Cbe University o
libraries
DEBATE ON BAPTISM,
AND
THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
IN WHICH THE PLACE OP BAPTISM IN THE 1 GOSPEL"
ECONOMY, ITS DESIGN, AND THE WORK OF
THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION
ARE CONSIDERED.
/ v
,ff 7
r
L "" VBY
,/B, IVIOODY (Baptist), Nashville, Tenn,
AND
J, A, HARDING (Disciple), Winchester, Ky,
PRINTED FOR THE DEBATERS.
BRANDON PRINTING COMPANY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE...
1889.
L-f ' f I .-"/
f f ,yts ....-"" .,--s,_, .. //',.
-.-^
7
DEBATE ON BAPTIS
AND
THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:
IN WHICH THE PLACE OP BAPTISM IN THE' GOSPEL
ECONOMY, ITS DESIGN, AND THE WORK OF
THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION
ARE CONSIDERED.
CONDUCTED J;Y
J, B, WOODY (Baptist), Nashville, Tenn,
AND
J, A, HARDING (Disciple), Winchester, Ky.
PRINTED FOR THE DEBATERS.
BRANDON PRINTING COMPANY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE,
1889.
1404456
PRKFACE.
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
moderators.
J. B. MOODY,
J. A. HARDING.
J. B. Moody's First Speech.
PROPOSITION:
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
interest.
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.
DIAGRAM.
Hearing, Believing, Conviction, Love, Repentance, Confession.
BAPTIZE EIS.
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,
Heirs.
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
6 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 7 *
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-
$ FIEST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 9
"-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-
10 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. B. MOODY'S FIEST SPEECH.
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-
FIRST PROPOSITION.
:& 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
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 13;
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_
214 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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,
J. B. MOODY' S FIRST SPEECH. 15
%
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-
16 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
way.
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-
J. B. MOODY' S FIRST SPEECH. 17
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
2
18 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 19
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
20 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 21
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
22 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY' 8 FIRST SPEECH. 23
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-
24 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
26 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. A. HAKDING'S FIEST REPLY. 27
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.)
28 FIE8T PROPOSITION.
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-
tion."
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
J. A. HARDING' S FIEST REPLY, 29
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.:
30 FIRST PROPOSITION.
"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-
J. A. HARDING'S FIRST REPLY. 3L
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
Pius."
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^
.'32 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. A. HARDING' S FIRST REPLY. 33
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
34 FIRST PROPOSITION.
a sign of the repentance and faith which are the condition of sal-
vation."
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
J. A. HABDING'S FIRST REPLY. 35
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.
OTHER BAPTIST SCHOLARS.
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
36 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.)
J. A. RARDING'S FIRST REPLY. 37
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
38 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING' S FIRST REPLY. 39
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
40 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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 :
J. A. HAKDINa'S FIRST REPLY. 41
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.)
42 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING' S FIEST REPLY. 43
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
44 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
46 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY'S SECOND SPEECH. 47
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
48 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
tensive."
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
conscience."
Page 9 : " I take it for granted that a proposition so self-evident
as this will require no elucidation other than its own announce-
ment."
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
conclusion."
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
J. B. HOODT'S SECOND SPEECH. 49
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
50 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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,
J. B. MOODY' S SECOND SPEECH. 51
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
52 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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..
J. B. MOODY' S SECOND SPEECH. 53
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
fathers.
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
54 FIRST PEOPOSITION.
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-
;56 FIRST PROPOSITION.
.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-
J. A. HAEDING'S SECOND REPLY. 57
-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.
58 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING'S SECOND REPLY. 59
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
60 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. A. HARDING'S SECOND EEPLY. 61
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.
>62 FIRST PROPOSITION. _
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
them.
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.
J. A. HARDING' S SECOND REPLY. 63
: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-
J. B. MOODY'S THIRD SPEECH. 65
.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;
5
66 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. B. MOODY' S THIRD SPEECH. 67
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
void.
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.
68 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. S. NODDY'S THIRD SPEECH. 69
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
70 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODT'S THIRD SPEECH. 71
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
liberty."
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-
72 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
Scriptures.
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
J. B. MOODY' S THIRD SPEECH. 73
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
J. A. HARDING' S THIRD REPLY. 75
'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-
cause.it 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
76 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. A. HAEDING'S THIRD REPLY. 77
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
78 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. A. HARDING-' S THIRD REPLY. 79'
[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
80 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HAEDING'S THIRD REPLY, 81
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
6
82 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING' S THIRD REPLY. . 83
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
J. B. HOODY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 85
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-
86 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY' S FOURTH SPEECH. 87
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
88 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY' S FOURTH SPEECH. %$
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.
90 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY' S FOURTH SPEECH. 91
: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.
92 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. B. MOODY' 8 FOURTH SPEECH. 93
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
seen.
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,
J. A. HARDING' S FOURTH REPLY. 95
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
36 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
there.
The gentleman wants me to " set myself right" concerning cer-
J. A. HARDING'S FOURTH REPLY. 97
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
verbs."
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-
98 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING' S FOURTH REPLY. 99
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
100 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING'S FOURTH EEPLT. 101
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
Testament.
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
102 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J, A. HARDING' S FOURTH REPLY. 103
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
J. B. MOODY' S FIFTH SPEECH. 105
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
106 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY 'S FIFTH SPEECH. 107
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
108 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODT-'S FIFTH SPEECH. 109
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
110 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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."
J. B. NODDY'S FIFTH SPEECH. Ill
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
believe."
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
112 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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,"
J. B. MOODY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 113
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.
COVENANT OP G-RACE.
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
prophets.
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-
ginning.
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,
J. A. HARDING'S FIFTH REPLY. 115
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.
116 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING' 8 FIFTH REPLY. 117
"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
118 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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 ?
J. A. HARDING'S FIFTH EEPLY. 119
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
120 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING'S FIFTH EEPLT. ' 121
-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
122 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HAEDING'S FIFTH REPLY. 123
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-
stance.
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.
J. S. MOODY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 125
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
126 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. B. MOODY' S SIXTH SPEECH. 127
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
charge.
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
128 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
OBEDIENCE THE EFFECT.
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..
J. B. NODDY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 129
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-
130 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
again."
"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.
32-35.
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
J. B. MOODY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 131
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."
GRAFTED.
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
132 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
SALVATION.
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-
J. B. MOODY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 133
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
J. A. HARDING'S SIXTH REPLY. 135
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
136 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
,7. A. HARDING' 8 SIXTH REPLY. 137
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
138 JFZR8T PROPOSITION.
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-
tions.
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-
nent?
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."
J. A. HARDING'S SIXTH REPLY.
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
140 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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?
J. A. HARDING'S SIXTH REPLY. 141
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
that.
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-
142 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING'S SIXTH REPLY. 143
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
J. B. MOODY 'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 145
-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
10
146 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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, .
J. B. MOODY' S SEVENTH. SPEECH. 147
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,
148 FIB8T PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 149
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
150 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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)
J. B. MOODY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 151
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
152 NB8T PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 153:
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
J. A. HAEDINa'S SEVENTH REPLY. 155
<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
156 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. A. HAEDING'S SEVENTH REPLY. 157
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
158 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
baptize.
He can get as far from the truth, too, as any other man I ever-
J. A. HAEDING'S SEVENTH REPLY. 159>
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
160 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
ilies."
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
J. A. HABDING'S SEVENTH REPLY. 161
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.
11
162 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
bate.
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
J. A. HARDING'S SEVENTH REPLY. 163
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
SYMBOL, SIGN or EXPRESSION of that INWARD CHANGE. The two are,
J. B. MOODY'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 165
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
166 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 167
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
John.
" 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
168 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
J. B. MOODY' S EIGHTH SPEECH. 169
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
170 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
Word.
PURIFICATION.
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,.
J. B. MOODT'S EIGHTS SPEECH. 171
"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.
PURGED.
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..
JUSTIFICATION.
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
172 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODY'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 173:
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
J. A. HARDING' S EIGHTH EEPLT. 175
.-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
176 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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),
J. A. HARDING'S EIGHTH REPLY. 177
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
12
178 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING' S EIGHTH REPLY. 179
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
opinions.
180 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HABDING'S EIGHTH REPLY. 181
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,
anyhow.
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
182 FISST PROPOSITION.
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 ?
J. A. HARDING' S EIGHTH EEPLY. 183
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
J. S. MOODT'S NINTH SPEECH. 185
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
4
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
him.
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
186 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. B. MOODY'S NINTH SPEECH. 187
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
teachings."
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.
REGENERATION.
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.
. 188 FIRST PROPOSITION.
CONFESSION.
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-
christian.
SANCTIFICATION.
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.
RIGHTEOUSNESS.
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-
J. B. MOODY'S NINTH SPEECH. 189
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-
190 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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.
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-
J. B. MOODY'S NINTH SPEECH. 191
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-
192 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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
J. S. MOODT'S NINTH SPEECH. 193
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
witness.
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
13
194 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
196 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
memory.
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
J. A. HARDING' S NINTH REPLY. 197
"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
Baptist."
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
198 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. A. HARDING'S NINTH REPLY. 199
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
^200 FIRST PROPOSITION.
.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
J. A. HARDING'S NINTH REPLY. 201
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
202 FIEST PROPOSITION.
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,.
J. A. HAEDING'S NINTH EEPLT. 203
"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
204 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
Campbellism.
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.
206 FIRST PROPOSITION.
PAUL AND JAMES.
v
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
J. B. MOODY'S TENTH SPEECH. 207
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
208 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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-
J. B, MOODY'S TENTS SPEECH. 209
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
14
210 FIRST PROPOSITION.
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
J. B. MOODT'S TENTH SPEECH. 211
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
faith."
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
faith."
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-
