^ " ^ CL *J^ .5 5:^ IE .^-^ Q. '^ (0 / -h ~^ .r!^ ^^ .£: .ir Q_ J" ^ o $ - O c luel A :|' <•* Izi E ^T CO »< .^ ci (^ ^ ■^ ■^»^ S CA Or >^ *^ -Q j:j ^ "O •^i -<» (U •>^ C/J CL '•Jtciv Col ScR ^ ^ /oi7z \^, I AN ORAL DISCUSSION ON JUSTIFICATION, THE ACTION OF BAPTISM, INFANT BAPTISM AND THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM, BETWEEN REV. S. M. MERRILL, PASTOR METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SPENCER CHAPEL, PORTSMOUTH, OHIO, ELDER BENJ. FRANKLIN, EVANGELIST OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, CINCINNATI, OHIO. (Jommencirg April 5th, continuing six hours each day, and closing April 11th, 1858. " If they gpeak not according? to this word, it is because there is no light in them." CINCINNATI: PUBLISHED BY BENJ. FRANKLIN. 1858. PRINTED BY G. B. BENTLEY & CO. PREFACE. The following is substantially the dis- cussion held in Portsmouth, Ohio, though we have allowed each other some latitude, in correcting, amending and adding some things not in the oral discussion. Some minor matters are omitted, repetitions avoided and changes made, though the same j)oints are discussed and more thor- oughly investigated here than in the oral debate. The speeches were written out by the parties as they now apj^ear in print. We mutually agree to submit our speeches to a thinking and intelligent public, in print and in the same order as delivered, simply desiring all who shall read them solemnly to examine the subjects discussed and hon- estly to decide for themselves, as they shall answer in the great day. Our only desire is, that truth and righteousness may pre- vail. Benj Franklin. Ajml 14:(h, 1858. S. M. Merrill. Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2011 witii funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/oraldiscussiononOOmerr - * v^ CORRESPONDENCi"^. V REV. MERRILL'S FIRST LETTER.' Portsmouth, Ohio, Feb. 12, 1858. Eld. B. Franklin : My apology for obtruding myself upon your attention is found in the extraordinary posi- tion you have assumed. You came here not as a m-n- ister of peace, but as the champion of a dogma. You denounce the ministry of this city as ignorant and de- luded, if not wicked and hypocritical. I simply desire to furnish you an opportunity of informing yourself bet- ter on that subject. It is my custom to expound the subject of Baptism in my congregation each year, and no\v — as soon as I re- cover from an attack of hoarseness — I propose to exam- ine the subject in my church, as you have done in yours. If you desire to hear me, and will indicate when you can attend, I will consult your convenience as to time. I shall be gratified to have you present. Most respectfully, S. M. Merrill. Pastor of M. JE. Church, Spencer Chapel. reply: Portsmouth, Ohio, Feb. 15, 1858. Rev. Merrill — Bear Sir : Yours of the 12th inst. was not received till I was nearly ready to start to meeting last night, and I avail myself of this, the earliest oppor- tunity to reply. I have not come here as the " champion of a dogma," or "aenouncing the ministry of this city as ignorant and deluded, if not wicked and hypocritical," but, on the other hand, I have come preaching '•' peace by Jesus Christ;" and, as fruits of my labors, have gath- ered from four of the difierent parties here, and from the world, with fifteen Disciples that I found here, fifty-seven persona into one body. 6 CORRESPONDENCE. But the object of this brief note is to reply to your very extraordinary proposal to "furnish me the oppor- tunity of informing myself better," by coming one hun- dred and ten or fifteen miles to hear you " expound bap- tism!" Now, my dear sir, you have had the field here to expound baptism and everything else till I came, and I have only had about twenty days, so that I certainly have had no advantage of you in this respect. But I propose to engage the largest hall in the city, and com- mence to-night, and will hear you expound baptism for an hour, and you allow me an hour to reply, and we will thus continue, you opening with an address of an hour and allowing me the same length of time to reply, from session to session, till you are satisfied. If this will not satisfy you, I will return here at a time agreed upon, when we will pursue the course described. I have pressing engagements and cannot stay without great sacrifice and disappointment, but for your accom- modation 1 will remain. Please let me hear from you before the boat leaves, as I shall go on the "Bostona" if you do not meet me. Respectfully yours, Benj. Franklin. To this the gentleman made no reply before my de- parture. B. F. REV. MERRILL'S SECOND LETTER. Portsmouth, Ohio, Feb. 15, 1858. Eld. B. Franklin : Yours of this date is received. You characterize my proposition as *' extraordinary." I knew it was a little unusual, but did not suppose it would be necessary for you to travel so far, on purpose to com- ply. But, sir, your proposition is most extraordinary. Without stating a single proposition for discussion, or arranging any preliminary, you ask me to come to your hall and lead of — you, in the nature of the case, being on the afiSrmative — while you close up at each session. Now, is not that " extraordinary?" I based the remark that you denounced the ministers of this city as ignorant, etc., on what I heard while sit- ting in your congregation, and on what I heard related by othei's, whose word is unquestionable. Such a course as you pursued in this regard, warrants an unusual eflbrt CORRESPONDENCE. 7 to inform you better. When I shall have preached to my people on the subject, as I propose doing, I will listen to any reasonable proposition for discussion; or, I might have waived that privilege to have met a definite, well- defined proposition, coming within the ordinary rules of discussion. Respectfully, S. M. Merrill. reply: Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 17, 1858. Rev. Merrill — Dear Sir: Yours of the 15th was forwarded to my address, and came to hand this morning, and I hasten to reply. You complain that I did not send you a proposition. I did not do this, because you men- tioned the subject that you would expound to inform me , and I thought I would not turn you aside from your in- tended course, except so far as to arrange for me to re- ply. But I am willing to do almost any way to accom- modate you. To show you that I am willing to treat you fairly, I will propose to procure a hall, as before proposed, and lead the way myself, allowing you to oc- cupy the same time in reply as I do in my speeches. This will give you the closing speech all the time. If this does not suit you, I propose the following propositions : 1. Do the Scriptures teach the doctrine of Infant Bap- tism? 2. Is the Initiatory Ordinance of the New Testament Immersion? 3. Is the Initiatory Ordinance of the New Testament Sprinkling or Pouring? 4. Do the Scriptures teach that the doctrine of Justifi- cation " by Faith Only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort?" 5. Do the Scriptures authorize the practice of the M. E. Church, in calling mourners forward to pray and be prayed for, as a part of the process in conversion? 6. Is Baptism, " administered to a real penitent," the initiatory rite into a state of Justification, or for the Re- mission of Sins? 7. Is the Methodist Discipline a better rule of Faith, Doctrine, Discipline and Law, or is it better in any re- spect, for the people of God, than the New Testament? On the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th propositions, you af- firm. On the 2nd and 6th propositions, I affirm. I pro- ^ CORRESPONDENCE. pose to spend about one day on each of these proposi- tions. I also propose that we agree upon the earliest time that will suit our arrangements; each of us choose a moderator, and the two thus chosen, choose a third as president moderator; the duty of which board of moder- ators shall be to keep order in the assembly and confine the speakers to the question. I am willing that we adopt and be governed by the rules of debate laid down in Hedges' Logic. Please let me hear from you at your earliest conveni- ence. Respectfully yours, BexVj. Franklin. REV. MERRILL'S THIRD LETTER. Portsmouth, Ohio, Feb. 19, 1858. Eld. B. Franklin — Dear Sir : Yours of the 17th is just received. I am pleased with its spirit. It looks like you were really willing to do the fair thing. I hope you will feel the importance of this yet more and more. But, my dear sir, you must not forget the circumstan- ces under which the subject began to be agitated in this community. You came here — as you had a right to do — and put forth your peculiar views; and, in addition, de- nounced the usages and doctrines of the other denomina- tions here very sharply, to say the least; and in connection with your assaults upon other churches, you defied con- tradiction or discussion. Now you turn round and pro- pose to discuss the peculiar features of, not your own theology, so much as the prudential arrangements and dis- tinctive doctrines of the M. E. Chui-ch, throwing me on the affirmative five-sevenths of the time. I have only to reply, that the peculiar doctrines of the M. E. Church, her Discipline — which affirms that the Scriptures are the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice — and her prudential usages, will take care of themselves. Whenever you find a Method- ist preacher claiming Divine authority for the " mourn- er's bench," or claiming it as a Divine institution, then ask hivi to debate the question. If you can find one grefin enough to affirm your 7th proposition, then at liim. Your 2nd and 3rd propositions are the same, only changing the order; and I never yet affirmed anything like either of them. They are indefinite, and subordi- CORRESPONDENCE. 9 nate to other questions; and, upon the whole, not worth the labor of disputing a day. Of coiu-se, I speak of the initiatory character of the ordinance. Now, sir, I think a man of your experience and pre- tensions, after commencing the agitation of the subject of Baptism, as you did here, ought to expect nothing more nor less than to be held to affirm in debate what you affirmed in preaching, and in regard to which you so earnestly challenged discussion. Whenever you are ready to affirm that immersion is the only baptism taught in the Scriptures, I shall hold myself ready to respond, on fair and honorable terms. I have no objections to your suggestions as to the rules for the government of the discussion. And if you de- sire to insert " adult," or " believer," into your proposi- tion, so as to debate the subjects of baptism, I am per- fectly willing. My desire is to get at the real issue. Nor will I object to your affirming that Baptism is the initiatory rite into a state of justification, provided you so state it as to get at your real sentiments in regard to baptismal regeneration. What is here proposed will give wide enough range to the discussion; and certainly you should not expect, un- der the circumstances, that I can be divei'ted from the issue already raised by yourself, to debate incidental matters. Please answer without delay. Respectfully, S. M. Merrill. reply: Clintonville, Ky., Feb. 22, 1858. Rev. Merrill — Dear Sir : Yours of the 19th inst., forwarded to me by my clerk, has just come to hand, and I hasten to reply. I am certainly " willing to do the fair thing," and aim at nothing else. I hope you are will- ing to do the same; but, as yet, you appear extremely cautious. I did, when I saw the opposition to my efforts in your city, "defy contradiction or discussion;" nor have I repented it. I stand ready to defend everything that I preached while with you. You complained of my as- sailing your churches, and requested me to present prop- ositions. I complied with your request, and aimed to so shape the propositions as to express the difference be- tween us as nearly as possible. The simple reason why 10 CX)RRESPONDENCE. there are more affirmatives for you than myself, is that you are assailable at more points than myself. Even now, you do not propose to assail me at but one point, and tiiat in a matter that I do not hold, and repeatedly, in your cit3', disavowed, viz., " Baptismal Regeneration." The case now stands as follows : 1 . I teach and practice immersion for baptism. I am ready to affirm that immersion 13 baptism and defend it. Will you deny it? 2. You teach and practice sprinkling for baptism. Will you affirm that sprinkling is baptism and defend it? If you will, I will meet you and deny it. 3. You teach and practice infant baptism. Will you affirm and defend infant baptism? If you "will, I will meet you and deny it. 4. You preach, and your Discipline affirms, that " Jus- tification by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." Will you affirm and defend this? If you will, I will meet you and deny. 5. I believe that baptism, " administered to real peni- tents," is for the remission of sins. I am willing to af- firm this and defend it. Will you meet me and deny it? 6. You enforce your Book of Discipline upon the fol- lowers of Christ, and exclude them when they disobey it. Will you affirm and defend the iise you make of this book? If you will, I will meet you and deny it. 7. You continue the practice of the M. E. Church, in calling mourners forward to pray and be prayed for, as a part of the process in conversion. Will you affirm and defend this practice? If you will, I will meet you and deny it. I am not asking for Divine authority, direct or indi- rect, for the "moui'ner's bench," nor asking you to prove that "it is a Divine institution," but simply asking you to defend "the practice of the M. E. Church, in calling mourners forward to pray and be prayed for, as a part of the process in conversion." I find plenty of Methodist preachers "green enough" to practice this, and to bind their Discipline upon the children of God, and exclude them for disobeying it, but whether I shall find one "green enough" to defend this practice, in fair debate, is yet to be seen. CORRESPONDENCE. 11 Yon are widely mistaken abont my second and third propositions being the same. One is arranged for me to affirm and defend my practice, and the otlier for you to affirm and defend your practice. If you say that tliere is no dispute between us on immei'sion — that we both afirce that immersion is baptism — as a matter of course there is no need of debating that point. The question then remains concerning your practice. As a matter of course, you must affirm and defend your practice. I am not to affirm a negative — that sprinkling or pouring is not baptism. The burden of proof rests upon him who believes and practices it. If you do not like the word "initiatory," I am willing to state as follows : 1. Is the Divine ordinance of the New Testament, called baptiwi in the common version, immersion? I affirm — you deny. 2. Is the Divine ordinance of the New Testament, called bajjfism in the common version, sprinkling or pouring? You affirm — I deny. Here, my dear sir, is straight forward work. You can neither turn to the right nor to the left. You must go forward or backward. I will defend to the letter what I preached in your city. Will you defend what you preach? Please let me hear from you at your earliest conveni- ence. Respectfully yours, Benj. Franklin. REV. MERRILL'S FOURTH LETTER. Portsmouth, Ohio, March 3, 1858. Eld. B. Franklin — Dear Sir : Yours of the 22nd ult. came to hand last night, and I answer it at my " earliest convenience," but it is too late for the mail this morning. I learn that you have commenced the publication of this correspondence. Your course, in that particular, struck my mind as very unusual; but if it corresponds with your views of propriety, I will not complain. You will, of course, publish it in full, and then no injustice will be done. The reason my answer to your first letter f^iiled to reach you before you left was, that you did not indicate where in the city you could be found. Before I ascer- tained that, the boat was ready to start. When you re- marked, BO significantly, that " to this the gentleman 12 CORRESPONDENCE. made no reply before my departure," you might have added, that the reply was then in your possession, and that you had answered it. I had three reasons for not acceding to your first prop- osition : 1st, My health would not justify the labor at that time; 2nd, I had another engagement that night; 3rd, I never could consent to debate without a proposi- tion distinctly stated. This last consideration was equal- ly forcible, in connection with the first proposition in your second letter. Such a course would inevitably lead to wrangling. The chief proposition in your second letter was very peculiar. You stated five questions for me to affirm, only two of which I believed, and one of them not relat- ing to the subject before us! Was there not something "extremely cautious" in this? Truly I would be "as- sailable at more points" than you, provided I let you make the "points!" Your allusion to the " opposition" made to your ef- forts here, is the first I have heard of it; and I presume no one ever imagined that any "opposition" to your ef- forts was made or thought of. However, some of your allusions to the effect of your efforts in setting the other denominations to work, reminded some of us of the fa- ble of the fly on the stage-coach. In Degard to the outside matters you are trying to press into discussion, permit me to say, once for all, that you entirely misapprehend our position. Why you do so, 1 do not pretend to understand. We never "f^i/brt-e" the "Book of Discipline upon the followers of Christ," and if any subscribe to it voluntarily, "what is that to theeP^ We never practiced "calling mourners forward to pray, and be prayed for, as a pai-t of the process in con- version," and how you could imagine any such thing, is to me unaccountable. You are " widely mistaken," when you assert that you find plenty of Methodist preach- ers who practice this. Methodist preachers never "hind their Discipline upon the children of God," and never call " mourners forward to pray, and be prayed for, as a part of the process in conversion." Surely you must have designed all this for effect elsewhere! You appear anxious to assail the Ninth Article of Re- CORRESPONDENCE. 1^ ligion, as found in the Methodist Discipline— or at least a part of it — and rather than have no debate, I may ac- commodate you with the opportunity; but, really, I do not see why you are so intent upon diverting attention from the first issue raised by yourself. You say I am "widely mistaken" about the second and third proposi- tions, in your second letter, being the same, only chang- ing the order. But do they not relate to the same gen- eral topic? Do they not both involve the same issue— the mode of baptism? How, then, am I "widely mis- taken?" But, sir, let us come to the point. The subject is Bap- tism, and there are three points of issue — the mode, the subject and the design. In regard to the first, I said be- fore that you are on the affirmative; and, notwithstand- ing your attempt to show to the contrary, I still say it. How stands the case? You hold that the mode is es- sential to the ordinance — that it is definitely taught in the Scriptures — that it is immersion, and immersion only. I hold that the mode is not essential, and that it is not definitely taught in the Scriptures. Then, " as a matter of course, you must affirm and defend your own posi- tion." I am not to affirm a negative — "that the mode is not essential to the validity of baptism, and that it is woMefinedin the Scriptures." "The burden of proof rests upon him" who holds that the manner of applying the water is definitely taught, and that it is essential to the validity of the ordinance. In regard to the second point, I acknowledge that the affirmative is mine, and I take it cheerfully. I am will- ing to hold the laboring oar when it belongs to me. I did feel a little modest about stating questions for you to affirm, but since you have been so liberal in assigning me affirmatives which I do not hold, I will try to over- come that feeling. Consider the following : 1. Do the Scriptures teach that immersion is essential to the validity of the ordinance of Christian baptism? Affirm that, and I will deny it. 2. Do the Scriptures authorize the practice of infant baptism? I affirm, and you deny. 3. Do the Scriptures teach that baptism is a condition of the forgiveness of sins? You affirm — I deny. 14 CORRESPONDENCE. These inrolve the whole subject, and there is no' pro- priety in multiplying questions. Notwithstanding your " as a matter of course," you will see the necessity of *' affirming and defending " your practice of immersion. Will you doit? Then why manifest such "extreme caution?" Here is straight-forward work. You can neither turn to the right nor to the left. You must go ^'■forward ov backioard.'^ Make your election — advance or retreat — and at your earliest convenience. Respectfully, yours, S. M. Merrill. reply: WooDviLLE, Ohio, March 5, 1858. Rev. Merrill — Dear Sir : Yours of the 3rd inst. came to hand on last night, but I did not have time to reply before my departure for this place. I do not con- ceive that there is any impropriety in my publishing our correspondence, as I shall certainly publish it entire. We are public men, and the people have a right to see our course, and the positions we occupy. You have no reason to complain of my stating that you did not reply to my letter before my leaving your city, for you knew how to reach me before my depar- ture, as you knew several of my friends, who would have conveyed the letter to me; not only so, but I stated also, tliat I should depart upon the Bostona, then lying at the landing; where you knew you could have sent the letter to me. I only made the statement to show that you did not wish to detain me at that time to " inform one." In this I was not mistaken, as your three numeri- cal reasons will show. You say, that 1 " stated five questions for you to af- firm, only two of which you believed, and one of them not relating to the subject before us," This places you in a singular predicament, for a Methodist preacher, truly! This first proposition in the list for you to affirm, is infant baptism. This affirmative you believe, for in the letter before me, you propose to debate it. The affirmative, upon justification by faith only, you believe; for you propose, in the letter before me, to debate even that, rather than have no debate. This is the sum of your belief, so far as contained in the propositions pre- CORRESPONDENCE. 15 pared for you to aflSrm. The other three you do not he- Veve. The first one is, " that sprinkling is baptism." This you do not believe. " As a matter of course," you will not practice it hereafter. The second one in the list that you do not believe, is that wherein I pro- pose for you to affirm and defend " the use you make of the Discipline." This you do not believe in ! Will you, then, cease " the use you make of this book?" You certainly ought. The third point arranged for you to affirm, is " the practice of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in calling mourners forward to pray, and be prayed for, as a part of the process in conversion." This practice you do not believe in! This will certainly as- tonish some of the members of your church, and many of your fellow-citizens, not a little. There is one thing more in this matter that I do not understand. You propose for me to affirm, that " im- mersion only is baptism," and you will deny. You practice sprinkling, but now have admitted that you do not believe the proposition I proposed for you to affirm on that subject. This strikes your practice out of the list, even if immersion only is not baptism. I am surprised to hear you say, *' We never * enforce ' the Book of Discipline upon the followers of Christ." This will seem strange in the ears of many identified with your church, as well as thousands outside. But to palliate this, you say, " if any subscribe to it voluntarily, 'what is that to. thee?'" When did the members of your church " subscribe to the Discipline voluntarily?^^ Not one out of ten of them ever read it, or knew what was in it, till after they were in the church, and one half of them, to this day, never read it, and know not what is in it. What of all the infants, baptized {rantized) in the Methodist church? When did they subscribe to the Discipline? infant baptism? sprinkling /or baptism? There is no voluntarily subscribing here. You " never call mourners forward to pray, and be prayed for, as a part of the process in conversion!" Well, you "call them forward to pray, and be prayed for." This is known and read of all men. If it is not " a part of the process in converting them," what is it? It is " a part of the process " in your procedure, and your proce- 16 CORRESPONDENCE. dure in tryinj^ to convert sinners. It is not only a part, but a prominent part of the process, in your procedure^ in trying to proselyte or convert sinners. It is emphat- ically a proselyting institvition. 'I'iie Apostles and lirst Christians had no such j)ractice. But as you do not be- lieve in it, I i)ress not the matter upon you. I shall not dispute with you about the propositions, Avherein I propose to allirm immersion, and for you to affirm sprinkling, being the same, as all before whom it shall come, can see that they arc as distinct as day and night. You say that " I hold that the mode is essential to the ordinance." No, my dear sir, I have said nothing about " the nu)de," nor have I any use for such a phrase. We are simply inquiring what the Apostles did when they baptized. I say, in the simplest and clearest form in which I can express it, they immersed. This far, it is my affirmative, and the proof rests upon me. You may say, you do not doubt this; but they, in performing the same rite, sometimes sprinkled or poured. This is your affirmative. The proof rests upon you. But as you have fairly declined affirming ?/o«r prac<r/ letter as in the thi'rd, the case would have been quite different. The third question which I did not believe, had respect to *' calling mourners forward, as a part of the process in conversion." Tliere is no danger that any intelligent person will be " astonished " at my po- sition on that point. No one regards the " calling mour- ners forward, as a part of the process in conversion." You may call it a *' proselyting institution," or whatever is most congenial to your taste; but I cannot pretend to comprehend what you mean by " the process in conver- sion." It is, however, very certain that those who know any thing about that " process," do not regard the out- ward act of coming forward for prayer, as any part of it. Epithets are cheap, and they are generally valued at their real worth, among thinking people. The particu- lar manner in which " the first Christians " conducted their praying exercises, is not material; but that they CORRESPONDENCE. 19 prayed for the conversion of sinners, is as clear as the light of the sun. If you see any thing wrong in it, I am sorry for you, but cannot help it. 4. As to the statement that those two questions re- late to the same general issue, only changing the order, I am willing that " all those before whom it shall come," and for whose edification you appear so deeply concerned, shall form their own opinions in regard to it. I have a good deal of faith in the public intelligence. I know that your people discard the use of the word "mode," in connection with baptism; but I know also that the term is legitimate, until it shall be settled that the ordi- nance is to be administered without a mode. I see noth- ing very profound in this, nor in your allusion to " ran- tized " infants, nor yet in your remarks on " binding the Discipline on the followers of Christ." You cannot know that "not one out of ten " of our members read the little book in question — but you ought to know that not one is ever admitted to membership without volun- tarily subscribing to the Discipline. And you think I have " admitted " something, " probably without intend- ing it!" No, sir; your discovery that my admission " strikes my practice out of the list," grew out of your blunder in trying to fix up a "predicament " for me, by quoting from the wrong letter, as already shown. 5. I pass a number of other matters that might be noticed, and come right to the business before us. My letter is too long — but that is owing to your inaccura- cies of statement, and the effort made to press in out- side issues. I agree to the propositions as now stated. 1 . Immersion is the only baptism taught in the Chris- tian Scriptures and practiced by the Apostles. You affirm. 2. The Scriptures authorize the practice of Infant Baptism. I affirm. 3. The Scriptures teach that Baptism is a condition of the forgiveness of sins. You affirm. 1. The time is the 5th day of April, at 10 o'clock A. M. 2. On each of the propositions we must spend two days, except it be the last. One day may be sufficie it for that. I agree to all the rest of your suggestions, and reciprocate your kindly fellings, hoping th it nothing will occur to mar the pleasure of the interview. 20 CORRESPONDENCE. If YOU prefer spending the first day in discussing the 9th Article of Religion in the Methodist Discipline, I am willing to affirm the doctrine contained in it. This will give us an equal number of affirmatives and negatives, and fill up the week. I do not hesitate to discuss any doctrinal point, but those questions of prudential usage will not interest the public. Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. Respectfully yours, S. M. Merrill. P. S. If you select your moderator here, and do it soon, I may select one, and they may have a little time to engage a president. I may publish the corsespond- ence in the citv papers, before the meeting takes place. S. M. M. reply: Cincinnati, Ohio, March 11, 1858. Rev. Merrill — Dear tSir: Yours of the 9th inst. came to hand this morning, and I hasten to reply before leaving to be absent some ten days. If I had not refer- red to my third letter in the place of the second, in dis- tinguishing between the propositions which you believe and those which you do not believe, you would bave had nothing to say, even apparoitly in justification of your most unenviable position. But what have you gained? Certainly nothing; for the propositions in both letters are substantially the same. The issues made are the same, though they do not stand in precisely the same or- der. As you were replying to my third letter, by an in- advertance, I did not notice that you were speaking of my propositions as stated in my second letter. But this relieves not you in the least, as we shall now see by looking at the affirmatives which you " do not believe." The first one, in Avhich you are to affirm infant baptism, you believe. The fourth one, in which you affirm "jus- tification by faith only," you believe. The other three of the five affirmatives arranged for you, I am assured you do not believe. What are they? One of them, num- ber three, in my second letter, reads as follows: " Is the iniatory ordinance of the New Testament sprinkling or pouring?" This was arranged for you to affirm; but you now inform us, that you do not believe " the initia- tory ordinance of the New Testament is sprinkling or CORRESPONDENCE. 21 pouring." In this, I am perfectly agreed with you. I do not believe this divine ordinance is sprinkling or pouring. You ^vill not, therefore, blame the members of your church, who had been sprinkled or poured upon, in the place of this ordinance, and were not satisfied. The proposition, number five, in my second letter, was arranged for you to affirm that " the Scriptures author- ize the practice of the Methodist Episcopal Church in calling mourners forward to pray and be prayed for, as a part of the process in conversion." This practice, you now imform me, you do not believe in. In this I also agree with you. There is no need of debate, then, on this point. The proposition, number seven, in my second letter, was arranged for you to affirm, that "the Methodist Discipline is a better rule of faith, discipline and law," or that is " better in any respect, for the people of God, than the New Testament." You do not believe that *• it is a better rule of faith, discipline and law;" or " that it is better in any rcKpect, for the people of God, than the New Testament." Here, a.2;ain, I perfectly agi'ee with you. I do not believe it " is better in any respect,''^ than the New Testament. Why not, then, my dear sir, take the New Testament and let the Disci- pline go? I also proposed, in my third letter, that you affirm, that "the divine oi-dinance in the New Testament, call- ed baptism in the common version, is sprinkling or pouring." Why did you not affirm it? Was it because I had made out an affirmative that you did not believe? To accommodate you, I had removed the word " initia- tory." But I could not induce you to affirm and defend your own practice. Your friends will have less confi- dence in your position on this point than ever, when they see how you have evaded and utterly refused to affirm and defend your practice. They will think that you have no confidence in it. I have stated what I know to be true in saying that nine out of ten, of all that are taken into your church, know not what is in the Discipline when they are re- ceived into church. Not one out of ten of them ever read it, before they were received into the church, as 22 CORRESPONDENCE. you cannot help knowing. They know not what is in it, and if they "voluntarily subscribe to it," they doit without knowing Avhat they are subscribing to, and the case is only so much the worse with the preachers who induce them to subscribe to it, without knowing what is in it. I thankfully accept your proposal to discuss the ques- tion embraced in the Ninth Article of your Discipline on the first day. I agree to the proposal, as to time, etc., as set forth in the close of your letter, except the post- script. I shall have to get a moderator from abroad. This we can easily arrange. The Lord permitting, I will be with you at the time. I am perfectly willing you should have the correspond- ence published in yonr city papers. That would let your citizens know the state of the case. I am truly thankful for the kindness and good temper you have shown. I hope we shall have a candid, in- teresting and profitable interview. May the Lord be with us, and may the way of the Lord be clear to us. I am, respectfully, yours, Benjamin Franklin. REV. MERRILL'S SIXTH LETTER. Portsmouth, Ohio, March 15, 1858. Eld. Franklin — Dear Sir: Yours of the 11th inst. is received. You speak of my "unenviable position," but really I cannot make out what you mean by it. I have frankly avowed my belief or disbelief in regard to the strange and unheard of questions you have seen fit to propose, but have neither " evaded " nor denied any point in my faith or practice. I am therefore compelled to look upon your effort to make the impression that I have " evaded " any point as uncalled for and in very bad taste. Your assertion that the questions as stated in your second and third letters are " substantially the same," surprises me no little; but no dispute on this point is now necessary, as all before whom they will come and see that they differ very materially. Nor did I say I did not believe in the practice of the iMethodist Episco- pal Church in calling mourners forward to pray and be CORRESPONDENCE. 23 prayed for, but only that we do not regard that practice " as a part of the process in conversion." You wish to know why I do not " take the New Tes- tament and let the Discipline go; my answer is, I pre- fer taking both. You seem incapable of finding any use for a book, unless it is better than the JVew Testa- ment. You represent me as " utterly refusing to affirm and defend my practice." This was because you tried and utterly failed to show that the burden of proof rested upon me, on the question as to the manner of applying the water in baptism. My reply is, that it would look better in you to wait until the debate is over before you raise a cry of that sort. The public can distinguish be- tween objecting to the form of a question for debate, and a refusal to defend my practice. 1 did not affirm the question on the mode of baptism, as modified in your third letter, because the affirmative on that subject be- longed to you, and there was no need of two questions on the same point. I might ask in turn, why you "utter- ly refused to affirm "that "immersion is essential to the validity of Christian baptism." But I regard such matters, at this stage of the affair, as altogether out of place. How you can pretend to knoijo what you assert in re- gard to nine out often of all that are admitted to mem- bership in our church is a mystery. It is a matter that does not belong to the correspondence between us, but you see fit to make large pretensions of knowledge, and if you imagine you can make any one believe that you know what everybody knows you have no possible means of knowing, 1 think it is probably the better plan to let you enjoy the delusion. But for this last effiart to press me into a false posi- tion, I should not have troubled you with this. The pre- liminaries are now sufficiently agreed upon, and I earn- estly trust that the four propositions will be discussed in the true spirit of our holy Christianity. Respectfully yours, S. M. Merrill. reply: Cincinnati, Ohio, March 23, 1858. Rev. Merrill — Bear Sir: Yours of the 15th inst. M CORRESPONDENCE. came to my office in due time, but, owing to my absence, could not receive attention till now. I probably ought not to have said anytliing about your "unenviable posi- tion," as it was certainly sulliciently unpleasant, with- out anything being said. "Forgive me this wrong." Since, however, I have alluded to your unpleasant pre- dicament, I shall maintain that you have evaded in the following particulars : 1. When I proposed for you to affirm and defend your practice — that sprinkling is baptism — you not only de- clined the proposition in every form as presented by me, and stated that yoxi, did not believe it, in one form, but did not propose to affirm it in any form. 2. I proposed a proposition, in dilFerent forms, for you to affirm, embracing your practice in praving for mourners, in your efforts to convert them, which you also declined, declaring that yoti did not believe it, as stated in one form, and, at the same time, you did not propose to affirm your practice in any fortn. On this point your evasions were: 1st, A false issue, in talking of " divine authority for the mourner's bench," or of its being "a divine institution," when I had not mentioned the mourner's bench, but had spoken simply of "the practice of the Methodist Episcopal Church;" 2nd, You said you did not believe the proposition in one form, as I proposed it; 3rd, You now say, " I did not say, I did not believe in the practice of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in calling mourners forward to pray and be prayed for, but only that we do not regard that practice as 'a part of the process in conversion.' " 3 I tried to induce you to affirm the use you make of your Discipline, by presenting a proposition in different forms, but the proposition, as presented in one form, you said you did not believe, declined to affirm it in any form, as proposed by me, and proposed no other form yourself. 4. Your effort to induce me to affirm the exclusive proposition, that immersion only is baptism, is an inva- sion, to induce me to lead the way, affirming not only that sprinkling is not baptism, but that nothing else ex- cept immersion is baptism. You do not expect to have any debate on immersion; but you expect to admit that CORRESPONDENCE. 25 immersion is baptism, and then you intend to call on mo to prove that sprinkling — vour practice — and everything else is not baptism. 1 was compelled to take this prop- osition, not to prove immersion, as I did not expect .>ou to question it, but to get at your practice — to prove that sprinkling is not baptism, or have no debate. I was thus compelled to affirm a negative, by no other cause, only that you could not be induced to affirm what you practice — sprinkling for baptism. I have no fears that men of discrimination will differ with my judgment, when I say that the propositions de- clined by you are " substantially the same " in my sec- ond and third letters. But if they should, it relieves not you, for you declined them, as stated in both letters. Why did you not affirm them as stated in the third let- ter? Why did you not propose substitues? Why did jou never propose to affirm vour practice on these three points in any form? Was it because you were not ^'green enough?" I have been familiar with Methodists from my ear- liest recollection, and know, from personal observation^ that I state the truth, when 1 say, that not one out of ten knew what is in the Discipline when they joined the church. I can demonstrate what I say, if you will per- mit me to catechise any class you can produce. I should like to know what the people of Portsmouth think of your statement, that no one but m^ self thought of there being any opposition to my efforts in your place! Please not fail to have our correspondence published in your city papers. The Lord permitting I will be on hand at the ap- pointed time, April 5th. Respectfully yours, Benj. Franklin. THE DEB MR, MERRIll'S FIRST SPEECH. First Proposition : — "We arc Accounted Righteous before God, only for tlie Merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ l)y Faith, and not for our own works or de- servings; wherefore, that we are Justified by Faith Only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : The question brouglit before us at this hour, for calm, sober investigation, is ono of the most important that can occupy the human mind. How can man be jus- tified before God? By what means, or on what terms, can the guilty, sinful crea- ture approach into the presence of the holy Creator, and find acceptance? The proposition which I affirm, sets this matter before us, as 1 conceive, in a clear and com- prehensive light. It exhibits, at a glance, the scriptural principle of justification, se- curing to the Redeemer the glory of his own work, and leaving the responsibility of failure where it rightfully belongs — upon the creature who refuses compliance with the expressed condition. In order to bring the subject as distinctly as possible before us, I again read the proposition. It is 28 DEBATE ON the Nintli Article of Ecligion, as found in the Methodist Discijiliiie: "AVe arc accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by ftiith, and not for our own works or deservings ; wherefore, that we are justified by fiiith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." According to the terms of our agreement, I am to affirm the doctrine contained in this Article. That doctrine, when properly understood, is so plainly scriptural, that it is a matter of no little astonishment, that one can be found willing to make a public denial of it. I can only account for the position my friend, the respondent, has taken, in regard to this j)roposition, on the supposition, that his prejudice against all creeds has induced him to presume that this, being part of a creed, must necessarily be erroneous ; and that without carefully examining the doc- trine, he has hastily pronounced against the creed, and therefore against each Ar- ticle of it. However this may be, he will have ample opportunity to define his own position, and to assign reasons for assailing this Article. Without detaining with preliminary re- marks, I shall proceed to ascertain the doc- trine contained in the proposition before us, that you may see precisely what I affirm, and what my friend denies. But few of the terms in the proposition need to be de- fined. The w^ord "justified" is to be un- JUSTIFICATION. 2S derstood in the sense of being " accounted righteous." It is not only used in this sense here, but also in the Scriptures. It is the act of Grod by which he pardons our sins, accepts our persons and accounts us righteous, or treats us as righteous persons, only for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. But what is meant by that little word "only?" We must notice this particular- ly, for it is the occurrence of this little word in the last part of the Article, that has aroused the oj^position of my friend. The word " only" occurs twice in the Ar- ticle, and thus explains itself: "AYe are ac- counted righteous before God onli/ for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by faith ; wherefore, that we are justified by fiiith only," etc. It will be seen that the last " only " corresponds with the first, and that the word is used in both places to ex- clude all idea of human merit as the ground or procuring cause of pardon or justifica- tion. It is not used to exclude anything that properly belongs to the great work of bringing the sinner into a state of recon- ciliation with Grod, such as the grace of Grod, the blood of Christ, etc. ; nor is it de- signed to exclude any thing that properly belongs to, or accompanies, the exercise of genuine faith, as the preparation of heart which is antecedent, or the fruits which follow it, but simply to exclude the merit of human actions, as the ground of our accej)tance with God. " Faith only " 30 DEBATE ON stands in opposition to the merit of " our own works or deservings." It is not the abstract definition of tlie w^ord, but the use and application here made of it, that I am seeking after. It is an exclusive term, but we are not to make it exclude anything and everything we may see fit, without regard to the connection in w^hich it stands. Hence my respondent will not be at liberty to take this w^ord out of its connection to put an arbitrary construction upon it, and then in- fer that the Article teaches thus and so, and make war upon his forced inference, as upon the doctrine which I affirm. He must take the word in its connection — un- derstand it as expounded by the church which adopts it— and then he w^ill assail the doctrine contained in the proposition, and not merely a man of straw. I remark, farther, that we must distinguish between "faith only" and "faith alone." Faith is not alone. It involves the elements of re- pentance, and is accompanied by good w^orks as fruits; but while it is not in the nature of things alone, it is only the faith that justifies. Faith implies repentance and obedience, but neither the repentance nor the obedience can be accounted for righteousness, but the faith only. I may also premise that the Scriptures speak of four distinct justifications. These must be carefully distinguished from each other, for wo cannot confound them without produc- ing confusion. The first has been called JUSTIFICATION. SI infiintile justification. It has respect to the spiritual state of man when first brought into conscious existence. " By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. But we have no controversy respecting this jus- tification. The second is that about which we dispute. It is the justification of the sinner in the sense of pardon. This is the act of God by which he reverses the con- demnatory sentence of the law, and dis- charges the sinner from guilt and liability to punishment. It is called in the Scrip- tures, pardon, remission, the non-imputa- tion of sin, the imputation of righteousness, but it is the same act. It is a forensic term, and has respect to the claims of the law of Grod. After this comes the third — the justification of the righteous by obedience, in the sense of approval. Of this St. James speaks in his Epistle, and illustrates it by the justification of Abraham, " when he of- fered his son Isaac upon the altar." Abra- ham had been justified by faith many years before this event, and was conse- quently a righteous man when he received the command to ofi'er his son upon the al- tar ; for it is written of him, that " he be- lieved Grod, and it was counted to him for righteousness," before Isaac was born. It is therefore plain, that St. James speaks of the justification of believers, who, by works, evince their faith, and prove their justifica- tion to themselves and others, and thus ob- 32 DEBATE ON tain the farther favor and approbation of Heaven. Hence the justification spoken of by St. James cannot be opposed to that of which my proposition speaks, which is the justification of the sinner, in the sense of pardon, by faitli in Jesus Christ as the only procurer of salvation. The fourth jus- tification taught in the Scriptures has re- spect to the transactions of the day of judg- ment. Then men will be justified or con- demned, not because of, but according to their works. The reason of this final justi- fication of the righteous will not be found in them, but in the Savior ; nevertheless, the final decision will be according to the deeds done in the body, or ujDon the testi- mony of works as the fruits of faith or un- belief. But as this justification is not in dispute, I dwell not upon it. I refer to these difi'erent justifications for the pur- pose of avoiding confusion, and that we may get at the precise point in dispute. I fear my friend has them all confused in his mind, but I hope now to be able to keep the issue so clearly before you as that you will see when either of us turns aside to raise false issues. The difi'erent causes of justification must also be carefully noted. Confining the jus- tification to the sense of pardon, the causes are three — the originating, the procuring and the receiving. The first is the grace of Grod, the second is the blood of Christ, and the third is faith. The third cause is JUSTIFICATION. 33 . that about wliich we dispute. I call it the receiving cause, for the sake of conveni- ence, and to guard against misapprehen- sion. It is sometimes called the instru- mental cause, and sometimes the condi- tion. It is that which is required on the part of the person, and hence is a condi- tion ; and it is that by Avhich the individ- ual lays hold uj^on the merit of Christ, and receives the blessing, and on this account it may be called the receiving cause of justi- fication, without danger of deceiving. And as the only originating cause is the grace of G-od, and the only procuring cause is the blood of Jesus Christ, so the only re- ceiving cause, the only condition, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the doctrine of the Article which forms the proposition before us, and this is the doc- trine of the Holy ScrijDtures, as 1 shall now have the pleasure of proving in your pres- ence. In denying this proposition, my friend denies that we are accounted righteous be- fore God, only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and virtually affirms that we are accounted righteous before God, not for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, but for our own works or deserv- ings. Ho cannot say nay to the proposi- tion, without virtually affirming this. He may confine his opposition princij^ally to the last clause of the Article, but that be- ing only a corollary or deduction from tho 3 34 DEBATE ON first part, must be interpreted by the first part. It being a deduction from the prem- ises laid down, it cannot legitimately be held to contain any thins: more than is con- tained in the premises. The opposition of my friend must therefore be to the premi- ses as well as to the conclusion ; and in say- ing nay to the premises in this Article of ^Religion, he must assert what is here de- nied. In a discussion like this, he cannot occupy merely a negative position. He must take ground that can be understood. In denying that we are accounted right- eous only for the merit of «)ur Lord Jesus Christ, he must show for whose merit we are accounted righteous, and for what works or deservings. We are not here to contend about words and phrases, but for truth and righteousness. God help us to be honest, and to approach the subject in his fear I I. My first argument is drawn frorai the Scripture representations of human deprav- ity. Why are we not accounted righteous before God, for our works or deservings ? Because we are so deeply depraved, that our works are evil, and our deservings death ! When St. Paul undertook to prove, in his epistle to the Eomans, that there was no justification for Jew or Gentile on the ground of works, he first proved that all ■were under sin. The dark picture of Gen- tile depravity is drawn in the first chapter, and in the third he proves that the Jews JUSTIFICATION. 35 ^rere no better. '' What then ? are we bet- ter than they ? No, in nowise ; for we have before proved both Jews and Gen- tiles, that they are all under sin ; as it is written : There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; with their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of asps is under their lips : whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness ; their feet are swift to shed blood ; destruction and misery are in their ways ; and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. 'Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Eom. iii. 9-20. But whence cometh this universal corrup- tion ? This, the Apostle answers in the fifth chapter, in exhibiting the federal char- acter of Adam, and pointing to his disobe- dience as the source of sin and death to all men. I present the following expressions : *' Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world ;" " for, if through the offence of one many be dead;" "for if by 36 DEBATE ON one man's offence death, reigned by one ;" "therefore, as by the offence of one judg- ment came upon all men to condemnation ;" "for as by one man's disobedience many •were made sinners," etc. Sin entered the world by one, death reigned by one, con- demnation came by one, and by the dis- obedience of one many were made sinners. Thus, St. Paul denies justification by works, on account of universal depravity; and he accounts for universal depravity by point- ing to the influence or effect of the first act of disobedience on the part of Adam ; and if any are dissatisfied with this method of accounting fo^' the " existing evil," they may dispute with Paul, and deny the fact, or account for it, as best they can. I find the fact of universal depravity clearly as- serted in the Scriptures, and to my mind it is sufficiently acounted for in the relation we all sustain to Adam, the first sinner. The fountain was corrupted and the stream remains corrupt. Adam fell and human nature remains fallen. But if so, the ground of justification can not be in man. What- ever works are properly ours, must be like our fallen natures — evil. Then, until this Scripture doctrine be overthrown, and it be shown that mankind are not morally sick, so as to need a physician, I will main- tain, as this proposition declares, that the ground of justification is not in our works or deservings, but in Jesus Christ. II. My second argument is founded on JUSTIFICATION. 37 those Scriptures whicli ascribe the work of salvation to the grace of God. I use the word "salvation" here, not as being syn- onymous with justification, but as includ- ing it. The whole process of salvation, from its incipient stage to its consumma- tion in glory, being ascribed to the grace of God, justification, as an important part of the process, must be regarded as of grace. Hence the Apostle says, " Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," etc. Eom. iii. 24. " For by grace are ye saved, through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ; not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. ii. 8-9. But may it not be that the grace of God, the origin- ating cause of salvation, has so provided for the justification of sinners, as to sus- pend the ofi'er upon the condition of works ? This is the point in dispute, and the Apos- tle settles it by showing that it can not be of grace and works both. If it is of grace at all, all idea of human merit must be ex- cluded. " And if by grace, then it is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace. Bat if it be of works, then is it no more grace ; otherwise work is no more work." Eom. xi. 6. The idea here advanc- ed is important. It turns not on the kind of works, whether moral or ceremonial, but upon the nature of grace and works. Grace, in the nature of things, can not be merited or purchased by works ; for grace 38 DEBATE ON is unmerited favor. Hence, if salvation is by grace, it cannot be by works, whether legal, moral, ceremonial, or evangelical. This idea is presented in Rom. iv. 4 : " Now to him that w^orketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." If works, of any kind, were the condition of justifica- tion, then the blessing would be claimed as a reward earned and paid for, by him who performed the condition, and being reck- oned of debt and not of mere favor, the in- dividual would have whereof to glory. But this can never be. Our salvation ia all of grace, and boasting is excluded. " Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace." Rom. iv. 16. As to the origin of justification, grace and works are con- trasted— grace excluding works; and as to the condition of justification, faith and works are contrasted — faith excluding works ; thus works are set aside from hav- ing any part in originating, procuring, or purchasing the gospel blessing of pardon. To this argument, I invite the particular attention of my friend. I hope he will take hold of it, analyze it, point out what- ever of soj^histry he may bo able to find in it, and, if possible, refute it, by clear, scriptu- ral argument, and not by playing upon the words "grace" and "works." III. The third argument which I offer in support of my proposition, is drawn from those Scriptures which ascribe salvation to the death of Jesus Christ, recognizing that JUSTIFICATION". 39 death as necessary to the accomplishment of our salvation. " Being justified freely by his grace, tlirough tiie redemption that is in Christ Jesus." "But God commend- eth his love toward us, in that, while we were sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For, if when we were enemies, we were re- conciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life ;" Rom. v. 8-10. " Thus it is written and tlius it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day : and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem ;" Luke xxiv. 46-47. " Bat we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. J^'or it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings;" Ileb. ii. 9-10. " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever ;" Rom. i. 5-6. From these and kindred passages, it appears, first, that the death of Christ was necessary to ])ro- cure salvation; secondly, that his death did 40 DEBATE ON procure salvation ; thirdly, that to him be- longs all the glory of our salvation : there- fore, first, in him is all the merit ; and, sec- ondly, the merit of oiir own works or de- servings is excluded. "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If w© are justified and saved only for the merit of Christ, our song in heaven will be "Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood ;" but if we are justi- fied and saved by the merit of our own works and deservings, we shall sing "Mine own arm hath gotten me the victory!" Ey so much as we attempt to mix human mer- it with the blood of Jesus, we detract from the glory of the cross, and give toJ;he crea- ture the glory that belongs to the Kedeemer. lY. My fourth argument is the fact that faith brings the soul of the penitent into contact with the blood of Christ, and ren- ders that blood efficacious to the removal of guilt. " Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom Grod hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus ;" Eom. iii. 24- 26. The Apostle here is treating of the subject of justification in a formal dis- JUSTIFICATION. 41 course, and setting forth God's method of pardoning sin in harmony with the righteousness of the divine administra- tion, in a positive form. If any work, ceremony, or ordinance, must intervene between faith and the blood of Jesus, or be added to the blood of Jesus as a part of the procuring cause, or to faith as a parfc of the receiving cause, here was the place to mention it. But nothing of the kind is intimated. Jesus Christ is set forth to be a propitiation, and faith in his blood makes him a propitiation, in the positive and effi- cacious sense. Whenever and wherever faith meets the blood of Jesus, then and there the righteousness of Grod is declared for the remission of sins that are past — then and there G-od can be just and the jus- tifier of hira which believeth in Jesus. I leave this short argument right here, until Mr. Franklin shall attempt to show that faith does not, and cannot, bring the soul into contact with the blood of Jesus. Will he make the attempt ? We shall see. y. My fifth argument is drawn from those Scriptures which speak of the im- putation of faith for righteousness. Abra- ham was justified thus, and we are justified just as Abraham was. Was Abraham jus- tified by works, or by faith ? " If by works, he hath whereof to glory ; but no man hath whereof to glory before God ; there- fore his justification was by faith. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham be- 43 DEBATE ON lieved God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that work- eth, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believetli on him tliat justifieih the ungodly, his faith is counted for right- eousness;" Eom. iv. 3-5. "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbe- lief, but was strong in faith, giving glory- to God ; and being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform : and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was im- puted to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification;" Rom. iv. 20-25. The first quotation shows how Abraham was justified by faith with- out works, and the second shows that wo are justified in the same way. My argu- ment here is short and plain. To be justi- fied is to be accounted righteous ; but what is it that is imputed to us for righteous- ness? Not repentance, not confession, not obedience, but faith, and faith only. Faith may imply repentance, confession and obe- dience; I have not a word to say in dis- paragement of these, or of their import- ance; but neither the one nor the other of them ever is, or ever can be, imputed for righteousness. Hence we are never said JUSTIFICATION. 4^^ to be justified by repentance, by confes- sion, or by obedience, but simply by faith. These are important as accessories to faith, or as fruits of faith, but they cannot oc- cupy the place or fill the office of faith. I close this argument by making a plain and fair proposition to my respondent. If he will show, irom the Scriptures, that any other thing besides faith, or in addi- tion to faith, is imputed to us for right- eousness, in the work of justification, I will consent that the little word " only," which he dislikes so much, may be stricken from the last clause of the Article, which forms the proposition before us. Will he do it? He is a man of age, of experience, of con- siderable pretensions to learning, and if it could be done, he is the man to do it. Here is a plain question. What else besides faith is imputed to us for righteousness ? YI. I make another argument on the simple fact that we are said to be justified by faith. My friend will admit that we are justified by faith, but then he will con- tend that it is not by faith only. Let us look at this. What do we mean by "faith only," in this connection? It is said that we are justified by grace, and grace being the only originating cause, we may say, with reference to that feature of the work, it is by grace only ; for grace is the only and all-sufficient originating cause. It is said we are justified by his blood, and the blood of Jesus being the only procuring 44 DEBATE ON cause of justification, we may say, with reference to that feature of the work, it is by his blood only ; for the blood of Jesus is the only and all-sufficient procuring cause. And it is said we are justified by faith, and faith being the only receiving cause — the only condition — we say, with reference to that feature of the work, that it is by faith only; for faith is the only condition, the only thing that is, or can be, imputed for righteousness. The grace of God does not merely contribute towards originating the great scheme of justifica- tion, it originates it — it justifies; the blood of Jesus does not merely contribute to- ward procuring justification for guilty sinners, it procures it — it justifies; and faith does not merely contribute toward the justification of the sinner, it does the work — it justifies. If this be not true, it never could have been written that vfe are justified hy faith. It would have been part- ly by faith and partly by works. To this I invite the attention of the respondent, in the most respectful manner. I ask him to meet the. issue as here presented. If he will do it, well; but if he attempt to fix upon the word " only" a meaning which I have not fixed uj^on it, and which is not admitted by the church which adopts the . Article in dispute, he will thereby pro- claim his inability to meet the doctrine contained in this proj^osition, and be found spending his strength in demolishing "a JTTSTIFICATtON. 46 man of straw." It docs not become me to say what course lie will pursue, or must pursue ; that is for himself to determine ; but I remind you, my hearers, that we are here to examine the doctrine contained in this Article^ and not to put upon it forced and arbitrary constructions, meaningless and absurd, and then to amuse you by ex- posing those absurdities which nobody be- lieves. We have before us higher and nobler work. We must seek for the truth, and not for victory. If we, as expounders of the word, thus meet our responsibilities, and you hear with honest and prayerful hearts, the truth will be promoted, and the name of our God will be glorified. MR. FRANKLIN'S FIRST REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I am truly happy to appear before you on this interesting occasion, for the j^urpose of investigating questions of vast moment to us all, connected with the religion of Jesus Christ. I am also truly gratified to find my worthy friend, Mr. Merrill, in good trim, with buoyant spirits, and entering so manfully upon our great work. I have been pleased with his good temper and kindly disposition, as evinced in our corres- pondence, and I am also pleased with the same good temper and kindness, as seen in his address just delivered in your hearing. ci6 DEBATE ON I am satisfied that he has the coolness, the learning and ability to do entire justice to his cause. If he can not maintain it, no man can. As my speeches, on this ques- tion, are in reply, I sliall be compelled to allude to him and his speech, which will give me the appearance of being more personal than he, during this day's discussion, though I hope not to be personal. My desire is, that our discussion shall proceed with the utmost kindness, forbearance and good feeling. We are not tiere to gain personal victory. I am not anxious for triumph over men, or par- ties of men. If I know my own heart, my desire is simply, that truth and righteous- ness may prevail — that peace and union may be promoted among men. I owe good will to all mankind. The proposition read by the Moderator, in the affirmative of which my worthy op- ponent has addressed you, has not come be- fore you in precisely the form intended by me. I first presented it in the following form : " Do the Scriptures teach the doc- trine that 'justification by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort?' " This is found in my second letter. In his letter following this, he makes no allusion to this question directly. In my next reply, or third letter, 1 refer to it again, as follows: "You preach, and your Discipline affirms, that 'justification by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort.' Will you affirm and defend JUSTIFICATION, ^ this? If yon will, I will meet you and de- ny." This called forth the following reply, in his fourth letter: '• You appear anxious to assail the Ninth Article of Keligion, as found in the Methodist Dis(^ipline — or at least a part of it — and rather than have no debate, I may accommodate you with the opportunity; but really I do not see why you are so intent upon diverting attention from the first issue raised by yourself." Thus far, you perceive, nothing but the lat- ter part of the JSTinth Article was assailed by me, and Mr. Merrill's own written state- ment shows that he so understood mo, and when he speaks of accommodating me, rath- er than have no debate, he has nothing in his mind but the latter part of the Article. In my letter of March 5th, the following shows that I still had the same in m}'- mind : ''The affirmative, upon justification by faith only, you believe ; for you propose, in the letter before me, to debate even that, rather than have no debate." In his letter of March 9th, with all this before him, he accepts my proposal, in the following words : " If you prefer spending the first day in discussing the Ninth Article of Eeligion in the Meth- odist Discipline, I am willing to affirm the doctrine contained in it." Thus ended the matter in our correspondence. Who would have thought of anything from this, but an acceptance of my proposal? But, on reach- ing here, I was no little surprised to find the whole of the Ninth Article published ^ DEBATE ON as the proposition for our discussion to-day ! JS'or was I any less surprised, on meeting Mr. Merrill, to hear him maintain that such was his understanding, and refusing to agree to anything else. He, however, said that I could assail whatever portion of the Article I pleased. I have given this brief piece of history to show that my op- ponent enters this contest with some mis- givings, and aims to have something bear- ing some resemblance to truth, connected with that portion of his creed which he knew I aimed at. The Article reads as follows: ''We are accounted righteous before G-od, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings ; wherefore, that we are jus- tified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." I care nothing for having the first part of this Ar- ticle in the proposition, only that it is whol- ly irreconcilable with the latter part. ISTo- thing can be more self-evident to a man who does his own thinking, than that man can not be accounted righteous, or justified ^^only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ," and by faith only. If justification is by "faith only," it is not by the merits of Christ only. The merits of Christ and faith are not the same. The merit of Christ is one thing and faith is another, and if a man is justified by one only, nothing is more clear than that he can not be justi- JUSTIFICATION. 49'. fied by the other only. No two things in the universe are more different and distinct than the merit of Christ and faith. One is the act of man and the other the goodness or excellence of Christ ; and* it is a natural impossibility for justification to be by the goodness or excellence of Clirist only and by the act of the creature only. No ability, no learning nor ingenuity, can reconcile things thus self-contradictory. I not only deny the possibility of reconciling this con- tradictory Article of Keligion, but I deny that either of the parts are true. If justi- fication is by the merits of Christ only^ then Universalism is true, and all men are justi- fied, whether they believe or not; for the merits of Christ are for all men. But the truth is, the goodness, or excellence of Christ, or his merit alone^ is so far from justifying any man, that it will only be a source of condemnation, to the man with- out faith, or with faith and without repent- ance. On the other hand, nothing can be more unmeaning than to talk of justification by faith only. Faith only, is faith alone, faith singly, or by itself, or faith without any thing else. Mr. Merrill himself does not believe the doctrine contained in the pre- cise words he is to defend on this occa- sion. Faith only, alone, singly, or by it- self, is faith without anything else, not ex- cepting the merits of Christ, his blood, or his grace. He does not believe, nor does 4 sot DEBATE ON any person in this assembly, that man can be justified by the act of the creature — heliev- ing, without the goodness of Christ, his blood, his grace, or without repentance and confession, ^ay, more ; he does not be- lieve, nor does his Discipline admit, that a man can be justified — not even infants — without baptism. Let me read you a few words from the Discipline, p. 103: "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Savior Christ saith, iSTone can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Grhost, we beseech you to call upon G-od the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounte- ous mercy he will give to this child that thing which by nature he cannot have, that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy church and be made a lively member of the same." Again, on page 104, the minister is required to pray as lollows: "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 re- ceived into the ark of Christ's church." You perceive, clearly, from these short extracts, that the Discipline makes baptism a condition of justification, and to make the language of Jesus apply to infants, it is perverted and most shamefully corrupted. In the place of the plain language of Jesus, JUSTIFICATION. SI '^ Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," the Discipline makes him say, " None can enter into the kingdom of God, ex- cept he be regenerate and born anew of water and the Holy Ghost." To enter into the kingdom of God is to enter into a state of justification. To be born of water, is to be baptized, as the Discipline has it, and which, no doubt, is the meaning of it. In applying it to infants, they declare that not even they can enter into the kingdom of God, except they be born anew of water and the Holy Ghost, or except they be bap- tized and have whatever they mean by be- ing born of the Spirit. This language makes the birth of water a means of justi- fication, in precisely the same words used to make born of the Spirit a means of jus- tification. In applying the language to baptism, the Discipline makes " born of water " mean baptism, and makes it just as much out of the question to enter the kingdom of God without baptism, as with- out being born of the Spirit. To enter the kingdom of God, is to enter a state of jus- tification. This the gentleman cannot deny. Born of water and of the Spirit must precede entering the kingdom of God. Born of water is not faith, and yet it is something that must be, before a man can enter into the kingdom, both according to our Lord's own teaching and the applica- tion of the Discipline, only that the Discip- 52 DEBATE ON line perverts our Lord's teaching, in apply- ing it to infants. As certain, then, as en- tering the kingdom of Grod is entering a state of justification, and born of water does not mean faith, entering a state of justification is not by faith only. I deny that either born of water or of the Spirit is faith, and yet " except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." In the place of enter- ing by faith only, here are two things — *' born of water and of the Spirit" — both in the words of Jesus and the Discipline, that must be, before a man can enter into the kingdom of God. This, neither he nor any other man, occupying his position, will ever answer. The worthy gentleman has gone into a fine little speculation, in explaining the different senses in which we are justified, and even volunteered, in advance, to inform you that I would have the subject confused. As a matter of course, he knows before- hand how I will have the subject confused ! Eut, in this gratuitous prediction, he will find himself mistaken. The subject is not confused in my mind, nor will I allow him to confase it in your minds. He is bound to stand out in open day-light on this occa- sion. I am perfectly aware that men are justified in several diff'erent senses ; but who gave him the privilege to select justi- fication in one sense, and circumscribe the debate to that I A fine effort this to escape JUSTIFICATION. 53 responsibility ! The Article of Religion under discussion confines us to no such limits. It says, that "we arc accounted righteous before God," or justified before God, " only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Then, in what Mr. Merrill calls the " deduction from this," it affirms that "we are justified by fiiith only." The discussion is not limited to justification in one sense only^ but to all the senses in which " we are justified before God." Our justification before God, after conversion, is as legitimately in the bounds of this discussion, as the justification in conversion. The question we are to dis- cuss, is how " wc are justified before God," not in one sense only^ but in every sense, in which " we are justified before God," whether in conversion or after conversion. He is to prove that " we are justified before God by faith only." This I deny. It is not by faith only. In this attempt at eva- sion, he has given pretty clear intimations that he is conscious that justification, in some senses, is not by faith only ; but he hopes to find one sense in which it is by faith only, and thus make some show of argument. I leave this intelligent audience to decide how well he succeeds. Nor does his distinctions, touching differ- ent causes of justification, such as meritori- ous, procuring and instrumental causes, do him any good, unless it be to raise a little fog, in which to conceal himself. Faith is 54 DEBATE ON no more a meritorious cause than repent- ance or confession. Faith is as much an act of the creature as repentance or the confession. Faith no more procures salva- tion or justification, than repentance or confession. Faith is simply a means through which man receives salvation, and without vrhich he cannot receive it ; but it is no more a means by which man receives salvation than repentance, nor is it any more true that a man cannot be justified without faith, than it is that with faith, and without repentance, he cannot be justi- fied. Christ is truly the meritorious cause. The grace of God is the procuring cause ; but the grace of God alone, or without the merit of Christ, does not save or justify any one ; nor does the grace of God, though it pro- cures salvation, and the goodness and ex- cellence of Christ, though it merits salva- tion, save any one without faith, though there is no merit in faith ; nor does it save any one, with faith and without repent- ance, though there is no merit in repent- ance. Faith is a means appointed through which the salvation or justification pro- cured by the grace of God, and merited by Christ, is received and enjoyed; but not the only means: for none can receive justifica- tion without repentance, any more than without faith. Both faith and repentance are acts of the creature, and there is no merit in either ; the merit is in Christ ; but the merit in Christ will not save or justify JUSTIFICATION. 56 the sinner without faith and repentance : there is, therefore, no sense nor correctness in saying, that justification is by grace only, the merit of Christ only, faith only, or re- pentance only. It is not by the procuring cause only, the meritorious cause only, or the instrumental cause only, that we are justified. The grace of God procured justi- fication, the goodness of Christ merited it, and the divine appointment of faith, re- pentance, confession, etc., the means through which that which the grace of God procured, and the Lord merited, is received by the sinner. I. With these explanations, I am ready to look at the arguments of the gentleman. His first argument is drawn from the Scripture representations of human deprav- ity. AVith him, we are not accounted righteous before God for our works or de- servings ; or, to make the argument what he is to make it on this occasion, we are not justified by our works or desorvings, be- cause we are so deeply depraved, that our works are evil, and our deservings death, but we are justified hy faith only ! Faith is an act of the creature ; hence the Lord com- mands men to believe, and says, " he that believeth not shall be damned." Here, then, you perceive that my friend's first ar- gument is directly against him. He takes the position that our works are evil, and our deservings death, because we are so de- praved, and then maintains that we are &6 DEBATE ON justified by an act of this depraved creature — the act of faith only. No matter how great he makes human depravity, the greater it is, the worse for him ; for it is still more incredible that he should be jus- tified by the act of this depraved creature — the act of believing onli/ ! In precisely so much as his argument bears against re- pentance, confession, or anything else man is required to do, in order to justification, it bears against faith. If man's depravity is a reason why repentance shall not be a means of his justification, it is equally a reason why faith shall not be a means; for one is as much an act of a depraved crea- ture as the other. Thus it is seen, that his first argument, in the place of proving his doctrine, refutes it. II. His second argument is equally sin- gular. It is founded upon those Scriptures that ascribe salvation to the grace of Grod. This is singular enough ? How saying sal- vation is by grace, can prove that it is hy faith only, is a little difficult to understand ! The logic, I suppose, runs thus: Salvation is by grace ; therefore it is by faith on\y — "a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." Clear proof this, indeed ! But in the same connection in which the Apostle says, it is "by grace," he says it is "through faith." Justification is not by grace only, or faith only, but "by grace, through faith." The salvation is not of yourselves, but the gift of God, by grace, JUSTIMCATION. 57 through faith, but not by grace ahne^ or faith alone. Mr. M. appeared to anticipate the diffi- culty in his path, hence he inquired, " May it not be tliat the grace of God, the origina- ting cause of salvation, has so provided for the justification of sinners as to suspend the offer .upon the condition of works?" '■' This," he says, "is the point in dispute." He further adds, that "if it is of grace at all, all idea of human merit must be ex- cluded." No matter if all idea of human merit is to be excluded, that does not prove justification by faith only. We have no argument about human merit. I have said nothing about justification by human merit. That is a mere figment of his own imagination — a mere chimera of his own in- vention. All he has said, or can say, against justification by human merit, mili- tates nothing against me. If it proves that repentance or confession cannot be means, or conditions, through which the grace of God, and merit of Christ, give re- mission of sin, or justification, it proves, with precisely the same force, that faith cannot be a means or condition. For faith is an act of the creature — a depraved crea- ture ; and there is no merit in faith any more than there is in repentance. Justifi- cation, therefore, can no more be by faith only, than by repentance only. His reason- ing thus refutes himself But this is not the worst. He is bound 58 DEBATE ON to prove that justification is by faith only, because it is not of works. " It turns not on the kind of works, whether moral or cer- emonial," he informs us. Here we shall show him it does depend on the kind of works, and, in doing so, shall strand him so that he cannot recover. Has he ever examined the subject sufficiently, to know that faith itself is a work ; and, therefore, if a man is justi- fied by faith only, it is not only justification by work, but justification hy work only ! Je- sus says, " This is the ivork of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John vi. 29. The Apostle speaks of the " ivork of faith." I. Thess. i. 3. Thus, you per- ceive^ faith itself is not only, as before shown, an act of the creature — an act of a depraved creature — but a work performed by the creature; but, being a work required by the Lord, it is a work of God, but no more so than repentance. If "we are jus- tified by faith only," and if justification by faith only, " is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort," you see that we are justified not only by an act of a deprav- ed creature — a work performed by a de- praved creature — the work of faith, but by that act, or that loork, of a depraved creature alone. Thus my opponent, in his argument against justification by work — indiscrimi- nately work of every kind — has refuted himself without intending it, or even know- ing it. The true state of the case is, that Paul JUSTIFICATION. 59 is simply disclaiming justification by the works of the law of Moses, or the deeds of the law, but is not denying justification by the works or deeds of the gospel. There is no salvation by the deeds, or obedience of the law, but there is salvation by the deeds, or obedience of the gospel. The entire ar- gument of Paul (Gal. iii. 1-29), is to show that justification is not by the law of Moses, but by the gospel of Christ. Hence he says, "This only would I learn of you, Eeceived ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?" The law here, is the law of Moses, and the "hearing of faith," is simply hearing the gospel, or the faith, which means the gospel. At verse 13, he says, " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." This is manifestly the law of Moses. He does not mean to say that Christ has redeemed us fi'om the curse of the gospel ; nor is it the gospel that says, " Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Abraham was not justified by the deeds of the law of Moses, but before the law ; not in circumcision, but in uncircum- cision, or before circumcision — he "believ- ed God and it was counted to him for right- eousness;" and Abraham is "the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk iu the steps of that faith of our father Abra- ham, which he had, being yet uncircum- cised." The faith of Abraham had " steps of faith," for us to walk in, and not faith 60 DEBATE ON alone, or faith without any steps for men to walk in. "Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had yet being uncircumcised ; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circum- cised; that righteousness might be impu- ted unto them also ; and the father of cir- cumcision to them who are not of the cir- cumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, w^iich he had yet being uncircumcised." Eomans iv. 11-12. Where shall we find these "steps of that faith?" We must ap- peal to another Apostle to describe these "steps of that faith," by which Abraham was justified, and the steps that we must walk in^ if that righteousness is imputed to us. I will go to the apostle James to find the steps of the fiiith of Abraham, and invite my worthy friend to come and walk with me in the steps of that faith, that the right- eousness of Abraham may be imputed to us. I commence James ii. 14: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works ? Can faith save him?" My opponent may say faith can save him, but the Apostle does not say so. Nor is he here speaking of the works of the law by which no man could be justified, but the works of faith — of Abraham — of the gospel — good works which God hath ordained that we should JUSTIFICATION. 61 walk in them. Let us hear him proceed: "If a brother or sister be naked, or desti- tute of daily food, and one of you say unto them. Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful for the body; what doth it profit?" My. oppo- nent's position makes him say, It justifies, for justification is by faith only, or faith without anything else. But wliat does the' Apostle say? He says, " Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." My opponent cannot say I am not in order, for he introduced the case of Abraham. Let us, then, continue to hear the Apostle. " Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou belicvest that there is one God — thou doestwell; the devils also believe, and tremble." I confess this is a severe comment upon my friend's doc- trine, but he must not blame me for it. The next expression is very severe. He says, "Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead ? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar." Here we find " the steps of that faith" of Abraham, and the time when he was justified by it — when he offered his Fon, he w^as justified by faith, but not by faith only, but justified by works also. *' Seest thou," says the holy Apostle, " how 62 DEBATE ON faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect." Hear him proceed: "And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteous- ness." Here, then, in tracing the steps of Abraham, we find him justified by faith, though not by faith only, but works wrought with his faith, and by his faith and obedience together he was justified, and he was called the friend of God. The Apostle says, '' Ye see, then, how that, by works, a man is justified, and not by faith only." He enforces it still further, as fol- lows : " Likewise also was not Eahab the harlot justified by works when she had re- ceived the messengers, and had sent them out another way ; for as the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." III. The third argument of my friend amounts to nothing, only to add one to the numerical number; and one, too, that refutes the proposition he has engaged to prove. Who denies that salvation is as- cribed to the death of Christ ? We knew this long ago ; but knew at the same time that there is no propriety in saying that justification is by the death of Christ and, at the same time, by faith alone. lY. His fourth argument, is nothing but an assumption, that he did not have cour- age to state, viz. : That faith alone brings the penitent into contact v/ith the blood of JUSTIFICATION. 63 Christ, and renders it efScacious to tlie removal of gnilt. He left the word only, or alone, out. How ridiculous the idea of faith rendering the blood of Christ effica- cious. Faith produces no change in the blood of Christ, but produces a change in man, preparing him for the cleansing of the blood of Christ. Y. His fifth argument has been answered with his third, being nothing but the same thing, repeated under a new number, or head. MR. MERRILL'S SECOND SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators and Respected Hearers : Before resuming the course of affirmative argument, by which I design further to de- monstrate the soundness of my proposition, I will call your attention to a few things in the speech which you last heard. The " brief piece of history," which my friend has given, indicates that he is not quite satisfied with his position here. He wanted to take part of the Article, but I did not see fit to allow that. If the doctrine contained in the Article is unsound, there can certainly be no unfairness in examin- ing it as a whole. He has the right to as- sail any part of it he may choose, but I stand pledged before you to maintain it all. As to the correspondence, I have only to say 64 DEBATE ON that all who read it carefully, will see that I never agreed to anylliirig other than to affirm the doctrine coutained in the Article. My friend never called in question the correctness of ray interpretation of the Ar- ticle, nor did he assail the doctrine I pre- sented as contained in the Article, but in a very bland way proceeded to assail a doc- trine which he told you I did not believe, and which the Discipline does not admit! Why did he not show the error of my in- terpretation ? He could not. Why, then, did he not assail the doctrine I presented? AYell, I suppose he thought he could make better speed in assailing a doctrine which nobody cares to defend. Who believes in faith without the blood of Christ as its ob- ject ? Who believes in justification by faith separate and apart from the blood of Jesus and the grace of God ? The Article teaches us no such thing; the church which adopts the Article has nothing to do with any such doctrine; no legitimate construction of her language can make her give the least coun- tenance to it. But my friend, by pursuing this course, proclaims his inability to meet the proposition fairly. I need not repeat ray interpretation of the Article. Mr. Franklin must make a better out than this, or his reputation as a debater will suffer. He read you some passages from the bap- tismal service, trj-ing to prove that our church makes ba^^tism a condition of par- don or justification. Ho appears in great JUSTIFICATION. 05< haste to debate our fourth proposition. That subject will be before us on Saturday next, and I apprehend he will get enough of it when the time comes. In regard to his use of the language read, I will only remark that, in his hands, to adopt his own very expressive language, ''it is perverted and most shamefully corrupted!" When the Discipline professes to quote the language of Christ, it quotes word for word, as he might have seen by turning one leaf. His misapprehension of the language read will be pointed out in proper time. I did express some " fear " that the gen- tleman had the different kinds of justifica- tion confused in his mind, and his remarks on the subject have satisfied me that my fear was well grounded. He objects to my making those distinctions, calling it " a fine little s^Deculation," and then immediately confesses that such distinctions ought to be made ! He says, " I am perfectly aware that men are justified in several different senses." But he wishes to know why I would confine the discussion to justification in one sense ; my answer is, because the Ar- ticle under discussion speaks of justification only in the one sense. Where does he get authority for applying the Article to any other subject than that contained in it ? Nor does he like the distinctions between the different causes of justification. A pro- per attention to those distinctions would take all the wind out of his sail. In this 5 6& DEBATE ON connection he said something about raising "fog," but it is not " fog" that he fears — it is the light that alarms him. Eut he must admit that there are different causes of jus- tification. Ho can not deny the fact, yet he charges me with raising " fog," because I point out these causes ! Why did he not take hold of the distinctions I made, and. show you what was wrong about them? Why did he not prove that the Article ig- nores or excludes the different causes of jus- tification ? He knew well that this was im- possible ; and it was much easier to talk about " fog." I maintain that we are jus- tified by grace only, by the blood of Jesus only, and by faith only; that grace is the only originating cause, that the blood is the only procuring cause, and that faith is the only receiving cause : has he made an at- tack on this doctrine? He has not. He asserts that faith is not a meritorious cause any more than repentance ; but who said it was ? He says " faith no ^xotq procures jus- tification than repentance or confession ;" but who said it does ? I never did. The blood of Jesus merited and procured justi- fication, and faith appropriates the merited blessing. But he puts faith, repentance, etc., upon an equality as respects the work of jus- tification. In this he differs from all the in- spired writers. JSTot one of them ever said we are justified by repentance, or by con- fession. Faith implies these, but they can not fill the ofiice of faith. They are never 1 JUSTIFICATION. &f\ imputed for righteousness. They are in- deed necessary to faith, or inseparable from the exercise of a genuine faith, but they do not stand in the same relation to justifica- tion with faith. As for a justification by faith without repentance, I know nothing about it ; but while faith is accompanied by repentance, it is the faith and not the re- pentance that justifies the soul. The gentleman made an attack upon my argument from the Scripture representation of depravity. But did he either admit or deny the correctness of my view of that sub- ject? He did not venture to do so. My argument was, that we are so deeply de- praved that the ground of justification can not be in us ; bow does he reply ? He tells you that faith is the act of the creature, and that if we can not be justified by works, be- cause of our depravity, we can not be by faith for the same reason. He probably did not observe that in this he was opposing St. Paul, who appeals to the universality of human depravity, in proof that we must bo justified by faith and not by works. Faith is the act of the creature, but it is also tho " fruit of the Spirit." It is not the product of nature, but of grace ; and it is not of the same character with "works," for it stands contrasted with works. True it works, and is called a work, but still it is a work pecu- liar in its character. Hence Paul speaks of " him that workcLh not, butbelieveth." My friend would have objected to this. He 68 DEBATE ON would have insisted that believing and "wording were one and the same thing. He never could have written as Paul did. The argument from depravity stands untouched. He also attempted to reply to my argu- ment founded on those Scriptures which ascribe salvation to the grace of Grod. But did he analyze that argument, and show its fallacy? Did he show how justification can be by grace and by works both ? l:sot at all ! He knew that this argument was made by St. Paul himself. In regard to this argument, he says : "If it proves that repentance or confession can not be means or conditions, through which the grace of God, and merit of Christ, give remission of sin, or justification, it proves, with precise- ly the same force, that faith can not be a means or condition." If he will just over- throw that position of the Apostle, and show that faith and works ought not to be contrasted, he may then reason thus. But he says " there is no merit in faith any more than there is in repentance." Who said there was? But did God therefore do wrong in appointing faith, instead of re- pentance, to be the receiving cause of justi- fication? Have I ascribed any merit to faith ? " It is of faith, that it might be by grace;" Bom. iv. IG. It could not be by grace through works, but it is of gracBj through faith. But my friend is going to " strand" me so that I can not recover ! Worse and JUSTIFICATION. '69 worse ! I have refuted myself without in- tending it, or even knowing it ! Well, I j)resume he would have been safe in adding, "without anyone else knowing it." But how does he make all this out? By show- ing over again that faith is a work ! Thus he will persist in confounding works and faith, although the Scriptures contrast them. He appears to think that because God appointed faith as the condition of jus- tification, faith being the work of the creature, therefore some other work of the creature must be as meritorious as faith, and just as much a condition of justifica- tion as faith ! But we must look at his distinction be- tween the works of the law, and the works of the gospel. There is a difference between the works of the law, and those of the gos- pel, but Mr. Franklin has failed to point out the difference. I think it probable that he will try this over again. What does he mean by the law of Moses? Does he refer to the ceremonial or the moral law ? When Paul, in his epistle to the Eomans, contends against justification by the deeds of the law, he refers to both. Does Mr. Franklin do the same ? But if there are any works which mortals can perform, that would be pleasing and acceptable to G-od, they are such as the moral law of God requires. The reason why men are not justified by tlie deeds of the law, is not found in the char- acter of the works of the law, but in the 70 DEBATE ON fact that human depravity is so great that no human actions can stand the test when tried by the law. As a rule of action, the moral law is the same under Jesus that it was under Moses. The moral law, as a rule of conduct, is not repealed. The gospel did not supercede it, nor affect our obligation to it. The best works we can perform, are the works of the law. We obey the gospel by making the law of God our standard of moral action. But never since the fall, have men been justified by works. Abraham was not, yet he lived before the law ; that is, before the law of Moses was given. Paul af&rms that he was justified by faith. His faith stood opposed to works ; not merely to the works of the ceremonial law, for that law was unknown ; but opposed to works as such. I^o man ever was justified by the law of Moses, strictly speaking ; that law pointed to Christ, and to the promise of blessing through him, but it could not justify the soul. Abraham was justified by faith before that law was given ; and his faith is contrasted, by the Apostle, with his works; therefore the works re- ferred to by St. Paul, are not merely works of the ceremonial law, but works as such — works good in themselves, but which even Abraham did not, and could not perform, so as to secure thereby the blessing of God. But Abraham's faith was not alone. This my friend dwells upon, as though it milita- ted against my position. But it does not. JUSTIFICATION. 71 Faith is dead when it is alone. It does not act ; hence it does not justify. I have noth- ing to do with a dead faith. But while faith is not alone, it is 07ily the faith that re- ceives the blessing of pardon. If my friend cannot understand this, I will endeavor to illustrate it and make it plainer. But I go with him to consult St. James. Mr. Frank- lin assumes that Paul and James speak of justification in the saine sense. If they do, they contradict each other. An infidel might take his position, and thus array one Apostle against another, but surely a Christian minister ought not. There is no contradiction between these men of God. One speaks of justification in the sense of pardon and the other in the sense of ap- probation; therefore one teaches justifica- tion by faith without works, and the other by works. Abraham was justified in both senses. He was justified by faith, wheii he believed Grod, and it was counted to him for righteousness ; this was before Isaac was born. He was then accounted right- eous. This was one justification, the one of which Paul speaks, but it was not his only justification. James tells us of another. He was justified by works, when he ofiered Isaac, his son, upon the altar. This was quite a number of years after the former justification ; but my friend will have Abraham justified but once, and that not for several years after he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteous- SZ DEBATE ON ncss. Thus he makes James contradict Paul, and takes it upon himself to contra- dict them both ! He is extremely unfortu- nate in his positions. Eut he had something to say about "the steps of Abraham's faith." What does this mean ? Abraham believed God, and was accepted as righteous, was justified; but his faith led to obedience. He did what God commanded. He thus proved his faith, and increased it. Then God commended his conduct, giving him particular evi- dences of his approbation. So with all who follow his example. Eut does this prove that Abraham was never justified until he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar? Not by any means. Then the argument of my friend fails. Abraham was a justified man before Isaac was born ; but he still trusted in God, obeyed him, and waited the fulfillment of the promise. His faith wrought obedience ; his obedience strengthened his faith in turn, and prepared him for greater trials. The great trial came, but he was ready. " Faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect." But was faith made perfect be- fore or after the first justification of Abra- ham ? Will Mr. Franklin answer this? But I need not pursue the subject further, until my friend renews his efi'ort to show that James and Paul, and our proposition, all speak of justification in the same sense. His allusions to my other arguments JUSTIFICATION. 73 were too slight to require any atteation. Until he gathers courage to make a strong- er attack upon them than he has yet done, I need pay no attention to what he has said. It is quite ea?,y to say an argument contains nothing but assumption, and if he is satis- fied with that sort of reply, of course I shall not complain. I hope, however, he will yet muster courage to look the other four arguments full in the face. In the mean time, I will present him another. YII. My seventh argument is, that faith removes condemnation from the heart. I base this iipon John iii. 18: "He that be- lieveth on him is not condemned ; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of Grod." The ar- gument here is short and direct. Condem- nation and justification are opposites. A man cannot be in both conditions at the same time. He that is not condemned is justified. But he that believeth not is con- demned ; therefore, he that believeth is justified. The moment a man becomes a believer, he is justified, or this psssage is not true. True, his faith will work and bring forth the fruits of obedience, but that the believer must remain in condemnation until faith performs this work, is a ground- less assumption, at war with this Scrip- ture, and contradictory to the whole tenor of revelation. I propose to my friend a plain question. Is there such a thing as a 74 DEBATE ON believer existing in a state of condemna- tion ? My position is that every believer is justified. But if so, the fruits of faith are not brought forth before foith itself is accounted for righteousness. Obedience fol- lows justification, as it follows faith. But no impenitent man is a believer; hence no impenitent man can be justified. IN^ow, my friends, lot me again remind you that we are here to discuss the doctrine contained in this Article; and with any dif- ferent doctrine we have nothing to do. I insist upon it that]\Ir. Franklin must either show that I interpret the article errone- ously, or he must take the doctrine as I present it. His replies to other doctrines, not found in the proi:)Osition, are all irrele- vant. His forced, arbitrary construction of the Article, is not my afiirmative. I have practiced no concealment — raised no " fog ;" but he has refused to show the error of my construction, or to answer the doctrine I have advanced. I leave you to decide as to the reason of his course. MR. FRAXKLIX'S SECOND REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : Before I proceed to reply to the speech which you have just heard, I shall attend to another item or two. The gentleman informs us that he is advocating faith only, and not faith alone. This is rather a nice JUSTIFICATION. 75 distinction ! He believes in, and advocates, justification by faith only, but does not be- lieve in justification by faith alone! This is rather too small a place for a man of moderate dimensions to escape through. Is there any man here who does not know that justification by faith only, is justifica- tion by faith alone ? Faith only, and faith alone, are simply two ways of expressing the same thing. His statement, in his first speech, that he believes in, and defends, justification by faith only, but not justifica- tion by faith alone, looks very much like a dodge to avoid the precise issue between tis to-day. If I understand his Discipline, and the arguments of his brethren upon it, he is here to prove justification is by faith alone, and his friends will be much disap- pointed to see him attempt to evade the issue, in the place of meeting it fairly, and defending it as they expected. The word only, he has informed you, is the word the trouble is about. I have no controversy with any other word in the part of the Ar- ticle which I proposed to assail. I object to that word, because it excludes everything else but faith. It has no other ofiice in the sentence, but to exclude everything else. Faith only, in the sentence in question, is faith singly, by itself or alone, and no cavil- ing can make anything else out of it. He cannot tell what the word only docs mean, if it does not mean alone. Let him give a definition of the word only that is not 76 DEBATE ON equivalent to alone^ and claim that gnch meaning is sanctioned by the Methodist ministry, and see if he does not place him- self in a predicament where he will feel un- pleasant. This attempt to escape the obvious mean- ing of this word, to a man who understands the matter, is about equivalent to giving np the controversy. When he tries to make you believe that justification, by faith only^ is not justification by faith alone, he virtu- ally admits that justification by faith alone, cannot be sustained, or is not a " most wholesome doctrine, and very full of com- fort," and that he is perfectly conscious of it. Yet justification by faith onli/, is justifi- cation by faith alojie, the precise thing he has this day appeared upon the stage to prove. From this there is no escape. We must keep his positions distinctly in view. In the place of coming up to the work, and meeting the issue fairly, he has evaded in the following particulars : 1. He managed to have the whole of the [Ninth Article in the place of the clause that we had specified and agreed upon, so as to give him a little more appearance of having a proposition with some part of it bearing some semblance to the truth. This effort evinced a want of confidence in the precise thing he was expected to meet fairly and prove. 2. The next attempt at evasion, was to Bpeak of justification in different senses^ and JUSTIFICATION. 77 inform you that I would have the subject confused. But it matters not how many senses we are justified in. He is as much bound to show that justification in one sense is by faith only, as justification in any other sense. The subject we are to discuss, is simply whether justification is by faith only, no matter what sense it is, in which we are justified. I could not permit him to escape here, by narrowing the proposition down to justification in one sense only, but he must stand up to justification in every sense in which we are justified before God, and maintain that it is by faith only. 3. The third attempt at evasion, was to make a distinction between justification by faith only and faith alone. But here is a manifest failure, for there is nothing clearer than that faith only is faith alone. Nothing is more unfavorable to a man's argument than to see a flinching from the real issue. Why did he not state the ques- tion in the precise language, or substanti- ally the same as found in the part of the Article assailed by me ? It is clear that he did not like to meet the precise point that I had assailed, and attempt to make it good. Why did he go into metaphysical speculations about justification in different senses, when he is as much bound to show that justification, in one sense, is by faith only, as justification in any other sense is by faith only ? Wby did he undertake to make a distinction between faith only and 78 DEBATE ON faith alone, only from his consciousness that his position, that justification by faith only, or faith alone, could not be maintain- ed. Probably he was not aware of it, but such does appear to be the fact. If the worthy gentleman please, we will look at the commission the Lord gave the Apostles, and see if he intended them to preach justification by faith only. Let us hear our Lord : " Gro into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." In this short extract of the com- mission, we find two things to be done. One was to believe ; the other was to be baptized. They were to do both of these things with one object in view, or in order to one object. That object was, that they might be saved, pardoned or justified. The gentleman cannot make the word saved here, mean saved in heaven, or with the everlasting salvation, for this would make the Lord promise that he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved in heaven. This the Lord does not promise ; for salva- tion in heaven, or ultimate salvation, does not simply depend upon faith and baptism, but also upon faithful perseverance till death. Eut his promise is, that he that be- lieveth, and is baptized, shall be pardoned or justified. This, too, is the precise sense in whicli he admits he is to prove that "we are justified by faith only." Baptism has precisely the same object or design, here, a» JUSTIFICATION. 79 faith. The object or design of faith is sal- vation or justification. Baptism not only has the same object or design that faith has, but it is stated in precisely the same words. As the object of faith and baptism is stated in precisely the same words here, it most unequivocally is the same thing. My friend admits that the object of faith is justification. The precise same words ex- jircss the object of baptism in the identical &ame place. The object of baptism, then, is justification. The Lord would not have expressed the design of faith and baptism in the same sentence, and in the exact same words, if the two things to be done had not been in order to the same end. The Apos- tles were not to tell men to believe alone for justification, but to hclieve and he baptized^ in order to salvation or justification. This argument he will never answer. The Lord has here put faith and baptism both to- gether for the same purpose, and man may not put them asunder. When the Lord said, " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," he makes re- pentance in order to justification, just as much as faith. Acts ii. 38, he puts both re- pentance and baptism into his requirements in order to justification, in the following words : "Eepent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; for the promise is unto you and to 3'our children, and to all 80" DEBATE ON them that are afar off." Paul defines the promise to Abraham to be to justify the heathen, or the Gentile, through faith. The promise included Jesus, the establish- ment of Christianity, the opening of the way for man to come to God, and his justi- fication by faith. When Peter preached on Pentecost, the time for the fulfilment of the j)romise had come, and the Lord was ready to commence justifying sinners through faith. The first sermon was preached. Three thousand persons heard the word, believed it, were pierced in the heart, and, in the place of being justified by faith only, as my friend has it, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" What do they mean by this? What shall we do for what ? The sum of the inquiry is, What shall we do for justification ? Here were the inspired Aj^ostles, the day the Spirit of all wisdom and inspiration came from heaven to guide them into all truth, called and sent to show man the way of justification. They tell them what to do, that they may be justified. They do not tell them to believe, for the word had al- ready pierced them in the heart, when they heard and believed it; and if justification had been by faith only, they would have been justified alread}^. But their faith did not justify them. It simply made them feel their need of justification. It simply induced them to cry out, "Men and breth- ren, what shall we do?" jSTor did the holy JITSTIFICATION. 81 Apostle inform them that they were justi- fied by faith only, but commanded them to repent and be" baptized for the remission of sins, or justification. Here are two things to be done, besides believing, for pardon, or in order to justification. Ooe is to repent, and the other is to be baptized. Both are to be done for the same purpose. The de- sign of both is expressed in the same words. That design is remission of sins, or justifi- cation. In the place, then, of preaching to them justification by /aiV7^ only^ after they believed, he commanded them to repent and be baptized, in order to justification. The inquirers did what they were com- manded to do, and were justified according to the promise to Abraham, according to the will of God, by faith, but not by faith onJy^ but believing with all their hearts, solemnly repenting of their sins, and being bajDtized into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Sj)irit. ]N'o inge- nuity, no argument nor learning can ever harmonize this case — this plain case of jus- tification— with the creed of my friend. The thing is impossible. " YI. I shall now proceed to his sixth ar- gument, which I did not reach in my first speech before my time expired, based " on the simple fact, that we are said to be justi- fied b}^ faith." This lacks one word to make it contain his doctrine. That is the precise Avord in dispute — the word only. Every passage, and the record of every case 6 82 DEBATE ON of conversion, or justification, recorded in the Bible, lacks that one word. That Avord being inserted, makes it teach a false doc- trine, a doctrine not in the Eible anyplace, and that cannot be sustained by the Bible. To try to make some show of argument my friend says, " It is said, we are justified by grace, and grace being the only originating cause, we may say, with reference to that feature of the work, it is by grace only." But what propriety or reason would there be in thus saying, when it is as obvious as anything can be, that the blessed God is the only originating cause? Such subtle- ties are useful to mystify, but not to make clear and intelligible. They only darken counsel. Hence the clear diction of the New Testament contains not the expres- sions, "justification b}^ grace only," "by works only," or " by faith only," though it has justification by grace, by works and by faith. The same is true in reference to jus- tification by the blood of Christ. 'No matter if it is the procuring cause, the holy writers had a satisfactory reason for never saying, AYe are justified by his blood onli/, and that reason should be sufficient for us. "While they did say, we are justified by faith, they never said we are justified by faith only; but, on the other hand, declared that justification is " not h^ faith only.^' The clear and obvious solution of those pas- sages, ascribing salvation to different things, is simply, that it is common for JUSTIFICATION. 83 writers and speakers, wlicn treatiug upon a point, to ascribe a work to that, knowing the hearers or readers will understand that other instrumentalities are to have their ap- propriate places. Hence, if the speaker is eiDeaking of the blood of Christ, he speaks of our being saved by his blood, with the understanding that it is by grace, through faith, repentance, confession, etc., and, therefore, it would not do to say, salvation by the blood of Christ only, for this ex- cludes everything else. The expression, '^ justified by faith," is New Testament and proper. I have use for that expression ; but the word only added, is an interpola- tion— a corruption — excluding other things that God has included. It is not true, that faith is the only receiving cause. This is the language of Ashdod. It is unknown to the sacred canon. You find no such thing there as "faith being the only receiving cause — the only condition — and, conse- quently, there is no reason for saying we are saved or justified by faith only. It can be said, and truly said, that we are "justi- fied by faith," but it cannot be truly said that we are justified by faith only. Justification by faith, does not exclude justification by grace, by the blood of Christ, by repentance, by confessing Christ, etc., but justification by faith only, does ex- clude all these — everything else. There is no use for this word only^ or the Apostles would have inserted it. The work of my 84 DEBATE ON opponent, on this point, is to create a ne- cessity for the insertion of one word omit- ted by the Apostles. His church, or the Church of England, before his church, have supplied what they appeared to think, and what Mr. Merrill seems to think, a defect in the apostolic teaching, viz., where the Apostles speak of justification by faith, they have added the word only. My opponent's mission, on this occasion, is to vindicate this addition to, and corruption of, the word of God. This is an important point, and we desire him to make it very plain. Did the Apostles teach the Avhole truth, without adding this word only? If they did, what is the use of this word ? Where is the need of foisting it into the system ? The gen- tleman desired my special attention here, and I wish to accommodate him. Will he, then, show us right clearly what is gained by adding to the word of God, after the words "justified by faith," the interpola- tion only? Does it add anj^thing to the meaning of the word of God? If it does not, it is useless, and the labor of the gen- tleman is for nothing. If it does add any- thing to the meaning, it is sinful and he is sinning m maintaining it. But I am anxious to satisfy the worthy gentleman on this point. He is as ex- clusive in his language, as if the word alone had been inserted, though he tried to make a distinction between faith only and faith alone. He says: "Faith does not merely JUSTIFICATION. St contribute to the justification of the sinner, it does the work — it justifies." We are aware that God justifies the believer who comes to him in his appointments, but that faith does the work — tliat it justifies--in any sense only as a means through which Grod justifies, is wholly out of the question. In the expression, " The like figure whcreun- to even baptism doth also now save us," we find the words, '■'• Baptism doth also now save -ws." Save^ here, is used in the sense of pardon, or justify. Is the language to be forced into such a construction — such a mere literalism — as to make it say baptism does the tvorJc ? it justifies f The same license he has taken in the case of faith, would do this; but no man, who gives language a fair and consistent construction, does this. It is Grod that saves the proper subject, or justifies him in baptism — his own appoint- ment. It is God that justifies, that does the work ; not baptism, the act of the creature ; but he justifies — does the work for the creature, when he comes to the appoint- ments of God, with a true heart and in a proper manner. Strictly and literally, it is not faith, repentance, confession, calling on the Lord, or any act of the creature, *' that justifies — that does the work ;" it is literally God that justifies — that does the %oork — and no act of the creature. When justification is ascribed to faith, calling on the name of the Lord, confession or bap- tism, it is simply ascribing the -svork of jus- m DEBATE O^ tificatioTi to them, because they are the ap- pointed means through which he has prom- ised to justify. Literally, the act of the creature does no part of justifying the sin- ner, but his believing, repenting, confess- ing and baptism are appointments of God, preparing him for justification or pardon, and through which he comes to the prom- ise that God will justify him or forgive his sins. The work of justification, in the pre- cise sense admitted by my friend to be in- volved in our discussion, is forgiveness of feins. To say, literally, that faith forgives sins — that it does the work, is simply to say that the act of a depraved creature — the act of believing alone forgives sins — it does the work. This is simply ridiculous. Faith prepares the heart and repentance prepares the life for justification, or remis- sion, and baptism is the divine apj)ointment where the Lord has promised to pardon or justify the man whose heart is prepared by faith and whose life is prepared by re- pentance. The gentleman thinks I make Paul and James contradict each other, but in this he is simply mistaken. Paul speaks of Abra- ham being justified by faith, but did not add my friend's interpolation — onli/. James speaks of Abraham being justified by works, but does not add the interpolation onl?/. But James shows my friend how works wrought with his faith, and how both Paul and James could be correct. He was justi- JUSTIFICATION. 87 fied by faith, but not by faith only ; and by works, but not by works only ; but by his faith and works together. He could not have been justified by his faith without the works, nor by his works without the faith. Both Paul and James are speaking of the same justification, and neither of them adds the word only. That word, in that place, is spurious. The allusion to moral and ceremonial is directly in the line of mystification. There is nothing in it to throw any light on the subject. We are not justified by the law of Moses, neither its faith nor its deeds, or obedence, but we are justified by the gospel — through its faith and obedience. YII. The gentleman's seventh argument is, " that faith removes condemnation from tlie heart." Eemoving condemnation from the heart, is justification or pardon, and this argument, though numbered seventh^ is nothing but an unsupported assumption, or begging of the question, in taking the precise thing to be proved for granted. That a man who does not believe is con- demned, no man here, I presume, doubts ; but it is equally true, that the man who believes and does not confess Christ, as the Scriptures inform us some Jews did, is con- demned, or he that believes and does not repent, is condemned, which could not be the case, if faith only would justify the sinner. Unbelief will condemn a man, but not any more than impenitance or any oth- ^ DEBATE ON , er ^act of disobedience. This argument, then, turns out to he no argument at all, but simply asserting his doctrine to be true in different words. MR. MERRILL'S THIRD SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, and the Audience : A few things in the gentleman's last speech, demand attention. I am sorry to find him evincing a complaining spirit. He charges me with having attempted evasion, in some three particulars. The first point is, that I so managed as to have the whole of the Ninth Article before us for discus- sion ! In his former speech, he said I ac- cepted his pro^DOsition to debate this ques- tion, but the tnUh is, I regarded this as outside matter, until we agreed upon the questions concerning baptism ; then I pro- posed to affirm the doctrine contained in the Ninth Article, and Mr. Franklin accepted my proposition. Nothing else was ever agreed upon. This is my statement of the matter, and for its correctness, I appeal to the corresj^ondence. If he could have gar- bled the Article, and had the pleasure of beating down a man of straw, he would perhaps have been better satisfied. He is evidently displeased with the correspond- ence, and I predict that he will be no bet- ter satisfied with his performance in the discussion. But I have been guilty of a JUSTIFICATION. %9^ terrible evasion, in undertaking to main- tain the whole of the Article, instead of a part of it ! My friend is easily alarmed. He says my next attempt at " evasion " was in speaking of justification in different senses ! But did he not admit that we are justified in several different senses? He surely did. Does he now wish to take back that admission ? If so, let him take hold of my position, and show that the dis- tinctions I made are wrong. If he can find justification in the proposition, in more than one sense, he can then object with some face to my " narrowing the proposi- tion down to justification in one sense only." I am here to discuss the doctrine contained in the Article, nor will I be turned aside from it by any ill-humored cavils about " evasion." But Mr. F. insists that I have "evaded" something by distinguish- ing between faith onli/ and faith alone. He sees clearly that my interpretation of the Article, presents a doctrine so clearly scrip- tural that he cannot gainsay it, and unless he quibbles a little about my interpreta- tion, he cannot so much as keep up the appearance of opposition. He says faitli onlt/ is faith alone. That depends on cir- cumstances. When we say a certain thing is done by faith only, we express no opin- ion as to whether faith is alone in the ab- stract, but simply convey the idea that whatever else may be connected with faith, it is not the associates of faith that does ^ DEBATE ON the work, but only the fiiith. 1 say, again, it is not the abstract meaning of the word " only," but the use and application here made of it that I am seeking after. The two words, though they may sometimes be Used interchangably, have different uses. Will my friend deny this ? He can not. I am not trying to foist into the proposi- tion a word that does not belong there. I simply insist on a correct construction of the language ; but Mr. Franklin is con- tending against a doctrine which is not in the proposition, which I do not hold, and which he knows is believed by no man on the earth ! This he calls debating ! This, I suppose, he calls meeting the issue fairly ! "Probably he was not awai*e of it," but Mr. F. has virtually given up the contro- versy. He says: "I have no controversy with any other word in the part of the article which I proposed to assail. I object to that word, because it excludes every thing else but faith. IS'ow if it should turn out that the word does not exclude the grace of God and the blood of Jesus, the reason and the only reason why he objects to it will disappear. But it does not ex- clude the grace of God nor the blood of Jesus. If it did I would no more defend it than I would take poison. Eut no fair criticism can make it exclude these. The Article itself, in so many words, ascribes all the merit of justification to our Lord Jesus Christ. The question is not wheth- JTrS-riFICATION. If er the word, wJien tal-en out of its connection, is capable of the construction Mr. F. is trying to force upon it, but whether, when taken in its connection, it will admit the in- terpretation for which I contend. Why will the gentleman persist in refusing to examine the use and application of the word in its connection ? Why does he not assail the doctrine which I affirm ? " Noth- ing is more unfavorable to a man's argu- ment than a flinching from the real issue." He is opposing the doctrine of justification by faith without grace, without the blood of Jesus, and without every thing else ; but he knows that that is not the doctrine contained in the proposition — he knows that no person ever did, or ever will affirm such an idea ! That the worthy gentleman may have no excuse for his course, I rej^eat that the Avord " only " does not exclude the grace of G-od, which is the only originating cause of justification ; that it does not exclude the blood of Christ, which is the only mer- itorious cause ; but it does exclude the merit of works, showing that faith is the only receiving cause. Will the Article bear this interpretation ? Then my friend must meet the issue as here presented, or he must fail. The gentleman has seen fit to occupy a part of his time, again, in dis- cussing the fourth proposition, but I will give his remarks a passing notice. He quotes the '' commission," and infers from 9$ DEBATE ON it that baptism sustains the same relation to justification that faith does ; but his ar- gument is defective in that it assumes, with- out proof, that the word saved means justi- fication. He denied that tlie word saved^ in the commission, refers to the future state. But it stands opposed to the word damned^ in the same passage, and in contending against Universalism, the gentleman inva- riably applies the latter term to the future state. The salvation does relate to the fu- ture state, notwithstanding my friend's de- nial ; and inasmuch as baptism is a cove- nant rite, and implies certain covenant en- gagements, the passage clearly implies the fulfillment of those covenant engagements on the part of those to whom the future salvation is promised. Hence, " He that believeth and is baptized shall he saved f^ but he that believeth is not condemned. The one looks to the future and says shall he; the other relates to present experience, and employs the present tense. Strangely enough, my learned opponent finds a condition of justification in the Sa- vior's words, " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Why is it never said that we are justified by repentance? Can Mr. Franklin tell? In his remarks on Acts ii. 38, my friend was exceedingly unfortu- nate. Heassumed that repentance iswholly separate or distinct from faith, so as to be distinct condition ; but the only faith that will justify the soul, arises from a penitent JUSTIFICATION. ^§ heart. There can be no true faith without repentance. He assumed that the persons addressed, had the faith required. This is a grand mistake. He assumed that the word •'for" (eis) has the meaning, in that place, of m order to. This is gratuitous. He also confounded the means of justification, with the condition. Eepentance and baptism, were well calculated to promote faith, to lead those inquiring souls to trust in Christ alone for salvation, and hence the Apostle urged them to repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins. This could all be, and yet neither the repentance nor the bap- tism fill the office of faith. "Faith only," neither excludes the antecedent prepara- tion of heart, nor its own fruits; but while faith implies repentance and obedience, neither repentance nor obedience can jus- tify— neither the one nor the other is im- puted to us for righteousness. If repent- ance and baptism sustain the same relation to justification that faith does, will the gen- tleman tell us why it is that justification is invariably ascribed to faith, but is never ascribed either to repentance or baptism? He can not. Repentance has its place and office in the great process of salvation, but it does not justify ; so with baptism, but it is never said to justify: that office is only filled by faith-- genuine, living faith— not the mere assent of the mind, but the faith of the heart. The gentleman has a very easy method ^ I):^^4T]B ON of disposing of points which he cannot meet. He very blandly pronounces them " metaphysical," " assumptions," " mystifi- cations," etc. ]N"ow this is all appreciated. Every intelligent hearer will place the right estimate upon it. It is an attempt to throw dust to cover his retreat. He pretends to answer my sixth argu- ment. But how does he do it ? He quotes part of a sentence, and then insists that it is not the precise language of Scripture ! then makes a nice distinction by showing that, whereas I said the grace of God was the only originating cause, he has discovered " that the blessed Grod is the only origina- ting cause?" Why does he indulge in such " metaphysics ?" Simply because he feels conscious that when I show plainly that, as it respects one feature of the work, it is only of grace, and as it res^^ects another feature of the work, it is only by the blood of Jesus, and as it respects the third feature of the work, the Bible never ascribes it to repentance, to confession or to baptism, but to faith, and only to faith, he cannot dispute it. When I show that this is the meaning of the Article, he feels deeply conscious that he must pervert it, and make it appear to mean something else, or be compelled to cease his oj)position to it. He tells us that, when the sacred writers ascribe justifica- tion to faith, it is implied that other instru- mentalities are to have their apj)ropriate places. Just so say I. But it is not the JUSTIFICATION. §» place of repentance to justify ; it is not fop Baptism to justif}^; but faith does justify. I insist upon it that repentance, confession and baptism shall have their appropriate places ; but my friend is anxious to take them out of their appropriate places, and put them where the Bible puts faith, and never puts anything else. By the way, has he attempted to show what else beside faith is imputed to us for righteousness? He has not, and never will. He quotes the language, " The like figure whereunto even baj^tism doth also now save us ;" but does he not see, from the structure of the passage, that baptism is the "figure" or emblem of the salvation which is by the " resurrection of Jesus Christ?" Does he not know that Saul of Tarsus, Cornelius and those who were with him when Peter first preached to the Gen- tiles, were all justified before they were commanded to be baptized ? Surely he cannot have overlooked all this. 1 invite the attention of the gentleman to this fact. ]S"o man ever received the Holy Ghost, ac- cording to the I^ew Testament promise, while in a state of condemation. But the persons above-mentioned received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized, and were commanded to be baptized because they had received the Spirit. How will he re- concile this fact with his fourth proposition, which he is now debating? Can he insist, in the face of it, that baptism is a condition ^ DEBATE ON of justification ? Let him attempt to dodge this hy pretending to find a dift'erence be- tween the miracle-working power of the Spirit, and its sanctifying and comforting presence, and I promise you that he shall Utterly fail. He very prudently passes my seventh ar- gument, by calling it assumption, begging the question, asserting the point in dispute in other words, etc. ; but is it possible that he forgets that my " assertion" was based directly upon a plain " Thus saith the Lord," which he has not reconciled with his notions, and never can? YIII. My eighth argument is, that every true believer is in possession of eternal life. *' He that believeth on the Son hath ever- lasting life;" John iii. 36. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life;" John v. 24. What is it to have eternal life? My friend will tell you it is to have it in promise or prospect. It means this, and more' than this. AYe do not on earth possess it in the highest sense— no one pretends this ; but we do possess it in an important, positive sense. Life follows birth, and when we are born again, we ob- tain a new life. This life is a positive prin- ciple. We have it in possession. The soul is quickened and raised up from a death in sin to a life of holiness. " But is passed JUSTinCATION. 97 from death unto life." Mark this expres- Bt6tti,'' It points to a present experience — a p'o^itive resuscitating influence upon the soul. The Scriptures never speak of spir- itual life, as though the life enjoyed by faith were different from that promised hereafter. They always call it eternal life. To cut off all ground for caviling, I refer to I. John V. 11-12 : "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life." Christ dwells in the heart by faith ; there is, therefore, no such thing as a genuine believer living for a sin- gle hour, after becoming a believer, under condemnation, or in a state of spiritual death. Mr. F. claims that they do remain in death and condemnation until they are immersed. His theory thus flatly contra- dicts the Bible. According to his theology, CMirist does not dwell in the heart by faith, but b}' baptism. But my friend can never make it appear that "hath" means "will have," or "may have," or "expects to have;" he can never show that a believer remains in death for a single moment after believing. He may call this argument nothing but assumption, mystification-, or begging the question ; but he will never meet the issue it presents. I will conclude this speech by calling your attention, once more, to Paul arid James. My friend deifies making them 98 DEBATE ON contradict each other. Paul teaches thai Abraham was justified when he believed God and his faith was counted for right- eousness. James says Abraham was justi- fied by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar. Mr. Franklin says he was not justified until the time mentioned by James. If he was not, Jie was not justified at the time his faith was counted for 'righteous- ness, which was before Isaac was born. But Abraham was a pious, upright, justified man, long before he offered Isaac upon the altar. There is no possible way to under- stand this subject, without admitting two distinct justifications — one by faith before Isaac was born, and the other by works when Isaac was offered upon the altar, This will reconcile the apparent discrep- ancy between St. Paul and St. James, and at the same time show that James does not contradict the proposition before us. James speaks of the justification of a righteous man, who had long enjoyed the favor of God, by a special manifestation of divine approval ; but Paul and the Discipline speak of the act of God's grace by which a guilty sinner is pardoned and accepted through the merit of Christ. But the gentleman distinguishes between law works and gosj^el works. His distinc- tion is gratuitous. What does he mean by gospel works ? If he mean any thing per- tinent to the subject in hand, he must refer to the works which he insists upon as con- J JUSTIFICATION. 99 ditions of justification. These are repent- ance, confession and baptism. But does James speak of these ? He docs not! I dis- pute.Mr. Franklin's position here, and call iipoa ,him for the jDroof. Let him define his gospel works, and show where James mentions them as conditions of the justifi- cation of the dinner, and he will then do something worthy his position. Until he 4oes this, his repetitions are vain. . .%. put to the worthy gentleman a plain question or two, which I hope he will an- swer. Was Abraham justified and accepted as righteous, before Isaac was born ? Was any thing but faith accounted to him for righteousness ? Are we not justified just as Abraham was ? I admit that Christians must be justified by works, as James teaches, but we are debating about tiie jus- tification of sinners ; and this, I maintain, with Paul, was by faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Mr. F. will not answer whether Paul speaks of the moral or ceremonial law this: is all "mys- tification !" But he can make distinctions where there is no difference, without any fear of mystifying. MR. FRANKLIN'S THIRD REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I think if you would allow me the same liberty with Paine's Age of Reason, taken by Mr. M. with the Article in dispute, I 100 DEBATE ON could make a Christian of him, and recon- cile his infidel book with the Bible. The liberty I allude to, is simply to explain that the Article does not mean what it says — - that, though it contains the words "justifi- cation by i'nith. orili/,'' it does not mean jus- tification by faith alone, faith by itself, by faith singly, or without anything else. Just allow me the privilege of maintaining that Paine did not mean what he said, when he pronounced religion an imposition, and Je- sus an impostor, but that he meant that re- ligion is divine, and Jesus the Son of God, and it places him in a very different atti- tude. But no man can show that he meant any thing else than what he said, nor can any man show that the Discipline means any thing else only precisely what it says — that "justification by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." What does the word only mean in the Discipline, or in the estimation of the General Conference. It occurs to me that I can find this same word, " only," in another place in the Discij?line, and it may be of interest to this audience to know how Mr. M., and his brethren in the ministry, interpret it. Mr. Merrill denies that onl^ means alone, or that justification by faith only means justification by faith alone, or by faith without any thing else. Det toe refer him, and his brethren in the ministry, to another passage in the Discipline, where the word only is found, and frequently ut- JUSTIFICATION. 101 tered by the preachers, and see if it does not mean alone, or without any thing else. If Mr. M. was married according to the Discipline, when he had his lady by the hand, the preacher who married him made him promise that, forsaking all others, he would " keep o?i/y unto her;" Dis. p. 151. "What does the word only mean here ? Does it not exclude every other person? But now, to come at the matter at once, I make a reasonable request of Mr. Merrill. He says the word onli/, in the proposition, does not mean alone. Then I ask him what that word does mean. I ask him not what the Article means ; but, as he has ad- mitted that the word 071I1/ is the word the controversy is about, I ask him to define what that word means in the Article. What office does it perform in the sen- tence? If he says it does not exclude any thing else besides faith, then tell us pre- cisely what it means, or what its office is ; and let him say, too, at the same time, whether he has not given up the contro- versy. If he does not understand the word only to exclude icorks, why does he start out with an argument against justification by works ? Has he not shown clearly that he understands the word only to exclude works? Certainly he has, and the precise interpretation that he gives that word, to make it exclude works, makes it exclude every thing else. From this there is no es- cape. The very circumstance, then, that l©2f DEBARS rm he has attempted to evade the clear and ob- vious meaning of the main term in our proposition, to use his style, proclaims his consciousness that his Article cannot be sustained. I expected to disprove his doctrine, but I did not expect him thus virtually to shrink from it, and show that he knew that he could not defend it ! I have not seen a man so utterly confused and con- founded as he was in the speech just deliv- ered, for a long time. What reply did he make to my refutation of his miserable farce of faith doing the work — faith justify- ing? He says faith does the work — il jus- tifies I Faith is the act of the creature— the act of a depraved creature — it (the act of a depraved creature^ does the work — itjnsti- Jles! What disposition has he made of this absurd position ? IsTone in the world ; nor can he or any other man. Here he is in the absurdity of saying that faith, the act of the creature — the act of a depraved creature, and that act on?^— does the work — it justifies or pardons ! What answer has he made to this? None in the world. How does he reconcile this with his argument drawn from depravity ? His argument is, that man is depraved and, therefore, can do nothing meritorious, or that can merit justification; but this depraved creature can believe. Believing is an act of the creature, of a depraved creature — a work performed by the creature, that justifies, pardons or does the work — this act of the JUSTIFICATION. 103 depraved creature only justifies — does the work ! ! The -worthy gentleman asks if I wish to take back ttlj admission, that men are jus- tified in different senses. No, sir, I do not wish to take it back, nor any thing else that I have said, but I wish to know by what rule of logic, or what kind of reasoning, when we are discussing the grand subject of justification, as asserted in the Article in dispute, he should be permitted to escape the whole question of justification except in one sense only ? The Discipline does not say that we are justified in one sense by faith only^ or that the justification of the sinner is by faith only^ but " Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of com- fort." Who is it speaking of? " V\^e," who are justified by faith only? We Methodists, of course. It does not say that we have been, or were, justified, but that loe are jus- tified by faith only. I complain not of him for saying that men are justified in differ-' ent senses, for this is new to no one here ; but I blame him for trying to evade the discussion of justification except in one sense, when he has no reason for it. He has not given the first reason for asserting that the Article is speaking of justification in one sense, and no more, and then as- suming that the one sens^ is tlie justifica- tion or pardon of the sinner. But I have dealt with men in his position too frequent- 104 DEBATE ON ly not to iinderstand their complaint, and the treatment necessary. I am succeeding well with him, and hope I shall convert him. I shall, therefore, proceed to examine his case, and see how far he has progressed towards conversion. He has divided justifi- cation into four classes. 1st, "Infantile justification." He says, we have no con- troversy respecting this. He grants that " infantile justification " is not by faith only. This is one fourth converted. 2nd, "It is the justification of the sinner in the sense of pardon." This he considers the point in dispute. 3rd, "The justification of the righteous by obedience, in the sense of approval." This justification is by obe- dience, or by works, he admits, and, there- fore, yields the point that justification in this sense is not by faith only. This you may count another fourth converted. 4th, The transactions in the judgment. This justification, in the last judgment, he ad- mits is not by faith only. This I claim as another fourth, or making him three fourths converted; or, in other words, justi- fication in three senses, out of the only four senses in which it is used in the J^Tew Testa- ment, he admits is not by faith only. This far he is now right, if we can only keep him so. ISTow, I wish it distinctly understood, that I do not believe the Discipline only means justification in one sense, or in the sense of pardon only. But, as Mr. M. JUSTIFICATION. 105 shrinks, yields the point and admits that infant justification, the justification of the rigiitcous and the justification in the last judgment, or justification in these three senses is not hy faith only^ we must excuse him from any further debate on these points. To state the matter more clearly, he does not believe that infants are justified by faith only^ or, which he thinks the same, only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ ! He does not believe that the righteous are justified by faith only, or, which he thinks the same, only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, but by works. He does not think that the justifi- cation in the judgment will be by faith only^ or, which he thinks the same, only for the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But he does believe that the sin- ner is justified by faith only. Where does he go to find his first example of the justi- fication of a sinner ? He goes to Abraham, a righteous man, to whom God made the promise containing a blessing for all na- tions of the earth, and who believed that promise that G-od made to him and it was counted to him for righteousness. This is his case of the justification of a sinner. Who was this sinner? Abraham^ who had been a righteous man many long years before this, and who had long before this obeyed the voice of the Lord. He only, needs a few assumptions here to make out the case. 1st, That you believe him, that 106 DEBATE OW Abrahatn was a sinner. 2nd, That he was pardoned, or justified from his sins, and not in the other sense of approval, which he admits not to be by faith only. 3rd, That Abraham was justified tioice — once when ho believed, and once when he oifered Isaac. 4th, That the Article in dispute, means the former justification and not the latter. 5th, That it was not by faith, but by faith only, he was justified. But the truth in the case is, that Abraham was a righteous man, and not a sinner, when God made the prom- ise to him, and there is but the one justifi- cation, through faith in the promise, and his works, which wrought with his faith when he offered Isaac. The only argu- ment I need in the premise, completely to take this case out of his hands, is that he admits that the righteous are justified by works, as James says, and not by faith only ; and that Abraham was a righteous man when the Lord made the promise to him, and his justification was not the justi- fication of a sinner, or it was not pardon. liet the worthy gentleman keep cool and meet this difficulty. YIII. The gentleman's eighth argument is, that every believer is in possession of eternal life. I have heard IJniversalists maintain that men have eternal life in j^os session now, and I have heard them make the same criticism on the words " hath eternal life," and " is passed from death nnto life ;" but it never passed, with me, JUSTIFICATION. 107^ for more than a second or third rate soph- istry. What does such miserable sophistry amount to, when we hear the Lord say that he will say to the riorhteous, in the day of judgment, these shall go away "into life eternal !" Vill Mr. M. then say, " Master, we had eternal life in j^^^^f^^^'^^^ when we believed ; and how is it that you now promise us to go into that which we already have ?" He felt conscious that this was a sophistry when he offered it, and informed you that I will tell you that " they have the promise in prospect." But in this he is mistaken. I do not tell you that you have the promise in prospect. You have the pro7?iisentanc6 and baptism. We read, pray, sing, com- mune, repent, receive baptism, hear the word, talk with friends — all '^for the re- JUSTinCATlON. 129 mission of sins;" but not one of these acts can receive and appropriate the blessing — all of them together cannot fill the oifice of faith. But Mr. F. can see no difference between the means of grace and the condi- tion of justification; hence his confusion. But he reiterated his charge that the Discipline corrupts the words of Jesus in saying, " None can enter," etc., instead of saying, *' Except ii man be' born again," etc. Now I know the Discipline does not pretend to quote the passage, but it does not corrupt it. The word Tnan^ which he em^ phasized, is not in the passage^ and I chal- lenge him to show that it is. He wants to get into the Greek, and I challenge him to take the Greek Testament and show the word onan in the place ! It reads, ecui me tis gennethe, etc.; but anthropas is not there. Nor does entering the kingdom mean justification. But my time is ex- pired. MR. FRANKLIN'S FOURTH REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I desire you to keep in mind the precise issue between us. Mr. M. does not contend that infantile justification is by faith only. Justification in this sense he excepts as not coming in the scope of our controversy. Justification in the sense of approval, on the part of the righteous, he not only ex- 9 130 DEBATE ON cepts as not coming in the range of our ar- gument, but he admits it to be by obedi- ence or by works. Justification, also, in the day of judgment, he maintains, does not come within the purview of our debate. Justification in this sense, also, he knows, is not by faith only. So far as justification in these three senses is concerned, he has de- clined any debate, though he could, with just as much propriety, have taken justi- fication in any one of these three senses, as the meaning of the Article in dispute, as the one he has fixed upon. He has given no reason, and can give no reason, why he should select justification in one sense only^ and claim that it is by faith only, when the Article is treating of the general subject of justification, in which "we are justified before God." There can be no question, in an unsophisticated mind, but that in every sense, and in every case, I can find in the New Testament, where it is said, in so many words, or substantially in any form, " we are justified before God," it comes legitimately in the scope of our de- bate. Eut then it would be cruel to compel 3Ir. M. to defend what he does not believe. Seeing, then, that he does not believe that infantile justification is by faith only, we are not to exj)ect him to defend that. Since, too, he has granted that the justification of the righteous, in the sense of approval, is not by faith only, but by obedience — by works we — must excuse him here also. In- JUSTIFICATION. 131 asrauch, also, as he has found that justifica- tion, in the judgment, is not by faith only, but will be according to our works, he should not be compelled to maintain that it is by faith only. Having now evaded the argument on justification by faith only, in these three senses, he has but one pin to hang upon, or but one sense in which he maintains that we are justified by faith only. That is the sense of remission of sins, or pardon, in conversion. The simple question left, and the only question, is whether the sinner, in turning to God, in conversion, is justified by faith only. Faith is the act of the creature. Does that act, as Mr. M. says, do the work? Does it, and it only, justify ? Why, then, does he employ the mourner's bench ? Why tell the sinner to pray for pardon, or justification, then? Why tell the sinner, as he and all Metho- dist preachers do, that the publican prayed — that he smote upon his breast and said, " Grod be merciful to me a sinner?" Why keep the sinner agonizing, mourning and prajnng, if justification is by faith only? If faith pardons, does the work, justifies — if faith o??/y justifies, or remits sins, and is accounted for righteousness, the act of the creature remits sins, and there is no sense in praying for mourners, or, at least, there is no sense in their praying for themselves, that Grod would pardon them. But here is where he is stranded. Faith does not par- don, remit sins or justify, any more than 132 DEBATE ON repentance does, or any more than the con- fession does, or calling nj^on the name of the Lord. JSTothiug that the creature can do, can forgive sins or justify the sinner. The Lord alone can forgive sins. Faith prepares the sinner for pardon, but it does not pardon him. Faith and repentance still further prepare the sinner for remis- sion of sins ; but faith and repentance both do not remit sins. Faith, repentance, con- fession and baptism, all, in their proper j)laces, do not remit sins, but are simply the appointments through which the sinner comes to the promise of God, where the Lord has promised pardon or justification. My worthy friend has informed us that Paul was justified before he was baptized ! I feel a little curious to know where he learned this ! The Lord appeared to Saul, and said, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me." Saul said, "Who art thou?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." Saul believed this revelation, for he responded, "Lord what wilt thou have me to do ?" His faith did not do the work, it did not justify him; but prepared him to proceed in search of justification. He inquired what he should do for justifi- cation or pardon. The Lord told him to " Arise and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do." See Acts xx. 10. "AH things appointed" for what? For pardon or justification. The Lord does not JUSTIFICATION. ISS say, Go to Damascus, and there the onhj thing appointed for justification shall bo told thee, but " there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed " for justifi- cation. Can the " all things which the Lord has appoiLted," by any twisting, be compressed into the one act of believing? Surely not. vSaul went to Damascus and waited to hear of all things that were ap- pointed for him to do. Ananias was sent to him to tell him what " he must do," as we find Acts, ninth chapter, or " all things appointed for him to do," as expressed Acts xxii. 10. What did Ananias tell him to do? He did not tell him to believe, for he al- ready believed ; nor did he tell him that he was justified by faith only^ but commanded him to "Arise, and be baj)tized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Dord." The repentance is not mentioned here, but we are not to presume that he was justified without repentance. This is impossible, for " repentance and remission of sins " are both found in the commission. Eepentance being in the same commission with faith, and to be preached with faith, is just as indispensable as faith. There was, unquestionably, repentance in Paul's conversion, and faith too, though neither is mentioned, and every other conversion mentioned in the word of God. But bap- tism, and calling upon the name of the Lord, are both mentioned among the " all things" appointed for justification. He 134 DEBATE ON was commanded, by the man of God, to " Arise, and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord." " Wash away thy sins," is pardon or justi- fication. This was not by faith only, nor before rejDcntance, baptism and calling upon the name of the Lord ; but the washing away of sins, pardon or justification, follow- ed arising and being baptized. Mr. Wes- ley says, npon the words, " Be baptized and wash away thy sins." " Baptism ad- ministered to real penitents, is both a means and seal of pardon. i^Teither did G-od ordi- narily, in the primitive church, bestow this on any, unless through this means." Mr. M. will say, " Father Wesley, you are a little mistaken here; it is not through this means, but through faith only^ he bestows pardon." Let me read him a few more words from Father Wesley: "Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto ; if we repent, believe and obey the gospel ; supposiog this, as it admits us into the church here, so into glory hereafter;" Doct. Tracts, p. 249. But it is time, now, that some plain mat- ters pertaining to this controversy should come to an issue. In order to this end, if Mr. M. please, I desire him to answer a few . plain questions. 1, Can any man be justi- fied without confessing Christ ? 2, Did not some believe and yet not confess Christ? See the following : " JSTevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed JUSTIFICATION. 135 on him ; but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue ; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God;" John xii. 42. These believed on Jesus. Were tbey justified? They were not. Why? Because they believed onJy^ but did not confess. They believed and were not justified ; the reason is, that they believed only^ and did not love Jesus suffi- ciently to confess, and thus lose the praise of men. These had faith ; were they justi- fied in a single hour? Did faith "do the work?" Did faith justify them ? Was faith counted to them for righteousness ? l!^o. Why? Because it was "faith only^^ or faith alone. Let us hear the holy Apostle : " He came unto his own and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name;" John i. 11-12. What did the Lord do for those who believed on his name? He gave them power to become — what they were not by fcdtli only — " the sons of God." One justified is a son of God; but here we have believers who were not sons of God, but had power given them to "become sons. Had Mr. M. been j^resent when John wrote this, he would have re- marked, " Bro. John, you are a little at variance with Methodist theology. It is faith that does the work — faith only justi- 136 DEBATE ON fies. As soon as they believe, they have eternal life — arc justified, and consequently sons of God ; how then do you speak of the Lord giving them power to become sons of Godf Let Mr. M. answer this. He never will. He never can. It is a refutation of his whole faith only theory. Again, John says, "Many other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book ; but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G-od ; and that, believing, you might have life through his name ;" John xx. 30-31. This passage corresponds precisely with the one just quoted. J^either of them looks uj)on faith only^ as constituting a son of G-od — giving life or justifying ; but the belief is that he might have, what he has not yet, life through his name, and he gives the be- liever poicer to become what he is not yet — a son of God. I am truly surprised with one of Mr. M.'s statements in the speech just delivered. He says : " St. Paul, in order to impress the mind with the importance of charity, supposes a case, and a very strong one, too ; but he does not pretend that any such case ever did, or ever could, occur." I do not think the Apostle does pretend that any such case ever did, or could occur, but I am not willing to admit that the holy Apostle supposed a case that never did or could occur. This is a likely affair, truly ! He JUSTIFICATION. 137 was talking, at the very time he uttered this, to men who had supernatural gifts; spoke with tongues, prophesied and did miracles, but had not charity^ or love^ as Mr. Wesley translates agapee in this passage. They were making a grand mistake — the precise one, too, of my friend — in making- supernatural gifts an evidence of their per- sonal acceptance with God, or justification, while they had not love. The Apostle sets all this aside, by assuring them that, though they had much greater miraculous gifts than they had, and had not love, they were nothing — though they had all faith, even the faith for which Mr. M. contends, but without love, or with faith onJy^ they were nothing. Mr. M. quotes the words of the Apostle — " Though I have the gift of prophesy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing," — and remarks, "Now I take the ground dis- tinctly, that no man was ever endowed with the miracle-working power of the Holy Ghost, according to the promise of the Scriptures, without being justified." I leave him and Paul here in direct issue. Paul makes the man with all faith, without charity, or with faith only, nothing ; and Mr. M. makes him justified. The false theory of his creed has so long operated upon his mind, that hecannotbe convinced, by the unequivocal oracles of heaven — the 138 DEBATE ON clear authority of the Scrii:)tnres — of truth. The view he talces of tlie intention of mira- cles, is a mistaken one. The object of the miracles a man performed, was not to con- vince those who saw the miracles or read of them, that the man himself was justified, or a saint, but to confirm what he uttered, or some work he was in, or some grand move Grod was making among men. Mir- acles confirmed the mission of Christ, of the Apostles, the gospel and the church ; but the worker of miracles had to have the same evidence of justification as any man who never worked a miracle. No matter how much faith he has, nor how many miracles he may perform, if he has not love, he has nothing — he is not justified. Mr. M. says that " One man) a baptized one, at that) attempted to purchase the "gift" with money, but he received a most withering rebuke." Why did Mr. M. stop and throw in parenthetically, in such a sarcastic manner, the words, " a bap- tized one, at that !" Shame upon such tri- fling! Nothing could show his lack of the very love of which Paul was speaking more clearly than this angry fling. Why did he not tell you that Simon was " one of the justified by faith only V for he believed. See Acts viii. 13 : " Then Simon himself helieved also." Was hQ justified? Let the gentleman tell us whether he was justified by faith only ! When I say fjaith is the act of the crea- JUSTIFICATION. 139 ture, I mean that it is something the crea- ture does, as when it is said, "Abraham be- lievied God," it was something Abraham did ; or, as in the case of the Jailor, when Paul commanded him to " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," he commanded him to do something, and something, too, before he could be justified; but not something that had merit in it to do the work — to jus- tify , but something that would j)repare his heart to be justified. If my friend does not say that faith does the work which be- longs to God, he does say, in so many words, "It does the work — it justifies;" and when he tells what he means by the word "justifies," he says it means pardon. He has, then, without any straining or per- version of his language, made faith — the act of the creature,' a depraved and uncon- verted creature — "do the work" — justify or pardon the sinner, and thus ascribes to faith the work that j)roperly belongs to God, for pardon is the work of God. His whole argument upon merit is against faith as much as repentance ; for there is no more merit in faith than there is in rej^entance. There is none in either, and one is as much a means, or as strictly means, through which man comes to God, and through which man is justified, as the other. I know that nothing else can perform the office of faith or do the work that faith does ; nor can any thing else perform the ofiice or do the work of repent- 140 DEBATE ON ance. I am not saying any thing about the comparative importance of faith and rej^entance — no matter wliich is the more important — both are in the commission, and both appointments — both conditions, through which man is justified. But the true state of the case with Mr. M., or his church, is that he has no intelligible sys- tem of justification. Hence thousands con- nected with his church are only seekers^ who have been seekers — many of them as anxious and honest souls as live — and the ministry cannot show them the way to God. Their system has, in this way, been tried and shown itself, in this way, to be a failure. Thousands of the seekers, who have belonged to his church on trial, have listened honestly, sought fervently and in- quired diligently till the last, and died without finding. The fault is not in the people. There is no light in the teaching. Not a man here can tell, from all Mr. M. has said, how he may come to God. He preaches, here, that you may come and be justified by faith only; but you go forward in his church, and inquire what you must do, and you will hear nothing about justi- fication by faith only, but he will invite you to the mourner's bench and tell you to pray and be prayed for. After you have repeat- ed this, it may be, every evening for two weeks, as is the casein numerous instances, without any relief, he proposes to you to join on trial. Here many are kej)t for JUSTIFICATION. 141 years, and can be nothing more than seek- ers, for no reason in the world, only that the preachers will not give them the plain instructions of the holy Apostles to in- quirers in precisely the same condition. All this, however, will come up on our fourth proposition, and I leave it for the present. I must take the worthy gentleman back to Abraham once more. He has confined himself to the justification or pardon of the sinner in conversion. Where does he go to find his sinner ? Abraham is the example. Where does he find Abraham's conversion, or his justification by faith only ? He finds it in the fourth chapter of Romans. But is there anything about Abraham's conver- sion, or the pardon of his sins, in that chapter? He says, ^'Abraham believed God." Yery well, what had God said, when he believed him ? He believed the promise, that he should be the father of many nations. (See verse 17.) " Against hope he believed in hope, that he might be the father of many nations, according to that which wms spoken." (See verse 18.) How old was he when he believed ? " And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yetihe deadness of Sarah's womb; he staggered not at the promise of God through unbe- lief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God ; and being fully persuaded that 1^2 DEBATE ON what he had promised, he was able also to perform; and, therefore, it was imputed to him for righteousness." See Homans iv. 19, 20, 21, 22. This is his example of the justification of a sinner^ found in the old saint — the patriarch Abraham — when he was about an hundred years old. What think you of his sinner f Where will he find his righteousness justified in his other sense of a]3proval, which he has admitted to be by works ? If he could blush on ac- count of defeat, he certainly would do it now, and admit that he is wrong. Abra- ham was certainly a righteous man scores of years before this justification; this jus- tification was the justification of a right- eous man, in the sense of approval, which Mr. M. admits to be by works. He has adopted this, and made it an example for us ; even that we must be justified in the same sense, or made this the sense of the proposition, and this is refuted beyond redemption. I have one more matter with the worthy gentleman before I take m}'' seat. He says, " the word 7?ian is not in" John iii : 5. I say deliberately, and yet coolly and kindly, with all due deference to the gentleman, that the word man is in the passage. 1 am aware that the original is not anthropos, but tis ; but it is translated correctly, man, in the common version, in this place, as it is in numerous other places. The pronoun he following the word, shows that it should JUSTIFICATION. 143 be translated man. " Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the king- dom of G-od." Not only so, but Nicodenius understood him to say man^ for in his re- ply he used the word anthropos, in the words, " How can a 7nan (cmthropos) be born when he is old?" He says, "The Discipline does not pretend to quote the passage." I know not whether it pretends or not, but it says, "Our Savior Christ saith, J^one can enter in the kingdom," etc. When I say, that " Our Savior Christ saith," thus or so, I think the people look for a quotation. There cannot be a grand- er perversion of the word of Grod, than ap- plying these words of our Lord to uncon- scious infants. I hope Mr. M. will never again do such a thing. There is a grand chain of the items in the system of man's redemption, and if a single link be stricken out, all is lost and unavailing. If the goodness of God had never prompted the scheme, nothing would have followed ; or if, when the goodness of God had prompted it, his love for man had not been such that he gave his Son, noth- ing for us would have followed. If the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ had not ap- peared in his becoming poor that we, through his poverty, might be rich, noth- ing else would have availed any thing. If the Lord had not performed his mission on earth, no justification would have come to man. If the Apostles had not perform- 144 DEBATE ON ed their work, in preaching the gospel to every creiiture, all would have been lost. If the gospel had not been believed by man, all that God had done for him would avail nothing; or if man believes the gospel and does not repent, he will perish. When grace is the theme of the holy writer, ho says we are saved by grace. When faith is the theme, he says we are saved by faith, but intends the reader to have under- standing enough to know, that, at the same time, it is by faith, it is not without grace, the blood of Christ, his death, repentance, confession, etc. It is precisely like this : a man once showed another gentleman and myself a field of corn, saying, " This ground raised seventy-five bushels of corn to the acre." Presently, he showed a horse, saying, " This raised that corn," pointing to the same corn. In a few minutes, he showed 118 a plow, saying, "This plow raised that corn you saw." Before we walked into his house, he pointed to his sons, saying, " These boys raised that corn you saw." How is all this ? It is a plain matter. When the ground was the subject of con- versation, he ascribed the work of produ- cing the corn to the ground, knowing that we would understand that a horse, j^low, and some body to plow, had been employed. But when we were gone from the ground, and the horse became the subject of con- versation, he ascribed the work to the JUSTIFICATION. 145 horse, knowing that the balance would be understood, and so in the case of the j)low and the boys. In precisely the same way, when the Lord is speaking of grace, he ascribes the work to it, and in the same way, when he is upon the theme of faith, he ascribes salvation to it — not with the in- tention that the word "only" shall be added, but with the understanding that every other part be in its place. MR. MERRILL'S FIFTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, and Respected Hearers: While 1 regret the spirit manifested by the gentleman in his last speech, I am glad he begins to feel the necessity of stirring up his strength and of doing something to keep up the appearance of opposition. I am astonished at the perversity of intellect that has betrayed him into such absurd j)o- sitions in regard to the different senses in which the word justification occurs in the Scriptures. In my first speech, with the avowed purpose of avoiding confusion, and enabling us all to keep the precise issue be- fore us, I distinguished between the differ- ent justifications, and showed you to which the Article before us relates, and now the gentleman represents me as yielding to him on three points ! This he calls debating ! He says I "evaded" debating justification in three senses ! But for the deep confu- 10 146 DEBATE ON sion and disappointment that presses liim down, lie would know better than to expose himself in this way. He told you I assign- ed no reason for confining the debate to jus- tification in one sense; but there is not a man of you that does not know that I did assign a "reason" over and over again. The simple and only "reason" is, that there is no other justification contemplated in the Article. 1 have invited him over and over again to show that my interpretation of the Article is wrong, but he has not ven- tured the attempt, he has not dared do it, and will not, unless it be in his closing speech, when I have no chance to reply. His sneering allusions to the mourners, and to praying for sinners, were not only out of place, irrelevant and uncalled for, but indic- ative of a spirit that no good man can en- vy. I have more respect for my church than to defend her against suck assaults ! He would have you believe that we have no place nor use for repentance, confession, baptism, and obedience, in our theology; but he will not convince any one of this. "While we do not, like him, confound the means of justification, with the condition or receiving cause, we insist upon each and every part of the divine requirements, without confusing them. We find a place for prayer, for repentance, for baj)tism and for obedience; we attribute to each its own importance and its own work ; and if Mr. T". would learn to do the same, he would JTTSTiriCATION. 14f save himself the mortification of trying to maintain such crnde, ill-digested, and con- tradictory notions as he has advanced to- day. No sinner was ever pardoned with- out repentance ; no sinner ever repented without prayer and confession; this is all true, and as clearly my position, and much more consistently so, than it is Mr. F.'s But what is all that to the issue before us? Are we talking about a faith that excludes repentance, confession, or prayer? Mr. Franklin is, but I am not, and the proposi- tion before us does not. He is away from the subject — far away. There is a faith which is common to wicked men and devils. St. James spoke distinctly of that faith, when he said faith is dead, being alone. It is the mere assent of the mind, that does not affect the heart nor control the life. Such a faith is of no value in itself. It precedes repentance, ex- ists without prayer, and produces no con- fession. It is the faith Mr. F. advocates, and he seems to be strangely averse to knowing any thing about any other faith. He calls our attempts to impress his mind with the idea that there is a faith of the heart, which grows out of true penitence before the Lord, nothing but "mystifica- tion." This faith which precedes repent- ance, and fails to afl:ect the heart, is dead, being alone. This was the fault in the faith of the " chief rulers " who believed, and would not confess Christ, through fear 148 DEBATE ON of the Pharisees. It was of the head and not of the heart. I thus answer the "ques- tions " proposed in my friend's last speech, and reply to all he said touching John xii. 42. He quoted John i. 11-12. It teaches that men are made " children of Grod by faith in Christ Jesus." It does not say they were believers an hour before they were made children. So also John xx. 30- 31. " That, believing, you might have life through his name." This teaches that life through Christ, is by "believing." But he emphasizes through his name, as though that meant through baptism ; but through his name is through himself. Baptism is not mentioned in either passage. It is by faith in the name or person of Christ. Mr. F. cannot torture these Scriptures into any other meaning. But the faith here men- tioned is the true faith. It works by love and purifies the heart. It is a faith which is not dead, and therefore not alone. But every one who has this faith, receives Christ and is made a child of God by faith. All such receive power to become what they were not before — the children of G-od. That is, what they were not before they believed. This is by faith and not by baptism. Paul says it is by faith. (Gal. iii. 26.) When a man " believes with the heart unto righteous- ness,^^ he is justified ; then " confession is made with the mouth unto salvation;" but the faith of the heart is the only receiving cause of justification. He that believeth is JUSTIFICATION. 149 not condemned for a single moment. His condemnation ceases sooner than my friend could make ready to immerse him. Mr. Franklin not only confounds the true and the false faith, but he confounds the means with the condition of justification. This I have shown before, but as he per- sists in doing it, I will persist in exposing it. Wesley says, " Baptism administered to real penitents is both a means and seal of pardon ;" but did he say it was the condition of pardon ? JSTever ! Mr. Wesley knew better. He knew the • difference between a means of pardon and tlie condition of justification, whether Mr. F. does or not. Thus on the day of Pentecost, those " real penitents," not yet genuine believers, as my friend claims, were commanded to re- pent and be baptized as a very useful means of pardon, but their faith was the only con- dition, the only thing in itself indispensa- ble to their justification. But those Gen- tiles in the house of Cornelius were also real penitents. They were justified while Peter yet preached the word. That preach- ing was a means of justification, but not the condition, not the receiving cause. They were commanded to be baptized, not for the remission of sins, as were the penitents on the day of Pentecost, hut because they had already received the Holy Ghost ! In one case baptism was a means of pardon, in the other it was not; but in neither case was it a condition. Hence, baptism may come 150 ' DEBATE ON before or after pardon-^before or after the gift of the Holy Ghost ; we have plain ex- amples of both ; but no man living will ever show it to be a condition of justifica- tion. That is what can not be done. , Mr. F. wishes to know where I learned that Saul of Tarsus was justified before he was baptized. I learned it in the Acts of the Apostles, ix. 17, 18. The scales fell from his eyes and he received sight — was filled with the Holy Ghost hefore he v:as haptized. The "a/? things " upon which Mr. F; dwelt, which were appointed for him to do, relate not to what he was to do in order to justification merely, as Mr. F. imagines, but to all things appointed for him to do in after life, as an Apostle and minister of Jesus Christ. He could, emhIematicaUf/, wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord, after justification, just as well and just as consistently as before it ; and no man, not even Mr. F. himself, will pre- tend that water literally washed away his gins. I come next to the case of the Corinth- ians. Mr. F. thinks Paul did not suppose a case for illustration. " This," he ex- claims, "is a likely affair, truly I" Then he believes that some of those Corinthians did speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and had not charity ; that they did have the gift of prophecy, understand all mysteries, have all hnowledye, and all faith, so as to remove mountains, and yet had no JUSTIFICATION. 151 charity ! No sir ; this cannot be ! No unconverted man wrought a miracle in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus says, "No man can do a miracle in my name,_and lightly speak evil of me." Some hypocrit- ical pretenders will come up in the day of judgment, with a lie in their mouths, and pretend to have cast out devils and done many wonderful works in his name ; but, deceivers on earth, they will be liars there I The devil instigated unconverted men to imitate the miracles of good men, as far as possible ; but Jesus never employed such to confirm the truth of Christianity. I hope, for the credit of the Christian relig- ion, Mr. F. will review his position, aban- don this monstrous error, and banish it forever from him ; for, in all kindness I tell him, it leads to infidelity, black as mid- night ! G-od gives the Holy Spirit to all true believers, to witness to their adoption, to comfort, direct, and strengthen them in their journey to heaven ; and, in addition to this, he gave to some of the primitive Christiana power to perform miracles, to prophesy, to speak with tongues, etc., for the confirmation and edification of the church ; but to say he gave these extraor- dinary gifts to any who had not the ordin- ary gifts, is untrue, absurd, preposterous I The Corinthian, no doubt, set too much store by the " gifts," and began to under- value the "graces;" but Paul would have them value both as they ought. The 152 DEBATE ON *' gifts " were important, but tbey were "to fail;" they were not to be expected alwaya in the churcb ; but the " graces " were to remain. Charity never faileth. Y/ill Mr. F. look at this ? He represents Paul as speaking of a man with faith alone, and yet possessing all faitli, all knowledge and supernatural gifts ! Such terrible, terrible confusion, I have never seen ! The gen- tleman calls my allusion to Simon, who wished to purchase the "gift" with money, an " angry fling," and then asks if he was justified. If his faith was genuine, he was justified ; but there is ground for question- ing the soundness of his faith. At any rate, he was not authorized to work mira- cles by the Holy SjDirit ; neither was any other unconverted man. But, strange as it may seem, I venture the prediction that Mr. P. will take the ground that the said Simon was justified. I know not whether he was or not, nor does it affect my cause one way or the other ; but Mr. P. will find the laboring oar in his hand in relation to this case, after awhile. Mr. P. says, " Mir- acles confirmed the mission of Christ, of the Apostles, the gospel and the church ;" and I agree well with this, but ask him to tell us how miracles could do this, if they could ever be wrought by other than good converted men ? They confirmed the mis- sion of the Apostles, by proving them to be men of Grod — men of true faith, accepted and apj)roved of Pleaven. I, therefore, J USTilHCATlON. 153 without any fear of issue with the Apos- tle, hold fast the position, "that no man was ever endowed with the miracle-work- ing power of the Holy G-host, according to the promise of the Scrij)tures, without be- ing justified." iSTow I notice again my friend's charge, that the Discipline perverts the words of Jesus, " Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Therefore, being " born again," in my friend's estimation, is a condition of justifi- cation ; for he makes entering the kingdom one with being justified. But he has read his Bible to little effect, who does not know that this is false. Men are justified in order that they may enter the kingdom. Justifi- cation tali:es away the legal hindrances, and renders it possible for man to enter the kingdom. Further, justification, in point of fact, precedes the new birth. It tran- spires in the mind of Grod, and then the new birth is effected in the heart of man. In this whole passage there is but one neto hirth mentioned. To be born again, is to be born of water and of the Spirit. The water is the emblem, and not the condition, of the Spirit's influence upon the soul. Hence Alexander Campbell says that bap- tism "is hut the symhol of the transition, in- ward and spiritual, by which our souls are bathed in that ocean of love which purifies our persons, and makes them one with the Lord." But Mr. F. will probably say Mr. 154 DEBATE ON Campbell was c^nilty of "mystification," in talking about the " symbol !" The gentle- man has been using the Englishman's Greek Concordance, and found out that if antliropos is not in the text, the Greek par- ticle, " tis," is there, and now he says it is properly translated man. I know the clause, as translated, gives a correct sense ; for the expression, except any one, means ex- cept a man — the word man not applying ex- clusively to a grown person of the mascu- line gender, but generically to individuals of the human species ; yet if Mr. F. believes that " tis " is a proper word for man, or at all synonymous with anthropos, he is hope- lessly in the dark. As to applying the text to infants, I remark that any one reading the service for the baptism of infants, can see that the administration proceeds on the supposition that the infant will grow up, embrace the gospel and become a lively and faithful follower of Christ. This will explain the application of this language, the prayer offered for them and all that to which my friend objects. He has tried to pervert the Discipline, and has succeeded in proving that he does not understand it. Baptism, whether administered in infancy or not, is administered once for life ; it is, therefore, appropriate to embrace, in the prayer offered on the occasion, matters per- taining to the whole future of the candi- date. " I must now take the ^ivorthy gentleman JUSTinCATION. 155 "back to Abraham once more." I have shown clearly, and beyond dispute, that Abraham teas justified lohen lie believed God^ and it was accounted to him for righteousness. When was this ? Long before Isaac was born ! Was Abraham a righteous man, and a believer in God's promise, for a single day before he was justified ? Preposterous ! Mr. F. makes light of it that I go to Abra- hajn for theexample of a justified sinner. Was he never a sinner? Was he an "old saint" before he was justified ? Was he an ".old saint" before he believed God? I care not how early Abraham believed God, nor how he had been counted righteous, when he of- fered his son upon the altar ; but I do con- tend that he was "justified " at the very time he believed God; and no man was ever " accounted righteous " who was not justified. When God made promise to Abraham that he should have an heir, and a seed as the stars of heaven, it is said that then, before Isaac was born^ " he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness ;" Gen. xv. 6. Abraham was circumcised before Isaac was born ; but he was justified by faith before he was circum- cised, for " he received the sign of circum- cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being jQi uncircum- cised;" Eom. iv. 11. " Cometh this bless- edness upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumeision also? For wo say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for right- 156 DEBATE ON eousness. How was it, then, reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in iincir- cumcision?" Here is the precise question between Mr. F. and myself. Mr. F. says it was not until he offered Isaac upon the al- tar. That was some twenty years after he was circumcised. But Paul answers, "Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision ;" Rom. iv. 9, 10. Here Mr. F. ought to sur- render. Abraham was justified before Isaac was born. There is no use, Mr. F., in disputing it any longer ! From the time Abraham first believed G-od, he was justi- fied ; and ever after, wherever he received from G-od a promise and believed it, be received some fresh token of acceptance; and wherever he received a command from God and obeyed it, he received renewed as- surance of divine approval. Hence, the fact that he was justified when he offered Isaac, does not prove tbat he was never justified before ; and the Scriptures posi- tively affirm that he was justified before. ]!!^ow, how does my friend look standing up here and contradicting St. Paul, by af- firming that Abraham was not justi- fied at the time he was first accounted a righteous man ? "If he could blush on ac- count of defeat" — would not his crimsoned face proclaim his consciousness of failure? But I am not through yet. He asserts that James speaks of the same justification, or of justification in the same sense with St. Paul — thus arraying these Apostles against JUSTIFICATION. 157 each other. But he denies this conse- quence, and tries to evade it by talking about law works and gospel Avorks. I ex- ploded this sophism, by exposing the ab- surdity of his notions of law works. The law is that which the sinner transgresses — which condemns the guilty — which says "thou shalt not covet" — the only law that measures our obligations, that binds us in allegiance to the throne of Grod, and pre- scribes our duty to all. We obey it when we obey the gospel and love Grod supreme- ly, and our neighbor as ourselves. But we have no justification by it ; for we can only obey it by the aid of divine grace. Mr. F. calls this "mystification," and refuses to look at it, after making the distinction him- self! I also called for a definition of his gospel works. He passes it in silence ! But while I hold him prisoner, I will scat- ter this subterfuge to the four winds. By gospel works he must mean repentance, con- fession, and baptism, as conditions of par- don, or he means nothing relevant to our discussion. But what kind of works does James talk about ? Such gospel works as ]\Ir. F. insists upon ? He never mentions them ! Hear him : "If a brother or sister be naked, or destitute of daily food, and • one of you say unto them. Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled ; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful for the body; what doth it profit ?" Here is the duty to feed the hungry and 158 DEBATE ON clothe the naked — a duty incTimhent all throiio'h life — but not a word about any thiijg- Mr. F. calls gospel work, and insists upon a condition ot* pardon. " Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar ?" Is this what my friend calls gospel work ? Is this the condition of the forgiveness of sins ? " Likewise also was not Eahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messen- gers, and had sent them out another way?" Will my friend call this gospel work? Can he see any thing like baptism as a condi- tion of forgiveness of sins, in all this ? It is easy to say that Paul talks of law works, and James of gospel w^orks; but proving it, or even explaining it, is too much like "mystification!" for my friend to attempt it. JSTow I submit that if Mr. F. does not feel himself " stranded," it is because he is not sensible of his misery ! Could Mr. F. speak with the tongues of men and of an- gels, he could not reconcile Paul and James without admitting that Abraham was jus- tified more than once. This Mr. F. has denied. Paul says he w^as justified by faith, without worJcs, before ho was circumcised ; but Mr. F. says he w^as not ! James says he was justified by works when he offered Isaac ; to this I agree with full consent; but I also agreed with St. Paul, that he was justified, in another sense, long before. I ask Mr. F. to stand up jind agree with JUSTIFICATION. 159 both these Apostles ; but his dogma of bap- tism in order to pardon, will not permit him to do it! His creed blinds and betrays him into this unenviable predicament. But for his confusion and disappointment, I would now expect him to yield the point, and submit to the gospel method of justifi- cation by grace, through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. When his excitement wears off, and he reviews his position in the light of the Bible, I shall expect him to confess himself reproved and instructed. I now close by a brief summary, and leave the subject with jon. 1. Of the four senses in which men are justified, I have shown you that the Article relates only to justification in the sense of being " accounted righteous." The debate is confined to this justification, not because I "evaded," or "yielded," or "conceded" anything in I'egard to the other uses of the term, for I took my position in regard to them in my first speech, before Mr. F. opened his mouth, but simply because it is in the Article, and the others are not. The vigorous effort Mr. F. has made to press in other senses of the word, has discovered his extreme anxiety, and deep consciousness of failure, unless he could confuse the sub- ject in some way. 2. His positions in relation to the differ- ent causes of justification, have been am- biguous, confused and contradictory. He either did not understand himself, or was 160 DEBATE ON afraid to venture out in clear daylight. I have shown you that the doctrine of the Article is, that the grace of God is the only orighiating cause, the blood of Jesus the only procuring or meritorious cause, and that faith is the only receiving cause. From this I have not swerved. The gen- tleman's "corn" illustration answers my purpose very well. The ground raised the corn — the horse raised the corn — the plow raised the corn — the hoys raised the corn; each had a particular part to perform, and with respect to each particular feature of the work, it was the ground only, the horse only, the plow only, and the boys only. My friend will have to go farther than this for an illustration that will bring him out of the woods ! 3. The Article does not assert that the faith by which we are justified is alone. It implies repentance and obedience ; this I granted from the start ; but while it is not alone in the abstract, it is only the faith that apprehends, receives and appropriates, the infinite merit of the Eedeemer, to the justification of the sinner. Hence, nothing else in all the book of G-od, is imputed to the sinner for righteousness, but faith only, Mr. F. is not alone in this Hall, but he only made the last sj)eech. And at this point he has virtually given up the controversy. He said all his objection to the Article was on account of the word "only." I made a fair proposition, setting forth my willing- JUSTIFICATION. 101 ness to admit that the word " only " ought to be stricken out, if he would show what else beside faith is imputed for righteous- ness ; but he has not made the attempt ! Moreover, he claimed that the Article ex- cluded the grace of God and the blood of Jesus, and by his course confessed that if it did not, his opposition was a failure. I showed that it does not exclude these, but assigns to both their proper places in the great scheme of redemption and justifica- tion ; but that the idea of justification by works does exclude the grace of God. This St. Paul boldly asserts : " To him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." "But if it be of works, then is it no more grace." ''There- fore it is of faith that it might be by grace." Hence, the whole effort of my friend has been directed against this Apos- tle ! In his opposition to Paul, he tried to make James affiliate with him, but failed utterly. Poor man ! he stands alone, con- fronted by the whole Bible ! May his sor- row be of a godly sort ! 4. The manner in which Mr. F. has res- ponded to my arguments, has been observ- ed by you all. In some instances he has ventured no reply, and in others, he has only aimed to involve me in a similar diffi- culty with himself. This was particularly the case, in his strictures on my argument from depravity. It was all he aimed at ! Sometimes he quoted detached sentences, 11 162 DEBATE ON and perverted my meaning, as in his repeated charges rung on the words, " faith does the work — it justifies ;" but he has uniformly omitted quoting or noticing the Scriptures on which my arguments were founded ! True, he said some of my argu- ments contained nothing but " assump- tion," and complained about the "joy " that surrounded him, and obstructed his vision, but his futile attempts at reply, coming from a man of his reputed powers, prove that my positions were invulnerable. 5. The opposing arguments adduced by the respondent, have all received due and respectful consideration ; and they have all been shown to be aim^d at a doctrine not before us, which nobody believes, but which he has diligently labored to force upon the Article, against the design of its framers, against the true import of its lan- guage, and in spite of my disclaimers, ad- monitions and rebukes ; or else they have been proven irrelevant, confused and in- conclusive. In his closing reply, he may give you a rehash of them with all confi- dence, pretending that they have not been met ; but I have confidence that you will not forget how persistently he confounds the means with the condition of pardon, and jumbles togetl^er the causes and instru- mentalities in a manner that would not honor the capacity of the merest tyro in divinity. And yet he has done the best that could be done ! lie is not a novice, JUSTIFICATION. \ lb J but a champion — often the chosen cham- pion, the Goliath of the hosts here presents ; but mortal man can not resist the truth of God. Neither age, experience, learning nor ingenuity, can turn aside the smooth stones of the infallible word. The dreams of fanaticism and prejudices of bigotry, may obscure the light for a season, but while reason keeps her throne, and mind grapples with mind, and thought with thought, the truth may enter the arena without apphrehension of harm. 1 close the discussion of this proposition with full confidence that I have maintained the true doctrine of the gospel, and held be- fore you the only method of the sinner's justification before the Lord. I honor every duty and every ordinance of the Christian economy, assigning to each its place and work, but will not confuse and confound them. A full and careful survey of our moral condition and relationships, and a candid examination of all Mr. Frank- lin has been able to say against it, only satisfies me more and more, that "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or de- servings ;" and, feeling fully persuaded of this doctrine, I cannot doubt that its moral effects are truly set forth in the clause which says, " Wherefore, thai we are justi- fied by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." 164 / DEBATE ON MR. FRANKLIN'S FIFTH REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : We have now heard what the worthy gentleman could sa}^ in defense of justifica- tion by fjiith only. Our rules do not allow me to introduce any new matter in my closing speech. I will, therefore, spend my half hour in summing up and re-stating the argument. The first thing I shall attend to, shall be his attempt to evade the argu- ment : 1. Our correspondence shows that I only proposed to discuss the statement follow- ing : " Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." He understood me in this, for he explicitly mentions, in one of his letters, that I assailed " a part of the Ninth Article," and proposed to accommodate me. But "when he attempted to accommodate me, he did it by present- ing the whole of the Article for me to deny, in the place of what he knew I had assailed. This he did to have something bearing, at least, some semblance to the truth. 2. His second eff'ort was to avoid the question in any sense in which " we are justified before God," but one — the sense of pardon in conversion. This he did by his unsupported assertion, that that was the only sense meant by the Discipline. This, any person could see, was without any foundation, as there is nothing in the Dis- cipline confining the Article to justification JUSTIFICATION. 165 in any one sense more than another. Jus- tification, in every sense, is through the merit" of Christ ; and it is juslidcation through the merit of Christ we are speak- ing of. The Article relates to justification in every sense in which " we are justified " through the merit of Christ ; and there is nd sense in which loe are justijied, that is not through the merit of Christ. In this attempt at evasion, he failed, and, as a matter of course, lost the argument in every sense, according to his own admission, except one. 3. His third attempt at evasion, was his assertion, that justification by faith only was not justification hj faith alone. I have demanded of him, in vain, to show what the word " only " means in the proposi- tion, or what office it performs, if it does not mean singly, or alone ; or if it does not exclude every thing else. Has he ever shown what that word means, or what office it performs, if it does not exclude every thing else? He has not, and no man living can. Some of the time, he in- terprets the Article precisely as if the word " only " were not in it, and admits that it is not by faith only that we are justified, but it is by faith, with the grace of God, the blood of Christ, repentance, confession, etc. But then, again, he turns the other side of his face to us, and gives it the exclusive sense, or lets it have its legitimate mean- ing, and makes it exclude everything else — 166 DEBATE ON makes faith, and faith only, do the work^- justify. Such has been his unenviable position. I. I am now ready to look at his argu- ments. His first argument is from the Scripture representations of human deprav- ity. The argument, if there was anything in this point that could be called argument, is that man, being depraved, cannot justify himself, or do any thing that will justify him — that there cannot be any merit in any thing that he can do, and that he must be justified through the merit of Christ alone. This sounds very well ; but what now is his deduction? That man is justified by faith only! But what is faith ? Is it the merit of Christ? It is the act of the creature — the depraved, unconverted creature ! Is there any merit in the act of the creature? ]^o ; the merit is in Christ alone. Faith is a work. " This is the ^oorh of Grod, that you believe," said Jesus. Paul speaks of the loorh of faith." Faith, then, is a iDork, the act of the creature. This act of a depraved creature has no merit in it — this work of the creature has no merit in it to save a sinner, or justify, any more than repentance, confession, or any thing else the Lord requires the creature to do. Faith does not do the work ; it does not justify, but is simply a means through which Grod prepares the heart for justifica- tion. It j)ardons no man's sins, but pre- pares the hearts of men for pardon, as re- JUSTIFICATION. 167 pentance prepares the life, or character, of men for pardon. His first argument, then, is no argument at all, and proves nothing. II. His second argument is founded on those Scriptures which ascribe the work of salvation to the grace of God. This is the most singular argument I ever knew. To state it in the most simple form, it amounts to this : The Scriptures say, " Salvation is by grace ;" therefore, it is by faith only ! I know that salvation is by grace, through faith ; but not by grace only, or faith only. I stated, in my last speech before this, that salvation is by the goodness of God, the love of God, the grace of God ; the mission of Christ, his blood ; the mission of the Apostles, the Holy Spirio ; by the word spoken, by faith in Christ, repentance, con- fession, calling on the name of the Lord and by baptism. The goodness of God prompted him to save man. His love moved him to the great work ; his grace to man appeared, or his favor, in the Lord becoming poor that we through his poverty might be rich. The mission of Jesus prepared the way for carrying tlie grand scheme into operation. In his death, he shed his blood to purge us from sin. The Apostle's mission was indis- pensable in the great work. The mission of the Spirit was indispensable to inspiring the Apostles and preaching the word through them. ■ The word has its place in the grand scheme. It must be spoken that man may 168 DEBATE ON hear and believe. But the goodness of Grod, his love, his grace, the mission of Christ, his blood, the mission of the Apos- tles, the work of the Spirit, inspiring them, and the word spoken, will all do poor fallen man no good, if he does not believe, repent, confess Christ, and call on the Lord. 'No grace of God, nor merit of Christ, will save a man who does not believe ; and no believing will save a man who does not repent. Where is his second argument, founded upon salvation by grace ? It is no argument at all. III. His third argument is founded upon those Scriptures that ascribe salvation to the death of Christ. This argument is fully answered in the remarks just made. The death of Christ is indispensable, but we are not saved by the death of Christ alone. The death of Christ will save no man who does not believe ; or believes, and does not repent. But his logic is all of the same sort. It is this, I suppose : We are said to be saved by the death of Christ; therefore, we are saved by faith only. All he has said on this point, is simply talk, and no argument in it. IV. His fourth argument is simply the naked and unsupported assertion, that faith brings the soul into contact with the blood of Christ, and renders that blood efficacious to the removal of guilt. If he were aiming to show that faith is indis- pensable, and I were denying it, he might JUSTIFICATION. 169 find an argument here. But tbat is not the state of the case. I am. fully aware that men must believe, to come to the blood of Christ ; but it is as indispensable that they repent and confess Christ, as that they believe. Belief alone will not bring them to the blood of Christ, else those Jews who believed on him, and would not confess him, would have been justified. This argument we have found to be no argument at all, and to prove nothing. V. His fiifth argument is drawn from those Scriptures which speak of the impu- tation of faith for righteousness. This ar- gument I have taken completely out of his hands, in that he has confined the justifi- cation in debate to the pardon or justifica- tion of the sinner in conversion. His ex- ample given of faith, being imputed for righteousness, is the case of Abraham, who believed God when he made the promise to him, when he was about an hundred years old, who had been a righteous man many long years before this, and was a righteous man at this time. This justification was, therefore, the justification of a righteous man, in the sense of approval, whicii he admits to be by works, and not by faith only. The apostle James refers to the identical same faith of Abraham, and shows that works wrought with his faith, and by works his faith was made perfect. In making this an example of the justification he is debating about — in refuting him at 170 tJEBATE ON this point, I refute his whole theory. The very case he has taken for an example, I have shown, beyond doubt, not to be by faith only, but by works, which wrought with his faith, and by which his faith was made perfect. He was not justified by the faith alone, nor the works alone, but the faith and works jointly ; and the justifica- tion was not the justification of a sinner, in the sense of pardon, but the justification of a righteous man, who had been a right- eous man more than fifty years, in the sense of approval. YI. His sixth argument is founded upon the expression, "justified by faith." But this I have shown to be no argument at all, as no one doubts the doctrine of justifica- tion by faith. I believe in justification by faith as much as he, but I do not believe in his interpolation, " only," added to the word of God. If that interpolation means any thing, it is sinful to add it to the word of Grod. If it does not mean any thing, it is useless, and he is debating for nothing. But we all know that it does mean some- thing. He has explained it to mean some- thing. He has himself shown that its office was to exclude something, in his re- ference to Eomish traditions. Such I have maintained to be its office. He has shown that he took it in that sense, when he said that neither repentance, confession nor any thing else but faith does the work — justi- fies. This, then, bears scarcely the sem,- JUSTinCATION. iti bl an ce of an argument ; but it is an utter failure. yil. Mr. M.'s seventh argument is, that faith removes condemnation from the heart. Anybody can see, at a glance, that this is nothing but re-stating, in a little different form, his argument founded upon justifica- tion by faith. It is jast as true, that he that repenteth not is condemned, as it is that he that believeth not is condemned; for he who said, "He who cometh to God must believe," has said, " Except ye repent ye shall perish." Either unbelief or im- penitence will condemn a man, but neither belief or penitence, alone, will justify a man. His seventh argument, then, is no argument at all, but merely a rehash of the sixth argument. VIII. His eighth argument is nothingbut the unsupported assertion, " that every be- liever is in possession of eternal life." I have shown that the believer can only have eternal life prospectively in this Avorld ; for the Apostle promises to them who seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; and at the same time the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, the righteous shall go into life eternal, which shows that they are not in possession of eternal life now. ISTot only so, but eternal life is the reward of the righteous, received in the judgment. If eternal life is the jus- tification he is maintaining, as coming with- in the scope of our proposition, it is the 172 DEBATE ON justification in the judgment, and he has admitted that it is not by faith only. His eighth argument, therefore, proves to be no argument at all. Thus ends his attempts, first at evasion and then at argument. He has neither succeeded in evading the issue, nor proving his proposition. I. But now for my first argument against his doctrine of justification by faith onl}'. I have shown that his Discipline makes baptism a means of justification not only to persons «w3C0untable, but to infants, in the following words: " Our Savior Christ saith, None can enter in the kingdom of God, ex- cept he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost." The king- dom of God is a state of justification, aud the Discipline applies the words of Jesus, not quoted correctly, but corrupted, as I have shown, by inserting none for man to infants, and they have thus perverted the passage and make baptism a condition of justification to infants; thus making many pious mothers believe that, except they have their infants baptized, they cannot en- ter into the kingdom of God, or a state of justification. In praying, as he does, if he goes according to Discipline, he implores the Lord, when about to baptize an infant, that it "may receive that thing which, by nature, it cannot have," and that it may bo '''' ddivered from the lurath of God.^^ In aj)- plying the same words of our Lord — again miserably misquoted — to adult persons, JUSTIFICATION. 173 when baptizing, they make him teach that none can enter the kingdoiji of God, or a state of justification, except "he be re- generate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost." Thus the Discipline here makes " born of water " baptism, and thus makes baptism a condition of justification, as I shall show, the Lord permitting, when we are upon our fourth proposition, it cer- tainly is. I have thus refuted him with his own Discipline, and shown that justifica- tion is not by faith oiily^ but by baptism, as well as faith. From this difficulty he has scarcely made the semblance of an effort to escape. II. My second argument was founded upon the unequivocal statement of Mr. Wesley, that " baptism is both a means and a seal of pardon nor ; did God ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow this upon any, unless through this means." Mr. M. has himself admitted that baptism is a means of salvation, as singing, praying, reading the Bible, etc. Eut Mr. Wesley is stronger than that ; he says : " JSTeither did God ordinarily bestow this on any, unless through this means." Again, he says: "As it [baptism] admits into the church here, so into glory hereafter." This is not jus- tification by faith only. Admitting into the church, is into a state of justification, and with him baptism admits into the church. What reply has he made to this? Surely none that deserves the name. 174 DEBATE ON III. My third argument against his doc- trine, is that th.e Lord, in the last commis- sion, as Mark records it, puts faith atid baptism both together, in the same sen- tence, both in order to the same object. That object is salvation or justification. The words I allude to, read as follows : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Saved, here, means justified or pardoned. The Lord requires two things to be done, in order to the same end or ob- ject. We cannot be mistaken about the-ob- ject, for my opponent admits that faith is for justification. The gospel is preached to men that they may believe, and he admits that the object of believing is that they be justified. It- is justification, too, in the precise sense he admits to be in contro- versy. From this there is no escape. The baptism is connected, in the same sentence, in order to the same object — justification or salvation. When you can perceive what faith is in order to, here, you can see what baptism is for. Both are for the same thing. The only attempt Mr. M. has made to meet this, is by asserting that salvation here will be the future salvation. I do not deny that all our acts of obedience look forward ultimately to the eternal salvation ; but believing, repenting, confessing and be- ing baptized, look immediately to present justification or pardon. This commission has reference immediately to remission of sins. Luke has it, that "Kopentance and JUSTIFICATION. 175 remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Je- rusalem." In the commission, then, in the place of faith ovly for remission of sins, we find repentance and baptism associated with faith, in order to the same thing. lY. My fourth argument againat his po- sition, is in the unequivocal, language of Paul: "Though a man have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, and have not love, he is nothing." This passage es- tablishes two points beyond all doubt: 1st, That inasmuch as a inan may have the gift of prophecy, understand all knowledge, and have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, and have not love, he is nothing. Paith only cannot justif}^ a man, for [Paul would not have said of a justified man, '■'■He is nothing.'' The man, then, with all faith^ but faith without love, or faith 07ilg, is noth- ing. Certainly he who is nothing, is not justified in any sense. 2nd, This passage shows, conclusively, that supernatural gifts are no evidence that he who possesses them is justified ; for here Paul, in rebuking those who abounded w^ith supernatural gifts, but had gone to law one with another, informs them that though they had much greater gifts than any of them had, yet, if they had not love, they were nothing. I shall have use for this again, in another part of our debate. V. My fifth argument against his doc- trine is, that I hav^ produced persons men- 176 DEBATE ON tioned in the word of God, who believed, but did not confess, and were not justified. " Among the chief rulers also many be- lieved on him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they be put out of the synagogue ; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God;" John.xii. 42. What think you of those faith alone Christians, who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God? Were they justified? There is no escape from this case, for it is stated in so many words, that "they believed on him," and it is evident that they were not justified ; for the Apostle's language condemns them. Neither he, nor any other man occupying his position, can answer this. It shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that justi- fication is not by faith only. YI. My sixth argument against his doc- trine is, that the holy Aj)ostle says : "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believe on his name;" John i. 12. This shows that believing on his name only, does not constitute a son of God, or jus- tify, but to those who believe on God's name, he gives power to become what they are not before, or even when they believe — sons of God. To the same amount the same writer says: " These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through his name." The belief is JUSTIFICATION. 177 that he might have (what he has not now) life through his name. What reply has he made to ail this ? Nothing that meets the Oase. :•:*{ od 'Mi; ;:. yil. My seventh and last argument against his doctrine is, that he and his brethren have no intelligible system of con- version. They cannot show the sinner the way to God, or to justification. Hence they have constructed a kind of portico to their church, into which they receive persons on trial, who have come to them honestly inquiring the way to justification, and have failed to find it. They have list- ened to the preachers, both publicly and privately, but cannot find the way. They have come again and again and still failed to find, and have now joined on trial, with the encouragement that maybe they may find salvation. When did the Apostles put poor souls, seeking salvation, on trial, with- out showing them the way to G-od? Never j no, never. Every honest inquirer that ever came to them was forthwith shown the way. They kept no anxious mourners seeking, agonizing and going into despair, but showed all the way to salvation on the first interview. Three thousand seekers came to Peter, on Pentecost, crying, " Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Had my friend's system been the one in use on that occasion, not one-fifth of the three thousand would have been converted. But the Apostle answered them and they all 12 178 DEBATE ON JUSTIFICATION. heard the answer, did as commanded, and were justified in the very sense claimed by Mr. M. to be the sense of our proposition. '' Eepent and be baptized," said the man of God — the same day the Holy Spirit came from heaven to guide him into all truth — *' every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." *' As many as gladly received his word, were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thou- sand souls." Here was a preacher who could show seekers the way to God. Here was a system that had light in it. Let my worthy friend lay aside his system of doubts and uncertainties, and follow, im- plicitly, the word of the Lord, and he will show all the way into the kingdom who come to him. [end op first proposition.] DEBATE ON THE ACTION OF BAPTISM. MR. FRANKLIIV'S OPEIVING ADDRESS. Second Proposition. — Immersion is the only Baptism taught in the Scriptm^es and practiced by the Apostles. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I am truly thankful that a kind and gra- cious Providence has been over us through the past night, and that we are comfortably situated and permitted to prosecute our investigations. I hope we shall still keep in mind, that we all should have but a sin- gle aim, viz., to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, touching the points in debate. We are not debating for victory over men or jx^^'ti^s, but for the victory of truth over error. My desire is, that truth may prevail over all, no matter where it places me. I did not succeed in getting our proposi- tion stated as I desired. I proposed, in our correspondence, to affirm my prac- tice— immersion — and defend it, and let my opponent deny. But I could not induce him to agree to this, because, as I siippose, he believes in and, in some instances, prac- tices immersion. I then proposed for him 13 180 DEBATE ON THE to affirm his practice — sprinkling or pour- ing— and defend it, and I would deny. This, too, be declined. I could induce him to agree to no proposition except something in the form of the present, requiring me to affirm, not only that immersion is baptism, but, negatively, that nothing else is haptism, I am not, therefore, expecting any debate on immersion, or my practice, but expect- ing my opponent to admit that I am right — that immersion is baptism. The question remaining, or of any interest to us, is whether his practice — sprinkling or pour- ing— is baptism. Here is where the battle ground is to be after all, though my wor- thy friend did not have the fortitude to come up to the work and affirm his prac- tice. I am truly gratified, then, that all his church and his Discipline agree with me, that immersion is baptism — that it is right, and that many of his members agree, fur- ther, that nothing but immersion is bap- tism, and can not be induced to receive any thing else. Our question is a very simple one and easily comprehended. I affirm the simj)le proposition, that immersion is the only baptism taught in the Christian Scriptures and practiced by the Apostles. We had some little difference about that little word "only" on yesterday. We have the same word in our proposition to-day, and I shall have no trouble in getting my opj)onent to understand the meaning of that word to- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 181 day. He did not understand it to mean alone on yesterday, but to-day he will un- derstand it to mean alone. I shall not attempt to twist out of its meaning as he did, but shall admit that it means aloiic^ in its most exclusive sense. The simple mat- ter for us to determine, is precisely what the Apostles did lohen they baptized. Did they sprinkle water upon persons ? pour water upon them ? or immerse them in water ? To say that they sprinkled water upon some, poured water upon others, and im- mersed others in water, I consider out of the question. When Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize, he commanded them to do something. What they did, in obey- ing the command, was an action — one action^ and no more. Our inquiries, at this time, are to determine precisely what that one action was. We find one command, for one thing to be done. That one thing, in the common version of the New Testament, is called baptize. This word baptize expresses the one thing to be done — the only thing to be done in administering the ordinance, or rite, commanded to be done. When the Apostles obeyed this one command, they did one thing and no more. They per- formed one act, in obeying the one com- mand to baptize, and no living man can make it appear that they ditl any more. Can one command be obeyed, in one act of obedience, in j^erforming three acts, so differ- ent as the acts of sprinkling and j)ouring 182 DEBATE ON THE and immersing? Is it not self-evident, that if the command to do one thing, means to sprinkle, it does not mean to pour ? or if it means to pour, it does not mean to sprinkle or immerse ? or if it means to immerse, it does not mean to sprinkle or pour? To sprinkle, i^our and immerse, are three distinct acts, and it is a natural impos- sibility for one command, expressing what is to be done, in one word, to mean three acts so different and distinct from each other. If by the word haj^tizo, the Lord meant sprinkle, he did not mean pour ; for the word sprinkle does not mean pour. If he meant pour, he did not mean immerse ; for pour does not mean immerse. If he meant immerse, he did not mean sprinkle; for immerse does not mean sprinkle. It is as rational to speak of sprinkling and ^^ouring by immersing, as to speak of baptizing by sprinkling, pouring and immersing. I. I shall, therefore, proceed to my first argument, which is, that the Lord and the Apostles, when they expressed that w^hich was to be done literally, used but one word. That word was haptizo. When they spoke of the rite literally, they invariably used that one word. It is certain that a word can never have but one meaning when applied to one thing. The one thing it is applied to, so far as our controversy is concerned, is the rite, or the ordinance. Now, it is no matter how many meanings this word could have, when applied to ACTION OF BAPTISM. 183 otlier things ; it is certain that it can have but one meaning, when applied to one thing. ]N"o matter how many meanings a word may have, when applied to one thing, no matter how often, it can have but one meaning. JSothing can be clearer than that the Lord has used this one word invariably to express that which he required to be done, in performing the rite. J^o man of intelligence can fail to see that every time that word is used to express that one thing to be done, or that one command, it has the same meaning. No word can be used in- telligibly, in two diiferent senses, in refer- ence to the same thing. Baptism is com- manded. A command is something to be done. What is it that expresses what is to be done ? No word, where that which is to be done, is literally expressed, but bap- tizo. If that word does not express what is to be done, it is not expressed at all, and no man knows whether he is baptized or not. It is manifest, that if that which is to be done is not revealed, no man knows whether it is done or not. Is it not a sin- gular idea, that a positive command should be given, and that which is to be done not revealed ? How are we to know what is to be done, or when it is done, on this hypothesis. Such, precisely, is the predic- ament of my worthy opponent, on this occasion. He believes that God has given a positive command, but has not revealed what is to be done, and consequently that 184 DEBATE ON THE no man knows whether it is done or not, in any given case. He, therefore, intends to infer that it may be done in different ways. Permit me to spend a few moments in defining the position of my opponent. He says, in our correspondence, "I hold that the mode is not essential, and that it is not definitely taught in the Scriptures." Again, speaking of bajDtism, he says : " It is not sprinkling, nor pouring, nor immersion, as such, but baptism." Here we have strange light ! The mode is not definitely revealed, and not essential ! How does he then know what it is not, or what it is, if the mode is not revealed ? Is not this a clear concession, that he does not know any thing about it ? The worthy gentleman, however, is not standing alone in this sin- gular predicament, in coming up to debate on that which is not revealed, and that which he thus admits he does not know any thing about. Mr. Wesley says, Doctrinal Tracts, p. 243 : " I say, hi/ washing, dipping^ or sprinkling, because it is not determined in Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done ; neither by any exj)ress precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it ; nor by the force or meaning of the word hcrptize.'" Again, speaking of being "buried by baptism," Mr. Wesley says: " IS'othing can be inferred from such a figu- rative expression." It is true, he does say, in another place, uj)on the identical same ACTION OF BAPTISM. 185 expression, that " this evidently alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing by im- mersion." The position of my opponent, backed up by Mr. Wesley, is that the mode, as he calls it, is not essential to the validity of the ordinance ; that it is not revealed, and, therefore, may be administered in any way ! To this lax theology, I object. I do not believe the Lord ever gave a posi- tive divine command without revealing what was commanded. My position is entirely different from all this. The word haptize does not mean or- dinance, purify, or cleanse. It has no water in it, nor fire, nor spirit. When found in the command of Jesus, it expres- ses what was to be done, and nothing else. The Lord simply commanded the subjects to be immersed. We learn nothing from haptizo about what they were to be immersed in, or /or, but simpl}^ that they were to be im- mersed. Everything else, except the action, must be learned from other words. The word haptizo expresses the action, the thing to be done, the exact thing commanded, and nothing else. Now, if it be insisted that this word has different meanings, which I do not admit, even then it avails nothing, in this case ; because no word can have different meanings, when applied to the same thing. The Divine ai^pointment, rite, or ceremony, is the same thing wher- ever haptizo is applied to it. It can not, therefore, have two meanings, or three or 186 DEBATE ON THE more, when applied to the same thing — it must always express the same action. That action was immersion, and nothing else. IS'o man of any note contends that it was sj)r inkling or pouring. II. My second argument is, that in de- parting from the appointment of God, it is more probable that they dejDarted from the more laborious, inconvenient and unpleas- ant to the more easy, convenient and pleas- ant, than that they departed from the more easy, convenient and pleasant, to the more laborious, inconvenient and unpleasant. I am not aware that the clergy ever have, in that which they had to perform with their own hands, departed from the more easy, convenient and pleasant, to the more labo- rious, inconvenient and unpleasant. If im- mersion was the ancient practice, then j)ouring, sprinkling, and every thing since j)racticed for baptism, is a corruption of, and a departure from, the primitive prac- tice. On the other hand, if sprinkling was practiced anciently, immersing, pouring, and every thing else practiced for baptism, is a corruption of, and a departure from, the original appointment of God. If, there- fore, the aj)Ostles and first evangelists prac- ticed that easy, convenient and pleasant usage, admired by Mr. Merrill, is it not .strange, that when the apostasy took hold upon their hearts, they should have adopt- ed the laborious, inconvenient and unpleas- ant practice of immersing ? But how per- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 187 fectly natural, when tlie lust of the flesh, the pride of life, and the love of ease began to take possession of their hearts, that they should have departed from immersion and have adopted the easy and comfortable practice of sprinkling. ISTothiDg could be more natural than this ; nor is there an ar- gument in existence, now used against im- mersion, that has half the force, with the proud and pleasure-loving of this world, or one that makes half as many try to satisfy their consciences with sprinkling, as the appeal with reference to the inconvenience, unpleasantness and disagreeableness of im- mersion has. Immersion has ever had the feelings of the flesh, the jDride of life and love of ease, on the part of the ministry, against it. How perfectly rational, too, when the ministrj^ became proud, lovers of ease, convenience and pleasantness, they should gradually have departed from im- mersion and fallen in love with the easy practice of sprinkling. There is another feature here that is equally deplorable. It is an indisputable historical fact, that as the light of the apos- tolic age receded, sprinkling gradually came into practice and gained the most extended prevalence at the zenith of the dark ages ; and since the light of the Eeformation has spread forth, immersion has gained in prev- alence about in proportion as light has spread, till about one-fifth of the entire population of our glorious Union are im- 188 DEBATE ON THE mersionists. Sprinkling for baptism is not known to any writing of the first two cen- turies, and only known at all for thirteen centuries in cases of extreme weakness or sickness, and in these cases they were not permitted to hold any office in the church. My argument from these premises amounts to this : That it is unreasonable and im- probable that the ministry should have changed from the easy, convenient and pleasant practice of sprinkling or pouring, to the more laborious, inconvenient and un- pleasant practice of immersing, when the spirit of pride and apostasy had taken hold of them and they were departing from the Lord ; and it is equally unreasonable and improbable that they should have adhered more closely to the original appointment when departing into the darkness, ignor- ance and superstition of the dark ages, and then commenced departing from this orig- inal appointment as soon as the light of the Eeformation burst forth ! The true state of the case is, that as the apostolic light faded from the church, sprinkling gradual- ly worked into it, till darkness reached its most expanded prevalence. Precisely at that period sprinkling prevailed more largely than at any other period in the his- tory of the church. As soon as the light of the Eeformation had shone forth, and the apostolic teachings and practices began to be resuscitated, sj^rinkling began to re- cede and immersion to extend. This shows ACTION OF BAPTISM. 189 that as light, information and reformation prevail, immersion — though against the feelings of the flesh, the pride of life and worldly influence — prevails; which certain- ly could not and would not be the case, if it had not Divine authority in its favor. When darkness leads to the easy, the pleas- ant and convenient, and light leads to the more laborious, inconvenient and unpleas- ant, there must be a necessity for it, and that necessity, in this case, is that the law of God requires it. When the law of God is ex- amined and brought to bear upon the souls of the people, they are immersed ; but when darkness and inattention prevail, sprink- ling, they decide, ivill do ! III. My third argument is, that the Dis- cipline, Mr. Wesley, and my worthy friend, agree with me, that immersion is baptism. In baptizing, even an infant, the Discipline re- quires the preacher to say, "Name this child." The Discipline proceeds: "And then, naming it after them, he shall sprin- kle or pour water upon it, or, if desired, immerse it in water." I must call the attention of the audience to this pecu- liar language. You perceive, it says noth- ing about sprinhling or pouring the child, for this would sound ridiculous, even in their own estimation ; but the Discipline speaks in the more rational and intelligible man- ner, of sprinkling and pouring water upon the child, or immersing in ivater. This la sensible language. They do not speak of 190 DEBATE ON THE sprinMing the child, but sprinJcUng water ; but they do speak of immersing the child, and not of immersing ivafer. This can be done. It is rational. But if the words sprinkle and pour here mean baptize, then it is not the child that is baptized, but the tvater is bap- tized upon the child! This is clear to any intelligent mind at a glance. But I have simply gone aside to this to show that the Discipline endorses immersion. In connec- tion with this, for the sake of those who may hear us, who have not read the Discipline, we give the direction given the minister in reference to those of riper years : " Then shall the minister take each person to be baptized by the right hand ; and, placing him convenient to the font, according to his discretion, shall ask the name ; and then shall sprinkle or pour water upon him [or, if he desire it, shall immerse him in wa- ter]." Here, then, in my oj^ponent's own Discipline, we find a full endorsement of immersion. Mr. Wesley says, '' Baptism is performed, by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the per- son, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" Doct. Tracts, p. 243. In his note, on the words, " buried by baptism," Eom. vi. 4, he says : " This evidently alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." Here, then, we have the endorsement of the Discipline, Doct. Tracts, endorsed by the Methodist Conference, and Wesley's Sotes, for immer- ACTION OP BAPTISM. 191 sion. Methodist preachers, however much they may dislike immersion, when they find persons (as they frequently do) who can not be persuaded to have water sprinkled or poured upon them, will go down into the water with them, and lifting their hand to heaven, say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and immerse the person in wa- ter. They thus lift their hand to heaven, before Grod and the people, and pronounce immersion baptism, in saying, "I baptize," when they immerse, and do this in the name of the Lord. This is a solemn and awful endorsement of immersion, and the men who thus endorse it, should be very careful not to say any thing against it. They show thus, that they can practice immer- sion without any violation of conscience. Our debate, therefore, is not about immer- sion. My opponent believes in immersion, lifts his hand to heaven and in the solemn and awful name of the whole Divinity, calls it baptism. This he could not do if he did not believe in it, without ruining his own soul. The question, then, and the only ques- tion to settle, on this occasion, is whether his practice will stand the test. This places him where he really is, in the afiirmative, defending sprinkliug, pouring, moistening, staining, cleansing, purifying, or any thing else he can think of. I have nothing at stake. He has everything at stake. It is a most fearful thing for a preacher to say, 14 192 DEBATE ON THE '■^Ihajptke you in the naiiie of the Pather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," when he does not baptize at all. This I solemnly believe every man does who prac- tices any tiling but immersion. IV^. My fourth argument is founded upon the fact, that those who were proper sub- jects, and have been immersed, are satisfied. They may hear sprinklers preach, no mat- ter how much, and they rarely ever become dissatisfied and desire to have water sprink- led or poured upon them. I do not say, that no case can be found, where immersed persons became dissatisfied and desire to have water sj)rinkled or poured upon them. If there are any such cases, they are ex- ceedingly few. But, on the other hand, what multitudes of those who have receiv- ed sprinkling or pouring become dissatis- fied and, after hearing all their preachers can say to satisfy them, though they have confidence in them and love them, can not rest, nor be persuaded that they have been baptized, and are never satisfied till they are immersed. What is the reason of this vast difference ? Why do those sprinkled, in such numerous instances, become dissat- isfied ? and why do those immersed so rare- ly, if ever, become dissatisfied ? Many as sincere and honest as can be found on earth, remain dissatisfied with sprinkling all their lives, and dissatisfied when they come to death; and no reasoning, persuasions or ar- guments of their own preachers, whom they ACTION OF BAPTISM. 193 love and have confidence in, can satisfy them. Wb}^ cannot the mind be put to rest on one side of tlie question, while it is at rest so generally on tbe other? Immersion answers the conscience, but sprinkling or pouring does not. My worthy friend and many other preachers know that they can not satisfy the members of their own church- es. In spite of all the comfort they can give them, the supports they can furnish, or evidences they can produce, their mem- bers, in numerous instances, have a con- sciousness all the time that they have not done their duty and are unhappy about it. Why is this ? The reason is simply that sprinkling and pouring have no foundation in the Bible. The only matter of surprise, in my mind, is, when they can and do immerse conscious- ly, why they should continue a practice in- volving so many sincere, candid and hon- est souls, in their endeavors to serve God, in such an unhappy condition, such a state of doubt and uncertainty for life, in that which, to say the least, is of such great mo- ment that they can not be hapj^y till they know they have done what the Lord com- manded, when they could so easily practice that which would leave them in no doubt ! A large number of those sprinkled, both of those sprinkled before they know any thing, and those who receive it voluntarily, become unhappy about it, discontented and can not rest till they are immersed. Why 194 DEBATE ON THE involve them in this doubtful practice, when they could practice that which is followed by no such consequences ? There can be no reason tor it. That which God has aj)- pointed leaves j)erson3 in no such doubts. It is, at least, a strong evidence that immer- sion is of Grod, that it puts the heart to rest so far as the command to be baptized is con- cerned. This arises from the strong assu- rances found in the Bible, that immersion is baptism and that sprinkling is not. y. My fifth argument is, that the Greek Church never practiced any thing but im- mersion. In all the changes it has passed through and amidst all the innovations uj^on the usages of the Greek Church, she has preserved immersion all the time. I am fully aware that the Greek language as spo- ken by the Greek Church now, is not the same as the original Greek language. But the original Greek writings fell into the hands of the Greek Church, with her lite- rature, at an early day, and she received and has kept the apostolic usage, so far as this action is concerned, all the time. The circumstance that Greeks understood their own literature, the meaning of their own tongue, which they had in writing as well as in s^^eech among them, received the ordi- nance in it and practiced immersion all the time, is a strong evidence that immersion and nothing else is baj^tism. YI. As I am hastening to lay before my friend as full an exhibit of my argument as ACTION OF BAPTISM. 195 possible in my introductory speech, I has- ten to my sixth argument, founded upon the fact that neither sprinkling, pouring or any thing but immersion, for baptism, is mentioned in any book written in the first two hundred years of the Christian era. So far as my information goes, not a wri- ting of the first two centuries has been pro- duced, in all the controversies on this sub- ject, containing a solitary mention of any thing but immersion for baptism. Such a mention would have been produced long since, if it could have been done. I am well satisfied that no such mention is to be found. Can it, then, be possible that sprink- ling or pouring, for baptism, was practiced during a space of two hundred years and never mentioned in a single writing pro- duced in that whole period, nor alluded to in any shape or form ? Sprinkling or pour- ing, for baptism, is not hinted at in all the Bible. It is true, we find both the words sprinkle andpo?n', but never used to express what the Apostles did when they baptized. Nor is there any mention of any person during this whole period ever being sprink- led or poured upon for baptism. jN'o won- der that Mr. M. can not satisfy his own members with his practice, when he can not find a word about it in the Bible, nor any thing written in the first two centuries of the history of the Church. How his prac- tice could have been revealed of God, com- manded by the Savior and the Aj)Ostlcs, and 196 DEBATE ON THE practiced for two hundred years, and yet not mentioned in the Bible, nor any other book of that whole period, is truly unac- countable! There is but one solution of the matter, and that is, that there was no such practice as sprinkling or pouring for baptism, during this whole period, in exist- ence. Such a thing was not in existence. The writers in those times did not write about things not in existence, about which they never heard, and about which they knew nothing. This argument must be in- validated or my friend must fail. If my premise here is correct, and it certainly is, no argument from any other source can sustain sprinkling or pouring. Especially is this true, so far as our proposition is con- cerned, for we are to find what is taught in the Scriptui'cs and lo as practiced hy the Apostles, If sprinkling or pouring for baptism, is not in the Scriptures and was not practiced by the Apostles, then it has no authority and must fall to the ground. yil. My seventh argument is, that im- mersion was invariably practiced by all jH'o/essed Christians for the first thirteen hundred years, except after the beginning of the fourth century, in extreme cases of weakness, or sickness, or such as they call- ed clinics, and these were never allowed to hold any office in the church. If there is any historical fact well sustained, this is; and this fact being sustained, leaves not one thing under the shining sun for sprinkling ACTION or BAPTISM. 197 or pouring for baptism to rest upon. I ask the worthy gentleman, who is to respond to me, to come forward and meet this. Is not what I have stated a well established fact, generally conceded on all hands? and if it is, upon what does sprinkling or pouring, for baptism, stand? Upon nothing under the sun ; and here is found the reason that there is nothing satisfactory in it. YIII. My eighth argument is founded upon the fact that nothing but immerse^ or some word of the same import, can be sub- stituted for hapfizo, and make sense. It is a rule in language, or in interpretation, that the proper definition of a word, in- serted for that word, or in the place of it, will make sense and give the true meaning to the reader. If haptizo means immerSe, it will make sense to insert immerse in the place of haptizo in every place where it occurs and give the true meaning, or the meaning intended in the passage. A few examples of this sort will satisfy any per- son of common intelligence that it does not mean sprinkle, and that the Apostles did not sprinkle for baptism. Let us try sprinkle in the place of haptizo in a few ex- amples: "Then went to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan and were sprinkled of him in Jordan;" Mat. iii. 5-6. How was this done? I can understand how water can be sprinkled upon persons, as the Dis- cipline expresses it, but how the people 198 DEBATE ON THE could have been siDrinkled of John in Jordan, I can not comprehend. How he could sprinlde people in a river, I pretend not to know! This would have been a greater task than to have immersed them. It is easy to see how John could have immersed them in Jordan. Let us have an- other case : " He shall sprinkle you with the Holy Ghost and with fire;" Mat. iii. 11. Did the Lord mean, when speaking of the baptism of the Holy Sj^irit and of fire, a mere sprinkle of the spirit and of fire? Would a mere sprinkle represent the grandest and most wonderful work of the Holy Sj^irit ever known to man ? Did he not mean an overwhelming of the Holy Spirit and of fire ? I have never known a man yet to try to make it appear that the baptism of the Spirit and fire was a mere sprinkle. The Lord said to the disciples, " Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am to be baptized with ?" Matt. xx. 22. Does this mean, " Are you able to be sprinkled, with the sprinlding that I am to be sprinJded with ?" This solemn passage re- fers to our Lord's great sufferings. Did he represent his great sufferings, when he . made his soul an offering for sin, and bore our sins in his own body on the tree, by calling them a sprinlding of sufferings. Ho certainly did not. This would be rather weak imagery. Ho did not look upon his ACTION OF BAPTISM. 199 sufferings as a mere sprinlding^ when he said, " O my Fatlier, if it be possible let this cup pass ; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done." When he called these great sufferings a baptism he did not mean a sprinkling, but an immersion — an over- whelming. Here, then, the most superficial observer can see that haptizo cannot be translated sprinkle. Let us try another pas- sage : " One Lord, one faith, one sprinh- ling;'' Eph. iv. 5. Is that the meaning of this familiar passage? Mr. M. himself will not say so. Indeed, he will not take tbe position that haptizo means sprinJcle, or that it should be translated sj^rm^-Ze. Yet there is nothing clearer than that if it means sf)rinkle, it will make sense to trans- late it sprinkle. If, when the Lord com- manded the Apostles to baptize, he meant to sprinkle ; and if when the Aj^ostles obeyed the command, they did sprinkle, it will make sense and mean just what he intended, to translate baptizo, which all admit to be a Greek word, sprinkle, in every case where it relates to this command. The Apostles had the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, and they not only un- derstood what the Lord meant when he commanded them to baptize, but ihei/ did what he com7)ianded tliem to do. If they sprinkled, in doing what he commanded them to do, that was what the Lord meant ; and it will make sense, and do entire jus- tice to the text, to translate haptiso, sprinkle. • 200 DEBATE ON THE Yet you perceive that it makes nonsense to read, " He shall sprinkle you with the Holy Sjoirit and with fire," as well as takes away all the force from the expression, touching that most splendid gift of the Spirit, and lowers it down to comparatively nothing — a mere sprinkle of the Spirit ; and if the baptism of fire be a threat to the wicked, as I most solemnly believe it is, it lowers it down to nothing — a mere sprinkle. This is simply ridiculous. Again, Acts viii. 38-39, we read of Philip and the nobleman, that they " went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he sprinlded 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." No one can help feeling that there is an incon- gruity here, and that the word sprinlde is not 6ongenial with the scope of the narra- tive. To say, " they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed him, is consistent. It furnishes a satisfactory reason for going down into the water ; but the narrative, with the word sprinkled inserted, in the place of " baptized," leaves the reader without any reason for going down into the water. It ascribes to them an action without an object ; it says " they went down into the water," but assigns no reason for going down into the water. Once more : " Our fathers were once under the cloud, and all ACTION OF BAPTISM. 201 passed through the sea ; and were all bap- tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" I. Cor. x. 1-2. Does this mean that they were all sprinkled unto Moses in the clouds and in the sea ? If it does, I should like to know precisely what was done. There is nothing here about sprinkling water ^ cloud or sea ; but sprinkling people into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea. How people could be sjorinkled into Mo- ses is sufficiently singular ; but how this could be done in the cloud and in the sea, is still more wonderful ! How they could be immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, when the cloud covered over them, and the sea surrounded them, is a sufficiently simple and plain matter ; but there is certainly no meaning in saying, " they were sprinkled unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." As I am now upon a rule of considerable importance, I will introduce another exam- ple : " Buried with him in sprinkling, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of Grod, who hath raised him from the dead ;" Col. ii. 12. Any person can see that it will not do to say, " Buried with him in sprinkling,''^ or to speak of being risen from sprinkling. Again, we read, " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ;" Eom. vi. 4. It will not do to say, " We are buried with him hy sprinkling. No man living can tell how they could have been buried with 202 DEBATE ON THE him hy sprinhling or in sprinJcUng, as it is in the other passage. This shows, beyond controversy, that baptism, does not mean sj)rinkling. If baptize meant s^^rinkle, it would make sense to translate it sprinkle in every place where it is found. Here, I am walking on solid ground, and I solicit the most rigid and searching examination. IX. My ninth argument is, that the lexi- cons, with great unanimity, give plunge, dijD, overwhelm or immerse as the first de- finition, or the primary naeaning, of the word haptizo. This can not be questioned by any one who stands upon truth. If, then, for the sake of argument, we grant that haptizo has all the difterent meanings claimed by sjDrinklers, there is no reason in the suj)position that the Lord used it in- variably when he aimed to express what was to be done literally, in performing the rite, and yet used it in a secondary sense, or with a secondary meaning, in every in- stance in the JSTew Testament. The Savior and the Apostles have used the word in dis- pute a great number of times, and it will not do to say that he used it in a secondary sense every time ; nor will it do to say that he used it in one sense at one time and in another sense at a different time, when speaking of the same rite. Can any man, in his right mind, suj^pose that while the ISTew Testament strictly adheres to the identical same word, in exj^ressing what the Lord commanded to be done, and yet ACTION OF BAPTISM. 203 used that word in two dijfferent senses? If that word is thus used in two senses — one meaning immerse and the other sprin- kle— then he commanded two things to be done, expressed by the same word, and no man can tell when he meant the one, or when he meant the other. This would render the command wholly unintelligible. A posi- tive Divine law can not be given in any such loose way as that. The Lord has em- ployed but one word, and certainly that one word, when applied to the one rite, could have but one meaning. As he al- ways used the one word, he must have used it in its primary, and not in its secondary, meaning. He most certainly did not use the same word invariably, in giving a pos- itive command, in some cases in one sense, and in other case-i in another sense; or in some cases, in the primary meaning, and in other cases, in the secondary meaning. This would make utter confusion. For the purpose of making a point here that my worthy opponent can not fail to see, I pre- sent the following : 1. The Lord invariably used the word haptizo when he expressed the thing to be done literally. 2. He must have used the word in its first sense, or primary meaning ; for it is out of all reason to suppose that he used the same word invariably, in reference to the same thing, in a secondary sense; or that he used it some times in the pri- 204 DEBATE ON THE maiy, and some times in the secondary, sense. 3. The primary meaning of haptizo is un- questionably immerse. 4. If the Lord used the word haptizo in- variably, to express what was to be dgne, used it in its j^rimary sense, and the prima- ry sense is immerse, his command is to im- merse. If the gentleman says the Lord ever used any other w^ord to express literally what was to be done, let him produce that word and the instance where it was used. If he says the word is used in any but the pri- mary sense, let him produce the instance. If he denies that immersion is the primary meaning, let him j)roduce his authority. But I shall walk out boldly and stand upon the ground of Alexander Carson, whose cinticism I regard as the simplest, most profound and reliable, on this word, of any I ever saw. I deny that hoptizo^ strictly speaking, means ordinance, purify, cleanse, wash, moisten, or any thing but dip, no matter what English word be used to express it, whether plunge, overwhelm, or immerse. It has no such meaning as ordinance in it, or it never could be used where there is no ordinance. Yet we all know that it occurred thousands of times in the writings of the Greeks, before there was any such rite or ordinance as we are discussing. It occurs Mark vii. 4, and is translated loash^ in the common version, ACTION OF BAPTISM. 205 where no one thinks there is any ordinance. The same word precisely is used, and with the same meaning, where we read of the baptism of sufferings, of the Spirit, and of fire, where no one thinks it has any refer- ence to the ordinance. This shows that the word does not mean ordinance. MR. MERRILL'S FIRST REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : You perceive that Mr. Franklin and my- self have changed our relative positions this morning. It now devolves upon him to give shape and character to the discussion. I join him in expressions of gratitude to our Heavenly Father, for the kind provi- dence by which we are preserved in health and safety, to renew our investigations ; and, with him, I desire that truth and righteousness may prevail, until error shall be banished from the earth. NothiLg is more important, on this occa- sion, than that we conduct ourselves with dignity and propriety. I am bound in courtesy to treat my friend, Mr. Franklin, with respect. His age, experience, and po- sition, demand that I should always allude to Ixim with respect, and regard his opinions with deference. But he also ought to feel himself in honor bound to award to me honesty and sincerity. Our rules of deco- rum impose this duty upon him. It is more 206 DEBATE ON THE in sorrow than in anger that I feel myself impelled to point out his aberrations. There were, however, in his opening address, two such gross departures from propriety, that I must not let them pass. The first was with reference to the form, of the proposi- tion, which is stated in his own words. When he invited me to discuss the subject of Baptism, I told him plainly that when- ever he would affirm in debate what he had affirmed in preaching, and in regard to which he had so earnestly challenged dis- cussion, I would hold myself ready to re- sj)ond on fair and honorable terms. To that declaration I have adhered, in letter and spirit. His charge in the correspon- dence, that I refused to defend my practice, was in bad taste, if not in bad humor ; but when he reiterates that charge in his open- ing speech, I confess I know not how to characterize his conduct. I doubt not that he feels oppressed with the task he has ta- ken upon himself, but his proposition rep- resents the true issue, placing the orms pro- handi where it properly belongs, and he has no right to complain. I am astonished to hear him comj)lainingly insinuate that a mere novice in polemics has taken advan- tage of him. This does not sound well, coming from the lips of so experienced a warrior. The second point to which I re- fer, I can only regard as an undignified fling at our proceedings on yesterday. He insinuates that I tried to "twist out" of the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 207 meaning of the word "only." I meet the charge with a flat denial, and excuse the gentleman on the ground of the soreness he feels, in reflecting upon the past. We will see whether he adheres to his exclusive term, in the strong sense he attaches to it. If he does, I shall certainly not object. The first thing to be done, is to ascertain the precise issue between us. Mr. Frank- lin has not presented the issue just as it is. He has assumed that the word baptize ex- presses a specific action, no more and no less ; but this is the point he is to prove. He probably anticipated some difficulty in his way, and took particular pains to in- form us that the word does not mean "or- dinance." But who j^retends that the word baptize does mean ordinance ? I do not. There is one thing, however, which my friend will hardly dispute. It is that the word haptism is the p>roper name of an ordi- nance. This he admits ; for he says the word baptize " expresses the thing to be done in administering the ordinance." Bap- tism is, therefore, an ordinance. We then agree that baptize expresses the thing to be done in administering the ordinance ; for the thing to be done is to baptize; but the question before us is as to the manner of do- ing this — the manner of baptizing, or of administering the rite of baptism. My friend assumes that it is done by putting the subject entirely under the water — by immersion, and by immersion only. He 15 208 DEBATE ON THE claims tliat the word expresses this action specifically, and has no other meaning. He believes that immerse is precisely the meaning of baptize, and that it exhausts the meaning; that it relates to mode, and only to mode. This is the position of the cele- brated Baptist critic, Alexander Carson, whom my friend so highly complimented before he sat down. I was happy to hear ]Mr. F. so heartily endorse Mr. Carson, for I shall find use for some of his learning be- fore we get through. It will be perfectly admissable for me to quote Carson, but for Mr. F. to do so, looks a little strange. I never quote as authorities, any of my own partisans. Mr. Carson asserts that baptize is "strictly univocal." He devotes an en- tire section to proving that it relates to ''hnode ;" but Mr. F., with less learning, and with less eminence, takes it upon himself to repudiate the word "mode," and declares that he has no use for it at all ! But the only advantage he gained is, that he is en- abled to beg the question with a little more facility. The real question is, as to whether bap^ tize is a generic or a specific term. We must ascertain this before we can determine whe- ther it expresses the mode of baptism, or whether it relates to the administration of the rite, without definitely prescribing the form of administration. I am not to main- tain that "sprinkle" is the precise idea the word conirtju-ti'^. and the whole idea; nor am ACTION OF BAPTISM. 209 I to show that "pour" is iDrecisely synony- mous with baptize. If I show you that the word is generic — that it is the proper name of an ordinance, and relates to the administration of the ordinance, without definitely prescribing the mode, I shall have gained my point. My position is that the manner of the administration is to be learned outside of the mere word. I do not say we are left in the dark in regard to the mode, but that the word itself does not ex- press the specific form of administration. With these remarks, I shall recall your at- tention to Mr. Franklin's nine arguments. I. "The Lord and the Apostles, when they expressed that which was to be done literally, used but one word." The thing to be done was to administer the ordinance of baptism. The one word employed in the command was haptizo. Mr. F. lays down what I suppose he calls an axiom, or self-evident proposition, and evidently re- lies upon it to carry him through his diffi- cult undertaking. Hence, before he sat down he called it up again, and tried to im- press it by repetition. We must therefore look it full in the face. He says, "It is cer- tain a word can never have but one mean- ing when applied to one thing." Here, then, is the argument : A word can never have but one meaning when applied to one thing ; but the Lord and the Apostles, when speaking of baptism, used one word with reference to one thing ; therefore, that one 210 DEBATE ON THE word can have but one meaning. Now I hold that thegentleman's argument contains the sophism which logicians call Petitio Frin- cipii — a begging of the question. I dispute the correctness of the application of his rule. "What does he mean when he says a word has but one meaning? Does he mean that the word is necessarily uiiivocalf This is the point to be established by proof. Or does he simply mean that when a word is used in a given sense in reference to a cer- tain thing, it must always bear that sense, when used by the sj)eaker with reference to that thing ? Then it is the uniformity of the use of the word, he is aiming at, and not its specific import. Kow let us apply the rule to the case in hand. The Savior uses the word haptizo with reference to the rite of baptism. When he uses this one word with reference to this one thing, it must have one meaning. He would not use it in one sense at one time, and in another sense at another time, without notice of change. Yery good, thus far. Then if he used it in the specific sense once^ with refer- ence to this one thing, baptism, he used it in the same sense always when speaking of that one thing ; but if he used it in the generic sense once^ when sjoeaking of this or- dinance, he used in the generic sense always when sj^eaking of that one thing. The question is — In which sense did the Lord and the Apostles use this one word, when speaking of this one thing ? My friend as- ACTION OP BAPTISM. 211 sumes that it was in the specific. This I de- ny. He says it is certain that the Savior used this word to express the thing to be done; but does he mean that it is certain that the Savior, by using this word, aimed to give specific direction as to the mode or manner of using the water in the adminis- tration of the ordinance? If so, I dispute the point, and call for the proof. This is the precise issue between us. Thus in eve- ry turn he gives this "argument," he perpe- trates a palj^able sophism — begs the ques- tion. He spent some time in defining my posi- tion. His labor was for nought. I claim the privilege of defining my own position. His reference to the "correspondence" showed an over-anxious desire to strain a point. I will not follow him into these di- gressions. He would spend his time to better advantage by defining and proving his own positions. He is fond of talking about my "singular predicaments." If he finds any comfort in it I am willing to j)er- mit him to enjoy it. His allusion to men of note was simply ridiculous. II. The gentleman's second argument is peculiar. " In departing from the appoint- ments of God, it is more probable that they departed from the more laborious, inconve- nient and unpleasant, to the more easy, con- venient and pleasant." The gentleman is anxious to make his position look even " probable," but so far as this " argument " 212 DEBATE ON THE is concerned, the facts are against liim. The tendency of human nature in religious mat- ters, is from the inward to the outward — from the spiritual to the physical — from the simple and j)lain to the mysterious and pompous. Even in Paul's day, there was a strong leaning from the liberty of the gospel to the " yoke of bondage," which the Apostles had to rebuke. Christianity was never more burdensome than in the midnight of the dark ages. Immersion was never more popular than when super- stition and error overspread the church. It enjoyed almost uninterrupted sway dur- ing the first half of that dreadful thousand years. "As the light of the apostolic age re- ceded," the idea gained possession of the leaders in the church, that the simple rites of Christianity were not suflficiently impres- sive. They caught the spirit of the world, and as they mixed the philosophy of the schools with the teachings of Jesus, they sought to increase the influence of the or- dinances of the gospel, by making them conform to the mysteries of the pagan tem- j)les. They were governed by " worldly wisdom " and religious fanaticism, and not by the desire for ease and convenience. They regarded baptism as a spiritual cleansing ; and as they lost sight of its true design and spiritual import, they began to reason that if a little water was good, more was better, and then came immersion. ACTION OP BAPTISM. 213^ Then they argued that as baptism was a cleansing, the body should be washed and not the clothes ; then came to the practice of immersing the subject, in |3?(;)"/s naturalihua. Then also came other additions to the rite as practiced to this day by the Eomanists. But I need not point them out. The ten- dency has always been, in case of depart- ing from the divine appointments, to add to the ordinances^ and never to the contrary. Hence, my friend's second argument recoils with crushing weight upon himself. III. His third argument is, " that the Discipline, Mr. Wesley, and my humble self, agree with him that immersion is bap- tism." Surely then my friend feels well sustained ! Why did he not tell you the ground on which we admit that immersion is baptism ? Perhaps he wanted me to spend my time in doing that. Well, per- haps I may satisfy him on this point before we close. He became vehement in declaim- ing upon the awful solemnity of the act of administering baptism. I agree to all this ; it is a solemn thing. G-od forbid that I should ever speak lightly of it ! 1 have not a word to say against the validity of immersion for baptism, when other things are all right. But if the gentleman expects me to agree w^ith him that immersion is the prescribed mode, or that it was the practice of the Apostles, he is simply mistaken. lY. The fourth ''argument" is, "that 214 DEBATE ON THE those who are immersed are satisfied." But are no others satisfied? He admits that they are. He admits also that there are occasional exceptions to his rule. It is true that many are immersed when young, who, after they get older, and examine the subject for themselves, become "satisfied" that their early impressions were erro- neous ; but no body tries to disturb their consciences about it. I venture the asser- tion that if we should pursue the same course in regard to this matter that immer- sionists pursue, our labors would be attend- ed with the same results. Were I to go to the younger members of the churches that practice immersion exclusively, and tell them they must be "sprinkled" or they never could obey the gospel, and then be- labor them until I got them confused and excited, I could produce numerous instances of persons dissatisfied with immersion. He talks about people becoming dissatisfied when sick and dying, because they have not been immersed. I do not know what his experience has been, but I have never seen such a case. When I visit the sick, I do not take advantage of their condition to trouble them about forms and ceremonies, or disputed dogmas, but try to point them to the Redeemer, as the only refuge of sin- ners— the only hope of the dying. But Bomanists are satisfied with their baptism, and they can not be satisfied to die without " extreme unction j" there- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 215 fore their baptism is right, and "extreme unction " was practiced by the Apostles ! "Will my friend admit this argument? 1 judge not ; and yet it is as conclusive as his own, Y. The gentleman's fifth " argument " was drawn from the practice of the Grreek church. He admits that the Greeks have not the old Greek language, in which the ISew Testament was written, but he thinks there must be some connection between the modern and ancient Greeks, that enables the moderns to understand the Greek Tes- tament better than other nations. Now this is simply gratuitous. But he says the Greek church " has kept the apostolic usage, so fir as this action is concerned, all the time." If so, Mr. Franklin has lost it, or rather never had it; for he never admin- istered baptism as the Greek church prac- tices it, since he was born. But he must say the " Greeks understand their own lit- erature," etc.; but this is nothing to the point, unless he proves that they under- stand the Greeh of the New Testament hetter than others. Can he do it? Will he try? YI. Mr. Franklin's sixth "argument " is a novelty. " IvTeither sj)rinkling, pouring, nor any thing but immersion, for baptism, is mentioned in any book written in the first two hundred years of the Christian era." Did Mr. Franklin ever see a book that was " written in the first two hundred years of the Christian era," in which immer- 216 DEBATE ON THE sion is mentioned for baptism ? The truth is that the books written in the first two hundred years of the Christian era, which have survived the ravages of time, and come down to us, are very scarce. We know very little of what was written by Christians during the first two centuries. If my worthy opponent had read all that has come down to the present, of the books then written, he would still be unprepared to make the assertion he has made, and which he calls his sixth argument. We are not in possession of the records of the church so near the apostolic age, and if the mode of baptism was then discussed, we have not the positions nor the arguments of the parties. Eut Mr. F. can not find a time when baptism, by pouring or sprink- ling, was not recognized as valid, by the authorities of the church. The nearest approach he can make to it, will be in the early part of the dark ages — the palmy days of immersionism. Another remarka- ble fact is, that when the "fathers " began to mention immersion for baptism, they did not exjoress it by haj^tizo, but employed an- other Grreek term for that purpose. Mr. E. will have to "let down" a little from his confident tone, and his bold assertions, and his emphatic repetitions, touching this point. VII. "Immersion Avas invariably prac- ticed by all professed Christians for the first thirteen hundred years." This is ACTION OF BAPTISM. 217 bare assumption, so far as tlie first two cen- turies are concerned. Immersion is not named as the mode of baptism, by any writer whose works have come down to us, so far as I am informed ; and if Mr. Frank- lin can produce the authority for his bold assertion, he will do service to his cause. Let him tell us who informs him that im- mersion was the invariable practice of all professed Christians, at that early period? We want the authority upon this point. The opimon of later writers will not do. His assertion in regard to cUnic baptism, being considered invalid, is equally unsup- j)orted by history. It is perhaps true tliat persons who repented on sick beds, and submitted to baj^tism when they thought they were about to die, were looked upon with a little suspicion ; but that their bap- tism was ever considered invalid, is incor- rect. Had that been the obstacle to office- holding, it would easily have been removed, by a re -baptism. Mr. Franklin would soon have taken that difficulty out of the way. YIII. But my learned friend has at length reached the argument which Mr. Campbell said was " for the special benefit of the more uneducated." It is founded upon the fact that "nothing but immersion,, or some word of the same import can be substituted for haptizo, and make sense." The gentleman did not wish to read us Mr. Campbell's language right out. He is a little modest about that ; so he said the 218 DEBATE ON THE same thing in diiferent words ; but to tell the truth about it, 1 like Mr. Campbell's version better than his, for it is shorter and more sensible. Mr. Franklin, says : " It is a rule in language, or in interpreta- tion [he seems a little uncertain whether the rule is in language, or in interpreta- tion], that the proper definition of a word, inserted for that word, or in the j)lace of it, will make sense and give the true meaning to the reader." This is a little ambiguous, but Mr. Campbell speaks out like a master in philology. He says, " The definition of a word and the ivord itself, are always converti- hle terms J' ^ I shall not detain to inquire into the cor- rectness of Mr. Campbell's "first precept of the decalogue of philology," but remark, that it is quite likely to be like most other general rules of language — liable to excep- tions. But the difficulty in the case of my friend and his " illustrious predecessor," is that it is not a rule for defining words in our own language we want, in this particu- lar instance, but a rule for translating words found in a dead language. Mr. Franklin, I presume, is aware that there are some Greek words for which no exact equivalent can be found in English. We can only . translate them by employing a circumlocu- tion. When my friend gets so far enlight- ened as to perceive that haptizo is a generic term, he will discover that we have no En- glish word that answers so precisely to it ACTION OF BAPTISM. 219 as to exhaust its meanin.c^, as found in ITew Testament use ; and that, consequently, our translators acted wisely in not trying to translate it. It is the divinely appointed name of an ordinance ; and our translators treated it as a name^ by giving it an Eng- lish termination, and transferring it to our language ; so that we have this rite under the divinely appointed 7iame, and I object to giving it up for any other name. I call upon my friend, and all other advocates for new versions, to spare to us uncorrupled, not only this divine ordinance, but its heaven-ordained name ! The gentleman gave us several quota- tions of Scripture — not however as proof- texts, but as illustrations of his rule for the ignorant — to afford some amusement by playing upon the words, "pour," "sprin- kle," " immerse," etc. Perhaps the gentle- man saw something profound in what he said, and certainly he caused some to smile, but whether the intelligent hearer smiled at the wit, or at the man, is a ques- tion I shall not undertake to determine. Whenever he musters up courage to pre- sent any of the cases of baptism to which he alluded, as proofs of his proposition, I shall certainly be along with him, side by side. The case of Philip and the noble- man, the baptism in the cloud and in the sea, the baptism with the Holy Grhost and fire, and the burial by baptism, shall all be attended to in due time, if my friend will 220 DEBATE ON THE advance boldly to the task before him. I deny the correctness of his rule of interjDre- tation when ajDplied to translations, and call upon him to sustain it or abandon it. However, as he followed Mr. Campbell, I may offset that, by giving him one examj^le furnished by Mr. Camj)beirs opponent. Take the word " circumcision," which liter- ally means " to cut round," and wherever you find circumcision in the Scriptures, just substitute its definition, "to cut round," and see what sort of sense you will make. This will test the solidity of my friend's argument for the unlearned. When I take the ground that the word "sprinkled" is an equivalent to the G-reek baptizo, the gentleman may aj)ply his " rule " with some consistency. The use he has made of it, instead of being dignified with, the name of argument, would be more accu- rately described, if it were denominated a pitiful attemj^t at special pleading. IX. The gentleman's ninth argument is, " that the lexicons with great unanimity give plunge, dip, overwhelm or immerse, as the first definition, or the jDrimary mean- ing, of the word haptizoy But suppose I admit all this — what then ? Here is the grand mistake of Mr. Franklin, and all who belong to the exclusive school. They assume that the first or primary meaning of the word, is to decide the question as to the sense in which the sacred writers used this term. But this is unfounded and false. ACTION OF BAPTISM. 221 I know there is about plausibility enough in the proposition to strike the mind favor- ably at first thought, but yet I know it will not stand the test of rigid examination. It is not a question to be decided by lexi- cons. I want you, my hearers, to bear this in mind. The sense to be attached to this word, as used in the Scriptures, with reference to this religious ordinance, is not to be decided by lexicons, but by Bible usage. My appeal is to Bible use, and to Bible use alone. Mr. Campbell — I mean Alexander Campbell, and I never allude to him but with respect — says, "Ko learned man will ever rest his faith upon dictiona- ries;" Debate loith Rice, page 96. Again — " I say the dictionaries are sometimes wrong, and that I can prove. So say all philologists and critics of eminence. The lexicons frequently contradict each other on various points ;" Ibid page 106. Since the gentleman has so fully endorsed Mr. Carson as a critic, I will give you that learned man's opinion of the authority of lexicons. In his chapter on the burden of proof, in speaking of a definition Dr. John- son gives of the word Paradox^ Mr. Carson says, " It is given merely on the authority of etymology, which is no authority at all. Mere contrariety to the prevailing opinion, is not a 2->aradox in the sense of the English language." This is another proof of the ne- cessity of caution in using the authority of lexicons. If Dr. Johnson is guilty of such 222 DEBATE ON THE an inaccuracy in the account of the mean- ing of an English word, what may we not fear from lexicographers in dead or foreign languages? Nothing but examples from a language can be ultimate proof of the meaning of words. The authority of lexi- cographers and critics is only secondary. ]N"or is this question to be determined by a];)peal to the classics. I know that the classics will not sustain Mr. Franklin's po- sition, but if they would, the question would not even then be settled. The New Testament Greek is not classic G-reek. The primary meaning given in the lexicons, is the primary meaning of the word in classic G-reek, in the opinion of the lexicographer; but very often, these same lexicographers, who give sink or immerse, as the first mean- ing of the word in classic Greek, give what they call the New Testament meaning, and then they render it by a generic term, as wash^ cleanse ov purify. They give these as the proper meanings of the term, in New Testament use, and not as its metaphorical or secondary meanings. Hence, my friend's doctrine can neither be sustained by an ap- peal to the lexicons, to the classics, nor to Bible use. My position is that the Bible use must determine the meaning of the word, as used by our Lord and his Apos- tles. Will the gentleman stand to this last appeal? Will he determine the question by the Scriptures? In the language of Mr. Carson, "Nothing but examples from a Ian-.- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 223 guage can be ultimate proof of the meaning of words." The New Testament Greek is the language from which the examples mast come. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament, being the same language, may furnish examples that will be author! « tative. I call upon my friend to lead the way in the appeal to the Scriptures, for ex- amples by which to settle the meaning of this word. If he advances, I will follow; but if he does not advance, I may find it necessary to pursue my own. course. The gentleman put his first and last ar- guments together, and went on to draw in- ferences from them, as though they were settled points. Thus he furnished his four numerical proportions. This is an easy method of filling up the time, but it exhibits a sad want of logical accuracy. He said, " The Lord must have used the word in its first sense, or primary meaning." This is ambiguous, and calculated to mislead. ]^o doubt our Savior used the word in its cor- rect and proper meaning, when applied to the religious use of water ; but that that was the first and primary meaning, is far from the truth. The first meaning of words is not always the correct meaning. AVill my friend dispute this? He can not! The authorities will not sustain him. Then why make all this ado about the first meaning of the word ? Is not the use of words in a living language always changing? Is it not on this precise ground that Mr. Camp- 16 224 DEBATE ON THE bell and my friend advocate a new transla- tion ? If the gentleman intends to support his proposition by philological disquisition, let him walk into j)hilology like a man ; but if he intends to do it by Bible use, let him appeal to Bible use. Having thus reviewed Mr. Franklin's speech, and sufficiently answered his nine arguments as far as develojied, I will pro- ceed to lay the foundation for the opposi- tion I intend to bring against the exclusive theory of my friend, and for the develop- ment of the scrij)tural doctrine of Christian Baptism. Permit me then to call your at- tention to some considerations of a general character, which will prove useful to you, and annoying to Mr. Franklin, throughout the discussion. In the sublime scheme of saving Mercy, revealed and unfolded in the sacred Scrip- tures, we find two distinct features present- ed for our contemplation — the legal and the moral. This distinction is not speculative. It has its foundation in the nature of things, and is seen in all the provisions, agencies, and developments of the gospel of Jesus Christ; nor can it be overlooked without confusing all our ideas of the Christian economy, but especially of the ordinances of the church. Guilt and defilement are inseparable, yet there is a difterence in their nature. Defilement follows guilt as the eff'ect follows the cause, but defilement and guilt are no more identical than effect ACTION OF BAPTISM. 225 and cause. The one has respect to the di- vine law, and aifects our relation to that law, but the other pertains only to our na- ture, and affects the passions and affections of the soul. Accordingly, we find in the Scriptures, two classes of terms, represent- ing the legal and moral aspects of the saving- plan, in actual adaptation to the wants of the soul, which is to be saved both from condemnation and depravity. The first class consists of words like these : ^in, transgression, guilt, condemnation ; par- don, remission, justification, etc.; these are forensic terms, relating to the legal part of the work of salvation. The second class consists of the following: Uncleanness, pol- lution, defilement ; cleanse, wash, j^urify, sanctify, etc.; these, you perceive, are of different imj^ort from those of the first class, and relate entirely to the moral part of our salvation. But the provision is made for sin and for uncleanness. When Jesus died, there issued from his side both Hood and water. Hence God can forgive and cleanse. There is in the gospel pardon and jpurity ; we may be justified and sanctified. The difficulties in the way of our salvation were in the law and in us. Those in the law were, of course, legal ; those in us were Tnoral. The first are removed by pardon ; the second by sanctification. One is just as important as the other. Corresponding with the legal and moral parts of the work of salvation, we find two 226 DEBATE ON THE divine, personal Agents employed in its accomj)lishment — the Son and the Spirit. All that is legal in the work of salvation, pertains to the office of the Son of God, as Redeemer and Mediator, and is effected by his death, resurrection and intercession ; and all that is moral^ to be done in the heart, pertains to the office of the Holy Spirit, and is effected by the personal agen- cy of him who searcheth all things — yea, the deep things of Grod. The provision for salvation, is all through the Son ; the appli- cation of the provision, is all by the Spirit. That the offices of the Son and Spirit are thus really distinct, is too plain to admit of dispute. JSTo man can confound them in his mind, without confusing his concep- tions of the remedial scheme, bewildering his understanding and exposing himself to the vagaries of wild and visionary error- ists, or the crude dogmatisms of ignorance and fanaticism. But the distinction be- tween the work of the Son and that of the Spirit, is no more plain and important than that between the legal and mora? j)arts of the plan of salvation. Corresponding to the offices of the Son and Spirit, and to the legal and moral, in the saving plan, we find in the typical in- stitutions of the former dispensations, two distinct classes of ceremonial rites and services, namely, bloody sacrifices and ^^atery ablutions — pointingto the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus, ACTION OF BAPTISM. 227 and adumbrating onr salvation from sin by j)ardon, and from iincleanness by sanctifica- tion. The bloody sacrifices typified the redeeming blood of Christ, and the wa- tery ablutions typified the cleansing in- fluence and power of the Holy Spirit. The "sprinkled" blood of the victims slain upon Jewish altars, derived its value and efficacy from " the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel;" and the "sprinkled" water of purification derived its significancy from the Holy Spirit of Grod, which is shed forth abun- dantly for the moral purification of the soul. But when the blood of Jesus was shed, the typical blood lost its meaning; and when the Holy Spirit was given, after Jesus was glorified, the typical use of water was no longer needed. The types were now fulfilled in the antitypes. But what becomes of these types ? iS'ow that tyj^es are no longer needed, what is to be done? Are we to be left without any external emblems of the work of the Son and of the Spirit? Is the blood of Jesus to be for- gotten, and no more to be represented to the outward sense, to direct the qjq of faith to the suffering, bleeding lamb ? Is water no longer to represent the pouring out and the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit? Are all emblems to be abandoned? What say the Scriptures ? Answering to the feast of the passover, and to all the bloody sacrifices by which 228 DEBATE ON THE our Savior's death was typified, we find no longer a typical but a commemorative rite instituted by Jesus himself, in which bread and wine are the ordained emblems of his body and blood, by the eating and drinking of which we show forth his death till he comes. This commemorative rite, which we call the Lord's Supper, is the repre- sentative of the ofiice and work of Christ; it points to his sufi'erings and death, fixes the mind uj)0n the cross, and signifies to our faith all our Savior did and suf- fered for our redemption. It relates to all that was Ugal in the work of bringing re- volted man back to God ; but it has no reference to the ofiice and work of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Spirit was never typified by blood, and is never sym- bolized by wine. The death of Jesus took place once and is never to be repeated ; but it is commemorated by a inte to be celebrated often. On the other hand, the work of the Spirit is a continuous work ; it is not past, but present ; hence, it is not shown forth in a commemorative rite, but is symbolized by a rite which is not repeated, but which retains its significancy during the whole period of life. That rite is baptism. It re- lates to the ofiice and work of the Spirit. Hence the Apostles were not permitted to administer this rite under the gospel com- mission until the Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost. But the Spirit was given in a two-fold sense — the ordinary and the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 229 extraordinary. The first was enlightening, purifying, saving; the second was miracu- lous. Accordingly there were two emblema- tic representations — water and fire. The first represents the common, saving influences of the Sj^irit, and continues to be adminis- tered in the church ; the second represented the miracle-working power of the Spirit, and was administered by Christ himself, at the opening of the gospel dispensation, once for all. But the use of the fire was baptism, and the use of water is baptism. The fire sat upon the head, the Holy Ghost fell upon those who received it, and the water represents the whole. The religious use of water among the Jews, which was emblematic of the cleans- ing of the soul, had long been called bap- tism; this was th.Q general name for their purifications, which consisted of different appUcatioRs of water. It was in view of this fact, an inspired Apostle, when speak- ing of these Jewish purifications, called them diapliorois haptismois—Hi^QVQTit bap- tisms. Our Savior took this existing in- stitution, as it had been practiced by the Jews, and by his own harbinger, John, and clothed it with his divine authority and sanction, raising it to the dignity of a sacramental rite, and made it the only standing symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit in the moral renovation of the heart. We have, therefore, " One Baptism," in place of the diaphorois haptlsmols of the 230 DEBATE ON THE ' former dispensation. And as the Lord's supper relates to the legale so baptrsm re- lates to the moral part of the saving pro- cess. Here we see the grand reason why there are two sacraments in the chnrch, and only two. Here we behold the beanty, the sim- 2:)licity and the real glory of the gospel scheme, in its wonderful adaptation to the legal and moral relationshij)s and wants of mankind ! And here, too, we discover the confusion and embarrassment that must overwhelm all who overlook the true and only foundation of the sacraments, as here set forth, in the legal and moral aspects of the Christian system. Baptism can not be a symbol, or figurative representation of the death, burial, and res- urrection of Christ ; for these are repre- sented by the Lord's supper, and baptism relates not to Christ, but to the Holy Spir- it. Neither can the Lord's supper repre- sent the purification of the heart ; for that is done by the Spirit and represented by baptism, and the Lord's supper relates not to the Holy Spirit, but to Christ. The death of Jesus is the foundation of the Lord's supper ; and the supper derives its significancy and value, not from the man- ner of its administration, but from that which it represents ; hence the manner of its administration is not set forth as a mat- ter essential to the validity of the rite. So the work of the Holy Spirit is the founda- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 231 tion of the ordinance of baptism, and bap- ^tisni derives its sifi^nificancy and value, not from the manner of administration, but from the work of the Spirit which it repre- sents ; hence the manner of administration is not set forth as essential to the validity of the ordinance. Had the manner of ad- ministering baptism been deemed essential to the rite, the sacred writers would have made the mode so conspicuous and plain that there never would have been ground for dispute in regard to it ; but instead of this, not one of them ever deemed it im- portant so much as to tell us precisely how it was done ! Would one of our modern immersionist scribblers have left the sub- ject as did the holy Apostles ? But while the mode of baptism is not definitely j)re- scribed, we are not in the dark in reference to it, as we will see in the further prosecu- tion of our investigations. From the Bible use of the word, and the recorded baptisms of the New Testament, I intend to de- monstrate the absolute falsity of Mr. Frank- lin's exclusive notions. I give him fair warning of this, that he may prepare to en- dure it with fortitude. I call your attention, then, directly to this word haptizo. What is its character? Is it a specific term, expressing nothing but mode, or is it generic? I take the ground that it is a generic word. Mr. Carson says it is ^'■strictly iinivocal.'^ If SO, it is a word of one meaning only. Mr. Franklin takes 232 DEBATE ON THE the same ground ; for he tells us that tie "walks out boldly" upon Mr. Carson's posi- tion. If it is "strictly univocal," having but one meaning, it is useless to talk about its primary or first meaning, for it can have no other. If it is strictly univocal, the lexicons, which give it several different meanings, are all wrong ; the Bible use is wrong, and classic use is wrong ; for in all these there are different meanings attached to it. But Mr. Franklin cannot sustain this position. Mr. Carson, with more learning and critical skill than my friend possesses, failed to do it. He grappled vigorously with the stubborn facts that stood in his way, but the facts would not yield. K generic term is one which comprehends a genus or kind. Officer is a generic term. We say a man is an officer in the army, but by this term we do not specify the grade of office he holds. He may be Major, Gren- eral. Colonel, or Captain ; in either case he is an officer. Officer is generic, but Cap- tain is specific. We say a man washed him- self. Wash is a generic term; the operation may be performed in different ways, and the term wash does not specify the mode. The specific term that would express the mode must be included in the generic, but. it does not exhaust its meaning. Just so with haptizo. It tells, in general, the thing to be done, but not the way to do it. The term that defines the mode must be em- braced or included in the generic word hap- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 233 tizo^ but it does not exhaust its meaning. It is not an equivalent to the geDeric term; hence it may not be substituted for it. Here we see the error in the application of Mr. Campbell's rule, that '-the definition of a word and the word itself, are always con- vertible terms ;" which Mr. Franklin adopt- ed as his eighth argument. Immerse, sprinkle, and pour, are included in baptizo ; but neither of them exhaust its meaning. They are not equivalents, and cannot be substituted for baptizo without confusion. When I assert that baptizo is used when it means or includes pouring, I do not mean that pouring is precisely synonymous with baptizo. Hence, Mr. Franklin did not pre- sent the real issue at this point. I ask him distinctly, in your presence. Does immerse exhaust the meaning of baptizo? If so, it relates to the abstract idea of sinking be- neath the fluid, and has no reference to re- sults. It is without signification ; and what- ever else beside the abstract idea of being covered with water, may be included in or necessary to the ordinance, nothing of the kind is expressed by the command to bap- tize. This is strong ground, but Mr Frank- lin has committed himself to it, and is bound to sustain himself if he can. If baptizo is thus strictly univocal, the corresponding noun, baptismos^ must be like- wise ; but I intend to show you that both the verb and noun are used in the Scrip- tures, not only in the generic sense, but so 234 DEBATE ON THE fis to actually exclude the idea of immer- sion. I now call your attention to Mark vii. 4 : '-And when they come from market, except they wash (ean me haptisontai) they eat not. And many other things there be, "which they have received to hold, as the washing (haptismous) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables." It is general- 13^ conceded that the last word, klinoii, means couches or beds. In regard to these baptisms, I remark : 1. They were religious observances ; and this being the case, immersion was Bot ne- cessary to meet their design, which was ceremonial purification. In market, the Jews thought themselves liable to contact with Gentiles and other unclean persons, so as to contract uncleanness, in the reli- gious sense. To guard against this, they adopted the practice of haptizing themselves, whenever they returned from market, be- fore eating. These ceremonial purifica- tions, here called baptizing, were not re- quired to be done by immersion, neither by the law nor by the end to be obtained. 2. ^\\Q frequency oiiliQEQ baptisms afi'ords strong presumptive proof that they were not by immersion. They occurred on re- turning from market and before eating. The conveniences for immersion, and the necessary change of raiment, could not al- ways be had. 3. The beds or couches could not be im- mersed. This is jDlain and important. ACTION OF BAPTISM. 235 4. The water-pots used by the Jews, such as are mentioned in John ii. 6, which were " after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece," were not of the capacity to admit of immersion. I also ask attention to Hebrews ix. 10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings (diai^lwrois haptismois) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." I have only time now to remark, that the baptisms here mentioned, consisted of different ablutions "imposed" by the ceremonial law ; and not one of all these washings can be shown to have been by immersion, while some of them are hnoioii to have been by sprinhling. In every one of them where the manner of using the water is prescribed, it is by sprinkling ; and in the others, where the mode is not pre- scribed, the matter is expressed by a generic ferm, properly rendered loasli ; but baptis- mois is the generic term which comprehends them all, while the accompanying term, diaphorois, excludes Mr. Carson's idea that the word is strictly univocal. I invite Mr. Franklin to lead the way in this appeal "to the law and the testimony." I hope he will stir up his strength and come to the rescue of his exclusive system, pouring upon our investigations that flood of light which he is reputed to possess. His friends exj^ect it, his cause demands it, we all de- sire it, and certainly we may look that he 236 • DEBATE ON THE will do all that can be done to maintain his exclusive proposition. MR. FRANKLIN'S SECOND SPEECH. GentlEx^ien Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I was am as ed at the worthy gentleman, speaking of my age and his being a mere novice in debate. It did not before occur to me that I had any particular advantage of him in years. This, I presume, was only intended as a playfal expression to which I certainly could have no objection. I am truly happy to learn that he has attained to a sufficient age and boldness in the Methodistic faith to have the confidence of his brethren. As to the advantage he has in the proposition, it is one that I was com- pelled to give him or have no debate. I deemed it necessary to allude to it in my opening speech, not so much by way of complaint, as explanatory of my position, in affirming a negative. His remark that the proposition is in my own words, is cer- tainly without thought. It is true, I wrote the words ; but any one can see from the correspondence that I simply accepted a proposition previously proposed by him, with a mere verbal change, after he utterly refased to accept mine. Whether the gentleman tried to twist out of the meaning of the word ohli/ I am will- ing to leave to this largo and intelligent ACTION OP BAPTISM. 237 aiidienco to decide. I am under no mis- take in this matter certainly. Mr. M. thinks I have not stated the issue as it is ; but I am not conscious of mis- stating it. He is anxious to get into a dis- quisition on specific and generic actions, but I have purposely avoided these words, so convenient for mystification, and have aimed to use the most simple terms I could possibly employ, I am determined to be understood and to have the subject we are discussing understood. He may, therefore, prepare to stand out in clear day-light. I stated that haptlzo does not mean ordinance. This he admits. What does it mean, then? It means an action. It is the action^ or the thing done, in administering the rite or ordi- nance. The action expressed by this word, or the thing done in baptizing, may be per- formed thousands of times where there is no ordinance or rite. The Jews baptized cups as perfectly as ever any thing was baptized; yet there was no ordinance or rite in it. Baptize is not the proper name of the ordinance, for you can not learn from that word alone, whether there is any ordi- nance or not ; but you must find some other word, or words, before you know whether the rite is spoken of or not. There is no such meaning as rite, or ordinance, in the word haptizo ; for even in the New Testament we have to find other information with that word, before we know there is any refer- ence to the rite. The word, therefore, does 238 DEBATE ON THE not mean ordinance, rite, nor ceremony, but an action, or a thing done ; and that one word, used in reference to that one thing, can have but one meaning. That one meaning is not sj^rinkling, nor pouring, but immersing. What offset did the gentleman make against my second argument? Did he deny the fact, that if sprinkling was the ancient practice, they must have aposta- tized from it, till immersion became almost universal ? He did not. Did h« give you an instance where the clergy ever departed from the easy, convenient and pleasant, to the laborious, inconvenient and unpleasant, in that which they had to perform with their own hands? He did not. Did he deny the fact that the dark ages run im- mersion almost entirely out, and that the light of reformation is restoring it again ? He did not. But he hinted j)retty strongly that he considered immersion a pagan cere- mony ; yet he will perform it, in the name of the Lord, and call it baptism ! He talks of adding to the ordinance^ in departing from divine appointments, and never tak- ing from them ! Has he not admitted that the Eomanists immersed for a thousand years, and attempted to ridicule it, by si)eaking of " immersing the subject mpwr/s naturalih^is V Certainly he did ; and yet he knows that when Eomish darkness reached its greatest prevalence, it run immersion almost out; and since the light of reforma- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 239 tion has again appeared, immersion has gradually gained ground in about the same l^roportion as light has advanced. The worthy gentleman has not a word to say against immersion as valid baptism ! You see, then, that my third argument from Mr. "Wesley, the DisciiDline, and his own ad- mission, is admitted. They all agree with me, that immersion is right. But, after agreeing with me, that immersion is right, he makes a shift that I am truly sorry to hear. It is not valid because it is the pre- scribed mode, nor because it was the prac- tice of the Apostles ! How, then, in the sacred name of reason and religion, does he admit that it is valid and administer it in the name of the Lord ? The Lord did not prescribe it ! The Apostles did not prac- tice it ! Yet he will administer it, in the awful name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit! ! ! This is shock- ing ! It is not prescribed, and was not practiced by the Apostles ; yet he will lift his hand to heaven and administer it in the name of the Lord, saying, " I baptize," etc. ! This is truly elastic ! pliable ! The gentleman did not meet my fourth argument. The immersed are satisfied, in life and in death. Large numbers of the sprinkled are not. How does he account for this ? He does not persuade those im- mersed that they have not obeyed the Lord- in baptism ! There is a good reason why he does not y for he believes they have obej^- 17 240 DEBATE ON THE ed the Lord in baptism. Immersion is not in doubt; it is not in dispute. Here is the reason he and thousands of other preachers can not satisfy tlieir own members with sprinkling. It is eternally in debate — in doubt. His effort, on this occasion, is to satisfy this people with the doubtful, while they could have the indisputable. The gentleman did not invalidate my ar- gument from the j)ractice of the Greek church. He alludes to their trine immer- sion, I suppose, in his confident statement, that I had never baptized as they do. But it matters not how many times they dip. They have had but the one G-reek word to express the action, and no matter how many changes their language has gone through, that word has not changed, nor has their understanding of it changed. It means immerse, and they continue to im- merse. When I stated that sprinkling or pouring for baptism was not mentioned in any book written in the first or second centuries, I did not anticipate quite such a little and weak evasion as that employed by Mr. M. Did he, or any one who heard me, think that I was confining myself simply to the original manuscript? He appeared so to understand me ; hence his wise question as to whether I had seen such writing. I have seen the JSTew Testament, and it was written in the given time, and translated into English, and sprinkling or pouring ACTION OF BAPTISM. 241 for baptism, is not found in it. I have the writings of the fathers standing iipon ray- shelf, translated into English, and neither sprinkle or pour is found in these for baptism. I have other works, and have seen many, and know that what I am "saying is reliable. The original words for sprinkle and pour are found in nu- merous instances in these works, and even in the New Testament, but are never used for baptism ; but the original word for immerse is med for baptism inva- riahhj. He says I cannot find a time when sprinkling or pouring for baptism was net valid. For the first three centuries, there was not one word written about sj)rinkling or pouring for baptism, so far as we can find, and no such practice was in existence. I have never said that immersion is the mode of baptism, or that it is mentioned as such, in the early Christian writings. I know it is not. Immersion is baptism; not a mode of it. You might as well say im- mersion is a mode of immersion, as that im- mersion is a mode of baptism. There was not one word about mode during the first two centuries, for the good reason that Mystery Babylon had not introduced the innovation that created the necessity for the word mode. He wishes me to tell him who informed me that immersion was in- variably practised in the first two centuries. I will simply reply, that ]\Iosheim tells me BO, and many other distinguished authori- 242 DEBATE ON THE ties, whicli I can produce, if he desires to hear them. My statement, touching cUnics, "was not that they did not tliink tlieir baptism valid, but that they did not allow them to hold office. It was not their sick-bed repent- ance that made them ineligible to office, for the most of them were infants, who had no sick-bed repentance, or any other kind. What an unaccountable word haptizo is ! that we have no word that will exhaust its meaning ! that it cannot be translated but by a circumlocation ! 1 am, in this case, like the man who asked the Mormon to do a miracle; to whom the Mormon replied, "A wicked and adulterous generation; you seek a sign ; but no sign shall be given you, but the sign of the prophet Jonah;" to which the man replied, " That will do as well as any. Give us the sign of Jonah." If no translation of hapti?:o can be given, but by a circumlocution, please give us that, and I will try the circumlocution in the place of the word. IS'o circumlocution will serve the purpose of the worthy gen- tleman. When the Lord commanded the Aj)Ostles to baptize, he commanded some- thing to be done. I care not what he com- manded to be done, when we find what it was, and insert it in English, in the place of the Greek word, it will both exhaust the meaning of the original word and make sense. If, when the Lord cominanded the Apostles to baptize, he meant to sprinkle, ACTION OF BAPTISM. 243 it will not only make sense, but give his meaning^ to insert the word sprinhle. But my opponent has not the boldness to assert that sprinkling is the equivalent for hap- tizo ; but no man here can fail to see that, when the Lord commands him to baptize, and he sprinkles, professing to obey that command, he makes sprinkle equivalent, in the fallest and most literal sense, to baptize. When Mr. M. approached my argument from the agreement of the lexicons, that immerse is the primary meaning of haptizo^ he forgot that he had consented that the same word used in reference to the same thing, must have the same meaning. He overlooked what I thought I had stated with great clearness, that using this word invariably when the Lord gave the com- mand, he could not have used it in a sec- ondary sense. He overlooks the fact, too, that the definitions given are actions^ and when we are consulting lexicons, it is simply a question about what action was performed, and no name of an ordinance ever comes into view. But he immediately abandons all lexicons, classics and authori- ties, and demands that we come to Bible usage. And j)ray where does he go, in Bible usage, to find the proper name of the or- dinance f To the diverse bajitisms, the baptisms of cups, etc., where we all know there is nothing under the sun about the ordinance ! Then he takes a flight, in a learned disquisition on the legal and the 244 DEBATE ON THE oiioral aspects of the saving plan ; but wlio in this audience could see what bearing it had upon the question in debate. He was arriving at the meaning of haj)tizo by a cir- cumlocution ; or, properly, evading the meaning of haptizo by a circumlocution. AYhat light was there in the last half hour of his speech? JNo man living could tell any more what the Lord meant, when he commanded men to be baptized, from all he said. Why did he not come to the plain cases of the JSTew Testament use of hajytizo introduced by me, and examine them ? Why fly off in a circumlocution, in the place of a plain and fair issue with me ? I understand the gentleman, and know who talks to fill up time. His harangue about legal and moral aspects of the plan of salva- tion, spun out and delivered probably fifty times before, may serve to make the people wonder what he means, or to fill up time, but not to show what the Lord command- ed men to do, when he commanded them to baptize. Did he find what the Lord com- manded from the Jewish purifications, some of them authorized in the law, and some not ? Did any person in this assem- bly feel like he was pointing out the duty of any soul of our race. What example of Jesus did he give us ? JSTot one ; but he is back among the ceremonies of the Jews, making distinctions that he could not un- derstand yesterday, between the common, or ordinary, influence of the Sjpirit and ex- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 245 traordinary gifts. What liglit he shed forth ! Having now disposed of the gentleman's reply, I shall proceed with my affirmative argument, commenced in my opening speech. When my time expired, I had just entered upon my argument, to show that bapiizo does not mean ordinance, purify, moisten, cleanse, stain, etc., etc. This ar- gument I did not have time to develop, only so far as to show that it does not mean ordinance. This I did by showing that if the word means ordinance, it can never oc- cur where there is no ordinance. The word baptizo has no ordinance in it, or it could not have been used thousands of times before the ordinance existed, and could not have been used so frequently in the iSTew Testament, where all admit there is no allusion to the ordinance, as the bap- tism of suffering, baptism of fire, baptism of the Spirit, baptism of cups and divers baptisms. BapAizo is not the original word for ordinance. That baptizo does not mean moisten is clear, for you find the word w^here it is evi- dent there is no moistening. When you read of persons baptized in the Sj^irit, you do not think of moistening. If you should read that a man was baptized in fire, you would receive the idea that he was burned, not because baptize means burn. You re- ceive the idea of burn from another word — the word /i/-e. If you read that a man was 246 DEBATE ON THE baptized in ink, you receive the idea that he is stained ; not because there is any stain in the word haptize ; but the idea of stain comes from the word ink. You read that a man is baptized in water ; you receive the idea that he is wet, or moistened ; not be- cause there is any idea of wet in hajptize, but the idea of wet, or moistening, comes from the word water. There is no wash in hap- iizo, else a man would be washed when bap- tized in the Spirit, or in fire. But when you read of a man baptized in water, you receive the idea that he is washed, but not because there is any such idea in the word haptize, but the idea comes from the ele- ment he is said to be baptized in. In this case wash is not a meaning of baptize, but a result of baptizing in water. Baptize the man in fire, and you have the idea that he is hnrned; but you receive it not from the word baptize, but from the word fire. Burn is not the meaning of baptize, but a reason- able and natural result following baptizing in fire. If you read that a man is baptized in filth, 5^ou do not receive the idea that he is cleansed, but, on the contrary, that he has contracted filth ; not, however, because baptize means filth, but the idea of filth is found in other words, describing the ele- ment in which the man was baptized, or the water. The contracting of filth is a re- sult, or an effect, i:»roduced by being bap- tized in a certain substance, but not bap- tizing itself. Cleansing might, in the same ACTION OF BAPTISM. 247 way, be a result, or effect, of baptizing in clean water, but the baptizing and cleans- ing, in this case, are precisely as different as cause and effect. X. My tenth argument is founded upon- the fact, that the G-reeks had three distinct words for the three different acts, immers- ing, pouring and sprinkling, and they never used one of these words for the other, in the place of the other, or used them as equivalents. They no more used these words interchangably than we do the Eng- lish words sprinkle, j)our and immerse. They mean three distinct acts, and are all singularly found in one sentence, in the G-reek Septuagint, Lev. xiv. 14-15. The passage reads as follows in the common version, and the three words are translated pour^ dip and sprinJde : "And the priest shall take of the log of oil, and poin- it into his left hand ; and the priest shall dij) his right finger in the oil in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." Here, in one sentence, we have 6apto translated dijy, cheo translated pour, and 7'aino translated sprinlde. In the J!^ew Testament, haptizo, used in reference to the ordinance, stands entirely distinct from the words from which we have sprin- kle and pour,, in every place where they occur. We only find the word sprinkle seven times in the whole JSTew Testament, and in no place referring to the ordinance. It comes from rantizo four times, from pras- 248 DEBATE ON THE ^ k^isis once, and from rantismos twice. Ehheo occurs eighteen times in the New Testa- ment, and is translated pour twelve times, if I have made no mistake in a very hasty examination. As before observed, haj^tizo is invariably used to express literally what the Lord commanded to be done. !N"ow, these three words express actions as differ- ent, in every place where they are found, as our English words, sprinkle^ pour and immerse. I maintain that if the Lord had intended that sprinkling or pouring should have been practiced, he had the j^recise words at command that meant sprinkle and pour, and would most unquestionably have used them, instead of haptizo^ which has an en- tirely different meaning. This should set- tle the question in an unsophisticated mind, and, I think, will settle the question. If the Lord had intended the Apostles to " Go, therefore, and disciple all nations, sprinkling them into the name of the Fa- ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he would have used the word rantizo and not haptizo ; but, in that case, he cer- tainly would not have said " sprinhling them into the name," etc., but " sprinkle water upon tJiem^^' as expressed in the Dis- cipline. The Apostles could, as Mr. M. does, then have practiced as commanded, by sprinkling water upon them, but how men could sprinlde people into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy ACTION OF BAPTISM. 249 Spirit, is difficult to conceive. That the Apostles could " immerse them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," is evident; but they could not sprinkle them "into the name," etc. Will the gentleman attend to this ? Let him examine this, and he will find enough to do without his circumlocution ; and if he must employ a circumlocution, I hope it will not be such an ambiguous one, that he himself will forget the object of it. XI. My eleventh argument is founded upon the fact, that the King James' trans- lators have translated haptizo, dip, in the common version. In the G-reek Septua- gint, in the account of Kaman, the Assyrian leper, dipping himself in Jordan, we have haptizo. Baptizo is translated dip here. The translators could honestly translate the word here, because they were not con- cerned to save Xaman from dipping him- self, even though it was seveii times; but when they come down to precisely the same form of expression, in the iSTew Testa- ment, where John was dipping in Jordan, they preferred the " circumlocution " to the translation, and gave us baptize, merely transferred and not translated. They did not want to so translate the word as " to contradict the doctrine of our church," or make it require them to dij^ in Jordan or any other river. Bapto is translated dip in three places in the common version of the New Testament. In the words, " His 250 DEBATE ON THE vesture dipped in blood," Eev. xix. 13* hapto is translated dlpiyed. In the words, " shall give a sop when I have dipped it," John xiii. 26, hapto is translated dipped. In the words, "that he may dip the tip of his finger," Lukexvi. 21, Z>«p^o is translated dip. In the words, " he that dij^peth his hand with me," Matt. xxvi. 23, emhapto is translated dippetli; Mark xiv. 20, and John xiii. 26, the same word is translated dipped. ]^o one has any doubt what Iranian did when he dipped himself in Jordan. The same form of expression that tells what he did, in the original, tells ns what John did when he bajDtized in Jordan. The only difference is, that the translators trans- ferred in one place and translated in the other. Translate the word baptize in the history of the baptism of Jesiis, and the others baptized in Jordan, and no man can doubt what was done. He dipped them in Jordan as Namon dipped himself, only he dijDped himself seven times, and they were dij^ped but once. MR. MERRILL'S SECOND REPLY. Gkntlemen Moderators and Respected Hearers: I did not allude to the age of the gentle- man out of any disrespect ; nor did I do it with a view of asking any symj^athy or favor on that score. The fact that he is some twenty years my senior, is in itself a ACTION OF BAPTISM. 251 small matter; but I thought it looked a little strange to see a man of his experience and attainments, complaining that I had taken advantage of him in settling the pre- liminaries for a discussion. I sought no advantage, and desired none. After ask- ing me to affirm that the Methodist Disci- pline is better than the IsTew Testament, he ought to be a little modest about referring to the diiferent forms in which the questions were proposed. When he commenced the agitation of the subject by affirming his exclusive practice, and chal- lenged controversy in regard to it, I could see no impropriety in holding him to af- firm his exclusive proposition. His fre- quent allusions to my " utterly refusing " to affirm my practice, are designed to cre- ate capital, of which he stands in need ; but, though I dislike such expressions, I must say, they are simply ridiculous. I cheerfully submit to this intelligent audi- ence, the question as to which of us sought to '■'■tioist'^ the word " only," in our propo- sition on yesterday. I was amused at the gentleman's hurried attempts to gather up the broken frag- ments of his first speech. It is perhaps not right to take pleasure in his tribula- tions, but his tone was so confident in the midst of his overwhelming embarrassment, that I could not feel that degree of sympa- thy which his distress might otherwise have excited. He is determined not to have 252 DEBATE ON THE any thing to do with such hard words as generic and si^ecijic! He purposely avoided them, because he is determined to be un- derstood ! He has no idea of taking ad- vantage of his ignorant congregation^ by using " these words which are so convenient for mystifying ! " He finds it much more con- venient just to beg the question, by assum- ing that hai^tizo is a specific term, expres- sive of a specific action^ than to enter uj^on the difficult task o^ proving his position, by any disquisition on the nature of the words employed in his proj^osition. He is so much afraid of "mystification" that ho will not "undertake to prove his assump- tions, althuugh his cause rests upon them ! Eut what is he here for ? Is it not to prove that haptizo is a specific term — that it expresses a specific action, and nothing- else? B-Ut while he will not undertake to prove that which needs proof, and which is essential to the support of his proposi- tion, he spends considerable time in prov- ing that which needs no proof, and Avhich can be of no service to him. How long he labored to prove that haptizo does not mean ordinance ! And who in the world pretends that it does mean ordinance ? But he says it means an action or something to be done ! Certainly it does ; for it is a verb, and all active verbs express action ; but are we to understand him to mean just what he said here? Does the word mean action^ Is this its definition? l^O] that was not his mean- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 253 ing. He just repeated his first argument, which I before showed begs the question. Every turn he gives it — every time lie re- peats it, lie begs the question. Were he to stand up here and repeat it two thousand times, it would just be the same thing — a begging of the question, by assuming that haptizo is a specific and not a generic word. Eecause it expresses action, he takes it for granted that it expresses an action to be performed in a certain way. But he de- nies the use of the word " mode." AYliy does he do this ? Is there any being with- out a mode of being? Can there be an ac- tion without a mode of action ? Can there be any fact without its mode ? This little dodge of Mr. Campbell's is too small to cover the retreat of a man of Mr. Frank- lin's size. Mr. Carson — Mr. Franklin's fa- vorite critic — says it never expresses any thing but mode ! Does the gentleman de- ny that Baptismos is the name of the ordi- nance of baptism ? He partly does, and he partly does not! He admits that haptism is an ordinance, and that the command to haptize is a command to administer the or- dinance; but then to admit all this without some effort to stay the mind from the natu- ral conclusion, would not do. So he makes a great ado over the fact that the word does not mean ordinance, and that it is of- ten used where there is no ordinance ! His second argument was not only an- swered, but turned against him. He char- 254 DEBATE ON THE ges me with ridiculing immersion, because I stated a plain fact in regard to the abuse of the ordinance of baptism, which was practised by the church, when men ceased to follow the steady light of Apostolic prac- tice, and began to follow, not their own ideas of " ease and convenience," but the dictates of fanaticism. His idea about im- mersionism gaining in proportion to the in- crease of light, is laughable in the extreme. Does he deny that immersion had full sway for the first half of the thousand years called the dark age, and that the revival of "sprinkling" was about parallel with the revival of letters? His i:)ious airs and sol- emn exclamations over the fact that I ad- mit the validity of immersion for baptism, and yet deny that the Apostles practiced it, were all very cheap and harmless. It may be "shocking "to his tender sensibilities, but if he can not understand it, I am satis- fied that intelligent hearers will see no dif- ficulty in the case. He says I did not meet his fourth argument, but I am satisfied that if there was any thing like argument in it, I did meet it fully. As to his argu- ment from the practice of the Greek church, let him show that there is any necessary connection between that and the practice of the Apostles, and I will then dignify it with the name of argument. He depends altogether on the sound of words — G-reek church ! Surely the Greek church ought to understand Greek ! How profound ! ACTION OP BAPTISM. 255 Does he not know that the schism between the Greek and Koman churches did not oc- cur until about the middle of the eighth century? And does he not know that there is positively no connection between the modern Greek and the ancient Greek ? When he spoke so confidently about what was written in the first two centuries, I did not wish to confine him to "the origi- nal manuscripts ;" but I wanted the say- ing of the men who lived at that period as to the manner of baptizing ; and I siill want their saying in an authentic form. This is all I demand, and nothing short of this will satisiy the inquiring. The opinion of Mosheim, or any other writer of modern times, will not answer the purpose. Will the gentleman prove his assertion ? When he says the original words for " pouring," "sprinkling," etc., are never used in Scrip- ture for baptism, and that the original for immerse is invariably used for baptism, is he not aware that he assumes the point in dispute — that haptizo invariably means immerse? Every turn he makes brings him back to this one point. He can not get away from it. Baptizo means immerse and nothing else ; it does not mean ordi- nance, it means immerse, just because it does not mean any thing else ! But when I ask him to prove it, he cries out, " mysti- fication !" " Mystery Babylon !" Well, perhaps his friends will be satisfied 1 About the most interesting portion of his speech 18 256 DEBATE ON THE was his Mormon anecdote ; but its applica- tion was faulty. I stated a fact that Mr. Franklin can not dispute — that some Greek words can only be fully expressed in Eng- lish by a " circumlocution;" but instead of admitting or denying, he got up an anec- dote, and at once began playing upon the word circumlocution. To come right doAvn to an examination of the character and meaning of the words about which we dis- pute, would be too much like " mystifica- tion !" He is afraid his audience have not sense enough to understand him ! His misapprehension of my reply to his argument from the agreement of lexicons, is unaccountable. I showed him from Ms oion critics^ what estimate should be put up- on the authority of lexicons; that the lexi- cons do not sustain his position, because the^^rsi^ meaning is not VaQ 2:}roper meaning of words in all cases; that nothing but ex- amples from a language can be ultimate proof of the meaning of words, etc.; and then he charges me with abandoning all lexicons, classics, and authorities ! I did appeal to the language of the Bible as the. only standard — the last appeal ; and I still appeal to it, and intend to prove from it that Mr. Pranklin is in error, deep, gross, dangerous. He again, in this connection, assumed that the Lord used haptirM in its firat sense; what docs he mean by this ? Did I not admit that he used it in its prop- er sens^ ? But the qut- stion ie, which was ACTION OF BAPTISM. 257 its proper meaning at that time? ]\Ir. Franklin's favorite critic, Carson, tells us that words often enlarge their meaning so as to Jose sight of their original meaning, and Mr. F. calls his criticism the ablest he ever saw. Let us then go to the Bible and see what the proper meaning of the word was, when used with reference to the re- ligious use of water. Nothing but this ap- peal will satisfy our hearers. He says I went to the " divers baptisms " to find the proper name of the ordinance. This is an- other mistake. I went there to prove that the word is used in the Scriptures with reference to the use of water in different wai/s, and that it relates to the ceremo- nial ablutions, some of which were positive- ly enjoined to be performed by sprinkling, and not one of which can be shown to have been by immersion — and I found just what I went there for ! He wants to know why I did not come to the plain cases of the New Testament. I was waiting for the gentleman on the affirmative to lead the way. When he presents the plain cases of the New Testament, I will be along with him ; and if he does not present them soon, I will bo ahead of him. 1 claim the privi- lege of appealing to the whole use of the word in the Scriptures, for the purpose of demonstrating that it is a generic term. If the word is a generic word, and if it is used in the generic sense in the New Testament, it is used in the same sense in reference to 258 DEBATE ON THE the Christian ordinance. If the haptisms performed by the Jews upon themselves, after returning from market were not im- mersions, how will the gentleman make out exclusive immersion in case of all who were baptized in the Christian sense ? If the " beds " were not immersed, how will he satisfy you that the word haptizo always means immerse, and nothing else ? If the *' divers baptisms " were not all performed by immersion, the gentleman fails to prove his proposition. Then let him not be alarmed at my appeal to the " divers bap- tisms," but keep up his courage and ad- dress himself to his task with all earnest- ness and fairness. I knew the gentleman would not like my exposition of the legal and moral aspects of the Christian system, but he may rest assured of the fact that if he can not see the bearing of my "harangue " on the ques- tion before us, others can and will ; and what is more, they will see its bearing di- rectly against the gentleman on every proposition we are to debate. How wise he appeared, when, finding himself at a dead stand, he exclaimed, " What light he shed forth !" Having now disposed of the gentleman's review of my speech, I will follow him in his further " expositions." In regard to all he has said to prove that haptizo does not mean ordinance, or that it does not con- tain the idea of cleansing independently of the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 259 element used, I shall say but little, as it "would not helj) him prove his proposition, if I were to admit it all. I do not, how- ever, admit it all, because it is designed to support a false position ; namely, that the secondary meaning of words is not their proper meaning. In direct contradiction to Mr. Franklin, Mr. Carson tells us that the secondary meaning of hapto is just as proper and literal as the first meaning. I know we would get the idea of pollution, if we were said to be baptized in or with filth; and that we would get the idea of wetting, if we were said to be baptized in or with water ; and that we get the idea of burn- ing when we are said to be baptized with fire ; but what of all this? Does it prove that inasmuch as the word was commonly used with reference to purification by wa- ter, it could never enlarge its meaning so as to denote the purification ? If Mr. F. will assert this, I will put against him the authority of his own most learned critics ; and if he denies it, he yields all he intended to gain by his labored argument. I will wait patiently for him to take his position. I have seen all his " twistings " and " mys- tifications " before, and feel not in the least alarmed. X. The fact stated as the basis of the gentleman's tenth argument, is indisputa- ble ; but the use he makes of the fact, is un- warrantable. The G-reeks certainly had three words to express the three acts, pour, 2G0 DEBATE ON THE sprinkle, immerse ; but it is equally cer- tain that haptko was not the specific word for immerse ; and, consequently, when the early Christians first be^-an to speak of immersion for baptism, tlie}^ ex- pressed it by another word, namely, l.ata- duo. Will my friend deny this fact ? Did not those early Christian fathers under- stand their own language ? His labor to prove that sprinkle is not equivalent to hapti?:o, is superfluous. Sprinkle is S]Decific and exj)resses mode, and haptizo is generic, expressing a thing to be done that may be done in diiferent ways. The passage quo- ted containing the original words for pour, dip, and sprinkle, does not contain hajjtizo at all, as my friend would have you be- lieve ; but it contains hapto, which is trans- lated dip, where an immersion would be out of the question. But why did not the Lord rise tiie Avord sprinkle instead of ba2?- tizo ? Because that word was too specific — too limited in its signification to embrace all that is embraced in the ordinance of Christian baptism. A more general term was better adapted to the end in view. The Lord did not make everything turn on the mode of using the w^ater, and then deny that the rite has Sny mode, as Mr. Franklin appears to do. When the gentleman proves the correctness of his rule for translating words, by substituting the definition of a word in the place of the ■word to be translated, I will attend to his ACTION OF BAPTISM. 261 examples ; and when lie ^jroves that baptizo can be accurately and fully translated with- out any circumlocution, I may be able to see some sense in his remarks about "am- biguous circumlocution." I hope, by the way, that he will not flatter himself too much with the idea that nobody else can see the bearing or object of my remarks, because he can not. He is so full of his " one idea" about immersion that he can not feel the force of an argument against him. This is perfectly natural. It is a law of the human mind that w^hen a per- son long keeps his attention fixed upon any particular view of a subject, he loses his power of seeing that subject in any oth- er light. This is the inevitable result of " riding a hobby." XI. The gentleman makes what he calls an eleventh argument. It is founded on the fact that the translators have, in a few instances, translated haptizo, dip ; and be- fore he gets his argument made, he insinu- ates that these same translators were dis- honest men ! And what is remarkable in the case is, that in each of the examples he has given us from the New Testament, where baptizo is rendered dip, baptize is not in the text at all ! And, further, where bapto is rendered dip, m most of the ex- amples, an immersion was impossible ! In the expression, "vesture dipped — bebam- menon — in blood " (Eev. xix. 13), the allu- sion is most unquestionably to Isaiah Ixiii. 262 DEBATE ON THE 1-3, where the prophet, in describing the very same scene, uses the expression, '■'■and their blood shall be SPRINKLED UPON my gar- ment, and Iioill STAIN all my raiment /" The idea is that of a warrior getting his gar- ment stained in battle with the blood of his enemies. Immersion is out of the question here. So in the expression, '' give a sop when I have dipped it," the idea is not that of immersion, but smearing. So in Matt. xxvi. 23 : "He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish," does not mean immerse his hand ; for it was not customary to immerse the hand in the dish from which they were eating. Bapto is the word from wliich bap- tizo is derived, and if we find its proper meaning, it will aid us in finding the prop- er meaning of baptlzo. The gentleman having walked out boldly upon the position of Mr. Carson, and so fully endorsed his criticism as the " ablest he ever saw," shall have the benefit of that learned critic's opinion of this word. Mr. Carson saj^s of ba'pto : " Now while I con- tend that dyeing is the secondary meaning of this word, I contend also that this is 'a real literal meaning^^ independent of conse- quence. Although this meaning arose from the mode of dyeing by dipping, yet the word has come, by appropriation, to denote dyeing, without reference to modeT * * " That biipto signities to dye in any manner^ is a truth which, instead of being against us, serves to solve difficulties that ACTION OF BAPTISM. 263 have been very clumsily got over by some of the ablest writers on this side of the question." * * "JSothing, in the history of words, is more common than to enlarge or diminish their meaning. Ideas not ori- ginally included in them are often affixed to some words, while others drop ideas ori- ginally asserted in their application. In this way, hapto^ from signifying mere mode, came to be applied to a certain operation usually performed in that mode. From signifying to dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping, because this was the way in which things were usually dyed. And af- terwards, from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in AiNY manner. A like process might be shown in the history of a thousand words." Mr. Carson gives this as his opinion of the word bapto, and he sup- ports it by several examples frpm the class- ics, which prove that Lapto is a generic term. Among other exaniples; he gives the follow- ing : ''The only instance in which I have observed the word hapto in this significa- tion, in the works of Hippocrates, he em- ploys it to denote dyeing by dropping the dyemg liquid on the thing dyed — 'When it drops upon the garments, they are dycd.^ This, surely, is not dyeing by dipping." Then, after presenting several exam]jles from other writers, proving the same point, he uses this language : " These examples are sufficient to prove that the word hapto signifies to dye in general^ though originally, 264 DEBATE ON THE and still usually, applied to dyeing by dip- ping. Having such evidence before ray eyes, I could not deny this t^ ray oppo- nents, even were it a difficulty as to the subject of the mode of baptism." I will furnish ray friend one more quotation from his favorite critic, and reserve others of a similar character for another speech. "Use," says JSLv. Carson, " is always supe- rior to etj^mologj^, as a witness on this sub- ject. A word may come to enlarge its meanings, so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious to every smat- terer in jDhilology." (For all these quota- tions, see Carson on the Mode of iiaptism, chap, ii, section vi.) Now I propose to " walk out boldly " upon so much of Mr. Carson's position as suits mo. I find the following points which I adopt cheerfully : 1st, That dyeing is a real literal meaning of hapto, inde- pendent of consequence." 2nd, "^optohas come, by appropriation, to denote dyeing, without ■reference to mode.'''' 3rd, "From dye- ing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner.'' 4th, The examples adduced by the learned critic "are sufficient to prove that the word hapto signifies to dye in general.'' It is, therefore, a generic term, 5th, "Nothing, in the history of words, is more common than to enlarge or diminish their meaning." 6th, "A word may come to enlarge its meanings so as to lose sight of its origin." ACTION OF BAPTISM, 265 Will Mr. Franklin "walk out boldly" upon tliese ^propositions, so clearly present- eil 1)}^ his distinguished friend, Mr. Carson ? I apprehend he will not! JSiit whether he wili or not he can not, escape. I intend to furnish examples from the Scriptures, which prove that the word is used where immersion is not implied. I refer to Le- viticus xiv. 2-7 : " This shall he the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall he brought unto the priest : and the priest sha'l go forth out of the camp ; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: and the 2)riest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water : as for the liv- ing bird, he shall take it, and the cedar Avood, and the scarlet, and the hysBoj), and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that w^as 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." In this passage, hapsei can not be understood of dipping all over, or in the sense of immersion; lor the living bird, the cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop, could not all be immersed in the blood of the bird that was killed. But my 266 DEBATE ON THE friend's learned critic says the blood of the slain bird was received in a vessel of run- ning water, in which mixture the things were to be dipped! But the "mixture" is all in the ideas of the critic. The bird was to be slain in a vessel over running icater ; but how the water could bem the vessel, and yet be ^'■running tua^er," is something which neither Mr. Carson nor Mr. Franklin can tell. Another thing may be remarked here, that however foolish and absurd it may ap- pear to my friend, the ceremonial cleansing was to be effected by "sprinkling." To the same effect is Daniel iv. 33 : " The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar; and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' c aws." The word loet is from hapto, and bears the general sense of mois- ten, but does not and can not admit the idea of a dipping or an immersion. No learn- ing, no ingenuity, no quibbling nor twist- ing can extort from hapto the meaning of immersion in this place. The Baptist critr ics have spent a vast amount of labor and. learning on this passage; but there it stands, an everlasting contradiction to their asser- tions that hapto is a specific word, meaning nothing but mode. Before Mr.' Franklin attempts to reply to this, he would do well to remember the contradictory positions his own critics have taken, in order to ACTION OF BAPTISM. 267- escape the difficulty that stares them in the face. In regard to the example found in II. Kings, V. 10-14, where Eiisha commanded Naaman to wash (lousai) in Jordan, and the latter complied by dipping himself, (ehapti- sato,) I remark: 1st, There is no evidence that l!^aaman did immerse himself; 2nd, Whatever he did, was in obedience to the command to wash himself; from which it appears that haptizo here takes the force and meaning of louo, which is unquestiona- bly a generic term. I have now answered the gentleman's ''arguments," laid the foundation for my own theory, and presented him some clear proof of the fact that baptizo, derived from bapto, is a generic term, and, not wishing to anticipate him too much, I will just fill up my time bj^ presenting an objection or two to his exclusive notions. 1. Immersion is not specifically command- ed. This is clear and unquestionable. If bap- tizo does not necessarily mean immerse, (and we have seen that it does not), then immer- sion is not commanded as the mode of bap- tism. My friend can not frame a sentence so as to assert that it is, without assuming the point in dispute, and thereby begging the question. If he thinks otherwise, let him make the attempt. 2. Immersion is not necessary to meet the design of baptism, or to complete its signi- fication. Baptism is designed to represent 268 DEBATE ON THE the moral cleansing of the soul, by the agen- cy of the Holy Spirit ; but the moral cleans- ing is fally represented by the sprinkling of water. ISTo inspired writer represents the sanctification of the soul, by immersion, but invariably by sprinkling. God says: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." 'No such moral cleans- ing is represented by immersion. 3. Immersion is not uniTcrsally practica- ble. The gospel was intended for all the world — for every creature. But not less than eight millions of human beings inhabit the polar regions, where immersion is imprac- ticable for a large portion of the year. In some of those countries, brandy and mer- cury freeze during winter. How could im- mersion be practiced there? Where could water be obtained? Who could endure the process? I would advise my friend to make a missionary tour to those regions where the inhabitants crowd together in huts, and stop the openings of their houses Avith ice ; where they procure water for necessary uses by melting snow and ice, and where the cup freezes to the lip if it be touched in drinking : let him go there and test the practicability of exclusive immersion ! My friend may affect to make light of this ob- jection, but he can not answer it. I present it in a definite form. Either God has en- joined a duty to be perpetually and uni- versally binding, which, for a large poi^tion of every year, ia impracticable far laiilions ACTION OF BAPTISM. 269 of the race, or else he has not enjoined im- mersion, as the exclusive form of baptism. In case of sickness, every one knows that immersion is often burdensome and danger- ous, if not entirely out of the question. But the gospel of Jesus Christ is not bur- densome. It comes to the inhabitants of every clime, and to people of every class, and in every condition, with all its conso- lations, in perfect adaptation to every pos- sible situation in life. Eut exclusive im- mersionism is evidently another sj'stem. Its want of universal adaptation is too plain to require proof; and that it is, in numerous instances, entirely impraciicable, is an un- questionable fact. MR. FRANKLIN'S THIRD SPEECH. Gentlemej* Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I am compelled t,o admit the adroitness of the worthy gentleman, in seeming to allude to my age, professedly in refly to what I had said about his having the advantage, in his negative position. It was not his shrewdness that gave him the advantage of a negative position, when he is really in the affirmative, but his cowardice; which dis- posed him to refuse to debate at all, or have the negative. I was compelled to debate, by affirming a negative, not because he was so sharp as to get the advantage, but be- cau9r5 he was so great a coward- that I had 270 DEBATE ON THE to give him the advantage or have no de- bate. "With all his timorousne3S, howev- er, I did not think of him being a mere boy, as his calculation makes him, only twenty-six years old ! I did not think, though some of his arguments, I admit, are weak enough for one even younger, that he had an apology, in his favor, of his being twenty years my junior ! I do not know how to meet this excuse for his failure to answer my argument, unless the maturity of my argument has made him think me vastly older than I am. Though he lifts his hand to heaven, and says, "I baptize," etc., and does this in the name of the Lord, when he only sprinkles^ he was no more " green enough," young as he is, to undertake to prove, that sprinkling is baptism, than that the mourner's bench is divinely au- thorized, or his Discipline better than the New Testament. He is old enough, young as he is, to know well not lit) try to prove ail he practices. I have said nothing about an "ignorant congregation." I rely upon the intelligence of the congregation to understand me. I know the people do understand me and that they do not understand Mr. M. The rea- son is not that they are not intelligent; but the reason is that much that he has said had no bearing upon the subject, or is not inte ligibie. He is not trying to prove any thing, establish any thing or enlighten any person. What has he said, throwing any ACTION or BAPTISM. 271 light upon baptism? Has lie produced any example of sprinkling or pouring for bap- tism ? ]N"ot one. Has he produced any command for sprinkling or pouring ? Not one, nor any thing like it. What has he done? He informs you that haptizo is not a specific but a generic term, and then, that we have no word into which it can be trans- lated, or that we have no word that exhausts its meaning ! that it cannot be translated only " by a circumlocution." I invited him, then, to translate it " by a circumlocution ;" but, like the man, when asked to give the sign of Jonah, he could not give even that. But if it only means the name of an ordi- nance, why talk of the meaning of the word? You might as well go to the word officer^ to find what a man did in perform- ing the duties of an office. Among all the definitions of haptizo we do not find any one of them to be "the name of an ordi- nance," nor do we ever find it translated, " the proper name of an ordinance," not even by " a circumlocution." This mean- ing of this wonderful word, haptizo, is much younger than himself, and not near so well matured in proportion to its age. It has in its favor merely the unsupported asser- tion of Rev. S. M. Merrill. Ko other au- thority, I presume, on earth. I am not contending that baptism ex- presses "an action to be performed in a certain tea?/," but it expresses a certain action that must he perlormecL That action is im- 19 272 DEBATE ON THE merse, and I am not particular wliicli way it is done, so that the action is performed. Immerse is the action^ no matter, except as a mere question of propriety, whether back or face foremost, right or left side foremostj but it is not the action at all, when you sprinkle or pour. But the gentleman is now fully committed. I say, " Baptize means an action, or something to be done." To which, he says, "Certainly it does." It does not, then, mean three actions, the ac- tions of sprinkling, pouring and immersing. I say, "It means a thing done." Mr. M. says, " Certainly it does." It does not, then, mean three things done. He who sprinkles, does one thing. He does not pour or im- merse, but sprinkles. He who pours, does one thing. He does not immerse or sprin- kle, but pours. He who immerses does one thing. He does not sprinkle or pour. In my practice, I do one thing; I immerse. Mr. M. does three things ; he sprinkles, pours, and immerses. Sprinkling, pouring and immersing are not one thing, but three, as any man in this assembly can see as clearly as that two and two make four, l^o mystification can covt-r this up, nor hide it from this intelligent assembly. Mr. M. asks, if I " deny that immersion had fall sway for the first half of the thou- sand years called tlie dark ages." JSTo, I do not; and from the identical same authority where he and myself learn this, we both learn that immersion had full sway over ACTION OF BAPTISM. 273 the remaining three centuries as we travel back to the beginning. He finds plenty of authority to show the prevalence of immer- sion in the first half of the thousand years of the dark ages, not seeming conscious that the same authority declares the preva- lence of immersion back to the beginning. The same authority is good with him while he is looking one "w^y, but no authority at all when his eye is turned another way. But the fact stares him, and all who stand where he does, in the face, that before the dark ages had terminated, they had well nigh done away immersion, and made sprinkling almost universal. Indeed, when he admits that immersion prevailed through the first half of the dark ages, he admits my argu- ment, that the latter half of the dark ages run it out, and made sprinkling prevail. And since the light of reformation has again broke out, sprinkling is receding and im- mersion gaining. This argument stands in full force against him. The worthy gentleman now does not call for the inanuacri-pt written in the first ages, but the saying of the men, alluded to so confidently my me. I do not, if I under- stand what he alludes to, allude to the say- ing oit\\Q writers of the first two centuries, but to what they did not say. They did not say any thing about sprinkling or pour- ing fur baptism. This is what I confident- ly assert. If he questions it, let him j)i'0- duce one word of the kind, written in the specified period. 274 DEBATE ON THE AYhMt reason has Mr. M. given for telling the audience that I am afraid they have not sense enough to understand me? Certain- ly he has no foundation in the Avorld for saying such a thing. I never found any difficulty in making an audience understand me. I have not a fear but this audience will understand me. He says he has shown, from my own critics, that the first meaning is not the p?-opriVi/»;/i»^ of the water by the clean person upon the unclean. Hence the reason as- signed in the 13th verse, why the person shall be cut off from Israel : " Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and piirifieth not himself, defileth the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 301 tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel, because the loatcr of separation was not sprinkled upon Jiim, he shall be imclean ; hia uncleanness is yet upon him." This whole j^rocess of purification, the principal part of which is the sprink- ling of the water of separation, is expressed b}^ the generic term baptizo^ which is used synonymously with louo. Let my friend Franklin dispute this, and get round if he can. MR. FRANKLIN'S FOURTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I am anxious to lay my main arguments before the worthy gentleman to-night, that he may have the benefit of a night's medi- tation on them and the full day to-morrow to try their strength. I shall, therefore, proceed with my regular argument. I have nothing in view but to bring out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and, therefore, present my reasons for my position as early and fully as possible, that the fairest opportunity may be afforded to assail them. I wish the worthy gentleman to try every point — make his besi effort; if aught can bo invalidated, let it be done. I want nothing that is not substantial and re- liable. If 1 am in any danger, let it be seeni^orif I am likely to lead any other person astray, let it api^ear. 302 I)EBATE ON THE XV". My fifteenth argument is founded upon the expression, "born of water." This important figurative expression is found in the language of our Lord, in his conversa- tion with ISTicodemus, John iii. 5, and in the Methodist Discipline, applied to bap- tism. Mr. M. and myself are perfectly agreed, that "born of water," is haptism. Ko matter how highly figurative an ex- pression may be, it must, to be admitted as a proper figure at all, have some semblance, in some particular, or in some respect, to the literal. Yet, no figure is exactly like the literal in all respects ; and many figures are like the literal only in a single feature, or in one i3articular. In this figurative ex- pression, there is one clear point of resem- _.blance to the literal. In the literal birth, there is a coming forth from the mother. In the figurative expression, "born of water," the person is contemplated as coming forth from the water, as the child comes forth from the mother. Coming forth from immersion, has a semblance to coming forth from a natural birth, but com- ing forth from sprinkling, has no such sem- blance. There is no figurative expression in my acquaintance, that is more opposite, ap- propriate and forcible than this simple and unadorned figurative expression from the holy lips of our Lord, nor is there one which those capable of ai)preciating it, feel more sensiblj^ than this, when they see ACTION OF BAPTISM. , 303 those immersed rise and struggle for the first breath in the new state, or the new creation. In this figurative exjoression, the water is in the place of the mother, and the Spirit the place of the father. Those born of God are begotten by the word of truth, uttered by the lips of the holy Apostles, under the unerring inspiration of the Holy Spir- it, and brought forth from their baptism to the enjoyment of the new state. Such are " born of water and of the Spirit," as the child is born of its mother and father, or of its parents. But there is nothing in sprink- ling that has the least semblance to a birth. If the worthy gentleman should choose to follow in the wake of Dr. Eice, and inform us, that "Jerusalem from above is the moth- er of us all," thus trying to render a figure ridiculous by literalizing it, I would save him of both the weakness and trouble of so doing, by informing him that no one thinks the water is the mother of the church, or the individual members; but in being "born of water," they come forth from the water as the child comes forth from its moth- er. An effort to literalize a figure, shows either unfairness or that a man has not studied the nature of figurative language. XYI. My sixteenth argument is founded upon the expression, " planted together in the likeness of His death," Eom. vi. 5. There are three points in this one expres- sion that do not suit sprinkling and cannot be harmonized with it. 1, "Planted;" 2, 21 304 DEBATE ON THE " Likeness of His death ;" 3, " Likeness of His resurrection." Planting itself has no resemblance to sprinkling. Planting is not done by sprinkling or pouring, but by hury- ing. The planting mentioned here, was in the likeness of the death of Christ. In His death, he was buried ; and when persons are in the likeness of His death, they are bu- ried. Those mentioned here, were not only planted, and in the likeness of the death of Christ in His burial, but they were in the likeness of His resurrection. In im- mersion there is a planting, a burial, in the likeness of the burial of Christ, in His death, and a resurrection like Christ rose from the dead. In sprinkling there is no planting, no likeness of the death of Christ and no likeness of a resurrection. The entire force of all these expressions is lost in sprinkling. There is nothing bearing the least analogy to these expressions. The sprinkler has nothing to say about plant- ing together the in likeness of the death of Christ, or the likeness of his resurrection. He has nothing bearing any similitude to these expressions, and consequently no use for them. XYII. My seventeenth argument is founded upon baptizing in water and the hody being washed icith ivater. "Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assu- rance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water j" Heb. x. 22. ACTION OF BAPTISM. 305 Here my friend can find the words " sprink- led " and "washed," from their proper representatives in the original; but, unfor- tunately for my friend, the sprinkling ap- plies to the hearty and the washing to the hody, as a result of baptism. This is a fatal passage to the practice of sprinkling or pouring. In the practice of sprinkling and pouring, there is absolutely nothing in the shape of, or that could, by any kind of stretch of imagination, be called washing of the body. In many instances, as now practiced, we see neither sprinkling, pour- ing nor immersion. It is neither the sprinkling mode^ the pouring mode or im- mersing mode, and we find no washing the hody in pure loater, but simply moistened Jingers laid upon the face. When I see such prac- tice as this, I cannot help feeling that some men are simply trying how ridiculous they can render the commandment of God in the eyes of the world. In all such perver- sions and corruptions of the primitive prac- tice, the idea of imitating Jesus, in his bajD- tism, or following the practice of the Apos- tles, never appears to enter into the mind at all, unless it be to oppose it. But in the case of the present argument, we plant our foot upon two plain state- ments of the common version, as follows: 1, Baptizing m the river, or m the waters of Jordan; 2, The result that follows bap- tizing in the water — " their bodies loashed with pure water.'' In sprinkling or pour- 306 DEBATE ON THE ing, there are two matters of fact wanting to make a New Testament baptism. 1, They are not baptized in water, or the river ; 2, Their bodies are not washed with water. In plain matter of fact, sprink- ling or pouring does not fill the descrip- tion. In sprinkling, laying wet fingers upon the face, or pouring, they are not baptized in water, and the bodies are not washed with water. In immersing, they are baptized in water, and their bodies are washed with water. Neither he nor any man living can escape this argument from now till the day of judgment. XVIII. My eighteenth argument is founded upon the baptism of sufi'erings. I have already alluded to this, as an illus- tration ; but it is too important, in this dis- cussion, to pass in that way. I intend making a distinct argument upon it, and one that I rely upon with much confidence, and invito the special attention of my worth}^ friend to it. I prove, first, from the baptism of sufferings, that haptlsm is not the name of an ordinance, for here we have baptism where there is no ordinance. This could not be if baptism were the proper name of the ordinance, for the proper name, properly used, must refer to that of which it is the proper name. The proper name of Mr. Merrill always means Mr. Merrill. The j)roper name of the ordinance always means the ordinance; but here, as in many other places, we find baptism ACTION OF BAPTISM. 307 where we all agree that it does not mean the ordinance. The word hajytism does not, then, mean ordinance, and is not the proper name of the ordinance. The word baj^tize has no matter in it, for here, in the baptism of sufferings, we have baptism without water. In one single word, we have bap- tism here without any ordinance, or rite, without water, moistening, cleansing, wash- ing, purifying, sprinkling or pouring, con- sisting simply of an immersion, or an over- whelming in suffering, when the Lord poured out his soul unto death and made his soul an offering for sin. No man has ever attempted, so far as I recollect, to make it appear that the bap- tism of sufferings was sprinkling. The Lord was not sprinkled in sufferings, nor poured, but he was immersed or over- whelmed in sufferings as we are over- whelmed in the waters of baptism, when we are in the likeness of his death. This fixes the meaning of the word baptize. It can have nothing to do with any definition but one, and that one is immerse, or over- whelm. This is what the word means, and all it means, no matter whether apj^lied to the rite, or what. It means immerse, or overwhelm. Having now briefly stated the main body of the argument, during the first day, and my first speech to-night, that my opponent may have a fair opportunity to examine it, I shall proceed to notice some things in the 308 DEBATE ON THE worthy gentleman's speeches that I have paid but little attention to. I shall also elaborate my arguments and more fully develop them as we proceed, and as occa- sion shall require. The first thing, then, I shall advert to, is the fact that evidently stands out clear to this audience, that Mr. M. and those agreeing with him, have no tangible doctrine, no well defined princi- ples, nor clear teaching on the whole sub- ject under discussion. Every man does that which seems good in his own eyes. One man is immersed, another has had water poured upon him, another has been sprinkled upon, another kneels in the water and is poured upon, and yet another kneels and is sprinkled upon ! The preacher seems to have no conscience in the matter ; but regarding it as a little unpleasant to go down into the water, and baptize in the water, in the river ; bury the person in baptism ; thus washing the body in water, and coming up out of the water, according to the Scriptures, he preaches a sermon, the burden of which is to satisfy the new converts that sprinkling or pouring will do as well as immersion. But it frequently turns out that a portion of his own converts do not believe him, and can not be persuaded that any thing but immersion is baptism. They must he im- mersed^ and he, pliable and easy man, though he does not believe there is any authority for immersion in the Bible, goes ACTION OF BAPTISM. 309 down into the water and lifts his hand to heaven, and j)ronounces immcrsiori haptism^ in the name of the Lord ! That the Methodist church has no light on the subject, is as evident as any proposi- tion in this world. The preachers have no agreement about it, unless it be a kind of general understanding that they do not like, and will oppose, immersion. They generally say that there is no authority for immersion, and that they can prove sprink- ling ; but many of their own converts do not believe them, will not be sprinkled, but will be immersed. When the preacher can not convince the candidate that he is right, and the candidate wrong, the good man gives up to the convert, yields his own views to a young convert, and practices contrary to his own preaching, his own feelings, and does all this in the name of the Lord ! How are the people to be estab- lished in any thing under such a ministra- tion as this? Ko wonder if a man should waver, when he hears his own preacher, in whom he has had confidence, and whom he loves, declare before the church, and be- fore his God, that there is no authority for immersion, and then go forth to the water, and not only immerse in the name of the Lord, but call it baptism ! AYhat has my worthy friend, with his fine talents, his liberal learning, pleasant and agreeable manners, even attempted to prove ? What has ho tried to establish ? 310 DEBATE ON THE What point has he labored to make clear and intelligible to this audience? He comes forward, declaring that the manner of baptizing is not revealed ; yet admitting that immersion is baptism, that he has ad- ministered it, calling it baptism, in the name of the Lord ! But what is he trying to maintain? The whole seems to amount to about this: The manner of baptizing is not revealed ; the whole subject is left in the dark ; therefore, any way will do. But this will not do for conscientious people. They can not practice, in the name of the Lord, what the Lord did not appoint. They cannot immerse, nor be immersed, if the Lord did not command it. If the whole matter is in the dark ; if we can not tell what the Lord commanded, we had better, a thousand times, do nothing, than do some- thing in the name of the Lord, not know- ing whether it is what the Lord command- ed or not. If my opponent's logic amounts to any thing, it is simply to mystify and darken counsel, and not to throw any light on the subject. Has he referred you to a clear exam23le of bajDtizing in the i^ew Tes- tament, and claimed that it was sprinkling or pouring ? 'Not one. Where has he been ? Back under Moses, consulting the Jewish ritual, the ceremonies, the types, and shadows, the baptisms of cups, pots beds and the like. He can learn Chris_^ tianity faster from the types than the anti_ tyi^esj from the shadow than the substanco ACTION OF BAPTISM. 311 from the law than the gospel, the letter than the Spirit, the promise than the full development of the good things to come. The fall glory of Christian light, as deline- ated in the teachings and practice of the holy Apostles, as found upon the sacred pages of the ]^ew Testament, is too reful- gent for his vision. It suits his work of mystification better to he back among types and shadows, cujos, pots and couches, than under the clear light of the gospel. But what did he find among the Jewish cups, pots and beds? Did he find any ordinance, or rite, such as we are debating about ? JSTot at all. It is true he found his proper name of the ordinance, but no ordinance or rite! AYhat was he here for, then? The object of baptizing the cups, pots and beds, was to wash them. The reason the trans- lators had for translating haptizo tvash, in some few cases, referring to these Jewish ceremonies, Avas that the object of the bap- tizing was to wash them, and they gave the object in the place of the proper translation of the word, which they should not have done. The intention of the word was not to reveal the object, but the tiling done. The object of baptizing the cups and beds must be learned from some other source. But since, I presume, we are agreed that the object of baptizing the cups, pots and beds was to Avash them, permit rac to in- quire of' the worthy gentleman, if they sprinkled them to wash them. Did any- 312 DEBATE ON THE body ever sprinkle any thing, when the object was to wash it? Did they pour those pots, Clips and beds to wash them ? 1^0, sir ; this is preposterous in the highest degree. They immersed them to wash them, and immersing them did wash them ; but sprinkling or pouring them did not wash them. Washing was not then, and is not now, done by sprink- ling, no matter whether it be cups, beds or the hands. There was not then, and is not now, and can not be, any such thing as washing cups, pots, beds or hands by sprinkling or pouring them. When the object was to wash cups, pots, beds and hands, they dipped them, or immersed them, in water, to accomplish that object, but did not think of sprinkling or pouring cups, pots, beds and hands to wash them. By the way, since my worthy friend is pretty ingenious, I should like to see him, especially as he is so expert in Jewish ceremonies, sprinkle or pour a lot of cwps, pots, beds and hands ! I should like to see how it could be done, and, especially, how it could result in washing them ! The worthy gentleman thinks the ex- amples I have given, where baj^to is trans- lated dij^, are such as to preclude im- mersion. Indeed ! Then the King James' translators have erred in favor of Baptists, in giving us chp from hapto, where it can not be dip ! Why did not he then show us, if dij) is not a proper rendering, what would ACTION OF BAPTISM. 313 be ? Perhaps he would render as follows : " Send Lazarus, that he may sprinkle his finger in water and cool my tongue!" "He who sprinldtth his hand in the dish with me shall betray me." " Shall come with his garments sprinlded in blood." " When he sprinkled the sop, he gave it to Judas." Or would he render — ''■poured, his hand in the dish " — ^^ pour his finger in water " — *' His garments po2^re<:Z in blood." There is not a simpler expression in human speech, when we consider their ancient, simple and unpolished manner of living and eating, where they sat round their large dish, without knife or fork, each one taking his bread in his hand, and dipping it in the gravy in the dish, called it " dipping the hand in the dish." It was not sprinkling the hand in the dish, noY pouring the hand in the dish. ~^o man could see how this could be done, but a child can understand how a man could " dip his hand in the dish." The expression, " dip his finger in water," is perfectly simple ; but sprinkle his finger in water, ov pour his finger in water, is wholly unintelligible. No man can ever feel satisfied with a practice requiring such cavilling as my opponent's position, on these expressions, does. The "garments dipped in blood," Mr. M. thinks clearly against me. But he is widely mistaken in this. The language here is figurative ; but the idea'of dipping is as evidently found in its full force here as in any other passage. 314 DEBATE ON THE There would bo no force in saying, Ho shall come with hiH gai'mcnts sprinkled in blood or poured in blood ; but the force is great, when we read that he shall come with his garments dfjiped in blood. The majesty of the great conqueror, the mighty victor and caj)tain of our salvation ; the awe, terror and horror to liis en(!mies, are heightened and enforced by the declaration, that he shall come with his garments - pc.d in blood ; but the power of the expres- sion is greatly let down when Ave say lie shall come with his garments sprinldcd in blood. This detracts from the true import of the expression, precisely as it does to say, " lie shall .sy>ym/;/e in the Holy Sj)irit and in fire," or " Can you be aprinklr.d with the sprinlc/inr/ thiit I am to bes/;?-m/i^/(7/with?" Tile true state oi' the case is, that there is no such idea as sprinkling connected with any of these expressions, no matter wheth- er used figuratively or literally. The idea of immersion is always present, and noth- ing else can fill their import. The ([ucstion we are discussing is not a mere theoretical one, but a ])ractical one. We are all concerned in it. Kvery honest person that ever makes a proJesyion of re- ligion, must make some sort of a decision in reference to it. The object of our de- bate is not victory, l)ut to elicit truth ; to throw light upon the ])a(h of the sincere, who are trying to serve (iod. My object is to show sincere persons how they may pro- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 315 ceed safely and intolligontly in this im- portant matter. In actino- upon the Bub- jcct. what are the courses tliat may bo pur- sued? Or, in other words, what have they to decide upon ? Or wliat have tliey to choose between? They liave the following: 1. The Friend, or, as called by others, the Quaker, says that water baptism, as performed by the A])ostles, was unquestion- ably immersion ; but that it was 8im])iy a Jewish ceremony, and not intended, by our Savior, to be perpetuated in the church of Christ. He claims that he has the inward baptism of the Spirit, which is all that is required in our day. Here is one choice, and a few thousand peojde, absurd as it may ap])ear, have taken this as the mean- ing of tlie Bible on the subject. 2. A second ground is to conclude that tlio Y)recise manner of baptizing is not re- vealed ; that it can not now be determined how the Apostles did baptize, and, conse- quently, that the whole matter is in the dark, and we cannot tell anything about it. Many have come to this conclusion, given the matter u]) and decided not to do any thing, as they have decided that what is to be done is not revealed. 3. A third class have decided that im- mersion, and nothing else, is baptism; have been immersed, and are perfectly satisiied. 4. A iburth class have decided that the mode, as they call it, is not revealed, and, consequently, that the whole matter is left 316 DEBATE ON THE merely to the caprice of the candidate, to be sprinkled or poured upon or immersed in water. These have no established prac- tice in any way, and, consequently, the minds of their members are constantly be- ing unsettled in regard to their baptism. They have immersionists and sprinklers all in " the same faith and order," and, as a matter of course, much trouble on the sub- ject. 5. A fifth class have decided to practice nothing but sprinkling, have been sprinkled and try to satisfy themselves that sprink- ling will do. 6. A sixth class have had water poured upon them, and defend that as the right way, and try to satisfy themselves that pouring will do. 7. A seventh class have gone down into the water, kneeled down and had water poured upon their heads, and consequently defend that, as the right way, and try to satisfy themselves that it will do. 8. An eighth class go down into the wa- ter and immerse three times face foremost. Now, in the midst of all this confusion, what is to be done ? Those who claim that we should be immersed three times are comparatively few, and if we should re- move the difficulty out of the way for all but these, it would narrow it down very much, if we should never satisfy these. Besides, they admit that haptizo means immerse^ and consequently when the Apos- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 317 tie says, " There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism," it is the same as " one Lord, one faith, one immersion." This is sufficient to decide the case with all of these who are not beyond the precincts of reason. The class that are so perplexed and con- fused that they will not try to do anything, would be relieved, if the sprinklers, pourers and immersers, were onl}^ reconciled. In- deed, the main difficulty would be removed^ if these three parties would settle their dispute. Is there, then, any ground upon which they can settle their dispute ? I think there is. Mr. M. admits that immersion is valid baptism and, in some instances, practices it. He does not doubt that immersion is baptism, for when he immerses, he lifts his hand to heaven and says, " I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He thus calls immersion baptism, in the name of the Lord, and administers it consciously. He can, then, immerse. Dr. N. L. Rice, said in his debate with Mr. Campbell, that he never denied that immersion is baptism. In one single word, almost all sprinklers and pourers receive immersed persons, without ever questioning their baptism. In one word, they almost all admit, with Mr. M., that immersion is valid. What, then, is the dispute about ? It is not about im- mersion, but about sprinkling and pouring. They have always been in doubt ever since 318 DEBATE ON THE they have been in existence. How shall we then get rid of the dispute, except by ceasing to practice that which has always been in dispute, and always practice that which has never been in doubt? I will, before I take my seat, introduce a plain illustration that has been used a great many times before. Suppose I owe a man in this audience ten dollars ; I lay down one ten dollar bill, saying, " I believe it good, but some judges say it is a counter- feit." I lay down a second bill of a similar description. I also lay down a ten dollar gold piece, saying, " They all agree that this is good; you can have your choice." Which would he take, one of the doubtful bills, or the gold piece ? ISTot a man here would hesitate one moment, but would forthwith take the gold. Well, immersion is the gold. It has been good all the time. An immersed person has been regarded as baptized generally, and by almost all par- ties. Here, then, is something that we can agree in and practice, with a good con- science. MR. MERRILL'S FOURTH REPLY. Gkntlemen Moderators, and the Audience : As the gentleman proceeded to advance his affirmative arguments, in his last speech, before noticing what I had said in reply, I will immediately attend to his ACTION OF BAPTISM. 319- " arguments," and then follow him in hig miscellaneous matters, as I judge fit. He is still bold and confident, and dishes out to us by the wholesale the very strongest kinds of-^ — assertions. XY. His fifteenth argument is founded on the expression, " born of water." This expression occurs in our Lord's conversa- tion with Nicodemus, John iii. 5, and is undoubtedly figurative. Mr. F. admits that it is figurative ; and he admits, further, that in order to be a figure at all, it must " have some semblance, in some particular, or in some respect, to the literal." The literal what ? Why, certainly the thing the figure is designed to represent. But what is it designed to represent in this case ? Most unquestionably the quicken- ing power and energy of the Holy Ghost, in the moral renovation of the soul. But how far must the resemblance, between the figure and the thing represented, be car- ried ? This is an important point. It is right here Mr. F. violates the rules of in- terpretation, and presses the matter beyond all propriety and modesty. The Savior never intended this figurative expression to be used in this way. But Mr. F. says truly, that " no figure is exactly like the literal in all respects, and many figures are like the literal only in a single feature, or in one particular." This is just the case with the fiijrurc before us. The leading thought in the expression, is, that there is 22 320 DEBATE ON THE the beginning of a new manner of life. In the literal birth, there is the beginning of a new manner of life ; in the new birth, effected by the Holy Spirit, there is the beginning of a new spiritual life ; and so in the emblematic representation of it, there is a conformity of language and idea, without any allusion to the manner of the birth. Nothing is more crude, forced and inelegant, than the gentleman's view of this matter. I am tempted to call it an outrage upon all the laws of figurative lan- guage, and upon good taste and common sense itself. Surely nothing but a deter- mination to force the language of the Scrip- tures into the support of a favorite dogma, could induce a man to make such use of a figurative expression. "In this figurative expression the water is in the place of the mother, and the Spirit in the place of the father I" Bless me ! to what lengths will the man go, rather than fail to find proof of his notions ! Then, after this, he cau- tions us against literalizing a figure ! Surely the caution comes with good grace from him, after trying to run this figure upon all fours. Of course, we never pretend to find a resemblance between a birth and the sprinkling of water ; h^it the figure does not relate to the manner of haptism at all. It represents the beginning of a new life, and is called a birth on that account. But while on the subject, I will catechise my friend a little. Does the Savior men- ACTION OF BAPTISM . 321 tion two distinct births, or but one? If two, into what lifo does each one separately introduce us? It' but one, what is it that is the basis of the figure — the spirit, or the water ? What is the relation of water to the Spirit? And is the water the emblem or the condition of the Spirit's influence ? Will Mr. F. look at these matters? If ho will, he may rise above the uncouth ideas ho has imbibed, in regard to this beautiful representation of the Spirit's work, Ia renewing and sanctifying the soul. XYI. His sixteenth argument is founded upon the expression, " Planted together in the likeness of his death;" Itom. vi. 5. This argument was suflicicntly answered in my last speech, when I showed that the whole passage makes no allusion to the mode of bajitism ; and also in my first speech, in showing that baptism is not designed to represent the death and resur- rection of Jesus Christ at all. But while my friend continues to catch at straws, I must continue to answer whatever ho dig- nifies with the name of argument. The word s'uvi2^hutoi\ here rendered planted together, is derived from sun, with, and ^j/t?fo, to grow, and literally moans ^o ffrow together. Critics tell lis that it is a metaphor taken from graft iny ; and wo can all see how well it rc])rcHents the union between (ylirist and true believers; that as the scion grows together with the stock into which it is inserted, deriving its life 322 DEBATE ON THE and nourishment therefrom, so the believer lives in Christ, and grows up into him; hut to see any allusion to a sudden dip into the water and out again, in this passage, requires the oj^tics of one hent on seeing immersion, and nothing but immersion, all through the Bible. But Mr. F. keeps false issues constantly before us. He seeks to gain a little favor to his notions, by show- ing that there is no resemblance between "planting" and "sprinkling." But who pretends that there is? His whole argu- ment goes on the supposition that I am trying to find " sprinkling " in every pas- sage that he is trj-ing to press into the sup- port of immersion. This is a grand mis- take. Most of the passages he cites would be as badly tortured by making them teach sprinkling as immersion. The truth is, they neither teach the one nor the other. Like the one now before us, they relate to the newness of life in which the Christian walks, without any allusion to any mode of baptism whatever. He quotes a passage and shows that it does not specifically teach sprinkling, and jumps right to the conclusion that therefore it must teach immersion ! " Accurate logician ! profound rcasoner !" " What light he sheds forth !" XA^II. His seventeenth argument is founded upon being baptized m water, and the body being tvashcd with water. He quotes Heb. X. 22 : " Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, hay- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 323 ing our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- science, and our bodies washed with pure water." I was really surprised to find Mr. R applying this passage to baptism. Why, my dear sirs, the gentleman must know as well as he knows any thing, that it has no kind of reference to baptism whatever. And then to talk about persons having their "bodies washed in pure wa- t#r," after being dipped in torbid streams and filthy, stagnant ponds, such as are sometimes used, is the hight of folly ! His mistake is in literalizing a figure. The passage alhides to the purifications of the priests under the law, preparatory to en- tering into the holy and most hol}^ places, and makes those purifications tyj)ical of the moral cleansing of the soul by the blood of Jesus Christ. There is no allu- sion in it to baptism. Baptism was foreign to the design and scope of the passage. When I talk about fulfilling this passage, by sprinkling water, the gentleman may spread oiit on the absurdity of washing the body by sprinkling. I repeat the remark, and call his attention to it, that I deny that the passage has any allusion to bap- tism; and I challenge him to find baptism in it if he can. Is the word wash^ hapfo, or haptizo, or equivalent to either? Will the gentleman dare say it is? But if the allu- sion is to the washing of the priests under the law, and the aj^plication to the moral cleansing of the soul, what has the passage 324 DEBATE ON THE to do with the subject of baptism ? JS'oth- ing — absolutely nothing ! And this is the solid ground on which the gentleman says, '' we plant our foot !" As to the expres- sion, baptizing in iaatei\ I will only remark that if Mr. F. will venture to say the prep- osition en does not, and can not, have the sense of with, I will meet him at that point, and go with him into an investigation of the authorities. Our bodies are washed in pure water when " our souls are bathed in that ocean of love that purifies our persons, and makes them one with the Lord." XYIII. His eighteenth argument is based on the baptism of sufferings. I could ad- mit all the gentleman claims, in regard to the meaning of the word baptism, when used with reference to our Savior's suffer- ings, without any detriment to my position. No man pretends that it has the specific sense of sprinkle in that place. In fact, it is the hight of absurdity to suppose it has any reference to mode at all. It was not the mode of his sufferings our Savior had in mind when he called them a baptism, but their greatness and intensity. Mr. P. must agree that the word is here used in its metaphorical, and not in its literal, sense. Then I ask him, in all candor, to tell us what he expects to j)i'ove by the metaphor- ical use of the word ? I have no disposi- tion to dispute that the allusion was to the overwhelm ing sufferings of our Savior, when he died for our sins. This is in per- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 325 feet harmony "with my view of the generic character of the word. But how does Mr. F. expect to prove, by this passage, that the word is specific, or, as Mr. Carson says, "strictly univocal?" I do not claim that it ought to be translated "sprinkle." I claim that our translators did right in not translating it at all. Then what does all the gentleman's eloquence on the suffering of Christ amount to ? Just nothing at all. I scarcely know how to express my view of the remarks winch the gentleman made about the name of the ordinance, without calling them extremely shallow. I said haptismos is the name of the ordi- nance. I did not say that was the defini- tion of the word, nor that it always relates to the ordinance, nor that it should be translated thus ; but the Savior calls the ordinance about which we are debating, hajptism ; and every body believes with me that baptism is an ordinance, nor can Mr. Franklin himself deny it. Then what has he been talking about? Nothing under the sun ! I give hi^i full credit for great proficiency in the science of perversion ; so he need spend no more time in disj)lay- ing his skill in that direction. Of course he is betrayed into it unconsciously, but, nevertheless, his practice has made him an adept. But what are we to think of the gentle- man when he asserts so roundly that the word can have nothing to do with any 326 DEBATE ON THE definition but one, and that that one is im- merse? Does he know more about it than all the lexicographers, critics and theolo- gians of the j)resent and past ages? Has lie become an oracle? Has he displayed learning enough to justify us in laying aside all the authorities and taking his ipse dixet, or bare assertion, for our guide in these matters? I rather guess not! I think we will still require proof, even from Mr. Franklin; and if he considers us im- pertinent in this, he must excuse us on the ground that we have never learned to take assertions instead of arguments. Yes, Mr. P., I call for the proof. I can not afford to allow you to beg the question in this way. The people want light. Instead of spending your time in making false posi- tions for me, and beating at figments of your own brain, just go to work and define your own position, and prove it, and you will get a patient hearing. You must ex- cuse me, sir, but I must insist that you stick to the real issue before us, and give us a little more proof, or a little less boast- ing. The gentleman informs you that we have no tangible doctrine ; that we have no well-defined principles, or clear teaching on the subject. He loves to talk about our converts not believing us, and represents us as spending all our time in trying to convince them that baptize means nothing but sprinkle, and insinuates that we are ACTION OF BAPTISM. 327 pliant enough to lyreacli tliat immersion is not baptism, and then to go and immerse them, saying "I baptize you," etc. Now I must be- lieve that the gentleman knows this is all a perversion of our doctrine and j^ractice. He resorts to this sort of witness against his neighbors when lie feels sorely pressed, and is determined to make an impression at all hazards ! I shall not often follow him into these digressions, but I fear I shall have to expose him. As to the charge that there is no agreement among Meth- odists on the subject of baptism, it is decidedly ridiculous. In a large body of professed Christians, where there is but little agitation of a particular subject, it m.ay be taken for granted that there is both agreement and contentment; but whenever you see a man (or a church or jyarty) ever- lastingly harping upon a disputed dogma, giving his neighbors no rest by day or night, you may be assured that his ideas are crude and ill-digested, and that he is not satisded with himself or anybody else. He can only keep himself in the no- tion he has imbibed, by continually argu- ing himself into it. The gentleman asks what I have at- tempted to prove. AVell, I have attempted to prove that hapto and baptizo are generic terms ; and consequently that my friend's notions are un scriptural, unsatisfactory and absurd. I have also attempted to prove that baptism is the ordained emblem of the 330 DEBATE ON THE stead of dip. There may be a proper dip where there can be no immersion. Some- times the leading idea conveyed by hapto is dip^ sometimes it is icet^ and sometimes it is dye^ and sometimes it is smear. Bnt Mr. F. persists in representing me as hold- ing that it always means pour or sprinkle, and nothing else ! He seems to think that when he shows that it does not mean pour or sprinkle, he has triumphantly proved that it does mean immerse ! But the truth is, he has not met the issue at all. He makes light of the idea of garments being sprinkled with blood! Why did he not remember the language of Isaiah, before quoted? He thinks the Prophet "let down " the force and dignity of the sub- ject, when he described the conqueror as coming with dyed garments, and then ex- 23lains the matter by saying that his rai- ment was stained by the blood of his ene- mies being " sprinkled " upon them ! ISTo doubt Mr. F. would have had due regard to the dignity of the subject, and employed different and more appropriate language than Isaiah did ! The gentleman made out a list of some eight classes of persons, who understand the subject of baptism differently. What does he expect to j^rove by this? Is it any evidence that the Bible makes the whole service of Grod consist in having the water used in the right form in baptism ? Is it any proof that haptizo is a specific term, and ACTION OF BAPTISM. 331 means nothiDg but immerse ? Does he ex- pect to prove by it that immersion is so clearlj^ taught in the Scriptures that none but the blinded can fail to see it ? He says, " Now in the midst of all this con- fusion, what is to be done?" And what does he propose? Why, if we will all just yield our consciences, and come over to him, and take his word and do as he di- rects, we may have union ! Modest man ! But is it not a little singular that he can stand up here and insinuate so plainly that nobody but immersionits have any con- science in the matter ? But he is " ring- ing " again on the fact that everybody ad- mits that immersion will do. Is this any proof of his exclusive proposition ? And he still talks about people being dissatisfied with sprinkling. I rej^eat that I could make as many dissatisfied with immersion as he can with sprinkling, by pursuing the same course. But jDcople who are satisfied themselves, are generally satisfied to let their neighbors think for themselves. " Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," is a bit of advice that applies well to all questions of outward form, including the mode of baptism. The gentleman asks, "How shall we ever get rid of the dis- pute?" I answer, by taking the advice of St. Paul, " Let every man be fully per- suaded in his own mind," and by ceasing to disturb the consciences of the young and inexperienced about forms and luodes. 332 DEBATE OiN THE Having noticed what I deemed worthy of notice in the gentleman's speech, I will proceed with further exam/pies of the use of the word haptizo in the Scriptures. I call at- tention to I. Cor. X. 1-2 : "Moreover, breth- ren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized (ehaptisanto') unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." The plain facts in this case are all I want. It is clear, 1st, That there was a real baptism of water — they were all baptized. 2nd, The baptism took place while the Israelites were cross- ing the Bed Sea. They were baptized in the Sea. 3rd, The cloud was employed as the instrument of baptism. The cloud un- doubtedly furnished the water. 4th, They were not immersed in the sea; for the Bible says expressly that they passed over "dry- shod." 5th, The idea that the cloud came down upon the walls formed by the sea, and formed an arch for them to pass under, is far-fetched, forced and unsupported by the least particle of evidence. This is nothing but the invention of some fruitful imagination. 6th, What the cloud did is clearly taught in other parts of the Bible. I refer to the Psalm in which the passage over the Eed Sea is celebrated in sacred song. " The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid; the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water; the skies sent out a sound ; ACTION OF BAPTISM. 333 thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven; the lightnings lightened the world ; the earth trembled and shook. Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known. Thou leadest thy people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron;" Psalm Ixxvii. 16-20. We need have no more dispute as to what the clouds did. The people were baptized^ but they were not immersed. The word here retains its generic sense, and the cir- cumstances prove that the baptism was not by immersion. I now invite attention to the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire; Matthew iii. 11 : "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." This was the prom- ise, as made by John the Baptist ; but we have it in the Savior's own words in Acts i. 5 : " For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." When this promise was fulfilled, on the day of Pente- cost, the Holy Ghost was poured out upon thcm^ as predicted by the prophet Joel. My argument is this : The promise, " ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost," was ful- filled by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost. The same specific action of the Spirit is called a baptism and a, pouring out. I do not say the word pour, as applied to the Spirit, means the same precisely as baptizo, in the promise — that is not the point ; but I do 332 DEBATE ON THE HaviDg noticed what I deemed worthy of notice in the gentleman's speech, I will proceed with further examples of the use of the word haptizo in the Scriptures. I call at- tention to I. Cor. X. 1-2 : "Moreover, breth- ren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized (ehaptisanto^ unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." The plain facts in this case are all I want. It is clear, 1st, That there was a real baptism of water — they were all baptized. 2nd, The baptism took place while the Israelites were cross- ing the Red Sea. They were baptized in the Sea. 3rd, The cloud was employed as the instrument of baptism. The cloud un- doubtedly furnished the water. 4tb, They were not immersed in the sea; for the Bible says expressly that they passed over "dry- shod." 5th, The idea that the cloud came down upon the walls formed by the sea, and formed an arch for them to pass under, is far-fetched, forced and unsupported by the least j)article of evidence. This is nothing but the invention of some fruitful imagination. 6th, What the cloud did is clearly taught in other parts of the Bible. I refer to the Psalm in which the passage over the Red Sea is celebrated in sacred song. " The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid; the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water; the skies sent out a sound ; ACTION OF BAPTISM. 333 thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven; the lightnings lightened the world ; the earth trembled and shook. Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known. Thou leadest thy j^eople like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron;" Psalm Ixxvii. 16-20. We need have no more dispute as to what the clouds did. The people were haptized, but they were not immersed. The word here retains its generic sense, and the cir- cumstances prove that the baptism was not by immersion. I now invite attention to the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire; Matthew iii. 11 : "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." This was the prom- ise, as made by John the Baptist ; but we have it in the Savior's own words in Acts i. 5 : " For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." When this promise was fulfilled, on the day of Pente- cost, the Holy Ghost was 2>oured out npon them, as predicted by the prophet Joel. My argument is this : The promise, " ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost," was ful- filled by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost. The same specific action of the Spirit is called a haptism and 2l pouring out. I do not say the word 'pour, as applied to the Spirit, means the same precisely as haptizo, in the promise — that is not the point ; but I do 334 DEBATE ON THE say, and no man can dispute the fact, that the same specific action of the Spirit is call-*) ed baptism and pouring out. The baptism is, therefore, by pouring, as certain as there is meaning in language. Baptizo is the generic term, and powr is the specific term, which ex2:)resses the mode. This fact will never be answered. It stands out upon the sacred page, an everlasting refutation of my friend's exclusive notions. His idea of immersing in the Holy G-host is crude, un-4 intelligible and leads to materialism. This I will prove whenever he takes his ground in relation to it. But there was also a baptism hy fire. My friend has already called this up, and ridiculed the idea of "sprinkling" in fire. But what do you suppose he believes in re- gard to the promise of a haptism with fire? I do not wish to anticipate him, but I pre- dict that he will tell you it is the fire of hell! This is his position, for I have it in print. But this promise was made to the very same pcrsoiisi^ and in conjunction with the promise of baptism by the Holy Spirit; and it was fulfilled upon the same persons, and at the same time that they were bap- tized with the Holy Ghost. "And there ap- peared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of therti ;^^ Acts ii. 3. They were then and there haptized with. iho. Holy Ghost and fire. The fire was the em- blem of the Spirit in its miracle-working power. It was a haptism, but not an im- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 335 moraion. It did not overwhelm, or envel- op their bodies, but it sat upon each of them. This is clear, plain, incontrovertible. Mr. F. may tax his ingenuity to escape, but right here I shall hold him. ]^o j)laying upon the word " sprinkle " will do him any good. ^0 dodging the issue can be prac- ticed here, l^o perverting of my position is now in the range of possibility. He has been calling upon me for plain cases of apostolic practice, which were not by immersion. I give him the case of the three thousand baptized on the day of Pen- tecost. In regard to this case, I remark that the Apostles neither had time nor con- veniences for immersing this vast multitude that day. Where did they find the water ? How had they time ? How came the hap- tized by changes of raiment? Let the gen- tleman look at this case, and show us that the baptism was by immersion, if he is able to do it. Let the gentleman try his hand upon this case, and I will furnish him others in due time. But I must not give him too much at once, as he will want some time to patch up and revamp his affirma- tive arguments, now so torn and shattered. Xow, how stands the case? I have shown from the gentleman's own favorite critic, that hapto, from which haptb:o is de- rived, is used to signify dyeing in the generic sense, without reference to mode, and sometimes with an express allusion to a mode different from immersion. I have 23 336 DEBATE ON THE shown from Bible use that it is used in the generic sense of wet^ without reference to mode ; and that it is also used in the general sense of smear or stain^ and that sometimes it refers to staining which is done by sprinkling. I have shown that hajptizo is not more specific or restricted in its import, but tells the thing done without defining the mode. Has my friend touch- ed this issue? Never ! True, he has blur- red over it, and tried to ridicule my posi- tion, but he has never yet recognized the ground I occupy, nor tried to meet it. He goes on the supposition that T am contend- ing that wherever either of these words oc- cur, they mean, specifically, to pour or sprinkle ; but the audience will bear me witness, that this is a perversion. Why does he sneer at my reference to Jewish ceremonies? Is it not because it is too clear to be denied, that those Jewish wash- ings called baptisms were not by im- mersion? But if they were not, then my friend must for ever fail to maintain his ex- clusive proposition. I go to these cere- monies only to find the sense in which the word is used in the Scriptures, and I find that my position is sustained, and Mr. Franklin's is overthrown ; hence his at- tempt to excite prejudice against my ap- peal to Bible usage. But his labor will be vain. Every man of intelligence can see the propriety of my course. And every in- telligent hearer will appreciate his efforts ACTION OF BAPTISM. 337 to divert attention from my arguments. I stand before a discriminating public, and appeal not to the passions and prejudices of my hearers, but to their understanding and intelligence. MR. FRANKLIN'S FIFTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I am now ready to give attention more fully to the response the worthy gentleman, from time to time, has been making. 1 shall not, therefore, in my last speech to- night, attempt much more than a review of things already introduced. I could not see why Mr. M. should be so excited, in his speech before the one just delivered, in al- luding to the correspondence, in connection with his being so young ! He only had to modify his statement six years ! In the place of my having twenty years the advan- tage of him, as an apology for his doing no better, he now falls, from his former state- ment, to fourteen years. A pretty liberal modification ! Quite a falling off ! l!^ot quite one third off! But whoever will read the correspondence, will find that a more liberal modification than this will have to be made before some of his statements will stand the test. He denies the charge of re- fusing to debate his practice, and demands of me the proof of it, or that I retract. This, he says, he does deliberately. Well, 338 DEBATE ON THE let lis look at it. In the correspondence, I proposed to debate the question, "Is the divine ordinance of the JSTew Testament, called baptism^ in the common version, sprink- ling or pouring?" He practices sprinlding and pouring, and calls it haj^tism, in the name of the Lord. Did he refuse to debate this ? He not only refused, but admitted that the mode (and sprinkling and pouring he calls modes) " is not definitely taught in the Scrip- tures," and that baptism " is not sj^rinkling, nor pouring, nor immersion, as such, but baptism." What was the reason, when I pressed it upon him in different ways, if he did not refuse, he did not affirm and defend his practice of sprinMing for bajDtism ? The reason is, simply, that he does not believe that sprinkling is baptism, as he has de- clared in the correspondence, but does be- lieve that immersion is baptism, as he has admitted in the debate. Many of his breth- ren agree with him, that sprinlding is not haptism, and that immersion is baptism ; and this is the reason why the young man is so sensitive in reference to the correspondence. Every man here can see how fatal his ad- mission is to him. If sprinkling is not baptism, as he has admitted, no man can be baptized by sprinkling. This he feels, and this his brethren feel, and this e;xplains the excitement and restlessness among his friends when I am speaking. They can not endure it to hear him admit that sprink- ling, as such, is not baptism, and that immer- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 339 sion is baptism, especially those of them whom he has sprinkled, and called it bap- tism in the name of the Lord. The worthy gentleman demands of mo some authority, written in the first two centuries, for immersion. What does he want authority on. immersion for? Has he not admitted that immersion is baptism? Has he not, in the presence of some pres- ent, when about to immerse, called immer- sion baptism in the name of the Lord? Did I not offer to affirm that immersion is baptism, and fail to induce him to deny it? Does not his own Discipline, which he al- most swore, in his ordination, he would de- fend, recognize immersion as baptism ? But now he wants me to quote a writer, of the first two centuries, that ever said any thing about immersion for baptism ! Why, sir, we are not debating on immersion. The very first definition of haptizo given in every lexicon either he or myself ever saw, is immerse, or some word of the same import. His own Discipline requires him to im- merse, and he promised, in his ordination, in the most solemn manner, to defend the Discipline. He himself immerses and when he does it, says, ^'' I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," thus calling immersion bap- tism, before Heaven and before the world. But now, when I press him with the argu- ment, that there is not a mention of sprink- ling or pouring, for baptism, in all that was 340 DEBATE ON THE written in the first two centuries, he dodges the question, evades and tries to shift the responsibility, by demanding authority for that about which we have no debate, and in which we are both agreed, that immer- sion is baptism ! Why call upon me to prove wnat he has not had the nerve to de- ny, and what he can not deny, without in- validating the baptism of some of his own members, some of them to whom he has ad- ministered the rite with his own hands, endorsed by the Discipline, and it endorsed by the Conference ! Immersion is a part of his faith and practice, as well as mine, and ho is under as much obligation to produce authority for immersion as I am, Mr. M. certainly knew that I did not aim to demand of him to produce, from the writings of the first two centuries, our Eng- lish words sprinkle smd pour. He certainly knew that I only demanded their equiva- lents, or their proper rej^resentatives, from the originals, applied to baptism. Did he produce these, ever applied to the ordi- nance, from any writing of the specified period ? He did not, and never will. What did he do in this dilemma? He adroitly turned round, and wisely demanded au- thority for immersion ! which he himself professes to believe in and practices ? My sixth argument, then, founded upon the fact that sprinkling or pouring, or their Greek representatives, are not mentioned for baptism in the first two centuries, re- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 341 mains untouched and invulnerable. His practice of sprinkliug or pouring for bap- tism, is not mentioned in the Bible, or any- book written in the first two centuries. The simple reason why this dispute is un- known to the writings of this important period, as Mr. M. admits, is because there was no such dispute. There was, at that time, but one way of baptizing, and, conse- quently, no dispute about it. There was but one practice. They baptized or im- mersed, and did nothing else for baptism. ISTothing was said against pouring and sprinkling, nor against penance and indul- gences, all for the same reason, viz., that these innovations had not come into exist- ence. The worthy gentleman tells you that I deny the authority of my " own favorite critic!" I should like to know when this denial was made. Certainly no one in this assembly knows any thing about it. It has no existence, except in the imagination of. the gentleman. What dispute have we had on the question, whether the primary meaning of words is always the proper meaning ? This is no question in our con- troversy. His long quotation from Carson touched no issue made by . me. I under- stand my friend. He first talks about Mr. Campbell, then Carson, and then starts the question, whether the primary meaning of words is always the proper meaning. This serves the double purpose of making a !i42 DEBATE ON THE show of having read Campbell and Carson, and filling uj) time. Probably he thought, too, that it would serve a third purpose, viz., to decoy me from my intended course; but what has all this to do in answering my arguments? Nothing under the sun, except it be to create a little fog in which to try to hide. There is not a man here can see how it can be answering any argu- ment advanced by me. But there is one thing that every person who keeps his own conscience can see, and that is, that if bap- tism is simply "the proper name of the or- dinance," as Mr. M. mainlains, he has noth- ing in the Avorld to do with the meaning of the word haptizo^ no matter whether it be primary or secondary. I should be happy to see him get enough clear light to define his position and stick to it, so that I may know where to find him. But the true state of the case is, that, with him, haptizo is such a wonderful word that it can not be defined ! He can not tell what it does mean ! It can not be translated except by a circumlocution ! When I call on him for a translation, even by a circumlocution, he fails to give one. When he is at one angle, he reasons as if he believed it to be simj^ly the proj)er name of the ordinance, expres- sing nothing of the manner of administer- ing it. Then he is round at another angle, talking about ^ri7?ia»3^ and secondary mean- ings of haptizo. ]N"ow, if he can get far enough out of the fog to see one point ACTION OP BAPl'lSM, 343 clearly, I should like to have him stand some place decisively. Can he, then, tell lis whether there is any thing in the mean- ing of bapiizo from which we can learn any thing about what the Apostles did when they baptized ? Has that word any such meaning as sprinhle^pour or immerse in it? or has it all three of these meanings? or is it simply the proper name of the ordi- nance, having none of these meanings in it? When haptizo is used in reference to the rite, does it express any thing about what action is to be performed. ]!:^ow let the gentleman come out and tell us where he stands, and stand there, and not talk at times as if he thought the term generic^ as he wishes me to express it, and then, at other times, as if he thought it specific. To use his own illustration, borrowed, I be- lieve, from Dr. ]J»r. L. Eice, the word officer does not contain any meaning, in itself, from which we could determine whether the officer referred to was captain, colonel or general. No criticism in this universe could ever determine, from the word officer , what office the man called officer held ; and he would be doubly stupid who would try to determine what office was meant by talk- ing of the primary and secondary meaning of the word officer. In precisely the same way, if haptizo means simply the proper name of the ordinance, all talk about pri- mary and secondary meanings is mere moon-shine, or even poorer light than 344 DEBATE ON THE moon-shine. But if haptizo means sprinkle^ pour or immerse^ or all three of these, it is not the proper name of the ordinance, and we have to deal with the meaning of the word. If he has any position touching this point, let him stand out in clear day- light and take his position. What does it avail for the worthy gentle- man to go to the Apocrapha, the Mosaic ritual, the Jewish baptism of cups and beds, professing not to use his favorite word, *' pretending " to find the meaning of hap- tizo? It was not the proper meaning of this word he was in search of here, nor in any other place to which he has referred. The proper meaning of the word is precise- ly what he dreaded, and aimed to avoid, when he said it was the proper name of an ordinance, li haptizo is used simply as the proper name of the ordinance, it does not express the action ; but if it expresses ac- tion, then it is not the name of the ordi- nance. In one case we have nothing to do with the meaning of the word ; in the other we have nothing to do with the proper name of the ordinance. In other words, as I claim that the word haptizo is no proper name of the ordinance, but expresses one action and nothing else, I have a right to go to the proper meaning of the word to find what that action is, and the whole his- tory of the use of it ; but as Mr. M. main- tains that it is simply the proper name of the ordinance, he has nothing to do with ACTION OF BAPTISM. 345 the meaniDg of the word. He denies, if I understand him, that haptizo expresses the action, or describes any thinpr of what is to be done, in administering the ordinance. In doing this, he cuts himself off from find- ing any sprinkling or pouring in the word. This he thinks he can well afford to do, if he can cut me off from finding immersion in it. This he can never escape by any of his undignified, unkind and undeserved re- marks about " wise looks," " putting on airs," etc., etc. My twelfth argument, the gentleman in- formed you, in one of his speeches, is founded not upon the meaning but upon the sound of certain words and phrases; such, for instance, as " they went down into the water," "came up out of the water" and "were baptized in the river of Jordan." He says, " It is true, that the custom of modern immersionists, of repair- ing to rivers, streams, and ponds, of one kind or another, for the purpose of immer- sing, has fixed in the minds of the people of this generation, a certain way of associ- ating the idea of immersion with the phraseology in the passages read to you by Mr. F." I think the gentlemen is nearer right in this statement than any thing he has said on the subject. That idea is cer- tainly '•'-fixed in the minds of the people of this generation^'' SO that no sophistry or caviling of any sort, can unfix it in their minds. I think not the sound b»t the meaning of such 346 DEBATE ON THE passages as read by me, has unmistakably fixed that idea in their minds, and I am not altogether without hope that the same idea may be fixed yet in the mind of the worthy gentleman. Pray, tell us, what does the expression, " they went down into the water," mean? I do not ask what the sound is — the mere jingle of words — but what the meaning is. Did he attempt to show you that I had mistaken the mean- ing? or that I had assumed a wrong mean- ing? He did not. Did he venture to tell you that eis is wrongly translated " into," here ? He did not. Did he venture to tell you that -eh is wrongly translated, in the phrase, " came up out of the water?" He did not. Did he tell you that there was any thing wrong in the phrase, *' baptized in the river of Jordan ?" Thanks to heav- en, he did not. His conscience was too strong to allow it. His learning too accu- rate, his judgment too good. He would not — he could not so prostrate his reason, as to call in question the translation in any one of the phrases, " went down into the water," " came up out of the water," or " baptized in the river." What, then, is the obvious meaning^ but not merely the sound, of these expressions ? I demand of Mr. M., for whom I entertain none but the kindest feelings, if he thinks the people of this generation are lead by the sound and not the sense^ what is the mean- ing of the words, "went down into the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 347 water?" What did they do^ when "they went down into the water?" What did they do when they " came up out of the water?" What did they do when they " baptized in tlie river," or waters of Jor- dan ? What did our Lord do when " he went up straightway out of the water?" We not only have the expression " went into the water," but " went down into the water;" and not only "came out of the water," but " came up out of the water ;" and not " baptized at the water," but " in the river," or water. AVhat does this mean? What shall we think this means when we shall stand in the presence of Grod in the last judgment ! Did they not wade down into the water? Did I mistake the sound for the se7ise, when I thought it meant, that they waded down into the water? Does Mr. M. solemnly think before G-od, that I mistook the sound for the meaning, or that I was about to lead this audience to take the sound for the meaning, in claiming that it means, that they waded down into the water. Has he not seen his own converts, or those of his brethren, under the influ- ence of the expressions, " went down into the water" and " came up out of the water," wade into the icater and then have water sprinkled upon them ? He no doubt has. Does he believe in his heart that I mistook the sound for the sense of the words "came 2ip out of the water?" If he does, let him tell us what these words mean. Does he 348 DEBATE ON THE think I took the sound for the sense, of the words, "baptized m water." Why was he then, so cautious, as not to tell us precise- ly what this expression means ? Why did he simply challenge me to prove what was self-evident, and fail to deny squarely and directly any position I had taken ? Why did he not show that I had mistaken the meaning of these expressions ? or why did he not inform us what they do mean ? For the best reason in the world, viz., if they do not have the obvious meaning which he saw you would give them, no man living can tell any thing about what they mean. The worthy gentleman tells us that he "honestly doubts that Jesus was immersed!" He finds not the least proof that he was immersed ! I am not to examine the hon- esty of the worthy gentleman. The Lord knows us both. He knows all about our honesty. I touch not that part of the sub- ject. But I ask him, since he doubts whe- ther Jesus was immersed, if he does not know that the word of Grod says, " he was bap- tized in Jordon?" and that he ^'- went up straightway out of the loater V This he be- lieves unquestionably. Does he not know that Jesus was not sprinkled in Jordan? Does he not know that he was not poured in Jordon? This was impossible, to say nothing of his having " went up straight- way out of the ivater.'' What reason does he give for doubting that Jesus was im- mersed ? Nothing certainly that can an- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 349 swer the demands of any reasonable con- science. The last I saw of him, as he left the Lord coming up straightway out of the water, he was disappearing among the Jewish types, the washing of cups, couches and tables, with the purifica- tions under the law, with a mixture of the ashes of a red heifer and other in- gredients as prescribed by Moses and not by Jesus ; the law and not the gospel ; the letter and not the spirit. He learns what the substance is from the type, what the re- ality is from the shadow, and what the spir- it is from the letter. He would prefer any place to find how the Apostles and first preachers of Christ baptized, to a close and careful analysis of the jDlain examples of the Xew Testament. But what ground did he give for his doubts that Jesus was im- mersed? He, like most doubting men, stated no ground for his doubts, nor do I believe he can. He can not tell how he could have been sprinkled in Jordan, nor why he should have "went up straightway owi of the water ^' if he had only been sprinkled. How water could have been sprinkled upon him, as the Discipline expresses it, or how he could have been immersed in the rivei-, is all plain enough ; but the idea of sjjrinkling a person is a pretty great stretch of the fig- urative, and sprinkling a person in a inver is out of the question. The expression, "they went up straightway out of the water," could not be any part of the history of a 350 DEBATE ON THE case of sprinkling. But I leave him on this point, for the jDresent, not believing that there is any danger of his doubts spreading much in this community. In his doubts, he has fallen into another trouble. John could not have immersed such vast multitudes ! It is astonishing what trouble some men will take upon themselves. When men are misled by re- ligious training, they will find difiiculties that even children would laugh at in after ages. It is the easiest thing imaginable for a man to conclude that the number baptized by John, was at least seven-fold greater than it was. Then, how easy to conclude that he did it all Avith his own hands, for which there is not a particle of evidence, and thus make an imjDossibility of it. But this is not reasoning, nor arguing, but manu- facturing doubts. It serves that end and no other. What response did the gentleman make to the argument drawn from the statement, that John " baptized in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water there f He approached it very cautiously, asking if I would deny that tlie original from which we have " much water," meant " many wa- ters." What if I should not deny it, and ad- mit that he was baptizing in Enon because there were many waters there ? What good would it do him ? The historian aims to give a reason for baj)tizing there, and his reason is because there was much water ACTION OF BAPTISM. 351 there. Would the statement, " there were many loatcrs there," be any reason for sprinh- ling or ijouring there ? Mr. M. does not need "much water," nor "many waters," when he sj^rinkles or pours ; he, therefore, does not sprinkle in Enon, near Salim, because there is " much water " or " many waters there." He has no use for " much water," nor " many waters," but I do baptize in the Ohio river because there is much water there. The passage does not say that John resorted to this place because there was much water there, or that he preached at this place because there was much water there, but that he was haptizing in Enon, near Salim, because there loas much tvater there. Mr. M. thinks the three thousand could not have been immersed on theday of Pen- tecost. Immersion is a monstrous thing with the worthy gentleman ; it has nothing but an interminable series of difficulties in his mind. I have sympathized with him and his brethren many times in these trou- bles. At one time, they are in trouble how such vast multitudes could have been im- mersed. Then they are in trouble about the sandy deserts, where they imagine al- most innumerable inhabitants living thou- sands of miles from water. Again, they are in distress about hosts of people in the Arctic regions among the interminable ice, where no water could be had to immerse. Then that little water that Philip and the 24 352 DEBATE ON THE eunuch came to, where there was not water sufficient, as one man said, to immerse a duck. Again, some poor, dear, delicate man can not go into the water and immerse, with- out the most imminent danger of losing his life ! They seem to have worked them- selves into such a perfect horror of immer- sion that a good man can but pity them, es- pecially when they can not get their own members to believe them. It never enters into their minds, when they are talking about the difficulty of immersing the three thousand in one day, that no more time is consumed in immersing than in sprinkling. I was once present when a Baptist preach- er immersed quite a number, and a gentle- man was standing by, who was a member of no church, who noticed the time, calling my attention to his watch, as I stood by him, and it was found that he baptized about two in a minute. ISTow let the gen- tleman take into the account the customs of Jews — their rude manner of living; camping in tents, sleeping upon the ground ; their rough apparel and habits of bathing; and that they would think nothing of being Immersed and going with their wet clothes on till they would dry. Such people as these did not have the same horror of wa- ter as my friend, nor did they need or have the preparation of robes and other equip- age as the people think they must have now. Suppose, then, that nobody baptized but the Apostles, how long would it have taken ACTION OP BAPTISM. 353 twelve men, sti'ong, hard}" men, fishermen, used to the water, to immerse three thou- sand people, such as I have described ? Al- low each man only to baptize two in a min- ute, and any boy here, that has only learn- ed the first rules of arithmetic, will tell you that the baptizing could all have been done in less than three hours. ]S"o man not misled by the blinding influ- ence of a false system w^ould ever think of such a thing as even making it at all unrea- sonable for twelve men to immerse three thousand people in the time they had — ■ probably six or eight hours. I pity the man wedded to the system depending upon such subterfuges for its defense. Such men are not conscious how miserably weak and manifestly futile and little all such subter- fuges must appear in the eyes of all the en- lightened arising all around us. How must it look to an ordinary school-boy, who has had but a glance at a common school atlas, and who knows that there is plenty of water in any little creek in three miles of the very head spring of it to immerse any number of people, to see a preacher of the gospel trying to make it appear that there was not water in the small river call- ed a " certain water," to which Philip and the eunuch came, sufiicient to immerse a man ! How preposterous and ridiculous it will appear to those who shall live fifty years from now, to hear it said that preach- ers of former times, in their opposition to 354 DEBATE ON THE immersion, used to tell of people living in deserts, where there was no water to im- merse ! of their living in the frozen regions of the ISTorth, where water to immerse could not be had! The time will soon come when they will hardly believe that such weak things were ever introduced gravely in argument. I am truly sorry that Mr. M. is willing to allow his name to go upon the list, introducing such manifest- ly futile objections to the obvious practice of the holy Apostles of Jesus Christ. Still, every man must make his election, and en- ter his name upon the list w^here he thinks proper, and prej^are for the consequences. This one thing, however, he may depend upon, viz., that he can never make even his own converts believe that he is right. They have no confidence in such logic, and will be constantly forsaking him who uses it. They know it will not do to lean upon in the great and solemn matters of religion. In their more solemn moments, they will say to themselves, " These miserable sub- terfuges are all nothing. The Lord was baptized in Jordan, and went up straight- way out of the icater. Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him, and they came up out of the water; they were buried in baptism, and baptized in certain places, because there was micch water there, all of which is incompatible with any practice but immersion. Besides, those immersed are satisfied, and their ACTION OF BAPTISM. 355 ' mitid is at rest on the subject. They do not wish to be sprinkled or poured upon. I know I am not satisfied. I can not satisfy myself. I must go down into the water, be baptized in the water, and come up out of the water." I say, in their more solemn moments, they will thus reason ; they can not avoid it. The more intelligent, the greater the difficulty to satisfy themselves. They will go further ; they will say, " Bro. Merrill admits that immersion is baptism, immerses himself, lifts his hand to heaven, when about to immerse, and call^ it hap- tism, in the name of the Lord ; and our Dis- ciiDlino recognizes immersion as baptism ; I must, therefore, be immersed." The worthy gentleman knows the trouble he has to pacify his own members, and quiet their consciences, not the more weak and unenlightened, nor the more cold and indifferent, but as well-informed, pious and devoted as any, are found in these troubles. Why, then, continue a practice in doubt, in dispute and uncertainty, involving so many sincere and honest souls in trouble and doubt, when he could j^ractice that which has never been in doubt and uncertainty. Immersion has never been in doubt and uncertainty. Those immersed are satisfied about their baptism, and have no doubts about it. If we could see the number w4io have been distressed about their baptism, who have been sprinkled or poured upon, hear their conversp-tions with their preach- 35-6 DEBATE ON THE ers and their fellow chiirch -members, and know the anxiety and solicitude they have had about it, the number of times they have j)i'ayed for relief, the number of them never satisfied till the day of their death, nor when dying, then we could make some estimate of the ruinous practice of sprink- ling and pouring for baptism. If we could Bee the number now in the eternal world, who never were satisfied with their sprink- ling and pouring, not even when dying, we could begin to realize the iinhappiness oc- casioned by sprinkling and pouring, and all without a solitary reason ; for the preachers themselves admit that immersion is baptism. What apology can there be for a doubtful practice, when we can have one without doubt ? I w^ould advise every pre- cious soul who hears me this night, and ex- hort you, if I were making the last speech I ever expected to make, not to receive the doubtful, but that about which there is no doubt. Be solemnly immersed, and all will admit that you are baptized. MR. MERRIIl'S FIFTH REPIY. Gentlemen Moderators, and the Audience : Without attempting to reply to the ex- hortation with which the gentleman filled up his time, 1 will call your attention to several point* wherein he has misappre- hended my position, and^ put constructions ACTION OP BAPTISM. 357 upon my language which I never intended, and which can be regarded in no other light than perversions. In regard to the " correspondence," you have all observed my perfect satisfaction with that, and the disposition of the gen- tleman to manufacture some capital, by fixing upon it a gloss of his own ; but it is already before the public, and I am per- fectly willing to let the people compare the statements of Mr. Franklin with the correspondence. I know they will find the gentleman entirely unsupported. But he thinks there is quite a " falling off" in my calculation as to his age. Well, if he has reported himself correctly, I feel no dispo- sition to contend, as it was a mere inciden- tal remark that called it up. The ridicu- lous use the gentleman has made of the re- mark needs no further exposure. But he said I declared in the corres- pondence that sprinkling is not baptism. 1 never declared any such thing! The gentleman exceeds all men I have ever seen in taking a wrong view of the lan- guage of an opponent, but he can not sus- tain himself at this point. I do not intend to charge him with intentional perversions ; I attribute it to the influence of his zeal for his favorite hobby. But I can not, in jus- tice to myself, allow his representations to pass for my positions. I said that the or- dinance which he calls initiatory^ was not sprinkling, as such. This is the ground, 358 DEBATE ON THE and all the ground, he has for saying I admit that sj)i'ii^kling is not baptism. This, you perceive, is far different from saying that baptism may not be performed by sprinkling. One of the gross errors of the gentleman's theory is, that immersion, as such, is baptism. And yet, strangely enough, he admits that there may be an immersion where the ordinance of baptism is not ! If sprinkling, as such, were bap- tism, wherever a sprinkling occurred, there would be a baptism. This I do not believe ; and I think my friend himself will admit that an immersion can occur when there is no baptism. Will he not ? He is also wide of the mark in represent- ing my statement in regard to the proper name of the ordinance. I said that hai^tis- mos is the proper name of the ordinance. I still say it, and I doubt whether Mr. F. will deny it. But he says I said that haptizo is simply the name of the ordinance ! He puts the word " simply " into my moutli, and adroitly substitutes the verb for the noun — representing me as calling a verb the name of an ordinance ! Then he would have you think I wished to define the word, "the name of an ordinance !" What shall I say of such representations? I think I will just let you form your own opinions in regard to the matter. Truly he has made a wonderful discovery when he tells you that if haptizo expresses an action, it has nothing to do with the name of an or- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 359 dinance ! But what of haptismosf Does the noun express an action ? Another mistake which, but for his em- barrassing position, I would consider inex- cusable, was with reference to the sound of certain words and phrases, leading people to associate the idea of immersion with certain passages of Scripture. I ascribed the habit of association, fixed in the minds of the people of this generation, neither to the sound nor to the meaning of the Scrip- ture language, but to the custom of immer- sionisis ! Surely I was not ambiguous, and think I was not misunderstood to any- great extent. It is the sound of these words, in connection with the habit of as- sociation, which habit has grown out of the custom of modern Immersionists, that Mr. F. relies upon to su^^port his position. These examples of the gentleman's inaccu- racy in representing my language, are suffi- cient to show that it will not do to take his i2)se dixit, where the position of an opponent is concerned. A little more cau- tion, with a little less dogmatism, would do honor to the intelligence and candor of my worthy antagonist. One more remark : The gentleman in- sinuates that there is a terrible restlessness among my friends while he is speaking. Does he expect that in this vast assembly there will be no restlessness, during our two-hour sessions, situated as this congre- gation is ? And how does he know that 360 DEBATE ON THE those who have seen fit to retire, while he was speaking, were my friends ? In fact, I do not know it myself. It may be that somebody who is not particularly favorable to either of us, has become a little disgusted. At any rate, I see no reason why the gen- tleman should fly into a rage and throw angry flouts at the congregation. My friends will give him a patient hearing as long as he will give the subject a respect- ful consideration. The gentleman gives a strange turn to my demand for his authority for asserting so roundly that nothing but immersion was practiced during the first two centuries of the Christian era. He says I admit im- mersion, and am under as much obligation to produce authority for it as he ! Eut it was an assertion concerning a historical fact that I demanded the proof for. I again demand that he give us the lan- guage of some respectable writer of that period, whose decision can be regarded as authority, wherein immersion is expressly pointed to as the mode of baptism at that time. It is the assumed absence of such mention of pouring or sprinkling at that time that he dwells upon, and I simply want you to understand that immersion is in the same category, so far as this argu- ment is concerned. Let the gentleman prove the antiquity of his practice, if he ap- peals to its antiquity as proof of its Bible authority. The grounds on which I admit ACTION OP BAPTISM. 361 the validity of immersion, as one form of baptism, are well understood. When a man purposes to " walk out boldly " upon the position of a certain critic, and is afterwards found occupying ground decidedly antagonistic to that v?itic, is it not proof that he does deny the authority of his own critic, even without his saying in so many words, " I deny the authority of that critic?" Mr. Carson says that hapto signifies to dye by sprinhling^ as properly as by dipping ;'' and Mr. F. must either admit it or deny the authority of his own favorite critic. Which will he do ? Again, with reference to numerous exam- ples of the word, Mr. Carson says: "They relate to dyeing wholly ivithout reference to dipping ; nay, some of them with an express- ed reference to another mode.^^ Will Mr. F. ad- mit or deny? Dare he say yea or nay ? My appeal to tiie iise of the ivord in the Jewish Eitual, the Apocrapha, etc., was well under- stood, and perfectly legitimate. Mr. Carson says, ^'Use is the sole arbiter of language ; and whatever is agreeable to this authority^ stands justified beyond impeachment^ I do appeal to the use of the word as ultimate proof of its proper meaning, at the time of the in- stitution of Christian baptism. My friend may throw a little dust by sneering at my appeal to the use of the word in the Old Testament, but he can not follow me in the appeal, and answer my arguments. Jesus lived under the law of Moses, and the Jews 362 DEBATE ON THE lived under it, and their language took shape from its types and ceremonies ; and no living man can understand the language of the ISTew Testament without studying it in the light of the Jewish Eitual. Why does the gentleman try to throw discredit upon my appeal to the use of the word ? Is it not because l^e feels that tise is against Tiitn f Did you observe his method of getting over the difficulties with which his exclu- sive notions stand encumbered ? He evi- dently expects to laugh us out of them ! But what progress did he make in show- ing the universal practicability of immer- sion ? l^oi the least in the world. But he misrepresented me again. He left the im- pression that I had spoken of vast multi- tudes living in deserts thousands of miles from water, and in the frozen regions of the JSTorth where no water could be obtain- ed ! But I did nothing of the kind. I spoke of one haptism which was performed in the " desert," and of the inhabitants of the polar regions who live where, for a large portion of the year, water has to be ob- tained hy melting snow and ice. Why did not the gentleman represent me fairly, and solve the difficulty for us, if it is so easily done ? He aff'ects to laugh at these diffi- culties as though they were very small — surely then he can very easily take them all out of the way. Bui I must look at the baptism of the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 363 eunuch. This was in the " desert." The question is, loas he immersed? If so, where is the proof? To say it is in hcqytizo, is to beg the question. To say the preposition CIS necessarily denotes an entrance into the water, is to assert without authority, and in direct opposition to the very best of authority — that of use. Then where is the proof? It is not to be found. Every chain of evidence my friend can furnish, will lack one essential link. But he tells us there Avas a "small river" called "a certain water," into which Philip and the eunuch '' waded !" His imagination is exceedingly fruitful. He can supply rivers of water in the desert with the greatest ease ! iS'o wonder he laughs at small difficulties in the way of immersion, in the polar regions. But let no one be deceived by the gentle- man's " small river." If he will just prove that there is or ever was any " river " be- tween Jerusalem and G-aza, we will excuse him from obviating some other difficulties. But this he can not do. The inspired wri- ter says, " They came unto a certain water." That is all. The expression is eltlioii epi ti hudor. That little word ti is the same that Mr. F. said in another place is properly translated man ; but now he appears to make it the name of a river ! It is a Greek particle which signifies " some," " any," and is often used in the diminutive sense, so as to denote a very small quantity. It is here rendered " cer- 366 DEBATE ON THE paragraph, we have several examples that demand serious attention. " The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, eis to mnemeioii — unto the sej^ulcher, and seeth the stone taken away eh ton mnemeion — from the sepulcher." Here we have eis and efc, " unto," and " from," when there was positively no ''into" nor "out of." Deny this, who can ? Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came eis to mnemeion — • to the sepulchre. So they ran both together, and th« other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first eis to mnemeion — to the sepul- chre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying ; yet "went he not in" (ou menoi eiselthen'). Here eis expresses the approach to the sepulchre^ while it is expressly said he went not in. But in the next verse we have the fact of Peter's entrance stated exjDressly, and ac- cordingly we find the prefix to the verb, as follows : " Then cometh Simon Peter fol- lowing him, kai eiselthen eis to mnemeion — and went into the sepulchre," etc. Then in the 8th verse we find still another strik- ing example. It reads as follows : " Tote oun eiselthen Icai ho alios mathetes — then went in also that other disciple, ho elthon ^rotos eis to mnemeion — which came first to the sepulchre. In this, you observe, in the first clause, where the entrance of " that other disciple " is expressed, the word eis is the prefix to the verb ; but in the other ACTION OP BAPTISM. 367 clause, where the approach of that same disciple to the sepulchre is denoted, we have the preposition e/s, properly signifying to, and the verb without the jDrefix. ]^ow let my friend show, if he can, that my view of these prepositions is wrong. I do not say that eis never means into, nor that eh never means out of; nor is it suflS- cient for him to show that they do some- times mean thus ; but he must show that they do necessarily mean into and out of, in the place in question. I want no dodging nor evading, but a fair investigation of the issue. My position is negative and his is positive. I hold that eis does not necessa- rily denote an entrance into the water ; but he must show that it does. The gentle- man said something about " wading " — but if he will find anything in the narrative about " wading " or like " wading," I will excuse him from finding the prefix to the verb, in order to express the act of enter- ing into the water ! You now see that the gentleman has something to do to find a plain case of immersion, even in this, his favorite New Testament example. He repeated his sweeping assertions in regard to the baptism of our Savior, and instead of answering my plain and perti- nent question as to the requirement of the Levitical law that could be fulfilled by immersion, he tried to excite some merri- ment by talking about leaving me among the types and ceremonies of the Jews ! 25 368 DEBATE ON THE Does he forget that John and Jesus were living under the Levitical law, and that they were fulfilling the righteousness of that law ? Then I repeat the inquiry — What requirement of that law could be fulfilled by the immersion of Jesus ? If he will not answer this, let him tell us the meaning of the phrase, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Does it relate to the Levitical law at all ? If so, why pour contempt on my reference to that law ? If not, why not say so, and tell us what it does relate to ? Jesus waited till he was thirty years old, because the law required it ; and the same law that required this, required a religious consecra- tion by the sprinkling of water ; and it has been already shown that those w^ashings, enjoined by the law to be done by " sprink- ling," are called in the 'New Testament bajptismois. No wonder my friend is shy about this point ! He feels the ground trembling beneath his feet. His loud noise and frequent repetitions about going down into the water, and coming up out of the water, will avail him nothing, so long as he refuses to examine all the circumstances of the case. And he thinks John had help from other hands in baptizing the multi- tudes that flocked to his baptism ? Let him prove it, and then we will receive it as a satisfactory solution of some of the diffi- culties of his case. And he thinks the twelve Apostles could easily immerse three ACTION OF BAPTISM. 369 thousand in a few hours ; but did ho prove it? I doubt whether ihey labored against time — disposing of two in a minute ! But lohere did they immerse this multitude? There was no river at Jerusalem— that is certain. The only chance was to resort to "pools." Immersionists have no difl&culty in finding " pools " any where ! Their great cry is " the pools ! the pools !" whenever they are pressed on this point. But they can find no " pool " available in this case, unless it be that of Bethesda ; but that was not available. It was within the precincts of the temple, under the control of the priests, and used for washing sacrifices, if obtainable, the water was not " pure w^ater," after the washing of so many ani- mals for sacrifice; and the " j^riests " would not, just at that time, be quite so accom- modating to the Apostles, whom they des- pised, as to allow them to immerse three thousand souls into a new faith, which they regarded with jealously, as the most fear- ful foe to Judaism. Will the gentleman look again at the facts in the case? The gentleman made some significant remarks about " honesty." He talks about those who " keep their own consciences," etc., in a way that looks very much like calling in question the conscientiousness of those who differ from him. And he talks about conscientious people getting dissat- isfied, and being unable to die in peace be- cause they were not immersed ; leaving the 3G8 DEBATE ON THE Does lie forget that John and Jesus were living under the Levitical law, and that they w^ere fulfilling the righteousness of that law ? Then I repeat the inquiry — What requirement of that law could be fulfilled by the immersion of Jesus ? If he will not answer this, let him tell us the meaning of the phrase, " Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Does it relate to the Levitical law at all ? If so, why pour contempt on my reference to that law ? If not, why not say so, and tell us what it does relate to ? Jesus waited till he was thirty years old, because the law required it ; and the same law that required this, required a religious consecra- tion by the sprinkling of water ; and it has been already shown that those washings, enjoined by the law to be done by " sprink- ling," are called in the llSTew Testament haptismois. JSTo wonder my friend is shy about this point ! He feels the ground trembling beneath his feet. His loud noise and frequent repetitions about going down into the water ^ and coming iij) out of the water ^ will avail him nothing, so long as he refuses to examine all the circumstances of the case. And he thinks John had help from other hands in baptizing the multi- tudes that flocked to his baptism ? Let him prove it, and then we will receive it as a satisfactory solution of some of the diffi- culties of his case. And he thinks the twelve Apostles could easily immerse three ACTION OF BAPTISM. 369 thousand in a few honrs ; but did ho prove it ? I doubt whether they labored against time — disposing of two in a minute ! But where did they immerse this multitude? There was no river at Jerusalem — that is certain. The only chance was to resort to " pools." Immersionists have no difl&culty in finding " pools " any where ! Their great cry is " the pools ! the pools !" whenever they are pressed on this point. But they can find no " i)Ool " available in this case, unless it be that of Bethesda; but that was not available. It was within the j)recincts of the temple, under the control of the priests, and used for washing sacrifices, if obtainable, the water was not " jDure water," after the washing of so many ani- mals for sacrifice ; and the " priests " would not, just at that time, be quite so accom- modating to the Apostles, whom they des- pised, as to allow them to immerse three thousand souls into a new faith, which they regarded with jealously, as the most fear- ful foe to Judaism. Will the gentleman look again at the facts in the case? The gentleman made some significant remarks about " honesty." He talks about those who " keep their own consciences," etc., in a way that looks very much like calling in question the conscientiousness of those who diifer from him. And he talks about conscientious people getting dissat- isfied, and being unable to die in peace be- cause they were not immersed ; leaving the 370 DEBATE ON THE impression that nobody is honest, and that nobody can die in peace, but the immersed. Why not come out like a man and assert, in the face of Heaven, what he covertly insinuates, and what is no doubt the legiti- mate conclusion from his premises ? Let him tell us w^hat he means, and I will know where to find him, and just how to answer him? I shall now call your attention to the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. There are two points clearly presented in the history of this case, that can never be reconciled with the idea that he was immersed. He was baptized in the house, and that v^iile standing up. I refer to Acts ix. 17-19 : "And Ana- nias went his way, and entered into the house: and putting his hands on him, said, Broth- er Saul, the Lord (even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest) hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Grhost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had scales : and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat he was strengthened." Saul was in the house of Judas, on the street called Straight, in the city of Damascus. He had been there for three days without sight, and neither did he eat nor drink. He was evidently in a prostrate, helpless condition, through ex- cessive fasting, anxiety, and distress of mind. He was not in a condition to under- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 371 go the labor of traveling out in search of water; and the narrative not only gives no account of any such thing, but actually precludes the idea. It impresses us with the shortness of time that elapsed between the entering of Ananias into the house where he was, and the consummation of his errand. He entered — put his hands on him — said Brother Saul — and immediatehj the scales fell from his eyes, and he re- ceived sight forthioithy and arose, and was baptized. Then he received meat and was strengthened, so as to be able to preach Christ in the synagogues. But he received no meat until after he was baptized ; and no living man can ever gather from the narrative that he left the house till after he received meat and was strengthened. He was baptized in the Jwiise, just as certainly as the narrative is true. Let my friend get him out of the house before baptism, if he is able. But he "arose" — anastas — stood up, and was baptized. In Acts i. 15, we have pre- cisely the same expression in regard to Peter, where there can be no doubt that he stood on his feet: "And in those days Peter stood up — anastas — in the midst of the dis- ciples," etc. This is the very idea con- veyed by anastas. Peter " stood up," and Saul " stood up," and he was baptized in that position. This agrees with the com- mand as given by Ananias: " And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized;" 372 DEBATE ON THE Acts xxii. 16. Tlio original is anasfas hap- tisai — literally, stand up, and he haptized. This is to the point and conclusive. Saul was not immersed, but he was baptized in a private house, in the city of Damascus, while standing on his feet ! If my friend calls in question the correctness of my inter- pretation of anastas haptisai, I will corrobo- rate it by examples enough to pnt it be- yond the reach of cavil. This is one of the "plain cases of the New Testament," for which my friend has been calling. I judge it is rather too plain for his comfort. He certainly will not pretend that Saul was immersed in a private house, while stand- ing on his feet. But let him take his own course in regard to this baptism. ~^o man can make immersion of it. Another " plain case of the ]^ew Testa- ment," is the baptism of Cornelius, and those that were with him in his house, as recorded Acts x. They were assembled in the house of Cornelius to hear the word of the Lord, and while Peter was yet preach- ing, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. The Jews present expressed some surprise, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. "Then answered Peter, Can any man for- bid water, that these should not be bap- tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Now here are the facts : Thoy were in the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 373 house, and they must have the water brought to them, or they must repair to the water. If the former, the baptism was by affusion ; but if the latter, it might have been by immersion. Which did Peter con- template— the removal of the water to the people, or the removal of the people to the Avater? His question was an inquiry for obstacles in the way. He wanted to know if there was any prohibition that would hinder the removal of the water or the people. If he contemplated removing the people, in ashing about prohibitions, he would naturally ask if there were any pro- hibitions on the j)Gople — who can forbid the people ? But this he did not do. He sought to know whether the water was prohibited ; hence, he contemplated the removal of the water. This is plain and natural. It harmonizes delightfully with our doctrine of baptism in the house, by af- fusion ; but no man living can see any in- dication of immersion there. A German divine has well said that the inquiry of Peter, when put into modern etiquette, would run thus : " Will some one present be kind enough to furnish us a little water, that these may now be baptized, who have already received the Holy Ghost?" ]N^ow, my friends, let me remind you of the ground we occupy. Mr. F. is not mere- ly tr3ang to prove immersion, but exclu- sive immersion. He must find immersion in every case where the word haptko oc- 374 DEBATE ON THE curs in the Bible. Has he done it? Can he do it? Never ! I am not trying to prove that haptizo ought to be translated pour or sprinkle; that is not my doctrine; I do not believe it ought to be translated any differ- ent from the common version. Baptize is now an English word, and a just equiva- lent for haptizo; it is the best equivalent the language contains. Sprinkle is too limited, pour is too limited, immerse is too limited — none of these words can give the full idea of baptize. They will always lack the religious element. They lack the idea of dedication. Consecrate would come nearer the idea than either of the specific terms that express mode. But Mr. F. makes a wonderful ado over this — calls it a wonderful word, etc. Now, let me ask him to give us a single English word that is a perfect equivalent for the Greek Hades^ rendered hell ten times in the New Testa- ment. He thinks it so strange that some Greek words have no exact equivalents in English that I want to test the matter a little. We will soon see the propriety of my remarks on the primary and proper meaning of words. Mr. F. will get light rapidly enough for his comfort. I hope he will keep in good cheer. ACTION OF BAPTIS3I. 375 MR. FRANKLIN'S SIXTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I am truly thankful to a good and gra- cious Providence, which has been over us through the past night, for the health and strength afforded us for the prosecution of our investigation. I trust the same good feeling will pervade our discussion to its termination. We have now a full day be- fore us to elaborate the argument intro- duced ; respond to objections and develop the subject in all its bearings more fully. I shall not confine myself to any one of the speeches of my friend, but collect a few items from several of his S]Deeches that de- mand some attention. The worthy gentleman has certainly learned something from the fable of the rat and the meal. He has discovered that "caution is the parent of safety." His tread is with extreme cautiousness. He saw, from an early period, that he could prove nothing in this controversy, and consequently sought a negative position, where he could deny, demand proof and discant upon " assertions." But he can not escape in this way. Merely denying will not answer his purpose. He practices sprinhling and j^oitrinff for baptism. Has he found any authority for either? Not one syllable. The position I occupy is very plain. I practice immersion for baptism. His own Discipline recognizes immersion 376 DEBATE ON THE for baptism. Mr. Wesley and Dr. Clarke admitted immersion for baptism. The Methodist Church endorses immersion for baptism, both in practicing it and in her Conference endorsing it in the Dis- cipline, and in the writings of Mr. Wes- ley sent forth by her and sold by Meth- odist j)i't)achers. Mr. Merrill endorses im- mersion by administering it in the name of the Lord and calling it baptism. He has said, "God forbid that I should say any thing against it." You see, then, that that we have no debate on immersion — that my opponent, his Discipline, Confer- ence and whole church, endorse immersion. It is, then, established, and admitted by Wesley, Clarke, the Discipline, Conference and the whole Methodist Church, that im- mersion is baptism. This much is settled, and upon this we have no debate. But aside from this practice, though im- mersion is agreed by us all to be baptism, he practices sprinlding and 2->ouring^ and calls it baptism ; but for this practice he furnishes not one word of proof from any source. But he is not singular in this ; for no man ever did, or ever can, adduce any authority for any thing but immersion. It is impossible to bring something out of nothing. The strength of Samson could not do this. But how does he meet my ar- gument founded upon the expression "born of water?" "The leading thought in this expression is, that there is the beginning of ACTION OF BAPTIS3I. 377 the new manner of life," lie says. He asks, "AYhat is it designed to represent ?" He answers, " Most unquestionably the quick- ening power and energy of the Holy Spirit." If that is the meaning of the ex- pression, why does his Discipline, then, ap- ply it to baptism? And what, then, does "born of the Spirit" mean? It is not "born of the Si:)irit and of the Spirit," but "born of loater and of the Spirit." Born of water, his own Discipline makes baptism. The figurative expression, " born of water," does not mean "born of the Spirit ;" for that is added to it ; nor does it represent the in- fluence of the Spirit. " Born of the Spirit" represents the influence of the Spirit ; but "born of water" is baptism, and is applied to it in his own Discipline and by Mr. "Wes- ley. The holy Apostle says we are " be- gotten by the word of truth ;" and, as a matter of course, it is by the Spirit who spoke the truth, through holy men of God ; and when baptized, we are " born of water and of the Sj^irit," as the child is born of the mother and father. The worthy gentleman talked so deli- cately of "taste" and "modesty," that I almost feared he would faint. If there was any thing wanting in taste, indelicate or immodest, it was in his mind, and not in the chaste and elegant figure from the pure and holy lips of our Lord, nor from any thing uttered by me in reference to it. It is in as good taste, in a pure mind, to speak 378 DEBATE ON THE of being "born of water" and "begotten by the word of truth," as to speak of being buried or raised from the dead. But after the gentleman recovered himself from his fine taste and extreme modesty, he inquired whether there is one birth or two. One birth, most unquestionably, of water and of the Spirit. The Spirit gives the life ; and after the Sj^irit, through the truth, has changed the heart, the person comes forth from baptism, or is born of water, to a new state, or a new manner of life. What foun- dation has he for making " born of water" represent the work of the Spirit, in the same sentence where the work of the Spirit is represented in other words ? There is certainly no reason for representing that by which the words " born of water," in the same sentence, is represented by other words. The words " born of the Spirit," represent the work of the Spirit, and the words " born of water," represent baptism and nothing else. In being " born of wa- ter," the person comes from the water as the child comes from it's mother. This figure is applicable to immersion, but not to sprinkling or pouring, as the gentleman admits. The gentleman has attempted to reply to my argument, founded upon the ex- pression, "planted together in the likeness of his death." This argument, he thinks, he had sufiiciently replied to in a former speech, in which he showed that the whole ACTION OF BAPTISM. 379 passage makes no allusion to the mode of baptism. This sounds strange on the ear of this audience, truly ! "What do the words *' buried with him by baptism" mean ? Have they any meaning at all ? He admits that they do not mean, " sprinkled with him by baptism." What does the expression, "plan- ted together in the likeness of his death," mean ? He admits that it does not mean sprinkling. I think he will find but few here who will not agree with him in this. Yet baptism is here ! Yes, baptism and no sprinkling. But we find burying audi plant- ing. But this planting which was done by burying by baptism, or as expressed Col. ii. 12, " buried with him in baptism," the gen- tleman soon " expounds" into grafting^ and makes it simply represent ingrafting into Christ. But this " planting together " is " in the likeness of bis death," and that is in his burial. They are in the likeness of his death when " buried with him by bap- tism into death," at which time they are " planted together in the likeness of his death." Why did the gentleman try to ex- cite a smile by speaking of a " sudden dip into the water and out again ?" This he "dignifies with the name of argument!" This may pass for ridicule or slang, but not for argument, in the city of Portsmouth, especially from him who practices immer- sion in the name of the Lord. Mr. M. was surprised to hear me quote the words, "Having our bodies washed 380 DEBATE ON THE with pure water," and apply them to bap- tism. He says, I must know, as well as I know any thing, that this has no reference to baptism. He says, I may " spread out" on the absurdity of washing the body by sprinkling. I am truly sorry to set the father at variance against the son, but I can not avoid it. H my memory is not at fault, Mr. Wesley, in his note on the words " buried with him in baptism" (Col. ii. 12), says : " This as evidently alludes to the an- cient manner of baptizing by immersion, as that other passage, Heb. x. 22, does to that of sprinkling." I do not know that I have the j)recise words ; but, if I have not, I will turn to the passage and read it. Father Wesley differs with his son in the gosj)el, Mr. M., in two particulars : Ist, Mr. M. de- nies that the passage has any reference to baptism ; Father Wesley applies it to bap- tism. 2nd, Mr. M. admits that there is no sprinkling in it; Father Wesley finds sprink- ling in it. He thinks I knew it had no ref- erence to baptism ; but I do not know whether he thinks Father Wesley knew it had no reference to it or not. But entering still more profoundly and learnedly into the subject, he inquires, "Is the word wasli^ hajjto, or haptizo^ or equivalent to either ?" It is neither hapio, or hapiizo, nor equivalent to either ; it is the result that folloAvs im- mersing, but not sprinkling. The heart is sprinkled from an evil conscience — sprink- led in the blood of Christ ; and the body is ACTION OF BAPTISM. 381 washed in pure water, when baptized, or as a result of baptizing. The sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience, has to do with the purification of the heart ; but to make the iv ashing of the bodi/, mean the pur i- Jication of the soul, is most preposterous "ex- pounding." The truth is, that the Apostle refers to both the internal work and the external effect. Internally, the converted man has had his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience ; and externally, he has had his body washed with pure water. This ex- ternal washing results from immersion and nothing else. There is no more reason for saying it refers " to the moral cleansing of the soul," nor Scripture, than for saying it refers to the Romish confessional. His lit- tle cavil, in reference to "pure water," and " turbid water," will not convince sensible men that icashing the hody in pure loater means " moral cleansing of the soul," and has no reference to any kind of water, even if they can not see exactly how the word " pure" came to be used there. Touching the argument from baptizing in Jordan and in the river of Jordan, he saj'S : " I will only remark, that if he will venture to say the preposition en does not and can not have the sense of loith, I will meet him at that point." Is he not adroit ? Why does he not launch out, and say that "baptizing in Jordan," "baptizing in Enon," and "bajjtizing in the river Jordan," should be read, " baptizing %cith Jordan," " baptiz- 382 DEBATE ON THE ing wltli Enon," and " baptizing loith the river Jordan ?" For the best reason in the world, viz., because he will not jeopardize his reputation as a scholar so to do. He knows the baptizing was '• in Jordan," " in Enon," and "i?i the river of Jordan ;" and though he seemed to think that I had in- sinuated that he was not honest, I believe that his candor and honor will not allow him to deny that en is correctly translated in these places. At all events, he has not denied or questioned the translation. So long, then, as the translation in my proof is not questioned, there is no need of argu- ment about the use of the original word e%, in other places. My proof stands not only unimpeached, but unimpeachable. The worthy gentleman has spoken truly sympathetically of the King James' trans- lators. He can not hear it intimated that they have dealt unfairly with us. But did he offer any excuse for them, in the instance of unfairness cited by me? Did he deny my statement ? JN'ot one word of it. How then does he attempt to exhon(^Tate them ? I stated that, where we have the account of Naman dipping himself in Jordan, in the Septuagint, we have haptizo. The King James' translators have translated it " dip- ped." When these same translators came to the same Greek word haptizo^ in the same form of expression, in the ]^ew Testament, they transfer the word, instead of translat- ing it. In the commencement of the Kew ACTION OF BAPTISM. 383 Testament, they translate en "in" seventeen times, " within" once, and "among" once, in the first nineteen occurrences of the word. They then come to " baptizing en water," and translate it " with," till done with that one passage, and then translate it nine times in succession "in," then once "with," and twenty-nine times " in." Now there are reasons why they could not translate it ^^ with'' in some instances. They could not say with the wilderness, with Jordan, nor with Enon. But there is no reason why they might not have translated it uniform- ly "m" in all these places. It is no matter how en could or should be translated in some passage not in dispute ; but in the passages quoted by me, and relied uj)on as proof, that en should be translated " in" has not been denied by Mr. M., and, I think, will not be. Ey the way, I see no reason why any man of our time should be so smitten with the greatness and learning of the King James' translators. What have they done for the world? j\Iy opponent has spoken freely in their praise ; but what does he know about them ? Can he even give their names, place of residence, and position. Surely he can not with any certainty, ex- cept a very few of them. It sounds aston- ishing to hear men extol the King James' translators, who can not tell who one half of them were. It has become so commoi; that many do it without thinking how lit- ' 261 384 DEBATE ON THE tie is known, even by well-informed men, About them. Mr. M. thinks he could admit all I have said on the baptism of sufferings without detriment to his position. He says that no man claims that it has the specific sense of sprinkling in that place. He admits that it means overwhelmiug. If this is not det- rimental to his position, I know not what could be. The passage shows that haptizo does not mean sprinkle, but that it does mean overwhelm or immerse. This is an end to it being the proper name of an ordinance. There is no proper name of an ordinance here, nor ordinance itself. It is not baptizo here neither, npon which he attempted to make a little play, but baptisma. Is it the proper name of the ordinance? ISTo; he ad- mits that it means overwhelming. He sig- nificantly inquires, What of bapiismosf Well, sir, it is certain that it is not the proper name of an ordinance (Mark vii. 4), or the ordinance was administered to cups and pots. Baptismos is there found in the original, and translated " washing," in the common version. There was no ordinance there. The same is true of Mark vi. 8, and also of Heb. ix. 10. This latter passage does not mean "diverse ordinances,^^ I pre- sume. "Diverse immersions" are here mentioned, though no ordinance can be re- ferred to. That my worthy friend has no position, is evident. That he has no well defined ACl-iON OP BAPTISM. 385 doctrine which he is aiming to defend, or no work that he is aiming to do, only to op- pose me, is clear. This was manifest to all, from his excitement on last evening. He was prodigiously perplexed, and when he came to what he was unable to answer, he disposed of it by pronouncing it "folly" and " silly." That was all cheap, and duly appreciated by me ; but how he was to answer my argument, he found not. I sympathize with him, and dislike to ex- pose him, bul can not let him pass. I shall, therefore, place him and his position out in clear daylight, that all may see where he has been. He has, then, beginning with our correspondence, which I know he dis- likes to hear of, been at the following angles : Position 1. The mode is not definitely re- vealed in the Bible. Position 2. The mode is not sprinkling, pouring nor immersion, as such, but baptism. I stop not now to inquire how he knows this, if the mode is not revealed. If it is not revealed, as a matter of course, we do not know any thing about it. Moses says, "Eevealed things belong to us and to our children, but secret things," or things not revealed, " belong to God." Position 3. He admits that immersion is valid baj^tism, but not because it was prac- ticed by the Apostles, or divinely author- ized, and administers it in the name of the Lord. 386 DEBATE ON THE Position 4. He quotes Scripture to prove sprinkling, but how he harmonizes these Scriptures, containing clear revelations of sprinkling for baptism, with his other posi- tion, that the mode is not revealed, he does not inform us. Position 5. He learns, from the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that baptism is rightly administered by pouring. Position 6. The candidate appears be- fore him, and he lays aside all his learning, proof and argument, and inquires, " How do you choose to have the ordinance ad- ministered?" The candidate decides the " vexed question," not revealed in the Bible, and the preacher yields to the de- cision, though, in some instances, rather re- luctantly. Position 7. He then soothes his con- science, in this pliable theology, by quoting the words, " Let every man be fully per- suaded in his own mind." Tlie gentleman, in his last speech last night, accused nie of misrepresenting him. No doubt he thought so, in his excitement, but this I will not do. I will attack his real positions, where they have relevancy enough to demand it, or admit that I can not. He says, " I said that the ordinance which he calls initiatory^ was not sprink- ling, as such. This is the ground, and all the ground, he has for saying I admit that sprinkling is not baptism." JSTow, the worthy gentleman is mistaken. Here is ACTION OP BAPTISM. 387 his language, in the correspondence. Hear it : " The ordinance called ' initiatory,' is baptism. It is not sprinkling, nor pour- ing, nor immersion, as such, but baptism." I read from his letter of March 9th. He Bays, " The ordinane called ' initiatory,' is baptism." What does he say of this ordi- nance, which, in one short sentence, he twice over calls " baptism ?" He says, "It is not sprinkling." What is not sprink- ling ? " It " — the ordinance, which he says is haptism^ is not sprinkling. Yery well, then ; if the ordinance, which is bap- tism, is not sprinkling, as it certainly is not, sprinkling is not baptism. That is as certain as that two and two make four, or as certain as that if immersion is not sprinkling, sprinkling is not immersion ; or if James is not John, John is not James. I have not misrepresented the worthy gen- tleman and will not. Mr. M. has gone to the baptism of the Holy Spirit to find " a mode of baptism." He has emphasized the words " poured out " and " fell on them." But do these terms mean haptism ? We must not be misled b}^ the jingle of words. There are two things to be looked into here : 1st, Who were baptized ? 2nd, What was poured out ? The word " poured," does not mean bap- tism, for the Holy Spirit was poured out^ and not the people. The Holy Spirit was not baptized, but the people were. The gentleman's effort to stigmatize my posi- 388 DEBATE ON THE tion with materialiBm, because I believe tbcy were immersed in the Holy S^^irit, is as much against the plain language of Scripture as against me. He can say as many and as fine things about the material- istic view of the Spirit being poured out as he can of being immersed in the Sj)irit. The idea of persons being immersed in the Holy Spirit, or overwhelmed in it, is no more materialistic than the idea of the S2)irit heing ijourcd out. There is nothing materialistic in either. The true state of the case was, that the Spirit was poured out, but the pouring out was not baptism, or the Spirit was baptized. The pouring out, then, was not baptizing, as the Spirit was poured out, and not baptized, but like the rain pouring out and filling some phxce to baptize in, filled all the house where they were sitting. It was not merely the sound that filled the house. It was the Spirit that was "poured out," " shed forth " and "fell on them" — was it not? The Bible says it was. It saj'S, " He hath shed forth this which you now see and hear^ What was it that was shed forth^ which they saiv and heard ? It was the Spirit. To raise a dispute about the sound is as unworthy as if I should say it was not Mr. Merrill you heard, but the sound of his voice. It is true, they heard a sound from heaven, but it is equally true that they heard the Holy Spirit, who made the sound. The Spirit was the au- ACTION OP BAPTISM. 389 thor of the sound, of the tongues, the gifts bestowed and the words uttered, and those who saw the figurative representation of the tongues, heard the sound and the words uttered — smv and heard the Spirit, who showed himself in gifts and tongues visible, and made himself audible in a mighty sound, as of a rushing wind. The Spirit, then, who was heard in the sound, seen in the tongues and understood by the words uttered to be present, filled the house, and thus overwhelmed them. The worthy gentleman talked so smooth- ly and prettily about Cornelius being baptized in his house, that I suppose that those who have not thought particularly on the subject, felt no doubt that it was clearly stated that Cornelius was baptized in the house. But there is not a word of the kind in the whole history of the case. Mr. M. is not to infer, because the histo- rian did not tell us wliere he was baptized, that it was in the house, and then build an argument upon that inference. This is taking a little too much for granted. We take nothing for granted in debate. I confess that 1 was no little suprised to hear Mr. M. turn the question, " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" into the mere ques- tion, " Will some one be so good ,as to bring a little water?" This caps the cli- max ! " The question was about obstacles." 390 DEBATE ON THE Yes ; but not the frivolous obstacle arising for the want of a bowl of water, nor a river of water. But the obstacle the Apostle was inquiring into was something tran- scendently greater than that. It was the question about receiving the Gentiles, and no question upon the insignificant subjects of removing the people to the water, nor bringing water to the people. Peter had to be convinced himself that it was right to receive the G-entiles into the kingdom of Christ. The miracle was to convince the Jews that G-od was willing to receive the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Hence, Pe- ter, in his aj)ology for receiving them, when he returned to his Jewish brethren, said, " Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could withstand God." It is trulj'' a likely affair, that after Cornelius had prayed in his house, seen an angel, sent some forty miles for a man to tell him words whereby he should be saved, and had received Peter so cordially — it is, I say,. a likely affair, that Peter should start a grave question about a bowl of water, and argue as a reason why he should have it, that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. His question was of transcendently more importance than that. There is not a syllable in the history of the case of their being baptized in the house, going to the water, or bringing water to them. All this is simply imaginary with my friend. ACTION OF BAPTISM. 391 The gentleman made another draw upon his imagination, and fancied that Saul was unquestionably baptized in the house^ and baptized standing up^ about which there is not one word in the sacred history. As the historian does not say where he was baptized, Mr. M. infers that he was bap- tized in the house, where Ananias first found him; and from the words, "Arise and be baptized," he infers that he was baptized standing. Full of learning, he proves that he was baptized standing, from the Greek anastas, rendered " arise." Anisteemi, like our English word arise, was used to ex- l^ress the first move when starting to do any thing, without expressing any thing of the posture of the body when doing it. When the command came to Peter, Acts x. 20: " Arise, therefore, and get thee down," he was required to get down standing, I sup- pose ! He could not get down without arising, but the arising was when starting, and certainly not when getting down. But in the case of Saul, there was no need of the coinmand to arise to be sprinkled or poured upon. This could have been done when he was sitting, as well as for him to arise; but Ananias intended to immerse him, and this he could not do without his arising. From the picture Mr. M. drew of Saul's feebleness, owing to his fasting and anxiety, as a reason why he could not have gone out to be baptized, one would almost have come to the conclusion that he 392 DEBATE ON THE could not have stood up. But this was a little too small. It was certainly not de- signed for enlightened people. We go with the gentleman into the des- ert, to where the Scripture says, of Philip and the eunuch, " they came unto a certain water." In order to make it out of the question for the nobleman to have been im- mersed, the gentleman undertakes to prove that the " certain water" that they came to, was so small that a man could not be immersed in it. Colton's Universal Atlas, the fullest and most modern and reliable of any ever published, represents " a certain water " to rise a little south of Jerusalem, and make its course directly on towards Graza, till within a few miles of it, and then running a northwesterly course to the Mediterranean Sea, at Askelon. Now the idea of this water, more than one hundred miles in length, according to Colton's scale of distances, not having water to immerse a man in, is preposterous. There are thou- sands of brooks, where no water appears on the map at all, amply sufficient for im- mersion. The gentleman gives us the Greek elthon epi ti hudor, and refers to where the particle tis is translated " man " (John iii. 5), and informs you that I said it is properly translated man. Did he deny it ? If he does, I will supply him with a few examples. Did he deny that it is properly rendered certain (Acts viii. 26) ? He did not, and, I think, will not. Did he ACTION OF BAPTISM. 393 deny that eis is correctly translated in the phrase, " they both went down into the water ?" He did not. Did he deny that ek is correctly translated in the phrase, "come up out of the water?" He did not. What did he deny then ? ISTothing only the word " wade," in my language, in de- scribing what I thought was done. They not only went "into the water," but ^Ulown into the water ; and not only " come out of the water," but "come iq? out of the water" — small a water as it was. They " came unto a certain water," first. This was at it. They then " went down into the water." " He baptized him." They, then, " come ujy out of the water." Here is an end to all caviling. ]^o matter how tis may be translated in other places. He has not de- nied that it is correctly translated here, nor told us how it should be translated. The word haptizo does not mean ordi- nance, but immerse^ and, consequently, wherever there is a hajytism, there is an im- mersion, but not necessarily an ordinance. To constitute the divine rite, or ordinance, there must be a proper subject immersed in the name of the Lord. IsTo man ever was authorized to administer sprinkling, as a religious rite, in the name of the Lord. MR. MERRILL'S SIXTH REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, and Respected Hearers : After the night's refreshment, the gen- tleman endeavored to give us a hasty 394 DEBATE ON THE glance at the principal points in which he had fallen behind on yesterday — evidently indulging the hope that inasmuch as he has advanced his affirmative arguments, and whipped round uj^on the negative, he will be able to notice slightly what I may advance against his exclusive proposition. He takes great pains to tell you that I have done nothing, affirmed nothing, and proven nothing ! He certainly feels it im- portant to tell this. Were he not to repeat it over and over, the audience would un- doubtedly come to a different conclusion. He must still charge me with seeking a negative position from considerations of prudence ! I will only remark that when I take a position in debate, whether affir- mative or negative, you will never find me whining about it afterwards. I am sorry to find my worthy friend still unable to comprehend my position, or to give a correct representation of my argu- ments. I thought the exj^osures of his j)erversions, given in my last speech, would cause him to become a little more cautious; but he has given us another dish of pretty much the same sort. 1 shall not, hereaf- ter, be very careful to point out his errors in this respect ; for I have reason to know that the intelligent hearer will detect his misrepresentations, and appreciate them fully. The gentleman intimated that I have been " excited !" What does the man mean ? Does he think the peoj^le here ACTION OF BAPTISM. 395 have no discernment at all? 'No, sir ! The trouble with the gentleman is, that I will not become excited. It is not in his power either to excite, confuse, or alarm me ! His attempts in that direction will all prove unavailing, as heretofore. His attempt to mend up his argument from the expression "born of water," Avas a decided failure. He pretends that there were two distinct births mentioned. Did he prove it? He did not. Did he show the relation of the water to the Spirit? He did not. Dare he come out plainly and deny tliat the water rejiresents the Spirit? Perhaps he may, but I think not. What if " born of water " does mean baptism, does not baptism represent the influence of the Spirit? Was he not "adroit "in saj'ing " born of the Spirit," represents the influ- ence of the Spirit? Is "born of the Spirit" to be considered an emblem of water bap- tism ? My friend's theology would lead to this conclusion ! The truth is, he does not understand the passage. There is one in- ward, spiritual efl'ect, represented by an outward, visible ordinance; and the leading thought is that of the beginning of a new life, on which account the metaphor is em- ployed by which the spiritual efl'ect is called a " birth." The allusion is not to the manner of a birth, and hence not to the manner of baptism. My friend utterly fails to find the mode of baptism here. I found no " immodesty " in the metaphor 396 DEBATE ON THE ilself, but only in thd gentleman's vulgar exposition of it. In his notice of my reply to his argument founded on "planting," he can see nothing but " ridicule " and "slang!" Why did he not take hold of my exposition of the passage, and show its incorrectness ? For the best reason in the world — he could not ! It was easier to seize upon an incidental remark and call it " slang." I told him plainly what the language of Paul means, and now instead of noticing my explana- tion, he asks again what it means !, I ask again if it alludes to the mode of baptism any more than the word "crucified," found in the next verse does? " Buried " is not baptism, " planted " is not baptism, " cru- cified " is not baptism ; but all these are metaphors pointing to a moral effect of the Spirit's influence — and inasmuch as bap- tism is the ordained emblem of the Spirit's work, that eifect, set forth in these three metaphors, is ascribed to baptism. The mode of baptism is not alluded to in any one of these metaphors. I showed that the gentleman's proof- text which contains the exj^ression, " Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- science, and our bodies washed with pure water," has no allusion to baptism ; and how does he reply ? He gives us his own declaration that it does allude to baptism, and makes quite an ado over the fact that Mr. Wesley said of buried in baptism^ that ACTION OF BAPTISM. 397 it was as much an allusion to tlie manner of baptizing by immersion, as the other manner of baptizing by siDrinkling or pour- ing water is alluded to in Heb. x. 22. I freely admit that one passage alludes to the manner of baptizing just as much as the other. But neither of them contains the least allusion to the mode of baptism at all. Here is Mr. Wesley's comment on the clause on which my friend relies : " And our bodies washed ivith pure water — All our conversation spotless and holy, which is far more acceptable to God than all the le- gal sprinklings and washings.'' The allu- sion is to these "legal sprinklings and washings," and Mr. F. did not venture to deny it. These same " sprinklings and washings " are called diaphorois haptismois — diverse baptisms — but the gentleman be- comes excited and terribly horrified, when I refer to this fact as proof against his po- sition, as to the meaning of the word. He knows some of these baptisms under the law were commanded to be done by " sprinkling ;" and he knows, further, that wherever the mode is not specified, the ac- tion is expressed by a generic tvord. This fact, which forever destroys his theory, he has not denied, nor can he deny it. He says : " Internally, the converted man has had his heart sprinkled from an evil con- science ; and externally, he has had his body ivashed tvithpure water. This external washing results irom immersion and noth- 398 DEBATE ON THE ing else." 'Now, I have shown that the al- lusion is not to Christian baptism, but to Jewish washings, and if Mr. F. would show that the Jewish icasliings were by immersion and nothing else, his j^osition would be- come plausible ; but he knows very well that he can not do it, and he will not try to do it. But the gentleman is very courageous, and yet extremely cautious, in holding on to his argument from bax)tizing in the river, etc. He insists that John could not bap- tize with the river, loith Enon, nor with the wilderness. But let tiie gentleman look again. John baptized in the river, in the same sense in which he baptized in the wil- derness. The preposition devotes the local- ity of the persons when the ordinance was administered, but says nothing about the mode, and indicates nothing about the mode. There is no question as to the lo- cality of the baptisms, and the argument which he claims to be untouched, is just no argument at all. By the way, my remark touching en, was with respect to what he said of baptizing in water. And he still persists that the translators of the Bible ■were poor, ignorant, obscure, dishonest creatures, unknown and unworthy to be known ! And he — yes, he is competent to 23ronounce upon their capacity and integ- rity ! Shame ! ! The baptism of sufferings was the next point the gentleman on the affirmative ACTION OF BAPTISM. 399 mentioned. Here he finds the noun, and, seemingly, denies that it is the name of an ordinance ! But he is careful, in denying this, to specify places where the word oc- curs with reference to other things than the ordinance. But will he come right out and deny the plain proposition that haptis- mos is, as a matter of fact, the name of an ordinance ? I ask not for the definition of the word, nor for its other uses and appli- cations, but is it, or is it not, the name of the ordinance ? I do not regard the ques- tion as of much importance in itself, but this shuffling and quibbling about it needs to be brought to a close. In the case of the baptism of sufferings, there was no or- dinance ; there was a metaphorical use of the term that indicates nothing whatever that can have any tendency to decide the issue before us ; there is in it no allusion to the mode of administering the ordinance at all. Then, I ask again, what does he ex- pect to prove by this metaphorical use of the word? The gentleman insists that I have no po- sition, and proceeds to fix up several posi- tions for me. He finds it easier to make and beat down false positions, than to meet and answer my real positions. When did I say " the mode is not sprinkling, pouring, nor immersion, as such, but baptism ?" IS^ever in this world ! Were it not for his confusion, I should be utterly unable to reconcile this statement with Christian 27 400 DEBATE ON THE candor and honesty. By adroitly substi- tuting " the mode^'^ for " the ordinance call- ed 'initiatory,' " he makes out this false charge. And this is a specimen of the " positions " he fixes uj) for me, and sets out in numerical order ! Perhaps the au- dience will take his statements for my posi- tions ! And perhaps they may desire proof. And he is the man who talks about sooth- ing the conscience in pliable theology ! I would say to him that modesty is a real virtue. I feel no disposition to reply to any of his attempts to torture the " cor- respondence." He is now welcome to all the capital he is able to make by this means. I am not at all "sensitive" about it. He alluded to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but evidently felt that he was tread- ing on dangerous ground. JVIy argument was, that the same specific action of the Spirit^ is in one place called a baptisjn, aiid in an- other a pouring out. Did he so much as no- tice this argument ? He did not, and I do not expect him so much as to appreciate it. He says the people were not " poured !" Wonderful I But were they not baptized by the Spirit, when it was poured out upon them? If so, the pouring out expresses the baptism. The generic haptizo is in the promise, and the specific poz^r is in the ful- fillment. But now for Mr. Franklin's ma- terialism. He says the Spirit, " like the rain pouring out and filling some place to haptize in, filled all the house where they ACTION OF BAPTISM. 401 were sitting." And just here he saw the difficulty. There is not a word said about the Spirit filling a place to baptize m, nor is there a word said about any baptism after the pouring out of the Spirit ! It was the " sound " that filled the house, and not the Spirit. This the gentleman sees and tries to obviate by saying that to raise a dispute about the "sound " is unworthy, etc.; and I wonder not that he is anxious to stave off an investigation of this point — but he must face it ! The sound is the Spirit, he would have us believe ; but this is absurd. And he concedes it tu be absurd ; for he says " the Spirit made the sound." The all per- vading Spirit of Grod, in an important sense, fills all things ; but here is a special manifestation spoken of. The p7'esence of the Spirit was symbolized by the tongues of fire. These did not overwhelm the people, nor fill all the house, like rain filling the pool ; but they sat upon the heads of the Apostles. This action of the fire is called a baptism ; and this extraordinary manifestation of the Spirit is called a bap- tism; but in neither instance is the idea of immersion expressed, implied, hinted at, or at all admissable. And that the idea ad- vanced by the gentleman in regard to the Spirit filling a place to baptize in, is pure materialism, needs no proof. But he thinks the same difficulty attaches itself to the scriptural language of pouring out the Spirit. Not at all. The Spirit is said to 402 DEBATE ON THE be poured out, not because there is a literal pouring out like water, but because its in- fluence is represented by the pouring of water ; and this proves that pouring water represents the baj)tism of the Spirit as con- clusively as if the Spirit were itself literally poured in the action of baj^tisni by it. Here the gentleman lies j)rostrate at my feet. And did you notice how he skipped the baptism by fire ? Then the baptisms of Saul and Cornelius were glanced at. He thinks I drew upon "imagination" to learn that Saul was baptized in the house ! But do we not find him in the house when commanded to be baptized ? And does he not draw upon his imagination, and upon nothing else, in order to get him out of the house? And does it not devolve on him to prove that he left the house before being baptized? The circumstances narrated are all against the supposition that he left the house to be baptized, and my friend can not dodge the issue by imagining that he left, when he ought to prove it. "What if he could be sprinkled without standing up — does that prove that he would not stand up in order to receive the ordinance by affusion ? And where is there any thing said or intimated about Cornelius, and those who were with him, leaving the house? Did not the gentle- man draw upon his imagination in this case? Truly the Apostle was about to receive the Gentiles into fellowship with the church, ACTION OP BAPTISM. 403 contrary to his former prejudices, but this was settled in his mind by the vision which he had seen, and by the manifestation of the Spirit. When the Holy Ghost fell upon the G-entiles, Peter was fully convinced that they ought to be baptized with water. But the water was not present. It must be brought. Hence he spoke of a possible prohibition on the water. He made no in- quiry as to the propriety of baptizing them. They had received the Holy Ghost, and that was enough for him. He then called for the water, and commanded them to be bap- tized. That is the history of the case, and it remains for Mr. P. to imagine that they left the house. These plain cases of the New Testament are against my friend. And so is the case of the Philippian Jail- or. I appeal to this baptism with much confidence. The circumstances brought to light preclude the idea of immersion. Let us look at them : 1st, Paul and Silas were committed to prison under a strict charge that they be kept safely. 2nd, Under the influence of that charge the Jailor "thrust them into the inner prison." 3rd, They sang and prayed at midnight until the earthquake occurred, and the prison doors were opened. 4th, The Jailor awoke from sleep, and was alarmed. Supposing the prisoners were fled, he was about to kill himself, so as to avoid a public execution. Paul saw him get his sword, and cried out to him to desist, informing him that they 404 DEBATE ON THE were all there. 6th, He called for a light, and sprang in, and inquired what he should do. 7th, He washed their stripes, and was immediately^ baptized, he and all his house- hold (Acts xvii. 20-40). Here, again, my friend must resort to " imagination," in or- der to get the Jailor, all his household and the prisoners out of the house, and away in search of water, at midnight, in open violation of law, and at the peril of the life of the Jailor! The only hypothesis that will meet all the facts developed, and ex- plain the circumstances named, in a per- fectly natural way, is that the house occu- pied by the Jailor, and the prison, both outer and inner, were all under the same roof. Hence Paul could see out of his dun- geon into the apartment of the Jailor, and discover his motions, while the Jailor could not see into the dungeon so as to discover the prisoners. AVhcn the Jailor sprang in, it was into the "inner prison;" and when he brought them out, it was out of the " in- ner prison ;" and not out of the prison building ; and when they were owi, they were not out of the building, but out of the " inner prison," and, consequently, in an- other apartment^ which we may call an outer prison. This was, doubtless, between the part of the building occupied by the Jailor and family, and that called the " inner prison." Here the stripes of the prisoners were washed. There was, therefore, some water present j for no doubt the Jailor was ACTION OP BAPTISM. 405 exceedingly tender and careful in bathing the lacerated backs of these men of God, as he now knew them to be. And if the his- tory is accurate, we must believe that right here — not out of the building, but out of the family residence, and out of the "inner prison " — the baptism was administered. But if so, there was no immersion. My friend may ^^ imagine" them all out of the building, and away in search of a river, but let him prove it if he is able. The plain, untortured narrative, is directly against him, ISTow to Philip and the nobleman in the desert again. My friend exhibits a want of acquaintance with the j^hysical geogra- phy of Palestine, that is truly astonishing. He speaks of a "certain water" rising a " little south of Jerusalem," and running towards Gaza, and emptying into the Medi- terranean near Askelon ! JSTow, does not almost every school-boy know that a stream running, as he says, would have to cross a large range of mountains ? Water rising south of Jerusalem runs into the Dead Sea, and not into the Mediterranean. And is it not true that most of the streams that find a place in the maps, are nothing more than wet weather branches? This is proven beyond all doubt. No, sir; the gentleman has not found the stream of sufficient capacity to immerse the man in, and he can not find it, for the simple reason that it is not there. The little branch that 406 DEBATE ON THE empties into the Mediterranean was that little brook Sorek, on which lived the woman whom Samson admired too much ; but it was only a spring branch, and did not cross the mountains, as my friend's atlas would have us believe. But he wishes to know what I denied respecting the prepositions eis and ek, trans- lated into and out of. I denied that they necessarily imply or express an entrance into the water — and I proved it too ! Now he relies upon the words dozen and up, to help him along with his difficult task. They went down — yes, down, from where? Why, from the chariot. And they ascended from the water. Does this doivn and up prove that one or the other was lying down and had to be raised up ? Not at all ; for they both went down, and they both icent up. But no one presumes that Philip was down in a horizontal position. The gentle- man denies relying upon the mere "jingle" of the words, in this case, but it is quite evident that he has nothing else to rely upon. I gave examples of the use of these prepositions where an entrance was not expressed, but positively denied. Did the gentleman show you the difference in the passages, or wherein the examples adduced differ from that before us? Does he affirm that eis necessarily expresses an entrance into the water? Has he become so disgust- ed with the affirmative of this proposition that he has forgotten where he stands ? I ACTION OF BAPTISM. 407 wish to remind him that, however reluc- tantly, he is, nevertheless, on the affirma- tive, and has something to do more than to assert and deny — more than to threaten me with examples and proofs of his posi- tion, on condition that I will do thus and so. I am here to follow him, and to examine his arguments, and I intend that not one of them shall escape notice. I have, in this debate, as many affirmatives as he, and as much time to spend upon them. I make no complaint of this, and I regret that my friend occupies his position so re- luctantly. But he has pledged himself to it, and his friends will expect him to lead the way fearlessly. He has attempted to show that my posi- tion is self-contradictory in asserting that the mode of baptism is not revealed and that it is revealed ! This is all gratuitous. My position has been from the start that the mode is not definitely defined or pre- scribed in the Scriptures, and yet that we are not left in the dark in relation to it. I plant myself upon the broad ground of revelation, and affirm that the definite mode of baptism is not clearly set forth ; but that we must learn what it is from the Bible use of the word, and from the circum- stances surrounding the administration, together with its symbolic import and de- sign. In all this there is nothing even paradoxical. It is the truth in relation to the case, the whole truth, and nothing but 408 DEBATE ON THE the truth. I admit immersion to be valid, because it is not forbidden, and because an- other mode is not so strictly enjoined as to be essential to the ordinance. And it is fortunate for the gentleman that I admit this — for if I did not, he evidently would be troubled to prove it. He has utterly failed to make out one clear case of immer- sion. He has failed to show that hapto is a specific term, expressive of mode, much less can he show this in regard to baptizo. The figure of being " born of water " lends him no countenance, and that other figure of a " burial" eflfected by baptism, has been taken entirely out of his hands. What then has he to stand upon ? Nothing but his bare assertions, and the mere ^'jingle" of a few scriptural words and phrases, to- gether with an association of ideas arising from modern customs ! But he may insist that I have not noticed the expression " buried in baptism," found in Col. ii. 12. The idea is not baptized in baptism, nor buried in burial, nor immersed in immer- sion ; hence, the burial is not the baptism. It is the moral efl:ect represented by bap- tism. That the burial is not a literal burial in water, is evident from the rising expressed. "Wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera- tion of God." Do men rise thus from the water when literally buried or immersed? Such rise not "through the faith of the operation of Gfod," but through the physi- ACTION OP BAPTIS3I. 409 cal strength of the administrator's arm ! The burial is a metaphorical expression, jiointing not to the mode, but to the moral result attributed to baptism. I care not what Wesley, or any other uninspired man, says on this point. I take only the lan- guage of holy writ. If my interpretation is wrong, let my friend show it. He is not debating with any one but your humble servant. The moral effect denoted by the burial is not momentary, but continuous. Hence the burial is not momentary — not past, but present and continuous. And now I appeal to the gentleman to give his authority for making baptism emblematic of the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Where is his authority for plac- ing baptism where the Scriptures place the Lord's supper ? Why will he not look at the legal and moral features of the Chris- tian system ? Is he not a little timorous at this point? Can he prove that baptism has any relation to the office and work of Christ? Dare he dispute that it relates wholly to the office and work of the Holy Spirit? I tell you, my friends, the gen- tleman has mistaken the whole subject. He has made it a hobby for a score of years, without learning the first principles involved in the controversy. He begs the question whenever he attempts proof from the meaning of the one word in relation to the one thing, and assumes, in direct oppo- sition to all authorities in the language, 410 DEBATE ON THE ihsit the first meaning of words is always the proper meaning. With such inaccu- racies he may succeed in satisfying his friends that immersion ivill do^ but he can not convince any one that it is the only baptism taught in the Scriptures, or prac- ticed by the Apostles. No wonder he " ut- terly refused" to debate the proposition suggested by me, which sets forth his real position in an affirmative way — that im- mersion is essential to the validity of the ordinance of Christian baptism. He has become quite familiar with the ftible of the rat and the meal, and not only quotes it flippantly, but practices upon its moral. And, like the boy whistling past the grave yard, to keep up his courage, or to divert attention from his fears, he charges me with " cowardice." When, where, under what circumstances, have I shown timorousness in this affair? A pretty charge, truly, to come from Mr. Franklin 1 I heard enough of the gentleman's learn- ing, and eloquence, and experience, and all that, from his friends, while the corres- pondence was progressing, to almost fright- en a wooden man ; but when they found they could not beat me off by such boast- ings of his gigantic powers, but that they must face the music, then they changed the tune and said they did not consider him so very smart after all ! And when the gentleman fails, as fail he must, to sus- tain himself, they will still have a resort — ACTION OF BAPTISM. 411 he loill have to hear the hlame, as not meet- ing the expectations of his friends ! No, sir ; I looked at the position of the man, as chief editor of the church organ — a sort of oracle amongst the brethren, and took it for granted that if he could not sustain himself, the fault was in the cause. This was my view, and it is still my view. Now I ask again, what has he established? What has he been trying to establish? He shrinks from a rigid examination of the words on which he relies, charging me with attempts at "mystification," and chooses to rely upon bold asseverations. He forsakes the ground of his favorite critic, refusing to " walk out boldly " upon it. He denounces my appeal to legal washings, called baptisms, and all that be- cause, forsooth, there is no ordinance in the texts referred to ! Where is his philol- ogy? Where his criticisms? Where his logic? Where are his facts and general principles? Where his plain cases of Apostolic practice ? And finally, sirs, where is his argument? I heard his asser- tions, his boastings, his special pleadings, and his complainings — but who heard his arguments ? MR. FRANKLIN'S SEVENTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : My opponent is a little dull of under- standing this morning. Sjjeaking of my remarks, in reply to him, on the words 412 DEBATE ON THE ''born of water and of the Spirit," he says, " He pretends that there were two distinct births !" He did this immediately after my saying, with all possible distinctness and emphasis, there was " unquestionably but one !" Yet he is not excited, and we do not " find him whining." It is but lit- tle use for me to state my position for his benefit, or to answer his questions. He asked me, on yesterday, whether there were two births or one, distinctly. I an- swered him without any hesitation, or equivocation, " unquestionably hut one. " He rises right up, almost as soon as the words are out of my lips, and tells you that I " pretend that there were two distinct births spoken of!" This is to be put down, not to an intention to misrepresent, but to his confusion and excitement. " Born of water," is baptism, and "born of the Spirit, " represents the influence of the Spirit, or is the influence of the Sjoirit itself. There is but one birth, "of water and of the Spirit;" hence the word "born" only occurs once. The one birth, of water and of the Spirit, brings the person into the new state, or into the kingdom ; and without it, the Lord says a man can not enter into the kingdom. All his talk about baptism rep- resenting the Spirit, is without a shadow of foundation, mere mist and sophistry; and if there has been any thing vulgar, it was in his mind and not mine, nor in any thing I have said. ACTION OF BAPTISM. 413 I must attend to the gentleman a little more carefully on " buried with him in bap- tism." He informs us that " buried with him in baptism," and " planted together in the likeness of his death," " are metaphors pointing to a moral effect of the Spirit's in- fluence ;" but where is the proof of this ? Did he give any, or simply say so? By what rule of language, or what kind of rea- soning, does he make the simple expres- sions, "buried with him in baptism," and "buried with him by baptism into death," mean a metaphor of the influence of the Spirit ? It was easy to say this, but a more unsupported and uusupportable assertion can not be uttered. It would have been just as audible to say it meant any thing else he could have thought of. The word " baptism" here, is no metaphor. It is used in its literal sense. The word " buried" is no metaphor, but is used in its literal sense. The expressions, "you are buried with him by baptism," and " buried with him in bap- tism," are as literal as language can be ; and in this literal burial in baptism, we are in the likeness of his death. There is nothing about tlie influence of the S2:)irit in this lan- guage ; but it is a clear statement, as literal as language can be, that they are buried with him in baptism. There is no such a metaphor in tlie Bible, as " bury," to rep- resent the influence of the Spirit. The word " baptize" is no metaphor, to repre- sent the Spirit, in any place, unless it bo 414 DEBATE ON THE where it is called " baptizing in the Holy Spirit," and there is nothing of that sort in this passage. The words " risen with him," are not used to represent the influence of the Spirit, in any place. A grander farce could not be invented. There is not an authority in the world that makes the words, " planted together in the likeness of his death," a metaphor, to represent the influence of the SjDirit. The Sj)irit's influ- ence is not represented by the likeness of his death ; but we are planted together in the likeness of his death, when we are bu- ried with him in baptism, and at no other time. One of the weakest things I have met with in a long time, was the effort of Mr. M. to prove, from the tense, that the burial could not be baptism. In one of his speeches he quoted the words, " ice are huried^'^ to prove that we are in that burial yet ! Why did he not quote the words, "you are baptized," or " we are baptized," as found in different places, to prove that we are yet in baptism? If the words, "we are," prove that we are yet in the burial, they prove that we are yet in the baptism ; for we have it, " we are buried with him in baptism," or, as it is in the other place, " by baptism." This was, positively, one of the last of criticisms! We are buried with him, proves that we are yet in the burial ! Then it proves that we are yet in the baptism. This is absolutely too weak. ACTION OF BAPTISM. 415 I can not think it needs any reply. If the expressions, " buried with him in baptism," and " buried with him by baptism," do not show that tliey immersed anciently, when they baptized, no language can show it. Though Mr. M. has said, with so much as- surance, " these expressions have no refer- ence to the manner of baptizing," Mr. Wesley says, on the words, " we are buried with him," Eomans vi. 4 : "Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion, that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory — glorious power of the Father — so we also, by the same power, should rise again; and as he lives a new life in heaven, so we should walk in newness of life. This, says the Apostle, our very baptism repre- sents to us." On the other passage, Col. ii. 12, " buried with him in baptism," Mr. Wesley has the following : " The ancient manner of baptizing by immersion is as manifestly alluded to here as the other manner of baptizing by sprinkling or pour- ing of water is, Heb. x. 22." Mr. AVesley does not only, in opposition to Mr. M., find an allusion to the "manner" of baj)tizing, or the mode^ as the latter calls it, but he agrees with me that the allusion is "to the ancient manner of baptizing by im- mersion." Has the worthy gentleman found out that Mr. Wesley was mistaken ? or is he mistaken himself? Re is evident- ly mistaken, and Wesley right. The gentleman informed us, that " John 28 416 DEBATE ON THE baptized in the river^ in the same sense in which he baptized in the wilderness^ He says, " The preposition denotes the locality of the persons Y/hen they were baj)tized." Yery well. "In the wilderness," was not ai it, nor with it, but, as it is well expressed, in it ; and " in the river," was not at it, nor iDitli it, but " in the river." This expresses the locality where they were, when they were baptized. Where was that locality ? or where were they? They were in the river or waters of Jordan. They went down into the water, were in the water when baptized, and came up out of the water. This was not sprinkling nor pour- ing ; for they would not have gone down into the water to sprinkle or pour, could not have sprinkled in the river, and, as a matter of course, could not have come up out of the water. The worthy gentleman has become weary of the sound and meaning of both of these expressions. They are conclusive. They did not sprinkle or pour in Jordan ; but they did immerse. This sounds natural. They went down into the water, were immersed in the river and came uj) out of I he water. The sentence, that the King James' translators " were poor, ignorant, obscure, dishonest creatures, unknown and un- worthy to be known," must be taken at a discount, when that description is spoken for my language. I accused them of un- fairness, and made my specification. Did AC!riON OF BAPTISM. 417 Mr. M. invalidate my proof, that they were unfair ? He did not. I expressed surprise that he should laud them as he did, when he could not tell who they were, or their positions in the world. Did he tell who they were, or shoAY that he knew au}^ thing of consequence about them ? He did not; but performed the lighter task of saying " Shame !" The worthy gentleman is in trouble about the baptism of sufferings, and talks Avith great determination; but he had as Avell keep cool, and he will understand full as well. He has admitted that there is no sprinkling nor pouring in the baptism of sufferings, but an overwhelming. What word expresses that overwhelming ? The very word we are in controversy about. It expresses no name of an ordinance, and no man living can tell from that word alone whether there is any ordinance or not. Here we have baptism of sutferings, or, as he has admitted, an overwhelming, but no ordinance. Has not the gentleman been sufficiently exposed in his position, that baptism is the proper name of an ordi- nance, without an authority in the world to suj)port him? He asked me ''^What of hcqjtismosf in a former speech, and I refer- red him to the word, where it was not only evident that it was not the ordinance, but where it is evident there was no ordinance. Mr. M. is becoming so irritable on some points, that, from sympathy, 1 am almost 418 DEBATE ON THE disposed to let him pass. But I can not let him off in denying that he said the mode is not s^orinkling. AYhy did he not meet my language fairly and squarely? Did I not quote his precise words, and make out the case clearly? If I did not, no case can be clearly made out. His words are : " The ordinance called ' initi- atory,' is baptism. It is not sprinkling, pouring nor immersion, as such, but bap- tism." ]Srow what is it that " is not sprink- ling,''etc. ? Bajytisjn ; is it not? "Well, if baptism is not sprinkling, as he says, is it not as certain as certainty, that S2)rink- ling is not baptism? If sprinkling is not baptism, then, beyond all dispute, sprink- ling water upon a person is not baptizing a person. Sprinkling water upon a person, can not be baptizing a person, nor a mode of baptizing a person, unless sprinkling is baptizing, and this can not be unless bap- tizing is sprinkling. This is as evident as that two and two make four. If the initi- atory ordinance is baptism, and it (bap- tism) is not sprinkling, then sprinkling is not baptism. There is no misrepresenta- tion about this ; it is as clear as sunbeams. Mr. ]\I. thinks I did not meet him fairly on the baptism of the Spirit. I did not feel that I was treading uj^onanj^ dangerous ground here. Speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, he says, " My argument was, that the same specific action of the Spirit is in one place called a haptism, and in another a ACTION OF BAPTISM. 419 pouring outy This I deny. Here is a fViir issue. I fully appreciate the gentleman's argument, and have met with it before to- day. I did notice this argument, and stranded it so that he did not repair it, and never will ; but I did not show the fallacy of it off, as I can very easily do. In the first place, I would inquire, if the specific action is pour^ can it be sprinkle or immerse f If I were to take his unsuj^ported assertion, which he calls an " argument," without any discount, what does it amount to ? It only amounts to this: that one specific ac- tion is expressed by two different words. If this is true, you may use either of those words to express this specific action. I hope we shall have no cringing here, but that the gentleman will face the responsibility. If the Lord has used the two Greek words, ehkeo and bajjtizo, to express " the same specific action," it is no difference which one of the words we use to express that specific action. If pour means baptize, hap- tize means po?j pouring out, or there is no mean- ing in language. The one action of the Spirit was alluded to both in the promise and the fulfillment. The gentleman's talk about the "sound" and the "wind" amounts to sound and wind, and nothing more. The inspired writer says the " sound " filled the house ; but then they were not baptized in "sound;" yet Mr. F. thinks the " sound " and " wind " and " Spirit," were all one. If this is not his position, I do not understand him. He says the Spirit came in the sound ; the Spirit sat upon them, etc.; but, unfortunately for him, he finds nothing of the kind in the account. The sound filled the house — but the Holy Ghost filled the disciples, while the cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon their heads. Thus you observe that I adhere to the plain statements found in the Book, while the "quibbling" and the "little plays upon the word," are all done by the gentleman on the afiirmative. But he saj^s there were two distinct ac- tions; that the people were subjects of one action, and that the Spirit was the subject 436 DEBATE ON THE of the other action, etc. ; but did he prove this ? He did not, and he can not ! It is nothing but bare assumption. He feels the force of the fact that the same specific action of the Spirit, is called a haptism and Si. pouring out, and some show of reply must be made ; but the idea of getting uj) "two distinct actions " — one to answer to the pouring^ and the other to the baptizing^ will not do. This is too glaring. I deny it flatly, and demand the proof. Let the gen- tleman show us'the two distinct actions if he can. I fear not successful contradiction when I affirm that if the Apostles were not baptized with the Holy Ghost iclien it was poured out upon them, they were never baptized with it. All the quibbling and assumption and dodging in the uni- verse, can not make any baptism distinct from the pouring out. But the gentleman alluded to the bap- tism of fire, and fulfilled my prediction that he would make it the fire of hell! Can he make this out? AYould it ever have been thought of, but for the benefit of a j^erish- ing dogma ? I verily believe not. The j)romise is made to the same p>ersons^ at the same time, and in the same vei'se, with the promise of baptism with the Holy Ghost ; and can it be, that, under such circum- ces, the word fire relates to hell-torments, while the Holy Ghost denotes the highest blessing? What if there were two char- acters before him ? What if he did declare ACTION OF BAPTISM. 437 the chaff should be burned with unquench- able fire ? Does that prove that half the promise made to the disciples was a threat- ning designed for the wicked ? JSTever ! The baptism was one — it was with the Holy Ghost and fire. The Sj^ii'it was invisible. It filled their hearts. But?- the emblem was along with it. The fire sat upon them. They were not immersed in the Spirit, but they were filled with his divine presence ; nor were they immersed in the fire, but it rested upon their heads. The j)romise was fulfilled then or never. They were bap- tized with the Holy G-host and fire, or the words of John, and Jesus, and Luke, are all to be set aside as untrue ! The gentleman is evidently alarmed at the " plain cases of the ISTew Testament," for which he called so lustily. I still assert as confidently as ever that Saul and Cor- nelius were baptized in the house. I have the " infallible testimony " that they were in the house at the time some of the tran- sactions narrated occurred, and there is not the least shadow of testimony that they left the house before they were bap- tized. Then it clearly devolves on Mr. F. to show that they did leave the house -, but he excuses himself from the attempt by saj'ing he " built no argument upon their being brought out." I know he built no argument on these examples at all — he is the last man to do that — but then I urged them against his position, and he can not 438 DEBATE ON THE save his cause without getting them out of the house. He " adroitly " calls on me to prove that they were baptized in the house ; but / have them in, and it is for him to get them out ! The burden of proof is upon him. But he tries to get the Jailor and house- hold, with Paul and Silas, out in the dark, with the prison doors all open, and going oif, contrary to the law of the land, in search of water to immerse in ! In my statement of this case, I omitted no mate- rial fact. " He brought them out " — out of where? Out of the "inner prison," of course ; but does this prove that he brought them, out of the prison f Not at all. JSTor is it said he took them into his own house, until after he and all his were baptized. They spoke the word of the Lord to them all together — out of his house, and out of the " inner prison," but not out of the prison building. My position is that the only hypothesis that will account for all the facts brought to light in the narrative, is, that the Jailor occupied one part of the prison building for his family residence. We have clear evidence that the prison contained more than one apartment ; and when the Jailor brought his prisoners out of the inner prison, they were still in the building. Kor is it likely that he would risk his life in taking them out of the prison building before he heard them speak the word of the Lord. They were honest men, ACTION OP BAPTISM. 439 and would not expose their keeper to any danger, even if he were willing. But when he brought them out of the apartment in which they had been confined, the excite- ment of the occasion would naturally attract all that were in the house to the spot ; so that the word of the Lord could be spoken to them, and they could all, then and there, receive baptism from the same vessel from which the prisoners' stripes were washed. All this is perfectly natural and consistent ; but there is no countenance to immersion here. Mr. F. must try yet again. The gentleman still relies on Colton's Atlas to prove that there was water in the "desert" to answer the puri:)Ose of im- mersion ; and he claims to be " perfectly posted " in regard to the matter ; but did I not prod,uce good authority for pro- nouncing the " certain water " nothing but a wet-weather torrent ? Has he quoted a single man who ever saw the river that winds through the mountains for nearly a hundred miles ? No, sir ; nor he can not. The idea is preposterous. There is no such river there! He has seen nothing but a mark on the map, and the whole list of travelers have failed to find his river. "What, then, does he rely upon? In regard to the prepositions eis and ek^ the gentle- man occupies a strange position. He re- fuses to advocate his own cause, unless I will assail the translation I Have I not 440 DEBATE ON THE shown, as clearly as language can show any thing, that eis does not necessarily ex- press an entrance, and that ek does not ne- cessarily denote a going out ? Then why does he quibble about the "translation?" Can he deceive any one into the idea that I am under the necessity of making war on the translation, in order to draw him out ? If eis necessarily denotes an entrance, let him say so. Let him nerve himself up to the task, and assert that the preposition, without the prefix to tlie verb, expresses an entrance, and I will further demonstrate the falsity of his position. I can wait with patience. If ray position were as confused as the gentleman's ideas respecting it, there would be no difficulty in finding some- thing paradoxical in it. Eut the misfor- tune with him is, the people can discrimi- nate between his perversions and my posi- tions. I stand out boldly upon the broad ground, that the mode of baptism is not de- finitely prescribed — and yet that we are not altogetlier in the dark respecting it. I have "descended " to no personalities, nor have I empkjyed epithets instead of argu- ments ; but the gentleman talks fluently about me " soothing " my "conscience by shameful perversions " of the Apostle's words ! He is, in all this, very courteous ; but when I press the cold facts upon him, which he can not meet, he charges me with improprieties ! Bat he is well understood. ACTION OF BAPTISM. 441 Wo are both scrutinized by intelligent hearers. I could, were it proper, name the author of the only ''private remark" alluded to by me. The gentleman is pres- ent, and knows well to what I alluded. But I made the allusion in reply to the gentleman on the affirmative. Let him proceed with his arguments, and not spend so much time in complaining of his posi- tion, and he will find less to complain about. MR. FRANKLIN'S EIGHTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : My opponent has given his reason for saying that sprinkling is not baptism. If he should affirm that sprinkling is bap- tism, he would have to maintain that wherever there is sprinkling there is bap- tism, and wherever there is baptism there is sprinkling. That is all so, without doubt. I am perfectly willing to take all the con- sequences and say all that of immersion. Immersion is baptism, and baptism is im- mersion. Wherever there is an immersion there is a baptism; and wherever there is a baptism there is an immersion. But there can be an immersion, or a baptism, and no ordinance or religious rite. A man might be immersed, or be sprinkled or pour- ed upon, and there be no ordinance. Hence we find each of the Avords signifying the 442 DEBATE ON THE three actions, sprinkle, pour and immerse, in both Greek and English, where there is no ordinance, or religious rite of any sort. This shows how preposterous it is to speak of baptism being the proper name of the ordinance. The word is never used in any- such sense in the l^ew Testament. The word expresses an action, one action, and nothing else, no matter what the subject of that action is — whether cups, pots, beds, hands, or people ; and no matter what that action is in — whether suiferings, fire, spirit or water. That one action is never sprinkle or pour, but always immerse. Hence the distinguished and learned Dr. Lillie, a Pres- byterian, employed as a translator, or re- visor, by the American Bible Union, in the great and good work of revising the Eng- lish Scriptures, in translating Eph. iv. 5, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," gives us, "One Lord, one faith, one immersion.'' For "doctrine of baptisms" (Heb. vi. 2), he gives us " doctrine of immersions.'^ He fears not to translate the word, and does it without any "circumlocution," at that! Is Mr. M. a better scholar than Dr. Lillie? — or has he more at stake? He finds no difiiculty, so far as I have seen, in translating baptizoy wherever found, and all without any " cir- cumlocution ;" but Mr. M. can not translate it at all — it is such a wonderful word ! I have tried over and over again to induce him to translate the word in some way, but he will not do it. He admits that baptize ACTION OP BAPTISM. 443 is a Greek word, but to get it into English is the trouble ! He has not attempted to translate it into English ; and he will not; lie knows that no translation made, or that can be made, will suit him. It is mere talk to say that the word can not be translated j that no English word will exhaust its mean- ing, etc. If one word will not exhaust its meaning, give us several words. If it means sprinkle, pour and immerse, translate into all of these words. But the truth is, that the word means immerse, and it will make sense to translate it immerse in every place in the New Testament where it is found. The worthy gentleman has been saying, I know not how often, that when the use of water is described, as a religious ceremo- ny, it is sprinkling, and he has actually re- ferred us to a place where the word sprinlle is found. But what is his object in that? Does he think that has any reference to the subject in debate? I knew long ago that the word sprinkle was in the Bible in a few places, and even in the New Testament some seven times ; but the trouble is, that it has no reference to the ordinance. It is never used in reference to the rite in any place in the Bible. What light does it, then, throw upon the subject for him to quote a passage from the Old Testament, that has not the slightest reference to the ordinance, containing the word sprinkle ! Does he wish you to " take the sound for the meaning f — or what can he have in view ? He can not 444 DEBATE ON THE jDossibly think he is showing how the Apos- tles baptized, or that he is showing what haptizo means ; for there is nothing about either. The only purpose it can serve, to go back among the Jewish ceremonies, is, to escape from the clear light of the IsTew Testament and get back among the types and shadows — among the mists and fogs before the mystery of the gospel was made known, before the secret was revealed, and before the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ were developed to mankind. The types and shadows were the best lights l^ossessed once; but the antitype is clearer than the type always. The reality is al- ways clearer than the shadow. The type of a man, or the picture, will give some idea of his appearance, to one who never saw him ; but if you have the man himself be- fore you, it is easier to determine the ap- pearance of the man by looking at him, than the picture, even if you have a good picture. But if some man would cheat you and show a picture of something else in the place of the man he was talking about, to give you an idea of the a2:)pearance of the man, he not only would fail to enlighten you, but would mislead you. What, then, is my friend in search of among the types? Has he found a type of baptism? ]^ot at all. He makes baj^tism itself a type of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, and then he goes to the work of the Spirit to learn what bajitism is. With him, baptism ACTION OF BAPTISM. 445 represents the work of the Spirit, and then the work of tlie Sj)irit represents baptism. With him, baptism represents the work of the Spirit and then he goes to the work of the Spirit to learn what baptism is ! Tlius he runs round and round in a circle, with- out proving any thing, affording any light or any satisfaction to the conscience of one soul in this assembly. The worthy gentleman desires to know if eis can not be rendered any other way than as found in the expression, " went down into the water." It can not, in that passage, Avithout violating one of the first, plainest and most important of all rules in translating, viz., that the primary meaning is always to be given, unless there is some- thing in the connection forbidding it. In this connection there is nothing forbidding the first meaning, or no reason why the first meaning shall not be adopted. Mr. M. has given no reason, and he can give no reason why the first meaning should not be adopted. The translators have gone ac- cording to the rule. They find no reason why the first meaning may not be adopted ; and tbey find els after a verb of motion, in which case it should be translated into. They have honestly translated it into. Mr. M. has not, and, I think, his honor will not j^ermit him to deny that the translation is correct. It can not be translated any other way, in the passages in dispute, without violating the simplest rules in translating. 446 DEBATE ON THE The same observations are true of eh. Its literal and first meaning is out of, and the rule requires that it be so translated, unless there is a reason in the context, why some other meaning should be adopted, or unless there be some clear difficulty in the way of giving the first meaning. It can not, in the passages in controversy, be translated any way but out of, without violating the clear and well-established rules of translat- ing. I notice that Mr. M., in criticising sprink- ling cups, pots, beds, hands and people, only attempted to meet one part of the dif- ficulty, and that the part the least relied upon. I knew that, by a pretty great stretch of the figurative, we could say, " sprinkled both the book and the people," though the idea is simply and literally sprinkled upon the book and the jieople. He knows, too, that his Discipline bas it ^''sprinkle or pour water upon them," and " immerse them in water T This is literal. But the main point, if you noticed, the gen- tleman passed in profound silence. I ad- mit the possibility of using the expression, sprinkled or poured the people, but it is with the understanding that the elipsis be sup- plied, so as to read, " sprinkled or poured upon the people." This no man who does his own thinking can deny. But the diffi- culty that Mr. M. glided over silently and that he must face, is that of sprinkling or pouring people in a river, or in water. This ACTION OP BAPTISM. 447 ig a natural and a physical impo.^sibility. There is not a man that can stretch his imagination to believe, that our Lord was sprinhled of John in Jordan and that he went lip straight loay out of the tvater^, or that Philip and the eunuch "went down into the water and that he sprinhled him, and they came up out of the water, or that John was sprinhling in Enon near Salim because there luas much loater there. All that is necessary to understand all this, is to allow reason to have her proper place, and let a sound mind take the place of a prejudiced and a perverted understanding. Let the gentle- man, then, if he can, meet the case fairly and squarely and show how people could be sprinkled in the river or water. I can see how w^ater could be sprinkled v2:)on the people, but I can not see how th^ people could be sprinkled in the river. I can see how they could be. immersed in the river. I do not like to make little of an oppo- nent, or to accuse him of trifling; but when I look at the solemn passage, Rom. vi. 1-G, and Col. ii. 12-13, it requires a great stretch of charity, to call it by a milder name than trifling. Especially is this the case, when we look at that least of all plays upon verbiage — that mere trick of trying to manuflxcture something from sound and not from meaning, m emphasizing tlie words ^' ice arc buried with him in bap- tism." We continue in the burial, or remain in it. he allows ! What does he 30 448 DEBATE ON THE think to prove by that? Nothing under the shining sun, unless it be that what the Apostle says is not true ; that is, that we are not buried with him in baptism. No cavil can escape the Apostle's plain lan- guage. We are not in debate about when the burial took place, nor how long it con- tinues, but the simple matter w^ith us, is stated in the most unequivocal words. Is the language of God true, that they were " buried with him in baptism V Is the lan- guage true, that the disciples at Eome were '•'■ buried with him by baptism V I care not when it was done, nor do I care for any little cavils about how long it continues. But does he believe the language of God, that states that they were " buried ivith him by baptism .?" If he does, that matter is settled. He knows that they were not buried with him by sprinkling, that such a thing could not be, and that such is not the meaning. Has Mr. M. risen, young as he is, to such distinction that he can set aside the venerable Wesley? Shall he set aside by a single assertion, Dr. A. Clarke? These great men, unhesitatingly declare not only that immersion was the ancient practice, but that the expressions, ''buried with him in baptism," and "buried with him by baptism," evidently allude to the ancient manner of baptizing by immer- sion." John Calvin declares boldly that the ancient manner was immersion. But our young divines have found out that ACTION OP BAPTISM. 419 "Wesley, Clarke and Calvin were mistaken, and that tliese expressions have no refer- ence to the manner of baptizing ! I think the gentleman is a little sick of his unsupported and nnsupportable asser- tion, that the word 2^our, in the words, " I will pour out my Spirit," expresses the same specification, as the word haptize^ in the promise, "he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit." The word pour, here, does noL mean baptize, and the word baptize, in the promise, does not mean pour. There were two things done. The Spirit was poured out. This could have been done if there had been no people there. The peo- ple were baptized. This is another thing. The Spirit was poured. Does pour here mean baptize? Mr. M. says it does. Then the Spirit was baptized, for " the Spirit was poured out." The true state of the case is, that pour does not mean baptize ; hence, the Spirit was poured, but not bap- tized ; and baptize does not mean ^owr, in the promise, for the people were baptized, but not poured. J.^ pour and baptize in these two passages, express the same thing, or the same action, then nothing can be clearer than that that which was poured was baptized. The one action is the same, the one thing is the same, or that which was done is the same, no matter how many terms express it. If that which was done, is clearly expressed by the words " pour out my Spirit," and that is the same thing 450 DEBATE ON THE meant by the baptism of the Spirit, then the Spirit was baptized, for it was poured out. The Spirit could have been poured out and no baptizing done. Baptizing could have been done, if there had been no pour- ing out of the Spirit. The promise, " I will pour out my Spirit," does not mean, as any man here can see, " I will baptize my Spirit," but I will send forth my Spirit ; hence the Apostle says, " He hath shed forth this which you now see and hear." The Spirit of the Lord was poured out, shed forth, or sent forth, but this does not express what he did, after he was sent forth. He overwhelmed the Apostles w^ith his stupendous and miraculous powers, after he was sent forth. Sending the Spirit forth, and what he did after he was sent forth, are two as distinct things as sending Jesus and what Jesus did after he was sent. The basis of the expression "baptism of the Holy vSpirit," is not 2'^^^f^\ nor sprinkle^ but the overwhelming influ- ence of the Spirit upon the Apostles. This is forcibly and clearly expressed in the sentence, "He shall immerse you in the Holy Spirit." This is precisely what the passage says, when w^e have it in English. My worth}?- friend has been in the habit of having what he says taken for granted, without any proof, so long, that he sweeps aside the highest and best authority in the world, by a single assertion. He sweeps ACTION OF BAPTISM. 451 aside the grand Atlas of Colton — the latest, the fullest and most perfect in the world ; and the " certain water," mentioned in the word of God, having its source a short dis- tance south of Jerusalem, and winding through the hill country, till near Gaza, and thence to the Mediterranean Sea, call- ing it " a mark upon the atlas," where there was no water, exce^^t in "wet weather!" He then criticises upon the Greek particle, ti^ translated "certain," and informs us that it means a little water ! It is a Avon- der that they found " a little water," in this desert, where there was no water ex- cept in wet weather ! As a matter of course it was a dry time when Philip and the eunuch came to this " certain water." Is there any man here that does not know that the expression, " they came unto a certain water," is not ap>plied by writers to a quart or a pint, or any insignificant amount not sufficient to immerse a man ? Is there any man here that does not know that water in abundance for immersing, is found in creeks within five miles of their source, even when the weather is so dry that there has been no Tunning water for weeks ? I have seen and immersed in as beautiful and clear water as need be in creeks of this description, in less than five miles from the head branch, and can show Mr. M. any number of such places in our own State. Is there any man here that does not know, that when you admit the 452 DEBATE ON THE truth of the statement, " they came unto a certain water," that it is just as likely that they came unto water enough for immer- sion, as that they came unto water at all? How desperate, then, must the cause of the man be, who has to try to make you be- lieve there was not water sufficient for immersion, to create doubts in your mind about immersion ! There is no need of all this twisting. If a man desires to know that he is right, he must take up the sacred narrative, and when he is informed that " they came unto a certain water," believe it in its obvious import ; and when he finds that " they went down into the water," be- lieve it, and no caviling about it. When he finds that "they came iip out of the water," believe it, and regard no twisting and evasion of these plain matters. But I am not done with the worthy gentleman ! He talks about " confusion." I can show you where confusion reigns. The gentleman has no position, only to op- pose me. He holds nothing, maintains nothing and defends nothing. He makes himself responsible for nothing. He argues negatively. He paved the way for this in the correspondence, which he has such an aversion to hearing. His positions, when at different points of the compass, have been as follows : 1. The mode is not definitely revealed in the Bible. 2. Baptism is not sprinkling, pouring nor ACTION OF BAPTISM. 453 immersion, as such, but baptism. You must not puzzle him to tell how he knows this, if the mode is not revealed. 3. He admits that immersion is baptism, administers it for baptism and calls it bap- tism in the name of the Lord. I know not how he knows this, when the mode is not revealed. 4. He throws aside all his learning and knowledge, and inquires of the candidate how the ordinance sball be administered. 5. He finds a passage in the Old Testa- ment, where it has no reference to the ordi- nance, containing the word sprinkle^ that clearly reveals the mode, and shows it to be sp7-{nhUng ! How he harmonizes this with his other position, that the mode is not revealed, is a matter that you must not inquire into ! He has a way of satisfying himself, though he may not be able to satis- fy you. 6. He finds the mode next clearly set forth in the words, " I will pour out my Spirit," and he thinks it is |jowri?i^? beyond dispute ! This too, may puzzle you to har- monize with his other position, that the mode is not revealed; his other one, that immersion is baptism; or his other one, that it is sprinkling; or his other one, that baptism is not sprinkling, pouring, nor im- mersing, as such ! 7. His seventh position, negatively, as usual, is that "buried with him in bap- tism," and "buried with him by baptism," 454 IJEBATE ON THE which Clarke and Wesley say " evidently allude to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion," has no allusion to the man- ner of baptizing at all ; but symbolizes the work of the Holy Spirit. Such are a few of the illuminations he has afforded us since we have entered upon this proposition. Hence, he says, " Wc are making a little progress." But he is now before you as a preacher, and he must come up and face the expres- sions, "buried with him in baptism," and " buried with him by baptism." ISTow he may make his election among the several kinds of baptism. The clear and unequivo- cal language is " buried with him in bap- tism." What kind of baptism is it in which they arc buried with him. Does it mean the baptism of sufferings ? It does not, for all the disciples were not baptized in sufferings ; and this is a baptism through which all the disciples at Eome and Collos- se had gone. Does it mean the baptism of fire ! He will not say that it does; for he thinks that sat upon them. I might have made "sat upon each of them," another of his modes, and even located it upon the head. He does not think all the disciples at Eome and Collosse were " buried with Christ in baptism" of fire. Was it, then, baptism in water they were "buried in?" He contends not, for this would amount to immersion. If they were buried with him in water baj^tism at all, it was buried ACTION UF BAPTISM. 455 with him by immersion. To avoid this dilemma, he resorts to the Spirit. The burial represents the work of the Spirit ! That is not Scripture. It is naked asser- tion. It is " buried in baptism " of some sort. ' He will not admit that it is in water, fire or suiferings. What, then, is it? There is nothing left but the baptism of the Spirit. There is no other baxDtism mentioned. He is left, then, to take the baptism of the Spirit. The churches at Eome and Collos- se, then, according to this doctrine, were " hurled with Christ in baptism" of the Spir- it ! The baptism of the Spirit, his position makes a burial, or an immersion ! Yet he tries to prove that it was pouring. The pouring out, he thinks at one time the bap- tism of the Spirit, but at another time they were buried in the baptism of the Spirit ! ]S[o wonder nothing upon the subject is es- tablished in his church. It is not strange O that one man is sprinkled upon, another poured upon, another immersed, another kneels in the water, and has it poured upon the head, and another has not attempted to be baptized at all. N^o wonder, among all this vacillating, equivocating and twisting, that there are thousands of honest souls, in his church, in doubt, uncertainty and per- plexity on the whole subject. ISTo wonder that the good people, the true lovers of Je- sus, in the Methodist church, who are hon- estly trying to serve God, are wavering and seeking baptism some place else. There 456 DEBATE ON THE is but one safe course for all such, and that we would exhort them to take, if these were the last words we ever expected to utter on the subject ; and that is, in the fear of the Lord, be honestly and solemnly immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and your trouble about baptism will be at an end. MR. MERRILL'S SIXTH REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, and the Audience : The gentleman says he is willing to take all the consequences of saying that wherever there is an immersion there is a baptism ; but he saw that it would never do to leave the subject there, and proceeded to guard it by saying there might be a baptism where there is no ordinance! Well, bis disclaimer may help him a little, but it will not save him. He is now fully com- mitted to the doctrine that baptism consists of the abstract action of entering into the water, neither more nor less. Then, what- ever the ordinance may involve or imply, over and above the abstract idea of enter- ing the water, is no part of baptism ! The ordinance and the baptism are not the same ! And the man who accidentally falls into the river, is just as effectually baptized as though he were dipped by an inspired Apostle! l!^othing is lacking to complete the baptism, although every ACTION OP BAPTISM. 457 thing may be lacking to complete the ordinance ! It seems impossible for him to state my positions correctly. There must be some fate controlling his intellect that he can not resist. He will, in spite of every thing, carry the impression that I have admitted that baptism may not be administered by sprinkling, simply because I said baptism is not sprinkling, as such ! As to the " dis- tinguished and learned Dr. Lillie," I have only toremark, thatif hehas hired himself to the so-called Bible Union, to translate hap- tismos immersion, I care not the snap of my finger for his learning. It will not have the weight of a feather with men who do their own thinking. The gentleman spent some more of his time in trying to throw dust over my ap- peal to the Bible use of the word. I go to the types and ceremonies of the former dispensation, as he knows very well, only for illustrations ; and if he did not feel the force of my appeal to Bible use, he would not make such an effort to stir up preju- dice and raise fog. That Bible use is against him, I have shown beyond all ques- tion. As yet, I have paid but little atten- tion to authorities outside of Bible use. I will, however, call the gentleman's atten- tion to one or two facts bearing on the sub- ject. You all remember how boldly the affirmant walked out upon the ground taken by Mr. Carson, and then how sud- 458 DEBATE ON THE denly he walked back again. Mr. Carson was indeed a learned man, though he was a strong partisan, a rigid immersionist, and an uncompromising enemy to Pedo- baptist theology. But with all his learning and prejudice he admits that hapto signifies to dye by sprinhling ; and that this is not a metaj)horical, but a literal meaning of the word. By way of vindication of this ojDin- ion, he cites examples from the classics, proving beyond all question, that hapto ex- presses an action without reference to mode, and that it sometimes occurs where there can be no allusion to dipping, but where another mode is exj)ressly pointed out. I gave some of the examples in a former speech, but now call them up again. The first was from Hippocrates. He used hapto to denote the action of dyeing a gar- ment by dropping the coloring Jliiid upon it. " AVhen it drops upon the garments they are dyed^ This, Mr. Carson concedes, was dyeing without any reference to dipping. Was Mr. Carson right ? If so, Mr. Frank- lin is wrong. Did Hippocrates use hapto correctly ? If so, Mr. F. must for ever fail ! I have on my side the authority of Carson, and what is of vastly more importance, the use of the word by Hippocrates. Another exam2:)le adduced by Carson, to prove that hapto does not always denote dipping, is the following : "Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian music, shaved his face and smeared it over with tawny ACTION OF BAPTISM. 459 ashes." In commenting nj^on this exam- ple, Mr. Carson says, " Now, surely hapto- menos here has no reference to its primary meaning. ISTor is it used figuratively. The face of the person was rubbed with the ashes. By any thing implied or referred to in this example, it could not be known that hapto ever signifies to dip^ These ex- amples prove that even in classic as well as in Bible use, hapto is used without any reference to dipping. And how does Mr. F. expect to sustain himself in his position that it always means dip or immerse and nothing else ? It is unquestionable that so far as mode is concerned, hapto and haptizo are of one import. Hence, Mr. Franklin's bare assertions, must encounter the authori- ty of his own favorite critic, the authority of Bible and classic usage, as well as the authority of the best critics and lexico- graphers that ever saw the sun ! Is he a better scholar than Mr. Carson and all the lexicographers ? But he tries to appear profound in ask- ing what I went to the types for. Had I gone to the types to learn from the types the nature of a Christian ordinance, there might have been some show of propriety in his course ; but he knows I did no sucli thing ! I went to the Old Testament to see how the word hapto was used before the coming of Christ ; and I found it! Although the word occurs with reference to the types, it occurs just as literally there as any where 460 DEBATE ON THE else. The gentleman can not escape the responsibility of appealing to Bible use by any such puerile harangues as that he de- livered about the types. And he tried to show that I was arguing in a circle ! But did he do it? No, sir; he did not. Bap- tism represents the work of the Spirit. This I have demonstrated. And the Holy Spirit is said to be " poured out," in allu- sion to the ordinary method of using water, which is its ordained emblem. There is no "circle" in this; but there is an argu- ment against the gentleman which is un- answerable. But he was again laboring with the prepositions eis and ek, in the account of the baptism in the "desert." He begins to realize his position as afl&rmant, and with a great flourish of trumpets, he puts forth a rule to sustain the translation — and even goes so far as to assert that the translators — King James' translators — have honestly translated the passage ! But what of all this ? What if 1 were to admit the correct- ness of the translation — would that prove that these prepositions express such an en- trance and such a going out, as to involve the idea of immersion? It certainly would not ! If they went into the water ancle deep — and Mr. F. can never prove that the water was even that deep — the act of going in and of coming out, would be as correct- ly expressed by these prepositions, as if they entered to a depth sufficient to cover ACTION OP BAPTISM. 461 them. That they did not enter to a depth to constitute immersion, is evident from the account itself. For it is said they both "went down into the water," and then, after this, Philip baptized the eunuch. No one believes that Philip was immersed on that occasion, and yet, so far as the prepo- sitions are concerned, there is precisely the same evidence of his immersion that there was of the immersion of the eunuch. The truth is, the only evidence in the case is not in the prepositions, but in the word baptized ; and that, we have seen, does not necessarily exj)ress an immersion-. This is the only example of Christian baptism my friend has adduced in proof of his exclu- sive proposition; and here, instead of jDrov- ing exclusive immersion, he fails to make out a case of immersion at all ! Before he can do this, he must show that the prepo- sition eis necessarily expresses an entrance into the water — and that to the extent of immersion ; but this he can not do, and prefers quibbling about the "translation." The translation, however, will not help tim. It is a good rule of interpretation, that the literal meaning of words, whether prepositions or otherwise, is to be preferred, unless there is some actual demand to the contrary. But did the gentleman prove that into is any more the literal meaning of eis than unto ? Or did he prove that out of is any more the literal meaning of ek than fiom? But, admitting all this, I 462 DEBATE ON THE ask a^aln, was iheve not a veal lii ml ranee to a literal entranco into the water, to a depth necessary to effect an immersion, Avhen the water itself was not of sufficient depth to admit of immersion? Eiit he thinks Paul made "a great stretch of the figurative," when he said Moses " sprinkled the books and all the people!" And he insists thatitisa '^natu- ral and phj^sical impossibility" to sprinkle a man in the river ! And, farther, he thinks there is not a man who can " stretch his imagination to believe" that John baptized by sprinkling! Why does he not just say at once that all who profess to believe this, are knaves and hypocrites? This is the clear import of his language. Eut whether the gentleman can '-stretch his imagina- tion " to believe it or not, I know that it is possible to "sprinkle people in the river," for I have seen it done. And I have seen them, after being " sprinkled in the river," "go up straightway out of the water!" Now here is a chanue for the gentleman to enlarge on the horrible. Upon this he can. let out his imagination to full " stretch "— ^ but the fact is fixed! But the gentleman has been compelled to "stretch" his "charity," as well as his imagination ! I am a little afraid that this "stretching " business will j'ct extend to his conscience, but I hope that is not so good material for stretching as his imagin- ation has proved to be ! Whenever he ACTION OF BAPTISM. 463 finds himself compelled to march right np to a jDoint which he can not meet " fairly and squarely," you see him paving the way by prefatory remarks, expressive of strong contempt for the very little thing that stands before him ! Thus he approached my ex- posure of his favorite idea that baptism is a " burial." He now sees that the " burial " is not the "baptism;" that the baptism was a momentary action, and that the effect, figuratively called a " burial," is con- tinuous ; that we must remain buried with Christ, as we remain dead to sin, and as our life continues hid with Christ in God, or else lose our interest in the Savior — and he can not deny it ! He falls back upon the language itself, upon the mere jingle of the word itself, and wants to know if I be- lieve the word of God, that they were *^'- buried with him hy baptism;'^ but the word of God does not say they " were," but that they are buried! I know Mr. F. shakes his head and calls it " little," but he must face it. Nothing is little that is essential to the true understanding of the Holy Scrip- tures. And you must not forget that he is contending for a "literal burial" and a "figurative death !" This, with him, is not a " mere trick," but grave argument — pro- found reasoning! i^or must you forget that he is putting baptism in the room and stead of the Lord's supper, by making it an emblem of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 31 164 DEBATE OS THE The gentleman occasionally tells a bit of his exjDei'ience, and applies it to me. He is evidently " sick " of the argument from the baptism of the Spirit. In every turn he gives it, he perpetrates the blunder of involving himself in materialism. He in- sists that the Spirit would have been poured out, if there had been no people there ! I will not stop to inquire as to the abstract possibility of this ; for it has not the least shadow of bearing on the issue; but then we have a plain matter of fact be- fore us — not what could have been, but what actually was. The question is — did the outpouring of the Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, fulfill the promise made to the disciples, that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost? 'No unprejudiced mind can hesitate for a moment to say it did. No quibbling about what could have been is necessary to a full, clear and satisfactory answer. If it did not, that promise was never fulfilled ! No baptism by the Spirit, after the pouring out, is recorded or hinted at. The idea is preposterous. No grander figment ever sprang from the brain of a sane man. And his play upon the word *' p)Our," as applied to the Spirit, is equally futile. The Spirit on that day did a great work for the Apostles. It inspired their souls with light, life and love ; it gave them tongues and wisdom and power they never had before ; they were truly "filled with the Holy Ghost.'" The prediction that the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 465 Spirit should be " iDOiired out " was emi- nently fulfilled ; for they were then and there baptized with the Holy Ghost. Just so in the house of Cornelius. " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word." Peter was reminded of the day of Pentecost, and recognized it as a baptism. He immediately commanded them to be baptized with water, because they had received the Holy Ghost. When he returned to Jerusalem and gave an account of the matter, he said, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost /e?^ on them, as on us at the beginning. Then re- membered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized you with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost;" Acts xi. 15-16. Ko man not blinded by devotion to his creed, can read this and deny that the action of the Holy Ghost Avhich fulfilled the prediction of Joel respecting the pouring out, was the baptism with the Holy Ghost, promised by the Lord Jesus Christ. But if so, the bap- tism was not immersion. My friend knows this. Hence his attempt to show that the baptism was after the pouring out. The gentleman is still in trouble about the " certain water " in the desert, which he calls a "river." And he has immersed in creeks in less than five miles from their source! I w^ill not dispute the fact. It is very probable he has. I have seen a dam built across a pretty large creek in order 466 DEBATE ON THE to secure a depth sufficient for immersion. But that was not in Palestine. There is a difference between the creeks here and there. The "certain water" was just as apt to have been a well, with arrangements made for watering animals, as a creek ; or it might have been a boiling spring issuing from the sandy soil ; there is nothing in the account to antagonize either hypothe- sis. My friend can find nothing, except by forcing the prepositions. As to the little spring branch that originated in the moun- tains, and ran down through the valley of Sorek, it is evident that if the road from Jerusalem to Graza crossed it at all, it was at or very near its source in the moun- tains ; and it is also evident that when springs, even in this country, afford water sufficient to immerse in within five miles of their source, it is not in the mountains, but in the valleys, where the current is slug- gish. The gentleman must try again. His exj^erience in this country will not set aside the uniform testimony of all writers in regard to the physical geography of Palestine. I know he hates to give up this his only example of Apostolic practice — but he can't help himself. jReturning from his fruitless search after a river in the " hill country of Judea," the gentleman tries to comfort himself by the reflection that "confusion reigns" in my camp ! He sets forth seven propositions in numerical order, as indicating the con- ACTION OP BAPTISM. 467 tradictory positions I have taken. I have no desire to retort by caricaturing the gen- tleman. My soul loathes such trickery ! But I will say to him. in all plainness and kindness, that if he will take my positions, as I make them, and point out a single in- consistency or contradiction, I will confess it frankly before the world, and abandon forever the doctrine that requires it. Here is a fair proposition. The gentleman loves to compare the points of my doctrine. Here is a fair opportunity for him to exer- cise his powers to their utmost capacity. I challenge him to the task. After his luminous expose of my posi- tions, the gentleman returns to the argu- ment from the "burial," as if conscious that he had left it in a bad plight. And finding himself unable to analyze the pas- sages, and reply to my argument, he attempts to shake your confidence in what 1 have said, by appealing to great names. I revere the names of Wesley, Clarke and Calvin, as much as it is proper to revere human beings ; but when it comes to inter- preting a passage of G-od's word, I bow to no human authority. I examine what others have said, use their labors, avail myself of all the aids the learning of great men can afi'ord — but, after all, I must be permitted to do my own thinking. If I do not assign good reasons for differing from those wise and good men, when I see fit to diverge from their path, then let me 4G8 DEBATE ON THE bear the brand of presuraption. But in this case, I could present names of equal worth with those named by him, who sus- tain my view of these Scriptures in every material part. Eut we are not here to contend about the opinions of men. Our business is with divine truth. And the gentleman undertakes a hopeless task, when he seeks for immersion in these Scriptures. But he asks Avhether the bap- tism was of sufferings, of Spirit, of fire, or of water, by which they were buried. I answer, frankly, that, in my humble opin- ion, Christian baptism was meant by the Apostle ; but he must not overlook what I have so often pressed upon his attention, that the burial was not the baptism, l^ov were the members of the church at Eome and CoUosse buried in the water, nor into the water, but into the death of Christ — where they remain buried as long as they have any interest in him. And just here the gentleman fell into his old habit, against which I so particularly cautioned him. He said I " resort to the Spirit. The burial represents the work of the Spirit!" 'Now I would like to be able to believe that he did not know better than to represent me thus. But his is the responsibility. If he will knowingly misrepresent me, I vio- late no rule in pointing it out, and charging it home. If he did it in his "confusion," he is excusable. If not in confusion, he stands convicted. But I never said the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 469 burhil represents the work of tlie Spirit. My position was clearly taken that it was the baptism that represents the work of the Spirit. By this I stand invulnerable. But I have ever contended that the " burial " was distinct from the " baptism." That which is done by baptism, is of necessity distinct from baptism. Hence his labor to show that I hold that the baptism by which the baptized are " buried," is that of the Hol}^ Spirit, is all fruitless. The truth is, he denies that any are baptized by the Spirit at all, except those who received power to work miracles. He is in deep confusion and perplexity in relation to this whole subject. In overlooking the legal and moral aspects of the Christian system, he is utterly unable to find the founda- tion of the sacraments, or to comprehend their nature, design and import. Ho needs to be taught the first princij^les of the ora- cles of Grod. But he is not aware of his condition, and will not believe me when I point it out. Yet I do not despair of help- ing him. I see he is not past feeling, and hence there is hope. When the excitement of debate wears oif, he may see the great truths of the gospel in a difterent light, enlarge the boundaries of his intellectual vision, and emerge from the darkness in which he is " buried," into the pure sun- shine of heavenly truth ! But I must again remind you of the progress we are making. Bible usage is in 470 DEBATE ON THE favor of the generic sense of hapto and hap- tizo. This is put beyond the reach of cavil. Carson, Mr. Franklin's old favorite, in spite of himself, lends his testimony in our favor. He declares, and proves, that hapto means to dye hy sprinkling^ as literally as by dipping ; and there is no rule of language that will make bapto express the " sprink- ling " of coloring liquid, and yet be inca- pable of expressing the sprinkling of water. So far as mode is concerned, there is no difference in sprinkling water and coloring liquid. Then Carson sustains me, and con- tradicts my friend. The appeal to the classics does the same. And the lexicons are but the echo of Bible use and classic use. They also give several distinct mean- ings to these words. Use, the sole arbiter of language, compels them to do it. The meaning of the word, tried by every rule, is decidedl3' in my favor. It is generic — expressing an action without declaring its mode. Then the circumstancs under which that action was performed by the Apostles, are decidedly unfavorable to the idea, that it was by immersion. They baptized three thousand in one city, where there was no river, in part of a day. They baptized in the desert, where no large stream of water flows. They baptized, in three distinct in- stances, where all the circumstances, and the scope of the history, prove it to have been in the house. The pouring out of the Holy Ghost is called a baptism. The fire ACTION OF BAPTISM. 471 that sat upon the Apostles was a baptism. The legal washings of the Jews, mostly done by sprinkling, were baptisms. The religious cleansing of themselves and house- hold utensils were baptisms. All this is clear and unquestionable. And yet the gentleman tells you I have no position, and have proved nothing! And he states a question of fact which I deny positively. It is that the most intelligent of our mem- bers are in doubt and perplexity as to their baptism. A more unfounded assertion can not be made. Our people are satisfied. If any are not, it must be such as fall under the proselyting influence of immersionists, who would be better employed in leading penitents to Christ, than in disturbing the consciences of the weaker and inexperi- enced members of other churches, about the mere form of using water in baptism. The gentleman's oft repeated assertion, that I have great trouble in satisfying my members, is without the least shadow of support. 'jSot only are our members satis- fied with their baptism, but they are satis- fied to let other people think for them- selves. They have their faith, their opinions, their doctrines, but they do not find it necessary to keep themselves in the faith by perpetual debate. Millions of hon- est Christians as ever breathed, have lived and died without immersion, and gone to heaven in triumph. This Mr, F. dare not dispute. Then what is all his special plead- 472 DEBATE ON THE ing about? I know his tactics. He aims to impress the illiterate. He aims to make you believe, too, that the persons who oc- casionally become disaifected, and suffer themselves to be lead awaj^ by proselyting influences, are our more substantial mem- bers. This will all do for effect, but where the facts are known, it is ridiculous. One of the most zealous immersionists I ever knew, once invited me to his house to con- vince me that immersion was the only bap- tism, and that infant baptism was an inno- vation ; but in less than half a day he con- fessed that he had been duped — that there was no immersion in the Bible, and prom- ised to have his children baptized the first opportunity. There is a man in this con- gregation of undoubted integrity, ready to give names, dates and locality of persons raised under Ba23tist influence, who, after being immersed, became satisfied that af- fusion was more scriptural, and applied to the Methodist preacher to be baptized by sprinkling. But what of all this ? It is a full offset to all he has said about persons becoming dissatisfied — but I make no ac- count of it. I appeal to the Bible, and not to the prejudices, fears or passions of the people. Perfection is not in his church nor mine. Invidious comparisons I will not make. Truth needs no props. We all need to mourn and seek for more grace, to emulate the virtues of the good, to avoid the errors of the wayward, and to aid and ACTION OF BAPTISM. 473 instruct the feeble and ignorant. But we should not disparage the efforts of any who try to serve God. Nor should we- disturb the consciences of the weak in regard to outward forms. MR. FRANKLIN'S NINTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : With me, this is not a mere conflict with my worthy opponent. I am not seeking a victory over him, or over his brethren. I am seeking a victory of truth over error, of light over darkness, of a clear and divinely authorized practice over confu- sion, irregularity and uncertainty. In my feeble efforts, I have been trying to extri- cate the public mind from uncertainty, doubt and disappointment, from that which is unreliable, unsatisfactory and dis- tracting, and place it upon that which is infallibly safe, satisfactory and reliable. I am weary of this interminable strife, this constant disagreement and vexatious wran- gle. But how are we to get rid of it, un- less we can find something that is truly orthodox, evangelical and catholic ? We can never get rid of it so long as that which has been in doubt ever since its in- troduction is practiced. So long as that which is doubtful, uncertain and unsatis- factory— that which has been in dispute among as good men as the world contains — 474 DEBATE ON THE that which has been nothing but a bone of contention ever since its existence, an oc- casion for strife and a stumbling-block to thousands, is practiced, maintained and urged upon the people, we can have no Christian union, harmony and uniformity. Thousands of as sincere people as the world contains, are every year being in- duced to receive sprinkling or pouring for baptism — in many instances through much persuasion and contrary to the convictions of their own consciences. Thousands, and may I not say that millions have sprinkling imposed upon them for baptism not only without their choice or consent, but be- fore they knew there was a G-od, a church, or a Bible. How is it possible for such procedure as this to prove any thing else than unsatisfactory ? These, in scores, are becoming dissatisfied, discontented and doubtful whether they have obeyed the commandment of Grod. These are then twitted, for their comfort, with being weak- minded and ignorant people. But this, it is well known, in this country, is not the case. They are as well-informed, as pious and conscientious as any to be found. In- deed, they are the conscientious especially. Those who have no conscience in the mat- ter, of course, have no trouble about it. They care nothing about it, feel nothing about it and can laugh at and trifle with the pious, godly and solemn concern of those who fear that they have not done the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 475 commandments of God. IJ^To one can count the dissatisfaction growing out of this doubtful practice. If you could know the trouble the preachers have to pacify the minds of their own members, you would see a sad picture. 'No one can count the trouble that persons have had, the pro- tracted trouble, uneasiness and discontent, all growing out of practicing, imposing upon and leading the people into the doubt- ful, uncertain and groundless practice of sprinkling and pouring for baptism. Who is to blame for all this? IS'ot the people; for they are not pressing sprinkling or pouring upon the preachers. l!^ot all the preachers ; for many of them practice nothing for baptism that is doubtful, noth- ing that leaves the people in doubt and uncertainty ; nothing that fails to satisfy the conscience. Who, then, is to blame for all this dissatisfaction ? Who is to answer in the day of judgment for the thousands, and even millions, that have had a practice imposed upon them that they have con- stantly doubted and with which they have been dissatisfied ever since they thought for themselves? Who is to blame for all our contention and strife arising from this matter? Those, and those only, who preach, urge upon and impose upon the people that which has always been in doubt and uncertainty, when they could have practiced that about which there is no doubt. Why does ray worthy friend prac- 476 DEBATE OxN THE tice sprinkling? Is it because he does not believe in immersion ? jSTo ; for he says, "God forbid that I should say any thing against immersion." He jiractices immer- sion some of the time, which shows that he has no conscientious scruples about it. He opens and reads from Wesley and Clarke, that the ancient manner was immersion. He knows that Luther and Calvin, without hesitation, declared that the ancient man- ner of baptizing was immersion. He knows that his discipline requires him to immerse under certain circumstances. All the preachers of any considerable informa- tion know this and know that there is no doubt and uncertainty about immersion. They know that those immersed are satis- fied, their conscience is at rest and they have no more trouble about it. There is, therefore, no apology for continuing a doubtful practice, when we can have one without doubt, an uncertain when we could have a certain practice, that which in such numerous instances proves unsatisfactory, when they could practice that which so uniformly renders satisfaction. "Who is to blame for involving the whole country in doubt and uncertainty, in con- fusion and perplexity among conflicting practices and rival customs ? Manifestly those who maintain and try to justify con- flicting practices, and not those who prac- tice nothing only the ancient and apostolic practice and that which is admitted by all ACTION OF BAPTISM. 477 to be valid. That immersion was the an- cient practice, the apostolic practice, and admitted by all to be valid ; or that immer- sion is orthodox, evangelical and catholic ; that it is safe, infallibly safe and satisfac- tory, is irfdispntable and undeniable. It is that npon which we all agree and can practice without any violation of conscience. Let it then become the invariable practice, and all dissatisfaction and trouble and con- fusion Avill cease. The doubts and dis- quietudes will disappear, and one grand stc]) will be taken for the union of the chil- dren of God, and one of the greatest bones of contention will be laid aside. But to talk of any peace, any satisfaction or quietude, ever obtaining, while this doubt- ful and unsatisfactory practice of sprinkling and pouring is kept up among us, is out of the question. We can not have a contra- riety of practice without trouble, in a mat- ter, like this, that concerns all. The worthy gentleman has furnished us with some very important and, I might say, very special information touching the Phil- ippian jail and Jailor ! I have had the for- tune to find no gentleman so perfectly con- versant with that whole matter as he. The men I have heard speak of it, generally were confined to the Bible and other books for thoir information about the matter, but Mr. M. has furnished information not found in the Bible or any other book. He learns that the Jailor's house was in the prison ; 478 DEBATE ON THE that when '' he brought them out," as the Scripture says, it was simply out of the in- ner prison^ and that when he spoke to the Jailor and to all that were in his house the word of the Lord, he was still in the prison, though not the inner, but the outer prison ; and that when the Jailor tooJ^ them the same hour of the night and was baptized, he and all his, straightway, they were out of the Jailor's house, but still in the prison, and when he took them into his house again, they were all still in the prison! JS^ow there are several things in this that I wish the worthy gentleman to be a little particu- lar about — as, for instance, 1st, I should like to know how he found out with such infal- lible certainty that the Jailor's house was in the Philipian jail, the inner prison, or the outer. Is not this, a fiction of his own imagination, and no information at all? "Where has a jailor resided, with his family, inajDrison? This is truly a new chapter of enlightenment touching jails and jailor's ! 2ud, Where did he learn that when the jail- or took Paul and Silas and washed their stripes and was baptized, he was simply out of his own house, but in the Jail f They were outof the jailor's house when the jail- or was baptized. That much is clear. But who told the gentleman that they were in the -prison? Nobody told him so; he can furnish no evidence of that sort. He si)rang in and " brought them out," and they spoke to him and to all that were in his house the ACTION OF BAPTISM. 479 word of the Lord. They were in the Jail- or's house when this was done. The Jailor took them the same hour and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. They were now out of the Jailor's house ; for he brought them into Jiis Jiome. Here, then, Mr. M. and myself agree that they were out of the Jail- or's house. What does he found his argu- ment against immersion upon ? Upon his naked assertion, that when they were out of the jailor's house they were in the prison. This is precisely what he has no authority for ; and yet, without this, he has no argument. He assumes that there was no water to immerse in the prison, and then assumes that the baptizing was in the prison ; and upon these two assumptions he founds an objection to immersion. The true state of the case is, that the first thing the Jailor did, he brought them out. They then spoke to him and all in his house. This was evidently in the jailor's house and not in the prison at all. They were out to bap- tize, or the jailor could not have brought them info his house, as the Scripture says he did ; and there is not the slightest evi- dence that while they were out of the jail- or's house, they were back in the prison again. In the midst of the troubles of my wor- thy friend, he imagines a tremendous spar- sity of water about Jerusalem, and the very little to be found, like some of our modern meeting-houses, under lock and key, and 480 DEBATE ON THE not at all accessible to Christians. But he must recollect that, bitter as the persecution was then, they delivered the second ser- mon in Solomon's porch, which was not yet locked against the Christians. They fre- quently had the privilege of speaking in the synagogues, which shows that the modern device of locks and prohibiting pools was not resorted to, as a means of opposing the gospel, till a later period. But, to relieve the gentleman from all trouble about obtaining water to immerse any number of people in Jerusalem, I will state to him that I have a work lying be- fore me, written by a man who spent more than three years in Jerusalem, containing numerous authorities, before the time of tlie Apostles, cotemporary with them and ex- tending down three hundred years, show- ing, in the most ample manner, that all the gentleman's trouble about water, is nothing but the variest fiction ever uttered. Has Mr. M. ever read of the Moulton Sea, hav- ing constantly passing through it an im- mense quantity of running w^ater ? Has he ever read of the Brook Kidron ; the pool of Gileon and the Pool of Siloam ? 'No man who has paid any attention to the Bible account could doubt for one moment that there was abundance of water for bap- tizing in Jerusalem. The very circum- stance of his making such a baseless objec- tion to immersion, shows the want of a real objection. Nothing can be more ridiculous ACTION OF BAPTISM. 481 and groundless than the idea that there was not water in Jerusalem to immerse. I can not bring myself to feel that such a futile and baseless objection can need any grave reply for the benefit of this intelli- gent audience. But I demand of those who hear me, if they please, to reflect, and see if they can find any thing that my worthy friend has produced that can j)ossibly satisfy any humao being that sprinkling or pouring is baptism, or that any thing but immersion is. What is the amount of his argument? I feel like making an effort to sum up his argument, that you may enjoy the full benefit of it. It amounts to something like the following : 1. Twelve men could not have immersed three thousand people on the day of Pente- cost; therefore, they must have been sprinkled or poured upon. 2. John the Baptist could not have im- mersed the vast multitudes said to have been baptized by him, in the short time allotted to him for the work ; therefore, he must have sprinkled or poured water upon them. 3. That " certain water," that PhilijD and the eunuch are said to have " went down into " and " came uj) out of," was not sufii- cient to immerse ; therefore, Philip must have sprinkled him. 4. There are frozen regions and sandy deserts where no water to immerse can 482 DEBATE ON THE be had ; therefore, sprinkling or pouring must be modes of valid baptism. This argument is very convincing! 5. From the fact that Saul was in the house when Ananias came to him, he infers that he was baptized in the house ; and if baptized in the house, he infers that he could not have been immersed ; but must have been sprinkled or poured upon. G. From the fact that Peter preached to Cornelius and to all that were in his house, he infers that he was baptized in the house, and therefore could not have been immers- ed, but must have been sprinkled or poured upon. 7. From the fact that the Jailor took Paul and Silas out, and allowed them to preach to him and all that were in his house, and from the fact that he took them the same hoiir of the night and was bap- tized and brought them into his house, he infers that he was baptized in the prison, and infers that there was no water there to immerse in, from which he infers that they must have been sprinkled. This is a very strong argument, founded upon three in- ferences. 8. He actually finds the word sprinhle, in the Old Testament, where there is not the remotest reference to baptism, from which he infers that si^rinkling is a mode of baptism. 9. He finds where the Holy Spirit is said to have been poured out, and asserts, without ACTION OF BAPTISM. 483 any authority, that this pour'mg was bap- tism, from which he infers that j?own?iy is a mode of baptism. 10. " Buried in baptism," he thinks rep- resents the work of the Holy Spirit; hence the work of the Holy Spirit is a burial^ and baptism represents that work ] hence bap- tism must be a burial ! I had plenty of time, and have thus aided my friend in summing up his argu- ment and in keeping it before the audience. Eut I shall now proceed to notice one or two other points before my time expires. I am in no trouble in the world about say- ing that immersion is baptism, and baptism is immersion. I meant just what I said and said just what I meant. "Baptism does not even contain all of the abstract idea of entering into the water." It contains simply the idea of immersion ; no more or no less, no matter whether in water or fire. I have produced baptism and called his attention to it over and over again where he knows there is no ordinance ; but, as yet, it appears I have not penetrated his mind with the idea. There must be something more than immersion, or bap- tism, which is precisely the same, before you have the ordinance. There must be a proper subject, and the immersion must be performed in the name of the Lord, before the rite or ordinance is present. I did not ask the gentleman to affirm that sprinkling is the ordinance^ but that it is baptism, or, if you please, the action. 484 DEBATE ON THE The gentleman dispenses with the learned Dr. Lillie and Mr. Carson, with the snap of his finger. Dr. Lillie is no authority — not even worth the snap of the gentleman's finger — because he is hired by the Bible Union. Indeed; and were not the King James' translators hired? those men whom he talked so sympathetically over. Does the fact that a man is hired to work, prove that his work is not worth the snap of a finger? If so, his brethren had better stop his salary and not hire him. He knows the influence hiring has upon a man experi- mentally, and therefore can speak freely ! Mr. Carson must be set aside, because he is ^ partisan^ though he is a learned man ! He loas a partisan, and belonged to the strictest sect of partisans ; and his learning and honest investigations cost him the loss of his salary. He was a Presbyterian, en- joying a comfortable salary in a large church in Scotland, when he undertook to investigate this subject. His investiga- tions lead to his immersion. This testi- mony is not to be set aside, by Mr. M., who, if he came into the church according to his Discipline, in his infancy, had no more to do in deciding what church he would belong to tban in determining the time when he would be born into this world. ISTor has Mr. M. any foundation for the assertion, frequently repeated, that I have forsaken Carson. The position of Carson that I walked out upon, I maintain ACTION OP BAPTISM. 485 yet as firmly as ever, and shall, if God will, embody it in my recapitulation ; but I do not allow any opponent to lead me, when I am in the affirmative, especially when I could not induce him to affirm. I pay attention to such things as I think need reply, and such as I know have no force, and will make no impression, I let pass. If nothing will do my worthy friend only to be exposed, in his little and unsup- ported cavil about the tense, Rom. vi. 4, I will just inform him that the tense is pre- cisely the same in the third and fourth verses in the original. The third verse reads, " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." Here, you per- ceive, it is, '■'-were baptized." The tense of the fourth verse, in the original, is precisely the same, and, in English, should read, " Therefore, we were buried with him by baptism." There is not a particle of ground for changing the tense from the past, as found expressed twice over in the third verse, and giving us the present tense, verse fourth. If the gentleman will appeal to his Grreek Testament, and speak with the same candor he did in his last speech, in admitting that Christian baptism is here meamt, he will admit that it is the past tense, and consequently his argument, that they are still in the burial is precisely as strong as that they are still in their baptism. 48tl BEJBATE ON THE Now if Mr. M. please, I ask him to take one deliberate look at this passage. The baptism, he now admits, here spoken of, is Christian baptism. This passage says they were " buried with him by baptism." The burial was the result of baptizing. The fact is stated that they were huried with Mill. How was this done? The an- swer is, " By baj)tism." This baptism, Mr. M. admits, is Christian baptism. This, then, is an end to the dispute on this point. "When it is correctly translated, it is the past tense, as the verse before has it. It then, reads, " We were buried with him by baptism," not in death but into death. The burial was not in the death, nor hy the death, but " in baptism," Col. ii. 12, and. " hy baptism," Rom. vi. 4; and this is now admitted to be Christian baptism. It is, then, ill Christian bajDtism, or hy Christian baptism, we are buried with Christ, and it is from this we " are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead," Col. ii. 12. Mr. M. says, " I know that it is possible to sprinkle j)eople in the river," and that "I have seen it cloned He says, "I have seen them after being sprinkled in the river, go np straightway out of the wattr." Well, I am glad to find him converted on the meaning of" go up straightway out of the water." He evidently nses it here in the same sense as I have been using it. ACTION uV BAPTlJSM. 487 Since he now understands " go iqy out of the water," the next thing to notice is what he saw done in the river. He saw persons "go doian into the water," in the New Tes- tament sense, and water sprinkled upon them, not in the river, or in the water, but on them out of the river, or not on the j)art tliat was in the river, but the part that was out of the river, and then saw them "go up out of the river," in the Scrij)ture sense. But what caused these to go down into the river and up out of the river? — the obvious meaning of the words ^^ down into'' and ^' njp out of .'' The argument is now surrendered virtually, and the question is settled. MR. MERRILL'S NINTH REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, and Respected Hearers : In discussing a subject such as is now before us, it is exceedingly important that we have due regard to the interest involv- ed, and to the kind of testimony that is to determine the issue. We are not contend- ing merely for an empty ceremony, without spiritual significance or practical bearing. 'Nov are we contending for victory over men or parties. So far as I am concerned, my object is to promote truth, instruct the inquiring, and arrest the progress of mis- cheivous error. If the jDOsition of my worthy opponent be correct, I have never 488 DEBATE ON THE been baptized, have no right to the name of Christian, to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, nor to any privilege in the church of Grod. I want to know if the large mass of professing Christians in this country, are nothing but intruders in the church, hypo- crites and deceivers, while they imagine themselves honest, and on their way to heaven. If there is no ba|3tism but immer- sion, such is the case, and more ! But I do not believe this. I do not believe I am de- ceived. I do not believe the large majority of the professed friends of Christ, are so wofully blinded. I do not believe the most learned, pious, and faithfal men that ever lived, who have pray erf ally considered every verse in the Bible, have been so fearfully blinded as to live and die without baptism. IN'or do I believe that if the use of water in one particular form were necessary to the validity of baptism, the Lord would have left the subject in such a posture as to ad- mit of mistake, by sincere and honest seek- ers after truth. But all this Mr. Franklin believes ! His creed unchurches much the larger portion of Christendom. With him, I regret the existence of strife. I would that no man could he found so full of con- ceit and dogmatism, as to wish to impose his views upon his neighbors. I would that all men would learn to love the Lord and his people, and exercise that forbear- ance and charity that the gospel imposes as a duty. But whence arises the strife ? ACTION OF BAPTISM. 489 "Who are the disturbers of Israel ? Who wage war upon their neighbors, in regard to forms and modes? Do those who be- lieve the mode not essential? Do they who proclaim to the world that baptism is sufficient, whether administered by pour- ing, sprinkliDg or immersion ? ^o, sir ; they ask not how the water has been applied, nor how much ! They ask only, " Is thy heart right ?" Wherever they find a lover of Jesus, sincerely obeying the gos- pel, and trying to get to heaven, they re- cognize him as a Christian brother, ask him to the communion of the body and blood of Jesus, and bid him God-speed. They make no outward form — no mere mode, a test of discipleship. They never enter upon the despicable business of frightening the igno- rant or inexperienced, by telling them that they must perish for ever unless they have the water applied in the right form ! Then, when shall we have peace ? 'Never, so long as men insist upon any one form of baptism as the exclusive mode. Exclu- siveness is the parent of bigotry ; and big- otry will always beget strife and evil work ! What a picture the gentleman drew of the condition of the churches that practice sprinkling or pouring ! One would think that, from time immemorial, they have pre- sented a scene of confusion and strife, on the subject of baptism ! that all the intelli- gent, conscientious members, have been in 490 DEBATE ON THE rebellion against sprinkling, and that the preachers, who have no conscience in the matter, are laboring night and day to keep them quiet, binding and forcing uj)on them a right that is obnoxious and disgusting ! But does the gentleman expect that any intelligent man will believe a word of all this! Does he think we will lay aside common sense, hoodwink our faculties, and stultify ourselves, just for his accommoda- tion ? If so, let him proceed with his cari- cature ! His sympathetic appeal, on the ground that immersion is "safe," would be barely possible in a general harangue to the multitude, where many were averse to investigation or incapable of it ; but in sober debate, where argument is wanted, where the question is as to what the Scrip- tures teach and the Apostles practiced, it is the very last species of special pleading. It dwindles into mere cant ! It is a perfect realization of the old adage, " a drowning man will catch at straws." The gentleman made a desperate effort to get the Jailor and prisoners out of the Philippian jail, before the baptism — but he failed, of course. That is what he is unable to do. His imagination is very elastic, and his powers of influence very strong, but all is of no avail. The history is against him. When the keeper of the prison took his sword and was about to kill himself, how came Paul by the inform- ation, if he did hot see his motions ? Will ACTION OF "BAPTISM. 491 it do to infer that he got it b}^ revelation ? Or is it not more rational to say that Paul, being himself in the dungeon, and the keeper in a room in the same build- ing, less dark, could very naturally see what was going on, after the doors were open ? And is it not true that the very language, he "thrust them into the inner prison," because of the strict charge re- ceived, implies, without any stretch of inference, that there was a more common prison, which was not the " inner pris- on ?" No man can hesitate a moment here. Then, again, in regard to the phrase on which the affirmant relies — he " brought them out." Is there in this the least particle of evidence that he took them out of any thing except the inner j)rison ? Not the least in the world ! Then while they were " out," to the full extent of their being "out" that night, it is said "they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his housed Did they all go out of the building — literally out of doors in the night, to hear the word of the Lord? The gentleman himself can hardly infer this ! The whole scope of the narra- tive carries on its face the idea that the keeper was sleeping in a part of the build- ing in which the prison was, and that when he brought Paul and Silas out of the " in- ner prison," they were yet in the building, where the preaching was done, the pris- oners' stripes washed and the keeper and 492 DEBATE ON THE his household baptized; after which they went into the apartment occupied by the keeper as a residence. All this is perfectly natural. It requires no forced inference. JSiO one Would ever have thought of any thing else, but for the accommodation of immersionism. Then there are real diffi- culties in the way of the j)resumption of my opponent. Had the keeper been seen out of the building with those prisoners, his life would have been forfeited. It was to avoid public execution that he was about to take his own life, when he thought the prisoners were gone. Would they, then, under those circumstances, have left the prison that night, to search for water to immerse in ? There was a river near the city, but it is absolutely preposterous to suppose the Jailor, with his prisoners and household, visited it that night. Too " great a stretch of imagination "' is requir- ed to believe this. And the next day the prisoners threw themselves upon their dig- nity and rights, actually refusing to leave the prison privately. I tell you, sirs, the fancy, the fiction, the inference, the stretch of imagination, and the absurdity, too, are all on the other side. My friend has taxed his ingenuity to force this passage out of his way ; but there it stands ! But he asks, " Where has a jailor re- sided, with his fiimily, in a prison?" If he had just added the word "building," his question would have represented what I ACTION OF BAPTISM. 493 said; aud I would answer — In almost every county in the State of Ohio, and wherever else there are prisons ! The nearest instance I can think of just now, is up here on Sixth street, between Court and Washing- ton. And with all the gentleman's hostili- ty to inference, he infers that the keeper took the prisoners into his house, where they spoke the word of the Lord, and that they all went out of the house in order to baptism, and then that he brought them in again, after baptism ! This is not only in- ference, but it is contrary to the plain nar- rative. But the gentleman is forced to desperate means to save a desperate cause ! The truth is, this narrative, without any forcing or torturing, gives a plain exam- ple of baptism, in the night, in the prison building, under such circumstances as to actually preclude the idea of immersion. It binds the exclusive theory of my friend in chains of adamant, and consigns it to the stocks and dungeon of an inner prison! With all his noisy declamation, he can not create an earthquake sufficient to jar a door or break a link ! Possibly we may hear from him again on this point, but I think he is about through with it. The more comfort he seeks in this case, the dryer and colder it becomes! The gentleman thinks that because the Apostles preached in Solomon's porch — the most public place about the temple — that therefore they could have uninterrup- 494 DEBATE ON THE ted access to the pool of Bethesda, for a sufficient length of time, on the great feast day, too, (Pentecost,) to accomplish the im- mersion, in its polluted waters, of three thousand converts lo the faith so inveter- ately hated by the whole priesthood ! But he has a book lying before him that sets the matter right ! Well, I suppose, then, the matter is settled! — but, by the way, might it not be well for the gentleman to favor us with the name of that wonderful book ? And may it not be that some are so incredulous as to desire to hear a pas- sage or two read from it? Does Mr. F. be- lieve the people were baj^tized in the Moul- ten Sea? He does not. Does he believe the brook Kidron afforded the accommoda- tion? He knows better! Does he think it was in either the Pool G-ihon or Siloam ? ^ot a word of it ! Then what progress has he made in removing the difficulty, by calling over the names of these pools, and this brook? I^ot the least in the world, and he can not. He may affect to make light of it, but, with his great book lying before him, his lively imagination, and his powers of ridicule and sarcasm, he is still unable to remove the mountain. The gentleman gave you a summary of my arguments, which he designed for a caricature — but I doubt if he can so much as satisfactorily to himself, answer his own statement of them ; for after he did the summing up, finding them looking rather ACTION OP BAPTISM. 495 formidable, even in the dress he put upon them, lie very suddenly turned away from them to attend to another point or two ! "Well, I have j^l^^ty of time to follow him in his own course. But you will not, of course, take his statements as my positions, after the numerous exposures I have made of his incorrect statements. I have told you frequently that both hapto and hajytizo occur often in the Scrip- tures, where the ordinance of Christian baptism is not; but what the affirmant de- sires to make out of this fact, is a profound mystery. When I appeal to the use of these terms, where the ordinance is not, he becomes horrified at the idea of going amongst the types for light in reference to a Christian institution ! The use of the word where the ordinance is not, proves to a demonstration that it does not always mean immerse; and when I present these examples in proof of the generic character of the word, he then says he don't care how many meanings it has, when used with reference to other things, it can only have one meaning when used with refer- ence to the ordinance. And now he says there must bo " something more " than bap- tism before you have the ordinance! Will he tell us what else besides baptism is nec- essary to constitute the ordinance? And will he also tell us the name of the ordi- nance which consists of baptism and some- thing else added to it? And will he tell 33 496 DEBATE ON THE US where he gets his authority for adding "something more " to baptism, in order to make up the ordinance? The trutii is, if the gentleman's doctrine be true, there is no ordinance! A man is baptized when he falls into a river, or when he goes in for the purpose of bathing, just as well and perfectly as he can be. The abstract idea of immersion is all there is in it! The per- tinacity with which the gentleman begs the question, is truly astonishing. He not only asserts that baptism and immersion are precisely the same, but he goes on to argue and draw inferences from the asser- tion, as though it were an established fact ! A word or two in regard to the authority of great names. The gentleman thinks I set aside the sayings of Clarke, Wesley, Calvin and Luther, with too little considera- tion. But do these learned, good, and wise men sustain the proposition Mr. F. afiirms? jN'ot by any means. They admit that im- mersion was practiced anciently, but not exclusively. They believed, taught, and practiced bajDtism by different modes. They had no idea that the mode was necessarily uniform. But they knew as much about Greek, and ancient customs, too, as does Mr. Franklin. Were they honest? If so, their lives proclaim the sincerity of their faith in baptism without immersion. But if they were not honest, why does Mr. Franklin quote them ? 1 will read you a passage from Mr. WeBley — not as authority, ACTION OF BAPTISM. 497 but to vindicate him from misrepresenta- tion— to show you that he does not sustain the position of Mr. F. I I'ead his remarks on Matt. iii. 5-6 : " Such prodigious numbers could hardly be baptized by immcrging their whole bodies under Avater ; nor can we think they were j^rovided with ciaange of raiment for it, which was scarcely prac- ticable for such vast multitudes. And yet they could not be immerged naked with modesty, nor in their wearing apparel with safety. It seems, therefore, that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and that John, passing along before them, cast water on their heads or faces, by which means he might baptize many thousands in a day. And this way most naturally signified Christ's baptizing them lolth the Holy Ghost and loithjire, which John spoke of, as pre- figured by his baptizing Avith water, and which was eminently fulfilled, when the Holy Ghost sat upon the disciples in the appearance of tongues, or flames of fire." This was the honest opinion of Mr. Wesley. And ho had no prejudice in his mind against immersion. Will Mr. Franklin take this testimony of Mr. AYesley ? I judge not; nor can he overthrow it ! The power of habit is next thing to omnipotent. My friend has so long been accustomed to a misconception of the posi- tions of his antagonist, that it seems impos- sible for him to avoid it. lie says I " dis- pensed with Dr. Lillie and Mr. Carson,'^ 498 DEBATE ON THE with the snap of my finger ! As for Br. Lillie, I care no more for his authority than I do for the naked assertion of Mr. Frank- lin— but I did not dispense with Carson at all. I took Mr. Carson as the very best immersionist authority that can be pro- duced, and put his learning and authority over against the bare assertion of Mr. Franklin. The o;entleman on the affirma- tive is the man who wants to "dispense" with his old friend and favorite critic, Mr. Carson! The personality to which the gentleman " descended," by way of playing on the word " /iiVe," is j)erfectly harmless, coming from him in connection with the barefaced misrepresentation which I have just now i^ointed out. But he intends to "reaffirm" the position he "walked out upon," when he comes to the " recapitula- tion !" Would it not be well for him to IDvovG it by good logic, Scripture, or some other cosiipetent authority, before he comes to the recapitulation ? And he don't in- tend to be led by me while lie is on the affirmative ! Well, I did not desire to " lead " him, but in four speeches he ad- vanced his " arguments," and then found himself so far behind that he whipped round upon the negative, and has been trying ever since to get up — but without effect! Now, finding the prospect of over- taking me growing dim, he comforts him- self with the reflection that he can "re- affirm " his shattered " positions " when he comes to recapitulate ! Well, well! ! ACTION OF BAPTISM. 499 The gentleman, it seems, is not yet will- ing to see his last hope wrested from him, without one more faint effort to resist the aggressor. He returns to the argument on " burying by baptism," as though he had caught an idea that would really help him. It is the tense of the verb suncthapto, which he thinks is expressive of past time. Well, there are several tenses in the Greek that relate to past time ; and did the gentleman name the verb or the tense ? 'No ; he did no such thing as that ; and I begin to sus- pect that, notwithstanding the large pre- tensions he made as to his knowledge of the language, when he was preaching here, and had no opponent, he does not know enough about the language to tell the tense of this verb, or to explain its force ! He is on the affirmative, and very much opposed to being led ; then, I will just ask him to demonstrate his comj)etency to expound G-reek, and criticise the translations, by telling us all about this verb. And lest he should think me delinquent, I will inform him that the tense of the verb in the original^ justifies the translation just as it is; and if he wishes to change the translation, let him come forth and show his reasons. It ex- presses an action done in past time, and which, in this case, has not been undone ; and, consequently, one that remains done. "VYe were baptized into the death of Christ, at which time our life was hid with Christ in God — we are^ therefore, buried with him. 500 DEBATE ON THE Sin is personified under the name of the " old man." This " old man " is crucified, dead and buried. The burial lasts as long as the death. It is a plain question of fact : Are we " buried," in this figurative sense, as long as we remain " dead to sin," and as long as our life is hid with Christ in God?" If so, my position is correct, and that of Mr. F. is wrong ; but if not, our burial into the death of Christ is but momentary ; and by ceasing to be buried with him, we cease to he in Mm, or in his death; and, conse- quently, we lose all interest in him by be- ing unbaptized ! Who will believe this ? JSTone that think for themselves ! And yet if the position that the baptism is the burial, and the burial the baptism, be true, there is no escape from these consequences. And if the burial is physical, the death is physi- cal, and the result is drowning! Mr. F. talked as though he had forced me to admit that Paul was speaking of Christian bap- tism ! But this was my ground from the beginning. I never dreamed of calling it any other baptism. And I have looked at the subject deliberately, again and again ; and the more I look at it, the less appear- ance of immersion I see about it. Baptism is the appointed, standing symbol of the office and work of the Spirit. The Spirit inducts us into the Savior. *' For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body ;" I. Cor. xii. 13. The work which the Spirit actually performs, is represented by Chris- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 501 tian baptism ; and, by oae of the most com- mon and easy figures in all the range of language, that which is the result of the in- visible agency is attributed to the visible emblem which sets forth that agency to the outward senses. This is the truth in regard to this ^^ixssage of Scripture, and the gentleman's learning can not overthrow it, nor can his quibbling escape it. The gentleman closed by proclaiming that the argument was virtually surrender- ed, and the question settled ! ISTot so fast, my dear sir ! His play upon going down into the river, and coming up out of it, is not quite so potent. If the jingle of these words, together with modern customs, does induce some honest and very scrupulous persons to go down into the water to be baptized by sprinkling or pouring, this onl}^ proves the absurdity of his assertions that it is physically impossible to sprinkle people in the river. It proves nothing, in point of fact, as to the scriptural mode of baptism. I have now followed the gentleman in his " winding way," and answered every thing worth answering, and some that was not. I have corrected numerous errors into which he has fallen, and left others for your good sense and discrimination to cor- rect. JSTow, what has he accomplished ? "What does he rely upon ? Evidently noth- ing but the meaning of the word baptizo, which, ho insists, is precisely the same as 502 DEBATE ON THE immerse ? Has he proved this ? By what authority ? Bible usage ? N'o ! Classic usage ? Xo ! Lexicons ? ^o ! All these give other Qneanings to the word. But he says there is neither water, fire, Spirit nor ordinance in the word ! I know this as well as he does, and never thought of doubt- ing it ; but then it is applied or used with reference to all these, under such circum- stances as to preclude immersion. Has he so much. as taken up the question on which this whole controversy hinges — as to whether the word is generic or univo- calf He has not; but he told you he avoided these words because he was de- termined to be understood ! How many examples has he given of apostolic practice ? One — only one ! And has he made out a clear and satisfactory case of immersion? Kot by a great deal. Has he broken the argument from the action of the Spirit ? Has he got the Israelites all immersed in the Eed Sea, when they passed over " dry- shod?" Has he got Nebuchadnezzar im- mersed in the dew when he lay out in the grass? Has he satisfied you that the Jews did actually immerse tliemselves on return- ing from market ? Has he proved that they did literally immerse their heds ? Has he convinced any one that cdl the legal washings of the Jews, called "divers bap- tisms," were immersions ? Then was he not too fast in proclaiming the question settled ? ACTION OF BAPTISM. 503 MR. FRANKLIN'S TENTH SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : We have met this evening to close the discussion on this question, and I hope we shall have a pleasant interview. There was some little excitement in some parts of the assembly this afternoon, but this is nothing more than is to be expected on oc- casions like this. There are persons here who have been sprinkled or poured upon for baptism — some of them with, and oth- ers without, their own consent, or before they knew any thing. These have been deiDending upon their sprinkling or pour- ing for baptism, suj^posed it clearly taught in the Scriptures, and honestly thought, no doubt, that Mr. M., with his clear head, cool and deliberate manner and respectable learning, would bring some satisfactory commands or examples from the Scrip- tures for S23rinkling or pouring. They have listened to him faithfully to the close of the second day — have heard him five hours on the subject, and have not heard from him the first evidence containing the remotest hint of sprinkling or pouring for baptism ! This is truly discouraging for them! They then hear their own Disci- pline endorse immersion. They then hear him admit that Wesley, Clarke, Calvin and Luther admit the ancient manner of im- mersion. They then think of seeing Mr. M. immerse, calling it baptism^ in the name of the Lord, thus endorsing our practice ! 504 DEBATE ON THE In the midst of these troubles, if they have any doubts about their sprinkling or pour- ing for baptism, he comforts them by call- ing them " ignorant and inexperienced." Is this the class that become dissatisfied with sprinkling and pouring? — that be- come frightened ? Is their conscience to be thus silenced by the charge o^ ignorance^ being inexperienced and frightened? ISTo wonder tliat there should be restlessness among Mr. M.'s friends, when in a trouble of this sort and treated tlius cavalierly by him who was expected to afford them some relief! But this is not the worst. The worthy gentleman calls forth his superior powers of imagination, and combines them with his fine descriptive powers, and launches forth as follows : " If the position of my worthy opponent be correct, I have never been baptized." Indeed ! Then certainly the position must be an erroneous one ! We must occupy a position that is not sub- versive of his baptism, for it must he that he has been baptized! But is it not possi- ble that he, without being a hypocrite at all, or dishonest, has, thus far, been under a mistake? It is certainly j)ossible, as it was in the case of Carson, and with many other great and good men. They were not only mistaken, but wise enough to find their mistake and correct it. But while the gentleman was expatiating upon this point, with his imagination heated up, and ACTION OF BAPTISM. 505 excited to the utmost extent, he says : "I want to know if the large mass of profess- ing Christians, in this country, are nothing but intruders in the church, hypocrites and deceivers, while they imagine them- selves honest and on their way to heaven." Was the gentleman so near out of his right mind, when he uttered this, as not to know that he was talking perfectly at random. Who ever said any thing al30ut all these being " intruders in the church, hypocrites and deceivers ?" They are not "intruders, hypocrites and deceivers," but honest souls, in thousands of instances, de- siring to do the will of God, and would have done it, if they had not been persuad- ed, contrary to their own convictions of conscience, and misled by an honest, but mistaken, preacher. With what dignity Pope Pious IX. could use the argument of my opponent against myself. He could exclaim, "If the ^^osition of the worthy gentleman be correct, / have never been baptized." He might also proceed, " I want to know if the large mass of profess- ing Christians in this country are nothing but intruders in the church, hypocrites and deceivers!" But if the gentleman must have baptism in such a shape as to enclose a large number, he had better adopt the Universalian charity and em- brace all, whether baptized at all, in the church or out of it, regenerated or unre- generated. He can then apply his argu- ment in its full force. 506 DEBATE ON THE The worthy gentleman complains of my exhortations and loud speaking, and says that he can not reply to an exhortation. There are very good reasons why he does not exhort nor speak loud. He speaks as loud as he can speak, and nothing but physical inability j^revents him from speak- ing louder. He can not speak any louder. He can not exhort, because he is not hap- py. He is in too much misery to exhort. Men in trouble can not exhort. I am hap- py, and can not refrain from letting a word of exhortation fall now and then. He speaks of having myself, or my argu- ments, in prison; but I am truly happy in this prison, and, if I could sing like Paul and Silas, I would give an invitation. AYho knows but the worthy gentleman, like the Jailor, might cry out, "What must I do to be saved?" If he could learn what to do to save him from defeat,- he unques- tionably would cry out, " What must I do to be saved?" But there is no person in this wide world that can tell him what to do in his desperate case. What has he done for his cause? As before stated, he admits immersion to be valid baptism. His own creed and standard authorities, such as Clarke and Wesley, endorse im- mersion as valid baptism. He has en- dorsed it himself, by administering it, and calling it baptism, in the name of the Lord. That immersion is valid baptism, we are both agreed. So far, we are one. It is an ACTION OF BAPTISM. 507 article in both bis and my own faitb and practice. If he is orthodox in this point of argument, I am. So far, I am in the affirmative ; but no more than he is. So far, the argument, as flar as our debate is concerned, is settled, and I am safe. But tbe word o??/?/ affixed to the word im- mersion, involves another question. That is the simple question. Is any thing but immersion baptism? or, to state the ques- tion fuller, "Do the Scriptures teach, and did the Apostles practice, any thing but immersion for baptism?" Mr. M. affirms, with me, that immersion is baptism; and, in opposition to me, that something else is baptism. The trouble, with him, has been to find where the Scriptures teach, or the Apostles practiced, that something else. He said, before the debate commenced, that "it is not sprinkling nor pouring," as such. This he has found true to the letter to this hour. Not one word from Scripture has he found of any sprinkling or pouring for baptism, nor one intimation of the Apos- tles ever practicing either. In his search, he has found eJ^keo translated poz/r 02ct and shed forth; and he has found where it is said, "it sat upon each of them," from which he infers not only pom-wg, but that the baptism of fire was on the head, nearly the same place where he baptizes on the head, but fails to find any mode of baptism ! He determines, then, to have satisfaction in some way, and commences making objec- 508 DEBATE ON THE tions to immersion, which is settled, and in the practice of which we both agree. He puts his imagination to the torture and imagines a host of difficulties in the Avay of immersion. He finds teeming mil- lions of the Esquimaux, in the Arctic re- gions, among interminable ice, where water to immerse could not be had. But he soon reads, in the countenances of the people, that they feel that all that is nothing but a miserable subterfuge ; for no human beings can live where it is so cold that water to immerse can not be had. The next thing we see of him, he is dej)arting for the sandy desert, where he imagines numerous hosts of people living where they hardly ever saw water ! But before this is fairly from his lips, reason thunders upon his conscience, declaring, what every man here knows, that no people ever did, or ever can, live where there is not water to immerse. He can not help knowing and feeling that every person here knows that, with a little preparation, water in abundance is obtained from very small springs or even from wells, to immerse. He feels conscious that all this is but j)ettifoging, and that this intelli- gent audience will so regard it. What is to be done in this dilemma ? He resorts to an effort to prove that certain persons were baptized in houses, but fails. I believe he has given up all the cases of this sort as hopeless, except the Philipj^ian Jailor. He made a tremendous effort, in ACTION OF BAPTISM. 509 his former speech, to save this case. He has found a most convinciug argument. The jailor's residence, in the goodly city of Portsmouth, is a part of the prison building ! But he forgot to tell us, not knowing how little some of us knew about such matters, about the door from the aj)artment in the prison where the jailor and family reside, into the other apart- ment, where the prisoners are. AVe should have been pleased, if he had afforded us a little light about the door through the par- tition between the two apartments in the jDrison — the one where the Jailor's family live, and the other where the prisoners are. He felt the need of plastering this case anew, made an effort, but all without effect. The jailor called for a light, and sprang in and " brought them out." Out of what ? Out of prison, certainly. They spoke the word to him and to " all that were in his housed So far, the Bible brings them out of prison and into the Jailor's hotcse, where his family were. He took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized. Where were they now ? Out of his house, unquestionably ; for he brought them into his house. What evi- dence has he that they were in the prison, w4ien out of his house? ISTot one syllable, but his assertion. He asserts that they were in the house when baptized, and then as- sumes that there was not water there to im- merse; from which he infers that they must 510 DEBATE ON THE have been sprinkled or poured upon. He fails to show, 1st, That any body was bap- tized in the house, so far as Bible informa- tion is concerned ; 2nd, That they could not have been immersed in the house ; for I have immersed in houses many times without difficulty. There is a pool in the House of Eefnge near Cincinnati, in which the inhabitants of a county might be im- mersed in a short time. This he finds to be nothing but a miserable weak and fu- tile objection, proving nothing, and one, too, in which his friends have no confidence. Finding himself failing, and the people losing all confidence in his arguments, he rallies to the old, weak and oft-exploded objection, that the twelve Apostles could not have immersed the three thousand in the time remaining after preaching at nine o'clock on the day of Pentecost; but a second thought, and a brief calculation, convince all around him that the Apostles could have immersed the three thousand with the utmost ease in the given time ; and consequently the reference to this case only shows what a little thing a man will cling to when in a sinking cause. I am a little surprised at the persistence of Mr. M., in his attempt to found an ob- jection to my argument, on the expression, " Are buried with him by baptism." He ar- gues from the tense, and from nothing else, that Paul and the church at Eome loere still in this burial, and therefore the burial could ACTION OF BAPTISM. 511 not be ill baptism. I told 3^011 if he would look in his Greek Testament, he would find it in the past tense, the same as the verso preceding it. Dr. Geo. Campbell renders it, with the verse preceding it, as follows : " Do you not know that as many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ, have been baptized into his death ? AYehave been buried, then, together with him, by bap- tism into death." I am not making any statement upon my own authority merely, but upon good and reliable authority. Did he deny that it is in the past tense, and not the present, in the original, as in the verse preceding it ? He did not; but, to divert attention, began to tell of ray making pre- tentions to a knowledge of Greek, when he heard me preach, which, by the way, is without a shadow of foundation, unless a reference to some Greek word be consider- ed a justification for what he said. I make no pretentions about how much I know, or how little, only that what I say is true. The burial is in the past tense in the orig- inal— not " are buried with him," bat 2vere, or " have been, buried with him by bap- tism," and consequently do not remain in the burial, but " are risen with him." The question is not how much I know about Greek, but is the burial, verse 4th, in the past tense, in the original, the same as verse 3rd? I say it is. Mr. M. has not de- nied it. His argument is taken out of his hands. The Apostle says, " We have been 34 512 DEBATE ON THE buried, then, together with him, by baptism into death," or, as we shall have it when haftisma is translated, " AVe have been buried, then, together with him, by im- mersion into death." This, then, is water baptism, as Mr. M. admits ; and they had been buried by this baptism, and had risen. See Col. ii. 12. The worth}^ gentleman has had some visionary dreams about the Israelites being baptized in the cloud and in the sea. If I understood him, he had rain sprinlding vpon them I But the history of the case does not say that rain was baptized upon them, nor that they were baptized in rain; but they went through dry shod. " They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Other parts of the history show that the cloud was over them and the sea around them, so that by the cloud and the sea, they were overwhelmed. We are now bringing our argument to a close, and it is proper that it should be placed in a tangible form. I affirm that immersion is the only baptism taught in the Scriptures and practiced by the Apos- tles. That immersion is baptism, we have both agreed, in both word and practice. Thus far the argument is settled and agreed to by us both. The remainder of the ques- tion is simply this : Was any thing else but immersion practiced by divine authority? The gentleman has toiled two days to find where something else was practiced, but has ACTION OP BAPTISM. 513 utterly failed. A more complete failure could not have been made. There is not a per- son in this dense assembly that can think of a single evidence that sj)rinkling or pouring was ever practiced by the Apostles. This, then, completes the case. Immersion is baptism, as we both agree ; but he can find no account of any thing else ever being practiced by the Apostles for baptism. Im- mersion is, then, the only baptism. If baptism simply means ordinance, and not the action that was j)erformed, then, truly, are we left in the dark about what they did when they baptized ; but this would not prove that any thing that the idle imagination of man might conceive was baptism. It would only prove that we know nothing about it, and can know noth- ing. It is utterly incredible that the Al- mighty would institute a positive divine ordinance, and not inform us how it was to be administered. But the truth is, that when the original word is translated, what is to be done is described as clearly as language can express any thing. ]^o man can misunderstand the following: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be immersed of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be im- mersed of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus, answering, said unto him, Suf- fer it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then ho suffer- ed him. And Jesus, when he was im- 514 DEBATE ON THE mersed, went up straightway out of the water;" Matt. iii. 13-16. No man would misunderstand this. Let me read again : " And it came to j^ass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of G-alilee, and was immersed of John in Jordan ;" Mark i. 9. Could any one mistake what was done in this instance. Let us read again : "And John was immersing in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water there ; and they came and were immersed ;" John iii. 23. This is easily understood. Let us read again : " Eepent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ" — "They who gladly received his word were immersed;" Acts ii. 38-41. But we read again, simj^ly giving you English instead of Greek : "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be immersed and wash away thy sins ;" Acts xxii. 16. We read again : " 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 immersed ? And Philip said. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. 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 immersed him. And Avhen they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip);" Acts viii. 36-39. Again : " Know ye not, that so ACTION OF BAPTISM. 515 many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by im- mersion 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;" Eomans vi. 3-4. "One Lord, one faith, one immersion;" Eph. iv. 4. " Buried with him in immersion, where- in also ye are risen with him;" Col. ii. 12. These examples show that the original word can be translated without any cir- cumlocution. But I have tried in vain to induce Mr. M. to translate ^op^i^o into Eng- lish somehow ; but it is such a wonderful word, that no word in our poor, barren and feeble dialect will exhaust its meaning ! I have insisted upon his giving us a transla- tion even by a circumlocution ; but he re- fuses ! But now he comes out and says, " If baptism is not the ordinance, Avhat is the ordinance." Well, I will try and tell him. We find, in theE'ew Testament, bap- tism in fire, in the Holy Spirit, of suffer- ings, of hands, cups, pots, beds, tables and, in one place, we read of " diverse bap- tisms." All these were as actual baptisms as ever occurred, but none of them the di- vine ordinance or rite. It is a baptism if a Pagan immerses himself in water, who nev- er heard of the name of Jesus, but no ordi- nance or divine rite. But preach the gos- pel to the Pagan till he believes it with all the heart, is changed in heart, repents and 516 DEBATE ON THE confesses with the mouth, and immerse him into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and you have the divine rite or ordinance. Bap- tism is immersion, and no more, no matter what is immersed, what the immersion is in, nor what it is for ; but the divine ordi- nance is more than this. Immersion is simply an item in the ordinance, and is nothing without the proper subject, and ad- ministered in the name of the Lord. An immersion is not the ordinance at all with- out a proj)er subject and administered in the name of the Lord. The gentleman made an effort to preju- dice the public mind against us, or made an appeal to the prejudice he supposed to be existing in the public mind, by speaking of exclusiveness. But nothing can be made here, in his favor. Those who persist in maintaining the doubtful j)ractice — that which has been in dispute ever since it was in existence, while they believe immersion valid baptism, and practice it in some cases, thus showing that they can practice it, without violating their consciences, are to blame for keeping up the controversy. The responsibility rests upon those who keep up the doubtful practice, and not upon us who only practice that which pretty much all admit valid. It is their practice that in- volves thousands in doubt about their bap- tism all their lives. Many of these, too, had sprinkling imposed upon them before ACTION OP BAPTISM. 517 they knew any thing, are in doubt about it as soon as they read and think for them- selves, and remain so to the day of their death. Many others struggle upon it for 3''ears, endure the taunts of being called "ignorant," "weak" and "frightened," be- cause they can not be satisfied with what they can not believe, break over and are immersed. Tliousands of these honest, pious and devoted souls have suffered im- mensely, and thousands more must suffer in the same way, bo perplexed and kept vacillating, if the doubtful must be pressed upon the people generally, and imposed upon thousands of infants before they can know any thing about it. The only relief from all these troubles, and from debates on the subject, is to abandon the doubtful, the uncertain, that which has been in dispute ever since its existence, and j)ractice that which was never in doubt. MR. MERRILL'S TENTH REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, and the Audience : This being the last opportunity I shall have, according to our rules, of presenting matters that will be considered new, I will call your attention to an item or two of this kind, before reviewing the gentleman's last speech. You will remember that, in reply to one of Mr. Franklin's arguments, I told you that when immersion became generally 518 DEBATE ON THE prevalent in the church, while the Greek language was yet spoken, the Christian fa- thers used kataduo, and not haptizo, to ex- press the action of baptizing by that mode. The gentleman passed over this point very slightly — insinuating that I swallowed it down from Dr. Eice without credit. The truth is, it is a well-known fact, established by the writings of the fathers, open for the insjDection of every student. But since the gentleman made so light a reference to Dr. Eice, I projDose to read you a statement of the matter by that gentleman, in his debate with Mr. Campbell. I use his language, also, because he has comprised numerous authorities in the shortest possible space. 1 read from page 167: "It is worthy of special remark, that when immersion came to be generally practiced, the Greek Chris- tians, when they wished definitely to ex- press that mode, used another word, kata- duo. On this subject professor Stuart says : 'Subsequent ages make the practice of the church still plainer, if indeed this can be done. The Greek words kataduo and hata- dusis were employed as exj)ressive of baptiz- ing and h apt ism ; and these words mean go- ing down into the water ^ or immerging. So in the following examples : Chrysostom, Homil. xl., I. Cor. i., to be baptized and to sub- merge (^IcataduGsthai), then to emerge (an- aneiiein'), is a symbol of descent to the grave, and of ascent from it.' Basil De Spiritu. c. 15 : ' By three immersions (e?i trisi kaiadu- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 519 sesi), and by the like number of invocations, the great mystery of baptism is completed.' Damascenus Orthodox, Fides lY., 10 : 'Bap- tism is a t^^pe of the death of Christ ; for by three immersions (Ji^ataduston) baptism sig- nifies,' etc. So the Apostolical Constitu- tions (probably written in the fourth cen- tury), Lib. III., ch. 17, 'Immersion (kata- dusis') denotes dying with him (Christ) : emersion (anadusis) a resurrection with Christ.' Photius {apud CScumenicum') on Eom. vi : '• The three immersions and emer- sions (Jcataduseis kai anaduseis) of baptism signify death and resurrection.' Quest, apud Athanasium, Qu. 94: 'To immerse (katadusai) a child three times in the bath (or pool) and to emerse him (anadusai) ^ this shows the death,' etc. Chrysostom in cap. 3, Johannis : 'We, as in a sepulchre, immers- ing (kataduonton) our heads in tlie water, the old man is buried, and sinking down (katadus kato) the whole is concealed at once ; then, as we emerge, the new man again rises,' pp. 73, 74. Gregory Thauma- turgus, speaking of Christ's baptism, repre- sents him as saj-ing to John, ' katadvson me iois Jordanou reithi'ois' — Plunge me in the river of Jordan. Cyril, of Jerusalem, uses this language : ' Plunge them (liaduete) down thrice into the water, and raise them up again.' See Gale's Eef on Wall, vol. 3, pp. 2U2, 203." Here, I contend, Ave have over- whelming testimony of the fact that the Greeks did employ kataduo instead of lap- 520 DEBATE ON THE t'izo^ to express the action Tvlii(|li my friend calls the only baptism. If haptizo related to mode and nothing but mode, would this have been done ? Xever ! But they used haptizo^ not to express the mode, but just as we do now ; they used it as a generic term, expressing all that is contained in the ordi- nance; and, therefore, according to Mr. Franklin's own logic, it contained " some- thing more" than the abstract idea of im- mersing. But it is true that the Greeks had three specific words expressive of the three modes, andkatadiio is the specific term that expressed immersion. Groves defines it thus : " Kataduo (from hata^ downwards, and duuo, to enter,) to go doiun, descend into; to sinh^ immerge^ plunge ;^^ etc. If this word had been used to denote the action of bap- tism, by any inspired writer, the question would have been settled, or rather the con- troversy had never been ; but such was not the case. This word was only used after the ordinance was corrupted, when its sim- plicity was despised, and its plain spiritual signification lost in the " great mystery of baptism" by three immersions ! One of the most learned of the Christian fathers was Origen. But Origen actually used haptizo \n ihQ ^&n^Q 0^ pouring. In I. Kings xviii., 33, we have an account of the use of water by jyoiiring, which Origen ex- presses by haptizo. " And he put wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels ACTION OF BAPTISM. 521 with water, and pour it on the hiirnt sacrifice and on the wood^^ etc. J^ow, in allusion to this transaction, Origen says : ''How came you to think that Elias, Avhen he should come, would 6ap^i2;(3, who did not, in Ahab's time, haptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt, by the Lord's appearing in fire ? But he or- dered the priests to do that ; not once only, but says, do it the second time; and they did it the second time : and, do it the third time; and they did it the third time. He, therefore, that did not himself haptip:e them, but assigned that work to others, how was he likely to haptize^ when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, should come;" Wall's His. of Infant Baptism. Why was haptizo here used for pour, instead of the specific term ordinarily employed to express that mode ? Because the mode was not all that was to be expressed. The washing was re- ligious, and involved the idea of consecra- tion ; and haptizo was the very word to con- vey the idea of a consecration by water. The word generally used by the Cireeks to express the mode, would have failed to carry the idea of the religious consecration ; but the generic term haptizo expressed the whole character of the action. This example of the use of the word^ by this learned Christian father, whose native tongue was the Greek, ought for ever to silence all cavillers, and to put to rest all doubts as to the generic character of this word. It is perfect de- 522 DEBATE ON THE monstration. The burnt sacrifice and the wood upon the altar were baptized when the water was poured upon them ! I^ow, what great name will the gentleman bring in op- jDOsition to the learned Origen, whose ver- nacular was the original of the ^ew Testa- ment ? Here are two facts of great significance : 1. When the early Christians began to bap- tize by immersion, they expressed the mode by kafaduo, and not by haptizo. 2. When they spoke of a religious washing, or con- secration by water, when the mode was not the thing to be expressed, they used baptizo, as conveying the true idea of consecration, whether the water was used by pouring, sprinkling, or otherwise. Did these G-reek fathers understand their own language ? If so, our immersionist friends have mis- taken it altogether. There is no baptism where there is no consecration, I care not whether it is by water, fire. Spirit, or fig- uratively by sufferings ; there must be a set- ting apart of the person or thing to a reli- gious service, or there is no baptism. I care not whether we sj^eak of Christian baptism, of John's baptism, of Jewish baptisms of persons, pots, cups, or beds^ or of any other baptism, by water, fire, or vSpirit, there must be the consecration; nor is baptizo used in all the range of Holy Scripture, with refer- ence to any person or thing, or any element, literal or figurative, where the idea of a re- ligious consecration is not. The mere idea ACTION OF BAPTISM. 523 of mode is not the thing. The Greeks had other words to express all the modes ; but, amongst Grreek Jews and Christians, hap- tizo was employed with strict reference to religious consecrations. This is a fact at once incontestible, and wholly irreconcilable with the doctrine of exclusive immersionism. When used to express the rite of Christian baptism, it means all that is contained in the ordinance ; and Mr. F. has admitted that abstract immersion may take place where there is no ordinance, and therefore where there is no baptism. Immerse does not, therefore, exhaust the meaning of haptizo. It is not a full equivalent for it, and there- fore ought not to be used as a translation. It lacks the most important idea contained in the word. I regret exceedingly to see my friend in- dulging in such a spirit as he exhibited in his last address. I know he feels badly to see the discussion of this proposition draw- ing to a close, while his argument is so far behind that there is no possible hope for him to sustain himself; but he should not grow peevish, and throw angry flouts at the audience on this account. He sees a num- ber here to-night who were not here this afternoon, and he informs tliem that there was excitement here at our last session ! — Now, in reply, I have only to say that the " excitement" was confined to the gentle- man himself. True, a few retired quietly while he was speaking, but they were stran- 524 DEBATE ON THE gers to him and me, and neither of ns can tell whether they believe with him or me. The}" doubtless knew their own business, and were competent to decide whether it was worth while to listen to his repetitions again or not. Possibly they were his friends who felt such unbounded confidence in his capacity that they thought it nnnecessar}^ to watch him ! I am quite at a loss to understand the gentleman in some things. He says a great deal about a class of persons that he imag- ines quite large, who are dissatisfied with their baptism. He pays them a very am- biguous compliment. With one breath he makes them out the most intelligent, sin- cere, honest and independent of all men ; and with the next he is describing them as the greatest dupes that live ! They are very intelligent, honest, sincere; and yet, con- trary to their own conscientious convictions, in spite of their intelligence, candor and in- dependence, for long years together, they are priest-ridden, humbugged and oppress- ed, by ignorant "sprinkling" preachers!— How is all this? AYhat does it all mean ? Is it manly, dignified and edifying discus- sion?. And his references to myself arc of the same character. With one breath ho compliments ray coolness and self-posses- sion ; and w^ith the next he makes me out excited, confused, embarrassed and lost ! — AYell, we will try to a2:)j)reciate the gentle- man. Then he tells us ho " exhorts" be- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 525 cause he feels " happy !" I never " com- plained" of bis exhortations. I am willing for him to exhort to fill up his time. I know he feels better in exhorting than in meeting the difiiculties that press nj)on him. There is nothing strange in all this. I have heard men say that whenever they get in the "brush" in j^reaching, they invariably leave the sermon and go into exhortation. And! concede that my friend exhorts pretty well. As an exhorter he would stand fair. But I never knew one who was good at ex- hortation to be very good at reasoning ; and we are here not to exhort, but to reason ! The people are here not to listen at exhor- tations, but to hear arguments ! And I am very certain that the people will conclude, that if the gentleman was as " happy" as he claimed to be, they never will wish to see him when he is very unhappy ! And if he feels like " singing" his time out, it will an- swer about as well as any thing he has yet done. Did you see or hear me "abandon" the cases of Saul and Cornelius? Kot a bit of it ! They were in the house when they were commanded to be baptized, and no man on earth can show that they left the house before baptism. Mr. F. has made no effort to prove that they did. He knows not where to begin the attempt! These examples of baptism in the house are not abandoned, but stand against the gentle- man in all the force of demonstration. And 526 DEBATE ON THE the Jailor is still in his way. He hangs with a death-grasp to the expression, " he brought them out;" but he refuses to look at the flict that this was out of the '' inner prison," where the}^ had been confined. He has nothing under the light of the sun to depend upon in this case but his imagina- tion. But he has baptized in houses! Yes, modern customs have provided for this. Baptistries are provided in imraersionist meetinghouses, but no such thing was pro- vided for the convenience of Paul and Silas in that prison. ]Sror will we allow the gen- tleman to dodge the laboring oar ! He talks about me not proving that they were baptized in the house ! Does he not know that they were all in the house when the command was given ? Does he not know that every thing else they did or were com- manded to do, transpired in the house? — Then let him get them out for baptism, if he can ! 'No man, not even Mr. Franklin himself, believes that any one of these was immersed in the house. But he talks about "miserable," "weak," and "futile" "ob- jections" and "subterfuges" — and then tells us that there is a pool in the House of Re- fugo in Cincinnati ; and therefore, there might have been immersions in the jail, al- though he is quite certain the Jailor and family were baptized out of doors ! I ask again, if the Jailor's sleeping apartment was entirely separate from the prison build- ing, as Mr. F. assumes, how did Paul hap- ACTION OP BAPTISM. 527 pen to see the keeper's motions when he got the sword ? But I need not consume time. The feeble effort of the gentleman proves that he feels sensibly the force of this example, and can never meet it. His remarks about my friends losing " confi- dence" in my positions, are a little too shal- low to need reply. He descends lower for capital than I supposed it possible for an able controversialist to do. He makes a last rally to save his argu- ment from the "burial." His friend, Dr. Geo. Campbell, will not help him in the least. The fact is, the argument is gone past all hope of recovery. I laid down four distinct propositions, either of which is fa- tal to his argument, and he has only mas- tered courage to attack one of them ; and in that he has most signally failed. First, the hurlal — is it literal or figurative? If literal, so is the death, and the j)erson is drowned ! But if the burial is figurative, it is not immersion. The baptism and the burial are distinct. Secondly, the compari- son— is it between baptism and the burial of Jesus Christ? Not at all! Baptism is not compared to any thing, is not figura- tive, is no metaphor, and is not a represen- tation of the sufferings or work of Christ at all. The comparison is between the cru- cifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and the mystic crucifixion, death and burial of the "old man," and the new life of tlie Christian. Thirdly, this inter- 35 528 DEBATE ON THE pretation confounds the sacraments, mak- ing baptism and the Lord's supper occupy the same place, represent tlie same act, and signify the same thing. All this has been shown to be incorrect, in that it overlooks the foundation of the ordinances, in the le- gal and moral aspects of the Christian sys- tem. And fourthly, the burial is not a mo- mentary action, as is immersion, but a con- tinuous effect. It is as lasting as the cruci- fixion and the death — as lasting as our interest in Jesus Christ. We can not cease to be buried into the death of Christ, with- out ceasing to be dead to sin. Has the gentleman met this point? 'No, sir; he has not attempted to meet it! He has only quibbled a little about the tense and the translation. And even in this he did not mention the tense. He simply said it was the past tense. This I knew and never questioned ; but I claimed that the transla- tors were correct in rendering the passage just as they did. There are several tenses that relate to past time. In this case, the verb is in the passive voice and denotes an effect ; that effect began in past time, and continues up to the present; the verb sunc- taphemen relates to the past, but is not con- fined to the j)ast. The Aorist tense does not require us to suppose the effect expressed by the verb to be completed and past. It is just as if we say of one dead and buried, he IS buried; the allusion is to the action of burial in past time, but still the effect re- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 529 mains to the present. Thus the translators understood it. They varied the rendering to suit the idea, and tliere is notliing in the tense, nor in the connection, nor in the scope and meaning of the passage, to contradict their judgment. Nor does Dr. Geo. Camp- bell's rendering, which Mr. F. adopts, sus- tain his most unwarrantable position. To say we have been buried into death, is just precisely equivalent to saying that we are yet buried, unless there is positive evidence that we have also been unburied ; but here there is no such evidence nor intimation. The comparison is not formed to suit the views of the gentleman. The rising with Christ is not the rising out of a burial. It is not the rising out of the water of baptism. Nothing of the kind is mentioned or hinted at. " 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." This is very different from rising out of the water. The idea of our being un- buried or ceasing to be buried with Christ, is not in the passage. If we were, by bap- tism, buried into Christ's death, just so long- as we retain our union with Christ, we must remain buried with him. There is no de- nying nor getting around this. But if the burial is figurative — if it is an effect distinct from baptism — if it is a continuous effect, lastinc-as lonix as our life is hid with Christ in God, then there is nothing in this burial that favors the idea of immersion. This 530 DEBATE ON THE f^trongliold of the exclusive system yields it no support whatever ! And if immersion is not taught here, it is not taught in the Eible. If my friend fails here, he fails every where and for ever ! The gentleman says, " If baptism simply meanR ordinance," etc.; now what does he mean by this ? Does he not mean to mis- lead some who have not been here all the time, into the notion that I have said " bap- tism simply means ordinance?" Why does the gentlemen indulge in such unworthy insinuations ? If he wishes any one to sup- pose I have said any thing of that sort, why has he not the manliness to say so ? He knows very well I never said, hinted nor insinuated that bajDtism means ordi- nance— much less that it " simply means ordinance !" I put it to him as a man of honor : Is he justifiable in trying to insinu- ate what he dare not assert boldly ? He gave you a list of quotations with the word immerse substituted for baptize — ■ what did all that amount to ? Did it prove that immerse is a full equivalent for bap- tize ? It did not ! And he tried to tell what else beside baptism is necessary to make up the ordinance of baptism ! But did he show that haptismos is not the name of the ordinance? Did he show that Chris- tian baptism can take place without the full administration of the ordinance? He did not and can not. His absurd notion, that wherever there is an immersion, there ACTION OF BAPTISM. 531 is a, baptism, drives him to these puerilities. And he repeated the old tlireadbare asser- tion respecting the cloud covering the Is- raelites in the sea, so as to form an im- mersion ; but did he offer any argument or proof on that subject ? ISTot a bit ! The Psalm before quoted tells what the cloud did. The only people immersed on that oc- casion were the Egyptians ; but they were not baptized — not consecrated — unto Moses nor anybody else ! 'There was no baptism in their case, although there was an im- mersion. He has once or twice quoted the words, " divers baptisms ;" but he has not yet ventured to favor us with his views of the " divers baptisms," nor has he attempt- ed to meet the fact that they were expressly enjoined to be done by sprinkling. He again tried to make light of the difficulties attending the immersing of the multitude on the day of Pentecost. But has he shown where the water was obtained? He has not, and he can not ! Has he proven that there was time enough to immerse them ? ISTot yet! He talked about disposing of two in a minute ; but does he expect any one to believe this on his bare assertion ? The thing is preposterous ! And he again glanced at the objection to his exclusive system on the ground of impracticability ; but did he look at it fairly as I presented it? Not he I Did he deny that millicms of human beings exist in the frozen regions of the North, where water for immersion 532 DEBATE ON THE could only be obtained by melting snow and ice? Has he demonstrated the uni- versal practicability of immersion ? Has he attempted to do it ? Not he ! He con- tents himself with giving a distorted view of the objection, and making light of it ! He pretends to have seen a mark on a map showing a river in the desert of Judea, winding through the mountains for a hun- dred miles, but can not give its name nor its size. He seems to think that after run- ning a hundred miles, it must have water enough to immerse in ! But does he not know that even according to his own show- ing, if Philip baptized in it at all, it was right at its head waters in the mountains ? And have I not proved, by the most reli- able witnesses, that there was no stream there, unless it was a mere mountain tor- rent ? And has he not failed to show that eh would take the nobleman any deeper into the water than it would Philip ? Has he not persistently refused to affirm that eis necessarily expresses an entrance at all ? And have I not proved that it does not ? He fails in the metaphor of the birth ; he fails in the burial ; he fails in the baptisms of John in Jordan ; he fails in the case of the eunuch ; he fails in the meaning of the word tested by classic use, by Bible use, by lexicons and critics ; he fails in history and in every thing ! Yet he claims a great vic- tory ! Well, he is easily satisfied ! The only thing that remains is, that we ACTION OF BAPTISM. 533 all admit that immersion will do! But for this admission, where would he have been? This one string he has, and he pulls it faithfully. Immersion is " safe," because w^e all admit tliat it will do ! This " safe" argument is not addressed to the under- standing of the people, but to the fears of the less intelligent. It is just such an argu- ment as the trembling cause demands ! What li.i]:ht does it cast on the Bible teach- ing? What force has it in the minds of thinking people? Just none at all! We shall now hear the gentleman's "recapitu- lation " and his " reaffirmations," and I trust you will hear him patiently. MR. FRANKLIN'S CLOSING SPEECH. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I rise to close my part of the argument on this question. I shall spend my half- hour in recapitulating and summing up the argument, without any reference to the speech just heard, save what comes up in- cidentally. The narrow limits of a half- hour will allow but a very brief statement. The matter before us is simply what the Apostles did when they baptized. What did the Lord command men to do when he said, " Be baptized?" AVhat did he com- mand men to do when he said " Baptize?" Those questions must be settled before any man can know that he has been baptized, or 531 DEBATE ON THE how to baptize anybody else. I maintain that the Lord has not only commanded men to be baptized, but revealed precisely what is to he done. My opponent admits the commandment, but denies that what is to be done is revealed. To this hour, he has not pointed to any act, and said, that is what the Lord commanded, much less to any three acts. His work has not been to enlighten, to show that any one act, or any three acts, are commanded, but to mystify. My argument is as follows : I. That the Lord and the Apostles, when they expressed what was to be done literal- ly, used but one word, and one word can have but one meaning, when applied to one thing. The word bcqytizo, in some of its forms, is applied to the rite more than eighty times in the New Testament. The rule in translating is, that a word must be used in the primary sense, unless there is something in the context forbidding it. There is nothing in the context, in a single instance, making the least reason for adopt- ing any meaning but the primary. It is, then, beyond all dispute, to be taken in its primary meaning. The primary meaning, in every lexicon either of us ever saw, is immersion. The Lord, then, unquestionably commanded people to be immersed, and nothing else. Mr. M. has tried to set this aside in two or three ways. He asserted that baptize is the proper name of the ordinance, but for ACTION OF BAPTISM. 535 this, up to this hour, he has ottered no au- thority but his own unsupported assertion, and never can. He then resorted to Jew- ish ceremonies to find sprinkling^ and tried to have you infer from this hoAV the Apostles baptized ! Bat this was so ob- viously ridiculous, that it deserves no con- sideration. Baptism was not taken from Judaism nor Paganism, and we can not learn from either what it is. AYe must consult Jesus and the Apostles, to learn how an or- dinance of the New Testament is to be ad- ministered. II. In departing from the appointment of God, in that which the ministry have to perform with their own hands, they never depart from the convenient, pleasant and easy, to the inconvenient, unpleasant and laborious. To this the gentleman has not produced a single exception. It is perfectly natural, when pride, love of ease and car- nality had possessed the hearts of the min- istry, that they should have departed from the unpleasant, inconvenient and laborious practice of immersion, and adopted the light, easy and convenient practice of sprink- ling. This, the unanimous voice of history assures us, is the true state of the case. The gentleman knows that when the dark ages had reached the most revolting period, im- mersion was put down, and sprinkling gained its greatest prevalence ; and as soon as the light of reformation dawned, im- mersion commenced reviving, and has been 536 DEBATE ON THE on the increase ever since. In the most en- lightened parts of the reformation of the last three centuries, immersion is gaining with the greatest rapidity. In these United States, where investigation is freer than any place in the world, immersion is sjDreading more rapidly. III. The Methodist Discipline, Dr. Adam Clarke, John Wesley and my worthy oppo- nent, agree with me that immersion is bap- tism. So flxr, the matter is settled. This is precisely the extent that I am in the affirma- tive, and this far, it is conceded that I am right. The only question remaining, is simply whether any thing else is baptism. My worthy friend thinks something else is baptism, though he could not be induced to affirm it. You have seen that he was wise in this, for up to this hour he has utterly failed to find a trace of any thing else for baptism. An argument could not stand more triumphant than mine does here. He immerses himself, and calls it baptism, in the name of the Lord. He believes it to be such. lY. Those who were proper subjects, and have been immersed, are satisfied, living and dying, for time and eternity. They search the Discipline, to know whether they have been baptized. It endorses their baptism. They go to Wesley, and he en- dorses it, Clarke, Luther, Calvin and my worthy opponent endorse it. Their own consciences endorse it. All of any note en- ACTION OP BAPTISM. 537 dorse it. Better than all — nobody of any note doubts that the Bible endorses it. "With this endorsement, those immersed are, if not quite, almost unanimously satis- fied. But what a sad picture we have on the other side ! Thousands upon thou- sands, as honest as live, as desirous to serve God, and devoted, have never been, and can never he, satisfied with their sprinkling ! They are unhappy and must remain so, or be immersed. Their preachers, whom they love, and in whom they have confidence, pray with, talk with them, and try to satis- fy them, but can not. Shall they continue to involve others in the same state of doubt and uncertainty, and in thousands of in- stances, in their infancy, before they have ever had a thought or impulse on the sub- ject, or cease this doubtful practice ? Y. The Greek Church, from its com- mencement, has practiced nothing but im- mersion, through all the changes and vicissi- tudes of the many long centuries of its his- tory. It received the ordinance in the Greek language, knew the meaning of bap- tizo when they received it, have used the same word to express the action from that time to the present, and have kept the same action. No matter how much the language has changed, as spoken by Greeks, that word has not changed, nor have they changed the action expressed by it. YI. Sprinkling or pouring for baptism, or the original words for sjor inkle or pour, 5 38 DEBATE ON THE are not mentioned in any thing written in the first two centuries of the church, neither in the Bible nor any book. This argument remains invulnerable. ISTeither the worthy gentleman nor any man has, or can, invalidate this ; and this being the case, is an end to all controversy on this point. That which is not mentioned in the Bible at all, nor any book written in the first two centuries of the Christian era, is without divine authority beyond all con- tradiction. Yir. Immersion was invariably practiced by all Christians for the first thirteen hun- dred years of the church. A more gener- ally received and better attested fact than this, is not found in all history. There can be no exception to this except clinics^ and they were never allowed to hold ofiico ; not, as Mr. M. has said, because their repent- ance was doubtful, for far the greater por- tion of them were infants, whom they all knew had no repentance at all ; nor were there any of these till the beginning of the fourth century. Mr. M. has admitted, when on another point, and not think- ing of this, the truth of this statement so far as the first half of the thousand years of the dark ages is concerned, and upon the same ground may admit all. This argument, then, stands invulnerable and unanswered. YIII. The meaning of a word inserted for the word itself will always make sense. If ACTION OF BAPTISM. 539 baptize means the proper name of an ordi- naoce, it will make sense to insert that in the place of it. If it means sprinkle or pour, it will make sense to insert sprinkle or pour in the place of baptize. It makes sense to say, " Were immersed of him in Jordan," but it will not do to say, " Sprin- kled of him in Jordan." See Matt. iii. 5-6. It will not do to say, " He shall sprinkle you with the Holy Spirit and with fire;" but it will make sense to say, " Immerse in the Holy Spirit and in fire." See Matt. iii. 11. My friend revolted at the idea of say- ing, " Are you able to be sprinkled with the sprinkling that I am to be sprinkled with," and admitted that an overwhelming was meant here. See Matt. xx. 22. " They went down into the water and he sprinkled him ;" Acts viii. 38. " They were all sjorin- kled unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ;" I. Cor. x. 1-2. " Buried with him in sprinkling, Avherein also you are risen with him." See Col. ii. 12. "We are buried with him by sprinkling." See Horn. vi. 4. These and many other examples, show that sprinkle can not be substituted for baptize; but immerse can be substituted in every place. This argument stands unanswered, and unanswerable. That which we all agree is baptism, can be substituted for the word, and will make sense in every j)lace, and is unquestiona- bly the meaning of the word. That meaning is imnierae. and nothing else. 540 DEBATE ON THE IX. All the lexicons either of us ever saw, give immerse, or some word of the same import, as the first meaning of the word in dispute. This is authority and nothing but authority. They do not give the name of the ordinance as a meaning of the word at all ; nor does any authority in the world. The most of the lexicons, and I think all we have seen, do not give sprinkle or pour as a meaning at all. This shows that sprinkle and pour have no au- thority at all. That the Lord invariably used the word baptizo to ex]Dress the thing to be done, is not denied. That in using the one word more than eighty times to express literally what was to be done, in re- ference to the same thing, he must not only always have used it in the same sense, but in its primary sense, is evident to all. This has not been denied. Its primary sense is immerse. This has never been answered, and never can be. X. The Greeks had three distinct words for three distinct acts, as we have in Eng- lish, and they never used one of these words for the other. In the Septuagint, Lev. xiv. 14-15, we find the three words expressing the three acts. Here in one sentence we find hapto translated dip^ chco translated poi^r, and ramo translated sprm- kle. Any man can see that one of these words can not be changed for the other. In the New Testament, we find the three words, haptizo, cheo and raino, and every ACTION OP BAPTISM. 541 one can see that they can not be used inter- changeably. You find the word sprinkle some seven times in the K^ew Testament, but you destroy the sense, in any of the places, if you insert either pour or im- merse. Where you find c/iea, you can not use sprinkle or immerse. Where you find baptizo, yoti can not use sprinkle or pour. This shows that haptizo means immerse, and not sprinkle or pour. Sprinkle or pour, or their Greek representatives, are never used to express the action, or what was to be done in baptizing. XI. Every time the King James' trans- lators have translated hapto^ or haptizo^ ex- cept wash, as a result, and not the mean- ing of the word, they have given us some- thing equivalent to immerse, and never sprinkle or pour. In the Septuagint, in the account of Xaaman dipping himself seven times in Jordan, we have haptizo translated, in the common version, dipped. In the New Testament, hapto only occurs four or five times, and is translated dip. I have here, then, evidence that the King James' translators knew the meaning of bapto and haptizo^ in the fact that they have transla- ted both, in the common version, into a word equivalent to immerse. They have thus translated it in every instance where they have translated it at all. Their testimony, then, is in favor of immersion. To this hour, this argument remains un- answered. 542 DERATE ON THE XII. " They went down into the water," "came up out of the water," and were " baptized in the river," when they were baptized anciently. The Lord was " bap- tized m Jordan,'' and " went up straightway out of \\\Q water." They not only "went into the water," but " went down into the water," and not only "came out 0/ the water," but " came up out of the water," and " were baptized," not at the water, nor by it, but " i*;t the water." In all the passages in proof, that eis is correctly translated into, and eh correctly translated out of has not been denied. The fact, then, that when about to baptize, " they went down into the water." and when they baptized, they " bap- tized in water," and when they had bap- tized, "they came up out of the water," shows, beyond cavil, how they baptized. They immersed in water. XIII. They baptized in a certain place because there was much water there. " And John was baptizing in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water there ;" John iii. 23. The reason given for baptizing in this place, is " because there teas much water there." John, certainly did not sprinlde in Enon because there was much water there, for he did not need " much water," nor " many waters," to sprinkle ; but he did need much water to immerse, and immersed there because there was much water there. The argument for im- mersion, from this expression, remains en- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 543 tirely unanswered. The worthy gentle- man simply ventured the question, " May not the original for 'much water' be trans- lated 'many waters?' " Probably it may, in some instances; but that would be as favorable to immersion as the present ver- sion. But there is no doubt but the pres- ent version is correct. XIY. Col. ii. 12, we read of being " buried with him in baptism," and Eom. vi. 4, being " buried with him by baptism." The worthy gentleman has put his wits to the torture, to invent some way to escape the force of this argument, but no way of escape has been afforded him. So long as it is admit- ted true, that they "buried with him in haptism^'^ and " buried with him hyhaptism^^^ no sound reason will attempt to evade im- mersion. His attempt to set this aside, by contending that it was in the present tense, is all set at naught by the fact that, in the original, it is in the past tense. ISTot only so, but the burial is " by baptism," and *' in baptism," and no cavil can evade it. XY. The figurative expression, " born of water," John iii. 5, implies coming forth from the water, which can not be only in immersion. This argument has been met in no way only by mere sophistry and a pitiful affectation of modesty. But the lan- guage is from the lips of Jesus, and no af- fected modesty will bring his words into disrepute. The argument from his holy words stands unanswered, and will till the 36 544: DEBATE ON THE day when he shall be ashamed of them who are ashamed of Him and his words. XYI. The argument drawn from the ex- pression, "planted together in the likeness of his death," Rom. vi. 5, remains invulner- able. They are in the likeness of his death when buried with him by baptism into death, and, at the same time, planted to- gether with him. This remains unanswer- ed and unanswerable. There is no ^'■plant- ing together with him," in sprinkling. XYlI. Heb. X. 22, we read of the body being washed in water. I take it, that the language is true, that speaks of the body hoing' ^'- washed with jjure icater,'^ and being "baptized in icater^'" and this language be- ing true, they were immersed, beyond doubt. This has received nothing bearing any semblance to a reply. XYIII. The baptism of sufferings, the gentleman has admitted to be an over- whelming. This could not be, if the word haptizo did not mean overwhelm. Thus I close my list of direct argument. If an argument can bo conclusive, mine is, that immersion, and nothing else, is baptism. The worthy gentleman inquires, " Did he show that haptismos is not the proper name of the ordinance ?" If I did not, I very soon can, or else the proper name is never applied to the ordinance in the IJn^cw Testament. Baptismos only occurs four times in the ISTew Testament, and is never applied to the ordinance. It is found in ACTION OF BAPTISM. 545 Mark vii. 4-8, Heb. vi. 2, and ix. 10. This ought to be an end to this sophistry. Bap- tizo is the verb transferred, in the common version, hajptize and baptized. Baptisma is the noun, transferred haptism in every place, or in twenty-two places in the New Testament. Baptizo expresses the action^ the precise action, and nothing else, and haptisma expresses the name of the action. There is no ordinance, nor name of an or- dinance, in either haptizo or haptisma ; for the latter occurs five times where there is no ordinance and the former eighteen times. This is an end of one sophistry, taken probably upon trust from Dr. iN". L. Rice, or rather from JST. L. Eice before he was Doctor. Failing to sustain himself, and becoming perplexed above measure, he resorts to Dr. Eice again, and deals out some of his quo- tations, without knowing whether they are correct or not, to show that when they first commenced immersing for baptism, the Greeks applied katadiw, and noi haptizo., to the ordinance ; but, unfortunately for him, there is nothing about the heginning of immersion for baptism, and not the least evidence that haptizo loas not used, but sim- ply evidence that kataduo was used in some instances. This evidence amounts to noth- ing. Baptizo may have been used fifty times, in reference to the ordinance, for one occurrence of hataduo. I deny that Origen " used haptizo in the 546 DEBATE ON THE sense o^pouringy The Eible gives the fact that four barrels of water was poured upon the wood. But Origen does not call the pouring baptizing, but simply states the fact that the wood was baptized. This was true ; the w^ood was immersed. The pouring was not the baptizing, nor was the baptizing pouring ; but the pouring was so great that the result was that the wood was immersed. The object of the pouring was to wet the wood so as to show that it could not burn without a miracle. There was pouring for this purpose to the amount of four barrels of water. This re- sulted in something besides pouring — im- niersing the wood. Origen did not call the pouring haptizing. Mr. M. had better let go the skirts of Mr. Eice, or they will both sink together. He does better when he trusts to his own resources, and keeps in a good humor. After harping upon the figment, of bap- tism being the name of the ordinance, for two days, and it is fully exploded, Mr. M. tries one more expedient. Baptizo means to consecrate ! What sublime scenes he brings before our minds! To believe him, they consecrated the wood by pouring four barrels of water upon it ! The Assyrian king was consecrated with the dews of heaven ! The Jews consecrated beds ! The Lord was consecrated in Jordan! and again consecrated in sufferings ! What a miserable resort, this ! — put off, too, till I ACTION OP BAPTISM. 547 might not have an opportunity to refute it ! But haptizo has no consecrate in it. It has no cleanse in it, or there could be no bap- tism of sufferings. It has no water in it, or there could be no baptism of fire. It has no fire in it, or there could be no baptism of water. It has no sprinhle in it, for the baptism of sufferings he has admitted to be an overwhelming. There was baptizing, but no sprinkling or pouring. Baptizo has one idea in it, and that is always present, unless used, as it never is in tiie New Tes- tament, in such a latitudinous sense, as in some of the cases mentioned by Carson, and over which the worthy gentleman has spent so much breath, where the original meaning of the word is entirely lost, and where it is used in an appropriated sense, in reference to dyeing, without any refer- ence to the original meaning of the word. There is an appropriate sense in which words lose all their original meaning. The instrument in which the printer sets his type, when composing, being first made of wood, was called " stick," and is called the same still, though made of iron or steel. The Q,2in&\Q- stick retains in its name still the " stick," though made of iron, brass, glass or silver ; but no man whose object is to en- lighten anybody, would go to this latter material to learn what the original name means. But the use of the word baptize shows that it is not used in any such ap- propriated sense, but in its original, prima- 548 DEBATE ON THE ry andliteral meaning, and beingalways ap- plied to the same thing when applied to the ordinance, it must always have the same meaning. Il^othing but immerse comports with its history in the ^ew Testament. They went to certain places to baptize " be- cause there was much water there." " They went down into the water." The}'- " buried in baptism," "baptized in the river," " went up straightway out of the water," or " came wp out of the water." This is an end to all cavil. Here is something satisfactory^ and reliable. AH this harmonizes with im- mersion and nothing else. They immersed in Jordan — in Enon — were " buried with him in immersion" — "were buried with him by immersion," in which their " bodies were washed ;" they were "planted togeth- er in the likeness of his death" — " risen with him," and the}^ have a consciousness of having done what the Lord commaiided, and are at rest, and will remain so, so far as baptism is concerned. They do not have to twist hfty ways to prove that baptism was administered in a house, or out of it. Nobody of any note denies their baptism, or ever will. Shall we all practice this, and have done with involving honest souls in the doubtful, uncertain and unsatisfactory practice that has involved so many sincere souls in the most serious trouble? If you are still in doubt, inquire what you are in doubt about ! Not immersion, certainly; for my friend's Discipline en- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 549 dorses it. Not immersion, assuredly ; for Wesley, Clarke, Luther and Calvin endorse it. Not in doubt about immersion, surely ; for my friend endorses it, lifting his hand to heaven, and calling it baptism, in the name of the Lord, and administering it, which he could not do without ruining his own soul, if he did not believe it to be bap- tism. Most unquestionably you are not in doubt about immersion ; for the wholo Methodist Church endorse it, and admit it to be baptism, while only a part of them believe sprinkling to be baptism at all. You are not in doubt about immersion ; for those immersed are satisfied, while living, and when dying, but many that are sprink- led are not satisfied, either while living or dying. No ; there is not an immersed per- son here, in any doubt about immersion, nor will you be while living, nor when dying. But I wonder not if you arc in doubt about sprinkling or pouring. You have reason to doubt; not, as Mr. M. has said, because you are "ignorant and inexperi- enced," but because he started out with the statement, that the " mode is not definitely revealed" — stating tliat "baptism is not sprinkling, pouring nor immersion, as such," and making this statement good, so far as sprinkling and pouring are concerned, by failing to find a single reference to either in the Bible, or any thing written in the first two centuries — by his reference to 550 DEBATE ON THE the word sprinJde, in the Old Testament, where he knew there was nothing about baptism. I wonder not that you doubt sprinkling for baptism, when you hear Mr. M. quote the words, " pour out my Spirit," to prove that baptism is pour- ing, and then infer that to baptize the ends of the fingers, and lay them on the forehead, is baptism ! ]S"o won- der that you doubt this being baptism, es- pecially when you think of the effort of Mr. M. to justify it! You cannot help feeling unsettled, when you know that he admits and practices immersion ; but then denies that there is any Scripture for it j then contends that there was not water in Jerusalem to immerse ; then imagines all the pools in Jerusalem were under locks, and the keys in the pockets of the priests ; then, the " certain water," where Philip baptized the eunuch, was a wet weather stream, and had no water in it; then John the Baptist could not have immersed the great numbers said to have been baptized by him, and the three thousand could not have been immersed by the twelve Apos- tles on the day of Pentecost. JSTo wonder that you feel unsettled, when you listen to all this vacillating and objecting, and wind- ing and twisting. You can not see manly reason perverted, and thus put to the rack, to bring something out of nothing. You can not see an effort to make out a case of sprinkling, inferred from a baptism in a ACTION OP BAPTISM. 551 house, and no proof there was ever one in a house ! No wonder that the members of his church are not satisfied with his " ex- pounding baptism." Iso wonder that there is nothing settled on the subject, and that every man does what seems good in his own eyes, in his church ! How can there be any stability ? The preacher tells them that " baptism is not sprinkling, pouring nor immersing, as such " — that " the mode is not definitely revealed " — that "baptism is pouring, for the Spirit was poured out " — that it is sprinkling, for the word sprinkle is found connected with the Jewish cere- monies, etc., etc. The true state of the case is, that the gentleman has no doctrine on this subject, and no position, only to op- pose me, to involve the whole matter in doubt and uncertainty. But this can not be done. If there is any thing certain in all our knowledge, it is certain that im- mersion is baptism. He who is immersed is certainly baptized. If an earthly inherit- ance, amounting to five thousand dollars, were depending upon a man being certain- ly baptized, not a man in this house would risk sprinkling or pouring. You would say. They all agree that immersion is bap- tism; ihey do not agree that sprinkling is baptism ; I will take that about which there is no dispute. If j^ou do what the Lord commands, it is obedience to him ; if you do not, it is not obedience ; if you vould cer- tainly obey him, in baptism, be immersed. 552 DEBATE ON THE MR. MERRILL'S CLOSING REPLY. Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : You have now beard all the gentleman has to say in behalf of bis proposition, that immersion is the only baptism taught in the Scriptures, or practiced by the Apostles. With the aid of admissions cheerfully made, he has succeeded in proving that immersion xcill do ! He has only cited one example of apostolic practice — and that was not the practice of an Apostle, but of Philip the evangelist ! Of course, the example of Philip would do as well as any, if it could be made out in favor of my friend, but it does not sustain him. I refer to it here to show the extent of the gentleman's resources, and the amount of his confidence, in apostolic practice ! And he virtually admits that the Scriptures mention baptisms which were not by immersion ; for he refused to exam- ine the legal washings, called " divers bap- tisms," on the ground that they were not the ordinance — not Christian baptism with "something more" — but Jewish ceremo- nies ! He perhaps forgot that the proposi- tion framed by himself, relates to all the baptisms taught in the Scriptures ! He knows very well that many of these Jewish baptisms were by sprinkling ; that not one of them was required by the law to be done by immersion ; and, consequently, he passed them over by trj'ing to divert your atten- tion from them ! He poured contemiDt upon ACTION OP BAPTISM. 553 the baptisms enjoined by the law, and Avax- ed eloquent in declaiming upon the superior light of the gospel ! But, let it be fixed in the mind that John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles, were all Jews ; that the law was in force until the Savior died ; that the Jewish washings by sprinkling were called baptisms ; that all their religious puri- fications were baptisms ; that no intimation is any where given that the manner of us- ing the water was ever changed from the prevailing custom of the Jews ; and that there is nothing in the design or import of Christian baptism that required the mode to be changed, and then the conclusion is ir- resistible that the Apostles baptized as the Jews before them did — by sprinkling. But the worthy gentleman has, according to promise, " reafiirmed" his former positions, which were consecutively met, answered, and refuted. He has dished them out again with all the assurance imaginable, and we must glance at the " recapitulation." 1. His first argur-"ient was shown clearly to be nothing but a sophism — a begging of the question. The one word was the one which he came here to prove univocal ; but his first argument only aims to prove what nobody disputes, that the word is uniformly used ; while it assumes that it is uniformly used in the specific, and not in the generic sense. His statement of my method of set- ting this argument aside was all wrong. He paid no attention to my reply, for the best of reasons. 554 DEBATE ON THE 2. His second is a baseless assertion against the facts in the case. It would prove nothing, if admitted ; but, even in the apos- tolic age, there was a strong inclination to leave the simple, unpretending rites of Christianity, for something more pompous, burdensome and oppressive. This was af- terwards done for the purpose of competing with the imposing ceremonies of the pagan temples. This spirit led to the immersion of the naked body three times, accompanied by many superstitious practices, some of which are abandoned, but many of which are practiced by the Eomish and Greek churches to this day. 3. His third argument is just nothing at all. Neither the Discipline, Wesley, Clarke, Calvin, Luther, nor your humble servant, sanctions the proposition before us. We admit that immersion will do, because it is not forbidden, and because no other mode is £0 strictly enjoined as to be essential to the validity of the ordinance. If the ad- ministrator, the subject, and the motive, are all right, the manner of using the water will not affect the validity of the ordinance. All the great men named sustain me in this. 4. The gentleman's ridiculous assertions about the immersed being " satisfied," are worthy of no better name than clap-trap. He occasionally finds an inexperienced, or uneducated, or disaftected member of our church, and employs his whole resource of ridicule, sarcasm, and boisterous declama- ACTION OF BAPTISM. 555 tion, and, above all, his " safe" argument, until he gets the person confused and fright- ened, and then he " stretches" his imagina- tion to the conclusion that the whole church is in trouble ! His assertions on this point are to be taken at about ninety-eight per cent, discount ! And if a disposition to meddle and dispute with others on the sub- ject is any evidence of dissatisfaction — and that it is, no one can doubt — then immer- sionists are the most dissatisfied people in the world ! 5. If the gentleman had traced the prac- tice of the Greek Church up to the Apostles, he would have made an argument — but it would have condemned us both ! But this he did not do. His argument, therefore, is about as strong as if I should claim to un- derstand Dutch, on the ground that my great grandfather was of G-erman descent ! If any one should seek acquaintance with the language of the Scriptures by sojourn- ing in modern Grreece, all intelligent men would pronounce the effort the essence of folly. 6. In regard to the writers of the first two centuries, the gentleman and myself are in precisely the same predicament. He has been utterly unable to produce the language of any writer of that period who speaks of immersion for baptism. The pretence that the inspired writers do this, is begging the question. Why did he mention the writers of that period, if his appeal was to the Scrip- 556 DEBATE ON THE tures? And why did he excuse himself from proving immersion from the writers of that time on the pitiful pretense that I was demanding the original manuscripts — and then, that I admit immersion, and am as much bound to give authority for it as he is? 7. His failure to give authority for im- mersion for the first two centuries, is fatal to the sweeping declarations which he la- belled his seventh argument. And the fact that the dark ages settled down upon the church in the palmy days of immersionism, is undisputed ; while his repeated assertions about immersionism increasing with the in- crease of light, are too palpably erroneous to need refutation. 8. His argument for immersion on the ground that it can be substituted for bap- tize, is unsupported. The rule, as applied to translations, is not good. The gen tleman refused to try it in case of circumcision. That means "cutting round;" but you can not induce the gentleman to put " cutting round" wherever circumcision occurs. JSfor does immerse give good sense wherever hap- tizo occurs. Mr. CamiDbell himself would not venture to publish a translation with immerse in everyplace for baptize. In one place he refused to give us, "John immersed with the immersion of repentance," etc. ; that would have been too bad. He preferred saying, John administered the immersion of repentance ; making this variation without ACTION OF BAPTISM. 557 authority. Baptizo never means adminis- ter. This is not new matter, but a reply to "vvhat the gentleman introduced. The gen- tleman uses this argument not because of its soundness, so much as because it gives him room to play on the words sprinkle and pour. The reason why we can not trans- late haptizo by sprinkle or pour, is not that it never means an action performed by sprinkling or pouring, but that it is a gen- eric term, and can not be fully expressed by any specific term. The passages the gentle- man quotes with the word sprinkle sup- plied, are ridiculous enough with that ren- dering ; but the trouble with the gentleman is, he misrepresents us in this, after being fully assured that we do not want any such translations ! If I were contending that haptizo means, specifically, to sprinkle, or to 2)our, his argument would be valid ; but you know, and he knows, and we all know that such is not the case. Hence, this argument is nothing but a quibble — a pitiful dodge I 9. The lexicon argument is all against my friend. The lexicons all give more than one meaning to hapto and haptizo^ thus contra- dicting him. Then the classic use, to which they mostly refer, is not the source of ap- peal, though that, too, is against him, as we have seen. JSTor is the question as to the firsts but as to the proper meaning of the words, at the time of the institution of bap- tism. This can only be determined by ap- peal to Bible use. That appeal I have made, and it condemns my friend hopelessly. 558 DEBATE ON THE 10. The fact stated in the tenth argument is not disputed ; but the use and application of it is all denied, and not merely denied, but proven incorrect. ISTo one wishes to change the three words (in the passage quo- ted) for each other. Nor is the dip to be understood in the sense of immerse. An immersion in the case would be impossible. The priest could not immerse his jfinger from the oil in his hand. But the whole argu- ment goes on the false supposition that I am claiming hapto to be a specific word, expres- sive of some one of the three modes ! I claim no such thing — but have established the con- trary by my opponent's most favorite critic ! To claim that hapto or haptizo is the specific word for dip or immerse, as this argument does, is not only to beg the question, but to overlook the fact known and established that the Greeks used katccduo and not haptizo to denote immersion. 11. Any further allusion to King James' translators would be superfluous. They ren- dered haptizo dip once in the Old Testament, where Naaman did an act in the name of the Grod of Israel, and in obedience to the com- mand to wash himself. Bajytizo was used not to express the mode of the washing com- manded, but to give an idea of its religions character. It retains its generic sense. Their rendering of hapto in the New Testament is not against me at all, and has been exam- ined sufficiently. 12. His repetitions about going down into ACTION OF BAPTISM. 55 the water and coming np out of the water, have all been answered. They prove noth- ing but the locality of the baptisms. It is only the sound, and not the meaning, of these phrases, the gentleman depends upon, as before shown. 13. He never told you what Enon was ! But this passage j^roves nothing about the manner of baptizing. The "much water" was wanted, whether he baptized by sprink- ling, or ponring, or immersion. This was not denied. 14. The argument from the burial was a decided failure. He contends for a literal burial — that, with him, was immersion ; but I showed you that if the burial was literal, so was the death ! Did he answer it ? I showed that the burial was an effect — a fig- urative burial, not in nor into the water, but into the death of Christ. Did he reply ? I showed that we must remain buried. Did he " satisfy" any hody that the burial was a momentary thing ? I think not. I showed you that he mistakes the points of the com- parison altogether. Did he attempt to re- ply ? He knew better ! I also showed that he confounds the sacraments, making bap- tism occupy the place and design of the Lord's supper. Did he respond ? Not he! That would have taken him to the legal and moral aspects of the Christian system. He dared not venture. 15. The figurative ex2:>ression, "born of water," was taken from him, his immodest 37 560 DEBATE ON THE use of it exposed, and the language shown to have nothing to do witli the manner of baptizing. Ko one here was "ashamed" of the words of the Bible ; but many felt " asham- ed" of Mr. Franklin's vulgar exposition of them. 16. The argument from "i^lanting" was distinctly answered by itself, and more than answered in the exposure of the gentleman's reasoning on the burial. I could not get him to see the word "crucified" in the same passage, which is just as plain an allusion to the mode of baptism as the "planting," or the "burial." Can anyone give a reason for this ? 17. Heb. X. 22, was shown to contain no allusion to baptism, in any way, and yet the gentleman quotes it, with any amount of gusto, just because the washing of the body is mentioned. It alludes to the legal wash- ing required by the Mosaic law — it is one of the ceremonies the gentleman esteems so lightly ! It might have been one of the " divers baptisms," which was done when the clean person took water and hyssop and " sprinkled upon the unclean ;" but all this is too much like " mystification !" The good man saw it w^ould not do to go into such " mystifications !" 18. The argument from the baptism of sufferings, like all the others, w^as based on the erroneous supposition that I was con- tending that haptizo was a sj^ecific word, meaning to sprinkle or pour, and nothing ACTION OF BAPTISM. 561 else. The word is there iinqnestionably used not in its literal, bnt metaphorical sense, and proves nothing whatever in regard to mode. If it were translated immerse, the passage would be greatly obscured. " Ye shall in- deed be immersed icith the immersion that I am immersed with," Avould be very poor sense, to say the least of it. But, allowing the word to retain its generic sense, carry- ing also the idea of a consecration or sancti- fication, and the passage is not only plain, but beautiful and grand. Thus every argu- ment of the gentleman has been promptly and fairly met and answered. I could not get the gentleman to tell us whether, in point of fact, baptism is the name of the ordinance, although he uses it as such all the time ! He dodged the ques- tion to the last ! I know the word occurs where Christian baptism is not meant, but my question, as I distinctly told him, did not refer to any particular place nor to the meaning of the word, but to the fact — and now the cause of his equivocation is mani- fest in the absurd position he has taken, that baptism is one thing and the ordinance another thing ! And " this is an end to the sophistry!" But one of the smallest things I have to notice, is his charge that I have been hang- ing to the skirts of Dr. Eice! Did he not " walk out boldly" upon the position of Mr. Carson, and then very suddenly abandon his old friend ? And did he not walk in 562 DEBATE ON THE the footsteps of Alexander Campbell all the time? And did he pretend to answer the quotation I read you from Mr. Eice ? I gave credit for what I took from the Doc- tor and the o'entleman can onlv answer it by sneering at the man ! This is fair and honorable debating ! ! In noticing my quotation from Origen, the learned Greek father, the gentleman pre- sumes to tell you that he does not use bap- tizo for pouring ! But it can not be ques- tioned that the water was poured upon the wood, the victim and the altar, and Origen says the action was baptism. Mr. F. thinks the wood, the victim and the altar were all immersed — immersed by pouring! Hard run, is he not ? I^o, sir ; my friend is caught ; he feels it sensibly, and knows there is no escape for him ! The oifering had to be "w^ashed" before the Lord, or consecrated by w^ater, and haptizo was the very term to express the action. In point of fact, the mode was pouring ; but the whole action together, as a religious conse- cration, was a baptism. Thus this old Greek father understood it ; and his testimony is worth a thousand such arguments as my friend has brought. And the gentleman, finding himself completely fast, begins to complain that this idea of "consecration" was kept back till he could have no chance to reply ! This is a mistake. It was ad- vanced in my fifth reply, at the same time that I asked the gentleman to give us one ACTION OF BAPTISM. 563 single word that would be a full equivalent for the Greek hades — but he who never gets "confused," did not hear it! ISTor did he give the equivalent for hades — because he could not ! If he wished to answer it, he might have done it in his last speech, in- stead of repeating some of his assertions which he had before given some fifteen or twenty times. But if he had six days he could not answer it. The truth is, the posi- tion is incontrovertible ! But did you no- tice the " adroitness" of the gentleman in asking if the Assyrian king was " conse- crated" with the dews of heaven? Now he knew, when asking that question, that hap- tizo does not occur in that case ; and he knew that bajoto^ translated wet, does not, in that place, mean dip or immerse ; and he felt conscious that his argument was weakened by his not attempting to notice that exam- ple of the use of hajyto ; so he referred to it in this insinuating way, that it might not be said he refused to allude to it ! Shame ! Yes, sir, the Savior was " consecrated" by his sufferings. That is the very sense in which the baptism of sufferings is to be un- derstood. It can not be denied, that when the Savior died uj)on the cross, there was the most complete consecration this world ever witnessed ! I therefore take the ground that wherever there is a baptism mention- ed, in the Scriptures, there was a religious rite — a consecration. Again, the gentleman speaks of baptizo being used in a " latitudi- 504 DEBATE ON THE nous sense," as quoted by Carson ; but the truth isy I never spent so much as one "breath" over any such example from Car- son. Baptizo occurs in no passage by me quoted from Carson ! Was the gentleman confused ! What say you to such blunder- ing as this ? So far as mode is concerned, hapto and haptizo are one ; but baptizo, and not hapto, is used in the religious sense. Carson shows and proves, and my friend now admits, that hajjto occurs Avhere there is no reference to immersion ; this is demon- strated and settled ; and so far as mode is concerned, my friend has claimed no differ- ence between the words ; for he knows there is no difference : then, after all his boasting, he has yielded the point, and given up every thing essential to the argument! Yes, it is very true, that words lose their first meaning by use ; this is what I have insisted upon as the reason for caring so little about the first or primary meaning of these words, while I was so careful to seek their proprr meaning in use. Use is the sole arbiter of language ; and use, both in the Bible and out of it, has borne unequivocal testimony against my friend; and now he admits it — though, perhaps, inadvertently ! I have no particular desire to recapitu- late. My arguments have been heard, and need no repetition. The ground I occupy is clear, broad and scriptural. The word baptizo is not specific but generic. It does not express mode. It expresses an action, ACTION OF BAPTISM. 565 but not the mode of an action merely, as my friend thinks. It expresses the real character of the action as a religious conse- cration. Every action has its mode. There is no action without a mode ; hence my friend's repudiation of the word mode is nothing but a flimsy quibble. It was one of the most pitiful little dodges that ever so great a man as Mr. Campbell is, was guilty of. Baptism was practiced by the Jews ; their ceremonial purifications, or re- ligious washings, were called baptisms. These were not immersions, but baptisms. Every ordinance and every element, and, I may say, every doctrine of the gospel, was adumbrated in the law. The passover was merged into the Lord's supper; and the legal washings, the " divers baptisms," of the law, were merged into Christian bap- tism. "We, therefore, have " one baptism," and not many. That one baptism is an or- dinance in the church of Christ forever. It is a covenant act, a religious consecration ; all that belongs to it as a religious rite, all that pertains to the ordinance, is contained in the generic term. Baptism. This is plain, clear, unequivocal. There is no confusion in it, nor darkness. Baptism was a Jewish rite. It grew out of the requirements of the law ; but, as a Jewish rite, it was not so solemn, so important, so comprehensive, as it became afterwards. The Savior raised it to the dignity of a sacrament, and made it at once the only external emblem of the 566 DEBATE ON THE office and work of the Holy Spirit, and the sign and seal of our salvation, ^o specific term expressive of more mode, would com- prehend its meaning. To try to translate it by any specific loord, is the bight of folly. From this position I have not swerved for one moment. My arguments were not designed to show that baptizo should be translated sprinkle or pour ; but that the word does not prescribe the precise form of using the water. We gather the mode not from positive law, for there is none ; but from the practice of the Jews and the Apostles, together with its spiritual signification. This is not para- doxical. The use of lapto and haptizo, proves that the mode is not immersion. The bird, the hyssop, the cedar wood and the scarlet, that were dipped in the blood of the bird slain, over running water, were not immersed in the blood. Did Mr. F. answer this ? Nebuchadnezzar was not immersed in dew, but he was wet with it. Did Mr. F. answer this ? Did he try ? And what at- tention did he give to the example of wash- ing (baptizing) "from a dead body?" This the law required to be done by " sprink- ling;" and as it was a religious rife, it was expressed by haptizo. All these, and many more examples, stand against my friend. And did he " satisfy " you that all the Isra- elites were immersed on "dry land?" Did he prove that three thousand were im- mersed on Pentecost? He laughed about ACTION OF BAPTISM. 567 the pools being under lock and key ; but did he tell where they were baptized? No; nor he could not. Learned men know that if they were immersed at all, it must have been in Bethesda ; but is it probable that, under all the circumstances, they could get the use of that pool? Did he prove this case practicable ? Not he ! And the three plain cases of baptism in the house — did he get any one of them out of the building ? Not one ! Did he find the river in the " desert" — starting south of Jerusalem, and running over or through the range of moun- tains ? Not yet ! Did he show that im- mersion is practicable wherever human be- ings live ? No ; nor no man living can do that ! Did he show that immersion is ne- cessary to complete the signification of bap- tism ? He made no such attempt. What, then, has he done? He has pulled the one and only string he has left — that it is " safe " to be immersed ! This special pleading is the beginning and ending of his arguments ! But it is always safe to do right. It is safe to be baptized in the house as Paul was. Did he produce the law requiring the Savior to be immersed? Not he. That would have taken him back amongst the types, where there is too much "sprinkling!" Then what has he done? Nothing but cry out, "it is safe!" Now I have done. I have only to remark that pouring and sprinkling are not really different modes. The Spirit was poured out — 568 DEBATE ON THE ACTION OP BAPIISM. shed forth, and it "fell;" all alluding to rain. Eain descending may be called sprinkling or pouring; but it gives the most beautifal and correct idea of the manner of baptism that we can find any where. In whatever form water is made to signify the work of the Spirit, it may be used in bap- tizing ; for baptism is the standing symbol of the Spirit at work for our salvation. The work of the Spirit is the foundation of bap- tism. The whole office of the Spirit is sym- bolized by baptism. All the JcAvish wash- ings and sprinklings once typified this, but the types are merged into this holy sacra- ment. But baptism is not a burial, nor is an emblem of the burial of Christ ; it relates not to the work of Christ, but to the Spirit. Baptism, without the Spirit, is nothing but an empty show. May we all learn this les- son, and live accordingly ! [end of second PROPOSITION.] :■■■ %////j^.irfr /fj-'''i; ■i^'f^A l^^^^^• i^^fci^i-^iVV