.^^v » ^m 
 
 ^^5!l!^0C)CAl StHl 
 
 BV 811 .H372 1886 | 
 
 Harding, J. A. 
 
 Debate on baptism, embracing 
 mode and subjects 
 

 DEBATE ON BAPTim»u* 
 
 EMBRACING 
 
 MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 ELDEE J. A. HARDING, (Disciple), 
 
 OF KENTUCKY, AND 
 
 REY. T. L. WILKINSON, (Methodist), 
 
 OF BRANTFORD, ONT. 
 
 HELD IN MEAFORD, ONT., COMMENCING DECEMBER 15th, 1884, 
 AND CONTINUING FOR SIX CONSECUTIVE DAYS. 
 
 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY G. B. BRADLEY, ESQ., OF TORONTO, OFFICIAL 
 
 REPORTER FOR THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA, AND REVISED 
 
 BY THE RESPECTIVE DISPUTANTS. 
 
 TORONTO: 
 
 WILLIAM BRIGGS, 78 & 80 KING STREET EAST. 
 
 Montreal : C. W. COATES. Halifax : S. F. HUESTIS. 
 
 1886. 
 
Entered, according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one 
 tliousand eight hundred and eighty-six, by William Briggs, in the Office 
 of the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In introducing this book to the public of Canada, a brief statement of 
 the circumstances of its publication will naturally be looked for by the 
 reader. Those circumstances are as follows : In the month of August, 
 1884, Elder Harding, of Kentucky, who was then holding evangelistic 
 services in the County of Grey, near Meaford, publicly challenged Rev. 
 T. L. Wilkinson, of Brantford, to a platform discussion of the question 
 of Baptism. The challenge having been accepted by Mr. Wilkinson, it 
 was subsequently agreed that the debate should be held during the ensuing 
 December in the town of Meaford. It was to occupy two sessions of two 
 hours each, per day, and continue for six days. 
 
 Elder Harding being recognized by the Disciples as one of their ablest 
 polemical representatives, and Mr. Wilkinson being regarded as familiar 
 with the various aspects of the subject, and expert in its exposition and 
 defence from the Psedo-baptist standpoint, a very deep interest was excited 
 in the community at the prospect of this debate. Accordingly, as the time 
 for the conflict drew near, the conviction became general that it would be 
 a misfortune not to have a full and faithful report of the whole discussion 
 preserved for the benefit of other neighborhoods and future generations. 
 The outcome of this feeling was the formation of a small syndicate, or 
 combination, to get the debate reported and published. This combination 
 was altogether independent of either of the disputants, though its action 
 was to be contingent on the consent of both. This being obtained, nego- 
 tiations were opened with Mr. Thomas Bengough, official reporter, of the 
 city of Toronto, resulting in an agreement on his part to furnish a full and 
 impartial report of the whole debate. At the appointed time Mr. Ben- 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 gough sent Mr. G. B. Bradley, chief of the House of Commons reportorial 
 staff, who attended all the sessions and supplied what was supposed to be, 
 and should have been, an impartial and authentic report. As a matter of 
 fact, however, there was a transparent discrepancy in the comparative 
 length of the different speeches, though, with the exception of the opening 
 addresses on each proposition, they occupied the same time in delivery. It 
 was apparent from this that the reporter had not always been equally 
 faithful in the performance of his task. Nor were either of the disputants 
 entirely satisfied with the result, though it is but fair to Mr. Wilkinson to 
 say, that as he had not preserved the notes taken hurriedly during the 
 debate, and did not profess to be able to reproduce his speeches from 
 memory, and being also greatly straitened for time, he only claimed the 
 privilege of making such verbal corrections in the reporter's notes as to 
 secure general accuracy of expression and teaching. This privilege, of 
 course, was fully accorded to both the disputants, but as Mr. Wilkinson 
 frequently spoke with great rapidity his speeches generally occupied a 
 little more space than Mr. Harding's, though, owing to this fact, the latter 
 claimed that he had suffered greater injustice at the reporter's hands than 
 his opponent, and accordingly enlarged the scope of the privilege even to 
 the entire reproduction of nearly everything in his part of the debate. 
 Some of his speeches were enlarged to nearly, if not quite double their 
 original length, and nearly every sentence cast in a different mould. This, 
 of course, would have given him a very unfair advantage, relatively, had 
 not Mr. Wilkinson, in view of this, claimed a like privilege — a privilege 
 which could not in honor be denied liim — after which he also, while pre- 
 serving his speeches, for the most part, in their integrity, made such alter- 
 ations and additions as to more perfectly meet the altered attitude of his 
 opponent. This was more especially the case in his later speeches. While 
 the result of all this has been to greatly delay the date of publication, and 
 enhance the size and price of the book, it has at the same time, doubtless, 
 greatly increased the force of the argument, thus enhancing its value and 
 rendering it more acceptable to its readers. The loss in one direction has, 
 we feel sure, been more than repaired by the gain in another. 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 Some expressions in the book, on both sides, may be regarded by some 
 as needlessly severe ; at the same time considerable latitude should be 
 allowed for the provocation and excitement almost inseparable from a 
 public debate. 
 
 We regret the altercation following the last few speeches of the debate 
 under the ''Addenda" headings, and did all we reasonably could to 
 prevent it. When one party resorted to such a course, it rendered it 
 necessary for the other to do the same ; but as they sufficiently explain 
 themselves, any further reference to the matter is uncalled for here. 
 
 It will be acknowledged by all that the book contains a vast amount of 
 research and valuable information, and the publishers feel assured that 
 they have done a real service to the cause of truth by its publication. 
 
 The argument on both sides is vigorous and impressive. The debate 
 will be found, in general, not only interesting, but often racy and in 
 many instances not a little amusing. We doubt not that the book will be 
 read by thousands and prove a source of profitable instruction to all. The 
 scarcity of such works in the field of Canadian literature, and the growing 
 interest attaching to the theme, are surely a sufficient vindication of the 
 publishers in offering a work of such a character and merit to the patronage 
 of the Canadian public. 
 
 Each disputant has carefully examined and corrected the proof of his 
 own speeches, both in galley and page form, hence both parties have reason 
 to be satisfied with the result. 
 
 Under these circumstances, and for the reasons assigned, the book is 
 sent forth by its promoters to the fulfilment of its mission, and it is 
 ardently hoped, and sincerely believed, that that mission will be one of 
 untold blessing. 
 
 James Anderson, 
 
 John Anderson, )> Publishers. 
 
 RoBT. Abercrombie, 
 
ERRATUM. 
 
 On page 337, first line, for the word " circumcision " the reader will please 
 supply the word "commission." 
 
ENDOESEMEISTTS. 
 
 MR. HARDING'S ENDORSATION. 
 
 The Publishers of the Harding-Wilkinson Debate, Messrs. James 
 Anderson, John Anderson and Robert Abercrombie, have seemed desirous 
 of giving to the public a fair, impartial report of it, and I am well pleased 
 with the result of their eft'orts. 
 
 (Signed), J. A. Hakding. 
 
 Winchester, Ky., Jan. 25, 1886. 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S ENDORSATION. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have revised, corrected, and read proofs of all 
 my own speeches as published in this book, and have no hesitation in 
 endorsing the statements of the publishers in the "Preface," as to the 
 circumstances attending the publication. 
 
 (Signed), T. L. Wilkinson. 
 
 Parkdale, Jan. 21, 1886. 
 
4 
 
KEPOKT OF DEBATE 
 
 MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 FIRST DAY. 
 
 FIRST SESSION. 
 
 At the hour of two o'clock on the day indicated in the Preface the 
 Town Hall, Meaford, was well filled with a highly respectable audience, 
 evidently interested to know the truth relative to the vexed question 
 of Christian baptism. 
 
 The chair was occupied by Mr. Alfred Gifford. 
 
 After devotional exercises, he announced that Mr. Harding would 
 now open the debate by affirming the first proposition, as follows : 
 " Christian baptism is immersion, — in it there must be a burial in 
 water." The first speech on each side, he said, would occupy an hour, 
 after which the addresses on this proposition would be confined to 
 thirty minutes. 
 
 Mr. Harding said, — Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I take 
 it that every man who loves God, every man who has within him the 
 Spirit of Christ, desires to know the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth. I realize as I stand here that to believe that 
 \\ hich is false could do me no good in the world, and that to lead 
 others to believe that which is false would be very hurtful to them 
 and very injurious to me. I want, therefore, to know the truth with 
 all my heart. 
 
 \gain, I understand that this audience will expect those who 
 (-ri'^age in this debate to display the spirit of Christians ; and yea 
 
2 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 ought to expect it. I know a great many people come to these dis- 
 cussions expecting a wrangle, and I hope you will be very much 
 disappointed if you have come here with any such expectation. Our 
 Chairman has told you that he is somewhat prejudiced against reli- 
 gious discussions, and in the course of his remarks he referred to the 
 fact that in secular debates the debaters very often displayed a spirit 
 by no means complimentary to themselves. My experience in religious 
 discussions, — and I have had some little experience in that line, — has 
 led me to a different conclusion. I have had discussions lasting six 
 or eight days, during the whole of which time a kind, fraternal 
 spirit prevailed. 
 
 Christ said to His disciples, " 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 damned." These instruc- 
 tions are recorded by Matthew and Mark. Christ gave this great 
 commission, this great law, under which all baptize who baptize at all, 
 for it is agreed that our authority for baptism comes from this docu. 
 ment, and in giving this commission He used a word which we 
 are to consider, that is, the word rendered "baptize." The Greek word 
 is haptizo. The question before us is. What does this Greek word 
 mean 1 Not, What does the English word baptize as used to-day 
 mean? That is not the question. If I were writing an Engl sh 
 dictionary, and should come to that English word, and should consider 
 the meaning in which it is now used, — for use is the arbiter of 
 language, — it would be necessary to give the definition of the word 
 as it is used to-day. And I would define it something like this : 
 ** To baptize, to initiate people into the Church by sprinkling or 
 pouring water upon them, or by immersing them in water." But, 
 mark you, we are not here to find out what the English word baptize 
 as now used means, but to find out what the word baptizo meant 
 when Christ used it more than 18U0 years ago. 1 shall call your 
 attention to the authorities as represented in lexicons, and in the 
 Church histories, and in the cyclopaedias, — three classes of authorities. 
 Then I shall call attention to the use of the word in the Scriptures. 
 
 I will introduce my argument by a few readings with respect to the 
 laws governing the interpretation of words. There is scarcely a word 
 in any language which has only one meaning. Words are used not 
 only in their literal, but also in figurative sonsop, — not only in their 
 primary, but in secondary senses. 
 
 Mr. William Blackstone says, " The words of a law are generally 
 to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 3 
 
 much regarding the propriety of grammar as their general and popu- 
 lar use ; but when words bear either none, or a very absurd signifi- 
 cation, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the 
 received sense of them." 
 
 Bishop Taylor says, "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 interpretation of the laws of Christ the 
 strict sense is to be followed." 
 
 Dr. Jonathan Edwards, the greatest of American Presbyterian 
 theologians, has truly said, " In words capaible of two senses, the 
 natural and proper is the primary, and therefore ought in the first 
 place and chiefly to be regarded." 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 reasons." Turretine has 
 said, "It is acknowledged by all that we should never depart from 
 the proper and native signification of words except for the weightiest 
 and most urgent reasons." The English Pirie says, "Law requires 
 words and phrases of the most ascertained and unequivocal sense." 
 
 Dr. Benson says : " What can be more absurd than to imagine 
 that the doctrines or rules of practice . which relate to men's ever- 
 lasting salvation should be delivered in such ambiguous terms as to 
 be capable of many meanings 1" 
 
 Here we have a great law called the great commission given to us 
 by Christ, and in it the word haptizo occurs. The question is. What 
 ■does it mean 1 The reason it is important to determine this is because 
 one minister immerses the candidate in water, and says, " I baptize 
 thee"; another pours the water upon him, and says, "I baptize 
 thee"; and another sprinkles the water upon him, and says, "I 
 baptize thee." The question naturally arises, Which is correct 1 Are 
 they all correct, or is there but one correct and proper way 1 What 
 does the word mean? I want to make a statement here which I 
 made when I had no opponent before me. It is, that every single 
 lexicographer testifies that this word means to dip, immerse, plunge. 
 Not one of them says it means to sprinkle. Here I have a stack ol 
 lexicons every one of which says the word means dip or plunge, not 
 one of them says it means sprinkle. My opponent will not bring the 
 lexicon that contains sprinkle, because it does not exist. What do 
 the lexicons say 1 
 
 William Greenfield (N. T. Lex.) defines 
 ■" Baptizo (from Bapto), to immerse, immerge, submerge, sink ; in 
 
4 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 N. T. to wash, perform ablution, cleanse ; to immerse, bap- 
 tize, administer the rite of baptism." 
 Thomas Sheldon Green (N. T. Lex.) defines 
 " Baptizo, properly to dip, immerse ; to cleanse or purify by washing ; 
 
 to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize. 
 " Baptisma, properly immersion, baptism, ordinance of baptism ; met. 
 
 baptism in the trial of suftering. 
 " Baptismos, properly an act of dipping or immersion ; a baptism ; 
 
 an ablution." 
 John Pickering gives the following meanings : 
 " Baptizo, to dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, sink ; in N. T. to wash, 
 
 perform ablution, cleanse ; baptize ; also to overwhelm one 
 
 with anything, to be prodigal towards one. 
 '^Baptisma, immersion, dipping, plunging; met. misery, calamity, i.e. 
 
 with which one is overwhelmed ; baptism, 
 "Baptismos, a washing; baptism." 
 
 John Groves (Classic and N. T. Lex.) defines 
 "Baptizo (from Bapto to dip), dip, immerse, immerge, plunge, to 
 
 wash, to cleanse, purify, to baptize, depress, humble, over- 
 whelm. 
 " Baptisma, a washing, ablution ; purification, baptism ; the Christian 
 
 doctrine, depth of affliction or distress, 
 " Baptismos, immersion in water, washing ; ceremonial purification." 
 
 Edward Robinson (N. T. Lex.) defines 
 " Baptizo, to dip in, to sink, to immerse ; to dip in a vessel, to draw 
 
 water ; in N. T, to wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing ; 
 
 to baptize, to administer the right of baptism ; pass, and 
 
 mid. to be baptized, or to cause oneself to be baptized ; 
 
 to baptize with calamities, to overwhelm with sufferings. 
 " Baptisma, properly anything dipped in or immei'sed ; in N. T., bap- 
 tism ; trop. baptism for calamities, afflictions, with which 
 
 one IS overwhelmed. 
 "Baptismos, properly a dipping, immersion; in N. T. a loashing, 
 
 ablution of vessels, couches; baptism." 
 James Donnegan (Classical Lex.) defines 
 "Baptizo, to immerse repeatedly into a liquid ; to submerge — to soak 
 
 thoroughly, to saturate ; hence, to drench with wine ; m^t. 
 
 to confound totally, — to dip in a vessel and draw. 
 "Baptisma, an object immersed, submerged, washed, or soaked," 
 
 Cornelius Schrevelius (Greek-Latin and Latin-Greek Lex,) defines 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 5 
 
 "JBaptizo, baptize, merge, ablue, lave ; in English, te baptize, te dip, 
 
 to wash, to bathe. 
 " Baptisma, immersie, tinctie, baptism a ; in ^wp^Zis/i, immersion, dip- 
 ping (or dyeing), baptism. 
 ^'Baptismos, baptismus, letio ; in English, a baptism, a washing. 
 ^^Baptistees, qui immergit, baptista ; in English, one who immerses, 
 the Baptist." 
 And last, but greatest of all, I introduce the great standard 
 Greek-English definer, the lexicon of Henry George Liddell, Dean of 
 Christ Church, and Robert Scott, Master of Balliel, Oxford. No in- 
 telligent reader of Greek would now question the authority of these 
 distinguished English scholars. This lexicon thus defines 
 "Baptizo, to dip repeatedly ; of ships, to sink them ; pass, te bathe, oi 
 bebaptismenoi, soaked in wine ; ophleemasi beb., over head 
 and ears in debt ; to draw water ; to baptize. 
 " Baptismos, a dipping, bathing, a washing, drawing water ; baptism. 
 ^' Baptisma, that which is dipped ; equal foregoing in N .T." 
 
 Having now examined the proper authorities, the lexicons, in 
 order to find the meaning of the word which our Saviour used, we 
 find that all define it to dip, or immerse, or plunge ; that none give 
 sprinkle, or pour upon, as meanings. In the first edition of Liddell 
 and Scott, the definition "to pour upon" was given; but as no pas- 
 sage could be found in all Greek literature in which the word had 
 this meaning, the words " to pour upon " were cancelled by these dis- 
 tinguished pfedo-baptists, and were left out of their second edition ; 
 and though seven editions of that great standard work have appeared, 
 those words remain out te this day. A most significant fact ! 
 
 Let us now turn to the Church historians and see what was the 
 practice of the early Church. 
 
 The greatest living Church historian is Dr. Philip Schaff*, of New 
 York, a Presbyterian. His prominence in the learned world is in- 
 dicated by the fact that he was chosen by the Church of England to 
 form an American committee to assist in revising the common version 
 of the Bible. I now read from the first volume of his Church history. 
 " The usual form of the act was immersion, as is plain from the 
 original meaning of the Greek Baptizein and Baptismos ; from the 
 analogy of John's baptism in the Jordan ; from the apostle's com- 
 parison of the sacred rite with the miraculous passage of the Red Sea, 
 with the escape of the ark from the Hood, with a cleansing and re- 
 freshing bath, and with burial and resurrection ; finally, from the 
 custom of the ancient Church, which prevails in the east to this day. 
 
b REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 But sprinkling also, or copious pouring, was practiced at an early- 
 day with sick and dying persons, and probably with children and 
 others, where total or partial immersion was impracticable." 
 
 So testifies this distinguished pa^do-baptist "divine." At just how 
 early a day this "sprinkling" or "copious pouring " began will ap- 
 pear from other readings that are to follow. 
 
 The prince of all Church historians is the great German, Augustus 
 Neander. He says, "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in 
 conformity with the original institution and the original import of the 
 symbol, performed by immersion as a sign of entire baptism into the 
 Holy Spirit, and of being entirely penetrated by the same." 
 
 Next after him I introduce John Lawrence Von Mosheim, scarcely 
 less distinguished in this field of learning. He gives the history of 
 the difierent centuries separately. He thus testifies : 
 
 Century 1. "In this century baptism was administered in con- 
 venient places, without the public assemblies, and by immersing the 
 candidates wholly in water." 
 
 Century 2. '• Twice a year, viz., at Easter and Whitsuntide, baptism 
 was publicly administered by the bishop, or by the presbyters, acting 
 by his command and authority. The candidates for it were immersed 
 wholly in water, with invocation of the sacred Trinity, according to 
 the Saviour's precept, after they had repeated what they called the 
 creed," etc. 
 
 Gregory says, "The initiatory rite of baptism was performed by 
 immersing the whole body in the baptismal font, and in the earlier 
 periods of Christianity was permitted to all who acknowledged the 
 truths of the Gospel," etc. 
 
 Of modern Church historians the late Dean Stanley stands in the 
 front rank. At one time he was chaplain to Queen Victoria. He 
 visited Russia and the. East, and his history of the Eastern Church is 
 now the standard authority on that phase of the Church question. 
 He says, " There can be no question that the original form of bap- 
 tism, and the very meaning of the word, was complete immersion in 
 the deep baptismal waters, and that for at least six centuries any 
 other form was little known, or regarded, unless in the case of danger- 
 ous illness, an exceptional and an almost monstrous case." 
 
 Now, when it is remembered that the Eastern is the Greek Church, 
 that it has used the Greek language from the day the New Testament 
 was written in Greek by the inspired penmen to this hour, the fact 
 that this Church does now practice immersion, and always has done 
 so, is most overwhelmingly and conclusively in favor of my position. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 7 
 
 The next witness to be introduced is Dr. "William Wall, Vicar of 
 Shoreham in Kent, a most learned and candid minister of the Church 
 of England. Dr. Wall wrote a "History of Infant Baptism" many 
 years ago which is distinguished by such scholarly research and 
 acumen that it remains the standard work on that subject to this day. 
 There is nothing in its field of literature that approaches at all near 
 it in excellency. As it was written by a psedo-baptist, of course it is 
 not favorable to immersion any further than it is compelled by the 
 facts in the case — the truth of history — to be. 
 
 Dr. Wall says, " Their general and ordinary way was to baptize by 
 immersion, or dipping a person, whether it were an infant or grown 
 man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear, by an 
 infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak en- 
 deavours of such ppedo-baptists as would maintain the negative of it, 
 so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs 
 which some people give to the English anti-psedobaptists merely for 
 their use of dipping. It is one thing to maintain that that circum- 
 stance is not absolutely necessary to the essence of baptism, and 
 another thing to go about to represent it as ridiculous and foolish, or 
 as shameful and indecent. It was, in all probability, the way our 
 blessed Saviour was baptized, and for certain was the most usual and 
 ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did receive their bap- 
 tism. I shall not stay to produce the particular proofs of this. Many 
 of the quotations which I have brought for other purposes, and shall 
 bring, do evince it. It is a great want of prudence as well as of 
 honesty to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and 
 may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one 
 says. * * On the other side, the anti-psedobaptists will be as un- 
 fair in their turn if they do not grant that in the case of sickness, 
 weakliness, haste, want of quantity of water, or such like extra- 
 ordinary occasions, baptism by affusion of water on the face was by 
 the ancients counted sufficient baptism. I shall, out of the Juany 
 proofs of it, produce two or three of the most ancient." 
 
 Dr. Wall then proceeds to give sevei'al cases of affusion, the most 
 ancient of which is that of Novatian, who, A.D. 251, while lying in 
 bed from sickness, received what they called clinic baptism. This is 
 the most ancient case of affusion for baptism on record. 
 
 Thus we have seen that the lexicons say the word baptizo means to 
 immerse ; the Church historians testify that they immersed in the first 
 ages of the Church, and we now come to the Bible to see how the word 
 is used there. 
 
6 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Remember the rule of interpretation to which your attention was 
 called in the beginning : Words are to be taken in their " common and 
 most known signification," unless the nature of the case, or the con- 
 text, forbids. We will examine the Bible accounts of baptisms to see 
 if there is anything to prevent us from taking this word that our 
 Lord used, in its common and most known sense. 
 
 In Matthew, 3rd chap., we find, "And the same John had his 
 raiment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his 
 meat was locusts and wild honey. 
 
 " Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region 
 round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing 
 their sins." What does that mean? It does not forbid the idea of 
 immersion. John was at the river. The people came out to be bap- 
 tized there in the Jordan. Farther on it says, " Then cometh Jesus 
 from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John 
 forbad Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of Thee and comest 
 Thou to me 1 And Jesus answering said unto him. Suffer it to be so 
 now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he 
 suffered Him. And Jesus when He was baptized went up straight- 
 way out of the water ; and lo, the heavens were opened unto Him and 
 He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon 
 Him." Christ went to the Jordan to be baptized, and immediately 
 when He was baptized He went up out of the water. That is rather 
 significant. I now read from John 3 : 23, " And John also was bap- 
 tizing in ^non near to Salim, because there was much water there : 
 and they came, and were baptized." He was baptizing " because 
 there was much water there." We need much water when we im- 
 merse, but not when we sprinkle or pour. 
 
 Next, take Acts 8 : 35 itc, "Then Philip opened his mouth, and 
 began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as 
 they went on their way, they came unto a certain water : and the 
 eunuch said. See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized] 
 And Philip said. If thou believest with all thine heart, thou uiayest. 
 And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still ; and they went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he 
 baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the 
 Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no 
 more : and he went on his way rejoicing." Here we have Philip and 
 the eunuch coming to the water ; the chariot is commanded to stand 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 9 
 
 still ; then they went down into the water, and after the baptism 
 they came up out of the water. 
 
 And at Rom. 6 : 4, 5, we read, "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 likeness of His resurrection." 
 
 What does that mean? It means that we are buried with Him by 
 baptism into death. I have heard it intimated that this does not 
 refer to immersion, — that a man is a fool who would think so. So I 
 interpret it. I have here Wesley's notes on the New Testament. He 
 says, "We are buried with Him, (alluding to the ancient manner of 
 baptizing by immersion), that as Christ was raised from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father, so we also by the same power should rise 
 again." 
 
 Lange's Commentary on Romans (Schaff's edition) says, " To be 
 buried is a stronger expression than to die, for the burial confirms the 
 death and raises it beyond doubt. It withdraws the dead from our 
 sight, — annihilates it, as it were." He adds, "Buried in death; 
 an oxymoron, according to which burial precedes and death follows, as 
 is illustrated in the immersion into the bath of baptism." In a note 
 SchafF says, " All commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge) 
 expressly admit, or take it for granted, that in this verse, especially 
 in sunetapheemen and eegerthee, the ancient prevailing mode of bap- 
 tism by immersion and emersion is implied as giving additional force 
 to the idea of the going down of the old and rising up of the new 
 man." Dr. Schaff then quotes Bloomfield, "There is a plain allusion 
 to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion." Barnes, " It is alto- 
 gether probable that the apostle has allusion to the custom of baptiz- 
 ing by immersion." Conybeare and Howson, " This passage cannot 
 be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism 
 was by immersion." Webster and Wilkinson, (not this Wilkinson), 
 " Doubtless there is an allusion to immersion as the usual mode of 
 baptism introduced to show that baptism symbolized our spiritual 
 resurrection." 
 
 Let us pause a moment and consider what has been presented. 
 The word haptizo means to immerse; we have looked into the Church 
 histories, and found that during the first centuries of the Church 
 immersion only was practiced ; we have looked into the Bible, and 
 have seen that they went into the water, into much water, and after 
 they were baptized came up out of the water. Paul says in his letter 
 
10 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 to the Colossians, 2:12, "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein alsa 
 ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who 
 hath raised Hira from the dead." In his letter to Titus, 3:5,6, he 
 says, "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 Saviour." In Heb. 10 : 22, we find, 
 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, 
 having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
 washed with pure water." We find not only that they went to water, 
 to much water, were buried in baptism, but that their bodies were 
 washed with pure water, — not simply the forehead, or liead, but the 
 whole body. At the beginning of this debate I quoted authorities to 
 show that in interpreting words you have to take the usual and most 
 known signification, and you have not to depart from it unless the 
 nature of the case demands it. What is the usual and most known 
 signification of the word baptizo — the word that Christ used ] Immer- 
 sion. And you are to take it unless the nature of the case forbids. 
 Does the nature of the case forbid if? No. Everything makes it 
 stronger and more conclusive that that is the meaning we are to take. 
 We find not only that the word means immerse, but they did the very 
 things immersionists do now. The piedo-baptists do not do as they 
 did. They went to the water ; went down into the water ; talked 
 about baptism as a burial, and about having their bodies washed with 
 pure water. This is all true of immersionists, but not of psedo- 
 baptists, to-day. 
 
 In the next place, let us consider the testimony of the great 
 encyclopaedias. The first I will read is the greatest of all, — 
 the "Encyclopedia Britannica." It says, "The usual mode of per- 
 forming the ceremony was by immersion. In the case of sick persons 
 (clinici) the minister was allowed to baptize by pouring water upon 
 the head, or by sprinkling. In the early Church, clinical baptism, as 
 it was called, was only permitted in case of necessity, but 'the practice 
 of baptism by sprinkling gradually came in in spite of the opposition of 
 councils and hostile decrees. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, was the 
 first council of the Church which legalized baptism by sprinkling, by 
 leaving it to the choice of the officiating minister. The custom was 
 to immerse three times, once at the name of each of the Persons in 
 the Trinity, but latterly the three-fold immersion was abolished be- 
 cause it was thought to go against the Trinity." 
 
 The Schafi'-Herzog Encyclopaedia says, " In the primitive Church 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 11 
 
 baptism was by immersion except in the case of the sick (clinic 
 baptism), who were baptized by pouring or sprinkling. These latter 
 were often regarded as not properly baptized, either because they had 
 not completed their catechumenate, or the symbolism of the rite was 
 not fully observed, or because of the small amount of water necessarily 
 used. * ^ * The Council of Ravenna (1311) was the first to allow a 
 choice between sprinkling and immersion." 
 
 Zell's Encyclopaedia goes back a little farther. It says, " 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 adopted a new name. The Greek Church retained 
 this custom, but the Western Church adopted in the 13th century the 
 mode of baptism by sprinkling, which has been continued by the 
 Protestants, the Baptists only excepted. ^The introduction of this 
 mode of baptism was owing to the great inconvenience which arose 
 from the immersion of the whole body in the northern climate of 
 Europe. The custom of sprinkling thrice in the administration of 
 the rite spread with the diffusion of the doctrine of the Trinity." 
 
 This authority says that dipping was the rule for the first 1300 
 years. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, was the first that recog- 
 nized sprinkling. Members of the Church of England will find 
 dipping in the Book of Common Prayer ; Methodi.sts will find it in 
 the Discipline ; you will find it everywhere. All say it is right, and 
 that it is proper to practice it. All these great authorities tell you 
 that it was the almost universal practice for the first 1 300 years. Dr. 
 Wall gives you the very first case of aff"usion. Two and a-half centuries 
 of the Christian era had passed away before it came into use. I ask 
 you to pause and consider the evidence heaped up before you. Sup- 
 pose there is a gentleman present who desires to follow the Saviour and 
 to be baptized. I can tell you how to be baptized. I can show that 
 every one of the lexicographers, and all the Church historians, show 
 that immersion is the proper way and that l)y it you can follow Jesus 
 step by step. If you go to the water, Christ did so. If you go to 
 much water, Christ did so. If you are buried in baptism, so was 
 Paul. In doing so you step along in the very words of the sacred 
 Scriptures, and you can say, " My body is washed with pure 
 water." That is what Paul said for himself and for the Hebrew 
 Christians. If you pause and ask yourself the question, " Is there 
 any Church that will not receive me because my baptism has not 
 been properly performed V 1 say that not a single Church, not a 
 
12 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 single congregation would reject you — not one. When I consider all 
 these facts I feel that I am indeed standing on a rock. We gather 
 here to hunt for truth in the name of Christ. We find the word 
 which Jesus gave in the great commission, and when its meaning is 
 called in question we naturally go to the great dictionaries. We are 
 not going from the Bible in doing that. If, in reading the English 
 Bible, you meet with words you do not understand, and you turn to 
 Webster or Worcester, you are not going away from the Bible — you 
 are simply endeavoring to understand it. When I look at the Greek 
 Testament and find bapt'zo, and then look up the dictionaries to find 
 its meaning, I am not turning away from the Bible, but simply find- 
 ing out what the Bible means. When I turn to the authorities I do 
 not find that the word means to sprinkle or pour ; not in a single case 
 anywhere. 
 
 I want to call your attention to another baptism that is sig- 
 nificant. 1 have already told you that words have not only a 
 primary and literal signification, but a secondary or metaphorical 
 meaning. I find that Christ used the word baptizo in that way. He 
 was with His disciples on one occasion, and the mother of Zebedee's 
 children came and said, " Grant that these my two sons may sit, the 
 one on Thy right hand and the other on Thy left in Thy kingdom. 
 But Jesus answered and said. Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye 
 able to' drink of the cup that I drink of, and to be baptized with the 
 baptism that I am baptized with "l They say unto him. We are able. 
 And He saith unto them. Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be 
 baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with : but to sit on My 
 right hand, and on ]\Iy left, is not Mine to give, but it shall be given 
 to them for whom it is prepared of My Father." That baptism is 
 the baptism of sufiering. Sufierings are likened by the Psalmist to 
 overwhelming water, Psalm 69 : 14, 15: "Deliver me out of the 
 mire, and let me not sink : let me be delivered from them that hate 
 me, and out of the deep waters. Let not the waterflood overflow 
 me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her 
 mouth upon me." So in verses 1 and 2 of the same psalm : "Save 
 me, O God ; for the waters are come into my soul. I sink in deep 
 mire, where there is no standing ; I am come into deep waters, where 
 the floods overflow me." Would it do to talk about Christ's having 
 been sprinkled with sufi'erings ? Did he merely have a little suflVring 
 poured upon him 1 Go to Gethsemane in the hour of darkness, and 
 hear the groans of the dying Son of God. Great drops of sweat 
 like blood stand on His brow. Go to Calvary, and hear the cry, " My 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 13 
 
 God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me 1 " These sufferings ful- 
 filled the saying, " I have a baptism to be baptized with." He 
 was overwhelmed in sorrow, crushed down with suffering till His 
 great heart broke and He died on the cross for us. It will not do 
 to call that a mere sprinkling of sorrow, or to refer to it as a 
 slight pouring of suffering ; but the great writers say it was an over- 
 whelming suffering. I have a work here by Dr. Stuart, a paedo- 
 baptist, and one of the greatest men produced by the Presbyterian 
 Church of the United States. He says: "Inasmuch as the more 
 usual idea of baptizo is overwhelming, immerging, it was very natural 
 to employ it in designating severe calamities and sufferings." 
 
 So when you turn to the metaphorical meaning of the word you 
 find the same idea in it. Not in a single case do you find sprinkle or 
 pour. If we turn to Matthew we read in the words of John : "I 
 baptize you with water, but Christ will baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost and with fire." And when we turn to Revelation, we find that 
 the wicked were " plunged into a lake of fire." 
 
 [Time expired,^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S FIRST REPLY. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Christian Friends, — I sympathize to some 
 extent with the remarks made by yourself, Sir, at the opening of this 
 meeting. I have not been very strongly in sympathy with public 
 discussions of this kind. I have been engaged in but two before in my 
 life, and I was crowded into both of them. I did not seek them. I 
 have never challenged any man to a discussion, but when I was chal- 
 lenged I had either to accept the challenge or be branded as a coward 
 if I refused, so I have generally preferred to accept the challenge, 
 because I am terribly proud and hate to be called a coward. In fact, 
 I do not think I am a coward, and therefore do not like to be called 
 one. Some people are very fond of discussion. They are always 
 seeking it. They are always challenging people to debate. They are 
 always branding as cowards those who refuse to debate with them, and 
 once in a great while we have to lay a victim on the altar to gratify 
 their ambition. And I do not know but I may as well be such a 
 victim as any other brother, so occasionally (it is four years since I 
 did it before), I place myself at their disposal just to give them 
 
14 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 an opportunity of airing their peculiar sentiments. Yet I do not 
 altogether deprecate discussions like this. I do not like to be in a 
 thunder storm, especially if the wind is very high ; at the same time 
 I believe the air is a great deal purer after a good thunder storm and 
 breeze. Cyclones are not pleasant things to be in, but they take away 
 the carbonic acid gas and leave the atmosphere far more pure and 
 healthy. I have seen the same effects with respect to these discus- 
 sions over disputed points of theology. And if I can do anything to 
 purify the air, why of course I shall be glad to do it. I am afraid, 
 however, that I shall not be able to blow as hard as my opponent, for 
 he has a tremendous pair of lungs. However, they are his own. I 
 shall not complain, no matter how much he vociferates. His fists are 
 his own too, and I shall not complain, no matter how hard he smites 
 them together. And if he must die, I would rather he would kill 
 himself than that the responsibility of killing him should be laid on 
 my shoulders. (Laughter.) Jt is contrary to the rules of this debate 
 for people to laugh, and I do not want you to do it, or to give expi-es- 
 sion to your feelings in any way, 
 
 I suppose, ladies and gentlemen, I need not take up your time, and 
 especially my precious time (for I have a great task to accomplish 
 inside an hour), in telling you how this debate was brought about. I 
 think this community knows well enough about that matter. My 
 opponent told you in opening that he had been engaged in a number 
 of discussions — I think he said a good many. He has an advantage 
 of me in this respect, as I was never engaged in but two before, and 
 one of them had no reference to this question, so this is my second 
 debate on tliis subject. I do not claim to be a specialist, either 
 as a scholar, a speaker, or a debater. We have fifty or a hundred 
 men in the Church to which I belong for wliom I could not hold a 
 candle to debate. And as to scholarship, wlien they are around I 
 always take a back seat. But I do not depend on scholarship alto- 
 gether. I do not propose to bring a cart-load of books here and ask 
 you to Vjelieve that they are all on my side. I just came here to talk 
 a little common sense and the Bible to you, and I may have occasion 
 sometimes to refer to scholars in confirmation of the views I advance. 
 Under the circumstances, considering the great disparity that exists 
 between my opponent and myself, he being a scholar and, I under- 
 stand, a graduate of some university in tlie United States, armed with 
 books without measure and without number, possessing a voice of 
 stentorian tones — -to say nothing of his fists — ^if I sliould have to sue 
 oumb at his hands before the six days of this debate, or the half of 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 them are over, I am sure you will think it nothing surprising, 
 especially when there is such an array of scholarship on his side. 
 Scholarship, you know, with some people, goes a great way in deciding 
 a question. 
 
 Now let us look at the facts. My opponent's proposition is, — 
 " Christian baptism is immersion, — in it there must he a burial in 
 water." If I can produce one single instance, therefore, in which 
 Christian baptism was not a burial in water, I have disproved his 
 proposition altogether, — because in that case there viust not he a 
 burial in water. So you see I have only to bring one case, and if I do 
 that I can sit down in my chair and defy him to bring on his lexi- 
 cographers, his authorities, his scholarship, his vociferation, and his 
 smiting of the fists, and put his witnesses in the box, because he says 
 there micst he a burial in water. But I will take my own way of 
 reaching the point. Libraries are good, but you will find that facts 
 are hard things to deal with. 
 
 Our purpose in holding this discussion, as stated by my opponent, 
 and in which I fully concur, is not to make blackguards of ourselves, 
 or to insult the people's sense of Christian propriety, or to bandy 
 epithets, or to throw dirt, — I am not going to do that, though if dirt 
 is thrown at me I generally cast it back, — but I came here to discuss 
 the question honestly, fairly, fully if you like, and if one week is 
 not enough we will take two, and if two are not sufficient we will 
 take a month, and if a month will not do we will take three months, 
 and we will reach the bottom of the subject if it has any bottom. I 
 have heard men say, when the roads were about three feet deep with 
 mud, that they were good roads when you got down to them, but 
 they were a long way down. But to the subject. 
 
 We are told that Christ gave us the word in question in the com- 
 mission, and that that word was baptizo. That is a matter I may 
 have occasion to dispute, for I think, according to scholarship, on 
 which such a premium is put to-day,— and which I do not propose to 
 disparage, — Christ did not speak in the Greek language, and therefore 
 did not use baptizo at all. I throw out this thought in passing. My 
 opponent said, incidentally, that if he were making a dictionary to-day 
 and wished to express the meaning of this term according to the 
 usage of the Church, he would say it meant to initiate people into the 
 Church by sprinkling or pouring a little water on them, or by dipping 
 or immersing them in water, or in some such way. But he was going 
 to appeal from usage to the meaning of the word. And what did he 
 do? The very first "dip" he made he appealed to the lexicons. " Do 
 
16 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 you see them," said he (pointing to the pile). It reminded me of a 
 certain Baptist divine who in a written debate with a Methodist 
 brother said, " As I write I have a pile of books before me as huge as 
 high Olympus." That is pretty high. My opponent's pile of books 
 is not quite so high, but is nearly so, and far more weighty. Now, 
 how are lexicons made 1 Perhaps it will be interesting to you to 
 know. Take Webster and Worcester. How do you think they de- 
 termine the meaning of any word 1 By usage. But my opponent is 
 going to appeal from usage to the meaning of the word, and he then 
 appeals to lexicons which are made from usage. That may answer his 
 purpose, but he may find that his lexicons, so far as sustaining his 
 position is concerned, are a little lame. But I am not going to the 
 lexicons now, I am just going along taking my own road to get there, 
 and I hope to get there by and by. 
 
 My opponent admitted that there was scarcely any word that had 
 but one meaning. I am very glad he made that admission, be- 
 cause he will try his best to hold me to one meaning, and yet there 
 was not a lexicographer he quoted that gave one meaning only. You 
 remember how many words he read, defining bajitizo. I think the 
 fewest words he read in any of the lexicons expressive of the meaning 
 of this word was four, five, six, ten, and right on up. The fact is 
 that lexicographers have used, to express the meaning of bapiizo, in 
 its various forms, between fifty and a hundred different words, yet he 
 will try to prove to you that it has only one meaning and that that 
 meaning is expressed in his proposition, to immerse. In that very 
 proposition he uses two words to express its meaning. In fact, these 
 dear immersionist friends when they find one word fails them, can 
 soon skip to another. When "immerse" will not carry them clear 
 through they take shelter in "dip." When it is shown that that 
 word does not express the idea they take shelter in "plunge ;" and 
 when " plunge'"' is too big for them they go to "overwhelm;" and 
 when " overwhelm " won't answer they take " overflow," and when 
 that will not do they find some other word. I have a little book 
 here, — it is not a psedo-baptist l)Ook, but a book by Dr. T. J. Conant, 
 the greatest light of the Baptist Church in America, and President of 
 the American (Baptist) Bible Revision Committee. He is not only 
 ranked as one of the finest scholars, but as one of the most honest 
 men in the Baptist Church, — and that is saying a great deal, for they 
 are all fine, honest people ; I have not a word to say against their 
 integrity, — but I think ho finds it necessary to employ no less than 
 nine English words to translate this word bapiizo, and he sets out to 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 17 
 
 prove it has but one meaning. Yet he cannot find one English word 
 that will translate it all the way through. And no other man can. 
 My opponent cannot and never will, and during the present discus- 
 sion you will find that out. Take note of this. I will show you, 
 too, that it has more than one meaning. I propose to show you that 
 it has a meaning in the Scriptures which it does not bear in the 
 classics. And I will call your attention right here to what I propose 
 proving, viz.. That a number of the very best lexicographers distin- 
 guish between classic use, or the general meaning of the term in 
 secular literature, and the New Testament meaning. I ask you 
 particularly to notice this. Greenfield discriminates between the 
 historical or classic, and the New Testament use ; Pickering dis- 
 ci'iminates ; Robinson discriminates ; Liddell and Scott discriminate ; 
 and others, as I shall have occasion to show you. What I want 
 to prove at present is that the Scriptures do not use the term in the 
 exclusive sense of to immerse. But here are a few points to which I 
 wish to call your attention. As an appeal has been made by my 
 opponent to the meaning of the word outside the Bible, outside the 
 Bible we will go to find what Christian baptism means ! I take this 
 position : — No human being, or living animal, was ever baptized in 
 the primary, classical sense of the term, according to Greek writers, 
 that is, completely buried, or immersed, and survived it. Drowning 
 was the inevitable result. I do not deny that lexicographers give 
 " dip, plunge, immerse," and that the word has that meaning primarily. 
 My opponent wants to confine you to the classical meaning. We will 
 see where it will land him. And I here declare to you that it will 
 be at the bottom of the water somewhere, and when you get him out 
 you will have a real funeral, not a sham or symbolic one. He cannot 
 produce a single case from the Greek writers where any individual 
 or any living animal was said to be baptized, that is, completely put 
 under water, and got out alive, and if he does it will be the result of 
 a huge accident. 
 
 I will take Dr. Conant's book and read you a few cases — not all I 
 have noted — in order to illustrate the truth of what I say. Diodorus,, 
 in his account of the defeat of the Carthaginian army, describes the 
 destruction of many of the fugitives in the river Crimissus, in Sicily,, 
 which had been swollen by a violent storm. He says, " The river, 
 rushing down with the current increased in violence, baptized many, 
 and destroyed them, attempting to swim through with their armor." 
 
 In the same work, describing the effects of the rapid rise of the 
 water during the annual inundation of the Nile, he says, " Most of 
 9 
 
18 REPORT OF DEBATE . 
 
 the wild animals are surrounded by the stream and perish, being 
 baptized; but some, escaping to the high grounds, are saved." Dio- 
 dorus wrote his history between 30 and 60 years B.C. 
 
 Josephus, in his Jewish antiquities, describing the murder of the 
 boy Aristobulus, who,' by Herod's command, was drowned by his 
 companions in a swimming-bath, says, " Continually pressing down 
 and baptizing him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist 
 till they had entirely suffocated him." Josephus was born A.D. 37. 
 
 The same writer, relating the same occurrence, on another occasion 
 •said, " And then, according to command, being baptized by the Gauls 
 in a swimming-bath, he dies." 
 
 I can give nearly a dozen more examples to the same effect, every- 
 one of which resulted in the person or animal perishing. Now, did 
 Christ command His disciples, when He used the word baptizo, to go 
 and drown all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, — i.e., to sink them under water and leave them there'? For 
 that is what the word in its primary sense meant. There is no 
 getting away from this fact. If Christ meant that the word should 
 be used in that primary or literal sense for which my opponent has 
 been preparing the way, and is trying to defend — though he had to 
 deviate from it before he got through, — then Christ commanded His 
 disciples to go and drown all nations. The word baptizo makes no 
 provision whatever for removal from the water, or other liquid 
 element. This same Dr. Conant, afcer giving the various instances 
 where the Greek word occurs in the classics, makes some general 
 comments, and in these comments, Baptizein, p. 88, 89, we. read : 
 
 "The word immerse, as well as its synonyms immerge, etc., ex- 
 presses the full import of the Greek word Baptizein. The idea 
 of emersion is not included in the meaning of the Greek word. It 
 means, simply, to put into, or under water (or other substance), with- 
 out determining whether the object immersed sinks to the bottom, or 
 floats in the liquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined 
 not by the word itself, l)ut by the nature of the case, and by the 
 design of the act in each particular case. A living being, put under 
 water without intending to drown him, is of course to be immediately 
 withdrawn from it ; and this is to be understood, wherever the word 
 is used with reference to such a case. But the Greek word is also 
 used when a living being is put under water for the purpose of 
 drowning and, of course, is left to perish in the immersing element. 
 All this is evident from the following examples." 
 
 And Dr. Conant gives a number of examples to prove that baptizo 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 19 
 
 is used where living beings are put under water for the purpose of 
 drowning. Baptizo, then, in the primary sense does mean— and I 
 could have saved my opponent's time by telling him I was not going 
 to deny it — the submerging of an object in water or any other element. 
 But it means the submerging only ; it does not mean to take out. 
 Nor does it express any mode by which that submerging shall 
 take place. It matters not one straw to the meaning of the 
 word how the object gets enclosed in the fluid, so long a,i it 
 is enclosed, — so that it can be said to be immersed. And so 
 far as the meaning of the word is concerned it is supposed to remain 
 immersed to all eternity. But when you adopt a meaning for 
 Christian baptism that requires the individual to be pulled right out 
 as quickly as possible, to save him from drowning, you not only depart 
 from the primary use of the word, but get him out of the baptizing 
 element and out of the baptized condition. Did Christ command His 
 disciples to impose such a rite upon all who should embrace His 
 religion, — to put them under water and leave them there without the 
 slightest intimation that for the sake of saving their lives they were 
 to be taken out as soon as possible 1 I want to illustrate this. 
 [Taking up a tumbler partly filled with water.] There is water. 
 Not " much water," but there is enough. My opponent in his 
 proposition says, " Christian baptism is immersion, — in it there must 
 be a burial in water." Now, [dropping a piece of money in the 
 tumbler,] is that piece of money immersed ? Is it buried in water 1 
 It is lying on the bottom. Is it buried in water 1 If so it is baptized, 
 according to the definition of my opponent. It is Christian baptism, 
 too, for it is immersed, — buried in water, and that is what he says 
 Christian baptism is. I will just leave it there for a little while, for 
 it cannot drown, and I do not think the Queen's head will suffer by 
 the operation. Can it be possible that that is all Christ meant when He 
 said, "Go baptize all nations "1 Did He mean that they should be 
 just covered over with water, like that piece of money, and left there 
 to perish % If so, our immersionist friends, as well as ourselves, come 
 very far short of obeying the divine command. But the fact is, such a 
 command is absurd, and obedience to it would be ruinous. But 
 suppose I should take it out. [Takes the piece of money out 
 and holds it up to the audience.] Is it baptized now 1, It is 
 not immersed. It is not buried in water, therefore it is not, in that 
 sense of the term, baptized. Now, if we confine ourselves to the 
 primary, or original meaning of the term, the baptism will last just 
 as long as the individual is under the water, and as soon as he is 
 
20 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 taken out of the water the baptism ceases. And did Christ intend, 
 when He said, "Go baptize all nations," that they should s^ay bap- 
 tized, or that it should only be momentary, — that it should be undone 
 as quickly as possible for fear of killing those baptized ? He evidently 
 intended that they should stay baptized. But if it means immerse, 
 the people are baptized only while they remain in a state of immersion. 
 But [dropping the piece of money in the water again,] suppose, 
 instead of a piece of money this were a human being ; and suppose I 
 should leave it immersed till I am done speaking, what would be the 
 consequence 1 Death, inevitably. A good deal of capital has been 
 made out of what I said on another occasion about baptizing horses 
 and skunks, and I would like to say a word about that matter. I 
 was considered to be very irreverent and very wicked because I 
 happened to refer, playfully, to the baptism of horses, and when that 
 was challenged by a person present I said, " Sir, if the word baptize 
 means 'to dip,' and nothing but 'dip,' and you dip a skunk, you 
 baptize it." Now, if that piece of money were a horse would it not 
 be immersed 1 Would it not be buried in water 1 If so, would it be 
 irreverent, would it be naughty, would it be wicked for me to suggest 
 that according to my opponent's proposition it would be baptized 1 If 
 immersion is baptism, and the horse is immersed, it must be baptized. 
 And would it not be the same if the piece of money were a skunk 1 
 And would it be naughty, would it be rude, would it be irreverent, 
 would it be wicked for me to say it was baptized, even witli Christian 
 baptism, according to the proposition under consideration 1 By no 
 means. Those who cry out in this kind of fashion against such language 
 must have exceedingly tender consciences. I would recommend them 
 to soak them over night in a strong decoction of alum and white oak 
 bark to toughen them a little. The trouble is it is destructive to 
 their pet theory, and they don't like that. But if the illustration is 
 ridiculous it is all the worse for the theory, and my object in using it 
 is to show the ridiculousness of the theory, and the ridiculousness of 
 adopting, as the meaning of this term, a definition that is capable of 
 such a V)readth and absurdity of application. The meaning of the 
 term, as I interpret it, in its relation to the Christian ordinance, is not 
 capable of such an application. The proposition we are discussing 
 to-day does not seek any distinctive definition whatever of the 
 religious use of the term — none whatever for a Christian rite. It says 
 Christian baptism is simply immersion — a burial in water. This 
 much and nothing more. Then anything that is immersed or buried 
 in water is baptized. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 21 
 
 Now, I want to call your attention for a little to two classes of 
 words — the one expressive only of action, the other of a condition 
 resulting from some action. And I want to show the absurdity of 
 ranking this word baptizo in the former class. To illustrate, suppose 
 Christ meant, when He said " Go baptize," " go and dip." And sup- 
 pose you had never heard of the Christian religion (pardon the supposi- 
 tion), but suppose you were living in a heathen land and had never 
 heard of the Gospel, and suppose I appeared before you and expounded 
 the Christian religion and tried to persuade you to embrace it, and then 
 I told you you must be baptized, for Christ had commanded me to " go 
 and teach all nations, baptizing them." " What is thatl" you would 
 ask. " It is to be dipped in water over head and ears. That is all it 
 means." You would very naturally ask, even in your rude barbaric 
 state, " And what in the world is that for 1" Then I would have to 
 enter into fuller explanations. The word itself suggests nothing. It 
 possesses no moral significance. It is simply the name of a mode of 
 motion. But suppose I were to tell you "you must be immersed." 
 " Oh, that will kill us 1" you would say, " because that means to put 
 any person or thing under water and leave it there. We will never 
 embrace the Christian religion." " But you must," I would say, " or 
 you can't go to heaven when you die." You would then ask, " What 
 must we be immersed for 1" and I would have to go to work and 
 explain it. The word itself possesses no self-explaining power that 
 would serve as a clue to its design. Suppose I were to use the word 
 " plunge." The same difficulty would exist. These words are not 
 suggestive of any design. They are too feeble, their meaning is too 
 limited, their sense is altogether too weak to express the idea of 
 baptism in its Christian acceptation, therefoi*e the scholars, as good 
 and great and worthy as any quoted to-day, I am bound to say, who 
 translated our Bible, when translating that word baptizo into English, 
 never ventured, either in the New Testament or the Old Testament, 
 except in one single instance, in the case of Naaman, to translate it by 
 any English word, except tvash, which belongs to the other class of words 
 to which I refer as suggestive of the efiect of some action. Let us look 
 at this aspect of the case for a little. Does the word ever mean loash, 
 according to the lexicographers whom we have heard quoted to-day'? 
 You will remember that quite a number of them gave this definition. 
 I think I have found some sixteen or eighteen altogether who define 
 it by this term or its equivalents, cleanse, purify, etc. Now suppose 
 I should come to you as barbarians, and say, " Christ sent me to wash, 
 or cleanse the nations, and you must be cleansed." You would say, 
 
22 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 " We all understand that. We know we are sinful and need cleans- 
 ing." If I come using a word that expresses the idea of purification, it 
 carries its own explanation witli it. And does baptizo ever mean to 
 purify, to wash, to cleanse, in the Bible? Why some of the very passages 
 quoted from the New Testament by my opponent, prove it does, especi- 
 ally Heb. 10 : 22, "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, 
 and our bodies washed with pure water." He virtually admits this is 
 baptism. But what is it to dip, or plunge, or immerse 1 It is merely to 
 perform an act, and when the description of the act is complete the 
 meaning of the word is exhausted, — it means nothing more. When we 
 say it means to cleanse, to purify, people at once comprehend it as a 
 word of some moral significance, or deeper meaning. We need to have 
 our sins taken away. That is what Christ came into the world to do, 
 and baptism is to represent that fact ; and when I so explain it the un- 
 tutored mind at once exclaims, " Yes, that is the idea ! " Now, sup- 
 pose I came to you and said, " Christ told me to sprinkle all nations." 
 " What is that for 1" you would ask. And I would have to explain, 
 " It is to purify you." Suppose I were to say, " I pour upon you.'' 
 The question would be asked, " What is that for '?" I would need to ex- 
 plain that I was going to pour water upon you to represent some- 
 thing. The same difficulties would meet me in the use of these 
 words as in that of dip, plunge, and immerse. My opponent might 
 have saved himself much effort and a lot of scholarship on- this 
 head, for I do not believe that the word means to pour or sprinkle 
 any more than to dip, or immerse, in a New Testament sense. 
 He has tried to make me responsible for such an opinion, but I re- 
 pudiate it at the commencement of this debate. I do not believe it 
 means to sprinkle. I do not wonder it is not in the lexicons. It 
 has been omitted for a good reason, no doubt ; though I think I could 
 find it in some of the lexicons if I were to hunt for it. But I know 
 it does not mean to sprinkle or pour. Liddell and Scott had pour in 
 their first edition, but the Baptists made such a fuss about it that they 
 took it out ; and I can show you that a good many other words were 
 taken out or altered. I do not care, however, whether it is in or not, 
 for I do not hold that it means to pour. I do not appeal to lexicons to 
 see whether it means either to sprinkle or pour. If they say it does 
 they do not convey the truth. It does not have these meanings. 
 But is that any reason why baptism should not be administered by 
 sprinkling and pouring 1 And when I baptize in either of these ways 
 do I do something inconsistent with my teaching 1 By no means. I,et 
 me illustrate. Suppose I receive a command to kill a dog. Suppose 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 23 
 
 I go and take down my old carbine, cock it, and, levelling it at the 
 fellow, shoot him. Then suppose the man who gave me the command 
 comes up to me with a great bluster, and says, " I never commanded 
 you to shoot that dog. I told you to kill him." I should reply, " But 
 did I not kill him 1 Do you not see him over there 1 You'll find he is 
 dead enough." " But you shot him." " Yes ; but I killed him — I pro- 
 duced the effect." But suppose I tied a rope round his neck, with a 
 stone attached, and took him down to the bay — you know psedo- 
 baptists do not go to the water except to drown dogs — and pitch 
 him in the water, would I not as certainly obey the command ? 
 What would the dog be worth about one hour after I had put him in 
 the water 1 I would have obeyed the command. The dog would be 
 dead. And suppose the man giving me the command should come 
 forward and upbraid me 'for drowning his dog, could I not reply, 
 " Why, sir, you commanded me to kill him !" "Yes," he might say, 
 "but I didn't command you to drown him." " Well," I might reply, 
 " you didn't say how I should kill him, so I took my own way of doing 
 it." But suppose I go to a drug store, get a little poison, put it on 
 a nice piece of beefsteak, and give it to him. In about two or 
 three hours the dog would be breathing his last breath. Now sup- 
 pose the man who commanded me to kill the dog were to come to me 
 and say, " Sir, I did not command you to poison that dog. I told 
 you to kill him." I would reply, " There he is, as dead as a dooi'- 
 nail." Now, when Christ commanded us to go and baptize. He com- 
 manded us to perform an act that would produce a result. The 
 question is not, By what mode that result is to be produced, but 
 What is that result 1 That is the question we are here to discuss. 
 What is the result that Christ commanded us to produce, not What 
 was the form of the act He commanded us to perform. My oppo- 
 nent says He commanded us simply to immerse — nothing less, 
 nothing more. I am here to deny this, and to show you that, in 
 addressing the apostles — if He ever used the term at all — it was 
 in the sense of a religious purification. But, it will be said, " The 
 word does not mean to purify." I know that. 1 do not say that it 
 does ; but it describes a rite which symbolizes purification. That 
 is what I have come to Meaford to prove — that it is the divinely- 
 appointed symbol of purity, appointed to represent outwardly to the 
 world that our hearts have been cleansed by the blood of sprinkling. 
 Christ is said to sprinkle our hearts from an evil conscience, but it is 
 not the act of sprinkling that cleanses. It is the blood, no matter 
 how it is applied. The effect of the blood upon our hearts, and not 
 
24 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 the mere mode of motion by which it was applied, is the important 
 matter. This seems so clear that every child ought to understand it. 
 [Addressing a boy on the front seat,] " Now, my boy, if I came to you 
 and said, ' Christ sprinkles our hearts from an evil conscience,' would 
 you undei'stand it was the act of sprinkling or the blood itself that 
 cleansed?" [The boy : " I don't know."] The boy will know when 
 he gets over his embarrassment a little. But I appeal to your intelli- 
 gence. When Christ is said to sprinkle our henrts from an evil con- 
 science, do you understand it to be the act of sprinkling that cleanses 1 
 Or is it not, rather, the contact of the blood that does it 1 The latter, 
 certainly. The blood is applied, no matter how. So of the water. It is 
 not the manner of application, but the fact of its application. No mat- 
 ter whether it be sprinkled, or thrown upon the individual, or he be 
 dipped in it. But the blood is called the " blood of sprinkling." The 
 contact of the blood, so to speak, cleanses the soul, though sprinkled 
 on it. So, sprinkling the body cleanses it in symbol, by making the 
 inward spiritual operation visible. I propose to prove, beyond suc- 
 cessful contradiction, during this debate, that sprinkling the blood of 
 Christ on our hearts is a baptism in a far higher sense than the 
 lexicographers talk about, except when they say " New Testa- 
 ment, to baptize." Many of the best lexicographers, as I have 
 already said, distinguish between the New Testament and classic 
 use of the term. Why 1 Because Greek writers never used it in a 
 religious sense. The Greek writers were heathens, who did not know 
 anything about Christianity, and if you use it in the same sense as 
 they used it, it involves drowning. But Christian baptism never 
 drowns anybody, or anything. It only cleanses, and, as I have shown, 
 some fifteen or sixteen lexicographers, among whom are the best, 
 define the word in the New Testament sense, and treat it with 
 reference to the religious use of water. They define it as a washing, 
 a cleansing, a purification, a baptism. And that is what Christ wanted 
 the term for, viz. : to express the idea of purification, and that is 
 doubtless the sense He attached to it when He applied it to the 
 Christian rite. Suppose we take a few passages to prove this point. 
 Take John's baptism. He baptized in the wilderness, and preached 
 the baptism of repentance. What for? "For the remission of 
 sins." Then it was for pui'ification. If you turn to Mark 7 : 4, 
 you will find that he speaks of the " washing of cups, pots, brazen 
 vessels and tables." The original is baptism. But what does he 
 mean? He means that they were ceremonially purified. You know- 
 that the Jews had a constant succession of purifications extending 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 25 
 
 into the matters of everyday life, because the ceremonial law required 
 ceremonial or legal purity in everything. And if these things were 
 made ceremonially clean, did it matter whether the water went on 
 them or they went into the water 1 Not a bit of it. Turn to Heb. 
 10 : 22, and you find the words, " Having your hearts sprinkled from 
 an evil conscience, and your bodies washed with pure water." In 
 Luke 11 : 38, you find, " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled 
 that He had not first washed before dinner." Washed is here in the 
 original baptizo, the very word in dispute. I want my opponent in 
 his next speech, or in some speech before the debate closes, to state 
 fairly and squarely, without any wriggling, twisting, squirming, or 
 evasion, that he believes the Pharisee marvelled because Jesus did not 
 immerse himself all over before dinner. If he will do this I shall 
 believe him to be a man of the most magnificent amount of credulity 
 I ever met. It was a washing — a baptism — but evidently not an 
 immersion. In Heb. 9:10, the apostle describes the " divers wash- 
 ings " of the tabernacle. Read the chapter when you go home. He 
 describes the tabernacle, with its apartments and appurtenances, and 
 then he says, " Which (tabernacle) was a figure for the time then 
 present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not 
 make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience ; 
 which (gifts and sacrifices) stood only in meats and drinks and divers 
 washings (baptisms, Greek), and carnal ordinances." Then there were 
 gifts and sacrifices consisting of meat-offerings and drink-offerings, 
 divers baptisms andcarnal ordinances, offered in the tabernacle. Now, 
 you will observe that these baptisms were either included in the gifts 
 or sacrifices. The baptisms are as much included as the meat-offerings 
 and drink-offerings. But the meat-offerings and drink-offerings can 
 in no sense be said to be baptisms. And were the sacrifices baptisms 1 
 And how was it possible to baptize anything by means of a sacrifice 1 
 Let us see. We will read right on what the apostle says : 
 
 " But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by 
 a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to 
 say, not of this building ; 
 
 " Neither by the blood of goats and calves but by His own blood 
 He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
 tion for us. 
 
 " For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh : 
 
 " How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . purge your con- 
 science," etc. 
 
26 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 There you have the purification effected by sacrifices — by the^ 
 sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice, and the ashes of a sacrifice 
 upon the unclean individual. 
 
 What were these "divers baptisms," then^ What were they if 
 they were not this 1 I should like my opponent to tell you what 
 other baptisms were performed in the tabernacle, and not take you 
 away to some river, and tell you how the Jews baptized their prose- 
 lytes. Don't let him take you away to a river. He is sure to do so 
 if he gets the opportunity. These baptisms were a purification — a^ 
 washing. They were effected by sprinkling the blood of a sacrifice 
 mixed with the ashes of a sacrifice on the unclean, and they were 
 performed in the tabernacle. And now let us draw an inference. 
 " If the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling 
 the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the Jleshf and was a 
 baptism, " how much more shall the blood of Christ sprinkle your 
 hearts from an evil conscience," and be a baptism. The former is 
 legal baptism ; the latter is spiritual baptism. 'The one is outward 
 baptism, pertaining to the flesh ; the other is inward baptism, relating 
 to the heart. The one makes men clean in the eyes of the law ; the 
 other makes them spotless in the sight of God. And now we go 
 down a little farther in the chapter, and we read : 
 
 " For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the 
 death of the testator. 
 
 " For a testament is of force after men are dead : otherwise it is 
 of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 
 
 " Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated (margin, 
 purified), without blood. 
 
 " For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people ac- 
 cording to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with 
 water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, 
 and all the people, 
 
 " Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath en- 
 joined unto you. 
 
 " Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the 
 vessels of the ministry. 
 
 " And almost all things are by the law purged with blood ; and 
 without shedding of blood is no remission." 
 
 And now I will give up the whole controversy if my opponent 
 will produce a single case of immersion that ever took place in the 
 tabernacle. I have produced cases of sprinkling, and they were 
 purifications. They were efiected by the blood and ashes of sacri- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 27 
 
 fices. The "divers baptisms" mentioned in verse 10 were included 
 in the sacrifices offered in the tabernacle ; hence these blood-sprink- 
 lings must have been the " divers baptisms." I repeat, lest advantage 
 be taken of it, I do not hold that it was the sprinkling that constituted 
 the baptism. It was only a means to an end ; the act by which the effect 
 which we call baptism was produced. It was the blood that baptized, 
 because it cleansed. No matter how it got there, it baptized ; and 
 Christ thought sprinkling was the best way to apply it, and He has ap- 
 pointed it for this purpose ; and we find this idea of sprinkling for 
 purification running like a golden vein throughout the Scriptures — 
 and this is baptism. Thus we find tliat God has appointed an out- 
 ward rite that is applicable to all ages and all conditions of men — 
 to all climes and to all tribes. 
 
 But let no one go away with the false impression that I define 
 sprinkling as the meaning of the word. I define it as the mode, not 
 the meaning. I want to distinguish carefully between mode and 
 meaning. In the case of killing the dog I have mentioned three 
 modes. If you produce the effect it does not matter as to the mode 
 of producing it, and I will show that even among classic writers it 
 does not matter to them how the effect is produced so long as it is 
 produced. Further, the word, as used by classic writers, has a 
 secondary meaning to express a change of condition analogous to 
 that which takes place when the Divine Spirit enters the heart, 
 making us new creatures in Christ. And Christ has chosen to denote 
 this spiritual change by the Greek word haptizo. Yet we are told, 
 in the eighty-fourth year of the nineteenth century, and in the last 
 month of the year, that a plunge under water is all that Christ meant 
 when He said, " Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost V 
 
 \Time expired.^ 
 
28 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 EVENING SESSION— FIEST DAY. 
 
 MR. HARDING'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. — I will proceed briefly 
 to call attention to a number of statements made by Mr. Wilkinson 
 during his afternoon speech, and if I fail to cover them all it will be 
 because I have only half an hour in which to deal with his one hour's 
 address. 
 
 He remarked, at the outset, that he never challenged any one to a 
 religious discussion. Well, I have. I have done it when I believed 
 good would result, — when I believed it was proper and appropriate. 
 I have done it in the fear of God and with a desire to promote the 
 kingdom of Christ, and it is likely I will do it again. I have come 
 into this discussion, as I have said, with a desire to know the truth. 
 My friend spoke about a thunderstorm, and about the atmosphere 
 being purified afterwards. I know such a discussion as this is a little 
 bit exciting, that people are sometimes stirred up a little, but I am 
 quite certain that when the time for reflection comes, it will be con- 
 sidered that the debate has done good. I am the more impressed 
 with this conviction, because I find in the New Testament that the 
 most vigorous debaters were the apostles. Paul spent years in dis- 
 putations. Read the book of Acts and you will see this. So I do not 
 regret having challenged men to debate, and I may do it in future. 
 Our friend, however, says that we are here and that we will take one 
 week, or two weeks, or one or two months, if necessary, to arrive at a 
 conclusion. Yes, we will do that. T expect to be ready when the 
 time comes. 
 
 Then he spoke about cyclones. I knew the authorities I was quo- 
 ting would have a weighty efl'ect, but I did not suppose they were 
 reminding him of a thunderstorm, or a cyclone. He spoke about my 
 cart-load of books, and about his not producing many books. The 
 point of i)rimary importance with us is the meaning of the Greek 
 word baptizo. My opponent can bring forward no authorities to 
 support his views, and that is the reason lie has not brought a cart- 
 load of books. He has misunderstood the argument I made on the 
 point under consideration : I said that if I were defining the English 
 word baptize, I would give to sprinkle, to pour, and the reason I gave 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 29 
 
 was that use is the arbiter of language. To-day, in this land, the 
 English word baptize is used in that way. But I said it was not so with 
 respect to the Greek word baptizo which Christ used 1800 years ago. 
 We are not to take what the word baptize means now, as if it meant the 
 same that baptizo did 1800 years ago. When I went to the authorities 
 what did I find 1 Do you see that stack of lexicons 1 IN either sprinkle 
 nor pour is in one of them. How does it happen that Webster gives 
 to sprinkle as the definition of the word baptize 1 And that Wor- 
 cester does the same thing 1 But none of the authorities give it as the 
 definition of baptizo ? Because the use of the Greek word did not 
 justify this definition, while the use of the English word to-day does. 
 My opponent " guessed " that he would find sprinkle in the lexicons. 
 I don't " guess " about it. I know he cannot do it. Let him stop 
 guessing and produce a lexicon in which it can be found. I declare 
 that there is not a lexicon on this earth that defines the Greek word 
 baptizo, to sprinkle, and I invite him to bring the book. And if he 
 wants to show that I am mistaken, let him produce it. You remember 
 that after producing the lexicons, I called attention to the Church 
 historians, including psedo-baptist authorities, who declare that im- 
 mersion was the usual custom, but that sprinkling and pouring were 
 admitted in cases of sick people. I pointed out that Dr. Wall said 
 the first case of aSusion was in A.D. 251. My friend cannot find an 
 earlier case. If he finds, in those early days, one Christian baptism 
 in any other way than by immersion, my proposition is lost.- But he 
 will never find that case while the world lasts. He intimated that 
 Jesus did not use the word baptizo; that Jesus did not speak in 
 Greek, but in Hebrew, or some corruption of it. Christ told His 
 apostles that when the Spirit came to them He would call to their 
 remembrance everything He had told them, and lead them into all 
 truth ; and they say that when they wrote, the Spirit told them 
 what to write. They wrote in Greek and used the word baptizo. He 
 told them to go and baptize, and when they wrote the Spirit told 
 them how to write, and they wrote in Greek, and used baptizo. He 
 says that the word has more than the one meaning, immerse. I 
 granted that words have not only a primary, but, as a rule, metaphor- 
 ical meanings. No word, however, has two meanings in the same 
 place. Here is a great law, — the commission of our Lord. In that law 
 baptizo occurs. In that place it has one meaning and only one. It 
 cannot have two meanings in the same place. The question is. What 
 did Christ mean when He used baptizo ? He did not mean sprinkle. 
 My friend gives up sprinkling. He did not mean pour upon. My 
 
30 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 friend gives that up. I claim He meant immerse. And when I go to 
 the authorities I find that it means immerse in its primitive sense. 
 He told us finally what the word symbolized. I thought he would say 
 it meant purify, but he said it symbolized cleansing and purification. 
 Let us see about that. Suppose you take purification. Did John 
 purify Chrisf? Did he symbolize that purification had already taken 
 place? No. Christ was pure, born pure, and remained pure all the 
 time. He never was contaminated with sin, before his birth, or at any 
 time. My friend said in his speech at Euphrasia that infants are 
 born pure ; that they are as pure as angels. I should like to know 
 what purification baptism symbolizes in them, when they are baptized, 
 if they are born pure. Just then my friend mentioned Dr. T. J. 
 Conant. I am very glad he spoke so kindly of him as one of 
 the most able and honest scholars on the continent. This is Dr. 
 Conant's book. Let me say a word with respect to it. He tells us 
 he has ransacked all Greek literature and has failed to find that 
 baptizo anywhere means to sprinkle ; that it has the idea of over- 
 whelming and covering wherever you find it. He tells us that baptizo 
 means in classic Greek, to put under. If a ship sinks to the bottom 
 of the sea, it is baptized. If reeds along the sides of the river are 
 overflowed, they are baptized, in classic Greek. My opponent took up 
 a glass of water and put some money in it. He said, " Is not that 
 money immersed and baptized 1" Presently he took it out and asked, 
 "Is it baptized now 1" No. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Yes, it was baptized ; and when it was taken out 
 it was no longer baptized. Does he not know that that is the way 
 baptism is referred to in the Bible ? There is a mis-translation of 
 Rom. 6 : 4, in the common version, which is corrected in the revised 
 version. Let me read it. It says, " We were buried therefore with 
 Him through baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised from 
 the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in new- 
 ness of life." Not " we are buried," as it is in the common version, 
 but "we were;" every scholar knows it is the past tense in the Greek. 
 Again, I read from Col. 2:12, in the revised version, " Having been 
 buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him 
 through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead." 
 That sets forth tliat men were buried and irere taken out in baptism 
 in ai\cient days. In Acts 19th chapter we find that Paul said unto cer- 
 tain disciples, " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed 1 
 And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what were ye bap- 
 tized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism." 
 
 Paul then explained unto them that the baptism of John had been 
 followed and superseded by that of Jesus ; when they understood this 
 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. That is, they 
 were baptized and taken from the water by the authority of John, 
 and then, some time afterwards, " were buried and raised to walk in 
 newness of life," in the name of our Lord. It is clear, then, that bap- 
 tism is not, as Mr. Wilkinson seems to suppose, a state in which we 
 remain ; it is an act by which we are brought into a new state. 
 
 I am not baptized now. I was baptized, but that is a thing of 
 the past. I am on this side of the line. It is said in the Bible — and 
 I may as well refer to it now — that the children of Israel " were 
 all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." They came out 
 of the cloud and out of the sea. It is said, " All our fathers were 
 under the cloud and all passed through the sea." That was when the 
 baptism took place. My opponent quoted Josephus from Dr. Conant 
 for the purpose of showing that when haptizo signifies to immerse it 
 implies that the object immersed must remain under — must be 
 destroyed — if a man or beast. I turn to Josephus in order to show 
 that the passages quoted from him do not sustain this idea. Take 
 the case of the young high-priest Aristobulus. He was a very hand- 
 some, captivating young man, of a most noble family ; and when, at 
 about seventeen years of age, he was elevated to the high-priesthood, 
 the people displayed their love and admiration for him in such a 
 hearty, extravagant, and indiscreet way, that Herod became exceed- 
 ingly jealous of him and determined to kill him. Of course he did 
 not want his wicked jealousy to be known, and therefore he contrived 
 the following plan : With many professions of friendship he induced 
 the young man to go with him, in the evening, to one of his bathing- 
 pools. What followed Josephus tells thus : " At first they were only 
 spectators of Herod's servants and acquaintance as they were swim- 
 ming ; but after awhile the young man, at the instigation of Herod, 
 went into the water among them, while such of Herod's acquaintance 
 as he had appointed to do it, dipped him as he was swimming, and 
 plunged him under water in the dark of the evening, as if it had 
 been done in sport only, nor did they desist until he was entirely 
 sufibcated. And thus was Aristobulus murdered, having lived no 
 more in all than eighteen years." Ant. of Jews, Book 15, chap. 3, 
 sec. 3. I have read from Whiston's translation. 
 
 As Mr. Wilkinson quotes, " Continually pressing down and baptiz- 
 
32 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 ing him, while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist till they 
 had entirely suffocated him." Here, evidently, the death was a 
 result of repeated immersions. As he was swimming they plunged 
 him under repeatedly, as if in sport, nor did they cease baptizing him 
 till he died. The first baptism did not kill ; the second one did not 
 kill ; but many of them, quickly repeated, did kill. 
 
 By the same author, men swimming in the sea after shipwreck are 
 represented as being baptized by the waves. Baptizo means to 
 immerse. Whether the object immersed comes above the water 
 again or remains under is not determined by the force of the word. 
 While it remains under it is immersed ; after coming up it has been 
 immersed. 
 
 If my opponent wants to know by what authority we take people 
 out of the water after immersing them, I reply we have the example 
 of Christ and his apostles. They took people into the water, buried 
 them in baptism, raised them to walk in newness of life, and (after 
 this immersion and emersion), they came up out of the water. 
 
 My opponent says I cannot find one word that will translate baptizo. 
 The word immerse will translate it every time in the New Testament. 
 Let my opponent quote a single passage that immerse will not trans- 
 late. He asked if anyone could translate the word immerse, in certain 
 parts of the New Testament, and he referred especially to Luke 
 11 : 38, "And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that He had 
 not first washed before dinner." 
 
 I have the American Bible Union Revision, which reads thus : 
 "And the Pharisee, seeing it, wondered that he did not first immerse 
 himself before dinner." And here is H. T. Anderson's translation, 
 which also gives immerse at this place. Here are two translations, 
 both of which render the word immerse, although my opponent 
 thought it would be very amusing if it were translated in that way. 
 That is precisely the way I translate it. During the Wilkes-Ditzler 
 debate at Louisville, Ky., the following question was put to Dr. 
 Kleeberg, the Jewish Rabbi of that city: "Were the Jewish ablutions 
 immersions?" He replied, "Before eating and prayer, and after ris- 
 ing in the morning, they washed ; when they have become unclean 
 they must immerse." Louisville Debate, p. 652. 
 
 Rabbi Maimonides, perhaps the most distinguished Jewish teacher 
 who has lived since the apostolic age, states that if even the tip of the 
 finger remains out of the water the uncleanness remains. Before 
 eating they washed ; but if they had come from the market (see Mark 
 7 : 3-4), they immersed themselves. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 33 
 
 Again, my friend affirmed that in the various lexicons, in defining 
 baptizo, from fifty to one hundred words had been used. I think 
 about thirty different words have been used in defining baptizo, — 
 perhaps more. He may be right in saying that perhaps as many as 
 fifty have been used. 
 
 Some of these definitions, as for instance, " to draw water " (by dip- 
 ping the bucket), '• to confound " (to overwhelm with confusion), 
 cannot apply to Christian baptism at all ; but observe this fact : every 
 one of them that can possibly apply to the sacred institution is fulfilled 
 in immersion. Let me call attention to some of these fifty ; they are 
 immerse, dip, plunge, submerge, merge, immerge, bury, cover with 
 water, overwhelm, sink, soak, saturate, drench, wash, wet, etc. In 
 being immersed I fulfilled every one of these definitions ; I was 
 plunged, dipped, buried, overwhelmed, covered with water ; soaked, 
 saturated, drenched ; washed and wet. His baptism did not fulfil 
 one of them ; he was not dipped, nor plunged, nor washed ; he was 
 not even wet ; for we never say a man is wet if only a drop or two of 
 water has fallen on him. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I got Christian baptism and you got heathen. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Christianity has not come to him yet, for he cannot 
 keep still while I am talking. 
 
 [ Ti7ne expired.^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S SECOND REPLY. 
 
 I am exceedingly glad that my task thus far this evening is so 
 extremely light. My opponent has stated that I could not find an 
 authority to sustain my view of this subject. Perhaps I cannot, but 
 that remains to be proved. I might read a number of testimonies 
 out of one book as he has done. I have a little book here with a few 
 of the testimonies of scholars, hence I need not take a cart-load of 
 books along with me. I guarantee that these quotations are correct ; 
 if not, I shall be sacrificed in consequence of their inaccuracy. Before 
 reading these testimonies I want to make one remark, and it may 
 perhaps clear away a good deal of misapprehension. My opponent in 
 quoting from scholars was very careful to impress upon you very 
 emphatically that they were pgedo-baptist authors. In our day paedo- 
 baptists very seldom believe in immersion. A few hundred years ago 
 3 
 
34 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 all psedo-baptists were immersionists. You have the proof of that, to 
 a very large extent, in an expression that fell incidentally from his 
 lips, that if you referred to the Church of England Prayer Book of 
 two or three hundred years ago, you would find the Church practiced 
 immersion. This practice applied even to infants, and I have hero, in 
 Dr. Conant's work, a quotation fi'om the English Prayer Book in the 
 16th century, where the priest in baptizing an infant was instructed 
 to djp the child three times, first to the right or right side, second to 
 the left side, and third with its face toward the font. They be- 
 lieved in immersion ; they believed in immersing three times ; and 
 just as far back in the records of history as my opponent will find im- 
 mersion practiced in the Church, I will find trine-immersion practiced. 
 In Liddell and Scott's lexicon you will find the word defined " to dip 
 repeatedly." Now, what is the meaning of so defining the term? 
 From what usage does that come 1 He knows I was right when I said 
 that the definitions of lexicons were made from the usage of the time. 
 Why did they insert the meaning " to dip repeatedly?" That is the 
 very first definition in Liddell and Scott, which is the only standard 
 Greek-English lexicon, and is used in our universities. Will my 
 opponent let his case stand on that definition? If so, as he was not dipped 
 repeatedly, he was not baptized, neither Christianly nor heathenly, 
 neither scripturally nor classically. And if that is the meaning of the 
 term, why in the name of common sense does he bring the candidates out 
 of the water before they are properly baptized, for I understand he dips 
 them only once, and he thinks that is sufficient. I want to say, then, 
 that tho.se authorities he has quoted as psedo-baptist writers were, for 
 the most part, full-blown immersionists, as much so as Mr. Harding 
 is. No wonder, then, they make a claim for immersion ; but of what 
 value are witnesses of an exparte character like that ? I would as 
 soon take his own statement as theirs. • Here we have testimony of 
 scholars on the other side of the question. I quote first from 
 Turretin. He says, "The term baptism is of Greek origin, deduced 
 from the word Bapio, which is to tinge and imbue. Baptizo, to dye 
 and to immerse." He says also, " the word baptizo, by a metalepsis, 
 is taken in the sense to wash. Mark 7 : 4. Nor ought we otherwise 
 to understand the baptism of cups, of pots, and of beds, in use among 
 the Jews; and the divers baptisms enjoined upon thorn, Heb. 9 : 10 ; 
 and the superstitious washings received from the tradition of the 
 elders, Mark 7:4, 5." 
 
 Dr. Owen says, "Bajjtizo signifies to wasli ; as instances out of all 
 authors may be given ; Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Phavorinus, 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 35 
 
 and Eustachius. No one instance can be given in the Scripture, 
 wherein haptizo doth necessarily signify either to dip or plunge. I 
 must say, and will make it good, that no honest man, who under- 
 stands the Greek tongue can deny the word to signify to wash, as 
 well as to dip. Baptismos ( baptism,) is any kind of washing, 
 whether by dipping or sprinkling ; putting the thing to be washed 
 into the water, or applying the water to the thing itself to be washed." 
 
 Whitby says, remarking on Acts 10:48, "'And he commanded 
 them to be baptized.' Whom did he command to do this? the 
 Gentiles'? It seemeth at first sight absurd, that they who were not 
 yet baptized should baptize others : or was it the Jews that came then 
 with him 1 they seem only to be lay-brethren, who only were per- 
 mitted to baptize in case of necessity ; it seemeth, therefore, reason- 
 able to say that he commanded water to be brought for their baptism, 
 and then performed himself the office, or left it to be done by gifted 
 persons." 
 
 Doddridge, in his paraphrase on the same passage, says, " Then 
 Peter, yielding to the force of evidence, however contrary to his former 
 prejudices, with great propriety answered, Can any one reasonably 
 forbid that water should be brought." According to this view the 
 most natural supposition is that they were baptized by pouring or 
 sprinkling. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot says, "The application of water is necessary for the 
 essence of baptism ; but the application in this or that mode indicates 
 a circumstance. To denote this ablution by a sacramental sign, the 
 sprinkling of water is equally sufficient as immersion in water, since 
 the former in reality argues an ablution and purification as well as 
 the latter." 
 
 Yossius says, " Baptizo signifies to wash or purify. It is trans- 
 ferred to the gift of the Holy Spirit ; that is to say, because, that He 
 might wash, or purify the soul, He is poured out, as water is poured ; 
 even as Joel speaks, 2 : 28, and from thence Peter, Acts 2:17, like- 
 wise Paul, Titus 3:6." 
 
 Beza says, "The reality of baptism is the sprinkling of the blood of 
 Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the imputation of His 
 righteousness, which are, as it were, displayed before our eyes in the 
 sign of outward sprinkling. Are they, therefore, improperly baptized 
 who are sprinkled with water only cast on them 1 No : what is in 
 that action (of baptizing) merely substantial, (or strictly essential,) to 
 wit, the ablution of water, is rightly observed by the Church (by 
 sprinkling). But haptizo signifies to dye, or to stain, seeing it comes 
 
36 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 immediately from hapto ; and since the things to be dyed or stained 
 are (commonly) dipped, it signifies to make wet and to dip." 
 
 Casaubon says, " Immersion is not necessary to baptism. The 
 opinion (insisted on of immersing the whole body in the ceremony of 
 baptism) has been, deservedly, long since exploded ; for the force and 
 energy of this mystery consist not in that circumstance." 
 
 I might go on and quote two or three times as many authorities, 
 but I forbear because it is not necessary to intlict further reading on 
 your patience. Let me ask one question. If it be true that all the 
 scholars of any note, as you have heard this afternoon, hold that the 
 word haptizo means to dip, and only to dip ; or to immerse, and only 
 to immerse ; and at the same time practice sprinkling, is there not 
 some inconsistency between their conduct and their teaching 1 If men 
 are so exceedingly inconsistent as to teach one thing and practice 
 something else, their inconsistency should invalidate their testimony 
 in a matter of this kind. John Wesley was referred to this afternoon, 
 and it was thought to be proved that he was an immersionist. It is 
 known that, in the early days of Wesley's ministry, while he still 
 adhered to the Anglican Church, he believed in her traditions, her 
 superstitiotis traditions, with respect to immersion. I expect to show, 
 before this debate is ended, that it is a superstition, but I will not 
 pause to-night to dwell on that point. I will, however, say that in 
 the early part of his ministry Wesley, adopted, to some extent, the 
 traditions of the English Church, and seemed to lean (judging by 
 some expressions he made use of), to the practice of immersion. But, 
 later in life, he wrote a treatise on that subject, and I propose to give 
 you an extract from it. It may be found in his " Works," Vol. 6. 
 page 12. He says, "As nothing can be determined from Scripture 
 precept or example, so neither from the force or meaning of the word. 
 For the words baptize and baptism do not necessarily imply dipping, 
 but are used in other senses in several places. Thus we find that the 
 Jews were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2), but 
 they were not plunged in either Christ said to two of His disciples, 
 ' Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with. ' 
 (Mark 10:38), but neither He nor they were dipped, but only 
 sprinkled and washed with their own blood. Again, we read (Mark 
 7 : 4) of the baptisms of pots and cu})s, and tables or beds. Now, pots 
 and cups are not necessarily dipped when they are washed — the 
 Pharisees washed the outside of them only. And as for tables or 
 beds, none could suppose that they could be dipped. Here, then, the 
 word baptism, in its natural sense, is not taken for dipping, but for 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 washing or cleansing. And that this is the true meaning of the word 
 baptize, is testified by the greatest scholars and most proper judges on 
 the matter. It is true that we read of being ' buried with Christ in 
 baptism,' but nothing can be inferred from such a figurative expres- 
 sion. Nay, if held exactly, it would make as much for sprinkling as 
 for plunging ; since, in burying, the body is not plunged through the 
 substance of the earth, but, rather, earth is sprinkled upon it." 
 
 My opponent assumes that the burial must have been an immersion, 
 but Wesley says it cannot be proved to be such. He has appealed to 
 Wesley, and to Wesley he must go. Further on in the same book he 
 says, in speaking of those baptized on the day of Pentecost, "The 
 place, therefore, as well as the number, makes it highly probable that 
 all these were baptized by sprinkling or pouring, and not by immer 
 sion. " 
 
 I will not pause during this half-hour's speech to reply to all my oppo- 
 nent's address ; I will not pause to prove that all the authorities are 
 not on the other side, where many writers are ranked because they 
 make the candid admission, as I have cheerfully done, that immersion 
 did prevail in the Church at a very early period ; (and I am prepared to 
 account for its being there) ; but I must express my surprise that my 
 opponent will persist in quoting from books to prove what is not dis- 
 puted. He does the same with reference to the meaning of the word. 
 I have admitted that in the primary sense it means immerse, no one 
 questions that ; but while psedo-baptists make these candid, honest, 
 truthful admissions, they, at the same time, contend that this is not 
 the Scriptural sense, and that it is used in a secondary sense in the 
 Word of God. But my opponent carefully stops before he gets to 
 those parts of the statements. But I will quote one more authority, 
 the distinguished Dr. Hodge, one of the leading Presbyterians in the 
 United States, and Principal of Princeton College. In speaking of 
 Dr. Dale's definition of the term baptizo, he says : " Baptizo is anal- 
 ogous to the word to bury. A man may be buried by being covered 
 up in the ground, by being placed in an empty cave, by being put into 
 a sarcophagus, or even, as among the Indians, by being placed upon a 
 platform elevated above the ground. The command to bury may be 
 executed in any of these ways. So, with regard to the word baptizo, 
 there is a given effect to be produced without any specific injunction 
 as to the manner, whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling." I 
 said the effect was ]iroduced by the application of the blood — the blood 
 of sprinkling — and that this was symbolized by the sprinkling of 
 water on the individual to represent outwardly the inward opera- 
 
38 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 tion. To that position I intend to hold ; from that position neither 
 scholarship nor declamation can drive me. We will see if my 
 opponent can overthrow this position before the debate is closed. 
 If he does so, he will be the first man who has ever done it. I have 
 here Dr. Edward Robinson's work, which has been referred to. He 
 says, " In the earliest Latin versions of the New Testament, as, for 
 example, the Itala, which Augustine regarded as the best of all, and 
 which goes back apparently to the second century, and to usage con- 
 nected with the Apostolic Age, the Greek verb is uniformly given in 
 the Latin form baptizo, and is never translated- by immergo, or any 
 like word, showing that there was something in the rite of baptism to 
 which the latter did not correspond." A good deal has been said with 
 regard to lexicons. I told you to be careful, as he would attempt to 
 mislead you by seeking to make me responsible for the word pour or 
 sprinkle. Did I not tell you that if that meaning was there, it was 
 not the correct meaning of the word 1 I repeat, — It is not the meaning 
 of the tvord. My opponent said, before the debate closed, they would 
 see whether I would produce any lexicons giving that meaning. I 
 will produce extracts, and I will leave him to deny their accuracy, 
 and, if he does so, I will never rest until I have produced the works 
 themselves, and I will probably give you more than one. I did not 
 think it was necessary to buy, borrow, and beg lexicons to bring here 
 to prove what I did not believe. My opponent says no word has two 
 meanings in the same place. He might have saved himself the trouble 
 of saying that, for no one said it had. I should like to know what 
 that has to do with this debate. The question is, whether a word has 
 ever two meanings, not whether it has two meanings in the same place. 
 He might as well have stated that a man cannot be in two places at 
 the same time, or that two men cannot be in one ])lace at the same 
 time. He asks, with great flourish. Did John purify Christ 1 Then 
 he says that Christ was never contaminated with sin, that He was 
 always pure. All right. I never believed that water purified any- 
 body from sin. My opponent has that to prove. I never taught it, 
 I never believed it, I never expect to believe it, I beg of you never to 
 believe it, because, if you go to heaven by water, I am afraid you will 
 get ducked before you get there. My opponent will probably make 
 a handle of the word "ducked." If I use "souse" it will be just as 
 bad, though lie used it himself. I say that John did purify Christ. 
 I have no qualms of conscience in committing myself to that state- 
 ment. I say, moreover, that Christ was just as liaV)le to legal defile- 
 ment as you or I might have been, and my opponent will not deny it. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 39 
 
 The ceremonial law, given by INIoses, said that if any man touched a 
 dead body he was unclean. Jt does not mean that he sinned in his 
 heart, but that his body was defiled by contact with the dead body. 
 If Christ touched a dead body would He not have been ceremonially 
 unclean, and required to be cleansed, according to that law, before He 
 could officiate in any office in connection with the Church 1 Un- 
 doubtedly He would. John's baptism was not a purification from sin, 
 but a symbolical purification ; and so, if Christ possessed the purity 
 within, would it be inconsistent that He should receive a ceremonial 
 purification 1 My opponent asks what about infants, and mentioned 
 that I had stated that infants came into the world as pure as angels. 
 If I did so I do not go back on it in respect to the question of baptism, 
 becav:se, if infants are pure I will show they have a right to the 
 symbol of that purity. Abraham did not receive the sign of circum- 
 cision before he believed and his faith was counted to him for right- 
 eousness, but afterwards ; in other words, it was after his sins were 
 pardoned and he was justified by faith. Then he received the sign of 
 inward purity. So we do not teach that individuals ought to be bap- 
 tized by any mode, unless they are first forgiven ; and, if infants are 
 in a state of forgiveness they are entitled to a symbol of that forgive- 
 ness. If we are in a state of forgiveness, we are entitled to the sign 
 of that forgiveness outwardly. There is nothing inconsistent in that. 
 Mr. McDiarmid, in a recent debate, raised the same question, "Did 
 John purify Christ?" I say, with emphasis. Yes, John did purify 
 Christ, and I will prove it before I am done. My time is about up. 
 I was going to launch out in other directions, but I find 1 cannot 
 plunge in. 
 
 [Eesumed his seat.'\ 
 
 MR. HARDING'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — With pleasure I rise to 
 continue this discussion. I desire to consider, in the first place, some 
 of the statements made by Mr. Wilkinson in his last speech. He began 
 by saying the psedo-baptists whom I quoted were immersionists as much 
 as I am. Mr. Wilkinson is much mistaken about that. I believe it 
 is not true of a single one I have quoted. There is a stack of lexicons 
 [pointing to his lexicons] written by psedo-baptists, and Church histo- 
 
40 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 ries written by psedo-baptists, and I believe every one, without excep- 
 tion, not only said that immersion was proper, but they practiced 
 aflfusion, every one of them. Dean Stanley, from whom I read, states 
 that the Greek Church now practices immersion, that in apostolic 
 days it was the custom to baptize by immersion, but, he adds, " Who 
 would like to go back to the ancient custom 1" He says the Church lias 
 changed it, and he is glad of it. But he puts it on the ground that the 
 Church had a right to change it. Dr. Wall says that immersion vas 
 the most usual custom in the ancient Church, and that the first case of 
 affusion was in 251 A.D., and, at the same time, he argues that affu- 
 sion is proper and good. Dr. Edward Robinson gives the definition im- 
 merse, and afterwards argues in favor of affusion. He does not do that 
 in giving the meaning of the word, but in defending the practice. Not 
 a single one of these authorities was an immersionist as I am. I desire 
 it to be borne in mind that what we are discussing is, the meaning 
 of the word baptizo. It is granted by Mr. Wilkinson that it is to 
 dip, to immerse. He grants that, and said that T need not have read 
 authorities on the point. He further grants that the word does 
 not mean to sprinkle or pour upon. That is one point gained. But 
 Mr. Wilkinson does not tell you what the word means in the New 
 Testament. I answered one of his questions, and I will now ask him a 
 question. It is this. What does baptizo mean in the commission ] Christ 
 says, " Go teach all nations, baptizing them." Now, I want to know, 
 not what the word symbolizes, but what the word means in that place. 
 He agrees with me that a word has but one meaning in one place. T 
 want him to tell you what this word means in the commission. He will 
 not tell you. He cannot tell you. I answered his question, and I will 
 answer all his questions to the best of my ability. I ask him to answer, 
 What does baptizo mean in the commission 1 If he does not tell you, 
 I will tell you. He says that Liddell and Scott say it means " to dip 
 repeatedly," and that candidates were dipped three times. They did 
 give that meaning in the first edition of their work, and in several 
 editions, but in the sixth and seventh editions they do not give " to 
 dip repeatedly " I have here the definition given in the sixth edition. 
 They define "Baj)tizo, to dip in, or under water ; of ships, to sink them, 
 to bathe, metaphorical, bebaptismenoi, soaked in wine, drowned with 
 questions, ophlemasi, over head and ears in debt. To draw up wine 
 in cups (of course by dipping them)." That is the definition given in 
 both the sixth and seventh editions. Liddell and Scott were the only 
 ones in the list of authorities that gave " to dip repeatedly," and their 
 reason for thus defining was this : According to its termination {zo) 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 41 
 
 the word is a frequentative, that is, a word that expresses repeated 
 action, and in their first editions, these gentlemen so defined it ; but 
 upon an examination of the passages in Greek literature in which the 
 word occurs, it was seen that the usage of the word does not justify 
 this meaning; and as use, not form or derivation, determines the 
 signification of words, they dropped " repeatedly " from their last two 
 editions, and instead thereof defined the word to " dip in or under 
 water." Mr. Wilkinson inquires why I do not dip repeatedly. Be- 
 cause the definitions of the lexicons do not require it, nor does the 
 usage of the word. If all the lexicons in their latest and best editions 
 had defined it, " to dip repeatedly " (as they do define it to dip or 
 immerse), and if all the circumstances connected with the perform- 
 ance of the rite in the New Testament had indicated trine immersion 
 (as they do indicate immersion), I would practice trine immersion. 
 
 My friend then says that psedo-baptists were immersionists as much 
 as I am, that some years ago they were generally so, but are not now; 
 and he referred to the fact that immersion was in the Prayer Book ; 
 it is also in the Methodist Discipline. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — It is not. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Every copy of the Methodist Discipline that I 
 ever saw requires the minister to immerse if the candidate desires it. 
 If there is one that does not so require I would like to see it. They 
 have been revising the book lately, and if immerse does not occur in 
 it, it has been quite recently stricken out. If Mr. Wilkinson has 
 such a copy, I trust he will produce it. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson— I will. 
 
 Mr Harding — Very good ; I want to see the book. 
 
 " But," it is often asked, " how is it that the scholars, Church 
 historians, lexicographers, and commentators, who testify that in the 
 ancient Church immersion was practiced, themselves practice sprink- 
 ling 1 " They think it is not necessary to give an exact literal 
 obedience to the commandments of Christ. " If one has the spirit of 
 obedience," they say, " it does not so much matter about doing exactly 
 the thing commanded." Although they admit that the meaning of 
 the word and the usage of the apostolic Church indicate that Christ 
 commanded immersion, yet they say, so that water is applied in some 
 way, it does not matter how it is done. I am not disposed to go in 
 that way. I want to do exactly what Christ said. The Master says, 
 " Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will 
 liken him unto a wise man," etc. 
 
 It is agreed between Mr. Wilkinson and myself that the word in 
 
42 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 the classics means to immerse ; that it does not mean to sprinkle or 
 to pour. He thought, however, that he could find lexicons that 
 define it to sprinkle ; but now he proposes to bring " extracts " instead 
 of the books. I presume he will bring " extracts " from Dr. 
 Ditzler ; but I want the lexicon, and have offered a reward for it. 
 He spoke abDut buying, begging, and borrowing lexicons. I have 
 bought them, because I want to know what they say, and I have not 
 been able to find a single one that defines baptizo to sprinkle. I wrote 
 to Dr. Oonant, asking this question. Does any respectable lexicon 
 define baptizo to sprinkle ? He replied, " My dear Brother : No 
 resjiectable lexicographer gives, or ever has given, " sprinkle " or 
 *• besprinkle," as a definition of baptizo. I have all the Greek lexicons 
 of any name " This is the testimony of Dr. Conant. Mr. Wilkinson 
 introduced him into this debate, and eulogized him as a scholar and 
 an honest man. I have, many times, in public debate, in the presence 
 of learned paedo-baptist ministers, called for the lexicon that defines 
 baptizo to sprinkle. It has never been produced. I have offered one 
 hundred dollars, and then five hundred dollars for such a book, but 
 to this day it has not been found. Now Mr. Wilkinson says he will 
 bring an extract. I want the book. I do not talk of bringing 
 extracts. I have the books. 
 
 In his last speech Mr. Wilkinson read " extracts " from a little 
 book, which he said were taken from Turretine, Owen, Whitby, 
 Doddridge, Lightfoot, Vossius, Beza, and Casaubon, to show that 
 baptizo means " to wash," and that this washing can be done by 
 sprinkling. Well, it so happens that I have here quotations from 
 nearly all these gentlemen. You shall hear them. Remember they 
 are his own witnesses. 
 
 Turretine says : " For as in baptism, when performed in the primi- 
 tive manner, by immersion and emersion, descending into the water 
 and again going out of it, of which descent and assent we have an ex- 
 ample in the eunuch — Acts 8 : 38,39 — yea, and what is more, as by this 
 rite, when persons are immersed in water they are overwhelmed, and, as 
 it were, buried, and in a manner buried together with Christ ; and 
 again they emerge, seem to be raised out of the grave, and are said to 
 be rism again with Christ." Frei/. on Bap. p. 126. 
 
 WhitV>y says: "It being so expressly declared here (Roui 6: 4, 
 and Col. 2:12) 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 being taken hence, and this immersion being religioiisly 
 observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 Church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allow- 
 ance from the Author of this institution, or any license 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 cases of the cliftici, or in present danger of death.'' 
 Whitby's Com. on New Test., Rom. 6 : 4- 
 
 Doddridge, in his Family Expositor, on Romans 6 : 4, says : 
 ^^ Buried with him in baptism. It seems to me the part of candor to 
 confess that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by 
 immersion." 
 
 Yossius S9,ys " That the apostles immersed whom they baptized 
 there is no doubt, and that the ancient Church followed their example 
 is very clearly evinced by innumerable testimonies of the fathers.' 
 Pengilly, p. 75. 
 
 Beza, Calvin's friend and associate, says: " Christ commanded us 
 to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified." 
 Pengilly p. 72. 
 
 Casaubon, in speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon 
 the apostles, says : "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 fish-pool." R. Fuller, p. 72. 
 
 So testify Mr. Wilkinson's own witnesses. 
 
 The extracts he read are very difierent indeed from these. When 
 these men deal with the meaning of the word, they testify as scholars; 
 but when they argue, they argue as theologians. In a court of law 
 the testimony of witnesses as to the facts is always important ; the 
 court does not want to know what they think. When these men 
 testify as to the facts, they say that the word means to immerse, that 
 the apostles immersed, and that for nearly 1300 years immersion was 
 the almost universal practice of all Christians ; but when they give 
 their opinions as theologians, -some of them think afi'usion will do just 
 as well. Even father Wesley himself, in commenting, in his notes, 
 on Rom. 6 : 4, says, " Buried with him — alluding to the ancient 
 manner of baptizing by immersion." 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson, like others, thinks that the three thousand con- 
 verts on the day of Pentecost could hardly have been baptized by 
 immersion, for there was not water at hand with which to immerse 
 them. I wonder if Mr. Wilkinson forgot about the pool of Bethesda, 
 of the Upper and Lower Gihon, of Siloam, of Solomon's pool, and 
 
44 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 the pool of Hezekiah, — why, there were fifteen acres of water in 
 Jerusalem, which was one of the finest watered cities in the whole 
 world, and certainly one of those pools, the pool of Bethesda, would 
 afford sufllicient water to baptize 3,000 people. Mr. Wilkinson 
 talks about the jailer being baptized in the prison, and says he 
 was not immersed in the prison. The jailer came out of the prison. 
 Paul preached the Gospel in his house, and the jailer afterwards took 
 them out of the house somewhere, Paul baptized them, and they were 
 brought back again. Of course the jailer took them out. Read the 
 account in the 16th chapter of Acts, where you will see that the 
 jailer was taken out of the house. Why was he taken out of the 
 house at midnight to be baptized 1 
 
 With respect to the purification of Christ, my friend Mr. Wilkinson 
 is under the impression that John was down there purifying people, 
 or baptizing people as a symbol of purification ; that they were 
 impure, and were baptized to be purified. The people came to John 
 confessing their sins. Christ did not come to John confessing any sin. 
 He did not come because He was impure. My opponent firmly and 
 emphatically affirmed that John purified Christ according to the cere- 
 monial law. But John was not purifying according to the Mosaic law, 
 and if Christ was impure that was not the place for Him to come to 
 be purified, John was not engaged in that work. I will show you 
 how men were purified according to the Mosaic law, when they had 
 become impure by touching a dead body. In Leviticus chapter 15, 
 we read, " When any man hath a running issue out of his fiesh, be- 
 cause of his issue he is unclean. 
 
 " And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue ; whether his fiesh 
 run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his 
 uncleanness. 
 
 " Every bed whereon he lieth that hath the issue, is unclean ; and 
 everything whereon he sitteth shall be unclean. 
 
 " And whosoever toucheth his bed shall wash bis clothes, and bathe 
 himself in water, and be unclean until the even." 
 
 All these are unclean, and if a man touch one he shall be unclean. 
 
 Tn verse 13 it is said, "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed 
 of his issue ; then he shall number to himself seven days for his 
 cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, 
 and shall be clean." 
 
 We have the remedy in the 14th chapter of Leviticus for cleansing 
 the leper : 
 
 " Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 45 
 
 cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood and scarlet and 
 hyssop, 
 
 "And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in 
 an earthen vessel over running water ; 
 
 " As for the living bird he shall take it and the cedar wood and the 
 scarlet and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the 
 blood of the bird that was killed over the running water ; 
 
 " And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the 
 leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the 
 living bird loose into the open field. 
 
 " And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off 
 all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean : and 
 after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of 
 his tent seven days." 
 
 John was not performing that ceremony. He was not sprinkling 
 with any sort of mixture. He came to prepare a people for the Lord. 
 The Pharisees came and asked. If you are not the Christ why are you 
 baptizing 1 They did not understand it. It was a new thing. He 
 Avas preparing the way of the Lord. I deny that John purified 
 Christ in any sense whatever. He baptized Him, but he did not 
 purify Him. 
 
 I call attention to Heb. 9 : 10. My friend asked me what those 
 " divers baptisms " were. Dr. McKnight, the well-known Presby- 
 terian scholar, renders this verse thus : — 
 
 " Only with meats and drinks, and divers immersions, and ordi- 
 nances concerning the flesh, imposed until the time of reformation." 
 
 A word with respect to those divers baptisms to which my friend 
 referred. Remembering that what we are saying will be printed, I 
 want to make a statement here that it may go into the book. 
 
 Under the Jewish law there were at least eighteen bathings in water 
 without any mixture of blood or ashes in it. Those eighteen different 
 bathings, mentioned in eighteen different places, for different purposes^ 
 must have occurred many times, hundreds of thousands of times, every 
 year. These will be found mentioned in the following places : Exod. 
 29:4; 40:12; Lev. 14:8,9; 15:5; 16:16; 15:18; 16:4; 
 16:24; 16:26; 16:28; 17:15; 17:16; 22:6; Num. 19:7, 8, 
 and Deut. 23 : 11. These bathings are all expressed by the Greek 
 word loico. This means to wash. There are three words in Greek 
 meaning to wash, viz., louo, nijyto, and pluno. The first means to 
 wash the entire body ; the second, to wash the hands and feet, or part 
 of the body ; the third, to wash the clothes. Louo, as I have said. 
 
46 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 means to wash the entire body. That word is used in regard to all 
 bathings. In Heb. 10 : 22 it says, " Having our hearts sprinkled 
 from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." 
 The word is louo. That act is done by immersing, not by sprinkling- 
 The body is not washed by a little water poured on the head. The 
 sprinkling applies to the heart. 
 
 In regard to this passage (Heb. 9 : 10), my friend thinks the 
 " divers baptisms " refer to the sprinklings of the law — that they 
 were typical of baptism, or that baptism represents them. But not 
 so ; the " divers baptisms " refer to these various bathings. In cleans- 
 ing a man from any ceremonial defilement there was first a sprinkling 
 of a mixture of water and blood, or water and the ashes of a red 
 heifer, and then a bathing of the body in water. The sprinkling was 
 typical of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ ; the bathing, of bap- 
 tism ; hence Paul says (Heb. 10 : 22), " having our hearts sprinkled," 
 " and our bodies washed with pure water." 
 
 While I am talking about the " divers baptisms," I want to call 
 attention to the sprinklings under the law. There are eight sprink- 
 lings of blood ; of blood and oil, three ; of blood and water, two ; 
 oil, three ; mixed water and oil, four ; in all, twenty. The difierent 
 sprinklings of the law are, as I have said, twenty in number ; the 
 bathings are eighteen. In those sprinklings there are six only in 
 which there is water, and the water is never unmixed. It is mixed 
 with blood and with the ashes of a red heifer. God never commanded 
 unmixed water to be sprinkled on anybody. 
 
 \Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S THIRD REPLY. 
 
 In regard to the "divers baptisms," mentioned in Heb. 9 : 10, I 
 desire to call your attention to the manner in which my opponent has 
 dealt with them. You will remember I warned you not to let him 
 drag you away to some river. Those baptisms took place " in the 
 tabernacle," which is not necessarily the case with one of the bathings 
 to which he has referred, therefore he has been talking aside the mark. 
 They were blood-sprinklings, as I showed, the only kind of purifications 
 ever effected in the tabernacle. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 47 
 
 He says God never commanded unmixed water to be sprinkled 
 upon any one. No, under the old dispensation it was always mixed ; 
 but by the prophet Ezekiel, He says, speaking of the present dispen- 
 sation, " 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," etc. But perhaps God did not say that ! Perhaps my opponent 
 will quote Dr. McKnight, or some one else to prove that He did 
 not mean it. I do not know how he will get out of it, but I know he 
 is in it. 
 
 In regard to Wesley's testimony, my opponent says that in Rom. 
 6:3, 4 he sees a reference to immersion, and the same in regard to 
 Col. 2:12. I have an extract here which I made from Wesley on 
 Heb. 10 : 22, in which he says there is a plain allusion to the mode of 
 baptism by sprinkling. Yet my opponent wants you to believe that 
 he and others believed immersion to have been the only ancient mode, 
 yet fell back on sprinkling as an expedient of their own, it being more 
 convenient, and arguing in support of their practice that they had a 
 right to change the mode. I doubt, however, if my opponent can 
 produce a single case where one of the writers from whom he quotes 
 agrees that baptizo, in the New Testament sense, means to immerse, 
 and then turns round and argues for sprinkling as the mode of bap- 
 tism. They admit, as I do, that in its primary, classical sense, the 
 word means immerse. They know and acknowledge, as I do, that 
 from a very early period the usual mode of baptism was by immersion, 
 but they invariably undertake to prove, as Wesley states in the extract 
 I have read, that baptisms in the New Testament were performed by 
 sprinkling and pouring. They then go on and argue how much better 
 and more convenient and proper for all climes and nations and con- 
 ditions this mode is than the superstitious mode (it was born and bred 
 in superstition), of dipping or immersing in water. 
 
 A good deal has been said about the baptism of Christ. My oppo- 
 nent has assumed, or begged the question, that the baptism of Christ 
 was by immersion, in order to prove that immersion was the meaning 
 imported into the Scriptures from the classics. But that is the very 
 question in dispute, and a man must not beg the question and base his 
 reasonings on his own assumptions in order to prove his point. It is 
 not evidence in the case until it is proved. Now, with respect to the 
 baptism of Christ, in Matt. 3rd chapter, we have an account of it as 
 follows: — "Then cometh .Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to 
 be baptized of him. But John forbad Him, saying, I have need to 
 be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to mel And Jesus answering 
 
48 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 said unto him, Suflfer it to be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfil 
 all righteousness; then he suffered Him." Now, I want to call your 
 attention to Christ's own definition of this baptism. He called it a 
 fulfilment of righteousness. "Thus," He says, (and it was His baptism 
 He was talking about), " in this way it becometh us to fulfil all right- 
 eousness." Then, let it be understood that it was a fulfilment of 
 righteousness of some sort. What kind of righteousness was it ? and 
 how can righteousness be fulfilled 1 We obtain righteousness by faith. 
 We fulfil it by obedience. When Christ preached the sermon on the 
 Mount, recorded in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew, 
 He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the 
 prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say 
 unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no 
 wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Then Christ proposed to 
 fulfil righteousness by obedience to law There is no getting back of 
 that. If ray opponent can jump this fence I will think he is pretty 
 breachy. The baptism of Christ was the fulfilment of righteousness. 
 To fulfil righteousness there must be obedience to law. Now, what law 
 did He fulfil by His baptism 1 Was it the moral law, or ten command, 
 ments 1 There is not a word in these about baptism. The moral law 
 does not deal with ceremonies, but baptism is a ceremon}^ — an outward 
 rite. We must not look to the moral law, therefore, for a command to 
 baptize. If any law was fulfilled, therefore, it must have been the cere- 
 monial law, unless my opponent can find some other law under the 
 obligations of which he existed, and to which he was obliged to render 
 obedience. I know of no other law, however, except the moral and 
 ceremonial, under which Christ lived, and the obligations of which he 
 was bound to accept. And what part of the ceremonial law was fulfilled 
 by Christ's baptism 1 Until my opponent can tell what it was, in vain 
 will he endeavor to make it appear that it was not a purification. I 
 affirmed it was a purification, and I repeat it. He cannot put his 
 finger on anything in the ceremonial law which required Christ to be 
 baptized, unless it was the induction of the priest into his office, and 
 you will find by a reference to this that the very idea of the washing of 
 the priests was for purification. And in reference to this, my opponent 
 endeavored to make a point, by what I regret to characterize as an 
 unworthy (juibble. He tried to present me to you as having taught 
 you that Christ was unclean from having touched a dead body, I 
 taught nothing of the kind. Tliat is a purely gratuitous inference 
 and assumption on his part. I simply used that as an illustration. I 
 said if Christ touched a dead body He would be unclean from the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 contact as much as you or I would. I did not say that He touched a 
 dead body or that He was a leper. What is the use, therefore, of 
 going all through the Old Testament to tell you how lepers and 
 people that touched dead bodies were cleansed? What I was talking 
 about had no connection with such purifications. I was speaking 
 about symbolizing moral purity, and that was what the priests' 
 baptism at the door of the tabernacle meant. They had to be washed 
 with water before they could officiate in the priestly office. My op- 
 ponent tells you that Christ was not under the ceremonial law, and 
 no doubt he will say that he was not in the priesthood of Aaron and 
 Levi, but will he tell you by what law He was inducted into His 
 office 1 He says His baptism was not a purification, but if we turn 
 to John 1:31 we read where John the Biptist said, " That He should 
 be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing with 
 water." How did John's baptism make Christ manifest to Israel? 
 We will turn to Mai. 3 : 1-3 and see just ho v it was. John is here 
 called our Lord's messenger. " Behold I will send My messenger and 
 he shall prepare the way before Me ; and the Lord whom ye seek 
 shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the 
 covenant whom ye delight in ; behold He shall come, saith the Lord 
 of Hosts. But who may abide the day of Hi? c )ming, and who shall 
 stand when He appeareth 1 " Why, what is the trouble about stand- 
 ing when He appeareth, aad abiding the day of His coming 1 " For 
 He is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap ; and He shall sit as a 
 refiner and purifier of silver ; and He shall purify the sons of Levi, 
 and purge them as gold and silver, that they may ofier unto the Lord 
 an offering in righteousness." Was not Christ the world's purifier? 
 Why did He come to this earth, if not to cleanse the world from sin ? 
 Hence John recognized Him as the great purifier of the human race, 
 and shrank from the required task of baptizing Him, saying, " I 
 have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me 1 " Being 
 pure, and the purifier of mankind, it was meet that He should receive 
 the token of His character and work. I still argue, therefore, that 
 Christ's baptism was a symbol of purity. I still argue, on the strength 
 of His own statement, that it was a fulfilment of righteousness by 
 obedience to some law ; and I still affirm that there was no law which 
 He could have been called upon to obey except the one referring to 
 the induction of the priest into his office. God had instituted for the 
 purpose the best mode of expressing moral purity, and that was the 
 washing of the priest with water, hence, though of a different order 
 from Aaron, it was appropriate that Christ should receive it. And if 
 4 
 
50 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 He had gone into a Jewish synagogue as a public teacher without 
 having' this rite performed on Him, what would have been the con- 
 sequence 1 A cry would have been raised by the Jews that an indi- 
 vidual who was ceremonially unclean was standing up to teach 
 them, and they would have refused to hear Him, though it waS 
 important that they should be taught. When the question of His 
 authority to teach was raised, what did He say 1 He said, " I also 
 will ask you one thing, which if ye tell Me, I in like wise will tell you 
 by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence 
 was it 1 from heaven or of men 1 " But they dare not tell Him, for if 
 they said, of men, they feared the people, and if they saifl, of heaven, 
 they virtually admitted His authority, for John had baptized Him 
 and testified that he saw the Spirit like a dove descend upon Him. 
 And the acknowledgment of this was the very thing they were anxious 
 to avoid, hence Christ appealed to the baptism of John for His 
 authority to teach. 
 
 My opponent has quoted authorities on the burial subject to prove 
 it meant immersion, but I care not one straw for any authority if he 
 does not write sense, and I will show you that whoever talks about 
 ritual baptism as a burial, talks nonsense. Did you ever see a man 
 buried when the corpse trotted out to his own grave 1 I ask you this 
 as a serious question. I confess it is the strangest burial I ever heard 
 of, either in civilized or uncivilized lands ; either in ancient or modern 
 times. I will guarantee that history cannot produce another such 
 case whore the corpse actually jogs alongside the sexton or priest to 
 its own grave. A pretty lively corpse, I should say ! Besides, it 
 half buries itself by its own act, and then the preacher comes along 
 and buries the rest. But, instead of leaving it buried, he pulls it 
 right out again for fear the individual will become a corpse in reality, 
 and the dead man trots back home, and the friends have a good time 
 instead of going into mourning. That is the kind of performance they 
 have when they convert Christian baptism into a burial, and make 
 the putting of their candidates into water to represent the putting of 
 a corpse into a grave. I may have been thought to use strong lan- 
 guage in referring to such acts as superstition and nonsense. But it 
 is surely not unchristian to say so when I regard such a performance, 
 every inch of it, as one of the most monstrous pieces of superstition 
 that ever was perpetrated among civilized men ! Is it water baptism 
 that Paul refers to when he speaks of our being incorporated into 
 Christ? Is it water baptism by which the old man, with his corrupt 
 deeds, is put away 1 Is it water baptism by which we are raised from 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 51 
 
 the dead to walk in newness of life 1 Perhaps my opponent will tell 
 you it is. But I do not believe a word of it. I believe it is a super- 
 stition which came down to us from the early days of the Church, 
 when they immersed people because they believed the water soaked 
 out sin and soaked in grace, consequently people's sins could not be 
 forgiven till they were put under water. According to this theory 
 we must be drowned in order to be made alive. The more you 
 examine Rom. 6 : 3, 4, and Col. 2:12, with the context, the more 
 clearly you will see that it is a grand spiritual process of which the 
 apostle speaks, by which we become incorporated into Christ, and, 
 being united to Him, we are one with Him in all His atoning work ; 
 one with Him in His death, one with Him in His burial, one with 
 Him in His resurrection, one with Him forever, unless we forfeit 
 salvation by our own act. Does water baptism do that for us ? I 
 maintain that it does not. My opponent has admitted that while the 
 candidate is under water he is baptized, and when he is taken out he 
 is not baptized. You were baptized, but you are not now baptized, 
 he says. But I should think that when a man is baptized into Christ, 
 it would be better to let him stay there. But, according to his theory, 
 he dare not let him stay there. If he did, his baptism into Christ 
 would be a burial in the depths. But, on the supposition that Paul 
 is speaking of water baptism in these passages, as a figure of what he 
 describes, let us see what is involved. " So many of us as were bap- 
 tized in Christ," he says, " were baptized into His death," etc. Now, 
 first, we are said to be baptized into Christ. If this is represented by 
 our being put into water, then the water must be a figure of Christ. 
 But we are also put into the water to represent our being baptized 
 into His death; therefore, the water represents His death, — two things, 
 Christ and His death. But we are also said to be " buried with Him 
 by baptism," therefore the water is again transformed into a grave, and 
 the pulling out of the candidate which is the converse of his being 
 put in, ought to represent taking the candidate out of Christ, out of 
 His death, and out of His grave. Do you think Paul thus jumbled 
 together things which essentially difier, by making the water represent 
 Christ, His death, and His tomb, and the subject for baptism a corpse 1 
 When my opponent baptizes, therefore, he puts his candidates into 
 Christ, and buries them in the grave by the same act. But he has to 
 take them out immediately to avoid drowning them. He has quoted 
 the case of Aristobulus to prove that a classic baptism, in the primary 
 sense, did not always drown; but, as a matter of fact, Aristobulus was 
 drowned. He referred to another case where the Jews, baptized in 
 
52 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 the Sea of Galilee, popped up their heads, endeavoring to escape; but, 
 being shot at, were obliged to pop them under again, and finally 
 perished. When they popped their heads out they were not baptized, 
 when they got under again they were baptized, and so they went in 
 and out like jack in a box, but their baptism killed them, and so it 
 will every time, according to my opponent's theory. He has not 
 found, nor can he find, a single case in all Greek literature, where any 
 one was baptized, according to the primary idea, and survived it, hence 
 I say that the whole immersion theory is the greatest superstition 
 ever heard of, and I expect to prove it to the satisfaction of this con- 
 gregation before the debate closes. In this burial in water lousiness, 
 as I have said, the water represents Christ's grave, which was a rock 
 sepulchre, entered by a door at one side, in front of which a large 
 stone was rolled. Would that be suggested to your mind by a candi- 
 date entering the water for baptism and being put under by a preacher <i 
 Would it ever occur to you that the water was a symbol of such a 
 grave 1 It reminds me of the young artist who drew on his slate 
 what he intended for a diagram of a horse, but fearing the resem- 
 blance was so remote that it would not be recognized, he wrote under- 
 neath, " This is a horse." I would advise my immersion friends to 
 write under all their immersions, " This is a burial," for certainly no 
 one would ever recognize them as imitations of a burial. The idea of 
 converting a candidate for baptism into the figure of a corpse, and 
 transforming an ordinance, intended to symbolize the regeneration of 
 the soul by the action of the Holy Ghost, into a funeral scene, is 
 absurd. Does such a representation convey to anyone's mind the 
 idea of moral cleansing and regeneration 1 Nothing of the kind I 
 tell you this burial business, applied to the outward rite of baptism, 
 is a positive superstition. Neither Christ, nor Peter, nor John, nor 
 any one of the apostles down through the early period of Christianity 
 for twenty-five or thirty years, ever referred to such a thing as burial 
 in connection with baptism. It is not in the records. And when 
 Paul alluded to it it was in a spiritual sense. Do you want proof of 
 this ^ Then turn to first Corinthians 12 : 13 (I presume the apostle 
 understood his own meaning as well as Mr. Harding does), and you 
 will read, " For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." If 
 you turn to Galatians 3 : 27, 28, you may read, "For as many of you 
 as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is 
 neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
 male nor female, for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus." Are we 
 made one in Christ by being ducked in water 1 But my opponent 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 53 
 
 saye the authorities affirm that baptizo means to dip, or immerse. I 
 repeat, I care not a straw for all the books he can pile on his table 
 if their interpretations do not agree with the Word of God, and this 
 interpretation does not. I prefer to manfacture my own creed out of 
 inspired truth, but I will not pin my faith to any man's opinion. I 
 submit to your intelligent, candid, Christian judgment whether I 
 have not made it plain that baptism by immersion is not referred to 
 in these passages, and that baptism with water is intended merely to 
 symbolize spiritual truth, but not to dramatize literal events or occur- 
 rences. Can it be possible that Christ instituted a solemn ordinance 
 in the Christian economy to commemorate an event which is of no 
 more importance in its atoning or regenerating effect, than a little oil 
 on your nose would be to cure the corns on your toes? (Laughter.) 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Can I offer a word of explanation, Mr. Chairman, 
 as to what I mean by that remark ? 
 
 Mr. Harding — No, no. Your time is up. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson (to the audience) — Then don't carry away a false 
 impression, for I will explain it again. 
 
 (This closed the proceedings of the first day.) 
 
54 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 seco:n^d day. 
 
 MR. HARDING'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — After a refreshing 
 night's sleep, and a quiet forenoon of rest, we come before you again 
 to continue the discussion of this important matter. Bear in mind 
 that I am here to affirm that Christian baptism is immersion — in it 
 there must be a burial in water. Bear in mind, further, that Christian 
 baptism is the baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and was 
 first given to the world in the great commission given by our Lord to 
 His holy apostles. In that commission the duty of baptism is 
 expressed, as we have had occasion to say, by the Greek word baptizo. 
 The real object of this meeting is, therefore, to bring out the meaning 
 of that word in that document, for it is agreed by all that that docu- 
 ment, known as the great commission, is the authority for baptism, 
 and the only authority which man has. Jesus used this word. By 
 His Holy Spirit He gave this word to His apostles. His apostles 
 wrote it in the Book ; and we thus have this word coming from our 
 Lord, through the Holy Spirit and through the apostles. What does 
 the word mean 1 We havte been considering this matter ; we will 
 continue to consider it. I have told you frankly and fairly that the 
 meaning of the word is to immerse. I do not mean that immersion 
 alone is Christian baptism, but simply that the word baptizo, wherever 
 you find it used in regard to Christian baptism, or anywhere else, means 
 to immerse. Christian baptism is immersion by the authority of Christ, 
 and into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But baptizo 
 means to immerse, and I have referred you to authorities to prove my 
 statement. Bear in mind that I produced eight Greek lexicons, all 
 Greek-English but one, and that is Greek-Latin, and every one 
 defines the word to immerse, dip, plunge. Not one of them defines it 
 to sprinkle or pour. I claim that it was a proper thing for me to go 
 to the dictionaries, and see how they define the word, and I have done 
 so. It is agreed by Mr. Wilkinson that the word in the classics 
 means to immerse. He says I might have saved myself the trouble 
 of producing lexicons and books to prove that it means immerse in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 the classic use of it. He also admits that it does not mean to sprinkle, 
 and that it does not mean to pour upon, and that it cannot in any 
 case be so defined. Indeed he has never yet agreed that the word 
 means anything but immerse. Do you remember that I called upon 
 him to answer this question 1 Tell us what haptizo means in the 
 commission. He and I agree that a word in one place can have but 
 one meaning. What is the meaning of haj}tizo in the commission 1 
 I told you he would, not give you the meaning. We do not want to 
 know what it symbolizes or represents. We want to know what the 
 word means. Christ told the apostles to do something. '• Go disciple 
 tlie nations, baptizing them." Do something — baptize them. What does 
 it mean 1 He says it does not mean to purify or cleanse, but that it 
 symbolizes that. He admits that in classic Greek it means to 
 immerse, but he will not agree that it means anything else. I told 
 you he would not answer that question in his last speech, and he 
 did not. I prophecy that he will not answer it in his next speech, or 
 in any speech. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Of course not. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I knew you were a coward and dare not do it, but 
 you persist in interrupting me. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I deny the charge. 
 
 Mr. Harding appealed to the Chairman to be protected from such 
 interruptions. 
 
 The Chairman mentioned that moderators were appointed to regulate 
 the debate. 
 
 Mr. Harding — He interrupted me. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — In the absence of my moderator [who had not 
 yet arrived] I claim the right to speak for myself. I simply appeal 
 to the audience, through the Chairman, as to whether I have inter- 
 rupted Mr. Harding in his speech. 
 
 Mr. Harding — You spoke up to me. [Addressing the audience.] 
 He is not going to answer that question, because he dare not do it. 
 I will tell you the meaning of the word, because I know it. What 
 does Christ tell His apostles to do 1 To baptize. My opponent does 
 not say what it means. When you ask me the meaning of any word 
 I am using I will give it you as far as I know it. If I don't know it 
 I will tell you so. My opponent agrees that in the classics it means 
 to immerse. No wonder he agrees to that. 
 
 Dr. Moses Stuart, professor of sacred literature in Andover Theo- 
 logical Seminary, one of the most learned and distinguished Presby- 
 terians America ever produced, says in his work ou Baptism 
 
'56 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 (Nashville edition), " Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or 
 immerge into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any 
 note are agreed in this." Page 51. He gives many examples illustra- 
 tive of the use of these words, and then says {page 76), " A review of 
 the preceding examples must lead any one, I think, to the conclusion 
 that the predominant usage of the words bapto and baptizo is to 
 designate the idea of dipping, plunging, or overwhelming, and (in the 
 case of bapto) of tinging and dyeing." 
 
 I next read from the great Pasor, Bapto and baptizo. " 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 sub- 
 merged. 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." 
 
 Donuegan says : " To immerse repeatedly into a liquid ; to sub- 
 merge ; to soak thoroughly ; to saturate, hence, to drench with wine. 
 Metaphorically, to confound totally ; to dip in a vessel and draw." 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson read from what appeared to me to be a scrap book, 
 composed of matter written with his own hand. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — It is not written. (Hands book to Mr. Harding.) 
 
 Mr. Harding — Is that your sermon 1 He was reading from his 
 own sermon if I am not very much mistaken. I see it was a sermon 
 on the subject of baptism by Rev. Henry Morris. He was quoting 
 from a book of sermons by some member of the Reformed Dutch 
 Church, of Unionville, N. Y. State. He was quoting from sermons 
 preached by a pjedo-baptist preacher to prove that the meaning of 
 baptizo is not to immerse. 
 
 I have here a " Manual on Baptism," by G. S. Bailey, President of 
 Shurtleff College. His quotations were verified by the Book Com- 
 mittee of the Publication Society. The following quotations are from 
 this work. 
 
 Bishop Smith, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ken- 
 tucky, says : "We have only to go back six or eight hundred years, 
 and immersion was the only mode, except in the case of the few bap- 
 tized on their beds when death was near. And with regard to such 
 cases, it disqualified its recipient for holy orders in case he recovered. 
 Immersion was not only universal six or eight hundred years ago, but 
 it was primitive and apostolic, no case of baptism standing on record 
 l)y any other mode for the first tliree hundred years, except the few 
 cases of those bai)tized clinically, that is, lying in bed. If any one 
 practice of the early Church is clearly established, it is immersion." — 
 Bliss' Letter on Baptism, ]). 2Jf. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 I proceed to notice some remarks offered by Mr, Wilkinson in his 
 last night's speech. He said it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose 
 that the burial referred to in Romans, sixth chapter, was a burial in 
 water. In his speech at Euphrasia he said that anybody was a fool 
 who believed that. In his speech here, in the Presley terian Church, 
 when I called attention to the fact that his Father Wesley gave that 
 interpretation, he went on to explain that Wesley in that particular 
 point was foolish in giving such an interpretation, and if Mr. Wesley 
 were living to-day, with the light that we now have, he would not so 
 interpret it. 
 
 A greater than Father Wesley is living to-day, that is Dr. Philip 
 Schatf, the greatest church historian now living on earth. In his 
 edition of Lange's Commentary on Romans, page 202, he says : " All 
 commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge) expressly admit or 
 take it for granted that in this verse, especially in sunetapheemen and 
 eegerthee, [the burial and resurrection], the ancient prevailing mode 
 of baptism by immersion and emersion is implied, as giving additional 
 force to the idea of the going down of the old and the rising up of the 
 new man." 
 
 Conybeare and Howson, " Life and Epistles of St. Paul," Vol I., 
 p. 439, say : 
 
 " Baptism was immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the 
 surface of the water to represent his death to sin, and then raised 
 from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to a life 
 of righteousness." Also on Rom. 6: 4, "This passage cannot be 
 i\nderstood unless it is borne in mind that the primitive baptism was 
 by immersion." 
 
 Mackuight, a distinguished Moderator of the Presbyterian General 
 Assembly of Scotland, says: " In baptism, the baptized person is buried 
 under water, as one put to death with Christ, and on account of sin, 
 in order that they may be strongly impressed with a sense of the 
 malignity of sin, and excited to hate it as the greatest of evils." 
 Commenting on Rom. 6 : 4, he says: " Christ submitted to be baptized, 
 that is to be buried under 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 their own death, 
 burial, and resurrection." 
 
 John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, in his Notes on Romans 
 6 : 4 says : " Buried with Him — alluding to the ancient manner of 
 baptizing by immersion." 
 
 These authorities I have quoted for convenience from Bailey, 
 
58 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 though I have the original works here, and can turn to them if it is 
 necessary. 
 
 George Whitfield says: "It is certain that in the words of our text 
 (Rom. 6 : 4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptizing, which 
 was by immersion." 
 
 Dr. Wall (who wrote the History of Infant Baptism to which we 
 have already referred, and whose work is the standard authority on 
 that subject, although it was written 180 years ago), says : "St. Paul 
 does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a burial." 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson, of the Church of England, says: " Anciently 
 those who were baptized were immersed and buried in the water 
 to represent their death to sin, and then raised up out of the water 
 to signify their entrance upon a new life ; and to these customs the 
 apostle alludes in Rom. 6 : 4." 
 
 The Edinburgh Reviewers, ptedo- baptists, say : " We have rarely 
 met, for example, a more weak and lanciful piece of reasoning than 
 that by which Mr. Ewing would persuade us that there is no allusion 
 to the mode by immersion in the expression, ' buried with Him in bap- 
 tism.' This point ought to be frankly admitted, and, indeed, cannot 
 be denied with any show of reason." 
 
 I will now call attention to the reason given by Mr. Wilkinson for 
 refusing to believe that the apostle Paul referred to immersion — to a 
 burial in water — in Rom. 6 : 4, his reason for ridiculing as fools all 
 who so interpret it. He inquires, " Did you ever see a man buried 
 who trotted out to his own grave 1 " This is his great reason for 
 difiering from all the scholars of the world (except two), for calling 
 all the commentators and critics (except Stuart and Hodge), of all 
 ages and nations, fools. Did he never hear of any one's being buried 
 alive 1 It does not matter whether one is dead or alive, you can 
 bury him. Suppose we weigh Mr. Wilkinson ; imagine a gx-eat pair 
 of balances with him upon one end, and SchafF, Wesley, the Edinburgh 
 Reviewers, McKnight, Conybeare and Howson, Whitfield, Wall, 
 Archbishop Tillotson, with all the scholars of all the ages, upon the 
 other end : why, the one end would go down, and the other up, with 
 such vim that my friend here would go right up through the roof. 
 
 But Mr. Wilkinson says he does not care for the scholar.-j. He 
 does not care what they say. I, Mr. Wilkinson, tell you it will never 
 do to liury a man alive. In heathen lands it is a common thing to 
 bury live men with the dead — to bury servants with their dead 
 masters. H«^ should know that when a man b(^lieves in Jesus he dies 
 to sin ; and he ought to know that when a man comes up from the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 69 
 
 water of baptism he does so to begin a new life, and is called a new- 
 born babe in Christ. 
 
 In this very chapter (Rom. 6), in the second verse, the apostle 
 represents the Romans as dead to sin, and then in the fourth, as being 
 buried and raised to walk in newness of life. We have in the passage 
 a death, burial and resurrection. 
 
 He may talk till his head is gray, and may act as a jumping-jack 
 as much as he pleases. He reminds me of a jack-on-a-pole that you 
 work with a string. He is better at it than any man I ever saw. He 
 was cut out for a clown, and he reminds me all the time of the Dar- 
 winian principle of evolution, of raising a man from a monkey. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hunt — Mr. Chairman, I protest against such language. 
 It is not such as a gentleman would use in a public assembly. Any 
 gentleman would at once take it back. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I call attention to the fact that the gentleman 
 talked about my bellowing and shouting and clapping my fists. He 
 talked about jumping-jacks, and I am just applying that where it 
 properly belongs. I am here to keep up my side, and by the grace of 
 G-od I will do it by every means that is fair and right, and I will not 
 be intimidated by any body of preachers on the rostrum, or by any 
 body of people in the audience. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hunt — I call attention to the fact that this gentleman 
 spoke of Mr. Wilkinson as not being fit for a clown, if I understood 
 him correctly. Such an expression should not be used. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Perhaps I should not have expressed my senti- 
 ments. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hunt — No gentleman will express such sentiments. 
 
 Mr. Harding — You may say what you please about it. I have 
 used no such expressions as have been used on the other side. I have 
 not called the whole of the scholars fools. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Did I do that in this debate ? 
 
 Mr. Harding — You did it in a public speech. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Was I debating with you then ? 
 
 Mr. Sterling (Mr. Harding's moderator) — You intimated that he 
 was a jumping-jack. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I was not referring to Mr. Harding at all, but I 
 was referring to the persons in the water whom Mr. Harding tried to 
 prove got out of a baptized state alive, who put their heads out of the 
 water, and when shot at put them under again, I referred to them 
 as jumping-jacks, not to him at all. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I will be more careful how I express my senti- 
 
60 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 ments, and proceed with my speech. I was very forcibly reminded 
 when Mr. Wilkinson was speaking of a story I heard concerning an 
 old lawyer giving advice to a young one. He said, " Young man, 
 when you go before a jury, if the law is in your favor and the testi- 
 mony against you, come out strong on the law ; if the testimony is in 
 your favor and the law against you, be very strong on the testimony." 
 Said the young man, " And suppose both the law and the testimony 
 are against me?" " Then," replied the senior, "talk round." If Mr. 
 Wilkinson is not talking round, I do not understand what he is doing. 
 He called on a boy to answer a question, and the boy said, " I don't 
 know," The boy, like the rest of the people, did not know what he 
 was trying to prove. He was talking round and raising a dust. He 
 now tells you that he does not intend to tell you what the word hap- 
 tizo means. Of course he will not do it, although it is the very word 
 in debate. One of the very first rules in debating is that the words 
 found in the proposition are to be interpreted and explained, so that 
 there shall be no mistake. I explained them to the best of my ability, 
 but he says he will not attempt to do so. I pass on to another point, 
 Christ'^s induction into His office as priest by John's baptism. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S FOURTH REPLY. 
 
 The old lawyer's story is very appropriate at the present time. 
 But if I had told it, and told it as it is usually told, it would havie 
 been quite as appropriate, viz., " When you have no case abuse the 
 plaintifi^'s attorney." 1 very much regret that my opponent has 
 become so exasperated. I never saw a man in such a sweat as he 
 was in last night, except the same man to-day. A man always gets 
 exasperated when he is getting the worst of it in a contest. The 
 whale is a comparatively harmless animal, I am told, until you har- 
 poon him, and then he can make the water fly tremendously. I am 
 afraid the harpoon has struck in some part which is pretty tender. 
 I never saw a whale flounder so in my life. There is a part of the 
 whale which they call blubber. I do not know whether there is any 
 of that about my opponent or not. He seems to depend excessively 
 upon those books. Now, if I had known- the merits of this debate 
 were to depend on reading extracts from books, why I would have 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 61 
 
 ordered a special train and have brought a car-load along, for we know 
 that we can produce ten testimonies to their one, among scholars, if it 
 comes to that. I have read many leading works on this subject, and 
 know that I could take up your time for hours in reading authorities. 
 I did not, however, come here to weary your patience or tax your 
 attention by reading largely from books, and I would not have read 
 half, nor a quarter of what I have read, only that I deemed it desirable 
 to show you that there are two sides to this question. But, thank God, 
 I did not have to bring my brains to Meaford in a trunk, and pile them 
 up on my table for the congregation to look at. Do you see those brains, 
 friends 1 [pointing to Mr. Harding's pile of books.] Perhaps it would 
 be interesting for you to know what those brains are made of. Well, 
 I can tell you. They are made of basswood, a little straw and a 
 sprinkling of printer's ink ; and if the merits of this discussion are to 
 depend on the amount of such brains that we can pile on our stand 
 and read to the people, then I did not understand the matter. I did 
 not know this when I came here or I would have been better prepared. 
 And even now I had better send down to Mr. Briggs to send me up 
 the Book Room, for it is full of books on my side of this question. I 
 tell you I could have given you books by the score if I had been 
 disposed to load myself down with such trash. But we might stand 
 here from now to eternity reading extracts from books, and settle 
 nothing in the end. This man comes here to affirm that Christian 
 baptism is immersion ; not what classic baptism is. Yet he has spent 
 most of his time telling us what classic baptism is, and he has not 
 done that according to the primary sense of the term, for in this sense 
 it means to put anything in water and drown it, if a human being or 
 live animal, and if any other object, to put it under water and leave 
 it there. He dare not baptize a candidate in that fashion. T challenge 
 him to perform a single classic baptism if he dare. I will not turn 
 and shake my fists in his face, and smite them together, like a rowdy 
 Irom the riff-raff of Kentucky. My opponent does not retract his 
 offensive statement that I was a coward, a clown, a rowdy and a 
 jumping-jack, although my moderator called attention to the fact that 
 it was ungentlemanly. He only added insult to injury by saying, 
 sarcastically, that he would be a little more careful how he expressed 
 his sentiments. If this debate is to degenerate into a war of this 
 kind we had better close it with this session. I did not com€ here to 
 abuse this man, or any other man. I did not come here to tell you 
 what the word baftizo means. He says I will not do it, and there is 
 a good reason. I did not assume the responsibility of doing it. lie 
 
62 REPORT OK PKBATK 
 
 did. I oamo hero to neij[ative what ho atHrms. I did not come here 
 to atlirin anything about the meaning of tlio word, but simply to bring 
 rebuttinij tostimony ajrainst liis abomiuablo thoory that Christian 
 baptism is innuorsiou — -a thoory wliich iu })ractioo will everlastingly 
 result in drowning unless an accident happens to deliver the poor 
 victim from his fate. I stand here as a representative of Christianity 
 to toll you that Christian baptism novor moans immersion, and that 
 our Lord novor used baptize in the primary classic sense, for my 
 opponent cannot produce a single classic Greek writer giving an 
 instance of baptism according to the original, primary or classic sense 
 that did not result in drowning. That ought to settle as much as a 
 whole wheelbarrow full of books. Until he can tind that instance, 
 let him keep quiet about his books. I told you that if I could produce 
 from the Bible one case of baptism not administered by immersion his 
 whole fabric came to the ground. 1 (i?t(^ produce it. It is in Hebrews 
 9 : 10. 1 told you he could not meet it. He has not done so. He 
 cannot do so. I called the attention of Bishop Carman to this passage 
 as I explained it last night. He went to the Bible and examined it 
 in my presence, and said, " You are right." It had never struck the 
 Bishop's attention, until I pointed it out to him, that the " divers 
 washings " were effected by means of sacritices. Those sacrifices 
 involved the slaying of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood 
 upon the individual to cleanse him from ceremonial defilement. That 
 was baptism according to Paul. Now, I maintain that until he has 
 broken down that tostimony his case is gone, and he knows it, and 
 hence this bullying business. But he has treed the wrong coon this 
 time. He woke up the wrong passenger when he challenged me witli 
 such defiance, in the little church south of here, a few months ago. 1 
 did not come here to be trampled underfoot by any great big — I will 
 not say rowdy — but by any living man from Kentucky or anywhere 
 else. I presume he thought Canadians were only about half civilized 
 and but very purtially enlightonod, and ho could come up here and 
 corruscate with the magnificence of his immortal genius, and wo 
 would just open our mouths like young robins and swallow down any- 
 thing he put in them. But he came to the wrong part of the earth, 
 and found the wrong man. I would not have made these remarks 
 only for the treatment I received at his hands during the last speech. 
 If he expects this kind of thing is to settle the question — if he expects 
 the debate to turn on this, let him keep riglit on, and he will tind I 
 have a tongue as long as his, and that, though I don't want to brag, 
 as he is in the habit of doing, and although I have not as much brains 
 
ON THE MODK AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 63 
 
 on the stand, I have quite as much in my crani«im. I want him to take 
 his V>earing and point his compass in the right direction, and see if he 
 can steer the shattered hulk of baptism Vjy immersion into harbor. In 
 my opinion, it is a water-soaked old craft ; it has been scuttled again 
 and again from stem to stern ; there is not a timl>er in it that has not 
 been splintered from end to end ; it has been riddled through and 
 through like a sieve until it will no longer hold water, and if he thinks 
 there is anything in it worth mending, for God's sake let him run it 
 into a dry-dock for repairs. I can follow him up on this line if it is 
 the way to settle this question. I simply appeal now to Ctesar. Last 
 night he was so harpooned and driven into a corner, and filled with 
 despair, that he would not allow me to ad'l five or six words to com- 
 plete a sentence, so that you might understand what was in my mouth 
 when I had to quit. He is very exact as to time. At every little 
 interruption he says to you, Mr, Chairman, "Mark my time. Don't 
 let me lose a minute." He will need every minute before the debate 
 is over, and I will be able to give him an hour to my half hour. 
 Already he is giving you little but watery hash. " I am not mad, 
 most noble Festus, hiut speak the words of truth and soh»erness." 
 
 And now, with regard to the statement I made last night, I say it 
 would be a strange thing — and it would be extraordinary if scholars 
 said anything different — that Christ would institute a sacred rite or 
 SHcrament in the Christian Church to keep in memory an event which, 
 so far as the efficacy of the atonement is concerned, was of no conse 
 quence whatever. I refer to the mere fact that Christ was buried. 
 So long as He died and came to life again, that was all that was 
 essential to the efficacy of the atonement. If He had been laid on a 
 shelf for three days instead of being entombed, it would not have de- 
 tracted one iota from the merits of His atoning work, so long as He 
 gave life to the world by His death and rose again from the dead as 
 a triumph over death and hell, and ascended to the right hand of God. 
 Yet, forsooth, we have to put every candidate for Christian baptism 
 into water to symbolize Christ's burial, they say. We have to do 
 this, oVjserve, to represent the insignificant fact that after Christ died 
 Ho was put into a grave. I have as much confidence in the death of 
 Christ and the effects of His death and resurrection as any one, but 
 the mere fact of His Vjeing put into a grave after He was crucified 
 does not matter a straw. Yet we are to keep it in everlasting re- 
 memVfrance by a Christian ordinance ! 
 
 My opponent challenges me to define bnptizo. I appeal to all who 
 were here yesterday afternoon if I did not define this word as I under- 
 
64 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 stand it. I told you then that baptism was a religions purification, out- 
 wardly symbolizing the inward purity of the heart ; and that in what- 
 ever way the inward purification was produced, in that way the out- 
 ward operation ought to be performed. I told you, moreover, that 
 the blood of sprinkling on our hearts was a baptism, the inner bap- 
 tism ; and those very fathers that he says were all immersionists — 
 and I can produce their names one after another — will tell you the 
 same thing, viz., that the sprinkling of the blood of Christ was a bap- 
 tism, and that water baptism is the symbol of it. Yet my opponent 
 says we have to dip people in order to represent the sprinkling of 
 blood. Would you imagine it had any relation to the sprinkling of 
 Christ's blood when you see one man dip another in water 1 I should 
 like to ask if the baptisms performed by the Spirit were by immersion. 
 My opponent will perhaps tell you they were immersed by the Spirit 
 on the day of Pentecost, but it is all in his eye. If it was any part of 
 my present purpose, I could give him one or two more examples to 
 chew, but I do not want to expose him too much at once. I am a 
 little like the darkey boy who said to his master, " Massa, one of your 
 oxen's dead. T'other one's dead too, but I thought I wouldn't tell 
 you bof at once for fear you couldn't bore it." 1 find a very little in- 
 toxicates my opponent and turns his head, and I am afraid he will 
 strike me if I give him too much at once. He has smacked his fists 
 together in my face several times, and yesterday I had to move back 
 in order to get out of the reach of his arms, and to-day I had to get 
 behind the partition. I never saw a Christian minister who could 
 smite his fists together in such a manner, and especially in the face 
 of another person I could never have thought that a man could 
 have become so proficient at this unless he had had a little practice as 
 a bully in the prize ring. I do not think he is a prize fighter, but he 
 was made for that, and as he has not turned his abilities into that 
 channel, I presume he has mistaken his calling. . He still wants to 
 know the meaning of the word baptizo. I have said that it did not 
 mean to sprinkle, or pour, though I gave a passing hint that I could 
 produce a lexicon that gave such a meaning. For the present it will 
 remain a simple question of veracity whether I can or not. 1 don't 
 propose to be bullied into it until I get ready. The lexicons 
 give so niany difierent meanings that no man can fix on any one 
 meaning and say that that is the sense in which Christ used the wOrd 
 in the commission. If it is a question of scholarship, quoting one 
 scholar against another, I can produce as many scholars as he can to 
 prove my position. But 1 prefer to depend on the brains Cod has 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 given me, and not on other people's brains. I did not come here to 
 vindicate my cause by authorities. But when my opponent challenges 
 me to produce a single standard lexicon giving to pour or sprinkle, he 
 knows very well that Liddell and Scott is the only Grreek-English one 
 extant, and that all the others give their definitions either in Greek 
 or Latin, or some other language. Therefore we do not find the Eng- 
 lish words pour or sprinkle in their definitions. But if my opponent 
 says I cannot find the equivalent of sprinkle in any of the lexicons, I 
 will undertake to accommodate him. We will take the word given 
 by the lexicographers in Latin and interpret it with a Latin-English 
 dictionary, and we can settle the question before we go home whether 
 the Latin word means sprinkle or not. If he accepts my offer, we 
 will test the question. He said last night that the New Testament 
 was written in Greek. It is very strange if Christ spoke in some 
 other tongue — and I understood my opponent to admit He did — that 
 the apostles wrote in Greek. 
 
 And now I want to give him another little matter to put in his 
 pipe and smoke until he speaks again. I want to give him a passage 
 of Scripture in which a baptism is spoken of, and I want him to tell 
 you whether the word haptizo is used in the sense in which he inter- 
 prets it, or whether there is any immersion in the case. I refer to 
 the baptism of the three million Israelites in the Red Sea. The pas- 
 sage is in 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2. It reads, "Moreover, brethren, I would not 
 that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the 
 cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea." My opponent may say that that 
 is not a Christian baptism ; but this will not help his cause, because 
 it is used by an inspired apostle who knew what Christian baptism 
 was, and he calls it a baptism. The Israelites came to the borders of 
 the sea, and the Egyptians were in pursuit. The cloud had hitherto 
 gone before them to point out the way. But now " the angel of God, 
 which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind 
 them : and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and 
 stood behind them. And it came between the camp of the Egyptians 
 and the camp of Israel ; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but 
 it gave light by night to these ; so that the one came not near the 
 other all the night. And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea ; 
 and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that 
 night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And 
 the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry 
 ground : and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand 
 5 
 
66 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 and on their left. And the E^jyptians pursued, and went in after 
 them to the midst of the sea and were drowned." There is no immer- 
 sion in this case, except of the Egyptians. My opponent cannot get 
 immersion into it. It has been a sore point with the immersionists 
 in all ages, and will be till the end of time. He will tell you — it is a 
 little trick that has been often exposed, but he will resort to it again — 
 that the Israelites were under the cloud and passing through the sea 
 at the same time, and that the cloud was resting down on the sea and 
 made a kind of tunnel or box for them to go through — a sort of coffin ; 
 for, you know, baptism is immersion : in it there must be a burial in 
 water ! But Moses says that the cloud removed from before them 
 and went and stood behind them while they passed through the sea, 
 which they did on dry ground, and they were baptized, according to 
 Paul. The Egyptians essaying to follow them were drowned. They 
 were immersed, or classically baptized ; while the Israelites, who were 
 not immersed, were scripturally baptized. If my opponent can prove 
 that the Israelites were immersed, he can carry off all the feathers 
 and do all the crowing. If this kind of baptism will do which they 
 say the Israelites received, I propose that in winter those in favor of 
 the immersion theory should cut two large cakes of ice ami set them 
 up on edge a short distance apart ; then cut another cake and lay it 
 on the top, and let their candidates for baptism pass through, and they 
 will be immersed in the same manner. In the summer-time they might 
 have a water-tight box open at each end, fixed across a stream so that 
 the water could flow over it, and then the candidates might be passed 
 through the box and be immersed in the same orthodox fashion as 
 they say the Israelites were, without wetting a hair of their heads or 
 the soles of their feet. This would save a deal of trouble. The fact 
 is that the baptism of the Israelites consisted in their deliverance out 
 of bondage into liberty, which was eftected by the guidance of the 
 cloud and the passage of the sea, and Christian baptism is designed 
 to symbolize our being born again of the Spirit and made partakers 
 of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 But perhaps at this point my opponent will tell me how Noah and 
 his family were immersed at the time of the flood. Peter says they were 
 typically baptized. But they floated in the ark while the antediluvian 
 sinners were classically baptized. Noah and his family were only 
 sprinkled, and they came out all right on the other shore, while those 
 who were classically baptized were drowned. My opponent will prob- 
 ably tell you that Noah and his family were immersed in the ark. If 
 so, and that will answer the purpose, we can take a ride on the bay in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 67 
 
 & covered boat at any time, and that will be baptism in the same way. 
 The fact is that this old water-logged hulk of immersion is one of the 
 greatest pieces of nonsense and superstition ever heard of, and I 
 simply came here to punch a few more holes in it to let a little more 
 water in. It is about time that you people who have got water on 
 the brain should get over it, for it is a foregone conclusion that your 
 theory cannot stand. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MR. HARDING'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson talks about my being exasperated, but he is 
 (mistaken. I never was in better humor in my life. I heard before 
 this debate began that one of my friend's strong points was his ability 
 to exasperate, and I thought within myself that he would be mistaken 
 in his man. I am very much pleased that we have met, and I know 
 what the effect will be among the people. 
 
 He talks about a car-load of books that he might have brought. 
 Oh, the "might-have-beens!" how many buoyant hopes and lofty 
 aspirations have been destroyed by them in this world ! How many 
 <;astles-in-the-air have never been materialized on account of them. 
 He might have brought a car-load of books ! 
 
 I think he had better telegraph for them yet. If he had known 
 that the merits of the discussion are to depend upon the books read, 
 he tells us, he would have come better prepared. He ought to have 
 <!ome better prepared. Did he not know that the question to be 
 settled is the meaning of baptizo, and that we can get that meaning 
 only from the testimony of the lexicons, and from the usage of the 
 great writers of the world 1 
 
 He agrees that baptizo in the primary classic sense means to put 
 under water, and he affirmed that it was an accident if a person ever 
 •came out alive. True, there is nothing in the force of the word 
 .baptizo to indicate that the baptized object should come out of the 
 water ; neither is there anything in its meaning to indicate that it 
 should remain in the water. To baptize an object in water is simply 
 to put it under water ; its coming out, or remaining under, must be 
 settled by other words. 
 
68 " REPORT OF DKBATE 
 
 He has at length given us his definition of baptizo in its New Tes- 
 tament use. He defines it by a noun — purification, a religious purifi- 
 cation ; that is, he defines a verb by a noun. So, if you will allow 
 me to correct this blunder, according to Mr. Wilkinson the word 
 means in the New Testament to purify : in ordinary Greek — classic 
 Greek — to put under water ; but in New Testament Greek, to purify. 
 So, according to Mr. Wilkinson, Jesus said, " Go ye and teach all 
 nations, purifying them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,, 
 and of the Holy Ghost." John the purifier came purifying in the 
 wilderness of Judea: the people " were purified of him in Jordan : " 
 " Jesus, when He was purified, went up straightway out of the water;" 
 Naaman " purified himself seven times in the river Jordan : " Jesus- 
 says, " I have a purification to be purified with : " " can ye be purified 
 with the purification that I am purified with." 
 
 It is a well-known fact, axiomatical in its nature, that the meaning 
 of a word may be substituted for it without in the least afiecting the 
 sense. Take the word baptize wherever you find it in the Bible, and 
 in its stead put purify — Mr. VVilkinson's definition — and see how it wiili 
 fill the place. He made another mis-statement which I was much aston- 
 ished to hear. The gentleman said that Liddell and Scott was the 
 only Greek-English lexicon, and that the other lexicons defined this 
 word in Greek and Latin. What I said was that Liddell and Scott 
 was the only standard Greek-English dictionary. I never intimated 
 that it was the only Greek-English dictionary, because everybody that 
 knows anything about lexicons knows there are a number of such. 
 Every single one I quoted from was Greek-English, except one, and 
 that was Greek-Latin. I have here now Greenfield, Green, Pickering^ 
 Groves, Robinson, Donnegan, as well as Liddell and Scott, all of 
 them Greek-English. That statement gave me to understand that my 
 friend is as ignorant of Greek lexicons as a baby. He went so far as 
 to intimate that the New Testament was not written in Greek by 
 inspired men. 1 say there is not a man in the world, that has proper 
 information, who does not know that the language of the New Testa- 
 ment is Hellenistic Greek. It was formerly thought by some that 
 Matthew wrote his gospel originally in Hebrew, and that it was then 
 translated by himself, or some other inspired man, into Greek ; but, 
 this opinion has now been very generally given up, as not sustained 
 by the facts of history. My friend shows clearly that he knows, 
 nothing about Greek, and the other ancient languages. 
 
 My friend said he was afraid I would strike him. I will strike 
 him with one weapon only, and that is the Sword of the Spirit — the- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 69 
 
 Word of God. I am not a striker. I would not harm a hair of his 
 head ; but it affords me a great deal of pleasure to put the Sword of 
 the Spirit into his theories. I like to do that. I glory in doing it. 
 I now pass on to the matter I was about to consider at the close 
 of my last speech, the baptism of Jesus Christ. Our Lord was bap- 
 tized " to fulfil all righteousness." " For thus it becometh us to 
 fulfil all righteousness," he said to John. My friend argued, and he 
 argued correctly (which is a wonder), that there must have been some 
 law that Christ was fulfilling. To fulfil righteousness is to obey 
 law ; and so, being baptized is obeying law. Mr, Wilkinson then 
 stated that there were two laws, the moral and the ceremonial, and 
 that Christ must have been baptized in obedience to the one or the 
 other. He said that Christ could not have been baptized in obedience 
 to the moral law, because there were no religious ceremonies in that 
 law ; and, therefore, He must have been baptized to fulfil the cere- 
 monial law. Just here Mr. Wilkinson said that Christ might have 
 touched a dead body, or might have been defiled in some such way. 
 I thought that the point he was endeavoring to make was that Christ 
 was purified by John from ceremonial defilement, which affected Him 
 from having touched a dead body, or some unclean thing. I replied 
 by showing that He was not purified ceremonially from any such 
 touching of a dead body, and that for every such purification according 
 to the law there was first the sprinkling of the water of purification, and 
 afterwards the bathing of the flesh in water. Mr. Wilkinson in his 
 next speech denied most emphatically that he meant to intimate that 
 Christ was ceremonially defiled by touching a dead body, or anything 
 of the sort. He took another position, and claimed that Christ was 
 inducted into the priest's office by baptism, and that He was baptized 
 for that purpose. Before I consider that matter — His induction into 
 the priestly office — let me explain to you how Christ fulfilled all 
 righteousness. God gave laws to the people through the prophets. 
 When these prophets were moved by the Spirit of God to give com- 
 mandments to the people, either in writing or with the tongue, these 
 commandments were laws from the Lord. Now, Christ expressly 
 says that John was a prophet, " and more than a prophet !" He said 
 of him, " Among them that are born of women there hath not risen 
 a greater than John the Baptist." Commandments from his lips, 
 therefore, were equally as much law — equally as authoritative — as 
 those from Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Moses. But John himself said 
 that God sent him to baptize, and he commanded the people to be 
 baptized. When Jesus submitted to this institution, he submitted to 
 
70 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 a law of God — a law given through the prophet John. In the New 
 Testament this baptism is called "the baptism of John." Had it 
 been a part of the ceremonial law for hundreds of years, it would not 
 have been called " John's baptism." 
 
 John came to prepare a people for the Lord, and that Jesus might 
 be manifested as the Son of God. Hence he baptized the people, and 
 hence Jesus was baptized. As He came up from the water, the 
 heavens were opened, the Spirit of God descended upon Him, and the 
 voice of God said, " This is my beloved Son in whom I am well 
 pleased." Then John knew Him as the Lamb of God that takes away 
 the sin of the world. 
 
 Christ was never made a priest after the Mosaic law. John was 
 not there making priests after that law. He was baptizing hundreds 
 of thousands of people. He did not make Christ a priest, because he 
 was not made a priest according to the law of a carnal commandment. 
 I quote from Heb. 7: 11-17, "If, therefore, perfection were 
 by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received 
 the law), what further need was there that another prie<<t 
 should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called 
 after the order of Aaron'? For the priesthood being changed, there is 
 made, of necessity, a change also of the law. For He of whom these 
 things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of whom no man gave 
 attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out 
 of Juda ; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 
 And it is yet far more evident : for that after the similitude of Mel- 
 chisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law 
 of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For 
 he testifieth. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchi- 
 sedec." 
 
 It is absurd to speak of Jesus being made a priest according to the 
 Mosaic ritual — first, because He was not of the right tribe, and 
 secondly, because He was not made a priest "after the law of a carnal 
 commandment, but after the power of an endless life." 
 
 I am reminded of another point which T wish to bring before you. 
 Mr. Wilkinson, in one of his speeches — I think it was his last — repre- 
 resented that Christ was placed on a shelf in a stone sepulchre. He 
 was talking about the " V)urial," in the sixth of Romans. In his last 
 speech he spoke al)Out Christ's burial as of no consequence. I want 
 to read in your hearing 1 Corinthians 15 : 1-4, " Moreover, brethren, 
 I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also 
 ye have received, and wherein ye stand ; 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 71 
 
 " By which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I preached 
 unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 
 
 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, 
 how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ; 
 
 " And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day 
 according to the scriptures." 
 
 Paul calls the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Gospel, 
 and by it he says these Corinthians were saved, if they kept it in 
 their memories. He preached the death, burial and resurrection of 
 Christ our Lord ; but Mr. "Wilkinson says Jesus was put upon a shelf, 
 and that the burial was of little consequence. 
 
 Christ Himself testifies that, " As Jonas was three days and three 
 nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and 
 three nights in the heart of the earth." 
 
 Put upon a shelf, indeed ! I have Mr. Wilkinson standing against 
 the scholars of the world with respect to Rom. 6 : 4, calling them 
 all fools; and now he takes position against Christ Himself. Mr. 
 Wilkinson says, "on a shelf ;" Christ says, "three days and three 
 nights in the heart of the earth." Mr. Wilkinson says that Christ's 
 burial is a matter of no consequence ; Christ, through His apostle, 
 calls the death, burial and resurrection of Himself the Gospel, and 
 teaches that we are saved by it. Yet my opponent talks about 
 my being exasperated. Who would be exasperated by such an argu- 
 ment as that *? 
 
 Now I come to the baptism of the Israelites. Paul says, " More- 
 over, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that 
 all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the 
 sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 
 
 It is not I who say they were " under the cloud." It is the 
 apostle Paul who says they were " under the cloud," and " were 
 baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." It took both the 
 cloud and the sea to make the baptism. My opponent wants to know 
 what the baptism was. The Israelites passed through in a single 
 night, as you will find on reading Exod. 14. The Egyptians were 
 rushing upon them, and by command of God the waters parted and 
 the Israelites passed through the sea, 600.000 men. It must have 
 been a pretty wide passage. It must have been from five to eight 
 miles wide. The waters were piled up right and left ; the Scriptures 
 say they were congealed ; and down into that passage they went. 
 The cloud came back over them as they went down, and remained 
 between them and the Egyptians all night. They passed down into 
 
/ 2 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 that great passage-way into the sea, and the cloud was behind 
 them and between tliem and tlieir enemies. About a year ago I 
 travelled on the Western and Atlantic Railway from Chattanooga to 
 Atlanta. I passed around a mountain on the way. Its top was com- 
 pletely covered by a cloud. I- could see tlie cloud come down the 
 mountain side ; the sun was probably shining on the mountain 
 above the cloud. A man might have started above the cloud, have 
 come down, and through, and under the cloud, and the cloud would 
 then have been behind him, and over liim, at the same time. The cloud 
 came back over the Israelites, and was behind them, and between them 
 and their enemies all night; and Paul says they were under the cloud, 
 and passed through tlie sea. Whitby says, " They were covered by 
 the sea on both sides, (Exod. 14 : 22), so that both the cloud and the 
 sea had some resemblance to our being covered with water in baptism. 
 Their going into the sea resembled the ancient rite of going into the 
 water ; and their coming out of it, their rising up out of the water." 
 — Pengilly, p. 50. 
 
 No less a scholar than Dr. Philip Schaff, in his Church History, bases 
 one of his arguments in favor of immersion on that very passage. 
 Why] Because there was a burial, they being covered by the cloud 
 and sea. But that is not Christian baptism. It occurred hundreds 
 of years before Christian baptism was instituted. It was a burial 
 and overwhelming, but not a Christian baptism. Christian baptism 
 is not found until we come to the New Testament ; it was instituted 
 by Christ. Christian baptism is not in the cloud and in the sea, but 
 in water. 
 
 I turn to Ezekiel and read the passage referred to by my opponent 
 to make a showing for .sprinkling or pouring. He cannot find his 
 proof in the New Testament, .so he goes back to Ezekiel. " Then will 
 I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean ; from all your 
 filthiness and from all your idols I will cleanse you." 
 
 You remember that I affirmed that unmi.xed water was never 
 sprinkled by the authority of God upon anyone. Mr. Wilkinson 
 agrees with me so far as the old dispensation is concerned, but he 
 quotes this passage from Ezekiel to show that the Lord here pro- 
 phesies that he will sprinkle clean water (which Mr. W. assumes is 
 unmixed water) under the new dispensation. Ezekiel was talking 
 about the Jews being brought back to their native land and cleansed 
 according to the ceremonial law from tlieir defilements. 
 
 [At this point a gentleman in the audience groaned and shook his 
 head, by way of dissenting from the speaker.] Do you, sir, think I 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISm! 73 
 
 :am mistaken in saying this prophecy related to the restoration of the 
 Jews to their native land, and that it does not apply to the new- 
 dispensation at all 1 Let us read the context and see. I read Ezekiel 
 36:16-25: 
 
 " Moreover, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 
 
 *' Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, 
 ithey defiled it by their own way, and by their doings : their way was 
 before Me as the uncleanness of a removed woman. 
 
 " Wherefore I poured My fury upon them for the blood that they 
 had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had 
 polluted it : 
 
 " And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed 
 through the countries : according to their way and according to their 
 doings I judged them, 
 
 " And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they 
 profaned My holy name, when they said to them, These are the 
 people of the Lord, and are gone forth out of His land. 
 
 " But I had pity for Mine holy name, which the house of Israel 
 had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. 
 
 " Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God ; 
 . I do not this for your sakes, house of Israel, but for Mine holy 
 .name's sake, which y.e have profaned among the heathen, whither ye 
 went. 
 
 " And I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned among 
 the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them ; and the 
 heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I 
 shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. 
 
 " For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out 
 of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 
 
 " 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." 
 
 My friend groaned too soon. I said God was talking about bringing 
 
 the Israelites back to their own land ; and any man with three grains 
 
 • of common sense, if he will read the passage, can see it for himself. 
 
 Farther down, talking about them after they had been brought back 
 
 to their native land. He says : 
 
 " And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and 
 ye shall be My people, and I will be your God." 
 
 Still farther down He says, "And the desolate land shall be tilled, 
 -whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by. 
 
 " And they shall say. This land that is desolate is become like the 
 
74 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 garden of Eden ; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are 
 become fenced and inhabited." 
 
 Now in regard to the passage, " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
 upon you," this is the explanation. The blood of Christ cleanses from 
 all sin ; but the blood of bulls and of goats, of the lamb and of the 
 red heifer, was typical of the blood of Christ ; and the ceremonial 
 cleansings of Judaism were typical of cleansing from sin under the 
 new covenant. Blood is applied by sprinkling; water never is, in the 
 Bible. But blood, when it stands, coagulates ; it cannot then be 
 sprinkled. As there were thousands and tens of thousands of cases 
 of uncleanness every year to be purified by the sprinkling of blood, 
 and as this would have required the slaughter of too many animals, 
 God directed as follows : (Numbers 19.) 
 
 "This is the ordinance of the law which God has commanded, say- 
 ing. Speak unto the children of Israel that they bring them a red 
 heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never 
 came yoke." 
 
 This heifer was to be burned, " and a man that is clean shall 
 gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up, without the camp, 
 in a clean place ; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the 
 children of Israel for a water of separation. It is a purification for 
 sin " Let me read a little further. He goes on to tell about persons 
 who have become unclean by touching a dead body. " 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 hyssop, and dip it in the water and 
 sprinkle it on the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons 
 that were there, and upon him that toucheth the 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. 
 
 " But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, 
 that soul shall be cut 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." 
 
 That will enable you to understand the passage in Hebrews 10 : 22, 
 which my friend cannot understand from his standpoint, where Paul 
 says, "Let us draw near with true hearts, in full assurance of faith, 
 having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
 washed with pure water." 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 75 
 
 The hearts were sprinkled from an evil conscience by the blood 
 of Jesus ; this was typified by the sprinkling of the " water of separa- 
 tion," or " purification for sin : " their bodies were washed in the 
 waters of baptism ; this was typified by the bathing of the body in 
 water, which always followed the sprinkling of the water of separa- 
 tion. This water of separation made of ashes of a red heifer mixed 
 with water, was a lye that stood for blood. That the water of separa- 
 tion (ashes mixed with water) typified the blood of Christ is evident 
 from these verses (Heb. 9 : 13, 14) : " For if the blood of bulls and 
 goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to 
 the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christy 
 who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, 
 purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God 1 " 
 
 \_Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S FIFTH REPLY. 
 
 I did not think the well would have run dry at the third session, 
 but my opponent, you see, is beginning to pump sand. The water is 
 rather muddy, indicating that the supply is getting low. It might 
 be described, in a popular phrase, as getting "as clear as mud." 
 
 Just while I think of it, I wish to say that if my opponent runs out 
 of books, I have one or two concordances here which I will lend him. 
 He can read books most effectively, and, as a certain old lady said, 
 she always liked to read the dictionary, because the articles were so 
 short. 
 
 My opponent has thrown out several insinuations about my scrap- 
 book. I handed him the book, and then he said, "Oh, your sermon!" 
 No more about the scrap-book, but "Your sermon, your sermon, your 
 sermon," was the cry. At last he turned to the title-page and saw 
 whose sermon it was, and then he accused me of reading from a pasdo- 
 baptist sermon. What I read from was not anybody's sermon. He 
 saw it was a sermon at the beginning, and jumped to the conclusion 
 that I had read the extracts from a sermon. He is a tremendous 
 jumper. He reminds me of the old ditty, 
 
 "Hi diddle diddle, the cat's in the fiddle, 
 The cow jumped over the moon." 
 
76 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 (Laughter.) If I am not much mistaken he has been reading from a 
 scrap-book himself, written within and without, like Ezekiel's roll — 
 not, perhaps, with " lamentations, and mourning, and woe," though 
 I think it would be very appropriate to get pieces of black paper and 
 put a black margin round it. (Laughter.) If anybody has read from 
 scraps, I guess he must be the scrap doctor. If anybody has digged 
 in books for brains, I think he is the book doctor. If anybody has 
 been good at begging the question, I guess he has been the beggar. 
 If anybody has re-hashed, I guess he has been the re-hasher. I beg 
 to inform this audience that you will get from him a re-hash of re-hash 
 from this to the end of the debate, or I am not a true prophet. He 
 has gone about the length of his rope. He had just so much capital ; 
 he has spent it, and is now going on borrowed money. In fact, he 
 has been running on borrowed capital for some time, and no doubt 
 depended almost exclusively on borrowed capital, from the beginning, 
 to run this immersion machine or water-mill. He even carries bor- 
 rowed capital to the platform and reads volumes of extracts which 
 are, no doubt, very edifying. They are to me, exceedingly edifying. 
 During his remarks he drew the inference that I had never seen a 
 lexicon, and did not know anything about lexicons. If he will hand 
 me one I will show him whether I can read it or not. I refer to what 
 he said about my reference to Liddell and Scott as the only Greek- 
 English lexicon. It appears I left out the word "standard." At 
 least this is the impression he seeks to convey. He himself 
 acknowledged it as the only "standard" lexicon of the kind, hence 
 all the other Greek-English lexicons from which he says he has 
 quoted are not "standards;" yet he would have you to believe that 
 the authors he quotes are the scholars of the world. So, if I made a 
 slip of the tongue, he made a tremendous slip in asking you to believe 
 that these lexicons were the productions of the greatest scholars of 
 the world, while according to his own admission they are not even 
 standard authorities. He said that no standard lexicon gave sprinkle 
 or pour as a meaning of bnptizo. But some of them, I said, gave the 
 equivalent of sprinkle and pour in another language. I dared him to 
 deny it, saying that if he did so I would produce the proof, and he 
 did not dare to do it. He made the most he could out of the little 
 slip I made in speaking ; but the main point I brought up was passed 
 over as if it were not there. I have seen one or two lexicons in my 
 life, but not being a professional debater, I do not keep all the para- 
 phernalia for this kind of business. I sometimes have to go into in- 
 vestigations in order to defend my belief ; but as I do not expect to 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 77 
 
 follow the debating business, it will not pay me to spend .$100 or $2( 
 in buying lexicons to pile on my stand as a substitute for brains ; and 
 as I do not like to run on borrowed capital, I do not borrow. 
 But I have taken the trouble, when I met a lexicon, to extract from 
 it the meaning of this term, baptizo, and during this debate I may 
 read some such extracts. 
 
 With regard to Christ's purification, we are told it was in obedience 
 to prophecy, and not to law. We shall need a new term, therefore, 
 to describe this idea of fulfilling prophetic law. We will call it 
 prophetic law, or legal prophecy, whichever you like. He tells you 
 that the command God gave John the Baptist was the law under 
 which Christ was baptized. Was it ■? John baptized with water 
 unto repentance for the remission of sins. Was Christ baptized 
 unto repentance for the remission of sins 1 Now, I should like him 
 to repeat what he said, that Christ was baptized under the law God 
 gave John to baptize those miserable sinners, the Jews. Some were 
 called Pharisees and Sadducees, steeped to the lips in corruption, and 
 others were called a "generation of vipers," and they were asked by 
 whom they were warned to flee from the wrath to come. And they 
 were to be baptized to prepare them for the coming of the Lord. So 
 the Lord, I suppose, was to be baptized for the remission of sins, and 
 to prepare Himself for His own coming ! Will my opponent please tell 
 us how it was 1 But perhaps he has more than one string to his. 
 bow • and perhaps he will hang out another flag and let it flutter. 
 
 I do not know that it is necessary to say anything more about this, 
 matter, except to mention that my opponent has told you that Christ 
 was not a priest according to the order of Aaron. I did not say He 
 was. I said He was not. I said He was a priest after the order of 
 Melchisedec. But in Malachi 3 : 2, 3, it is stated that this Christ, 
 (who is evidently predicted there), who should suddenly come to His. 
 temple, should " Purify the sons of Levi and purge them as gold and 
 silver." Now, I should like to know, if there is no connection 
 between the order of Melchisedec and Aaron in their typical relations, 
 why Christ is predicted in the Old Testament as coming to cleanse the 
 sons of Levi. If He is to cleanse the sons of Levi, then He must offici- 
 ate as a priest, for such was the business of the priest, and to cleanse 
 the sons of Levi was the function of the Aaronic priesthood. The fact 
 is, that the Aaronic priesthood was included in, and constituted a 
 part of, the priesthood of Melchisedec, and the latter was not abolished 
 during the 1,500 years of the former, but comprehended by it in an 
 important sense, and so perpetuated in an unbroken line but under a 
 
78 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 somewhat different form. Perhaps, after a refreshing night's sleep 
 and a forenoon's nice rest, my opponent will be able to clear up this 
 matter to-morrow. 
 
 Regarding Christ's burial my opponent did not say anything of any 
 consequence. He quoted some passages to prove that Christ was 
 buried. The Lord knows I never denied that. He quoted a passage 
 to prove that it was predicted that Christ would be three days in the 
 bowels of the earth. But I never denied that. This has no more to 
 do with what I said than the inhabitants of this world have to do with 
 the inhabitants of Jupiter. What did I say 1 I said that the burial 
 of Christ, which I took for granted was a fact known to the world, 
 had nothing to do in affecting the validity of the atonement. I had a 
 debate with one of the Campbellites — but, I believe, they don't like to 
 be called Campbellites — indeed, I am at a loss to know what to call 
 them. I will not recognize their claim to be called the Disciples of 
 Christ, by way of pre-eminence, for T do not know that they are any 
 better than other disciples of Christ. They can talk as roughly as I 
 can, and that is bad enough, the Lord knows. We are at a loss for 
 some name by which to call them. We must not call them Campbell- 
 ites, so we had better call them Troutites, because that has more 
 affinity with water. I had, I was about to say, a debate with a gentle- 
 man of this same persuasion about four years ago this winter. 
 After he had set up and knocked down several men of straw, T asked 
 him if he could tell what value the mere fact of Christ's burial added 
 to the atonement, as we would then have acquired some knowledge ; 
 but he could not tell. I cheerfully admitted that it was an important 
 link in a chain of exceptionally important events, and was mentioned 
 as a connecting link in that chain of events ; but if this link had been 
 left out of the prophecies, and out of the New Testament, and out of the 
 facts of history altogether, would the atonement, I asked, have been 
 less complete than it is to-day 1 Now, I hope my present opponent 
 will deal with the real question at issue, and not manufacture ques- 
 tions. Nor did I say that Christ was laid on a shelf in a stone 
 sepulchre. I said if he had been laid on a shelf and not entombed at 
 all during the three days, it would not have detracted in any degree 
 from the efficacy of the atonement. I terribly hate a man to make up 
 something I never said and put it into my mouth. I am willing to 
 swallow my own pills, but do not want my opponent to make pills 
 and put them into my mouth. I am not here to eat his pills. He can 
 take his own medicine. 
 
 With respect to the Israelites' baptism. I am glad my opponent 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 79 
 
 went down to Chattanooga and saw a mountain with a night-cap on, 
 because if he had not seen that night-capped mountain I do not know 
 what he would have done for an illustration. He could not have 
 made out his case. I did not say the Israelites were not under the 
 cloud. He told us nothing new when he read from Paul. I knew 
 they were under the cloud ; that it went from before them and got 
 behind them ; and to get there it, no doubt, took the short cut and 
 went over them. But the Scriptures do not say that it was over them 
 when they were in the sea. My opponent says they went down, 
 down, down. One would have thought, from his description of it, 
 that the whole night long they were sliding down hill — a hill, as it 
 were, like the Chattanooga mountain. I thought the passage was 
 through a nice little hollow, and that the men, women and children 
 got through in a night. It would not have been nice for little chil- 
 dren to have toddled down a steep hill. I do not believe it was so. 
 I have seen lots of places where, when the water was low, there was 
 a nice, gentle declivity ; and I guess God did not choose a very bad 
 place for the Israelites to go through the Sea. The mountain illustra- 
 tion will hardly hold water. My opponent has not proved his case 
 Tinder this head. If he will tell me whether the ice-cake and box modes 
 will not do as well I shall be much happier. But he says this Red 
 gea baptism was not Christian baptism. It was a Christian apostle 
 who called it a baptism. Do you see how these men, when cornered, 
 <!an hop, skip and jump 1 Christian baptism ! I never dreamed but 
 that my opponent came here to discuss Bible baptism. If not, cut 
 out half the Bible and say, "Yes, you can prove baptism by sprinkling 
 back there," (he has neai'ly acknowledged that, as I shall show you) ; 
 "but you cannot prove it by SchafF, by Macknight, by Wesley, by the 
 heathen Greek authorities and the lexicographers. You can prove it 
 by Moses and by the ceremonial law, and you can prove that Paul 
 said there was a baptism without any immersion, without any plung- 
 ing, or burial, away back several hundred years ago. But that," you 
 say, " does not amount to anything." I reply, we have found this re- 
 corded in the New Testament, and no matter if it transpired in the 
 moon, or some other world, or even in some other age, still it is 
 recorded in the inspired Word of God, and written down as a baptism ; 
 and as it is written by a man who was writing to Christians, and who 
 understood what Christian baptism was as well as these Troutites do, 
 there must have been something pretty near to Christian baptism in 
 it. And what was there in it that resembled Christian baptism 1 It 
 was simply the taking of them out of their state of bondage and 
 
80 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 bringing them into liberty ; taking them from their state of slavery 
 under Pharoah, and placing them under the government of Moses. 
 And when you want to know how men are Vjaptized into Christ, I 
 would say, that so long as they are brought from a state of sin and 
 slavery into a state of pardon and liberty they are baptized, without 
 the necessity of going through a dramatic performance to represent it. 
 I will illustrate this point. Some of you are, doubtless, members of 
 secret and other societies, and know something about the induction of 
 members. How do you do it ? Before the candidate is initiated you say 
 he is outside, and after he is initiated you say he is inside. How do 
 you get him in 1 Do you duck him in water to symbolize his entrance ? 
 Why it does not matter if you merely put a little mark with a pencil 
 on the end of his nose, and recognize that mark as his initiation into 
 the society ; that will admit him. Before the mark is there he is 
 out ; when it is there he is in. Suppose the candidate comes before 
 the chief officer who pins a badge on his coat. That may declare 
 him a member of the society. But these people do not seem to be 
 able to comprehend anything unless it is acted out. They must get a 
 man into water and drag him out again to represent putting him into 
 Christ. It is a violation of all known rules and usages of language 
 to call such a performance a figure, or symbol. It is an act. If you 
 go to a theatre you will see some literal transaction, or supposed 
 transaction, acted out by another literal transaction. That is a 
 drama, a scene. Putting a person in water to represent a burial is 
 something like that — a dramatic representation of a funeral. But it 
 is one of the most awkward representations of a burial scene that men 
 or angels ever witnessed. " But the scholars say it is so and it must be 
 so." Let us see. Suppose some famous scholar takes it into his head 
 to write a commentary on the New Testament, and he comes to Rom. 
 6 : 3, 4, and undertakes to explain it. He has not given much thougiit 
 to it, but he knows that through hundreds of years the Roman 
 Catholics and nearly all religious teachers had been in the habit of 
 regarding the text as an allusion to the ancient mode of baptism. He 
 will, no doubt, write it down that such is the case. He cannot 
 minutely examine every point. Dr. Clarke and Wesley thus speak of it 
 as a "probable allusion" to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion. 
 Does it follow that all scholarship must be held responsible for the 
 unguarded statement thus made V)y a commentator 1 If you take all 
 the little doubtful expressions in the Bible, and sit down to give each 
 one a thorough investigation, and bestow careful thought on each, no 
 man would even get through the book of Exodus. I will appeal to 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 81 
 
 my ministerial brethren present if that is not so. [Cries of " Yes."] 
 On that principle no commentator could ever have got a commentary 
 written to the end of Exodus, not even my opponent. Therefore, 
 you may quote this man, and that man, and the other man, who, in 
 his commentary or history, has made statements about things of 
 which he is no better qualified to judge than I am — things transpiring 
 before our eyes, about which we can exercise our intelligence as well 
 as they. They are not questions of history, but simply matters of 
 fact, and we have a right to exercise our judgment about them. I 
 exercise my judgment in respect to this particular matter under dis- 
 cussion ; and I am not alone in the opinion I have formed. There are 
 hundreds of scholars who take the same view of this passage as I 
 do. I will guarantee that my view is substantially the view of the 
 scholars of to-day, and that nine out of every ten of them will 
 endorse it. 
 
 Regarding Ezek. 31 : 25, referring to the time when the Jews will 
 be restored to their native land in the remote future, I beg leave to 
 deny that they will ever be thus restored. And if my opponent wants 
 to discuss that question for a week, 1 am here. I do not throw this 
 out as a challenge, for I never challenge men. Christ has forever 
 wiped out all religious distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, and 
 He tells us by the apostle Paul that, under this dispensation, "he is 
 not a Jew which is one outwardly ; but he is a Jew which is one 
 inwardly." He tells us in Ephesians, second chapter, that the middle 
 wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles is removed, and 
 Christ came that by His cross He might make of twain one new man, 
 so making peace. The apostle in Galatians, third chapter, tells you 
 that if you are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, (Abraham's 
 seed were Jews) ; that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there 
 is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female. There are 
 none of these fleshly distinctions recognized in the Church of Christ, 
 but ye are one all in Him. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
82 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 EVENING SESSION— SECOND DAY. 
 
 MR. HARDING'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I desire once more to call attention to the fact 
 that the task before us for the first three days of this discussion is to 
 answer one question, and that is, what the word haplizo means where 
 Jesus tells His disciples to go and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 I want to call your attention to the line of argumentation which I 
 have presented, and to notice briefly some of the points that have 
 been attacked. 
 
 In the first place, we have shown from the very best legal authorities 
 that a word in law is to be taken in its common and best known 
 signification ; and that there is no exception to this rule unless the 
 context, or the nature of the case forbids. The first question, there- 
 fore, which naturally arises in the mind is, " What is the common 
 and most known signification of Baptizo ? " — the >\ord which we 
 call " baptize " in English. I called your attention to eight of the great 
 Greek lexicons of the world (among them was the greatest of all) 
 that you might hear their testimony. Seven of them are Greek- 
 English, and one, that of Schrevelius, Greek-Latin. All of them 
 define the word to dip, immerse, or plunge, but none of them give to 
 sprinkle, or to pour upon. I spoke of Liddell and Scott's as the only 
 one which, properly speaking, could be called a standard Gieek- 
 English lexicon, and Mr. Wilkinson endeavours to ridicule the idea 
 of my producing authorities that are not standards. He displays his 
 ignorance on this subject more and more. A word of explanation 
 concerning this matter. The day was when Donnegan was a 
 standard, and Schrevelius would have ranked high as a standard 
 English-Latin ; but as years roll on, and as men make greater research 
 into Greek literature, they become better able to make lexicons, and 
 hence in these later days there is but one standard — Liddell and 
 Scott ; about this scholars are agreed. 
 
 But all along the line, in the different ages of the world, they 
 define baptizo to dip, plunge, immerse, but never to sprinkle. I con- 
 clude, therefore, that to dip or immerse is the common and most 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 83 
 
 known signification of the word. My friend himself testifies that to 
 put under water is the meaning of the word in classic Greek. 
 
 You will remember that after we had considered the lexicons, 
 another class of witnesses — the Church historians — was introduced. 
 I hold that if we can ascertain what the first Christians did, we will 
 know to a certainty what the word means. So I introduced seven 
 Church histories, including all of the greatest of the world. Four of 
 these, Neander, Mosheim, Schafi", and Stanley, stand at the very top 
 in their line of learning. These testify, without a single dissenting 
 voice, that the custom of the primitive Church was to immerse. 
 Neander and Mosheim are particularly clear. But aflfusion was 
 practiced at an early day, in case of the sick who were supposed to be 
 •dying. The first case of this kind these authorities show was that of 
 Novatian, A.D. 251. 
 
 After considering the lexicons and Church historians, we turn to 
 the Bible in order to see if their teaching is maintained by the Scrip- 
 tiires. "We find that baptism took place in rivers ; that Christ and 
 others went to the water ; that they went down into the water before 
 their baptism, and after it came up out of the water; their bodies 
 were washed in baptism ; and in baptism they were buried. 
 
 At this point ray friend made an attack upon my line of argument. 
 He denied that there is any reference to immersion in water in the 
 Ijurial mentioned in Rom. 6:4. I called his attention to the fact 
 that the scholars of the world, including his father Wesley, declare 
 that this passage has reference to the ancient mode of baptizing by 
 immersion. I quoted Dr. Schaff, the greatest Church historian on 
 this continent, who says that all commentators and critics of note, 
 but two, say that here is a reference to immersion. Looking over my 
 books at home this afternoon, I found Meyer on Romans. This man, 
 'who is the greatest of all Biblical exegetes, and a psedobaptist, upon 
 this passage comments thus : " The recipient — -thus has Paul figura- 
 tively represented the process — is conscious, (a) in the baptism gener- 
 ally : now I am entering into fellowship with the death of Christ ; 
 [h) in the immersion in particular : now am I becoming buried with 
 ■Christ ; (c) and then, in the emergence : now I rise to the new life 
 with Christ." 
 
 So I claim that ray position is strongly maintained. I feel that I 
 am in good company, although it has been said by my opponent that 
 none but fools would give it that interpretation. I stand with all the 
 lexicons, all the Church historians, and, on Rom. 6 : 4, with all th 
 great critics and commentators of the world (except two). 
 
84 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson then made an attack upon my line of argument bjr 
 taking an affirmative position of his own. He said that Christ was 
 baptized by John in fulfilment of the ceremonial law, to be inducted 
 int ) the priest's office ; and hence was sprinkled. I replied, firsts 
 Christ was not made a priest according to the Mosaic law, becaiise He 
 was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, " of which tribe Moses 
 spake nothing concerning priesthood." In the second place, the Bible 
 expressly says that He was made a priest, " not after the law of a car- 
 nal commandment, but after the power of an endless life ;" He was a 
 priest after the order of Melchisedec," and not "after the order of 
 Aaron ; " and the Bible adds, " the priesthood being changed, there is. 
 made of necessity a change also of the law." Jesus was greater than 
 Moses and belonged to a higher order of priesthood than that of the 
 Mosaic law, and therefore was not inducted into it by John. 
 
 In the third place, John did not do, at His baptism, as did Moses, 
 in inducting Aaron into the priest's office. Moses washed Aaron's 
 body with water, clothed him with the priestly garments, anointed 
 him with oil, and put blood upon his right ear, right thumb, and right 
 great toe. (See Ex. 29.) John did none of these things except to- 
 wash the body of Jesus. My friend wants to know, then, what 
 Christ's baptism was for. I turn to John, 1st chapter, and find that 
 John the Baptist explained the matter himself. Let us see what he 
 says : 
 
 " The next day John seeth Jesus coming iinto him, and saith, 
 Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. 
 " This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is 
 preferred before me, for He was before me. 
 
 " And 1 knew Him not : but that He should be made manifest to> 
 Israel ; therefore am I come baptizing with water." 
 
 John here gives the explanation. He was not down there conse- 
 crating priests. He was there preparing people for the Lord, and 
 baptizing, that Christ might be made manifest to the people. The- 
 people flocked around John, and John baptized them. And finally 
 Christ was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended in the form of 
 a dove, and the voice of God said, " This is my beloved Son in whom 
 I am well pleased." There were two points in John's baptizing ; 
 first, to prepare a people for the Lord ; and, second, to manifest Christ 
 to the world. What was Jesus baptized for'? That He might be 
 manifested to the people ; and in submitting to this law of baptism 
 which God gave to John, He fulfilled righteousness, and was thus 
 manifested as the Son of God. These two attacks have been made on 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 85 
 
 my line of argumentation — feeble ones both of them. My first posi- 
 tion, that to immerse is the primary and most common meaning of 
 the word haptizo has not been assailed. When Mr. Wilkinson said 
 that John purified Jesus, the people actually hissed. That was one 
 time when I thought a hiss was not inappropriate. In that connec- 
 tion he talked about the possibility of Christ's having touched a dead 
 body, and of the purification that would then be necessary. But 
 when I read the law for cleansing one thus defiled, showing that there 
 was first a sprinkling of a mixture of ashes and water (equal to blood) 
 and then a bathing in water, he changed his ground and said He was 
 baptized to be inducted into the priest's office ; but, as we have seen, 
 this position is as untenable as the other. 
 
 During all this argumentation I have pressed my friend, from time 
 to time, to tell us what haptizo means in the commission. He first 
 said that he would not do it; that I was on the affirmative side, and 
 had to prove my case. I insisted that we are seeking light on a great 
 Bible question, and that he ought to be willing to give us all he had. 
 He finally said, in the most positive way, that he would not tell. Of 
 course I ridiculed him for not being willing to tell you the meaning 
 of a Bible word, when the express object of our meeting here is to 
 find out the meaning of that very word. Knowing that the gentle- 
 man is not a little proud, and believing that he could be forced to 
 take a position, I pressed it upon him. At last he did tell its mean- 
 ing. He said it meant a religious purification. A day or two ago he 
 said that it did not mean to purify, but, being driven into close 
 quarters, he had to say something, so he said baptism is a purification ; 
 to baptize is to purify. Let us see about that. Here is a 
 Greek-English concordance. I want to substitute purification in 
 the place of baptism, for it is a rule of interpretation, that if 
 words are synonymous, you can substitute the one for the other in a 
 sentence. Take the sentence, " They were baptized of Him in 
 Jordan." Can we substitute the word " purify " for " baptize ?" Can 
 it be said, "Purified also the household of Stephanus?" Or, "What 
 shall they do which are purified for the dead if the dead rise not T' 
 Or, "Are ye able to drink of the cup which I drink of, and be purified 
 with the purification that I am purified with?" When my friend 
 takes a little infant as pure as heaven, does he purify it in the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ] Is that the primary meaning of 
 the word ■? If baptism is a purification, the question still remains, 
 How is it performed 1 I grant that many lexicographers define baptizo 
 by the words wash, cleanse, purify, in addition to the words dip, 
 
86 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 plunge, etc. If you dip a thing in water, it is washed ; hence as 
 baptizo means to dip, it may "by consequence" mean to wash, to 
 purify. Nothing is said to be washed when only a few drops of 
 water are sprinkled upon it. Yes, the word means to wash — to wash 
 by dipping, not by sprinkling or pouring upon. 
 
 Just here I am reminded of a statement made by my friend con- 
 cerning the lexicons. He said that he had extracts, written out in 
 his own hand, from lexicons that define baptizo by Latin words that 
 mean to sprinkle. He intimated that I would not dare to deny it. 
 I do deny that there is a Greek-Latin lexicon on the face of the earth 
 that defines baptizo by a word whose first definition is to sprinkle. 
 Here is a square issue. Now come on with your extracts. I will go 
 a step farther. There is not a lexicon defining the Greek into Latin, 
 German, French, or any other language, that defines baptizo by a word 
 whose first definition is to sprinkle. 
 
 Just here let me call your attention to a singular fact. I can take 
 up the line of argument adopted by my paedo-baptist friends to prove 
 that baptizo means to sprinkle, and by the same method show that 
 our common English word "dip" means to sprinkle. All of the 
 English dictionaries, as Webster, Worcester, Walker, etc., define 
 "dip" to wet; but you can ■wet a thing by sprinkling ; therefore, 
 according to psedo-baptist logic, to dip means to sprinkle. They say 
 baptizo means to dip, and also to wash ; but you can wash by 
 sprinkling ; therefore baptizo means to sprinkle. Grand logic, indeed ! 
 
 But now, about that burial. My friend cannot get away from it. 
 He likes to talk about the corpse "trotting along" beside the preacher. 
 I thought of the Methodist preachers who often have to trot out to 
 the water Avith the candidate. I reminded my friend that his Dis- 
 cipline requires the minister to immerse, when the candidate demands 
 it — that the Discipline has immerse in it. He said it did not ; and 
 when I called for the book, he said he would show it to me. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson here handed the speaker the Discipline of the 
 Methodist Church. 
 
 Mr. Harding requested Mr. Wilkinson to open to the place. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — No, you can find it yourself. 
 
 Mr. Harding handed the book to his Moderator and requested him 
 to turn to the place. I will show you, he said, that the thing is there 
 by implication if not in so many words. Taking the book back from 
 Mr. Sterling, he said, Here is the place, and read, 
 
 " 1. The proper subjects of baptism are infants and believing adults, 
 who have not been baptized in infancy. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 87 
 
 " 2. The mode of baptism is by sprinkling, or pouring ; but should 
 any candidate for baptism prefer another mode, the oflBciating minis- 
 ter may comply with his request." 
 
 What is that other mode 1 It is dipping in all other editions of the 
 Discipline. This comes out later, 1878. It was dip up to that time ; 
 now it is sprinkling, pouring, and another mode. What is that "other 
 mode 1 " 
 
 Mr. .Wilkinson — Where is immerse ? 
 
 Mr. Harding (laughing) — It is that " other mode." 
 
 I desire to call your attention to another slip made by my friend. 
 Turn to the passage concerning sprinkling clean water, Ezek. 36 : 25, 
 My opponent agreed with me that in Old Testament times unmixed 
 water was never sprinkled, by authority of God, on anybody. Then, 
 you remember, I called your attention to the making of the water of 
 purification, or clean water. It was made by mixing the ashes of 
 a red heifer with running water. When my opponent brought up 
 the sprinkling of Ezekiel, I read the passage showing that God's people 
 had been dispersed among the nations on account of their wickedness. 
 And God told them He would bring them back to their own land and 
 sprinkle clean water upon them, and cleanse them from their idolatry 
 which they had contracted in distant lands, and that he would cause 
 their land to be again fruitful. My opponent rose and declared that 
 he did not believe the Jews wovild ever be brought back to Jerusalem. 
 That prophecy of Ezekiel was made 587 B.C. Their return to Jeru- 
 salem under Zerubbabel was 536 B.C. ; that is 51 years after Ezekiel's 
 prophecy. That prophecy was therefore fulfilled 536 years before 
 Christ. Fifty-one years after Ezekiel wrote that prophecy, Zerub- 
 babel with about 50,000 Jews returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the 
 walls of the ancient city, as Ezekiel had prophesied he would do. 
 Nine years afterward Nehemiah went to Jerusalem and rebuilt the 
 temple. Years passed on, the land became fruitful, villages were 
 built, and when Christ came the temple was still standing. Ezekiel's 
 prophecy had then been fulfilled for 536 years. My friend will con- 
 vince us directly that he knows as little about chronology as he does 
 about lexicons. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
00 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S SIXTH REPLY. 
 
 I am glad, if I am not a very good speaker, that I am a splendid 
 prophet. I told you this afternoon that you would get re-hash. How 
 does it go down ? About two-thirds of the half-hour my opponent 
 told you what he had told you again and again. That is quite right, 
 of course, and he can spend the whole of his next half-hour in telling 
 you what he told you in this if he likes. I will try to tell you some- 
 thing he did not tell you, and something 1 did not tell you. We have 
 been treated again to a little discourse about the literal use of words. 
 My opponent is very strong on the literal use of words, and he is ex- 
 ceedingly strong on Schaff. I quote from Schaff's "Apostolic Church," 
 pages 610 and 611. He says: "The spirit of the Christian revelation 
 shows itself in the province of language, not so much in coining new 
 words and phrases, as in making a new use of old ones. The apostles 
 made words already at hand the vehicles of infinitely profounder ideas 
 than they had ever conveyed before, or continued to express after- 
 wards in heathen authors. Even the Seventy were compelled to put 
 into many Greek expressions an Old Testament idea, which it requires 
 a sympathy with the whole spirit of the divine revelation to under- 
 stand. To a far greater extent is this the case in the New Testament, 
 which contains a universe of new ideas, throwing even the Old Testa- 
 ment far into the shade. The very terms of most frequent occurrence, 
 and of the greatest importance for Christian faith and practice, as light, 
 life, truth, resurrection, atonement, redemption, Saviour, apostle, 
 church (assembly), election, calling, justification, sanctification, faith, 
 love, hope, peace, liberty, humility, blessedness — darkness, flesh, 
 unbelief, sin, debt, condemnation, etc., have a far more comprehensive 
 and profound sense then in any profane writings, or, in most cases, 
 even in the Old Testament ; though this sense is certainly agreeable 
 to the natural import and the etymology of the word. In this view 
 it may be said, that, as Christianity is the perfection of humanity, so 
 the Christian language is the full development of the natural." 
 
 I also desire to make a few quotations from lexicographers to show 
 that they give not only a secondary meaning, diflVring from the 
 primary classical meaning, but that many of them distinguish between 
 the New Testament and secular use of the term, and that their New 
 Testament definitions are in harmony with the definition of Christian 
 baptism for which I have been contending. You will remember that 
 my claim has been that Christian baptism is a religious purification. 
 Now, what say the lexicographers'? 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 89 
 
 Kouma, a native Greek of this century, after defining the word in 
 a secular sense, says, "3. In an ecclesiastical sense, to baptize." 
 
 Schaetgennius gives, " 2. To wash, to cleanse, (Mark 7:4; Luke 
 11: 38.) 3. To baptize in a sacred sense." Metaphorically it means, 
 first, to pour forth abundantly (Matt. 3: 11; Acts 1:5, etc.); 
 second, to be subjected to great dangers and burdens." 
 
 The editor of Robinson's lexicon of the New Testament says, " In 
 the N. T. first, to wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing ; second, to 
 wash one's self, i e , one's hands, or person, to perform ablution ; third, 
 to baptize." 
 
 In a note he says, " While in Greek writers, from Plato onward, 
 baptizo is everywhere to sink, to immerse, to overwhelm, either 
 wholly or partially, yet in Hellenistic usage ... it would seem 
 to have expressed, not always simply immersion, bid the more general 
 idea of ablution, or aff'usion." 
 
 Stokius, long paraded by immersionists as having no superior, 
 gives, " Baptizo, to wash, to baptize ; passive, to be washed, to be 
 cleansed. ('Washed' is from lavo, which, according to Freund, is 
 "to wash, bathe, lave ; to wet, moisten, bedew.") 
 
 In a note he says, " Generally, and by the force of the word, it 
 obtains the sense of dipping or immersing. Specially, (a) Properly, it 
 is to immerse or dip in water, (b) Tropically. (1 ) By a metalepsis, it is 
 to wash (lavare) or cleanse (abluere), because anything is accustomed 
 to be dipped or immersed in water that it may be washed or cleansed, 
 although also the washing or cleansing can be, and generally is, 
 accomplished by sprinkling the water, (Mark 7:4; Luke 11 : 38). 
 Hence it is transferred to the sacrament of baptism." 
 
 You will observe that, according to this authority, it is transferred 
 to the sacrament of baptism because the " washing or cleansing can 
 be, and generally is, accomplished by the sprivkling of water," yet 
 you have been assured that not one of the authorities give " sprinkle " 
 as a meaning of the word. 
 
 Schleusner says, " Now, because not unfrequently a thing is im- 
 mersed, or dipped in water that it may be washed ; hence, second, to 
 cleanse, to wash, to purify with water. Thus it occurs in the New 
 Testament, Mark 7:4; Luke 11 : 38." He says, " Baptizesthai not 
 only means to wash, but to wash one's self, etc., hence transferred to 
 the solemn rite of baptism." 
 
 Certainly waish is not the primary, classical meaning of baptizo, for 
 the Greeks never used it secularly in this sense. Therefore, when it 
 is " transferred to the solemn rite of baptism " because it means " to 
 wash," it must be employed in a secondary sense. 
 
90 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Gazes gives as one of the meanings of the word, "to wash. 3. Ta 
 wash the hands or to wash one's self. 4. Among Christians to 
 baptize." 
 
 r have more, but I forbear. You see that this question is not one- 
 sided, and that the authorities are not all on one side. But 1 am 
 ashamed to stand here and have to heap up authorities outside the 
 Bible when the proposition is, " Christian baptism is immersion, in it 
 there must be a bui-ial in water." When I produce an instance from 
 the Bible where Paul refers to the baptism of 3,000,000 Israelites, 
 my opponent says that is not a Christian baptism, and seems desirous- 
 to rule it out as evidence. It is in the Bible, however. But my 
 opponent seems to think that the lexicons are as good as Paul and 
 even better ; hence I hope this will settle it, since I have shown you 
 that the lexicons on which he places so tnuch reliance are actually on 
 my side. They give dip, plunge, immerse, etc., as the primary mean- 
 ings of the word, which I concede ; but they also give wash, cleanse, 
 purify as the sacred sense, which I also claim. I do not want to go 
 over this business about authorities again. All the great historians, 
 too ! I will read from a history which is a standard work in all the 
 theological colleges of the country at the present day. It is Kiilam's 
 "Ancient Church History." It says: (Sec. III., Chap. 2, page 196) 
 " The Scriptures furnish no very specific instructions as to the mode 
 of baptism, and in its administration the primitive heralds of the 
 Gospel did not adhere to a system of rigid uniformity. Some have 
 asserted that the Greek word translated baptize in our authorized 
 version always signifies immerse, but it has been clearly shown that 
 this statement is incorrect, and that baptism does not necessarily 
 imply dipping. In ancient times, and in the lands where the apostles 
 labored, bathing was as frequently performed by affusion as immer- 
 sion, and the apostles A'aried their method of baptizing according to 
 circumstances. The ordinance was intended to convey the idea of 
 wasJiing or purifying, and it is obvious that water may be applied in 
 many ways as the means of ablution. In the sacred volume, sprink- 
 ling is often spoken of as an equivalent to washing." Now, this 
 Church historian, whose testimony is equally as good as those quoted 
 by my opponent, distinctly testifies, in harmony with what I have 
 contended for irom the beginning, that the ordinance in Scripture 
 " was intended to convey the idea of washing or purifying," and that 
 the water might, obviously, be applied in many ways, while " in the 
 sacred volume sprinkling is often spoken of as an equivalent to 
 washing." 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 91 
 
 I again affirm, therefore, that authorities by the score and the hun- 
 dred can be produced on this same line. Meyer, who according to 
 my opponent is the greatest of all Biblical exegetes, has been referred 
 to. I have Meyer in my library. But as I did not bring my brains 
 in my trunk, I left it at home with my wife so she would have some- 
 thing to read. But my impression is that Meyer coincides with my 
 interpretation of Rom. 6 : 3, 4. If my opponent will let me see his 
 copy I will be glad. [Mr. Harding hands him the book, which he 
 said he would examine at his leisure.] 
 
 And now with respect to Christ's priesthood. My opponent has 
 endeavored to prove that Christ was not made a priest after the law 
 of a carnal commandment ; but I never said He was. T never dreamed 
 He was. He was made a priest by the fiat of Almighty God, but as 
 He is revealed to man as the great Teacher sent from God, it was 
 necessary for Him to meet the demands of their expectations which 
 had been raised by the very law of God under which they had been 
 living. My opponent says He was made manifest to Israel by His 
 baptism. How did John make Jesus manifest to Israel by baptizing 
 Him 1 John was Christ's representative, and every man he baptized 
 he taught to believe on Him who was to come, and declared that the 
 great Redeemer and Purifier of the world was coming. And how did 
 he foretell this 1 He said, " I indeed baptize you with water, unto 
 repentance, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with 
 fire." He introduced Christ by the rite he performed, as well as by 
 his ministry, as the great Purifier of the world by the Holy Ghost and 
 fire. If in this way we have Christ manifested to Israel, then it is as 
 a Purifier, because the Holy Ghost coming on men purifies them. 
 And if John's baptism with water was to represent Christ's baptism 
 with the Holy Ghost, then I should think the water should come 
 down on the people as the Holy Ghost and fire are represented as 
 doing. That is what I would infer ; but as I do not get my brains 
 out of my trunk I may be wrong, and I will stand corrected by the 
 authorites if I am. 
 
 My opponent wants me to define baptism. I said it was a purify- 
 ing rite, and yet I said it did not mean to purify. This he thinks is 
 inconsistent, but T do not take back anything I said on this point. 
 The meaning of the word is not to purify merely, but I said it was 
 applied to a religious purification. A mere cleansing of the hands is 
 not a baptism. In the primary, classic sense it never had the remotest 
 relation to a purification. He cannot find an instance among Greek 
 writers — I have been over them all — where, in the primary, classic 
 
92 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 sense baptizo ever meant to purify ; but I have told you that some 
 sixteen or eighteen lexicographers give wash, cleanse, purify, etc., 
 as the meaning of the term. If I say it is a religious purification 
 when an individual is baptized, do I thereby say that the meaning of 
 baptizo was to purify 1 I know there is another Greek word which 
 implies directly to purify ; but it is not used to describe a baptism 
 because to baptize is not merely to purify, but to purify in a religious 
 sense. And it describes such purification without any reference to 
 the mode by which it is to be performed. We go right back to the 
 Old Testament, however, and see how religious purifications were 
 efi"ected. From the beginning to the end sprinkling was God's mode 
 of cleansing, no matter how the passage in Ezekiel " I will sprinkle 
 clean water upon you," applies to the Jews. That is a point which I 
 wish you to keep in mind. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. HARDING'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 I feel gratified at ihe pleasant and amiable way in which we are 
 getting on. My opponent calls my speeches '' a re-hash." It is 
 evident he is not pleased with the way in which I conduct my 
 part of this discussion. But I did not expect to please him. I 
 have had two reasons for recapitulating the points made during the 
 discussion. In the first place, the audiences are difierent ; (many 
 country people attend in the afternoons, and not in the evenings, 
 while many of the business men of the town come out to the evening 
 sessions only) ; and in the second place, I desire to keep before you 
 my line of argument, that you may see the solid rock upon which I 
 stand. 
 
 I will now consider the points advanced by my opponent in his 
 last speech. He read from Schafi" to show that in the New Testa- 
 ment words have different meanings from what they bear in classic 
 Greek. It is true that the classical meaning of a word is often 
 modified by its usage in the New Testament, but the primitive idea 
 of it is rarely, if ever, lost; for example, "savior" in classic Greek 
 means that which saves anyone from anything ; in the New Testa- 
 ment it designates Jesus the Son of God, who saves us from our sins ; 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 95 
 
 baptizo in classic Greek means to immerse anything into any fluid ; 
 in the New Testament, in the commission, it signifies to immerse one 
 who wants to follow Jesus, in water, into the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit ; the radical ideas "to save " and "to dip" are re- 
 tained. Any man who can read classic Greek can also read New 
 Testament Greek. It is true the meanings of words are often 
 modified, but they are modified by the contexts, and he who reads, 
 can readily catch the new shades of meaning that are thus given. It 
 has been seen that there is nothing in the New Testament use of 
 bapiizo to indicate that, in that book, it has lost its primary and 
 most known signification, to dip, to immerse ; on the other hand, thfr 
 Bible use of the word emphasizes this meaning. 
 
 Again, anyone who can read classic and New Testament Greek, 
 can read modern Greek, with the help of getting the meaning of new 
 words occasionally. When my class was undergoing its last examina- 
 tion at college, the Professor of Greek wrote upon the blackboard for 
 translation some extracts from a modern Greek newspaper. He told 
 us that we could not find all of the words in our lexicons, but if we 
 would exercise our common sense, we could read them from the con- 
 text. We did translate those sentences, and obtained from them an 
 account of the assassination of President Lincoln. The Greek, in the 
 past 1800 years, has changed so little that we were enabled to read it 
 this time from our knowledge of the ancient dialects. 
 
 My friend quoted from the defi.nition of baptizo by Stokius. I 
 have not that authority, but I have quotations from him by Wilkes,, 
 and Graves, and Ditzler on this word. As they agree in their cita- 
 tions, there can be no doubt about their accuracy. I read, from 
 Wilkes, Stokius' definition of the verb baptizo (to baptize) as follows i 
 
 " Generally, and by force of the word, it obtains the notion of a dip- 
 ping and immersion. 2. Specially, (a) Properly, it is to immerse and 
 to dip into water, (b) Tropically. 1. It is, by metonomy, to wash, to 
 cleanse, because anything is accustomed to be dipped and immersed in 
 water that it may be washed or cleaned ; although washing or cleans- 
 ing may, and is accustomed to be done by sprinkling water also, 
 (Mark 7:4; Luke 11 : 38)." The Louisville Debate, p. 477. 
 
 From this great New Testament lexicographer we get the following 
 points : 
 
 1. Baptizo generally, and by the force of the word, obtains the idea 
 of dipping, immersion. 
 
 2. Specially and properly, it means to dip or immerse into water. 
 
 3. By a metalepsis, or metonomy, it means to wash or cleanse, be- 
 
94 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 cause, as a rule, anything is clipped or immersed that it may be washed 
 or cleansed. 
 
 4. But washing may be done by sprinkling, and, says Stokius, is 
 accustomed to be done in that way. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson, no doubt, refers to this definition because of this 
 last point, Stokius says the washing may be done by sprinkling — is 
 accustomed to be done by sprinkling. Does not Mr. Wilkinson know 
 that in the days of Stokius, many hundred years after the apostles, 
 sprinkling generally prevailed 1 To this fact he refers ; he says it is 
 done, not was done. He does not say that the word means to sprinkle, 
 nor that the apostles sprinkled, but he teaches exactly the reverse, as 
 the following reading will show. T now give you his definition of the 
 noun baptisma (baptism) from Wilkes. It is as follows : 
 
 "1. Generally, and by force of the original, it denotes immersion or 
 dipping. 2. Specially, (a) Properly, it denotes the immersion or 
 dipping of a thing into water, that it may be cleansed or washed. 
 Hence, it is transferred to designate the first sacrament of the New 
 Testament, which they call of initiation, namely baptism, in which 
 those to be baptized were, formerly, immersed into water ; though at 
 this time the water is only sprinkled upon them, that they may be 
 cleansed from the pollutions of sin, receive the remission of it, and be 
 received into the covenant of grace as heirs of eternal life." Louisville 
 Debate, p. 477. 
 
 So testifies Mr. Wilkinson's own witness, the great Stokius. His 
 testimony was introduced because he said the washing of baptism 
 "can be, and generally is, accomplished by sprinkling the water." 
 Had my friend also given his other statement, viz., that " those 
 to be baptized were, formerly (in apostolic times), immersed into 
 water; though at this time the water is only sprinkled upon them," 
 he would have brought out the whole truth, and would have spoiled 
 his speech. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson next introduced the testimony of Edward Robinson, 
 ■the distinguished American Presbyterian lexicographer, who says : — 
 Baptize, " to dip in, to sink, to immerse." " In N. T. to wash, to 
 lave, to cleanse by washing." " To baptize, to administer the rite 
 of baptism." He refers to Wark 1 : 9, and in his translation of it 
 says Jesus was " baptized into the Jordan." After illustrating these 
 meanings at great length, he closes his definition, and appends to it a 
 note, in which he says : — 
 
 "Note. — While in Greek writers, as above exhibited, from Plato 
 onwards, ba2)tizo is everywhere to sink, to immerse, to overwhelm 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 95 
 
 either wholly or partially ; yet in Hellenistic usage, and especially in 
 reference to the rite of baptism, it would seem to have expressed not 
 always simply immersion, but the more general idea of ablution or 
 affusion" etc. Dr. Robinson's honesty makes him detine like a scholar, 
 and tell us that Jesus was " baptized into the Jordan " ; but his pre- 
 judice makes him argue, in the note, like a Presbyterian. Mr. 
 Wilkinson talks about the " editor of Robinson's lexicon ! " Does he 
 not know that Uobinson was an American, and that his lexicon had 
 no editor but himself ? Mr. Wilkinson would doubtless do better if 
 he had the originals instead of " extracts." 
 
 Schleusner is quoted by Mr. Wilkinson thus : — " Now, because not 
 unfrequently a thing is immersed, or dipped in water, that it may be 
 washed ; hence, second, to cleanse, to wash, to purify with water. 
 Thus it occurs in the N. T., Mark 7:4; Luke 11 : 38." Yes, he 
 ■does say that, but unfortunately for Mr. Wilkinson in defining the 
 noun, he adds this: (Louisville Dfbate, p. 512.) ■" Baptisma. (1). 
 Properly, immersion, dipping into water, washing. Hence it is (2) 
 transferred to the sacred rite, which is called baptism, in which those 
 formerly baptized were immersed in water, to obligate them to the 
 true divine religion." When we get the whole truth from Schleusner, 
 the greatest of all the Greek- 1 atin definers, we find that his testimony 
 is like that of Stokius ; it does no good whatever to Mr. Wilkinson's 
 cause. His own witnesses are most emphatically against him. He 
 quott s a number of authorities to show that the word means to wash. 
 Well, what of it 1 They refer to " the washing of cups, pots, and 
 brazen vessels," Mark 7 : 4. Ai e not such things put in the water to 
 wash them ? If a thing is immersed it is washed, but it would be 
 foolish to ta k about washing cups, pots, and brazen vessels (or people 
 either) by putting a few drops of water on them. Besides, these 
 authorities are careful to tell us that the word (baptizo) means to 
 wash, because things av. immersed that they may be washed. 
 
 Just here I would call the attention of the audience again to the 
 testimony of Dean Scanley, the distinguished and scholarly historian 
 of the Eastern (that is, the Greek) Church. The Dean was a clergy- 
 man of tiie Church of England ; he died recently. He says, in speak- 
 ing of the distinguishing characteristics of the Eastern and Western 
 Churches, that the Eastern is like the East, stationary, conservative, 
 and attached to the ancient customs ; while the Western is like the 
 West, vigorous, progressive, and given to changes. He illustrates 
 these dilferent tendencies by referring to the history of baptism. He 
 says : — 
 
96 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 " There can be no question that the original form of baptism — the 
 very meaning of the word — was complete immersion in the deep baptis- 
 mal waters ; and that for at least four centuries any other form was 
 either unknown or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, 
 as an exceptional, almost monstrous case. To this form the Eastern 
 Church still rigidly adheres ; and the most illustrious and venerable 
 portion of it, that of the Byzantine empire, absolutely repudiates and 
 ignores any other mode of administration as essentially invalid. "^ 
 History of the Eastern Church, p. 117. 
 
 Again, he says : " With the few exceptions just mentioned, the 
 whole of the Western Churches have now substituted for the ancient 
 bath the ceremony of letting fall a few drops of water on the face. 
 The reason is obvious. The practice of immersion, though peculiarly 
 suitable to the Southern and Eastern countries, for which it was de- 
 signed, was not found seasonable in the countries of the North and 
 West. Not by any decree of Council or Parliament, but by the 
 general sentimenn of Christian liberty, this remarkable change was 
 effected." Christian Institutions, p. 18. 
 
 The Greek Church, the Church which uses the language in which 
 the New Testament was written, immerses to this very day, nor has it 
 ever practiced anything else for baptism. My friend would have you 
 imagine that Dean Stanley favored immersion. He did not. On the 
 contrary, he thinks the change was a " great advantage to Christian 
 solemnity and edification;" and said it was made "by the general 
 sentiment of Christian liberty." (See Christian Institutions, -pp. 18 
 and 19.) He was not in favor of going back to the ancient custom. 
 
 My friend goes back to the Old Testament to find out what Chris- 
 tian baptism is. His own Methodism shows that that is not the place 
 to go. I have here the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 South. There are so many Methodist Churches it is difficult to keep 
 track of them. I do not know to which he belongs, though I under- 
 stand there has been a union of them all here in Canada, and I sup- 
 pose a new name has been given to the united Church. This is the 
 Discipline of one of the Methodist Churches of the United States. In 
 article 16 (p. 19) it is said, "There are two sacraments ordained of 
 Christ our Lord in the Gospel : that is to say, Baptism and the Supper 
 of the Lord." This correctly teaches that baptism is a New Testament 
 institution — an institution ordained by Christ, in the Gospel. But 
 though you cannot find Christian baptism in the Old Testament you 
 can find types of it there in the cleansings from ceremonial defilements, 
 in the consecration of the priests, and in the passage of the Israelites 
 through the Red Sea. From Numbers 19: 17-20 we learn that in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 97 
 
 cleansing the unclean, after " the water of separation " (water mixed 
 with the ashes of a red heifer, a lye representing blood, v. 9) was 
 sprinkled upon him, he washed his clothes, and bathed himself in 
 water, and thus became clean. In the New Testament, from Hebrews 
 9 : 13-14, we learn that this sprinkling of "the ashes of an heifer" is 
 typical of the sprinkling of "the blood of Christ" ; the bathing of the 
 body in water was typical of Christian baptism ; hence we read in 
 Hebrews 10 : 22, in the same connection, that we have "our hearts 
 sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure 
 water." 
 
 My friend said that I would not find bathings in the tabernacle. I 
 find at the door of the tabernacle a brazen laver. (See Ex. 30 : 18). 
 And in later times, when the temple had taken the place of the taber- 
 nacle, the laver was supplanted by the molten sea with five lavers on 
 each side of it. The sea was circular, about 8 feet deep, 16 feet in 
 diameter, and held, it is supposed, about 15,000 gallons. Each of the 
 ten lavers contained "forty baths," that is, about 300 gallons; each 
 laver was about 6 feet square, and about 5 feet deep. {See Smith's 
 Dictionary of the Bible, Art. Laver). The priests in going into the 
 temple from day to day washed their hands and feet (Greek nipto) ; but 
 at their consecration, when they were first set apart to their work, 
 their bodies were washed (Greek louo). " The sea was for the priests 
 to wash in." — 2 Chron. 4 : 6. 
 
 I understood my friend to say that Stokius gave " bedew " as a 
 meaning of baptizo. He is mistaken ; he did not. Let him give me 
 the Latin word. If it is lavo, its first meaning is "to wash, to bathe," 
 not to sprinkle, or bedew. 
 
 My friend is distressed about my authorities : he brings scraps in 
 his own handwriting. I have brought only one extract in manuscript; 
 that was the letter of Dr. Conant, in his own handwriting, in which 
 he says, " No respectable lexicographer gives, or ever has given, 
 sprinkle or besprinkle as a definition of baptizo;" and in which he 
 shows that "to pour upon" has been dropped from the later editions 
 of Liddell and Scott's great lexicon, as a definition of it. By the way, 
 Mr. Wilkinson's idea that these most distinguished of all Greek- 
 English definers dropped this definition because the Baptists raised 
 a fuss about it, is not only an uncalled for slander upon them, but it 
 is evidently incorrect, seeing that these gentlemen are members of the 
 Church of England, and that their lexicon was prepared for a country 
 where there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of paedo-baptists to one 
 immersionist. Would they run the risk of displeasing a thousand to 
 7 
 
98 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 please one? Who can believe it? No, they took "to pour upon" 
 out, because they could not find a passage in all Greek literature 
 where baptizo has that meaning ; and the fact that such men did take 
 it out, is one of the most startling and conclusive arguments against 
 affusion for baptism. 
 
 The Septuagint uses baptizo in expressing the seven dippings of 
 Naaman, 2 Kings, 5 : 14. The case is briefly this: Naaman, com- 
 mander of the hosts of Syria, a great man with the king, was a fear- 
 fully afflicted leper. Through the faith of a little Jewish maiden, a 
 captive, he was sent to the prophet Elisha, who said to him, " Go and 
 wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, 
 and thou shalt be clean." At first he was angry that the prophet did 
 not come out and cleanse him by some ceremony very different from 
 this ; but being persuaded by his servants, " he went down, and 
 dipped (Greek bajytizo) himself seven times in Jordan, according to 
 the saying of the man of God : and his flesh came again like unto the 
 flesh of a little child, and he was clean." The word " dip " here is 
 baptizo in Greek, and iaval in Hebrew. The Septuagint, a Greek 
 version of the Old Testament often quoted by the apostles of our 
 Lord, renders the Hebrew taval by baptizo ; but in our common 
 version taval is always rendered " dip," or " plunge." 
 
 Mr, Wilkinson seems to be under the impression that he has found 
 something to help his cause in Malachi 3:3, " He shall sit as a re- 
 finer and purifier of silver ; and He shall purify the sons of Levi," 
 etc. ; but I do not see the point. There is nothing about sprinkling 
 for baptism there. I don't see the connection. Perhaps his idea is 
 this : Christ was made a priest according to the Levitical law that 
 he might purify the spiritual seed of Levi ; but in the consecration of 
 the priests — the sons of Levi— the type of the spiritual seed, there 
 was a sprinkling. It is true that the priests were typical of Chris- 
 tians, — we are said to be " kings and priests unto God," — but if there 
 was a "sprinkling" in that ceremony of consecration, it must not be 
 forgotten that there was also a "bathing" of the body in it. If my 
 friend could make out that Christ was inducted into the priest's office 
 according to the Levitical ritual (which he can never do), he would 
 not get rid of the bathing of the flesh in water. So this passage does 
 not help my friend's case. The idea which he intends to convey is 
 not in it. It simply sets forth that Christ would come and purify the 
 people. In this process of purification we have our hearts sprinkled 
 with tlie blood of Christ, and our bodies washed with pure water. 
 No sprinkling for baptism here. 
 
 [Time expired,] 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 99 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S SEVENTH REPLY. 
 
 I am glad we see the end of the debate on this proposition. 
 
 My opponent tells us that when Naaman went, at Elisha's com- 
 mand, and dipped himself in Jordan, the word as given in the Greek 
 Septuagint is baptizo, and in the Hebrew tahhal. That is perfectly 
 correct. And my opponent says this is the very word that Christ 
 used in the commission, and if we can settle the meaning in this 
 instance we will know what Christ meant. I rather think we can 
 come at it, for what Elisha told Naaman to do was to go and wash, 
 and the word wash does not express any mode. There is a condition 
 contained in this command. Elisha said, " Go wash seven times in 
 Jordan and thou shalt be clean." Did Naaman understand the 
 command. Evidently so, for he said, " Are not Abana and Pharpar, 
 rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel ? May I not 
 wash in them and be clean ? ' What was he going to wash himself 
 for 1 or dip himself for 1 He was going to wash with a view to being 
 made clean, and he went and tabhalled himself. But did he do what 
 the prophet commanded, or something else ? He was commanded to 
 rachats, and he tabhalled. Evidently, therefore, tabJiall must be the 
 synonym of rachats, because the prophet said, " Go wash and be 
 clean," and if he did something he was not commanded to do it is not 
 likely that the divine power would have been given to make him 
 clean and heal him of his leprosy. Do you think a man would be 
 miraculously healed if he were performing an act of disobedience at 
 the time 1 I maintain that it is as invincible an argument as can be 
 produced that he must have fulfilled the command to " Go and wash," 
 for he went and tabhalled " according to the saying of the man of 
 God." The seventy Jews who translated the Old Testament into 
 Greek 270 B.C., in describing what he did used the very word 
 employed by Christ in the commission. As Naaman was commanded 
 to go and wash, and did as he was commanded, he must have performed 
 some kind of washing in order to be made clean. Therefore, accord- 
 ing to the judgment of these seventy learned Jews, to baptize is to 
 wash, with a view to purification. Is not this what I have told you 
 during this debate, that baptizo in the commission has reference to a 
 religious purification"? Here you have the proof of it. But our 
 English immersionist translators have used the word "dipped" in 
 this place. I call them " immersionist translators," and even 
 
100 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Alexander Campbell, the father of the children here, admits it. He 
 distinctly testifies that the translators of King James' version, 
 did not, in their renderings, in any case, lean to the view I represent 
 in this debate. So if they translate the word " dip," my opponent 
 cannot say it was psedo-baptists, in the present sense of the term, who 
 did it. Piedo-baptists in our day are not immer.sionists, but Alexander 
 Campbell admits that these men were immersionists. My opponent 
 cannot go back on that without going back on his own father ; and I 
 hope that, as he has chided me for going back on Wesley, he will not 
 commit the same fault. 
 
 That same word tabhal is found in Genesis 32nd chapter, where 
 Joseph's coat is said, in the English version, to have been dipped in 
 the blood of a kid. Those same seventy Hebrew scholai's, in this 
 case, translated tabhal by the Greek word molunein. If my opponent 
 will turn up to Liddell and Scott he will, perhaps, find what that 
 means in English. It means to wet, moisten, stain, sully, defile, 
 sprinkle, etc. Can I prove that 1 Yes, and I stand here to do it ; 
 therefore the word in the commission means to wet, moisten, stain, 
 sprinkle. We have got at it at last. I will not take time to quote 
 authorities unless they are called for. I deny that the word tabhal 
 means to immerse. My distinguished opponent in his proposition has 
 undertaken to prove that Christian baptism is immersion. He told 
 you that our Lord, who gave the commission, used the same word that 
 the Hebrew scholars used in translating tabhal, and I claim that 
 tabhal must be, to a large extent, the equivalent of rachats, which 
 means to wash; but it seldom, if ever, in the Bible, means a complete 
 immersion. Take notice whether he proves that it means a complete 
 immersion, a burial in water, for that is his proposition. If it does 
 not mean a burial in water in every case, then he has forestalled him- 
 self by the loose manner in which he has stated his proposition, which 
 sets forth that there miost be a burial in water. But I claim that 
 there is not necessarily a burial in water in this case. I never did 
 believe that Naaman dipped himself clear under water seven times. 
 If he did it would be as bad a case as that of Aristobulus, who was 
 dipped under and drowned. 
 
 My opponent says the brazen sea at the door of the temple was for 
 the priests to bathe in. I believe there is one passage in which it is 
 rendered "in," but in more than one it is rendered "thereat," or as it 
 is properly expressed in the Greek, " thereout." I am prepared to 
 prove that. Besides, don't you suppose it would be an indecent 
 thing, according to our ideas of propriety (1 don't know how it would 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 101 
 
 be regarded in Kentucky), for men to wash their hands and feet in the 
 same dish. When an unclean thing was washed in water the water 
 became unclean, according to the law. We want to have the chapter 
 on cleansing read again. We will know it by heart if we hear it once 
 or twice more. As a matter of fact, if they had washed i?i the vessel 
 when unclean, they would have made both the water and the vessel 
 unclean. Thus every time they washed their hands or their feet they 
 would have had to purify the vessel by burning, and they would have 
 had to bring water and fill it again. Consider, too, that the sea 
 in front of the temple was about twenty-one feet high, round on the 
 sides, the water in it about eight feet deep, and that the priests, every 
 time they went to the altar to minister, would have had to climb up 
 the sides of this vessel and get down into eight feet of water to wash 
 their hands and feet. The authorities say (and my opponent is great 
 on authorities) that there were spigots at the bottom of this laver, to 
 draw water off in which to wash their hands and feet. I presume 
 that was the way in which it was done. Where, then, were the im- 
 mersions "in the tablenacle 1" My opponent undertook to show. He 
 read the chapter on purification or cleansing from legal defilement. 
 Bathing in water after the sprinkling of the blood and ashes was 
 what cleansed he says. That was the purification, was iti The 
 chapter from which he quoted says : " But the man that shall be 
 unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut otf from 
 among the congregation, because he hath defiled the congregation 
 of the Lord : the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him, 
 he is unclean." Was it the water of separation, according to this, or 
 the subsequent bathing of the body that cleansed him. I maintain that 
 it was the sprinkling of the water of purification; but this, being mixed 
 with blood and ashes, had to be washed off afterwards, just as when you 
 put ointment on your flesh to heal a wound. When the desired effect 
 is produced you wash the ointment off. It is not the washing that 
 cures, but the ointment that you wash off. So the water of purifi- 
 cation had to be washed off from the flesh and the garments because 
 it was composed of ashes and blood. Besides, the bathing which he 
 insists constituted the baptism did not take place " in the tabernacle,' 
 but I have shown that the " divers baptisms" did take place in the 
 tabernacle and were effected by the sprinkling of blood. Moses 
 purged the tabernacle itself, and the vessels of the ministry and 
 almost all things by the sprinkling of blood. My opponent recognizes 
 these "divers baptisms," as being typical of Christian baptism, but he 
 claims that it was the bathing of the flesh and not the sprinkling of 
 
102 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 the blood that constituted the type. But I claim it was the blood 
 that did the business — not the act of sprinkling, but the blood which 
 was sprinkled. Parties were cleansed by means of sprinkling, but not 
 because of sprinkling. If God had appointed pouring or dipping, the 
 effect would have been all the same, not because of the form of act, 
 but because of the eflect. But, as a matter of fact, God never did 
 command that one man should put another man in and under water. 
 My opponent has not yet brought a case to prove it, nor does the man 
 exist who can do so. I have proved that every command God ever 
 gave for the cleansing of people, where the mode was specified at all, 
 was by the application of the cleansing element to the individual, and 
 not by the putting of the individual into the cleansing element. 
 When He baptizes men by His Spirit, and cleanses them, it is always 
 by pouring out, never by dipping in. But our immersionist friends 
 actually try to make plunging out of that. In fact, they take the 
 word of the Lord apart and then put it together again to suit them- 
 selves. It has been done here. But we have got this matter settled. 
 The word our Lord used in the commission was the same word that 
 was employed in the case of Naaman, and that describes a washing 
 for purification, therefore it means the same thing in the commission. 
 I came here to disprove my opponent's proposition that Christian 
 baptism is immersion, and I have done it. And 1 claim that the dis- 
 cussion on this proposition ought now to close unless he can disprove 
 this position. 
 
 Referring to Acts 16th chapter, he told you last night that the 
 jailer and his family were taken out somewhere to be baptized, but 
 he did not know where. Of course he did not, and there is a good 
 reason why. We will just examine the matter for a moment. In 
 that chapter we read, " And the keeper of the prison awaking out of 
 his sleep, and seeing the prison door open, he drew his sword and 
 would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been 
 fled." Why should he have done that? We find the explanation in 
 12 : 19, "And when Herod had sought for him and found him not, 
 he examined the keepers and commanded that they should bo put to 
 death." Why ? Because, as any sensible man or woman will see, 
 there must have been a law in that country to put to death any keeper 
 of a prison who should allow a prisoner to escape. What right had 
 Herod to command them to be put to death if such a law did not 
 exist ? Do you suppose he was such an imperious autocrat that he 
 held the death penalty in his hands ? He, as governor of that pro- 
 vince, must have governed in accordance with law, and he commanded 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 the keeper to be put to death because the prisoners had escaped. Here 
 is another prison-keeper whose prisoners he thought had escaped, and 
 he drew his sword and was going to plunge it into his body, because, 
 rather than be put to death by the authorities, he would prefer to die 
 by his own hand. Under these circumstances, is it probable that this 
 jailer, in contravention of law, and at the risk of his own life, 
 took those apostles ovit of doors somewhere during the midnight dark- 
 ness, to dip him and his family in some remote pond, mud-hole, or 
 other place 1 To me it is the most improbable thing 1 ever heard of, 
 and because of this improbability a good many Baptist writers have 
 gone to work, and in their imaginations have manufactured a big 
 tank or some sort of a receptacle inside the prison into which the 
 poor fellows were plunged one after another, all the dirt being washed 
 off in the same water. The more you look at it and turn it over and 
 view it kaleidoscopically, the more you will not wonder that I repu- 
 diate this miserable dipping business with all the emphasis of my soul. 
 I tell you again it is a superstition. It was born and bred in the lap 
 of superstition, and it is not fit, as a mere matter of decency, to be 
 imported into decent society. It is dangerous besides, and I can pro- 
 duce the proofs that individuals have perished by being immersed, 
 and because of that danger it is a violation of the law that God has 
 stamped upon his works. And the same God that enacted the laws 
 of nature, and wrote them on the face of nature, and stamped them 
 on our nature, wrote that Bible ; and when you can convince me that 
 the laws of God in revelation and in nature are in conflict, you can 
 convince me that I ought to be an infidel. 
 
 I guess we have got to the end of this business. Perhaps we will 
 get some further astounding information. (A voice, " hash.") I hear 
 a gentleman say " hash," and no doubt we shall have some more of that. 
 We have had an argument spun out pretty fine. But I don't want 
 you to suppose that my brains are worn out or that my evidence is 
 exhausted. I have a lot over here. If you do not believe it, give me 
 one week after this debate is over to go on night after night, for the 
 whole evening, and I will show you about how much can be said on 
 this subject. I have been over the ground, and cpnsequently I come 
 to this platform with this gentleman, as I will com with any other 
 gentleman, I do not care whether he is white or colored, whether he 
 comes from Kentucky or Halifax, without the least degree of ti'epida- 
 tion, or the least disturbance of my nerves, — and I am about as nerv- 
 ous a man as I know of, — knowing that we have the truth of the 
 eternal God on our side. Most of you will believe that. 
 
104 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 I was going to plunge into John's baptism, but I have not time to 
 strike out, as my half-hour is nearly up. I have all the New Testa- 
 ment baptisms also, to examine yet. But you can judge from what I 
 have given you that the rest is dry — a little too dry to chew well, and 
 too dry to digest easily. However, it may swell out in my opponent's 
 stomach. And this reminds me of a story of a boarder who said that 
 they lived very cheaply at his boarding-house, for they ate dried 
 apples for breakast, drank cold water for dinner, and the apples 
 swelled for supper. 
 
 I will give my opponent the rest of my time, 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 The benediction was pronounced. 
 
 MR. HARDING'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 
 
 I am more and more impressed with the fact that when we want to 
 make an impression on the people for good, it is exceedingly impor- 
 tant that we should display the spirit of the Lord Jesus. We have 
 not had, since this debate began, a single violation of the rules of 
 decorum and propriety, which, I am quite sure, has not been injurious 
 to him who violated the rules. I desire to express a hearty amen to 
 that petition, in the prayer, for decency and good order; and for my 
 part, I want afresh to endeavor to conduct the debate in a manner 
 which should characterize Christian gentlemen. I was delighted with 
 the discussion yesterday, and with the service of the evening, until 
 that little episode which followed the speaking. That was unfortu- 
 nate ; especially the hot debating that took place all over the room. 
 I want with renewed energy to present these matters as they should 
 be presented, from a Christian standpoint. 
 
 At the beginning ,of the service this afternoon, I want to call your 
 attention again, very briefly, before we take up the thread of argumen- 
 tation where it was left last night, to the present state of the discus- 
 sion. In order that I may present the matter in a different light, and 
 that you may consider it from a different standpoint, consider the 
 following facts: (1) I practice immersion; Mr. Wilkinson favors 
 afiusion ; (2) all the lexicons detine baptizo to immerse, or dip, or 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 plunge ; none define it to sprinkle ; (3) all the Church historians 
 testify that immersion was practiced by the ancient Church ; the first 
 case of affusion for baptism on record is that of Novatian, A.D. 251 ; 
 (4) the encyclopaedias, those marvellous repositories of the learning of 
 the ages, testify that for thirteen centuries immersion was usually, 
 almost universally, practiced ; that affusion (" clinic baptism ") was 
 permitted only to the sick in case of necessity; that those that re- 
 ceived it were often regarded as not properly baptized ; and that the 
 Council of Ravenna (1311) was the first to allow a choice between 
 sprinkling and immersion ; (5) all the great critics and commentators 
 of the world (except two) testify that in Rom. 6 : 4 Paul refers to 
 immersion ; (6) in the Bible accounts of baptisms, they went to water, 
 to much water, down into the water, and (after the baptism) came 
 up out of the water ; they were buried in baptism, raised to walk in 
 newness of life, and had their bodies washed with pure water. 
 
 Now suppose that our positions were reversed : suppose that Mr. 
 Wilkinson had produced a stack of lexicons, every one of them de- 
 fining haptizo to sprinkle or pour upon, not one giving the definition 
 to immerse ; suppose all the Church histories had testified that 
 sprinkling was the almost universal practice of the ancient Church, 
 and that the first case of immersion for baptism occurred two centu- 
 ries and a-half after the beginning of the Christian era ; suppose all 
 the eii cyclopaedias had agreed to this, explaining that immersion did 
 not become general for thirteen hundred years ; suppose all scholars 
 (except two Baptists) had said of some passage of Scripture, that it 
 referred to " baptism by sprinkling," and that it could not be under- 
 stood unless so interpreted ; suppose, furthermore, that Mr. Wilkin- 
 son had shown that in apostolic times they brought the water for 
 baptism, and that they baptized where there was but very little water; 
 that the candidates were spoken of as bedewed, as having their fore- 
 heads moistened, etc. ; then suppose I had come forward in reply, say- 
 ing that some of the lexicons define baptizo to wet, and that you can 
 wet a thing by immersing it in water, therefore, in the Bible, baptism 
 is immersion. Would not Mr. Wilkinson under such circumstances 
 have gained a most overwhelming victory 1 and would not my defence 
 have been feeble indeed 1 Ah, but he has not done as supposed ! I 
 have brought the lexicons, the Church histories, the encyclopaedias, 
 the scholars, the favoring circumstances from the Bible, etc. And he 
 replies, Baptizo means to wash, and you can wash a thing by sprinkling 
 it. Yes, and you can wash a thing by immersing it, too, and that is 
 what you will do, if you baptize according to the Scriptures. 
 
106 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 I will refer briefly to the case of the jailer. My friend read one 
 verse and then stopped. Had he read all the verses, he would have 
 seen that everything I have said about it was correct. What I said was 
 that the jailer took them out of his house to be baptized. I know that 
 it is argued that the jailer was baptized in his house, or in the prison, 
 and that therefore the baptism must have been by affusion. But it is a 
 simple matter of fact that he took them out of the house, and that 
 fact is made plain to every one who reads the chapter. They were 
 thrust into the inner prison, and their feet were made fast in the 
 stocks (see Acts 16 : 24) ; at midnight an earthquake occurred which 
 hurled every door open, and loosed every prisoner's bands (ver. 26) ; 
 the keeper of the prison being aroused from his sleep, and supposing 
 that his prisoners had fled, was about to kill himself, when Paul cried 
 with a loud voice, saying, " Do thyself no harm, for we are all here : " 
 the jailer, trembling with awe and amazement, obtained a light, and 
 came in, and brought them out of the inner prison into his house ; 
 they then preached the word of the Lord to all that were in his 
 house ; after the preaching, he took them, and washed their stripes, 
 and was baptized, he and all his, straightway ; then he brought them 
 back into his house, and set meat before them. As the preaching 
 took place " in his house," and as he brought them back into the 
 house after his baptism, anybody who has sense enough to know that 
 you cannot enter a house twice without going out once, knows he took 
 them out of the house, and was baptized. 
 
 But, it is asked, did not the jailer know that he would violate the 
 law, and endanger his life, if he took them out of the house 1 No, he 
 did not ; for such was not the case. He knew if he let them escape 
 his life would be in danger. But he knew they did not want to 
 escape ; they had a chance to flee, but refused to go. The jailer 
 was satisfied that they were what they professed to be — servants of 
 the Most High God. Why did he take them out of the house at 
 midnight? — to be sprinkled ? Nay, verily ! Here is another case of 
 going to the water, and that too at a very unseasonable hour, to be 
 baptized. 
 
 I pass from the case of the jailer to that of Naaman. My friend 
 said that this case settles the question. No doubt it would have done 
 so, had it not been .settled from the first speech in the debate. You 
 will find the record concerning Naaman in the .^th chapter of 2 Kings. 
 The prophet Elisha said to this great warrior, mIio was so dreadfully 
 aflRicted with the leprosy, " Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and 
 thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean." In 
 
ON THE AIODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 107 
 
 obedience to this command, he went down, "and dipped himself seven 
 times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God ; and his 
 flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." 
 The word rendered " dipped''^ in the common version, is taval in the 
 Hebrew, and baptizo in the Greek ; that is, King James' translators 
 testify that the Hebrew taval, the equivalent of the Greek baptizo, 
 signifies to dip. Taval occurs fifteen times in the Old Testament ; in 
 the common version it is rendered dip fourteen times, plunge once. 
 This is the Hebrew word for baptism. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson says that King James' translators were immersionists 
 and therefore rendered taval to dip. I do not accuse my friend of 
 wilfully slandering those men, but he has made a great mistake. They 
 were not immersionists ; neither did Mr. Campbell admit that they 
 were immersionists, for he knew better. I have here "The Twenty- 
 four Books of the Holy Scriptures," carefully translated according to 
 the Massoretic text, by Isaac Leeser. This Isaac Leeser is a Jewish 
 scholar, and he says he translated "after the best Jewish authorities." 
 He renders 2 Kings 5:14 thus : " Then went he down, and dived 
 seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of 
 God, and his flesh was restored (healthy) like the flesh of a little boy, 
 and he became clean." Verse 10, he renders thus: "And Elisha sent 
 a messenger unto him, saying : " Go and bathe seven times in the Jor- 
 dan, and thy flesh shall be restored (healthy) to thee, and thou shalt 
 be clean." Rachats (wash) he renders " bathe ; " taval (dip) he renders 
 " dive." Not even Mr. Wilkinson, I presume, will say that Rabbi 
 Leeser and these Jewish authorities were immersionists. Neither were 
 King James' translators partial to immersion. On this point. Dr. 
 Wall, who wrote his "History of Infant Baptism" 180 yeai-s ago, 
 thus testifies: {History of Inf. Bap. Vol. 1. p. 581.) " In the latter 
 times of Queen Elizabeth, and during the reigns of King James and 
 of King Charles I., very few children were dipped in the font." He 
 explains that through the influence of Calvin over the ministers who 
 had fled to Geneva from Queen Mary's bloody reign, backed by the 
 influence of such men as Dr. Whitaker, of Cambridge, together with 
 the inclination of the people, sprinkling was substituted for dipping, 
 although the latter was requiied by the rubric, except in case of weak- 
 ness. Be it remembered, that it was during the reign of this King 
 James, when, as Dr. Wall shows, sprinkling had almost entirely taken 
 the place of dipping, that our common version was made. The trans- 
 lators inserted the word dip into the Bible because the Hebrew taval 
 means to dip. I have here the Wilkes-Ditzler debate, which was held 
 
108 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 at Louisville, Kentucky. During the debate Mr. Wilkes stated that 
 the Jewish Rabbi Kleeburg had told him in a conversation that taval 
 means to immerse; Dr. Ditzler said, "I should like to see that in 
 writing." Sometime afterwards it was produced in writing, in these 
 words : 
 
 "1. What does taval ruea.n1 
 
 " It means to immerse, to dip. 
 
 " 2. Does it ever mean to sprinkle or to pour 1 
 
 " It never means to sprinkle or to pour. 
 
 " 3. Did the Jews always immerse their proselytes? 
 
 " They did. The whole body was entirely submerged. 
 
 "4. Were the Jewish ablutions immersions? 
 
 "Before eating, and prayer, and after rising in the morning, they 
 washed ; when they have become unclean they must immerse. 
 
 " Dr. L. Kleeburg. 
 "Louisville, Ky., Dec. 23rd, 1870." 
 
 This letter is copied from the Louisville Debate, page 652. It is 
 agreed between Mr. Wilkinson and myself, that the Hebrew word 
 to express the action of baptism is taval; that it occurs fifteen times in 
 the Old Testament, and in our common version is rendered dip fourteen 
 times, plunge once. Yes, as my friend said, Naaman's case does 
 settle the question. The prophet told him to wash — or, as the Jew 
 Leeser translates — to bathe seven times in Jordan ; he went down and 
 dipped — baptized — tavalled himself seven times in Jordan, or, as Dr. 
 Leeser says, he dived seven times in Jordan. It is certain that he did 
 not sprinkle himself, or pour himself seven times in Jordan. 
 
 Let us consider the Septuagint on this case. This is a translation 
 made out of the Hebrew into the Greek, by seventy Jewish Rabbis (as is 
 supposed), long before the days of our Saviour. In the account of 
 Naaman's cleansing, the Hebrew rachats (to wash) is translated by 
 the Greek lotco. Louo, as we have had occasion to say before, is used 
 to indicate the washing of the body ; nipto, of the hands and feet ; 
 pluno, of the clothes. As I have made this statement several times, 
 it might be well for me to prove it, that you may have the proper 
 authorities, and not my word only. Liddell and Scott define : 
 
 "Louo, to vmsh, anything ; especially to wash the body, nipto (or nizo) 
 being used especially of the hands and feet, pluno, of clothes." 
 
 Donnegan defines : " Louo, to ivash, to bathe. Louo is said o/ tJie 
 body, nipto of the hands, and pluno of the clothes." 
 
 These seventy Jewish scholars who translated their Scriptures out 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 109 
 
 of their own tongue into the Greek, understood the prophet to direct 
 Naaman to wash his body seven times in Jordan ; and they expressed 
 the way in which he did it by saying that he baptized himself seven 
 times in Jordan. Certainly this case does settle the meaning of the 
 word baptizo. 
 
 The consecration of the Aaronic priests was typical of our being 
 consecrated as priests to God ; consequently you will find in the cere- 
 mony of consecrating Aaron and his sons, a type of Christian baptism. 
 Of this ceremony we have one account in Exodus 29 : 1-37, and 
 another in Lev. 8th chapter. Aaron and his sons were brought unto 
 the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and Moses then 
 " washed them with water " (elousen en hudati, bathed them in water). 
 The act of washing is expressed by lotto, and the preposition "with," 
 (en, in) is the same that is used in Matt. 3 : 6, to tell that John bap- 
 tized the people " in Jordan." After the bathing in water, the priestly 
 garments were put upon them : then Aaron was anointed with oil : 
 after this, the bullock and the two rams were slain ; and the oil and 
 blood were sprinkled, etc. As Moses washed the body of Aaron in 
 water, John baptized Jesus in the Jordan ; as Moses clothed Aaron 
 and his sons with priestly garments, so Christ and his followers in 
 being baptized "fulfil all righteousness," and, therefore, are clothed 
 in robes of righteousness ; as Moses anointed Aaron after his bath 
 with the anointing oil, so God anointed Jesus, as he came up from 
 the waters of baptism, "with the Holy Ghost and with power." The 
 bath was typical of baptism ; the anointing with oil, the anointing 
 with the Holy Ghost ; the sprinkling of blood, of the sprinking of the 
 blood of Jesus. In Acts 2 : 38, Peter commands the people saying, 
 " Repent, 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." The order is (1) Repentance (which implies faith); (2) 
 Baptism ; (3) Remission of sin (robes of righteousness) ; (4) The Gift 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 My friend opposes immersion, among other reasons, because it is 
 dangerous ; he has heard that people have died from being immersed. 
 Well, suppose they have 1 What of that ? Did he never read in the 
 Scriptures about people dying from the performance of duty to God ? 
 Does not Jesus teach us that we must be ready to give up our lives 
 for Him 1 Did He not die for us 1 But then Mr. Wilkinson thinks 
 it so indecent, so vulgar ! It is so shocking to his delicate sensibilities 
 to see men and women come up in dripping garments from the water ! 
 It is a commandment of the Lord, and it is nice. Anything Jesus 
 
110 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 tells US to do is nice ; and it is pleasing to me to see people doing it. 
 With regard to people being killed by being immersed, I have received 
 into the Church, within the last eleven years, more than 2,000 people ; 
 and all these have been immersed by my own hands, or it has been 
 done by others in my presence ; often the ground was covered with 
 snow, and the water with ice ; among those baptized were men, and 
 women, and children, of various ages from 9 to 75 years, of almost 
 every condition of life ; some were strong and robust, and others were 
 so feeble it was thought they might die in the water ; yet in all these 
 years, among alf these people, I have not known of one who was in 
 anywise hurt, who even so much as caught a cold from his immersion ; 
 nor have I ever been in the least injured from attending to this duty, 
 I have heard it rumored that somebody said that it was reported that 
 some other body, somewhere, had been injured by being immersed ; 
 but I have never been able to find the man ; nor have I ever seen an 
 immersionist who could tell me of one such case in his experience. 
 
 \Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S EIGHTH REPLY. 
 
 We are again reminded, friends, that all the lexicons, all the Church 
 histories, all the encyclopaedias, and all the scholarship are on one 
 side in this discussion ; that I stand alone on the opposite side. That 
 would be very pleasant for my opponent, if it were true ; but I have 
 shown you that it is not true. It is a carte blanche statement that 
 neither my opponent nor any other man can prove ; and is not in 
 accordance with facts. He always feels better after a good long 
 intermission, and comes prepared to give you a few more authorities. 
 Dr. Dale, who has written an able work on baptism, consisting of five 
 large volumes, goes over the whole ground. No man of any age has 
 gone so thoroughly and exhaustively into the history of the word in 
 question, in all its aspects, bearings, and usages. Dr. Dale is a 
 scholar, every inch of him, and his work is recognized in all thepoedo- 
 baptist colleges and institutions in the United States and elsewhere 
 as a masterly and scholarly work. He asks, " What is the name of 
 one man who during a thousand years after the institution of baptism 
 wrote, or said, or believed, that dipping into water was Cliristian 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 baptism 1 In other words, tell us of one man among the millions of 
 ten centuries who believed the theory, or would have thought it 
 worthy of consideration. Do not mistake my demand. The inquiry 
 is not for one who practiced the covering of the body in water in 
 ritual baptism ; nor is it for one who interpreted such baptism as a 
 burial and resurrection ; there is not only one such, but one legion ; 
 but what is sought is quite other than this, to wit : one who believed 
 that this covering with water was Christian baptism." Dr. Dale has 
 for all time to come knocked the bottom out of the immersion theory 
 by this work, and it only remains for the work to be known and 
 understood to cause the whole thing to vanish like " the baseless fabric 
 of a vision." If you take my copy of this work you will find it marked 
 almost from the beginning to the end, and I am so full of it that 
 every time my nose bleeds it runs out of me. Dr. Dale further says : 
 
 "If it should be asked why these ancients 'covered with water' in 
 baptism, I answer : For the same reason that they baptized men and 
 women naked. And precisely here, (in the absolute nudity of the 
 ancients and in the water-tight india-rubber vestments of the moderns), 
 is revealed the antipodal character of these baptisms. The ancients 
 believed that there was a vis baptismafis in the water which, applied 
 to the body, reached to the soul, and thus effected Christian baptism ; 
 therefore this water was applied to the whole body naked for the 
 better development of its baptizing power." (Christie Baptism, jjage 
 2^). That is the point. My opponent has proved by lexicons. 
 Church histories and encycloptedias, and by "all scholars" that immer- 
 sion was practiced. We all admit it. Dr. Dale admits it. But 
 where is there one scholar for the whole of the first 1,000 years of the 
 Christian era that interpreted the fact of being dipped in water as 
 Christian baptism 1 I will leave my opponent to follow that point, 
 and I will chase him up every inch of the way. 
 
 And now, suppose our positions were reversed. Suppose I were 
 trying to establish a claim for exclusive sprinkling ; that I had 
 proved it to be the usual mode of baptism for the first thousand years, 
 or more, of the Christian era ; that all the lexicons. Church histories, 
 and encyclopsedias said it was so administered; that my opjjonent 
 admitted the fact cheerfully, but adduced proof to show that this 
 practice was the offspring of a superstitious belief on the part of the 
 early fathers, not one of whom practiced it because the word, in its 
 religious sense, necessarily meant sprinkle, but because of their erro- 
 neous notions ; and suppose he should produce examples of immersion 
 from the Bible as clear as the cases I have produced to the contrary, 
 
112 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 such as the " divers baptisms," of Heb. 9: 10, the " Ark baptism," 
 1 Peter 3: 20, 21, and the "Red Sea baptism," Exodus 14: 19-31, 
 would not any sensible person say, I had failed to establish the ex- 
 clusive claims of sprinkling 1 Especially would this be the case if 
 he succeeded in proving that all the standard lexicographers, and all 
 impartial scholars, recognized a secondary meaning to the word 
 having no necessary reference to sprinkling, in which secondary sense 
 the word was used in the Scriptures, it will be apparent to all un- 
 prejudiced persons that the claim for exclusiveness in behalf of sprink- 
 ling must be given up. 
 
 With respect to the burial. He quoted Meyer last night. The 
 impression was strong on my mind that Meyer favored my interpre- 
 tation of Romans 6 : 4. You remember I said it was not ritual 
 baptism but the baptism of the Spirit by which we are made new 
 creatures in Christ, incorporated into Him spiritually, and brought 
 into fellowship with Him in the whole work of the atonement. What 
 says Meyer"? You remember that Mr. Harding told you that Meyer 
 was the greatest Biblical exegete under heaven. I think I now have 
 another little weight in my end of the scale. I only wish we could 
 have three months of this sort of thing, and you would see to which 
 end of the scale the scholarship belongs. 
 
 Mr. Harding. — You can have as much as you want. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson.-^ We could build a tabernacle, sit up nights and 
 have a kind of picnic. Mr. Harding could send down to Cincinnati 
 for that " office editor " who reported that he thrashed me badly when 
 I met him in Acton, and cowed me out of a second debate. It was 
 reported all round Meaford that I had backed out. These " Disciples 
 of Christ " are circulating the story. But, I trust, if they have the 
 truth of Christ in their hearts, they will investigate the case before 
 they tell it again. Gd down to Acton and see how the case stands. 
 He can bring the "office editor " and bushels of books, and I am 
 ready for him. I don't like to indulge in boasting of this kind ; 
 but I have been driven into it by the blustering tone imported into 
 this debate from the very start. It has been bellowed into ray 
 ears as though I were deaf, and when noise would not do, it has been 
 hammered in with tists right under my nose. There is a little blood 
 left in me yet. I am only human. When any man undertakes to 
 pound anything into me I will resist it. Now, what does Meyer 
 say 1 He says : 
 
 " We who were baptized in reference to Christ Jesus (we who through 
 baptism became those specifically belonging to Him), were baptized in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 113 
 
 reference to His death; i.e., we were brought, through our baptism, 
 into the fellowship of His death ; so that we have a real share ethi- 
 
 . cally in His death ; through the cessation of all our life for sin 
 
 This interpretation, namely of the &'^iTii\x2i\ fellowship produced through 
 baptism (prepared for by this repentance and pistis [faith] that pre- 
 ceded baptism, accomplished by the baptism itself. Gal. 3 : 27; Col. 2 : 
 llf. ; Tit. 3:5;) is required by the context in ver. 2, 4, 5, etc. It is 
 therefore not the idea of imitation, but that of the dying along with, 
 unto which, in order to the accomplishment of which in us, we were 
 baptized. The efficient cause of this fellowship of death is Divine 
 grace which forgives sin and grants the Holy Spirit to him who 
 becomes baptized ; the means of this grace is baptism itself ; the appro- 
 priating cause is faith, and the causa meritoria the death of Christ." 
 
 In a foot-note to this extract Meyer says, '■^ Baptizein eis never 
 means anything else than to baptize in reference to, in respect to . . . 
 . . . undoubtedly the name ' Jesus ' was wameo? in baptizing. But the 
 conception of becoming immersed into Christ (in Ruckert and others, 
 and again in Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. S^S) is to be set aside, and is not 
 to be supported by the figurative expression in Gal. 3 : 27. The 
 mystic character of our passage is not produced by so vague a sensuous 
 conception, — which moreover has all the passages against it in which 
 baptizein is coupled with onovia, (Matt. 28 : 19 ; Acts 2 : 38 ; 10 : 48; 
 19:5; 1 Cor. 1 : 1 3) — but is based simply on the ethical conscious- 
 ness of that intimate appertaining to Christ, into which baptism 
 translates its recipients." 
 
 He distinctly teaches, therefore, that this baptism is a spiritual 
 operation, the giving of the Holy Spirit and bringing us into fellow- 
 ship with Christ thereby, but not an imitation of a burial. And 
 this is the very view I presented. He does say, farther on, as my 
 opponent read, that the candidate in ritual baptism is reminded of the 
 fellowship when he is immersed, but he distinctly teaches that it is 
 a spiritual fellowship efiected by Divine grace. If a baptism in water 
 can do this, then perhaps Meyer is to be understood as my opponent 
 would have us believe, but I claim that it is the baptism of the Spirit 
 which brings us into this relation with Christ and gives us fellowship 
 with Him in His death which was by crucifixion and not by drowning; 
 and his own illustrious witness, Meyer, teaches the same thing. 
 Paul says in first Corinthians 12 : 13, "For by one Spirit are we all 
 baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we 
 be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 
 We will take another quotation. Dr. Robinson says : "The Romans 
 8 
 
114 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 did not bury, but burn their dead, so that no fair reasoning on the 
 form of baptism can be drawn from the mode of burying the dead in 
 England." 
 
 [Mr. Wilkinson at this point exhibited a diagram (see cut on 
 opposite page), which he explained as follows :] 
 
 This arch represents Christianity, with Christ as the key-stone. 
 These are two great pillars supporting, as it were, the fabric. That 
 is intended to represent to you the idea that there are two great 
 central truths in human redemption, that include the whole thing, 
 and no matter what truth you may name in connection with the 
 redemption of man, it is included in one or the other of these central 
 truths. The one is atonement ; the other is regeneration. When 
 man sinned he broke God's law, and that brought him under the 
 curse and penalty of the law ; but it did more, it brought him under 
 the curse of a depraved nature. God, in redeeming man, therefore, 
 must provide for the demands of the law by the atonement, and for 
 the renewal of the nature by the operation of Divine grace in man. 
 These truths being spiritual were invisible to man, and because of 
 their great importance God has kept them before the world, in out- 
 ward rites, from a very early period. What were those outward 
 rites 1 The passover under the old dispensation represented the 
 atonement. Circumcision under the old dispensation represented 
 renewal. Under the new dispensation the Lord's Supper represents 
 atonement and baptism renewal. When you look at the shadows 
 cast by these pillar truths, you get a correct and vivid impression 
 as to the nature and meaning of the truths themselves. But when 
 you use these shadows, or symbols, to represent other truths than 
 God intended, you fail to get a correct impression as to the truths 
 themselves, and hence fail to profit by the teaching of these sym- 
 bols. And this is just what my opponent is doing, and what he 
 will persist in doing to the end. He has tlie Lord's Supper and bap- 
 tism both representing the atonement. Every time baptism is made 
 to represent the atonement its divine force is destroyed, and a great 
 truth that God wants to get into our hearts through that ordinance is 
 turned aside and rendered worthless, and by this immersion-burial 
 business a blow is struck at the very foundation of our holy Christi- 
 anity, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ being substituted 
 for the work of the Divine Spirit. When we are regenerated we are 
 baptized into Christ and into His death, but not in a sense to sym- 
 bolize, or dram;itize either Christ, or His death, or His burial. The 
 baptismal process is designed to symbolize the work of the Spirit only. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 115 
 
 and the Lord's Supper to symbolize Christ's death, or the atonement 
 only ; and when we put the one ordinance in the place of the other we 
 vitiate the teachings of God's Woi*d. They are as distinct from each 
 other as day and night. If any man can overturn that position he 
 is a better man than my present opponent. I have shown that Meyer 
 and Robinson hold substantially the same view as I have presented. 
 Dr. Dale says on this point : 
 
 "A false interpretation once taught, that the words of Scripture 
 meant all that could be put into them, the theory adopts this prin- 
 ciple in its interpretation of ritual baptism. Out of the elements 
 entering into this ordinance are selected as symbolic, the water, the 
 believer, and the double action of putting into and taking out of." 
 Again he says: "The water appears in three offices: 1, of a grave; 
 2, of a womb ; 3, of the blood of Christ. As a grave the living 
 •believer' is put into it: (1.) As dead with Christ; (2.) As dead by 
 natural death ; (3.) As the old man, dead, to be buried and to be left 
 in the grave. And he is taken out of the grave : (1.) As risen with 
 Christ; (2.) As risen at Christ's second coming ; (3.) As risen ' a new 
 man' to holy living. This would seem to be enough of symbolization 
 for one transaction. It is, however, only the beginning. The water 
 must, again, appear in a wholly new office, that of a womb. The 
 interpretation, here, is not so complex but is more perplexed ; since 
 the putting into the water and the taking out of the water are both 
 represented as a birth." Thus Dr. Dale exhibits the absurdity of this 
 interpretation. My opponent says I am alone in my end of the scale. 
 I shall have illustrious company before we get to the end of this 
 debate. 
 
 A moment with respect to that jailer. The record says he took 
 them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and he 
 was baptized and all his house. If he took them out to some distant 
 river or pond, he took them out to wash their stripes. Did he need 
 to take them to a river to wash their stripes 1 Might he not have 
 done that somewhere in the jail, or in the back room of his house ? 
 The record nowhere says lie took them out of the house. They were 
 in the "inner prison," and he brought them out of that into the outer 
 prison. Then he took them — probably to a wash-room — and washed 
 their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. A great 
 deal is said by my opponent about the jailer's taking them out of 
 the house and bringing them back again, just as though the jail and 
 the house were half a mile apart. I never saw them that distance 
 apart in this country ; I do not know how it was in Judea, I pre- 
 
116 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 sume they were in the same building, and that the prisoners could 
 be easily taken from the one to the other without being taken out of 
 the enclosure. What is the use of raising difficulties where there are 
 none, for the sake of resisting the force of an argunient ? 
 
 A word with regard to Naaman's case. Dr. Young, author of the 
 greatest concordance of the present day, of which Spurgeon said that 
 Oruden's was as child's play in comparison, translates the word tahlial 
 "to moisten, besprinkle." If there were time I could bring plenty of 
 authorities to show that such was the primary meaning of the word, 
 but I cannot enlarge on that point at ])resent. 
 
 . My opponent's argument about the baptism of the priests, and the 
 analogy which he has pointed out between it and the baptism of 
 Christ, very clearly proves the correctness of my position, that 
 Christ's baptism was a consecration to the priesthood. But he has 
 not proved, nor can he prove, that any priest was ever immersed at 
 the door of the tabernacle. They were washed (Hebrew, rachats ; 
 Greek, louo), but neither of these words express or imply the idea of 
 immersion, therefore there is no proof either that the Levitical priests 
 or our Lord were immersed. 
 
 [T'ime expired.^ 
 
 MR. HARDING'S NINTH SPEECH. 
 
 Wherever my friend finds the word " sprinkle " he brings it in. 
 But, unfortunately for his cause, he does not find that baptizo is ever 
 defined to sprinkle. He has not even brought the " extracts " from 
 lexicons that define it to sprinkle. At first he "guessed" he could 
 find, such lexicons ; then, feeling the need of more boldness, he hotly 
 affirmed that he could find them, but said he would take his own time 
 about it ; he would not be driven. He has not produced the book yet, 
 nor will he. It don't exist. I grant you that a great many scholars 
 agree with him in preaching affusion ; that a great many agree with him 
 in arguing that " the jailer was baptized in the house, and therefore 
 must have been baptized by affusion ; " they think it is " hardly possible 
 that the three thousand were immersed ; " but not one single lexico- 
 grapher will say that baptizo means to sprinkle ; not one scholar of 
 world-wide fame will say, as he does, that affusion or aspersion was 
 practiced in ajjostolic times, and that immersion is of post-apostolic 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 117 
 
 origin — an outgrowth of superstition and ignorance. Church historians 
 may argue in favor of affusion, may evidently be favorable to the 
 practice of it ; but when it comes to testifying to a matter of fact, there 
 is not one of them who does not testify that immersion was almost 
 universally practiced in the ancient Church ; not one of them who 
 mentions an earlier case of affusion than that of Novation, A.D. 251. 
 
 Referring to my books, Mr. Wilkinson said that he had left his 
 lexicons at home for his wife to read while he was away. The next 
 time there is to be a debate, instead of sending for Mr. Wilkinson, 
 our pajdo-baptist friends would do better to send for his wife, as she 
 has the books. 
 
 He says I do better after a rest. I should like to return the com- 
 pliment, but I honestly believe he does worse every time. 
 
 With respect to Dr. Dale's theory : Dipping into water is not 
 Christian baptism. No man that I know of has ever so held. The 
 Doctor need not have stopped with the first thousand years ; he might 
 have said. No man has ever held, at any time, that mere dipping into 
 water is Christian baptism. No, as I told you in a former speech, 
 [my fourth], we do not hold that " immersion alone is Christian 
 baptism, but simply that the word baptizo, wherever you find it, 
 whether used in regard to Christian baptism or anything else, means 
 to immerse. Christian baptism is immersion by the authority of 
 Christ, and into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As 
 baptizo means to immerse, and not to sprinkle nor to pour upon, in 
 New Testament times every baptism was an immersion, whether 
 Jewish, Christian, or pagan. I do not hold that every immersion is 
 Christian baptism ; but I do claim that every Christian baptism is an 
 immersion. Let my friend consider the difference between these two 
 statements. 
 
 T have shown that the scholars of the world say that immersion 
 was practiced in ancient times — though aff'usion began to be practiced 
 with the sick at an early day. I have brought forward such authori- 
 ties as Dr. Wall and Dean Stanley, who testify that the Greek 
 Church has practiced it all through the ages, even to this day ; but, 
 since my opponent calls for scholars, I will read from Tertullian, who 
 lived and wrote A.D. 200 ; that is, about one hundred years after the 
 apostle John died. He says, quoting Rom. 6 : 3 : — " Know ye not 
 that so many of us as were immersed into Christ Jesus, were im- 
 mersed into His death 1 " Tertullian On the Resurrection of the 
 Body, ch. 47. 
 
 A few lines further on he adds ; " For by an image we die in bap- 
 
118 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 tism ; but we truly rise in the flesh, as did also Christ." Again he 
 says, speaking of the Saviour's command : " And last of all, com- 
 manding that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit." TertulUan Against Praxeas, ch. 26. 
 
 Referring to trine immersion, he says : " Then we are three times 
 immersed, answering somewhat more than the Lord prescribed in the 
 gospel." TertulUan On the Soldier^ Crown, ch. 3. 
 
 In telling what Christian baptism is, he says: "As of baptism 
 itself there is a bodily act, that we are immersed in water ; a spiritual 
 eflfect, that we are freed from sins." TertulUan On Baptism, ch. 7. 
 
 Remember, this man was born about the middle of the second cen- 
 tury (A.D. 150), and that he wrote within 100 years after the days of 
 inspiration. Even " clinic baptism " by aflfusion had not begun then, 
 and hence he says nothing about it. He simply says, " We are im- 
 mersed ;" Christ commanded " that they should immerse," etc. 
 
 Ambrose (Bishop of Milan, born about 340 A.D.,) says: "Thou 
 wast asked, ' Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty 1 ' Thou 
 saidst, ' I believe ;' and thou didst sink down, that is, wast buried." 
 Ambrose On the Sacraments, Book II. ch. 7. 
 
 The same writer (Book III. ch. 1, sec. 1) says : "Yesterday we dis- 
 coursed respecting the font, whose appearance is, as it were, a form 
 of sepulchre ; into which, believing in the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit, we are received and submerged, and rise, that is, are 
 restored to life." 
 
 If this is not teaching that Christian baptism is immersion, it is 
 getting pretty close to it ; — he whose heart has been changed by faith 
 is immersed into the holy names by the authority of Christ. 
 
 My friend would like to get some help from H. A. W. Meyer, the 
 greatest of all New Testament commentators, and hence he continues 
 to quote from him on Rom. 6 : 3, 4. But Meyer has no comfort for 
 him, as the following statements clearly show. He says {Commentary 
 on Eo7nans, ch. 6, V. 4): "The recipient— thus has Paul figuratively 
 represented the process — is conscious, (a) in the baptism generally: 
 now am I entering into fellowship with tlie d'.athoi Christ; {h) in the 
 immersion in particular : now am I becoming buried with Christ; (c) 
 and then, in the emergence : now I rise to the new life with Christ." 
 He says (commenting on verse 3) : " In baptism man receives forgive- 
 ness of sins through faith." Evidently INIr. Wilkinson and Dr. Meyer 
 are on different sides of this question clear through. 
 
 I have not said that every scholar is with me ; l)ut I do affirm that 
 the great body of the scholarship of the world is with me in this, viz.. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 119 
 
 in teaching that, in commanding baptism, Christ used a woi'd which 
 means to immerse, and that the apostles and first Christians did 
 immerse in obeying the command. Remember Schalf's testimony 
 concerning "all commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge)" on 
 Rom. 6 : 4. In his History of the Christian Church, Vol. I., p. 123, 
 he teaches that the usual form of the act was immersion, and that 
 this is plain from the original meaning of the words baptizo and 
 baptismos ; then he adds : " But sprinkling, also, or copious pouring, 
 was practiced at an early day with sick and dying persons, and prob- 
 ably with children and others, where total or partial immersion was 
 impracticable. Some writers suppose that this was the case even in 
 the first baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, since 
 Jerusalem, especially in summer, was very poorly supplied with water 
 and private baths." 
 
 Observe the testimony of this greatest of all living Church historians 
 as to affusion. He says it was practiced at an early day, where total 
 or partial immersion was impracticable, with sick and dying persons, 
 and probably with children and others. Although his church con- 
 nection, early training, and social influences all tend to bias him in 
 favor of affusion or aspersion, this is the most that he can say for it. 
 I can say exactly that much for it myself. 
 
 My opponent is very much exercised about the case of the jailer, 
 although he brought it up himself. I would not have referred to this 
 case at all but for the fact that he, and others on his side, rely on it 
 to show that the jailer could not have been immersed, seeing, they 
 say, that he was baptized in the house. From a careful reading of 
 the passage (Acts 16 : 19-39) it clearly appeared that he did take 
 them out of the house, and was baptized, and then brought them back ; 
 then my friend made quite a speech to show, (notwithstanding the 
 testimony of Luke was clear to the contrary), that the jailer could 
 not have taken the prisoners out, for he would have been risking his 
 life. It was then shown that he was in no danger unless his prisoners 
 escaped, which they were not disposed to do; Paul and Silas did not 
 want to run away. They could have been sprinkled in the house ; but 
 they could not have been immersed there ; therefore, though it was 
 the hour of midnight, they went out. 
 
 My friend says he is full of matter. He intimated that he had 
 been studying this subject for months; and he says he only wishes we 
 could have three months of this sort of thing. Well, there is nothing 
 that I know of to hinder our going on till Mr. Wilkinson is satisfied. 
 I am willing. But, he says, if you think he has run out of matter, 
 
120 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 just give him a week when the debate is over, and he will show you. 
 He could go on for a whole week by himself ! No doubt of it ; and 
 he would do a great deal better, too, having it all to himself, than 
 he is now doing. But let not my friend flatter himself that any such 
 good fortune is awaiting him ; for I don't intend to go till he does ; I 
 will stay here till this time next year, if he does, if I have to send for 
 my family to come up. When he was sent for last summer to come 
 up and demolish my teaching, by lecturing on baptism, I stayed till 
 he left ; and I intend to do so again. This Kentuckian likes to be 
 with Canadians ; they have been very kind to him ; and this is a 
 grand country ; so he is not going to leave till he knows that Mr. 
 Wilkinson has gone — unless they go by the same train. We might 
 have a debate right along as long as we stay. If there is anything I 
 enjoy it is debating, even though there is a little row occasionally, 
 which, however, I do not like. 
 
 My friend quotes : " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
 body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; 
 and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." — 1 Cor. 12:13, 
 Just so ; all Christians are baptized by one Spirit (the Holy Spirit), 
 into one body (the Church, which is the body of Christ). But the 
 question arises, How are they thus baptized 1 It is also true that the 
 gospel is preached "by the Holy Ghost sent forth from heaven." 
 How is it thus preached 1 The Holy Spirit came down to earth, and 
 entered into men, into the apostles of our Lord ; and through them 
 He preached ; Jesus said to them : ■" It is not ye that speak, but the 
 Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." — Matt. 10:20. The 
 Holy Ghost preached through men; just so He baptized; that is, 
 through men. When the apostles baptized, they did it under the 
 command, and according to the instructions of the Holy Spirit. And 
 just so it is now. When baptism is properly performed, it is done 
 under the command and according to the instructions of the Spirit 
 of God, as they are revealed in the Holy Word of God. Hence the 
 question. What does the word baptizo, which the Spirit used in giving 
 the command, mean 1 is one of superlative importance; for if we do 
 anything else, the baptism is not of the Spirit. When Christ com- 
 manded His apostles to go into all the world to preach to the people, 
 and to baptize them. He did not permit them to start at once; He 
 directed them to wait till they had received the promise of the Father, 
 till they had been endued with power from on high ; for the preach- 
 ing and the baptizing were to be by the Spirit, and, of course, they 
 could not do the work till they had received the Spirit. But the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 121 
 
 baptism of the commission (about wliicli we are debating) is not, as 
 my opponent seems to think, baptism in the Holy Ghost ; it is bap- 
 tism in water. Jesus did not direct Hisdisciples to go about baptiz- 
 ing people with the Holy Ghost ; Philip did not baptize the eunuch 
 in the Holy Ghost, but in water, down into which they both went. 
 Christ Himself performs the baptism in the Spirit ; that is His 
 business, not ours. According to the gospel rule, after men were 
 baptized in water Cln'ist gave them the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Just here I want to call attention to another matter. It is some- 
 times said that water-baptism should represent baptism in the Spirit ; 
 that as the Spirit was " poured out " upon the apostles, " shed forth " 
 upon them, that therefore the water should be poured, or shed forth, 
 upon the people now in baptizing them. If it could be shown that 
 the act of pouring constituted the baptism in the Spirit, I grant you 
 there would be much force in this argument. But did it % Dr. 
 Ditzler, the most distinguished Methodist divine on this continent as 
 a debater, made an argument like this : If Christ had wanted to 
 teach immersion, why did He not teach if? " The Greek," says the 
 Doctor, "has words for dip, both partial and thorough dips — t/»p<o 
 and embapto, hapto — not once are they used for baptism, nor kolumbo. 
 In Greek pontidzo, enduno [another form of enduri], buthuizo, kata- 
 pontidzo, kataduno, all mean deiinitely to immerse." — G raves- DitzJer 
 Debate, p. 171. The word enduo, which Dr. Ditzler says means to 
 immerse, definitely to immerse, is the very word which our Lord used 
 when He said, " And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon 
 you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with 
 power from on high." — Luke 24 : 49. They were endued with power 
 from on high when the Spirit came upon them ; that is, according to 
 the great Methodist, Dr. Ditzler, they were immersed, as this word 
 means definitely to immerse. It is the Greek word to indicate put- 
 ting on the clothes. When the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles 
 there came from heaven the sound of a rushing, mighty wind. (There 
 was no wind, but the Spirit in descending made a sound like unto 
 that of a mighty wind.) It filled all the room in which they sat ; 
 cloven tongues, like as of fire, sat upon each of them ; they were all 
 filled with the Holy Ghost, endued with power, and they began to 
 speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Dr. 
 Ditzler says endued means immersed ; very good. In this case, then, 
 there was both a pouring out of the Spirit and an immersion in the 
 Spirit. Which is called the baptism 1 Evidently the immersion ; 
 for baj}tizo means to immerse, as all the lexicographers state ; whereas 
 
122 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 it never means to pour upon. This idea of immersion in the Spirit 
 harmonizes with the sayings of the apostles, too, in other places. 
 Observe the following: " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." — 
 Rev. 1:10; " And immediately I was in the Spirit." — Rev. 4:2; 
 " So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness." — Rev. 17:3; 
 " But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit 
 of God dwell in you."— Rom. 8:9; " If we live in the Spirit, let us 
 also walk in the Spirit." — Gal. 5 : 25 The apostles were in the 
 Spirit ; that is, they were immersed. Do you inquire how that can 
 be 1 The Bible represents the body as being a tabernacle or dwelling- 
 place. Man is dwelling in this tabernacle; and if it is filled with 
 the Holy Spirit, he is in the Spirit — immersed in the Holy Spirit. 
 
 In order to show you that I am not alone in giving this interpreta- 
 tion, but that it is supported by the best scholarship of the world, I 
 quote the following : 
 
 Dr. Edward Robinson, in his Greek lexicon of the New Testament, 
 art. hap. p. 118, says : " ^o baptize in (with) the Holy Ghost, and in 
 (with) fire, i.e., to overwhelm, richly furnish, with all spiritual gifts, 
 and to overwhelm with 'fire unquenchable,' Matt. 3:11, Luke 3 : 16." 
 
 Dr. Geo. Campbell, Presbyterian, of Scotland, says: "The word 
 baptism, both in sacred authors and classical, signifies to dip,- plunge, 
 immerse. It is always construed suitably to this meaning." '■'■Notes 
 on New Testament" Andover, Vol. II., p. 20. 
 
 Neander, whose great work we have had occasion to quote before, 
 says : " Baptism was performed by immersion as a sign of entire 
 baptism into the Holy Spirit — ^of being entirely penetrated by the 
 same." History of Christian Religion, Vol. I , p. 310. 
 
 Casaubon says : " To baptize is to immerse, and in this sense the 
 apostles are truly said to be baptized ; for the house in which it was 
 done was filled with the Holy Gho.st, so that the apostles seemed to 
 be plunged into it as into a fish pool." R. Fuller, p. 72. 
 
 Gurtlerus, in his Institut. llieo., says: "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, immersed into 
 Him." See R. Fuller, p. 19. 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson, on Acts 2:2, says: "It (the sound from 
 heaven) filled all the house. This is that which our Saviour calls 
 baptizing with the J/o'y Ghost. So that they who sat in the house 
 were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost, as those who are 
 buried with water, which is the proper notion of baptism." 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, A. D. 350, says : " As lie who is plunged 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 123 
 
 in the water and baptized is encompassed by the water on every side, 
 SO they that are baptized by the Holy Spirit are also wholly covered." 
 Pengilly, p. 75. Remember, this Cyril lived in the very city where 
 this baptism occurred, was the principal leader of the Church there, 
 and that, too, only about three centuries after the baptism happened. 
 
 These scholars, you see, my friends, sustain my position. It is not 
 the pouring forth of the Spirit, but the immersion in the Spirit that 
 is called the baptism. 
 
 My friend read a passage in his last speech to show that the baptism 
 mentioned at Rom. 6 : 4, is not water baptism, but that of the Holy 
 Spirit. In that baptism it is expressly stated that we were buried, 
 — buried by baptism : if that is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, then 
 in it there is a burial ; and this agrees exactly with what Dr. Ditzler 
 says about the meaning of enduo ; exactly with the teaching of the 
 apostles, when they write of being in the Spirit, of walking in the 
 Spirit, of living in the Spirit ; they were overwhelmed and immersed 
 in the Spirit. 
 
 With respect to the chart which my friend has displayed, he has 
 told us that he does not make any great pretension to scholar- 
 ship, and consequently he could not reasonably expect me to pay much 
 attention to his chart. He has displayed such a lack of information 
 about the simplest matters of fact, I cannot rely upon his productions. 
 For example, he thought the water of separation was made of blood, 
 ashes, and running water. When I explained the passage in Ezekiel 
 abou^ sprinkling clean water, by saying that God here promised that 
 the scattered Israelites should be brought back to their native land, 
 and be purified by having the water of separation sprinkled upon 
 them, he said he did not believe the Jews would ever be brought 
 back ; he did not know that they were brought back forty or fifty 
 years after the prophecy was uttered by Ezekiel. He said that 
 Liddell and Scott's was the only Greek-English lexicon ; that all others 
 define in Latin or some other tongue ; and that, therefore, I was safe in 
 saying that none define by " sprinkle," seeing that is an English word. 
 He did not know that I had lying on my table here nearly a dozen 
 Greek-English lexicons, and that I had been quoting from them. It 
 would be unreasonable to expect that I should care much for his maps 
 and charts ; but I do care for his Scriptural quotations. He constructs 
 an argument by his chart from the Passover, the slaying of the paschal 
 lamb, and the deliverance of the children of Israel. The facts in 
 this case are these : the lamb was slain, its blood was sprinkled, its 
 flesh eaten ; then the children of Israel arose and fled, and, after three 
 
124 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 days' journey, came to the Red Sea ; here they were baptized unto 
 Moses " in the cloud and in the sea ;" and here they caufjht the last 
 sight of their enemies, for they left them drowned in the sea. 
 
 The lamb that was slain, and whose blood was sprinkled, was a 
 type of Christ ; their baptism unto Moses, a type of our baptism into 
 Christ ; the blood was sprinkled ; but in their baptism the cloud was 
 over them, and the sea on either side of them ; they were buried " in 
 the cloud and in the sea." We pass through the water, are buried in 
 it, and are thus baptized into Christ. 
 
 [^Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S NINTH REPLY. 
 
 My opponent said there was not a single case under the old dispen- 
 sation where God ever commanded or enjoined the sprinkling of clean 
 water on any one. I quoted Ezekiel 36 : 25, in which it speaks of 
 sprinkling clean water. He has frequently said that that referred 
 to the restoration of the Jews ; that when they were brought back 
 to their native land that prophecy would be fulfilled. I then proved 
 that as God had blotted out all religious distinctions between Jews 
 and Gentiles, their restoration would not be literal, but spiritual, con- 
 sisting in their conversion to Christianity, and that then this prophecy 
 would be fulfilled. He then claimed that it was fulfilled 530 years 
 B.C. But if it happened away back there, why did he say God never 
 ■commanded any one under the old dispensation to sprinkle clean water 1 
 He will please reconcile this discrepancy. A man who can thus con- 
 tradict himself must be getting childish. He will soon require a 
 nursing-liottle. 
 
 With respect to Tertullian's testimony. My opponent quotes from 
 him to the effect that in baptism there is a bodily act and a spiritual 
 effect. This is substantially what I have been contending for all the 
 time, viz., an action, any action by which a certain effect may be pro- 
 duced. That effect is, according to my theory, symbolic purity, and 
 it is the effect and not the action by which it is produced that consti- 
 tutes the baptism. With this teaching Tertuliian agrees. And if 
 there was a bodily act and a spiritual effect required in order to a 
 baptism, then the bodily act of being put under water was not the 
 whole of it. There is something else besides, and tliat is the spiritual 
 effect. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 125 
 
 But this does not agree with the primary signification of baptizo^ 
 wliich had no reference to any particular action, but was the name of 
 a state or condition produced by some action. And I have contended 
 that it is used in the secondary sense when applied to the Christian 
 ordinance, viz., an action looking to some effect. And so says Tertullian. 
 Therefore this witness agrees with me and not with my opponent. But 
 Tertullian's testimony betrays his erroneous belief in another respect. 
 I have told you that this whole immersion business is a superstition. 
 I will now tell you where it originated. Under the old dispensation 
 ceremonial purifications were cleansings in a legal sense, not in an 
 actual or real sense. They did not propose to wash dirt off the people^ 
 but there were certain classes of things that were legally unclean and 
 others that were legally clean. That distinction was kept up until 
 the sheet from heaven came down to Peter, or the beginning of the 
 Christian dispensation. When anything legally clean came in contact 
 with anything legally unclean it had to be legally purified, and 
 purification removed that legal defilement. The Jews who embraced 
 Christianity in the early days of this dispensation carried that idea 
 with them and applied it to Christian baptism. Baptisms under the 
 law made them actually clean in the eyes of the law ; and they 
 thought, "Now, surely this Christian rite, typified by those old 
 ceremonial purifications, must cleanse us really, also, not only in body 
 but also in our soul." And they began to believe that the soul could 
 be washed from its sin by this baptism. When they thus got to believe 
 that the soul was cleansed from sin by baptism they began to adminis- 
 ter the ordinance by the superstitious mode, which my friend claims 
 is according to Bible doctrine. They found it taught in Genesis that 
 the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. They believed 
 in this way spiritual efficacy was imparted to the waters, and they 
 called that spiritual efficacy vis baptismatis. Then they taught that 
 because of the presence of the Spirit in the water, when applied to the 
 body, it purged the soul from sin. And this was the doctrine of 
 Tertullian. He says : "The nature of the waters having been sanctified 
 by the Holy, it receives itself the power to sanctify. . . , All waters, 
 therefore, have the power to effect the sacrament of sanctification, 
 God being invoked. For immediately the Spirit from heaven comes 
 and is above the waters sanctifying them by Himself, and so they, 
 being sanctified, imbibe the power of sanctifying, .... there- 
 fore, the waters having received healing virtues through the interven- 
 tion of the Angel, both the soul is corporeally purified by the waters 
 and the body is spiritually cleansed by the same." According 
 
126 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 to these early fathers it was not the putting of the individual in the 
 water, nor the putting of the water on the individual that constituted 
 the baptism, but it was the communication of the Spirit by reason of 
 the application of water to the body that purilied the soul, and that 
 was Christian baptism according to their notions. Tertullian is no 
 authority, therefore, on the question of mode ; but he testifies to my 
 contention that it was a bodily act resulting in an effect. When they 
 began to cherish this superstition about the Spirit being in the water, 
 and cleansing the soul, they then had to determine how the desired 
 result could be most effectually realized. They naturally reasoned 
 that if the Spirit was in the water, and communicated by the contact 
 of the water with the body, the less there was to interfere with that 
 contact the better. Supposing that the clothing would be an obstacle 
 to such contact they said, " Off with the coat." No one knew where the 
 sin might be situated, whether in the head or the heart or all through 
 the body. The doctrine of natural depravity was one that applied to 
 every part of man, so they said, " Pants off, too." (A voice, " Shame ! ") 
 Don't cry " Shame " at me. I am here to establish the truth, and I shall 
 not allow any false sense of delicacy to stand between me and my 
 duty. It's a fact that they stripped themselves bare. And as far back 
 as my opponent can prove immersion I can prove nude immersion. 
 They baptized — excuse me, ladies — men, women, and children, nude, 
 and there is no fact better established in history than that the baptism 
 of the early Church was nude baptism. Why did they do it? Because 
 of that Spirit power and efficacy that was in the water, which they 
 thought effected a cleansing and regeneration, and that is why they 
 talk about being buried in the Spirit. If my opponent quotes ten 
 thousand million of those early fathers to prove that when a person is 
 baptized he is immersed in the Spirit, you can now easily understand 
 it. Immersionists now-a-days immerse with their clothes on, and 
 sometimes with india-rubber water-tight garments at that ; but I 
 think my opponent has a little of the ancient superstition remaining. 
 He has not established from these fathers that a dipping in water is 
 Christian baptism. Was it dipping in water accompaniei by the 
 Spirit that they believed was Christian baptism ? No. Neither was it 
 the water immersion that effected baptism ; it was the Spirit, com- 
 municated through the water as a medium that effected the work. 
 That was baptism according to the early fathers. That superstition 
 you can trace back to the very door of the Apostolic Church, and the 
 whole immersion business was born, bred, and nurtured there, and 
 when that superstition gets out of men's minds the whole immersion 
 fabric will be demolished. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 127 
 
 My opponent again refers to Meyer. He quotes from that writer to 
 show that the candidate is conscious of the fellowship when he goes 
 into the water and comes out ; but he cannot quote Meyer to show 
 that this was a symbol of burial and resurrection. And this is what 
 he teaches. But the question is, whether it is a spiritual baptism or 
 a mere dipping in water that is meant in Rom. 6 : 3, 4 and Col. 2:12. 
 I contend for the former, and Meyer agrees with me, as I have proved. 
 So much for another of his witnesses. 
 
 As to the jailer and the midnight baptism. It is quite a common 
 thing for some people to believe in midnight baptisms. Here is 
 another case which my opponent can put with the jailer's baptism. 
 At one time the Jews were invested by the army of the Assyrians. 
 The Jews were entrenched in the fortress of Bethulia, and we are told 
 in Judith 6:11 that the fountains of water were "under Bethulia," and 
 in chapter 7 that Holofernes, the commander of the invading army, 
 took possession of the fountains, and in verse 17 of the the same chap- 
 ter we are told that " they pitched in the valley, and took the waters, 
 and the fountains of the children of Israel." (An army march- 
 ing must have water). A beautiful Jewess by the name of Judith 
 undertook to betray the opposing army into the hands of the Jews. 
 She went into the camp of the invading army as if she were a refugee 
 coming there for succour. They took her into the camp. The 
 Assyrian general was very much attracted by her beauty. The 
 record runs : 
 
 " She slept till midnight, and she arose when it was towards the 
 morning watch, 'and sent to Holofernes, saying : Let my lord now 
 command that thine handmaid may go forth unto prayer. 
 
 " Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not stay 
 her: thus she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the night 
 unto the valley of Bethulia, and washed (Greek, haptizo) herself in the 
 camp 'at the fountain.'" (Dr. Conant's rendering). These fountains of 
 water were valuable to the Israelites. They needed them, doubtless, 
 for cooking and drinking. The invading army took possession and cut 
 off" the Israelites from them. This lady goes out by night and baptizes 
 herself in the camp at the fountain. Perhaps my opponent will tell 
 you it was an immersion. Do you think they would allow such a thing, 
 or that a lady would go and dip herself, head, neck and feet, in the 
 fountain from which the army were constantly drawing water for their 
 own use? Can you believe if? It is very nearly as likely as that the 
 whole family of the Philippian jailer were taken out at midnight to 
 some distant river and immersed. If it was the law of the land that 
 
128 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 if a prisoner escaped the jailer's life should be sacrificed, it must have 
 been contrary to law to take prisoners out of prison. No matter what 
 personal faith he might liave in their integrity, he had no right to 
 let them outside the prison. It is not a question of personal faith. 
 He was there as custodian of the prisoners on behalf of the people, 
 and whatever confidence he might have in the prisoners he must 
 observe the law. Yet these are the kind of probabilities, or rather 
 improbabilities on which the immersion theory is founded. Surely 
 a cause that is driven to such straits as these must be in a forlorn 
 condition ! 
 
 My opponent says the Gospel was preached by the Holy Spirit, 
 and therefore baptism by the Holy Spirit was efiected in the same 
 way. Is that the inference he intended to convey 1 The apostles 
 were baptized by the Spirit before they dared to preach the Gospel. 
 They were told to remain in Jerusalem until they were endued with 
 power from on high by the baptism of the Spirit, and then being bap- 
 tized themselves, the Spirit being in them, they should go forth and 
 preach the Gospel to others. The baptism of the Spirit is spoken of 
 as a very distinct spiritual operation upon the individual, and not 
 through the agency of the individual, who acts in obedience to His 
 instructions, and is spoken of invariably as a pouring out or shedding 
 down of the Holy Spirit. But according to my opponent's theory 
 the Spirit does not baptize any one since the days of the apostles ; it 
 merely baptizes people in water, by means of some person. This is a 
 new way of being baptized with the Holy Ghost ! The baptism of the 
 Spirit is referred to by the apostles. Paul says, We are saved " by the 
 washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost wliich 
 He shed on us abundantly." So when Peter saw the Holy Spirit 
 descending upon the Gentiles who were gathered together at the liouse 
 of Cornelius, he was reminded of the baptism they had received at 
 the beginning. As co the burial, Rom. 6 : 4. My opponent says 
 it represents the baptism of the Holy Spirit by being immersed in it. 
 That is purely begging the question. I am not going to haggle over that 
 sort of evidence. As I understand it, and as a great many Christians 
 understand it, the Holy Spirit pervades a man; it does not go inside 
 the body and around the soul. It breathes in liis every action ; it 
 controls his thouglits, motives, desires, impulses, affections. This idea 
 of the soul being immersed within the body is a superstitious and 
 contemptible notion that has been put forward by my opponent. He 
 got it from the " ofiice editor " at Cincinnati, who used it in his argu- 
 ment with Dr. Watson at Tonawanda, and I am astonished that he 
 should have brought it before an intelligent audience. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 129 
 
 Dr. Wall is quoted to prove that at the time King James' 
 translation was made very few children were dipped. What has that 
 to do with the question 1 I said Alexander Campbell admitted that 
 our present version was made by men who favored immersion. My 
 opponent does not deny it ; he cannot deny it, unless he goes back on 
 his own father. He has taunted me a good deal about going back on 
 my father Wesley. Alexander Campbell is as much his father as Wesley 
 is my father. They stand in the same relation to us exactly. What 
 does Campbell say 1 He says : 
 
 "The translators of the common version were all, or nearly all, 
 genuine Episcopalians, and, at the very time they made the version, 
 were accustomed to use a liturgy which made it the minister's duty, in 
 the sacrament of baptism, 'to take the child and dip it in the water' con- 
 tained in the font. I have seen copies of King James' version, printed 
 in 1611, which contain the psalms and the service of the Church, in 
 which frequent allusions are made to immersion, all indicative of the 
 fact that it was then regarded as the primitive and proj^er baptism ; 
 consequently, these translators accepted the king's appointment and 
 restrictions, to retain baptize and baptism, and on no occasion favored 
 the innovation of sprinkling by any rendering, or note marginal, in 
 that translation." Christian Baptism, p. 140. 
 
 I want him to deny that Campbell said that. I do not care whether 
 he said it or not, only I want to know if my opponent is prepared 
 to go back on his father. If not, he has got to admit that the men 
 who made King James' version leaned to the immersion theory. 
 
 With respect to louo, washing of the body — does it follow that it 
 means the dipping of the body ? In his references to what Paul calls 
 " divers baptisms," my opponent speaks of washings which were per- 
 formed outside the tabernacle, not inside. But suppose those bathings 
 were the baptisms of Paul, is a bathing of the body necessarily an immer- 
 sion of the body 1 Is a washing an immersion 1 If he can prove that 
 bathing or washing is necessarily an immersion, then he can prove that 
 rachats, louo and all those words mean immerse. I said the word 
 taval was translated the first time it ever occurred in the Bible — in 
 Genesis — mohcnein, when Joseph's coat was dipped in blood ; and those 
 who translated it molunein in this case translated it haptizo in 
 Naaman's, though molunein signifies to sprinkle. My opponent said 
 that those men understood their own language. Of course they did ; 
 and if they did not know it, who did 1 And if they were consistent in 
 translating the same word by a word signifying immerse in the one 
 case, and by a word signifying sprinkle in the other case, it implies 
 9 
 
130 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 that immerse means to sprinkle and to sprinkle means to immerse. 
 Tliat would be sprinkle-immersion or immersion-sprinkling. If im- 
 mersion means to wash, then when you whitewash you white-immerse, 
 or immerse-white. Put these thoughts in combination, and you will 
 tind the immersion theory does not hold together. This fact is as clear 
 as a sunbeam, and will always stare you in the face and become more 
 apparent every session of this debate, that the Old Testament is full 
 of ceremonial washings all of which had reference to purification. 
 They did not mean to purify simply, but to purify religiously. To 
 purify simply is to wash off dirt, but to purify religiously is to symbol- 
 ize the washing of the soul by the influence of the Holy Spirit. All 
 those baptisms, whether expressed by sprinkling or washing, whether 
 effected by blood or water, I have no doubt, typified Christian baptism ; 
 and therefore Christian baptism is, like them, a purification ; and the 
 visible element ought to effect the outward cleansing as the invisible 
 power efi^ects the inward cleansing. 
 
 My opponent still harps on my inability to produce a lexicon defin- 
 ing hai)tizo by the word sprinkle, as if my whole cause depended on 
 that; whereas I have told you, from the very first speech, that baptizo 
 does not mean sprinkle, and if any lexicographer so rendered it he 
 would mislead, I contend for sprinkle, not as the meaning of the 
 word, but as the divinely appointed mode of producing the effect de- 
 scribed by it. What object can he have in view by such haggling, 
 except to raise a dust and divert attention from the real question 1 
 Besides, I have told you that the lexicographers sometimes errone- 
 ously define the word by the equivalent of sprinkle, and challenged 
 him to deny it ; but all the denial he could make was that they did 
 not give this equivalent as the first meaning. 
 
 My opponent also persists in misreprt^senting me. He accuses me 
 of saying that 1 have left my books at home with my wife ; and in a 
 previous speech he accused me of saying I had left my extracts at 
 home with my wife, when, in point of fact, all I did say was that I 
 had left Meyer's Commentary at home, not supposing I should 
 require it. 
 
 He also thinks I do worse and worse in every speech. But I ex- 
 pected he would think that. Each successive speech is worse for him, 
 and will continue so to the end. But he seems to be sliifting his 
 base. Doubtless his mind is changing on the subject under debate. 
 He came here to prove that "Christian Baptism is Immersion," — this 
 and nothing more. Now, however, he says, " Dr. Dale need not liave 
 stopped with the first thousand years ; he might have said, ' No man 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 131 
 
 has ever held, at any time, that mere dipping into water is Christian 
 Baptism." He also says he " does not hold that every immersion is 
 Christian baptism." He should have been a little more prudent, 
 therefore, in his definition, for he certainly believes, according to his 
 own proposition, that immersion and Christian baptism are synony- 
 mous ; and if haptizo merely means to immerse, when a thing is 
 immersed it must be baptized. 
 
 Again, my opponent misrepresents my sentiments when he says 
 I think the baptism of the Commission is the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost. I think nothing of the kind. He drew on his imagination 
 for that. 
 
 [ Time expired. '\ 
 
 MR. HARDING'S TENTH SPEECH. 
 
 We are now drawing to the close of the discussion of the first pro- 
 position, and I want to call attention here to a rule which has been 
 one of the rules regulating every discussion in which I have been 
 engaged except this one. This discussion is a little peculiar, from the 
 fact that no rules for the regulation of it have been agreed upon. The 
 rule referred to is this: "No new matter shall be introduced in a 
 final negative." The leading characteristic of a debate is that the 
 matters under consideration are discussed by both parties, considered 
 from both standpoints. Of course, new matter in a final negative can 
 be considered by one speaker only ; hence the rule which I have just 
 quoted has been generally adopted. We have not agreed to it for 
 this debate, and I shall not insist on it to-night. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I agree to it at once. 
 
 Mr. Harding — That is just and fair. No new matter shall be 
 introduced into my last speech on the next proposition. 
 
 Now, concerning my friend's quotation from Alexander Campbell : 
 I have been called upon frequently, in debate, to endorse what he 
 wrote. I accept his writings just as I receive the writings of any 
 other man ; when they accord with the truth — the teachings of the 
 word of God, or the truth of history — I receive them ; when they do 
 not, I reject them. But never, in debate, has a quotation from him 
 been presented to me that I could not endorse ; not in a single in- 
 stance, so far as I can remember. My friend said that King James' 
 
132 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 translators were immersionists ; that Mr. Campbell said that they 
 were ; that they leaned to the immersion theory. I knew he was 
 wrong about that ; I was certain that Mr. Campbell had never said 
 any such thing ; he was too well informed to have made such a 
 blunder. Mr. Wilkinson, in endeavoring to sustain his statement, 
 quoted from him as follows : 
 
 " The translators of the common version were all, or nearly all, 
 genuine Episcopalians, and, at the very time tbey made the version, 
 were accustomed to use a liturgy which made it the minister's duty, in 
 the sacrament of baptism, ' to take the child and dip it in the water ' 
 contained in the font. I have seen copies of King James' version, 
 printed in 1611, which contain the psalms and the service of the 
 Church, in which frequent allusions are made to immersion, all indica- 
 tive of the fact that it was then regarded as the primitive and proper 
 baptism ; consequently these translators accepted the King's appoint- 
 ment and restrictions to retain baptize and baptism, rather than 
 translate them, and on no occasion favored the innovation of sprink- 
 ling by any rendering, or note marginal, in that translation." Camp- 
 hill on Baptism, p. 140. 
 
 But, by a fortunate accident, I understood Mr. Wilkinson to say 
 page 144; I turned to that page, in the first place, and read as 
 follows : 
 
 " Evident, then, it is, not only that the English translators did not 
 even translate haptizo, or its lineage, by the words pour, sprinkle or 
 purify, but that they could not so translate them from their know- 
 ledge of the ancient customs and the classic and sacred use of these 
 terms. 
 
 " Thus, then, we have, by a new, distinct, and independent class of 
 witnesses, of the highest celebrity for eminent literary attainments 
 and for highly cultivated and refined conscientiousness, furnished 
 another argument in proof of our first proposition, which, without 
 regard to any other, would seem sufficient to establish it beyond the 
 possibility of refutation. For, will not that distinguished doctor. 
 Common Sense, whom all believe, naturally conclude tliat so many 
 learned, conscientious, and religious men, having so much at stake 
 themselves, continually sprinkling in the name of the Lord, would, if 
 they could, have given some countenance to their own favorite prac- 
 tice, by translating some one or more of these one hundred and twenty- 
 six occurrences of these terms in a way favorable to their own beloved 
 practice. Certain it is, then, that their practice had some other 
 foundation than the meaning of the word in the apostolic commissiony 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 133 
 
 concerning which foundation we may hereafter speak." Campbell on 
 Baj)tis7n, p. 144. 
 
 In this last extract, Mr. Campbell says of King James' translators 
 that they were " continually sprinkling in the name of the Lord;" 
 and he calls sprinkling " their own favorite practice." So I will not 
 have " to go back" on my father (to adopt the elegant (!) language of my 
 opponent) after all. He did not say that the translators of our com- 
 mon version were immersionists. Nor were they. As I have said, 
 Dr. Wall, the distinguished writer of the History of Infant Baptism, 
 who was a member of the Church of England, and who wrote about 
 180 years ago, plainly teaches that dipping, by the time of the later 
 years of Queen Elizabeth, had very generally gone out of use, and 
 that sprinkling had taken its place. I have heard it said a number 
 of times that King James' translators were immersionists. There 
 never was a greater mistake. They were not. It is a well-established 
 fact that sprinkling had come into general use about that time. 
 About 1311 the first decree was issued making sprinkling or immer- 
 sion optional with the administrator, and by 1500 sprinkling had 
 come into very general use in England; and in 1611, when King 
 James' translation was made, it is a matter of history that very few 
 dippings took place. In the ritual of the Church immersion was re- 
 tained ; in , practice it was dropped. These things understood, 
 Campbell's statements are seen to be perfectly harmonious with them- 
 selves, and with the truth. 
 
 Now, with respect to the clean water of Ezekiel : We agree that 
 under Judaism water unmixed was never sprinkled by authority of 
 God. I have called attention to Ezekiel's prophecy, "I will sprinkle 
 clean water upon you." Mr. Wilkinson claims that that was a refer- 
 ence to future times when God in the fulness of time would draw the 
 people to Himself through Christ. I deny that. I claim that that was 
 a prophecy delivered by Ezekiel, when in captivity in Babylon, in 
 which he prophesied that God would restore the Jews to their native 
 land, and then He would sprinkle this clean water upon them. But 
 did you not say that clean water was never sprinkled upon anybody 
 under Judaism 1 I said water unmixed was never sprinkled ; it was 
 always mixed with ashes, or something else. But does not this pas- 
 sage speak of clean water 1 Yes, but remember that the ashes of a 
 red heifer and running water, mixed, formed what is called in the 
 Bible "the water of separation," "a purification for s n." This 
 " water of separation," on account of its cleansing efficacy, is called 
 here by the prophet " clean water." When the deliverance of the 
 
134 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 Jews had come, when they had been separated from their idolatry, 
 and from tlie idolatrous people among whom they had been 
 scattered, it was necessary that the water of separation should 
 be sprinkled upon them, to cleanse them from their ceremonial 
 defilements. This is the clean water of Ezekiel. Mr. Wilkinson did 
 not know that that prophecy was delivered before the return of the 
 Jews under Zerubbabel, as he said he did not believe that they would 
 ever be brought back to their native land. Then I called his atten- 
 tion to the fact that fifty-one years after the prophecy was delivered 
 they did come back to their native land, and the walls of Jerusalem 
 were rebuilt ; and sixty years after that Nehemiah came back and 
 the temple was rebuilt ; all this was 500 B.C. He did not know 
 that before. Not only is he ignorant of Greek lexicons, but he is 
 ignorant of the common histoiy of the Bible. When I quoted that 
 passage from Ezekiel, and said it was a prophecy concerning the 
 children of Israel being brought back to their native land, some of 
 the audience expressed their dissent. I turned to the passage and 
 read it. You can read it when you go home. God told them that 
 because they had disobeyed His law He had scattered them among 
 the nations, but in His own time He would bring them back to their 
 native land, and their cities would be rebuilt and their lands made 
 fruitful. Then He would sprinkle the clean water, the water of sepa- 
 ration, upon them and they should be clean, " From all your tilthiness, 
 and from all your idols, will I cleanse you," said He. Remember 
 this water is typical of the blood of Christ, with which no one is ever 
 said to be baptized. 
 
 With respect to the Red Sea baptism, Mr. Wilkinson asked me 
 another question ; he wants to know if the cloud was over them wliile 
 they were in the sea ; if it did not pass over them before they entered 
 the sea. I like to answer his questions, and to give him information, 
 for I see he needs it badly. For a reply to his question let him con- 
 sider the following passage : •' Moreover, brethren, I would not that 
 ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
 and all passc^d througli the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in 
 the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2. Paul says they were un- 
 der the cloud, and passed tlirougli tlie sea, and were baptized unto 
 Moses " in the cloud and in the sea." Now, it is evident that if they 
 were under the cloud at one time, and j)assed through the sea at 
 another time, there would have been two baptisms — one in the cloud, 
 and another in the sea. But no one holds that there were two bap- 
 tisms here : all agree that the Israelites were baptized but once 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 135 
 
 " unto Moses." Hence, it follows that while they were in the sea the 
 cloud was over them : they were buried in the cloud and sea. It was 
 not a baptism in the cloud ; nor was it a baptism in the sea : both 
 cloud and sea were required in the performance of the baptism. It 
 seems to me that even a blind man could see this ; but there are none 
 so blind as those who will not see. 
 
 Just here Mr. Wilkinson takes occasion to say again that there is 
 more in baptism than mere dipping. Certainly. No one supposes 
 that Christian baptism is a mere dipping ! As Tertullian says : " Of 
 baptism itself there is a bodily act, that we are immersed in water ; a 
 spiritual effect, that we are freed from sin." As Peter expresses it 
 (Acts 2 : 38) : " Repent, 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." "Yes," says my opponent, " 'a spirit- 
 ual effect ; ' that is what I have been claiming all the time." Yes ; 
 and there is a bodily act, and that is wliat I have been talking about. 
 Christ attends to the spiritual effect. He forgives sins ; He gives 
 the Holy Ghost. It is our business to attend to the bodily act. 
 When Jesus commanded His apostles to preach the Gospel to the 
 people, and to baptize those that believed it, it was the bodily act 
 that was expi'essed by the word baptize. When Peter told the people 
 to " repent and be baptized," it was the bodily act he wanted them 
 to submit to : he assured th^m that the spiritual effect would follow. 
 Nobody denies a " spiritual effect ; " but the question to be settled 
 by this debate is, What is the bodily act ? 
 
 But, as Mr. Wilkinson talks much about water baptism symboliz- 
 ing the washing of the soul by the Holy Spirit, I will call your 
 attention briefly to the impartation of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel 
 rule is that the Spirit is given after baptism in water — not before. 
 To this rule thera has been but one exception since Christian baptism 
 was instituted. This exceptional and peculiar case was also miracu- 
 lous, and therefore not an example for all time. Observe the rule : 
 After Christ came up from the waters of baptism He received the 
 Holy Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove ; the 
 apostles received the Spirit after their baptism ; the three thousand, 
 on the day of Pentecost, received the Spirit after their baptism — 
 they were told to repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins, 
 and tliey Avere promised that they should receive the Spirit. Philip 
 preached at the city of Samaria— (see Acts 8 : 5-17) — and multitudes 
 both of men and women believed his preaching, and were baptized, 
 and afterwards received the Holy Spirit. There were a number of 
 
136 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 men — about twelve — at Ephesus, who had been baptized by the bap- 
 tism of John, whom Paul instructed in the way of the Lord more 
 perfectly, and then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, to whom 
 the Spirit was then given, upon the laying on them of the liands of 
 Paul. So in every case of the impartation of the Spirit : whether it 
 was the ordinary gift, or a miraculous manifestation, it was preceded 
 by baptism in water, barring the one exception already referred to. 
 I mention this matter, although it has nothing to do with the action 
 of baptism, because Mr. Wilkinson has been talking about it. If he 
 wants to debate the question of the Spirit's work, let him get his 
 brethren to endorse him. My brethren will endorse me, and we will 
 discuss it next week, or whenever it suits him. 
 
 My friend refers to another irrelevant question — to " nude immer- 
 sion." I am not going to say much about that matter. I do not 
 think it should have been introduced. I grant you that peojile were 
 immersed while naked. Ladies went into the baths with deaconesses, 
 and they were taken into the water up to the neck. Then the 
 officiating minister came in, placed their heads under water, and 
 turned and went out. Then they were brought out by the deacon- 
 esses, who were, of course, women. I would not have referred to 
 tliat fact if Mr. Wilkinson had not brought it up, not to prove any- 
 thing that 1 can see, but simply to ridicule an institution that, as I 
 understand it, Christ gave to His disciples. There is no argument in 
 it one way or the other. Though, if there is any force in it so far 
 as this question is concerned, it is in favor of immersion. So at 
 least thinks Moses Stuart, the gi-eat Presbyterian. I read from him 
 as follows : " Still, say what we may concerning it in a moral point 
 of view, the argument to be deduced from it, in respect to immersion, 
 is not at all diminished. Nay, it is strengthened. For if such a 
 violation of decency was submitted to in order that baptism might be 
 performed as the Church thought it should be, it argues that baptiz- 
 ing by immersion was considered as a rite not to be dispensed with." 
 — Stuart On Bajjtism, p. 151. I do not make that argument, but 
 Stuart, as great a Presbyterian as ever lived on this continent, does. 
 
 Now I come again to that midnight baptism of the jailer. (I am 
 following my notes on Mr. Wilkinson's speech.) It is an undoubted 
 fact, that we have a host of passages, in and out of the Scriptures, clear 
 and strong, teaching immersion. What my friend wants to find is 
 one case where immersion could not have been perfornu-d. He goes 
 to this case of the jailer : tlie jailer was baptized in the house, he 
 thinks, and therefore could not have been immersed. A careful 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 137 
 
 reading of the passage, however, clearly shows that he was taken out 
 of the house. Hence, instead of an argument in his favor, it proves 
 to be a boomerang, which comes back and destroys him. Why should 
 he have gone out with his prisoners and family unless it was to be 
 immersed 1 Would he have gone out with all these simply to be 
 sprinkled 1 
 
 My friend, in the next place, commented at some length on the 
 midnight baptism of Judith ; though why he did so is a mystery, 
 seeing that every point that can be made from it is altogether against 
 him. The case is recorded in the apocryphal book Judith. This 
 Jewish lady desii'ed to betray the Assyrians into the hands of her own 
 people : and so, professing to be a deserter, she entered into the camp 
 of Holofernes, their general. Her stratagem succeeded ; she was kindly 
 received. She claimed to be a prophetess, and to have been sent to 
 the Assyrians by the Lord. On account of her wonderful beauty, 
 her attractive manners, and great wisdom, she was fully believed by 
 Holofernes and his men. She was accompanied by a maid-servant. 
 She requested the privilege to go out by night to pray to God that she 
 might receive revelations from Him. Her real object in thus going 
 out was to cleanse herself according to the Jewish customs. (See 
 Judith, chapters 11 and 12.) Verse 7 of chapter 12 reads thus: 
 " Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not stay 
 her. Thus she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the 
 night into the valley of Bethulia, and washed (baptiso) herself in a 
 fountain of water by the camp." Then, it is said, " she came in clean." 
 What did she go out, at midnight, into the valley of Bethulia for 1^ 
 to sprinkle herself with three or four drops of water 1 She went out, 
 at midnight, into a valley, to a fountain of water, and baptized herself. 
 The Greek verb used to indicate what she did is baptizo. My friend 
 would have you believe that she did all this to sprinkle herself. He 
 must think you are credulous, indeed ! The word rendered "valley" 
 means a ravine, or chasm. On Jewish bathings the great Rabbi 
 Maimonides says : " Wherever, in the law, washing of the flesh, or of 
 the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than dipping the whole 
 body in a laver ; for if a man dips himself all over except the tip of 
 his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." And again, he says : 
 " Every one that is baptized [upon coming from the market] must 
 immerse the whole body." This Maimonides is regarded by the Jews 
 as one of the greatest of their race. They consider him inferior only 
 to Moses. They call him The Doctor, The Great Eagle, The Glory of 
 the West, The Light of the East. [See Encyclopoidia Americana.] 
 
138 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson gets back to taval, the Hebrew for haptizo. You 
 remember I quoted Kleeburg as to its meaning ; you have now heard 
 also the testimony of Maimonides. In addition to these Jewish 
 teachers, consider the following : — 
 
 liobhisou's Gesenins' Ileb. Lex., p.- 364 : " Taval, to dip, to dip in, 
 to immerse, to dip or immerse one's self. Example : 2 Kings 5:14, 
 He ivent down and dipped himself seven, times in Jordan." 
 
 Parkhurst, p. 255: ^^ Taval, 1. To dip, immerse, plunge; 2. To 
 tinge or die with a certain color, which is usually performed by 
 dijijiing." 
 
 Robertson's Heb. Diet., hy JoseTph, p. Ill: ''Taval, 1. He dipped ; 
 2. He was dipped." 
 
 Stoklus' Vet. Test , Vol. I., p. 421 : " Taval, dip, dip in, immerse, 
 submerge." 
 
 Schleusuer, Art. Baptizo, defines taval, in defining baptizo, thus : 
 " To immerse, dip, plunge into water ; from bapto, and corresponds to 
 the Hebrew taval." 
 
 Davidson's Heb. Lex. : " Taval, 1. To dip, to immerse ; 2. To stain." 
 
 Buxtorf's Heb. Lex : " Taval, to dip, to dip into, to submerge, to 
 immerse." 
 
 (See Brent's Gospel Plan of Salvation, pp. 302, 303.) 
 
 But, above all, as to the meaning of this Hebrew word which ex- 
 presses the action of baptism, remember it occurs fifteen times in the 
 Old Testament, and is translated in our common version " dip " four- 
 teen times, and " plunge " once. This gives you to understand what 
 King James' translators, who, as we have seen, were sprinklers, 
 thought of its meaning. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson thinks " it is a superstitious and contemptible no- 
 tion " that the Spirit fills a man's body and surrounds his soul. The 
 apostles were endued with power from on high when they received 
 the Spirit ; and enduo, says Dr. Ditzler, means immerse — it means to 
 be " clothed U[)on." The Christian is said to be " in the Spirit." The 
 body is represented as being the dwelling-place of both the human 
 spirit and the Holy Spirit, by the apostle Paul. I am free to confess 
 that I do not understand how a Divine person can be in a man's body — 
 how the man can be immersed in Him ; V>ut it is not more incompre- 
 hensible than that a Divine person should be "poured out" or " shed 
 forth " upon a man. I don't under.stand either ; I believe both. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson understooil me to admit tliat some foreign lexicons 
 define baptizo by words that are equivah^uts of sprinkle, and merely to 
 deny that these words were given as the first meaning. He is very 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 139 
 
 much mistaken ; I made no such admission. What I did say is 
 this: No lexicon which defines Geek into another tongue, whether 
 Latin, German, French, Italian, or any other tongue, defines baplizo 
 by a word whose first meaning is to sprinkle. In getting the meanings 
 of definitions, the common and most known significations must always 
 be taken, since there can be nothing in the context to forbid. In no 
 lexicon known to me is a word used to define bajytizo, whose first — that 
 is, whose common and most known — meaning is to sprinkle. I 
 know a German lexicon, that of Passou, by Rost and Palm, which, 
 after defining baptizo " to dip in, lo iminerse," gives, as a derived or 
 consequential meaning, in a few cases, a word whose first meaning is 
 " to water ; " this word (begiessen) sometimes means to sprinkle, seeing 
 that things are sometimes watered by being sprinkled. But does this 
 show that baptizo means to sprinkle 1 As I have already said, in 
 exactly the same way I can show that " dip " means " sjyrinkle ; " for 
 all the leading English dictionaries, as Webster's, Worcester's, 
 Walker's, etc., give to wet as a definition of dip, as a consequential 
 meaning, in a few cases ; but you can wet a thing by sprinkling it ; 
 therefore, I suppose, to dip means to sprinkle ! It cei'tainly does, just 
 as much as baptizo means to sprinkle. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S TENTH REPLY. 
 
 With respect to the translators of King James' version not being 
 immersionists, I told you in my former speech, and I read from Alex- 
 ander Campbell's book, p. 140, to prove it, that accoi'ding to the liturgy 
 of the Church of England about the time the translation was made, the 
 priest was required to take a child and dip it three times in water. 
 
 It appears from another quotation from Alexander Campbell that 
 they did not dip but they sprinkled. Is it not a somewhat singular coin- 
 cidence, that the Church whose chief mode was sprinkling should have 
 prescribed in its liturgy that the priest should dip the children ? If 
 there was any excuse for sprinkling at all, one would naturally sup- 
 pose it would have been valid in the case of infants ; for if anybody 
 could have been excused from being put under the water it was infants, 
 and if sprinkling would apply anywhere, you would think it would 
 
140 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 apply to little children ; yet the liturgy refers to little children as being 
 dipped. " The priest,'' (not may but) " shall [in naming the child] dip 
 it in water thrice. First, dipping the right side : second, the left side. 
 The third time dipping the face toward the font. So that it be dis- 
 creetly and warily done. And if the child be weak, (showing that 
 sprinkling is to apply to the weak, and surely the children are weaker 
 than adults), it shall suffice to pour water upon it, saying the pre- 
 scribed words." I quote from Baptizein, by Dr. Conant. Besides, 
 you will remember that in the quotations I read from Campbell he 
 says: " The translators of the common version were all, or nearly all, 
 genuine Episcopalians, and at the very time they made the version, 
 were accustomed to use a liturgy which made it the minister's duty, in 
 the sacrament of baptism, ' to take the child and dip it in the water 
 contained in the font.' " Also that they " on no occasion favored the 
 innovation of sprinkling by any rendering, or note marginal, in that 
 translation." According to this, their teaching and practice must have 
 disagreed. I leave my opponent to harmonize Campbell with himself. 
 With respect to the clean water of Ezekiel : I certainly understood 
 my opponent to say that the sprinkling mentioned by Ezekiel referred 
 to the future restoration of the Jews, Now he says it refers to a 
 restoration that took place 500 years B.C., and that this blessed 
 promise which God makes through Ezekiel, that He would sprinkle 
 clean water upon them and cleanse them from all iniquity, did not 
 mean clean water but water mixed with blood and ashes, the water of 
 separation. It was something surprising to me to learn that the 
 water mentioned by Ezekiel was the water with blood and ashes put 
 into it away back 1500 years B.C. Then it appears that that was 
 nothing new ; it was only a promise that He would do the same 
 thing He had been doing all along. That water of separation, which 
 my opponent has read about so often, when it was sprinkled upon the 
 people to make them clean, had to be washed off before they were 
 pronounced clean, because it made them also unclean. That was the 
 bathing that took place after the sprinkling of the water of purifica- 
 tion. He tells you it was clean water. I am glad he acknowledges 
 it was a type of sprinkling of the blood of Christ, because that is bap- 
 tism ; consequently the sprinkling of the clean water by Ezekiel was 
 also a baptism — though it was a sprinkling and not an immersion — 
 and therefore out of his own mouth he has been confounded, and out 
 of his own mouth he stands defeated on the question that Christian 
 baptism is immersion and that in it there mvst be a burial in water. 
 There is no burial in these instances. I will give you two or three 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 141 
 
 testimonies of the early fathers, who, my opponent says, were all im- 
 mersionists. 
 
 I quote from Jerome V. 341, 342. Commenting on Ezek. 36 : 25, 
 he paraphrases the passage thus : 
 
 "And I will pour out (or sprinkle) upon you clean water . . . sO' 
 that upon the believing and those converted I will pour out the clean 
 water of saving baptism, and will cleanse them from their abomina- 
 tions, and from all their errors, with which they have been possessed^ 
 and I will give them a new heart, that they may believe upon the 
 Son of God, and a new spirit, of which David speaks : Create in me 
 a clean heart and renew a right spirit within me, (Psalms 50: 21). 
 And it is to be observed, that a new heart and a new spirit may be 
 given by the pouring or sprinkling of ivater." Let it be observed that 
 St. Jerome calls this the clean water of saving "baptism," though it 
 was to be sprinkled. Hence, according to Jerome, water that was 
 sprinkled baptized. Yet he is claimed as an immersionist. 
 
 Hilary I., 238, says, " But sprinkling according to the law was the 
 cleansing of sin, through faith purifying the people by the sprinkling^ 
 of blood, (Psa. 50 : 9); a sacrament of the future sprinkling by the 
 blood of the Lord, faith, meanwhile, supplementing the blood of the 
 legal sacrifice." 
 
 Didymus Alexandrinus, 713, says, "And the very image of bap- 
 tism both continually illuminated and saved Israel at that time — as 
 Paul wrote (1 Cor. 10:1, 2); and as prophesied Ezek. 36:25, 'I 
 will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from your 
 sins;' and David (Psa. 50 : 9) : ' Sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall 
 be clean.' " Then, according to this author, water sprinkled was "the 
 very image of baptism," though he is claimed as an immersionist. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 418, says, " Thou seest the power of baptism. — 
 Be of good courage, O Jerusalem, the Lord will wash away all thy 
 iniquities. The Lord will wash away the uncleanness of His sons and 
 daughters by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning. He 
 will sprinkle upon you clean water, and ye shall be purified from all 
 your sins." According to this father, " the power of baptism " is seen 
 in the cleansing away of sin by the sprinkling of clean water. 
 
 Cyprian says, 1082, "But it is necessary that the water be first 
 purified and sanctified by the priest, that it may be able by its own 
 baptism to wipe oS^ the sins of the baptized man. And through 
 Ezekiel, the prophet, the Lord says : ' And I will sprinkle you with 
 pure water.'" Here this illustrious father, who lived only a little 
 over a century after the death of John, clearly identifies the purifica- 
 tion of the soul from sin by sprinkling the clean water, with baptism. 
 
142 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 He says, 1148, "Whence it appears that the sprinkling of water, 
 also, like the saving washing, obtains divine grace." 
 
 Thus these early, so-called, immersionist fathers of the Church all 
 testify that sprinkling clean water was typical of Christian baptism, 
 because it was said to cleanse, showing that it was the effect, and not 
 the mode of action, that they regarded as baptism. 
 
 My opponent has tried several times to prove that it was the 
 subsequent bathing after the sprinkling of the water of separation 
 that constituted the baptism ; and as, of course, a bathing must involve 
 complete immersion, according to his teachings he cannot wa?h the dirt 
 off himself without getting under the water. 
 
 With respect to the Israelites' baptism : My friend adopts the old 
 motto, " Any port in a storm." If the Israelites were baptized at two 
 different times, once in the cloud and afterwards in the sea, he says, 
 there must have been two baptisms. Unfortunately for himself he 
 said it took both to make one, and so it does not matter much whether 
 the half was before they entered the sea and the other half afterwards, 
 or both while they were in the sea, the two halves are put together and 
 my opponent gets one baptism. He has relieved me of the i-espon- 
 sibility of proving there were not two. I appeal to the record in the 
 14th chapter of Exodus. It distinctly says, as plainly as the English 
 language can speak, and it is speaking of the time before the sea was 
 divided, before Moses stretched out his hand, before the passage was 
 opened for them to go through the sea : 
 
 " And the angel of the Lord which went before the camp of Israel 
 removed and went behind them ; and the pillar of the cloud went from 
 before their face and stood behind them : and it came between the 
 camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel ; and it was a cloud 
 and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these." So the 
 cloud passed from before them and went behind them, before they 
 entered the sea. It went over them, but I do not know whether it 
 swept along the ground or not ; I only know that they were " under the 
 cloud " as it was passing over them, and after it got behind them they 
 went through the sea. No man can get out of this dilemma. Hence 
 the proposition that baptism, in this instance, is immersion is simply a 
 proposition that cannot be proved. It will never be proved while 
 grass grows and water runs. With respect to his reference to my 
 statement that the effect produced was the baptism, according to 
 the early fathers, I know Tertullian said that it was the effect pro- 
 duced while under the water that he called baptism. My opponent 
 admits now that the effect was a baptism, hence the dipping was not 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 143 
 
 the baptism. Accordingly dipping is not Christian baptism, for 
 dipping is merely the act by which the effect is produced. There- 
 fore dipping is not the equivalent of baptism, according to his own 
 admission. Therefore his proposition, according to his own admis- 
 sion, is foundationless. He said the effect Avas a baptism ; conse- 
 quently the act which produces the effect cannot be the baptism, 
 else there must be two baptisms, as in the case of the Israelites. In 
 this case he says it takes two to make one, and he has to put them 
 together to make one baptism, therefore my exposition this afternoon is 
 recognized as correct. It is acknowledged by my opponent, and he can- 
 not escape from the unpleasant dilemma. It is no pleasure to squeeze 
 a man against the face of invincible truth, but when he takes a false 
 position I have either to squeeze the man or sacrifice the truth, and so 
 here goes the squeeze. 
 
 To further establish the idea that the Spirit was communicated after 
 the water was administered, my opponent says that Christ received 
 the Spirit after he came up out of the water. Now, He never came 
 up out of the water, according to the correct rendering of the word. 
 Look at the revised version. It says " came u])J'rom the water." The 
 translators with one accord translated it " from." Christ never came 
 up " out of " the water as far as the correct rendering of the Greek 
 shows. In the case mentioned in Acts 8th chapter, was it after 
 baptism that the Spirit came upon the people 1 Was it after or before 
 baptism that the Spirit came upon Cornelius 1 It was when Peter saw 
 the Spirit descending on those to whom he had preached the Word 
 that he said, " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be 
 baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? " Was 
 the Spirit given before or after the baptism 1 When we come to 
 discuss the interesting question of the Divine Spirit how shall we get 
 along with this passage 1 * 
 
 He has admitted that ladies were baptized in a state of nudity, but 
 says that deaconesses attended them, and that Dr. Stuart argued that 
 this was a strong point in favor of immersion. It was a strong point 
 in favor of my contention, that the superstition at the bottom cf the 
 whole immersion fabric was that people thought they could not get their 
 sins forgiven unless they were put under water, every inch of them, in 
 order that the Spirit could get at them at every point, and be soaked 
 in at every pore. If he will father the superstition then he can argue 
 
 * My opponent, in re-writing his speeches for this work, has anticipated this 
 objection. He did not do this in the debate, according to the reporter's MS. 
 with which my recollection of the matter harmonizes. — T. L. W. 
 
144 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 on consistent ground for that kind of immersion, otherwise he 
 cannot. 
 
 Now about the jailer : My opponent admits that he could have 
 washed tlie apostles' stripes in the house, but lie says he must have 
 taken them out to be baptized V)y them, and that as a matter of fact he 
 did take them out. If he took them out it was either to be baptized by 
 them or to wash their stripes. The record says " he took them the 
 same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and was baptized, 
 he and all his, straightway." Was it necessary that he should take 
 them out to a river to wash their stripes 1 He admits it was not. 
 Yet, according to this record, he took them out, if he took them out 
 at all, for both purposes. There is the same evidence exactly that he 
 took them out to a river to wash their stripes as that he took them 
 out to be baptized ; and if it is not necessary to assume that he took 
 them out to some river to wash their stripes, neither is it necessary to 
 assume that he took them out to some river to be baptized. It is the 
 exigencies of my opponent's theory which demand this interpretation, 
 but not the rules of a sound exegesis. His argument from this pas- 
 sage, therefore, is based on a mere assumption. Is it reasonable, 
 however, that this jailer took these prisoners out of the prison, at the 
 midnight hour, in contravention of law, either to wash their stripes 
 or baptize them? I hope my opponent will answer this question 
 and not raise side issues, and dodge the real objection under the cloak 
 of something of his own imagining. 
 
 Now as to Judith. I read from Dr. Conant, who is an immersionist 
 and an able scholar, and a very honest man, but he is not infallible. 
 I read from his version, and he says she went forth in the night into 
 the valley of Bethulia and baptized herself in the camp at the foun- 
 tain. He tried to get her outside the camp, to some remote river^ 
 like the jailer, in order to perform an immersion. I really cannot 
 swallow anything so preposterous as this. The idea of taking the 
 jailer and his whole family, a father and mother, I suppose, and 
 one would naturally infer, some children, — but perhaps they had an 
 old bachelor as a jailer — out at midnight to be baptized is absurd, and 
 the idea of Judith having immersed herself in the drinking fountain 
 in the camp is, if possible, still more so. 
 
 With respect to the washings of the priests. My opponent says 
 they washed in the laver. Josephus says they washed their hands 
 and sprinkled their feet at the laver. In John 2 : 6 we read : 
 
 " And there were set there six waterpots of stone after the man- 
 ner of the purifying of the Jews." 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 145 
 
 I suppose, according to that Rabbi mentioned by my opponent, 
 every time they came in from the market, and every time they had to 
 take a ceremonial washing, they had to do it as the ancients did : the 
 women had to go into some place by themselves and dip, and the men 
 into some other place and dip. But on this occasion there were six 
 waterpots in the room where the guests were, and I suppose they had 
 to dip over head and ears in these waterpots. But Christ told them 
 to bring in*water and fill up the pots. I will guarantee there was not 
 water in all sufficient to get in and jump clear under. Yet Christ 
 converted the entire contents of these waterpots into wine after 
 the people had been washing and bathing all over in them ! 
 Pshaw ! Talk about indecency ! Call shame at me ! Is not that 
 a nice piece of propriety among people noted for their cleanliness 1 
 Yet they got their wine right out of the washpots ! T will not call 
 them by any worse name, but they must have been washpots if the 
 people got in to dip themselves all over • and then, according to the 
 theory I combat, they were afterwards turned into wine vessels and 
 they drank wine out of them. I am glad I was not there. 
 
 I will now quote two or three authorities with respect to the mean- 
 ing of the word tabal. Rabbi Fiirst, " the latest and most scientific 
 Hebraist that has lived for ages," and whose lexicon is said to be "the 
 greatest Hebrew lexicon ever yet produced," gives : " Tabal, to 
 moisten, to wet, to sprinkle ; to immerse. The root is bal. Compare 
 the words derived from the same root with kindred meanings — to 
 flow, drop down, pour, pour water on, stream forth, sprinkle." 
 
 In his later lexicon, where he brings out all the results of his 
 labors, 1867, this distinguished Jewish professor of Leipzig thus 
 defines tabal, the Hebrew word rendered baptizo by the Seventy : "To 
 moisten, to sprinkle, rigare, tingere ; therefore to dip, to immerse. 
 . . . . The fundamental signification of the stem is to moisten, to 
 besprinkle." (Quoted from Dr. Ditzler.) Dr. Young, the author of the 
 great Analytical Concordance, gives " to moisten, besprinkle." I dare 
 my opponent to read from Liddell and Scott the meaning of molunein. 
 It is the Greek word by which tabal is translated in Gen. 37 : 31, 
 where Joseph's coat is said to have been "dipped" in the blood of 
 the kid, and taval is the word used to describe Naaman's baptism 
 in Jordan. 
 
 If the seventy scholars who translated the Hebrew intended to 
 
 convey the same idea in the translation in both places, even thoug h 
 
 they used two separate words, they must have used words of similar 
 
 import. If my opponent will tell us what is the import of molunein 
 
 10 
 
146 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 as given in Liddell and Scott, we shall have some idea of the word in 
 Naaman's case. I have told you it means to sprinkle, and Liddell and 
 Scott gives a similar definition. 
 
 I could give you other authorities in the same line, but I forbear. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. HARDING'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 I want to commence my last speech by calling attention to a blunder 
 which is the greatest my friend has made yet, and that is saying no 
 little. I asked him the other day if he had read up the revised 
 version. He said he had not. I advised him to do it. If he had 
 done so he would have saved himself from the remarks I feel con- 
 strained to make. I have laid great stress on the fact that Jesus, 
 after He was baptized, came "top out of" the water. Mr. Wilkinson, 
 in his last speech, said, " He never came up out of the water, accord- 
 ing to the correct rendering of the word." Then he added that the 
 revised version says, "came up/ro7n the water." Let him turn to the 
 first chapter of Mark, and he will read as follows : 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I quoted from the 3rJ of Matthew. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Cannot Mark tell the truth as well as Matthew 1 
 Is not the Gospel of Mark found in the revised version ? The truth 
 is, I doubt not, my opponent did not know what Mark says, according 
 to the revised version. Perhaps he has not read this version further 
 than the 3rd chapter of Matthew. I read from Mark 1 : 9, 10, "And 
 it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth in Gali- 
 lee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway 
 coming up out of the water. He saw the Heavens rent asunder, and 
 the Spirit as a dove descending upon Him." There it seems Christ 
 came out of the water. My friend did not say that he was quoting 
 from Matthew, or from whom he was quoting, but stated simply that 
 the revised version did not say that Christ came up out of the water. 
 
 You remember he told us that Liddell and Scott's is the only Greek- 
 English lexicon ; that all other Greek lexicons define in Latin, and 
 other tongues ; he said that blood was in the water of separation, and 
 intimated that the bathing which always followed the sprinkling was 
 to wash it off; and now lie tells us the revised version does not say 
 that Christ came " up out of " the water : but he can raise a laugh, 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 147 
 
 with his " Hi diddle diddle " poetry, among those that enjoy that kind 
 of literature, no matter how little he may know about the lexicons, 
 or the Bible. 
 
 He said that the Greek preposition translated out of is apo ; in 
 Mark it is ek. Let him refer to the Greek. I do not believe he can 
 read Greek. If there is any one here who can, let him come forward 
 and read this passage. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Right here. 
 
 (Mr. Harding handed him the Greek Testament to read the clause 
 in dispute, which he did). 
 
 Mr. Harding — I had it marked upon the margin, or I doubt if he 
 could have found the place. You see the preposition is ek (out of) as 
 I said, not aj)o (from) as he claimed, in the revised Greek text. Mark 
 says He came up out of the water, Matthew says He came up from 
 the water ; both tell the truth ; for when Jesus had come up out of 
 the river, He then came up from its brink ; of course He did not stay 
 down at its edge forever. 
 
 Now let us consider molunein, about which my friend talked so 
 much this evening. The word means to stain. In Gen. 37 : 31, 
 telling of Joseph's coat, it is said they "dipped the coat in the blood;" 
 "dip " in this passage in the Hebrew is taval, in the Greek is moluno. 
 Baptizo is not connected with the passage in any way. But as taval 
 is translated by moluno, at this place, and by baptizo, in the case of 
 Naaraan, he would have us believe that moluno is equal to baptizo. 
 Here is his argument : T'avaHs rendered by mo^^w^o y mo^it wo means 
 to stain ; you can stain by sprinkling ; therefore taval means to 
 sprinkle: but taval, in another place is rendered by baptizo; therefore 
 baptizo means to sprinkle. As I have said, by the same argument 
 exactly you can show that "dip" means "to sprinkle;" it is done 
 thus : One definition of dip is " to wet ;" you can wet by sprinkling ; 
 therefore to dip is to sprinkle. What proves too much proves nothing. 
 
 My friend dared me to read Liddell and Scott's definition of moluno. 
 When I went home I looked through my eight lexicons for the mean- 
 ing of the word ; I have three of them lying here on the table ; every 
 one of them gives such a definition as this : Moluno, properly, to 
 stain, sully ; to defile, contaminate morally y T. S. Green's New 
 Testament Lexicon, p. 120. 
 
 Robinson's Lexicon gives, " To soil, to stain, to defile." Liddell and 
 Scott define it, "To stain, sully, defile." And then they quote the 
 words " molunein aleuro," and translate them " to sprinkle with flour." 
 Liddell and Scott do not give sprinkle as a definition, but they quote a 
 
148 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 passage in which it occurs, and translate the passage "to sprinkle 
 with flour." 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — As ashes and blood. 
 
 Mr. Harding — My friend is again blundering about that water of 
 separation. No blood was put into it ; it was ashes and water. If 
 you put ashes into water, they settle to the bottom ; and when the 
 water is sprinkled upon one, there is nothing to wash off. 
 
 My opponent has intimated that I l)elieve that the Jews dipped in 
 the waterpots, the contents of which Christ converted into wine. I 
 never believed any such thing. I don't know why he brought the 
 matter up, unless it was that he might have an opportunity to exer- 
 cise his peculiar talent for saying vulgar, indecent things. Dr. Klee- 
 burg says, "Before eating " the Jews washed ; this washing was often 
 done by having the water poured upon the hands ; for this purpose the 
 waterpots were there. These are Kleeburg's words : " Before eating, 
 and prayer, and after rising in the morning, they washed ; when they 
 have become unclean they must immerse." In the revised version, Mark 
 7 : 3, 4 reads thus : " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they 
 wash {Gr. nipto) their hands diligently (marg. or, up to the elboiv) eat 
 not, holding the tradition of the elders ; and when they come from 
 the market place, except they wash {Gr, baptizo) themselves, they eat 
 not." That is, if you will allow me to coin a word, ordinarily they 
 niptize their hands before eating ; but when they are defiled, they 
 baptize themselves. This statement of Mark harmonizes perfectly 
 with what Dr. Kleeburg says. I never thought nor intimated that 
 the waterpots were used to bathe in ; and my opponent had no reason 
 for making the speech that he did about it, except that it furnished 
 him an opportunity for raising a laugh by saying things that are not 
 nice. I have not endeavored to equal him in a conflict of that kind. 
 I could go out to one of these whiskey or beer saloons, and hire a man 
 for fifty cents, I have no doubt, who could even equal Mr. Wilkinson 
 in saying indecent, unkind things ; but I do not want to enter into a 
 contest of that sort. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — You do not need to hire anybody. You can do 
 your own dirty work, and do it well. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I am glad to know that I am not regarded as at all 
 equal to my friend at that sort of work. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson calls attention to the fact that the liturgy of the 
 Church of England, in the time of King James, required the children 
 to be dipped. Yes, except when the child was weakly, it did. But 
 they did not live up to their liturgy ; first in order is the change in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 149 
 
 practice ; then the change in the creed ; for about five hundred years 
 the pjfdo-baptist churches have been drifting more and more from im- 
 mersion, but none of them that I know of have gotten dip or immerse 
 out of their creeds entirely, except Mr. Wilkinson's branch of the 
 Methodists ; they have gotten rid of the word, but not of the thing. 
 All the liturgies of all the pa^do-baptist churches that I know of 
 require their ministers to immerse, as well as to sprinkle, or to pour. 
 But this part of his creed my opponent despises, and he will not follow 
 it. So it was with many ministers in the days of King James. 
 
 With respect to the authorities quoted on Ezekiel's prophecy, I 
 have this to say : The sprinkling was understood by these fathers, as 
 
 1 understand them, to refer to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, 
 which they believed to be received in baptism. They believed the 
 proper act of baptism to be immersion, and so they practiced, with 
 rare exceptions, as I have abundantly shown. But as years passed 
 on, they favored affusion, at first, and then aspersion, more and more. 
 It was not long, then, till they began to try to defend these last prac- 
 tices from the Bible. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson spoke about Josephus, and represented him as saying 
 that the priests, before; going into the temple, washed their hands and 
 sprinkled their feet. Well, it is a fact, clearly expressed in the Bible, 
 that in their regular daily ministrations, before going into the temple, 
 they washed their hands and feet at the brazen sea, as is explained in 
 
 2 Chron. 4 : 6. The word which expresses this washing is nipto. But 
 it is also true that at the first consecration of the priests, they them- 
 selves were washed at the door of the tabernacle. The word that 
 expresses this washing is louo. If these two washings are the same, 
 why are two different words used to express them 1 Daily they 
 niptized their hands and feet ; but in being made priests they loere 
 baptized themselves. A significant difierence ! 
 
 But Mr. Wilkinson denies that in washing the body the Jews 
 dipped. I quoted Maimonides, the most noted Jewish teacher who 
 has lived since the days of inspiration. He says the washings of the 
 body were immersion. So testifies Rabbi Kleeburg. So teaches the 
 Jewish translator Leeser. As to taval, which is used to tell how 
 Naaman obeyed the command to wash (louo) himself, all the lexicons 
 say it means to dip ; none say it means to sprinkle (but one) ; and 
 in our common version, it is translated dip, or plunge, every time — 
 fifteen times. 
 
 I desire now to devote the time that remains to me to summing up 
 the matters brought out in the course of the debate. I was to prove 
 
150 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 tliat " Cliristiati baptism is immersion ; in it there must be a burial in 
 water." Tlie Bible teaches us that there is " one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism." This one baptism is the baptism in water of a penitent 
 believer, in the name of Jesus Christ, — a physical act, — which act, 
 according to the Gospel rule, is followed by the forgiveness of sins, 
 and the reception of the Holy Spirit, — a spiritual effect, or result. 
 But the baptism is one. Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize 
 the people ; they did baptize them — many thousands of them. What 
 did Jesus want them to do 1 what act did they perform 1 were the 
 questions to be settled by this discussion. We searched through the 
 lexicons for the meaning of the word ; all of them gave dip, immerse, 
 as the primary and most known meaning of it ; none define it to 
 sprinkle. The Church historians all say that the ancient Church 
 immersed. The encyclopaedias give a full history of the rite ; they 
 tell us that immersion was almost univei'sally practiced for thirteen 
 hundred years, and that sprinkling came in gradually, in spite of great 
 opposition. 
 
 As all scholars, even Mr. Wilkinson himself, testify that baptizo, in 
 classic Greek, means to immerse, definitely to immerse, we turn to the 
 Bible to see if there is anything in its use in the divine book to indi- 
 cate that it has a ditif'erent meaning there. We find it but once in the 
 Old Testament, and there it is rendered dip — Naaman dipped himself 
 seven times in the river Jordan. In the New Testament we find them 
 going to the water to attend to baptisms — to this same river Jordan 
 in which Naaman dipped himself ; they go down into the water ; after 
 the baptism they come up out of the water; in the baptism it is said 
 they were buried, raised to walk in newness of life, and their bodies 
 were washed. J(!sus was baptized " into the Jordan" as Dr. Robinson 
 properly translates Mark 1 : 9, which translation the revised version 
 shows, in a marginal note at this place, to be correct. When the 
 refined and Ix'autiful Judith would baptize hei'self, she goes out at 
 midnight into a valley ; a very sensible thing for her to do, as baptism 
 is an immersion, but the perfection of folly were it only a sprinkling 
 of a few drops of water. The jailer, with his wliole family, and some 
 prisoners, goes out at midnight to bt! baptized — of course not merely 
 to have a little water sprinkled on him — that could have been done in 
 the house. All of these facts, instead of influencing us to look for a 
 new meaning for this old word, that had meant immerse time out of 
 mind, serve to emphasize and enforce its old, common, and most 
 known meaning. 
 
 But my friend thinks it would have been awful for Judith to have 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. l.'ll 
 
 bathed herself in the stream or fountain which the army used for 
 drinking water. Why not 1 The people of Louisville, Cincinnati^ 
 Pittsburg, and a hundred other towns, empty their sewerage into 
 the Ohio river, as well as bathe in it, and then drink from its waters. 
 We bathe in the waters of this bay, and then drink of them when ve 
 travel in a boat. 
 
 When we consider the " baptism in the Holy Ghost," we find that 
 those baptized were represented afterwards as being "in the Spirit," 
 " endued " or " clothed upon " by the Spirit ; and the greatest Meth- 
 odist debater on this continent tells us this word endue (endno) 
 means definitely to immerse ; and others tell us that in Rom. 3 : 4 
 " spiritual baptism " is referred to ; if so it is a burial, and water 
 baptism, in order to represent it, which they claim it mixst do, must be 
 a burial too. All scholars, with scarcely a dissenting voice, tell us 
 that the apostle, in Rom. 6 : 4, refers to immersion — " the ancient 
 manner of baptizing by immersion." But Mr. Wilkinson says I got 
 my argument from enduo from my old friend and classmate, Mr. 
 McDairmid, office-editor of the Standard. I have not read his and 
 Mr. Watson's debate, though I have intended to ; I have, doubtless, 
 missed much in not doing so. Mr. W^ilkinson seems to want to debate 
 with Mr. McDairmid — I suppose, because he is not here. He is tired 
 of what he has on hand, and would like a change. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I want to meet both of you. 
 
 Mr. Harding — -We will see how ready you are to go on, when 
 these six days are over. I delight in debating, because I can speak 
 to so many that I cannot reach in any other way, and I am prepared to 
 go on as long as you please. If you want to discuss another proposi- 
 tion, we will go on next week. 
 
 Now, my friends, you have the case before you. • What do you pro- 
 pose to do about it "? This is a grave matter ; in settling it, a question of 
 obedience to Jesus Christ is involved. Do you want to be certain 
 that you are building on the rock, the rock of evei'lasting truth ? 
 There is a clear road before you. Choose that which is right, certainly 
 right, which all admit to be right, in preference to that which at the 
 best is but doubtful, and which many of the wisest and best of men 
 positively affirm to be wrong. Even Mr. Wilkinson's own Discipline 
 teaches that immersion is proper ; it allows sprinkling, pouring, and 
 " another mode." All the creeds of all the Churches teach immersion. 
 But, above all, in being immersed you can walk in the footsteps of 
 Jesus and his holy apostles every step of the way. If you go to the 
 water, so did Jesus ; if you go to much water, so did He ; if you go 
 
152 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 down into the water, so did Jesus, so did Philip and the eunuch ; 
 when you come up out of the water, you are still following them, for 
 so did they ; if you are buried in baptism, so was Paul, so were the 
 Romans, and so were the Colossians ; then you can join Paul and the 
 Hebrew Christians in saying : I have had my heart "sprinkled from 
 an evil conscience," and my body " washed with pure water." What do 
 you say, my friends, what do you say 1 Will you build upon the rock 
 of truth — the very words and deeds of Jesus and His apostles, or upon 
 the sandy foundation of doubt 1 
 
 Why, the only definition Mr. Wilkinson is willing to give to the 
 word is immerse. He gave that in the beginning of the debate, and 
 has stuck to it to the end. In the classics, he says, it means to put 
 under water. At first he said he would not tell what it means in the 
 New Testament : but when I insisted that we ought to give the people 
 all the light that we have, that we ought to explain the words about 
 which we are debating, and, above all, when I intimated that he was 
 afraid to tell the meaning, he said it means to purify religiously ; but, 
 unfortunately for his consistency, he had said before that it did not 
 mean to purify. Verily, " the legs of the lame are not equal ;" and the 
 " way of the transgressor is hard." 
 
 What did Christ mean by haptizo ? What did John do in the 
 Jordan 1 What ought you to do? My friends, I leave you to answer 
 the question. 
 
 [Time expire^.] 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S ELEVENTH REPLY. 
 
 It must be a matter of considerable surprise to you that a pro- 
 fessional debater, one who peramVjulates the country challenging 
 everybody, one who is supjiosed to be a real scholar and always 
 ready for the fray, should have come to Meaford from Kentucky and 
 spent six hours in attempting to prove the proposition under debate, 
 and then have so ignominiously failed. It is no credit to him. I 
 shall not throw back the mean, unchristian, unkind, ungentlemanly 
 insinuations that he has hurled at my head twenty, I was going to say 
 fifty times about my ignorance. I am satisfied to leave my scholar- 
 sliip — of which, thank (Jod, I have not l)oasted l)efore you — as com- 
 pared to my friend's scholarship, in the custody of this congregation. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJKCTS OF BAPTISM. 153 
 
 I was taunted by the "office editor" with not knowing a Greek letter 
 from a chicken-track ; they have tried every way to throw dirt on nie ; 
 what they cannot do by argument they try to do by insinuation. You 
 must accept this as my excuse for having been several times during 
 this debate betrayed into the use of language that may have seemed 
 severe and unbecoming. You do not know what I have suftered at 
 their hands, because, thank God, a good deal of it has passed from my 
 own memory ; and if I cannot recollect the statements made, you do 
 not know a thousandth part of what has been said. You remember 
 he tried on this platform to prove me an ignoramus, simply because 
 I, with a passage in Matthew before my mind, said it was apo, from, 
 and not out of, whereas he, the illustrous scholar that he is, the em- 
 bodiment of all wisdom, found a passage somewhere else, where it 
 was ek in the original, a word rendered from no less than 171 times 
 in the New Testament. How true it is that drowning men catch at 
 straws. If I am the ignoramus he represented me, and he the scholar 
 he professes to be, with all the scholarship of the world on his side, it 
 is all the greater shame for him that he has made such a miserable 
 attempt at maintaining his cause in this debate. I am satisfied to 
 leave it to the judgment of any number of competent men to hear 
 us read, pronounce and translate Greek ; perhaps my opponent can 
 translate Greek, and perhaps he cannot, but several oi the scholars of 
 Meaford say he cannot. He would be glad to make himself appear 
 illustrious by representing me as a greenhorn; that is the amount of it. 
 He does not like the close-fitting arguments that have been adduced 
 in this debate, just as I found the " office editor" did not like them. 
 But he will have to do as the old lady did whom the minister tried to 
 console. He was quoting the comforting promises of the Bible to her 
 when she said, "Yes, I have taken a great deal of consolation out of 
 that precious promise which says, ' you must just grin and bear it.' " 
 He has quoted from some lexicons where mohmein. is given as to 
 stain, defile, pollute, etc. ; but he does not find one in which the 
 first signification is to immerse. Yet it is the equivalent of tabal. 
 Joseph's brethren did not dip his coat, they drabbled it in blood to 
 stain it. MobiupAn means that. If Naaman went and drabljled him- 
 self in the Jordan he did not immerse. My opponent says there was 
 ,no blood in the water of separation. I had not read the chapter since 
 I came, and might not even Elder Harding of Kentucky make an 
 accidental misquotation? It is the old story of magnifying molehills 
 into mountains. In Hebrews 9 : 10 we have the divers baptisms 
 (washings) which I proved were etiected by sprinkling the. blood of 
 
154 
 
 RKPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer on the unch-an; and that 
 being on my mind when 1 spoke of purification, I referred to blood. 
 He has failed to prove to you that baptism by immersion ever took 
 place in the tabernacle since Moses laid its foundation. All. that 
 took place in the tabernacle were sacritices. Let me quote here from 
 Creemer, one of the lexicographers of whom lie has been speaking. 
 This is on the question of louo, which is to wash the whole body; and 
 because it means to wash the whole body, he assumes it means to dip 
 the whole body, because some Hebrew scholar of note says it means 
 to immerse from the finger tips. Creemer says : " The verb and 
 noun {louo, loiitron), are used for religious washings, or purifications." 
 My opponent admits that louo is the equivalent of baptizo, and 
 Creemer here testifies that louo is used for a religious purification, the 
 very thing I have contended for in connection with baptism. Hence 
 another of his own witnesses testifies against him. 
 
 I have also proved that these blood sprinklings in the tabernacle 
 were purifications. If there had to be a bath taken afterwards to get 
 ofi the ashes it was not tliat which constituted the purification but it 
 was the sprinkling of the blood on the unclean. Moses distinctly said 
 so, as I showed last night. It is not the action or motion of the water 
 that constitutes the purification or baptism, but the effect of the 
 sprinkling as a symbol to shadow forth the application of the blood 
 of Christ to the conscience ; and they conveyed the idea to those 
 who were looking, through the ejie, and that is what symbolic 
 purifications are for. If that is not plain I cannot make it so ; 
 but some men are not able to see a point unless you cut a couple of 
 feet off the end of it. I am not going to chase my opponent all over, for 
 I want to make my review. In this debate T conceded that baptizo, 
 in its primary heathen usage, signifies to dip, plunge, immerse, so far 
 as these words can express an enclosed condition within an envelop- 
 ing element. In this sense, when applied to living men it always 
 involved drowning. Consequently, whenever a Creek baptism was 
 performed according to the primary meaning, drowning was the result. 
 On this point there is no dispute. My opponent dare not baptize ac- 
 cording to primary classic usage. Hence I have looked for another 
 meaning. A secondary meaning is that a man may be baptized into in- 
 sensibility by sleep. You may say it was immersion in a figure. I do 
 not care, as the man did not require to be immersed in order to be bap- 
 tized. Sleep changed his condition, and that was l)aptism. An indi- 
 vidual taking a drug which changed him into a condition of stupor 
 was said by the heathen Greeks to be baptized. An individual be- 
 
ON TIIK MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 155 
 
 coming intoxicated witli wine was said by the Greeks to be baptized 
 witli wine. An individual stained with his own blood was said to be 
 baptized with liis blood. In Revelations 16 : 3 we read: "And 
 He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood : and His name 
 is called the Word of God." In the revised version the translators 
 have instead " a vesture baptized with blood," but certainly it was 
 not dipped, plunged, or immersed. 
 Mr. Harding — Or sprinkled. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — How could His vesture have been immersed in 
 blood when He was hanging on the cross, where He was bleeding 
 and dying? In this second sense the Greek wi'iters frequently 
 used it. I have shown that under the old dispensation, long before 
 Christ, it was applied to purification to express a changed condition, 
 no matter how it was brought about. I have acknowledged that 
 immersion, as a mode of baptism, can be traced to a very early age in 
 the Christian Church, but I have shown that the immersion itself was 
 not, according to the fathers of that day, what constituted the baptism. 
 It was the condition considered necessary to a baptism by these 
 superstitious fathers of the Church, the baptism itself being the effect 
 produced on the soul of the candidate while in a submerged condi- 
 tion, by the life principle supposed to be imparted to the water by 
 the Spirit. I have also shown that the candidates were baptized 
 naked, both men, women and childi-en, in order to give the Spirit a 
 better chance to penetrate and cleanse the soul. I have shown that 
 this doctrine was a false and superstitious belief transferred from the 
 actual legal purifications of the Jews, who were so surrounded by 
 the darkness of the existing age as to be susceptible to such supersti- 
 tions. Along with this superstition was its twin sister, viz., Transub- 
 stantiation, and a host of others, such as anointing with dirt, rubbing 
 spittle on the candidate, insufflation, exorcism, etc. I have shown, 
 also, that the verb baptizo has a secondary sense, expressive of the 
 great change wrought in man by the Spirit of God, viz., cleansing and 
 regeneration. That purifying rites had existed among the Jews for 
 fifteen hundred years, typifying and symbolizing this great change, 
 and this has been admitted by my opponent. Now these Jewish or 
 Judaic baptisms, in type and symbol, were almost all performed by 
 sprinkling ; therefore the Christian rite, which symbolizes the same 
 truth, should be by sprinkling. I liave proved that the blood of 
 Christ sprinkling the unclean effects a spiritual purification ; hence its 
 symbol, water, should be applied by sprinkling. Also the gift of 
 the Spirit, which in the New Testament is described as a baptism, is. 
 
156 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 invariably represented as being communicated to men by a descent 
 upon tliem ; therefore its symbol, water, to be appropriate and efficient 
 in making this descent visible, must also descend upon the individual, 
 especially so as it is a gift of God to man, and not a gift of man to 
 God. A herculean ertbrt has been made by my opponent to prove that 
 the baptism of the Spirit is an immersion; but it is a singular fact that 
 it is always effected by pouring out. No man is ever represented as 
 being dipped, or immersed in the Spirit, Ijut it invariably comes 
 down on him ; and as water baptism is designed to make the Spirit's 
 operations visible, it must also descend upon the candidate. It mat- 
 ters not whether the design is to cover the individual all over or not. 
 Whatever the design, it is said to be etfected by pouring, or shedding 
 down ; evidently not because the Spirit itself is literally poured out, 
 but because its symbol (water) was ; hence the form of speech is con- 
 formed to this idea. But my contention is true in any case — not that 
 the word means to pour or sprinkle, but that the contemplated result 
 is produced by pouring or sprinkling. I have proved that the Israel- 
 ites were not immersed, though Christianly baptized; that the Egyptians 
 were immersed, though not Christianly baptized. Next, the antedi- 
 luvians were immersed, not baptized ; Noah and his family were 
 baptized, but not immersed. Naaman was cleansed, whatever the form 
 of baptism, proving that baptism is a purification. It has not been, 
 nor can it be, proved that he" was immersed. The burial business has 
 been so badly shattered that it will not pay any man to attempt repairs. 
 The baptism of Christ was a cleansing, not an immersion, unless the 
 priests were immersed in the laver, which has not been and cannot be 
 proved. My opponent has proved nothing that I have not admitted. 
 His whole ground is gone from beneath his feet and he is left afloat 
 where it would be appropriate, when he feels good, to sing, "Cling to 
 the lifeboat, sailor, and pull for the shore." 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen, such truths as I have been presenting to 
 you to the best f>f my ability, and with earnestness and zeal, have led 
 the great mass of Christians in the present day to cast aside the 
 shackles of superstitious l)igotry by which the people of former ages 
 were l>ound. Thank God, we are emerging from that state of 
 darkness when the people revered hoary-headed superstition and 
 bowed down and worshipped it; when they ascribed spiritual, saving 
 efficacy to the sacraments of Christ, converting baptism into spiritual 
 regeneration, and converting the Lord's Supper into the real body and 
 blood of Christ. These two superstitions are twin sisters, they were 
 born at the same time and have gone hand in hand unto this day, and 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 157 
 
 what superstition has joined together let them stay together, if they 
 will ; but do not let any one try to impose such quackery and supersti- 
 tion on us now. We shall resist it every time. You may depend upon 
 it that as scholarship continues to improve, and as the subject is ven- 
 tilated in public discussion and otherwise, that old superstition will pass 
 away like the clouds before the rising sun ; and the grand millennial 
 glory shall envelop this earth as the waters cover the sea, and then God 
 shall " sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean ; from all 
 your filthiness and from all your idols will He cleanse you and a new 
 heart will He put within you." The Lord knows how to cleanse by 
 sprinkling ; my opponent and his friends do not. They have con- 
 verted the beautiful rite of Christian baptism, symbolizing the purifi- 
 cation of the soul, into a superstitious burial and resurrection scene, 
 imitating the actual burial of our Lord in the grave, and His being 
 raised up again from the dead. When I come to exhibit my chart 
 again you will find that baptism, which is the symbol of regeneration, 
 has been taken beyond its proper sphere, and made to dramatize 
 atonement, or that which pertains to the atonement, and has no direct 
 reference whatever to regeneration. I accuse them (I say it advisedly, 
 not because I want to hurt feelings but because it is important to 
 the truth,) of vitiating the purposes of the Divine ordinance. What- 
 Christ intended to be symbolized is not presented by this rite in 
 immersion. I say that God's truth is made of none efiect by these 
 traditions and speculations of men. I have proved this, and will 
 continue to prove it to the end, and the next time we meet in debate 
 my opponent will not be able to accuse me of not having authorities 
 present. 
 
 I heartily thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your attention. You 
 have heard me with the utmost patience and consideration. I came 
 here at the solicitation of one of your resident ministers to assist him 
 in putting the truth before his people. I was driven into this debate. 
 My opponent who had no special business at my lecture, rose, and in a 
 most defiant and ungentlemanly manner challenged me to debate, and 
 he has had to take the consequences ; and if they have been hard for 
 him to bear, I affirm that it has been a very painful experience to 
 me to inflict them. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 (This closed the debate on the first proposition.) 
 
158 RErt)RT OF DEBATE 
 
 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 That Infant Baptism is of Divine authority, and has been 
 
 practiced by the Christian Church from Apostolic 
 
 times." 
 
 FOUETH DAY— AFTEENOON. 
 
 Accordiiif; to the original agreement, Mr, Wilkinson was to affirm 
 the Second Proposition; accordingly he speaks first during the last 
 three days, and Mr. Harding responds. The opening speech by each 
 disputant on each proposition occupied one hour. 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S FIllST SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, —It devolves upon me to 
 affirm that "Infant Baptism is of Divine authority, and has been 
 practiced by the Christian Church from Apostolic times." I understand 
 the entire Bible to be given " by inspiration of God, and profitable for 
 doctrine, and instruction in righteousness," hence I shall feel free to 
 make my appeal to any and all parts of the Bible for proof of tliis 
 proposition. If it can be shown that God appointed this rite, or its 
 equivalent, at any time, and that such appointment has never been 
 revoked, or disannulled, then it follows that it still remains in full 
 force and virtue as truly as it did on the day of its aj^pointment. 
 Evidently, if God appointed it no other authority could have revoked 
 it, hence we will proceed with our investigation in order to determine, 
 if possil)le, whether we have any Divine authority for the observance 
 of this rite. 
 
 In Christianity ive have two rites, called seals, or sacraments. 
 
 These seals or sacraments represent, respectively, the two funda- 
 mental and essential doctrines of our holy Christianity — the two great 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJEcft OF BAPTISM. 159 
 
 pillars of truth which stand, so to speak, at the gate of tlie temple. 
 In order to understand the better the nature of these truths, and the 
 import and design of their outward symbols, we will need to remember 
 that man as a sinner is under a twofold curse : (1) The curse of a 
 violated law, and (2) The bondage of depraved affections. 
 
 To deliver him from the first, atonement was demanded, hence we 
 have, appended to the curse, the promise of a Saviour. 
 
 To deliver him from the second, his nature must be renewed, hence 
 a divine spiritual operation was demanded. 
 
 During the early ages of our world's history, when the great scheme 
 of redemption was as yet but imperfectly unfolded, the fact is re- 
 corded that men offered sacrifices to God in order to atone for their 
 sins, and fire was sometimes given in connection with their offerings, 
 doubtless as a symbol of the purifying operations of the Divine Spirit. 
 At all events, we know that at a very early age God found a man in 
 Ur of the Chaldees, called Abram, whom He called to go out of his 
 country, and from his kindred, and his father's house, into a land 
 which He would afterwards give to him for an inheritance, promising 
 to make of him a great nation, and bless him, and make his name 
 great, and make him a blessing to all the families of the earth. The 
 descendants of this man subsequently became bondmen in Egypt, a 
 state or condition strikingly typical of the enslaved condition of 
 mankind under the bondage of Satan. These people were a peculiar 
 people, and though they were in Egypt and evil entreated for 430 
 years (Acts 7:6), yet they were not of Egypt. God blessed them 
 and multiplied them, as He promised Abram, until they began to be a 
 terror to the Egyptians, who oppressed them very sore, illustrating 
 the tyranny and antagonism of the world towards the followers of the 
 Lord in all ages. But it was God's purpose to deliver that people 
 from their bondage and plant them in the land He promised to Abram, 
 hence an admirable opportunity presented itself for illustrating to them 
 and to the world the great plan of salvation for the world through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord. Accordingly a lamb is to be chosen out of the 
 flock for each family (as in Christ, the seed of Abraham, all the families 
 of the earth were to be blessed), and it was to be slain, and its blood 
 sprinkled tyjncally at the entrance to their houses, so that the de- 
 stroying angel could not hurt them without passing through the blood, 
 which he was not allowed to do. Therefore, when he came to the 
 houses of the Israelites he passed over them, typifying the manner in 
 which we are delivered or preserved from wrath by the sprinkling 
 upon us of the blood of Christ. The flesh of this Lamb was to be 
 
160 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 eaten, and its blood sjirinkled, resulting in the preservation of the 
 people. A feast was by Divine appointment instituted among the 
 Israelites, to be observed every year in commemoration of this event ; 
 a lamb must be slain as at first, and its flesh eaten. This feast was 
 called the feast of the Passover, and the lamb is usually called the 
 Paschal lamb. 
 
 Now, that this circumstance was typical of Christ, is evident from 
 the fact that Christ is especially pointed out by John the Baptist as 
 " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," and Paul 
 says (1 Cor. 5:7), that "Even Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for 
 us." Now, if Christ is our Passover Lamb, then that other Passover 
 lamb must have been a type of Him. Further, the eating of that 
 lamb was typical of the people's reception of the benefits of the victim 
 by whose blood they were delivered, or at the expense of whose life 
 they had been redeemed. The Lord's Supper stands in precisely the 
 same relation to the Lamb of God as the Passover feast did to the 
 Paschal lamb. The type, however, is done away, and the symbol 
 remains ; for that feast, like the ceremonial cleansings, was both 
 typical and symbolic. The Lord's Supper is symbolic only, and is 
 observed in commemoration of the world's deliverance from sin, 
 through His death. No one would ever be found to deny this only 
 that it stands sadly in the way of a favorite theory. This illustrates 
 the fact that God has provided in a special manner for keeping the 
 great fundamental doctrine of the atonement before men's minds 
 by means of visible types and symbols, from the days of Moses, at 
 least, and will do so to the end of tlie world. 
 
 But what about the regenerating feature of tlie divine plan 1 
 This is a twofold operation, including cleansing and renewal, and 
 must have been effected the same as it is now, by the inward action 
 of divine grace. But because of its importance, like the atoning 
 feature, God would make it visible to the mind, through the eye, "by 
 outward signs and symbols. But as human kind were not, in that 
 comparatively infantile age of the world, as capable of perceiving 
 moral truths as now, God employed two symbols for the exhibition of 
 this twofold operation, one for the cleansing and the other for the 
 regeneration. By the washings, cleansings, purifications, or properly 
 typical baptisms of the law, the people were taught the nature and 
 imperious necessity of inward purity. Whether they enjoyed it or 
 not, they were impressed from day to day with its necessity. By 
 circumcision they were taught the imperious necessity of having fleshly 
 passions and lusts crucified and removed, however painful it might be 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 161 
 
 to the carnal nature. Hence this rite was also instituted and en- 
 joined by God's command, and must be observed under pain of being 
 cut otf, in figure, from the benefits of the covenant. It may be said, 
 however, that circumcision was instituted long before the legal 
 baptisms, hence, during that interval the people had no rite to repre- 
 sent cleansing. I reply that ciicumcision itself involved cleansing, 
 and represented it, but the people did not clearly and impressively 
 perceive it, chiefly, no doubt, because of their moral perversity rather 
 than their natural imbecility, hence " the law was added because of 
 transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the pro^nise was 
 made " (Gal. 3 : 19), which promise refers to the covenant of redemption 
 made with Abraham (Gen. 12 : 1-3 and 17 : 1-8), in which God pro- 
 mises to be Abraham's God and ble^s him, and make him the father of 
 many nations. 
 
 In this covenant God also promised Abraham that in his seed, viz., 
 Christ, all the families of the earth should be blessed, or justified. He 
 then sealed the covenant with a seal indicative of moral purification 
 and regeneration. 
 
 And now do you require any proof that baptism under the new dis- 
 pensation includes both these ideas 1 We have it in Titus 3 : 5, 
 where the apostle says, we are saved " not by works of righteousness 
 which we have done, but according to the mercy of God, by the wash- 
 ing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." This 
 passage, my opponent has admitted, refers to baptism, and it distinctly 
 teaches both cleansing and renewal, thetefore this twofold truth is 
 embodied in and represented by this Christian ordinance. 
 
 And now do you want any proof that baptism and circumcision are 
 identical in their nature and import 1 Well, this same apostle has, 
 by inspiration of God, married them together in Col. 2 : 11, 12 (I 
 quote from the revised version as being a more literal and accurate 
 rendering) : " In whom (Christ) ye were circumcised with a circum- 
 cision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the 
 flesh by the circumcision of Christ ; having been buried with him in 
 baptism," etc. That is, having been buried with Him in baptism we 
 are circumcised with Him, thus proving plainly that circumcision is 
 effected by baptism, and vice versa, by which they are shown to be 
 identical. And they are joined together by the authority of God, 
 and " what He hath joined together, let no man put asunder." 
 
 To make this point clear, I want to call your attention again to this 
 chart (the one previously exhibited and explained, see p. 114), in which 
 Christianity is represented under the figure of an arch, supported by 
 11 
 
162 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 two great pillars, representing the fundamental truths to which I 
 have referred — atonement and regeneration. As explained on a pre- 
 vious occasion, this pillar, representing atonement, was made visible 
 during the old dispensation by the Passover ; and under the new, by 
 the Lord's Supper, as shown in the diagram ; hence the Lord's Sup- 
 per and the Passover are not two things, but two different forms of 
 the same thing, both being outward shadows or patterns of the same 
 truth. So during the old dispensation this other pillar truth, was 
 represented by circumcision, baptism (ceremonial cleansing) being 
 subsequently added to make the twofold aspect of the truth more 
 jnanifest ; while under the present dispensation baptism alone is em- 
 ployed for the symbolic illustration of this truth. Circumcision and 
 baptism, therefore, are not two separate things, but two difterent 
 forms of the same thing, each adapted to the genius of its respective 
 dispensation, but both serving the same end. If, therefore, circum- 
 cision was by Divine authority applied to children, so must baptism 
 be, unless God himself forbids it, which He has never done. There- 
 fore, instead of demanding a command from us to baptize infants, 
 we have a right to demand a command from our opponents not to 
 Viaptize them, God put them in this covenant and ordered the seal 
 applied, and until He puts them out of the covenant and forbids 
 ihe application of the seal, the Divine arrangement must stand. This 
 is our authority for the administration of this rite to infants, and 
 unless my opponent can prove that circumcision and baptism are not 
 identical in nature and design, or that God has revoked the covenant 
 of which circumcision was the seal, the argument for the baptism of 
 infants is simply irresistible. 
 
 At this point I want to remove an impression that may have ob- 
 tained in spme quarters, viz., that God made three separate covenants 
 with Abraham, and that circumcision was only the seal of one, and 
 that one is now abrogated. Let us see : 
 
 In Gen. 12 : 1-3, we read, "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, 
 Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred and from tliy 
 father's hoiise, unto a land that I will tell 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 l)less them that Ijless thee, and curse him that curseth 
 thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 
 
 Paul quotes from this passage as the covenant of spiritual blessings, 
 in Gal. 3:8, " In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed," thus 
 identifying this with the covenant of grace. But on this point there 
 is no dispute. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 163 
 
 •On receiving this command and promise — it is called a covenant 
 liere — Abram went to Canaan. God appeared to him there (Gen. 13 : 
 14-16), and said nnto him : 
 
 " Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art 
 (in the neighborhood of Bethel), northward, and southward, and east- 
 ward, and westward. 
 
 " For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to 
 thy seed for ever. 
 
 " And 1 will make thy seed as the dust of the earth," etc., thus 
 renewing the promise made in chapter 12:2, "I will make of thee a 
 great nation." 
 
 In Gen. 17 : 1-8 we have another record of this covenant. It reads : 
 
 " 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 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 lather 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. 
 
 "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land 
 "Avherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting- 
 possession : and I will be their God." 
 
 It certainly must be clear to all right thinking persons whose minds 
 Are not obscured by prejudice, that these covenants are but repetitions 
 and enlargements of the same thing at different times. 
 
 You will observe that in these passages God promises Abraham the 
 land of Canaan, not only, but He promises also to make of him "a 
 father of many nations ;" and Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, 
 quotes this very clause to establish the spirituality of the seed to 
 whom these promises are intended to apply. He says, in chap, -l : 13, 
 «tc., that "the promise that he should be the heir of the world was 
 not to Abraham or to his seed through the law (his legal descendants), 
 but through the righteousness of faith. 
 
16 J: REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 " 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 no law is there is no 
 transgression. 
 
 " Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace ; to tlie end th& 
 promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the- 
 ^aw, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the 
 father of us all (Jews and Gentiles). 
 
 " (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations)," 
 etc. This passage identifies the covenant recorded in Gen. 17, with 
 the covenant of spiritual blessings intended for all nations — blessings 
 to be procured by faith, including justification. Therefore the covenant 
 promising the land of Canaan was a spiritual covenant, or the covenant 
 of grace. This truth is made still more manifest by the fact that in 
 this same covenant Isaac is promised, who was to be the progenitor of 
 the Messiah, the author of all spiritual blessings. I will read from 
 verse 15 : 
 
 " And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt 
 not call her name Sarai but Sarah, shall her name be. 
 
 " And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her ; yea, I will 
 bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations ; kings of people shall 
 be of her. 
 
 " Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his 
 heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old ? 
 and shall Sarah that is ninety years old, bear ? 
 
 "And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before- 
 thee ! 
 
 " And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed ; and 
 thou shalt call his name Isaac : and I will establish my covenant with 
 him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 
 
 " And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee : Behold, I have blessed 
 him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly : 
 twelve princes shall he beget : and I will make him a great nation. 
 
 " But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall 
 bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." 
 
 Now, here we have the promise of Isaac who is distinctly set forth 
 by the Apostle Paul in Gal. 4 : 22, etc., as the representative of the 
 spiritual, as distinct from the national covenant. The passage reads : 
 
 " For it is written that Abraham had two sons ; the one by a bond- 
 maid, the other by a freewoman. 
 
ox THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTlSM. 165 
 
 " But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh ; but 
 he of the freewoman was by promise. 
 
 '•' Which things are an allegoiy : 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 Jeru- 
 salem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 
 
 " But Jerusalem which is above is fi'ee, which is the mother of us 
 :all. 
 
 " For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that barest not ; break 
 forth and cry, thou that travailest not ; for the desolate hath many 
 more children than she which hath an husband. 
 
 " Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 
 
 " But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that 
 was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 
 
 '• Nevertheless what saith the Scripture ? Cast out the bondwoman 
 and her son : for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the 
 son of the freewoman. 
 
 " So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of 
 the free." 
 
 It is somewhat strange, if the covenant in Gen. 17 contained a 
 promise of earthly blessings only, that Isaac, who was begotten by 
 the intervention of the Divine Spirit and made the representative of 
 the spiritual dispensation, should be connected with that earthly 
 ■covenant alone. The truth is, and it is very transparent, that the 
 covenant recorded in Gen. 17 was a covenant of spiritual blessings. 
 And it was this covenant of spiritual blessings that was sealed with 
 the seal of circumcision, for God said to Abraham in Gen. 17 : 
 10-14 : 
 
 " 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. 
 
 " And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; and it shall 
 be a token of the covenant betwixt Me and you. 
 
 " And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, 
 ■every man child in your generations ; he that is born in the house, or 
 bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 
 
 " He that is born in thy liouse, and he that is bought with thy 
 money, must needs be circumcised : and My covenant shall be in your 
 flesh for an everlasting covenant. 
 
 •' And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is 
 
166 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hatb 
 broken My covenant." 
 
 Circumcision is here called a "token" of the covenant. For an 
 explanation of this we turn to Rom. 4: : 11, 12 : " And he (Abraham} 
 received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith 
 which he had, yet being uncircumcised." Now, " righteousness," or 
 justification, obtained by faith, was a spiritual blessing, yet it was- 
 sealed to Abraham by what some people would have us believe was 
 the seal of temporal blessings only. There is something very strange,, 
 indeed, about this. And he received this seal, " that he might be the 
 father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised," i.e., 
 of all Gentile believers, who obtain the same blessing (justification} 
 in the same way, or " who walk in the steps of that faith of our 
 father Abraham which he had before he was circumcised," showing 
 that it sealed this same spiritual blessing to all his spiritual seed. 
 And the same seal, or " token " was applied to Isaac at eight days 
 old. Did it seal some different blessing to him from what it did to 
 his father? Did it mean one thing in the one case and quite another 
 thing in the other case 1 And, if so, where is the proof 1 The fact is 
 that the Scriptures are silent concerning such double meaning ; and 
 this is sufficient to condemn such an interpretation. Therefore it 
 must have sealed the same blessing to Isaac and to all other Jewish 
 children, that it did to Abraham, and nothing but the stern demands- 
 of an erroneous theory would think of questioning a truth so ^jlain. 
 
 If this reasoning is correct, then God put children originally inta 
 the covenant of grace made with Abraham, and caused the seal of 
 that covenant to be put upon them in common with believing adults, 
 and until that covenant is revoked, or God himself arrests the opera- 
 tion, we must continue to affix the seal to such. 
 
 In further illustration of this position I want to add : 
 
 1. That the covenant made with Abraham was an "everlasting 
 covenant." 
 
 This being the case it must still be in force, and as the seal was to 
 be co-extensive with the covenant, at least so long as new candidates 
 are received into it, hence the seal, in some approi)riate form, must 
 still be applied. Baptism, as we have shown, means the same thing 
 and answers the same end as circumcision, therefore it should be ap- 
 plied to all persons possessing the requisite qualifications. Children 
 possessed the requisite qualifications and were sealed with circumcision, 
 hence they possess the requisite qualifications and should also be 
 sealed with baptism. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 167 
 
 2. It was a covenant on God's part that He would be a God unto 
 Abraham and his seed after him forever.' 
 
 The fact that the phrase " in their generations " occurs in connec- 
 tion with the promise, by no means limits the blessing to Abraham's 
 natural seed, as it was one of the most common expressions among 
 the Jews to denote unbroken perpetuity. In fact, the term "genera- 
 tion " is employed in dozens of instances in the Bible as a mere 
 measurement of time, denoting in general about the average length 
 of human life. But what ought to settle this question beyond any 
 reasonable doubt, is the fact that Peter (1 Ep. 2 : 9) speaks of be- 
 lievers, or the spiritual seed of Abraham, as a " chosen generation," 
 etc. Surely this has no reference to natural generation, as some 
 would have you believe The Psalmist (105 : 8) says, " He hath re- 
 membered His covenant forever, the word of His commandment to 
 a thousand generations," or practically forever, 
 
 3. In this covenant, through Abraham's seed, " all the families of 
 the earth shall be l)lessed." 
 
 In this part of the covenant the seed had special reference to 
 Christ, and consequently the blessing must have had reference to the 
 blessings secured to the world through Him, viz., the blessings of re- 
 demption. Paul says (Gal. 3 : 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." There is something 
 significant in this limitation of the term " seed " to Christ. As spirit- 
 ual blessings chiefly are secured to the world through Him, it teaches 
 very distinctly that the blessings promised to the world through 
 Abraham's seed were spiritual blessings pre-eminently. Also the 
 limitation of the promise to Christ proves that the blessings promised 
 were intended especially for the spiritual seed of Abraham, all be- 
 lievers being identified and reckoned as one with Christ. " Therefore 
 they who are Christ's are Abraham's seed and his heirs according to 
 the promise " (covenant). — Gal. 3 : 29. 
 
 4.» Circumcision was the appointed seal of this covenant. The 
 covenant, or its token, was to be in their flesh for " an everlasting 
 covenant." — Gen. 17:13. Therefore, until the covenant of spiritual 
 blessing to mankind through Christ is revoked, this seal or " token " 
 must be applied under some divinely-appointed form to all persons 
 claiming the promised blessings. If the seal has been removed from 
 the covenant, we have no guarantee as to the validity of the said cov- 
 enant, or the certainty of the promised blessings. We know that 
 God has removed that form of seal called circumcision, and if He 
 
168 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 lias substituted nothing in its place Ave have great cause for alarm. 
 We have no guarantee that God considers Himself as bound by that 
 covenant at all ; hence when a man succeeds in proving the abroga- 
 tion of circumcision and the substitution of nothing in its place, he 
 succeeds in blotting out the world's hope. This may be illustrated by 
 the case of a deed. Suppose you received a deed of a farm, and it 
 was duly signed, sealed, and delivered, and laid by for safe keeping. 
 Now, let it be remembered, that it is the seal that gives validity to 
 this document in law. But suppose that you take out your deed 
 some day and find no seal on it. What would you think 1 You 
 would consider your claim to the farm virtually worthless unless the 
 seal could be restored. So, too, in regard to this covenant. If the 
 seal has been removed the covenant has been annulled, and the na- 
 tions are robbed of all hope in Christ. This is a terribly serious 
 consideration. But if we have the same seal under an altered form 
 still affixed to the covenant, then have we " hope toward God through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 5. That the covenant has never been abrogated. 
 
 Paul says (Gal. 3 : 17, 18), " Now this I say : A covenant confirmed 
 beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty 
 years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none 
 effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise ; 
 but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise." Heb. 8 : 6-10, 13, 
 "But now hath lie obtained a ministry the more excellent, by how 
 much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been 
 enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been 
 faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. 
 
 " For finding fault with them, He saith. Behold, the days come, 
 saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of 
 Israel, 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 forth out of the 
 land of Egyi)t ; for they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded 
 them not, saith the Lord. 
 
 " 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 on their heart also will I write them : and T will be to them a 
 God, and they shall be to Me a people." 
 
 " In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. 
 But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanish- 
 ing away." (Revised version.) 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 169 
 
 This, you will observe, was the covenant' that God made with tlie 
 fathers " in the day when He took them by the hand to lead them 
 forth out of the land of E^ypt," which may be called " the covenant 
 of Sinai," or " the covenant of ceremonies ;" and this is the only cove- 
 nant that God has abrogated. Therefore, the covenant He made with 
 Abraham 430 years befoi^e, and which neither the enactment nor 
 abrogation of the law could disannul, is still in force. And if the 
 covenant is in force, its seal must be valid. And if the first form has 
 been altered, we have a right to look for its equivalent in some other 
 form ; and we find it in baptism. This seal, before the alteration of 
 the form, was applied to infants, therefore we argue it should be 
 applied still unless it can be shown that God has ordained other- 
 wise. 
 
 6. The seal of that covenant had a spiritual import. The following 
 passages are given in proof of this : — 
 
 Deut. 10:16. "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, 
 and be no more stiff-necked." 
 
 Deut. 30 : 6. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, 
 and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine 
 heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayst live." 
 
 Jer. 4:4. " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away 
 the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah, and ye inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem." 
 
 Col. 2 : 11. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
 cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the 
 flesh by the circumcision of Christ." 
 
 In V. 13 an unregenerate state is called the " uncircunicision of the 
 flesh." 
 
 Rom. 2 : 28, 29. " He is not a Jew which is one outwai'dly ; 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, and not in the letter, wJiose praise is not of 
 men but of God." 
 
 7. The seal was to be applied to all of Abraham's children. Rom. 
 4:11-17; Gal. 3:26-29. They who are Christ's are Abraham's 
 children and heirs. Little children are Christ's, therefore they are 
 " Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." 
 
 8. The child character is the standard of admission into the divine 
 kingdom. 
 
 " Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in 
 no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." 
 
170 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 " Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not, for 
 of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 9. The Church is tlie same under both dispensations. 
 
 This is illustrated by the apostle Paul by the olive tree, which was 
 a figure of the Jewish Church, the ti'unk of which remains, and the 
 Gentiles are grafted into it. There is no new olive tree planted, but 
 the old one perpetuated under a new form. The apostle says : 
 
 " 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 tliou 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." Rom. 11 : 17-19. 
 
 The same truth is represented under other figures in Eph. 2 : 13- 
 22. The apostle says : 
 
 " But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made 
 nigh by the blood of Christ. 
 
 " For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken 
 down the middle wall of partition between us ; 
 
 " Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of com- 
 mandments contained in ordinances ; for to make in Himself of twain 
 one new man, so making peace ; 
 
 "And that He might reconcile botli unto God in one body by the 
 cross, having slain the enmity thereby ; 
 
 " And came and preached peace to you which 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 groweth unto an 
 holy temple in the Lord ; 
 
 " In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God 
 through the Spirit." 
 
 Under both dispensations we have the same God, the same Saviour, 
 Jesus Christ, the same Holy Spirit, the same covenant, the same law, 
 the same conditions of salvation, the same olive tree, the same 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBTECTS OF BAPTISM. 171 
 
 kingdom, hence I argue that the Church is the same and the member- 
 ship the same. 
 
 Little children were members of that Church under the old dis- 
 pensation ; why not now '? 
 
 That Peter recognized the continued existence and authority of the 
 covenant made with Abraham, and the rights of children to a recog- 
 nition by its seal, is evident from his great inaugural address on the 
 day of Pentecost. It will be remembered that this was the grand in- 
 augural day of the new dispensation, a large body of Jews were 
 assembled at Jerusalem to celebrate it, and Peter was the chief 
 speaker. In addressing those Jews he said, Acts 2 : 38, 39 : 
 
 "Repent, 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. 
 
 " For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that 
 are afar oft', even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
 By the " promise " here, he evidently meant the covenant. The 
 blessings promised are ''remission of sins (justification), and the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost," showing that these were the blessings in- 
 cluded in that covenant. These blessings are promised on condition 
 of repentance and baptism, (not circumcision now), and the covenant 
 for the bestowment of these blessings is said to be to them, as Jews, 
 and to their children, which we certainly know included infants, (and 
 so every Jew must have understood it, their children having always 
 been regarded as belonging to the covenant and sealed with its seal), 
 "and to all that are afar off"," by which Gentile nations are doubtless 
 meant. And now I reason, that if the infant children of Jews were 
 included in the "promise," then the infant children of "them that 
 were afar off"" must have been included also. Thus God, as if to 
 guard against any misapprehension on this point, has included 
 Gentile children in the covenant of promise along with the infant 
 children of Jews. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
172 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 MR. HARDING'S FIRST REPLY. 
 
 It affords me pleasui-e, ladies and gentlemen, to stand before you 
 to debate this great and important question. I agree most heartily 
 with Mr. Wilkinson in saying that what we want is truth. I know 
 well enough that what is false will do me no good, and by the grace 
 of God I intend to stand on the right side. The man who stands on 
 the side of truth is strong ; he has God on his side ; he is in the 
 majority, and will come out conqueror in every conflict. I want to be 
 a conqueror ; I want to be in the majority ; wherever, therefore, I 
 ifind truth, I will stand right there. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson thinks he has the truth on this question, and he is 
 here to show it to you, viz.: "That Infant Baptism is of Divine 
 authority, and has been practiced by the Christian Church from 
 Apostolic times." If that is the truth, I have not found it. I have 
 three little children, and if that proposition be true, I should like to 
 have them baptized. If God has any blessing for my babies, I want 
 them to have it. One of them has been baptized ; two have not ; the 
 one because he was old enough to understand, and of his own 
 free will to come forward to serve God. But I do not want to hold 
 back any blessing from any of them. If infant baptism is authorized 
 by the Word of God, and is of Divine authority, let our children have 
 it. The Discipline of Mr. Wilkinson's Cliurch — the one that does not 
 have the word dip in it — says, "The Holy Scriptures contain all 
 things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, 
 nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it 
 should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or 
 necessary to salvation." — page 14. 
 
 If, therefore, infant baptism is taught in the Holy Scriptures, it is 
 right, proper, and scriptural that we should ))ractice it ; if it is not, 
 even according to the Discipline, it is not to be required of any man. 
 To the law and to the testimony let us go. Is it taught in the Holy 
 .Scriptures? Not one unprejudiced mind lias been able to see that 
 Mr. Wilkinson has produced a single passage of Scripture which 
 teaches infant baptism. Indeed, I will show you tliat men on his own 
 .side, men far more learned than he is, and as anxious to prove infant 
 baptism, cannot see infant baptism in any of the passages he has 
 quoted. I am going to stand by the authorities still. Do you in- 
 quire. What for? why not read directly from the Bible? I answer. If 
 1 had time to read the whole Bible through, I should be able to show 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 173 
 
 clearly that infant baptism is not taught there-in. I have not time to 
 do this, so I will produce the testimony of men on his own side of the 
 question, who have read it through many times, while studying this- 
 very question, and who testify that it is not to be found in the Book ; 
 I will also produce the testimony of men on his own side of the 
 question, who will say of his arguments, that they do not prove his 
 position. 
 
 My friend says his duties are pleasant and light under this proposi- 
 tion. I am neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet ; but if his 
 burdens do not become heavier and his work more unpleasant, day by 
 day, till this dicussion ends, his fate Avill be different from that of 
 any ptedobaptist I have ever met in debate. He is on the wrong 
 side of the question. 
 
 Now to the authorities : Dr. George E. Steitz, a well-known Lu- 
 theran, in his treatise on baptism {Herzog's Encyclopcedia, Vol. XV., 
 p. 431) asserts that "among scientifical exegetes it is regarded as an 
 established conclusion that not a trace of infant baptism can be 
 discovered in the New Testament." 
 
 As was shown to you on the former proposition, the greatest of all 
 these " scientifical exegetes " is Dr. H. A. W. Meyer. In his com 
 mentary on Acts 16 : 15, he says : " This passage, and verse 33, with 
 18 : 8, and 1 Cor. 1 : 16, are appealed to in order to prove infant 
 baptism in the apostolic age, or at least to make it probable." .After 
 making several remarks, showing clearly that these passages do not 
 teach the doctrine, he adds : " The baptism of the children of 
 Christians, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not 
 to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as indeed it encountered early 
 and long resistance ; but it is an institution of the Church, which 
 gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the develop- 
 ment of ecclesiastical life, and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly 
 attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and 
 although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after 
 the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection." Aleyer on Acts, 
 pp. 311, 312. 
 
 Neander, the greatest of Church historians, testifies : " Baptism 
 was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to 
 conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason 
 for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the re- 
 cognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolical tradi- 
 tion, serves to confirm this hypothesis." — Neander' s History of the 
 Christian Religion and Church, Vol. I., p. 311. 
 
174 ' REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Mosheim teaches (see his Ecclesiastical History, Book I., chap. 4, 
 sec. 1.3,) that in the second century, people were not baptized till 
 ' after they had repeated what they called the creed (symbolum), and 
 had renounced all their sins and transgressions, and especially the 
 devil and his ]io)up." He substantiates this by the quotation of a 
 very full and complete account of their manner of receiving new 
 converts into the Church, by Justin Martyr, which was written about 
 the year 150 A.D. 
 
 Dr. Schaft" (see History of the Christian Church, chap. 4, sec. 37, 
 p. 124) says: "The apostolic origin of in/ant baptism is denied not 
 only by the Baptists, but also by many ptedo- baptist divines." He 
 says also, on the same page, that " The New Testament contains no 
 express command to baptize infants." 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson teaches the mothers of the land that it is their 
 duty to have their infant children baptized ; that the Bible requires 
 it at their hands ; and yet these '• scientifical exegetes," such as 
 Neander, Meyer, Steitz, and the " many psedo-baptist divines " men- 
 tioned by Dr. Schaff, cannot find a vestige of it in the Bible. How 
 then does he expect the plain, unlettered women of the land to find 
 it there 1 These men wanted to find it ; their Churches practice it> 
 and require them to do it ; but, in spite of their own practice and of 
 the practice of their Churches, their honesty compels them to say it 
 ■cannot be found in the Book. 
 
 My opponent says that man's nature is depraved ; that he is under 
 a twofold curse ; that his nature must be renewed. Well, if all that 
 were so, what has it to do with the question we are discussing ? Does 
 he baptize the infant to get him from under the curse 1 Does he 
 baptize the little ones to save tliem 1 I want him to tell us plainly, 
 without any equivocation, what their baptism is for. Does he bap- 
 tize them to save them from the wrath of God 1 or, because they are 
 saved from if? To bring them into Christ's Church? or, because they 
 nre in it 1 He intimates that my doctrine would send them to hell. 
 Does he believe that baptism saves them from hell 1 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Not much ; nor adult baptism either. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Then you do not believe the doctrine of your Dis- 
 cipline; for it plainly teaches that infants are baptized that they may be 
 delivered from the wrath of God, and that they may be received into 
 the ark of Christ's Church, and may so pass the waves of this trouble- 
 some world, and come to the land of everlasting rest. But I will read 
 to you, my friends, from the Discipline, that you may know for your- 
 selves the doctrine of liis Church, the doctrine that he said he believed, 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 175 
 
 when he was received as a preacher, and tliat he obligated himself to 
 support. Before doing so, ho\\ ever, a word of explanation is necessary 
 concerning the terms " visible Church," and " invisible Church." 
 These are not Scriptural expressions, but they are much used by p;edo- 
 baptists, and if you would understand their literature you must under 
 stand their use of them. In Article XIII. of the Discipline of the 
 Methodist Church of Canada (p. 17) it is said: ''The visible Church 
 of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of 
 God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered." It is evident 
 from this definition of the " visible Church " that infants are not 
 received into it ; for they are not faithful men — they have no faith at 
 all — the Word of God is not preached to them, and the Lord's Supper 
 is not given to them. If, therefore, they are received into any Church, 
 it must be into what is known as the " invisible Church." This 
 " invisible Church " they understand to include all that are in Christ, 
 all that are saved through the death of Christ. (See the testimony of 
 Dr. Ditzler, Louisville Debate, p. 17.) 
 
 Bear in mind, now, that into what the Discipline calls the " visible 
 Church " infants cannot come, from the very nature of the case ; and 
 then, with this in your mind, read the following prayer, which the 
 minister is required to pray just before he baptizes a baby : 
 
 " Almighty aiad everlasting God, who of Thy great mercy didst 
 save Noah and his family in the ark from perishing by water ; and 
 also didst safely lead the children of Israel, Thy people, through the 
 Red Sea, figuring thereby Thy holy baptism, and has set apart water 
 for this Holy Sacrament ; and who hast condescended to enter into 
 gracious covenant with man, wherein Thou hast included children as 
 partakers of its benefits, declaring that, " of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven ;" we beseech Thee for Thine infinite mercies that Thou wilt 
 look upon this child ; wash him and sanctify him with the Holy 
 Ghost ; that he, being delivered from Thy wrath, may be received 
 into the ark of Christ's Church, and being steadfast in faith, joyful 
 through hope, and rooted in love, may so pass the waves of this 
 troublesome world, that finally he may come to the land of everlasting 
 life, there to reign with Thee, world without end, through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. 
 
 " O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child may be so 
 buried, that the new man may be raised up in him. 
 
 " Grant that all carnal aff"ections may die in him, and that all things 
 belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in him." 
 
 The minister, after he reminds the Father that He saved Noah from 
 
176 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 perishing, that He saved the children of Israel from their enemies at 
 the Red Sea, says, " We beseech Thee for Thine infinite mercies that 
 Thou wilt look upon this child ; wasJo him [lie regards him as unclean], 
 sanctifij him [he regards him as unsanctitied, unholy] w ith the Holy 
 Ghost ; that he, being delivered from Thy ivrath [he regards him as 
 being under the wrath of God], may be received into the ark of 
 Christ's Church." He then prays that the old Adam may be buried 
 in him, and the new man raised up in him. He does not regard the 
 " new man " (ChrLst) as being in him yet. 
 
 Evidently, according to the Discipline, babies are baptized in order 
 to be brought into the invisible Church, to be saved from the wrath 
 of God, saved from hell. It would not be strange, if Mr. Wilkinson 
 believed the doctrine of his Discipline, that he should say that my 
 doctrine sends them to hell, seeing that I do not baptize them. But 
 he does not believe that doctrine. He says they come into this world 
 as innocent as angels. But, notwithstanding this, he lifts his hands 
 over them and prays that they may be washed and sanctified by the 
 Holy Ghost, and delivered from the wrath of God; that the old Adam 
 may die in them, and the new man be raised up. A strange prayer to 
 pray over a being as innocent as an angel ; a being no more under the 
 wrath of God than Gabriel ! Then he talks about their being under 
 a twofold curse! 
 
 But, says he, were not infants circumcised in ancient days, under 
 the Mosaic economy"? Yes, they were; but that fact has nothing 
 whatever to do with infant baptism. Mr. Wilkinson's entire addi-ess, 
 in which he is supposed to lay the foundation of his argument in 
 defence of infant baptism, is devoted to what is known as the 
 " Argument from the Covenant of Circumcision." If this argument 
 is worthless, then all that he has said in his speech of one hour 
 amounts to nothing — absolutely nothing. It seems a pity to spoil die 
 results of so much labor, but it must be done. Listen to tlie follow- 
 ing startling statement from the most distinguished Methodist debater 
 on this continent. I read from the G raves- Ditzler, p. 692, as 
 follows : 
 
 [Note by Keporter. — xVs Dr. Graves was about to commence, 
 Elder Ditzler motioned him to his seat, where a short conference was 
 held, at the conclusion of which Elder Ditzler arose and said : — 
 
 " We have agreed not to debate the question of the covenants 
 further, as I here express my conviction that the covenants of the 
 Old Testament have nothing to do with infant baptism." 
 
 Dr. Graves. — I want it to be recorded alongside of that frank ad- 
 mission, that I am rejoiced to hear him say tliis. The Old Testament 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 177 
 
 covenants have been the basis of this rite heretofore, and I am glad 
 this ground is at last abandoned by Methodists. So much is gained 
 by this discussion. From this day onward, so long as Elder Ditzler 
 bears the endorsement of the Bishops of his Church, that he is a re- 
 presentative of their doctrines, let no Methodist elder or preacher in 
 all the South ever go back to the old covenants with Abraham, or 
 the Jews, to find a ground for infant baptism. I was never better 
 prepared to discuss the covenants, one and all, than now, but Elder 
 Ditzler has at last fully surrendered them. I close the Old Testament. 
 After this mutual explanation, Dr. Graves commenced his sixth 
 reply.] 
 
 It must be exceedingly distressing to my opponent, after that hour 
 speech on the covenants, to hear his noted brother Dr. Ditzler say : 
 " I here express my conviction that the covenants of the Old Testa- 
 ment have nothing to do with infant baptism." But there are many 
 Presbyterians present, and perhaps some of them would like to hear 
 a little Presbyterian testimony. In his day. Dr. Moses Stuart, of 
 Andover Theological Seminary, was the greatest Presbyterian light 
 on this Western continent. Concerning the covenant argument he 
 testifies thus : " How unwary, too, are many excellent men in con- 
 tending for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of 
 circumcision . . . Numberless difficulties present themselves in 
 our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this." 
 Again, " The covenant of circumcision furnishes no ground for infant 
 baptism." — Stuart on Baptism (Nashville edition), p. 32. 
 
 And now, there is here, no doubt, a third class, people who are 
 anxious to hear what the Bible says. They care more for the say- 
 ings of inspired men than they do for those of Methodists and Pres- 
 byterians, howsoever learned and distinguished they may be. Let 
 them consider the following facts : 
 
 r. According to the Scriptures, males only were circumcised ; males 
 and females both are baptized. 
 
 2. It was proper and right for a man to circumcise himself ; one 
 has no authority to baptize himself. 
 
 3. Either parent could circumcise the child. 
 
 4. When a Jew bought a servant — a male — he was required to 
 circumcise him ; in the days of slavery in the States, I never heard of a 
 pa;do-baptist's baptizing his men-servants because they were his ser- 
 vants. Mr. Wilkinson's Discipline would not allow him to do it. 
 
 5. Circumcision did not belong to God's peculiar people, the Jews, 
 only ; but it was observed by all the descendants of Abraham : Ish- 
 maelites, Edomites, and the children of Keturah, as well as the Jews ; 
 
 12 
 
178 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 whereas, in the New Testament, baptism is given only to those who 
 are discipled to Clirist. 
 
 6. No intellectual nor moral qualifications were required as pre- 
 requisites to circumcision ; for every male descendant of Abi'aham, 
 and all of their male servants, from eight days old and upwards, big 
 and little, old aiid young, philosophers and idiots, good and bad, were 
 entitled to circumcision ; this is not true of baptism, for, among Pro- 
 testants, all agree that of adults only believers in Christ are entitled 
 to it. 
 
 7. Circumcision was a visible mark ; baptism is not. 
 
 •8. All Jews not circumcised were cut off from their people ; few 
 pjedo-baptists of our day are willing to say that of the infants that 
 are not baptized. 
 
 9. I have reserved for my last point the most conclusive of all. It 
 is perfectly clear and explicit, perfectly conclusive and satisfactory, 
 in settling the question ; it shows beyond the possibility of a reason- 
 able doubt that baptism did not come in the room of circumcision. 
 It is this : both were practiced by inspired servants of the Lord at the 
 same time. Men were baptized who had been already circumcised, 
 and men were circumcised who had been already baptized, and that, 
 too, by the authority of God. Christ was circumcised when eight 
 days old, and afterwards baptized ; so were the apostles ; so were the 
 three thousand who were received on the day of Pentecost ; so were 
 the tens and hundreds of thousands of Jews who were baptized by 
 John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles. On the other hand, after 
 Timothy had been baptized, Paul circumcised him. (See Acts IG : 1-3.) 
 Of course baptism did not come in the room of circumcision, notwith- 
 standing my opponent tried so hard, in that long speech, to prove it. It 
 is a question settled — settled by facts, and facts are stubljorn things. 
 Paul circumcised Timothy because thex'e was Jewish blood in his 
 veins ; but Titus was a Greek, and him he would not circumcise ; he 
 was stubborn in his refusal, for, he argued, being a Greek he had no 
 claim to the rite. 
 
 If a Jew should be converted to Christ to-day, under my ministry, 
 and should ask me the question, " Shall I continue to circumcise my 
 children?" 1 would reply, "Yes, by all means." If I should be 
 asked for my authority for so saying, I would show that it is a fact 
 concerning which there is no room for doubt, that Jewish Christians 
 continued to practice circumcision all through tlie apostolic age, 
 with the knowledge and approval of the apostles. In the seventeentli 
 chapter of Genesis, one of the chapters from which Mr. Wilkinson 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 179 
 
 •read, the chapter in which the covenant of circumcision is given, it 
 is said of it (ver. 13), " My covenant shall be in your flesh for an 
 •everlasting covenant." God intended it to last until the end of the 
 ages. In proof of this consider the following facts : 
 
 1. The great question which divided the Cliurch in the apostolic 
 age was, whether or not the Gentile Christians should be circumcised. 
 The Judaizing teachers in the Church said unto them (Acts 15:1); 
 " Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be 
 saved." This discussion was waged hotly even till towards the end 
 of the days of inspiration. Now it is pei^fectly evident to every re- 
 flecting mind, that it could never have arisen had the Jews them- 
 selves ceased to circumcise their children upon entering the Church 
 of Christ. 
 
 2. About the year 52 A.D., Paul and Barnabas went from Antioch 
 up to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the apostles and elders for 
 their decision. They were kindly received, and patiently listened to, 
 while they laid the whole matter before them. After much discus 
 sion and disputation (see Acts 15 : 4-7), it was unanimously agreed 
 by the apostles and elders as follows : " That we trouble not them 
 which from among the Gentiles ai'e turned to God ; but that they 
 abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from 
 things strangled, and from blood." 
 
 3. About a year after this, Paul became acquainted with Timothy 
 and circumcised him ; showing clearly that while the Gentiles were 
 not to circumcise, it was still lawful for those of Jewish blood. (See 
 Acts 16:1-3.) 
 
 4. About seven years after this, Paul came up to Jerusalem on his 
 last visit to the city (A.D. 60), and on the day following he went in 
 unto James and the elders, and declared all that God had wrought 
 by his hand among the Gentiles. " And when they heard it they 
 glorified the Lord, and said unto him. Thou seest, brother, how 
 many thousands of Jcavs there are which 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, neither to walk after 
 the customs. What is it therefore 1 The multitude must needs 
 come together ; for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore 
 this that we say unto thee : We have four men which have a vow 
 on them ; them take, and purify thyself with them, and Ijc at charges 
 with them, that they may shave their heads ; and all may know that 
 those things, whereof they wex'c informed concerning thee, are 
 
180 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 nothing ; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the- 
 laAv."— Acts 21 : 20-24. 
 
 If baptism had taken the place of circumcision, it is certain that 
 Paul, and James, and these elders had never found it out ; for the^ 
 "many thousands of Jews" that believed were practicing both, and 
 that, too, with the approval of these apostles and elders. This pas- 
 sage shows that they regarded it as disorderly for a man to teach 
 Jewish Christians not to circumcise their children. These are the^ 
 same parties that, eight years before, had written to the Gentiles tO' 
 "observe no such thing." (See ver. 25.) I want to teach and prac- 
 tice just as the a})0stles did. 
 
 But did not Paul tell some people that they must not be circum- 
 cised ; that if they were, Christ would profit them nothing 1 Yes, but 
 he was writing to Gentiles when he said this. 
 
 Let us now consider the Abrahamic covenants. I will call your 
 attention to two ; one of them is found in the 12th, and the other in 
 the 17th chapter of Genesis. The first reads thus : 
 
 V Now the Lord had said unto Abram, get thee out of thy counti'y,, 
 and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that 
 I will show thee ; and I will make 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 families of the earth be blessed. So Abram 
 departed, as the Lord had spoken to him ; and Lot went with him ;. 
 and Abram was seventy and five years when he departed out of 
 Haran." 
 
 This covenant (contract) you see was this : Abram, the party of the 
 first part, was to leave his country, his kindred, his father's house, 
 and go unto the land which God should show him : God, the party of 
 the second part, upon the condition of his doing this, agreed to make 
 of him a great nation, to bless him, and to make his name great; He- 
 bound Himself further, saying, " I will bless tliem that bless thee, and 
 curse him that curseth thee ; and in thee shall all families of the earth 
 be blessed." 
 
 Abram arose at once, and fulfilled his part of the contract : he went 
 forth into the land of Canaan, journeyed through the land, and then, 
 on account of a famine, having fulfilled his part of the contract, he 
 went down to Egypt — according to the received chronology, all in one 
 year. 
 
 The covenant of circumcision mentioned in the 17th chapter was- 
 given to Abram when he was ninety-nine years old. So, nearly twenty- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 181 
 
 'five years had passed away from the giving of one covenant to the 
 giving of the other. You cannot change a covenant after the contract 
 has been finished. God told Abram, in the 12th chapter, to leave that 
 country, and go to the land He would show him. That was Abram's 
 duty, and God said, then "I will bless thee." And He adds, "And 
 in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Abram arose and 
 fulfilled his part of the contract, and travelled under it for nearly 
 twenty-five years. This was the covenant concerning Christ, given 
 430 years before the law. It was given B.C. 1921, the law B.C. 1491, 
 :a diflference of 430 years exactly. After about twenty- five years 
 we come to the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17 : 1-14). The first 
 verse tells us Abram was ninety-nine years old. Mr. Wilkinson tells us 
 that this is the same covenant enlarged ; that God added to his require- 
 ments the rite of circumcision. Do you suppose that God, after his 
 faithful servant had been operating under that covenant for twenty- 
 Hve years, would then add to it, or change it 1 Even a man would not 
 do that. Listen to Paul : " Brethren, I speak after the manner of 
 men ; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no 
 man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." (Gal. 3:15.) 
 
 Let us consider this covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17). From it 
 I read the following extracts : 
 
 " I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will mu.ltiply 
 thee exceedingly." (Yerse 2.) 
 
 " 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." 
 (Yerse 5.) 
 
 " T 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." (Yerse 7.) 
 
 " 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 everlast- 
 ing possession ; and I will be their God." (Yerse 8.) 
 
 " This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between Me and you 
 a.nd thy seed after thee : Every man child among you shall be 
 circumcised. (Yerse 10.) 
 
 "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every 
 man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought 
 with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is 
 born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs 
 be circumcised ; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an ever- 
 lasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of 
 
182 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his 
 people; he hath broken My covenant." (Verses 12-1-i.) 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson said God had made this covenant with Abraiio 
 twenty-four years before this ; that this is the same covenant as that 
 recorded in Genesis 12; but the Lord here says, "I will make My 
 covenant between Me and thee," etc. Mr. Wilkinson comes square up 
 against the Holy Scripture : God says, "I will make;" Mr. Wilkin- 
 son says, You have made it already, twenty-four years ago. Which 
 will you believe, my friends, the Lord, or Mr. Wilkinson 1 the word 
 of God, or the word of man 1 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson argues that the Church of Christ is built upon this 
 covenant ; that it is the same, therefore, as the Jewish Church ; that 
 it has, therefore, the same membership ; and that as the Jewish' 
 Church had infant membership, so has the Christian. 
 
 How about the servants bought with one's money 1 How about the- 
 females 1 Circumcision did not admit one into the Jewish Church ; its- 
 membership Avas born or bought into it ; and then, if one was not 
 circumcised he was cut off. How about that, if baptism has taken 
 the place of circumcision'? No wonder Dr. Stuart said, " How un- 
 wary, too, are many excellent men, in contending for infant baptism 
 on the ground of the Jewish analogy of circumcision. 
 Numberless difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as tee 
 begin to aryue in such a manner as this." Com. 0. T. ch 22. And 
 no wonder he concludes, " The covenant of circumcision furnishes no 
 ground for infant baptism." {Lecture on Galatians.) 
 
 In the 10th verse of the 1 7th chapter, God says to Abraham, "This 
 is My covenant." Mr. Wilkinson interjected a word, and made the 
 passage read " this is the token of my covenant." 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Turn to Genesis and you will tind it there. 
 
 Mr. Harding — You can do so when your time comes. 
 
 The promise concerning Christ is given in the 1 2th chapter : the- 
 covenant of circumcision and tlie promise concerning Canaan in the 
 17th, twenty-four years later. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson quoted from Gal. 3: 17; though why he did so 
 I can't imagine, for it ruins him. The verse reads thus : " And this- 
 I say, that the covenant, that was contirmed before of God in Christ, 
 the law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, tliat it should 
 make the promise of God of more effect." This verse shows that the- 
 Abrahainic covenant concerning Christ was confirmed 430 years be- 
 fore the giving of the law. This takes us back beyond the 17tli) 
 chapter of Genesis, and the covenant of circumcision, to the day 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 183 
 
 when Abram was 75 years old. {Gen. chap. 12.) The count is made 
 thus: It was 25 years till Isaac was born, Abraham being 100 at 
 his birth (Gen. 21:5); Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born 
 (Gen. 25 : 26) ; Jacob was 130 years old when he went down into 
 Egypt (Gen. 47 : 28). And, according to the received chronology — 
 that of Archbishop Usher and Sir Isaac Newton — the sojourn was 
 215 years. 25 + 60 + 130 + 215 = 430. This goes back 24 years too 
 far for Mr. Wikinson's purposes — it ruins his argument. The cove- 
 nant in Gen. 12 is fulfilled in Christ, Abraham's spiritual seed. 
 That in Gen. 17, concerned his fleshly offspring, had a fleshly seal, 
 circumcision ; and a temporal reward, the land of Canaan. 
 
 I want now to read to you about the covenant under which we 
 now are. You will find that in it there are no infants. I read from 
 Jeremiah 31 : 31-34 : 
 
 " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
 covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ; 
 
 " Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in 
 the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land 
 of Egypt; which My covenant they brake, although I was an hus- 
 band unto them, saith the Lord ; 
 
 " But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house 
 of Israel ; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in 
 their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their 
 God. and they shall be My people. 
 
 " And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every 
 man his brother, saying. Know the Lord : for they shall all know Me, 
 from the least of them imto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : 
 for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no 
 more." 
 
 Under the old Jewish covenant it was often necessary for a man 
 to instruct his neighbor, and to tell him about God ; for they were 
 born into it, and bought into it, and were often even ignorant that 
 there is a God. Not so under the new. God says the new covenant 
 is this : " I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in 
 their hearts." The new covenant is for those who can receive the 
 law of God into their minds and hearts. Paul quotes this passage 
 from Jeremiah in the 8th chapter of Hebrews, and applies it to the 
 Christian dispensation. In establishing this dispensation, Jesus said, 
 " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," etc. (Matt. 
 28 : 19.) " Go ye into all the world, and iireach the gospel to every 
 creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," etc. 
 
184 REPORT OF DKBATE 
 
 The teaching first, and then the baptism after the teaching and preach- 
 ing had been heard, understood, and believed. Under the old cove- 
 nant, circumcision came first, and afterwards the teaching. Jt was a 
 flesh and blood afiair. Under the new we have a spiritual religion — 
 one that appeals to the mind and heart. Into it no one can come 
 except he be born again. 
 
 But that Mr. Wilkinson's Church is not the Church of the new 
 covenant is certain ; for, as every one knows, there are a great num- 
 ber in it that don't knon' the Lord, nor anyl)ody, nor anything else. 
 What does the little infant know of the Lord, upon whom the minis- 
 ter sprinkles water, and prays that it may be delivered from the 
 wrath of God ? The little one of whom we are told at one moment 
 that he is as pure as an angel in heaven, and in the next breath that 
 he is under a twofold curse 1 What does he know about the Lord 1 
 
 Mr Wilkinson — I will give my opponent an extra half-hour if he 
 will answer a question at this point. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Sit down until your time comes. What does a 
 little babe know about the covenant of the Lord 1 Nothing. But 
 everybody under the new covenant knows the Lord, from the least 
 to the greatest. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — T will give him an hour if he will answer my 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Excuse Mr. Wilkinson, my friends; it makes a 
 Methodist wonderfully restless to show up his inconsistencies and the 
 blunders of his creed ; it is almost impossible for him to keep still. 
 
 My friend absolutely came out with the statement that " ye must 
 be born agani," in talking about these covenants ! What ! Does he 
 agree that infants must be born again to enter the new covenant ? 
 Does he know what it is to be born again ? Listen. " Whosoever 
 believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." — 1 John 5 : L 
 " Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth." — Jas. 1:18. 
 "Being boin again, not of corruptible seed, Imt of incorruptible, by 
 the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. . . . And 
 this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." — 1 Peter 
 1 : 23-25. In order to be born again one must l)eireve the proposi- 
 tion that Jesus is the Christ. Can infants do that ? He must be 
 begotten by the word of truth. Can infants hear and understand 
 the word of truth? Are tlie babies begotten again of God? Do 
 they know Christ and love Him 1 
 
 Dear friends, the Church is not for infants ; it is for the lost, for 
 those that need to be saved. The infant does not need to be saved. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 185 
 
 T will go further and say that an infant is not saved. It is safe, not 
 saved. It will go to heaven because it is safe. Infants are not lost ; 
 they never were lost. The Bible says " sin is the transgression of the 
 law," and God says " the soul that sinneth it shall die." 
 
 When infants become old enough to sin, it is necessary for them to 
 be saved ; but while they are in their infantile purity they are not lost. 
 They cannot fulfil any law, they do not violate any law ; they ai-e 
 under no curse two-fold or otherwise. I would rather that my tongue 
 should cleave to my mouth, than pray for the delivery of infants 
 from the Divine wrath, when they are not under His wrath. Infants 
 are as pure as the angels in heaven. My opponent admits that they 
 do not need the Lord's Supper. But what is the reason he does not 
 give the Lord's Supper' to infants, as he gives them baptism 1 Is 
 baptism more important than the Lord's Supper to save them from 
 the wrath of God ? If this chart exhibited by my opponent proves 
 anything — which it does not do — it involves this, that the Lord's 
 Supper, as well as baptism, should be given to infants ; and, indeed, in 
 the Greek Church they give the Lord's Supper to infants. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — They immerse them, too. 
 
 Mr. Harding — My friend will talk about immersion, he cannot 
 get away from it. Now, as he is so anxious for more on that sub- 
 ject, I will give him one other little point. Section 1. (p. 13) of his 
 Discipline reads thus : " The Doctrines of the Methodist Church of 
 Canada are declared to be those contained in the twenty-five Articles 
 of Religion, and those taught by the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., in his 
 Notes on the New Testament, and in the first fifty-two Sermons of the 
 first series of his discourses, published during his life time." But 
 Wesley, in his Notes, says Rom. 6 : 4 refers to immersion. So then 
 this interpretation which Mr. Wilkinson said none but a fool would 
 give, is the doctrine of his own Church. On page 73 of the Discipline, 
 this question is asked of preachers : " Do you sincerely and fully 
 believe the doctrines of Methodism as contained in the Articles of 
 Religion, and as taught by Mr. Wesley in his Notes on the New 
 Testament, and Volumes of Sermons'?" To this question Mr. Wilk- 
 inson said, Yes, upon becoming a preacher. He is a nice man, is he 
 not, to accuse his Church, his father and himself of being fools ? 
 
 Wliile I am on the matter of consistency, you may take another 
 point. There is a minister on this platform [Mr. Paterson, Presby- 
 terian,] who said in a public speech that Irenseus mentioned infant 
 baptism. I shook my head. He vociferated, " I Avill stake my word 
 and honor as a Christian and a minister that he did do it." I have 
 
186 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 just read in youi' hearing a statement from the great Meyer, who says 
 it is not certainly attested before Tertullian. But Tertullian, you 
 know, wrote after Irenseus. What of the gentleman's word and 
 honor 1 Gone, gone forever. 
 
 My opponent referred to the Commission: "Go ye therefore and 
 teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you, and lo I am with you always even unto the 
 end of .the world." He then argued that as infants are in the 
 nations, they should be baptized. Did he not notice that " teaching " 
 came before "baptizing." That is the covenant we live under. The 
 first thing we must do is to teach. Tn Mark, Christ gave this 
 command, " 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." "Go teach," says Matthew. 
 " Go preach the gospel," says Mai'k ; so teaching comes first and 
 afterwards baptizing. And after the baptizing, they are taught to 
 observe all things which God had commanded them. 
 
 The late Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, editor of the Southern Review (Metho- 
 dist), ranked high among the honorable, accomplished, and scholarly 
 men of the United States. He practiced infant baptism : but con- 
 cerning the Commission he thus writes in a discussion with his bro- 
 ther Dr. Miller : — 
 
 " Take this command for example, ' Go ye into all the world and 
 preach the gospel to every creature.' — Mark 16 : 15. Now, here the 
 ' class' is every creature. But stocks and stones and dumb brutes are 
 ' a part of this class.' Shall we, then, in obedience to Mr. Miller's 
 logic, preach the gospel to stocks and stones and dumb brutes '? 
 Reason and common sense forbid ! These compel us, in spite of his 
 logic, to limit the preaching of the gospel, first to human beings, 
 and then to that portion of the class thus limited who are capable 
 of hearing and understanding the gospel." TJie Southern Review, 
 July, 1874, p. 176. 
 
 Dr. Bledsoe, learned and astute though he was, devoted to Meth- 
 odism, given to the practice of infant baptism, nevertheless could not 
 see it in the Commission, which is our only authority for baptizing 
 any body. Were they not to baptize the nations 1 Yes, they 
 were to teach all nations, baptizing them ; that is, baptizing tlie taught. 
 
 My opponent is in a bad way. He points to a passage of Scripture 
 and says, " Here is infant baptism." One of his own brethren ^teps • 
 up, a man more learned, more critical, more distinguished by far than 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 187 
 
 himself, and, after looking carefully at the passage, says, " I can- 
 not see it." He has gone to the covenant of circumcision ; but such 
 men as Ditzler and Stuart say, " It is not there." He goes to the 
 Commission, but Bledsoe, Neander, and Meyer say it is not there. 
 He goes to the " new covenant ;" but behold ! God says, " I will put 
 My law in their inward parts," Then He says of those under this 
 covenant, " All shall know Me, from the least to the greatest." Then, 
 through Dr. Schaff, we hear many pjedo-baptists shouting, " Infant 
 baptism is not of apostolic origin at all." 
 
 Dr. Bledsoe says, " Tertullian is the first writer in the Church 
 who makes any express mention of the custom of infant baptism." 
 Southern Review, April, 1874, p. 339. 
 
 But Tertullian wrote about A. D. 200, that is, 100 years after John, 
 the last apostle, died. The passage from Irenteus (who wrote about 
 thirty years before Tertullian) that is by some supposed to refer to 
 infant baptism, reads thus : — 
 
 " 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 sanc- 
 tifying 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 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, sanctifying those of that age ; and also giving an 
 example of godliness, justice, and dutifulness ; to youths he was a 
 youth," etc. WaWs Infant Baptism, Vol. I., p. 4.5. 
 
 It is argued that by the word " regenerated " Irenpeus meant 
 "baptized." That he did not so mean is evident from the following 
 quotation from him on the next page : " And again, when He gave 
 His disciples the commission of regenerating unto God, He said unto 
 them, ' Go teach all nations, baptizing them^in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' " where the " commission of 
 regenerating " plainly means the commission of teaching and baptizing. 
 
 To regenerate a man according to the Bible, with which Irenteus 
 agrees, is to fill his heart with loving faith in Jesus by teaching him, 
 and then to baptize him. Tertullian is the first writer that ever 
 mentioned infant baptism, so far as any mortal knows. This is what 
 he says : — 
 
 " Therefore, according to every one's condition and disposition, 
 and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, es- 
 
loo REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 pecially 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 wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, Do 
 not forbid them to come unto Me. Therefore, let them come when 
 they are grown up ; let them come when they understand, when they 
 are instructed whither it is that they come ; let them be made 
 Christians when they can know Christ. What need their guiltless 
 age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins 1 Men will proceed 
 more warily in worldly things ; and he that should not have earthly 
 goods committed to him, yet shall 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 those that ' never were 
 married, upon account of their coming to ripeness, as those in 
 widowhood, for the miss of their partner, until they either marry or 
 be confirmed in continence. They that understand the weight of 
 baptism will rather dread the receiving it than the delaying of it. 
 An entire faith is secure of salvation." Wall's History of Infant 
 Baptism, Vol. J., p, 58. 
 
 Origen, who wrote about ten years after Tertullian, is the first 
 writer to sj^eak favorably of infant baptism. He tliouylit babies ought 
 to be b'iptized to v:ash away the yuilt of original sin. He says : — 
 
 " 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'? Or when have they 
 sinned ? Or how can any reason of the laver in tlieir case hold good, 
 but according to that sense that we mentioned even now : none is 
 free from pollution, tliough his life be but the length of one day upon 
 the earth 1 And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of 
 baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are 
 baptized." Wall's History of Infant JJa})tism, A'^ol. I., p. Go, 
 
 [7i?«e expired.] 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 189' 
 
 EVENING SESSION— FOURTH DAY. 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Laities and Gentlemen, — I will endeavor as- 
 rapidly as is consistent with clearness to run over, by way of review, 
 what my opponent advanced in his hour's speech this afternoon. Let 
 it be borne in mind that this review will cover an hour's speech 
 instead of half an hour, hence it may occupy a little more time than 
 usual, but as soon as I get over it I will advance something further in 
 support of my proposition. 
 
 My opponent introduced his authorities again, and endeavored to. 
 create the impression that the great scholars were nearly all on his. 
 side, though he was aware of the fact that he could not array quite so 
 many under this proposition as he did under the former. He quoted 
 from Geo. E. Steitz, a book I have not got. I do not know whether 
 he has been correctly quoted or not. His quotation from Dr. Meyer 
 is no doubt correct. I have read a good many pajclo-baptist authoii- 
 ties, and know that they make concessions as I have done during this 
 debate. But if you read all they say, instead of a mere fraction of it, 
 it sounds very different. If you read part it sounds very nice for 
 the other side. Suppose my opponent goes home to Kentucky and 
 tells the people that an unfortunate Methodist minister in Canada 
 endeavoi-ed to refute his argument that baptism is immersion. Sup- 
 pose he were to say that this unfortunate Canadian admitted that the 
 word baptizo did mean to immerse. Of course people would say he 
 was a strange Methodist preacher, to try to prove it didn't mean 
 immerse while admitting it did. But would that be the truth 1 Yes, 
 as far as it goes. Would it be the whole truth 1 Not by any means. 
 Would it give a fair impression of what I said ■? Not at all. And if 
 you left the statement thus it would amount to a downright falsehood. 
 So the truth by being quoted in fragments is left open to an entirely 
 false construction. This trick has often been resorted to. I do not 
 know that it has been very extensively by my opponent, but by those 
 who uphold his side of the question, and I can prove it, and I think I 
 can show that a little of it was done by my opponent before the 
 debate on this proposition began. You will remember that he made 
 reference to some great scholars, and among others quoted from Dr.. 
 
190 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 Stuart, who should have said that there was no authority for infant 
 baptism in the New Testament. I may not be able to produce the 
 same quotation and show that it does not fairly represent Dr. Stuart's 
 sentiment, but I will show how Dr. Stuart has been misrepresented 
 on the question of mode. He was quoted as saying that haptizo 
 meant to "dip, plunge, immerse," etc., and the impression was sought 
 to be conveyed to the audience that in this he was in accord with my 
 opponent and opposed to me ; but what are the facts 1 That Dr. 
 Stuart was asked what were the meanings of bapto and baptizo, in the 
 classic, not in the Bible sense, and he gave the meaning quoted by my 
 ■opponent. But why did he not give tlie whole facts 1 Dr. Stuart 
 says on page 308 that these words in the New Testament signify " to 
 wash, to bedew, to moisten." My opponent's proposition involved 
 Christian baptism : why, then, did he not tell us what Dr. Stuart said 
 about baptism in the Bible instead of the classics, if he wanted to be 
 an honest man, tell the truth, and go from here with a good reputation ? 
 On page 313 Dr. Stuart says, "There is no absolute certainty from 
 usage that the word baptizo, when applied to the rite of baptism, 
 means to immerse or plunge." Did he quote Stuart correctly'? Let 
 him answer that question. At page 388 Stuart says, " My belief is 
 that we do obey the command to baptize when we do it by afiusion or 
 sprinkling." All the scholars of the age on his side, forsooth, when as 
 a matter of fact they nearly all agree with my position when their true 
 sentiments are known. On page 381 Stuart, addressing the Baptists, 
 says, " If you take your stand on the ancient practice of the Churches 
 in the days of the early Christian fathers, and charge me with a 
 departure from this, in my turn I have a 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 the 
 fall. The most delicate and modest females, young or old, could 
 obtain no exception where immersion was practiced. This practice 
 was pleaded for and insisted on because it ions tliought to be apostolic." 
 
 Now, I ask, is it fair to give you the testimony of this author as to 
 the meaning of baptizo in its classic sense, with which I have not 
 disagreed from the beginning, and conceal his dehnition and testimony 
 as to the Scripture sense, when the discussion has reference to the 
 latter and not to the former 1 I maintain that it is dishonest, and 
 shows that his quotations are not to be dej»endod on. 
 
 He insisted that I should tell him what infants were baptized for. 
 He wanted to convey the impression that I could not do it, that I 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 191 
 
 -was a coward, as he said the other night. When I showed the chart, 
 and explained that the great pillar of regeneration had in the former 
 dispensation been symbolized outwardly by ceremonial washings and 
 circumcision, and that baptism coupled those ideas together, as Paul 
 explained in Tit. 3 : 5, and Col. 2 : 11, 12, to represent this two-fold 
 operation, cleansing and renewal, my opponent need not have asked 
 what infants were baptized for, or what infants were circumcised for. 
 Whatever they were cii-cumcised for, as a symbol of spiritual truth, 
 they are baptized for, and that is, as I explained fully and clearly, to 
 make visible to the mind, through the eye, the great spiritual truths 
 of cleansing and renewal. I have explained that to be the meaning 
 of a symbol all through. Infants are baptized that you. may see in 
 the visible symbol the spiritual operation that Christ performs in 
 their hearts through the efficacy of the atonement. Shall I again 
 be asked what infant baptism is for 1 That is my answer. When 
 ray opponent rises and repeats that question again you will know 
 that he is doing it to kill time ; that he has nothing to say, and 
 wants to put in a little time until he can find some book in which he 
 has a page turned down in which he has something to read. If he 
 fails to have a quotation ready he will go back to the old passages 
 and read them over again. 
 
 My opponent has made quite a handle of the Methodist Discipline, 
 and has sought to point out that the minister prays to God to deliver 
 the child from divine wrath. I will read some clauses from the Dis- 
 cipline, and then you will see how its meaning has been distorted. 
 In interpreting language it is fair to interpret it in its scope, not 
 taking a little bit from its context and examining it apart from its 
 connections. Let us read this prayer over again and see if it con- 
 tains the monstrous heresy my opponent is endeavoring to find in it. 
 Let it be remembered that the infant candidate for baptism is a 
 human being, subject to all the vicissitudes, evils, and temptations 
 incident to this life, and we frame our prayers to cover the whole 
 ground, past, present, and future. We say, " Almighty and ever- 
 lasting God, who of Thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family 
 in the Ark from perishing by water ; and also didst safely lead the 
 children of Israel, Thy people, through the Red Sea, figuring thereby 
 Thy holy baptism ; and by the baptism of Thy well-beloved Son in 
 the river Jordan, didst sanctify water for this holy sacrament, we 
 beseech Thee, for Thine infinite mercies, that Thou wilt look upon this 
 child ; wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, that he, 
 being delivered from Thy wrath, may be received into the ark of 
 
192 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Christ's Church ; and being steadfast in faith, joyful through hope^. 
 and rooted in love, may so pass the waves of this troublesome world, 
 that finally he may come to the land of everlasting life," etc. Now, 
 it will be remembered that the Methodist Church has always recog- 
 nized the fact that little children being in the kingdom of heaven, 
 they are already delivered from God's wrath. That clause in the 
 praver, therefore, points to something that at present actually exists. 
 Mv opponent can make a terrible hullabaloo about our crying to God 
 to deliver children from His wrath, but we never do thus cry. There- 
 fore it creates a false impression, and that, conveyed intentionally, is 
 an untruth. If my opponent did not intend thus to tell an untrutli, 
 he made a big mistake, because he stated what was false, though not 
 a falsehood. He makes a great many mistakes that I let pass, but 
 this is a pretty serious one Besides, it will be seen that we ascribe 
 the deliverance of the child from God's wrath, to the washing and sanc- 
 tification of the Holy Ghost, and not to water ; hence it is not to 
 deliver the child from God's wrath that we baptize him. As to the 
 expression in the prayer, " may be received into the ark of Christ's 
 Church," we believe that the infants belong to the invisible Church 
 which we teach and believe to be the same as the kingdom of heaven 
 inco which we recognize they are already brought by the Spirit through 
 the atonement, and therefore we only mean that they may thus pass 
 visibly to the eyes of the people, representing what has already 
 occurred invisibly. I want to read another part of our Discipline to 
 show how passages can be con.strued. " Grant us, therefore, gracious 
 Lord, so to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink 
 his blood," etc. It could be said by an opponent who was discussing 
 the question of the Lord's Supper, that as ]\Iethodists pray to the 
 Lord to help them so to eat the flesh of His Son, and so to drink of 
 His blood, that certain results may accrue to them, that therefore they 
 believe in transubstantiation, as does the Church of Rome. Yet no 
 one really thinks that the Methodist Church holds any such belief. The 
 passage I have quoted is fully ex[)lained in another clause, which reads: 
 
 " Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech Thee, and 
 grant that we, receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, 
 according to Thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in 
 remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of His most 
 blessed Body and Blood." 
 
 So also with regard to baptism. I turn to our articles of faith in 
 the first part of the Discipline and read respecting baptism : 
 
 " Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of diflerence 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 193 
 
 whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not bap- 
 tized, but it is also a sign of regeneration, or the new birth." 
 
 That is what we teach. Is it fair, therefore, for a man to take a 
 scrap away from the context and ring the changes on it, and strive 
 to make the impression that we teach some heresy which we have 
 always repudiated 1 But in this way the teachings of the Bible, or 
 any other book, may be made to appear ridiculous, and such a prin- 
 ciple of interpretation is exceedingly unjust. To act fairly with any 
 Church we must interpret their teachings according to their own 
 interpretations of them. 
 
 The " office editor " of the Standard, four years ago, used the same 
 argument about Methodists crying to the Lord to save little children 
 from His wrath. But the people got sick of it : it was hash, hash, and 
 rehash. I think the people here will get sick of resurrection hash 
 too ; and if my opponent has any respect for himself or his friends 
 he will bury the stinking thing out of sight. If you don't get more 
 from my present opponent, it will be an agreeable disappointment to 
 the congregation. 
 
 He accuses me of saying that his doctrine would send infants to 
 hell, because he does not baptize them. I deny that I said so. The 
 " office editor " was very much in the habit of taking hold of my 
 statements and trying to misconstrue them, and he did this so per- 
 sistently that on the fifth evening of our debate I publicly offered 
 five dollars to any person for one argument that I had brought for- 
 ward, and which he had attempted to reply to, which he had not first 
 twisted out of shape. It is my solemn impression that my present 
 opponent put that statement in my mouth with the intention of 
 giving a false impression. If he apologizes, I will take this back. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I will not do it. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — No, he never apologizes for anything he says, no 
 matter how mean or unjust the statement is. I will repeat what I 
 said, and I challenge him to say that I am not repeating it correctly. 
 I said that his doctrine would logically consign children to hell. To- 
 night I am going to prove it. 
 
 God made a covenant with Abram in Gen. 12 : 1-3, in which all the 
 families of the earth were to be " blessed." This blessing must 
 include whatever benefits are procured for man by the atonement, 
 for my opponent himself claims it was the covenant of redemption 
 securing spiritual blessings, as distinguished from the covenant in 
 the 17th chapter, which he says was a covenant of temporal bless- 
 ings. Now, families include little children, especially " all the fami- 
 13 
 
194 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 lies of the earth." Consequently, the covenant of redemption included 
 little children who are saved by means of the atonement. But my 
 opponent now excludes little children from the blessings of salvation, 
 because they cannot " know the Lord." Jesus says, " This is life eter- 
 nal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
 whom Thou hast sent." The children cannot meet the conditions, 
 according to my opponent, therefore cannot inherit eternal life. This 
 is why I say that his doctrine logically sends the little ones to hell, 
 and I cannot, for the life of me, see how he can escape from the con- 
 clusion. 
 
 He quoted something about the Graves-Ditzler debate to prove 
 that Dr. Ditzler agreed not to debate the question of the covenants, 
 because he admitted that they had nothing to do with infant baptism. 
 I doubt if Dr. Ditzler said anything of the kind. In the foot-notes 
 of his own work on Baptism, Dr. Ditzler has pointed out where his 
 sentiments in that debate were misrepresented, misquoted, and dis- 
 torted all through the book. I will give you a sample. He says on 
 page 139, in a foot-note : 
 
 "After the rebuke we gave Dr. Judd, and him at Carrollton, which 
 he never resented there (pp. 146-7), Dr. Graves, in his last speech — 
 Tiot as delivered, but as re-written by him after I had returned to Ken- 
 tucky (p. 530) — repeats the shameful untruth, and says, * Aiimd in 
 Syriac, as all standard lexicographers testify, primarily signi- 
 fies TO IMMERSE !' A moro wilful falsehood was never uttered by 
 any perjured, oath-bound member of a robber clan on earth. These, 
 with hosts of other statements in these last speeches on Mode, and 
 all subsequent parts of the so-called debate, account for their not 
 sending to me a single proof-sheet after my sixteenth speech on the 
 First Proposition, though I requested it, and gave them my address." 
 
 If necessary, I can give more examples, which I have here. But, 
 for the present, I forbear. 
 
 My opponent tells you that under the old dispensation only males 
 were circumcised. Under the old dispensation Abraham's seed were 
 justified by faith and circumcised. Only those circumcised were to 
 be admitted to the Passover. As a matter of fact, females were jus- 
 tified by faith, partook of the Passover, and therefore must have been 
 accounted as circmncised, though excused from any outward operation 
 except purification by water. Why do we baptize females 1 Because 
 this dispensation is the dispensation of the Spirit. Males and females 
 are one in Christ, and in both the original and the revised version we 
 read " all one man in Christ." In that spiritual sense no one but the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 195 
 
 *' one man " is baptized. The female, therefore, was included in the 
 male in circumcision, and the female is included in the male in bap- 
 tism. 
 
 [Time expired.'] 
 
 MR. HARDING'S SECOND REPLY. 
 
 I observe that Mr. Wilkinson is very much out of humor this 
 evening ; and I am not at all surprised at it. Had I received such a 
 " dressing down " as he did, I would have been out of humor myself. 
 He says that I have been out of order, that I have made insinuations, 
 and so forth ; he doubts whether or not I have properly represented 
 the authorities, and he is certain that I have misrepresented the 
 Discipline. I don't care what he says about me, how many insinu- 
 ations he makes about my being unfair, nor how many doubts he 
 expresses. It is not what a man says, nor what he doubts, but what 
 he proves, that does the damage. If he would destroy the force of my 
 quotations, let him show that I have misrepresented at least one of 
 the authors quoted. 
 
 I propose to follow him right along, and to show him up as I go, 
 and to keep in a good humor, too, while about it. 
 
 He started out by intimating that I had scrapped the prayer of the 
 Discipline which is used at the baptism of infants. I read it right 
 through, and I will read again the part which he claims I misrepre- 
 sent ; and you shall see that it is he that distorts and misrepresents 
 his own Discipline. It reads thus : 
 
 " We beseech Thee, for Thine infinite mercies, that Thou wilt look 
 upon this child ; wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost ; 
 that he, being delivered from Thy wrath, may be received into the 
 ark of Christ's Church, and being steadfast in faith, joyful through 
 hope, and rooted in love, may so pass the waves of this troublesome 
 world, that finally he may come to the land of everlasting life ; there 
 to reign with Thee, world without end, through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord." 
 
 " O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child may be so 
 buried, that the new man may be raised up in him." — {Discipline, p. 
 168.) 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson claims that the expression, " being delivered from 
 
196 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Thy wrath," implies that the child was delivered from God's wrath 
 before his baptism, before this prayer ; and that he is baptized because 
 he has been delivered from God's wrath : I suppose, then, that the- 
 expression, "being steadfast in faith," used in the same period, means, 
 that the child was steadfast in faith before the baptism, and before 
 the prayer ! Astonishing logic ! The whole context shows that Mr. 
 Wilkinson's interpretation is a gross perversion of the meaning of the 
 prayer ; for God is not only asked to wash him and sanctify him with 
 the Holy Ghost, but He is also entreated to grant that the old Adam 
 may be buried in him, and the new man raised up : according to the 
 prayer, therefore, the child is unwashed, not sanctified by the Holy 
 Ghost, is full of the old Adam (sin), and has not yet in him the new 
 man (Christ). Just before this prayer the minister says, "All men are 
 conceived and born in sin;" that " except a man be born of water 
 and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of G«d ; " and then he 
 asks the audience to pray " that he (the child), being baptized with 
 water, may also be baptized with the Holy Ghost, be received into 
 Christ's holy Church, and become a lively member of the same." So' 
 the Discipline regards the child as not yet baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost, not yet received into Christ's holy Church. By the way, we 
 have here again the present participle, ^^ being baptized yfiih. waXer." 
 Does that mean that the child has been already baptized with water ? 
 Oh, no; these words are uttered by the minister to the audience 
 before the prayer, and before the baptism : just so, "being delivered 
 from the wrath of God" does not mean already delivered from His 
 wrath. 
 
 Now, my friends, I ask you who perverted the Discipline 1 Who 
 made the false impression 1 You remember that I showed you in my 
 last speech that Origen is the first writer who mentions infant baptism 
 to favor it, and he says : " None is 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." {Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap.,. 
 Vol. 1, p. 65.) Nothing can be more certain than that infant baptism 
 was designed in the iirst place to wash away the guilt of " original 
 sin;" and the framors of the Discipline intended to convey that idea 
 in their ritual for the baptism of children. Mr. Wilkinson, in talking 
 about my quotation from this prayer, said that my presentation of it 
 was false ; that if I intended to create a false impression, I was guilty 
 of an untruth ; that if the false statement was unintentional, I had 
 made a big mistake. Of course he would not make a statement that 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 197 
 
 is not literally and accurately correct to save his soul ! So he would 
 have us believe. But, my friends, he is one of the last men living to 
 use the word " false " so freely. Since this debate began, he has made 
 statement after statement as false as false can be. He said the 
 revised version does not say that Christ came up out of the water. 
 That is false. He told us that Alexander Campbell had said that 
 King James' translators were immersionists. That is false. Campbell 
 said no such thing, but exactly the reverse of it. He gave as a reason 
 that he could not find " sprinkle " as a definition of baptizo, that 
 Liddell and Scott's is the only Greek-English lexicon ; he said all others 
 define in Latin, Greek, etc. Upon being shown his error, he said he 
 had accidentally left out the word "standard;" he meant to say 
 Liddell and Scott's is the only standard Greek-English lexicon, appar- 
 ently overlooking the fact that this word would have spoiled the point 
 of his first remark. Oh, but Mr. Wilkinson was only making mis- 
 takes ! Then he should be a little more particular in making charges 
 against others. 
 
 Now, concerning the Graves-Ditzler debate : I have here the book 
 [holding it before the audience]. Mr. Wilkinson says that Ditzler's 
 sentiments were misrepresented, misquoted and distorted all through 
 this book ; he says that Ditzler himself so testifies. Let us see about 
 that ; I turn to the first of the book, and find the following state- 
 ment : — 
 
 "Memphis, Tenn., Feb. 15th, 1876. 
 
 " We, the parties to the debate embraced in the present volume, 
 hereby declare that we have read and corrected the whole work, which 
 is now a faithful transcript of what we said in the discussion at 
 Carrollton, Mo. 
 
 " J, R. Graves. 
 "J. Ditzler." 
 
 This debate was published by the Southern Baptist Publication 
 Society. From their introduction, written by their secretary, W. B. 
 Mayfield, I read the following : 
 
 " With all these facts before us, the society felt justified in making 
 arrangements to report, at great expense, the whole discussion. This 
 we have done. And in order that there might be no doubt as to the 
 fact that the authors are truly represented, we have paid Dr. Ditzler 
 ^500 to correct the MSS. of our reporter, and read the proof as the 
 work went through the press. Dr. Graves has done the same work 
 free of charge. So the reader may be sure that in the pages of this 
 book the speakers are fairly reported." 
 
198 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 So it appears that Dr. Ditzler corrected the MSS. of the reporter, 
 so far as his own speeches were concerned, before they went to the 
 printer, and then read the proofs as they went through the press ; and 
 for this work he received $500 : moreover, he declares the book to be 
 a faithful transcript of what was said in the debate. Observe this, 
 too : Mr. Ditzler, in the passage quoted by Mr. Wilkinson, does not 
 say his speeches were tampered with, but he charges that his opponent, 
 Dr. Graves, re-wrote his own speeches ; the proof-sheets they did not 
 send him were the proof-sheets of Graves' speeches. [Mr. Wilkinson's 
 readings about this aflPair were not from the Graves-Ditzler debate — 
 the book in question — -but from Ditzler on Baptism, a book published 
 by Mr. Ditzler some time after the publication of the debate. — J. A. H.] 
 
 My courteous and gentlemanly opponent also referred to my quota- 
 tion from Meyer. He was careful not to say that it was incorrect. 
 This greatest of New Testament commentators, although a member of 
 a psedo-baptist Church, boldly and positively affirms that " The 
 baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace can be found 
 in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, 
 indeed, it encountered early and long resistance ; but it is an institu- 
 tion of the Church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times," etc. 
 On Acts 16 : 15, p. 311. In making this statement the great 
 commentator is in perfect accord with the greatest of Church histo- 
 rians, Neander, who, being also a member of a psedo-baptist Church, 
 nevertheless says : " Baptism was administered at first to adults, as 
 men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly 
 connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism 
 from apostolic institution." Ch. Hist, p. 311, Vol. 1. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson said that when he was debating with Mr. McDiar- 
 mid that gentleman read from the Methodist Discipline until he got 
 sick. I venture to say that Mr. Wilkinson was the sick man. He 
 looks sick now. It is enough to make any one sick to defend and 
 explain that Discipline ; to deliver such stuff as he has been belching 
 forth here. 
 
 Do you see this book ? [Exhibiting a volume to the audience], 
 Mr. Wilkinson had a copy of it lying on his table yesterday. I found 
 this copy, accidentally, to-day. It is McKay on Baptism. The 
 author is a Presbyterian. On the back of the book is a picture of a 
 king and queen kneeling in a bath-tub, naked, while the minister pours 
 water on them. I wonder why ^Ir. Wilkinson did not ridicule 
 affusion because it was practiced thus ? He knew it, for he had this 
 book. In being immersed the sexes were baptized separately, the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 199 
 
 women (as I told you) being led into the font to the neck, before the 
 priest entered, by deaconesses. But how about the affusion 1 I do 
 not propose to ridicule this practice, for there is nothing in it, pro or 
 con., bearing on our discussion. My opponent introduced it, doubtless, 
 because he wanted something low and dirty to talk about ; — that is the 
 channel in which his mind runs. But I am glad I found McKay's 
 book, because he sums up the baptisms of the New Testament ; he 
 says there are in the New Testament ten separate instances of 
 baptism, and he names them thus : 
 
 1. The three thousand on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:41. 
 
 2. The Eunuch, Acts 8 : 26-40. 
 
 3. Saul of Tarsus, Acts 9:18. 
 
 4. The Samaritan Converts, Acts 8:12. 
 
 5. The Twelve Men at Ephesus, Acts 19 : 1-7. 
 
 6. Lydia and her Household, Acts 16:15. 
 
 7. The Jailer, Acts 16: 33. 
 
 8. Crispus and his House, Acts 18 : 8. 
 
 9. The Household of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1:16. 
 10. Cornelius, Acts 10 : 48. 
 
 Here now, according to this psedo-baptist, we have all the cases of 
 baptism to be found in the New Testament. We will look through 
 them carefully, and see if we can find an infant among them all. 
 
 1. Of the three thousand it is said, " Then they that gladly received 
 his word were baptized ; and the same day there were added to them 
 about three thousand souls." Acts 2 : 41. Here there were no 
 infants, for they were all old enough to x-eceive the word gladly. 
 
 2. This case, that of the eunuch, is that of one man ; of course 
 there is nothing for infant baptism here. 
 
 3. And so of this case, that of Saul of Tarsus.. 
 
 4. Of the Samaritans it is said, " When they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 
 8 : 12. No babies here. 
 
 5. The fifth case is that of twelve men. Acts 19 : 1-7. 
 Of course there were no babies among these. 
 
 6. This is the only hope for the pi?edo-baptist, this case of Lydia 
 and her household ; for as I have shown in the former cases that no 
 infants were present, by clear and unmistakable evidence, so will I 
 in those to come. I repeat it, if there is a vestige of infant baptism 
 to be found in any of these New Testament cases it is here. But 
 there is no proof that she was married. Granting, for the sake of 
 
200 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 argument, that she was married, there is no proof that she had any 
 children. Granting that she was married, and that she had children, 
 there is no proof that there were infants among them. Granting that 
 she was married, and had children, and that there was at least one 
 infant among them, there is no proof that she had it with her, seeing 
 that she was not at Thyatira, her own city, but at Philippi. Finally, 
 it is said (Acts 16 : 40), "And they [Paul and Silas] went out of the 
 prison, and entered into the house of Lydia : and when they had seen 
 the brethren, they comforted them and departed." Those in Lydia's 
 house were old enough to be comforted, and to be called brethren. On 
 this case Meyer says {Com. on Acts, p. 311.) : " If , in the Jewish and 
 Gentile families which were converted to Christ, there were children, 
 their baptism is to be assumed in those cases, when they were so far 
 advanced that they could and did confess their faith in Jesus as the 
 Messiah ; for this was the universal, absolutely necessary qualification 
 for the reception of baptism. If, on the other hand, there were chil- 
 dren still incapable of confessing, baptism could not be administered 
 to those to whom that, which was the necessary presupposition of 
 baptism for Christian sanctification, was still wanting." Just so, if 
 there had been ever so many infants in her house Paul would not 
 have baptized them ; for he was sent to turn people from darkness 
 to light ; to preach the Gospel and baptize believers ; not to sprinkle 
 water on the little innocents. Observe these facts, before we leave 
 this case : Lydia is represented as being engaged in business ; she 
 said, " Come into my house ;" not a word is said about a husband, 
 not the slightest intimation is made that she had one ; after their 
 imprisonment it is said that Paul and Silas entered into Lydia's 
 house ; all these facts indicate that she did not have a husband. 
 
 7. There were no infants in the household of the jailer ; this is 
 evident from the following statements : it is said, "they spake unto 
 him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." (Acts 
 16 : 22.) After the baptism it is said, " And when he had brought 
 them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing 
 in God with all his house " (verse 34). So it plainly appears that his 
 household was old enough to hear the preaching and to believe it. 
 
 8. This case is narrated thus : "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the 
 synagogue, believed on the Lord with all liis house ; and many of the 
 Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18 : 8.) So 
 it is very evident that in this case there were no infants. Only 
 believers were baptized. 
 
 9. In 1 Cor. 1 : 16, Paul says, "I baptized also the household of 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 201 
 
 Stephanas." In the 16th chapter of the same letter, at the 15th 
 ^erse, Paul says, " I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of 
 Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have 
 addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit 
 yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and labor- 
 ■eth." Now, this letter was written about five years after Paul had 
 planted the Church at Corinth, and not longer than six years after 
 his entrance into Achaia. If there were any infants in the house- 
 hold of Stephanas, they must have developed wonderfully, for within 
 six years they had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, 
 and Paul exhorted the Church at Corinth to submit to such as they 
 were. Babies that can be so well developed in six years that they 
 are qualified to be rulers in the Church of God, I freely grant, are 
 fit subjects for baptism. 
 
 10. About this case we learn the following things : All those assem- 
 bled at the house of Cornelius were there to hear all things that God 
 had commanded (see Acts 10: 33). "The Holy Ghost fell on all 
 'those that heard the word " (verse 44). Peter commanded those upon 
 whom the Holy Ghost had fallen to be baptized (verses 47 and 48). 
 All these were saved by the words that Peter told them, — of course 
 'by hearing, believing, and obeying the words (see Acts 11:14). Of 
 course there were no infants here. 
 
 Yes, I am very glad that I found Mr. McKay's book. He has 
 : summed up for us all the cases of baptism recorded, or referred to, 
 in the New Testament ; and, upon examining them, we find in every 
 case (but one) proof positive and clear — proof so conclusive that not 
 the least room for doubt remains — that no infants were among those 
 baptized. This one exceptional case is that of a woman and her house- 
 hold. In examining this case, we have seen that there is no proof 
 that she had infants, no proof that she had children, no proof that 
 she had a husband, and, of course, in the case there is no proof for 
 infant baptism. 
 
 But does the New Testament ever speak about little children at all 1 
 Oh, yes ! about blessing little children, praying for them, feeding 
 them, travelling with them, and so on, but never a word about bap- 
 tizing them : in this last connection " believers," " men " and " women," 
 are spoken of, but children never. 
 
 The following extracts from the Scriptures illustrate this : " Then 
 were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on 
 them, and pray ; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, 
 ; Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me ; for of 
 
202 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 such is the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 19 : 13-14. " And they that 
 had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children." 
 Matt. 14: 21. "And they that did eat were four thousand men, 
 beside women and children." Matt. 15 : 38. When Paul and his 
 company left Tyre, the disciples there accompanied him, " with 
 wives and children," till they were out of the city ; then they 
 kneeled and prayed, and separated (see Acts 21 : 5). Thus men, 
 women and children were mentioned ; but not so when Church 
 membership or baptism were spoken of. Then the records run thus: 
 " And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of 
 men and women." Acts 5 : 14. "But when they believed Philip 
 preaching the tilings concerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 
 8: 12. A difference in phraseology which is very significant indeed. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson holds (as ppedo-baptists generally have done, though 
 we have seen that some of the greatest minds among them have- 
 recently given up the position as untenable), that baptism comes in 
 the room of circumcision — that the two ordinances are different in 
 form, but the same in substance. But the uncircumcised man-child 
 was " cut off" from God's people (Gen. 17: 14) ; is that true of unbap- 
 tized children 1 Are the little babies cut off from God's people if 
 they are not baptized 1 This must be true of them, if baptism has 
 now taken the place of circumcision. 
 
 Then he tells us that the little Ones are baptized to bring them into 
 the visible Church. But they were born into the visible Jewish 
 Churcl), and were cut off from it afterwards if they failed to be 
 circumcised. Moreover, according to his disciples, a " visible Church " 
 is a congregation of " faithful men, in which the pure word of God is 
 preached, and the sacraments duly administered," etc. Of such a 
 Church infants cannot be members. By no law of language known 
 on earth can you call infants "faithful men." Therefore, according 
 to the Discipline, they cannot be in the visible Church. No, the 
 framers of the Discipline evidently believed that by baptism they 
 are brought into the " invisible " Church. 
 
 [^Time expired.^ 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 203 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 In my last address I called for an explanation regarding the quota- 
 tion made by my opponent from Dr. Stuart, about the meaning of 
 baptizo. He has not, however, condescended to give us any expla- 
 nation, thus virtually admitting that my charge, to the effect that he 
 had misrepresented the authorities, is true. He has boasted, crowed 
 and threatened like a rowdy (of course he is not a rowdy, however), 
 and like a bully (but of course he isn't a bully), the dear man ! He is 
 a pink of propriety, but his conduct has reminded us very forcibly of 
 such characters. He has done his best to drive me off the platform 
 by his demonstrations on that line, he then interprets his rowdyish 
 gesticulations as arguments, and has the audacity to stand before this 
 congregation and crow about the "dressing" he gave me. This is 
 what I would call " whistling to keep his courage up." He had better 
 allow the congregation to judge about ^he " dressing," and then he will 
 not expose himself to the charge of " tooting his own horn." But 
 since he has had so much to say about the Psedo-baptist authorities 
 which agree with him, and disagree with me, I have a challenge to 
 make. It is this : That he accepts the appointment of a committee of 
 either four or six persons, any number you like, of scholars, half on 
 each side, to take the authorities from which he has quoted in this 
 debate, and examine them and see if they really favor immersion and 
 only immersion ; also as to whether they have been correctly inter- 
 preted before this audience ; and if the committee, after examining 
 the books, say they have been correctly quoted and represented, then 
 I shall think he has been acting an honest part, that he means 
 business, and that there is something in his position. With respect 
 to the quotation from Dr. Ditzler, I have only to say that I read from 
 him correctly. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Let me see the book. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — (Handing Mr. H. the book), I read from page 
 140. If there is a lie anywhere it is not between my opponent and 
 myself, but between Dr. Ditzler and the publishers of that debate ; 
 and it is impossible for me to fettle the question here. I intend, 
 however, to get at the bottom facts of this matter and publish them to 
 the world. I am satisfied that if all the facts were known a satisfac- 
 tory explanation could be given, and I shall have it if it is to be had.* 
 
 * The reader is referred to pp. 8-10 of Dr. Ditzler's work on Baptism where 
 the trickery practiced on him is clearly exposed. — T. L. W. 
 
204 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 My opponent has asked why Christ was circumcised and afterwards 
 baptized 1 Christ was circumcised as a Jewish child, and He was 
 baptized as a candidate for the priesthood. I am j^repared to verify 
 "this explanation and to follow it up to its ultimate conclusion in every 
 particular. In such a debate as this, however, it is impossible to go 
 into all the details. I explained that under the old dispensation 
 baptism was used for washing, circumcision for regeneration, that 
 those two outward rites symbolized inward truth, and were perpetu- 
 ated until the coming of Christ. But when the Christian dispensation 
 was established those who had received circumcision under the former, 
 because of its peculiarly Jewish character, received the new rite, 
 which was more especially distinctive of the Christian economy. 
 Suppose, for example, the Dominion of Canada were to be annexed to 
 the United States. At present we have a seal, as a Dominion, to all 
 our documents. If annexation were to take place we would pass 
 under another Administration and have a new seal, and there would 
 be no inconsistency in affixing the new form of seal to all old docu- 
 ments as well as to all new ones. And when Christianity was brought 
 in, and they wanted to recognize the fact that the old system was no 
 longer in force, was it not proper that a new seal should be put upon 
 those who embraced religion under this dispensation and accepted 
 Christ as their Messiah, even though they had formerly received the 
 form of seal peculiar to the old dispensation 1 Especially is this the 
 ■case in the present instance, because of what was involved. It was 
 one thing to accept the Jewish religion, and quite another thing to 
 accept Christ as the seed of Abraham and the Saviour of the world. 
 A man might easily believe the promises of the Old Testament 
 concerning the coming of a Messiah without receiving Christ, when 
 He came, as that Messiah ; hence it was important that he should 
 receive the seal involving the latter, as well as the seal involving the 
 former. 
 
 My opponent said he would still circumcise a Jew or advise him to 
 be circumcised. Would he also baptize a Jew 1 
 
 Mr. Harding — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Then a Jew lives still under the old dispensation, 
 •where there was circumcision and baptism both. To the Jew the old 
 economy has not passed away. Under this dispensation as many as 
 are bajitized into Christ are " one man " in Christ. Would the 
 Jewish Christian be one with the Gentile Christian according to my 
 opponent's theory 'i 
 
 Mr. Harding — He would. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 205 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — The Bible says that of those who are baptized 
 into Christ, and have put on Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek^ 
 male nor female, but they are all one in Christ. 
 
 Mr. HARDiNiG — Men and women still, for all that. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — And they are circumcised, having been buriedv 
 with Him in baptism. And this is as true of women as of men. 
 Make a note of that. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I will do it. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — My opponent said that in Genesis 12th; 
 chapter Abraham was seventy-five years old, and in Genesis- 
 17th chapter he was ninety-nine years old; and he undertook to 
 prove that God had made a covenant with Abraham when he was- 
 seventy-five years old, and he said that it was absurd to suppose that 
 He could add anything to that covenant when Abraham was ninety- 
 nine years old, because in Gal. 3:15 it says that though it were a 
 man's covenant no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Is putting a 
 seal on a covenant adding to it 1 Suppose you and I make a deed, 
 and afterwards attach our seals 1 Do we add to the deed '? I always 
 thought that the putting of a seal to a document ratified it. I was 
 not aware that it added anything to its conditions, but thought it 
 simply confirmed them. But when a favorite cause is in danger 
 men can cavil over a very small matter, and raise objections where 
 no objections exist. Besides, this Avas God's covenant. A covenant 
 with God is simply accepting God's terms, and conforming ourselves 
 to them. A covenant with God in which He promises to give 
 certain blessings to man, is not a contract on man's part at all, except 
 to abide by God's terms. God can, moreover, add as many more 
 blessings to the covenant as He pleases. Surely it does not invali- 
 date a promise to add more promises ! But did not the first covenant 
 include everything '? Was it not the scheme of redemption in 
 embryo ? In Genesis 1 2th chapter we see the same blessings are 
 given as in the 17th, but in the former they are like the opening 
 buds, and in the latter we see them coming into full bloom, and in 
 the New Testament we gather the fruit. That covenant included 
 Abraham and his children. It was the same covenant as that under 
 which we live — the Christian covenant. Therefore, it still includes 
 Abraham and his children, and all who are Christ's are Abraham's 
 children and heirs according to the promise. In Genesis 12th chap- 
 ter God said He would make a covenant with Abraham. In the 
 17th chapter He did so. We will read the passage : 
 
 " Now the Lord Jmd said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, 
 
206 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 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 families of the earth be blessed." 
 
 Did God make another covenant after the twenty-four years had 
 elapsed between giving the first promise and the second ? He simply 
 repeated what He had previously said. Yet my opponent wants to 
 make it appear that there were two covenants, and that they had no 
 connection with each other. It is said that God did not change Abra- 
 ham's name in Genesis 12th chapter, but He did so in Genesis 17th 
 chapter. Certainly, because he was to be the father of many nations, 
 and Abraham signifies "father of a great multitude." But this was to 
 be fulfilled in a spiritual sense. Let us look at Romans 4:16: 
 
 " 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.") 
 
 And this covenant that Abraham should be a father of many 
 nations is recorded in Gen. 1 7th, and sealed with circumcision. So 
 Paul is evidently quoting from that chapter, and not from Gen. 12th 
 chapter, which says, " I will make thee a great nation," to prove that 
 Abraham should have a numerous spiritual posterity. But I turn to 
 Galatians and find that he quotes there, for the same purpose, a clause 
 from the covenant as it is found in the 12th chapter, showing that it 
 was the same covenant in both places. The passage reads : " And the 
 Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, 
 preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall 
 all the nations be blessed." That, I say, is from 12th Genesis; the 
 other quotation is from 17th Genesis ; and they are both quoted by 
 the apostle to show that God made a covenant with Abraham involv- 
 ing justification through faith, thus proving them to be the same cove- 
 nant. I therefoi'e claim there is only one covenant. In 17th Genesis 
 the seal was added. It was under that covenant, so sealed, that chil- 
 dren eight days old were circumcised. I have shown that circumcision 
 referred to spii'itual blessings ; that circumcision in the flesh was the 
 sign and seal of a spiritual condition. To prove this I referred to 
 Romans 4:11: 
 
 " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteous- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 207 
 
 ness 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." 
 
 It is a covenant involving faith all the way through. Faith secured 
 the blessing, circumcision sealed it to Abraham and all his children. 
 Therefore his children were in the covenant, and visibly recognized as 
 being in it when they were eight days old ; and that was a sign and 
 pledge that they were renewed in heart and nature. My opponent 
 says I interjected " token," and made the passage read " token of the 
 covenant." God used the very phrase I quoted. Gen. 17 : 11. So my 
 opponent, with all his books, can be mistaken. If I made a slip of 
 memory, and said that Christ came up " from " the water, and not 
 ** out of " the water, it was because I had only one passage in my 
 mind at the time. Now, he says I used a word which was not in the 
 passage, that is in it. So I guess we are about even on that score. 
 
 He quotes Jeremiah 31 : 31, etc., to prove that a new covenant was 
 to be made with the house of Israel, and he turned to Hebrews 8th 
 chapter and quoted a passage to show that it was " a better covenant 
 to be established on better promises." Do I understand my ojjponent 
 correctly that this is the covenant of redemption referred to in Jere- 
 miah 1 
 
 Mr. Harding — Yes, the covenant of God. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — That is a better covenant, established on better 
 promises ! Yet he said that under the covenant sealed with circum- 
 cision infants were brought in. When they were brought in they had 
 to be taught to know the Lord, but under the " better covenant " it 
 would not be so, because they would all know the Lord. So there 
 would not be any children in that covenant, according to my oppo- 
 nent's principle of interpretation. Yet it is a better covenant, although 
 it excludes children from its provisions ! So, I repeat, that his 
 doctrine logically consigns children to hell, and he cannot get out of 
 it, unless he goes back on his own interpretation ; because, if every- 
 body shall know the Lord, and if infants are excluded because they 
 are not capable of knowing the Lord, then there is no covenant 
 including the children, and if there is no covenant to include the little 
 ones, they have been left outside to perish. If they are not in the 
 Christian covenant, they are not in Christ, hence they are not 
 Abraham's seed ; and if not Abraham's seed, they are not sealed, and 
 they are not heirs of the promise unless they are Abraham's seed. 
 Where, then, are the infants going? My opponent must either 
 annihilate them or send them to perdition ; there is no room in the 
 
208 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 kingdom of heaven for them. Let him get out of this position if he- 
 can. But let me remind him that this covenant was to be " with the 
 house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and if he rejects- 
 infants because they cannot know the Lord, I must insist on rejecting 
 the Gentiles because they belong neither to the house of Israel nor 
 Judah. Therefore, it cannot be the Christian covenant at all. And 
 this is the result of allowing no elasticity in the interpretation of lan- 
 guage. By adopting the principle of cast-iron literalness we can easily 
 destroy the meaning of all Scripture. And this principle is only 
 resorted to to overthrow theories which stand in our way. By the- 
 exercise of a little common sense, it will be seen that infants are not 
 necessarily excluded from this new covenant by the phrase " All shall 
 know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." It is well known, 
 that, though infants were sealed under the Abrahamic covenant at 
 eight days old, they were not reckoned as members of the congre- 
 gation or church until they were twelve years old. By that time 
 they could be taught to know the Lord, though the duty was too- 
 frequently neglected. But, under the new dispensation, a time shall 
 come when parents will not thus neglect the religious training of 
 their children, but all shall know the Lord, as Timothy knew the 
 Scriptures, from their youth. By adopting my opponent's rigid prin- 
 ciple of interpretation, however, I can rule children in as easily as he 
 can rule them out, for if one shall not say to another, " Know the 
 Lord," then all shall know the Lord without being instructed at all. 
 There will be no such thing as religious instruction. All will know the 
 Lord intuitively, or by direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and surely, 
 if God can effect this for adults. He can effect it for infants, and thus 
 '* out of the mouth of babes and sucklings ordain praise." But my 
 opponent himself will surely not accept this interpretation. Also, by 
 his own principle of reasoning, all females are ruled out of the 
 Christian covenant, for Jeremiah says :• " And they shall teach no- 
 more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother," etc., but 
 there is nothing said about women, therefore, only men will be saved 
 under the new covenant. But he will not accept this conclusion) 
 either, though it is just as fair as for him to try to rule infants out, 
 because they cannot know the Lord. And tlie very same remarks 
 are applicable in the case of the household baptisms about which he 
 has said so much. Infants are not specifically mentioned, because 
 the term household is a generic term including diff"erent classes, and 
 language is constructed on the principle that man's intelligence can 
 supply the needed conditions and limitations in all such cases. But 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 209 
 
 when men are sore pressed for arguments, they sometimes try to 
 extract comfort from very small quibbles Who does not know that 
 the same language would be employed whether there were any 
 infants in those families or not 1 So it is not necessary to bandy' words 
 about the matter. I shall, doubtless, have occasion to refer to it 
 again. Of course, he was going to trample me down. No doubt, if 
 everything depended on noise, I should stand at a great disadvantage. 
 He reminds me of a certain domestic fowl which, no matter how much 
 it gets beaten in a fight, runs away and gets on a fence and crows. 
 Those who are defeated always make the most noise. Let him get the 
 children out of purgatory or annihilation, into which he has got them 
 according to his interpretation, if he can. He could demolish my 
 arguments, but he would not let me ask a question even if I allowed 
 him half-an-hour extra time. He shouted out " sit down." I do not 
 think that was gentlemanly. Then I said, " Accept one hour and let 
 me ask a question?" That was no violation of the rules, for he could 
 have answered " Yes " or " No." This is the question I wanted to 
 ask him, Are there any children saved, according to your interpreta- 
 tion of the covenant 1 I ask it now, and I await his answer. 
 
 [Time expired. \ 
 
 MR. HARDING'S THIRD REPLY. 
 
 I am glad to see that the drubbing which I was compelled to give 
 to Mr. Wilkinson has improved his frame of mind. I am much 
 pleased with the improvement in temper shown in the last speech. 
 There is nothing like a good, vigorous flogging to make some people 
 behave themselves. 
 
 "Are little children (infants) saved?" he inquires at the close of 
 his speech. No, they are not. Only those can properly be said to 
 be saved who are lost, or in danger of being lost. Infants, as long as 
 tliey are infants^ are neither Idst, nor in danger of being lost. They 
 are safe, not saved. In this new covenant all shall know the Lord, 
 from the least to the greatest. As infants cannot know the Lord, I 
 argue they are not in this covenant. Mr. Wilkinson thinks this is a 
 dreadful doctrine ; that it logically consigns the little ones to hell. I 
 don't see why he should think so ; for only sinners go to hell, and we 
 agree that infants are born pure. There is no doctrine in heaven, 
 earth, or hell, that I know of, that logically consigns the ^nire to hell . 
 14 
 
210 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Let me call your attention for one moment to tliis new covenant. 
 " This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after 
 those clays, saith the Lord ; 1 will put My laws into their mind, and 
 write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they 
 shall be to Me a people : and they shall not teach 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. For I will be merciful to 
 their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember 
 no more." Heb. 8: 10-12. 
 
 The points of this covenant are these : 
 
 1. God will put His laws into their minds and hearts. 
 
 2. He will be their God, and they shall be His people. 
 
 3. All of them shall know Him ; so that they will not have to 
 teach one another about Him. 
 
 4. He will be merciful to their wrong-doings, and will forgive their 
 sins. 
 
 God expressly says " this is the covenant." Now, it is perfectly 
 clear — it seems to me that a blind man ought to see it — that infants 
 can have no part m this contract. God's laws are not in their minds 
 and hearts ; and, in the very nature of the case, they cannot be : they 
 do not know God, and hence they have to be taught about Him ; they 
 do no wrong, are as innocent as angels, and hence have no sins to be 
 forgiven. This contract is for those that need to be saved ; not for 
 those who are safe. 
 
 "What becomes of infants when they die?" They go home to 
 their Father's house, to a place in which they have never for- 
 feited their right by sin. The Bible doctrine is, " Sin is the trans- 
 gression of the law;" and, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." 
 There is nothing except sin that can consign any soul to hell. Whom 
 did Christ come into the world to call 1 He answers the question 
 Himself. He says, " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to 
 repentance." But infants are not sinners ; they are perfectly right- 
 eous ; hence Christ did not come to call them. But are they not in 
 some way benefited by the death of Clrrist ? Yes, just as all, good 
 and bad, great and small, wise and foolish, are benefited ; that is, by 
 virtue of the resurrection of Christ, the bodies of all of the human 
 family will come up from their graves : the bodies of the worst and 
 oldest of sinner.'^, as well as tlie bodies of the innocent babes. " As 
 in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." Then, all the 
 wicked will be cast into hell ; and all tlie sinless — those tliat have 
 never done wrong, and those that have been forgiven — will go 
 
ON THE MODK AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 211 
 
 together through the gates into the great city of God, to enjoy the 
 glories of the Father's house for evermore. No one need be dis- 
 turbed about his darlings that die in infancy. It is necessary for a 
 man to be converted, and to become as a little child, in order to 
 enter the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus Himself says ; but the spirit 
 of the little one needs no conversion,, needs nothing to prepare it for 
 the Father's house. 
 
 In the chart displayed by Mr. Wilkinson he has the Passover and 
 the Lord's Supper, as well as circumcision and baptism ; he tells us 
 that as baptism has taken the place of circumcision, so the Lord's 
 Supper has come in' the room of the Passover. Why not, then, give 
 the Supper to infants 1 He baptizes them because formerly they were 
 circumcised : but formerly they ate of the Passover ; therefore, 
 according to his logic, they should now eat at the Lord's table. The 
 paschal lamb was eaten by the household, and all of it was consumed ; 
 and, in addition to this, in keeping the feast, unleavened bread was 
 eaten for seven days : no leaven was allowed in their houses. I ask 
 again : How does it happen that our Psedo-baptist friends give baptism 
 to the little ones, but withhold from them the Lord's Supper ? Why 
 give one and not the other 1 Does not the one belong to the new 
 covenant as much as the other*? If baptism is given because it is an 
 institution of the new covenant, the Lord's Supper should be also, for 
 the same reason ; it, too, is an institution of the new covenant. The 
 fact is, infants are not in the new covenant. The new covenant is a 
 contract which God makes with sinners for their salvation. Its 
 design is to bring the wicked back to the innocency of childhood, and 
 thus to prepare them for heaven. The Greek Church, arguing that 
 man's spiritual nature is depraved at birth — by virtue of his connection 
 with Adam tainted with sin — claims that infants must be redeemed 
 according to the provisions of the new covenant ; and hence it gives 
 to the babies both baptism and the Supper. Mr. Wilkinson and his 
 people, holding to precisely the same view concerning the nature of 
 the child, give baptism, but not the Supper. If the logic of these 
 parties is correct, and their premises true, the Greeks are evidently 
 right in practice, the Methodists wrong. But neither of the parties 
 are correct in argument, nor are they in practice. Our spiritual 
 natures are in no wise corrupted by virtue of Adam's sin. All infants 
 are safe in Christ till they are old enough to sin. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — How old is that? 
 
 Mr. Harding — Whenever they are old enough to understand and 
 to violate the law of God, they are old enough to sin ; when they have 
 
212 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 actually violated the law, they are sinners ; and then, and not till 
 then, they need all the provisions of the new covenant. But they can 
 eat lon» before they can understand the law. 
 
 My opponent gets back to our first proposition, to the action of 
 baptism, and makes me a challenge. He wants to have a committee 
 appointed to examine the authorities that I have been quoting, to see 
 if they favor immersion, and only immersion ; and to see whether 
 they have been correctly interpreted by me. With quite a flourish he 
 challenges me to the appointment of this committee. Does not the 
 gentleman know that I have taken pains from the beginning to 
 emphasize the fact that nearly all these authorities are Pjedo-baptists, 
 who practice affusion and aspersion for baptism ? They candidly 
 admit that haptizo primarily and usually signifies to immerse ; that 
 immersion was almost universally practiced for many hundred years ; 
 that sprinkling and pouring gradually came into use ; that certain 
 passages of the New Testament plainly refer to immersion — that they 
 cannot be understood unless that practice is kept in mind ; but some of 
 them immediately turn about and argue that it is hardly possible that 
 immersion was always practiced, even in apostolic times, and that 
 aspersion will do just as well. I never claimed that these men 
 favored immersion, and only immersion. My opponent knows well 
 that in talking about Robinson's lexicon, I stated that he defined 
 haptizo to dip, immerse, etc., but never to sprinkle ; and then immedi- 
 ately added, that, in a note appended to his definition, he makes an 
 argument to show that " in reference to the rite of baptism, it would 
 seem to have expressed not always simply immersion, but the more 
 general idea of ablution or affusion." 
 
 My opponent, with a great show of boldness, challenges me to do 
 something which he knows I don't want to do ; to affirm that Avhich 
 he knows I do not believe ; which he has heard me say I do not 
 believe. Let him challenge me to affirm something I believe, or to 
 deny something I do not believe. Let him challenge me to deny that 
 " In conversion the Holy Spirit operates immediately upon the sin- 
 nei''s heart ;" or to affirm that " Christian baptism is for the remission 
 of sins ;" and he will see how quickly I will take him up. Since 
 challenging is the order of the day, I will give a challenge riglit here : 
 I challenge Mr. Wilkinson to discuss either of the propositions just 
 mentioned, provided any P;edo-baptist Church of this town will endorse 
 him to represent it in the discussion. My brethren will endorse me. 
 If he says so, we will continue the debate next week. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — What do you meani 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 213 
 
 ]Mr. Harding — I mean exactly what I say. Do you accept this 
 challenge 1 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — What do you mean by " endorse?" 
 
 Mr. Harding — ^I want some body of Paedo-baptists in this town to 
 call upon you to debate for it — -to represent it in the discussion. Let 
 the Methodist, or Presbyterian, or any other Church, thus endorse 
 you, and then we will debate next week. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Our Church does not run on that line, and never 
 did. 
 
 Mr. Harding — No; your Church does not want this discussion 
 continued ; neither do you ; these are the simple facts in the case. 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, you see how much of meaning there was 
 in this gentleman's challenge. When he invites me to a conflict he is 
 careful so to express himself that I cannot take issue with him. He 
 knows if he steps out on proper battle-ground he will be met every 
 time. If he challenges me to meet him upon anything concerning 
 which we differ, he will have to fight every time ; there is no doubt 
 about that. But let me not be misunderstood : I do not mean to 
 fight with my fists, nor with any other weapons, except the sword of 
 the Spirit, the Word of God. I do not believe that a Christian is 
 ever justifiable in using physical force in his conflicts with error. 
 " The weapons of our warfare are not carnal." But to use the " sword 
 of the Spirit " he should ever be ready. I hold myself in readiness to 
 go into this war whenever called upon to do so. He who uses that 
 weapon properly can never be defeated ; he who does not, should be ; 
 therefore I am so ready to give challenges. 
 
 Concerning my use of the authorities, it is sufficient to say that my 
 opponent has not as yet shown that I have in the least twisted or per- 
 verted one of them. One who does this intentionally is guilty of a 
 mean kind of falsifying. To insinuate that one has done it, when 
 you have not the slightest proof that he has, is an unkind, unjust, 
 and cowardly thing to do. Mr. Wilkinson insinuates that if he had 
 the books, and if he were sufficiently well acquainted with them, he 
 could show that I have misrepresented them. But if he is able to 
 show it, why does he talk about a committee ] Why don't he show 
 it to this audience himself 1 Ah, but he does specify one case : he 
 positively affirms that I have misrepresented Mr. Stuart. He says 
 that Stuart gave dip, plunge, immerse, as the classic meaning of bap- 
 tizo, but not as the meaning in the Bible. We will take this as a test 
 case, and see who is guilty of falsehood in perverting the meaning of 
 an author. When I introduced Stuart's testimony into the debate, ii 
 
 / 
 
214 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 loan to show the classic meaning of ha j)tizo. When Mr. Wilkinson 
 admitted that in the classics it meant to "dip, immerse," etc., I said, 
 No wonder he admits this ; and then quoted Dr. Stuart to show that 
 " all lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this." But 
 as my opponent plainly intimates that Stuart agrees with him as to 
 the Bible meaning, you shall hear the great Presbyterian on that 
 phase of the question. I read from Stuart on Baptism, p. 153 (Nash- 
 ville edition). He says : " We have collected facts enough to author- 
 ize us now to come to the following general conclusion respecting the 
 practice of the Christian Church in general, with regard to the mode 
 of baptism, viz., that from the earliest ages of which we have any 
 account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and downward for several 
 centuries, the Churches did generally practice baptism by immersion ; 
 perhaps b)/ immersion 0/ the whole person ; and that the only excep- 
 tions to this mode which were usually allowed were in cases of urgent 
 sickness, or other cases of immediate and imminent danger, where 
 immersion could not be practiced." He says that affusion and asper- 
 sion were gradually introduced, and then on the same page adds : 
 
 " In what manner, then, did the Churches of Christ, from a very 
 early period, to say the least, understand the word baptizo in the New 
 Testament 1 Plainly, they construed it as meaning immersion. They 
 sometimes even went so far as to forbid any other method of admin- 
 istering the ordinance, cases of necessity and mercy only excepted." 
 
 On the next page he gives his own opinion thus : " For myself, then, 
 
 1 cheerfully admit that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied 
 to the rite of Vjaptism, does in all probability involve the idea that 
 this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always. I say 
 usually, and not always, for to say more than this, the tenor of some 
 of the narrations particularly in Acts 10 : 47, 48 ; 16 : 32, 33, and 
 
 2 : 41, seem to me to forbid. I cannot read these examples without 
 the distinct conviction that immersion was not practiced on these 
 occasions, but washing or affusion." 
 
 Mr. Stuart here cheerfully testifies that from the days of the apos- 
 tles, down through several centuries, immersion was the general prac- 
 tice ; that aspersion and affusion were gradually introduced ; that the 
 Churches in those days understood baptizo in the New Testament to 
 mean immersion ; and, finally, he freely admits that he himself believes 
 that in all probability it does generally involve the idea of immersion 
 in the New Testament. 
 
 My friends, I leave it to you to decide who is in danger of failing 
 
 S 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. "215 
 
 " to be an honest man," " to tell the truth," and "to go from here 
 with a good reputation." 
 
 While my opponent was talking about the covenants — about my 
 position that Jewish Christians should still practice circumcision — he 
 asked me if I would also baptize Jews 1 Certainly I would. Christ 
 was circumcised, and afterwards baptized; so were the apostles; so were 
 the three thousand on the day of Pentecost ; all believers were to be 
 baptized, according to the commission, regardless of whether they had 
 been circumcised or not. Then, on the other hand, Timothy was cir- 
 cumcised after he had been baptized ; then, as late as A.D. 60, that 
 is, about 27 years after the beginning of the Christian dispensation, 
 Paul, James, the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, and the " many 
 thousands of Jews that believed," regarded it as disorderly for Jewish 
 Christians to neglect circumcision and the customs. (See Acts 21 : 17- 
 25.) There is not an intimation in the New Testament that Jews 
 were to give up circumcision. On the contrary, the circumcised were 
 baptized, and the baptized circumcised. Of course the one did not 
 come in the room of the other. Mr. Wilkinson has argued that the 
 covenant we are now under is the old Jewish covenant of circum- 
 cision ; that under the Mosaic dispensation circumcision was its seal ; 
 that while the covenant is the same under the Christian dispensation, 
 we have another seal, baptism, which, he claims, has taken the place 
 of circumcision. But all this we have seen to be incorrect ; we are 
 under a " new covenant ;" circumcision has not been done away ; 
 baptism has not taken its place ; each has its own place to this day. 
 So the only argument upon which my friend has placed any stress 
 since we began to discuss this proposition is worthless, absolutely 
 worthless. 
 
 In order to show that circumcision has been done away, Mr. Wil- 
 kinson quotes Gal. 3 : 28, 29 : " There is neither Jew nor Greek, 
 there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for 
 ye are all one in Christ Jesus." The point which he wishes to make 
 from this is that when a Jew becomes a Christian he ceases to be a 
 Jew, and hence must give up all the Jewish customs and .peculiarities. 
 What superlative nonsense ! for then a Greek must cease to be a Greek; 
 a servant must cease to be a servant ; a woman must cease to be a 
 woman, and must give up all of the customs and peculiarities of 
 women ; and so of the men. The passage simply teaches that there 
 are no partialities with God ; people that are equally good he treats 
 with equal favor, whether they are of Jewish or Greek extraction, 
 whether they are bond or free, male or female. In this connection I 
 
216 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 will read 1 Cor. 7:17-21 : "But as God hath distributed to every 
 man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so 
 ordain I in all the churches. 
 
 " Is any man called being circumcised 1 let him not become uncir- 
 umcised. Is any called in uncircumcision 1 let him not be circum- 
 cised. 
 
 " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the 
 keeping of the commandments of God. 
 
 " Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 
 
 " Art thou called being a servant 1 care not for it : but if thou 
 mayst be made free, use it rather." 
 
 Remember that "the circumcision " is the Jew; "the uncircum- 
 cision," the Gentile ; and then the meaning of the passage is plain. If 
 a man is called being a Jew, let him not cease to be a Jew, but let him 
 be a Jewish Christian ; let the Gentile be a Gentile Christian ; the 
 servant, a Christian servant. There is nothing in circumcision, nor 
 in baptism either, but everything in keeping the commandments of 
 God. God ga'se circumcision to the Jew as an " everlasting cove- 
 nant," therefore let him observe it ; he did not give it to the Gen- 
 tile, therefore he must not observe it. Every one must abide in the 
 calling wherein he is called. Paul, who so readily agreed to circum- 
 cise Timothy, would never allow that Titus should be circumcised. 
 The one was a Jew, the other a Greek ; to the one circumcision had 
 been given, but not to the other. There is everything in doing just 
 what God requires — no more, no less ; and all who. do this equally 
 well, stand equally high in His favor. For as Peter says (Acts 
 10 : 34, 35), " God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation 
 he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with 
 Him." 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Are the females all "one man " in that sense 1 
 
 Mr. Harding — Yes, all who are in Christ are one, constituting one 
 Church, regardless of sex, nationality, or condition in life. 
 
 Don't forget, my friends, that Neander says, " We have all reason 
 for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution ;" Mosheim 
 says that they were immersed " after they had repeated what they 
 called the creed ; " Schatf says, " The apostolic origin of infant bap- 
 tism is denied, not only V)y the Baptists, but also by many Pa'do-bap- 
 tist divines ;" Meyer says, "The baptism of the children of Christians, 
 of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not to be held 
 as an apostolic ordinance ;" and then, to cap the climax, the learned 
 George Edward Steitz, though a Lutheran, testifies that, " Among 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 217 
 
 scientifical exegetes it is regarded as an established conclusion that not 
 a trace of infant baptism can be discovered in the New Testament." 
 And we know that this conclusion is correct, too, for Mr. McKay has 
 summed up for us all the cases of baptism mentioned in the New Tes- 
 tament, and we have examined them carefully, and have found not a 
 vestige of the practice. 
 
 And then, when our unfortunate friend Mr. Wilkinson turns des- 
 perately to the covenant of circumcision, his great brother Dr. Ditzler 
 says, " The covenants of the Old Testament have nothing to do with 
 infant baptism." This was more than he could patiently stand, so he 
 claimed that Ditzler had been misrepresented, and his sentiments dis- 
 torted all through the book. I then turned to the first of the book 
 and found a note signed by both Graves and Ditzler, saying that they 
 had read and corrected the whole work, and that it is a faithful 
 transcript of what they said in the discussion at Carrollton. I learned, 
 moreover, from the introduction, that Mr. Ditzler had been paid $500 
 to do his part of the work. Neither does Ditzler now claim that his 
 own speeches were in anywise tampered with ; though he does charge, 
 in his work on baptism since published, that Mr. Graves had added to 
 his speeches, and made many changes in them. But if Ditzler had 
 never said so, we have seen there is nothing in that old covenant argu- 
 ment ; for after Christian baptism was instituted, circumcision was 
 still practiced. As Dr. Stuart says, in speaking about arguing from 
 circumcision, " Numberless difficulties present themselves in our way 
 as soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this." Com. 0. T., 
 chap. 22. 
 
 There is a circumcision of the heart mentioned in the Bible, both in 
 the Old Testament and the New, to which I wish to call your atten- 
 tion. "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no 
 more stifl^'-necked." Deut. 10:16. "And the Lord thy God will 
 circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord 
 thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest 
 live." Deut. 30 : 6. " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take 
 away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem : lest My fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can 
 quench it, because of the evil of your doings." Jer. 4:4. " For 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, and not in the 
 letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Rom. 2 : 28, 29. 
 " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made with- 
 out hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
 
218 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 circu'iicision of Christ: buried with Him in baptisii', wherein also ye 
 are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who 
 hath raised Him from the dead." Col. 2 : 11, 12. 
 
 To circumcise the heart is to produce in it a loving, trustful faith' 
 in God. As we have seen from these readings, to have a circumcised 
 heart is the opposite of being " stiff-necked." But this faith which 
 purifies the heart is produced by the Word of God, the sword of the 
 Spirit (see Rom. 10 : 17); that is, as the foreskin of the flesh is cut 
 away with a knife, so the foreskin of the heart (its stubbornness against 
 God) is cut away with this weapon that " is sharper than any two- 
 edged sword." This circumcision is not baptism, for it is "made 
 without hands." When a man preaches the Gospel to a sinner, and 
 the faith that loves and obeys Jesus is thus produced in his heait, he 
 has a circumcised heart ; then, in apostolic times, he was " buried in 
 baptism : " the one was without hands ; the other with hands. The 
 apostle John says (1 John 5:1)," Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
 Christ is born of God ;" it is evident that he who is born of God has a 
 circumcised heart ; and hence it follows that to believe is to circum- 
 cise the heart. Mr. Wilkinson is much mistaken in saying that 
 circumcision was a type of baptism. It never was a type of baptism. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson— I never said it was. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Did you not say that baptism came in the room of 
 circumcision 1 
 
 Mr, Wilkinson — W^hat did outward circumcision mean 1 
 
 Mr. Harding — Is baptism in the room of circumcision ? 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Harding— So I might believe, were it not for the facts. But 
 unfortunately for Mr. Wilkinson's theory, and the doctrine of infant 
 baptism, the facts in the case are all against him : the two rites are 
 alike in no respect scarcely ; and if the one came in the room of the 
 other, the apostles never found it out, for they practiced both right 
 along. 
 
 "What did circumcision mean?" inquires my friend. Well, it did 
 not "mean " what baptism does ; for after Timothy was baptized, he 
 was then circumcised. What did circuincifeion " mean " there 1 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — They all knew his father was a Greek. 
 
 Mr. Harding — They all knew his mother was a Jewess; he had 
 Jewish blood in his veins, and therefore had a right to circumcision. 
 But if baptism had taken its place, Paul would simply have said so,, 
 and that would have ended the; matter. 
 
 [ Time exjnrfid.l 
 
ox THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 219 
 
 FIFTH DAY— AFTEENOON. 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 I shall endeavor as hurriedlj as possible, in my first address, to run 
 over a few of the points dealt with last night by my opponent, and in 
 my second address I will endeavor more fully to illustrate the question 
 under discussion. I will pass by, for the time, any objections wliich 
 may be advanced by my opponent in his n^xt speech, and deal with 
 tlie historical aspect of the question. If anything remains to be said 
 on that phase of the subject, I will deal with it in my first address 
 this evening. 
 
 My opponent again referred last evening to our Discipline, and 
 quoted certain parts of it relating to the baptism of infants, and was 
 very emphatic with regard to some particulars. But without spend- 
 ing any more time over that matter, I want to say, once for all, that I 
 have been a Methodist preacher longer than he has, and have baptized 
 more infants than he has ever done, or ever will do, unless I convert 
 him in this debate (which I can scarcely expect to do), and I never 
 baptized an infant in my life (and I would appeal to other ministers 
 present, who baptize under our Discipline, or that of other Churches, 
 if the same is not true concerning them) with the thought of any 
 change being efiected in its present condition, but recognizing an 
 infant as a human being newly launched upon the great sea of life, 
 with a variety of experiences to pass through, subject to many evil 
 influences common to our nature, our prayers are designed to apply to 
 its whole life. That is the way in which they are to be interpreted. 
 I make this remark to explain that any man who attempts to confine 
 our prayers, either written or oral, to the present condition of the 
 child, will put into our mouths sentiments which we do not entertain, 
 and which we emphatically disclaim. But suppose it were all true, 
 that Methodists Ijelieve and teach a lot of blasphemous and unscrip- 
 tural thing.'!, what connection has that fact with the merits of the 
 question whether infants are to be baptized or nof? The question is 
 not whether we utter orthodox sentiments in our prayeis, with respect 
 to the moral state of infants, but whether it is right and proper that 
 infants should be baptized; and I hope my opponent will bear in mind 
 that it is my proposition, and not the Methodist Discipline, that we 
 are met here to discuss. If, however, he is anxious to abandon the 
 
220 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 real issue and raise some other where he thinks he will have a better 
 chance of maintaining his ground, he had better say so and have the 
 programme changed. But while ray proposition is the recognized 
 ground of debate, I triist he will stick to the point. 
 
 With respect to Timothy's circumcision, it has been (juoted again 
 and again to prove that under the Christian dispensation the Jews 
 had a right to circumcision. Acts 16 : 3 says, " Him would Paul 
 have to go forth with him ; and took and circumcised him because of 
 the Jews which were in those quarters, for they knew all that his 
 father was a Greek." Timothy, therefore, had never been circum- 
 cised. This was an objection to the Jews, especially when he was 
 going to preach the Gospel to them, and seek to cjnvert them to 
 Christianity. They were not Christian Jews, but unconverted Jews, 
 as yet, and their prejudice on account of his not being circumcised 
 would be so strong that his influence among them would l)e destroyed. 
 Hence, to overcome this objection, and as a matter of expediency, 
 having no religious significance whatever, Paul took Timothy and 
 circumcised him, not because he was a Jew, but because he was a 
 Greek, the lineage of a child being reckoned from his father, and not 
 from his mother. If anything could be made out of this case, there- 
 fore, it proves that if circumcision is to be still practiced, it is to be 
 practiced, not on the Jews, but on the Gentiles. But an eflfort 
 was made to prove that it did not apply to Gentiles, but still 
 applied to Jews. I challenge my opponent to prove from all his 
 histories and encyclopsedias that circumcision, as an historical fact, 
 was practiced in the early age of the Christian Church upon 
 Jewish converts, or that it was ever insisted upon by the Church 
 after the introduction of Christianity, save when the people were 
 passing over from one disi)ensation into the other. Paul says in Gal. 
 5 : 2, " Beho'd, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ 
 shall profit you nothing." Such Jews, then, as trusted in circumci- 
 sion were profited nothing by Christ. He " is become of no efiect 
 unto you," says the apostle ; " whosoever of you are justified by the 
 law, ye are fallen from grace." This shows that circumcision was an 
 appeal to the ceremonial law as a means of justification, though that 
 law was abrogated. " For we," says Paul (and he was a Jew, and as 
 he uses the first personal pronoun, he includes himself with_others), 
 " through tlie Sjiirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For 
 in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircum- 
 sion, but faith which worketh by love." If, therefore, in Christ Jesus, 
 neither circumcision availctli anything, nor uncircumcision, circum- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 221 
 
 cision is not to be regarded as entitling us to be called Abraham's 
 seed. My opponent's argument on that point entirely £alls to the 
 ground. In Romans 2 : 25 we read, " For circumcision verily profit- 
 eth if thou keep the law : but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy 
 circumcision is made uncircumcision." That is to say, if you have 
 fulfilled God's law so perfectly that there is no other demand upon 
 you, having met all its requirements, then circumcision might profit 
 you something, but not otherwise, for if there be a breach of the law, 
 then circumcision has become uncircumcision ; and a state of uncir- 
 cumcision is, in the Scriptures, equivalent to a state of sin, or con- 
 demnation. Therefore Paul says in the 26th verse, " If the uncir- 
 cumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircum- 
 cision be counted for circumcision" (or justification) 1 That is to say, 
 those who are not circumcised at all would be counted as circumcised 
 if they kept the law, and those who were circumcised would be 
 counted as uncircumcised if they broke the law. He continues, " for 
 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 and not in the 
 letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." In Phil. 3 : 3 we 
 read, " For vje are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit, 
 and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in theflesh.^^ By 
 the term "■ flesh " the apostle evidently means fleshly rites as a means 
 of justification. If the Jew has confidence in fleshly rites^ then he 
 is not circumcised, and is not a, Jew, and all those who put their trust 
 in fleshly rites for the regenerating of their hearts are excluded by 
 this passage from being of the circumcision. These are ruled out of 
 the covenant, and if my opponent and his friends put their confidence 
 in fleshly rites to remove sin from their souls, this passage rules them 
 out of the covenant. In 1 Cor. 7 : 19, Paul says, "Circumcision is 
 nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the com- 
 mandments of God." Gal. 5 : 11, " And I, brethren, if I yet preach 
 circumcision, why do I yet suflfer persecution 1 " Did Paul preach cir- 
 cumcision then ? It is said he did, because he circumcised Timothy. 
 If so, why did he yet suSer persecution 1 " Then is the ofience of the 
 cross ceased." Now, according to the inspired teachings of Paul, the 
 Jews can never be saved if they keep on everlastingly being circum- 
 cised. You put them out of the covenant, and Christ can profit them 
 nothing. The Jew being circumcised, and having confidence in the 
 flesh, is not, in a Christian sense, a Jew at all, therefore he is not in 
 Christ, therefore he is not of Abraham's seed, therefore he is not an 
 
^22 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 heir of the covenant, and tlierefore he is not saved at all. My oppo- 
 nent's interpretation sends the Jews to liell as well as little children : 
 that is, logically. I do not think he believes it, hut he cannot put his 
 <;reed and the legitimate consequences of it together and make them 
 harmonize without becoming a preacher of Jewish damnation all 
 through. Besides, I would like to ask why the word circumcision is, 
 in the Scriptures, so frequently applied to the regeneration of the 
 heart, as quoted by my opponent in his last speech, if it possesses no 
 spiritual significance '? He tells us that it simply sealed the land of 
 Canaan to the Jews. If so, there was nothing spiritual in its mean- 
 ing. Why, then, should it be so frequently used to describe a spirit- 
 ual operation 1 Where is the analogy ? I hope he will tell us. 
 
 And now I want to show that my opponent's doctrine, interpreted 
 in the light of the Gospel, sends his own soul to the bad place too. 
 Paul says they are of the circumcision who have no confidence in the 
 flesh, or in fleshly rites. My opponent distinctly said last night that 
 baptism regenerated. It is well known that this is the doctrine of 
 his persuasion, viz., that it is by baptism that the soul is regenerated, 
 that without it it cannot be regenerated ; and I am told he taught 
 the people last summer that it was under the water that the soul 
 came in contact with the blood of Christ, and was cleansed from 
 sin. Therefore he has confidence in fleshly rites as a means of puri- 
 fication. If he has confidence in the flesh, then Christ profiteth him 
 nothing ; he is not of the circumcision ; he belongs to the uncircum- 
 cision, and consequently he cannot be .saved ; he must be with the 
 Jews and little children in limbo or some other place outside the 
 sphere of happiness and bliss. 
 
 With respect to little children, my opponent says they are not 
 saved, but safe. Of course I know where he got that. He got it 
 from the " ofl&ce editor " of the Standard. 
 
 Mr. Harding — We both got it from the same source, the Bible. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — That is exactly the way the " oflice editor" put 
 it. He says the children are safe, not saved. If not saved, they are 
 not Christ's, for Christ's people are such as He has redeemed, and only 
 those. I read in Ephesians 5 : 25, 26, " Husbands love your 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 ; that He might present it unto Himself a glorious Church, 
 not having spot, or Avrinkle, or any such thing." No children in 
 Christ's Church, according to my opponent, for He has not given 
 Himself for them, nor sanctified and cleansed them. " For we are 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 223 
 
 member-^ of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." The Church 
 is His body. He is the head over all things to that body, and if the 
 children are not in that body, they do not belong to Christ. My 
 opponent distinctly puts them out of that body ; and if they are not 
 Christ's, they are not Abraham's seed, and if they are not Abraham's 
 seed, they are not bis heirs according to the covenant, hence they are 
 left to perish. That is where Alexander Campbell and Mr. Harding 
 put the babies. My opponent says their bodies will be raised through 
 Christ's redemption, but it has nothing to do with their souls. He 
 died for the'r bodies, but not for their souls. Yet their bodies die 
 because Adam sinned, and in dying for their bodies it was to redeem 
 them from the effects of Adam's sin, but that sin did not affect their 
 souls, nor did Christ die for their souls, though as soon as they 
 are old enough to sin then He died for their souls too. What 
 a convenient theory! And it is the soul that is saved! Strange doc 
 trine ! Will my opponent tell us how Adam's sin could affect the 
 body and cause its death without affecting the soul and causing its 
 death 1 And how Christ could redeem the body by His death without 
 redeeming the soul at the same time *? Remember Christ' redeemed 
 us, and cleanses us with His blood. He sprinkles the heart from 
 an evil conscience with His blood. In Peter 1 : 18, "Forasmuch 
 as ye know ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver 
 and gold, from your vain conversation, received by tradition from 
 your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
 without blemish and without spot." Let us take a peep into heaven, 
 and see if there are any children there. In Rev. 7 : 9 we read, 
 " After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could 
 number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood 
 before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, 
 and palms in their hands." And when John asked the angel whence 
 came they, the angel answered, " These are they which came out 
 of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them 
 white in the blood of the Lamb." There was not a single baby among 
 them, according to my opponent's theory, for the whole multitude in 
 heaven had been washed in the blood of the Lamb, and He does not 
 wash infants in His blood. In fact, he cannot get a baby into 
 heaven on that theory ; it is not broad enough ; he leaves them to 
 perish in the quagmire of human depravity. They are outside the 
 covenant, outside the Church, outside the Gospel, and outside sal- 
 vation ; and he cannot get them into heaven until he gives up his 
 present theory, according to which there are no children before the 
 
224 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 throne. In Rev. 5:12, they are " saying with a loud voice, Worthy 
 is the Lamb tliat was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, 
 and strength, and honor, and glory and blessing." In v. 9 they say, 
 " Thou hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood, and hast made us unto 
 our -God kings and priests." But there are no children, says my 
 opponent, to join in that song, because they were never redeemed and 
 never washed in the blood of the Lamb, but simply by reason of their 
 belonging to the old Adam, I suppose, they are taken to heaven 
 without an atonement ; they are not saved by an atonement ! This 
 doctrine which ignores original sin, ignores the necessity of an atone- 
 ment, exce2)t for adult sinners. Though men are born in Adam tliey, 
 as children, ai'e able to get to heaven without an atonement. Accord- 
 ing to this theory, we are placed at no disadvantage, spiritually, by 
 reason of Adam's sin. It is generally supposed that Adam was 
 created able to stand, yet free to fall. If not, he could not help sin- 
 ning. And what a man cannot help doing is not sin. Now, if all 
 men are born as free from sin as Adam was, without an atonement, 
 and all as able to stand, how is it that nobody does stand, but all men 
 fall, and that, too, as soon as they get old enough to know better ? If 
 not able to stand, but fall in spite of themselves, it cannot be sin, 
 hence we are at a loss to know why they need an atonement. I 
 admit, with my opponent, that children are born pure, but they are 
 pure because Christ has redeemed and saved them from hereditary 
 pollution. He says they are pure by birth, and go to the Father 
 because they have never sinned. But in point of fact, "No man," 
 says Christ, "can come unto the Father but by Me." If a soul gets 
 to heaven, it has to get there through the l)lood of the Lamb. That 
 is the only way I ever heard of until I heard these people preacli. 
 Some of them may be astonished that they hold a heresy, an old 
 superstition that inevitably and logically (I admit they do not believe 
 it) excludes little children from the kingdom of heaven. Unless they 
 can get these barriers out of the way, let them cease their sneers at 
 infant sprinkling. I want to show you that there is such a close 
 relation between men, under the moral government of God, that tlie 
 parent cannot sin without affecting the child. In Rom. 5 : 18, 19, 
 we are shown the connection between the parent and child in regard 
 to the moral nature. I cannot explain the philosophy of it. I do not 
 suppose anyone can. I take it that Paul is a better authority than 
 Mr. Harding, even with all his authorities and basswood brains, and 
 Paul says, " Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon 
 all men to condenniation ; even so by the righteousness of one the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 225 
 
 free gift came upon all men unto justijScation of life." My opponent 
 has admitted that all are dead morally, and in Christ we are all made 
 alive, and we are born into the world redeemed from what Adam's 
 sin brought upon us, viz., "Judgment to condemnation," " For, as by. 
 one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obeiiience 
 of one shall many be made righteous." I claim that just as many as 
 Adam's trangression brought judgment and condemnation upon, just 
 that many, and no more, Christ's righteousness and obedience brought 
 life to. Therefore I am an ardent believer in universal salvation, and 
 here, and now, I announce myself as a pronounced believer in the 
 doctrine of universal salvation, in the sense that Christ has redeemed 
 and saved all from hereditary or imputed sin. Christ has reconciled 
 the world unto God. " God so loved the world," of which infants 
 form a part — and every man belonged to that class in the beginning 
 of his existence — " that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoso- 
 ever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 
 All men are justified from Adam's sin, and if they are ever damned it 
 will be for their own. If they trust in Christ He will anchor them 
 safely in the heavenly harbor, beyond the storms of life and the rough 
 waves and dangerous quicksands of life's tempestuous sea. Coming 
 into the world under the scheme of Divine redemption, all ai-e alike 
 entitled to the benefits of Christ's sacrifice. My opponent will say 
 that refers to men. Well, suppose it does, is it any more equitable, 
 under the Divine government, to damn a man than an infant for 
 Adam's sin? Are men any more responsible for Adam's misdeeds 
 than infants are % If so, on what principle can it be 1 What does he 
 gain by such an alternative? In Psalm 51 we read, "Behold I was 
 shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." In Eph. 
 2nd chapter, " And you hath He quickened, who were dead in tres- 
 passes and sins ; wherein in time past ye walked according to the 
 course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, 
 the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience : among 
 whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our 
 flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and were hy 
 nature the children of wrath, even as others." And now let my 
 opponent take up the Methodist Discipline and howl as much as he 
 pleases about our praying to the Lord to deliver little children from 
 His wrath. " We were," says Paul, " by nature the children of 
 wrath, even as others." There is no getting out of that by either the 
 front or the side door. 
 
 My opponent asks, why not give the Lord's Supper to children after 
 15 
 
226 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 they are baptized 1 He said they did give them the Passover after 
 they were circumcised, and thinks to be consistent we shoiild give 
 them the Lord's Supper. Mr. McDiarmid, four years ago, took the 
 same position. He said that undoubtedly they gave the Passover to 
 little children. Then I said, You must suppose that babies eight 
 days old were able to eat meat ? He said he did not know how 
 they gave it to them, but he thought they might possibly have made 
 soup and given them the soup. That would be a soupy business, and 
 the argument itself is rather thin. We do not give the Lord's Supper 
 to little children for the same reason that the Jews did not give the 
 Passover to little children. At twelve a Jewish child was recognized 
 as belonging to the Church. It was in the covenant visibly at eight 
 days old ; but at twelve the child was recognized as a member of 
 the congregation, and permitted to receive the ordinances of the 
 Church in connection with the existing dispensation of things. There- 
 fore the child did not get the Passover until it was twelve years old, 
 and we will give the Lord's Supper to twelve-year-old children who 
 have sense enough to know what they are doing. 
 
 My opponent has put forth a herculean effort to extricate himself 
 from the charge of garbling the authorities, and has quoted a number 
 of extracts to prove that he quoted Dr. Stuart correctly. And in 
 order the more effectually to .shirk the responsibility of misrepresent- 
 ing the attitude of Pjedo baptist writers he tries to transfer the charge 
 of fahsification to me, and insinuates that I have been guilty of 
 unkindness, injustice, cowardice and meanness besides. If all this 
 were true, he has an easy and speedy way of establishing his charges 
 and ridding himself of all suspicion. Why not at once accept my 
 challenge to appoint a committee of scholars representing both sides 
 to examine the books and report '? I am willing to abide the conse- 
 quences, but he does not seem to be. But he seems terribly exasper- 
 ated by the proposal, which makes me think he has been hit where it 
 is sore. Surely there has been some proud flesh touched, or he would 
 not writhe so over the proposition. 
 
 I did not insinuate that if I had the books, and were sufficiently 
 well acquainted with them, T could show that my opponent had mis- 
 represented them. That statement was invented by Mr. Harding, 
 and lacks the first essential of a reliable statement. 
 
 As to the case of Dr. Stuart, though Mr. Harding states that he 
 gave dip, plunge, immerse, as the classical meaning of baptizo, but 
 not the Bible meaning, I emphatically deny the statement, and 
 assert that he quoted it in direct proof of liis proposition that 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM, 227 
 
 " Christian baptism is immersion," etc., without the remotest hint 
 that he was quoting Dr. Stuart's definition of both hapto and baptizo 
 in their classical sense, and not baptizo alone, in the Bible sense. He 
 proceeds on the presumption that these two senses are synonymous, 
 but I deny it, and nearly, if not quite, every Psedo-baptist authority 
 he has quoted, or can quote, denies it, and furnishes proof in support 
 of his denial. I maintain, therefore, that it is not honest for any 
 man to quote a Psedo-baptist's classical definition of these words as their 
 Bible definition, and no amount of contortions in movement or distor- 
 tions in statement will suffice to justify such a perversion of facts. 
 
 My opponent has given a number of quotations from Dr. Stuart to 
 neutralize or outweigh the quotations I made from him. But, as a 
 matter of fact, the only thing of any importance that Dr. Stuart says 
 in those quotations, to which I have not already assented, is 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 even this is a mere conjecture, based on a 
 "probability," unsupported by and incapable of any direct proof. 
 And Dr. Stuart distinctly testifies on page 313 of his book that 
 " there is no absolute certainty from usage, that baptizo, when applied 
 to the rite of baptism, means to immerse or plunge," and on page 388, 
 that according to his belief we ^^ do obey the command to baptize when 
 we do it by afi"usion or sprinkling." And in the very language quoted by 
 my opponent, the Professor says it " does not always" involve the idea 
 of- immersion in the Bible, though my opponent's proposition says it does 
 always involve it. So it will be seen that Prof. Stuart does not sus- 
 tain my opponent's position any more than he does mine, nor as much. 
 
 My opponent says that the point which I wish to make is that 
 when a Jew becomes a Christian he ceases to be a Jew, a Gentile 
 ceases to be a Gentile, a woman a woman, a man a man, etc., and for 
 this he imputes to me " superlative nonsense." Yes, it is superlative 
 nonsense, no doubt, but he himself is the author of it, for I didn't 
 wish to make any such point. I simply wished to make the point 
 that all these classes stood in precisely the same relation to Christ 
 spiritually, and possessed neither superiority nor inferiority as Chris- 
 tians, but occupied common ground, and were subject to common con- 
 ditions in the matter of salvation. It is a comparatively easy thing 
 to construe another man's meaning into superlative nonsense when it 
 suits our purpose and our cause requires it. But I prefer that my 
 opponent should father his own folly. If he does, I have no doubt 
 his family will be sufficiently large. 
 
228 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 He still insists that Paul circumcised Timothy because his mother 
 was a Jewess, but, as I have frequently pointed out, Luke says, Acts 
 16:3, that it was because his father was a Greek. My opponent's 
 interpretation agrees with his theory, and has one quality to com- 
 mend it, viz., it is new. Mine a'j;rees with the Word of God, and 
 needs no other commendation. You can choose between Mr. Hard- 
 ing and the Bible. Perhaps he knows better than an inspired apostle, 
 and perhaps he doesn't. Whatever he lacks, it isn't cheek. 
 
 My opponent repeats the statement that Dr. Ditzler said in his 
 debate with Dr. Graves that they had agreed not to discuss the cove- 
 nants, also that Dr. Ditzler did not complain of his speeches having 
 been tampered with. Now, I must say, in justice to myself, that I 
 never intimated that Dr. Ditzler's speeches had been tampered with, 
 I simply quoted Dr. Ditzler's own statement that Dr. Graves had 
 been guilty of making " hosts " of statements which were not true 
 in re-writing his speeches, and that this accounted for their "not 
 sending him a single proof-sheet after his sixteenth speech on the 
 First Proposition, though he requested it, and gave them his address." 
 Now, what are the facts 1 Simply these, that in the introduction to 
 his book, pages 8-10, Dr. Ditzler distinctly testifies that o/ter they 
 had subscribed their names to the report as an accurate one, and 
 after Dr. Graves had professedly published his speeches on Mode, 
 he re-wrote all of his own speeches, " adding as many as six, eight, 
 ten, and even twelve pages of new matter at a time in single speeches, 
 not a line of which was used during debate, and leaving out what he 
 did say wherever exposed." Dr. Ditzler also declares that " what- 
 ever he says of covenants is just the reverse of the facts in ioto." 
 Moreover, he testifies that " not a page after my seventeenth speech 
 in the book was proofed by me." He says, " I wrote for the proofs of 
 our speeches, but neither his nor mine were ever sent to me." 
 
 [Note. — It is but fair to say, that as I did not recall these state- 
 ments at the time, and admitted at the close of the session, as the 
 only apparent way of harmonizing Dr. Ditzler's testimony in his book 
 with his endorsa'ion of the debate, that he must have meant that Dr. 
 Graves' proof-sheets had not been sent him, I was taunted by my 
 opponent with not being able to understand my own authorities. But 
 it now appears that 1 did understand my authorities, though my oppo- 
 nent was quoting from a work ti deception. And this is the kind of 
 testimony that is generally employed to buttress up the anti-Paedo- 
 baptist theory.— T. L. W.] 
 
 [Time expired J] 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 229 
 
 MR. HARDING'S FOURTH REPLY. 
 
 Infant baptism came into the world to save infants from the sin of 
 Adam, to take away " the pollution of our birth." As I have stated, 
 Origen (A.D. 210) is the second writer of the world to mention the 
 custom, the first one io favor it; and he expressly states that " In- 
 fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." When asked, "Of 
 what sins 1" he replied, " None is 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." Walls Hist. Inf. 
 Bap., Vol. 1, p 65. The idea prevailed that they would be damned 
 if they were not baptized. In proof of this I read from Zell's Ency- 
 clopedia [Art. Baptism) as follows : 
 
 " In the first centuries of the Christian era, when, generally speak- 
 ing, adults only joined the new sect, the converted (catechumens) were 
 diligently instructed ; the power of this sacrament to procure perfect 
 remission of sins was taught, and while some converts delayed their 
 baptism from a feeling of sinfulness not yet removed, others did the 
 same from the wish to gratify corrupt desires a little longer, and to 
 have their sins forgiven all at once. But the doctrine of St. Augus- 
 tine, that the unbaptized were irrevocably damned, changed this delay 
 into haste, and made the baptism of children general." 
 
 The Methodist Discipline, the book which Mr. Wilkinson has said 
 that he believes, and which he has pledged himself to defend, teaches 
 that all men are totally depraved by nature ; so did Mr. Wesley teach ; 
 and he claimed that, " in the ordinary way, they cannot he saved unless 
 this he washed av}ay by baptism." Doct. Tracts, p. 251, On page 73 
 of the Discipline, among the questions asked of local preachers are 
 these : 
 
 " Do you sincerely and fully believe the doctrines of Methodism as 
 contained in our Articles of Religion, and as taught by Mr. Wesley in 
 his Notes on the New Testament and volumes of Sermons 1 — especially 
 the following leading ones : a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the 
 Godhead ; the total depravity of all men by nature in consequence of 
 Adam's fall ; the Atonement made by Christ for the sins of all the 
 human race," etc. Mr. Wesley teaches that infants are " guilty of 
 original sin" {Doct. Tracts, p. 251) ; the Discipline teaches " the total 
 depravity of all men by nature ;" while Mr. Wilkinson says men are 
 born pure — pure as angels. How can you say of a being as pure as 
 
230 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 an angel, that it is totally depraved, guilty of origina^l sini It seems 
 to me that my opponent no more believes this doctrine than he does 
 that other one of his Church, namely, that Rom. 6 : 4 refers to bap- 
 tism by immersion. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — The Church does not believe it. 
 
 Mr. Harding — You could not become a local preacher without 
 saying that you believed it. In the light of what has now been pre- 
 sented, my friends, you cannot fail to understand the baptismal ser- 
 vice used at the baptism of infants. You remember the minister 
 reminds the people that " all men are conceived and born in sin," and 
 that our Saviour Christ saith, " except a man be born of water and of 
 the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God ; " he asks them to pray 
 that the child " being baptized with water, may also be baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost, be received into Christ's holy Church, and become a 
 lively member of the same ; " the minister himself then prays for the 
 child that the Father may "wash him and sanctify him with the Holy 
 Ghost;" that he, being delivered from the wrath of God, may finally 
 come to the land of everlasting life ; he prays that the old Adam may 
 be buried in the child, and the new man raised up ; " that all carnal 
 affections may die in him, and that all things belonging to the Spirit 
 may live and grow in him." 
 
 Now, as Mr. Wesley and the framers of this prayer of the Discip- 
 line believed the child to be depraved by nature, and that baptism is 
 for the forgiveness of sins, it is clear that the ground of infant baiJ- 
 tism, according to this service of the Discipline, is the pollution of the 
 child, and " the mystical washing away of sin " by water, as the Book 
 of Common Prayer puts it. True, neither Mr. Wilkinson nor the Meth- 
 odist people of to-day believe these doctrines ; but they hold on to 
 the practice ; they have given up the ground of it, but continue to 
 cling to the thing itself. Nor is this the worst of it ; it causes them 
 to distort and pervert the plain meaning of words in the endeavor to 
 make their Discipline teach that which they believe. Observe the 
 following statements, which I read from the Discipline. Of an appli- 
 cant for membership this question is asked : 
 
 "Question. Will you cheerfully be governed by the rules of the 
 Methodist Church of Canada, hold sacred the ordinances of God, and 
 endeavor as much as in you lies to promote the welfare of your 
 brethren and the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom 1 
 
 " Answer. I will." (Page 177.) 
 
 As we have .seen, the applicant for the ministry is required to 
 state that he sincerely and fully believes the doctrines of Methodism 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 231 
 
 as taught in the Articles, Wesley's Notes, and his volumes of Sermons. 
 On page 73 it is taught that he must "believe and preach all our 
 doctrines; " that he must duly observe the Discipline. On page 74 he is 
 asked, "Will you endeavor fully and faithfully to preach these doc- 
 trines?" And now, to add to the ugliness of the case which I am 
 making out against ]Mr. Wilkinson, the following statement from pag^ 
 113 is added : 
 
 " If a member of our Church shall be tried and convicted of endeav- 
 oring to sow dissensions in any of our Societies, by inveighing against 
 either our doctrines or Discipline, such person so offending shall be 
 first reproved by the Superintendent of his Circuit, and, if he persist 
 in such pernicious practices, he shall be expelled from the Church." 
 
 He has been inveighing against the doctrines of his Church ever 
 since this debate began, since it is one of the doctrines of the Church 
 that Rom. 6 : 4 refers to baptism by immersion. Not only so, but 
 the doctrines of his Church logically involve infant damnation, that 
 is, of infants that die unbaptized. But he had to say that he accepted 
 them before he could become a preacher in the Church. On page 87, 
 it is said, "A Methodist preacher is to mind every point, great and 
 small, in the Methodist Discipline." But Mr. Wilkinson seemed to 
 "swing around " to the doctrine of his creed on the question of infantile 
 depravity in his last speech. He talks about my leaving the little 
 ones "to perish in the quagmire of human depravity," because I do 
 not understand that they wash their robes and make them white in 
 the blood of the Lamb : I don't think their robes need any washing ; 
 he does ; he thinks they are in " the quagmire of human depravity," 
 I suppose. He boldly announces himself a believer in the doctrine of 
 original sin, and in that connection talks about ''adult sinners ;" from 
 all of which it appears that he now believes that hahies are sinners. 
 He charges me with admitting that all— infants as well as adults— are 
 morally dead ; and he talks about men — infants and all — l)eing justi- 
 fied from Adam's sin. No man was ever justified from Adam's sin, 
 except Adam himself, nor will any other man ever be. We have in- 
 herited some of the consequences of Adam's sin, but none of the guilt 
 of it. We die the natural death in consequence of Adam's sin (seeing 
 that by it we were sepai-ated from the tree of life, of which, if we could 
 eat, we would live forever) ; but the moral death comes /from our own 
 sins. No man is "a child of wrath" until he commits sin, Eph. 2:1,2. 
 (Revised Version) reads : " And you did He quicken, when ye w ere 
 dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein aforetime ye walked," 
 etc. The Ephesians had been dead, and then were quickened ; but 
 
232 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 observe that they were dead through their trespasses and sins (plural), 
 not through Adam's sin. This miserably false doctrine of infantile 
 depravity has been the fruitful mother of a wretched brood of false 
 teachings and improper practices in the Churches. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson said, " My opponent distinctly said last night that 
 baptism regenerated." His opponent said no such thing, neither 
 distinctly nor indistinctly. Nor does he believe any such thing. I 
 said baptism was for the remission of sins. I invite him to deny it. 
 If his Church will endorse him we will debate that. 
 
 In talking about the circumcision of Timothy, Mr. Wilkinson chal- 
 lenged me to show, from my encyclopaedias and histories, that it was 
 the custom of the Apostolic Church to circumcise Jews. Very good. 
 I will do it by one of the very best and most reliable of Church histo- 
 rians, Luke, the writer of Acts of Apostles. Jn the 15th chapter 
 of this book he gives us an account of occurrences which took place 
 about eighteen or twenty years after the resurrection of Jesus. The 
 first verse of the chapter reads thus : " And certain men which came 
 down from Judea taught the brethren and said, ' Except ye be circum- 
 cised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.' " The city of 
 Antioch, to which these Jewish brethren had come, and where they thus 
 taught, was headquarters for the evangelistic forces that operated in 
 the Gentile world, as Jerusalem was for the laborers among the Jews. 
 These Jewish brethren, who were members of a Church that had been 
 presided over by the holy apostles of our Lord, Peter, James and John, 
 and the others, for nearly twenty years, understood, not only that the 
 Jews should continue to observe the rite, but they insisted that the 
 Gentiles also should be circumcised after the manner of Moses, or they 
 could not be saved. This shows conclusively that for at least eigh- 
 teen years after the beginning of the Christian dispensation circum- 
 cision was still practiced by the Jewish Christians; for had their lead- 
 ers, the apostles, been teaching them through all these years that 
 circumcision was done away, and that baptism had taken its place> 
 they would not have said that the believers among the Gentiles would 
 be lost unless they observed it ; of course, if the Jews had given iip 
 the practice they would not have insisted that the Gentiles should 
 take it up. 
 
 Paul and Barnabas stoutly opposed these brethren from Judea, 
 denying that the Gentiles should be circumcised. Listen while I read 
 to you the account of the matter as it is recorded in this chapter : 
 
 " When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and 
 disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 233 
 
 certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and 
 elders about this question. 
 
 " And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed 
 through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles : 
 and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. 
 
 " And when they were come to Jerusalem they were received of 
 the Church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things 
 that God had done with them. 
 
 " But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which 
 believed, saying. That it was needful to circumcise them and to com- 
 mand them to keep the law of Moses," 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Read right on. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I shall when I get ready and not till then. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — You dare not read on. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I intend to read every word of it. Tlit^t is a mean 
 pretence, a cowardly dodge. There is not a greater coward on earth 
 than this man behind me. He knows well enough that there is not a 
 word in this whole connection that I need be afraid to read — not a 
 word that militates against my position. He only wishes to divert 
 your attention from facts that are crushingly against his theory that 
 baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and hence he insinuates 
 that I would keep back some truth that, if known, would spoil my 
 doctrine. 
 
 Mr. Hunt — Mr. Chairman, I call the gentleman to order. 
 
 Mr. Harding — You do? Well, you can just call on. How does 
 it happen that you never call Mr. Wilkinson to order 1 
 
 Mr. Hunt — That is the duty of your moderator. 
 
 Mr. Harding — It is the duty of the moderators to keep order, as 
 far as is in their power. I should think that you, sir, would be even 
 more solicitous that Mr. Wilkinson should deport himself in a fair 
 and honorable manner than that I should do so. Are we not here to 
 seek for truth 1 I have requested my moderator not to call Mr. 
 Wilkinson to order at any time, and I am glad that he has not done 
 it. He is an honorable man and a gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson intimates to you, my friends, that I am purposely 
 holding back some truth from you that you ought to know. Why, 
 let me show you what sort of a man this T. L. Wilkinson is. On the 
 13th page of his Discipline the doctrines of his Church are summed 
 up, and among them are " those taught by the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., 
 in his Notes on the New Testament." But Wesley, in these Notes, 
 says that at Rom. 6 : 4 Paul alludes to " the ancient manner of bap- 
 
234 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 tizing by immersion ;" hence this is one of the doctrines of the Churcli. 
 On page 73 of the Discipline we find the questions which candidates 
 for the ministry are required to answer affirmatively ; among them 
 are these : 
 
 " Do you sincerely and fully believe the doctrines of Methodism as 
 contained in our Articles of Religion, and as taught by Mr. Wesley 
 in his Notes on the New Testament and Volumes of Sermons ? '' 
 
 "Will you endeavor to fully and faithfully preach these doctrines ]" 
 
 Just think, my friends ! Mr. Wilkinson said " Yes " to all these 
 questions. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson— Well, what of it 1 
 
 Mr. Harding — What of it 1 You said you believed the doctrines 
 of the Methodist Church, Wesley's Notes and all, when you believed 
 no such thing. Y^ou made a statement as true, when you knew at the 
 time you were making it that it was false. That is all there is of it. 
 That may not be much for you, but it would be a good deal for me. 
 
 Mr. Hunt — Mr. Chairman, I protest against this gentleman's course. 
 He insinuates that Mr. Wilkinson is a liar. He does not say so, but 
 he would make that impression. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Certainly I do not call him a liar. There is no 
 need that I should ; these people are not fools. 
 
 Mr. Hunt — A gentleman will not call a man a liar. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Christ was a gentleman, yet he called men liars, for 
 they were ; and so did Paul. The wrong is in being a liar, not in 
 being called one. But I have not called Mr. Wilkinson a liar, nor do 
 I intend to ; 1 will simply give you the facts. You have eyes and 
 ears, and can see and hear for yourselves. But, ladies and gentlemen, 
 this is the man who would have you believe that I misrepresent the 
 authorities, that I hold back the truth. It is all right for him to 
 "insinuate," but, forsooth, it is very wrong and unkind for me to do 
 so. The dreadful fact of it is I don't insinuate ; I prove. 
 
 A number of you were here last evening and heard Mr. Wilkinson s 
 first speech. From the beginning of it to the end he sought to leave 
 the impression that I was a falsifier. I had been told in the after- 
 noon tliat an efibrt would be made in the evening to break up the 
 discussion, and I was warned to be on my guard and keep cool. I 
 said, "He may call me anything under heaven to-night and I will not 
 interrupt him, but woe be to him when my time comes." This man 
 has indulged in insinuation and inuendo, in sneers and scoffs, from 
 the beginning of the debate, but he has never shown me to be incor- 
 rect in a single statement ; whereas he has made blunder after blunder. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 235 
 
 has misrepresented authors, and has been compelled to take back his 
 incorrect statements. 
 
 Don't forget that Wesley, in his Notes, says that the burial in bap- 
 tism refers to immersion ; that Mr. Wilkinson has been ridiculing and 
 sneering at this interpretation from the beginning of the debate ; that 
 he was required to say he believed the doctrines of these Notes before 
 he could become a Methodist preacher ; and that when I called his 
 attention to these facts he merely said, " What of it ? " 
 
 With respect to interruptions : He has interrupted me ten times 
 as often as I have him, and he began it. His brethren, as you know, 
 have interrupted me from the floor, and not unfrequently not less 
 than a half-dozen Psedo-baptist ministers have been oil their feet on 
 this platform at one time breaking into my speeches. [There were 
 numbers of these interruptions of which the reporter kept no record. 
 J. A. H.] There never was a more unjust, a more unrighteous set of 
 preachers congregated on a platform than those who have been here 
 on his side of the question. 
 
 Mr. Hunt — I protest against such language. 
 
 Mr. Harding — Do you think because you outnumber us three or 
 four to one that you can domineer over us 1 You were never more 
 mistaken in your lives. For, standing as I do for the defence of 
 God's eternal truth, I feel myself more than a match for all of you 
 together. My brethren in the audience and upon the platform have 
 been quiet and serene, as only those who are confident in the strength 
 of their position can be. My preaching brethren are gentlemen, and 
 they have acted as such from the beginning. 
 
 Let us return now to the 15th chapter of Acts, which Mr. Wilkinson 
 was so afraid I would not read. I begin where I left off, that is, 
 with the 6th verse : " And the apostles and elders came together for 
 to consider of this matter." That is, to consider whether or not they 
 should require Gentile converts to be circumcised. Remember, this 
 was about twenty years after Jesus came from the grave. Could this 
 question concerning the circumcision of the Gentiles have ever arisen 
 if the Jews themselves had already given up the practice 1 If they 
 had ceased for twenty years to circumcise themselves and their 
 children, would they have insisted that the Gentiles should take up 
 the practice at this late date, and that they could not be saved with- 
 out it 1 Common sense will answer this question. My opponent, in 
 order to sustain his position that baptism came in the room of circum- 
 cision, claims that the Jews who embraced Christianity ceased to 
 practice this latter rite. Well, this one thing is certain : About 
 
236 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 twenty years after Christ, many of them were insisting that the Gen- 
 tile Christians, who had already been baptized, could not be saved 
 unless they were also circumcised ; and that was the question before 
 this council at Jerusalem. I read on : 
 
 "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and 
 said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while 
 ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth 
 should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 
 
 "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving 
 them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us ; 
 
 "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their 
 hearts by faith. 
 
 "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 1 
 
 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 we shall be saved, even as they." 
 
 After this address, Paul and Barnabas declared what wonders and 
 miracles God had wrought among the Gentiles by them ; then James 
 made a speech and gave the decision, which was acquiesced in by all 
 the apostles and elders, in these words : 
 
 "Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them, who from 
 among the Gentiles are turned unto God. 
 
 " But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions 
 of idols, and fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 
 
 " For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, 
 being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." 
 
 That this decision was for the Gentiles and not for the Jews is 
 evident from two facts : 1, About one year after this (see next chap- 
 ter) Paul circumcised Timothy. 2. About eight years after this, Paul 
 returned to Jerusalem : on the next day, he went in to James and the 
 elders, and after he had saluted them, he declared particularly what 
 things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. " When 
 they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him. Thou seest, 
 brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which 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 
 Closes, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither 
 to walk after the customs. 
 
 " What is it therefore ? the multitude must needs come together: 
 for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say 
 unto thee : We have four men which liave a vow on them ; them take, 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 237 
 
 and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with tliem, that they 
 may shave their heads : and all may know that those things whereof 
 they were informed concerning thee are nothing ; but that thou thy- 
 self also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 
 
 "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and 
 concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep 
 themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from 
 strangled, and from fornication." Acts 21 : 20-25. This was in 
 A.D. 60, about thirty years after Christ died. Here we have the 
 elders and James, the very ones who made the decision recorded in 
 the 15th chapter, explaining that by it they meant only that the 
 Gentiles should not observe circumcision and the customs ; that they 
 would consider it disorderly for the Jews to neglect these matters ; 
 and Paul evidently agreed with them heartily in the whole matter. 
 It was to Gentiles that Paul was writing when he said, " If ye be 
 circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing." Do you suppose he 
 would have circumcised Timothy if he had known that in so doing he 
 would cause him to be damned ? It was after he wrote this sentence 
 that he took pains at Jerusalem to show that he had not taught the 
 Jews to neglect circumcision. If Paul had circumcised the Gentiles 
 it would have been will-worship ; it would have been like sprinkling 
 for baptism — something that God had never authorized to be done. 
 If Timothy had been a Gentile, without any Jewish blood in his 
 veins, Paul would not have circumcised him. He would not circum- 
 cise Titus. Why ? Because of the Gentiles it is true, " If ye be 
 circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing." But did not Paul say, 
 " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the 
 keeping of the commandments of Godi" Yes, and his saying is 
 true 1 the commandment of God is the important thing. When we 
 do in the worship of God that which He has not commanded, we are 
 guilty of will-worship, of observing the commandments of men ; all 
 such worship, Jesus says, is vain ; and those who do such things worship 
 in vain. Circumcision was a commandment to the Jew ; it was not 
 to the Gentile. Therefore when a Jew was circumcised he .obtained a 
 blessing ; but when a Gentile was circumcised, he presumptuously 
 did that which he had never been authorized to do, was guilty of will- 
 worship, and received a curse instead of a blessing. 
 
 Let me call your attention to a singularity in Mr, Wilkinson's 
 position. He tells us at one time that infants are born pure ; and 
 then he says that they are regenerated, redeemed, that their souls are 
 washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb, When are their 
 
238 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 souls washed? Afterbirth? How could that be, seeing that they 
 are born pure? But he claims that by virtue of beincr thus washed 
 they go to heaven ; if, then, one should die before the washing it 
 would be lost ; but if the washing takes place after birth, and the 
 child should die in birth, it would be lost. According to Mr. Wilkin- 
 son's theory, the in/ant micst be regenerated (that is, born again) before 
 it is born the first time, before it is born into the tvorld ; and that 
 places the second birth before the first, and reminds me of the way 
 the Irishman wanted to take his music lessons — the last one first 
 Then, to increase the muddle, comes the doctrine of the Discipline, 
 that infants are totally depraved ; and the Discipline holds it just as 
 Wesley did, that tlie}^ are born sinners, born vile. But Mr. Wilkin- 
 son, I suppose, thinks they are totally depraved before they are born, 
 regenerated before they are born, and hence, born pure as angels. But 
 we have to do with people that have been born — people that are in the 
 world. And I don't hesitate to affirm that whoever is as innocent as 
 an angel, and at the same time incapable of sinning, is safe ; such an 
 one does not need baptism, nor the Lord's Supper, nor the Church. 
 If such an one dies he will go to heaven ; for nothing but sin 
 separates man from his God. 
 
 But what are we debating about ? My opponent is insisting that 
 infants should be baptized ; I am most earnestly opposing him ; and 
 he charges that my doctrine logically sends them to hell ; does not 
 that look as though he baptizes them to save them. That is what 
 Origen baptized them for ; no other reason for their baptism was 
 known for hundreds of years. But Mr. Wilkinson says they are born 
 innocent. Then they are in no danger of hell till they are old enough 
 to sin. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson has repeatedly charged me with perverting the 
 authors that I have quoted. I have denied being guilty of this mean 
 kind of lying, and have affirmed that he could not find the slightest 
 support of the charge. If he fails to maintain the charge, he must 
 publicly acknowledge that he has falsely accused me, or else he will 
 stand convicted of the mean crime that he would have you believe I 
 am guilty of. So far he has made but one specification (that I re- 
 member), namely, that I misrepresented Moses Stuart. I quoted Mr. 
 Stuart thus : " Bapto and baptize mean to dip, plunge, or immerge 
 into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are 
 agreed in this." Stuart on Baptism, p. 51. (Nashville Edition). 
 Mr. Wilkinson does not deny that the quotation is strictly correct, 
 i)ut he affirms that I used it unfairly. H^ says I sought to make the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 239 
 
 impression that Stuart gave these as New Testament meanings, 
 wliereas he gave them as classical meanings. Mr. Wilkinson's charge 
 is false. I made the quotation to show the classical meaning. My 
 exact words are these: "My opponent agrees that in the classics it 
 means to immerse. iNo wonder he agrees to that. Dr. Moses 
 Stuart, professor of sacred literatui^e in Andover Theological Seminary, 
 one of the most learned and distinguished Presbyterians America 
 ever produced, says in his work on Baptism (page 51) : " Ilapto and 
 baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into anything liquid. All 
 
 lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this." [Note. 
 
 The reader can see how I used Stuart by turning back to pages 55 and 
 56 of this printed debate. — J. A. H.]. After making this quotation 
 from Stuart, I quoted from Donnegan, ivhose lexicon I had already 
 informed the audience ivas a classical lexicon. 
 
 Moreover, on pages 153 and 154 of his work on Baptism, Stuart 
 distinctly teaches (1) " that from the earliest ages of which we have 
 any account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and downward for 
 several centuries, the Churches did generally practice baptism by 
 immersion ;" (2) " that aspersion and affusion, which had in particular 
 cases been now and then practiced in primitive times, were gradually 
 introduced;" (3) that "the Churches of Christ, from a very early 
 period, to say the least, understood the word baptizo in the New 
 Testament as meaning immersion ;" (4) he himself cheerfully admits 
 " 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 performed by immersion ;" (5) he specifies but three cases in 
 which he thinks immersion was not practiced, namely, that of 
 Cornelius and his friends, Acts 10 : 47, 48 ; the jailer, Acts 16 : 32, 
 33 ; and the three thousand. Acts 2 : 41. Stuart did not think that 
 immersion could have been performed in these cases, but the discussion 
 of them which has taken place since his time has clearly shown that it 
 could have been done ; (6) on pages 65 and 66, speaking of the use of 
 bapto and baptizo in the Old Testament, Stuart says : " The verb bapto 
 signifies to plunge, immerse, dip in;" and after giving a number of 
 examples illusti-ative of this meaning, adds : "In like manner baptizo 
 takes the same signification." He claims that bapto in the Old 
 Testament sometimes means to bedew, to moisten ; but he does not 
 claim to find any such use of baptizo, which is the word our Saviour 
 used to indicate the rite of Christian baptism. Now, my friends, I 
 leave you to decide which of us has deviated from the path of recti- 
 tude and truth in this matter concerning Stuart : for one of us has 
 
240 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 sinned sadly about the matter, and I don't think it will take a Solomon 
 to decide which has done it. 
 
 As to the GravesDitzler debate, I would only remind you that Mr. 
 Ditzler himself, over his own signature, in a note prefixed to the 
 debate, testifies that he and Mr Graves read and corrected the whole 
 work, and that it is a faithful transcript of Avhat was said in the 
 discussion. Mr. Wilkinson says that he claims, in another book, 
 since published, that they never did send him the proof-sheets of many 
 of his own speeches. Why, then, did he sign that endorsement of the 
 bookl Why did he take the $5001 I would hate to stand in the 
 position in which Mr, Wilkinson leaves his distinguished brother. 
 Seeing Mr. Ditzler is not to be trusted, in any event, I prefer to 
 believe the Baptist Publication Society. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 My opponent is lavish of strange statements, and afiects to be wise 
 above that which is written. He stated iu his last speech that Origen 
 was the first man to favor infant baptism. I would like him to tell 
 us how he found that out. Origen himself, in his Eighth Homily 
 on Leviticus, chapter 12, says : " According to the usage of the Church 
 baptism is given to infants. ' How it could have become "the usage 
 of the Church" if nobody favored it, is somewhat mysterious. He 
 also says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, book 5 : 
 " For this cause it was that the Church received an order from the 
 Apostles to give baptism even to infants." Now, this testimony is 
 either true or false. If true, my opponent's testimony must be false. 
 If false, it must be either because Origen was an untruthful witness 
 or an incompetent one. No one will charge Origen with untruthfulness 
 in the matter, for two reasons. First, because he had no motive for 
 tellinf a lie about it, and secondly, because the irreproachableness of 
 his character forbids it. As to liis competency as a witness, surely he 
 would be as likely to know as my opponent. He was born only 
 eif^hty-five years after John died, and had access to all the writings of 
 the a^e, most of which have since been destroyed, and was doubtless 
 contemporary with men who lived in the days of the last of the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 241 
 
 apostles. He must have known, therefore, and on the supposition 
 that he was a man of integrity, his testimony is unimpeachable. Can 
 my opponent claim to be a more competent witness ? If not, then how 
 dare he make such an unauthorized statement, that Origen was the 
 first man to favor infant baptism 1 
 
 Besides, it will be shown that both Justin Martyr and Irenseus 
 speak of the existence of infant baptism in their day, and the 
 former was born within about five years of John's death, and the 
 latter about the same time, if not still earlier. Hence it is a piece of 
 inexcusable recklessness for a Christian minister to stand before you 
 and make such absolutely unfounded statements. 
 
 My opponent would have you to believe that infant baptism orig- 
 inated in the belief that infants would be damned if they were not 
 baptized. I have only to say that saving efficacy was ascribed to adult 
 baptism just as far back as to infant baptism, hence it was to save 
 the big folks from being damned as truly as the little folks. More- 
 over, the quotation from Zell's Encyclopaedia in support of this state- 
 ment ascribes this doctrine of infant damnation to Augustine, who 
 lived nearly 200 years after Origen, and about 250 after the testi- 
 mony of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus was given. Moreover, he can- 
 not find an instance where an early father, prior to Augustine, taught 
 the doctrine in question. Therefore this statement, like the one just 
 examined, is utterly without foundation. And this is the kind of 
 evidence on which we are asked to reject infant baptism. But we 
 would prefer something a little more authentic. 
 
 My opponent cannot seem to understand how a child can inherit 
 original sin and yet be born pure, and he tries very hard to convict 
 me of inconsistency for holding such doctrines. Perhaps he will tell 
 us how a person guilty of personal sin can become pure. If he will, 
 I will tell him how a person unclean by nature can be made pure at 
 birth. If he says, by faith, I deny it. Faith is the condition of 
 purity, not the agency, and surely it is as easy for God to cleanse a 
 child without faith, as an adult sinner by faith. I think my opponent 
 is trying to create difficulties where none exist. But if he will deal 
 with the difficulties and inconsistencies of his own theory, he will have 
 a task sufficient to tax all his energies. 
 
 Again, my opponent squarely denies the doctrine of original sin, 
 and says "no man was ever justified from Adam's sin, nor ever will 
 be." I desire again to cite him to Rom. 5 : 18, 19, where the apostle 
 says : "As by the ofi'ence of one judgment came u})on all men to con- 
 demnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon 
 16 
 
242 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 all men to justification of life," etc. Now, I leave him to settle the 
 matter with Paul and his Master. It is needless for me to spend time 
 with a Christian minister who ignores the teachings of the Bible. 
 Such men, if they were not ministers, would be called infidels. You 
 can call them what you like. And remember he has not yet attempted 
 to explain this passage in any other light than that in which I have 
 presented it. He simply denies and ignores its plain teachings alto- 
 gether. I therefore call upon him to tell us what this "justification 
 of life" means. If not justification from Adam's sin, it must be 
 justification from personal sin ; and it" all men are justified from per- 
 sonal sin, then all men will be saved. Does he believe this 1 If so, 
 let him proclaim it. And then let him tell us in what way "judgment 
 to condemnation" came upon "all men by the offence of one," or how 
 "through one man's disobedience many were made sinners." Till he 
 does this I must just leave him pinned to the wall by the javelin of 
 divine truth, and let him Avrithe. No doubt it will be painful, but I 
 cannot relieve him. 
 
 He referred to Eph. 2:1, 2, but did not quote the whole passage. 
 If he had, he would have found that we are all " by nature the chil- 
 dren of wrath even as othei's." But this fact was slurred over and 
 concealed by an et cetera — another convenient way of dodging an un- 
 welcome truth. It is evident that my opponent manufactures his 
 own gospel and then patches up the Bible to make it correspond. Of 
 course he can upset everybody's creed on that principle and prove 
 anything he pleases. But most people will demand " a more excellent 
 way." 
 
 He seems very keen to debate some other question besides the one 
 under discussion, and I don't wonder at that. No doubt a temporary 
 respite from his present unpleasant situation would be a great relief. 
 But, as the old lady said, he must comfort himself with the passage 
 which says, " You must just grin and bear it." When he gets done 
 with this subject it will be time enough to prepare for another. But 
 he probably won't be so keen by that time. He had better not get too 
 many jobs on hand at once, or he will get mixed worse than ever, 
 which is needless. 
 
 In response to my challenge, my opponent makes a flourish of 
 proving that the apostolic Church practiced circumcision. But my 
 challenge related to the early Christian Church, and not to the apos- 
 tolic Church at all. And I challenged him to prove it from his 
 Churcl.. histories and encyclopjedias, but ho trios to prove it from the 
 Bible. It is so much easier to prove something that is not disputed 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 243 
 
 than something that is. I am aware that Paul circumcised Timothy, 
 and that the Jews clung to the ceremonial law after the days of 
 Christ ; but I want him to prove that in post-apostolic days Christians 
 held or taught that Jews ought still to be circumcised. And he can- 
 not do it. 
 
 My opponent has labored very hard to pi'ove me a liar on the 
 ground of my having agreed to the doctrines of Methodism as taught 
 in Wesley's Sermons and Notes on the New Testament. It is a very 
 sublime spectacle, no doubt, for one Christian minister to appear 
 before a public audience to prove another a liar. But the employ- 
 ment of such tactics can only recoil on the unworthy head of the man 
 who employs them. They are beneath contempt, and I only con- 
 descend a reply to such vile and unchristian inuendo lest it might 
 have some little weight with the thoughtless. In the first place, it 
 would not prove me a liar if it could be shown that I had at one time 
 endorsed Wesley's Notes and Sermons and afterwards rejected them. 
 It would only prove that my i-eligious belief had undergone a change. 
 And surely a man may change his creed without being branded as a 
 liar. But, in the next place, I never promised to accept Wesley's 
 Notes and Sermons as the exponents of my belief, not having been 
 ordained in the Canada Methodist Church, but having come into it by 
 a union of Churches ; and, in the third place, my present teachings 
 are not at variance with " the doctrines of Methodism as contained in 
 our Articles of Religion and taught by Wesley in his Notes and Ser- 
 mons." The mode of baptism is not one of our " articles of religion," 
 and if it were, it is declared to be " sprinkling or pouring " (see 
 Discipline, p. 34), and not immersion ; so all my opponent's ammuni- 
 tion and effort on that point are thrown away. Besides, a mere con- 
 jecture indulged in by Wesley, that Rom. 6 : 4 contained " an allu- 
 sion to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion'' can hardly be 
 exalted into a doctrine of his, especially when he himself, in another 
 place, declares that " nothing can be inferred from such a figurative 
 expression. Nay," he says, "if it held exactly, it would make as 
 much for sprinkling as for plunging ; since, in burying, the body is 
 not plunged through the substance of the earth, but rather earth is 
 poured or sprinkled upon it." So I am quite as much in accord with 
 Wesley as my opponent is, and his hue and cry on this point is just to 
 raise a dust. While men have arguments to advance they do not 
 need to resort to twaddle. One cannon is worth a cart-load of such 
 fire-crackers. The twaddle indulged in by my opponent about the 
 attempt to be made this evening to break up the discussion, I have 
 
244 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 no doubt, is the thinnest kind of moonshine. I have not patience to 
 deal with such unworthy tricks to excite the prejudice of the com- 
 munity against myself and my people. I know not how anything 
 short of the most desperate extremities could induce a man to resort 
 to such tactics. Drowning men catch at straws. 
 
 But I cannot spend any more time over my opponent's reply. 1 
 want to adduce a few more arguments in support of my proposition. 
 The proposition which I am here to affirm is that infant baptism has 
 existed in the Christian Church from apostolic times. It occurred to 
 me that if I had a little chronological chart extending from Clirist 
 down through a few centuries, including the period that would be 
 covered by this debate, it would greatly aid friends on both sides of 
 the question in apprehending the period when each individual lived, 
 and consequently the value of his testimony as a competent witness 
 because of his proximity to the days of the apostles. I have there- 
 fore prepared this chart (see accompanying chart). The perpendicular 
 lines mark the centuries, and the broad horizontal lines the witne sses I 
 propose to examine. The name of each is printed in large letters, 
 which I trust all will be able to see, just over the line representing the 
 relative length of his life. The proportion of each century covered by 
 thehO lines indicates exactly the proportion of such century during which 
 the individual lived. My chart shows that John was born in the 
 early part of the first century, and died about A.D. 100. Polycarp 
 was born about 80 A.D., and died in the second century about 169. 
 He was contemporary with John for about 20 years. Justin Martyr 
 was contemporary with Polycarp, being born about the close of the 
 first century or beginning of the second. His birth is generally put 
 down at about 105 A.D. He died between 165 and 170. Irenseus 
 was for more than half his life contemporary with Polycarp. Polycarp 
 was acquainted with John and heard him describe our Lord and His 
 miracles ; therefore these men must have known what the usage of 
 the Church was in the days of the apostles. Their evidence will 
 accordingly be valuable on this point. Tertullian comes in as the 
 alleged opponent of infant baptism. He was born about the middle 
 of the second century, and lived, you will observe, till near the middle 
 of the third. I propose to give you the testimony of some others of 
 the early fathers, but I propose to begin down the line and work up 
 to the time of the apostles. I will begin with Pelagius, who, so far 
 as my present knowledge of Church history goes, was the first promi- 
 nent individual to deny the doctrine of original sin. He believed, just 
 as my opponent believes, that children came into this world without 
 
D 
 
 a, 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 1^ I 
 
 <l I 
 
 -o 
 
 H'fl 
 
 1 s 
 
 -^ 
 
 hi s 
 
 i 
 
 ^ ; 
 
 s. 
 
 >, .s 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 245 
 
 any sin. In using that expression I may define it. "We recognize 
 sin in two aspects. It is true that personal sin is an actual personal 
 transgression of the law ; but there has always been recognized in the 
 world the doctrine of natural depravity, or hereditary taint, by what- 
 ever name you choose to call it, and for want of a better name people 
 have been in the habit of speaking of it as original sin. No one who 
 understands the belief of the Methodist, Presbyterian, or almost any 
 orthodox Christian Church, will understand by the phrase original sin 
 such sin as the individual alone is guilty of. We understand that in 
 a moral sense there was a corruption of the stream that flowed from 
 tlie original Adamic fountain, in consequence of the corruption of the 
 fountain ; that the eflfect is on our souls as well as on our bodies ; 
 that when Adam fell the corruption descended to everyone that 
 descended from him, and that man in his physical, intellectual and 
 moral nature is impaired because of his descent from Adam. Pelagius 
 denied this doctrine of original sin. He said that children were born 
 into the world perfectly pure, without need of an atonement. A great 
 discussion arose over his teachings on that point. He was opposed by 
 his contemporaries, Augustine, Chrysostom and others. They pressed 
 him on that point most strongly, and in connection with this very 
 question of infant baptism especially. At that time the doctrine that 
 regenerating influence or power was communicated in baptism had 
 become very general in the Church. The opponents of Pelagius 
 pressed him hard in this way : "Why do you baptize infants if they 
 are perfectly pure, if they have no taint of original sinl" My oppo- 
 nent has truly said that some of the early fathers believed that infants 
 were saved from sin by being baptized. ' The Church then was full of 
 superstition and error. Pelagius lived only 300 years after the death 
 of John, and was acquainted with the writings of the early fathers 
 as we cannot be acquainted with them. He must have known whether 
 infant baptism was introduced after the days of the apostles or whether 
 it was continued from their days. Because of his peculiar belief and 
 doctrinal attitude, and because of the straits into which he was driven 
 by his antagonists, we claim it would have been policy on his part and 
 that of his associates, if they could have done so, to have denied in toto 
 that we had any right to baptize infants, that there was no ground on 
 which it could be upheld, and therefore infant baptism should not be 
 practiced. Did he do thaf? I will read a quotation from Pelagius 
 on the subject. 
 
 In a letter to Innocent, bishop of Rome, he complains of his oppo- 
 nents, and says : — 
 
246 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 " Men do slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to 
 infants," etc. 
 
 He further declares : — 
 
 " That he never heard even an impious heretic who would affirm 
 this concerning infants " (viz., that they were not to be baptized), and 
 continues : — 
 
 " For ivho is so ignorant of the reading of the evangelists, as to 
 attempt (not to say to establish this [doctrine,] hit) to speak of it heed- 
 lessly, or even have such a thought ? In fine, who can he so impious 
 as to hinder infa/nts from being baptized, and born again in Christ, and 
 thus cause them to miss the kingdom of heaven ; since our Saviour has 
 said, that none can enter into the kingdom of heaven that is not born 
 again of water and the Holy Spirit ] Who is there so impious as to 
 refuse to an infant, of what age soever, the common redemption of 
 mankind, and to hinder him that is born to an uncertain life from 
 being born again to an everlasting and certain one 1 " 
 
 Celestius, an Irishman, a companion of Pelagius, in travel, toil, and 
 faith, and a fellow leader in the Pelagian heresy, in his confession of 
 faith, quoted by St. Austin, says : — • 
 
 "But ive acknowledge infants ought to be baptized for the remission 
 
 of sins, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OP THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, and 
 ACCORDING TO THE SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL, hccaUSC OUr Lord haS 
 
 ordained that the kingdom of heave )i shall be bestowed upon no person 
 except fie be baptized ; which, as men do not receive it by nature, it 
 is necessary to confer by the power [or liberty] of grace." 
 
 Both Pelagius and Celestius confess that they never heard of any 
 sect or person who denied infant baptism. 
 
 Dr. Wall, whom my opponent has so highly extolled, says : — 
 " If there had been any such church of anti-Pa'do-baptists in the 
 world, these men could not have missed an opportunity of hearing of 
 them, being so great travellers as they were. For they were born and 
 bred, the one in Britain, the other in Ireland. They lived the prime 
 of their age (a very long time, as St. Austin testifies) at Rome — a 
 place to which all the people of the world had then a resort. They 
 were both for some time at Carthage, in Africa. Then the one 
 [Pelagius] settled at Jerusalem, and the other [Celestius] travelled 
 through all the noted Greek and Eastern churches, in Europe and 
 Asia. It is impossible there should have been any church that had 
 any singular practice in this matter but they must have heard of it. 
 So that one may fairly conclude that there was not at this time, nor 
 in the memory of the men of this time, any Christian society that 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 247 
 
 denied baptism to infants. This cuts off at once all the pretences 
 which some anti-Ptedo-baptists would raise from certain probabilities, 
 that the Novatians, or Donatists, or the British Church of those times, 
 or any other whom Pelagius must needs have known, did deny it." 
 (Quoted from Hibhard, p 219.^ 
 
 There was a Council held at Carthage about this time, A.D. 418, 
 composed of 214 bishops. At this Council they considered the Pela- 
 gian error concerning Infant Baptism, and also the question as to 
 whether they might be baptized before they were eight days old ; 
 which, it seems, some doubted. The violence of the Pelagian contro- 
 versy was well calculated to elicit definite statements ; and we have 
 them. The Council decreed as follows : — 
 
 " Also we determine that whosoever does deny that infants may be 
 baptized when they come recently from their mother's womb ; or does 
 say that they are indeed baptized for forgiveness of sins ; and yet that 
 they derive no original sin from Adam, (from whence it would follow 
 that the form of baptism for forgiveness of sins is in them not true, 
 but false), let him be anathema." 
 
 As we have already intimated, Irenteus testifies in favor of infant 
 baptism, yet this same Irenseus wrote a history of all the sects and 
 heresies that had arisen up in the Church before his time, from the 
 time of Simon Magus, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. He 
 wrote his treatise about 77 years after the death of the apostle John. 
 He was intimately acquainted with Polycarp, John's companion and 
 friend. After residing in Smyrna during the earlier part of his life, 
 Irenfeus was appointed Bishop of Lyons, in France. Thus he became 
 conversant with the churches both in Asia and Europe, by actual 
 residence and intercourse among them, as well as by his general learn- 
 ing and his office. He mentions with particularity all the sects that 
 had sprung up, but he mentions none that held any doctrine contrary 
 to the general Church touching infant baptism — that is, he mentions 
 none that denied it. 
 
 Augustine was a high authority among the early fathers. I will 
 read an extract from a letter from him : — 
 
 " And if any one do ask for authority in this matter, though that 
 which the universal Church practices, which has not been instituted by 
 councils, but has always been observed, is most justly believed to be 
 nothing else than a thing delivered, (or handed doivnj by the authority 
 of the ajyostles ; yet we may, besides, take a true estimate how much 
 the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which 
 God's former people received." 
 
248 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 In A.D. 253 a Council, composed of 66 bishops, was held in Car- 
 thage. Fidus, a country bishop, sent a lette riiiquiring, among other 
 matters, whether, in case of necessity, an infant might be baptized 
 before it was eight days old. To this they returned the following 
 answer : — 
 
 •'Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops who were present at the 
 Council, in number 66, to Fidus, our brother, greeting : — 
 
 " We read your letter, most esteemed brother, in which you wrote 
 of one Victor, a priest," etc. " But 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 rule of circumcision is to be observed, 
 so that none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day 
 after he is born;' we were all, in our assembly, of a contrary 
 OPINION. For, as for what you thought fitting to be done, there was 
 not one that was 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 (lives), but to save them,' as far as 
 lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost. ... So that we judge 
 that no person is to be hindered from obtaining the grace by the law 
 that is now appointed, and that the spiritual circumcision [that is, 
 the grace of baptism] ought not to be impeded by the circumcision 
 that was according to the flesh, [that is, Jewish circumcision], but 
 that all are to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter, speaking 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, says, 'The Lord has shown me that no 
 person is to be called common or unclean.' 
 
 " If anything could be an obstacle to persons against obtaining the 
 grace, the adult, and grown, and aged, would be rather hindered by 
 their more grievous sins. If, then, the greatest offenders, and those 
 that have grievously sinned against God before, have, when they 
 afterward come to believe, forgiveness of their sins, and no person is 
 prohibited from baptisni and grace ; how much less reason is there to 
 refuse an infant, who, l)eing newly born, has no sin, save that being 
 descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from his very 
 birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened; 
 who comes for this reason more easily to receive forgiveress of sins, 
 because they are not his own but others' sins that are forgiven him. 
 
 "This, therefore, most esteemed brother, was our opinion in the 
 assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism and 
 the grace of God, who is merciful and kind, and affectionate to all. 
 Which rule, as it is to govern universally, so we think it more espe- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 249 
 
 cially to be observed in reference to infants and persons newly born, 
 to wliom our help and the divine mercy is rather to be granted, 
 because by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the 
 world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they imploie com- 
 passion." 
 
 Another of the early fathers who have left on record their testimony 
 on this subject is Origen. He is one of the most illustrious of the 
 €arly fathers, and lived, as you will observe from the chart, in close 
 proximity to the apostles. He was born but 85 years after the 
 death of John, and was contemporary with Cyprian and Tertullian. 
 His knowledge of the subject must have extended back to apostolic 
 times and included apostolic practices, and is certainly more reliable 
 than that of any man living in our day. My opponent maintains that 
 there is no mention of infant baptism before the days of Tertullian, 
 and infers that therefore it had no previous existence. Now, Origen 
 had as good a chance of knowing as my opponent, and he says it was 
 handed down from the apostles. The following is his testimony : 
 Speaking of the evidence of original sin he says : — 
 
 " Besides all this, let it considered what is the reason that whereas 
 the baptism of the Church is given for forgiveness of sins, ivfants 
 also, according to the visage of the Church, are baptized ; when, if 
 there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the 
 grace of baptism would be superfluous to them." 
 
 Again : — " Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what 
 sins 1. or when have they sinned ? Or how can any reason of the 
 laver hold good, but according to that sense we mentioned even now, 
 (viz.) 'None is free from pollution, though his life be but of the 
 length of a single day upon the earth ' And because by the sacra- 
 ment of baptism our native pollution is taken away, therefore infants 
 may be baptized." 
 
 Again, speaking of original sin, and of its affecting infants, he says, 
 '■'■ For this [cause] the Church received from the apostles a tradition 
 [an order] even to give baptism to infants. For they to whom the 
 divine mysteries are given know that there is in all persons the 
 natural pollution of sin, which must be done away with by water and 
 the Spirit." 
 
 My next witness is Tertullian, who, according to my opponent, was 
 the first person who ever mentioned infant baptism, and he mentioned 
 it to oppose it. I will give you his testimony and you will see that 
 it is not in opposition to the baptism of infants as an unscriptural 
 innovation, but owing to his peculiar belief that sin was washed away 
 
250 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 by baptism, and that no sin committed after baptism could be for- 
 given, and he recommended the delay of the ordinance in their case, 
 and that of some other classes, to a later period of life. He says : 
 
 " But they whose duty it is to administer baptism are to know that 
 it must not be given rashly. ' Give to every one that asketh thee,' 
 has its proper subject, and relates to alms-giving : but that command 
 rather is to be here considered, 'Give not that which is holy unto 
 dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine.' And that [command] 
 also, ' Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partakers of other 
 men's faults.' Therefore, according to every one's condition and dis- 
 position, 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 promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a 
 child's proving of wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, 'Do 
 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 that they come : let them be made Christians 
 when they can know Christ. What need their guiltless age make 
 such haste to the forgiveness of sins 1 Men will proceed very warily 
 in worldly things : and he that should not have earthly goods com- 
 mitted to him, yet may he have heavenly. Let them know how to 
 desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given to one tliat 
 asketh." 
 
 Justin Martyr, A.D. 133, says: "We also who by Him have had 
 access to God, have not received this carnal circumcision, but the 
 spiritual circumcision which Enoch and those like him observed. And 
 we have received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, because we 
 were sinners : and it is enjoined upon all persons to receive it in the 
 same way." Again, " We are circumcised by baptism with Christ's 
 circumcision." Again, " Many persons among us, of sixty or seventy 
 years old, of both sexes, who were discipled to Christ in their child- 
 hood do continue uncorrupted." That testimony Ijrings us to the 
 door of the apostolic Church, and shows that this fatlier identifies 
 baptism and circumcision as one and the same thing. 
 
 [Time exjnred.] 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 251 
 
 MR. HARDING'S FIFTH REPLY. 
 
 This chart exhibited by my friend is, doubtless, in many of its 
 details as correct as any one could draw it. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I measured it out with mathematical exactness. 
 
 Mr. Harding — You did 1 Well, I am very glad to hear that ; I 
 will endeavor to make good use of it. 
 
 Justin Martyr wrote about A. D. 140; Irena^us, about A.D. 167; 
 TertuUian, about A.D. 200 ; Origen, about A.D, 210 ; Cyprian, about 
 A.D. 250; Augustine, about A.D. 388; Pelagius, about A.D. 400; 
 and the Council of Carthage was held A.D. 416, These are the dates 
 as given by Dr. Wall in his History of Infant Baptism, and are as 
 correct as it is possible to give them. 
 
 Polycarp was born, it is supposed, about A.D. 80, and became a 
 teacher in the Church A.D, 110. 
 
 In order to find infant baptism my friend started with Pelagius 
 and Augustine, that is to say, about 400 years after the beginning of 
 the Christian era. By that time a great many changes had taken 
 place, a great many corruptions had crept into the Church, and a 
 great many false doctrines were taught. Four hundred years is a 
 long time ; why, it has only been 392 years since this continent of 
 America was discovered by Columbus. My opponent, therefore, in 
 tracing the historical chain by which he hopes to connect infant 
 baptism with the apostolic age, begins his speech away down the 
 stream of time, further from the beginning of the Christian era than 
 is this present day from the date of the discovery of America. He 
 found infant baptism there, and it is not at all strange that he did. 
 There is not a vestige of it to be found in the first century, not the 
 slightest trace in the second ; not till the beginning of the third is 
 there a word to be found concerning it in all the records of time. We 
 hand down statements concerning changes in politics and religion 
 with ease to posterity in these days, because we have books, papers, 
 and printing presses, and everybody nearly can read. Not so in those 
 days ; there were no printing presses, books were written by hand, 
 and there were no newspapers nor telegraph lines. News crept out 
 slowly, and the doctrine of the Bible was circulated for the most part 
 from mouth to mouth. Any one who knows how hard it is for 
 most men to repeat what they hear just as they have heard it, can 
 readily understand that many false doctrines would certainly be 
 
252 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 circulated in the world in the course of a few hundred years, and that 
 many improper practices would naturally arise out of them. 
 
 My friend began with the Council of Carthage, A.D. 416. Infant 
 baptism very generally prevailed in the Church by that time. As 
 Mr. Wilkinson's quotations show, they baptized infants to wash away 
 the stain of sin that they might be saved ; for they believed that if 
 they should die unbaptized they would " miss the kingdom of heaven. ' 
 At this council Pelagius was tried for heresy, because he claimed that 
 infants are born as pure as Adam was before the fall. The " ortho- 
 dox " of that day thought this was a horrible doctrine ; they could 
 not imagine why he baptized infants " if they have no taint of original 
 sin." So, we see, first came the false doctrine that infants are sinners, 
 and then the practice of baptizing them to save them from sin, and to 
 give them a place in heaven. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson says Augustine was the first who taught that 
 infants would be damned if not baptized His own quotations show 
 that both Cyprian and Origen taught that infants were baptized to 
 cleanse them from the sin of Adam ; both taught that they were 
 baptized for the forgiveness of sins, to wash away the pollution of 
 their birth. Could a polluted, sin-stained thing go to heaven 1 They 
 believed that the sin-stains were washed away in baptism ; and they 
 did not believe that the unforgiven could enter heaven. 
 
 My friend might have saved himself much trouble in tracing this 
 practice of infant baptism, for I admit that it was known in the days of 
 Pelagius, Augustine, Cyprian, Origen, and that it was spoken of by 
 Tertullian, A. D. 200. He is the first man to make any reference to it. 
 This was two hundred years after the beginning of the Christian era, 
 and one hundred years after the death of John, the last apostle. Let 
 my opponent find a mention of infant baptism by any writer before 
 Tertullian and I will promptly give up the debate. There, now, is a 
 square issue. There is a chance for him to close this debate 
 right speedily, with honor to himself and glory to his cause, if onhj he 
 can find the passage. 
 
 But suppose the practice had been mentioned witliin two years, or 
 one year, after John's death 1 It would have been just tliat much too 
 late. Aye, if it had been mentioned in the apostolic age, unless it 
 had been taught by an inspired man, it would not have been of 
 divine authority ; for Paul said, as early as A.D. 54, " The mystery 
 of iniquity doth already work;" and John said, about A.D. 90, "Even 
 now are there many antichrists." Tlius we see that even in the 
 apostolic age false teachers were in the Church, and their doctrines 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 253 
 
 were stealing upon the people. Therefore, I repeat, if it could be 
 shown that some writer even in the days of John mentioned infant 
 baptism, if he were not an inspired apostle it would not establish the 
 practice. But no such thing can be found. Christ lived on earth 
 for thirty-three years, and died without ever having said a word about 
 infant baptism ; Matthew and Mark and Luke and John wrote 
 biographical sketches about Him, telling about His works and 
 doctrines, and not one of them ever said a word about infant baptism ; 
 Luke, in Acts of the Apostles, gives a brief account of the rise and 
 progress of the Church through a period of about thirty years, but 
 not one word does he say about infant baptism ; in the New Testa- 
 ment there are fourteen letters written by Paul, three by John, two 
 by Peter, one by James, and one by Jude, but in not one of these, 
 written though they were to direct the Christian in all the duties of 
 life, can any mention be found of infant baptism ; the apostolic age 
 has passed away, John has died, and still the world is silent on the 
 subject of infant baptism ; ten years are added to the first century, 
 twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, and still in 
 all the literature of the world not a reference can be found to infant 
 baptism. The second century passes away, A.D. 200 dawns upon the 
 world, and then, for the first time in all the history of the ages, do we 
 find any reference to the practice. Tertullian is earnestly contending 
 against it, and hotly inquiring, " What need their guiltless age make 
 such haste to the forgiveness of sins'?" Ten years later Origen is 
 arguing in favor of it, and he says, "It is for that reason, because by 
 the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, 
 that infants are baptized." 
 
 There now, ray friends, you have the beginning of this rite ; it 
 arose one hundred years after the days of inspiration, and began to be 
 practiced in order that the infant might be " washed," " sanctified," 
 " delivered from the wrath of God," and " received into the ark of 
 Christ's Church ;" that the " old Adam " might be gotten out of him, 
 and the " new man " raised up in him. 
 
 My opponent said that " Irensevis testifies in favor of infant bap- 
 tism." He did not. There is not a word of truth in that statement. 
 Mr. Wilkinson is mistaken. Here again is a square issue. I know 
 what Irenseus said. There is not a single mention of infant baptism 
 in all his writings. He wrote about thirty-three years before Tertul- 
 lian. Dr. Meyer says, speaking of infant baptism, it was " not cer- 
 tainly attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed." 
 Cum. on Acts 16 : 15, p. 312. Dr. Bledsoe, the learned, powerful and 
 
254 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 candid editoi' of tlio Southern Revieio (Methodist), says : " Tertullian 
 is the first Avriter in the Church who makes any express mention of 
 the custom of infant baptism. Before his time, A.D. 200, there is 
 not an allusion to the custom from which its existence may be fairly 
 inferred ! " The Southern Revievy, vol. xiv. p. 339. 
 
 As we have seen, the first man to mention infant baptism opposes 
 it on the ground of the innocency of the little ones ; the first one to 
 favor it does it on the ground of their guilt. And on this ground, viz., 
 the pollution of the child, every orthodox advocate of the practice has 
 contended for it from the days of Origen to the time of John Wesley. 
 So far as 1 know, tliere has not been an exception to the rule. Even 
 the unorthodox Pelagius, though he thought they were innocent at 
 birth, believed they would '■^ mias heaven" unless they were baptized. 
 John Wesley thus testifies : " As to the grounds of it, if infants are 
 guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects for baptism ; 
 seeing in the ordinary way they cannot be saved unless this be 
 washed away in baptism. It has been already proved that this original 
 .sin cleaves to every child of inan, and that hereby they are children 
 of wrath and liable to eternal damnation." Doctrinal Tracts, p. 251. 
 This quotation is from the edition " Published by order of the General 
 Conference," in New York, in 1850. In 1861, the tract on Baptism, 
 from which this quotation is taken, was left out of the "Doctrinal 
 Tracts," and another substituted in its place. Dr. Ditzler says Wesley 
 is not the author of the tract ; but it is probable that he is wrong 
 in this, for the Tract Committee that published it called it " Mr. 
 Wesley's Short Treatise on Baptism ; " at any rate, it was published 
 with the endorsement of the General Conference. The whole bap- 
 tismal service, as it relates to infants, is built upon this idea, and as Mr. 
 Wilkinson rejects the idea — as he holds that infants are born " pure 
 as angels " — he can never explain the minister's petition that the 
 " child being delivered from Thy wrath, may be received into the ark 
 of Christ's Holy Church ! " 
 
 But in his last speech Mr. Wilkinson seemed to switch around 
 again. He says : " We understand that in a moral sense there was a 
 corruption of the stream that ilowod from the original Adamic foun- 
 tain, in consequence of the corruption of the fountain ; that the effect 
 is on our souls as well as on our bodies ; that when Adam fell the 
 corruption descended to every one that descended from him, and that 
 man in his physical, intellectual and moral nature is impaired because 
 of his descent from Adam." In these words he clearly shows that he 
 believes the souls of all men were corrupted by the fall of Adam — the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 255 
 
 souls as well as the bodies. But no corrupt soul can enter heaven ; 
 hence he argues that infants had to be redeemed in order to be saved. 
 When is the infant redeemed 1 If it needs redemption, and dies 
 before it is redeemed, it will be lost. But Mr. Wilkinson must think 
 it gets rid of this corruption before it is born, for he says it is born 
 pure : that is, he has it redeemed, regenerated, " born again," bfi/ore it 
 is horn the first time — the second birth before the first. What non- 
 sense I In such foolishness as this do even intelligent men entangle 
 themselves when they begin to advocate and defend false teachings. 
 
 This miserably false doctrine of original sin involves its advocates 
 in an endless number of difficulties. Who can tell when a child 
 becomes a living soul ? It certainly does before its birth into this 
 world. From the very beginning of one's existence as a living soul, 
 they tell us, he is totally depraved and corrupted by the sin of Adam, 
 and cut off from heaven unless regenerated. But one is a living soul 
 before he is born ; some die before they are born, hence the necessity 
 of regeneration before birth, of regeneration at the very instant of 
 becoming a living soul. If the child should exist for one moment 
 before the sin of Adam is washed from it, it would be liable to ever- 
 lasting destruction, for it might die in that moment ; hence those who 
 hold to the doctrine of original sin, are driven to the position that the 
 moment of beginning to exist, and the moment- of regeneration are 
 the same, for it is nonsense to talk about the regeneration of a being 
 that has not yet begun to exist, and, if a child exists before regenera- 
 tion, it is liable to die in that time, and hence to be lost. How absurd 
 to speak of a being that is pure, that has been pure from the very 
 moment when it began to exist, as being guilty of original sin, polluted 
 by the sin of Adam, totally depraved, and so on ! 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson quotes, Rom. 5:18, 19, to prove his doctrine of 
 original sin — that all men sinned in Adam. I read the passage from 
 the revised version, as follows : " So then as through one trespass the 
 judgment came unto all men to condemnation ; even so through one 
 act of righteousness, the free gift came unto all men to justification of 
 life. For, as through the one man's disobedience, the many were 
 made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many 
 be made righteous." 
 
 Through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to con- 
 demnation; that is, Adam sinned, and, in consequence of that sin, all 
 of us are born separated from the tree of life, and hence die the natural 
 death ; Christ did not sin, hence He came up from the grave, and 
 hence all, good and bad, will come up from the grave. " As in Adam 
 
256 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 all die, so in Christ shall all be mnde alive," says Paul — " shall he" 
 evidently referring to the resurrection. 
 
 Again, from Adam's fall we all inherit enfeebled bodies, but 
 through the body Satan tempts the soul ; hence from the fall of Adam 
 man is more easily approached by the devil, not because the spirit is 
 corrupted by Adam's sin, but because the avenues of approach through 
 the enfeebled body are better for his work ; hence, from the sin of 
 Adam many become sinners. But, mark you, they are not sinners 
 till they sin, till they are old enough to understand and violate law. 
 Paul tells the Colossians that they were dead in their sins — their own 
 sins. His woids are : " And you, being dead in your sins and in the 
 uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, 
 having forgiven all your trespasses," Col. 2:13. To the Ephesians 
 he says : " And you did He quicken when ye were dead through your 
 trespasses and sins," Eph. 2 : 1, Revised Version. But does not Paul 
 speak of these Ephesians as being children of wrath by nature? Yes, 
 but that was when they " lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the de- 
 sires of the flesh and of the mind," Eph. 2 : 3, Revised Version. 
 Everybody knows that the flesh was affected by the fall of Adam, 
 seeing that it was cut off from the youth-preserving, life-giving tree. 
 
 But we do not inherit our spirits from Adam at all : the Bible 
 (Heb. 12: 9) speaks of "the fathers of our flesh," in contra- 
 distinction to " the Father of spirits;" and Zechariah (chapter 12, 
 ver. 1) says, God " formeth the spirit of man within him ;" Solomon 
 (Eccl. 12 : 7), in speaking of death, testifies thus: "Then shall the 
 dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God 
 who gave it." Our bodies, and the mere animal life that is in them, 
 we inherit from Adam through our parents — " the fathers of our 
 flesh ; " our spirits are direct impartations from God, the " Father of 
 spirits," who " formeth the spirit of man within him." Hence they 
 are pure — pure as God the Giver is pure ; nor is one of these spirits 
 corrupted till of its own volition it violates the law of God. "The 
 soul that sinneth it shall die." If it passes through the change that 
 we call death before any violation of law, the pure spiiit returns to 
 heaven, because heaven is its native land, heaven is its home. It 
 does not nei d baptism, nor the Lord's Supper, nor the Church ; for all 
 these are intended for those that have sinned : in heaven it will not 
 be one of the redeemed, for it was never lost, and, of course, was 
 never bought back. Jesus did not come into the world to save the 
 sin ess, but to call sinners to repentance. In heaven it will be as the 
 angel Gabriel, one that was never lost. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 257 
 
 The guilt of sin cannot be inherited ; the effects of it may be. Let 
 me illustrate this : the drunkard weakens his constitution, brings 
 himself to poverty, and loses his soul, by the drinking habit : his 
 child, born to him after his constitution has been broken down, 
 inherits the physical debility and the poverty, but not the condemna- 
 tion. The Lord speaking through Ezekiel, says: "The son shall not 
 bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the 
 iniquity of the son : the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon 
 him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezek. 
 18 : 20. In the fourth verse of the same chapter the Lord says : 
 "Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the 
 soul of the son is Mine : the soul that sinneth, it shall die." This 
 saying fully agrees with the statement that God is the Father of 
 spirits ; that we inherit our spirits from Him, and not from our 
 earthly parents. 
 
 It is nonsense to talk about "the guilt of original sin." When 
 Adam sinned he was driven away from the tree of life, lest he should 
 eat of it and live for ever. (See Gen. 3 : 22-24.) Hence all that have 
 descended from him are separated from that tree, and, as a conse- 
 quence, die the natural death. Had it not been for his sin, he 
 and his posterity would have had access to the health-preserving 
 fruit, and would have continued to live, all through their innocency, 
 in the power and vigor of youth. But while it inherits this sad con- 
 sequence, the little one inherits none of the guilt of Adam's sin. 
 The soul does not die on account of Adam's sin. " The soul that 
 sinneth it shall die." When the child becomes old enough to sin, and 
 does sin, then for the first time it is lost ; then it needs to be redeemed 
 — to be bought back. How beautiful is the story of the prodigal 
 son. At first he was in his father's house ; then he wandered away ; 
 and then, when he repented and turned back to his father, he was 
 promptly forgiven, and joyfully restored to his place. Every man is 
 a prodigal. He is born in a state of innocence and purity; God is his 
 father, and his pure spirit has not forfeited the right to a place in his 
 father's house. But he grows in knowledge ; he comes to understand 
 law ; he violates it ; and thus he wanders from his Father's house ; 
 then he needs the preaching of the gospel, baptism, the Church, 
 the Lord's Supper ; in fine, he needs to be washed in the blood 
 of Jesus, and thus cleansed from his sins and iniquities, that he 
 may be restored to the innocency of his childhood. In harmony with 
 this idea, Jesus said, "Except ye be converted and become as little 
 children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 
 17 
 
258 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 18:3. Little children are already fit for the kingdom of heaven, 
 they are already in Christ, in the grace of God, and adults must be- 
 come innocent as they are, if they would be saved. Jesus came into 
 this world to save sinners : to call sinners, not the righteous, to repent- 
 ance. Hence the Church, built upon the new covenant, of which 
 Jeremiah prophesied, is for those who have sinned, and who come 
 back by faith to Jesus Christ. The whole thing is a matter of faith, 
 and hence infants have no part nor lot in it, as they are as incapable 
 of believing as they are of sinning : they have, without this covenant, 
 all that adults gain by it, that is, innocence ; and after the judgment 
 all the innocent enter the city of God. 
 
 Now that the Church is for believers, and believers only, I want to 
 make clearer by reading from the third chapter of Galatians. As I 
 read I will emphasize the words to which especial attention is called : 
 " foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not 
 OBEY THE TRUTH, and before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been 
 evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of 
 you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hear- 
 ing OF faith 1 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye 
 now made perfect liy the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in 
 vain? if it be yet in vain? He therefore that ministereth to you 
 the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works 
 of the law, or by the hearing of faith ? Even as Abraham be- 
 lieved God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye, 
 therefore, that thev which are of faith, the same are the children 
 of Abraham." 
 
 Before reading further I pause to remark that Abraham was the 
 father of two seeds — a natural seed, and a spiritual : the one was 
 composed of his fleshly descendents, the other were children of the 
 promise: the one became his children by natural generation the other 
 in the manner which will appear from the following reading : 
 
 "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the Gospel vnito Abraham, saying, 
 In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of 
 faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. . . . Christ hath redeemed 
 us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; [this shows 
 whom Christ redeems, namely, those who are under a curse for having 
 violated law] ; 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. . . . But the Scripture hath concluded all under 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 259 
 
 sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them 
 that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, 
 shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Where- 
 fore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we 
 MIGHT be justified bv FAITH. But after that faith is come, we are 
 no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children op 
 God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been 
 baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor 
 Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; 
 for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then aee 
 YE Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 
 
 From this reading we learn that those who are under the "new 
 covenant" receive the Spirit "by the hearing of faith:" that "they 
 which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham : " that 
 Christ hath redeemed them "from the curse of the law:" that they 
 were under the curse because they had not continued in " all things 
 which are written in the book of the law to do them : " that they had 
 become "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus;" and that if they 
 were Christ's they were Abraham's seed. So, we see, under the new 
 covenant it is all a matter of faith. 
 
 Jesus Christ, in giving this covenant, said : " 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." Matt. 28 : 19, 20. Teach them, 
 baptize them, teach them ; that is the divine order ; they must be 
 instructed before they are fit to be baptized. Mark records these 
 instructions of the Lord in these words : " 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." 
 Mark 16: 15, 16. By comparing these we see that the teaching 
 which comes before baptism is such preaching of the Gospel as will 
 produce faith in Jesus. Without this faith none is a proper subject 
 for baptism. 
 
 Those who were under the old covenant came under it by birth ; 
 by the natural birth, being children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 they were children of the covenant ; but to come under the new cov- 
 enant, people must be "born again," "born from above," "born of 
 God." Even to Nicodemus, a man born under the old covenant, 
 circumcised the eighth day, a teacher in Israel, Jesus taught. Ye 
 must be born again. He said, "Except a man be born again, he 
 cannot see the kingdom of God." Yet, my friends, Mr. Wilkinson 
 
260 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 would have us believe that the old Jewish covenant of circumcision, 
 under which this man had been living all his life, which he had 
 entered at birth, is the Christian covenant, under which we now live ! 
 Nay, verily ! This leader under that covenant could not enter this 
 without the new birth. He was a child of Abraham by the birth of 
 the flesh, but in order to be a child of Abraham according to the 
 Spirit, in order to be of the spiritual seed, he must be born again by 
 believing in Jesus Christ; foi', saith the Apostle John, "Whosoever 
 believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," or, as the Revised 
 Version has it, " is begotten of God." 
 
 Again I say, it is impossible that infants should be in this covenant, 
 for Jesus says, " Except a man (Greek, lis, anyone) be born of water 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." We 
 have seen that they are incapable of being born again, seeing that they 
 cannot believe that Jesus is the Christ, and hence they cannot enter 
 the Church, the kingdom of God, otherwise called the new covenant. 
 
 Paul, at Heb. 8 : 6, talking about Christ, says, "But now hath he 
 obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the medi- 
 ator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." 
 To the Jew was promised the terrestrial Canaan ; to the Christian, 
 the celestial ; to the Jew, the earthly Jerusalem ; to the Christian, the 
 heavenly Jerusalem, "a city which hath foundations, whose builder 
 and maker is God." The Jew was born with a title to these earthly 
 possessions, but if he was not circumcised on the eighth day, he for- 
 feited his title, and was cut off from his people. All men are born 
 with a title to these celestial possessions, seeing that they derive their 
 spirits from God — that God, the owner of them all, is their Father. 
 But when one sins, he forfeits all these rights, and must be " born 
 again," that he may be classed as a son of God, and have a place in 
 the kingdom of God. Why are not infants received into the Cljurchl 
 Because they have a title to the celestial land without coming into it. 
 They have not wandered from the Father's house, nor transgressed 
 His laws, nor forfeited their rights. Jesus says, " Blessed are the 
 pure in heart, for they shall see God." Both Mr. Wilkinson and I 
 have been telling you that infants are born pure, — they are as pure in 
 heart as the angels. Hence they do not need baptism nor anything else 
 to fit them to see the Father — to enter His presence, and to enjoy Him. 
 
 If Christ had said, The infant that is not baptized shall be cut oft 
 from God's people, then I would have said, Baptize them ; by all 
 means baptize them ; and do it quickly, lest they be lost. But will 
 my opponent say they will be cut oti if not baptized 1 No, indeed 1 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM, 261 
 
 But I claim that his creed teaches it, when fairly and honestly inter- 
 preted ; and it is certain that the advocates of the practice, from the 
 day it began to be observed, and for hundreds of years, gave this as 
 the reason for it, that the child might not " miss the kingdom of 
 heaven," that it might not be separated from God's people. To those 
 who held to this view there was some meaning in this rite, when 
 applied to infants ; in giving them baptism they gave them something. 
 But what do the Pjedo-baptists of to-day give to the little ones that 
 immersionists do not 1 Nothing, absolutely nothing, but water, and 
 precious little of that. Do they teach them 1 So do we. Do they 
 strive to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord 1 
 So do we. Do they endeavor to have them lead moral lives'? So do 
 we. They do not give them the Lord's Supper ; nor do we. We do 
 not think they will be damned if they die unbaptized ; neither do they. 
 
 But what harm does it do to baptize them, do you ask 1 Before I 
 would lift up my hand over a little babe and say, " By the authority 
 of Jesus Christ I baptize you," when He has given me no such 
 authority, I would suffer my arm to be torn from its socket, and my 
 tongue from my moutS : for me to do such a thing would be the most 
 horrible blasphemy. 
 
 " But," do you inquire, " is it possible that there is no authority for 
 infant baptism 1 " Remember (I am determined you shall not forget 
 it), the learned Lutheran, George Edward Steitz, says, " Among 
 scientilical exegetes it is regarded as an established conclusion that 
 not a trace of infant baptism can be discovered in the New Testament.' 
 Neander says, "We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism 
 from apostolic institution." Meyer says, "Of it no trace is found in 
 the New Testament ; " and he adds that it " gradually arose in post- 
 apostolic times." Dr. Philip Schaff says, "The apostolic origin of 
 infant baptism is denied not only by the Baptist?, but also by many 
 Psedo-baptist divines." In addition to these testimonials from men 
 who rank among the very greatest in learning, talent, and scriptural 
 research in the Psedo-baptist world, consider the following from the 
 late Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, editor of the Southern Revieiv, a quarterly 
 published in the interests of one of the Methodist Churches of the 
 United States. Dr. Bledsoe was distinguished for his learning, his 
 great logical powers, and his calm, impartial spirit. He says : — 
 
 " With all our searching, we have been unable to find in the New 
 Testament a single express declaration, or word, in favor of infant 
 baptism. We justify the rite, therefore, solely on the ground of 
 logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or His apostles. 
 This may, perhaps, be deemed by some of our readers a strange posi- 
 
262 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 tion for a Pfedo-baptist. It is by no means, however, a singular 
 opinion. Hundreds of learned Pfedo-baptists have come to the same 
 conclusion; especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a 
 closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly 
 practiced by controversialists." Southern Review, Vol. 14, p. 334. 
 
 There, now, my friends, what do you think of that 1 How can you 
 expect me to find infant baptism in the Bible, when such men as these, 
 who want to find it, and who search for it eagerly, thus testify ? 
 Some of these men plainly say that the rile, as applied to infants, is 
 not of apostolic origin at all, that there is not a trace of it in the New 
 Testament, that it is of post-apostolic origin ; while others, as Drs. 
 Bledsoe and Stuart, while declaring that there is " no express declara- 
 tion, or word, in favor of infant baptism in the New Testament," 
 nevertheless believe that there are principles set forth in the Bible 
 from which, by a logical inference, the rite may be justified. But 
 Jesus says, "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, 
 I will liken him unto a wise man," etc., and it is certain, from the 
 testimony of " hundreds of learned P?edo-baptists," that He did never 
 utter one word about it. It is mentioned in none of His sayings. 
 
 Now, concerning that creed affair : Mr. Wilkinson says he came 
 into the Canada Methodist Church by a union of churches, and hence 
 he never promised to accept Wesley's Notes, and his doctrine that 
 Rom. 6 : 4 refers to immersion. He slipped into this church, and 
 under this creed, without obligating himself to believe and teach the 
 doctrines, as those who are ordained in the regular way are compelled 
 to do ! 
 
 In order to bring about this union of churches it became necessary 
 for the different churches to agree upon a creed ; they did agree, it 
 appears, to take that of the Canada Methodist Church ; and every 
 one thus accepting it is in honor bound to support it, or else to get out. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson ought now to sneak out just as he sneaked in. For 
 my part, I would not have a creed, and present it to the world for its 
 acceptance, that I believed taught lies. Moreover, when I called 
 attention to the fact that Wesley's Notes are a part of the doctrine of 
 Mr. Wilkinson's Church, and that he had said he believed and would 
 maintain them, knowing at the same time that he did not believe 
 them, and that he did not intend to advocate them, he merely said, 
 " What of it?" But after further reflection he feels the necessity of 
 trying harder to save his honor. A poor out he makes at it. 'Tis a 
 pity he cannot do better. 
 
 [ Time expired.^ 
 
ox THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 263 
 
 EVENING SESSION— FIFTH DAY. 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 I was speaking upon the historical parts of my subject when my 
 time expired. I was showing how Pelagius introduced the doctrine 
 in his day that we were born into tliis world without any hereditary 
 taint by reason of our descent from Adam, that we did not need any 
 regeneration of our nature, and therefore he claimed in the case of 
 infants that baptism was not for the remission of sins or the cleansing 
 of their nature. His antagonists pressed him very hard as to why 
 he baptized infants if they were not unclean ; for it was generally 
 believed by the Church in his day, and admitted by himself, that 
 baptism was a means of grace by which sins were actually removed 
 and the soul actually cleansed. In other words, they believed in 
 baptismal regeneration, as my opponent does. They attached similar 
 efficacy to the water as thej^ did to the bread and wine which ended 
 in the transubstantiation of the Roman Catholics. This question 
 raised such a disturbance in the Church at the time that a great many 
 rose up to oppose Pelagius. The Carthage Council was held in A.D. 
 418. It was composed of 254 bishops, and they all endorsed infant 
 baptism, and that before the child was eight days old. Another 
 Council was held at Carthage in 253 A.D., at which 66 bishops were 
 present, and it decided in favor of infant baptism ; and not only so, 
 but they held that it might be administered before the child was 
 eight days old, showing that they still recognized the old circum- 
 cisional rule. They must have believed, therefore, that baptism took 
 the place of circumcision. Cyprian, who presided over the Council, 
 wrote to Fidus, a country bishop who had written about the matter 
 and desired to get the sentiment of the Council, stating that all the 
 bishops present were of one mind in the matter. I also quoted Origen, 
 who was born only about eighty years after John died. No doubt 
 there were men living who were between eighty and one hundred 
 years old, with whom he could have conversed, and who must have 
 been intimate with the apostles and others living in the apostolic age, 
 and in this way he must have known the usage in the days of the 
 apostles without either printing presses, newspapers, or telegraphs. 
 
264 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 He says the Church received infant baptism as a tradition, or order, 
 from the apostles. This is important testimony, coming from so illus- 
 trious a father of the Church as Origen, and one who possessed such 
 unquestionable facilities for knowing all the facts. Surely no one 
 living in our day can pretend to be as competent an authority. 
 Tertullian, we are told by my opponent, was the first to oppose infant 
 baptism. If he opposed it, it only serves to prove that it must have 
 existed before the days of Tertullian and at the very door of the apos- 
 tolic Church. But I deny that Tertullian opposed infant baptism. 
 He only recommended its delay because he had, like my opponent, 
 embraced the superstitious belief that as sins were blotted out by 
 baptism no sins committed after baptism could be forgiven. And he 
 recommended the delay of the ordinance in the case of other persons 
 as well as infants. But he never once denied either the scriptural- 
 ness or apostolic authority of this rite as applied to infants, as I 
 explained in a former session. But, owing to his superstitious belief, 
 he recommended the delay of baptism in the case of infants lest the 
 godfathers should be brought into danger and be made responsible for 
 the sins of the children committed after their baptism ; and so he 
 recommended delay also in the case of unmarried people and widows 
 and those exposed to peculiar temptations, because there was danger 
 of committing sin after baptism and thus rendering themselves liable 
 to the consequences in the future world. I do not know how those 
 who hold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration can escape from the 
 logical dilemma into which Tertullian was brought. Yet, if he did 
 not know whether infant baptism had existed from the days of the 
 apostles, it is difficult to say who had a right to know ; and he said, 
 " It is more profitable." not, " It is inexpedient." But he is an 
 important witness in this controversy from the fact that his recom- 
 mending delay is a proof that infant baptism was the prevailing 
 custom of the Church. It was so in the time of Tertullian, who 
 wrote not more than one hundred years after the death of John, and 
 was born only a little over fifty years thereafter. 
 
 My opponent is very fond of running away back to the birth of 
 Christ, to make the distance appear as great as possible, but remember 
 Christ did not begin his ministry until within three years of His 
 death, or A.D. 30, and the apostles flourished after that. I claim 
 that it would be no unusual thing for scores or hundreds of individuals 
 to be living in the days of Tertullian who lived in the days of John. 
 Therefore he must have knoion whether infants were baptized in the 
 Church in the days of the apostles or not. I have here a little 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 265 
 
 clipping from the Scientific American. There is an enumeration in it 
 of individuals who have attained great longevity, and in the 18th 
 century no less than six are mentioned (and the paragraph was not 
 written for my benefit) who lived to the age of 1 40 years. Suppose even 
 in middle life Tertullian had met an individual a hundred years old 
 it would have brought him back to the time of the death of John. 
 Suppose he had met one 120 years old it would have brought him 
 back to twenty years before the death of John. Would it not have 
 been an easy matter for Tertullian to have conversed with people who 
 had seen John before his death 1 My opponent said they had not 
 printing presses and books in those days, and he would like to invali- 
 date the testimony of these fathers on this ground, but they did not 
 need them because they had only a small length of time to cover. 
 My opponent says that Tertullian is the first man known to have 
 mentioned infant baptism, and he mentioned it to oppose it. But in 
 mentioning it to oppose it he testified that it existed. So we have 
 his testimony that it existed at the time. 
 
 And just here I want to point out a little bit of inconsistency on the 
 part of my opponent. He said in his last speech that " the false 
 doctrine that infants were sinners" came first, "and then the practice 
 of baptizing them to save tnem from sin, and give them a place in 
 heaven." Yet he says Tertullian was the first to mention infant 
 baptism, and he mentioned it to oppose it, though he believed that 
 baptism was for the remission of sins, and that it actually remitted 
 them. And this is the man, too, who said, " What need their guilt- 
 less age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins 1 " It is false, 
 therefore, according to his own testimony, that the false doctrine that 
 they were sinners came first, and then baptism afterwards. Out of 
 his own mouth he stands condemned. Moreover, he made that state- 
 ment purely on his own authority, for he neither has furnished nor can 
 furnish one scrap of proof in support of it, and the reason is that it 
 is not true. But he does not seem to consider it necessary to prove a 
 statement. So long as any notion agrees with his theory, he feels at 
 liberty to announce it with as much gusto and dogmatism as an 
 oracle. 
 
 And now I hasten to give the testimony of Irenseus. In order to 
 get an idea of the competency of Irenteus as a witness I will read a 
 short extract from his writings. In his old age, speaking of Polycarp, 
 who was a friend and companion of John before he died, Irenaeus 
 said : 
 
 " I remember the tinners that were done then better than do I 
 
266 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 those of later times, so that I could describe the place where he sat, 
 and his going out, and coming in ; liis manner of life, his features, his 
 discourse to the people concei'ning the conversations he had had with 
 John (the apostle) and others that had seen our Lord ; how he 
 rehearsed their discourses, and what he had heard them that were 
 eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, say of our Lord, and of His mira- 
 cles and doctrine, all agreeable to the Scriptures." Ilibbard, p. 188. 
 
 Now, this witness, who lived at the very door of the Apostolic 
 Church, and conversed with a man who had heard the apostle John 
 preach and bear testimony as an eye and ear witness of our Lord, 
 testifies as follows : 
 
 " For He (Christ) came to save all persons by Himself ; all, I say, 
 who by Him are regenerated to God ; infants, and little ones, and 
 children, and youth, and elder persons." 
 
 Moreover, we contend that by " regenerated," in this passage, Ire- 
 na^us meant baptized. We claim this not only on the ground that 
 this was a customary use of the term in the days of our Lord and His 
 apostles, but also in the days of Irenseus himself, who elsewhere 
 undoubtedly uses the word in this sense. He says : 
 
 " When Christ gave to His apostles the commission of regenerating 
 unto God, He said unto them, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost.'" Hibbard, -p. 18-i. 
 
 This is an important witness, who knew a man who knew John and 
 others living in the apostolic age, and heard their testimony that they 
 had seen the Lord, heard Him preach, and witnessed His miracles. That 
 is getting into the neighborhood of the origin of this matter. If infant 
 baptism is a Popish superstition, how is it we find it in the time of 
 Iremeus, when the first pope was not elected until 606 A.D. ]\[y 
 opponent does not believe that little children are regenerated, but he 
 believes that adults are regenerated in baptism. Irenajus believed 
 that they were regenerated by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and 
 regenerated symbolically by water, which was a symbol of the invisi- 
 ble truth. With respect to the word regenerate, we claim it is used 
 synonymously with baptize. I have j)roved that Irenajus used the 
 terms synonymously, hence no intelligent man can resist the proof 
 that Irena>us taught that infants were baptized unto God. My oppo- 
 nent, in the discussion of the previous proposition, admitted that the 
 phrase referring to the " washing of regeneration and the renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost " was baptism. He has never denied it ; on the con- 
 trary, he has acknowledged it again and again. He himself accepts in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 267 
 
 the writings of Paul llie application of the phrase regeneration to 
 baptism. Our Lord says, " Except ye be born again " — that is, regen 
 erated — " of water and the Spirit ye cannot enter into the kingdom." 
 Our Lord, then, applied this very phrase to baptism. Is it any won- 
 der that those who followed our Lord in the next century used the 
 same phrase for the same purpose 1 I will read an extract from 
 Hibbard on this point. In his work on baptism, commenting on the 
 application of this term to baptism, he says, concerning the latter : 
 
 "The change was great; it was complete and universal, and they 
 called it ' the new birth,' or regeneration. So says Maimonides, ' The 
 Gentile that is made a proselyte . . . behold, he is like a child 
 new horn.' So the Christian fathers regarded a person baptized as 
 being newly born ; and this also is an appellation given to disciples in 
 the New Testament. So Peter says, ' As new born babes,' <fec. It is 
 easy then to perceive how the early Church came to use regeneration 
 so as to include, by the term, water baptism." Hibbard, p. 183. 
 
 Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, describing the manner of mak- 
 ing Christian disciples, says, concerning their baptism : — 
 
 " We bring them to some place where there is water, and they are 
 regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which ive were regene- 
 rated ; for they are washed with water [that is baptized] in the 
 name of God the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says, ' Except ye be 
 regenerated, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' . 
 And that we shall obtain forgiveness of the sins in which we have 
 lived, by or in v)aler, there is invoked over him that has a mind to be 
 regenerated the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things . 
 and this washing [or baptism] is called the enlightening," &c. 
 Now, in the light of these evidences, let me again read the testimony 
 of Irenfeus. He says, " When Christ gave to His apostles the com- 
 mission of regenerating unto God (regenerationis in Deum), He said 
 unto them, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' " 
 
 That is Irenteus' own definition of the word regeneration, and he 
 said there were "infants and little ones, and children and youths, and 
 elder persons," regenerated to God in his days ; I maintain, therefore, 
 that according to this father regeneration means baptism, and that 
 baptism was applied to infants. Justin Martyr, also, as we have 
 shown, distinctly calls baptism regeneration, and it seems to have been 
 the custom of those times to do so. 
 
 If this testimony does not teach that those fathers believed baptism 
 
268 REPORy OF DEBATE 
 
 to be regeneration, I confess I am not capable of interpreting or 
 understanding language. I have shown, therefore, that infant baptism 
 is referred to by Irenteus and Justin Martyr. That is as certain as 
 that heaven is above us. Unless it can be proved that they did not 
 use the term in this sense, but in some other, then I have proved that 
 infant baptism has come down to us from the apostolic age. I leave 
 the question with you, ladies and gentlemen. I submit the case to 
 you as to a jury. If you were sitting in a jury box and a case sup- 
 ported by evidence as strong as this was placed before you, and not 
 one scrap of proof was prodticed on the other side, in what way would 
 your verdict be given 1 Yet my opponent has the hardihood to stand 
 before you and declare that Tertullian, A.D. 200, was " the first man 
 to make any reference to it," and says, " Let my opponent find a 
 mention of infant baptism before Tertullian and I will promptly give 
 up the debate." And he emphasizes his statement by adding, " There, 
 now, is a square issue. There is a chance for him to close this debate 
 right speedily, with honor to himself and glory to his cause, if only he 
 can find the passage." Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have found the 
 passage. There is nothing more certain than that Irenajus refers to 
 infant baptism in the passage I have quoted, and no man would dream 
 of denying it, only to bolster up a shaky, tottering cause. If he 
 repudiates this testimony, I trust he will give us something more 
 authoritative than his own unsupported ipse dixit for doing so, other- 
 wise he is bound " promptly to give up the debate," for I have accepted 
 his challenge, and met the issue. 
 
 I do not, however, depend exclusively on this evidence, strong and 
 undeniable as it is, nor indeed does it form the chief ground on which 
 we rest. I have also shown you that God made a covenant with 
 Abraham nearly 2000 years before the Christian era ; that it included 
 his seed, the infants and children, and that a token or seal was 
 attached to that covenant wliich implied justification or regeneration. 
 That seal was applied to the children of Abraham when they were 
 eight days old, and when a Gentile became a proselyte he must receive 
 the seal, which included spiritual blessing, for in Romans 4:17 Paul 
 quotes from that covenant to prove that the blessing promised in it to 
 Abraham was the same as that which was bestowed on the Gentiles, 
 of which baptism became the outward symbol and seal. We have 
 established on the most incontrovertible evidence the principle of 
 receiving children into the covenant and sealing them with the seal. 
 It is the old principle tiiat api)lied to Abraham and his i eed and has 
 never been revoked. And when God removes the seal then He will 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 269 
 
 revoke His covenant with the rest of the world. So surely as that 
 covenant was the covenant of redemption, and so surely as little 
 children were taken in and recognized by sealing, so surely must they 
 remain there till God puts them out, and so long must they receive 
 the seal. Consequently we find, in harmony with this argument, 
 away back at the very door of the Apostolic Church, that this practice 
 of infant baptism is recognized and unquestioned, and remained un- 
 questioned for eleven hundred years or more. Tertullian never 
 opposed infant baptism as an innovation of man. He merely recom- 
 mended its delay for reasons I have explained, and this very circum- 
 stance proves it to have been the custom of the Church at that early 
 day. 
 
 My opponent says, if this practice had been mentioned within one 
 or two years of John's death, or even in the apostolic age, by any but 
 an inspired man it would not have answered my purpose. Now, I 
 maintain that this is misleading. I undertake to prove, in accordance 
 with my proposition, that it has been practiced in the Christian Church 
 from apostolic times ; yet he would rule out the testimony of every 
 man unless inspired. But I was not aware that there was any 
 inspired authority to be found later than the days of the apostles. 
 And if not, how can anything be proved to have existed since the 
 days of the apostles, except by uninspired testimony 1 Yet he is 
 reduced to such straits that he is obliged to repudiate all historical 
 evidence since the days of the apostles. Suppose I had applied the 
 same principle to his proposition and rejected the testimony of all 
 but inspired men, where would it have landed him ? I guess he 
 would very soon have run aground. But very small quibbles often 
 have to do service when arguments fail. Shipwrecked men frequently 
 try to get ashore by means of very small fragments of the wreck. 
 
 In my opponent's last speech (as rewritten) he enters into an 
 elaborate argument in support of the old exploded notion that man's 
 spirit nature is not propagated but created. I need not spend much 
 time in replying to that nonsense, for few will be found so foolish 
 as to be led away by it. Perhaps, however, he will be kind enough 
 to tell his readers how it is, if God creates each soul apart from the 
 body, and independently of any natural process, that there are so 
 many idiots in the world. Does God make some people wise and 
 others foolish, by an arbitrary creative act, from more choice 1 And 
 how is it that children generally have such a striking resemblance to 
 their parents, mental y, as well as physically'? And how is it, if 
 children are created immaculate, that they often display such woful 
 depravity and violent tempers even before they can walk or talk ■? 
 
270 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 It is generally supposed, too, that an atonement was not needed for 
 Adam until ho had sinned, and his moral nature was depraved ; that 
 he was created in a holy state, bearing the image of his God, and that 
 he possessed the power to withstand temptation and preserve his 
 integrity. Now, if all men, in their moral natures, are the direct 
 product of divinely creative power, and equally pure by nature, as my 
 opponent maintains, then how is it that no one of all the millions of 
 earth's population has ever maintained his or her integrity beyond the 
 period of accountability 1 And how is it that God provided an atone- 
 ment for all others, except Adam, before they committed personal sin 
 and how is it that no one born into the world has any chance of getting 
 to heaven except through Christ, by faith 1 And how is it that God 
 has assumed the responsibility of supplying a pure, spotless, immortal 
 spirit to every offspring of mankind, whether in wedlock or out of it, 
 whether to Christian or heathen parents, whether to be brought up in 
 His "nurture and admonition," or trained in the school of the devil 1 
 I am amazed that my opponent should commit himself to a theory so 
 inexpressibly silly and absurd. And this is only necessary in order 
 to escape from the pitiable dilemma into which his false theory about 
 original sin has betrayed him. 
 
 My opponent says that when Adam sinned he was driven away 
 from the tree of life, lest he should eat and live forever. Let me ask 
 him why his posterity should be also driven away from it before they 
 had sinned "2 
 
 The story of the prodigal son is just as beautiful to illustrate my 
 theory as my opponent's. I claim, as well as he, that every man is 
 born in the Father's house, and I can understand why every man 
 turns out a prodigal. It is because of native depravity. But he 
 denies native depravity, therefore I cannot see how he can account 
 for it. Unless men are born with a natural bias to sin, I cannot 
 understand why they should all drift in the same direction, no matter 
 how favorable their chances in the right direction. 
 
 My opponent makes another tremendous effort to prove that nobody 
 can be saved except by faith. He might have saved himself much 
 time and a deal of effort, for evidently the Bible was written to and 
 for those who could understand it, and not for babies. And all who 
 can understand it are supposed to be personal sinners, and as faith is 
 the condition of pardon for personal sin, no one can be pardoned but 
 those who l)elieve. But my contention is that all men are born into 
 the world under an economy of rodemjjtion, and consequently saved 
 from what is popularly called original sin unconditionally. 1 have 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 271 
 
 never disputed the necessity of faith for adults, therefore the ammu- 
 nition tired at the man of straw has all been wasted. And now, will 
 my opponent furnish one scrap of proof apart from his own unsup- 
 ported i/jse (/wjif that "all men" are not saved from "judgment to 
 condemnation " by Christ's righteousness, independently of personal 
 faith or repentance. If he will, he will be doing something for his 
 country and liis cause. 
 
 He admits that " all men are born with a title to celestial posses- 
 sions,'' and "when one sins he forfeits his right" to them, and "must be 
 born again that he may be classed as a son of God, and have a place 
 in the kingdom of God." Yes, and this is where faith comes in as a 
 condition of recovery. And the reason this condition is not required 
 of children is, that they have not sinned, and therefore have not for- 
 feited their rights. He is beginning to see men as trees walking. 
 
 As for the two seeds of Abraham, the natural and the spiritual, 
 my opponent admits that the spiritual seed were believers and those 
 entitled to spiritual blessings. Yet he denies that circumcision was 
 the seal of the covenant conveying those blessings. Will he tell us, 
 then, why Abraham was circumcised " that he might be the (spiritual) 
 father of all them that believe" (a spiritual seed)*? Rom. 5 : 11. It 
 seems strange that he should receive the seal of a covenant including 
 his natural seed only, in order that he might be the father of a 
 spiritual seed. Perhaps he will solve this mystery before throwing 
 any more dust. Moreover, my opponent has failed to explain to you 
 why circumcision was "a seal of righteousness" to Abraham, and a 
 seal of the land of Canaan to Isaac. Is there so mvich as a whisper 
 by any inspired writer that it meant one thing to Abraham and 
 another to his seed 1 But he will not tell us. He finds it easier to 
 raise quibbles and throw dust than to answer objections. But no 
 doubt he is wise in steering clear of rocks. 
 
 My opponent admits that the Church is the kingdom of God, and 
 says no one can enter into it but Abraham's spiritual seed, or such as 
 are born again. But Christ says (Luke 18 : 16), concerning little 
 children, " of such is the kingdom of God ; " I therefore infer from 
 my opponent's own premises that little children belong to the Church, 
 are born again, and therefore Abraham's spiritual seed. Will he 
 extricate himself from this dilemma 1 
 
 My opponent's quotations from authorities may seem very formid- 
 able upon a superficial examination, but in point of fact they prove 
 little or nothing against my position, since, for the most part, they 
 utter my sentiments. Neander is quoted as saying, " We have all 
 
272 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution." 
 Certainly ; and that is my position exactly, hence I have not argued 
 for it as an "apostolic" institution. So, Neander is right, nor does 
 his testimony affect my position. 
 
 Dr. Scbaff is also quoted as saying that " the apostolic origin of 
 infant baptism is denied not only by Baptists but also by many Psedo- 
 baptist divines." Evidently the intention is to impress the audience 
 that Dr. Schaff is opposed to infant baptism. But he gives an 
 elaborate argument in favor of it in his encyclopaedia, and the quota- 
 tion from him proves nothing that I do not cordially admit. I do not 
 claim that infant baptism is of apostolic origin. Dr. Bledsoe's testi- 
 mony also agrees exactly with my own position. I "justify the rite 
 solely on the ground of logical inference, and not on any express 
 words of Christ or his apostles." Meyer does not oppose infant 
 baptism, but expresses himself somewhat doubtfully about the ground 
 on which it can be justified. And surely all men are not compelled 
 to think with the brains of the Lutheran Steitz ! 
 
 But the effort to persuade a congregation that because a man 
 admits that infant baptism is not a New Testament institution that 
 therefore he has difficulty in finding it in the Bible is a dishonest 
 trick, unworthy of a Cliristian man, since Paedo-baptists the world 
 over, almost with one consent, hold and teach that infants are 
 baptized because they are included in the covenant God made with 
 Abraham that in his seed (Christ) all the families of the earth should 
 be blessed. 
 
 [Time expired.'] 
 
 MR. HARDING'S SIXTH REPLY. 
 
 Just before closing my last speech I opened up a matter that I 
 want to finish now, lest I should forget it, viz., the testimony of Dr. 
 A. T. Ble isoe. I doubt if there was ever a more learned, or a more 
 candid man among the Methodists of the United States than Dr. 
 Bledsoe. His " Theodicy " is' the clearest, the most profound, and 
 the most powerful refutation of Calvinism that I have ever seen. At 
 the time of his death, which occurred a few years ago, he was the 
 editor of the quarterly magazine published in the interests of his 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 273 
 
 Church, The Southern Review. In this Review he published an 
 article on infant baptism, which led to the discussion of the question 
 in a number of articles by himself and Mr. C. W. Miller, a brother 
 in his Church. The following quotations are taken from Dr. Bledsoe's 
 articles. He says : 
 
 " With all our searching, we have been unable to find in the New 
 Testament a single exjjress declaration, or word, in favor of infant 
 baptism." {Southern Review., vol. 14, p. 334.) 
 
 He then quotes from Dr. Jacob, of the Church of England, as 
 follows : 
 
 " However reasonably we may be convinced that we find in the 
 Christian Scriptures the fundamental idea from which infant baptism 
 was afterward developed, and by which it may now be justified, it 
 ought to he distinctly acknowledged that it is not an apostolic ordinance." 
 (Southern Review, vol. 14, pp. 334-5.) 
 
 On page 335 Dr. Bledsoe continues : 
 
 " Neander concedes the point that infant baptism is not an apostolic 
 ordinance. "We might, if necessary, adduce the admission of many 
 other profoundly learned Pfedo-baptists, that the doctrine is not found 
 in the New Testament, either in express terms, or by implication 
 from any portion of its language." 
 
 On page 336 he says : " Before the time of Teitullian (A.D. 200) 
 the practice of infant baptism is nowhere distinctly mentioned by any 
 writer of the Church." 
 
 On page 339 he adds : " However strange it may seem, the fact is 
 that the first father, or writer, by whom the practice is noticed, con- 
 demns it as having no foundation either in reason or revelation." 
 
 On page 169 of vol. 15 he says : " We should, if possible, be glad to 
 find this custom mentioned by all the early writers of the Church — 
 by Hermas, by Justin Martyr, by Irenseus, and all the rest. But 
 after the most careful and conscientious investigation, we have been 
 able to find no such corroboration of the views we hold, nor do we 
 need it." 
 
 In vol. 16, p. 226, the Doctor gives his reason for practicing infant 
 baptism. He says : 
 
 *' We here reach at last the great moral ground for infant baptism, 
 which is clearly deducible from the Scriptures — namely, that our 
 little children have been redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb; 
 that they are therefore the children of God, and as such are entitled 
 to the seal of the everlasting covenant of the promise." 
 
 He does not claim any express command for it, nor an example of 
 18 
 
274 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 it, in the Bible ; he says in the most positive way that no such 
 authority can be found. He says that in this position Knapp, Jacob, 
 Neander, Watson, Wesley, and " hundreds of learned Ppedo-baptists " 
 agree with him. He then says that as infants have been redeemed by 
 the blood of Jesus, they are children of Clod, and, as such, are entitled 
 to baptism. 
 
 What an unfortunate position Pfvdo-baptist ministers occupy I 
 Although the learned Steitz s-ays, "Among scientifical exegetes it is 
 regarded as an established conclusion that not a trace of infant 
 baptism can be discovered in the New Testament ;" although Neander 
 says, "Baptism was administered at first only to adults. . . . We 
 have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institu- 
 tion ;" although the great Meyer says, " Of it no trace is found in the 
 New Testament ; . . . but it is an institution of the Church 
 which gradually arose in post-apostolic times ; " although Stuart says, 
 " Commands, or plain and certain examples in the New Testament 
 relative to it I do not find ; " although Dr. Bledsoe says, " But yet, 
 with all our searching, we have been unable to find in the New Testa- 
 ment a single- express declaration, or word, in favor of infant 
 baptism ; '" and adds, " Hundreds of learned Psedo-baptists have come 
 to the same conclusion;" although Dr. SchafF says, "The apostolic 
 origin of infant baptism is denied not only by the Baptists, but also 
 by many Psedo-baptist divines:" although these learned and pro- 
 found Bible students thus testify, Pjedo-baptist ministers must raise 
 their hands to heaven, and baptize infants in the name of Christ, 
 claiming to do it by His authority, when He never uttered one word 
 about it nor performed a single such baptism in His life. It is a 
 fearful thing to do ! 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson thinks that if this case were given to a jury, it would 
 be constrained to decide in his favor. Let us see about that. He is 
 here to show that Jesus Christ requires infant baptism, and that it 
 has been practiced from the days of His apostles till now. Did 
 Christ say anything about infant baptism 1 No. Did He ever 
 practice infant baptism ? No ; there is no proof that He ever did. 
 Did any of His apostles ever say anything about it 1 No. Did they 
 ever practice it 1 No, indeed ; there is not an iota of evidence to 
 show that they did. Did it begin to be practiced within ten years 
 after the last apostle died 1 No. Within twenty 1 No. Within 
 thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety years after the last 
 one died 1 No. When, then, was the practice first mentioned 1 Not 
 until one hundred years after the last apostle died. But who says 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 275 
 
 there is to be found no mention of it for one hundred years after 
 John died ? Many of the greatest and most learned Pjedo-baptists that 
 ever lived, some of whom have just been quoted in your hearing. 
 Moreover, neither Mr. Wilkinson here, nor any other man, has ever 
 been able to produce, and present to the people, an earlier mention of 
 it than that of Tertullian, 
 
 Suppose, my friends, you were a jury, and that I were to endeavor 
 to prove to you that any great teacher of the past, Socrates for 
 instance, had taught a certain doctrine : you would inquire of me, 
 "Is this doctrine mentioned in his writings'?" " No," I reply, " it is 
 not." "He had many personal followers," you would say, " who sat 
 at his feet and learned of him ; did any of them mention the 
 doctrine?" "In so far as I know they never did." "But these 
 pupils of Socrates also had pupils of their own ; did any of them ever 
 mention this doctrine?" "Not that I ever heard of." " Well, sir," 
 you would inquire, " who was the first man to mention your doctrine 1 ' 
 Suppose I should be constrained to say, "The first clear and unmis- 
 takable mention of my doctrine, that any one has ever been able to 
 find, is made by a man who wrote one hundred years after the last 
 pupil of Socrates had died ; " would you be able to decide from this 
 testimony that I had made out my case 1 that I had proven that 
 Socrates taught the doctrine, and that his followers practiced it ? 
 
 Now that is Mr. Wilkinson's case exactly : he wants to show that 
 Christ taught infant baptism, and that the apostles practiced it ; but 
 he cannot find a mention of it by Christ, nor by His apostles, nor 
 by any one else, until one hundred years after the death of the last 
 apostle. 
 
 Almost every passage of Scripture that is relied upon to prove 
 infant baptism, when carefully examined, clearly shows that the 
 practice was unknown at the time it was written. Consider this one, 
 which is so often quoted in favor of the practice ; " Then were brought 
 unto Him little children, that He should put His hands on them, and 
 pray ; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little 
 children, and forbid them not to come unto Me ; for of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven. And He laid His hands on them, and departed thence." 
 Matt. 19 : 13-15. I can easily imagine the feeling that moved these 
 mothers to press through the crowd, bringing their little ones for a 
 blessing. When General Jackson passed through my town, many 
 years ago, before I was born, several mothers pressed through the 
 surging throngs to the great man, that he might caress their children. 
 But here was a greater than General Jackson : a mighty prophet of 
 
276 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 the Lord, a marvelous Avorker of miracles, a man who spake as man 
 never spake before, stood in their midst ; this man had power with 
 God as none other had ever had. No wonder these women bring their 
 darlings to Him for a blessing ! But what blessing do they want ? 
 and how much 1 They want every blessing that the Master will give 
 — all that He will give. But the disciples of Jesus interpose, and 
 forbid them to come. Then the Master cries, Forbid them not : let 
 them come : for of such is the kingdom of heaven. He laid His 
 hands on them, and prayed, and then departed. Why did He not 
 baptize them 1 If there had been a blessing in baptism for the 
 children, would He not have given it to them 1 How did it happen 
 that the apostles opposed the coming of the children 1 If they had 
 been accustomed to see Jesus baptize infants would they not have 
 urged the mothers to bring them along'? Here are two facts that are 
 evident to my mind : (1) If there had been a blessing in baptism for 
 infants, Jesus would have baptized these; (2) If His followers had 
 been accustomed to see Him baptize infants, they would not have 
 opposed the bringing forward of these. Suppose Jesus were to re- 
 turn to the earth to-day, would He practice infant baptism 1 Who 
 can believe that He would, seeing that He did not do it when He was 
 here 1 That episode forever settles the question as to whether infant 
 bapt'sm had been taught by Christ. He blessed the children, and 
 that is what He would do if He were here now. 
 
 A gentleman, in passing out from the meeting this afternoon, I was 
 told, said that if Tertullian (A.D. 2U0) mentioned infant baptism 
 (and all agree that he did), it must have been practiced in his day. 
 But this conclusion does not necessarily follow, as the following 
 illustration very clearly shows : Nearly every Church in the land has 
 been more or less troubled by the instrumental music question. 
 " Shall we use the organ in the public worship or not 1" is a question 
 that has divided many a congregation. Was an organ ever introduced 
 into the worship of a congregation without any discussion, any mention 
 at all 1 Never. I say, an innovation is always mentioned before it 
 is adopted. A church will not bring in a new practice without any 
 consideration, or discussion of it. In some sections of the country a 
 discussion for a year or two has taken place, and the congregation has 
 been appealed to more than once b( fore the instrument lias been 
 allowed to come in. In one town that 1 know it was placed in the 
 Sunday-school room about five years ago and the question as to 
 whether it sliall be used in the public worship lias been agitated more 
 or less ever since ; it has not been admitted yet, but probably will be. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 277 
 
 In the very nature of things, all innovations are mentioned before they 
 are used. Tertullian does not say that infant baptism was practiced 
 in his time. He is inquiring indignantly what they want to baptize 
 them for. He says, " What need their guiltless age make such haste 
 to the forgiveness of sins'?" and he explains, " Let them come when 
 they are grown up ; let them come when they understand ; when they 
 are instructed whither it Is that they come ; let them be made 
 Christians when they can know Christ." Wall's His. Ivf. Bap., vol. 1, 
 p. 58. He talks like one who is opposing an innovation that has 
 been suggested, and that he thinks would be foolish and hurtful. 
 Ten years later Origen mentions it as " a thing that causes frequent 
 inquiries among the brethren." And he explains that " infants are 
 baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He says, " By the sacrament of 
 baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away." Walls His. Ivf. 
 Bap., vol. 1, p. 65. But, as Meyer and others have explained in your 
 hearing, the practice did not become general till the time of Augustine 
 (A.D. 400) ; and then only through the mighty influence of his 
 doctrine that "the unbaptized are irrevocably damned." 
 
 But I would remind you again that if infant baptism had been first 
 mentioned fifty years after John's death, or five years, or five days, — 
 if it had been first mentioned even so much as one day after his 
 death, it would have been just that much too late. If it had been 
 first mentioned during the life of John, that would have been early 
 enough ; but it would have been necessary then to show that it was 
 mentioned approvingly bij a proper man, that is by an apostle of the 
 Lord Jesus ; for even during the time of the apostles, Paul teaches 
 that the "mystery of iniquity " was already working in the Chui'ches. 
 (See 2 Thess. 2:7.) True, the first pope was not appointed till the 
 seventh century (if my memory is correct), but the false teaching 
 which culminated in his appointment began in apostolic times, as the 
 Scriptures clearly show. 
 
 But, argues my opponent, Tertullian may have known Irenseus, and 
 Irenseus knew Polycarp, and Polycarp knew John. Just so ; and 
 John did not favor infant baptism, nor did Polycarp, nor did Irenseus, 
 nor did Tertullian : only one of them, as we have seen, the last one 
 of them, even so much as mentions it ; and he opposed it in such a 
 way as to leave it doubtful whether it had ever been practiced at all, 
 or only suggested for adoption. These fathers were Latins ; it is 
 necessary to go to a later date, and to another tongue, that is to the 
 Greek, to find the first favorable mention of the practice. Origen 
 wrote in Greek. Here we have quite a gap between John and the 
 
278 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 first advocate of infant baptism. George Washington died within less 
 than a hundred years ago ; I was born thirty-six years ago ; the 
 English is the language of both, and our homes are not very far 
 apart ; yet I have nevei- seen any one who had seen Washington ; 
 so far as I know, I have never seen any one who had seen any one 
 who had seen Washington. But I know that the people of the United 
 States generally labor under ^'ery erroneous notions about him ; for 
 they have the idea that he was a wondei-fully peaceful, gentle, pious 
 general ; whei'eas, as I have recently learned on good authority, when 
 in a bad humor — and he was very high-tempered — he would swear 
 like a trooper. 
 
 I call your attention to aiiother illustration which shows haw 
 universally and how quickly an innovation may gain ground in a 
 Church : within less than half a century, in England, the habit of 
 dipping was changed to sprinkling almost universally. Let me read 
 to you from Dr. Gale, who lived about 170 yeai's ago, on this point. 
 He says : 
 
 "You are not to imagine this practice [that is. Infant Baptism] 
 was established altogether, and at once, in as great a latitude as it is 
 at present. It began, doubtless, at first, as all other innovations do, 
 with only some little variations in opinions, and then passed to as 
 little in practice ; and so, by very short steps, at length attained 
 unobserved the great reputation it has now indeed for a long time 
 enjoyed. And all this might be done in a very short time, as I have 
 often observed to you it happened in the manner of administering this 
 sacrament here in England ; for dipping was wholly laid aside, and 
 sprinkling used in its stead, in less than half a century (even as our ad- 
 versaries themselves still confess), though directly contrary to Christ's 
 direction, to a decree of a synod under Kenwolfe, the express words of 
 the Service book, and without any allowance, etc. ; and surely no altera- 
 tion can l)e moie bold than this is." Gale's Reflections on Wall's Hist, 
 of Inf. Bap., vol. 2, page 347. A hundred years is a very long time ; 
 a great many innovations can come into the services of a Church in 
 that time. John was about one hundred years old when he died ; he 
 must have been superannuated foi' at least twenty-five years ; aftei- 
 this, one hundred years pass, and infant l>aptism is first spoken of ; 
 then ten years more pass, and it is first favorably spoken of ; then tln-ee 
 hundred years passed away before the practice l^ecame general. So 
 testify Meyer, and other most learned Psedo-baptists. 
 
 Now my notes on Mr. Wilkinson's speech bring me again to the 
 case of Irenaius. He tried hard to show that this writer refers to, if 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 279 
 
 he does not distinctly mention, infant baptism. Irenteus says : •' Foi- 
 He came to save all persons by Himself ; all, I mean, who by Him 
 are regenerated unto God ; infants and little ones, and children and 
 youths, and elder persons." 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson claims that by the word " regenerated " Irenseus 
 means baptized. According to that interpretation Irenseus is made to 
 teach that Jesus came to save only the baptized — that unbaptized 
 infants would be lost ; but that doctrine did not pi-evail till later ; 
 Tertullian, writing about thirty years after Irenseus, talks about the 
 "innocent age" of infancy. Hear the great Methodist, Dr. Bledsoe, 
 on this passage, and on the common Pjedo-baptist argument from it : 
 He says : " This inference is bad, for, in oi'der to make the testimony 
 of Irenaeus conclusive, it must be shown, not that he commonly, but that 
 he always, calls baptism by the name of regeneration. Nay, it must be 
 moreover shown, on the other hand, that he never used the word 
 ' regeneration ' without meaning baptism. For if, in his vocabulary, 
 the tenn ' regeneration ' is sometimes applied to other things as well 
 as baptism, how do we know but it is so applied in the passage under 
 consideration ? The argument proceeds on the supposition, or the 
 assumption, that, in the language of Irenseus, baptism means regenera- 
 tion, and regeneration means baptism. But this assumption is purely 
 gratuitous ; it is not proved ; and, besides, it is false." Southern Re- 
 view, vol. 14, page 338. On the next page he adds, "Before his 
 (Tertullian's) time, A.D. 200, there is not an allusion to the custom 
 from which its existence may be fairly inferred." 
 
 Irenteus calls Christ's commission to His apostles to teach and baptize, 
 " the commission of regenerating unto God ; " and he quotes it thus : 
 " Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." With him, evidently, in the 
 process of regeneration, when baptism came in at all it came after 
 teaching. To be regenerated is to be born again — born of water and 
 of Spii-it : but, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
 begotten of God," (1 John 5:1, revised version). Now, as the. be- 
 getting is the first step in the process of birth, in regeneration the 
 very first thing is faith — a heartfelt conviction that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Son of God. 
 
 But Mr. Wilkinson thinks that if we reject infant baptism l)ecause 
 Tertullian opposed it, we must also reject the baptism of widows. I 
 don't reject it because Tertullian opposed it ; I reject it because there 
 is not one word in the Word of God about it ; on the contrary, Christ's 
 instructions in the commission are to teach and then to baptize those 
 
280 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 who believe. So when I have taught, I am ready to baptize all who 
 want to obey the Lord. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson argues that as Tertullian may have known Irenteus, 
 who knew Polycarp, who knew John, and as Tertullian mentions 
 infant baptism, it must have come down from the apostles. Tertul- 
 lian, and the people of his time, he thinks, were so closely linked with 
 the apostolic age that they could not be mistaken about this matter. 
 Well, how did it happen, then, that Tertullian was opposing infant 
 baptism ? He did oppose it as being unnecessary and foolish, as being 
 without foundation in reason or revelation. Now, if infant baptism is 
 an apostolic institution, it is clear that, in spite of his proximity to the 
 apostolic age, he had imbibed false doctrines, else he would not have so 
 earnestly opposed an apostolic institution. Why, my friends, there 
 were many false doctrines and improper practices current then, notwith- 
 standing only a hundred years had passed since John died. Some 
 believed that if a man was not baptized he would be lost. That was 
 generally believed. But Mr. Wilkinson ■svill not receive it because 
 Tertullian held to it. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Was not that doctrine right 1 
 Mr. Harding — Do you believe it ? 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Do you believe it 1 
 
 Mr. Harding — Is he under the impression that if infants are not 
 baptized they will be damned 1 Perhaps we will be compelled to 
 conclude yet that he baptizes babies to save them from hell, as Origen, 
 who lived in those days, and whose writings are ranked only ten years 
 later than Tertullian's, claimed that they must be baptized "for the 
 forgiveness of sins," that the pollution of their birth might be taken 
 away ! Why, there were people in the days of Tertullian who doubted 
 whether any of the apostles would be saved, except Paul, because, 
 they argued, it did not appear that any of the others had been bap- 
 tized. They believed there was some magical influence in the water. 
 Do I believe that 1 Certainly not. Watei- cannot wash away sin ; 
 I never thought so ; I never said so ; nor do my brethren believe that 
 it can. No, no ; as a servant of the Lord and a lover of the truth, I 
 affirm water cannot wash away sin. Christ washes away sin. Christ 
 saves all who obey Him. "Being made perfect, He became the 
 author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him," says Paul at 
 Hebrews 5 : 9. Unless baptism springs out of a loAing trustfulness 
 in Christ, out of a heart changed by faith, it is worthless ; if it is not 
 an expression of faith, it is nothing ; it is the obedimice, not the water, 
 that reaches the blessing. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 281 
 
 But those who introduced infant baptism (Origen and those of his 
 day, for, though Tertullian mentioned it, he opposed it) thought that 
 by it human depravity — original sin — was washed away. According 
 to their notions, water, without faith, love, hope, knowledge, obe- 
 dience, or anything else, reached the blessing. Even John Wesley 
 thought that by, or in, baptism the infant's pollution was washed 
 away. And to this day Methodists, in baptizing babies, pray God to 
 wash them, sanctify them, that, being delivered from His wrath, they 
 may be received into the ark of Christ's Church. They are a nice set 
 of people to find fault w^ith anybody for believing in the power of 
 water ! 
 
 Yes, the ancients argued, infants are born sinners, and as they 
 cannot believe, nor love, nor obey, nor even eat the Lord's Supper, we 
 will baptize them, and xcash away their sins. And then the little 
 wafers were invented for this purpose, I presume, that as soon as 
 possible the little ones might partake of the Supper. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson wound up his address by another appeal to the 
 •covenant of circumcision. Ditzler says this covenant has nothing to 
 do with infant baptism; Stuart says the man is "unwary" who 
 endeavors to make an argument from it in favor of the lite ; but it is 
 Mr. Wilkinson's chief staff, and a broken reed it is. Figures, figures 
 that will not lie, show^ clearly that the covenant made with Abraham, 
 which was fulfilled in Christ, was not the covenant of circumcision. 
 At Galatians 3:17, Paul teaches that the covenant which was con- 
 firmed in Christ w^as given 430 years before the giving of the law at 
 »Sinai ; but the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17) was given 406 
 years before the law ; therefore it cannot be the one confirmed in 
 Christ — the one under which we live. It was made when Abraham 
 was 99 years old. If you go back to the time that Abram was 75 
 years old (Genesis 1 2), you find God making a covenant with him ; 
 this was just 430 years before the giving of the law, and 24 years 
 before the giving of the covenant of circumcision. Look at the 
 chronology as given in your Bibles when you go home, and you will 
 see this. 
 
 From the time of the calling of Abraham out of Haran to the going 
 down into Egypt Avas 215 years ; the sojourn in Egypt was 215 years ; 
 the whole period from the departure from Haran (when this covenant 
 found at Genesis 12 was given) to the departure from Egypt (when 
 the law was given), is thus shown to be 430 years. And these facts 
 would forever cut out the covenant of circumcision as the Christian 
 covenant, if nothing else did. 
 
282 
 
 REPORT OF DKBATK 
 
 I believe I have now answered pretty fully every matter of much 
 consequence in Mr. Wilkinson's speech, but there are several little 
 things that deserve a few words. 
 
 1. He said that I, like Tertulliau, have "embraced the superstitious 
 belief that as sins were blotted out by baptism, no sins committed 
 after baptism could be forgiven." I hold to no such belief. The 
 statement is false. Sins are blotted out by Jesus Christ, not by bap- 
 tism ; when one sins after baptism — if he repents and prays — God vnW 
 forgive him : I, as well as all of my brethren, so teach, and if Mr. 
 Wilkinson does not know it, he is even a greater ignoramus than I 
 take him to be. 
 
 2. He says, " My opponent has the hardihood to stand before you 
 and declare that Tertullian, A.D. 200, was the first man to make any 
 reference to infant baptism." Yes, I have that hardihood. So had 
 Meyer, the greatest of all the ISTew Testament commentators that ever 
 lived ; and so had Bledsoe. Neither one of them could find any pas- 
 sage in Justin Martyr, or Irenaius, or in any other writer before Ter- 
 tullian, from which the practice could be fairly or reasonably deduced. 
 After considering the passages upon which Mr. Wilkinson relies, they 
 frankly state that they do not teach the practice, that its existence 
 cannot be inferred from them. But you, my friends, have heard the 
 extracts from these fathers as they have been read by Mr-. Wilkinson 
 and myself, and, if you have paid attention, you have seen for your- 
 selves that they make no mention of infant baptism. I repeat, if Mi-. 
 Wilkinson can find any mention of infant baptism by any writer 
 before Tertullian, I will promptly give up the debate. Nor shall the 
 matter be settled by my " unsupported ipse dixit ;" if he can find such 
 a passage that will Ije received by his own Ijrethren, it will satisfy me. 
 But while the greatest and best of Paulo-baptists cannot see infant 
 l>aptism in a passage, he cannot reasonably expect me to see it there. 
 
 3. I claim that Mr. Wilkinson's proposition requires him not only 
 to trace this practice back to tlie very days of inspiration, but that he 
 is required Ijy it also to show that it was mentioned approvingly by an 
 inspired man. This claim, he says, "is misleading." I don't see how 
 it is. How can he show that it is of " Divine authority," uidess lie 
 can show that some inspired man mentioned it favorably ? I deny 
 that there is anything " mis'eadiny " in demanding inspired testimony 
 to show that anything is of Divine authority. 
 
 4. Mr. Wilkinson wants to know, if men ai-e not totally depraved 
 V)y nature (the Discipline says they are), how it happens that some 
 are idiots and some wise ; how it happens that infants often display 
 
ON THK MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 283 
 
 such woful depravity and violent tempers even before they can walk 
 or talk 1 A strange question for him to ask me ! I should think that 
 if they are all totally depraved they would not differ in meanness at 
 all, they would be all mean alike. The man is so tangled up that his 
 mind seems to be somewhat addled. 
 
 But how are the differences that we find in the mental powers and 
 dispositions of children to be accounted for ? Easily enough, thus : 
 The physical nature of man was somewhat enfeebled by the fall ; this 
 feebleness was transmitted ; each individual adds to this weakness, 
 more or less, by his own sins ; thus, in the course of time, an almost 
 infinite number of differences arise in the bodily powers of men : 
 but the members of the body are the instruments by which the mind 
 expresses itself ; in ways that are inexplicable by man, the mind is 
 affected by making the blood impure, by injuring the nervous system, 
 by impairing the spinal cord, etc. The unsolved problem among 
 metaphysicians is this mysterious connection between mind and matter, 
 and the strange influences which each exerts upon the other ; but it 
 is a well established fact that the mind is much affected in its opera- 
 tions by the condition of the body. Thus I account for the great dif- 
 ferences in temper, etc., in young children. A child's body is im- 
 paired, its nervous system all out of fix, its stomach in an unhealthful 
 condition, and, of course, it suffers and is ci'oss ; and some people who 
 ought to know better call that "original sin ;" as well accuse a man 
 of sinning when he groans with the toothache. As long as the Divine 
 definition stands that "Sin is the transgression of the law," just so 
 long will it be evident that they who cannot understand law are sin- 
 less. 
 
 5. Mr. Wilkinson is exceedingly anxious to make it appear that the 
 authorities I quote agree with him ; and no wonder, for they are 
 among the mightiest Ptedo-baptists the world ever saw. He quotes a 
 part of Neander's testimony thus : "We have all reason for not de- 
 riving infant baptism from apostolic institution." Then he adds : 
 " Certainly ; and that is my position exactly, hence I have not argued 
 for it as an apostolic institution. So Neander is right, nor does his 
 testimony affect my position." Mr. Wilkinson is the last man who 
 ought to charge another with misrepresenting authorities. I would 
 not so misrepresent an author, as those words misrepresent Neander, 
 for the whole town of Meaford. Mr. Wilkinson's position, as you 
 know, is this : The basis for infant baptism is found in the covenants 
 of the Old Testament; that at the beginning of the Christian dis- 
 pensation baptism took the place of circumcision ; that infant baptism 
 
284 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 was practiced all along, but was not mentioned because it was not 
 necessary, for, he argues, the apostles would be sure to baptize them, 
 seeing they had been accustomed to circumcise them. That is not 
 Neander's position at all. This is his testimony : " Baptism was ad- 
 ministered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive 
 baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not 
 deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recognition 
 of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition, serves 
 to confirm this hypothesis." Neander's Hist, of the Christian Religion 
 and Church, Vol. I, p. 311. On the next page (312) Neander argues 
 that in the time of Tertullian, one hundred years after John died, 
 "the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolical in- 
 stitution." So, you see, Neander, like Meyer, holds that it is of post> 
 apostolic origin ; that is, that it began to be practiced after the days 
 of inspiration. If Mr. Wilkinson holds to that position, he has been 
 converted since this debate began. 
 
 But does the gentleman know what the word " apostolic " means, 
 when he so readily agrees that baptism is not " an apostolic institu- 
 tion 1. " I doubt it. The word means, " Relating to, or taught by, the 
 apostles ; according to the apostles." Does he mean to say that infant 
 baptism had no relation to the apostles, that it was not taught by 
 them, that it is not according to the teaching of the apostles 1 If so, 
 he might as well give up this debate. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — I will first reply to my 
 opponent's remarks relative to the covenant. I showed in a former 
 address that Paul in Rom. 4 quotes the very language of the covenant 
 made with Abraham, of which circumcision was the token, to prove 
 that that covenant was a covenant of spiritual blessings procured by 
 faith in Christ. This is the covenant recorded in the 17th chapter of 
 Genesis. It would be of enormous value to my opponent if he could 
 prove that the covenant of which circumcision is the seal, as set forth 
 in that chapter, was not the Christian covenant, and that Paul quoted 
 the language of a covenant not found in the 17th of Genesis. But 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 285 
 
 the two are linked together so unmistakably that no man can dissolve 
 the link. My argument is not that there were 430 years between the 
 17th of Genesis and the giving of the law. That period of 430 years 
 is to be reckoned from the time God called Abram out of Ur of the 
 Chaldees and promised to give him the land of Canaan for an ever- 
 lasting possession. Twenty-four years afterwards Abraham entered 
 Canaan, and God repeated, amplified and ratified the same covenant 
 with him. The covenant mentioned in the 17th of Genesis is there- 
 fore only a repetition and confirmation of the covenant mentioned in 
 the 12th chapter. If my opponent will disprove this I will give up 
 the debate on this proposition. I quoted from Galatians 3 : 8 to prove 
 that the same apostle quotes from Genesis 12th chapter, evidently for 
 the purpose of showing that the covenant there recorded is the Chris- 
 tian covenant, hence there are not two covenants, but one. You 
 never read about "covenants made with Abraham," but the "coven- 
 ant." The same blessings are promised in both, but the seal was not 
 given until he got to the promised land. God did not propose to 
 attach the seal to the covenant while Abraham remained among his 
 heathen ancestors, illustrating the truth that the seal of God's spiritual 
 covenant is to be applied to no one until he will leave his evil associa- 
 tions and pursuits, and go out by faith in pursuit of the inheritance 
 promised him, as Abraham did. When individuals are brought into 
 the spiritual inheritance of the saints then we put the seal upon them. 
 Get this truth, and the identity of the covenants in Genesis 1 2 and 1 7 
 clearly before your minds, and the doctrine of infant baptism will 
 appear as clear as the noonday sun. You can then understand the 
 bearing of the passages I have read upon the subject of infant baptism, 
 and the reason why no command to baptize them was given in the 
 New Testament. There was a very good reason, because God had put 
 the children in the covenant in the days of Abraham, and commanded 
 that the seal should be applied to them. He had kept them in the 
 covenant and applied the seal during the old dispensation ; He had 
 said that this should be an " everlasting covenant ; " therefore the 
 children must remain in the covenant and receive the seal. My 
 opponent applies the everlasting covenant to the land of Canaan. But 
 according to my Bible "the things which are seen are temporal," and 
 must pass away. This evidently applies to the things that are seen 
 in Canada, the United States, and even in Kentucky, and I presume 
 it includes the land of Canaan also, hence the land of Canaan as an 
 "everlasting possession" can only be intended in the sense of a type 
 and pledge of a spiritual and heavenly inheritance. In harmony with 
 
286 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 this the apostle says, "the things which are not seen are eternal." 
 And in Hebrews 11th chapter, that the fathers who lived in the land 
 of Canaan " all died in faith, not having received (realized) the pro- 
 mises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and 
 embraced them, and confessed that they were pilgrims and strangers 
 on the earth." They "desired a better country, that is, an heavenly." 
 With all this agrees the testimony of Peter that " the elements shall 
 melt with fervent heat, and the heavens and earth shall pass away." 
 But God has " begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrec- 
 tion of Jesus Christ from the dead to an inheritance incorruptible, 
 undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven" etc. And 
 our Lord, when He left the world and went to the Father, said, "I go 
 to prepare a place for you." Now, if He intended His people to stay 
 here forever, it is strange that He should "go away" somewhere 
 else to " prepare a place " for them. I have shown from Romans 
 -1:11 that the seal of the covenant as applied to Abraham was the 
 sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
 had before he was circumcised. This same " token " of the covenant, 
 therefore, which is recorded in Genesis 17th chapter, and sealed to 
 Abraham the promise of earthly inheritance, was also a "token," or 
 "sign "and "seal" of spiritual blessing which prepared him for his 
 spiritual inheritance in heaven. But if Abraham is to inherit an 
 eternal home in heaven, I don't know what value an eternal home on 
 earth would be, hence I infer that the earthly was given merely as an 
 earnest, or type and pledge of the heavenly. Then observe that the 
 same sign and seal that was applied to Abraham was also applied to 
 Isaac as an infant, and must have sealed the same blessing. It sealed 
 justitication to the former, therefore it sealed justification to the latter. 
 And that infants are regarded as in the same moral state as adult 
 Ijelievers is evident from Romans 5 : 18, which declares that "by the 
 righteousness of one (Christ) the free gift came upon all men unto 
 justification of life." If this be true, then infants, through the atone- 
 ment, inherit justification, of which circumcision is the seal, and it 
 was to seal this Ijlessing to them that they were circumcised. Besides, 
 our Lord distinctly declares that " Except ye (adults) be converted 
 and become as little children ye can in no case enter into the kingdom 
 of heaven." (Matt. 18 : 3.) We have thus to come back to the same 
 moral condition as infants in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. 
 We must be born again and become as little children, and thus the 
 child-character is made the basis of admission into the kingdom. The 
 children, through the atonement, are justified in the sight of God and 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 287 
 
 stand acquitted before Him. There need be no dispute on the subject 
 of original sin, for, according to Paul, in the eyes of the law all men 
 are condemned. According to Christ, however, all children stand 
 before the court acquitted of all guilt and sin, being justified because 
 Christ died for them. My opponent is full of quotations from the 
 works of uninspired men, but one page of inspired truth is worth 
 more than a car-load of such testimony. 
 
 With respect to the commission, my opponent referred to it to show 
 that if, when the mothers brought the children to Christ, infant bap- 
 tism had been practiced, Christ would have given the children His 
 blessing in that form. But he is evidently mistaken in this, for we 
 are told that "Jesus baptized not, but His disciples." It was no part 
 of His mission to administer the ordinances of the Church beyond 
 appointing them, but, as a matter of fact. Christian baptism was not, 
 at that time, appointed. He, therefore, just took them in His arms 
 and blessed them, and thereby showed that infants were capable of 
 receiving the Divine blessing. John the Baptist was filled with the 
 Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, and surely Christ could put the 
 Holy Ghost into the hearts of the children ; and if He did not give 
 them the Divine Spirit, will my opponent tell us what He did give 
 them 1 And if they are capable of enjoying the spiritual reality, 
 surely they are entitled to the outward shadow, or symbol. 
 
 My opponent quoted me as saying that circumcision and baptism 
 were for the same thing. What I said was this : that circumcision 
 and baptism were for the same thing so far as the spiritual iinport 
 of the two was concerned. I never have denied, on the contrary I 
 have affirmed, that circumcision in one sense was peculiar to the Jews, 
 but in its spiritual significance, viz., as an outward sign of regenera- 
 tion, it is applicable to all who are in Christ. I do not say that those 
 who received it, except little children, were all in a condition to 
 receive it ; but the children always were. 
 
 My opponent says that T said that infants were born pure as the 
 angels. If I did, what of it ^ I say so now. They come into this 
 world under an economy of redemption that was provided for them 
 before they were born. I cannot tell you in what way or to what 
 extent little children are blessed, but I know that when they ai-e born 
 and die in the same day, and even in the same hour, they are saved in 
 heaven because Christ died for them. I believe the provisions of 
 redemption take away the imputed curse. Adam Avas placed undei- 
 law. The penalty was death, and all who were born of Adam were undei- 
 the penalty of the law until an economy of grace was established, and 
 
288 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 no man, woman, or child would ever have been saved unless God had 
 provided an economy of grace for them and met the demands of their 
 spiritual condition. Now we can sing, so far as our connection with 
 Adam is concerned, "Free from the law." We are "not under the 
 law, but under grace." When my opponent says that I am respon- 
 sible for having children re-born l)efore they are born, he talks 
 nonsense. Every individual born into the world is born under a dis- 
 pensation of grace. They were made sinners in the eye of the law, 
 they are made righteous by the provisions of grace. 
 
 My opponent's quotation from Acts 15 is a little too long to read, 
 but I want to say that it distinctly establishes my position. One 
 verse shows that the elders of the Church in Jerusalem decided that 
 the yoke of bondage which had been imposed on their fathers liefore 
 the Christian dispensation was now removed, and that yoke of ])ond- 
 age involved circumcision. The question l>efore the council was as to 
 whether Gentile converts should be circumcised or not : it was not a 
 question about Jews. Peter said to those who wanted the Gentiles 
 circumcised, "Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the 
 disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to Ijear." Now, 
 if it was a yoke which neither these Jews nor their fathers were able 
 to bear, how is it that they are still bearing it, by divine appointment, 
 and are to bear it to the end of time 1 Will my opponent please tell 
 us 1 Besides, Peter expi-essly declares in verse 9, that God " put no 
 difference between us (Jews) and them (the Gentiles)," yet my oppo- 
 nent would persuade you that Pe*er was mistaken. Paul says in Col. 
 2 : H that God had blotted out "the hand-writing of ordinances that 
 was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, 
 nailinf' it to the cross." He also asks, " If I have preached circum- 
 cision why do I yet suffer persecution, because then is the offence of 
 the cross ceased." 
 
 With respect to the circumcision of the heart : my opponent says 
 that it is made without hands ; that if baptism is in place of circum- 
 cision how is it that circumcision is made without hands and baptism 
 made with hands 1 I am sorry for his .sake that he made this state- 
 ment. It betrays a disposition to mislead. Ritual circumcision is 
 made with hands, and ritual baptism is made with hands ; circumci- 
 sion of the heart is without hands, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit 
 is without hands. Why does he compare the spiritual condition in 
 one case with the ceremonial condition in tlie other? This is calcu- 
 lated to convey a very erroneous impression with respect to thus 
 religious truth, and proves either that he wanted to mislead you or is 
 unable to distinguish between things that differ. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 289 
 
 My opponent lias been claiming in this debate that the burial in 
 baptism mentioned in Romans and Colossians was ritual baptism. 
 Listen to what Paul says : "We are circumcised with the circumcision 
 made without hands." That is the one made with the sword of the 
 Spirit, according to my opponent's own teachings. Now this circum- 
 cision which is made with the sword of the Spirit, is made, according 
 to Paul, because we were buried with Him in baptism. The passage 
 in the Revised Version reads, "In whom ye wei'e also circumcised 
 with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the 
 body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ ; having been buried 
 with him in baptism," etc. I have claimed all through that the burial 
 baptism was a spiritual baptism by which we were brought into fel- 
 lowship with Christ. We are circumcised with spiritual circumcision, 
 having been baptized loith spiritual baptism. Therefore spii'itual cir- 
 cumcision and spiritual baptism are the same operation, described under 
 two forms. I hope he will take hold of these points without gloves 
 and deal with them like a man. He will find plenty to do without 
 reading authorities. I have not time to read over the whole Metho- 
 dist Discipline and haggle over what my opponent thinks it and 
 Wesley taught. Perhaps he is a competent and impartial authority 
 on the subject, and perhaps he is not. I am conscious of having 
 taught the doctrines of the Methodist Church for twenty-two years, 
 or have tried to teach them, and I have never been accused by my 
 brethren with teaching anything contrary to them, but I have never 
 taught the doctrines imputed to Methodism by my opponent. More- 
 over, ours are the doctrines, to a large extent, of all the great evan- 
 gelical Churches of the day, especially on the subject of baptism and 
 original sin. Nor am I going to enter into any farther defence of what 
 is contained in the notes of John Wesley and in the Methodist Discip- 
 line, for this would take me away from the subject under discussion 
 to the gratification of my opponent. That is a question to be settled 
 elsewhere and in another way. 
 
 As regards the quotation made from Dr. Moses Stuart, I say my 
 opponent conveyed a wrong impression, and if he wishes to vindicate 
 his character for honesty and consistency he should show that my 
 quotation is not correct. 
 
 Mr. Harding — What quotation 1 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — With respect to the mode of baptism. I quoted 
 
 what Moses Stuart said to show that my opponent's quotation from 
 
 him did not express the real sentiments of the writer, and unless he 
 
 can extricate himself from the dilemma, he is convicted of an attempt, 
 
 19 
 
290 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 either through ignorance or dishonesty, to mislead this congregation. 
 Now, I hope he will not neglect this point again. 
 
 My opponent denies that infants are redeemed by Christ, yet he 
 admits that they will be raised from the dead by Him, which 1 hold 
 to be inconsistent, since death is the result of sin, and the resurrection 
 is one of the re.sults of i-edemption. If, therefoi-e, Christ did not die 
 for them, how can they be made alive in any sense through Him 1 
 The Bible says we die in Adam physically. I claim, and have long 
 claimed, that on the day Adam sinned he also died spiritually. I am 
 aware that he lived in the flesh for 430 years afterwards. But in a 
 spiritual sense Adam died on that day and was consequently cut off 
 from God. And how can his descendants get back unless they are 
 restored by Christ 1 And this applies to the body as well as the soul. 
 My opponent says that babies are not among the redeemed in heaven. 
 Yet Christ is to bring back (redeem) their bodies from the grave. 
 But he says they are dead only because Adam was driven away from 
 the tree of life. But this of itself was a figure of the separation of 
 the soul from the favor of God (which is life), therefore both physical 
 and spiritual death were involved, not only upon himself, but both 
 were entailed upon his posterity, and Christ came to i^edeem us from 
 both. My opponent admits the one concerning infants and denies the 
 other. I would be glad if he would explain how the bodies of infants 
 are redeemed by Christ and not their souls. He says they suffer the 
 physical consequences but not the guilt of sin. If a little child dies 
 physically because Adam sinned, is it any more unreasonable to sup- 
 pose that they die spiritually] The apostle says that "as by one man 
 sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death hath passed 
 upon all men for that all have sinned." Thus death affects the body 
 because of sin, and I claim it is no more unreasonable to suppose that, 
 in some way, though inexplicable to us, it also affects the soul. 
 
 And now, with regard to my opponent's elaborate quotations from 
 Dr. Bledsoe. What has he proved 1 That this most " learned " and 
 " candid " of all the Methodists of the United States, while admitting, 
 as I have done, that thei'e is no " express declaration " concerning 
 infant baptism apart from adult baptism in the New Testament, yet 
 is " reasonably convinced that we find in the Christian Scriptures the 
 fundamental idea from which infant baptism was afterward developed, 
 and Ijy which it may now be justified," and discovers "the moral 
 ground for infant l)aptism, which is clearly drdncible from the Sc7-ip- 
 tures." No wonder that he claims "hundi'cds of learned Paedo- 
 baptists " as in agreement with him, for this is substantially the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 291 
 
 position of all "learned Ptedo-baptists," hence the parade on this point 
 is something like the pig-shearing exploit, "much cry, but little wool." 
 In fact, nearly every authority he has quoted is in accord with my 
 position. They simply affirm that the ground of infant baptism is not 
 to be sought chiefly, if at all, in the New Testament, but they nearly 
 all claim it as of divine authority. A man's resources must be getting 
 pretty well played out when he has to make such an effort to extract 
 moonbeams of comfort from cucumbers." 
 
 My opponent says I am here " to show that Jesus Christ requires 
 infant baptism." He knows better. He knows I undertook to 
 establish the " divine authority " of the rite from any part of the 
 inspired record, hence he is attempting wilfully to alter my position. 
 All these petty quibbles serve to show either his desperation or his 
 dishonesty, or both. And when he repeats the shameful untruth that 
 infant baptism was not practiced within a hundred years after the 
 last apostle died, in face of the testimony I have adduced from men 
 living at the time, and especially in face of the testimony of Origen 
 that it was received as a tradition or order from the apostles, he 
 deserves to forfeit the respect of all right-minded men. And on whose 
 authority does he make such reckless statements ? On no less autho- 
 rity, forsooth, than that of the great, and wise, and immaculate Elder 
 J. A. Harding, the Kentucky evangelist ! Tell it not in Gath ! 
 
 And what analogy, let me ask, is there between Jesus Christ and 
 Socrates ? Did Socrates exist in spirit thousands of years before he 
 was incarnated, and reveal his mind to the world through the medium 
 of others 1 If so, and we are allowed to embrace these ante-incarnate 
 utterances of the philosopher, as well as those spoken by him during 
 his earthly life, then the analogy will hold good ; otherwise it is 
 unadulterated deception. And this, again, reveals the hopelessness of 
 the cause that requires such support. 
 
 My opponent's organ illustration is about of a piece with his Socra- 
 tic one. Suppose that some writer were to recommend delay in the 
 use of the organ in churches until near the close of each service, 
 would not the plain inference be that organs, in his church, were now 
 used at the commencement of the service ? If not, why recommend 
 delay 1 Will my opponent please tell ? But, as I have shown, Ter- 
 tullian ad\ased delay in the baptism of "widows" and "unmarried 
 persons " in general, and for the same reason that he recommended 
 delay in the case of infants. Therefore, if Tertullian's testimony 
 proves that infants were not baptized before his time, it equally proves 
 that widows and unmarried persons were not previously baptized. 
 
292 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 And if it proves that he was opposed to infant baptism as an unscrip- 
 tural innovation, it also and equally proves that he was opposed to 
 the baptism of these other classes as an unscriptural innovation. This 
 is where my opponent's own logic lands him. I wonder if he is willing 
 to abide by the consequences ! 
 
 My opponent says my interpretation of the word " regenerated," as 
 used by Irenseus, would imply that Christ came only to save baptized 
 persons, and consequently that little children not baptized would be 
 lost. Now, Irenfeus teaches that Christ " came to save all who by 
 Him are regenerated to God, infants, and little children," etc. ; but 
 my opponent denies that any infants are regenerated ; therefore, 
 according to his teachings, they will be lost. The question is. Did 
 Irenaeus use the term regeneration with respect to baptism at all, 
 either spiritual or ritual 1 If so, then, according to his belief, infants 
 were baptized in whatever sense he used the term. If he meant 
 spiritually, they were baptized spiritually, and if they were baptized 
 spiritually they were entitled to be baptized ritually. And if he 
 meant ritually, then his testimony is decisive that the practice existed 
 in his day. And I contend, and have proved, that both Irenseus and 
 Justin Martyr, as well as our Lord and the apostle Paul, used the 
 word regeneration with reference to baptism, and the only counter 
 testimony we have received so far is a pretended quotation from Dr. 
 Bledsoe. But if Dr. Bledsoe repudiates the testimony of Irenjeus, he 
 stands alone in it, so far as I know, among Psedo-baptist authorities. 
 Certainly Dr. Wall, whose learning and candor have been equally 
 extolled by my opponent, and who made this subject a special study, 
 claims the testimony of this father for the Paedo-baptist cause. And 
 so of the whole Pfedo-baptist world, almost without an exception. 
 Surely the testimony of one man is not to override that of the thou- 
 sands. But my opponent would like to destroy the testimony of 
 Irenpeus by making it appear that when he spoke of the " commission 
 of regenerating " he did not mean baptizing, but teaching. But I 
 deny that Christ gave His disciples any commission to teach before 
 baptizing, and if He had, I deny that to teach is to regenerate, but 
 to baptize is ; therefore He meant the commission to baptize, and not 
 to teach. 
 
 He says Tertullian opposed infant l:)aptism "as being without foun- 
 dation in reason or revelation." I simply deny the statement, and 
 call upon him for the proof. 
 
 My opponent says I impute to him the superstition that " as sins 
 were blotted out by baptism, no sins committed after baptism could 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 293 
 
 be forgiven." This he blankly denies. Wliat I impute to him is the 
 belief that sins are blotted out in baptism, which he cannot deny. 
 The whole sentence expresses Tertullian's belief. My opponent, I 
 said, had embraced the former part, and I could not see how he could 
 consistently repudiate the latter. Let him deny the real issue and 
 not a manufactured one. 
 
 Again, he repeats the claim that Tertullian was the first man to 
 mention infant baptism, and after quoting something to the same effect 
 which he imputes to Meyer and Bledsoe, he says, if I can find a 
 passage in the early fathers to the contrary that will be accepted by 
 my own brethren, he will promptly give up the debate. Yet he 
 knows right well that Dr. Wall, Hibbard, Wardlaw, and nearly every 
 Psedo-baptist writer extant, claim the testimony of Irenteus and Jus- 
 tin Martyr as favoring infant baptism. If Meyer and Bledsoe testify 
 to the contraiy they stand almost, if not quite, alone among Psedo- 
 baptists in the position they hold. Nor has he been able to quote 
 any other scholars on my side who reject their testimony; and if they 
 do they certainly never gave the matter proper consideration. If he 
 will accept a thousand to one of my brethren who agree that Justin 
 and Irenseus do mention infant baptism, then he must give up this 
 debate. But I suppose Meyer and Bledsoe must outweigh the 
 thousands in this matter ; though when they chance to differ from him 
 he can pitch them overboard quite easily. 
 
 I repeat that his claim is misleading when he demands inspired 
 authority for infant baptism under that part of my proposition which 
 says it has been practiced yVo/n apostolic times. This clause only calls 
 for historic proof. The former clause demands inspired authority, 
 and I have given it to you in abundance. But I repeat that he has 
 no right to claim inspix'ed authority under both clauses, though this is 
 what he is trying to do. 
 
 My opponent has not studied Methodist theology very attentively 
 or he would understand the meaning of total depravity better than he 
 does. We do not mean by that term that a man is as bad as the 
 devil, but that he is depraved in every part, body, soul, and spirit. 
 We recognize degrees in depravity, however ; hence all men are not 
 " mean alike." But if God creates every spirit separately, and makes 
 them all immaculate, will he tell us why all men are not good alike ? 
 His theory about the " spinal cord " or enfeebled body affecting the 
 moral character is a lamentable failure, for we find some very good 
 characters coupled with very poor spinal columns, and vice versa. The 
 bed is too short for him and the covering too narrow. He had better 
 try again. 
 
294 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 His attempt to show that I misrepresented Neander is another 
 failure. In the passage I quoted from Neander he expresses my sen- 
 timents. I never supposed or affirmed that we agreed in all things ; 
 hence if he should find a sentence in Neander differing from some 
 things I hold, he has no cause to crow. Nor does it follow that 
 Neander is necessarily right and 1 wrong, for millions of scholars 
 agree with me and differ from him. 
 
 Yes, I know what "apostolic" means, and I mean to say that 
 infant baptism did not originate with the apostles. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 MR. HARDING'S SEVENTH REPLY. 
 
 My opponent has again referred to the covenants. He agrees that 
 430 years take you from the giving of the law back to the twelfth 
 chapter of Genesis, when Abram was seventy-five years old ; twenty- 
 four years before the covenant of circumcision was given. Bearing" 
 this in mind, consider the following reading from the third chapter of 
 Galatians : "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it 
 be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, 
 or addetli thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
 made. Hesaith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to 
 thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant which 
 was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years 
 after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none 
 effect." Gal 3 : 15-17. Now we have it. Paul says that if a covenant 
 (contract) is confirmed it cannot be added to, nor disannulled. To 
 this Mr. Wilkinson agrees. Paul also says that the law was given 
 430 years after the covenant was confirmed in Christ. Mr. Wilkin- 
 son and I agree that this period of 430 years reaches back to the time 
 when Abram Avas 75 years old, when the covenant in the twelfth 
 chapter of Genesis was given. Thus the covenant found in Gen. 12 
 is identified as the one confirmed in Christ. Mr. Wilkinson and I 
 agree that circumcision and the promise of the land of Canaan were 
 given twenty-four years after this time, after the covenant confirmed 
 in Christ was given. He claims that they were added to the covenant. 
 But according to the apostolic saying this cannot be true ; for, 
 "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed no man 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 295 
 
 disannulletli, or addeth thereto." God made the proposition to Abram 
 to bless him, to make his name great, and to make )um a blessing. 
 He promised to bless those that blessed Abram, and to curse the 
 one who cui'sed him. To this He added : " And in thee shall all 
 families of the earth be blessed : " hut all this was upon the condition 
 that Abram should leave his country and kindred, and go into the land 
 ichich the Lord would show him. With the promptness and trustful- 
 ness that always characterized him, he arose at once and did what 
 God told him to do. Now, can any of you believe, my friends, that 
 after God had made this covenant with him, after it had been con- 
 firmed, and after he had fulfilled his part of the contract lovingly and 
 faithfully, that God would add the bloody and painful rite of circum- 
 cision to the conditions upon which He would give the blessing? 
 Why, even a man would not do as mean a thing as that, if he had 
 about him a particle of honesty. Any man who would so change his 
 contracts would be considered a mean, dishonest character. 
 
 When a covenant has been confirmed and sealed, it is not right to 
 tamper with the seal, nor to change any of its provisions. But, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Wilkinson, change after change has been made in this 
 covenant. In the first place, he tells us circumcision was the seal of 
 it : now baptism is the seal. According to him the seal has been 
 changed. Then the seal was applied only to males, now to males and 
 females alike ; then, if a man bought a male servant the seal was 
 applied to him, but not so now. Our Methodist friends in the United 
 States, in the days of slavery, bought many servants, but they did not 
 immediately baptize them. Why did they not do it 1 They said then, 
 as many of them do now, " Baptism has come in the room of cir- 
 cumcision, and therefore we ought to baptize our children." Why 
 did they not say with equal force : " Baptism has come in the room 
 of circumcision, and therefore we ouglit to baptize our servants as 
 soon as we buy them *?" If the one practice is correct, the other would 
 have been equally so. The fact is, these people have been tam- 
 pering with the Word of God, adding to it, taking from it, and chang- 
 ing it to suit their own foolish fancies. They tell us that God began 
 the work of changing by adding the promise of the land of Canaan, 
 and by atfixing the seal of circumcision ; now, they themselves, with- 
 out one word of warrant from the Word of God, tear this seal oft" and 
 put in the place of it baptism — a thing which God has appointed for a 
 different purpose : then, without the slightest intimation that it is 
 God's will, they give the baptism (or what they call baptism) to the 
 female as well as the male infants ; then, with as little warrant, they 
 
296 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 eut off those bought with their money. It is a serious thing, my 
 friends, thus to trifle with the Word of God, and to change His 
 appointments at every shifting of the foolish fancies of silly men. 
 
 Arguments cannot set aside facts. A man may argue as long as he 
 pleases, but the facts remain. I might present to you a most plausi- 
 ble argument to show that Canada had been annexed to the United 
 States ; but it is not so. During our civil war I heard men demon- 
 strate C?) to the perfect satisfaction of their ardent listeners that the 
 Confederacy must — that in the very nature of things it was bound to 
 — succeed ; but it did not. It has been proven (?) to the satisfaction 
 of the whole world that the sun moves around the earth every twenty- 
 four hours ; but it does not. Mr, Wilkinson argued most earnestly to 
 show that in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, Paul, James, Peter, with 
 the other apostles, and all the elders at Jerusalem decided that cir- 
 cumcision had been done away, and that it should be practiced no 
 more, neither by Jews nor Gentiles ; he would have us believe that 
 baptism had taken its place, and that these apostles and elders were 
 aware of the fact; but, unfortunately for his argument, the fact 
 remains — it is recorded in the very next chapter — that Paul did, 
 after this council, circumcise Timothy, and that too after he had been 
 ibaptized. It is also a fact that about eight years after this council 
 the "many thousands of Jews" which believed still practiced circum- 
 cision, still thought it was lawful for them so to do, and still held it 
 to be disorderly for any man (even though it were Paul himself) to 
 teach Jews to neglect to circumcise their children, though they were 
 agreed that the Gentiles should observe no such thing ; and, finally, it 
 is a FACT that Paul took steps to show that he perfectly agreed with 
 James, and the " many thousands of Jews that believed," in these 
 things. I repeat it, Mr. Wilkinson may argue till his head grows 
 white to show that circumcision passed out of God's covenant at the 
 beginning of the Christian dispensation, and that baptism took its 
 place, but the fact remains that both circumcision and baptism con- 
 tinued to be practiced even to the close of the days of inspiration ; 
 nor did any apostle ever intimate that it ought not so to be, that the 
 one had taken the place of the other, though it would have been the 
 most natural thing in the world to have said, had it been the fact. 
 When those Judaizing teacliers were clamoring that the Gentile con- 
 verts .should l»e circumcised, what a quietus it would have put upon 
 them if the apostles could have said, " ]iaptism has taken the place 
 of circumcision, you know it well ; you yourselves have ceased to cir- 
 eumcise your children : these Gentiles have been baptized, and that is 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 297 
 
 enough." What sane man can doubt but that the apostles would have 
 made such statements as these, had they been true? 
 
 "But," my opponent will say, "Timothy's father was a Greek." 
 What if he was] Paul would never have circumcised him had not 
 his mother been a Jewess. Such a case was settled in the person of 
 Titus, whom he would not circumcise — he stubbornly refused to do it 
 — because he was in no wise connected with Abraham according to 
 the flesh. 
 
 Before we leave this case of Timothy, I Avant to show you by 
 another ai'gument that, it seems to me, is so simple and satisfactory 
 that it ought to satisfy any reasonable man, that circumcision continued 
 to be practiced by the apostles, and hence that it was not supplanted 
 by baptism. Suppose, my friends, that Mr. Wilkinson could turn to 
 his New Testament and read from it that Paul came down to Lystra, 
 where he found a certain pious woman named Eunice ; and suppose 
 he could read, a little further on, that Paul took the infant child of 
 this excellent lady and baptized it ; suppose he could show that this 
 took place about seventeen years after the beginning of the Christian 
 dispensation; would you not exclaim. That settles the question : we 
 have here apostolic example for infant baptism 1 Ah, you say, but no 
 such thing can be shown. True enough ; but I have shown that Paul 
 took Timothy, the son of the excellent and amiable Eunice, and cir- 
 cumcised him, about seventeen years after the ascension of Christ ; 
 does not that show that this rite continued to be observed by divine 
 authority 1 If this proof would be abundantly sufficient to establish 
 infant baptism, why is it not sufficient to establish the continuance of 
 circumcision 1 Possibly it is because some people want to believe the 
 one, whereas they do not want to believe the other. 
 
 When you remember that I have shown you not simply one such 
 case, but thousands of them, and not simply the exatuples, but also the 
 teaching of James and the elders at Jerusalem, in which Paul heartily 
 concurred, (see Acts 21 : 17-26) it seems to me that even an unreason- 
 able man ought to be convinced. He who understands this does not 
 need to change the seal, nor to tamper with the covenant ; for circum- 
 cision has its own place, and baptism has another. 
 
 I asked Mr. Wilkinson why Christ did not baptize those infants 
 that the mothers brought to Him, when He said, "Suffer the little 
 children to come unto Me," etc. He replies Jesus did not baptize but 
 His disciples. True enough ; Jesus baptized through His disciples as 
 agents ; why then did He not tell His disciples to baptize them 1 To 
 this Mr. Wilkinson replies : " As a matter of fact. Christian baptism 
 
298 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 was not, at that time, appointed. He, therefore, just took them in 
 His arms and blessed tliem, and thereby showed that infants were 
 capable of receiving the divine blessing." If I understand my oppo- 
 nent, then, he admits that infants wei'e not baptized during the life of 
 Christ unto the baptism of John. He says Jesus did not baptize 
 them, for as a matter of fact Christian baptism was not yet appointed. 
 We are to understand then, I suppose, that John's baptism did not 
 come in the room of circumcision ; but that Christian baptism does. 
 If these things are so, my friends, does it not aj)pear strange to you 
 that God did not make known by some plain revelation that the one 
 was not in the room of circumcision, but that the other is? 
 
 As Mr. Wilkinson limits the baptism of infants to the Christian 
 dispensation, let us come down to the institution of Christian baptism, 
 and see how the matter stands. After Jesus came up from the grave 
 He became the ruler ; His dispensation opened ; and He said, " 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 Giiost ; 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." Matt. 28: 19, 20. The same 
 tlioughts are expressed in Mark's account thus : " And He said unto 
 them, ' 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." Mark 16:15, 16. As Matthew 
 expresses it, they were to teach the nations and baptize them ; or, as 
 Mark has it, they were to preach the Gospel to every creature, and 
 baptize those who believed it. Tiiis, now, is the place to Avhich Mr. 
 Wilkinson goes to find the beginning of infant baptism ; and when 
 we look at the passages we find it plainly written that Christ in- 
 structed His followers to teach the people, and then to baptize those 
 who received and believed the teaching This commission furnishes 
 all the authority that any man has for baptizing anybody, and its 
 order is (1) teaching (or tlie preaching of the Gospel), (2) faith (the 
 faith that includes repentance), (3) and then baptism. Tiiuswecome 
 into the new covenant ; and hence it is that all in it " know the Lord, 
 from the least to the greatest." As we have .seen, Christ did not 
 baptize infants ; nor did the apostles ; nor is it strange tliat they did 
 not, seeing that they lal)ored under this commission ; nor did any of 
 the immediate followers of the apo.stles ever so much as mention it ; 
 nor is this strange, for they were accustomed to see the apostles first 
 teach, and then baptize the taught ; nor, so far as we know, did any 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 299 
 
 man that had ever seen a man that had seen an apostle ever even so 
 much as mention the rite ; Irenjeus knew the aged Polycarp ; and 
 Polycarp, when he was a youth, knew John ; but neither Irenaeus nor 
 Polycarp ever spake a word about infant baptism. When Christ 
 ascended to the skies, infant baptism had not been mentioned ; when 
 the last apostle died, infant baptism had not been mentioned ; 
 when the last man who had ever known an apostle died, infant 
 baptism had never been mentioned ; not until one hundred years 
 after the last apostle died do we find a mention of infant baptism, 
 and then it is by a man who opposes it. 
 
 But Mr. Wilkinson teaches that water baptism is " an outward 
 sign of an inward grace;" that when the inner man has been 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost, the body should be baptized with 
 water as a sign of it ; with him water baptism is a sign of regenera- 
 tion ; according to him, the unregenerate are under the " imputed 
 curse ; " and as he will not agree that the little ones are regenerated — 
 born again — before they are born the first time, T suppose we must 
 conclude that, according to his theory, they are " born again " at the 
 same time that they are born the first time ; seeing that he will have 
 them born pure. But the whole theory is most ridiculously nonsen- 
 sical, without any basis in reason or revelation. He baptizes people 
 with water because they have been baptized with the Holy Ghost, he 
 tells us ; whereas the apostles taught the people to be baptized in 
 water that they might receive the Holy Ghost. It was Peter who 
 stood up, a few days after the ascension of Jesus, and preached the 
 first discourse of the Christian dispensation, the first one under the 
 great commission under which we now live and labor. As he preached, 
 many of those who listened became convinced that the Jesus whom 
 they had killed fifty days before was indeed the Son of God, that the 
 grave had not been able to hold Him, and that He was then seated at 
 the right hand of God, King of kings and Lord of lords. They were 
 pricked in their heart, and they crid out to Peter, and to the rest of 
 the apostles, saying, " Men and brethren, what shall we do V Peter 
 replied, " Repent, 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." Here the order is (1) Repentance, (2) Baptism, (3) Re- 
 mission of sins, and (4) The gift of the Holy Ghost. Since Christ came 
 up from the grave the Holy Spirit has, in every case, without a single 
 exception, been given after faith ; and in every case, but one excep- 
 tional and miraculous one — that of Cornelius — it has been given after 
 baptism. The Gospel rule, to which there is this one exception only, is 
 
300 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 faith (including repentance), baptism in water, and then the gift of the 
 Holy Spirit. Baptism was for the remission of sins that the recipients 
 of it might receive the Spirit ; it was not for innocents, on the ground 
 that they had received it. Hence, in the New Testament, we find it 
 stated time and again that " believers " were baptized, that " men 
 and women " were baptized, but never that infants wei-e. 
 
 Remember that Mr. McKay, in the little book that Mr. Wilkinson 
 has here, sums up for us all the baptisms of the New Testament. As 
 he was a Presbyterian, writing on baptism, of course he did the best 
 he could for his side. He finds ten cases. We went over them, you 
 remember, carefully, and in every case but one we found proof positive 
 that no infants were among them ; in the one exceptional case, while 
 it is true we found no express proof that would clearly show she had 
 no infant, it is also true that there is nothing indicating that she was 
 married, or that she had any children at all ; every intimation of the 
 text seems to indicate that she was single. What a misei'able condi- 
 tion these advocates of infant baptism are in ! 
 
 Not only is it true that the commission justifies the baptism of 
 believers only, but it is also true that every figure that shows our 
 connection with Jesus as the Saviour of sinners, predicates that con. 
 nection upon faith. If the figure of a birth is contemplated, it is 
 said, "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth;" and 
 again, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of 
 God ; " if the figure of turning from darkness to light is used, it is 
 said, " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; " if the 
 sinner is represented as dead, the quickening to a new life is ascribed 
 to the word in these words, " Thy word hath quickened me ; " if the 
 new covenant is presented, all under it know the Lord, and have His 
 laws written in their minds and hearts ; and so of the figure of the 
 olive tree to which Mr. Wilkinson referred, and which is often appealed 
 to in support of infant baptism. The record concerning it is found in 
 the letter to the Romans from which I now read. 
 
 " 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 ofi', and thou being a wild olive tree wert grafied in amongst 
 them, and with them partakest of tiie root and fatness of the olive 
 tree : boast not against the branches : Viut 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 grafted in. Well ; because of un- 
 belief they were broken off", and thou standest by faith. Be not high- 
 minded but fear. . . . And they also, if they abide not still in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 301 
 
 unbelief, shall be graffed in : for God is able to grafF them in." Rom. 
 11 : 16-23. Here it is expressly said that those that were broken off 
 were broken off on account of unbelief ; those that stood, stood by 
 faith ; and if those that were broken off remained not in unbelief they 
 would be grafted in again. So you see it is all a matter of faith. Just 
 so when the relation of sonship is considered. In writing to the 
 churches of Galatia, in speaking to the many members of these 
 churches, Paul says, " Ye are all the children of God by faith in 
 Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ 
 have put on Christ. . . . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
 Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3 : 26-29. 
 Thus in speaking of all the Christians of the regions of Galatia, Paul 
 said that all of them were children of God by faith in Christ. No 
 infant members in that country. This perfectly harmonizes with the 
 statement of John that, " "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ 
 is born of God." Observe, too, that Paul teaches that those who are 
 thus the children of God are the seed of Abraham, and heirs according 
 to the promise. Thus we see that the covenant with Abraham that 
 was fulfilled in Christ involves only those who become children of 
 God by faith. 
 
 The Lord says, teach the people and then baptize them ; preach 
 the Gospel and baptize them that believe it. This is the commission 
 that I am working under. But Mr. Wilkinson says baptize the babies 
 first, and teach them afterwards. Is that working under the commis- 
 sion 1 When Tertullian made that first mention of infant baptism, 
 he said, " Let them come when they are grown up ; let them come 
 when they understand ; when they are instructed whither it is that 
 they come ; let them be made Christians when they can know Christ ;" 
 and in saying that he expressed the correct idea ; Christ explains (John 
 6 : 44, 45) that God draws the people to Himself by teaching them. 
 So, I say to you mothers, if you want to bless your children the way 
 to do it is to teach them. " Oh," says my friend, " surely there is a 
 blessing for the children." Certainly there is. Christ took the little 
 children, and put His hands on them, and prayed. I am glad when a 
 true man of God prays for my children : I believe in praying for God's 
 blessing to rest upon them : I do it myself, and I ask others to do it, 
 because that is what Christ did. If He had baptized them, I would 
 have wanted mine baptized ; but as He prayed for them, I will do 
 likewise ; I want to follow Him. If you follow Christ you will pray 
 for the children, and teach them ; and then, when they understand 
 and believe the Gospel, you will baptize them. That is the way 
 
302 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Christ did ; that is the way His apostles did. But you ask, " Is there 
 not a blessing in baptism for the child 1 " No ; there is not. What 
 spiritual blessing is there in water — nothing but water 1 Our Metho- 
 dist friends of to-day admit that they give the little ones nothing but 
 a few drops of water ; the child neither believes, nor repents, nor 
 obeys; nor does it receive any thing — neither forgiveness nor the Holy 
 Spirit — in its baptism : formerly it was supposed to bring pardon and 
 the Holy Spirit to the infant, and to deliver it from hell ; but now it 
 is an empty, meaningless rite. One of the worst features of it is that 
 the minister professes to do by the authority of Christ that which the 
 Lord never gave any mortal the authority to do. It is horrible ! It 
 is a fearful thing for them to say, " By the authority of Christ we do 
 this," when He has given them no such authority ; when they grant 
 that He did not baptize infants, and when they admit that all of us 
 derive all the authority that we have for baptizing from the commis- 
 sion. I would rather lose my right arm than to make such a declara- 
 tion. 
 
 " But," you inquire, " what harm can be done to the child by 
 sprinkling a few drops of water on it 1 " No trouble can come from 
 simply sprinkling a few drops of water ; but to do this as an institu- 
 tion of Christ is awful blasphemy ; for it is an established fact that 
 Christ has given no man authority so to do. But to practice infant 
 baptism as a divine institution does harm in other ways. If this 
 doctrine were to prevail, it would not be long till every man, woman, 
 and child in the world would be in the Church (that is, in whatever 
 Church this rite would bring them) ; and fthus all the distinctions 
 between the world and the Church would be broken down; just to the 
 extent that the doctrine does prevail does this miserable result follow ; 
 and just to this extent is Christ's appointment — believer's baptism — 
 set aside. 
 
 Now, my friends, consider another tangle in which these believers 
 in infant baptism find themselves. "Infant baptism is for every- 
 body," say the Methodists, " for all infants ; " " Not so," reply the 
 Presbyterians, " the father or the mother must be a believer ; there 
 must be at least one believing parent." ]\Ir. Wilkinson will baptize 
 any infant ; but his friend, Mr. Paterson who sits here by his side, 
 and is so zealous in helping him, will not administer the ordinance 
 unless one of the parents is a believer. Why, my friends, the 
 advocates of infant baptism are in a perfect muddle from the beginning 
 to the end. They do not agree about any passage that is quoted to 
 maintain the rite ; some say the passage teaches the doctrine, while 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 303 
 
 others of them deny that it refers to the matter in any way at all ; 
 they do not agree about any argument that is found to sustain it ; 
 some think the argument is sufficient, while t\ e others positively 
 affirm that it is not : they do not agree about what infants should be 
 liaptized ; some fay that all may be, while the others say there must 
 be a believing parent : who, my friends, can believe that God is the 
 originator of such a miserable lot of tangles ! 
 
 Before Mr. Wilkinson endeavors to convert the rest of us, he 
 would better try his 1 and on his friend, Mr. Paterson ; and if he 
 succeeds with him, they can go on with their work ; then, if they 
 could accomplish their desires, in the next generation there would be 
 in their Church the world and the flesh, to the great delight of the 
 devil. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson is exceedingly anxious to find a mention of infant 
 baptism before the time of Tertullian ; and it is not strange that he 
 is. The prophets say nothing about it, nor does Jesus, nor do the 
 apostles ; it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor in the New ; 
 hence it is not strange that those who practice it should be anxious to 
 find as early a mention of it as possible after the days of the apostles. 
 Mr. Wilkinson claims that Justin Martyr and Ireneeus mention the 
 practice. They do not. I know there is one sentence in the writings 
 of each of these fathers that is relied upon as favoring infant baptism 
 by some. But no one of candor and intelligence claims that these 
 writers clearly and expressly mention it. But, my friends, consider 
 the sentences and judge for yourselves. Thus reads the one from 
 
 Justin Martyr. 
 
 " Several persons among us of sixty and seventy years old, of both 
 sexes, who were discipled to Christ in their childhood, do continue 
 uncorrupted." 
 
 Of this sentence it is enough to say that the word rendered " child- 
 hood " is the exact equivalent of our word "youth." They became 
 Christians in childhood, in youth. Does that have any bearing on 
 infant baptism 1 I was baptized in childhood myself, and I have bap- 
 tized hundreds of children, but not one infant (hrephos), which Justin 
 would have used instead of pais (youth) had he desired to express 
 the idea of infancy. Thus reads the testimony from Justin Martyr. 
 Now, my friends, do you not agree with Bledsoe and Meyer that he 
 does not mention infant baptism ? 
 
304 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 And now you shall have the sentence from 
 
 Iren^us. 
 
 "For He came to save all persons by Himself; all, I mean, who by 
 Him are regenerated 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, sanctifying those of that age," etc. 
 
 Irenjeus not only tells us that Christ came to " regenerate," " save," 
 all by Himself; but he explains how he understood that the Lord did 
 it, viz., by passing through the several ages, He thus sanctified the 
 persons of that age. Not a word is said about baptism. Moreover, 
 Iren;ieus wrote 67 years after the death of John. Thirty-three years 
 after that time — one hundred years after the death of John — we find 
 the first unmistakable allusion to the practice ; and it is made by one 
 who opposes it as though it were an innovation suggested, hut not yet 
 adopted. Ten years later we find the practice in the Church ; but it 
 still " causes frequent inquiries," says Origen, who is the first writer 
 to favor it. It is a characteristic of innovations that they cause 
 " frequent inquii'ies." Now, my friends, if you can have your babies 
 baptized on such testimony as that, you are easily convinced ; that is 
 all I have to say about it. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson denies that he misrepresented Neander. He says : 
 " In the passage I quoted from Neander he expresses my sentiments." 
 This is not true ; Neander does not express his sentiments. Had Mr. 
 Wilkinson quoted the entire sentence, and the one just preceding it, 
 instead of a part of one sentence, it would have appeared that 
 Neander's sentiments were exactly the opposite of his own. Mr. 
 Wilkinson holds that infant baptism is not an apostolic institution, 
 because it began before the days of the apostles ; and so he quotes 
 Neander thus : " We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism 
 from apostolic institution." Then he (Mr. Wilkinson) adds : "Cer- 
 tainly ; that is my position exactly ; hence I have not argued for it as 
 an apostolic institution ; so Neander is right, nor does his testimony 
 affect my position." 
 
 Now, my friends, Neander's position is that infant baptism is not 
 an apostolic institution because it began after the days of the apostles. 
 He takes my ground exactly on this point, and had Mr. Wilkinson 
 quoted two sentences, instead of a part of one, this fact would have 
 clearly appeared. The sentences read thus : 
 
 " Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 305 
 
 accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. "We 
 have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institu- 
 tion, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an 
 apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis." Neander's 
 History, Vol. 1, p. 311. 
 
 It is no pleasure to me to show you that Mr. Wilkinson is guilty of 
 perverting and misrepresenting this great historian ; but he did it 
 knowingly, as the circumstances clearly show, and it is due to the 
 truth that it should be shown. I say again, he is one of the last men 
 in the world who ought to accuse others of misrepresenting authorities. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 20 
 
306 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 SIXTH DAY— AFTEENOON. 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 
 
 My opponent last night endeavored to make the impression that the 
 covenant of circumcision recorded in Gen. 17, was a covenant merely 
 to give Abraham and each of his boys a farm in Judea forever and for- 
 ever, it being an everlasting covenant, and it was sealed with a seal 
 to the boys only, thus leaving the girls, according to his theory, with- 
 out a patrimony. But Peter said Acts 7 : 5, that God " gave Abra- 
 ham none inheritance in that land, no not so much as to set his foot 
 on," and when Sarah died he had to buy a hole in the ground to bury 
 her in. And Paul declares that he " sojourned in that land by faith, 
 as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and with 
 Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise, and he looked for a 
 city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Through 
 faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was 
 delivered of a child when she was past age because she judged Him to 
 be faithful that promised. Therefore sprang there even of one and 
 him as good as dead so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, 
 and as the sand which is by the sea shore, innumerable. These all 
 died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them 
 afar off, and were persuaded of 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. And truly if they had been 
 mindful of that country from whence they came out they might have 
 had opportunity to have returned, but now they desire a better 
 country, that is a heavenly, wherefore God is not ashamed to be called 
 their God for He hath prepared for them a city," even the heavenly 
 Jerusalem. In 1 Peter 1 : 3 the apostle says, " Blessed be the God 
 and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which according to His abundant 
 mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively liope, by the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, unde- 
 filed, and that fadeth not away — reserved in heaven," etc. Now, 
 according to my opponent, Abraham's sons were circumcised to seal 
 the earthly inheritance to them. We are begotten again, or born again, 
 unto a lively hope of an inheritance reserved in heaven. This new 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 307 
 
 birth is effected by spiritual baptism, the symbol of which is baptism 
 by water. And in this spiritual baptism we are not only buried with 
 Christ, but raised with Him to walk in newness of life, or as the 
 same apostle elsewhere describes it, " raised up together (as believers), 
 and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Our 
 inheritance is not earthly but heavenly — hence said Christ to His 
 Jewish disciples, " In my Father's house are many mansions ; if it 
 were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you ; 
 and if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again and receive 
 you unto myself," etc. John 14 : 1-3. Where did He go 1 He 
 went to the Father — to heaven, and He said in addressing the Father, 
 in chap. 17 : 24, " I will that they also whom Thou hast given Me be 
 with Me, where I am," etc. Heaven, then, is to be the future eternal 
 inheritance of all believers, and Christ has undertaken by His cross to 
 " break down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, 
 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of command- 
 ments contained in ordinances, for to make in Himself of twain one 
 new man, so making 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 unto you who were afar off and to them 
 that were nigh, for through Him we both have access by one Spirit to 
 the Father. Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners (as 
 they were under the old dispensation), but fellow-citizens with the 
 saints and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation 
 of the apostles and of the prophets," etc. 
 
 I call your attention to Rom. 4 : for I want to show what the 
 blessing was that was promised to Abraham. We read from v. 6 as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto 
 whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 
 
 " Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose 
 sins are covered. 
 
 " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." 
 
 He is talking about the blessing of justification and a man is pro- 
 nounced blessed who receives that blessing. The blessing received by 
 Abraham was the blessing of justification, a better blessing than 
 Canaan, Egypt, or all the rest of the world. It was the blessing of 
 salvation. " What profiteth it a man if he gain the whole world and 
 lose his own soul 1 " After this blessing came circumcision, which was 
 a seal to Abraham of the same blessing. He was not circumcised and 
 justified afterwards as my opponent is trying to show, but he vas 
 
308 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 justified first and circumcised afterwards. " For," said the apostle, 
 " he received the sign of circumcision, 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 to them also. 
 
 "And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the cii'- 
 cumcision 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 efiect, 
 
 " Because the law worketh wrath : for where no law is, 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.") 
 
 You will see from this testimony that circumcision referred to and 
 sealed justification to Abraham himself, but it sealed it to him as the 
 father of all believers, who are Abraham's spiritual seed. Now it is 
 passing strange, if circumcision had no reference to anything but an 
 earthly inheritance for Abraham's natural seed, that it should be 
 applied to him that he might be the father of a spiritual seed. Per- 
 haps my opponent will tell us how a seal of temporal blessings only 
 could constitute a man the father of a spiritual posterity. 
 
 It is clear, moreover, that baptism was given with reference to the 
 same blessing, viz., justification. On the day of Pentecost, the great 
 inauguration day of the new dispensation, Peter, addressing a congre- 
 gation of Jews, said, Acts 2 : 38, " Repent and be baptized, every one 
 of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins ; " and 
 what was remission of sins but justification'? Men were circumcised 
 then to seal justification to them, and now they are to be baptized to 
 seal the same blessing. Besides, Peter knew that those Jews to whom 
 he was speaking were accustomed to have the seal of justification 
 applied to their infants at eight days old, and that the covenant made 
 with Abraham distinctly included such. He also knew that when he 
 mentioned the fact of their children being included in the covenant 
 they would understand it to refer to their infant children, yet he 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 309 
 
 exhorts them to be baptized for (or with reference to) justification, or 
 the remission of sins, because the promise (covenant) was to them and 
 their childre^i, v. 39. Baptism, then, relates to the same blessing that 
 circumcision did, and is administered because of the covenant made 
 with Abraham, of which circumcision was the seal, therefore, I argue, 
 without a divine prohibition it must still be given to the same classes 
 of subjects, — infant children and believing adults. I have shown that 
 Peter distinctly mentions the children, hence when he adds, " and to 
 all that are afar off (Gentiles), even as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call," we know by parity of reasoning that he must have meant 
 their infant children also. Consequently, by the unquestionable 
 authority of this inspired apostle on this great occasion, we have Jews 
 and their infant children, and Gentiles and their infant children 
 included in the covenant made with Abraham, of which circumcision 
 was the seal, and Peter calls upon his Jewish auditors to be baptized 
 on account of this, therefore baptism must have been involved in the 
 covenant with Abraham, the covenant which included the Jews "and 
 their children." But as a matter of fact there was no mfntion of 
 baptism in that covenant, hence it will be necessary to inquire in 
 what way it was involved in it. I have shown that circumcision was 
 the seal of that covenant, and all who were admitted to its provisions 
 must receive the seal. But under the present dispensation baptism 
 signifies the same thing (regeneration) and occupies the same place, 
 hence, says Peter, " repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the 
 name of Jesus (the promised seed), for (or because) the promise 
 (which involved baptism by another name) is unto you and your 
 children," etc., hence baptism is the New Testament seal of the same 
 covenant, and must be applied to infants as circumcision was under 
 the old dispensation. My opponent thinks infants are not included in 
 the covenant under this dispensation until they get old enough to 
 commit sin, but I think they are taken in as soon as they are born, 
 and unless he can prove that they are incapable of receiving justifica- 
 tion and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he cannot prove that they are 
 excluded from the covenant of redemption. To establish these points 
 he will need to prove that circumcision sealed a different blessing to 
 Isaac from what it did to Abraham. We know it sealed justification 
 to Abraham as an adult, and we know it was applied to Isaac as an 
 infant, and I claim it was for the same purpose in both cases. And 
 there is not a word in the Bible to the contrary. If it meant two 
 different things in these two cases, why did God give us no intimation 
 to that effect in His word? I hope my opponent will tell us. 
 
310 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 But, as a matter of fact, the covenant with Abraham not only 
 involved justijfication or pardon, but the gift of the Holy Ghost. The 
 renewal of the nature which is symbolized by circumcision, as I have 
 clearly shown, is effected by the agency of the Holy Ghost, and as 
 Abraham received the former he must have received the latter, hence 
 it is an iiiiportant part of "the blessing of Abraham," as intimated 
 by Paul in Gal. 3:14, where he says Christ hath redeemed us from 
 the curse of the law " that the blessing of Abraham (the blessing 
 promised to and enjoyed by Abraham) might come on the Gentiles 
 through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of the 
 Spirit through faith." It is evident, then, that the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost as well as righteousness, or regeneration, was involved in the 
 Abrahamic covenant, and no doubt this was intended by the phrase 
 " I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee," hence, Peter, 
 on condition of repentance aiid baptism, promised his auditors the 
 Holy Ghost, and assigns as a reason for this that " the promise " or 
 covenant to bestow the Spirit, " is unto you (Jews) and your children," 
 etc. 
 
 And just here let me ask why, if circumcision was understood by 
 the Jews to seal to them the land of Canaan only, that they were not 
 only so ready to receive Gentile proselytes into the covenant with 
 them before Christ, but that they insisted, as a condition of their 
 being saved, that they should be circumcised and keep the law of 
 Moses 1 And why was it that "no uncircumcised person" was 
 allowed to eat the Passover, the acknowledged symbol of atonement ? 
 It is evident, from these considerations, that circumcision was dis- 
 tinctly connected not only by its divine author, but also in the Jewish 
 mind, with religious truth and human salvation, yet my opponent and 
 his co-religionists would degrade it to a mere secular use. Evidently 
 they have not the mind of the Spirit. 
 
 On the ground of infants being cut off who were not circumcised, 
 Mr. Harding asked, last evening, if I would say that they were cut off 
 under this dispensation because they are not baptized. I answered 
 emphatically. Yes, in a visible sense. And that is the only sense in 
 which any one was ever cut off because he was not circumcised. 
 Neither baptism, circumcision, or any other outward rite can bring 
 any person into God's covenant any farther than to visiV)ly or ritually 
 recognize the relationship. It makes a sj)iritual state or relationship 
 apparent by a visible rite or operation, and the person who is not 
 visibly recognized as belonging to God is ceremonially, or apparently 
 cut off from Him. The visible Church is Christ's visible body, and 
 
ox THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 311 
 
 those who are not visibly inducted into it are visibly outside of it. 
 They are not recognized as belonging to the Church, not having 
 received the badge of Christian discipleship, and that is what I under- 
 stand by their being cut off from it. And this is what happened to 
 an uncircumcised male child under the old dispensation. He was not 
 sent to hell because his parents did not circumcise him, but he was 
 cut off from the religious assemblies of God's people, and was not 
 recognized as in the outward dispensation of the covenant. Circum- 
 cision of the heart, or justification, saved the soul, and those who 
 were not justified were lost. Circumcision of the flesh illustrated the 
 nature and necessity of this spiritual state, for as uncircumcision of 
 the heart cut the individual off from God in fact, so uncircumcision of 
 the flesh cut him off in figure. 
 
 My opponent has said that infants are not saved but are safe. How 
 can they be safe when they come to die and not be saved while 
 they are alive 1 Will he tell us % 
 
 Scholars were quoted to prove that there is no command for infant 
 baptism. In the quotation made from Dr. Bledsoe he is represented 
 as saying that hundreds of Psedo-baptists deny that infant baptism is 
 taught in the Bible, yet he says, in the same quotation, that "It is 
 clearly deducible from the New Testament." And this is what they 
 all claim. I have read hundreds of Ptedo-baptist authorities and I 
 know exactly how they explain the matter. They say there is no 
 express command in the New Testament on the subject because an 
 express command was not called for ; and I hope to be able to show 
 you why. If God put infants in the covenant of redemption away 
 back 1900 years before the new dispensation began, no express com- 
 mand was required to put them in again at the beginning of the new 
 dispeinsation, since without a command to put them out they were 
 recognized as still being there. It is not necessary to re-enact a law 
 before it is first abrogated. God had never abrogated this law. My 
 opponent cannot produce a single proof that the law which put the 
 children into the covenant in infancy was ever abrogated. I might 
 illustrate this point by relating a little incident I recently heard. Two 
 men who were neighbors were very fond of disputing on this point. 
 One said, " You have no right to do anything for which there is no 
 command in the Bible." The other opposed bim, by maintaining that 
 there were many plain duties for which there is no express command 
 or injunction in the Bible. One day this man who insisted on com- 
 mands so strongly happened to fall into a well and could not get out. 
 He sent his little boy to tell the neighbor with whom he had so oft 
 
312 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 disputed to come and help him out of the well. He did not come for 
 a long time, and when he did come he was rebuked for his tardiness. 
 He replied, "You know you have been telling me that I should not 
 do anything except there is a command for it in the Bible. I have 
 been studying the Bible to see if there was any command for pulling 
 you out of the well. I read the command that if an ox or an ass fall 
 into a pit, you are to haul it out ; but you are neither an ox nor an 
 ass. At length I found the passage, ' Do good to all men, especially 
 to those who are of the household of faith,' and I thought I might 
 come and take you out under that command." This question under 
 discussion occupies very nearly the same position. We are constantly 
 beset with a demand for some command to baptize infants. We reply 
 that this is not necessary, because it is woven into the very warp and 
 woof of the whole scheme of human redemption, and the scholars of 
 Christendom through all ages — -with few exceptions in latter days — 
 have agreed, and the more so the more fully the Divine arrangement 
 has been examined and understood, that God Himself put the children 
 into the covenant of redemption and put His seal on them at eight 
 days old, and until He puts them out they must stay there and receive 
 that seal. Who is man, then, that he should ask for another command 
 for this 1. 
 
 My opponent stated that there is no mention of infant baptism 
 during the life of Christ or the apostles nor for the tirst 200 years. 
 In point of fact there was no opposition to it for the first 200 years, 
 and then by a man who believed no sins committed after baptism 
 could be remitted. Now, if you believe it possible for such an inno- 
 vation to have been brought into the Church without opposition, then 
 you must believe that human nature has changed, when an organ can- 
 not be introduced now without raising such a dust. But the fact is 
 that there was no opposition except Tertullian for the first 1300 years. 
 I have proved that it existed all this time, and my opponent has failed 
 to produce one tittle of proof to the contrary except this plea that no 
 one mentioned it before Tertullian, which I have shown you is not 
 true, for Irenseus distinctly mentioned it under the name of regenera- 
 tion. And until he can give us some modicum of evidence to the 
 contrary I can atibrd to let his assumptions pass for what they are 
 worth, which is but very little. But suppose his statement were true. 
 Would that prove the practice did not exist 1 Suppose a man was 
 arraigned in court on a charge of theft. And suppose you could pro- 
 duce ten thousand witnesses who would testify that they never saw 
 him steal. Would not one reliable witness testifying that he did see 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 313 
 
 him steal outweigh them all 1 Undoubtedly so. So in the present 
 case. Irenpeus says it was there, Tertullian says it was there, Origen 
 says it was an order from the apostles, others living near the time say 
 the same thing, and no one was ever silly enough to deny it for 
 upwai'ds of a thousand years after the days of the apostles, yet my 
 opponent wants to overturn all this positive evidence by a mere nega- 
 tion—" nobody mentions it before Tertullian," — and even this negation 
 is a mere assumption in opposition to the facts before us. But his 
 whole line of defence, for the most part, consists of just such unsup- 
 ported assumptions, which he, no doubt, finds a very convenient 
 method of whiffing away arguments against which he has nothing 
 more substantial to advance. However, it pleases him, I presume, 
 without materially injuring me, so let him fiddle away on that line. 
 I now call attention to the fact that my proposition does not call 
 for historical proof any farther back than John's death. The proposi- 
 tion is that infant baptism has been practiced in the Christian Church 
 from apostolic times. I did not undertake to prove from history that 
 it was practiced in the apostolic age. I knew what I was doing. A 
 party who was present when I framed the proposition asked, " What 
 do you mean by the phrase 'from apostolic times'?'" I said, "I 
 mean just what it says." And now I ask, have I not traced it back 
 to the apostolic age 1 Has my opponent made out a better case for 
 immersion in the early Church than I have for infant baptism 1 Yet 
 he claims to have established the point that the early Church immersed, 
 a point I have not denied. If he proved the one I have proved the 
 other. He says Irenseus' reference to the commission was to regene- 
 ration by teaching, for in the commission Christ says, " Go teach and 
 baptize them." I say Christ gave no such command. He simply said, 
 if He spoke Greek, " Go matheteusate." Turn to the Greek lexicon 
 and see what that means. Every scholar knows that in the New 
 Testament sense it means " Go make disciples." And what is a dis- 
 ciple *? A pupil or learner. Then it means " Go get the nations into 
 my school by baptizing them, and then let them come and learn of 
 me." The Christian Church is Christ's school where He is teaching 
 them by His word and Spirit. First, make disciples of them, then 
 baptize them, and then teach them. Teach them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you. That is the Divine order and 
 arrangement, hence Irenjeus must have meant by regeneration, 
 baptism and not teaching. 
 
 ]My opponent said we had to make wafers in order to give children 
 the Lord's Supper. The " office editor," Mr. McDiarmid, said they 
 
314 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 had to make soup in order to give the children the Passover. I do 
 not know but a wafer is as sensible as soup. But I don't consent to 
 be held responsible either for the errors of the Roman Catholics or 
 Campbellites. I neither administer wafers nor soup. 
 
 My opponent is still greatly exercised about the change of the cove- 
 nant which to his mind is involved in the addition of the seal. I have 
 explained that no change in the covenant was involved, but he cannot 
 see it, apparently. I still maintain, however, that God was supreme, 
 and it was His prerogative to affix the seal whenever He pleased, 
 "whether at the time the covenant was first given or at any time there- 
 after, and the addition of the seal twenty-four years afterwards no 
 more involved a change of the terms of the covenant than the addition 
 at the time the covenant was made. This is all the change, I claim, 
 that was made (though my opponent represents otherwise), and this, 
 as I have shown, was not a change in the terms of the contract, but 
 only a ratification of its provisions. By the addition of the seal, there- 
 fore, I again insist, God neither disannulled the covenant nor added to 
 it. Besides, I want to ask my opponent how covenants are " con- 
 firmed." I always thought it was by signing and sealing. If so, will 
 he tell us when the covenant God made with Abraham as recorded in 
 Gen. 12 was ever "confirmed," and what was the seal, unless the 
 covenant in Gen. 12 and 17 are the same and circumcision the seal? 
 The fact is he cannot do it. 
 
 My opponent struggles heroically against the testimony of Justin 
 Martyr and Iren:t;us, because he knows it is corroborative of my posi- 
 tion and destructive of his. As to there being no mention of infant 
 baptism by either of these writers, he seems to forget that Justin dis- 
 tinctly identifies circumcision and baptism as the same thing when he 
 says, " We are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision." 
 And again when he says, " We also, who by Him have had access to 
 God, have not received this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual cir- 
 cumcision, which Enoch and tho.se like him observed. And we have 
 received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, because we were sinners : 
 And it is enjoined tipon all persons to receive it in the same way" viz., 
 by baptism. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that Justin Martyr must 
 have believed in infant baptism, because he knew circumcision was a 
 rite peculiar to the infant age, and he declares that it is " enjoined 
 upon all persons to i-eceive cii'cumcision by baptism." 
 
 Now what does it matter if no mention of infant baptism, as dis- 
 tinct from the baptism of adults, could be found prior to the time of 
 Tertullian, so long as it can be so unmistakably proven that these 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 315 
 
 early fathers identified these two rites as one and the same thing 
 under different forms 1 Does it not follow with all the force of moral 
 demonstration, that when they identified these rites as the same, they 
 must have identified the subjects as the same 1 It seems childish to 
 call this in question. 
 
 Besides, the very fact that whole households were uniformly 
 baptized during the apostolic age goes far to sustain the position I 
 have taken. True, my opponent fails to find any babies in those 
 households, but I suspect he is not a good hand to search for them. 
 He shuts his eyes, puts stoppers in his ears, feels in the wrong place, 
 and then swears there is not a baby in all that region. But a good 
 many wise men think they see childi'en, even infant children, in these 
 households ; and in favor of this view much may be said. 
 
 1. The term oikos, used in two of the cases referred to, manifestly 
 include all the inmates of a house, or home, whether great or small. 
 Therefore the language is just such as we would expect on the sup- 
 position that there were children in these houses. If the word cir- 
 cumcise had been used in each of these instances, instead of the 
 word baptize, no one would ever have questioned that infants were 
 present. 
 
 2. The universal desire among Jewish women to be the mothers of 
 the promised seed, and the feeling that barrenness was a reproach to 
 them, constitute a strong presumption that these households were 
 composed of something more than strangers. 
 
 3. The Syriac version, the oldest and most literal version in the 
 world, in the case of Lydia reads, " Lydia and her children." 
 
 4. Nor is it any valid objection to my position that it is recorded 
 concerning the Philippian jailer that Paul " spake the word of the 
 Lord to all that were in his house ; " and concerning the household of 
 Stephanus that they " addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
 saints." Such general expressions are common, both in conversation 
 and writing. As Dr. Wardlaw expresses it, " When we ascribe to a 
 family anything of which infants are universally understood to be 
 incapable, we never think of making a formal exception of them. The 
 man who from my saying, ' I spoke to the whole family — to all in the 
 house,' or, 'They are a very benevolent family — -they lay themselves 
 out for doing good,' should conclude that I was certainly speaking of 
 a family in which there were no infant children, — I should be apt to 
 regard either as in jest, or as a hypercritical fool. When Joshua says, 
 ' As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord,^ does any one ever 
 think of inferring that his family could not contain any infants be- 
 
316 
 
 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 cause infants were incapable of serving the Lord 1 Yet the inference 
 would be as legitimate in this case as in either of the others ; and it 
 may not be amiss for our Baptist brethren to make it the subject of a 
 little self-examination, by what principle it is that they are led to such 
 a conclusion in the one case, when they never think of it in the other. 
 What is the precise diflerence in the state of their ininds, when they 
 read the 15th verse of the 24th chapter of Joshua, and when they 
 read the 34th verse of the 16th chapter of the Acts, or the 16th verse 
 of the 16th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 " Let us only consider for a moment into what ridiculous absurdities 
 we should be led by the adoption of such a principle of criticism. The 
 children of Israel were commanded, in preparing the Passover, ' to 
 take a lamb for a house according to the number of souls. Are we 
 to infer from this that they numbered the mouths of sucking infants 1 
 or that there were no such infants at that time in the families of 
 Israel ? They were enjoined to eat it ' with their loins girt, and their 
 shoes on their feet, and their staff in their hand.' Children could not 
 do this, therefore we conclude again that there must have been none ; 
 and the conclusion is irresistibly confirmed by the testimony of the 
 Psalmist respecting the passage of the Red Sea, for ' they went through 
 the flood,' he says, ' on foot,' which infants, none will dispute, were 
 incapable of doing. When the paralytic Eneas was cured by Peter, 
 it is said "all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned to 
 the Lord;" from which, amongst other inferences, it will follow that 
 these places presented the singular anomaly of a population without 
 infants ! Paul writes to the Thessalonians that ' if any would not 
 work neither should he eat :' were the babes of Thessalonica, then, to 
 be left to starve because they were incapable of earning, or of being 
 willing to earn, their daily bread 1 Let no Baptist say indignantly, 
 ' This is ridiculous ; it is making a joke of the matter.' I grant it is. 
 It is fit for nothing else. But let him recollect that the materials of 
 the joke are furnished by his own friends. Let the argument (if it 
 must have a name to which it has no title) be withdrawn, and there 
 will be no room left for ihejoke. I am only ashamed, indeed, of being 
 obliged to argue it at all. It is not worth the ammunition." 
 
 Thus the unspeakable absurdity of my opponent's plea that there 
 could have been no infants in the house of the jailer because Paul 
 and Silas "spake the word of the Lord to all that were in his house," 
 and none in the household of Stephanus because they had " addicted 
 themselves to the ministry of the saints," is glaringly exposed — and 
 the exposure might be carried to much greater length ; hence I claim 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 317 
 
 the baptism of these liouseholds as invincible proof of infant baptism. 
 I trust he will supply us with something more cogent in the way of 
 objections, if he has anything at hand. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. HARDING'S EIGHTH REPLY. 
 
 I will begin my review of Mr. Wilkinson's speech by calling your 
 attention for a moment to his remarks concerning the authorities. 
 Dr. Bledsoe says that although there is no express mention of infant 
 baptism in the New Testament, the rite may be justified on the ground 
 of logical inference ; and Mr. Wilkinson says that all the Paedo-baptist 
 authorities that I have been quoting agree with him in this ; that is, 
 that all of them teach that infant baptism is taught in the Bible by a 
 logical inference. Let us see about that. Dr. Bledsoe says : 
 
 " We might, if necessary, adduce the admission of many other 
 profoundly learned Psedo-baptists, that their doctrine is not found in 
 the New Testament, either in express terms, or by implicatio7i from any 
 portion of its language." — Southern Revieio, Vol. 14, p. 335. 
 
 This aged and powerful Methodist editor here says that " many 
 profoundly learned Psedo-baptists " deny that infant baptism is taught 
 in the New Testament at all, " either in express terms " (that is, by 
 command or example), " or by implication " (that is, by logical infer- 
 ence). My opponent is mistaken, then, in saying that all of them agree 
 that it is clearly deducible from the New Testament. If a doctrine 
 is taught neither by express terms, nor by implication, it is not 
 taught at all. Many Pfedo-baptist authorities say it is not of apostolic 
 origin. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I say that. 
 
 Mr. Harding — They say it is of post-apostolic origin. Do you say 
 that 1 Mr. Wilkinson would have us believe that he agrees with 
 Neander, Meyer, and the many Psedo-baptists who deny the apostolic 
 origin of this rite ; but does he 1 He claims that it is of divine origin, 
 and he goes back to the Old Testament to find the beginning of it in 
 circumcision ; do they so claim 1 Hear them testify, my friends, and 
 know for yourself. Neander says, (see his Church History, Vol. 
 1, p. 311) "Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men 
 were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connecte'l. 
 
318 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic 
 institution, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, 
 as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis." This 
 greatest of Church historians here testifies (1) that " baptism was 
 administered at first only to adults;" (2) that "men (including the 
 inspired apostles and evangelists, of course, as they did most of the 
 baptizing ' at first ') were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith 
 as strictly connected ; " and (3) that it was recognized somewhat later 
 than the apostolic age, "as an apostolic tradition." But some one 
 may inquire, " Is there not much force in its having been received as 
 an apostolic tradition 1 " No; for they called infant communion also 
 "an apostolical tradition." Says Dr. Knapp (Pivdo-baptist)," Augus- 
 tine calls infant baptism opostolica traditio ; and we should un- 
 questionably attach some importance to this testimony, if he had not 
 also called infant communion apostolica traditio ; we know he was 
 mistaken in this case. Why not then in the other 1 " — Southern 
 Revieiv, Vol. 14, p. 344. 
 
 Dr. Bledsoe adds to this testimony of Knapp's that "When the 
 Fathers were called upon to defend any custom of the Church, they 
 seldom, if ever, failed to plead an apostolical tradition in its favor." 
 Meyer says it is " an institution of the Church which gradually arose 
 in post-apostolic times ; " and yet Mr. Wilkinson would have you 
 believe that all these great authorities agree with him, and that I very 
 much misrepresent them. Does he think that infant baptism arose in 
 post-apostolic times ? that it cannot be found in the New Testament 
 in "express terms," or "by implication from any portion of its 
 language % " Certainly he does not ; then he does not agree with these 
 authorities. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson still insists that Trentvus referred to infant baptism, 
 when he said, speaking of Christ, " He came to save all persons by 
 Himself ; all who by Him are regenerated unto God ; infants and 
 little ones, and children and youths, and elder persons." Irena>us 
 then explains that " He went through the several ages, for infants 
 being made an infant, sanctifying infants ; to little ones He was made 
 a little one, sanctifying those of that age," etc. By "regenerated," 
 he means " baptized," says Mr. Wilkinson. He meant no such thing; 
 nor would any one have been silly enough to say so, had it not been 
 for the sad necessities of this argument for infant baptism. Drown- 
 ing men will catch at straws. I am willing to leave this case of 
 Irenajus with you, with simply reminding you that Dr. Bledsoe says 
 " Before the time of Tertullian, A.D. 200, there is not an allusion to 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 319 
 
 the custom from which its existence may be fairly inferred ; " and 
 with reminding you, moreover, tliat Dr. Meyer says, " It is not cer- 
 tainly attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, 
 and, although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general 
 after the time of Augustine [A.D. 400] in virtue of that connection." 
 While Meyer and Bledsoe agree with me about a matter of this kind, 
 I shall not trouble myself as to whether Mr. Wilkinson does or 
 not. 
 
 He thinks that Tertullian did not oppose it on the ground that it 
 was not of Divine origin, but on the ground that he did not believe 
 that sins committed after baptism could be forgiven. This is not so ; 
 as Bledsoe truly says, he condemns it "as having no foundatioia either 
 in reason or revelation." Neander says Tertullian was " an uncondi- 
 tional opponent of infant baptism ; " and he claims that his opposi- 
 tion to it grew out of " the great importance which he attached to its 
 spiritual conditions." (Vol. 1. pp. 231, 2.) Moreover Tertullian does 
 make a clear argument from the words of Jesus : he says, " ' Do not 
 forbid them to come to me.^ Therefore let them come when they are 
 grown up ; let them come when they can understand ; when they are 
 instructed whither it is that they come ; let them be made Christians 
 when they can know Christ." 
 
 Dr. Watson is an authority of a different class. He believes 
 that infant baptism can be deduced from the Bible, though he admits 
 that he can find no express mention of it in the New Testament. He 
 says, "Though there is no expressed example in the New Testament 
 of Christ or the apostles baptizing children, yet there is no proof that 
 they were excluded." If they were never excluded from baptism, it 
 is because they had never been admitted to it. As we will see by and 
 by, when we come to that part of Mr. Wilkinson's speech, when 
 Chri.st authorized His apostles to baptize. He limited them to the 
 baptism of believers. 
 
 My friends, it is a thing made out that there is not the slightest 
 reference whatever, of any kind, in the New Testament to infant 
 baptism. Bledsoe, Neander, Meyer, Schaff, Watson, Mosheim, and 
 hundreds of other Pjedo-baptists have searched diligently for it, but 
 have not been able to find a single clear case or express mention of 
 it ; they cannot find a single reference to it from Matthew to Revela- 
 tion ; and some of the greatest of them frankly admit that it did 
 not begin to be practiced for many years after John died : some of 
 them, however, as Watson and Schaff, like Mr. Wilkinson, go back to 
 the Old Testament, and try to draw an inference in favor of the prac- 
 
320 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 tice from the rite of circumcision. Is it not strange that if it is taught 
 anywhere in the Bible, the greatest of Biblical critics, Meyer, failed 
 to find it there 1 that if it was practiced from apostolic times, the 
 greatest of Church historians, Neander, did not discover the fact ? 
 that if Irena-us mentions it, Meyer and Bledsoe can not so under- 
 stand him ? Indeed, my friends, as Dr. George E. Steitz says, "among 
 scientifical exegetes it is regarded as an established conclusion that 
 not a trace of infant baptism can be discovered in the New Testa- 
 ment." Is it not singular that men practice " by the authority of 
 Jesus Christ " that about which Christ and His apostles are as silent 
 as the grave 1 Is it not singular that the Lord should expect us to 
 baptize infants " by His authority " when neither He nor His apostles 
 ever said a word about, or gave us a single example of it '? There are 
 frequent references in the New Testament to the baptism of men, of 
 women, and of believers, but not one to the baptism of babies. 
 
 My opponent has rested his case almost entirely upon the claim 
 that as circumcision was formerly the seal of the covenant of redemp- 
 tion, baptism is now. The covenant is the same, he argues, but 
 baptism is now the seal, whereas circumcision formerly was. Observe, 
 my friends, and you will see that he goes to the wall on this point, as 
 emphatically as any one ever did since the world began. He gives 
 baptism the place that God has given to His Holy Spirit. At Eph. 1:13 
 we read, " In whom ye also trusted,, after that you heard the word of 
 truth, the Gospel of your salvation ; in whom also after that ye 
 believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." From this 
 we learn that the Holy Spirit, not baptism, is the seal. Again at 
 Eph. 4 : 30, we read, " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby we 
 are sealed unto the day of redemption." Also at 2 Cor. 1 : 22 it is 
 said, " Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit 
 in our hearts." 
 
 My opponent has occasionally hinted that we lay too mucli stress 
 upon the efficacy of water ; but we have never put water iii the place 
 of the Holy Spirit of God. Baptism is never. called the seal of the 
 new covenant, never ; not a word was ever spoken by an inspired 
 man that intimates that it lias any such place ; on the contrary, we 
 are said to be baptized into Christ, baptized for the remission of sins, 
 and as we are not sealed as Christ's till we are in Him, the gift of the 
 Holy Spirit, which, according to the gospel rule, follows baptism, is 
 appropriately called by the apostle the seal ; and hence the Bible 
 doctrine (Gal. 4 : 6), " Because ye are sons God hath sent forth the 
 Spirit of His son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." Truth is 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 321 
 
 consistent, error is not, hence Mr. Wilkinson's position is forever 
 leading him to contradict and pervert the Word of God. 
 
 When my friend began to read from the fourth chapter of Romans, 
 I thought within myself, surely he is hard pressed indeed to go there ; 
 for if one wants to show that infant baptism is not found in the 
 Bible, but that iinder the new covenant (which is with Abraham's 
 spiritual seed), believers are baptized, not infants, he should take this 
 chapter to begin with. Abraham has two seeds: (1) those who 
 sprang from his loins according to the law of natural generation, and 
 (2) those who became his sons by being "born again" through his 
 great son Jesus Christ ; as saith the Scripture, "If ye be Christ's, then 
 are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Re- 
 membering that Abraham has two seeds, and that the new covenant 
 is with the spiritual seed, just as the covenant of circumcision is with 
 the natural, let us read from this fourth chapter of Romans. The 
 apostle quotes David (ver. 7), " Blessed are they whose iniquities are 
 forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom 
 the Lord will not impute sin." Then he says of Abraham (ver. 11), 
 "He received the sign of circumcision, 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 to them also." This verse 
 shows that his spiritual seed are all them that believe, whether circum- 
 cised or not ; and this agrees exactly with the saying of the apostle 
 John, "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God :" 
 all those born of God are Christ's, and hence are Abraham's seed 
 according to the promise. But infants, never having sinned, not 
 being dead in sin, do not need to be born again ; as a matter of fact 
 they cannot be born again, seeing they cannot believe that Jesus is the 
 Christ. It is said (ver. 12) that Abraham is "the father of circum- 
 cision 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." This verse teaches that Abraham is the 
 father of those who " walk in the steps " of his faith. No infants in 
 that. At verse sixteen it is said, speaking of imputed righteousness, 
 " 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." Abraham is not the spiritual father of every- 
 body who is born into this world, as Mr. Wilkinson seems to believe, 
 seeing that he would have all baptized, but as these verses clearly 
 21 
 
322 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 show, he is the father of all that believe that Jesus is the Christ, of 
 all who walk in the steps of his faith. These, and these only, should 
 be baptized, for Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved." If we turn to Galatians we find the same doctrine. Paul 
 there says (Gal. 3 : 7), " Know ye therefore that they which are of 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham." But it is hard to get 
 Mr Wilkinson to know this ; he goes blundering around with his eyes 
 shut, claiming that every body that is born into this world is of the 
 seed of Abraham, and that they should all receive the seal of the 
 covenant that God made with his spiritual seed ; then lie adds the 
 blunder of supposing that baptism is the .seal. By the way, if infants 
 must be regenerated in order to be saved, if, in point of fact, they are 
 all regenerated (born again) even at their birth, is not that being born 
 again without faith, repentance, prayer, understanding, or anything 
 else 1 And then when they believe that Jesus is the Christ, with a 
 trusting obedient faith, are they not born again the third time? How 
 many new births does Mr. Wilkinson believe in, anyhow? I am 
 sure I don't know, and I don't believe he does himself; but the Bible 
 doctrine is, " Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," 
 and, " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed." Gal. 3 : 26, 29. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson thinks that if I can prove " that infants are in- 
 capable of receiving justification," I can show that they are not in 
 the covenant of redemption. Certainly, that is so. To justify is to 
 pardon, to forgive. How can God forgive one who has never sinned 1 
 how can He justify one who has done no wrong 1 Remember, John 
 says, "Sin is the transgression of the law " (1 John 3:4); and Paul 
 says (Eph. 2:1, Revised Version), "Ye were dead through your 
 trespasses and sins;" and God says (Ezek. 18:4), "The soul that 
 sinneth, it shall die." So infants are not sinners, seeing they have 
 transgressed no law ; they are not dead, seeing we die through sinning, 
 through our trespasses and sins ; and hence it follows that they cannot 
 be justified, seeing that justification includes the forgiveness of sins. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson says Abraham never possessed the land of Canaan. 
 Well, what of it 1 God did not promise it to him for himself, but for 
 his seed. What has that to do with our question 1 
 
 I understood him to deny that God promised the land of Canaan to 
 him and his seed for an everlasting possession. Read and see : " I 
 will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thoe, the land wherein thou 
 art a stranger, all the land of Canaaji, for an everlasting possession." 
 Gen. 17 : 8. Had not the Jews broken the covenant of the Lord they 
 would have been dwelling in that land to this day ; and if they turn 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 323 
 
 to the Lord, doubtless, they will have it restored to them. At any 
 rate this one thing is certain, viz., the very last time an inspired man 
 makes any reference to the practice of circumcision among the Jews, 
 he teaches that they were still circumcising their children and that it 
 would be disorderly for any one to instruct them to do otherwise. 
 About this there is no room for doubt. 
 
 Of the two circumcisions, that of the flesh and that of the heart, the 
 one belonged to the natural seed of Abraham, and was connected with 
 the earthly inheritance ; the other, to the spiritual seed, is connected 
 with the celestial inheritance ; the one was made by a knife cutting 
 the foreskin of the flesh ; the other with the sword of the Spirit cut. 
 ting the heart. When Peter spake to the people, using the sword of 
 the Spirit with such tremendous power (Acts, 2nd chapter), it is said, 
 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart;" 
 observe, this sword that is "sharper than any two-edged sword" 
 pierced to their hearts, cut ofi" their stubbornness, and made them 
 anxious to do the will of God ; thus were they circumcised in heart. 
 In the one case a material knife cuts a material body, and this cutting 
 is the token of a material inheritance ; in the other, a spiritual knife 
 cuts the spiritual or " inner man," and this cutting leads to an eternal 
 inheritance. This sword of the Spirit pierces to the dividing asunder 
 of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the 
 thoughts and intents of the heart. By using this sword Peter so 
 pierced the hearts of the people that many men and women cried out 
 in their anguish, " Men and brethren, what shall we do 1 " He 
 replied, " Repent, 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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, 
 and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call." Acts 2 : 37-39. Mr. Wilkinson thinks that as the promise (the 
 gift of the Holy Spirit) was to them and their children, they would 
 naturally conclude that their infants should be baptized. He told 
 them " to repent," and to be baptized " for the remission of sins ; " as 
 infants cannot repent, and as they have no sins to be forgiven — and 
 never did have — I infer they would not expect their infants to be 
 baptized ; and as the promise was to all whom the Lord should call, 
 and as He came not to call the righteous but sinners — those who are 
 weary and heavy laden — it is clear infants are not among those who 
 are to receive this promise. They do not need it. The word rendered 
 " children" means " offspring," without any reference to age. 
 
 My opponent wants to know something about the time when the 
 
324 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 seal is applied. As he needs information on that subject very badly 
 indeed, it gives me pleasure to furnish it. We have it as a fixed fact 
 — a matter settled by the very words of God — that we are sealed by 
 the Holy Spirit. When does one receive Him 1 At John 7 : 37-39 
 we read, " In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and 
 cried, saying. If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. He 
 that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall 
 flow rivers of living water. (But this spake He of the Spirit, which 
 they that believe on Him should receive ; for the Holy Ghost was not 
 yet given : because that Jesus was not yet glorified)." In this place 
 Jesus plainly foretells that believers will be sealed by the Spirit. 
 Paul, as we have seen, in writing to the Ephesians tells them that 
 they were sealed by the Spirit " after that they believed." (Eph. 1 : 13). 
 And as they are baptized with water in token that they have received 
 the Spirit, according to the Methodistic theory, baptism in water must 
 follow faith ; unless they can show that one is born again of the Spirit 
 twice, once in infancy, and again when he believes ; a thing that all 
 who know anything about the Bible teaching on this subject, know 
 cannot be done. 
 
 My opponent spoke about the Gentiles being fellow-heirs with the 
 Jews under this new dispensation. Yes, they are. How did they get 
 in? In that allegory of the olive tree, so often referred to, Paul 
 says to the Gentiles that the natural branches (the Jews, who were 
 connected by natural generation with Christ) were broken ofi" "be- 
 cause of unbelief;" and that the Gentiles stood "by faith;" he 
 added that if the Jews continued not in unbelief they would be grafted 
 in again, and that if the Gentiles should forsake their faith they would 
 not be spared. So we see the Gentiles came in by faith. It is all a 
 matter of faith. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson wants to know, if babies are not saved while they 
 live, how they can be safe when they come to die. Infants are born 
 innocent, we agree, and hence are safe when they are born ; during 
 their infancy they cannot sin, and hence remain safe through that 
 period ; if they die in infancy, being sinless, they die safe. Will Mr. 
 Wilkinson tell us how one can be saved from that from which he is 
 already absolutely and unconditionally safe 1 To talk about infants 
 being saved is to intimate that at some period in their infancy they 
 are in danger of hell fire — are lost — than which nothing is more 
 unscriptural and nonsensical. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson does not approve of the doctrine of the disciples 
 that one should have a " thus saith the Lord " for all that he does in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 325 
 
 the service of God. And no wonder ; a Methodist could never be 
 very strongly attached to that doctrine. But the illustration by 
 which he blunderingly tries to ridicule the doctrine does not serve 
 him well. In his illustration, you remember, the man who argued 
 for the "thus saith the Loi'd," fell into a well ; and the other man 
 searched the Scriptures to find a command for taking him out ; and 
 he found one ; if he had not been an ignoramus he would have 
 thought of it without searching ; he was a very ignorant man, indeed, 
 not to have thought of the golden rule. I venture to say, and will 
 undertake to maintain the statement, that there is absolutely no good 
 thing that a man can do, that is not taught, directly or indirectly, 
 in the Bible. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. Harding — And heed what you hear. Infant baptism is not 
 taught in the Bible, in any way, and hence it is not a good thing. A 
 great many of the most earnest and faithful men have been con- 
 strained to say it is not to be found in the book, although strongly 
 prejudiced in its favor. Such a one is Neander, and such the great 
 Meyer, who tells us not only that there is not a trace of it to be 
 found in the New Testament, but that it is of post-apostolic origin, 
 an institution of the Church that arose after the days of the apostles. 
 
 And that brings me to this red line on my friend's chronological 
 chart (A.D. 100.) He says his proposition requires him to trace 
 infant baptism just to that point, to the death of John, as he is only 
 to show that it has been practiced from the apostolic age. He is 
 mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I said the latter part of my proposition only 
 called for this. 
 
 Mr. Harding — In arranging for the debate he wrote, "Infant 
 baptism is of divine authority, and has been practiced by the 
 Christian Church from apostolic times." I said, " I deny that," and 
 promptly signed my name as taking the negative of it. Just then 
 one of my brethren, now present, looking at it said, '"From apostolic 
 times,' that only requires him to trace it back to the edge of the 
 apostolic age." I remarked, " ' Divine authority ' covers the ground : 
 that takes him into the apostolic times." "But," said the bi'other, "I 
 would rather have him say that it was practiced in apostolic times." 
 This Mr. Wilkinson declined to say. I then said, " Very good ; if 
 Mr. Wilkinson wants to acknowledge that it was not practiced in 
 apostolic times, I am willing ; but how then will he get his ' divine 
 authority.' " In his last speech he says, " I did not undertake to 
 
326 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 prove from history that it was practiced in the apostolic age. I knew 
 what I was doing." That is, I suppose, he knew it was not practiced 
 in the apostolic age. I knew that, but I supposed that he was 
 ignorant of the fact. That which has begun since the apostles has for 
 it no divine authority. 
 
 He now asks if he has not traced it back to the apostolic age. No 
 sir ; you lack just t>ne hundred years of it ; there is just that much 
 of a gap between the beginning of your practice and the death of the 
 last apostle ; so testify the most learned of Psedo-baptists. 
 
 Now to the commission : Mr. Wilkinson calls attention to the fact 
 that the word rendered " teach," in Matthew's account of it. is 
 matheteuo, which he properly rendered "to disciple," "to make dis- 
 ciples of ; " then he paraphrased the passage thus : " Go get the 
 nations into my school by baptizing thera, and then let them come and 
 learn of me." A gross perversion of the passage ! The word matheteuo 
 signifies to disciple hy teaching ; Greene defines it thus : "To be the 
 disciple of, to follow as a disciple ; in N. T., to make a disciple of, to 
 train in discipleship ; jmsa., to be trained, discipled, instructed." Mark 
 gives the same commission in these words : " 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." 
 Mark 16 : 15, 16. Where Matthew says, " make disciples," Mark 
 says, " preach the Gospel ;" and the latter adds : " He that believeth 
 and is baptized ; " showing that to make disciples is to make believers 
 by preaching, and that the baptizing comes after the believing : I take 
 it that Mark is a very good commentator on Matthew. 
 
 This commission harmonizes perfectly with what Jeremiah says 
 about the new covenant ; for under it God writes His laws in the 
 minds and hearts of the people, and all shall know Him from the least 
 to the greatest. 
 
 [Time expired!] 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 327 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S NINTH SPEECH. 
 
 I am not ^oing to haggle any more about authorities, but I will 
 continue the argument in support of my proposition. My opponent 
 says that Pyedo-baptist authorities are with him. He quotes from 
 one such authority who declares that infant baptism is of post- 
 apostolic origin and has no foundation in the word of God ; but there 
 are thousands who hold differently, and for every scholar among the 
 ranks of the Ptedo-baptists who can be found on that side, a thousand 
 can be found on this side. Besides, it is very strange, if the authori- 
 ties he quotes are so certain about infant baptism not being taught in 
 the Scriptures, that they are Psedo-baptists, yet I'll guarantee they all 
 defend their practice from the Bible. It is also strange if Dr. 
 Bledsoe declared at one time that " the doctrine is not found in the 
 New Testament, either in express terms or by implication," and at 
 another time that is "clearly deducible " from the Scripture. Still, 
 you will observe, his remark, as quoted by my opponent in his last 
 speech, relates to the New Testament, and not to the whole Bible. 
 And so you will find in every case, almost without exception, there is 
 some explanation of these men's utterances not found in the scraps 
 quoted by their opponents, which if supplied would make their teach- 
 ings consistent. I have never known an instance where this was not 
 the case. Let this suffice about the authorities. 
 
 In my debates with these gentlemen I have been treated to a great 
 many dishes of resurrection hash, but I think the last speech I 
 listened to from my opponent contained the biggest dose I ever had 
 to take. I think the audience is entitled to a dish of something fresh 
 from him, and 1 hope they will get it unless he has exhausted the 
 supply. He tried to create an erroneous impression with respect to 
 my proposition. Let us look at the subject fairly. I say, first, that 
 infant baptism is of Divine authority. That confines me to the 
 Scriptures. But I do not stop there. I say, not only that it is of 
 Divine appointment, but also that it has been practiced in the Chris- 
 tian Church from apostolic times. My proof under the first clause 
 must necessarily be confined to the Scriptures. Under the latter 
 clause I have simply to prove that it has existed from the close of the 
 New Testament Canon to the present time in the Christian Church. 
 There is no use in his attempting to take any advantage of me by 
 trying to make the two parts of my proposition overlap each other, 
 for it is not fair to do so. The dodge is quite transparent. 
 
328 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 My opponent says there is not a case of conversion before baptism 
 recorded in the Bible, except that of Cornelius, and that was a 
 miracle. I shall be glad if he will tell us what he means by a miracle. 
 Effects are produced chiefly in three ways : by natural law, by human 
 agency, and by Divine power outside of natural law. It is a miracle 
 when God exercises His power outside of natural law. In which of 
 these ways are all conversions effected 1 Are they effected by natural 
 law 1 This one conversion, my opponent says, was a miracle. What 
 about other conversions ? In what way does this conversion differ 
 from the rest 1 God can exercise His saving power when He pleases 1 
 He is not confined to outward ordinances in order to save men. You 
 are not required either to have a dip in the water or a lot of water 
 poured over you in order that Christ may get into your heart. " But 
 God is the author of those outward rites," says my opponent, "and 
 must operate on men's hearts through their instrumentality." It would 
 be a strange thing, however, if He put up a barrier between Himself 
 and man's salvation so that it should by necessity depend on human 
 instrumentality. God cannot convert a man, according to my 
 opponent's theory, until He can get him, or some other Disciple priest, 
 to come and dip the individual. Thus the Lord Jesus has got to send 
 for Mr. Harding before He can convert a man ! What do you think 
 of such a doctrine as that 1 The Lord Jesus has bound His hands 
 behind Him so that He cannot convert a man's soul, nor get into his 
 heart by His Holy Spirit till He gets some one who believes in dipping to 
 put the candidate under water so that He can get at him ! It amuses me. 
 This case of Cornelius was the first case of conversion after the intro- 
 duction of the Gospel to the Gentiles. It was therefore a representa- 
 tive case. It showed the way in which Christ would receive the 
 Gentiles as soon as they believed in Him, and Divine truth got into 
 their hearts, water or no water. In ordinary cases God does not 
 visibly manifest the pouring out of His Spirit. We do not therefore 
 know when it takes place. We have to take a man's word for it, if 
 he is an adult ; if an infant we know he is all right, for God says so. 
 John was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, but 
 surely it was not because of his faith ! There is another " skeleton 
 in the closet" for my opjionent, and he is terribly afraid of it. Abraham 
 was justified, regenerated, made a child of God, then the Divine seal 
 was put upon him. The same thing took place in the case of Isaac at 
 eight days old. Adults have first to be made new creatures by faith 
 in Christ, and then visibly sealed. The seal is applied in the case of 
 infants without any faith, proving that they are already in Christ. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 329 
 
 This is another " skeleton in the closet." Isaac received the same 
 seal as Abraham and enjoyed the same blessing. Will my opponent 
 deny this 1 Did the seal mean one thing to Abraham and another 
 thing to Isaac 1 I say it meant the same thing in both cases. It 
 meant that both belonged •to the Lord and that He had a right to put 
 His mark upon them. Will Mr. Harding please tell us where there 
 is a " thus saith the Lord " for teaching that the seal to Abraham 
 meant one thing and the same seal to Isaac another 1 He has given 
 us nothing yet but the authority of his own illustrious opinion. 
 
 Now, with respect to the olive tree illustration. My opponent in- 
 terprets the term "natural branches" as referring to the connection 
 between the Jews and Christ " by natural generation." Yet he admits 
 they were "broken oflF" from that connection by unbelief. That is, 
 the connection resulting from natural generation ceased because of 
 their unbelief ! And the Gentiles were "grafted in" by faith in the 
 place of the Jews and became our Lord's natural relatives, and if the 
 Jews continue not in unbelief they will be restored again as our 
 Lord's natural relatives ! Well, well, I never knew before that faith 
 and unbelief had anything to do with natural relationships. But my 
 opponent's false theory of interpretation frequently lands him in just 
 such absurdities. The fact is that the olive tree has nothing to do 
 with natural generation, but is a figure of the Jewish Church of which 
 all Jews in their infancy were considered members in a spiritual sense, 
 and so continued until "broken off by unbelief." This membership 
 was recognized by the seal of circumcision. They knew no other. 
 Now,- when the Gentiles are grafted in and become branches of the 
 same olive tree are they not to be sealed also "? They were under the 
 old dispensation. All Gentile proselytes to the Jewish Church were 
 sealed with circumcision. Are they not to be sealed under the new 
 dispensation also ? If so, with what seal? My opponent admits that 
 Gentiles are not to be circumcised. But he says the Spirit is the seal 
 under this dispensation. Very good. And the gift of the Spirit is 
 called baptism. Water baptism simply makes this visible, hence as 
 the Spirit's baptism is the spiritual seal, so ritual baptism is the sym- 
 bolic seal. This being the case, baptism answers precisely the same 
 end now that circumcision formerly did. I do not believe that cir- 
 cumcision sealed righteousness to Abraham in its spiritual essence, but 
 only in ceremonial figure. This outward seal was the sign and pledge 
 of it. I believe as much as my opponent does that the Holy Spirit 
 seals us " to the day of redemption ; " therefore I do not believe it is 
 done in ritual baptism. I believe baptism is the outward visible 
 
330 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 illustration of it. As circumcision was the outward seal and pledge 
 of justification under tlie old dispensation, so baptism is the outward 
 pledge and seal of justification under the new dispensation, and the 
 outward seal is not the seal itself, it is only the sign of it (see Rom. 
 4:11). It was not the circumcision of Abraham's flesh, therefore, that 
 regenerated his heart ; nor was circumcision a spiritual seal. The 
 real sealing was eflfected under the old dispensation as well as this by 
 the Holy Spirit. Nor does baptism regenerate the heart ; baptism 
 with water only makes the Spirit's operations visible. I hope my 
 opponent will remember to draw a distinction between things that 
 difier ; the spiritual reality and the outward shadow of that reality are 
 two things, yet he has put the substance in place of the shadow and 
 the shadow in place of the substance. I pointed this out last night 
 and I hope he will bear it in mind. 
 
 He says we give no blessing to children in baptism, except a few 
 drops of water. He has sought to leave the impression on your mind 
 that because he prays for children he is a prayer ahead of us. But 
 we pray for children, too, therefore we give a few drops of water 
 more than he does. And we symbolize the safe condition of the child, 
 and religiously recognize that it is neither a heathen nor a child of 
 the devil. There is no such distinction, as far as their religious con- 
 dition is concerned, in the case of my opponent's children. They are 
 in the same condition in the eyes of the world as are the children of 
 barbarians and heathens. What does he confer in baptism that we do 
 not, except a good wetting, a burial in water in imitition of a funeral, 
 and often a bad cold and not unfrequently a shroud and coffin. I have 
 just received a letter from a Presbyterian minister in the county of 
 Simcoe who said he had an interview with a gentleman near Ottawa 
 within the last few days who told him that a daughter of one of his 
 neighbors was recently baptized by immersion, took cold and died. I 
 have a book in my possession giving a number # such instances. That 
 is what my opponent gives more than I give, because no one ever 
 heard of any one taking cold from being baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 He admits that our doctrine would put every man, woman and child 
 into the Church in a short time. Well, I cannot say as much for his, 
 for it puts every infant and invalid and all, however sincere, who 
 cannot accept this immersion-superstition-dogma, outside the Church, 
 and keeps them there, relegating their souls to the limbo of the un- 
 circumcised. 
 
 As for the assumption that infants go to heaven without the media- 
 tion of Christ, it is a bald, baseless assumption of his own, without the 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 331 
 
 first scrap of reason, or Scripture, or common sense to recommend it. 
 Until he gives us something besides his own unsupported ipse dixit to 
 support it, it isn't worth a rush. And the very idea of a man's re- 
 quiring people in a debate to accept his own solitary opinion as 
 evidence is rather cool even for winter weather. He cannot find a 
 child in heaven if he or she has not come there by the blood of the 
 Lamb ; he cannot find a scrap of Scripture evidence that any child or 
 human being goes to heaven except through the death of Christ. " No 
 man can come to the Father except by Me." My opponent has prated 
 much about faith, faith, faith. We attach as much importance to 
 faith as he does. He says the Lord does not enjoin any condition on 
 children. They are not capable of complying with conditions. What 
 is faith ? It is resting on Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and infants 
 do not require to do so, for they have no sins to forgive. My oppo- 
 nent quotes from Romans, 4th chapter, to show that Abraham was the 
 father of all that believe. True, and circumcision sealed their faith. 
 Yet he says it was a seal of an earthly land property — a huge pile of 
 dirt. He says it did not refer to spiritual blessings at all, it meant 
 nothing but a pile of dirt in Judea. He says the covenant of circum- 
 cision was not the one fulfilled in Christ. Then Paul must have been 
 much mistaken. (Compare Rom. 4:16 with Gen. 17 : 5.) Either Paul 
 is wrong or Mr. Harding is wrong, and you can pin your faith to 
 which ever of those gentleman you think is best deserving of your 
 belief. It does not matter to me, it matters to you. 
 
 You would think, to hear my opponent talk, that it is impossible to 
 admit children into a covenant along with adults except on the same 
 conditions. Or if the conditions should be difierent, this fact must 
 always be specified when any reference is made to the matter. Yet we 
 have a covenant made with Abraham involving faith as a condition on 
 his part before receiving the seal, and we know that his infant ofi"- 
 spring were included and the same seal applied to them and nothing 
 said about conditions of any kind. So, if there is any incongruity 
 about the matter, God is the author of it. And the very same thing 
 may be said about baptism. We know it is the symbol of the same 
 blessing as circumcision, namely, righteousness. We know that adults 
 are required to believe before receiving it, and we see no greater in- 
 congruity about applying it unconditionally to infants than in the 
 case of circumcision. Adults must believe, as I have shown, in order 
 to be justified. Infants are already in a justified state before God and 
 have no need of faith, hence it is not required of them. 
 
 He imputes to me the statement that the covenant of circumcision 
 
332 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Avas not an everlasting covenant. I nevei' uttered such a word. I 
 never dreamed of making such a statement. My argument is based 
 on the fact that it is an everlasting covenant and therefore cannot be 
 confined to the land of Judea, because the land of Judea is not ever- 
 lasting, and the New Testament points us to an " inheritance, incor- 
 ruptible, undetiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven." 
 Nothing could be more false than to impute to me the statement that 
 the covenant was not everlasting. 
 
 With respect to the word matheteusate. He says it means to in- 
 struct. Certainly. But when I say, matheteusate, go make disciples 
 of, I am simply telling you to go and bring the people into the school 
 where they may be instructed. The law was our instructor or 
 " school master " until Christ came, but when He came we had- no 
 need of such a school master any longer. Christ became our teacher 
 according to Divine prophecy concerning the Christian Church, which 
 says that " all her children should be taught of the Lord." Therefore, 
 says Christ, "Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me." Bring the 
 nations to Christ and let them learn of Him, is the meaning of the 
 commission. It is not a command confined merely to instruction ; it 
 is to bring in the people that they may receive instruction ; bring 
 them in by baptism ; then " teach them to observe all things whatso- 
 ever I have commanded you." That is the Divine command. Is this 
 to put Mark against Matthew ? If he consults the revised Testament 
 — no doubt he knew it — he will find that the passage in Mark, from 
 verse eight to the end, is set off from the rest of the chapter, and con- 
 stitutes a separate paragraph. He will also find in the margin the 
 statement that all the verses of the chapter after verse eight do not 
 appear in the two oldest Greek MSS. and some other authorities, and 
 that some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel. 
 Yet my opponent placed the passage which is to be found among 
 these verses against an authority which was never questioned. 
 
 He insists on faith, faith, faith. But Mark says, " He that believeth 
 not shall be damned." A baby believes not, and therefore in every 
 sense, according to his own doctrine, he logically damns the babies. 
 They cannot believe, therefore they must go under. 
 
 I want to show that the Church of God which was begun in the 
 days of Abraham and sealed with the seal of circumcision is the same 
 to-day as it was then. It is not another institution, but the same insti- 
 tution. It is too often assumed that there is nothing in common 
 between the.se two dispensations, that everything under the former had 
 been swept away and everything started anew. You would scarcely 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 333 
 
 suppose that God's people under these two dispensations were as nearly 
 related as forty-second cousins. 
 
 With respect to the olive tree : Paul says, " 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 
 barest not the root, but the root thee." That is a perfectly clear illus- 
 tration of the fact that the Gentile Church is not some new institu- 
 tion, but a continuation of the old Church, grafted on the original 
 stock, Christ being the administrator of this dispensation, Moses and 
 his successors in the Levitical priesthood the administrators of that 
 dispensation. The new covenant was with the House of Israel and the 
 House of Judah. The very same fact is more fully stated in Ephesians 
 2:11, 12, '-'Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles 
 in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the 
 circumcision in the flesh made by hands ; that at that time ye were with- 
 out Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers 
 from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God 
 in the world." But Gentiles and Jews were made one by the blood 
 of Christ, and He hath broken down the middle wall of partition 
 between us. It is needless to multiply proof although I have plenty at 
 hand. It is the same God that established all things from the beginning, 
 the same Christ, "who is over all, God blessed forever," and yet not 
 the same Church 1 the same Saviour under the old dispensation as 
 under the new, yet not the same Gospel salvation 1 the same Spirit 
 under the old as under the new ; the same doctrines precisely under the 
 old as under the new ; the same moral law under the old as under the 
 new ; the same design, viz., the regeneration of the heart, preparing 
 man for heaven, imder the old as under the new ; the same result, the 
 cleansing of the soul, under the old as under the new ; the same end, 
 taking man to heaven when he shall die, under the old as under the 
 new ; the same heaven promised and believed in and hoped for ; the 
 same salvation — all the same, but illustrated to the world in different 
 ways. Yet my opponent would have you believe there is nothing in 
 common between those two institutions. It is the same thing, but under 
 different manifestations. But you see it is the same. So, if I show 
 you the Church of Christ in its infancy and in the bud under the 
 former dispensation, and show you the same Church under the new 
 dispensation in its full bloom, in its manhood and strength, it is the 
 same institution. Because the dispensation is changed and the 
 Divine plan concerning human redemption is more fully unfolded, is it 
 
334 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 not, therefore, the same 1 Is it not the same Divine stream of truth 
 running down through and permeating the whole 1 and is not that fact 
 illustrated in the prophetic river of Ezekiel that flowed out from 
 under the threshold of the temple 1 First, the waters were up to the 
 ankles; second, to the knees; third, to the loins; fourth, a river to 
 swim in ; fifth, an ocean, spreading out and taking in the whole wide 
 world. "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every 
 creature." Not two rivers. The same in its Divine expansiveness, 
 in its all-comprehensiveness. Those who have but feeble intelligence 
 to comprehend, and so but imperfectly understand the Divine purposes, 
 cannot see it in its comprehensiveness. Let me recommend my opponent 
 to come up into the Divine mount with Moses and look out over the 
 promised land, if he cannot enter it, and get a little glimpse of the all- 
 comprehensiveness and harmony and glory and beauty and magni- 
 tude of the Divine plan as it is unfolded before all the nations in all 
 its magnificence. Let him behold the Divine superstructure rise like 
 the temple of Solomon without even the sound of any human instru- 
 ment upon its stones and pillars, a lovely temple of the living God. 
 It seems to me if there is anything under the whole canopy of heaven 
 calculated to impress the unbelieving or sceptical mind with the Divine 
 origin or authenticity of the Christian religion, whatever evil spirit 
 may be manifested by its adherents, it is this great fact that because 
 of the unity, harmony, and superabounding glory of the whole it is 
 manifest that one all-pervading, superintending, infinite mind must 
 have originated, must have supervised the erection of the super, 
 structure, and will do so until the last stone is brought on with shout- 
 ings of grace, grace unto it. My opponent's theory, on the other hand, 
 by denying the unity of the plan, destroys the harmony, and detracts 
 from the magnificence of the superstructure, making it fragmentary 
 and to a large extent earthly in its nature and design. Thus instead 
 of spiritualizing the covenant and raising men's thoughts to God, he 
 materializes it and points them to the earth. For my part I prefer 
 the former. 
 
 And now let me give a passing 'glance at a few of my opponent's 
 positions before I resume my seat. 
 
 1. He is fond of quoting the fifteenth chapter of Acts to prove 
 that it was the Gentiles only who were exempted from circumcision 
 by the action of " the apostles and elders " in their council at Jeru- 
 salem. I want to remind the congregation that at tliat council Peter 
 distinctly testified that "God put no difference" between the Gentiles 
 and the Jews, " purifying their hearts by faith." "Now, therefore," 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 335 
 
 said he, "why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the 
 disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." Yet 
 my opponent expects to convince you that the Jews are still bearing 
 that yoke, by Divine authority, and must continue to bear it while 
 the world stands ; and all this because Paul, to allay the prejudices 
 of certain Jews, on one occasion circumcised a young man vt^ho was, 
 by descent, a Greek, and not a Jew ; and on another occasion he 
 shaved his head and purified himself, ceremonially, to satisfy the 
 Jews that he was not striving to overthrow circumcision and the law 
 of Moses. (See Acts 21 : 20, etc.) Now, if this proves that Paul 
 was still advocating circumcision among the Jews, it equally proves 
 that he was still advocating the Mosaic law, for these two things are 
 coupled together in the account. But the facts are, not that Paul 
 sanctioned the continuance of either, but simply showed to the Jews 
 that he was not seeking to undermine either. His aim was simply to 
 show that the provisions of the Gospel fully met the demands of both. 
 But the blinded minds of those bigoted Jews were not to be enlight- 
 ened in a day, nor by a single apostolic lesson ; therefore, until he 
 could gradually undermine and remove their prejudices, he deemed it 
 better to convince them that he was not an enemy of these old insti- 
 tutions, as they had been told. Now, whenever, in future, my 
 opponent quotes this circumstance in support of circumcision, let him 
 bear in mind that it equally supports the ceremonial law, which he 
 himself will not deny has been abrogated. I hope, therefore, to hear 
 no more nonsense on this subject. 
 
 2. Regarding the case of Timothy, my opponent persists in affirming 
 that Paul would not have circumcised him if his mother had not been 
 a Jewess. How does he know'? Does Meyer, "the greatest of 
 biblical exegetes," say so 1 Does Neander, " the prince of Church 
 historians," say so 1 Does Bledsoe, " the most able, learned, and 
 candid of all the Methodists of the United States," say so 1 " Where 
 are all the scholars gone in this emergency 1 And what can my 
 opponent do without the scholars "? He can vociferate, only vociferate 
 his empty assertions. It is enough for sensible people that the 
 inspired penman says it was because his father was a Greek. There 
 I rest my cause. The case of Titus was not a parallel case at all. 
 The demand for his circumcision was " because of false brethren 
 unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out Paul's liberty, 
 . . . that they might bring him into bondage. To whom he gave 
 place by subjection, no, not for an hour." (See Gal. 2 : 3, etc.) Yet 
 my opponent persistently tries to convey the impression that it was 
 
336 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 because there was no Jewish blood in his veins that Paul refused to 
 circumcise him, which is false. But what say the scholars, Bledsoe, 
 Mejer, and Neanderl We know what Paul says, and with all intel- 
 ligent and unprejudiced persons that will suffice. 
 
 3. But my friend supposes a case, viz., that if I could find a case 
 of infant baptism seventeen years after the beginning of the Christian 
 dispensation, would not that settle the question? Now, let me sup- 
 pose a case. Suppose baptism had been the seal of the covenant 
 under the old dispensation, and circumcision had been appointed 
 under the new ; and suppose the Jews had been so much wedded to 
 baptism as a distinguishing sign that they were very reluctant to 
 relinquish it. And suppose Paul, to allay Jewish prejudice toward a 
 fellow-laborer, had baptized him some seventeen years after the 
 beginning of the Christian dispensation, while at the same time 
 declaring to his countrymen that " if any man is called out of baptism 
 let him not be baptised ; that baptism is nothing, and the absence of 
 baptism is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God " — 
 that "in Jesus Christ neither baptism availeth anything, nor the 
 want of baptism, but faith, which worketh by love " — that " as many 
 as desire to make a fair show in the flesh they constrain you to be 
 baptized ; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of 
 Christ" — that " I, if I yet preach baptism, why do I yet suffer perse- 
 cution'? then is the off'ence of the cross ceased;" that "in Christ ye 
 are baptized with the baptism made without hands, in putting off" the 
 body of the sins of the flesh by the baptism of Christ : having been 
 circumcised with him," etc., would this single case of baptism, under 
 these circumstances, prove that the Jews were to continue to baptize 
 their children through all time, especially if the new rite (circum- 
 cision) was transparently for the same purpose, a symbol of the same 
 truth 1 Surely no one will so argue. Yet this is a parallel case, and 
 my opponent's supposed case doesn't come within forty gun-shots of 
 being parallel. In fact, judging from his eflforts thus far, he seems 
 incapable of drawing a parallel. I guess he uses a crooked ruler. 
 
 5. With regard to John's baptism not coming in the place of 
 circumcision, I reply that John's baptism, like all ceremonial purifi- 
 cations, belonged to the same dispensation that circumcision did, and, 
 hence, could not be its substitute ; while Christian baptism belongs to 
 another dispensation, under which circumcision, as I have shown, is 
 abolished. Hence the difference. But I am ashamed to have to 
 meet such objections. 
 
 6. Children, we are told, cannot believe, therefore they cannot be 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 337 
 
 baptized under the circumcision. My opponent haggles most persist- 
 ently over this point. Let me, however, remind him that they cannot 
 confess their sins any more than they can believe. Yet we are told, 
 in Matt. 3:5, 6, that there " went out to John Jerusalem, and all 
 Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of 
 him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Now, on my opponent's prin- 
 ciple of reasoning, it is evident either that there were no infants in 
 those parts, else that they "went out" to John, and "were baptized 
 of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." He can impale himself on 
 whichever horn of this dilemma he thinks will be most comfortable. 
 One thing is certain, viz., there is no exception made of children. So, 
 also, of the commission as found in Mark, of which my opponent is 
 so passionately fond ; it says, " Go ye into all the world (surely there 
 are infants somewhere in the world), and preach the gospel to every 
 creature " (surely infants are creatures, and there is no exception 
 made of them) ; hence, on the same principle of reasoning, the gospel 
 is to be preached to them. Does my opponent say that this is 
 "silly?" I admit it. But it is exactly of a piece with his own 
 reasoning when he says infants cannot believe, therefore infants can- 
 not be baptized under the commission. Nobody misunderstands such 
 general expressions but those who have an interest in doing so. For 
 a further illustration of the folly of such reasoning I refer my 
 opponent again to the extract from Dr. Wardlaw, given in another 
 speech. 
 
 7. The same remarks are pertinent in the case of the covenant 
 referred to by Jeremiah, in which all are to know the Lord, " from 
 the least of them unto the greatest of them." Of course this does not 
 apply to children any more than the passages I have just quoted ; nor 
 does that prove, by any means, that children are excluded. But such 
 passages afford a convenient pretext to a forlorn cause to indulge in 
 petty quibbling. 
 
 8. My opponent is very much exercised about the diversity of 
 belief between my friend Paterson and myself ; but if he will address 
 himself to the reconciliation of the diversities between the different 
 schools of immersionists, he will have his hands full. If diversity on 
 my side proves infant baptism unscriptural, diversity on his side 
 proves immersion unscriptural. But this seems to show on what a 
 small hook he can hang a big quibble. 
 
 9. My friend says that Abraham is the father of all who walk in 
 the steps of his faith. Let me remind him that Paul says he is the 
 fathev of circumcision to all such, which means that they, being chil- 
 
 22 
 
338 ' REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 dren of the father of circumcision, are themselves accounted as 
 circumcised — " their uncircumcision is counted for circumcision." 
 Rom. 2 : 26. This being the case, all who walk in Abraham's steps 
 are entitled to the inheritance of which circumcision was the seal. 
 My opponent says this was the land of Canaan. I say it was righteous- 
 ness. If he is right, then the only inheritance believers can claim is 
 a few square inches of ground in Judea, for, considering the number 
 of the "heirs," there will be but little for each. But if I am right, 
 then all believers, including their father Abraham, will inherit a 
 heavenly inheritance, of which the land of Canaan was but the imper- 
 fect type and pledge. I will let the people judge. 
 
 10. Mr. Harding says that to justify is to pardon, to forgive. I admit 
 that when used with reference to sinners it involves this ; but in the 
 proper sense of the term it signifies to pronounce just, or innocent in 
 the eyes of the law. We are told in Matt. 11:19 that " wisdom is 
 justified of her children." In Luke 7 : 29, that "all the people and 
 the publicans justified God." In 1 Tim. 3 : 16, that "God was mani- 
 fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit," etc. But in these, as in other 
 cases, it cannot mean pardoned, but only vindicated, or pronounced 
 just. Hence my opponent cannot prove that infants are incapable of 
 justification, and therefore he cannot prove them incapable of baptism. 
 
 11. In one of his speeches he says that God did not promise the 
 land of Canaan to Abraham for himself, but for his seed. In the 
 very next breath he quotes the passage in Gen. 17:8, where God says, 
 " 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 pos- 
 session." So, out of his own mouth he is not justified. God prom- 
 ised Abraham that land just as much as He did his seed, and 
 Abraham did not forfeit it through unbelief, but, with many others 
 of the patriarchs, he " died in faith, not having received the promises;" 
 for God "gave him none inheritance in that land, no, not so much 
 as to set his foot on." (Heb. 11 : 13 ; Acts 7:5.) I argue, therefore, 
 that the land of Canaan was only the visible tyjje and pledge 
 of the inheritance God intended for His people, else His promise to 
 them has failed. Now, my opponent can take whichever side of this 
 question that suits him best. Neither one will relieve his difliculty. 
 
 12. I don't know why my opponent persists in representing me as 
 teaching that infants are born again. I teach no such tiling. I 
 teach that they are, by virtue of the atonement, in the same moral 
 and spiritual condition, without either faith or repentance, as adult 
 believers are brought into by faith. But 1, as fully as he, believe in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 339 
 
 the necessity of regeneration in the case of every human being who 
 is a moral agent ; but I do not believe it can take place in any soul 
 until it is conscious of the motions of evil in itself and capable of 
 exercising a personal trust in Christ. Moral agents are dealt with 
 on a different principle, under the divine economy, from unconscious 
 infants. The atonement is imputed unconditionally to the latter — 
 conditionally to the former. Hence, when an infant attains to 
 accountability it ceases to enjoy the benefits of the atonement with- 
 out its personal acceptance of the same. Prior to this it is justified, 
 or guiltless (not pardoned), in the eyes of the law, and this is what I 
 mean by its being justified and pure. Nor can any infant, born 
 under the economy of grace, be in danger of hell-fire. Now let us 
 hear no more twaddle on this point. 
 
 13. My opponent is right, no doubt, that there is no good thing 
 that a man can do that is not taught, directly, or indirectly, in the 
 Bible. Hence the man who pulled his neighbor out of the well found 
 an indirect command for it. On the same principle, precisely, we 
 baptize infants. But our opponents are not satisfied with the infer- 
 ential command, and so demand a direct one. According to their 
 own principle, however, they must justify female communion, the 
 change of the Sabbath, family prayer, and a great many other good 
 things, by inference. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. HARDING'S NINTH REPLY. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson says he is '• not going to haggle any nrore about 
 the authorities." Well, if he could find one inspired author who 
 makes a favorable mention of infant baptism, that would be enough. 
 But it is a fact — and the fact is ruinous to his cause — that he cannot 
 find any mention of it at all, by an inspired man, either favorable or 
 unfavorable. And just here I have not one, but hundreds, of the most 
 learned of Psedo-baptists agreeing with me ; that is, learned Paedo- 
 baptists generally grant that no express mention of infant baptism 
 can be found in the Bible : they agree that there is no command to 
 baptize infants, and that there is no example of an infant's being 
 baptized in the entire Bible. I think a religious ordinance is in a 
 
340 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 bad way when its most learned supporters freely grant that it does 
 not appear that any inspired man ever commanded it, or ever gave 
 an example of it by practicing it himself. If infant baptism was 
 commanded or practiced in the days of inspiration, it does not appear 
 — it is not shown by the divine records. 
 
 But just here these learned Ppedo-baptists begin to divide : some of 
 them say that while the rite is not taught by command, nor by 
 example, in the Scriptures, it can be deduced from them by a logical 
 inference, and that it was doubtless practiced in New Testament 
 times ; while others of them boldly affirm that it is of post-apostolic 
 origin, an institution of the Church that arose after the days of inspi- 
 ration. Not one man, as Mr. Wilkinson would intimate, but many, 
 with Neander and Meyer heading the list, belong to this latter class ; 
 some of whom, it is proper to remark, are aifected with the Roman 
 Catholic idea that the Church has the right to make or change 
 ordinances as she needs them. 
 
 Of the former class — that is, of those who hold that the rite can 
 be drawn from the Scriptures by a necessary inference — it can be 
 truly said that they are in the most inextricable confusion ; there is 
 not a single argument, or passage, upon which they agree as teaching 
 their practice. Some of them, like Mr. Wilkinson, appeal to the 
 argument from circumcision ; others of them say this has nothing to 
 do with infant baptism ; and others still. Dr. Stuart for instance, 
 say, " The covenant of circumcision furnishes no ground for infant 
 baptism," that men are " unwary " who so argue from it, and that 
 " numberless difficulties " present themselves in their way as soon as 
 they begin to do it. Some depend upon the commission, while others 
 say there is nothing in this document in favor of the practice ; some 
 depend upon the households, while others shake their heads sadly and 
 turn away from them ; and so on to the end ; they agree about not 
 one single passage ; one man shouts, *' Here is the passage that teaches 
 infant baptism by a necessary inference ;" his brethren rush about 
 him, look eagerly at the place, and then mouVnfuUy say, " We cannot 
 see it." Why is all this? Why cannot these men, who want to sus- 
 tain this ceremony, agree about a passage upon which to depend ? 
 Simply because it is not taught anywhere in the Bible ; for, if it were, 
 they could all see it and agree. 
 
 In order that you may see the unfortunate plight in which these 
 Paedo baptists are, my friends, I ask you to consider the following 
 supposition : Suppose immersionists were divided into two parties, 
 one holding that immersion is of post apostolic origin, an institution of 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 341 
 
 the Church ; the other, that it is of Divine institution ; suppose this 
 latter party should very generally grant that there is neither command 
 nor example for immersion in the Bible, but that it is taught by infer- 
 ence only ; suppose the party should be very much divided in itself 
 so that it could not agree upon any one passage, or argument, as 
 teaching the rite ; and suppose, finally, it could be shown that the 
 first mention of immersion for baptism was made one hundred years 
 after the death of the last apostle, by a man who opposed it ; do you 
 not think that we immersionists would be in a bad way, under such 
 circumstances 1 Well, Psedo-baptists are exactly in that case with 
 their infant baptism. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson talks a good deal about the " two parts " of his 
 proposition ; he is to show (1) that infant baptism is of Divine 
 authority, and (2) that it has been practiced from apostolic times. 
 Well, I don't care anything about the second part of his proposition ; 
 it matters not to me whether it has been practiced from apostolic 
 times or not ; if it is of Divine authority it ought to be practiced now; 
 if it is not, it ought to be given up now, even though it had been 
 observed from the times of the apostles. Does God require it 1 Did 
 Christ and the apostles observe it ? If God did require it. He did it 
 vnthout mentioning it; and not a trace of it can he found in the say- 
 ings of Christ, or in the writings of the apostles. Let Mr. Wilkinson 
 show that the rite was given to us by the Lord, and I will freely grant 
 the second part of his proposition. But as long as he can not find 
 any reference to it whatever, by the Lord or by anyone else, till the 
 time of Tertullian, I will be constrained to believe that it began to be 
 practiced about that time, and that the Loi-d was no more the author 
 of it than He was of infant communion, which began about the same 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson switches off the track again and discusses the ques- 
 tion of the Spirit's work in conversion — a matter that he no more 
 understands than he does the Bible doctrine concerning baptism. He 
 represents me as saying, " There is not a case of conversion before 
 baptism recorded in the Bible, except that of Cornelius, and that 
 was a miracle." I said no such thing. No man who knows what 
 conversion is could say such a thing. What I did say, and what is 
 true, is this : Since Christ ascended on high there has not been a case 
 in which the Spirit was received before baptism, except one — that of 
 Cornelius and his friends — who received a miraculous outpouring of 
 the Spirit, by which they were enabled to spealc, with tongues, as did 
 the apostles at the beginning. The gospel rule is, that the Spirit is 
 
342 , REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 received after baptism ; and to this rule the case at the house of 
 Cornelius is the only exception. Conversion consists (1) in believing 
 with the heart that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, (2) in repenting 
 of one's sins, (3) and in being baptized upon a confession of this faith 
 of the heart into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
 Holy Spirit. Then God forgives and imparts His Holy Spirit. 
 Pardon and the gift of the Spirit are not parts of conversion at all ; 
 they are consequents that immediately follow it. In this connection 
 I want to introduce two statements bearing upon this point, which 
 were made by Peter at different times and to different audiences to 
 which he had just preached. The first is this : "Repent ye, and be 
 baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remis- 
 sion of your sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 
 (Acts 2 : 38, Revised Version.) Here we have : (1) Repentance ; (2) 
 Baptism; (3) Pardon; (4) The gift of the Spirit. The connection 
 shows these people were already believers. 
 
 The second passage is this : " Repent ye, therefore, and turn again, 
 that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of 
 refreshing from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3 : 19.) Here the 
 order is : (1) Repentance ; (2) Turning ; (3) The blotting out of sins ; 
 (4) The seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord. After 
 the repentance comes the baptism (turning), and then the gift of the 
 Spirit (the seasons of refreshing). This is the great gospel rule, to 
 which, as I have said, there is but the one exception. Mr. Wilkinson 
 teaches that the Holy Spirit operates immediately upon the sinner's 
 heart in his conversion. I deny it. We will continue this debate for 
 two or three days longer and discuss that proposition, if he says so. I 
 challenge him to meet me here on Monday to debate that proposition. 
 Moreover, I agree to the conditions which he specified the other day — 
 to every one of them.* I will debate with him whether any Church will 
 endorse him or not ; and not one will do it, for his brethren have 
 already said in your hearing that their Churches do not feel the need 
 of engaging in debates ; that they think such debates do no good, or 
 words to that effect. And they are right, too, in one sense ; they do 
 their cause no good. I have now accepted his conditions. (Addressing 
 
 * Note. — On the day alluded to, Mr. Wilkinson had publicly said that he 
 would not debate with Mr. Harding again, unless it should be agreed that the 
 books used by each party sliould be open to the inspection of the other during 
 the intermissions ; tliat rules of order and decorum should be agreed upon ; and 
 that personalities should be avoidc<l. To these conditions Mr. Harding at once 
 agreed. J. A. H. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 343 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson) : Will you meet me on Monday and debate that 
 proposition for two or three days 1 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — No bravado in that 1 
 
 Mr. Harding — No; I mean business. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson — I thought you agreed to drop bravado. 
 
 Mr. Harding — I thought you came here to debate for two weeks, 
 or three, or for three months, if necessary, (so you said in your first 
 speech.) He twists and squirms, you see, my friends. I told you 
 that you would see who would be the readiest for this discussion to 
 go on. He does not want it to go on, and he knows well that his 
 friends do not. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson thinks it is terrible that conversion is invariably 
 brought about through human agency. Well, it is a fact, no matter 
 how dreadful it may seem to him. "The Lord Jesus has got to send 
 for Mr. Harding before He can convert a man," he exclaims. Yes, 
 it is true that the Lord does always use a preacher when He wants to 
 convert anybody. When He wanted to convert the eunuch, He sent 
 Philip to him; when He wanted to convert Lydia, He sent Paul to 
 her ; when He wanted to convert Cornelius, He sent Peter to him. 
 Paul said (2 Cor. 5:18), God "hath given to us the ministry of 
 reconciliation." Was there ever a conversion without faith'? Was 
 there ever faith without a preacher 1 Hear Paul's answer: "How 
 then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed ? and 
 how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard ? and 
 how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10: 14.) Then in 
 the 17th verse he says: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and 
 hearing by the word of God." So, we see, there was never a conver- 
 sion without faith, and never faith without a preacher. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson has been telling us all the time that baptism is the 
 seal of the covenant, and that as infants are in the covenant they 
 should receive the seal. But when I showed him that the gift of the 
 Spirit is the seal of the covenant, that we are sealed by the Spirit, he 
 promptly informs us that the Holy Spirit is the inward, spiritual seal, 
 while baptism is the outward, visible manifestation of it. Now, 
 anybody who has even a very slight knowledge of the New Testament 
 ought to know that is not so ; for, under the Christian dispensation, 
 the Spirit is invariably given after baptism, with but the one exception 
 mentioned. See the case of Jesus (Matt. 3:16); of the apostles 
 (Acts 2:4); of the three thousand (Acts 2:38); of the Samaritans 
 (Acts 8 : 14-17) ; of the twelve men of Ephesus (Acts 19 : 1-7) ; and 
 so on. Of course baptism could not be " an outward sign of an 
 
344 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 inward grace," when the " inward grace " did not yet exist — when the 
 Spirit had not yet been given. 
 
 Again, the Spirit, without a single exception, was given to believ- 
 ers. Now, if baptism is the outward sign of the indwelling Spirit, it, 
 too, must be given to believers only. Consider the following pass- 
 ages : 
 
 " If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that 
 believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow 
 rivers of living water. But this spake He of the Spirit, which they 
 that believe on Him should receive." (John 7 : 37-39.) 
 
 Paul says to the Ephesians : " In whom ye trusted, after that ye 
 heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation ; in whom also 
 after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of 
 promise." (Eph. 1 : 13). 
 
 So you see they received the Spirit — were sealed by it — after they 
 believed. And, of course, if baptism is the outward sign of that 
 inward work, it, too, must take place after faith. Mr. Wilkinson, in 
 striving to get out of one tangle, has gotten into another equally as 
 bad — " out of the frying-pan into the fire." 
 
 But did not the angel prophesy that John would be filled with the 
 Holy Ghost from his mother's womb 1 Yes ; but had that been true of 
 children in general, he would no moi e have prophesied it of John than 
 he would that he was to have ten fingers and two ears. The fact is, 
 John was the greatest of all the prophets ; he was marvellously and 
 miraculously endowed from his mother's womb, and that is what 
 Gabriel foretold. 
 
 Just here Mr. Wilkinson left the subject again to tell us that he 
 has a letter from a Presbyterian minister, who said he had an inter- 
 view with a gentleman, who said he had a neighbor, who had a daugh- 
 ter, who was immersed recently, and took cold, and died. Just so ; I 
 have heard just such yarns as that before. Somebody said, that some- 
 body told him, that somebody had heard, that somebody was killed by 
 being immersed ; but I have never yet been able to come to the exact 
 place where it happened. (Though I have been at the exact place 
 where a Methodist preacher's wife died just after "shouting.") Per- 
 haps the lady was baptized — very likely — perhaps she died ; but that 
 her death was a result of the bai)tism I do not believe ; and it would 
 take a little more direct and specific testimony than has been given 
 to convince me. But suppose it were true, what then? Did you 
 never hear of people dying, in ancient times, for Christ 1 If Jesus 
 tells us to do anything, must we not do it, even if it kills us 1 In such 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 345 
 
 a case, to die is gain. But I don't believe the statement is true — not 
 a word of it. But if it were true, it would not in the least affect the 
 case ; for if Jesus commands us to be immersed (and I have shown 
 you that He does), we must be, even if it kills us. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson intimates that, as circumcision was given to Abra- 
 ham as " a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet 
 being uncircumcised," whereas it was given to Isaac while yet an in- 
 fant, that it was designed to be an outward sign of the inward work 
 of the Spirit, a work which he tells us is wrought in the heart of the 
 adult only when he believes, but one which is wrought in all infants : 
 then he adds that baptism has now taken the place of circumcision, 
 and hence should be so applied (that is, to adult believers and to all 
 infants). The heart of his theory — the very sum and substance of 
 it — is this : circumcision was given as a sign of inward purity ; but 
 baptism has taken its place, and therefoi-e it should be given to the 
 pure. This argument is false in both premises : circumcision was not 
 a sign of inward purity to the descendants of Abraham ; baptism has 
 not taken its place. Abraham was circumcised ; so was Ishmael, his 
 thirteen-year old boy ; so were all the naales that had been born in his 
 house, or that had been bought with his money, in the self-same day. 
 (See Gen. 17 : 23.) And from that time on adults were circumcised, 
 whether believers or unbelievers, whether good or bad, if born in the 
 house or bought with the money of a Jew. Mr. Wilkinson's argument 
 would be excellent were it not that both premises, and the conclusion, 
 are false. 
 
 Now, concerning that olive tree argument for the perpetuity of the 
 Church. Mr. Wilkinson claims that the Church of Christ began in the 
 days of Abraham, and has been continued till now. He so concludes 
 from the allegory of the olive tree. Here again facts, unmistakable 
 facts, flatly contradict this theory. Nicodemus was " a ruler of the 
 Jews," " a master of Israel," a leader in the Jewish commonwealth, cir- 
 cumcised according to the Mosaic law ; nevertheless, Jesus said to him, 
 "Ye must be born again." He told him plainly, " Except a man be 
 born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God." (John 3 : 5.) That is, one of the most eminent in the Jewish 
 Church was told that he must be born again in order to enter the 
 €hurch of Christ. He had gotten into the one by a natural birth, 
 but it required a spiritual birth to bring him into the other. Hence 
 we find, all through the Christian dispensation, that the Gospel was 
 preached to the Jew first as it was to the Gentile, and the two parties 
 were received into the Church in precisely the same way. 
 
346 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Paul says (Gal. 3 : 24, R. V.), " The law hath been our tutor to 
 bring us unto Christ." The Jews were in a preparatory school ; but 
 when Christ came they were invited to leave that school, and, with 
 the Gentiles, to enter the school of the great Master, the Church of 
 God. Some Jews, and many Gentiles, did enter the school by being 
 "born again," by becoming new creatures. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson says I impute to him the statement, " that the cove- 
 nant of circumcision was not an everlasting covenant." I did no such 
 thing. He is mistaken. But I did understand him to deny that God 
 promised to Abraham the land of Canaan for an everlasting posses- 
 sion. He argued that the land would be destroyed, and hence it 
 could not be an everlasting possession. As usual, Mr. Wilkinson's 
 argument is a direct contradiction of the Word of God. God says, " I 
 will give unto thee, and 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." (Gen. 17:8.) It is a statement of the Lord 
 against one of Mr. Wilkinson ; weigh them in the balance, and take 
 your choice, my friends. The Jews are not now dwelling upon their 
 land, because they broke the contract, and God dispersed them. When 
 tliey turn to the Lord, no doubt they will be restored to their place. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson comes to the commission as recorded by Matthew. 
 He comments on the word viatlieteuo (which means to teach, to make 
 disciples of) thus : " When I say, matlieteusate, go make disciples of, 
 I am simply telling you to go and bring the people into the school 
 where they may be instructed." Just so ; but what did Christ mean 
 when He said it 1 That is what we are concerned about ; not about 
 Mr. Wilkinson's meaning when he says it. By inatheteiisnte, Jesus 
 meant to preach tlie Gos])el and make believers ; so Mark understood 
 Him. Where Matthew says, " Go ye, therefore, and make disciples 
 of all nations, baptizing them," etc., Mark says, " Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He that 
 believeth and is l)aptized shall be saved," etc. According to Mark's 
 understanding of the matter, to make a disciple of one is to produce 
 faith in him by preaching to him. I take him to be a much better 
 authority than Mr. Wilkinson. I don't put Mark against Matthew, 
 as my opponent expresses it, but Mark against Mr. Wilkinson. The 
 fundamental idea in viatheteuo is to teach ; and Mark explains that 
 that teaching is done by preaching the Gospel. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson feels the force of all this ; he knows that if Mark's 
 testimony remains unimpeached, preaching and faith come before 
 baptism, that they are implied in the command, " Go, make disciples." 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 347 
 
 Hence he attacks that passage from Mark. True, there was a doubt 
 in the mind of the revisers about it, hut the doubt had reference to its 
 authorship, not to its inspiration. I will bring here to-night the 
 Companion to the Revised Version, a work gotten out by one of the 
 revisers, to prove this statement. They doubted whether Mark wrote 
 the last few verses of his gospel, or whether they were written by 
 some other inspired man ; but they did not doubt their inspiration. 
 The Christian scholarship of the world is divided as to who wrote the 
 letter to the Hebrews, but they are united as to its inspiration. It 
 is a well-known fact that Moses did not write the latter part of 
 Deuteronomy, since the last chapter giv^s an account of his death, 
 and of the mourning for him ; but non« deny the right of that chapter 
 to a place in the inspired canon of Scripture. 
 
 But the very best proof in the world that the commission as given 
 by Mark is correct is this : The work of the apostles and evangelists 
 in establishing the Church was in perfect accordance with it. The 
 commands of the commission, as Mark gives them, are these : (1) Go j 
 (2) Preach the gospel ; (3) Baptize the believers. On the day of 
 Pentecost the apostles preached ; 3,000 gladly received the word and 
 were baptized ; Philip icent to Samaria, jjreached Christ unto them, 
 and, when they believed the preaching, he baptized them, both men 
 and women ; Peter went to Cornelius, preached Christ to him, and, 
 when he believed, baptized him ; Philip went to the eunuch, preached 
 Christ to him, and, when he believed, baptized him. So the practice of 
 these first preachers demonstrates Mark's record of the commission to 
 be correct. 
 
 But Mr. Wilkinson argues that as Mark says, " He that believeth 
 not shall be damned," according to my doctrine, infants are logically 
 damned. Not so ; according to my doctrine the commission has 
 nothing to do with infants. It is for those who can hear, understand, 
 believe and obey ; who are sinners that need to be saved. But as Mr. 
 Wilkinson claims that infants are under the commission, his doctrine 
 logically damns them, without doubt. Certainly all Avho come under 
 the commission are damned if they believe not. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson grants that his doctrine of infant baptism, if it 
 should prevail, would soon bring every man, woman, and child in the 
 world into his Church. And a nice (?) Church it would be, with all 
 the murderers, whoremongers, liars and thieves in the world in it ! 
 Think of the millions of Creek infants that are immersed, of the mil- 
 lions of Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Methodist 
 babies that are sprinkled. Think how few of these prove to be God- 
 
'348 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 fearing men and women. What a mass of corrupt flesh they have in 
 their Churches ! 
 
 Did Christ ever institute such a miserable rite 1 Never. Did the 
 apostles ever practice such a one 1 No. It is an outgrowth of super- 
 stition and ignorance, which began to be adopted to save the little ones 
 from hell ; it has resulted in evil, and only evil ; and it can only be 
 defended by perversion of the word of God, and distortion of the facts 
 of history. I have known a man to argue that infants are believers in 
 o^jder to show that they ought to be baptized. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 In preparing our speeches for the book, I saw Mr. Wilkinson's 
 Ninth Speech in jifinted jyroof sheets, and then corrected and sent in 
 my Ninth Reply. After my reply had been thus prepared and sent 
 in to the printer, Mr. Wilkinson added about four and a half pages to 
 his address. Beginning on page 334 with the words, " And now let 
 me give a passing glance," etc., all from that to the end was added 
 after my reply was given to the printer. To the thirteen paragraphs 
 added I desire to make as brief a reply as possible here. 
 
 1. In this first added paragraph Mr. Wilkinson grants that Paul 
 did practice circumcision after the beginning of the Christian dispen- 
 sation, and did convince the Jews that he was not an enemy to the 
 practice. But he wants us to believe that Paul and James knew all 
 the time that it was wrong — that baptism had taken the place of 
 circumcision — but that they pretended that it was right, and practiced 
 it, merely to gratify blinded Jewish bigots. That is, he has Paul and 
 James teaching and practicing a lie, until they can educate the people 
 up to receive the truth. Mr. Wilkinson, with his regard for the 
 truth, may believe that ; I cannot. Paul did right in circumcising 
 Timothy ; he did right in convincing those Jews that it was proper 
 for Jewish Christians to circumcise their children ; he did right in 
 purifying himself with those four men, in shaving his head, and in 
 entering into the temple with them. When we find the teaching and 
 practice of one apostle approved by another and condemned l)y none, 
 surely we must receive it. If Mr. Wilkinson could establish his 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 34& 
 
 position that Paul and James were here teaching and acting a. 
 lie, he would go far towards overthrowing all faith in the Bible ; for 
 what could we then believe 1 Little did I imagine when I started out 
 to discuss infant baptism, that it would be necessary for me to defend 
 the sincerity and truthfulness of two apostles of the Lord against the 
 attack of Mr. Wilkinson. But the necessities of his cause force him 
 to make the attack ; for if Paul and James were sincere and true, 
 then circumcision continued to be practiced by the will of the Lord ; 
 baptism did not take its place ; and hence Mr. Wilkinson's chief 
 argument is worthless. 
 
 2. Now just a word in reply to the second paragraph, concerning 
 the cases of Timothy and Titus. Timothy's mother was a Jewess ; his. 
 father was a Greek. Titus was a Greek. (See Gal. 2 : 3.) The Jews 
 demanded the circumcision of these two men. (See Acts 16 : 1-3, and 
 Gtil. 2 : 1-5.) Paul granted their wishes concerning him in whom 
 was Jewish blood ; he circumcised Timothy ; but he resolutely refused 
 to allow the Greek Titus to be circumcised. Intelligent people will 
 have no trouble in drawing a conclusion from these facts. Concerning^ 
 the circumcision of Timothy, Mr. Wilkinson says that, "The inspired 
 penman says it was because his father was a Greek." The inspired 
 penman says no such thing. The statement is untrue. The passage, 
 in Acts just referred to (Acts 16 : 1-3) shows exactly what he did say^ 
 
 3. The passage " If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you noth- 
 iiig," (Gal. 5 : 2,) and all such like ones, were addressed to Gentiles, 
 It is certain Paul would not have circumcised Timothy had he known 
 that in so doing he was cutting him off from Christ. 
 
 A question for Mr. Wilkinson : "I testify again to every man that 
 is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law," says Paul. 
 Mr. Wilkinson says that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, 
 that it is "for the same purpose, a symbol of the same truth." Why, 
 then, is not he that is baptized a debtor to do the whole law 1 By 
 circumcision Gentiles would have been obligated to keep the whole 
 law, but Mr. Wilkinson tells us that baptism has taken its place, and 
 is for the same purpose. 
 
 5. (4, it should have been.) In this paragraph Mr. Wilkinson 
 admits that John's baptism did not come in the room of circumcision, 
 but that his baptism and circumcision belonged to the same dispen- 
 sation, and were practiced concurrently. So Mr. Wilkinson admits 
 that infant baptism was not practiced during the time of Christ at 
 all ; that both circumcision and baptism were given to the same 
 individuals during the life of Christ on earth. Certainly we are 
 
350 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 narrowing the ground doAvn considerably. Is it not reasonable to 
 suppose that if the apostles had thought that Christian baptism came 
 in the room of any rite of the old dispensation, they would naturally 
 ha»ve concluded that it came in the stead of John's baptism rather 
 than of circumcision'? A moment's reflection will convince any 
 lUTiprejudiced man that they would. 
 
 If John's baptism, by which Jesus and the twelve apostles were 
 baptized, and by which they baptized thousands during the life of 
 Christ, did not come in the room of circumcision, and Christian 
 baptism did, is it not strange that some statement, clear and distinct, 
 was not made by which they and we might know the fact 1 No such 
 statement has been made ; as we have shown you, some of Mr. 
 Wilkinson's most distinguished brethren do not believe that the one 
 is in the room of the other at all. 
 
 6 and 7. If there is any sense in these paragraphs I have not been 
 able to discover it. 
 
 8. If it were true that immersionists do not agree about any 
 passage, any argument, nor any fact of history, as sustaining their 
 practice, then I would freely grant that their practice is in a bad way. 
 But such is not the case : they agree that hajitizo means to immerse ; 
 that it does not mean to sprinkle ; that the facts that in the New 
 Testament baptisms were performed in rivers, where there was much 
 water ; that they went down into the water, and came up out of the 
 water ; that they were buried in^baptism, and had their bodies washed 
 with pure water, all unmistakably indicate immersion. 
 
 But those who favor infant baptism agree about nothing ; there ia 
 not a passage, nor an argument, nor a fact of history, that some rely 
 on, that others do not deem insufficient and unsatisfactory. The 
 difference between Messrs. Paterson and Wilkinson is an illustration 
 of this ; both argue from the covenant of circumcision, but the one 
 will baptize (^rantize) a child only when it has a believing parent ; 
 whereas the other will administer the rite to any infant. If the 
 argument from circumcision is so clear, as they would have us think, 
 it is strange they cannot see it alike. Paterson says : Baptism is in 
 the room of circumcision ; therefore children of l^elieving parents 
 should be baptized. Wilkinson says : Baptism is in the room of 
 circumcision ; therefore all children sliould be baptized, whether they 
 have believing parents or not. While Stuart, a much greater Psedo- 
 baptist than either one of them, says : " The covenant of circumcision 
 furnishes no ground for infant baptism." (Lectur(> on Galatians). And 
 there is no doubt, in the the minds of all iiitelligont, unprejudiced 
 people who have looked into the matter, but that Stuart is right. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 351 
 
 9. All who become children of Abraham by faith, and who hold 
 out faithful unto death, will certainly have an inheritance in the city 
 of God, which will come down out of heaven to earth, that God may 
 dwell with men ; and all infants that die in infancy shall have a place 
 there. But all this has nothing whatever to do with our question. 
 
 10. Christian baptism is not for the just ; it is "for the remission 
 of sins." 
 
 11. This paragraph has nothing to do with the question under 
 consideration. 
 
 12. In this paragraph Mr. Wilkinson says : " I don't know why my 
 opponent persists in representing me as teaching that infants are born 
 again. I teach no such thing." In his sixth speech, on page 271, 
 near the bottom of the page, he says : "I therefore infer from my 
 opponent's own premises that little children belong to the Church, are 
 born again, and therefore Abraham's spiritual seed." Who can have 
 any confidence in a man who will thus contradict himself ? In one 
 place he teaches that the little ones are members of the Church, are 
 Abraham's spiritual seed, are horn again ; and then, a little further 
 on, he flatly denies that he teaches that they are born again. What 
 a miserable doctrine it must be that will thus force a man into such 
 inconsistencies and contradictions ! How much better it would be for 
 him if he would just believe and teach the truth ! I have never yet 
 met a Pasdo-baptist in a public discussion who was not forced into such 
 contradictions and misrepresentations. The trouble is in their cause. 
 
 13. If Mr. Wilkinson could show that infant baptism is taught in 
 the Bible, in any way, by command, or example, or necessary infer- 
 ence, I would gladly receive it. His opponents do not demand an 
 express command, as he says ; they will be content if he can find it 
 taught in any way in the Bible. But he cannot even convince his 
 own people that it is taught there. 
 
 J. A. H. 
 
352 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 SIXTH DAY— EVENINa. 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S TENTH SPEECH. 
 
 I might spend considerable time in dwelling on the details of my 
 opponent's reply, but as this subject is by this time well understood 
 by this congregation, I will speak but briefly in reviewing his last 
 speech. In fact, I find very little in it which I desire to review, 
 and much of it had no bearing whatever on the question at issue. 
 
 As to the quotations from authorities with respect to the practice 
 of immersion after the apostolic age, I have admitted the existence of 
 the practice very soon after the days of the apostles, hence he has 
 been frittering his time in constructing and demolishing another man 
 of straw. No doubt it is very pleasant pastime for him in the 
 absence of more profitable employment. 
 
 I never charged him with quoting Moses Stuart to misrepresent 
 the case in regard to the post-apostolic practice ; but what I did 
 accuse him with doing was that of quoting Dr. Stuart's explanation of 
 the classical meaning of hapto and baptizo as dip, plunge and immerse, 
 but failing to tell you that Stuart, like all Psedo-baptist authorities, 
 explained that it did not mean that in the New Testament, and that 
 we do obey the word of God by baptizing people by affusion and 
 sprinkling. That is the position of Moses Stuart, and Mr. Harding 
 never touched that point, but left the impression that the definition 
 he quoted from Stuart was that of Christian baptism. 
 
 My friend is very much exercised about the disagreement of 
 Psedo-baptists, but if he will be so kind as to show the weakness of 
 my arguments, and leave Paido-baptists to reconcile their own differ- 
 ences, he will be doing much better service to his own cause. Besides^ 
 he knows full well, that with very rare exceptions P.-edo-baptist 
 scholars are a unit in believing and teaching, as I do, that baptism 
 occupies the same place under the new dispensation that circumcision 
 did under the old, being the New Testament seal of the covenant of 
 grace, and that so sure as circumcision was administered to infants 
 under the former dispensation, so sure must baptism be administered 
 to them under this. Nor has he succeeded, with all his sophistry, in 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 353 
 
 overthrowing this position. The fact that, perhaps, one Psedo-baptist 
 in a million thinks otherwise, by no means affects the validity of this 
 position. A far greater proportion of Paedo-baptists imagine that 
 immersion was the apostolic mode of baptism, but they are generally 
 pitied by their brethren for their simplicity. Besides, the position 
 of nearly all the early fathers of the Church is identical with my 
 own. Justin Martyr, one of the oldest and most reliable of the 
 Christian fathers, in speaking of baptism and circumcision unites them 
 together as the same thing at the beginning of the post-apostolic age. 
 Not only Justin Martyr, but St, Basil, who lived from 327 to 379 
 A. D., testifies to the same effect. Chrysostom testified to the same 
 effect. We have also the testimony of Gregory, Origen and others, 
 who, with one accord, recognized and acknowledged the doctrine which 
 I have been teaching, viz., that baptism in the early post-apostolic 
 Church was recognized everywhere as having come in the place of, and 
 as a substitute for, the rite of circumcision. I am not aware that 
 there was a single opponent of this view in the early post-apostolic 
 Church, I think those early fathers who lived in the immediate 
 neighborhood of the time of the apostles, and certainly knew what 
 the sentiments of the Church were in those days, must have had a 
 better understanding of that matter than we can possibly have 
 after the lapse of 1800 years, and consequently must be better 
 witnesses than we are, or can be in this day; and they with one accord 
 recognized the fact I have stated. 
 
 With respect to the 16th chapter of Mark, I' said the revisers stated 
 that the latter part of the chapter was not to be found in some of the 
 most ancient MSS, In reply my opponent said that he would bring 
 an explanation by one of the revisers, and read it to-night, I will 
 read to you, in anticipation of what may be read to-night on the other 
 side, the note in the Revised Testament : 
 
 " The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, 
 omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a difterent 
 ending to the gospel," 
 
 My opponent has therefore based his argument on a portion of 
 Scripture not to be found in the oldest and best MSS. 
 
 Having made these brief references to his statements, I will now 
 pass hurriedly on to give some of the reasons why the outward form 
 of the seal was changed. I have shown that the seal itself was not 
 changed — I claim that most distinctly — but the mere outward form of 
 the seal was changed, because a change of dispensation had taken place 
 and it was necessary that there should be a change in the outward 
 23 
 
354 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 form of the seal in order to agree with the genius of the dispensation 
 to which that seal belonged. 
 
 Why the seal was changed. I cannot enter too minutely into this 
 question, but may assign some reasons that have been suggested to my 
 own mind. 
 
 1. Circumcision was adapted to only one sex. We are not called 
 upon to prove why God selected a rite of only partial application to 
 designate membership among His ancient people, but we know that 
 such was the fact. Nor can we show on what ground, ritually, females 
 claimed Church membership. There was certainly no initiatory ordi- 
 nance, yet they certainly were recognized as Church members and 
 enjoyed all the privileges of such. It is conjectured that ablutions 
 and sacrifices served them instead of circumcision, and also "that they 
 were considered as being completely represented in the man." This 
 is a subject, however, on which I cannot enlarge in a promiscuous 
 audience. 
 
 2. The present dispensation is pre-eminently the dispensation of .the 
 Spirit. Under the old dispensation spiritual influences were enjoyed, 
 and circumcision denoted spiritual operations, even the purification of 
 the heart through faith ; yet this idea was not then so conspicuous in 
 fact, therefore it was not made so conspicuous in the initiatory ordi- 
 nance. But when the gift of the Spirit became the conspicuous and 
 distinguishing feature of the divine administration, and pre-eminently 
 the seal of the covenant whereby we are " sealed unto the day of 
 redemption," circumcision as a seal became inappropriate, and some- 
 thing more distinctly and clearly symbolic of spiritual influences was 
 required, hence the introduction of water baptism in palpable fulfil- 
 ment of the prophecies : "So shall He sprinkle many nations;" "I 
 will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ;" "I will 
 pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground," 
 etc., which, although doubtless referring to the effusion of the Spirit 
 under the similitude of water, evidently also allude to the symbol itself 
 in the fact, as well as the mode, of its application. 
 
 3. Circumcision also denoted purity of heart, as intimated, but was 
 certainly not so suggestive of this, nor so significant as the use of 
 water. Besides, heart purity is the distinguishing object of the entire 
 scheme of redemption. It was for this that Christ shed His blood, 
 that He might "redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself 
 a peculiar people," etc. To this great fact multitudes of prophecies 
 point, and this is the burden of the, New Testament teachings, and the 
 grand design of the giving of the Holy Ghost. It was meet, there- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 355 
 
 fore, that a sign should be employed under this dispensation more dis- 
 tinctly indicative of the purifying influences of the blood of Christ, 
 and of the Holy Spirit. No element in nature is better adapted to 
 this end than water, as it is, pre-eminently, the uniform and universal 
 element employed for purposes of cleansing. Hence the propriety of 
 such a change in the ordinance as to substitute baptism for circum- 
 cision. 
 
 4. Another probable reason for a change in this rite was the severe 
 and painful nature of the operation in connection with circumcision. 
 It was appropriate under a dispensation where men must be constantly 
 reminded that the putting away of sin could only be effected by suf- 
 fering, and the shedding of blood, but since "grace and truth came 
 by Jesus Christ," through the shedding of His blood once for all, such 
 a rite would be inappropriate — such a seal would be an anomaly, 
 hence the substitution of a milder and more appropriate seal, if we 
 exclude the dipping-in-cold-weather process. 
 
 5. The Holy Ghost being " not yet given " under the old dispensa- 
 tion, and many never having heard that there was any Holy Ghost, 
 and Jesus Christ not having come into the world, and people's views 
 concerning Him being very vague^ it would have been exceedingly 
 unintelligible to administer religious ordinances in the name of the 
 Son and the Holy Ghost, accordingly no such formula was used in 
 connection with any religious observance under the old dispensation. 
 But when the names of the Son and Holy Ghost became, and were 
 intended to become, so common under the dispensation of the Gospel, 
 and when the manifestation of the Divine character and personality 
 was so clear and complete, it was fitting that the names of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost should be made prominent in connec- 
 tion with all religious teachings and observances. Accordingly, at 
 the inauguration of the New Dispensation the Church's Divine Lord 
 commissioned his ambassadors to baptize, or seal, all who entered into 
 covenant with Himself, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 6. Still another ground of necessity for a change in the seal of the 
 covenant was the fact that this seal had been so long in vogue among 
 the Jews that they had erroneously come to regard it as a kind of 
 badge of distinction, and gloried in it, calling themselves " the cir- 
 cumcision," by way of pre-eminence, and all others "The Uncircum- 
 cision ;" and this, on the other hand, had begotten a prejudice to this 
 so-called J ewish badge on the part of the Gentiles, who had no love 
 either for Jews, or Jewish peculiarities. To i-emove a stumbling- 
 
356 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 block, therefore, out of the way of the Gentiles, and afford no ground 
 for Jewish arrogance, or seeming superiority, this national badge is 
 taken away, and another, a badge, too, that had been applied to the 
 Gentile proselytes to Judaism, is substituted for it. And, doubtless, 
 one reason why so little was said about the identity of these two rites 
 in the New Testament, was to avoid prejudice on the part of the 
 Gentiles, and to prevent arrogance and pride on the part of the Jews. 
 But, 
 
 7. The long association of circumcision with the ceremonial law had 
 no doubt tended to identify it with the ceremonial observances in the 
 Jewish mind, and now that that law was to be abolished, it was inex- 
 pedient that anything should be retained that would serve as an 
 excuse for the Jews to cling to those observances. As the sequel 
 proved, there was a very strong and almost insurmountable tendency 
 on the part of the Jews to do this. It would therefore seem impera- 
 tive that nothing should be associated with the Gospel rites that 
 would justify or encourage this tendency. To this end circumcision 
 must be swept away. Besides, 
 
 8. Circumcision had reference to the covenant in which a Messiah 
 is promised, involving faith in the promise of His coming. When 
 He had come, however, it became inappropriate, and must be suc- 
 ceeded by one involving a believing acceptance of the Saviour who 
 had already appeared. 
 
 For these and other reasons it was manifestly expedient and highly 
 proper that the seal of the New Covenant should differ from that of 
 the Old, in form at least, as all must admit. But it was certainly not 
 expedient that the New Covenant should have no initiatory seal, since 
 this would be a strange anomaly in the Divine economy of redemp- 
 tion. Hence the substitution of a new seal when the dispensation of 
 the covenant was changed. To all unprejudiced minds these reasons 
 will, doubtless, be considered as ample to justify the change of seal 
 for which I plead. 
 
 And now I will specify a few presumptions that infant baptism was 
 practiced at the beginning of the Gospel dispensation. 
 
 1. It would, unquestionably, have been a great grievance to the 
 Jews, who had long been taught to regard their children as heirs of 
 covenant blessings, to have those children now excluded from the 
 covenant. And I opine that it would have been a moral impossi- 
 bility for any covenant that did not include their children to have 
 been foisted upon that people without strenuous opposition and bitter 
 murmurings. But, on the supposition tliat such was the case, viz.. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 357 
 
 that infants were excluded from the covenant, is it not passing 
 strange, nay altogether unaccountable, that not a murmur of dis- 
 satisfaction is ever heard from any Jew concerning the hardship of 
 having his children left out of the provisions of this covenant, and 
 no recognition of their rights and privileges given in the initiatory 
 seal ? Nor do we ever hear one word of explanation from any apos- 
 tle, or from the Master himself, as to why children sustain any dif- 
 ferent relation to the covenant from what they did under the former 
 economy, but the very reverse, as we shall presently show. 
 
 2. If it were intended that children should not be recognized 
 under the new dispensation, as they were under the old, by any 
 visible rite, certainly we have reason to suppose that some men- 
 tion would be made of the fact. Such a change in the adminis- 
 tration would be a vital one, and could not take place without 
 some specific injunction to that effect, especially as the covenant 
 remained unchanged in essence, as we have shown. Now, to illus- 
 trate. Suppose that before Confederation in this Dominion there 
 had been a law in force in Upper Canada securing certain rights and 
 privileges to the Indians of this Province, and suppose that in the 
 Act of Confederation no mention had been made either of the Indians 
 or of their rights, would any one suppose that the mere absence of any 
 mention of them would disinherit them, or deprive them of those 
 rights 1 Or would it not rather be supposed that in the absence of 
 any mention of the Indians in the Act of Confederation, it was tacitly 
 understood that they were to enjoy the same privileges as they did 
 before Confederation, and that as no change was to be effected in 
 regard to them it was considered unnecessary to make any stipula- 
 tions ? I leave it for this intelligent congregation to determine. And 
 suppose that, instead of the Indians, it was the children of the natural 
 born citizens to which certain rights and privileges were secured by 
 some law of entail in the Statutes of Upper Canada ; if nothing were 
 expressly stipulated in the terms of Confederation cancelling those 
 rights, or repealing that law of entail, would not all natural born 
 citizens of Upper Canada claim for their children the same rights and 
 privileges under Confederation, by virtue of this law of entail 1 And 
 no court of justice under heaven could deny them those rights, and no 
 sane man would think of doing so. And would it not be a strange 
 piece of legislation if our statesmen, at the time of Confederation, had 
 enumerated the several laws that they did not intend to repeal, and 
 written after each one, "No change to be made in this law V And 
 would it not be a stranger proceeding for any intelligent citizen to put 
 
358 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 up the plea that all laws not so re-enacted were intended to be 
 repealed ? Wliat would people say with reference to such a man's 
 sanity 1 Would they not say that he was a little non compos mentis ? 
 Now, I maintain that the case under consideration is a precisely 
 similar one in principle. God's covenant made with Abraham has 
 never been repealed. It is still in full force and virtue, as much as 
 ever. The form of administration is changed, but not the essential 
 principles of the covenant. That covenant included Abraham's seed, 
 not only his natural, but spiritual seed. Those who are Christ's are 
 Abraham's seed, and distinctly said to be his heirs, having a claim 
 to all the rights and privileges secured by that covenant. Infant 
 children are unquestionably Christ's, therefore they are Abraham's 
 seed. The token of that covenant was to be given to all the seed, and 
 be "in their flesh for an everlasting covenant." Baptism, under the 
 new form of administration, is unquestionably the token of that 
 covenant, hence infant children have an inalienable and unquestion- 
 able right to that token, and to refuse it to them is virtually to ignore 
 their saving relation to Jesus Christ. I hold, therefore, that unless it 
 can be proved that the Abrahamic covenant has been repealed, no 
 man has a right to stand between Christ and His "little ones " and 
 say that they shall not be brought to Him to receive His mark, or the 
 grand badge of distinction by which those who a7'e His may be 
 distinguished from those who are not His. With those who do so 
 Jesus will undoubtedly be " muph displeased ;" hence, what becomes of 
 all my opponent's noise about no command or mention of infant 
 baptism by our Lord or the apostles 1 They had no need to give a 
 special introduction to an institution as old and familiar as the 
 covenant of redemption. It was sufficient that they recognized it by 
 applying it to whole households, and in other appropriate ways. 
 
 This argument receives additional force if we consider it in the 
 light of/ the New Testament teachings. 
 
 What says the New Testament ? If I have correctly stated the case, 
 then it would be absurd to expect any express re-enactment of each 
 detail involved in the original charter to Abraham, at the commence- 
 ment of the Gospel dispensation, but we may expect to find incidental 
 allusions to such details implying that they are still regarded as being 
 in full force and virtue. Now, what are the facts of the case 1 Do 
 the New Testament Scriptures furnish any ground in support of 
 infant baptism 1 We do not ask for an express command, for we not 
 only admit that there is no re-enactment of the Old Testament Church 
 charter as it spccitically relates to children, but we claim that there 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 359 
 
 was no necessity for it. But are the necessary conditions, or grounds 
 for infant baptism, to be found in the New Testament 1 I reply, they 
 certainly are. 
 
 1. The moral condition of infants is such as to entitle them to bap- 
 tism. We are told that faith is essential as a pre-requisite to baptism. 
 But why necessary 1 What does faith do for us ? If we are in the same 
 moral condition before we believe that we are after, then why are we 
 required to believe before we are baptized 1 Evidently because we are 
 justified by faith, and it is anomalous and profane for any one to 
 assume the badge of Christian discipleship who is not in a state of 
 justification, or in other words, who is not reconciled to God. On this 
 point, however, I need not enlarge. But I would simply remark that 
 the Scriptures distinctly recognize the existence of this condition on 
 the part of children. Christ says, " of such is the kingdom of heaven ; " 
 and when asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 
 He "set a little child in the midst of them, and said. Verily I say 
 unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye 
 shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall 
 humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom 
 of heaven." (Matt. 19 : 14, and 18 : 2-4.) Moreover, I have already 
 shown you that according to the statement of the apostle Paul in 
 Rom. 5:18, " As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men 
 to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift 
 came upon all men unto justification of life." If, therefore, adults are 
 baptized on the ground of their justification, surely children may be 
 baptized on the same ground. In other words, if children possess the 
 thing signified, we infer that they are entitled to the sign of that 
 thing. Now, baptism is not a sign of faith, but a sign of purity, which 
 on the part of the adult sinner can only be secured by faith, but on 
 the part of the infant child is secured unconditionally through the 
 atonement, and on the ground of its innocency it is entitled to the 
 badge of innocency. 
 
 2. Children are capable of sustaining covenant relations to God, and 
 of enjoying covenant blessings. I scarcely need do more on this 
 point than merely to state the proposition, as it is well known that in 
 nearly every case where God is represented as making covenants with 
 man, especially where spiritual blessings ai'e involved, He has included 
 the children, — the little ones. It was so in the covenant with Noah 
 after the deluge, (Gen. 9 : 9, etc.) It was so with Abraham, (Gen. 15 
 and 17). It was so in the covenant with Moses, (Deut. 29 : 10-12) ; 
 and it has frequently been the case, thus proving that God regards 
 
360 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 infants as suitable subjects for covenant relations, covenant rights and 
 covenant blessings. In accordance with this fact our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, as if forever to settle the question as to the relation they should 
 sustain to the new covenant, called them unto Him, and said, " Suffer 
 little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not ; for of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven." (Luke 18 : 16). "And He took them up in 
 His arms, puts His hands upon them, and blessed them." They were 
 reckoned as believers the same as females were reckoned as circum- 
 cised. Now, what is this kingdom of heaven to which children belong 
 but the New Testament Church 1 It is the whole body of believers, or 
 those who have been born again of the Spirit. For, " Except a man 
 be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Children, there- 
 fore, must be in a regenerate state, as they belong to that kingdom, 
 and belonging to the kingdom they must be in covenant relations 
 with God, and being in covenant relations with God they have a right 
 to the token of the covenant, or the seal God puts upon his covenant 
 people, which seal is baptism. 
 
 Mr. Hibbard, in his able work on this subject, says, "If infants, 
 equally with their pious parents, are sharers in the bounteous provi- 
 sions of the atonement, (which were the great blessings secured in the 
 Abrahamic covenant), they obviously possess an equal right with their 
 parents to the visible mark, or token of participation in such blessings. 
 Under all civil governments children have rights ; and it is a law of 
 nature and a dictate of justice that these rights should be recognized 
 and protected. The protection of the laws, the rights of citizenship 
 and of property, are secured to them, not on the principle of their 
 being of a certain age, or of their being competent to judge of the 
 value of these blessings, but on the principle of their relation to their 
 parents. . . . This, then, is the principle for which we contend. 
 Children are as capable of sustaining covenant relations to God, so far 
 as the question of natural fitness and propriety are concerned, as they 
 are of sustaining any civil relations to government. They are as 
 capable of possessing spiritual rights and immunities as civil rights ; 
 and as capable of being injured in respect of the former as the latter. 
 Their spiritual rights are not founded on the circumstance of age or 
 intellectual acquirements, but on the fact of their being human beings, 
 included, equally with their parents, in the covenant of Abraham. 
 It is iu view of these facts that we may well repeat the caution, ' Take 
 heed that ye despise not one of these little ones.' " 
 
 3. The rights of infants to the seal of the covenant is plainly implied, 
 if not specifically expressed, in the New Testament. Paul says, (Gal. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 361 
 
 3 : 29), "And if ye be Christ's tlien are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
 according to the promise." Certainly, if this passage teaches anything 
 it teaches that every genuine Christian, or true believer, sustains the 
 same relation to Abraham, and to the Abrahamic covenant, as a pious 
 Jew did before the time of Christ. To the same purport is verse 7 of 
 the same chapter : " Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith 
 the same are the children of Ahrahavi." 
 
 Again, Rom. 2 : 29, 30 : " For he is not a Jew which is one out- 
 wardly, . . • but he is a Jew which is one inwardly," etc. 
 
 Now, the only question to be settled here is this, " Are infant 
 children Christ's?" If so, they are Abraham's seed. Are infant 
 children Jews inwardly 1 If so, they are Abraham's seed. They are 
 the true spiritual circumcision. The blessing of Abraham, which is 
 justification, has come on them. They are therefore in the covenant 
 God made with Abraham, and as the seal was to be co-extensive with 
 the covenant, so they are indisputably, according to inspired authority, 
 entitled to the seal. 
 
 I really have not time to follow my opponent through all the randorn 
 statements he sees fit to make outside the subject in hand, such as his 
 analysis of the commission, the order of the Spirit's work, and a host 
 of other absurdities, but will allow him to amuse himself and you by 
 such exploits, if you are so easily amused, while I briefly glance at two 
 or three remarks more directly connected with the subject in hand 
 which he made during his last address. 
 
 He made a great display of bravery, or rather bullying bravado, 
 during his last speech, in daring me to further debate. I now put it 
 on record that the spirit manifested during this debate has been 
 so intensely disgusting to myself and the good people of Meaford in 
 general that T cannot be a party to imposing any more of it upon an 
 innocent community without the expressed 'wish of the people among 
 whom it would be held. Whenever the Psedo-baptists of Meaford deem 
 it desirable to give Mr, Harding another opportunity of airing his 
 notions, testing his lung power, smiting his fists like a representative 
 of a backwood's prize-ring, and displaying his pugilistic propensities 
 generally, in the name of the Lord, and invite me to champion their 
 cause, I will duly consider the matter. But I cannot consent, merely 
 for the sake of gratifying the ambitions of a conceited aspirant to 
 polemical fame, or affording him an opportunity of further haranguing 
 an already outraged community, to perpetuate such a farce as 
 the people of Meaford have witnessed during the last six days. In 
 fact, my opponent, failing in argument, seems determined to make the 
 24 
 
362 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 battle one of physical endurance, and so accomplish by superior brute 
 force what he has lacked the mental powers to accomplish. As a 
 representative of the mere animal creation I cordially concede to him 
 the palm. At the same time I cannot resist the conviction that all 
 this bluster and banter are designed to disguise his consciousness of 
 defeat, — a mere whistling to cheer his failing courage. It is not 
 pleasant to make such remarks, but his persistent banter, after promis- 
 ing to indulge in no more of it, merits prompt and faithful rebuke. 
 
 My opponent strangely enlarges the scope of my remark about God's 
 inability to convert a man without help, and then swings out into a 
 lengthy disquisition on human agency in the work of human salvation. 
 But he very well knows that my remark had exclusive reference to 
 God's act by which the penitent believer obtains forgiveness and 
 salvation. I have never denied the fact of human agency in leading 
 sinners to Christ, hence there has been another serious waste of 
 ammunition. The question is, Can God absolve a man without human 
 agency, or aid 1 Let my friend deal with the real difficulty, and not 
 fix up something pleasanter to handle. 
 
 His effort to prove that baptism with water is not the outward sign 
 of the Spirit's baptism, exhibits him in a sorry light before the public. 
 In the name of all that is sober in human reason, why are they both 
 called by the same name if this correspondence does not exist between 
 them 1 Of what use is a symbol at all if it has no corresponding 
 spiritual reality 1 Will he tell us t Such unworthy quirks to extri- 
 cate himself from the unpleasant consequences of a false theology are 
 by no means cre'ditable either to his candor or his intelligence. 
 
 My opponent is incredible, of course, about the young lady near 
 Ottawa having died as a result of her immersion. Of course ! Well, 
 I would advise him to remain incredible, it will make him feel so 
 much more comfortable. But to ask the congregation to share his 
 incredulity in face of the evidence is unseasonably cool. And as for 
 the Methodist preacher's wife who died from shouting, I have only to 
 say it is quite likely (!), though evidently she was not as much accus- 
 tomed to it as my opponent, otherwise it must have been an unearthly 
 shout to kill her. He ought to be warned of his own danger. 
 
 He seems to think that to die for Christ, and to die as the result of 
 observing an institution of Christ's appointment, are quite analogous. 
 Evidently he belongs to that class who lack the power to distinguish 
 between things that differ. Well, be it so. Men are only responsible 
 for what they possess. 
 
 I am quite willing for my opponent to draw the shades as dark as 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 363 
 
 they deserve to be in describing the various Paedo-baptist Churclies, as 
 I have no disposition to conceal or defend any improprieties in any of 
 them ; but when he has selected the worst of them, and drawn the 
 shades at the darkest, I am quite willing that it shall sustain a fair 
 comparison with his own. It is well known that laxity of teaching 
 and discipline, and the immorality of the priesthood, have far more to 
 do with the morality of a Church than the conditions of admission. 
 Besides, if we cannot secure a high standard by taking the children 
 into the Church and instructing them from their infancy in the fear of 
 the Lord, I cannot see how we are to accomplish it by letting them 
 grow up in the service of the devil and trust to a speedy dip in water 
 to wash all the evil out of them. Such dips, as a matter of fact, too 
 often leave them, like Simon Magus, in "the gall of bitterness and the 
 bonds of iniquity." I prefer trusting to an early religious training. 
 And then my opponent seems to overlook the fact that when persons 
 within the Church become immoral they can be "cut off," or excom- 
 municated. He can only see what serves his own purpose. 
 
 My opponent's denial that circumcision was a sign of inward purity, 
 and that baptism takes it place, may comfort his poor sore heart a 
 little, but doesn't fill the bill of demands on the part of this congre- 
 gation. How could it be a seal of righteousness at all if it had no 
 spiritual significance corresponding thereto 1 And how could a state 
 of uncleanness be uniformly described by the word wn-circumcision 1 
 And why did the Jews teach the Gentiles that unless they were 
 circumcised they could not be saved ? And why could no uncircum- 
 cised person eat the passover,— the symbol of the atonement, — and 
 why was every uncircumcised person cut off from the religious assembly, 
 if circumcision had no connection with moral purity ? I blush to be 
 obliged to argue a case that is so plain. The fact is that Abraham's 
 natural seed were typical of his spiritual seed, and those born in his 
 house or bought with his money were reckoned as belonging to 
 Abraham's family and subject to the conditions of his religion, — 
 servants of his God, — hence they ate the passover, which, my opponent 
 has not denied and cannot deny, was symbolical and typical of the 
 atonement. This accounts for their being circumcised. And if 
 circumcision was the symbol and type of renewal, as the passover was 
 of the atonement, then it follows, undeniably, that baptism takes its 
 place, for it fills the same bill and answers the same end. It repre- 
 sents the " washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Regarding the olive tree and Nicodemus, I want to say a word. 
 You would think from my opponent's style of reasoning that no one 
 
364 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 ever had to be born again until the gospel dispensation began. Did 
 they go to heaven, then, without regeneration, or did they all go to 
 hell 1 Does he not know that the language of our Lord to Nicodemus 
 is just as applicable to every formalist and mere nominal Church 
 member to day, and all down through the ages, as they were to Nico- 
 demus ? It by no means follows because he was a master in Israel 
 that therefore he was living up to all the spiritual requirements of the 
 Jews' religion, though my opponent first assumes he was and then 
 bases an argument on the assumption, and thus perpetrates a logical 
 farce technically called petitio principii, or by common mortals a 
 begging of the question. And this is the style of his reasoning 
 throughout, as could be easily shown were there time to deal with it 
 
 in detail. 
 
 [Time expired.^ 
 
 ADDENDUM. 
 
 Respected Reader, — For the anomaly of this addendum, in Avhat 
 is professedly an oral debate, I disavow all responsibility. Fearing 
 it would lead to an unseemly personal altercation, and so mar the 
 book, I protested to the extent of my ability against the insertion of 
 Mr. Harding's " Addenda" to his last speech. The publisher-in-chief 
 wrote him, on the strength of my protest, strongly urging him to 
 embody in his speeches any replies he desired to make to my addi- 
 tions, but he was invincible in his determination to have his reply 
 appear under a separate heading. The reader may not be able to 
 detect the design of this, though I surmise that I see men as trees 
 walking. Probably the sequel will betray the plot. The pretext 
 was that it would make his speech too long for a half-hour's speech, 
 hence it must appear separately. The sincerity of this may be seen 
 in the fact that his fifth reply, under the same proposition, contains 
 just three lines more than his ninth speech, including the " Addenda," 
 and his sixth reply just two lines less, and his fourth reply only 
 twenty-three lines less, and other speeches are of but slightly smaller 
 proportions, though he occupied some eight lines in the "Addenda" 
 explaining to the reader about the additions I had made after he saw 
 my speech in the proof-sheets. Had he left this explanation out, his 
 ninth speech, with the additions, would have been eleven lines shorter 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 365 
 
 than his fifth, six lines shorter than his sixth, and only fifteen lines 
 longer than his fourth, though he does not seem to have considered 
 these speeches too long for a half-hour, I fear it is another wolf and 
 lamb story. 
 
 But to give the reader a still further illustration of the true 
 inwardness of this business, let me say, that after making an exact 
 estimate of the length of our respective speeches up to the close 
 of the ninth under the second proposition, I find that his first 
 twenty speeches occupy just seventeen pages and eighteen lines 
 more than my corresponding twenty speeches ; yet as soon as I 
 entered a practical protest against such injustice by adding four and a 
 half pages to one of my speeches, nothing would 2:)lease the dear man 
 but an exposure of my crime C^) in a separate paragraph to the reader. 
 Hence the "Addenda." These facts will have all the more weight 
 when it is remembered that I spoke with much greater rapidity than 
 Mr. Harding, as the reporter frequently testified during the debate. 
 
 But it will probably be asked, " Why did you add the four and a 
 half pages after your speech had gone to the printer, and the proof 
 of it had been sent to Mr. Harding 1 " The time is now so long past 
 that I cannot possibly remember the circumstances connected with 
 each individual case, but sufiice it to say that both parties had been in 
 the habit of adding to their speeches from time to time, as they saw 
 fit, after seeing their opponent's reply, even after the matter was 
 made up into page-form in some cases; and I either made these 
 additions to meet similar additions in my opponent's previous 
 speeches, which I discovered after the copy of my ninth speech had 
 been sent to the printer, else because I took advantage of an interval 
 of leisure to reply to objections overlooked in times of hurry or 
 absence from home. At all events, I have a distinct recollection 
 that I noticed additions to Mr. Harding's speeches when the proof 
 came to me in page-form. At what stage his additions were made I 
 cannot say. I only know when I made the discovery. But no 
 matter. I distinctly testify that he added to his seventh and other 
 speeches after the proof-sheets were sent to me, hence he has no 
 cause for complaint. And he was the man who began this business 
 of garbling and enlarging the reporter's notes to suit his jealous 
 caprices, though he is the first to show his teeth by exposing me. It is 
 evident that no personal advantage was sought, or injustice intended 
 in the matter on my part, or my proof-sheets might have been with- 
 held from him, and it never entered my mind but that when he saw ad- 
 ditions to my galley-proofs he would make corresponding additions to 
 
366 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 his galley-proofs, as he had been in the habit of doing. But the fact 
 is, he found the pages I had added put him in a very unpleasant 
 dilemma, from which he saw no way of escape except under cover of 
 a cloud of dust, hence he concocted a plan to prejudice the argument 
 he could not answer. If any one imagines that this is mere empty 
 banter, let him read carefully the last four and a half pages of my 
 ninth speech, clause by clause, and after reading each clause let him 
 read Mr. Harding's reply to it in the " Addenda," and see how it was 
 met. If he is not satisfied by that time, let him glance over the sub- 
 joined reply to the "Addenda." The experiment will well reward the 
 trouble. 
 
 Let me call attention also to another fact. Mr, Harding admits 
 that it was after he saw my ninth speech "in printed proof-sheets," 
 that he "corrected and sent in" his "ninth reply." Now, I want to 
 say that I could not wait till I saw his speeches " in printed proof- 
 sheets " before I sent in my replies, unless I had assumed the responsi- 
 bility of hindering the publication as he has done. In fact, I some- 
 times had to send two or three of my corrected speeches before I saw 
 his reply in proof-sheets to the first of them. Hence, according to his 
 own admission, he enjoyed an important advantage which I could only 
 recover by making changes in mine after his proof-sheets came to 
 hand. In this matter he has unconsciously borne witness against 
 himself. 
 
 Another item worthy of note is the fact that Mr. Harding has 
 positively rewritten and enlarged every one of his speeches from 
 first to last. There is scarcely a paragraph, and comparatively 
 few sentences, from the beginning to the end, except quotations from 
 authorities, that has not been entirely remodelled. His speeches as 
 they appear in this book are not his speeches as delivered in Meafard, 
 and I can prove it. The reader has no guarantee that anything 
 printed here is what he said there, and in point of fact very little 
 appears here as he said it there. While pursuing the same general 
 well-beaten track, from which it seemed almost impossible for liim to 
 get away, he has so entirely re-cast the argument that it would require 
 a philosopher to discover even a remote degree of consanguinity, and 
 in not a few instances he has actually left out of his rewritten speeches 
 all reference to things he said, according to the reporter, thus making 
 much that appears in my replies appear irrelevant. Instances of this 
 can be given, if need be. On the other hand, with the exception of 
 slight verbal corrections and additions to meet his new and revamped 
 arguments and quotations, my speeches are published herein, almost 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 367 
 
 bodily, from first to last, as reported. Yet he is the man to make a 
 noise and mar the book with "addenda " in order to expose me. 
 
 And now, as I have some fourteen or fifteen more pages of space at 
 my command, before I get even with my opponent, I will indulge in 
 a brief reply to his " Addenda." 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 1. He appears exceedingly anxious to convey the impression either 
 that I am wrong about Timothy's circumcision, or that the apostles 
 acted a lie. Of course it is to his interest to put the matter as strongly 
 as possible from his standpoint, but I think a moment's reflection will 
 convince the reader that it is possible for me to be right without 
 involving the apostles in either hypocrisy or falsehood. First, I do 
 not claim that it was wrong for Paul to circumcise Timothy, under 
 the circumstances, for I am not aware that there was any specific law 
 against it. Besides, Paul recognized the law of expediency in the 
 absence of express injunctions, and all I claim is that he was governed 
 by this law in this particular matter. If my opponent repudiates 
 this law, will he tell us on what principle the apostle could become 
 " all things to all men, that he might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 
 9 : 22. He testifies that " unto the Jews he became as a Jew, that he 
 might gain the Jews ; to them that were under the law, as under the 
 law, that he might gain them that were under the law ; to them that 
 were without law, as without law, . , . that he might gain them 
 that were without law; and to the weak he became as weak, that he 
 might gain the weak." Thus, so long as no moral wrong, or com- 
 promise o£ principle, was involved, he " pleased all men in all things, 
 . that they might be saved." 1 Cor. 10 : 33. I presume it was 
 on this principle that Paul " took and circumcised Timothy because of 
 the Jews which were in those quarters : for they knew all that his father 
 was a Greek." Acts 16:3. All of which plainly implies that he 
 would not have" circumcised him hut for the Jews that were in those 
 quarters, nor eveii for this reason had they not known that his father 
 was a Greek. But " being crafty," I suppose he endeavored to catch 
 these Jews "with guile." And I presume his "purifying himself 
 with those four men, and shaving his head and entering into the 
 temple with them," may consistently be explained on precisely the 
 same principle. So, if Paul acted a lie in these matters 1 will just 
 leave him and Mr. Harding to fight it out. It doesn't affect my 
 position in the least. 
 
368 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 But I am under the painful necessity of calling attention to a most 
 unworthy quibble in my opponent's "Addenda." He quotes me as 
 saying that " the inspired penman says that Timothy was circumcised 
 because his father was a Greek," and then he vociferously denies it. 
 He says, "The inspired penman says no such thing. The statement is 
 untrue." Now, what does the inspired penman say? He says, as I 
 have just quoted the words, that he " took and circumcised him because 
 of the Jews which were in those quarters ; for (and this means because) 
 they knew all that his father was a Greek." It was, then, according 
 to the inspired penman, first, "because of the Jews," and secondly, 
 " because they knew that his father was a Greek." Did I tell a lie, then, 
 when I said it was because his father was a Greek ? I leave the reader 
 to judge. In the meantime I repeat the statement, that the inspired 
 penman says it was because his father was a Greek, and because the 
 Jews knew it, that Paul circumcised Timothy. Kow, let him deny 
 this in his next "addenda." But my opponent says it was " because 
 his mother was a Jewess." Will he tell us what inspired penman said 
 that, and where it can be found? When he does he can, with a much 
 better grace, flatly contradict my statements and make me out a false 
 witness. 
 
 2. He would like to know why, if baptism has taken the place of 
 circumcision, baptized persons are not, like circumcised persons, 
 " debtors to do the whole law." I thought I had succeeded in making 
 it plain that circumcision was the form of seal peculiar to the old 
 dispensation, when the ceremonial law was in force, and that, there- 
 fore, persons receiving it (except on the ground of expediency, as in 
 the case of Timothy) acknowledged the continued obligation of " the 
 whole law ; " but that baptism was the form of seal peculiar to the 
 new dispensation, under which the ceremonial law was abolished, and 
 that persons receiving baptism virtually recognized the fact of its 
 abrogation. I trust this explanation will satisfy him. 
 
 3. My opponent cannot see any " sense " in some things I have 
 said, and therefore declines a reply. This will, no doubt, occasion a 
 great loss to the world's literature, but I presume if he had said he 
 could see no " sense " in any possible reply he could make, he would 
 have come much nearer the truth. 
 
 4. When he concedes that all infants who die in infancy will have 
 a place in the city of God which is to come down out of heaven, he 
 sadly gives away his Avhole contention. That city is the Church, called 
 "The bride, the Lamb's wife" (see Rev. 21:9, 10). Now the 
 Church is Christ's body, composed of His redeemed ones (see Acts 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 369 
 
 20 : 28), and if children dying in infancy are to have a place in the 
 Church, then they have been " purchased " with atoning blood, a truth 
 that my frieud has stubbornly denied. But now he virtually admits 
 it. That will do. I think before the debate closes he will get a 
 good many of these cobwebs of error out of his eyes, and then he 
 will be able to see infant baptism in the Bible. I thank him very cor- 
 dially for this admission. It concedes that little children are Christ's, 
 and, therefore, Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise 
 (covenant) ; hence, if he refuses them baptism, he must circumcise 
 them, as Paul did Timothy, even though, like him, they are of 
 Greek descent. 
 
 5. My friend thinks he convicts me of a serious slip because I said 
 in my last speech that infants were not born again, though he finds I 
 said in a former speech that "I infer from his premises " that they 
 are. He thinks that this is a great "contradiction" and "incon- 
 sistency," and altogether destroys my title to the confidence of my 
 fellow-men. I would simply remind him that I do not endorse every 
 doctrine I deduce from his premises. If I did I should be as hetero- 
 dox as he is, which I would greatly deprecate. By bearing this 
 simple fact in mind, it will greatly relieve the distress he feels for 
 me in consequence of my pitiable dilemma. 
 
 If he has any more "addenda" exposures or replies to make I 
 hope he will send them along. He has sadly delayed the publica- 
 tion of this book by the months of time spent, according to his own 
 public admission, in research and writing since the debate closed. 
 What a pity he had not spent this time beforehand in preparing for 
 the debate, it would have cost him so much less time afterwards, and 
 he would have appeared to so much better advantage on the platform 
 at Meaford. 
 
 And now we await the rising of the curtain for the next scene. 
 
 T. L. W. 
 
370 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 MR. HARDING'S TENTH REPLY 
 
 With pleasure I rise to continue tlie discussion of this proposition. 
 I realize that we are drawing near to the end of what has been to me 
 a very profitable discussion ; and I desire now, as earnestly and faith- 
 fully and kindly as I can, to continue the debate to the close. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson still talks about my misrepresenting Moses Stuart- 
 I am perfectly willing to leave that matter to the judgment of this 
 audience — especially as this debate is to be published — for my quota- 
 tions can then be carefully examined by any one interested in the 
 matter. These facts will then appear : 
 
 1. That when I introduced Stuart it was avowedly for the purpose 
 of giving his classical definition of hapto and hapti^. 
 
 2. That Stuart is of the opinion that baptizo in the New Testa- 
 ment, when applied to the rite of baptism, does, as a rule, involve 
 the idea of immersion. 
 
 3. That to this rule he thinks there are at least three exceptions. 
 
 4. That Mr. Wilkinson misrepresented Stuart when he stated in 
 his last speech that he, " like all Paedo-baptist authorities," explained 
 that it did not mean dip, plunge, immerse in the New Testament. 
 With perfect serenity I submit this matter to you, that you may 
 decide whether Mr. Wilkinson or I has been dishonest in dealing with 
 this great author. It is certain that one of us has been. 
 
 Now we will turn our attention to the latter part of the sixteenth 
 chapter of Mark. As you have been told, in the revised version 
 a blank space is left between the eighth and ninth verses. Mr. 
 Wilkinson thinks that the latter part of the chapter is of doubtful 
 authority, and that therefore it was thus set off by the revisers. But 
 you shall hear the testimony of one much more competent to speak 
 on this question than Mr. Wilkinson. This volume [holding up a 
 book before the audience] is the " Companion to the Revised Version of 
 the New Testament" by Alexander Roberts, D.D. Mr. Roberts was 
 a member of the revision committee — of the English New Testament 
 company — and of course he knows whereof he testifies. The " Com- 
 panion " was written by him to explain the reasons for the changes 
 from the common version. Ooncerning these last verses of the book 
 of Mark, he says (p. 63) : 
 
 " On the whole, a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems to 
 lead us to these conclusions : First, that the passage is not the imme- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 371 
 
 diate production, of St. Mark ; and, secondly, that it is, nevertheless, 
 possessed of full canonical authority. We cannot ascertain its author, 
 but we are sure he must have been one who belonged to the circle of 
 the apostles. And, in accordance Avith this view of the paragraph, it is 
 marked off from the words with which, for some unknown reason, the 
 Gospel of St. Mark ended ; while, at the same time, it is inserted, with- 
 out the least misgiving, as an appendix to that gospel in the Revised 
 Version." 
 
 So, according to Dr. Roberts, the revisers had not the least doubt 
 as to the inspiration of the passage : they only doubted as to whether 
 Mark or some other man of the apostolic circle wrote it. As you 
 were reminded, it is certain Moses did not write the last part of the 
 Pentateuch, and it is doubtful who wrote the book of Hebrews, but 
 their canonicity is undoubted by the Christian scholarship of the 
 world ; and so of these last verses of the book of Mark. While they 
 are not found in two of the oldest MSS., it is a fact that they are 
 found in translations older than any of them; moreover, as Dr, 
 Roberts remarks, " Ireneeus quotes the passage, without the slightest 
 misgivings, in the second century," and he antedates both of these 
 MSS. 
 
 It is not strange that Mr, Wilkinson should be anxious to get rid 
 of the fifteenth and sixteenth verses of the last chapter of Mark, for 
 while they stand it must be evident to every unprejudiced observer 
 that infant baptism is not only unscriptural, it is also antiscriptural. 
 For the command to " make disciples " (matheteusate), which precedes 
 the command to baptize, in Matthew's account of the commission, is 
 the exact equivalent of the preaching of the Gospel, and the faith, 
 which precede the baptizing in Mark's account. While these verses 
 stand, therefore, preaching and faith must precede scriptural baptism. 
 And, as you have just heard from Dr. Roberts, the revisers did not 
 doubt their inspiration. Nor should Mr. Wilkinson, for Irenseus 
 quoted the passage long before in/ant baptism was ever heard of. To 
 use Mr. Wilkinson's own argument, How could Irenseus have been 
 mistaken about the passage, seeing that he knew Polycarp, who knew 
 John 1 The fact that he quoted it without misgivings of any kind 
 shows that, as early as sixty years after John died, the passage was 
 received by the Church with the same confidence that any other part 
 of the New Testament was. In order to maintain this silly, useless 
 and unscriptural practice of infant baptism, you see, it has become 
 necessary for my opponent to try to cast doubt upon a part of God's 
 word. 
 
372 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 In his last speech, which Mr. Wilkinson read in your hearing, he 
 explained at great length why circumcision was changed to baptism ! 
 I take it that his speech would have had more effect if it had not 
 already been shown pretty conclusively that circumcision was not 
 changed to baptism. He has wasted his time in showing why that 
 was changed which was never changed at all. 
 
 Does not a change of practice follow a change of law ? Over in the 
 United States we recently had a change in the postal law, so that two 
 cents will now answer where three were formerly required. We all 
 began at once to use the two-cent stamp instead of the three ; there 
 was a change of practice growing out of the change of law. If there 
 had been a change of law with regard to circumcision, would there 
 not also have been a change in practice % Was there a change in 
 practice ? No ; Christ was circumcised and then baptized ; so were the 
 apostles ; so were the three thousand ; so were the Jews generally ; 
 while Timothy was baptized and then circumcised. Do you suppose 
 that any man in the States was ever silly enough to use both a two- 
 cent and a three-cent stamp on the same letter 1 
 
 Not only did the Jewish converts to Christianity continue to 
 practice circumcision, but many of them also insisted that the Gentiles 
 who came into the Church should be required to submit to the rite, 
 and they stoutly contended that they could not be saved without it. 
 Why did not Peter, or James, or Paul, or some other one of the apostles 
 arise and say, " Brethren, have you lost your wits ? do you not know 
 that baptism has taken the place of circumcision'? these people have 
 been baptized, and that is enough." Can any sane man doubt that 
 some such speech would have been made, had it been true ? Then 
 Paul, instead of circumcising Timothy to please the Jews in those 
 quarters, would simply have explained that his baptism was sufficient, 
 seeing that the one had taken the place of the other. Then, too, when 
 they at Jerusalem (see Acts, chap. 21) charged Paul with teaching the 
 Jews which were among the Gentiles not to circumcise their children, 
 he would simply have replied, " You know well enough that baptism 
 has taken the place of circumcision ; hence I teach them to practice 
 baptism and to cease from circumcision." But as a matter of fact, 
 Paul made no such reply ; instead thereof he took steps to show that 
 the charge was false. No, no ; Pfedo-baptists lean upon a broken reed 
 when they depend on this circumcision argument ; for there is no fact 
 susceptible of a clearer and more satisfactory demonstration than that 
 Jewish Christians continued to practice circumcision for many, many 
 years after the ascension of Christ — after the beginning of the Chris- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 373 
 
 tian dispensation. It is not worth while to argue against facts ; no 
 amount of argument can set aside a fact. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson then proceeds to give us " a few presumptions " 
 that infant baptism was practiced at the beginning of the gospel dis- 
 pensation. What does he want to give us " presumptions " for? Does 
 he expect us to receive the rite as a divine ordinance on the strength 
 of a presumption 1 It is a significant fact, that at the end of a six- 
 days' debate " a few presumptions " are the best things that can be 
 offered to show that infant baptism was practiced in apostolic times. 
 If the gentleman has any Bible teaching on the subject, it is about 
 time to produce it ; nobody is going to be very materially affected by 
 his presumptions ; an ounce of Scripture is worth many thousand 
 pounds of presumption, and hence we want the Scripture. 
 
 But let us consider these presumptions. 
 
 The first one is this : he thinks the Jews would have been terribly 
 grieved had their children been excluded from the covenant, and that 
 they would have complained about it. As they made no complaint, 
 he concludes the children were not excluded. Just so ; that is exactly 
 the fact in the case. The children were in the covenant of circum- 
 cision, and they remained in it ; their parents continued to circumcise 
 them, as we have seen. True, it was rumored that Paul was trying 
 to get the little ones out by stopping the practice of circumcision 
 among Jews, but the rumor was false, and he promptly took steps to 
 stop the complainings by showing that it was false. They were never 
 in the new covenant, which includes baptism, hence nothing was ever 
 said in any way about their being baptized. 
 
 His second presumption is this : " If it were intended that children 
 should not be recognized under the new dispensation, as they were 
 under the old, by any visible rite, certainly we have reason to suppose 
 that some mention would be made of the fact." It seems to me far 
 more reasonable to presume thus : If God had wanted infants to be 
 baptized, He would certainly have said so, seeing that when He wanted 
 them to be circumcised He did say so. Moreover, I presume that 
 pious. God-fearing Jews would have been very certain not to change 
 circumcision to baptism without being expressly taught so to do, 
 seeing that God had cautioned them very particularly not to add to, 
 nor take from, nor change His laws. And let it be remembered, in 
 this connection, that circumcision was practiced long before the 
 giving, and long after the taking away, of the Mosaic law. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson then supposed a case by way of illustration : If, 
 before the confederation of the provinces of this Dominion, Upper 
 
374 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 Canada had granted certain rights to the Indians (or children), and 
 if these rights were not referred to at all in the Act of Confedera- 
 tion, would any one suppose that the mere absence of any mention 
 of them, or of their rights, would deprive them of their just inherit- 
 ance ? I should say not ; I should say that Upper Canada would be 
 bound by every principle of justice to give to those Indians exactly 
 what she had promised ; and no contract which she might after- 
 wards make with other provinces would free her from her obliga- 
 tions to the Indians. And now for the application. God gave 
 the covenant of circumcision to AUraham and his seed for " an ever- 
 lasting covenant ; " about four hundred years afterwards He gave the 
 law for temporary purposes ; but this could not invalidate the cove- 
 nant of circumcision, which continued to be observed ; about fifteen 
 hundred years later he took away the law ; it had served its purpose ; 
 but circumcision continued to be observed ; and so up to the very close 
 of the days of inspiration there is not the slightest hint that the Jewg 
 ceased to hold to this " everlasting covenant," nor is there the least 
 intimation that it was to be changed to something else. 
 
 After these " presumptions," which, as we have seen, do not amount 
 to a row of pins in his favor, Mr. Wilkinson reads on to what he 
 alls " the necessary conditions or grounds for infant baptism," which, 
 he claims, are to be found in the New Testament Infants are pure, 
 hence they ought to be baptized, he says, as baptism is a sign of 
 purity. Adults need faith before baptism, seeing that faith makes 
 them pure; but the infant is pure without faith, and hence has an equal 
 right to baptism, he argues. Just here I have a question : How did it 
 happen that, under the old dispensation, circumcision was given to 
 adults regardless of faith or purity ? Every male born among the 
 descendants of Abraham, or bought with the money of his children, 
 was to be circumcised, regardless of any other conditions ivhatever. 
 There, now, is a nut for my friend to crack. If baptism is in the 
 room of circumcision, how does it happen that the same rule does not 
 hold good 1 
 
 But, as a matter of fact, baptism is not for the pure ; it is " for the 
 remission of sins." John preached "the baptism of repentance for 
 the remission of sins ;" and the people were " baptized of him in the 
 river of Jordan, confessing their sins." (See Mark 1:4, 5.) Jesus 
 said, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." Mark 
 16:16. Peter said, " Repent, 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." Acts 2 : 38. Ananias said to 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 375 
 
 Paul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
 name of the Lord." Acts 22 : 16. And, finally, we are baptized into 
 Christ (see Gal. 3 : 27), and in Him we have forgiveness (see Eph. 
 1 : 7). So it appears that infants have not the moral conditions that 
 demand baptism ; since, in order to be a proper subject for baptism, 
 one must be a sinner, who trusts in Jesus, and who looks to Him for 
 salvation. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson next claims that children are capable of sustaining 
 covenant relations to God ; and in this connection quotes the saying 
 of Jesus, " Sufier little children to come unto Me, and forbid them 
 not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Did Jesus baptize these 
 little ones 1 No. Did He baptize men and women who believed in 
 Him 1 Yes ; He did, through His agents, His disciples. Why this 
 difierence? Because infants are innocent; but adults have to "be born 
 of water and of the Spirit" to become like them; hence the necessity 
 for faith and baptism. But Mr. Wilkinson's practice is different from 
 the Lord's ; he baptizes (or rather rantizes) both babies and adults ; 
 and this difference in practice grows out of a difference in doctrine. 
 Immersionists practice as the Saviour did ; that is, we pray for the 
 little ones, and we baptize the believing adults. Which is the more 
 likely to be correct, my friends, the practice of the Lord Jesus, or 
 something that differs from it ? For my part, I am willing to follow 
 Jesus, especially as He exhorts us so to do. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson argues that infants are Christ's, therefore they are 
 Abraham's seed, and therefore they ought to be baptized. He quotes 
 from Galatians 3 : 29 :" If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed 
 and heirs according to the promise." But if he had read the entire 
 chapter, and if he had been willing to receive what he read, without 
 addition or subtraction, he would not have so argued ; for in the 
 seventh verse it is said, " Know ye, therefore, that they which are of 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Mr. Wilkinson pre- 
 sumes to add to this statement. According to his theory, it should 
 read thus : " Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the 
 same are the children of Abraham, and so are all ivfants." And 
 then, to make his argument complete, it should have been added, 
 " And all of Abraham's spiritual seed — infants and believers — ought 
 to be baptized." It would take these two additions to make the argu- 
 ment good for infant baptism. x 
 
 Had Mr. Wilkinson read the entire chapter, he would also have 
 found these words : "For ye are all the children of God by faith in 
 Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ 
 
376 REPORT OF DEBATK 
 
 have put on Christ." So it appears from his own proof text that it 
 takes both faith and baptism to bring adults back to the state of 
 innocency that they had in their infancy ; and, as in Christ " we 
 have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins," we 
 have here a statement that perfectly harmonizes with the saying of 
 Jesus, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." 
 
 But here again the Pajdo-baptists get into another tangle. The 
 Presbyterians argue that baptism came in the room of circumcision ; 
 that circumcision belonged to God's people and their children ; hence 
 they claim that baptism should be given to Christians and their cliil- 
 dren. They will not baptize (rantize, sprinkle) any infant unless at 
 least one of its parents is a believer. They understand that believers 
 are children of Abraham, and that Abraham's children and their 
 infants are entitled to baptism. You have seen that the Methodists 
 view the matter very differently. It is singular, if the matter is so 
 clear as they would have us believe, that Mr. Wilkinson and his Pres- 
 byterian brother, Mr. Paterson, who sits here so lovingly by his side, 
 can not see it alike. Here is an infant that the one would baptize 
 {rantize) while the other would not, for its parents are unbelievers. 
 So you see, my friends, the Presbyterians can no more see any force 
 in Mr. Wilkinson's " purity " argument than immersionists can ; and 
 no wonder, for (excepting the Lord Jesus Christ) there is not a par- 
 ticle of evidence that any pure person was ever baptized since the 
 world began. Baptism, as we have seen, brings the believer into 
 Christ, where he obtains purity ; hence men and women were baptized, 
 " confessing their sins," " for the remission of sins," to " wash away 
 sins," and hence Jesus said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved." 
 
 Again, if baptism is for the pure, why did not Jesus have His disci- 
 ples baptize those infants that were brought to Him by their mothers 1 
 Who can tell? 
 
 It is true, moreover, and should be constantly borne in mind, that 
 if we were to grant that infants are of Abraham's spiritual seed 
 (which is not the fact), it would still be necessary to show that bap- 
 tism has taken the place of circumcision, and that very many changes 
 have been made as to the application of it. As you, who have 
 listened with unprejudiced minds, know well enough, these things 
 can never be shown, simply because they are not true. 
 
 And now a word to those of you who are fathers and mothers. 
 What do you think of that which you have heard ] Meyer, who is 
 confessedly the greatest of New Testament commentators, has been 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 377 
 
 brought before you a's a witness, and he freely testifies that not a 
 trace of infant baptism can be found in the New Testament ; that it 
 is of post-apostolic origin. Neander, the prince of Church historians, 
 has been called to the stand to testify, and he tells us that at first 
 adults only were baptized, that infant baptism is not of apostolic 
 origin, that it arose later : with this the testimony of Mosheim, 
 another great Church historian, fully agrees. Schaflf, another famous 
 writer of Church history, tells us that the apostolic origin of infant 
 baptism is denied not only by Baptists, but also by many Psedo-bap- 
 tist divines. Steitz, a great Lutheran scholar, says, among scienti- 
 fical exegetes it is agreed that not a trace of infant baptism can be 
 found in the New Testament. Then comes forward Mr. McKay (I 
 am glad he wrote that little book), who sums up for us all the cases 
 of baptism mentioned in the New Testament ; as he is a Presbyterian, 
 of course he is not prejudiced in my favor; we examined the cases, 
 one by one, and find not a trace of infant baptism in any one of them. 
 Coming on down from New Testament times, Mr. Wilkinson talks 
 about Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Ireneeus ; but Meyer and Bledsoe 
 step forward and say these men do not teach the doctrine — that the 
 first writer who makes any certain reference to it is Tertullian — that 
 it cannot be fairly inferred from any utterance made by any previous 
 writer. But Mr. Wilkinson goes back beyond the New Testament, 
 to the Old, to the covenant of circumcision ; he says baptism has come 
 in its room ; we look at the facts to see about it, and we find that the 
 statement is not true ; moreover, Stuart, the great Presbyterian, 
 promptly testifies that the covenant of circumcision furnishes no 
 ground for infant baptism : then, to add to the confusion and discom- 
 fiture of Mr. Wilkinson, the Presbyterian Church radically differs 
 from him as to what children ought to be baptized. Then, to cap the 
 climax of the ridiculous, and to make the whole thing unutterably 
 nonsensical and absurd, when Mr. Wilkinson arises to spi'inkle a baby, 
 " because it is as pure as an angel," " because it has been redeemed 
 by Jesus Christ," " because it has been cleansed from all the corrup- 
 tion and defilement of original sin by the Spirit of God," he prays to 
 the Father thus : " Look upon this child ; wash him and sanctify him 
 with the Holy Ghost ; that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may 
 be received into the ark of Christ's Church ; " and then he prays that 
 the old Adam may be buried in him, and the new man raised up. 
 Moreover, John Wesley agrees with Origen, the first advocate of 
 infant baptism, that in baptism original sin is washed away ; he says : 
 " If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper sub- 
 25 
 
378 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 jects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved 
 unless this be washed away by baptism. It has been already proved 
 that this original stain cleaves to every child of man, and that hereby 
 they are children of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation." Doc- 
 trinal Tracts, published in the year 1850. p. 251. 
 
 What think you of all this, my friends 1 For my part, I shall be 
 content to do as Christ did ; that .is, I will pray for the babies, and 
 baptize the believers. If you choose to baptize infants, just remem- 
 ber you will do that for which you have not a word of divine 
 authority. There is not the slightest proof that any inspired man 
 ever baptized a baby. 
 
 [ Tir)i e exp ired. ] 
 
 MR. WILKINSON'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 It is not necessary to say much with respect to the speech we have 
 just heard ; we have heard it so often, and I have answered it so 
 often. It is very amusing to see a sheep trying to knock down a 
 stone wall by butting his head against it. At first he fails. Then he 
 backs up and tries it again. The action is not successful. Then he 
 goes a little further back, and makes another tremendous effort, but 
 the stone wall still stands. The sheep's head is not so fortunate — 
 it suffers harm. So all efforts to demolish the structure of doctrinal 
 truth that I have been endeavoring to rear in your presence from 
 the Word of God seem to be as futile as the efforts of the sheep to 
 knock down the stone wall. In fact, you might as well attempt 
 to demolish an army with a pop-gun, as to try to overthrow this 
 doctrine ; hence I can afford to let my opponent amuse himself with 
 his futile efforts without trying to follow him into every nook whither 
 he seems inclined to run. But as this is my last speech in this hot and 
 interesting debate, I will briefly reply to some of his main points, and 
 then give a cursory review of the ground I have gone over, so that I 
 may present my argument in its completeness at the close of my 
 addresses. 
 
 1. I am accused of misrepresenting Professor Stuart by saying that 
 he explained that Baptizo did not mean dip, plunge and immerse in 
 the New Testament. Now, what Dr. Stuart said was, as I quoted in 
 
f)N THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 379 
 
 a former speech, that "there is no ahsohUe certainty from usage that 
 the word baptizo, when applied to the rite of baptism, means to im- 
 merse or plunge," and that " we do obey the command to baptize when 
 we do it by atfusion or sprinkling." Also, that Stuart gives us as Old 
 Testament meanings of bapto and baptizo, " to wash, to bedew, to 
 moisten." Now, the audience can judge how far I misrepresented 
 him by my remark. Certainly, whatever concession he makes, inci- 
 dentally, to the immersionists, he does not believe that the word 
 necessarily means immerse, or plunge, in the New Testament. But 
 drowning men clutch at straws. 
 
 And now I take the liberty of denying emphatically (whatever 
 complexion may be put upon the matter in his rewritten speeches 
 for publication) that when my opponent first introduced Stuart's 
 testimony in this debate, he said it was Stuart's classical definition 
 of bapto and baptizo, instead of his New Testament meaning. The 
 auditors or readers can accept whichever statement they please. 
 
 In regard to Mark 16:16, and the Companion to the revised edition 
 of the New Testament by A. Roberts, I want to say a word. In the 
 first place, I am not anxious to get rid of this passage, for it suits my 
 case very well — much better than it does my opponent's. At the same 
 time it is but fair to take an honest look at the facts pertaining to it. 
 I told you that the revisers had separated the last twelve verses from 
 the rest of the chapter, and stated in a marginal note that " the two 
 oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities," omit them 
 from the text. Also, that " some other authorities have a different 
 ending to the gospel." These facts alone were suflEicient to cast doubt 
 upon the genuineness of these verses, hence the revisers felt the neces- 
 sity of offering a defence for inserting them at all. Dr. Roberts, 
 therefore, on behalf of the revisers, has made that defence, during 
 which he admits that " there is something peculiar about the para- 
 graph " — that it " has no place in the two oldest manuscripts in our 
 possession," and quotes the saying of Tregelles, that " Eusebius, 
 Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, 
 as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses 
 were not written by Mark, or not found in the best copies." But 
 after giving the various considerations, pro and con, he concludes by 
 saying, as my opponent has told you, that " on the whole, a fair sur- 
 vey of all the facts of the case seems to lead us to these conclusions : 
 first, that the passage is not the immediate production of St. Mark ; 
 and, secondly, that it is, nevertheless, possessed of full canonical' 
 authority. We cannot ascertain its author, but we are sure he must 
 
380 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 have been one who belonged to the circle of the apostles." Observe, 
 he says, " a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems to lead to 
 these conclusions." That is not a very positive statement, I confess. 
 No wonder, therefore, that he immediately adds, "In accordance with 
 this view of the paragraph it is mai'ked off from the words with 
 which, for some unknown reason, the gospel of Mark ended, viz., the 
 eighth verse." The setting of it off, as the revisers have done, in 
 itself stamps the passage as doubtful, and the most that they claim 
 for it is "an appendix to that gospel." In view of these facts I 
 claim, that whatever veneration we n>ay feel for this paragraph, it 
 does not stand in the same undoubted position as the commission 
 recorded in Matthew ; hence, while it would be perfectly proper to 
 appeal to Matthew for a clearer explanation of Mark, it is not proper 
 to appeal to Mark as the expositor of Matthew. A well undei-stood 
 rule of interpretation among scholars is that the doubtful is always to 
 be interpreted in the light of the undisputed. Hence, if my oppo- 
 nent really venerates the scholars as much as he pretends to do when 
 they seem to agree with him, I hope he will cease to clamor for the 
 passage in Mark as the exponent of the passage in Matthew. 
 
 My opponent coolly assumes that he has proved that baptism did 
 not take the place of circumcision, and then expresses his astonish- 
 ment that I should present reasons why it did. Well, the reason I 
 did so was that his reasons were not very cogent, but exceedingly 
 paltry, to me. There is a species of fallacy known to logicians called 
 the petitio principii, or begging of the question, and he seems to be 
 quite expert in its use. And then he wonders that I am not con- 
 vinced by it. I may as well intimate to him just here, that it takes 
 a stronger species of logic than that to convince me. 
 
 My friend says a change of law brings a change in practice, and 
 wants to know why, if the law was changed in regard to circum- 
 sion, there was not a change in practice. I answer, there was a 
 change in practice, and I am surprised to learn that he is ignorant of 
 the fact. I would therefore take this opportunity of informing him 
 that, though the Church always circumcised its members under the 
 old dispensation, she has always baptized them under the new. 
 Most people are aware of this. Oh ! yes, my friend, there was a change 
 in practice, undoubtedly. The unwisdom and prejudice of a few 
 Jewish converts at the first doesn't affect the case an iota. It would 
 have been exceedingly strange if they had accepted all the changes 
 involved in the introduction of Christianity without showing any 
 signs of undue attachment to their former usages. No sensible per- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 381 
 
 son attaches any importance to the crotchets of those Jewish bigots. 
 But the fact that they insisted so strongly that the Gentiles could not 
 be saved without circumcision proves unmistakably that they attached 
 peculiar spiritual significance to the rite, and did not regard it jneiely 
 as a pledge of a small farm in Judea. Let my opponent note this 
 fact. 
 
 He objects to my "presumptions," and wants to know why I give 
 them. The reason is that one ^;re-sumption is worth fifty as-sump- 
 tions. I use the former, and leave him the monopoly of the latter. 
 Still, if I had nothing but presumptions to ofTer, he might complain, 
 unless they were very strong ; but I have only thrown these in as 
 extras after suppl)'ing an avalanche of indisputable arguments. But 
 I don't wonder that he is annoyed with them, nor can I relieve his 
 annoyance. His elaborate reply to my presumptions, while exhibit- 
 ing the annoyance he feels, does not merit or require any further 
 notice. 
 
 My friend also as-sumes that the circumcision of the " one born in 
 thy house, or bought with thy money of any stranger," was '■^regard- 
 less of any other conditions whatever." And this he calls a "nut" for 
 me to " crack." I am glad it is not a " hard-shell." Let me say, 
 then, that in the absence of any expressed conditions, it is to be pre- 
 sumed that the same conditions were recognized in such cases as in 
 the circumcision of an Israelite. If the candidate were an infant it 
 would be unconditional. If an adult, faith in Israel's God would be 
 required. Let it be remembered that the apostle Paul says (Rom. 
 2: 25), "Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law: but if 
 thou be a breaker of the law thy circumcision is made uncircum- 
 cision." The obligation to keep the law of God, therefore, was laid 
 upon all circumcised persons, whether they received the rite in in- 
 fancy or age. The privilege of eating the passover,. too, belonged to 
 all circumcised persons, and it was enjoined upon them as a duty to 
 do it ; and surely no one will be bold enough to affirm that this was 
 "regardless of any other conditions whatever," except to be ' born in 
 the house " of an Israelite, or " bought with his money." The pass- 
 over was a type and pledge of atonement, and must have involved 
 faith in the promised Messiah. The plain inference is, therefore, that 
 Israelites were supposed to train all those born in their houses in the 
 faith of Abraham, and to buy no servants who were unwilling to 
 embrace it. The servants they bought must not be supposed to have 
 been bought, like African slaves in the United States, as mere chat- 
 tels, without their consent or approbation, (though my friend seems 
 
382 REPOKT OF DEBATE 
 
 to model his notions after this pattern), but such persons may rather 
 be supposed to be persons willing to embrace the Jewish religion and 
 become servants in Jewish families. And this idea harmonizes with 
 the well-known fact that the Jews were expected to keep themselves 
 separate from heathen, or idolatrous, associations. If these remarks 
 be correct, then there is no foundation for my opponent's statement 
 that in such cases circumcision was " regardless of any other condi- 
 tions whatever" than to be born in the house or bought with the 
 money of a Jew. I leave the congregation to judge whether the nut 
 is cracked or not. 
 
 My friend says that "as a matter of fact, baptism is not for the 
 pure, i'or it is for the remission of sins." Just so, having reference 
 to the remission of sins, this is the meaning. And what is remis- 
 sion of sins if it does not involve purification? All I claim, or 
 have claimed, either for baptism or circumcision, is that it is a 
 symbol of purity, or purification, and that the inward purification is 
 supposed to have taken place before the symbol is given. This was 
 not so, I am aware, in the case of Simon Magus, and perhaps in 
 millions of other cases, but it is the legitimate order. And this is 
 ■virtually recognized, even by my opponent, else why does he require 
 faith before baptism 1 Will he tell us in what way faith fits us for 
 baptism, if not because God forgives us when we believe'? This is a 
 nut for him to crack, and I predict that he will find it a genuine 
 '' hard-shell." 
 
 My opponent. I fear, will never give over the use of that logical (or 
 illogical) fallacy just now referred to, viz.,. the petitio principii. He 
 begs the question when he assumes that our Lord's disciples baptized 
 men and women, but not children; he begs the question when he 
 assumes that faith and repentance are always requisite before bap- 
 tism ; he begs the question when he assumes that my practice is 
 difierent from our Lord's ; he begs the question when he assumes that 
 I do not baptize, but rantize ; lie begs the question when he assumes 
 tliat my doctrine differs from our Lord's ; he begs the question when 
 hrf assumes that immersionists practice just as the Saviour did; and, 
 in fact, if you eliminate the assumptions from his speeches there 
 would hardly be enough substance left for a decent bowl of gruel. 
 But I cannot waste time in replying to assumptions. I prefer to deal 
 with arguments, where I can find them. 
 
 I have replied so often to the assumption about no one being Abra- 
 ham's seed except believers, that I am ashamed to refer to it again. 
 Let me ask my opponent, once for all, if Isaac was Abraham's seed ? 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 383 
 
 If SO, was it faith that constituted him such? Or was he born sol Yet 
 he received the very same recognition that his father did on the ground 
 of his faith. Now, why may not an infant to-day receive the same 
 recognition as its father on the ground of his faith 1 Will he tell us 
 why 1 My explanation is this : Adults being sinners, they must 
 believe in Christ before they are accepted in Him, and they cannot be 
 baptized until they are accepted. When they believe, faith is im- 
 puted for righteousness, as in the case of Abraham ; and they are 
 justified when through Christ's mediation the guilt of their sin is no 
 longer imputed to them. Will he tell us what people require, when 
 they grow up to be sinners, before baptism 1 If he will do that he will 
 give us something new in his next speech. To make this matter 
 plain : he contends that faith is a prerequisite to baptism. I ask 
 why it is such. There must be a reason unless God so appointed it 
 arbitrarily, or without reason. This supposition would impeach the 
 Almighty. If there is a reason we have a right to ask what it is. 
 Suppose, e.g., that we take two disconnected links of a chain, and 
 call number one faith and number two baptism. Now we want to 
 connect these two together by a third link which we will, for the 
 present, call a reason. Will he give the proper name of that third 
 link"? My explanation is, that it is justification. We are justified 
 by faith. And being justified we are entitled to baptism. Now, 
 according to this explanation, faith is a prerequisite to justification, 
 and justification a prerequisite to baptism. Adult sinners must be- 
 lieve, therefore, before they are baptized ; but infants, as I have 
 shown, are already in a justified state, regardless of faith, hence there 
 is nothing between them and baptism. They possess the necessary 
 qualification. Will he tell us why faith precedes baptism if not for 
 the reason I have given 1 
 
 I want to say also that it matters not a rush, so far as the issue of 
 this debate is concerned, what Presbyterians or any other body of 
 Chi-istians believe. It is not the belief of Presbyterians, but my 
 arguments, that he is expected to concern himself with. But when 
 these get too strong for his digestive organs, he swings off and tells 
 us what Presbyterians believe. I hope in future he will leave them 
 to attend to their own theology, and spend his time and strength on 
 my positions. This will be more to the point, and conduce much 
 more to the edification of his hearers. 
 
 I don't know how you like the dish of re-hash that my opponent 
 has served up to you for tlie fortieth time about "Meyer, the greatest 
 of Biblical exegetes;" " Neander, the prince of Church historians;" 
 
384 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 "Bledsoe, the most candid, able, and learned of all the Methodists of 
 the United States ; " " Schaff, the famous writer of Church history ; " 
 "Steitz, the great Lutheran scholar;" together with McKay, Mo- 
 sheira, etc. ; but it looks to me very much as though he had committed 
 these high-sounding qualifications of these great men to memory, from 
 some Baptist publication, and recites them in each speech, when he 
 runs out of other matter, just to fill in the moments till time is called. 
 !No doubt it is convenient for him, and it must be supremely edifying 
 to you, so I will say no more about it. 
 
 My opponent says that Paul never once mentions that baptism came 
 for circumcision. I have quoted again and again what Paul plainly 
 sets forth, that spiritual baptism is the same as spiritual circumcision. 
 In the revised edition. Col. 2:11, 12, Paul says, "Ye were circum- 
 cised with the circumcision made without hands, having been buried 
 in baptism." Thus he identified the two rites as equivalents of each 
 other,' hence he must have believed that the one was to be applied to 
 the same class of subjects as the other. As I intimated in a former 
 speech, it was a gracious act not to magnify this fact in the early ages 
 of Christianity. Suppose you had all been Gentiles with strong anti- 
 Jewish prejudices, and this had been the distinguishing feature be- 
 tween you and the Jews, and I came and preached the substitution of 
 baptism in place of circumcision, it would have aroused your Gentile 
 prejudices, and you would very naturally have said, " If this is but 
 another form of the same rite that has always distinguished the Jews 
 from us, and made them boastful over us, we want nothing to do with 
 it." And the Jews, on the other hand, would have continued to glory 
 in it as their distinguishing badge, and have claimed that unless the 
 Gentiles were baptized, and kept the law of Moses, they could not be 
 saved. It was therefore expedient, no doubt, that little should be 
 said on that subject in introducing it, so that it might produce as 
 little friction as possible. This is the strongest evidence for so little 
 being .said on the subject in the New Testament. 
 
 We are told that there is no infant baptism in the Bible. Three 
 million men, women and children were baptized in the cloud and 
 in the sea. It is admitted that the deliverance of the children of 
 Israel from Egypt, and their being brought under the administration 
 of Moses, was typical of man's deliverance from a state of sin, and 
 his entrance into the libert}' of the sons of God. To set forth the 
 former, men, women and children were baptized, and their baptism 
 was typical ; hence, under the administration of Christ, men, women 
 and children should be baptized, and their baptism is antetypical. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 385 
 
 And the antetype should agree with the type. If you destroy infant 
 baptism in the Christian dispensation, you destroy the antetype. 
 
 No man knows whether Lydia had any children or not, says my 
 opponent. Let us see what the scholars say. As explained in a 
 former address, the Syriac version, the most ancient and literal, 
 as well as one of the most reliable versions in the world, sup- 
 posed to have been made in the first century after the Christian era, 
 says. " Lydia and her children." So there is no " supposing" about 
 it, for that version settles the matter. 
 
 Before entering upon my review, I want to remind you that my 
 opponent has agreed to introduce no new matter in his final reply. 
 But I do not know that it is necessary to use any safeguard, for he is 
 not likely to do so. We have had scarcely anything new in any of 
 his replies for the last two days, and I predict that we shall get noth- 
 ing in his next speech but the same thing warmed over, so I pass 
 hurriedly on to briefly review my entire argument. 
 
 I have referred to the fact that in our federal head, Adam, sin was 
 brought into the world ; that unless a dispensation of grace had been 
 then introduced Adam must have suffered the extreme penalty of the 
 Divine law, and been destroyed at the hand of God, and our race would 
 have been blotted out. The human family would have been extinguished 
 in its very germ. Accordingly, from the days of Abel to the present 
 time there has been recognized on the part of man the necessity for an 
 atonement between him and his God. And this recognition on the 
 part of man is an evident result of the teaching of God on this subject. 
 Away down in the days of Abraham God made an express covenant 
 with him and his family in respect to this matter of the atonement. 
 That covenant implied that God would be his God, and to be a man's 
 God means to give Himself to man. The Godhead was to be placed at 
 the disposal of the manhood ; in other words, God was to employ all 
 His Divine resources on behalf of man, and bless him in body and 
 soul, for time and eternity. A.nything less than this would have been 
 to belittle and disparage the promises of God. He made this covenant 
 with Abraham, that'in his son Isaac all the nations of the earth sliould 
 be blessed. Yet the word " seed," as explained by Paul, has special 
 reference to Christ. Hence Isaac was a type of Christ, and represented 
 the spiritual element in the covenant. That covei>ant was sealed with 
 the seal of circumcision, hence circumcision was a seal of spiritual 
 blessings. I have shown, moreover, that Paul quoted from the same 
 covenant that was sealed with the seal of circumcision to prove that 
 Abraham was to be the father of many nations ; in that covenant 
 
386 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 little children were included and sealed ; that was an everlasting cove- 
 nant and has never been abrogated, but is today in full force and 
 effect. True, many of the natural branches were cut off through 
 unbelief, but the Gentiles were grafted in by faith, and when the 
 natural branches give up their unbelief and believe in Christ they too 
 will be grafted in again. But it is the same covenant includnig little 
 children. Accordingly in the Psalms we read, " He hath remembered 
 his covenant to a thousand generations." Under that covenant Christ 
 when he came into the world took little children in His arms and 
 blessed them, and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." It is 
 an insult to the Christian intelligence of this audience to seek to make 
 out that the kingdom of heaven is too small a kingdom to include 
 little children. It is also an insult to Christ, who came to establish on 
 the earth a kingdom which was to include all for whom He died, even 
 those who had committed personal transgression, when they received 
 Him by faith, but especially those who had not personally trans- 
 gressed. Christ said of the latter class, " Of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven." I have shown that from the very days of the apostles down 
 to the present time the rights of children in the covenant have been 
 recognized. They were never denied until 1300 years after the begin- 
 ning of the Christian dispensation. My opponent has failed to produce 
 a case refuting this fact, and he cannot produce one. So, little children 
 have always been regarded as in the covenant under the Christian 
 dispensation, and received the seal of God, even the seal of righteous- 
 ness. And this seal of righteousness is baptism, which the early 
 fathers of the Church believed came in place of circumcision. Little 
 children have thus been recognized as members of the Church of God 
 and heirs of the eternal kingdom, ever since the days of Abraham, at 
 least, and they will be crowned with glory in our Father's heavenly 
 mansions. We become children of God by virtue of the atonement. 
 But my opponent's argument cuts off little children altogether from 
 the atoneuKiut : no atonement, he says, is made for them. Tiiere is 
 no place in the fold of Christ for them, because they cannot commit 
 personal sin ; therefore, they are passed by, and stand in the same 
 relation to God and His church and the covenant of redemption that 
 your cat or dog might do. They have never committed any personal 
 sin, therefore they have never been redeemed. They go to heaven, 
 if they go at all, simply because they do not know any better, not be- 
 cause Christ died for them. They have no connection whatever 
 with the atonement ; it brings redemption only to humanity when 
 humanity has begun to be personally sinful. But Romans 5:18 and 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 387 
 
 19 completely sweeps this doctrine away. That is the skeleton in 
 the closet wliich my opponent does not like to venture near. I could 
 not get Mr. McDiarmid to venture near it, either, any more than if 
 it had been a ghost. He threatened to tell what it meant, but took 
 good care not to execute the threat. My opponent, also, said he 
 would tell us what it meant. Well, that is just the thing I want 
 him to do, but he does not do it ; his offer was just made to throw 
 dust in the eyes of this audience. There is the doctrine of original 
 sin — some kind of taint in our nature which we cannot get over. If 
 my opponent could get the 18th and 19th verses of 5th Romans out 
 of the Bible, together with some other passages, his sailing might be 
 comparatively clear ; but with those passages there, he will run on a 
 rock every time he tries to navigate these waters. I have shown you 
 that according to his theory not only would it exclude the children 
 from the Church of Christ, but also from the kingdom of heaven. 
 My opponent's theory excludes the entire Jewish nation from the 
 covenant of redemption, for Paul said distinctly, " If ye be circum- 
 cised Christ shall profit you nothing." He says that Paul taught 
 this doctrine of circumcision to his Jewish countrymen. I have 
 shown you that he did no such thing. It is a libel on the teaching of 
 Paul to say he taught or encouraged circumcision in his day. He 
 was the great apostle to the Gentiles who discouraged it, and he dis- 
 tinctly taught that neither circumcision availeth anything nor un- 
 circumcision, but a new creature. But if he taught circumcision he 
 excluded himself and all other believers from the atonement of Christ 
 and the kingdom of heaven. I have shown you that by my 
 opponent's teaching Christ has virtually tied His hands behind Him 
 and cannot save a soul from hell, though it should fulfil every con- 
 dition of His own appointment, unless he can get some Disciple 
 preacher to come and put the individual under water. If my oppo- 
 nent says that Christ can work, but that he can work only in a certain 
 way, that virtually amounts to the same thing. No matter how sin- 
 cerely you repent and believe, you cannot get to heaven unless you can 
 get a Disciple preacher to come and plump you under the water. Will 
 my opponent be kind enough to deny that such is the case 1 I have 
 shown you that the whole superstructure from my point of view is 
 consistent and harmonious. God has all through the a<jes been build- 
 ing up a Church, not one under the old and another under the new 
 dispensation, but one grand living temple under both dispensations ; 
 and He has built it on the foundation not only of the teachings of 
 Christ and the apostles, but also of the teachings of the apostles and 
 
388 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 prophets, — ^joining the teachings of the old with the teachings of the 
 new — the great doctrinal foundation of which Jesus Christ is the chief 
 corner stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth 
 unto an holy temple in the Lord. Solomon's temple was a grand 
 type of the spiritual temple built on Christ, and when that temple 
 was dedicated the glory of the Lord came down and filled it, and that 
 was illustrative of the fact that His presence was to pervade the 
 Church in all ages, though the glory was to be greater under the latter 
 dispensation than under- the former, for the Lord Himself would 
 eome to this latter temple, the spiritual temple, and fill it with His 
 presence. He promised to be with it and in it when He gave His 
 disciples the commission to go into all the world and preach the 
 gospel to every creature. He added the consoling promise, " Lo, I 
 am with you alway, even to the end of the world." Paul, addressing 
 the believers at Corinth, said, " Ye are the temple of God, and the 
 Spirit of God dwelleth in you." Thus by fitting each stone into the 
 temple, by perfecting each stone in the temple, and by making alive 
 each stone of the temple, Christ was building for Himself a glorious 
 house, beautified, garnished, adorned, and purified even as a bride 
 for her husband ; and by and by the bridegroom is coming back 
 to receive His bride. One fold, one Shepherd, one Lord, one 
 faith, one baptism, — not a mere dipping in water, which would 
 be a degradation to this great spiritual truth, but one spiritual 
 purification — one Lord over all, one faith on the part of the 
 whole, one baptism of the Holy Ghost, regenerating, quickening, 
 anointing, and fitting the whole for the glorious temple above where 
 we shall shine with infinite splendor throughout an eternal day, and 
 make the temple of heaven resound witli the praises of the redeemed 
 gathered from all nations, peoples, tribes, and tongues, baptized with 
 the Spirit of God, washed in the blood of the Lamb, and arrayeil in 
 white robes before the throne. This will be the consummation of 
 our labors here on earth, this the consummation of our Redeemer's 
 work, when He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satis- 
 fied. Go home and read the 7th chapter of Revelations. John, who 
 saw the glorified company, thus records tlie elder's testimony 
 concerning them : " These are they which came out of great 
 tribulation." How many? "A company whom no man could 
 number, of all nations and kindreds, and people and tongues." Are 
 the parents in that company without their little ones? Mothers, 
 are you not to meet your little ones that have gone before you in 
 that blood- washed throng 1 Are you not to take them again to your 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 389 
 
 bosoms in that immortal laud 1 Are they not to share with you the 
 glories of heaven that Christ has bought for you and your seed for- 
 ever 1. Are they to be gathered in some separate place set apart for 
 babies and babies only 1 Christians are represented as one . family in 
 Christ — -as, " one Church above, beneath, though now divided by the 
 stream, the narrow stream of death." Thank God, Christ will gather 
 all His loved ones home by and by. The ship is coming home, no 
 matter how boisterous and stormy the voyage, no matter how great 
 the trials and tribulations, how many the tears and sorrows. God 
 will gather His family unbroken before His throne ; He will wipe all 
 tears from their eyes, and lead each one to living fountains of water. 
 Is it possible that Christ will separate the older ones from the little 
 ones 1 I am astonished that any people can believe such a doctrine. 
 Nothing but a want of investigation, or strong prejudices that harden 
 the heart so that it will not yield to truth and conviction, could lead 
 anyone to cling to a superstition so deadly, so at variance with all our 
 instincts concerning Christ and His government, His life and His 
 redemption. O ! mothers, will you bring your children to Christ, and 
 put the seal of the everlasting covenant, the visible seal, on their 
 bodies, and before high heaven and before men let it be known that 
 as for you and your house you will serve the Lord. Then having 
 recognized their right to Divine truth and to Divine grace, "bring 
 them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 
 
 Allow me, in closing, to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your 
 close attention. Many of you are present under circumstances of 
 great personal discomfort, and in this hall, day after day, and night 
 after night, I have admired your patience and your behavior. No peo- 
 ple could have conducted themselves more orderly than you have 
 done. And- now, if either by word or act I have been rude or offen- 
 sive to you, may God forgive me, and I trust you will forgive me too. 
 In the heat of debate we sometimes give expression to sentiments un- 
 premeditated, uttered on the spur of the moment, and from impulse, 
 before we have time to consider what the effect is going to be. You 
 cannot expect quite such strict and rigid propriety under such circum- 
 stances as if we were dispassionately considering the subject alone and 
 uncontradicted. A certain spirit on one side provokes a similar 
 spirit on the other side. I only regret that I allowed myself to be 
 provoked by it. I again earnestly thank you. I am sure my intro- 
 duction to the people of Meaford has not been attended by all unpleas- 
 antness. I am sure the recollection in the memory of some will be 
 pleasant. I am sure some of the mist and fog has been blown away 
 
390 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 by this little cyclone of theological debate, and you will all be able to 
 see better in the clearer atmosphere. May God bless you, and if we 
 meet no more on earth, may we meet, one and all, in our Father's 
 kingdom. Amen. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 ADDENDUM. 
 
 Respected Reader, — Having received the proof-sheets of Mr. Har- 
 ding's eleventh speech, together with his second " Addenda," I am forced 
 to the painful necessity of addressing myself to you again in this un- 
 usual and anomalous way. I deeply regret that this necessity has been 
 forced upon m'^, but I suspected when he introduced the "Addenda" 
 business at the close of his ninth speech, that he wanted to get a pre- 
 cedent established so as to make use of some pretext to put in a sting 
 at the tail end of his last speech, when he knew 1 would have no 
 chance of replying in the regular way ; and my suspicions have proved 
 correct, hence I claim the right of anticipating, in this place, some 
 things he h;is added to his next speech. T would be glad if his 'Ad- 
 denda " were read before this. 
 
 1. He says, " About one-half of Mr. Wilkinson's eleventh speech 
 has been altogether added, or very materially changed, since it was 
 first sent to me in print." And suppose it has. Has not Mr. Wil- 
 kinson the same right to alter and enlarge speeches that Mr. Harding 
 has ? I have already pointed out, in a previous " Addendum," that 
 Mr. Harding, though repudiating the report of his own speeches when 
 " first sent to liim in print," on the ground that he was not as 
 fully reported as I was, yet up to the end of his twentieth speech had 
 seventeen pages and eighteen lines in this book more than I had. Does 
 he expect me to allow him to add to and alter his speeches all he 
 pleases without making any additions or alterations in mine 1 If he 
 does, he takes me for a greater simpleton than [ am. Besides, I have 
 been requested by the publisher to alter my speeches to meet the altera- 
 tions in my opponents. Tiiis I have done to some extent, though T can 
 prove that he has made half a dozen additions and alterations to my one. 
 In fact he has entirely rewritten, recast and enlarged every one of 
 
ON THE MODE AVD SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 391 
 
 his speeches from first to last ; yet, as soon as I take the same liberty 
 I must be exposed in this odious manner. Had I suspected that the 
 man was capable of such conduct I would never have consented to 
 the publication of this debate at all. 
 
 When he says my speech was changed " since it was first sent to 
 him in print," he evidently intends the reader to understand that this 
 was done since it was put in print for this book. But his own " Ad- 
 denda " unintentionally supply the correct solution. He admits that 
 " the stenographer's manuscript was given to Mr. Wilkinson, aud 
 appeared in printed form first in his paper, The Iconoclast. My 
 speeches," he says, " were clipped from his paper and were sent to me 
 for correction." But he does not say that Mr. Wilkinson's eleventh 
 speech was sent to him as it appeared in printed form in The Icono- 
 clast, months before it was set up for this book, though this was 
 evidently the case, for he admits having The Iconoclast of February 
 15th, 1885 (not clippings from it), hence I have no doubt that all the 
 numbers containing the debate were sent to him also. This, it will 
 be observed, puts quite a difierent complexion on the matter. 
 
 2. With regard to the question of veracity concerning Dr. Stuart 
 I admit that he has succeeded in putting the case in such a light as to 
 make my position look somewhat doubtful. But when the whole 
 truth is seen it will wear quite a different aspect, and he will be able 
 to make use of all the flattering unction at home that was intended 
 for me in the sentences, " He who would succeed by misrepresentation 
 and trickery needs a good memory," and "The way of transgressors 
 is hard." Now, in order to make me out a false witness he quoted two 
 brief sentences prior to the introduction of Dr. Stuart's definition, 
 and from these two sentences alone, it would seem as if it was the 
 classical definition he was trying to get at. But we will take in a 
 little more of the context and see if this seeming intention is true. 
 Here is the whole paragraph, verbatim et literatim, with the exception 
 of some interruption notes which have no bearing on the point : 
 
 " It is agreed by Mr. Wilkinson that the word in the classics n)eans 
 to immerse. He says I might have saved myself the trouble of 
 producing lexicons and books to prove that' it means immerse in the 
 classic use of it. He also admits that it does not mean to sprinkle, 
 and tliat it does not mean to pour upon, and that it cannot in either 
 case be so defined. Indeed, he has never yet agreed that the word 
 means anything but immerse. Do you remember that I called upon 
 him to answer this question. Tell us what baptizo means in the com- 
 mission. He and I agree that a word in one place can have but one 
 meaning. What is the meaning of baptizo in the commission 1 I 
 
392 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 told you he would not give you the meaning. "We do not want to 
 know what it symbolizes, or represents. We want to know what the 
 word means. Christ told the apostles to do something. ' Go disciple 
 the nations, baptizing them.' Do something, — baptize them. What 
 does it mean"? He says it does not mean to purify or cleanse, but 
 that it symbolizes that. He admits that in classic Greek it means to 
 immerse, but he will not agree that it means anything else. I told 
 you he would not answer that question in his last speech, and he did 
 not. I prophesy that he will not answer it in his next speecli or any 
 speech — 
 
 " Mr. Wilkinson — Of course I won't. 
 
 " Mr. Harding — I knew you were a coward, and dare not do it. 
 
 " He is not going to answer that question because he dare not do it. 
 I will tell you the meaning of the word because I know it. What 
 does Christ tell His apostles to do ? To baptize. My opponent does 
 not say what it means. When you ask me the meaning of any word 
 I am using, I will give it you as far as I know it. If 1 don't know it 
 I will tell you so. My opponent agrees that in the classics it means 
 to immerse. No wonder he agrees to that." (See also pages 5i and 
 55 of this book). 
 
 Now the reader can here see the scope of the context, including the 
 two sentences quoted by Mr. Harding, and I ask all intelligent 
 readers whether it is the classical or scriptural meaning which he Avas 
 trying to drag out of me and proposing to define. He states, in the 
 brief paragraph quoted, no less than four times, that I admit the word 
 means immerse in the classics. He also calls upon me no less than 
 five times, in the same paragraph, to tell what it means in the com- 
 mission. He tells the audience no less than six times that I will not 
 or dare not tell them what the word means in the commission, and in 
 one case uses the word "coward." He also boasts that he can tell and 
 vnll tell what I won't tell, and then immediately quotes from Stuart, 
 Donnegan, Doddridge, Turretin, Oasaubon, and Bishop Smith, of 
 Kentucky, all in the same column, to develop the meaning that I 
 was too big a coward to tell them ! Surely a man of good sense would 
 liardly take so much pains, and array so much scholarsiiip, especially in 
 a hotly contested debate, when every moment was precious, in order to 
 prove what he repeatedly says I admitted ! I could not give him 
 credit for being so stupid. Yet he persists in shouldering the folly, 
 and wants the reader to believe that I told a lie, and was guilty of 
 " trickery and misrepresentation" when I tried to put a more chari- 
 table construction on the matter. But the candid reader will have 
 no trouble in deciding the case. If I told a lie, then his course was 
 supremely foolish, but if he acted wisely I told the truth. There 
 is no force whatever in the fact that he used those two sentences ira- 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 393 
 
 mediately before Dr. Stuart's definition, for he used them there, as I 
 have shown, for the fourth time in the paragraph quoted. Besides, 
 his proposition referred exclusively to Christian baptism, and not 
 to classic baptism, hence I cannot conceive why he should want to 
 quote authorities to prove the latter, especially when there was no 
 dispute between us on that point. In view of all these considerations 
 I again " emphatically deny that when my opponent first introduced 
 Stuart's testimony in this debate, that he said it was Stuart's classical 
 definition of hajJto and baptizo instead of his New Testament 
 meaning." 
 
 3. As to the charge of " adding to the Word of God," let the reader 
 turn to and read my entire argument on the point in question, and 
 not the garbled extracts given by Mr. Harding, and I am willing to be 
 judged by the result. 
 
 4. Mr. Harding would convey the impression that the report of 
 this debate, as supplied by Mr. Bradley, was a one-sided one. This 
 is not true. Mr. Bradley received instructions to supply a full and 
 correct report of the whole debate, and I testify that it was quite as 
 fair to Mr. Harding as to myself. The Syndicate referred to in the 
 Preface was not organized in the interest of either party. 
 
 5. He says that his speeches, as they appeared in my paper, 
 were " very much abbreviated, and most miserably distorted and 
 perverted." I afiirm that they were published exactly as reported by 
 Mr. Bradley, with the exception that whei'e a wrong word bad been 
 used by the reporter, the right one, as far as possible, was 
 inserted ; and I have challenged him and some of his satellites, who 
 have repeated his insinuations, to appoint a committee to compare the 
 published report with the reporter's MS., agreeing to publish the 
 result of their findings in my jDaper. This they have failed to do. T 
 again affirm that the insinuation is essentially false in every particular. 
 Mr. Anderson, who has made the comparison, has publicly testified to 
 the untruthfulness of this charge, and would do so under oath if 
 necessary. 
 
 6. I also deny that I materially enlarged or altered my own speeches 
 as they appeared in The Iconoclast. Nearly every alteration was 
 made on the reporter's MS., and consisted almost entirely of mere 
 verbal and grammatical corrections. Mr. Anderson will also bear me 
 out in this. 
 
 7. Again, I deny that my speeches, as they appear in this book, 
 have been altered as his have been. I have elsewhere stated the 
 facts. 
 
 26 
 
394 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 8. Besides, I don't complain of his changes, and never should have 
 made any allusion to them in this book had he not commenced the 
 trouble by exposing the additions I made to one of my speeches 
 merely to meet the additions and alterations in his. I have acted 
 merely in self-defence. 
 
 9. His efforts to prove that I taught the actual regeneration of 
 infants in the debate are too puerile to require any notice. I shall, 
 therefore, pass them by unnoticed. 
 
 10. I would like to remind Mr. Harding that the " horses and cattle, 
 dogs and cats, pots and kettles, and other such things," were not 
 baptized in passing through the Red Sea, unless they are included 
 in the phrase "our fathers." (1 Cor. 10:1, 2.) He can accept the 
 relationship involved, if he wishes, but for my part I repudiate it. I 
 accept the children as included in the phrase, because they after- 
 wards became the " fathers," but not the horses and cattle, and dogs 
 and cats. This is quite as bad as to talk of baptizing skunks. I am 
 surprised to find such quibbles in a rewritten speech, over which so 
 much time and study have been spent. It would have been disgrace- 
 ful even in an extempore speech. And the same is true of a good 
 deal of the banter interspersed throughout this book. 
 
 It is an unwelcome and unpleasant task to be compelled to make 
 such exposures of a Christian minister, but he has stubbornly and 
 persistently courted it. 
 
 T. L. W. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 395 
 
 MR. HARDING'S ELEVENTH REPLY. 
 
 I rise to bring to a close the discussion to which you have listened 
 so patiently, for so long a time; and I desire at this point, lest I 
 should forget it at the close, to thank the people of this community 
 for the great patience and kindness which they have manifested during 
 the debate. For considering the crowded hall, and the excitement 
 and disorder that has sometimes been displayed on the platform, we 
 could hardly have expected such quietness and attention from the 
 audiences. But I do not desire to weary you, and so will address 
 myself at once to the subject before us. 
 
 Viewed even from the standpoints of its friends, the doctrine of infant 
 baptism is in a most hopeless condition. The following different and 
 conflicting statements are made concerning it by different advocates 
 of the practice : 
 
 1. There is not a vestige of it in the New Testament. So say 
 Meyer, Steitz, Neander and others. 
 
 2. It is taught in the New Testament by a logical inference. So 
 say many. 
 
 3. The covenants of the Old Testament have nothing to do with 
 infant baptism — furnish no ground for it. So say Stuart, Ditzler and 
 others. 
 
 4. The covenants of the Old Testament justify infant baptism. So 
 say Mr. Wilkinson and others. 
 
 5. Infant baptism is of post-apostolic origin. So say Meyer, Nean- 
 der and others. 
 
 6. Infant baptism originated before the days of the apostles, teaches 
 Mr. Wilkinson. 
 
 And now follows the most astonishing fact of all : The different 
 churches that practice this rite base their practice upon different 
 grounds altogether. The Methodists, as Mr. Wilkinson has been 
 teaching you from the beginning, claim that infants are entitled 
 to baptism because they are pure ; and hence they are willing to 
 baptize (rantize, rather) any infant. The Presbyterians, on the other 
 hand, claim that infants have a right to baptism because their parents 
 are the children of God ; hence they will baptize (rantize, sprinkle) a 
 child only when one, at least, of its parents is a believer. Hence we 
 have two o^er conflicting statements to record, viz. : 
 
 7. The child is pure; therefore it ought to be baptized. So say Mr. 
 Wilkinson and the Methodists. 
 
396 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 8. Not so ; ths child must liave a Christian parent, or it is not fit 
 for baptism. So say Mr. Paterson and the Presbyterians. 
 
 9. Whereas, formerly, the doctrine of all P;edo-baptists was : The 
 child is polluted with original sin, and this pollution is washed away 
 in baptism ; therefore it ought to be V)aptized. 
 
 Suppose a mother starting out with her infant to determine the 
 question whether or no it shall be baptized. Her husband, though a 
 pious Methodist, says there is no warrant for the practice in reason or 
 revelation (as many such Methodists do), and he objects. She is 
 seeking for information to use in overcoming his objections. She 
 returns, and upon being questioned by him reports tlius : Dr. A. said 
 our child is totally depraved, stained by the sin of Adam, and there- 
 fore he ought to be baptized. Dr. B. said that he is pure as an angel, 
 and as baptism is for the pure, therefore he ought to be baptized. Dr. 
 C. said that infant baptism is not taught in the Old Testament at all, 
 but that it is taught in the household baptisms, and in other places, 
 in the New. Dr. D. said that it is not taught in the New Testament at 
 all, but that it is taught in the covenants of the Old. Dr. E. said 
 that it is not taught in the Bible at all ; that it is of post-apostolic 
 origin ; but that it is a good thing, and that the Church had a right 
 to institute the practice, which it did about one hundred years after 
 John died. Dr. F. said if we are Christians, or if either of us is, our 
 child should be baptized. Dr. G. said it matters not whether we are 
 Cliristians or not, the child ought to be baptized. 
 
 What do you think, my friends, would be the state of that woman's 
 mindl Every one of those statements can be obtained from learned 
 Psedo-baptist divines this day. Indeed I have here in my possession, 
 and have quoted in your hearing, utterances from the most learned 
 among them, justifying every one of those answers. Truth is con- 
 sistent ; error is contradictory. Now if this father and mother should 
 learn, in the course of their investigations, the fact that no mention of 
 infant baptism can be found, in any form of words, by any writer, 
 until one hundred years after the last inspii'ed apostle died, would they 
 not, if they were reasonable, conclude that their child could get along 
 without it 1 So it seems to me. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson tells us he is not anxious to get rid of Mark's account 
 of the commission, "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." Mark 16 : 15, 16. It is 
 well enough that he is not anxious to get rid of it, for it can not be 
 done. Of the five most ancient manuscripts, it is contained in three; 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 397 
 
 all the most ancient versions — versions much older than any manu- 
 script — contain it ; then the passage is quoted by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, 
 Augustine and others of the early fathers. When it is known that 
 the oldest manuscript which omits this passage (Mai'k 16 : 9-20) was 
 written about A. D. 360, and that Irenajus, who quotes it, wrote 175 
 years earlier, it will be understood tliat its failure to appear in the 
 manuscript does not invalidate it as Scripture ; for it is demonstrated 
 that the passage was in the world nearly 200 years before the exis- 
 tence of that MS., and it was quoted as Scripture by one who knew 
 Polycarp, who knew John. Would not Mr. Wilkinson be happy if 
 he could link his infant baptism to the apostles in that way? That 
 Syriac version that he relies upon to show that Lydia had children, 
 contains the passage. It (the version) was made in the second cen- 
 tury ; or, as Mr. Wilkinson prefers to express it, " in the first century 
 after the Christian." No wonder, therefore, the revisers (as Dr. 
 Roberts tells us) did not doubt its full canonical authoiity, and hence 
 inserted it without the least misgivings as to its being inspired. The 
 book of Acts is an excellent commentary on this account of tlie com- 
 mission; the apostles did just what Christ told them to do, as this 
 account gives His instructions. They went to the people, they 
 preached the gospel to them, they baptized those that believed their 
 preaching, and they taught that those who would not believe would be 
 damned. And as long as these verses (Mark 16 : 15, 16) stand as 
 inspired, just so long does Jesus limit us to the baptism of believers, 
 and just so long does the "make disciples," which precedes the baptism 
 in Matthew's account, equal the production of faith by preaching the 
 gospel, which precedes the baptism in Mark's account ; that is, to 
 "make disciples" is to produce faith in the hearts of people by preach- 
 ing to them. It is no light thing to change Christ's order, and put 
 the baptism before the faith. If Mr. Wilkinson could produce one 
 case in which a man, woman, or child was baptized by divine authority 
 without faith, from the institution of Christian baptism to the death 
 of John, I would give up the debate. But such a case can not be 
 found. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson seems to rely with great confidence on Colossians 
 2 : 11, 12, to show that baptism came in the room of circumcision. Let 
 us read the passage and see if it has this meaning. It reads thus: 
 
 "In whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not 
 made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the 
 circumcision of Christ: having been buried with Him in baptism, 
 wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith in the working of 
 
398 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 God, who raised Him from the dead." Of this circumcision, we learn 
 from the text (1) that it was "not made with hands," and (2) that it 
 consists "in the putting off of the body of the flesh;" we find here the 
 idea off a cutting off, which properly belongs to the word circumcision; 
 "the body of the flesh" which is cut off is equal to the "old man," 
 "the body of sin," of Rom. 6 : 6, where the matter is discussed in 
 much the same way. Of the baptism liere mentioned, we learn that 
 in it they had been buried with Christ aind raised with Him. The 
 facts brought out in the text are these: («) the Colossians had been 
 circumcised without hands ; (b) this circumcision consisted in the 
 putting off of the "old man," "the body of sin," "the body of the 
 flesh;" that is, in the pardon of their sins; (c) it is called "the circum- 
 cision of Christ," because it is in and through Christ that we obtain 
 pardon; (d) this pardon takes place in baptism, that is, it is given by our 
 Lord to those whose faith is made perfect by works. (See James 2 : 22-24.) 
 Hence Peter and other inspired men direct people to be baptized 
 " for the remission of sins." It is hardly necessary to add that almost 
 every scholar of the world, of whatsoever faith he may be, understands 
 the baptism of the passage to be water baptism, and that the apostle 
 had the common practice of immersion in his mind. In denying that 
 there is in the passage any reference to water baptism, or to immer- 
 sion, Mr. Wilkinson has again (as is not unusual with him) the infeli- 
 city of running counter to common sense, and to the best scholarship 
 of the world. I am perfectly willing to leave the question as to 
 whether baptism came in the room of circumcision, and as to what 
 bearing this passage has upon the matter, to this intelligent audience. 
 When the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, they were baptized unto 
 Moses " in the cloud and in the sea." Mr. Wilkinson reminds us that 
 this baptism was typical of Christian baptism, and he argues that as 
 there were infants in the one, there should be in the other: "the ante- 
 type should agree with the type," he says. Yes, but there were horses 
 and cattle, dogs and cats, pots and kettles, and other such things, in 
 that passage through the Red Sea; must we have these things in the 
 antetype? Must we baptize all of our live stock and household utensils, 
 because such things were in the company when the "fathers" were 
 baptized unto Moses? The fact is, Mr. Wilkinson was bent on finding 
 a baby and a baptism in the same passage; and, as he could find no 
 such passage in the New Testament, he went to the Old ; as he could 
 not find it in any case of Christian baptism, he went to this passage 
 tlirough the Red Sea. But after all his trouble he finds no comfort, 
 for the passage shows just as conclusively that cattle should be baptized 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 399 
 
 as babies. As long as we are governed by our Lord's instructions, 
 "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them," 
 etc., we will have no trouble about the baptism of cattle or babies 
 either. We will preach the gospel and baptize all who receive it 
 gladly. (See Acts 2:41.) 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson tells us that in the Syriac version of the New Testa- 
 ment, which, he reminds us, is very ancient and very reliable, it is 
 said that Lydia "and her children" were baptized; and he says, "That 
 version settles the matter." It does, eh ? Well, that version contains 
 the last part of Mark's gospel, including the commission; does it settle 
 that matter too? But what if Lydia did have children? I know a 
 man who has three children, and the youngest one is not less than 
 thirty-five years old. I have not either of the Syriac versions here, 
 but I have the original Greek, and the very word which the man of 
 God used; the word (which is properly rendered "household" in our 
 common version) is oikos; it is rendered "household" also in the 
 revised version. Its primary meaning is "house." In defining it, 
 Greene, Groves, Bass and lexicographers generally use such words as 
 house, dwelling-place, abode, city, citadel, temple, palace, court, apart- 
 ment; and then, as secondary meanings, they give household, family, 
 lineage. Mr. Wilkinson is welcome to all the comfort that he can get 
 out of Lydia's household in favor of infant baptism. 
 
 " Will he tell us what people require when they grow up to be 
 sinners before baptism ? " asks Mr. Wilkinson Certainly I will ; they 
 require faith ; one must believe with the heart in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. The commission teaches this, so does Paul's course with the 
 jailer, and so do many other passages of Scripture. 
 
 " Will he tell us in what way faith fi;t& us for baptism % " he asks 
 then. Certainly ; baptism is an act of obedience. (" Behold, to obey 
 is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For 
 rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity 
 and idolatry." 1 Samuel 15:22, 23.) But without faith it is impos- 
 sible to obey ; without it, it is impossible to please God. (See Heb. 
 11 :6.) Baptism is an expression of faith in the death, burial, and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ ; and, as we have seen, no man was ever 
 baptized by the authority of the Lord who did not have this faith in 
 his heart. Unless it is the expression of such a faith, it is nothing but 
 a mere empty, meaningless ceremony in which water, and nothing but 
 water, is given. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson dwelt at considerable length on the Church, the 
 temple of God, in which, he correctly tells us, the Spirit of God 
 
400 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 dwells. This temple is built up of living stones, each Cliristian being 
 a stone. As the temple is the dwelling place for God's Spirit, when 
 we learn who receive the Spirit we settle the question as to who are 
 built as living stones into the building — or, in other words, who are 
 members of Christ's Church on earth. The following passages clearly 
 instruct us as to who receive the Spirit. 
 
 " In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, 
 saying. If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink. He that 
 believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of His bflly shall flow- 
 rivers of living water. (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they 
 that believe on Him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet 
 given ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)." John 7 : 37-39. 
 
 This passage shows that the Spirit was not given, to dwell within 
 men, till after the glorification of Christ ; and that it was then given 
 to believers. 
 
 " And we are His witnesses of these things ; and so is also the Holy 
 Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him." Acts 5 : 32. 
 This verse shows that God gave the Spirit to believers who obeyed Him. 
 " If a man love Me, he will keep My words ; and My Father will 
 love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." 
 John 14:23. But God abides in us through the Spirit. (See Eph. 
 2:22.) Hence this last verse shows that they who love and obey 
 Jesus receive the Spirit. 
 
 "Then Peter said unto them. Repent, 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." Acts 2 : 38. Here repentance 
 (implying faith) and baptism are placed in natural and logical order 
 before pardon and the reception of the Spirit. 
 
 Don't forget the gospel rule, which gives us this order: (1) Faith 
 (including Repentance), (2) Baptism, (3) Pardon, and (4) The gift of 
 the Spirit. To this rule there is one, and only one, apparent excep- 
 tion, viz., the peculiar case of Cornelius and his friends, in which there 
 was a miraculous outpouring of the Spirit before baptism. In all 
 other cases the order is as given here. I invited Mr. Wilkinson to 
 discuss this question before you (that is, the question of the Spirit's 
 work), but he wisely declined to accept the invitation. So, with the 
 suggestions and Scriptural quotations already given, I shall leave the 
 matter with you. 
 
 Mr. McDairrnid must have made a very deep impression upon Mr. 
 Wilkinson in the debate which thoy had at Acton. Mr. Wilkinson 
 cannot forget him ; he is continually telling us what the " oflSc© 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 401 
 
 editor " said and did. When I meet my old college friend again, I 
 will tell him that the sting of his thrusts has not ceased in Mr. Wil- 
 kinson to this day, for he continues to sneer and snarl at every 
 remembrance of him. 
 
 In conclusion, I desire to sum up a number of facts that have been 
 brought before you during the progress of the discussion — facts that 
 settle the question beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt. 
 
 1. God prophesied through Jeremiah that He would make " a new 
 covenant Avith the house of Isi'ael and with the house of Judali : that 
 it should not be according to the covenant which He made with their 
 fathers when He led them out of the land of Egypt ; " that He would 
 put His laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts ; that all 
 under this covenant would know Him, and hence would not teach one 
 another, saying. Know the Lord ; for all would know Him, " from the 
 least to the greatest ;" that He would be merciful to their unrighteous- 
 ness, and that their sins and iniquities should be remembered no more. 
 Paul quotes this prophecy (Heb. 8 : 8-12), and applies it to the Church 
 of Christ. The provisions of it absolutely exclude infants. With this 
 covenant, as set forth by Jeremiah, Christ's commission to His apos- 
 tles, under which they i inaugurated the new institution, perfectly 
 agrees ; they were to instruct the people — put God's laws into their 
 minds and hearts — and then, when they gladly received these laws into 
 their hearts, they were to baptize them for the remission of their sins. 
 
 2. In the course of time John the Baptist came, baptizing. He 
 taught the people, and they were then baptized " confessing their sins." 
 It is admitted that he baptized no infants. 
 
 3. Then Jesus, after he had been baptized, began to teach the peo- 
 ple, and to have His disciples baptize them. It is said that " Jesus 
 made and baptized more disciples than John." He first made disci- 
 ples, and then baptized them. Even Mr. Wilkinson himself is 
 constrained to admit that neither John nor Jesus baptized infants. 
 
 4. After the ascension of Jesus the apostles began to preach in His 
 name and to baptize under the commission which he had given them ; 
 we are told that they baptized those that " gladly received " their 
 words, that they baptized "believers," " men" and "women," but it 
 is nowhere said that they baptized infants ; we carefully went through 
 all the cases of baptism given in the New Testament, as they are 
 summed up by the Presbyterian McKay, in his little book, and we 
 found no infants in any case : there is not an injunction to baptize 
 infants, nor an example of infant baptism in the entire New Testa- 
 ment ; or, as Meyer vigorously expresses it, there is no trace of it to 
 be found in the New Testament. 
 
402 REPORT OP DEBATE 
 
 5. The year A. D. 200 dawns upon the world ; the apostle John, 
 the last of the apostles, has been dead for one hundred years ; all the 
 people that ever knew him, or any other apostle, are dead ; then it is 
 for the first time that we find a mention of infant baptism in all the 
 annals of time ; Tertullian is saying that they should not be baptized — 
 that they are innocent, and don't need to be. Ten years later the 
 first man appears who writes in the defence of the practice. 
 
 Here now are five facts, and I defy any man living to show that 
 they do not fairly and fully present the whole case, from the begin- 
 ning to the days of Origen. 
 
 The discussion is now drawing to a close. I have enjoyed it very 
 much, and I should like to have another one, for I am sure that they 
 do great good. This one has done much good already. I am glad to 
 know that it has. And it will do far more in the days to come ; for, 
 long after the heat of the discussion has passed away, the facts and 
 arguments will remain in the minds of the people, and they will work 
 like leaven. 
 
 I have, at times, been very much stirred up by the unfairness and 
 injustice of my opponent and his supporters, and I have spoken some 
 very plain words in a pretty hot way ; but, gentlemen, I am happy to 
 say, as I stand here before you, that I have not a word to take back. 
 What I have said in that way is true ; I meant it, and I do not take 
 a word of it back. I am willing for it to go on record just as I spoke 
 it, and to be tried by it. 
 
 Once, when some people were going out during one of my speeches, 
 I said, "If it is uncomfortably warm in here for you, just pass out 
 and cool ofi"," or words to that effect. The chairman thought that I 
 ought not to have made the remark, and I cheerfully granted, after a 
 moment's reflection, that he was right. With that single exception, 
 I do not think of anything that I have said or done that needs any 
 sort of modification or apology. 
 
 I am glad that ray friends have been so patient, and from my heart 
 I thank them for their cordial, enthusiastic support. I like to be in 
 Meaford, and to associate with Meaford people. I like to be in this 
 country. It is a grand country. If it were the will of God, I would 
 be glad to have many debates with Methodists and Presbyterians all 
 over it. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 403 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 About one-half of Mr. Wilkinson's eleventh speech has been alto- 
 gether added, or very materially changed, since it was first sent to me 
 in print. I do not object to these additions and changes, as I have 
 told the publisher that he may make any additions to his speeches he 
 pleases, provided I am always allowed to reply. Among these addi- 
 tions there are a few matters only that need any attention from me. 
 They are as follows : 
 
 1. Mr. Wilkinson says, " I take the liberty of denying emphatically 
 (whatever complexion may be put upon the matter in his re-written 
 speeches for publication), that when my opponent first introduced 
 Stuart's testimony in this debate, that he said it was Stuart's classical 
 definition of hapto and baptizo, instead of his New Testament meaning. 
 The auditors or readers can accept whichever statement they please." 
 
 I am glad that Mr. Wilkinson made this statement, for it enables 
 me to bring out all the facts concerning the controversy over Stuart's 
 definition. The debate had not advanced through many sessions before 
 Mr. Wilkinson began to see that the testimonies of the learned and 
 well-known Psedo-baptists whom I introduced were having a very con- 
 siderable efiect upon the audience ; and he felt that it was necessary 
 to break the force of the influence which I was thus obtaining. As 
 he could not find that I had made the slightest inaccuracy in any 
 quotation, he charged that I was misapplying the quotations by so 
 using them as to convey ideas that they were never intended to ex- 
 press. But he knew that this charge would have no weight whatever, 
 unless he could show one case at least in which I had thus perverted 
 some one's testimony. He therefore charged that I had quoted Mr. 
 Stuart's classical definition of bopto and baptizo, while giving the 
 audience to understand that the definition was designed to express the 
 meaning of the words as used in the New Testament. As the debate 
 came through the press, it became evident to even the most careless 
 reader of the " proofs " that this charge was false ; for it appeared that 
 I had introduced Stuart's testimony expressly for the purpose of 
 showing the meaning of the words in the classics. So, into his last 
 speech he inserts the charge that, however it may appear in my 
 speeches as re-written, in the oral debate I was guilty of the perver- 
 sion. 
 
 Now for the facts : (1) The stenographer employed by the Disciples 
 took sick early in the debate, and died not a great while afterwards. 
 
404 REPORT OF DEBATE 
 
 So we depended altogether for the report upon the gentleman employed 
 l)y the other side. (2) The stenographer's manuscript was given to 
 Mr. Wilkinson and appeared in printed form first in his paper, The 
 Iconoclast. My speeches were clipped from his paper and were sent 
 to me for correction. I have now before me The Iconoclast of 
 February 15th, 1885, in which my fourth speech on the first pro- 
 position appears, as printed from the reporter's manuscript. This is 
 the speech in which I introduced Stuart's definition. I quote from 
 the paper, verbatim et literatim, as follows: "My opponent agrees 
 tliat in the classics it means to immerse. No wonder he agrees to 
 that. Dr. Stuart, a most distinguished Presbyterian, says, ' Bapto 
 and baptiz) mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into any thing liquid.' 
 He gives many examples, and then says, * A review of the preceding 
 examples must lead any one, I think, to the conclusion that the pre- 
 dominant usage of the words bapto and baptizo is to designate the idea 
 of dipping, plunging, or overwhelming, and (in the case of bajyto) of 
 tinging and dyeing.' " 
 
 So it appears that the stenographer's report, as it appeared in Mr. 
 Wilkinso7i's paper, before I ever saw it, shows clearly that I intro- 
 duced Stuart's classical definition as a classical definition ; and hence 
 Mr. Wilkinson's charge is utterly without foundation. Nor is it left 
 to " the auditors or readers " to " accept whichever statement they 
 please," as his own paper settles the matter against him. He who 
 would succeed by misrepresentation and trickery needs a good memory. 
 " The way of transgressors is hard." 
 
 2. God said to Abraham, " He that is born in thy house, and he that 
 is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised." Gen. 17:13. 
 I argue that baj)tism did not come in the room of circumcision, for this 
 reason (among many others), viz. : Circumcision was given to adults 
 when they were bought with the money of a Jew, regardless of their 
 faith, or want of faith. Mr. Wilkinson evidently feels the force of 
 this objection. This is the way in which he endeavors to get rid of 
 it : He says, " If the candidate were an infant, it (circumcision) would 
 be unconditional. If an adult, faith in Israel's God would be re- 
 quired." He grants tliat faith is not expressed as a condition, that 
 there is an " absence of any expressed conditions," but he does not 
 hesitate to affirm that faith was required of adults. Any man who 
 can tlms add to the Word of God can easily justify himself in the 
 practice of infant baptism. He can just say that, although it is not 
 expressed anywhere in the Bible, it was practiced by the apostles. 
 
ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 405 
 
 But he who is determined to go by what is written would consider 
 such a course exceedingly wicked. 
 
 3. Mr. Wilkinson represents me as saying that Bledsoe was " the 
 most candid, able, and learned of all the Methodists of the United 
 States." I have no recollection of saying that. He was one of the viost 
 candid, able, and learned of them all ; but that he was above all, 
 excelled all, I have never thought. But any man who will misrepre- 
 sent, add to, and take from the words of God, will be sure to be 
 unscrupulous in handling the words of men. 
 
 4. In his " first Addendum," in speaking of my speeches, Mr. Wilkin- 
 son says : " His speeches, as they appear in this book, are not his 
 speeches as delivered in Meaford." Very true; and about this a word 
 of explanation is necessary. As has been said, our stenographer (the 
 one employed by the Disciples) took sick early in the debate ; shortly 
 afterwards he died ; the report of the other stenographer was given 
 to Mr. Wilkinson, and was published by him in his paper, The Icono- 
 clast. My speeches, as they appeared in the paper, were very much 
 abbreviated, and most miserably distorted and perverted. Many of 
 my half-hour sjyeeches, as they appeared in his 2Jctpsf, could he read in 
 a deliberate way within from six to ten minutes. And many para- 
 graphs in them I would never have recognized as intended for parts of 
 my speeches, had I not been told that they were. 
 
 When the first of these speeches were sent to me for correction, I 
 determined to have nothing to do with them, and so at once sent them 
 back. I had agreed to correct the proofs of my speeches free of 
 charge, provided the publishers would give their MSS. directly to the 
 printer without allowing either Mr. Wilkinson or myself to tamper 
 with them ; I furthermore agreed to limit myself to verbal and gram- 
 matical corrections, promising that I would neither add to the speeches 
 nor take from them a single idea, provided they would limit Mr. Wil- 
 kinson in the same way. As they had not accepted and complied 
 with my conditions, I felt under no obligation to correct their proofs. 
 Upon my returning the speeches uncorrected, Mr. Anderson (whom 
 Mr. Wilkinson calls the publisher-in-chief) wrote me a kind letter, 
 saying that the reporter had failed to make a full and correct report 
 of the debate, and, as he was anxious to publish such an one, he 
 requested me to correct the speeches, making them what they ought 
 to be. He promised to print what I would write. Being moved, 
 then, simply by a love of the truth, and a desire for a full and fair 
 report of the debate, I undertook the work. In writing up the 
 debate, I adopted for my guidance two rules, namely : 
 
406 REPORT OF DEBATE ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 1. I resolved to bring out in as clear and forcible a way as I could 
 every idea presented in the stenographer's report of my speeches. 
 
 2. In the second place, I determined to reply to everything I 
 might find in Mr. Wilkinson's speeches that seemed to me to need 
 attention. 
 
 I told the publishers that I did not care how much Mr. Wilkinson 
 might add to his speeches, provided they would allow me to reply to 
 all he said ; I was as willing to debate with him with the pen as 
 with the tongue. 
 
 True, Mr. Wilkinson did not see my speeches "in proof-sheets" 
 before he fixed up his replies, but he did see them in manuscript ; 
 they were sent to him by the printer before they were put in type. 
 This I learned from the printer, into whose office I strolled one day 
 while passing through Toronto. 
 
 True it is, my speeches, as they appear in the book, are not the 
 speeches that were delivered at Meaford ; and precisely the same 
 statement can be made with equal truth of Mr. Wilkinson's speeches. 
 And I presume the book is none the worse, but rather better, on that 
 account. I presume that not a single argument of any weight, or 
 fact of any importance, has been left out of the published debate that 
 was given in the oral discussion. 
 
 To the items of Mr. Wilkinson's "first Addendum," I do not care to 
 reply, except to the fifth. He still claims that he has not taught in 
 this debate that infants are born again. On pages 192-3 he quotes 
 the Discipline as follows: "Baptism is not only a sign of profession 
 and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from 
 others that are not baptized, but it is also a sign of regeneration, or the 
 new birth. He then adds, " That is what we teach." On page 267 he 
 teaches that our Lord's phrase "born again" means "regenerated." On 
 page 292 he teaches that "to baptize" is to "regenerate." On pages 
 306-7 he says, " The new birth is effected by spiritual baptism, the 
 sign of which is water baptism." Then, in baptizing a child, he says, 
 (see Discipline, p. 167) "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are 
 conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour, Ohrist, saith. Except 
 a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God, I beseech you," etc. Then lie turns around with 
 great indignation (see p. 338), and exclaims : " I don't know why my 
 opponent persists in representing me as teaching that infants are 
 born again. I teach no such thing." 
 
 Poor man ! he is in a bad way. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01236 3760 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 #3523P1 Printed in USA