joppa furnish the ninth case. On Peter's visit, and 
 the revival of Dorcas, through his preaching, many believed in the Lord. 
 So that Peter tarried there many days. 
 
 Cornelius and his friends, furnish the tenth case. That is so noto- 
 rious, it needs only to be named. Peter told the words of salvation, and 
 the Spirit miraculously sustained him. So that he, also, and his friends, 
 were regenerated, through both the Word and the Spirit. 
 
 The Antiochans constitute the eleventh case. Common preachers, ex- 
 iles from Jerusalem, came to Antioch, Phenice and Cypress. The hand 
 of the Lord was with them. They spake unto the Grecians, preaching 
 the Lord Jesus, and a great number believed and turned unto the Lord. 
 See also Acts xiii. 43 — 48. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 747 
 
 Sergius Paulus, deputy governor of Paphos, gives us the twelfth case. 
 When he saw Paul strike Elymas, the sorcerer, blind ; and heard Paul 
 preach, he believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord. 
 
 Lydia constitutes the thirteenth case. Lydia, a pious lady, a wor- 
 shiper of God, whose heart the Lord had formerly touched, attended to 
 Paul's preaching, believed, and was baptized. 
 
 The Philippian jailor heard Paul; he and all his house believed in God, 
 and were filled with joy. This is the fourteenth special case. 
 
 Dionysius, the Areopagite of Athens, Lady Damaris and others with 
 them, heard Paul, believed, and clave unto him and the Lord. These 
 noble Athenians constitute the fifteenth case. 
 
 Crispus, the chief ruler of the Corinthian synagogue, and all his family, 
 hearing Paul, believed on the Lord. This is the sixteenth case. 
 
 The Corinthians constitute the seventeenth example. Many of the 
 Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized. The whole story is 
 here beautifully told in the three words, "hearing, believing, and being 
 baptized." 
 
 The Ephesians constitute the eighteenth case. Many of them hearing 
 Paul, believed, came and confessed their deeds, burned fifty thousand 
 pieces of silver worth of books ; " so mightily grew the word of the 
 Lord, and prevailed." 
 
 To these I may add the cripple at Lystra, as a nineteenth case; the peo- 
 ple of Iconium as a twentieth — " To whom Paul so spake, that a multi- 
 tude believed ;" and as the twenty-first example, the noble Bereans, 
 " who searched the Scriptures daily, therefore many of them believed." 
 Here are twenty-one clear and distinct cases recorded in one book, con- 
 taining, in all, probably not less than from thirty to fifty thousand per- 
 sons ; in every one of which they heard, believed, and were baptized. 
 So that, as far as sacred history goes, the Spirit of God never did operate 
 in conversion without the Word. 
 
 Now I ask Mr. Rice to bring forward one single case of any one be- 
 ing converted to the Lord without the Word being first heard and believ- 
 ed ! If the salvation of the world depended on it, he could not give it. 
 It is, then, so far as the New Testament deposeth, idle, and worse than 
 idle, to talk about sanctification or conversion, without the Word and 
 Spirit of God. They are always united in the great work. No one is 
 converted by the Word alone, nor by the Spirit alone. 
 
 Having then surveyed the premises, and heard the arguments and ob- 
 jections from the other side, I proceed, with great haste, to place in a 
 miniature view the whole argument before you. I. The first of this 
 series of thirteen arguments was drawn from the constitution of the hu- 
 man mind, intellectual and moral. It was shown that the human mind, 
 like the human body, has a specific constitution, which is never to be 
 violated. In no instance does God, in the government of the universe, 
 violate the laws and constitution which he has given, in effecting the or- 
 dinary objects of his providence, moral government, or in the scheme of 
 redemption. He always addresses himself to man in harmony with his 
 constitution : first addessing his understanding, then his conscience, then 
 his affections. Miracles only excepted, he has never violated the powers 
 given to man. He gives no new powers, annihilates no old powers, but 
 takes the human constitution as he made it; and by enlightening the under- 
 standing, and renewing the heart by the gospel, effects, through his Holy 
 Spirit, that grand moral change which constitutes a new moral creation. 
 
748 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 II. Our second argument was deduced from the fact, that from the 
 earliest antiquity till now, there never has been found a human being in 
 any country or age, possessed of one spiritual idea, impression, or feel- 
 ing, where some portion of the Word or revelation of God had not been 
 spoken to him, or read by him. So that it appears, in fact, indisputable, 
 that the Spirit of God rather follows, and in no case precedes, the pro- 
 gress or arrival of his Word. We have the history of man, in the four 
 quarters of the world, in attestation of this most significant and momen- 
 tous fact. 
 
 III. By an induction of many cases of personal experience, from ob- 
 servation, and, I may add, by a general concession, it appears, that 
 amongst christians the most gifted and enlightened, not one idea can be 
 suggested from the most gifted, the most eminently illuminated with spi- 
 ritual light and intelligence — not one idea can be expressed, not taken from 
 the Holy Scriptures. Not one thought, idea, or impression, truly spiri- 
 tual, can be heard from any man in Christendom, not borrowed from that 
 Holy Book, directly or indirectly. These two matter-of-fact arguments, 
 on almost any other subject, would be deemed all-sufficient. 
 
 IV. My fourth argument consisted in the avowal and development of 
 that great law of mind, and of all organic existences, animal or vegetable, 
 viz. that whatever is essential to the production of any specific result, is 
 necessary in all cases. Whatever is essential to the production of any 
 one effect, or offspring, vegetable or animal ; any one result, intellectual 
 or moral, is always and invariably necessary to the consummation of the 
 same results. Therefore whatever is essential to the conversion of one 
 individual, is essential to the conversion of every other individual. It 
 need not be urged that the same order and arrangement of things is neces- 
 sary, because that is not implied as always essential ; but so much of or- 
 der, arrangement, and circumstances, as are essential to the production 
 of one ear of corn, are uniformly and invariably necessary. Just so in 
 the new birth. When called to assert and maintain any fact, we are not 
 obliged to explain the whole nature, reasons, and contingencies thereof — 
 I am only obliged to establish the fact itself. Natural birth is always the 
 same thing. So is the spiritual. Baptism is always the same thing. 
 Mr. Rice, without knowing it or designing it, was constrained to come to 
 this result. While, in fact, seeking to oppose it, he came to the very 
 same conclusion. He first argued for infant regeneration without faith ; 
 he then sought to have believers regenerated in some way different, but 
 ultimately he asserted that regeneration was also before faith in adults, 
 and thus, by the force of the universal law, he came to my grand conclu- 
 sion, that whatever is necessary to the new birth, or regeneration, in one 
 case, is necessary in all other cases. And so that point is decided. 
 
 V. My fifth argument is deduced from the name, Advocate, given to 
 the Holy Spirit by the Messiah, as his official designation, in conduct- 
 ing the work of conversion, convincing the world of sin, righteousness, 
 and judgment. He was, then, to use words in pleading this cause : 
 hence it is a moral argument, and a change effected by motives. 
 
 VI. My sixth argument is drawn from the commission given to this 
 Advocate in pleading his cause. He was to convince the world of sin. 
 righteousness, and judgment, by certain means. The Messiah prescribes 
 the topics. He furnishes the arguments, and states them to the disciples 
 in advance. The first topic is— -" because they believe not in me;" the 
 second — " because I go to my Father, and you see me no more;" the 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 74« 
 
 third is — " because the Prince of the world is cast out." In this way, 
 then, the work was to be conducted, and it has been conducted. And so 
 proceeded the apostles through their whole ministry. All useful and suc- 
 cessful pleaders, in all ages, have been obliged to adopt this course. And 
 while the human constitution remains as it now is, the same course must 
 be essentially and substantially pursued. 
 
 VII. My seventh argument is founded on that most significant and 
 sublime fact, that the first gift the Spirit of God bestowed on the apostles 
 was the gift of tongues. What could have been more apposite to teach, 
 that the Spirit of God was to operate through the Word, than, as prefatory 
 to the work, first of all giving to its pleaders the gift of tongues ? that by 
 the machinery of words, he might accomplish his glorious work of regen- 
 erating the world. These seven arguments I distinctly stated in my first 
 address on this subject. To some of these there was no reply whatever 
 made. To none of them was a direct and formal refutation attempted. 
 I regard them as I did at first, not only as unassailed but unassailabb. 
 
 VIII. My eighth argument was composed of the direct and explicit testi- 
 mony of the apostles, affirming regeneration and conversion through the 
 Word of God, as the seed or principle of the new life. The instrumen- 
 tality of the Word was asserted by James as the will or ordinance of God. 
 We had the united testimony of two apostles directly and positively 
 affirming the very issue in our proposition. James affirming, that of his 
 own will begat he us by, not without, the Word of Truth. And Peter 
 saying, " We are born again," or according to McKnight, " We are re- 
 generated, or having regenerated us, not by corruptible, but through," 
 not without, " the incorruptible seed of the Word of God, which liveth 
 and abideth forever." Here is as clear an indication of the instrumental- 
 ity of the Word as can be expressed in human language. To explain 
 these passages away is impossible, and you see how my opponent has 
 evaded them. Paul, also, in various forms of speech, gives us similar 
 views Of the instrumentality of the Word. He told the Corinthians that 
 he himself had " begotten them through the gospel." Thus making the 
 gospel the indispensable instrument of regeneration. Peter, indeed, assert- 
 ed before all the apostles in the convention at Jerusalem, that God purifies 
 the heart by faith. But it was reserved to these latter times to assume 
 and teach, that God purifies the heart without faith, before faith, and inde- 
 pendent of the Word of God. 
 
 IX. I elicited a ninth argument from the commission given to the Mes- 
 siah, as reported in Isaiah, and from the commission given to Paul from 
 the Messiah in person, with respect to the conversion of the gentiles. 
 This commission is reported by Paul himself in his speech before king 
 Agrippa, Acts xxvi. These commissions show the arrangement of means 
 in reference to conversion, remission and sanctification, in the Divine 
 mind, purpose and plan. Illumination through the gospel is always first 
 The apostle was sent to "open the eyes" of the nations. He was "to 
 turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, 
 in order to their forgiveness and participation of an inheritance amongst 
 those sanctified through faith." 
 
 X. My tenth argument consisted of those scriptures which show that 
 whatever is ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation, is also 
 ascribed to the Word; and that what is ascribed to the Word, is also 
 ascribed to the Spirit. The gentleman has not found a single exception 
 to it. Are persons said to be enlightened, quickened, converted, sanctified, 
 
 3r2 
 
750 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 regenerated, comforted, &c, by the Word? they are also in some other 
 scriptures said to be so by the Spirit ; and vice versa. This agent and 
 instrument were so inseparably connected in the minds of the apostles 
 and prophets, that they could not conceive of the one without the other, 
 in any operation or effect connected with the salvation of man. 
 
 XL My eleventh argument was deduced from the fact, that those who 
 resisted the Word of God, or the persons that spoke it, are said to resist 
 the Spirit of God. By not giving ear to the prophets that spoke by the 
 Spirit, they resisted the Spirit. The Sanhedrim of the Jews, who re- 
 sisted the words spoken by Stephen and by the twelve apostles, are rep- 
 resented by him as resisting the Holy Spirit. His words are — " As your 
 fathers did, so do you always resist the Holy Spirit. Which of the pro- 
 phets have not your fathers persecuted 1 and they have slain them that 
 showed before the coming of the just one, of whom you have now been 
 the betrayers and murderers." 
 
 XII. A twelfth argument was deduced from another important fact: 
 that the strivings of the prophets by their words, are represented as the 
 strivings of the Holy Spirit. Thus spoke Nehemiah, ** thou sendest thy 
 good Spirit to instruct them," through Moses, " and thou testifiedst 
 against them by thy Spirit, in thy prophets, yet would they not give 
 ear." Thus, in the Divine Word, the Spirit and the Word of God, and 
 those-who spoke it by the immediate authority of God, are so perfectly 
 identified, that every thing that is said to be done by, to, for, or against 
 the one is said to be done to, by, for, or against the other. So that we 
 may still say, that those who hear not Moses nor the prophets, would not 
 be persuaded, though one rose from the dead ! God still strives with 
 men by his Spirit, and they still resist his Spirit, in and through the 
 Word spoken by prophets and apostles. " Let every one hear what 
 the Spirit saith to the churches" 
 
 XIII. My thirteenth argument consists in that most sublime and im- 
 pressive fact, that God no where has operated without his Word, either 
 in the old creation or in the new. In nature and in grace, God operates 
 not without his Word. He never has wrought without means. He 
 has, so far as earth's annals reach, and as the rolls of eternity have been 
 opened to our view, never done any thing without an instrumentality. 
 The naked Spirit of God never has operated upon the naked spirit of 
 man, so far as all science, all revelation teach. Abstract spiritual opera- 
 tions is a pure metaphysical dream. There is nothing to favor such a 
 conceit in nature, providence or grace. God broke the awful stillness of 
 eternity with his own creative voice. He spoke, before any thing icas 
 done. Speech, or language, or a word, is the original and sublime in- 
 strumentality of all divine operations. God said, Let there be light, 
 and light was born. Does not the Bible say, " By faith we understand 
 that the worlds were framed by the Word of God" so that the things 
 that were made, were not made of things that did formerly exist. They 
 were made out of the Word of God. All things having been created by 
 the Word of God. Most evident it is, that his Word is the all creative 
 instrument. Without it was not any thing made that now exists. Of 
 course, then, if persons were to be created anew in Christ Jesus, without 
 the Word of God, it would be a perfect anomaly, something wholly new 
 in the history of the universe. If God operated upon absolute nonentity, 
 and then upon inert matter, by his Word, and if his Spirit thus brooded 
 on old chaos, what tongue of man can prove that in the new creation, he 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 751 
 
 regenerates, renews, re-creates and sanctifies man without his Word ! ! It 
 never can be done, Mr. President. It is not only out of the power of 
 Mr. Rice, but every other living man to show, that God moves at all in 
 the affairs of redemption, but through his ¥/ord. God's Spirit and Word 
 operated conjointly on ancient chaos, and they still operate together on 
 the chaos of the human heart in its sins. Read Psalm xxix. 3 — 9 ; 
 Psalm xxxiii. 6 — 9. So my fourteenth argument details. 
 
 I am sorry that my time is always too short for the full development 
 of the great elements of things, and mighty evidences of truth found in 
 these propositions. I have arranged, however, such amount of facts and 
 evidences as, I humbly think, never can be set aside by the ingenuity of 
 mortal man. I am willing to commit these fourteen arguments to the 
 world, fearless of the consequences. I think the case is a clear one, and 
 one upon which we may say we have line upon line, and precept upon 
 precept. We have certainly the law and the prophets. 
 
 In conclusion, then, I must say, that we have been much reproached 
 and slandered on this theme. It is not from any aversion to preaching 
 the Holy Spirit, (for we do efficaciously preach it,) that I have been con- 
 strained to take this ground, so offensive to some, and which has been 
 made, in many instances, to retard the great and growing cause of reform- 
 ation which we plead. I believe and teach the inspiration of the Spirit, 
 the influences and effects of the Spirit of God in the hearts of all chris- 
 tians, men and women. The man who represents me as opposed to a 
 spiritual religion and to the operations, converting and sanctifying, of the 
 Holy Spirit, does me the highest injustice, and blasphemes my good 
 name in a way he must answer for to a higher tribunal. I have been 
 long endeavoring to draw the proper lines between a wild enthusiasm and 
 the true Spirit of our God — between what is spiritual and animal in some 
 of the present forms of Christianity ; and to save my contemporaries from 
 a religion of blind impulses, animal excitements, and new revelations, by 
 which I most sincerely believe vast multitudes are deluded to everlasting 
 ruin. With Paul, and with me, there is but one body and but one Spirit, 
 as there is but one hope of our calling — as there is but one God and 
 Father of us all. — [Time expired. 
 
 Wednesday, Nov. 29 — l£ o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's closing reply.^J 
 
 Mr. President — I see not what advantage the gentleman expects to 
 gain by attempting to blacken the character of Calvin — a man who was 
 a blessing to the world, and who has long since gone to his rest. He 
 says, I have not a correct translation of Calvin's Institutes. I have one 
 of the very best that has been made. But there are present in this large 
 audience many scholars, who understand the Latin language. I was 
 waiting to hear him read to us the original. He certainly cannot expect 
 us to take his bare assertion in matters of this kind. 
 
 He emphasized the expression horrible decree. Yet I presume, he 
 knows perfectly well, that the Latin word horribilis is not precisely sy- 
 nonymous with the English word horrible, derived from it. Calvin used 
 it in the sense of awful. But, as I have already remarked, if Mr. C.'s 
 interpretation of Calvin were correct, it would prove, not that he held 
 that some infants are lost, but that all nations, infants and adults, believers 
 and unbelievers, perish without remedy ; for he includes them all ! Yet 
 every one knows, that he held no such doctrine. I will read from Calvin 
 
752 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 one passage which may throw some light on this subject. It is m the 
 chapter on baptism. 
 
 " The mischievous consequences of that ill-stated notion, that baptism is 
 necessary to salvation, are overlooked by persons in general, and therefore 
 they are less cautious; for the reception of an opinion, that all v. 
 to die without baptism are lost, makes our condition worse than that of the 
 ancient people, as though the grace of God were more restricted now than 
 it was under the law; it leads to the conclusion, that Christ came not to 
 fulfill the promises, but to abolish them : since the pro:..:;; which, at that 
 time, was of itself sufficiently efficacious to insure salvation before the 
 eighth day, would have no validity now without the assistance of the roon." 
 — book iv. chap. xv. sec. 20. 
 
 Calvin here contends, that it is unnecessary for lav-men to baptize a 
 child that is likely to die; because its salvation is secure « hfaoiil baptism. 
 He never taught the doctrine the gentleman has change I upon him. The 
 charge has been often made, but, I believe, never prove:;, Id any passage 
 can be found in his works dial does teach the doctrine, I wish Id see it 
 produced. 
 
 Mr. C. still vainly strives to evade the force of the argument for a spe- 
 cial divine influence, founded on the fact, thai G : 1 is - .■:.'.. giant cr jive 
 repentance. He says. God granted repentance, not It lals, bnl :o 
 
 the whole gentile world! The Bible does not say bo. Peter had related 
 to his brethren at Jerusalem the conversion of the family of Cornelius, a 
 single gentile family. When Ihey heard the history of mis interesting 
 event, "they glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the gentiles 
 granted repentance unto life;" Acts xi. IS. Did Ihey say, G i hath 
 granted to the gentiles the privilege of repenting ? Had they not always 
 this privilege? Was it ever refused to them ? Was it not always their 
 dut^ to repent ? But the language of Paul to Timothy places the matter 
 beyond cavil or objection — " In meekness instructing those thai oppose 
 themselves; if God peradventnre aril] give ihem repentance .: the ac- 
 knowledging of the truth:" 2 Tim. ii. 25. The gentleman says. God 
 had given repentance to the whole gentile world; but Paul directs Tim- 
 othy in meekness to instruct a certain class of wicked persons, if perad- 
 ventnre God will grant them repentance; sd that they will acknowledge 
 the truth. It is worse than vain to attempt id destroy the force of lan- 
 guage so perfectly clear. 
 
 One of my most conclusive arguments against Mr. C.'s doctrine, is — 
 that it makes prayer for unconverted persons, as well as for the sanotin- 
 cation of believers, both unavailing and improper. To prove thai this 
 insurmountable difficulty had occurred to his own friends, as well a£ to me, 
 I read a letter from a member of his coo::::, published in the Harbinger. 
 How does he answer it ■ Why, he says. I ought to have read his an- 
 swer to the letter. It would have required Tather more time than I have 
 to spare ; for of all men he exre'.s in going round and round a difficulty 
 which he feels himself incapable of meeting. Besides, it is my easiness 
 to present arguments against his doctrine, and his to answer them. But 
 he would have you believe, that when I present an argument against his 
 views, I am bound, if he have written anything on the subject, to read 
 his answer ! I ! This is truly a singular demand. 
 
 I repeat the argument. If his doctrine be true, there is absolutely ne 
 propriety in praying. Why should we, and how can we, pray for bless- 
 ings, which we verily believe. God will never gran: ! He says, he prays 
 for the conversion of sinners. When he enters the pulpit, he stands be- 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 753 
 
 £ 0T fiae congregation, and prays that God will convert the unbelieving 
 
 portion of it; and then he opens the Bible, and tells them, that God will 
 
 Wt convert them — that the Spirit has dictated and confirmed the Word, 
 
 anc 1 they must be converted and sanctified by it, or be lost ! ! ! If his 
 
 doctrine be true, what are his prayers worth ? But he says, he prays for 
 
 the conversion of sinners. It is a happy thing when, as it sometimes 
 
 lappens, a man's heart keeps in the path of duty, when his head would 
 
 . 7 ead him from it. The better feelings of the heart do not always yield 
 
 to the frigid speculations of the head. I am happy to hear, that he still 
 
 prays that God would convert sinners, even though he tells them he will 
 
 not do it ! 
 
 I wish now to notice the list of some eight arguments, on which the 
 gentleman has principally relied, to prove that the Spirit operates only 
 through the truth. 
 
 1. The first was from the nature of the human mind — an argument 
 purely metaphysical. But that God can, and does, exert a moral influ- 
 ence on the mind, distinct from words and arguments, was proved by the 
 facts, that he created man upright, and that in protecting his church and 
 people, the Bible teaches us, that he has exerted a controling influence 
 over the moral conduct of wicked men, not by words and arguments. 
 
 2. His second argument was, that there are no spiritual ideas where the 
 Word of God is not possessed. This assertion he cannot prove. I have 
 no objection, however, to admitting it ; for the design of regeneration is 
 not to make a new revelation, but to change the heart, and cause the sin- 
 ner to understand and embrace the truths of the Bible. This argument, 
 therefore, is worthless. It bears not upon the doctrine for which I con- 
 tend. 
 
 3. Again, he argues, that whatever is necessary to regeneration in one 
 case, is necessary in all cases ; and, consequently, if the Word be neces- 
 sary at all, regeneration cannot occur without it, in any case. But the 
 Bible says no such thing. God has never said, that he will employ the 
 same instrumentality in all cases. Sometimes, as I have proved, the liv- 
 ing ministry is employed in converting men ; and, at other times, it is not. 
 This bold assertion, therefore, is without proof, and is contrary to fact. 
 
 4. His next argument is, that the Holy Spirit is called an Advocate, 
 But does this name prove, that the Spirit, in converting and sanctifying 
 men, employs no other influence, than that of words and arguments ? 
 Most certainly it does not. 
 
 5. On the day of Pentecost, he tells us, the first miraculous gift was 
 that of tongues or languages ; and the Spirit did employ words. Does 
 the fact, that God ordinarily employs the instrumentality of the truth in 
 converting men, prove that he always employs it — or, that he does not 
 exert any other influence on their minds? Certainly it does not. These 
 assertions, founded on such facts, are not worth a straw. The premises 
 and the conclusion are the poles apart. 
 
 6. His next argument is, that believers are said to have been begotten 
 by the Word. But God is said to beget them. So then, God is the agent, 
 and the Word the instrument. Does this prove, that he exerts no other 
 influence but that of the Word ? The conclusion follows not from the pre- 
 mises. The expression, " purifying their hearts by faith," it would not 
 be difficult to prove, militates not against the doctrine of special divine in- 
 fluence. 
 
 7. Naked Spirit, he asserts, never operates on naked spirit. This is 
 
 48 
 
754 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 mere assertion. How can the gentleman prove it true ? Doeshe :n ow 
 how one spirit influences another? Can he inform us how Satai ca n 
 tempt men ? Does he understand it ? What are such unproved assertions 
 worth ? . . 
 
 But he says, he does not pretend to know how the Spirit operates. He 
 has tried to tell us both how he can, and how he cannot operate. I vill 
 not misrepresent him. I will, therefore, keep his language before your 
 minds. Let me once more read from his Christianity Restored, (p. 350): 
 
 " But to return. As the spirit of man puts forth all its moral power, in 
 the words which it Jills with its ideas ; so the Spirit of God puts forth all its 
 converting and sanctifying' power, in the words which it Jills with its ideas,, 
 Miracles cannot convert. They can only obtain a favorable hearing of the 
 converting arguments. If they fail to obtain a favorable hearing, the argu- 
 ments which they prove are impotent as an unknown tongue. If the Spirit 
 of God has spoken all its arguments ; or, if the New and Old Testament 
 contain all the arguments which can be offered to reconcile man to God, 
 and to purify them who are reconciled ; then all the power of the Holy Spirit 
 which can operate upon the human mind is spent, and he that is not sanc- 
 tified and saved by these, cannot be saved by angels or spirits, human or 
 divine." 
 
 The gentleman could not have employed language more clear and defi- 
 nite. He puts the Holy Spirit, in regard to conversion and sanctification, 
 on a perfect equality with man, except so far as he may present more 
 powerful motives than man. In the most definite terms, he denies any 
 influence of the Spirit, other than that of his words and arguments. I 
 hold, that the Word is ordinarily used, but not always ; and that when it 
 is used, there is also an influence of the Spirit distinct from it, renewing 
 the heart, and inclining the sinner to receive the truth in the love of it. 
 
 In reply to my argument from the conversions on the day of Pentecost, 
 Mr. C. says, those persons were converted, not without the Word. But 
 did he prove that the three thousand were converted simply by the Word ? 
 He did not, and he cannot. The apostles gave themselves not only to 
 preaching, but to prayer, Acts vi. 4. Why did they pray ? Because 
 they knew that the Word alone could not convert men. They therefore 
 prayed for the efficacious influences of the Holy Spirit. The very fact, 
 that they connected prayer with preaching, proves conclusively that they 
 believed the special and immediate agency of the Spirit necessary. The 
 argument is conclusive. 
 
 But suppose I should admit, that the Spirit operates on adults, only 
 through the truth ; would it follow, that the same is true of infants ? I 
 can easily prove, that adults are saved by faith, never without it ; but does 
 it follow that infants must believe, or be damned ? According to the gen- 
 tleman's logic it would ; for he contends, that whatever is essential in one 
 case, is essential in all cases. Neither reason nor Scripture will permit 
 us to assume the principle, that what is said of adults is applicable to in- 
 fants. Mr. C. denies that infants are regenerated by the Spirit. So he 
 leaves them to die in sin and be lost. 
 
 I will now resume the recapitulation of my argument. The necessity 
 of the agency of the Spirit on the hearts of men, I have said, arises sim- 
 ply from their deep depravity. I have proved by a large number of pas- 
 sages of Scripture, that man by nature is destitute of holiness, and in- 
 clined only to sin ; that he is born of the flesh and is carnal ; that his 
 thoughts are evil from his youth ; that he is conceived in sin, and goes 
 astray from his very birth ; that his heart is deceitful above all things and 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 755 
 
 desperately wicked, &c. &c. I have also stated and proved the fact, that 
 whatever is truly good in any man, is in the Scriptures ascribed to a 
 radical change wrought in his heart by God. This most important fact, 
 Mr. C. has not denied. Man being thus totally depraved, estranged from 
 God, I have proved, that he never will, and never can love God, until he 
 shall have experienced a radical moral renovation — a change which can- 
 not be effected simply by the Word of God. 
 
 I have offered several arguments against the doctrine taught by Mr. C, 
 and in favor of the doctrine of a special divine influence in conversion 
 and sanctificatiom 
 
 I. My first argument against his doctrine was — that it prescribes to the 
 power of God over the human mind, an unreasonable and unscriptural 
 limitation. This I proved by two plain facts, viz : 1st. God made man 
 holy, upright, without words or arguments. In what manner he did it, 
 we know not ; but most certainly the fact that such a power was exerted, 
 proves that God can sanctify the soul either through the truth, or without 
 it. 2d. I proved by several passages of Scripture, that he claims and 
 has exercised a controling influence over the moral conduct of men by an 
 influence more powerful than mere motives. And if he can consistently 
 control their moral feelings and conduct at all, without argument and mo- 
 tive ; can he not exert such an influence asw ill lead them to Christ ? To 
 this argument Mr. C, has attempted no reply. 
 
 II. My second argument was — that the doctrine of Mr. C. necessarily 
 involves the damnation of infants and idiots. He admits that they are 
 depraved, that they " inherit a sinful nature," that they are " greatly 
 fallen and depraved in their whole moral constitution." This being true, 
 one of three consequences must follow, viz : 1st. they go to hell ; or, 2d. 
 they go to heaven in their depravity ; or, 3rd. they are sanctified by the 
 Spirit, without the Word. He will not say, they go to hell ; nor will he 
 pretend that they go to heaven in their depravity. The conclusion is, 
 therefore, inevitable, that they are sanctified by the Spirit without the 
 Word, This is our doctrine ; and it is the doctrine of the Bible. Our 
 Savior taught that all must be born again, because " that which is born 
 of the flesh is flesh" — is carnal; and therefore it must be born of the 
 Spirit. You have seen how the gentleman writhed under this argument, 
 and to what absurdities and contradictions he has been driven to evade its 
 force. I leave you, my friends, to determine whether it is more accord- 
 ant with reason and Scripture, that infants should be sanctified by the 
 Spirit without the truth, or that they should be for ever lost. 
 
 III. My third argument was — that the doctrine of Mr. C. contradicts the 
 teaching of the Scriptures, concerning the depravity of man. They teach 
 that men sin knowingly, willfully and deliberately ; that their hearts are 
 fully set in them to do evil. According to his doctrine, they sin only 
 through mistake or error ; and all that is necessary to convert them, is to 
 give them correct information. To this argument he has not even at- 
 tempted to reply. He has said not one word concerning it — not a word. 
 
 IV. My fourth argument was, that a large number of passages of Scrip- 
 ture directly and most clearly teach, that in conversion and sanctification, 
 the Spirit of God exerts an influence powerful and efficacious, in addition 
 to the Word, and distinct from it. " I will give them one heart and one 
 way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them and their child- 
 ren after them," Jer. xxxii. 39. Does this language mean that God would 
 reason with them ? No. The time was coming, when he would take the 
 
756 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 work into his own hands ; and then his people would have one heart and 
 one way. Again, " I will pour out water upon him that is thirsty, and 
 floods upon the dry ground : I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my 
 blessing upon thine offspring ; and they shall spring up as among the 
 grass, as willows by the water-courses," Isaiah xliv. 3. Such are the 
 blessed results, when the Spirit of God moves upon the hearts of men. 
 Again, " A new heart, also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
 within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I 
 will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you," &c. 
 Ezekiel xxxvi. 26. I need not repeat other passages, quoted from the 
 Old Testament. To the most of them, the gentleman has attempted no 
 reply. 
 
 In the New Testament, we find declarations equally strong in proof of 
 our doctrine. Thus in Eph. ii. 10, Paul says, " We are his workmanship, 
 created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, 
 that we should walk in them." I endeavored to prevail on the gentleman 
 to notice this text, but could not succeed. The word create is the strong- 
 est word in any language ; and the apostle uses it without qualification, to 
 express that change which is wrought in man by the Spirit, and which re- 
 sults in his doing good works. 
 
 Again, in the same chapter, the apostle represents man as dead in tres- 
 passes and in sins, and as being quickened by the power of God. Was 
 a dead man ever made alive by words or arguments ? Jesus stood at the 
 grave of Lazarus and said, " Lazarus, come forth ;" but at that moment 
 he exerted an almighty power to quicken him. So when God speaks to 
 the sinner, who is spiritually dead, his Spirit breathes into his soul spir- 
 itual life — exerts an influence which causes him to embrace Christ as his 
 Savior, and rejoice in his service. 
 
 In the epistle to Titus, the apostle says, God saves us " by the washing 
 of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us 
 abundantly through Jesus Christ," chap. iii. 5. And I have proved, that 
 in every instance where the expressions " poured out," " shed upon," &c. 
 occur, an immediate divine influence, distinct from the Word, is intended. 
 When the Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his family, Mr. C. admits there 
 was an immediate agency of the Spirit, entirely distinct from the Word ; 
 but when the same kind of expression is used concerning conversion and 
 sanctification, he denies that any special and distinct agency is intended ! 
 
 These and a number of other passages I have read, to most of which 
 no answer has been attempted, prove conclusively, that in conversion and 
 sanctification there is an agency of the Spirit, distinct from the Word, re- 
 newing the heart and inclining it to the service of God. Most certainly 
 such is the obvious meaning of these scriptures ; and they will bear no 
 other interpretation. 
 
 V. My fifth argument was, that God is represented as giving repentance 
 unto life — as granting repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. 
 Faith, too, is declared to be the effect of regeneration. " Whosoever be- 
 lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God:" 1 John v. 1. So in 
 1 Cor. iii. 5, Paul says, " Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but 
 ministers by whom ye believe, even as God gave to every man.'''' This 
 passage I could not possibly induce Mr. Campbell to see ! There are ma- 
 ny others that teach most clearly, that repentance, faith, and every grace, 
 are the result of a change of heart, of which God is the author — all of 
 which establish the doctrine for which I contend. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 757 
 
 VI. My sixth argument was, that the doctrine of Mr. C. makes prayer 
 for the unconverted, and even for the sanctiflcation of believers, wholly 
 useless and improper. Why should we ask God to convert men, and then 
 preach to them, that he never purposed to convert any man, woman or 
 child, by any other influence than that of arguments, presented before their 
 minds ? Some of the followers of the gentleman are quite consistent. I 
 have observed, that in their public prayers, they rarely ever ask God to 
 convert sinners. If I believed as they do, I might reason with men ; but 
 I should never think of praying to God, to cause them to turn and live. 
 And why pray at all 1 — for Mr. C. teaches, that both conversion and sanc- 
 tiflcation are to be obtained by reading or hearing the Word, and by this 
 only. If Paul believed this doctrine, why did he pray for the Ephesian 
 christians, that they might be " strengthened with might in the inner man 
 by his Spirit ?" Paul believed in the special agency of the Spirit, and 
 therefore prayed. This doctrine has been, and still is, the consolation of 
 thousands of the followers of Christ, who regard it as one of their highest 
 privileges, to pray for the conversion and salvation of dear friends, who 
 are far away, or whose hearts are callous to the appeals of divine truth. 
 
 VII. My seventh argument was — that the conversions on the day of 
 Pentecost and afterwards, prove a divine influence distinct from the 
 Word. On that memorable day three thousand souls were suddenly con- 
 verted to God. With repentance for their sins and faith in Jesus Christ, 
 they entered his church, and, to the day of their death, delighted in his 
 service. Arguments and motives never produced in the minds of men such 
 a revolution in an hour. ** It was the Lord's work, and marvellous in our 
 eyes." Thousands and tens of thousands have since experienced the 
 same happy change. And even in these last days we are permitted to 
 witness the fulfillment of God's promise to pour out his Spirit on all flesh. 
 We often see a general religious interest gradually pervading a town or 
 neighborhood, where no extraordinary efforts have been made to arrest 
 the attention of the people. Christians become more prayerful. The 
 unconverted pause and consider. They go to the house of God which 
 they had seldom entered, and hear with fixed attention the melting ap- 
 peals of divine truth. The solemnity increases. The most careless be- 
 come thoughtful. The proud are humbled. The most hopeless are 
 reclaimed. They come " as clouds and as doves to their windows." 
 Many are added to the church of God, and continue to adorn the doc- 
 trine of Christ by a godly life. Who can believe, that results like these 
 are the effect of mere argument and motive? No — it is the Lord's work. 
 His Spirit is poured out as showers on the thirsty ground. 
 
 VIII. My last argument is — that the overwhelming majority of all the 
 readers of the Bible, in all ages, have understood it to teach the doctrine 
 for which I contend. From Methodists, Baptists, -Episcopalians, and 
 others, we differ in some things ; but we meet at the cross of Christ. We 
 hold the doctrine of human depravity and the absolute necessity of the 
 special agency of the Holy Spirit in order to effect the conversion and 
 sanctiflcation of men. We can bow together around the mercy-seat, and 
 unitedly pray to God, that his Word may run and be glorified — that 
 men may be convinced and converted, and that believers may be sanc- 
 tified. 
 
 Indeed so clearly is this doctrine taught in the Scriptures, that few 
 have been found to deny it. Is the Bible a plain book ? My friend ad- 
 mits that it is ; and if it is, he is certainly in error; for the overwhelming 
 
 3S 
 
758 DEBATE ON THE INFLUENCE, ETC. 
 
 mass of the wise and the good are against him. If his doctrine be trae y 
 we must conclude, that the Bible is one of the most obscure books ever 
 written; for few indeed have been able to understand it on this vital 
 point. 
 
 But I must bring my remarks to a close. I do rejoice and bless God, 
 that in the defence of this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, I am sus- 
 tained by so large a portion of those who profess to take the Bible as their 
 only infallible guide. On this hallowed ground we meet, sensible of our 
 need of divine aid in our preparation for heaven, and confident that in 
 answer to our united prayers, he who began the good work in us, 
 will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Here, too, we find our encouragement to go forth and preach the 
 gospel which is " not after man." If I believed that no other influence 
 but that of words and arguments would be exerted on the minds of 
 men, I should have no heart to preach another sermon. I possess no 
 eloquence that can melt the hardened hearts of men ; no power to open 
 their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of 
 Satan to God. My encouragement to preach the unsearchable riches of 
 Christ is found in the promise — that God will pour out his Spirit on all 
 flesh, and will cause the wilderness and the solitary place to be glad, and 
 the desert to bud and blossom as the rose. 
 
 Convince me, that no such agency is promised, and I will weep for my- 
 self and for my race. There is no hope for man if this doctrine be not 
 true. He is not, and never will be, pure enough to see God. Let me ex- 
 hort those who have been induced to reject it, to a careful re-examination 
 of the whole subject. If ninety-nine hundredths of the pious readers of 
 the Bible were against me on a point so vital, I would examine again and 
 again. I should greatly fear, that I had fatally erred, and that, depending 
 on my own efforts with only motives before me, I should fail of prepara- 
 tion for heaven. 
 
 May God, in his infinite mercy, guide you and me into the knowledge 
 of all truth ; and may we be sanctified and fitted for the enjoyments of 
 heaven by his Holy Spirit. — \Time expired. 
 
 [end of the fifth proposition.] 
 
PROPOSITION SIXTH. 
 
 Human Creeds, as Bonds of Union and Communion, are 
 necessarily Heretical and Schismqtical. Mr. Campbell af- 
 firms. Mr. Rice denies. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 30—10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's opening address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Modern Christianity, like astronomy, geology, or 
 geography, has its technical terms and definitions. So had ancient, and 
 so had primitive Christianity ; for between primitive md ancient and mod- 
 ern Christianity there are as well denned lines and bomderies as between 
 Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. The primitive christian had one, and but 
 one faith, written out for them by apostles and prophets : we have it in 
 one volume, usually called the New Testament. The ancients, in some 
 three or four centuries, set on foot several creed manufactories, called 
 synods and councils, ecumenical and particular. 
 
 Three of their choicest productions have escaped the ravages of time, 
 and are still extant under the names of the Apostles' Creed, tta Nicene, 
 and the Athanasian. The first and the last of these, all the world now 
 admits are not the works of the names they bear. They are religious 
 impositions practiced upon the credulity of less favored ages thin the 
 present. Still they indicate fewer aberrations from the Scriptures of 
 truth, than those modern affairs, excogitated and fashioned at Trent, at 
 Augsburgh, at Dort, and at Westminster. 
 
 Between those last mentioned and the first, there is as great a differ- 
 ence as there is between the artificial grandeur of imperial Rome, at the 
 zenith of her glory, and that Rome that Romulus built. And between 
 the Nicene formula of faith and the gospel according to Matthew or John, 
 there is such a difference as usually appears between a young man, in the 
 very prime and vigor of youth, and one of our finest Parisian anatomical 
 preparations. 
 
 Creeds bear the impress and character of their natal age, as does the 
 human face bear upon its lines and shades the years it has seen and felt. 
 They are exponents of the christian improvement and civilization of 
 their respective eras. The Apostles' creed, or that of Nice, or that attri- 
 buted to Athanasius, would be as much in good keeping with this our 
 day, as a continental almanac, published by Ben Franklin in the days of 
 Peter Porcupine, would suit the present year of grace, at the meridian 
 of Lexington. 
 
 In the days of the apostles there was something called " the faith" 
 *- the form of sound words," " the truth," " the gospel," which was to them 
 something more than our summaries, called creeds and confessions of faith. 
 
 These summaries were first called symbols, and afterwards creeds. 
 The former term is of Grecian, the latter of Roman origin and authority. 
 The Greek, sumbolon, properly signifies a mark, note, or sign. It was 
 used by some Greeks to denote a military sign. So Herodian uses it. 
 
 759 
 
760 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 St. Cyprian is the first that used the term to indicate an epitome or 
 abridgment of the christian faith — and was sometimes understood to 
 mean, the distinguishing mark and character of a christian. The confes- 
 sion made at baptism was called the symbol of the candidate. This, 
 probably, was the origin of the ecclesiastic use of the word. They 
 were, according to some, called symbols because the makers of them acted 
 in councils and synods, and each one threw in some article or articles, and 
 the whole collection of these several offerings was called, etymologically, 
 a symbol. So our most learned ecclesiastics understand the matter. Du- 
 pin, vol. i. p. 37, Dublin Ed. A. D. 1723. 
 
 In the third century, it is said, there were as many symbols as authors. 
 I find them in Irenams, Te/tullian, St. Cyprian, &c, confined, indeed, 
 to about the same number erf" articles, and generally to some of the same 
 topics found in the apostks' creed : none of them, however, propounded 
 as a term of communion, none of them made either the covenant or con- 
 stitution of any particular church, much less of the churches in particular 
 districts. On the wh>le, then, we remark that synods and symbols are 
 Greek, councils and creeds are Roman. The antiquity of the oldest 
 creed now extant is no more than Papal ; and its catholicity lies between 
 the Vandals and the Sicilians, between the Euxine and the western 
 ocean. A Grecian symbol had some truth and some philosophy on its 
 side ; but a Roman creed had neither. The reasons are, the Greek sym- 
 bol was a compound of christian truths, a summary or synopsis of 
 prominent facts, of which the document called the apostles' creed is a 
 fair specimen. But the Roman creeds, like those of Trent, Augsburgh, 
 and Westminster, are not portraitures of ancient truths or facts, so much 
 as records of modern opinions and inferences concerning them. There 
 was some use for a heart, as well as a head, on the part of those who ap- 
 proved the symbols : but the moderns have no use for the heart, having 
 imposed all the labor upon the brains, in acknowledging their tests of or- 
 thodoxy. As a matter of curiosity and for future reference, I shall here 
 read the apostles' creed. 
 
 " I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth : and 
 in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord ; who was conceived by the Holy 
 Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was cruci- 
 fied, dead and buried ; he descended into hell ; the third day he rose from 
 the dead ; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the 
 Father Almighty ; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the 
 dead. I believe in the holy Ghost ; the holy catholic church ; the commu- 
 nion of saints ; the forgiveness of sins ; the resurrection of the body, and 
 the life everlasting. Amen." 
 
 And the Nicene creed : 
 
 " I believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, 
 and of all things visible and invisible : and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of 
 God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of 
 one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made ; who for us 
 men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by 
 the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified 
 also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third 
 day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, 
 and sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; and he shall come again, with 
 glory, to judge both the quick and the dead ; whose kingdom shall have no 
 end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who pro- 
 ceeded from the Father and the Son ; who with the Father and the Son 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 761 
 
 together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I 
 believe one catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for 
 the remission of sins ; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the 
 life of the world to come. Amen." 
 
 We shall next present the creed usually called the creed of St. Atha- 
 nasius : 
 
 " Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold 
 the catholic faith ; which faith except every one do keep whole and unde- 
 nted, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is 
 this : That we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ; neither 
 confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one 
 Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost : 
 but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all 
 one ; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such 
 is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost ; the Father uncreate, the Son 
 uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate ; the Father incomprehensible, the 
 Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible ; the Father 
 eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal : and yet they are not 
 three eternals, but one eternal ; as also there are not three incomprehensi- 
 bles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. 
 So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost 
 Almighty : and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So 
 the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God : and yet 
 there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, 
 the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord : and yet not three Lords, but one 
 Lord. For like as we are compelled by the christian verity to acknowledge 
 every Person by himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the 
 catholic religion to say, there be three Gods, or three Lords. 
 
 The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is 
 of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost 
 is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, 
 but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers ; one Son, not 
 three Sons ; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity 
 none is afore or after the other, none is greater or less than the other : but 
 the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in 
 all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is 
 to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe 
 rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, 
 that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is 
 God and man ; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the 
 worlds, and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world ; perfect 
 God, and perfect man ; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting ; 
 equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as 
 touching his manhood. Who, although he be God and man, yet he is not 
 two, but one Christ ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but 
 by taking of the manhood into God ; one altogether, not by confusion of 
 substance, but by unity of person : for as the reasonable soul and flesh is 
 one man, so God and man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, 
 descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead, he ascended 
 into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Almighty : from 
 whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming 
 all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account of their 
 own works ; and they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and 
 they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 
 
 This is the catholic faith ; which except a man believe faithfully, he can- 
 not be saved. Glory be to the Father," &c. 
 
 3s2 
 

 762 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 Concerning the Athanasian creed, Waddington, fellow of Trinity col- 
 lege, Cambridge, says: 
 
 " The sublime truths which it contains are not expressed in the language 
 of Holy Scripture ; nor could they possibly have been so expressed, since 
 the inspired writers were not studious minutely to expound inscrutable 
 mysteries. Neither can it plead any sanctity from high antiquity, or even 
 traditional authority ; since it was composed many centuries after the time 
 of the apostles, in a very corrupt age of a corrupt church, and composed in 
 so much obscurity, that the very pen from which it proceeded is not cer- 
 tainly known to us. The inventions of men, when they have been associa- 
 ted for ages with the exercise of religion, should indeed be touched with re- 
 spect and discretion ; but it is a dangerous error to treat them as inviolable, 
 and it is something worse than error to confound them in holiness and reve- 
 rence with the words and things of God."— p. 193. 
 
 Ecclesiastic creeds and the faith apostolic are just as diverse as inference 
 and premise, as fallibility and infallibility, as human reason and divine 
 wisdom. When, then, we use the word, creed in this discussion, we do 
 not mean the truth nor the faith, the law nor the gospel, the apostles' 
 writings, or those of the prophets. Nor do we mean our simple belief 
 of the testimony of God. We all have a belief and a knowledge of 
 christian doctrine ; but this belief or knowledge is not what is indicated 
 by a creed. A creed or confession of faith is an ecclesiastic document— 
 the mind and will of some synod or council possessing authority — as a 
 term of communion, by which persons and opinions are to be tested, 
 approbated, or reprobated. 
 
 The documents, therefore, which constitute the subject of our proposi- 
 tion, are such as the Thirty-nine Articles ; the Westminster Creed, with all 
 its numerous and various emendations, to that of the present year ; the 
 Baptist Confession of Faith in all its varieties ; the creed of Pope Pius and 
 the Council of Trent, or the Methodistic Discipline, amended and im- 
 proved some two and twenty times. 
 
 All creeds and confessions become the constitution of churches. The 
 persons called a church or community are said to be builded upon them. 
 They generally, indeed, assume that the creed itself is builded on the 
 Bible, and the church on both. The Bible is, then, the subterraneous 
 basis, or that portion of the foundation buried under ground. The creed 
 is that visible, above-ground part of the basis, and on which the church 
 immediately rests, and from which it receives its name. This assump- 
 tion of a Bible sub-basis, is, however, but a mere illusion. Take, for 
 illustration, the high-church and low-church Episcopal, the Presbyterian, 
 the Methodist and the Baptist, to go no farther. These all are said to 
 be builded on the Bible ; but between them and the Bible is interposed 
 the creed from which they receive their name. The Bible, then, is to 
 all the sects in Christendom what the earth is to London, the basis on 
 which the several palaces, castles, and dwellings rest. The earth, how- 
 ever, is the foundation of none of them, in correct language. No one 
 would think of calling the earth the foundation of Westminster Abbey, 
 Windsor Palace, or the old Parliament House. No more can I call 
 the Bible the foundation of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and 
 Baptist churches, or any one of the scores of communities that pretend to 
 build on it. Contemplated as buildings, creeds are their proper founda- 
 tions. Contemplated as bodies, they are their constitutions. 
 
 They are, therefore, the basis of the parties. As many creeds, so many 
 parties ; Caesar's maxim fitly illustrates their history. "Money," said 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 763 
 
 he, " will raise soldiers, and soldiers will raise money." Thus creeds will 
 make parties, and parties will make creeds ; so the matter has operated from 
 the day of their birth till now. From these general definitions and remarks 
 introductory, we shall therefore proceed to the proof of our proposition. 
 
 Argument I. That creeds are necessarily heretical, is argued, first, 
 from the fact that they are human and fallible productions. 
 
 They are called human, not merely because they are the production of 
 human effort, but because they are also the offspring of human authority. 
 No one can, in reason and truth, assign to them a divine authority ; be- 
 cause no man can produce any precept or divine warrant for their manu- 
 facture. No apostle, prophet, or evangelist gave any authority to any 
 church, community, or council, to furnish such a document. 
 
 Now, in order to give them any other than human authority, four things 
 are necessary. 1st. A divine precept commanding the thing to be done. 
 2d. A selection of persons by whom it must be executed. 3d. A time 
 fixed or extended, during which the work is to be accomplished ; and, 
 4th. A command to the christian communities to receive and use them for 
 the ends and uses for which they were created. In the absence of this 
 divine arrangement and enactment, they must be contemplated as a pre- 
 sumptuous interference with the legislative prerogative of Zion's Law- 
 giver and King — as a daring attempt to intrude into his peculiar office, 
 who has all authority in heaven and earth committed to him for the gov- 
 ernment of his church. It is offering strange fire on God's altar, and 
 burning incense uncommanded by him whose right it is to ordain his 
 own worship. It is in fact a reproach, an indignity, offered to his living 
 oracles, and to the competency and fidelity of his ambassadors and pleni- 
 potentiaries, to the world and to the church. 
 
 Who, in a controversy with an apostle or a saint, could answer the 
 following interrogations? Did not the Messiah see the end from the be- 
 ginning ? Did not he anticipate all that has happened on earth since his 
 ascension into heaven? Did not his servant Paul forewarn us of a most 
 important and widely extended apostasy ? Did he not say that the time 
 would come when they would not endure sound doctrine, but should ac- 
 cumulate teachers for themselves, having itching ears? that they should 
 turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables ? Did he 
 not know the devices of Satan to annoy his heritage, and to seduce his 
 servants into the paths of schism and alienation, and thus set them at va- 
 riance with one another ? And had he, in his wisdom and benevolence, 
 thought that to prevent all this, a symbol or brief summary of true faith 
 or true doctrine, clearly and strongly set forth, was necessary or expedi- 
 ent; had he not the residue of the Spirit, and agents in abundance to ac- 
 complish his wishes? If, then, with all these premises in his eye, and 
 all the details of two thousand years as clearly seen in the future as they 
 are now in the past, he provided the documents which we have, and gave 
 them in charge, to be kept without addition or subtraction till he return ; 
 why should any one presume to obtrude his opinions and notions upon 
 him, and make his views of expediency a reason why he should set forth 
 on his own responsibility, or in conjunction with others, his equals and 
 co-ordinates, a synopsis or digest of God's revelations, selecting for it 
 such views and portions of God's own book as, in his finite, feeble and 
 fallible judgment, partially and imperfectly enlightened, he might judge 
 expedient to form a system of belief — a rule of practice for a christian 
 community? 
 
764 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 The setting up of calves at Bethel and Dan by Jeroboam, the son of 
 Nebat, who made Israel to sin, seems to me to be only a mere exaggera- 
 tion of the principle involved in such a device. And such, too, was the 
 golden symbol manufactured by Aaron out of Egyptian gold, to go before 
 Israel in the absence of Moses. Had the Lord thought a miniature of 
 the Bible, an image of the whole revelation, a proper basis for church 
 union and communion, Paul was the man, or Peter, or James, or John, 
 or all of them together, to give us the sum of the matter, and command 
 all men to regard it as the covenant or constitution of Christ's church in 
 general, and of each congregation in particular — and then we would have 
 an authoritative creed, a divine rule of faith, by which to receive and re- 
 ject all mankind. 
 
 His not having done it is the best argument in the world why it should 
 not be attempted by mortal and fallible man; and if I am asked for 
 other reasons why, so far as I can apprehend them they shall be forthcom- 
 ing at a proper time and place. Meantime, the point to which these remarks 
 and reasonings tend, must be distinctly stated. Do they not, then, lead to 
 the conclusion, that all these covenants are human, wholly human, in 
 conception, design, and execution ? and, consequently, as the stream can 
 rise no higher than the fountain, they are fallible, weak, and imperfect 
 documents — not of such dimensions, texture, and solidity, as to be either 
 the foundation or constitution of Christ's glorious church, redeemed by 
 his blood and sanctified by his Spirit. It is building a golden palace upon 
 the grass, a divine temple upon reeds and rushes. 
 
 But where the necessary schismatical tendency of thes documents ? 
 I answer, the very attempt to create such a thing immediately divides 
 into parties those who before were one. A affirms his conviction, that 
 the attempt is impious. B argues, that it is expedient to keep out error 
 and secure union amongst those that are now of one opinion. But A re- 
 sponds, we are not required to be, because we cannot be, of one opinion ; 
 and so far from the project creating unity of opinion, already it forms two 
 opinions — one concerning the impiety, and the other touching the expe- 
 diency of the affair. The proposition to create and to adopt is, therefore, 
 essentially heretical and divisive ; and, when the proposition is adopted, 
 two parties, before in embryo by the proposition, are now by the resolu- 
 tion actually and formally in existence. The reason of all this is, per- 
 haps, not yet fully developed. It lies, indeed, hid in the fallibility of hu- 
 man nature. 
 
 We, sooner or later, all discover, that between the fallible and the infal- 
 lible there is a gulf, into which the universe might be hurled without at 
 all reducing the chasm. Finites and fallibles are weak authorities when 
 heaven and immortality are at stake. And the moment that B propounds 
 his synopsis with the slightest air of authority, in the way of exacting 
 obedience or acknowledgment, that moment there is something in human 
 nature that whispers in A, who is this brother B 1 A fallible like myself! 
 A great man he may be ; but he is fond of his own opinion, and prides 
 himself upon his superiority. I will not lay a victim upon his altar nor 
 burn incense at his shrine ; I, too, am a man, and will yield to none the 
 right to dictate to me — God alone is infallible. His word is the only un- 
 erring rule of truth. I will cut myself off from the society of B, or any 
 one like him, who claims for his private judgment the respect and homage 
 due only to the well authenticated precepts and statutes of the Eternal 
 King. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 765 
 
 We all, on reflection, feel the want of the authority of certain truths 
 while reading our creeds and confessions, and hence that perpetual rest- 
 lessness and mutation manifest on all the pages of their history, from the 
 days of Arius, the schismatic, down to the present time. A document 
 that has authority, proper authority with men, must be superhuman, sup- 
 per-angelic, supernatural— it must be the word of God ; where that fails 
 to awe or allure into a holy acquiescence, there is a manifest want of 
 piety and all the essential elements of christian character ; and while such 
 persons may make a church by themselves, Christ's church wants them 
 not, and has made no arrangement to retain them. The parson may de- 
 sire to retain such for their money ; the flock may wish to retain them 
 for their worldly respectability; but as the Messiah would not receive 
 them into heaven, he will not sanction any arrangement made to retain 
 them in his church on earth. 
 
 II. Creeds, then, are necessarily heretical, not only on this account ; 
 but, in the second place — they strain out the nats and swallow the 
 camels ; nay, worse, they rack off the pure wine of the church and 
 retain the lees. It is a striking demonstration of man's slowness to 
 learn, that a fact so palpable as this, that creeds have always been 
 roots of bitterness, apples of discord, and either causes or occasions of 
 driving out the good and retaining the bad, should have, since the days 
 of the council of Nice, been passing before the eyes of the whole church 
 militant, and yet unobserved and unappreciated by the great majority of 
 professors ; at least not so practically observed as to have induced them to 
 take away these stumbling blocks out of the way of the people. 
 
 And what more natural, even a priori, than that the hypocritical, design- 
 ing and wicked would subscribe, when their pride, or their passions, or 
 their temporal interests made a place in a popular community an advan- 
 tage, or an honor to them ? Or, that the conscientious, upright, and scru- 
 pulously virtuous, would hesitate, demur and refuse to admit a tenet, or a 
 rule of action resting, in their opinion, upon mere human authority ; and 
 not only that, but in their judgment, impinging, contravening, or making 
 void a divine precept or arrangement. I say, what truth lies more upon 
 the surface of things? What law of human nature is more clearly im- 
 printed in more legible characters upon the very face of society, than this 
 one ? and how few, comparatively, seem to have profitably attended to it. 
 For what do all the pages of ecclesiastical history reveal ? What do the 
 voluminous records, not merely of the dark ages, but of all ages, disclose 
 on these premises ? That human creeds have made more heretics than 
 christians ; more parties than reformations ; more martyrs' than saints ; 
 more wars than peace ; more hatred than love ; more death than life ; that 
 they have killed or driven out all the apostles, prophets and reformers 
 of the church and of the world. The Messiah himself, one of their vic- 
 tims, spoke a volume in one sentence against creeds and church cove- 
 nants — and the most severely true and caustic sentence he ever uttered ; 
 it is superlatively laconic and pithy : " It cannot be that a prophet perish 
 out of Jerusalem! Jerusalem! O Jerusalem! that stonest the pro- 
 phets, and killest them that God hath sent to you !" Need I ask, what 
 means Jerusalem in this connection ? Stands it not for the church autho- 
 rities, with their doctrinal and perceptive traditions, against which he so 
 often inveighed ? It was an established creed, and a generation of vipers, 
 in the form of devout pharisees, and skillful and learned rabbis and scribes, 
 that constituted that fearful desolating power that crucified the Messiah. 
 
766 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 Pontius Pilate only obeyed the established priesthood ; he only executed 
 the sentence of the church-courts. They said, they had a law (a creed— 
 a discipline,) by which he must die. That law, or creed, was the decision 
 of their councils — precisely in the form of our creeds. This fact itself, 
 methinks, is enough. It is a monumental fact, on which is inscribed the 
 melancholy but true character of all such institutes. 
 
 Need we, indeed, any other proof of our proposition, than the stern, in- 
 controvertible fact, that all the world's greatest benefactors — apostles, pro- 
 phets and reformers — have been declared heretics and schismatics — repro- 
 bated, and cast out of synagogues and churches, through the native, direct 
 and immediate influence and operation of these documents? Can any 
 man afford one instance of any community building upon the Bible alone, 
 upon the apostles and prophets, without any other creed or directory 
 than the written Word of God — ever so doing, ever repudiating, or in- 
 juring in character, in person or property, any saint or distinguished man, 
 any minister of mercy, any benefactor of our race ? Let him name the 
 church ; let him name the man. But if I am asked, in return, to name 
 those who have been so maltreated by creed-mongers, creed-makers and 
 creed-advocates, I shall begin with Jesus Christ himself, and end not with 
 the WicklifTs, the Jeromes, the Husses, the Luthers, the Calvins, the Ro- 
 gerses, the Bunyans — but with those now living, whose characters have 
 been immolated at the shrine of orthodoxy, and their names cast out as 
 evil, because they prefer the commandments of God to the doctrines and 
 traditions of men. 
 
 We must, however, still advert to the fact of their power to retain the lees, 
 while they rack off into new vessels the good wine of the kingdom. The 
 case of Arius himself, is both a full illustration and proof of what I mean. 
 
 The Nicene creed, as all the world knows, owed its origin to the opin- 
 ions of Arius. Even the first great council, with the great Constantine at 
 its head, had probably never assembled at Nice, or any where else, but for 
 this bold and daring genius. Had Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, when 
 he failed to convince his presbyter, Arius, of the impropriety of his specu- 
 lations on the divine nature of the Messiah, not called a council of his 
 clergy, and passed certain decrees upon the speculation, and excommuni- 
 cated Arius, because of his dissent from their phraseology— Arius would 
 not have been driven to Palestine, and there made a party to his views, 
 which, by the assistance of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, soon spread 
 over all the empire. The spread of this greatly agitated the church; and 
 the great Constantine undertook to gather the bishops of the world to 
 Nice, and legislate the Arians into the church or out of the empire. Atha- 
 nasius and the Arians finally split on the difference between an i and an 
 o ; between hom,oousios and homoiuosios. The homoousios was decreed 
 orthodox, and the homoiuosios heterodox — and the line of the two great 
 parties were drawn. Arius was dubbed heretic, and Athanasius saint; 
 and so it reads for fifteen hundred years. Athanasius became bishop of the 
 great church of Alexandria, and Arius wandered a heretic through Illyri- 
 cum for some three or four years. Recalled, at length, by the same fickle 
 Constantine, and asked to subscribe the creed of Nice — made to repudiate 
 his heresy, he, for the sake of bread and board in the church, subscribed 
 the same creed ; and had he not died one day too soon, he had doubtless 
 been received into full communion by the bishop of Constantinople — the 
 emperor having so commanded. 
 
 After the death of Constantine, his son Constantius, and his court, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 767 
 
 sided with the Arians — different emperors took different sides. Valenti- 
 nian supported Athanasianism in the west, and Valens, his own brother, 
 supported Arianism in the east half of the empire. Hence orthodoxy at 
 Rome was heterodoxy at Constantinople, and vice versa. The bishop of 
 Rome finally became infallible, and fixed Athanasianism at Rome, where 
 it has continued ever since ; while the other half, that is, the African and 
 Eastern churches, supported Arianism, in some form or other, down to 
 s emi-demi' Onanism ; and finally, it became so sublimated, that the me- 
 taphysical doctors, through the finest spectacles, have long since failed to 
 comprehend or appreciate the difference. Here, then, we have a fair ex- 
 position of all that we maintain on this question. This being a sort of 
 prototype of all heretical creeds, it may serve as a standing text — and its 
 history, as the common history of the thousand speculative doctrines, 
 creeds and parties in ancient and modern Christendom. 
 
 It is important that the tendency of creeds to the corruption of the 
 church, by admitting the evil and rejecting the good, should be kept 
 prominently before the mind of those who desire correct and salutary 
 conclusions on this most interesting subject. If it be a fact, that such is 
 their tendency, it ought to be distinctly stated, fully proved and deeply 
 impressed on the public mind. Let us, then, look again at this case of 
 the celebrated Arius, so early occurring and so famous in the annals of the 
 church, and compare it with some illustrious cases nearer our own times. 
 The fact that Arius, within some four years, subscribed the Nicene creed, 
 which in his heart he despised — the identical creed which was conceived 
 and consummated in order to his exclusion and that of his party — for the 
 sake of a respite from persecution and a place in the church, is itself, me- 
 thinks, a full exposition of their inutility and evil tendency. Men of no 
 principle may thus be expected to subscribe at the dictation of those in 
 power, or at the demands of pride, passion or interest ; while the honora- 
 ble, and those of tender conscience, will rather be excommunicated than 
 yield to the temptation. We shall moreover allude to two very notorious 
 and well authenticated facts in the history of Puritanism and Presbyteri- 
 anism, from which I am sorry to observe our Presbyterian friends have 
 not profited more. There was the sacramental test act, during the reign 
 of Elizabeth, which compelled all dissenters to take the sacrament once a 
 year in the established church, a device to detect the Romanist party in 
 England. But it was as oppressive to puritans as to papists. The infi- 
 dels and non-religionists, together with many Romanists, to secure or 
 retain their interests, annually partook. But the pious and conscientious 
 dissenters left the country or suffered political disabilities, rather than eat 
 the supper to show that they were not papists or enemies of the estab- 
 lishment. Again, under the act of conformity to certain prayers, rules 
 and ceremonies, requiring subscription on or before St. Bartholomew's 
 day, August, 1662; what multitudes suffered in a similar way! while 
 the vascillating, temporizing, who had no conscience, turned the affair 
 to good account. No less than two thousand pious non-conformist min- 
 isters resigned their livings rather than violate their consciences. Thus a 
 mighty host of the very best ministers in the realm were ejected to make 
 room for more pliant tools. Neale says more than 1500 men of loose 
 morals, together with a troop of young men from the universities and di- 
 vinity halls, without either piety or experience, filled their places; and no 
 doubt by their time serving spirit greatly lowered the standard of piety and 
 virtue all over the kingdom. These acts of uniformity, courts of high 
 
768 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 commission, star-chamber courts, test acts and creeds, are but various 
 modifications of the same principle. Hence, the history of the operation 
 of any of them, under circumstances favorable to its full development, is 
 the history of them all. 
 
 III. While this view of the subject is before us, we must more formally 
 advert to their proscriptive and persecuting bearings and tendencies. It 
 is a startling fact, that all ecclesiastic persecutions, ancient and modern, 
 are connected with the introduction, modification, transformation, or ad- 
 ministration of creeds. Think not, Mr. President, that I am about to 
 relate the tales of woe, to invoke the ghosts of slain legions of saints and 
 martyrs, to disclose the dark and horrible massacres of inquisitorial tribu- 
 nals through the long dark night of papal ascendency. No, sir, far be it 
 from the happy scenes which now surround us in this favored land, 'the 
 blest abode of rational and religious freedom, in which the sword has not 
 yet learned to serve at the altar — in which we have no established priest- 
 hood, no court religion, no royal creed, no lords spiritual, no vicar of 
 Christ, no vicegerent of heaven's eternal King — no auto de fes — no te~ 
 deums — no holocausts — no whole burnt offerings of slaughtered heretics. 
 No— thanks to the God of all justice, of all mercy, and of all truth! 
 that we sit under our own vines and fig-trees— that we worship God ac- 
 cording to the Bible, or our own interpretation of it, without the anathe- 
 mas, the inquisitions, the pains, the terrors of incarnate demons, in the 
 form of holy fathers and apostolic successors. 
 
 But, in the illustration and confirmation of our position, we are obliged 
 to glance at the operation of creeds and tests of communion amongst our 
 good Protestant dissenters — Puritans of the Protestant faith who swarm 
 around the sacred fires — the sacerdotal robes and vestment — the reli- 
 gious habits of the famous Hooper of refusal memory, consecratea more 
 by his glorious martyrdom under Mary of bloody memory, than by his 
 pro tempore refusal of the sacerdotal appendages of papal robes in the 
 form of Aaronic habits. This great man's stern and unbending integrity 
 was the first occasion, rather than an actual cause, of our own glorious 
 revolution. He was, indeed, the grand prototype of that noble race of 
 mighty men, the patriarchs of civil liberty — the original fathers of the illus- 
 trious sisterhood of American republics. Two months before his being 
 burnt at Gloucester, February 9th, 1555, not yet three centuries ago, he 
 wrote to Bullinger: " We resolutely despise fire and sword for the cause 
 of Christ; we know in whom we have believed, and are sure we have 
 committed our souls to him in well doing ! We are the Lord's ; let him 
 do with us as seemeth good in his sight." Such was the man, Mr. 
 President, who, with the immortal Rogers, of Smithfield memory, roasted 
 in the fire of papal cruelty, gave the first grand impulse to the cause of 
 liberty, civil and religious. At their smouldering embers was lit the 
 torch of American liberty. From their altar was borne across the seas 
 the sacred fire that has warmed and illuminated the new world, and given 
 to us our free and liberal institutions. So much good— negative, it is true, 
 as respects this cause — so much good, however, have proscriptive creeds 
 and acts of uniformity done to our happy country, and to the human race. 
 But that I may not be supposed to give any false coloring, either from my 
 views or my feelings, to the sayings and doings of my Episcopal, Puri- 
 tanical, and Presbyterian friends, in adducing them as examples of the 
 schismatic spirit of their creeds, I shall allow the candid, impartial, and 
 justly celebrated Daniel Neale, who died a little more than one century 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 769 
 
 ago, not to tell the whole story, but to give a mere passing notice of 
 the operation of creeds, even in the more generous hands of Protestant 
 dissenters. 
 
 " That uniformity of sentiments in religion is not to be attained among 
 christians ; nor will a comprehension within an establishment be of service 
 to the cause of truth and liberty without a toleration of all our dutiful 
 subjects. Wise and good men, after their most diligent searches after truth, 
 have seen things in a different light ; which is not to be avoided as long as 
 they have liberty to judge for themselves. If Christ had appointed an in- 
 fallible judge upon earth, or men were to be determined by an implicit faith 
 m their superiors, there would be an end of such differences ; but all the 
 engines of human policy that have been set at work to obtain it have hith- 
 erto failed of success. Subscriptions, and a variety of oaths and other tests, 
 having occasioned great mischiefs to the church ; by these means men of 
 weak morals and ambitious views have been raised to the highest prefer- 
 ments, while others of stricter virtue and superior talents have been neg- 
 lected and laid aside ; and power has been lodged in the hands of those who 
 have used it in an unchristian manner, to force men to an agreement in 
 sounds and outward appearances, contrary to the true conviction and sense 
 of their minds : and thus a lasting reproach has been brought on the chris- 
 tian name, and on the genuine principles of a protestant church. 
 
 All parties of christians when in power have been guilty of persecution 
 for conscience' sake. The annals of the church are a most melancholy dem- 
 onstration of this truth. Let the reader call to mind the bloody proceedings 
 of the popish bishops in queen Mary's reign, and the account that has been 
 given of the Star Chamber and High Commission Court in later times ; what 
 number of useful ministers have been sequestered, imprisoned, and their 
 families reduced to poverty and disgrace, for refusing to wear a white sur- 
 plice, or to comply with a few indifferent ceremonies ! What havoc did the 
 Presbyterians make with their covenant uniformity, their jure divino dis- 
 cipline, and their rigid prohibition of reading the old service book! And 
 though the Independents had a better notion of the rights of conscience, 
 how defective was their instrument of government under Cromwell! how 
 arbitrary the proceedings of their triers ! how narrow their list of funda- 
 mentals ! and how severe their restraints of the press ! And though the 
 rigorous proceedings of the Puritans of this age did by no means rival those 
 of the prelates before and after the civil wars, yet they are so many species 
 of persecution, and not to be justified even by the confusion of the times in 
 which they were acted. 
 
 It is unsafe and dangerous to entrust any sort of clergy with the power 
 of the sword; for our Savior's kingdom is not of this world, — ' If it were,' 
 says he, ' then would my servants fight, but now is my kingdom not from 
 hence.'' The church and state should stand on a distinct basis, and their 
 jurisdiction be agreeable to the nature of their crimes ; those of the church 
 purely spiritual, and those of the state purely civil. 
 
 Reformation of religion, or a redress of grievances in the church, has not 
 in fact arisen from the clergy. I would not be thought to reflect upon that 
 venerable order, which is of great usefulness and deserved honor when the 
 ends of its institution are pursued. But so strange has been the infatua- 
 tion, so enchanting the lust of dominion and the charms of riches and honor, 
 that the propagation of piety and virtue has been very much neglected, and 
 little else thought of but how they might rise higher in the authority and 
 grandeur of this world, and fortify their strong holds against all that should 
 attack them. In the dawn of the reformation, the clergy maintained the 
 pope's supremacy against the king till they were cast in praemunire. In 
 the reign of queen Elizabeth, there was but one of the whole bench who 
 would join in the consecration of & protestant bishop. And when the reform- 
 ation was established, how cruelly did those protestant bishops, who them- 
 selves had suffered for religion, vex the Puritans because they could not 
 49 3T 
 
770 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 come up to their standard ! How unfriendly did they behave at the Hamp- 
 ton-court conference ! at the restoration of king Charles II, and at the late 
 revolution of king William and queen Mary ! when the most solemn prom- 
 ises were broken, and the most hopeful opportunity of accommodating dif- 
 ferences among protestants lost by the perverseness of the clergy towards 
 those very men who had saved them from ruin. So little ground is there 
 to hope for an union among christians, or the propagation of truth, peace 
 and charity from councils, synods, general assemblies, or convocations of the 
 clergy of any sort whatsoever I" — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 30-— 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's first reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I agree with my friend, Mr. C, that the union of all 
 the disciples of Christ is an object greatly to be desired. I go for chris- 
 tian union on scriptural principles, as zealously as he ; and so do evangel- 
 ical denominations generally, so far as I know. We differ not concerning 
 the importance of the object, but concerning the proper method of secur- 
 ing it. He has adopted a plan which he supposes will prove successful. 
 We regard it as unscriptural and dangerous to the cause of truth and 
 righteousness. We think there is a better plan, by which ultimately the 
 object will be attained. 
 
 I do not purpose to answer every thing contained in his labored essay 5 
 for much the larger part of it did not bear upon the question, whether 
 human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily hereti- 
 cal and schismatical. Those remarks which relate to the proposition be- 
 fore us, will be noticed. 
 
 With those churches that use creeds, the Bible, he tells us, is the sub' 
 terranean foundation, while their creed is the foundation above ground ; 
 so that " the sects," as he calls all churches but his own, have two foun- 
 dations. Well, there is comfort in the fact, that the Bible is really under 
 us. No church will sink, that has the Bible as its foundation, even 
 though it be subterranean. In building, it is important to dig deep and lay 
 under ground a solid foundation. I was pleased to hear the gentleman 
 admit, that we have the Bible under us ; for if it is, we cannot sink— oar 
 foundation stands firm. But is he not in the same predicament in which 
 he would place us? His Christian Baptist, Christianity Restored, Chris- 
 tian System and other writings, contain his creed—the foundation above 
 ground. Unfortunately, I think, the Bible is not quite under him. The 
 difference between his church and "the sects," is this: The notions and 
 opinions of each individual in his church, form their foundation, and 
 therefore there is no unity of faith; whilst each of "the sects" have 
 a common faith, a common bond of union. This being the case, I am 
 unable to see wherein he has ground of boasting, unless it be, that his 
 church has a greater number of foundations than any other. 
 
 One of his arguments to prove human creeds necessarily heretical and 
 schismatical, is — that there is in the Bible no command to make a creed. 
 But there is no command to make a " Christian System," as he has done, 
 and to write and publish any thing on religious subjects. Are we to con- 
 clude, that every thing is unlawful, that is not in the Scriptures directly- 
 commanded ? If so, the gentleman has seriously erred in making his vari- 
 ous publications. But I contend, that " where there is no law, there is no 
 transgression." Let him prove, then, that we are forbidden to have a creed. 
 
 Another argument urged is— that creeds are fallible. But his writings 
 are also fallible ; and yet they are sent forth to exert an influence on multi- 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 771 
 
 tildes of immortal minds. If we are forbidden to have a fallible creed, 
 how can he venture to induce his fellow-creatures, whose salvation de- 
 pends on their receiving the truth, to believe his fallible teachings ? 
 
 But, he says, creeds make more heretics than christians ; that the at- 
 tempt to impose our opinions on others creates schisms. Yet strange as 
 it may seem, he is doing the very thing which he has so strongly con- 
 demned ! No man living has excommunicated so many christians as he. 
 This charge I will prove, not by his enemies, but by his friends. Barton 
 W. Stone, now a minister in Mr. C.'s church, speaking of the reformers, 
 says : " Should they make their own peculiar views of immersion a term 
 of fellowship, it will be impossible for them to repel, successfully, the impu- 
 tation of being sectarians, and of having an authoritative creed (though not 
 written) of one article at least, which is formed of their opinions of truth ; 
 and this short creed would exclude more christians from union, than any 
 creed with which I am acquainted." To this Mr. Campbell replied — " I 
 agree with the Christian Messenger, [Stone's paper] that there will be 
 more christians (calling all Christendom christians) excluded by insisting 
 on this command — 'Be immersed,' &c. than by any creed in Christen- 
 dom." Mlllen. Harb. v. i. pp. 370, 372. Now, let me ask, do those 
 christians who refuse to be immersed, reject the Bible as their only infal- 
 lible guide ? Or do they only refuse to be bound by Mr. Campbell's 
 opinion of what it teaches ? They do not understand the Savior to have 
 commanded immersion. Yet for the crime of refusing to adopt his opin- 
 ion concerning the mode of administering an external ordinance, he ex- 
 cludes more christians, so far as he can exclude them, than any creed in 
 Christendom ! ! ! 
 
 I will read an extract from a letter of another of Mr. Campbell's breth- 
 ren — one who is engaged with him in this discussion. I allude to Dr. 
 Fishback. With regard to the design of baptism he states five different 
 opinions, entertained by different persons and denominations. The fourth 
 is, that sins are remitted only in the act of immersion, and that all are in 
 their sins, notwithstanding their repentance and faith, until they are ac- 
 tually baptized for the remission of their sins. This he gives as Mr. 
 Campbell's doctrine, and remarks — 
 
 "But of all the five opinions stated, the fourth one is the most exclusive, 
 sectarian, and uncharitable ; and, if fostered, cannot fail to drive from the 
 affections and fellowship of those who entertain it all who differ from them, 
 as being in their sins, however otherwise pious and godly. — Jlillen. Harb. 
 vol. ii. p. 509. 
 
 Thus it is evident, that whilst the gentleman declaims so eloquently 
 against the schismatical tendency of creeds, and in favor of christian 
 union, he is himself denouncing and excommunicating the whole of 
 Christendom, as being in Babylon, as using the language of Ashdod, be- 
 cause they will not adopt his opinion on some one or two points. It is 
 true, his own brethren being witnesses, that he has a creed, though not 
 written, more exclusive and sectarian than any sect in Christendom ! I 
 
 But creeds, he says, cause persecution ; and he descanted eloquently 
 on the persecution suffered by Arius, in the fourth century. Let the 
 gentleman give us some little evidence, that creeds do originate persecu- 
 tion. If he will prove that they have any such tendency, I will imme- 
 diately abandon the defence of them. But have those ivho had no tvrit- 
 ten creed, never persecuted? For if they have, (and who does not know 
 it ?) it is certain that persecution does not originate in creeds. That it is 
 

 772 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 wrong* to force men to adopt any creed, written or unwritten, I maintain 
 as earnestly as Mr. C. But facts prove, beyond contradiction, that 
 churches, having no written creed, may be, and are, as exclusive and 
 as sectarian as any other, and as much disposed to force their opin- 
 ions on others. The gentleman's own church affords us evidence con- 
 clusive of the truth of this remark ; for without a written creed they have 
 excommunicated more christians than any creed in Christendom ! There 
 is not another Protestant denomination so exclusive as they ! 
 
 But in order to discuss this subject satisfactorily, we must understand 
 the precise point in debate. And let me here remark, that opposition to 
 creeds was the starting point in Mr. C.'s reformation. It is the more 
 important, therefore, that we examine the principle carefully ; for if he 
 set out on false principles, the course of conduct based upon those prin- 
 ciples is, of course, wrong. I will read an extract or two from his Chris- 
 tian System, for which I may have use hereafter : (pp. 8, 9.) 
 
 " The principle which was inscribed upon our banners when we withdrew 
 from the ranks of the sects, was, Faith in Jesus as the true Messiah, and 
 obedience to him as our Law-giver and King, the only test of christian char- 
 acter, and the only bond of christian union, communion, and co-operation, 
 irrespective of all creeds, opinions, commandments and traditions of men, 
 * * * * Unitarians, for example, have warred against human creeds, 
 because those creeds taught Trinitarianism. Arminians, too, have been 
 hostile to creeds, because those creeds supported Calvinism. It has indeed 
 been alledged, that all schismatics, good and bad, since the days of John 
 Wickliffe, and long before, have opposed creeds of human invention, be- 
 cause those creeds opposed them. But so far as this controversy resembles 
 them in its opposition to creeds, it is to be distinguished from them in this 
 all-essential attribute, viz. that our opposition to creeds arose from a con- 
 viction, that whether the opinions in them were true or false, they were hos- 
 tile to the union, peace, harmony, purity and joy of christians, and adverse 
 to the conversion of the world to Jesus Christ.'''' 
 
 But my charitable friend did not stop with condemning the use of 
 creeds, as tending to hinder the union of christians, and the progress of 
 the gospel. He has denounced and excommunicated all those churches 
 and individuals who have perpetrated the awful crime of making a creed ! 
 Since, then, the using of a written creed is made a damning sin, it is the 
 more important that we inquire into the merits of the question. To show 
 you the high ground taken by the gentleman, on this subject, I will read 
 a brief extract from the Christian Baptist, (pp. 4, 23.) 
 
 " Besides, to convert the heathen to the popular Christianity of these 
 times would be an object of no great consequence, as the popular christians 
 themselves, for the most part, require to be converted to the Christianity of 
 the New Testament." 
 
 Again : 
 
 "The worshiping establishments now in operation throughout Christen- 
 dom, increased and cemented by their respective voluminous confessions of 
 faith, and their ecclesiastical constitutions, are not churches of Jesus Christ, 
 but the legitimate daughters of that mother of harlots, the church of Rome V 
 
 Again, I will read in the Millenial Harbinger, vol. iii. p. 362. Here 
 we have a sort of doctrinal catechism. I will read question 168, and the 
 answer : 
 
 " Q, And what of the apostasy — do you place all the sects in the apos- 
 tasy 1 
 
 A. Yes ; all religious sects who have any human bond of union ; all who 
 rally under any articles of confederation, other than the apostles' doctrine, 
 and who refuse to yield all homage to the ancient order of things." 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 773 
 
 All, it seems, who are guilty of the heinous crime of using a creed, are 
 apostates from the church of Christ and from Christianity ! I have read 
 these extracts, my friends, that you may know the exclusiveness of the 
 doctrine of my charitable friend. Surely it behooves us to examine into 
 this subject, and ascertain whether writing and adopting a creed is, in- 
 deed, a crime of such magnitude as he pretends — a crime which amounts 
 to apostasy, and excludes from the church and from heaven. 
 
 The question now before us, is not whether the Nicene or the Athana- 
 sian creed, the Westminster confession, or any other creed now in exist- 
 ence, is good or bad, true or false. It is admitted, that there may be, as 
 there have been, erroneous creeds — creeds teaching false doctrines ; and it 
 is not denied that a bad creed will do injury, as will error, no matter in 
 what way it may be inculcated. But the question before us is not whe- 
 ther any particular creed is true or false, bat whether it is lawful and 
 expedient to have any creed — whether creeds are necessarily heretical 
 and schismatical. This being the question, and the only question before 
 us, you at once see the irrelevancy of all that my friend read to us con- 
 cerning the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. 
 
 To determine whether the using of a creed is lawful or unlawful, whe- 
 ther it tends necessarily to schism and heresy, it is necessary to inquire, 
 what is the design of creeds, as used by Protestant christians I They are 
 designed to answer several purposes, which I will proceed to state. 
 
 I. A creed is intended to be a public declaration of the great doctrines 
 and truths which we, as a body, understand the Bible to teach. It is not 
 a substitute for the Bible, nor an addition to it. The Westminister 
 confession (which I mention as an example, not as in this respect differ- 
 ing from others,) commences with a declaration, that the Bible, and the 
 Bible alone, contains the whole revelation of God, designed to be a rule 
 of faith and of life for his people. 
 
 " The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own 
 glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scrip- 
 ture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture : 
 unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation 
 of the Spirit, or tradition of men." 
 
 The confession, you see, at the very outset, declares, that the Bible 
 teaches every doctrine necessary to be believed, and prescribes every duty 
 to be performed in order to salvation, to which nothing is, at any time, to 
 be added, either by new revelation, or traditions of men. Then this creed 
 is not a substitute for the Bible, nor an addition to it. Other creeds, 
 adopted by evangelical denominations, take the same ground. Viewing 
 creeds, then, not as substitutes for, or additions to, the Bible, but as pub- 
 lic declarations of what those adopting them understand the Bible to teach, 
 we may inquire, whether they tend to produce heresy and schism. 
 
 Now let me here state an important fact, viz : It is impossible to know 
 any thing of a man's faith, from the mere fact of his saying, that he takes 
 the Bible alone as his infallible guide. When you hear an individual 
 make this declaration, I ask, do you know any thing definitely concern- 
 ing his faith — what particular doctrines he believes ? You do not. The 
 difficulty arises not from any obscurity in which the doctrines of the Bi- 
 ble are involved, for its fundamental truths especially are taught with re- 
 markable clearness, and very variously illustrated. The difficulty arises 
 from the fact, that men, professing to be guided in their faith and practice 
 by the Bible, have perverted its language, and employed it in a great va- 
 
 3t2 
 
774 DEBATE ON HUMAN CEEEDS. 
 
 riety of senses. When men, therefore, use Scripture phraseology, it is 
 by no means certain, that they use it in the sense in which it was em- 
 ployed by the inspired writers. For example, the time was, when the 
 expression " Son of God," had a clear and well-defined meaning. It 
 was then universally understood to express the proper divinity of Christ. 
 When he said to the Jews—" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," 
 we are told, " the Jews sought the more to kill him,, because he not only 
 had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making 
 himself equal with God"- — John v. 17, 18. But now the Arian, who 
 makes Christ only a super-angelic creature, and the Socinian, who makes 
 him a mere man, still use the Scripture language, li Son of God ;" but by 
 it they mean something infinitely different from what the inspired writers 
 meant. The difficulty arises not from any indefiniteness in the expres- 
 sion as used by the inspired writers ; for they evidently used it to express 
 the underived divinity of Christ. But erring men have given to the lan- 
 guage of inspiration new meanings ; and hence it happens, that whilst the 
 Arian, the Socinian, and the Trinitarian, all profess to take the Bible alone 
 as their infallible guide ; they differ infinitely in their interpretation of its 
 language on this vital subject. You cannot, therefore, know the faith of 
 any man by the fact that he professes to take the Bible as his rule of 
 faith and practice. 
 
 The very great importance of each denomination of professing chris- 
 tians giving a public declaration of the principal doctrines and truths they 
 understand the Scriptures to teach, will appear from two or three consi- 
 derations. 
 
 1st. Persons desiring to enjoy membership in the church of Christ, 
 can learn the views we, as a body, entertain, compare them with the Bi- 
 ble—the only rule of faith— -and determine whether they can conscien- 
 tiously unite and co-operate with us. No prudent man will become a 
 member of any society, of any kind, until he knows what are their prin- 
 ciples. Much less will any considerate man unite himself with any body 
 of professing christians, until he is well satisfied, that, as a body, they 
 hold and teach the fundamental doctrines and truths of Christianity. In 
 his selection of a church, not only are his usefulness and his comfort in- 
 volved ; but by it his children, and his children's children, are to have their 
 faith moulded, and their destiny determined. Never does a man take a 
 step more solemn in its character, or more momentous in its results, than 
 when he identifies himself and his family with a particular body of pro- 
 fessing christians. If there be any one act of his life which ought to be 
 preceded by most careful and prayerful examination, this is the act. The 
 interests, present and future, of those most dear to him, and to whom he 
 is under obligations the most solemn, require him to be assured before 
 connecting himself and them with any church, that that church holds and 
 teaches the truth. 
 
 Now suppose a man with his family to arrive in this country from 
 England. He desires to become a member of the church of Christ. He 
 finds a number of bodies claiming to constitute a part of that church, and 
 several, (of which the church of my friend Mr. C. is one,) claiming to 
 be the church. The deeply interesting question arises, with which of 
 these bodies can he, consulting his duty, his usefulness, his happiness, 
 and the present and eternal interest of his family, unite himself. Before 
 he can determine, he wishes to know, and it is absolutely essential that 
 he should know, how they severally understand the Bible — what are the 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 775 
 
 doctrines they understand it to teach. If he thinks of becoming a mem- 
 ber of any one of them, he desires first to compare their views with the 
 Word of God. He can take our confession of faith and very soon as- 
 certain what Presbyterians understand the Bible to teach; and he can 
 carefully compare their doctrines with that blessed Book, and determine, 
 in view of all his responsibilities, whether he can co-operate with us. 
 And he may learn from the creeds of the Methodists, Episcopalians and 
 others, what are their views. Thus he may be able to take a position in 
 which he and his family can be happy and useful. 
 
 But whither, I emphatically ask, in this world would such a man 
 go to ascertain the doctrines of this modern reformation? Where could 
 he ascertain what Mr. Campbell's church, as a body, understand the Bible 
 to teach ? I have said publicly, on another occasion, that there is abso- 
 lutely no source from which such information can be gained. The state- 
 ment has been by some of his brethren pronounced slanderous. I now 
 make it in the presence of Mr. Campbell, that he may disprove it, if he 
 can; and I call on him to enlighten us on this subject. I may ascer- 
 tain what he as an individual believes ; but what his church as a body 
 believes, I cannot possibly be informed; nor can any man living, unless 
 lie could hear every one of the preachers and members declare their sen- 
 timents. Hence no considerate man, as it appears to me, can become a 
 member of that church. He who does so, if he love the truth, may soon 
 have occasion to repent his imprudent step. 
 
 2d. A second important purpose answered by creeds, is this : other 
 christian communities can, by an examination of our creed, for example, 
 determine whether they can recognize us as constituting a part of the 
 family of God, and how far they can co-operate with us. I take it as 
 granted, that every true christian desires to know and recognize all the 
 disciples of Christ, and, so far as he consistently can, to co-operate with 
 them in promoting his cause. Other denominations of christians can, 
 by an examination of our creed, very soon determine whether they can 
 acknowledge the Presbyterian church, as a part of Christ's church. So 
 when we wish to determine whether we can acknowledge the Methodist, 
 the Baptist, or the Episcopal church, we can examine their creed, and as- 
 certain what they understand the Scriptures to teach. On examining their 
 articles of faith we see, that on some points we differ from them ; but we 
 also see, that on the fundamental doctrines of the gospel we are agreed 
 — that we stand, side by side, on the same immovable foundation. We 
 can, therefore, own them as brethren in the Lord, and rejoice in their 
 success in spreading abroad the saving knowledge of Christ. 
 
 But how can any denomination of christians determine to recognize 
 Mr. Campbell's church ? Aye, here is the difficulty. One man preach- 
 es one kind of doctrine, and another the opposite; and thus they are in- 
 volved in endless contradiction. Even their leader, Mr. C, notwithstanding 
 his strong partialities, is constrained to acknowledge and declare, that in 
 it all sorts of doctrine have been preached by almost all sorts of men ! 
 It is impossible to ascertain what, as a church, they do believe. The 
 very least, therefore, that any evangelical denomination can say, is, that 
 they do not know them, and cannot acknowledge them. 
 
 3d. A third purpose answered by a creed, is — that it becomes an impor- 
 tant means of instruction to members of the church. Our confession contains 
 a clear and distinct statement of the principal doctrines and duties of Chris- 
 tianity, with suitable reference to the word of God as supporting them. 
 
776 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 4th. A creed is an important means of correcting misrepresentations 
 and slanders concerning the faith of the church. No body of professing 
 christians is willing to lie under misrepresentations, to have their charac- 
 ter blackened, and the minds of the people prejudiced against them, by- 
 being charged with holding and teaching doctrines they abhor. But a 
 church with no creed cannot but be misrepresented. No man has com- 
 plained more of misrepresentations and slanders of his church than Mr. C. 
 Yet how can it be otherwise than that all kinds of doctrine will be charged 
 upon them, since he himself declares, that they do in fact preach all kinds 
 of doctrine ? Indeed one can scarcely charge the church with holding 
 any one tenet, without slandering or misrepresenting some of its mem- 
 bers ; for, as a body, they believe scarcely any thing ! You hear one of 
 their preachers to-day preach a certain set of doctrines ; and another in- 
 dividual hears another preach doctrines widely different, if not directly 
 contrary. You state what you have heard preached; and you are charged 
 with slander by some one who heard the other individual. 
 
 But if men misrepresent our doctrines, as they often do, our confession 
 of faith is a standing refutation of their false statements. If they charge 
 us with believing the doctrine of infant damnation, we refute and expose 
 the charge by reference to our book. 
 
 To these purposes answered by a creed, Mr. Campbell cannot object. 
 I venture to assert, that he himself would not unite with any body of 
 professing christians on their mere declaration that they go by the Bible, 
 without farther inquiries or explanations. He would desire some partic- 
 ular information concerning their faith. Even the Shakers, I believe, pro- 
 fess to receive the New Testament as their infallible guide. I remember 
 once to have read a letter from a Shaker female to her mother, and I found 
 it filled with quotations from the New Testament most strangely misap- 
 plied. All errorists profess to find their faith in the Bible. 
 
 A Mr. Jones, of England, wrote to Mr. Campbell, inquiring particu- 
 larly concerning his faith and the faith of his church on a number of 
 points. Mr. C. replied at considerable length, giving a detailed account 
 of the items of their belief. Why did he not say to Mr. Jones — ' we go 
 by the Bible ; read it and you will find our faith V But although he de- 
 nounces all creeds and professes to go by the Bible alone, he thought it 
 necessary particularly to write out and send his creed to Jones, and his 
 friends, over the water ! And in turn he inquired of Jones concerning 
 the faith of those with whom he was associated. If any one wishes to 
 know what Presbyterians believe, we refer him to our confession ; 
 and when we find others subscribing to that book, we can form some 
 definite idea, if they are honest men, what they understand the Scriptures 
 to teach. But Mr. Campbell, to remove the very difficulties I have sug- 
 gested, has published a kind of creed, which he calls " The Christian 
 System." That you may understand for what purposes he published 
 this work, I will read an extract on pages 10, 11. 
 
 " Having paid a very candid and considerate regard to all that has been 
 offered against these principles, as well as having been admonished from 
 the extremes into which some of our friends and brethren have carried some 
 points, I undertake this work with a deep sense of its necessity, and with 
 much anticipation of its utility, in exhibiting a concentrated view of the 
 whole ground we occupy — of rectifying some extremes — of furnishing new 
 means of defence to those engaged in contending with this generation for 
 primitive Christianity." 
 
 He undertook this work with a deep sense of its necessity, and antici- 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 777 
 
 pating much good that it would do by giving a concentrated view of the 
 whole ground he and his church occupy ! Does not the Bible exhibit 
 with sufficient clearness the views they entertain ? No. And he wished 
 to rectify some extremes. Could not the Bible rectify them ? But last, 
 though not least, he wished to furnish new means of defence to his 
 preachers. No doubt, they greatly needed means of defence ; but how 
 he, on his principles, could so think, I do not understand. Does he not 
 contend, that the Bible, without any creed or any other help, furnishes 
 abundant means of defence against error ? 
 
 The Christian System is not adopted by the gentleman's church ; for 
 it is a creed which they could not honestly adopt. And here is the difficul- 
 ty attending it. It professes to give " a concentrated view of the whole 
 ground" his church occupies, of the principles they hold. But what 
 evidence have we, that, as a body, they adopt these principles ? I know 
 that many of his leading preachers do reject some of the most impor- 
 tant doctrines here stated. If I were to charge them with holding such 
 views, they would consider themselves very much misrepresented. The 
 church, as a body, does not hold them. Many are further from the truth. 
 This System would induce us to believe, that Mr. C. is returning to 
 Babylon. 
 
 But these private creeds are absolutely worthless. They do not give 
 the information desired concerning the faith of the church. I have re- 
 cently seen two or three little creeds, in the Christian Journal, a paper 
 published in Harrodsburgh, each professing to give an outline of what the 
 gentleman's church, or some portion of it, holds ; but they differ most 
 seriously from each other. In one, I find the doctrine of total depravity; 
 and in the other it is entirely omitted. Some of the most prominent 
 preachers in the church do not believe it. We have truly quite a variety 
 of published statements of doctrine, coming from leading men in this 
 reformation ; but who can tell what the church, as a body, believes ? If 
 they consider themselves often misrepresented, they should remember, 
 that if men say any thing concerning their faith, they can scarcely avoid 
 misrepresenting some of them. How, I ask, can any considerate man 
 unite himself, and connect the destinies of his family, with a body of 
 people whose faith he never can ascertain, because there is no unity and 
 no means of certain information concerning it ? 
 
 II. The second general purpose answered by a creed is, that it is a 
 standard of ministerial qualification, as well as of the qualifications of 
 other church officers. A minister of the gospel, Paul says, must be " apt 
 to teach," 1 Tim. iii. 2. He must be one who " holds fast the faithful 
 word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine 
 both to exhort and convince the gainsayers," Tit. i. 9. Other passages 
 of the same character might be quoted, were it necessary. 
 
 Mr. Campbell will not deny that some qualifications are necessary to 
 the work of the ministry. He will admit, that the man who undertakes 
 to preach the gospel, ought to possess some education, to be able to teach. 
 Men will not patronize a teacher of a little country school, until they have 
 some evidence that he understands the branches he proposes to teach. 
 Unspeakably more important is it, that he who undertakes to expound 
 the Word of God to immortal minds, should be " apt to teach." And 
 the church is most solemnly bound to know, that he possesses the neces- 
 sary qualifications, before she ordains him to the work. 
 
 Again, Mr. C. will not deny, that the candidate of the ministerial office 
 
778 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 should give evidence of his personal purity and of his soundness in the 
 faith. If he be not truly pious, whatever talents and learning he may pos- 
 sess, he cannot preach the gospel. If he be not sound in the faith — if 
 he hold dangerous error, he will mislead and ruin multitudes. The gen- 
 tleman will not deny the necessity of these qualifications ; nor will he 
 deny that it is both the duty and the interest of the church, as far as pos- 
 sible, to see to it that none enter upon the responsible work, who are des- 
 titute of them ; for " whether one member suffers, all the members suffer 
 with it." Every unworthy minister is a terrible curse to the body with 
 which he is connected. 
 
 Now observe, God has made it the solemn duty of the church to se- 
 cure, as far as possible, ministers possessing these qualifications. He 
 has prescribed no particular method of ascertaining the qualifications of 
 individuals seeking the office. No passage of Scripture can be produced 
 requiring any one method to be pursued. Then it follows, that he has left 
 the church to secure the object in whatever way may be deemed wisest 
 or most expedient. This, I presume, cannot be denied. 
 
 The Presbyterians have deemed it wise to draw up an outline of the 
 doctrines and truths they understand the Scriptures to teach, and to re- 
 quire all who seek the office of the ministry at their hands, to state dis- 
 tinctly whether they so understand them. We have also agreed on what 
 we regard as a proper standard of literary and scientific attainments, that 
 our ministers, being sound in the faith and suitably educated, may be 
 " workmen that need not be ashamed." Our regard for the cause of 
 Christ and for the eternal interests of men, as well as our solemn respon- 
 sibility to God, forbid us to allow men to go forth with our sanction, until 
 we have ascertained, as far as possible, whether they have the qualifica- 
 tions required by the Head of the church. 
 
 Quacks in medicine kill the body. Quacks in theology kill the soul. 
 If it is wise in our legislatures to forbid men to practice medicine, until duly 
 qualified, surely it is wise in the church to refuse to invest men with the 
 office of the ministry, until they are properly prepared for its solemn 
 duties. Paul admonished Timothy to " lay hands suddenly on no man" 
 — not to place in the sacred office " a novice, lest, being lifted up with 
 pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil." 
 
 The uniformity of our standard of ministerial qualifications, begets con- 
 fidence and preserves harmony throughout our church. If a Presbyterian 
 minister from the east or the far west visit our churches, we are not afraid, 
 that, if invited to preach in our pulpits, he will inculcate dangerous and 
 destructive error. We know his faith. True, we may be deceived by 
 hypocrites. Our creeds are not expected entirely to shield us from such 
 imposition. 
 
 Nor is this all. Creeds, so far from creating schism, tend to draw evan- 
 gelical denominations more closely together. In examining the creeds of 
 our Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal or Congregational brethren, we dis- 
 cover that on some points we differ from them ; but we also see, that as to 
 the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, we agree. We can, therefore, 
 preach and pray together, and aid each other in the good work. I can 
 sincerely thank God, that the labors of the Wesleyan Methodists have 
 been blessed to the conversion of thousands of blinded pagans, in the 
 islands of the South Sea; that the Baptists have successfully proclaimed 
 the gospel in Burmah ; and that other evangelical denominations are en- 
 gaged in the same glorious work. I bid them God speed. Some time 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 779 
 
 since, I read with deep interest an account of a meeting of a number of 
 missionaries, of several evangelical denominations, at Jerusalem, for the 
 purpose of consulting how they might most successfully promote the cause 
 of truth and righteousness in that dark region. They knew well each 
 others' views of divine truth by means of their several creeds, and were 
 thereby prepared to co-operate in the general cause. 
 
 Not long since, two denominations of Presbyterians were united in one 
 ecclesiastical organization, and formed the General Assembly of the Pres- 
 byterian church in Ireland. They had a creed, by which they could as- 
 certain each others' views ; and, finding themselves on common ground, 
 they became united in one body. And I understand, there is now a plan 
 on foot, for the purpose of uniting two very respectable denominations in 
 our country. I mean the German Reformed and the Dutch Reformed 
 churches. 
 
 III. The adoption of our confession of faith, let it be distinctly under- 
 stood, is not required as a condition of membership in our church. In 
 order to obtain membership, we require persons to receive the fundamen- 
 tal doctrines of the gospel, and to give satisfactory evidence of possessing 
 true piety. It is not expected, that before entering the church, persons 
 who have been converted, will examine a system of truth so extensive as 
 that contained in our confession. We do not expect the pupil to be as 
 well instructed as his teacher. 
 
 Now I ask my friend, Mr. C., where in the Bible he can find a law for- 
 bidding creeds for these purposes ? There are two principles taught in 
 the Scriptures, of which we should never lose sight : 1st. We may not do 
 what the Bible forbids ; and, 2d. We may not condemn what the Bible 
 does not condemn. If there is in the Bible a passage which condemns 
 the use of creeds for the purposes I have mentioned, let it be produced. 
 If there is not, by what authority does Mr. C. condemn as apostates, all 
 christians who have a creed ? Most assuredly, if he cannot find a " Thus 
 saith the Lord," to sustain him in his sweeping denunciations, he and his 
 church stand in a most unenviable attitude. They have condemned those 
 whom God has not condemned. They have excommunicated multitudes 
 whom he owns as his children, because they have ventured to do what he 
 never did forbid. " Judge not, that ye be not judged." 
 
 Again, I ask, what is the standard of ministerial qualification in Mr, 
 Campbell's church ? By the way, I do not speak his church in an invi- 
 dious sense, as he seems to imagine. I often speak of the Presbyterian 
 church as my church ; and of Kentucky as my native state. But I am par- 
 ticularly anxious to know what is the standard of ministerial qualification 
 in his church. What education is required of those who desire to be- 
 come public teachers ? What knowledge of the Scriptures — what sound- 
 ness in the faith is required ? What truths are they required to believe 
 and teach, when they go forth under the sanction of the church ? I press 
 these questions the more earnestly, because we are to regard this as the 
 model church — as the church — the very best and most successful effort 
 in this nineteenth century, " to restore the ancient order of things." Is 
 there in the gentleman's church, any uniform standard of education? 
 There is not ! Is any particular acquaintance with the Scriptures — any 
 theological training required ? None ! ! Is there any standard as to 
 soundness in the faith ? None whatever ! ! ! 
 
 What is the consequence of this state of things ? All sorts of men may 
 preach, and do preach all sorts of doctrine. No wonder — the door is wide 
 
780 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 open. And who does not know, that if all may preach, the most rash, 
 self-conceited^ ignorant persons will preach ? Such men will, to a great 
 extent, be your preachers ; whilst those better qualified, but more modest, 
 will shrink from the responsibility. 
 
 Concerning christian union let me repeat, we are most decidedly in 
 favor of it. This is a theme on which my friend Mr. C. has long de- 
 claimed. And where is the christian whose heart does not respond to 
 every appeal in favor of the union of the disciples of Christ? But what 
 is christian union ? We go for it not in name, but in fact. Let us in- 
 quire what is the union of which the inspired writers speak. Paul, in the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, thus speaks concerning it: "And he gave 
 some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, 
 pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the 
 ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ : till we all come in the 
 unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 
 man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:" chapter 
 iv. 11—13. 
 
 What is the union of which the apostle speaks ? It is the unity of the 
 faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God. The oneness of which 
 the Bible speaks, does not consist in having the same name, or in sus- 
 taining the same ecclesiastical relation. A thousand persons may be 
 thrown together in the same church, and yet there may be no real unity, 
 and no true union amongst them. They may all profess to be guided by 
 the Bible, but their views may be so discordant, that they are not one in 
 any good sense. Bible unity consists in having the same faith, knowing 
 and receiving the same great doctrines and truths, as taught in the Scrip- 
 tures ; and no union without this is desirable or attainable. If any man 
 can devise a plan by which a closer union of this kind can be secured, I 
 will promote it with all my heart. But I do not believe in the plan of 
 throwing all christians into one ecclesiastical organization, so long as 
 they differ on some important points of doctrine and order. 
 
 The different families in this city are now living in harmony and friend- 
 ship. They enjoy each other's society, and afford mutual assistance, as 
 circumstances require ; and, in one important sense, they constitute one 
 community. But throw them all into one house, and they would quarrel 
 in less than twenty-four hours. [A laugh.] They have different ways 
 of doing divers things, and they would be constantly coming in collision. 
 So it is with the different evangelical denominations. They can now 
 cordially co-operate in many benevolent enterprises, and rejoice in each 
 others' success in doing good. But bring us all together in one organi- 
 zation, with our different views of minor matters, and difficulties must 
 almost immediately arise. When they all see alike, there will be no dif- 
 ficulty in prevailing on them to unite in one body, as the two denomina- 
 tions in Ireland have done. Till then, they can labor in the cause of 
 Christ more harmoniously and more efficiently in their separate organi- 
 zations, than if thrown into one body. 
 
 Mr. Campbell has undertaken to prove, that human creeds, as bonds of 
 union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical. In ad- 
 dition to the arguments already offered on the negative of this proposition, 
 I wish to state and prove one important fact, viz. There is more heresy 
 and more schism in those churches that have no creeds, than in most of 
 those that have creeds. The gentleman contends that creeds produce 
 heresy and schism ; but if I prove that these evils abound more where 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 781 
 
 there are no creeds, than where there are, it will follow that he has 
 ascribed effects to a wrong cause. If a physician, should contend, that a 
 certain malignant fever is caused by a particular climate, and it were 
 proved that the same fever does, in fact, prevail in a very different cli- 
 mate ; it would follow, that he had entirely mistaken the cause. When 
 a man ascribes an effect to a certain cause, if I can prove that the effect 
 exists where the cause is not found, the conclusion is inevitable, that he 
 has not found the true cause. 
 
 Now I assert, and am prepared to prove, that there is more real schism, 
 and more heresy, in the church of which Mr. C. is a member, than can 
 be found in any Protestant church that has a creed. This church is the 
 latest edition of a no-creed church, and, he will say, the very best. I am 
 willing so to take it. I will now proceed to prove the truth of my state- 
 ment. If I make it appear that heresy and schism abound in his church, 
 the conclusion will follow, that creeds are not the cause of these evils. 
 
 1. It is a fact, that his church necessarily admits to its communion 
 errorists of almost every grade. But he tells us, his church goes by 
 the Bible. Do they go by the Bible, as Mr. C. understands it ? No — for 
 then he would be pope ; and he professes to be a bitter enemy of all 
 popes. Do they go by the Bible, as each little church understands it? 
 No — for then every little church, of a dozen members, would be constitut- 
 ed an infallible council. Do they go by the Bible, as each individual 
 understands it for himself? This must be the way. 
 
 Then, I ask, is not Mr. C.'s church obliged to receive to its fellowship 
 every individual who professes to take the Bible as his rule of faith and 
 practice? The church is not to interpret the Bible for him. Now suppose 
 I should renounce my creed, and seek to become a member of the gen- 
 tleman's church — would they receive me ? I say to them I have no writ- 
 ten creed — I go by the Bible, and I claim the right of membership in the 
 church. They are solemnly bound to receive me, or renounce their fun- 
 damental principle. How can they exclude the Arian, the Socinian, 
 the Universalist, or any errorist who may choose to enter the church ? 
 They all profess to take the Bible as their infallible guide. The Univer- 
 salist, for example, can say, that he has no written creed — that he goes by 
 the Bible alone. The door into the church is wide enough to admit him. 
 You cannot reject him without a palpable abandonment of your funda- 
 mental principle, that every man is to take the Bible simply as he under- 
 stands it. I will prove, in due time, that the gentleman's church has a 
 creed — a short one indeed, but one of the most exclusive in the world. 
 
 I will now prove, that their foundation is broad enough for all to stand 
 upon — that they cannot exclude any individual who professes to take the 
 Bible alone as his rule of faith and life. They must even admit the Pedo- 
 baptist, or abandon their principle ; for he professes to go by the Book. 
 I will read in Christianity Restored, pp. 118, 119. 
 
 " But the grandeur, sublimity, and beauty of the foundation of hope, and 
 of ecclesiastical or social union, established by the Author and Founder of 
 Christianity, consisted in this, that the belief of one fact, and that upon the 
 best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to 
 salvation. The belief of this one fact, and submission to one institution ex- 
 pressive of it, is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the church. 
 A christian, as defined, not by Dr. Johnson, nor any creed-maker, but by 
 one taught from Heaven, is one that believes this one fact, and has submit- 
 ted to one institution, and whose deportment accords with the morality and 
 virtue of the great Prophet. The one fact is expressed in a single propo- 
 
 3U 
 
782 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 sition, that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah. The evidence upon which 
 it is to be believed is the testimony of twelve men, confirmed by prophecy, 
 miracles and spiritual gifts. The one institution is baptism into the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Every such person 
 is a disciple, in the fullest sense of the word, the moment he has believed 
 this one fact." — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 30 — 12 o'clock, M. 
 fjtfR. Campbell's second address.] 
 
 Mr. President — A person, in only one half hour, can make more 
 points than could be discussed in a year. Nay, sir, a child can propose 
 more questions in five minutes than a philosopher could answer in an 
 age. The speech which you have just heard, is a most singular com- 
 pound, difficult to refer to any one head or classification ; but, fortunately, 
 it was most self-refutable and suicidal. The drift and scope of the first 
 half of it was to prove me to be one of the most exclusive men in the 
 world. He spent almost half his time in showing the detailed evidences 
 of my superlative exclusiveness : but the remainder of it was, indeed, not 
 in the most complimentary way, yet still it was decidedly in favor of my 
 remarkable inclusiveness and latitudinarianism. So that our exclusive 
 inclusiveness was made to stand out before you in very bold dimensions. 
 Strange conceptions. We exclude all and receive all — mentally at least. 
 We manage, however, this peculiar exclusiveness of theory so as to 
 make it the most inclusive of any other system in operation in this com- 
 munity. We must, then, attend, if not to all, to as many, at least, as 
 possible of these points of evidence by which Mr. Rice would sustain 
 these grievous imputations and aspersions, for arguments no one will call 
 them. 
 
 He commenced by telling you how many books I have written, and 
 this, of course, is his first argument in defence of creeds. Now, in point 
 of logic, this argument is refuted by one fact, viz : that of all these books 
 not one has ever been used as a confession of faith by any congregation, 
 or community, in the world. If I had, then, written a hundred volumes, 
 they would not, in the aggregate, nor in the detail, count any thing at all 
 as an offset against this little book, called the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, for one reason that a child may comprehend : no individual, no 
 society amongst us either so contemplates them, or uses them, in theory 
 or in practice. On yesterday, holding up this volume — the " Christian 
 System in reference to the union of christians" &c. — by way of re- 
 sponse, he would have you believe, that we regarded it as a creed, or 
 some such thing. I must, then, pause a moment on this, his first argu- 
 ment for creeds. Does not the gentleman comprehend the difference be- 
 tween writing a book on any religious question, and making that book a 
 creed, a test by which to try the principles of men, in order to church or 
 ministerial fellowship ? If Mr. Rice comprehends the difference, to what 
 influence, then, are we to assign his attempt to place this book before you 
 in such an attitude ? 
 
 But, as it is always fair and honorable, in discussion, to answer an argu- 
 ment in the very same logic and rhetoric by which it is assailed, I ask, if 
 writing a book on any religious subject be making a creed, then how many 
 creeds have the Presbyterians in their church ?! ! How many hundred 
 to one, or how many thousand to one, have they against us ? Who can 
 count the number of folios, quartos, octavos, and duodecimos issued from 
 the Presbyterian press, and published by its doctors, its learned rabbins, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 783 
 
 ministers, laymen, on every question in theology — didactic, speculative, 
 polemic, pragmatic, practical, &c. How many magazines, reviews, re- 
 positories, and periodicals are annually still teeming from their presses ! 
 Are these all creeds and confessions of faith ? If not, then, in logic, in 
 truth, and in candor, why so represent my few unpretending volumes ? 
 I have too much respect for your good sense, my fellow-citizens — I have 
 too much respect for my own intellectual standing in this community, 
 than to argue such a point before you. I think it is more than sufficient 
 to state the fact, and submit the case thus formally to your own deliber- 
 ate reflections and decision ! We all write books, and will continue, if 
 not Solomons, like king Solomon, to write many books ; for he says, of 
 many books there is no end. I presume in number he meant; and true 
 it is, also, of many books there is no point. But time will do with most 
 of our books as it did with those of even Solomon the wise — send them 
 to oblivion. 
 
 We are not, then, to be impugned for writing a book ; nor are our ar- 
 guments against creeds to be met with the fact, that we have written a 
 volume, or various volumes, upon the religious and moral questions that 
 agitate and disturb society. All professors, Catholic and Protestant, dis- 
 tinguish between writing a book and making a creed. We cannot be as- 
 sailed on this point but by a train of reasoning that would reprobate all 
 Catholic, all Protestant Christendom, in all ages and in all nations. He 
 that does not, or cannot, appreciate the difference between making a doc- 
 trinal standard, to measure candidates for admission into christian churches, 
 and a book explanatory of our views of any thing in the Bible, or out 
 of it, is not to be reasoned with on any subject. 
 
 But the gentleman has pronounced a compliment on the confession. 
 Remark the drift of his words — men read the Bible and mistake its mean- 
 ing — -misconstrue, overstrain, and pervert its language. Take, for exam- 
 ple, says he, the phrase, "Son of God." This phrase is now so well 
 defined in the creeds, that it is a test of orthodoxy ! Handsome compli- 
 ment truly ! Uninspired men traced, ascertained, and fixed for ever the 
 exact meaning of the phrase, "Son of God" so that now they can keep 
 out hosts of heretics and heresiarchs, who, through the loose, unguarded, 
 and vague style of inspired men, had, before the invention of these safe- 
 guards of truth, crept into the church ! How comes it to pass, that unin- 
 spired men have views so much clearer, definite, and unambiguous, than 
 those guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are able to express 
 them in terms so much more apposite than did the holy twelve ? ! Does 
 not Mr. R. believe, that holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Spirit? Now if John Calvin, or the Westminster divines, can speak 
 more learnedly, more intelligibly, more definitely, than the inspired ora- 
 cles of God's Spirit, what is the value of inspiration ? The less inspira- 
 tion the better ! 
 
 Desultory must be my notices of such a defence of creeds as you have 
 heard. The gentleman's next argument in favor of creeds is my unchar- 
 itableness. Well, I am pleased with this argument. He must be expert 
 at it ; for I am told, it has been one of his standing topics for several 
 years. It will give me an opportunity of meeting the charge with one 
 well versed in the subject, profoundly read, and erudite on this theme. 
 He has not studied my writings to much profit, if he still regards me as 
 most exclusively uncharitable. Well, what is the true state of the case ? 
 We all see, that Christendom is, at present, in a disturbed, agitated, dis- 
 
784 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 located condition — cut up, or frittered down into sects and parties innu* 
 merable, wholly unwarranted by right reason, pure religion, the Bible, 
 the God of the Bible. Before the high, and holy, and puissant intelli- 
 gences of earth and heaven, this state of things is most intolerable. I 
 have, for some five and twenty years, regarded human creeds as both the 
 cause and the effect of partyism, and the main perpetuating causes of 
 schism, and, therefore, have remonstrated and inveighed against them. 
 Not, like many who oppose creeds, because they have first opposed their 
 peculiar tenets ; we opposed them on their own demerits, not because 
 they opposed us. In this particular at least, if not on other accounts, 
 we differ from the great majority of those who oppose them— because 
 old parties were sustained by them, because they made new parties, 
 and because they were roots of bitterness and apples of discord, we 
 opposed them. 
 
 In lieu of them all, we tendered the book that God gave us. We re- 
 gard the Lord Jesus Christ as King, Lord, Lawgiver, and Prophet of the 
 church, and well qualified by the power of the Holy Spirit, to give us all 
 a perfect volume — one in substance and in form exactly adapted, as he 
 would have it, for just such a family as the great family of man ; if we 
 believe that the Lord Jesus was wiser and more benevolent than all his 
 followers, in their united wisdom and benevolence ; and that he both 
 could and would give them such a book as they needed. It is both the 
 light of salvation and the bond of union amongst the saved. We abjure 
 creeds, simply as substitutes, directly or indirectly substitutes, for the book 
 of inspiration. In other respects, we have no objection whatever to any 
 people publishing their tenets, or views, or practices to the world. I have 
 no more objections to writing my opinions than I have to speaking them. 
 But, mark it well, it is the making of such compends of views, in the 
 ecclesiastic sense, creeds (that is, terms of communion or bonds of union) 
 > — I say again, as ecclesiastic documents, as terms of exclusion and recep- 
 tion of members, we abjure them. Calling them creeds is, indeed, a grand 
 misnomer. They have been, in days of yore, collects of speculations, by 
 which in numerous instances to ferret out heretics and slaughter inno- 
 cents—tests of orthodoxy, which in no country a person can safely, so 
 far as respects his person, his reputation or his property, publicly oppose. 
 They have, in ages of proscription and tyranny, for the single sin of non- 
 conformity, slaughtered their millions. On these accounts, as causes of 
 oppression to scrupulous consciences ; as sources of alienation and es- 
 trangement amongst good men ; as tests to proscribe and oppress, to per- 
 secute and to destroy, we solemnly abjure them, regardless of their con- 
 tents, whether orthodox or heterodox. Our sin, in the eyes of all devot- 
 ed to them, is, that we substitute for them the new covenant as our 
 church covenant, and the apostolic writings as our christian creed, be- 
 lieving all things in the law and in the prophets. 
 
 We preach, in the words of that book, the gospel, as promulged by the 
 apostles in Jerusalem. We use, in all important matters, the exact words 
 of inspiration. We command all men to believe, repent and bring forth 
 fruits worthy of reformation. We enjoin the same good works com- 
 manded by the Lord and by his apostles. We receive men of all denomi- 
 nations under heaven — of all sects and parties, who will make the good 
 confession, on which Jesus Christ builded his church. We propound 
 that .confession of the faith in the identical words of inspiration; so that 
 they who avow it, express a divine faith, and build upon a consecrated 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 785 
 
 foundation — a well tried corner stone. On a candid and sincere confession 
 of this faith, we immerse all persons, and then present them with God's 
 own book as their book of faith, piety, and morality. This is our most 
 obnoxious offence against the partyism of this age. 
 
 On this ground many of us have stood for many years. We have fuilv 
 tested this principle. Men, formerly of all persuasions, and of all de- 
 nominations and prejudices, have been baptized on this good confession, 
 and have united in one community. Among them are found those who 
 had been Romanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, 
 Restorationists, Quakers, Arians, Unitarians, &c, &c. We have one 
 faith, one Lord, one baptism, but various opinions. These, when left to 
 vegetate, without annoyance, if erroneous, wither and die. We find much 
 philosophy in one of Paul's precepts, somewhat mistranslated, " Receive 
 one another without regard to differences of opinion." We, indeed, re- 
 ceive to our communion persons of other denominations who will take 
 upon them the responsibility of their participating with us. We do, in- 
 deed, in our affections and in our practice, receive all christians, all who 
 give evidence of their faith in the Messiah, and of their attachment to his 
 person, character, and will. 
 
 Our charities are, then, more extensive than those of my opponent. 
 We have not so many dogmas in our creed. All these persons, of so 
 many and so contradictory opinions, weekly meet around our Lord's table 
 in hundreds of churches all over the land. Our bond of union is, faith 
 in the slain Messiah, in his death for our sins, and his resurrection for our 
 justification. Therefore, we acknowledge nothing among us but Christ, 
 and him crucified. We do not talk of old opinions — we desire to be ab- 
 sorbed in the Lord Messiah, as made unto us " wisdom, righteousness, 
 sanctification, and redemption." 
 
 Our doctrine is catholic, very catholic — not Roman Catholic, nor Greek 
 Catholic — but simply catholic. All admit the New Testament and its 
 ordinances, the seven unities of Paul. We are so exclusive, however, 
 that we say to every one, without the fold, you must repent and be bap- 
 tized for the remission of your sins, if you would enjoy the fullness of 
 the blessing of the gospel of Christ. Still we do not so make conditions 
 of ultimate salvation out of the conditions of church membership. We 
 are not now descanting upon the conditions of salvation among the ante- 
 diluvians, the Jews, the pagans, infants, and those otherwise incapable of 
 hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel. Mr. Rice has told us what 
 is necessary to a church on earth. We extend our views much farther. 
 We stand on ground much more catholic and charitable; embracing, with- 
 out regard to so many diversities of opinion, all who sincerely believe in 
 the Messiah, and are willing to be governed by his precepts. 
 
 After all the gentleman has said of his confession of faith, it is very 
 far from a scriptural, plain, and intelligible exhibition of christian doctrine. 
 I could satisfy Presbyterian clergymen themselves that there is no form- 
 ulary of faith more obscure, or difficult of definite and clear apprehension, 
 than the creed and catechism of Westminster. In proof of this, I appeal 
 to the divisions it has made during the two centuries of its existence. It 
 was a document made by divines and politicians— a state expedient, with 
 which no church of Christ, no professed body of christians, had anything 
 to do. It was political in its conception, political in its execution, and 
 political in its spirit and design. It was as political in its day, as were 
 our articles of state confederation in their day and generation ; and got up 
 50 3u2 
 
786 
 
 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 for a purpose as similar as any two great conventional affairs eould be, 
 at the distance of two centuries, and of four thousand miles. 
 
 With all the boasted plainness and clearness of that document, its most 
 learned ministers interpret both it and the Bible as diversely as Mr. Rice 
 and myself. I will select an. instance, by way of illustration, from the 
 subject of debate on yesterday, and show him how one of the most distin- 
 guished Presbyterian preachers in the valley of the Mississippi, under- 
 stands the doctrine of the Bible and the confession on that question. 
 The doctrine which I have set forth here on the present occasion is the doc- 
 trine of the confession on spiritual influence, if the elder Dr. Beecher is a 
 competent judge of this doctrine : the doctrine which I have taught here, 
 not the doctrine reprobated in my opponent's last speech yesterday even- 
 ing, as mine ; for the doctrine he assigned to me then and there is not my 
 doctrine at all, as my own addresses will show to every candid mind. But 
 my own doctrine, set forth in this discussion, is the doctrine of the Pres- 
 byterian church, if Mr. Beecher be right, and the Westminster confession 
 be an intelligible document ; and here now is the proof of it in the Doctor's 
 own words : 
 
 " Dr. Beecher. — I hold that God operates on matter by his direct om- 
 nipotence ; and that he operates on mind by the gospel, and by the whole 
 amount of moral means, which he applies to it, called in Scripture the 
 word, the truth, &c. But Dr. Wilson asks, is it to be endured that any 
 man should say that God will exclude himself from immediate, direct ope- 
 ration on mind in regeneration 1 Why that will be just as he chooses. He 
 will not, unless it so seems good in his sight ; and if it does, he will. The 
 question is whether he does, and we are to bring no a priori conclusions to 
 that question. To the word and to the testimony. What does God say! 
 Dr. Wilson says, that I hold God cannot directly operate on the human 
 mind ; and he is awfully horrified that such an idea should ever have been 
 advanced. But I did not say any such thing, and never have said it. * * 
 
 I did not say that God cannot act on the human mind directly ; nor have 
 I ever said that he does so act. I said that no such thing could be advanced 
 philosophically and theoretically as God acting by means and not by means 
 at the same time. I was only interpreting what God says about it. I never 
 said that it was impossible for him to do what he would, by direct agency. 
 But I did say, that if he does it directly, then he does not do it mediately. 
 If he does it by naked omnipotence, then he does not do it by the word as 
 an instrument : for the two things are inconsistent. No doubt God can do 
 either. But he chooses to do one, and not the other. To settle which this 
 is, I go not to philosophy and speculation, but to the word of God. If there 
 is any heresy in my opinions on this subject, it is the heresy of the confession 
 of faith. My faith is in that position which both the confession and the 
 catechisms lay down. I advance no theory about it. I stand upon the lan- 
 guage of the confession. If that is not with me, then I must fall. All I 
 say is, that direct action without an instrument, and action by the .truth, 
 are not the same thing, and cannot co-exist. If a man levels a tree by 
 pushing it down with his naked hand, then he does not level the tree by 
 chopping it down with an axe. Now the confession and the word of God 
 say that God converts men by the truth. Here I beg leave to offer, in cor- 
 roboration of my view, the opinion of Matthew Henry, in his Commentary 
 on James i. 18: 
 
 ' Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth. — Here let us take 
 notice, 1. A true christian is a creature begotten anew. * * * 2. The 
 original of this good work is here declared : it is of God's own will ; not by 
 our skill or power, not from any good foreseen in us, or done by us, but 
 purely from the goodwill and grace of God. 3. The means whereby this is 
 effected are pointed out : the word of truth, that is, the gospel ; as St. Paul 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 787 
 
 expresses it more plainly, 1 Cor. iv. 15, I have begotten you to Jesus Christ 
 through the gospel. This gospel is indeed a word of truth, or else it could 
 never produce such zeal, such lasting, such great and noble effects. We 
 may rely upon it, and venture our immortal souls upon it.' " 
 
 I affirm, if I know the meaning of words,. that the doctrine and inter- 
 pretations of Dr. Beecher, as set forth in this extract, backed by Matthew 
 Henry, is precisely what I have been endeavoring to set forth for the last 
 three days. Have I not said that the question was, whether with or 
 without the truth; whether mediately or immediately ; whether directly 
 or through an instrument, the Spirit operates upon the sinner in conver- 
 sion, and the saint in sanctification ? I say, it is either the one or the 
 other. So says Dr. Beecher. I say, it is either mediately or immedi- 
 ately. So says the Doctor. I say, it is mediately, or through an instru- 
 ment, or through the Word. So says the Doctor. We are perfectly agreed 
 in all these points. Do you think, sir, that Dr. Beecher does not under- 
 stand the confession ? If not, what is this confession worth ? But if there 
 be heresy in me, it is in the confession too, if Dr. Beecher is right. 
 Either, then, the confession is an obscure book, or it teaches the doctrine 
 which I teach. 
 
 Mr. Rice asks me for authority. Authority for what — for his having 
 a creed other than the Bible 1 Let him bring his own authority ! 1 have 
 precepts authorizing me to contend for the faith formerly delivered to the 
 saints. Let him bring a Thus saith the Lord, in support of his assertions. 
 
 But he asks for a precept against creeds. The gentleman has changed 
 since the other day. He said, there was no precept against promiscuous 
 dancing — against games of chance. Why, then, ask me for a precept 
 against creeds? Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis. We 
 change principles with books — tenets with times, as some might translate 
 it. There is no precept against duelling, horse-racing, theatres, &c. — and 
 shall we ask for a precept against creeds ! He knows the proof lies upon 
 the affirmant. He feels the lack of divine authority. He can bring no 
 authority for making a creed. Whenever he attempts, we will demon- 
 strate his failure. I presume he will not try. 
 
 The gentleman talks of quacks in medicine, and quacks in theology. I 
 admit there are such, many such. We have learned quacks, too. I am 
 opposed to learned, as well as to unlearned quacks. I presume, even the 
 pope of Rome, in his esteem, is a learned quack — else why pretend to 
 infallibility ? Many of his prelates, too, are learned quacks. If they are 
 not, they are true expositors of the Bible ; and if they be — alas, for the 
 Bible ! 
 
 Mr. Rice asks another question : What is our standard of orthodoxy — 
 of ministerial orthodoxy or attainments ? I could, perhaps, satisfy the 
 gentleman's laudable curiosity by telling him some of our practice. When 
 we baptize a Presbyterian, or any other of the Pedo-baptist family of 
 churches, we simply add to his old stock of knowledge on hand, all that 
 he confesses in his baptism, and all that he sees new in our order of wor- 
 ship. If he should have a tongue to speak, and a character worthy of 
 being a proclaimer of the truth, we send him out into the vineyard. The 
 other evening, for example, we baptized a Pedo-baptist minister, of repu- 
 table education and character — a graduate of Union college, New York, 
 and of the theological seminary at Gettysburgh, Pennsylvania. We only 
 require such a brother to add to his former biblical attainments the new 
 ideas acquired, and then go and spread them abroad through the length 
 
788 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 and breadth of the land. We commend to him the New Testament espe- 
 cially as our creed, and advise him to take Moses and the prophets as pio- 
 neers to the christian institution ; and as he grows in knowledge, teach it* 
 that his profiting may appear to all. 
 
 I confess, in our widely extended connection, we have many sent out 
 too soon — not properly qualified. But in this respect, we are no worse 
 than were the Lutherans and Calvinists of former times. I can tell a long 
 story about their proceedings, and their difficulties, errors and blunders, 
 during their incipiency. There is the elementary state, and the transition 
 state in society, as well as the matured and perfected state. Every thing 
 cannot be done in a few days. Years were occupied in the experiments 
 of Presbyterians, Lutherans and English Episcopalians. The Presbyte- 
 rians in Scotland were not able to form a synod till 1560, if I remember 
 right. And then a synod was somewhat different from what it is now. 
 Indeed, the General Assembly in this community have changed as much 
 within thirty years, as our own community. — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 30— 12£ o'clock, P. M. 
 
 [mr. rice's second reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I expected, in the discussion of this subject, to pro- 
 pound to my friend some questions that would prove troublesome, and 
 rather difficult to answer. He must, however, allow me to ask a few now 
 and then. 
 
 He would have you think, that I made a very suicidal speech ; but not 
 another individual in the house, 1 venture to say, made the discovery. 
 How was it suicidal ? Why, he says, I proved his church to be more 
 exclusive than any other, and more inclusive. I did, indeed, not only 
 assert, but I proved, that it is more exclusive than any other. I proved 
 it, not by enemies, but by prominent men. in his own church — Dr. Fish- 
 back and Barton W. Stone. But I also proved, he says, that it includes 
 every body ; and this was my inconsistency. I proved, that according to 
 the fundamental principles of his reformation, he is bound to receive all, 
 good and bad, who profess to take the Bible as their infallible guide ; and 
 that, in his exclusiveness, he is most inconsistent with his own principles. 
 His foundation is broad enough to receive all ; but in practice he excludes 
 multitudes of the most godly christians. The inconsistency was not in 
 my speech, but in his principles and his conduct. 
 
 The writing of a book, he says, is not the same thing as making a creed. 
 This is true ; but he attempted to prove it wrong to make a creed, because 
 there is no command to do it. It is, then, wrong to do any thing we are 
 not commanded to do. But there is no command to write and publish a 
 book; and, therefore, according to this mode of reasoning, it is wrong to 
 do it. He contended, that it is wrong to make a creed, because human 
 creeds are fallible. I turned his own logic against himself; for if it is 
 wrong to make a fallible creed to influence the minds of men, it is also 
 wrong to write a fallible book, and publish it. There is no difference as 
 to the principle ; for men are no more bound to adopt my creed, than to 
 believe my book. 
 
 The gentleman tells you, I said that the Bible does not determine the 
 meaning of the expression " Son of God ;" but the confession of faith 
 does. This is a misrepresentation of the most singular character. I said 
 nothing that could be tortured into such a sentiment. I am constrained 
 to think, that, from some cause or other, he hears very imperfectly. In 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 789 
 
 deed, his hearing has appeared to be bad for some time. What did I say ? 
 I said very distinctly, that there was a time when the expression " Son 
 of God," had a clear and well-defined meaning — that in the Bible it is 
 evidently used to signify the underived divinity of Christ ; and to prove 
 it I quoted John v. 18, where it is said, that when he called God his Father, 
 the Jews were anxious to stone him, because they understood him to 
 make himself equal with God. The gentleman, strangely enough, has 
 represented me as saying precisely the opposite of what I did say ! 1 fur- 
 ther said, that since the days of the apostles, men have used this expres- 
 sion, which was once perfectly definite in its meaning, in so great a vari- 
 ety of senses, that we do not know, without an explanation, what they 
 mean by it. The Trinitarian understands it to express the divinity of our 
 Savior ; but the Socinian, who makes him a mere man, still uses the ex- 
 pression — " Son of God." Its meaning, as it is used in the Bible, is 
 clear ; but as used by many men, it is not so. Certainly the gentleman 
 hears badly : there must be something the matter. 
 
 The Bible, he says, is a very plain book — so plain in its teaching, that no 
 one can present its truths more plainly. If it is, why has he written so 
 much for the purpose of explaining it? He will certainly admit, that the 
 doctrines of the Bible may be made as clear in a creed, as he can make 
 them in his books. If, then, creeds cannot make them plainer, his publi- 
 cations cannot ; and, therefore, they should never have been made ! I 
 admit, that on all important points the Bible teaches with great simplicity 
 and plainness ; but yet the Savior deemed it wise to have men qualified 
 and appointed to expound it. The Bible is plain ; but men's heads are 
 not clear. Sin blinds them ; and hence the fact cannot be denied, that it 
 is impossible to know what a man believes concerning Christ, from the 
 circumstance of his calling him the Son of God. 
 
 The schism in the church, caused by the Arian heresy, the gentleman 
 has represented as caused by the Nicene creed. This is a great mistake. 
 The schism existed, in fact, before the creed was made. Arius had de- 
 nied the divinity of Christ, and had gained many adherents. He and his 
 followers had rejected some of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and 
 could no longer be considered as belonging to the church of Christ. The 
 creed formed at Nice had the effect of separating those who robbed Christ 
 of his glory, from those who " honored the Son even as they honored the 
 Father." If this was a schism, it was a most desirable one. When men 
 deny the divinity of our Savior, and rob him of his glory by making him 
 a mere creature, it is time that they should be separated from the body 
 of believers. We can hold no communion with such persons. Such 
 was the division caused by the Nicene creed. 
 
 Mr. Campbell gravely tells us, that the head and front of his offending, 
 is — that he believes the New Testament to be the best book in the world, 
 and opposes the substitution of creeds for the Bible. Now he knows, 
 that no Protestant ever censured him for opposing the substituting of 
 creeds for the Bible ; and no Protestant denomination ever desired to do 
 any such thing. I know of no church but the Romish, that does substi- 
 tute a creed for the Bible. 
 
 Persecutions, he tells us, are caused by creeds. It is vain to reason 
 against fact. By whom, I ask, was civil and religious liberty estab- 
 lished, and the rights of conscience secured in this country ? The blood 
 of Presbyterians flowed freely in the defence of these sacred rights ; and 
 Presbyterian ministers stood prominent as the most zealous and unflinch- 
 
790 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 ing friends of liberty, civil and religious. In the day of the mighty strug- 
 gle for freedom, this reformation was not born. The victory was won, 
 and this country was free long before it was heard of. It has come into 
 existence and been permitted lo extend its influence under the protection 
 of that liberty which was bought with the blood of those who subscribed 
 to creeds. Now in the enjoyment of that liberty, it boasts of its zeal in 
 freedom's cause, and denounces those who sacrificed their all in this 
 world to gain it. Such a course shows how far men will often presume 
 upon the ignorance and credulity of the people. 
 
 I have said, it is impossible to know what men believe by the mere 
 fact that they profess to receive the Bible as their rule of faith — that all 
 classes of errorists, Arians, Socinians, Universalists, and even Shakers 
 and Mormons, profess great regard for the Bible. But, says Mr. C, we 
 teach men just as the New Testament does, that they must believe and be 
 baptized. No — this is not quite correct. He and his friends teach men, 
 not to be baptized, but to be immersed. And herein they do most gla- 
 ringly depart from their own principles. For, they tell us, they have 
 no creed but the New Testament, and that they allow every one to inter- 
 pret that book for himself. And they do, in other points, adhere to their 
 principles. They allow men to form their own opinions concerning the 
 character and work of Christ, the work of the Spirit, &c. — but on that 
 one subject, immersion, they take the liberty of thinking for us. They 
 will receive no one, unless on that subject he thinks just as they think. 
 He must believe, that baptism is immersion. They say virtually, ' You 
 may think for yourself on all other subjects ; but let us think for you on 
 this.' But I say, if I am to think for myself at all, let me form my own 
 opinion on all subjects. If you are to think for me; why, do all my 
 thinking and save me the trouble ! 
 
 My friend says, he does not distrurb men on account of their opinions ; 
 that the best way to destroy erroneous opinions, is to let them alone* 
 Then why does he not let infant baptism alone? Why does he wage 
 an exterminating war against baptism by pouring and sprinkling? If 
 error will die when it is let alone ; why does he oppose these errors, as 
 he considers them ? He has some very singular philosophy on this sub- 
 ject. Some erroneous opinions, he seems to think, will die, if not dis- 
 turbed ; whilst others must be killed ! 
 
 I was truly astonished to hear the gentleman say, that he would cheer- 
 fully admit a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian to commune with him at 
 the Lord's table. In his Millenial Harbinger he has said precisely the 
 opposite. Mr. Jones, of England, of whom 1 have spoken before, wrote 
 to Mr. Campbell, asking information on this very point— that is, whether 
 the church with which he is connected, admitted unimmersed persons to 
 commune. I will read an extract from Mr. C.'s reply,— (Milieu. Harb. 
 vol. vi. pp. 18, 19 :) 
 
 " Your third question is, * Do any of your churches admit unbaptixed per- 
 sons to communion ; a practice that is becoming very prevalent in this coun- 
 try V Not one, as far as known to me. I am at a loss to understand 
 on what principle — by what law, precedent or license, any congregation 
 founded upon the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner 
 stone, could dispense with the practice of the primitive church — with the 
 commandment of the Lord, and the authority of his apostles. Does not this 
 look like making void the word or commandment of God by human tradi- 
 tion 1 I know not how I could exhort one professor to ' arise and be bap- 
 tized,' as Ananias commanded Saul, and at the same time receive anothei 
 

 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 791 
 
 into the congregation without it. Nay, why not dispense with it altogeth- 
 er, and be consistent'? If I felt myself authorized to dispense with it in one 
 case, I know not why T might not dispense with it m every case, and thus 
 wholly annul the institution of Jesus Christ, But this is said only with 
 respect to the authority by which it is done. Viewed in relation to the 
 meaning and design of the institution, it assumes a still more inexplicable 
 mysteriousness. Does christian immersion mean any thing to a believer'? 
 Is it the sign, or pledge, or means of any spiritual blessing? Is it the de- 
 mand, or seeking, or answer of a good conscience 1 ? Has it any thing to do 
 with the understanding, the conscience, the state, or character of a man? 
 And if so, what is it 1 If he be as happy in himself, and as acceptable to 
 God without it as with it, is it not an unmeaning ceremony 1 - * .:*; * . * 
 
 The Baptist churches in England must, on this point, assume the Meth- 
 odistic and Cumberland Presbyterian ground in x\merica. In this accom- 
 modating age, many of these preachers have given up their own conscience 
 to the proselyte. They say, we will sprinkle you with water, or we will 
 pour water upon you, or we will immerse you in water, or we will lay a 
 moist finger on your forehead ; and we will do it in the name or by the au- 
 thority of the Lord." 
 
 Now is it not passing strange, that Mr. C. should tell us, that he is 
 well pleased to have Methodists, Presbyterians and others commune with 
 him at the Lord's table, and yet that he should have told Mr. Jones, of 
 England, and published it in his Harbinger, that he and his churches ad- 
 mit no such persons to commune with them ! ! ! Well, he goes for 
 changing. He says, wise men change. I am happy to find him chang- 
 ing his ground, as we are to suppose he is now doing, and embracing 
 more liberal principles ! I presume, of course, he will not deny, that 
 when he wrote to Jones, he was most decidedly opposed to permitting 
 unimmersed persons to commune with him. So far, so good. Great ef- 
 forts have been made recently to excite odium against the Presbyterian 
 church, because we are not willing to have our members commune with 
 the reformers; but here we find Mr. C. himself making decided opposi- 
 tion to such inter-communion ! 
 
 The Westminster confession, the gentleman says, has made quite a 
 number of parties. I deny it ; and when he thinks proper to produce 
 his proof, I shall be prepared to meet it. He thinks, he can convince even 
 Presbyterian clergymen of its evil tendencies. I very much doubt it. 
 Indeed, as I have had occasion repeatedly to say, I even doubt whether he 
 is very familiar with its principles. Certainly he is not, if we are to judge 
 by what we have heard from him during this discussion. 
 
 The gentleman has considerable skill in the management of his cause. 
 Some days after the question of infant baptism had been disposed of, 
 and when my books on that subject were not present, he brought up Mr. 
 Jones and the opinions of the Waldenses, relating exclusively to that 
 subject. And now he reads to us Dr. Beecher's book on a subject the 
 discussion of which was closed on yesterday ! I am perfectly willing, 
 that he shall in this way proclaim his own defeat. I know, that no sens- 
 ible man will injure himself by thus introducing again subjects that have 
 been disposed of, unless he is dreadfully pressed. 
 
 Dr. Beecher, I presume, does not teach the doctrine advocated by Mr. 
 C. Indeed he himself seems very reluctant now to teach it; for he 
 keeps it involved in mist and darkness. At one time he seems to admit 
 an influence of the Spirit distinct from the Word, in conversion and sanc- 
 tification. At another, he labors to prove, that words and arguments do 
 the whole work. But does Beecher say, that men can be converted by 
 
792 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 words and arguments ? Unless he has recently changed his ground, he 
 does not. I think, if he were present, he would consider himself mis- 
 represented. The gentleman must be permitted to discuss the proposi- 
 tions which have been disposed of, until he is satisfied. 
 
 He seems to regard me as very inconsistent in calling on him to pro- 
 duce a passage of Scripture that condemns creeds ; for he says, I am in 
 the affirmative. I was not aware of that fact. Did not he make the in- 
 troductory speech this morning ? I was in the negative when the dis- 
 cussion of this proposition commenced. How, then, has the gentleman 
 placed me in the affirmative ? This strikes me as a new mode of debat- 
 ing. I am in the affirmative; and Mr. C. is the affirmant! He affirms 
 that human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily 
 heretical and schismatical. This I deny. There must be something 
 the matter with my friend's head. It is evidently becoming muddy [a 
 laugh.] He does not seem to know exactly where he is; only that he is 
 somewhere in the neighborhood. [Continued laughter.] 
 
 It is quite proper, on this proposition, that he should be in the affirma- 
 tive. If a man. condemn and excommunicate me for any course of con- 
 duct I may choose to adopt; I have the right to ask him to be kind 
 enough to show me the law. I have the right to do any thing that the 
 Word of God does not forbid. The different churches were moving on 
 with a tolerable degree of harmony, each denomination having its creed ; 
 and Mr. C. rose up and denounced the whole of them as apostates — as 
 guilty of the most heinous crime. We request him to please to prove 
 his charges. He excommunicates us, because we have a creed. I ask 
 him where has God forbidden us to have a creed? I am under no obli- 
 gation to produce scripture authorizing the use of creeds; for "where 
 there is no law, there is no transgression." There is a passage that says — 
 " Judge not, that ye be not judged." 
 
 He says, I cannot find a passage that, in so many words, condemns 
 playing at cards, horse-racing, and the like. If I cannot find the law 
 which really condemns these things, I will cease to condemn them. I 
 ask not for a passage of Scripture which, in so many words, condemns 
 creeds ; but I desire one which by any fair construction condemns them. 
 I will agree to admit horse-racers and gamblers into the church, if I can- 
 not find a law in the Bible condemning these practices. He has not pro- 
 duced one text, which, by any fair construction, condemns the use of 
 creeds ; and he cannot produce one. To illustrate the obvious truth, that 
 those who preach the gospel should possess some education, piety and 
 soundness in the faith, I remarked, that quacks in medicine kill the body 
 — quacks in theology kill the soul. Aye, says my friend, there are learn- 
 ed quacks, as well as ignorant ones. But did I speak of the necessity of 
 learning alone ? Can he find a man learned, pious and sound in the faith, 
 who is a quack in theology? Such a character was never known. 
 
 I have asked the gentleman, what is the standard of ministerial qualifi- 
 cations in his church ; but I have received no answer. He does not de- 
 ny, that the church is bound to see to it ; that those who enter the minis- 
 try, shall possess some education, true piety, and soundness in the faith — 
 " holding fast the form of sound words." I ask him, what is the stand- 
 ard in his church ? He cannot tell me ! They have none ! ! No liter- 
 ary or scientific training, no education, is required. And as to soundness 
 in the faith, their ministers must profess to believe, that Christ is the Son 
 of God, and ihat baptism is immersion ! 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 793 
 
 Pedobaptist ministers who join that chu^-h, he says, are rot questioned 
 about their opinions, but are exhorted to preach the gospel. I presume, 
 they are not troubled with many converts of this character. There al- 
 ways have been some cases of apostasy — some, too, who are unwilling 
 to give up all religion, but are tired of the narrow way. They generally 
 find a broader road. 
 
 But let us test the liberality of the gentleman's church. Suppose I 
 should become a member of it, and on next Sabbath should preach a 
 strongly Calvinistic discourse ; I wonder whether it would not create a dif- 
 ficulty. My doctrines, I incline to think, would make a noise. My 
 friend would not permit me to preach what I believe, unless it came at 
 least in the neighborhood of his faith. There is really quite as much 
 tyranny amongst the reformers, as amongst " the sects" they so liberally 
 denounce. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Mention a case. 
 
 Mr. Rice. I will — a Dr. Thomas, of Virginia, a prominent preacher 
 in the gentleman's church, contended that men have no souls — that they 
 are constituted of body, blood, and breath — that the word soul, in the 
 Scripture, means breath — and that infants, idiots, pagans and Pedo- 
 baptists, are annihilated. My friend opposed his doctrines ; but the Doc- 
 tor insisted, that he had received his training in Ireland and Scotland, 
 where the people believe in ghosts and witches, and that, although a great 
 reformer, he was not quite reformed. Mr. C, at length, refused to hold 
 christian fellowship with him, and called on the church of which he was 
 a member, to excommunicate him. Now this man professed to take the 
 Bible as his only guide. He believed, that Christ is the Son of God, 
 and was zealous for immersion. How, then, could Mr. C. exclude him, 
 without a violation of the principles on which he had been admitted ? 
 
 The gentleman cannot deny, that his church is troubled with very se- 
 rious disorders ; but he says, similar evils attended the Reformation of 
 the 16th century. The circumstances attending the commencement of 
 that reformation were widely different from those which existed when 
 Mr. Campbell became a reformer. Then the people had, for centuries, 
 been almost wholly ignorant of the Bible. They could not read it, and 
 were not even permitted to possess it. Even multitudes of the clergy 
 could not write their own names. Amongst people ignorant of the Bible, 
 and degraded by a miserable superstition, Calvin and Luther, and their 
 fellow-laborers, began their glorious work. No wonder, then, that many, 
 when freed from the restraints and the degrading slavery of superstition 
 and clerical domination, turned their liberty to licentiousness, and ran into 
 excesses. No wonder, that some time was required to secure order and 
 harmony in the churches. But the reformers of the 16th century never 
 did allow all sorts of doctrine to be preached by almost all sorts of men 
 in their churches. They did not open the door wide enough for every 
 thing to enter. Yet if they had done so, they would have been more 
 excusable in that day, than Mr. C. and his church are in doing so now. 
 
 Mr. Campbell commenced his reformation in an enlightened age, and 
 in a country where the Bible is known and read. He has undertaken 
 radically to reform those who have been reading the Bible from their in- 
 fancy. And now when his new church is overrun with errors of all 
 grades, and involved in great confusion, he attempts to apologize for it by 
 telling us, there were disorders in the 16th century when light first be- 
 gan to dawn upon the midnight darkness ! ! ! There is a vast difference 
 
 3X 
 
794 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 in the circumstances attending these two reformations. And if, within 
 some fifteen years, the gentleman's church has been filled with confusion 
 and trouble ; it is not likely that he will ever succeed in securing order 
 and harmony. The teacher who has disorder in his school during the 
 first month, will have it to end of the session. If he begin with loose 
 reins, he will not easily take them up afterwards. 
 
 Mr. C. has commenced with loose reins — very loose; and now he 
 cannot secure order. He has been laboring for some two or three years 
 to get some kind of organization ; but the state of things is no better than 
 before ; and, I venture to say, it never will be. 
 
 But he says, Presbyterianism has very much changed within thirty 
 years. I deny that it has. Let him prove it. When I state facts con- 
 cerning his church, I hold myself bound to prove them. I deny, that 
 our doctrines have been changed in thirty, fifty, or one hundred years. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Presbyterians have changed. 
 
 Mr. Rice. Neither the one nor the other. — [Time expired. 
 
 Hiursday, Nov. 30—1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's third address.] 
 
 Mr. President — The gentleman complains of my hearing. His me- 
 mory, sir, is much more at fault than my hearing. He would have you 
 to know, as a matter of great importance, that books are fallible, and 
 creeds are fallible, and that there is no command to write a book ; nor to 
 read one, I presume; and there is no command to write a creed, and so 
 all books and creeds are equally without Divine authority ! This is ano- 
 ther of the gentleman's false issues. It is not the point in controversy. 
 We have no debate about the right or authority, human or Divine, for 
 writing or reading any sort of book. Nor do we debate about the pro- 
 priety of giving, in manuscript or in print, an exhibit of all our views of 
 religion or of the Bible. These, at present, would all be false or feigned 
 issues, and introduced to mystify the subject. The issue is about the use 
 we may make of a book as a creed ; or whether we may found a church on 
 an instrument, made up of our own selections from the Bible, or of our 
 own inferences, opinions, and views of expediency, &c. I argue that no 
 man has, fro?n the Lord, any such power ; that no people have any right, 
 warrant, or authority, from the Lord, to do so. The gentleman would 
 make me equal with himself, by asking me- for Divine authority to build 
 on the Book alone. I have, for him, some authority, some positive pre- 
 cepts, which we shall present to him in due time. I need not remind 
 you, fellow-citizens, of my friend's manner. You all understand him. 
 Whenever he begins to deplore my want of authority, weakness, &c, he 
 is then without an argument, and without any other means of entertaining 
 you. I need not henceforth notice this very familiar species of logic and 
 rhetoric. 
 
 He has told you of the good deeds of Presbyterians in the cause of 
 human liberty, as another argument in proof of the Divine authority of 
 creeds. I did not say any thing on that subject. I did not say that they 
 were unwilling to shed their blood in civil wars. He would seem to 
 draw invidious comparisons. If to fight in revolutionary wars be a chris- 
 tian virtue, neither he nor we are worthy of any invidious comparison 
 with those who did, except in one point, that we were not born quite so 
 soon as they. For the great crime that we, reformers, were not born a 
 hundred years ago, we must plead guilty. But as this is a political affair, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 795 
 
 I know not by which of our rules of discussion it has found access here. 
 But this much I must say; that those who concur with us in our views 
 of Bible interpretation, creeds, and church organization, were the patrons 
 and promulgers of the principles that originated our political institutions ; 
 and infused into the mother country, and into this, the true doctrines of 
 civil liberty. I will read from this little book a few sentences confirma- 
 tory of our views, written by the greatest patron and advocate of civil and 
 religious liberty in the world! The author of the essay on toleration ; the 
 immortal philosopher and christian, John Locke, the author of the first 
 American constitution ever ferried over the waves that part us from the 
 father-land. It was he, as I have somewhere learned in former years, 
 that wrote the constitution and bill of rights for North Carolina. But I 
 must let you hear what the philosopher says on the question now be- 
 fore us. 
 
 " But since men are solicitous about the true church, I would only ask 
 them, here by the way, if it be not more agreeable to the church of Christ 
 to make the conditions of her communion to consist in such things, and 
 such things only, as the Holy Spirit has in the Holy Scriptures declared, in 
 express words, to be necessary for salvation ; I ask, I say, whether this be 
 not more agreeable to the church of Christ, than for men to impose their 
 own inventions and interpretations upon others, as if they were of divine 
 authority ; and to establish by ecclesiastical laws, as absolutely necessary 
 to the profession of Christianity, such things as the Holy Scriptures do eith- 
 er not mention, or at least not expressly command ] Whosoever requires 
 those things in order to ecclesiastical communion, which Christ does not 
 require in order to life eternal, he may perhaps indeed constitute a society 
 accommodated to his own opinions and his own advantage ; hut how that 
 can be called the church of Christ, which is established upon laws that are 
 not his, and which excludes such persons from its communion as he will one 
 day receive into the kingdom of heaven, I understand not. But this being 
 not a proper place to inquire into the mark of the true church, I will only 
 mind those that contend so earnestly for the decrees of their own society, 
 and that cry out continually, the church ! the church ! with as much noise, 
 and perhaps upon the same principle, as the Ephesian silversmiths did for 
 their Diana ; this, I say, I desire to mind them of, that the gospel frequently 
 declares that the true disciples of Christ must suffer persecution ; but that 
 the church of Christ should persecute others, and force others by fire and 
 evvord to embrace her faith and doctrine, I could never yet find in any of the 
 books of the New Testament. 
 
 The end of a religious society, as has already been said, is the public 
 worship of God, and by means thereof the acquisition of eternal life. All 
 discipline ought therefore to tend to that end, and all ecclesiastical laws to 
 be thereunto confined." — A Letter concerning Toleration, by John Locke, 
 Esq., Paisley, 1790. 
 
 I am obliged to Mr. Rice for calling forth this document. It is worth 
 more than the size of this volume in pure gold. Such are the views of 
 the man that taught England and the founders of our republics, the true 
 principles of civil and religious liberty. I ask every person of reflection 
 in this community, whether this great philosopher and politician has not 
 expressed our identical views in the extract read. No man can under- 
 stand civil liberty, who does not understand religious liberty—the rights 
 of conscience. 
 
 An observation of some consequence was made by Mr. Rice, and I am 
 glad to hear one from him of that sort. He did not, however, give you a 
 correct definition of our views of confessions of faith. We do not say, 
 that creeds and confessions of faith are the causes of all errors and heresies. 
 
796 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 I have never so taught any where. Our proposition does not say, thai 
 they are the cause of all heresy — very different from it. I could much 
 wish, that Mr. Rice had learned to distinguish more clearly. I teach, that 
 parties are older than written creeds ; that there were persons who made, 
 divisions, before there were written creeds. Satan was the first sectary 
 that ever lived. He made a party. He is the prime heresiarch, and the 
 author of the oldest schism in the universe. I could trace through two 
 centuries before Arius and the council of Nice, other causes for parties 
 than creeds. But it is important to know, that whatever causes operated 
 to produce divisions, the great source of all ecclesiastical division was the 
 dogmatical opinions of churches and synods. These preserved the strife ; 
 consolidated and perpetuated the enterprize, which, but for them, had soon 
 spent its strength and given up the ghost ! 
 
 Although councils and synods brought forth written creeds at last, there 
 was no document of that sort, before the end of the first quarter of the 
 fourth century. The Nicene document was the first document of the 
 kind embalmed on the pages of ancient history. Its simplicity and brevity, 
 in the midst of its profound obscurity, is a good index of the age w T hieh 
 gave it birth. The dispute between Alexander the orthodox, and Arius 
 the heterodox, was indeed prior to the creed. Yet had it not been for the 
 political views and interference of the great Constantine, and his three 
 hundred and eighteen bishops, Arianism would, like all the previous feuds, 
 have lived its day and died. But the emperor and his party must make a 
 great noise in the world, and he must give himself an ecclesiastic renown, 
 and so they wrought up the silly dogmata of the bishop and his presbyter 
 into an everlasting document of schism and partyism. 
 
 The vagaries of these moon-struck theologians were now 7 embodied into 
 a permanent form, had a habitation and a name, and started on their career 
 of schism and blood. The sword — the christian sw*ord of proscription, 
 was now, for the first time, manufactured ; and the trumpet of a new kind 
 of war was moulded, cast and polished at Nice. Had the bishops treated 
 the incomprehensible nothing with indifference in their ecclesiastic func- 
 tions, the echo of Arianism had never reached us. It would have perished 
 with the costumes of the age, and would not have inflicted upon the world 
 and the church so many grievous calamities, and such an enduring dis- 
 grace ! 
 
 From that day commenced the reign of creeds. If there be any one 
 portion of human history, which more than another exhibits the weakness 
 of the human understanding, and the corruptions of the human heart, it 13 
 the history of creeds and their operations. But as I have not time to tell 
 much of this story, I will let you hear how the idols grew, and the wor- 
 shipers increased, by reading a few lines from Hilary, bishop of Poic- 
 tiers : 
 
 " Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, in Aquitania, who flourished in the fourth 
 century, ' blames Constantius, the emperor, for the variety and contrariety 
 of those creeds that were made after the council of Nice,' and says to him : 
 1 You feign yourself to be a christian, and you are the enemy of Jesus 
 Christ ; you are become Anti-christ, and have begun his work : you intrude 
 into the office of procuring new creeds to be made, and you live like a pa- 
 gan.' He also says: ' It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous, that 
 there are as many creeds as there are opinions among men, as many doc- 
 trines as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults 
 among us ; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain them as 
 arbitrarily. And as there is but one faith, so there is but one only God, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 797 
 
 one Lord, and one baptism. We renounce this one faith, when we make so 
 many different creeds ; and that diversity is the reason why we have no true 
 faith among us. We cannot be ignorant, that since the council of nice, 
 we have done nothing but make creeds. And while we fight against 
 words, litigate about new questions, dispute about equivocal terms, com- 
 plain of authors, that every one may make his own party triumph, while 
 we cannot agree ; while we anathematize one another, there is hardly one 
 that adheres to Jesus Christ. What change was there not in the creed 
 last year ! The first council ordained a silence on the homoousion ; the 
 second established it, and would have us speak ; the third excuses the fath- 
 ers of the council, and pretends they took the word ousia simply ; the fourth 
 condemns them, instead of excusing them. With respect to the likeness 
 of the Son of God to the Father, which is the faith of our deplorable times, 
 they dispute whether he is like in whole or in part. These are rare folks to 
 unravel the secrets of heaven. Nevertheless it is for these creeds, about 
 invisible mysteries, that we calumniate one another, not for our belief in 
 God. We make creeds every year ; nay, every moon we repent of what we 
 have done ; we defend those that repent, we anathematize those that we de- 
 fended. So that we condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or 
 our own in that of others ; and, reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, 
 we have been the cause of each other's ruin.'" 
 
 We must turn again to the case of Arius, and draw from it a lesson. 
 Here we read in plain terms the deplorable consequences of one false step 
 in conducting ecclesiastic affairs. It ought to be an everlasting monu- 
 ment. The history of the Arian creed, and its wars, political and eccles- 
 iastical, would fill many volumes. The reformation, of which I have 
 been for many years one of the humble advocates, has derived important 
 advantages from the history of such developments of human nature. 
 We long since learned the lesson, that to draw a well-defined boundary 
 between faith and opinion, and, while we earnestly contend for the faith, 
 to allow perfect freedom of opinion, and of the expression of opinion, is 
 the true philosophy of church union, and the sovereign antidote against 
 heresy. Hence, in our communion at this moment, we have as strong 
 Calvinists and as strong Arminians, as any, I presume, in this house — 
 certainly many that have been such. Yet we go hand in hand, in one 
 faith, one hope, and in all christian union and co-operation in the great 
 cause of personal sanctification and human redemption. It is a pleasure 
 to see such persons holding in abeyance their former opinions, conclusions 
 and reasonings ; the result of an early education and the effects of youth- 
 ful associations ; sacrificing all their ancient predilections and partialities, 
 for the sake of the pure and holy principles of a religion that was fully 
 and perfectly taught and developed before the age of Luther, of Calvin, or 
 of any of the reformers, of popery or any other superstition, living or 
 dead. They see not those specks, while heaven's bright sun of righteous- 
 ness and truth shines into their souls in all its glorious effulgence. 
 
 It is not the object of our efforts to make men think alike on a thous- 
 and themes. Let men think as they please on any matters of human 
 opinion, and upon " doctrines of religion," provided only they hold the 
 head Christ, and keep his commandments. I have learned, not only the 
 theory, but the fact — that if you wish opinionism to cease or to subside, 
 you must not call up and debate every thing that men think or say. You 
 may debate any thing into consequence, or you may, by a dignified si- 
 lence, waste it into oblivion. I have known innumerable instances of 
 persons outliving their opinions, and erroneous reasonings, and even 
 sometimes forgetting the modes of reasoning by which they had em- 
 
 3x2 
 
798 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 braced and maintained them. This was the natural result of the philo- 
 sophy of letting them alone. In this way, they came to be of one mind 
 in all points in which unity of thought is desirable, in order to unity of 
 worship and of action. We have had as much experience in the opera- 
 tion of these principles, having observed them longer than perhaps any 
 of our contemporaries. I feel myself authorized to say, that there are 
 many persons in our communion who, within ten or fifteen years, have 
 attained to more unanimity and uniformity of thinking, speaking and act- 
 ing upon all the great elements of Christianity, than is usually found in 
 the members of any other community in the country. I do not think, 
 after all, that you, sir, could find so much uniformity of sentiment, cover- 
 ing so many former opinions and doctrines, in so many degrees of latitude, 
 and amongst so many persons, as already are united in the ranks of re- 
 formation. This we regard as a matter so well proved and documented 
 amongst us, that it has already all the certainty of a moral demonstration. 
 
 Mr. Rice would, as usual, have me calling upon Dr. Beecher for proof 
 of my doctrine, or for help in sustaining it. Did I call upon Dr. Beecher's 
 opinions to corroborate mine, or to show that his views of the Westmin- 
 ster creed and mine are the same ? Or was it to show that such was the 
 obscurity of the creed, that men believing it and teaching it, have come to 
 conclusions as diverse as are my views of regeneration and those of Mr. 
 Rice ? Did I not show that Dr. Beecher's views of regeneration through 
 the truth and mine are the same ; and that, too, while he advocates 
 the creed as teaching them ? This is the proper view of that case. It 
 is, therefore, without evidence to argue that Paul, James, and John are 
 less definite and intelligible than the Westminster divines. I envy no 
 man the possession of such a talent for making capital in this way out of 
 any thing, or every thing, or nothing, as suits his embarrassments. 
 
 The gentleman has introduced an extract from my correspondence with 
 Mr. Jones of London, touching upon communion, which demands an ob- 
 servation or two. I have more respect for his understanding than to 
 think that Mr. Rice does not comprehend this subject better. The Eng- 
 lish Baptists very generally practice open communion, as they call it. 
 They invite persons unbaptized to participate with them at the Lord's 
 table. Now, the difference between them and our brethren, in cases 
 where such persons occasionally commune with them, is this : They 
 do not invite them, as such, to commune in the supper ; but some of them 
 sometimes say, that " the table is the Lord's and not theirs ; and that, 
 though they cannot invite any to partake of it, but those visibly and os- 
 tensibly, by their own baptism, the Lord's people, still, not presuming to 
 say that those only are the Lord's people, in this day of division, we debar 
 no consistent professor of the faith of any party, who, upon Ms own respon- 
 sibility, chooses to partake with us. Thus we throw the responsibility 
 upon him, while the English Baptists, in many instances, take it upon 
 themselves. I argue not the merits of this question here. I only exhibit 
 it, in evidence that our liberality, as it is called, goes beyond the most strict 
 sects of the Pedo-baptists — beyond the party represented by my opponent. 
 
 Indeed, there is nothing strictly sectarian in our views. There is no 
 opinionism in our system of operations. The facts we believe are ad- 
 mitted ; the ordinances we practice are admitted ; the piety and the moral- 
 ity we inculcate, are admitted— universally admitted, by all Christendom 
 
 There are none excluded from our communities but those who deny 
 the faith, those immoral or unrighteous, and those who are schismatics. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 799 
 
 These three classes are by divine authority to be severed from the faith- 
 ful. The schismatic is excluded, not for his opinion, but for the unright- 
 eous use he makes of it. 
 
 The gentleman rather ludicrously speaks of our tyrannizing over 
 those who differ from us — that is, for repudiating such persons as one 
 Dr. Thomas, of whom he speaks, who, in his merZieo-theological specu- 
 lations has made a grand discovery that men have no other souls than at- 
 mospheric air — that the soul of a man dwells neither in his head, nor in 
 his heart, but in his lungs ; and, consequently, giving up the ghost is only 
 giving up his last soul, or last inspiration. Well, if that be tyranny, I 
 have deeds of tyranny to relate that would make the whole affair of ty- 
 ranny a matter of amusement, rather than of grave reprehension. We 
 know whom to exclude. Amongst them, however, are none for any par- 
 ticular mode of interpreting the Scripture ; but for the use made of their 
 interpretation of it. Morality lies in that, and not in the different ways 
 of reading and interpreting a verse. We are told positively who shall 
 not inherit the kingdom of God, and such should not dwell in any 
 church. 
 
 Who ever thought of a church like Noah's ark — filled with beasts, 
 clean and unclean ? Is it tyrannical to exclude a drunkard, a railer, or a 
 schismatic ? Are we tyrannical because we exact of those who teach the 
 christian religion, that they should teach the things commanded, and not 
 contradict the views of apostles and prophets — nor set on foot a system 
 of operations contrary to the express Word of God? 
 
 The gentleman says that Presbyterianism has not changed. What, 
 then, have Presbyterians been doing in their general assemblies and sy- 
 nods in all the world for the last thirty years ? Is there no change in 
 doctrine, or administration of any kind ? If Presbyterians have not 
 changed, what means this mighty movement ? and all these new and old 
 school notions, debates, strifes, and divisions ! Mr. Rice, I presume, be- 
 longs to the old school, dyed in the wool, and of course he does not, nay, 
 indeed, he cannot, change. The reason why he cannot plead for a more 
 just and generous exposition of the confessional exponent of the Bible, is 
 his belief that the old school does not err, cannot err ; for they are the 
 true blue of Calvinism, which he affirms cannot change. A true old 
 school Presbyterian, if not infallible, is indeed in an awkward posture ; 
 he cannot change. But is it not a singular theory ? The confession ex- 
 plains the Bible, and yet the confession cannot be explained by those who 
 are sworn to teach it ; for they explain it differently. 
 
 What is this Presbyterian controversy about ? Both parties go for the 
 same confession. But the old school says the new school erroneously 
 interpret it ; and the new school replies that the old school never did un- 
 derstand it. The thirty-nine new articles, all the speculative world be- 
 lieve to be Calvinistic. Yet most of those who teach them are Arminians. 
 The Earl of Chatham once truly said of the Church of England in his 
 day, that " she had Calvinistic articles, Arminian clergy, and a popish li- 
 turgy." A just but severe compliment to creeds — a just expose of 
 their power to preserve a ministry of one faith, or of one system of in- 
 terpretation. Elizabeth made the doctrinal part popular in her reign, and 
 the majority believed with the Queen ; but since then, while the outworks 
 of the establishment are the same, the doctrine and the spirit of that day 
 are fled. 
 
 Report says, the new school Presbyterians are for mediate influence, 
 
800 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 the old for immediate. I hope you will excuse me for adverting to it ; 
 and not take the allusion in proof that I am dissatisfied with the debate on 
 spiritual influence, and give me another challenge. Well, the difference 
 between im and no im in the words mediate and immediate is as valid as 
 the i and the o difference in the Nicene, to justify the war between the 
 old and the new school Presbyterians. There is, indeed, a very great dif- 
 ference between immediate and mediate influence — the one brings naked 
 spirits together, the other places the Bible revelations, or the gospel, be- 
 tween. I hope Mr. Rice will explain to us what he understands is the 
 immutability of Presbyterianism. There is some new spirit abroad in 
 the Presbyterian church. What can it be ? — [Time expired. 
 
 Thursday, Nov. 30 — 1| o'clock, A, M. 
 [mr. rice's third reply.] 
 
 Mr. President. — My friend, Mr. C, goes against making creeds and 
 enforcing them on the consciences of men. I am not aware, that Pres- 
 byterians, Methodists, or any Protestant denomination, claim authority to 
 force or impose their creed on any one. It is a matter of free choice 
 with every individual, whether he will become a member of our church, 
 or some other. If on comparing our creed with the Scriptures, he re- 
 gards it as supported by them, and, therefore, chooses our church; there 
 is no violence offered to his conscience. On the contrary, he acts pre- 
 cisely according to its dictates. In order to sustain his proposition the 
 gentleman seems to consider it necessary to oppose principles which we 
 do not hold, principles which we condemn as decidedly and as strongly 
 as he does. So far as force has been employed in any case to induce per- 
 sons to adopt a creed, we condemn it. But Mr. C. also goes against 
 substituting creeds for the Bible. So do we ; and so do all evangelical 
 denominations. His great reformation, therefore, commenced with waging 
 an exterminating war against errors that did not exist. 
 
 He charges me with having indulged in invidious comparisons in my 
 remarks concerning those who were instruments in the hands of God of 
 securing to our country civil and religious liberty. So far as the revolu- 
 tionary struggle was concerned, I could not institute a comparison be- 
 tween two things, one of which did not then exist. His reformation is 
 a beardless youth about sixteen years of age ! I said, it had not been 
 heard of in those days of trial, and that it should be modest in boasting 
 of its zeal for liberty before it is tried. This, I presume, is not invidious. 
 
 I do not object to the views of Mr. Locke, as expressed in the extract 
 read by Mr. C. He is opposed to requiring of men what the Scriptures 
 do not require. So am I ; and so are all Presbyterians and other evan- 
 gelical churches. We do not wish to require of any human being, as a 
 condition of membership, what the Scriptures do not require. He is 
 opposed to excluding from our christian fellowship those whom we ex- 
 pect to meet in heaven. So am I. I plead for communing with those 
 who hold the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. 
 
 But the gentleman seemed not to see, that the sentiments of Locke 
 condemn his practice. Locke was opposed to excluding from our com- 
 munion those we expect to meet in heaven. Yet Mr. C. excludes many 
 whom he expects to meet there. [Mr. Campbell denies the assertion.] 
 The gentleman calls all churches but his own, " sects," and represents 
 them as constituting Babylon — the apostasy. Yet he professes to be- 
 lieve, that there are christians among "the sects," as I will prove from 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 801 
 
 his Harbinger, [Mr. Campbell. Have we excluded them?] I will 
 answer his question presently, when I come to speak of his letter to 
 Jones. 
 
 He says, he does not contend, that creeds are the cause of all heresy 
 and division. Let him prove, that they do at all cause either heresy or 
 schism. He does not maintain simply, that erroneous creeds produce 
 heresy and schism, but that all creeds necessarily produce these evils. 
 Even a true creed, according to his logic, is necessarily heretical and 
 schismatical ; and that creeds are the great cause of divisions. All we 
 desire, is to have this proved. 
 
 If there had been no creed formed against Arianism, he says, it would 
 have died. This is assertion. We desire the proof. There not only 
 is no certain evidence, that such would have been the result of leaving 
 that heresy unopposed ^ but there is no probability of it. Weeds grow 
 without cultivation. The earth produces them spontaneously. So does 
 error flourish in the human heart. The seeds of error there find a soil in 
 which they grow luxuriantly. He says, let error alone, and it will die. 
 The Scriptures do not teach, nor do they direct us to let error alone. 
 On the contrary, Paul says, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." 
 He and Paul seem to have come to opposite conclusions on this subject. 
 
 He declaims earnestly against forcing opinions upon men. Yet some 
 of his own friends — prominent ministers in his church, have said and 
 published, that he does enforce his opinions, so as to exclude multitudes 
 of the most pious persons ! It does not look well for a man to declaim 
 against his own practice — to condemn others for what he himself is 
 doing. 
 
 The extract he read from Hilary may be well enough. But the ques- 
 tion before us, as I have before stated, is not whether any particular creed 
 is good or bad, true or false ; but whether the making of a creed — a true 
 creed — -involves the sins of heresy and schism. There is one important 
 point concerning which I desire some information. The gentleman ap- 
 pears to attach great importance to a distinction he makes between faith 
 and opinion, I desire to know where faith ends, and opinion be- 
 gins. I wish information on this subject particularly ; because, unless I 
 greatly err, Mr. Campbell's church are constantly acting in violation of 
 their own principles in relation to it. 
 
 He says, they have amongst them both Calvinists and Arminians ; I 
 am constrained to doubt whether they have any real Calvinists ; for a 
 true Calvinist believes firmly, that the doctrines, called Calvinistic, are 
 taught in the Bible, and he, of course, considers himself solemnly bound 
 to propagate them. Such an one is not likely to become a member of a 
 church that will not permit him quietly to preach what he believes to be 
 God's revealed truth. Nor would a conscientious Arminian unite him- 
 self with a church, where he could not preach what he believes. Doubt- 
 less there are men who will bind themselves to keep back part of the 
 truth, as they understand it; but I do not admire their principles nor their 
 conscientiousness. 
 
 Mr. C. says, he quoted Dr. Beecher on the work of the Spirit, to show 
 how different are his views of the confession of faith from mine. Yet 
 he was careful to state, very emphatically, that Dr. B. agreed with him 
 on that subject ! He will take the opportunity, as often as possible, to 
 slip in something in the way of argument on the subjects already disposed 
 of. But we are not discussing the question, whether Dr. B. and I agree 
 51 
 
802 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 in the interpretation of the confession of faith; nor whether the West- 
 minster confession presents its doctrine clearly ; but whether it is lawful 
 for us to have a creed at all. The quotation from Beecher, therefore, 
 was out of place. 
 
 Mr. Campbell attempts to make capital of the fact, that the old and 
 new school Presbyterians differ in their interpretations of the confession 
 of faith. If we are to judge from what he has said on the subject, he 
 certainly does not understand it. I have had occasion to examine the 
 differences between them quite extensively. The difference is not so 
 much concerning the obvious meaning of the book, as concerning the de- 
 gree of strictness with which it should be adopted. The old school 
 have been disposed to require a more strict adoption of the particular 
 doctrines of the confession, than the new school. The latter were dis- 
 posed to adopt it only "for substance of doctrine;" the former believe, 
 that such an adoption opened the way for the introduction of serious 
 errors. This has been, so far as the present subject is concerned, the 
 principal ground of controversy ; not what the obvious language of the 
 confession of faith teaches, but with what degree of strictness it should 
 be adopted. The new school brethren, I doubt not, would consider them- 
 selves misrepresented, if charged with holding, that conversion is effected 
 not by an immediate agency of the Spirit. So far as I know, they would, 
 as a body, deny the charge. This is a subject, however, which I am 
 not disposed now to discuss, as it bears not on the point at issue. 
 
 It would seem, from the remarks of the gentleman, that there is in his 
 church great unanimity in their views of divine truth. And yet, he him- 
 self has published the fact, that they have "all sorts of doctrine preached 
 by almost all sorts of men." I know they all meet in the water, but no 
 where else ! On all other doctrinal points each, it would appear, thinks 
 for himself. 
 
 I will now attend to the gentleman's statements about admitting unim- 
 mersed persons to communicate with him, and will answer his question 
 propounded a few minutes since. He attempts to reconcile the statement 
 made here with that made to Jones, of England, by saying, that his 
 church does not invite unimmersed persons to commune with them ; but 
 if they come on their own responsibility, they do not debar them. Let 
 me again read Mr. Jones's question and his reply — (Mitten* Harb. vol. 
 vi. p. 18.) "Do any of your churches admit unbaptized persons to com- 
 munion; a practice that is becoming very prevalent in this country? 11 
 Observe, the question is not, does your church invite, but do they ad- 
 mit such persons to communion ? To this question Mr. C. replies-— 
 "Not one, as far as known to me"!?! The gentleman has cer- 
 tainly given accounts of the principles and the practice of his church, 
 which are directly contradictory. He has told Jones, and the people in 
 England, that they do not admit unimmersed persons to communion ; 
 that it is decidedly wrong to admit them ; and he has told us to-day, that 
 they do admit them, and are well-pleased to have them come! If he can 
 reconcile these opposite statements, let him do it. When I see over a 
 door "No admittance, 11 I understand, distinctly, that I am not to enter. 
 
 He asserts, that every item of faith and practice, as held by his church, 
 is catholic. This is a great mistake. Do all agree that immersion is the 
 only apostolic, or christian baptism ? Not one in a thousand has admitted 
 it. This tenet, then, is far, very far, from being catholic. 
 
 He justifies himself in attempting to exclude Dr. Thomas, the mate- 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 803 
 
 rialist, by telling us he never plead for a church like Noah's ark— -that 
 his church requires men to teach, as did the apostles. That is right. But 
 the question is, how can he, on his principles, exclude any errorist? Who 
 is to judge whether an individual preaches, as did the apostles ? Is Mr. 
 Campbell to be the judge? Then he is pope. Is the man himself to 
 judge ? Then you cannot exclude him. Is the church, of which he is a 
 member, to judge? Then they are to be for him a kind of creed. Yes — - 
 according to the principles on which the gentleman and his church pro- 
 ceed, any little church of a dozen members, or a smaller number, males 
 and females, girls, boys, and servants, are to set in judgment on the 
 orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a minister of the gospel, who happens to 
 have his membership among them ! They may gravely decide, that he 
 is not teaching as did the apostles, and excommunicate him for heresy. 
 He is thus deprived of a standing in the church ; his character is injured ; 
 his usefulness destroyed ; and he has no remedy ! 
 
 One, amongst many important differences between Mr. C.'s church and 
 ours, is — that in his, a man even of the highest standing may be deprived 
 of his dearest rights and privileges by half-a-dozen uninformed or preju- 
 diced persons ; whilst in ours, the humblest member cannot be finally de- 
 prived of his standing until, if he choose to appeal, the voice of the whole 
 church has decided on his case. With us, the strongest possible protec- 
 tion is thrown around the reputation and the privileges of every member, 
 and especially of every minister. The gentleman's church affords no 
 such protection. No man has any more assurance that his character will 
 not be injured, and his privileges taken from him, than is found in the wis- 
 dom and piety of the members of the church, perhaps of a dozen mem- 
 bers, to which he belongs. Dr. Thomas contended, that he was teaching 
 the doctrines taught by the apostles. Mr. Campbell decided that he was 
 not, and called on his church to excommunicate him, because he differed 
 in his interpretations of the Bible from him ! But, according to his prin- 
 ciples, how could he attempt to exclude Thomas ? He solemnly declared, 
 that he took the Bible as his only infallible guide, and eschewed all creeds. 
 
 I will now proceed to offer some further arguments, showing that creeds 
 are not necessarily heretical and schismatical. I have already stated the 
 important fact, that in Mr. Campbell's church, by which all creeds are re- 
 pudiated, there is more heresy, and more schism, than in any Protestant 
 church that has a creed. The door into it is wide enough to admit all 
 who profess to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and are wil- 
 ling to be immersed. Not only Calvinists and Arminians, some of whom 
 the gentleman boasts of having, but Arians, Socinians, Universalists, &c. 
 &c. may enter. His foundation is broad enough for them all to stand on. 
 There is no error held by any who bear the christian name, that may not 
 find a lodging-place in this reformed church, except that of sprinkling and 
 baptizing infants ! And even Pedo-baptists cannot be excluded, without 
 the most flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of this reformation. 
 To prove to you, my friends, that I am not misrepresenting the gentle- 
 man's principles, I will read an extract or two from his Christianity Re- 
 stored, (pp. 122, 123 :) 
 
 " I will now show how they cannot make a sect of us. We will acknowl- 
 edge all as christians who acknowledge the gospel facts, and obey Jesus 
 Christ. But, says one, will you receive a Unitarian 7 No ; nor a Trinita- 
 rian. We will have neither Unitarians nor Trinitarians. How can this 
 be! Systems make Unitarians and Trinitarians. Renounce the system, 
 and you renounce its creatures. But the creatures of other systems now 
 
804 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 exist, and some of them will come in your way : how will you dispose of 
 them 3 1 answer, we will unmake them. Again, I am asked, how will 
 you unmake them ? I answer, hy laying no emphasis upon their opinions. 
 
 What is a Unitarian 1 One who contends that Jesus Christ is not the 
 Son of God. Such a one has denied the faith, and therefore we reject him. 
 But, says a Trinitarian, many Unitarians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is 
 the Son of God in a sense of their own. Admit it. Then, I ask, how do 
 you know they have a sense of their own? intuitively, or' by their words? 
 Not intuitively, but by their words. And what are these words? are they 
 Bible words? If they are, we cannot object to them: if they are not, we 
 will not hear them, or, what is the same thing, we will not discuss them at 
 all. If he will ascribe to Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works, and wor- 
 ship, we will not fight with him about scholastic words. But if he will not 
 ascribe to him every thing that the first christians ascribed, and worship 
 and adore him as the first christians did, we will reject him ; not because 
 of his private opinions, but because he refuses to honor Jesus as the first 
 converts did, and withholds from him the titles and honors which God and 
 his apostles have bestowed upon him. 
 
 In like manner we will deal with a Trinitarian. If he will ascribe to 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all that the first believers ascribed, and 
 nothing more, we will receive him. But we will not allow him to apply 
 scholastic and barbarous epithets to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. 
 If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we will reject him ; not be- 
 cause of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to 
 lord it over God's heritage." 
 
 Concerning these sentiments I have several remarks to make. 
 • 1st. Mr. C. says, he will receive a Unitarian into his church, if he will 
 ascribe to Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works, and worship ; but if 
 he will not ascribe to him all that the first christians ascribed, and wor- 
 ship and adore him as the first christians did, he will reject him. Now 
 let me ask, who is to determine whether the Unitarian worships and 
 adores Jesus Christ as the first christians did? Is Mr. C. to judge? 
 Then you make him pope. Is each little church to judge ? Then you 
 make each church an infallible council to determine what its members shall 
 believe, and how they shall worship Christ. Is each individual to judge 
 for himself? Then each will decide that he does worship and adore Je- 
 sus as the first christians did. So it all amounts to nothing — the Unita- 
 rian, of whatever grade, must be received. 
 
 2d. But the gentleman says, he will deal in like manner with the 
 Trinitarian. He, too, must ascribe to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
 all that the first christians ascribed, and no more. Who, I again ask, is 
 to judge in this case ? But here I find something truly remarkable. He 
 says — " we will not allow him [the Trinitarian] to apply scholastic and 
 barbarous epithets to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Who 
 is to decide what epithets are barbarous and scholastic? Where has 
 the Bible authorized Mr. Campbell or his church to excommunicate a 
 man for using, in reference to the Trinity, any words he may choose, 
 that convey no false idea ? By what authority does the gentleman say, 
 we shall not use such words as he may choose to call scholastic or barba- 
 rous ? If here is not a most remarkable exhibition of latitudinarianism 
 and tyranny, I know not what these terms mean ! Men are left to judge 
 for themselves, so far as the doctrines of the Bible are concerned ; but 
 they are to be excommunicated for using certain words which God has 
 never forbidden them to use ! ! ! 
 
 But let me read a little further. 
 
 " And will you receive a Universalist too 1 No ; not as a Universalist. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 805 
 
 If a man, professing Universalist opinions, should apply for admission, we 
 will receive him, if he will consent to use and apply. all the Bible phrases 
 in their plain reference to the future state of men and angels. We will not 
 hearken to those questions which gender strife, nor discuss them at all. If 
 any person say such is his private opinion, let him have it as his private 
 opinion, but lay no stress upon it ; and if it be a wrong private opinion, it 
 will die a natural death much sooner than if you attempt to kill it." 
 
 The gentleman tells us, he will receive a Universalist ; but he will not 
 receive him as a Universalist. Well, he is a Universalist and nothing 
 else. He will not receive him as what he is ; of course he will receive 
 him as what he is not! To illustrate the idea, you propose to sell a 
 sheep to a man. He tells you, he will not buy him as a sheep ; but call 
 it a horse, and I will take it ! I never read this paragraph without being 
 reminded of a certain man of olden time, who had the singular fortune 
 to be both a duke and a bishop. One day an acquaintance heard him 
 using profane language, and said to him with much surprise — " Do you, 
 a bishop, swear?" " O," replied the dignitary, "I do not swear as a 
 bishop : I swear as a duke." " But," replied his quizzical friend, " when 
 the devil comes for the duke, what will become of the bishop ?" [A 
 laugh.] If the doctrine of the Universalist should be fundamentally er- 
 roneous, let me ask, when the devil comes for the Universalist, what will 
 become of the reformer? [Continued laughter.] 
 
 But my friend Mr. C. is quite strict just here. He will receive a man 
 professing Universalist opinions, only on condition that " he will consent 
 to use and apply all the Bible phrases in their plain reference to the fu- 
 ture state of men and angels." Of course, according to this doctrine, a 
 man may be a Universalist, and yet use all the Bible phrases in their plain 
 and obvious reference to future punishment ! ! ! But let me ask again, 
 who is to determine whether the Universalist does so use them ? All 
 Universalists profess to use the Bible words and phrases in their plain and 
 obvious sense. Now suppose one of your reformed preachers should, on 
 next Sabbath, preach the Universalist doctrine. You call him before the 
 church to try him for heresy. You ask him — 'Do you use these Bible 
 phrases and words in their plain reference to the future state of men and 
 angels ?' He says — « I do.' Now what can you do with him ? You 
 must let him alone ! He will preach the same doctrine again on the next 
 Sabbath. What will you do? How can the gentleman, on his princi- 
 ples, exclude him? I assert, that, without an entire abandonment of his 
 principles he cannot exclude him. Mr. Campbell must be made pope ; 
 or each little church, an infallible council to determine men's faith ; or 
 errorists of all grades must be allowed to be members and ministers 
 amongst them. For the principle is — that each individual is to go by the 
 Bible, not as Mr. C. or the church understands it, but as he understands 
 it for himself. Then his church must be a Noah's ark — full of beasts, 
 clean and unclean, especially the latter ! He cannot prevent it. All sorts 
 of doctrine will be, as they have been, preached by all sorts of men. His 
 door is wide enough to admit all ; and his foundation broad enough to 
 afford them room to stand. 
 
 Now let me ask, did Jesus Christ establish his church on such princi- 
 ples ? No — his truth he regarded as more precious than gold, yea, than 
 much fine gold ; and his church was to be the light of the world. Never 
 did he establish it on such principles as would admit to its communion 
 or to its ministry all sorts of men and all kinds of doctrine. — [Time ex- 
 pired. 
 
 3Y 
 
806 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1—10 o'clock, A. M. 
 [bir. Campbell's fourth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — In recapitulating the details of yesterday, we must 
 first state the proposition, and then the principal arguments and topics of 
 debate. The proposition in debate now is, — Human creeds, as bonds of 
 union and terms of communion, are necessarily heretical and schismat- 
 ical. That they are so, was argued in our introductory address from the 
 fact that they are human and fallible productions. It was shown that 
 they were wholly human expedients from two prominent facts ; 1st. That 
 there were no persons commanded to make them ; and, 2d. That no 
 church was commanded to receive them, both of which would be essen- 
 tial to their authority. That they are human and fallible, and wanting in 
 authority, tending to division in feelings — producing alienation in heart, 
 and in their overt fruits and results ultimating in schism and all its tre- 
 mendous train of evil consequences, was argued from various other topics, 
 but especially from their actual fruits and effects, as shown in their histo- 
 ry from the beginning till now. The history of the operation of any ex- 
 pedient is generally found to be the best exposition of the wisdom of its 
 inventor. Tried by this test, a very prolific topic, both of argument 
 and illustration, it appeared that their tendency to partyism and heresy 
 has been amply developed in the fact, that they have always retained the 
 corrupt members of the community — the pliant, temporizing, and world- 
 ly professors, while in innumerable instances, excluding those of tender 
 conscience, the virtuous uncompromising and faithful worshipers of God. 
 Various subordinate topics, of which we cannot now speak particularly, 
 have been introduced, both in development and confirmation of these 
 statements. We now immediately proceed to the consideration of objec- 
 tions offered by Mr. Rice. 
 
 Rather in extenuation of their evil tendencies, than as an argument in 
 their favor, it was alledged by him, that they were not generally enforced 
 upon the whole community ; — that they are enforced only on certain per- 
 sons in reference to particular places, offices, or obligations. As to his 
 meaning of enforcement, I know nothing. The term must be used eccle- 
 siastically, in some restricted and special sense. We should like to have 
 it explained. They are so far enforced as to become instruments of ex- 
 communication to all those who publicly dissent from their dogmata. 
 They make a person worthy of excommunication, because of an opinion, 
 or a dissent from certain doctrines ; when these opinions and doctrines 
 are publicly avowed. Such, certainly, has been their operation in times 
 past, and such is now their operation in some communities. I own, in- 
 deed, that in some societies they are almost a dead letter. They are more 
 nominal than real. The spirit of the age holds them in abeyance. Light 
 has gone forth into the land; and therefore they cannot be enforced as in 
 former times. Still they are occasionally enforced, and that so far as to 
 excommunicate men from christian churches, so called, because of differ- 
 ence of opinion, though their faith be sound and their lives virtuous. 
 This is what I mean by enforcing them ecclesiastically. We have this 
 term, however, authoritatively explained in the confession, in chap. 30, 
 one of the mutable sections of the constitution of the Presbyterian 
 church : 
 
 " I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of the church, has therein appoint- 
 ed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil mag- 
 istrate. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 807 
 
 II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed ; 
 by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, 
 to shut that kingdom against the impenitent both by the word and censures, 
 and to open it unto penitent sinners by the ministry of the gospel, and by 
 absolution from censures, as occasion shall require." 
 
 This is the highest species of power spiritual that I know any thing 
 of. It is chartered by the confession and maintained by all the ecclesi- 
 astical courts of the church. And so infallibly are the Scriptures ex- 
 plained in the confession, that they are very seldom quoted in the public 
 courts of that church. This custom is so tenaciously adhered to, that 
 sometimes in the longest and most important trials, not one verse is quo- 
 ted. Even in the excision of a minister, a congregation, or a synod, the 
 confession is quoted, argued, and relied on for authority, without a sin- 
 gle reference to a text in the Bible. The creed, and the practice under it, 
 as indicated in this thirtieth chapter, exhibit the highest assumptions of 
 power claimed by any community in the country. 
 
 There is a way of extenuating matters, and hiding them from our own 
 eyes, as well as from those of others. But, with all the relaxing and lib- 
 eralizing views of the age, in this land of free, and liberal, and enlightened 
 institutions, confessions of faith are still heretical and schismatical. And 
 that, too, not merely among the less enlightened, but of those who claim 
 to be amongst the most enlightened of our community. How has the 
 creed — the pure, definite, perspicuous and excellent Westminster creed — 
 wrought in this community within our own time — within the memory, 
 not of the old men, but of the young men of this community ? After some 
 ten or twelve years debating in the synods, and in the general assemblies 
 of this same Presbyterian community, upon the true meaning and inter- 
 pretation of the Westminster creed, what was the issue ? Did it prove 
 conservative or heretical ? Did it unite, harmonize and cement in one holy 
 communion, this educated and well-organized brotherhood ? Tell it not 
 in Gath ! — publish it not in Askelon ! It only excommunicated some 
 sixty thousand brethren, andjfoe hundred ministers! !! 
 
 These, too, were not infant members ; they were not minors ; but ac- 
 tual, bona fide communicants, with all their household members! Is not 
 this alone a full demonstration of our proposition, that creeds are heretical 
 and schismatical? 
 
 The meaning of the creed — the interpretation of the symbol, was the 
 sole cause of this tremendous disruption — of this new denomination of 
 Presbyterians. I put one solemn and weighty question to every consci- 
 entious man in our community : If a creed, such as this innocent and un- 
 assuming document, has power to cut off sixty thousand persons by one 
 single stroke, what more puissant cause of schism and division could be 
 created and sustained by any tribunal known to our laws and customs ? 
 At present I can, indeed, expatiate no farther on this subject. I shall, 
 however, read farther from this document, illustrative of the powers of this 
 instrument to preserve unity: — (Beecher's Trial.) 
 
 " In respect to the right of private interpretation in the first instance, I 
 presume I must have misunderstood my brother Wilson, when he says, the 
 confession is not to be explained. That is popery. The papists have no 
 right of private judgment. They must believe as the pope and council be- 
 lieve, and may believe no otherwise. They are forbidden to exercise their 
 own understanding, and must receive words and doctrines in the sense pre- 
 scribed and prepared for them. I cannot suppose my brother so holds ; but 
 that when he subscribes the confession, he subscribes to what, at the time, 
 
808 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 he understands to be its meaning. Who else is to judge for him ! Is the 
 pope to be called in? Is he to ask a general council what the confession 
 means'? Does he not look at it with his own eyes, and interpret it with 
 his own understanding? But as I understand my brother, he insists that 
 there is to be no explanation ; but that every expression of doctrinal senti- 
 ment is to be placed side by side with the confession, and measured by it : 
 just as you would put two tables side by side to see if they are of the same 
 size. You are to try the sermon and the confession by the ear, and see if 
 they sound alike. If they do not, the sermon is heretical, and the author 
 a heretic. Can this be his meaning'? * * * * 
 
 In joining the Presbyterian church, each individual member, unless he 
 comes in as an ignoramus, without knowing what he professes, does explain 
 her standards for himself. He must do it, and he has a right to do it, un- 
 less his joining the church means nothing and professes nothing. If it does 
 mean any thing, it must mean what he intends it to mean : and of this he 
 must, in the first instance be himself the judge. * * * * 
 
 I say, that each minister and each member has as good a right to his own 
 exposition of the common standard as another has. * * I have as good 
 a right to call you a heretic, because your exposition of the confession does 
 not agree with my view of it, as you have to call me a heretic, because my 
 understanding of the confession does not agree with yours. You say that I 
 am a heretic according to the plain and obvious meaning of our standards, 
 But your ' plain and obvious meaning,' is not my ' plain and obvious mean- 
 ing ;' and who is to be umpire between us ? The constitution has provided 
 one. * * * * 
 
 Dr. Wilson says the Bible is not to be explained by Presbyterians in 
 their controversies with each other, because its meaning is explained in the 
 creeds. And he has before insisted that the creed is not to be explained. 
 What then, I pray, is to be explained? He and I are not to explain the 
 Bible. Why? Because he and I agree in receiving the confession of faith. 
 But we must by no means explain how we understand the confession. How 
 then, I ask again, is any thing to be understood between us? Are we only 
 to hear the sound thump on our ears, and attach no meaning to it ? And 
 how shall we know that we attach the same meaning to it, if we must not 
 explain ? I do not doubt that Dr. Wilson has some meaning about the mat- 
 ter which he has hot expressed ; but it ought to have been expressed." 
 
 Such is the power of the confession to preserve unity, and to prevent 
 discords amongst brethren. If it ever has operated more advantageously, 
 I have been misinformed in the records of the past. 
 
 The gentleman complains that our foundation is too broad — too liberal. 
 It is indeed broad, liberal and strong. If it were not so, it would not be a 
 christian foundation. Christianity is a liberal institution. It was con- 
 ceived in view of the ruin of a world. God looked upon, not the thousand 
 millions of one age, but upon the untold millions of all ages. And he 
 looked, with the inconceivable compassion of a Divine Father, rich in 
 mercy, and plenteous in redemption. He laid help for us on the shoulder 
 of a Divine Man, " who meted out heaven with a span, comprehended the 
 dust of the earth in a measure, weighed the mountains in scales, and the 
 hills in a balance ;" the Great Philanthropist — whose wide charities and 
 tender compassions embrace all ages, all races, all generations of men. 
 He knows no difference of castes, ranks, dignities. Before his eyes, kings 
 and their subjects — the nobles of the earth and their slaves — the tyrants 
 and their vassals, lose all their differences. Their circumstantial gran- 
 deur, and their circumstantial meanness are as nothing. He looks upon 
 them all as men — fallen, ruined men. He made one splendid sacrifice for 
 all ; and has commanded his gospel to be preached from pole to pole — and 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 809 
 
 from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth. He bids all nations, 
 languages and tribes of men a hearty welcome to the rich provisions of his 
 bounteous table, made large enough, and well supplied with the richest 
 provisions of his unwasting fullness. Surely, then, that ought to be a 
 large house, on a broad foundation, that has in it a table for saved men of 
 every nation under heaven. 
 
 He has commanded a simple story to be told, levelled to the apprehen- 
 sion of all. It is expressed in plain, clear and forcible terms. The great 
 cardinal principles upon which the kingdom rests, are made intelligible to 
 all ; and every one who sincerely believes these, and is baptized, is, with- 
 out any other instrument, creed, covenant or bond, entitled to the rank and 
 immunities of the city of God, the spiritual Jerusalem, the residence of the 
 Great King. This is precisely our foundation. Strong or weak, broad 
 or narrow, it is commensurate with the christian charter. It embraces all 
 that believe in Jesus as the Christ of all nations, sects and parties, and 
 makes them all one in Christ Jesus. 
 
 Another objection noted on my brief: Mr. Rice objects to my issue in 
 the case of Arius. I re-affirm the conviction, that had Arius been treated 
 as a man — as a human being — and his opinions left to find their own level, 
 we should have never heard of him or them. Nine times in ten, mere 
 opinion, when let alone, will die a natural death, or lead an inoffensive 
 life. But if you want an opinion to live, gain power, make a party, and 
 descend to after times, call a council, get up a debate, assemble the ora- 
 tors, and keep it for a few years before the public mind, and then you se- 
 cure a party. I say, call no council, make no decrees, excite not human 
 passions. Such are my convictions, and in them I am sustained by some 
 of the wisest and best men who have spoken on the Nicene controversy. 
 Had the subject been let alone — ecclesiastically alone — it would not have 
 outlived the age which gave it birth. 
 
 But, sir, be it emphatically spoken, that letting it alone ecclesiastically, 
 and doing nothing, are very different things. Mr. Rice intimated that 
 my policy is the letting alone policy. He dehorts against letting errors 
 alone. I do not so argue. It is opinions, and not ordinances nor faith, 
 I let alone. We may let some things alone in one sense, and not let them 
 alone in another sense. There is a difference between suing a man at 
 law, and letting the difficulty alone. 
 
 The gentleman has drawn a distinction between the old school and the 
 new school of the Presbyterian church. The old school go for strict 
 construction, literal construction, and the new school, of course, go for a 
 free, liberal translation of the creed. But that is not just the whole. 
 The substance is different. They have the essential, and non-essential 
 parts of the creed ; and, in truth, with the two parties, there are two 
 creeds, made out of one book, taken in two senses. At all events, Mr. 
 Rice must admit the book is quite obscure, or they have not clear heads. 
 
 But how often have you heard the saying quoted by Mr. Rice, that 
 " all sorts of doctrine, by all sorts of men, are preached amongst us." 
 This is one of his standing texts, taken from the Millenial Harbinger. 
 Well, it is not exactly quoted. There is one word of much limitation 
 left out, " almost all sorts of men." In saying this, I follow an illustrious 
 example. Paul, in his day, was just thus plain and candid. He gave 
 specifications of almost all sorts of doctrine, preached even while he yet 
 lived. Some preached that the resurrection was actually passed, and had 
 overthrown the faith of some. Some were, for the sake of filthy lucre, 
 
 3y2 
 
810 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 preaching what they ought not. Some preached that the world was im- 
 mediately coming to an end ; some said the law of Moses and circumcis 
 ion should be observed by gentile converts, &c. ; and Paul sent it all ove*. 
 the world, and for all ages too. We are then a good deal like our grea* 
 apostle, and a little like the primitive church, too, in this particular! 
 Mr. R. could not, were he and I both to try, find as great a variety 
 amongst us, of character, preachers, and doctrine, as I can find in the 
 New Testament, complained of by Paul and his associates. So that the 
 argument is as strong against Paul and the primitive church, as against 
 myself and my brethren. 
 
 He has repeated a passage from Mr. Jones' correspondence with me. 
 I repeat it, also, that there is not now, and certainly there was not when 
 that was written, any thing amongst us, strictly and literally construed, 
 like that which Mr. Jones had in his eye in England, when that was 
 strictly and literally construed. "We have no open communion with 
 us, and they in England have. That principle is not at all recognized 
 amongst us. In England there are large communities of free communion 
 Baptists, who admit Pedo-baptists as freely as they do the baptized : we 
 have no such custom amongst us. There may be ten or one hundred con- 
 gregations amongst us, that have made that matter a question : the great 
 majority, as far as I know, have not. A few cases, such as I have before 
 described, have occurred, and I have witnessed them with some degree of 
 satisfaction. 
 
 Among other curious arguments and objections against creeds, the gen- 
 tleman has asked, how we get people out of the church. He says there 
 is no way of getting them out. We are not like the Jews, who had no 
 way of getting folks out of their church but by killing them. We, not- 
 withstanding Mr. Rice could not see the door, have some way of getting 
 them out. Every church that has a door into it, has also one out of it. 
 We let them in by the eook, and put them out by the book. God has 
 given us instructions in our creed book how to manage these matters. 
 Was there ever any creed so much slandered and opposed as ours, and by 
 the clergy too ? — or any community more calumniated than ours ? Is the 
 Bible so defective as to give no laws for the reception and exclusion of 
 members ? If they are not in the Bible, how got they into the creed 1 
 If any one would stand up and preach amongst us, that Jesus Christ 
 had not been buried, or that he rose not from the dead, we should find a 
 door large enough for his ejection ; and for all schismatics and unright- 
 eous persons, we have quite a large and easy egress. 
 
 Mr. R. says there is more heresy amongst those who have no creed, 
 than amongst those who have. Let him prove it, or make an effort, 
 and I will reply. As yet, he has made no such effort, and I presume 
 will not. 
 
 He reads from my books, and if the gentleman would always read a 
 little more, I should be still more obliged to him. Whenenever he reads 
 any thing from them, of such doubtful or difficult meaning, as to require 
 either explanation or defence, he will find me always forthcoming. Should 
 I be convicted of any error, I shall not only be willing to retract, but 
 thankful to him who in a good spirit points it out. Mr. Rice is not likely 
 to gain that honor. 
 
 Those desirous of examining the passages read, will generally find that 
 the connection, or the replies made to those correspondents, will meet all 
 the artificial difficulties and apparent incongruities created by my worthy 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 811 
 
 opponent. Some passages read on yesterday were made to appear most 
 vulnerable. Those touching the receiving of persons, supposed to be 
 very erroneous and heretical, demand a remark or two. 
 
 The question, for example, would you receive a Universalist — a Unita- 
 rian ? We respond, not as such. Nor would we receive a Trinitarian, as 
 such. With the New Testament in our hands, we know nothing of Cal- 
 vinist, Arminian, Unitarian, Arian, &c. We ask the question, do you 
 believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God 1 If any 
 man cordially respond — -Yes, we baptize him. We ask, on that subject, 
 no farther questions. But suppose I doubted his faith, or his intelligence 
 in the object of Christ's death, either before or after his baptism. I ask 
 the question, do you believe Jesus died for our sins, and rose for our 
 justification? He says, No — perseveringly says, iVb. I repudiate him as 
 not believing the gospel facts in their proper meaning. But does he say 
 unequivocally, Yes, I suspicion, I judge him not. So long as he loves and 
 honors the Messiah, by keeping his precepts, so long I love and honor 
 him as a christian brother. But if any one equivocates on any of these 
 questions of fact, we simply say, he disbelieves the testimony of God, or 
 what is in effect the same, does he not understand it; so of the Universa- 
 lian, the Presbyterian, the Methodist. 
 
 In this sectarian age, good men are found labelled with these symbols 
 of human weakness and human folly. We can neither justify nor con- 
 demn a man for his unfortunate education, for his peculiar organization, 
 or his eccentric opinions. Treat him rationally, treat him humanely, 
 and in a christian-like manner, and all these opinions will evaporate, or 
 die within him. Receive him not as a Calvinist, a Papist, a Baptist, or a 
 Universalist ; receive him as a man and as a christian. Show him that 
 you receive him in the name of the Lord, upon his faith, his hope, and 
 love, and you will soon allure him from his false opinions, if he have any. 
 But repudiate and excommunicate him for an opinion, you wed him to it; 
 he feels the attachment of a martyr to that in which there is no value, but 
 in his suffering for it. It has cost him something, and he will not part 
 with it for nothing. 
 
 There was a remark made yesterday, about one amongst us who had 
 been a Universalist preacher, approved now for many years on account 
 of his christian doctrine and christian demeanor. He had a companion 
 and fellow-soldier in the cause of Universalianism, who was immersed into 
 the original gospel. We laid no stress upon their former theory. They 
 had confessed the ancient faith, and were immersed into it ; and I, for 
 one, said that they ought now to preach Christ, and abandon the procla- 
 mation of any of these opinions ; and on a pledge to do so — to proclaim that 
 " Christ died for our sins," and *' that he that believed and was baptized, 
 should be saved, and that he that believeth not shall be damned." On this 
 agreement I gave them my hand and my brotherhood. I said, let these 
 opinions alone ; they will certainly die, if you preach the gospel, and talk 
 no more about them. The prediction has been verified to the letter. So 
 perfectly just our reasoning on this subject, that they have long since said 
 these opinions have been dissipated, they know not whither, and the 
 very arguments that sustained them, have fled with them. I once more 
 repeat it — let those opinions alone. Preach faith, piety, morality, and 
 the opinions contrary to these will, as the vapors of the morning before 
 the rising sun, pass away. 
 
 I have yet some other arguments to offer on the proposition, though it 
 
812 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 appears I have already submitted too many for my opponent. I reserve 
 one or two arguments for a whole speech, and will, for that half hour, at- 
 tend to no objections. Meantime, as my minutes are almost numbered, 
 I shall offer a short argument from a high source. It is an apostolic pre- 
 cept; one that, in my judgment, positively inhibits all these documents 
 called creeds. Paul says to Timothy, " hold fast the form of sound 
 words, which thou hast heard of me in faith and love, which is in Christ 
 Jesus ;" 2 Tim. i. 13. We all understand the difference between the 
 form and the substance of a thing. It is form that makes this a desk ; 
 the substance is wood, and common to many other things in this house. 
 These pews are all of the same material, and so is the floor of the church. 
 But it is form that gives to each its name, its use, its character. To con- 
 tend for the form, then, is to contend for the thing itself. In this case, 
 if you have the form, you have the thing. Sometimes, if you have the 
 form you have the substance — and this is a case of that sort. At other 
 times you may have the substance without the form. The word hupo- 
 tuposis, found here, and only on another occasion in the New Testament, 
 is a term that indicates pattern, example. Paul uses it in the first epis- 
 tle, saying " that Jesus Christ had set him forth as a pattern, or prece- 
 dent, to all that should hereafter believe on him, to life everlasting." The 
 same idea is suggested, when Moses was commanded to make all things 
 after the pattern shown to him on the mount. We are, in the same sense, 
 commanded to hold fast the exact form of sound words delivered by the 
 apostles. Paul did not say, hold fast the substance, or a synopsis, or sum- 
 mary of sound doctrine ; but, said he, " hold fast the form of sound 
 words which I have given you," &c. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1—1 Oj o'clock, Jl. M. 
 
 [MR. RICE'S FOURTH REPLY.] 
 
 Mr. President— My friend, Mr. C, has undertaken to prove, that 
 human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical — that wherever 
 they exist, they necessarily produce heresy and schism. As poison ne- 
 cessarily produces disease and death, when received into the stomach ; 
 so, according to Mr. C, creeds, wherever used, produce heresy and 
 schism in the church. Do facts sustain him in his position ? They, on 
 the contrary, prove it untrue; for creeds do exist, and have long existed, 
 without causing either heresy or schism. 
 
 In making a creed, we state in writing the principal truths which we 
 understand the Bible to teach. Now let me ask Mr. C. — can we not 
 understand what the Bible teaches ? He will admit that we can. Then 
 if we do understand what it teaches, and commit it to writing, have we 
 not a true creed — a creed in exact accordance with the word of God ? 
 All say, we have. Yet this true creed, this creed which is in precise 
 agreement with God's written word, if Mr. C.'s doctrine be true, neces- 
 sarily produces heresy and schism. But if the truths of the Bible, when 
 embodied in a creed, necessarily produce heresy and schism ; the Bible 
 itself must be necessarily heretical and schismatical ! ! ! 
 
 Creeds, says the gentleman, produce divisions. Will he deny, that 
 there have been a number of divisions in his own church ? — divisions, I 
 mean, in particular churches? For there are many particular churches 
 scattered over the country ; but they have no general organization — are 
 wholly independent of each other ; and, therefore, they cannot properly 
 be considered one ecclesiastical body, any more than fifty independent 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 813 
 
 political bodies can be called one civil government. But in these little 
 democracies there has been division after division, with angry feelings, 
 bickerings and confusion. I have very recently received some pamphlets 
 giving a deplorable exhibition of the state of things in some of them. 
 These churches have no creeds ; but they have lamentable divisions. If, 
 then, we do in fact find divisions and strife, where there are no creeds, is 
 it not evident, that the mere fact, that such evils sometimes exist in 
 churches having creeds, does not at all prove, that they are caused by 
 creeds ? The evil effects are found, where the cause to which Mr. C. 
 ascribes them does not exist. 
 
 It is absolutely essential to the support of the gentleman's proposition, 
 that he prove, not only that there have been divisions where creeds were 
 used, but that he produce clear evidence, that they were caused by creeds. 
 This he has not attempted to prove. He has declaimed abundantly about 
 schisms, divisions and strifes ; but let him prove, that creeds do produce 
 them. It is absolutely necessary that he shall do this. Till he makes 
 this point clear he has proved nothing. 
 
 He represents us as enforcing our views upon the consciences of men. 
 We do no such thing. No one joins our church, but as a matter of 
 choice. All have the opportunity of comparing our doctrines with the 
 Bible, and of determining for themselves whether those doctrines are true, 
 and whether they can be happy with us. But he charges us with ex- 
 communicating, for opinion's sake, pious and godly people. I deny that 
 we do any such thing. Let the charge be proved. We do suspend and 
 excommunicate persons for denying the fundamental doctrines of the gos- 
 pel, as well as for unchristian conduct. If a member of our church de- 
 nies the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, we exclude him ; because the 
 rejection of this doctrine is in effect the rejection of the gospel. But, 
 as I have before distinctly stated, the adoption of our confession of faith 
 never was a condition of membership in our church. We have many 
 members who have not had time and opportunity to examine it. We do 
 not expect the pupil, on "entering the school, to be as well instructed as 
 the teacher. We never excommunicate persons for errors not generally 
 considered by evangelical churches to be fundamental. 
 
 The gentleman read from the Confession of Faith, the following pas- 
 sage concerning " the power of the keys :" 
 
 " To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed ; by 
 virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to 
 shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and censures ; 
 and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by 
 absolution from censures, as occasion shall require,""— chap, 30. * 
 
 Now what is the meaning of the phrase — " kingdom of heaven?" It 
 is the church of Christ. What are the keys ? The authority to open 
 and shut the door — to receive into the church those who give evidence of 
 possessing the scriptural qualifications, exclude unworthy members, and 
 to preach the gospel, offering salvation to all. Presbyterians never 
 claimed authority literally to pardon or condemn men — to admit them into 
 heaven or to exclude them from it. Where now is the claim of high 
 power of which the gentleman speaks ? 
 
 Let me now inquire of him how things are managed in his church. 
 Does not every church in his connection claim and exercise the same au- 
 thority ? Do they not vote persons in, and vote them out of the church 
 sometimes by wholesale ? Every little church of a dozen or half a doz- 
 
814 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 en members, claims as high authority as was ever claimed by the general 
 assembly of the Presbyterian church ! Declamation against claims of 
 exorbitant power come with an ill grace from Mr. C; for he and his lit- 
 tle churches exercise the power of the keys with a vengeance. The dif- 
 ference between us is — that in our church the most obscure member can- 
 not be deprived of his privileges, until the general assembly has decided 
 on his case, if he is pleased to bring it before them. In that body, com- 
 posed of representatives from the whole church, little neighborhood jea- 
 lousies and party feelings cannot prejudice his cause. But how is it in 
 the gentleman's church ? In any particular church a few influential or 
 intriguing persons, or families, may gain over to their notions a majority 
 of the members ; and, if they choose, they may excommunicate any mi- 
 nority, however respectable ; and though ever so unjustly deprived of 
 their rights, they can appeal to no higher tribunal under heaven ! Which 
 of these churches, I emphatically ask, affords the greatest security against 
 the arbitrary exercise of power? In which are the rights of private 
 members and of ministers best protected ? 
 
 The gentleman repeats the assertion, that our confession of faith has 
 been changed ; and he specifies the article concerning the authority of 
 the civil magistrate in matters of religion. But he ought to have known, 
 that our church never did adopt that article. When the Westminster con- 
 fession was adopted by the Presbyterian church in the United States, it 
 was expressly excepted. It is not true, therefore, that we have changed 
 our doctrines. 
 
 But he tells us, that he has rarely heard the Scriptures quoted in the 
 meetings in the ecclesiastical courts of the Presbyterian church. The 
 reason, I presume, is — that he has rarely attended their meetings, and 
 knows very little about their proceedings. I never in my life attended one 
 of our church courts, when any important question was discussed, with- 
 out hearing appeals constantly made to the Word of God as the only in- 
 fallible rule of faith and of practice. It is true, we do not consider it ne- 
 cessary to discuss anew every subject as often as we are called to act 
 upon it. We have, on mature examination, agreed that the confession 
 of faith contains the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, and 
 that its principles of church government are agreeable to the inspired 
 Word. We, therefore, often proceed upon these admitted principles. I 
 presume, the gentleman himself would scarcely think it necessary in one 
 of his churches to enter into protracted arguments to prove, that immer- 
 sion is necessary in order to admission to membership ; or that an indi- 
 vidual baptized by sprinkling would not be admitted. 
 
 My friend Mr. C. has been for years an editor and a reformer, and, as 
 we have a right to conclude, has carefully noted passing events. Yet it is 
 rather strange — that concerning some of the most important of them, he 
 is very imperfectly informed. How happened it, he asks, that, a few 
 years since, sixty thousand members and ministers were excommunicated 
 from the Presbyterian church ? I answer, such an event never did hap- 
 pen. Many years ago a plan of union was adopted by the general assem- 
 bly of the Presbyterian church and the Congregational association of 
 Vermont, the design of which was to unite Presbyterians and Congrega- 
 tionalists, in destitute settlements, where neither was strong enough to 
 sustain themselves alone. In process of time many churches were thus 
 organized, and also presbyteries and synods. The provisions of the plan 
 were such, that Congregationalists might exercise a controling influence 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 815 
 
 on our cnurch courts, without being themselves subject to our laws and 
 regulations. In 1837, our general assemby, seeing great evil arising from 
 this state of things, resolved, that only Presbyterians could be permitted 
 to belong to our church, and to vote in our ecclesiastical courts. Those 
 bodies formed on the aforesaid plan being thus excluded from our church, 
 many ministers and churches, dissatisfied with the action of the assembly, 
 withdrew. None of them, however, were excommunicated. We still 
 acknowledge them as christian brethren, and as churches of Christ. We 
 have never pronounced them heretics ; for they have not rejected the fun- 
 damental doctrines of Christianity. 
 
 But what caused this division? It was not caused by the fact of our 
 having a creed, but by our failing to adhere to its wise provisions and 
 regulations. Still no real Presbyterian was designed to be excluded 
 from our church ; nor were others excommunicated nor ecclesiastically 
 censured. We simply resolved, that those who take part in the govern- 
 ment of our church, must submit to be governed. 
 
 The gentleman says, I complain of his church for being too liberal; 
 and he informs us, that Christianity is a liberal thing. He is mistaken. 
 I do not complain that they are too liberal, or that they are liberal at alL 
 I find fault with their latitudinarian principles and practice ; and, let me 
 say, there is a very great difference between latitudinarianism and liber- 
 ality. I find fault with his church, because it is too much like Noah's 
 ark: it has a door wide enough, and a platform broad enough, to receive 
 error of every grade. It compromises God's glorious truth. Our Savior 
 laid no such foundation, and taught no such principles. 
 
 We require those who seek membership in our church to profess their 
 faith in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. But what, I ask, are 
 the fundamental doctrines required to be received in order to membership 
 in Mr. C .'s church ? What are the cardinal principles of which he speaks ? 
 Will he please to enlighten us on this subject? 
 
 He has, once and again, asserted, that if Arianism had been let alone 
 ecclesiastically, it would speedily have died. All we ask of him, is to 
 prove that such errors, if not disturbed, will die. I am curious to know 
 how he has ascertained that such would be the result of letting them 
 alone. 
 
 Once more, he has brought up that troublesome question about his ad- 
 mitting unimmersed persons to communion. He says, he does not invite 
 them ; but if they come on their own responsibility, he will not debar 
 them. But Mr. Jones asked him, do you admit them ? Mr. C. replied, 
 we do not admit them. When I see over a door " no admittance," I un- 
 derstand distinctly, that I am not to enter there. After all, what is the 
 amount of the gentleman's liberality, of which he has so much boasted ? 
 Why, if unimmersed persons will go and commune with him without an 
 invitation, he will not refuse to let them do it. If they enter his taberna- 
 cle, he will not drive them out ! Or, more properly, he does not admit 
 them, as he said to Jones ; and yet he does admit them ! ! ! 
 
 Well, I am happy to find him becoming more liberal. He is even now 
 more liberal, it would seem, than his churches ; for they, he says, have 
 not adopted the plan of admitting unimmersed persons to commune. It 
 is to be hoped, however, they will be influenced by his good example. 
 But ought he not to write to England, and let his friends there know, that 
 lie has changed his opinion since he wrote to them on this subject? 
 
 I have said and proved, that the gentleman cannot exclude from his 
 
816 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 church any errorist of any grade without violating the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of his reformation. He evidently feels the difficulty. But he says, 
 if they should go against the Bible, they exclude them. But I ask again, 
 if you bring a man before the church, charged with preaching dangerous 
 error, who is to judge whether the doctrines he has propagated are con- 
 trary to the Scriptures? Is Mr. Campbell to be the judge? No; for 
 then he would be instead of a creed. Is the church of which he is a 
 member to judge? Certainly not; and for the same reason. Is the in- 
 dividual to decide in his own case ? Then, of course, he is clear. The 
 gentleman cannot exclude him without abandoning his published prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 Observe, Mr. C. teaches, that no church has the right to require as a 
 condition of membership any thing more than the professed belief that 
 Christ is the Son of God, and immersion. When a man applies for mem- 
 bership, he is asked, whether he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God. On answering this one question in the affirmative, and submitting 
 to immersion, he is a member in good and regular standing. Now, Dr. 
 Thomas, the Materialist, professed firmly to believe that Jesus Christ is 
 the Son of God ; and so zealous was he for immersion, in order to remis- 
 sion of sins, that he actually immersed again those who came to him from 
 the Baptists. He had not violated either of the conditions on which he 
 entered the church. He still professed to take the Bible as his only guide. 
 He contended, that he was not teaching error; but Mr. C. said he was, 
 and called on his church to exclude him. In doing so, however, he dis- 
 regarded his own principles. 
 
 He will receive a Unitarian into his church, he tells us, if he will take 
 the words of Scripture relative to the character and works of Christ, in 
 their fair construction. Here we meet the old difficulty. Who is to de- 
 termine what is the fair construction? Everyman will say, that he 
 does take the fair construction. Is Mr. C. to judge? Or is the church 
 to judge? Or is each individual to judge for himself? One of your 
 preachers, for example, is found preaching that Jesus Christ is a creature, 
 and that he died only as a martyr. You table charges against him ; and 
 he appears before the church. They ask him — " Do you believe that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God ?" He answers in the affirmative. They 
 ask him again — " Do you believe that he bore our sins in his own body 
 on the tree ?" He answers affirmatively. You are forced to acquit him. 
 But, next Sabbath, he again preaches the same doctrine. You try him 
 again, and with the same result. How, I ask again, can Mr. C. exclude 
 such a man? I say, he can do it only by a flagrant departure from his 
 own principles. 
 
 Whether I have produced contradictions in Mr. Campbell's writings I 
 cheerfully leave the audience to judge. He expresses the hope that I 
 will read much more from them. If it will be any comfort to him, I as- 
 sure him that I expect to abound in quotations from his books. 
 
 The gentleman has a singular method of destroying error. He tells 
 us of a man, once a Universalist preacher, who has not only forgotten his 
 former doctrine, but does not even remember the arguments by which he 
 defended it. Only let Universalism alone, he says, and it will die a nat- 
 ural death. Well, if he would let creeds alone, perhaps they would die 
 too. And if he and his friends would not disturb Pedo-baptism, would 
 not it also die? If one error will die by being let alone, why not an- 
 other? The gentleman has been engaged most assiduously and zealously 
 
ON HUMAN CREEDS. 817 
 
 for thirty years, laboring to destroy what he considers errors ; and now he 
 has made the remarkable discovery, that some of. the very worst of them 
 will die soonest by being let alone ! I very much wish, that he would 
 inform us what particular errors will die by being neglected, and which it is 
 necessary to destroy by opposition ; for I have no wish to spend time and 
 strength in making war upon errors that will die sooner if not disturbed. 
 
 Universalism, which he has been so willing to admit into his church, 
 is in its tendency one of the most demoralizing errors that has cursed the 
 world. An old and shrewd German blacksmith once heard aUniversalist 
 preach in his neighborhood. He became restless under the sermon ; and 
 so soon as the congregation was dismissed, he approached the preacher 
 and said to him— "If dis doctrine bees true, be sure you must not preach 
 it any more." "Why not?" inquired the preacher. " Because," said 
 the Dutchman, " one of my neighbors has already stole one half my 
 smit tools ; and if he does find dis out, he will have all de rest." 
 The Dutchman saw the tendency of the doctrine. Yet this is one of the 
 errors Mr. C. is willing to allow to place in his church till it will die ! I 
 am not disposed to treat it so leniently. It may do great mischief before 
 its death. 
 
 Mr. Campbell has, at last, given us his law prohibiting creeds. It is 
 Paul's exhortation to Timothy — " Hold fast the form of sound words." 
 That is, take the Bible just as it is. We do so take it, and hold it fast. But 
 does this scripture forbid us to write down what we understand the form of 
 sound words to mean ? The gentleman has himself published a book of 
 some size, called " The Christian System." This book is divided off in- 
 to chapters and sections just as our creed ; and in each chapter it profess- 
 edly explains some doctrine taught in that " form of sound words." If a 
 single individual may write a book, expounding the doctrine of sound 
 words, as he understands it; I cannot see why a body of professing 
 christians who agree in their views, might not be permitted to do the same 
 thing. This argument certainly will not prove, that " creeds are necessa- 
 rily heretical and schismatical." The gentleman must look for another. 
 I have called on him to produce a solitary passage that directly or indi- 
 rectly forbids the use of creeds. Where is there one ? 
 
 I wish now to make some farther remarks on Mr. Campbell's plan of 
 receiving Universalists. I have proved, that, according to his principles, 
 Unitarians of any grade, Arians or Socinians, Universalists and errorists 
 of every grade, may become members of his church ; and I now assert, 
 that they may be preachers as well as members. This I will prove by 
 Mr. C. himself— 
 
 " A christian is by profession a preacher of truth and righteousness, both 
 by precept and example. He may of right preach, baptize, and dispense 
 the supper, as well as pray for all men, when circumstances demand it." — 
 Christian System, p. 85. 
 
 This is not mere theory with Mr. Campbell. He has shown his faith 
 by his works, as I will prove from the Millenial Harbinger, vol. i. p. 147. 
 Mr. Raines, now of Paris, formerly a Universalist preacher, was, some 
 years since, immersed by the reformers. He appeared at the Mahoning 
 association. Some of the brethren were not quite prepared to receive him 
 as a preacher among them. Mr. Raines stated distinctly that he still held 
 Universalist sentiments, which quite alarmed some of the fraternity. 
 Whereupon the difficulty was, by Mr. C.'s influence, settled in the fol- 
 lowing manner : 
 
 52 3Z 
 
818 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 " Whether he held these views as matters of faith, or as pure matters of 
 opinion, was then propounded to him. He avowed them to be, in his judg- 
 ment, matters of opinion - , and not matters of faith ; and, in reply to another 
 question, averred that he would not teach them, believing them to be mat- 
 ters of opinion, and not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although a majority of 
 the brethren were satisfied, still a number were not reconciled to this decis- 
 ion. It was repeatedly urged that it mattered not what his private opin- 
 ions were on this subject, provided he regarded them only as matters of 
 opinion, and held them as private property." 
 
 I have a few remarks to make on this singular proceeding, only part of 
 which I shall have time to make at present. Mr. Raines, of whom I do 
 not intend to speak disrespectfully, was a preacher of Universalism — a 
 doctrine which is admitted to be erroneous and demoralizing. He was 
 received as a preacher in Mr. C.'s church, without any change in his sen- 
 timents. He distinctly stated, that they were not changed ; that he still 
 believed that all men would be saved. But, though his belief was un- 
 changed, he consented to give it a new name. Hitherto he had held Uni- 
 versalism as a doctrine— & matter of faith. He now agreed to call it an 
 opinion ; and it became at once perfectly harmless ! Arsenic, if you call 
 it poison, will kill you ; but call it food, and it will become nourishing ! 
 So Universalism, if you call it faith, is ruinous; but only name it opin- 
 ion, and all is well ! ! ! 
 
 I have called on the gentleman to tell us the precise difference between 
 faith and opinion — where faith ends, and opinion begins. I am particu- 
 larly desirous of definite information on this point ; and I insist that Mr. 
 Campbell should afford it, because I have propounded the question to 
 more than one of the proclaimers in his church, and they could not an- 
 swer it. I incline to think, that in their theology, it is a distinction with- 
 out a difference. Here we find the old error still held under a new name ; 
 and the name seems to possess a charm that destroys all its evil effects ! 
 Perhaps the giving it a new name, caused the gentleman to forget the ar- 
 guments by which he was accustomed to defend it ! We need informa- 
 tion on this subject. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1 — 1 1 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's fifth address.] 
 Mr. President — Before I sat down, I promised a consecutive argu- 
 ment, or two, that should occupy half an hour, without turning aside to 
 notice objections. Before doing this, I must add a few remarks to the ar- 
 gument introduced at the close of my last speech. I had just placed be- 
 fore you a divine precept, authoritatively commanding the holding fast of 
 the inspired form of sound words, delivered by the apostles. Now, a 
 confession of faith is not " the form of sound words," but only the form 
 of the construction put upon them by uninspired men. Nothing is more 
 latitudinarian than the word substance, if I might exemplify by the last 
 two discourses of Mr. Rice. This notion of holding fast the substance is 
 a perfect delusion ; and more especially, when we hold fast that substance 
 through a printed book, called a confession of faith, or a summary of 
 christian doctrine. In all such cases, we have two summaries, two con- 
 fessions, and two forms of the constructive sense of Paul's form of sound 
 words. We have first the written form — the printed confession; we 
 have, again, our mental form of that confession — that is, our ideas of the 
 ideas expressed in the book. Our views of the Bible on this mode of pro- 
 cedure, are but our views of certain men's views of the Bible. This is a 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 8 IS 
 
 demonstrable fact. Here is Paul's form of sound words. There is the 
 confession, or the form of construction of the sense of Paul's form of 
 sound words; and, in my mind, are my views, or the mental form of the 
 confession. The Bible is the first form ; the confession the second form ; 
 and my own views of the last book, the third form of the same idea. 
 There is the form ; the Bible ; there is a view of that form ; the confes- 
 sion ; and there is my view of the confession — which is to me the influen- 
 tial form. Nothing, then, is more slily deceptive; and yet, when can- 
 vassed to the bottom, nothing is more glaringly delusive, than to represent 
 a confession as a final expression, or our own individual expression of our 
 views of the Bible. When you tell your views of the Bible to A, he 
 forms his views of your words and interpretations, and then, through 
 these, he comes to certain conclusions concerning the book. But his con- 
 clusion is the third version of the matter, and not the second. You may 
 imagine that it is the same in substance with the second ; but suppose it 
 were — it is a new form. Some say to us, you have your views of the 
 Bible, and the Bible too — and, therefore, you have a confession of faith. 
 Grant it, then, for the sake of argument, and follows it not, that he has 
 two confessions — the written one, and the mental one ? 
 
 In Scotland, the Burgher and the Anti-burgher Presbyterians wrote 
 their testimony, expressive of some of their views of the confession. 
 Now have they not, being founded on this testimony, a different founda- 
 tion from other Presbyterians? and if so, they are a distinct commu- 
 nity. So are the Presbyterians built upon the confession, different from 
 those builded on the Bible. Should Mr. Rice write his views, and some 
 one write his views of Mr. Rice's views, and another write his views of 
 the reviewer's views, what would be the color of the mind that receives 
 the last, compared with the mind that received the first ? As various 
 often his, who listens to the creeds and catechisms explanatory of the Bi- 
 ble. I prefer the fountain to the muddy stream ; and, therefore, take the 
 original document, and place my mind directly upon it. 
 
 Along with this precept from Paul, I must plead one from Jude : " Con- 
 tend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." Jude wrote his 
 short and comprehensive epistle near the close of the apostolic age. He 
 saw an approaching defection, and enjoined, in these words, an antidote 
 against the early workings of the mystery of iniquity. He saw the efforts 
 to introduce new things by the converted Jews and pagans, incorporated 
 in the christian family, and in the midst of these efforts wrote his epistle. 
 Such a precept, emanating from such circumstances, is equivalent to a 
 positive prohibition of every thing but the faith, the truth, the identical 
 words commended hy apostles and prophets, as the foundation of the 
 christian temple, and the constitution of the christian church. The gen- 
 tleman asks for precepts authorizing the book alone ! ! 
 
 Mr. Rice has told us, indeed, that the confession of faith is not the con- 
 stitution of the Presbyterian church. But, with its form of discipline and 
 church government, it is the identical constitution of the Presbyterian 
 church. And, with these words before me, allow me to introduce another 
 view of the subject. 
 
 In this universe, there are numerous and various constitutions, both 
 celestial and terrestrial. But of all these documents and things called con- 
 stitutions, there are three, of which God is himself the author and the 
 finisher. He has bestowed on man, and probably on angels, too, the right 
 of making for themselves a sort of bye-law constitution, in reference to 
 
820 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 their social intercommunications. But neither to angel nor to man, has 
 he given the liberty of making a constitution for the universe, a constitu- 
 tion for the human body, nor a constitution for the church of God. 
 
 Good and valid reasons can be given, why man should not have been 
 entrusted with the draft of a constitution for the universe, and why he 
 should not have been permitted to form a constitution for his own body. 
 All will find in his utter incompetency, many good reasons why he should 
 not have been entrusted with such an undertaking. To my mind he is 
 just as incompetent to perform the last, as either of the other two. Had 
 any man a tolerably distinct and accurate view of the mystical body of 
 Christ — of that mysterious and sublime institution, the church of the 
 living God, he Would feel himself as wholly inadequate to the task of 
 forming for it a constitution as he, physically, intellectually, and morally 
 is, for his own body or the whole universe of God. 
 
 The church, the true church, of the true Redeemer, is a glorious insti- 
 tution ; and hence it was decreed before the christian age began, and fore- 
 told by one of Israel's sweetest and most seraphic bards, the evangelical 
 Isaiah : " Unto us a child is born ; unto us a son is given, and the gov- 
 ernment shall be on his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonder- 
 ful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Founder of the Everlasting Age, 
 the Prince of Peace." He is then, the Wonderful Founder of the gospel 
 institution, the Everlasting Age. The noblest and most august titles in the 
 universe surround his mitre and his crown ! Among these is one, to 
 us, of ineffable interest, " the author and the founder of the faith." 
 " Of man's miraculous mistakes, this bears the palm" — that he should 
 presume to draft a constitution for the church of Jesus Christ! He could 
 as easily make one for the hierarchies of heaven, or for the universe of God, 
 
 When the Messiah began to prepare himself for this glorious work di- 
 vine, the Holy Spirit was given to him without measure. All knowledge, 
 wisdom, eloquence and power, were bestowed upon him as the human 
 and divine head of this mighty assembly of saints. What a community 
 the christian family is — spread over the whole earth in some periods of 
 its history, and commensurate with all time, embracing all lands, lan- 
 guages and nations ; all ranks and degrees of men — the learned and the 
 rude, the sage and the child : all varieties of man — the noblest and most 
 gifted of earth's mightiest spirits, the giant intellects of humanity ! To 
 make for such an association a constitution 1 — what a task ! Had a 
 council of the heavens been called; had Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, and all 
 the sons of light and celestial fire been convened to deliberate for an age, 
 they could not have made a constitution for Christ's church. They could 
 not have sketched a system, even had it been adopted to the letter, that 
 could have united, cemented, coalesced, and harmonized, in everlasting 
 peace and amity, a society like that of which we speak. Hence the Lord 
 Messiah was made " the covenant" and the leader, the lawgiver, the author 
 and the finisher of the christian constitution. On that, and that alone, can 
 the church be built. Take that constitution, then, and make it the basis, 
 the only basis of a christian society. Let his oracles, decisions, and gov- 
 ernment be first, last, and midst, the alpha and the omega ; then all chris- 
 tians of all nations, ages, and conditions, can form one grand, holy, and 
 happy community. 
 
 We have made an experiment under circumstances not the most propi- 
 tious, in the midst of many conflicting and rival institutions, to lay again 
 the same well tried old corner-stone — the primitive confession on which 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 821 
 
 the church was built — the stone which the Master laid at Csesarea Phil- 
 ippi, on which to build his church, in first commending it to the notice of 
 the Avorld, promising most solemnly to build his- church of all nations 
 and ages upon it. The experiment for the time has been most success- 
 ful. Probably not less than two hundred thousand persons of all the 
 creeds, and parties, and various associations around us ; persons of all 
 sorts and varieties of mind, education, and circumstances in Christendom, 
 as well as those from the ranks of scepticism, in its various forms, have 
 united in making the same confession, and have associated upon the 
 same grand fundamental constitutional principles. They are found, too, 
 in all the states of this immense union and its territories. They are 
 found in the Canadas, and in all northern America. They are found in 
 England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales ; and, without any other bond 
 of union than the new and everlasting constitution, signed, sealed, and 
 delivered by the Lord Jesus, through his holy apostles. United in this, 
 and builded on this foundation, we still maintain unity of spirit in the 
 bonds of peace. Still, Mr. Rice expresses his astonishment that we 
 should hang together at all, asking, meantime, how we keep out here- 
 tics and offenders ! His imagination at one time, has us excluding 
 whole masses ; at another time, not able to induce one to enter. Now, 
 we cannot take in one ; again, we cannot exclude one ! 
 
 And what is the character of all these communities ? I presume I will 
 have credit, even with our adversaries themselves, in saying that they are, 
 as congregations, at full par value, in all proper points of comparison, 
 with the same number of persons and communities ; whether in London, 
 Edinburgh, New York, Philadelphia, or in this city. They will compare 
 with other denominations in good sense, in a fair reputation for medium 
 talent and learning; for staid, good habits, and all the social virtues, 
 Now, we argue, that if so many persons of all those varieties, before men- 
 tioned, can meet, unite and co-operate in faith, hope and love, on this 
 foundation, under this new constitution ; all the world — all who know, 
 believe, and love the same Savior, might. It is broad enough and strong 
 enough for them all. What other demonstrations of its practicability and 
 adequacy can be demanded ? And, if any one ask the reason of all this 
 success and co-operation, I present the charter, the confession of our faith, 
 the creed, the constitution, if you please, under which we are incorpor- 
 ated. The strength, however, of the whole edifice, is in its foundation; 
 and the still more interior secret of the strength of our system is, that it 
 is divine. It is the foundation which God has laid in Zion. It is not 
 both divine and human. It is wholly divine. 
 
 Does any one ask me, what it is ? I wish I had a summer's day and 
 my wonted strength, to develop its glorious features to your view. A 
 full revelation of it would disarm our opponents, and take from them 
 more than half their arguments. I tell you, my fellow-citizens, the chris- 
 tian faith is quite a simple, but most comprehensive and potent document. 
 The five books of Moses, together with the prophets, compose the Jew's 
 religion. The christian believes all these too, and studies them well ; 
 but Christianity was born after Christ. There were Jews and gentiles 
 innumerable before Christ was born. But we speak not of the Jewish nor 
 of the patriarchal ages. The Harbinger had done his work. He prepared 
 a people for the Lord, and introduced the sublime and glorious age of 
 Messiah the Prince — but Christianity is more than John preached. The 
 principles of Christianity, like the grand laws of nature, are simple and 
 
 3z2 
 
822 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 few, but omnipotent to all the ends of its author. What sublime and 
 awful wonders are revealed in heaven to the eye of the philosopher, by 
 the operation of the centripetal and centrifugal forces ! Silently and un- 
 obtrusively these laws, for ages, have swayed creation's ample bounds, 
 kept the universe to its place, and guided all the mighty masses in their 
 unmeasured circuits of miles unnumbered, through all the fields of occu- 
 pied space. That regularity, harmony, beauty, and beneficence spread 
 over those empyreal regions, where the march of revolving worlds over- 
 whelms the adoring saint, and fills his soul with admiration of the Divine 
 author of the universe — all spring from, and are the mysterious result of, 
 the happy combination of these two stupendous principles. 
 
 So is it in our most holy faith. There are but two grand principles in 
 Christianity — two laws revealed and developed, whose combination pro- 
 duces similar harmony, beauty, and loveliness in the world of mind as 
 in the world of matter. But, leaving the development of these for the 
 present, I must at once declare the simplicity of this divine constitution 
 of remedial mercy. It has but three grand ideas peculiar to itself ; and 
 these all concern the King. I am sorry that this mysterious and sublime 
 simplicity does not appear to those who set about making constitutions 
 for Christ's kindom. This confession of omnipotent moral power, be- 
 cause the offspring of infinite wisdom and benevolence, must be learned 
 from one passage, Matt. xvi. " Who am I, do men say ?" We must ad- 
 vance one step farther — who am I, do you say ? Peter, in one moment- 
 ous period, expressed the whole affair — Thou art the Messiah, the 
 Son of the Living God. The two ideas expressed, concern the person 
 of the Messiah and his office. The one implied, concerns his character; 
 for it was through his character, as developed, that Peter recognized his 
 person and his Messiahship. Now let us take off the shoes from off our 
 feet, for we stand on holy ground ; and let us hear him unfold to Peter 
 his intentions — " Blessed art thou Simon, son of Jonas ! Flesh and blood 
 has not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I 
 say unto thee, thou art Peter, (a stone,) and on this rock / ivill build 
 my church, and the gates of hell, (hades,) shall not prevail against it." 
 It will stand forever. " I will give unto thee, (thyself alone, Peter,) the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven, (my church,) and whose sins soever you 
 remit, they are remitted ; and whose sins soever you retain, they shall be 
 retained." Here, then, is the whole revelation of the mystery of the 
 christian constitution — the full confession of the christian faith. All that 
 is peculiar to Christianity is found in these words ; not merely in embryo, 
 but in a clearly expressed outline. A clear perception, and a cordial be- 
 lief of these two facts will make any man a christian. He may carry 
 them out in their vast dimensions and glorious developments, to all eter- 
 nity. He may ponder upon them until his spirit is transformed intz> the 
 image of God ; until he shines in more than angelic brightness, in all 
 the purity and beauty of heavenly love. Man glorified in heaven, gifted 
 with immortality, and rapt in the ecstacies of infinite and eternal blessed- 
 ness, is but the mere result of a proper apprehension of, and conformity to, 
 this confession. I am always overwhelmed with astonishment in observing 
 how this document has been disparaged and set at nought by our builders 
 of churches. It seems still to be a " stone of stumbling and a rock of 
 offence." Yet Jesus calls it the rock. It is in the figure of a church or 
 a temple, the foundation, the rock. When all societies build on this one 
 foundation, and on it only, then shall there be unity of faith, of affection, 
 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 823 
 
 and of co-operation ; but never, never till then. Every other foundation 
 is sand. Hence they have all wasted away. Innumerable parties have 
 perished from the earth ; and so will all the present, built on any other 
 foundation than this rock. 
 
 I again say, that every denomination built on any other foundation than 
 this rock — on this simple confession of faith in the fair, just, and well de- 
 fined meaning of its words, will as certainly perish from the earth as man 
 does. They may have much truth in their systems, but they have so much 
 mortality with it, that perish they must as sects, parties, and denomina- 
 tions. Their doom is written — " Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt 
 return." They may pass through many changes in the progress of de- 
 composition; for the Presbyterians of the 16th and 17th centuries are not 
 just those of the 18th and 19th, as the sequel may yet show. 
 
 Whenever any man discovers this rock, and is willing to build on it 
 alone ; whenever he sees its firmness, its strength, and is willing to place 
 himself upon it for time and for eternity, and on it alone, I say to him — 
 Give me your hand, brother, you must come out and pass through the cer- 
 emony of naturalization ; you must be born of water as well as of the 
 Spirit, and enter into the new and everlasting covenant ; you must as- 
 sume the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. On 
 that simple confession with the lips, that he believes in his heart this glo- 
 rious truth, he is, by the authority of the heavens, constituted a christian; 
 and he that treats him unkindly, treats his Lord and Master so. Other 
 foundation can no man lay, that will endure ; nor any one which, while 
 it does endure, can receive the family of God. 
 
 We can neither in reason nor in conscience, ask this person to sub- 
 scribe twenty-five, thirty-three, or thirty-nine articles. He is but a new- 
 born child. We expect him to grow. We will not put him upon the iron 
 bedstead of Procrustes and stretch him up to thirty-nine articles. We 
 will place him in the cradle of maternal kindness, and feed him with the 
 sincere milk of the Word, that he may grow thereby. Nor will we, at 
 any time, say to him, Brother, you must never grow beyond the thirty- 
 ninth article. If you go to the fortieth, we will cut you down or send 
 you adrift. If hou live three-score years and ten, remember, you must 
 never think of the fortieth article. You must subscribe them all now at 
 your birth ; and subscribe no more at your death. If you should attain 
 to the knowledge, the gifts, and the graces of the sweet psalmist of Israel, 
 you must never think of transcending those nine and thirty, or those three 
 and thirty articles of belief. 
 
 My objection to these documents is not merely that they are summa- 
 ries ; but that they are summaries made ready to our hands, by the aids 
 of orthodoxy — hereditaments of ancestral acquisition. God designed no 
 summary. He could have made one by Paul, or all of the apostles, but 
 he would not have such a thing. He intended us all to commune with 
 him through his blessed, soul-illuminating, sanctifying, saving truth. He 
 would have us dig in the mines of knowledge, for ourselves. He would 
 have us become intellectually and morally rich, by our own labors. He 
 would have us to apply our minds to the truth, as we place an instrument 
 on a stone, to sharpen and polish it. By pressing that instrument, and 
 holding it for a long time on that stone, by continual attrition, it becomes 
 bright and sharp. So by the continual attrition of the word of God upon 
 our hearts, and by the Spirit of our God upon our spirits, they become 
 more discriminating in the things of God, as well as shine with the bright- 
 
824 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 ness and beauty of holiness. I never knew any one converted or sancti- 
 fied by reading one of these summaries. These confessions of faith have 
 been long in the world. Has any one been converted by them ? Among 
 all the published reports of converted persons, by numerous and various 
 instrumentalities, I never knew of man, woman, or child, having been 
 converted by reading articles of faith, or books of discipline. 
 
 But they have been roots of bitterness, causes of division ; have made 
 numerous sects, and preserved and upheld those that, but for them, had 
 long since perished from the earth. They are unsanctified documents. 
 Pardon me for saying, they are unholy things. They were not made by 
 the authority of God, but in contravention of it; and in opposition to his 
 own confession, given in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew. They are 
 opposed, without intending it, to the last oracle we have heard from h( a- 
 ven, from the holy mount — -** This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I 
 delight ; hear him. 7 ' Moses and Elijah came from heaven to do him 
 honor. They laid their commissions at his feet. Heaven recalled them, 
 and left him with us, as the Messenger of the everlasting covenant, with 
 the solemn and final precept, hear him. 
 
 It has been hearing him that has made the prophets of Greece, and 
 Rome, and Geneva, and Westminster, children in my eyes. I once 
 looked up to them ; but thank my Lord, I now look down upon them, not 
 in contempt for them, but as teachers of no authority with me. Over me 
 they have no more authority than the dreams of my childhood, or the 
 fancy sketches of our modern poets. I stand upon higher, holier, stronger 
 ground, than upon such a paper platform as they have reared. 
 
 This, sir, is the constitution of the Presbyterian church — this volume in 
 my hand, manufactured two hundred years ago, and from time to time 
 amended in some points. Such documents men can make. For such 
 churches they can make constitutions. But, sir, this book is not the con- 
 stitution of Christ's church. They call these "branch" churches, branches 
 of Christ's church. But these are words not found in the Bible. Jesus 
 Christ has not said one word about these branch institutions. It is, then, 
 from the very name itself, heretical and schismatical. It makes a branch. 
 The Methodists, and Baptists, &c, are branches too, made by such her- 
 etical substitutes for, or appendages to, the christian Scriptures. The 
 more our brethren in these branch institutions are ensnared and capti- 
 vated by such designations, and fallacious titles, the more are they false 
 to the great catholic, all-absorbing, and soul-redeeming principles. The 
 very fact, that this document is the constitution of this denomination, 
 makes it both heretical and schismatical ; for it is not a constitution of 
 Christ's body, it is a rival of it. Such, then, is the argument which 1 
 would draw, and which I would delight to fill up, on the fact and figure 
 of the constitution of Christ's church. The sum of the whole matter, 
 then, is this — we have a divine constitution for the whole kingdom of 
 Jesus Christ, adapted to the genius of humanity, the circumstances of the 
 human race, the churches' relations to worlds unseen, to the whole uni- 
 verse of God ; and hence every other one is essentially and perpetually 
 heretical and schismatical. 
 
 Hence, then, we are not only commanded to hold fast the form of 
 sound words, but to "contend earnestly for the faith, once delivered to 
 the saints." I have shewn that this faith is that of which Jesus Christ 
 is both the author and the finisher ; consequently, he is neither the 
 author nor the finisher of the Westminster, nor of any other confession 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 825 
 
 in the world. So place we ourselves before this community, and in this 
 attitude I desire to place myself before earth and heaven ; as now con- 
 tending for that faith, and that faith only, delivered by the great Func- 
 tionary of the universe to us, fallen men, by the holy apostles and pro- 
 phets. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1 — 1&§ o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's fifth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President. — I think my friend, Mr. Campbell, is rising to-day 
 in his powers of declamation and exhortation— both of which are useful 
 in their proper place. There was, however, one great misfortune attend- 
 ing his last speech, which, by the way, was quite handsomely delivered. 
 The whole foundation will be swept away by the correction of a strange 
 error into which he has fallen. I will attend to that matter presently. 
 
 He seems really to believe, that we cannot " hold fast the form of 
 sound words," if we venture to commit to writing what we understand 
 the Scriptures to teach ! The moment we write what we understand to 
 be the meaning of that form of sound words, we have abandoned it!! 
 Yet Mr. C. can write and publish in his Christian System what he under- 
 stands it to teach, and still hold it fast ! He claims the right to do what 
 the whole Presbyterian church does not attempt; and that which, when 
 done by us, amounts to apostasy and deserves excommunication, becomes 
 perfectly harmless, when done by him ! We greatly sin, if we, as a 
 body, agree in our views of the Bible, and commit them to writing, re- 
 quiring our ministers to teach them; but Mr. C. can write what he 
 pleases, and it is no sin! I have long known, that Presbyterian sins 
 were, in certain quarters, considered the greatest of all sins. Many 
 things which in them are unpardonable, are in others quite venial. But 
 I call for the passage of Scripture that condemns the use of creeds. 
 
 The Westminster confession, he says, must be very obscure, because 
 in Scotland they have written explanations of it, and even explanations of 
 explanations. Let us have the proof. When I state facts, I prove them ; 
 and I shall expect him to do the same. Let us have the documents ; and 
 they shall be attended to. I have not seen any of the explanations of 
 explanations. I hope he will let us see one of them. 
 
 But, says Mr. C, why not go to the fountain head, the Bible, for our 
 faith ? Did you ever hear a Presbyterian minister preach, who did not 
 urge his hearers to go to the fountain head ? Do not our ministers uni- 
 versally preach the general reading of the Scriptures, as the only rule of 
 faith ? I venture to assert, that at this day, notwithstanding all the elo- 
 quent declamations of Mr. C. and his friends concerning the excellence 
 of the Bible, Presbyterians are more accustomed to read and study it, 
 than his church. An agent for the Bible Society has stated, that in his 
 journeyings to and fro, he has found many families connected with it, 
 without a Bible ! Very few Presbyterian families, if any, can be found 
 in such a situation. You may find them destitute of the conveniences 
 and even of the necessaries of life ; but rarely indeed can you find them 
 without a Bible. There is not on earth a body of professing christians 
 who read it more, or more constantly urge others to read, or prize it more 
 highly as the " lamp to their feet and the light to their path," than Pres- 
 byterians. 
 
 And where, let me ask, can the gentleman find a class of men who 
 have more zealously promoted the circulation of the Scriptures, without 
 note or comment, at home and abroad, in civilized and in pagan lands, 
 
826 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 than the clergy of the Presbyterian church. Or where can be found a 
 body of people who have more generally or more liberally contributed 
 of their means to give the Bible to the destitute? And what has been the 
 course pursued by Mr. C. and his church in relation to the efforts to cir- 
 late the Scriptures without note or comment? For years he stood up in 
 opposition to all Bible societies, and did as much as any other man to 
 cripple their operations. I am truly pleased to learn, that his views, so 
 strangely wrong, have become changed on this subject. But what have 
 his people done toward the circulation of the Bible, of which he speaks 
 in terms so exalted ? He has himself published the fact, that they have 
 done almost nothing ; that very few of them have given any thing to this 
 noble and philanthropic cause ! Is it not most marvelous, that the very 
 people who profess to be more zealous than all others for the Bible, and 
 the Bible alone, have either opposed, or done little or nothing to promote 
 its general circulation ; whilst the very churches, clergy and people, Pres- 
 byterians and others, whom they condemn as establishing creeds for the 
 Bible — as making the Word of God of non-erTect by their traditions — as 
 afraid of the light — are zealously and liberally contributing time, talents 
 and money in placing the Bible, without note or comment, in the hands of 
 all the human family ? ! These facts are worth more, infinitely more, to 
 place this subject in its true light, than all the pretty declamations of the 
 gentleman since the commencement of the debate. We show our faith 
 by our works. Let our friends do the same. 
 
 The gentleman has found a second passage of Scripture which, as he 
 supposes, prohibits the use of creeds. It is in the epistle of Jude — 
 ** Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." 
 The faith once delivered to the saints consists of the doctrines and truths 
 taught in the Scriptures. For these, Presbyterians do contend earnestly. 
 But does Jude forbid us to write out a brief outline of these truths, and 
 to say to all men — thus we understand the Bible ? The gentleman has not 
 ventured to deny the fact stated in my first speech, that you cannot know 
 in detail what any man believes, from the fact, that he professes to have 
 no other creed but the Bible. This difficulty arises not from any obscu- 
 rity attending the instructions of the inspired writers, but from the indis- 
 putable fact that men have perverted its language, attaching to it ideas 
 never intended to be communicated by them. The gentleman's far- 
 fetched inference from Jude's language, is wholly illegitimate. 
 
 I now come to sweep away the foundation on which my friend's beau- 
 tiful speech — the best he has made — was based. There are three things, 
 he tells us, for which men cannot make constitutions — the universe, man, 
 and the church. Presbyterians, he would have you believe, have had the 
 presumption to attempt to make a constitution for the church of Christ. 
 Now, the truth is, the confession of faith is not the constitution of the 
 Presbyterian church. The word constitution, it is true, is used in va- 
 rious senses ; and in one sense the confession of faith may be called the 
 constitution of our church. But, in the sense of original legislation, we 
 do not admit, that it is the constitution. We hold, that the Bible is the 
 constitution of the Presbyterian church. We hold no doctrine nor prin- 
 ciple as obligatory, which we do not believe to be inculcated in the Sacred 
 Word. The confession of faith itself affords the best refutation of the 
 gentleman's charge. I will read in our Form of Government, chap. i. 
 sec. 7 : 
 
 " That all church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or in 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 827 
 
 the way of representation by delegated authority, is only ministerial and 
 declarative ; that is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of 
 faith and manners ; that no church judicatory ought to pretend to make 
 laws to bind the conscience, in virtue of their own authority ; and that all, 
 their decisions should be founded upon the recorded will of God. Now 
 though it will be easily admitted, that all synods and councils may err, 
 through the frailty inseparable from humanity ; yet there is much greater 
 danger from the usurped claim of making laws, than from the right of 
 judging upon laws already made, and common to all who profess the 
 gospel ; although this right, as necessity requires in the present state, be 
 lodged with fallible men." 
 
 Here, you observe, is an explicit declaration, that all church power is 
 simply ministerial and declarative, not legislative — that the Holy Scrip- 
 tures are the only rule of faith and manners. Here is a distinct renuncia- 
 tion of all power to make laws to bind the consciences of men, and a de- 
 claration, as strong as language can make it, that church courts must found 
 all their decisions on the Word of God — that, instead of usurping the 
 claim to make laws, they can only judge according to the laws of the Bi- 
 ble, which are common to all who profess the gospel. 
 
 Now what becomes of the gentleman's charge, that the Presbyterians 
 have attempted to make a constitution for the church of Christ ? What 
 have they done? They have given in a few chapters a brief statement 
 of the great doctrines and principles of church government taught in the 
 Bible, and especially in the New Testament, and they have referred to the 
 chapter and verse in the Bible which, as they believe, sustains every arti- 
 cle and every important principle. How essentially different this from 
 usurping legislative power, and attempting to make a constitution for the 
 church ! So the gentleman's beautiful speech evaporates. 
 
 But we are not the only people, in these latter days, who might be 
 charged with making constitutions for the church. The gentleman him- 
 self, notwithstanding his eloquent declamation, has actually tried his hand 
 at this work ! If we were to judge by what he has said during this dis- 
 cussion, we should believe, that no man on earth confines himself, in his 
 faith and practice, so closely to the Bible as he. He goes by the book. 
 Yet he has been telling his people, for two years past, that their church 
 is unorganized, overrun with ruinous error, and likely to be rent in pieces ; 
 and that they must get up an organization. For the purpose of securing 
 this important object, he submitted to them a constitution, which I will 
 read. For the sake of illustrating his principles, he supposes a number 
 of churches in the island of Guernsey, in council assembled, and about 
 to form an organization, with the following constitution: [Millen. Harb., 
 New Series, Vol. vii. No. 2, pp. 85, 86.) 
 
 " 1st. That they should act as one body, regarding all the existing con- 
 gregations of the island, and any others that might be formed by their in- 
 strumentality or that of others laboring under their auspices, and thus con- 
 nected with them, as constituent and component communities of one body ; 
 but holding in their private capacities, as christian familes, certain reserv- 
 ed and untransferable rights, duties and privileges, which are individual 
 and private, and not to be interfered with by the body as such. [Amongst 
 these they enumerated the election and appointment of their congregational 
 officers : That each church should have its own eldership and deaconate, 
 and at least one president elder, whose whole time shall be sacred to the 
 calls and supervision of the church ; for which services he shall be supported 
 by the brethren, so far as his needs require and their abilities allow.] 
 
 2nd. That every individual community shall respect the private acts and 
 rights of every other community, and not at all interfere with them. 
 
828 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 3rd. That in all cases where public officers, such as messengers of any- 
 public character, and especially evangelists, who are to be regarded as offi- 
 cers of the whole body, a concurrence of a plurality of churches by their offi- 
 cers be regarded as necessary, if not to empower them to discharge official 
 duties in a single congregation, at least necessary to give them general ac- 
 ceptance, and to constitute them public and responsible agents of the whole 
 body. 
 
 4th. That when any community shall have any case of great difficulty 
 beyond its ability satisfactorily to dispose of, reference may be had to oth- 
 er communities for a council or committee to assist in such case ; whose 
 decision shall be final, — an end of all farther litigation or debate on the 
 premises. 
 
 5th. That whenever any great question of finance, as the means of suc- 
 cessfully prosecuting any public object, or any other event of great public 
 interest shall require it, a special general meeting of messengers from all 
 the congregations shall be called by the person who presided at the last 
 general meeting ; and that the eldership and deaconates of all the congrega- 
 tions, or so many of them as can attend, shall always be at least a portion 
 of the messengers who attend on such occasions. 
 
 6th. Finally, that all the public duties of the christian church shall be 
 attended to as though it were, what it is in fact, one body, under the Head — 
 the Messiah ; and, therefore, arrangements and provisions shall be always 
 made in general meetings for the most faithful, prompt and satisfactory dis- 
 charge of all these duties. 
 
 The above outline is offered to the examination of the brethren, as em- 
 bracing much, if not every thing, that, in our judgment, is wanting to a 
 complete and perfect organization. We shall be happy to receive any sub- 
 stantial objections to it from our brethren, and shall give them a faithful, 
 patient, and full consideration. A. C." 
 
 Here I find a plan of organization — a constitution containing six ar- 
 ticles, offered to the gentleman's church for their adoption, in order to a 
 complete organization. And, which is remarkable, there is in this con- 
 stitution not one reference to the Scriptures! Now I had thought 
 that the gentleman gloried in the fact that the New Testament is their 
 constitution, the all-sufficient constitution of his church. But what do I 
 see here? A constitution of six articles, without one reference to the New 
 Testament — a constitution to which he intimates some additions may be 
 necessary ! ! ! On this constitution of six articles, and such as may be 
 added, his church is to be organized ! He is declaiming against " the 
 sects " in general and the Presbyterians in particular, for having done the 
 very thing he is now attempting to do, though in a very imperfect man- 
 ner ! He abuses all constitutions of churches made by man, and yet 
 seeks to make one ! If the New Testament is his constitution, as he pre- 
 tends, why does he not go by it ? Why offer these six articles to the 
 churches as necessary to a complete organization 1 When a man's con- 
 duct is directly at war with his words, or when he is found at different 
 times advocating principles, the most contradictory, and condemning in 
 others what he allows in himself, we cannot but see that something is 
 wrong — radically wrong. 
 
 But, after all, the evil is — that Mr. Campbell's brethren have not 
 agreed to receive his constitution, and his church yet remains in its un- 
 organized and confused state. 
 
 The gentleman has again made quite an imposing exhibition of the 
 numbers who have united with his church — about two hundred thousand 
 persons. So many have, from time to time, joined his church ; but how 
 many have apostatized, he does not inform us. Many, as I have proved 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 829 
 
 since the commencement of this debate, have turned again to the world 
 or to " the sects.'* It is not exactly fair to count all who have become 
 members, without discounting those who have turned back. 
 
 I am more than doubtful whether there is ground of boasting or of ar- 
 gument in the fact, that Mr. C. has succeeded in collecting such a multi- 
 tude of men and women of all kinds in one unorganized mass, with all 
 kinds of notions and opinions. He has told us, that in his church he has 
 Calvinists (and one of his prominent preachers has attempted to prove, 
 that Calvinism is tantamount to Atheism) and Arminians ; and has Uni- 
 tarians, Universalists, Materialists— all sorts of men preaching all kinds of 
 doctrine, and of course, all sorts of members. It is of such an unorgan- 
 ized, incoherent, confused multitude, that the gentleman boasts ! In his 
 vain attempt to organize them in one body he has offered them a constitu- 
 tion, consisting of six articles, and not a text of Scripture ! They have 
 not received it, and, I presume, they never will. 
 
 Error, he has truly said, often gains converts more rapidly than truth ; 
 and yet he boasts of his rapid increase of numbers, as evidence conclusive 
 that his principles are correct ! His argument wmild prove the Mormons 
 right. I do not institute a comparison between the Mormons and the 
 gentleman's church; but certainly, they have increased more rapidly. 
 They commenced their operations only a few years ago ; and now see 
 what multitudes of converts they have made, and how much more com- 
 plete and efficient their organization, than that of his church. Amongst 
 them, we hear of no clashing in doctrine or in practice; and only occa- 
 sionally of an apostate. If, then, the argument turns on the rapid increase 
 of numbers irrespective of their religious views and character, it proves 
 too much for my friend. Sidney Rigdon, formerly one of his most pop- 
 ular preachers, and his right-hand man in the debate with McCalla, has 
 sworn allegiance to Joe Smith, and now looks back with compassion on 
 his quondam friend and leader, as yet in Babylon. Sidney has finally 
 reached the point of perfect unity of faith, and fancies that he walks the 
 streets of the New Jerusalem ! The gentleman's argument proves too 
 much. 
 
 It is indeed true, that Peter made a good confession, when he said — 
 " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ;" and it is true, that it 
 embraces two great points — the character and office of Christ. But what 
 is that character? He is God as well as man. He " thought it not rob- 
 bery to be equal with God." Mr. C, I believe, professes to believe in 
 the true and proper Divinity of Christ. But if we ask Barton W. Stone, 
 a prominent preacher in the same church, concerning his character, he 
 will tell us, that the Son of God existed before the creation of the world, 
 but not from eternity ; and consequently he makes him only an exalted 
 creature. If Mr. C. believes in the Divinity of Christ, there is an infi- 
 nite difference between his faith and that of Mr. Stone. There is no com- 
 parison between finite and infinite, between the most exalted creature and 
 the eternal God. Both these gentlemen call Christ the Son of God ; and 
 both profess to build on the rock; but if Mr. C. is on the rock, Mr. 
 Stone is on the sand. Yet they are both in the same church ! 
 
 Again. What is the office of Christ, the second point embraced in 
 Peter's confession? If I understand Mr. C, he believes, that Christ 
 bore the punishment due to our sins on the cross. But if we ask Mr. 
 Stone, he will tell us, that Christ suffered only that by being made ac- 
 quainted with what he endured, the hearts of wicked men might relent, 
 
 4A 
 
830 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 and that they might be induced to turn to God. He denies, that Christ 
 bore the punishment due to our sins. This amounts to a denial of the 
 most important part of his work. There is an infinite difference between 
 the faith of Messrs. Stone and Campbell concerning the character and 
 work of Christ. Yet both are on the rock ! ! ! Now let me ask em- 
 phatically, what kind of a church is this, made up of materials so discord- 
 ant, embodying differences so radical ? 
 
 It is true, as Mr. C. says, that his creed is a short one. All he re- 
 quires is, that persons desiring to enter the church, say they believe that 
 Christ is the Son of God. He inquires not whether they understand the 
 language they adopt, or what meaning they attach to it. The Arian, who 
 makes the Savior an exalted creature, and the Socinian, who makes him a 
 mere man, alike profess to believe the proposition ; and both are received 
 as christian brethren; though both deny both the true character and the 
 work of Christ, and 10b him of his glory ! Of what use are words, un- 
 less they convey definite ideas ? Of what advantage is it for a person to 
 say, " I believe that Christ is the Son of God ;" unless he understands 
 what ideas the inspired writer intended to convey by these words ? He 
 who rejects the true mianing of Bible words and phrases, rejects the 
 Bible. Unless, then, we ask men what they understand by the language 
 of Scripture, we must receive the Arian, the Socinian, every body- 
 
 After all, the gentleman's sreed is not always so short. It is some- 
 times short, and sometimes long. He says, he asks those who apply for 
 membership, only to profess to believe that Christ is the Son of God. 
 But ask a Pedo-baptist that question — "Do you believe that Christ is the 
 Son of God?" He will answer, Yes. Now will the gentleman receive 
 him ? No — he must have a confession from him about his faith in im- 
 mersion, and about the baptism of infants. Thus it will become tolerably 
 long! 
 
 But it is doubtful whether there is much uniformity either in faith or 
 practice in the churches of the reformers ; for it appears, that they are en- 
 tirely independent of each other. My worthy friend, Dr. Fishback, in a 
 letter to the Synod of Kentucky, gave a brief confession of faith, or state- 
 ment of the faith of the church that worships in this building ; in which 
 he remarks as follows : 
 
 " Permit me, however, to say, that the church [in Lexington] is indepen- 
 dent in her constitution and government of all other- churches, and sustains 
 no connection with any church or denomination of christians, that author- 
 izes them to make a creed for her, or which subjects her to their legislation 
 or government, or that makes her responsible for any error that may be im- 
 puted to them." — Christian Journal, Oct. 28, 1843. 
 
 Here we have a church actually independent of all others, in no sense 
 accountable to any for its errors, nor in any degree responsible for the 
 doctrines of others. If the other churches are equally independent of 
 each other, they do not constitute one body, but are just so many per- 
 fectly independent democracies, no one of which is responsible for any 
 thing believed or done by the others. Such is the boasted reformation of 
 the nineteenth century ! 
 
 The gentleman professes to eschew all creeds ; but he says, he is willing 
 at any time, to give his views of the meaning of the Scriptures. But why- 
 should he give them ? Are not his views well expressed by the inspired 
 writers ? Why not refer all who wish to know his views, to the New 
 Testament? His sentiments and his conduct are strangely contradictory. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 831 
 
 As an argument against creeds, the gentleman says, he never heard of 
 any one converted by reading a confession of faith. He seems to forget, 
 that a great many important and interesting things happen in this world, 
 of which he never hears. A brother has just informed me that a lady in 
 his congregation had her attention turned to the subject of religion by 
 reading the Westminster confession, who recently died in the triumphs of 
 faith. She doubtless read the Scriptures, which are abundantly quoted in 
 that excellent book ; for I suppose, that two-thirds of the doctrinal part 
 of it consists of quotations from the Bible. But did he ever hear of any 
 one being coverted by reading his "Christian System?" I certainly 
 never did. Creeds are not designed particularly to effect the conversion 
 of the wicked ; nor is his Christian System. He tells us, that it is de- 
 signed to give a condensed statement of the doctrines of his church, to 
 rectify certain extremes, and to furnish means of defence to his preach- 
 ers, (page 10.) 
 
 Mr. C. speaks quite slightingly of our church — claiming only to be a 
 branch of the church of Christ. He and Gregory XVI. both claim for 
 their respective communities the high honor of being the church! 
 These claims no doubt, are equally valid. But I rejoice that the Pres- 
 byterian church has ever recognized as brethren all who hold the funda- 
 mental doctrines of the gospel. And let me remark, all such are nearer to 
 us in their faith, than the leading men in Mr. C.'s reformation are to each 
 other— much more. He has repeatedly magnified his charity and liber- 
 ality, since the commencement of this discussion ; but now look at it. 
 His church is the church. So says Gregory, as he sets in St. Peter's 
 chair ! 
 
 I will now offer a few more remarks concerning the reception of the 
 Universalist preacher into Mr. C.'s church. He was received, as I stated, 
 without a change of sentiment ; only his former faith he agreed to call 
 an opinion. The Bible teaches with perfect plainness, that the wicked 
 shall be eternally punished. Mr. Raines' opinion was, that the doctrine 
 of the Bible was not true. Again — If he believed that all will be saved, 
 he must have believed that this doctrine is taught in the Bible. How 
 then could he call it an opinion ? Did the inspired writers propagate 
 mere opinions ? Here we have an exhibition of their christian union. 
 Mr. Campbell's faith was — that the wicked would be eternally pun- 
 ished ; and Mr. Raines' opinion was, that Mr. C.'s faith was not true! 
 Yet, although Mr. Raines' opinion contradicted Mr. Campbell's faith, 
 we are to believe that their faith was precisely the same ! 
 
 But Mr. Raines, as a preacher of the gospel, was bound to declare to 
 men the " whole counsel of God." His opinion was, that the Bible teach- 
 es Universalism. How, then, could he promise not to preach it ? How 
 could he lend himself to keep back a part of what he believed to be the 
 truth of the Bible ? And is this the plan of christian union devised by 
 Mr. C? Does he require men, as a condition of being proclaimers in his 
 church, to promise not to preach truths they conscientiously believe to be 
 taught in the Scriptures ? Never, so long as life lasts, will I promise any 
 man, or body of men, that I will not preach the whole truth ; nor will I 
 have any thing to do with a plan of union which requires me to disregard 
 the conviction of my conscience. — [Time expired* 
 
832 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1 — t| o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's sixth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I regret, sir, to have to discuss so many frivolous 
 matters; when, however, small things become great, by the force of cir- 
 cumstances, or great things small, it becomes more necessary to attend to 
 them. An infinitely small issue is now being made on the subject of pub- 
 lishing books — a singular issue, growing out of the proposition before us ! 
 I have published a book called " the Christian System, in Reference to 
 the Union of Christians," &c. ; and the Presbyterian church has pub- 
 lished a book called "the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America" &c. The one, on my part, is offered to 
 the world as a matter alike addressed to every human being — obligatory 
 on no one — the offspring of one mind, without any previous understanding 
 or agreement. And here is the constitution of the Presbyterian church, 
 published and ratified by the general assembly, at their sessions in May, 
 1821, and amended in 1833! ! Need I do more than read the titles of 
 the two books ? The whole matter is irrelevant. According to the laws of 
 the land, and the freedom of the press, every man may publish what he 
 pleases. But, sir, the matter before us is not the publicatio7i of a book y 
 but the use made of it when published. Did I make any book that I have 
 published a bond of union-— a constitution for our church — then, indeed, I 
 would be justly censurable by all the intelligences, celestial and terrestrial. 
 Heaven and earth would condemn me. Strange that a person of so much 
 intellectual sagacity, can so confound things in his mind, as to compare 
 matters in their use and application, as opposite as the zenith and nadir— 
 as ourselves and our antipodes. 
 
 The next great matter, was my reference to different expositions and 
 books, on the doctrines of the confession of faith, made symbols of by new 
 Presbyterian associations. Has not Mr. Rice read of the questions and 
 debates, which resulted in the formation of three new kinds of Presbyte- 
 rians in Scotland, two of which are still existing here. I allude to the 
 Burgher and Anti-burgher churches, and to the Relief Presbyterians, pe- 
 culiar to Scotland. The Burghers are known in this country as Union- 
 ists; and the Anti-burghers as Seceders. I presumed my friend was 
 conversant with their various publications, acts and testimonies against 
 each other. Surely, the gentleman does not expect me to carry with me 
 a library for his information — or, does he plead ignorance of matters 
 so public and notorious, to consume time in discussing them ? I have 
 heard all these parties preach, and am acquainted with much of their his- 
 tory, but cannot waste time in edifying him on these subjects. 
 
 But thus my friend, Mr. Rice, would escape from the charge of making 
 a rent in the American Presbyterian church, by the excommunication of 
 only sixty thousand good orderly professors, and five hundred pastors. 
 But they did not cast them out ! "i presume he means, they did not open 
 the door and unguibus et pedibus, violently seize and lead them out. 
 They politely showed them the door, and invited them to walk out ; and 
 that for sensible and sensitive men is a hint sufficiently operative. Assu- 
 redly he will not argue, that the sixty thousand drove out the majority. 
 I repeat, that this innocent and harmless document, called " the constitu- 
 tion of the Presbyterian church," only cast out, at one impulse, some six- 
 ty thousand members of as fair moral, intellectual, and literary reputa- 
 tion, as those who excluded them, by making terms of submission to 
 which they could not succomb. When I see a Lord's table spread and 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 833 
 
 furnished with the memorials of a Savior's love, and hear the members 
 of the same community say to their brethren — on certain conditions you 
 may partake with us to-day ; — on reflecting upon -the past, we now say 
 to you, that on these terms only can we recognize and treat you as wor- 
 thy participants here. When again these terms and conditions are mere 
 interpretations of the constitution of the Presbyterian church, may we 
 not say, that the minority are driven out of the church upon grounds of 
 interpretation, when they are thus refused a crumb of bread but upon the 
 principle of conformity ? So I understand the new scheme in the Pres- 
 byterian church. But still, to call them christians and brethren, only 
 makes the matter worse. It is indeed acknowledging the sin while com- 
 mitting it. To admit them to be actual, bona fide, members of Christ's 
 church, and then refuse them a brother's blessing, a right to eat at the fam- 
 ily table, is much more provoking to heaven and earth than to cast them 
 out as heathen men and publicans. 
 
 When Mr. Rice affirmed that there was no such document as the "con- 
 stitution of the Presbyterian church," and, in reply, I read the title page 
 of the book in my hand, which reads — "The Constitution of the Presby- 
 terian Church," &c, he seizes, by way of offset, a number of the Mil- 
 lenial Harbinger, and, holding it before you, reads some overtures by way 
 of illustrating a principle — a few resolutions offered in a parabolic scene — 
 and, with an air of profound wisdom, presumes that these resolutions, 
 relative to a system of co-operation among particular communities, alrea- 
 dy in existence, is just such a thing as the constitution of the Presbyte- 
 rian church ! Mr. Rice says there is no such book as the Constitution of 
 the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America. How shall I 
 dispose of such an opponent, who presumes to deny the very title page 
 in my hand, printed in capitals ! 
 
 But here are two Presbyterian ministers, over the signatures of Calvin 
 and Philo, arguing, in the Protestant and Herald, the grave question, 
 whether the constitution of the Presbyterian church has in it any principle 
 or law authorizing its amendment. The one affirming, that in the con- 
 stitution there is no redeeming, recuperative principle ; that, if it take sick, 
 a doctor need not be called, for it cannot be mended. The other admit- 
 ting its liability to disease, and the possibility of a remedy — bnt then so 
 far off, and so difficult of application, that it might almost as well have 
 been without it. It was, indeed, wisely decided, that the constitution 
 may endure, inasmuch as the principle of self-preservation and of recu- 
 peration is in it, whether or not it can, if ever, be applied. It is, however, 
 conceded on all hands, that it is the constitution of the Presbyterian 
 church, and that it has in it the principle and power of self-preservation, 
 and even of improvement ; that the principle has been formerly applied, 
 and that it worked well, and that it is in the bounds of possibility that it 
 may be applied again, should circumstances so require. 
 
 Mr. Rice endeavors to relieve himself, by showing that 1 am in the 
 mud, if he be in the mire. Well, two wrongs will not make one right, as 
 the adage goes. And suppose I, in proposing resolutions, relative to a 
 system of co-operation, (no faith nor morality being in the question,) had 
 erred, will that excuse his making a confession of faith, a form of church 
 government, and of church discipline — an entire constitution for Christ's 
 kingdom, as he imagines, a politico-ecclesiastic constitution, as it may be 
 denominated? ! 
 
 This, however, is the first time that I have heard it assumed, that if one 
 53 
 
334 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 profess to believe in the Bible, he must never offer a single resolution on 
 any subject whatever, concerning any temporal or circumstantial office 
 connected with the operations of christian benevolence, or any other 
 subject, calling for the co-operation of the whole community. I do not 
 ascribe these modes of reasoning to the obtusity of Mr. Rice, but to his 
 too great perspicacity. He sees but too keenly the tendency or course of 
 an argument or fact, and sets out to meet it in advance. In arguing against 
 manufacturing a creed, that is faith, no one says that resolutions, and 
 records, and exhibits, written and printed, may not be given to the church 
 or the world. This is a morbid state of feeling to which no sensible 
 man, of sound judgment and discretion, is ever subjected. We are dis- 
 cussing creeds, terms and conditions of communion ; constitutions of 
 churches made by men — and not the printing of books, tracts, or news- 
 papers — I offer to any community, rules of decorum, of co-operation, 
 in any matter, in the form of resolutions. They may receive, reject, 
 amend, &c. ; but out of these they never can, while memory reigns, and 
 language retains its meaning, form a creed. These pretend to no author- 
 ity, usurp no power, affect not conscience. But according to Mr. Rice, 
 a single resolution offered, is tantamount to forming a creed ! Such is 
 his logic on this occasion. But we charge upon him the maintenance of 
 a human constitution for Christ's church! ! ! 
 
 I regret to condescend to a species of logic unworthy of so grave an occa- 
 sion, and of so dignified a theme, as the constitution of Christ's church. 
 When Scripture, reason, history, and even the faculty of invention, fail to 
 furnish Mr. R. with something to say in favor of the utility of creeds, he 
 turns in to upbraid us with Mormonism and Sidney Rigdon. And what 
 has Sidney Rigdon or Mormonism to do with our creed question ? Mor- 
 monism has a creed, and Rigdon is an apostate from our society. Can 
 the gentleman, from these two facts, draw an argument in favor of creeds 1 
 But Mormons have increased, and we have increased, and Presbyterians 
 have increased — and {{increase proves us right, it proves all right. We, 
 indeed, neither argue from increase nor decrease, that any proposition of 
 a moral or religious character, is true. I neither appeal to antiquity, nor 
 to numbers, nor to sincerity, as tests of truth. But there was something 
 more than all this in the allusion to Rigdon and Mormonism. But is it 
 an argument against us as a denomination, that Rigdon was once a mem- 
 ber of our church ? Then is it not an argument against Presbyterianism, 
 that Kentucky Shakerism, and its founders, went out of the bosom of that 
 community ? I mention this as a mere sample of the ease with which re- 
 prisals of that category can be made every where ; for, from the days of 
 Simon Magus till now, apostates have emanated from the best societies. 
 I did not expect to have such rhetoric to dispose of, on this grave sub- 
 ject. I did expect a more manly, dignified, and rational argument and 
 opposition than this. But so long as Mr. R. has nothing better to offer, 
 perhaps we ought to blame the cause, rather than its advocate. 
 
 It seems as though we did not use the term church alike. The term is 
 used by us as it is commonly used by Congregationalists. By Mr. R. it is 
 used as Presbyterians generally use it. We speak of particular churches 
 or congregations — the church at Rome, Lexington, Paris, Frankfort, &c. 
 the churches of Kentucky, not the church of Kentucky. We cannot 
 discuss all these matters. In modern times we read of the church of 
 England, the church of Scotland, &c. ; in old times, the churches of Ju- 
 dea, the churches of Galatia. &c. We have neither national, provincial, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 835 
 
 nor sectarian church. We have many churches, but no church. Nor do 
 we desire a church, in that sense of the word. It is true, the apos- 
 tles speak of the church, not, however, of the church of any nation, but 
 of Christ. These parochial institutions called churches, built upon such 
 constitutions as we have been discussing, are rivals of each other, and ri- 
 vals, in the aggregate, of the churches builded on Christ's constitution. 
 
 If there be on earth a society that could admit of all the orderly and obe- 
 dient disciples of the Messiah, that is just such an institution as the Messiah 
 built, and it is just such a one as he would recognize were he now to re- 
 return to the earth. Whatever society, then, has a constitution commen- 
 surate with all the children of God, who are visibly and manifestly follow- 
 ing the Lord in obedience, that society is apostolic and Divine, and no other 
 one. Can any one think, were the Lord to revisit this world just now, 
 that he would recognize any of the numerous churches of the nations as 
 his, built upon the policies, opinions and rivalries of earth! Would he call 
 any one his, who has taken another name ? I repeat it, if there be on earth 
 a community that he would recognize as his, it would be that single com- 
 munity that builds precisely upon the foundation which he himself project- 
 ed at Cesarea Philippi ; and on which the apostles builded the societies, 
 called churches, in the old cities and provinces of the Roman empire. He 
 has bound himself by every law in this new constitution to do so. He 
 might, indeed, have reason to upbraid some, yea, very many, of the Lao- 
 dicean sin of lukewarmness, still he would recognize them as on the right 
 foundation. 
 
 Mr. Rice seems to take pleasure in his supposed ingenious dissertations 
 upon the alledged discrepancy between our opinions and our doctrine, 
 and in setting them in array against each other. This is of that species of 
 logic in which he most abounds, usually addressed to the supposed pre- 
 judices, or want of discrimination of the audience. It is called ad captan- 
 dum, because it would seem to be designed to inveigle, or catch the un- 
 thinking and the unwary. He perfectly comprehends, as I suppose, why 
 we affirm, that sects among christians are wholly inadmissible : wholly 
 unauthorized, and obnoxious to the indignation of heaven. He under- 
 stands why christians may, in the aggregate, be a sect, in contrast with 
 Jews and pagans, and, on that account, be most acceptable to the Lord ; 
 while any schism, sect or party amongst them is intolerable. I say, with 
 Paul, " After the way which they call a sect, (a heresy,) so worship I the 
 God of my fathers, believing all things in the law, and in the prophets." 
 Yet that same Paul could not endure the appearance of a sect among the 
 Corinthians — " While one says, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apol- 
 los ; and another, I am of Cephas ; and another, I am of Christ : are you 
 not carnal and walk as men ?" A sect amongst christians, in Paul's eyes, 
 was a solecism, an intolerable incongruity. 
 
 Now these sects are ail founded on opinions, and not on faith. Every 
 society in Christendom admits the same faith, or builds on all the same 
 grand evangelical facts ; though, indeed, by their opinions and traditions, 
 some of them have made the faith of God of none effect. But having 
 \vritten so largely on the difference between faith, knowledge and opinion, 
 I deem it unnecessary, on this occasion, to descant upon them. For the 
 sake of some, however, who may not have read or examined this subject, 
 I will make a remark or two. With us, then, faith is testimony believed; 
 knowledge is our own experience ; and opinion is probable inference. 
 Whenever we have clear, well authenticated testimony, we have faith ; 
 
836 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 and this faith is always in the ratio of the testimony we have, or in our 
 apprehension of its truth and certainty. Our personal acquaintance with 
 men and things constitutes our knowledge ; of which, different individu- 
 als, according to their discrimination and capacity, have various propor- 
 tions. But, in the absence of our own personal acquaintance, observa- 
 tion and experience, and in the absence of good and well authenticated 
 testimony, we have mere opinion. So I define and use these terms. 
 Some of our dictionaries are not clear, in marking their respective boun- 
 daries. But all men have a right to define in what sense they use leading 
 and important terms, as signs of their own ideas. If I may explain by a 
 single example, I will say, I believe that Julius Caesar was assassinated in 
 the Roman senate-house, at the statue of Pompey ; I know that the sun is the 
 source of our light and heat ; and I am of opinion, that Saturn is inhabited. 
 
 Now, as diverse in religion as in nature, are these terms and their asso- 
 ciations. In religion, we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one 
 body, one spirit, one hope, and one God and Father. But we have many 
 opinions. The church, then, may have opinions by thousands, while 
 her faith is limited to the inspired testimony of apostles and prophets : 
 where that testimony begins and ends, faith begins and ends. In faith, then, 
 all christians may be one ; though of diverse knowledge and of numerous 
 opinions. In faith we must be one, for there is but one christian faith ; 
 while, in opinions, we may differ. Hence we are commanded to receive 
 one another, without regard to differences of opinion, Rom. xv. 1, 2. 
 
 The grand error in Presbyterianism is, that it seems never to recognize 
 where faith ends, and where opinion begins ; nay, it very often confounds 
 faith and opinion, and lays full as much emphasis upon right opinions, 
 as upon right faith ; and, in some instances, places opinion above faith. 
 Our faith, then, and our opinions, do not clash, for we never have both 
 faith and opinion on the same subject. 
 
 Mr. Rice has made some allusions to a document written by Dr. Fish- 
 back. It is, however, in my opinion, so distorted that no one can be impo- 
 sed on by his remarks. The whole connection shows it to be so. I do not 
 know what view he has of church foundations ; but permit me to say, that 
 each of our communities is, in every thing concerning itself, perfectly in- 
 dependent of every other congregation in the world. All our communi- 
 ties build, indeed, on one and the same foundation— Apostolic and Di- 
 vine — but they have their own by-laws and arrangements, and in these 
 they are independent of each other. None of them sustain any ecclesi- 
 astical connection with any other church, or connection, or set of chris- 
 tians who authorize or use any formula of faith, called a creed. 
 
 We are, my fellow-citizens, what is called Congregational communi- 
 ties. Every one of our congregations regards itself as a church of Jesus 
 Christ: having over them no other government under Christ but their 
 own immediate eldership. They are amenable to no foreign court, called 
 a classic presbytery, synod, or general or national assembly, conference, 
 or council, local or oscumenical. We believe that wherever two or three 
 are assembled in any one place, Jesus the Lord of christians, the King of 
 saints, is there ; and he is no more than present, if he ever be present at 
 all — he is no more than present in a synod or general assembly. We 
 have the King and his Statute Book in our congregations. Why, then, 
 should we go abroad for either the one or the other ? 
 
 As respects civil authorities, there ought to be inferior and superior 
 courts. But with us, we have the same Judge always upon the bench. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 837 
 
 We do not commence our suits in the cellar, and then ascend to the mid- 
 dle story, and then to the upper story of Christ's- house. Few men see 
 the absurdities of carrying' up doctrinal points in controversy and cases of 
 conscience, as they try civil or criminal pleas, because the whole matter 
 of ecclesiastical politics is hid in the mists and fogs of theological max- 
 ims, causes and precedents. There is no end of the appeal system, if once 
 you transeend a single committee of umpires. When you commence in 
 the court system, you must ascend, step by step, till you find a pope, a 
 vicegerent, a demi-god. There is even in questions of miney and thi- 
 ney, more safety at home than abroad. The parties and the circumstan- 
 ces can be better appreciated, and justice secured, somewhere nigher home 
 than at Rome or Constantinople. I am now prepared for another argu- 
 ment. I may probably occupy the remainder of this address and the 
 whole of my next, without any special reply to Mr. Bice. Indeed, there 
 is little or nothing in all these little matters, advanced by him, bearing 
 upon the main issue before us. I value them only as affording me an op- 
 portunity to define our position. 
 
 But here comes a notice from a brother, requesting it to be stated that, 
 in some allusions made to him by Mr. Rice, he has been misrepresented, 
 as having said that Calvinism is Atheism. He solemnly denies ever hav- 
 ing so said, or so believed; and it is but an act of justice due him to state 
 thus publicly, as he has been publicly assailed, that he disavows the allega- 
 tion as wholly unfounded on fact. As he cannot speak for himself here, 
 in his own person, I judge I am authorized to say this much for him. 
 
 Before,' then, I sit down, I shall affirm another argument in support of 
 my position against human creeds. I prove them heretical from the fact 
 that, during the whole period of the churches' unity — say from 150 to 200 
 years after Christ — they had no written documents of any authority what- 
 ever, but the inspired documents. Ask Mosheim, Du Pin, Waddington, 
 &c, and they will tell you, that before creeds were, unity was ; after them, 
 divisions and sects and parties were. The reasons why, are given in exten- 
 so by Waddington, and Mosheim, and Neander, and others. I shall give 
 one extract from Waddington — the Episcopalian Waddington : — 
 
 " The first christians used no written creed : the confession of faith, which 
 was held necessary to salvation, was delivered to children or converts by 
 word of mouth, and entrusted to their memory. Moreover, in the several 
 independent churches, the rule of faith was liable to some slight changes, 
 according to the opinion and discretion of the bishop presiding in each. 
 Hence it arose, that when the creeds of those numerous communities came 
 at length to be written and compared together, they were found to contain 
 some variations. This was natural and necessary. But when we add that 
 those variations were for the most part merely verbal, and in no instance 
 involved any question of essential importance, we advance a truth which 
 will seem strange to those who are familiar with the angry disputations of 
 later ages. But the fact is easily accounted for. The earliest pastors of 
 the church drew their belief from the Scripture itself, as delivered to them 
 by writing or preaching, and they were contented to express that belief in 
 the language of Scripture. They were not curious to investigate that which 
 is not clearly revealed, but they adhered faithfully to that which they knew 
 to be true ; therefore their variations were without schism, and their differ- 
 ences without acrimony. The creed which was first adopted, and that per- 
 haps in the very earliest age, by the church of Rome, was that which is 
 now called the apostles' creed ; and it was the general opinion, from the 
 fourth century downwards, that it was actually the production of those 
 blessed persons, assembled for that purpose. Our evidence is not sufficient 
 
838 
 
 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 to establish that fact, and some writers very confidently reject it. But 
 there is reasonable ground for our assurance that the form of faith, which 
 we still repeat and inculcate, was in use and honor in the very early propa- 
 gation of our religion." — Waddington^s Church History, pp. 45, 46. 
 
 The same view of the matter is reported by Mosheim, and the more 
 modern German historians, Neander, Geseller, &c When they came to 
 baptism, they all made the same confession, and were builded together upon 
 the same foundation ; and having only the apostolic writings, easily main- 
 tained unity of spirit by the bonds of peace. They had no formula of 
 doctrine as yet, other than the apostolic formula, which we still have in the 
 living oracles of the New Testament. I presume it is always a safe ar- 
 gument, that the same cause will always produce the same effect. If, 
 then, we take the divinely authenticated and authorized creed of the sacred 
 writings, and allow for differences of opinion, not properly called the faith, 
 we might all unite on the same foundation, and enjoy the same peace and 
 harmony. We are making the same experiment now, and so far it proves 
 itself to be as divinely effectual, as in the first and second centuries. It 
 has been tried in different nations, and works well both in the old world 
 and in the new. From the history of former times, and from our own ex- 
 perience, as well as from the doctrines delivered in the book, we have the 
 fullest assurance of its perfect adaptation to society, and of its ultimate 
 triumph over all rival systems in the world. The church was once uni- 
 ted and happy on the apostolic writings, and it will be so again.— [Time 
 expired. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1 — 12^ o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's sixth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — It is a happy thing for the cause of my friend, Mr. 
 C, that he does not feel bound to enlighten us on the subject of church 
 history. I called for some proof of his assertion, that in Scotland it had 
 been deemed necessary to write not only explanations of the confession 
 of faith, but explanations of explanations ; but he does not feel bound to 
 give it. It is one of the easiest things imaginable to make assertions, 
 and to prove them, as the gentleman does, by saying — every body 
 knows it! 
 
 He has undertaken to prove, not only that creeds are unlawful, but that 
 they are necessarily heretical and schismatical. I have stated distinctly 
 the design of a creed. It is a public declaration of the principal doc- 
 trines and truths which we understand the Bible to teach, made in order 
 that those who desire membership in the church of Christ, may compare 
 it with the Bible, and determine whether they can conscientiously and 
 cordially unite with us. And it is a standard of ministerial qualifications, 
 that the church may, with uniformity, require those who seek the office 
 of the ministry, or who are to be ruling elders or deacons, to possess the 
 scriptural character and attainments. Where is the law against a creed 
 for such purposes ? We are now near the close of the second day's dis- 
 cussion on this proposition ; and yet we have had not a passage produced, 
 that even looks that way. 
 
 To prove, that creeds produce schisms, Mr. C. mentions the Burghers 
 and anti-Burghers of Scotland. It is true, they divided ; but the ques- 
 tion is — did the creed cause the schism? We have heard of the Burgh- 
 ers and Anti-burghers ; and we have also heard of divisions in Mr. C.'s 
 church. Now it is absolutely necessary for him, if he would sustain his 
 proposition, not only to prove', that there have been schisms, but that they 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 839 
 
 were caused by creeds — that they necessarily result from the mere fact of 
 having a human creed of any kind. There has recently been a division 
 in the church of Scotland ; but it was not caused by their confession of 
 faith, but by a difficulty growing out of their political relations as an es- 
 tablished church. 
 
 Concerning the Burghers and Anti-burghers, I will read a short article 
 in the Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge. 
 
 " Burghers. A numerous and respectable class of seceders from the 
 church of Scotland, originally connected with the Associate Presbytery; 
 but some difference arising about the lawfulness of the Burgess oath, a 
 separation took place in 1739, and those who refused the oath were called 
 Anti-burghers ; but as these sects have been lately happily united, it is not 
 now necessary to enter into the merits of the dispute." 
 
 Now if, as Mr. C. takes for granted, their creed caused the division, I 
 presume it is fair to conclude that it also healed it. It is, indeed, some- 
 what remarkable that it should have operated in opposite ways. It divi- 
 ded them, it would seem, and afterwards united them ! Certainly creeds 
 cannot necessarily be heretical and schismatical ; or when they were once 
 divided, their creed would have kept them separate. If the gentleman can 
 prove, that creeds have caused division, I can prove, by evidence quite 
 as conclusive, that they have brought together individuals and bodies that, 
 but for them, would never have united. 
 
 Mr. C. still harps upon the alledged fact, that the new school were 
 cut off from our church. Has he forgotten his efforts to have Dr. Thom- 
 as, one of his most gifted preachers, excommunicated, because he differ- 
 ed from him ? It is true, he did afterwards most inconsistently become 
 reconciled to the Doctor, without any change having taken place in his 
 views. Still he did what he could to exclude him. 
 
 It is a principle universally recognized in all well organized govern- 
 ments, civil and ecclesiastical, that those who enjoy common rights and 
 privileges, must sustain common responsibilities. It would be a strange 
 proceeding in the congress of these United States to permit representa- 
 tives from the Canadas to become members of that body, and to deliber- 
 ate and vote, and then to return and be subject to their own laws, not to 
 those they had aided in making for us. Could such a thing be tolerated ? 
 Suppose several members of this church in Lexington should go to Beth- 
 any, Va., and claim the right to deliberate and vote in the business pro- 
 ceedings of Mr. C.'s particular church ; would he permit it ? Would he 
 not request them to return home, and attend to their own affairs ? And 
 what would he think of them, if they should charge him with having 
 excommunicated them ? And mark the fact — there is this day as close a 
 union between those churches and ministers, whom he represents as hav- 
 ing been excommunicated, and our church, as there is between Mr. C.'s 
 church, at Bethany, and the church in Lexington ; or as there is between 
 the hundreds of particular churches claimed by the gentleman. 
 
 The church in Lexington, as Dr. Fishback has informed us, is " inde- 
 pendent in her constitution and government of all other churches," and sus- 
 tains no responsibility to any other churches, that makes it accountable 
 either for their legislation or for their errors. The government, of the 
 United States is independent of all other civil governments. Would it, 
 then, be true to say, the government of the United States, and that of 
 England, constitute one political body 1 No more do the thousand par- 
 ticular churches scattered over this country, which are claimed by Mr. 
 
840 
 
 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 C, constitute one ecclesiastical body. He acknowledges the church in 
 Lexington as a church of Christ, and its members as christian brethren. 
 So do we acknowledge the new school churches and their members and 
 ministers as christian brethren. The decision of our general assembly 
 amounted to this — that none could be permitted to vote in our ecclesiasti- 
 cal bodies, who would not submit to our laws ; that if they were Pres- 
 byterians in name, and in privileges and rights, they must be Presbyteri- 
 ans in fact and in their responsibilities. But the gentleman has said, they 
 were excommunicated. This is not true. No ecclesiastical censure was 
 passed upon those synods which, as bodies, were excluded from a stand- 
 ing in our church. We simply said to them — do your business in your 
 own way ; and we will do ours. Would not Mr. C. say the same thing 
 to members of the church in Lexington, should they attempt to exert a 
 controling influence in the church at Bethany ? Why does he blame us 
 and denounce our creed, because we acted on a principle recognized by 
 himself and by all men ? 
 
 The gentleman, to prove the charge against Presbyterians of attempt- 
 ing to make a constitution for the church of Christ, triumphantly exhib- 
 ited before the audience the title-page of our confession of faith — " The 
 Constitution of the Presbyterian church," &c. I anticipated his 
 course ; and whilst he was preparing his paper, I turned to some remarks 
 of his in the Millenial Harbinger, (New Series, vol. ii. p. 471,) concerning 
 his Christianity Restored. He says, " I have long intended to apologize 
 for the titie of the book called ' Christianity Restored ;' and intend, on a 
 new edition of it, which is now called for, to find a shorter and more ap- 
 propriate name for the cover, as well as the title-page." He acknow- 
 ledges that the title-page of his book is faulty, and conveys an erroneous 
 idea. Now I have just as good a right to charge on him the sentiment 
 expressed by his title-page, as he has to charge on us what he supposes to 
 be expressed on ours. The general assembly, I presume, did not de- 
 termine, precisely, what the title-page should be, but left that matter to 
 the publishing committee. 
 
 But, for argument sake, I will admit that, strictly and properly, the 
 confession of faith may be called the constitution of the Presbyterian 
 church ; but, I say, it is not a constitution of our manufacture. The 
 framers of that book collected into a small space, and arranged systemati- 
 cally, the doctrines taught, and the principles of church government in- 
 culcated throughout the Bible ; for every article of faith, and for every 
 important principle of action, they have referred to the chapter and verse 
 where it is taught. To make a constitution, is to originate something 
 which did not before exist. To collect together, in chapters and sections, 
 existing laws, admitted to be as binding before, as after their being thus 
 arranged, is an entirely different matter. The former, as our confession 
 says, would be usurpation ; the latter is lawful and right. The former 
 we did not do ; the latter we did. 
 
 But Dr. Fishback, in his confession, says, the church in Lexington is 
 " independent in her constitution and government, of all other churches ;" 
 and it certainly embraces one very important doctrine, to which many of 
 them would by no means subscribe. I mean the doctrine of total hered- 
 itary depravity. He says : 
 
 " Her whole system of religion is contained in the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, which comprehend, as we understand the Scriptures, the original 
 creation of man in the image and likeness of God ; his fall and the loss of 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 841 
 
 that image, together with the loss of union and communion with God ; and 
 that by sin man became involved in pollution and death ; as by it all his 
 posterity have begun to exist out of fellowship with God, and have come 
 into the world without the knowledge or love of Him, and without power, 
 moral or natural, to relieve themselves from that state of ignorance, car- 
 nality, and death. This is what we call total depravity, (and which I would 
 call "hereditary depravity :") all that makes man to differ from this state for 
 the better, is owing to the interposition and effect of divine grace and 
 mercy." 
 
 This doctrine, which forms a permanent part of the creed of the church 
 in Lexington, is pronounced by Mr. Raines, one of Mr. Campbell's cho- 
 sen committee, a libel on human nature ! Whilst discussing the design 
 of baptism, I read an extract from an article written by Dr. Fishback, 
 and published in the Harbinger, showing that the Doctor does not believe 
 in Mr. C.'s doctrine of baptism in order to remission of sins — that he 
 pronounces it an exclusive and sectarian dogma ! Here we have a most 
 striking exhibition of the unity of faith amongst the leading ministers in 
 the gentleman's church ! Mr. Campbell, Dr. Fishback, and Mr. Raines — 
 three of this committee of war, contradict and denounce some of the most 
 prominent points in each other's creed ! 
 
 But I proved that, whilst Mr. C. is denouncing Presbyterians and 
 other denominations, for attempting to make a constitution for the church, 
 he is laboring to accomplish the very same thing ! What is his reply ? 
 He says, that offering a series of resolutions is a very different thing 
 from making a constitution. When a man offers a series of resolutions, 
 embodying principles designed to be the basis of the organization of a 
 body, civil and ecclesiastical, he does what he can to form a constitution. 
 If Mr. C. has not succeeded in making a constitution for his churches, 
 the fault is not his. He has done all that he can. He has drafted the 
 resolutions, the articles, and offered them for the consideration and adop- 
 tion of the churches. The only reason of his failure is the fact, that they 
 have not been willing to adopt his constitution. 
 
 But why did he offer those articles to the churches ? If his people be- 
 lieved what he taught them, how could they adopt them ? He has taught 
 them to glory in having the New Testament as their only constitution. 
 Now he teaches them principles precisely opposite, and urges them to 
 adopt his constitution ! ! ! 
 
 The gentleman appears to be rather in an ill humor at the remarks I 
 made concerning the rapid increase of members in his churches. He 
 tells you, he desires sound argument — he is not willing to turn aside for 
 every trifle. The audience know perfectly well, that I was only replying 
 to an ad captandum argument which he had urged. He boasted of the 
 unprecedented increase of his numbers. 1 replied, that he had himself 
 said, that error often travels faster, and gains more converts, than truth ; 
 that the Mormons have increased in numbers faster than his churches ; 
 and that if we were to judge of the goodness of a cause by the rapid in- 
 crease of converts, the weight of argument would be against him. He 
 now tells us, this is all irrelevant; and he desires that I would not answer 
 his popular appeals ! At one time he charges me with not following him ; 
 and at another, he complains of my pressing upon him too closely. I 
 cannot please him. 
 
 But he asks, whence came the Shakers ? And he would have you be- 
 lieve, that our creed made them. I answer, they were great reformers. 
 Like Mr. C, they gained a wonderful amount of new light, and denounced 
 
 4B 
 
842 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 all the world as groping in midnight darkness, blind-folded by a designing 
 clergy. One part of these reformers, called New Lights, headed by Bar- 
 ton W. Stone, who discovered that Jesus Christ was only a creature, are 
 now quite orthodox members of Mr. C.'s church ! About the year 1801, 
 they proclaimed that the Millenium had commenced — that the true light 
 had gone forth among the people ! And so far as I can judge, their claim 
 to be reformers, and to constitute the church, was about as valid as that 
 of my friend, Mr. C. Some of those who denied the old and tried doc- 
 trines of the Presbyterian church, and gloried in their new light, reformed 
 rather too much, and became dancing Shakers ! The work of reformation 
 is sometimes hazardous. Reform is the watchword of every demagogue 
 and of every fanatic. 
 
 Mr. Campbell is confident, that if our Savior were to visit the earth, he 
 would not acknowledge a church that has a wrong name. His churches 
 have found it somewhat difficult to determine, whether they would be 
 called Disciples or Christians. I believe, however, they have pretty ge- 
 nerally agreed on the latter. We are told, that the followers of Christ 
 were first called Christians at Antioch ; but whether the name was assu- 
 med by themselves, or given them in reproach by their enemies, is a 
 mooted question. I do not say, that names are wholly unimportant ; but 
 I have learned, as well from the history of the past, as from occurrences 
 in our day, that the more destitute persons are of that which commands 
 the approbation or the respect of men, the more solicitous they are about 
 the name. Persons who claim descent from noble families, but retain in 
 their character few or no traces of nobility, rarely neglect an opportunity 
 of speaking of their ancestry. Papists, who possess less of true catholi- 
 city than any people on earth, are most offended, if you refuse to call 
 them Catholic. The less men have of a desirable thing, the more noise 
 they make about the name. It is a universal weakness of human nature. 
 The Savior and his apostles attached great importance to things, not to 
 names. 
 
 But the Presbyterian church has a scriptural name — a name certainly 
 given by inspiration. In the New Testament we read both of Presbyters 
 and Presbyteries ; we do not find the word Reformer — a name to which 
 our friends do not seriously object — applied to Christ's disciples. Now 
 what is a Presbyterian church, but a church having Presbyters and Pres- 
 byteries ? We have a Bible name. So far, then, we are up with our 
 friends ! 
 
 My friend Mr. C. manifests some impatience at my calling on him to 
 define the boundaries between faith and opinion. He tells you, that I 
 know the difference perfectly well. I desired him to tell us the difference, 
 because I intended to prove, so soon as he did so, that he and his church 
 have practically disregarded their own principles on this subject. He 
 has given us his explanation. He says, where there is testimony, there 
 is faith ; where there is no testimony, there is no faith. Every point, 
 then, concerning which the Scriptures give us testimony, is a matter of 
 faith, not of opinion. Now let me ask the gentleman, do the Scriptures 
 give us testimony concerning the future state of the wicked — whether 
 they are to be finally saved or eternally lost? He admits that they do; 
 and in a long discussion with a Universalist, he proved it. This, there- 
 fore, is a matter of faith. How, then, I emphatically ask, could he re- 
 ceive Mr. Raines, who did not believe this article of faith, but was avow- 
 edly a Universalist in sentiment? And how could he consistently call on 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 843 
 
 him to state whether he held Universalism as a matter of faith, or only 
 as an opinion? How could he receive him, when he declared his disbe- 
 lief of this cardinal doctrine of the Bible ? He goes for agreement in 
 faith, liberty in opinion; and yet he receives a man as a preacher of the 
 gospel, who avows his disbelief of a very important doctrine, concerning 
 which the Scriptures very distinctly testify ! Is this union in faith? 
 
 Again — Do the Scriptures give us testimony concerning the character 
 of Christ — whether he is a creature, or God equal with the Father ? The 
 gentleman admits that they do give us clear testimony on this point. 
 Then, according to his principles, it is a matter of faith, not of opinion, 
 How, then, could he unite with Barton W. Stone, who boldly denies the 
 true and proper divinity of the Son of God? As I have before remarked, 
 between the published faith of Mr. Campbell, and of Mr. Stone, on this 
 cardinal doctrine, there is an infinite difference — a difference as great as 
 between the words finite and infinite — creature and creator. The one 
 makes him a creature; the other believes him to be the mighty God. 
 What an immeasurable difference between the foundations on which they 
 professedly build ! Here is a difference vast as eternity between these 
 two gentlemen, concerning a point of faith — one of the most important 
 points presented in the Bible. Yet they have united in one church — pro- 
 fessedly having one Lord, one faith, one baptism! Now I ask you, 
 my friends, what sort of christian union is this ? 
 
 My friend, Mr. C, tells us, that in his church they do not carry up ap- 
 peals from one court to another. He may now consider this an excellence 
 in his church government ; but our civil government, the very best in the 
 world, is managed on very different principles. I presume no intelligent 
 citizen of these United States would be willing to give up his right of 
 appeal. All consider their rights better secured by the right of appeal 
 from the county court to the court of appeals. And Mr. C. himself, 
 though he formerly occupied different ground, has recently been contend- 
 ing for the right of appeal. I will read a brief extract from the Millenial 
 Harbinger, (New Series, vol. v. p. 54,) hoping to read more on this point 
 hereafter : 
 
 " The right of prayer is not more natural, nor necessary, than the right 
 of appeal. There is no government, or state, or family, that can subsist 
 without it. It was a part of every religious institution before the christian ; 
 and if it be no part of it, it is a perfect anomaly in all social institutions." 
 
 The right of appeal is here declared to be both clear and absolutely ne- 
 cessary to the existence of the church ; but the difficulty in the gentle- 
 man's church — the insuperable difficulty, is, that there is no ecclesiastical 
 tribunal to which their members, when suffering injustice, can appeal. 
 To what body can they appeal ? We have church courts from the ses- 
 sion, composed of the pastor and elders of a particular church, to the ge- 
 neral assembly of the whole church. His church has none. They en- 
 joy not the right of appeal, though as clear as the right of prayer, and 
 essential to the existence of the church ! What would be the condition 
 of our country, if the right of appeal were admitted ; and yet there were 
 no courts above that of the magistrate? In Mr. C.'s church, there is a 
 difference of opinion on this important subject — some contending earnest- 
 ly for the right of appeal, as clearly scriptural, and others denying it alto- 
 gether. Hence they are not likely very soon to have any thing of the 
 nature of courts of appeal; though Mr. C. considers the right essential 
 to the very existence of the church. 
 
844 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 Dr. Pinkerton, the gentleman says, denies having said that Calvinism 
 is atheistic. If he will give a copy of his letter to me, containing a chal- 
 lenge to a public discussion, I will prove that one of the points he under- 
 took to establish, was, that the confession of faith teaches what is tanta- 
 mount to Atheism. And if Calvinism is tantamount to Atheism, pray 
 what is the difference between it and Atheism ? How much better is it 
 than Atheism ? I would not give a farthing for the difference. I am not 
 in the habit of stating facts which I am not prepared to prove. 
 
 I must now notice another argument of the gentleman, against creeds. 
 He states that, during the first two hundred years of the christian era, there 
 was no written creed. To this argument I reply : — 
 
 1st. During those two hundred years, the church, as he told you the 
 other day, was overrun with errors of all kinds. Nay, he asserted that 
 almost all the errors of popery originated during that period. Though I 
 do not admit it was so corrupt as he has represented it, it is certain that 
 many injurious errors had marred its beauty and impaired its strength. 
 Thus we see how the church prospered without creeds. Now, for more 
 than two hundred years, the Presbyterian church has preserved her sound- 
 ness of faith and purity of practice. She is not by any means so corrupt 
 as the church had become at the close of the second century. She is as 
 pure as when she threw off the shackles of popery, and took the Bible 
 alone as her infallible guide. Without a creed, she would doubtless have 
 long since been overrun with errors of all kinds. We may, therefore, 
 learn, from the early corruption of the church, how important it is to have 
 a scriptural creed. The argument is in our favor. 
 
 2d. For a length of time after the apostolic age, the language of the 
 Scriptures, as used by professing christians, retained in a good degree its 
 defmiteness of meaning. But as the distance from the apostles became 
 greater, and errorists multiplied, new ideas came to be commonly attach- 
 ed to the language of inspiration ; and it became impossible, as it confess- 
 edly now is, to know a man's faith by the mere fact of his using Bible 
 words and phrases. It was necessary, therefore, that the church should 
 be more watchful. John said — " Try the spirits whether they are of 
 God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world ;" 1 John 
 iv. 1. Errorists used the language of the Scriptures. Therefore the plan 
 was adopted of agreeing upon something like an outline of the doctrines 
 and truths of the Scriptures — of inquiring of those who desired to enter 
 the ministry, whether they so understood them. So do we. This is a 
 sufficient reply to the argument. 
 
 Let me now close my remarks on the reception of Universalists into 
 Mr. C.'s church. Mr. Raines, when received, distinctly stated, that he 
 still held Universalist sentiments. He agreed to hold them as opinions, 
 and not to propagate them. Yet, according to Mr. C, the Scriptures 
 give clear and positive testimony against this opinion of Mr. Raines. 
 Of course, the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked is a mat- 
 ter of faith, not of opinion. 
 
 But Mr. Raines was going to preach the gospel ; and, consequently, 
 he was most solemnly bound to keep back nothing — " to declare the 
 whole counsel of God." But how was it possible for him to do this, when 
 he held an opinion which he now admits, and Mr. C. then believed, to 
 be in direct contradiction to the apostolic doctrine ? In a discourse of his, 
 in the Christian Preacher, he says : 
 
 " It is my intention to endeavor to prove, laconically and positively, that 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 845 
 
 Universalism is not only not a doctrine of the New Testament, but that it 
 is most palpably contradicted by many testimonies found in the Christian 
 Scriptures. And in order to do this, I will in the first place prove, that 
 there are three distinct classes of salvation taught in the New Testament, 
 and that the fundamental assumptions of Universalists, on which Universal- 
 ism is predicated, are in direct contradiction to the apostolic doctrine rela- 
 tive to these salvations." 
 
 Mr. Raines held a doctrine which he agreed to call an opinion ; but 
 which, as he new admits, is flatly contradictory of the doctrine of the 
 apostles. Yet he was received by Mr. C. as having with him and his 
 churches the one faith I The church of Rome manages this matter bet- 
 ter. She also makes a distinction between faith and opinion ; but she de- 
 termines the boundaries between them thus : All the points on which 
 her councils can agree, are called doctrines; and those concerning which 
 they differ, are opinions. 
 
 I need not now stay to prove, that B. W. Stone and his followers are 
 Unitarians. My friend, I think, will not deny it. If he does, I will im- 
 mediately prove it. Unitarians deny the Divinity of Christ. It matters not 
 whether they be high Arians, or low Socinians ; they equally rob him of 
 his glory. The Scriptures require all men to " honor the Son even as 
 they honor the Father;" John v. 23. Can a Unitarian do this? If he be- 
 lieves him to be a creature, will he not honor, or rather dishonor, him as 
 a creature ? I care not for the difference between Arianism and Socinian- 
 ism, There is an infinite distance between the most exalted finite being 
 and the infinite and eternal God. Both Arianism and Socinianism rob 
 Christ of all his glory. The Bible knows nothing of christian union 
 with persons holding sentiments so erroneous, so dishonoring to God, and 
 so fatal to the hopes of men. — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1 — \h o'clock, P. M 
 [mr. Campbell's seventh address.] 
 Mr. President — It is sometimes expedient and necessary to carry the 
 war into Carthage, and try what sort of a defence the Carthaginians can 
 make at home. From the assaults made upon us, and the defence of 
 creeds, you might imagine that the Westminster confession produced the 
 most perfect harmony of views, and the most cordial attachment amongst 
 all its members — that it was a palladium, a sovereign shield against error, 
 heresy, and schism. Well now, is such the fact? Are they who sub- 
 scribed it perfectly united in opinion, and in an affectionate and holy co- 
 operation 1 Nothing is more contrary to fact than such an assumption ! I 
 have some little acquaintance with a few distinguished men of that denomi- 
 nation, and I am acquainted with many of their writers, (being a constant 
 subscriber to some of their most popular and authoritative works.) I there- 
 fore speak advisedly on this subject. I shall quote one of their most dis- 
 tinguished men who, before he left them and joined the Episcopalians, 
 occupied a very high place in the esteem of the denomination. I allude 
 to Andrew Wylie, D. D., president of the college at Bloomington, Indi- 
 ana. I have had some acquaintance with this gentleman for thirty years; 
 having been my neighbor, while president, first of Jefferson, and then of 
 Washington college, Pennsylvania, both of them under Presbyterian in- 
 fluence. This gentleman, a few years since, published a tract on creeds ; 
 in which he says, he never knew a Presbyterian minister, who believed 
 all the Westminster confession of faith, taking the words in their fair 
 
 4b2 
 
846 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 constructive sense. So speaks one of the most gifted men, whose an- 
 cestry, for I know not how long back, were strict Calvinists, of the old 
 Presbyterian order. 
 
 Perhaps not one minister in one hundred of that denomination, believes 
 all that book, called the Westminster Creed — the constitution of the Pres- 
 byterian church. Now, if they, notwithstanding all these differences of 
 opinion and modes of interpretation, can still unite and co-operate in one 
 community, why may not those who take the Bible, and yet do not agree 
 in ail their opinions, co-operate in one society? 
 
 But, of those who concur with Dr. Wylie, I must quote some others. 
 Hear a few words from Dr. Bishop's Plea for United Christian Action. 
 The Doctor says : 
 
 " To what extent diversity of opinion as to doctrines exists among the 
 ministers of the Presbyterian church of the present generation, very few, 
 I am persuaded, are prepared to say with any degree of exactness. But 
 were we to compare the present state of opinion with what is known to 
 have been the state of opinion among the divines of a former generation, 
 who are now admitted to have been orthodox, the result likely would be, 
 that we are not more divided on any of the leading doctrines of the West- 
 minister confession of faith, than the fathers of that age themselves were,. 
 Baxter and Owen, for instance, are readily appealed to by almost every min- 
 ister of the Presbyterian church, as standards of correct theological opin- 
 ion ; and yet these men have given very different explanations of some of 
 the most important doctrines of the Westminister confession ; and neither 
 of these men went in all things with the assembly. Nor have we any rea- 
 son to believe that the divines of the assembly themselves, in their final 
 vote upon the most of the articles in the confession, were agreed upon any 
 other principle, than the principle of compromise. An approximation to- 
 wards unity of opinion as to the best modes of expressing our individual 
 views of divine truth, is all that ever can be obtained in our adherence to a 
 public creed." — Beecher's Trial, p, 18. 
 
 But who is it that has read Neale's history of the Puritans, that does not. 
 know that even the authors and finishers of the Westminster faith, deliv- 
 ered two hundred years ago to the British parliament, did not themselves 
 believe it? Perhaps, amongst them all, the whole of it was believed; 
 while not one man believed it all. It was adopted, item per item ; some 
 dissenting here, and some dissenting there, while for each there was a 
 majority in the detail; and upon the final vote in the aggregate, a majority 
 for all, upon the principle of compromise. Hence the confession was 
 never signed by the men who made it ! 
 
 But it may be said, that while the authors of that document, and those 
 who subscribed to it, differ as to their opinions on various points within 
 it, still they love one another and co-operate in a christian spirit, -while 
 maintaining and teaching the grand doctrines of the book. Very far from 
 it ! I will give a specimen from a book that I hold in my hand, in which 
 are found many savory morsels of this sort. It is Dr. Beecher's trial. 
 His good brother, Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, in a very fraternal way, 
 commends his reverend brother Beecher as being addicted to the sins of 
 falsification and hypocrisy. These are but two of six grievous charges 
 brought against Dr. Beecher by his good brother Wilson, as follows : 
 
 IV. Specification: " I charge Dr. Beecher with the sin of slander : viz., 
 In belying the whole church of God, by bringing odium on all who sincerely 
 receive the standards of the Presbyterian church," &c, &c, &c. 
 
 VI. Specification: " I charge Dr. Beecher with the sin of hypocrisy; I 
 mean dissimulation in important religious matters :" " In entering the 
 Presbyterian church, without adopting her standards," &c, &c. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 847 
 
 As this is no very pleasant task imposed on me, I will make as little 
 do as possible. I merely design to show how these bonds of union and 
 communion work in the details of ecclesiastic co-operation, and how 
 much they promote brotherly kindness and charity. 
 
 But we are represented as having in our community persons who hold 
 and teach very different doctrines on important subjects : such as total de- 
 pravity, Unitarianism, &c. Suppose this were the fact, we are only 
 neighborlike, it would appear. But the gentleman has not proved this 
 yet. He speaks, indeed, of different views of the phrase " total deprav- 
 ity," as found amongst some of us. But this is a question of the schools, 
 and not found in our confession of faith at all ; and therefore some of our 
 preachers have, it would seem, spoken irreverently of this doctrine of the 
 schools, and without any fear of the clergy before their eyes. One says 
 it is total, and another says it is not total. One speaks of its totality as 
 respects the whole man, in all his parts, body, soul, and spirit ; another 
 as respects its degrees : one affirming that persons may grow worse in 
 one sense ; another, that they are, in another sense, so depraved at first, 
 that they cannot deteriorate, &c, &c. Some of our brethren, too, accuse 
 the Presbyterians of denying the doctrine of total depravity ; because 
 they assign to fallen man the power of acquiring the knowledge of God, 
 without revelation, &c 5 &c. All this may suit very well, to show off 
 signs of conflict between our theory and practice ; but it is, so far as our 
 principles are implicated, wholly unimportant and irrelevant. It is, I say, 
 unimportant ; because one speaks of total depravity as in the confession ; 
 another of total depravity as in the Bible : and both discuss the doc- 
 trine only as an index of theological opinions amongst the sects ; while 
 all agree, that man is fallen and depraved, and without the interposition 
 of the Messiah and the Holy Spirit, cannot be saved. 
 
 But Unitarianism is also preached amongst us. So says Mr. Rice. 
 If so, I know it not. For my part, I know and acknowledge no man as 
 a brother, preaching Unitarianism amongst us. I say again, that I nei- 
 ther know of any such person, nor do I acknowledge any such person as 
 a fellow-laborer with me. I must have the case made out — fully made 
 out before it is tried. We have, indeed, in our communion, persons who 
 have been Unitarians, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, 
 Methodists, Deists, sceptics, &c. But that they are such now, is not true. 
 And should any one accuse us of holding communion with those who 
 teach Romanism, Methodism, Unitarianism, or scepticism, we charge him 
 with bringing against us a railing accusation. 
 
 But the gentleman flings out in broad cast his calumnies, rather than 
 his arguments, and endeavors to merge the whole question of creeds in 
 attempts to arraign our profession, and our efforts at reformation. He has 
 just now read a short passage out of this book, a notice of the union of 
 the Burghers and of the Anti-burghers — and alledges either as a fact or an 
 argument, rather as both, that as they were separated by the confession 
 of faith, they have been united and reconciled by it. I presume that I 
 know the history of that matter a little better than his author or himself. 
 It was not the confession that has brought them together. But so far 
 as they have been brought together, it was the Regium donum, this royal 
 bounty, or bonus, that accomplished it. Some thirty-five years ago, it 
 was proposed by the government of England, in order to loyalize the 
 dissenters from the by law-established creed and government church, to 
 confer upon them some annuity, or sum of money, to be distributed amongst 
 
$48 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 the congregations, on condition that they would be reconciled to each oth- 
 er, and unite as one denomination. And as these two bodies of Presby- 
 terians could not obtain the Regium donum in any other way, after some 
 considerable sparring, they made such legal approaches to each other, as 
 secured the royal salary. But that it extended no farther, is apparent 
 from the fact, that where there was no bounty, there was no union ; for in 
 this country, the same two denominations, here known as Unionists and 
 Seceders, are not yet united. The union was effected no farther than 
 the Regium donum was concerned. It was the sole cause, and the whole 
 extent of that union. Some conscientious ministers held out against it, 
 some two or three of both denominations. But they got no guineas. 
 Till finally besieged into acquiescence, they all, with one exception, took 
 the bonus, and then politically united. So much for the gentleman's con- 
 fession of faith having re-united the Burghers and Anti-burghers of Scot- 
 land and Ireland ! ! 
 
 The gentleman is not yet satisfied with his former attempts at defence 
 from the denial of the Westminster confession, as the constitution of the 
 Presbyterian church in the United States. He will balance the account 
 by a critique on the outside cover title of this volume, called " Christian- 
 ity Restored." That is not the title affixed by me on any book written 
 by me. The book-binder's label on the cover, and the author's title page, 
 are very different facts, in reason and in law. That is no sort of offset ; 
 and, certainly, there is not the same excuse and explanation with refer- 
 ence to the constitution of the Presbyterian church. Because, in the pro- 
 ceedings of the supreme courts of that church, it is frequently so denom- 
 inated — I say, that the general assembly itself has so denominated it in 
 its various enactments upon the subject. The synods and councils of 
 that church do not, as before said, call the confession of faith, or a portion 
 of it, the constitution of the Presbyterian church ; but the forms of discip- 
 line and government, together with the confession, form the constitution 
 of the Presbyterian church of North America. It is so regarded and 
 universally received. Destroy this constitution, and the Presbyterian 
 church is no more. That such is the constitution of the Presbyterian 
 church, Mr. Rice, however adverse to the disclosure of the fact, cannot 
 possibly escape from it. 
 
 We sometimes condemn christians for going a begging to the world — to 
 Satan's kingdom, to raise means and facilities for supporting the church 
 of God. But the Presbyterian church has greatly transcended any other 
 denomination in this particular — that they get the constitution of their 
 church from the world— from a political government. If there be any 
 world beyond the church, or any kingdom of Satan in the world, then, in- 
 deed, their constitution came from that department. I ask the question, 
 who made this book? The answer is, the Westminster assembly. And 
 who were the Westminster assembly ? The answer is — a body of one 
 hundred and twenty men, elected, summoned, convened, arranged, direct- 
 ed and paid by the parliament of England. There were put into it, as a 
 component part of it, ten lords, twenty commoners. No council, church, 
 or association ecclesiastic, elected, appointed or commissioned any one to 
 have any thing to do in it. The parliament had its own political views 
 and designs, and it elected just such persons as it regarded favorable to 
 these policies and designs. Of the whole number of clergy selected, 
 scarcely more than sixty were in regular attendance. The parliament 
 not only set a guard over them in the ten lords and twenty commoners, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 849 
 
 but they would not allow them to choose their own speaker or chairman. 
 When they met, they had not the selection of a single topic, nor the dis- 
 cussion of a single subject left to their discretion. ' All was prescribed to 
 them by their pay-masters in parliament. They were told when and 
 where to begin, and where to stop. They gave them for a commence- 
 ment, the thirty-nine articles to masticate and digest. They spent ten 
 long weeks in debate upon some fifteen of these. They laid aside that 
 subject and took up another, when parliament bade them. But, after 
 gome one thousand and ten sessions, at four shillings sterling per diem, 
 they drew out their splendid constitution of the Presbyterian church — 
 though, even then, parliament would not disperse nor adjourn them— for 
 the truth is, they neither adjourned themselves, nor were adjourned accor- 
 ding to law. After a change of government, or the restoration of Charles, 
 each man returned quietly home to his own place. The gentleman says, 
 it has not been much amended ; at least, he so considers it. Of course, 
 then, his church has got its constitution from the celebrated Rump parlia- 
 ment, as it was afterwards most scientifically called. 
 
 That it was made by men in the flesh, and of the flesh, not like our con- 
 stitution, will appear still more evident from an examination of the spirit 
 infused into the old Presbyterians, who first adopted it. In their history 
 we shall clearly see how it operated. It is true, that some Episcopalians 
 were summoned, and some Independents, and some Erastians. But only 
 one bishop attended, I think, for one day. Five Independents, indeed, 
 continued almost all the time. But two Erastians were present, (and the 
 great Selden, the greatest man in that body, was one of them,) because 
 the parliament that dictated to them and controlled them were Erastians, 
 whose distinguishing maxim was: That there was no Divine right for 
 any kind of church government ; that whatever form the state enacted was 
 best; and that, therefore, it was a state affair, and ecclesiastically indif- 
 ferent. I am glad to see a new work, recently from the American press, 
 giving an account of these matters in part, with which I found it neces- 
 sary, in the commencement of our efforts against these human inventions 
 many years ago? to make myself familiar. 
 
 I have said, that neither the Episcopalians nor Independents had much 
 to do in furnishing these documents; and, therefore, we must look to 
 Presbyterians to understand the spirit of the constitution of that society. 
 That it was heretical, schismatical and, withal, proscriptive, even to per- 
 secution, I am constrained to show, in support of my thesis. 
 
 In the ratio of their power, the majority of that assembly and the clergy 
 in London, and round the county, who sympathized with them in doc- 
 trine, associated to proscribe, and did for a time succeed in prohibiting the 
 reading of the liturgy of the English church ; and, indeed, by statutory 
 law, inhibited it in all public assemblies. Not content with this, Neale 
 says, vol. iii. p. 291 : 
 
 " The Presbyterian ministers, despairing of success with the commons, 
 instead of yielding to the times, resdved to apply to the house of lords, 
 who received them civilly, and promised to take their request into consider- 
 ation ; but no advances being made in two months, they were out of all 
 patience, and determined to renew their application ; and to give it the 
 greater weight, prevailed with the lord mayor and court of aldermen, to 
 join with them in presenting an address, which they did, January 16 — " For 
 a speedy settlement of church government, according to the covenant, and 
 that no toleration might be given to popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, 
 profaneness, or any thing contrary to sound doctrine, and that all private as- 
 54 
 
850 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 semblies might be restrained. " The lords thanked them for their zeal,, an** 
 recommended it to the city magistrates to suppress all such unlawful assem 
 blies ; but the houses were not to be moved as yet by such disagreeable impor- 
 tunity ; however, this laid the foundation of those jealousies and misunder- 
 standings between the city and parliament, which in the end proved the 
 ruin of the Presbyterian cause. " 
 
 Matters were still carried farther. They went against toleration, as a 
 sin not to be endured. They represent it as a sort of Pandora's box, preg- 
 nant with all errors and sins. Neale says, vol. iii. pp. 386, 387 : 
 
 " The last error they witness against, and in which all agree, is called 
 " the error of toleration, patronizing and promoting all other errors, heresies 
 and blasphemies whatsoever, under the grossly abused notion of liberty of 
 conscience ; " and here they complain as a very great grievance, ' That 
 men should have liberty to worship God in that way and manner as shall 
 appear to them most agreeable to the word of God ; and no man be punished 
 or discountenanced by authority for the same ; and, that an enforced uni- 
 formity of religion throughout a nation or state confounds the civil and 
 religious, and denies the very principles of Christianity and civility.' " 
 
 Again and still worse : I must read another extract from Neale ; and Y 
 shall give no other comment on it than what that candid and impartial 
 historian himself gives by way of preamble to it in the words following, 
 to wit : pp. 483, 484. 
 
 " To return to the parliament, which was now recruited with such Presby- 
 terian members as had absconded, or deserted their stations, while the army 
 was quartered in the neighborhood of the city ; these gentlemen, finding 
 they had the superiority in the house, resumed their courage ; and took the 
 opportunity of discovering their principles and spirit, in passing such a law 
 against heretics as is hardly to be paralleled among Protestants. It had 
 been laid aside by the influence of the army for above nine months, till May 
 1st, when it was voted that all ordinances Concerning church government 
 referred to committees, be brought in and debated ; and that the ordinance 
 concerning blasphemy and heresy be now determined, which was done ac- 
 cordingly. This was one of the most shocking laws I have met with in 
 restraint of religious liberty, and shows that the governing Presbyterians 
 would have made a terrible use of their power had they been supported by 
 the sword of the civil magistrate. The ordinance is dated May 2nd, 1648, 
 and ordains, " That all persons who shall willingly maintain, publish or de- 
 fend, by preaching or writing, the following heresies, with obstinancy, shall, 
 upon complaint and proof, by the oaths of two witnesses, before two jus- 
 tices of the peace, or confession of the party, be committed to prison, with- 
 out bail or mainprize, till the next jail delivery ; and in case the indict- 
 ment shall then be found, and the party upon his trial shall not abjure his 
 said error, and his defence and maintenance of the same, he shall suffer the 
 pains of death, as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy ; and if he re- 
 cant or abjure, he shall remain in prison till he find sureties that he will 
 not maintain the said heresies or errors any more ; but if he relapse, and m 
 convicted a second time, he shall suffer death as before. 
 
 The heresies or errors are these following eight, of which I only mention 
 the 7th & 8th. 
 
 7th. The denying that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments are the word of God. 
 
 8th. The denying of the resurrection of the dead, and a future judg- 
 ment. " 
 
 Such was that love of civil liberty and toleration infused into the good 
 old orthodox Presbyterians, who, as my friend Mr. R. says, never changed, 
 and who have always been distinguished for their love of liberty ! I do 
 not think, indeed, that these men would attempt such things now. They 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 851 
 
 have read Locke on Toleration, and the spirit of the age has dispossessed 
 the demon of partizan zeal to a very great extent; at least, it has taken away 
 the horn of his power. The papal see itself, in the day of its glorious 
 power, went no farther in black-letter, than did the creed-party in the day 
 of their strength. The parties were then in power, and they forgot right. 
 The truth of this reason is incontrovertible; it is a part of English history, 
 and found in the rolls of her parliamentary acts. 
 
 Other points of error were punished by other penalties not quite so severe. 
 
 " The ordinance proceeds to specify some other errors of less demerit, and 
 says : That whosoever shall maintain or defend them shall, upon convic- 
 tion by the oaths of two witnesses, or by his own confession before two jus- 
 tices of peace, be ordered to renounce the said error or errors in the public 
 congregation of the parish from whence the complaint comes, or where the 
 offence was committed, and in case of refusal he shall be committed to prison 
 till he find sureties that he shall not publish or maintain the said error or 
 errors any more. The errors are these following : — being sixteen in number, 
 of which I only mention the. 11th, because it respects one of our proposi- 
 tions. 
 
 11th. That the baptism of infants is unlawful and void ; and that such 
 persons ought to be baptized again. " 
 
 Various other passages are marked here, to the same effect. I will 
 read them if necessary. I only, however, desire a clear and full sample — 
 a mere proof of my position. That human creeds are heretical and schis- 
 matical is clearly evinced, I should judge, is fully demonstrated by these 
 effects before us. Such demonstrations are not, indeed, confined to Pres- 
 byterians. The Episcopalians also took a hand in this game. Baptists 
 were persecuted, even unto death, in some periods of their reign. In 
 England every proscriptive edict, in some six months after its passage, 
 was imported into New England or Virginia, and re-enacted here under 
 similar pains and penalties. I am sorry to find, in some of the antique 
 specimens of Virginia Episcopal proscription, the following statute enact- 
 ed against the poor old Baptists of the Old Dominion: 
 
 i( Copy of a Law found in Hcnning's Statutes at large, vol. 2, page 165, Dec. 
 1662, Uth Charles II. 
 
 "Article III. — Against persons that refuse to have their children bap- 
 tized. 
 
 " Whereas many schismatical persons, out of their averseness to the or- 
 thodox established religion, or out of the new fangled conceits of their own 
 hereticall inventions, refuse to have their children baptized — 
 
 Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all persons that, 
 in contempt of the divine sacrament of baptism, shall refuse, when they may 
 carry their child to a lawful minister in that county, to have them baptized, 
 shall be amerced two thousand pounds of tobacco— halfe to the informer and 
 half to the publique. " 
 
 This goes to prove, that the Presbyterian creed is not the only one that 
 has, on both sides of the Atlantic, been schismatical, proscriptive, and her- 
 etical, in the highest degree. Could Mr. Rice reconcile these acts of Pres- 
 byterians with the love of civil liberty and equal rights, of which he has 
 spoken, he ought to do it. But whether he does or not, I must again ex- 
 press my conviction that they would not now, as a denomination, if even 
 they had the power which they once had, but which they never can here- 
 after regain, do as their fathers did. Many of them, in my acquaintance, 
 love liberty, and are willing to extend it to others, as well as to enjoy it 
 themselves. 
 
 Touching the word tantamount, in allusion to a subject before-mention 
 
852 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 ed, may not one say that a certain principle of Calvinism is tantamount 
 to paganism or heathenism, without incurring the charge of having said 
 that Calvinism is atheism or heathenism, &c? — [Time expired. 
 
 Friday, Dec. 1— If o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's seventh reply."! 
 
 Mr. President — The gentleman tells us, that "Dr. Wiley has saio% 
 that he never saw a Presbyterian who believed the whole of the confes- 
 sion of faith. I have seen many that believe it. When men become 
 dissatisfied with their church, and abandon it, they very frequently jus- 
 tify themselves by making charges which they cannot prove. Such, we 
 have reason to believe, was the fact in regard to Dr. W. Dr. Bishop's 
 remark bears not on the subject before us. We do not pretend to think 
 precisely alike on every point in theology. Our confession of faith con- 
 tains an outline of the system of truth taught in the Scriptures, and we 
 believe it. But in Mr. C.'s church I have found Unitarians, Universal- 
 ists, and Materialists. Can he find, in the Presbyterian church, any such 
 differences, concerning the essentials of Christianity ? I defy him to find 
 any thing of the kind. Still, he says, there are differences, and the au- 
 thors of the confession did not believe it. Let him state them definitely, 
 and I will give them due attention. 
 
 I have nothing to say concerning Dr. Wilson's charges against Dr. 
 Beecher. It has nothing to do with the lawfulness of creeds. Dr. Beech- 
 er might be guilty of the charges, and still professedly receive the confes- 
 sion of faith. Whether such was the fact, I pretend not to decide. But 
 if arguments of this kind had any thing to do with the question before us? 
 I could produce documents which would bear somewhat severely upon 
 Mr. Campbell. I have a pamphlet recently published by a Mr. McVay, 
 who has been for years a preacher in this reformed church, in which he 
 prefers, against Mr. C. and Mr. Smith, his friend, very serious charges. 
 I will balance the charges of Dr. Wilson against Dr. Beecher, with the 
 charges of McVay against Mr. Campbell, and, so far as the lawfulness 
 of creeds is concerned, the one will weigh as much as the other — for nei- 
 ther has any thing to do with it. The old adage has wisdom in it— 
 " Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones." 
 
 The gentleman makes a vain effort to reconcile the doctrine of Mr. 
 Raines and Dr. Fishback. Mr. Raines, he says, pronounces the doctrine 
 of total depravity, as taught in the confession of faith, a libel on human 
 nature, but not the doctrine as held by Dr. Fishback. Let us compare 
 Dr. F.'s views of total depravity, with those presented in the confession. 
 
 " The original creation of man in the image and likeness of God ; his 
 fall, and the loss of that image, together with the loss of union and commu- 
 nion with God ; and that by sin man became involved in pollution and 
 death ; as by it all his posterity have begun to exist out of fellowship with 
 God, and have come into the world without the knowledge or love of him, 
 and without power, moral or natural, to relieve themselves from that state 
 of ignorance, casualty, and death. This is what we call total depravity, 
 (and which I would call "hereditary depravity :") all that makes man to dif- 
 fer from this state for the better, is owing to the interposition and effect of 
 divine grace and mercy." 
 
 This is the Doctor's creed. It is extremely orthodox ; for it denies to 
 man all ability, natural or moral, to relieve himself from his ignorance, 
 pollution, carnality, and death. Let us now read the passage from our 
 confession, so positively denounced by Mr. Raines : 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 853 
 
 « The sinfulness of that estate whereunto men fall, consisteth in the 
 guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was 
 created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, 
 disabled and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly in- 
 clined to all evil, and that continually." 
 
 I should like to see the gentleman point out the difference on this 
 point, between Dr. Fishback's creed and ours. Now hear what Mr. 
 Raines says on this subject: "This doctrine is a libel on human nature, 
 of the grossest kind." Here is christian union and unity of faith for 
 you! 
 
 The gentleman says, there are no persons amongst his people, preach- 
 ing Unitarianisra and Universalism ; but he does not deny, that there 
 are many who believe these ruinous errors. If he can induce them so 
 to compromise matters with their consciences, as that they will refuse or 
 neglect to preach what they believe to be taught in the Bible, and can 
 secure union by such means, I am willing that his reformation shall have 
 the full credit of it. They believe those doctrines ; but they are required 
 to call them opinions, and to keep them to themselves. Mr. Stone, though 
 a decided Unitarian, dares not preach Unitarianism! So it would seem. 
 I would leave the society of all men, before I would promise not tO/preach 
 truths which I conscientiously believe to be taught in the word of God ; 
 for all its doctrines are profitable, and every faithful minister is solemnly 
 bound to declare the whole counsel of God to men. If there is union in 
 a body of men composed of materials so utterly discordant, most assuredly 
 it is not christian union. 
 
 I have said, there is infinite difference between the faith of Pvlessrs. 
 Stone and Campbell. I wish now to prove the truth of this statement. 
 In an article from the pen of Mr. Stone, published in the Christian Bap- 
 tist, the writer takes Mr. C. to task, for having published something in- 
 dicating a belief in the Divinity of Christ. Having presented seven ar- 
 guments against this doctrine, he remarks: 
 
 il If these observations be true, will it not follow indirectly, that the 
 Word [di Icon,) by whom all things were made, was not the only true God, 
 but a person that existed with the only true God before creation began; not 
 from eternity, else he must be the only true God ; but long before the 
 reign of Augustus Csesar?" p. 379. 
 
 Mr. Stone denies that Christ is the only true God, or that he existed 
 from eternity. Consequently there must have been a period when he 
 began to exist. And since lie could not have been the author of his own 
 existence, he must have been a creature. 
 
 Those gentlemen differ no less on the subject of the atonement — the 
 very foundation of the gospel. Mr. C. contends, that Christ did bear the 
 punishment of our sins in his cross ; and Mr. Stone denies it. The views 
 entertained by Mr. Stone on this subject are thus presented by him in a 
 discussion with Mr. Campbell: (Millenial Harbinger, New Series, vol. 
 v. pp. 63, 64.) 
 
 " How the death of Christ bears away our sins, or takes them away, I 
 will endeavor to illustrate by a figure. In the early settlement of Ken- 
 tucky, a colony resided on the border of that country, continually exposed 
 to the bloody incursions of the Indians. In this colony was a man of mark- 
 ed benevolence and goodness : he was wealthy, and had a care over all, that 
 none should want the necessaries of life. He had a son, the very image of 
 himself. Among them also lived a man of opposite character — of marked 
 malevolence and wickedness. He hated this good man and his son, and en- 
 deavored to injure them in their persons, property, and character, though of 
 
 4C 
 
854 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 their beneficence he shared in common with others. A banditti of Indians 
 passed by, and apprehended this wicked man, and hurried him off to the 
 wilderness. The good man with pain and sorrow heard the news: he call- 
 ed his son and told the distressing situation of his neighbor. My son, will 
 you at the exposure or sacrifice of your own life, rescue him'? I go, father ; 
 and instantly started — found the trace — rapidly pursued, and overtook them. 
 He saw the trembling wretch bound to a tree, and the pile of wood around 
 him ready to burn him, and the Indians preparing to dance to his shrieks 
 and cries. The son rushes to the tree, cuts with his tomahawk the cords 
 that bound him : in an instant the man flees and evades the torture. But 
 the son is apprehended and burnt. 
 
 The wicked man now sees the great love and goodness of the father and 
 of the son. He is convinced of his sins against them, and repents : he hates 
 his sins, and his hatred to the good man and his son is slain, taken away — 
 he is reconciled. He feels constrained to go to the father, confess his sins, 
 and plead forgiveness. He goes weeping, humbly confessing his sins, and 
 asks forgiveness. I forgive you, said the father joyfully, well knowing when 
 he gave his son that nothing else could save the poor man, destroy his enmity, 
 and reconcile him. Surely it was the love and goodness of the father and 
 his son, and this love seen in the death of the son, that effected this great 
 change in the man— that brought him to repentance, and consequently to 
 forgiveness. 
 
 Now what effects did the death of the son produce in the father 1 Did it 
 produce in him love, favor, or good-will to the wicked man] No: these 
 were in him before. Did it dispose or make him more willing to pardon 
 him J No : he was always willing to pardon him whenever he repented or 
 came within the sphere of forgiveness. It had no direct effect on the fath- 
 er ; it directly affected the wicked man to a change and repentance ; it in- 
 directly effected pleasure and joy in. the father at the change and repentance 
 indirectly effected in the man by the death of his son. 
 
 The application to our heavenly Father and to his Son is easy, and shows 
 how repentance, forgiveness, redemption, sanctification, and the bearing 
 away of sin, are effected by love to the believing obedient soul. This fig- 
 ure is introduced only to show what principle leads to repentance and for- 
 giveness — the goodness of God.' 1 
 
 In reference to this subject, Mr. C. remarks, in one of his replies to 
 Mr. Stone : — 
 
 "Brother Stone — We are discussing the greatest question in the world- - 
 For what did the Messiah die?" p. 253. 
 
 On page 538, of the same volume, having copied into the Harbinger 
 an article from the Messenger, Mr. Stone's paper, in which he proposes 
 to close the discussion, Mr. Campbell thus remarks : — 
 
 " Since the above was written, I have had the painful intelligence that 
 Elder Stone has been stricken with the palsy, and is not likely to recover. 
 From recent accounts, indeed, it is probable that ere now he has passed the 
 Jordan and gone to rest. Under all the circumstances, I conceive it inex- 
 pedient to prosecute the subject farther at present. The discussion, on my 
 part, was undertaken with a reference to two points : The first, the trans- 
 cendent importance of the question itself — For what did Christ die? The 
 second, a very general misconception and consequent misrepresentation of 
 our views of it. I did, I confess, expect that brother Stone would have 
 more fully and satisfactorily relieved himself and the cause of reformation 
 from the imputation of some of our opponents on the subject of Unitarian- 
 ism in its sectarian acceptation. In this respect, though measurably disap- 
 pointed, I am persuaded it will not be without advantage to the cause of 
 reformation, that so much has been written on the subject in the way of 
 discussion — with one, too, who had spent so many years in debates and dis- 
 cussions on that or some kindred branch of the same subject." 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS, 855 
 
 I have read these extracts to show how fundamentally the two most 
 prominent men in this reform church differ from each other on two of the 
 most important doctrines of the gospel — the character and the work of 
 Christ. In regard to both, my friend Mr. C. admits, that we have Scrip- 
 ture testimony, clear and strong. Both are, then, matters of failh, not of 
 opinion. In their faith concerning them, they differ radically ; and yet 
 they are united in the same church, and profess to have the one faith ! 
 In such union I have no confidence ; and to it the Bible gives not the 
 least countenance. 
 
 The clergy, the gentleman says, will unite if you give them money. 
 I presume he ought to know by what motives he is influenced in his reli- 
 gious career ; and we know how very natural it is for men to. judge others 
 by themselves — to suppose others to be under the influence which con- 
 trols them. When a man makes such charges against others, without the 
 slightest evidence of their truth, we are constrained to suspect, that he 
 knows something experimentally on the subject. 1 pretend not to sit in 
 judgment on the motives of Mr. C. ; but it is a remarkable fact, if I am 
 correctly informed, that he has, by his various labors and offices, accumu- 
 lated more wealth than any one of the venal clergy, as he considers them. 
 I venture to assert, that there is not in this country a Presbyterian minis- 
 ter who has, by his ministerial labors, accumulated the one-tenth part as 
 much as has Mr. Campbell. And yet he has not failed to denounce the 
 clergy as a most corrupt and venal set of men ! ! ! 
 
 Destroy the confession of faith, says Mr. C, and you cannot find the 
 Presbyterian church. We could find a body still of quite as much con- 
 sistency, far more harmonious in its views, than his own church. There 
 are hundreds of little independent democracies scattered through the coun- 
 try, wholly independent of each other in government and in doctrine, 
 which are claimed by him as constituting his church. If our confession 
 were destroyed, we should still have a much more homogenous and united 
 body. 
 
 The Westminster confession, he says, was a political invention, gotten 
 up for political purposes. It is true, the parliament of England did ap- 
 point a large number of learned and godly men to prepare a creed accord- 
 ing to the Word of God ; and they, after long and prayerful deliberation, 
 drew up the Westminster confession. It is also true, that our Bible was 
 translated by order of King James. If, then, we are to denounce the 
 confession, because its framers were called together by political men, we 
 mUst, for the same reason, denounce our translation of the Bible ! The 
 argument is as conclusive in the one case, as in the other. But when I 
 have compared the confession with the Word of God, and found it to 
 state, with remarkable clearness and correctness, its great doctrines and 
 truths, I am not disposed either to denounce or to reject it, because the 
 Westminster assembly of divines was controlled by parliament. 
 
 The gentleman has labored to make the impression, that creeds in ge- 
 neral, and the Westminster confession in particular, are persecuting in 
 their character and tendency. It is true, that in the day in which the 
 Westminster assembly met, few men understood the rights of conscience. 
 I am not prepared, however, to admit the correctness of all that Mr. Neale 
 has written concerning Presbyterians. He was a zealous Congregation- 
 alism and, of course, somewhat under the influence of his feelings. I 
 cheerfully admit, that there were some Presbyterians who did not fully 
 understand the rights of conscience ; but in this respect they were by no 
 
856 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 means peculiar. It was the error of the age. All were, more or less, un- 
 der its influence. But was this error caused by creeds ? Mr. C. has 
 told us, that he does not believe that Presbyterians would now persecute. 
 Yet they have their creed still, which, he says, is the cause of persecution ! 
 
 It is true, that Mr. C.'s church has never literally persecuted men unto 
 death ; but it is also true, that it has never, had the opportunity to perse- 
 cute. It is yet quite a beardless youth- — only about sixteen years old ! 
 It does not look well in a youth in his teens to denounce older persons, 
 and to boast what he would do, when he has never been tried. I do not 
 charge the reformers with a disposition to persecute ; but I think it out of 
 place, that they should boast before they are tried. 
 
 I have proved, that there are in Mr. C.'s church, Universalists and Uni- 
 tarians. I will now prove, that there are Materialists — -men who deny 
 that man has a soul. Dr. Thomas, formerly of Virginia, since of Illinois, 
 one of Mr. C.'s gifted preachers, published a paper called the Gospel Ad- 
 vocate, in which he set forth and zealously defended the doctrine, that 
 man is composed of body, blood, and breath — that the word soul, in the 
 Scriptures, means breath— that the righteous sleep in their graves till the 
 resurrection — and pagans, infants, and idiots, are annihilated ! I will not 
 take time to prove these facts, unless they are called in question. 
 
 Mr. C. opposed these notions of the Doctor; but he refused to heark- 
 en to the voice from Bethany. At length he held a public discussion 
 with one of our ministers, in which he defeated these heresies, and was 
 about to publish it in a book. Mr. C. then renounced fellowship with 
 him, and called on his church to excommunicate him. This, of course, 
 was not schismatical ! It was done quite ecclesiastically ! 1 All that Mr. 
 C. deemed necessary, was to renounce and denounce him ! 
 
 Thus things w r ent on for a time ; when the two gentlemen met, and 
 held a public discussion of three days ; and, neither of them being con- 
 vinced, they became reconciled, and agreed to co-operate in the good 
 cause of reformation. So brother Campbell and brother Thomas went 
 forth to enlighten the people, by preaching the gospel i ! [Mr. Campbell 
 here denied that they went forth together, and called for proof.] I will 
 read the account of their reconciliation, and agreement to co-operate, as 
 copied from Dr. Thomas' paper into the Millenial Harbinger, New Series, 
 vol. iii. pp. 74, 75. 
 
 " We, the undersigned brethren, in free consultation, met at the house 
 of brother John Tinsley Jeter, at Paineville ; and after frankly comparing 
 our views, unanimously agreed upon the resolution subjoined, and submitted 
 the same for the consideration of brethren Campbell and Thomas ; and bro- 
 ther Thomas agreeing to abide the same, all difficulties were adjusted, and 
 perfect harmony and co-operation mutually agreed upon between them. 
 
 Resolved, That whereas certain things believed and propagated by Dr. 
 Thomas, in relation to the mortality of man, the resurrection of the dead, 
 and the final destiny of the wicked, having given offence to many brethren, 
 and being likely to produce a division amongst us ; and believing the said 
 views to be of no practical benefit, we recommend to brother Thomas to dis- 
 continue the discussion of the same, unless in his defence when misrepresented. 
 
 Signed by — Wm. A. Stone, Thomas E. Jeter, et als. The resolution 
 being agreed upon by the brethren, brother C. and myself were requested 
 to appear before them. The result of their deliberations was reported to 
 us ; we acquiesced in the recommendation after a few words of mutual ex- 
 planation ; and having recognized our christian fraternity, the brethren gave 
 in their names to brother Stone to be appended in the order affixed. 
 
 Paineville, Amelia, Va., Nov. 15th, 1838." 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 857 
 
 Here we have the reconciliation and agreement to co-operate. But the 
 gentleman says, they did not travel the same road together! No : Dr. 
 Thomas remained in Virginia, and still maintained his old sentiments. 
 If any thing could prove that a man has no soul, it would be the fact that 
 he held such doctrines as those held by this reform preacher ! Dr. Tho- 
 mas held sentiments which are subversive of all religion ; and yet he was 
 recognized by Mr. Campbell as a brother and a minister of the gospel ; 
 and they go forth co-operating in the work of preaching the gospel, and 
 " restoring the ancient order of things !!!" And to this day, Thomas, if 
 he has not of his own accord abandoned the church, continues to hold the 
 rank and office of a preacher. 
 
 Here is christian union with a witness. Trinitarians, Unitarians, and 
 Materialists, all preaching the gospel together ! Why, then, should the 
 gentleman attempt to exclude any thing from such a church ? For it is 
 scarcely possible that any should wander farther from the truth than some 
 of these. 
 
 But in the gentleman's committee, selected to aid him in this debate, we 
 have an illustration of the unity in faith of his church. Mr. Campbell 
 holds, and has labored faithfully to prove, the doctrine of baptism, in or- 
 der to the remission of sins. Dr. Fishback denies it. Dr. F. holds the 
 doctrine of total hereditary depravity. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Shannon 
 deny it ; and Mr. Raines says, " it is a libel on human nature of the gross- 
 est kind." Mr. Shannon believes, that the Scriptures are adequate to 
 the conversion of men, without any superadded spiritual influence. Mr. 
 Raines says he does not believe it ! So they go. Here we have a most 
 edifying illustration of what the gentleman calls christian union. The 
 very committee who have come up to war against Presbyterians and 
 " the sects," are forced to contradict each other, and to differ radically in 
 regard to the most important doctrines of the gospel ! May we ever be 
 preserved from such union ! The inspired writers know nothing of it. 
 It has no countenance from the Word of God. 
 
 Jind mark it!— This is the latest and best edition of a church 
 without a creed ! Let us gain from Mr. Campbell some further infor- 
 mation concerning its present state and prospects. I know he would not 
 slander his own church. Doubtless his strong partialities would prevent 
 him from seeing and exposing many existing evils. We will hear his 
 testimony: 
 
 " But there is a still more delicate and responsible species of communion, 
 sometimes called ministerial communion, on the proper exercise of which 
 most essentially depends the character, dignity and success of the christian 
 ministry, to which we more especially invite the attention of our brethren. 
 I lay it down as a maxim not to be questioned, that where there is christ- 
 ian communion of any sort, special or common, there must be an amenabili- 
 ty of the participants to some common tribunal, and a mutual responsibili- 
 ty to watch over, and nourish, and comfort one another. 
 
 Suppose, then, (but indeed we have not to suppose such a case; for it 
 too often happens,) that numerous communities, each upon its own responsi- 
 bility and its own discretion, sends abroad public ministers of the Word, 
 without proper regard to the character and attainments of such public func- 
 tionaries ; and that, in their various and extensive peregrinations, they visit 
 the churches and commune with them ; will it not follow that, either direct- 
 ly or indirectly, such evangelists and missionaries are responsible to those 
 churches, and to be as subject to reproof, admonition, and general supervis- 
 ion as they are entitled to the aids, encouragement, and christian hospitali- 
 ties of the congregations they visit) But is it so amongst us 1 Are all our 
 
 4c2 
 
858 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 public men of such a character, call and mission, as we approve? Or are 
 not some of them their own messengers, or the apostles of irresponsible 
 communities — without piety, moral character or intelligence worthy of the 
 countenance, esteem, support or affection of the christian communities! 
 And shall we commune with them and recognize them as ministers of 
 Christ, or the messengers and evangelists of his church, merely because 
 they had either the vanity, self-esteem, or boldness to assume an office and 
 a character which neither the church on earth nor in heaven awards to 
 them 1 ! 
 
 The cause of reformation has suffered more from this portion of its pre- 
 tended friends than from all its enemies put together. This state of things 
 is indeed generally attendant on the incipiency of all public and social insti- 
 tutions. But we have had a very large portion of this unhappy and mischiev- 
 ous influence to contend with. Every sort of doctrine has been proclaimed by 
 almost all sorts of preachers, under the broad banners and with the supposed 
 sanction of the begun reformation. We are glad to follow, rather than to 
 lead public opinion amongst ourselves on this subject. Experience teaches 
 with effect, what theory could not accomplish." — Mill. Harb. vol. vi. No. 
 2, pp. 63, 64. 
 
 Mr. Campbell says there must be mutual accountability, where there is 
 christian communion of any sort; but Mr. Fishback seems to go for strict 
 independency. But I will read more of this to-morrow. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2—10 o'clock, £.. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's eighth address.] 
 
 Mr. President — Having so often spoken of the Westminster in such 
 high terms of admiration as, upon the whole, with all its faults, one of 
 the best creeds in Christendom ; and having read so much from it already, 
 I shall voluntarily read but one other extract ; which I do for the sake of 
 giving it conspicuity, and for the sake of commending it to the especial con- 
 sideration of my Presbyterian friends, and especially of my friend, Mr. 
 Rice, as constituting one of my main arguments against creeds : 
 
 "9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture it- 
 self; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense 
 of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it may be searched and 
 known by other places that speak more clearly. 
 
 10. The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be 
 determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doc- 
 trines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sen- 
 tence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the 
 Scripture." — Confession of Faith, chap. i. sec. 9, 10, p. 14. 
 
 In the course of my remarks and responses to the allegations brought for- 
 ward by my friend, some matters transpired yesterday of a very important 
 character, respecting what is here called " the constitution of the Presbyte- 
 rian church^ Mr. R. would represent me as exonerating the confession 
 of his church from that persecuting spirit which characterized the framers 
 of it, and the parliamentary acts which enforced it ; alledging, moreover, 
 that it has lost its persecuting spirit. That is not the interpretation I put 
 upon it, nor is it the true one. I believe the same document, under fa- 
 vorable circumstances, would still operate in the same way. The people 
 and the spirit of the age have changed, but the spirit and body of the con- 
 fession is still the same. I wish it to be distinctly understood, that my 
 opinion is, that the same document in a society of the same, or of a simi- 
 lar character, would produce the same effects now as then. I ascribe the 
 change not to the document, nor to the party, but to the spirit of the age, 
 and the superior light that has gone forth into the land. The spirit of a 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 859 
 
 sectary is naturally and necessarily an intolerant spirit, and the creed is 
 the great means of cherishing, developing, and .maturing it. Hence we 
 say, the persecution is in the document, when we ought rather to say, it is 
 in the man that solemnly subscribes and obliges himself to believe and 
 teach it. 
 
 Light, spiritual and divine, is not to be confined by the landmarks and 
 boundaries of human legislation. No legislative ordinances, no human 
 enactments, can restrain the rising of the sun or the free communication 
 of its animating and salutary influences. No more can ecclesiastical 
 canons, or the penal statutes of kings or priests, shut out from our eyes 
 the direct and reflex light of Bible truth, which is now pouring forth its 
 benign influences upon the whole social system in this our favored land — 
 in this our happy age. The blighting influences, of which we have been 
 complaining, are, therefore, not so much to be feared now, as in days of 
 yore. Sectarianism has, indeed, been cherished by this document, and 
 is still kept alive by it in many hearts, that else had melted, under the ge- 
 nial influences of gospel grace, and overflowed in all the holy sympathies 
 and tender affections of christian benevolence. It affords me no plea- 
 sure to have to go into details of facts explanatory of the melancholy re- 
 flection, that still the old leven works, and that the spirit which party 
 creeds infuse, is wholly alien from the kind and generous spirit that 
 breathes in the holy faith, once delivered to the saints. Sorry indeed I 
 am, that the course pursued by my friend yesterday compels me again to 
 advert to this ungrateful theme. 
 
 The gentleman is making rather a licentious use of my writings. He 
 brings up matters wholly extraneous of our agreement by correspon- 
 dence, and not authorized by our rules. In any matters, relevant to the 
 matter on hand, I am pleased to hear so much of them transferred into 
 this discussion ; but to read what has been said against us by our oppo- 
 nents, and matters entirely remote from the question on hand, is rather 
 unauthorized either by usage or by agreement. What has the document 
 read, concerning Dr. Thomas or his views, to do with the subject before 
 us ? Do we fraternize with persons denying the resurrection of all the 
 dead, or that there is a spirit in man ? I do not. The agreement was 
 made, and so far as I assented to it, was entered into, upon the conces- 
 sions made by Dr. Thomas, and the opinion then entertained by me, that 
 he was himself really grieved in spirit for his course ; and had also resol- 
 ved, from conviction of its folly and inutility, to abandon it altogether. I 
 trusted that he had seen how unfounded were his views, and so informed 
 my friends, whose hopes of his future course were not so sanguine as my 
 own. It has, indeed, since appeared that he has not abandoned them ; 
 and, in violation of that agreement, has gone on to promulge them, both 
 by word and writing. 
 
 I cannot honor such a mode of warfare as that pursued against our prin- 
 ciples, by calling it legitimate argumentation. There is much of the non 
 causa pro causa in it, of the substitution of false causes, and of false ef- 
 fects. It is indeed possible by assuming for facts, things that never hap- 
 pened, and by reasoning from them either in the way of illustration or 
 confirmation of our assumptions, to make a shew of reason and of evidence, 
 when there is neither the one nor the other. 
 
 But if the gentleman is determined to go into the private details of such 
 incidents, by way of oppugning us, I must shew what the tendency and 
 practice of his church and principles have been in matters of this sort. 
 
860 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 He is only ministering to me superior weapons against himself. I must, 
 therefore, again illustrate the mutual complaisance and reciprocal esteem 
 of Presbyterian doctors for one another, in a letter from Rev. Dr. Miller, 
 of Princeton, as introduced into Beecher's trial and acquittal. We have 
 a character of Presbyterian ministers, living in holy communion, that 
 startles me, not a little, to see printed in a Presbyterian book. " Dr. 
 Miller's letter," says Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, page 82, " is truly cha- 
 racteristic. It exhibits the urbanity of Dr. Miller to the life. It proves 
 the courtesy and kindness of that distinguished man, who wrote letters to 
 Presbyterians proving that some of our ministers were guilty of offences 
 in the church as heinous as swindling, forgery, and perjury in civil 
 society, and at the same time protesting against a separation from such 
 men" ! ! ! With how good a grace a reproof comes from such a quarter 
 for our winking at doctrinal errors ! ! Is not the above an effectual reply 
 to all such imputations ? If such be the men, matured and perfected, un- 
 der a matured and perfected system, now almost two centuries old ; and, 
 if they are by its operation constrained to keep, not only members, but 
 ministers, of such character as depicted by these pious and exemplary 
 doctors, are we to be upbraided by them for having some bold youthful 
 speculators, upon some untaught questions ! ! What are these opinions, 
 compared with crimes as base as '« swindling, forgery, and perjury?" 
 
 We reprobate these opinions and speculations, and regard those as schis- 
 matics and heretics who seek to propagate them. There is no society on 
 earth, all of whose members can be perfectly approbated. If principles are 
 thus to be tested, no arguments could sustain any cause . Even in the apos- 
 tolic age, the conduct of every christian professor could not be approbated. 
 
 But we must have at least two witnesses to the truth, in attestation of 
 the operation of the creed system — I mean its whole operation in doors, 
 on the faith, union, harmony, and brotherly kindness of the creed sys- 
 tem. I am obliged to go into this matter fully once for all. 
 
 " Preamble and resolutions adopted by the church of Harmony, December 
 the 3d. 1840. — Determined to preserve the spirit and principles of our stand- 
 ards, as well as the name of Presbyterianism, at a called meeting on the 3d 
 of December, 1840, well attended, the members present unanimously sub- 
 scribed the underwritten document. 
 
 "The members of the church of Harmony, having met for the purpose of 
 deliberating upon the alarming posture of affairs in our ecclesiastical con- 
 nection, after mature reflection, and after solemnly invoking Divine counsel, 
 adopted the following preamble and resolutions : 
 
 We have viewed with deep regret the spirit of encroachment upon what 
 we conceive to be our rights, as members of the old school Presbyterian 
 church. We have been pained to witness, since the unparalleled stretch of 
 power by the general assembly in the sessions of '37 and '38, that the 
 spirit of which we complain has been so actively and injuriously at work : 
 That our ecclesiastical courts, in place of being as bulwarks, set up for the 
 protection of our religious privileges, and for the defence of the Gospel, have 
 been converted into engines of oppression Have repeatedly disregarded 
 the claims of justice — violated the constitution of our church — and exhibi- 
 ted feelings at variance with the religion of Christ, and in conformity to 
 the carnal policy of men, seeking rather to promote the purposes of party 
 than the glory of God." 
 
 Observe, that those Presbyterian congregations are taught to regard 
 the confession as " the constitution of their church." Why should they 
 thus so denominate the book, at this time, if they were not accustomed, 
 in all their courts, so to denominate it? 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS 861 
 
 In proof of what we assert, we would refer, say they, 
 
 " T. To the deposition and excommunication of the Versailles session — a sen- 
 tence inflicted without trial, and through an exertion of usurped power, 
 not to be borne by the citizens of a free country" 
 
 "Usurped power, not to be borne by the citizens of a free country." 
 Now, if Presbyterians can, "without trial" thus "usurp power" not to 
 be endured, even themselves being judges, "by the citizens of a free 
 country," for the sake of sustaining the creed and the form of govern- 
 ment, have we, in the least, exaggerated the tendency of the system of 
 human creed government, in representing it as necessarily proscriptive, 
 tyrannical, and schismatical? Nothing is always tyrannical. No despot- 
 ism is forever active. Even the papal tyranny itself sometimes sleeps. 
 It is only occasionally that the most iron despotism lays upon its subject 
 the rod of its anger. Occasion must call it forth into action. It is then, 
 and only then, when roused into action, that all its power and tendencies 
 are fully developed. 
 
 "II. We refer to the ground assumed by the leading men in synod, when 
 that case was taken up by appeal — viz. That presbytery had the right to 
 cut off the session without trial ; and that synod might proceed in a simi- 
 lar manner against presbytery, if circumstances made it necessary. 
 
 III. We refer to the public, repeated and undisputed assertion of one of 
 the leading men in our church, "that the dominant parly felt themselves bound 
 to protect their minorities" — a principle at war with the genius and spirit of 
 our institution ; and which acted out, has led to a series of judicial investi- 
 gations the most partial, and we would add, the most disgraceful ever placed 
 upon the records of any court in our country, either civil or ecclesiastical." 
 
 "Judicial investigations, the most partial and, as we believe, the most 
 disgraceful ever placed upon the records of any court in our country, 
 either civil or ecclesiastical /" If the Presbyterians themselves so speak 
 of their own government, of the acts of their own beloved ministry, and 
 of the bearings of their own system, may we not use this document in 
 full illustration and development of the truth of our positions on this 
 question ? 
 
 "IV. We refer to the trial and suspension of the Rev. J. C. Stiles, — a 
 proceeding, in our view, attended with circumstances of unexampled con- 
 tempt of every rule of decorum, and in violation of the constitution, laws 
 and usages of the Presbyterian church. 
 
 1st. Because the mind of the religious community, a few weeks before 
 the trial came on, was poisoned by a scandalous publication from the pen of 
 the Rev. Mr. Rice, editor of the Protestant and Herald — whose gross mis- 
 statements and perversions of fact tended to prejudice the cause of the ac- 
 cused, and served to stimulate presbytery to a deed, which may be regarded 
 as the consummation of intemperate zeal and party violence." 
 
 I am not the only person, then, that accuses my friend, Mr. Rice, 
 with "gross perversions of fact," and "gross misstatements too." His 
 zeal for the old-fashioned and immutable Presbyterianism, without any 
 evil intention on his part, betrays him into such a course of action, as his 
 brethren feel themselves, at times, authorized, according to their views, 
 to call "gross perversions of fact," and "gross misstatements of fact." 
 
 " 2d. Because, according to their own decision in reference to the Ver- 
 sailles session, presbytery had no jurisdiction in the case — presenting them- 
 selves and acting in the fourfold capacity of prosecutors, judges, witnesses 
 and jurymen" 
 
 Presbytery, it seems, then, in the judgment of Presbyterians them- 
 selves, can act in the fourfold capacity of prosecutors, judges, witnesses, 
 and jury ! I have always heard this objection to the courts of that commu- 
 
862 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 nity, in such cases. It is one of the standing objections to the operations 
 of the system, so far back as the records of its proceedings have reached 
 us. v 
 
 " 3d. Because the verdict was contrary to evidence; as the only charge 
 proved against him was the public discussion of the Reform measures ; in 
 which he stands justified by the free constitution of our church. 
 
 4th. Because they did not grant him the right of appeal from their first 
 sentence, of which, according to our book of discipline, he might avail him- 
 self at any time within ten days : but immediately proceeded to pronounce 
 a higher degree of censure, and suspend him from all the functions of the 
 gospel ministry — they say, for " contumacy " — because he " refuses to sub- 
 mit" "?iow" to a "decision" declared above. 
 
 In view of these facts, therefore, 
 
 Resolved, I. That the members of the Harmony church do avow it as 
 our solemn belief, that the high handed measures of our ecclesiastical courts, 
 have inflicted a deep wound upon the cause of religion in our land : — that 
 their attempts to repress freedom of discussion is a blow aimed at our repub- 
 lican institutions ; and that were we to submit any longer to these assumed 
 powers, we should consider ourselves as standing in the altitude of foes to hu- 
 man liberty.'''' 
 
 Here, then, is "the solemn belief'' of the members of the Harmony- 
 church, that a new institution ought to be got up; that they would be 
 "foes to liberty" if they should any longer submit to " attempts to re- 
 press freedom of discussion" and " to blows aimed at our republican in- 
 stitutions." Yet Mr. Rice would have us believe that the love of liberty, 
 of freedom of debate, and of free institutions, were of the very spirit and 
 essence of Presbyterianism ! 
 
 This may serve as a specimen of the operations of Presbyterians in the 
 United States, for some few years past, especially since the commencement 
 of the distinctions between new and old school in that denomination. 
 
 " II. Resolved, That we disclaim all connection with the old school Pres- 
 byterian church; and that we consider it an imperious duty, at the present 
 crisis, to form a distinct presbytery — with a view, at some future period, of 
 connecting ourselves with a Western and Southern Presbyterian church, 
 provided such an one can be organized free from the taint of abolitionism. 
 
 III. Resolved, That the session of the Harmony church attend the 
 convention to meet on the 18th of this month at Lexington, to represent 
 and attend to the interest of this church." 
 
 I will only add to this chapter of details of the creed system a single 
 incident which quite recently occurred during, and in the last ses- 
 sion, of the synod of Kentucky, in this very city. A worthy brother 
 minister, the Rev. Mr. Preston, of the Presbyterian church, had, during 
 this last year, presumed "to break the loaf" some once or twice with 
 our brethren at Georgetown. Having been arraigned before presbytery 
 for this great offence, from whose decision he appealed to synod, his case 
 came up in order at last session. While it was before synod, and in 
 course of trial, a venerable and worthy gentleman of many years experi- 
 ence in the ministry, arose, and among other very acceptable words, said, 
 that he had never heard these people (reformers) preach, nor would he 
 allow his children to hear them preach. He judged it a profanation of 
 the sabbath to hear them ; and that, " so long as he was able to wear a 
 blue stocking, he never would hear them." Yet he could denounce them 
 as guilty of heresy and profanation. All this was said in the city of Lex- 
 ington, in the year of grace, eighteen hundred and forty-three. Go, sir, 
 not to Westminster, but to Rome, and ask, what proscriptive and denuncia- 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 863 
 
 tory measures — what haughtier pretensions to infallibility, could have 
 emanated from the genius of popery itself! But the synod presented the 
 following resolution : 
 
 [A copy of the resolution could not be obtained by the reporters.]] 
 
 The synod sustained the views of the presbytery, and the gentleman 
 withdrew from its jurisdiction. I shall not expatiate on this trial. There 
 is one point in it to which, however, I must advert. It is the fact, that 
 when this conscientious and independent brother was arraigned for trial, 
 being seized with hemoptysis, and unable to speak, he was not allowed a 
 single day to prepare for the investigation of his case. Since the days of 
 the Star Chamber and High Court of Commission, during the reign of 
 Elizabeth, I doubt whether any thing so small as this affair, was treated 
 more in the spirit of those days of ecclesiastic tyranny and domination. 
 
 Here, then, is an intelligent and useful member of the church, and min- 
 ister of religion, set aside merely for the sin of celebrating the Lord's 
 supper with a people whom the synod thought proper to denounce as 
 holding errors. They seem to have forgotten that they themselves had 
 all been denounced by other synods and councils, as reprobate in doc- 
 trine and unworthy of the name of christians. Orthodoxy is, indeed, 
 very arbitrary and whimsical in its decisions. To-day it reprobates what 
 it commended yesterday, and will to-morrow reprobate what it approves 
 to-day. Power and numbers consecrate every thing : hence, while par- 
 ties are weak and struggling into power, they are always erroneous and 
 heretical by those in authority; but when they triumph over their rivals, 
 the sin of heterodoxy no more adheres to them. 
 
 I blame the system, not the men. These creeds have always operated 
 in this way. It is in this view of the subject, in contrast with those who 
 hold the Book alone, that we pronounce them to be of schismatical ten- 
 dency, and ultimating in tyranny and oppression. 
 
 Had I time to accomplish it this morning, I should glance at the whole 
 history of the practical operations of the Westminster creed, from its origin 
 till now. But that is at present out of the question. I shall, therefore, 
 only glance at its actual effects in this western country ; almost exclusively, 
 indeed, in this commonwealth, in the memory of one generation. Only 
 one class of Presbyterians were here at the commencement of the pres- 
 ent century. In 1803, did not the oppression of some of its technical ab- 
 stractions on Trinity, cause the disseverance and disruption of the denomi- 
 nation? Arianism, or Unitarianism, as Mr. Rice calls it, was the result 
 of the agony of that day. The whole Springfield presbytery was severed 
 from the denomination, a part of it turning Arian, and another part termi- 
 nating in Shakerism. I call these results by the names which the people 
 of that day imposed on them. An abstract, dogmatic and erroneous nom- 
 enclature, gave birth to these new forms, by whatever name they should 
 be called. Indeed, this unscriptural vocabulary, this metaphysical jargon, 
 has been the occasion of much the larger part of all the strife and party ism 
 of Protestantism. Think only of the unscriptural terms, 'Eternal Son,' 
 ♦eternal generation,' 'eternal procession,' ' eternal justification,' 'Trinity,' 
 ' Triune God,' ' con-substantial,' ' co-eternal,' &c. &c. Here are terms 
 and phrases no inspired man ever used, and no sane man ever understood. 
 These wild abstrusities beget a speculative habit ; and men, with a little 
 conceit, and a little philosophic pride, getting into controversy on these 
 mystic points, soon generate feuds ; and, if they are only a little self- 
 willed and conscientious, a new sect or party will be the result. Latitu- 
 
864 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 dinarian comments, and new modes of construction, gave birth to those 
 two American parties, called " Newlights," and " Shakers." 
 
 Extremes beget each other v Only contemplate the fanaticism of the 
 Shakers, growing out of a Presbyterian education. They supposed them- 
 selves moved by the Holy Spirit, in some new, direct or immediate way ; 
 and, therefore, commenced howling, barking, leaping, jerking, and other 
 spasmodic operations. No pagan fanaticism ever did transcend some of 
 the scenes said to have been transacted at the commencement of the pres- 
 ent century, in this good commonwealth, under the reaction of the creed- 
 system. A latitudinarianism of interpretation, of thinking, speaking, act- 
 ing, rarely equalled, never surpassed, was the genuine revulsionary opera- 
 tion of the then reigning system, upon that peculiar class of mind subjected 
 to those influences. Like combustion, fanaticism cannot be developed, 
 without the proper materials and circumstances. 
 
 I am not speaking of the Scotch Cameronians, the good old solemn 
 league and covenant Covenanters, nor of other English, Scotch and Irish 
 Presbyterians— I am speaking of the Kentucky Presbyterians of the pres- 
 ent century. And whence came the Cumberlanders — the Presbyterians 
 on the Kentucky and Tennessee sides of that sacred river ? Was it not 
 the oppression of the creed, in some of its doctrinal and disciplinary 
 parts ? 
 
 Was it not the high ground taken by some, and the efforts to impose 
 their views and constructions upon others ? The same causes, operating 
 upon different minds, on particular subjects, generally terminate in the 
 formation of some new denomination, and that, too, upon some particular 
 point or points. This new denomination, if I am rightly informed, now 
 nearly equals the old Presbyterians in the same districts of country. 
 When to these you add the late general schism, which is not confined to 
 Kentucky or Tennessee, but which extends over all the states, where Pres- 
 byterianism exists, and count the sixty thousand new-school neucleus and 
 the old school, we have four schisms in forty years ; or rather, for one old 
 Presbyterian church we have, through the instrumentality of one party 
 and its creed, no less than five communities. Has not the Westminster 
 wrought well in the way of increase of parties in this valley ? ! A fruitful 
 mother of discords truly ! ! This is a proof, strong and clear, within the 
 memory of the living men around us. Contemplate Shakerism, New- 
 lightism, Cumberland Presbyterianism, New-schoolism and Old-school- 
 ism, and what a powerful argument to sustain ray position, that human 
 creeds are heretical and schismatical! It was the creeds and their inter- 
 pretation that caused all this discord and strife. Every one of these par- 
 ties began about something within the creed. How, in reason's name, 
 can these facts be disposed of! ! 
 
 Many things in the development of social life, I verily believe and 
 teach, ought to be let alone. When men indulge in speculations, so long 
 as they do not presume to propagate them, better to let them alone, 
 What would Mr. Rice have done with such persons as Dr. Thomas ? 
 What would our Westminster divines have done with Elder B. W. Stone ? 
 They would, according to their construction of his opinions, certainly have 
 either cut of! his head or hanged him by the statute read from Neale. I 
 do not say the Kentucky Presbyterians would now do this. I speak of 
 their fathers, about the year 1648. I read you on yesterday an act which 
 said that Unitarians should " die without benefit of clergy." Under that 
 statute, it would have gone equally hard with the Materialist. But as the 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 865 
 
 Savior said he came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them ; so we 
 prefer to save men's lives by the gospel rather" than to destroy them. 
 Hence I sought to save some of those speculators, until rfry friends sup- 
 posed I almost sympathized with their opinions. I cheerfully say, I do 
 not approve of all that Barton W. Stone has written and said, yet I believe 
 our society has been, and is pursuing a most salutary and redeeming pol- 
 icy. Whither has fled the Newlightism of former days ? How long 
 will its speculations be remembered, that floated on the winds of thirty 
 years ? ! 
 
 Presbyterians, and all the other parties in the field, could not dispose of 
 it, till the pleaders for the reformation arose in the length and breadth .of 
 the land. They have indeed disposed of it in such a way, as to lead the 
 honest and candid into more scriptural and consistent views and practices, 
 and to paralyze and silence the uncandid declaimers upon these specula- 
 tions. 
 
 New generations will now grow up under new influences. The off- 
 spring of those persons propagating erroneous speculations, will grow up 
 under new influences. The Bible and its facts, and new associations, will 
 make of them a new people. They will rally round the banners of the ori- 
 ginal institutions of Christ, They will place themselves upon the naked 
 book of God alone. If they err and do wrong, the Bible will set them 
 right again. They may go wrong for a time, but they are in the safe- 
 keeping of apostles and prophets, while at school with the Great Teacher 
 and the holy Twelve. These teachers, should they err, will set them right 
 again. I believe we have done a good work, for which even the Pres- 
 byterians should thank us, in removing out of their way what they could 
 not ; and for correcting errors growing out of their own misinterpretations 
 of the Directory of God, which, with ail their learning, ability and zeal, 
 they failed to vanquish! — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2 — 10| o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's eighth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — My friend, Mr. C, who would seem to know intui- 
 tively what errors will die, if let alone, and which must be killed ; also 
 sees with no less clearness, that under certain circumstances, the West- 
 minster confession would lead to persecution. Will he please to put his 
 finger on one passage or sentiment in it, that even distantly looks towards 
 persecution ? From the first chapter to the last, there is not one that con- 
 tains an illiberal or persecuting tenet. I deny that it ever did, in any age, 
 induce any man or class of men to persecute. No creed produces perse- 
 cution, unless it embodies persecuting principles. 
 
 It would be as unwise, and as decidedly wrong, to attempt to force 
 men, by civil penalties, to embrace the Bible, as to compel them to re- 
 ceive a creed ; and both have been, at different times, attempted. Our 
 Savior was condemned to death by an appeal to the Bible, not to a hu- 
 man creed. The Jews appealed to the law of Moses against blasphemy, 
 and said to Pilate, " We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, be- 
 cause he made himself the Son of God," John xix. 7. Never were there 
 more malignant persecutions than have been carried on in the name of the 
 Bible, without a human creed. The infidel might as plausibly maintain, 
 that Christianity itself persecutes, as Mr. C. that creeds are necessarily in- 
 tolerant. Had the Anabaptists of Germany a written creed ? They had 
 not. Yet where, in the history of the christian church, can you find a 
 55 4D 
 
866 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 more fanatical and intolerant sect than they ? The infidels of France had 
 no creed, but where, in the history of man, can you find such a scene of 
 diabolical persecution, as characterized " the reign of terror" — the period 
 of the revolution? 
 
 If, then, it be true, that in different ages and nations men have perse- 
 cuted, in the name of the Bible, without a creed, and even without a reli- 
 gious belief of any kind; who can believe in the philosophy of my friend, 
 when he makes creeds the cause of persecution ? There is no error more 
 common amongst men, than that of ascribing effects to wrong causes. 
 Each party, political and religious, is disposed to attribute existing or ap- 
 prehended evils to causes which they dislike. In their judgments they 
 are often controlled by prejudices, contrary alike to philosophy and to 
 fact. The gentleman says, creeds lead to persecution. Let him, if he 
 can, prove, or give even the slightest evidence, that a creed not embody- 
 ing persecuting principles, leads to persecution. If men hold intolerant 
 opinions, they will persecute, whether those opinions are committed to 
 writing or not. 
 
 The gentleman has repeatedly expressed his particular gratification at 
 my reading so much from his various publications. Then, again, he 
 complains bitterly, as if I were doing him serious injustice. This morn- 
 ing he tells you, that he never gave me the right to read his books on 
 every subject. I ask him no favors on this matter. I have the right to 
 read any thing he or any one else has written, bearing on the subjects un- 
 der discussion. He has the right to quote the confession of faith, or any 
 author he may fancy. I have the same right; and, therefore, do not ask 
 his permission to read any or all of his books, as I may choose. He 
 may complain if he will. I know he feels unpleasantly at having the 
 contradictions and absurdities of his books exposed ; but I cannot help it. 
 
 I was not a little surprised to hear Mr. Campbell say, that he thought 
 Dr. Thomas, the Materialist, had abandoned his errors. I will again read 
 from the Millenial Harbinger, that we may see whether there was the 
 slightest foundation for such an opinion : 
 
 "We, the undersigned brethren, in free consultation, met at the house of 
 brother John Tinsley Jeter, at Paineville ; and after frankly comparing our 
 views, unanimously agreed upon the resolution subjoined, and submitted 
 the same for the consideration of brethren Campbell and Thomas ; and bro- 
 ther Thomas agreeing to abide the same, all difficulties were adjusted, and 
 perfect harmony and co-operation mutually agreed upon between them. 
 
 Resolved, That whereas certain things believed and propagated by Dr. 
 Thomas, in relation to the mortality of man, the resurrection of the dead, 
 and the final destiny of the wicked, having given ofience to many brethren, 
 and being likely to produce a division amongst us, and believing the said 
 views to be of no practical benefit, we recommend to brother Thomas to 
 discontinue the discussion of the same, unless in his defence when misrepre- 
 sented.^ Signed by some twenty-four persons. 
 
 This is the document ; and yon observe that, so far from confessing 
 and abandoning his errors, Dr. Thomas expressly retained the right to 
 discuss them in his defence, when misrepresented. If, afterwards,- there 
 were mutual explanations, in which he retracted his errors, why was not 
 the paper altered by striking out the part which granted him the right to 
 defend them? I prefer to take the document itself, which concedes the 
 right, and in connection with which, he declared positively that his views 
 remained unaltered. Dr. Thomas has been, for a number of years, advo- 
 cating those errors; and, if I am correctly informed, is yet a member and 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 867 
 
 a preacher in Mr. C.'s church. Certainly he is, unless he has volunta- 
 rily withdrawn. 
 
 The gentleman seems to be quite pained by the necessity of referring 
 to certain personal difficulties between several ministers, which have no- 
 thing whatever to do with the subject in hand. How he feels about such 
 matters now, I pretend not to know; but I do know that his Christian 
 Baptist abounds with just such attempts to injure the reputation of the 
 clergy of all denominations. Dr. Miller, he informs us, charged certain 
 men, formerly in our church, with dishonesty, in adopting our confession 
 of faith. This may all be true, and yet creeds may not be heretical and 
 schismatical. Creeds are not designed to detect dishonest men. I pre- 
 sume the gentleman will not deny, that men may be dishonest in profess- 
 ing to receive the Bible as their only infallible guide. 
 
 But what is the difference between Mr. Campbell's church and ours, 
 with regard to errorists and unworthy men ? As in the time of the apos- 
 tles, some crept in unawares, so now, some dishonest men may gain ad- 
 mittance into our church. But in his, are found Arians, Socinians, Uni- 
 versalists, Materialists, who have entered in perfect consistency with the 
 principles of the church. The door is wide enough to receive them, and 
 the foundation broad enough for them to stand on. My friend Mr. C. 
 says, he will receive Unitarians and Universalists. It is one thing for 
 errorists to gain admittance to a church under the garb of a false profes- 
 sion, and quite another for them to be received, whilst avowing their erro- 
 neous faith. [Mr. Campbell. I never said so.] The gentleman now 
 says, he has never said that he would receive a Unitarian or a Universal- 
 ist ! I will prove that he has said he will receive them, if they will use 
 the Bible words, and hold their errors as opinions. I will read in his 
 Christianity Restored, (pp. 122, 123 :) 
 
 " I will now show how they cannot make a sect of us. We will acknowl- 
 edge all as christians who acknowledge the gospel facts, and obey Jesus 
 Christ. But, says one, will you receive a Unitarian 1 No ; nor a Trinita- 
 rian. We will have neither Unitarians nor Trinitarians. How can this 
 be! Systems make Unitarians and Trinitarians. Renounce the system, 
 and you renounce its creatures. 
 
 But the creatures of other systems now exist, and some of them will 
 come in your way. How will you dispose of them ? I answer, We will 
 unmake them. Again I am asked, How will you unmake them ? I an- 
 swer, By laying no emphasis upon their opinions. 
 
 What is a Unitarian"? One who contends that Jesus Christ is not the 
 Son of God. Such a one has denied the faith, and therefore we reject him. 
 But, says a Trinitarian, many Unitarians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is 
 the Son of God in a sense of their own. Admit it. Then I ask, How do 
 you know they have a sense of their own] Intuitively, or by their words'? 
 Not intuitively, but by their words. And what are these words'? Are they 
 Bible words'? If they are, we cannot object to them — if they are not, we 
 will not hear them ; or, what is the same thing, we will not discuss them 
 at all. If he will ascribe to Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works, and 
 worship, we will not fight with him about scholastic words: but if he will 
 not ascribe to him every thing that the first christians ascribed, and wor- 
 ship and adore him as the first christians did, we will reject him, not be- 
 cause of his private opinions, but because he refuses to honor Jesus as the 
 first converts did, and withholds from him the titles and honors which God 
 and his apostles have bestowed upon him. 
 
 In like manner we will deal with a Trinitarian. If he will ascribe to 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all that the first believers ascribed, and 
 nothing more, we will receive him — but we will not allow him to apply 
 
868 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 scholastic and Darbarous epithets to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spir- 
 it. If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him — not be- 
 cause of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or 
 to lord it over God's heritage. 
 
 And will you receive a Universalist too 1 No ; not as a Universalis! If 
 a man, professing Universalist opinions, should apply for admission, we will 
 receive him, if he will consent to use and apply all the Bible phrases in their 
 plain reference to the future state of men and angels. We will not hearken 
 to those questions which gender strife, nor discuss them at all. If a per- 
 son say such is his private opinion, let him have it as his private opinion ; 
 but lay no stress upon it : and if it be a wrong private opinion, it will die a 
 natural death much sooner than if you attempt to kill it." 
 
 If the Universalist says, he holds his errors as private opinions, the 
 gentleman says, he will receive him, and let him hold them still. This is 
 precisely what I have asserted. 
 
 I think he ought to have felt unpleasantly, when he read a document 
 passed by a new school church in this vicinity. What had it to do with 
 the question, whether creeds are heretical and sehismatical ? Absolutely 
 nothing. But it contains some personal imputations against myself, 
 thrown out under the excitement arising from the suspension of a minister 
 to whom they were attached ; and therefore it was, that he read it ! If I 
 were inclined to return evil for evil, I would read the pamphlet I hold in 
 my hand, published by a Mr. McVay, one of the preachers in his church? 
 preferring against Mr. C. very serious charges. It contains a number of 
 certificates, signed by respectable persons. This document would be a fair 
 match for the Harmony paper. But my cause requires no such defence. 
 
 In regard to Mr. Preston's case, various false statements have been pub- 
 lished in the Harrodsburg Christian Journal, by certain anonymous wri- 
 ters. The gentleman, by way of showing the intolerance of the synod 
 of Kentucky, states that Mr. Preston, though in bad health, was not 
 allowed a day to prepare his defence. The facts of the case are these : 
 Mr. Preston had two or three times communed with the reformers — at 
 which conduct some of his brethren were grieved. He came before the 
 presbytery, and asked their opinion of his conduct. He had not been ar- 
 raigned — and was not called before that body to answer to charges pre- 
 ferred against him. He stated the fact, that he had communed with a 
 church known not to be acknowledged by ours, and asked their opinion. 
 They were prepared to give it; and, after hearing his reasons, they said 
 to him — " We think your conduct is highly censurable." He appealed 
 to synod. That body heard him fully in defence of his conduct, and then 
 expressed the same opinion. He was not excommunicated nor suspended. 
 This is all. If the gentleman can prove us intolerant by such evidences, 
 he is most welcome to do so. 
 
 But, to cap the climax, and to prove unanswerably how much Presby- 
 terians are bent on persecution, the gentleman told you, that there is living 
 in this city a Presbyterian minister who said, he had not heard these re- 
 formers preach, and did not wish to hear them. I supposed, that in this 
 free country, a man had a right to hear, or refuse to hear, whom he 
 pleased, without being justly chargeable with intolerance. But I now 
 learn, that all who think they can better employ their time, than by going 
 "to hear Mr. C. or his preachers, are to be branded as persecutors ! It is, 
 indeed, a singular species of persecution, which consists in letting men 
 alone ! I think it within the bounds of possibility, that the minister allu- 
 ded to has read enough concerning the principles of this new reformation^ 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 869 
 
 10 determine that he may spend his sabbaths more profitably than by 
 seeking edification from that quarter. 
 
 But Mr. C. boasts of his liberality. Yet when a gentleman in England 
 inquired of him, whether his churches admit unimmersed persons to com- 
 munion, he answered in the most unqualified terms — "Not one of them, 
 as far as known to me." Presbyterians are chargeable with a persecuting 
 spirit, if they refuse to allow their members to commune with the reform- 
 ers ; but the reformers are quite charitable in refusing to permit any unim- 
 mersed person to commune with them ! ! ! 
 
 My friend has often displayed the extent of his charity and liberality 
 in bold relief. A specimen of the kind is found in his Christian Baptist, 
 ( P . 23.) 
 
 " Thirdly, the worshiping establishments now in operation throughout 
 Christendom, increased and cemented by their respective voluminous con- 
 fessions of faith, and their ecclesiastical constitutions, are not churches of 
 Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of that Mother of Harlots, the 
 church of Rome." 
 
 Let me give another specimen from the Millenial Harbinger, (vol. i. 
 p. 349.) 
 
 "• This respectable sect, [Presbyterians,] respectable not so much for its 
 humility, spirituality, and piety ; but respectable for its numbers, its wealth, 
 and learning; for its ancient foundation, being only the second daughter of 
 the second marriage of the kings of the earth with Mistress Roma Baby- 
 lona, now in her third century, is annually publishing to the world, how 
 illy she is adapted to our government, to the salvation of this community, 
 temporally, spiritually, or eternally, to the spread and progress of the chris- 
 tian religion," &c. 
 
 Thus he speaks of Presbyterians ; and yet he tells you now, that he is 
 quite willing to have those children of Mistress Roma Babylona com- 
 mune with him ! ! ! 
 
 The gentleman sometimes hints remotely at the question before us. 
 Creeds, he says, produced Arianism, and Shakerism, howlings, barkings, 
 &c, in our own country. Did not Arius teach his heresies ; and did 
 they not rapidly spread through the church before a creed was adopted ? 
 How, then, could the creed have produced it ? Did the effect exist before 
 the cause 1 And how did the creed produce Shakers ? How did it make 
 people howl and bark ? I am really curious to understand the philosophy 
 of this matter. It is true that the Shakers carried their reformation rather 
 too far for my friend; but still they were reformers. One of the advan- 
 tages secured to our church by our creed is, that we are enabled, with 
 some despatch, to get rid of all such errorists. We desire not to have in 
 our communion, men who reject the fundamental principles of the gospel, 
 however respectable in character or in numbers. But did the ism of 
 my friend produce the Materialism of Dr. Thomas, or the partyism of 
 McVay ? Let him answer the question ; and he will refute his charges 
 against our creed. 
 
 But he asks, what would the old Presbyterian fathers have done with 
 Dr. Thomas ? Certainly they would not have retained him in their com- 
 munion. But I do not admit that Presbyterians in England and Scotland 
 were inclined, generally, to persecute. There doubtless were some of all 
 parties who did not understand the rights of conscience, and who desired 
 a church establishment. But that Presbyterians were in favor of killing 
 those who differed from them, is not true. Presbyterians did not consti- 
 tute the parliament, to whose persecuting laws the gentleman has re- 
 
 4d2 
 

 870 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 ferred. Whether there was any considerable number of Presbyterians h 
 that parliament, I know not. Anabaptists, and others, have violently per- 
 secuted without a creed. How, then, can it be made appear, that the in- 
 tolerance of any age or country, was caused by the existence of creeds ? 
 
 The gentleman has now informed us of one great good growing out of 
 his reformation. But for it, he says, there would have been in the West a 
 body of Unitarians for a hundred years to come ! If it is any credit to 
 his reformation, that it has embraced in its bosom multitudes who rob 
 Christ of his glory, by denying his divinity ; and the sinner of hope, by 
 denying his atonement ; he is most welcome to it ! His foundation is 
 broad enough for all such ; but the Bible knows nothing of such compro- 
 mises of the truth, to effect union with those who deny the Lord that 
 bought them. 
 
 I will now proceed to give some further development of the true char- 
 acter and condition of Mr. C.'s church, by reading a few extracts which 
 I commenced on yesterday afternoon; (Millenial Harbinger, vol. vi. 
 No. 6, pp. 243, 244 :) 
 
 "How few public preachers and teachers at this day are there, that need 
 not to be ashamed of their aptitude to discriminate and apply the holy ora- 
 cles ! Ought not many to blush who presume to speak by a divine call spe- 
 cially to them addressed, for their ignorance of all the laws of language, the 
 force of words, the logical point in an argument, the meaning of the sacred 
 style, and their inaptitude to expound and apply the word of truth ! How 
 many ought to blush for their irreverent manner of speaking in the divine 
 presence — their vapid and most irreligious way of pronouncing the divine 
 names and attributes — their profanation of the privilege of prayer in the 
 most undevout style of addressing God, and of speaking to him merely for 
 the sake of speaking to men — correcting what they deem popular errors, and 
 eulogizing kindred spirits, while addressing the awful throne of God ! The 
 times are sadly out of joint in all these respects. Public prayers are some- 
 times mere sermons preached to God—critiques on doctrine, satires on rival 
 dogmas, protracted efforts at saying something commendable, random at- 
 tempts to be eloquent, monotonous gibberish, empty, loud, and vehement 
 vociferations. For all this insolence to heaven, and for all these lamentable 
 defects, we have neither jurisdiction nor tribunal ! We certainly have not, if 
 every individual may send himself and authorize his own acts ; or if a small, 
 weak, irresponsible community may send out whom it pleases into the world. 
 
 The cause of reformation would ere now have overrun the whole commu- 
 nity, but for two causes. One is, the great masses of neglected new con- 
 verts, who are not taught the christian religion in scriptural churches, and 
 who consequently lose confidence in themselves, return to the world, or re- 
 main dry and barren branches in the mystic vine. The other is a class 
 of unsent, unaccomplished, uneducated advocates, who plead it ; amongst 
 whom, too, have been found a number of persons of immoral character, who 
 have assumed the profession as a cloak of covetousness — as means of impos- 
 ing themselves on the unsuspecting and benevolent. * .*,' ,'*' . * ,_ .'* * 
 We have bled at every pore through the lacerations of many such. And had 
 not our cause possessed more than mortal strength — had it not been of celes- 
 tial origin and divine power, it had long since been prostrate through trait- 
 ors, pretenders, incompetent disciplinarians, and impotent administrators. 1 ' 
 
 What a picture this of the preachers and members of this boasted 
 church — the latest and best edition of a no-creed church ! The evils are 
 not exaggerated. The picture is drawn by the gentleman himself; and 
 we know that he would not slander his own church. He says — " We 
 have bled at every pore through the lacerations of many such"— -that is, 
 of their own preachers ! Why, if 1 were to see a man bleeding at every 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 87 
 
 pore, I should be sure that he would die, if the doctor did not speedily- 
 come to his relief. And if he were thus bleeding from self-inflicted 
 wounds, I should certainly think, that he ought to be confined in a straight- 
 jacket ! But if I were told, that he was the only sane and healthy man 
 in that community, I should regard it as a horrible place. I should make 
 a speedy retreat from amongst them. But let me read a little further on 
 page 245. 
 
 " But we have not yet laid open the great defects of our evangelical min- 
 istry. There are the belligerent theorists, whose special care it is, in every 
 sermon, or on all public occasions, to disinter the remains of some fallen or 
 decayed system, exhibit its bones and putrid remains, and then to bury it 
 again with all the honors of an ecclesiastic war ; and, in contrast with it, to 
 unfold the charms of a wiser and better theory. Alas ! what pranks are play- 
 ed on earth, in the presence of mourning angels, by those whose undertak- 
 ing it is to persuade sinners to turn to God and live forever ! 
 
 Another portion of our more gifted and ingenious cohorts have addicted 
 themselves to the enviable task of public censors of the senior theologians. 
 Boys in their teens, or youths who, for years to come, would not have been 
 permitted to lay a shoulder of mutton on God's ancient altar, are now grave- 
 ly and learnedly exposing the errors of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the sy- 
 nods of Dort, Westminster and Trent, cum multis alliis, with as much self- 
 approbation and secret relish as the most exquisite sensualist devours a fa- 
 vorite dish when his appetite is stimulated with the pickles of Macenas 
 and a fast of full twelve hours. These are the wild beasts of our Ephesus, 
 with whom it is more difficult to conflict than with those with whom Paul 
 fought at the capital of Asia. Yet these are workmen who are never 
 ashamed, but always glory in their success in what they call preaching the 
 gospel of peace. 
 
 Of these profanations of the evangelical office, and of these flagrant 
 aberrations from good sense, good taste, and approved models, the more in- 
 telligent and pious communities are always complaining ; but without per- 
 ceiving that they have the power of preventing the evil. They flatter 
 themselves that Time, the great teacher, innovater, and reformer, will, of 
 his own accord, correct these evils. But will it save the multitudes that 
 are fatally injured in the meantime while the experiment is in progress ! 
 And has the Lord commissioned Time and Experiment as his reforming 
 agents ?" 
 
 Such is the account of the present state and prospects of his church, 
 given by the gentleman himself. Again, he says, "Every sort of doc- 
 trine has been proclaimed by almost all sorts of preachers, under the 
 broad banner and with the supposed sanction of the begun reformation ;" 
 (Mil. Harb. vol. vi. No. 2, p. 64.) If the leading man in the church 
 feels constrained to portray its condition in such language, how dark 
 would be the picture drawn, in its true colors, by an impartial hand ! 
 Who would desire to enter such a church? Who could regard it, with 
 all its errors and its confusion, as " the pillar and ground of the truth V 
 Let me remain among '-'the sects" where such men are not tolerated, 
 and where such errors are not cherished to the ruin, present and eternal, 
 of multitudes. 
 
 Another argument I shall urge against the gentleman's plan of christian 
 union, is, that he has felt constrained radically to change his ground 
 since he commenced his reformation, and is now advocating the very 
 principles he once boldly denounced! In the beginning of his ca- 
 reer he denounced all denominations for doing precisely what he is now 
 himself doing. He began with taking the New Testament as the only 
 constitution of the churches. Now he is offering them, and urging upon 
 
8T2 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 them, several articles, written by himself, as the basis of a general organ- 
 ization ! Many of his friends and followers have been alarmed at the 
 progress he seems to be making towards "Babylon;" and well they 
 may be. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2 — 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's ninth address.] 
 
 Mb. President — Mr. Rice, it seems, has left the argument, and is de- 
 termined to proceed in his begun course of calumniating the community 
 with which I stand connected. He will not provoke me to reply to such 
 calumnies, in any other way than I have already done. I have shown that 
 the apostle Paul said full as much against his brethren, as I have ever said 
 against mine ; nay, much more than I have yet said. I have given a few 
 examples of the manner in which he inveighed against some whom he 
 himself had converted from Judaism and Paganism to Christ. Every so- 
 ciety has to contend with unprofitable and unworthy members. Of all the 
 churches in Galatia, Paul said more than I have ever said of all the 
 churches in Kentucky, or of any one state of this Union. Of them, Paul 
 said — "I stand in doubt of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor ia 
 vain." — " Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" — " I 
 call God to witness, that you would, at one time, have plucked out your 
 eyes, and have given them to me." Any one disposed to calumniate 
 Paul and his labors, from his own writings, would have had a fine oppor- 
 tunity from his letter to the Galatians, as well as from those to Timothy 
 and the Corinthians. 
 
 But it is not only of the dereliction of these churches that great apostle 
 complains. He says not only " Demas has forsaken me," but " all in 
 Asia have forsaken me." " I pray God not to lay this sin to their 
 charge." Mr. Rice, had he been in Paul's place, would not have told 
 over these apostasies and obliquities of his brethren. He would have 
 concealed them. He would not have published their imperfections as I 
 have done. Stood he in the same relations to community, he would not* 
 as I still do, expose the frailties and errors of those associated with him. 
 Which of us seems, in these specifications, to walk more after the exam- 
 ple of Paul ? I feel myself in duty bound to remonstrate against the er- 
 rors of my brethren, as against the errors of other men — nay, more. ' I 
 may have, indeed, said of them things more severe than I should have 
 said. Still, I glory in the fact, that my prejudices and partialities have 
 not hid their frailties from my eyes, nor sealed my lips in reproving them, 
 Mr. R. confers upon me an honor of which I am proud, really proud. 
 He honors my candor, my impartiality, and my love of truth, r shall, 
 then, always persevere in this course of reproving defects in friend or op- 
 ponent. We have reformed, and are reforming, and still will reform. 
 We have placed before ourselves and brethren a very high standard of 
 perfection, and to this we must still direct our eyes. I hope the very 
 censures of our ardent and devoted friend, Mr. Rice, will still admonish 
 us to ascend still higher in our aspirations after christian excellence. 
 
 I have been endeavoring to relieve my Presbyterian friends from the 
 imputation, that those deeds of intolerance and persecution which history 
 records against their fathers, were the workings of their system, rather 
 than of any personal or ancestral depravity of nature ; that the system, 
 and not the people, was to blame for it. This is, indeed, my real con- 
 viction. But he will not let the creed have it. He admits that they have 
 done those deeds ; and, as one endorsed by Presbyterians, he can do no 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS, 873 
 
 less than admit it. Neale is candid, honest, and impartial. He was re- 
 commended to my early readings, by some of the best Presbyterians I have 
 ever known. Not only he, however, but all our "historians, and religious 
 dictionaries and encyclopcedias, attest the fact, that all creeds, since that of 
 Nice and saint Athanasius, have been baptized in blood. The Bible and 
 its friends have killed no person. Martyrologists say that creeds have 
 made in various forms, and in all time, their fifty millions of martyrs. 
 Christians do not kill christians. Never, never ! Jesus said, "All who 
 take the sword, shall perish with the sword." Doubtless in defence of 
 religion. 
 
 The gentleman says, the Anabaptists persecuted ! That has been often 
 said. But what have we to do with the Anabaptists ? It is, indeed, one 
 of the brightest glories of the Baptists, the pure immersionists, that they 
 have never shed one drop of blood in defence of their creed or practice. 
 I am not speaking of the iMunster fanatics — but I speak of those properly 
 called Baptists, in contrast with the Pedo-baptists. I know the gentleman 
 will tell you that they never had it in their power. Roger Williams and 
 his colony might have done it. Persecutions might have been introduced 
 into Rhode Island, as easily as into Connecticut or Massachusetts. But 
 the founders of those colonies were of different views. I have said the 
 confession has been changed, altered, and improved, in some particulars. 
 The article on the power of the civil magistrate has, indeed, been much 
 improved in our American Westminster confession. It does not now, 
 as formerly, authorize the sword to serve at the altar. It does not now 
 constrain any man to lift up his hand and swear, by high heaven, that 
 he will " extirpate popery and prelacy by all civil pains ;" as did the 
 solemn league and covenant. You have read the history of the holy and 
 bloody wars of orthodoxy for forty years ; and did I not read the solemn 
 decree of the men who made that creed ? 
 
 It is indeed possible that it might be the men and not the principles. I 
 have known some men that would never persecute others on any account, 
 or in any way. The milk of human kindness flowed too freely though 
 their veins. No system, the most intolerant, could make them cruel. 
 Still I opine, it was their principles, and not the peculiarity of a bilious 
 or atrabilious temperament. The spirit, the very genius of a human 
 bond of union, a human standard, around which the human affections are 
 taught to revolve, is as certainly exclusive as there is self-love in man, 
 and a love for one's own opinions. When men, under the influence ot a 
 creed, oral or written, can pass a law to hang men for an opinion, for a 
 theory or a doctrine, there must be an attachment to opinions of a very 
 morbid and predominating character. To imprison one for immersing or 
 refusing to sprinkle an applicant, certainly evinces not only the fact of the 
 previous existence of an opinion favorable to sprinkling, but of an undue 
 attachment to it, and it moreover exhibits a theory of human nature, of 
 civil rights, of rational liberty, wholly incompatible with our views of 
 justice, reason, and conscience. 
 
 I have before said, that I am under no necessity whatever, in my own 
 defence, to take this view of the subject, in the maintenance of my posi- 
 tion on the use and tendency of human tests of orthodoxy. I take this 
 ground on principles of respect for my Presbyterian contemporaries, to 
 relieve them as men from the spirit of the system. They have caught 
 the spirit of the age, of our free institutions, and they cannot think or act 
 as their fathers did. There is too much Bible reading in this land, and 
 
874 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 intercommunication with other denominations, with men of piety and ele- 
 vated conceptions of human rights, and liberty of thought, of speech, of 
 conscience and of action. I do not think that the people are now so 
 intolerant. I will therefore blame the system rather than the people. 
 
 Still, Mr. Rice will excuse the creed rather than the men. I blame the 
 system, but he blames the men. It is true that men made the law to pun- 
 ish heretics and the heterodox with death ; and that these men had those 
 principles within them before the statute which they had just enacted. 
 But these men were themselves the creatures of other systems of the 
 same kind which they had now ordained. It was then the system that 
 made them pass such laws. I do not, as I before said, think that the men 
 of this age, the Presbyterians around me, would persecute any of us to 
 death. Light has become too strong, and public opinion has been revolu- 
 tionized, and one of the most dangerous articles in the creed has been 
 reformed. Still there is a species of newspaper defamation, of pulpit 
 and synodical calumny, of religious neighborhood gossiping, that murders 
 men's reputation, slays their usefulness, and as effectually, in certain re- 
 gions, restrains their influence, as would banishment or imprisonment. 
 By turning over to the article on persecution, in that encyclopaedia lying 
 beside him, the gentleman will find enough on that subject to satisfy any 
 reasonable man, that I have not exaggerated the matter at all ; — and that 
 although we have not persecutions of the first class, we still have of all 
 the subordinate ranks enough to sustain our position, that creeds are still 
 schismatical and heretical. 
 
 This being the last day of our discussion, I am resolved to confine 
 myself to such topics as directly illustrate and establish the proposition. 
 I did not, through this discussion, nor do I now, respond to every thing 
 the gentleman has introduced. I have already given my reasons why 1 
 am not only not obliged to do it, but why it ought not to be done. I an- 
 swer every thing that I remember of consequence, or in any direct way 
 affecting the proposition. 
 
 On this subject I have used no stronger terms than have the Presbyte- 
 rians themselves. One of their correspondents in this commonwealth, as 
 I learn from those who read it in the denominational press, calls his own 
 church "a stripling of Rome." All indeed are striplings of Rome who 
 are not purified from her errors. Between England and Rome they 
 were wont to say, there was but a paper wall. If so, between England 
 and Scotland there is a still thinner paper wall. If the establishment of 
 England be the first in descent, that of Scotland may be regarded as the 
 second in descent from the mother and mistress church, and as possessing 
 a little of the body and the spirit of the old queen. 
 
 I do, indeed, believe, that so long as persons become members of a 
 church without their own personal responsibility, while natural genera- 
 tion, without personal regeneration, makes members, we must have a com- 
 munity carnal, intolerant, and proscriptive. I have often said so, I have 
 so written, and I still believe it. It has ever been so. All the ecclesi- 
 astic persecutions have, as before shown, emanated from such communi- 
 ties. But I have other points on which I must offer a few connected 
 remarks. And first, we invite your attention to an historical glance at 
 schism. 
 
 I said yesterday, or the day before, that Satan was the first sectary m 
 the universe, and that the first schism occurred in heaven. The Messiah 
 informs us that Satan "abode not in the truth." He departed from it 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 875 
 
 and became a liar and a deceiver. That truth was doubtless a revelation 
 of good things to come in some of the other dominions of God. But so 
 it was, the lofty seraph did not choose to acquiesce in it. He became 
 disaffected towards it, apostatized, and became a heretic and heresiarch. 
 For this, he and all who rallied around the new principle of disloyalty, 
 were exiled from heaven. This was a tremendous heresy and fall. On 
 discord bent, the great schismatic plotted the severance of man from 
 God's covenant of life. The ruin of our race was fully plotted, the 
 scheme matured, and inexperienced Eve was selected for his victim. 
 He succeeded. He turned away her ear from God's word, substituted a 
 commentary upon it which made it void ; and she, believing the lie, put 
 forth her hand and plucked down ruin upon herself and all her child- 
 ren. This was the second schism. 
 
 After a full development of this sad catastrophe and a judgment held, 
 God, in the fullness of his philanthropy, set on foot a remedial system. 
 He promised a victorious Redeemer, and set up a sacrificial institution. 
 Adam and Eve brought up their family under that dispensation. They 
 had their altar, their victims, their sabbath, and their family worship. 
 Cain and Abel, their eldest sons, followed their example, and each one 
 brought his offerings to the Lord. Abel believed the promised Lamb of 
 God, and brought from his flock a sin-offering. Cain, regardless of the 
 necessity of a Mediator, and a bloody victim, brought merely his thank- 
 offering, the first fruits of his harvest. Having disdained the remedial 
 system, God disdained him, and would not receive his offering by such 
 token of his regard as he had shewn to that of Abel. Cain's proud and 
 unbelieving heart was filled with rage, and turned away from God and his 
 own brother. They went into a debate — Cain's anger was kindled into a 
 rage, and, incensed with pride and envy, he rose up against Abel and 
 slew him. He left his father's house, became a vagabond or wanderer, 
 and roamed abroad to the land afterwards called Nod, and there set up 
 an institution of his own. Thus commenced the second schism in the 
 family of man. Cain is a full developed schismatic now, and how like 
 the grand apostate ! He became a liar and a murderer. Falsehood, 
 heresy, schism and persecution seem to commence and travel together 
 in one sad league of ruin. Virtue, alas! piety itself, becomes obnox- 
 ious to the wrath of the schismatic! "Wherefore slew he him?" 
 said John, "because his own works were evil, and his brother's right- 
 eous." We must not pause here. We must pursue the history of schism 
 farther. 
 
 Marriage was a divine institution. And equal matches, as respected 
 piety and faith, have always been the law of heaven. A wiser and a 
 holier institution is not inscribed upon the rolls of time. But from that 
 covenant too, man apostatized, and polygamy and unequal matches com- 
 menced in the time of Seth. This consummated the wickedness of the 
 old world, and God fixed a day for its destruction. The intermarriage 
 of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" made the cup of 
 antediluvian impurity overflow, and one tremendous deluge destroyed 
 the whole race, one family alone excepted. But though a world is 
 drowned, and only one family saved, still in it are all the seeds of human 
 depravity, and the remembrance of the sins of a former world. 
 
 God makes a new covenant with Noah and his offspring — of which one 
 is selected as the root of blessings to the new world. Time rollea on, 
 and families are formed and multiplied. A distribution of the earth was 
 
878 DEBATE ON HUMAN CKEEDS. 
 
 about being made; and, it seems, the whole family of man engaged them- 
 selves in the plains of Shinar, in constructing one new bond of union, in 
 raising up one tower to heaven, in opposition to divine revelation from 
 God. The Lord descends ; in the style of metaphor, the Lord descends 
 — frowns upon their toils — divides their speech, and sets them all adrift ; 
 scattering them according to their families, their nations and languages. 
 This was the schism of schisms. 
 
 God had said that he would bless Shem — that he would enlarge Ja- 
 phet, and curse Canaan, for reasons which, to his wisdom, were all just, 
 righteous and merciful. Shem was, however, made the depository of the 
 promises of the world's redemption. The Lord God of Shem is the Bene- 
 factor of our world; and our eyes are directed to him as the hope of the 
 race. 
 
 From this family God raised up, called and separated, Abraham ; made 
 him the father of nations, and of the Messiah ; cut him off from all the 
 world by circumcision, making him a pilgrim for life. He gave him new 
 promises, and confirmed with him " the covenant concerning the Mes- 
 siah." Time advanced. Four hundred years of discipline and various 
 misfortunes, fitted his posterity for a new dispensation. The Lord sent 
 Moses, and led them out of Egypt — conducted them into the desert — 
 made of them a wonderful nation — supported them by miracle for forty 
 years, and threw such a hedge around them as, methinks, ought to have 
 kept them a separate and distinct people, pious and devout above all peo- 
 ple, and for all generations. But, to preserve unity, he gave them but one 
 mediator, one grand national covenant, one altar, one law, one tabernacle, 
 one high priest, and one common inheritance ; all of which was given to 
 them in one book — the book of the covenant, or constitution of Israel. 
 
 A strong foundation was thus laid to preserve unity of faith, feeling, 
 and action in this one grand national family. Time rolled on through 
 four centuries of judges, until the age of kings came — until, in the days of 
 Solomon the wise, the nation gained its zenith glory, and still preserved 
 its ancient institutions, all of which were firmly established by this great 
 prince in one august temple, the most magnificent building ever erected 
 by the hand of man. Judah reigned. David, the son of Jesse, was its 
 first king ; Solomon the second ; and then came the weak, and foolish, and 
 tyrannical Rehoboam. Then came the great schism in the symbolic and 
 picturesque nation — the many-tongued schism, replete with much instruc- 
 tion to all the world. It is the grand national schism, whose whole his- 
 tory is not yet fully written. For the sin of David, God rent the kingdom 
 in part from the house of David, and gave almost ten tribes to Jeroboam 
 the son of Nebat, " who made Israel to 5m." 
 
 This cunning and potent rival of Rehoboam, from motives profoundly 
 political, machinated a grand schism in the established worship, in order 
 to produce an abiding schism in the affections of the people. He reasoned 
 thus: So long as the people worship at one altar, through one priesthood, 
 and in one temple, they will naturally coalesce again in one common- 
 wealth and serve one king. Such was the philosophy of Jeroboam, and 
 all history has proved it true. He therefore made new places of worship, 
 on the plea of convenience and expediency ; and had two golden calves 
 cast and finished ; one for Bethel, sacred from the days of Jacob ; and 
 one for Dan, at a convenient distance. Instead, then, of going up to one 
 altar, one temple and one high priest, to worship God and commune with 
 their brethren, they heretically set up for themselves — and thus alienation 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 877 
 
 and strife commenced. Again we see, on a larger scale, and for a longer 
 continuance, falsehood, heresy, schism and persecution, marching in co- 
 partnery through the land of Israel, until, in one rencounter, more than a 
 million of warriors are slain in a single day J 
 
 This was the era of state religion; and it was the era of false gods, 
 false altars and false worship. Golden calves are easily converted into 
 idols ; and mercenary priests will serve at their altars, under the smiles of 
 an approving monarch. But what was the consequence ? The kings of 
 Israel were a wicked dynasty, and the people, though in tribes almost four 
 to one, in some two centuries were reduced to slavery, and carried out of 
 their own country, and never since have been gathered. So ended the 
 schism of Jeroboam, and those who with him united around the schismatic 
 altars that he had reared. 
 
 The land of Canaan and the sceptre continued, with the true altar and 
 temple, in the families of Judah and Benjamin, though a small number of 
 tribes worshiped there ; and although often chastised for their follies, they 
 were never abandoned till the Messiah came and set up his institution 
 among them. 
 
 Let us now collect these facts and views together, and give them their 
 true and proper significance and emphasis. We have seen in all these 
 schisms, from that of Satan down to that of Jeroboam, the true nature, 
 character and consequences of schism. When we have before us the vic- 
 tims of all these several schisms grouped together ; Satan and his angels 
 — Cain and his posterity, down to the deluge — the Babel builders and 
 their nameless misfortunes — the national schism of Israel and all its untold 
 calamities — -methinks, we have a lesson, the clearest, the most forcible, 
 and the most appalling that could be given to mortal man. He that doubts 
 the connection between schism, rebellion, persecution and murder, is not 
 to be rationally convinced by human power. Christianity contemplates 
 the obliteration of all these schisms. It contemplates the completion of 
 one great family, gathered out of all families ; built upon one grand foun- 
 dation, having one temple, one altar, one law, one faith, one high priest, 
 one spirit, one inheritance. Every thing in it is unity and community. 
 It contemplates one nation, out of all nations ; one people, out of all people ; 
 one Book, one law, one Savior, one worship, one Judge and one heaven, 
 as the only means of rescuing man, and saving him from the numerous 
 and various misfortunes and calamities, that one grand schism has entailed 
 upon our world, for thousands of years past, and for an eternity to come. 
 
 Now, in tracing out this glorious scheme of Heaven, we discover that 
 God has been consolidating and harmonizing our race upon one faith and 
 one hope ; upon a few simple, well-defined, and strong principles ; and 
 that he has regarded as treasonable every defection from them, stamping 
 upon every apostasy the clearest, broadest, and most enduring marks of 
 his fiercest indignation. In every age ignorance, cruelty, and persecu- 
 tion have followed in the train of schism ; so that we doubt not, could 
 any one trace all human miseries to one common and prolific fountain, 
 that fountain would be religious discords. 
 
 Hence we infer that those modes of exhibiting and teaching Christianity, 
 and those modes only, which accord with these important and fundamen- 
 tal views — which seek to discover to man the true centre of attraction, to 
 rconcile man to his God and to his fellow-men, by obliterating and anni- 
 hilating every cause of division, every source of discord — are most accept- 
 able to God, most sanctifying to the church, and most persuasive and 
 
 4E 
 
I 
 
 878 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 converting as respects the world. Some grand fundamental principle/ 
 harmonizing all human hearts, uniting all souls, and preventing all rival- 
 ries, jealousies, and envyings, must be projected, in order to this glorious 
 consummation. 
 
 That grand principle, whatever it be, must possess the sanction of di- 
 vine authority. It must have more to commend it than the mere ra- 
 tionality, beauty, and simplicity of the scheme. It must have a para- 
 mount, a Divine authority. Nothing addressed to human genius, to 
 fancy, to imagination, to mere reason, will ever command the admiration 
 or acquiescence, or the conscience, or the love of man. God in Christ 
 must be perceived, regarded, and felt as the author of any scheme or sys- 
 tem that contemplates the union, harmony, and co-operation of all the 
 christian profession. It must have the awful, sublime, and adorable sanc- 
 tion of the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, to it. It must have his 
 sign manual, and the seal of supernatural power and grandeur. 
 
 The fact that all synods, councils, and convocations are, by Protestants, 
 acknowledged to have erred, will forever stain the pride of all their 
 boasted glory, impair their authority, and, convert their wisdom into folly. 
 Whenever the time comes for the one fold, the one shepherd, and the one 
 holy and beloved brotherhood, to combine all their energies in the holy 
 cause, they will as certainly reprobate all human devices, and rally on 
 the identical ground originally consecrated by the feet of all the apostles. 
 If, then, there is to be any millenium, any thousand years of triumphant 
 Christianity before the Lord comes, these systems must all be abjured, 
 and men must place the church exactly on the ground, the identical 
 ground, on which she stood at the beginning. This was my first, and it 
 is my present capital objecion to all partizan schemes, that they are not 
 made for man, but for one class ; not for all ages, but for one age ; not for 
 all countries and climes, but for some one latitude of humanity. They 
 are not adapted nor framed for the human race. Now,' the New Testa- 
 ment is just that very sort of document ; and it is the only one that ever 
 was, or is, or evermore shall be. It can make of discordant sects what it 
 once made of Jews and Gentiles, one new man, slaying the enmity and 
 making peace. 
 
 Christianity, allow me to reiterate it again and again, in all its pris- 
 tine characteristics, is directly and supremely adapted to the genius of 
 human nature ; not to the people of one quarter of the world, of one race, 
 or of one age, but to all quarters of the globe, to all races of men, and to 
 all the ages of time. It takes hold of man with the grasp of omnipo- 
 tence, because it contemplates him at once in the light of his whole des- 
 tiny, as he was, as he is, and as he must hereafter be. Its philosophy 
 of happiness is the subordination of all our passions, of all our desires, 
 and all our volitions, to the will, and pleasure, and dictation of Jesus 
 the Messiah. It proposes a glorious leader, a mighty and triumphant 
 prince, as our chief, as our captain and commander; whose charms and 
 accomplishments are so grand and fascinating, as to attract the admiring 
 eyes and enraptured hearts of the true aristocracy and nobility of the 
 universe. 
 
 Men must have a leader. The genius of humanity calls for it. Chris- 
 tians cannot have a human leader. They must have a Divine leader. 
 Leaders, rather than creeds, make parties and keep them. So Paul un- 
 derstood the matter when he said, " One says, I am of Paul, and I of 
 Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ," &c. Satan made a party in 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 879 
 
 heaven ; Cain made a party ; Nimrod made a party ; Caesar made a 
 party, as well as Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. Lead- 
 ers are first in making parties, and creeds are second. Attachment to the 
 man generally precedes attachment to the principles — the leader while he 
 lives, and his principles and views when he is dead. There is much 
 more truth in the adage "Men and not principles ," than in that which 
 says, " Principles and not men" I presume he is the wise man who goes 
 for both "Principles and men." 
 
 We would not presume, on such an occasion, to give the history of at- 
 tachments to human leaders, originating the present parties. But this we 
 may say, that if any one will be at the pains to read the history of creeds 
 and councils, with this idea in his mind, he will find that, nine times in 
 ten, in the history of the church, and often in the state, attachments to 
 men's persons precede attachments to abstract principles. True, indeed, 
 that principles and their parties are so often identified, that we more 
 frequently contemplate them together than apart : so it comes to pass, 
 that one says, I am of Calvin, and I of Luther, and I of Wesley, and I of 
 Christ. 
 
 Seeing, then, that things are so, and have worked so, in all the records 
 of the past, we have long since resolved to guard against schism, and all 
 the causes and occasions thereof, by calling no man on earth master, or 
 father, or leader ; and by acknowledging one teacher, the Messiah — one 
 another as brethren in him. United in him, we stand for ever ; alien- 
 ated from him, we fall into everlasting ruin. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2 — 11| o'clock, A. M. 
 [mr. rice's ninth reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — It is true, that Paul complained of false brethren 
 gaining admittance into the church in his day, and leading many astray. 
 But there is one very great difference between the church of my friend, 
 Mr. C, and Paul's church. If errorists and unworthy men entered 
 Paul's church, they were obliged to creep in unawares ; but Mr. C. re- 
 ceives them, when they openly avow their errors, provided only that they 
 will call them opinions. They need practice no concealment in order to 
 enter his church. He has a door wide enough to admit them with all 
 their errors. Such was not Paul's church ; and such were not Paul's 
 principles. There is, therefore, no similarity between the two. 
 
 I am willing to award to the gentleman due credit for his candor in ex- 
 posing the condition of his church ; but I am not sure, however, that he 
 was not rather more influenced by a desire to alarm them, and thus to in- 
 duce them to come into his measures, than by his extraordinary candor. 
 He could prevail on them to organize on his constitution, instead of the 
 New Testament, only by showing them, that they were on the borders 
 of anarchy and ruin ! He thinks, that if I had been in his place, I would 
 have concealed these evils. However that might be, I incline to the 
 opinion, that he would better have followed the advice given to one of his 
 brethren, who had divulged the state of things in a particular church. 
 The church numbered about tivo hundred members. A very respecta- 
 ble old gentleman, one of its members, in conversation with one of our 
 ministers, happened to express the opinion, that of the two hundred, per- 
 haps twenty-Jive or thirty, judging by their lives and conversation, were 
 truly pious. He was arraigned and tried for slandering the brethren 
 But on his trial he said, his mind was changed since he made the remark. 
 

 880 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 and his opinion was, that there were not more than four or Jive who were 
 pious ! Finding him not inclined to retract, the preacher said to him— 
 " Well, brother, if you think thus badly of us, don't tell our enemies. 
 If general Jackson had told Packenham his weak points, he'd never 
 have gained the battle of New Orleans. Brother, don't tell Packenham." 
 The gentleman has told Packenham his weak points, and he cannot won- 
 der if they are noticed. 
 
 Neale, he says, is endorsed by Presbyterians, and is placed in the 
 hands of candidates for the ministry. Hume's history of England is often 
 placed in the hands of young men ; but we do not endorse all that he has 
 written. Neale's is a valuable history ; but we do not endorse eVery thing 
 he wrote. His judgment was doubtless sometimes swayed by prejudices. 
 
 The fact is — Presby'terianism was never actually established by law in 
 England ; and, therefore, Presbyterians had not the power to persecute. 
 Yet the gentleman says, persecuting laws were enacted by the very men 
 who made the Westminster confession. This is not correct. The con- 
 fession was drafted by a body of learned and godly ministers, called to- 
 gether by parliament. They were not members of parliament. When 
 they had agreed upon a confession of faith, embracing an outline of the 
 doctrines and truths of the Bible, their work was done. The objectiona- 
 ble laws, of which the gentleman has spoken, were not made by them. 
 
 The gentleman does not deny, that the Anabaptists persecuted, and 
 were guilty of many acts of violence, though they had no creed ; but he 
 says, pure immersionists never persecuted. This may be true. It is 
 also true, that those whom he calls pure immersionists, never had the op- 
 portunity to persecute. Whether they would have persecuted, if power 
 had been in their hands, or whether their sufferings had taught them to 
 respect the rights of conscience, I pretend not to determine. It is enough, 
 however, as an offset to the gentleman's argument, to prove the fact, that 
 some of the most terrible persecutors have been men without a written 
 creed. No creed ever led to persecution, unless it embraced persecuting 
 tenets. I have called on the gentleman to point out one intolerant princi- 
 ple in our confession. He has not attempted it. Its principles are of 
 precisely the opposite character; so that no one who truly embraces 
 them, can persecute. 
 
 Mr. C. charges us with persecuting his church by misrepresentation 
 and slander — the only way, he says, in which men in this country can 
 persecute. If misrepresenting and caricaturing the principles of men be 
 persecution, then is he the greatest persecutor of the age ! He has pub- 
 lished against the clergy, of all denominations, multitudes of charges 
 which are not true, and which, therefore, he cannot possibly prove. I do 
 not say, that he knew them to be false ; but I do say, they are not true. 
 And, so far as our church is concerned, he is the less excusable, because 
 we have a creed which presents clearly our principles, and with which 
 he professes to be familiar. But in his church he has told us, that all 
 sorts of doctrine have been preached by almost all kinds of men. I can 
 scarcely think it possible to slander a body of people who have amongst 
 them persons holding all sorts of doctrine ; for, though it might be slan- 
 dering some of them to charge them with holding almost any one doc- 
 trine, yet, since all sorts are held by one or another among them, we can- 
 not but represent some of them correctly. By the way, I desire to see 
 the Presbyterian paper, referred to by the gentleman, which represents 
 our church as a stripling of Rome, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 881 
 
 Pedobaptism, (the old subject again,) the gentleman says, brings a great 
 deal of carnality into the church. I should think that such men as Dr<. 
 Thomas, the Materialist, would cause his church to abound in carnality; 
 for he makes men nothing but carnality, except their breath! Yet he and 
 his followers and adherents have for years remained in connection with 
 Mr. C.'s church ! But, as I have before remarked, I am prepared, at any- 
 time, to compare churches with him, both as to soundness of faith and 
 purity of life. 
 
 Mr. C. has been laboring to prove, that human creeds are necessarily 
 heretical and schismatical. His course of argument in his last speech was 
 truly singular. He commenced in heaven with Satan, the first heresiarch 
 and schismatic. But did Satan prepare a creed, and induce the angels to 
 adopt it? If not, how does this case of schism prove that creeds are ne- 
 cessarily heretical and schismatical ? 
 
 The second schism mentioned by the gentleman, was in the family of 
 Adam. Here Cain was the schismatic ; but had he a written creed ? He 
 was also a persecutor; but, so far as my information extends, Cain had 
 no creed. If my friend has ascertained that he had a creed, the argu- 
 ment will be pertinent ; but if he has not, it is against him. 
 
 The third schism, he tells us, was at the tower of Babel, where God 
 confused their tongues, and the people were scattered abroad. Was this 
 schism caused by a written creed ? No : the Lord confused their lan- 
 guage. According to the philosophy of Mr. C, the most effectual means 
 of separating them, would have been to give them a creed. 
 
 Some have supposed that their language was confused, not by causing 
 them to use words not before known, but by confusing their minds in re- 
 gard to the meaning of the words before employed ; so that, if one called 
 for a brick, another would bring him a trowel. If he called for a trowel, a 
 hammer was brought. Thus they used the same words, but gave them en- 
 tirely different meanings. Whether the confusion was caused in this way, 
 I pretend not to decide; but, seeing the endless confusion in Mr. C.'s 
 church, caused precisely in this way, I am the more inclined to think the 
 theory correct. Thus all, for example, call our Savior " the Son of God ;" 
 but this language one understands to teach that he is God, equal with the 
 Father; another, that he is a super-angelic creature ; and a third, that he is 
 a good man. All use the same language, but attach to it different and 
 even opposite meanings ! This looks very much like Babel. 
 
 The next schism mentioned by the gentleman, was that caused by the 
 apostasy of the ten tribes of the Jews under Jeroboam. Did Jeroboam 
 write a creed, and compel them to adopt it? Here we have another great 
 schism where there was no human creed. Mr. Campbell commenced 
 with the rebellion in heaven, and mentioned every important schism that 
 occurred amongst the people of God during four thousand years; and not 
 one of them ivas caused by a creed! Yet his object was to prove, that 
 human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical. But instead of 
 this, he proved conclusively that there have been many schisms, where 
 there were no creeds. How, then, I ask, does it appear that the schisms in 
 the christian church were caused by creeds ? The gentleman has proved 
 just the opposite of what he intended, viz : that heresies and schisms are 
 to be ascribed, not to creeds, but to other causes. 
 
 He says, the Savior gave his church but one faith. What does he 
 mean by one faith ? They who have one faith, of course believe the 
 same important and essential truths. In his church, one believes in a Sa- 
 56 4e2 
 
I 
 
 882 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 vior, who is " the mighty God ;" another, in a Savior who is only a crea- 
 ture. One honors the Son, even as he honors the Father ; another ho- 
 nors, or dishonors, him as a creature. One believes that he died to 
 atone for our sins ; another, that he died to cause men to repent. One be- 
 lieves, that the wicked will be turned into hell, and punished forever ; ano- 
 ther, that they will be taken to heaven, and made forever happy. Have all 
 these one faith ? Far, very far, from it. Yet this is the unity in the gen- 
 tleman's church ! ! I I can prove, and I will do it before this discussion 
 closes, that the different evangelical denominations have more unity of faith 
 — are nearer together, than these modern reformers are to each other. 
 
 Partyism,says the gentleman, arises from attachment to some chief 
 or leader. He never said a truer thing. But if partyism comes from 
 attachment to a chief, it is not caused by creeds. The Westminster con- 
 fession was not made by a chief. We are, it is true, sometimes called 
 Calvinists ; but although we believe that Calvin was a great and good 
 man, whose views of divine truth were generally correct, we have never 
 adopted his Institutes as our creed, nor do we believe all that he taught. 
 For example, he contended that John's baptism was christian baptism, 
 but Presbyterians believe no such thing. We have no chief. 
 
 In the days of the apostles there was no human creed, and yet there 
 were parties formed. One was of Paul, another of Apollos, a third of 
 Cephas, and a fourth of Christ. The gentleman has almost saved me the 
 trouble of offering further arguments against his proposition. He began 
 in heaven, and gave us some account of all the important schisms down 
 to the christian era ; and it appeared, that no one of them was caused by 
 a creed. Yet his object was to prove, that human creeds are necessarily 
 heretical and schismatical. 
 
 I will now offer another argument to prove, that the principles advo- 
 cated by Mr. C. are wrong. It is this : He has himself radically changed 
 his ground, since he commenced his reformation. He began with main- 
 taining, that the New Testament is abundantly sufficient to guide the 
 churches in faith and practice, without any articles of faith, or rules of 
 church government, drawn up by men. Yet, as I have proved, he has 
 actually drafted a constitution of some six articles, and offered it to his 
 churches, as a basis of a general organization ! The churches have not 
 received it; and many consider him, in offering such a constitution, as 
 palpably inconsistent with his published principles. If time permitted, I 
 should like to read several extracts from the Christian Baptist, (pp. 25, 
 73, 531,) where the gentleman contends, "that every such society [indi- 
 vidual church] with its bishops and deacons, is the highest tribunal on 
 earth to which an individual christian can appeal ; that whosoever will 
 not hear" it, has no other tribunal to which he can look for redress." 
 " That an individual church, or congregation of Christ's disciples, is the 
 only ecclesiastical body recognized in the New Testament — is the highest 
 court of Christ on earth :" " that wherever they [the churches] form a 
 quorum, and call for the business of the churches, they are a popish calf, 
 or muley, or a harmless stag, or something akin to the old grand beast 
 with seven heads and ten horns:" "that every christian community must 
 settle its own troubles — no appeal prom one congregation to ano- 
 ther." Yet, in the JVIillenial Harbinger, he contends most earnestly, 
 that the right of prayer is not more natural, nor necessary, nor expedient, 
 than the right of appeal;" that "there is no government, or state, or fam- 
 ily, that can subsist without it;" that " every church that departs from 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 883 
 
 the faith, or from the discipline of Christ's kingdom, or that unrighteously 
 or unwisely administers its affairs to the great detriment of individual 
 members, a particular congregation, or the whole church of Christ, must 
 be tried by some tribunal ;" that " if any one or more of these churches 
 err from the faith, or from the discipline, or from a just, impartial, and 
 christian administration, they are amenable to the rest, and will be judged 
 some way or other, and disallowed.'" — (New Series, vol. v. pp. 38 — 47.) 
 This is approximating the true principles of church order. But whilst 
 individuals, in his churches, may claim the right of appeal, there is no 
 tribunal to which they can appeal. Our church has a very great advan- 
 tage over his. We claim the right of appeal, and there are tribunals re- 
 gularly constituted, to which every member may appeal; and no minister 
 or private member can- be finally excluded from our church, until the 
 general assembly of the whole church has heard, and decided upon his 
 case, if he choose to bring it before them. Thus the rights and immuni- 
 ties of individuals, and of particular churches, are as completely protect- 
 ed, as in the nature of things they can be. The difference between Mr. 
 C. and us is, that he admits the right and the absolute necessity of ap- 
 peals, but cannot exercise that right ; we claim the right, and have an or- 
 ganization that secures the exercise of it. 
 
 I desire, now, to present one more argument very distinctly. It is 
 this : After all the gentleman' 's declamation against creeds, his churches 
 actually have a creed. They have not adopted the constitution he offer- 
 ed them, but still they have a creed. It is short — containing two articles, 
 the substance of which is — 1st. That immersion only is baptism ; 2nd. 
 That infant baptism is not to be tolerated. They will receive no one 
 into the church who has not been immersed, and they will not permit 
 their members to have their children baptized. 
 
 But in having such a creed they are most inconsistent with their own 
 principles. They have proclaimed to the world, that they go by the 
 New Testament alone ; that they pretend not to judge of men's opinions ; 
 that they require those who wish to unite with them, only to say, that 
 they believe Christ to be the Son of God, and are willing to be baptized. 
 They do not profess to take the New Testament, as Mr. Campbell inter- 
 prets it; nor as each little church interprets it; but as each individual 
 understands it. Now, suppose I should take the gentleman upon his 
 own principles, and apply for membership in his church. He would 
 ask me, 4 Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ?' I answer 
 in the affirmative. He would ask again, 'Are you willing to be baptized?' 
 I answer, I have been baptized. Will he receive me ? He will not. He 
 demands that I shall be immersed. But I understand the Scriptures to 
 authorize the administration of baptism by pouring or sprinkling ; and I 
 solemnly believe, that I have been scripturally baptized. But Mr. C. and 
 his friends say, ' We understand the New Testament to require immer- 
 sion;' and they positively refuse me admittance into their church, unless 
 I will take their opinion concerning this matter. I must be baptized 
 again to accommodate them. Now, I ask, are they not seeking to impose 
 on me their opinions ? Are they not making their opinions a term of 
 membership in the church ? Does not their creed operate as effectually to 
 exclude believers from their communion, as any other creed on earth ? 
 
 Again, I wish to have my children baptized. They tell me I cannot 
 be permitted to do so. But I understand the Bible to require it. They 
 tell me, they do not so understand it ; and I must go by their interpreta- 
 
884 
 
 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 
 lion. Do they not again make their opinion concerning the meaning off 
 the Scriptures, a term of communion ? 
 
 Now, observe how much greater importance is attached by Mr. C. to 
 external ordinances, than to the fundamental truths of Christianity. Even 
 the mode of applying the water in baptism is made more important than 
 the true character and work of Christ. Here comes a man asking ad- 
 mission into his church, and declaring his opinion that Christ is not equal 
 with the Father — that he did not exist from eternity. So believes Barton 
 W. Stone : yet they receive this man as a christian brother, if he will be 
 immersed, and will not have his children baptized ! The same individual 
 declares his belief, that Christ died only to cause men to repent, not to 
 meet the demands of God's broken law. Still they receive him. An- 
 other comes and declares his belief in the doctrines of Universalism, 
 They will take him, if he will call his error an opinion, and will not prop- 
 agate it! 
 
 Now, I ask any thinking man to say, whether the mode of applying 
 the water in baptism is more important than the character and work of 
 the Son of God, Mr. C. will not admit a man into his church without 
 immersion, even though he would call his views concerning sprinkling 
 an opinion; but he will receive those whose opinion is — that Christ is a 
 creature I ! ! He will allow those to enter his church, who rob Christ of 
 all his glory ; but he will not receive one who would diminish, in the 
 slightest degree, the quantity of water to be used in baptism ! He will 
 permit men to enter his church, who deny that Christ bore the punish- 
 ment due to our sins ; and affirm, that he died only that, by witnessing or 
 hearing of his sufferings, men's hearts might be melted and brought to 
 repentance. He will permit them to take away the glorious foundation 
 laid in Zion, on which the church stands ; but he will not allow me to 
 diminish aught from the quantity of water in baptism ! 
 
 Is it true that God has revealed so much more clearly the mode of 
 baptism, than the true character and work of his Son, that men may deny 
 the latter with impunity, but must hold the former on pain of excommu- 
 nication ? Has he not distinctly and emphatically required " that all men 
 should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father ?" And has he not 
 added, " He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which 
 hath sent him ?" John v. 23. But does not the gentleman make it more 
 important that men should be immersed, than that they should honor the 
 Son of God, as he has commanded, and trust in his glorious work of 
 atonement, as it is exhibited in the Scriptures 1 
 
 Again, Mr. C. will receive into his church those who avow their belief, 
 that the wicked, as well as the righteous, will go to heaven. Is it possible 
 that the mode of baptism by immersion is so much more clearly revealed, 
 than the eternal punishment of the wicked, that we may safely deny the 
 latter, but must hold the former, or be excluded from God's kingdom ? 
 
 Does not the gentleman and his friends attach wonderful importance to 
 an external ordinance, and a strange insignificancy to the character and 
 work of the glorious Redeemer ? Is this the faith taught in the Bible ? 
 Do the inspired writers so exalt the mode of baptism ? Do they so dis- 
 regard the character and work of the Son of God — the foundation laid in 
 Zion? Is a Union founded on such views truly christian union? 
 
 I will offer but one more argument against the proposition, that human 
 creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical. It is this : There is 
 more real christian union amongst Presbyterians, Methodists, Cumber- 
 
 
DEBATE O^ HUMAN CREEDS. 885 
 
 land Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and other evangelical 
 denominations, than there is among these modern-reformers. These de- 
 nominations, I mean to say, have more unity of faith — are much nearer 
 to each other in their views of the great doctrines of Christianity, than the 
 reformers are to each other. If the time shall ever come, when the Me- 
 thodists, or any one of these denominations, will deny that Christ is God 
 equal with the Father ; or that he bore the punishment due our sins ; or 
 when they will admit to their communion and their ministry men avowing 
 such opinions, we will bid them a final adieu. We will never again ac- 
 knowledge them as christian brethren, or hold christian fellowship with 
 them. There is an infinite distance between the most exalted finite being 
 and the infinite and eternal God. There can be no comparison between 
 finite and infinite; between creature and Creator. How can two per- 
 sons, whose faith is infinitely different — who build on foundations as un- 
 like as the creature and the Creator — walk together? How can it be said 
 with truth, that they have " one Lord, one faith, one baptism ?" How can 
 they be said to receive the same gospel 1 No — should any one of these 
 denominations so exalt the mere mode of an ordinance, or the ordinance 
 itself, and so disregard the character and work of Christ, we will never 
 again acknowledge them. 
 
 With them all we agree in the essential doctrines of Christianity. They 
 believe in the fall and total depravity of man ; and so do we. They believe 
 in the doctrine of the Trinity, and in the divinity of Christ, and the per- 
 sonality and divinity of the Holy Spirit ; and so do we. They believe 
 that Christ died for our sins, bearing them in his own body on the cross; 
 and so do we. They believe that regeneration by the special agency of 
 the Holy Spirit, is absolutely essential to salvation ;. and so do we. They 
 believe in the resurrection of the body, and eternal rewards and punish- 
 ments ; and so do we. They call on men to believe, repent and obey all 
 God's commands ; and so do we. These denominations differ on some 
 points of doctrine and church order; but they agree in holding the great 
 doctrines of the gospel, which are essential to a compliance with the con- 
 ditions of salvation. 
 
 Every system of truth has its fundamental principles, which are essen- 
 tial to it; and minor points, in regard to which those holding the same 
 system, may differ. The Newtonian philosophy has its fundamental 
 principles, which are believed by all who hold the system. But there are 
 many points connected with it, concerning which they do differ. This is 
 true, also, of the sublime system of truth revealed in the Scriptures. 
 Every truth is important in its place ; but the knowledge and belief of 
 every truth is not essential to salvation. Evangelical denominations are 
 united in holding every doctrine which the Scriptures make essential to a 
 compliance with the conditions of salvation. They can, therefore, pray 
 together, and rejoice in each others' success in extending the knowledge 
 of Christ and his glorious gospel; and they can truly thank God, that they 
 are united in their efforts to make known to the heathen " the unsearcha- 
 ble riches of Christ." 
 
 The real difference between Mr. Campbell's church and the evangelical 
 denominations, so far as christian union is concerned, is this : He and his 
 churches have union in name, and radical disunion in fact. We have 
 different denominational names, but union in fact. We have " unity of 
 faith," — they, unity in name. There is, I repeat it, vastly more real 
 ehristian union — ■union in faith — amongst the evangelical denominations, 
 
986 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 than amongst the reformers themselves. We are actually nearer together;, 
 than they are to each other. We agree in faith more nearly with Meth- 
 odists, Baptists, Episcopalians and other evangelical denominations, than 
 Dr. Fishback with Mr. Campbell. Mr. C. believes, and has labored to 
 prove, that baptism is necessary in order to remission of sins. Dr. F. de- 
 nies it. Dr. Fishback avows his belief in the doctrine of total hereditary 
 depravity. Mr. Campbell denies it. [Mr. C. It is not so.] I will read 
 an extract from his Christian System, that the audience may judge 
 whether it is so, (pp. 29, 30 :) 
 
 " Still man, with all his hereditary imbecility? is not under an invinci- 
 ble necessity to sin. Greatly prone to evil, easily seduced into trans- 
 gression, he may or he may not yield to passion and seduction. Hence the 
 difference we so often discover in the corruption and depravity of man. All 
 inherit & fallen, consequently a sinful nature ; though all are not equally de- 
 praved. Thus we find the degrees of sinfulness and depravity are very dif- 
 ferent in different persons." 
 
 Dr. Fishback says, all men are so totally depraved, that they have no 
 power, either natural or moral, to avoid sinning, or to help themselves 
 out of their deplorable condition ! 
 
 Here are Mr. Campbell and his committee of four prominent preach- 
 ers, who have come up to war against us ; and yet it is a fact, as I have 
 fully proved, that they differ from each other more, concerning the great 
 doctrines of the gospel, than we differ from the Methodists, the old Bap- 
 tists, or any other evangelical denomination ! We are nearer to each of 
 those bodies, than these gentlemen are to each other ! We are infinitely 
 nearer to each other, than Mr. C. professes to be to B. W. Stone, or to 
 any of his members who deny the divinity of Christ, or the eternal pun- 
 ishment of the wicked. Yet the gentleman calls on us to give up our 
 union, which is real, for theirs, which is merely nominal! Call not on us 
 to abandon our creeds, which serve to show us how near we are to each 
 other, and to promote christian confidence and co-operation, to enter a 
 body, where the most important truths of Christianity are compromised 
 and sacrificed for a name ; where, in the awful name of God, all sorts of 
 men are preaching all sorts of doctrine. Alas ! for such christian union ! 
 I have formed a far higher opinion of christian union. I rejoice in believ- 
 ing, that the church of Christ is really and truly one ; that all of whom it 
 is composed, do hold the head, Jesus Christ, and do maintain all the fun- 
 damental doctrines of the Bible. They have one faith ; they build on 
 the same foundation, and constitute one spiritual temple.- — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2 — 12 o'clock, M. 
 [mr. Campbell's tenth address.] 
 Mr. President — It is, sir, a painful task to have to respond to such a 
 speech as you have just heard. For many years, sir, I have been accus- 
 tomed to hear addresses upon all sorts of subjects, and from almost all sorts 
 of men ; but such a tissue of misrepresentation and abuse, from any one 
 professing piety, I have not heard in all my life, so far as my present recol- 
 lections testify. It is too, sir, to be called an argument ! ! Argument ! ! ! 
 If this be logic, argument, rhetoric, religion, or morality, 1 confess I know 
 not the meaning of those words. If this be a fair, honorable, and chris- 
 tian discussion of principles — of great sectional divisions of thought and 
 language, I do acknowledge myself to be unacquainted with the signs of 
 ideas and the elements of things literary or moral. I will, however, sir, in 
 my usual calmness, endeavor to make a few remarks upon the more promi- 
 nent topics of abuse. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 887 
 
 The gentleman commenced by telling you of his views of the difference 
 between the reformation for which we plead, and the character of the primi- 
 tive church ; alledging, that while certain errorist and improper persons 
 crept in among them unawares, we, knowingly, willingly, and designedly, 
 take them in openly! That is to say — that when immoral persons, and 
 those avowedly erroneous in the grand fundamental points of religious faith* 
 present themselves for admission, we receive them, as Universalists, Arians, 
 Unitarians, &c &c. only on condition that they will be immersed ! I ask, 
 is not this the impression the gentleman would make upon your minds; are 
 not these the views he seeks to communicate to your understandings in the 
 speech which you have just now heard! As truly, as honestly, he might 
 say, we open our churches to Mahometans, Mormons, and infidels ! Yes, 
 6ir, there would be just as much truth in the one imputation as in the 
 other. His allegation, sir, to speak in the mildest terms, is without fact, 
 without authority, without any sort of evidence — written, spoken, or pub- 
 lished, by any man belonging to our community. We disclaim the whole 
 as imputations most unjust and ungenerous — as the distorted imaginations 
 of his own bewildered head. 
 
 It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of our pleadings for re- 
 formation, that our press has always been open to our enemies. From 
 the 4th day of July, 1823, till now, I have conducted a printing press which 
 has issued a volume every year, and a number every month, without a sin- 
 gle failure ; and, sir, those volumes are filled with communications from our 
 enemies, to speak in sectarian style, as from our friends. I believe, sir, 
 mine is the only press in this nation that has systematically and undevia- 
 tingly given both sides on every question, and opened its pages to all sorts 
 of opponents — Romanists, Protestants, infidel or sectarian, provided only 
 he paid a decent regard to the laws of grammar and politeness. I believe, 
 sir, I may go farther and say, that my periodical was the first and the only 
 religious periodical in the world which has pursued that course. They 
 were, in those days, all pledged to some creed or party — all one sided. I 
 have been shut out of all their pages. They dared not to admit my es- 
 says. They feared to let their readers hear from nie on those subjects 
 which they were inculcating. To those very persons that shut us out, we 
 have tendered them page for page, line for line, word for word in our vol- 
 umes. Some of them have accepted, some of them have declined. We 
 have then, sir, nothing secret, nothing clandestine. We have called for 
 investigation, for documents, arguments, and evidence. On our pages all 
 parties have been heard and responded to, so that our constant readers are 
 the most intelligent persons in the religious world. They know both sides. 
 What, may I ask, is the augury of this? Does it omen the fear of light, 
 or the love of darkness? Indicates it the fear of man, or the consciousness 
 of truth and its eternal strength? Is this the way that conscious error or 
 weakness intrude themselves upon the public ear? No, sir. No, fellow- 
 citizens, you know it is not. You cannot, with all your various and multi- 
 farious modes of thinking, imagine a course more creditable, more just, 
 more candid, more honorable before heaven and earth than the course I have 
 pursued, for the last twenty years, in conducting this great discussion of 
 principles. We impute to no man, to no party, principles that they disa- 
 vow. We fearlessly open and avow our own. We say to every man — hear, 
 examine, judge, and decide for yourself. Every distinguishing principle of 
 this reformation has passed through an ordeal of the most fiery discrimina- 
 tion. And, sir, as soon will the arm of mortal arrest the rising sun, or 
 stop the planets in their course, as any mind stay the progress of truths 
 that have been so clearly spoken by prophets and apostles, and that have 
 passed through such a burning furnace unscathed and unimpaired. 
 
 What you have just heard from my opponent is not true. It is a fabrica- 
 tion — the whole of it, sir. I have never received a Unitarian, nor a Uni- 
 versalist, as such, knowing them to be such in the common acceptation. It 
 
888 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 is easy to put a false gloss upon any thing, even sometimes without design- 
 ing it. A fool's cap may be put upon the head of a wise man. It is easy 
 to be witty, too, without much wisdom, and to arraign opinion against 
 faith, and faith against opinion. We, however, have no such contrast nor 
 difficulty, because we never have both faith and opinion on the same 
 subject. 
 
 Should I hear a man say, that he thinks all men will ultimately be holy 
 and happy, I respond, the Scriptures do not say so. The Scriptures posi- 
 tively say — " They that know not God, and obey not the gospel, shall be 
 punished with an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and 
 the glory of his power." He says, I admit all that; I believe it will 
 be just so with the wicked, but I do not think it will be eternal, absolute 
 duration without end. Well, your think so and your faith may be at vari- 
 ance ; but the word of the Lord must be acknowledged and taught, and 
 only on that ground can 1 fraternize with you. Suppose, then, he accede to 
 this proposition, and thus renounce the inculcation and belief of that opin- 
 ion, is he a Universalist'? Mr. Rice has used and eulogized saint Origen, 
 and some other saints who, like him, abjured eternal misery. Does he not 
 know, that Origen, his own learned, eloquent saint Origen, was of the opinion 
 just now quoted ! Among the ancient fathers, Greek and Latin, and amongst 
 the moderns, I could bring up many scores of them, in full communion with 
 the orthodox, as Sabellian, as Universalian as any of the persons ever were 
 to whom allusions have been just made, if time and prudence would author- 
 ize the digression. But I neither choose nor need to run that race. The 
 gentleman knows, that many of our greatest and best men have taught and 
 practiced upon this principle, and sometimes actually entertained the 
 very tenets which both he and I reprobate as unscriptural and dangerous. 
 It is, sir, all for effect the gentleman thus manoeuvres. 
 
 But, sir, I feel myself standing in the midst of a great community. I 
 disdain any thing and every thing but fair, manly, candid and honorable 
 discussion. I know how this community already feels, and will feel, upon 
 this subject, when it is all laid before them. I have had no respondent. 
 We have never met in the field of fair debate, of fair and manly discussion 
 and argument. Not a point has been canvassed in a way like debate, ex- 
 cept a portion of the first question on baptizo. I was frequently admon- 
 ished that I must come here prepared for another sort of work and defence, 
 than that implied in those propositions ; that I should need other weapons 
 than logic, and the Bible, and good sense. I could not yield to it, believing 
 that the self-respect of those who selected Mr. Rice for their champion, 
 would not dishonor their profession before the face of all men, saints and 
 sinners. I begin to see there was some truth in the prediction. I pro- 
 posed to meet any honorable antagonist selected by the denomination on 
 fair logical, scriptural ground, believing that our views had not yet been 
 fairly heard in much of this community. Many thousands have had their 
 ears turned away from us by the most gross and palpable misrepresenta- 
 tions. The gentleman cannot secure his hold upon many of this class but 
 by misrepresenting our real views and practices. I once said to a Presby- 
 terian minister, my neighbor in Virginia, who I thought occasionally mis- 
 represented me : Sir, I learn that you have proposed to preach a few ser- 
 mons to your people on infant baptism. " Yes, sir ;" said he, " the times 
 seem to require it." Well, said I, do they not all believe that doctrine 1 
 " O yes, O yes ; they all believe it," he rejoined. Well, said I, we have a 
 church here that does not believe it, and you would likely do more good 
 by preaching a few sermons to them on the subject ; and in the mean time, 
 while you occupy our desk, I will occupy yours, if you please ; and in a 
 neighborly way deliver as many discourses to your people on believer's 
 baptism. "Ah, sir," said he, "I do not think that would suit just quite 
 so well." 
 
 No, Mr. President, that course does not suit quite so well. But, sir, it 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 889 
 
 always suits me very well. I will freely make exchanges of this sort any 
 where, every where. We are not afraid that our. brethren either read or 
 hear the other side of this or any other question. 
 
 A person may so often, and for so long- a time, misrepresent the views of 
 another, as to mistake his own misrepresentations for the truth itself. It 
 is in this way, and only in this view of the subject, that I can excuse much 
 that has been said, and more that has been insinuated, on the present occa- 
 sion. Nay, this state of mind, when perfected, condemns in advance of evi- 
 dence. For example : — It came in my way the other day to advert to the 
 fact that a respectable minister of the Lutheran Reformed church, on the 
 weight of the evidence adduced on the subject of immersion, was so fully 
 convinced of the truth as candidly and promptly to obey and honor the Lord, 
 by being immersed into his death. How, let me ask, did the gentleman ad- 
 vert to this fact? In substance he said : — " Aye, there are many persons 
 now-a-days, who, tired of the narrow way of truth, prefer the broader and 
 smoother way of going to destruction !" Is not this the fair construction of 
 his remarks on that event! Such was the charitable construction put upon 
 the character of a gentleman and a minister, concerning whose moral charac- 
 ter he knew just nothing at all. Now I ask, was it comely, was it honora- 
 ble, was it christian-like, and worthy of the standing of Mr. Rice with this 
 community, to thus arraign, before an immense assembly, the motives, and to 
 reprobate the character, of an unoffending, a conscientious and highly re- 
 spectable christian minister; whose credentials and standing are just as 
 respectable as that of Mr. Rice or any other minister of his age in this 
 assembly ! It was well for this intrepid, conscientious, and exemplary 
 brother, that he happens to have at his command honorable testimonials, 
 both from Union college, New York, and from the theological seminary 
 at Gett} T sburgh, Pennsylvania, and of his connections ecclesiastic in this 
 state up to the present hour. Yet no sooner is this fact announced herp 
 than the sectarian breath of invidious misrepresentation would blast his 
 fair reputation, and consign him to the society of those who apostatized 
 from the way of righteousness into the much frequented path of ruin ! ! 
 " Yes," says Mr. Rice, " there are many who are seeking a broad and easy 
 way to ruin !" 
 
 And still worse, in the next sentence of this defamatory speech, the gen- 
 tleman has said, we cannot be misrepresented in this latitude and in this 
 age. Fellow-citizens, do you know your neighbors and your fellow-citi- 
 zens, with whom you daily converse 1 Look around you ; can you accord 
 with such calumnies as these] Have you not lived long enough with us to 
 know that our views, our principles, and our proceedings can be misrepresent- 
 ed — most wantonly and perversely misrepresented I There are few men, that 
 a truthful man would say, on proper reflection, cannot be misrepresented. 
 Have you not heard them much misrepresented on the present occasion] 
 When shall this savage warfare against us have an end? Are there no 
 boundaries, no limits, to the tongue or to the pen? If we are thus to be 
 perpetually maligned and opposed by such weapons, and such means, we de- 
 sire to know it. I did not expect such gross misrepresentations of views, 
 and tenets, and persons, and practices ! 
 
 In his allusions to my remarks on schism, the gentleman knows he is not 
 within a thousand miles of the point. I was defining schism by the facts 
 and documents which the Bible furnishes. I was developing its workings 
 by the details of those most fearful schisms, of such tremendous results and 
 consequences, as to involve innumerable masses of intelligence in all man- 
 ner of wretchedness, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. Our Savior has in- 
 formed us, that Satan apostatized from the truth. This is a clear indica- 
 tion that there was truth propounded ; that Satan was once in that truth ; 
 that he proposed something else, and united upon that with other spirits ; 
 and thus made a party, which, when consummated by some overt act of 
 disloyalty, caused his excommunication from the heavens. This was, in- 
 
 4F 
 
890 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 deed, the original schism, and in every great point of analogy, comes up to 
 the ecclesiastic schisms, in consequence of creeds, oral or written. Creeds 
 are nuncupative, as well as written. Hence they have made divisions be- 
 fore any of them was formally written out. Their being written is only 
 necessary to give them permanency, and more extended sway. They are, 
 however, as powerful to divide before, as after written. The creed system 
 was just as well developed in the first, and in the last, of that series of an- 
 cient schisms, as it was at Nice, or Rome, or Constantinople, under the 
 christian dispensation. In Jeroboam's time, the established creed had the 
 golden calves of Bethel, and of Dan, and a priesthood ordained by law, as 
 its symbol. It was a rival principle against the one Divine ritual, high 
 priest and Mediator That is the great point in them all, the essential and 
 characteristic point — they are rival systems. I care not whether the 
 articles be one or one hundred. They are, one and all, in essence and form, 
 rival institutions. This great fact the gentleman seems to have forgotten, 
 or overlooked. Every schism, from that of Satan down to New Testament 
 times, and since, has been a rival institution to the one set up by God ; and, 
 therefore, they are all the same in essence, spirit, and tendency ; obnoxious 
 to the displeasure of heaven, and injurious to the peace and prosperity of 
 Zion. 
 
 Our Savior was himself a great reformer ; certainly the greatest that ever 
 lived. " He came to his own and they received him not." Still, he went 
 to the synagogue, and, as long as he lived, cott'^rmed to the usages and cus- 
 toms that were established in the nation and in the synagogue. I have 
 ventured to say, that he was a regular reader in the synagogue of Nazareth. 
 He went into the synagogue of Nazareth, and, as his manner was, stood up 
 for to read. I need not say to this audience how he inveighed against the 
 scribes, pharisees, and ecclesiastics, as we would call them, of that day. 
 Did he, on account of the diverse theories of that age, abandon the temple 
 or the synagogue, or any of the existing religious institutions'] Did he not 
 sit and worship in the same synagogue with Pharisee, and Sadducee, and 
 Herodianl He did not, so far as they had any worship, or public institu- 
 tion of religion, abstain from them on account of those different and discord- 
 ant theories. Although he sometimes severely inveighed against those 
 same pharisees, scribes, and rulers, who sat in Moses' chair, he neverthe- 
 less frequented trie ordinances, visited the synagogues, and commanded the 
 people to listen to those men who sat on Moses' seat. 
 
 It is true he gathered around him a company of friends and disciples ; but 
 both he and they conformed to the Jewish institutions down to the moment 
 of the last supper. His party was never regarded as a sect or a schism, 
 during his life ; neither were the disciples of John. In those days they did 
 not make unity of opinion, nor oneness of theory the bond of union. A new 
 institution they did, indeed, establish upon new principles, under a new, an 
 entirely new dispensation of things. 
 
 My time will not allow me to do more than notice a few of the more 
 prominent points in the last speech. A volume of such declamations may, 
 indeed, be replied to in a few specifications. I should be glad, however, to 
 expatiate upon them, severally, in detail. Meanwhile I have but one half 
 hour more to speak, and as I have yet another new argument to offer, I shall 
 in the first place, attend to it. 
 
 According to Mr. Rice, creeds are more needed and more used, as stand- 
 ards by which to measure the teachers, and as a test of ministerial commu- 
 nion, than for the common or private members of a church. Suppose, then, 
 an Arminian minister sue for admission into the Presbyterian church, to be- 
 come a member of that church, will they receive him and retain him, though 
 sound in every thing but the single theory of Arminianism 1 This question 
 answered, and we shall find a new proof that creeds, even as tests of minis- 
 terial communion and co-operation, are necessarily heretical and schismat- 
 ical. If Presbyterianism has not changed, or the people called Presbyte- 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 891 
 
 rians have not changed, and if the creed be not schismatical, will Mr. Rice 
 explain to us how five hundred churches and sixty thousand members have 
 been separated from the general assembly ! Was not Arminian doctrine 
 among the exciting, and moving, and efficient causes of this schism 1 
 
 Some might imagine that such is the benevolence, and liberality, and 
 christian charity of Presbyterians, that they would gladly unite with Meth- 
 odists, Baptists, Episcopalians, &c. Why can they not unite first among 
 themselves ! ? They would not, indeed, exclude those persons, if they will 
 sit still and be silent. But preachers will not be silent ; they must speak, 
 and they must speak out their Arminianism,and their peculiarities ; and the 
 consequence will be, they will make a party. Then, indeed, the creed will 
 be brought to bear upon them, and they will be cast out, as have been all 
 other ministers, in all past time, down to the late five hundred non-conform- 
 ists. I do hope the gentleman will attempt to show that the creed is not 
 necessarily heretical in this case. 
 
 The gentleman, in his warmth and impassioned style, says I have written 
 a thousand things that are not true. This is easily said. He might as 
 well have said ten thousand ; and then I could balance the account, by say- 
 ing he had said ten thousand things that were not true, and that would be 
 quite as logical a refutation! 
 
 Among other strange things, and new arguments urged by the gentleman, 
 is the intelligence given us that there is much union and unanimity be- 
 tween Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, &c. Well, in truth I sincere- 
 ly wish that all the Pedo-baptists would unite. I have often said, that they 
 ought all to have united long ago. I think we are likely to be instrumen- 
 tal in uniting all these Pedo-baptist parties in one grand co-operation ; 
 and that, perhaps, upon a principle very like that which united Herod and 
 Pontius Pilate, in days of yore. I say again, the whole Pedo-baptist de- 
 nomination should form one great Pedo-baptist union. What is the use of 
 ten kinds of Presbyterians, such as we now have in England, Scotland, 
 and the United States 1 I earnestly desire that all these parties should 
 amalgamate, coalesce, and be one ; and that all the Baptists of all the earth 
 would also unite and make one great party. Then we should have but two 
 ecclesiastic armies in the field. Between them, then, the battle and the 
 war would be ; and that settled, the profession would be one and undivided ; 
 and is not that a consummation most devoutly to be wished J 
 
 And why can they not unite ? They occasionally do unite. They make 
 a truce of ten or twenty days, for the sake of great effect upon the commu- 
 nity. They cry out, union and co-operation, for the sake of one grand cam- 
 paign. They go into the field of action with a well understood stipulation, 
 that they are not to preach their peculiarities during the truce ; and at the 
 end of the battle, they agree to divide the spoil, in as equal shares as the 
 peculiar tastes of the new converts will admit. If this can be done in all 
 godly sincerity and in all conscientiousness, for ten days, why not for a hund- 
 red — for a thousand — for life 1 
 
 But, if all these parties unite in opposing us, we shall really become the 
 greatest of reformers. If we, with no creed but the Bible, unite them all 
 in one human creed, we will even then have done a great work. I think, 
 indeed, that this is quite as practicable as to put us down. Nay, they will all 
 unite before that point is gained. The more they oppose us, if we may 
 reason from the past, the better. That system has been tried, and we are 
 well pleased with the result. No combination can harm us. The elasticity 
 of our principles and our efforts, will always be in the direct ratio of con- 
 federated opposition. For the sake of the truth, then, I desire union among 
 ourselves, and union against us. We have eternal truths in charge — they 
 cannot be overcome. Men may kick against the goads, but they will spill 
 their own blood. They may fight against the Rock of Ages ; but they will 
 be broken to pieces. What millions of millions of mighty billows have 
 dashed upon the rock of Gibraltar and yet it stands unshaken ! What 
 
892 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 fierce tempests have burst upon its summit, and yet it stands unbroken! 
 What mighty thunders have rolled over it, and lightnings played around it, 
 and yet it is unscathed ! So stands the man of truth, upon the rock of 
 truth, while trusting in the God of truth, undaunted, unappalled, uncon- 
 quered. So stand we, in the midst of this savage warfare, which to-day 
 you have heard and seen, as strong, as sanguine, as confident, as when we 
 first began — nay, much more so. We have heard the concentrated acquisi- 
 tions of the whole party in opposition. This but reveals our strength, and 
 stimulates our exertions. A thousand volumes of such abuse would only 
 inspire more zeal, and invigorate our efforts in a cause of so much promise, 
 and of so much honor to God and man. I am pleased to hear all that can 
 be said against us. I hope that where there is any justice in the remarks, 
 and even in the reproaches offered, that we shall all profit from them. If 
 any of you, brethren, have given occasion to the adversary to speak re- 
 proachfully, you will, no doubt, stand admonished and corrected. Truth is 
 truth, though an enemy say it; and sometimes we are indebted more to our 
 enemies than to our friends. 
 
 Our principles, however imperfectly carried out, are now, I sincerely think, 
 shown to be insuperable, invulnerable. They have long and often been as- 
 sailed ; but, like the pure gold, they have always came out of the furnace with 
 brighter lustre. You have seen by what means they are now assailed — and 
 that neither Scripture, nor reason, nor argument, can be offered against them. 
 
 Truth, my friends, holy truth, stands upon the Rock of Ages. It lifts its 
 head above the clouds — above the stars. It communes with God. It holds 
 sweet converse with the hierarchs around the throne of the Eternal King ; 
 with those elders, sons of light, and with the spirits of the mighty dead. 
 It is the bright effluence of the bright essence of the uncreated mind. God 
 spoke, and Truth was born. Its days are the years of God. Embodied in 
 the Word of God, it came down from heaven and became incarnate. It is, 
 therefore, immortal, and cannot be killed. It will survive all its foes, and 
 stand erect when every idol falls. No one knows its gigantic strength. It 
 has been often cast down, but never destroyed. For ages past, it has been 
 gathering strength and preparing for a mightier conflict yet, than time re- 
 cords. It needs no fleshly wisdom, nor worldly policy, to give it power or 
 gain it victory. It is itself redeeming, soul-redeeming, and disenthralling. 
 It has passed through fire, and flood, and tempest, and is as fresh, as fair, 
 as beautiful, and as puissant, as ever. I feel myself peculiarly happy in 
 being permitted, in being honored, to stand up for it, when most insulted 
 and disparaged by its professed friends. He that defends it, feels the strength 
 of mountains, as though girded with the everlasting hills. It gives him more 
 than mortal strength, and enlarges his benevolence wide as humanity itself. 
 
 I am sorry that I have been so much disappointed in the promise of an ho- 
 norable, high-minded, and dignified investigation of its great principles. But, 
 though assailed with unbecoming rudeness, it cannot be destroyed. It is 
 self-preserving and recuperative. Conceived in the bosom of everlasting 
 love, its aspirations are to its native heaven. Light and fire, earth's purest 
 elements, are but the shadows of its glory. The tongues of lambent flame- 
 that sat upon the heads of the apostles, were but indicative of its irradiating 
 and consuming potency. But its language is that of love, of purity, and 
 peace. It reviles not again. Hence, those holy men that heaven commis- 
 sioned to promulge and to defend it, spake it in love, and in meekness, while 
 their lips were hallowed, and their tongues were touched with live coals 
 from the altar of Jehovah. — Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2— I2i o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. rice's tenth reply.] 
 Mr. President — I have observed, from the commencement of this dis- 
 cussion, how much better my friend, Mr. Campbell, succeeds in declamation 
 and exhortation, than in argumentation. The very best speeches he has 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 893 
 
 made, are those in which he has ceased to argue the question before us, and 
 delivered eulogies on truth in general. Truth, we all admit, is, in value, 
 above all price ; and we believe and teach, that it is mighty, and will pre- 
 vail. But the question is, what is truth'} Mr. C, in all his declamations, 
 assumes that it is with him ; but we also profess to hold and to love the truth. 
 But what, I ask, have these pretty eulogies on truth to do with the ques- 
 tion, whether human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical? I 
 admire the beauty of the gentleman's speech ; but the logic of it is, indeed, 
 poor. It has no bearing on the only point at issue. We want argument, 
 as well as pretty speeches, handsomely delivered. He seemed about to 
 commence an argument, but flew off at a tangent, and soared aloft amid the 
 sublimities of truth in general. 
 
 His starting point was indeed sufficiently low. He began by telling, as 
 usual, how painful it is to respond to such a speech, as you had heard, a 
 tissue of abuse and misrepresentation. I say again to the gentleman, that 
 he cannot excite me. I never have been excited in debate ; and he will 
 utterly fail to throw me off my guard. He is at liberty, therefore, in his 
 closing speech, to say just what he pleases. A dozen such epithets as he 
 has repeatedly used, will fall powerless as empty air. 
 
 He denies receiving Universalists into his church. Well, whenever he 
 denies a fact which I state, I will certainly prove it true. I read, on yes- 
 terday, from one of his own books, a declaration, that he would receive 
 Universalists, if they would agree to hold their errors as opinions, and not 
 propagate them ; and I proved from the Millenial Harbinger that he had actu- 
 ally received a Universalis! preacher, Mr. Raines, who declared that on that 
 subject, his sentiments remained unchanged. What is Universalism 1 It 
 is the belief that all men, righteous and wicked, will be saved. Against 
 this doctrine, Mr. C. has contended zealously ; yet he received a man as a 
 preacher of the gospel, who declared openly his belief of it. I will here 
 take occasion to read Mr. Raines' statement concerning his position, and 
 belief, when received into Mr. C.'s church : (Mill. Harbinger, vol. i. p. 390 : 
 
 " At the Mahoning Association, about five months after my immersion, 
 I was publicly questioned relative to my sentiments ; and from a bench on 
 which I stood, I did not hesitate to declare to the whole congregation, that 
 it was still my opinion that all men would finally become holy and happy. 
 This fact can be proved by scores of witnesses." 
 
 This is an extract of a letter from Mr. Raines ; and he informs us that, 
 when questioned concerning his views, he did not hesitate to declare to the 
 whole congregation, that it was still his opinion, that all men would finally 
 become holy and happy — that he was still a Universalist in sentiment ; yet Mr. 
 G. charges me with slandering him, when I state this incontrovertible fact ! 
 
 In regard to Barton W. Stone, I desired him either to admit or deny 
 that he is a Unitarian. Let me again read an extract from a letter of Mr. 
 Stone to Mr. Campbell, in which he condemns Mr. C.'s apparently Trinita- 
 rian notion, and avows openly his Unitarian faith ; (Chris. Bap., p. 379:) 
 
 " If these observations be true, will it not follow undeniably, that the 
 Word (di'hou) by whom all things were made, was not the only true God, 
 but a person that existed with the only true God before creation began : 
 not from eternity, else he must be the only true God ; but long before the 
 reign of Augustus CsssarT' 
 
 Mr. Stone, you observe, positively denies that Christ is the only true God, 
 or that he existed/rom eternity. But if he existed not from eternity, there 
 was a period when he began to exist. Did he then create himself] This, 
 no one believes. Then he was created by God, and is as truly a dependent 
 creature as any angel in heaven! Mr. Stone, therefore, makes the Savior 
 a creature. I care not whether he considers him a super-angelic creature 
 or a mere man. The difference is not worth contending about ; for there is 
 an infinite distance between the most exalted creature and the infinite Je- 
 hovah. These Universalists and Unitarians have been received into the 
 
 4f2 
 
894 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. . 
 
 gentleman's church with open arms ; and yet he says, I abuse him and his 
 church, when I state, and prove from his own books, these incontrovertible 
 facts ! ! ! 
 
 To show his great love of truth, and his impartiality in giving to all a 
 fair hearing, he states that he has opened his columns to free discussion ; 
 but that the editors of the " sectarian" papers have refused him a hearing 
 in their columns. Reformers, who originate new notions, or revive old 
 ones, I believe, are generally anxious to engage in controversy ; and, for 
 the sake of getting their notions into other papers, are willing to open their 
 own to discussion. But editors generally, I presume, were not particularly 
 interested in the gentleman's discoveries ; and their readers, satisfied with 
 the faith they had, did not wish to see them. They might, therefore, with 
 propriety, decline filling their columns with such discussions ; even though 
 they were not afraid of the light. Recently, however, you have had the 
 opportunity of seeing a written discussion between myself and the Presi- 
 dent of Bacon college, which was published in the Presbyterian paper. 
 
 But I think the gentleman must, in all candor admit, now and hereafter, 
 that " the clergy" are not so much afraid of the light, as he had imagined. 
 If they had been, you would not have seen me on this occasion, as the op- 
 ponent of the champion of this reformation — a man of no inconsiderable 
 learning and talent — one of the first debaters of the day — who has been, for 
 thirty years, debating the precise points embraced in this discussion. When 
 I was in a country school, learning the first rudiments of an English edu- 
 cation, he was becoming known as a reformer and a man of war ! I am 
 happy, on this occasion, to give to the public evidence the most conclusive, 
 that we fear not the light, nor tremble to meet the champion of this refor- 
 mation of the 19th century! I am one amongst a thousand. He is the 
 leader, and is admitted to be the strongest man connected with his church. 
 Yet we feared not the contest. 
 
 But he says, his friends told him he needed not argument to meet me, but 
 something of a very different character. He seems, indeed, to have be- 
 lieved what they told him, if we are to judge by the amount of argument 
 compared with something else, which he has abundantly employed. I have 
 always observed that men, when sinking under the weight of arguments 
 they cannot answer, are likely to resort to the means of defence adopted by 
 the gentleman ; but I do not remember to have seen any one descend to such 
 abuse, so long as he had any thing in the shape of arguments to offer. He 
 seems, indeed, to have been, from the beginning, anticipating a defeat ; for 
 he told us the other day, that on reaching Lexington, he had made particu- 
 lar inquiries concerning the editors of the city. He was quite apprehen- 
 sive that they would give out a bad report of his success. I made no in- 
 quiries of the kind, perhaps because I did not expect to be defeated ; and I 
 supposed that the editors were gentlemen, and would publish nothing con- 
 trary to fact. Finding no danger to be apprehended from the editors, his 
 imagination filled the city with men under Presbyterian influence, running 
 to and fro, manufacturing public sentiment, and cheating the people out of 
 their wits ! ! ! All this may pass for what it is worth. It is understood. 
 
 Another evidence of his magnanimity and love of truth, is found in the 
 fact, which he stated, that he had insisted on a Pedo-baptist minister preach- 
 ing in his pulpit, on infant baptism. We care not to go into his pulpit ; but 
 we are happy to have the privilege of meeting him here, where he is under 
 no restraint from the rules of courtesy, but is fully at liberty to expose our 
 arguments, if he can. 
 
 But the gentleman is quite offended at my remarks in allusion to a young 
 Lutheran preacher he has immersed. The case, I knew, was brought up 
 for effect ; and therefore I stated, what we all know to be a fact, that there 
 is a class of roving preachers who go from church to church, as they may 
 find inducements. With these floating gentry, changes are easily made. 
 Their principles are not in their way. But it is but right that it should be 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 895 
 
 known, that this gentleman has not been converted by the power of Mr. 
 C.'s arguments on this occasion ; for he himself stated, an evening or two 
 since in a sermon, that he had for some time entertained his present views- 
 So I learn from the very best authority. 
 
 But the gentleman deprecates this savage warfare, which consists, in 
 part, in stating important facts, and proving them from his own writings. 
 Yet he has long been accustomed to charge upon the clergy of all denomi- 
 nations, the most heinous crimes, without one particle of evidence. Did 
 you not hear him, on yesterday, attributing to them the basest principles? 
 Did he not assert, that, for money, they would compromise or abandon their 
 principles, and unite in one body 7 It is perfectly right in his eyes, that 
 he should be permitted to abound in such unproved charges ; but it is out 
 of the question that I should state facts, and prove them by his own wri- 
 tings ! Let me give you another specimen of the mode of dealing adopted 
 by the gentleman. In his Christian Baptist, (pp. 166 — 168,) I find an infi- 
 del publication, entitled " The third Epistle of Peter, to the Preachers and 
 Rulers of Congregations, — A Looking-glass for the Clergy.''' This publi- 
 cation, the work of some scoffing infidel, is headed by Mr. C. with the fol- 
 lowing remarks : 
 
 " One of the best proofs that a prophecy is what it purports to be, is its 
 exact fulfillment. If this rule be adopted in relation to the " Third Epistle 
 of Peter," there can be no doubt that it was written in the true spirit of 
 prophecy. We thought it worthy of being preserved, and therefore have 
 given it a place in this work. — Ed. C. J5." 
 
 I read from this document a single extract, as follows : 
 
 " ' In all your gettings,' get money ! Now, therefore, when you go forth 
 on your ministerial journey, go where there are silver and gold, and where 
 each man will pay according to his measure. For, verily I say, you must 
 get your reward. 
 
 " Go you not forth as those that have been sent, ' without two coats, with- 
 out gold or silver, or brass in their purses ; without scrip for their journey, 
 or shoes, or staves;' but go you forth in the good things of the world. 
 
 " And when you shall hear of a church that is vacant, arr 1 has no one to 
 preach therein, then be that a call to you, and be you ' •** --»<M of the call, 
 and take you charge of the flock thereof and of the fleet " e tne of, even of 
 the golden fleece. 
 
 '•' And when you shall have fleeced your flock, and shall khd.v'"'^ another 
 call, and if the flock be greater, or rather if the fleece be greater, then 
 greater be also to you the call. Then shall you leave your old flock, and of 
 the new flock shall you take the charge." 
 
 This is but a specimen of this miserable document, which the gentleman 
 dignifies as a prophecy which has been actually fulfilled. He thinks no- 
 thing of making, against the ministers of the Gospel, of all denominations, 
 Charges like these. I have frequently observed, that those persons who 
 are most fond of throwing out " railing accusations" against others, are 
 most impatient when the truth is told concerning themselves. 
 
 Christ, the gentleman says, was a great reformer. It is true. But he 
 never did admit to his church those who denied his Divinity and his atone- 
 ment. Moreover, he excommunicated the whole Jewish nation, who re- 
 fused to receive him in his true character, and thus he made what the Jews 
 called a great schism. And they charged the schism upon Christianity 
 about as correctly as the gentleman has charged certain other schisms upon 
 creeds, and confessions of faith. 
 
 He asks, whether the Presbyterian church would retain, in its commu- 
 nion, an Arminian preacher. We differ on several points from our Metho- 
 dist brethren ; and whilst we can sincerely acknowledge them as christian 
 brethren, and their ministers as christian ministers ; and whilst we can occa- 
 sionally preach with them, we, and they, believe, that we can labor more 
 harmoniously in different organizations, than if thrown into one body. It 
 
896 
 
 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 would not be wise to have these United States thrown into one consolidated 
 government. It is much better, under existing circumstances, that each 
 state shall have its own constitution and peculiar laws ; while the whole 
 forms but one general government. Perhaps Mr. C. would think it wise to 
 have all the state constitutions abolished. The twelve tribes of Israel jour- 
 neyed together in great harmony towards the promised land, yet each re- 
 tained its distinct organization and its appointed place. So the different 
 denominations of christians, so long as there are differences in some im- 
 portant points, will co-operate in the general cause more harmoniously, by 
 retaining each its separate organization. 
 
 But the gentleman thinks he has succeeded in producing among " the 
 sects" a new kind of union — a union between Presbyterians and Methodists, 
 and others, which heretofore has not existed. So far back as my acquaint- 
 ance with Presbyterianism, in this country, extends, our church has always 
 acknowledged the denominations called evangelical, as constituting a part 
 of the church of Christ. It is true, we cannot unite with Unitarians, Uni- 
 versalists, and such gross errorists, and all profess to preach the same gospel. 
 It is the peculiarity of Mr. C.'s church, that it can unite things diametri- 
 cally opposite, and have men preach the gospel, who deny its fundamental 
 doctrine. This, however, is not christian union. 
 
 Having now duly noticed all the small matters which constituted the gen- 
 tleman's speech, I wish, in the way of recapitulation, to present before 
 your minds the whole ground over which I have traveled in the discussion 
 of the question before us. 
 
 Let us remember distinctly the point at issue. The question before us is 
 not, whether any particular creed is good or bad, true or false; nor is it, 
 whether we have the right to force our opinions upon others. We all agree 
 that we have no right to attempt to compel men to receive either the Bible 
 or a creed. " God alone," says our confession, "is Lord of the conscience." 
 In matters of religion, every individual must judge for himself, being respon- 
 
 sible for his opi 
 abominable. 
 But the qr 
 schismatical- net ' 1 "# 
 portant que tnat u 
 creed, ace 
 and deno 
 
 and views only to God. Persecution in every form is 
 en, is not the question. 
 
 whether human creeds are necessarily heretical and 
 it is at all lawful to have a creed. This is an ini- 
 tially so in Mr. C.'s theology; for the using of a 
 vTer > T 8 oO his views, amounts to apostasy ; and he excommunicates 
 ^ nt all bodies of christians who perpetrate the awful crime of 
 making a ; id — of committing to writing an outline of what they under- 
 stand the \3ible to teach, and holding this epitome as a creed ! 
 
 To determine whether creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical ; 
 whether they are lawful or unlawful, I stated distinctly what purposes they 
 are designed to answer. 
 
 I. They are not designed to be a substitute for the Bible, nor an addition 
 to it. Our confession of faith commences with declaring that, " The whole 
 counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's sal- 
 vation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good 
 and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ; unto which 
 nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, 
 or traditions of men," — that "the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith 
 and manners." 
 
 II. Creeds are designed to be a public declaration of the principal doc- 
 trines and truths, which those who adopt them understand the Scriptures to 
 teach. I have stated the fact, which Mr. C. has not denied, that it is im- 
 possible to know what a man believes, by the mere fact that he professes to 
 take the Bible as his only infallible guide. Not because the Bible is either 
 obscure or contradictory, but because men have perverted its language, and 
 attached to it various contradictory and absurd meanings. The phrase " Son 
 of God," as used in the Book, has- a clear and definite meaning. It is inten- 
 ded to express the true and proper Divinity of Christ. But the Arians and 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 897 
 
 Socinians use it in a sense infinitely different. If, then, it be true, that we 
 cannot know a man's faith by the fact that he professes to go by the Bible, 
 it becomes very important that every denomination of professing christians 
 should give a public declaration of the doctrines which they understand the 
 Bible to teach. 
 
 1, It is necessary for the reformation of those who desire to become mem- 
 bers of the church of Christ, I have said, and I repeat it, that no prudent 
 man will join any society of people, and more especially a religious society, 
 until he is acquainted with their principles ; until he knows what are the 
 great doctrines which they understand the Scriptures to teach. This infor- 
 mation any one can give concerning the Presbyterian, the Methodist and 
 o» her churches, by examining their creeds. Every one has thus the oppor- 
 tunity, not only of knowing what we teach, but of comparing our doctrines 
 with the Word of God — the infallible standard, that he may determine 
 whether he can conscientiously unite with us. 
 
 2, Creeds are also important for the information of other christian com- 
 munities. All true christians desire to know and acknowledge all Christ's 
 disciples ; and, so far as they can, to co-operate with them in promoting the 
 common cause. The question then arises : Shall we recognize as christian 
 brethren, as a church of Christ, a certain body of professing christians? We 
 cannot determine to acknowledge them, until we know their principles — 
 until we know how they understand the Scriptures. The respective creeds 
 of the different denominations afford the desired information. They show 
 how near they are to each other in their views, and wherein they differ. 
 They can thus determine whether they can recognize each other as chris- 
 tians^ and how far they can harmoniously co-operate. 
 
 3, These public declarations of our faith also afford important information 
 and instruction to members of the church ; and serve to correct misrepresen- 
 tations of our doctrines. 
 
 Can the gentleman offer any valid objection to a creed for these purposes ? 
 I asked him, in my first speech on this proposition, whot 1 - ^ he would be- 
 come a member of any church on their declaration, that ' e the Bible 
 as their infallible guide, without inquiring further ii uj orinciples. 
 He gave me no answer. m.-idfu. 
 
 I have also asked him, and I now repeat the question je thertsource of 
 information would he direct a man who desired to know how /... th, as a 
 
 body, understood the Bible? Would he direct him to the Bible ; kx,£ profess 
 to go by the Bible ; but the inquirer wishes to know what his t »* zh, as a 
 body, understands the Bible to teach. When this question was pro >ounded 
 to him by a man in England, he did not direct him to the Bible, but gave him 
 a detailed account of his faith. Will the gentleman please to tell us where 
 such an inquirer as I have supposed, would gain the desired information] 
 
 I know very well where I may ascertain what Mr. Campbell teaches ; 
 but where I can be informed what his church, as a body, teaches, I confess 
 I do not know. Here we see his strange inconsistency. He has published 
 his" Christian System," as he says, for the purpose, among other things, 
 of "exhibiting a connected view of the whole ground we [reformers] occu- 
 py." Why did he not direct those who wish to know their whole ground, 
 t} the Bible 1 This would not answer. He felt constrained to make a pub- 
 lic declaration of their faith. 
 
 But here is the> difficulty attending this Christian System. It entirely 
 fails to give the needed information. It informs the public what Mr. C. 
 believes and teaches ; but does his church, as a body, believe just as he does 1 
 They do not. Many differ from him on very important points. Then, I 
 ask again, where shall we ascertain what his church, as a body, under- 
 stand the Bible to teach } Is there any source of information on this im- 
 portant point] 
 
 III. Creeds, I have said, are designed to be a standard of ministerial 
 qualification, as well as of the qualifications of other officers in the church. 
 57 
 
898 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 The gentleman does not deny that those who become preachers of the gos- 
 pel, ought to possess some qualifications. He does not deny that they are 
 required to have some education; that the Bible requires that they "hold 
 fast the faithful word." He will not deny that they should give satisfactory 
 evidence of possessing true piety ; nor will he deny that all churches are 
 solemnly bound, and that it is their true interest, to see to it, that only those 
 properly qualified, enter the ministry. 
 
 Now, it is a fact which I have stated, and which he has not denied, that 
 the Scriptures, whilst they require the church to ascertain the qualifications 
 of those who seek to enter the ministry, prescribe no particular method by 
 which this should be done. We are, therefore, left free to select the method 
 which may seem to us most wise, and best adapted to secure the object. 
 Our church has deemed it wise to draw up and publish an outline of the sys- 
 tem of divine truth, which we understand the Bible to teach, and by means 
 of this creed to secure throughout the church some good degree of uniform- 
 ity, not only in the faith, but in other qualifications for the ministerial office. 
 Our responsibility to God, and our regard for the interests of the church 
 and of the souls of men, alike forbid us to ordain and send forth as preach- 
 ers of the gospel, men of whose soundness in the faith we are not satisfied, 
 or who have not such qualifications as will make them " apt to teach." 
 Q,uacks in medicine kill the body : quacks in theology kill the soul ! 
 
 IV. Creeds, I have said, are not designed to be a condition of member- 
 ship in the church. The pupil, on entering the school, is not expected to 
 be as well instructed as his teachers. We require those who desire to en- 
 ter our church, sincerely and intelligently to adopt the fundamental doctrines 
 of Christianity, and to give satisfactory evidence of possessing true piety. 
 According to the Scriptures, there are certain qualifications necessary to 
 membership in the church ; and other stronger qualifications to enter the 
 ministry. 
 
 Now, I ask, where in the Bible is there a solitary passage that forbids 
 the use of creeds for these purposes 1 The gentleman has not produced one, 
 and he cannot. I ask not for a text that says, in so many words, creeds are 
 unlawful ; but I call for one which by any fair construction condemns them. 
 He and his friends insist, that all who use creeds, are apostates, and are to be 
 excommunicated. It behooves him, then, to produce the law against them. 
 
 He has told us, that there is in the Bible no command to make a creed. 
 But is every thing unlawful, which is not directly commanded in the Bible ? 
 Is everything not specially commanded, necessarily heretical and schismaticaH 
 
 He bis said, that creeds are fallible. But is every thing unlawful that is 
 fallible ] Then it is wrong to have fallible teachers. If we act upon the 
 principle, that whatever is fallible, is unlawful, let us give up all fallible 
 things. If the precept is sound in one case, it is so in all. 
 
 He has said, that making a fallible creed tends directly to produce schism. 
 But I can prove, that the publishing of books, which were not creeds, has 
 often caused schisms, even as extensive and mischievous as any ever pro- 
 duced by a creed. The truth is, schisms and heresies have generally ori- 
 ginated with such publications, not with creeds. Creeds may embody error, 
 but they cannot originate it. 
 
 He has said, creeds lead to persecution ; but I have stated, and proved, 
 that some of the most abominable persecutions the world has ever witness- 
 ed, were instigated by those who had no written creeds. Such were the 
 persecutions suffered by our Savior and, his apostles, and by the primitive 
 christians. 
 
 He has urged against creeds Paul's exhortation to Timothy, to " hold fast 
 the form of sound words." But we take the Bible just as it is. We, how- 
 ever, take the liberty to say, and to write, what we understand the Bible to 
 teach. Let the gentleman prove, if he can, that this is inconsistent with 
 holding the form of sound words. 
 
 He brings forward the exhortation of Jude, to christians, to contend for 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 899 
 
 the faith once delivered to the saints ; but he cannot possibly prove, that 
 when we hold and contend for the truths of the Bible, we do not contend 
 for the faith. 
 
 He has told us, it is not lawful to make a constitution for the church. My 
 reply is — that we have not made a constitution, but have only collected and 
 arranged in a few chapters, the doctrines and principles of church order, 
 taught in the Bible. This he cannot prove to be unlawful. How, then, does 
 this objection prove, that creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical 1 
 
 He has said, there was no creed for the first two centuries of the christ- 
 ian era. But I have stated, and he has admitted, that during that time 
 the church was overrun with error. Does not this fact rather prove the 
 necessity of a creed clearly defining the doctrines of the Bible, and guard- 
 ing against the admission of errorists into the bosom of the church 1 
 
 I defy the gentleman to point to an instance in which a creed has pro- 
 duced a schism in a church ; or in which a creed not containing intolerant 
 principles ever produced persecutions. We have had our attention directed 
 to a number of schisms, and a number of persecutious ; but it is yet to be 
 proved, that creeds produced either the one or the other. 
 
 In the commencement of the discussion of this proposition I pressed on 
 the gentleman a question which I wish once more very distinctly to pre- 
 sent, viz. : What is the standard of ministerial qualifications in Mr. Camp- 
 bell's church, as to education, soundness in the faith, and personal piety ? — 
 [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2 — 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 [mr. Campbell's closing address.] 
 
 Mr. President — I regret to see so little regard to truth and decorum 
 manifested in reference to the gentleman immersed the other evening, whose 
 case happened to be alluded to. It seems as though his very virtues were 
 to be converted into faults, by the scowls of sectarianism. I did not know, 
 till this moment, that he was in the house, to hear this most unjustifiable 
 attack upon his reputation. He has just sent up to me the following note, 
 which I beg leave to read : 
 
 " I never said, that I had not changed my course on the subject of infant 
 baptism, since I have been here. Many of the sentiments held by the ad- 
 vocates of the reformation, I have long held and taught ; but, on the subject 
 of infant baptism, I have changed my course since I have been here, and 
 in consequence of this debate. Wm. R. McChesney." 
 
 I do hope, that a brother of such reputation in the community, and in a 
 very respectable portion of the church militant, will be allowed to follow 
 out his convictions of truth and duty, without being thus wantonly assailed. 
 
 The gentleman has given me a few things to note. He has adverted to 
 the regium donum bond of union amongst Burgher and Anti- burgher Pres- 
 byterians. It is true that I made a remark, in reply to his remark, upon 
 the powers of the confession to heal divisions, and to unite belligerent par 
 ties ; upon its powers of consolidation, and harmonizing of discordant and 
 disaffected brethren; and, by a fact of which he seemed to be ignorant, 
 shewed that money had done what he supposed the Westminster creed had 
 done ! He does not seem thankful for the information ; nevertheless, I will 
 give him a little more on the subject. The Burghers, or Unionists, of Amer- 
 ica, were the most numerous party of the two, and most interested in the 
 affair. They moved first, and sent off three ministerial delegates to wait 
 on the parliament, to secure for the two parties, now united, (especially be- 
 cause neither could be gifted without the other,) the royal bounty. I re- 
 member, for it happened in my youth, to have heard them say, the Burgh- 
 ers were most active and most avaricious in the affair ; and after they suc- 
 ceeded in getting the bounty, did not please the others with a fair division 
 of the spoil. It so happened, however, in the course of divine Providence, 
 that in about the space of one year, the whole three delegates died, 
 without once having drawn their quota ! Some of the disaffected hesitated 
 
900 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 not to call it a judgment from heaven upon them, for their dereliction of 
 principle, and their unbecoming- cupidity in managing the affair. The con- 
 fession of faith had nothing to do with their union. It was gold, sir, and not 
 faith, that harmonized them. I know, indeed, there are some few men who 
 cannot be bought or sold. The gentleman's remarks, both upon myself and 
 concerning others, were as Uncalled for as they were inaccurate and invidi 
 ous. I do not say, that all the priests or «lergy were mercenary. Still, 
 however, although there are some ministers that a mountain of gold could 
 not buy over to an opinion, or an ignoble deed, the majority could be bought 
 for a much less sum, as all history and all time have written. It is lamen- 
 tably true, that venality has been the standing frailty of the priesthood in 
 all ages. Hence, as the majority rules, I still opine, that if the whole com- 
 munity would withhold their regium donum until all the parties in this com- 
 monwealth, or any other, would unite ; in a very few years they would be 
 all of one heart and soul, in pleading a common cause. I do not wish to 
 swell the union party, however, by such an acquisition, and am pleased to 
 think that the friends of union will not be entrammeled with any such alliance. 
 
 To return to my last argument. When asked whether he would retain 
 an Arminian preacher in his church, Mr. Rice, as you all saw, evaded the 
 question ; and taking the manner of his answer and the answer together, it 
 is very obvious to you all that he would not retain him. The creed, indeed, 
 calls for his expulsion, and Mr. Rice goes for the creed. Well, now, this ex- 
 cluded Arminian preacher (I mean excluded from the Presbyterian church,) 
 will not be silent, when turned out. His opinions are now more sacred. 
 He has been wedded to them by persecution, as he will call it. He pro- 
 mulges them, and makes a party. Are not these creeds, Mr. Rice himself 
 being judge, heretical and schismatical? Every one, in this case, can see 
 it. And in this way all the Protestant parties began. 
 
 If Mr. Rice's system is true, it is much older than he is. But not so 
 much as you might suppose. He must have lived in the time of reforma- 
 tion. It must have occurred to him as well as to you, and to all persons 
 that think that this boasted union and co-operation, of which he sometimes 
 speaks, for the last ten or twelve years, is quite a new thing. Some think 
 it is a good omen of the millenium. But the fact is, that it is an opposition 
 union — a union got up to oppose us. It is a sort of holy alliance against a 
 cause, for which they are too weak in detail. I repeat my wishes, that they 
 may still more closely unite, and that they may in truth harmonize forever,. 
 We shall then have been instruments of harmony, and of much good. 
 
 Had I time, I could give you some amusing speculations of these saints„ 
 Origen, Augustine, Tertullian and Cyprian, by way of an offset to those 
 figments detailed by my friend. But I have but a few minutes, and can 
 employ them better. 
 
 I shall now give you a rapid sketch of the prominent arguments and 
 points submitted in the development and confirmation of this proposition. 
 I call them arguments, because used as such, though, because of the broad 
 cast miscellanies of my friend, they were neither counted out, nor so for- 
 mally discussed as I could have desired. Still, the half of them is more 
 than enough for my purposes. 
 
 I beg your special attention to this grand preliminary fact so often stated, 
 but not respected by Mr. Rice, that written creeds were the causes of all 
 schism, or of all persecution. I never thought it, said it, or wrote it. They 
 are the cause of much sectarian schism, when oral, and when written. In- 
 deed, oral or noncupative creeds were the causes of persecutions and schisms 
 before the era of written creeds, as we have shown. Alcohol has slaiD 
 its millions, but it is not the only cause of death. Again, when I speak of 
 creeds, I speak of them as ecclesiastic documents, set up as explained in my 
 first lecture. 
 
 I. My first argument was, that they are without any Divine authority 
 whatever, God commanded no one to make them, no one to write them, 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 9(fl 
 
 and no church to receive them. This argument has not been answered by 
 any fact or example indicative of any such authority. And did Mr. Rice 
 talk for an age he could not find one — not one Thus saith the Lord, for any 
 synopsis, formula, or precedent of the sort. Had the apostles put any 
 thing of the sort at the close of the volume, it would have been a satire upon 
 the whole book. It would have been a sort of labor-saving machinery which 
 the book does not sanction.. or it would have been a sort of acknowledgment 
 that the book was not well adapted in the aggregate to the wants of so- 
 ciety. God intended that it should cost much personal labor, much read- 
 ing, thinking, praying, searching, meditating, conversing about it. He 
 intended to keep the mind of man much in company with himself, by giv- 
 ing him a book which he might read for a thousand years, and still find 
 something new. I have sometimes said that a fortune left to a child is the 
 greatest misfortune that can befall it. It almost universally proves itself 
 to be so. Whatever lifts a young man's mind above the employment of his 
 own energies — robs him of the employment and enjoyment of himself, and 
 lets him down to ennui, or uselessness, or dissipation, or premature ruin. 
 But hereditary orthodoxy is still a greater misfortune. That often ruins a 
 man in his best interests, and always prevents him the pleasure of search- 
 ing for the truth, of musing, reflecting, and acting for himself. 
 
 II. Creeds have often operated, and their tendency in time of defection 
 is, to cast out the good, the intelligent, the pure, and to retain those of a 
 contrary opinion. They are great strainers, which retain the lees and rack 
 off the pure wine. They killed our Savior, the apostles, and prophets, the 
 saints and the non-conformists of all the ages, since the days of Daniel 
 the prophet. 
 
 III. They have generally been proscriptive and overbearing. This needs 
 no demonstration. 
 
 IV. They are treasonable attempts to dethrone the liege king, lawgiver 
 and prophet of the church. We are divinely commanded to hear him. He is 
 the supreme head of all authority and power, and " the Author and the Fin- 
 isher of the faith." He must, then, regard all other authors of faith as 
 rivals of his, else why substitute a fallible for an infallible! 
 
 V. Creeds are divinely prohibited by several precepts, such as — " Hold 
 fast the form of sound words, which you have heard from me," says Paul to 
 Timothy. Again, says Jude — " Contend earnestly for the faith formerly 
 delivered to the saints." — " Hold fast the traditions which you have heard 
 from us, whether by word or by our epistle." So Paul commands the Thes- 
 salonians ; " This is my beloved Son, hear him," &c. &c. These and such 
 like passages, by enjoining the sacred Scriptures upon us, as the documents 
 to be held fast in form, earnestly contended for, and submitted to, clearly 
 inhibit all rivals, substitutes, summaries, and so forth. If they command to 
 hear, Christ forbids a rival Lord ; so does the command to hold fast the form 
 of words, the traditions, the faith delived once for all to the saints. 
 
 VI. We desire to lay much emphasis upon this important fact, that the 
 interval from the death of the apostles to the year two hundred, the purest, 
 and most harmonious, united, prosperous and happy period of the church, 
 had no creed whatever but the apostolic writings. It is admitted that there 
 were plain declarations of faith made at baptism, but nothing formal or ex- 
 ed, either oral or written, for two hundred years. It is also admitted, that 
 in the third century, men began to have oral creeds, and controversies about 
 ordinances and observances, and that, therefore, before written creeds were 
 issued, the very formulas discussed and commended began to produce here- 
 sies and divisions before the grand Nicene development. If Dr. Miller and 
 Dr. Mosheim, Waddington, and many other such are right, the purest period 
 of Christianity was when they had the book and the book only. No creeds 
 no parties, is as true as one faith one baptism. 
 
 VII. They necessarily become constitutions of churches, and as such, 
 embody and perpetuate the elements of schism, from generation to genera- 
 tion. A society built upon a religious controversy is a sort of a commemo- 
 
902 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 rative institution, cherishing in the minds of those in succeeding ages those 
 ancient animosities, and making them love and hate artificially and irration- 
 ally. In that point of view, the principle of attachment is not Christ, but 
 an opinion. 
 
 VIII. As constitutions of churches, they are unfriendly to that growth in 
 christian knowledge, and the development of the social excellencies of our 
 profession, which, in the apostolic age, were presented by the voice of in- 
 spiration, as the paramount objects of christian attainment. By attaching 
 the mind to the party shibboleths, they detach it from a free and unrestrain- 
 ed consecration of itself to the whole truth of God's book. They continually 
 confine the mind to a certain range of tenets and principles, which have ac 
 quired an undue and contingent importance ; giving to thirty-nine or thirty 
 three points a fictitious importance, and thus, in a certain sense, oblitera 
 ting the proper distinctions between children, young men and fathers, in the 
 christian church. 
 
 IX. They are unfavorable to spirituality. By presenting truth in the 
 cold, anatomical, formulary outlines of speculative propriety, they call for a 
 merely intellectual effort of the understanding, and touch not the moral feel- 
 ings of the heart. Hence no one can be converted or sanctified through them. 
 They are the mere mummies of the life-inspiring truths of the Bible, which 
 breathe with living efficacy and the warmth of Divine love upon the soul. 
 No one ever fell in love with a skeleton, however just its proportions, or 
 however perfect its organization ; and no one ever will fall in love with the 
 anatomical abstractions of a creed. 
 
 X. They falsely assumed to be a proper exponent of Scripture doctrine ; 
 and to be plainer and more intelligible than the Bible. This is as deroga- 
 tory to the honor of the Bible, as it is false in philosophy and fact. They 
 are the veriest jargon of abstract terms, compared with the clear, intelligi- 
 ble and admirable simplicity and beauty of the christian and divine writings. 
 Take the word election, or the phrase Son of God, as explained in the creed, 
 and in the Bible, and can any one imagine a greater contrast in all that is 
 plain, intelligible and beautiful] Is not the Spirit of God the Spirit of elo- 
 quence, of clear conceptions, and of appropriate, beautiful and sublime lan- 
 guage] I would not believe an angel, if he stood before me, and presumed 
 to improve the diction of the apostles and prophets. The Spirit of the living 
 God is the Spirit of revelation, of all wisdom and utterance. We are al- 
 ways infinitely more safe under its guidance, than under that of any man. 
 
 XI. They have been peculiarly hostile to reformation, by ejecting godly 
 and intelligent ministers of religion. This has ever marked their progress, 
 from the days of the apostles till now. All the great reformers of the world 
 have been excommunicated persons. No eminent religious reformer has ever 
 been permitted to exercise his ministry in the church in which he com- 
 menced. They have always been cast out of synagogues, rejected and dis- 
 allowed by the leaders of the people, and by their creeds. 
 
 XII. They are wholly superfluous and redundant, so far as the detection 
 of either error or errorists is implicated. The greatest plea for them has 
 always been their importance and utility, as the means of detecting heretics 
 and heresy But. this is wholly an assumption, without the authority of 
 reason or of fact. The seven Asiatic epistles, addressed by the Lord to 
 those ancient and renowned societies, are a thorough refutation of this pre- 
 tence. To one of these societies the Lord says, " Thou hast tried them 
 which say they are apostles and are not, and hast proved them liars," &c. 
 If, then, pretenders of the highest grade were detected and repudiated by 
 churches possessing only parts of the New Testament, without the help of 
 creeds, who will say, that we, now-a-days, cannot try persons by the Bible, 
 detect their aberrations, and inflict upon them proper punishment? 
 
 XIII. But finally, (as we cannot now fully make out all the points that 
 came up in the course of the discussion,) they are obstacles, great obstacles, 
 in the way bf uniting christians. No man thinks that the world will ever 
 be converted to Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism or Methodism, &c. &cc 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 903 
 
 All these denominations are the creatures of the apostasy. Christianity 
 was before them all, and it will survive them all. They must all perish. 
 Take from each of them its peculiarities, and Christianity remains, so far as 
 they possess parts of it. What all sects have in common may be Christiani- 
 ty ; but what they have in particular most certainly is not. They have all 
 been long enough in the field to try their powers. They never can do more 
 than they have done. They have prayed for revivals, and they make them, 
 and have had them. They have changed their tactics as often as Laban 
 changed the wages of Jacob. They have proved their entire inadequacy to 
 satisfy the wants of humanity — their utter incompetency to convert the 
 world. They are not suited to the genius of human nature, and must give 
 place to something that is. That popular something is the pure and uncor- 
 rupt catholicity of original Christianity, in letter and spirit, as inscribed up- 
 on these pages. These partizan institutions, built upon peculiar phreno- 
 logical developments of human nature, must give way to the whole genius 
 of human nature. We want a broader, deeper, higher, purer, more spiritual 
 Christianity than any of them. The world wants it, and christians pray for it ! 
 
 Has not Presby'terianism been in this state since its commencement, some 
 sixty years at least] Has not Episcopacy urged its plea for almost the same 
 time) And what have they done! Presbyterianism, with all its experi- 
 ence, learning and powerful organization, its well-disciplined corps of offi- 
 cers, its seventy-five or eighty ministers, has now some eight thousand com- 
 municants ; and the Episcopalians, with their learned and excellent bishop, 
 and some twenty ministers, have something less than one thousand bona fide 
 communicants. And what is our position 1 In something less than twenty 
 years, with all our want of organization, experience, concerted action and 
 concentrated enterprize, we have at this time some forty thousand members ! 
 How can this be explained, but upon the fact, that the original gospel adapts 
 itself to the whole genius of human nature — while these peculiar casts of 
 tenets, adapted to special developments of the human mind, are not in har- 
 mony with the wants and wishes of our common nature? 
 
 If the sects would sheathe forever the sword of partizan strife ; if they 
 would make one great auto da fe of all their creeds and shibboleths ; if they 
 would make one grand burnt-offering of their schismatieal constitutions, and 
 cast forever to the moles and the bats their ancient and apocryphal tradi- 
 tions, and then unite on the apostolic and divine institutions, the christian 
 religion might be sent to the farthest domic il of man in less than a single 
 age — in less than the life of one man. 
 
 Protestant England and Protestant America have, at their disposal, all 
 the means necessary to send the gospel from pole to pole, and from the 
 Thames or the Euphrates to the ends of the earth. They have men enough ; 
 genius, learning, talent, ships, books, money, enterprize, zeal, adequate to 
 such a splendid scheme ; if they would, in christian faith and purity, unite 
 in one holy effort, on the book of God, to humanize, civilize, and evange- 
 lize all the brotherhood of man. The unholy warfare of this age is inter- 
 national, inter-sectional, inter-partizan. All the artillery — intellectual, 
 moral, physical, is expended upon the little citadels, fortifications, and tow- 
 ers of partyism. It is a barbarous, uncivil, savage warfare against our own 
 religion, against ourselves, against the common Savior, against the whole 
 family of man. 
 
 For all these reasons, I pray for the annihilation of partyism, and of every 
 thing that, directly or indirectly, tends to keep it up ; and instead of these. 
 human devices, of which I have so often spoken, these ordinances and tra- 
 ditions of men, I plead for the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as the 
 standard and rule of all our personal and social duties; our bond of union, 
 our terms of communion, the directory and formulary of our whole church 
 relations — faith, discipline, and government. 
 
 Upon my memoranda of items deferred, I find a note on the subject of the 
 Peshito-Syriac version of the New Testament. It is a matter of no great 
 consequence at this time : yet it is worthy of record, with special reference 
 
904 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 to the use made of it on the first proposition. I had, during the time of 
 that discussion, an indistinct impression that, inasmuch as the whole apoc- 
 alypse was wanting in that version, with some passages in the gospel his- 
 tory, and some of the epistles, that Mr. Rice was mistaken in quoting it as 
 the Peshito version of the passage in debate. Since, having been favored 
 with the loan of his copy, I have examined it, and find that, as I conjec- 
 tured, it is not the Peshito version, but a version made up from different 
 sources, having borrowed the apocalypse, and the epistles of Peter and 
 John, that are wanting in the Peshito, from some other source. 
 
 I find, also, some other matters noted for consideration, but time will not 
 allow me to notice, out of a considerable variety, more than one or two. 
 Of things unnoticed, there is nothing of essential importance. My answers 
 to most of them would be, that they could either be retorted upon my oppo- 
 nent, or shown to be irrelevant. For example — Mr. Rice represents our 
 communities, and their neighbors, as ignorant of our views, because they 
 can find no authoritative exhibit of them; and that it is rather a leap in 
 the dark for any one to join our societies, without something more than the 
 Bible and the fugitive words of a preacher. Of course, the gentleman 
 would represent it as quite different in his church. But if Dr. Wylie never 
 found one Presbyterian, in thirty years, that believed it all — what thenl 
 If not one in twenty ever reads it at all ; and if, of those who do read it, not 
 one in fifty comprehends it all ; and if not one in a hundred believes it all — 
 wherein do they excel] If my own observations and acquaintance might 
 be regarded as a safe data of comparison, my deliberate opinion is, that our 
 brethren know more of each other's views, than Presbyterians know of each 
 other's views — and the world around us know more of our views, in detail, 
 than they know of those of the Presbyterians. Such, I say, are my convictions. 
 But every man, in this case, will, of course, think and judge for himself, 
 
 But, my fellow-citizens, there is one point that cannot be too deeply im- 
 pressed upon your minds — that the union of christians is essential to the 
 conversion of the world, both at home and abroad. Now, as creeds foster, 
 and keep alive, and transmit these parties, on this single account alone, they 
 seem to me altogether worthy of a cordial reprobation. Where there is no 
 contention, the fire of strife goeth out ; and where there is nothing to con- 
 tend about, contention itself ceases. Remove, then, these causes of con- 
 tention ; take God's own book ; bear with diversities of opinion in things 
 not revealed; and, as Paul says, "Let us walk by the same rule, let us 
 mind the same thing ;" and, to paraphrase his words, "if in any thing you 
 be of different opinions, God will reveal this unto you :" for in this way 
 only, could he invoke peace on them, and on the Israel of God. 
 
 You might, methinks, infer the utter impossibility of either converting or 
 improving the world under the present aspects of Christendom. I have 
 known Lexington and its vicinity for twenty years, and am of opinion that 
 it was as nearly converted then as now. The same may be said of this 
 whole commonwealth. Yet you have been praying for union, and for the 
 conversion of the world, and have been getting up all manner of excitements 
 for this purpose, during this period. Something is radically wrong. Why 
 have not your prayers been answered, and your efforts blessed 1 Does not 
 the Lord say that he desires all men to come to repentance, and to the ac- 
 knowledgment of the truth, and to be saved ! You are straitened and re- 
 strained in yourselves, and not by the Lord. He promises to open the hea- 
 vens, and to pour out a blessing large as your desires, provided only you 
 will obey him. Let us unite upon the ancient foundation. Let us cast 
 away our idols, our human inventions, and meet around one common altar, 
 and there bow our knees together in cordial union and co-operation ; then 
 the gospel will resume its ancient spirit and power, spread its holy in- 
 fluences far and wide, and bless your children, and your children's children, 
 through many generations. In this way you will bequeath to them the richest 
 inheritance, and embalm your memory in their grateful admiration and esteem. 
 
 Do you not see, how unavailing are all your domestic and foreign mis* 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 905 
 
 sionary efforts] How many lives have been sacrificed! How much trea- 
 sure has been expended ! and how little has been done ! ! You tell me 
 that thousands have been converted ; that many pagans have been brought 
 into the christian profession. I might give you all you claim, and still prove 
 that nothing has been done — that nothing can be done, worthy of the cause, 
 while you are all divided at home. I will undertake to prove, from your 
 most authentic statistics, that your divisions annually make more sceptics 
 at home, than your missionaries convert abroad. Were you to claim for 
 your missionary labors, during the last forty years, one hundred thousand 
 genuine converts from amongst the heathen, think you, that amongst the 
 " dedicated offspring" of the Protestant parties in America, to say nothing 
 of Great Britain and the world, not more than one hundred thousand have 
 gone over to infidelity ! ! Yes, more than twice as many are annually lost 
 at home, through your divisions, than are saved abroad by all your exer- 
 tions. Hold not up the word of promise to your ears; apply not the flatter- 
 ing unction to your souls, that the world is to be converted while your 
 hearts are full of error, heresy, and schism. It cannot be. It is impossi- 
 ble. Jesus made the union of christians essential to the salvation of the 
 world: " I pray," said he, "that all who believe on me may be one — that 
 the world may believe that thou hast sent me " — that the world may be 
 converted. Was Jesus mistaken ! ! Certainly he was, if you are right in 
 thinking the world may be converted, whether you are united or not — wheth- 
 er you are one or divided. 
 
 The land is full of infidelity. Your schools, your colleges, are full of 
 scepticism. The great majority of your educated men are infidels ; some 
 open and acknowledged — many only show it by keeping out of your church- 
 es. The reason is, the gospel is blasphemed by the discords, the variance, 
 the hatred, and the strife engendered by your partyism. Abandon your 
 sectarianism, meet on the holy Scriptures, and bear with one another's in- 
 firmities, and then pray for a blessing on your labors, and the Lord will pour 
 out his Spirit upon you, and his blessing upon your offspring ; and you " shall 
 grow up as among the grass, and as willows by the water-courses." 
 
 Brethren, you have heard a discussion of sixteen days. You have en- 
 gaged in the great work of reformation, personal, domestic, and ecclesias- 
 tic. You have now heard all the exceptions, cavils, and objections that, 
 after much preparation and elaborate research, can be alledged against our 
 cause, by a denomination whose means and abilities are equal to any other 
 in the country. I .need not tell you how impotent the strongest efforts are 
 to assail any of our grand positions. Of all this you are perfectly compe- 
 tent to decide for yourselves. But let us now renew our strength, our ar- 
 dor, our zeal, and our efforts against all partyism, and in support of the 
 apostolic institutions — the faith once delivered to the sai?its. I never felt the 
 truth more strong nor error more weak than now. We have commenced at 
 the right place. The Acts of the Apostles — the three first chapters of that 
 book, give us the pure beginning of our religion, and how unassailable we 
 are there you all feel. To this great work I, in common with many of you, 
 have been long devoted. In the retrospection of the past, we have much to 
 be grateful for — " hitherto has the Lord helped us." In anticipation of the 
 future we have much to hope. 
 
 Fellow-citizens — If there be truth in the Bible — and if there be not truth 
 there, there is no truth anywhere — then is this matter supremely worthy 
 of your candid, concentrated, and most devout examination. Your respon- 
 sibilities are great, because your opportunities are equal to those of any 
 people in the world. May I importune your impartial examination and de- 
 cision on the testimony and evidence now in your possession] You are to 
 judge for yourselves, and to act out a character in which your eternal des- 
 tiny is involved. 
 
 I cannot sit down without expressing my admiration of the patient and 
 long protracted attention of this immense assemblage, and of the genera^ 
 decorum and most exemplary behavior of an audience so numerous, so vari- 
 

 906 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 ous, and so much interested in the mighty issues of the occasion; nor with- 
 out commending you all to the blessing of the God of Abraham, of Isaac, 
 and of Jacob, tendered to the nations through his beloved Son ; may you 
 all be enriched with that blessing now, henceforth, and forever ! 
 
 [Addressing the moderators, Mr. Campbell said :] 
 
 Gentlemen, allow me to tender to you my sincere thanks for the very pa- 
 tient, impartial, and dignified manner in which you have presided over this 
 discussion. — [Time expired. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 2 — 14 o'clock, P. M 
 [me. rice's closing reply.] 
 
 Mr. President — I have but a single remark to make in relation to the 
 individual whose name has been introduced by Mr. Campbell, as a convert 
 to his views. Written statements have just been handed me by Jive highly 
 respectable gentlemen, who went to hear that gentleman's sermon ; and they 
 all state, that they understood him distinctly to say, that nothing he had 
 heard during this discussion had changed his views. It is, indeed, a very 
 small matter. His opinion would weigh very little in the scale of public 
 sentiment, concerning the merits of the debate. 
 
 Concerning the regium donum, causing the Burghers and Anti-burghers 
 to unite, the gentleman has made a statement which, I presume, he would 
 find it difficult to prove. He added, however, the general charge against the 
 ministers in this country, that they are so destitute of honesty, that they 
 would compromise their principles for money. He now says, it is a com- 
 mon saying, that the clergy are the most venal set of men on earth. It 
 may be a common saying in certain quarters ; but it is a base slander, no 
 matter by whom it may be uttered. It is admitted that there have been, 
 and that there are now, many unworthy men who profess to be ministers of 
 the gospel ; but the charge is preferred against them as a class ; and, as 
 thus made, I pronounce it false. 
 
 The gentleman presents what he considers a strong, matter-of-fact argu- 
 ment, to prove that creeds make sects, viz : that Presbyterians will not re- 
 tain an Arminian preacher ; and, therefore, men holding Arminian senti- 
 ments must form a sect. The Bible speaks not of all christians being uni- 
 ted in one society, and having one name; but of their having one faith, 
 holding the same great doctrines of divine revelation. The churches may- 
 possess all that is essential to the unity of faith, and yet so far differ as to 
 render it expedient that they be ranged in different organizations. Even 
 Paul and Barnabas once disagreed, concerning a question of expediency ; 
 " and the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asun- 
 der one from the other," each taking the man he preferred as his companion. 
 Still, they belonged to the same church. With our Methodist brethren, we 
 agree as to all that is essential to the existence of the church, and the sal- 
 vation of the soul. The fact that we so far differ, in some points, as to 
 make it expedient to have different organizations, does not prove that we 
 are not on the same foundation laid in Zion ; or that we belong not to the 
 same church. The great camp-meetings of which he speaks, had nothing 
 to do with our union with evangelical denominations. Long before the gen- 
 tleman's reformation was born, Presbyterians recognized the Methodists. 
 Baptists, and other evangelical denominations, as component parts of the 
 church catholic. 
 
 Origen, and some ether of the christian ministers of the third and fol- 
 lowing centuries, it is admitted, fell into some serious errors. They lived 
 in an age of prevailing superstition. The fact that they may have been 
 pious, notwithstanding their errors, is no reason why men holding such er- 
 rors should now be permitted to enter the ministry. But, as the gentleman 
 did not specify the errors to which he alluded, a more particular reply is un- 
 necessary. 
 
 He says, he has not contended that creeds are the cause of all schism. 
 But has he produced one instance in which a creed has caused any schism 1 
 He has referred to not an instance, in which I cannot prove that the schism 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 907 
 
 was produced by other causes. He has, therefore, failed to prove that creeds 
 are necessarily heretical and schismatical. . 
 
 He has told us that there is no command to make a creed ; and that, if 
 the apostles had appended a creed to the Bible, it would have proved it im- 
 perfect — that it is not sufficiently plain to be understood. And so does every 
 sermon he preaches, and every page he writes. If the meaning of the Bi- 
 ble is as plain as it can be made, why does he attempt to explain it! The 
 argument, if we were to admit that creeds were designed to explain the Scrip- 
 tures, would be as conclusive against preaching and publishing explanations 
 of them, as against making creeds. 
 
 Hereditary orthodoxy the gentleman considers a great evil. But I should 
 consider hereditary heterodoxy an evil of much greater magnitude. If it 
 is an evil to be taught from infancy to believe the truth, it is, to say the 
 least, a much greater evil to be taught dangerous and destructive error. 
 The catechism, he thinks, has done immense mischief. Does he not teach 
 his children what he believes to be true 1 He is a singular father, if he 
 does not. He certainly expounds to them the meaning of the Scriptures as 
 he understands them. We do no more. Why, then, does he condemn us 
 for doing just what he does 1 If he insists that we ought to change our 
 views, we say the same concerning his. Some persons are opposed to giv- 
 ing children any religious instruction, that when they arrive at years of dis- 
 cretion, they may, without prejudice or previous bias, form their religious 
 views for themselves. They reason quite as conclusively as does Mr. Camp- 
 bell. His reasoning, if it be worth any thing, would prove conclusively 
 that parents should give their children no religious instruction of any kind. 
 
 The gentleman has asserted and reasserted, that creeds cause persecu- 
 tion ; but he has not proved, nor can he prove, that any creed not inculca- 
 ting intolerant principles ever did cause persecution. 
 
 Nor can he prove his assertion, that the using of creeds is rebellion 
 against Christ. He has asserted it, but he has produced not the slightest 
 proof of its truth. There is no law in the Bible which can be construed to 
 prohibit christians committing to writing an outline of the doctrines they un- 
 derstand the Bible to teach, for the purposes creeds are designed to answer. 
 
 Mr. C. asserts, that where there are no creeds, there are no parties. This 
 is a great mistake. He has told us of a schism in heaven, another in 
 Adam's family, and another at the tower of Babel, and several others, 
 where there were no creeds. 
 
 Creeds, he says, become constitutions of churches. This objection has 
 been fully refuted. But he affirms, that they are unfavorable to growth in 
 knowledge. I am perfectly willing to test the validity of this objection by 
 comparing the numbers of the churches that have creeds, with those of his 
 church, as to their knowledge of the Scriptures, or of other subjects. I am 
 disposed to institute the comparison, and let the facts speak for themselves. 
 Stern facts prove his objection utterly unfounded. 
 
 Another objection he urges against creeds, is — that they are cold and 
 lifeless, and are, therefore, unfavorable to spirituality. I do not understand 
 the philosophy of this objection. I am unable to see why the truths of the 
 Bible, when written in a book called a Confession of Faith, should become 
 cold and lifeless. Again, I am willing to compare the churches that have 
 creeds with Mr. C.'s church ; and if we cannot show quite as large a propor- 
 tion of eminently spiritual persons, as his church, we will abandon creeds. 
 Let facts answer the objection. 
 
 He objects to creeds also, that they falsely assume to be exponents of the 
 Bible. Not a whit more falsely than every sermon he preaches, and every 
 page he writes. Let facts and his own practice answer the objection. 
 
 He has told you, that I have often said, that the phrase Son of God is not 
 so well explained in the Bible, as in the confession of faith. I have said 
 no such thing, but precisely the opposite. I have said, that as used in the 
 Bible its meaning is clear and definite; but, as used by men of various 
 classes and characters, it is not so. When a man professes to believe, 
 
908 DEBATE Oi\ HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 that Christ is the Son of God, it is necessary to inquire of him how he un- 
 derstands this language ; because men do employ it in senses infinitely dif- 
 ferent and opposite. Therefore, until he explains the sense in which he 
 understands it, you know nothing of his real faith. 
 
 Another objection urged by Mr. C. against creeds, is — that they eject con- 
 scientious ministers. When a man in his church perseveres in preaching 
 Universalism, does not he say, that he will exclude him ? And does he de- 
 ny, that a man may feel conscientiously bound to preach Universalism, or 
 Unitarianism, or even Deism] Yet he professes to exclude all such, not- 
 withstanding their conscientiousness. The objection, therefore, lies with 
 all its force against his own principles. 
 
 The seven Asiatic churches, he says, excluded false professors without a 
 creed. True ; but did not John the apostle write seven epistles to them, 
 directing and commanding them to exclude these errorists? If there were 
 now inspired men living in the church, there might be no need of creeds ; 
 but the days of inspiration are passed. 
 
 He objects to creeds, because so long as they exist, the church cannot be 
 united. But it. is a fact, that in Ireland two denominations having a creed 
 have been united, and now constitute the general assembly of the Presbyte- 
 rian church in Ireland. In Scotland, the Burghers and Anti-burghers have 
 become united. By their respective creeds the different denominations are 
 enabled to compare views, and ascertain how near they are together, and 
 whether they can unite and harmoniously co-operate. The tendency of 
 creeds, therefore, is not to separate, but to unite those who agree in sentiment. 
 
 Mr. Campbell purposes to destroy all creeds ; but what plan of union 
 does he propose ! He calls on us to unite with him and his gospel church. 
 On what conditions are we to unite 1 We must unite in the water ! He 
 will meet us at no other point. We must adopt his opinion concerning im- 
 mersion. We may differ from him on many other most important points ; 
 but we must, on this point, think as he thinks. He has the most exclusive 
 creed on earth. So sayB. W. Stone and Dr. Fishback. He objects to creeds, 
 that they exclude from the church conscientious ministers. Are not Pedc- 
 baptists as conscientious as others % Yet they are all excluded by his creed ! 
 
 He calls on us to unite ; but he will not allow us to unite with him, un- 
 less we will adopt his opinions concerning the mode and subjects of bap- 
 tism. He says to us, 'You have been baptized, as you think the Scriptures 
 direct ; but now please to be baptized in our way, and we will unite most 
 harmoniously !' That is, in plain English, if all christians will consent to 
 adopt Mr. C.'s notions, and join his church, he will unite with them most 
 cordially ! ! ! Why not all be Presbyterians ! We believe that we are on the 
 Scriptural foundation ; and if the gentleman and his churches will become 
 true Presbyterians, we shall be most happy to receive them. I might de- 
 claim, in this way, as plausibly as Mr. Campbell has done ; but, after all, 
 it is mere declamation. There is no argument in it. 
 
 He tells you how little Presbyterians are doing to convert men to Chris- 
 tianity. But if we are to believe his statement, his numbers are greater 
 than ours. Let me inquire, then, what are his churches doing'! Have they 
 any missionaries who have gone to preach to the heathen "the unsearcha- 
 able riches of Christ]" Not one, so far as I am informed ! Much importance 
 as the gentleman and his friends attach to the Word of God, they have sent 
 not an individual to make it known to the benighted heathen ! Indeed, Mr. 
 C. has stood up in opposition to missionary societies, and he has not labor- 
 ed without effect ; for an individual in Mason county, Kentucky, whose let- 
 ter is published in the Christian Baptist, wrote to him, saying — "Your 
 paper has well nigh stopped missionary operations in this state," — (p. 144.) 
 Such has been the effect of Mr. C.'s principles. Presbyterians, though ac- 
 cording to his statement not so numerous as his followers, have their mis- 
 sionaries in heathen lands, preaching to them the word of life. Other de- 
 nominations have likewise their missionary operations. Now, who are 
 doing most to extend to all men the knowledge of the gospel ; those who 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 909 
 
 have creeds, or those who reject them'? I had occasion to state, on yester- 
 day, that the gentleman complains of his people, that they do little or no- 
 thing to promote the general circulation of the Scriptures, either at home 
 or abroad. Presbyterians, it is true, come far short of doing their duty ; 
 still they are liberal and active in this truly benevolent enterprize. Let facts 
 speak on these subjects. They proclaim in language that cannot be misun- 
 derstood, and with an amount of ardor that cannot be resisted, the great supe- 
 riority of the churches that have creeds over the no-creed church of my friend. 
 
 I was not surprised, (for no unfairness in debate, on the part of the gen- 
 tleman, can now surprise me,) that he again introduced the mode of baptism, 
 disposed of almost two weeks since, and made an attempt to relieve himself 
 from the difficulty into which he was thrown, in connection with the old Pe- 
 shito-Syriac version of the New Testament. He asserted most positively, 
 not only in the discussion on the mode of baptism, but in his publications, 
 that no translator, ancient or modern, ever did translate the word bapto, or 
 baptizo, to sprinkle or pour. I proved, indisputably, that the Syriac, the 
 Ethiopic, and the Vulgate, three of the most ancient and valuable versions, 
 do translate bapto, to sprinkle, in Rev. xix. 13 ; and that Origen, the most 
 learned of the Greek fathers, in giving the sense of this passage, substituted 
 rantizo, to sprinkle, for bapto. The gentleman could not deny these facts. 
 But now, at the very close of the discussion, he gets the Syriac Testament, 
 and attempts, even at this late hour, to escape from his difficulties, by telling 
 the audience that the apocalypse is not in the old Peshito-Syriac version. 
 
 Now let me state a few facts. It is a fact, that the learned immersionist, 
 Dr. Gale, quotes this very passage, and states, that the old Peshito-Syriac 
 version here uses a word signifying to sprinkle; and he asserts, that it is so 
 ancient, that it is almost of as high authority as the original. And here, he 
 argues, there was a different reading. It was in reading his reflections on 
 Wall's history of Infant Baptism, that my attention was turned to this fact. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Dr. Gale does not say that it was the Peshito version.* 
 
 It is a fact, that Mr. Carson, the gentleman's judicious and profound cri- 
 tic, did not know that the translator had not all the authority given it. by 
 Gale, though he deemed that there was every evidence of a different reading. 
 
 The book I hold in my hand is the old Peshito-Syriac version of the New 
 Testament— the oldest translation in the world, and one of the best. I have 
 the edition published by Sehaaf & Linsden, two eminent critics. At what 
 time the translation of the apocalypse was made, I do not know ; neither 
 does Mr. C. It is, however, considered as of high authority by the ablest 
 critics. The fact, that instead of bapto, the word in the original Greek, the 
 Syriac has a word signifying to sprinkle, the gentleman does not deny. Nor 
 does he deny, that both the Ethiopic and Vulgate translations also have 
 words signifying to sprinkle, and that Origen did, in giving the sense of the 
 passage, substitute rantizo for bapto. These indisputable facts prove most 
 conclusively, that the assertion he has repeatedly published, that bapto is 
 never translated to sprinkle, is not true. 1 hope the gentleman is now sat- 
 isfied — as he has been permitted once more to violate the rules of this discus- 
 sion, by introducing subjects after they have been disposed of. 
 
 He asserts, that there is not one Presbyterian minister in every score who 
 believes the confession of faith. How does he know! He appeals to Dr. 
 Wiley, who became disaffected and left our church. But such charges made 
 against ministers of the gospel, require proof. [Mr. C. I did not say 
 preachers.] I have stated, that we do not require the adoption of the con- 
 fession of faith, as a condition of membership in our church. We do not ex- 
 pect the pupil, before entering the school, to be as well instructed as the 
 teacher. The teacher we require to possess proper qualifications for his re- 
 
 * Mr. Campbell and Mr. Rice now agree to quote the identical words of Dr. Gale, for 
 the benefit of the reader ; as follows : — " I have likewise observed, that the Syriac and 
 Ethiopic versions, which for their antiquity must be thought almost as valuable and au- 
 thentic as the original itself, render the passage by words which signify to sprinkle." 
 
910 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 sponsible work ; and the private member we expect to grow in knowledge. 
 I have, however, met with but few Presbyterians, who do not believe the 
 doctrines of our confession of faith. Yet we do not excommunicate those 
 who may have doubts concerning some of the less essential parts. 
 
 The gentleman has once more told you, that I denied that our Savior was 
 buried. I denied no such thing. I said he was not put down into the earth, 
 so that the plunging of a person into the water would resemble his burial. 
 
 Having now fully answered his speech, I will resume the recapitulation 
 of my argument. I have said, that creeds are not designed to be either a 
 substitute for the Bible, nor an addition to it ; that they are designed to be 
 a public declaration of the principal doctrines and truths which we under- 
 stand the Bible to teach ; so that those who desire membership in the church 
 may be put in possession of the necessary information concerning our views ; 
 that other christian communities may know how to treat us ; that our mem- 
 bers may gain instruction, and that slanders and misrepresentations may be 
 repelled and exposed. 
 
 I have again and again asked the gentleman, to what source of informa- 
 tion he would direct those who desire to know what his church, as a body, 
 understands the Bible to teach — but I could not induce him to answer the 
 question. [Mr. C. I would direct them to the Bible.] He says, he would 
 direct them to the Bible, to ascertain how his church understands the Bible! 
 Yet when Mr. Jones, of England, wrote to him, and inquired what he un- 
 derstood the Bible to teach, he did not direct him to the Bible, but gave him 
 a detailed account of his faith ! Why did he treat Mr. Jones so much better 
 than he treats others'? 
 
 But all persons who make any pretensions to religion, profess to take the 
 Bible as their guide — the Arians, Socinians, Universalists, and even the 
 Shakers ! They, however, attach widely different meanings to the language 
 of the Scriptures. The gentleman's directions, therefore, would not give 
 the information sought. A prudent and conscientious man will not unite 
 himself to a church, until he knows what they understand the Scriptures to 
 teach. Where, I again ask, can such a man gain the desired information 
 concerning Mr. C.'s church 1 To this question I cannot get an answer. I 
 have pressed it the more earnestly, because I have been charged with slan- 
 dering his church, when I have said, that there is no source from which any 
 one can learn what, as a body, they understand the Bible to teach. I, there- 
 fore, repeated the assertion in his presence, and called on him to disprove it 
 if he could. He has not done so. 
 
 Another most important question I have asked, and .asked in vain, is: 
 What is the standard of ministerial qualification in his church, as to educa- 
 tion, personal piety and soundness in the faith 1 What do they require of 
 those whom they send forth to mould the faith of immortal spirits'? Men are 
 not employed to teach even a common school, unless they give evidence of 
 possessing some suitable qualifications. Yet here is a church, claiming to 
 be the church, that permits all sorts of doctrine to be preached by all sorts 
 of men ! It is not denied, that the Bible requires those who enter the min- 
 istry to possess important qualifications ; but this church has no standard, 
 and no uniformity in practice. A little church of a dozen members, or even 
 a smaller number, may ordain and send forth preachers, to ruin the souls of 
 multitudes by their errors ! I leave you, my friends, to determine whether 
 those churches that have a scriptural standard of ministerial qualification, 
 or those that have none, are more faithfully discharging their solemn duties 
 to the Head of the church, and the souls of men. 
 
 I have disproved the gentleman's proposition, that creeds are necessarily 
 heretical and schismatical, by the fact that there is more heresy and more 
 schism in the churches that have no creeds, than in those that have them. 
 I have taken Mr. Campbell's church as the latest and best edition of a no- 
 creed church. Into this church, errorists of all grades may enter; and from 
 it they cannot be excluded, without a departure from the fundamental prin- 
 ciples they have adopted. 
 
DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 91 1 
 
 I. Mr. C. contends, that when persons desire membership in the church, 
 we have no right to ask them more than two questions, viz : 1st. Do you 
 believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God-I 2d. Are you willing to be 
 baptized 1 If they answer these questions in the affirmative, he holds, that 
 they are to be admitted without further inquiry. Now, we know that error- 
 ists of all grades will answer these affirmatively ; consequently the door is 
 open for them all to enter. 
 
 II. Mr. C. has said that he will receive into his church persons who hold 
 Universalist and Unitarian sentiments ; and I have proved, by his own pub- 
 lication, that he has, in fact, received such. But, mark the strange mix- 
 ture of latitudinarianism and tyranny in his principles. He will receive a 
 Unitarian or a Trinitarian ; but he says, they shall not be permitted to ap- 
 ply to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, " scholastic and barbarous 
 epithets." That is, they are not to use language which he choses to call 
 scholastic and barbarous. But where has God forbidden men to use any 
 words which convey not erroneous sentiments'! By what authority does Mr. 
 C. undertake to dictate to men what words they may use to express their ideas'? 
 
 This is not all. He will receive a Universalist, for example, only on 
 condition that he will hold his faith as an opinion, and abstain from all at- 
 tempts to propagate it. But how can any conscientious man be reduced to 
 promise not to propagate truths which he honestly believes to be taught in 
 the Bible ] Yet he must sacrifice his conscience, or he will not be received ! 
 
 Mr. C, as I have proved, received into his church B. W. Stone, though he 
 openly denies the Divinity and the atonement of Christ ; and he received Dr. 
 Thomas, though he denied that men have souls ! Mr. Stone and Mr. Camp- 
 bell differ infinitely in their faith — the one denying the Divinity of Christ, 
 and the other asserting it ; the one denying the atonement of Christ, and the 
 other contending for it. Still they united ! 
 
 Mr. C. makes an important difference between faith and opinion. I called 
 on him to inform us precisely where faith ends and opinion begins. He 
 told us, that when we have the testimony of the Scriptures concerning any 
 point, it is a matter of faith. I then proved that he had disregarded his 
 own principles ; for he admits that we have clear testimony concerning the 
 character and work of Christ, and yet he has received those who deny both. 
 He admits that we have testimony concerning the eternal punishment of 
 the wicked ; and yet he has received those who deny it. He contends that 
 we have testimony concerning the design of baptism ; and yet he has re- 
 ceived a prominent man who denies his doctrine on this subject ! 
 
 III. I have read the testimony of Mr. C. concerning the present state of 
 his church ; and from it we learn that they have all sorts of doctrine preach- 
 ed by almost all sorts of men ; and that it is bleeding at every pore by the 
 lacerations of its own preachers and teachers ! — and worse still, they have 
 no way of preventing such disorders ! ! Yet this is the model church of the 
 nineteenth century ! This church receives into its capacious bosom errorists 
 of all grades, if only they will be immersed and give up infant baptism. 
 
 IV. Mr, C, after all, has a creed — a most exclusive creed. He requires all 
 to adopt his opinion concerning the mode of baptism. All must be immers- 
 ed. He will allow them to think as they please concerning the -character 
 of the Son of God and his glorious work ; or concerning the eternal state of 
 the wicked ; but they must be immersed! Thus you perceive that the gen- 
 tleman attaches more importance to the mode of an external ordinance, than 
 to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel ! ! 
 
 V. I have proved that there is more real christian union among " the 
 sects," as the gentleman calls them, than amongst the reformers themselves. 
 We differ not from Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, or any evangel- 
 ical denomination, half so widely as Mr. Stone differs from Mr. Campbell ; or 
 as Messrs. Campbell, Fishback, Raines and Shannon, differ from each other! 
 
 VI. I have proved that Mr. C. has radically changed his ground on this 
 subject ; and is now advocating principles of church government which he 
 once decidedly condemned. 
 
e.7t 
 
 912 DEBATE ON HUMAN CREEDS. 
 
 The argument on this subject is now closed. I ask you, my friends, in 
 view of all you have heard, has Mr. C. succeeded in proving that all who 
 use a creed are guilty of heresy and schism 7 Has he proved that they are 
 apostates from Christ, and rebels against him, and that they are worthy of 
 excommunication from his family] Decide for yourselves, for you are as 
 deeply interested as I. Has he proved his proposition, that human 
 
 CREEDS ARE NECESSARILY HERETICAL AND SCHISMATICAL % 
 
 My friends, throughout this discussion I have defended doctrines which I 
 solemnly believe to be taught in God's holy word. I have sought to sustain 
 them by arguments, which, in my judgment, demonstrate their truth. We 
 shall all, ere long, stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that we may 
 answer for our faith and our practice. Then it becomes us to search for 
 the truth, as for hidden treasures, and to prize it more than gold— yea, than 
 much fine gold. 
 
 I solemnly believe that my friend, Mr. Campbell, is in error, seriously in 
 error. Thousands of men, wiser than I, believe the same. It is for you to 
 determine, so far as your duty and your interests are concerned, whether hi© 
 doctrines are sustained by the word of God. 
 
 If there is a man living who could overthrow our doctrines, and establish 
 those for which he has contended, he is the man. That he is a man of 
 talents, and of considerable learning, all admit. He has been a man of war 
 from his youth. For thirty years he has made himself thoroughly acquaint- 
 ed with the subjects we have discussed. He has for his opponent one, who, 
 as he has more than once intimated, is greatly his inferior in talent and 
 learning ; so much so, that he could gain no new laurels by vanquishing 
 him. Now has he sustained any one of his propositions'? Has he gained a 
 victory on a single proposition % To what conclusion must this intelligent 
 audience come, after seeing the mighty chieftain falling under the blows of 
 one so much his inferior. 
 
 I have the right, in view of his claim to superiority, to ascribe the suc- 
 cess which has attended my efforts, in this discussion, to the strength of 
 my cause. Even a weak man may, under the banner of truth, urge a suc- 
 cessful war against a giant, who has not the truth to sustain him. 
 
 I will not make this discussion a personal matter. I am the enemy of 
 no man. Boldly and fearlessly I must and will defend what I believe to be 
 God's precious truth ; but I am not the personal enemy of Mr. Campbell „ 
 I will yet be on terms of friendship with him, if he will permit me. I 
 would not designedly or unnecessarily wound his feelings, or the feelings of 
 others. I close this discussion with the kindest feelings towards my oppo- 
 nent and his friends. My prayer is, that God, in his mercy, will hasten 
 the day, when true christian union — unity of the faith and in the knowledge 
 of the Son of God, may universally prevail ; when all the disciples of Christ 
 shall be more nearly alike, and shall be able, more harmoniously and effi- 
 ciently to co-operate in spreading over the earth the knowledge of the glo- 
 rious Gospel ; when they will present to the powers of darkness an unbroken 
 phalanx. May all who bear the christian name, build on the Rock of Ages, 
 that they may be able to stand, when the earth shall be shaken to its centre. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators — I return to you my sincere thanks for your kind- 
 ness and patience, in consenting to occupy so much of your time in attend- 
 ing upon our investigations, and for the dignified and impartial manner in 
 which you have presided over this debate. May God, of his mercy, bestow 
 upon you his richest blessings ; and may you, having enjoyed the honors 
 our country has conferred, and may yet confer upon you, attain to the un- 
 speakably higher honor of being owned as children of God, and heirs of 
 eternal felicity. — -[Time expired. 
 
 [Elder Jacob Creath then arose, and pronounced the following benediction •] 
 Father of all our mercies! God of all consolation and favor! We pray 
 that thy blessing may rest upon us all, and upon all those, in every place, 
 who, with us, love and fear the Lord. Amen. 
 
 L&FV26 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: April 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 111 
 
 017 685 019 A