Skip to main content

Full text of "Debate on baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit [microform] : in which the place of baptism in the gospel economy, its design, and the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion are considered"

See other formats

Cbe University o 








/ v 

,ff 7 


L "" VBY 

,/B, IVIOODY (Baptist), Nashville, Tenn, 


J, A, HARDING (Disciple), Winchester, Ky, 




L-f ' f I .-"/ 

f f ,yts ....-"" .,--s,_, .. //',. 











J, B, WOODY (Baptist), Nashville, Tenn, 


J, A, HARDING (Disciple), Winchester, Ky. 






The following pages contain a fair and impartial report of the 
*' Nashville Debate," which was conducted by the undersigned in 
the Central Baptist Church, Nashville, Tenn., on the following prop- 
ositions, viz : 

1. Eemission of sins with like blessings of salvation is received 
before baptism. 

2. Baptism to the penitent believer is for (in order to) the par- 
don of his past sins. 

3. The Scriptures teach that man is so depraved in mind and 
:heart that he is unable without a direct enabling power of the 
Holy Spirit to obey the Gospel of the Sou of God. 

The debate began May 27, 1889, and was continued for sixteen 
nights. Elders Geo. A. Lofton and David Lipscomb presided as 




J. B. Moody's First Speech. 


Remission of sins, with like blessings of salvation, is received before baptism. 

-Mr. President, G-entlemen-moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

The favorable circumstances of this occasion forcibly remind me 
of my great debt of gratitude for that grace by which I have been 
disposed, and that providence through which I have been enabled 
'to meet yon on this occasion, to begin my seventh discussion of 
this subject. I have had the pleasure of discussing it with such 
noted representatives of the opposition as Mr. Briney, Mr. Lips- 
comb, Dr. Brents, and now, for the fourth time, with my present 
distinguished opponent. I am not weary of the subject, nor with 
the discussion of it. Indeed, I rejoice at every remembrance and 
every prospect of opportunity to discuss a question of such vital 

I present you, a diagram showing the issue involved in this dis- 
cussion. The arrangement represents my opponent's views, the 
incorrectness and full explanation of which will appear as I pro- 
ceed with my argument. 


Hearing, Believing, Conviction, Love, Repentance, Confession. 


Salvation, Remission, Justification, Sanetification, Regeneration, Reconcili- 
ation, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Cleansed, Purified, Purged, Washed, Adopted, 
Accepted, Sealed, Grafted, Quickened, New Creation, from Death to Life, from 
Darkness to Light, Circumcised, Mercy, Grace, Peace, Joy, Disciples, Children, 

The order is significant only before baptism. The others are supposed to be 
in or beyond the water. Mourning, Prayer, Contrition, Agony, Thirst, Labor 
.and Heavy Laden we know not where to place. 

If it were a matter of mere order, the issue would not deserve 
the loss of our time nor the tax on your patience. If my opponent 
and the people he represents obtain remission of sins, with like 


blessings of salvation, either in the water or after baptism, instead 
of debating I would be ready to congratulate most cordially, and 
with the warmest Christian affection and fellowship, both him and 
them. Or if he thought that we and the rest of the Christian' 
world endorsing our views received these blessings before bap- 
tism, that he would be ready to extend the same "Christian frater- 
nity. It is not a question of mere order^ chronological or theolog- 
ical, but it is believed honestly by both sides that the order of 
these things by the other side makes their existence impossible. 
So that the order is not only important but vital. He denies that 
these things exist, or can exist, before baptism, and hence all un- 
immersed persons since the day of Christ are lost. On the other 
hand, I deny the validity of any baptism administered by Catholic,. 
Protestant, or Baptist, where the subject did not possess these as- 
prerequisites to baptism. My friend's order makes repentance 
impossible, and without repentance there can be no faith of the- 
heart ; and confession with the mouth where there is no preced- 
ing faith of the heart unto righteousness is unscriptural and unac- 
ceptable to God; and all these being wanting the baptism is no- 
baptism, and we can but deny the existance of the other blessings 
in such cases. The question for the audience to decide is, will I 
or he make good, by Scripture arguments, the position we have- 
honestly and consistently assumed"? So much for Order. Now 
a word about Eelation. 

If you inquire what relation remission of sins with like blessings, 
of salvation sustains to baptism, I answer, no relation at all. 
These things being before baptism are independent of it, and com- 
plete without it, just as much so now as before the institution of 
baptism, unless my opponent can prove that baptism was insti- 
tuted to procure these things, a thing which I promise he will 
never do. If you ask me what relation the substance sustains to> 
the shadow, I answer, no relation at all. The substance is before 
the shadow, and independent of the shadow, just as much a sub- 
stance without a shadow as with one ; as much a substance in the 
night as in the day, under a cloud as under a burning sky. But if 
you ask me what relation the shadow sustains to the substance r 
that is another question, requiring another answer. The shadow 
sustains a relation to the substance, for it can't exist without it, 
and exists only to reflect it. The substance can and does exist 
without the shadow, but the shadow can't exist without the sub- 
stance. If you ask again what relation the Lord's death sustains. 


to the Lord's Supper, I answer, none at all. The Lord's death \ 
would have been as complete and efficacious without the supper 
as with it. This, however, is not denying that the supper sustains 
a relation to the Lord's death, for it does. There could he no 
Lord's Supper, as we have it, if there had been no Lord's death. 
So while the supper sustains a relation to the death, the death was 
not related to the supper. In the same way, while salvation and 
its like blessings sustain no relation to baptism, yet baptism sus- 
tains a relation to these. As the substance is necessary to the-, 
shadow, so these are necessary to baptism. Baptism sustains the 
same relation to them that the Lord's Supper sustains to the 
Lord's death, or the shadow to the substance. Baptism is a fig- 
ure, a likeness, a shadow, a symbol, an emblem, a type, a form, 
and as such it sustains these relations to the true. It can't be 
both shadow and substance, both likeness and original, both type 
and antitype, both emblem and the thing emblematized, both 
symbol and the thing symbolized, ft can't be both a real resur- 
rection from the dead and a typical one. It can't be both the real 
death and .resurrection of Christ and the likeness of it. If it 
emblematizes a death to sin and a resurrection to a newness of 
life, it is only an emblem, and can't be the thing itself; if it saves 
us in a figure, and cannot save us in reality ; if it really washes 
away sin, then it does it in no other sense, and if it does this sym- 
bolically, it does it not really. 

And now a word about order and relation. When I say that 
these things are before baptism, always and necessarily, and when 
I further say that they sustain no relation at all to baptism, then 
I hope I will be spared the charge of believing that they sustain 
the highest relation, namely, that of cause and effect; and when 
I acknowledge that baptism sustains a relation to them, I don't 
believe, and never did, that it is the relation of effect to cause. 
These things are before it, yet they are not the causes of it. There 
is a cause, but it is to be sought elsewhere than in the like bless- 
ings of salvation. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and 
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The order is a chrono- 
logical and theological necessity. There must be a birth of the 
flesh before there can be a birth of the Spirit. Here is invariable 
order, and some sort of relation, yet not the relation of cause and 
effect. A man is not born of the Spirit because he is born of the 
flesh, for if so the effect would always follow, yet born of the 
flesh necessarily precedes. Conviction, repentance, faith, confes- 


sion, necessarily precede baptism, yet we are not baptized because 
of conviction, repentance, faith, or confession. So while remission 
of sins, with like blessings of salvation, necessarily precedes bap- 
tism, yet these are not the causes of it, and hence we are not bap- 
tized because of any of these things. All of these, and more, may 
contribute to the occasion, to the requirement, yet they do not 
constitute the cause. The cause is to be found alone in the sov- 
ereign authority and explicit command of our Lord, while grace, 
effectually working in us all these qualities and qualifications, fur- 
nishes the occasion by bringing us into a state of experimental 
knowledge and of loving obedience. Obedience is the spontan- 
eous fruit of the good tree. "If ye love me, ye will keep my 
words." Here is cause and effect. Love out of a pure heart, a 
"heart that God has purified by faith, or a heart sprinkled from an 
evil conscience is the producing cause, and this answers by having 
the body washed in pure water. When Christ is received into the 
'heart by faith, and is formed in us the hope of glory, it must be in 
the fullness of his character; he must be believed upon as the 
Lord Jesus Christ; as Prophet, Priest, and King, and thus received, 
he takes the reins of government, and we, becoming willing cap- 
tives, answer, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Christ 
formed within is a mighty reality, working in us to will and to do, 
and the spontaneous expression is to put him on in baptism. Here 
is cause and effect the good tree bringing forth good fruit. Those 
who love are bora of God, and those who love will keep his com- 
mandments. Hence the cause of obedience is found in regenera- 
tion rather than in remission, with like blessings of salvation. 
The regenerated have life, but they need light, and they all would 
walk as children of light if the impartation of light was as unerr- 
ing as the impartation of life. What God does in us and for us is 
unmixed with error, while in all we do we are liable to err, and 
hence may err in baptism, and this my opponent will not deny. 

I am not here to underrate baptism, or to deny its importance 
or essentiality. A bird's wings are essential, and so are a man's 
eyes, hands, and feet; that is, they are essential to that for which 
they were appointed. But I deny that any of these is essential 
to life. They may be essential to the highest usefulness and hap- 
piness, but I know they are not essential to life. So of baptism. 
It may be, and I believe is, essential to very important ends: but 
I know it is not essential to life and salvation, for millions were 
saved without it before it was appointed, and millions have been. 


"-saved without it since. Yet as I pity the bird without wings, and 
the man without eyes, hands, or feet ; so do I pity the man who 
-says he knows and loves the Savior, and yet will not keep his 
-commandments. But it is not with these I now have to do, but 
"with those who, taking the other extreme, say "no baptism, no 
-salvation." The infinite evil of this error lies in the fact that it 
- turns the eyes of the sinner from the Savior's offering to the Sa- 
-vior's ordinance; from sacrifice to sacrament. Teach a man that 
^remission is in baptism and he will look to that, and not to the 
-.cross. He will believe in the water, and not in the blood. The 
mistake is fatal, or I would not be so earnest in opposing it. It 

may be in the power of water to preserve life or destroy it, but it 
-cannot produce it. It may cleanse the body, but not the soul. 

Water and fire are good if used within the limits of their design, 
but beyond this they are fearfully destructive. So the law is good 
"if a man use it lawfully, otherwise it contains only wrath. Paul 
-circumcised Timothy, and then, with his bloody knife before him, 

wrote to the Galatiaus, "If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit 
.you nothing." Paul, who was more unsparing in his denunciation 

of works, was yet "in labor more abundant than they all." He 
'Commended circumcision and good works within the limits of their 
-design, but when, like water and fire, they got beyond, he gave 

place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truths of the 
; gospel might continue with us. So of baptism. It not only may, 

but must be urged for its intended purposes ;. but when it is said 
;ye must be baptized or ye cannot be saved, we are ready to have 
"no small dissension and disputation with them. Baptism, like cir- 
cumcision, " is nothing but keeping the commandment of God," a 
-significant command, to be sure, but like circumcision, it makes 

the death of Christ of no effect if, as a work, it is made essential 
'to salvation. It just as effectually makes salvation of law, and 
" if a law had been given (or could have been given) that would 

"have given life, verily, salvation would have been of law," and 
Christ need not have died. It is the principle of obedience that 
".is involved, not the form of it. Law is necessary in this present 
-evil world, yet there are times and places sanctified of God that 
:are too holy for such a principle. Tell me that a brother has this 

"law principle in his family I would disdain to lodge > under his 

Toof? Do you have in your family the obedience of children or of 
.--servants? Are your children Isaacs, or are they Ishmaels ? Are 
;your children to come to the inheritance by complying with cer- 


tain conditions ? Do they render their obedience for their bread f 
Such a mother would be malevolent, and such a father a fiend. 
..The children must be obedient, and the father must give them 
bread, but the family is too sacred for obedience in order to bread. 
Such an obedience would not be that of a son, and such a provi- 
sion would not be that of a father. I have no social fellowship- 
for such principles, and my Christian disfellowship for such is. 
Pauline in constancy, in degree, and in sincerity. When a man 
puts himself under law he falls away from grace, and hence from, 
salvation. If any man defile the temple. of God, him will God de- 
stroy. What hope is there, then, for him who would defile the- 
family of God by changing its gracious principles of adoption and. 
inheritance to those of law ? Make salvation of law and works,, 
and you may then write this superscription : " Cursed is every one 
that contiuueth not in all things written in the book of the law to- 
do them." If a man would be justified by law he must go to the 
law. .. There are but two covenants one of works and one of grace,, 
but hone of works and grace. ; f 

A greater subject never engaged the minds of men or angels, 
and, from our standpoint, may we not add, the adorable Trinity f 
Indeed, the manifold wisdom of God, that in the eternal councils, 
devised the way of ' ' remission of sins, with like blessings of sal- 
vation," is pronounced the wisdom of God and the power of God.. 
Hence, the subject discussed in that eternal council, before the- 
foundation of the world, was, " Beinission of sins with like bless- 
ings of salvation." When the secret of the everlasting covenant, 
was faintly disclosed to the guilty pair, trembling under the awful 
consciousness of forfeited life, the burden of that promise was,. 
"Remission of sins, with like blessings of salvation." When Abel,, 
the first sou, born of filthy, fallen flesh, brought his bleeding victim, 
to the altar, the declaration of his soul was, " Eemission of sins, 
with like blessings of salvation." So the first, being dead, yet. 
speaketh, saying that through faith in the blood there is "Eemis- 
sion of sins, with like blessings of salvation." Types, symbols,, 
prophecies, promises, parables and plain teaching pointed the- 
guilty to "Remission of sins, with like blessings of salvation."' 
When God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in 
times past to the fathers by the prophets, their message was, "Re- 
mission of sins, with like blessings of salvation.'-' When in later- 
times he spoke unto us by his Son, his gospel was, "Remission of" 
sins, with like blessings of salvation." When the name "Jesus" was. 


given, the meaning was, "Bemission of sins, with like blessings of" 
salvation." When he appointed the twelve, and then the seventy,, 
and finally the invincible and deathless ecclesia, and started them 
from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth, and to the end of the- 
age, their mission and commission was, "Bemission of sins, with 
like blessiags of salvation." Tinder that commission I am before 
you this evening, and the burden of my message is " Bemission of 
sins, with like blessings of salvation." The Lord has made bare- 
Ms arm in the eyes of the nations, and all the ends of the earth 
shall see the salvation of God, which includes "Bemission of sins, 
with like blessings of salvation." The eternal lamentations of the- 
lost will be, that they did not heed the message of those whose- 
beautiful feet made haste over difficult mountains, carrying good*, 
tidings of peace, bringing good tidings of good things, proclaim- 
ing salvation, with remission of sins, and like blessings. The- 
eternal rhapsodies of the redeemed will be, "Unto him. that loved-: 
us and washed us from our sins in his own blood." 

I have before my eyes this large number who have come to hear,., 
but I have before my mind's eye a larger number who 1 trust will;', 
come to read; to read where I have not spoken, and to read when* 
I shall speak no more. I address myself to you, and I trust to 
them; and if numbers add importance, may I not add especially 
should I address them? I desire you to hear, and them to read,., 
to the best advantage ; and in discharging this difficult duty you 
must 'lose something of the advantage of impromptu utterance, ... 
that they may have some of the advantage of a clear statement., 
Hence I have departed from my custom by preparing a part of my - 
affirmative argument with unusual care. When it comes my turn 
to reply, then I must go where my opponent goes, and where he- 
dies, there I must bury him. 

I desire to lay before you a general and historical statement of 
the question, and then a particular statement of the issue to be 
discussed, and then I shall proceed with my affirmative argument.. 
I want you to know how this looks from a Baptist standpoint. I 
have selected an article from Cathcart's Encyclopedia, which states . 
our position most clearly. It is as follows: 

" The first great error among Christians was that water baptism- 
in some way removed the sins of penitents. This heresy was- 
common in the third century. About the same time the Lord's- 
Supper was regarded as possessing soul-healing efficacy for him? 
who partook of it, and a magical power to protect the dwelling or- 


:& ship at sea, if a portion of the bread was in the one or the other. 
'These follies led Christians to magnify the minister enormously 
who could impart the soul cleansing immersion and consecrate the 
heart-healing and house and ship-protecting sacramental supper. 
These heresies, with their priestly reverence, fostered sacerdotal 
ambition, and led to the creation of gradations of rank among the 
clergy, until, in process of time, the Universal Church had little to 
.show but a pyramid of priests, with an inferior ministry at its 
base, and the pope as its head, and two sacred ceremonies, the 
-one giving imaginary salvation through baptismal water, and the 
other the supposed body and blood of the Lord through real bread 
and wine. And as evils grow at a rapid rate, these perversions of 
baptism and the Lord's Supper generated the whole brood of 
Rornish ceremonies and superstitions." 

Schaff-Herzog, in Encyclopedia, article " Baptism," says : " In- 
.fant baptism came in quite naturally as the consequence of the 
belief in the necessity of baptism." This they established by nu- 
merous quotations, beginning with Justin. 

Neander, Vol. I., p. 313, says: "But when now on the one hand 

the doctrine of the corruption and guilt cleaving to human nature 

an consequence of the first transgression was reduced to a more 

precise and systematic form, and on the other, from the want of 

duly distinguishing between what was outward and what was in- 
ward in baptism the error became more firmly established that 
without external baptism no one could be delivered from their in- 

-herent guilt could be saved from the everlasting punishment that 
threatened him, or raised to eternal life, and then the notion of 
a magical influence, a charm connected with the sacraments, con- 
tinually gained ground. The theory was finally evolved of the un- 

- conditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the 
third century this theory was generally admitted in the North 

African Church." 

I have carefully examined the extant writings from the apostles 
to Justin Martyr, and while many of them descant freely on re- 
pentance, faith, forgiveness and salvation, etc., yet not one that I 
-can find enunciated the doctrine of baptismal remission. This 
confirms all the candid statements of modern writers, as well as 
'those of ecclesiastical historians. Dr. Mosheim, who was bound 
by his creed to the doctrine, and who usually mentions it as one 
~ivho endorsed it, goes minutely into a narration of the early cor- 
ruptions of doctrine, but does not mention remission as connected 


with baptism until he comes to the third century. He says of the--- 
supper in the second century, page 49, Maclaine's Translation, that . 
"this rite was looked upon as essential to salvation, and was prob- 
ably so early as this administered to infants." On page 70, in the- 
third century, he says again of the supper: "It was considered by 
all as of the highest importance, and as essential to salvation, for- 
which reason it was even thought proper to administer it to in- 
fants." It was in this connection on the same page, for the first 
time, he says of baptism : " The remission of sins was thought to - 
be its immediate and happy fruit." 

I can say without the least misgiving that baptismal remission 
was conceived in the second and brought forth in the third cen- 
tury. It was the prolific mother of a brood of superstitions, more 
fatal to the souls of men than the bite of the fiery serpents was 
to fleshy Israel. Indeed, God in his mercy provided a remedy for 
the bitten Israelites; but those embracing this monster error, and . 
who constituted the great apostasy, were given over " to believe 
a lie, that they all might be damned." It immediately brought 
infant baptism, pre-birth baptism, deferred baptism, or baptism 
just before death, clinic baptism, post-mortem baptism, pouring 
for baptism, sprinkling for baptism, priestly administration of bap- 
tism, lay administration of baptism, female administration of bap- 
tism, se-administration of baptism, one or two days in the year for - 
baptism, one hour of the day (midnight) for baptism, nude bap- 
tism, wild shrieks of execration of evil spirits with priestly exor- 
cism, parades with lighted torches, white robes, crowns, laying on 
of hands, eating of salt or milk with honey, sign of the cross,., 
anointing all over with consecrated oil, priestly absolution, spittle 
of the priest in the ears and nose, sponsors, eucharistical salvation,, 
intolerance, proscription, coercion, confiscation, imprisonment, 
banishment and death, by all the diabolical inventions that devil- 
ish ingenuity could devise. Judging this doctrine by its fruit, it is . 
the chiefest of the mysteries of iniquity, the abomination that 
maketh desolate. The history of baptismal remission is identical 
with the history of the man of sin, the son of perdition, who drove 
the woman into the wilderness, and sought to wear out the saints 
of the Most High. Baptismal remission having degenerated into - 
rhantismal remission, Mr. Campbell sought to restore the ancient, 
order of things by restoring immersion for sprinkling. But he 
sadly missed the ancient order of this corrupt doctrine when he- 
changed both the order and nature of repentance and faith, and_ 


also the necessity of communion to salvation, which has stronger 
claims to Bible sanction than the other. Already this new move, 
.as was natural to expect, has so magnified baptism as the condi- 
tion of salvation, that little or no emphasis is laid on the nominal 
prerequisites. History will surely repeat itself. Let baptismal 

: remission be extensively and sincerely believed, and other super- 
stitions will follow in their time; and with these religious intoler- 

ance and demoralization will inevitably follow. We would state 
here that the signs are very hopeful. Protestant scholars on both 

continents are being educated out of their baptismal remission 
creeds. The dogma may be propagated in Romish ignorance, but 
it can't stand the light of modern exegesis any more than it can 

stand the light of Scripture teaching on this subject. It is hard, 
indeed, for one to persuade himself that the Bible anywhere 
teaches such a doctrine ; but how much harder it is for one, after 

embracing the doctrine, to dispose of the numerous passages that 
positively refute it. In the accomplishment of this impossible 
task there has been but little agreement between the numerous 

sects that have embraced this error. May the glorious light of 
"the gospel of Christ shine upon this aged, general, and fatal dark- 
ness ! 

Let me now define the terms of my proposition. By baptism I 
mean the immersion in water of a candidate possessing the quali- 
:fications required by the Scriptures. Should a candidate be im- 
iner^ed in water who did not possess the Scriptural prerequisites, 
his immersion would not be baptism; so that should a sinner sub- 
sequent to such immersion receive the remission of sins, it would 
still be remission of sins before baptism. By remission of sins is 
meant what is intended by the very strange expression to be heard 
"in my opponent's proposition seven days hence, viz., pardon of past 
sins to a penitent believer. Salvation is used in that comprehen- 
sive sense so general in the' Scriptures, including the soul with its 
deliverance from guilt and condemnation. By like blessings of 
salvation is meant those blessings presented in the gospel by the 
use of terms generally recognized as equivalents of remission, or 
those that include it ; such as new birth, death to life, adoption, 
justification, etc. I am going to afiirni most sincerely and openly 
that salvation, with remission of sins and like blessings, .is received 
before baptism. That a sinner becomes a child of God before bap-^ 
tism, and that immersion without these blessings is not Scriptural 
sbaptism. My opponent, with a zeal worthy of the truth, will deny, 



and will try his utmost to overthrow these righteous affirmations. 
Then, seven days hence he has engaged himself to prove that all 
these blessings are in or beyond the water. Baptism has its bless- 
ings. Church membership, Church privileges, with greater useful- 
ness, happiness, and rewards, belong to baptism, but these are not 
"like blessings of salvation." A man may be forgiven, justified, 
saved, and have all his works burned up. I do not deny that such 
a man suffers loss, but I do deny that he loses his soul. He him- 
self is saved, yet so as by fire. He has the like blessings of salva- 
tion, yet not the blessings belonging to baptism and obedience. 

My friend opposes me with the view that without baptism there - 
is no salvation, not even to a penitent believer. He is here to 
preach what Mr. Campbell calls " the gospel in water." I am here 
to preach the gospel of the grace of the Son of God. In this dis- 
cussion it devolves upon me to present my arguments not simply 
with reference to the proposition to be proved, but also with ref- 
erence to the issue to be discussed. This is necessitated by the 
presence of an opponent who, opposing these views, will seek to 
overthrow my arguments, because they will be in the way when 
he comes to take the lead. I shall therefore take no notice of the 
opposing views of other peoples in other lands or times. This 
great and vital issue between the two peoples -here represented 
by my opponent and myself is expected to receive a thorough 
discussion. I will therefore aim to prove that salvation is not 
only by grace without works, and that justification is by faith with- 
out deeds of law, but that they are without baptism as a work, or 
a law, or part of a law. The other plans of salvation and laws of 
pardon I care nothing at present about. The issue must be kept 
so constantly before us that all can understand. Not simply so 
they should, but so they shall; not so they may, but so they must; 
not so they can, but so they can but hear it, and see it, and taste 
it, and feel it, and know it. 

We are not here to discuss abstract terms, but the meaning and 
relation of terms. It is the way of truth that is evil spoken of. 
We agree in the statement that a man must be forgiven, purified, 
purged, washed, cleansed; but we differ widely as to the way to 
these, as to the where and when and why. I affirm that we receive^ 
these when we believe in Christ. My opponent says not till we 
are baptized. I do not believe that one ever thus received them, 
or ever will, or ever can. We agree that a man must be justified, 
sanctified, adopted, saved; but when? where? how? My oppo- 


nent thinks that the way to these is baptism, and that that is the 
time and place. I think it is a fatal mistake, and I am here, by~ 
Crod's help, to show the better way. We agree that men must be- 
come disciples, children, heirs, saints; but where? how? My op- 
ponent thinks baptism is the way. This is fatal, if true, to the= 
millions who have died in hope without baptism; and if not true,., 
it is fatal to the millions who have died in the hope that it is true.. 
We agree that a man must be regenerated, recreated, translated, 
from darkness to light, and from death to life, but how? My op- 
ponent will answer that baptism is in order to ; but watch and 
pray while I try to show the way of life and salvation. We agree 
that a man must receive the saving mercy and quickening grace of 
God; but when? how? My opponent will affirm that baptism is 
in order to ; but I will take pleasure in trying to show the better- 

Who has repented unto life, and believed to the saving of his. 
soul? My opponent will tell you only the baptized. Who has 
love, joy, peace, hope, righteousness, the Holy Spirit? I am here- 
to deny that they are confined to the baptized. Who are the pur- 
chased, the redeemed, the predestinated? My opponent thinks 
only the baptized. He will tell you that " baptism now saves us."" 
I do not believe a word of it. He will tell you that baptism is in 
order to remission, in order to salvation, with all of its like bless- 
ings. This is the way that seems right to him, though the way 
thereof is the way to death. I trust the Lord has sent me to show 
the way from darkness to light, and from the power of error unto 
truth. If he claims that he does not mean baptism only, I grant 
him his prerequisites to baptism the same that I do for myself. 
But this will not change the issue. He may ofler other terms, but 
in no case will they vary the sense. Would he substitute obed- 
ience? By that he means baptism. Will he say obedience to 
Christ ? By that he means baptism. Do they say the hearing of 
faith? That means baptism. Do they say keep his command- 
ments? That means baptism. Do they say form of doctrine? 
That means baptism. Do they say regeneration? That means 
baptism. Do they say led by the Holy Spirit? That means bap- 
tism. Do they say the law of the Spirit of life ? That means bap- 
tism. Faith, repentance, reformation, turning, are nothing with- 
out baptism. Love, joy, peace, hope, indwelling Spirit, constitute 
a catalogue of delusions without baptism. Uone but the baptized 
have been forgiven, purged, purified, washed, cleansed ; none but- 


the baptized are justified, sanctified, saved ; none but the baptized 
-are disciples, saints, children, heirs ; none but the baptized have 
been quickened into life, or translated into Light ; none but the 
baptized are redeemed, elected, saved. Baptism is all in all $ 
without baptism you are nothing but sinners, servants of Satan, 
-sons of perdition, deceiving and being deceived ! 

The Scripture that does not contain baptism, or water,- or some- 
thing that can be construed or misconstrued to mean baptism, is 
not only useless but generally antagonistic to my opponent's doc- 
trine. If there is no water, or indications of water, in the passage, 
it is counted of little or no importance. Matthew, Mark and Luke 
have each a verse which, being misunderstood by my friend, is 
-claimed to support his doctrine. Mark has another attributed to 
him, but which he never wrote, and by twisting all the common 
;sense out of that my friend thinks it supports his proposition. 
-John has one first misinterpreted by anti-Christ, and in that mis- 
interpretation my friend claims his proposition. Acts has two 
with one base interpolation, and these are confidently claimed in 
support of the opposing proposition. Romans has one, Corinth- 
ians one, Galatians one, Ephesians one, Titus one and Peter one. 
'These contain the word baptism, or something my opponent thinks 
smells or smacks of water, and these are claimed in support of 
his proposition. Then there is one in James that speaks favorably 
of works, and this the gentleman thinks means baptism, though 
-one is singular and the other plural. Now, do you wonder what 
.he can do or will do with all the other passages in Matthew, Mark, 
.Luke and John, Acts and Romans, 1st Corinthians and Galatians, 
Ephesians, Titus and 1st Peter; and with increasing wonder do 
.you ask what use have they for all those epistles that do not con- 
tain water or baptism so they can use them, 2d Corinthians, Phil- 
ippians, 1st and 2d Thessalouians, 1st and 2d Timothy, Philemon, 
.Hebrews, 2d Peter, 1st, 2d and 3d John, Jude and Revelations. 
Why all these epistles as a whole, and all these ninety-nine hun- 
dredths of those quoted from, if my friend's position is the simple 
.gospel? See howthe Scripture he claims will prove to him a chas- 
tisement of whips, while the thousand others will prove to him a 
chastisement of scorpions. 

Now, instead of a few distorted views of a few isolated pass- 
ages, let us, with eyes to see, and ears to hear, and hearts to re- 
ceive, walk for twelve nights around the walls of salvation. Let 
ois mark well the chief corner-stone, together with the whole 



foimdation, even the "living stones" that are built thereon; and 
when we shall see how compactly these are builded together and 
how forever secure the cap-stone holds the walls, let there then 
go up from renewed hearts the exultant shout of " grace, grace- 
unto it." 

Salvation is thus comprehensively revealed for our comprehen- 
sive understanding. With this clear and full statement of the sit- 
uation and the issue involved, I proceed with all diligence to prove? 
my proposition. 

I come now to make ray first affirmative argument. It is based, 
on experience and personal consciousness, or the positive knowl- 
edge of truth. Our Savior said (John vii. 37): "If any man will 
do his will he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.' r 
John viii. 32: "And je shall know the truth, and the truth shall 
make you free." (1 Tim. iv. 3.; Heb. x. 26; 1 John ii. 21; iii. 19.) 

There are different degrees of knowledge, and different words in: 
the Greek to correspond. But when the great Teacher, whose dis- 
ciples we are, promised us a knowledge of the truth, he used the 
strongest word, and thus promised the highest degree and utmost 
extent of knowledge. We may know some things imperfectly^ 
through our natural senses, sight, feeling, taste, etc. , but these 
singly are not reliable. We may know the fruit, and hence the 
tree, by the combined perceptions of sight, touch and taste, but- 
either one alone might deceive. Judging certain qualities of fruit- 
by sight, and others by touch, and the rest by taste, completes the 
knowledge. There is no longer any doubt. As we may come to 
perfect knowledge in this, Christ used here the strongest word for 
knowledge. This word is often used to express the knowledge of" 
experience, which, under the guidance of God's word, is infallible. 
We may reason about the truth and err ; we may believe a propo- 
sition that is false; we may hope for that which will not be, yet a, 
knowledge of truth is attainable. "If any one wills to do his will 
he shall know of the doctrine." . "Ye shall know the truth, and the 
truth shall make you free." The Bible is a revelation. Jesus 
Christ is a perfect teacher, the Holy Spirit a guide into truth, so- 
that whatever is revealed may be known in the way and time ap- 
pointed. The truth may be known, whether addressed to our rea- 
son, our faith, our hope, to our emotions, or to our personal con- 
sciousness, so that reason may rest, faith and hope be assured, 
emotion satisfied, and consciousness certain. 
When the woman touched the hem of his garment she ~knew 


she was heated, for. she felt it in her body; this is the word here 
translated felt, and the same word is used in the same connection 
in speaking of Christ. He perceived that virtue had gone out of 
him. It was a matter of experience, or personal consciousness, and 
of certain knowledge. Zachariah wanted strong assurance, and 
asked, " Whereby shall I know this?" Experimental knowledge 
was given him, for God, who has power over the unruly tongue, by 
this proved to him that he had power over the womb. When 
Christ said, "I know my sheep, and am known of mine," or "the 
Lord kuoweth them that are his," and " the world knows us not 
because it knew him not," or when it was said, "To know G-od and 
Christ is life eternal," or " to know that the Spirit dwells in us/' 
or " the woman knowing not a man;" all this is more than personal 
acquaintance, it is experimental knowledge, growing out of fel- 
lowship. To know God and to know about God are different 
things. To know that the Holy Spirit dwells in you, and to know 
about the Holy Spirit, are different things. Christ will one day 
say, "I never knew you/' yet he knew of them. The Father re- 
vealed Jesus Christ to Peter, and no man kuoweth the Father save 
the Son, and he to whom the Sou will reveal him. This is more 
than an opinion or belief about him ; it is knowledge in the sense 
of personal consciousness, growing out of spiritual- fellowship. 
The two disciples may have had their opinion about their strange 
companion on the way to Ernrnaus, but he was known to them in 
the breaking of bread. We believe, and are sure, is a way of 
showing that this word is knowledge in advance of faith. "Add- 
to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge," is another proof. 
Connected with faith there may be facts, truths, evidence, and 
confiding trust; yet this word expresses au advance on it all. The 
Jews were ready to dispute about the law, but Christ told them 
they knew not the law. Paul did not understand the law till God 
worked in him mightily with his quickening Spirit. Not till then 
did he have an experimental knowledge of the law of which he 
boasted, but which at last slew him, by making sin revive and ap- 
pear to him as exceeding sinful. Not until then did. he know in 
himself. This is the way we know spiritual truth. When truth 
comes to our personal consciousness it produces an effect, is ex- 
perimental. We then know it, and no man's want of experience 
can disturb our assurance. To know this system of doctrine 
called truth we must begin with the first principles, or we cannot 
go on to perfection. This doctrine of Christ has to do with the 


heart, the inner man. The stony heart must become a heart of 
flesh that can feel. Hence the Holy Spirit begins the work on the 
inside by convicting of sin, because they believe not on Christ. 
This is to make them conscious of sin, which is experimental 
knowledge. It works godly sorrow for sin, and this repentance 
which the man must know experimentally, or he has no knowledge 
of them at all. When sin appears in and works death in him by 
that which is good, he knows it. When he is pierced to the heart, he 
knows it, and is likely to cry out as at pentecost. When the se- 
crets of the heart are made manifest and he falls down on his face, 
he knoivs it. When he is sick enough to need the Great Physician, 
he knoivs it. When agonizing to enter through the strait gate, 
he knows it. When he seeks repentance with tears, he knows it. 
When his heart is broken, his spirit contrite, and he trembles at 
the Word, he knows it. When he hungers and thirsts after right- 
eousness, he knows it. When, like the prodigal sou, he comes to 
himself, and realizes his ruined condition, he knows it. When re- 
pentance brings a change of thought and purpose, he knows it. 
When he is seeking God with all his heart and soul, he knows it. 
When he believes in Christ to the purifying of his heart and saving 
of his soul, he knoivs it. Being justified by faith and having peace 
with God, he knows it. When God testifies by giving him the wit- 
ness in himself, he knows it. When God sets his seal upon him 
and gives the earnest of his Spirit in his heart, he kno^vs it. When 
he tastes and sees that, the Lord is good, he knows it. When he 
loves God and his Christ and all his people, he knows it. When he 
has passed from death unto life, he knows it. When he has passed 
from darkness to light, he knows it. When old things have passed 
away and all things have become new, he knows it. When he is 
happy from the consciousness of sins forgiven, he knows it. Con- 
fidence, assurance, hope, faith, love, peace, are matters of experi- 
mental knowledge, or they are not known at all. The testimony 
of all saints of all ages is, that the penitent prayer, offered in faith, 
heals the sin- sick soul as well as the body. Those who have come 
thus far, learning by experience the first principles of the doctrine 
of Christ, can go on to perfection. Those who did not thus begin 
and thus advance know nothing at all as they ought to know. 
The one has perfect knowledge as far as he has gone, the other is 
in darkness, even until now. The ritualist has no experimental 
knowledge of these things. The service may be beautiful to the 
natural man, but if it begins not in conviction of sin, and leads 


not through tearful penitence and heart-seeking after God and 
heart-confidence in Christ, if it leads not thus and there, it leads 
to hell. The man who goes down into the water to get remission 
of sins knows nothing says he knows nothing, and he don't be- 
lieve anybody else knows. He mocks at the knowledge he has 
missed, and only believes that a change has taken place in the 
mind of God, and confesses there is none in his own personal con- 
sciousness. He is doubtless right about himself, and as doubtless 
wrong about God. The comers to the Levitical priesthood could 
never with those sacrifices purge the conscience from sin, for it 
was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 
Hence the priest stood daily, offering the same sacrifices which 
could never take away sins. The sins were in the consciousness 
of the worshippers, not in the mind of God, and it was from the 
conscience they were to be taken away. Let sin revive and appear 
exceeding sinful to one's personal consciousness, and the taking 
away will be as palpable to his personal consciousness as was the 
sin. Hence those who are sanctified have the witness of the Holy 
Ghost, and under the new covenant have the law written in their 
mind and heart with the full assurance that their sins will be re- 
membered against them no more. 

Having, therefore, confidence respecting the entrance of the 
holies by his blood, let us draw near in the full assurance of faith, 
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies 
washed in pure water, as our profession of this perfect cleansing 
by the blood of Christ. Thus the good conscience toward God an- 
swers in this figure of salvation. As David described the happi- 
ness of the man to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without 
works, saying, "Happy is the man whose iniquities are forgiven 
and to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Let a man be con- 
victed in his conscience, and you may take him to daily offerings 
of priests, or to my friend, to be washed in water, and there is no 
taking away of sin. But where there is no conviction of con- 
science, you may delude him with any thing, even with this, that as 
there is no change in the conscience, you must believe there is a 
change in the mind of God. The belief of this, by intelligent peo- 
ple, verifies the saying that in the credulity of men nothing is im- 
possible. The testimony of the multitude of witnesses, that no 
man can number, of all nations and tongues, is, that under a con- 
sciousness of guilt they sorrowfully, tremblingly, penitently, and 
prayerfully sought God's mercy, and when the heart trustingly 


looked to Jesus and committed the care of the soul to him, the 
burden rolled away, and rest came to the laboring, heavy laden 
soul, and the peace that passes all understanding possessed the 
mind and heart, and they knew that they were justified by faith 
and had peace with G-od through our Lord Jesus Christ. Every 
Christian man in this world, or that ever was in it, knows that he 
did not come to that peace which passeth all understanding he 
knows with infallible certainty that he did not receive this peace 
but by faith iu Jesus Christ. This is the infallible knowledge of 
personal consciousness, enlightened by God's Word, which Word, 
from Genesis to Revelation, supports this holy doctrine with an 
amazing almightiness and an astonishing frequency. When Christ 
said the woman loved much because she had been forgiven much, 
and when he said to her, " Go in peace, thy faith hath saved thee," 
he not only uttered the gospel of all ages, but uttered it so as to 
show the one result of that gospel when it had been made effica- 
cious. One so infused with love, and so suffused with peace, 
knows it. And not only so, but they know, with a knowledge al- 
most divine, that they come to this love and peace not by baptism, 
but by faith in Jesus Christ ; and never did one deny who thus ob- 
tained. As our Churches in these loose days are crowded with the 
unconverted who failed to obtain experimental knowledge at 
faith, hence failed to obtain it by baptism, how natural that they, 
having no experience, should go to their own company, and how 
natural that they should deny and deride an experience of grace, 
because they know nothing about it. Hence the substitute of a 
cold intellectual belief of a delusion, a supposed record that God 
never made, and which man never found, to the effect that in the 
great transaction of the forgiveness, or taking away of sins, the 
change is not iu the man's consciousness, but in the mind of God. 
Let the following witnesses testify to this position, since God 
brought them out of this forbidding darkness. 

H. T. Anderson says: "You will not agree on the evidence of 
pardon, for the disciples love the law of pardon, and when they 
have obeyed the law of pardon they have the promise of pardon 
as the evidence of it. Not so with the Baptist. He wants the 
Spirit bearing witness with his spirit that he is a child of God, and 
tie must feel this ; he must know that he is condemned and feel 
his guilt. When this feeling of guilt is removed he Tcnoivs it. 
This feeling of guilt is removed by the blood of Christ applied to 
the conscience, the blood of Christ applied to his conscience 


from dead works, so that they may serve the living God. When 
this is done a man knows it, and the Spirit that God gives him is 
within him, enabling him to feel like a child, and call God Father. 
'This is the Scriptural evidence of pardon. No man can ever enjoy 
ireedom unless he knows what it is to be a servant. Men are the 
-servants of sin. They must know themselves to be the servants 
of sin, and feel its weight before they can enjoy the freedom that 
Christ gives. The evidence of pardon is within a man, not with- 
out him. There is a vast difference between a written promise 
..and the thing promised. The Holy Spirit and the remission of sins 
are promised, and if promised, they are to be received; and if re- 
ceived, they are to be enjoyed. Now, must the believer content 
himself with the fact that the promise exists? or must he enjoy, 
be conscious of the thing promised, as possessed by himself? 
"There is a reality in the consciousness of sin, and when the con- 
science is cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ there is a real- 
ity in being thus cleansed. He that is cleansed from sin knows it. 
He is made free and feels free. This internal state, this conscious- 
ness of freedom from sin, is the pith/the excellence of the gospel. 
Why tell me that I am free if I am not to know it ? Now, this 
knowledge of freedom is to be ascribed not to one having obeyed 
^a law, but to one having received through faith the thing prom- 
ised. Faith appropriates the promise, and it is the only appropri- 
ating principle. Faith and love are immutable principles, under- 
lying all the moral government of God. The first and great com- 
"mandnient is, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all 
'thy strength.' The second is like unto it, ' Thou shalt love thy 
^neighbor as thyself.' This, with faith, remains immutable in all 
dispensations. Faith, working through love, has been, and still is, 
.and always will be, the only justifying principle. By faith in Christ 
we appropriate to ourselves all that he has done for us. By faith 
in him we are made righteous before God, and not by our works. 
On this ground the truly intelligent Christian has always stood, 
.and will always stand. Hence there is no glorying before God, for 
we are but the receivers of his grace. *I must be permitted to say 
that I have been with the disciples for nearly forty years, and I 
know them. I have been thrown into very happy acquaintance 
-with some Presbyterians. I understand them. I now have to say, 
.after studying the Scriptures for forty years, and after having 
anade a second translation of the New Testament, that the dispen- 


sation of the Gospel is a dispensation of grace, and as such it- 
must be received into the heart by faith and love, not by work or 
works. The Gospel received into the heart by faith becomes an 
inward principle, that subdues the whole man and makes him a, 
servant of God and Jesus Christ. I cannot accept of baptism as a 
law of pardon, nor of any law of pardon. Law of pardon is not. 
a Scriptural expression. I believe that the evidence of pardon is. 
within us, a conscience cleansed from sin by the blood of Jesus. 
There is the promise of pardon, but I wish to know that I have- 
received the thing promised. But enough." 
Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's First Reply. 

Mr. President, Ladies and G-entlemen: 

With pleasure I appear before you to discuss this very important- 
question. The work "before us is of no little moment. I pray God 
that we may do it well. As I look out over this large room, so- 
densely packed with intelligent, eager-looking people, I realize 
that this is perhaps the grandest opportunity that I have ever had, 
to do good in the Master's name in the advancement of his cause.. 
Paul once, thinking of the precious promises of the gospel, and 
of the guidance which God gives to his loving servants, cried out- 
in the exultation of his loyal heart, "Thanks be unto God, wtio- 
always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and rnaketh manifest, 
through us the savor of his knowledge in every place." (2 Cor... 
ii. 14, E. V.). And I, too, joyfully realize that the Father ever di- 
rects the steps of those who lovingly and trustingly serve him, 
that he may use them as vessels "unto honor." ' I go into this- 
debate, therefore, trusting in him, and praying that the truth may 
prevail. And now for the issue. 

He whom I have the honor of calling my opponent in this dis- 
cussion holds that the sinner is justified, forgiven, cleansed from 
all sin the instant he believes in his heart, and before his faith has- 
expressed itself in any action whatever. While I hold that when 
a man believes lovingly, trustingly, penitently and is baptizedi 
upon a confession of this faith, he is forgiven. The one doctrine 
suspends justification for the sinner upon "faith only," the othe^r 
suspends it upon faith perfected by the divine requirements. We 
both teach that we are justified by faith, but we differ as to the- 
when. He holds it is when faith is conceived in the heart, while I 
claim it is when the faith is brought forth in the life, according to 
the divine direction. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be- 
saved' J (Mark xvi. 16), says Jesus, and I believe it. I understand 
baptism to be an external sign of the internal faith faith embod- 
ied, faith expressed, faith "made perfect." (See James ii. 22.) 
And unless it is this it is nothing. To be of any avail it must flow 
out of a heart that has been surrendered in faith to God. Hence- 


our doctrine is as far as the east is from the west from the Romish 

idea. Indeed, we occupy the golden mean of divine truth between 

the Romanist idea that baptism in itself washes away sin, and that 

occupied by Mr. Moody, which plainly contradicts the Word of 

(rod. If the one underestimates the value of a changed heart, the 

other equally fails to appreciate the necessity of an obedient life. 

We stand for the changed heart and the obedient life. " Te see, 

"then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." 

(James ii. 24.) " Faith wrought with his works, and by works was 

faith made perfect." (James ii. 22.) According to the Romanist 

the commission should read, " He that is baptized shall be saved." 

.According to our position it should read as it does, viz., "He that 

believeth and is baptized shall be saved." But according to my 

opponent it should read, "He that believeth and is saved should 

be baptized." (Laughter.] 

As Mr. Moody seems to be under the impression that we have 
the Romish idea (though nothing is further from the truth), and as 
many of you have imbibed the same notion from him and other 
like teachers, I will quote an extract from the great Methodist, 
^Richard Watson. His "Institutes" are studied for four years in. 
Hethodist theological schools. He says : 

"The Romanist, agreeably to their superstitious opinion as to 
the efficacy of sacraments, consider baptism administered by a 
priest having a good intention as of itself applying the merits of 
Christ to the person baptized. According to them, baptism is ab- 
solutely necessary to salvation, and they therefore admit its valid- 
ity when administered to a dying child by any person present 
should there be no priest at hand. From this view of its efficacy 
.arises their distinction between sins committed before and after 
baptism. The hereditary corruption of our nature, and all actual 
ins committed before baptism, are said to be entirely removed by 
it, so that if the most abandoned person were to receive it for the 
first time in the article of death all his sins would be washed away. 
.But all sins committed after baptism, and the infusion of that grace 
which is conveyed by the sacrament, must be expiated by penance. 
In this notion of regeneration, or the washing away of original 
ins by baptism, the Roman Church followed Augustine." (Theo- 
logical Institutes, Part IV., Chapter III.) 

You see the Romanists differ from us concerning baptism in 
these respects : (1) They underestimate the importance of faith, 
.and (2) they attribute a mystical virtue to the water. 


When my opponent said that we have "so magnified baptism as 
condition of salvation that little or no emphasis is laid on the 
nominal prerequisites," he missed the mark as far as it is possible 
for a man to do. Never was a statement more exactly the reverse 
of the truth. My Mend ought to be careful; he is talking before 
the wrong audience. I recently preached for nearly seven weeks 
:in this community, generally twice each day, and these people 
know what I teach. Within less than two years more than three 
hundred people have been added to our congregation here in South 
Nashville, and many of them are in this house to-night. This 
community knows well that with all the power that is in us we 
teach that without a complete surrender of the heart to Christ in 
faith and love baptism is worthless. We teach that baptism must 
be an external sign of an internal change, an expression of faith 
and repentance; and then, and then only, is it in order to the for- 
.giveness of sins. 

As my opponent is in the habit of making this charge against 
us (though I have corrected him many times,, and he ougnt to 
'know better), and as he is especially outspoken in charging Mr. 
.Alexander Campbell with ignoring both faith and repentance, and 
with making baptism the all in all, the only act of conversion, I 
will quote from that distinguished gentleman on these subjects. 
Of faith he says : 

"Faith in Christ is the effect of belief. Belief is the cause, and 
trust, confidence, or faith in Christ the effect." 

Again : "To believe what a person says, and to trust in him, are 
not always identical." 

Again: "While, then, faith is the simple belief of testimony, or 
-of the truth, and never can be more nor less than that, as a prin- 
ciple of action it has respect to a person or thing interesting to us, 
and is confidence or trust in that person or thing. Now, the belief 
of what Christ says of himself terminates in trust or confidence in 
him, and as the Christian religion is a personal thing, both as re- 
spects subject and object, that faith in Christ which is essential to 
salvation is not the belief .of any doctrine, testimony or truth 
- .abstractly, but belief in Christ, trust or confidence in him as a 
person, not a thing." 

Again : "Any belief, then, that does not terminate in our per- 
sonal confidence in Jesus as the Christ, and to induce trustful sub- 
mission to him, is not faith unfeigned, but a dead faith, and cannot 
save the soul." (The Christian System, pp. 52, 53.) 


These quotations I have made from Campbell's article on "Faitbi 
in Christ." The article was written in the prime of his manhood, 
after he had been for many years a speaker and writer. They 
show conclusively that the charge so often made that he believed 
in a mere "head faith," a "mere intellectual assent to the truth,"" 
is false and utterly without foundation. 

Bepeutance he defines thus: 

"Bepentance is sorrow for sins committed, but it is more^ 
it is a resolution to forsake them, but it is more : It is actual 
' ceasing to do evil, and learning to do well. 7 This is 'repentance- 
unto life,' or what is truly called reformation." (The Christian- 
System, p. 53.) 

In a later work on baptism he speaks thus : 

"'In the Christian institution faith and repentance are essentially 
and inseparably connected. As to the nature of that connection- 
there has, indeed, been some debate amongst the learned theorists,, 
but as to the fact itself,- there is no controversy amongst intelligent. 
Christians of any denomination." (Campbell on Baptism, p. 76.) 

In the same work, on page 84, he speaks on repentance thus : 

"The universality of the proclamation of repentance renders it 
universally indispensable to forgiveness. Faith without it is dead 
and unavailing. Works of any sort without it are unacceptable to- 
God, and of no salutary influence upon him that performs them. 
Without repentance there is, therefore, no salvation to any human 
being, for certainly, if the universality of a precept demonstrates - 
the universality of its obligations, if the universality of grace 
proves that all men may participate of it, so the universality 'of the 
precept repent argues the necessity of repentance on the part of 
every individual in order to his personal salvation j and hence the 
conclusion is as logically as awfully true, no repentance, no salva- 

Now, my friends, you can see the force there is in Mr. Moody's 
statement that we put "little or no emphasis" on the "nominal 
prerequisites " to baptism. All of us teach that without faith and 
repentance baptism is worthless ; that faith includes trust in Jesus- 
as well as the intellectual assent to the fact that God raised him 
from the dead; that repentance is a change of mind, will, purpose 
concerning sin and the Savior, a change that grows out of godly 
sorrow for sin, and leads to a change of life; and that the faith 
that saves and repentance are inseparably connected. We all be- 
lieve there is a degree of faith that precedes repentance, but that 


saving faith, includes repentance. Let these things be borne in 
inind, and let no man of this audience ever intimate again that we 
<jare nothing for the "prerequisites," but that with us the water is 
the all in all. Not one of my brethren that lives, or that ever did 
live, believes, or ever did believe, that baptism is of any avail 
without the prerequisites of faith and repentance. 

But the gentleman was singularly unfortunate in his speech.; 
.Never have I heard any other man, on so important an occasion, 
make so many mistakes. As he read Ms speech we had reason to 
believe that he would be fairly accurate, at least in his statements. 
But not so ; blunder after blunder he makes, and that, too, of the 
.most palpable kind. For instance, he says that none of the "fa- 
thers" till Justin Martyr that is, none of the "apostolic fathers" 
teach baptismal remission. Well, I will show you about that, 
;and I will read from Baptist authors, too. Arrnitage, in his " His- 
tory of the Baptists," a recent work (1887) published by the 
.great Dr. Thomas Armitage, of New York, on page 157 says: 

"These are called the Apostolic Fathers, namely: Barnabas, 
Clement of Eome, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias, of 
whom the last is doubtful." 

He calls them a "group of old Baptists." He supposes that 
Barnabas wrote about A. D. 119, and he quotes him thus: 

"Happy are they, who, trusting in the cross, go down into the 
water full of sins and pollutions, but ccrne up again bringing forth 
fruit, having in the Spirit hope in Jesus." (See History of Bap- 
tists, p. 160.) 

The Baptist historian Orchard, in his "History of Foreign Bap- 
tists," Vol. I., p. 12, quotes Barnabas more fully. He says : 

" We now turn to the writings next in importance to the sacred 
oracles in order to ascertain the views encouraged by the early 
fathers on baptism. Barnabas, Paul's companion (Acts xiii. 2), 
.and like him, sound in the faith. This worthy minister says on 
baptism : ' Consider how he hath joined both the cross and the. 
water together j for this he saith, Blessed are they who, putting 
their trust in the cross, descend into the water.' . . . Again, 
* We go down into the water full of sin and pollutions, but come 
up again bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts the fear and 
hope which is in Jesus.' " 

Orchard then quotes from Hernias, whom he says Paul salutes 
in the Church of Rome (Rom. xvi. 14), and whose writings he puts 
..about A. D. 95, thus.: 


"Before a man receives the name of the Son of God he is or- 
dained to death, but when he receives that seal he is freed from 
death and delivered unto life ; now, that seal is water, into which 
men descend under an obligation to death, but ascend out of it- 
being appointed unto life." (Orchard's Church History, Vol. I. r . 
p. 13.) 

Of these two "fathers," Barnabas and Hennas, a few remarks by 
way. of introducing them to you may be necessary, as doubtless- 
many of you have not had occasion to study the writings of those 
ancient Christians, who come next after the apostles. 

First, as to Barnabas, the author of the ancient document known 
as the Epistle of Barnabas. All Christian antiquity, without the 
exception of a single man, understood him to be the Barnabas of" 
the New Testament, Paul's companion and co-laborer. Origen, 
generally considered the most learned of the ancient fathers, and 
who wrote about one hundred and ten years after John died, refers 
to the epistle as Holy Scripture. The following statements are 
made concerning it in the introductory note prefixed to the epistle 
in " The Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. I., p. 134. 

" The ancient writers who refer to this epistle unanimously at- 
tribute it to Barnabas, the Levite of Cyprus, who held such an 
honorable place in the ancient Church. Clement of Alexandria 
does so again and again. Origen describes it as ' a catholic epis- 
tle,' and seems to rank it among the sacred Scriptures. Other 
statements have been quoted from the fathers to show that they 
held this to be an authentic production of the apostolic Barnabas,, 
and certainly no other name is ever hinted at in Christian antiquity 
as that of the writer. But notwithstanding this the internal evi- 
dence is now generally regarded as conclusive against this opin- 
ion." . . . "It was clearly written after the destruction of" 
Jerusalem, since reference is made to that event, but how long 
after is a matter of much dispute. The general opinion is that its 
. date is not later than the middle of the second century, and that 
it cannot be placed earlier than some twenty or thirty years be- 
fore." ..." Hilgenfeld, who has devoted much attention to- 
this epistle, holds that 'it was written at the close of the first 
century by a Gentile Christian of the school of Alexandria, with 
a view of winning back, or guarding from a Judaic form of Chris- 
tianity, those Christians belonging to the same class as himself.'" 

Qrchard dates it A. D. 45, Arrnitage A. D. 119. Alvah Hovey 
(Baptist) says : " While the author of the epistle is unknown, com- 


pete.nt scholars are agreed in believing that it was written in the 
first quarter of the second century, perhaps about A. D. 12 D.' 7 " 
(American Com , Vol. I., p. 13.) 

So, my friends, in this man Barnabas you have the testimony 
of a Christian who lived while the apostles lived, and who wrote 
about the time that John died. His words, " Blessed are they who,, 
putting their trust in the cross, descend into the water," . . . 
and, "We go down into the water full of sin and pollutions, but 
come up again bringing forth fruit," should have very great weight. 
They certainly show that my opponent is wrong in saying that 
none of the fathers till Justin teach baptism for remission. 

Hermas, the other father quoted, it is generally agreed, wrote 
about the middle of the second century, about forty or fifty years 
after John died by those who put it the latest. Irenaeus, who wrote 
about A. D. 167, Clemeus Alexandrimus and Origen, who wrote 
about A. D. 210, all speak of it as inspired. In the introduction 
to the epistle, "Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. II., p. 7, the learned, 
translator says : 

" Whatever opinion critics may have in regard to the author- 
ship, there can be but one opinion as to the date. The 'Pastor' of 
Hermas must have been written at an early period. The fact that 
it was recognized by Irenaeus as Scripture shows that it must have 
been in circulation long before his time. The most probable date 
assigned to its composition is the reign of Hadrian, or of Antoninus 

So much for the apostolic fathers. And as Mr. Moody says that 
"the signs are very hopeful," that "Protestant scholars on both 
continents are being educated out of their baptismal remission 
creeds," we will now turn our attention to the testimony of mod- 
ern scholarship on the question, and see how far he is right (or - 
rather how far he is wrong) in this statement. I hold up before 
you "An American Commentary on the New Testament," edited, 
by Alvah Hovey, President of Newton Theological Institute. Dr. 
Hovey is perhaps the most learned Baptist in America ; he is cer- 
tainly one of the most learned. He was selected to edit this Com- 
mentary, Baptist scholars do all the work on it, and it is being is- 
sued by the American Baptist Publication Society of Philadel- 
phia. Commentaries have been issued on Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
John, Acts, and Revelation by such Baptist lights as J. A. Broadus r . 
W. N. Clarke, Geo. E. Bliss, Alvah Hovey, H. B. Hackett and J. A. 
Smith. The other volumes of the series have not yet appeared^ 


As I will have occasion to refer to this Commentary many times 
(seeing that it represents the wisdom and scholarship of the Bap- 
tist Church of to-day), I hope you will not, my friends, forget the 
names of the distinguished commentators, especially Broadus, 
-Clarke, Bliss, Hovey and Hackett. As I read from this great work 
you will see to whom modern scholarship is coming on this ques- 
tion. I read Mark i. 4: " John did baptize in the wilderness, and 
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The 
meaning of the expression "for the remission of sins" (eis aphesin 
hamartion] is the question to be settled during the first twelve 
nights of this discussion. If it means "in order to obtain the for- 
.giveness of sins," Mr. Moody is wrong and my brethren are right. 
If it means " because your sins have been forgiven," he is right 
and we are wrong. Now to the authorities. Mr. Clarke, com- 
menting on the verse before us, says of John's baptism : 

"It was for the remission of sins that is, the obtaining of for- 
giveness for a sinful life, was the end to which the submission to 
baptism was one of the means. Not that pardon was promised or 
expected upon submission to baptism, in itself regarded ; but this 
act, in which repentance was confessed and reformation of life was 
promised, was evidently a suitable act for one who wished to for- 
sake his sins and be forgiven. If a man honestly sought full re- 
mission, it was only right that he should perform this act; so Peter 
said on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 38) ; and so it could fitly be 
-called a baptism for, or with reference to, the remission of sins." 

So testifies this modern Baptist scholar in this great modern 
.Baptist Commentary. I accept heartily what he says ; it teaches 
rny doctrine exactly. Is he coining to the light ? Will Mr. Moody 
tell us ? 

Now hear Mr. Bliss. Commenting on Luke iii. 3, "And he came 
into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repent- 
.ance for the remission of sins," he says : 

"Preaching the baptism of repentance for the (unto} remission 
of sins. This might be paraphrased : ' Proclaiming the duty of all 
people to repent, and on the ground of their repentance to be 
baptized, and all with a view to the forgiveness of their sins.' " 

A little further on he says : "For remission of sins that is, unto ; 
in order to, with a view to obtaining remission, or ' release from/ 
< forgiveness.' The baptism of repentance thus grammatically 
looked forward to the forgiveness, and was not based upon it. If 
the pledge given in baptism was truly kept, forgiveness would fol- 


low at the coming of the Messiah, when this change of mind would 
have prepared the subject of it for faith in Christ." 

So says the second of these great Baptist commentators, I be- 
lieve what he here says. He teaches the doctrine of my brethren. 
Mr. Moody does not believe his statements; he will not say that 
he. does. 

Now hear the great Alvah Hovey. In a foot note (Com. on 
Luke, p. 62), speaking about Acts ii. 38, he says Peter enjoins 
repentance and baptism upon the name of Jesus Christ " in order 
to the forgiveness of sins." And in his Commentray on John (Ap- 
pendix, p. 420), referring to the same Scripture, he says : " Here 
repentance and baptism are represented as leading to the forgive- 
ness of sins." On the same page he says, " Baptism involves the 
idea of prayer for the forgiveness of sins." On the next page, 
"Baptism, therefore, saves, because it stands for and means gen- 
uine relicince, for the first time, up<3n the mercy of God in Christ, 
and, indeed, an earnest request for pardon ; it expresses the act 
of the soul in turning to God, committing itself to God, and seek- 
ing his grace." 

What could express better our doctrine, or more emphatically 
contravene the teaching of the rank and file of the Baptists of this 
country? These great and profoundly learned men, rising above 
the dust and smoke of sectarian partisanship, see the truth, and 
speak it out in bold, clear tones. 

Now hear a fourth one, the learned Horatio B. Hackett. His 
ommentary on Acts is confessedly the finest commentary on that 
book ever published by a Baptist. At the time of his death, which 
occurred a few years ago, no Baptist in America ranked higher as 
& scholar. On Acts ii. 38 he says : 

u Eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins (Matt, 
xxvi. 28 5 Luke iii. 3), we connect naturally with both the preced- 
ing verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should 
induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire ex- 
hortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other." 

In his comment on Acts xxii. 16, "Arise, and be baptized, and 
"wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," he says : 

"And wash (bathe) away thy sins. This clause states a result 
of the baptism in language derived from the nature of the ordi- 
nance. It answers to eis aphesin hamartion in ii. 38 ; that is, sub- 
mit to the rite in order to be forgiven. In both passages baptism 
is represented as having this importance, or efficacy, because it is 


a sign of the repentance and faith which are the condition of sal- 

How differently the great Hackett talks from Mr. Moody. Haek- 
ett teaches that baptism is a sign of repentance and faith, and that 
it is in order to remission ; while Moody teaches that it is a sign of 
forgiveness of sins, and that it is because of remission. Hackett's 
words express what I believe just as strongly as I want it ex- 
pressed; he says, " Submit to the rite in order to be forgiven." 

Mark you, however, none of these writers attribute any efficacy 
to baptism in itself considered; it is in order to remission only 
when it is a sign or external expression of repentance and faith. 
If obedience in baptism does not come from a heart that has been 
surrendered in trusting faith to Jesus Christ it is worthless. So 
they teach, and so do we. Just here I want to call attention to a 
statement that may sound a little strange to our Baptist brethren, 
it is so contrary to what they have been taught, but it is neverthe- 
less true, and I am perfectly able to prove it. It is this: My 
brethren believe in faith, loving, trusting faith, as a prerequisite 
to baptism far more strongly than does J. B. Moody. They believe 
in repentance, meaning thereby a godly sorrow for sin, resulting 
in a profound heartfelt determination to forsakXsin and to follow 
Jesus, as a prerequisite to baptism, far more strongly than does 
J. B. Moody. He would baptize people that we would not for a 
moment think to be fit for the solemn ordinance people who, 
according to our view of the matter, have neither believed nor re- 
pented so as to be prepared for baptism. Do you want the proof? 
Well, here it is : Mr. Moody says the chief rulers that I am going 
to read to you about were saved because they believed on (eis) 
Christ. Listen : " Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many 
believed on him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not con- 
fess 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, 43.) In former debates with me he has boldly avowed that 
these were saved men, and he won't deny it now ; he believes it 
yet. When sinners are saved, cleansed in the blood of Jesus, he 
argues they are fit for baptism, and ought to be baptized. He will 
cheerfully baptize any man that he believes to be saved. So he 
wonld readily baptize such men as those rulers. We would not. 
Their faith had not grown into trust ; their sorrow had not caused 
them to forsake sin and cling to Jesus,- they were not yet ready to 
take up the cross, deny themselves, and follow Christ. Their faith 


and repentance were not good enough for us, though plenty good 
for J. B. Moody. Surely he is the last man on earth that ought to 
charge, as he does, that among us "little or no emphasis is laid on 
the nominal prerequisites." And he ought never to intimate that 
we don't believe in a change of heart, either, for those* rulers had 
never experienced the change of heart that we demand. The fact 
is, and you will see it clearly as we progress in this debate, that 
he depends more on feeling than he does on faith more on his. 
own self-consciousness than he does, on the Word of God, 

But to return. I could not but smile when Mr. Moody was say- 
ing that modern scholars are coming to his views when I thought 
of this new Baptist Commentary that is just coming from, the 
press. Every one of the commentators at work on it that has 
come to baptism in connection with the expression "for the remis- 
sion of sins " has translated and interpreted just as we do, and 
directly in opposition to Mr. Moody's views. The four that have 
had occasion to interpret such passages are Clarke, Bliss, Hovey 
and Hackett. 


The following learned Baptists, professors and teachers, trans- 
late eis aphesin hamartion " in order to " the forgivenes of sins, 
viz : Professor Harkness, of Brown University, Khode Island ; Pro- 
fessor Foster, of Colby University, Maine ; Professor Edward North, 
Hamilton College; Professor Ripley, Commentary on Acts if. 38; 
J. W. Wilinarth, Baptist minister, Philadelphia; Gilbert Boyce, Bap- 
tist minister, England ; while Professor J. E. Boise, of the South- 
ern Baptist Theological Institute, and President N. B. Goforth, of 
Carson College, translate it "into," instead of "in order to" the 
remission of sins, the "into" being the stronger term, signifying 
not only that the baptism is ''in order to," but also that it attains 
to the remission. 

The great reformers, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wes- 
ley, taught that baptism precedes remission, according to the gospel 
rule. Hear Mr. Wesley ; he says : ' ' Baptism administered to real 
penitents is both a means and seal of pardon. Nor did God ordi- 
narily in the Primitive Church bestow this on any unless through 
this means." (Wesley's Notes, Acts xxii. 16.) 

The greatest New Testament commentator that ever lived, all 
-things considered, is the great German, H. A. W. Meyer/ This is 
now generally conceded. Broadus, in the preface to his Commen- 
tary on Matthew, says : "Among modern commentators I am, of 


course, mostly indebted to Meyer." Clarke, in the preface to bis 
Commentary on Mark, says : " My largest indebtedness is of course 
to Meyer," And Bliss, in tbe preface to bis Commentary on Luke, 
says : "Meyer and Godet are tbe two great ligbts on tbis gospel." 
Professor *Whitsitt, in a sermon on infant baptism, which was pub- 
lished, speaks of him in an equally complimentary way. How 
wonderful tbe ability, the application and the learning of this 
mighty German, who has thus struggled up among men till be 
towers head and shoulders ab.ove them all, the mightiest New Tes- 
tament exegete that has lived since John laid himself down to 
sleep ! 

Meyer, on Acts ii. 38, says: "Eis denotes tbe object of the bap- 
tism, which is the remission of the guilt contracted in the state 
before repentance." Then, commenting on tbe expression, "And 
you shall 'receive" etc., he says: "After reconciliation, sanctifica- 
tion; both are experienced in baptism." On verse 40, "Save your- 
selves from tbis untoward generation," he says: "In separating 
yourselves from them by the repentance and baptism." On Acts 
xxii. 16, be says: "Let thyself be baptized, and thereby wash 
away thy sins. Here, too, baptism is that by means of which the 
forgiveness of sins committed in the pre-christian life takes place." 
So much for Meyer. 

This work that I. now hold in my hand is the latest and the great- 
est New Testament lexicon. It is C. L. W. Grimm's great German 
Lexicon, translated and improved by Professor Joseph Henry 
Thayer, of Harvard University. Under the article Baptizo be 
translates eis aphesin hamartion (Acts ii. 38), " To obtain tbe for- 
giveness of sins." 

This book (holding up another volume) is " Winer's New Testa- 
ment Grammar," edited by Thayer. It is the greatest of the New 
Testament Grammars. In bis article on the "Prepositions with 
the Accusative," he says that eis (Acts ii. 38) signifies "the pur- 
pose and end in view," and he translates it " in order to." 

Godet, the greatest of the French commentators, on Luke iii. 3, 
says : "Baptism, like every divinely instituted ceremony, contained, 
also a grace for him who observed it with the desired disposition. 
As Strauss puts it, if on the part of men it was a declaration of 
the renunciation of sin, on the part of God it was a declaration of 
the pardon of sins. The words for the pardon depend grammat- 
ically on the collective notion, baptism of repentance." (Commen- 
tary on St. Luke, p. 110.) 


The next witness that I introduce to you is Bichard Watson, the 
great teacher of Methodists. His "Institutes" are studied four 
, years in the Methodist theological schools. He says : 

" It is thus we see how St. Peter preserves the correspondence 
between the act of Noah in preparing the ark as an act of faith by 
which he was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian bap- 
tism, which is also obviously an act of faith, in order to the remis- 
sion of sins, or the obtaining a good conscience before God." 
(Theological Institutes, Part IV., Chapter III.) 

Albert Barnes, the popular Presbyterian commentator, says : 

" The water saved Noah and his family from perishing in the 
flood by bearing up the ark. Baptism, in the proper sense of the 
term, as above explained, where the water used is a symbol [that 
is, baptism administered in connection with true repentance and 
true faith in the Lord Jesus, and as a symbol of the putting away 
of sin and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and as an 
act of unreserved dedication to God], in like manner now saves us j 
that is, the water is an emblem of that purifying by which we are 
saved. It may be said to save us, not as the meritorious cause, 
but as the indispensable condition of salvation." (Barnes' Notes 
on 1 Peter iii. 21.) 

I desire to call especial attention to the last period quoted, it is 
so clear and unmistakable in its meaning. " It may be said to save 
us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the indispensable condition 
of salvation." None of my brethren have ever expressed the doc- 
trine more strongly than that. We are generally content to say, 
"According to the gospel rule, there is no way of salvation revealed 
except by being baptized from a heart that truly believes and 
truly repents." We understand that baptism is one of the com- 
mands of the gospel, that no one can obey the " form of doctrine" 
without being baptized ; and then we express our views thus : He 
who can obey the gospel and will, shall be saved; he who can obey 
and won't, shall be damned ; he who would obey but can't (if there 
be any such), God will take care of, as a being infinite in love, 
mercy and justice should do. We are quite willing to leave all 
such irresponsible people with him who doeth all things well ; but 
in the meantime we will not cease to teach with all earnestness 
that when Jesus comes again he will come to take vengeance on 
them " that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (See 
2 Thess. i. 8.) 

My opponent thinks the doctrine of baptism for remission was 


conceived in the second and brought forth in the third century. 
Nay, verily ; as we have seen, it was conceived in heaven and 
brought forth on earth by John the Baptist, Baptist scholars them- 
selves being the judges. 

He thinks the doctrine was the mother of a dreadful brood of 
superstitions, such as infant baptism, pre-birth baptism, etc. Not 
so, not so, my friend ; God's truth was never the mother of error. 
The doctrine of total hereditary depravity is the prolific mother 
that you are thinking of. When the ancients began to believe 
that infants are born sinners, then they began to think they must 
be baptized to wash away their sin. The first man that ever men- 
tioned infant baptism to favor it, in so far as the records show, 
was Origen. He says : " It is for that reason because by the sac- 
rament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away that 
infants are baptized." (Wall., Vol. I., p. 65.) 

In more than twenty debates I have never yet met a man who 
dared to state our positions fairly and then to attack them. So 
evidently correct are they, so strong and clear and beautiful, they 
must be distorted and misrepresented, disfigured and besmirched, 
before there can be any hope of successful attack. And no man 
that I have ever known has seemed to feel this necessity more 
strongly than does my present opponent. He is continually 
charging us with that which not one of us ever believed, and de- 
nying to us that to which every one of us holds. For instance, he 
says : " The Scripture that does not contain baptism, or water, or 
something that can be construed or misconstrued to mean baptism, 
is not only useless, but generallyi']antagouistic to my opponent's 
doctrine. If there is no water, or indications of water, in the 
passage, it is counted of little or no importance." Let me say 
again, the gentleman is talking before the wrong audience. Five 
hundred people in this house have heard me teach, time and again, 
that the first and most important duty of man is to study diligently 
the Word of God. I read the Bible through three times last year, 
five times the year before, and not fewer than three times per year 
for a number of years. I believe it to be the chief duty of the 
teacher in the Church to lead the people to the daily, diligent, 
prayerful study of the Word, and I devote more time and energy 
to that one point than to any other whatever. If God enables me 
to do it, I intend to read through his Holy Word at least as often 
as once each year as long as I live. 

Again, Mr. Moody says of the candidate whom we baptize that 


he "knows nothing, says he knows nothing." Nothing could be 
more untrue. When I went into the water of baptism I believed 
upon Christ, and I knew it ; I had repented of my sins, and I 
knew it; I had given my heart in faith and love to Jesus, and I 
knew it. So testifies my-consciousness ; will the gentleman accept 
his witness 1 Every true man and woman that has been baptized 
by my brethren has had the same experience, having gone into the 
water in loving faith, having surrendered the heart to Christ. 

But we have not gone to baptism, knowing by our self-conscious- 
ness "that God has for Christ's sake pardoned our sins." Human 
consciousness is a competent witness as to the thoughts, feelings, 
and emotions that take place in man, but not to what takes place 
in God. If we believe, love, sorrow, hope, fear, rejoice or suffer 
with aches or pains, in mind or body, we know it ; consciousness, 
a competent witness in such matters, tells us so ; but it is not a 
competent witness as to the ca^lses of these thoughts, feelings and 
emotions. The belief of a lie has caused many a man to be happy, 
just as happy as if the lie had been the truth. You can go to one 
who believes implicitly in you and fill him with sorrow or with 
joy in one minute by telling him that which is false. Once while 
in Detroit, Mich., I received a telegram saying, "Your mother is ill 
beyond the possibility of recovery." Of course I was filled with 
sorrow. Directly I opened another which read, "Your mother is 
out of danger." My consciousness was competent to testify that 
I was full of sorrow, but it was not competent to testify as to the 
correctness of the telegram. You make a man believe that God 
has for Christ's sake pardoned his sins and he will be happy; he 
is conscious of the happiness, for that takes place within himself ; 
but he cannot be conscious of the pardon, for that takes place in 
the mind of God. Paul teaches (1 Cor. ii. 11-13) as only the spirit 
of man knows what is in man, so the Spirit of God alone knows 
the things of God ; as the spirit of man can reveal what is in man 
in words, so the Spirit of God reveals the things of God in words ; 
hence Paul says of the things of God: "Which things also we 
speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which 
the Holy Ghost teacheth." Hence consciousness can never be an 
evidence of pardon to me only in so far as it tells what takes place 
in me. There must be two concurrent testimonies in order to es- 
tablish the pardon of any man. The witnesses are God's Spirit 
and man's spirit. God's Spirit testifies through the apostles whom 
he will pardon ; man's spirit testifies as to whether or not he is 


that man. It is all important, therefore, that we should know 
what God's Spirit testifies in the matter, as we cannot be mistaken 
about the testimony of our own spirits. 

My friend thinks the sinner is justified by "faith only." But 
God's Spirit does not so testify. He says : " Ye see, then, how that 
by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James ii. 24.) 
I believe the sinner is justified when, with a believing, loving, pen- 
itent heart he is baptized, and on this point God's Spirit testifies 
thus : "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 
xvi. 16.) "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.) "Eepenb, 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins." (Acts ii. 38.) "'Arise, and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts xxii.. 
16.) When, therefore, having been convicted of sin, and having 
repented of sin, one is baptized, trusting in Christ, calling on his 
name, he is forgiven, and God's Spirit testifies with his spirit that 
he is a child of God. So my brethren believe, and so they teach. 

But when a man trusts to his feelings for his knowledge of par- 
don, without properly weighing the testimony of God's Spirit in 
God's Word, there is no telling to what he will drift. The religion 
of feeling leads to all sorts of fanaticism and folly, to every degree 
of cruelty and crime. The Catholic worshipper has the testimony 
of consciousness when he does the cruel penance ; the Hindoo de- 
votee, when she casts her infant into the river; the Quaker, when 
he rejects all the ordinances ; the Mormon", in his polygamy ; that 
is, they are conscious of the feeling that they are pleasing God in 
what they do. Paul was conscious of the same feeling when he 
was persecuting the Church. The feeling did exist, too; conscious- 
ness was a competent witness on that point, but it could not tell 
as to the correctness of the faith from which the feeling came. 
In the cases just mentioned the feeling came from the belief of 
falsehoods, as Mr. Moody and I agree; and I don't hesitate to affirm 
that when his candidate for baptism rejoices in the belief that his 
sins are forgiven the rejoicing is there as his consciousness testi- 
fies, but it is a rejoicing based upon belief of that which is false. 
Men must obey the "form of doctrine" before they are forgiven. 
(See Eom. vi. 17, 18.) Faith perfected by works reaches the blessing. 

Just here I want to ask my friend three questions, and I will be 
very much obliged if he will give clear and explicit answers to 
them : 


1. The apostle John says (see John i. 11, 12) that Christ gave to 
them that believed on his name "power to become the sons of 
God." How did they exercise that power in becoming sons ? What 
did they do ? It is clear that when they believed they -were not 
yet sons, they then simply had power to become sons. Evidently 
they were not justified by "faith only." 

2. Certain disciples went to Antioch and preached the Word of 
the Lord, the hand of the Lord was with them, and it is said, "A 
great number believed^ and turned unto the Lord." (Acts xi. 21.) 
They first believed, and then turned unto the Lord. Now, my sec- 
ond question is this : What did those believers do in turning to the 
Lord ? They certainly were not pardoned till they turned to the 
Lord (see Isa. Iv. 7), and they certainly first believed, and then 
turned to the Lord. 

3. Paul told the Gentiles to " repent and turn to God" (see Acts 
xxvi. 20), and Peter, in his second sermon after the resurrection 
of Christ, said : " Eepent ye, therefore, and turn again, that your 
sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refresh- 
ing from the presence of the Lord." (Acts iii. 19, E. V.) Now, I 
ask in the third place, What did these penitent ones do in turning 
to the Lord ? 

From these passages we learn (1) that when a man believes he 
is not yet a son, but that power is then given him to become a 
son ; (2) that when a man believes he is not yet pardoned, for par- 
don comes after turning to the Lord, and it is said, "A great num- 
ber believed, and turned unto the Lord ; " (3) this turning does not 
consist in repentance, for the people were told to repent and turn 
again, that their sins might be blotted out. Evidently the turn- 
ing follows both the believing and the repenting. What is it ? I 
know, but Mr. Moody cannot tell you from his standpoint to save 
his life. His theory will not allow him to give any clear, distinct, 
well-defined answer. 

But it is different with me. I can answer in the very words of 
God. Compare these statements of God's Word : 
"A great number believed, and turned to the Lord." (Acts xi. 21.) 
" Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." 
(Acts xviii. 8.) 

Can you not see that the turning act is baptism ? Again : 
"When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning 
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were bap- 
tized, both men and women." (Acts viii. 12.) 


On the "turning act" that follows repentance take these pass- 
ages : 

" Kepent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Je- 
sus Christ, for the remission of sins." (Acts ii. 38.) 

" Eepent ye, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be 
blotted out." (Acts iii. 19.) 

To my mind it seems evident from these Scriptures that to the 
man whose heart has been properly prepared for it by faith 
and repentance baptism is the turning act. It is the final act, 
the last change in conversion. Worthless in itself alone, when 
it is the act of a heart truly changed by repentance and faith, it 
passes us into Christ. Hence we are said to be " baptized into 
Christ," " baptized into his death." He that believes is begotten 
of the Spirit, all admit ; he that is immersed, is brought forth from 
the water; hence, " he that believeth and is baptized" is " born of 
water and of the Spirit." Hence we can easily see how it was that 
Jesus gave to believers power to become sons of God. 

Baptism is a "figure," says Mr. Moody, and hence it cannot be 
for remission. The word " figure " translates " antitupos," antitype. 
The lamb slain on the Jewish altar was a type, Christ the antitype. 
Does not Christ save ? The blood of the lamb was the type, the 
blood of Jesus the antitype. Was not the blood of Jesus for re- 
mission? The water that saved Noah in the ark was the type, 
baptism the antitype. Is there any thing in its being an antitype 
to forbid its being for remission ? 

But Mr. Moody claims that this doctrine " turns the eyes of the 
sinner from the Savior's offering to the Savior's ordinance; from 
sacrifice to sacrament." Says he : "Teach a man that remission 
is in baptism and he will look to that and not to the cross ; he will 
believe in the water, and not in the blood." This statement is not 
true, and the plain statements of the Bible show it is not. Did 
not Naaman find the cure for his leprosy in the water ? And did 
he not say when he returned from it, " Now I know that there is 
no God in all the earth but in Israel?" (See 2 Kings v. 15.) He 
looked to God, and not to the water, although he was cured in the 
water. Did not the blind man whom Jesus sent to Siloam find his 
eyesight by washing in that pool ? Tes. Did he look to the water 
instead of to Jesus? No; he said of Jesus: "He hath opened 
mine eyes." (See John ix.) Well, if these people could obey Je- 
sus and thus obtain the blessing without giving the glory to the 
water, cannot we obey Jesus and thus obtain the blessing without 


giving the glory to the water ? If not, why not ? I don't hesitate 
to say that no people on earth look more to Jesus than do my 
brethren, nor do any put less trust in the water. We go into the 
water because he tells us to do it, and if we expect to find pardon 
in the water it is because the Lord so teaches us. Is there any 
thing wrong in obeying Jesus, trusting in him for a blessing ? And 
when we thus obtain a blessing, do we not get it by faith ? Cer- 
tainly we do. It is said, " By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, 
after they were compassed about seven days." (Heb. xi. 30.) God 
told Joshua what to do , he did it, and then the walls fell, and 
thus the city was taken by faith. / It was a faith that obeyed, and 
when it obeyed it reached the blessing. Bead the account in. the 
sixth chapter of Joshua. 

I call your attention now to a passage of Scripture that seems 
to me to set forth in a most striking way the importance of obey- 
ing Christ in baptism. The Scriptures say, speaking of John's 
baptism, " The Pharishes and lawyers rejected the counsel of God 
against themselves, being not baptized of him." (Luke vii. 30.) 
If to fail to be baptized by John, as these people did, was to reject 
the counsel of God against themselves, what do you suppose it 
will be to reject the baptism of Jesus 1 The one was a servant, 
the other the Son. " If the word spoken by angels [messengers like 
John] was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience re- 
ceived a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we 
neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken 
by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him ? " 
{Heb. ii. 3.) In the estimation of the apostle it was a much more 
terrible thing to reject the teaching of Jesus than of the messen- 
gers that came before him. 

If Naaman had refused to wash seven times in Jordan he would 
have rejected the counsel of God against himself, and he would 
have died a leper. If the blind man had refused to wash in Siloam 
he would have rejected the counsel of God against himself, and he 
would have died blind. John came " preaching the baptism of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins." Those who rejected his bap- 
tism rejected the counsel of God against themselves, and, unless 
they afterward repented, they died in their sins. Jesus taught, 
saying, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Who 
can doubt but that if we reject his baptism we will reject the 
counsel of God against ourselves, and we will die in our sins ? 

In the close of his speech my opponent made quite a lengthy 


quotation from Brother H. T. Anderson. Brother Anderson said a. 
number of things in his old age that I do not believe, that my 
brethren do not believe ; but he never went over to the Baptists, 
nor did he ever adopt their interpretation of Acts ii. 38, as Mr.. 
Moody seems to think. In one of his letters published by Mr. 
Moody, he says : ' ' My purpose in what I have written is to give a 
correct exegesis of Acts ii. 38." And in that letter he translates 
it thus : 

" Eepent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, as the scapegoat of your sins ; or, that he may take away 
your sins ; or, for taking away your sins." 

That suits me first-rate. I was baptized in the name of Jesus. 
Christ that he might take away my sins. Can my opponent say as 
much ? The doctrine of Anderson's last translation of the passage 
suits me exactly. Does it suit you ? I would like to hear you say 
it does. However much brother Anderson may have been right 
or wrong in other matters, he was certainly right here. 

Time expired. 

N"OTE Brother Moody's diagram represents our order only in part. For in- 
stance, he puts regeneration (re-begetting) in or after baptism ; we put it before. 
And so of other items, -which I may have occasion to refer to hereafter. 

J. B. Moody s Second Speech. 

'Gentlemen-moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I am pleased to have the opportunity of contributing to the in- 
terest of this occasion. I will finish up the argument that I began 
last night, and then reply to my friend. In the first place, I will 
repeat the proposition, "Bemissiou of sins, with like blessings of 
salvation, is received before baptism." I put that diagram on the 
wall to illustrate the position I am antagonizing, and I hope it will 
be a help to you to see the incorrectness of my friend's position. 
I was last reading the testimony of Mr. Anderson, one of the most 
learned of his own school, who in his ripe old age became a wit- 
ness, by divine grace, to the doctrine of personal consciousness. 
I give you another : 

The Texas Baptist Herald gives "the following experience re- 
lated to the Baptist Church at Utopia, by a Campbellite profess*or of 
the normal school at that place : ' I suppose no one ever more sin- 
cerely believed himself a suitable subject for baptism than I did 
when I sought baptism for the remission of sins. I heard the 
president of the college, and nearly all the people whose piety was 
above suspicion in my esteem, call the Carnpbellites the Christian 
Church until I regarded them pre-eminently so, and for that rea- 
son determined to make them my religious instructors. They said 
my faith was right, and my repentance proved it; of which, in nay 
natural blindness, I could not detect the delusiveness. So the 
preacher took my confession, and immersed me in the belief that 
baptism was the final condition on which my forgiveness depended. 
I readily accepted it as true, and as pardon is an act passed in 
lieaven, I could have no knowledge of its passage except to believe 
the testimony on which I acted. I had no doubt of its passage, 
and was as happy as that confidence tended to make me. I con- 
fess I loved prayer and other Christian exercises no more after 
than before baptism. Under the sermon on Bartimeus, my views 
of self, repentance and faith were radically revolutionized. I never 
before knew myself a sinner. What I professed for faith was no 


kin to it. What I accepted as repentance was only a dread of 
punishment with an unabated love of sin. My sinfulness gave no 
trouble, nor did prayer give me any pleasure. I now look on the 
system as fearfully delusive, and wonder in my soul if one can be 
a true Christian and at the same time be so indifferent to the fatal 
delusion of blinded souls as to call that system "the Christian 
Church" and its believers Christians. I never believed in Jesus 
till yesterday about 3 P. M., nor knew what repentance was till I 
lost my dread of punishment in a more distressing sense of ill- 
desert. Nor did I ever know what it was to love prayer and praise 
until I could say with the Psalmist, " He hath taken my feet from 
the mire and clay, and hath put in my mouth a new song," etc. I 
view with perfect horror the system which has so completely de- 
luded me. I now have the great trouble that I have compassed 
sea and land to get my wife and children and two sons-in-law into 
the same delusion. I humbly ask membership with you in a more 
distressing sense of unworthiness than before yesterday I ever 
had, but in a joyful confidence that Christ is of God, made unto 
me wisdom and righteousness. My soul now longs for the pleasure 
of an obedient life, with a full assurance that my obedience is, and 
always must be, so imperfect as to need an infinite righteousness 
not my own to make it acceptable. 7 " 

I introduce this witness, who came from his people to ours, and 
who testified that he never knew any thing about the personal con- 
sciousness of which I was speaking in my last speech under their 
teaching. He may count more than I can, but the testimony of 
one on our side is worth a thousand of his, because one is the tes- 
timony of conscious knowledge, and the other is the testimony of 
conscious ignorance. We will see how this is as we advance. 

I will now introduce another, a lady of high standing in society. 
She was for some time the principal of a high school in a Tennessee 
town of some 2,000 inhabitants. She shrinks from having her 
name published unless the demand is made. After speaking of 
her former life and condition, she says, in a letter to me (and which 
I received during our last debate): "Hearing some of your power- 
ful sermons (I say powerful, because to me I think they must have 
been attended by the Holy Spirit), I was led seriously to think 
about my condition. I had become satisfied that immersion was 
the only correct mode of baptism. I went so far as to mention 
the subject to some members of the Baptist Church of my town, 
my idea being that, if I could receive immersion, I would be all 


right, and did not wish to* change my membership from the Epis- 
copal Church, thinking that good enough. I was informed that I 
could not receive baptism without first presentiug myself to .a 
Baptist Church for membership. Not caring to join the Baptist 
Church, I shortly after talked over the subject of my condition, 
feelings, etc., with a Campbellite preacher, Mr. Hamilton. Being 
informed by him that my anxiety was caused by not having obeyed 
the Savior's command, etc., I was persuaded by his counsel, added 
to my desire, to receive immersion at his hands, some of the mem- 
bers of that Church having told me that I could be baptized by 
their minister without having to join their Church. After receiving 
immersion at the hands of Mr. Hamilton, I found I did not experi- 
ence the change he had told me I would, but, on the contrary, in- 
stead of my doubts and fears being dispelled, my anxiety and 
trouble relieved, I was made to feel worse. I felt I was no better 
than I was before. I tried hard' to reconcile my conscience and to 
feel easy and secure, but I could not. When I informed Mr. Ham- 
ilton of this, the only consolation he could offer me was, to tell 
me that my anxiety now was because my husband was a sinner, 
and that he knew that I was saved, because I had obeyed. I be- 
gan to read and study more closely the Word of God. I saw my 
weakness. I felt that I had not the Spirit of God within me, be- 
cause the fruits of the Spirit love, joy, peace, etc. were want- 
ing. I went to the Savior with my trouble. I poured out my soul 
to him in prayer. He heard my petition, and gave peace to my 
troubled soul 'the peace of God that passes all understanding' 
and I felt within freedom from my load of sin. I felt the Lord 
had forgiven my sins through faith in the blood of Jesus. I 
thought with the Psalmist, that the Lord had ' brought me up out 
of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a 
rock and established my goings.' I, therefore, united with the 
Baptists. I have been sprinkled once and immersed twice, but I 
have been baptized but once. Then, and only then, did I feel that 
my baptism was the answer of a good conscience toward God." 

Here is another first-class witness to the Bible doctrine of con- 
scious guilt and conscious taking away of guilt "from the con- 
science." This is the testimony of all the Christian world in all 
ages. The testimony of personal consciousness, enlightened by 
God's Word, is infallible knowledge. 

I introduce a few more from his people, for God does not leave 
himself without witnesses. I quote from the "Symposium on the 


Holy Spirit," one of his own books. Elder A. B. Jones, on page 2, 
says: "The great master metaphysician, Sir William Hamilton, says 
that 'all philosophy of mind is evolved from consciousness/ and 
'that consciousness affords not merely the only revelation and the 
only criterion of philosophy, but that this revelation is naturally 
clear, and this criterion in itself unerring.'" Again he says, page 
6: "We cannot say that consciousness is knowledge, since con- 
sciousness and knowledge involve each other and are co-ex- 

If I know a thing, I know that I know it; that is, I am conscious 
that I know it. If I believe any thing, I know that I believe it. 
If I hope for a thing, I know that I hope. This proclamation 
which the soul makes to itself is termed consciousness. 

Page 8: "Next to the very eye of God is the penetrating power 
of this witness for self-examination. ' What man knoweth the 
things of a man, save the spirit of a man that is in him?' Now, 
since a man cannot apprehend or comprehend a thing without be- 
ing conscious of it, no one, it is presumed, will deny that what- 
ever addresses itself to his understanding addresses itself to his 


Page 9 : " I take it for granted that a proposition so self-evident 
as this will require no elucidation other than its own announce- 

Page 10: "But there are other questions which require, for a 
full and adequate solution, that the emotional nature shall be em- 
ployed and associated with the intellectual faculties, for the reason 
that they address themselves to the moral consciousness. The 
man who attempts the solution of any great question involving 
our relations as social and moral beings, leaving his heart out of 
the investigation, can never be trusted for a safe and satisfactory 

Page 13: "Now, since conscience is the essential, vital element 
in all these forms of mental activity, it becomes the one and the 
only term by which we can express the general result of our 
mental operations, and of our internal experience ; and, since re- 
ligion addresses itself to the whole intuitional, rational and moral 
nature, may we not assert that religion' appeals directly to every 
man's consciousness, and consequently, that consciousness is to 
every man the ground of his responsibility, and his final sole 
arbiter in all matters of religion?" 

Page 25 : " So I am directly conscious of certain internal religious 


experiences, and indirectly conscious of a present exciting cause, 
which the Word of God tells me is the Holy Spirit. ' The fruit of 
the Spirit is love and joy and peace/ etc." 

In the same work Elder T. Munnell, page 94, says: 

"A Christian may be quite conscious of the love of God in his"- 
soul, but not of the instrumentalities through which it reached^ 
him. To ascertain that he learns that the 'love of God is shed' 
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit : ' the Scriptures entirely 
relieve consciousness of such a task, and allow it to be engaged 
in identifying the things the Word had promised. The Bible prom- 
ised and described love, the intellect understands what is prom- 
ised, and consciousness says, 'Here it is. 7 Since we are distinctly 
conscious of a certain agreeable emotion, which the Scriptures 
tell us is shed abroad by the Holy Spirit, therefore we are con- 
scious of the influence of the said Spirit." 

Page 95: "We are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. This 
seal is the ' earnest' of our inheritance, and, of course, is a thing 
of consciousness. All pledges are things of conscious possession, 
else they would not be pledges. 37 

Page 96 : " Of this foretaste of heaven, the converted soul is easily 
conscious; as for 'strength 7 and the ' supply of Spirit,' and all the 
other fruits of the Spirit, they are plainly cognizable by conscious- 
ness. ' Christ in you the hope of glory 7 is no hallucination. Sow 
might particularize through the whole list, but in every instance- 
we would find consciousness identifying the blessings which faith 
in the Word says come by the Spirit. We cannot contravene the- 
testimony of consciousness. Within its legitimate sphere its tes- 
timony is unquestionable, its authority absolute." 

Says a great writer (Thomas E. Ban) on the philosophy of hu- 
man life: 

" Consciousness is that power of the spirit by which it knows- 
itself, and its own acts and states. First, the testimony of con- 
sciousness must never be called in question. This is of vital im- 
portance. . . . Consciousness is the highest court of appeal. If it- 
be untrustworthy, nothing is certain. It is only by means of con- 
sciousness that any knowledge of the inner life is possible. In it 
are presented all the facts of the inner life, all facts of thought, of 
feeling, of intention. It is the record of them all, the mirror in 
which they are reflected. It is, therefore, obvious tbat any asser- 
tion of the fallibility of consciousness must be destructive of all 
knowledge, and is to be carefully avoided. Second, consciousness 


gives infallible witness to the self-activities, freedom and unity of 
the spirit. . . . There also arise, in experience, certain intuitive 
moral judgments. . . . The moral judgments are not mere uncer- 
tain generalizations from experience, but intuitive and self-evident 
principles. The moral agent, in his normal condition, immediately 
and intuitively discerns the Tightness of them, and their binding 
force on himself and all other like agents, now and always, in this 
world, and in all worlds. This may be shown by subjecting any one 
of them to the test of consciousness. For example, take the love 
of our neighbor. Is it right or wrong? If right, is it right neces- 
sarily, immutably and universally, or contingently, changeably, 
and in some cases only ? Is it right for one man and wrong for 
another? right in America and wrong in Asia, or the far distant 
parts of the universe ? To all such questioning the response of 
consciousness is clear and emphatic." 

Another writer (C. D. Morris, D.D., L.L.D., Lane Theological Sem- 
inary) says: 

" Protest is often made against the orthodox theology, as tend- 
ing to the undue repression of gracious sensibility, as exalting the 
cold processes of Christian intellect into supreme authoritative- 
ness to the exclusion of those valuable modifications or meliora- 
tions of belief which have their origin rather in holy emotion. 
Within certain limits it is as true that there is a theology of feel- 
ing as that there is a theology of the intellect; and, in the highest 
sense, that may be regarded as the best type of theology in which 
both intellect and feeling, thought and sensibility, are most judi- 
ciously and happily blended as regulative forces." 

My friend represents a people proverbial for, and pronounced in 
their unqualified opposition to this doctrine. It is necessitated 
by the fact that they have so perverted the Gospel that their 
preaching fails to produce conviction of sin so as to make one 
"cry out" and "fall down" under the awful load of guilt ; and 
hence, there can be no conscious taking away. In order to hold 
their members, they must deny the doctrine. They not only deny, 
but they ridicule, as seen in the following, which is a sample of 
what abounds in their literature. It is headed "An Experience." 

"Brother Burnett: At the recent Baptist Association at Morgan 
Mill they had an old-fashion experience meeting. They invited all 
Christians to tell their experience, and as I considered myself a 
Christian I told my experience along with the rest. I spent about 
fifteen minutes in declaring the whole counsel of my experience, 


and I kept "back nothing that was profitable unto them. This 
threw a damper over the big 'Wholy' Ghost interest they had up. 
(Let that stand 'Wholy' Ghost, instead of Holy Ghost, for it is -all 
ghost.) When I tell you they had no more professions after that, 
you will readily conceive that they got vexed over it." Corre- 
spondence in Christian Messenger. 

I now close this argument by repeating that every truly con- 
verted man Imows, from personal consciousness, that he received 
forgiveness of sins, not in baptism, for no one ever received, or 
ever claimed to have received, such personal consciousness in bap- 
iiism ; but all who ever did receive it Itnows that he receiv ed it 
when, under a conscious load of guilt, he looked to the Son of 
Man lifted up, and put his whole and implicit trust in the cross of 
Christ. Let sin revive in a man's soul so that he will die, and he 
will never be made alive in baptism, and there is no such testi- 
mony of personal consciousness under the sun. 

Let me notice now the remarkable speech of last night. The 
gentleman, as predicted, seems determined to discuss the subject 
.set for next week before the time. He brought into that speech 
the main strength of his argument for next week, and as I have 
engaged to reply to him then, is it right that I should do so 
now? His quotations, and his misquotations, from Baptist authors 
;shall receive due attention. He quoted these authors to show that 
these Baptist scholars believe the doctrine which he affirms in this 
debate. I would not undertake to defend every thing that every 
Baptist ever said or wrote, no more than he would undertake to 
defend or endorse what his scholars have written. I think I can 
balance accounts with him on this matter of concessions. The 
.gentleman seems to rely on what he supposes these scholars to 
say, rather than on argument ; and I would like to know what 
doctrine there is under the sun that cannot be proved by scholars. 
Suffice it to say, for the present, that Baptists don't use terms with 
Ms meanings. These Baptists may believe that we are baptized 
unto, into, in order to, meaning, to the end, or even for the pur- 
pose of obtaining remission of sins, and then not mean what he 
does in the use of the same terms ; for, if they had believed my 
friend's doctrine, they would no doubt, like Mr. Campbell, have 
been excluded at the next Church meeting. The Churches of 
Christ can't tolerate the Komanist doctrine of baptismal remission, 
regeneration or salvation. My friend does them great injustice 
when he says the Church of Rome believes that baptism is the 


meritorious cause of these blessings apart from repentance and 
faith. So great do they emphasize the prerequisites that they re- 
quire them by the substitution of sponsors in the case of infants.. 
I am also prepared to show that my friend and his people, like 
Catholics and Pharisees, "say, but do not." The orthodox Chris- 
tian does not endorse my friend's faith, either in the definition of 
his current literature outside of debate nor the order it sustains 
to repentance, which is confidently believed makes both impossi- 
ble. To prove this you may search for repentance in their system 
or practice, and you can't find it, though you search diligently 
with tears. According to his system faith comes by hearing, and 
when the believer comes to the front bench to confess his faith he 
never tells such believers to repent. We venture the assertion,, 
before this audience, of which the gentleman boasts, and which he 
says heard hini recently seven weeks, I assert at a venture, that 
not one of you during that time, or during all your life, ever heard 
him, or one of his brethren, tell a candidate to repent after be- 
lieving, nor did you ever know one of them to demand the fruits 
of it at baptism. My friend has most of these prerequisites in his 
speech, but these things in a speech are not worth a snap of a, 
finger if in works they deny them. He says: "This community 
knows well that, with all the power there is in us, we teach that, 
without a complete surrender of the heart to Christ in faith and 
love, baptism is worthless." Now I assert, in the face of that as- 
sertion, and am ready with the overwhelming proof, that his 
"complete surrender of the heart (mind), in faith and trust and 
love," are worthless without baptism. Faith in Christ and love of 
Christ, he will tell you, are dead till the water, or a physical action 
in water, gives them, life ; and since the' physical action with all 
the so-called prerequisites are worthless apart from water, it fol- 
lows that the virtue is not in these, but in the water. He confesses 
that his faith "eis Christ." "eis life," "eis salvation;" his repent- 
ance "eis life" and "eis salvation;" his confession "eis salvation," 
and all his love and trust and surrender thrown in; that they all 
are dead before baptism; and why? Because "baptism now saves 
us?" No; I have taught him better than that. He says that "wa- 
ter now saves us." Christ will say to all other believers, " Go in 
peace; thy faith hath saved thee." But he can't say it to my 
friend's people, because, judging them out of their own mouth, as 
he surely will, their faith did not save them. If, then, faith in 
Christ is dead, as he says, till baptism, then their faith is not in.. 


Christ, but in baptism. If faith in Christ does not bring life, so 
that he that believeth "eis him hath everlasting life," it proves 
that it is either a dead faith or a dead Christ. What a picture ! 
'The Holy Spirit in the water! Christ in the water ! his blood and 
.all the benefits of his death in the water ! remission, salvation, 
.and all of its like blessings, in the water ! and they are all dead to 
you unless he, or they, as mediators between you and the water, 
by physical act performed upon a dead confession of a dead faith, 
.and a dead love, and a dead repentance, dip you into all the per- 
sons of the God-head, and into all the blessings of salvation. My 
God, what a dip, and what dippers ! I would not be such a " God 
and Savior" if I could. I would not have both God and man de- 
pendent on me if I could. God forbid that the unholy doctrine 
should be believed by any others. 

When the gentleman quoted his doctrine from Barnabas, why 
did he not tell you that the sentence is not found in "Codex 
Sinaiticus," and is believed by scholars to be spurious! Why did 
he not tell you that those holding his doctrine in subsequent ages 
tried to corrupt all the writings of the fathers with this abominable 
heresy? Why did he introduce Hennas, who said nothing favora- 
ble to his doctrine, and who wrote after Justin Martyr? Does the 
gentleman presume on the ignorance of his opponent and his 
-audience both? We hereby confirm our assertion about the 

The gentleman, after twenty days' debate with me, and after re- 
peated protests, persists in charging me with believing that a man 
is baptized because of remission, and of believing in justification 
by "faith only." Like Paul, I believe a sinner is justified "before 
<jrod" by faith apart from works; and then passing to the circum- 
stances of which James wrote, I believe that a man is justified by 
works, and not by faith only. To make my meaning plain; in the 
circumstances of which Paul wrote, a man is justified by faith 
alone, and in the circumstances of which James wrote, a man is 
justified by works. So we see how that a man is justified by 
works, and not by faith only. Now, why will the gentleman accuse 
me of believing that a man is justified by faith only? He says 
faith only is no faith; then I suppose that "God only" is no God, 
and "Jesus only" is no Jesus, and "Luke only" is no Luke, and 
"water only" is no water, and "leaves only" are no leaves, and 
"word only" (Matt. viii. 8, and 1 Thes. i. 5) is no word. In Mark v. 
36 we have "only believe," and in Luke viii. 50 we have "believe 


only." Jesus says, " believe only," and thou shalt be made whole. 
Mr. Harding says faith only is absolutely worthless. The testimony 
is, that faith only brought the blessing. But this matter of Paul 
and James will come up at the proper time for a full discussion. 

All the gentleman has said of obedience is begging the question. 
He must prove what he so often asserts, that the one physical act 
of baptism is obedience to the Gospel. He assumes that he has 
obeyed the Gospel; but he can never prove it. His baptism that 
he calls obedience, I am prepared to prove, is the greatest of all 
disobedience to the Lord's commands. I but voice the general 
sentiment of Baptists when I say that I have ten times more fel- 
lowship for a sprinkled Christian than I have for an immersed sin- 
ner and this is what he claims for himself and his brethren. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Second Reply. 

Mr. President, Ladies and G-enilemen: 

You will please bear in mind that during this week I am to fol- 
low my friend. It is his business to present arguments; it is mine 
to examine them, and to show you that they do not maintain his 
proposition. But before I begin to review his speech, let me re- 
mind you of some things that ivere not in it. Do you remember 
the three questions that I asked him? They were carefully written 
out, and I handed the paper to him, in the presence of you all, 
exhorting him to give them his attention. But not a word does 
he say about them. He would rather tell the experiences of certain 
nameless bodies who have gone from us to them (in order to prove 
that God forgives men before baptism) than to notice the Script- 
ures that I presented to him on that paper. John teaches that 
Jesus gave to believers "power to become the sons of God." (John 
i. 11, 12.) Evidently they were not yet sons; for, to him who is a 
son, power cannot be given to become a son. But my friend holds 
that in the act of believing one becomes a sou, so that every one 
who truly believes is a son. To my mind it is evident that this 
passage in John is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with his posi- 
tion ; and hence, I claim that his doctrine cannot possibly be^niain- 
taiued. One statement of God is sufficient to overthrow any thing 
with which it comes in conflict. As long as God's word stands, 
that Jesus gave to believers power to become sons, just so long 
will it be evident that in that case there were believers who were 
not yet sons. My friend cannot say that this does not bear upon 
the question, either, for justification by faith is the very matter 
under discussion this week. Let him tell us, also, how those be- 
lievers (Acts ii. 21) " turned unto the Lord." For, as all .agree that 
pardon comes after the turning, these believers still had something 
to do to obtain pardon. I trust the gentleman will not pass these 
matters over in his next speech without endeavoring to give us 
some light from his standpoint. 

Now, to the speech to which you have just listened. With re- 


.gard to that "Carnpbeilite professor" whom the Texas Baptist 
paper tells about, I have simply to say that he never went from us, 
Ibecause he was never one of us if he tells the truth. What he 
professed for faith he says was "no kin to it,-" his repentance was 
" only a dread of punishment, with an unabated love of sin," and 
he says his sinfulness gave him " no trouble," nor did prayer give 
him "any pleasure." That man's baptism was a fraud, which never 
brought him into fellowship with us, as every intelligent man and 
woman among us would freely testify. He did not believe with 
the faith that trusts, nor did his repentance grow out of godly 
.-sorrow for sin, nor was it a deep resolve of the soul to turn from 
sin to the Savior. No wonder he experienced no joy! If that 
paper does him justice, he was either a very foolish man or a very 
had one. And as his case has been made so prominent, first in 
the paper, and now in my friend's speech, I would like to know 
his name and address, that I may inquire more fully into it. When 
a witness is introduced it is proper that he should be examined by 
both the parties to the case. 

Mr. Moody puts a very high estimate upon those who go from 
us to him (on the ground, perhaps, that rare articles are valuable). 
He says we may count more than he, but that the testimony of 
.one on his side is worth a thousand of ours; for, he says, his peo- 
ple testify of "conscious knowledge," and ours of "conscious 
ignorance." That is strange, exceedingly strange! If his people 
.are right, and Ttnotv that they are right, and if our people don't 
know whether they are right or not and freely testify of their 
ignorance, how does it happen that so many of his people come to 
us, and so few of ours go to him? Why, sir, as you well know, 
once in the history of this city the First Baptist Church, with its 
preacher and all of its members, except about five, came to us. 
Philip S. Fall was the preacher. He lived here for many years 
afterward, even until he was an old man, and hundreds and thou- 
sands of the people of Nashville would to-day freely testify to his 
pure Christian character, to his godly walk among them. The 
Mill Creek Baptist Church, near here, one of the mother Churches 
of all this region, was once very strong and influential; it is now 
a mission station. The McCrory Creek Baptist Church, near here, 
at the close of the war had two or three hundred members; it has 
now ceased to meet. Two of its deacons, the church clerk and 
fifty or sixty of its members are now with us. I see the clerk sit- 
ting before me now. In this county, since the war, we have in- 


-creased from three Churches to twenty-six, and -from five or six 
hundred members to as many thousands. My moderator's people 
were formerly Baptists; my ancestors were Baptists; the lady 
with whom I am stopping was once a Baptist; and I venture to 
say that now, in this room, there are fifty of our people who were 
formerly Baptists. If the gentleman doubts it, I will call on them 
to stand up, and we will count them. I say again, it is strange, 
passing strange, that so many of the people who Itnoiv that they 
are right, should come to us, who, he says, freely testify of our 
"conscious ignorance!' 7 Ah, if the gentleman's charge were true, 
in what a sad plight we would be! and what silly folk the Bap- 
tists who come to us would be ! But it is not true; he is greatly 
mistaken. The man who comes properly to us Jcnows that he be- 
lieves in Jesus, that he loves and trusts him; he ~knoivs that he is 
sorry for his sins, and that he is determined from the depth of his 
soul to turn away from them and to follow Jesus ; he believes that 
Jesus has said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit 
he cannot enter the kingdom of God;" and he comes to baptism 
trusting in Jesus. I so came to baptism myself; every brother 
that I have on this platform (and I am glad to see so many of them 
here) will say the same thing; and we experience love, joy and 
peace in the Lord, too. In the darkness of the midnight hour my 
heart has overflowed with love and gratitude, as, lying upon the 
bed, I thought upon the love and tenderness of Jesus our Lord, 
and of the marvelous love of God the Father, inasmuch as he has 
bestowed upon me the glory of being a son of God. 0, the won- 
derful love, the wonderful goodness of God! Nor do I for a mo- 
ment doubt that nay sins have been washed away. Jesus has said, 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." I am con- 
scious that I believe, and that 1 have been baptized. I am con- 
scious that I have been born of w.ater and the Spirit. Does Mr. 
Moody propose to call in question the testimony of consciousness? 
He can't do it without calling in question his "infallible" witness. 
Will he do that? 

I agree with him that, in her sphere, consciousness is infallible, 
and I accept whatever he has read to that effect from my brethren, 
or from any one else; but out of her sphere she. is absolutely 
worthless as a witness. You bring me a telegram saying that rny 
child is dead, and instantly I am filled with sorrow. Consciousness 
is infallible as a witness to the sorrow, but worthless as a witness 
to the correctness of the telegram. You tell me you are happy. 


and I believe it; 'there consciousness is competent to testify. You- 
say you are happy because God has for Christ's sake pardoned your 
sins, and then I need another witness. Consciousness is not com- 
peuent to testify on the latter point. Tour spirit knows what 
takes place in you, but it takes God's Spirit to tell what takes- 
place in God. 

But what does God ; s Spirit say? Listen! He says, "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Are you conscious that 
you believe and that you have been baptized? Then you have the 
two witnesses testifying to your being saved. Tour spirit telling 
what took place in you, God's Spirit telling what took place in, 
God, and each infallible in its testimony. But bear in mind it is 
God's Spirit who must explain to you the nature of the faith that 
is demanded of you. 

Tou hear a good deal of talk about people feeling the burden of 
sin roll away, and of being conscious then that they are forgiven. 
Nothing is more delusive; nothing can be. Convince the lost soul 
that he is saved, and he will be just as happy as if he were. Con- 
vince the saved man that he is lost (if it be possible), and he will 
be just as miserable as if he were. Tour feelings depend upon 
your faith, and the stronger the faith the more intense the feeling, 
and that, too, whether your faith be well founded or not. The be- 
lief of a lie will effect the feelings just as much as the belief of" 
the truth, as doubtless many of you well know. It will not do to 
depend upon your feelings to tell you whether or .not you are a 
child of God. 

As to the Tennessee woman to whom my friend referred, evi- 
dently she was not a proper subject for baptism when she went to 
Brother Hamilton, for she shows plainly that she did not go into 
the water in full assurance of faith, trusting in Jesus, but full of 
" doubts and fears." He who goes to baptism doubting and fear- 
ing, instead of believing and trusting, need not expect to be "re- 
lieved." And I venture to say that if she had made known to. 
Brother Hamilton the fact that she was so doubtful and fearful, he 
would not have baptized her. I am sure I would not. She went 
out from us because she was not of us. And the gentleman would 
rather take the testimony of one such woman who went from us 
to the Baptists than of a thousand of our people who came to us 
from the Baptists, he says. Well, he will excuse me, I suppose, if 
I can't agree with hirnj for I see now before me a number of bright- 
eyed, happy-looking people, who came to us from the 'Baptists at 


our recent meeting that are happy and ~know it, and their testi- 
mony is as good as that of anybody. ISTor would I care to swap 
them (on an even trade) for such bodies as my friend's witness. I 
would rather have people who go by the Word of God than those 
who go by their feelings. She said, after she heard you, "I felt 
that the Lord had forgiven my sins through faith in the blood of 
Jesus." We don't find out what has taken place somewhere else 
by our feelings. 

No wonder the brother who wrote to Brother Burnett's paper- 
threw such a coolness over that Baptist experience meeting. 
When he told his experience it was so different from theirs it made 
them feel badly, and then, judging by their feelings, it is possible 
they began to think they were not children of God at all! No 
wonder the interest subsided, and a coolness came over the 
meeting ! 

Recently I visited a lady in this city who was brought up under 
this doctrine of feeling, and who for many years had been a mem- 
ber of a Church that taught it. . She was, and is/an invalid (but,, 
notwithstanding, she occasionally gets out to meetings; she is 
here to-night). At some times when I went to see her she would 
be happy and confident that she was a child of God, and again, 
perhaps the next day, she would be miserable, and fear she was 
not a child of God at all, because at some times she felt so much 
better than at others. Ah, to many people God is near or far off 
according to the conditions of their livers or nervous systems. 
But when & -man loves God and trusts him, and is diligently en- 
gaged in serving him, he may know that God is with him all the 
time. The lady goes by the better rule now. 

Several years ago I held a meeting at Huntsville, Ala. During 
the meeting a worthy citizen of the place, an honorable member 
of the Baptist Church for forty years, united with us. One year 
later, as I passed through the city, I called on him, and very pleas- 
ant indeed it was to meet him. During the conversation he said 
to me: "I have enjoyed the Christian's life more in this one year 
than I did in the forty years that preceded it." So much better is 
the religion of faith than the religion of feeling! He was happy, 
and he knew he was happy ! Will my friend call in question the 
testimony -of his consciousness? 

You have observed, doubtless, that Mr. Moody does not say one 
word in reply to th quotations that I made-from Baptist authors. 
Hackett, Hovey, Wilmarth, Clarke, Bliss and others teach that 


baptism is "in order to" remission. Hacket says, " submit to the 
rite in order to be forgiven." Hovey speaks of baptism as "an 
embodied request or prayer unto God," as "an earnest request for 
pardon." Were these gentlemen conscious of forgiveness before 
they were baptized? Then how could Hackett have submitted to 
the rite in order to be forgiven ? And how could Hovey call bap- 
tism "an earnest request for pardon?" No Baptists ever stood 
higher in America than these two. They are princes among the 
Baptist scholars of the New World. Is it possible that they were 
pardoned before baptism, but were not conscious of it? No, that 
can't be, for Brother Moody tells you (and who will dare to say 
that he don't know?) that when a man is pardoned he knows it. 
If they were baptized before they were pardoned, their baptism 
was not valid, he says; if they were pardoned before baptism, ac- 
cording to his theory, they knew it; but, according to their teach- 
ing, one should submit to the rite in order to be forgiven. No 
wonder Brother Moody paid no attention to their utterances ! 

But the gentleman did say something concerning them, too, al- 
though he ignored their utterances. He charged me with misquoting 
Baptist authors. I deny it, and call on him for the proof. It is 
not a light thing to charge a man with misquoting an author. He 
who misquotes intentionally, especially in a religious discussion, 
is the worst kind of a hypocrite and deceiver. And, of course, one 
should not charge another with such a crime without having the 
very best and clearest evidence. What author have I misquoted? 
J am wholly unconscious of having misquoted, or in the slightest 
degree misrepresented, any author whom I have used. I have 
been very careful on this point, and am certain that the gentle- 
man's charge is utterly without foundation. However, we will see 
what he has to say about it. Here is a square issue, and you will 
Taave a chance to see which of us is the more reliable. 

The gentleman is accustomed to say (you remember this is our 
fourth debate) that while I use the words of Baptist authors cor- 
rectly, I don't use them with the meaning that they attach to 
them. He plainly intimated as much in his last speech. He is 
accustomed to say that Dr. Hackett taught good Baptist doctrine 
when you put his meaning in his words. Well, I am glad that I 
can pufc Brother Moody to the test as to his confidence in Hackett 
right here and now, and you, my friends, can see who it is that 
agrees with this great Baptist author. Brother Moody, I accept 
Hackett' s comments on Acts ii. 38 just as they stand in his Com- 


mentary, word for word, every word of them, taking the words in 
their plain, evident, common meaning. Do you? Does he there 
teach good Baptist doctriae? I dare you to say he does. I pause 
for a reply. Ah, iny friends, the gentleman won't answer; he is as 
silent as the grave. He knows that Hackett does not teach his sort 
of Baptist doctrine at that place. And I know that he does there 
teach precisely what my brethren teach. Watch him, friends, and 
see if he ever endorses the great doctor. 

I want to call your attention to a singular sentence from my 
friend's speech. He says : " Thes6 Baptists may believe that we are 
baptized unto, into, in order to, meaning, to the end, or even for the 
purpose of obtaining remission of sins, and then not mean what 
he does by the same terms, for if they had believed my friend's 
doctrine they would no doubt, like Mr. Campbell, have been ex- 
cluded at the next Church meeting." That is a strange sentence! 
Baptists may believe that we are baptized for the purpose of ob- 
taining remission of sins, and yet differ widely from us on that 
point! Will the gentleman please explain? I would like to know 
how that can be. It seems to me, and I suppose it does to other 
common mortals, too, that those words put the remission after 
the going down into the water, and that is clearly contrary to 
your proposition. 

Mr. Campbell was never excluded from any Church, nor was the 
Church to which he belonged ever excluded from any association. 
The Church to which he belonged (at Wellsburg, W. Va.) dropped 
the name Baptist and the Baptist Church covenant, and took the 
Word of God as its only guide; and all of the Churches of the Ma- 
honing Association did the same thing. So his Church and his As- 
sociation all came together out of the darkness into the light. It 
seems odd to accuse a man of being turned out of the Church 
when he took the whole Church and the whole Association with 
him. I suppose Brother Moody at this place is using words in a 
Baptistic sense, so that we need not expect to understand him. 

He tells us that the Christian world does not endorse our faith 
nor our repentance. Well, I am not so certain about that. I know 
that there are now two members in the First Baptist Church of 
this city who were received from us ou their faith, repentance and 
baptism. It seems that that part of the Baptist world endorses us r 
anyway. One- of the parties went into the Church, too, not from any 
change of views, as was plainly stated at the time, but from other 
considerations, and I believe the same was true also of the other. 


Will the gentleman please give us a definition of faith and re- 
pentance? I mean of the kind that he requires. Then we will 
see further about it. The great Broadus, president of the Baptist 
Theological Seminary at Louisville, commenting on Matthew, page 
34, defines repentance thus: "To repent, then, as a religious term 
of the New Testament, is to change the mind, thought, purpose, 
as regards sin and the service of God a change naturally 'accom- 
panied by deep sorrow for past sin, and naturally leading to a 
change of the outward life." 

That is a very good definition. It is entirely correct, though not 
so clear as that given by our McGarvey. Every brother that I 
have on this platform will endorse Broadus' definition of "repent." 
Will you Baptist preachers do it? The fact is, the great leading 
lights in the Baptist Church are getting beyond their brethren; 
they are coming more and more into the light. 

My friend says none of this audience ever heard me or one of 
my brethren tell a believer to repent. Did you hear me at the 
time ask him to put it to the test, to ask you to stand up ? I will 
put it to the test now if you say so. I will call on all in this house 
who have heard me teach believers that they must repent, and 
that except they repent they will perish, to stand up. Shall I? 
At least five hundred would arise, I doubt not, were I to call for 

My time is nearly gone, and there are one or two other little 
.matters that must be noticed. I quoted from Barnabas because 
he lived while the apostles lived, because his writings rank among 
those next to the apostles, and because, finally, my opponent said 
none of the apostolic fathers taught my doctrine. The sentence 
that I quoted was in existence in a Greek text before "Codex 
Sinai ticus" was discovered. I did not tell you it is "believed by 
scholars to be spurious," because it is not so. At least Armitage, 
in this large work, his recent "History of Baptists," quotes it as 
genuine, as Orchard did before him, and both of them call Barnabas 
a good Baptist. 

Brother Moody says Hermas taught nothing favorable to my 
doctrine. He taught that men descend into the water "under an 
obligation to death, but ascend out of it being appointed unto 
life." He says when a man receives the seal, water, i. e., baptism, 
"he is freed from death, and delivered unto life." To my ears that 
.sounds something like my doctrine. 

But did not Jesus tell Jairus "to believe only?" (See Mark v. 


:3S, and Luke viii. 50.) Yes, for Jairus had already done all that 
he could do, and nothing was left for Mm ~but to trust. He had 
gone for Jesus, he had. besought the Master to com'e and cure his 
daughter, he had returned with him, he had expressed his faith in 
action; and then, when people tried to discourage him, Jesus said, 
" Only believe." So when a man comes to baptism in love and 
trust, when he has gone down into the water, when he has sub- 
mitted himself to be baptized in obedience to Jesus, he has done 
.all that he can do, then let him "only believe," and Christ will 
take away his sins. But it won't do to quote this as authority for 
telling a man "only believe" when he has not expressed his faith 
.at all. James said it, I did not, "Faith without works is dead." 

Saul of Tarsus, on the way to Damascus, saw Jesus, heard his 
voice, was convicted of sin, and in great grief and penitance cried 
out: "Lord, what wilt thou have me do?" Jesus said: "Arise, 
^and go into the city, and it shall -be told thee what thou must do." 
What thou MUST do. Saul went to Damascus, and for three days 
.he waited to be told what he "must do." He was blind, nor did 
he eat nor drink. He prayed, for the Lord told Ananias, "Behold 
he prayeth." And to this believing, sorrowing, repenting, praying 
man, whose prayer God had heard, Ananias said: "Arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord." Whoever heard a Baptist talk like that? 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Third Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

If the gentleman was generally as verbally orthodox as on this 
occasion, I would rejoice, and more so, if I knew he put the right 
meaning to the right words. I said in my opening speech that 
here would be the fight; not in terms used, but in their order, re- 
lation and meaning. Mr. Harding, in his debate with McG-ary, 
knew these Baptist meanings. He said, page 42: "Yet this man 
(Campbell), when he was baptized, thought as the Baptists now 
generally do, that baptism was in order to declare a remission al- 
ready obtained. He thought 'for' meant <in order to declare, in- 
stead of in order to secure.'" The gentleman knows this is Hack- 
ett's and Hovey's meaning, and if using an authors' words in a. 
different sense from what he intended is misrepresenting him, 
then the gentleman is guilty of the charge. He and his people 
have invariably left off Hackett's explanation of his terms, though 
it was in the next sentence. Mr. Harding has put it for the first 
time in his written speech, because my rebuke of him before a 
Nashville and three other audiences, I trust, has made him "fear." 
Let him get through his quotations and we will see about them. 
For the present, see the tract, "Baptist Authors and Others Vindi- 
cated." He magnified here in debate, conviction, godly, sorrow, 
deep repentance, heart faith, love, trust, prayer, and, no doubt, he 
can get all his brethren to arise and endorse this as the invariable 
custom of himself and brethren; but this I say to his face, and 
before this audience, that any man in this city, or in this world, 
who is not an infidel, that is, who will say that he with all his 
heart (mind) believes that Jesus is the Christ, can join his Church 
and get baptism, without a single question in regard to conviction, 
sorrow, repentance, love, trust or prayer. I repeat my charge : 
Never did he or any of his brethren tell the believer who has just 
heard and believed and confessed, and then for the first time rec- 
ognized as a believer, never did any one hear any one of them tell 
that believer to repent, or ask him at the water, "the same hour,"' 
if he had repented. Never did he ask about love, though that is- 


.John's test that we have passed from death unto life. No, sir; 
"the belief of the one fact, and obedience in the one act," is all 
you require. Now call for a rising vote from outsiders, and let us 
see how you do. We will leave nothing to be decided by the vote 
of either interested party, for I have not forgotten that Tertullus 
uttered things untrue, to which "the Jews also assented, saying 
that these things were so." If my friend can't offer any other 
proof than this, he had better give up the discussion. I ob- 
ject to his witnesses, for that he has perfect control of them is 
evident to all beholders. He represents Paul going through the 
"altar exercises," believing, sorrowing, repenting, praying, whose 
prayer God had heard, and Ananias said, "Arise and be baptized." 
I would congratulate my friend in getting on the right side if I 
thought he would stay there, and on saying right things, if I 
thought he meant them as I do. At one time he has works added 
to faith, but when I catch him with the case of Jairus, "only be- 
lieve" and "believe only," then he puts works before faith. How 
can I catch such a dodger, unless I have time to run him down? 
He endorses Broadus on repentance, and Hackett on " baptism is 
represented as having this importance or efficacy because it is the 
sign of the repentance and faith, which are tlie conditions of sal- 
vation." He will endorse the Bible Union and Oxford Eevision on 
"unto" in Acts ii. 38. He will endorse the testimony on per- 
sonal consciousness to the effect that infconviction there is a con- 
sciousness of guilt, and in forgiveness there is a consciousness of 
relief, and both these are plainly taught in God's Word, and then 
in the same speech he contradicts it all. This you can see for 
.yourselves. He says: "Nothing is more delusive; nothing can 
be" {than feeling the burden roll away). Here is where he con- 
fesses "conscious ignorance." He never felt the burden, and 
hence he never felt it roll away. We have thousands of Baptists, 
just in his fix, and how natural that they should go to their own 
company. Mark you, they say by going that there is no such 
thing as conscious guilt and conscious relief at faith before bap- 
tism. When they go to those who pronounce this a delusion they 
confess that they are ignorant of conscious guilt and conscious re- 
lief by faith in Jesus, and that is the testimony of "conscious 
ignorance ; " and a million of such witnesses would be ruled out of 
.any court were this case on trial. But all who come to us say 
that at some time, and in some way, outside of baptism, sin re- 
vived in them and they died; that they found trouble and sorrow; 



that they called upon the Lord, "0 Lord, deliver my soul;" that 
they sought G-od, with all the hearty mind and soul, and that by 
faith in the finished work of Christ the burden rolled away, and 
"peace like a river" possessed their minds and hearts, and that it 
"passed all understanding." Such testimony of conscious knowl- 
edge on the part of Abel and Noah weighs more than all the con- 
scious ignorance of the antedeluviaus. Of course more go from 
us, because these are the "last days," as Mr. Campbell, the "mil- 
lennial harbinger," taught, and as my friend believes, and being 
the last days, "Teachers shall arise and draw away disciples after 
them, and they shall speak perverse things, and many shall follow 
their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the ivay of truth shall 
be evil spoken of." Does not my friend speak evil of the way of 
election according to grace, predestination according to purpose,, 
regeneration by the Holy Spirit, conviction unto death, repentance 
unto life, faith unto salvation; love, joy, peace, etc., as fruits of 
the Spirit; sanctificatiou, preservation, and all else? His order of 
these things makes their existence impossible, according to the be- 
lief of all Christendom. He says Mr. Hamilton would not have 
baptized the lady if he had known her condition. But he did 
know, and he nor any of his brethren ever yet let such a case go.. 
He says a man who went from us to them in Alabama said he- 
never enjoyed religion so much in his life before. I offer tlie fol- 
lowing sentence from the gentleman's last speech as a possible ex- 
planation: "Convince the lost soul that he is saved, and he will 
be just as happy as if he were." The fact is, a roan with us that 
has no personal consciousness on guilt and cleansing can only be 
miserable when we are testifying on that question, and when he 
goes to you, and is made to believe that our consciousness is all a 
delusion, then his joy springs up, of course, not because our con- 
scious knowledge is a delusion, perhaps, but because he is made 
to believe that his conscious ignorance does not leave him out of 
the ark of safety. "You make a lost soul believe he is saved, and 
he is just as happy as if he were." 

The gentleman says: "I am conscious that I believe, and that I 
have been baptized. I am conscious that I have been born of 
water and of the Spirit. Does Mr. Moody propose to call in ques- 
tion the testimony of consciousness?" Yes, sir; I am here to call 
in question all such consciousness as that. I am ready to prove 
from G-od's Word, and Mr. Hardiug's personal consciousness, that 
he did not believe in Jesus Christ before he repented and was bap- 


tized, and I am ready to prove from God's Word that he has never 
been baptized, and he could not join an orderly Baptist Church in 
the land just as he is. He knows that he was not pierced to the 
heart, that he did not agonize to enter in, that he did not trem- 
blingly fall down on his face, that he did not fast and pray so that 
God heard his prayer before baptism, like Cornelius and Saul,, 
etc. His personal consciousness along here is that of ignorance., 
for you have heard him ridicule this, and the Word of God puts* 
these things before baptism, and the Word of God gives the bless- 
ings of salvation to faith, and if he did not get these things to his 
faith, then he had no saving faith, and his baptism is null and 

A friend of his who was once conspicuous at one of our debates 
is now rejoicing in the light of Ingersollism. I had a member to 
go off into Spiritualism, and he denied the Christ and his religion, 
and wrote me a long affectionate letter to come out of darkness 
into light. There is such a thing as God sending a strong delusion, 
that a " man may believe a lie and be damned." My friend be- 
lieves that Catholicism, Protestantism, Spiritualism, Ingersollism, 
etc., are such delusions, and he must know that the Christian 
world puts his system in the same catalogue, of fatal delusions. 
The gentleman's quotations will be answered in time, and he knows 
it. But let him glory beforehand. 

My second argument is based on the one plan of salvation for 
all ages, which is faith in Christ. This was the testimony of the 
patriarchs, prophets and apostles. If the Old Scriptures show the 
one way of salvation, and the New endorse and confirm, it, then- 
baptism is not in the way of salvation. When Peter preached the 
first Gospel sermon to us Gentiles. he did not indulge in types, sym- 
bols, parables, Hebraisms, etc., for if he bad, Cornelius and Ms- 
house and his friends and we might not have understood him; but 
he declared, after stating certain facts and truths concerning Jesus 
of Nazareth, foretold by the Scriptures, that "to him give all the 
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in 
him should receive remission of sins." Paul uses similar language 
in Rom. iii. 21, 23, and Gal. iii. 8 and 22, which will be noticed in 
time. I shall proceed to show that the Old Scriptures, Christ and 
his apostles being witnesses, so clearly set forth faith in him as 
the way of salvation, and the one and only way, that he who runs 
can read the highway of salvation, "so plain that a wayfaring 
man, though a fool, need not err therein." If the Old Scriptures. 


are sufficient for salvation, then baptism is not essential, for the 
Old Scriptures know nothing of this ordinance. If there is but 
one way of salvation, then we can search for that way as well in 
the altar of Abel as in the house of Cornelius. If faith in Christ 
is taught in both as securing salvation, and works in both as de- 
claring salvation, then the way of salvation in both is the same, 
only there were different outward manifestations, and these being 
grievous and burdensome under the Old, Christ gathered them up 
and nailed them to his cross, for that they all pointed to the Lamb 
of God that should take away the sin of the world. So the Lamb 
having been slain, other ordinances, looking back, must be ap- 
pointed, by which we can show our faith in the efficacy of the 
same tragedy. These ordinances, both old and new, have iu them 
not only emblems of blood, sufferings and death, but also life from 
the dead. In these we declare not only our faith in the sufficiency 
of that sacrifice to cleanse the soul from guilt, but also its suffi- 
ciency to redeem the body from the wages of sin and the curse of 
the law. There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 
There are differences of administration, but the same Lord, and 
there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who 
worketh all in all. God has but one way of working salvation in, 
but we have many ways of working it out. We show* forth the 
praises of him in the many ways by which we bear good fruit, evi- 
dencing the good tree. Many ways may we glorify God in our 
bodies and spirits which are his, but the one way in all ages by 
which God justifies a sinner is by faith in Christ. The Gospel that 
was preached to Abraham was preached also by Christ and his 
apostles, for he said: "This Gospel of the kingdom, shall be 
preached in all the world for a witness, and then the end shall 
come." Paul said if he, or an angel from heaven, should preach 
any other Gospel, let him. be accursed. And that other Gospel 
which he was combating, and which he said was not another, but 
cursed be he who preached it, was "salvation in ordinances, by 
works, in obedience to law, making the death of Christ of no 
effect, and Christ could profit them nothing. In correcting the 
early errors and discussing fully the plan of salvation, he proved 
every point from the Old Scriptures. 

The all- wise God, omnipotent and immutable, saved Abel before 
the flood, Abraham before the law, David under the law, Peter 
under the ministry of John, publicans and harlots under Christ, 
and Paul after Christ, all the same way. Did Paul dispute with. 


Peter, or David, or Moses, or Abraham about their different plans 
of salvation"? Did not he quote all to prove the one plan? When 
he said the just shall live by faith, and we are of them who believe 
to the saving of the soul, did he not proceed in the next sentence 
to define faith, and then to give examples of it from Abel on down 
through all the dispensations? Was not God wise enough in the 
beginning to devise a plan of salvation! Must he come to per- 
fection of knowledge by experiments? Will not all the saved sing 
the same song of redemption? Was not fallen human nature al- 
ways the same? Was not God always the same? Has not sin 
always been the same? Have not the fruits of the Spirit (love, 
joy, peace, etc.) always been the same? Did not these fruits pro- 
duce the same results in Abel, Abraham, David and Paul? Then 
does it not follow that whosoever in any age loveth has been born 
of God, and whosoever in any age that believeth has passed from 
death unto life? Does not the gentleman himself refer to the Old 
Scriptures to prove his plan of salvation? Did he not refer indis- 
criminately to the Old and New to prove that the order of repent- 
ance, faith, turning and forgiveness are the same in all ages? 
True, he has told us that turning in the New means baptism, and 
in time, of course, he must prove that it meant the same in the 
Old, or why did he quote it? He says he knows it means baptism 
in the New. I want him to say this some more. I want him to 
say it loud, and often, until he fully inflates his balloon, and then I 
promise to puncture it with the Sword of the Spirit. He is ready 
to turn to Genesis, or Exodus, or 2 Kings, or to Isaiah, or to 
Matthew, or to Mark, or to John: but watch him on another occa- 
sion tear it all off up to The Acts ii. 38. 

Next the object of faith "that is unto salvation." Christ said: 
" Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think' ye have eternal life, 
and they are they which testify of me, and ye will not come to me 
that ye might have life." (John v.. 39, 40.) The witness of Christ 
here is, that the Old Scriptures so revealed him as the dispenser of 
eternal life, that they ought by faith to have come to him. He says 
further in this connection: "There is one that accuseth you, even 
Moses in whom ye trust; for had ye believed Moses, ye would have 
believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, 
how shall ye believe my words?" From this it is seen that Christ 
was the object of faith from the time of Moses, and so plainly re- 
vealed him as such that there was no excuse for their not having 
believed on him to life everlasting. The Old Scriptures "testify of 


me," said Christ, and testifies so strongly and plainly that those 
who believe not those writings would not believe his words. "If 
they believe not Moses and the prophets, they would not be per- 
suaded though one should rise from the dead." "We have found 
Mm of whom Moses iu the law and the prophets did write, Jesus 
of Nazareth, the sou of Joseph." (John i. 55.) So plainly was 
Jesus revealed in the Old Scriptures, his birth, life, sufferings, 
death, resurrection, etc., that he upbraided those of his day, say- 
ing, fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets 
have written ! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, 
and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the 
prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things 
concerning himself. All things must be fulfilled which were writ- 
ten in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms 
concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they 
might understand the (Old) Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus 
it is written (in the Old Scriptures) ; and thus it behooved Christ 
to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, according to the 
(Old Testament) Scriptures. So Peter, iu Acts iii. 19-25, urged 
Jesus Christ as the object of faith from the Old Scripture testi- 
mony as strongly as from his own testimony as to the fulfillment 
of those Scriptures in him. He quoted Moses: "Ye are the chil- 
dren of the prophets and the covenant which God made with 
your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the 
kindreds of the earth be blessed." Peter in this, as in the second 
chapter of Acts 7 preached Christ as the object of faith, and lie 
preached him from the Old Scriptures, for the New had not been 
written; and so successful was he of convicting the Jews of the 
Messiahship of Christ that "three thousand were added from the 
first sermon," and from the next "many which heard the Word be- 
lieved, and the number of men was about five thousand." Then 
how successfully may Christ be preached from, the Old Scriptures ! 
Even to this day, whether we preach from the Old or from the 
New, the burden of both is, and the burden of our sermons should 
be, Christ the object of faith. There is no difference between the 
Old and the New. If there is obscurity in reading or hearing 
either the Old or the New, the obscurity is not in the Scripture, 
but in the reading and the hearing. The eyes, ears and heart may 
be closed, or a veil may be on them, but the obstruction on the 
eyes, ears or heart being removed, the Scripture is plain. "The 
Lord is that Spirit." And when we read the Old or the New "with 


open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, we are 
changed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit 
of the Lord." Paul said this about the right reading of the Old 
Scriptures, "when Moses is read." (2 Cor. iii. 15.) Whether the 
letter of Moses was brazen serpent, manna, rock, cloudy pillar, 
high priest, bloody victim's, tabernacle, Aaron, Melchizedek, or 
what not, the Spirit of the Word was Christ, and with the veil 
taken away and the understanding opened, the Lord could be seen 
as that. Spirit, and "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is 

The writings of Moses constituted the glass in which we could 
behold the glory of the Lord, and by beholding be transformed 
into his own image, "even as by the Spirit of the Lord." So Christ 
is the object of faith, and reading we should believe to the saving 
of the soul, whether we read the Old or the New. "There is no 
difference." Stephen makes this strong in his sermon in Acts vii. 
38: "This is that which Moses said unto the children, A prophet 
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like 
unto roe. Him shall ye hear. This is he that was in the Church 
in the wilderness with the angel, which spake unto him .in the 
Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living oracles 
to give unto us." "The living oracles" refer to the Old, and not to 
the New. Here is where Mr. Campbell got his name for his "New 
Testament" Scriptures. He thinks the Old has been done away, 
that they are inoperative and a dead letter, and in styling the New 
"the living," he brands the Old as dead. But the record from 
which he borrowed he butchered. The Old, even Moses constituted 
the living oracles. (1 Peter i. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 13; Acts viii. 35.) 
When Peter "wrote to the strangers scattered abroad,' "the elect 
of God," he told them they had been "born again, not of corrupti- 
ble seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth 
and abideth forever. . . . But the Word of the Lord endureth 
forever, and this is the Word which has been proclaimed unto you." 
Peter had reference to the Old Scriptures. Philip began at the same 
Scripture (Isaiah) and preached unto him Jesus. 

Whenever the Gospel was preached in those days, this was the 
Word they preached the Old Scriptures. Paul said (1 Cor. xv. 
1-4): "Moreover, brethren,'! declare unto you the'Gospel which I 
preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye 
stand, by which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I 
preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I deliv- 


ered unto you first of all that which I also received; how that 
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was- 
buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the 
Scriptures." Here Paul preached the Gospel to the Corinthians, 
so that they believed, and wherein they stood, viz., the death,, 
burial and resurrection of Christ; aiad by this they were to be 
saved; and he preached it from the Old Scriptures. (See Acts 
xviii. ^ 7 11.) There is no doubt but that these converts were made 
from preaching the "living oracles" (the Old Scriptures), for Paul,, 
nor Peter, nor any other, could have made converts of Jews in 
any other way. The New Scriptures were not collected for a long 
time after this, and hence could not have been called in this place 

Let us consider another example where Paul did the utmost 
honor to the Old Scriptures (2 Tim. iii. 15-17): "And that from a 
child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make 
thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."' 
These Scriptures had made Timothy wise unto salvation through 
faith which is in Christ Jesus. These Scriptures had produced this 
same unfeigned faith in his grandmother, Lois, and in his mother, 
Eunice; and Paul said, "I am persuaded in thee (Timothy) also."' 
Timothy had known these Scriptures from a child, from his earliest 
childhood, apo brcphous, from infancy, but not in infancy, for that 
could not be. Then his mother, Eunice, and perhaps his grand- 
mother, Lois, had taught him these Scriptures so early and thor- 
oughly that they had produced the same unfeigned faith in him 
that they had produced in them. Then, if they all had faith (and 
this was Paul's persuasion), these Scriptures had made his mother 
and grandmother wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus. Our first introduction to Timothy harmonizes with 
this. (Acts xvi. 1.) Paul went to Derbe and Lystra, "and behold 
a certain disciple was there named Timothy, the sou of a certain 
woman that was a Jewess, and believed, but his father was a 
Greek, which was well reported by the brethren that were at 
Lystra and Icouium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him, 
and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews that were in 
those quarters, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."' 
Paul calls Timothy his son, and hence he must have been con- 
verted on Paul's previous tour, for here Paul "found" this disciple 
and his believing mother. (See Acts xiv. 20-23.) Converted, not 
to faith in Christ, for the pious, expectant Jews already believed 


in the promised Messiah. He and his mother believed in the 
promised Messiah which was to come, and for whom many were 
waiting, but converted to a recognition of Jesus as the promised 
Messiah. He and his mother believed in the promised Messiah, 
and like the eunuch and many others, had only to be convinced 
from the prophecies and their fulfillment in him that he was the 
divine person promised. Hence, whoever believeth that Jesus is 
the Christ is born of God, because no Jew believed that Jesus was 
the Christ but such as already believed in the promised Messiah, 
and was waiting for him. " This is he of whom Moses in the law 
and the prophets did write, come and see." 

Now Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures from infancy, and 
since they were written that we might believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, and that believing we might have life through his name, 
this knowledge of Scripture led him at some time to believe in 
Jesus Christ to the saving of his soul. That these were the Old 
Scriptures is evident. Take facts in the light of chronology, and 
it is certain that the Scripture he knew from a child were the Old 
Scriptures, and these, said Paul, were able to make him. wise unto 
salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. So Christ is the object of 
our faith, whether we read the Old Scriptures or the New. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Third Reply. 

Dear Friends : 

Let me congratulate you on the patience with which you endure 
these long sessions, and the earnestness with which you listen. It 
is a delight to me to speak, because you seem so eager to hear. 

Well, the gentleman did not answer my questions, nor did he 
try; but he promises that he will do it. Tou don't knew his 
promising powers as well as I do. I have heard him make them 
before. He is an exceedingly promising man. But I will remind 
him of the questions till the debate ends, or until he tries to an- 
swer them, so he might just as well do it at once. 1. If believers 
are sons of G-od, if they become sous in the act of believing, how 
do you accouDt for the fact tliat Jesus gave to believers power to 
become sons? (John i. 11, 12.) 2. That men must turn to God 
before they are forgiven the Scriptures plainly teach, and all ad- 
mit; but (Acts xi. 21), "A great number believed and turned unto 
the Lord." Now, as the turning follows the believing, how could 
they have reached the forgiveness in the believing, as you say? 
Isaiah Iv. 7 says : " Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unright- 
eous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he 
will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly 
pardon." 3. Paul showed the people "that they should repent 
and turn to God." (Acts xxvi. 20.) How did those penitents 
turn? What did they do in turning? I don't hesitate to affirm 
that no man can give a clear, intelligent, satisfactory answer to 
these questions who holds that we reach pardon in the act of be- 
lieving, and before doing any thing else. 

Then, the gentleman is silent, also, about that misquotation. In 
liis second speech he accused me of misquoting Baptist authors in 
my first. I denied it, reminded him that it was a solermi^charge 
to make, and called on him for the proof. I challenged him. to 
name the author, and to specify the misquotation, but he has 
silently passed the matter by. I have not misquoted any author, 
nor have I misrepresented one. I would scorn to do such a thing 
as I would to lie or steal. And if my friend does not make some 


'explanation of his charge he will put himself in a very ugly light 
before this people. 

In rny debate with McG-ary (a copy of which Brother Moody has) 
I say the Baptists generally hold that baptism is in order to de- 
clare a remission already obtained. After referring to this state- 
ment of mine. Brother Moody then says of me: "The gentleman 
kuows this is Hackett's and Hovey's meaning, and if using an 
author's words in a different sense from what he intended is mis- 
representing him, then the gentleman is guilty of the charge." 

Well, now, here is another square issue. And I am glad it has 
come up, for I want you to know which one of us is reliable in 
handling books. It is certain that both of us are not. I will be- 
.-gin with Hackett, and I will give you his words, that you may see 
for yourself what he means. 

"Eis aplicsin hamartioon, in order to the forgiveness of sins, we 
connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause' 
states the motive or object which should induce them to repent 
and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part 
of it to the exclusion of the other." (Hackett on Acts ii. 38.) 
This statement is so plain that he who runs may read. The motive 
or object which should induce men to repent and be baptized is 
the forgiveness of sins, teaches Hackett. On "in order to the for- 
giveness of sins" he refers to Matt. xxvi. 28, and Luke iii. 3. He 
refers to this same passage (Acts ii. 38) on page 276 of his Com- 
mentary, and says it means " submit to the rite in order to be for- 
given. 7 ' He is there commenting on the words of Ananias to Paul: 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away, thy sins;" and of the 
clause "wash aivayfhj sins," he says: "This clause states a result 
^of the baptism in language derived from the nature of the ordi- 
nance. It answers to eis aphesin hamartioon in Acts ii. 38, that is, 
submit to the right in order to be forgiven. In both passages 
baptism is represented as having this importance or efficacy, be- is a sign of the repentance and faith which are the condi- 
tions of salvation." (Hackett on Acts xxii. 16.) If the great 
Baptist doevS not mean here that baptism, when it is a sign of repent- 
ance and faith, is in order to obtain forgiveness, he was incapable 
of expressing his ideas in words. His own brethren so uuder- 
stand him. A writer in a recent issue of the National Baptist says 
of his explanation of Acts ii. 38: "For years after giving tnis un- 
baptistic interpretation, Dr. Hackett was allowed to go on teaching 
"in the Newton and Eochester theological schools, instead of being 


expelled and turned over to the Campbellites, who agreed with 
him, and would have been glad to take him." James W. Wilinarth,, 
in a long article first published in the Baptist Quarterly, July, 1877, 
and afterwards extensively circulated in tract form, stoutly affirms, 
that "the Campbellites" are right on Acts ii. 38. He says eis in 
Acts ii. 38 means "in order to," and then adds: "Every thing- 
unites to render a mistake as to the force of eis almost impossible. 
Every thing compels us to assign to it its obvious meaning, as used, 
to denote the purpose of actions. It here marks the purpose for 
which, the object in order to which, the inquirers of Pentecost 
were to repent, believe and be baptized. In this view we are sup- 
ported by Dr. Hackett in his unrivaled Commentary on the Acts."' 

Here Wilmarth strongly proclaims our views to be correct, and 
says that Hackett agrees with him. 

I have been thus full and explicit on this matter (1) because I 
want you to know beyond the possibility of a doubt what Hackett. 
teaches on this question, and (2) because I want you to know 
which of us two is reliable in the use of authors. Brother Moody 
claims that Hackett taught that men were to be baptized "in order- 
to declare a remission already obtained," while I claim Hackett 
taught that men were to "submit to the rite (baptism) in order to 
be forgiven." And now you know which of us is correct. 

When the gentleman says that I left off what Hackett says about 
baptism being a sign of repentance and faith, he is mistaken. I 
don't believe baptism is worth-any thing unless it is a sign (that 
is, an external expression) of repentance and faith. [I read the- 
passage in my first oral- reply just as it appears in this book, the 
gentleman's statement to the contrary notwithstanding. I could 
have had no object in leaving it out, as I believe it just as it stands.. 
Hackett teaches that baptism, when it is a sign of repentance and 
faith, is to be submitted to in order that one may be forgiven, and 
that is exactly what I believe.] Friends, I will show you who ac- 
cepts the great commentator's teaching, and in such a way that 
you cannot fail to understand which of us would be inclined to 
misrepresent him. Listen. Brother Moody, I accept Hackett's 
comments on Acts ii. 38, and xxii. 16, just as they stand, word for- 
word and dot for dot. Do you? I pause for a reply. I dare you. 
to say that you do, or that you do not. Ah, my friends, you can 
now see for yourselves. He is afraid to say that he believes Hack- 
ett, and he is afraid to say that he does not. Now watch him,, 
and see what he says about this in his next speech. 


He says also that Hovey's meaning is that baptism is in order 
to declare a remission already obtained ! ! ! On Acts ii. 38 Hovey 
says: "Here repentance and baptism are represented as leading to 
the forgiveness of sins." He says, on Acts xxii. 16, "Baptism in- 
volves the idea of prayer for the forgiveness of sins" And, on 1 
Peter iii. 21, he says: "Baptism, therefore, saves, because it stands 
for and means genuine reliance, for the first time, upon the mercy 
of G-od in Christ, and, indeed, an earnest request for pardon. It 
expresses the act of the soul in turning to God, committing itself to 
God, and seeking his grace." [Italics mine.] 

How can any man dare to say this great Baptist believes and 
teaches that baptism is in order to declare a pardon already ob- 
tained, when he says, in the most positive way, it stands for and 
means "an earnest request for pardon;" when he teaches that re- 
pentance and baptism are represented by the Holy Spirit "as lead- 
ing to the forgiveness of sins?" I am sure I cannot tell, but I am 
certain it behooves my friend to be careful, or this audience will be- 
gin to think he cannot be relied upon. They will think there is 
something wrong in his mental or moral makeup. 

Tes, we do ask just one question of those who come to us for 
baptism, and that question is this: "Do you believe, with your 
heart, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?" When 
a nian gives an intelligent affirmative answer to this, we claim he 
is fully prepared for baptism. We explain the question thus: 
The word "believe" implies trust; baptism, unless the baptized 
trusts in Christs, avails nothing. The word "heart" does not mean 
simply the mind, as Brother Moody intimates that we teach, but it 
signifies the inner-man, the spiritual nature; it is that in us which 
thinks, reasons, understands; which doubts, ponders, believes; 
which hopes, fears, loves; which desires, purposes, decrees. The 
Scriptures plainly represent the heart as doing all these things, as 
you can easily see by taking a concordance and examining the 
word in its various occurrences in the Bible. It is the "ego" of 
the metaphysicians, the "inward man" of Paul, and it includes the 
intellect, the affections and the will. To believe with the heart is 
to accept humbly and reverently as true the fact that G-od raised 
Jesus from the dead ; but it is more, it is to love Jesus as your 
Savior, putting him in your heart above all ; but it is still more, it 
:is to consecrate one's self to his service, with full purpose of heart 
to follow him, regardless of the consequences or the cost. 

Now, when a man believes in this way, we say he believes with the 


heart, and that he is prepared for baptism. We claim that this faith- 
includes repentance, and necessarily implies godly sorrow for sin. 

On the subject of the necessity of repentance there is absolutely 
no difference among my brethren that I ever heard of. We all be- 
lieve that without repentance there is absolutely no salvation, that 
it is as much a prerequisite to salvation as is faith. Every brother 
that I have on this platform so believes, so does every one in this 
house, and so does every preacher among us that ever wrote on 
the subject. In my recent meeting, held within a bowshot of this 
place, I preached two sermons on repentance, incidentally referred 
to it and explained it in other sermons I suppose not fewer than 
twenty times, and, besides all this, when people came forward to 
confess Christ night after night (and scores of them came), I care- 
fully explained to them, that they must come trusting in Jesus, 
sorrowing on account of their sins, and being fully determined to 
turn away from them and to follow Jesus ; and thus repentance 
was taught to them again. I taught them carefully that without 
coming thus their baptism would be worthless. So five hundred 
people or more in this audience, I doubt not, would freely testify. 
But the gentleman will not accept the testimony of my brethren. 
We are not allowed to tell what we believe, nor what we practice. 
Somebody else must tell that. And then (I never heard the like 
before in my life) he plainly intimates that if I make a lot of false 
statements concerning what I said and did in that protracted meet- 
ing, and call on my brethren to stand up and indorse what- 1 say 
as true, that they will promptly do it. He says I have "perfect 
control" of my witnesses! Such a wholesale charge of dishonesty 
and falsehood I never before heard made against such a vast mul- 
titude of gentlemen and ladies! But it does not hurt me in the 
least, my friends, for I know my brethren here, and so do you; and 
I know Mr. Moody, my erring brother, much better than you do,, 
but you will know him better before this debate closes. Just 
think of it! A man who is a comparative stranger among you 
stands up in your presence and coolly charges a great multitude 
of hundreds of people, including prominent preachers, some of 
them among the best known in the city, and standing as fair, as 
honorable, upright ministers as any in it; publishers, business men, 
merchants, mechanics, ladies, gentlemen, school boys and girls, 
all, with being willing to testify to a falsehood if I ask them to ! 
Well, that is cool, I must say ! Hard pressed, indeed, must be the- 
man who will thus endeavor to defend himself. 


[His proposition to leave the matter to the outsiders, if made in 
the oral debate, was not heard "by me. But, if it be desired, out- 
side testimony can be brought in abundance yet.] 

He refers to the fact that Paul went through the "altar exer- 
cises." "Yes, and just as soon as an intelligent disciple came to 
him, the "altar exercises" ceased, and he arose and was baptized, 
and washed away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord.. The 
believing, repenting Saul sorrowed and mourned while he was in 
darkness, but when the preacher came he brought the light, and 
Saul arose and obeyed, and found peace. The preacher told him 
what he "must do," and he did it. 

But mark you, my friends, Brother Moody did not attempt to 
answer my point on Paul's case. For three days and nights Paul 
was a believer he will not deny, for he had seen Jesus, and had 
heard him speak. Nor can it be doubted that he was a sorrowing 
penitent, for he had cried out from the depths of his heart, "Lord,, 
what wilt thou have me to do?" Tet he did not get the "con- 
scious relief" that my friend says every converted man gets; he 
did not "Ttnoiv" that he was pardoned, for he remained blind, sor- 
rowing, without eating or drinking, without the Holy Spirit, pray- 
ing for three days aud nights. But Ananias, sent by the Lord,, 
told him what he "must do." He said: "And now why tarriest 
thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on 
the name of the Lord." Paul did it, and then, "when he had re- 
ceived meat, he was strengthened." He did not get forgiveness 
till he was baptized, nor was he comforted till then. 

Now, can any man believe that this same Paul afterwards taught 
in his letter to the Eomans that we are justified in the very 
moment of believing, and before doing any thing whatever? I am 
sure I can't. And I would here exhort my Baptist brethren to in- 
terpret Paul's teaching in the light of his experience, and they will 
the more easily and the more correctly understand it. They are 
great .believers, you know, in experiences, and I would fain have 
them profit by Paul's. 

In that same letter to the Eomans Paul said (vi. 17): "But 
thanks be to God that, whereas ye were the servants of sin, ye 
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching where- 
unto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became 
servants of righteousness." (Eom. vi. 17, Eev. Ver.) 

In this place Paul tells exactly when those Eomans, who were 
"justified by faith," were made free from sin. It was when they 


had "obeyed from the heart" the "form of teaching." Observe 
caref ally now these points: (1) We do not obey the command to 
believe "from the heart/' we obey it in the heart. Nor do we 
obey the command to repent from the heart, as that, too, is an 
action of the heart, taking place in the heart. Paul says (Rom. 
x. 9) that we are to believe in the heart. (2) Neither faith nor re- 
pentance are in the "form" of any thing. They are entirely with- 
out form. So, you see, in believing and repenting we do not "obey 
from the heart" any "form of teaching," and hence we are not 
then made free from sin. (3) But in being baptized we do obey 
from the heart, as baptism, when valid, is a bodily action expressive 
of a heart changed by faith and repentance ; and (4) we do obey 
the "form .of teaching." Baptism represents the burial (which 
necessarily presupposes the death) and the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. When the believer is baptized, by the very form of the 
act he says "Christ was buried, and he rose again?' In 1 Cor. 
xv. 1-4 Paul plainly teaches what the Gospel "the form of 
teaching" by which we are saved is. He says: "For I delivered 
unto you first of all that which also I received, how that Christ 
died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was 
buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according 
to the Scriptures." This, now, is the "teaching," the "doctrine," 
as the common version calls it ; and when the believer is baptized 
he obeys from, the heart the form of this teaching, and "being made 
free from sin" he becomes the servant of righteousness. This 
passage, standing by itself, shows very clearly to my mind that 
men are made free from sin when they are baptized; but, when 
taken in its connection, its force is greatly intensified, and the 
question is settled beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt. 
For, in this very connection, Paul is talking about our being "bap- 
tized into Christ," "baptized into his death," about our being 
"buried" in baptism and "raised" again. He says: "Are ye igno- 
rant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized 
into his death? We were buried, therefore, with him through bap- 
tism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead 
through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness 
of life." (Rom. vi. 3, 4.) He then continues to discuss the subject 
of sin and freedom from sin through the chapter, at the 17th 
verse saying: "Whereas, ye were the servants of sin, ye became 
obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye 
were delivered, and being made free from sin, ye became servants 


of righteousness." Thus the matter is settled. Just here I will 
ask my friend Moody a question, which I am sure he will never 
answer. It is this : What do you understand to be the "form of 
teaching" that these Eomans obeyed? As their "being made free 
from sin" came afterwards, it is exceedingly important that he 
should tell us what he thinks about it. Watch for his answer. 
The case will give him trouble, for, like Paul, these people did not 
get the "conscious relief" till they had obeyed a "form of teach- 
ing," till they had been baptized. 

By the way, he says there are thousands of Baptists who never 
felt this "conscious relief." That is astonishing! I would like to 
know how that is. If a man knows when he is converted ~by his 
feelings, "and can't be mistaken about it, and as the Baptists won't 
baptize a man till he satisfies them he has experienced this change, 
how can it be that there are thousands among them who have 
never "felt the burden roll away?" Evidently there are thousands 
among them who once thought they had this change, who imagined 
they felt the burden roll away, but who, according to Brother Moody, 
were mistaken. He who goes by his feelings, thoughts, dreams, 
fancies or imaginations is sure to be deluded ; but he who goes by 
the Word of God is sure. Jeremiah (xxiii. 28) says: "The prophet 
that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my 
Word, let him speak my Word faithfully. What is the chaff to the 
wheat? saith the Lord." Again he says (xxiii. 34, 35) : "And as for 
the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The 
burden of the Lord, I will even punish that man and his house. 
Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbor, and every one to his 
brother, What hath the Lord answered ? and, What hath the Lord 
spoken?" Brother Moody tells you about the woman who cried 
out, "Oh, Lord, deliver my soul," and who then felt the burden roll 
away. But the Word of the Lord tells you about Saul, who cried 
out, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Who was told that 
he must be baptized. He did it, and he found peace. Friends, I 
will take the Word of the Lord. What do you say? 

Brother Moody's second argument, he says, "is based on the 
one plan of salvation for all ages, which is faith in Christ." He 
claims that the Old Testament shows the way of salvation, and 
that, as baptism is not in the Old Testament, it is not a part of the 
plan. The fact of the death of Christ is not in it; is it, therefore, 
not a part of the plan? The fact of the resurrection of Christ is 
not in it either, yet no man can now be saved without believing 



with his heart that God hath raised him from the dead. (See 
Eorn. x. 9, 10.) If submission to baptism is not necessary under 
the new covenant in order to forgiveness because baptism is not 
in the old, if nothing is required under the new that was not re- 
quired under the old, then it follows as an absolute certainty that 
one need not believe "that God hath raised Jesus from the dead" 
in order to be saved. For no one believed that under the old 
covenant. And it follows, furthermore, that all Jews who truly 
believe the Old Testament are in a saved state, even if they believe 
not the New. Ah, but that won't do, for Christ said to one of the 
noblest and best of the Jews, " Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And 
he added. "Ye must be born again." 

It is true that the plan of salvation, in Us principles, is the same 
in all ages. In all ages God has required faith, repentance and 
obedience. But the facts to be believed, the sins to be repented 
of and the commands to be obeyed have been more or less different 
under different dispensations. The Jew had to believe that Christ 
would come; we have to believe that Christ has come. If the Jew 
neglected circumcision, the offerings according to the law, coming 
to Jerusalem thrice a year, and many other such things, he had to 
repent of them; the repentance demand of us is of other sins.. 
And so concerning the commands. 

But God did never, under any dispensation, grant any 'blessing to 
any man on account of his faith until that faith had expressed 
itself in some action of the body. 

On this statement I am willing to put my cause. Let the gen- 
tleman find one case in which the faith he is contending for, faith 
within, faith unexpressed, reached any blessing, and I will acknowl- 
edge that I am defeated. But if he cannot find one, then of course 
his arguments are worthless, whether from the Old Testament or 
the New, and his cause is lost. 

Mr. Moody tells us when a man believes in his heart, he knows- 
it; his consciousness is an infallible witness that cannot be called 
in question. Then when I tell him I believe in my heart in Jesus 
Christ the Sou of God, that I am conscious of it, he says it is not 
so. Consciousness is fallible or infallible as it suits him, I sup- 
pose. I tell him. that I heard Jesus the crucified, the Savior of 
sinners, preached with wonderful power, that I was "pricked in 
my heart/' and^filled with sorrow, and that in my heart I cried, 
"Lord, have mercy upon me." I was perfectly conscious of those 


experiences. But lie says, not so. So, you see, it is only the Bap- 
tist consciousness that is infallible with him. Then I arose and 
was baptized, calling on the name of the Lord, according to his 
commandment. And, being conscious that I had obeyed the Lord, 
I believed that he had pardoned me. Of this I have never had a 
doubt from that hour to this. I can neither doubt my conscious- 
ness as to what has taken place in me, as to what I have done, 
nor can I doubt the Word of God as to what he has done. 

As to the Old Testament, the gentleman cannot speak too highly 
of it, for it is God's Word. Christ sai'd, " One jot or one tittle shall 
in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. (Matt. v. 18.) 
But Christ did fulfill it perfectly. Hence it is said, "Christ is the 
end of the laiv for righteousness to every one that believeth." 
(Eom. x. 4.) Hence, of the Mosaic law, it is said that Christ "took 
it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. ii. 14.) Hence, 
"Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, which was estab- 
lished upon better promises." And, hence, " In that he saith, A 
new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which de- 
cayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. viii. 6-13.) 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Fourth Speech. 

G-entlemen-moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

A little matter of statistics I will first notice. Mill Creek Church, 
which he says is "now a mission station/' has preaching every 
Sunday, and gives more to the preaching of the Gospel than any 
Church in the Association outside of Nashville. So much for that. 
The old First Church, which was "captured all but five," two males 
and three females (which we learn was reduced to four), with 
nothing but the truth and the promise and power of God, went to 
work, and they have grown into eight Churches and four mission 
stations, with an aggregate of nearly two thousand five hundred 
members, while the First Church herself stands the pride of the 
city and the superior of her former captors. Suppose that in this 
particular locality they have outgrown us a thing of serious 
doubt can't I point him to numerous congregations of his that 
have either gone out, or only have a name to live? Does the gen- 
tleman propose to compare prosperity with the Baptists? He 
published recently that about ninety-eight per cent of his congre- 
gation at Watertown went from the Baptists. Why don't his 
brethren dissuade him from further efforts at statistics? It is 
strange they don't. I think now they will. 

The gentleman professes great innocence in quoting Baptist 
authors. We have a time and place to fight this battle, and it will 
be fought. For the present let me call his attention to the pub- 
lished letters from Drs. Harkness, Pendleton, Smith of The Stand- 
ard, Foster, Lasher of the Journal and Messenger, L. E. Smith of 
The Watchman, etc., as published in my "Vindication of Baptist 
Authors." Let him set himself right in regard to these, and then 
we will vindicate Hackett and Hovey. I don't propose to be 
drawn in every speech into such quibbling nonsense from my 
affirmative argument. The idea of Hackett and Hovey believing 
his doctrine ! The gentleman must be beside himself. 

It is a notorious fact, generally recognized, that his people are 
incompetent witnesses on points of debate in which they have 


been engaged. This grows out of their intense sectarianism, which 
disqualifies them on the same principle that a wife is supposed to 
be disqualified to testify in a case involving her husband. This is 
no reflection on her honesty, but on her ability under the severe 
circumstances to discern clearly the facts in the case. 

But he proposes now to vindicate himself by outsiders. Thanks j 
that is the way to come at it, and when he does that my charges 
will be withdrawn. Here is the point: Eepentance must come 
after faith, and faith comes by hearing, he says. Now when the 
believer comes to the front bench to profess his faith, that is his 
first recognition of him as a believer. Mr. McGarvey says the be- 
lievers on Pentecost were told to repent. Did any outsider ever 
hear Mr. Harding, or any of his brethren, tell a believer to repent? 
The only time he can repent is after faith and before baptism, and 
he baptizes "the same hour." Then put in the gentleman's defini- 
tion of repentance: Contrition, godly sorrow, calling on the Lord; 
"altar exercises like Paul," "piercing of the heart," "trembling," 
"mourning," "agony," "labor and heavy laden," "thirsting," etc. 
Then put Mr. Campbell's definition of repentance, "Eeformation;" 
and then add John's and Paul's, "Fruit meet for repentance" (or 
reformation) ; and will outsiders testify that this is the teaching 
and practice of Mr. Harding and his brethren? What is their defi- 
nition of terms or their preaching worth if they don't practice it? 
But if faith, as he says, is no faith before baptism because it is 
dead, and cannot be alive till the bodily act of baptism, then he is 
not a believer till he is baptized. 

Did outsiders ever hear him or his brethren tell them to repent as 
soon as they become true believers? It is a true believer that must 
repent, and faith must be perfected by works, and baptism is the 
perfecting work, so the believer is not a believer till baptized, and 
so can't repent till then. But do they repent after baptism? But 
he says true faith includes repentance, and in all these places 
when .the blessings of salvation are predicated of faith, he says 
faith in these places includes baptism, and, of course, it includes 
love and confession. Now will you tell me how it is possible to 
debate with a man who crams a word or sentence with any mean- 
ing that suits him ? This much we concede, however, that his pre- 
baptism faith, with all these inclusions, is a dead faith, and all that 
is in it is dead. This I can prove not only from Mr. Harding, 
but from the Word of God. The testimony of personal conscious- 
ness, backed by the Word of God, is infallible. "Whosoever be- 


lieveth lias everlasting life," and "has passed from death unto life." 
Has his candidate for baptism everlasting life? Has he passed 
from death unto life? He says no, and he is here engaged by his 
brethren to prove that they have not. Well, then, they are not 
believers, for "whosoever" takes in all that class. To show you 
again that he is -right in their faith being dead, he says they be- 
lieve sorrowing unto repentance. But true faith always brings 
peace and joy. "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." "They 
rejoiced, believing in God." "The joy of faith" is Bible language. 
Now if I were invited to instruct his mourners who believe sor- 
rowing unto repentance, I would tell the poor praying penitents 
on the front bench to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and they 
should be saved. 7 ' But I reckon that would break up the meeting, 
unless I would cram faith with water. 

Once more on this point I say to these outsiders, who are neither 
Jews nor infidels, that you believe "the one fact" that Jesus is the 
Christ, and you know that in your case that faith has wrought no 
moral renovation of your nature, such as belong to those who are 
born or begotten of God, and "cannot sin," and "the wicked one 
touches them not." You know that that faith has not done this 
work in you, and yet I say unto you, that with that faith, and no 
addition, every one of you can join Mr. Harding and get baptism, 
and no other question asked. Have you tried it and been refused? 
Do you know of any who has? Come on with your testimony, 
Messrs. Outsiders! 

The gentleman can see in Eom. vi. 17, 18, what no one, save a 
few of his brethren, ever saw, viz., that we are made free from 
sin after we obey the form of doctrine. God himself could not, by 
use of literal language, make the reverse any plainer. A man is 
not buried till he is dead, and "he that is dead is dead from sin," 
and having been made free from sin, we become servants of right- 
eousness, and baptism is a service of righteousness, "obedience 
from the heart." Here is a "become" that counts; not genesthai, 
as in John i. 12, but ecloulootheete, a powerful "become," an en- 
slaving process to righteousness, that shows a mighty power work- 
ing in us, to will and to do; creating us in Christ Jesus unto good 
works, with a predestinating purpose that we shall walk therein. 
God himself with literal language could not kill the gentleman's 
doctrine any "deader." Also in the three questions he propounds 
he discovers something in these texts that no one else ever 
thought of, and proposes to me to leave my work and try his 


tricks. Will lie say that here are three passages, thought by 
scholars to admit of an interpretation that conflicts with my doc- 
trine? Then. I would devote iny attention to them. Yet, as to 
the first, Mr. Campbell, the father and founder and finisher of 
them all, has in his ''Living Oracles:" "But as many as received 
him, believiug in his name, he granted the privilege of being the 
children of God." Hovey, of whom he has boasted so long and 
loud, says: "Following the order and emphasis of the Greek 
words, the verse may be rendered, 'But as many as received him 
he gaw them right (or power) to be children of God, to them, who 
believe on his name. 7 .... The word translated to become 
{genesthai), means 'to be.'" Jacobus says, "Of being his people." 
The verb is in the passive voice, present or future infinitive, and 
may have an active signification. If so, let him not assert it, but 
prove it, and then I will give it further notice. The receivers and 
believers constitute the same class, and from the first moment 
they became believers God says of them: "They ivere bo,ru. not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
God." Here is another omnipotent sledge-hammer blow at the 
gentleman's doctrine. 

And so of the others. He says Paul received the Holy Spirit 
and the remission of sins in baptism, but he could not prove it if 
his salvation depended upon it. He says "turn" in the other pas- 
sages means baptism, but he can't prove it by any respectable 
writer. Mr. Campbell says, on Acts ii. 21: "Turned over upon, 
cast themselves upon the Lord." Is that baptism, too? He must 
have water on the brain. He refers to Isaiah Ivii. 5 to show that 
turning goes before pardon, and then he asserts that in Acts "turn- 
ing" means baptism, and he wants me to reply to it. Well, if 
Isaiah teaches order, then it is first "seek." But my friend thinks 
that iu the New Scriptures "seek" means baptism. (See Brents 
& McGarvey, etc., on 1 Peter iii. 21.) The next in Isaiah's order is 
"call upon Him." I think he has intimated that this, too, means 
baptism. Will he hold to the order, (1) seek, (2) prayer, (3) reform- 
ation, (4) baptism, (5) mercy, (G) pardon 1 But I beg your pardon 
for wasting your time on bubble-bursting and phantom-chasing. 

I also reject the testimony of his personal consciousness, for he 
says himself it is not reliable, and he ridicules it iu others. I 
can't vindicate one who testifies against himself. 

I now resume my argument on the conversion of Timothy. The 
Old Scriptures were able to make him wise unto salvation through 


faith in Christ Jesus. This was this side of Pentecost and the 
supposed new law of pardon, and is fatal to my friend's proposi- 
tion. It proves that he was saved by the one plan of salvation 
for all ages, and lays low this new invention, this worse than old 
woman's fable, that the fickle and fastidious God changed so often 
that people could not keep posted as to the latest plan of salvation. 
The gentleman's people seem to entertain the idea that the apos- 
tles went every where preaching from The Acts of the Apostles. 
Were the Acts written in sections? Could Luke have written them 
till they were "acts?" When Paul, in the 17th chapter of Acts r 
went to Thessalonica, and made converts by preaching the Gospel 
from the Scriptures, did he use the Old or the New Scriptures? 
Will the gentleman answer? Did Paul find the New Testament in 
the synagogue of the Jews? Was one ever found there? or, if so r 
could Paul have made a convert from the New Testament? Mr. 
Harding will not dare affirm any of these things. Let us read 
from Acts xvii. 1-4: They went "to Thessalouica, where was a 
synagogue of the Jews: and Paul, as his manner was, went, in 
unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the 
(Old) Scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have 
suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom 
I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, .... 
of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women 
not a few." Here were converts made by preaching from the Old 
Scriptures, and that this side of Pentecost. What will Mr. Harding 
do with this? But read verses 2-13. Paul and Silas went into 
the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in 
Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with readiness of 
mind, and searched the (Old) Scriptures daily to see if these things- 
were so. Therefore many of them believed; also honorable women 
which were Greeks, and of men not a few. If there be any doubt 
that Paul preached the Old Scriptures, it will be dispelled by read- 
ing the next verse: "But when the Jews of Thessalonica had 
knowledge that the Word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, 
they came thither also and stirred up the people." Now it can't 
be denied that the Word of God here was the Old Scriptures, for 
there were no other, and if there had been the Jews would not 
have called them. Scriptures. These converts were made this side 
of Pentecost. We will see what the gentleman will do with it. 

We read again (xviii. 28) that Apollus mightily convinced the 
Jews, and that publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is 


Christ. Did he proceed to prove that baptism was for the pardon * 

of past sins? Not a word of it. Yet my opponent tries to make 
converts no other way. Turn now to xxiv. 14: "But this I con- 
fess unto thee, that after the way they call heresy so worship I 
the God of my fathers, believing all things which were written"' 
(in Acts ii. 38?). No, sir, "in the prophets." In xxvi. 22 he says : 
" Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue to this day, 
witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than 
those which Moses and the prophets did say should come, That the 
Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should 
rise from the dead, and should show light unto the Gentiles." 
Verse 27: "King Agrippa, believest thou" (the new law of pardon?), 
No. "Believest thou the prophets ? I know thou believest. Then 
Agrippa said to Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Chris- 
tian." What 1 ! Persuade a man to be a Christian from believing 
the prophets? This don't jingle with the "ancient Gospel" of 
very recent date. Now read Acts, last chapter and 23d verse: 
"And when they had appointed him a day there came many to his 
lodging, to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God,, 
persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of" (Acts ii. 38, and 
John iii. 5?). No 5 but out of "the law of Moses and out of the- 
prophets from morning till evening. And some believed the things 
which were spoken, and some believed not." But enough. Down 
go the devices and inventions of Sandeman and Campbell. 

The one plan of salvation is seen, not only in the fact that it 
was preached by Christ and the apostles from the Old Scriptures,, 
but also from the fact that there is no difference in men "by nature. 
"All have sinned," and we may add, all will sin. . This is true of all 
nations, in all climes and in all times. The circumstances of 
human allotments have never prevented the sons and daughters of 
Adam from " going astray as soon as they were born." The testi- 
mony of inspired prophets concerning human nature in ante and 
post deluvian times is quoted by apostles as the characteristics of 
human nature in their generations, and their prophecies give no 
hope of improvement to the end of time. Take the description of 
the heart by prophet, Christ or apostle, and "these three agree in 
one." What is said by Moses in Genesis vi. 5, recognized by all as 
expressing total depravity, is fully corroborated by later prophets, 
apostles and Christ. Did Solomon say "the heart of the sons of 
men is fully set in them to do evil?" A wiser than Solomon said 
as much in a later day. Paul, in the first chapter of Eomans, was. 


not writing of ante deluviaus alone, if at all, when he said, "being 
filled with all unrighteousness." His argument culminates in the 
dumbfounding question, "Are we better than they? No, in no 
wise, for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they 
are all under sin as it is written, 'There is none righteous, no not 
one.' .... For there is no difference, for all have sinned and 
come short of the glory of God." If all have sinned, and all the 
world is guilty before God, then condemnation is passed upon all. 
This condemnation is as universal as the depravity, " for all have 
sinned." Then, as to depravity and condemnation, let it be ac- 
knowledged that there is no difference in any age or nation. Then, 
if all are depraved and condemned, the necessity for regeneration, 
and justification is the same in all. So the language of Christ: 
"Except any one be born again he cannot see the kingdom of 
God." And the question of old Job, "How can a man be just with 
God?" is fully answered by Paul in Eomans and Gall'atians. Sin is 
always the same, for it is transgression of the law of God, so 
clearly revealed by nature, conscience and Scripture, that "there 
is no excuse;" for as many as have without law, shall be judged 
without law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be 
judged by the law ; for when the Gentiles, which have not the 
law. do by nature the things contained in the law, these having 
not the law are a law unto themselves, which show the work of 
the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing wit- 
ness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing 
one another. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not 
imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from 
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the 
similitude of Adam's transgression. Then, if all from Adam to 
Moses who had not the law sinned, so that death passed upon all, 
and all were guilty before God, then the same necessity for regen- 
eration and justification existed from Adam to Moses. Abel, Enoch, 
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., lived from Adam to Moses. 
Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Jephtha, David, Sam- 
son, Samuel, also the prophets and a long list of worthies who 
lived after Moses. These were all depraved and condemned, then 
regenerated and justified, for they shall come from the north, and 
south, and east, and west, and shall sit down in the kingdom of 
God; and none can see or enter there without regeneration (or the 
new birth) ; and if regenerated, they were born from above, born 
of God, like those of later times. Then, if all in all ages who 


:were or will be saved were regenerated or born of God, then we - 
may say "there is no difference." If the same human nature in 
all ages has received the same regeneration, then we may look for 
the same fruits. A siuner always did love sin, a child of God 
always did hate sin. An unconverted sinner has always been 
dead in sin, but to a convicted sinner sin always "appeared sin," 
for "bylaw is the knowledge of sin." It has always been true, 
and always will be, "that the worshipers once purged have no 
more conscience of sin." A conscience of sin always led to a desire 
to be cleansed from sin; hence repentance, prayer and turning- 
have characterized such in all ages. (See 1 Kings viii. 6; xxxi. 19; 
Ez. xiv. 6; xvii. 30.) As the Old and the New Scriptures read alike 
on this point, "there is no difference''' in this part of the plan of 
salvation. All sinners in all ages come out of sin through convic- 
tion, which produces godly sorrow for sin, and this repentance 
toward God, and this leads to prayer, including confession, and 
this is followed by faith, turning or conversion. This is the one 
way and the one experience of saints in all ages. Abel, David, the 
Jailer and Paul are examples of Jew and Gentile, before the law, 
under the law, and since the law. But not only are repentance, 
prayer, confession, turning, etc., the same in all, and in all ages, 
and have worked in all the same fruits, but it is also true if we 
advance to faith. When Paul said, "We are not of them that 
draw back to perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of 
the soul," with the next stroke of his inspired pen he denned 
faith as " the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of thiugs 
not seen." And, to prove that he was right in the definition of the 
faith by which those of his generation were saved, he goes back 
to Abel, the first from Adam, for proof, who, he said, "being dead 
yet speaketh." He then took Enoch, the seventh from Adam, as 
his next example. " Enoch received testimony that he had been 
well pleasing to God. and! without faith he could not have been 
well .pleasing, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, 
and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Here 
is the one way of faith for him and for us: "Coming" to God, 
"diligently seeking," "believing" "that what he has promised he 
is able to perform." Then Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, 
Joseph, Moses and his parents, Rahab, and a host of saints, in 
olden time, who he said "compass us as a cloud of witnesses;" 
and therefore we, who are like them in our nature and in our needs, 
should imitate them in this like precious faith. 


The definition that Paul gave of faith in Heb. xi. 1 is universally 
and eternally correct ; the faith by which the ancients were well 
attested. If we had such faith we could stand such trials and. 
perform such achievements. That same old faith, unchanged, un- 
reformed, would still " subdue kingdoms, work righteousness, obtain, 
promises, stop the mouths of lions, quench the violence of fire r . 
escape the edge of the sword, out of weakness be made strong,, 
wax valiant in fight, put to flight the armies of aliens." "Ask 
what ye will, believing, and it shall be done." Test Paul's defini- 
tion by the fruits as seen in the above achievements, for by its. 
fruits we shall know it, and see how unlike modern definitions of" 
a so-called faith, which, though big as a mountain, could not effect 
by speech the moving of a grain of mustard seed. Take the two 
familiar illustrations of Daniel and the three Hebrew children.. 
These have their doom made known to them. They doubtless 
pray for deliverance, if it be the will of God. But is it the will of' 
God, and will he hear? In neither case did he say. In one case 
it is acknowledged they did not know whether God would hear 
them or not. They may hope for it, but they can't see it. By 
divine power working in them, "giving to each the measure of" 
faith," the things hoped for have a support, a sure foundation, and 
conviction springs up as to the end sought, though not seen. 
This gives rest, peace, assurance, confidence, trust. They believe 
that what he has promised to their hearts in that implanted faith 
he is able also to perform, and therefore they march joyfully to- 
the conquest of their supernatural, superscriptural, superinduced 
faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence 
of things not seen." This is receiving the blessing in advance 
and enjoying it before the tune. "Eeceiving now the end of 
faith, even the salvation of our souls, we rejoice with joy unspeak- 
able and full of glory." Our salvation is a future and eternal sal- 
vation from sin and hell. It is that for which we hope, but which 
we cannot yet see. "For what a man seeth why doth he yet hope; 
for?" But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with, 
patience wait for it. The Order as seen in Rom. v. 1-5 is, faith,, 
justification, peace, joy, hope, tribulation, patience, experience, but 
no shame, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by 
the Holy Spirit, which is given to us. In tribulation, like our Mas- 
ter, we despise the shame. This shows the temper of the faith that, 
stands under "substance of things hoped for," for we "are kept 
by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be re- 


yealed in the last tiineT Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now 
for a season if need be ye are in heaviness through manifold temp- 
tations, that the trial of your faith, being more precious than that 
of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found 
unto praise and honor and glory at the appearance of Jesus." 
Here is Paul's definition of faith clearly verified. Salvation is 
prospective, and our present enjoyment, or "substance," or "con- 
viction" grows out of our conscious preparation and our confident 
expectation. So our God-given faith, whether for present practi- 
cal purposes, or for our ultimate and complete salvation, is the 
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 
Paul's examples cover both grounds. Faith receives its blessings 
through Jesus Christ as its object, "looking into Jesus, the author 
and finisher of faith 5" and not our faith only, but the faith of all 
from Abel to us. Abel, through his offering, looked unto Jesus. 
Abraham had the Gospel preached unto him. He saw Christ's day 
&nd was glad. Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater 
riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect unto the 
recompense of reward, which none have yet received, "that they 
without us should not be made perfect." If this be the measure 
and scope and spirit of faith, how infinitely does it lift us above 
some modern definitions that have so narrowed and cheapened 
this, and all the Christian graces, that hardly a shadow of them is 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding s Fourth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I 9,111 amazed at ray erring brother's persistency in contending 
that these Baptist authors, Hackett and Hovey, do not teach that 
baptism precedes, and "is in order to remission;" but I am not 
astonished at his remaining solemnly silent when I ask him 
whether he believes their teaching on Acts ii. 38 and xxii. J 6 or not.. 
I have not expected him to answer rne on that point at all, though, 
were I in his place, I would be ashamed not to do it. The very 
fact of his not answering shows that in his heart he knows they 
do not agree with him. I here promise the gentleman that if he 
will present to me any passage from any author I will tell him 
whether or not I believe it. Are we not here to give light to the 
people? Is he afraid that if he makes known his real sentiments, 
concerning these, and other authors, on these much -disputed 
verses that he will injure his cause? Then he would better change 
his ground, and find a cause in the advocacy of which he can 
speak out boldly like a man. 

But I have here in my hand this week's issue of Mr. Moody's 
paper, The Baptist. And it contains some rare reading from his 
English correspondent, Dr. Win. Norton, who has been most highly 
eulogized in his paper. Dr. Norton is an English closeconununion 
Baptist. The famous Charles Spurgeon is an openconimuniou 
Baptist, and Dr. Norton gets after him about it in the most vigor- 
ous way. He thinks that baptism is exceedingly important, that 
no man should be allowed at the table without it. On this point . 
he is fine. Listen : 

" Can you deny, without doing violence to Mark xvi. 16, that a 
true profession of trust in Christ by being immersed is one of the 
things on which the promise of salvation is there made to depend? 
so that he who does not obey as well as trust cannot say that that 
promise applies to him? Can you deny that the command in xYcts 
ii. 38, to be immersed 'for the pardon of sins/ that obedience to 
that command, if it springs from repentance and faith, receives 
from God the assurance that sins are forgiven? Can you say that, 


the words 'be immersed and wash away thy BIDS' can possibly 
mean less than that readiness to obey from the heart this com- 
mand is required . as necessary to the enjoyment of God's full as- 
surance that sins are purged away by the blood of Christ? (Acts 
sxii. 16.). Can you deny that the words, 'ye' have been bathed 
clean/ (1 Cor. vi. 11) must mean that your combined trust and 
obedience in being immersed into Christ are one proof that ye are 
forgiven ? Can the words in Tit. iii. 5, stating that God saves by 
means of 'the bath of new birth' (not of regeneration that is, of 
new begetting but of new birth, of new life made manifest) and 
by 'the renewing of the Holy Spirit/ mean less than that the due 
profession of faith in Christ, by being immersed, is part of the 
way by means of which God 'saves?' Do you believe the truth of 
what Peter asserts in very plain words, that as the ark saved 
Noah, so immersion, as the means by which we seek salvation 
with a pure conscience, 'now saves us?' (1 Pet. iii. 23.) Will you 
deny the truth of this assertion, and say that instead of. saving us 
actually, as the ark saved Noah, it is nothing but a picture of sal- 
vation ? Will you dare to tell those who wilfully refuse to obey 
Christ in this part of his clearly revealed will, that, though no one 
was saved who did not enter the ark, a person who wilfully re- 
fuses to profess Christ as he has commanded, may be as sure of 
salvation as if he were willing to obey this command? Do not tell 
me that it is I who say these things. They are God's words, not 
mine. If you think that they have another meaning, tell me 
honestly what other meaning they will bear without being wrested 
from their necessary sense." From The Baptist, May 25, 1889. 

That is pretty good reading (is it not?) to come from Brother 
Moody's owu paper, from a man whose name flies at the masthead 
as a "special contributor!" Dr. Norton says that obedience to the 
command to be baptized, "if it springs from repentance and faith, 
receives from God the assurance that sins are forgiven." He 
teaches that Ananias' words to Paul, "be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins," cannot mean less "than that readiness to obey from the 
heart this command is required as necessary to the enjoyment of 
God's full assurance that sins are purged away by the blood of 
Christ." On Mark xvi. 16, he teaches "that a true profession of 
trust in Christ by being immersed is one of the things on which 
the promise of salvation is there made to depend, so that he who 
does not obey, as well as trust, cannot say that that promise applies 
to him." On Tit. iii. 5, he claims that "the due profession of 


faith in Christ, by being immersed, is part of the way by means oj 
which God saves." On 1 Pet. iii. 23, he teaches that "as the ark 
.saved Noah, so immersion, as the means by which we seek salvation 
with a pure conscience, 'now saves us.'" He claims that, as. the ark 
"actually" saved Noah and his family, so immersion "actually" 
saves us, and that the salvation is not merely pictorial or figurative, 
as Brother Moody holds. -I wonder what the gentleman will say 
about Norton's teaching ! Will he indorse it? A little plain talk 
now, Brother Moody, a little plain talk, if you please. I indorse 
that extract from Norton, your highly-honored correspondent; do 
you? You know you don't! If you act consistently, you will 
turn him off from your paper. You say a Baptist would be ex- 
cluded from his Church if he taught our doctrine. We'll see what 
you do with Dr. Norton. 

Now to my notes : As to the Mill Creek Church being a mission 
.station, I know that its "pastor" is sustained in part by the State 
Board. He told me so himself. 

Brother Moody calls the First Baptist Church "the pride of the 
city," and says it is superior to our First Church. One of its offi- 
cers places its list of communicants at about 400; Brother Cave 
says our First Church has about 700. We have two Churches in 
the city that are larger than the First Baptist. There are Churches 
in the city about three times as large as it is. I am told, also, 
that at present it has discords within it, a thing not uncommon 
among Churches. Moreover, it does not agree with Brother Moody 
in doctrine at all. Its "pastor" has not been to this debate, nor 
will he come. He is not a Baptist of the Moody stripe. And, as I 
have said, that Church has members from us who were not re-bap- 
tized. Brother Moody must have been referring to their house 
when he called it the "pride of the city." Possibly their house 
may be the finest in the city; I don't know, and I don't care 
whether it is or not. 

I was told that about ninety per cent of our Church at Water- 
town came from the Baptists by a brother who knows the Church 
well. Other brethren have told me that the per cent is not so 
great as that, though a very large per cent has so come. We have 
had several debates in or near Watertown, two of them with 
Brother Moody, and our cause has been growing there finely and 
steadily ever since. Lipscornb and Brents did us good service 

The gentleman wants me to " set myself right" concerning cer- 


tain Baptist authors that he quotes in his tract, "Vindication," 
and then he refers to a lot of men, some of whom I never quoted 
from in my life, and whose names I don't remember ever to have 
heard before. However, I have quoted from Harkness and Foster 
many times and I have quoted them correctly, too. The man 
who intimates to the contrary had better be careful, for in God's 
sight it is an awful thing to bear false witness against one's neigh- 
bor. Prof. Harkness says : 

"In my opinion eis in Acts ii. 38 denotes purpose, and may be 
rendered in order to, or for the purpose of securing, or, as in our 
English version, for. Ms aphesin hamartioon suggests the motive 
or object contemplated in the action of the two preceding 

There, now, is Harkness' statement in full, as it was published 
years ago by Brother Matthews. I believe every word of it. 
Moody has been corresponding with Harkness, and Harlmess will 
not deny that my quotation from Mm is correct. When you quote 
a man in full, and say you believe every word of it, you don't mis- 
represent him much. Brother Moody, do you agree with your 
brother, Harkness? Please answer me. Why don't you talk out? 
0, you won't speak out during my time ! Very good, then, answer 
my question when you get up. Friends, I venture to say he won't 
do it. He will dodge the question. See if he don't. I have not 
now a copy of the tract "Vindication," but when I get one we 
will see further about this matter. 

Brother Moody is apparently ashamed of the gross outrage of 
charging my brethren with being ready to testify to any falsehood 
that I may concoct and may ask them to sustain. He says, by- 
way of explanation, that their "intense sectarianism" disqualifies 
them. I am not competent to tell what I teach, nor are my breth- 
ren competent to tell what they hear, nor what they believe. 
Brother Moody is the one to do all that,- he is not sectarian, of 
course not, nor the least bit prejudiced, nor does he ever make 
any mistakes ! Just listen to him, and he will tell you what we 
believe and teach. His consciousness, perhaps, tells him all about 
it. [From the outside witnesses he shall hear.] 

As to the order of faith and repentance: That godly sorrow 
works (or produces) repentance the Bible states, and all agree. 
No man ever had godly sorrow for sin who did not believe that 
God is, and that it is his right to govern. Hence, before repent- 
ance one must believe in God as the Great Euler. Again, repent- 


arice must be toward him whose law we have violated, and, as God 
was the ruler and lawgiver under former dispensations, repent- 
ance was toward him; but under this dispensation (which is fitly 
called "the reign of the Messiah") Christ is on the throne of the 
universe, and is the universal lawgiver and ruler. (See 1 Cor. xv. 
25-28; Matt, xxviii. 18; Acts ii. 36.) Hence, when we violate his 
law, repentance, must be directed towards him. But there can 
be no repentance towards him till we believe in him as God's 
Son, whom God has sent to give law to us, and whom he 
tells us to hear. As certainly as sorrow precedes repenting, so 
certainly does believing precede sorrowmg.N Indeed, believing 
must precede every thing that is acceptable to God, since "what- 
soever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. xiv. 23), and "without faith it 
is impossible to please God." (Heb. xi. 6.) If, .therefore, it were 
possible to repent before believing, it would be a sin, and displeas- 
ing to God, to do so. It is a fact, however, which it may become 
necessary for me to elaborate more fully, that the faith that saves, 
faith perfected by works, includes both repentance and baptism. 
At present I shall introduce but one passage on this point, namely 
this: "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For 
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
Christ." (Gal. iii. 26, 27.) Here Paul tells the Galatians they are 
God's children by faith, inasmuch as they have put on Christ by 
being baptized into him. The faith here is evidently the "faith 
made perfect" by works (Jas. ii. 20), and baptism is one, and the 
last of them, repentance being another. 

So, we see, we are baptized "into Christ," in baptism we put him 
on, and Paul says (Eph. i. 7) "in him we have redemption through 
his blood, the forgiveness of sins." Hence, if inspiration can set- 
tle any thing, it is evident that baptism comes before forgiveness, 
and that the faith that saves includes baptism. 

In the former part of his speech Brother Moody puts into my 
mouth a definition of repentance such as I never gave in my life, 
and such as I never before heard given by any mortal. But this 
seems to be his usual way of doing business. I have here The 
'Baptist Gleaner of June 22, 1887, of which paper Brother Moody 
was then an editor. In it is an article from the prominent Baptist 
minister, Judson Taylor, who charges Moody with " unaccountable 
misrepresentations." Referring to some of these, he says: "All 
this is cruel injustice, and I request it stopped, now and forever." 
He charges Moody with making impressions which he knew to be 


untrue. And lie claims that Moody's only reason for opposing his 
position was that his position (as Moody supposed) would help 
"Campbellism." Then Taylor gravely admonishes him, saying: 
"Look out, or you will kill yourself, and leave Campbellism to take 
a second growth." Just so; it will ruin any man to misrepresent, 
distort and falsify the positions of others and that is what Taylor 
charges Moody with doing. I don't believe that any preacher in 
West Tennessee or Kentucky ever stood higher in the esteem of 
the Baptists of that region than did Judsoii Taylor. When I have 
been in that region I have heard people comment on the wonderful 
love that his brethren had for him, and on the great influence that 
he had over them. Watch, now, and see if Taylor's prophecy is 
not fulfilled, and if Moody does not kill himself, and give a fresh 
impetus to what he calls "Campbellism" in this community. I 
have known such results to follow his work at other places. 

Brother Moody says "true faith always brings peace and joy." 
Did not Paul believe when he saw Jesus, heard his .voice, and 
cried out unto him in prayer? Certainly he did; no one denies it. 
Was he not blind for three days and nights, without the Holy 
Spirit, and without food or drink? Yes. Was there much joy 
.about that? Faith perfected by works brings joy; there is no 
doubt about that. When the jailer was baptized, it was said that 
he "rejoiced, believing in God." (Acts xvi. 34.) When the eunuch 
was baptized, "he went on his way rejoicing." (Acts viii. 39.) 
And when Paul was baptized, he at once "received meat" and 
was strengthened." (Acts ix. 19.) 

The gentleman says that any man who believes that Jesus is the 
Son of God, that he was raised from the dead, we will receive and 
baptize, "with that faith, and no addition," nothing else being 
asked. Concerning this statement, I have simply to say that it is 
untrue. Every intelligent brother that I have on earth knows that 
it is untrue. Faith " with the heart," which we always demand, 
includes more than that. 

The gentleman quotes: "He that is dead is freed from sin. ;; 
Yes, and in the same connection it is said, " We are buried with 
him by baptism into death." You see, we are baptized into death, 
and being dead, we are freed from sin. A man must die to (be 
separated from) the love and practice of sin before baptism, but in 
baptism he dies to (is separated from) the guilt of sin. Just as I 
foretold you, Brother Moody did not say a word about that "form 
of doctrine" which we must obey before we are made free from 


sin, by way of explaining it. He referred to it; why did he not 
tell us what it is? 

After so long a time he comes up to my questions, takes a shy 
glance at them, and, after a few words in reply to one of them,, 
passes on. Christ gave to believers power to become the sons of 
God. My question is: How can one say that believers are sons, 
when the Bible says Christ gave them power to become sons? In 
reply Brother Moody misquotes from the "Living Oracles" (which 
Campbell published): "But to as many as received him, believing 
in his name, he granted, the privilege of being children of God." 
(He left out the word " to.") Well, that translation does not militate 
against my idea in the least. You cannot grant to a man the privi- 
lege of being that which he already is. As Hovey says, and as. the 
contest clearly shows, they receivedlmn by believing ; then to these- 
believers he gave something. What was it ? The privilege of be- 
ing children of God. Then those who exercised the privilege thus 
granted became children. These children were born, "not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of the man, but 
of God." Brother Moody says from the first moment they became 
believers they were born of God. Not so; from the first moment 
they became believers they were begotten of God, and had power 
to become sons. Then, when they were "born again," "born of 
water and of the Spirit," when their faith had been perfected by 
their being "baptized into Christ," they were sons of God. How- 
ever, let me give you the passage as translated by the translations, 
which Brother Moody and I call the best in the world. He calls 
the Bible Union (Baptist) the best. Listen to it: "He came to 
own, and his own received him not. But as many as received 
to them he gave power to become children of God, to those who> 
believe on his name; who were born," etc. So, you see, his favor- 
ite version gives "become." I claim that the Eevised Version 
(pedobaptist) is best of all. Here, it translates thus: "He came 
unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. But 
as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become 
children of God, even to them that believe on his name; which 
were born," etc. This, also, uses the word "become." So does 
Wilson, so does Wesley, so does the Common Version. And when 
these agree in a translation you may just as well receive it as 
fixed. Meyer, DeWette and Godet (with many others) teach that 
the faith precedes and conditions the regeneration; and when these 
three commentators agree as to the meaning of a passage you 


might just about as well also receive tliat as fixed. As certain as 
God's Word is true, the believer has power to become a son, and 
as certain as he has power to become a son, so certain he is not 
then a son. 

Brother Moody says I teach that "'seek 7 means baptism," and 
that "call upon him" ineans baptism. To this I deign to give no 
further reply than to say that it is not so, that it is utterly without 
foundation, in fact. Then he asks the audience to excuse him for 
"bubble-bursting." He ought to ask to be excused for something 
far worse than that. 

Brother Moody goes back to his argument from the Old Testa- 
ment. His argument is, that the Old Testament is able to make 
one wise unto salvation; but baptism is not in the Old Testament; 
therefore, baptism does not belong to the plan of salvation. The 
blood of Christ is not in the Old Testament, nor the death of 
Christ, nor the resurrection, nor the incarnation. Can a man be 
saved without these? Please answer me one question.plainly; be 
real bold and manly at least one time, and speak out. Can a man 
be saved now without believing that God hath raised Jesus from 
the dead? Say yes or no. Well, if you won't talk now, say it 
when you get up. But, friends, he will never do it, or, if he does, he 
will ruin his cause. For no man ever did, or ever will, believe from 
the Old Testament that God hath raised Jesus from the dead. Yet 
that must be believed in order to salvation, for Paul says (Rom. x. 
9), "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the 
dead, thou shalt be saved." The Old Testament is perfect, as far 
as it goes, but had it been altogether sufficient the New would 
never have been written. Paul did not tell Timothy the Old Testa- 
ment was able to make him wise unto salvation. No, indeed; that 
statement would have been untrue ; hence, he added the modify- 
ing clause, "through faith which is in Christ Jesus." And, as we 
have seen, no man can get the faith now required from the Old 

But did. not the apostles preach from the Old? Certainly, but 
their preaching constituted that which is in the New. Brother 
Moody says our people "seem to entertain the idea that the apos- 
tles went everywhere preaching from The Acts of the Apostles." 
Not so ; they preached from the Old Scriptures, but their teaching 
and acts constitute the New. The first sermon preached after the 
resurrection constitutes a part of The Acts of the Apostles. It is 


found in the second chapter of that book. Peter found his texts in 
the Old Testament, but he preached things not written as yet in 
any book, and he required men to believe them in order, to be 
saved. Yes, Brother Moody, the apostles preached from the Old 
Testament they got their texts there but in every sermon they 
preached things without which no man can be saved, that did not 
occur till hundreds of years ai'ter the Old Testament was finished. 
If you say that the death of Christ, and the blood of Christ were 
in the Old Testament in type and prophesy, I reply, yes, and so 
was baptism. 

Brother Moody says I say personal consciousness "is not relia- 
ble." Incorrect ! In its sphere it is infallible. But the conscious- 
ness of the prisoner in the jail cannot tell him when the governor 
pardons him. That does not lie in its sphere. But "when he be- 
lieves that he is pardoned, he is perfectly conscious of being 
happy. I trust you see where the testimony of consciousness 
comes in. It can't testify to the height of a horse, nor to the 
weight of a barrel of sugar, nor to any thing else out of the man. 

The gentleman then drifts off to the doctrine of total depravity. 
And he refers to Gen. vi. 5 as teaching the doctrine. Well, he is 
not far wrong about that. Those people were dreadfully depraved. 
And Q-od destroyed every one of them, except Noah and his family. 
When people get totally depraved that is what God does with 
them. Why did he save Noah ? Listen : " Noah was a just man 
and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." 
Further on it is said : "According to all that God commanded him, 
so did he." Yes, as Brother Moody says, Paul, in first chapter of 
Bornans, is talking of much the same sort of people. But they 
were not born that way. They "knew God" and turned from him; 
professing to be wise, "they became fools;" they "changed the 
glory of God" into images; they "changed the truth of God into a. 
lie." You see they were not born so depraved, but they "waxed 
worse and worse." All this ruins Brother Moody's doctrine, which 
says they were born totally depraved. 

Brother Moody gives us his order thus : Conviction, godly sor- 
row, repentance toward God, prayer (including confession), faith, 
turning or conversion. Prayer and confession before faith ! James, 
talking about a man's praying, says, "Let him ask in faith," and 
he says he will, get nothing if he don't. On this point hear the 
great Baptist, Alexander Carson, whom Brother Moody sometimes 
lauds so highly. He says, "Faith is the first step; and we are not 


warranted, if this is not complied with, to pass on to other things." 
("Life and Writings of Carson," vol. vi, p. 170.) On page 168 he 
says, "The Scriptures teach that believers pray out of faith, and 
not that sinners are to pray to obtain faith." Just so, for the Holy 
Spirit says, " Without faith it is impossible to please God." 

Brother Moody refers to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, and 
mentions Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Gideon, Barak, 
the Hebrew children, and others, as illustrations of faith. If he will 
show where any one of them ever obtained a blessing on account 
of Ms faith before he was an obedient believer, I will consider the 
case. In every one of the cases they believed, and they walked 
by faith before they were blessed. Obedience, under the Old Tes- 
tament, like faith, was always required. And if the obedience re- 
quired under the New Testament is different from what it was 
under the Old, so is the faith. And so goes the gentleman's Old 
Testament argument! As worthless as an exploded bladder! 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Fifth Speech. 

Bespected Aiidience: 

I would ".speak out boldly like a man/' and say that I agree 
with Drs. Hackett and Hovey, as far as I understand them, on the 
relation of baptism to salvation and its blessings. I might not in- 
dorse any peculiar expression of their doctrine, but their doctrine, 
as clearly gathered from their writings, I indorse. The gentleman 
is pushing his subject into this week in order to get me away from 
my affirmative argument. If any Baptist in this world has used 
Mr. Harding's language, with Mr. Harding's meaning, then I repu- 
diate him as a legalist, and have no fellowship for him outside of 
the flesh. I can draw on his people for language that favors my 
doctrine and disfavors his, and could fill up this time set apart for 
argument to just such scrapping, but this people have a right to 
expect better of us both. 

I do not propose to be drawn off after every or any little side 
issue that the' gentleman may use as "filling;" nor do I propose to 
answer his affirmative argument till next week. I propose to 
make an honest effort to reply to every thing having weight as 
argument, or interpretation, and to do it only once. I cannot, afford 
to burden my speeches with repetitions. At the proper time I 
will read some . concessions from his brethren, and ask him if he 
indorses them. Does he pretend to indorse every thing his people 
say? Then, why does he ask me to do what he would not do? 
That may look to some like argument, but not to all. Brother 
Judson Taylor once used some severe language in reply to me. 
The gentleman knows that I can read on him some of the severest 
language ever penned in our line of criticism, and that from his 
own brethren, but were I to do so the audience could see that I 
was dealing in personalities in order to disparage him. I am not 
disposed to fight on that line, though' I may be tempted to pay him 
off in his own coin. 

It must be clear to every mind that the gentleman has no con- 
ception of saving faith ; the faith that one must have before re- 
pentance, and in most cases is without repentance, is all the faith 


the gentleman claims" to have. Excepting Jews and infidels, the 
most ungodly man in this town has the faith my friend defines, 
and he knows that faith has brought him no Messing. Truly, it is 
dead and profitless. The devils believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
.and more, they Mow it. "We know thee who thou art, the Holy 
One of God." In this they confessed, and more, they "obeyed." 
"And they obeyed him." (See Mark i. 27, and ii. 11.) Here is his 
kind of faith; nor was it faith only, it was faith that obeyed; for, 
believing he was the Christ, they obeyed him. Will he deny they 
are of his creed? 

On John i. 12, 13, my friend says, "Not so; they were begotten of 
God, and become sons when they were born of water." Is this 
argument? Who says so besides Mr. Harding? Does Campbell, 
>or Wesley, Common Version, or Bible Union, Oxford Eevision, or 
Meyer, or auybody else, beside Wilson and Anderson? In the lan- 
guage of the gentleman, "when these agree in a translation, you 
may as well receive it as fixed." But did those who. translated 
"become" believe the gentleman's doctrine? Not one. Hear 
Meyer, "the greatest exegete that has lived since Paul:" "Believ- 
ers, from their knowledge of God in Christ, become children of God 
by being born of G-od through the moral transformation and .re- 
newal of their entire spiritual nature by the Holy Spirit." It does 
not say that believers become children, but those who received 
him, or as many as gave heed to his teaching, he gave privilege to 
become sons of God. How many of these receivers became chil- 
>dren? Even as many as believe eis his name; and all such had 
been bora of God, "for whosoever believeth has been born of God." 
Think of it ! Mr. Harding is trying to make the text read or mean 
baptized into his name. For we are all the children of God by 
faith in Jesus Christ. Besides, as many of you as have been bap- 
tized into Christ have put on Christ. This is indorsed by.McKnight, 
Dodderridge, George Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Wilson, etc. 

If the gentleman has done his best on my Old Scripture argu- 
ment, then I need not reply. One question I ask. Which is the 
more credible, inspired prophecy, or inspired history? If the res- 
urrection was in the prophecy, ought not the Jews to have believed 
it, and were they not censurable for not believing it? 

He misunderstands me again. I said his personal consciousness 
was not reliable, he being the witness. As soon as my opponent 
gets out fairly in the field, away from all hiding and dodging 
places, then I will march boldly on him in regard to faith bringing 


no blessing apart from the bodily action of obedience, for I don't 
suppose he will claim any virtue in bodily action that is not obe- 
dience. Awaiting a full exhibit, I now proceed with my argument. 

I was last contrasting his definition of faith with that of tn& 
Bible. Listen: 

"Evidence alone produces faith, or testimony is all that is nec- 
essary to faith The only, the grand question of man 

is, what is fact, or truth. I must hear the facts clearly stated, and 
well authenticated, before I can believe them. The man who can- 
believe one fact well authenticated can believe any other fact 
equally well attested." (A. Campbell.) 

Now, take this modern, minifying definition and apply it to the 
cases of Daniel and the Hebrew children, for example. Faith 
stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire 
heated seven times hotter than was wont. "The facts well 
attested" and the truths "well authenticated" furnished in these 
cases for faith, if believed, would quench faith instead of fire, 
would open instead of shut the mouths of the lions. What are the- 
facts well attested? They are these: Those lions are ferocious, 
carniverous, hungry, and, judging from all past observation and 
history, they will break all of Daniel's bones " ere he come to the 
bottom of the den." King Darius said God would deliver him,, 
but he did not utter a fact, for the thing had not been done, and 
if by haphazard he uttered a truth it was not well attested, or 
authenticated, for he was not inspired, but a wicked king. No 
one had ever been delivered from a night's lodging in a den of 
lions, and so hungry were these that when the men with their 
wives and children were cast in the den the next day "they break 
all their bones in pieces ere they came to the bottom of the den." 
Such well authenticated facts and truths would be fatal to faith if 
faith were nothing more nor less than a belief of them. Hear 
Daniel next morning giving in his testimony : " My God hath sent 
his angel and shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me." 
This was a fact subsequent to his faith, and an unrevealed truth 
that could not have produced the faith that shut the mouths of 
the lions. "No manner of hurt was found upon him, because he 
believed in his God." (Dan. vi. 24.) Let a man believe in God, in 
Jehovah, in Christ, and look to him, the author and finisher of 
faith, and every good and perfect gift comes down according to the 
faith "that is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of 
things not seen." If a man prays for any thing, let him believe 


he will receive it, and lie shall have it, fact or no fact. If the 
Word of Christ is the well attested truth that is sufficient to pro- 
duce faith, then- let those of this school obtain, as the ancients did, 
a good report through faith. Their achievements are surely mea- 
ger thus far. 

In the case of the fiery furnace being quenched "by faith, the 
attested facts and the authenticated truths are all against faith, 
and to confine faith to a belief of them is no faith at all. All the 
facts and truths attested were against them. They did not know 
whether God would deliver them or not. The object of their 
faith was not fact or truth, but, like Daniel, they trusted in God, 
and he sent his angel and delivered them. (Dan. iii. 28 ) The 
same faith to-day, or any other day, would accomplish the same 
results. How intolerable the transition from the sublime heights 
of Paul's definition of faith, that brings everlasting life with other 
supposed impossibilities, to the degraded depths of a belief of 
plan, plea, plot, proposition, fact, truth, law, perfected by one act, 
for the pardon of sins; the plan, plea, plot to be believed, is as 
false as fatal, and the belief of it is faith to the ruin, and not to 
the saving, of the soul. The so-called law is a delusion, the facts 
are false, and the belief of them is fatal to faith, and such obedi- 
ence is disloyalty and rebellion. The patriarchs before the law, 
the prophets under the law, and the apostles under the Gospel, 
had the same like precious faith. 

Paul argued the nature of faith as possessing the only principle 
on account of which God could make it the medium for the con- 
veyance of the blessings of salvation. Then, as since and before, 
faith had but one competitor for such honors. Faith is of the 
heart, a spiritual exercise, and, like repentance, prayer, love, joy, 
peace and hope, it may be exercised to its best advantage, even 
though the body, or outward man, be fettered with ropes until it 
could not twitch a muscle or wink an eye. But man, judging only 
the outward appearance, has little or no esteem for qualities of 
the heart, because it is not in his power or province to judge it. 
He must look for its fruits in works, and, having his eyes always 
on the lookout for works, how natural that he should so magnify 
works as to ultimately give them a monopoly of moral and spir- 
itual virtue. But God judges the heart, and when he sees the 
heart intently seeking him (in the day that thou seekest me with 
all thy heart), confidently trusting him (I will save them because 
they put their trust in me), he is ready for judgment to pass, and 


he reckons the faith for righteousness, because he knows it is a 
righteous principle, first receiving righteousness, and then working 
out through the members, and thus showing itself in works of the 
flesh, and thus make the members of the body the instruments of 
righteousness, if circumstances permit. But God, seeing and judg- 
ing the heart, does not wait for outward developments, which 
might be long delayed, or even frustrated by overpowering cir- 
cumstances, such as imprisonment, sickness and death. So God's 
jungment is pronounced from (ek) faith. He counts it for right- 
eousness. So, faith receives the present blessings of salvation, 
and hope patiently waits to receive those that are promised to it. 
Now, if faith is going to manifest itself by works, then the works, 
to comport with the faith, should be righteous works, for faith is a 
righteous principle. But so prone is man to err that, unless God 
gives him rules to govern his actions, he is sure to go astray, and 
do injustice to his believing heart. God's rules to govern man's 
life must be right, essentially right, right always and every where, 
and hence unchangeable, so unchageable as to become law, and 
hence called law. We watch ourselves and others to see if there 
is a walking according to law, and this becomes our rule of judg- 
ment, and necessarily our only rule. How natural for us to think 
well of ourselves when judgment declares in favor of our obedi- 
ence to law, whether that judgment issues from ourselves or oth- 
ers. Our obedience to law is our righteousness, our own righteous- 
ness, works of righteousness which we have done, simplified in 
expression to works of the law, works of law, or simply works. 
But, having our eyes always on works, how natural for us to so 
magnify works as to make them a ground of boasting. Our works 
are seen of men, and we love to please men, and to be justified of 
men, hence works as magnified by men have come to possess an 
imaginary virtue that make them the rival, or even the superior, 
of faith as a heart and life-cleansing principle. Works, to possess 
this supposed merit, must be works of law, and the law must emi- 
nate from God, and be stamped with the sanctity of his command- 
ing majesty. God, foreseeing this, gave oh Mount Sinai a perfect 
law, afterwards called the law, and made it a covenant by which 
he would judge and count men righteous, provided the obedience 
was up to the requirements of the law. Here is where God not 
only exerted but exhausted himself in law as a life-giving and life- 
sustaining principle. So that, if a man would be justified by law, 
let him hear the law. Now, this disposition in man to magnify his 


own works, and to qlaim them either as the sole or partial ground 
of his justification before God, is the most dangerous tendency in 
man, as it frustrates grace, and makes the death of Christ of none 
effect. This is the probable reason why Paul gave more attention 
to the refutation of this error than to any other of his day. "The 
Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, attained to right- 
eousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, fol- 
lowing after a law of righteousness, has not attained to that law. 
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were 
by-works." (Rom. ix. 30-32, Oxford Revision.) They had a zeal, 
but not according to knowledge, for, being ignorant of God's right- 
eousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit 
themselves to the righteousness of God. "For Christ is the end 
of law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Paul in- 
cluded in his argument not only those that had the law, but also 
those who had not; who were a law unto themselves; those also. 
before the law, and those who by nature did the things contained 
in the law. And not only so, but he also included both Jews and 
Gentiles who were under the Gospel; who, having begun in the 
Spirit, and in faith, were tempted to go back to law. If there was 
a law of the Gospel versus the law of Moses, or any other law,. 
Paul forgot to make the least or most remote reference to it. He 
was not arguing law versus law, but faith versus law. "The law is 
not of faith," and faith must "work not, but believe on him that 
justifies the ungodly." Yet, so far from making law void through 
faith, he would establish law. How could this be done? By leav- 
ing the things promised to faith, and the things promised to works,, 
to each as they had been promised. " To him that worketh not, 
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness." The ungodly are the lawless and disobedient. 
God justifies these ungodly characters from faith "apart from 
works." The faith that seeks justification of the ungodly before 
God must be a faith that works not for such justification, but sim- 
ply believes, receives, submits. Faith is a working principle, ex- 
cept when seeking for the justification of the ungodly before God. 
Here true faith dares not work, for there is nothing it can do. It 
cannot go into heaven to bring Christ down, and then go into the 
abyss to bring him up again from the dead ; and such are the 
works required for the justification of a sinner before God. " While 
we were yet sinners Christ died for us," that we might be justified 
by his blood, and be saved from wrath through him. These are 


works required in order to the justification of a sinner, but the 
sinner could take no part in them. "When we were enemies we 
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being 
reconciled we shall be saved by his life." These are works neces- 
sary to our justification and salvation, but we can take no part in 
them. So, while faith is a working principle, and while it dares 
not work for justification of the ungodly, yet the ungodly, being 
justified by faith without works, will seek for work in the sphere, 
and to the end, that faith is expected to work. Hence, works after 
justification before God, becomes a "sign," "a seal of the righteous- 
ness of the faith" which we had before we came to obedience. 
"He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." 
In the offering of Abel's sacrifice he obtained a witness that he 
was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, and by it he being dead 
yet speaketh. It was thus with Abel before the flood, it was thus 
with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law, it 
was thus with David under the law, it was thus with the Gentiles 
without law, and it was thus with Paul under the Gospel. In all, 
faith at first, in the matter of justification of the ungodly before God 
was a non-working principle, but afterward it sought to manifest 
itself according to law. Hence, the believer, being justified by faith, 
has always sought to glorify God by the good fruits of a holy life. 
Abel offering his lamb, Abraham his son, and the believer the sacri- 
fice of obedience, are all "working out," manifesting their justifi- 
cation by faith, declaring its purifying effects on their hearts by 
leading them as good trees to bring forth good fruit, or cleansed 
fountains to send forth pure streams. To do good that we may 
become good is an error for which there is now no excuse. Hence, 
we may write in large letters across the ages and the nations con- 
cerning the non-working faith in the justification of the sinner and 
the subsequent working faith in the obedience of the righteous, 
" There is no difference." 

Let us go back to the beginning of these divine principles and 
view them in the light of the covenants. How shall a man be 
justified before God? Or, as Paul more fully states it, How can 
God be just and justify the ungodly? This is the question of the 
ages, and the question of this debate, since justification includes 
forgiveness of sins. 

To this end God has proposed " two covenants," one of works 
and one of grace, but none of works and grace. "If of works, 
then no more of grace," and " if of grace, then no more of works." 


The establishment of this proposition will be fatal to my friend's 
theology, for he will be neither slow nor timid in professing salva- 
tion by works of righteousness which we must do. So great is 
man's antipathy to grace that God proposed the hard and relent- 
less covenant of works, that it might force us to Christ, who is full 
of grace and truth. \This covenant is called " old," because first 
ratified by blood, andV first," because first in its operations with 
us as a principle of a holy life. Let us first identify these cove- 
nants, and mark well their specifications and the principle of their 
operations. In Exodus xix. 5-9 we find the proposal of God to 
Israel : " Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep 
my covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar people unto me above all 
people, for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a king- 
dom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which ye 
shall speak unto the children of Israel. . ... And all the 
people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken 
we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the 
Lord, and the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a 
thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee and 

Now follows the preparation on the part of the people, and the" 
awful quaking, and smoking, and lightnings and tempests, with 
blackness and darkness, which made even Moses exclaim, "I ex- 
ceedingly fear and quake." The Lord takes Moses into the mount 
and delivers to him the law covenant, which he returns to the peo- 
ple, and which they most solemnly accept. This we find in Exodus 
xxiv: "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the 
Lord, and all the judgments, and all the people answered with one 
voice, and said, All the words which the Lord has said will we 

do All that the Lord hath said will we do and be 

obedient." (Is this not my friend's way?) "And Moses took the 
blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of 
the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all 
these words." Paul, alluding to this in Heb. ix. 18-22, says: 
"Wherefore neither the first covenant was dedicated without 
blood ; for, when Moses had spoken every precept to all the peo- 
ple, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, 
with water and scarlet wool, and hysop, and sprinkled both the 
book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant 
which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled with 
blood both the tabernacle and vessels of the ministry. And almost 


all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding 
of blood there is no remission." Now, it is of prime importance 
to identify this covenant for once and forever, that no time may 
be wasted in its dispute. Two references are deemed sufficient 
for this. Deut. iv. 13 reads : "And he declared unto you his cove- 
nant which he commanded you to perform, even ten command- 
ments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." The ten com- 
mandments constitute this covenant of works. But one. more 
reference will settle it. Deut. xix. 9-11: "When I was gone up 
into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the 
covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the 
mount forty days and forty nights. I neither did eat bread nor 
drink water. And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone, 
written with the finger of God, and on them was written according 
to all the words which the Lord spake with you in the mount, out 
of the mist of tire in the day of the assembly. And it came to 
pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave 
me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant." Now 
we trust all can see that the "old," that "first" covenant, in which 
God proposed to recognize the people as righteous, holy, without 
sin, provided they did all he commanded, for this is what they 
covenanted to do. 

These tables are called the "book of the law." Then, of course, 
"cursed is he that continueth not in all things written in the book 
of the law to do them," for this they solemnly engaged to do, and,, 
having engaged to do all, they are guilty if they fail in one point. 
Now God knew that they all would break this covenant, and he- 
must regard them not, so he mercifully expanded the covenant 
into "judgments and sacrifices," the one to fully explain the re- 
quirements of the law, and the other to point the transgressors to 
the Mediator of the "new" covenant, that by means of death for 
the redemption, of the transgressions under this first covenant, 
they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inher- 
itance. If these sacrifices under this first covenant could have 
made them that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the con- 
science, then there would have been no need .of another. Or, as 
St. Paul puts it, "If there had been a law given which could have 
given life, then righteousness, or justification, would have been by 
law, and Christ need not have died." But this covenant failed, be- 
cause one of the parties covenanting broke it, and God regarded 
them not. This law was "holy, just and good," a "perfect law," 


and God could not make a better one. So, if any one would be 
justified by their o'wn righteousness, let him follow the rule of 
conduct laid down under the first covenant, written on two tables 
of stone the ten commandments. All will try this, as did the 
Israelites, and all like them will fail, and, being conscious of 
this, death ensues. (Rom. vii. 8-13.) But the bringing in of a bet- 
ter covenant will give hope. But this new and better covenant 
must not be like the old, for that was "do and live;" and if the 
new is do and live," there will surely be another failure to make 
the comers thereunto perfect, and the promise cannot be sure to 
any of the seed. Now let us study by contrast the new covenant, 
for God says it shall not be like the old. Don't forget, these terms, 
"new" and "old," are the language of appearance. They are thus 
to us, and in us, and for us. To God the other is the first and the 
"old," for it was confirmed of God, in Christ, before Abraham, 
while the other was not written until some hundred and thirty 
years after Abraham. Hence, this latter cannot disannul the for- 
mer so as to make its promises of none effect. 

The purpose and promise of this really old covenant budded in 
the garden when God said "the seed of the woman shall bruise 
the serpent's head." It blossomed when God said to Abraham, 
"In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed." But its full specifications are not given till the time 
of the later prophets. So the still later writers, the apostles, 
sometimes referred to this covenant in bud, as in'Heb. ii. 14, 15; 
and then again to the blossom of it, as in Acts in. 25, 26; and, again, 
to the rich fruitage of its specifications, as in Eom. xi. 25-27; Heb. 
vii. 7-13; x. 15. 


Let us now study the gospel of grace, in the light of the cove- 
nant of grace, as we find its specifications given by the later 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Fifth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

It is amusing to see how quickly, and with what an effort to pre- 
serve an appearance of dignity, Brother Moody changes his ground 
when he is beaten at his own game. For example, with a great 
flourish of trumpets he began to introduce "concessions" from my 
brethren. He began with Brother H. T. Anderson, then he intro- 
duced an unknown " Campbellite professor," then a nameless lady. 
This was in his first and second speeches. But since I have replied 
in his own style, by giving "concessions" from the leading Baptist 
lights of the world, such as Clarke, Bliss, Hovey, Hackett, Dale, 
Wilmarth, Harkness, Foster, D'Ooge, Boise, Metcalfe, Eipley and 
others, he suddenly becomes exceedingly opposed to that way of 
.doing, and, with great appearance of dignity, cries out thus: "I 
-can draw on his people for language that favors my doctrine and 
-disfavors his, and could fill up this time set apart for argument to 
just such scrapping, but this people have a right to expect better 
of us both." He is not going to be drawn off after these little side 
issues, he informs us. He ought to have thought of that in the be- 

But he says positively that he agrees with Hackett and Hovey, 
as far as he understands them, in their doctrine on the relation of 
baptism to salvation, though he says he may not agree with their 
peculiar expressions. I should think not. One of Hackett's " pe- 
culiar" expressions concerning baptism is this: "Submit to the 
rite in order to be forgiven." He says that is what Peter meant in 
Acts ii. 38. I am glad to hear Brother Moody say he believes that 
doctrine, and now I would like to hear him explain what he thinks 
Hackett intended to teach in that "peculiar expression." Hovey 
wrote an article of considerable length on "Baptism as related to 
regeneration and forgiveness." Let me give you a number of his 
peculiar expressions, the doctrine of which Brother Moody tells us 
he believes, though he may not like the way it is expressed. I am 
not surprised at that, either, for if Dr. Hovey believed as he does, 


he had a most unfortunate way of making it known. Hovey 
says: . - .: . . . 

1. "Here repentance and baptism are represented as leading to 
the forgiveness of sins." 

2. "Baptism involves the idea of prayer for the forgiveness of 
sins." I 

3. "Baptism, therefore, saves, because it stands for and means 
genuine reliance, for the first time, upon the mercy of God in 
Christ, and, indeed, . an earnest request for pardon $ it expresses 
the act of the soul in turning to God, committing itself to God, 
and seeking his grace." Notice : in this extract he says baptism 
" saves; " baptism, stands for and means "an earnest request for 
pardon;" it expresses "the act of the soul in turning to G-od," "in 
seeking his grace." 

3. " He [Paul] Reaches that men are saved by an outworking, 
obedient life, given and preserved by the Holy Spirit." 

5. "Baptism, then, is a very definite and important act of obedi- 
ence to Christ, and withal a very clear confession of divine truth j 
but it is prerequisite to salvation only as obedience to the known 
will of Christ is prerequisite." 

So testifies Alvah Hovey, who is perhaps the most learned Bap- 
tist now alive. Brother Moody says a man is saved before bap- 
tism ; how, then, can he believe the doctrine that baptism " saves ? ;; 
that it is "an earnest request for pardon?" that it leads "to the 
forgiveness of sins,? " How can he believe that one is to " submit to 
the rite in order to be forgiven ? " Brother Moody teaches that 
men are saved without works, and before works of every kind; 
how, then, can he believe that "men are saved by an outworking, 
obedient life?" One thing is certain, he cannot believe these 
.statements without being on both sides of this question at the 
same time. 

Dr. Clarke, who was a co-worker with Drs. Hackett and Hovey 
on the American Commentary, says: "The obtaining of forgiveness 
for a sinful life was the end to which the submission to baptism 
was one of the means." I wonder if my friend believes that "pe- 
culiar expression " too. If so, what does it mean when looked at 
through Baptist glasses? 

There is one thing in which the gentleman beats me badly. He 
can hold his tongue on the most important points in debate, and 
pass on as though he had not noticed them at all. That Norton 
letter is an illustration: that his learned and distinguished English. 


correspondent should proclaim and defend in such a vigorous way 
the doctrine that I am advocating is a fine illustration of the fact 
that the leading minds among the Baptists are coming to the 
truth, but that his letter should have appeared in this week's issue 
of the Baptist, to my mind, seems evidently providential. Ah, my 
friends, God is furnishing me with weapons, even through his own 
friends, with which to break down and to destroy his positions and 
arguments. You all saw the startling effect that the reading from 
that letter had upon the audience, and, indeed, upon himself ; but 
when he arose to reply, not one word did he say about it. Brother 
Moody, do you accept the teaching of Dr. Norton as you do that 
of Hackett and Hovey? You say you would repudiate any Baptist 
who would use my language with my meaning. I accept that ex- 
tract from Norton as being an excellent expression of my views 
on the subject, when the words are taken in their plain and com- 
mon meaning ; do you? Don't fail to answer when you arise. You 
say you are going to read "concessions" from my brethren, and 
ask me if I indorse them. Well, I promise to give you a prompt 
and candid answer if you will answer me as to Norton's letter. 

Brother Moody says of me: "The faith that one must have be- 
fore repentance, and in most cases without repentance, is all the 
faith the gentleman claims to have." A singular man, indeed, is 
my erring brother. Why, in my last speech I was at special pains, 
to define the faith that saves. I told you that it is faith perfected 
by works, and that it includes both repentance and baptism. With, 
this statement right before him he says I don't claim to have any 
faith but that which precedes repentance. No wonder his brother 
Taylor accused him of "unaccountable misrepresentations" arrd 
"cruel injustice." 

The devils believed, confessed and obeyed, says Brother Moody.. 
Yes, the convicts in the penitentiary obey their keepers, but it is 
not because they want to, it is not because they love; and so of 
the devils who obeyed Jesus. The faith that pleases God is faith 
that sorrows for sin, that loves and trusts the Lord, that, with full 
purpose of heart, is determined to follow Christ, and that does fol- 
low him. That is the faith that my brethren claim. The devils- 
have no such faith as that, nor can it properly be called "faith 
only." No, no ; it is the faith that Abraham had when it was said, 
of him, "Faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith, 
made perfect." It is this faith that "avails" this faith perfected 
by works and the word avail, you know, means to reach 


"blessing. Paul says (Gal. v. 6): "For in Christ Jesus neither cir- 
cumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith, work- 
ing through love." It is "faith working" that avails, that always 
did avail, that always will avail; "faith working through love." 

Brother Moody wants to know if I will deny that the devils are 
of my creed. Yes ; certainly. Neither the devils nor Brother Moody 
are of my creed, since, with Paul, I believe that "faith working 
through love" is required to reach the blessing. 

The gentleman wants to know what authority I have for saying 
that those who received Jesus by belierving on his name were thus 
tl begotten" of God. It affords me pleasure to tell him. 1 John 
v. 1 reads thus in the Eevised Version: "Whosoever belie veth that 
Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God." Where the common ver- 
sion has "born," the revised has "begotten." The Bible Union, 
Living Oracles, Anderson, Emphatic Diaglott, McKnight, and mod- 
ern scholars generally agree with the Eevised Version. The Greek 
word gennao is translated both "begotten" and "born," but there 
is a very simple, common sense rule to guide us in deciding which 
word to use in translating it; it is this: when connected with the 
father it should be rendered "begotten ;" when with the mother, 
"born." I say again, when one believes with the heart he is be- 
begotten of God; when he is baptized he is born of water, and 
thus he is born again. 

Notice how Brother Moody twists the Word of God. The Bible 
says: "As many as received him to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, ev*en to them that believe on his name." That 
verse teaches that God gave to believers power to become sons. 
Now, listen to Brother Moody's explanation of it. He says : " It 
does not say that believers become children, but those who received 
him, or as many as gave heed to his teaching, he gave privilege to 
become sons of God. How many of these receivers became chil- 
dren? Even as many as believe eis his name." What a perver- 
sion! God teaches that to those who received Christ, even to those 
who believed on his name, gave he power to become sons of God. 
Brother Moody teaches that to those who received Christ, to them 
he gave power to believe on his name, and thus to become sons. 
I would rather die than to hold to a theory that would make me 
twist the Word of God like that. 

Concerning his Old Testament argument, I have at present but 
one word to add, namely: If the Jews, prior to the resurrection of 
Christ, had believed what we are now required to believe in order 


to be saved, they would have believed a falsehood ; for now there 
is promise of salvation to none except to those who believe "that 
God hath raised Jesus from the dead." 

The gentleman is very much displeased with Mr. Campbell's idea, 
that faith results from testimony; that evidence, if clear and un- 
mistakable, is sufficient to produce it. Well, I think Mr. Campbell 
is right about that, if the gentleman does call it a "minifying defi- 
nition." The fact is, Mr. Campbell got that idea from the Word of 
God. Paul says : " How shall they believe in him of whom they have 
not heard"? and how shall'they hear without a preacher?" Then,, 
a little farther on, he adds: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the Word of God." (See Bom. x. 14-17.) It is saving 
faith, too, of which he was speaking, for salvation was his theme. 
Listen again: "When they believed Philip preaching the things 
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,, 
they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts viii. 12.) How 
did their faith come? What did they believe? At Iconium Paul 
and Barnabas "so spake that a great multitude, both of the Jews 
and also of the Greeks, believed." (Acts xiv. 1.) Does not that 
look as though the testimony produced faith? John says: "Many 
other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which 
are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believ- 
ing, ye might have life through his name." (John xx. 30, 31.) 
Evidently, John wrote his testimony to produce faith, and saving 
faith at that faith that would bring "life* through his name." 
How is conversion brought about? Listen: Paul and Isaiah repre- 
sent the Lord as saying, " The heart of this people is waxed gross, 
and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed, 
lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and 
understand with their heart, and should be converted [and should 
turn again, R. Y.], and I should heal them." That looks as though 
conversion comes through the eyes and ears, does it not? So it 
seems to me. They saw and heard, and thus faith was wrought 
in some. Others closed their eyes, and refused to hear with pa- 
tient attention, and hence they failed to believe. But Brother 
Moody's idea is that God gave to some who heard power .to believe, 
and that all such believed and were saved; but that to others he 
did not give this power, and they therefore could not believe nor 
be saved. I would like to know, then, whose fault their damnation 
would be ? 


The gentleman seems to think that Daniel and his Hebrew com- 
panions could. not have had any "well authenticated" facts and 
truths any sufficient evidence to satisfy them that God would stand 
"by them in their hours of trial. Strange, passing strange, indeed ! 
Does he not know that the writings of Moses had been extant for 
eight hundred years and more? Why, the Psalms of David had 
been in circulation for four hundred years, Solomon's writings for 
three hundred and seventy-five years, and Job for a much longer 
time. Yes, these Hebrew children had Moses and many of the 
prophets. And Abraham, "the father of the faithful," thought 
that Moses and the prophets were sufficient to produce faith. Do 
you remember his conversation with the rich man who was in tor- 
ment? The rich man wanted him to send Lazarus to his father's 
house to warn his people. "For," he said, "I have five brethren ; 
that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place 
of' torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the 
prophets ; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham, 
but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And 
he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 
xvi. 27-31.) Evidently, neither the rich man in torment, nor Abra- 
ham in the realms of the blessed, had yet learned enough to make 
them Calvinists; for if they had, the rich man would have known 
that his brethren would not come to his place if they were elect, 
but that they certainly would if they were not elect. While Abra- 
ham would have answered such a question about thus: "Don't 
bother about your brothers; if G-od calls them they'll come; if he 
does not, they can't ; if they are elect he will call them, if they 
are not, he won't." But they had not learned enough to become 
what Brother Moody is. That rich man thought faith comes by 
hearing, and hence he wanted Lazarus to go back to testify; and 
Abraham thought so, too, but he considered the testimony of Mo- 
ses and the prophets all-sufficient. In that he differed very widely 
from Brother Moody. 

Jesus said: "Those by the wayside are they that hear; then 
cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hearts, 
lest they should believe and be saved." (Luke viii. 12.) Evidently 
the devil, in one matter at least, is in full agreement with Paul, 
John, the rich man, and Abraham. He knows the word of G-od is 
sufficient to produce the faith that saves, and hence he hastens to 
take it away. He has been among men ever since the fall; he 


shows great familiarity with the Scriptures ; he has heard the 
teaching of Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles, and 
he has learned that the word is dangerous to his interests. Ah, ye 
mothers, the devil would not try to snatch that word out of your 
children's hearts, as he does, did he not know of its wonderful 
power. He is afraid if the word stays there that they will "be- 
lieve and be saved." 

While talking on the subject of faith, the gentleman accuses us 
of holding to "a belief of plan, plea, plot, proposition, fact, truth, 
law, perfected by one act, for the pardon of past sins." With his 
usual accuracy (?) he gets the matter exactly wrong. We hold that 
faith in a divine person, Jesus the Christ, and a following of him, 
are necessary to salvation. We do not hold that the faith is per- 
fected by one act, but, as the apostle says, "by works." Bepent- 
ance, confession and baptism are all works. Jesus said: "Come 
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you 
rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek 
and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matt, 
xi. 28, 29.) Jesus requires that men should believe upon him, love 
him, come to him, take his yoke upon them, and learn of him, if 
they would find rest. There is little ground for the doctrine of the 
sinner's justification by faith only in that. 

The gentleman talks about a man's body being "fettered with 
ropes, until it could not twitch a muscle nor wink an eye." (It 
would take a scientific rope handler to bind a man that way !) But 
even then faith could be exercised, he claims, to the saving of his 
soul. Well, that is his talk. When lie finds a case in which God 
ever bestowed any blessing on any man because of his faith, before 
that faith was expressed in action, I will then pay some attention 
to such talk, but till then it is worthless. The Bible is a large 
book; it covers about four thousand one hundred years of the 
world's history, and surely, if there be such a case, it can be found 
in these inspired records. But it cannot be found. James says, 
"Faith apart from works is barren." (James ii. 20, E. V.) On the 
strength of this statement of inspiration I make the challenge. I 
have made it many times before, and it has never been met. I 
have called upon Brother Moody for such a case time and again, 
in former debates, and he has tried to meet it, but has invariably 
failed. He is conscious of failure, too, for, if I remember aright, 
he has always in different debates tried different cases. You will 
see how he comes out this time. If he finds such a case, then I 


-will grant at once that he can bind a man with ropes so that he 
cannot "twitch a muscle nor wink an eye." 

The gentleman is disposed to ridicule the faith we advocate; he 
talks of "the degraded depths" of such a belief. Well, he can 
talk on; but if I believed, as he does, that those rulers of the 
Jews (John xii. 42, 43) who believed on Jesus, but would not con- 
fess him because they feared the Pharisees, lest they should be put 
out of the synagogue, who loved the praise of men more than the 
praise of God I say, if I believed, as he does, that those rulers 
had saving faith, that they were then in a saved state, I would not 
talk about anybody degrading faith. For everybody in town, 
nearly, has as good a faith as that. 

Says Brother Moody: "If there was a law of the Gospel versus the 
law of Moses, or any other law, Paul forgot to make the least or 
most remote reference to it." And so he concludes we are justi- 
fied by faith unexpressed, by faith which has no law, nor works of 
any kind attached to or included in it. The word "law" means 
"rule of action." Is there no law that has taken the place of the 
Mosaic economy? Have we no rule of action in coming to Christ 
-and in abiding with him? Listen: "For the law of the Spirit of 
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and 
death." (Bom. viii. 2.) Here Paul clearly teaches that there is a 
law called "the law of the Spirit of life," which makes a man free 
free from the law of sin and death. James says: "But he that 
looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continue th, 
being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh, this 
man shall be. blessed in his doing." (James i. 25, E. V.) Hence he 
exhorts them to receive the "implanted Word," which, he says, is 
able to save their souls ; but he exhorts them to be " doers of the 
word, and not hearers only." This law is called "the law of lib- 
erty," because it is the law by which men are freed from sin and 
death. Paul refers to this law when he says, I became "to them 
^without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but 
under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without 
law." (1 Cor. ix. 21.) Here Paul, who so fully taught that he was 
freed from the law of Moses, claims to be "under the law to 
Christ." With such facts before him, how could Brother Moody 
say Paul made not "the least or most remote reference" to any 
law as supplanting or coming in the stead of that of Moses? In 
Bom. iii. 27 Paul speaks distinctly of "the law of faith," and con- 
trasts it with the law "of works." And, as we have seen, he 


teaches these Eoman Christians that they were made free from sin 
when they had obeyed from the heart the "form of doctrine" 
which was delivered them. (Rom. vi. 17.) And as "law" is 
" rule of action," they were made free from sin by law; not by the 
law "of works," but by "the law of faith;" not by "the law of sin 
and death," but by "the law of the Spirit of life/' "the perfect law 
of liberty." 

We are justified by works, but not ~by our works; we are justi- 
fied by God's works. Faith is a work, but it is a work of God. 
Jesus says: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him 
whom he hath sent." (John vi. 29.) We are not justified without 
that work. Eepentance is as much a work as faith, and without it 
no man is justified, for Jesus says, "Except ye repent, ye shall all 
likewise perish." It, too, is a work of God. These are works that 
we perform, that we are commanded to do, yet they are God's 
works. Man is active in performing them, nevertheless all agree 
they are God's works. But I call your attention now to a work 
that is also God's work which the sinner is not required to per- 
form, but merely to submit to ; in it he is passive, and the com- 
mand is expressed in the passive voice. I refer to the command 
to be baptized. Christ baptizes ever^y man that is Scripturally bap- 
tized, the man merely submits. This may seem at first to be a 
strange statement, but it is true, and is susceptible of the clearest 
proof. It is said, "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than 
John, though Jesus baptized not, but his disciples." (John iv. 1,. 
2.) What Jesus did through his agents, his disciples, he did him- 
self. But all the baptisms that are now Scripturally performed are 
done in his name, by his authority, under his commission, and 
hence are done by him. Baptism is an act of righteousness, but 
not of our righteousness ; it belongs to God's righteousness. Here- 
is the proof: when Jesus was baptized he said, '"Thus it becometh 
us to fulfill all righteousness." Hence, baptism is an act of right- 
eousness. But Paul says of God: "Not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, 
by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."' 
(Titus iii. 5.) The "washing of regeneration" here is not a part of,, 
but is contrasted with "works of righteousness which we have 
done." But the washing of regeneration is baptism. So testify 
Summers, Clarke, Wesley, Watson, Stuart, Eobinson, Hovey and 
scholars generally. Hence, it follows that baptism is a work of 
God's righteousness, by which, and by the renewing of the Holy 


Ghost, he saves us. I here ask my friend two questions : (1) Does 
baptism belong to the righteousness of God, or to the righteous- 
ness of man? Jesus clearly intimated that John's baptism was 
from heaven, then surely his was. (2) Are we saved without God's 
righteousness? He can't give a reasonable answer to those ques- 
tions to save his Me without giving up his cause. Paul says the rea- 
son the Jews had not been saved was, they had not " submitted 
themselves to the righteousness of God." (Eom. x. 3.) If baptism 
belongs to God's righteousness (as it certainly does), woe to the 
man who does not submit to it. 

Brother Moody talks about man's disposition "to magnify his 
his own works." Just so ; the mourner's bench, for instance. Man 
is equally disposed to minify the works of God; baptism, for in- 

But, quotes Brother Moody, "We conclude that a man is justified 
by faith without the deeds of the law." Certainly, but baptism 
does not belong to "the deeds of the law," but to "the obedience 
of faith." 

Again: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him 
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." 
Certainly; but God's works are not excluded here (for faith 'is' not 
excluded), but man's works works of merit, as thq context clearly 
shows. Baptism does not belong to that class, but is by Paul 
himself contrasted with that class. Let me repeat, baptism is not 
a work that the man baptized does, but it is one which the Lord 
(through an agent) does for him. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Sixth Speech. 

Gentlemen-moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I have a few things to bring up from a previous speech. I deny 
the gentleman's last statement concerning the Mill Creek Church, 
and I call for the proof. I deny his statement concerning his 
Watertown Church, and call for the proof. I deny the prosperity 
of his cause there, and Alexandria, where I debated with Dr. 
Brents. I ask the gentleman how many protracted meetings have 
been held at Alexandria since that debate? He held one himself. 
How many did he get, and what became of them? Dr. Brents 
tried. How many did he get? "I hope he will speak out like a 
man." At the time of that debate there was no Baptist Church at 
Alexandria. Now they have an organization, and one of the finest 
houses in that country. Even a stranger in that country knows the 
remarkable prosperity of the Baptists at Watertown, where I de- 
bated with Mr. Lipscomb. They have almost swallowed up all the 
religious interests of that country. Our large house on good days 
can hardly hold the congregation, with your people at home. You 
got some from our Church that we excluded, and some who ran 
from exclusion, and some coerced from intermarriage, but never 
did you get one as a result of these debates, and you never will. 
Now I call for the per cent you get from us. I did this some two 
months ago in my paper, but no answer as yet. Facts and figures, 
Mr. Harding, if you please, and we will compare them with your 
ninety per cent. "Speak out like a man." Yes, the gentleman 
well knows that I have not, do not, and will not answer before 
my time; hence, he can safely air himself before his brethren 
with his seeming boldness in asking questions, and his boasts that 
I never will are all to recoil on his own pate. This he knows, but 
he must boast beforehand or die. I love to see him hang himself 
thusly. He knows that all of his pertinent questions will be an- 
swered, and he knows it well. I must here confess my shame and 
humiliation at such matter as this in such a debate as this, but 
the gentleman compels me. 


He says: "If it were possible to repent before believing, it 
would be a sin." Now the whole Christian world can see about 
Ms repentance and faith, for with one voice they say that it is not 
possible to repent as a result of saving faith, and if it were, it 
would be a sin. You see how vital are the issues, and how we 
stand the poles apart. He says, also, that a man cannot now re- 
pent toward God ; that since Pentecost Christ is on the throne, 
and it is with him we have to do. But Paul taught both Jews and 
Greeks, publicly and privately, that repentance was toward God, 
and that faith was toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts xx. 21.) 
He also taught everywhere that men should repent and turn to 
God, and do works meet for repentance. (Acts xxvi. 20.) When 
Jesus came preaching the Gospel of the kingdom he said: "Kepent 
ye, and believe in the Gospel." (Mark i. 15.) Jesus says again 
that "they repented not that they might believe." (Mark xxi. 32.) 
And here he uses the very word that Mr. Campbell translates re- 
pent, and the only word, he says, that means it. And here I ask 
this question: Mr. Harding, do you agree with the father and 
founder of your faith on repentance? Then, a man must repent 
that he might believe. If you do not agree with the "ancient 
order of things " restored by Mr. Campbell, then, concerning the 
faith, you are an apostate, and, concerning the truth, you are a 
reprobate. Again I ask : Mr. Harding, do you agree with Christ, 
who said, "Kepent, and believe in the Gospel?" If not, you are 
an apostate concerning the faith, and a reprobate concerning the 
truth. Once more, Mr. Harding: Did John, and Christ, and Peter r 
and Paul address believers every time they said repent? Did Paul 
do right in teaching men to repent toward God, and turn to God, 
instead of Jesus Christ? "I hope he will speak out like a man." 
Once more, Mr. Harding: If "whatever is not of faith is sin," as 
you quote it, then is it not a sin to be born, and to suck the 
mother's breast, and to grow, and to go to Church, and to hear the 
Word? "I hope he will speak out, and not be afraid." Mr. Hard- 
ing, you say again that baptism is not a work which we do, but it 
is the righteousness of God to which we submit; and again you 
say that it is a work, a bodily action of obedience, which we must 
do in order to perfect faith. Will you please tell me which of 
these contradictory statements is your real position ? Again, do 
you really believe that a real sinner is really put into the real 
Christ by the real physical action of immersion? Again, it is said 
that the jailer and his house "rejoiced, believing in God." Did they 


rejoice, being baptized into Christ? Did you not quote it to make 
this last impression? or did you quote it to show that this was the 
joy of faith? Mr. Harding, when you said that personal conscious- 
ness could not measure a horse or weigh a barrel of sugar, and 
that it has no knowledge of outside things, did not you mean to 
say that remission, forgiveness, purging, cleansing, washing or 
taking away of sin are outside things, away from the realm of con- 
sciousness? Then, in that don't you confess that you never had a 
consciousness of guilt, and that you never had a consciousness of 
it being taken away? I am trying to draw you out so I can under- 
stand you. Only please stay on your side, and don't jump back 
on mine as soon as I point my finger at you. I would be glad to 
have you on my side if you would come to stay, but when you 
come to dodge, I want to drive you back. And you drive about as 
easy as you draw. He is not only a dexterous dodger, but ambi- 
dexterous. He seems to be ambitious of ambiguity, and of am- 
ple amphibiousness. When you said it was " untrue" that the Old 
Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation, did 
you mean to say that the New was then collected and incorporated 
into "the Scriptures" of which Paul speaks? or do you mean to 
charge Paul with an untruth? "I hope he will speak out boldly 
like a man." 

Mr. Harding, do you indorse your great brother, Tyler, of New 
York, in your paper last week, May 29th, about a certain Presby- 
terian preacher being saved without baptism? Tour brother, Dor- 
ris, in June 19th, says, "It is a clear surrender of the plea." 
"Speak out like a man if you indorse him." Do you indorse your 
brother, McGarvey, your greatest scholar, in saying the pious un- 
baptized will be saved? " Speak out like a man." Do you indorse 
Mr. Campbell, as quoted by Tyler, about myriads of Christians of all 
denominations? Do you indorse your Mr. Campbell when he said 
concerning his second son, Wickliff E., who was drowned without 
baptism, that "the Lord had taken him home?" Do you indorse 
your brother, Moore, of London, who asked,' "What better are we 
than unbaptized Christians?" Do you indorse your brother, La- 
mar, a leader among you, criticised in your last paper, because he, 
with a thousand others of your people, is beginning to walk in 
the light? Do you indorse the greatest scholar you ever had, Mr. 
Anderson, who in his last and best days said concerning " baptism 
for the remission of sins" that it is "essentially Romish," "unscript- 
ural," "as teaching error," "cannot be defended by sound exe- 


gesis," "it is unsafe," "can never be sustained?" Do you indorse 
Mm when he says, "So I perceive with all men who understand 
and know how to interpret the language of the Scripture?" Do 
you indorse him where he says, "The evidence of pardon is within 
a man, not without him?" and also when he says, "On this ground 
the truly intelligent Christian has always stood, and will always 
stand?" These men meant what their words imply, and you know 
it. Do you indorse them? "Speak out like a man." Suppose I 
am mortified to confess that some of ours are leaving home to go 
to Eome, can't I rejoice in the fact, that many of yours are coming 
back? But we will see about most of ours you slander with this 

Having in my last identified the covenant of works with the 
ten commandments, I now proceed to notice in contrast with this 
the covenant of grace, as we find its full specifications given by 
the later prophets and apostles. I turn first to Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34 : 
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. 
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in 
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the 
land of Egypt, which my covenant they break, although I was an 
husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the cove- 
nant which I shall make with the house of Israel: After those 
days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their hearts, and I will 
be thy G-od, and they shall be my people." "And they shall teach 
no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, say- 
ing, know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of 
them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord (1 John ii. 19-21; 
25-27), for I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their 
sin no more." Also, chapter xxxii. 39-41: "And I will give them 
one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the 
good of them, and their children after them. And I will make an 
everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from 
them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts, that 
they shall not depart from me. Yea, I will rejoice over them to 
do them good." Now turning to Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27 we read : "Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from 
all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A 
new heart, also, will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within 
you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I 
will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within 


you, and cause you to walk in my statues, and ye shall keep my- 
judgments and do them." Here is his principle of obedience re~ 
versed. It is not the, precedent condition. 


How unlike "the covenant from Mount Sinai, which gendereth 
to bondage," to conditions, to law, represented by Hagar in the- 
allegory. That fecund covenant conceives and brings forth in> 
every man who seeks justification before God. We were under 
this first covenant till faith came, during which time we were- 
Ishmaelites. It takes two boys and two births to represent our 
two births and two states. Our second birth is of the free woman 
covenant, and makes Isaacs of us all. (Gal. iv. 28-31.) The first 
genders to bondage, and, since the mother determines the condi- 
tion of the child, those born of the free woman are free born, and 
are entitled to all the immunities of children, arid "to the promises, 
of the inheritance, by virtue of their second birth, and not service 
or works, either great or small, eitfier few or many. Not of works,, 
not of works, was the constant fulmiuation of the Apostle Paul 
against my friend's people, and those like them. In the new and. 
better covenant it is God working in, both to will and to do of his. 
good pleasure. It is first making the tree go.od, and the fruit will 
be good. It is first making the inside of the cup and platter 
clean, that the outside may be, clean also. Eead the covenant, and 
see if this is not the principle. The covenant of works operates 
from without to within. It is doing good that you may be good,, 
or operating on the life to reach^he heart, or the stream to reach 
the fountain. In short, it is , like my friend's Gospel " do and 
live," "law of pardon," "justification by works." In the better- 
covenant, the work of a new creation begins in the heart; and, 
making that new, the life will be 7 new; making that pure, the life 
will be pure. Notice the specifications of the new covenant in 
contrast with the old. Under the old, our doing for God was the 
cause, and his doing for us was the effect ; hence, a matter of debt,, 
not of grace. Under the new, this is reversed; God doing in us 
and for us is the cause, and our doing for God is the effect. "I 
will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." 
Or, as Paul states it, "Written not with ink, but with the Spirit of' 
the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the 
heart." This covenant includes taking away of the stony heart 
and giving a heart of flesh, so that the seed can fall in good.. 


ground, and bring forth fruit unto life everlasting. Thus "of his 
own will begets he us with a word truth." (James i. 18.) 

The rich covenant of grace includes, also, a cleansing from sin, 
a new heart, a new spirit (or motive) in our actions, and also the 
indwelling Holy Spirit, and all this causes us to walk in his statups 
and keep his commandments. Here are good works, not as a prin-- 
ciple of life, but as the effect of a cause, the fruit of the good 
tree, the pure stream from the purified fountain. Hence, the Lord 
sent Hagar back (after being awhile cast out) to submit herself to 1 
her mistress, Sarai. So let the covenant of works be separated 
till we are justified by faith, then let it come back in submission 
as a bond servant to grace, no longer a rod over our head, but as 
a rule to our feet. For the law, says Paul, is good, if a man use it 
lawfully, and good works should be maintained, for they are profit- 
able unto men not, however, as a principle in the production of 
life, but as the rule of its conduct. So that, if a man would be 
justified by law, let him hear the law. If one says "except ye be 
circumcised ye cannot be saved," he is debtor to do the whole 
law, although circumcision is not of Moses, but of the fathers, four 
hundred years older than the law. So, also, if a man says "ex- 
cept ye be baptized ye cannot be saved," he makes it of law, and 
must go to the law, and Christ can profit him nothing. An epitome 
of both the covenant of grace and the Gospel of grace is found in 
these words of Paul: "For we are his workmanship, created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, 
that we should walk in them." (Eph. ii. 10.) Another epitome is 
given by Peter: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest- 
hood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth 
the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into Ms- 
marvelous light." (1 Pet. ii. 9.) John also gives many such 
statements, such as, "He that doeth good is good;" or, "Ye know 
that every one that doeth righteous hath been born of God." 
These, with a hundred Gospel statements, as well as other cove- 
nant specifications, put my friend's legal Gospel to an ignominious 
death, and ought, since that so-called Gospel puts to a greater 
death those who honestly, but erroneously believe it. 

Having thus clearly defined and identified the two covenants, 
let us look a little into the doctrine and definition of the term 
grace, despised in the eyes of those who are of law (as Hagar de- 
spised Sarah). Benevolence is favor bestowed upon supposed 
worthiness, while grace is favor bestowed upon recognized un- 


worthiness, and the richness of the grace is as apparent in the de- 
gree of un worthiness as in the amount of favor. See this in a few 
passages where the word is not thus translated. " For, if ye love 
them that love you, what grace have you, for sinners also love 
those that love them. And if ye do good to them that do good to 
ytfu, what grace is it to you? For sinners do even the same. And 
if ye lend to them of whom ye have hope to receive, what grace 
have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much 

"But love your enemies, and do good and lend, despairing not, 
and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be children of the 
highest, for he is kind to the graceless and the evil." (Luke vi. 

Here the idea of grace is clearly seen. Take one more: "There 
was a certain creditor who had two debtors, the one owed him five 
hundred pence, and the other fifty; and when they had nothing to 
pay, he graced them both. Tell me, therefore, which will love him 
most? Simon said, he to whom he graced most." (Luke vii. 40-43. 
See, also, Luke xvii. 7-10 ; Acts iii. 14, and 1 Pet. ii. 19, 20, for 
further elucidation of this grace principle.) Now, when the Bible 
says salvation by grace, justification by grace, forgiveness by grace, 
etc., we see something of the forceful meaning of the word, all of 
which is in absolute hostility to my opponent's "law of pardon." 
For, if of works or law, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of 
debt, as good works or obedience to the law becomes meritorious, 
and grace cannot ensue. If it be asked, "Wherefore law?" seeing 
grace is sufficient for us, let the answer be never forgotten, "'It 
was added because of transgression," to make "sin exceedingly 
sinful." "The law entered that sin might abound, that as sin hath 
reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteous- 
ness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Did sin reign unto death even from Adam to Moses before the 
law entered or was added? Even so must grace reign, and by 
reading once more the covenant of grace you see that grace reigns, 
giving a new heart and spirit, in cleansing from sin, in the gift of the 
Holy Spirit, and unto good works, which God hath before ordained 
that we should walk in them. If you would see an illustration of 
reigning grace, read the apprehension, or capture, of Saul of Tar- 
sus by the gracious Christ. He took his heart and cleansed it, 
took his mind and renewed it, took his will and subdued it, and 
took his life and converted it, according to the new covenant, so 


that the blood-thirsty Saul stood before his Divine Captor a willing 
captive, in the day of his power, willing to go to the hated heathen 
and suffer great things for his name, even to die if need be for the 
Lord Jesus, his beloved captor. Hear this "pattern of all them 
who shall henceforth believe on him to the saving of the soul," 
how he speaks on the question we are here to debate: "In whom 
we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins 
according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. i. 7.) And "if of 
grace, then no more of works," which is equivalent to saying, not at 
all of baptism. He further says we are justified by his grace, and, 
lest faith should be added to frustrate the grace, he says that we 
" believe through grace," and that "salvation by grace through 
faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God." Hear his big boast 
of reigning grace in the Lord : " By the grace of God I am what I 
am, and his grace which was bestowed upon (eis) me was not in 
vain, but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but 
the grace of God which was with me." "Wherefore he says, "let us 
have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably, and with godly 
fear." All of Paul's inside work, and all of his outside work, was 
.simply the reigning power of grace. How heaven-high is the Gos- 
pel of grace above the groveling idea of two, three or four steps, 
called a new law of pardon ! Let the thought of the possibility 
of God giving a law of pardon perish from the mind, lest the soul 
that entertains it perish forever! "Christ becomes of none effect 
unto you, whosoever of you are justified by law. Ye are fallen 
from grace." 


By reading Eom. ix., x., xi., with this thought before us, it is 
evident that this covenant of grace is the "fat olive tree" from 
which the Jews were broken off, and into which the Gentiles were 
to be grafted. The covenants are mentioned in chapter ix. 4, in 
the beginning of the argument, and the argument culminates in 
this fat olive tree covenant, deeply rooted in the eternal counsels 
and purposes of God, a feature made most prominent through the 
.apostle's argument. 

But the point we would emphasize is, that they were broken off 
because of unbelief, and the branches grafted in contrary to nat- 
ure must stand by faith, and the natural branches the Jews 
"his own people," to whom he came, and to whom pertain the 
.adoption and the covenants, these shall be grafted in again, if they 
abide not still in unbelief. The conscious recognizable test of vital 


relationship to this covenant is not baptism, as my opponent be- 
lieves, and will teach, but it is faith, which comes before baptism. 
And if by faith we are grafted in, and thus partake of the root 
and fatness of the olive tree, then, if the root is holy, so will be 
the branches. 

The grafted branches, whether Jews or Gentiles, get the sap, the 
life fluid, which is the blood of the tree; so that if the root be 
holy, so will be the branches. Now, if we partake of the virtues 
of the root by faith, and if one of these virtues is holiness, and 
holiness implies exemption from sin, then my proposition is clearly 
established from this standpoint, for we partake of that holiness 
by faith, and faith must precede baptism or there is no baptism. 


Let us now notice some of those Scriptures which predicate sal- 
vation of grace. Salvation is a comprehensive term, and includes 
the remission of sins, with like blessings; and if the sum of all 
these is of grace, so is one, or any of the parts. Then we will 
proceed to show that this great salvation, with remission and all 
its "like blessings" are of faith that they may be by grace, and 
this will prove double death to this most dangerous doctrine of 
this degenerate age. 

When this mystery of iniquity began to work, it was by those 
who "believed," but tried to put works and grace into one cove- 
nant as conditions of life. They said "except a man be circum- 
cised and keep the law of Moses, he cannot be saved." Well, 
there never was a more solemn command from Heaven than cir- 
cumcision, nor did Heaven ever issue a more perfect and holy law 
than that through Moses. God had as much authority, majesty, 
might and power then as now; hence, no command since can be 
more binding. Peter stands up in the midst of the apostles, 
elders and brethren and says, after much disputing: "We believe 
that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, 
even as they." This was approved by the apostles, elders and 
brethren, and by the Holy Spirit, and sent to all the Churches as 
the true doctrine of that day, and if grace was at all of works, 
they should have stated the quantity and quality, for a failure in 
either would have been fatal. Obedience to the law was as im- 
perative as obedience to the Gospel, or obedience to God was as 
obligatory as obedience to Christ. A man must not obey the law 
and disobey the Gospel, neither must he obey the Gospel and dis- 


obey the law. They both come in as rules of conduct to the 
saved, but not as the conditions of life. If baptism or any other 
work was necessary to salvation, then that grand council over- 
ruled by the Holy Spirit made a fatal blunder in not stating it, for 
millions, like Paul, have counted their obedience as dung, and 
have gone the way of all living, trusting in the power and .efficacy 
of divine grace. 
Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Sixth Reply. 

Messrs. Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Please remember the proposition that we are discussing. Brother 
Moody is here to prove that "Kernission of sins, with like bless- 
ings of salvation, is received before baptism." I am to examine 
his proofs, and am to show that they are not conclusive. 

His first argument was based on "personal consciousness." He 
claims that when a man is saved he knows it, nor can he entertain 
any doubt about it. He claims that consciousness in such a case 
is infallible. He quoted from my brother, Anderson (who always 
taught that baptism is to be submitted to in order that Christ may 
take away one's sins, and with whom Brother Moody does not, nor 
did he ever, agree), and from several others who, he says, went 
from us -to him. I replied that many more came from his people to 
ours (which he does not deny), and they testify that they experi- 
ence a peace and joy in the love of God, a delight in his Word, 
and a pleasure. in his service, which they never knew before. But 
he indignantly rejects the testimony of their consciousness,- in 
their cases it is by no means an infallible witness. Then I tes- 
tify: For weeks I listened to the preaching of the Word. The 
preacher told the story of the Gospel with wonderful power. At 
one moment I was filled with joy, at another I was melted to tears, 
as he told us of our great Father and his wonderful Son, Jesus 
Christ. But whether glorying in his mighty deeds or weeping over 
his trials and persecutions, I was ever deeply interested in the 
marvelous Child of Bethlehem. Many days had passed, however, 
when the preacher, after depicting the sufferings and cruel death 
of our Lord, turned to me with the startling statement, "He died 
that you might live." Never before had I so realized my own un- 
worthiness and the great love of Jesus. Never before had I so 
realized that he died that I might live. I felt miserable, wretched, 
guilty of base ingratitude in having sinned against one who so 
loved me. The final song closed while I was in this state of mind. 
I hoped they would sing another and give me another opportunity 


to confess my faith in him and to publicly devote myself to his 
service, "but they .did not. I went out of the house praying in my 
heart to God to have mercy upon me, to spare my life for another 
day, and to give me another opportunity to enlist in the service of 
his Son. On the next day I confessed Jesus, publicly as my Lord, 
having in my heart an abhorrence of sin, and a profound determi- 
nation to follow Jesus, trusting my all to him for evermore. I was 
baptized in his name and into the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and I was freed from sin. On this 
point I had not a single doubt, and I was tilled with joy in serving 
one who had done so much for me, and in the hope of seeing him 
and of being like him in that place that he had gone to prepare. 
From that hour to this blessed moment, in the midst of all my 
blunderings and stumblings (and they have been many), I have 
never seen the time in which I did not love him supremely; never 
the time when to follow him was not the leading purpose of my 
soul. In him is my trust for present and eternal salvation. Of 
all this I am distinctly conscious. Will Brother Moody accept the 
testimony of my consciousness? No, indeed; he says he will not. 
In my case it is not an infallible witness. A Baptist's conscious- 
ness is infallible, but in our people it can't be relied upon. Indeed,, 
not all of the Baptists will do to trust, for many who have been 
just as bright, happy, prayerful and diligent as any among them 
have learned the way of the Lord more perfectly and have come 
to us. Of course their consciousness won't do to trust. The facts 
on this subject, my friends, are these: A man is conscious of the 
emotions of his heart, of his loves, hopes, fears, beliefs, purposes, 
and so on. If he is happy, he knows it; if he is miserable, he 
knows it; if he loves, he knows it; if he hopes, he knows it; but 
he cannot know by consciousness as to whether his happiness, his 
misery, his love, hope and fear are well founded. A man buys 
what he supposes to be a golden brick; he has no doubt about its 
being golden; he is just as happy in its possession as if it were; 
but his consciousness of happiness is not proof that the brick is 
of gold; it is merely proof that he sincerely believes it to be. If 
a consciousness of happiness and peace were a proof of pardon, 
then you can find Jews, Mormons, Mohammedans, infidels, skep- 
tics, Quakers and men of every other faith who sometimes have 
the proof. I prefer to go by God's Word ; to trust that rather than 
to trust my feelings. 
All of this talk about the Mill Creek Church, the Watertown 


Church, etc., have grown out of this consciousness argument. 
Brother Moody introduced converts from us to the Baptists to 
show what their "consciousness" would say. I turned the tables 
on him. by showing that a much greater number of Baptists come 
to us, and their consciousness is just as reliable. But he says 
they do not claim to be conscious of pardon. True enough; they 
are too well informed for that now, though they did claim it when 
they were Baptists. But they do claim to be conscious of peace, 
joy, love and light, and that, too, in far greater degrees than ever 
before. All that there is in the consciousness argument we have 
in a much greater degree than do our Baptist brethren. 

Brother Moody denies my last statement concerning the Mill 
Creek Church. I said that the pastor of it, Brother Brock, who is 
pastor also of the Seventh Baptist Church, is in part sustained by 
a missionary board. Brother Brock is himself my witness. Brother 
Moody can examine him. 

Concerning the Watertown Church, Brother Moody is a pretty 
good witness himself. He says we got some who were excluded 
from the Baptists, some who ran from exclusion, and some who 
were coerced from intermarriage. Many a man has been excluded 
from the Baptists for believing and teaching the truth, and as to 
the coercion, I doubt not a mighty weapon was used in it, namely, 
the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. We delight in using 
that weapon ; I like to drive it into Brother Moody himself; it 
kills that one may arise to a higher life. Some strong men were 
coerced not by their gentle wives, but by the debate; at least, so 
they say. 

Although I never visited the Watertown Church I know a num- 
ber of its members, and among them are a number of excellent 
men and women, among the best in the land, some of whom came 
from the Baptists, and others of them were brought up in Baptist 
families and in the Baptist faith. 

As to Alexandria, I know the Baptists organized a Church there 
after the Brents-Moody debate 3 chiefly, if not altogether, out of 
Baptist members who already lived in the town and in the country 
round about. They may have had conversions since ; if so, I have 
not heard of it, but doubtless Brother Moody can tell us, as he 
preaches in that region. I don't know how many meetings we 
have had at Alexandria since 'the Moody-Brents debate, nor how 
many additions we have received. I attempted to hold one meet- 
ing there last March a year ago, but it was broken into Iby almost 


incessant rains. We had one or two additions, I believe, possibly 
more. I don't know what became of them, as I have never been 
back since. 

But there are some things I do know: Brother Moody and I held 
a debate last December a year ago at White Mills, Ky. I have 
here a letter, recently received, from Brother I. V. Gregory, our 
minister for the Church there. He says: 

"The Baptists have had one protracted meeting at White Mills 
since the debate, so have we. They have had ten additions to 
-fcheir Church, all told. (I got this from their clerk.) We have had 
forty-seven additions to the Church at White Mills, thirty-one by 
confession and baptism, three ladies from the Methodists, and one 

from the Baptists, Professor 's wife. She was raised and bred 

in the Baptist faith. She is a lady of intelligence and refinement, 
and in full fellowship in the Baptist Church until she left it. Her 
husband is a man of the world. The others were by letter. Two 
others confessed and were baptized here and took membership at 
other points. Antioch, about five miles from White Mills, is in the 
bounds of the White Mills debate. We have had fifty-four confes- 
sions and baptisms there since the debate. The brethren accord 
in a large measure these grand results to the debate. Our con- 
.gregations increase in numbers all the time. My last meeting at 
White Mills was the largest I ever had. More zeal and earnestness 
.are manifested now than ever before." 

So testifies Brother Gregory. So we have had more than one 
hundred additions in that field since the debate. Brother Moody 
and I had a debate at Pikeville, Tenn., last July. A brother on 
this platform from that region tells me that five Baptists have 
since come to us, who say they were changed by the debate, that 
he knows of. One of them was a cousin of the Hale brothers, the 
prominent Baptist preachers of that region, an intelligent, honor- 
able man. I would not have brought such matters into the debate, 
but as my erring brother has brought them in he must be an- 
swered, as my idea of a debate is somewhat different from his; I 
think I ought to consider and answer what he presents. Brother 
Moody calls for the per cent we get from them. I don't know 
what per cent we get, but I do know that during the Wingo debate 
this question came up, and we, took up the last Gospel Advocate 
-and counted thirty from the Baptists, one of them a preacher, re- 
ported in the Church news of that week. 

Brother .Moody says I know all my pertinent questions will be 


answered that I know it well. Ah, you are mistaken, my 
brother ; I don't know any such thing, nor do I believe it. You 
and I differ very much, evidently, as to what are pertinent ques- 

Do you indorse Norton's letter, as you do Hovey and Hackettt 
Is that pertinent? 

Do you still hold, as you did in former debates, that those cow- 
ardly rulers of the Jews were in a saved state? Is that perti- 

How did those believers (Acts xi. 21) turn to the Lord? Is that 
pertinent? I think so, for they were not saved till they turned to 
the Lord, and they turned to the Lord after they believed. Hence 
there was something that occurred between their believing and 
their pardon. Can't you see that? The turning was not repent- 
ance either, for Paul and Peter told people to "repent and turn."" 
Hence the turning, which always precedes pardon, as the Bible 
clearly teaches, and, as all admit, comes after both the believing 
and the repenting. And can't anybody see that that fact ruins the 
doctrine that a man is pardoned in the act of believing, and be- 
fore any expression of his faith? 

But my brother has the assurance to ask me quite a number of 
questions, though he will not answer mine. And he wants me to 
"speak out like a man." Well, I'll do it, to the best of my ability,. 
and then surely he will feel constrained to answer me. He in- 
quires: "Do you indorse your brother, McGarvey, your greatest 
scholar, in saying the pious unbaptized will be saved? " McGarvey 
did not say it, my brother. He said he hoped they would be; that 
is, he desired it, and expected it. I can't say that I have any great 
expectation that those who neglect to obey God's command to be 
baptized, in this land of light and liberty, in this land of Bibles,, 
will be saved. There certainly is not a shadow of a promise that 
they will be. But if they are, I will be glad indeed to learn it 
when we stand before the great white throne. But while I am in 
this world I shall certainly do all I can to keep them from running 
any such risks. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,"" 
says Jesus. 

In answer to another question I reply, I doubt not there are 
Christians among the denominations, but as to whether there are 
"myriads" of them I am not prepared to say; I have doubts on 
that point. Jesus says: "Strait is the gate and narrow is the 
way," and "few there be that find it." 


My answer in the case of McGarvey will do for that of Brother 
Tyler. I think Tyler was getting out of the record. 

As to Alexander Campbell's son Wickliff, 1 suppose he was just 
as liable to be lost as any other man's son, perhaps more so, as he 
had opportunities that many others did not have. I don't remem- 
ber about his case, but if he had arrived at the age of accounta- 
bility and died out of the Church of Christ, into which none can 
enter but by being born of water and of the Spirit, I have no hope 
of his salvation. 

John Wesley (in his "Treatise on Baptism," chap, vi, sec. 2) ex- 
presses my sentiments on this subject very well. He says: "It is. 
true the second Adam has found a remedy for the disease which, 
came upon all by the offense of the first ; but the benefit of this is to 
be received through the means which he hath appointed; through- 
baptism in particular, which is the ordinary means he hath ap- 
pointed for that purpose ; and to which he hath tied us, though he 
may not have tied himself. Indeed, where it cannot be had, the- 
case is different; but extraordinary cases do not make void a 
standing rule." 

Do I indorse my brother, Lamar? Not every thing he says, by a. 
good deal. Neither do my brethren. Occasionally a man rises 
among us who yearns for the flesh pots of Egypt. 

Do I indorse Anderson when he says, "The form of words, 'bap- 
tism for the remission of sins/ is essentially Bomish?" Yes; I 
cheerfully agree that the phrase, " baptism for the remission of" 
sins," has a Eomish sound, if you exclude the ideas of repentance 
and faith. But that baptism to a penitent believer is in order, that 
Christ may take away his sins, Anderson taught, as. do my breth- 
ren generally. That does not sound in the least bit Komish. 

Now, answer my question on Anderson, will you? Do you in- 
dorse him when, in his letter which you publish, he translates Acts 
ii. 38, "Eepent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Christ, as the scapegoat of your sins; or, that he may take^ 
away your sins; or, for taking away your sins?" You say Anderr 
son came to the truth, found the light, etc. Do you indorse his 
translation as you publish it yourself? Now, we will see who 
"speaks out like a man." 

In answer to another question I reply, The evidence of pardon 
is partly without and partly within the pardoned man. It takes 
two witnesses to prove to a, man that he is a son of God; God's- 
Spirit and his spirit must both testify. God's Spirit testifies in 


God's word; man's spirit testifies within him. God's Spirit tells 
what we must do to become sons; our spirits tell when we have 
done these things, and then we know we are sons. "The Spirit 
himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children 
of God." With our spirit, not to our spirit. The Spirit of God does 
not enter a man till he is a child of God, for Paul says: "Because 
ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. iv. 6.) When a man has God's 
word on this point in his mind and heart, then the testimonies of 
both witnesses are within him. He has the witness within him. 

Brother Moody claims that the whole Christian world differs 
from me as to the order of faith and repentance, "For," says he, 
"with one voice they say it is not possible to repent as a result of 
saving faith." For shame ! Will he never cease to misrepresent ? 
He- said that, with my statement ringing in his ears, that while faith 
always and necessarily precedes repentance, the faith that justifies, 
that saves, is faith perfected by works, and from its very nature it 
includes repentance. In the words of his brother, Taylor, I say, 
"unaccountable misrepresentations!" "cruel injustice!" 

Did John, Christ, Peter and Paul address believers every time 
they said repent ? inquires Brother Moody. I answer : No man of 
sense, whether inspired or uninspired, ever expected a man to re- 
pent till he believed he had sinned and was sorry for it; no man 
ever believed he had sinned against God, nor was one ever sorry 
for so sinning, till he believed in God's existence and in his right to 
rule; nor did one ever repent toward Christ till he believed in 
Christ and in his right to rule. This degree of faith must exist be- 
fore repentance is possible. But faith that stops here never saves 
any one. When this faith has wrought godly sorrow in the heart, 
when this sorrow has wrought an earnest determination to forsake 
sin and to follow the Lord, and when this determination has ex- 
pressed itself in action according to the appointment of the Lord, 
then the man has saving faith, and he is saved. John, Christ, Pe- 
ter and Paul told men who believed in God and worshiped him to 
repent, as every Bible reader knows. Do I agree with Christ when 
he said, "Kepent and believe the Gospel?" Certainly. Brother 
Moody, did not Peter on Pentecost tell people who believed in God 
and in Jesus his holy Son, who felt that they had sinned inasmuch 
as they had killed God's Son, and who believed that God had raised 
that Son from the tomb to his own right-hand I say, did not Peter 
tell such believers to repent? 


Tes, it is said the jailer "rejoiced, believing in God," but that is 
not said till after he was baptized; he had been "baptized into 
Christ," too, hence he rejoiced, "being baptized into Christ." 

Brother Moody is disposed to find fault with Paul's statement, 
11 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Eom. xiv. 23.) He inquires: 
Is it not a sin, then, to be born, to suck the mother's breast, to 
grow, to go to Church and to hear the word? In reply I inquire, 
Are not Paul's words true? Do you not believe him ? Being born, 
sucking the breast and growing are not acts of obedience to God 
on the part of the infant that is born, sucks and grows. He is 
talking about acts of obedience to God, acts of service, of worship, 
and all such acts must spring from faith in order to be acceptable. 
"Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh 
to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them 
that diligently seek him." (Heb. xi. 6.) Eepeutance is an act of 
obedience to God; without faith it is impossible; were it possible, 
it would be sin, it would displease God. 

While my hand is in this matter of answering questions, let me 
attend to one or two more. My friend inquires: "Do you really 
believe that a real sinner is really put into the real Christ by the 
real physical act of immersion 1 ?" Sometimes he puts it about 
thus: "Do you really believe that by a literal washing in literal 
water sins are literally washed away from the soul?" I answer, 
Certainly not. Then, he says, baptism cannot be really and liter- 
ally for remission. It is only figuratively so; we are saved by bap- 
tism in a figure. I reply : Was the blood of Christ literally and 
really shed for the remission of sins? Yes; all agree that it was, 
and that without the shedding of it there would have been no re- 
mission. Well, answer my question : Do you really believe that in 
the literal blood of Christ the real soul is literally washed, and 
that thereby sins are literally washed away? Certainly not. Not 
a Baptist on earth so believes. Does it follow, therefore, that the 
blood is not necessary to remission? Can you see the point? The 
soul is not literally washed in the blood, nor in the water, but 
the blood and the water are really in order to remission, for all 

Much that the gentleman said about the covenants is good and 
true, some things incorrect. Abraham was the father of two 
seeds, the one by natural birth, the other by the new birth. His 
natural seed constituted God's people on earth among men, his 
earthly kingdom ; bis seed by the new birth constitute God's spir- 


itual people, the kingdom of God. Of this latter kingdom Jesus 
speaks when he says, "Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To be born (be- 
gotten) of the Spirit, is to believe "that Jesus is the Christ." (See 
1 John v. 1.) To be born of water is to be baptized. The king- 
dom of God is the Church of Christ. Hence, in this place Jesus 
teaches, except a man be baptized, believing in his heart that Je- 
sus is the Christ, he cannot enter into the Church of God. Can a 
winner be saved without entering the Church? I answer, there is 
no other way known. The outer room of the temple typified the 
'Church, the inner room heaven, and there was no way into the in- 
ner room except through the outer. Notice the positive and neg- 
ative statements: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

Yes, Abraham is the father of two seeds, and Christians are his 
spiritual children. How do they become his children? Listen: 
^<Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
many of you. as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 
Then he adds: "And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, 
.and heirs according to the promise." (See Gal. iii. 26-29.) Hence 
we see that Christ puts baptism before salvation in Mark xvi. 16, 
and the birth of water (baptism) before membership in the Church 
of God in John iii. 5 ; and then Paul tells us baptism is a part of 
the process by which we get into Christ, put on Christ, and thus 
become Abraham's seed. Observe, also, that in all these places 
baptism is linked with faith. 

But does born of water certainly mean baptism? Dr. J. E. 
Graves, Brother Moody's senior editor, says "born of water refers 
to the baptism of one previously born of the Spirit." And then 
adds: "It means nothing else, and no Baptist that we ever heard 
or read of ever believed otherwise, until A. Campbell frightened 
them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the consen- 
sus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages." I have quoted 
Dr. Graves to establish the one point that "born of water" means 
baptism. He is authority in this house with the Baptists who 
worship here. And his age and experience qualify him to testify 
as to what " scholars of all denominations and in all ages think 
about it." 

But here is testimony more startling still. Dr. Lofton, pastor of 
this Church, my friend's moderator, preached a sermon a number 


of years ago to a lot of young converts. The sermon was pub- 
lished. In it these words occur: 

"You have been baptized. God puts baptism in immediate con- 
nection with faith, and nowhere else. <He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved.' You are not saved by baptism at all, but 
you are not saved without it, where you have an enlightened con- 
science and the opportunity." 

He calls baptism "the oath of allegiance," "the celebration of 
the marriage bans," and much else does he say that I would like 
to read you were not my time so short. I wonder if my brother, 
Lofton, believes this now, or if he will take it back. It is good 
doctrine, anyhow. What do you say to it, Brother Moody? Are 
you not sorry you began to quote from my brethren? 

[By the way, I have those outside witnesses on my teaching re- 
pentance for you, when you want them; "outside," Presbyterian, 
Methodist and Baptist authority.] 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Seventh Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I now reply to some things in the speech before last. I quoted 
from some of his men on the testimony of personal consciousness,, 
for that was the subject I was leading on. In reply, he spends 
the most of his time in scrapping from Baptist writers on a sub- 
ject to be discussed next week. When he comes to his proposi- 
tion I expect him to prove it by argument, if he can, and by testi- 
mony of others also, and I shall pay him my respects. But, if he 
can do nothing this week but scrap from authors on another sub- 
ject, let him fill his time the best he can. If he and the people 
can stand his oft-repetitions of nonsense, then I will try. To show 
you how little occasion I have to reply, and how much I have to 
endure, I will notice briefly one of his two favorite authors, Hackett 
and Hovey. Hackett explains the meaning of his strange language 
quoted so often by Mr. Harding. The explanation of Hackett was 
never quoted as I know of in oral debate, or in tracts, or papers 
from my friend's side of the house. See my " Vindication," where 
I rebuke this in Mr. Harding. When I rebuked L. R. Sewell for 
the same thing, he tried to defend himself in The Baptist Gleaner 
for omitting it, but confessed that he did not " quote Hackett to 
prove that he believed as I do on the design of baptism." Mr. 
Sewell knew as well as Mr. Harding that Dr. Hackett did not agree 
with their, view of baptism. Hackett says: "This clause states a 
result of the baptism derived from the nature of that ordinance. 
It answers to Acts ii. 38, i. e., submit to the rite in order to be for- 
given. In both passages baptism is represented as having this im- 
portance or efficacy, because it is the sign of the repentance and 
faith which are the conditions of salvation." In other words, the 
"nature" of the ordinance is to declare what repentance and faith 
had procured; hence, repent (and believe) in order to obtain, and 
then be baptized in order to declare. These two ideas Hackett 
combines into one expression. The gentleman knows that this is 
Hackett's and Hovey's doctrine, for he skips Hovey, as I will show,, 
and have shown in my "Vindication," just like they are accustomed 


-to skip Hackett. I wonder if Mr. Harding read Hackett, or any- 
body else, outside of these passages. Hackett says, on Acts x. 
44 : " It is worthy of note, too, that those who received the Spirit 
in this instance had not been baptized (comp. xix. 5), nor had the 
hands of an apostle been laid upon them (comp. viii. 17). This 
was an occasion when men were to be taught by an impressive ex- 
ample how little their acceptance with God depends on external 
observances." By "external observances" he means baptism in 
.particular. Hence, we see how little our acceptance with God de- 
pends on baptism. He says, also, on xi. 17 : " Was I able to wifh- 
. stand God f i. e. } to disregard so distinct an intimation of his will 
that the heathen should be recognized as worthy of all the privi- 
leges of the Gospel, without demanding of them any other qualifi- 
cation than faith in Christ." Here faith in Christ before baptism is 
the only qualification, says Hackett. He says, also, on xv. 1: "It 
denied the sufficiency of faith in Christ as the only condition of 
pardon and reconciliation." He says, on verse 8 : " He had thus 
.shown that ceremonial obedience is not essential to his favor, for 
he had granted the sign of acceptance to those who were entirely 
destitute of that recommendation." .... Terse 9: "Peter 
represents the purification as effected by faith, in order to deny 
the error which would ascribe that efficacy to circumcision or any 
other legal observance." On xvi. 33 he approvingly quotes Meyer: 
"The baptism was that of immersion, which formed an essential 
part of the symbolism of the act." On xxvi. 18 he says: "But the 
words (by faith in me) specify, evidently," the condition by which 
believers obtain the pardon of sin and an interest in the heavenly 
inheritance." On verse 19 he says: "Zeller charges that Paul 
would not have spoken so, because his doctrine was that of justi- 
fication by faith alone. The answer is, that in Paul's system good 
works are the necessary evidence of such faith, and, further, that 
pistei tee eis erne above (verse 18) shows that he adhered fully on 
this occasion to his well-Known doctrinal view." The man who 
says that Hackett believes that baptism is in order to obtain par- 
don misrepresents him. The above language is severe, but not 
enough so in this case; and he must not expect mercy when I re- 
ply to him on Hovey. 

If he can't reply to me on gennao, let him say nothing, or " die," 

for he holds a theory that makes him " twist "*both the Word of 

God and Baptist authors. The gentleman said neither I nor the 

-devil is of his creed, and that he debates with me because Christ 


sent him to fight the devil. Is this why he calls me brother? 
I assure him I am not of his creed, and I assure him I am not a 
devil. Then, how can he call me brother, since he prefers yellow- 
fever, smallpox and leprosy, all, to my religion? If he calls me 
brother, and don't mean it, what is he? If he means it, then I ask 
his attention to Matt. v. 22-24, and 1 John ii. 9-11. 

He says: "That rich man. (in Luke xviii. 27: xxviii. 30) thought 
faith comes by hearing, and hence he wanted Lazarus to go back 
to testify." Certainly he was of his creed, and "not a Calvinist." 
Having all confidence in men, and means, and testimony, he was 
consistent enough to pray to Abraham to send Lazarus to testify) 
and did not trouble the Lord, for his creed did not admit of any 
help from the Lord. Of course Abraham told him, "Don't bother 
about your brothers." 

If faith works by love, and is perfected by obedience, then what 
hope is there for nay opponent and his people"? No one would ever 
think of going to them to find faith, obedience or love. Of these 
three graces they have the greatest recognized destitution. He 
says faith and repentance are God's works, but the sinner is re- 
quired to perform them. Baptism, be says, "is also a work of 
God, which the sinner is not required to perform." "In it he is 
passive." .... "Let me repeat, baptism is not a work that the 
man baptized does, but it is one which the Lord (through an agent) 
does for him." How many times in his debate has he claimed that 
baptism is the bodily act which we must, do to perfect faith and 
bring the blessing? 

Grasp an eel, and you will feel, 

The more you squeeze, the morn the ease 

With which he glides away. 
Chase a flee, arid you will see, 
Before you catch, the great dispatch 

With which he does not stay. 

That part of the gentleman's speech intended as a reply to my 
affirmative argument I am willing to leave untouched. His new- 
fangled notions, just hatched out, are two young to take from the 
nest. We wait for the eyes to open and the skin to fuzz. I can't 
tell whether I get hawk or buzzard. 

Did Moses and the prophets say that God would deliver Daniel 
from the lions, and the Hebrew children from the fiery furnace? 
Then, what testimony produced their faith? The Word in the 
heart, he says, has power in it, and, if the devil don't take it away, . 


they will believe and be saved. Then, if the devil don't, are they 
saved by the grace of the devil? and, if the devil does, and they 
are lost, "whose fault is it?" On his boasted challenge I ask 
again must the bodily act of faith that brings the blessing be 'be- 
fore or after faith, and must it be an act of obedience or of hap- 
hazard? When I get him out fairly, I will meet him squarely. 

I now take up my affirmative argument. I was last showing" 
that salvation was by grace, and not by obedience to either law or 
Gospel; that obedience to law was the condition of life under the 
first covenant, and that acceptable obedience to the law and Gog* 
pel is the result of life under the new covenant. 

In 1 Tim. i. 9 we have the matter stated both affirmatively and 
negatively: "He who hath saved us and called us with a, holy call- 
ing, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose 
and grace." The unqualified expression, "not according to our 
works," takes in the works of both law and Gospel. But, lest one 
say that this refers to works of law, or the law, and not to works 
under the Gospel^ which would be works of righteousness, we give 
another reference to cover that point. Tit. iii. 5: "Not by works 
of righteousness which we have done, but according to bis mercy 
he saved us." Let those who are dull of hearing and hard of un- 
derstanding repeat this slowly, solemnly, devotionally, frequently,, 
until light springs up, and the day dawn arises in their hearts. 
How does he save us according to his mercy, and not according to 
our works of righteousness? The new covenant is not according 
to the old, and the old was a covenant of works. In the new cov- 
enant the new heart and the new spirit constitute the regenera- 
tion, and the cleansing from filthiness is the washing of regenera- 
tion. Hence, whether we read in the covenant of grace, or in the 
Gospel of grace, it is the same. "Not by works of righteousness 
which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us by 
the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 
which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord." 
Now, one more Scripture in this connection, and in the light of 
this covenant, will show that salvation is by grace in a way that 
ought to stop the mouths of all gainsayers. Bph. ii. 4-10: "But 
God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved 
us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened together with 
Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us up together, and 
made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in 
the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace, 


in his kindness towards us through Jesus Christ. 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. For we are his 
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God 
hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Now, if works 
in the negative statement refers to works of law, then does 
'"works" in the affirmative statement refer to works of law? Then 
it should read, not of works of the law, lest any man should boast, 
for we are his workmanship, created in Jesus Christ unto good 
works of the law, which God hath before ordained that we should 
walk in them. It is not only arbitrary, but it is impious, to, say in 
one place it means works of the law, and in another works of the 
Gospel. Let the man who has been saved by grace through faith, 
who can show the fruits of divine workmanship in creating him 
anew in Christ Jesus, let him walk in baptism as a professional or 
declarative ordinance, for God hath ordained that such should 
walk, but the man who goes into baptism to get these gracious 
qualifications goes where he will never find them, and he is de- 
-ceiviug himself and others, and working out his and their de- 
struction with greediness. 

Having clearly shown that salvation is by grace, without works, 
let me prove that it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the 
end the promise might be sure to all the seed. For, if salvation 
and its blessings are of faith and works, then the quality and 
quantity of works is the most important matter that can engage 
the minds of men. Just so sure as I can show that the Scriptures 
predicate salvation and its blessings of faith, and just so sure as I 
can prove that faith is before baptism, just that sure will I prove 
that remission of sins, with like blessings of salvation, is received 
before baptism. There is no doubt under heaven but that I will 
prove it, and there is no hope under heaven that my opponent can 
disprove it. Every time the Scriptures say it is of faith, I say 
amen! That suits nay proposition. But my opponent has a prop- 
osition that it does not suit; hence, he must tamper with the text, 
and add to, take from, or wrest the Scriptures of divine truth. 
My opponent thinks none of these blessings can be received before 
baptism; hence, the Scriptures should have predicated them of 
baptism. But read all these Scriptures with baptism in the place 
of faith, or after faith, and then read them as they are, and see 
whose doctrine is true. Luke viii. 12: "Then eoineth the devil, 
and taketh away the word out of their heart, lest they should" be 


baptized and be saved (?), lest they should believe, and be baptized, 
and be saved "(?). No; faith is the dividing line, as elsewhere, and 
to make baptism the dividing line is another Gospel which is not 
another. Acts xvi. 31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
thou shalt be saved," is the Gospel according to Christ. The Gos- 
pel according to Campbell would have it, be baptized into the 
Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest be saved from past sins. It is 
a waste of time to say that they were baptized after believing, for 
Baptists baptize believers ; but, like Paul, we don't baptize them 
till they do believe, or, what is the same, till they are saved, for as 
sure as the promise is to the believer, and as sure as the promise 
is fulfilled, so sure is the believer saved, and that sure is salvation, 
before baptism. 

Eom. i. 16: "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation ta 
every one that believeth." It does not say to every one that is 
baptized, or to every one that believeth and is baptized, for where- 
ever you find such a Scripture you may well suspicion it as an in- 
terpolation. 1 Cor. i. 21: "It pleased God by the foolishness of 
preaching to save them that believe." It does not say it pleased 
God by baptism to save them that believe; nor by the foolishness 
of preaching to save them that are baptized; northern that be- 
lieve and are baptized. Luke vii. 50: "Thy faith hath saved thee ; 
go in peace," is old Baptist doctrine, and establishes my proposi- 
tion. Faith receives all these, because it trusts in Christ, in whom 
is all fullness; and of his fullness have all believers received, even 
grace upon grace. In him is forgiveness of sins, hence through 
his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of 
sins. It does not say, through baptism whosoever believeth, nor 
yet through his name whosoever is baptized. The gentleman can- 
not find the Scripture that proves his proposition, or that dis- 
proves mine. 

In him is eternal life; hence, whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have eternal life. Baptism is not in the text, and 
woe to him who puts it there, because it would turn the soul from 
faith "eis" Christ, thus failing in both. In him is everlasting life; 
hence, "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life." The Gospel according to Campbell must have 
baptism in the text, but the Gospel according to Christ left it out; 
hence, the Gospel according to Campbell is not the Gospel accord- 
ing to Christ. 

John iii. 18 : " He that believeth on him is not condemned, but 


he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not 
believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God." Put bap- 
tism in the place of believe, and my opponent can prove his doc- 
trine; but, there being no such Scripture, it is not possible for him 
-to prove it. Our 'candidates for baptism believe eis Christ, and 
-therefore are not condemned ; but his candidates are condemned, 
therefore they believed not eis Christ, as we will prove before we 
are through. John v. 24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that 
heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath ever- 
lasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed 
from death unto life." Omnipotence and omniscience combined 
could not construct a passage more fatal to my opponent's Gospel, 
nor more favorable to mine. His candidate for baptism has not 
passed from, death unto life, has not everlasting life, as he con- 
fesses, but mine has; hence, so great as the difference between 
these states, so great is the difference between our candidates for 
baptism. If a believer is no longer under condemnation, but is 
passed from death unto life, and if one must be a believer before 
he is baptized, then he has passed from death unto life before he 
is baptized, and my proposition is impregnable and invulnerable. 

Having shown that we become partakers of the root and fatness 
of the covenant of grace by faith, and thus salvation is by grace, 
and that it is of faith that it might be by grace, and the faith as 
well as grace is used in antithesis to works of righteousness that 
we do, and hence excludes baptism as a procuring cause, let 
us now look for the Bible teaching concerning the remission 
of sins, with like blessings of salvation. As before remarked, the 
sum being equal to all of its parts, if salvation is of faith that it 
might be by grace, so are the parts' of salvation; and remission of 
sins being a part, it too is of faith, that it might be by grace; and 
if of grace, then no more of works, which is equivalent to saying 
not at all of baptism. Eph. i. 7 : " In whom we have redemption 
through his' blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches 
of his grace." Here we see that forgiveness of sins is according 
to grace; hence, not according to works; hence, not of "baptism, 
confessedly a work until this debate. 

How, that we may see that we come to the benefits of his aton- 
ing blood by faith, we quote Eom. hi. 24, 25: "Being justified 
freely (not conditionally) by his grace, through the redemption that 
is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness (not ours) 


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 Je- 
sus." Eight in the face of this Scripture my opponent believes 
that we come to the benefits of his blood by baptism, and that 
baptism is for the remission of sins that are past. Thus his prop- 
osition reads, and he proposes to spend his future life in trying to 
prove it and to persuade men to believe it. To teach that we come 
to the benefits of his blood in baptism is to teach that we do not 
come to it before baptism, and this is contradicting Jesus Christ 
and the Scriptures of divine truth. Hence it is a perversion of 
the Gospel of Christ, because it makes faith in the blood and faith 
in Christ of none effect, for he has already asserted that faith is 
dead till it acts (in baptism) ; that is to say, faith in the blood and 
faith in Christ is dead, although, as he admits, it produces convic- 
tion, repentance, love, confession; although it is eis Christ, eis his 
name, eis salvation, still it is dead until the water gives it life! 

Now, let us bring Paul to the witness stand. Jes-us Christ ap- 
peared unto him to make him a minister ahd a witness, and to send 
him to the Gentiles, "To open their eyes and to turn them from 
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
might receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among all them 
that are sanctified by faith that is in Christ." (Acts xxvi. 18.) 
Verse 1J: "Wherefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to 
the heavenly vision, but showed first unto them of Damascus ~and 
at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to 
the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do 
"works meet for repentance." 

Paul tells us what he did, and what he was sent to do. What he 
did, brought them from darkness to light, and from the power 
of Satan unto God, and to remission of sins; brought them to re- 
pentance, to reformation, and works meet for repentance; brought 
them, to an inheritance among all those that are sanctified by faith 
in Christ; hence, he brought them to salvation. Now, Paul was 
sent by Christ to bring them to the blessings of salvation by the 
preaching of the Gospel; and he further declares that he- became 
all things to all men, that he nright by all means save some; yet 
he declares that Christ did not send him to baptize. He was told 
all things that were appointed for him to do; he used all means 
appointed for the salvation of men, and for this Christ sent him, 
jet he says, " Christ sent me not to baptize." Whether you look 


at his commission in the ninth, twenty-second, or twenty-sixth? 
chapter of Acts, or to any allusion of it in his Epistles, you cannot, 
find that baptism was yet in his commission. My friend makes, 
the record his guide where it says, " They were baptized the same- 
hour of the night ; " and so would I baptize in like circumstances 
the same hour of the night ; and if the record is to decide these- 
cases, then, according to the record, Paul preached from sixteen 
to eighteen years before he baptized any one. My opponent can- 
not find a record of Paul's baptizing any one before the household 
of Lydia, and he will not deny that it was sixteen to eighteen 
years after he began to preach. It amounts to nothing to say that 
he had the baptizing done. That does aot effect the statement of 
the question. Paul used all means to save men; he was sent by 
Christ to bring them to forgiveness of sins, but he was not sent by 
Christ to baptize. So while he boasted of being instrumental in 
their salvation, of begetting them through the Gospel, yet, in th e ' 
same breath, he thanks God that he did not baptize them. "For," 
says he, " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." 
Here preaching the Gospel and baptizing are set over against each 
other by the disjunctive "but." This is a fatal gore to the Gospel 
according to Campbell. Paul brought men to salvation by preach- 
ing the Gospel, "that I might by all means save some." " In Christ 
Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel." "He was sent to 
turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto 
God, 'that they might receive the forgiveness of sins." He sent 
him to do all this, and all else necessary to salvation, but he did 
not send him to baptize. He begot Onesimus in his chains by 
preaching to him the Gospel, but he did not baptize him. Salva- 
tion is of faith, and faith comes by hearing. "He will tell thee 
words (not works) whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."' 
Hence, a preacher's hands are not necessary to salvation. If he 
has no tongue, let him keep out of the ministry; but though he has- 
no hands, yet if he can preach the Gospel let him encourage his- 
heart in the Lord's work, for he can lead men to Christ though he 
has no hands, and though his feet are fast in the stocks, and though 
he be in a dry land where no water is. 

If my friend's proposition is true, then let the man, any man 
with hands, go into the work, though he has no tongue. For, as 
he confesses that his candidate's faith is dead, and since he says 
that a dead faith is no faith, then any one is as well qualified for 
baptism as his candidate, for no one can have less than a dead 


faith, which is no faith at all. How strange the Scripture would 
read if this Gospel were true. Listen (Acts xiii. 38) : "Be it known 
unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through baptism is 
preached unto you the pardon of past sins,- and by him all that 
are baptized are justified from all things, from which they could 
not be justified by the law of Moses." This is what my opponent 
believes, but why don't he produce the Scripture? I believe the 
Scripture, and disbelieve the above. 

Acts x. 43 : "To him give all the prophets witness, that through 
his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of 
sins." My opponent thinks that whosoever is baptized into him 
shall receive pardon of past sins. He claims that to the faith of 
his candidate has been added repentance, confession, love ; yet he 
says it is dead till it touches the water. If faith in the blood is 
dead, it is not faith in the blood. I fear 'his faith is in the water.. 
If his candidate's faith eis Christ, and eis his name, and eis salva- 
tion is dead, then he has no faith in them. He says dead faith is 
no faith, and he also says faith is dead till baptism, and that a man 
must have all this faith before baptism; hence, all this faith before 
baptism is no faith, because the faith is in baptism, and it can't 
receive the blessings till it reaches the object, for in baptism, he 
says, are all the blessings of salvation. The same conclusions are 
reached, the same lessons taught, if we consider the subject in tha 
light of those figures which are considered the equivalent of re* 
mission of sins. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding s Seventh Reply. 

Brethren and Friends: 

No fact, as I believe I have said to you before, in all my inter- 
course with men so strengthens my confidence in the correctness 
and the impregnability of our position as this: In fifteen years of 
evangelistic work, and in more than twenty public debates, I have 
never met a man who dared to attack our true position, and that 
alone. Invariably our teaching is perverted by additions, sub- 
tractions or changes, and then the perversion, the man of straw, 
is charged upon fiercely and valorously by our doughty opponents. 
We have a notable illustration of this in the latter part of the 
speech to which you have just listened so patiently. Brother 
Moody misquotes Acts xiii. 38, 39, thus: "Be it known unto you, 
therefore, men and brethren, that through baptism is preached 
unto you the pardon of past sins, and by him all that are baptized 
are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified 
by the law of Moses." And then he adds: "This is what my oppo- 
nent believes, but why don't he produce the Scripture?" His 
opponent believes no such thing, and were not my erring brother 
so blinded by bitter prejudice against the truth that he cannot see, 
were not his ears so dull of hearing that he cannot hear, he would 
surely know it. Have I not told him time and again that baptism 
is worthless unless preceded by faith? that submission thereto is 
mockery unless it springs from a loving, penitent heart? But 
there are none so blind as those who will not see j none so deaf as 
those who will not hear! Let me state my position again, not 
that I expect Brother Moody to receive it, not that I expect him 
to represent it fairly, for, judging the future by the past, I am 
sure he will not. But I am before this audience, not for his sake, 
but for yours. I have little expectation of doing him good, but I 
am glad in the hope of leading many of you to the knowledge of 
the truth which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Our position, then, is 
this: To come into Christ one must believe that he is the Son of 
God, that God hath raised him from the dead; he must so believe 
as to love Jesus supremely, putting him above everybody and 


<every thing in his heart; he must so love as to be determined, 
Irom the depths of Ms heart, to follow Christ ; then he must, upon 
a confession of this faith, be baptized; thus he enters Christ. 
When such a man comes to baptism, he is, indeed, a penitent be- 
liever; and to such people alone it is the divinely-appointed ordi- 
nance by which they pass into Christ. 

But my friend's position is that we believe els Christ. "Eis" he 
here translates "into;" and hence he claims that in the act of be- 
lieving we pass into Christ, where, as all agree, there is pardon. 
Let us examine that position for a moment. The word "eis" is 
used in the following connections : 

"Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance eis life." 
(Acts xi. 18.) 

"Among the chief rulers also many believed eis 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. 4J, 42.) 

"With the heart man believeth eis righteousness, and with the 
mouth confession is made eis salvation." (Eom. x. 10.) 

"So many of us as were baptized eis Jesus Christ were baptized 
eis his death." "We are buried by baptism eis death." (See 
Eom. vi. 3, 4.) 

"Ye are all the children of God by (dia, through)' faith in Christ 
Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized eis Christ have 
put on Christ." (Gal. hi. 26, 27.) 

Prom these passages we see that men believe eis Christ, repent 
eis life, confess eis salvation, and are baptized eis Christ. 

In Thayer's great lexicon this preposition, eis, is thus defined: 
-"Eis, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting en- 
trance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among." 
It always looks forward, never backward; it is always prospective, 
but it does not always carry into; it sometimes means to, towards, 
-as well as into. It not only denotes entrance into, but also direc- 
tion towards. Bearing these facts in mind, the passages quoted 
are easily explained. Faith, repentance, confession and baptism 
are all steps towards Christ, and all necessary, according to the 
Gospel rule, to take one into Christ. Faith is the rock bottom 
upon which the other steps must be based; repentance must 
spring from faith, so must confession, and so must baptism; it 
must all be through faith. Therefore, the apostle says: "For ye 
-are all the sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many 


of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." (Gal. iiL. 
26, 27, Kevised Version.) While it is all through faith, it is in bap- 
tism that we put Christ on that we pass into him. What could 
be plainer than that? 

But, according to my badly-tangled friend, the matter is thus:- 
Belief eis Christ puts believing before, and in order to, entrance 
into Christ; repentance eis life puts repentance before, and in or- 
der to, entrance into life; confession eis salvation puts confession 
before, and in order to, entrance into salvation; but baptism eis 
Christ puts baptism after, and because of, entrance into Christ.. 
How is that, my friend? Please explain. If eis indicates position, 
"before," and means "in order to" in connection with faith, re- 
pentance and confession, how can it indicate position " after," and 
mean "because of" in connection with baptism? Give us a reason 
for your change, if you have any; and, if you have not, be gentle (?)> 
and courteous (?) as usual. 

As Brother Moody quotes, Peter preached thus to Cornelius and 
his house: "To him (Christ) give all the prophets witness, that 
through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remis- 
sion of sins." Mark you, Peter does not say whosoever believeth 
shall receive remission, but "through his name whosoever believeth' 
in him shall receive remission." And then immediately Peter com- 
manded them " to be baptized in the name of the Lord," and thus- 
they put on Christ, in whom is every spiritual blessing. Does the 
gentleman suppose that Cornelius was saved without repentance,, 
confession, calling on the name of the Lord, or any thing else but 
the mere belief? Certainly not; he does not suppose, for instance,, 
that anybody is saved without repentance, but repentance is not 
mentioned in this connection at all. Why, then, should he exclude- 
baptism, which is most emphatically mentioned? Peter told Cor- 
nelius that remission was to be received through the name of 
Jesus, and then he commanded him to be baptized "in the name 
of the Lord." But, to make the matter clearer still, the Bible 
teaches that Cornelius was saved by words, the words that Peter - 
spake. (See Acts xi. 14.) Peter preached the Gospel to him, and 
commanded him to be baptized; those were all the words that be- 
spake to him. Cornelius heard the Gospel preached, and believed 
it; he heard the command to be baptized, and obeyed it, and thus 
he was saved by words. How perfectly in harmony is all thisv- 
with the words of our Lord : " Preach the Gospel to every creature.. 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Cornelius be- 


7 lieved, and was baptized, and thus he was saved. If any one sup- 
poses that the reception of the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit 
showed he was pardoned before baptism, I simply refer him to 
-John xi. 47-51, where it is shpwn that Caiaphas, the high priest, a 
miserable sinner, while trying to take the life of Jesus, prophesied 
miraculously that Jesus should die for the sins of the people. 
Eead, also, in Num., xxii. to xxiv., inclusive, the story of Balaam, 
and you will see that this wicked creature also prophesied miracu- 
lously by the Spirit of the Lord. Nevertheless, the wrath of the 
Lord was upon him, and he met an awful destruction. The very 
ass that he rode spake miraculously. Cornelius was saved by 
words, and not by the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit. He was 
the first Gentile to come into the Church, and that startling mira- 
cle, doubtless, was wrought to demonstrate God's readiness to re- 
ceive Gentiles as well as Jews into his kingdom. The four great 
miracles of the occasion, taken together, fully demonstrate this. 
Peter said to the people on the day of Pentecost: -"Kepent, and 
be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins." He required baptism in order to remission 
there. Do you suppose he would have offered remission without 
baptism to Cornelius? Is God a respecter of persons'? Has he 
two ways of saving men? 

Ah, but baptism cannot be necessary to anybody's salvation, be- 
cause God did not send Paul to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, 
argues Brother Moody. Paul did not have to be "sent" to baptize. 
Being a Christian, it was his right to baptize when there was need 
for it. Does Brother Moody mean to intimate that God did not 
authorize Paul to baptize? Surely not, for it is a well-known fact, 
.admitted by 'all, that Paul did baptize in the name of the Lord. If 
he had no authority to do it, then he was guilty of lying and fraud. 
Is Brother Moody ready to charge the great apostle with these 
crimes'? I am not, at any rate. When Paul said, "Christ sent me 
not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," he meant just what he 
said. In every community where Christians were there were men 
who could baptize, but Paul was "sent" to do what none but in- 
spired men could do, namely, to reveal the Gospel. It is evident 
that it was his rule to have others do the baptizing, for, though 
under his ministry many of the Corinthians were baptized (see 
Acts xviii. 8), he himself baptized only Crispus, Gaius and the 
household of Stephanus. (See 1 Cor. i. 14-16.) It is worthy of 
note, in this connection, that Peter did not baptize Cornelius and 


his house. He "commanded them to be baptized." Evidently 
some of the Jewish brethren who were with him (there were six: 
of them) did the baptizing. Jesus did not baptize, either, but had 
it done. (John iv. 2.) 

But, the gentleman argues, baptism was not in Paul's commis- 
sion. He was to open the eyes of the people, to turn them from 
darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto G-od, that they 
might receive forgiveness of sins; but baptism was not in his com- 
mission, and, therefore, it cannot be for remission. Ah, is that so?" 
It was in the general commission given to the other apostles. It 
was before salvation, too. "He that belie veth and is baptized . 
shall be saved." If the fact of its being out of Paul's commission 
(were such the case) would show that it was not for remission 
under his ministry, would not the fact that it is in the general 
commission prove that under the ministry of the other apostles it- 
was for remission? Has God two ways of saving men? of bringing 
them into the Church? Paul was not saved by faith only; he was 
a believing, sorrowing, penitent, praying man, blind, and without 
food and drink for three days and nights, when Ananias, sent by 
the Lord, came to tell him what h must do. And Ananias said to 
him, "'And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." And that 
means, according to the great Baptist, Hackett, that he was to 
submit to baptism in order to be forgiven. Do you suppose, then, 
Paul would teach others that they could be saved without doing 
that which Christ had told him he must do? Certainly not. He 
taught the Bomaus, the Corinthians, the Galatiaus, and, doubtless, 
all others, that we are "baptized into Christ," "in whom," he says,, 
"we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." 
He says of the Romans that they "obeyed from the heart that 
form of doctrine" which was delivered them, and that, "being 
made free from sin," they became the servants of righteousness. 
Dr. Lofton tells us that the "form of doctrine" is baptism, and for 
once he is right; inhere is no do^bt about that. If baptism was. 
not in Paul's commission, where did he get the authority to bap- 
tize? Where did he get the authority to teach that we are baptized 
into Christ? that we are made free from sin upon obeying "the 
form of doctrine?" My friend was never farther from the truth 
than when he teaches that Paul had no commission from Christ to- 
He can get as far from the truth, too, as any other man I ever- 


met, as the following matter illustrates : In his sixth speech, you 
remember (or was it the fifth?), he spoke of our Church at Water- 
town. He said we had gotten no Baptist members as a result of 
his debate with Brother Lipscomb at that place ; that we had got- 
ten some excluded Baptists, some who were running from exclu- 
sion, and some who were coerced by intermarriages with disciples, 
but not one as a result of the debate. Now hear from the other 
side. I have here a communication from one of our leading- 
brethren, an officer in that Church. He says: 

"It gives me pleasure to furnish you with the facts you want.. 
We organized at this place May 20, 1882, with twenty-eight mem- 
bers ; we now number ninety-two, twenty-one of whom came from 
the Baptists. I suppose that one-half of our membership were 
brought up under the influence of Baptist families and teaching. 
Not one of the number was ever excluded from the Baptist Church 
till after formally uniting with us. For piety and intelligence,, 
those who came from the Baptists will compare favorably with any 
others they may present. Nearly all our additions have been made- 
since the Moody-Lipscomb debate. Thirty came in within a few 
months after the debate. Mr. Moody's charge that some were co- 
erced by intermarriage with disciples is a slander upon the char- 
acter of some whose shoes he is not worthy to unlatch. Dr. 
Brents held a meeting at Alexandria (six miles from this place) the 
summer after the debate, and had four additions from the Bap- 
tists, three of whom attended the debate. Two of them I know; 
they are excellent and intelligent citizens, one of them the judge 
of DeKalb County." 

How will that do in comparison with Brother Moody's statement? 
I suppose he will say that officer is not competent to testify, be- 
cause he is one of my brethren: those Baptists who came to us 
not fit for witnesses for the same reason; their consciousness 
won't do to trust. It is a blessed thing that we have Brother- 
Moody to tell us all about our Churches, the additions we get, the 
motives that move them, and so on. He will do to trust ! who can 
doubt it? I happen to know (if their testimony were worth any 
thing) that two of those brethren who came to us from the Bap- 
tists at Alexandria say they were convinced by the debate. But 
whether they were or not, of course we will have to wait for 
Brother Moody to tell us. 

Do you remember how our reliable (?) friend boasted of the- 
Church that was built up at Alexandria after his debate there with 


Dr. Brents, and of the beautiful house that they had built? Well, 
I have a communication here from one of our leading brethren in 
that town. Listen : 

"I am very much surprised that Mr. Moody should attribute the 
building of the Baptist Church at this place to the Brents-Moody 
debate. The facts are about these : shortly after the debate the 
Baptists from the surrounding country, members of the different 
Baptist Churches, met at the Presbyterian Church house and or- 
ganized a Baptist Church. It was made up wholly of members 
who had become Baptists long before the debate. They have not 
had one addition to their Church since, not even from their own 
ranks. There has been but one Baptist sermon preached here this 
year (and that was by a traveling preacher from Michigan), and 
only two or three were preached here last year. They began to 
build a very nice house here last spring, but for lack of means 
have never completed it. The house as yet has no floor, windows, 
ceiling, nor doors. About six weeks ago one-half of the roof 
bio wed off and has not yet been replaced. Since the Brents- 
Moody debate we have had six additions, two or three of them, 
while not members of the Baptist Church, were from Baptist fam- 

These two brethren from whom I have read are honorable men. 
None stand higher in the communities in which they live. "In the 
mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." 

Hackett's teaching that Ananias told Saul to submit to baptism 
in order to be forgiven, and that Peter taught the same thing in 
Acts ii. 38, troubles Brother Moody greatly. And no wonder, for 
this great Baptist thus lays the ax at the very root of his doctrine. 
He tries to find comfort in the next period, in which Hackett says : 
" In both passages baptism is represented as having this impor- 
tance r efficacy, because it is the sign of the repentance and faith 
which are the conditions of salvation." He says I never quote this 
explanation. He is badly mistaken; I do quote it habitually. But 
then a man who could make such a mistake about that Alexandria 
meeting-house, and the success of the Baptist cause there, is liable 
to be mistaken about other things. I doubt if I ever had a debate 
with a Baptist in which I did not quote it. I remember that I 
quoted the passage in part once, leaving out what Brother Moody 
calls the "explanation." He at once "rebuked" me with great 
asperity. I then turned to him and said, " I do not leave that out 
because I have any special objection to it, but simply because I 


can't quote every thing a man says in one speech." "But," said 
I, "I accept Hackett's comment on the entire passage as correct. 
Do you? I dare you to say that you do." And he did not open 
his mouth. As Hackett teaches, Paul was to submit to baptism in 
order to be forgiven ; but baptism only has this efficacy when it is- 
the sign of repentance and faith, which (when they are expressed* 
in this divinely appointed way) are the conditions of forgiveness. 

At the risk of being tedious, but in order that you may see how' 
utterly unreliable my erring brother is in representing authors, I 
will give Hackett's comments on Acts ii. 38 and xxii. 16, and then: 
place Moddy's explanation beside them. Listen : Hackett on Acts 
ii. 38 says : "Eis aphesin hamartioon, in order to the forgiveness of 
sins, we connect naturally with both the preceding verses. This 
clause states the motive or object which should induce them to re- 
pent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one 
part of it to the exclusion of the other." 

On xxii. 16, commenting on the command, "Be baptized and 
wash away thy sins," he says : 

"And wash (bathe) away thy sins. This clause states a result 
of the baptism in language derived from the nature of the ordi- 
nance. It answers to eis aphesin hamartioon [in order to the for- 
giveness of sins] in ii. 38, that is, submit to the rite [baptism] in 
order to be forgiven. In both passages baptism is represented as 
having this importance or efficacy, because it is the sign of the re- 
pentance and faith which are the conditions of salvation." 

Now, hear Mr. Moody explain what Hackett means. He saysr 
"In other words, the ' nature' of the ordinance is to declare what- 
repentance and faith had procured; hence, repent (and believe) in> 
order to obtain; and then be baptized in order to declare. These- 
two ideas Hackett combines in one expression." 

What an awful perversion ! I would rather die this day than so j 
to misrepresent an author. Hackett teaches that "in order to the 
forgiveness of sins" states "the motive or object which should in- 
duce them to repent and be baptized;" that we connect it naturally" 
with "both the preceding verbs;" that it enforces "the entire^ 
exhortation, not one part to the exclusion of the other;" that Paul' 
and the three thousand were to submit to baptism "in order to b# 
forgiven." And then Moody claims he meant that they were to re- 
pent and believe in order to be forgiven, and then to be baptized 
in order to declare that they had been forgiven. Pshaw I I would 

be a man, or I would quit debating. 


r Hackett evidently thought that Cornelius was saved before bap- 
tism; in this I think he was mistaken. On Acts xiii. 39 he calls 
faith the "only condition" of salvation; on xxii. 16 he represents 
repentance and faith, expressed in baptism, as "the conditions of 
salvation ; " and I harmonize these statements by supposing that 
when he represents faith as the only condition he means faith per- 
fected by works ; thus I can easily understand him, but otherwise 
I cannot. But whatever else may be true or false, it is as certain 
as human speech can make it, that on ii. 38 and xvi. 22 he teaches 
that baptism precedes remission, that it is in order- to remission, 
that baptism is to be submitted to in order that pardon may be 
obtained; and, as I have shown you, Wilmarth and other Baptists 
have so understood him. 

The gentleman says I debate with him because Christ sent me to 
fight the devil. That is not exactly the way I put it. Brethren 
have censured me for debating with one who is so unfair as he ; I 
have replied: "Christ met the devil; I am not so good as Christ, 
nor is Brother Moody as bad as the devil, therefore I can meet 
him." I have said Christians are soldiers, and Satan is the great 
enemy whom they are to fight; the fact, therefore, that one is un- 
fair and unreliable is no reason why he should hot be met in de- 

Yes, I would rather have the yellowfever and smallpox, the lep- 
rosy and cholera all at one time than to have the kind of religion 
that would let me misrepresent and bear false witness. But he 
.did not tell you what occasioned me to say that. He had just 
charged that Campbell did not teach nor require repentance, that 
immersion alone was conversion with him, and he read a short ex- 
tract from Campbell to prove his assertion. I took up the book, 
and by reading what immediately preceded and immediately fol- 
lowed the extract quoted, showed that Campbell meant exactly 
the opposite of what Moody charged upon him. He made similar 
false charges against Brooks and Sweeney, my brethren; I showed 
from their books that the charges were false. He undertook to 
read from one of his own brethren to show that I had misrepre- 
sented him; he exclaimed, "I will read just as it is," and then, in 
reading a short passage, he skipped four important sentences that 
were against him, and I had to correct him and make him go back 
and read them. Dr. Lofton, who sits here as his moderator, said 
the light was bad, and that was why he skipped, that he did not 
believe he meant to skip; but I reminded him that he had been 


readiog by that light all the time without difficulty reading whole 
speeches by it and that he sldpped the very parts that hurt him. 
Then he told me that I am not converted ; that he is praying that 
I may be. 'Twas in that connection that I said I would rather 
have all those diseases than to be afflicted with a religion that 
would let me do such tricks as those. And so I say yet. 

If Brother Moody believed on the Lord with his heart (that is, 
lovingly, trustingly, with full purpose of heart to follow Christ) 
when he was baptized, he was born of water and the Spirit, and 
came into the kingdom of God, and, therefore, I can call him 
brother, though I realize the fact that he has wandered far from 
the right way, and that he will certainly be lost except he repent. 
Bead 2 Thess. iii. 14, 15. This explains why I call him "brother." 

He says my brethren have neither faith, obedience, nor love. I 
am glad I don't think that about the Baptists, and, knowing him. as 
I do, I don't care if he does say it about us. 

Yes, baptism is a work of God; do you deny it? Christ (through 
:ageuts) baptizes men; is not that so? Tet it is a Bodily act to 
which the sinner must submit in order to forgiveness. If there is 
.any contradiction there I can't see it. 

Yes, faith is dead before baptism; so I teach. But, mark you, 
I do not mean thereby that faith is insufficient to move to action, 
or that it is wholly useless and devoid of merit before baptism, but 
, simply that it is separated from and does hot reach the blessing of 
forgiveness till baptism. Death means separation. We may be 
<lead to one thing, but alive to another. The sinner is dead to 
Christ, but alive to sin ; the Christian is alive to Christ, but dead to 
.sin. Christ called dead sinners to him. that he might give them 
life. If Brother Moody had been there, possibly he would have 
ridiculed the Master for asking dead folks to do any thing. 

He that believeth, and is baptized, shall receive a thousand dol- 
lars. Can you understand that? Eepent and be baptized, every 
one of you, for a thousand dollars. 

Arise, and be baptized, for a thousand dollars. 

Ah, my friends, if those passages read that way people would 
not argue that you are to believe, then get the thousand dollars, 
.and then be baptized; that you are to repent, then get the money, 
and then be baptized. Well, if we could understand them so well, 
had they spoken of money, why can't we understand them when 
they speak of remission? 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Eighth Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I have yielded to the foolish, and severe course of replying to- 
Mr. Harding's "twisting" of Dr. Hovey, not that Dr. Hovey needs 
any defense where he is read, hut Mr. Harding needs exposure.. 
In all Dr. Hovey's voluminous writings I venture he never penned a 
sentence inconsistent with Baptist doctrine. The appendix from 
which the gentleman quotes is headed "Baptism as Related to Re- 
generation and Forgiveness." He divides the six passages usually 
relied upon into two classes. First, those expressly referring to 
baptism, viz.: Acts ii. 38 ; xxii. 16, and 1 Peter iii. 21, and those 
thought to refer to it, viz. : John iii. 5; Eph. v. 26, and Titus iii. 5. 
His object in writing the appendix seems to have been to grind 
Campbellism to powder and scatter it to the winds, for this he 
most effectually does. I capitalize some words to save? comment,, 
italics are Hovey's. The first line reads: "John iii. 5 is one of the 
few passages on which MEN have founded the doctrine of baptis- 
mal regeneration." He first considers the first class, that which 
contains baptism. The brackets, beginuing with heavy letters,, 
contain Mr. Harding's quotations in his four questions. Thus you 
can see the surroundings as Mr. Harding saw them, and you can 
decide whether he garbles and misrepresents. In reference to 
Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16, and J Peter iii. 21, Dr. Hovey says: "In NEITHER 
of these passagee is baptism represented as a MEANS of regenera- 
tion, i. e., of the work of the Holy Spirit in giving a new life to the 
soul, (a] The first of them reads as follows: 'Repent, and be bap- 
tized every one of you in (or upon) the name of Jesus Christ, unto 
the remission (forgiveness) of your sins/ (Acts ii. 38, Revised 
Version.)" Now for Harding's scrap. [HERE repentance and bap- 
tism are represented as leading to the forgiveness of sins.] (But 
in what sense? M.) " We understand repentance to be a voluntary 
turning of the soul from the exercise of unbelief to the exercise 
of belief, and from a para'mount love of self and sin to a para- 
mount love of God and holiness, while baptism is the prescribed 


therefore, properly united in our thought; but one as the ESSENTIAL, 
INWARD change, and the other as a divinely required CONFESSION", or 
SIGN of that change. This view of the relation of baptism to re- 
pentance or faith is confirmed by the 41st verse below : ' They that 
gladly received his ivord were baptised.' But there is no HINT in, 
these verses of ANY connection between baptism and regeneration 
by the Spirit of God ; no suggestion even that the CHANGE called 
repentance was conditioned on the rite of baptism." (G-ood old 
Baptist doctrine. M.) 

"The second passage is . . . Actsxxii. 16. (6) OF COTTESE there is 
no such thing POSSIBLE as a LITERAL washing away of sins. Aremoval 
of sins by bathing the body in water is ABSURD. But there is such 
a thing as forgiveness of sins, and this may be described FIGURA- 
TIYELY as washing them away, so that henceforth the soul may be 
4 clean' from the guilt or stain of sin." (Both really and declara- 
tively, both to himself and to others. M.) Dr. Hackett remarks that, 
"This clause (and wash away thy sins) states a result of the bap- 
tism in language derived from the NATURE of the ordinance. It an- 
swers to unto forgiveness of sins in Acts ii. 38, i. e., submit to the 
rite in order to be forgiven. (The two thoughts of real and de- 
clarative united in one expression. M.) In both passages baptism 
is represented as having this importance or efficacy, because it is 
the SIGN of the repentance and faith which are THE conditions of 
salvation. And let it be observed that Ananias adds an expression, 
calling on his name, which agrees perfectly with the view that 
[BAPTISM involves the idea of prayer for the forgiveness of SINS]. 
If baptism really SIGNIFIES the change of inward life, called 're- 
pentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,' it 
surely REPRESENTS the candidate as entering for the first time upon 
a life of prayer for pardon and peace." (The inward and the out- 
ward thus united in one thought. M.) 

"(c) The third passage (1 Peter iii. 21) is more difficult, yet we be- 
lieve it is in PERFECT ACCORD with the TWO already considered. . . . 
Now, we have seen that ' calling on his name,' or prayer, is asso- 
ciated by Ananias with baptism, while 'forgiveness of sins' is 
represented by Peter as a result of the beginning of spiritual life, 
SIGNIFIED by baptism. But hi this passage baptism itself is spoken 
of as an EMBODIED request or prayer unto God. And what can be 
truer than this, if it is a SYMBOL of repentance, that is to say, of a 
change of mind and heart, if it is a SIGN and FIGURE of entering into 
a new life? Is not the FIRST motion of faith a beginning of actual 


trust in God through Christ for the forgiveness of sins? And is not 
this trust an implicit and earnest request for that forgiveness t 
[BAPTISM, therefore, saves, because it STANDS for and means genuine 
reliance, for the first time, upon the mercy of God in Christ, and, in- 
deed, an earnest request, for pardon ; it expresses the act of the 
soul in turning to God, committing itself to God and seeking his 
grace.] ;; Putting the last to sentences together the old Baptist doc- 
trine is evident to any who can read and discern. But cutting the 
last sentence off, Mr. Harding gets the words, " Baptism, therefore,. 
saves." Those .three words express Mr. Harding's doctrine. He 
believes baptism saves, not figuratively, not symbolically, but 
really. To charge such a sentiment as that on Dr. Hovey is doc- 
trinal slander in the first degree. Eealizing the insufficiency of 
his argument to sustain his t doctrine, he proposes to divert your 
minds to the flimsy pretext that Baptist scholars are with him in 
doctrine. Hackett and Hovey are his boast, but I propose to see 
him through on Baptist scholars. Baptism, says Hovey, is faith, 
repentance, prayer, trust, "embodied." "The prescribed SYMBOL,. 
SIGN, EXPRESSION of that INWARD change." One the essential inward 
change, the other the divinely required confession or sign of that 
change. Hackett and Hovey, and all true Baptists, stand together 
with their renewed minds at enmity against this abomination that 
maketh desolate all spiritual graces and blessings. Hovey, having 
thus treated the first class, viz., the three passages that refer to 
baptism, and having effectually defended them from the use my 
opponent makes of them, he proceeds to the second class, those- 
supposecl to refer to baptism. He says : 

"Eph. v. 26 repeats the idea of 'cleansing' (i. e. } from sin), which 
has been shown is sometimes a FIGURATIVE expression for forgive- 
ness of sins. . . . This accords with the view that it refers to 
the forgiveness of sins UPON REPENTANCE rather than to the implant- 
ing of a holy principle of life and sanctification in the soul. The 
two acts are doubtless coincident in time, but are distinguishable- 
in fact and thought. 

" (2) That here, as is in the passage already examined, baptism 
in case that is meant by 'the laver of water' is used as a SIGN 
or SYMBOL of conversion, and is spoken of AS securing that which 
is secured by conversion; that is, by the turning of the SOUL to 
God for pardon and peace. In other words, the SIGN is here put 
for the thing SIGNIFIED; the KITUAL act of CONFESSION is put for the- 
spiritual act which it REPRESENTS. ... At all events, there is 


NOTHING in this passage to show that Paul CONCEITED of baptism as 
the MEDIUM IN AND THROUGH which divine life is conveyed "by the 
Holy Spirit to the soul." Good old Baptist doctrine. 

On John iii. 5 and Titus iii. 5 he says : " If this passage could be 
interpreted by itself, without regard to other statements, we should 
be ready to adopt the latter view as correct, and say that there is 
here no reference to baptism. But bearing in mind the other pass- 
ages, we accept the former view as probably correct, and believe 
that Paul had in mind the baptism as REPRESENTING and CONFESSING 
the divine change called regeneration. [HENCE he teaches that 
men are saved by an outworking, obedient life, given and preserved 
by the Holy Spirit.] 

"(c) The other passage, John iii. 5, has been examined in the Com- 
mentary, but we may properly add a few remarks in this place. 
(1) There can be no reference in this passage to Christian baptism 
in distinction from John's baptism. For neither the Gospel nor 
any other gives us reason to think that Christ had yet admin- 
istered the rite by the hands of the disciples, or had imparted to 
it any spiritual efficacy which it had not when administered by 

" If, then, he meant to speak in language intelligible to Mcode- 
mus, he must have referred to either John's baptism or a well un- 
derstood sense of the term water. He could not have referred to 
a rite that would begin to be used after two or three years. (2) 
As an expression, being 'born of water and of the Spirit' is 
clearly not synonymous with being 'born of the Spirit' by means 
of water. For by the former the relation of these two sources of 
the new life to each other is not pointed out, while by the latter it 
is definitely stated. Taking the two sources separately, we may 
say that being 'born of water' (baptized) must signify being 
cleansed from sins, or forgiven, while being 'born of Spirit' can- 
not signify less than being ingenerated, if we may use the word, 
with a new and holy principle of life by the Spirit of God. It is 
not, therefore, surprising that Jesus alludes to baptism in the 
briefest manner, while he dwells with special emphasis upon the 
work of the Spirit. (3) We do not HESITATE to say that it is IRRA- 
TIONAL to think of 'water' as holding the same relation to the new 
birth as that held by the Holy Spirit. 

"A material substance cannot be supposed to effect a moral 
change. It may naturally enough signify a moral or spiritual 
change, but that is all. Dead matter cannot be a spring of moral 


power to the soul, and it is almost equally difficult to conceive of 
it as a physical medium of the Spirit. 

"Having shown that the principal texts upon which MEN" have 
founded the doctrine that the work of the Holy Spirit in regenera- 
tion is MEDIATED by the water of baptism need not be supposed to 
.teach that doctrine, we will now look at certain representations of 
Scripture which are MANIFSTLY INCONSISTENT with that doctrine. 

"Peter looked upon the extraordinary gift of the Spirit to Corne- 
lius, his kinsman, and near friends ; as conclusive evidence that 
they might properly be baptized. These passages make it certain 
that according to the teaching of John, or Christ, and of the apos- 
tles, the function of baptism, is not to ORIGINATE the new life of 
faith, but to REPRESENT the ORIGIN of it ; to PORTRAY and CONFESS the 
entrance of a human soul THROUGH REPENTANCE AND FAITH, pro- 
duced by the Spirit of God, in the light of divine truth, upon a life 
of consecration and obedience. It is an ordinance that takes the 
mind of a believer BACK to the MOMENT OF CONTERSION, that he may 
confess before men the change which THEN took place, by the grace 
of God, in his spiritual state. It is the specific, the prescribed, 
the significant rite by which he SIGNIFIES that he has ceased to live 
in unbelief and has BEGUN a life in faith and obedience. If any 
one thinks it unimportant because it is concerned in the MANIFES- 
TATION rather than in the ORIGINATION of the new life, let him ponder 
the language of Paul (Eom. x. 9). If there can be NO DOUBT as to 
the salvation of the penitent WITHOUT BAPTISM, there can be as 
little doubt of his willingness to obey Christ in every practicable 
manner. [BAPTISM, then, is a very definite and important act of 
obedience to Christ, and withal a very clear confession of divine 
truth, but it is prerequisite to salvation only as obedience to the 
known will of Christ is prerequisite.]" 

Here again Mr. Harding finds the words "prerequisite to salva- 
tion," so he quotes the sentence. Now, the hearer and reader 
have the matter before them, and they can decide whether Mr. 
Harding has misrepresented my brethren. These men gain noth- 
ing by my defense, my argument is not advanced, as I am led off to 
this course, and the only good I can see in it is that this false rep- 
resentation, made to support a false doctrine, is neutralized, and 
Mr. Harding is exposed by the very statement of facts. 

I will notice a few things in the gentleman's sixth reply. He 
has certainly hung himself on Christian experience and conscious- 
ness. I was aiming to draw him out, so he would expose himself. 


this rubbing makes my argument shine the brighter. Those 
who go from us are like Mr. Harding, they have no consciousness 
of forgiveness; they say by their going that their former testimony 
was false, and that when they went down into the water they 
were in their sins, the children of the devil, and that they were 
not saved through faith in Christ. We have many such, as we al- 
ways readily confess, and if he could get all of them, we would be 
infinitely blessed. My argument in my first and second speeches 
puts the testimony of consciousness in Scripture language, and 
that made it infallible. I was arguing conscious forgiveness. Mr. 
Harding and his people, and all who go from us, say they have no 
conscious forgiveness. Therefore the testimony of countless mill- 
ions on that subject is the testimony of conscious and confessed 
ignorance. No number of such witnesses can add a feather's 
weight in the investigation of any case. On the other hand, those 
coming to us testify that, despite their former delusions, they felt sin 
revive, and with a guilty conscience they went to God with confes- 
sion of guilt, and that when they trusted in the finished work of 
Christ, sin was purged from their consciences, their hearts were 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, so their baptism, if they had 
any, was the answer of a good conscience. This is the testimony 
of every Christian,. and is supported by God's Word. I don't like 
to criticise a man's experience. Every Christian can detect a 
counterfeit. This one is diluted with water till nothing remains 
save a little tasteless coloring matter. 

For the present I charge him with dodging every question I have 
put to him, consciousness and all, and in my next I propose to put 
him where he can't dodge. I like the situation amazingly, and 
shall continue to bind him hand and foot, that I may lead him and 
his people out of captivity. As he gives me no argumentf to re- 
fute, then I must refute what he does give me. I now proceed to 
show that the blessings of salvation are received before baptism. 

Cleansing is one of these blessings. 1 John i. 9 : " If we confess 
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,*and to cleanse 
us from all unrighteousness." The greatest failure that has ever 
been made in the history of error is the failure to make out two 
laws of pardon, one to the alien and one to the child. If there is 
no such thing in the Gospel as pardon, and especially if there is 
no such thing as law of pardon, then two laws of pardon is palpa- 
bly absurd. I think my opponent is as badly affected by the belief 
-of error as any man, but I don't believe he will try to establish so 


foolish a thing. The Mormons are much more consistent. If bap- 
tism is necessary to forgiveness first, it is always necessary. If 
penitence, prayer, confession and faith are necessary first, they are 
always necessary. But it must be a penitent confession, and a be- 
lieving prayer first, last and all the time. Yet these are not condi- 
tions, for if so they would constitute a law, and God could not 
give a law that could give life. There is a way of salvation, and 
means of salvation, and by humbly walking that way, and diligently 
using those means, there is hope, provided all is done in faith, and 
faith and hope and love are of God. Law is not of faith, yet faith 
does not make law void. The only resemblance to law there is in 
faith is, that in the justification of a sinner before God, it utterly,, 
and always, from everlasting to everlasting, excludes all manner of 
works. This is so unvarying and invariable that it is called a 
nomonpisteos (both genative singular), a faith-law, so that boasting 
is excluded, not by a law of works, but by a faith-law, that is in 
opposition to works. Therefore, says the apostle, we conclude that 
a man is justified by faith without deeds of law. 

An illustration of the cleansing power of rites and ceremonies 
is given in Matt, xxiii 33. Here they made clean the outside, and 
outwardly appeared beautiful unto men, yet inwardly they were 
full of extortions and excesses; full of dead men's bones and all 
uncleanness ; full of hypocrisy and iniquity. They cleansed them- 
selves outwardly, by obedience to rites and ceremonies, instead of 
going with confessions of guilt to him who cleanses from all in- 
iquity, and forgiveth our sins for his name's sake. When Christ 
cleanses us by the washing of water in the Word, we stand before 
him without "spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; holy and with- 
out blemish." Here is seen the difference between going to a man 
for the washing of water in a pool, and to Christ for the washing 
of water in the Word. When he of his own will begets us with a 
word of truth, he gives us a clean heart, a right spirit, and cleanses 
us frotn all our filthiness, by the sprinkling of his own blood, typi- 
fied by the sprinkling of the water of purification, or water in the 


If we consider this subject under the figure of purification, we 
find that God purifies the heart by faith, and not by baptism. If 
faith must come before baptism, and if God purifies the heart by 
faith, then the believing candidate for baptism has a clean heart,, 
or is pure in heart, and he shall see God. Hence the candidate,. 


"with love out of a pure heart," is ready to obey, or, having 
"called on the Lord out of a pure heart," he is ready to be bap- 
tized and outwardly wash away his sins, thus declaring his inward 
cleansing. Hence the order, "He purifies unto himself a pecu- 
liar people, zealous of good wortcs." Baptism is the beginning of 
these good works, but purification comes first, or the baptism is 
no baptism. 


We are also said to be purged from our sins. Almost all things 
by the law are purged with blood, and without the shedding of 
blood there is no remission. This shows the two terms are syn- 
onymous, and it teaches the same lesson of. blood instead of 
water. Our consciences must be purged from dead works to serve 
the living G-od. Baptism is the beginning of this service, but the 
conscience must first be purged, Hence, "having a high priest 
over the house of God, let us draw near, having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed in pure- 
water." Here is the invariable order, and to change it is a fatal 
mistake. The true candidate for baptism has the heart sprinkled 
from an evil conscience ; he has love out of a pure heart, and a 
good conscience, and faith unfeigned. Hence, in having his body 
washed in pure water, baptism is the answer or response of a good' 
conscience, and not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. 
Hence, all the saved will in all eternity exclaim, " Unto him that 
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." To sing 
there about having loved him, and obeyed him, by having our sins 
washed away in baptism, would be a song so selfish, a note so dis- 
cordant, a deceit so diabolical, as to cause Michael to sound his toc- 
sin and gather his angels for another war of expulsion from heaven.. 


Having said so much on justification in nearly all previous 
speeches, I need not now treat this at length. The third and 
fourth chapters of Komans, with the second, third and fourth of 
G-alatians, is the apostle's treatment of the subject, which is en- 
tirely satisfactory to me. I would not add to, or take from, what 
the Holy Spirit has said. I adopt the following criticism of Mr. 
Briney on Dr. Brent's tract on justification : 

"Knowing that a man is not justified by works of law, etc., he- 
adds in brackets after the word law, (of Moses). This, in our 
judgment, fails to reach the height of the Pauline argument, which 


is, not simply to show that men could not be justified by the law 
of Moses, but to prove the insufficiency or impotency of law, all 
law, to justify a sinner. It is faith versus law, and not some other 
law versus that of Moses, that 'Paul is urging. For, if there had 
been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness 
should have been by law. But the Scripture hath concluded all 
under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given 
to them that believe." 

Mr. Briney is certainly correct in his criticism, and it lifts him 
far above the fog of my friend's doctrine. The man who can read 
these chapters and then assert that the faith spoken of in the 
whole connection must include baptism, or obedience to any law, 
or complete obedience to all law, is inexcusable. " He stumbles at 
that stumbling-stone," and the eons of eternity he will spend in 
confessions of his just condemnation. The man who goes about 
to establish his own righteousness, and refuses to submit to the 
righteousness of God, who refuses to receive the righteousness of 
Christ imputed "unto him," will stand before God with a soul as 
black as the ascending smoke of torment, and should that ascend- 
ing volume of smoke unceasingly evolve blackness out of that 
.soul, its blackness of darkness will not abate to the ultimate de- 
cline of eternity. The man who rejects the only -righteousness 
God can accept, and offers instead his own heartless, selfish sub- 
mission to one act, or who will offer three or four "steps" as the 
.ground of his justification, will surely receive God's wrath to its 
uttermost. He will pour out on that soul, black by nature, and 
blackened by every emotion of the flesh, the unmitigated vials of 
his wrath and the cup of his indignation. The arrows of his light- 
ning and the thunders of his fury will drive that soul precipitously 
to the nethermost regions of perdition. We will close this argu- 
ment with Paul's conclusion of Abraham's case, who is the father 
of the faithful, and, like Paul, a pattern of all who shall afterward 
believe unto life everlasting. When Paul said it was counted unto 
him for righteousness or justification, he was talking about faith 
.alone, apart from works, or obedience to any and all law. He 
says, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of 
grace, but of debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth on 
Mm that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous- 
ness." This Scripture, translated to suit the gentleman's doctrine, 
should read, "Now to him that worketh is the reward reckoned of 
grace, and not of debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth 


on Mm that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for nothing.^ 
The gentleman has repeatedly said that a faith that worketh not 
for justification is dead, unproductive and worthless. We will also 
revise Galatians iii. 21-25 to suit the gentleman's doctrine. For 
as there had been a law given which could have given life, verily 
righteousness must have been by law. But the Scripture has con- 
cluded all under law, that the promise by faith in the Word 
might be given to them that are baptized ; but, before Pentecost 
came, they were kept under the law, and shut up from another 
law which should then be revealed ; wherefore, the law was our 
schoolmaster to bring us unto Pentecost, that we might be justified 
by faith in baptism. But, after that Pentecost is come, we have 
no longer that other schoolmaster, but, since then, we are all the 
children of God by faith in the Word and by baptism into Jesus. 

How strangely the Scriptures would read if they supported my 
friend's doctrine. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Eighth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I trust you paid close attention to the gentleman's readings from 
Dr. Hovey. If you did it is not necessary that I should say very 
much by way of reply, except to refresh your minds upon some 
very interesting and important matters. Let me call your atten- 
tion, in the first place, to some points upon which the learned 
Baptist doctor agrees with me, confessedly, and differs from 
Brother Moody. In Titus iii. 4, 5 it is said: "But when the kind- 
ness of God our Savior and his love toward man appeared, not by 
works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but accord- 
ing to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Dr. Hovey believes, as do all 
of my brethren, so far as I know, that "the washing of regenera- 
tion" means baptism a baptism representing the repentance and 
faith previously wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. Put 
"baptism (as it is perfectly allowable to do) in the place of that 
which it defines, and you bring out clearly the meaning of the pas- 
sage, thus: "Not by works done in righteousness, which we did 
ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, tlirough baptism 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost." This interpretation, which is 
sustained by the great body of the scholarship of the world, set- 
tles several points : (1) Paul teaches that, while God saves through 
baptism, it is "not by works done in righteousness, which we do 
ourselves, but according to his mercy;" that is, according to his 
grace. (2) Hence, it follows that baptism does not belong to our 
41 works of righteousness," which we do ourselves, but it is. a work 
of God to which we must submit, a part of the system of grace. 
(3) Hence, to be "baptized for remission" does not make remis- 
sion dependent upon our works of righteousness, nor does it make 
grace void; but, evidently, in believing and being baptized we sub- 
mit to the righteousness of God. (4) And, finally, as baptism is 
not one of our works of righteousness which we do ourselves, 
God's saving us through it does not militate against the doctrine 
of Paul that "to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of 


.-grace, but of debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth on 
him that justifi eth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous- 
ness." Indeed, it is strange that any one should ever have con- 
ceived of baptism as belonging to the works here excluded from 
the system of grace, seeing that from no standpoint does it bring 
God in debt to us, or make grace void. The gentleman has very 
appropriately said (he does sometimes say appropriate things) that 
" there is a way of salvation, and means of salvation, and by hum- 
bly "walking that way and diligently using those means there is 
hope, provided all is done in faith." Just so ; and baptism belongs 
to this "way of salvation ;" it is one of these "means." 

" Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself up for it, that 
he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water 
with the word." (Eph. v. 25, 26.) Dr. Hovey inclines to the 
opinion that "the washing of water" at this place means baptism, 
and in this he agrees with my brethren, and differs from Brother 
Moody. According to that interpretation, the passage teaches that 
Christ cleansed the Church by baptism with the word ; that is, by 
the preaching of the word faith is produced in the heart; this 
faith is expressed in baptism, and thus we are cleansed "by the 
washing of water with the word." This is in perfect harmony 
with the interpretation of the passage just considered, viz., Titus 
iii. 5. The great Methodists, Wesley, Watson, Clark, Summers,- 
the great Presbyterians, Stuart, McKnight, Robinson, together with 
Alford, Bloomfield, Wall, Conybeare and Hawson, and commenta- 
tors in general, refer to either one or both of these passages as 
meaning baptism. 

As to what were the opinions of these commentators I care but 
little ; but one thing is certain, when they agree that the phrases 
""washing of regeneration" and "washing of water" mean baptism, 
according to their teaching, Paul says God saves us through bap- 
tism, Christ cleanses us by baptism. And all this is in perfect 
harmony with the Master's own statement, "He that believeth, and 
is baptized, shall be saved." 

Dr. Hovey gives us a fine translation of 1 Peter iii. 21. Kefer- 
'ring to the fact that in the ark eight souls were saved through 
water, Peter says : " Which also now saveth you in its antitype 
baptism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
earnest request of a good conscience unto God) through the res- 
urrection of Jesus Christ." (Hovey's translation.) 

The great German, Grimm, in his lexicon recently published by 


Thayer, translates it thus: "Which (baptism) now saves you, not 
because in receiving it ye have put away the filth of the flesh, but 
because ye have earnestly sought a conscience reconciled to God," 

It is fine to see how these learned gentlemen are falling into line 
with us. Many years ago our brother, Lard, translated the pas- 
sage thus: 

"In which (ark) a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water,, 
which also now saves us in its antitype, baptism, which consists 
not in putting away fleshy impurity, but in seeking a good con- 
science in God." 

Commenting on the passage, Dr. Hovey says: "In this passage 
baptism itself is spoken of as an embodied request or prayer unto 
God." He refers to it as the " first motion of faith," and inquires,. 
"Is not the first motion of faith a beginning of actual trust in 
God, through Christ, for the forgiveness of sins?" Then he sol- 
emnly affirms that baptism "stands for, and means, genuine reli- 
ance, for the first time, upon the mercy of God in Christ, and, in- 
deed, an earnest request for pardon." 

Let me ask, just here, how can baptism be "an earnest request 
for pardon," if the baptized man is already pardoned, and knows 
it? if he be not fit for baptism till he is pardoned? Brother Moody 
does not believe that baptism is a request for pardon ; I do. You 
can see which of us is with Hovey on this point. 

On Acts ii. 38 Hovey says: "Here repentance and baptism are 
represented as leading to the remission of sins." I believe that . 
statement ; Brother Moody does not. 

Hovey says "born of water" means baptism. I believe that;; 
Moody does not. 

Hovey says "men are saved by an outworking obedient life,, 
given and preserved by the Holy Spirit." I believe that; Moody 
does not. 

And, finally, Hovey teaches that baptism is prerequisite to salva- 
tion to the extent that obedience to the known will of Christ is 
prerequisite. His words are, "Baptism, then, is a very definite 
and important act of obedience to Christ, and withal a very clear 
confession of divine truth; but it is prerequisite to salvation only 
as obedience to the known will of Christ is prerequisite." I believe 
that. Do you, Brother Moody? 

Here, then, are twelve capital points in which Hovey agrees-. 
with my brethren and differs from my friend, namely: (1) That- 
the "washing of regeneration" (Titus iii. 5) means baptism; (2), 


that the "washing of water" (Eph. v. 26) means baptism; (3) that 
"horn of water" (Johniii. 5) means baptism; (4) that we should 
translate by the word "antitype," instead of "figure," in 1 Peter 
iii. 21; (5) and by the word "request," instead of "answer," in the 
same passage; (6) that baptism is an earnest request for pardon ; 
(7) that eis in Acts ii. 38 means "in order to;" (8) that repentance 
and baptism (in same passage) are represented by the Holy Spirit 
as leading to pardon; (9) that men are saved by an outworking, 
obedient life; (10) that baptism is prerequisite to pardon as the 
known will of Christ is prerequisite; (11) that, under the reign of 
Christ, there are "conditions of forgiveness;" (12) that men are to 
learn from the lips of Christ's disciples "the heaven-appointed 
terms of life and death" the conditions upon which they will be 
forgiven. (For these last two points, see Hovey on John, p. 405.) 

The gentleman says he does not believe that Dr. Hovey, in all 
his voluminous writings, ever penned a sentence inconsistent with 
Baptist doctrine. Well, one thing is certain, he has penned many 
a one inconsistent with Moodyism ; and, if Hovey is a sound Bap- 
tist teacher, Moody is a crooked stick in the ranks. 

But does not Hovey teach that baptism is a symbol, sign or ex- 
pression of an inward change? Yes; and so do my brethren, so 
do I. Baptism is a sign, symbol or expression of the burial and 
resurrection of Christ, and it is, also, a sign or expression of a 
changed heart a heart changed by faith and repentance. My 
brethren all hold that unless it be this it is invalid. But Brother 
Moody holds that it is a sign, symbol or expression of sins already 
forgiven, and in so doing he differs from the plain statements of 
Hovey, as well as from my brethren. 

But, says Moody, Hovey teaches there is no "connection between 
baptism and regeneration by the Spirit of God;" that "the change 
called repentance" was not "conditioned on the rite of baptism." 
Exactly; and my brethren say precisely the same thing. We hold 
that a man must be regenerated (begotten) by the Spirit of G-od, 
and that repentance must be wrought in his soul before baptism. 
Baptism is conditioned upon these changes, instead of their de- 
pending upon it. 

Does not Hovey say, " Of course there is no such thing possible 
as a literal washing away of sins?" "A removal of sins," says he, 
"by bathing the body in water is absurd?" Yes; and so say all 
of my brethren. Sins are not literally washed away either in 

water or in blood. Nor did I ever know of any man who was fool 


enough so to believe. But it does not follow from this fact that 
the blood of Christ and the water of baptism are not really in 
order to remission, for they are, both of them, the one as the 
meritorious cause, the other as a divinely -prescribed condition. 
Sins are really forgiven by virtue of the shedding of the blood of 
Christ ; but, as that forgiveness takes place in baptism (which in 
its. nature is a washing), the real act of forgiveness is figuratively 
represented as a washing away of sins. Naaman's leprosy was 
really taken away in his seventh dipping, but not literally washed 
away by water. So we believe that we are really forgiven in (at 
the time of) baptism, but not that the water literally washes away 
our sins. When Brother Moody holds that we teach men are really 
forgiven at the time of baptism, he is in the record; but when he 
intimates that we think sins are literally washed away by water, 
he is as far from the truth as it is possible for a man to be. When 
Hackett says the language, "wash away thy sins," is derived from 
the nature of the ordinance, and that it states a result of the bap- 
tism, he gives the exact facts in the case. Baptism in its nature 
is a washing; hence the figurative language ("wash away thy 
sins"), indicating the real result, the forgiveness of sins. 

Brother Moody seems to hold that, if baptism is a sign, it can- 
not be really necessary, or prerequisite, to remission. Never was 
he more mistaken. A person or thing may be a sign or symbol of 
something, and at the same time really necessary or prerequisite 
to something else. Christ's miraculous conception was a "sign" 
(see Isaiah vii. 4), but was it not necessary that he should so come 
that men might be forgiven? Christ himself was a "sign" (see 
Luke ii. 34 and xi. 30); was not he absolutely necessary to the 
.salvation of men? Hence, the facts that baptism is a symbol of 
-the burial and resurrection of Jesus, and a sign or expression of a 
heart changed by repentance and faith, in no wise militate against 
-the doctrine that it is in order to remission. 

Brother Moody emphasizes and glories in the fact that Hovey 
teaches baptism is not "the medium in and through which divine 
life is conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the soul." He calls it "good 
old Baptist doctrine." Well, I am glad we can agree, for that is 
my doctrine, too. The word of God is the medium through which 
God begets us, and life originates in the begetting, not in the 
bringing forth. Through the word of God we believe in Jesus, 
.and are thus begotten of God; we are baptized, and are thus 
ibrought forth from the water, and thus we are born again. We 


agree with Hovey, also, in affirming that it is "irrational to think 
of water as holding the same relation to the new birth as that 
held by the Holy Spirit." Neither do father and mother hold the 
same relation to the natural birth ; nor did God and Mary hold the 
same relation to the birth of Jesus ; but, as Jesus was born of 
God and of Mary, and as every man who comes into the world is, 
and must be, born of father and mother, so in the new birth no 
man can enter into the kingdom of God without being born of 
water and the Spirit. Jesus says so himself. But, while the beget- 
ting must precede the bringing forth, both are necessary to the 
enjoyment of life in this world; 'and just so in the new birth, both 
are necessary to entrance into the family of God. "Ye are all the 
sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you 
as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." "In whom we 
have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." 

But, my friends, I would not have you understand that I claim to 
.agree with Dr. Hovey in every thing he has said, or may say, on 
"baptism and remission," or on any other theme, for I do not so 
claim. Nor would I make such a claim concerning any author on 
any side of any subject. All men are fallible, and are more or less 
Inconsistent. I have quoted Hovey, Hackett and others for their 
testimonials as scholars, and not for their arguments and opinions 
as theologians. For their scholarship I have profound respect, but 
for their opinions I care but little. When, as scholars, they trans- 
late "eis" "antitupon," " eperootema," and other such words, I listen 
respectfully; but when they begin to give their theological inter- 
pretations, I care much less as to what they say; though even then 
it is wonderful, considering that they are Baptists, how clear and 
correct they are, how free from, the language of Ashdod, when they 
talk on the subject of "baptism for remission." To illustrate that 
it is scholarship, and not opinion nor argument, that we want, you 
Baptists have merely to remember the fact that all the pedobaptist 
lexicographers define ~baptizo to dip, immerse^ or plunge, and that 
none of them define it to sprinkle; but when they begin to discuss 
the question they argue in favor of sprinkling, and give it as their 
opinion that it will do just as well, or better than immersion. Then 
we immersionists promptly tell them scholarship is what we want, 
not opinions ; we want to know what God says, not what they think 
will do. And just so I am with Baptist scholars; I want to know 
what God says, how they translate his word, rather than their 


Brother Moody goes back to Ms argument from Ms conscious- 
ness. Christ says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." But Moody says, I know I was saved before I was bap- 
tized. Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in 
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." But Moody 
says, I repented and got remission, and was then baptized. Peter 
says, "The antitype whereunto even baptism doth also now save 
us." Moody says, Baptism does not now save us; we are saved 
before and without baptism. Christ says, "Except a man be born 
of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into "the kingdom of Gk>d." 
But not so, not so, according to tbe gospel of Moody; a man can 
get into the kingdom of heaven without being born of water, but 
not into the Baptist Church. Moody's consciousness tells him that 
he was a child of God before his baptism, and he Twiows it. Well, 
my friends, I would rather have the testimony of God's Spirit, as. 
he spake by Christ and his apostles, than the testimony of the 
spirits of all the men that ever lived. God's word is good enough 
for me. But when men begin to go wrong, they begin to appeal to 
some other authority. The infidel, the Romanist, the mystic, all 
turn to other standards. Listen to this extract from The Baptist, 
my friend's paper : 

"In a magazine, not long ago, I saw an article in which Cardinal 
Manning appealed from the Bible to the Church. He said the Bible 
was antiquated and unsafe. In the same magazine, Col. Robert 
Ingersol appealed from the Bible to reason. Not long afterward I 
read an article in which one of the new theology writers appeals 
from the Bible to Christian consciousness." 

Thanks to this Baptist writer for putting him who appeals to 
consciousness rather than to the Bible in the same class with the 
infidel and the Romanist, for that is where he properly belongs. 

Moody says the Baptist Church has many members who gave 
false testimony when they came into the Church, and who were 
received upon a counterfeit experience. He says it would be a 
great blessing to his Zion if all such would come to us. Then, in 
almost the next breath, he says every Christian can detect a coun- 
terfeit experience. Then why, in the name of common sense, I ask,, 
do you receive so many counterfeits? I would consider him either 
crazed, or naturally a fool, who would take counterfeit money as 
readily as the genuine, if he were perfectly competent to detect the 
difference. And I should think people should be as careful about 
receiving Church members as they are about dollars. What think 


you, my friends? The fact is, there is not a word of truth in the 
gentleman's statement about his being able to detect a counterfeit 
experience every time he hears a man give one. "For what man 
knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in 
him?" asks Paul. And Jude (verse 4), speaking of God's people, 
said: "For there are certain men crept in unawares." If inspired 
men could not detect these counterfeits, I would like to know how 
it came about that " every Christian " can so easily do it now. 

He says I give him no argument to refute, so he must refute 
what I do give. Why don't he answer my questions'? He 
might do that while he has nothing else of importance to work at. 
Not one word can I get Mm to say about that Norton letter. Eight 
in the rnidst-.of this debate, while he is ridiculing and scoffing at 
those who are baptized trusting in Christ, in order that they may 
be forgiven, while he is calling the doctrine a damnable one, and 
is saying that no one, while believing it, ever was or ever can be 
saved, lo, there appears in his own paper, from one of his most 
learned and most highly honored correspondents, such statements 
as these: 

"Can you deny, without doing violence to Mark xvi. 16, that a 
true profession of trust in Christ by being immersed is one of the 
things on which the promise of salvation is there made to de- 
pend? so that he who does not obey, as well as trust, cannot say 
that that promise applies to him?" 

" Can the words in Titus iii. 5, stating that God saves by means 
of the 'bath of new birth' (not of regeneration that is new be- 
getting but of new birth, of new life made manifest), and by 'the 
renewing of the Holy Spirit' means less than that the due profes- 
sion of faith in Christ, by being immersed, is part of the way by 
means of which God 'saves?'" 

"Do you believe the truth of what Peter asserts in very plain 
words, that as the ark saved Noah, so immersion, as the means by 
which we seek salvation with a pure conscience, 'now saves us?'" 

Is your correspondent, Dr. Norton, saved? Is his experience a 
good one? or is it a counterfeit? Do you intend to put him off of 
your paper? Tell us, please, what you think about his doctrine, 

And, while I think of it, I will repeat my challenge. Give me a 
single case in the Bible, a single example, in which G-od ever gave 
any blessing to any one on account of his faith before that faith had 
expressed itself in action, and I will give up the debate. And if 


you cannot, stop talking about justifying faith excluding "all man- 
ner and measure of works." Give us the case, if you can, or rather 
(for I know as well as I know I am alive, that there is no such 
case), just own up like a man that there is not a single instance, 
in all the Book of God, in which faith ever received a blessing un- 
til it was more than "faith only," more than an "internal trust," 
until it had been perfected by works. It may be, my friends, you 
think I am risking my cause on a slender thread, when I propose 
to give up all if he will find such a case, but I know what I am 
doing. God has said, "Faith apart from works is barren," "faith, 
if it have hot works, is dead," and when God says a thing is barren 
I know you need not expect to gather fruit therefrom. 

Brother Moody, referring to the baptism instituted by Christ, 
calls it a "going to a man for the washing of water in a pool." 
Eemember, Jesus solemnly taught that the baptism of John was 
from heaven, not of men. Is his baptism, then, a baptism from 
men? When Christ's disciples baptized by his authority in the an- 
cient days, Christ was represented as baptizing. Is not the same 
true now? To reject the baptism of John was to reject the coun- 
sel of God against one's self. Is it not fully as bad to reject the 
baptism of Jesus? 

Purification, says the gentleman, is one of the blessings of sal- 
vation that comes before baptism; it is received, forsooth, before 
" all manner and measure of works." Hear Peter on the subject ; 
he is good authority. He says: "Ye have purified your souls in 
your obedience to the truth." (1 Peter i. 22, B. V.) If the great 
apostle who told the people on Pentecost to repent and be bap- 
tized for remission, who said baptism now saves, understood the 
matter, men are to obey in order to purification. True, God puri- 
fies the heart "by faith," but it is by faith perfected by "obedience 
to the truth." Hence, this same Peter, in his second sermon, said: 
" Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blot- 
ted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the 
presence of the Lord." (Acts iii. 19, R. V.) First, the repenting; 
second, the turning; third, the forgiveness; and then, fourth, the 
season of rejoicing, the gift of the Spirit. What was that turn- 
ing? Answer me that question. It was something they were 
commanded to do, hence it was a work of some kind ; it came be- 
fore the forgiveness and the season of refreshing, but after repent- 
ance and (as chapter xii. 21 shows) after faith. Again I ask, What 
was that turning ? 


The gentleman thinks it would be dreadful to sing in eternity 
about having loved Christ and obeyed him in baptism, and about 
having our sins thus washed away in his blood. That would be 
awful! But how delightful will be the song those rulers of the 
Jews will sing there! They believed, but they confessed him notj 
they stepped not out on his side, for they feared the Pharisees ; 
they were not willing to be put out of the synagogue for Christ's 
sake; they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God; 
yet, says Moody, they were saved; that is the glorious, "heaven- 
high" faith, that is the kind of faith that takes you to the blood! 
How low and debased by the side of it is the faith that lovingly 
obeys Christ in baptism, trusting in him to forgive one's sins ! 

The extract which the gentleman read from Brother Briney 7 
when properly understood, is correct. To be justified by law 
would be to live a faultless life, to do right always, everywhere. 
To be justified by grace is to trust in Christ and do what he says 7 
that he may save you, realizing your sinfulness and inability to 
save yourself. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Ninth Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

In a former debate I congratulated Mr. Harding on Ms mourning 
and weeping over his sins, and asked him if he had been on a 
bench if it would not have been a mourner's bench. He replied 
that he did not weep for himself, but he wept for Jesus, "over his 
trials and persecutions." In his sixth reply you see that on this 
human sympathy for the suffering Jesus he wept, and "was bap- 
tized, and was freed from his sins." He says, "On this point I 
have not a single doubt," and that he had "rather trust in God's 
Word than in his feelings." But the matter is, he has neither to 
trust in. Taking his own story, his feelings were of no account, 
as he confesses, and the "Word" he will never find. He claims to 
have gone down into the water a child of the devil and came up a 
child of God, and there is no word for it. Of course those Bap- 
tists who heard from others of the grace of God as displayed in 
their experience and personal consciousness, felt condemned be- 
cause they could not tell what the Lord had done for their souls; 
and when they went to the no-experience party and were made to 
believe that the tale of the others was all a delusion, how natural 
that they should rejoice with fleshly delight, and how natural that 
they should strive to spread their new faith, because there was 
consolation in it for all non-possessing professors. They thus con- 
firmed themselves. In Paul's day there were those who preached 
Christ through strife, hoping to add affliction to others, and that 
was the most zealous party of those days. 

I throw the Mill Creek Church back on my friend, and charge 
him with a square dodge. It has gone to record, and I have him 
tied hand and foot. 

His statements concerning White Mills and Pikeville were ex- 
posed in, my paper of March 23d, and, if necessary, I will expose 
them again, by giving the simple facts and figures. Mr. Harding 
feels he must do something for a show in this debate, but I will 
attend to him at every point. The exposure I gave his boasts of 
"the fruits of his debate" last spring I thought would compel him 


to leave the country. I dared him then to show up facts, figures 
and faces, and his reutterance of these things is unaccountable. 
If he compels me I will expose him in this debate by giving again 
the facts. 

His question about turning to the Lord is pertinent, and it af- 
fords me pleasure to teach him, especially if he has the spirit of a 
true enquirer. The Old Scriptures to which he appeals when it 
suits him, speaks, of "turning from evil ways," "from idols," etc., 
and of " turning to the Lord," of " turning to the commandments 
of the Lord," and of "turning to the Lord and keeping his com- 
mandments." Sometimes it is repent and turn, but in Acts xi. 21 
it is believe and turn. So we learn that if a man was an idolater 


he should turn from his idols to serve the living God. If a Jew, 
-he should turn from Judaism to the Lord. If my friend should 
>ever come to the true faith he should turn from following Alexan- 
der Campbell and turn to the Lord. The text does not say that 
they believed and turned to the Lord, and then they were forgiven; 
neither does any text say it. But by scrapping Scripture he finds 
two pieces he can put together, that God never joined, and in that 
way he can make a show of Scripture. Mr. Campbell says in his 
note: "Turned over upon, cast themselves upon the Lord." This 
is all he does say. McGarvey never dreamed of my friend's cogi- 
tation. I venture to say such a thought never entered any brain 
but Mr. Harding's, and how natural that he should magnify his 
-own invention. He tries to make a Scripture teach that one must 
believe and turn to the Lord in baptism in order to pardon, but he 
will never find the Scripture. He tries to dodge on the McGarvey 
testimony, but he could not q'uite succeed, and so it stands that 
the greatest lights among them are coming to the light. Mr. Mc- 
Garvey expects the pious unbaptized to be saved, Mr. Harding does 
not. So Mr. McGarvey is a strong witness against my friend's doc- 
trine. Mr. Harding thinks that the Christians among other denom- 
inations are confined to the dipped, and he thinks of only that 
quality, and he asks no other questions when they come to join 

His father Campbell is a witness against him. He thought his 
"Unbaptized son was saved, and'in that he ruined my friend's prop- 
osition. He wants to know if I endorse " certain " of ours. For 
the present I adopt his answer on Lamar: "Not every thing he 
says, by a good deal. Neither do rny brethren. Occasionally a 
man rises among us who yearns for the flesh pots of Egypt." I 


will answer more particularly as I proceed. On Anderson he makes- 
a square dodge. He does not answer like a man, but like a " cra- 
ven coward/ 7 to use his own language. Mr. Anderson says: "When 
in Kentucky last fall I found that the proposition, baptism is for 
the remission of sins, was debated." In that connection he says : 
"I determined to reject it. It cannot be defended by sound exe- 
gesis. ... I adopted the view that baptism is symbolical." 
Now, let Mr. Harding say like a man whether he endorses Mr. An- 
derson's meaning. He knows what he means, and he knows he 
dodged the meaning, and tried to hide behind ambiguous words, 
as he usually does. Anderson's new translation of Acts ii. 38 is 
in the line of some of our Baptist teachers. He makes it "the 
outward sign of an inward grace," a "likeness" and & "symbol." 
He says: "Baptism in water is the outward sign of that which 
takes place within," and that "faith appropriates the blessings of" 
the Gospel ; " that " the evidence of pardon is within a man, not 
without him." So he considers baptism an outward expression of 
the taking away of sins,- and this is certainly what he means. He 
says: "So, I perceive, will all men understand who know how to 
interpret the language of the Scriptures." I have put my ques- 
tions to Mr. Harding so as to draw out his true inwardness. It is 
evident that in one place he rejects his doctrine that faith precedes 
repentance. It is equally evident that he rejects the other doc- 
trine that "faith precedes baptism." For in both cases he says 
that faith is dead. Now, I ask him if in. those Scriptures which 
say "repent and believe," if faith and repentance include each 
other, and if both are dead? And if faith and baptism include 
each other where we have "believe and be baptized?" And ir 
these terms necessarily include each other, why are they so often 
made distinct and separate? He asked me if Peter did not tell 
some to believe and repent. I answer emphatically, No; nobody 
with Bible sense on this subject ever taught such foolishness. The 
gentleman dodged again on the real and figurative senses. If 
blood really cleanses from sin, the water can only figuratively do 
so, or the blood does not really cleanse. 

He manufactures another Scripture: "Except a man be baptized,, 
believing in his heart that Jesus is the Christ, he cannot enter into 
the Church of God." He then asks: "Can a sinner be saved with- 
out entering the Church?" I candidly ask, How far is it to Hornet 
Now, two more questions : Can a sinner enter the Church without 
a dip? and can a sinner get dipped by any one in this world save- 


one of his preachers or a Mormon priest? Then who can be saved! 
Baptists don't dip sinners if they know it, neither do Protestants 
or Catholics. 

Does Dr. Graves' view of John iii. 5 help the gentleman's doc- 
trine? Then why does he waste time quoting him? Here is Dr. 
Graves' reply to Mr. Harding's use of his language: "During the 
forty -five years of my public teaching, by voice and pen, I have ever 
and most emphatically maintained that regeneration of heart, birth, 
of the Spirit, as an assured salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, 
is an essential qualification for baptism, and that in ho instance 
in God's Word has he connected the actual remission of sins and 
salvation with an overt act that must be performed by a third per- 
son; and now I say, for any man in the least acquainted with my 
teaching, to wrest any sentence of mine to teach the opposite doc- 
triue, is nothing less than a willful perversion of my well known 

Dr. Lofton also remonstrates: "Elder Harding's interpretations 
of the garbled extract from my St. Louis lecture is an utter per- 
version of my argument for the position and design of baptism, as 
the lecture will show for itself, and as my recent defense in the 
Baptist of July 6th demonstrates. I have an utter abhorrence for 
the Campbellite assumption of baptismal remission, and my inten- 
tion in the lecture was to oppose the pedobaptist doctrine of bap- 
tism before conversion, and of the Campbellite position that con- 
version is ultimately the result of baptism! Let any one read my 
lecture and see." 

I now proceed to show that the "like blessings of salvation" are 
received before baptism. 


Eegeneration, or the new birth, is one of these blessings. A man 
don't want to enter the kingdom without discerning it, and he can't 
disc'ern it till he is born again. "Except a man be born again he 
cannot discern the kingdom of heaven." And if the kingdom 
equals the Church, and a man cannot be saved till he enters the 
Church, then baptism does not save, for he must be born of water 
and the Spirit or he cannot enter. Whosoever believeth has been 
born of God. Baptism is righteousness, and whosoever doeth 
righteousness has been born of God. As faith and love must pre- 
cede baptism, so the new birth must precede baptism, acccording 
to all Scripture teaching. 



1 John iv. 15 : " Wosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of 
God, God dwelleth in him and he in God." Confession is before 
baptism, and "whosoever "takes in all of that class. Hence, this 
vital union and oneness with the Father must in every case precede 
baptism. Ten thousand intellectual giants are not able to twist 
this Scripture. God could not make it stronger by the use of plain 
' language. Bom. x. 9 : " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the 
Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God has raised him 
from the dead, thou shalt be saved." This must be done before 
baptism, and often without baptism. All of these pious pedobap- 
tists have thus confessed, but my friend is ready to say, Christ will 
not confess them. They have confessed their sins, and if he has 
not forgiven their sins and cleansed them from all unrighteousness, 
then he is neither "faithful" nor "just" Hence, all the blessings 
promised .to confession are received In confession, and this is be- 
fore baptism, and my friend's doctrine is antiscriptural and anti- 


Sanctification is a progressive work, but it begins before bap- 
tism. Paul ministered the Gospel of God "that the ottering up of 
the Gentiles might be accepted, having been sanctified by the Holy 
Spirit." (Rom. xv. 16.) It is unto obedience and sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter i. 2.) God hath from the beginning 
chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and 
belief of the truth. (2 Thess. ii. 13.) But it don't suit my friend's 

plea, and hence he will (?). Acts xxvi. 18 shows that we are 

sanctified by faith that is in Christ. In the continuance of this work 
there is sanctification of the Christian in his life, that is, through 
the truth. Now, watch Mr. Harding hiss this Scripture on the 
others. They are all true, but none of them suits his doctrine, and 
if those Scriptures don't give this like blessing of salvation before 
baptism then God himself is unable to give a revelation. 


Except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, we shall in no wise enter the kingdom of 
God. My friend says this is the Church which we enter by bap- 
tism. Then baptism must be deferred until one's righteousness 
thus "exceeds." This righteousness must come up to the full re- 


quirement of the law. All sins must be taken away, and all omis- 
sions of duty must be supplied, and all before one can enter what 
my friend calls the Church. A man must be without spot or 
wrinkle, or any such thing. "Unblamable and unreprovable in his 
sight." He must be as righteous as Christ himself, or as righteous 
as perfect obedience to a perfect law would make him. The per- 
fect cleansing is effected by the blood of Christ, which cleanseth 
us from all sin. But remission is not righteousness. There might 
be forgiveness and no righteousness. If a man has gone fifty 
miles in the wrong direction, forgiveness would put him back at 
the starting ppint. But he ought to have been fifty miles in the 
right direction. Eighteousness will put him there. So transgres- 
sion is going in the wrong direction, and forgiveness makes him 
as though he had not sinned. But the law is also preceptive, re- 
quiring perfection in duty. Not only forbidding the wrong, but 
also requiring the right. God cannot save a man on principles of 
justice without requiring or supplying this righteous demand. 
How can this be done? 2 Cor. v. 21: "For he has made him to be 
sin for us who knew no sin, that he might be made the righteous- 
ness of God in him." Not that we might obtain pardon of God in 
baptism. There is no such Scripture. We must not only put off 
the old corrupt and deceitful man, but we must put on the new 
man, which, after God, has been created in righteousness and true 
holiness. (Eph. iv. 24.) One says, "Made the righteousness of 
God in him," the other, "Created in righteousness and true holi- 
ness." There must be a new creation in Christ Jesus unto good 
works. This righteousness is called the righteousness of God, of 
Christ, and is to be imputed on the same principle that our sins 
were imputed to Christ, who took them and bore them, but not 
by doing sin. So we take this righteousness and bear it, not by 
doing it (Rom. iv. 6), but simply receiving it, with all of its results,, 
as Christ did our sins. The .disobedience of Adam made many 
sinners, the obedience of Christ makes many righteousness. This 
righteousness of Christ is a gift (Bom. v. 17) by imputation, and 
received by faith, and exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees. 
Now, it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed 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. This must be 
done before baptism, hence the righteousness of God, which is im- 
puted by faith, must be before baptism. But my opponent does 
not like it, and he is striving to disprove it, so that all the pious- 


unbaptized, who believe according to the above, may have their 
damnation made sure ; and if he succeeds, his people, unrestrained 
by these moderators, will burst the floor and rend the air with ap- 
provals of delight. But the Word of God cannot be broken, and 
my friend and his people are only breaking their own necks in this 
effort. Eead Eom. ix. 30-32 and x. 1-4, ending with "Christ is the 
end of law for righteousness to every one that believeth." This 
takes in our candidates for baptism, but, according to him, his are 
left out. Phil. iii. 9, Paul says: "I would be found in him, not hav- 
ing on my own righteousness which is of law, but that which is 
through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
faith." But enough. What more can God say than that he has 
said? Surely enough to stop the mouths of all gainsay ers, but such 
as will not, in seeming defiance of his Word. All the teaching of 
God's Word is to the effect that all the "like blessings" of salva- 
tion come to faith; but faith, with my opponent, is nothing without 
a dip. 

And so if we consider the other like blessings, such as adop- 
tion, acceptance, quickened, circumcised, new creation, sealed, 
"translation from death to life, from darkness to light, etc. Gather 
every Scripture under each head, and they would all teach the 
same doctrine. My friend will never find where the like blessings 
of salvation are predicated of baptism, but they are always predi- 
cated of something that must precede baptism. We have time to 
mention only one or two more with Scripture support. 


Mercy is a "like blessing" of salvation, and is connected with 
the remission of sins. Luke i. 77-79: "To give knowledge of sal- 
vation unto his people, in the remission of their sins, through the 
tender mercy of our God." My friend thinks we receive this knowl- 
edge through baptism, and he thinks no unbaptized man, despite 
the mercy of God, can have a knowledge of forgiveness. 1 Peter 
ii. 10 reads: "Which in time past were not a people, but are now 
the people of God, which had not obtained mercy, but now 
have obtained mercy." Mr. Harding thinks this mercy which 
makes us the people of God is obtained in baptism. But I 
am willing that the Scriptures shall say when and how. Eph. 
ii. 4, in its connection, clearly settles this question: "But God, 
who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved 
us, even when we were dead in sin, hath quickened us to- 


gether with Christ (by grace are ye saved). And hath raised us 
up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ 
Jesus." So far we have learned that through mercy we obtain a 
knowledge of forgiveness; through mercy we become the people 
of God; through mercy we are quickened; and this saving mercy 
came to us, even while we were dead in sins. And, since a man 
must be freed from sin before he becomes a servant of righteous- 
ness, or before he is buried in baptism, therefore he receives the 
saving mercy of God before baptism. Eom. ix. 15 shows the sov- 
ereignty of God in the exercise of his mercy, both toward Jews and 
Gentiles. Beginning with xi. 30 we read: "For as ye in time past 
have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their 
unbelief, even so have these, also, now not believed, that through 
your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded 
them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." But to 
tie my friend, hand and foot, and to stop his mouth, and to show 
him that he is in utter darkness, I will quote this passage from the 
Oxford Eevision, which is confirmed by Wilson, Sawyer, Living 
Oracles and Mr. Harding: 

"For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have 
obtained mercy by their disobedience, even so have these also 
now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they also 
may now obtain mercy. For God hath shut up all (eis) unto diso- 
bedience, that he might have mercy upon all." 

Now what will my friend say? Will he yet kick against the 
goads? Will he still resist the Holy Ghost? Is he determined not 
to know the Scriptures? If so, I leave him to the mercy of that 
Scripture which says: "If a man will be ignorant, let him be igno- 
rant." In harmony with this is all Scripture teaching. Hear 
David's prayer: "Have mercy upon me, God, according to thy 
loving kindness, according unto the multitude of thy tender mer- 
cies blot out my transgressions." Hear Pau^, in 1 Tim. i. 12-16 : 
"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me for that 
he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, who was 
before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I ob- 
tained mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief." Here Paul 
obtained mercy while in unbelief. In other words, he obtained 
mercy before" he was baptized. Verse 14 : "And the grace of our 
Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love, which is in 
'Christ Jesus." Here, as usual, we see that an ounce of love or 
faith is worth a ton of baptism. A man may be over-much bap- 


tized yet poverty-stricken as to love and faith which is in Christ 
Jesus. A hint to the wise is sufficient. Verse 15 : " This is a= 
faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ 
came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. How- 
beit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ 
might show forth all long suffering for a pattern to them which- 
should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." Thus mercy 
comes in its quickening power to the dead sinner, and makes him 
alive, blots out his transgressions, and gives him a conscious- 
knowledge of it, and works in him conviction, repentance, prayer, 
faith, love, and all the Christian graces, and all the like blessings 
of salvation. My friend can no more harmonize these Scriptures 
with his doctrine than he can the other Scriptures, and his efforts- 
in that direction are before you all. I hope when he comes to re- 
ply to this that he will Dot pursue his usual course, by diverting 
your minds to some new and strange questions, conceived in his 
own inventive imagination, but that he "will try his hand, at least 
one time, in showing, in the light of reason and Scripture, what 
they do mean. 

Before closing this speech, I will say something in answer to his 
seventh reply. The man does not live, and never did live, who 
can prove that I misrepresent him in discussion. It is one thing 
to say it, and another thing to prove it. On Acts xiii. 38, 39, 
changed to suit Mr. Harding's doctrine, I put baptism in the text 
because his doctrine requires it. I told him in my first speech 
that whenever I used the term baptism, I meant all of its prereq- 
uisites, as without them it can be no baptism. This I have never 
varied from. I never said, or intimated, that he or his people ever 
baptized anybody but those who had their prerequisites 5 but their 
prerequisites amount to nothing, because they bring nothing, they 
reach nothing, they obtain nothing; but, like faith, they are all 
dead. I hope this wjill satisfy him on that. 

His assertions on eis will be considered in the proper place.. 
The pages of this debate will show who introduced those unpleas- 
ant personalities and boasts of progress, as fruits of debates, and 
these pages will show who is to be relied upon in this matter. As. 
an earnest, I will give you these statements: Mr. Harding pub- 
lished in bis paper, .and reiterated in this debate, by the authority 
of his best members, that ninety per cent of his Church at Water- 
town came from us. 

With a good number of my Watertown brethren in council we 


mad out 'seventy-five of his members who were never Baptists. 
This would constitute the ten per cent. The rest, ninety per cent, 
or 675, went from the Baptists, if Mr. Hardiug's statement is true. 
But, according to his fresh statistics, seventy-one, instead of sev- 
enty-five, constitute the ten per cent, and 639 is the ninety per 
cent, if his statement is true. But this 639 has fallen to twenty- 
one ("what a fall was there, my countrymen!"), and we think that 
number could yet be reduced. But neither the 639 nor the twenty-- 
one is the result of the debate, nor is either number to be applied 
to the increase, for many of them were in the constitution, andi^ 
like many of their proselytes from us, are not known by us. Only 
four have joined since the debate, and some of them have a his- 
tory which my friend can draw out if he wishes. I deny again 
that one of these was the result of the debate, and Mr. Harding's 
" respectable officer" and reporter will never say it again. He de- 
clares, in the face of a committee of my brethren, that he never 
said it. Neither will he ever say again that "not one was excluded 
from the Baptists before joining us." Nor will he say again that 
any judge of DeKalb County was converted by the-debate. Here 
we tie up hands and feet. I hinted to my friend in the Pikeville 
debate not to boast of a certain apostate from the Baptists until 
he knew more about it. But he would not take the hint, but said 
if the things intimated were true that he would brand him as a 
liar, and have him excluded from his Church. The facts I was com- 
pelled to divulge were, that he had been twice excluded from Bap- 
tist Churches for immoral conduct, and received by them not a 
whit better, but the rather worse, and it will not 'do to let even 
the "winds that round our pathway roar" whisper of recent re- 
ports, and here he is quoting him in this debate as a reliable 

I deny, and am ready to disprove, his whole assertion as without 
foundation, and I will do it if compelled. He has filled three de- 
bates with me, and is now filling the fourth, with personalities. 
But let me suffer in place of the truth. If he can't successfully 
assail my arguments, then, of course, he will assail me. He has 
been hunting and trying to make a sore in my reputation and 
character for many years, not that he may give it the soothing ad- 
ministration of a benevolent dog, but that he may aggravate it, or 
make it the enterance through which he may enter and destroy 
my vitals. Never was a vulture more delighted with a carcass 
than he seems to be with a batch of scandals. His insinuations 



about my intentional skipping and misrepresenting is not the lan- 
guage of one gentleman towards another, and no gentleman can 
afford to reply. Let slandermakers and slandermongers throw 
their filth on their ilk, and not on those who are clean of it, and 
who never charge it upon others. "As a man thinketh, so is he." 
Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Ninth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Truth is always consistent, and he who is careful about telling 
the truth need not be fearful about crossing his own pathway. 
But woe be to the man who is not scrupulous and punctilious about 
telling the truth, for when one begins to misrepresent and falsify, 
in spite of every thing he will cross his own path. Let me give 
you an illustration: You remember my opponent (astonishing 
man !) charged us with making baptism the " all in all ; " he clearly 
intimated that we have no use for the Scripture that does not con- 
tain baptism, or water, or something that we construe to mean 
baptism; we put little or no stress on the "nominal prerequisites," 
he claimed. In answer to all this, I showed that we require always 
a loving, trusting, penitent faith, and we teach that without it bap- 
tism is worthless. I appealed to the audience, who had heard me 
preach, and who knew what I had taught in this community. The 
gentleman then squarely intimated that my statement was untrue, 
that no man had ever heard me teach believers to repent. I re- 
plied that I had recently conducted a meeting for nearly seven 
weeks within three blocks of where we are now standing, and I 
was willing to submit the question to the audience, believing that 
five hundred people would at once arise and testify they had heard 
me so teach. He objected, saying my brethren were perfectly 
under my control, and would testify to any thing at my call; (that 
I would ask them to testify to a falsehood, and they would do it). 
I showed that Alexander Campbell, and all of us, teach the neces- 
sity of the faith that trusts Jesus, of sorrow for sin, of repentance 
growing out of that sorrow, of being baptized, trusting in Jesus. 
His reply was, like the Pharisees, you say and do not. Now, with 
this in your mind, listen to this statement from his last speech. 
He said: "I never said, or intimated, that he or his people ever 
baptized anybody but those who had their prerequisites." 

Did you ever hear the like? After admitting that in debate I 
was very orthodox in speech, that I claimed to teach repentance, 
after charging that I say and do not, after denying that anybody 


had ever heard me teach believers to repent, he has the effrontery 
to say: "I never said, nor intimated, that he or his people ever 
baptized anybody but those who had their prerequisites." Aston- 
ishing man ! He who deviates from the right path needs a good 

Then, with a meek, much-injured look upon him, referring to 
my statement about his skipping, he says : " His insinuations about 
my intentional skipping and misrepresenting is not the language 
of one gentleman towards another, and no gentleman can afford to- 
reply." Indeed; why not, pray? Did you not charge me with 
claiming to teach believers to repent, when I did not? Did you 
not charge my brethren with being willing to testify that they 
heard me so teach, when they had not? Did you not accuse us of 
being like the Pharisees in saying and doing not? But when I 
call the attention of the audience to the fact that you skipped four 
times in reading that extract from Norton's letter, you are very in- 
dignant. You did skip, and you dare not deny it; they heard me 
call you back, and saw you were forced to read the skipped pas- 
sages, which were emphatically against you; they heard your mod- 
erator, Dr. Lofton, apologize for you at the close of the session,, 
saying that the light was not good, and that he did not believe you 
skipped on purpose. But you had been reading your speeches by 
that light all the time, from that scrap-book. I don't see why you 
could not read from a printed paper. Besides, I don't see why 
your sight should fail you so just when you came to the passages 
that were so emphatically against you. Ah, my friend, had you 
made a fair, honorable, manly argument you would have been met 
in like manner, without an unkind word from me. I had a debate 
of twelve two-hour sessions with your former partner, J. N. Hall, 
in which not an unkind word was uttered. Brother Hall acted like 
a gentleman. But when you, sir, charge me with falsehood, and 
my brethren with being willing to testify to its truthfulness, it is 
natural that I should endeavor to impeach you as a witness. 1 
have shown that your statement about the First Baptist Church of 
this city was misleading ; that your statement about the Alexan- 
dria Church house was false, and that, while professing to read 
from Norton, "just as it is" you skipped awfully. You told the peo- 
ple that when you read it it would sound very differently from 
what it did when I read it; and it did, indeed. You called it "good 
old Baptist doctrine." Norton says, " Can you deny, without doing 
violence to Mark xvi. 16, that a true profession of trust in Christ 


"by being immersed is one of the things on which the promise of 
salvation is there made to depend?" Is that "good old Baptist 
doctrine?" (Ton skipped that passage.) Norton says again, "Can 
you deny that the command in Acts ii. 38 to be immersed 'for the 
pardon of sins 7 that obedience to that command, if it springs 
from repentance and faith, receives from God the assurance that 
sins are forgiven?" Is that "good old Baptist doctrine," as you 
called it the other night, or will you take back your own words, 
and forsake your highly-honored correspondent, Dr. Wm. Norton? 
Norton inquires again, "Do you believe the truth of what Peter 
asserts in very plain words, that as the ark saved Noah, so immer- 
sion, as the means by which we seek salvation, with a pure con- 
science, 'now saves us?' Will you deny the truth of this asser- 
tion, and say that instead of saving us actually, as the ark saved 
Noah, it is nothing but a picture of salvation?" 

Ah, fine words are those, to appear in your paper, from your 
highly-lauded English correspondent, Dr. Norton, at the very time 
that we are discussing this question. Being a strong believer in 
special providence, I thank my Father for his kindness in furnish- 
ing me with this paper at this time. Do you still call that "good 
old Baptist doctrine?" You have been telling us that baptism 
saves us in a figure (the idea, saved in a figure!), but Norton says 
it actually saves us, as the ark actually saved Noah. This is one 
of the places where your eyesight failed when you were reading 
from Norton, " just as it was" and I had to call you back before 
you could see it. Answer me now like a man, do you still claim to 
agree with Norton? Is his teaching Baptist doctrine? 0, you 
won't talk while I am speaking! Considerate man ! Well, maybe 
your moderator will. Dr. Lofton, is Norton's teaching "good old 
Baptist doctrine?" 

Dr. Lofton "No, sir,- it is not Baptist teaching, nor is he a 

J. A. Harding He is a Baptist, a member of the Baptist Church 
in England, and the English correspondent to Brother Moody's 
paper. He is a closecommuniou English Baptist, while the famous 
Spurgeon is an opencoinmunion English Baptist, who attends to 
the Lord's Supper on every first day of the week. 

Dr. Lofton "I mean he is not a true Baptist." 

Harding Weil/ that is where you differ from your friend, Moody, 
unless he has "advanced backward," after the manner of the craw- 
fish, since he read from Norton. By the way, I wonder how 


Brother Moody will fix up this Norton matter when he prepares 
his speeches for the book. Will he have the skips in it, do you 
suppose? Will he call it "good old Baptist doctrine" there as he 
does here? Or will he think that, as discretion is the better part 
of valor, it will be wise to make no reference to it at all? We 
will see when the time comes. But, no matter what he does, I 
promise you this Norton letter shall be a prick in his eyes and a 
thorn in his flesh for many days to come. You see, it has effected 
his sight already. 

But let me give you some other illustrations of his unreliability. 
He says: "Mr. Harding published in his paper, and reiterated in 
this debate, by the authority of his best members, that ninety per 
cent of his Church at Watertown came from us." 

I did no such thing. I was informed by a preaching brother, wha 
does not live at Watertown, but who knows the Church well, that 
he supposed ninety per cent of the Church came from the Baptists, 
and I so published in our paper. I did not say it was a fact, but 
simply gave it as the opinion of this one brother. He had not ex- 
amined the books, but was merely giving his judgment from his 
general knowledge of the Church. I was informed by brethren 
who were better situated to know that his was an overestimate,, 
and I so stated when the matter was first referred to in this de- 
bate. I suppose he included in his remark not only those who- 
had been members of the Baptist Church, but those also who were 
brought up in Baptist families and under Baptist teaching. If so r 
he should have said fifty per cent instead of ninety. 

The "respectable officer" who gave me the statistics of the Wa- 
tertown Church, and whose letter I read in your hearing last night,, 
is Dr. E. H. Baker, the secretary and treasurer of the Church. 
Every statement in that letter, which has now gone to record (the 
readers of the book can see it), is strictly and literally true. We 
have ninety-two members at Watertown ; twenty-one of them came 
from the Baptists (we have since found that two more of them did, 
making twenty-three in all) ; not one of the twenty-one was ever 
excluded from the Baptists till after they came to us; not one of 
them ran from exclusion ; not one of them was coerced by inter- 
marriage with a disciple; and the charges made by Brother Moody 
to that effect are false, and utterly without foundation in fact. Dr. 
Baker (having been interviewed by a Baptist committee) has come 
to see me, and he wants it distinctly understood that he takes back 
not a word from that letter; he means it all. His wife is one of 


those who has been represented as having been coerced by inter- 
marriage. With just indignation, he says the man who so affirms 
is a vile slanderer. He did not say that the judge of DeKalb 
County was changed by the debate, for he did not know whether 
he was or not. And when Brother Moody claims that he said it 
he makes a false claim, without any foundation in fact. He who 
reads the book can read the letter and see for himself. He simply 
said the judge attended the debate, and came to us afterward. 
Whether he was changed by it or not he did not know. He did 
not say that any of those who came to us at Watertown after the 
debate were changed by it. We let the facts speak for themselves. 
Eight Baptists (four at Watertown and four at Alexandria) have 
come to us since the Moody-Lipscomb debate. Three of those 
who came in at Alexandria attended the debate. There have been 
sixty-four additions to the Watertown Church since its organiza- 
tion ; forty-nine of them came in since the debate, thirty of them 
in a few months after, and nineteen at the next protracted meet- 
ing. Pacts talk. It was I who said two of those Alexandria Bap- 
tists acknowledged that they were changed by the debate. I 
learned the fact from one of my brethren in this city who is a 
brother-in-law to the gentlemen. 

Since writing his letter to me, Dr. Baker had his attention called 
to a fact that he did not know before. Some Baptist there called his 
attention to it. It is this : There is a worthy old man in our Church 
at Watertown, as humble, devout and earnest as any in the county, 
who came to us about twelve years ago. He confessed Christ, and 
was immersed, and has since been a faithful Christian. It now ap- 
pears that about twenty years ago he was excluded from the Bap- 
tist Church for drinking and swearing, I believe. Dr. Baker did 
not know he had ever been a Baptist when he wrote that letter. 
He is not included in the twenty-one mentioned in the letter. 

My erring Brother Moody then refers to the Pikeville debate, 
and to one of my brethren who attended it, who, he says, was 
twice excluded from the Baptist Church. This charge is as incor- 
rect as any of the others. That brother was never excluded from 
the Baptist Church but once, and that was after uniting with us. 
He was charged with fighting. -He took part in a fracas between his 
uncle and his brother, to deliver his brother, who was getting the 
worst of it. He made no defense before the Baptists, because, 
having been influenced by the Bible and the teaching of his wife, 
he was already prepared to unite with us, and did so before the 


.Baptists took action on his case. He had united with the Bap- 
tists when very young, became dissatisfied with his baptism, and 
had been rebaptized by them before coming to us. Brother Moody 
intimates that reports are now in circulation to his injury. He 
makes mean insinuations to that effect. Then he talks about my 
delighting in personalities and scandals! Have I attacked any 
man since this debate began but J. B. Moody? Have I made a sin- 
gle unkind insinuation against any one but him ? I don't remem- 
ber it if I have. I am not here to make war on those who are not 
here to defend themselves, or who cannot speak if they are here. 
I was always taught that it is an unmanly thing to strike women 
and children, and men who are so bound as to be unable to strike 
back. But not so, it appears, with J. B. Moody. They are the 
kind of people he likes to fight. Time and again, in speech after 
speech, he has cast reflections upon the honesty and purity of my 
brethren. He attacks them, male>and female, imputes unworthy 
motives to them, and makes dark insinuations about what he could 
tell about them if he would. My brothers and sisters in this room 
are all ready to testify that a lie is the truth, he says; we have no 
faith, no repentance, no confession, no obedience; we talk about 
love and obedience, but he confidently affirms that we have nei- 
ther, that we are the last people on earth that anybody would come 
to to find either love or obedience ; of the Baptists that came to 
us at Watertown he intimates that some of them have bad records 
that I can draw out if I want to; and then he makes his mean, 
ugly insinuations about the brother we met at Pikeville last sum- 
mer. Concerning all of which I have just this to say: If we have 
any man among us who is as bad as my erring Brother Moody, he 
ought to be withdrawn from at once, lest others be contaminated 
with the awful leprosy. But I don't think we have such a man in 
our ranks. The Lord forbid that we ever should have ! 

Before the gentleman talks any more about scandals, let him in- 
vestigate the record books of the First Baptist Church of this city. 
A hint to the wise, etc. 

He talks about exposures of my reports of the results of our 
debates that he could give. All right ; bring on your exposures. 
But you need not be disturbed, Mends, by his threats; they are 
like his promises to answer my questions. Do you still endorse 
that Norton letter ? 

But I am reminded that, after so long a time, he did in his last 
speech make a pretense of answering my questions concerning the 


facts that both faith and repentance are followed by a turning to 
G-od. In apostolic times they believed and turned to the Lord ; 
they repented and turned to God. What was this turning? I asked. 
Did it come before pardon? Then something intervened between 
faith and repentance on the one side, and pardon on the other; for 
after the faith and repentance came the turning, and after the 
turning the pardon ; and then it follows by absolute demonstration 
that the sinner is not justified by "faith only," since that some- 
thing called "turning to the Lord" must be added to the faith. 
Hence, Brother Moody is by no means ready to admit that the 
turning comes before the pardon. He says : " The text does not 
say that they believed and turned to the Lord, and then they were 
forgiven; neither does any text say it; but by scrapping Script- 
ures he finds two pieces he can put together, that God never 
joined, and in that way he can make a show at Scripture." Well, 
let us see about that, my friends. Do you suppose God would for- 
give a man before the man had turned to him? But here are some 
of the Scriptures on which I rely to show that the turning comes 
before the pardon. You see I get them from both Old -Testament 
and New. 

"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him 
while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unright- 
eous man his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and he 
will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly 
pardon." (Isa. Iv. 6, 7.) 

"Eepent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be 
blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the 
presence of the Lord." (Acts iii. 19, E. V.) 

And Christ spoke to Paul about the Gentiles, " Unto whom," said 
he, "I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from dark- 
ness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that 
are sanctified by faith in me." (Acts xxvi. 17, 18.) 

Hence, you see, people had to turn to the Lord that their sins 
might be "blotted out," that they might receive "remission of 
sins," or "pardon." They were sanctfied by faith, true enough, 
but it was by a faith perfected by- works, a faith that turned to the 
Lord, and not by faith only. Those rulers of the Jews believed, 
but they did not turn to the Lord, and hence were not pardoned. 

The gentleman wants to know why I believe baptism is the 
turning act. I take pleasure in telling him. Because Peter, in his 


first sermon under the great commission, told the people to re- 
pent and be baptized ; in his second he said repent and turn again; 
Luke in one place says the people "believed and were baptized;" 
in another, in relating a similar case, he said they "believed and 
turned to the Lord." And Jesus said, "He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved," thus putting baptism between believing 
and the forgiveness. These passages do not need a comment. Do 
you see now why my brethren hold that baptism, to the penitent 
believer, is the turning act? It seems to me that any man ought 
to be able to see it. 

Brother Moody's explanation that the turning consisted in turn- 
ing from idolatry or Judaism does not help him in the least. Did 
not that turning precede pardon and follow faith? Would God 
pardon an idolater before he forsook his idols? Would the idolater 
forsake his idols for the one true God before he believed in God 
and disbelieved in his idols? So still it stands thus: (1) faith, (2) 
the turning to God, and- (3) the pardon. But how does an idolater 
turn to God? Is there any thing for him. to do in turning? I know 
how a democrat turns to republicanism; there is first a change of 
convictions (faith), and then a change of speech and action (faith 
perfected by works). If the democrat's conviction, faith, is 
changed, but his life is not if he continues to talk, vote and act 
as formerly, he has never truly turned to the other party. He is- 
like friend Moody's beloved rulers of the Jews, who believed, but 
obeyed not. Naaman turned to the Lord, and he was cured of his 
leprosy. Did he not do something in the turning? Yes; he for- 
sook his own notion, he accepted the Lord's word, and he acted 
upon it, and thus he obtained the blessing. And that is the way 
to turn to the Lord. 

Again I ask, Do you still teach that those rulers of the Jews were 
saved ? If so, how did they turn to the Lord? or were they saved 
without turning to the Lord ? They did not forsake their Judaism, 
that is certain, up to the last accounts that we had of them. 

Now, to another point: Paul was terrible in his persecution of 
the Church before his conversion, but he says : "I obtained mercy, 
because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief." Upon which my sapient 
friend comments thus: "Here Paul obtained mercy while in unbe- 
lief. In other words, he obtained mercy before he was baptized."" 
Ah, did not he obtain mercy also before he believed ? If that 
proves that baptism is not in order to forgiveness, does it not also 
prove that faith is not? What, then, did you mean by adding,. 


"Here, as usual, we see that an ounce of love and faith is worth a 
ton of baptism?" If God had mercy upon Paul, as you say, before 
he believed or was baptized, how does that fact help you to show 
that pardon comes after faith and before baptism? that faith is so- 
much better than baptism ? Surely, the man's hatred of baptism 
has run him to madness! 

The facts that Paul was blind and miserable, that he neither ate 
nor drank for three days after believing in Christ, that he was 
waiting anxiously to hear what it was that Jesus had told him he 
must do, that he did not find peace and comfort in believing till 
Ananias, sent by the Lord, told him to arise and be baptized, and 
wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord, are all-sufii- 
cient and unmistakable proofs that he was not conscious of par- 
don at the moment of believing. Is faith necessary? So is obedi- 
ence. Does John say, " He that believeth on the Son hath eternal 
life?" Yes, but in the same verse he adds, "He that obeyeth not 
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.'^ 
(See John iii. 36, R. V.) The faith that saves is the faith that obeys.. 
I repeat my challenge again : Find me a case in which God ever 
gave any blessing to a man, woman or child, in any age of the world r 
on account of faith, before that faith was expressed in action, and I 
will give up the debate. 

Here is a passage to which I have never been able to draw 
Brother Moody one single time, so far as I remember, in all our 
debating. Possibly he will notice it now. It is this: 

"And being made perfect, he [Christ] became the author of eter- 
nal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb. v. 9.) 

Please put beside this verse the statement of the Savior, "He 
that believeth on the Son hath eternal life," and reconcile them if 
you can. To my mind this verse easily does it: "Thou seest that 
faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made per- 
fect." I repeat, the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. 

We go down into the water children of the devil, he says. Can 
children of the devil obey God? I reply, before a sinner believes, 
he is confessedly a child of the devil; when he believes, he obeys 
God. Cannot, then, a child of the devil obey God? a child that 
hates his father and is running from him, that loves Christ and is 
running to him? 

But your faith before baptism is dead, he says; how, then, can 
it induce a sinner to run to Christ? I reply, sinners are dead -in 
sin ; Christ calls them to him that he may give them life. Learn 


how a dead sinner can come to Christ, and you can easily see how 
dead faith can work, and thereby be made alive. The Primitive 
Baptist won't preach the Gospel to sinners, because they are dead; 
they teach that the sinner can't hear the Gospel, nor come to Christ, 
because he is dead. Answer this objection, and you will answer 
your own. Because the sinner is dead to (separated from) Christ, 
it does not follow that he is dead to every thing, and so of faith 
and love. The child in the womb is dead to (separated from) all 
external life, but it does not follow that he is dead to every thing. 
The believer is begotton of God; when he is baptized he is born 
again, and then he is alive in Christ and dead to sin. 

The gentleman's reference to the mourner's bench and to his 
former conversation with me is, as usual, incorrect. 

As to the quotation from Dr. Graves, I never for a moment sup- 
posed that he agreed with me on the design of baptism, nor did I 
so intimate. But I know he agrees with me that "born of water" 
means baptism, and 1 quoted from him to show that, and to show 
further what he says about the scholarship of the world on that 
point. Can't you quote from a man unless he agrees with you in 
every thing? 

My time has about expired. I cannot do justice to Dr. Lofton's 
case in this speech, but hope to pay proper attention to his "Mis- 
souri lecture" in my next. And rare reading it furnishes! Dr. 
Tucker, the Baptist editor, thought it smelled strongly of rank 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody s Tenth Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My opponent is trying to run me into the negative, and I will 
accommodate him as much as I can. Nothing of importance shall 
remain unnoticed when the debate is finished. As I have all next 
week to defend Baptist authors, and but little more time for my 
affirmative, I must hasten to notice some things in the eighth reply. 
My friend is almost ready to surrender Hovey, having already 
gone against Hovey 's doctrine, and this was what he first quoted 
him for. I promise to tie him up on Hovey. My dodging friend 
has dodged again on "counterfeit experience." I did not say that 
Christian experience could not he so closely imitated that it could 
not be detected, but that one like his, which I was considering, 
with the terms all out of order, and out of meaning, was a coun- 
terfeit that any true Christian could detect. See, again, how the 
gentleman dodges on his great challenge upon which he proposes 
to surrender the debate. I now ask him again : Mr. Harding, must 
the action that secures the blessing come before faith, or after 
faith? and, secondly, must it be an act of obedience, or will a hap- 
hazard act do? "Answer me fairly, and I will meet you squarely." 
His concessions to Hovey, Hackett and Briney should make him 
surrender his question. 

He complains that no one has ever properly stated his doctrine j 
and how is it possible for this to be done when they have no form- 
ulated creed, and when every man puts himself on every side of 
every question ? There is not a man among his brethren that can 
make a statement of his doctrine that would be satisfactory to- 
any but himself, and to him only as long as the statement goes un- 
criticised. I will give the balance of this speech to a matter the 
gentleman has used, and will use, perhaps, in every speech. He 
asserts and dogmatizes an interpretation as though there were but 
one interpretation, and as though he himself is always infallible. 
His dogmatisms, like all other dogmatisms of men, are generally 
contrary to the truth. If I rightly judge, he has made no impres- 
sion yet, except by asserting an error. 




Let us now closely examine the supposed discrepancy between 
Paul and James. 

The terms in dispute, "faith," "save," "justified," are often used 
when no reference is had to the salvation or justification by faith 
of a sinner before God. The word for "save" occurs about one 
hundred times, and about one- third of this number it is used in 
these lower senses, such as healing the sick (saved from sickness 
or death), and usually translated " made whole." " Lord save (from 
drowning), or I perish." (Acts xxvii. 20.) "All hope that they 
should be saved (from drowning) was utterly taken away. . . . 
Except these abide in the ship we cannot be saved " (from drown- 
ing). 1 Tun. ii. 15, saved in child-bearing. "The prayer of faith 
shall save the sick" (from death). John xi. 12: "If he sleep he 
does well," etc. 

So of justification or righteousness, the same word in Greek. 
How often is it used to characterize the dealings of God and the 
-conduct of Christians? Matt. x. 41: "He that, receiveth a right- 
eous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a right- 
eous man's reward." " It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness, 
-and to hunger and thirst after righteousness, and to be perse- 
cuted for righteousness' sake." "By thy words shalt thou be jus- 
tified." "Wisdom is justified of her children." "Ye are they 
which justify themselves," etc., are some of the places where the 
term is used, but not of a sinner before God. That Paul is talking 
about the justification of a sinner before God, and that James is 
talking about the righteousness of a believer, or the faith of a 
professor, is evident. Paul begins his argument with "every 
mouth stopped and all the world guilty before G-od." Therefore, 
by deeds of law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; so 
that we must be justified freely by his grace, through faith in his 
blood, apart from works. He illustrates with the case of Abra- 
ham before the law, and even before circumcision. He has Abra- 
ham justified " before God" by faith without works. 

Of course he would not here refer to works of the law, which 
was four hundred and thirty years after Abraham. The argument 
In Abraham's case is, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not 
reckoned of grace, but of debt, but to him that worketh not, but 
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness." So Abraham,, four hundred and thirty years 


before the law, and forty years before he offered up Isaac, and 
twenty years before he was circumcised, was justified as an un- 
godly man by faith. Just simply "believed in the Lord," as all 
sinners must doj for this is written, not for his sake only that it 
(faith) was reckoned to him for justification, but. for us also to 
whom justification shall be imputed, if we believe on him that 
raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our 
offenses and raised again for our justification. 

The case of David, which Paul introduces to further illustrate 
the principle, is a case under the lawj yet it is only one principle 
before, under or since the law, for Paul does not stop till he in- 
cludes the Romans, and that in the forgiveness of sins, and the 
imputation of righteousness by faith, without works. "Even as 
David also describes the happiness of the man unto whom God 
imputeth righteousness without works, saying, happy are those 
whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered; happy is 
the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." So Paul is 
clearly talking about the forgiveness and justification of a sinner 
before God, and he says it is by faith, and without works. 

Now what is James talking about? He addresses his brethren, 
"his beloved brethren, sending greeting," and addresses them on 
matters of Christian duty. He writes about the "proof of their 
faith," about seeking wisdom of God, but asking in faith, -not waver- 
ing. About enduring trial, being "doers of the Word, and not 
hearers only." He opens the second chapter with, "My brethren, 
hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of per- 
sons. Hearken, my beloved brethren, has not God chosen the 
poor rich in faith? .... But if ye have respect of persons 
ye commit sin," etc. Then he begins with the matter in dispute. 
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but 
have not works?" I will paraphrase: Can that faith save, heal, 
serve, profit him, or any one else? To illustrate what I mean: 
If a brother or sister be naked, and in lack of daily food, and 
one of you say unto them, "Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled, 
and yet he give them not the things needful to the body, what 
doth it profit? Doth that faith save" (from distress)? Even so 
that faith, if it have not works, is dead or unproductive in itself. 
In other words, what doth it profit? It is unfruitful or unprofita- 
ble in the practical duties of the Christian life. Yea, a man may 
say, thou hast faith, and I have works ; show me (not God) thy 
faith apart from works, and I will show thee (not God) my faith by 


my works. (Paul has a sinner before God, while James has one- 
boasting, professing Christian before another.) Thou believest 
that God is one. Thou doest well, thus far; but why do you stop 
there and boast that out of this faith you have no works? It doea 
not lead you to. even give to the poor. That is not pure religion 
and undefiled before our God and Father. Why, the devils believe 
also that God is one, and, instead of boasting that there is no 
moving principle in their faith, they go on to shudder, and that is 
more fruit than your boasted faith has, for yours is utterly barren; 
and if ye have no advantage even of devils, you had better stop 
boasting of your idle faith. Wilt thou know, vain man, that 
that faith apart from works is idle (not nekra, dead). (See West- 
cott & Horfc.) Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, in 
that he offered up Isaac, his son, on the altar, about forty years 
after he had been justified as a sinner before God by faith with- 
out works? Thou seest that that faith wrought with the works, 
and by the works that faith was made perfect. God did not de- 
mand this of Abraham that he might see what sort of faith he had, 
but that he might see; "seest thou." He showed us his faith by 
his works, that we might know that his was not a dead faith. 
Surely the Scriptures were fulfilled which saith Abraham believed 
in the Lord (not simply that God is one), and it was reckoned unto 
him for righteousness. This, having occurred forty years before, 
when he was made happy in the forgiveness of his sins, and when 
he came to peace from a consciousness of sins forgiven, and by 
his resting, trusting, justifying faith, and he thus became the friend 
of the Lord, and was ready to do whatsoever God commanded. 
And in this great trial of his obedient faith he stands justified be- 
fore God and man. Now, since God justified him by faith alone 
without works, and forty years after justified him by works, hav- 
ing faith as the moving principle, we see, then, that by works a 
man is justified, and not by faith only. In other words, we see 
that a man is justified by faith alone, but not by faith only. Alone 
means unaccompanied, only means that of which there is no other. 
A child alone is a child without company, an only child is one that 
has neither brother nor sister. If virtue alone can make us happy, 
then the way is open for any other thing to make us happy, but 
if virtue only can make us happy, then nothing else can. (Wor- 
cester.) If Ayer's ague cure alone can cure chills, and Smith's- 
tonic alone will cure chills, then we see that chills are cured, not 
by Ayer's ague cure only, but also by Smith's tonic. So, if Abra- 


ham was justified by faith alone, and forty years afterwards was 
justified by works, we see that a man can be justified, not by faith 
only, but also by works, and yet he is justified by faith alone. Or 
take a few Scripture examples of "only." Heb. xii. 20: " Whose 
voice then shook the earth (alone, apart from heaven), but now 
he has promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only,, 
but also heaven." This, so far from proving that he did not shake- 
the earth apart from heaven, proves that he did. So, justified by 
works, and not by faith only, shows that once he was justified by" 
faith alone, but then also by works afterwards. > Phil. i. 29: "It is ; 
given unto us in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him y but 
also to suffer for his sake." It is first given us to believe, apart 
from suffering, and afterwards it is given us to suffer. Hence, not 
to believe only, but also to surfer. First, justified by faith, apart 
from works, and afterwards justified by works. Hence, not by 
faith only, but also by works. But not faith and works. Phil. ii. 
12: "Ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now 
much more in my absence." This means that they obeyed in his 
presence, apart from his absence, and afterwards they obeyed in 
his absence. Hence the expression, not in my presence only, but 
also in my absence. Ye were justified in my presence only, but 
now much more in my absence, is the same as saying ye were jus- 
tified in my presence and afterwards in my absence. Phil. ii. 27 : 
"But God had mercy on him, and not on him only, but on me 
also," is a similar case. My friend is a great "word alone" man. 
He says the Gospel went to the Thessalonians in word alone, apart 
from other power. That being true, we can add, "not in word 
only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit." Even my oppo- 
nent ought to see this. 1 Thess. i. 3: "For from you the word of 
the Lord sounded out, not only in Macedonia and Achia r but also 
in every other place," means first in Macedonia, and afterwards in 
other places, just like James' two justifications. (See further 1 
Thess. ii. 8 ; 1 Tim. v. 13 ; 2 Tim. ii. 20, and iv. 8, etc.) So you see 
a man is justified by faith alone, but not by faith only, but by 
works also, but at a different time. 

You also, says James, see the case of Eahab (see Joshua ii. 
9-12), and see how strong was her faith in the Lord, and how her 
faith came by hearing, and how it produced good works. She said 
unto the men, "I know that the Lord hath given you the land, 
. . . . for we have heard how the Lord dried up the waters of 
the Eed Sea, etc., .... and as soon as we had heard these 



things our hearts did melt; neither did there remain any more 
courage in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is 
God in heaven above and in earth beneath. Now, therefore, I 
pray you, swear unto me by the Lord, since I have showed you 
kindness, that you will show also kindness unto my Father's 
house, and give me a true token." 

Heb. ix. 31: "In faith (dative without the preposition) the har- 
lot, Eahab, perished not with them that believed not when she 
had received the spies with peace." But now the justification of 
God is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, 
even the justification of God by faith in Jesus Christ (the Lord 
Jehovah, in whom Eahab believed)' unto all, and upon all them 
that believe, for there is no difference. This is one of the in- 
stances where the law and the prophets give testimony to justi- 
fication by faith, apart from works. But after this in faith she 
received the spies, and hid them, and afterwards sent them out, 
and thus by faith she is justified before God, and by works she is 
justified by Joshua and his army. Thus we see how that Eahab 
was justified by faith, and then not by faith only, but also by 
works. So faith wrought with her works, and was made perfect, 
and if she had lived under our Lord's ministry she would have 
gone unto the kingdom of God like other converted harlots. If a 
publican or harlot was a fit subject for the kingdom of God, they 
were also fit subjects for the justification of God. For as the body 
apart from the spirit is dead, so that faith (hepistis, as in verse 14) 
which we are now discussing, viz., the practical faith of the Chris- 
tian life, and which boasts that it has not works, is dead; that is, 
inoperative, idle, unproductive in itself. So Abraham, the idolater, 
and Eahab, the harlot, were justified by faith alone, and not by 
faith only, but afterwards by works also; and thus we see in their 
case that theirs was a true saving faith, for it brought forth fruit 
in obedience and good works. 

But all this, with any interpretation, fails to prove that baptism 
is in order to the pardon of past sins, for baptism is a single work, 
and should immediately follow faith. But James used the plural, 
and says faith without works is dead. Hence, something after 
baptism must come to get the plural works. We will give here 
the words of Mr. Campbell, the author of my friend's faith, and 
the founder of his society. Preface to Living Oracles, page 45: 
"This design kept in mind explains the scope of the epistle, and 
plainly reconciles the drift of it with the doctrine that Paul taught 


on that faith which is accounted to a man for righteousness, and 
of those works which prove a man to be a Christian, both to him- 
self and to his acquaintances." The Christian scholarship of all 
.ages responds, Amen ! It is denied by only a few debaters who 
have departed from what little truth their leader incorporated into 
his system. I wish my friend could hold to the little truth Mr. 
Campbell delivered to his disciples. 

Hear Mr. Campbell again, in his creed, preserved in the "Memoirs 
of A. Campbell," bj Prof. Eichardson, vol. ii, page 616: "I believe 
in the justification of sinners by faith, without the deeds of law, 
and of a Christian, not by faith alone, but by the obedience of 

Hear another witness. The editor of the Christian Standard 
:says : " The saving and transforming power of the Gospel depends 
upon its reception. The knowledge of the forgiveness of sins 
through the redemption that is in Christ is obtained only by 

I will introduce Dr. Meyer, whom the gentleman says is the 
greatest exegete since the apostles. We quote him at some length, 
because of the importance of his testimony : 

"Eecourse has been bad to these explanations, because James 
otherwise denied to faith its saving power, which is not to be as- 
.sumed. But the force of auton has been overlooked. If this pro- 
noun be taken into consideration, it is evident that James does not 
affirm generally that faith cannot save, but that it cannot save 
Mm whose faith, on which he trusts, is destitute of works, for 
auton refers back to the subject Us, that is, to the person whom 

James has introduced as speaking James illustrates 

the idea that faith is dependent for its proof on works, otherwise 
if these are wanting it is dead and profits nothing, by an example 
of compassion. . . . From the fact that James calls faith dead 
if it has not works, it is evident that by these works is not meant 
something which must be added to faith, but something which 
grows out of faith ; the erga here treated of are works of faith, in 
which are the germs of faith. . . . No one can make himself 
a righteous person by his works, but only can prove himself to be 
such. James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared 
righteous (by God) ex ergon (out of works). By ex ergon the rea- 
son is specified, on Abraham's part, on account of which a declara- 
tion of righteousness was granted to him. ... In this James 
oould rightly recognize a formal recognition of Abraham's right- 


eousness on the part of God. . . . Certainly the meaning of 
James cannot be that faith hitherto incomplete was completed by 
works, as something which was externally added to faith, since 
faith is the impulse to the works. . . . For as the power of 
love grows and is completed by the practice of works of love, so 
does faith grow and is completed by the practice of works in which 
it manifests itself. Thus was Abraham's faith only completed 
when he stood the severest test, and brought his son as an offer- 
ing upon the altar. It is true, God regarded Abraham as hisphilos 
(son) . . . the instant he reckoned his faith to him for right- 
eousness, but he was called so at a later period, namely, only at 
the time that he was declared righteous by God on account of his 
works. . . . The former was imparted to Abraham purely on 
account of his faith, but the latter only when his* faith was com- 
pleted by works, thus on account of his works, so that thereby 
that Scripture was fulfilled. . . . The declaration of righteous- 
ness, which James intends, is not that by which the believer on 
account of his faith receives the forgiveness of sins, but, as is evi- 
dent from the connection of the whole section, that which occurs 
to the believer who has proved his living faith by works, at the 
judgment, and by which he receives sooteria. . . . 

"Rahab, namely, was a pornee, nevertheless, on account of the 
works which she did (namely, her works of faith) she was declared 
righteous. Thus, by the addition of this example, the truth that 
a man is justified ex ergon is yet further confirmed. The correct- 
ness of the assertion that Eahab was justified on account of her 
works, consists in this : that, according to the narrative contained 
in Josh. ii. and vi., life was on account of them granted to her, she 
was formerly delivered from that punishment which befell Jeri- 
cho. Thus James could with right appeal for the truth of what 
was said in verse 24 to this fact, since also the future declaration 
of righteousness will be an acquittal from punishment. In Heb.. 
xi. 31 the deliverance of Kahab is ascribed to her faitli, but so that 
her action is likewise mentioned as the demonstration of it. . . _ 
It has with truth been maintained that, according to the doctrinal 
system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works of 
law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede, but 
follow justification. . . . Even the justification at the last 
judgment is in itself not more perfect than that by which God in 
this life absolves the believer from his sins; the distinction con- 
sisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a. 


present blessing, and that in all its fullness, which by the latter 
was conferred on him as a blessing yet future. . . . James 
here evidently says nothing against the Pauline doctrine of justifi- 
cation, since his ex ergon does not refer to being placed in a new 
relation to God, of which there is no mention. The inquiry, by 
what this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his Epistle 
at all, yet it is to be observed that to him the foundation of the 
Christian life is faith, and that he designates the new birth (chapter 
i. 18) as a work of God, which only takes place through the will of 
God, and, indeed, so that God implants the word of truth in man. 
That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction, 
but in agreement with Paul's doctrine of justification, requires no 
proof. . . . It is to be observed that God very definitely dis- 
tinguishes the justifying act of God, by which the forgiveness of 
sins is adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the 
judicial act of God by which sooteeria will either be adjudged or 
denied to the justified. Justification (so called by Paul) is condi- 
tioned on the part of man only by faith; the future sooteeria will 
only be adjudged to him in whom faith has proved itself to be a 
working principle. 

"From these passages, which might be greatly multiplied, it is 
not to be denied that Paul, as he definitely excludes every co-op- 
eration of human works in justification, so he. no less definitely 
represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice of 
works of faith. The reason of justification is not the ethical 
nature of faith, but solely and entirely the merits of Christ, or 
Christ himself, with whom faith, that is, faith in Christ, places us in 
connection. We are justified not for the sake of faith, but through 
faith for the sake of Christ; thus it holds good for the justifica- 
tion which is by faith alone that every reference to works is en- 
tirely excluded." 

Or, as Beza jmts it, "It is one thing to say faith without works is 
dead, and another to say faith is dead without works ; as if faith 
derived its life and power from works, which is not less absurd 
than if we should say that the body is dead without sense and mo- 
tion, as if sense and motion were the cause of life; whereas we 
should say that the body which is- without motion is dead, for the 
cause is understood from the necessary effects, and works are the 
evidences and effects of living faith, not the cause of it." 

James does not say that faith is dead without works, but that faith 
without works is dead. A body without motion is dead, but a 


"body is not dead without motion. My body may be motionless 
apd yet alive, but if it is characteristic of my body to be without 
motion, then it is dead. Motion is here used in the sense of spirit 
or life, and this is the sense in which James here uses it. An eye 
without sight is blind, but an eye is not blind without sight, for it 
may be dark. One without sense (as his characteristic) is a fool, 
but one is not a fool without sense, for he may be dead, or uncon- 
scious. Or, as Henry says, " The justification Paul speaks of is of 
persons being justified before God ; the other, of our faith being 
justified before men. Our persons are justified before God by faith, 
but our faith is justified before men 'by works. 7 Or, it may 
mean : Show me thy faith, that faith you say you have, but which 
has not works ; show it to me without showing it by works. Apart 
from works it is not possible to show it to man, who can only see 
outward appearances. It is helpless, idle, dead to such an impos- 
sible requirement. If you cut off the only possible way of show- 
ing itself to you, then how .can it show itself? Here faith is the 
subject on trial, before men, 'by works;' there, the sinner is the 
subject on trial, before G-od, i by faith.' Paul speaks of the condi- 
tion of a sinner before God ; James of the conduct of a believer 
before men." 
Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Tenth Reply. 

Dear Friends: 

The speech to which you have just listened is, I believe, the 
most respectable one the gentleman has delivered. In it he has 
not crossed his own path nor misrepresented us as often as usual, 
and I think he has made a fairer effort at Scriptural argument than 
usual. It affords me pleasure to reply. I will notice in the first 
place some minor matters, and then will attend to what he has said 
about the doctrine of Paul and James on justification. 

Let me repeat what I have said before about my use of Baptist 
authors. I quote them not to make the impression upon you that 
I agree with them in doctrine in general, but simply to show that 
they sustain me on the one point under consideration. Graves 
thinks "born of water" means baptism; so do I. We agree on 
that one point, but as to the design of baptism we differ as far as 
the east is from the west. I quote Hovey to show that the ex- 
pressions "born of water," "the washing of water," "the washing 
of regeneration," mean baptism; that "repentance and baptism 
are represented as leading to the forgiveness of sins;" that baptism 
stands for and means "an earnest request for pardon;" that it is 
"an embodied request or prayer unto God," and so on. But I 
have never said that Hovey agrees with me in all points. I 
read his "Appendix" carefully to see if I could endorse it all, but 
I could not. Indeed, the testimony of those men is stronger for 
my cause than if they agreed with me fully in all points. For 
when they make these concessions now, they make them against 
their own doctrine, and they would not do it if they were not con- 
strained by the weightiest and most overwhelming considerations. 
If they agreed with me wholly, they Would, of course, be on my 
side, and I would not quote them at all as proof of the truthful- 
ness of my positions. I quote my brethren to show what they be- 
lieve, but not to prove the correctness of their faith. You Bap- 
tists can understand that well enough, if you will remember how 
you delight in quoting pedobaptist concessions in favor of immer- 
sion and against infant baptism. And their concessions have all 


the more weight because they still continue to practice infant 
sprinkling, since a man will not testify against his own faith and 
{practice, unless he is constrained to do it by considerations that he 
-cannot well resist. The gentleman says I am almost ready to sur- 
render Hovey, that I have gone against his doctrine. Hovey has 
gone against his own doctrine, just like these pedobaptists do 
when they tell us baptteo means to immerse, but still continue to 
practice sprinkling. But Hovey's teaching is a wonderful improve- 
ment on that of the average Baptist preacher. The light shines, 
and men are slowly, but surely, coming more and more into the 

The gentleman now says it is my counterfeit experience that can 
be detected, and not counterfeit experiences in general. Certainly 
I did not so understand him; but the matter has gone to record, 
and the readers of the book can look back and see for themselves ; 
then they will see which of us is correct. 

The gentleman still has trouble in understanding my challenge. 
Well, let me repeat it: 

Show me one example in which G-od ever gave any blessing to any 
one on account of his faith, before that faith had expressed itself in 
any action whatever, and I will give up the debate. 

Of course the action must be one of faith, growing out of a be- 
lieving heart, expressing the faith of the heart. If the gentleman 
can't show such an example, he might as well give up the tight, 
for he is here contending that faith unexpressed, faith before it 
has done any thing at all, reaches the blessing. Abraham was 
justified by faith, but he received no blessing in answer to his 
faith till that faith had been expressed in action. So of Abel, so 
of Noah, and so of all. Joshua took the city of Jericho "by faith," 
the Bible teaches us, but the walls did not fall till Joshua had 
obeyed the Lord in encompassing them seven days. Rahab was 
saved from destruction "by faith," but it was a faith that received 
God's messengers, and hid them, and sent them away in peace. 
Find an example of your doctrine, or say plainly that you cannot 
do it. In so far as the records show, faith unexpressed never has 
reached a blessing. As James says, it is "dead," it is "barren." 

Brother Moody claims that it is impossible for any one to state 
our doctrine fairly, seeing that we have " no formulated creed." 
Ah, did the apostolic Churches have any formulated creed, except 
the Word of God? Can the doctrine of the apostles be stated 
correctly? We have a creed (a rule of faith and practice), formu- 


lated by the Lord God Almighty, and we are quite well satisfied 
with it just as it is. We are not disposed to "formulate" it over 
:again. We are not inclined to think that we can improve upon 
the Master's work. Was there any creed possessed by the Church, 
except the Bible, for decades after the last apostle died? We have 
.grown to be a great people, nearly a million strong on this conti- 
nent, while holding to the above Creed; we stood the shock of the 
late war, which divided so many Churches, and we stand as one 
body to-day. But how about the Baptists? Will Brother Moody 
tell us how many different and distinct bodies there are among 
them? He accuses my brethren of differing from one another, of 
teaching all sorts of different doctrines. It is true we are afflicted 
more or less in that way, but, compared to the Baptists, our 
trouble is as a molehill to a mountain. Some Baptists are Calvin- 
ists, some are Arminians; some believe in preaching to sinners, 
others do not; some hold to opencoinmunion, others to closecoin- 
munion; while some go so far as to say the members of one Church 
must not commune with another of the same faith and order. 
We read of Particular Baptists, G-eneral Baptists, Kegular Baptists, 
-Old School Baptists, New School Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Sev- 
enth Day Baptists, Six Principle Baptists, and of how many more 
I know not, though I believe there are ten different Baptist bodies 
in the land. Brother Moody, I believe, belongs to the body known 
as Eegular Baptists, which is much more divided (to leave all the 
others out of the count) than are we. In England it is not un- 
common, I have been told, for them to have unimmersed persons 
in full fellowship in their congregations, and opencommunioD is 
common. Divided indeed! Why, sir, how many of your ministers 
in this city are not attending this debate at all, and don't intend to 
ome? Every one of my preaching brethren attends, except one, 
who is in bed, but who would be here if he were able to come. 

But, to return to the matter of creeds, I thought the Baptists 
here of late had begun to boast that they have no creed but God's 
Word. I have heard some of them say it. It seems they were 
mistaken, however. Will Brother Moody please tell us what is the 
creed of the Baptist Church? Is it not a fact that each congrega- 
tion formulates its own creed, and that you have as many creeds 
as you have Churches? Will you say to me now, as you said once, 
that you "take the Philadelphia Confession of Faith straight?" 
Please answer, so that I may know what your "formulated creed" 
is, so that I may be able to state your doctrine correctly. I have 


here an article from the National Baptist, written by a correspond- 
ent who is deploring the divisions in the Baptist Zion. He ac- 
cuses them of "Campbellizing," and quotes Hackett and Hovey in 
proof of the charge. The writer says: "0, yes; we are of almost 
as many minds in these days as we are many men." I commend 
to my friend the old adage about the people who live in glass 
houses. He would do well to heed it. Why, friends, there are 
Baptists in this city who differ so widely from him in doctrine and 
spirit that they scarcely regard him as a brother at all. While my 
brethren, though troubled more or less in different communities 
with roots of discord, are, nevertheless, I believe, as a whole, 
more completely united in doctrine and in heart than any other 
people in the world. 

Before taking up the matter of justification, there is another 
little thing that needs merely to be mentioned. I have here a 
communication from Dr. Baker, of Watertown, in which he says: 
"It was the judge of the Smith (instead of the DeKalb) County 
Court that came to us from the Baptists since the debate. He 
lives right on the line of the two counties, and spends much of his 
time in Alexandria (which is in DeKalb), and this association 
caused me to make the mistake." Of coufse this is a matter of 
no moment, either on the one side or the other, but as it was a 
mistake, I ana glad the doctor was the first to correct it. He is a 
man who does not fear the light, and who wants all the truth to 
stand out. When Brother Moody's Baptist committee went to see 
him he cheerfully gave them all the information they wanted from 
our church book. But when I ask for information about that Mill 
Creek Church I am kept in the dark. 

Now to the matter of Paul and James: 

Paul says, "Being justified by faith (ek, out of faith}, we have 
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Eom. v. 1.) 

James says, "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, 
and not by faith only." (James i. 24.) 

Paul says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by 
faith, without the deeds of the law." (Rom. iii. 28.) 

James says, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead (nekra),. 
being alone." (James ii. 20.) 

He says, also (verse 20, Revised Version) : " Wilt thou know, 
vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?" The word 
"barren" translates the Greek word argee. This word, according 
to Thayer's great lexicon, is applied to things "from which no 


profit is derived, although they can and ought to be productive; 
as of fields, trees, gold and silver." That is, beloved, James tells- 
us that faith apart from works is barren ; it is like the fields and 
trees that yield no fruit, like the gold and silver of the miser, 
which rust in his vaults while the owner dies of starvation. The 
man who dies with such a faith goes down to hell, because he did 
not use that which, when properly used, always brings one to life 

But (as Brother Moody loves to quote), Paul says, "Abraham be- ' 
lieved Gk>d, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now 
to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of 
debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that 
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." 
(Rom. iv. 3-5.) . 

These statements, to the one who has not studied them care- 
fully in all their bearings, seem contradictory. I believe it was 
Martin Luther himself who was disposed to reject the book of 
James altogether on the ground that it conflicted with the teach- 
ing of Paul. But the world is moving and the light shining, and 
now it is easy to make very plain what was once very obscure. I 
hope to do that on these passages. 

First, then, let me remark that we are not justified by law, nor 
by deeds of law, either in whole or in part, but by grace. To be 
justified by law, it would be necessary for a man to keep a perfect 
law perfectly all the days of his life. Had a Jew kept the law 
perfectly from birth to death, he would not have needed the atone- 
ment of Christ to free him from sin ; he would have gone through 
the gates into the city without the blood of Jesus. But no Jew 
ever did that, except the great "Middle Man," the Son of David,, 
the Son of God. 'He fulfilled the law (which had to be fulfilled 
that man might be saved), and thus became "the end of the law 
for righteousness to every one that believeth." 

Christ, having thus fulfilled the law, had the power and privilege 
of giving to whom he chose eternal life. If man obtained it at all r 
it must be by gift (by grace), seeing that by four thousand years 
of effort his inability to obtain it by works of law, "works of 
righteousness," had been demonstrated. When a man commits his 
first sin it at once becomes impossible for him ever to be saved by 
works of righteousness that he can do, that is, by his own works 
of righteousness ; for, were he to live an absolutely faultless life 
for a hundred years afterwards, he would only do his duty, that 


which he is indebted to God to do, and hence would have nothing 
with which to balance off or cover the one sin. Had Christ him- 
self sinned he would have been in this condition. If ever that one 
sin be gotten rid of, it must be by grace, it must be forgiven (the 
very word forgive has "give" in it, and in its nature excludes all 
idea of purchase, or of meritorious work). Hence, to every par- 
doned soul Christ gives the pardon, without money, without price, 
without meritorious words. But it does not follow from this that 
there are not conditions to be complied with in order to obtain the 
pardon. All religious parties (unless, perhaps, some ultra Calvin- 
ists be exceptions) grant that there are such conditions. Hackett, 
Hovey, and the leading lights generally of the Baptist Church, 
grant it. Faith is one of these conditions ("He that believeth not 
shall be damned")^ repentance is another (" Except ye repent, ye 
shall all likewise perish"); obedience is required ("Being made 
perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto, all them 
that obey him"). These conditions are works of righteousness, 
but they are not our works of righteousness; they belong to the 
righteousness of God. They have no meritorious or purchasing 
power in them. "When a man believes he pays God nothing, and 
so it is when he repents; nor does he pay any thing when he is 
baptized; he simply submits to an act of righteousness appointed 
by God. Baptism no more invalidates grace than does believing 
or repenting. When Paul says we are saved by grace, "not of 
works," he does not mean to exclude these conditions, these works! 
of God's righteousness, .for, if so, he would exclude faith and re- 
pentance just as certainly as he would baptism; for they are just 
as much works, and man exerts himself even more in obeying 
them than he does in submitting to baptism. The very forms in 
which the commands are expressed indicate this: We are com- 
manded to believe (active voice), to repent (active voice), to be 
baptized (passive voice). And, as we have seen before, Paul 
sharply draws the line between our righteousness and God's right- 
eousness, putting baptism in the latter. The baptism of John, as 
Jesus teaches, was "from heaven," not "of men;" much more, 
then, is his own baptism of God. Hence, Paul says of the Father, 
" Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but accord- 
ing to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here the "washing of regenera- 
tion" (baptism) is set over against our works of righteousness, and 
{Jod is said to save us by the former, in connection with the re- 


lie wing of the Holy Ghost, but not by the latter. That the "wash- 
ing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," the new 
birth ("Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God"), and the faith and baptism of the 
commission ("He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"), 
are equivalents to my mind does not admit of a reasonable, un- 
prejudiced doubt. In each of the three passages it is taught that 
we are saved through faith (wrought in the heart by the Holy 
Spirit) and baptism. 

That Paul does not exclude works of God that are appointed by 
him as conditions when he speaks of justification by faith is 
further evident from the study of the case of Abraham. That 
worthy " believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteous- 
ness." It was reckoned to him, not on account of works, but of 
grace ; nevertheless, he had been an earnest, faithful, obedient serv- 
ant of the Lord for eight years, when it was said of him, "He be- 
lieved in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." 
The very first words that God ever uttered to Abraham, in so far 
as the Sacred Records show, constituted a command, and upon the 
condition of his complying with it God promised to bless him, and 
to make him a blessing. (See Gen. xii. 1-3.) He obeyed. As 
Paul expresses it, "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go 
out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, 
obeyed ; and he went out not knowing whither he. went." By faith 
he obeyed. He went down into the land of Canaan, thence into 
Egypt, fought the great battle in which he rescued Lot, came back 
with the great spoil, was blessed by Melchizedek priest of God 
Most High, and it was after all this that God spake of him that his 
faith was counted to him for righteousness. Bead from Gen. xii. 1 
to Gen. xv. 6, and you will see that my statements are correct. 

But, to make the matter certain that Abraham was not justified 
and blessed by faith without obedience, but that the blessing came 
because of the "obedience of faith," it is only necessary to study 
a revelation which God afterwards made to Isaac. It is made in 
the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis. He there renews the prom- 
ises to Isaac that he had made before to Abraham, and he tells 
why they were made to Abraham, and why they will be kept. He 
refers to the very time when Abraham's faith was counted to him 
for righteousness, and shows why it was so counted. These are 
the Lord's words to Isaac: "Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the 
land which I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land, and I will be 


with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I 
will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I 
swear unto Abraham, thy father; and I will make thy seed to 
multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all 
these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
be blessed: because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my 
charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Gen. 
xx vi. 2-5.) 

Ah, my friends, does that look as though God counted his faith 
for righteousness when it was "faith only," "faith alone," before it 
had expressed itself in any action whatever? No, no; it was 
when Abraham obeyed God's voice, kept his charge, his command- 
ments, his statutes, and his laws. His conduct suggests to me 
the little school girl's definition of faith. "What is faith?" inquired 
the teacher. "It is just taking God at his word," replied the child. 
And that is the exact truth in the case. He who lovingly takes 
God at his word, walking in his commandments, as did Abraham, 
has faith, saving faith. 

Abraham's fidelity gained him the exalted position of the father 
of the faithful to all them who have a like faith, whether Jew or 
Greek, bond or free, circumcision or uncircumcision. Who are his 
children? Listen: "The father of circumcision to them who are 
not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that 
faith of our father, Abraham, which he had being yet uncircum- 
cised." (Eom. iv. 12.) He is not the father by faith of those who 
believe, but obey not, like Brother Moody's brethren, those rulers 
of the Jews; but he is father to all them who walk in the steps of 
his faith. The faith that pleases God has "steps." 

Is baptism one of the steps by which we become Abraham's 
children? Listen: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in 
Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into 

Christ have put on Christ And, if ye be Christ's, then 

are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 
iii. 26-29.) As sure as you live, my friends, except ye be born of 
water and the Spirit, ye cannot enter into this great family. 

And now, one more point with regard to Paul's teaching on jus- 
tification. That he did not mean to exclude "the obedience of 
faith" when he taught the Eomans that we are justified by faith is 
evident from what he says to them as to the time when they were 
made free from sin. In the very midst of his argument on justifi- 
cation he said to them: "But thanks be to God that, whereas ye 


were servants of sin, ye "became obedient from the heart to that 
form of teaching (form of doctrine) whereunto ye were delivered; 
and, being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteous- 
ness." (Eom. vi. 17, 18.) It is hardly to be supposed that Paul 
would tell these people, who were made free from sin after they 
obeyed the form of doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone. 
Nor could he do it without stultifying his own experience,- for we 
know that he sorrowed in blindness for three days and nights after 
he was a true penitent believer, until he was told what he "must" 
do, namely, to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord. Paul, like other people, had to be born 
of water and the Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom. 

While you are thinking upon Paul's statement that these Kornans 
were made free from sin upon obeying the form of doctrine (which 
Dr. Lofton says we obey in baptism), remember, also, Peter's 
affirmation, "Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth." 
A man gets a pure soul, not before obedience, but in obedience. 

My time is nearly gone. I must say a word or two about Brother 
Moody's interpretation of the doctrine of James. He claims that, 
while Paul was talking about the justification of the sinner in the 
sight of God, James was talking about the righteousness of the 
believer, the justification of the professor in the sight of men. 
He claims that when James says, "Ye see, then, how that by works 
a man is justified, and not by faith only," he is talking about the 
justification of the professor in the sight of men the justification 
in man's sight of those who had already been justified fn God's 
sight. This is not so. And it seems to me that five minutes' re- 
flection ought to satisfy any man that it is not so. For in this im- 
mediate connection James illustrates by the case of Abraham 
offering Isaac. He says: "Was not Abraham, our father, justified 
by works when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar? 
See thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was 
faith made perfect?" And then, to make it absolutely certain that 
the justification was in God's sight, he adds in the next verse, 
"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, 'Abraham believed 
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was 
Called the friend of God.' " Why, my friends, who is so silly as 
not to be able to see that Abraham was seeking to please God to 
be justified in his sight, not in man's, when he offered up Isaac? 
There was not a soul in the world who knew he was going to do 
it, not a man there to see him do it. He carefully, scrupulously 


kept every living soul on earth from knowing what he was going; 
to do. But the heavenly intelligences saw him, and a voice from 
heaven called unto him, saying, "Now I know that thou fearest 
God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, 
from me." (Gen. xxii. 12.) Justification in the sight of men, in- 
deed ! [Laughter.] 

Nor was James talking about the justification of Christians, 
either, for his next illustration is the case of Eahab, the harlot. 
She was not a Jewess, nor a professor, nor was she conscious of 
justification in God's sight when she received the messengers. 
She was scared, and she prayed the spies to save her and her 
father's house. So it is said, "By faith the harlot, Eahab, perished 
not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies 
with peace." (Heb. xi. 31.) This is said in that famous chapter, . 
which all admit speaks of saving faith. But she was not justified 
(saved) till she had done something. Campbell, Errett, and all of 
my brethren agree with me in this interpretation, in so far as I 
know. If James addressed Christians, so did Paul. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody s Eleventh Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The gentleman is certainly not "past feeling," so far as anger is 
concerned. I warned him against some facts that I would state, 
knowing they would hurt, but he cared for none of these things. 
This is my fourth debate with him, and he has spent the most of 
his time in all of. them attacking my personal character ; but I 
must go on correcting his errors and exposing his doctrine, caring 
not as to what shall befall me personally. I was compelled to 
publish certain things in my paper, because my veracity was at 
stake. I hope I will not be compelled to republish them in this 
debate. If he compels me I will. If he compels me I will intro- 
duce some scathing criticisms from his brethren concerning him- 
self. If I should, it will be not to defend myself, but the truth 
which he seeks to injure through my personal hurt. I give the 
following from Pikeville, a witness afcove reproach, and of recent 
date. He says: 

"I have never heard of any Baptist joining the Campbellites 
during the meeting spoken of, except one, who has been excluded 
from the Baptists for drinking and swearing, and who had not 
attended the Church meeting for months before the debate. I saw 
him to-day, and he said he was not convinced by the debate, and 
that he had never said he was. He was raised by a family of that 
faith. He has a brother who was a Campbellite a long time, but, 
on being regenerated, at once denounced their faith, joined the 
Baptists, and has worked there ever since. At our meeting: 
following the debate two of their number were converted, and 
one of them joined the Baptists, and is making us a good 

A letter from one of my deacons at Watertown says that Dr. 
Baker asked him to witness the mailing of a letter to Mr. Hard- 
ing, asking him to correct his previous statements concerning 
"the results of the Moody-Libscbmb debate." I have from Dr. 
Baker the name of the man as one of the list of converts from the 
Baptists, but now he says he did not know that he had ever been 



a Baptist, or that lie had ever been excluded from the Baptist 

As to the Church at Alexandria, hardly any Church in Tennessee 
has acted more nobly in self-sacrifice than they. With almost no 
outside help, few in numbers, and poor in purse, they undertook 
the building of, perhaps, the finest house in all that country, and 
they are progressing as rapidly as is generally done in the erection 
of country church houses. They have felt unable while building 
to have a regular pastor, and, having no house of their own, they 
have not made the usual effort in protracted meetings. Yet several 
joined them from a revival held in the town, but, having no regular 
pastor, they were not baptized. The one sermon from the brother 
reported for this year turns out three by the same brother, and 
the year before Brother T. J. Bastes preached for them regularly a 
good part of the year. 

These are the facts set over against my friend's statements, and 
I don't wonder that he stings when they are stated j but it is not 
my fault; I did not introduce them. And so of others yet to fol- 
low, if he persists. 

As to the Norton letter, let me say again what I first said, and 
what has been repeated. I do not indorse all of Mr. Norton's lan- 
guage, nor can I know his Articular meaning until I hear from, 
him, but I'll venture the assertion that he is as far from believing 
what my friend believes as I am, and if he can do no better than 
to fill his speech with something that occurred in my paper that I 
am not at all responsible for, and that I am under no sort of obliga- 
tion to indorse, then it shows that my friend is running out of 
matter. I have referred him to some things that occurred in his 
paper from his brethren favorable to me, and unfavorable to him, 
which he has confessed. Now, what would you think of me if in 
my speech I would iterate and reiterate these things against him? 
I am sure my brethren would want to withdraw me from the con- 
test, with a plain hint that if I had no argument I had better give 
it up. I can pile as much of that kind on him as he can on me, 
and if I "get out of soap" I may resort to that kind of warfare. 
Our cause has been greatly advanced by all of my debates with 
his brethren, and that fact will stand against all the assertions and 
hearsays he can make to the contrary. 

He, Harding, claims again that'Hovey is with him in doctrine. I 
give the following recent letter. He says: 

"In answer to your kind letter, I will endeavor to state as clearly 


.as possible my views of Christian baptism in relation to the for- 
giveness of sins. They are these: 

"1. Faith in Christ, an inward and spiritual act, is the only pre- 
requsite to the forgiveness of sins, according to the general cur- 
rent of New Testament teaching. Men are justified by faith. Their 
spiritual life is rooted in faith. He that believeth that Jesus is the 
Christ has been begotten of God, and he that has been begotten of 
God is accepted by him as his son. (See Bom. v. 1; Gal. iii. 22-25; 
1 John v. 1, 4, 5.) 

"2. Faith in Christ is frequently represented as preceding bap- 
tism, and is a sufficient reason for administering this rite. (Acts 
viii. 12; xviii. 8 ; comp. x. 47, 48, and John iv. 1.) 

"3. Faith in Christ is also represented as a fruit of the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, accompanied by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. xiv. 
18; ii. 4; iv. 15.) Observe that in the first of these passages Paul 
contrasts baptism with preaching the Gospel, and declares that he 
has baptized only a tew of the Corinthians, while in all these pas- 
sages he connects faith and salvation with preaching, and in the 
last addresses all the believers in Corinth, as though he was their 
; spiritual father. Baptism is not spoken of as in any way essential 
to their regeneration or sonship to God. 

"4. The whole nature of the Christian dispensation as portrayed 
by Christ and his apostles forbids us to make salvation depend on 
any outward or ritual service. 

"What, then, does baptism accomplish? what end does it serve? 
why is it so closely united with forgiveness of sin? (1) It symbol- 
izes, or represents, by a visible sign, what hasbeen accomplished 
in the soul. By submitting to baptism a believer in Christ testifies 
or confesses that he has died to his former life of sin, and been 
raised to a new life in Christ. (2) This sign was at first closely 
- connected in thought and act with the change signified by it. The 
former, as the divinely-appointed confession of the latter, was 
made to follow it with as little delay as possible. (3) The reality 
of his repentance and forgiveness would naturally be assured to 
the consciousness of the persons baptized by his full avowal of it, 
in the solemn and significant way prescribed. That which baptism 
represents or signifies is prerequisite to forgiveness. Baptism is 
the appropriate confessional manifestation of repentance and 
faith. The one may, therefore, be put for the other, or may be 
presumed to follow the other, as the shadow follows the substance, 
as ob. Jjciice in outward act follows obedience in heart. But bap- 


tism is no more necessary in. order to forgiveness than is any other 
equally important act of outward obedience to the Lord Christ. 
These are the views which I have always believed, .... and 
I have written nothing which was intended to contravene these 

Will Mr. Harding still claim Hovey on his side in doctrine? Is 
he not here trying to prove a doctrine, and why does he quote 
a man except as a witness to his doctrine? Will Mr. Harding 
now retract all of his abuse of Dr. Hovey's language 1 I wait 
to see. 

My opponent has delivered himself in his characteristic style on 
John xii. 42, and, as it deserves and requires my attention, I will 
discharge that duty now. 

There are three classes of interpreters of this passage. One 
class, of which Jacobus is a representative, interprets it as the 
language of appearance; they appeared to believe, but really did 
not. Another considers them genuine believers, who had not 
added to their faith the courage to confess under the dangerous 
circumstances. The third class considers them genuine believers,, 
but for a refusal to confess were lost. Some debaters will press 
this view, as if bent upon breaking the testimony of Jesus, who- 
said so repeatedly, "Whosoever believeth in (eis) him shall not 
perish, but have everlasting life," "Is not condemned," "Is passed 
from death unto life," "Shall not come into condemnation," "I will 
raise him up at the last day," "Though he were dead, yet shall he 
live," "Shall never die," should "not abide in darkness," "The 
works that I do h shall do also, and greater works than these 
shall he do," "Shall receive the remission of sins," "Inheritance," 
"Sanctification," "Justification," "Salvation," " Witness in himself," 
etc. Such are some of the positive promises made to whosoever 
believeth eis (in), or epi (upon), him, and "whosoever" takes all the 
class specified. So, to show one place where they believed eis (in), 
and then were lost, would falsify Christ's testimony, and break his 
repeated words of promise. Col. Ingersol never pressed a seem- 
ing contradiction of Scripture with more diabolical delight than 
we have heard in debate on this passage. 

We think they were genuine believers, and ultimately received 
the promises. The passage reads, "Nevertheless, among the chief 
rulers, also, many believed on him, but 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." 


As the Ee vised Version has it, "Even of the rulers many be- 
lieved on him." And, as Jamison, Faussett and Brown add, " Such 
as Nicodemus and Joseph of Armathea, who afterward boldly 
confessed Christ." In ix. 22 we read, "For the Jews had agreed 
already that, if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should 
be put out of the synagogue;" and in verse 34 they executed the 
threat on the one who had been born blind, and who said, "If this 
man were not of God he could do nothing." 

We do not justify their neglect to confess, or their prevailing 
love for the glory of men, but are there no paliating circum- 
stances? Are we to jump at any excuse or opportunity to break 
the testimony of Jesus? Is there any thing in the statement 
irreconcilable with the Word of Truth? Rather than break the 
Word of God, let us judge with charitable judgment. These rulers, 
who it is said believed eis him, belonged to the intolerant, excom- 
municating party. It was asked in vii. 48 especially, 'fHave any 
of the rulers believed on him?" At that time they had sent to 
arrest Christ. They were exceeding mad and terrorizing. Some 
are more timid than others. The faith of some is stronger than 
others. Faith must grow strong, and circumstances do not always 
favor this. There is nothing in this statement that positively con- 
tradicts other Scriptures. In 1 John ii. 15 it is said: "If any man 
love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." This is the 
passage that is hissed on the testimony of the Lord. But in this 
passage the love of the world is such as to exclude the love of the 
Father. " The love of the Father is not in him." But in the other, 
they loved the glory of men, but not so as to exclude the glory of 
God. They loved the glory of men more (mallori). Here it is com- 
parative, and not exclusive. Christ "rejoiced more over that 
sheep" does not, and cannot, mean that he rejoiced none over the 
ninety and nine. To hearken unto God, and to obey God, rather 
or more than men, does not mean that they did not hearken or 
obey men at all, for God commanded both. "Much more, being 
reconciled" (Eom. v. 10), is not exclusive, but comparative. 

Now who is it that does not love the praise of men? If none 
could be saved but those who loved the praise of God, to the ex- 
clusion of the praise of men, then, pray, who could be saved? So, 
while the passage quoted against this is exclusive, this is com- 
parative, and hence there is no positive contradiction. Of the ten 
lepers cleansed, only one returned to give glory to God; yet, "as 
they went they were cleansed." Their faith healed them, yet only 


one when he saw he was healed turned back, and with a loud 
voice glorified God. 

Peter lost his courage at Antioch, and dissembled. He did worse 
than this on the night of the betrayal, for there he not only con- 
fessed not, but he denied that he knew him, with bitter curses, 
let he believed in Christ to the saving of his soul. His faith, 
failed not, nor did his love. 

We must consider the paliating circumstances before we rashly 
condemn the Most High. Joseph of Armathea " was a disciple of 
Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews." Yet, in after life, "he 
went in boldly and besought Pilate for the body of Jesus." So 
Mcodemus, perhaps ashamed of his former timidity, comes out 
at a very critical time and shows his devotion to him, and to 
whom he had recently confessed in John iii. 2 that for which the 
man was put out of the synagogue in chapter ix. Meyer says on 
these passages that "these were the most hostile and dreaded 
party opposed to Jesus in and outside the Sanhedrim. . . . They 
preferred the honor of men. Theirs was thus not the faith 
strengthened for a free confession which Jesus demands, with the 
setting aside of the temporal interests. Augustin calls it ingresus 
fidei. Where subsequently the right advance followed, the unhesi- 
tating confession also was forthcoming, as in the cases of Mcode- 
mus and of Joseph of Armathea. But the case of Gamaliel is not 
applicable here (Godet) ; he did not get so far as faith." 

The rest of the chapter confirms this view. Those to be con- 
demned are those who reject Christ, and receive not his words. 
Those rulers received his words, did not then confess, but they did 
not reject him. Jesus said, "Yerily," as if addressing this class of 
timid believers,/" I am come as a light into the world, that whoso- 
ever believeth in me should not walk in darkness." The true be- 
liever may walk in darkness, and does, if he prefers the glory of 
men to the glory of God, but the continuance in his Word will 
make them that believe on him disciples indeed, and they shall 
know the truth, and the truth shall make them free. 


In Matt. x. 32, 33, and Luke xii. 8, 9, confessing Christ before 
men, and denying him before men, are set over against each other. 
These rulers who believed do not fall under either class ; they are 
simply believers, who are to be taught to walk in the light, and 
thus be disciples. If such Scriptures as Luke xiv. 26-33 is to be 
literally interpreted and rigidly applied, then who of this ease- 
loving generation will be saved? "Whosoever he be of you that 


forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple," refers to 
such upon whom in the providence of God such a sacrifice is re- 
quired. If this is required of this generation, then, pray, who 
was thus discipled before baptism? Not one. We have as much 
right to condemn all who fall short in Luke xiv. 26-33 as any one 
has to condemn those of John xii. 42, 43. It still stands uncon- 
tradicted by God's Word that whosoever believeth in him shall 
never perish, but have everlasting life.. These rulers believed in 
him, therefore they are entitled to the promises, which are "yea 
and amen in Christ." So we believe, and so we preach. 

I wish to notice a few more blessings of salvation that come be- 
fore baptism. 


"There is no peace to the wicked," and "the way of peace they 
have not known." Carnal-niindedness is death, but spiritual-mind- 
edness is life and peace. Of course I mean the peace which Christ 
giveth, and which the world cannot give nor take away; that peace 
that passeth all understanding, and which keeps the heart and 
mind through Jesus Christ. This peace is clearly predicated of 
faith. "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom, also, we have ac- 
cess by faith into his grace wherein we stand." My friend's doc- 
trine requires baptism in all these Scriptures; and he is going to 
put it there at all hazards, and at any cost. Paul said we have 
peace in believing, and Christ said, "Thy faith hath saved thee; 
go in peace." Do you think that Mr. Harding will contradict these 
two witnesses? Do you think he will deny that the woman was 
saved by faith, and that she went her way in peace, and that with- 
out baptism? I would not be surprised if he did, for his doctrine 
is contrary to all Scripture, and to prove it he must contrary all 


In Phil. i. 25 we have the expression, "joy of faith." In 1 Pet. 
i. 8 we have, "Yet, believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and 
full of glory." In Acts xvi. 34 it is said, "They rejoiced, believing 
in God; " and, -if their faith begun before baptism, so did their joy. 
In Acts viii. we read: "There was great joy in that city," and that 
before anybody had been baptized. Eom. xiii. 13 says that God 
fills us with joy and peace in believing. And, when the millions 
of earth with united voice testify that this Scripture was fulfilled 


in their personal consciousness when they believed, for in no other 
way could it be fulfilled ; and when the Scriptures warrant it, and 
my friend rises up, in the name of Alexander Campbell, and in the 
mighty nothingness of his modern plea, to deny all, and to over- 
turn all, I pity him, as one who works greedily to destroy both 
himself and everybody else. Let the Scriptures read as they are, 
and mean what they say, and woe to the man who tampers with 
them, and who puts the blessings of salvation where God, Spirit, 
angel or saint never authorized. 


My friend takes the term "disciple" as the equivalent of a Chris- 
tian; indeed, he emphasizes the fact that his people are disciples, 
and he would not be content with an insufficient appellation. In 
his estimation a disciple is a saved man: Luke xiv. 26-30 shows 
that no one can be a disciple who does not love Jesus Christ 
supremely. Not only better than father and mother, or wife and 
children, and even life itself, but, if these hinder him, he must hate 
them. The term is applied both before and after baptism in the 
Scriptures. The great commission tells us to make disciples and 
baptize them; and it is said that Jesus made and baptized more 
disciples than John. All of this indicates clearly that the great 
change that salvation brings takes place before baptism. Indeed, 
an unbaptized man may be a truer disciple than a baptized one, 
because he may have more of the spirit of discipleship, and may 
err on fewer points, though he may err on baptism. Mr. Harding 
will never prove from the Scriptures that none but the baptized 
are disciples. The Scriptures are plain that one must be a disci- 
ple before he is baptized. Then, what advantage has my friend in 
calling himself a disciple? 


Must one be a child of God before baptism? Must one be a 
Christian before baptism? If not, there is no such thing as Chris- 
tian baptism. For, if infant baptism is the baptism of infants, and 
believers' baptism is the baptism of believers, so Christian baptism 
is the baptism of Christians. Those who become the children of 
God by faith ought to be clothed (see Eom. xvii. 12-14; Eph. iv. 
24; Col. iii. 9-10), not only with Christ, but with all the graces of- 
the Christian religion. Hence, Paul says, as indorsed by McKnight, 
George Campbell, Doddridge, "Emphatic Diaglott," and Alexander 


-Campbell, "For ye are all the sons of God through the faith by 
Christ Jesus. Besides, as many of you as have been immersed into 
Christ have put on Christ." Most other translations make the 
simple clear statement that "we are all the children of God by 
faith in Jesus Christ." And, while the whole Christian world urge 
that these children of God by faith in Jesus Christ should be bap- 
tized unto Christ, and put on Christ, yet they all hold the old 
Scripture doctrine that we are all the children of God by faith in 
Christ Jesus. (See Gal. iii. 6-9.) My friend is going to deny that 
any unbaptized man is a child of God, though he believes in Jesus 
Christ, and believes that God has raised him from the dead, and 
has publicly confessed him with the mouth, and abounds in good 
works that put my friend's people to shame. Here again is des- 
perate fanaticism, hurled against the Scriptures of divine truth. 
I am sorry for him. 


Paul says, "If children, then heirs," and "that the Spirit himself 
testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God." Eom. 
iv. 13 states that Abraham became an heir through the righteous- 
ness of faith, and that any law principle would make faith void, 
and the promise of none effect, because the promise was given 
before the law, and before circumcision j therefore, says Paul, it is 
of faith, that it might be by grace to the end the promise might 
be sure to all the seed. 

Abraham got the inheritance by faith in the promise, and all of 
us who are of faith are the sons of Abraham, and those of faith 
are blessed with believing Abraham. But my friend must put bap- 
tism in here, and in doing so he confesses and confesses that the 
faith he knows of is dead before baptism, and that makes his bap- 
tism of no account. 


The Holy Spirit is one of God's greatest gifts, to be sure to those 
who ask him. As we have a special subject for this, I will offer 
now but little proof to show that he is received before baptism. 
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty," and "we are not 
in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwells in 
us." The Galatians received the Holy Spirit by "the hearing of 
faith;" then they received him before baptism. They "begun in 
the Spirit," and baptism was not the beginning with them. (Gal. 
iii. 2, 3.) Paul asked the Corinthians (Acts xix. 2): "Eeceived ye 


the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" It is also said that many oi 
the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized. First they 
heard, then they believed, then they were baptized. Paul did not 
ask if they received the Holy Spirit when they were baptized, but 
when they believed, or when their hearing produced faith, and, 
like the Galatians, they received the Spirit by the hearing of faith. 
Watch my friend charge against these Scriptures. Now read Eph. 
i. 13: "In whom ye also, having heard the Word of Truth, the 
Gospel of your salvation, in whom, having also believed, ye were 
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." I have no doubt but the 
Ephesians were baptized, as were the Galatians and Corinthians,, 
but they, nor any one, according to the Scriptures, have ever received 
the Holy Spirit in baptism. How was it with the house of Corne- 
lius? "While Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on 
all them which heard the Word." This was God's testimony, that 
when they heard they believed, and their hearts being purified by 
faith, God testified with the like gift that he gave to the others 
who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thus put no difference 
between them and the apostles, purifying their hearts by faith. 
In God's estimation the faith of the baptized is here made equal 
with the faith of the unbaptized, and God gave his testimony that 
there was no difference between believers, so the unbaptized faith 
received as much of this blessing as did the other, and that showed 
that God put no difference between them. Hence Peter said, " Can 
any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have 
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" They became the chil- 
dren of God by faith, and, being children, God sent forth his Spirit 
into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father. And who was Peter, that he 
could withstand God? But my friend and his candidates did not 
receive the Spirit when they believed, neither did they receive any 
of the blessings when they believed, according to his own testi- 
mony, and there is such a difference between him and us that I 
cannot call him "brother." Jesus said (John vii. 38, 39) that they 
who believed on him should receive the Spirit; and Mr. Anderson 
translates Gal. v. 5: "For we, through the Spirit, which we ob- 
tained by faith, wait for the hope of righteousness." But what 
are all these, and all other Scriptures, compared to my friend's 
plea. They both can't stand, and we will see which my friend 

My friend indorses the diagram which puts faith after hearing,, 
and before conviction, before love, repentance, confession and 


baptism; and, while the Scriptures predicate all the like blessings 
of salvation to faith, my friend insists that they are not received 
until baptism. We have proved that salvation, remission, justifi- 
cation, sanctification, regeneration, reconciliation, righteousness,. 
Holy Spirit, cleansed, purified, purged, washed, adopted, accepted, 
sealed, grafted, quickened, new creation, circumcision, death to 
life, darkness to light, mercy, grace, joy, disciples, children, heirs, 
and every other characteristic and appellation is predicated of 
those things which are confessedly before baptism. But my friend, 
despite all these Scriptures, holds a doctrine that contradicts them 
all; and may God have mercy on him and all his people, who have 
so erred from the truth. 
Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Eleventh Reply. 

Dear Friends : 

It not unfrequently happens that the proper understanding of 
one passage of Scripture will utterly overthrow a false argument, 
or even a false system of doctrine. And my friend has at last 
been compelled to notice a passage of that kind one that I have 
been striving to get him to notice ever since the debate began. 
As an understanding of it fully and clearly settles the question be- 
fore us, completely and everlastingly destroying his position, I 
shall endeavor to bring out the light from it at once, and will at- 
tend to minor matters afterwards. The passage is this : 

"Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed 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, 43.) 

Here it is said that these rulers believed on (eis) Christ. Brother 
Moody's position is that the moment any man believes eis Christ 
he is a saved man, has eternal life, will never fall from his saved 
state, and so on. Hence, he holds that these rulers were in a saved 
state, God's children, redeemed, forgiven, on the train for the 
celestial city, with a through ticket, and the car door locked, so to 1 
speak, while refusing to confess Christ from fear of man, while 
loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. Now, if I 
can show that these rulers were not saved, but were resting under 
the condemnation of God, hi a lost state, his theory will go to the 
ground with a crash, and it will follow that something else is nec- 
essary to the salvation of a man besides a mere internal, unex- 
pressed faith. If I can show any thing, I can show that these men 
were under God's condemnation, and, if they ever got from under 
it, they changed their lives and turned to the Lord first. 

These men would not confess Christ; if? is necessary that we 
should confess him to be saved by him. They would not deny 
themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him; we must do 
these things to be saved by him. They loved the praise of men 
more than the praise of God; hence, the love of God did not rule 


in their hearts. In proof of these positions, consider the following 
passages : 

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I 
confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever 
shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father 
which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on 
earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to 
set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against 
her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that 
loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me : and 
he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not 
worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that 
loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. x. 32-39.) 

In this strong, clear passage Jesus requires men to confess him, 
in order to be confessed by him; and he avows that if they deny 
him, he will deny them. He explains that those who enter into 
his service may expect war, the closest kinsmen being arrayed 
against one another. He affirms that if a man's love for father, 
mother, son or daughter prevails over the love for him, then such 
a one is not worthy of him. And he plainly states that if a man 
will not take his cross and follow after him, he is not worthy of 
him; even if he lose his life, he must follow after him. What, 
then, think you, in the light of this passage, was the condition 
of those rulers? They would not confess Christ, would not take 
up their crosses, would not follow him. They feared men more 
than they feared God; and loved the praise of men more than the 
praise of God. They were seeking temporal, rather than eternal, 
welfare. Do you call that faith, saving faith? I thought you 
agreed with me that saving faith includes trust. Where was the 
trust of these men? Friend Moody charges us with advocating a 
different kind of faith from that to which he holds ; and it seems 
that he is right about it. For we demand of those who would 
come among us that they must have a faith that loves and trusts 
Jesus, and that is ready and determined to follow him, let come 
what may. And we teach that without such a faith no man can 
come to Jesus. Without such a faith baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per bring condemnation rather than blessing. 

Jesus says: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and 
my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also 


shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he:cometh in the glory of 
his Father with the holy angels." (Mark viii. 38.) These rulers 
were ashamed of Jesus and his words. 

Paul says: "With the heart man toelieveth unto righteousness; 
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Bom. 
x. 10.) These people did not believe unto righteousness (their 
faith did not lead them to obedience), and hence they did not con- 
fess unto salvation. 

He says again: "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if 
we deny him, he also will deny us." (2 Tim. ii. 12.) These rulers 
would not suffer with Jesus, hence they could not reign with him; 
by their lives they denied him, and hence (except they afterwards 
repented and turned to the Lord) they will be denied by him. 

John says: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the 
Father : he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also." (1 John 
ii. 23, Eevised Tersion.) 

Again he says : " Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not 
of God." (Chap. iv. 3, Revised Version.) These rulers confessed 
not Jesus ; therefore they were not of God. 

Jesus says: "Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after 
me, cannot be my disciple." (Luke xiv. 27.) Notice the strong 
negative, "cannot." It is impossible to be a disciple of Jesus 
without bearing the cross and following him. These rulers did 
not these things. 

Nor did they love Jesus, for the Master says: "If a man love 
me, he will keep my words." (John xiv. 23.) And then he adds 
(verse 24) ? "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." 
Hence it is settled, the Lord himself being the judge, that these 
rulers did not love Jesus. Had they loved him, they would have 
obeyed him. 

The Scriptures say: "Love not the world, neither the things that 
are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the 
.Father is not in him." (1 John ii. 15.) These people loved the 
world and the things of it; hence it follows that the love of the 
Father was not in them. All that love will obey, Jesus says; and 
hence he does not propose to save any but those who obey. Hence 
it is said: "Being made perfect, he became the author of eternal 
salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb. v. 9.) This is a 
verse, by the way, that I have never succeeded in getting Brother 
Moody to notice, in any debate, to this hour. It shows that when 
-Jesus speaks of the believer as being "justified by faith," as hav- 


Ing passed "from death, unto life," and so on, lie means tlie obedient 
believer, the man whose faith has been perfected by works. Paul 
says it is "faith working through love" that avails. (See Gal. v. 6, 
Revised Yersion.) Of course you know what the word "avail" 
means. It shows that it is "faith working through love" that ac- 
complishes any thing, that reaches the blessing. Hence the strik- 
ing passage: "He thatbelieveth on the Son hath, eternal life; but 
he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of 
God abideth on him." (John iii. 36, Kevised Yersion.) In perfect 
harmony with all this is the statement of Peter concerning the 
Holy Spirit, "Whom," he says, "God hath given to them that obey 
him." (Acts v. 32.) Those rulers had not obeyed God, and hence 
had not received the Holy Ghost. 

And now, to cap the climax, in settling the matter concerning 
these rulers, let me read to you what the great Baptist, Dr. Hovey, 
whom we have quoted so often, has to say about them. In his 
commentary on the passage he says: "For they loved the praise 
(glory) of men more than the praise (glory) of God. By the glory 
of men is meant the glory that is from men, and by the glory of 
G-od, the glory that is from God. Hence these Sanhedrists were 
not men who had been renewed by the Spirit of God; their re- 
ligion was not of the heart, but of the head; they had very little 
sense of the awful nature of sin, and no experience of the true 
peace which God imparts to those who delight in him. For who- 
ever cares more for human applause than for the approbation of 
God is radically unlike the Savior. (Comp. v. 41, 44.). The heart 
can have but one object of supreme affection. It will be found 
impossible to give men the first place and God the second. Who- 
ever attempts to do this will soon find that he is making a vain 
and absurd attempt, working against reason and conscience, and 
that he must give God the first place in his heart, or no place at 
all." (Hovey on John, p. 262.) 

Albert Barnes says on the passage: "It does not appear that 
they had a living, active faith, but that they were convinced in 
their understanding that he was the Messiah. They had that kind 
of faith which is so common among men a speculative acknowl- 
edgement which leads to no self-denial, which shrinks from the 
active duties of piety, and fears man more than God. True faith 
is active. It overcomes the fear of man; it prompts to self-deny- 
ing duties." (See Barnes, in loco.} 

Joseph and Mcodemus may have been of this number, but, if 


so, the fact that they were afterwards bold and outspoken in their 
devotion to Jesus is no proof that they were saved, forgiven, be- 
fore that courage and devotion was developed in them. 

So, friends, we have in the case of these rulers men who would 
not obey Christ, who did not truly love him, who would not take 
up their crosses and follow him, who sought the glory of men 
rather than the glory of God, but who, nevertheless, believed on 
(eis) Christ. And to my mind this settles it that more than mere 
faith is necessary to bring one to pardon and to peace. Peter says,. 
"You have purified your souls in obeying the truth." This is an- 
other passage I cannot get Brother Moody to notice. To suit his 
doctrine it ought to read, "God purified your souls before you 
obeyed the truth." That version of the matter would bring the 
rulers in. 

Now, that this matter is off our hands, some minor things can 
be attended to. 

The gentleman threatens to publish some criticisms that my 
brethren have made on me. He was moved to make this threat 
by my telling you what his brother, Judson Taylor, said about him. 
Taylor, you remember, had a little controversy with him, in which 
he accused Moody with making "unaccountable misrepresenta- 
tions," with "cruel injustice," with misrepresenting him ".beyond 
any kind of moral endurance," and so on. He charges Moody 
with making an impression which he knew to be untrue at the 
time he made it. I quoted these things from Taylor to show you 
that my erring brother treats his Baptist brethren just like he 
treats us, and just like he treats the Bible. As to his threats 
towards me, he ought to know by this time that I am not afraid 
of any thing that he can do. He can publish when he gets ready, 
and, by the grace of my Father, I will attend to the case when it 
comes up. 

He refers again to Dr. Baker and the Watertown matter. Dr. 
Baker' was charged with informing me that twenty-one Baptists 
had come to us since the debate. He replied, "I never so stated;" 
and he wrote to me at once, thinking that I might have misunder- 
stood him. But I had not misunderstood him. I simply read you 
his letter. And whoever reads the debate when it is published 
can read the letter and see. 

As to the Alexandria matter, let any man read Brother Moody's 
first statement of the case (as those who read the debate can do), 
and then read his statement in his last speech, and he can easily 


see who ought to "sting." Suppose the Baptist Church at Alexan- 
dria did have a pastor a part of the time last year, and have had 
several conversions of folks who have not yet been baptized, and 
have had three sermons, instead of one, this year, I don't see any 
thing very astounding in these facts, nor any thing calculated to 
make me "sting." But, if the Baptists there are so "few in num- 
bers and poor in purse" as Brother Moody says they are, I think 
they were very foolish in undertaking to build "perhaps the finest 
house in all tbat country," as the said Moody testifies they did. 
Eead Luke xiv. 28-30, and see what the Master says about such 

Brother Moody says one of our people united with the Baptists 
at Pikeville (or in that region) after our debate there. I don't be- 
lieve that any member of ours in good standing did it. I have 
never been able to hear of such a man. But I have heard of a 
man in that country who was once with us, but afterwards became 
very wicked, and lived so for some years; then he attended a 
mourner's bench revival, went to the anxious seat, and made a 
profession; then he became wicked again; and then, last August, 
he joined the Baptists. He is the man, I guess, that Friend Moody 
is boasting about, as he is the only one ever connected with one of 
our congregations who has gone to the Baptists since the debate 
tbat I have been able to hear about; and I have inquired with 
some diligence. But I know of Baptists in full fellowship and 
good standing who have come to us since the debate. I am ready 
to give name for name with Brother Moody when he gets ready. 

He says: "Our cause has been greatly advanced by all of my 
debates with his brethren, and that fact will stand against all the 
assertions and hearsays he can make to the contrary." That the 
cause of truth has been greatly advanced by all of our debates, I 
doubt not; but that the Baptist cause has been, I have never been 
able to find out. I know, at the end of our first debate, one of 
our congregations in a neighboring town was represented at the 
debate, and we were requested to repeat it in their house; I ac-. 
cepted their invitation, Brother Moody did not. Hence the debate 
did not come off. At our second debate we were invited by the 
elders of two of our congregations to repeat the debate in their 
houses; I accepted, Brother Moody did not. Hence these debates 
did not come off. At none of our debates have any of his Churches 
invited us to repeat in their houses. They have been invariably 
satisfied to quit. As to results following the debates, I. have 



already given you some facts. All that you have to do is to wait 
a little while, and you will be able to see some of the results of 
this discussion. If we do not increase and multiply, if we do not 
have many additions in this city shortly after the debate, some of 
us will be much disappointed. For one, I have an< abiding confi- 
dence in the power of the truth. And that we have .the truth in 
this controversy I am as certain as that I live and breathe. I ask 
God to guide .and bless me in his service, and that he is doing it 
I doubt not. 

Hear the astonishing man again, will you? He says: "Mr. 
Harding claims again that Hovey is with him in doctrine." 1 have 
no recollection of making any such claim, though I do most dis- 
tinctly remember saying that he is not with me in doctrine, and 
that his agreement with me in certain matters of scriptural trans- 
lation and exegesis is all the more conclusive in our favor on that 
account. In his doctrine (teaching) on many points involved in 
this debate Hovey is with me ; but, being a Baptist, it is to be pre- 
sumed, and doubtless is true, that the general trend of his doc- 
trine is with my opponent. And, as I have said before, this being- 
true, he would not interpret the expressions "born 'of water," 
"washing of regeneration," "washing of water," "the like figure 
whereuuto even baptism doth also now save us," etc., in our favor 
(as he does) if he were not constrained to by his honesty and his 
great learning. He would not translate Acts ii. 38 "in order to 
the forgiveness of sins," and say, "Here repentance and baptism 
are represented as leading to the forgiveness of sins," if candor 
and scholarship did not make him do it. And so, too, of Hackett 
and other Baptists. 

The gentleman now says that he does not indorse all of Mr. 
Norton's language. I just reminded you of what took place when 
he first read from Norton's letter. I had read an extract from it 
the night before. He said he would read the same extract, and 
that it would sound very differently from what it did when I read 
it. (And it did, sure!) He said he would read it just as it was. 
He would stop occasionally in his reading to shout, "Good old Bap- 
tist doctrine ! " Not once did he dissent from what he read. But 
four times he skipped while claiming to read it just as it was; and 
you heard me call him back, and make him read it over. One of 
the skipped places, however, he never did read. You heard his 
moderator, Dr. Lofton, speak out, in answer to my question, and 
say, "It is not Baptist doctrine." These things happened here be- 


fore you, and you know they are so. Brother Moody now tells you 
that he cannot know Mr. Norton's "particular meaning." Let me 
call your attention again to two of the skipped passages, and, be- 
loved, you can try your hands to see if you can understand his 
"particular meaning." "Can you deny," says Norton, "without 
doing violence to Mark xvi. 16, that a true profession of trust in 
Christ by being immersejd is one of the things on which the prom- 
ise of salvation is there made to depend? so that he who does not 
>obey as well as trust, cannot say that that promise applies to 

That is not hard to understand. Norton affirms, in the strong 
interrogative way, that the promise of salvation is made to depend 
upon immersion (Mark xvi. 16), and that a man must obey, as well 
.as trust, or he cannot say that the promise applies to him. (This 
is the passage that Friend Moody never did read.) 

Norton inquires again: "Do you believe the truth of what Peter 
.asserts, in very plain words, that as the ark saved Noah, so immer- 
sion, as the means by which we seek salvation with a pure con- 
science, 'now saves us?' (1 Peter iii. 23.) Will you deny the truth 
of this assertion, and say that, instead of saving 'us actually, as 
the ark saved Noah, it is nothing but a picture of salvation?" 

The "particular meaning" of that extract seems to me also to 
be very clear. Norton holds that as the ark saved. Noah, so im- 
mersion now saves us; that as the salvation in the one case was 
"actual," so it is in the other. No wonder Brother Moody was 
tempted to skip it, as it goes square against his doctrine of salva- 
tion in a figure, a pictorial, not a real, salvation. But he ought to 
have resisted the temptation. 

The gentleman says I rise up "in the name of Alexander Camp- 
bell" "to deny all, to overturn all." He knows as well as you do, 
my friends, that that is not true. He knows that I do not do any 
thing in the name of Alexander Campbell. He has repeatedly re- 
ferred to Campbell as the founder of our order, as the bead of our 
Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Campbell 
did one work better than all others (and he did many well), it was 
to warn all against following men in religion, against belonging to 
Churches founded by men. I strive to follow Campbell only as he 
followed Christ; I strive to follow every other man whose preach- 
ing I hear, or whose writings I read, in precisely the same way. I 
ask no man to believe (in religion) that which I cannot read from 
-God's Word; I ask none to do that which I cannot show that God's 


Word requires ; I ask none to refrain from doing that which I can- 
not show that God's Word forbids. I stand on the Solid Kock, 
the Bible. Put me to the test, and see if I cannot give Scripture 
for my teaching and practice. I hold to no doctrine in religion, 
nor practice any thing in the service of God that was not known 
in the world before Campbell was born. Put me to the test, and 
prove your charge, or else withdraw it* as false. You have ten 
nights yet in which to find some doctrine or practice that Campbell 
bequeathed to us. If this cannot be done, then your charge is 

My time is slipping away, and I must, in the briefest way, hasten 
over my notes on the gentleman's speech. 

Jesus said to a woman (Luke vii. 48-50), "Thy sins are for- 
given." " Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace." Upon which 
I remark: (1) This was before Jesus had given the commission. 
He had not yet said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." (2) The woman was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. As to 
whether she had been baptized by John, or by Jesus' disciples, 
Brother Moody does not know, and hence he should not affirm. 
(3) Her faith did not reach the blessing until it was expressed in 

Peter says, as the gentleman quotes, "Yet believing, ye rejoice 
with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Yes, but they did not 
reach the blessing by faith only, for in the same letter he says, 
"Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth;" and a little 
further on he says, " Baptism doth also now save us." 

Brother Moody quotes, "They rejoiced, believing in God." Just 
so; and if you will turn to the passage you will see that the state- 
ment is made just after their baptism. (See Acts xvi. 30-34.) " By 
works was faith made perfect." However, 1 am sure that there is 
a sense of rest and comfort that comes to every man as soon as 
he surrenders himself wholly to the Lord, with full purpose of 
heart to follow him. But this is not forgiveness, nor any part of it. 
Nor is it to be compared to the joy of forgiveness. I am happy 
when I start home, but I am much happier when I get there. 

He quotes, "There, was great joy in that city," and adds, "and 
that before anybody was baptized.-" Miserable perversion ! for the 
joy was from the curing of the great multitudes of sick people. 
(Bead Acts viii. 5-8.) They did not receive the Spirit till after 
they were baptized. (See verses 12-17.) Can't a sinner be happy 
when his sick children are cured? 


Friend Moody says that with me disciple and Christian are 
equivalent terms; that a disciple is a saved man. Not so; I 
believe in making disciples, and then in baptizing them in the 
name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. Every Christian 
is a disciple (a learner), but every disciple (learner) is not a 

He says a man must be a .child of God before baptism. It is 
certain he is not a child of God as soon as he believes, for Jesus 
gave to believers "power to become the sous of God." (John i. 12.) 
If we are children before baptism, then we are children while out 
of the kingdom, and before birth, for Jesus says, "Except a man 
be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God." 

Yes, Paul says, "Ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ 
Jesus." (Gal. iii. 26.) But not by faith only, for his very next 
words are, " For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did 
put on Christ." Through faith we are baptized, and are thus born 
of water and Spirit, and thus become children of God. Is it not 
strange that Brother Moody should quote this passage? Is he 
trying to commit theological suicide? He need not do that; I'll 
kill him, and save him the trouble. 

Christian baptism does not mean the baptism of Christians. 
Christian, as an adjective, is not a New Testament word, but in 
current use it means "pertaining to Christ." "Christian doctrine," 
"Christian baptism" mean the doctrine given by Christ, the bap- 
tism given, or instituted, by Christ. 

Brother Moody says the Holy Spirit is one of the blessings of 
salvation received before baptism. When did Jesus receive it? 
(Matt. iii. 16.) The apostles? (Actsii. 4.) The 3,000? (Acts ii. 38.) 
(See, also, Acts viii. 16, 17; xix. 5, 6.) Find one case, since Christ 
died, where any one received the Spirit before baptism (except the 
miraculous and exceptional case of Cornelius), and I will give up 
the debate. 

I do not indorse his diagram. In it he puts things after baptism 
which we put before. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding s First Speech. 


Baptism to the penitent believer is for (in order to) the pardon of his past sins, 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The same point, the time of forgiveness, is still before ns ; but 
our relations to the question have changed. For a week my oppo- 
nent has been in the lead, striving to show that forgiveness, with 
other blessings, is received before baptism ; during this week I am 
to show you that baptism is in order to forgiveness. I hope to 
make the matter stand out before you in its true light more and 
more clearly as the days pass. 

As I desire to begin at the beginning, at the bottom root, and 
not only so, but also at the very seed from which that root springs, . 
I shall ask your attention to-night to a discussion of the faith that 
justifies. The man who understands what "saving faith" is will 
have no difficulty whatever in understanding the place and design 
of baptism in the scheme of redemption. And the man who does 
not clearly understand this one thing is bound to be a blunderer 
all the days of his life, no matter how learned he may be in other 
things, nor how talented. 

I have already had occasion from time to time to say something 
on this point, but, being in the negative, I have not had the oppor- 
tunity to be as full and clear upon it as I now hope to be. I hope 
now, as far as in me lies, in the time that is allotted to me for this 
speech, to exhaust the subject of 


What is faith? Hear the Holy Spirit answer: "Now faith is the 
assurance of things hoped for, the proving (or test) of things 
not seen." (Heb. xi. 1, E. V.) In this first verse the inspired 
writer tells us what faith is, and then he devotes the remainder 
of the long chapter to illustrating the meaning of what he here 


says. Surely, in the light of his illustrations, we can under- 
stand his meaning, if we will but earnestly apply honest hearts 
to the work of investigation. That faith is "assurance of things 
hoped for" is so plain, so easily understood, so universally admit- 
ted, but few words need be spoken concerning this part of the 
divine definition. The mother says to her little girl, "Now, dear, 
if you won't cry, I will give you some candy when I return." The 
little maiden heroically restrains her tears as the mother drives 
away. She believes her mother. What do you mean by that? 
Why, she is assured that she will get the candy. "Faith is the 
assurance of things hoped for." God told Noah to build an ark 
for the saving of his house. Noah built the ark. He believed 
God. That is, he was assured that he and his house would be 
saved according to the word of the Lord. God told Abraham that 
Isaac should be the father of many nations ; he then told him to 
offer him up as an offering unto him. Abraham believed God. 
What do you mean by that? Abraham was determined to offer up 
Isaac according to the word of the Lord to take his life and to 
burn his body but all of the time he was so diligently and cau- 
tiously engaged in carrying out this purpose he was full of the 
assurance that God would raise him from the dead, and that he 
would then certainly become the father of many nations. In his 
case clearly faith was "the assurance of things hoped for." I 
might proceed to give you many other illustrations drawn from 
our own experiences, as well as from the Word of God, but it is 
hardly necessary ; the matter is too plain and simple to need much 
comment; our faith in every benefactor, from the little girl's trust 
in her mother for the candy to the aged Christian's expectation of 
a home in the everlasting kingdom of God, is "assurance of things 
hoped for." 

But the second part of the divine statement is not so simple, 
nor is it so generally understood. Faith is " the proving (or the 
test) of things not seen." What does that mean? Give me your 
attention closely for a little while, and I hope to show you. The 
Holy Spirit has kindly deigned to show us that faith unexpressed 
is worthless. It must be completed by being embodied in works 
to be of any account. Proof: "For as the body apart from the 
spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." (James 
ii. 26, R. Y.) " Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and 
by works was faith made perfect." (Verse 22.) " But wilt thou 
know, vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?" (Verse 


20.) "Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself." 
(Verse 17.) I know Brother Moody claims that James is not talk- 
ing about justifying faith in general, but only about the faith that 
justifies the professor, or saved man, in the sight of men. But I 
know, and have shown you, that in this he is wrong. Nothing but 
the. feeling that causes a drowning man to catch at a straw could 
ever have induced him, or any one else, to give such an interpre- 
tation. For James illustrates by the case of Eahab. She was not 
a professor, nor a saved woman. And, while it is certain that she 
was saved by faith, it is equally certain that it was by faith that 
worked, faith embodied. Listen: "By faith Eahab the harlot 
perished not with them that were disobedient, having received 
the spies with peace." (Heb. xi. 31, E. V.) The verse is so 
plain comment is scarcely necessary. The disobedient perished 5 
but Eahab did not belong to that class; she was saved by faith. 
When? When she had "received the spies with peace." So she 
was saved by faith embodied, faith perfected by works. Hence 
James says: "Was not also Eahab the harlot justified by works, 
in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another 
way?" Eemember the apostle Paul says that in Christ Jesus it is 
41 faith working through love" that avails. I ride a horse; I don't 
ride merely the body of a horse; nor do I ride the spirit of a 
horse; there must be body and spirit combined, or we cannot ride. 
So faith must be embodied, or it is worthless. "Apart from 
works," cries the Holy Spirit, it is "barren," it is "dead." 

But, again, as I have shown you, James was not talking about 
justification in the sight of men, for he illustrates by Abraham's 
offering up Isaac. And the old patriarch, with the greatest dili- 
.gence and caution, excluded every mortal eye from seeing what he 
was about to do. Moreover a voice from heaven plainly tells in 
whose sight Abraham was justified by that deed; for, as the old 
man stood with uplifted knife, on the very verge of plunging it 
into the heart of his darling boy, a voice from heaven cried: 
"Abraham, Abraham;. and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay 
not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; 
for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with- 
held thy son, thine only son, from me." (Gen. xxii. 11, 12.) Now 
what do you think of Brother Moody's doctrine that Abraham was 
up there trying to justify himself in the sight of men? But he 
had to say something; for, if .James is talking about justifica- 
tion in general (as he undoubtedly is), then my opponent's posi- 


tion that the sinner is justified by faith as soon as it is conceived 
in the heart is unquestionably false. 

But let us now return to the statement: Faith is "the proving 
of things not seen." It must be evident to every thoughtful mind 
that more is comprehended here in the word faith than the mere 
. internal action that is sometimes called faith. For such a faith 
proves nothing; it is "assurance," truly enough, but it puts noth- 
ing to the test. But the faith that James talks about, faith per- 
fected by works, does prove "beyond the possibility of a reasonable 
doubt, the existence of the unseen God. 

Let us now go back to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, and 
see if the inspired penman is not there talking of the same faith 
of which James speaks. At the seventh verse it is said, by faith 
Noah "prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which 
he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness 
which is according to faith." By faith Noah built an ark. Did he 
build it by faith only? Nay, verily. To ask the question is to 
answer it. He prepared that ark, and was saved from the flood 
that destroyed the ungodly, by a faith that did what God told him 
to do, and by this faith, perfected by works., he "became heir of 
the righteousness which is according to faith." And you, my 
friends, if you would become heir to the righteousness that is 
according to faith, must, like Noah, hear and believe and obey the 

But what about the "proving?" Was Noah's faith at any time, 
or in any way, a "proving of things not seen?" Yes, indeed; if 
you will but think, nothing can be clearer. By faith Noah gathered 
together the materials for the building; by faith he worked upon 
it day by day, till the last beam was in its place, till the last board 
was nailed, till the vast structure stood complete according to the 
appointment of God. By faith he gathered together the birds and 
beasts and creeping things; by faith he and his family went in; 
and then his faith was completed, in so far as that matter was con- 
cerned; he had done all that God told him to do. Then came the 
hand of the Lord to bless. "And the Lord shut him in," says 
Moses. How the hearts of that little band must have thrilled 
within them as that strange, mysterious hand closed and sealed 
the door ! Many years afterward that hand was seen in the hall 
of the luxurious and haughty Belshazzar, writing his doom and 
the overthrow of his kingdom on ,the wall. As the guilty king 
looked upon the strange moving hand of the unseen penman his 


countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that 
the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against 
another. To him. it was the messenger of evil. But not so to the 
little band in that ark. To them it was the proof of the presence 
and the blessing of the mighty God: Their lives of faith had put 
to the test the existence of the Great Unseen; and in what fol- 
lowed his truthfulness, goodness, mercy and power were demon- 
strated. The flood came; the awful tumult burst upon them; the 
fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the clouds poured 
out water. Wailings and bitter lamentations were heard without 
as the disobedient went down in the great destruction. For forty 
days and forty nights the rain continued, and then there came a 
great calm. Without the ark there reigned everywhere the still- 
ness of death. After many months of floating the ark rested, and 
then the time soon came when Noah, his family, and the birds,, 
beasts and creeping things came out and stood upon the dry 
ground. Then Noah knew, beyond the possibility of a reasona- 
ble doubt that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them who 
seek after him. Once he was simply assured of this, but now 
he knows it. Faith, when it works through love, becomes- 
proof, absolute proof. It puts to the test, with the unerring cer- 
tainty of a mathematical demonstration, the existence and the 
goodness of God. While of sound mind, Noah could not doubt 
any longer on this point. While he was building the ark, doubt- 
less, doubts would obtrude themselves into the minds of his sons 
and of their wives. It was hard for them to believe that father 
was right and all the world wrong. " What ! " they would say, " can 
it be possible that this great world, with all of its brilliancy, beauty 
and power, with its kings and governors, its warriors and states- 
. men, its nobles and sages, its beautiful women, grand men and 
prattling babes, is to be destroyed, and that we only are to be 
saved? Are we the special pets of heaven?" Then, doubtless, 
Noah's daughters-in-law had their relatives; and it would go hard 
with them to believe that their kindred were worthy of such de- 
struction. I imagine that Noah's wife herself would sometimes 
be troubled with doubts, as she saw her husband so despised in 
the eyes of the mighty, the learned and the fashionable of the 
earth. Ah, no doubt Satan would at times thrust the doubt up 
into the very face of the old man himself, as with tearful and 
bewildered eyes he looked upon the surging throngs that turned 
day after day from his earnest pleadings. But if the doubt arose 


in Ms mind the grand old patriarch crushed it down. He trusted 
in God, and he was determined to believe in his truthfulness, 
though thereby he should make every man a liar. But the day of 
doubting passed; assurance culminated in proof, and the apostolic 
definition of faith was fulfilled: "Now faith is the assurance of 
things hoped for, the proving of things not seen." 

But mark you, my friends, Noah's faith did not become proof, 
nor did it reach any blessing, till it was expressed in obedience. 
Noah was saved from the destruction of the flood by grace through 
faith, but the grace of salvation was not bestowed upon him on 
account of his faith till the faith was embodied. 

It is not faith only, but "the obedience of faith" that saves. 
Paul says the mystery of the Gospel "was kept secret since the 
world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of 
the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting 
God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Eom. 
xvi. 25, 26.) To the same people he says, "We have received 
grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, 
for his name." (Rom. i. 5.) That is, he was made an apostle by 
the Lord that he might lead people of all nations "to the obedience 
of faith." Christ told him, at the time that he made Mm an apos- 
tle, that he intended to send him to the Gentiles " to open their 
eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power 
of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and 
inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me." 
(Acts xxvi. 18.) Yes, Paul was to turn the people from Satan to 
God, from darkness to light, that they might be forgiven. Christ 
made Mm an apostle for that purpose. How did he do it? He 
lead them to the "obedience of faith." Listen: He says, "We 
have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith 
among all nations." When, then, were the people saved under his 
teaching? When were their souls purified? Let Peter answer: 
He says to the saints scattered throughout Asia, Pontus, Gala- 
tia, Cappadocia and Bithynia, "Ye have purified your souls in 
obeying the truth." (I Pet. i. 22.) What can be plainer ! They 
were not justified by "faith only," but by "the obedience of faith." 
We are told expressly that their souls were made pure in their 
obedience to the truth. 

Friends, let me call your attention here to two examples given 
in the Word of God. They stand over against each other in strong 


1. "And the word of God increased; and the number of the dis- 
ciples" multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the 
priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts vi. 7.) Were those priests 
forgiven? Were their souls purified? Yes ; you know they were. 
They not only believed, they were "obedient to the faith." They 
purified their souls "in obeying the truth." 

2. I want you to contrast with this the case of the rulers that 
has already been commented upon at such length. "Among the 
chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Phari- 
sees 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." Were these rulers forgiven? Were their souls purified? 
No; cowardice, selfishness, the love of the world, kept them from 
"obeying the truth." They would not, like those noble priests, 
become "obedient to the faith." Well may we repeat with James, 
" Faith apart from works is barren." " Faith, if it have not works, 
is dead." "As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith 
apart from works is dead." 

But may not some of those rulers have repented afterward? may 
they not have turned to the Lord in humble submission to his 
authority? Yes, that is quite possible; and, if so, such were then 

Ah, my friends, obedience is a great thing. Christ, before he 
left the world, promised his disciples that if they would love him,, 
and obey him, he would pray the Father to send them the Holy 
Spirit. (See John xiv. 15-17, 23.) And then after the promise had 
been fulfilled, and the Holy Spirit sent, Peter said (speaking of the 
resurrection and ascension), " We are his witnesses of these things ; 
and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that 
obey him." (Acts v. 32.) 

Now I ana sure my Baptist brethren, and all others who have 
been attending this debate, can see why it is that I have so often 
and so emphatically asked Brother Moody for one single example 
in which a blessing was granted to a man on account of his faith, 
before that faith was expressed in action. In order to show you 
how certain I am that such a case cannot be found in all the Book 
of God, I have said that I would give up the debate if one such 
case could be found. The Bible is a large book, and I know well 
that no man can have all that is in it distinctly and vividly in his 
memory at one time ; hence I never would have made so bold and 
so comprehensive a challenge while depending solely upon my 


memory of the contents of the book. Had not the Holy Spirit 
said, "Faith apart from works is barren," "Faith, if it have not 
works, is dead," that startling statement would not have been 
made by me. 

But are not you Baptists getting a little restless? Do you not 
say to one another, "Why don't Brother Moody come along with 
his case? Why don't he show where God blessed somebody on 
account of "faith only," and before the faith was expressed in any 
bodily action? Ah, my friends, I will tell you why he don't do it: 
It is because he cannot. During our Pikeville debate I made the 
same challenge. He cheerfully accepted the challenge, said he 
had the passages, and that he would produce them. Day after 
day I called for them, and day after day he put me off, saying he 
was keeping them "in soak," and that he was going to ruin me 
with them by and by. My opinion was that he was keeping them 
back for the last day, so that I would not have time to give them 
a thorough examination before the audience. But, if such was 
his purpose, his ruse failed him, for when he did at length bring 
the matter up (on the last day of the debate, if I remember aright) 
it took me but a few minutes to show that the blessing was either 
granted independently of all faith (as the sunshine and the rain 
upon the just and unjust), or, if it were granted to faith, that the 
faith was expressed in action. I have observed, too, that Brother 
Moody dees not bring the same passages on this point the second 
time. Which, to my mind, is conclusive that he himself sees they 
do not stand the test do not support his cause. 

So, then, beloved, the faith that is approved in the Bible, that is 
so fully discussed in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, is a com- 
pound, consisting (1) of internal assurance and (2) of bodily action. 
When we study the examples given in that chapter, by the Holy 
Spirit, to illustrate this very point, the matter is so plain I don't 
see how any one can fail to understand. Abel offered his sacrifice 
by faith. Noah prepared the ark by faith. Abraham obeyed the 
Lord by faith, when he was called out of his country. He offered 
Isaac by faith. By faith Moses was hid by his parents; By faith 
Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Through 
faith he kept the passover. By faith the children of Israel passed 
through the Bed Sea. Joshua took the city of Jericho by faith; or, 
to put it in the words of inspiration, "By faith the walls of Jericho 
fell down, after they were compassed about seven days." Kahab 
was saved by faith. "By faith the harlot Eahab perished not with 


them that believed not, when she had received the spies with 
peace." And then the inspired writer refers to Gideon, Barak, 
Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, "who through 
faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained prom- 
ises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, 
escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made 
strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the 
aliens." He says, "Women received their dead raised to life 
again ; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that 
they might obtain a better resurrection ; and others had trial of 
cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and 
imprisonment. They were. stoned, they were sawn asunder, were 
tempted; were slain with the sword; they wandered about in 
sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented." 
And then, of all these, he says they obtained "a good report 
through faith." Can any one fail to see that the faith by which 
these worthies obtained the good report was faith embodied? In 
every single case there was the assurance of the heart expressed 
in the action of the life. 

Let us consider several of these cases more in detail. Joshua 
took the city of Jericho by faith. How? Was it "faith only," or 
u faith embodied," that took the city? Did the walls fall at the 
faith which is mere internal assurance, or at faith perfected by 
works? The record of the taking of the city is given in the sixth 
chapter of the book of Joshua. "Now Jericho was straitly shut 
up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none 
came in. And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into 
thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of 
valor. And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go 
round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And 
seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' 
horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, 
and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come 
to pass, that when they make a long blast with the rams' horns, 
and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall 
shout with a great shout,- and the wall of the city shall fall down 
flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before 
him." Thus the Lord directed, and thus Joshua did. First the 
armed men moved forward; then came seven priests with their 
trumpets of rams' horns; then the priests bearing the ark; and, 
lastly, the great multitude of the camp. This great host moved 


around the city once each day for six days; on the seventh day 
they arose very early, and encompassed the city seven times ; as 
they finished their last circuit the seven priests blew a long blast 
upon the trumpets, and the people, when they heard it, gave a 
great shout; and the walls fell. "By faith the walls of Jericho 
fell down," says the Lord. Was it by faith only? Was it not by 
faith perfected by works? Is there in this vast audience one soul 
so simple that he cannot answer? Surely not, unless there be an 
infant or an idiot here; and I am not talking to those classes. 

Just here, beloved, let me call your attention to the two classes 
of laws known as "positive" and "moral" laws. The moral law 
is right in the nature of things, and is commanded because it is 
right; as, "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill,"" "Honor 
thy father and mother," and so on. While the positive law is not 
right in the nature of things (in so far as mortals can see), but is 
right because it is commanded. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, 
under the new covenant, and the ceremonial law of the Jews, 
under the old covenant, are illustrations of positive law. God's 
directions to Joshua concerning the marching about Jericho con- 
stituted a positive law. Again, the number "seven" in God's 
Word, it is claimed, indicates perfection. Now in the taking of 
Jericho seven priests, bearing seven trumpets, were to encircle the' 
city for seven days, and seven times on the seventh day. Perfect 
positive law ! 

Was there any virtue in the marching of the people, in the blow- 
ing of the priests, or in the shouting of the multitude to throw 
down the walls? Not the least in the world. What threw down 
the walls? The power of God Almighty. On account of what did 
he throw down the walls? Evidently on account of the faith of 
his people, which was expressed and perfected in their obedience 
to his directions. Would their faith have reached the blessing if 
it had not been expressed? I doubt not I express the conviction 
of every thoughtful mind in this house when I say if Joshua had 
not followed the Lord's directions the walls would not have fallen. 
Positive law differs from the moral law in that it can be obeyed 
perfectly. For instance, Jesus says, "Thou shalt love thy neigdbor 
as thyself." I presume that no man ever did it perfectly since the 
world began except, of course, our Lord himself. Positive law 
is therefore a more perfect test of faith and -love, a more perfect 
test of allegiance to God, than moral law. The latter the moral 
infidel will often advocate as earnestly as the Christian, but the 


former he sees no sense in, and he will not submit to. For these 
two reasons, doubtless, God has ever been more ready to overlook 
the infractions of moral, than of positive law ; and for the same 
reasons the positive is peculiarly adapted to the expression and 
the perfection of faith. But there is danger of my being misun- 
derstood just here. I would not have you suppose that I think 
God would for a moment tolerate a willful violation of moral law. 
No, no; I simply mean that God, who knows so well our inherited 
weakness, is patient and gentle with us in our imperfect obedience 
to this law, and in our many backslidings from it. But positive 
law we can obey perfectly, and he is strict and stern in demanding 
that we shall do it, Uzzah, yielding to an impulse that seems most 
commendable, violated a positive law, and God killed him instantly. 
(2 Sam. vi.) David violated moral law in committing adultery, and 
in putting Uriah where he hoped he would be killed, and God, 
though he punished him severely, heard his prayer and forgave 
him. Saul, the king, violated a positive law in saving Agag and 
the best of the flocks and herds. He was highly elated, too, with 
the idea of offering these animals unto the Lord at Gilgal. So 
fierce was the Lord's wrath against him on account of it that he 
ne^er did forgive him ; he never would listen to him again. In the 
offering of Isaac, positive and moral law seemed to conflict; the 
moral law says, "Thou shalt not kill;" the positive said, "Take 
now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee 
into the land of Moriah; and otter him there for a burnt offering 
upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." Abraham 
did not hesitate a moment. He obeyed the positive law. And 
James refers to this case as an illustration of the fact that faith 
is made perfect by works. Hence Abraham is represented as being 
the father of all them who " walk in Hie steps of that faith" which 
he had while yet uncircunicised. 

I know there are a number of passages that predicate justifica- 
tion-and salvation of faith; and I know that one can take these 
passages out of their connection, sometimes breaking a sentence 
in the middle, and make them appear to teach the doctrine of the 
justification of the sinner by faith only. That is, this can be done 
if you will leave out of mind all other passages bearing on the 
question. But if these very passages upon which our opponents 
rely are studied in their connection, they furnish the fullest and 
most satisfactory refutation of their pernicious doctrine. For 
instance, we read, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal 



life." Stop there, in the middle of a sentence, and the doctrine 
seems to be proved; but finish the sentence by reading, "But he 
that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God 
abideth on him," and the matter appears in a very different light. 
(See John iii. 36, K. V.) When the sentence is finished, instead of 
teaching the doctrine of justification by faith only, it teaches 
exactly the opposite. Again, Peter, in talking to the strangers scat- 
tered throughout Poutus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 
speaking of Christ, says: "Whom having not seen ye love; in 
whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with 
joy unspeakable and full of glory: receiving the end of your faith, 
even the salvation of your souls." (1 Peter i. 8, 9.) I have heard 
that quoted to show that the sinner is justified by faith only. But 
how careless, or how wicked, the man who did it ! for, in the very 
same chapter, while talking to the very same people, he says, "Ye 
have purified your souls in obeying the truth." So we see, while 
they received salvation as the end of their faith, it was faith per- 
fected by works that reached the blessing; their souls were not 
purified till they obeyed the truth. Truly did Paul say that it is 
"faith working through love" that avails! Again: Paul says, 
"Wherefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without 
the deeds of the law." (Rom. iii. 28.) But does he exclude "the 
obedience of faith," as well as the deeds of the Jewish law? Nay, 
verily; for just a little farther on in the same book, in the same 
argument, and writing to the same people, he says, "But thanks 
be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became 
obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye 
were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants 
of righteousness." (Rom. vi. 17, R. V.) So we see that, although 
men are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, they are, 
nevertheless, not made free from sin till they have obeyed from 
the heart the form of doctrine. So the faith that justified them 
was faith perfected by works "the obedience of faith." Notice 
this, they obeyed from the heart. We believe in the heart; we 
repent in the heart ; but we are baptized from the heart. The 
first two are commands that are obeyed in the heart, while the 
"third is an external ceremony which springs out of a loving, trust- 
ing heart; hence in it we obey from the heart. Notice again that 
they had obeyed from the heart that "form of teaching" (doctrine) 
whereunto they had been delivered. Now what doctrine was Paul 
accustomed to deliver to people? Listen: "Moreover, brethren, I 


declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also 
ye have received, and. wherein ye stand; by which also ye are 
saved, if ye keep in memory what Ifpreached unto you, unless ye 
have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that 
which I also received, how that Chrisfcdied for our sins according 
to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again 
the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. xv. 1-4.) So 
the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus according to the Script- 
ures is "the doctrine," the Gospel which Paul preached, and by 
which people were saved, unless they believed in vain. Now, as 
Christ died, was buried and rose again, so the sinner, when he 
believes with a loving, trusting faith, dies to the love and practice 
of sin; then, when he is baptized into Christ, he is buried and 
raised again. Thus he obeys the Gospel, the "form of doctrine," 
and is made free from sin, dies to the guilt of sin. 

But perhaps some one is ready to inquire, does not Paul say 
that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one 
that believeth? Yes; but the same Paul says that when Christ 
comes again he will come takingf vengeance on them that "obey 
not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (See 1 Thess. i. 8.) 
Here again the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. Eemem- 
ber, Paul talks about some believing "in vain." Surely he means 
the faith that James calls "barren" and "dead." That is the faith 
that is "in vain." 

I think now it is an established fact a fact which thoughtful, 
honest-hearted men, who have patiently considered what I have 
thus far presented, will hardlyjcall in question that the faith which 
reaches the blessing is not simply assurance, "faith only," but that 
it is faith developed in action, faith " working through love," faith 
perfected by works. And, having established this much, it only 
remains now for me to show that baptism is a part of the obedience 
which Christ requires in order to the w forgiveness^of sins. During 
the whole of this week I will be presenting you argument after 
argument bearing upon this point. To-night I can only begin this 
part of the work; but what I present will, I think, be conclusive 
in itself, if not a another argument were added. 

We li ve under the new covenant which God, through Jeremiah, 
promised to make with the house^of Israel and the house of Judah 
in the last days ; in which he said their sins and their iniquities he 
would remember no more. The law and the prophets were until 
John; then came the^great^transition period, during which John 


and Jesus and their disciples were preparing the people for the 
establishment of the mighty kingdom of God which was to stand 
forever. But before the abolition of the law it had to be fulfilled 
in every jot and tittle. Hence Jesus said, I came not to destroy 
the law, but to fulfill. He kept it faultlessly, in every point, from 
the manger to the cross. Thus he became the end of the law for 
righteousness to every believer. Hence it is said: "He is our 
peace, who hath made both one [both Jew and Gentile], and hath 
broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having 
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments 
contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new 
man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God 
in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and 
came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them 
that were nigh." (Eph. ii. 14-17.) In writing to the Colossians 
Paul says that Christ had quickened them, and forgiven all their 
trespasses; and then he represents him as "blotting out the hand- 
writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to 
us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. ii. 14.) 

The law therefore came to an end when Christ died; he nailed it 
to his cross; he became the end of the law for righteousness to 
every believer; he had fulfilled it to a dot in every point; hence 
now there was room for the new covenant to come in force. 
Therefore after his resurrection, and just before his ascension to 
be crowned upon the throne of the universe as King of kings and 
Lord of lords, he gave to his disciples the new covenant. The 
old was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but the new was given by 
our Lord himself to his holy apostles, and was to be published to 
the world for the first time from Mount Zion. 

Jesus said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: 
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.. 
Amen." (Matt, xxviii. 18-20.) Or, as Mark records it, " Go ye into 
all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." (Mark xvi. 15, 16.) 

Looking forward to the time when he would make this covenant, 
and speaking to a master and leader under the old covenant, Jesus 
said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of 


water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 
" Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John 
iii. 5, 7.) So you see, my friends, Christ has put baptism before 
salvation ; the birth of water before entrance into the kingdom of 
God 5 and he says we must be born again. "He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved." First faith, then baptism, then salva- 
tion. The man who believes with the heart, that is, who believes 
lovingly, penitently, trustingly, is begotten by the Spirit, begotten 
of God; and when such an one is immersed he is born of water; 
and thus he passes into Christ, into the kingdom of God, in which 
is salvation. "In whom [Christ] we have redemption through his 
blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. i. 7.) 

Mark you, I am not discussing the absolute necessity of baptism 
to the forgiveness of sins; for I know there was a time when bap- 
tism as a religious institution was not known among men; yet 
men who lived in that period, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with all 
others who were faithful as they were, Jesus teaches, will be 
among the redeemed in the city of God. I am simply affirming 
that under the new covenant baptism to the penitent believer is in 
order to the forgiveness of his past sins. 

But, if men were saved without it then, may they not be saved 
without it now? I answer: Because men who were lovingly 
obedient then were saved, can we conclude that men who are dis- 
obedient now will be saved? I think not. Christ did not com- 
mand those people to be baptized, else they would have been. 
The man who forsook his native land and his people to go he knew 
not where, and who freely offered up his best beloved sou to die, 
at God's command, would readily have been baptized had God told 
him to be. Obedience is required of us ; it was of him. 

We have this matter strikingly set forth to us in the types of 
the Old Testament. The children of Israel were much discouraged 
in the wilderness because of the way; and they spake against 
Moses and against God, saying, " Wherefore have ye brought us 
up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, 
neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread." 
(Num. xxi. 5.) Aud the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, 
and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. There- 
fore the people came to Moses, and said, we have sinned, for we 
have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the 
Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed 
for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, make thee a fiery 


serpent, and set it upon a pole ; and it shall come to pass, that 
every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And 
Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it 
came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld 
the serpent of brass, he lived. Here was something to believe, 
and something to do. And not an Israelite was cured till he 
looked, no matter bow strongly he believed. God's statement was, 
"That every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." 
That was a large camp; 600,000 warriors were in it; then as many 
women as men ; and then as many children as men, at the lowest 
estimate; so that camp contained at least one million eight hun- 
dred thousand souls. It was as large as eighteen cities of the size 
of Nashville. Some of those Israelites had to travel for miles to 
see that brazen serpent. The man that looked lived, the man who 
did not died. Hence the law was, believe and obey and live; diso- 
bey and die. It is not recorded that there was a man in the camp 
silly enough to say, "There is as much virtue in this brass kettle 
as in Moses' serpent; and, as I cannot see his serpent without 
traveling ten miles, and as I am awfully afflicted and cannot move 
without great pain, I will just trust in the Lord and look at the 
kettle." Had there been such an one, he would have died as the 
fool dieth. Now, just as plainly as God said to the Israelites, 
"Every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live," just 
so plainly Christ says to us, " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." And just as certainly as every bitten Israelite 
when he looked was cured of the deadly bite, just so certainly is 
every man who believes and is baptized cured of the disease of 
sin; he is saved from every sin that he has ever committed; he is 

Faith, baptism, salvation. That is the order in which Christ put 
them, and just as certainly as Christ's word is true, just so cer- 
tainly is there a salvation that follows baptism. Concerning this 
but one question needs be settled, viz. : Is the salvation here spoken 
of present salvation (the forgiveness of past sins), or is it eternal 
salvation in the home of God? On this point consider the follow- 
ing: Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, prophesied of his 
son that he was to give knowledge of salvation to his people by 
the remission of their sins. (Luke i. 77.) But John, when he 
began his work, "did baptize in the wilderness and preach the 
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." '(Mark i. 4.) 
And the angel of the Lord said of Jesus, " Thou shalt call his name 


Jesus : for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matt. i. 21.) 
Then those who were being inducted into the Church by their 
believing and being baptized were represented as "being saved." 
"And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being 
saved." (Acts ii. 47, R. V.) These passages are enough to satisfy 
any reasonable man, it seems to me, that the salvation connected 
with baptism is present salvation, the remission of sins ; but, as 
if to make the matter absolutely certain, and to remove all possi- 
bility of doubt, Peter has said, "Baptism doth also now save us." 
(1 Peter iii. 21.) Hence God himself, through his holy apostle, has 
settled the matter. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved;" that is, he that believeth 'and is baptized shall be forgiven. 

Naaman was cured from his leprosy (a type of sin) by faith 
when he had dipped seven times ; the blind man was cured of his 
blindness by faith when he had washed in the pool of Siloam; the 
bitten Israelite was cured by faith when he had looked at the 
brazen serpent; Joshua took the city of Jericho by faith when he 
had compassed it about seven days; and just so the sinner is cured 
of the disease of sin by faith when believing with the heart he is 

My time has about expired. If G-od permit, in the nights that 
are to follow I will show how the apostles understood this com- 
mission, and how they carried it out in bringing people into the 
Church of Christ. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's First Reply. 

Gentlemen-moderators, Ladies and G-entlemen : 

It affords me unspeakable pleasure to contribute what I can to 
the investigation of this important subject. A little pleasantry 
between my friend and myself on Saturday night after the debate 
closed was after this fashion : I said to him, Well, next week will 
soon be here ; and by God's help I will be here. Now will you see 
that Acts ii. 38 will be here also? He pleasantly promised that 
Acts ii. 38 should be here. Well, next week is here, and I am 
here, but where is Acts ii. 38? Did you hear of it in that whole 
speech? When he kept his side of the subject thrust into the 
debate all last week, I replied that next week is the time set to 
discuss that question. At this he gave the sign for you to laugh, 
and you laughed, and I congratulated you on laughing in advance, 
if laugh you must. The gentleman said much in his speech that I 
can indorse, so far as the words go, and I am more than glad to 
congratulate him on every seeming approximation to the truth. 
But while he was speaking I was in a certain way forcibly reminded 
of the proposition: "Baptism to a penitent believer is for (or in 
order to) the pardon of past sins." When I say I was "in a way" 
reminded I mean by way of contrast. It is said that there is but 
one thing more conspicuous than the nose on a man's face, and 
that is no nose. We are forcibly reminded of a man's nose when 
there is no nose. So I was forcibly reminded of his proposition 
during his speech, for it was conspicuously absent. I engaged 
myself to establish my proposition last week, and my opponent 
tried to prevent it by affirming his a week in advance. He did 
this to force me into the negative; and it would have been a nice 
little trick if I had allowed him to succeed. That was his way to 
prevent the establishment of my proposition. 

But I must notice some of the strange and ridiculous things 
brought forth in the larbor and travail of the last hour. The gen- 
tleman scatters and crosses himself on faith until it is impossible 
to tell what he believes, or whether he believes any thing at all. 


His Tittle girl, assured of candy, is left to her assurance, which is 
not bodily action. Paul's definition of faith leaves bodily action 
out, and any definition that puts it in is incorrect. Action is a 
fruit of faith, but not faith itself. We put m contrast two noted 
definitions: "Now, faith is the confidence of things hoped for, and 
the conviction of things not seen." (Paul according to A. Camp- 
bell.) No bodily action in that definition. ISfow hear another, and 
be silent that you may hear: "Faith is a compound, consisting (1) 
of internal assurance and (2) of bodily action." (J. A. Harding.) 
Substituting the definition we read, By internal assurance and 
bodily action we understand that the worlds were made, etc. 
These all died in internal assurance and bodily action, etc. By 
internal assurance and bodily action Daniel stopped the mouths of 
lions. By internal assurance and bodily action the fire was 
quenched. These all, having obtained a good report through 
internal assurance and bodily action, receive not the promise, 
internal assurance and bodily action apart from works is dead. 
Whosoever has internal assurance and bodily action in me shall 
be saved. Have internal assurance and bodily action in the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and.thou shalt be saved. Wherefore? Because they 
sought it not by internal assurance and bodily action, but as it 
were by works. (Rev. ix. 32, E. V.) He that has internal assur- 
ance and bodily action, and is baptized, shall be saved. And when 
they had internal assurance and bodily action they were baptized, 
both men and women. And many of the Corinthians hearing had 
internal assurance and bodily action, and were baptized. " Faith is 
a compound, consisting (1) of internal assurance and (2) of bodily 
action ! " How often has he said that faith must precede baptism, 
and without it baptism is no account? And then every time he 
refers to the illustrious examples of faith, if the faith does not 
precede the action as in baptism, then they fail him, and if faith 
does precede the action, he loses his proposition, for all the bless- 
ings of salvation are predicated of faith. Who denies that faith 
and love, if they be not dead, will manifest themselves in action? 
The action is the test as to whether they be dead or not. If faith 
acts, it is because it is alive, and if it acts not, it is because it is 
dead. Such confounded confusion I have never heard as in the 
last speech. I hope there will be no laughing at these sad blun- 
ders of my friend, but let tearful prayers go up for his enlighten- 
ment in Scriptural things. Whenever he refers to the action of 
i'aith in the Old or New Scriptures, he is trying to prove that faith 


without baptism is dead. No difference what the phraseology is 
he means baptism, unless any action of faith in the new covenant, 
as he calls it, will do as well as baptism. He takes the position 
that "works," "works of faith," "obedient to the faith," " obedience 
of faith," "obey the Gospel," "obeying the truth," "form of sound 
words," etc., mean baptism. If he does not, why waste his time 
on that that does not prove his proposition? And now, once more 
about his boasted challenge. I am ready to answer, and have 
been, and will continue to be, as soon as I understand him. So I 
ask him again, and see if he will answer : 

Mr. Harding, when you say God never blessed, faith till it ex- 
pressed itself in action, of course you mean that the action must 
follow, and not precede, the faith. Please answer in your next 
speech. And again I ask you that other question, must the act 
be one of obedience or haphazard? 

When will he answer these questions? I don't propose to knock 
his props from under him now, because I want the debate to go 
on, and because I want you to see how easily I will do it when 
things get in order. He sometimes says faith must act in obe- 
dience, and then again he will dodge. Now, I dare him to take a 
position and stand, and I promise to tie him, hands, feet and 
tongue. I wish to ask him. one more plain question : Mr. Harding, 
when you used all of those illustrations, and quoted all those 
Scriptures in your last speech, was it your aim to prove your 
proposition by them? If not, what did you refer to them fort 
To particularize : Between Noah's faith and the perfection of his 
faith, as you call it, there were about one hundred and twenty 
years, and ten thousand bodily actions. Do you mean to teach 
that a man must do all that God commands before he can be 
saved? If Noah perfected his faith when he entered the ark, was 
there any farther action required of his faith? If so, was it per- 
fected before it got through with the works? To apply this: If 
the time intervening between faith and baptism should be long, as 
it often is, and the unbaptized believer should manifest his faith in 
a thousand bodily actions, as is often the case, do all these physi- 
cal actions fail to bring the blessing that can only be obtained by 
the act of baptism? And if baptism perfects faith, is there any 
thing left for faith after baptism? I ask these questions to get at 
your idea of this matter, if, indeed, you have any. Please tell 
what was the condition of Abraham during the forty years that 
intervened between his justification by faith and his justification 


by works. You say faith must be perfected, and that means do 
all God requires, and since no one ever did this, may we not be 
saved by an imperfect faith? and, if so, may we not be saved with- 
out baptism? But if I were to spend all my time on this pithless 
and pointless speech it would be a waste of time. No advance 
would be made in the investigation. I cannot afford to disappoint 
my people either in my affirmative or negative argument. Neither 
his floundering, fluttering, nor his people laughing, shall turn me 
from my purpose. Whether I fulfilled my engagement last week 
is a matter to be decidod by the hearers and readers. For this 
week I am engaged to negative the proposition announced. I 
engaged myself to disprove the proposition, together with what- 
ever argument should be brought to support it. As my friend's 
speech had no bearing on the proposition, then I have but to 
address myself directly to the proposition ; and, since his proposi- 
tion is drawn from Acts ii. 38, 1 propose to investigate first that 
Scripture, to see if it justifies the proposition. I will try to prove 
that it does not; and so of other Scriptures in their turn. 

A rule of interpretation generally adopted, and to which I think 
my friend will consent, is this: When a difficult passage is of 
doubtful interpretation, it must be viewed in the light of other 
Scriptures containing the same doctrine. Acts ii. 38 is resorted to 
to show how and when a man receives remission of sins. Any 
interpretation of the passage that conflicts with, or contradicts 
the plain teaching of other and many plain passages, is to be 
rejected. I claim my friend's people have thus interpreted it. At 
the same time, I think the passage easily admits of an interpreta- 
tion that is consonant with the general Scripture teaching on that 

The first error 1 would correct, and which has been prolific of 
much evil, is in the English preposition "for." It has uniformly 
been used by my friend's people as he uses it in the proposition, 
as though "in order to" was necessarily and invariably its mean- 
ing, while the very reverse is the usual meaning. Worcester defines 
it: (1) Because' of, by reason of. "The gulf is remarkable for 
tempest." (Addison.) (2) With respect to, with regard to, relat- 
ing to, concerning. (3) In the place of. Luke xi. 11: "Will he 
for a fish give him a serpent?" (4) For the sake of, on account of. 
John xv. 15: "Lay down his fife for a friend." Worcester has this 
note-. "Horn Tooke believes it to be no other than the Gothic sub- 
stantive fairina, cause, and to have always the same single signifi- 


cation, and nothing else. This derivation is adopted by Bichard- 
son." This note is signed by Smart. This makes four English 
lexicographers who make my friend's meaning impossible. 

Webster defines it: "In the place of, instead of, because of, by 
reason of, with respect to, concerning, in the direction of, toward, 
during. In the most general sense indicating that in considera- 
tion, in view of, with reference to More especially the 

antecedent cause or occasion of an action. . That on 

account of which a thing is done." So we. see that Webster is 
almost entirely against my opponent. 

Then, in the light of the English preposition "for," would you 
ask what Baptists baptize for? Let us approach the answer 
through other similar questions. What was the first Baptist 
beheaded for? For the reproof he gave Herod, that being the 
cause or occasion, which is the very opposite of "in order to." 
He was not killed in order that he might reprove Herod. What 
did Baptists in past ages suffer and die for? Answer: For the 
Gospel's sake, that being the cause or occasion, not the prospective 
design. What was the man hung for? For murder; not in order 
to, but the very reverse. .What did he laugh for? For joy, that 
being the cause. What did he cry for? For sorrow, that being 
the cause. What did Christ die for? For our sins, but not in order 
to our sins. Nature itself teaches us that this is the true idea of 
for. If Mr. Harding has any little children, and he should ask any 
one of them what it did so and so for, it would probably answer 
"'cause." Even when a child cries for hunger it is. doubted 
whether the child cries in order to bread, or whether the cry is to 
be attributed to an antecedent cause. It would cry. all the same 
before it learned that bread is a remedy for the antecedent cause, 
hunger. A man repents because, under an awakened conscience, 
he sees he has sinned against God, and repentance in order to any 
thing is impossible in the very nature of things, and if not it 
would be an abomination to God. We believe in Christ, not in 
order to, for that is impossible, and if not it would be intolerable; 
but we believe eis or epi the name of Christ, because there is no 
other name given under heaven whereby we can be saved, and 
because at the end of repentance we are in despair, and finding 
all our works dead ; that is, unproductive, unfruitful, barren, there 
is nothing else we can do but surrender, give up, trust, receive. 
If all our service does not come spontaneously, willingly, as the 
good fruit of a good tree, then it is not acceptable to God, neither 


indeed can it be. Do you ask now what Baptists baptize for? I 
answer, because Christ has commanded it, and because we love 
him, and because it becometh us, and because it is the profession 
of our faith and of our hope. Do you ask what we commune for? 
Because we would eat and drink eis remembrance of him; that is, 
because we hold him in affectionate memory, and would give 
expression in his appointed way. 

Don't forget that I am talking about the English "for," and not 
the Greek eis, and would .not have done so but for painful convic- 
tions of the palpable necessity for an exposure of a widespread 
and current nonsense. For (in Acts ii. 38) has been abandoned by 
Anderson, Campbell, McGarvey, Lard, and all the scholars on the 
gentleman's side; also by the Bible Union, late Eevision, etc.; the 
latter two having " unto," while the others, with a creed to estab- 
lish, have in order to ; and you may look out for an effort by the 
gentleman to prove, or rather to assert, that for, unto, to, into,, 
etc., all mean in order to. He may and will assert that his propo- 
sition is true, but he can never prove it. So much for translations, 
all of which having for or unto are against my friend's proposi- 
tion. We have seen that the testimony of for is greatly against 
him, and he will never produce a dictionary giving in order to as 
the or a meaning of unto. He may take all the English transla- 
tions, leaving out those of his own creed, and all the English dic- 
tionaries, " and he can't make out his in order to. Here is an 
abridged dictionary (Craig), and the only meaning of for is "be- 
cause of." Webster is about the same ; and so on generally. If 
the discussion should be limited to "for," the victory would be 
easy for me. 

But let us now forget the English "for," and fight the battle on 
the Greek "eis." I invite him to a fair and full examination of eis r 
appealing first to the Greek lexicons, as my friend does in his 
debates on the action of baptism. I ask, where is the lexicon 
that gives in order to as the primary, secondary or even tertiary 
meaning of "eis?" He will find but very few that give his mean- 
ing at all, and those few, as far as I can find, and I have been on 
an extended search, give his in order to as a very remote meaning;, 
that is, if they are to be judged by the distance they occur from 
the primary or first meaning. Mark ! he will not attempt a lexi- 
con investigation on eis. 

The next resort in an honest and thorough investigation is to its. 
current use in the Scriptures. The New Scriptures will permit 


ample scope, as this preposition occurs seventeen hundred times. 
The effort of my opponent and his people has been to maintain 
that purpose or design inheres in the preposition eis, rather than 
try to prove that the circumstances of Acts ii. 38 require it. I 
am prepared and shall proceed to disprove both. Mr. Anderson, 
who twice translated the Hew Testament for his people, translated 
Acts ii. 38 in order to; and, to make himself consistent, he trans- 
lated the first occurrence of eis with baptize in the same way, 
viz. : Matt. iv. 11, "I baptize you in order to repentance." In care- 
fully following this translation through, I find that he translates it 
in order to about as often as he could and make a good English 
sentence. If he could not in three hundred cases, then the excep- 
tions are respectable; and Acts ii. 38 may belong to them. If he 
failed in five hundred cases, then the matter is still worse. If he 
failed in eight hundred or one thousand cases, then the exceptions 
prevail, and so far as the point we are now considering, that is the 
inherent meaning of the preposition itself, Acts ii. 38 should 
easily go with the general teaching of Scripture. But suppose I 
tell you that Mr. Anderson, who translated eis in order to oftener 
than any other translator, and who translates it that way as often 
as he well could suppose he failed in twelve hundred cases, in 
fifteen hundred, in sixteen hundred, then you see the exceptions 
are sixteen to one. Now, if I tell you he could not, and did not, 
translate this in order to but fifty times, leaving sixteen hundred 
and fifty against him, would not you be in favor of giving it up ? 
But prepare for the worst, for it is worse than this. Twenty times, 
after a careful count, with a careful assistent, is the way it stands 
in the house of its friends; that is, twenty to 1,680. 

Mr. Wilson, in his "Emphatic Diaglott," has five to 1,695, and he 
sympathizes with the doctrine. Campbell, in "Living Oracles," 
has four to 1,696. The Bible Union has two to 1,698. Doddrige 
has one to 1,699. King James, though translating it forty-eight 
different ways, has no in order to. Oxford Revision has none; 
Wesley has none; Sharpe has none; Sawyer has none. 

Making a summary of the ten translations, we have thirty-two 
against 1,666. But, as three of these believed the doctrine of 
baptismal remission, and were witnesses in their own cases, accord- 
ing to a common custom we will refuse that part of their testi- 
mony that is in their favor, and take only that that was against 
themselves, for that kind of testimony is always reliable; the other 
generally unreliable. This leaves three to 1,666. Hence the gen- 


tleman has the short end of the lever, and so short is it that I am 
sure that he will not be able to overturn the general teaching of 
Scripture and the Christian experience of all ages. We strengthen 
this preposition by the testimony of Professor Harrison, the great 
writer on Greek prepositions. In that excellent work he treats 
this preposition with a scholarship unbiased by Methodism or 
sectarianism. He is not only sound on eis, but also on en, that 
figures so largely in discussions with his people. He says: "The 
proper signification of eis is 'within/ 'in/ with the idea of being 

within a space having bounderies 'Into' is not the 

simple sense of eis, but arises from combining it with the notion 

of reaching some object The other seeming derivative 

meanings of eis as 'for/ 'against/ 'until/ 'up to/ 'as regards/ are 
really due to the accusative case with which eis is conjoined, or to 
the character of the action which it qualifies, the only proper 
sense of eis being 'in/ 'within.' The preposition .... has 
obtained seemingly a considerable variety of meanings, as 'into/ 
'up to/ 'against/ 'until/ 'for/ 'to the amount of.' . . . . These 
different meanings arise, not from any variation of the preposition 
itself, properly speaking, but from the different uses of the case 
as it stands connected with the action or motion which the prepo- 
sition attends Eis does not itself contain the notion 

of 'for' or purpose anymore than it does 'among' or 'against; 7 
nor does the accusative of its own force express this sense; nor 
yet, again, is it distinctly set forth by the combination of the 
preposition eis with the action or motion attended by the accusa- 
tive, although, in so far as the notion of purpose can at all be said 
to reside in the terms employed, themselves considered, it is to be 
found more than anywhere else in the direction of the action or 
motion expressed by eis taken in conjunction with a verb of action, 
or motion, and in the restriction of the action thus qualified to a 
particular view which is made by the noun in the accusative. 
. . . . Where eis with the accusative has the sense of a result 
or effect .... the interpretation is materially the same. 
. . . . For, if eis and the accusative may suggest the idea of 
purpose or object had in view by making the limits within which 
the direction or tendency of an action or motion is to be restricted, 
they may equally suggest that of effect or result, this being quite 
as obviously consistent with the notion of confining an action 
within defined limits." (Harrison on Greek prepositions, pp. 210, 


The next test to which we subject the gentleman's preposition 
is to examine it in all the cases where eis is connected with bap- 
tize. Some prepositions govern two or three cases, so that when 
the case changes it necessarily effects the meaning of the preposi- 
tion. But the case never changes on eis, as it always governs the 
accusative, so eis is never effected from this source. Hence it can 
only be effected by changing the verb, or the circumstance with 
which it stands related. So, by taking baptize eis in all its occur- 
rences, ,we have in all the same case following, and the same verb 
preceding. Hence we would call for a uniform rendering in all the 
cases. Dr. Broadus says: "We believe, then, that it would be a de- 
cided improvement to render baptize eis everywhere by unto."" 
(Com. on Matt., p. 598.) In English we have baptize for remission 
unto Moses and into Christ. As the Greek is uniform, the English 
variety is arbitrary. I demand a uniform rendering, and challenge 
my opponent to give us one. How do you like this : Baptize in order 
to repentance, in order to the name of Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit, in order to Jordan, in order to Jesus Christ, in order to his 
death, in order to Moses, etc. Try "for," and see how utterly it 
fails also. Into is still worse, for no one uninfluenced by religious 
fanaticism can suppose for a moment that any one ever was' or 
ever can be actually baptized into repentance, into remission in 
the name, into death, into Christ or into Moses. The shortest way 
to dispose of this is the way Paul disposed of the question of the 
efficacy of the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, "It is- 
impossible;" and, we might add, to a rational mind unthinkable. 
It is not" possible for baptism to really wash away sins, yet in one 
sense it does, but not in the sense that my opponent will claim in 
support of his proposition. A man may be symbolically baptized 
into all these objects, but no other sense is possible. We like 
"unto" in the sense of, with reference to, with respect to, and we 
are glad to say that this is backed by the late Eevision and Bible 
Union in regard to repentance and remission. Now if my opponent 
will try to prove that "unto" means in order to, and if he suc- 
ceeds, he will go that far toward establishing his doctrine. But 
till he does that, I will claim that a uniform rendering of the uni- 
form Greek for, "baptize eis," will overthrow his proposition. He 
dares not put in Acts ii. 38 a rendering that will suit the other 
case's after baptize. I await his efforts in this. 

1. But suppose, for argument's sake, that in order to is the proper 
rendering in Acts ii. 38. As that would leave the text eliptical,. 


the dispute would then turn on the meaning of in order to. The 
question then would be, in what sense are we baptized in order to 
remission? In order to obtain ? or in order to declare? Some 
Baptists, and many pedo baptists, hold the latter view. I refer you 
for proof to the pamphlet I have just issued, " Baptist Authorities 
..and Others Vindicated." For argument's sake I have granted this 
as the true issue. Now I will refute the gentleman's doctrine by 
proving that in that case it must mean in order to declare. But 
one argument is necessary, and that is to show that it is the prov- 
ince of ordinances to declare. Retrospectively they are symboli- 
cal, prospectively they are typical, but in any sense they are de- 
clarative. Take the Passover. (Read Ex. xii. 24-27, and xiii. 
-8-10.) We capitalize the emphatic words. 

Ex. xii. 24-27: "And ye shall observe this thing for an ORDI- 
NANCE to thee and to thy sons forever. And it shall come to pass 
when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this 
service? that ye shall say it is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, 
who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt 
when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses 5 and the 
people bowed their heads and worshiped." Ex. xiii. 8-10: "And 
thou shait show thy son in that day, saying, this is done BECAUSE 
OF that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of 
Egypt. And it shall be for a SIGN unto thee upon thine hand, and 
for a MEMORIAL between thine eyes, that the Lord's law may be in 
thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out 
of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ORDINANCE in his season 
from year to year." 

. 2. The Passover was surely a MEMORIAL ORDINANCE, in that the 
participants declared the Passover as having occurred, and they 
did not procure or obtain the Passover in the ordinance. The 
Sabbath is another ORDINANCE, and declarative, both in symbol and 
in type. Like baptism and the Supper, it points|both forward and 
backward. Read Ex. xxxi. 15-17: "Six days may work|be done, 
but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. 
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely 
be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep 
the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their genera- 
tions for a perpetual covenant. It is a SIGN between me and 
the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made 
heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was 

18 . 


Every time the Sabbath is kept in spirit and in truth two things 
are declared. First, retrospectively, "that God rested on the sev- 
enth day;" and, prospectively, that there remaineth a Sabbath 
rest for the people of God. "All creation may groan and travail 
in pain together with us until now, but the day of adoption and 
restitution and restoration will come by and by; then all will be 
delivered from this bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty 
of the children of God." These promises which God has spoken 
by the mouth of his holy prophets since the world began are 
declared in every right observance of this significant ordinance.. 
Mr. Lipscomb, his moderator, said in his paper of January 29th, 
page 21 : " To observe the first day of the week is to commemo- 
rate these great bases facts in the establishment of the Church of 
Christ." It may not commemorate the things alleged above, but 
it commemorates, that is my point. To make short work of this, 
read Hebrews ix. and x., in which the writer takes in all the 
ordinances of the first covenant, and interprets with such expres- 
sions as these: "The Holy Spirit this signifying;" "which was a 
figure for the time then present;" "the patterns of things in the 
heavens;" "shadow of good things to come;" "a remembrance- 
again made of sins every year," etc.- This is inspired testimony 
on this point of ordinances being declarative. In I John iii. 12 
we learn that wicked Cain slew his brother because his works 
were righteous. The same doctrine of Christ illustrated: "A good 
tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth 
evil fruit." In faith, Gospel faith, indorsed by the Holy Spirit in 
Heb. xi. 4, which he had just said was "unto the saving of the 
soul," and the "substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of 
things not seen ; " in other words, Abel had faith in the Lamb of 
God that should take away the sins of the world, and, trusting in 
him as the promised of God, his heart is purified by faith ; so when 
he came with his typical declarative ordinance, thus expressing or 
declaring his faith in the promise of God, God testified of his gifts 
that he was righteous, and by it he being dead yet speaketh.. 
Abel's ordinance declared his faith in God's promised remedy for 
sin. In faith, only in faith, he chose it, and caught it, and slew it,. 
and burnt it. His faith did not have to wait for fire, like my friend 
waits for water, to make it alive. Like all others, he was counted 
righteous efe^faith, and faith must pre-exist all acceptable obedi- 
ence, the first as well as the last step, and the first being taken in 
faith, he had faith in the beginning of the obedience; hence was. 


righteous in the beginning. So God testified that he was righteous, 
and his ordinance did not make him so. 

Pilate, though a Roman, understood the nature of ordinances 
better, it seems, than my friend, for when he publicly washed his 
hands (Matt, xxvii. 29) he declared his innocence, and he did not 
think of obtaining innocence by his own ordinance of hand- 

The leper (Mark i. 40-44) is another pointed illustration: "And 
there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to 
him, and saying to him, If thou wilt thou canst make me clean. 
And as soon as he had spoken immediately the leprosy departed 
from him, and he was cleansed 5 and he straightly charged him, 
and forthwith sent him away; and he saith unto him, See thou. 
say nothing to any man, but go thy way. Show thyself to the 
priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses com- 
manded for a testimony unto them." This is the Lord's testimony 
on this point, and he is "the true and faithful witness" on all sub- 
jects. The leper was first cleansed, and then he offered for his 
cleansing the ordinances commanded by Moses, in which he de- 
clared his cleansing, but did not procure it ? for ordinances don't 

Now, coming to the two ordinances of this time, we find the 
same design; that is, they declare the things embodied, but do 
not procure them. Take the Supper (Luke xxii. 9) : And he took 
bread and break and gave to them, saying, this is (represents or 
declares) my body. So of the cup. This do eis remembrance of 
me. Do you eat in order to remember Christ? [Mr. Lipscoml? 
responds, "I do."] Well, that is the difference between us. I 
don't obtain a memory of Christ in eating, but I declare, and show 
forth the fact that I hold him in affectionate memory, and this 
ordinance is my declaration of it, and of my interest in it. Of 
course the ordinances declare also things pertaining to Christ, but 
it only declares them. Eead, farther, I Cor. xi. 23-26. Here we 
learn that we not only do this eis remembrance of Mm (not in 
order to, for that would imply that no one could remember him 
without observing the ordinance, which is absurd), but it is ex- 
pressly said that we slww the Lord's death till he come. That 
makes it a " show," or declarative, ordinance like all the others, 
for it neither procures the death nor our memory of him. 

But is baptism an exception to the general rule? By no means. 
Baptism is called a "figure," a "likeness," a washing away of sin, 


'which cannot be literal, a clothing or putting on of Christ. John 
'baptized els repentance. Eepentance here comes after baptism in 
statement, but before it in fact. This will not, and cannot, be 
denied. Then they were not baptized in order to repentance, yet 
they were baptized els repentance ; and if repentance came before, 
then they were baptized into repentance declaratively and not pro- 
cferatively. What would you think of me if I were to tell you 
that from the expression- baptize eis repentance it follows that 
baptism is in order to repentance, that a man cannot reach repent- 
ance before baptism? You would think of me, doubtless, like I 
think of Mr. Harding, and that is, that I had a creed to support by 
the Scriptures, and the Scriptures that 1 did not support it after a 
hard effort, so much the worse for the Scriptures. You would 
think that I was one of those who would strain out a gnat and 
swallow a camel. Baptize eis name of the Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit, eis Christ, eis Moses, is declarative subjection or loyalty, and 
not in order to. Then it must be so in regard to eis remission, 
unless the gentleman is disposed to beg a crumb, and then claim 
the universe. 

Then granting, for argument's sake, that in order to is the 
proper rendering in Acts ii. 38, it follows that it could not be in 
order to obtain or procure, but in order to declare, this being the 
purpose and province of ordinances. 

3. But granting, for argument's sake, that in Acts ii. 38 baptize eis 
is in order to obtain ; then the question is, did the baptism obtain? 
One thing may be for the purpose of obtaining another and yet 
may not reach it, but leave an indefinite space intervening to be 
provided for by something else. An education may be in order to 
the obtaining of some great honor or high position in life, and yet 
it may not obtain it. Let us draw some farther illustrations from 
Mr. Anderson's cases of in order to. Matt. xxvi. 28 : " This is my 
blood which was shed for many in order to [obtain] the remission 
of sins." Did the shedding of blood obtain? My friend would 
say no $ it left an indefinite space that it could not span. He will 
say, no doubt, that Christ shed his blood that I might obtain remis- 
sion, or one of these Methodist or Presbyterian preachers, and yet 
he may himself entertain serious doubts as to whether we ever 
have or ever will obtain the remission, and so might fail, as it 
certainly will in many cases. Then baptism may be in order to 
obtain remission, and yet never obtain it. So of Acts xi. 18. Re- 
pentance in order to life, as Mr. Anderson has it. My friend says 


in order to obtain life 5 but did it obtain it? did it reach it? He 
would say no, for there would be left no intervening space to be 
filled with, confession and baptism, and these might never follow, 
and he admits in many cases does not follow. So here is another 
case of in order to obtain, and cannot, without something to fol- 
low. The same of Eom. i. 5. Paul received grace arid apostleship 
in order to the obedience of faith among all nations, but did all 
nations obtain the obedience of faith by Paul's reception of grace 
and apostleship? By no means. This G-ospel had after that to be 
preached, to be heard, to be believed, to be obeyed, and in no case 
did that obtain that was in order to obtain. The same is true 
of Horn. i. 16, 17: The G-ospel is the power of God in order to 
salvation ; and the revelation of God's righteousness from faith in 
order to faith. Put in the obtain, and the question did it obtain 
is answered like all the others. And so of the two occurrences in 
Eom. x. 10. No\v will the gentleman, after seeing that in order to 
obtain in all these cases failed to obtain, will he beg the question 
on Acts ii. 38? And if baptism falls short, as it must, judging by 
the other cases, then pray what does obtain? and where and when? 
So it is clear that, granting for argument's sake (1) that in order- 
to is correct, and (2) that in order to obtain is correct, even the 
doctrine drawn by my friend's proposition is false, and his hope is. 

4. But I propose to go to the utmost extent of liberality, and 
grant, for argument's sake, that in Acts ii. 38 baptism did obtain 
remission of sins, and then I am prepared, to show by unanswera- 
ble arguments that the case is peculiar, and that never before or 
since has baptism obtained. If I can show that this interpretation 
would make Acts ii. 38 peculiar, then I show from that very argu- 
ment that this interpretation is wrong, and this I propose to do at 
once and thoroughly, so as not to leave a grain of sand for the 
sole of any man's foot. My friend does not stand even on a sandy 
foundation. I will show him, unless he shuts his eyes and hardens 
his heart, that, like Bill Arp's man with a rope around his neck, 
"he stands on nothing." If baptize eis obtained remission in Acts 
ii. 38, then it is peculiar, or the like expressions in Mark i. 4 and 
Luke iii. 3 failed to obtain, because this law of pardon was not 
preached or in operation till the day of Pentecost. If it obtained 
in these other places, then the law of pardon was preached and 
practiced before Pentecost. One proposition in the Brooks-Fitch 
debate reads: "That with the beginning of Messiah's reign on 


Pentecost the law of Moses was abolished, and the Gospel in its 
elements, and with its conditions of salvation, first proclaimed." 
A few lines farther he says : " The principle I maintain here to-day is 
one of vital importance." In this he utters the common sentiment 
of his people. Then, if it is a matter of vital importance to main- 
tain that " the conditions of salvation were first proclaimed upon 
Pentecost, and that the terms of pardon were then first published 
to the world," it follows that it was not published in Mark i. 4 and 
Luke iii. 3, and pardon was not obtained then, and though it may 
have obtained in Acts ii. 38, the case is peculiar when compared 
with the like expressions in other places. 

5. As Acts ii. 38 is peculiar when compared to pre-Pentecost 
baptism, so it is when compared to j)0s-Pentecost baptisms. The 
commission says baptize eis the name of Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit. The Samaritans were baptized eis the name of the Lord 
Jesus. (Acts vi. 16.) So were the Ephesiaus.. (Acts xix. 5.) The 
Eomans were baptized eis Jesus Christ, and eis his death. The 
Corinthians were baptized eis one body. Only the Peutecostians 
were baptized eis remission of sins. Hence Acts ii. 38 is peculiar, 
as this expression nowhere afterward occurs. I wonder if the 
gentleman baptizes eis remission of sius, or eis the name of Father 
Son and Holy Spirit, or like one of the other jos-Peutecost cases. 
Acts ii. 38 is evidently peculiar when compared to subsequent bap- 
tisms, and hence cannot be insisted on as a special rule for us. 

6. Never till the nineteenth century was a "penitent believer" 
immersed < ; in order to obtain pardon of past sins." Hence Acts 
ii. 33 is peculiar when compared with jos-apostolic baptisms. 

7. Acts ii. 38 is also peculiar when compared with the conver- 
sions of the Modern Reformation. It is said of Peutecostiaus that 
the hearers believed, that the believers were pierced to their 
hearts, and cried out, "What must we do to be saved?" that 
the convicted believers were told to repent, and the penitent con- 
victs were told to be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ, ''in 
order to the pardon of past sins;" such, and only such, would 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. But in these modern so-called 
conversions the believers are not pierced to the heart, nor do they 
cry out from any conviction or desire, and if they did they would 
not be told to repent and be baptized upon the name of Jesus 
Christ, nor are they promised the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their 
believers are not convicted, nor do they tell a believer to repent, 
nor did ever one receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in. baptism. 


Hence Acts ii. 38 is very peculiar when compared with niy friend's 

8. Again : If conviction in Acts ii. 38 was the result of faith, as 
Mr. McGarvey and others maintain, then they were ready for bap- 
tism when Peter told them to repent. In Acts viii. 12 both men 
and women were baptized when they believed; and in Acts xviii. 
8, the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized; and so 
of others. Hence Peter requiring repentance after faith in Acts 
ii. 38 shows it is peculiar as related to the order of repentance 
and faith, for they elsewhere baptized as soon as they believed. 

9. The answer to the question, "What shall we do?" makes the 
passage also peculiar. When the publicans came to be baptized 
(Luke iii. 12, 13) and asked, "What shall we do?" they were told 
to exact no more than was appointed them. When the soldiers 
likewise demanded of him what they must do, the answer was, 
"Do violence to no man, neither accuse falsely, and be content 
with your wages." When the rich young ruler asked what he 
must do to inherit eternal life, he was directed to the covenant of 
works, under which he was, and in which he boasted. When the 
jailer asked what he must do to be saved, he was told to believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ and he should be saved. So Paul like- 
wise received a different answer. Hence Acts ii. 38 is peculiar in 
answering this question. Those who always give the same answer 
to the same question violate the custom of the apostles, and go 
contrary to their practice, for we never hear of this answer again. 

10. As the Nine vites repented "eis in order to" the preaching of 
Jonah, so the Pentecostians repented eis in order to the preaching 
of Peter, or eis in Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as related to preaching. 

11. As the Mnevites repented eis the preaching of Jonah, and 
the repentance came first, and the Pentecostians "repented eis 
remission of sins," then the remission of sins came first, or eis in 
Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as related to repentance. 

12. If John baptized eis in order to repentance, then Peter bap- 
tized eis in order to repentance, else Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as 
regards the "design" of baptism. 

13. But if John baptized eis repentance, and repentance came 
first, and Peter baptized eis remission, then remission came first, 
else Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as regards the relation of the action 
and the object. 

14. John baptized eis remission, and Peter baptized eis remis- 
sion; and since it is claimed that Peter's candidates obtained, while 


those of John did not, it follows that Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as 
regards obtaining. 

15. If eis in Acts ii. 38 has the more usual sense of "into," then 
it meant "into" in a ceremonial or declarative sense, else my 
friend's interpretation of it is peculiar as compared with that of 
the greatest scholars of the world. Out of hundreds I give one, 
the peer of any, and who never felt this controversy, and hence 
had no Mas from it. Dr. Carson says, on Acts ii. 38, page 203, on 
baptism : " Can language he more plain ? are they not baptized into 
the remission of sins! does this not show that in baptism repent- 
ance and remission of sins are supposed with respect to the bap- 
tized? They are not baptized that repentance and remission of 
sins may follow. This passage proves that none ought to be bap- 
tized but such as repent and have their sins remitted." If I held 
an interpretation that is peculiar as regards the great thinkers of 
all denominations I think I would hold it with becoming modera- 
tion and modesty. 

16. If this interpretation of Acts ii. 38 is, as is claimed, the doc- 
trine of Christ, it is peculiar when compared to his preaching and 
practice. For while he came to save sinners, he did not come to 
baptize; not only so, but he also forgave sins without and apart 
from baptism, as in the cases of the paralytic and the woman that 
was a sinner. It is clear that any interpretation of any doctrine 
of Christ that contradicts his practice is untrue. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Second Speech. 

Ladies and G-entlemen : 

Doubtless most of you have heard of the "cuttlefish," a mol- 
luscous animal, which has a gland called the ink-bag, situated near 
the liver. When this fish is pursued, and is seeking to escape by 
flight, it throws out from this ink-bag a brownish-black liquor ; the 
waters are darkened, and the fish often gets away. The gentle- 
man's speech forcibly reminds me of this fish. That his effort was 
to darken counsel, and thereby escape the force of my argument, 
and of the plain teaching of Scripture, to my mind, is as evident 
as to use his own elegant (?) illustration is the nose on his face. 
But, in spite of his talk, the facts remain (1) that no blessing was 
ever granted to faith till it was expressed in action; and (2) that 
baptism is the action appointed by Jesus in the great commission 
to which penitent believers must submit in order to reach the 
blessing. And, in spite of his sixteen objections to our interpreta- 
tion of Acts ii. 38, no man can possibly give any other interpreta- 
tion that will make good sense. The gentleman discreetly decided 
not to try it, but to content himself with making objections. He 
reminds me of the old lawyer's advice to his pupil. Said the legal 
sage: "If the law be in your favor, and the testimony against you, 
come out very strong on the law ; but if the testimony be in your 
favor, and the law against you, come out strong on the testimony." 
"But," said the young man, "suppose both law and testimony are 
against me, what must I do then? " "Then," replied the sharp old 
teacher, "just talk around." (Laughter.) If Brother Moody was 
not "talking around" during the whole of that speech, no man 
ever did such a thing. 

He says my speech had "no bearing on the proposition." He is 
hardly the man to decide that. I am willing for those that heard,, 
and those that shall hereafter read the speech to give judgment 
on that point. To my mind it is clear that if the doctrine of the 
speech is correct, then my position is maintained, regardless of 
what has been, or of what may be, said during this debate. If it 
be a fact that faith without works is dead, as James says; and if 


it be a fact that this is universally true, that faith, is always dead 
and barren until it is perfected by works ; and if baptism be a 
work of God appointed by Jesus in connection with repentance in 
order to the perfection of faith that we may be saved, then of 
course my position is maintained. That these points were estab- 
lished beyond the possibility of refutation in my speech last night 
is certain, and I would be willing to submit the whole case upon 
that one speech to any honest-hearted, intelligent, unprejudiced 

The gentleman objects to my statement that faith perfected, the 
faith that secures the blessing, consists of internal assurance and 
bodily action; but his own illustrations/when studied, show that I 
am right. "By faith," says he, "Daniel stopped the mouths of 
lions." Daniel believed God, and obeyed God (internal assurance 
and bodily action), and therefore the lions' mouths were stopped. 
" Whosoever believeth in me shall be saved." Does that faith 
mean "internal assurance and bodily action?" Yes, certainly, for 
it is also said, "He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life." 
By faith the Hebrew children escaped the fire. Was their faith 
internal assurance and bodily action? Certainly; read the record 
in the book of Daniel, and you will see that they believed God and 
perfected their faith by obeying him, and then he saved them from 
the fire. And so of every man that God ever blessed on account of 
his faith. He had first the internal assurance and then the bodily 
action before he reached the blessing. Friend Moody wants to 
know if the action must follow the internal assurance. Tes ; it 
must; can you understand that? Must it be an act of obedience, 
or a haphazard act? he inquires. I reply, whenever God has made 
any appointments in order to the blessing (as in the cases of Joshua 
taking Jericho, Naaman, the blind man sent to Siloam, the bitten 
Israelites, and. so on) the very thing required must be done; but 
where no specific requirement has been made, the blessing has often 
been given upon a voluntary expression of faith, as in the case of the 
woman who touched the hem of the Savior's garment; but always 
the faith must be expressed in and perfected by action. Can you 
understand that ? Now, I hope you will bring on your passages. 
Let us have no more cringing and dodging on the point. This is 
the one vital, all-important point in this debate, and if you cannot 
show one single case in which faith obtained a blessing until it was 
expressed in action, you are ruined, and all thoughtful people who 
hear us, or read after us, will see and know it. Bring your pas- 


sages now. You know as well as I do that I will ruin you on 
them, but- you might as well stand it now as at any time. 

The gentleman seems to be wonderfully tangled because I say 
at one time that faith must precede baptism, and then at another 
that the faith that saves includes baptism. Well, if he don't 
understand me on that point he is the weakest body in this room. 
The word "faith" in the Bible is used in two senses, just like the 
-word "man" is in common parlance. Just like the body apart 
from the spirit is called man, a dead man, just so faith apart from 
works is called faith, dead faith. Brother Moody says any defini- 
tion that puts bodily action in faith is incorrect. The apostle 
James says, "Faith wrought with his works, and by works was 
faith made perfect," or, as the Baptist Testament has it, " by works 
was faith made complete." Brother Moody ought not to be so 
hard on the apostle James. When I say faith precedes baptism I 
mean a trusting belief in Jesus as the Son of God; when I say faith 
includes baptism I mean what James called "faith made perfect." 
The gentleman says, "Whenever he (Harding) refers to the action 
of faith in the Old or New Scriptures he is trying to prove that 
faith without baptism is dead." That statement is calculated, and 
doubtless was designed, to convey the idea that I think in Old 
Testament times faith was dead without baptism. Such an idea 
is untrue ; it is exactly the reverse of the truth. If Brother Moody 
entertains such an idea he is greatly mistaken. But is it possible 
that he could have been mistaken on this point? I think not. 
And yet in the next preceding sentence he ivas talking about praying 
for me. The idea! Whenever he begins to look pious and to 
whimper, look out, for an unusually outrageous misrepresentation 
is almost sure to follow. 

Says he again: "He (Harding) takes the position that 'works/ 
'works of faith/ 'obedient to the faith/ 'obedience of faith/ 'obey 
the Grospel/ 'obeying the truth/ 'form of sound words/ etc., mean 
baptism." The statement is utterly untrue; neither I nor any of 
my brethren so believe. Under the present dispensation these 
expressions frequently, if not always, include baptism, but not one 
of them means baptism. The gentleman dare not attack my posi- 
tions; hence he misrepresents me, and attacks his misrepresenta- 
tions. And it is because of this that I like debates. They give 
me the opportunity to correct the false impressions that the gen- 
tleman makes, and to preach the truth to many that I could not 
otherwise reach. 


Suppose the time between faith and baptism should be long, and 
the believer should do many acts of faith before baptism, would 
he be forgiven before baptism? inquires Brother Moody. Under 
apostolic preaching the time between baptism and faith was never 
long; the penitent believer was always at once baptized. Hear 
Dr. Lofton, Brother Moody's moderator. (Ah, doctor, I am glad I 
got that tract.) He says: "Baptism, ordinarily, is inseparable 
from salvation by faith, since obedience to the first command of 
Christ is inseparable from faith. Neither in the precepts nor exam- 
ples of the New Testament is there any intervening time between 
faith and baptism; and baptism always follows faith, as an effect 
follows a cause. Communion, nor any other privilege or duty, has 
a speck of room between faith and baptism." " G-od puts baptism 
in immediate connection with faith, and nowhere else." So says 
Dr. Lofton. And Christ says, "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." What God hath joined together let not man put 

"If baptism perfects faith, is there any thing left for faith after 
baptism?" I answer, when a child is born into this world, if it 
has all of its parts in a normal condition, it is a complete person 
it will never become more perfect in the matter of having other parts 
added. Just so of the penitent believer who is baptized; all of the 
constituent parts of faith are there, not another will ever be added ; 
but, as in the case of the child the parts should grow, so of faitb, 
the trust should be stronger and the obedience should be continued 
while life lasts. Eemember a tool may be perfect for one thiug r 
but not for another; then the tool 'may be improved, and thus may 
become perfect for other things. So of faith. Whatever Noah's 
faith may have been fit for before, or whatever it may have become 
fit for afterwards, it was not sufficient to save him from the flood 
till it moved him to build the ark and enter it. 

If faith without works is alive, then the apostle James was a liar. 
Who is ready to make such a charge against him? 

Having now disposed of the gentleman's references to my 
speech, I will turn to the consideration of Acts ii. 38. In the reg- 
ular course of my argument it would have come up in this speech 
had not Brother Moody referred to it at all. We have studied the 
nature of the faith that saves, we have looked into the commis- 
sion that Christ gave to bis apostles, and now we want to see how 
they understood that commission, and how they acted under it. 
In the second chapter of Acts we have the first movements of the-. 


.apostles under that commission; the Holy Spirit has come upon 
them, and a vast multitude of sinners (the murderers of Jesus) is 
.standing before them. Moved by the Holy Ghost Peter preaches. 
He accuses them of being murderers; he charges them with slay- 
lag Jesus "with wicked hands;" with tremendous and cumulative 
power he shows from their own prophets that Jesus is the Christ; 
with the mighty sweep of his argument he dashes from beneath 
their feet every prop upon which they rest; then, seeing written 
in their faces conviction and terror, he closes his wonderful address 
in these awful words: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know 
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have 
crucified, both Lord and Christ." Then it is said, "Now when they 
heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter 
.and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do? 
Then Peter said unto them, Eepent, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Notice the order : (1) A 
sermon is preached; (2) sinners are convicted; (3) in terror they 
cry out to know what to do that they may escape from their sins; 
(4) Peter commands them to repent, and to be baptized in the 
name of Jesus Christ; (5) these commands are given to .them for 
the remission of their sins; (6) and then the Hly Ghost is prom- 
ised to them. How strong and clear is the passage! How per- 
fectly transparent is Peter's answer ! So guardedly has the Holy 
Spirit expressed himself in this place that all the ingenuity of men 
and of devils cannot so pervert the passage as to obscure its 
meaning. Keep in mind the condition of those who ask the ques- 
tion, "What shall we do?" They are sinners pricked in their 
heart with a sense of guilt and a fear of wrath, desiring to be 
freed from the guilt and punishment of sin. Would Peter say to 
such people, Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ 
because your sins have been forgiven? Every man of sense on 
earth knows he would not. In the first place, their sins were not 
forgiven. This Brother Moody and the Baptists must admit, for 
they claim that when a man is forgiven he knows it; and then 
they say that faith comes after repentance; hence these people 
were not believers, according to their theory, as Peter told them 
to repent. Then, as all the world knows, Peter would not have 
told men to repent because their sins had been forgiven. Therefore 
these people were unforgiven sinners. To them Peter said, "Ee- 
pent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 


Christ for the remission of sins." What does "for the remission 
of sins" mean in this place? Why, ten-year-old children ought to 
be able to understand beyond the possibility of a doubt. The 
same phrase occurs in another place in Scripture where its mean- 
ing is undisputed, namely, in Mate. xxvi. 28, where Jesus says, 
"This is iny blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many 
for the remission of sins." Was Jesus' blood shed because sins. 
had been forgiven, or in order that they might be forgiven? Every- 
body knows, hence I need not answer. Now the phrase "for the 
remission of sins" is the same in both places, both in the English 
and in the Greek, and the meaning is the same, viz., in order to 
the forgiveness of sins. 

But Brother Moody denies that eis means "in order to" in this 
passage 5 and he takes up the different translations, and runs 
through a number of them to prove it. And, after manipulating 
his figures awhile, he makes out a case of 1,666 to three against 
"in order to." And his friends were delighted. That one tremen- 
dous figure (if not figurative) argument did them more good than 
any other thing he has said since the debate began. It is a pity to 
spoil their comfort, is it not? But justice and truth demand that 
it shall be done, and so I must do it. A more specious piece of 
sophistry, with less sense in it, was never before presented, I pre- 
sume, in the name of argument. Let me take for a moment the 
side of the pedobaptists, and attack Brother Moody on the subject 
of immersion with the same argument. There have been made 
into the Euglish tongue not fewer than 100 translations of the 
New Testament, counting all that have been made such as Mc- 
Garvey's in his Commentary. There have been at least 150 made 
into other tongues. Of these translators about twenty translate 
~baptizo immerse; but as those who do so are inimersiouists, accord- 
ing to Brother Moody's rule, they must be dropped out; their tes- 
timony won't do; dropping them from the 250 translations, we have 
230 translations to nothing against immersion. But the word bap- 
tizo, with its cognates and derivatives, occurs 120 times in the New 
Testament. Now multiply the number of translations (230) by 
the number of occurrences in each translation (120), and you have 
27,600 to nothing against immersion. How will that do for & figure 
argument against immersion ? You see I have made a better show- 
ing by more than ten thousand by my figures against immersion 
than he has against "in order to" as a translation of eis. And both 
of the arguments put together are not worth a pinch of snuff, except 


that his is a notable illustration of how foolish a man can be when 
he tries, and mine shows how easy it is to overturn foolishness with 
.folly. As saith the wise man, "Answer a fool according to hi& 
folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." So much for the argu- 
ment based on figures. 

But does the preposition eis mean "in order to?" Those of you 
who know nothing about it but what you have learned from the 
vaporings of Brother Moody doubtless are ready to reply, "It does 
not, except in rare and exceptional cases." Well, now just listen 
and learn from men who know more, and who speak with more 
candor, than he does. Dr. John A. Broadus, the most scholarly 
Baptist of the South, in a letter to H. L. W. Gross, dated June 6,. 
1887 (which is now in my possession, and from which I read), gives 
in order to as the "more frequent sense of eis) but he prefers 
"unto" as the translation of it in Acts ii. 38. He teaches the 
same thing concerning the preposition eis in his Commentary on 
Matthew, page 50, where he calls "in order to" its "common and 
most natural sense." Now what do you think of Brother Moody's 
railing against "in order to" as the common meaning of eis? Will 
you believe him or Dr. Broadus? Well, you say, I would like to 
hear what the great Baptist, Dr. Alvah Hovey, says about it. Very 
good. He says repentance and baptism in Acts ii. 38 are enjoined 
"in order to the forgiveness of sins." (American Commentary on 
Luke, page 62, foot-note.) Dr. Hackett, in the same Baptist Com- 
mentary, translates it, "in order to the forgiveness of sins." Dr. 
George E. Bliss, in the same Commentary, translates it "in order 
to " forgiveness. So do the great and learned Baptists, Harkuess, 
Foster, North, Metcalfe, Wilmarth, Eipley and Gilbert Boyce. By 
these scholars the following Baptist colleges are represented: 
Brown University, Colby University, Hamilton College, Hobart Col- 
lege, Carson College and Southern Theological Institute. 

"But," perhaps you inquire, "what do the lexicons say eis 
means?" The great Liddell & Scott says: " Eadical*sense, into, 
' and then more loosely, to." Thayer's, the greatest New Testament 
lexicon, says it denotes "entrance into, or direction and limit: 
into, to, toward, for, among." With these all respectable lexicons 
in substance agree. And all authorities agree that eis is used to 
denote the purpose or end to be attained. Prom this position 
there is not a dissenting voice in the scholarship of the whole 
world, in so far as I have ever heard. 

Now let us consider for awhile the English preposition "for." 


In speaking of it Brother Moody says: "It has uniformly been 
used by my friend's people, as he uses it in the proposition, as 
though <in order to' was . necessarily and invariably its meaning." 
That statement is as untrue as any thing can be. ot one of my 
brethren ever used "for" as though "in order to" was necessarily 
and invariably its meaning. For we all know that such is not the 
case. "For" sometimes looks backward, sometimes forward, 
sometimes it means " because of," sometimes "in order to." These 
facts no man of sense and information doubts. But no man has 
ever translated eis "because of" in Acts ii, 38. J. B. Moody won't 
do it himself. Why? Simply because everybody knows that Peter 
would not have been silly enough to tell convicted sinners to repent 
and be baptized because their sins had been forgiven. The con- 
text shows plainly even to the English reader that "for" means 
"in order to" in this place. But the Greek preposition eis differs 
from the English "for" in this respect, namely, the former is always 
prospective, never retrospective 5 while the latter is sometimes 
prospective, sometimes retrospective. Of this I will give you 
abundant proof in my next speech. My time has about expired, 
hence I cannot do it in this. I will pay proper respect to " eis 
repentance," u eis the preaching of Jonah," etc., and I will give you 
some good Baptist authorities as I go along. It will, I presume, 
take the -whole of my next speech to finish my argument on Acts 
ii. 38. In the meantime, remember that Peter, acting under the 
commission, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," 
told horror-stricken sinners to repent and be baptized in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. What better com- 
ment could a man ask on the meaning of the great commission? 
Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Second Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My opponent thinks my ink has so darkened the waters that he 
-cannot find me. Doubtless the waters looked dark to Saul while 
the scales were on his eyes, but the darkness was not in the water, 
hut in the eyes. My friend reminds me of the locusts in Revela- 
tion that had stings, and their mission was to hurt. Somehow 
my speeches make him sting and bite most bitterly. It must be 
the truth I utter, as it had this effect when spoken by Christ, Peter 
and Paul. There is more than darkening the waters. See how he 
has been goaded by my questions concerning his challenge on 
faith. He goes all the gaits on that question. When I quoted 
Born. iv. 4, 5 as a case where the greatest of blessings was obtained 
by a faith " that worked not, but believeth," he brought in Abra- 
ham's obedience for eight years before his justifying faith referred 
to in Gen. xv. and Rom. iv. At another time he brought in his 
works of forty years after. But Abraham was justified before he 
was circumcised, and that was before Isaac was born. But in bis 
last speech Mr. Harding cut off the works that precede the faith 
that secures the blessing. Abraham, like my friend, had some sort 
of faith and obedience before he was justified as a sinner before 
<xod. But when God made that gracious, unconditional promise 
that defied reason and surpassed testimony, all Abraham could do 
was to work not, but believe in Jehovah, the Messiah; and being 
fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to 
perform, and therefore it was counted to him for righteousness; 
and -the same justification "shall be imputed to us also if we 
believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." 
Where the Holy Spirit leaves off works Mr. Harding puts them in. 
Bom. iv. 5, 16, 24 applies the same principle to all. The Holy 
Spirit could not now make a more effectual reply to this foolish 
'Challenge than he did in the third and fourth chapters of Romans 
and in Galatians. In both places Abraham is brought in as the noted 
illustration of the doctrine. The gentleman emphasizes "the" 
before law, and rolls it as a sweet morsel under his tongue, but he 



knows that it does not belong there. When the Holy Spirit leaves 
it off Mr. Carding puts it in, like he does works, and many other 
like things he does. Abraham was not under the law, and David 
was. Yet both are illustrations of justification by faith without 
works, and so of every justified man in this world. The steps of 
Abraham's faith, like all others, walks out of law into, grace that 
simply receives these infinite blessings without works. There 
were no steps between Abraham's faith and the great blessing of 
justification, for they are both first mentioned in the same verse. 
(Gen. xv. 6.) There may be faith and obedience before, as there 
will be afterward, but neither is reckoned for justification. The 
moment one believes in the Lord he believes unto righteousness, 
unto salvation, and that moment that faith, without works, is 
reckoned to him for justification. The very statement that justifi- 
cation is imputed by God, and received by faith, kills the challenge 
with a double death. Now see if he surrenders. But I will give 
him this in broken doses. Mr. Harding says by faith and works; the 
Holy Spirit says by a faith that works not. James never said that 
faith without works is dead. When the Holy Spirit leaves off the 
definite article before law Mr. Harding puts it in, and when he puts 
it in before faith Mr. Harding leaves it off. You see how he always 
resists the Holy Ghost. When the Holy Spirit speaks of law in 
general he leaves off the article. When he speaks of a particular 
law, as that of Moses, he puts the definite article to it. And so of 
faith in James ii. Several times he speaks of faith in general, and 
then of a particular kind, viz., the practical faith of a professor, 
that he would show without works. In those cases he uses the 
article that faith, thus emphatically rendered by the best scholar- 
ship. (See Meyer, as before quoted, and others.) Mr. Harding 
runs after the errors of Baptist writers and the Common Version 
as greedily as others ran after the errors of Balaam, the son of 
Bosor. Why will he contrary the Holy Spirit in this matter? The 
same is true of Gal. v. 6. Mr. Harding knows that he misquotes 
the sense of the text, and he loves to do it. He quotes "faith 
working by love" to prove that faith must be outwardly expressed 
in bodily action. Energeo never did and never can mean outward 
manifestation. The prefix is en, and not ek. He knows it is some- 
thing wrought in, and not out, and so used everywhere in the 
Scriptures. The "Emphatic Diaglott" has it, "Faith operating in 
us by love." The Revised Yersion has in the margin, "wrought," 
which would make it faith wrought through love. Meyer says this 


"passage is not at variance with justification solely by faith." But 
what cares my friend for Meyer, his greatest exegete, or for the 
Holy Spirit either. Note the same repeated, vociferous and dog- 
matic assertions on Mark xvi. 16 and John iii. 36, where scholars 
do not dogmatize, as will be seen. A man had better have no 
tongue and pen than to thus use them. It would be better for him 
and the world if he had never been born. I quote from his last 
speech : 

" If it be a fact that faith without works is dead, as James says 
(he never said it), and if it be a fact that this is universally true, 
that faith is always dead and barren until it is perfected by works 
(not a word of it true), and if baptism be a work of God (! ! !), ap- 
pointed by Jesus in connection with repentance in order to the 
perfection of faith that he may be saved (whew !), then of course 
my position is maintained." 

Now let Mr. Harrison appoint a day of laughing, and let all the 
people laugh. If, if, if several false statements are true, then the 
gentleman's doctrine is true, sure enough. 

"When Mr. Harding calls his reply to my figures "folly, and not 
worth a pinch of snuff," he confesses a good confession before 
many witnesses. The falacy and folly of his reply is too obvious. 
Why was not 'ba/ptizo always properly translated? Why have none 
but the followers of Mr. Campbell translated Acts ii. 38 "in order 
to," save a few Baptists, who hold a different interpretation to the 
same words? Does the same or any kindred reason apply to both? 
Did not the Catholics and all the Protestants of the past dark ages 
believe and practice baptismal salvation ? Then why did they not 
thus translate Acts ii. 38? If all' had believed and practiced im- 
mersion, would they not have thus translated ba/ptizo ? I dare the 
gentleman to undertake a fair and full discussion of his doctrine 
of the text. Whatever may be granted on the natural and gram- 
matical construction of the text, the doctrine is not there. The 
Catholics have us on the natural and grammatical construction of 
v "this is my body," "this is my blood," but their doctrine is not 
there. And so of baptism washing away sins. Who believes the 
natural and grammatical construction of these and hundreds of 
other Scriptures? I deny the gentleman's doctrine, and that is 
what he is here to prove. He has at last confessed that the Bap- 
tists quoted do not believe his doctrine, and Mr. Lipscomb says 
that he and Mr. Harding are slandered when they are accused of 
saying that these Baptists believe their doctrines. Then they are 


slandered by Mr. Harding's former speeches, as we will see. Thus 
you see the end approaching. Any translation of any passage 
may be thought to teach different doctrines. It is this doctrine I 
oppose and will expose. I propose to run a negative doctrinal 
argument against his doctrine that will kill his logomachy, if not 
his loquacity, with a thousand deaths. So I will now resume my 
negative argument. 

17. If baptism is for or in order to the remission of sins, then it 
is essential that it be so preached, believed and obeyed. But Mr. 
Harding in his published debate with McGary labors to prove that 
it is not essential; hence the doctrine affirmed by Mr. Harding 
here is peculiar as compared with the doctrine he advocated 

18. But if baptism for remission of past sins was essential in 
the case of the Pentecostians, then is it not essential for us? If 
so, then all who were not baptized in order to the remission of 
sins missed that that is essential. Hence all such were lost. Then 
all Baptists of all ages, together with Mr. Campbell and a majority 
of his followers, also all religious bodies, except the Mormons, are 
lost; and John was mistaken when he saw a countless multitude 
of all ages, times and tongues redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, 
since all the redeemed by this interpretation are confined to the 
Mormons and a small portion of Mr. Campbell's followers, for only 
these have complied with the essential condition of "immersion 
for the pardon of past sins." 

19. But if "baptism in order to pardon is not essential, then let 
all this noise hush, and this fuss stop, and let the proclaimers and 
debaters of this new doctrine adjourn and disband, and, like the 
multitudes of other times, let them turn their eyes from baptism, 
with them a dead work, and let them seek the Lord and feel after 
him, if perchance they can find him, though he is not far from 
every one of them. 

20. Having examined some of the peculiarities necessitated by 
the false interpretations of "baptize eis remission," let us pursue 
the investigation of peculiarities as relates to the "gift of the 
Holy Ghost;" and if by this is meant the Holy Spirit himself, in his 
ordinary work, then Acts ii. 38 is peculiar when compared with all 
former times. See all through the Old Scriptures, also Luke i. 35, 
41, 67; ii. 26; xi. 13; John xx. 22, etc.; for in all these cases he 
was received without regard to baptism. 

21. The same is true in regard to all subsequent cases. See 


Acts vii. 5J ; x. 44; xi. 15; xv. 8; xix. 2, in Eevised Version; Rom. 
v. 5; xv. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 5; Gal. iii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 5; 2 Thess. ii. 13, 
etc. My friend will not say that in these cases the Holy Spirit was 
received in baptism. 

22. If by the (doorean) gift is meant the extraordinary or mirac- 
ulous gifts, such as prophesying and speaking with tongues, as 
most writers, including Mr. Campbell (Living Oracles, Appendix, 
pp. 76, 81), also Dr. Brents (page 598), then the case was pecu- 
liar, for never before or since was this power conferred in baptism. 
See the case of Cornelius and his house, where the doorean of the 
Spirit was given before baptism. Acts x. 43-47, with xi. J5-17, 
and xv. 7-11; also Acts viii. 14-20, where sometime after baptism 
it was bestowed by prayer and the laying on of hands: "They 
prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit." (Did 
you ever hear prayer for the Holy Spirit ridiculed 1 ?) "Then laid 
they their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. And 
when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands 
the Holy Ghost was given, he offered money, saying, Give me this 
power that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy 
Spirit." The same in Acts xix. 2, when Paul asked, "Did ye receive 
the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" as did Cornelius and the Gala- 
tians. (Gal. iii. 2.) See also John vii. 38, 39; Eph i. 13, New Ver- 
sion: "In whom having believed ye were sealed with the Holy 
Spirit of promise." Also Gal. v. 5, as translated by Mr. Anderson: 
".For we through the Spirit which we obtained by faith," etc. So 
the apostles received the doorean long after their baptism, and in 
no case was this promise fulfilled in baptism unless it was in Acts 
ii. 38, and that -would make the case peculiar, and hence not a 

23. But if the gift of the Holy Spirit is a general promise to all 
who should repent and be baptized in order to obtain pardon, then 
all who thus obtained remission must there and then have received 
the "gift," but as no one before or since received the gift of the 
Holy Spirit in baptism, it follows that no one before or since 
received the remission of sins in baptism, as both, it is claimed, 
were promised. 

24. If the Holy Spirit, or the ordinary operations of the Holy 
Spirit, were promised only to those who repent and be baptized in 
order to "pardon," then none others have received him or his 
operations, as his brother, McGary, says. Then all the other pro- 
fessing Christians, together with a large portion of the "Current 


Reformation," including Mr. Campbell and his coadjutors, are lost, 
since the Holy Spirit was promised only to those that should be 
baptized in order to remission of sins. Mr. McGary proves clearly 
from the writings of Mr. Campbell that this is true, and Mr. Hard- 
ing proves clearly that if true the case is hopeless for Mr. Camp- 
bell and bis coadjutors. See Harding-McGary debate, pp. 17, 23, 46, 
47, where Mr. Harding says, "According to his (McG-ary's) theory we 
are all in our sins, . . . . none of us are in the kingdom." 
See also Campbell- Rice debate, p. 439. Hence the proposition 
from his standpoint proving too much is untrue. 

25. If the ordinary or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit are 
received only on the condition of the immersion of a penitent 
believer in order to pardon, then only those know that the Spirit 
of God dwells in them. Then only those have the fruits of the 
Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, good- 
ness, faith, meekness, self-control, against which there is no law. 
We think if Simon Magus were here he could see nothing that 
would tempt him to waste his time or money on the gifts or fruits 
of the Spirit. 

20. Mr. Harding says in above work, page 4: "If it is necessary to 
understand that baptism is in order to remission, is it not equally 
necessary to understand that it is for the purpose of securing the 
gifts of the Holy Spirit? So it seems to me." Then it follows that 
a man need have no faith in the matter, either as regards the 
remission of sin or the reception of the Holy Spirit. But in the 
case of Pentecostians this was necessary to be preached, believed 
(they gladly received the Word) and obeyed. But Mr. Harding 
says it is not necessary now to be preached, believed or obeyed. 
Therefore Acts ii. 38 is peculiar in not requiring this faith, Mr. 
Harding himself being witness. 

27. Having thus proved the incorrectness of my friend's propo- 
sition by the peculiarities which it necessitates, both in regard to 
"baptize eis remission" and also "the gift of the Holy Spirit,"- let 
us turn our investigations to the copulated expression, "Bepent 
and be baptized." 

On my way to an association I passed through a Tennessee town 
for the first time, and was asked for an appointment on my return. 
I granted it, with the request that a subject be given me Acts ii. 
38 was given by one of my opponent's brethren. I gave my time 
mainly to the preposition eis, which created no small stir in that 
region. The answer to my discourse was that Moody made a big 


blow on eis, but he had too much sense to tackle that conjunction 
"and." I heard of it, and sent word for another appointment, 
when I would tackle the "and." This may illustrate the matter 
now before us. 

If repentance and baptism in Acts ii. 38 are joined by "and" to 
secure the same result, the remission of sins, then it is peculiar 
when compared with Acts iii. 19, for there we have repent and turn 
eis the blotting out or remission of sins, and turning is not bap- 
tism. See thd following references where the same Greek word is 
translated both "convert" and "turn," and see if you can substitute 
baptism. Mark iv. 12: "Lest at any time they should be con- 
verted (baptized) and their sins should be forgiven." John xii. 40: 
"And be converted (baptized) and I should heal them." Luke xxii. 
32: "When thou (Peter) art converted (baptized) strengthen thy 
brethren." Acts ix. 35: "And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron 
saw him and turned (baptized) to the Lord." See also Acts xv. 
3-19; 1 Thess. i. 9; James v. 19; 1 Peter ii. 25; 2 Peter 21, 22, 
where they turned "from the holy commandment," and the dog 
turned (baptized) to his own vomit. As one of his brethren 
recently wrote, "When Christ or the Holy Spirit meant baptism 
they were not afraid to say it;" they did not say baptism in 
the above passages, therefore they didn't mean it. Then the 
expression in Acts ii. 38 is peculiar when compared to Acts 
iii. 19. 

28. Baptism is eis the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, 
eis Jesus Christ, eis name of Christ, while repentance is eis God 
only. McGarvey says, "It would be incongruous to say repent in 
the name of Jesus Christ." Now, as they were to be baptized in 
the name of Jesus Christ, and as they could not repent in the 
name of Jesus Christ, it follows that repentance and baptism 

-were not alike connected to receive remission, for by this incon- 
gruity they became disconnected before they reached remission 
of sins. 

29. If repentance and baptism are alike connected with remis- 
sion of sins, and we are baptized eis remission, then (as in John's 
time) we must be baptized eis repentance. But in the expression 
baptize eis repentance we know repentance came before baptism; 
hence in the expression '-baptize eis remission" remission must 
come before baptism, or they are not alike connected. 

30. If repent and be baptized are alike connected to secure the 
remission of sins, then the expressions "baptism is for the remis- 


sion" "and baptism now saves us" are untrue, though they have- 
been uttered and written millions of times. In all these 'cases 
repentance is cut off, and that shows that in their estimation they 
are not alike connected. "Kepentance is for the remission of 
sins" "and repentance now saves us" are two propositions they 
have never yet framed for discussion: hence in importance they 
are not alike connected, they themselves being judges. 

31. If repentance and baptism are joined to secure the same 
result, and we are baptized eis remission, then we must repent els 
remission, an expression that nowhere occurs. Hence they are 
not alike joined to secure remission. 

32. If repentance and baptism were joined to secare the great 
need of man on Pentecost, then those who showed the way of 
salvation failed to ever join them thus again, and thus failed to 
show the way of salvation to others who were as ignorant as the 

33. Eepentauce was obligatory on all (indiscriminately) who 
heard, and baptism was obligatory only in those (individually) who 
repented; hence they have different nominatives, one singular and 
one plural. As baptism was only for "penitent believers" it could 
not -be joined with repentance, a universal duty, in the cases of 
those whose duty it was not to be baptized. If it was the duty 
of some to repent, but not to be baptized, and the duty of 
others who had repented to be baptized, but not repent, it fol- 
lows that they were separate duties, and were not joined together 
at all. 

34. If repentance and baptism are both eis remission of sins, 
and baptism terminates in it, then repentance must continue till it 
terminates in it also. But this is forbidden by the expression 
"repent and be baptized," which ends repentance before either 
baptism or remission is reached. Hence they are not alike 
united to secure the result. If repentance must be genuine 
before baptism, and should not be followed by baptism, then 
genuine repentance would not be at all connected with remission 
of sins. 

35. If "repentance changes the mind," and "faith changes the 
heart," and "baptism changes the state," as they all say, then they 
are not joined together to secure the same result, for each secures 
its own and a different result. 

36. If repentance and baptism are alike joined to secure the 
remission of past sins, and baptism is to be performed but once, 


then repentance is to secure the remission of past sins, and is 
never to be repeated. 

37. But if repentance and "baptism must be alike joined to secure 
the same result, and we must repent of sins after baptism, then 
baptism must always be joined to secure the same result. In this- 
the Mormon branch of the Eeformation is more consistent. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Third Speech. 

Dear Friends : 

The gentleman says I remind him of the locusts which are 
spoken of in the ninth chapter of Revelation, because I sting and 
bite. Just so; and there is another respect in which. I am like those 
locusts. Listen to what is said of them: "And it was commanded 
them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any 
green thing, neither any tree ; but only those men which have not 
the seal of God in their foreheads." I have no desire in the world to 
hurt anybody who is doing right; and I would only hurt those who 
are doing wrong for their good, or that others may be delivered from 
their false teaching. Toward Brother Moody personally I have not 
the slightest unkind feeling; but that he represents a false doc- 
trine, and that he is- deceiving and misleading the people, I know. 
That he does this oftentimes by unfair and dishonorable means, by 
misrepresenting his opponents, imputing to them that which they 
do not believe, and withholding that which they do believe, has 
been already abundantly shown during this debate, and it will 
become more evident as we proceed. I am not astonished that 
my exposures of him should make him feel as though he were 
bitten and stung by scorpions. 

He tries to sting and bite, too, and the only reason that he does 
not wound me to my death is that he cannot. I stand on the rock 
of God's eternal truth, and I am beyond his power; his efforts 
only recoil upon and injure himself. For instance, he says that I 
put the definite article "the" before the word "law" in the third 
and fourth chapters of Eomans and in Galatians. He says that I 
resist the Holy Ghost in so doing. Never was any thing uttered 
that is more untrue since the world was made till now. Turn to 
your Bibles, King James' Version, which we all use, and you will 
find the article "the" used before the word "law" right along 
through those chapters. Turn to the Eevised Version, which 
embodies the ripest, noblest scholarship of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, and you will find it used in the same way. On this point I 
have invariably quoted from the one of these versions or the other, 


word for word, and 'dot for dot, and he accuses me of putting in the 
" the," when he to^v that they did it. But he (J. B. Moody) thinks 
they ought not to have done it. Yery good, let him say so; but 
let him not accuse me of putting in words when I am but quoting 
the ripest scholarship, the best translation, now on earth. 

I give you another illustration of his queer way of talking. I 
quoted from the apostle James the words "faith, without works is 
dead." Whereupon the doughty Moody shouts: "James never 
.said that faith without works is dead. When the Holy Spirit leaves 
off the definite article before law Mr. Harding puts it in, and when 
he puts it in before faith Mr. Harding leaves it off. You see how 
he always resists the Holy Ghost." 

Let us see, my friends, let us see. Did I misquote wheu I read 
from James "faith without works is dead?" I open now the Com- 
mon Version, and read very carefully from the second chapter of 
James: "But wilt thou know, vain man, that faith without works 
is dead?" (Verse 20.) "For as the body without the spirit is 
dead, so faith without works is dead also." (Verse 26.) So you 
see the Common Version omits the article from before faith. Do 
you see this stack of translations? Every one of them does the 
same thing. They are the Revise'd Version, the Bible Union 
(Baptist), the Common Version, the Living Oracles, McKnight and 
Anderson. When Brother Moody charged me with leaving out the 
article from faith he stated that which is untrue, and which he 
knew to be untrue, for he knew I was but quoting, word for word, 
from the best translations of the world. They left it out, not I. 
But Brother Moody thinks they ought not to have done it, I pre- 
sume. But who is he that he should set himself up so dogmati- 
cally against the scholarship represented in these translations? 
What college did you attend, my brother? Where is your diploma? 
Did you ever attend any college a single day in your life? I studied 
Greek in high school and college about five or six years. I then 
taught it about as long, and I have been paying some attention to 
New Testament Greek ever since, that is, for about fifteen years; 
and I have learned enough in that time to know that not every man 
that has a- smattering of Greek can tell when, and when not, to 
translate the article. It is best for those who have merely tasted 
of the "Pierian spring" to modestly follow the standard transla- 

But suppose we prefix the article to faith in this place, the pas- 
sage then seems to me to stand out still more strongly against the 


gentleman's position. It then reads thus: "Therefore as the body- 
without the spirit is dead, so the faith which is without works is- 
dead also." (See Wesley's translation.) That tells with vigor 
what dead faith is it is the faith which is without works. And 
the Revised Version, at the fourteenth verse, most pointedly asks,. 
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but 
have not works? can that faith save him?" Ah, my friends, faith 
without works is not saving faith. 

Let me now call your attention to another one of the gentle- 
man's false charges. I have repeatedly quoted the strikingly preg- 
nant verse, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any 
thing, nor uncircurncision; but faith working through love." (GaL 
v. 6, R. V.) Brother Moody says I misquote the sense of it, that I 
do it knowingly, and that I love to do it. He does not deny that 
I quote it right, that I give it word for word just as it occurs in the 
Eevised Version, but he says I misquote the sense. (He means 
that I misapply it.) How? Why, he says energeo (the word which 
means to worTc) "never did and never can mean outward manifes- 
tation." This charge, like the others just considered, is utterly 
false, utterly without foundation in fact. Energeo expresses men- 
tal activity, true enough, but it also expresses external action, both ' 
in the Bible and out of it that is, action that terminates outside 
of him who does the work. In this same book (Gal. iii. 5) it is 
used to express the working of miracles; and at Epb. i. 11 it is- 
used to denote all that God does in carrying out his will. 

Liddell & Scott define it thus: "Energeo, to be in action or activ- 
ity." "II. trans., to effect, to execute." 

Thayer's great New Testament Lexicon defines it thus: "I. in- 
trans., to ~oe operative, be at work, put forth power." "II. trans., 
to effect." "III. mid., to display one's activity, show one's self 

The verb energeo is derived from the adjective energos, which 
means "at work, working, . active, busy." When used of land it 
means " in work, productive." It was used also to indicate pro- 
ductive mines, mines from which minerals were being digged.. 
(See Liddell & Scott.) Now what think you of the claim that 
energeo never did and never can mean outward manifestation T 
Our word " energize " (which is the English representative of ener- 
geo) is defined by Webster thus : "to use power in action; to act 
with force or vigor; to operate ^vith vigor; to act in producing an- 


Thus ends the efforts of the gentleman to show that I misrepre- 
sent James and Paul in the use of the article "the," and on the 
subject of faith being perfected by works. In the first case I was 
but quoting the apostles as the leading translators translate them, 
.and in the second case I was but using the word energeo as all of 
the leading dictionaries of the earth define it. So I feel fairly 
comfortable on these points. . 

But what do you think of my opponent by this time? If not 
.another word were said, I think you would be bound to conclude 
that it will not do to trust his statements. But I have another 
word to add: "I have in my possession documents which, show that 
in a skirmish through the papers J. B. Moody wilfully and mali- 
ciously suppressed a part of what his opponent said, in order to 
make the impression on his readers that his opponent was a falsifier. 
I have known for years that he would do such things, but I have 
never before been in a condition to prove it so clearly, so com- 
pletely and so easily. I will meet him before any impartial tribunal 
with the proof, or I will give it to you in this debate, just as he 
may prefer. 

. The gentleman doubtless will say that I am making a personal 
attack upon him. Suppose I am; did not Paul make a personal 
attack on the false prophet Bar-jesus when he withstood the truth 
and tried to turn the deputy, Sergius Paulus, from the faith? And 
did not the Lord strike the false prophet with blindness, and was 
not the deputy thus saved? (See Acts'xiii. 6-12.) So I hope, 
beloved, the influence of this false prophet will be ruined, and 
many of his deluded followers turned to the advocacy of that 
which they are now trying to pull down. 

I turn now to my affirmative argument on Acts ii. 38. Concern- 
ing the preposition eis which occurs in that passage three questions 
arise: 1. What does it mean? 2. Does it connect both the verbs 
41 repent" and "be baptized" with "remission of sins," or only one 
of them? 3. Is eis ever retrospective? I reply to these questions 
thus: 1. Eis means in order to. 2. It connects both the verbs 
the entire exhortation with "remission of sins." 3. I claim that 
eis is always prospective, never retrospective. Now, if I can main- 
tain myself on these points, if not another word were spoken on 
our side of this question, it would still be established that baptism 
precedes and is in order to remission of sins. That I will do this 
is as certain as that the Lord will enable me to live, and to present 


the proof that I now have in possession proof from the very best 
authorities on eartb. 

R. T. Matthews, professor of Greek, Eminence College, Kentucky,, 
addressed- the following letter to the professors of Greek in the 
leading colleges and universities of the United States : 

"Will you be so kind as to give me your translation of tbe prep- 
osition eis in Acts ii. 38, and your opinion, as a Greek scholar, as 
to what grammatical relation it expresses between the predicates 
of the verse and the phrase aphesin hamartioon? I shall be 
obliged for your answer in the light of scholarship, aside from all 
theological applications of the verse." 

At the risk of being tedious, I intend to give the answers to this 
letter in full, believing their value demands that they should be 
preserved, as they will be when thus incorporated in our debate. 

Professor Tyler, Amherst College, Massachusetts, says : "Yours of 
the 9th inst. is just received. I shall translate Acts ii. 38 liberally, 
thus : Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in (or on) the 
name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sins. The preposition eis 
seems to denote the object and end of the two verbs which pre- 
cede in the imperative. In other words, remission of sins is the 
object and end (or result) of repentance and baptism. The mean- 
ing may perhaps be more definitely and unequivocally expressed 
thus : Repent, and let every one of you be baptized to the end that 
your sins may be forgiven. The passage does not necessarily 
imply that repentance and baptism stand in the same moral, relig- 
ious, essential or formal relation to forgiveness, any more than 
believing and being baptized stand in the same relation to being 
saved in Mark xvi. 16; or of being born of water and the Spirit 
stand in the same relation to entering into the kingdom of God in 
John iii. 5. The result is fully realized in each of these cases only 
when both the outward and the inward conditions are fulfilled. 
But that the outward condition is less essential is clearly indicated 
by its omission in the negative and condemnatory part of Mark, 
xvi. 16: 'He that believeth not shall be damned.' I do not know 
that I have met the precise point and object of your inquiries. I 
have only touched the points of chief interest and importance as 
they present themselves to my own mind." 

I would remark in passing that I am not here to affirm that bap- 
tism stands in the same " moral, religious, essential or formal rela- 
tion to forgiveness" that faith and repentance do; nor am I to 



show which is most essential; it is enough to know that all three 
are essential to know that the Holy Spirit said, "Bepent, and let 
every one of you be baptized to the end that your sins may be 

Prof. H. C. Cameron, of Princeton College, New Jersey, says : 

" The preposition eis in Acts ii. 38 is evidently used in its final 
sense; and the phrase is clearly connected with metanoeesate ~kai 
baptistheeti (repent and be baptized), as the end to which repent- 
ance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ led. The conviction 
of sin in the crucifixion of Jesus, who was both Lord and Christ, 
led the multitude to inquire of the apostles, 'What shall we do?' 
'Do' for what purpose? Evidently 'for the remission of sins/ as 
shown in the answer of the apostle. They thought only of the 
sin against Christ, which, since his advent, is the essence of sin (of 
sin because they believe not on me) ; but the apostle makes the 
matter more general 'remission of sins.' The term aphesis (re- 
mission), except in the quotation from Isaiah (Luke iv. 18), has 
but one signification in the New Testament. This, then, was the 
object contemplated both in the question and the answer, and to 
which eis points. Trusting that this hasty note, which does not 
enter into the question of baptism, or of its relation to salvation, 
or even of the meaning of the expression epi too onomati (in the 
name of Jesus Christ), is a sufficient answer to your inquiries, I 
remain yours truly." 

Professor Packard, of Tale College, Connecticut, says: 

"Your letter of inquiry as to the meaning of eis in Acts ii. 38 
was handed to me this morning. I do not suppose it is possible to 
determine from classical or patristic usage a necessary meaning 
for such a word which can be applied in any new case. It is so 
frequent a word, has so many various meanings, and expressing 
only relation, depends so entirely on the context for its determina- 
tion, that each case must be decided mainly by itself. Here it 
seems to be connected with both verbs. With baptizo alone it has 
a special New Testament use, as to the meaning of which scholars 
are somewhat divided. My own impression (to give it for what it 
is worth) is that I should translate it, if these words occurred in 
Plato, for instance, to the end of remission of sins. It would then 
make aphesis hamartioon an object aimed at, or a result attained 
by, the acts denoted by the verbs. But this leads one necessarily 


into the domain of theology. I am sorry I cannot give you a more 
definite answer." 

Professor Poster, of Colby University, Maine, says : 

"Without a special examination of the passage in connection 
with others in which like expressions occur, I should say that the 
word here has the force of 'unto/ 'in order to/ 'for the sake of/ 
indicating a result to be attained, and that it connects the phrase 
cvphesin hamartioon with both the foregoing imperative verbs, alike 
.grammatically considered, though, on other grounds, I should say 
specially with the first, since pardon is nowhere offered on condi- 
tion of baptism alone, while it is on that of repentance. This is 
briefly my response to your inquiry as I understand it." 

Professor D'Ooge, of Ann Arbor University, Michigan, says: 

"In reply to your inquiry, I would say that in my judgment the 
preposition eis, in the verse referred to, expresses the relation of 
aim or end in view, answering the question eis ti (for what?), and to 
be translated by 'unto/ 'in order to/ 'for.' This sense of eis, as 
.you doubtless know, is recognized by Liddell & Scott for classical; 
by Winer, for New Testament usage. I cannot agree with those 
who ascribe to eis nearly the same force in the phrase ' baptize into 
the name/ but understand it there to be used in the sense of 'in 
reference to/ 'in relation to.'" 

Professor Flagg, of Cornell University, New York, says : 

"In answer to your inquiry about the force of the preposition 
eis, in the passage of the New Testament to which you refer (Acts 
ii. 38), I should say that it denoted intention or purpose, 'with a 
view to/ much as if it had been written, 'so as to obtain remission 
of sins.' I speak, however, wholly from the standpoint of classic 
Greek, not being familiar with the changes introduced by the Hel- 
lenistic. As to any theological bearings that the subject may have 
I am wholly indifferent." 

Professor Proctor, of Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, says : 

"Tour letter was delayed sometime by misdirection, and, being 
very closely occupied when it came, I delayed replying to it, and 
then for sometime it was mislaid and forgotten. I could wish my 
answer might be better worth waiting for. It is my opinion that 
eis is to be connected with both the predicates, and that it denotes 
an object or end in view. I am inclined to think that the phra e 


'in the name of Jesus Christ/ though grammatically limiting only 
baptistheeti, does in thought modify the connection of eis, the ideas 
standing logically in the following order, viz. : Having been shown 
your ill-behavior against the Messiah, put faith (in the name of) 
Christ; on the basis of that faith, repent and (confess) be baptized, 
and then be forgiven eis connecting apkesis, not with the two 
predicates separately, but with the whole preceding part of the 
sentence. I have first and last given a good deal of attention to 
this point, but cannot yet speak more confidently than I have done 
. above. If you enjoy this study as I do, I congratulate you most 
cordially. I establish few doctrines as such, but the divine word 
is more and more a source of sustenance and solace." . 

Professor Harkness, Brown University, Providence, E. I., says : 

"In my opinion eis in Acts ii. 38 denotes purpose, and may be 
rendered in order to, or for the purpose of securing, or, as in our 
English version, for. Eis apkesin hamartioon, suggests the motive 
or object contemplated in the action of the two preceding verbs." 

You have now, my friends, heard eight of the finest teachers of 
Greek on this continent on this verse, and it is gratifying to see 
how unanimous they are in then? translation and exegesis of it. 
All agree that eis looks forward to the remission of sins as the end 
or object to be attained by repenting and being baptized. Some 
of these learned professors are members of different Churches, 
one or two, perhaps, of no Church; at least two of them (Harkness 
and Foster) are Baptists. I sum up their testimony thus: 

Tyler says, " to the end that your sins may be forgiven." 

Cameron says, "for remission of sins " .denotes "the end to which 
repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ led." 

Packard says remission of sins is an "object aimed at, or a 
result attained by," repenting and being baptized. 

Foster says, "the word here has the force of 'unto,' 'in order 
to/ 'for the sake of/ indicating a result to be attained." 

D'Ooge says eis here "expresses the relation of aim or end in 
view," and that it should be " translated by 'unto/ 'in order to/ 

Flagg says, " so as to obtain remission of sins." 

Proctor arranges the ideas in this order, viz., (1) faith, (2) repent- 
ance, (3) confession, (4) baptism, and (5) the forgiveness of sins. 

Harkness says eis "denotes purpose, and may be rendered in 
order to, or for the purpose of securing." 



To Mm who is sufficiently learned and thoughtful to appreciate 
the weight and authority of scholarship, these eight letters settle 
the translation and force of eis in Acts ii. 38. But I have a few 
other authorities that I want to present in this speech that are 
equally as learned. I present them especially because they throw 
light on some phases of the question as yet merely hinted at. 

Mr. T. P. Davis, of Alexandria, Tenn., addressed letters of in- 
quiry concerning this verse to the professors of Greek in the four 
great seats of learning, Yale, Harvard, University of Virginia, and 
Vanderbilt. He received the following replies: 

Prof. T. D. Seymour, Tale College, said: 

" Mr. T. P. Davis, Dear Sir Tour note of the 4th inst. is at hand. 
I do not remember any passage in which eis could properly be 
translated because of. I am not sure that I understand your second 
question; as I understand it, I should say that eis is never retro- 
spective, it always implies that the person or thing or act concerned 
is turned toward the thing which follows eis. Tours very truly." 

Prof. "W. W. Goodwin, Harvard University, said : '"rf*: 

" T. P. Davis, My Dear Sir In reply to your first question I must 
say that I cannot conceive of any expression in which eis would be 
properly translated because of. To your second question I should 
say that I do not see how eis can ever be 'retrospective,' but I 
should like to see any passage in which you think it has this force. 
If you do not find any authority for what you want in the standard 
lexicons, you will probably not do so by looking elsewhere. Tours 
very truly." 

Prof. John H. Wheeler, University of Virginia, said: 

"I think the true interpretation of the passage can be deter- 
mined as well from the English as from the Greek New Testa- 
ment. If there is any doubt about the meaning in the one lan- 
guage, there is just as much doubt and just the same doubt in the 
other. But it seems to me in either language the remission of 
sins is something to which the one who is baptized is to look for- 
ward he is to be baptized as a means of procuring that remission. 
I assure you I shall always be glad to try to answer any similar 
question whenever you think I can be of any service to you. I 
remain very truly yours." 


Prof. Chas. F. Smith, Vanderbilt University, said : 
"Mr. T. P. Davis, Dear Sir I do not doubt that eis in Acts 
ii. 38 means unto and is prospective. It is barely possible that it 
might be neither exactly prospective nor retrospective, i. e., mean 
simply with regard to, meaning nothing as to its being already 
accomplished, or to be accomplished. But I don't so understand 
it. If any one were to try to make it mean what you call retro- 
spective he would "be likely to start at it through this meaning 
with regard to, which is not strictly retrospective. The retrospect- 
ive idea would come in from the whole phrase. But, at any rate, 
I don't understand it retrospectively. In all such questions I 
doubt not that you would get more satisfactory information from 
our professor of New Testament exegesis, Eev. Gross Alexander. 
Very truly yours." 

These letters I have given in full except two; I left off some 
introductory matter from Professor Wheeler's and Professor 
Smith's, but it in nowise modifies the sense of what is given. 
The last four letters I have in manuscript. 

And now with all who are competent to appreciate the value of 
these learned testimonials another question is settled, viz., that 
eis never means because of, and is never retrospective. Jacob 
Ditzler, the noted Methodist debater, says: "Eis is always pros- 
pective, and never retrospective The Baptists are all 

wrong on eis making it retrospective 'in consequence of.'" 
(The Louisville Debate, page 307.) 

"But," some one doubtless is ready to ask, "what about the 
saying of John, 'I indeed baptize you with water eis (unto) repent- 
ance, 7 to which Brother Moody has repeatedly referred? Is not 
eis retrospective here? Did they not repent before they were bap- 
tized?" To this I reply: Dr. J. A. Broadus, commenting on this 
passage, says, "The most natural way to understand this preposi- 
tion (with its case), in Greek as in English, would be 'in order that 
you may repent.' " He then refers to other interpretations, but 
then returns to this one as his choice, and paraphrases it thus: "I 
baptize you in order that you may really repent." (Broadus on 
Matthew, pp. 49, 50.) 

Thayer,in his great lexicon, art. "Baplizo," explains "eis repent- 
ance" as meaning "to bind one to repentance." 

The word repentance may signify the act of repenting, or the 
life of repentance. In this passage is is evidently used in the lat- 
ter sense. 


One other point I have time to call attention to before closing 
this speech. It is always better to translate a single Greek word 
by one word (rather than several) in English, if it can be done 
without obscuring the meaning. Hence scholars generally are 
inclined to prefer " unto" rather than "in order to" as a rendering 
of eis in Acts ii. 38. I prefer it myself, so does Brother Moody. 
Webster, Worcester, Johnson and other lexicographers do not 
define "unto," but give it as an obsolete form of "to;" they refer 
you to "to" for its meaning. But, according to Webster, the prep- 
osition to primarily indicates approach and arrival. Like eis it 
never means because of; and like eis also, after verbs of action or 
motion, it is always prospective, never retrospective. But my 
time has about expired. I thank you for your patience and 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Third Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Mr. Harding seems proud of his likeness to the locusts. The 
reason they did not hurt the vegetation and good men was because 
God forbade them. These locusts came out of the black smoke 
from the pit of the abyss, and the angel of the abyss was king 
over them. This, with the peculiarities of their power, constitutes 
a likeness that my friend may boast of if he likes. 

To show what a dexterous dodger my opponent is, you remem- 
ber I said he ran greedily after the errors of translations and 
authors, but resists the Holy Spirit. How does he reply ? By quoting 
the errors of translations, and resisting the Holy Spirit again. 

What will you think when I tell you that Mr. Campbell and Mr. 
Anderson, his own men, "Emphatic Diaglott" and Bible Union 
leave off "the" before "law" where Mr. Harding puts it in, and the 
Oxford translates rightly in the margin. Mr. Harding boasts of 
his knowledge of Greek, the language used by the Holy Spirit. 
Then he knows whether this article is in the Greek in places where 
he puts it in. I charge him again with running greedily after 
errors and resisting the Holy Spirit. 

I reassert all I said about the article "the" before "law" and 
"faith," and if Mr. Harding can't show that he follows the Holy 
Spirit, then let him, as a dodger, show that he follows the errors of 
translations. I challenge him to quote the passages containing 
"energeo" in his next speech. His reply to me on that cannot be 
exposed in language becoming a religious discussion. To call his 
reply puerile is the sheerest flattery. Like the ostrich, he may 
have thought he dodged by hiding his head, but the part containing 
his power he left exposed. 

My opponent has misrepresented me and Baptist authors until 
it seems that he can't cease from it. Time and again, he" has 
accused me of believing that we are baptized because of remission. 
I begged him in my opening speech not to do this. I now accuse 
him of wilfully perverting Dr. Broadus' meaning in his quotation 
on " eis repentance." 


I have but one question here on Baptist authors. Mr. Harding, 
do you quote these Baptist authors to prove your doctrine? If 
not, what do you quote them for? Please answer. For a com- 
plete refutation of all this, see my "Vindication," price five cents. 
I will introduce some of it as I proceed. I could fill all my space 
with quotations from scholars on my side. I could fill most of it 
with his own scholars against his proposition. Pedobaptists can 
quote ten to one on infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, 
and say who is Harding that he should put himself against all 
these? But that would not be proving their doctrine. My oppo- 
nent can garble the words of authors, but he can't prove his doc- 
trine. Let him try his hand at argument, and if he can't argue let 
him scrap on. 

Another example of his dodging : He set out with the assertion 
that all blessings are conditional, and that God only blesses the 
obedience of faith. When I proved in previous debates that nearly 
all of G-od's greatest blessings, such as his Word, Spirit, Son, apos- 
tles, ministers, gifts temporal, physical, social, national, intellec- 
tual, spiritual, etc. were without either faith or obedience, he 
then changes his phraseology to " the blessings of faith " always 
requiring action. I then asked him if it must be the action of 
obedience 5 the action of the one receiving the blessing, and action 
of, or after, faith? and he sees his bombastic, boastful bubble is 
burst, and he thinks to shy off. No, indeed, Mr. Dodger, you must 
answer up or throw up. 

' Now I take up my negative argument, which my opponent dare 
not assail. Eealizing this, what is more natural than that he should 
leave the argument and turn bis assaults on me. I engaged to 
disprove his proposition; and while I devote myself to that, he is 
at liberty to pursue any course he pleases. His doctrine is not 
true, though I be a liar and an ignoramus. 

38. If repentance and baptism are for, or in order to, the pardon 
of past sins, then those contending for the doctrine can never be 
saved from their post-baptism sins, since all efforts to establish 
another post-baptism law of pardon have utterly failed. 

39. If repentance and baptism are equally necessary to the par- 
don of past sins, then the believing, convicted, penitent confessor 
who died during the postponement of baptism by the will of man 
was lost. But John i. 12, 13 says it is not of the will of man. 
Hence baptism, to be performed or postponed by another, cannot 
be joined to secure this result. 


40. But if believers were told to repent, and penitents to be bap- 
tized, then repentance and baptism are not joined to secure remis- 
sion of sins, for this is promised to whosoever believeth. This 
would bring the result before either repentance or baptism, which 
prove the theory absurd. 

41. If any moral qualifications, as repentance, faith, love are 
essential, and the candidate should be without them, then his bap- 
tism would render his salvation impossible. For as baptism with- 
out repentance would fail him under the first law of pardon, so 
repentance without baptism would fail him under the second, since 
the second cannot avail in cases where the first failed ; and since in 
this case repentance and baptism were not joined together under 
either law, it follows the result was not obtained; and since ana- 
baptism is refused-, his salvation is utterly impossible in their 

42. But if remission is according to the riches of his grace, and 
if of grace then no more of works, then baptism, -confessedly a 
work of righteousness, cannot be joined, else grace is no more 

43. If baptism must be joined to repentance and faith to secure 
the remission of sins, then the Gospel dispensation is more griev- 
ous than the former, for there he "saved all who put their trust in 
him" (Ps. xxxvii. 40), and those "who believed were not put to 
shame." But the one who dies under the postponement of bap- 
tism by the will of another, or out of the reach of baptism, either 
does not trust him, or, trusting, is not saved because baptism has 
been grievously added. 

44. But if Peter had wished to express remission of sins as the 
design of repentance and baptism, then he would not probably 
have used eis, but the usual Mna or hopos, the former of which 
occurs about seven hundred times in the New Scriptures. In a 
note on Matt, xviii. 6 Dr. John A. Broadus, in his great Commentary, 
says: "Meyer's attempt to make hina here express purpose only 
shows the impossibility of maintaining the ground that in the New 
Testament it always has that sense." This proves that it generally 
does, and intimates that some contend that it always does, which is 
enough for my purpose. Purpose is expressed about twenty times 
in the seventeenth chapter of John, and nearly as often in the 
ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians, but not by eis in a single case. 
There are other chapters where eis occurs several times, and pur- 
pose expressed several times, but not by eis, but the usual hina, 


hopos or the infinitive, the classic usage. Then it would read 
repent and "be baptized that your sins may be remitted; or, to 
adopt the classical usage common also in the Scriptures, it would 
read, repent and be baptized to have your sins remitted. This 
would have obviated all difficulties and discussions. The follow- 
ing scattered places will amply illustrate this : 

"What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Purpose or 
design clearly stated, but not with the preposition eis. 

"Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." Purpose or 
design clearly stated, but not with the preposition eis. 

"What must I do to be saved?" Purpose or design stated, but 
not with the preposition eis. 

"Turn them from darkness to light (etc.) that they might receive 
forgiveness of sins." Purpose and design clearly stated, but not 
with the preposition eis. 

"These things I say unto you that ye might be saved." Purpose 
or design clearly stated, but not with the preposition eis. 

" Send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger." Purpose, 
but no eis. 

"Brought infants that he might touch them." Purpose, but 
no eis. 

"Put hands on Saul that he might receive sight." Purpose, but 
no eis. 

"Sent me that thou might receive sight and be filled with the 
Holy Spirit." Purpose, but no eis. 

"Prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit." Purpose, but 
no eis. 

"I am come that thou mightest have life, and that more abun- 
dantly." Purpose, but no eis. 

Peter could have expressed design in Acts ii. 38 so there could 
be no doubt or debate, but this he did not do. It can't be proved 
that baptize eis ever expresses design. 

45. If Peter joined baptism to faith and repentance in Acts ii. 
38 to secure remission of sins, then he contradicts the Gospel he 
preached to the Gentiles, for there he said, "To him give all the 
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in 
him (epi, upon him) shall receive remission of sins," and "who- 
soever" takes in all believers, and they must be believers before 
baptism, and in many cases must go without it. 

46. If baptism must be added to faith and repentance to get a 
man into the name of Christ really, then all those Scriptures are 


contradicted which ascribe entrance eis into his name by faith, 
to wit: John i. 12, "Even to them that believe eis his name." 
John iii. 18, "Condemned already because he hath not believed eis 
the name of the only begotten Son of G-od." John ii. 23, "Many 
believed eis his name when they saw the miracles which he did." 
1 John v. 13, "These things have I written unto you that believe 
eis the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have 
eternal life, even to you who believe eis the name of the Son 
of God." 

Here five times we enter into the name by faith, and only two 
times are we said to be baptized eis his name; both of these are 
true, we really believe eis his name and are declaratively baptized 
eis his name. Hence any interpretation of the two places baptize 
eis his name that makes null and void the five places of believe 
eis his name is incorrect. 

47. If baptism must be added to repentance and faith to get a 
man really into Christ, then all those Scriptures are contradicted 
which teach entrance into Christ by faith. The following are the 
references: Matt, xviii. 6; Luke ix. 42; John iii. 15, 16, 18, 36; iv. 
39; v. 24; vi. 27, 40, 47; vii. 5, 31, 38, 39, 48; viii. 30, 31; ix. 35, 
36; x. 42; xi. 25, 26, 45, 48; xii. 11, 37, 42, 44, 46; xiv. 1, 12; xvi. 
9; x vii. 20; Acts x. 43; xiv. 23; xix. 4; xx. 21; xxiv. 24; xxvi. 18; 
Bom. x. 14; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. i. 29; 1 John v. 10, 11. Here are 
forty-four cases of believe eis Christ, and there are -two cases of 
baptize eis Christ, and shall the two destroy the forty-four? Such 
an interpretation is manifestly absurd. Therefore I reject the gen- 
tleman's proposition, which requires so unnatural and unreasona- 
ble and unscriptural a thing. 

48. If salvation includes remission of sins, as all admit, and 
baptism must be joined to secure it, then all those Scriptures are 
contradicted which predicate salvation of faith. Luke viii. 12, 
"Lest they should believe and be saved." Nowhere is it said lest 
they should be baptized and be saved. Luke vii. 50, "Thy faith 
hath saved thee." Acts xvi. 31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ 
and thou shalt be saved." Rom. i. 16, "The Gospel is the power of 
God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Rom. x. 9: "If 
thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the 
dead thou shalt be saved." 1 Cor. i. 21, "It pleased God .... to 
save them that believed." Eph. ii. 8, "For by grace are ye saved 
through faith." 1 Tim. i. 16, "Believe on hirn,m to life everlast- 
ing." Heb. x. 39, "Believe eis saving of the soul." 1 Peter i. 5, 


" Through, faith eis salvation." It is nowhere said we are baptized 
eis salvation, and if it did, any interpretation which would make it 
nullify these other Scriptures would be false; and this my friend's 
proposition does. Therefore I reject it. 

49. If baptism as a single act of obedience must be joined to 
repentance and faith to secure salvation, then all those Scriptures 
are contradicted which enforce indiscriminating obedience to all 
the commandments. John xiv. 15, " If ye love me keep my com- 
mandments." Verse 21, "He that hath my commandments and 
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." Here the plural "com- 
mandments" is used. Also, John xv. 10; 1 John ii. 3,4; iii. 22, 
24; v. 2, 3; Eev. xii. 17; xiv. 12; xxii. 14. Mr. Brooks says (Brooks- 
Fitch debate, page 141) when you know that you have obeyed the 
commandment of the living God you have a good conscience. 
(See like utterances pp. 142, 143.) And so my friend's people are 
accustomed to speak of baptism as the one act of obedience 
which makes void the above Scriptures, and hence is not true, for 
indiscriminating obedience to all the commandments is the general 
teaching of Scripture. 

50. If Acts ii. 38 makes obedience in baptism a condition of 
salvation, then those Scriptures are contradicted which make obe- 
dience the fruit of salvation. "First make the tree good and the 
fruit will be good." "He that doeth good is of G-od." "He that 
doeth righteousness is righteous." " He that doeth righteousness 
has been born of God," and "whosover is born of God doth not 
commit sin," but "overcometh the world," "and that wicked one 
toucheth him not." "He that believeth has been born of God," 
and " he that loveth has been born of God." Hence all good works 
are fruits; therefore baptism, a good work, cannot be a condition 
of salvation. 

51. If Acts ii. 38 makes the "like blessings of salvation" the 
reward of obedience to one particular command, then all those 
Scriptures are contradicted which make the unlike blessings of 
salvation the reward of obedience to all his commands. Matt. xvi. 
27, "For the Son of man shall come, in the glory of his Father 
with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to 
his works." If one's life abounds in good works, but has not been 
baptized, the Lord could not fulfill this promise of rewarding every 
man according to his works. 2 Peter i. 8, "For if these things be 
in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren 
nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." " These 


things" do not refer to baptism, and they abound in many who 
have never been baptized. But my friend's proposition makes- 
them all barren and unfruitful, and thus contradicts God's Word. 
Good works are profitable unto men, says the apostle, and every 
man shall be re warded' according to his own labor ; but my friend's 
proposition contradicts these in cases where there is no baptism,, 
hence the proposition is untrue. 

52. If justification includes remission of sins, as all admit, and 
baptism is necessary to the one, it is also necessary to the other ; 
but baptism in order to justification contradicts all those Scriptures- 
which predicate justification of faith. Acts xiii. 39, "By him all 
that believe are justified." See Eom. iii. 20-31; iv. 1-25,- v. 1; ix.. 
30-33; Eom. x. 1-10; Gal. ii. 16-21; chapters iii. and iv. ; chapter 
v. 1-5, and many other places, in all of which justification is predi- 
cated of faith without works, and without obedience to law, none 
of which can be harmonized with my friend's proposition. Hence 
the proposition is not true. 

53. If Acts ii. 38 puts the equivalents of salvation beyond bap- 
tism, then all those Scriptures are contradicted which join them to 
repentance. Acts xviii. 11, "Eepent eis life." Acts xx. 21, " Eepent 
eis God." 2 Cor. vii. 10, "Eepent eis salvation." 2 Tim. ii. 25. 
"Eepent eis the acknowledging of the truth." Put baptism in the 
place of repentance in the above passages, and my friend would 
seize on them with avidity. But he has a doctrine which contra- 
dicts them all, because it transfers these blessings from repentance 
to baptism. 

54. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap- 
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which predicate them 
of confession, which is before baptism. Eom. x. 10, "With the 
mouth confession is made eis salvation." Eom. ix. 10, "If thou 
shalt confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in 
thine heart that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be 
saved." My friend claims both faith and confession for his candi- 
date for baptism, but denies him the promise. 1 John i. 9, "If we 
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." 
This has been done by millions of the unbaptized, but my friend's 
proposition denies them the blessing. Hence it contradicts God's 
Word, and is not true. 1 John iv. 15, "Whosoever shall confess 
that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him, and he in God."" 
This is true of every proper subject for baptism, hence is true- 
before baptism; hence my friend's proposition is not true. 


55. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap- 
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which, ascribe them to 
the effectual call of God. In 1 Cor. i. 9 we are said to be " called 
els the fellowship of his Son." Gal. i. 6, "Called eis the grace of 
Christ." 2 Thess. ii. 14, "Whereunto (eis into which salvation) he 
called you by our Gospel eis to the obtaining of the glory of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Tim. vi. 12, " Lay hold on eternal life where- 
unto (eis) thou wast called." 1 Peter ii. 9, "Called you out of 
darkness eis into his marvelous light." 1 Peter v. 10, "Who hath 
called us (eis) unto his eternal glory." In Rom. viii. 30 we see this 
call is before justification, hence it is before baptism, and these 
Scriptures predicate these blessings of something that conies 
before baptism, and rny friend's proposition contradicts them all. 
Hence his proposition is not true; and Paul's challenge, "If God 
be for us, who can be against us?" is an empty boast. For the man 
who may oppose or postpone my baptism, could be so against us 
as to render this call of God uneffectual. 

56. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap- 
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which ascribe them to 
the ordaining purpose of God. Acts xiii. 48, "As many as were 
ordained eis eternal life believed." Here eternal life is predicated 
of a divine purpose and power, and faith the result, which is fatal 
to my friend's proposition, which maintains that eternal life comes 
only to the baptized, without the predisposing of any divine ordain- 
ing power. Born. ix. 23, "The vessels of mercy which he had 
afore prepared eis glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the 
Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." 1 Tim. i. 9, "Who hath saved 
us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, 
but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us 
in Christ Jesus before the world began." Titus i. 2, "In hope of 
eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world 
began." These Scriptures are utterly irreconcilable with my friend's 
proposition; hence his proposition is not true. 

57. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap- 
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which ascribe them to 
election. John xv. 16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen 
you and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and 
that your fruit should remain." Acts ix. 15, "He is a chosen ves- 
sel eis 'unto' me." This was before his baptism. Rom. xi. 9, 
"That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not 
of works, but of him that calleth." This Scripture, revised to suit 


my friend, would read, "That the purpose of man according to 
baptism might stand, not of him that calleth, but of works." This,.^ 
like my friend's proposition, would be the reverse of Scripture 
teaching. Eom. xi. 5, "Even at this present time there is a rem- 
nant according to the election of grace," and if of grace, then no 
more of works, else grace is no more grace. What then? "Israel 
hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath 
obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Eph. i. 4, "According as 
he hath chosen us eis in him before the foundation of the world." 
2 Thess. ii. 14, "We are bound to give thanks always to God for 
you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the 
beginning chosen you eis salvation through sanctification of the 
Spirit and belief of the truth." These Scriptures are as unfa- 
vorable to my friend's proposition as his proposition is to the 

58. If predestination to salvation is based on good works foreseen 
in us, and baptism is one of these works, then none are predesti- 
nated but those who are baptized for the pardon of past sins. 
But this would contradict those Scriptures which join predestina- 
tion to the sovereign choice of God. Eph. i. 5, "Having predesti- 
nated us eis into the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ eis into 
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Verse 11, "In 
whom we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinated 
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the 
counsel of his own will." Eom. viii. 29, "For whom he did fore- 
know he also did predestinate to be conformed eis into the image 
of his son." These and other like Scriptures are as hostile to my 
friend's doctrine as united omnipotence and omniscience can make 
it. Hence his proposition is tremendously untrue. 

59. If Acts ii. 38 makes baptism a condition of salvation, then 
all those Scriptures are contradicted which predicate the blessings 
of salvation to grace. This divine side of salvation is needful for 
us to know, or it would not have been revealed. John x. 16, "I 
lay down my life for the sheep j and other sheep I have which 'are 
not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my 
voice." Verse 26, "But ye believed not because ye are not of my 
sheep, as I said unto you, my sheep hear my voice, and I know 
them, and they follow me,, and I give unto them eternal life, and 
they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of 
my hands. - My Father who gave them me is greater than all, and 
no one is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my 


Father are one." That is, one in grace, one in purpose, and one 
in power. John vi. 37, "All that the Father giveth me shall 
conie to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise east 
out." John xvii. 2, "Thou has given him power over all flesh 
that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given 
him." Verse 6, "I have manifested thy name unto the men 
which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou 
.gavest them me, and they have kept thy word." Eph. xi. 8, "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; for 
we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them." 
Eoin. v. 8-10; 2 Cor. v. 18-20; Gal. i. 4; Eph. xi. 21', 22; Col. i. 
12-14; Titus ii. 14; iii. 5-7; Heb. ix. 12, 28; x. 10-18; 1 John iv. 
10; Eom. v. 19-21 are some of the many Scriptures which make sal- 
vation wholly of grace, and "if of grace, then no more of works," 
which is equivalent to saying, not at all of baptism. Hence my 
friend's proposition is untrue. 

60. If Acts ii. 38 gives baptism the importance claimed for it, 
then baptism would have been made the dividing line between the 
saint and the sinner, and would have constituted the great test of 
character; whereas the precedent, internal qualifications, repent- 
ance, faith, love, etc., are uniformly referred to as tests, and bap- 
tism never. See all the preceding Scriptures quoted, and espe- 
cially the first general epistle of John, which make the internal 
qualifications the test, and external obedience the marks, and 
baptism never particularly referred to. Hence my friend's propo- 
sition, which does this, is unscriptural. 

61. If the belief of this proposition is faith, and in doing what 
is supposed to be commanded in Acts ii. 38 entitles one to the 
supposed promise, then the belief of any other Scripture is faith, 
and in doing what, is supposed to be required by it entitles one 
also to the promise. Acts x. 43, "Whosoever belie veth in him 
shall receive remission of sin." Here believing in him is the sup- 
posed condition, and doing that which must be done before bap- 
tism entitles one to the promise. So also Eom. iv. 24 and Eom. x. 
9. Here faith and confession are the supposed conditions, which, 
having been performed, as they must be before baptism, entitles 
one to the things promised. Hence the proposition which limits 
these to baptism is cruelly untrue. 

62. Christ said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." The 


unmistakable godly lives of thousands of the unbaptized is God's 
perpetual witness that he still purifies the heart by faith ; and the 
Mtter vindictiveness of my opponent, and those holding his doc- 
Mne, including the Mormons and the Catholics, is a perpetual, 
occular demonstration that the doctrine is not the Gospel of 
Christ; and in the utter absence of argument, and in the face of 
all his garbled extracts, I impeach it, and denounce it as debasing, 
demoralizing and destructive; and I hereby warn and charge my 
hearers to avoid it as they would the pit from whence it came. 
Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Fourth Speech. 

Dear Friends : 

Another day lias passed, and we are again assembled to continue 
this discussion. I am glad to see the great crowd, and the una- 
bated interest, and I pray God that much good may result from 
our work, nor do I in the least doubt but that it will. 

I am repeatedly asked how we expect to report and publish this 
debate when we have no stenographers engaged to take it down 
as we speak it. I reply that Brother Moody and I have had three 
debates before this one 5 in two of them our questions on baptism 
were expressed just as they are now j our last debate was steno- 
graphically reported, and we now have that report to guide us in 
writing up this debate ; and, finally, the speeches will be prepared 
for the printer in the same order in which they are here delivered ; 
that is, Brother Moody will prepare his first speech and deliver it 
to me, I will then write up my reply and send it to him; and so 
on to the end, each having his opponent's speech before him when 
he replies to it, and each seeing all that goes to the printer before 
it is put in type. We have agreed that in reporting our speeches 
our maximum shall be nine thousand words to the hour, and that 
no reply shall contain more words than the affirmative address 
which it follows. Within this limit the debaters are permitted to 
add to, take from, or change their speeches as delivered here, the 
object being to make as strong a book as possible, rather than to 
reproduce word for word what is spoken here. This is a perfectly 
fair and impartial arrangement, as each of us will have the oppor- 
tunity of seeing and replying to whatever his opponent may say, 
just as we have in speaking here. So, if Brother Moody chooses 
to leave out the Norton letter, from which he and I read so freely 
during the first week of the debate, he can do it. Of course he 
won't put his blunderings in reading that letter into the written 
report, but I will have other opportunities to show up his sophis- 
tries, which I will be sure to use. Hence you need not be sur- 
prised in finding what appear to be anachronisms in the published 
debate, as testimony may appear in the book of later date than 
the oral discussion. 


Brother Moody still charges that I resist the Holy Spirit when I 
quote the Revised Version at Rom. iii. 28 and James ii. 26. The 
Bible Union, Anderson, Common Version and others, as well as the 
Revised Version, omit the article before faith (James ii. 26), yet I 
resist the Holy Spirit when I so read it! If Brother Moody knows^ 
any thing of Greek he knows that in hundreds of cases the article 
is omitted in the translation where it occurs in the original. Does 
he resist the Holy Spirit whenever he quotes such a passage? 
For instance, Brother Moody quotes, "He that doeth righteous- 
ness is righteous." (1 John iii. 7.) The article stands "before 
"righteousness" in the Greek. Did he resist the Holy Ghost when 
he quoted the Common Version, which omits it? Certainly not; 
neither did I when I did the same thing. It is also the fact that 
where the article is not in the Greek, in order to bring out the 
sense, the English idiom often demands that it shall appear. The 
revisers are among the ripest scholars of the world, and I feel 
pretty safe when they and the other leading translators agree 
with me. 

The gentleman accuses me of misrepresenting Broadus. I did 
not. Let him specify wherein, and I will show that I did not. 

He wants to know what I quote Baptist authors for. For various 
purposes, generally to overturn some of his foolishness. That is 
what I quoted Broadus for. He accuses me of garbling the words 
of authors ; but Tie did not say a word about my proposition to Mm 
to meet him before any impartial tribunal to show that he had wil- 
fully suppressed a part of what his opponent said, in order to make 
it appear to his readers that his opponent had falsified. Well, as he 
won't meet me before a proper tribunal, I will give you the proof 
here. When a man falsely charges me with being false I will 
sureiy impeach him as a witness, and if I show that he is utterly 
unreliable, of course his testimony falls to the ground. Consider 
fairly the following quotations, and if you can then believe that J. 
B. Moody is honest, I sincerely believe that you are not accounta- 
ble for your faith. 

David Lipscomb, in The Gospel Advocate, July 17, 1889, page 454, 

" On the first night of Harding's meeting in Edgefield three men 
made confession; two of them had attended the debate; one told 
him he had heard the debate and could resist no longer," 

In the next issue of the same periodical, July 24, page 467, 
David Lipscomb said: 



" We learn four or five Baptists have united with the disciples iu 
Northeast Nashville at Harding's meeting since the debate. We 
do not claim they were converted by the debate, nor do we know 
any of them attended the debate." 

(Remember "Edgefield" and "Northeast Nashville" are two 
names for the same place.) 

Now here is the way J. B. Moody disposed of these quotations 
in his paper, The Baptist, August 3, 1889, page 8: 

" : 0n the first night of Harding's meeting in Edgefield three men 
made confession; two of them had attended the debate; one told 
him he had heard the debate and could resist no longer. 7 (D. L., 
July 17.)" 

"'We learn four or five have united with the disciples in North- 
east Nashville at Hardiug's meeting since the debate. We do not 
claim they were converted by the debate, nor do we know any of 
them attended the debate. 7 (D. L., July 24.)" 

And then Moody adds: 

" Comment is unnecessary, except to say that not only will their 
different statements not agree together, but no one of them will 
agree with the facts. Look out for some revelation on this that 
will startle the people who love veracity. 7 ' 

What do you think of that, my friends? Brother Moody delib- 
erately left out the word "Baptists" from the second quotation, 
thereby making the quotations contradictory, making it appear 
that Lipscomb was a liar. He did this while preparing editorial 
matter for his paper, and with the documents before him ; hence 
his crime was wilful and malicious. Sure enough, a revelation has 
come to startle the people who love veracity ! I solemnly ask my 
Baptist brethren, do you intend to support a man as a preacher 
and an editor who will do like that? All of you, I am sure, will 
not, and any who do will be just as bad as he is. I am sure, if 
such a case could be made out against me, I would be ruined 
among my brethren, and my moderator here would publish me to 
the world as a wilful liar. At the time that Brother Lipscomb 
published the second extract quoted from him our meeting had 
been iu progress about four weeks, and there had been forty-five 
additions in all. And a report to this effect appeared in the same 
paper from which Moody quoted him as saying that four or five 
had been added. How much better it is to be a true man ! How 
hard is the way of the transgressor! 

And now I will turn my attention, for a few moments, to the 


gentleman's objections, though, in so far as those who have heard 
all the preceding debate are concerned, I think not one word in 
reply to them is necessary. 

He claims that faith really takes us into Christ, into his name, 
because we are said to believe "eis Christ," "eis his name;" then 
he claims if baptism precedes entrance into Christ these passages 
are contradicted. 

Again, he says, as the Scriptures represent us as repenting " eis 
life," "eis salvation," "eis God," if baptism precedes entrance into 
life, into salvation, into God, these passages are contradicted. 

Again, he claims that as we confess "eis salvation" (Eom. x. 10), 
if baptism precedes salvation this passage is contradicted. And 
so he argues concerning predestination, election, the call of God, 
the purpose of God, and the grace of God; all these are eis salva- 
tion; they are before, and in order to, salvation; hence he con- 
cludes baptism cannot be before, and in order to, salvation. 
Strange conclusion, indeed! If faith eis Christ puts faith before, 
and in order to, entrance into Christ; if repentance eis life puts 
repentance before, and in order to, entrance into life; if confession 
eis salvation puts confession before, and in order to, entrance into 
salvation; if all these can be before, and in order to, remission, 
without any contradiction, why cannot baptism also be before, and 
in order to, remission without any contradiction? If eis indicates 
position before, and means in order to when it connects faith, re- 
pentance, confession, predestination, election, grace, and so on, 
with remission, how can it indicate position after, and mean 
because of, in consequence of, or any such thing, when it connects 
baptism with remission? The fact is, the gentleman has a kind of 
moral and religious hydrophobia. He runs mad at the thought of 

Those who read this debate can turn back and re-read the 
authorities presented in my last speech, and in my first reply on 
the first proposition, and see clearly that every one of his sixty- 
two objections are overturned by the testimony of the finest schol- 
arship that can be presented from his side of the question. The 
leading Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and 
others express themselves in words that clearly set forth what my 
brethren believe, in words that are radically opposed to what he 
believes. But, says he, " Pedobaptists can quote ten to one on 
infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, and say, who is Hard- 
ing, faiat he should put himself against all these?" Very true; 


pedobaptists can quote many authorities on these points, but they 
cannot quote from those on my side of the question. I quote from 
those who are in sentiment on the other side of the question, but 
who are compelled by their candor and learning to use words in 
translating and interpreting that clearly sustain onr position. If 
. all the quotations introduced by my opponent into this debate were 
culled, and those were cast out that came from men on his 
side of the question, not one would be left that favors his inter- 
pretation of Acts ii. 38, or his position on justification by faith. 
Let him bring up one just one if he can. No wonder lie rails at 
the authorities. 

The gentleman intimates (objection 41) if a man were immersed 
by us without proper faith and repentance, we would refuse to 
re-immerse him at his request. Here again he is incorrect, as he 
almost always is when he pretends to tell what we believe and 

In his fifty-first objection he intimates that we understand Acts 
ii. 38 to make "the like blessings of salvation the reward of obe- 
dience to one particular command." Nothing could be more 
exactly the reverse of the truth, as he knows as well as any of us. 

"By their fruits ye shall know them," he quotes. Exactly; and 
by this time surely you all know him. If he was ever in grace he 
is a living example of the possibility of falling from it. When 
people hear the word of the Lord, believe it and obey it, we know 
they are his children. We know them by their fruits. But when 
people persistently refuse to obey any of the plain commandments 
of Jesus, I doubt the sincerity of their love. For the Master says: 
" If a man love me, he will keep my words." And when a man 
continually .misrepresents, and bears false witness against his 
neighbor, I know where he belongs. 

And now I will devote the remainder of my time to presenting 
an additional argument. The deliverance of the Israelites from 
Egyptian bondage is a striking illustration of our deliverance from 
sin. I believe there is not a more perfect type to be found in the 
Old Testament. Notice the parallelisms: 

1. They were in bondage in Egypt; we are in bondage in sin. 

2. God sent Moses, their brother, to save them,- now he has 
sent Christ, our brother, to save us. 

3. Moses did mighty works before all the people; Christ did 
mighty works before the people that they might believe. 

4. The people followed Moses through three days' journey (from 


Kamesis to Succoth, from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to 
Pihahiroth) before coming to the KecTSea, where their baptism 
occurred; so we follow Christ through the three steps of faith, 
repentance and confession to the waters of baptism. 

5. They, following their leader, Moses, went down under the 
cloud into the sea, and were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
iu the sea; so we, following our leader, Christ, go down into the 
water of baptism, and are baptized into Christ. 

6. They came up out of the sea, leaving their enemies (Pharaoh 
and his hosts) overwhelmed in the depths of the sea freed from 
them ; so we come up out of the water of baptism, leaving our 
enemies (our sins) behind us, being freed from them. We are 
made free from sin when we "have obeyed from the heart that 
form of doctrine" which was delivered us. 

7. Then Moses and the Israelites sang their song of deliverance ; 
so we, after baptism, go on our way rejoicing. (See the case of 
the eunuch, Acts viii. 39; of the jailer, Acts xvi. 33, 34; of Paul, 
Acts ix. 19.) 

8. In the wilderness they ate of the manna and drank of the 
smitten rock, as we in the Church eat and drink of the body and 
blood of Christ. 

9. Those of the Israelites who were faithful to the end finally 
passed over Jordan into Caanan, the promised land; those of us 
who hold out faithful to the end will finally pass over the Jordon 
of death into the celestial Caauan, the paradise of Grod. 

10. As they had that strange pillar (of cloud by day and of fire 
by night) to guide them from the very moment that they started, 
so we have the Bible to guide us even unto the river of death. 

What could be plainer or more beautiful ! Bead the fourteenth 
chapter of Exodus and 1 Cor. x. 1-5 for a full account of the mat- 
ter. You see, although the Israelites had learned to despise their 
enemies, had accepted Moses as the leader sent from God to 
deliver them, and had followed him through three encampments, 
their enemies were not completely blotted out till their baptism; 
and just so it is of our sins. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Fourth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The liberty Mr. Harding assumes in changing the oral debate is 
largely assumed. 01 the Pikeville debate he furnished me one 
speech during the first ten months. I could not get a second out 
of him. I tried to get him to let the speeches prepared go to the 
press. But no, he must try again, and when he comes to write, 
not satisfied with the Nashville debate, he takes the liberty "to 
add to, take from and change " to suit him again. I had an expert 
reporter taking him down, and he did not know it; and I may 
show how nearly (?) he is furnishing for this book the oral debate. 
In writing debates Mr. Harding is a law unto himself. As a Chris- 
tian gentleman, he pledged himself to observe the rules of debate 
found in "Hedge's Logic," and these rules forbid these personal 
assaults on my character. But what does he care for his obliga- 
tions? I accidentally omitted a sentence in reading Norton's let- 
ter, and explained at the time how it occurred, in a way that 
would have satisfied any gentleman on earth. How many times 
has he accused me of wilful and deliberate skipping, and that 
four times, and he holding the paper behind me. Mr. Lipscomb 
said, "Eatcliff could not intentionally misread, because Hall was 
reading after him." Mr. Harding knows that I did not skip but 
one sentence, and he knows that I did not do it intentionally. A 
defeated debater will assault the character of his opponent, unless, 
indeed, he be a Christian gentleman. Again, he finds a recent 
quotation with a word left out, and he says that was wilful and 
malicious. How does he know? I say now that when I find the 
papers and investigate the case, if it is as he represents, then I 
owe Mr. Lipscomb an apology, and he shall have it, most fully and 
cordially. That is a trick that even Mr. Harding would not 
attempt. Ah, my friends, this is the dust he is trying to kick up 
so he can escape from the impeachments piled against him. 

His misrepresentation of authors and misstatement of facts 
can't be hidden by any dust and smoke he can raise. That ninety 
per cent, for instance, that left the Baptists to join his Society at 


Watertown. According to his own figures, that would make 639. 
This he at last reduced to twenty-one, and only three of these left 
my Eound Lick Church to join his Watertown Society, and not one 
as a result of the debate. One was pledged to his sweetheart to 
join before the debate came off. Another was an old demented 
man that I never saw or heard of till I heard that your brother, 
Baker, his physician, scared him into the belief that he would be 
lost unless he brought along two or three more and "shake him" 
into the kingdom of Alexander Campbell} and administer the bread 
and wine. The other case, I hear, is also of a serious character. 
Now refer to Mr. Harding's seventh reply, and read his introductory 
paragraph to Dr. Baker's letter. Mr. Harding is setting forth the 
number gotten as a result of the debate. The result is twenty-one. 
"Nearly all are additions that have been made since the IVIoody- 
Lipscomb debate. Thirty came in within a few months after the 
debate." See how adroitly those sentences are connected. The 
impression made is utterly and entirely false. I have the names 
of those thirty, and nearly all of them were the children of your 
families, coaxed, if not coerced, in order to make a show of the 
"fruits of debates." Does the gentleman propose to compare 
accessions with my Church? Does he propose to compare pros- 
perity since the debate? What a laughing-stock he will make of 
himself and his informant in that region ! You see how the oft- 
asserted figures have come down, down, down! I have the names 
of all the apostate members from McCrory's Creek Church. It is a 
shame to compare them with his statement; and so of all his 

I protested in my opening speech that I did not believe bap- 
tism was because of remission. Also that a man is not saved by 
faith only. Yet in nearly every speech he charges it on me, and 
then poses himself as sanctified innocence. Think of all his pro- 
fessed gentleness and courtesy in the face of his uuvariable and 
uncontrollable temper. He has not yet written that part of his 
speech where, with the utmost vociferation and choler, he threat- 
ened before a Nashville audience to "knife me;" and when his 
moderator threatened to leave him, he pretended to mean the 
"Sword of the Spirit." It is believed that he would relish the 
deed, and could at the same time call me "brother," and sing, 
"Blest be the tie that binds." At Pikeville he insinuated against 
my character until I forced him to divulge, to which I replied not 
a word; yet it was with great difficulty I could restrain the out- 


siders from doing Mm violence. The gentleman don't know to this 
day how I plead for him in private when it was agreed to show 
him the public indignation. I begged the reporter for the secular 
press to spare him. He came to me for facts, and I gave him Mr. 
Harding's published abuse of me, but not a word did I utter, 
except to allay the storm. Mr. Harding and his allies are bent on 
the destruction of my character, and for the sake of distant 
readers of the book I will make a few extracts here, and then I 
will push on the argument. 

In the White Mills debate and after, so persistent were they in 
their efforts to injure me that the Methodists, Presbyterians, 
Catholics and outsiders kindly furnished me with the following 
testimonial : 

"Whereas, we see a determined effort on the part of Mr. Hard- 
ing and some of his friends to assail and injure the character of 
his opponent in the recent debate at White Mills; and, whereas, 
they seem to threaten the continuance of this course through Mr. 
Harding's paper and otherwise; and, whereas, we were in attend- 
ance, and were eye-witnesses to the course and conduct of both 
disputants, it affords us much pleasure to do our duty in defend- 
ing the assailed character of Mr. Moody. We hereby give our 
testimony to his gentlemanly deportment during the debate. We 
think he excelled his opponent in argument and deportment." 

The Methodist pastor added this extra to his signature: "I 
think Mr. Moody acted the perfect gentleman." Then follow the 
other names, designated as above classed. 

At the Pikeville debate it was no better, but rather worse than 
ever. The secular press took the matter in hand and severely 
criticised Mr. Harding's conduct, and strongly commended mine. 
The following is from the Pikeville News : 

"Elder Moody conducted himself on the stage in a cool, delib- 
erate manner, while his opponent showed some signs of heated 
passion. At some times, we are sorry to say, he indulged in per- 
sonal allusions and slurs, to which Elder Moody seldom made a 

The following extracts are from the Chattanooga Republican : 

" The addresses of Elder Moody were of a refined, dignified and 
high-toned order, while his opponent spoke with some evidence of 

"At times Mr. Moody was, to a certain extent, harrassed, but 
at such times, we must say, he conducted himself as a Christian 


gentleman. We exceedingly regret our inability to say the same 
for Mr. Harding, who indulged his temper in low personal flings at 
his distinguished opponent; but instead of furthering his cause, 
this state of things served to prejudice the disinterested people 
.against him. 

"His greatest drawback is his ungovernable temper. The con- 
duct of Elder Moody throughout the great heat of discussion was 
exceedingly gentlemanly and dignified, and when he leaves our 
valley he will carry with him golden encomiums from the great 
mass of the people. 

" The debate closed Wednesday evening, and we but voice the 
sentiment of the people when we say that Elder Harding was very 
badly used up in the discussion. 

" One incident occurred Tuesday evening after debate had closed 
for the day which completed the unpopularity of Mr. Harding in 
this community. A dispute arose concerning the articles of agree- 
ment, during which Mr. Harding endeavored to prove Mr. Moody 
guilty of wilfully lying, but, as is usually the case in such bouts, 
Mr. Moody was known to have told only the truth. Hence the 
Methodists and other disinterested parties voiced their feelings by 
hissing and jeering at Mr. Harding until he finally left the grounds 
in great anger. Mr. Moody's conduct at this juncture was mag- 
nanimous in the extreme, and is highly appreciated by all disinter- 
ested people." 

On the "mum question" I will state that in the White Mills 
debate Mr. Harding said that John never refused to baptize any 
one but Christ, and that was because he had no sins to wash away. 
He "thundered on it." When I gave him Luke iii. 7-9 his feathers 
fell. I "thundered" on it, and rubbed it in, there and at Pikeville 
and Nashville, but he is mum to this day. Mr. Harding, will you 
repeat it, or take it back? That is a matter belonging to the 
debate, and not a personality. 

Another matter: When I translate repent eis unto life, believe 
eis into Christ, confess eis unto salvation, etc., I only mean to fight 
the gentleman with his own fire. He dare not translate eis uni- 
formly in these places, or uniformly after "baptize." He must 
change it to suit his plea, or he is undone. With reference to is the 
more general meaning of eis, and that is the idea in all these 
places. Predestined with reference to adoption, elected with ref- 
erence to salvation, believe with reference to salvation, confess 
with reference to salvation, baptize with reference to Christ, to 


remission, to repentance, name, death of Christ, one body, Moses,, 
etc. This may be prospective or retrospective. With reference 
to remission Christ shed his blood, looking back to the sins of past 
ages, as well as forward. See especially Isa. liii. 4-12 ; Eom. in. 
23-26; Heb. ix. 12-15. Baptize eis repentance, eis John baptism, 
eis death, eis death of Christ, eis one body, are surely instances of 
retrospection. Dr. Broadus gives Matt. xii. 41 and other of the 
somewhat frequent cases of the same use. Mr. Harding's asser- 
tions constitute his shame. A man. need not go to college a single 
day to know better than Mr. Harding's assertions. 

But, in regard to Dr. Norton, our English correspondent, I have 
been 'waiting to hear from him, and, having received a letter too 
long for insertion here, I give the following extract, directly to the 

" I am strongly opposed to what I understand to have been the 
distinctive views of Alexander Campbell, both as to his prerequi- 
sites to baptism and what takes place in baptism. I have his New 
Testament as reprinted in London in 1838 from the fourth Ameri- 
can edition. In an appendix he defines some ' apostolic words.' 
He there says of faith: 'The simple definition of this term is the 
assurance or conviction that testimony is true ; when any one regards 
the promise of another person as true and certain he believes on 
him or in him.' This definition makes faith to be nothing more 

than the belief of a creed This belief of fact to be fact, 

and truth to be truth, is nothing more than a natural act of right- 
reason. It is an act of the head only, not of the heart. It is the 
mere act of a sane mind. This definition denies that to be saved 
a person must be created or be gotten anew by the mighty power 
of God ; that the heart must trust in God, and love God ; that the 
life must be one of holiness and obedience; that saving repentance 
and saving faith are God's own gifts. (Acts v. 31; xi. 18; Eph. ii. 
8.) It makes salvation to be a mere matter of logic, instead of 
the new creation of the soul by God. Alexander Campbell says in 
the appendix named that 'to give repentance is to afford scope 
for it, to make a proclamation offering inducements to it.' I affirm 
that this definition of saving faith is a deadly error; that it sub- 
stitutes the natural saneness of the mind or reason for an entirely 
new nature created by God, and that those who require no more 
than the natural saneness as prerequisite to baptism and salvation 
deceive men to their ruin, by assuring them that they are the chil- 
dren of God when they are children of the wicked one, and are 


heirs of heaven when they are still heirs of hell. The baptism of 
which I speak is the act of one who has already been created by 
God's regenerating power. It is a baptism totally unlike that of 
Alexander Campbell, which is administered on the mere 'convic- 
tion that God's testimony is true.' I therefore am intensely opposed 
to Campbellism as to ivhat is prerequisite to baptism. 

" Second, as to what takes place in baptism I am equally opposed 
to Alexander Campbell. He says of Titus iii. 5, in the appendix 
named above: 'Regeneration, palingenesia, occurs in Titus iii. 5,. 
the washing or bath of regeneration connected with the renewing 
of the mind by the Holy Spirit.' He is not justified in saying that 
palingenesia means here regeneration. To generate is to beget; 
and it is said that when God begets men anew it is by means of 
'his Word' (1 Peter i. 23), not by means of water. G-enesion denotes 
in Matt. xiv. 6 Herod's birthday. Palingenesia is connected in 
Titus iii. 5 with the bath, not -with the Word of G-od. So that 
there are decisive reasons which show that its meaning is new 
birth, not new begetting. By birth new life is not begun, but made 
manifest; therefore what Paul says in Titus iii. 5 is, that God has 
saved us by means of the bath of new birth and the renewing of 
the Holy Spirit ; that is, by making manifest through baptism the 
new life which the Holy Spirit had before created by means of God's 
Word, and not, as Mr. Campbell says, by making baptism the bath 
of regeneration; that is, the means of begetting new life connected 
with the renewing of the mind by the Holy Spirit at the time of 
baptism. To this- teaching, that new life is begotten "by means of 
baptism, I am in the strongest possible degree opposed. It is in 
my view as utterly false as the Eoman or Episcopalian doctrine of 

baptismal regeneration If the Campbellites teach 

the necessity of obedience to God's will, that is no peculiarity of 
Campbellism; it is a part of the common faith of God's elect; and 
what I have said in my letter to Mr. Spurgeon is nothing else than 
that God has made obedience in baptism a thing of intense im- 
portance by connecting it with the promise of salvation." 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding' s Fifth Speech. 

JLadies and Gentlemen: 

Ahab, king of Israel, fought in battle with Ben-hadad, king of 
Syria; the Lord delivered the Syrians into the hands of the Israel- 
ites, and they slaughtered them with a great slaughter; an hun- 
dred thousand Syrians fell in one day, and Ben-hadad was taken. 
Then Ahab, instead of killing his enerny as the good of the Lord's 
cause demanded, and his duty required, made a covenant with 
him, and sent him away. Whereupon the prophet of the Lord 
came into the presence of Ahab the king and said : "Thus saith the 
Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom. I 
appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his 
life, and thy people for his people." (1 Kings xx. 42.) What a 
startling illustration of the fact that God sometimes requires his 
servants to destroy utterly their enemies, and of his terrible ven- 
geance when they fail to do it ! 

You remember also the case of Saul the king, whom God indig- 
nantly rejected, and forever after refused to hear, because he failed 
to destroy utterly Agag the king of Amalek with his people, herds, 
and flocks. You remember how Samuel the prophet "hewed Agag 
in pieces," and how Saul and his sons came to an untimely end. 
(1 Samuel xv. 10-33.) 

Now, my friends, God's servants are engaged in a warfare just 
as fierce and terrible, the results of which are even more moment- 
ous, but the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We now use 
a much sharper knife than Samuel used in killing Agag namely, 
"the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Sometimes 
we are required to use it to the utter destruction of those whom 
we meet in battle; the interests of the Lord's cause and the salva- 
tion of the people demand it. And, if I understand it, this is one 
of those occasions. I believe it to be my duty to destroy utterly 
my fallen brother, lest he should continue to mislead the people 
to their everlasting destruction to destroy him as a teacher and 
leader with that spiritual weapon, eternal truth. As to his bodily 
welfare, I would do him no harm, but rather good all the days of his 
earthly life. 


Now we will notice his last speech. He wants to know how I 
can tell that he wilfully and maliciously left out the word u Bap- 
tist" from that quotation from Brother Lipscomb. I reply, anybody 
that has common sense can tell it by simply reading the quota- 
tions from Lipscomb with Moody's comments upon them. Let 
those who read turn back to my last speech and see. Without 
leaving out that word Moody would have had no reason for repub- 
lishing Lipscomb's statements, there would have been no contra- 
diction in them; but with that word omitted the statements were 
contradictory, Lipscomb appeared to be a liar, and there was 
ground for Moody's comments. Notice: in order to get those 
statements into his paper Moody had first to read them in the 
Gospel Advocate, then to form the purpose of reprinting them r 
then to carefully copy them, giving the dates of the papers, write 
his comments and send them to his printers. That he could have 
done all this, overlooking the word "Baptist" every time, is abso- 
lutely incredible; no man of sound mind can believe it. If, instead 
of copying, he clipped those statements, he would have had to 
carefully erase the word "Baptist;" for with that word there, 
there would have been no ground for his comments. Then, when 
his attention has been called to the matter time and again, both 
through the papers and in private conversation, he comes up two 
months and more after the commission of his crime saying, "When 
I find the papers and investigate the case, if it is as he represents, 
then I owe Mr. Lipscomb an apology." Pshaw ! That is not what 
you owe. 

In his sixth speech, (page 124 of this book) he says, "At the 
time of that debate [the Brents-Moody debate] there wa$ no Bap- 
tist Church at Alexandria. Now they have an organization and 
one of the finest houses in that country." 

At the time the gentleman made that statement the Baptists 
had no church-house at Alexandria. There was one there in an 
unfinished state (the work having been suspended for lack of 
means), having neither doors, windows, floor, nor ceiling. There 
had been a roof on it, but, several weeks before, half of that had 
been blown off, and was still off. [See page 160.] Brother Moody 
preaches once each month, I believe, in that region, at Watertown, 
and he must have known that his statement was incorrect when 
he made it. In any event, he ought not to have made it unless he 
knew it was true. ' 

Of the Baptists who came to us at Watertown since the Moody- 


Lipscomb debate, lie says one was pledged beforehand to his sweet- 
heart to come, another was a demented old man, and a third was 
a "serious" case. Concerning -the first of these cases the gentle- 
man referred to gives a very different account from my opponent: 
he says he was shaken in his Baptist faith by the Alsup-Eastes 
debate, and then confirmed in' the true faith by the Moody- Lips- 
comb debate; hence, he came to us. Concerning the second gen- 
tleman, instead of being a demented old man, he was a man of 
good sense and of excelleot character, in every sense a worthy 
man; and he was constrained by the power of the truth to take 
the step he did. I don't know what Brother Moody means by call- 
ing the third case "serious." 

Referring to this Watertown community, my opponent then in- 
quires, "Does the gentleman propose to compare accessions with 
my Church? Does he propose to compare prosperity since the 
debate?" Yes, indeed, I do. I challenge him to a comparison. 
Out of a membership of ninety-two in our Church there about fifty 
came in since the debate. How many have united with your, con- 
gregation in that time ? When you give the numbers be sure to 
be ready with the names. Our congregation has increased over 
one hundred per cent. If I have been rightly informed yours has 
not increased over five per cent. So our rate of increase has been 
more than twenty times greater than yours. Yes, we are ready 
to compare with anybody. There is not a religious body on earth 
whose per cent of increase will compare with ours. One of our 
brethren counted the additions reported in two of our periodicals. 
(We have about forty-four.) These two reported 7,874 in one 
month;. 46,835 in one year (188.8). Thirty- two of those reported 
were preachers, and sis hundred and twenty-seven of them were 
from the Baptists. Of the Baptists, six were preachers. This 
summing up of the reports of the two papers was published in 
the Christian Visitor, January, 1889. It represents, no doubt, far 
less than half of our increase. I doubt not twelve or fifteen hun- 
dred Baptists came to us last year. 

The gentleman says he has the names of "all the apostate mem- 
bers of the McCrory Creek Church." And he says it is a shame 
to compare them with my statement. I don't know what he 
means by that, unless he merely means to insinuate something 
which he knows he cannot prove. I know some of those mem- 
bers, and, as true, noble, honorable men, there are none that stand 


As to that ninety per cent, I refer those who may read this 
debate to my ninth reply on the first proposition. 

The gentleman insists that he does not believe baptism is because 
of remission. He says I misrepresent him when I intimate that 
he so thinks. Well, I will give you his words, and yon can judge 
how much I misrepresent him. He says, "The 'nature' of the 
ordinance is to declare what repentance and faith had procured; 
hence, repent (and believe) in order to obtain, and then be baptized 
in order to declare." (See this book, page 144.) If baptism is in 
order to declare that one has been forgiven, then a man is baptized 
because he has been forgiven. At least so it seems to me. There 
is no telling how it seems to my sapient friend. 

He says he does not believe a man is justified by faith only. 
Answer me one question: Do you not believe that the sinner is 
justified by faith only, and that the erring Christian is justified by 
works, and not by faith only? When I have intimated that you 
believe a man is justified by faith only, I have had in mind pri- 
mary justification. Do you not believe that ? 

The gentleman says I threatened to "knife" him, and that my 
moderator then threated to leave me ; whereupon I pretended to 
mean " with the Sword of the Spirit." What will you think, my 
friends, when I tell you my moderator never did threaten to leave 
me that the statement is utterly untrue ? David Lipscomb, my 
moderator, thinks Mr. Moody richly deserved all that he received; 
. that I did not make a charge against him that was not true, and 
that was not maintained. He does not believe that Moody has 
talked fifteen minutes at any time during the debate without vio- 
lating the rules. But he would have preferred (for the sake of 
others) that I should have been more gentle with him at times. 
He says that Moody's statement about his threatening to leave me 
is utterly false. 

As to our agreement to abide by the usual rules for regulating 
debates, I have this to say: We did make such an agreement. 
Brother Moody violated it time and again in his first speech, and 
has continued to do so right along till now. His moderator has at 
no time called him to order ; my moderator does not intend to do 
it; hence it is left to me to keep him straight, or to show him up, 
and I expect to do my duty in those respects. 

So it seems Brother Moody's friends went around after the White 
Mills debate getting up certificates to his character and deport- 
ment. My friends did not feel the necessity for such action. As 


I have shown you (see page 137 of this book), about one hundred 
additions were secured by our people in that field shortly after the 
debate, and our cause has prospered there as never before. That 
is the kind of endorsement I like. Then two of our congrega- 
tions, whose officers attended the debate, invited us to repeat the 
discussion in their chapels; I accepted the invitation, the Baptists 
did not. That is also a kind of endorsement I like. 

There is another thing in which Brother Moody can beat me 
badly. He is far better at getting bragging reports published after 
the debates are over. As one of our brethren very truly, if not 
very classically, remarked, "These Baptists boast mightily about 
their great victories, but somehow they can't show the scalps." The 
reports of the Pikeville debate, from which he quotes, were evi- 
dently written by a bitter partisan. Anybody can see that by 
reading them. He went to Brother Moody for facts (?) ; he did not 
come to me. Moody gave him the "facts." Now turn back and 
read the reports. Pacts ! Just such facts as he gave about the 
Alexandria meeting-house, and about Brother Lipscomb threaten- 
ing to leave me. When J. B. Moody states a thing as so, I have 
no more idea whether or not it is true than I had before. He is 
utterly and unscrupulously unreliable. I dare him to give me the 
name and address of that reporter. 

He says he plead for me at Pikeville to keep the people from 
showing me the public indignation. Well, now, I had no idea the 
Baptists there were so wrought up. My brethren were merry- 
hearted ; happy in their innocence, and in the prosperity of their 
cause. And there, too, we did fine reaping after the debate. By 
their fruits ye shall know them, and not by false newspaper re- 
ports written by bitter and unscrupulous partisans. The fact is, 
I have an idea J. B. Moody wrote those reports himself. They 
sound like him. 

The gentleman asks me a question : Will I still affirm that John 
the Baptist never refused to baptize any one except Jesus ? Yes, 
certainly I will. There is not the slightest evidence in Luke iii. 
7-9, nor anywhere else, that he ever refused to baptize any other 
person. Matt. iii. 7-12 is the parallel passage, and in it it is clearly 
shown that John did baptize those people. The gentleman can 
"thunder" on. Jesus' wonderful innocency made John think he 
was fitted to administer the rite rather than to receive it. John 
was baptizing people confessing their sins, and for the remis- 
sion of then? sins. Jesus had no sins to confess nor to be remitted, 


while he realized that he was not so innocent; hence he thought 
it would be more appropriate for him to be the subject, Jesus the 
administrator. Evidently John was not a Baptist in the modern 
.sense of that word. 

Let me call your attention now, my friends, to one of the most 
palpable sophisms ever perpetrated. Brother Moody is trying to 
show that eis is retrospective, and he says: "With reference to 
remission, Christ shed his blood, looking back to the sins of past 
ages as well as forward." Yes, but the remission was not in the 
past ages. Christ shed his blood that the sins of the past as well 
as those of the future might be remitted. The eis looked forward 
to the remission. His arguments, my friends., are like his state- 
ments of facts, utterly unreliable. 

Concerning the gentleman's long quotation from Dr. Norton, I 
would simply say not a thing in it militates against the quotations 
I have made from him. He does not take back one word of that 
article which I have used so effectively in this debate, It is evi- 
dent from it, however, that he does not understand Mr. Campbell. 
For instance, Campbell never thought (as Norton supposes he did) 
that by means of baptism new life is begotten in the soul; on the 
contrary, he always claimed, as all of us do, that the begetting 
must take place before the baptism could be performed. Like 
Norton, he thought that after the begetting had taken place the 
baptism was the bringing forth, the manifestation of the new life; 
and, like Norton, he thought both the begetting and the bringing 
forth were parts of "the way by means of which God saves." The 
fact is the two gentlemen are much nearer together on this point 
than Dr. Norton imagines. Though doubtless they would differ 
widely on the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. 

I shall now devote the time that I have left to the presentation 
of an affirmative argument. The tabernacle and the temple were 
types of things that were to come. They both consisted of two 
rooms and of an outer court. True, there were other rooms about 
the temple, but the temple proper consisted of two rooms. The 
tabernacle was the temporary place of worship, used till the tem- 
ple was built. In front of the building, on the outside, was the 
great brazen altar the altar of burnt offering. Between the altar 
and the door was the laver containing water. Through the door 
the priests entered into the first room, typical of the Church.' 
There was the golden candlestick which gave light, typical of the 
Holy Spirit, which is in the Church, and which, through the Church, 



gives light to the world; and tire table of shew-bread, typical of 
the Lord's Supper (the "bread was changed every week) ; and the 
altar of incense, typical of prayer. Out of this front room ; once 
each year, the high priest went into the inner room, typical of 
heaven. There was the mercy-seat, with the wonderful light, indi- 
cating the presence of God, shining above it; and over all stood 
the golden cherubim. The mercy-seat was above the ark of the 

You see, beloved, in approaching the tabernacle (or temple) you 
came first to the brazen altar (the cross was the altar on which 
Christ was offered) ; then to the laver (typical of baptism) ; and 
thus you entered the first room, the Church, where were the types 
of the Holy Spirit, of prayer, and of the Lord's Supper. 

You see the Baptists have got this all wrong. They put prayer 
and the Holy Spirit on the outside of the Church and baptism on 
the inside. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," 
says Jesus; but they put the salvation before the baptism. Peter 
told the people to repent and be baptized "for the remission of 
sins," but they put the remission after the repentance and before 
the baptism. They would have Pharaoh's hosts dead before Israel 
crossed the Eed Sea, and a man in the kingdom of God before he 
is born of water. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Fifth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Lest the evil spirit tear my malevolent opponent, and cause Mm 
to foam with greater rage, I leave him in his bitterness and blood- 
thirstiness, and I hope to relieve him with my negative argument. 
Poor fellow ! I expect it will happen unto him according to the 
true proverb. (2 Peter ii. 22.) 

I have been engaged about four weeks to dedicate the Alexan- 
drian house at my earliest convenience. They said it would be 
finished in about two weeks. l ' It is the finest house in all that 
country." The gentleman is cutting down his speeches to about 
half length, so I can't reply to all his trifles and get in my argu- 
ment too. He is evidently exhausted. But I must do up his doc- 
trine. Himself is already done up. 

John iii. 5 : I recognize a difficulty mainly in wresting the pas- 
sage from the misconstruction of anti-Christ. Let us first ap- 
proach from the standpoint of Nicodemus, a teacher of the Old 
Scriptures. As such he ought to have understood the doctrine 
Christ was enunciating, for he received a rebuke for his ignorance, 
not as an observer of the times, or of the doings of Christ, but for 
his ignorance as a teacher of Israel. 

"Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things?" 
This rebuke is recorded in the tenth verse. Hence the things he 
ought to have known as a teacher of Israel included all that go 
before it. He ought to have understood the third verse, and when 
the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth verses are offered in further 
explanation, and Mcodemus marvels and confesses his ignorance 
"How can these things be?" he is reproved by the gentle Christ 
for his ignorance as a Jewish teacher. Then Christ presented no 
doctrine that is not contained in the Old Scriptures. Nicodemus 
understood that a proselyte must be " born again," deuteron, or 
second time, by outward ordinances, to enter the kingdom of 
Israel; but the anotheen, from above, was the "heavenly thing" 
he was culpably ignorant of. The outward circumcision by hand 
of the flesh he had allowed to eclipse this inner circumcision of 


the heart in the spirit without hands, whose praise is of God. 
Outward ablutions, or cleansings, he had allowed to eclipse that 
moral, inner cleansing, by a spiritual element, symbolized by 
water. He was culpably ignorant because the new covenant, 
which he ought to have taught, contained the doctrine of the new 
birth. Not birth in action, for in action there can be no resem- 
blance. The new. birth is a change of state, an entrance upon a 
new life. This new birth, like the first, begins in innocence; hence 
old sins must be purged, or put away; and, unlike the first, it 
begins in a holy disposition, with a new heart and a right spirit, 
else why be born again ? The new covenant taught this, and it 
mentioned the same elements of cleansing, water and Spirit. Ez. 
xxxvi. 25: il l will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse 
you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your 
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my 
Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statues, and ye 
shall keep my judgments and do them." 

Here is the beginning of a new life, hence may be called a new 
birth, or birth from above, "heavenly things," since all this is of 
grace, God graciously creating anew, working in to will and to do. 
Hence in the new creation, or new birth, man is passive. Except 
one be born ; and the change of state and subsequent life is indi- 
cated by the purifying elements, water kai Spirit. If Nicodemus 
had converted, or rather perverted the water of the covenant into 
literal water like my friend has done John iii. 5, then, like my 
friend, he was culpably ignorant of figurative language. Let us 
notice a few Scriptures containing the word water, but water only 
in word, also a few verbs of action pertaining to water, but which 
all know have a moral and spiritual signification "the water 
that is in the Word." 

By comparing the first eleven verses of the fifty-first Psalm 
you see that David's prayer was based on the new covenant, as 
recorded in Ez. xxxvi. 25-27, where God also says in the thirty- 
seventh verse, "I will be inquired of to do this for them." So 
David was praying that God might do to him according to the new 
covenant. Here was wash and cleanse from iniquity and sin. 
"Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from 
my sin." The new covenant says I'll put my law in their inward 
parts, and write it in their hearts; hence David prays, "Behold 


thou desirest truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part 
thou wilt make me to know wisdom." The new covenant speaks 
of cleansing from sin, and of being washed from sin; hence David 
prays, "Purge me with hysop and I shall be clean, wash me and I 
shall be whiter than snow." The new covenant says, "A new heart 
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;" 
hence David prays, "Create within me a new heart, God, and 
renew a right spirit within me." The new covenant says, " I will 
put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statues;" 
hence David prays, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me," and 
"uphold me with thy free Spirit; then will I teach transgressors 
thy ways," etc. It is evident from the above that David knew that 
this washing and cleansing suggested by water, the symbol, re- 
ferred to correspondences in the innerman. So Nicodeinus ought 
to have understood that our Lard was talking about a cleansing 
element in the Old Scriptures symbolized by water, and that could 
really fit a man for entrance into the kingdom of God. In Ps. Ixix. 
1-3 we find water, but it is only a symbol. So in Isa. i. 15-18, 
there is washing and cleansing, but not with literal water. Isa. iv. 
4 says, "When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the 
daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem." 
He was clearly talking about a moral cleansing, which could not 
be effected by literal water, but of which water 'and washing were 
only symbolical. Isa. xii. 3 speaks of drawing water out of the 
wells of salvation. Those wells were full of water, but not a drop 
of my friend's kind; for he, like Mcodenius and the Samaritan 
woman, is too literal to discern spiritual things. Isa. xliv. 3 : " For 
I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry 
ground. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon 
thy offspring." Here are two sentences, one explicative of the 
other, and the same order observed as in John iii. 5. First the 
symbol, "water," then the "Spirit;" first the symbol, "floods," 
then the "blessing." In this we have both letter and Spirit, and 
to stop with the letter, and with that which is only literal, is to 
stop short of life. "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." 
In Isa. Iv. 1 the thirsty are invited to the waters, to wine, to milk 
and to honey. This is figurative language, and not a drop of the 
literal was intended in the passage. In Isa. xxxiii. 8 we have also 
two clauses, one explanatory: "I will cleanse them from all their 
iniquities whereby they have sinned against me, and (even) I will 
pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned against me." 


Here is the same style observed in John iii. 5, one explicative of 
the other, connected by the conjunction and, which is often used 
in this sense, as my friend well knows. Ex. x. 9: "Then washed I 
thee with water, yea I thoroughly washed away thy blood from 
thee." This was not literal water, but water symbolized the ele- 
ment of moral cleansing with which the Old Scriptures abound; 
and, turning to the New Scriptures, the same style is continued. 
We see the spiritual teacher at the well of Samaria, talking about 
the true water, the living water, and the poor Samaritan literalist 
could not discern a meaning outside of the water in the well, 
which she came to draw ; but Christ directed her from the figure 
to the true. "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; 
but whoso drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never 
thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him. a well of 
water springing up into life everlasting." Hear Christ again in 
John vii. 37-39: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and 
drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture has said [the 
Old Scripture], out of him shall flow rivers of living water. But 
this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should 
receive." Here is the same order observed again. First, water, 
the symbol, then Spirit, the thing symbolized. We are said to be 
sprinkled with this water, to be washed in this water, to drink this 
water, and to be born of this water, all of which is significant lan- 
guage to those who are spiritual and can discern spiritual things. 
In 1 Cor. vi. 11, we still have the Old Scripture language: "And 
such were some of you; but ye are washed, etc., in the Spirit of 
our Grod." (Oxford revision.) In the same line is Eph. iv. 25-27, 
Christ "sanctified and cleansed his Church with the washing of 
water in the word, that he might present her to himself a glorious 
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that 
she should be holy and without blemish." If he had washed her 
with water in a pool or pond, she would have been as corrupt as 
before; but having washed her with the water that is in the Word, 
which we have been trying to emphasize, the water of the new 
covenant, that true, of which water is a figure; that Spirit, of 
which water is a symbol; having washed her in this true, this 
living water (see above, 1 Cor. vi. 11), she shall be to all eternity 
without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. Washed in the fount- 
ain that is for sin and uncleanness. The same doctrine is taught 
in Titus iii. 3-7. Here is a washing of regeneration, even renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost; and whatever it is, it certainly is not works 


of righteousness "which, we have done, and according to the testi- 
mony of Jesus baptism is a work of righteousness which we do ; 
hence this washing of regeneration cannot refer to baptism, Cath- 
olics, Literalists, Legalists and Sacrarnentarians to the contrary 
notwithstanding. This distinctly states that he saved us. accord- 
ing to his mercy, and justified us by his grace. Both of which 
expressions are additional sledge-hammer blows from the Almighty 
at baptismal regeneration. Notice, too, this is the same order 
found in the new covenant: first the washing or cleansing, and 
then the Spirit. This is the same order observed in John iii. 5. 
First the symbol, then the thing symbolized. Will my friend claim 
this verse for baptism, and then deny baptismal regeneration? 
Let him explain how he can do this; and let him explain Mr. 
Campbell's language also, that immersion and regeneration are 
synonymous terms, and then let him answer the charge of bap- 
tismal regeneration. 

Now let us search the Scripture recorded in John iii. 5 that is, 
let us analyze and dissect it, and sift it, and see if these things be 
so. The conjunction tiai, I think, furnishes the key to the true 
interpretation. This is a copulative conjunction joining one thing 
to another, either for the purpose of increase or for the purpose 
of explanation. The former is its most common use, but the lat- 
ter is also of frequent use. "God Teai (even) the Father" is of 
frequent occurrence. Here Father is joined, not for the purpose 
of increase or addition, but for the purpose of explanation. The 
same of "Jesus 7cai (even) our Savior." Such references are too 
numerous to be quoted here. Turning to the "Englishman's 
Greek Concordance," we see a partial list where it is used in the 
sense of explanation, and translated "even," and the list closes 
with "etc., etc." We will mention one striking case not given in 
that list. According to John xii. 15, Jesus rode, sitting on an ass's 
colt, and according to Matt. ii. 5 ? he rode on an ass, Tcai a colt, the 
fold of an ass. Does Ttai mean and, or even here! Did he ride 
both the mother and the son? Did he ride the colt as well as the 
mother? Or is not Jcai rather explicative not ass, even an ass; 
not colt, even a colt; but ass, even a colt, using two terms, the 
one to explain the other. So we conceive of water and Spirit. If 
Christ meant baptism, and Tcai is copulative in the fij-st sense, then 
a man must be born twice more, of water and Spirit. Some say a 
man must be born twice more. But reverse the order, born of 
Spirit and then of water; not both at the same time, but at differ- 


ent times ; and not only so, out they think one may be born of 
the Spirit and never of water. They think such an one is in the 
invisible kingdom if there be such a thing, and will at last be 
saved, but without baptism. I believe the doctrine, but this is not 
the test to prove it. If Tcai is thus copulative, then one must be 
born the second time to see, and the third time to enter. Some 
think this third birth puts one in "baptized into the kingdom." 
Others think the two more births only prepare them to enter by 
vote of the Church. If this is correct., then Christ left him ignorant 
of the last step. Again, if Tcai is thus copulative, and one is bap- 
tized into the kingdom, then the act of baptism takes him in with- 
out birth of the Spirit. It is also claimed that- a man may receive 
one of these births and not the other; hence the one baptized into 
the kingdom must subsequently be born of the Spirit in order to 
see the kingdom; and if they are never born of the Spirit, then 
they may live and die in the kingdom without ever seeing or know- 
ing it. 

Another misinterpretation is, that one is born of the Spirit 
when he is born of water. Then Itai is not copulative in the first 
sense, for one can't be born twice at the same time. Let those 
who believe it bring forth the proof. Even if this were true, then 
one must be baptized and born of the Spirit in order to see ; for 
except one be born again he cannot see; so that if the birth is in 
baptism one must be baptized in order to see, but the baptism 
takes him in; so when he goes to see he is caught, nolens volens. 
I would as soon trap a babe as an adult, for Christ said nothing of 
one more than the other. He said tis and pas every time except 
when he applied the doctrine to Nicodemus, and certainly it was 
as applicable to him as to a babe. It was this view, perhaps, that 
led to the coercive baptism of both adults and babes. The bare 
statement of such an absurdity is sufficient exposure. They are 
all strained efforts to bend the Scriptures to suit a preconceived 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Sixth Speech. 

Dear Friends : 

More than three months ago ; in preparing his sixth speech, first 
proposition, for the printer, J. B. Moody said, referring to the 
Alexandria debate, "At the time of that debate there was no Bap- 
tist Church at Alexandria. Now they have an organization, and 
one of the finest houses in that country." (See this book, page 
124.) I immediately wrote up there, and learned that the house 
was in an unfinished state, having neither floor, ceiling nor doors,, 
and only half of the roof, and that work upon it had been sus- 
pended for lack of means. (See page 160.) Now, after more than 
three months, the gentleman says in his last speech that he 
has been engaged about four weeks to dedicate the house, and 
that "they said it would be finished in about two weeks." Of 
course it is a matter of no moment, in so far as this debate is con- 
cerned, when that house is finished. I am simply showing you 
how reliable (?) the gentleman is. He said they had the finest 
house .in that country when they had no house at all, but merely 
the skeleton of one. I believe if I had made such a statement as 
that my brethren would withdraw fellowship from me for it, unless 
I repented and humbly confessed my sin. 

Take another illustration. On page 169 our fallen brother says: 
" I don't like to criticise a man's experience. Every Christian can 
detect a counterfeit. This one is diluted with water till nothing 
remains save a little tasteless coloring matter." I then asked him 
why Baptists receive so many people on counterfeit experiences? 
(He had just been dwelling on the fact that they do receive many 
such people.) I said, "I would consider him either crazed, or a 
natural fool, who would take counterfeit money as readily as the 
genuine, if he were perfectly competent to detect the difference." 

Of course the gentleman saw he was caught, and this is how he 
got out of it. He says in his tenth speech: "1 did not say that 
Christian experience- could not be so closely imitated that it could 
not be detected, but that one like his, which I was considering, 
with the terms all out of order, and out of meaning, was a coun- 
terfeit that any true Christian could detect." 


Astonishing man! I can never get used to his misrepresenting 
and misstating things. He has less regard for the truth, and takes 
less pains to conceal his misrepresentations, than any other man I 
have ever come in contact with. It seems that his conscience is 
so seared on this subject that it does not seem to him to be very 
bad or disgraceful to do such things. "Every Christian can detect 
a counterfeit" he metamorphoses into "one like his, which I was 
considering, with the terms all out of order, and out of meaning, 
was a counterfeit that any true Christian could detect." 

The gentleman has repeatedly referred to my "ungovernable 
temper;" he talks about my "rage," "bitterness" and "blood- 
thirstiness." And yet continually during this debate it has been 
necessary for the moderators to caution my brethren, and those 
who are in sympathy with us, about laughing. How does it hap- 
pen that they keep in such a good humor? However, I would 
rather be the most high-tempered man that ever lived than to be 
capable of doing as my erring brother has done again and again 
during this debate. It is no sin to be high-tempered, but it is an 
awful crime to bear false witness. 

As to my cutting d@wn my speeches I would simply say, we 
have a contract with the printer for a book of four hundred pages- 
At the rate we have been going, the first two propositions would 
make about five hundred pages. We must either shorteji our 
speeches or increase the price (which has already been advertised). 
As we can condense without leaving out any material fact or argu- 
ment; and, as I have received a good many subscribers who have 
paid their money, we will shorten the speeches. 

The gentleman, without making the slightest attempt to reply 
to my argument, has given us a rambling, misty disertation on 
the new birth. As it suits me very well to make my next argu- 
ment on this subject, I will first consider what he has said, and 
will then briefly present what seems to me to be the truth in the 

He claims that this doctrine of the new birth is taught in the 
Old Testament, and that Mcodernus was culpably ignorant of it; 
that the water is not literal water, and, if Nicodemus had so under- 
stood it, he like myself would have been culpably ignorant of fig- 
urative language. Well, let us see about that. I have here in my 
hand a letter written May 1, 1884, by J. L. Bryant to Dr. J. K. 
Graves, with Dr. Graves' reply. Bryant asks, "Does the word 
water in John iii. 5 mean water?" Graves replies, "Yes." Bryant 


asks, "If so, to what does it refer?" Graves replies, "Baptism." 
Then the aged doctor adds: "The force of 'and' always is 'added 
to.' Visible Churches constitute the kingdom of God, of Christ, of 
heaven. A man must be born of the Spirit to ' see/ comprehend, 
understand the kingdom of Christ; and he must be born of the 
water baptized added to the birth of the Spirit to enter the 
kingdom, to become a member of the visible Church, and so a 
citizen of the kingdom, as a foreigner must take the oath of alle- 
giance added to the declaration of his intention before he can 
become a citizen of any State, and so become a citizen of this 
republic. I shall soon write a tract upon this subject. Truly 
yours, J. E. Graves." 

So it seems Dr. Graves is also culpably ignorant on this point. I 
have already given you a quotation from his paper, The Tennessee 
Baptist, in which he says "born of water" means baptism and 
nothing else, and then adds, "No Baptist that we ever heard or 
read of ever believed otherwise until Alexander Campbell fright- 
ened them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the 
consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages." 

So, according to Dr. Graves, " all scholars of all denominations in 
all ages," until recently, held that "born of water" means baptism, 
and they, too, were " culpably ignorant," like Dr. Graves and 
myself. Then Dr. Hovey explains "born of water" as meaning 
baptism (see pp. 96, 97. 422 of his Commentary on John), and 
hence he also is "culpably ignorant." Then the greatest of the 
German commentators, Dr. Meyer, says "of water and of Spirit, 
water inasmuch as the man is baptized therewith for the forgive- 
ness of sins, and Spirit inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is given to 
the person baptized in order to his spiritual renewal and sanctifi- 
cation." (See Meyer on John iii. 5.) He then says baptism is the 
"washing of regeneration" (Titus iii. 5), and that Christian bap- 
tism is the baptism referred to. So the great Meyer also belongs 
to our igoorant crowd. 

In his "History of Infant Baptism," vol. i, page 443, Dr. Wall says, 
"All the ancient Christians, without the exception of one man, do 
understand that rule of our Savior (John iii. 5) of baptism." A 
little further down on the same page he adds : "Neither did I ever 
see it otherwise applied in any ancient writer. I believe Calvin 
was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He 
gives another interpretation, which he confesses to be new." o 
man in his generation was better qualified to speak on this point 


than Dr. Wall, and though he wrote about one hundred and eighty- 
years ago, his statement concerning it has remained unimpeached 
to this day. So Dr. Wall and all the "ancient Christians" must be 
added to this great multitude of the "culpably ignorant." So on 
this point I have with me Graves, Hovey, Meyer, Wall, and all the 
ancient Christians. Then Wesley, Bloomfield, Whitby, Barnes, 
Dwight, and Whitfield hold to the same view. The Methodist Dis- 
cipline, the Presbyterian Confession of Eaith (Old School and Cum- 
berland), and the Episcopal Catechism, hold to the same view. Is 
it not ~barely possible that Brother Moody is the man who is culpa- 
bly ignorant, and that Dr. Graves and the balance of us are correct? 
So it seems to me. The fact ift, my friends, had it not been that 
this interpretation puts baptism before entrance into the kingdom 
of God, and hence before forgiveness, no man would ever have 
thought of giving any other interpretation to the phrase " born of 
water." All would have understood the truth that "born of water" 
means baptism. But Paul has said, " God hath delivered us from 
the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom 
of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, 
even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. i. 13, 14.) Ah, there is the 
rub ! Christ has said that a man cannot enter the kingdom except 
he be born of water and the Spirit, and as forgiveness is in the 
kingdom, it follows, if "born of water" means baptism, that bap- 
tism is in order to the forgiveness of sins. But that is a conclu- 
sion that some men will not accept ; they will wrest the Scriptures 

Brother Moody tells us the Greek conjunction ~kai at this place 
means even, and that the passage should read, "Except a man be 
born of water, even Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God." Well, as he has a diploma from no college, as his knowl- 
edge of Greek is very limited, suppose we look into the transla- 
tions and see if any of them agree with him. I have here the Ee- 
vised Version, the Bible Union, the Common Version, the Emphatic 
Diaglott, Wesley, Anderson, and the Living Oracles, They all 
translate it and, and in so doing they agree with all translations 
known to me; not one gives Brother Moody's even; so I guess I 
will stand by the translators instead of following a man who, I 
believe, could not enter the sophomore class in Greek in any first- 
class college in the land. . . 

But his rule would help us wonderfully in some other places : 
for instance, " He that believeth even is baptized shall be saved ; ;r 


.tind "Repent, even be baptized every one of you in the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," would be the way those 
passages would read according to Moody's translation of ~kai; and 
thus it would be shown, even to his satisfaction, I presume, that 
faith and repentance are perfected in baptism. But doubtless at 
those passages he would drop back to the word and, and twist 
them in some other way. 

The gentleman says David's prayer in the fifty-first Psalm was 
based on the new covenant as recorded in Ezekiel xxxvi. The 
poor man must be dazed. Does he not know that prayer was 
uttered more than four hundred years before Ezekiel wrote? about 
four hundred years before he was born? When David prays, 
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall 
be whiter than snow," Brother Moody thinks he was talking about 
the new birth under the new covenant. The idea ! It was more 
than a thousand years after that before the new covenant was 
made, and David was then seeking forgiveness for debauching 
Bathsheba and killing Uriah. Bead Lev. xiv. 4-8, and Num. xix. 
18, 19, and you will see that he was referring to the cleansing ac- 
cording to the law under which he lived. And so of the passage 
in Ezekiel; the prophecy of that thirty-sixth chapter was fulfilled 
when Zerubbabel led fifty thousand Jews back to Judea from Baby- 
lon. It does not refer to the new covenant, which was not made 
for hundreds of years afterward. 

These interpretations are as loose and careless as the one he 
makes upon Matt. xxi. 5, "Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, 
meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." The 
gentleman says that here Jcai means even, that there was here but 
one animal meant, an ass, even the foal of an ass. Evidently the 
gentleman did not read the passage in its connection, or, if he did, 
he states the matter, as he usually does, as he wants it, and with- 
out: the slightest regard for the facts in the case. It is stated ex- 
pressly there was "an ass tied, and a colt with her;" and it is 
said they "brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their 
clothes, and they set him thereon." "Put on them their clothes, 
and they set him thereon." With that before him, he intimates 
there was but one animal there. With such illustrations of his 
accuracy (?) before me, I am sure I shall not forsake all the trans- 
lators to follow him. "God even the Father" indicates one who 
is our God and also our Father; "Jesus even our Savior" indi- 
cates a man named Jesus who is also our Savior. The idea of 


addition is in both places : an addition not of individuals, but of 
ideas. And so in every case that he presents. 

But now let us endeavor to find a Scriptural answer to the ques- 
tion, What is it to be born again? Jesus says, "Except a man be 
born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." " Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit 'he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God." "Ye must be born again." Observe that this sec- 
ond birth is one birth, a birth of water and the Spirit, not two. In 
every birth there is a begetting and a bringing forth ; in the new 
birth we are begotten by the Spirit and brought forth from the 
water. All life, animal and vegetable, comes from the planting of 
seed. In animal life this planting of the seed is the begetting; it 
is done, of course, by the father, but the child is not born till it 
is brought forth from the mother. In the new birth there is a 
striking parallelism and likeness to the natural birth, hence Jesus 
uses the figure of a birth. God plants the seed, the word of God; 
this produces faith in the heart, and thus one is begotten of God. 
Then comes baptism, and thus one is brought forth from the water; 
and then one is born again, born of water and the Spirit, is in the 
family of God, the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, where 
there is forgiveness of sins. In proof of all this consider the fol- 
lowing passages: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
begotten of God." -(1 John v. 1, E. V.) " Of his own will begat he 
us with the word of truth." (James i. 18.) "Begotten again, not 
of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God 
which liveth and abideth." (1 Peter i. 23, E. Y.) "Faith cometh 
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Eom. x. 17.) Thus 
we see how God begets us. It is all through the Spirit, inasmuch 
as the Gospel is preached by the Spirit through apostles and proph- 
ets. After the begetting, what then? Listen: "When they be- 
lieved Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, 
and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized." (Acts viii. 12.) 
"Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 
(Gal. iii. 26, 27.) Can you not see? 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody s Sixth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I have only five more speeches on this proposition, and it is not 
possible for me to get in my negative argument on all the points 
introduced. The gross injustice done Dr. Broadus is evident to all 
who read the pages quoted from. If Dr. Wilmarth said, "The 
Gampbellites are right," then he is a Carnpbellite. But he con- 
fesses he is a Hyper-Calvinist. A Hyper-Calvinist-Campbellite ! ! 
Like the long-short, heavy-light, rough-smooth, pretty-ugly, white- 
black bird, the refutation is in the statement. If Dr. Wilmarth is 
both, bis testimony on these subjects is contradictory, hence 

Mr. Harding knows the Pikeville reporter as well as I do, and he 
knows he was a non-professor. His insinuation that I wrote the 
report is like his positive assertions in four debates, and the writ- 
ten one besides, that I never attended college but one day in my 
life, and that was on a visit; or never a day, and then added that 
I "know no more about Greek than a heathen." That a man will 
thus tear himself before the public shows he is mad desperately 
mad. But I can't spare his doctrine, though he slay himself in 
trying to defend it. 

I now take up my negative arguments on John iii. 5. The ex- 
pressions born again, born of the Spirit, born of God, are synony- 
mous, unless it be assumed that one thus born is not born of God, 
which would be denying that the Spirit is God. Those who try to 
distinguish between "the begotten of God" and "birth of Spirit" 
make their decisions by reference to the gender of the parent, and 
they make themselves so ridiculous that we would ratber cover 
them with the mantle of charity than to administer the deserved 
refutation. The Holy Spirit, whether referred to by noun or pro- 
noun, is never referred to as a female. The angel said to Mary: 
"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
Highest shall overshadow thee, and that holy thing that shall be 
born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke i. 35.) He is 
also called the "Begotten of the Father," but it was by the Holy 


Spirit. So, if the gender of the Parent is to decide the translation, 
the original in both being the same, then John iii. 5 must be trans- 
lated begotten. But the same translation must be given to both 

begotten of water and Spirit, or born of water and Spirit. Either 
will mercilessly crush these absurdities, which deserve no mercy. 
No man should go unrebuked who says that one must be begotten 
of the Spirit, and then born of water 5 or, to observe the order, 
born of water, and then begotten of the Spirit. If he insists on 
this copulative idea, and the discrimination between begotten and 
born, he should say, born of water and Spirit, or begotten of water 
and Spirit. He must hold to two births, and no begetting, or two 
begettings and no birth. In either case he will find himself im- 
paled on the horn of a unicorn. 

Those who press the distinction between begotten of God and. 
born of the Spirit, on the ground of sex do so not only in ignorance 
of the Spirit's gender, but in ignorance also of what is predicated 
of the begotten state. (1 John ii. 29 5 iii. 9, 10; iv. 6, 7; v. 1, 4, 
18, 19.) What will become of those who are begotten of the Spirit, 
but never born of water? and especially, if you please, those whom 
you press into a birth of water "the same hour of the night," but 
who had no birth, or had not been begotten of the Spirit? 

If Christ meant by this language that no one could ~be saved 
without baptism, then he falsified his own language; for, after 
this, he said to the woman, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in 
peace." If she had been baptized, then he looked short of her 
baptism to her subsequent faith; if she was to be baptized, then 
he looked short of her baptism to her present faith ; and if faith 
must be manifested in works, then he looked to that saving faith 
manifested in works other than baptism. 

If he meant that sins could not be forgiven without baptism, then 
he contradicted himself; for, after this, he said, " Thy sins be forgiven 
thee ; " and both these transactions occurred apart from baptism, 
unless my astute opponent can show that both occurred in the act 
of baptism. If Christ meant that no one could enter the Church 
without baptism and regeneration, then he missed it again; for 
one got in under his own eye, and many under the inspired apos- 
tles, who " crept in privily, to spy out their liberty," and of whom 
the apostle said, "I wish they were cut off." If Christ meant that 
no one could enter heaven without birth of water and Spirit, as my 
friend interprets, then he contradicted himself again; for he after- 
ward said that "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets, with 


the elect from north, south, east and west, would come and sit 
down in the kingdom of God." 

If the Church and kingdom are the same, and no one can enter 
without these two births, or begettings, or birth and begetting, or 
begetting and birth, then those who like the incestuous man at 
Corinth have been excluded can never enter again without these 
two things, whatever they may be. Mr. McGarvey, in his note on 
Acts xx. 11, lays down this principle of interpretation, in sub- 
stance: "When an inspired writer repeats an expression in the 
same connection, we must understand him to mean the same 
thing." Dr. Brents and a host of others say that one is born of 
the Spirit by being born as the Spirit directs, viz., be baptized for 
the remission of sins. Then to be born of the Spirit is to be born 
as the Spirit directs, and the Spirit directs to baptism. This makes 
birth of Spirit and baptism synonymous, and, applying these two 
principles by substituting the equivalent terms, which in the same 
connection must mean the same thing, we have; except one be 
baptized again, or from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born as 
the Spirit directs, or that which is baptized, is Spirit. Marvel not 
that I said unto thee, ye must be baptized again. Tha wind blow- 
eth where it listeth; thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not 
tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one that 
is baptized of the Spirit. 

Again, if born of water means baptism, and the one expression 
for the two elements of birth must mean the same thing in this 
especially close connection, then it must read: Except one be bap- 
tized out of water and out of Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom 
of God. No one can excel my friend in emphasizing "out of" as 
the meaning of ek. Or, if we translate of as in the text, then we 
have under this application : Except one be baptized of water and 
of Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. This would ruin 
my friend's hope, for he claims to have been baptized in water, 
and he disclaims either baptism of or in Spirit. The different and 
distinct marks I attach to these prepositions my friend will 
not gainsay. A man must be born of water and born of Spirit, or 
begotten of water and begotten of Spirit, or baptized of water 
and baptized of Spirit; or, taking the other rendering of ek, one 
must be born out of water and born out of Spirit, or begotten out 
of water and begotten out of Spirit, or baptized out of water and 



baptized out of Spirit 5 and to this iron bedstead a man must ad- 
just himself, or he cannet enter the kingdom of God. 

If the Spirit is the father and the water the mother, as Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Harding believe, then the birth must be the pro- 
duction of the copulative action of Spirit and water, and the life 
germ, the Word, must be put in the water instead of the mind and 
heart. Why should a people in this enlightened age give them- 
selves to darkening counsel, and to multiplying the absurdities 
and superstitions of papal Borne? If born of water means bap- 
tism, and is the washing of regeneration, then baptismal regenera- 
tion cannot be denied. If it means baptism, and sins cannot be 
forgiven without it, then baptismal remission cannot be denied. If 
it means baptism, and salvation is promised only to the baptized, 
then baptismal salvation cannot be denied. If these equal or in- 
clude justification, then baptismal justification cannot be denied. 
If born of water means baptism, then the Old Scriptures taught 
baptismal regeneration, of which Nicodemus was culpably ignorant. 

We introduce one of the clearest thinkers and writers of the 
reformation (so-called), Mr. P. G. Allen, the founder, furtherer and 
finisher of the "Old Path Guide." He says some things that help 
to loosen the cobwebs of mysticism from the mind. As it is on 
this line of criticism, I introduce it here. He says : " Nicodemus 
had his mind on the 'outward man.' Jesus spoke solely of the 
'inward man. 7 Hence, Nicodemus had reference to a birth of 
flesh; Jesus to a birth of Spirit. Consequently Jesus said, 'That 
which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the 
Spirit is Spirit.' That is, it is the spirit of man, not his body, that 
is born again. The inward man, not the outward man, is the sub- 
ject of the new birth. The 'man' that is born again is born of the 
Spirit. The outward man, or body, is not born of the Spirit.. 
Hence the outward man, or body, is not contemplated in the new 
birth. In conversion the spirit is regenerated; the flesh is not. 
The body will never be regenerated till regenerated from the 

grave With the same thought of the inward man in 

mind Jesus continues, 'Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must 
be born again.' .... The inward man, the man born again, is 
as invisible as the Spirit of God, or as the wind that blows. The 
outward man that Nicodemus had in mind is the man you see. 
The inward man that Jesus had in mind is the man you do not 
see. That is visible and mortal; this is invisible and immortal. 

"As a teacher in Israel Nicodemus should have known that the 


Messiah's kingdom, when established, was to be a spiritual king- 
dom. This his Bible clearly taught. The prevailing misconcep- 
tions of the Jews concerning the nature of this kingdom were all 

due to a misapplication of Bible teaching For this their 

teachers were responsible, since Messiah's kingdom was to be a spir- 
itual kingdom. When Jesus said that one must be born again in 
order to enter it, Nicodemus should have known that he had refer- 
ence to a birth of Spirit, not of flesh. Hence the gentle rebuke. . . , 
The birth of water and of Spirit is one birth. One is not born of the 
Spirit and then of the water, nor of the water and then of the 
Spirit. He is born of both at one and the same time. Nor is one 
part of the man born of the Spirit and another part of the water. 
That which is born of the one is born of the other. The same 
'man' is born of both water and Spirit. Nothing can be born of 
water that is not at the same time bora of the Spirit. Apart from 
that of the Spirit there is no birth of the water. But 'that which 
is born of the Spirit is Spirit.' Therefore that which is born of the 
water is spirit. That which is born of the Spirit of God is the 
spirit of man, not his body. 

"Sometimes we hear the crude idea expressed that in conver- 
sion the spirit is born of the Spirit, and in baptism the body is 
born of the water, and thus the whole man is born again. But 
this cannot be. The body of the man is not born of the Spirit, 
and that which is not born of the Spirit is not born of water. In 
the new birth there is no birth of flesh. 'That which is born of 
the flesh is flesh.' But in the new birth there is nothing born of 
the flesh, hence no flesh is born. But man's flesh is his bodyj 

hence in the new birth his body is not born The body/ 

however consecrated to God's service, is not born of the Spirit ;. 
and not being born of the Spirit it is not born of the water. Prom 
all of which it follows, with the certainty of mathematics, that the- 
'inward man,' not the 'outward,' is the subject of the new birth 

in its entirety Christian baptism demands faith and 

repentance in the thing baptized. Faith and repentance cannot be 
predicated of the body. The body is not born of the Spirit, it is 
not born of the water, and not being born of the water it is not 

baptized It is the 'inward man/ the immortal man, 

that believes, repents, turns to God, wills to serve him, is crucified 
with Christ, is buried with him, and rises to ' walk with him in 
newness of life.'" 

Now let us come back to the text, and give it a natural inter- 


pretation. Mcodemus was a Jew outwardly, "according to the 
flesh," and not inwardly, "according to the Spirit." He thought 
the time had come for the kingdom to be restored to Israel, and 
he went to inquire about it of the miracle-working teacher sent 
from G-od. Jesus saw that behind his flattering words there was 
an anxious inquiry in his heart concerning the kingdom. Perhaps 
he was seeking an honorable position in the temporal kingdom. 
His views of ifc were fleshly. Christ unfolded the difficulty in his 
case. "Except a man be born again he cannot see [discern] the 
kingdom of God." It is a spiritual kingdom, and the natural man 
receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to 
him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned. 
It was so with Mcodemus. Hence he replies, "How can a man be 
born the second time?" 

Now note: Christ spoke to him of only one more birth, "born 
again," and Mcodemus so understood him. "How can a man be 
born the second time?" "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." 
Mcodemus had that. "That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." 
One more birth. " Marvel not that I said unto you, ye must be 
born again." One more time. " So is every one that is born of the 
Spirit." Second birth. 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Seventh Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My opponent's power of condensation (in one line, at least,) is 
wonderful. In the first two paragraphs of his last speech (see the 
first page of it) he made five incorrect and misleading statements. 
1. I have not done "gross injustice" to Dr. Broadus, as he affirms. 
If I had he would not be slow to show it; he would put my words 
beside those of Broadus and let you all see where and how I mis- 
represent him. But as he cannot do this he simply contents him- 
self with affirming what he cannot prove. 2. Wilmarth did not 
say, nor did I charge him with saying the "Cainpbellites" are 
right in all points of doctrine; but he did teach most emphatically 
that baptism precedes and is in order to forgiveness ; and he did 
say the "Campbellites" (as he called them) are right on this point. 
Cannot a man say we are right on one point without being one of 
us? 3. The gentleman says: "Mr. Harding knows the Pikeville 
reporter as well as I do, and he knows he was a non-professor." 
I know nothing of the kind. I have not the slightest idea in the 
world who that reporter was farther than that he was a bitter par- 
tisan. "When I first read the reports I expressed the conviction 
that J. B. Moody either wrote them himself, or he inspired the 
man who did. Now he denies that he wrote them, bnt admits that 
the reporter came to him for the facts, and that he gave them to 
him. Until he gives the name and address of that reporter I shall 
be in doubt as to whether or not any such man exists outside of 
himself; for a man capable of leaving out that word from David 
Lipscomb's statement, thereby making him appear to be a falsifier, 
is capable of doing any thing in that line. 4. Will the gentleman tell 
us plainly what college he attended, and how long he was there? I 
doubt if he ever attended any college one day in his life as a stu- 
dent; though about this I do not certainly know, nor have I ever 
positively affirmed. He says I have so asserted positively in four 
oral debates, and that the report of this one will show it. Let 
him refer, then, to the page, or to the speech, and we will see. 5. 
I have no recollection of affirming that he knows "no more about 
Greek than a heathen;" though had I done so, using the word 


"heathen" in its Biblical sense, I could find many such that know 
far more about that tongue than he. I ask him in what speech of 
mine he found those words that he puts in quotation marks ^ I 
am satisfied that Brother Moody knows the Greek alphabet well 
enough to hunt up a Greek word in the dictionary, and I believe 
that is about the extent of his knowledge of Greek. With that 
much knowledge, and the aid of the Englishman's Greek Concord- 
ance, a man can make quite a display of what appears to be schol- 
arship before the unlearned. 

I now turn to his argument on the new birth. We agree that 
to be born (begotten) of God and to be born (begotten) of the 
Spirit is the same thing; that God begets us by the Holy Spirit. 
But the gentleman is mistaken when he supposes this exhausts 
the meaning of the phrase "born again." The birth of "water 
and the Spirit" fills the meaning of the words "born again." The 
birth is one, in which we are begotten by the Spirit aud brought 
forth from the water. As I showed you in my last speech, when 
one believes that Jesus is the Christ he is begotten of God, but 
this faith is wrought in the heart by hearing the word of truth; 
hence it is said that God begets us "with the word of truth." 
But this word of truth, the incorruptible seed, is preached to us 
by the Holy Spirit through apostles and prophets ; hence we are 
said to be begotten by the Spirit. Jesus says the Holy Spirit 
convicts the world. (See John xvi. 8, E. V.) He says he testifies- 
(John xv. 26.) He speaks. (John xvi. 13.) He speaks through 
apostles and prophets. (Matt. x. 19, 20; 1 Cor. ii. 13; Nehemiah 
ix. 30.) Hence I conclude the Holy Spirit convicts by testifying, 
he testifies by speaking, aud he speaks through inspired men. In 
corroboratiou of this view we learn that when the Holy Spirit 
came, as Jesus promised his disciples he should do, he came to the 
apostles ; they arose and spoke to the vast multitudes that quickly 
gathered about them, Peter appearing to be the chief speaker. 
He spake as the Spirit gave him utterance, hence it was the Spirit 
who spake. At the conclusion of his sermon it is said: "Now 
when they heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said 
unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men aud brethren, what 
shall we do?" We see now what was done and how it was done. 
The Holy Spirit convicted them by speaking unto them through 
the apostles. Did these people believe that Jesus was the Christ? 
Yes, or they would not have been pricked in the heart with a sense 
of guilt, nor would they have cried out asking what they must 


do. Then they were begotten of God. The Holy Spirit had planted 
the good seed there, and it was doing its work. What happened 
then? Peter told them what to do, and they that received his 
word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto 
them about three thousand souls. When did they (the three thou- 
sand) receive the Holy Ghost? When they were baptized. (In 
proof of all this, read Acts ii.) Were they then sons of God? Tes, 
for Paul says, "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit - 
of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. iv. 6.) 
Well, if sous of God, of course they had been born again. How 
were they born again? They heard the Spirit testify about Jesus; 
thus loving, trusting, penitent faith was wrought in their hearts ; 
then they were immersed. Thus they were born again born of " 
water and the Spirit. Hence to be born of water and the Spirit, 
and to believe and be baptized, are but two ways of stating the 
same thing. One is a figurative and the other a literal statement 
of how we pass from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of - 
God from sin to salvation. 

The gentleman claims that if the words "water" and "Spirit" 
indicate two distinct ideas, then we have two begettiugs and no 
birth, or two births and no begetting. Ah ! 'tis strange that he 
should think so. Does he not know that when one is begotten by 
his father and brought forth from his mother he is said to be born ~ 
of his parents? If he does not know that, he ought to learn that 
such is a proper form of speech, both in the English and the Greek. 
But with his view of the matter, that water means Spirit, he cer- 
tainly has one begetting and no birth, or one birth and no beget- 
ting a son with only one parent. Did you ever hear before, either 
in figure or in fact, of such a birth as that ? 

But, he says, the water comes before the Spirit. Tes, in order 
of mention but not of occurrence. Paul says, "If thou shalt con- 
fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine 
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thqu shalt be saved." 
Here the apostle mentions the confession before faith, but that is 
not the order in which they occur. We talk about putting on 
shoes and socks, coat and vest; when, if we observed the order 
of occurrence, we would say socks and shoes, vest and coat. Such 
forms of speech are familiar in all languages. The child of God, 
looking back, says I was born of water and Spirit, observing not 
the order of occurrence, but the order of appearance from his 


The gentleman then quotes quite extensively from a sermon on 
"The New Birth," by my brother, P, G. Allen. In that sermon 
Brother Allen shows that the new birth consists in having faith 
wrought in the heart by the teaching of the Spirit, through in- 
spired men, and in being immersed. He claims that born of water 
means baptism. He claims also that it is the inward man that is 
immersed. It is not the body that is the active, responsible agent, 
that wills to obey the Lord, that submits to baptism, but the 
inward man. Hence he claims that baptism in water is not a mere 
bodily ordinance, a mere external ceremony, but an act of sub- 
mission to God performed by the spiritual man. Hence he argues 
that though you can immerse stones, sticks, infants and idiots,, 
only intelligent, spiritual beings can be baptized with the baptism 
instituted by Christ. In all this I have no fault to find with what 
he says. As to what the new birth is, as to the changes that take 
place in it, we agree perfectly. I commend the sermon to Brother 
Moody. If he has not sinned away his day of grace, it may do 
him some good. 

I proceed now with my affirmative argument. Christians are 
represented as being priests unto God. Peter says: "Ye also, a& 
lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to 
offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 
(1 Peter ii. 5.) He says, verse 9, "Ye are a chosen generation, a 
royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." (See also Isa. 
Ixi. 6, and Rev. i. 6.) Christ is our great High Priest. (See Heb. 
iv. 14, and x. 21.) Now the Aaronic priesthood was typical of the 
Christian priesthood, Aaron a type of Christ, his sons types of 
Christians. Hence in the consecration of the Aaronic priesthood 
we have a type of the induction of men into the Church of Christ. 
Bead Exodus xxix. and Leviticus viii., and you will see how Aaron 
and his sons were consecrated. They were brought to the door of 
the tabernacle; then (1) their bodies were washed with water, 
typical of baptism; (2) they were clothed with the priestly gar- 
ments, typical of our being clothed with the robes of righteous- 
ness, of our being saved, forgiven (see Ps. cxxxii. 9, 16; Isa. Ixi. 
10; Job xxix. 14; Matt. iii. 15) ; (3) then Aaron was anointed with 
oil, typical of Christ's being anointed with the Holy Ghost, just after 
his baptism; then came the ceremony of presenting offerings to 
the Lord; the sons of Aaron were also anointed with oil. No man 
was ever allowed to enter the temple and officiate as a priest until 
he had thus been washed, clothed and anointed; and he was never 


clothed until he was washed; nor was he anointed till he was 
clothed. See how beautifully this was carried out under apostolic 
preaching; first baptism (the washing), then the remission of sins- 
(the clothing with righteousness), and then the gift of the Holy 
Spirit (the anointing). (See Acts ii. 38, and iii. 19, E. Y.) 

So, beloved, no matter where we study this question, whether 
in types, in figurative language, or in plain, literal speech, water 
always stands (under the Messianic reign) between the sinner and 
salvation, between the kingdoms of Satan and of God. The Israel- 
ites had to pass through the sea, through their baptism, in order 
to escape from their enemies. The priest, as he approached the 
temple or tabernacle to be consecrated that he might enter and 
serve as priest therein, found water at the door, and through that 
washing he must go, or he could not enter. Jesus says, "Except 
a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God." He says also, "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved." He is said to have cleansed the Church "by 
the washing of water with the word." (Eph. v. 26, E. V.) He is- 
represented as having saved us " through the washing of regenera- 
tion and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus iii. 5.) We are 
represented as being baptized into Christ, and as thus putting him 
on. Baptism is said to save us. We are represented as being- 
made free from sin when we obey from the heart the form of doc- 
trine. And then sinners are told in plain language to repent and 
be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sins; to arise 
and be baptized and wash away their sins. What could be 
plainer, stronger or more convincing than these plain teachings of" 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Seventh Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My adversary, like a roaring lion, diligently seeks to devour me. 
I am willing that every statement that I have made about other 
debates shall stand as it is. I have nothing to retract, quality or 
fear. Any reader can see how far his charges miss the mark, 
What if Drs. Graves, Hovey, Hackett, Meyer and all others say 
John iii. 5 refers to baptism? Does my opponent prove his doc- 
trine by that? Would that keep him from being lost? Do they 
believe his doctrine? These authors have no more fellowship for 
his ruinous doctrine than I have. "Is it not barely possible that 
Dr. Graves and the balance of us are correct?" This language is 
characteristic of Mr. Harding. We doubt if any other man would 
use such deceptive language. He puts himself in harmony with 
the authorities noted, and thus claims to have proved his doctrine. 
You are doubtless satisfied by this time that Mr. Harding will 
claim, concede, assert, or deny any thing to gain his point, and 
his people may think he does, but I am so sure that his silly cavil- 
ings are so apparent to others that I don't stop to expose them. 

See again his reply on the new covenant. Was it not before 
Abraham? Did not David pray through the same Holy Spirit that 
inspired Ezekiel? Did these not utter the words of the Holy 
Spirit? "The poor man must be dazed." I have said enough on 
the covenants, and can't afford to repeat. 

His reply on ~kai is another illustration of this. Did I say that 
Icai always means even? Will Mr. Harding deny that it often does? 
and that it is thus translated hundreds of times, and thus defined 
in the lexicons? Will he deny that "and" in many places in the 
Scripture means "even?" Does he not know that the passage in 
Zech. ix. 9 is thus translated in the Revision? Does any one in 
this world, except Mr. Harding, believe that Christ rode both ani- 
mals? May the Lord help me to bear with such trifling. 

He writes about "born of water" as if that was Scripture. The 
Creek is, "Ex hudatos kai pneumatos." It can never mean both 
of water and Spirit. It would then be "Kai ex hudatos kai ek 


pneumas" The Greek absolutely forbids "of water as well as 
Spirit," or "of water in addition to Spirit." Nor is it "born of 
water and of the Spirit." In that case the preposition would be 
repeated ex Tiudatos kai eJc pneumatos. The one preposition gov- 
erns both nouns. Nor is "born of water" a symbol of "born of 
Spirit." That can't be gotten out of the Greek. You can't get 
two actions here. The natural purifying element, water, is insep- 
arably connected with, the soul purifying element, Spirit ; and 
"what God has joined together let no man put asunder." 

Now you see clearly one more birth, and only one more, is in 
the mind of Christ and Nicodernus. 

Then ~kai cannot be thus copulative; for, if so, one must be born 
tivice more of water and the Spirit and the other must be main- 
tained, or the argument on order must be abandoned. If we 
believed that the two expressions refer to two births, then we 
would say, except one be born of water he cannot be born of the 
Spirit. We would further say that one must be born of water, 
then of Spirit, and then he could enter the kingdom of God; and 
we would not have him baptized into the kingdom without the 
birth of the Spirit. Nor will it do to use a single Jcai in the sense 
of " as well as." Nor will it do to translate it " added to," for then 
repentance must be added to faith, and faith must be added to 
baptism, or all Bible order is reversed. That baptism is not re- 
ferred to in the fifth verse is evident from several considerations. 
First, whatever Christ said is true. If baptism is in the text, then 
no unbaptized one can enter the kingdom of God. But unbaptized 
ones will enter, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with all the proph- 
ets, shall come with the elect from the north, south, east and w.est 
and sit down in the kingdom of God. 

Again, we know that a man is born of the Spirit before baptism, 
for faith precedes baptism, and whosoever believeth that Jesus is 
the Christ has been born of God. We know that this is true from 
the statement " that whosoever lovelh has been born of God," and 
love must precede baptism. Baptism is also an act of righteous- 
ness, and every one that doeth righteousness has been born of 

We see, then, that birth of the Spirit must come before baptism, 
:and if "born of water" means baptism, then the order of Scripture 
is insignificant. We should not contend for the order of Scripture 
in one place, and then violate it in another. If a Church is a con- 
stituent of the kingdom, and if one is "baptized into the Church," 


and if born of water means baptism, then one must "be baptized 
into the Church, and then be born of the Spirit, or he cannot enter 
the kingdom of God ! ! ! 

Then the inquiry arises, why did Christ refer to water? The fol- 
lowing answer is offered : 

Christ spoke plainly of birth of the Spirit. Mcodeinus did not 
understand. He was not accustomed to such language. But he 
ought to have understood the symbols of the Spirit, which were- 
two water and wind. So Christ refers him to these, and connects 
the symbols with the thing symbolized, and he does this with ~kai 
as an explicative, which was entirely proper, bringing his mind to 
the familiar symbol first, water, even Spirit, meaning one thing, and 
not two, as is evident' from the next two verses, as well as the 
two preceding, and when he failed to understand this, he alluded 
to the wind, which doubtless reminded him of the dry bones, and 
when he failed to comprehend this double symbolic elucidation, 
then Christ reproved him for not knowing what the Old Scriptures- 
taught. Nicodemus ought to have understood these things, as is- 
seen in what I have said, and which I deem sufficient 

I have time only to refer to two authorities. Jacobus says: " Or 
of water, even of the Spirit, which the water baptism signifies and 
sets forth, but cannot give. He connects the water and the Spirit,, 
because under that visible symbol he attests and seals that newness 
of life which God alone produces in us by his Holy Spirit." (Cal- 
vin.) Jamison, Fauset & Brown say : "The question clearly implies 
that the doctrine of regeneration is so far disclosed in the Old 
Testament that Nicodetnus was culpable in being ignorant of it. 
Nor, is it merely as something that should be experienced under 
the Gospel that the Old Testament holds it forth, as many distin- 
' guished critics allege, denying that there was any such thing as 
regeneration before Christ. For our Lord's proposition is uni- 
versal, that no fallen man is or can be spiritual without a regener- 
ating operation of the Holy Ghost, and the necessity of a spiritual 
obedience under whatever name in opposition to mere mechanical 
services is proclaimed throughout all the Old Testament." 

If we continue the investigation, and follow the Lord's instruc- 
tion, this view is confirmed. He tried Nicodemus from another 
standpoint, namely, the lifting up of the serpent in Israel. Here 
the Lord plainly teaches that faith in Christ, without the addition 
of water or works, would bring everlasting life; and, as there was- 
nothing between the look and the healing, so there is nothing; 


between faith and forgiveness. If Christ meant baptism in con- 
nection with the new birth, then, in presenting it from a new 
standpoint, he should have taught baptism in connection with 

We resort to one more effort, and apply the rule previously laid 
down, namely, "the same doctrine in other texts." In Matt. v. 3 
we read : "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven." If an unbaptized man can be poor in spirit, then Ms 
is the kingdom of heaven. Verse 10: "Blessed are they which 
.are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of 
heaven." If there is any righteousness outside of baptism, and 
one may be persecuted for it, then his is the kingdom of heaven. 
And so of verse 20, and vii. 21, unless baptism comprehends " the 
will of our Father who is in heaven." Chapter xviii. 3 does not 
say, Except ye be baptized and become like us ye shall not enter 
the kingdom of heaven; but what sayeth it? If baptism is in the 
term convert, then something must be added to baptism: such as 
becoming as little children before there can be entrance into the 
kingdom of heaven. Christ did not say to the rich young ruler, 
an unbaptized man shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven, nor 
that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than 
for an unbaptized man to enter the kingdom of God; for, if so, 
the disciples would not have been exceedingly amazed, saying, 
"Who then can be saved?" Yet this is just what my friend be- 
lieves ; but which he can never prove. And here we ask him a 
question : If the natural man is able of himself to obey the Gospel, 
how is it impossible with men, and only possible with God, for a 
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Is it easier for a camel 
to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the king- 
dom of heaven according to his doctrine? Does not this show 
that his doctrine fits not the Scriptures? 

When Christ said that the Pharisees shut up the kingdom of 
heaven against men, and neither went in themselves nor suffered 
others to enter in, did he refer to their hindering baptism? There 
is no record of any hinderance being made to baptism, but there 
was opposition to following him, as though the reign of heaven 
was set up in their hearts. I don't believe they entered the king- 
dom of God by baptism, for if so the Scriptures would read on 
this wise : It is better to be baptized into the kingdom of God with 
one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. If we 
enter into the kingdom by baptism, then we can substitute bap- 


tism for enter; but to do this in any case is enough to shame the- 
advocates of the doctrine. Christ said, '' There shall be weeping 
and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and ye your- 
selves thrust out. And they shall come from, the east and the 
west, from the north and the south, and shall sit down in the king- 
dom of God." Here the unbaptized surely get in; hence Christ 
did not say except a man be baptized he cannot enter the king- 
dom of God. Let us translate again to suit my friend's doctrine: 
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when ye shall see 
"the Disciples," and the Mormons, and all the truly baptized, in the 
kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out; and they shall 
come from West Virginia, and Central Kentucky, and Middle Ten- 
nessee, and Southern Illinois, and Eastern Missouri, and shall sit 
down in the kingdom of God. Christ did not say except ye receive 
the kingdom of God as a little child ye shall in no wise be bap- 
tized therein. Panl did not exhort the disciples to continue in the 
faith, and that they must through much baptism enter into the 
kingdom of God* Paul did not say in 1 Cor. vi. 9 that the unbap- 
tized should not inherit the kingdom of God. Hence the washing 
in verse 11 from the dark catalogue of crimes mentioned was not 
in baptism, for baptism cannot do that kind of washing. Let us 
translate again to suit my friend's doctrine: Know ye not that the 
unbaptized shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived ; 
neither Methodists, nor Presbyterians, nor Episcopalians, nor Lu- 
therans, nor Congregationalists, nor Unitarians, nor Evangelicals,, 
nor Dutch Reformed, nor Catholics, nor any other of the sects, 
shall enter the kingdom of God. Paul did not say, in Gal. v. 21, 
that the unbaptized should not enter the kingdom of heaven; nor 
did he say that they which do such things shall not inherit the 
kingdom of God unless they be immersed for the pardon of 
sins. Paul, in Eph. v. 5, spoke of certain classes who had no 
inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God, but he did not 
have baptism in his mind then, or any other time; but my friend 
has baptism in his mind at all times when he talks about entrance 
into the kingdom. James says that " God hath chosen the poor of 
this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which, he hath 
promised to them that love him." My friend thinks that the bap- 
tized are the heirs of the kingdom, and the promise is only to 
them that obey him. 
Mr. Harding would make the impression that no one but Calvin 


ever took any other view. I give the following from the Christian 
Bepository of August, 1889. Of whom does the language of Cor- 
nelius remind you? 

"On May 9, 1569, a discussion took place in the criminal court 
of Brugge, Flanders, between Jacob de Eoore, pastor of a Baptist 
Church and a prisoner for Christ's sake, and afterward burnt to 
death, and Cornelius a preaching friar. The discussion is given 
pretty fully in the 'Martyr's Mirror.' We quote a reference to 
'Born of Water,' which occurs in the debate: 

"Jacob 'We baptize believers according to the commandment 
of Christ, and you baptize unbelievers contrary to his command- 

"Corn. 'Here you be with your cursed mouth, you ana-baptist, 
for Christ says, Of water and of the Spirit; therefore, the baptism 
with the Holy Ghost does not alone give entrance into the future 
kingdom of God, but the water and the Spirit.' 

"Jacob 'I must then ask you whether there were never any 
baptized by G-od and Christ with the Holy G-host without water?' 

"Corn. 'What kind of an infernal question is that now? Who 
could answer such a cursed question? Just see how this dirty,, 
nasty bishop, weaver Jacob, tries to torment and vex us. Answer 
it yourself.' 

"Jacob 'Well, then, when Christ perceived that Mcodemus was 
very much astonished at what he had told him, and, when Nicode- 
mus, not rightly understanding his words, asked him how these 
things could be, Christ replied to him, saying, Art thou a master of 
Israel and kuowest not these things? From this expression of 
Jesus we perceive that Christ was not speaking of baptism, but 
was conversing with him concerning things contained in the law of 
the Israelites namely, concerning the new birth, or the restora- 
tion by the Holy Spirit; by whom all the holy fathers and chosen 
of God, prior to the advent of Christ, were regenerated and were 
baptized. For if Christ had been speaking of water baptism, as 
you papists imagine, Nicodemus might have observed to Christ, I 
never read in the law any thing concerning baptism.' 

"Corn. '0 Jesus, how you can twattle; what a glib tongue you 
have! In all the days of my life I never heard the Scriptures 
thus wonderfully explained; completely contrary to the sense of 
our mother, the holy Catholic Church, as also the ancient fathers 
and doctors.'" (Martyr's Mirror, page 694.) 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Eighth Speech. 

Dear Friends : 

Another day has passed, and we are again assembled to continue 
this discussion. It is a continual source of pleasure to me to see 
this great room so densely packed with such patient listeners. 
And I feel sure that great good will come from the debate; that 
the lovers of the truth will be encouraged and streugthed, and 
that they will go forth with renewed energy to live the Christian's 
life and to lead others to Christ. The truth will prevail. Long 
.after the passions aroused by the asperities of the debate have 
subsided, the facts and truths brought out will remain in the mind 
.and will do their work. 

And now to the gentleman's speech. He has a singular way of 
debating. You observe that after a few extemporaneous words he 
turns to his manuscript and reads his replies to me. The great 
body of every one of his replies was written out before he heard 
the speech to which he was to reply. No wonder they are such 
tangled up affairs. They remind me of the following story: A 
deaf man was working by the roadside hewing out a mill-post. 
He was much troubled by questions from those who were passing, 
.as he could not hear them, and valuable time was lost by their 
stopping to write out their questions. Their queries were usually 
about these: "What are you doing?" "Where will you cut it 
off? " " What will you get for it ? " And they usually thought that 
Ms price was too high ; they would not give as much for such a 
post. Seeing a gentleman coming down the way, the deaf man 
supposed he would ask the usual questions, and determined to 
answer them promptly. As the man rode up the following con- 
versation ensued: Stranger "How far is it to Cork?" Deaf man 
"I'm cutting a mill-post." Stranger "So I see; but can't you 
tell me how far it is to Cork ? " Deaf man "Just above this knot." 
Stranger "Do you intend to insult me, sir?" Deaf man "Five 
dollars." Stranger "You are either a fool or a knave, and I'm 
half inclined to give you a good beating." Deaf man "Well, if 
you don't somebody else will." [Laughter.] 


The deaf man's answers, my friends, were like friend Moody's, 
they did not fit. They remind me of Solomon's saying, "He that 
answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto 
him." (Prov. xviii. 13.) Brother Moody labors to overthrow the 
idea that there are two new births, one of water and the other of 
spirit, as though I had espoused some such notion. If he had not 
written his reply before he heard my speech he would not have 
talked so; for I distinctly showed that the birth is one, consisting 
of a begetting by the Spirit and a bringing forth from the water. 
He argues that a man must be born of the Spirit before he is bap- 
tized. Had he said begotten by the Spirit, he would have set forth 
exactly what I am contending for. And had he read his proof 
texts on this point from the Revised Version he would have read 
the word "begotten" instead of "born" every time. And so, too, 
in the Baptist version, his favorite American Bible Union. The 
passages are these : " Every one also that doeth righteousness is 
begotten of him." (1 John ii. 29.) "Every one that loveth is be- 
gotten of God." (1 John iv. 7.) " Whosoever believeth that Jesus 
is the Christ is begotten of God." (1 John v. 1.) A man must 
believe lovingly before he is fit for baptism that is, he must be 
begotten before he can be brought forth. As the man that believes 
in Jesus is begotten of God, and as faith is the first act of right- 
'eousness that a man can do, of course it follows that "every one 
also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him." 

Now, my friends, I want you to keep in mind a fact about which 
Brother Moody and I agree, and, in the light of it, listen to three 
passages of Scripture, and I think you cannot fail to understand 
what the new birth is, and how it is brought about. The fact is 
this, the saved man is born again. The passages are these : "Who- 
soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God." "He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." " Except a man be 
born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God." But little' comment is necessary. The believer is begotten; 
the baptized believer is saved, therefore born again, therefore in 
the kingdom of God. Hence the new birth consists in believing 
with the heart in Jesus the Christ, and in being baptized; and 
hence "the kingdom of God" means the Church of God, and not 
the everlasting kingdom into which people will come from all 
quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

Brother Moody calls the Spirit "the soul-purifying element." 
He is mistaken about that. The blood is the soul-purifying ele- 



merit. The Spirit never enters a man's soul till it is pure. Jesus 
says the world cannot receive him. (See John xiv. 16, 17.) Paul 
says God sends him into the hearts of his SODS because they are 
sons. (Gal. iv. 6.) Jesus, talking about the corniug of the Spirit, 
said believers should receive him. (See John vii. 39.) And Peter 
places repentance, baptism and remission of sins (cleansing in 
the blood) before the reception of the Spirit. (See Acts ii. 38, 39.) 

I stated that Graves, Hovey, Meyer, with all the scholars of the 
world until the time of John Calvin (according to Wall), and all Bap- 
tists till the time Alexander Campbell (accordicg to Graves) agree 
with me that born of water means baptism, while Moody teaches it 
don't mean baptism, it can't mean baptism, the Greek will not 
allow of such an interpretation, and so on. Then, I ask, is it not 
barely possible that Dr. Graves and the balance of us are correct, 
and that Brother Moody is wrong in tbis matter? Whereupon he 
lifts his hands in holy horror and cries: "We doubt if any other 
man would use such deceptive language. He puts himself in har- 
mony with the authorities quoted, and thus claims to have proved 
his doctrine. These authors have no more fellowship for his ruin- 
ous doctrine than I have." For shame, for shame! He knows as 
well as you, as well as I do, that at that time I was talking about 
the one point of agreement namely, that "born of water" means 
baptism, and he knows that it was perfectly legitimate for me to- 
quote those authors to establish that point, although they do not 
agree with me in all points. When this debate is published, my 
friends, you that read it turn back and see just how I used those 
writers, and you will see how false and unjust his representa- 
tion is. 

To ward, the close of his speech Brother Moody said, "Mr. Hard- 
ing would make the impression that no one but Calvin ever took 
any other view;" and in so saying he states that which is untrue, 
which is exactly opposite to the impression I made, as he well 
knew at the time. I quoted the learned Dr. Wall to show that all 
men interpreted "born of water" to signify baptism till the time 
of Calvin ; I quoted Graves to show that Baptists (in so far as he 
knew) so interpreted until the time of Campbell. And now Moody 
claims I would "make the impression that no one but Calvin ever 
took any other view." No wonder his Brother Taylor charged 
him with "unaccountable misrepresentations," with "cruel injus- 
tice," with " misrepresentation beyond any kind of moral endur- 
ance," and so on. But the man who would mutilate an opponent's 


language, as Moody did Lipscomb's, in order to make him appear 
false and unworthy of any confidence, is capable of doing any 
thing that a mortal can do in the way of falsif jing. Then, to show 
that some one else besides Calvin claimed that born of water did 
not mean baptism, Moody quoted from a conversation that occurred 
in 1569. But that was five years after Calvin died, and thirty- 
three years after his "Institutes" were written. If -he could show 
that some one held to that view before Calvin wrote, then he would 
show that Dr. Wall was. mistaken on this point. But, though the 
doctor wrote 180 years ago, no one has shown that yet. 

In order to sustain his view Brother Moody must translate Kai, 
in John iii. 5, even. And he asks if I don't know that it is often so 
translated. I reply, I have here a number of the best translations 
in the world; none of them translate it even in that passage. I 
never saw nor heard of .a translation that so translated in that 
passage; neither can it be so translated there without a plain vio- 
lation of the most important and fundamental law of translation, 
Here again my opponent has all the translations against him. But 
he claims that kai means "even" (Zech. ix. 9) where the prophet 
says Christ shall come "riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the 
foal of an ass." It does not. There were two animals. (See Matt, 
xxi. 2.) When I called his attention to this he cried out, "Does 
anybody in this world, except Mr. Harding, believe that Christ rode 
both animals?" Well, this is what the Bible says: "The disciples 
went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass r 
and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him there- 
on." (Matt. xxi. 6, 7.) Don't you believe the Bible? I do. There 
were two animals ; hence kai means and, not even. 

Let me now show you, my friends, how it was that Nicodemus 
should have understood this new birth, why it was that Jesus- 
reproved him for not understanding it. As we have seen, the new 
birth consists in having faith wrought in the heart by the Spirit' 
through apostles and prophets, and in being baptized. That the 
Spirit thus wrought in the hearts of men had been taught all 
through the Old Testament. Nehemiah says, "Yet many years 
didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy Spirit 
in thy prophets" (ix. 30). And for months at the time that 
Jesus and Nicodemus had this conversation, baptism had been the 
common subject for conversation in all that country. John had 
baptized the people of "Jerusalem, Judea and all the region round 
about Jordan," and Jesus was making and (through his disciples) 


baptizing more disciples than John. When you bear this in mind, 
and then remember that in all the types of the Old Testament a 
passing through water stood before entrance into that which was 
typical of the Church, the kingdom of God, it is strange that Nico- 
demus did not understand it. The laver stood before the taber- 
nacle, the brazen sea, with it ten lavers before the temple, and 
the Eed Sea must be crossed to enter upon the wilderness journey. 
It seems to me that with this much preparation a master of Israel 
ought to have had some conception of the meaning of Jesus' 

But, if Brother Moody's interpretation be correct, no man under- 
stood these words till the time of Calvin, no Baptist (according to 
Graves) till the time of Campbell; and such lights as Hovey, 
Graves, Meyer, Wesley, Watson, Bloomfield, Whitby, Barnes, 
Dwight, Whitfield have been and are in ignorance on this subject 
to this day. If the Lord censured Nicodemus for not understand- 
ing him, what think you, my friends, of the fact that (according to 
Moody) the whole Christian scholarship of the world, with com- 
paratively a few exceptions in modern times, have misunderstood 
him to this day? Let me give you a few illustrations to show how 
scholars talk about it. 

Whitby : "If a man be not born of water. That our Lord here 
speaks of baptismal regeneration, the whole Christian Church, 
from the beginning, hath always taught, and that with very good 
reason." (Note in "loco.) 

Timothy Dwight, president of Yale. College: "To be born again 
is precisely the same thing as to be born of water and the Spirit; 
and to be born of water is to be baptized; and he who understands 
the nature and authority of this institution, and refuses to be bap- 
tized, will never enter the visible or invisible kingdom of God." 

Whitfield: "Does not this verse urge the absolute necessity of 
baptism? Yes, when it may be had." 

So testify these profoundly learned men. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Eighth Reply. 

Ladies and G-entlemen : 

While Mr. Harding is in the affirmative he measures the length 
of the speeches. He is getting exhausted, although in the use of 
foreign matter and in oft-repetitions his cheek is as hard as a 
statue. Hence I must confine myself to a negative argument on 
the Scriptures he has so often introduced. 

I will next notice his remarks on the deliverance of Israel and 
the temple as types of conversion. He is ludicrously fanciful in 
the main; but accepting, for argument's sake, we will notice some 
things adduced. In these "types," as in the Gospel, blood comes 
before water, the sacrifice before the sacrament. But in both Mr. 
Harding begins with the water. Is it not strange that the altar of 
sacrifice, of burnt offering, of blood, of vicarious death, the sin- 
atoning altar should be so totally eclipsed by a basin of water where 
the priests washed their hands and feet before going "into the 
Church/ 7 the inner court. And is it not strange that the cross, our 
altar of sacrifice, where our sins were atoned, the life-giving cross, 
which was to attract all men, should likewise be eclipsed by a 
pool of water, which also comes after. The man who can see 
more in water provided for the body than he can in blood provided 
for the soul, who rushes by the offering to the ordinance, and by 
Christ to the Church', such a man is a literal! st, a legalist, and my 
heart's desire and prayer to God for him is that he may be saved. 
Read in Exodus and Leviticus his references with his seventh 
speech, then help me pray for him. 

In the other type, why did not my opponent begin with Ex. ii. 
23, 24: "And the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bond- 
age, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of 
the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remem- 
bered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob." 
Ah, that is the way conversion begins; but Mr. Harding skips it, 
both in the type and the antitype. Why did he not copy from Ex. 
iii. 7, 8, that prayer, with the answer, comes before water, as 
proved also in the cases of Cornelius, Saul, etc.? Why did he skip 


the good old Baptist doctrine in Ex. iv. 31? "And the people be- 
lieved: .... then they bowed their heads and worshipped" 
(before baptism). Why did he cot show from chapters viii. 1, 20- 
23; ix. 1, 4-6, 13, 25, 26, and xi. 6, 7, that God called them "his 
people?" and how he separated and made a difference between 
them and the Egyptians! He would not allow even a dog to wag 
his tongue against them. Why did he not, like all evangelical 
Christians, expatiate on the great passover in chapters xii. and 
xiii., where, in consequence of the blood, judgment passed over? 
and how that night was to be commemorated by an ordinance 
forever? Chapter xii. 42 : " It is a night to be much observed unto 
the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is 
that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel 
in their generations" (before baptism). Chapter xiii. 8, 9: "And 
thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because 
of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of 
Egypt (before baptism). And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon 
thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord's 
law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord 
brought thee out of Egypt." The Lord, having saved them in the 
awful night when judgment passed over by virtue of the blood, he 
proposes at the water of baptism to "show" them salvation as in 
the Gospel. Chapter xiv. 13, 14, 19, 20: "And Moses said unto the 
people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, 
which he will shew to you to-day: for the Egyptians whom ye have 
seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more forever. The Lord 
shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace. . . . . And 
the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed 
and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from 
before their face, and stood behind them: and it came between 
the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel." 

That pillar of cloud and fire was the Lord Jehovah. They were 
not yet baptized, but any one who has more faith in the Lord than 
in the water will say, they are safe, safe, safe. Moses and his 
parents and Aaron were all saved by faith ; and here at the borders 
of the Red Sea, before they go down into the water, they are as 
safe as they ever will be. 

What does Paul say of the faith of Moses up to this time, before 
baptism has cut its figure? Heb. xi. 24-29: "By faith Moses, 
when he was come to years, refused to be called the sou of Pha- 
raoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people 


of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season (before 
baptism); esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than 
the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense 
of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath 
of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible (forty 
years before baptism). Through faith he kept the passover, and 
the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should 
touch them (before baptism). By faith they passed through the 
Bed Sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were 

Let Mr. Harding make the Egyptians "the sins of Israel," and 
they are left in the water, to be sure, but that leaves Swedenborg 

We come now to 1 Peter iii. 20, 21. It is assumed that baptism 
is the antitype of the salvation of Noah; that Noah was saved by 
water, and that baptism also now saves us; that a man is a sinner 
until baptized, and that baptism saves him, and this being an anti- 
type, the corresponding type must bear resemblance; that is, Noah 
was a sinner, and was saved by the flood. 

Was Noah a sinner when the flood came? "But Noah found 
grace in the eyes of the Lord." "Noah was a just man and walked 
with God." This was probably 120 years before the flood. Verse 
22 : " Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him, so 
did he." Gen. vii. 1: "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come, thou 
and all thy house, into the ark: for thee I have seen righteous 
before me in this generation." 

Turning to Heb. i. 7 we read: "In faith Noah prepared an ark to 
the saving of his house." Notice, the ark is the instrument of 
salvation. It was in the ark that he was brought safely through 
water. The ark is that that saves, and that that saves must be 
entered before the water. Had he entered the water before he 
entered the ark he would have been lost. If the ark is to carry 
him safe through water, then let him be safe in the ark, shut in by 
God's own seal, before the water comes. 

This antitypical argument must not ignore this feature of the 
type. Was* Noah a righteous, or justified, or saved man before he 
was brought safely through water, and was not his salvation 
through water a manifestation of this fact? Read 2 Peter ii. 4-9: 
" For iFGod spared not the angels when they sinned, and spared 
not th old world, but preserved Noah, with seven others, a 
preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the 


world of the ungodly, . ... the Lord knew how to deliver 
the godly out of temptation." Thus God saved this "preacher of 
righteousness" from the flood by locking him up in the ark. Now 
the ark typifies Christ, and, before baptism can save a man in the 
antitype, he must be locked up and sealed in Christ by divine 
power before the waters of baptism get even in sight. Those who 
tried to get into the ark through water perished, and only those 
who got into the water through the ark were saved. So all who 
try to get into Christ through water perish, and those who get 
into the water through Christ are saved. 

Having shown that Noah was a saved man, a preacher of right- 
eousness, etc., and that in the flood God declared the fact by bring- 
ing him safe through water, one of the cases mentioned by Peter 
where God delivered the "godly out of trial," let us consider also 
the statement that baptism is "not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh." 

The order of the new covenant under which all are saved re- 
quires cleansing before baptism or obedience. The order is as fol- 
lows: 1. Prom all your filthiness will I cleanse you. 2. A new 
heart will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you, and 
cause you to walk in my statutes. In Jer. xxxi. 34, Kom. xi. 27, 
Hebrews viii. 12, x. 17, this filthiness is called sin and iniquity, and 
the cleansing is called "taking away" and "remembering no more." 
The order is not only the.same, but the "filthiness" is clearly iden- 
tified with sin. This is the only place where the noun rupos is 
found, but the verb rupoo is once used, and that in a connection 
that clearly shows its Scriptural meaning. Eev. xxi. 11: "He that 
is filthy let him be filthy still." "Filthy," in the above, is clearly 
not dirt on the skin. If "filth of the flesh" means sin, then bap- 
tism does not put it away, and thus the Holy Spirit puts its om- 
nipotent denial of this soul-destroying doctrine in the very text 
that is used to support it. 

Let us look at this in the light of the other Scriptures. Job xv. 
15, 16 : " How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drink- 
eth iniquity like water." We see from the connection that this 
"filthy man" is not one with dirt on the skin, but one .full of iniq- 
uity. Ps. xiv. 3: "They are altogether become filthy; there is 
none that doeth good: no, not one." Here the "filth" is in con- 
trast with "doing good," and thus by the connection w^see its 
meaning. See the use Paul makes of this passage when he quotes 
it in Romans iii. This expression not only abounds in the Old 


Scripture, but it is there said "he washed away," "put away," 'Hook 
away," "cleansed," etc., and thus we have parallels to the text. 

Pov. xxx. 12: "There is a generation that are pure in their own 
eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness." We have no 
doubt but that they had outwardly washed in their ablutions, and 
thought that took away their sins, like a generation in this day ;. 
but the result is always the same, " pure in their own eyes, yet not 
cleansed from their filthiness." A man can't really wash away this 
filth of the flesh in baptism, for if so he can really wash away his 
own sins with water. This washing must be done by the Lord. 
Isa. iv. 4 : " When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of 
the daughters of Zion." Ezek. xxiv. 13: "In thy filthiness is lewd- 
ness, because I have purged thee." If this had been dirt they could 
have washed it away; or if baptism washes away sins, then this 
lewdness, with all the other filthiness, can likewise be washed away.- 

2 Cor. vii. 1: "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the 
flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." If this is 
dirt on the skin it is also dirt on the spirit, and they were not to 
do this by baptism, for they had already been baptized; but they 
were to do it by coming out from the wicked, and being separate,, 
and touching not the unclean thing. 

In Col. ii. 11, the filth of the flesh is called "sins of the flesh," 
which is put oif without hands and before baptism. In other 
places it is called "lusts of the flesh," which are adultery, etc., 
which can hardly be washed away by water. The claim is that 
baptism now saves us by washing away our sins. But Peter says 
"not by putting away the filth of the flesh," but baptism puts away 
dirt from the skin. One who has a heart sprinkled from an evil con- 
science has a good conscience, and this good conscience desires to 
answer by having the body washed in pure water, or by baptism. 

Mr. Harding insists, despite all my efforts to teach him, that 
"baptism now saves." I will put on him again his ponderous 
brother, McGarvy, "The antecedent of which is water; and the 
'statement is, which water doth now save you. In other words, 
the passage asserts, not as in the Old Version, that baptism now 
saves, but that water now saves. This is the most prominent 
change which the Greek text requires, and it requires this impera- 
tively. Any one can satisfy himself of this by a glance at the 
authorities given in Westcott & Hort, Tregelles, or any of the- 
critical commentaries." 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Ninth Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The gentleman claims to think that I am becoming exhausted, 
and hence the shortness of these speeches (in the published report, 
not in the oral delivery). So he claims, but, of course, he knows 
better. For, if I were to expose fully all of the misrepresenta- 
tions and incorrect statements that, he has made in this debate I 
could easily fill an octavo of a thousand pages. But I am a mer- 
ciful man, and I don't want to afflict our readers in that way. So 
we will not devote much more than four hundred pages to these 
first two propositions. 

The gentleman claims that in the types the blood always comes 
before the water. The paschal lamb was slain before the Israel- 
ites passed through the Eed Sea, and were thus baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and sea; and, in approaching the temple, the 
altar of burnt offering was reached before the brazen sea with its 
ten 1 avers. Exactly; and so it is in the antitype. Christ, the pas- 
chal lamb, was slain before any one was ever baptized in his name, 
into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It was after he 
had been slain, buried and raised again that he said, "All power is 
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you 
alway. even unto the end of the world. Amen." It was after 
Christ had shed his blood, after he had ascended on high and sent 
the Holy Spirit to men, that Peter preached for the first time in 
his holy name. Yes, and the people believed his- wondrous words; 
they believed the blood had been shed; they were cut to the heart 
with a sense of guilt, being deeply convicted of sin. But for all 
that the blood had not yet been applied to them ; they had not yet 
entered into Christ, into the death of Christ, into the remission of 
sins. But when they cried out in their guilt and fear, Peter told 
them to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins, "and," said he, "ye shall receive the gift of 


the Holy Ghost." Yes, in the type and in the antitype both the 
blood and the water come before entrance into Christ, into forgive- 
ness of sins, into the Church. In approaching the tabernacle and 
the temple first the altar of burnt offering (typifying the death of 
Christ) was reached, then the water (typifying baptism), and then 
came the entrance into the first room, the type of the Church. 

The gentleman, with his usual accuracy (?), says that both in 
type and antitype " Mr. Harding begins with the water." Of course 
he knows better. He merely said that for temporary effect. He 
knows I take none into the water who do not first confess a heart- 
felt faith in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected 'Lord and Christ. 
And then, as he so frequently does, immediately after making this 
statement, which he knew to be incorrect, he proceeds to pray for 
me. Strange man ! I have never before met the like of him, and 
I presume his match is not to be found in all the world. I don't 
know whether to pray for him or not. John speaks of the man 
who has committed the sin unto death, and he says of that sin, 
" I do not say that he shall pray for it." I am not sure but that 
my fallen brother belongs to that category. 

He claims that God saved the Israelites before they came to the 
water, and showed them salvation at the water. Well, let us see 
about that. The word of God says : " But the children of Israel 
walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea ; and the waters 
were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left. Thus 
the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians ; 
and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore." (Ex. xiv. 
29, 30.) If the word of the Lord is to be believed they were saved 
in passing through the sea; and here (see 1 Cor. x. 1, 2) Paul 
locates their baptism. 

The gentleman spends some time on 1 Peter iii. 21, where we 
are told about the ark of Noah, in which eight souls were saved 
through water, "which also now saveth you in its antitype bap- 
tism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the earnest 
request of a good conscience unto God), through the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ." (Hovey's translation.) You remember in the 
early part of this debate Brother Moody very strongly asserted 
that baptism doth not also now save us. As this was a flat con- 
tradiction of what Peter said, as given in our Common Version, I 
wondered what he meant by it. He now explains. He says "the 
passage asserts not, as in the old version, that baptism now saves, 
but that water now saves." Well, what of it? Is not the water 


that he speaks of as saving the water of baptism ? Listen, while 
I read from the Eevised Version: "The longsuffering of God 
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein 
few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water ; which also 
after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the put- 
ting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good 
conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
Here Peter says they were saved through water, even baptism. 
That is exactly what I believe. As in the ark the family of Noah 
passed through the water out of a world of sinners into a world 
of righteousness, so the water, even baptism, now saves usj that 
is, through baptism we pass out of the world into the Church, out 
of the midst of sinners into the midst of saints. You will observe 
that Noah, in passing through the flood, left the wicked drowned, 
just as the Israelites in passing through the Ked Sea, their bap- 
tism, left the Egyptians dead behind them; and just so we, in 
passing through our baptism, leave our sins behind us, washed 
away in the blood of Jesus. 

But, says the sapient Moody, "A man can't really wash away 
this filth of the flesh in baptism ; for, if so, he can really wash 
away his own sins with water." If the wise gentleman had been 
with Naaman when God's prophet told him to wash in the Jordan 
and he should be clean from the leprosy, he would have advised 
the great warrior about thus : "A man can't really wash away this 
filthy disease in Jordan ; for, if so, he can really wash away lep- 
rosy with water. Wait till your leprosy is gone, and then go and 
bathe to declare the fact." And of course, according to his way, 
the priests, at their consecration, ought to have washed after they 
entered the temple, and the Israelites ought to have waited till 
God struck the Egyptians dead before they went down into the 
sea. But God's way, it seems, is very different from his way. The 
table of shewbread (the Lord's Supper) and the altar of incense 
(the prayers of the saints) were on the inside of the tabernacle, 
but the laver for baptism was on the outside. 

With regard to the expression, "the filth of the flesh," I would 
simply say that it means dirt. The Jews were very punctilious 
about their ablutions. They would not eat unless they had dili- 
gently washed their hands; when they had come from, the market 
they would not eat till they had immersed themselves ; they were 
very particular about keeping the flesh clean. Once when they 
saw some of the disciples of Jesus eat with unwashed hands, 


'13iey were amazed, and questioned Jesus about it. (See Mark vii. 
1-13.) Peter tells them that baptism is not the mer0 washing of 
the body, but it is "the seeking of a good conscience toward God." 
.(Emphatic Diaglott.) It is "an embodied request or prayer unto 
God," "an earnest request for pardon." (Hovey.) The Baptist 
Dr. Winkler, commenting on this passage in the "American Com- 
mentary," says truly, "Baptism, as such, has no effect in improv- 
ing the outward man." The word rupos is defined by all authori- 
ties to mean "dirt, filth, uncleanness, filthiness." And with very 
general consent "filth of the flesh" is understood to mean bodily 
defilement. No other thought concerning it would ever have en- 
tered any man's mind, I presume, had not another interpretation 
been suggested in order to get rid of the doctrine of baptism for 

I have now noticed every thing of any consequence in the gen- 
tleman's speech, and I propose to devote the remainder of my 
space to a consideration of the conversion of Cornelius. It is., 
.generally considered by my friend's side of the house a clear illus- 
tration of salvation before baptism, because he received the mirac- 
ulous outpouring of the Spirit before baptism. But Brother Moody 
shows that he knows his argument on this case is much stronger 
and more impressive when not reviewed, for his rule is to hold 
it back to the last, when but little or nothing can be said in 
reply. I will help him, however, to bring it to the front this 

The case is a striking one, and, when closely studied, clearly and 
strongly illustrates the fact that men are saved from their past 
sins by believing and being baptized. I must be brief in consid- 
ering the case. 

1. Morally Cornelius was one of the best men that ever lived. 
(See Acts x. 1, 2.) He was the first Gentile to come into the 
Church of Christ. (Bead the account in the tenth and eleventh 
chapters of Acts.) 

2. An angel of God appeared to Cornelius, told him his prayers 
and his alms had come up for a memorial before God (x. 4), and 
directed Mm to send to Joppa for the apostle Peter, and, said the 
angel, "He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do" (x. 5, 6); he 
"shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shalt be 
saved" (xi. 14). 

3. Hence it follows that Cornelius was saved by doing things 
$hat he ought to do, by words that Peter told him. And hence it 


follows that he was not saved by the miraculous outpouring of 
the Holy Spirit. 

4. God wrought two great miracles in order to break down 
Peter's prejudices against the Gentiles, to show him that he was 
not to call any man common or unclean, and thus to induce, him 
to go to Cornelius. 

5. When he arrived Cornelius said, "We. are all here present 
before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God." 
(Chap. x. 33.) 

6. Peter then preached to them the Gospel, and wound up the 
sermon by saying of Christ, "To him give all the prophets witness 
that through his name whosoever believeth in [eis] him shall 
receive remission of sins." Mark you, it is not said "whosoever 
believeth eis him shall receive remission of sins." Those wicked 
and cowardly rulers of the Jews (John xii. 42) did that, but we 
have seen they were not forgiven. Peter said, "through his name 
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Then 
the Holy Ghost fell on them that heard the word, and they spake 
with tongues and magnified God. And then Peter said, " Can any 
man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have 
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" "And he commanded 
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (See x. 43-48). 
So we see, beloved, where they reached remission. Peter, after 
saying believers receive remission of sins through the name of the 
Lord, immediately commanded these believers to be baptized 
11 in the name of the Lord." This is the same Peter who said 
to a multitude of convicted sinners, "Bepent, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
sion of sins;" who said (wilting to Gentiles, too), ""Ye have puri- 
fied your souls in obeying the truth;" who said, "Baptism doth 
also now save us." 

One other point remains to be settled, namely, the fact that a 
man has miracle-working faith and prophesying power from the 
Spirit does not prove that he is a saved man. See what Paul says 
about faith that could move a mountain. (1 Cor. xiii. 2.) Study 
the case of Caiaphas (John xi. 47-51), and the case of Balaam 
(Num. xxii., xxiii., xxiv., and 2 Peter ii. 15, 16.) 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Ninth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Let me now give you what I conceive to be the true interpreta- 
tion of 1 Peter i. 22. Some translate, "Seeing ye have purified 
your lives." The word is translated by King James about as often 
by life as by soul; and we think the Oxford Eevision has life 
oftener than King James, though they have soul in this place. 

Purification from sin ; cleansing from sin, washing away of sin, 
and forgiveness of sin are considered synonymous expressions. 
In debating the question of forgiveness of sins, we follow the 
word Icatharizo, translated by the word " cleanse," "purge," 
"purify," etc., showing by these Scriptures that this must take 
place before obedience to the truth, which they say begins and is 
completed in baptism. When we show from the Scriptures that 
this purifying is done for us, and must take place before baptism,, 
they contradict by quoting this text. Peter says in Acts xv. 9 that 
"God purifies our hearts by faith;" and faith must. come before 
baptism. But Mr. Harding says the faith that is before baptism 
is dead, and then and there is faith made perfect. Hence it is by 
obeying the truth that we purify our souls from sin. Of course 
their pre-baptism faith, being dead, is no faith at all, and hence 
their baptism, being without faith, is no baptism at all; and so 
they fail to obey the truth, which requires faith before baptism. 
Peter, in the above text, did not use katharizo, but a different 
word, with an entirely different radical meaning. A man must be 
cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ, must be washed, sancti- 
fied and justified "in the Spirit of God." This is the internal 
cleansing, or purification, included in the proposition. But a man 
being thus cleansed in heart must show his cleansing by a godly 
walk, by keeping himself unspotted from the world, abstaining- 
from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul. How is a Christian 
to glorify God? to be holy in all manner of conversation, etc.? 
By walking as children of light, or by "obeying the truth." Thus 
we avoid the errors and sins of this life by walking in the truth, 
or obedience to the truth. Peter was addressing the "elect," who 


had been "sanctified by the Spirit." He further addresses them 
in verse ]4 as "obedient children," not the obedience of an alien 
to become a child ; and these obedient children were not fashion- 
ing themselves according to the former lusts in their ignorance, 
but were living in obedience to the truth, and thus kept their 
lives pure. This has no reference to the forgiveness of the aliens' 
sins. But what of that? 

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." This old 
favorite Baptist text is held in doubt by the majority of scholars. 
I now propose to my friend that when we come to write the 
debate we devote nine thousand words each in collecting the best 
testimony on both sides, and then leave it to the reader.. (Mr. 
Harding accepted the proposition.) But, granting the genuineness 
of the passage, we have nothing to lose, and Mr. Harding nothing 
to gain. Of course, if all believers will be saved, then all confess- 
ing believers, and all baptized believers, and all obedient believers, 
will also be saved. These, and more, are additional marks of 
recognition, and they do not deny the first statement. Salvation 
predicated of any characteristic subsequent to faith is not in con- 
flict with any statement that predicates the same of faith. I go 
further, and say that those numerous Scriptures that predicate 
salvation of faith do not make null and void those numerous 
Scriptures that predicate salvation of something antecedent to 
faith. I believe that in the divine mind the saved existed, not 
only in character, but also as individuals, from eternity, and their 
salvation, as we have seen, is predicated of election, predestina- 
tion, effectual call, and also to the covenant, which shows that an 
elected and predestinated people were given to Christ, all of whom 
should come to him; and to all of whom he should give eternal 
life, and should glorify them at last. Here was real salvation in 
the divine mind, while faith brought conscious salvation, and 
obedience recognizable salvation. I believe all those Scriptures 
just as they read, and I love all of them, and I preach all of them. 
I believe Mark xvi. 16 just as it reads, not that all baptized be- 
lievers may, but must, be saved; not that they should, but that 
they shall; and no one in earth, heaven nor hell can pluck a sin- 
gle one out of my Father's hand. Does my friend believe all such 
shall be saved? No, indeed; yet that is just what the Scripture 
asserts. As so much abuse is heaped upon this supposed Scripture, 
and such perversions are made of it, I desire to adopt the syllo- 
gistic test of that great master logician, Dr. N. M. Crawford, who 


closed his honored life as president of Georgetown College. He 
says : 

"We propose to subject the doctrines which are professedly 
drawn from the Bible to the syllogism, which is the infallible test 
of logical accuracy, and is just as applicable to inference drawn 
from the Word of God as to any others. Indeed, such a test is far 
more needed here than elsewhere, as falsehood or error drawn by 
mistake or wickedness from the Word of God is so much more 
mischievous than any other error." 

A prominent test is, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." (Mark xvi. 16.) Of this test it is said that it specifies two 
conditions, viz., belief and baptism; that whosoever complies with 
these two conditions will be saved, and that whoever fails of either 
cannot be saved. 

In connection with this we pause a moment to notice what has 
been laid down as " a rule " to which it is confidently affirmed that 
" there is not an exception in the Bible." The rule is laid down 
thus: Where salvation is promised a person, or affirmed of him, on 
certain named conditions, though it may depend on more conditions 
than those named, it can never depend on less. If this rule holds 
good, then, in spite of the test above quoted, and the Savior's ex- 
press words, salvation may depend on more conditions than those 
named, and for want of those additional conditions one who be- 
lieves and is baptized may not be saved, " which," in the language 
of Euclid, "is absurd," and therefore the rule so boldly challen- 
ging contradiction is proved to be false. 

Let us return to the text. It contains a universal affirmative 
proposition. Using it as the basis of a syllogism, we have the 
following: All who believe and are baptized shall be saved. But 
John believes and is baptized, therefore John shall b<3 saved. Here 
is a syllogism in Barbara, and the premises being admitted, the 
conclusion is irrefragable. No other condition can be imposed. 
The man that complies with the two conditions, " so-called," must 
be saved, or, we speak it with reverence, Jesus Christ is a deceiver. 
Salvation is promised to all of a certain class, John being em- 
braced in that class. John being included in that class will be 
saved without any new or additional conditions. So much for the 
affirmative teaching of the text. Now what does it teach nega- 
tively? Let us see. All who believe and are baptized shall be 
saved. But John is not one of those that believe and are bap- 
tized; then John is not saved. The syllogism is faulty, and the 



conclusion is invalid. A tyro in logic can point out the technical 
error; but laying aside technicalities, every one can see that while 
the first premise affirms salvation of a particular class, it does not 
deny salvation to others ; and for aught that appears her.e, there 
may be some other plea through which a man may be saved. And 
for this very reason, doubtless, the Savior immediately adds, He 
that believeth not shall be damned. The proposition, like the 
former, is universal and affirmative. To this also let us apply the 

All who do not believe are damned. Judas is one who does not 
believe, therefore Judas is damned. Here again we have a sound 
syllogism and a valid conclusion. Damnation is affirmed of a cer- 
tain class. Judas is specified as included in that class. Admit 
the premises and you cannot deny the conclusion. 

The text then teaches that the want of faith results in damna- 
tion. But does it teach that faith secures against damnation? 
Let us see. All who do not believe are damned ; but John does 
believe, therefore John is not damned. The syllogism is bad; and 
though the conclusion may be true in fact, it does not follow from 
the premises; for while damnation is affirmed of a certain class, 
it is not denied of those who are not embraced in that class. 

To teach the whole truth then both tests are necessary. The 
first shows that those who believe and are baptized are saved, and 
shows no more. The second shows that the want of faith results 
in damnation. But no such thing is taught of baptism. 

We will now consider another text closely allied to the preced- 
ing: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." 
(Acts xvi. 31.) This is equivalent to the universal affirmation 
all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ shall- be saved. Almost 
identical with this are the words of Jesus, "Whosoever believeth in 
him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." (John iii. 16.) 
Now let us test these. All that believe on Jesus Christ have ever- 
lasting life (or are saved). But John believes on Jesus Christ, there- 
fore John hath everlasting life (or is saved). A good syllogism 
with a valid conclusion. Life or salvation is affirmed of believers, 
and John is specified as a believer. That John hath life, or is 
saved, is the inevitable conclusion. Try it negatively. All that 
believe have everlasting life. But Judas does not believe, there- 
fore Judas hath not everlasting life. Bad in logic for the same 
reason as above. While life is affirmed of a certain class, it is not 
denied to another. We take therefore the connected text: "He 


that believeth not the Son shall not see life" (John iii. 36.) Judas 
believeth not, etc., therefore Judas shall not see life. We find the 
same result everywhere. Life and salvation, the consequents of 
believing; condemnation the consequent of not believing; but 
nowhere do we find salvation the consequent of baptism, or death 
resulting from want of baptism. 

We take now the noted text, "Kepent and be baptized," etc, 
(Acts ii. 38.) There are various modes of interpreting this sen- 
tence which we will not now discuss, but for the sake of argument- 
concede the interpretation contended for by the advocates of bap- 
tismal forgiveness. All who repent and are baptized shall obtain 
forgiveness of sin. But John has repented and been baptized, 
therefore John shall obtain forgiveness. Admit the premises and 
the conclusion is necessary, for John belongs to the class of whom 
forgiveness is affirmed. Now let us take it negatively: All who 
repent and are baptized shall obtain forgiveness. But Judas is 
not one who repents, etc., therefore Judas hath not forgiveness. 
Bad in logic; for though forgiveness is affirmed of a certain class, 
it is not denied of others; and for aught that appears, there may 
be some other way of obtaining it. But -we also read, "Repent and 
~be converted (turn), thai your sins may be blotted out." (Acts iii. 
19.) The blotting out of sin being equivalent to forgiveness of 
sin. We have therefore another syllogism. All who repent and 
turn have their sins blotted out. But John repented and turned, 
therefore John had his sins blotted out. A sound syllogism and 
valid conclusion. Now try it negatively : All who repent, etc., have 
their sins blotted out. But Judas does not repent, therefore Judas 
has not his sins blotted out. Bad for the same reason as in former 
instances because it does not appear but there may be other 
ways of having sins blotted out. We therefore turn to Luke xiii. 
3-5 : "Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish," equivalent to, 
All who do not repent shall perish. Let us apply the test. All 
who do not repent shall perish. Capernaum does not repent, 
therefore Capernaum perishes. Sound and valid. No one can 
gainsay the conclusion. In regard to the great question, How 
shall I be saved ? the answer of Scripture, subjected to the logical 
test, is clear and plain and emphatic. Eepent, and thou shalt be 
forgiven; believe, and thou shalt be saved. Are there any such 
utterances in regard to baptism ? The famous texts do not contain 
them. Where then are they to be found? Echo answers, Where? 

Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Tenth Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Before replying to the last speech of yesterday evening there 
are two little matters that I want to notice. You remember on one 
occasion, when I quoted J. R. Graves to show that " born of water " 
means baptism, Brother Moody replied that no man was more ter- 
ribly against Campbellism. than Dr. Graves ; and to show the blight- 
ing effect his teaching has upon us he told this story: He said 
there was once an assembly of Baptists at Brownsville, Tenn.; J. 
E. G,raves was invited to preach in our church-house there, and lie did 
so with such withering effect that our people never met in that house 
again. He simply crushed us out with one sermon. 

Of course when my erring brother told that tale I did not be- 
lieve it, (1) because it is incredible, and (2) because I had no au- 
thority for it but J. B. Moody, and, with me, that means no author- 
ity at all. I now have further information. Brother B. W. Saxon, 
of this city, superintendent of one of our Sunday-schools here, 
lived at Brownsville at the time. He was one of the committee of 
brethren who went down to invite Dr. Graves to preach in our 
house. He heard the doctor's sermon, which, he says, made no 
particular impression upon him, nor upon our people, except by 
its length, and by the bad taste displayed in its attacks upon us. 
And he says our people met right along in that house until he left 
there, which was, he thinks, about two years after the doctor's ser- 
mon was delivered. Of course my erring brother did not know 
there is such a man as B. W. Saxon, but he ought to have remem- 
bered that Moses said, "Be sure your sin will find you out." 
Again I say, the way of the transgressor is hard. I wonder, when 
he prepares his speeches for the printer, if he will give his state- 
ments on this subject in full, or if he will make no reference to 
the matter at all. Well, we that read the book will see. 

Another little matter: You remember Brother Moody, in his 
fourth reply, quoted extracts from the Chattanooga Republican 
about the Pikeville debate that were very complimentary to him 
and very uncomplimentary to me. I called your attention to the 


facts that the article was evidently written by a strong partisan; 
that he did not write from his own knowledge, for Moody says, 
"He caine to me for facts;" and when I called for the name and 
address of the reporter I obtained no reply. I have since learned 
that the Chattanooga Republican and the Baptist Reflector ivere pub- 
lished from the same office. Once more I ask for the name and address 
of that reporter. I want to cross-examine your witness. Are you 
too cowardly to name him? Do you know that I will expose you 
if you do? Do you intend to hold it back till your last speech? 

Now we will consider the gentleman's last speech. He tries to 
turn the force of 1 Peter i. 22, "Ye have purified your souls in 
obeying the truth/ 7 by giving the word "lives" instead of "souls" 
as the proper rendering of the Greek. It would not help him in 
the least bit if he could make the change; but since the Common 
Version, the Eevised Version, Wesley, the Bible Union, McKnight r 
the Living Oracles and Anderson, with translators and scholars 
generally, retain the word "souls," I guess we will not be particu- 
larly disturbed by the gentleman's criticism. His idea is that Peter 
was not talking about the justification of the sinner, but about 
the holy walk of Christians, who are to keep holy " by walking as 
children of light," or " by obeying the truth." 

That is all very nice, but it is not what the apostle said. I read 
from the Eevision. Listen : " Seeing ye have purified your souls in 
your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, 
love one another from the heart fervently: having been begotten 
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the 
word of God which liveth and abideth." That the apostle here 
refers to primary justification from sin is certain, for he refers to 
the new birth. He says they purified their souls in obeying the 
truth, having been begotten again by the word of God. First they 
were begotten again, then they obeyed the truth as Peter says, 
obeyed the form of doctrine as Paul says, and then, as both agree, 
they were made free from sin. You remember Paul said, "Whereas 
ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that 
form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made 
free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness." What can be 
clearer? How can a man doubt that "obedience to the truth" is 
a necessary prerequisite to the purification of the soul, to being 
made free from sin ? I am sure I cannot tell. 

The verb agnidzo (to purify) is used repeatedly in the New Testa- 
ment to indicate the purification of the heart. 


The gentleman next discusses Mark xvi. 16, in which Jesus says, 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." He proposes 
that in the report of the debate we shall each devote nine thou- 
sand words to this passage. I reply that within the limits agreed 
upon he may use as many words as he pleases on this passage, 
and that under the same limitations I will use as many as seem to 
me to be necessary in reply. 

Brother Moody says "this favorite old Baptist text is held in 
doubt by the majority of scholars." "But," he adds, "granting 
the genuineness of the passage, we have nothing to lose, and Mr. 
Harding nothing to gain." "Of course," says he, "if all believers 
will be saved, then all confessing believers, and all baptized be- 
lievers, and all obedient believers will also be saved." 

I reply, if the believer is saved the moment he trusts in his 
heart, as Brother Moody teaches, then it is not true that "he that 
believeth and is baptized shah 1 be saved." It is not proper to say 
of a man that he shall be saved if he is already saved. Accord- 
ing to Baptist doctrine a man is not fit for baptism till he is saved, 
till his sins have been forgiven; while Christ puts the salvation 
after the baptism, Peter puts remission of sins after baptism, and 
he says baptism "now saves us." Salvation is in Christ, and Paul 
says we are baptized into him, that in baptism we put him on ; 
while the Master himself makes baptism a part of the new birth, 
a part of the process by which we pass out of the kingdom of 
Satan into the kingdom of God. 

I was pleased that the gentleman quoted so freely from Presi- 
dent Crawford. True, he was a Baptist, and therefore, according 
to Brother Moody's rule, ought not to have been quoted by him ; 
but that has no weight with me. I am willing to examine any 
man's testimony, and to take it for what it is worth. With much 
that Dr. Crawford said I have no fault to find. There are some 
things he did not say that he ought to have said, that I will call 
your attention to. True, as he said, the syllogism is the test of 
logical accuracy. We will notice some of his, and present some 

1. All who believe and are baptized shall be saved. 

2. John believes and is baptized. 

3. Therefore John shall be saved. 

So argues Professor Crawford. I make one comment, and pass 
on. The salvation meant by the Savior in the text must come 
after baptism, and not immediately upon the exercise of internal 


faith; for if when John believes, and before he is baptized, he is 
saved in the sense of the text, it is not true that when he is bap- 
tized he shall be saved, unless he believes and is saved, and is 
then lost, and upon being baptized saved again. The salvation 
here comes after baptism, not both before and after. 

Take this verse: "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal 
life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the 
wrath of God abideth on him." (John iii. 36, K. V.) From this I 
draw the following syllogisms : 

1. All who believe on the Son have eternal life. 

2. John believes on the Son. 

3. Therefore John has eternal life. 

This is good, and cannot be called in question. 

1. Upon him that obeys not the Son the wrath of God abides. 

2. John obeys not the Son. 

3. Therefore upon him the wrath of God abides. 

By comparing these two syllogisms it is seen that the faith that 
saves is the faith that obeys. The fact that all men breathe does 
not prove that dead men breathe, for dead men are not complete 
men. And just so the fact that all who have faith have eternal 
life does not prove that a man with dead faith has eternal life; for 
as a dead man is not a complete man, so dead faith is not com- 
plete faith. I quote from Brother Moody's favorite translation, 
the one that he calls the best of all, thus: "Thou seest that faith 
wrought with his works, and by works was faith made complete." 
(James ii. 22.) "For as the body without the Spirit is dead, so 
also faith without works is dead." (James ii. 26, Bible Union.) 

Paul told the jailer to believe on the Lord and he should be 
saved, but of course he meant for him to believe with the com- 
pleted faith; hence he baptized him the same hour of the night; 
and then, and not till theo, is it said the "jailer rejoiced, believing 
in God with all his house." Paul, you remember, is emphatic in 
teaching that men are made free from sin when they have obeyed 
from the heart the form of doctrine; and Peter says we purify 
our souls in obeying the truth ; hence neither of them ever taught 
that a man is saved by faith before obedience. 

As we have seen, the salvation mentioned by Jesus in Mark xvi. 
16 comes after baptism. It cannot come before it; for, if so, it 
it would not be true that "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved." It is neither correct nor true to say you will give to 
a man that which he already has ; it is not proper to say of the 


saved man that he shall be saved. What, then, is the meaning of 
the word "saved" in that place? I say it means "forgiven," while 
Brother Moody seems to hold that it means eternal salvation. If 
I can show that I am right, then it follows that forgiveness comes 
after baptism. 

Eead Mark xvi. 9-16, and Luke xxiv. 1-47, and you will see that 
they are parallel passages, the one being generally much fuller 
than the other. They tell about Jesus' resurrection, about Mary 
seeing him, about his appeariag to the two men who went down 
to Emmaus, about their return and report to . the apostles, about 
Jesus suddenly appearing in their midst, and about the conversa- 
tion that he then held with his disciples. In that conversation he 
said, according to Mark, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." According 
to Luke, he said: "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ 
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repent- 
ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among 
all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Notice now the parallelisms 
in these two records of the commission. (1) Mark says " all the 
world," Luke, "ail nations;" (2) both say "preach;" (3) Mark says 
"the Gospel," while Luke refers to it as the suffering and resur- 
rection of Jesus ; (4) Luke records the fact that Jesus told them 
to tarry in Jerusalem till endued with power from on high before 
starting on their work of preaching, while Mark simply states that 
they were to go, without naming the day when they were to start; 
(5) according to Mark he promises salvation, according to Luke 
remission of sins. The angel said of him before he was born, " He 
shall save his people from their sins." And John's father, Zacha- 
rias, prophesied of his son that he would " give knowledge of salva- 
tion unto his people by the remission of their sins." And then 
when Peter preached the tirst sermon under this commission, be- 
ginning at Jerusalem, as Luke said, he told convicted people to 
repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
sion of sins. And, to cap the climax, those who received his 
word and were baptized were called the "saved." (See Acts ii- 
47, Bible Union). That the "shall be saved" of Mark is equivalent 
to the "remissions of sins" of Luke from these facts seems abso- 
lutely certain to me. 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Tenth Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Godet on Luke, page 513, says : " Mark's account is original as 
far as verse 8. At verse 9 we find (1) an entirely new beginning; 
(2) from verse 8 a clearly marked dependence on Luke. After 
that there occur from verse 15, and especially in verse 17, some 
very original sayings, which indicate an independent source. The 
composition of the work thus seems to have been interrupted at 
verse 8, and the book to have remained unfinished. A sure proof 
of this is that the appearance of Jesus, announced to the woman 
by the angel (verse 7), is totally wanting, if, with the Sinaitic, the 
Vatican and other authorities, the Gospel is closed at verse 8." 

The late Eevision sets these verses by themselves, with the 
remark, "The two oldest MSS. and some other authorities omit 
from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different 
ending to the Gospel." W. N. Clark, who has been so strongly 
indorsed by my opponent, in his notes on Mark has this to say in 
concluding his remarks: "From the historical and ecclesiastical 
point of view, the passage is canonical, i. e., it is a part of a book 
that the Church has received as a whole into the canon, but the 
question remains for the interpreter whether its testimony is to be 
received as of equal authority with that of the Gospel in general. 
This question must be answered in the negative." Alford has this 
note : "It would thus appear that, while the passage was appended 
as early as the time of Ireueeus, it was still absent from, the 
majority of codices as late as Jerome's day. The legitimate infer- 
ence is that it was placed as the completion of the Gospel soon 

after the apostolic period The internal evidence which 

is discussed in the notes will be found to preponderate vastly 
against the authorship of Mark." Note on verse 18 reads: "All 
attempts to reconcile this with the other Gospels are futile." 

Smith, in his " History of the New Testament," sec. 6, page 704,. 
says: "The passage is rejected by the majority of modern critics 
on the testimony of MSS. and of old writers, and on the internal 
evidence of the diction." 


Meyer, whom Mr. Harding calls the greatest living exegete, says : 
"The entire section, from xvi. 9-20, is a non-genuine conclusion of . 
the Gospel not composed by Mark." In confirmation he quotes 
from Eusebius, Victor of Antioch, Jerome, Justin, Clement of 
Alexandria, etc., and adds, " Moreover, this external evidence 
against the genuineness finds in the section itself an internal con- 
firmation, since with verse 9 there suddenly sets in a process of 
excerpt-making in contrast with the previous character of the 
narration, while the entire section in general contains none of 

Mark's peculiarities In individual expressions it is 

quite at variance with the sharply defined manner throughout 
of Mark." He gives the following list of scholars who have de- 
elared themselves "against the genuineness:" Thies, Bolten, Gries- 
bach, Gratz, Bertholdt, Eosenmuller, Schulthess, Schulz, Fritzsche, 
Schott, Paulus, Credner, Wieseler, Neudecker, Tischendorf, Eitschl, 
Ewald, Beuss, Anger, Zeller, Hitzig, Scheukel, Weiss, Holtzmann, 
Keim, and various others, including Hoffman. He says of Lach- 
maun that he adopted the section, but did not regard it as genuine. 
Meyer says of Wescott & Hort's treatment of this matter, which 
ought to be in the hands of everybody investigating the subject : 
"The most elaborate critical statement of recent times in English 
is that of Wescott & Hort, vol. ii., appendix, pp. 28-51. The evi- 
dence is weighed with candor and patience, thus affording a strong 
contrast to Dean Burgon, the fiery English champion of the genu- 
ineness of the passage." He quotes them as saying: "It mani- 
festly cannot claim any apostolic authority." And then adds: 
"Accordingly these editors in their Greek text inclose verses 9-20 
in double brackets." 

Dr. G. W. Clark's Commentary, Introduction, page 8: "Since 
the appearance of Griesbach's second edition of the New Testa- 
ment in Greek (1796) it has become common to regard these 
verses (9-20) as not belonging to the original Gospel. A majority 
of the latest textual critics have given their verdict against the 
passage. Some, with Tischendorf and Meyer, pronounce it spu- 
rious, or an apocryphal fragment." 

In the "Textual Criticism," by Professor Warfield, edited by 
Eev. W. E. Nichol, a very recent and able work, we find one of the 
clearest and briefest statements of this matter. For omission of 
the verses he gives B, Aleph, L, 22, 743, codex K of the Latin; the 
Armenian, and .ZEthiopic; (Clement), (Origen), Eusebius, (Cyril of 
Jerusalem) ; and, among the post-Nicene fathers, the hupotheses, 


Jerome, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch. Also such minus- 
cules as 15, 20, 300, 199, 1, 206, 209, which preserve knowledge of 
the doubt. 

Some words are necessary in explanation of this evidence. 
Aleph simply omits the passage. B omits it, but leaves a blank 
space, which is apparently intended for it. This seems to prove 
that the exemplar from which B was copied lacked these verses, 
but they were known to B's scribe. As the weight of B is due to 
the character of its exemplar, not to the knowledge of its scribe, 
this does not effect B's testimony. L closes at verse 8, but adds 
at the top of the 'next column: "These also are somewhere cur- 
rent, 'But all things that were commanded they immediately an- 
nounced to those about Peter. And after this Jesus also himself, 
from the east even to the west, sent forth by them the sacred and 
incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation.' These are also, 
however, current, after, 'For they were afraid.'" .... And then 
our usual twelve verses are inserted. The existence of this shorter 
conclusion (to which L gives the preference) is a fortiori evidence 
against the longer one. For no one doubts that this shorter conclu- 
sion is a spurious invention of the scribes ; but it would not have been 
invented save to fill the blank. L's witness is, then, to MSS. older 
than itself, which not only did not have our twelve verses, but had 
invented another conclusion in their place. The Abbey Martin 
tells us of another codex, which he numbers 743, that repeats the 
arrangement of L. Codex 22 closes the Gospel at verse 8, mark- 
ing it as "the end," and then adds: "In some of the copies the 
evangelist finishes at this point; in many, however, these also are 
current" and inserts our verses (9-20), closing "the end." The 
old Latin MS. K contains the shorter conclusion only, and hence is 
a specially strong witness to the omission of our twelve verses. 
Proceeding now to estimate the evidence, we note first that the 
Syrian text inserts the passage, and when the Syrian witnesses are 
sifted out, it is left with Western (D, Latin, Curetonian, Syriac), and 
apparently Alexandrian (C, Delta, 33, Memphitic) witnesses only, 
and since all Alexandrian witnesses are full of Western readings, 
this means with Western witnesses only. For omission we have 
the neutral witnesses (B, Aleph), with L, 22, and other support. 
Where the Alexandrian reading stands we cannot discover;* but on 
appealing to internal evidence of classes, the apparent conjunction 
of Western and Alexandrian witnesses is discredited, and we must 
decide that the genealogical evidence is in favor of omission. L 



may represent the Alexandrian text, and K the primitive Western,, 
and in the case of either of these hypotheses the verdict for omis- 
sion receives additional strength. Internal evidence of groups, 
which throws strong favor on B, Aleph, only confirms genealogical 
evidence; and we have the whole weight of external evidence for 

The transcriptional evidence leads to the same conclusion. No 
good account can be given of the omission of these verses. To 
suppose that they were omitted in a harmonic interest is to pre- 
suppose a freedom and boldness in dealing with the Gospel narra- 
tives never elsewhere experienced, and that to serve a purpose far 
more easily attained. 

To suppose that a leaf was lost from the end of the Gospel con- 
taining these verses will best of all account for their omission, 
but will not account for its wide distribution, nor for the failure 
of the beginning of the next Gospel, on the other side of the leaf, 
to get lost too. Mark stands very rarely in Greek MSS. at the end 
of the book of the Gospels, and the loss of a leaf early enough to 
affect the ancestors of Aleph, of B, of L, and of Western K, must 
have affected nearly all MSS. as well. On the other hand, the in- 
sertion of such an ending is transcriptionally easy to account for. 
The abrupt ending of verse 8 demanded something more. That 
the scribes felt this is evidenced by their invention of the certainly 
spurious shorter ending. Why should not other scribes have 
sought and found another tolerably fitting close for the Gospel? 
And that this ending does not belong here, but fits its place only 
tolerably, is clear on careful examination. The tear at verse 8 is 
not mended by verses 9-20. Only Matthew and Luke tell us what 
actually happened after verse 8. And if verse 8 demands a differ- 
ent succeeding context, verses 9-20 no less need a different pre- 
ceding one from that here furnished them. Jesus is presumed to 
be the subject in verse 9, but the subject that would be taken 
over from verse 8 is the women. The "but" that opens verse 9 
does not introduce any thing adversative to verse 8. The new 
specification of time in verse 8 is surprising after verse 2. "First" 
looks strange here. The identifying description of Mary Magda- 
lene in verse 9 is very remarkable after verse 1. Every appear- 
ance in'a word goes to show that the author of the Gospel did not 
write verses 9-20, as the conclusion of the narrative begun in 
verses 1-8. And if so, the transcription al evidence that makes 
an insertion here easier to conceive of than an omission has full 


play, and we can recognize verses 9-20 as only another way of fill- 
ing up the gap left by the unfinished appearance of verse 8. The 
intrinsic evidence is not fully stated however until we add that 
there are peculiarities of style and phraseology in verses 9-20 
which render it easy to believe that the author of the Gospel did 
not write these verses. The combined force of external and in- 
ternal evidence excludes this section from a place in Mark's Gos- 
pel, quite independently of the critic's ability to account for the 
unfinished look of Mark's Gospel as it is left, or for the origin of 
this section itself. The nature of the matter included in them, 
and the way they are fitted to the Gospel, seems, however, to for- 
bid the supposition that these verses were composed for this place 
by any scribe. It is nearly as hard to believe that anybody wrote 
them for this place as it is that Mark did. They seem to be a frag- 
ment rather adopted from some other writing and roughly fitted 
011 to the end of Mark. This fragment is certainly as old as the first 
third of the second century, and may, as may also the pericope of 
the adulteress inserted into John, be taken from the book of the 
illustrations of the Gospel narrative which Papias composed, appar- 
rently about 120 A.D. Neither is it necessary for the critic to be 
able to give an account of the mutilated condition of Mark's Gos- 
pel. To recognize that this fragment does not belong at the end 
of it does not make it any more mutilated than it was before. 
The evident incompleteness of verse 8 is evidence against the 
opinion that the Gospel was intended to close at that point, but 
no evidence that just this conclusion which does not fit on to 
verse 8, nor complete it, nor the subject then in hand was the 
conclusion intended. Why Mark's Gospel has come down to us 
incomplete we do not know. Was Mark interrupted at this point 
by arrest or martyrdom before he finished his book? Was a page 
lost off the autograph itself? Or do all of our witnesses carry us 
back only to a mutilated copy short of the autograph, the common 
original of them all, so that our oldest transmitted text is sadly 
different from the original text? There is roo'm for investigation 
here; but, apparently, no room for accepting this conclusion for 
the one that Mark wrote, or intended to write. 

We have purposely chosen all these examples of such a sort 
that the evidence can readily be seen to be harmonious through all 
the methods. But we have also purposely placed last among them 
a case in which the intrinsic evidence, while uniting with the other 
forms of evidence in determining this reading, is left still some- 



what unsatisfied by its determination. It opposes the acceptance- 
of the last twelve verses of Mark as genuine; but it no less 
opposes the acceptance of verse 8 as the end of the Gospel. It 
consents that this is not the limb that belongs here, but it no> 
less insists that some limb does belong here. 
Time expired. 

J. A. Harding's Eleventh Speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : 

In his ninth reply Brother Moody calls Mark xvi. 16 a good old 
Baptist text, and tries to show that it does not put remission of 
sins after baptism ; but evidently he is not satisfied with his work 
in that line, for in his last speech he tries to show that it is not 
Scripture at all. Evidently he would gladly tear the last twelve 
verses of Mark out of the Bible if he could; but we are not ready 
to let them, go yet. Let us study the matter patiently, and see if 
we will have to mutilate our Bible by tearing these verses out. 

That there is some doubt with regard to these verses in the 
minds of the most candid and scholarly of Biblical critics, it is but 
just to state. What is that doubt? How should it affect us? 
These are th'e questions that we are to consider. 

In studying these questions it is necessary that you should under- 
stand the technical use of the words "canonical" and "genuine." 
If these verses are inspired, they have a right to a place in the 
Scriptures, and are called "canonical." If they were written, as 
was the body of the Gospel, by Mark, they are "genuine." If 
Mark's work was stopped by arrest, or death, or by any other 
cause, and these verses were added by Peter, Timothy, Silas, or 
any other apostle or apostolic man, then they are "canonical," 
but not "genuine." Their canonicity I do not doubt; their genu- 
ineness is a matter of doubt. Some eminent and learned writers 
(as J. A. Broadus and J. W. Burgon) hold that they are both canon- 
ical and genuine; others equally learned, while holding to their 
canonicity, doubt their genuineness. The reasons against and for 
the passage as a genuine production of Mark are summed up by 
the Baptist commentator, W. F. Clark, thus: 

" (1) The passage is omitted from the two oldest manuscripts, 
the Sinaitic and the Vatican. In the latter a blank space is left, as 
if the writer knew that the Gospel was incomplete, but was not in 
possession of the conclusion. It is omitted also from a few other 
manuscripts of much less authority than these two, and in a few 
copies of four ancient versions. (2) Eusebius, in the fourth cen- 


tury, making more or less use of Ammonius in the second, arranged 
the four Gospels in parallel passages on the principle of a harmony, 
and from this arrangement these verses are omitted. Eusebius 
says, moreover, that they are not found in 'the correct copies' a 
statement in which he is followed hy Jerome and others, whose 
names are of less weight. (3) As to the internal evidence, there 
is no good connection between the passage and what precedes it, 
and no allusion in it to the context ; the purpose of it is not a con- 
tinuation of the purpose of Mark's record; it has the character of 
an epitome, in which it is unlike any thing else in Mark; it contains 
certain additions to the statements of the other Gospels, but they 
are not in the least like Mark's characteristic additions ; the pecu- 
liar words and phrases of Mark are absent, and about twenty words 
and phrases are found that occur nowhere else in the Gospel." 

"The reasons in favor of the passage are as follows: (1) It is 
contained in all the ancient manuscripts except those mentioned 
above, and in all the versions. (2) The nineteenth verse is quoted 
by Irenseus (about A. D. 170) with the introduction, 'Mark says, at 
the end of the Gospel.' From that time on the passage is freely 
cited by Christian writers generally, who treat it as they do other 
Scripture. (3) It has a place in the lectionaries, or selections of 
Scripture for public reading, which were in use in the Eastern 
Church 'certainly in the fourth century, very probably much 
earlier.' (Scrivener.) It held a place of honor, indeed, in being 
taken as the Scripture for a special service at matins on ascension 
day. There is no question that the passage came down, to say the 
least, from very nearly the same date as the Gospel of Mark, 'or 
that it was generally, though not universally, accepted in the 
Church as a part of that Gospel." 

I trust that he who may read this debate when published will 
carefully weigh this summing up by Dr. Clark, and that he will 
then consider patiently what I am about to present. 

The Eevised Version represents the ripest scholarship of the 
English-speaking world of the nineteenth century,- which is equal 
to saying that it represents the cream of the scholarship of the 
world in all ages. The revisers of the New Testament were thirty- 
seven in number twenty-four Englishmen and thirteen Americans. 
Of Episcopalians there were 23; Presbyterians, 4; Congregation- 
alists, 3; Baptists, 2; Methodists, 2; Unitarians, 2; Friends, 1. 
In making their revision the canonicity and genuineness of the 
last twelve verses of Mark, as a matter of course, came up before 


them. Dr. Alexander Roberts, of the English company, has pub- 
lished a book called "Companion to the Revised Version of the 
Mew Testament." In addition to being a ripe scholar himself, Dr. 
Roberts had the advantages of all the debatings and discussions 
of that most scholarly body on these verses, and he claims to give 
us the conclusion of the revisers. After referring to the facts that 
the quotation of the passage by Irenasus is most weighty proof of 
the authority of the passage, but not of the authorship of Mark, 
he adds: 

"On the whole, a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems 
to lead to these conclusions: First, that the passage is not the 
immediate production of St. Mark; and, secondly, that it is, never- 
theless, possessed of full canonical authority. We cannot ascer- 
tain its author, but we are sure he must have been one who 
belonged to the circle of the apostles. And, in accordaDce with 
this view of the paragraph, it is marked off from the words with 
which, for some unknown reason, the Gospel of St. Mark ended; 
while, at the same time, it is inserted, without the least misgiving, 
as an appendix to that Gospel in the Revised Version." 
. The following suggestion has been made, and it seems to me to 
be reasonable. It is a well-known fact that Paul was accustomed 
to have a scribe to write the letters which he dictated, but to fin- 
ish them, in the last few words, with his own hand. (See 2 Thess. 
iii. 17, and Col. iv. 18.) It is also generally conceded that Mark 
got his Gospel from Peter, and that in it he reflects the teaching 
of Peter. Now, if Peter was accustomed, like Paul, to close his 
letters with his own hand, the authorship of those verses is easily 
accounted for thus : Mark wrote the Gospel down to the eighth 
verse of the sixteenth chapter as he had learned it from Peter; 
the apostle himself then took up the pen, and in a few words 
closed the book. He was not willing that any one else should 
write those last momentous, all-important words. 

We do not know who wrote the last words of Deuteronomy; 
Moses did not, for they tell s of his death; but we do not doubt 
their canonicity. We do not know the authors of many of the 
Psalms ; but they are unquestionably canonical. We do not know 
who wrote the letter to the Hebrews; but Brother Moody will 
hardly deny that it belongs to the canon. So, you see, even if we 
impeach the genuineness of those last verses of Mark, if they are 
evidently canonical, their authority is not affected in one jot or 



Irenseus was born about the time the apostle John died, cer- 
tainly not many years after; Irenseus knew Polycarp, and listened 
to him preach and teach; but Polycarp was a pupil of the apostle 
John. And Irenceus quoted from these verses as holy Scripture, and 
represented them as having been written ~by Marie. It is certain, 
therefore, that they were known long before his time as a part of 
this Gospel, or he could not have quoted them with a faith so free 
from doubt. But remember that his teacher was an associate and 
a pupil of the apostle John. Ah, Brother Moody, we have found 
this doctrine of baptism before salvation very early, and in very 
good company. No wonder the revisers say it is "possessed of 
all canonical authority," and insert it into their revision " without 
the least misgiving." And, though they call it an "appendix" to 
Mark's Gospel, they claim that it was made by one who belonged 
to "the circle of the apostles." 

John taught Polycarp, Polycarp taught Irenseus, and IreuaBus 
quotes these verses as Scripture, without any misgiving, and 
attributes them to Mark. The chief ground for doubting these 
verses is that they are not found in the Sinaitic and Vatican manu- 
scripts ; but Irenceus quoted the verses as Scripture nearly two hun- 
dred years before these manuscripts were written. By whom they 
were written, we know not. Is not the authority of this well 
known pupil of John's pupil much greater than that of unknown 
scribes who wrote nearly two centuries later? 

Again, the Peschito Syriac translation was made in the first cen- 
tury, in the apostolic period. It is regarded as the best transla- 
tion of the New Testament ever made. Its language is that of the 
people of Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians. 
The Syrians claim that it was sanctioned by the apostle Thaddeus. 
And the scholars of the world admit it to be the oldest of the 
translations. It contains these verses. Indeed, all of the transla- 
tions contain these verses, and so do all of the manuscripts, except 
two, the Sinaitic and the Yaticau. The Vatican has a blank space 
left at the end of Mark's Gospel, strewing the writer knew there 
was something else to be inserted which he did not have. It is 
probable that the manuscript from which he copied had lost the 
last leaf of Mark, and hence he left the blank space. 

On this subject, speaking especially concerning the Peschito 
Syriac translation, Prof. Calvin E. Stowe says: "We are perfectly 
safe and within bounds in concluding that at least the historical 
books of the New Testament were in circulation in the Syrian 


Churches in this Peschito translation as early as the latter part of 
the first century. If so, then the Syrian Christians, the near 
neighbors and contemporaries and relatives by language and race 
of the apostles themselves, read this passage, the last verses of 
Mark's Gospel, without question, as a genuine portion of the Gos- 
pel of Mark, nearly three centuries before the oldest manuscript 
used by Tischendorf was written. Now take this, in connection 
with the fact that no one knows either the origin or the history of 
the Tischendorf manuscript, while both the origin and history of 
the Syrian translation are well known and well attested as to sub- 
stance ; and also the fact that an accidental omission, especially 
of the last leaf, is much more easily accounted for than an inter- 
lined interpolation, which, at that early period, and in those cir- 
cumstances, would have been well nigh impossible, and any one 
can see that the authority of the Syrian translation must be, in 
this instance, altogether superior to that of the Greek manuscript. 
To this add the authority, on the same point, of all the translations 
of the second and third centuries, and of more than five hundred 
Greek manuscripts, and the case is made out." (Prof. C. E. Stowe, 
in Christian Union.) 

Ah, Brother Moody, you can't tear them out. We have more 
than five hundred manuscripts to your two; we have all of the 
translations of every age; one of these translations was made 
(according to uncontradicted history) in the apostolic age, and 
under apostolic supervision; and we have the testimony of a 
Christian father, born at the close of the apostolic period, who 
says he had the books of the Christian Scripture while daily listen- 
ing to Polycarp tell what he had learned from John, and from 
others who had seen the Lord; and, finally, Dr. Eoberts, of the 
English revision committee, tells us the revisers consider it pos- 
sessed of "full canonical authority," and they insert it "without 
the least misgiving" as having been written by an apostolic man. 
I conclude my argument, therefore, by saying : 

"He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned." 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's Eleventh Reply. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I cannot introduce new matter in this final negative. Hence I 
will only refer for a full and impartial discussion of this subject 
pro et con to the learned works of Westcott & Hort, especially to 
vol. i. ; pp. 24, 25, 60, 61, 113, 565 ; also vol. ii., pp. 296, 298, 299, 
and appendix, pp. 21-51. No candid man who reads these testi- 
monies can dogmatically assert that Jesus said, He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved. I fall in with the majority of 
modern critics in the opinion that Jesus never uttered these words. 
Mr. Briney, in the Newburn debate, after taking these books home 
and reading them, said next day that he was astonished to find so 
much evidence against the passage. Has Mr. Harding the disposi- 
tion to learn, or will he go on asserting, as false teachers must 
do? In concluding, I would say that perhaps I have not con- 
ducted my part of this discussion to suit all of my friends. I can 
see how I could have improved it myself, for I am fallible. If I 
had it all to go over, I would not notice the outside matters that 
so mar the spirit of the discussion. If the reader thinks I am the 
meanest man in the world in the estimation of my opponent, just 
let him read his other written debates, and they will find that 
Mr. Harding happened to find in each case an opponent as worthy 
of his invectives and vindictiveness as myself. Those who have 
heard him can testify also. I did not expect any better, nor would 
I if we were to debate again, which I hope often to do. Wherever 
our brethren mutually desire a discussion, and we are chosen, I 
will do my best to serve. My opponent has been as meek and 
gentle in this debate as in any of the preceding ones. Hence 
there is no new reason why I should not meet him. I have aimed 
in this to go over the ground, both affirmatively and negatively as 
far as the limits would allow. It has been difficult for me to decide 
at times how far I ought to follow after the incidentals that were 
not germane to the discussion. With all of his Scriptures before 
me to defend and to adjust to the general teaching of the Word, I 
have aimed to cover both according to my limits. Generally I 


have not had his speech before me when I prepared the one to 
follow. Mr. Harding has been so slow in preparing his speeches, 
that to hasten the publication, I have generally given my next 
speech when he brought me its predecessor. So, in those cases, 
my reply was not directed at the last speech. The last four 
speeches of his I did not see at all, as my trip to Texas compelled 
me to prepare my four last speeches before leaving, or materially 
delay the appearance of the book. I suffer some disadvantage in 
this, but this is my excuse. If I had taken as much time as my 
opponent the book would not now be one-half done. Most of 
these speeches were prepared during the busiest season of my 
life; while the removal and consolidation of papers, business man- 
agement, editing duties and associations were all on me. How I 
have done it is the greatest mystery to me. I ask my critics to 
make much allowance for this. I hope to have more time to pre- 
pare my speeches on the coming subject; yet I promise that I will 
lose no time. If I have not replied to some things in the last 
speeches, remember I did not see them, and my limited space 
required me to confine myself to replying to him on some Script- 
ures often introduced in the debate. 

I am preparing this speech in Austin, the capital of Texas. A 
letter just received from my wife intimates what Mr. Harding has 
to say about the Brownsville and Pikeville matters. As to the 
former, I will say that my iuformation came from such respectable 
authority that I still believe it just as I stated it. We both speak 
from hearsay, and the matter can be decided by those who are 
interested. The Pikeville reporter sat for six days in about six 
feet of Mr. Harding's nose, and he knows his name as well as I do, 
for I do not remember it. He can get his name if he wants it by 
writing to his friends at Pikeville. The "facts" I gave him were 
Mr. Harding's abuse of me in his paper. These I turned over to 
him without comment, only saying, these are the "facts" concern- 
ing Mr. Harding's charges against me, which need no reply or 
denial from me. Like my Master, I answered not a word. 

By way of recapitulation I can say but little. I undertook to 
prove that forgiveness, with like blessings of salvation, is received 
before baptism. I have given plain declarations of Scripture in 
regard to nearly every one of these blessings, and they predicate 
them all of something that must precede baptism. Mr. Harding will 
say at one time that faith, love, etc., must come before baptism. 
At another he says the faith and love that precedes baptism are 


dead, and nothing can be predicated of them. He has Christ in 
the water, his blood, his death, his grace and mercy, all in the 
water; forgiveness in the water, justification, sanctification, son- 
ship, heirship, all in the water; repentance, faith, love, new birth, 
Holy Spirit, all in the water. He makes water the wife of God 
and the mother of saints. His boasted challenge concerning faith 
and physical action has vanished like smoke. Granting him the 
fundamental idea that, excepting, as the Holy Spirit does, the mat- 
ter of the justification of a sinner before God, faith is a working 
principle, yet these blessings are predicated of the works of faith 
before baptism. Mr. Harding says repentance is a work of faith. 
I showed you that life and salvation are predicated of repentance 
in the same way that he says these are predicated of baptism 
baptism eis remission, repentance eis life and eis salvation. He 
claims confession as an act of faith, and confession must precede 
baptism, and salvation is predicated of confession. Whosoever 
shall confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in 
his heart that God has raised him from the dead, shall be saved. 
For with the heart (not physical action) man believeth eis right- 
eousness, and with the mouth (a physical act that is not baptism) 
confession is made eis salvation. Here confession is connected 
with salvation just like baptism is connected with remission. Mr. 
Harding believes the one and denies the other. The eis in one case 
he thinks suits his plea, in the other it clearly does not, unless he 
can change eis like he does faith, love, etc., when they don't suit 
him. Here are Methodists and Presbyterians who have confessed 
with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and who believe in their hearts 
that God has raised him from the dead. The Bible says they shall 
be saved; Mr. Harding says they shall not. Poor Harding! 0, 
vain man! who art thou that thou should reply against God? All 
of such like Scriptures I have pressed in proof of my proposi- 
tions, but, in spite of God's Word, Mr. Harding has caviled to this 
good hour. And to support himself he has garbled from Baptist 
authors, not one of whom believe Mr. Harding's doctrine. Then, 
he fails to prove his doctrine by these authors, and no difference 
how much he may prove from them, if he fails to prove his doc- 
trine, he has failed of his object, and he and his moderator con- 
fess that these authors do not believe their doctrine. These 
authors and all good men are with the Bible in rejecting his doc- 
trine. So let all good people unite with us on the Bible in insist- 
ing that whosoever " believeth hath everlasting life." 


I have shown that Mr. Harding himself does not believe his 
proposition. It reads: "Baptism to a penitent believer -is for (in 
order to) the pardon of his past sins." He has confessed that he 
is fallible, and sometimes sins. Then I suppose when he sins he 
is still a believer, and I suppose he repents of his sins. Then is 
he not a penitent believer? And when he repents does he not 
repent of past sins? Then I take pleasure in introducing to you 
this "penitent believer," who does not believe that baptism is in 
order to pardon. Ah, my friends, actions speak louder than words. 
He could not to save his soul from death prove two laws of pardon 
one to the alien and one to the baptized. Has he done it? Dare 
he try? Then here is a confessed penitent believer who will not 
be baptized like his Mormon brethren in order to pardon, and 
why? It must be because he does not believe it. I congratulate 
Mm in rejection in practice a proposition so absurd. I trust that 
in practice when he sins and repents that he goes to God with con- 
fession, and by faith in the atonement made for sin that God for 
Christ's sake forgives him and cleanses him from all unrighteous- 
ness. I hope that he, nor any other "penitent believer," is so fool- 
ish as to run down into the water to get forgiven ess. No one ever 
got it there, or ever will, or ever can. 

In this debate I have not sought so much to establish or to 
defend myself as the doctrine of God's Word. The Jews got a 
personal advantage of Christ by false accusations, and so they did 
of the apostles. Christ and apostles went down, but their doc- 
trine still lives. And so Mr. Harding has sought to overthrow me, 
because, I suppose, I am more vulnerable than my doctrine. Very 
well ; I had rather be overthrown than for my doctrine to be. Mr. 
Harding knows what his people love, and he was engaged to feed 
them, and they seem to take it with supreme delight. I pity him 
and them, and ask God of his abundant mercy and grace to forgive 
them for all the evil they have sought to do me, for " ye have not 
injured me at all." 

My excess in another speech requires me to stop. May these 
pages lead all of its readers to a knowledge of the truth is my 

Time expired. 

J. B. Moody's First Speech. 


The Scriptures teach that man is so depraved that he is unable without a direct 
enabling power of the Holy Spirit to obey the Gospel of the Son of God. 

Gentlemen-moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

The issue between iis on this question, like the other, is a vital 
one. Mr. Harding claims for his candidate for baptism that he is 
a child of the devil, still in a lost state, with none of the blessings 
of salvation. I claim for our candidate for baptism that he is a 
child of God, in a saved state, claiming for him "the like blessings 
of salvation." The faith in Christ that our candidate exercises is 
a live faith, bringing Christ, with all his fullness into possession. 
The faith that his candidate has in Christ, he says, is a dead faith, 
and brings none of the blessings of Christ. By our preaching our 
candidate is taught to believe eis Christ. Christ being in the accu- 
sative case faith must be limited to him ; not faith in Christ and 
the Church, nor in his sacrifice and his "sacrament," but solely in 
Christ without the Church, and in his sacrifice without the " sacra- 
ment." A divided Christ with us is no Christ. To trust Christ and 
somethiug else for salvation is not trusting Christ at all. Hence 
the difference between us on this question is equal to the differ- 
ence between the saved and the lost state, between heaven and 

And now the issue again is equally vital. He says his candidate 
for baptism has been operated on only by the Word. My people 
believe that "the Word only" has no more power on the sinner 
than on a devil. It may convict either of sin, but the conviction 
produces in both exasperation and revived enmity. It may dis- 
cern the thoughts and alarm the fears of both, but it cannot regen- 
erate or recreate either. 

If a candidate comes to us for baptism, and says he has not 
been made anew in Christ Jesus, that no power has been exerted 



on Mm save that which resides in the Word, we hinder his baptism, 
because, like his candidate, he is still a child of the devil, and his 
baptism would be only a hopeless aggravation of his case. 

Now I will let the best lights in my friend's school speak their 
faith on this subject, for I am here to discuss the real issue between 
the two peoples, and not any private opinion of any one, not even 
of my friend. 

Mr. Campbell, in his " Christian System," p. 267, says : "All that is 
done in us by regeneration God our Father affects by the Word, 
or Gospel, as dictated or confirmed by the Holy Spirit." In his 
" Millennial Harbinger," vol. i., p. 294, he says : "And when we think 
of the power of the Holy Spirit exerted upon minds or human 
spirits, it is impossible for us to imagine that the power can con- 
sist in any thing else but words or arguments." Here he places 
the idea of any distinct power beyond the reach of imagination, 
for he says "it is impossible for us to imagine that that power can 
consist in any thing else but words or arguments." Again, " Millen- 
nial Harbinger," vol. ii., p. 295, he says: "'As the spirit of man puts 
forth all its moral power in the words which it fills with its ideas, 
so the Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and sanctifying 
power in the words which it fills with its ideas." 

In "Millennial Harbinger," vol. ii., p. 297, and in "Christianity Re- 
stored," p. 362, he says : "All the moral power of God or man is 
exhibited in the truth which they propose. Therefore, we may say 
that if the light or the truth contains all the moral power of God, 
then the truth alone is all that is necessary to the conversion of 
men." Again, in "Christianity Restored," p. 350: "If the New and 
' Old Testaments contain all the arguments which can be offered to 
reconcile man to God, and to purify them who are reconciled, then 
all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate on the human 
mind is spent; and he that is not sanctified and saved by these 
cannot be saved by angels or spirits, human or divine." 

I introduce another witness, Mr. Sweeny. In the Sweeny and 
Crawford debate, p. 124, he said: "Let it be borne in mind that I 
believe the divine power of the Holy Spirit overcomes the enmity 
of the human heart by acting upon it by the medium of divine 
truth. That is my position. I contend for the sufficiency, there- 
fore, of the truth to accomplish the conversion and sanctification 
of sinners." 

I introduce the testimony of another witness, Mr. Moses E. Lard, 
who says, in "Lard's Review of Campbellism Examined," p. 83: 


"But what do we mean when we say, the Spirit operates through 
the truth? We mean that it operates by the truth ; that is, that 
divine truth is itself the vital power by which in all cases the 
Spirit effects conversion; in other words, that the Spirit spends on 
the mind of the sinner in conversion no influence except such as 
resides in the truth, as divine, as of the Spirit. And we shall 
further add, that neither in quantity nor in force do we conceive 
that this influence can be increased and the human will be left 
free." He says that "there is no influence of the Spirit on the 
mind of the sinner in conversion, except such as resides in the 

Again, Mr. Lard stated his proposition in his book, "Eeview of 
Campbellism Examined," thus: "The Holy Spirit operates in con- 
version through the truth only." What do you mean, Mr. Lard, 
when you and your people say " the Spirit operates through the 
truth?" "Why, we mean that it operates by the truth; I mean 
that truth operates; that divine truth is itself the vital power 
by which in all cases the Spirit effects conversion." "Does the 
Holy Spirit use any other means or instrumentalities in conver- 
sion?" "No; for the Holy Spirit operates in conversion through 
the truth only," says Mr. Lard. 

Mr. Campbell's affirmative proposition in the Kice-Campbell de- 
bate reads as follows: "In conversion and sanctitication the Spirit 
of God operates on persons only through the Word." 

Mr. Briney said in the Mayfleld debate: "The personal power of 
the Spirit is not present with the Word in the conversion of the 
sinner." Again, he said: "The Scriptures teach that the Gospel 
alone is sufficient for the conversion and sanctiflcation of sinners." 
Mr. Briney here says in effect that " I deny that there is any per- 
sonal power of the Holy Spirit exerted upon the sinner's heart in 

Mr. Crum, in his debate with J. N. Hall, used this illustration: "I 
throw a piece of dynamite in the highway and retire to watch the 
passing crowd. The power is in the dynamite, and those who 
come in contact with it will feel it. The power is always there, 
without increase or diminution, yet the result is ascribed to me." 
His point was that the dynamite represents the Word, which is put 
in the way of man, and all the power that is exerted is in the Word, 
yet the result may be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 

I quote once more from Mr. Campbell, p. 121 of "Symposium" : 
"Whenever the Word gets into the heart, the spiritual seed into 


the moral nature of man, it as naturally, as spontaneously grows 
there as the sound good corn when deposited in the genial earth. 
It has life in it, and is therefore sublimely and divinely called ' the 
living and effectual Word.'" On p. 148 he further says: "The 
official service and work thus assigned the Holy Spirit is a standing 
evidence that in conversion and sanctiiication he operates only 
through the Word. And. as it has already been shown, conversion 
in all cases the same work, he operates in this department only by 
and through the Word, spoken or written, and neither physically 
nor metaphysically." On p. 118 he defines the term only as equiv- 
alent to a denial that the Spirit in regeneration operates sometimes 
without the Word. Only is therefore made to mean always. 

The quotations could be multiplied to wearisomeness; but DOW 
we have the issue before us. My proposition requires me to prove 
that in the conversion of a sinner (conversion being used in that 
wide sense that includes regeneration and sanctification) there is a 
divine power exerted that does not reside in the Word, or that is 
not of the Word. I do not mean to say that this extra divine 
power is not taught in the Word, for I will prove that it is, but 
that it is a divine power not delegated to the Word, and which the 
Word cannot exert. I maintain for my people that God appointed 
means to be used by us, but that in the diligent use of these 
means we are entirely dependent upon this additional divine 
power. This power is vouchsafed to us in the great commission, 
which is prefaced by a declaration of omnipotence, and closed with 
a promise of omnipresence with those who engage in his work; 
and the emphasis is laid on the divine promise. He did not say, 
Lo, go, nor lo, disciple, nor lo, baptize, nor lo, teach all things, but 
(l Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the ^vorld." Omni- 
present omnipotence is impotence unless that present power is 
exerted. We find a parallel in Isaiah xli. 10: "Fear thou not, for I 
am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God; I will strengthen 
thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right 
hand of my righteousness." In this commission is the whole work 
of means, instrumentalities and agencies. Men are to go and dis- 
ciple by preaching the Gospel, and to baptize with reference to the 
name of Father Son and Holy Spirit, teaching the baptized to hold 
fast all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. This appeared 
to the disciples, doubtless, as an impossible task; hence he empha- 
sized the promise of his presence and power. And why promise it if 
present omnipotence is impotent ? Why promise so useless a thingt 


This promise is made repeatedly. Matt, xviii. 20 : " For where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst 
of them." Also John xiv. 18-23. For a fulfillment of this promise 
after Christ's ascension, see Acts xviii. 9, 10: "Then spake the 
Lord to Paul : Be not afraid, but speak, and 'hold not thy peace, for 
I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee, for I 
have much people in this city." Also 2 Tim. iv. 16: "At my first 
answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me; notwithstanding 
the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, that by me the 
preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might 
hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the 
Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve unto 
his hea